{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_70009/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_70009","id":"gutenberg_70009","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/70009","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Archaeology & Anthropology","Category: History - Modern (1750+)","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Science - Biology","Monogenism and polygenism"],"text":"Publications of the\n\n  Anthropological Society of London.\n\n  THE PLURALITY OF THE HUMAN RACE.\n\n  POUCHET.\n\n\n\n\n  THE PLURALITY\n\n  OF\n\n  THE HUMAN RACE:\n\n  BY\n\n  GEORGES POUCHET,\n\n  DOCTOR OF MEDICINE, LICENTIATE OF NATURAL SCIENCE, AIDE-NATURALISTE\n  IN THE MUSEUM OF ROUEN, MEMBER OF THE ANTHROPOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF PARIS,\n  CORRESPONDING MEMBER OF THE ANTHROPOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF LONDON, ETC.\n\n  TRANSLATED AND EDITED,\n\n  (From the Second Edition),\n\n  BY\n\n  HUGH J. C. BEAVAN, F.R.G.S., F.A.S.L.,\n\n  OF THE MIDDLE TEMPLE, BARRISTER-AT-LAW.\n\n  LONDON:\n\n  PUBLISHED FOR THE ANTHROPOLOGICAL SOCIETY, BY\n\n  LONGMAN, GREEN, LONGMAN, AND ROBERTS,\n  PATERNOSTER ROW.\n  1864.\n\n\n\n\n  DEDICATED\n\n  TO\n\n  THE RIGHT HONOURABLE\n\n  SIR EDWARD G. E. L. BULWER-LYTTON, BART.,\n\n  M.P., D.C.L., ETC.\n\n  With all the respect\n\n  DUE TO A GREAT WRITER AND LEARNED MAN,\n\n  BY\n\n  HUGH J. C. BEAVAN.\n\n\n\n\nEDITOR\u2019S PREFACE.\n\n\nA few words by way of preface to a book on the _Plurality of the Human\nRace_ are necessary as well as advisable. They are especially so when\nthe Author and Editor differ considerably in their opinions, as in this\ncase; and although it is by no means a _sine qu\u00e2 non_ that they should\nalways agree, there are certain points on which a few lines may be\nrequired.\n\nThe Publishing Committee of the Anthropological Society of London\nhonoured me by committing the translation and editing of this book to\nmy care, and I set about the task with some diffidence, as this is\nprobably the first work of the kind which has ever been given to the\nEnglish literary world in a convenient and popular form. Such being the\ncase, there will sometimes be found expressions which may be thought\nforeign; but I have preferred on these occasions giving the more\nliteral translation, instead of one which possibly might fail to convey\nthe Author\u2019s real meaning. In books containing such very peculiar ideas\nas those of M. Pouchet, it is requisite to be especially careful on\nthis head.\n\nOf the clever nature and terse expression of the work there can\nbe little doubt, but I am sorry to find in it opinions with which\nI cannot at all agree, and in order to prove which, or rather\nendeavour to do so, science is strained in an unnatural manner. The\ntheory of spontaneous generation is by no means a new one; but M.\nPouchet can throw very little light on the subject, and leaves it as\nbefore--entirely unproved. The extreme sceptical nature of his views is\nmuch to be regretted, and in this especially the Author and Editor are\nin entire disagreement. The former is inclined to go out of his way to\nbring forward those views, when they were not required, and would have\nbeen better left unsaid.\n\nWe have, however, a new and extremely interesting field of\ninvestigation opened to us; but the more pains our author takes to\nexplain and illustrate the wonders of our physical and psychological\nnature, the more he seems to disprove his own theory of spontaneous\ngeneration. Blackmore said--\n\n                              \u201cSurvey\n  Nature\u2019s extended face, then, sceptics say,\n  In this wide field of wonders can you find\n  No art?\u201d\n\nBut M. Pouchet _does_ find art in nature; he tells us that its ways are\nintricate and manifold, but still that it all arises from some germ\nspontaneously generated, he cannot say how.\n\nWith this exception, which some may think no fault at all, I recommend\nthis book heartily to the Fellows of the Society and the public\ngenerally. The clearness and even brilliancy of M. Pouchet\u2019s very\npeculiar style are soon discoverable, and it is not astonishing that\nhis book has had a great success in France. That such will be the case\nin its English form is my sincere wish. I must thank my friend Mr.\nCarter Blake especially for many kind and valuable hints, and I need\nscarcely say, in conclusion, that as much care as possible has been\ntaken with the translation and editing. I now commit this little work\nto the kind consideration of the Society and the world. It is for them\nto judge how my duties have been performed.\n\n  H. J. C. B.\n\n  _London, August 30th, 1864._\n\n\n\n\nTO\n\nPROFESSOR RICHARD OWEN.\n\n\nSir,--I begged to be allowed to dedicate to you the first edition of\nthis essay, in remembrance of the kind hospitality I formerly received\nfrom you in the cottage at Mortlake, and of our long conversations, in\nwhich you were so ready with good advice.\n\nThe debt of hospitality can never be repaid. I am happy to be able once\nmore to express my gratitude to you, and my admiration of your great\nworks.\n\n  GEORGES POUCHET.\n\n_Mus\u00e9um de Rouen, July 1st, 1864._\n\n\n\n\nAUTHOR\u2019S PREFACE.\n\n\nI now offer to the public the second edition of a book whose success\nhas far surpassed my expectations. Received with kindness by some, it\nhas been violently attacked by others. It was denounced to the highest\nrepresentatives of the university authority on which I depended, and\nI owed my escape from the trouble which might have been drawn on\nme,--because I brought forward a scientific opinion in disagreement\nwith the books attributed to the prophet Moses,--to the justice of one\nof the most honoured members of the Institute. I owe a large debt of\ngratitude to my illustrious protector. The mind has advanced during six\nyears, and the same troubles will not be met with again.\n\nA good many alterations will be discovered in this Second Edition; this\nis always the case with science. In matters of imagination, when the\nartist has finished his work, he can cast it on the world and follow\nhis fancy in some other way. If science were only composed of truths,\nits conditions would almost be the same for its disciples; but the\nseeker after truth is not a creator like an artist, he explains and\nreflects upon a world of facts, variable at every hour, according as\nhypotheses are changed into certainties, or certainties of yesterday\ninto doubtful cases of to-day. It is, then, an incessant work of\nreparation and alteration, in order to maintain even the most modest\nwork in harmony with the daily progress of science; I have made this\nwork as perfect as was in my power. I have taken great care with the\nlist of authorities. I have also indicated by their titles all the\narticles from periodicals, reviews, or academic collections, to which\nI refer the reader. I am sure that those who know what an ungrateful\ntask it is to search such badly catalogued libraries as most of ours\nare, will give me credit for this part of my work. We can only see the\nexpression of science at a given moment in _M\u00e9moires_. Books are, after\nall, merely a summary: they are behind-hand even on the day they are\npublished.\n\n  G. P.\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS.\n\n\n           PAGE\n\n  EDITOR\u2019S DEDICATION                                                  v\n\n  EDITOR\u2019S PREFACE                                                   vii\n\n  AUTHOR\u2019S DEDICATION                                                 ix\n\n  AUTHOR\u2019S PREFACE                                                    xi\n\n  CONTENTS                                                          xiii\n\n  INTRODUCTION                                                         1\n\n\n  CHAPTER I.\n\n  THE HUMAN KINGDOM                                                   10\n\n\n  CHAPTER II.\n\n  COMPARATIVE PSYCHOLOGY                                              24\n\n\n  CHAPTER III.\n\n  THE ORDER OF BIMANA                                                 38\n\n\n  CHAPTER IV.\n\n  ANATOMICAL, PHYSIOLOGICAL, AND PATHOLOGICAL VARIETIES               43\n\n\n  CHAPTER V.\n\n  INTELLECTUAL AND PHILOLOGICAL VARIETIES                             62\n\n\n  CHAPTER VI.\n\n  THE INFLUENCE OF CLIMATE                                            80\n\n\n  CHAPTER VII.\n\n  THE INFLUENCE OF HYBRIDITY                                          95\n\n\n  CHAPTER VIII.\n\n  SPECIES                                                            108\n\n\n  CHAPTER IX.\n\n  SYSTEM                                                             134\n\n\n  INDEX OF SUBJECTS                                                  153\n\n  INDEX OF AUTHORS                                                   156\n\n\n\n\nTHE PLURALITY OF THE HUMAN RACE.\n\n\n\n\nINTRODUCTION.\n\n\nFor a long period, in medi\u00e6val days, science was to most people what\nit was to Servetus, a simple paraphrase or glossary of a revealed\ntext. In this was the truth, and if observation itself seemed\nsometimes contradictory, it was certain that there was some mistake;\nit was necessary to re-examine the contested question, and by dint of\ninquiring into the facts, they were altered so wisely, that in the end\nthey always were found to agree.\n\nAll over the East, among the Semitic race,[1] that which above all\nother possesses respect for authority, science still lives. Without the\nlaw there is no science, and the Kor\u00e1n is what the books of the sons of\nIsrael and the writings of the apostles were in the middle ages, the\ngreat, the only authority, to which everything was referred.[2]\n\nIf science has shone with a bright light in the East, this was due\nsolely to the introduction of a more human philosophy, born among\nanother race, and conveyed there by the works of Aristotle and the\nneo-Platonists. The East was inspired for an instant with these foreign\ndoctrines, which it would have been incapable of originating itself. It\nrevived for a century or two under their influence, but soon everything\nreverted to a former state of order; having shone in the barbarism of a\npure theism, whence it would never have come out without the contact of\na world extrinsic and superior to certain considerations, without the\nmomentary education which it had thus received from it.\n\nAll the sciences are not in the same intimate relation with the\ntexts called revealed; the mathesiological order is that in which\nthe sciences have had, and could have, the least to suffer from\nreligious influence; in the first place, mathematics, which, from their\nnature, would never have known how to yield; and, lastly, geology and\nanthropology, allied by intimate relations to the Divine tradition of\nthe first chapter of Genesis. But see how geology, which we thought for\nso long a time was in agreement with it, grows more distant every day\nas new discoveries are multiplied. The pretended epochs see, day by\nday, that their artificial limits are disappearing, now that one finds\nreptiles in coal-fields and mammalia in Trias.\n\nAnthropology in France seems, at last, to desire to free itself from\nthe shameful yoke which has for so long paralysed its flight. In its\nturn it claims independence. But, we would declare this, that the\nprinciple of authority, defeated on so many points, has concentrated\nits highest efforts behind this last rampart, calling to its aid the\npretence of morality and propriety. The question of the unity or the\nplurality of the human race, so far as relates to species, is only a\nscientific one; but others make of it a question of principle, as in\nthe time of Galileo, when it was a matter of overturning the ideas of\nthe old world, supported by a testimony which was not allowed to be\ndoubted. So the struggle is a sharp one;[3] it is felt that it refers\nalmost to a dogma, and not merely to an accessory fact. Science clashes\nthere with religion, as is the case with geology, and as formerly with\nastronomy; but in no way is the shock so violent, in no way can its\nconsequences be as great. Anthropology, more than any other science,\nought to produce immense results.