You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
In many languages, to “ape” means to imitate. But apes and monkeys do not merely imitate man. They are, themselves, imitations of mankind: poor imitations, perhaps, or better still, travesties of mankind. It is as if God or Nature had made them almost but not quite human. The legend persists that when Satan, jealous of God's creativeness, attempted a counter-creation, the ape was the nearest he could come to the creation of man. Perhaps, then, monkeys imitate man in the effort to rise above their sub-human condition and attain human stature. But they can never achieve their goal. The best they can accomplish is only a pretense and a sham. The nearest they can come to true love is only “affenliebe” they can do no better than “payer en monnaie de singe.” This ape-like quality was seen in human beings who made excessive claims to be what they were not: an over-painted old woman was “simia fucata”; a grotesquely pretentious person was “simia in purpura” or “a monkey dressed in jackdaw's feathers.”
For the most part, however, apes take a spiteful revenge by indulging in “monkey-shines” and “monkey business” and in “monkeying around.” They take their revenge, too, by flaunting their sub-human, bestial nature and giving free expression to their animal instincts. Uninhibited animal activities which are innocent or only mildly offensive on the part of cats or dogs or cattle or horses become excitingly obscene when engaged in by “almost human” monkeys. Man certainly projects a great deal upon his nearest animal cousins.
Perhaps there is a deeper level to this projective identification. It is not merely that monkeys are “almost human”.