in his pocket, and call it _Pecunia_, Money. Yet hereby did Barter
grow Sale, the Leather Money is now Golden and Paper, and all miracles
have been out-miracled: for there are Rothschilds and English National
Debts; and whoso has sixpence is sovereign (to the length of sixpence)
over all men; commands cooks to feed him, philosophers to teach him,
kings to mount guard over him,--to the length of sixpence.--Clothes too,
which began in foolishest love of Ornament, what have they not become!
Increased Security and pleasurable Heat soon followed: but what of
these? Shame, divine Shame (_Schaam_, Modesty), as yet a stranger to the
Anthropophagous bosom, arose there mysteriously under Clothes; a
mystic grove-encircled shrine for the Holy in man. Clothes gave us
individuality, distinctions, social polity; Clothes have made Men of us;
they are threatening to make Clothes-screens of us.

"But, on the whole," continues our eloquent Professor, "Man is a
Tool-using Animal (_Handthierendes Thier_). Weak in himself, and of
small stature, he stands on a basis, at most for the flattest-soled, of
some half-square foot, insecurely enough; has to straddle out his legs,
lest the very wind supplant him. Feeblest of bipeds! Three quintals are
a crushing load for him; the steer of the meadow tosses him aloft, like
a waste rag. Nevertheless he can use Tools; can devise Tools: with these
the granite mountain melts into light dust before him; he kneads glowing
iron, as if it were soft paste; seas are his smooth highway, winds
and fire his unwearying steeds. Nowhere do you find him without Tools;
without Tools he is nothing, with Tools he is all."

Here may we not, for a moment, interrupt the stream of Oratory with a
remark, that this Definition of the Tool-using Animal appears to us, of
all that Animal-sort, considerably the precisest and best? Man is called
a Laughing Animal: but do not the apes also laugh, or attempt to do it;
and is the manliest man the greatest and oftenest laugher? Teufelsdrockh
himself, as we said, laughed only once. Still less do we make of that
other French Definition of the Cooking Animal; which, indeed, for
rigorous scientific purposes, is as good as useless. Can a Tartar be
said to cook, when he only readies his steak by riding on it?
Again, what Cookery does the Greenlander use, beyond stowing up his
whale-blubber, as a marmot, in the like case, might do? Or how would
Monsieur Ude prosper among those Orinoco Indians