[4] Who does not see that the abyss\nbecomes every day deeper under the belief of the past, and that\nscience, at a given moment, will become the foundation of more perfect\nmorality?\n\nThis antagonism is the first difficulty which we find at the threshold\nof anthropology. We should have wished to have entered upon our subject\nwithout being obliged, not absolutely to discuss it, but merely to\nshow the disputed point in the question. Unfortunately, the example\nhas been given us; we must follow it. Two schools are to be found\nin anthropology; one called that of the Polygenists, the other that\nof the Monogenists,[5] two words which came from America, and which\nwe receive because they have the great advantage of being clear and\nprecise, determining, by the opposing point of their doctrines, two\ndistinct schools, the one recognising but one family in the human\nrace, of which some members have alone preserved the primitive\ntype--altered everywhere else; the other school recognising no direct\nrelationship among the races of mankind. The Polygenistic school is\ncomparatively modern; the founders of anthropology--the Blumenbachs and\nthe Prichards--belonged to the other. Now, if they took their stand on\nan entirely philosophic or experimental point of view, we should be\nvery badly received now-a-days if we were to reconsider the question\nupon a burning soil. It has not been so, however. Most Monogenists[6]\nhave, up to the present time, done the universal wrong of invoking,\nin proof of their ideas, an authority which it is not allowable to\ndiscuss. Science is neither a special attribute of privileged castes,\nnor given to certain times in preference to others; it has never been\nobliged to wait for a revelation; it is universal, and all men, endowed\nwith the same faculties, have always been able, in all countries and at\nall times, to carry it as far, when they have had the same means and\nthe same occasions of observation; it is thus that psychology, based\nupon simple reflection, has not farther progressed in our days than\nat Athens or at Alexandria; from Plato to Descartes there is only the\ndistance between one system and the other.\n\n\u201cHistorians of that which is,\u201d has said the illustrious chief of the\nphilosophical school of France, Etienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, \u201cwe\ncannot fail, except when we cease to relate the truth.\u201d[7] Now, truth\nin science cannot be governed except by two means, reasoning after the\nmanner of mathematics, and observation, of which experiment is but a\nvariety. Every idea _\u00e0 priori_, every hypothesis is only good if we\naccept it with a strong determination of abandoning it if the facts\nare no longer explicable by its means. Without this, its influence is\ndisastrous, let the origin of this previous idea be in ourselves or in\nothers, whether it is our own or has been imposed upon us.[8]\n\nIn starting with a preconceived idea one arrives most often, in\nscience, at false allegations, always at uncertainties. It is upon\nreasons of this sort that some have not feared to rest the theory of\nthe unity of the human race;[9] since this hypothesis being accepted,\nthey have caused, willingly or otherwise, their observed facts\nto correspond with it. Were the generally-admitted principles of\nclassification irksome to them? They passed on; they shut their eyes\nto the most profound, the most positive, the most evident differences.\nOught not, then, unity to triumph? What did it signify, besides,\nwhether the Negro descended from the white man, or the contrary--for\nthese two opinions have been defended; for some, a few generations have\nbeen sufficient to transform the fine Greek blood, which gave models\nto Phidias and Praxiteles, into an Australian aboriginal. For others,\nthe Negroes were the true representation of our first parents, that\nperfect work which last of all left the hands of God. Lieut.-Colonel\nH. Smith[10] would admit that in the beginning were created separately\ncertain groups of men, if revelation were not positive on this\npoint. We notice especially in Kaempfer a specimen of what we may\ncall _orthodox ethnology_, which is curious above all things; having\ndiscovered that the Japanese have nothing in common with the Chinese,\nhe decides, with a marvellous assurance, that they are directly\ndescended from the men on the scaffoldings of the Tower of Babel. And\nas their language resembles no other tongue, he draws the conclusion\nthat their ancestors must have travelled very fast, so as not to have\nbecome acquainted with anybody else![11]\n\nAnd let no one say that it is obsolete matter to treat of science.\nOrthodox physics and chemistry are indeed no myths. M. Marcel de\nSerres, who has also occupied himself with anthropology, speaking\nof the discussions which have been raised between the partisans of\nemission and those of luminous undulation, adds, that this latter\ntheory has more chances of being exact, \u201cbecause the facts related by\nthe legislator of the Hebrews seem to him to be more favourable to\ntruth.\u201d[12] The Congregation of the Index, judging Galileo, reasoned in\nthe same way.[13] We arrive thus at once at the proscription of certain\ninquiries, and we ask ourselves, How two men, so eminent as Humboldt\nand Bonpland, could have approved of such lines as the following? \u201cThe\ngeneral question of the first origin of the inhabitants of a continent\nis beyond the limits prescribed to history, _perhaps it may not be\neven a philosophical question_.\u201d[14] It is true that the work in which\nthis singular declaration is to be found is dedicated to his Catholic\nMajesty Charles IV.\n\nThanks to these fatal influences, thanks to the interdicts with which\nsome would have desired to stifle the natural history of mankind, as\nif they were afraid of seeing the spark, which should accomplish the\nruin of the past, disappear with the full light; thanks to all these\nobstacles, anthropology was for a long time thrown into the background.\n\nIt is in America where we behold it reinstated in its rank, in that\ncountry of every kind of liberty. It is there that our old continent\nought to go in order to find masters who have known how to enter\ninto scientific pursuits with this free and independent mind which,\nin old times, according to Epicurus, freed mankind from the yoke of\nsuperstition, and gave to intelligence the sceptre of the world.\n\nThe eighteenth century, with all its scepticism, had not done little in\nthis way; its fault, indeed, was in this scepticism, in this doubting\n_\u00e0 priori_. It rejected without examination, therefore its work was not\nlasting, and the few lines of Voltaire which his good sense had written\nwith a Polygenistic tendency, had no influence at all.[15]\n\nAt present France and England walk entirely in the scientific path\nopened by the American school. It is some years since it was vainly\nendeavoured to establish in these two countries learned societies for\nthe study of ethnology; that time has passed. Now Paris and London\nmaintain two prosperous anthropological societies.[16] We do not\nhesitate in attributing the reason of this success to the profound\ndiscredit in which the continued blending of matters of faith with\nmatters of science, has justly fallen.\n\nApart from religious influence, there is another which may make itself\nfelt as regards anthropology. We mean those very honourable sentiments\nabout equality and confraternity which an honest heart will feel\ntowards all men, whatever may be their origin, whatever the colour of\ntheir skin, but of which the searcher[17] after truth must disembarrass\nhimself, cost what it may to him as a _man_. Such feelings honour those\nwho are animated by them, but when they interfere with science, they\ncan only injure it. How many years, how many centuries, have anatomy\nand medicine been obliged to wait until they could take a lasting and\nan upward flight! Respect for the dead is doubtless a human sentiment,\nif any; but it used to paralyse these two branches of our knowledge;\nthey are only possible to be learnt by profaning mortal remains\nreverenced by the religions of antiquity. Physiology, rendered so clear\nby vivisection, knows no pity; mankind feels it, but the physiologist\nshuts up all knowledge of it from himself; it is momentarily destroyed,\nsince it would injure any inquiry into the laws of life.\n\nIt must be owned that the science which engages our attention has not\nbeen able entirely to disembarrass itself among us of that which we\nmay call _moral propriety_.[18] It has a powerful influence on certain\nminds, sometimes unwittingly, sometimes of their free will.[19]\n\nWe have ourselves heard eminent professors make a noble appeal to the\nfraternity which ought to exist among men,--plead in their chairs the\ncause of inferior races, and proclaim the equality of the African\npeople with ourselves. Such noble theories were received as they ought\nto be, with the most ardent applause. There remains only to inquire\nif this is truly philosophical progress, and if kindness, pity, or\ncompassion, have any value in the great balance of facts.\n\nIt was time, indeed, that a new method--an independent one--should see\nthe light in anthropology, as it has already done in astronomy, as it\nalso has begun to do in geology. It was time to return to the human\nmind its wings. Facts, reasonings supported by facts, are the sole\nbasis of every solid work--of every certainty in scientific matters;\nit is the only method which can lead us--by a slow path, perhaps, but\na sure one--to the solution of the most difficult and the most obscure\nproblems. We do not except that of the origin of man.\n\nWe do not pretend to be first in the path which we here point out,\nbut we wish to express our regret at not having seen it openly enough\nfollowed by all those who are worthy to enter it. As for ourselves,\nwhat we have desired in this essay is, first, to hold ourselves apart\nfrom all extra-scientific data--from all sentimental science; we have\ndesired to treat some anthropological questions as they would have done\nat Athens, Rome, or at Alexandria--a task above our powers, doubtless,\nbut which we hold ourselves bound in honour to attempt.\n\nWe shall carefully, then, avoid entering into any controversy touching\nthe dogmas of one religion or the other; we shall not contest the\nauthority of the Scriptures, whatever they may be, Hebrew, Christian,\nArabic, or Buddhist; we have put them on one side, and that is all.[20]\nDescartes has truly observed that every scientific question ought to be\nexamined, even those which are most superstitious and most false, \u201cso\nas to recognise their just value, and to guard against being deceived\nby them.\u201d[21] One may be free to consider this essay as an attempt of\nthat kind.\n\nWe shall be praised or blamed: we have been so already. We have, for\nour comfort, the conscientious feeling of having no other object before\nour eyes but an inquiry into truth,--the truth, the common end towards\nwhich the power of every man who believes in progress should tend.\n\u201cWhere truth reigns,\u201d says M. Chevreul, \u201cno disputes or discussions\nare possible.\u201d[22] The reign of truth is the reign of concord amongst\nmankind. It is the golden age.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I.\n\nTHE HUMAN KINGDOM.\n\n\nAbove inorganic matter, plants, and animals, is placed Man.\n\nHere, without any doubt, man is indeed the first of the organisms,\nwhen one tries to place in linear series all those which move on our\nplanet. It is, also, not his _relative_ position in the living world\nthat it is difficult to discover; it is what we may call his _true\nplace_. What is, in other terms, the value of the differences which\nseparate man from other mammalia? and at what distance is he from\nthe animal that immediately follows him in this linear series which\nwe are supposing? To examine what man is with respect to the highest\norders of mammalia, and in a more general manner, to animals, is the\nprimordial question which presents itself in anthropology. It seems at\nfirst sight that it would suffice, in order to settle it, to throw a\nglance on this complete body, formed of the same anatomical elements,\nabsolutely submitted to the same exigences of development, nutrition,\nand reproduction, as animals. Ought not all this to make us think\nthat we were not altogether made of so immaterial a substance as the\nphilosophers have generally been satisfied to believe? This has not\nbeen the case.\n\nTwo systems--two theories, are before us. The one pretends that man is\nbut the first among animals, that he is _similar_ to them in the clear\nand precise sense in which this term is taken in geometry, designing\nqualities, which may differ _ad infinitum_, but which still may be\ncomparable.\n\nAnother system, supported by the most illustrious names, makes of man\na sort of special entity, differing from other organised beings by\nthe distinct and clear nature of his intelligence. It is an opinion\nadopted and defended to the last by a learned man, to whose memory\nwe cannot, _en passant_, prevent ourselves from rendering the homage\nwhich is his due, Isidore Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire. We find in the\nsecond volume of his _Histoire Naturelle G\u00e9n\u00e9rale_, almost a return to\nCartesian ideas. According to him animals do not think, they possess\nonly that sensibility that plants have not.[23] And the celebrated\nnaturalist agreed with the adoption of a human kingdom, appearing as\nthe crowning-point of the organic and inorganic kingdoms,[24] and as\ndistinct from the second as this is from the third.\n\nBefore proceeding further, we may be permitted to make one preliminary\nremark. We may thus declare it:--\n\nPROPOSITION.--_Man nearly approaches the Anthropomorphous Apes in his\nPhysical Organism._ Whether one is a partisan or not of the \u201cHuman\nKingdom,\u201d this resemblance is a fact which it will be in no person\u2019s\nideas to contest. And it is not merely in the external forms; we find\nit even greater if, going to the foundation of the facts, we give our\nattention to the essential parts composing the body,--to the anatomical\nelements,--to those delicate particles visible only in the microscope,\nand which always show, among animals of the same group, a marvellous\nuniformity.\n\nIt is here where, if not an impossibility, at least a sort of\ncontradiction presents itself to the defenders of the \u201chuman kingdom;\u201d\nfor there are two organisms, scarcely different, at the service of\ntwo directing powers, of two intelligences absolutely and radically\ndissimilar. Doubtless all the forces of organised matter are not known\nto us, but does not this resemblance, though even a superficial one,\nsurprise us; and does it not seem that every organism constituted\ndirectly by reason of the influences which it is qualified to receive\nor to transmit, ought to vary like these influences, and in the same\nproportion?\n\nIt is very easy to admit that there is more distance between the\nintelligence of man and that of the anthropomorphous apes, than between\nthe intelligence of these last and that of the smooth-brained squirrel,\nand that at the same time the immense distance is only marked in the\nfirst case by very superficial variations of the organ of intellectual\nmanifestations, whilst, in the second case, this lesser distance is\nexplained by enormous differences.\n\nTo admit, with Bossuet,[25] that this superior intelligence, the\nappanage of man, is not attached to the organs reserved for the\nmanifestations of this inferior intelligence common to man and\nanimals, is to return to Descartes, and this is to fall again into new\ndifficulties. Will this superior intelligence, thus detached from the\nmaterial world, be then inaccessible to physical violence?\n\nWhilst the finger of the physiologist or the surgeon, pressing\nthe brain, extinguishes for a moment in the animal, the faculty\nof thinking, will human intelligence, freed from this servitude,\nremain, in the like case, undisturbed in a higher sphere? No, by the\ncompression of the brain man loses consciousness like the animal. It\nis material substance, which, brought into contact with the anatomical\nelements of the nervous centres, can excite,[26] trouble,[27] or\ndepress,[28] the intelligence of animals, and leave no part of the\nhuman intellect untouched.\n\nLet us reconsider these two systems: viz., that man is similar to\nanimals as much by his intelligence as by his bodily formation; or\nthat he differs from them entirely. And now we have two clearly stated\ntheories before us for our consideration. To embrace either one or\nthe other _\u00e0 priori_, merely for the sake of propriety or sentiment,\nwould be an arbitrary proceeding, essentially faulty, and contrary\nto all rule; as in natural science, no other assistance is required\nexcept _facts_, in order to explain the origin of anything. However,\nwithout prejudging the solution of this question, let us simply examine\nthe results to which, by its nature, it may lead us. That man is of\nhimself a special entity, a kingdom, a world of his own, a sort of\n_microcosm_, a whole beyond the pale of universal life, may be perhaps\na flattering unction to our soul;[29] it does little or nothing for\nscience. Anthropology may have its special means of inquiry; perhaps\nthese means are still to be found, but she will stand alone--without\nprofit to the other branches of human knowledge, a dead branch which\nwill not grow, casting all its leaves. If not--if man enters into the\ncommon course of life--if he is merely a part of one grand organic\nwhole, necessarily allied to others by a thousand points of contact and\nintimate relations, then anthropology, fertilised by the principle of\nuniversality, becomes a science by which we may profit; it gives to her\nsisters, the other natural sciences, that assistance which she herself\nreceives from them; the paths widen; the science of organisation\nbecomes easier, more certain, and more enlarged; _synthesis_,\ndisplaying its powerful energies, opens to us the path of the unknown;\nthe mind, overleaping this obstacle, pointed out by Montaigne, \u201cof not\nunderstanding\u201d animals, will study their intelligence, and will search\ntheir inmost thoughts. As for ourselves, we are learning to know them,\nlike Galen the inspired, who obtained a knowledge of human anatomy by\ndissecting a monkey.\n\nLet us endeavour to obtain an exact idea of this barrier, apparently\nimpossible to be overcome, which separates man from the brute creation.\nWhether we compare him to the highest order of primates living on\ntrees--this genius which is the glory of humanity, which has raised\nto such a height both science and art--or only to the last from among\nus, members of the great family rejoicing in a white skin, _then_ the\ntransition is brutish, and it seems that an abyss separates us from the\nfamous _wild man of the woods_, so celebrated in the travels of the\nlast century. It is thus that the human kingdom has been established,\ncomparing the two extremes, without taking account of the intermediate\nterms.\n\nLet us put on one side, for an instant, the question of origin. A race,\nor a family, endowed with a characteristic and united activity, by the\nform of mind peculiar to itself, with a prepossession for reuniting in\na cluster the work of every individual intelligence, forms out of it\na sort of thought common to all, and transmits this inheritance from\ngeneration to generation. One can understand that, as time goes on,\nthis family, or this race, will arrive at a degree of civilisation\nvery different to that which it showed at the time of its origin. The\nconcurrence of so many intelligent modes of action will gently, but\nnaturally, lead it to purely metaphysical ideas--to the intricate idea\nof a divinity, etc. But, in such an arrangement, each one is, after\nall, but the representative of a secular intellectual work, accustomed\nsince the cradle, without any self-knowledge of the fact, to natural\nhabits and language. We ask if it is right to compare a being thus\nraised and exalted by his own means with an animal which has no more\nremote past than its own birth?[30] Let us take, then, for the sake\nof comparing them with animals, those people in whom life is in some\nsort individual, among whom no person adds anything to transmitted\ninheritance,--among whom even this inheritance has originally come from\noutside, and who, we know not why, having arrived at the lowest ebb of\ncivilisation, have not been able to improve or perfect it.\n\nSome may say that they simply copy everything. Some may say that the\nhuge weapons used by the inhabitants of Central Africa and Australia\nhave only become known by importation; that the savage is civilised\nat a given moment by contact with some foreign nation--by imitation, a\nfaculty which is possessed, within well marked limits, by the highest\norder of apes; and then, that progress has been stopped when these\npeople return to their own homes. How can we explain otherwise, for\nexample, that the Northern Esquimaux, living on the ice by the borders\nof creeks and bays, can make dresses and arms, and have never been able\nto construct a machine capable of bearing them upon the waters?[31]\n\nIf we break up one continuous series, and compare together the two\nfirst terms with two of the fragments of the series, they will in\nreality appear entirely distinct; in fact, almost impossible to be\nconnected with one common type. But, if we compare the last term of\none of these partial series with the first term of the following, then\nthe differences are blended, because the transformations do not happen\nto hide the parts so much that one cannot recognise their fundamental\nunity. We discover, for example, that in the animal series, such a\ncrustacean is almost a mollusk, such a reptile, such a mammal, almost a\nbird.[32] Differences are extinguished; those beings which were said to\nbe most distant have become almost allied one to the other. We can only\nperceive one continuous series; so much so, indeed, that even where\nthere are any unfilled spaces, or missing links, we consider ourselves\nalmost justified in declaring the past existence (or the future one?)\nof some intermediate animal.\n\nAs for ourselves, the series of beings given by Bonnet and Leibnitz, so\nfar as regards any ulterior phenomenon, resulting from the observation\nof beings who have not been of necessity created in this order, is true\nnot only of the physical, but also of the intellectual world. Shall we\ndesire to know what man has in common with the ape--what distance there\nis between the one and the other,--let us no longer put _ourselves_ on\nthe stage, we who are privileged so to do; let us descend boldly the\nsteps of the human ladder, and let us see what we shall find as we do\nso.\n\nExamples are not wanting of races placed so low, that they have quite\nnaturally appeared to resemble the ape tribe. These people, much\nnearer than ourselves to a state of nature, deserve on that account\nevery attention on the part of the anthropologist and the linguist,\nwho may both discover, by their means, problems otherwise difficult\nor impossible to be solved. It is because we have not studied the\npsychological characters of these races, that we have fallen into\nsuch strange mistakes. What will become of all those superb theories\nconcerning this superior intelligence of man, so entirely independent\nand disengaged from the world, on which so much praise is conferred?\nWhat will become of the unity of the human species, if we can prove\nthat certain races are not a whit more intelligent than certain\nanimals, and have no more idea of a moral world or of religion than\nthey themselves have?\n\nThe most commonly quoted example is that of the aborigines of\nAustralia. \u201cThey have always shown complete ignorance,\u201d say both Lesson\nand Garnot,[33] \u201ca sort of _moral brutality_.... A kind of highly\ndeveloped instinct for discovering the food which is always difficult\nfor them to obtain _seems, among them, to have taken the place of most\nof the moral faculties of mankind_.\u201d If the English police did not\nwatch very strictly, they would set at defiance every day, at least in\nthe towns of their colonies, all the laws of public decency without any\nmore thought than the monkeys in a menagerie.\n\nIn the account given of the American Expedition in 1838, Mr. Hale\nwrites that they almost possess the stupidity of the brute, that they\ncan only count up to _four_, and some tribes only so far as _three_.\n\u201cThe power of reasoning,\u201d he says, \u201cseems but imperfectly developed\namong them. The arguments used by the colonists to convince or persuade\nthem are often such as they would use towards children or persons who\nare almost idiotic.\u201d[34] MM. Quoy and Gaimard, whom no one will accuse\nof polygenist tendencies, give the following account of their interview\nwith these miserable people. \u201cOur presence seemed to cause them a sort\nof pleasure; and they endeavoured to explain their sensations on the\nsubject with a loquacity to which we could not respond, seeing we did\nnot understand their language. After this meeting they used to come\nto us, gesticulating and talking rapidly; they gave shrill screams,\nand if we answered in the same way, their delight was immense. Soon\nthere was a change, and they did not hesitate to ask for something to\neat, by the simple mode of _hitting themselves on the belly_.\u201d[35] The\nspectacle these travellers had before them is so sad and touching that\nthey afterwards add, as if to satisfy their own consciences, \u201chowever,\nthey are not stupid.\u201d Doubtless, they are not; but they do not seem to\ndeserve the epithet which the world gives to these beings, who appear\nso completely inferior to others. \u201cMalicious as a monkey.\u201d _They are\nnot stupid_, and that is all.[36] The Australians are not exceptional\nin this; Bory de Saint Vincent has drawn for us a picture of the\ninhabitants of South Africa, a beautiful and fertile land, which is\nalmost as sad. At the other end of the world, upon that ice-continent\nwhich surrounds the north pole, we find the same abjection.\n\nSir John Ross, lost among the ice, found himself among a race of\npeople who had never seen an European; this English sailor, a strictly\nreligious man, was peculiarly adapted to behold with indulgence the\nonly beings who were near him, but although he was an attentive and\nscrupulous observer, and above all, a truly sincere man, he seemed to\ndespair of finding in their minds the living spark for which he was\nsearching. \u201cThe Esquimaux,\u201d he says, \u201cis an animal of prey, with no\nother enjoyment than eating: and, guided by no principle and no reason,\nhe devours as long as he can, and all that he can procure, like the\nvulture and the tiger.\u201d[37] And, farther on, \u201cThe Esquimaux eats but\nto sleep, and sleeps but to eat again as soon as he can.\u201d[38] We shall\ndescend still lower, in order to find out men who are so degraded, that\nthose who have seen them have stated, that if they were in thick bushes\nor the shadows of the forest, they would hardly have known whether\nthey were apes or men. And, let attention be paid to this,--these\nwretched beings, almost deprived of human form, do not inhabit a poor\nor secluded country, but the continent of Asia, to the south of the\nHimalaya chain, in the centre of Hindoostan, in those regions which\nhave been the cradle of several huge species of apes, at that epoch,\ndoubtless, when the islands of the Indian Archipelago were joined to\nAsia, and formed one immense continent,--the land of the Malay race.[39]\n\nIn 1824, an English colonist, Mr. Piddington, a settler in the centre\nof Hindoostan (towards Palmow, Subhulpore, and the upper basin of\nthe Nerbudda), relates[40] that he saw amongst a party of Dhangour\nworkmen,--who came every year to work on his plantation,--a man and a\nwoman who were extremely strange and uncouth, and whom the Dhangours\nthemselves called _monkey-people_. They had a language of their own.\nFrom so much as could be understood by signs, it was discovered that\nthey lived far beyond the country of the Dhangours, in the forests and\nin the mountains, and possessed few villages. It would seem that the\nman had fled with the woman in consequence of some misfortune, perhaps\na murder. But at all events, they were found by the Dhangours lost in\nthe woods, exhausted, and almost dead from hunger. They disappeared\nsuddenly one night, just as Mr. Piddington had made arrangements to\nsend them to Calcutta. It would seem from other information that a\nMr. Trail, for many years Commissioner at Kuman, had also seen these\nextraordinary beings, and had even been so fortunate as to procure\none of them, whose appearance fully justified the traditional name\ngiven to them by the natives. In fact, other evidence--some of it\nhistorical--may be added to this in order to prove the existence of\nsuch an inferior race in different parts of the Indian peninsula.\nMr. Piddington thus describes him:--\u201cHe was short, flat-nosed, had\npouch-like wrinkles in semicircles round the corners of the mouth and\ncheeks; his arms were disproportionately long, and there was a portion\nof reddish hair to be seen on the rusty-black skin. Altogether, if\ncrouched in a dark corner or on a tree, he might have been mistaken\nfor a large orang-utan.\u201d It must be noticed that Mr. Piddington had\ntravelled a great deal, and that he had acquired, even without his\nown knowledge, some experience in anthropology. He takes care to tell\nus that he had seen in their turn the Bosjesmen, the Hottentots, the\nPapous, the Alfourous, the aborigines of Australia, New Zealand, and\nthe Sandwich Islands, which, indeed, gives great authority to the\nfacts which he relates.[41] What, we may indeed exclaim, are these\nreally men? After journeying over the beaten track, see how far we\nare from that Aryan family, the mistress of arts and science; how\nmuch we approach the brute, even if we have not already reached that\npoint? We have descended; let us now raise the other mammalia to man,\nand in the highest degree to which we can attain, let us endeavour to\nmeasure the distance to the point we have just left. Let it be well\nunderstood, we shall only consider in this place the highest mammalia;\nfor the question becomes more complicated on every side as soon as\nthe difference in the organisms becomes more apparent. In regard to\nthis, facts have often spoken for a long time, and the _savant_, whose\ntestimony in such a case possesses most value, Professor R. Owen,\nhas not feared to say, that the distinction between man and certain\nprimates is the great difficulty felt by all anatomists.[42] Let us\npass on to intellect.\n\nAll animals feel, understand, and think (M. Flourens and M. de\nQuatrefages), they dream, are capable of feeling distrust, fear,\njoy,[43] sorrow, jealousy, etc.; in fact, the entire list of human\npassions.[44] All this is amply proved by a thousand examples; who does\nnot remember the accounts of seals, elephants, dogs, which have become\ncelebrated, and which men who have lived a short time with animals\nmay see repeated every day? Only read the admirable account given by\nBuffon of the intelligence of the dog; again, the detailed and valuable\nhistory which F. Cuvier has left us concerning the orang-outang in the\nMuseum, without forgetting that this history could be neither complete\nnor perfect on account of the various circumstances in which the animal\nwas placed, far from his own country, and under an ungenial sky.\n\nDr. Yvan, attached to the expedition which the French government sent\nto China in 1843,[45] has given us an account of an orang-outang at\nBorneo, which is, perhaps, the best plea in favour of the connexion\nbetween primates and mankind. Tu\u00e2n, as this animal was called, began\nto dress himself directly a bit of any stuff, or cloth, got in his\nway.[46] On one occasion, when his master had taken a mangrove from\nhim, \u201che uttered plaintive cries like a child when it is sulky. This\nconduct not having been so successful as he expected, he threw himself\non his face upon the ground, struck the earth with his fist, screamed,\ncried, and howled, for more than half-an-hour.\u201d When the mangrove was\ngiven back to him, he threw it at the head of his master.[47] It is\na curious fact, but the particular friend of Tu\u00e2n was a negro from\nManilla. At Manilla, he accustomed himself to Tagal[48] manners, and\nplayed with the children. \u201cOne day, when Tu\u00e2n was rolling on some\nmatting with a little girl, about four or five years old, he stopped\nall of a sudden, and examined the child in a most minute and anatomical\nmanner. The results of his investigations seemed to astonish him\nprofoundly; he retired on one side, and repeated upon himself the same\nexamination which he had made on his little playmate.\u201d We may all\nremember the eloquent pages in Buffon, where, admitting the Adamic\nlegend, he recounts the impressions of our first parents. Has not\nnature been here, we ask, a better historian than our naturalist, even\nwith all his genius?\n\nOver and above these facts, as their crowning-point, we must invoke as\na witness the man who has carried farthest the spirit of philosophy\nin the natural sciences in France, Etienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire. A\ncautious and profound observer, he mingled with the crowd which the\norang drew to the Museum in 1836. Mistrusting his own judgment, he\ngathered the opinions of all those who surrounded him,--of all the\nvisitors who, as he said, \u201ccame to observe as unprejudiced spectators,\nwithout any preconceived ideas, and without being hindered by those\ndeplorable trammels which we call our rules of classification.\u201d[49]\nThe result surprised even Etienne Geoffroy himself. These visitors,\nso different one from the other, all united in this idea, \u201cthat the\nanimal from Sumatra was neither a man nor an ape: _neither one nor the\nother_, that was what the mind of each person at once acknowledged.\u201d\n\nWe might quote whole pages from this naturalist philosopher in which\nthe elevation of his style strives with the grandeur of his ideas. \u201cI\nnever used my self-love,\u201d he says, \u201cin bringing forward other opinions\nagainst those of the visitors to the orang-outang ... I never drove\nback the torrent of information which I had the happiness of receiving\nfrom each separate mind.... I have faith in the soundness of popular\nopinions, the masses rejoicing in an instinctive good sense which\nmakes them clear-headed, and renders them peculiarly able to seize\nthe salient point of any question.\u201d This was an excellent method, and\nshowed the power of Etienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire.\n\nIt is curious to compare with him another writer who, from within\nhis study, invoked upon these questions, at least, that which we may\ncall _universal acquiescence_,--it is Maupertuis. Speaking of the\ncharacteristics which make man different from animals, he says, \u201cSimple\ngood sense seizes these differences; they have always been felt, and\nthere we behold one of those convictions which the _universality and\nuniformity of all men_ characterise as the truth.\u201d[50]\n\nMaupertuis did not certainly know that the orang-outang,--a word which\nmeans _wild-man_,--is no metaphor for the inhabitants of the Indian\nArchipelago, and that in the country inhabited by the \u201clong-nosed\u201d\nGuenon,[51] the popular belief is that, being sharper than the others,\nhe only keeps silent in order to preserve his liberty. Nothing can\nbe more fallacious than these pretended truths, sustained merely by\n_universal acquiescence_. At first it was invoked as a proof, at a\ntime when scarcely one-tenth of the inhabited world was known:[52] but\nlet us proceed. In our own day, we know a little better what to make\nof this kind of proof, which science has abandoned to theologians.\nExperience has proved, day by day, what will become of this pretended\nuniversality among mankind, of certain thoughts, certain sentiments,\nand certain aspirations.[53]\n\nWe shall see, farther on, that the _community_ of some of those\nintellectual manifestations, which many have wished to regard as\ngeneral, is often restricted to one race alone amongst mankind, and\nlimited in space by the boundaries of the continent occupied by this\nrace. And now we see how anthropology in her turn, can, in all these\npoints, assist even philosophy itself. For example, do we not feel\nthat, from henceforward, the words _beautiful_ and _right_ can mean\nnothing absolute; since whatever is _beautiful_ and _right_ upon a\nhemisphere, for any given intelligence, cannot be so in an opposite\nhemisphere,--_cannot possibly be so_ in a mind otherwise formed and\nbelonging to another race. To these two words we must, by means of\nanthropology, restore an exclusively relative value.[54] The _True_\nalone is absolute, unchangeable in both time and space. That alone\nreigns universally, and let us not forget this, it flourishes in\nscience alone,--it is only to be found there.[55]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II.\n\nCOMPARATIVE PSYCHOLOGY.\n\n\nOn one occasion, two monkeys were brought into the presence of the\norang described by Grant, about which we spoke in the last chapter.\nThey were led by a chain up to the animal, and were threatened with a\nstick. \u201cDuring the whole interview,\u201d says our informant, \u201cthe grave\ncommanding attitude and bearing of the orang, compared to the levity\nand apparent sense of inferiority of the monkeys, was very striking,\nand it was impossible not to feel that he was a creature of a much more\nelevated order and capacity.\u201d[56]\n\n\u201cThe animal from Sumatra is neither a man nor an ape,\u201d said the crowd\nbefore the orang at the Museum. The communications which were then\nmade to the Institute by Etienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire may be, one\nof these days, a new triumph for him, the forerunner of a science\nwhich is not yet in existence,--the study of intellect in animals,\nbased upon observation and experience; as for instance, in the passage\nwhere he proposes to submit the orang to a methodical education, in\norder to study the modifications which would be caused by such an\nalteration of method.[57] He who has discovered organic unity, will\nhave placed us in the way of a discovery not less important, that of\npsychological unity.[58] A new science, which would only date from\nthe time of the reaction against Cartesian ideas,--a science still\nwithout a name, merely touched upon even by great minds which have the\ninestimable privilege of understanding everything; it has never been\n_studied_,--never thoroughly investigated,--never submitted to all our\nmeans of information.[59] We should call it _Comparative Psychology_.\n\nWe should, then, re-enter into one great _Unity_. The intellect of\nvertebrate animals would be identical, as their organism is identical;\nthus gradually descending, passing through the orang, from man himself\nto all the mammalia. It may be said that these propositions are not yet\nproved,--at least it will be allowed, seeing what has passed during a\nvery few years, that the last word has not yet been said concerning the\nintellect of animals.\n\nHas this question, then, made so much progress, either to the profit of\nanimals or the detriment of mankind, that we should wish to stop it,\nwhen it has started already on so straight a path? Saint Chrysostom\nreproached the Gentile philosopher, it is said, with having always been\ninclined to assimilate that which they called the soul of animals with\nthat of man himself.[60] The opinion of these Gentiles, nevertheless,\nis worth the trouble of being noticed. They were as well able to\nobserve animals as ourselves. Since then, the means of study, as\napplied to intellect, have made little or no progress; observation and\nreflection are still the same; we have found no new process, no new\nmethod, by which we can more profoundly examine into this subject; we\nhave, then, no reason to think that the solutions given by ourselves\nupon this point are at all preferable to those of the ancients. It\nmay be rather the contrary. For their opinion has this much in its\nfavour, that it was born free, in minds which did not restrain, even\nunwittingly, any new influence or theory which might be brought\nforward.[61] The idea of the intellectual gradation from man to animals\nmust have been necessarily offensive to Christianity, which promised a\nfuture existence; it was not so for these Gentiles, who were much more\noccupied with matters of the world.[62]\n\nThe principles which we are endeavouring to revive are not, however,\ncompletely those of Aristotle. In his treatise on the soul he admits\nthis gradation, but as presenting in each degree a new manifestation\nbeyond the manifestations existing in the inferior degrees. The\nprinciple of the soul is unity; but as we reascend the series, from\nplants to man, it invests itself with a greatly increased number of\nfaculties. Porphyrius, resuming the ideas of the Stagyrite, seems to\ngo even further, and to approach nearer the truth; it is not faculties\njoined one to another that he recognises in man and animals, but the\nsame in all, only more or less developed.[63]\n\nAt the present day, if we have not returned to the ideas of Pythagoras\nand the Stoics, at least we are very far from Pereira and Descartes,\nwith their _animal machines, hydraulic-pneumatic machines_, as one of\nthe partisans of the Br\u00e9ton philosopher (J. H. Crocius) calls them.[64]\n\nWe are really astonished at the infatuation for the opinions of\nDescartes which took possession of Germany during the latter\nhalf of the seventeenth century. They were pushed to the extreme\npoint,--soul, reason, and intellect were denied to all animals. A\nperson named Stahl,[65] who had at least the merit of being consistent\nto the last, brings forward a principle, that animals do not feel,\n_bruta non sentire_. This announcement is the conclusion of a very\nlearned syllogism, and which one Gaspard Laugenhert had added to the\n_Compendium Physic\u00e6_ of Arnold Geulinx.\n\nIt is with much trouble that some strong minds have dared to raise\ntheir voices in this Cartesian concert, having taken good care to\nstrengthen themselves by plenty of quotations gathered from the Old and\nNew Testaments.[66] These were then proofs positive, and at times it\nwas prudent to use them. The side of the animals has been successively\nstrengthened by Buffon, and indeed by everybody. At the present day,\nM. Flourens refuses them _thought_ alone, \u201cthis supreme faculty which\nthe mind of man possesses, so that it may rely upon itself, and study\nits own mind.[67] There is here,\u201d says the physiologist of whom we are\nspeaking, \u201ca strong line of demarcation; this thought which can reason\nabout itself,--this intellect which beholds and studies itself,--this\nknowledge which is acquainted with itself,--evidently forms an order\nof determined phenomena of a clearly defined nature, and to which no\nanimal would know how to attain. _There_ is a purely intellectual\nworld, if we may say so, and this world belongs only to man. In one\nword, animals feel, understand, think; but man is the only one among\nall created beings to whom the power has been given of _feeling_ that\nhe feels, of _knowing_ that he understands, and of _thinking_ that he\nhas the _power_ of thinking.\u201d[68]\n\nSuch is the only difference. The question is now reduced to a more\nlimited field than it has ever been before, and infinitely less\nvast. The thing which would be wanting in animals is a kind of\ninternal knowledge; not the knowledge of oneself (they know this\nsince they _feel_) but the _scientific knowledge of oneself_, which\ncan bring reflecting and reasoning study to bear on all the interior\nphenomena which may occur to each. We desire fully that this may be\na distinction, but solely a secondary one, and able at most to make\ncertain races of men differ one from the other. In fact, if we form an\nabsolute and fundamental character of humanity out of this faculty,\nthis power of investigation into an interior world, we ought to find\nit in a powerful manner among all men. It will resist every other\ninfluence, it will be permanent, since, this being destroyed, man would\nbe no longer a man, and would be lowered by this fact to the rank\nwhence he is said to have come.\n\nAnd do we consider that it may possibly be so? Does this reflected\nknowledge of oneself exist among inferior races, if it does not exist\namong animals? Certainly we shall never maintain that these last enjoy\nsuch a faculty, the source of all our legislation, and that which has\nmade us what we are. But we ask if it is well proved whether all human\nraces possess it. If we do not allow innate ideas to the orang, as F.\nCuvier[69] would do, be it so, but let it be remembered that certain\nphilosophers have refused them to man himself. We ourselves agree that\nan animal has no abstract notion of right or duty, or any idea of a\ndivinity,[70] but it must also be remembered that certain people have\nnot even a word for the purpose of expressing these things, and it is\nM. de Quatrefages himself who avows it.[71]\n\nWe refer these persons to the following account of animal economy,\nand we think that they will not deny their application to various\nAfrican and Oceanic tribes. \u201cIdeas, abstract ideas, arise from their\nown domain; the past, that which preceded their birth; the future, that\nwhich will follow their death, does not occupy their attention; the\npresent is their only business in life. They do not demand \u2018Whence do I\ncome? What am I? Where am I going?\u2019 And they have no idea whatsoever of\na Divinity.\u201d[72] Bayle, Maupertuis,[73] and M. Flourens have, one after\nanother, declared how difficult it is to fix a limit, to say where the\nintellect of animals ceases, and where that of man commences. That\nlimit escapes even ourselves; whilst separating two terms specifically\ndistinct we only see one continued line from the other vertebrate\nanimals to mankind, without any clearly defined demarcation,--the\norganism only of one mammifer as separated by an unbroken limit from\nthe organism of another. It is a chain of which the links, if we wish,\nmay go on increasing from one extremity to the other, following a\ngiven progression, but without ceasing to be _like_, and consequently\ncomparable amongst themselves. A certain number of links may be\nwanting, but the mind re-establishes them, and the continuity, although\nan abstraction, is not the less real. It is even, if we may say so, the\ntrack of a hyperbolic curve, interrupted here and there, of which only\nthe arcs remain, quite different, and all, however, reducible by the\nmind to one and the same system.\n\nUnity of composition is the condition of all harmony, the necessary\nrule of nature. As to ourselves, we only see everywhere the same\nfaculties, extended and developed among the superior vertebrate\nanimals; having even acquired among mankind the singular property\nof aggrandising itself almost _ad infinitum_, confined among other\nvertebrata, enclosed in a small circle, where they can even escape our\nown means of knowledge.\n\nBut there is everywhere the same nature, everywhere things are alike.\nLife is unity; we do not share it one with another; both the life\nof the body and the life of intellect, both matter and the mind, and\nthe organism and the faculties,[74] belong to each one separately.\nTerms correlative one to the other, never independent. There is an\nimmense space between the intellect of animals and that of a civilised\nEuropean; we willingly recognise this, but encumbered by mean terms\nand numerous transitions; that these latter exist, or that they have\nfinished their time upon our planet, we also allow. The question of\nlanguage, so confused, and so full of obscurity, still remains.\n\n\u201cWhatever resemblance there may be between the Hottentot and the\nmonkey,\u201d says Buffon, \u201cthe distance which separates them is immense,\nsince internally it is filled by thought and outwardly by speech.\u201d[75]\nWe know how to consider the first of these appreciations. As to the\nsecond, let us see if we shall not there perceive a sort of gradation\nwhich would insensibly lead us from our own complicated languages\nto others of a much greater simplicity, so much so that they can\nscarcely be called by that name. Speech and language are two words\noften confounded, but in science we must give to each of them its own\nvalue. _Speech_ is a language articulated by the respiratory channels.\n_Language_ may be defined as \u201ceverything spoken by well known and\nunderstood means between two intellects.\u201d It may be seen that we give\nthe fullest acceptation possible to this word. It is a _language_ that\nthe Abb\u00e9 de l\u2019Ep\u00e9e invented for the deaf and dumb. The writing of this\nlanguage is another. A phonetic telegram is, as regards a stranger,\nmerely a succession of sounds, like the song of a nightingale; a naval\ntelegram is only an assemblage and a combination of colours like an\narabesque, united the moment when the necessary arrangement forms these\nsounds or these colours into language.[76]\n\nSpeech alone being the habitual and natural language of mankind,\nendowed otherwise with special organic specifications in order to\nproduce it, we have been generally led to confound these two distinct\nthings in speaking of mankind, viz., _speech_ and _language_. This\nbeing allowed, the first question which we have to examine is this,\n\u201cHas man always possessed the faculty of speech?\u201d. A difficult\nquestion, but one which we have no right to proclaim as impossible to\nbe solved, which is, perhaps, not the case, and of which the difficulty\nbelongs principally to the very imperfect knowledge which we possess\nconcerning the distant epoch which saw mankind in his cradle.[77] Let\nus first of all remember that man has, in common with animals, voice,\ncries, natural inflections (M. Flourens), that which we otherwise call\n_natural language_. \u201cLike a simple animal,\u201d says Herder,[78] \u201cman\npossesses the faculty of speech. All the most violent and painful\nsensations of his body, as well as the strong passions of his mind,\nare manifested immediately by cries or inflections of the voice, by\nnatural and inarticulate sounds. The animal which suffers--as well as\nthe hero Philoctetes--when it feels sorrow will moan and sigh, even\nwhen abandoned in a desert island, far from the sight of any friendly\ncreature, without any hope of succour.\u201d This language is intelligible\nbetween all animals, between animals and ourselves, and between\nourselves and animals. We may affirm that man possesses it always, from\nthe first hour of his birth. As to articulated language, as _artificial\nlanguage_ has been called in opposition to the preceding, the question\nis much more confused and much less clearly defined.\n\nWe think with Steinthal, with Jacob Grimm,[79] and with M. Renan,[80]\nthat language is not innate in man, that is to say, it is not, as the\nBuddhist philosophy has already declared, a _necessary_ consequence\nof active intelligence.[81] Further, it has not been revealed--this\ntheory does not even deserve the honour of having been opposed by Jacob\nGrimm.[82] But we may admit that language is, if not a necessity, a\nleast a direct consequence of an intellect such as existed amongst\nmankind at the time, whether long or short we know not, which preceded\nthe appearance of language. \u201cThe moment,\u201d says M. Renan, stating\nthe theories of Steinthal,[83] \u201cthat language arises from the human\nsoul and appears in the light of day and constitutes an epoch in the\ndevelopment of the life of the mind, is the moment when intuition is\nchanged into idea. Things appear first to the mind in the complexity\nof the real, abstraction is unknown to the primitive man.\u201d Here, then,\nare two well-characterised modes, two ways of being, entirely different\nfrom the intellect of man. The one, where this intellect only possesses\nintuition, the other where analysis sees the light, where the mind is\nabstracted, and where, by a mechanism more or less complicated, but at\nthe same time by a real work,[84] it ends by calling every abstraction\nof mind by a name; then he speaks. But before the time when this\nrevolution is accomplished, the state of man is completely comparable\nto that in which animals are placed. They have caught at certain\nrelations by means of their intelligence, without usually feeling any\nnecessity for explaining them, a relation of a much more elevated order\nof beings, for it has been truly remarked,[85] and it must not be\nforgotten, that the capital act of language is to \u201cwish to speak.\u201d\n\nWe have seen that certain abstract ideas, by reason of their nature,\nwere so entirely foreign to certain races of men, that their intellects\nhad never _wished_ for a word in order to express them. Well, if other\nideas, expressing much more simple relations, have escaped animals,\nthere is only, in fact, a gradation corresponding to what we have just\nsaid concerning intellectual phenomena among the human race. As for\nthe specific difference which some have tried to establish under this\nhead between man and animals, if it were correct it must be shown that\nlanguage is completely unattainable by any mammalia, even within the\nmost restricted limits.\n\nAnd is it so? Will it be mooted that certain animals have not even\na rudiment of language, whether articulated or not it does not much\nsignify, in their state of nature? Will it be mooted that they never\nmake any sort of sign in order to communicate anything to one another,\nto call them, or give an alarm, or express some peculiar sensation?[86]\n\nExperience would entirely deny any such assertion. And this not only\nwith reference to the superior animals, for this faculty appears to be\nextended even to the invertebrata. The well-known experiments of P.\nHuber seem to have proved in the most decisive manner that ants,[87]\nlike bees, are able to transmit certain signs or indications from one\nto the other; even if the mere act of living in a republic, of joining\ntogether in one common work, did not offer the strongest presumption\nof a language peculiar to these creatures. If anyone dares to deny to\nanimals the spontaneous exercise of a restricted language, limited in\nwhatever way that may be desired, at least it cannot be denied that\nmany of the vertebrate animals are not capable of receiving from it\nan equal education, of understanding the signification of certain\nsounds, of certain signs, and of producing in their turn such as may be\nunderstood by us, of communicating to us any of their thoughts, or any\nof their appreciations.\n\nWe are not speaking here of animals who can reproduce certain sounds\nbelonging to the vocal organs of man; that is a fact of an entirely\nmaterial character, and which has no reference to the question of\nlanguage. It is evident that the animal which articulates any word\nwhatsoever does not understand it a whit more than the man who imitates\nthe cry of an animal, and, in a general way, neither comprehends its\nsense nor its signification.\n\nMaupertuis alleges[88] that if animals were capable of understanding\nwe could teach them to make themselves understood by other signs in\ndefault of a voice. A strange aberration of intellect for such a\nstudious and learned man. This is the man who makes an impossibility\nout of an everyday occurrence; for, first of all, most animals _have_\nsome sort of voice, and if they had it not, there are few persons who\nare ignorant of the way in which certain mute dogs make themselves\nunderstood when they particularly desire it. What would really be\nabsurd would be the hope of imparting ideas to animals, matters\nrelating, indeed, to a higher order, since we see that even all _men_\nare not capable of grasping them. Man has been able to train animals,\nand to train implies precisely the idea of communicating a thought\nfrom man to an animal, and from the animal to man. \u201cJump,\u201d says the\nshepherd to his dog, and the dog knows that this vocal articulation\norders him to make a given muscular effort. The man has _spoken_ to the\ndog. During the night some one opens the gate of the farm-yard, and the\nwatch-dog barks; he thus _tells_ his master that something unusual is\nhappening.[89]\n\nThat which proves besides that the barking of the dog is merely a\nconventional sign, an _artificial language_, so to say, is the fact,\nthat in certain countries the dogs do not bark; jackals and wolves\nlearn how to bark when in company with the dogs who can talk in this\nmanner, and that the same dogs lose the power, or rather the habit of\nbarking, if they return to a savage state.[90]\n\nWe have already spoken of those inferior races which seem to\nhave borrowed from their better endowed neighbours a rudiment of\ncivilisation, which, for a long time they did not know how to develope\nin any way. Does it not seem that there is here some comparison with\nwhat has just been stated? that under a civilising influence, in\ncontact with a superior being, the dog has learnt a language; but that\nnot understanding its general application (a more complex, and more\nhighly elevated idea), he has not known how to transmit the use of\nit to his own race, or has himself forgotten it, from not having any\noccasion to exercise this power?[91]\n\nThe language of animals is still a question full of obscurity, but\nwhich may eventually, we believe, become fruitful in new facts.[92]\n\nIf Apollonius of Tyana and the ancient philosophers did not understand\nthe language of animals so well as has sometimes been believed, at\nleast they did not do wrong in directing their inquiries towards this\nmatter. We have no doubt but that in carefully studying animals, we\nshall arrive at a scientific explanation of this well-known truth,\nrecognised by all those who live with them; which is that they can\nunderstand us, that they make themselves understood by us, and that\nthey understood one another within certain limits.[93]\n\nFor a long time it was believed that intellect and thought belong\nto man alone, and that he had only organic instinct in common with\nanimals.[94] This opinion tends each day towards a change; we hope\nthat we have proved so much. Something of the same sort will take\nplace, we think, for the best studied language. There, as with\nintellect, as with organism, we shall doubtless be able to prove a\nunity which may be regarded by analogy as necessary, offering alone\ndegrees of gradation in reference to organism and intellect. Every\nliving being (we are only speaking here of vertebrate animals)\nwill appear to be composed of the same constituent parts, but\nunequally developed, and of which some have only been taken by us\nfor dissimilarities or new parts, on account of our own want of\nsufficiently deep study. As they formerly tried to discover new\nbones in the heads of fishes, until the time when their relations,\nconnexions, and development were better studied; so unity of\ncomposition has been there recognised and proved where it was least\nsuspected.\n\nWe cannot do better, in order to sum up our ideas on this subject,\nthan quote a passage from the works of a learned man, who in our days\nhas gone most deeply into the study of organic homology, Professor\nRichard Owen; it is the last step which has been taken, and indeed the\nmost decisive one, in the momentous question concerning man\u2019s place in\nnature.\n\n\u201cNot being able to appreciate or conceive of the distinction between\nthe _psychical_ phenomena of a chimpanzee and of a Bosjesman, or of an\nAztec with arrested brain-growth, as being of a nature so essential\nas to preclude a comparison between them, or _as being other than\na difference of degree_, I cannot shut my eyes to the significance\nof that all-pervading similitude of structure--every tooth, every\nbone, strictly homologous--which makes the determination of the\ndifference between _Homo_ and _Pithecus_ the anatomist\u2019s difficulty.\nAnd therefore, with every respect for the author of the _Records of\nCreation_,[95] I follow Linn\u00e6us[96] and Cuvier in regarding mankind as\na legitimate subject of zoological comparison and classification.[97]\u201d\nIs not the admission of gradation the means of binding more firmly\ntogether the great chain of human beings, a thing quite impossible,\nwhich could not exist, or rather, which would only be a caprice,--an\nartificial method or system,--if the classified beings were only thus\nclassified by creatures of their own description? Does it not confirm,\neven more strongly, the continuous series in which Aristotle, Leibnitz,\nBonnet, Linn\u00e6us, and de Blainville have believed? We shall proclaim,\nthen, the law, shaped by M. Flourens, who, however, does not receive\nit, as we do, without reservation:--\n\nLAW.--_From animals to man everything is but a chain of uninterrupted\ngradation_; therefore, there is no human kingdom. Then comes this other\nconclusion,--one and the same method is applicable both to mankind and\nanimals.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\nTHE ORDER OF BIMANA.\n\n\nThe naturalist who has in our time most interested himself in the\nclassification of vertebrata, Prince Charles Bonaparte, gives his\nown opinion as follows:--\u201cMan may be considered, in one point of\nview, as constituting one single family; in another, as constituting\nan entire kingdom.\u201d But he also adds that in this second case,\n\u201cthe characteristics are no longer in harmony with the rest of the\nsystem.\u201d In fact, we can hardly at the same time admit both the\ngeneral principles of classification, as followed at the present day,\nand also the human kingdom. One out of these two things must fall\nto the ground. The system of classifying mammalia,--adopted in all\nits uniformity by the two Geoffroys, the Cuviers, De Blainville, and\nOwen,--cannot be maintained without involving mankind. If man were a\nkingdom by himself, this classification would be a false one; for ought\nwe not then, at least, to create a cetaceous kingdom, a bird kingdom,\netc.? As for ourselves, the problem has been already solved, and we\nhesitated to come into collision with this new inconsistency. Harmony\nis the necessary condition of every really natural system. We cannot\narbitrarily give a different value to the same characteristics; and,\nreciprocally, the divisions of the same order ought necessarily to\nagree with characteristics of the same value.\n\nIt has been thought necessary, at least, to create for mankind one of\nthose great divisions into which the mammalia are divided. An Order of\n_Bimana_ has been created. We do not hesitate to say that this was a\npurely theoretical creation; and we will go even farther, we declare it\ncould only be produced in a country where coverings for the feet are\nin daily and universal wear. We must not go into the midst of our great\ncities if we wish to study the _zoological_ characteristics of man.\n\nIs there any reason for the Order of _Bimana_ when we consider man in\nhis state of nature? is it \u201cthe immediate and necessary results of\nnatural analogies, respectively valued according to their degree?\u201d\n\u201cNo!\u201d was the answer of \u00c9tienne Geoffroy, in his eloquent pages, \u201cthis\nOrder must be abolished.\u201d[98]\n\n\u00c9. Geoffroy saw workmen in the bazaars at Cairo employ their great toe\nfor numberless prehensile uses. A Nubian, or a negro on horseback,\ngenerally takes the stirrup-leather between his great toe and the\nothers; all the Abyssinian cavalry ride in this manner.[99] If the fact\nreported by Bory de Saint-Vincent about the rosin-makers of the Landes\nis not confirmed,[100] we have at least seen the Barabras Nubians\nascend the great yard of the Nile _dahabiehs_ by seizing with the great\ntoe the rope underneath them[101] which supports the sail.\n\nWhen the action of the foot is not paralysed by the size of the shoe,\nwhich is elsewhere the exception, it is pre-eminently adapted for\nlaying hold of anything. And if certain kinds of men seem to us very\nfit for the kind of existence led by the Quadrumana,--if they seem to\nus constituted in order to live in trees, there is nothing there which\nought to surprise us, nothing but what is quite natural and quite\nconsistent.\n\nIt has been truly said, that man is _frugivorous_. All the details of\nhis intestinal canal, and above all, his dentition, prove it in the\nmost decided manner. He ought, therefore, from his origin, to have all\nhis organism modified in harmony with this alimentation. Like the apes,\nhe ought to possess such means of locomotion as would enable him to\nprocure the food specially adapted to his wants. And therefore, what\nis there astonishing in the fact that among certain races, which are\nscarcely removed from a state of nature, we find the remains of a mode\nof life which was general at their origin.\n\nModera, quoted by Mr. Crawfurd, relates that one day, three\nnaturalists, travelling on the northern coast of New Guinea for\nscientific purposes, found the trees full of natives, of both sexes,\nwho leaped from branch to branch like monkeys, with their weapons\nfastened on their backs, gesticulating, shouting, and laughing.[102]\nThis singular race, of which we have before spoken, and which has been\nnoticed in Hindoostan by many eye-witnesses, seems to live half its\ntime in trees. We have the right to ask, if the confused remembrance of\nsuch a race and such habits was not the origin of the tradition which\nserved as a foundation for the poem of Valm\u00eeki. Rama goes to the rescue\nof his wife, Sita, who had been carried off by the evil genius, R\u00e2vana;\nhe is assisted in this enterprise by a valiant army of monkeys, and\nat every moment expressions are used in the account which recall the\nmonkey-like and quadrumanous nature of the combatants[103]. In casting\nour eyes over the first groups composing the mammalian series, we find\nsome apes who walk upon the sole of the feet and upon the palm of the\nhand; others, who walk upon the sole of the foot and the joints of the\nfolded hands,--a very peculiar method of progression,--of a strange and\nunexpected nature, and which alone would serve to characterise a group;\nthese are the anthropomorphous apes: lastly, another mammal who walks\nonly on the soles of the feet, the form of the body and legs rendering\nthe anterior members quite unfit to be used in walking; this is man.\n\nThe first apes of which we are going to speak, walking upon the sole\nof the feet and the palms of their hands are, then, unreservedly\n_quadrupeds_. In this particularity they resemble other mammalia,\namong whom the pectoral, as well as the abdominal, members are chiefly\norgans of locomotion; only these apes also use their four extremities\nfor another purpose, which appears to be entirely secondary and\nderived,--that of _prehension_. And it is precisely because the\norganisation of their members is purposely modified by reason of a new,\nspecial, and uncommon function, that they have been able to furnish us\nwith a sufficiently defined characteristic, so that we may specify an\norder,--that of the _quadrumana_.\n\nAmong the anthropomorphous apes, the folded or bent hand seems an organ\nespecially adapted for prehension,[104] serving, in a secondary manner,\nfor locomotion; whilst the foot, the especial organ of locomotion,\npreserves the faculty of seizing anything by means of an opposing thumb.\n\nIn man, the superior member is not at all fit for walking; and the\ninferior, used for locomotion, as in the two preceding groups, also\npreserves its faculty of prehension: observation proves this as well as\nanatomy.\n\nWe see that there again; as everywhere else in an organic point of\nview, the anthropomorphous quadrumana are a veritable transition from\nman to the other families of apes. It has been proposed to extend the\nsignification of the word hand, and to apply it to every terminal\nextremity of a member capable of seizing anything, including the paw of\nthe lemur and the claws of the parrot. We are inclined to restrict the\nname, like Linn\u00e6us, De Blainville, and Cuvier, to an extremity formed\nof fingers, and with an _opposing thumb_. But even in confining the\ndefinition to such a narrow compass, we think we have shown that man,\nin reality, is _quadrumanous_, this definition applying equally to the\nfoot, where the great toe serves--among half the people, at least, on\nthe earth--for the purpose of prehension, and remains, as \u00c9. Geoffroy\nhas remarked, quite separate from the other toes, when the foot is not\ndeformed by boots or shoes:[105] therefore, nothing more can be said in\nfavour of an Order of _Bimana_, or a human kingdom.\n\nWe must return to the subdivision proposed by Charles Bonaparte,--a\n_family_. Man constitutes a simple family in the Order of _Quadrumana_,\ndistinguished by characteristics precisely equal in importance to those\nwhich make a difference between other similar groups in the class of\nmammalia, that which even comes to the assistance of the adversaries\nof the human kingdom, and the partisans of the zoological system.\nFor want of positive characteristics taken from the extremities,\nwhich could never,--in the eyes of true naturalists, as we have just\nsaid,--favour a serious distinction between man and other quadrumana,\na characteristic in dentition has been discovered, remarkable for\nits constancy even in the most degraded and animal-like races, and\nwhich, first and foremost, distinguishes man from the group which\nimmediately follows him in the zoological series. This characteristic,\nupon which Professor Owen has, in many places, insisted,--like the two\nCuviers,--but with an entirely new vigour,[106] is the contiguity of\nthe teeth and the _continuity_ of their crowns, not one of which ever\nextends beyond the level of the others.[107]\n\nThus it is for man, like the rest of the mammalia; it is the dental\nsystem which gives us the best characteristic. A new proof that the\nstudy of mankind and that of animals ought to be conducted in one\nand the same manner; a proof, indeed, that these two studies are two\nparallel branches, intimately united, of one and the same science.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV.\n\nANATOMICAL, PHYSIOLOGICAL, AND PATHOLOGICAL VARIETIES.\n\n\nWe have endeavoured to prove in the preceding pages the specific unity\nof the biological phenomena in each Order, which are to be found among\nthe superior animals and man. This unity has led us necessarily to\nanother, that of _method_; and we have just seen that man forms simply\na family, that is to say, a very secondary division in the zoological\nseries.\n\nBut we have only taken the first step of the path in which we\nhave to travel. The genus _homo_ shows many varieties, and many\ndissimilarities. We must try to estimate their value, and to find out\nwhat the divisions to be established between what we commonly call\n_races_ of men may be worth. Now, the only rule to be followed here\nis naturally that which is applied by all zoologists to the other\nindividuals composing the animal series. The only way to arrive at such\na goal will be, first of all, the study of the physical differences,\nthe necessary basis of a rational classification. Thus we shall, at\nleast, have important, and what is more, comparable results.\n\nThe anatomy of races has been largely written about, and yet we may\neven now offer this subject to the serious study of anthropologists;\nperhaps, also, in carrying their attention farther than the skin, the\nencephalic mass and the skeleton, which have been nearly the sole\nobjects of study up to the present time, they will find in all systems\ndissimilarities of the same order, and as clearly defined.[108] These\ndifferences and varieties are such that they are obvious, and at once\nappreciated even by ignorant persons,[109]--they are such that the most\neminent monogenists agree in regarding them as everywhere sufficient to\nmake a difference in species, or even in genus itself.\n\nThey refer to every point of organisation, and we shall see farther on\nthat they are found to be as decided and as palpable both in the mind\nand in the natural constitution. We do not pretend to speak of all of\nthem in this place, not even to enumerate them; we shall merely quote\nthe principal points, or those which appear to deserve some special\nremark. The number of those which exist, or which are believed to\nexist,--for this is a necessary restriction,--is immense; in fact,\nif we are the first to admit that there is an infinite variety of\ndifferences, considerable in themselves, between the various kinds\nof men, we also wish to avoid falling into the errors which are so\noften committed, and which happen from the small number of facts which\nhave been observed, the investigators having often given the value of\ngeneral facts to individual observation.\n\nWe find more than one example of these hasty opinions in the history of\nanthropological studies. Towards the end of the last century, when the\ncolour of the Negro had already been for a hundred years the dominant\nstudy of the scientific world of Europe,[110] a certain Kluegel\naffirmed (in the _Encyclop\u00e9die de Berlin_, 1782) that the lips of the\nEthiopian were of a fine red colour. A great commotion arose; S\u00f6mmering\nhimself was roused; he wrote everywhere, sought for information, and\ndemanded fresh intelligence, which, quite naturally, was found to be\ncontrary to the opinion expressed by Kluegel. In fact, we know that in\nthe Negro the colouring matter extends to most of the mucous membranes\nwhose structure resembles that of the skin.\n\nThe lips are generally black, and we usually find upon the gums, and\neven upon the palate, a non-continuous coloured membrane, which forms\nspots of a deep violet colour. Kluegel had concluded too hastily from\nsome particular fact; he had in his mind, very probably, some Negro\nwith lips, gums, and tongue of a fine rose colour, contrasting as much\nas possible with the black of his skin. We have had occasion ourselves\nto observe a similar case as regards a native of Soudan, who was also\naffected with a sort of partial albinoism of the buccal mucous membrane.\n\nIn anthropology, as in all science requiring observation, it is the\naverages which ought to be admitted as evidence; they alone have an\nabsolute value, and can alone lead to positive results. Every isolated\nphenomenon has its individual value as regards its simple truth, but we\nare exposed to the greatest errors when we begin to generalise from it.\n\nThe osseous system has been most studied.[111] In the osseous system,\nthe head, and particularly the skull. We shall be obliged, later on, to\nrefer to the value of cranioscopic proceedings, and the classifications\nresting on this base.\n\nThe face, as well as the skull, has been the object of attentive\ninquiry; the smallest differences have been noticed, and almost all\nhave been formed by some one or other into distinct characteristics.\nWe may quote here B\u00e9rard\u2019s classification, as resumed and developed by\nIsidore Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire. He divided the genus _homo_ into four\ngroups:--\n\n1. The _orthognathi_, or men with a flat face and oval countenance.\n\n2. The _eurygnathi_, or men with a large face and projecting cheek\nbones.\n\n3. The _prognathi_, or men with a protuberant countenance.\n\n4. Lastly, these races, which are both _eurygnathi_ and _prognathi_,\nlike the Hottentots, the development of whose face offers an example of\na manifest step towards the exaggeration of this same development in\nthe anthropomorphous ape in infancy.[112]\n\nIt has been endeavoured to establish, by means of averages, an\nappreciable difference between the pelvis of various races. Weber has\nconsidered that the form of the superior division is not the same with\nall of them. According to him it would be--\n\n  1. _Oval_, among Europeans.\n  2. _Round_, among Americans.\n  3. _Square_, among the Mongols.\n  4. _Cuneiform_ or _oblong_, among the Africans.\n\nThe same ideas have been resumed and defended by French\nanthropologists;[113] it is right, however, to remark, that Weber\nhimself adds that varieties of every description of pelvis may be met\nwith among the same race. That which appears certain is the fact, that\nin the Negro race the pelvis is, in general, sensibly smaller. This is,\nat least, the opinion of Camper,[114] Vrolik, S\u00f6mmering, White,[115]\nand B\u00e9rard,[116] who have measured a great number of them.\n\nThe facility in parturition, so remarkable among the inferior\nraces, has therefore, as a cause, a relative smallness in the head\nof the f\u0153tus, even more remarkable. For we must admit that, among\nthese people, everything happens naturally, as among animals; it is\nthe laborious childbirth among ourselves which is exceptional and\nanomalous, and which requires to be explained. This difficult and\npainful parturition, which we so continually see, is, doubtless, the\nconsequence of civilisation; only it is difficult to decide what may\nbe its immediate cause, and if this cause resides in the mother or\nin the f\u0153tus. Is it the pelvis which has been made narrower in the\nEuropean by some custom in our manners--by some habit of education?\nor must we admit--and it is a serious question--that the development\nof such an organ as the brain _in the f\u0153tus_, is subordinate to the\nexercise of the functions of the same organ in the progenitors?\n\nWith the osseous system we may connect the differences of height which\nare so apparent. Who does not recognise that in Europe, for instance,\nthe Anglo-Saxons, the Germans, the Norwegians, and the Albanians, are\nof great stature; whilst the inhabitants of the south of France, the\nIrish, the Spaniards,[117] and the Maltese, represent a shorter variety\nof the human race. The members show the most marked differences among\nthe various races of mankind, by reason of the law which causes the\nmodifications of organism to become more and more decided, and more\nand more clear from the centre to the periphery. Naturalists seek\nfor characteristics of families and individuals in the fingers and\nin the teeth: it is in the extremes of an individual, in the colour\nof the hair or the skin, that we generally find the characteristics\nof species. We shall only quote in this place facts which may be the\nobject of some particular remark.\n\nIt has been said continually that the Tartars have bowed legs, and\nmonogenists have not failed to discover from this fact a new proof of\nthe influences of their mode of life, so necessary in order to maintain\ntheir thesis. They discovered at first sight, in this _general_\ninfirmity, a consequence of the habit of riding on horseback, without\nconsidering that the Arabs rode on horseback quite as often, and that,\nnevertheless, their noble bearing and straightness of limb did not\nsuffer from it in the slightest. In tracing the source of this error,\nwe perceive that it is a singular exaggeration of the facts stated by\nPallas, who lived for so long a time amongst the Tartars. He simply\nsays, \u201cThe sole fault in conformation which is _rather frequent_\namong them, is a bend in the arms and legs, resulting from a kind of\nspoon, or saddle, upon which they are always placed in their cradle,\nas if they were on horseback, and therefore, as soon as they learn\nto walk, they are obliged at every movement to accustom themselves\nto the position of riding.\u201d[118] This is what Pallas says; but it is\nvery clear that he is here speaking merely of exceptional cases, for\nhe says higher up, \u201cI do not remember to have ever seen a child who\nwas a cripple. Their education, which is entirely left to nature, can\nonly form bodies which are healthy and _without a blemish_.\u201d[119] If\noccasionally the accounts of travellers have been exaggerated, it\nis not less the rule, that certain races show a conformation of the\nextremities very different to what it is among ourselves. Albrecht\nDurer has already made this remark. In the Negro, for instance, the\nlength of the forearm is much greater than in the European. It is\nproportional to the height in these two races :: 107 : 100.[120]\n\nThe thumb of the Negro\u2019s hand is also generally much less opposed to\nthe other fingers. In certain races of mankind, the hand itself is of\nan extraordinary small size. This is the case among the Bosjesmans, the\nChinese, the Esquimaux,[121] and the Cingalese.[122] It was the same\namong the races who built the grand American temples, where we find\nupon the stones the imprint in red of their hands.[123] The same thing\nhas been said about the ancient population of northern Europe, who were\nignorant of the use of iron, and only used weapons made of bronze.[124]\nBut the study of the magnificent collection of Scandinavian\nantiquities in the Berlin Museum, has not proved to ourselves that the\nhilts of _all_ these arms were as small as has been pretended.\n\nThe foot varies not less. The Negro races of the Oceanic Islands, and\nof Africa, appear to show an exaggerated development of the heel-bone.\nMM. Quoy and Gaimard have especially remarked it among the inhabitants\nof Vanikoro. In fact, there is hardly anybody who will forget, when\nonce he has seen it, the special aspect of the instep in the Negro,\nridged with numerous folds commencing from beneath the ankle. This is,\nbesides, a particular mark, which is far from showing itself, as may\nbe well believed, among _all_ people who walk without foot-covering.\nThe foot of the Nubians, and especially that of the females, shows\nquite different characteristics. The five metatarsi seem to rest their\nwhole length upon the ground, without being shaped by the instep;\ntheir anterior extremities are slightly diverted, the toes having the\nsame spaces between them, so that the foot is flat, but otherwise\nthan by the faulty conformation to which we give this name among\nourselves. This structure is, besides, perfectly represented in all\nEgyptian statues without exception, and more sensibly, indeed, if we\ncompare with those which are in the galleries of the British Museum, a\nfragment of a colossal foot,[125] found also in Egypt, at Alexandria,\nbut evidently of Greek or Roman origin; the toes are close together,\nthe great toe alone being separated, the upper part of the foot being\narched, as among Europeans.\n\nThis resemblance between all the Egyptian statues and the foot of\nthe inhabitants of Upper Egypt, or Nubia, cannot be an accidental\ncircumstance. It is, besides, a veritable problem in anthropology, to\ndetermine its value in accordance with the monumental iconography of\nthe ancient Egyptians. M. A. Maury has determined with precision the\nauthority of the portraits--almost all alike--which cover the walls\nof the temples. We ourselves, when visiting the famous cavern of\nAbou-Simbel, were far from finding all that the writings of certain\nanthropologists and partisans of Egyptian art, such as Gliddon, Nott,\netc., had promised us. Doubtless, one can perfectly distinguish\ncertain types,[126] that is indisputable;[127] but to desire to find\na _people_ in each portrait,--Scythians, Arabs, Philistines, Lydians,\nKurds, Hindoos, Jews, Chinese, Tyrians, Pelasgians, Ionians, etc.,--is\nit not to give too great an influence to the Egyptian artists, who\nwere copyists without skill, and but clumsy inventors? Egyptian art,\nwhatever may have been said of it, has always been very much farther\nfrom being a copy of nature than Grecian art; the one tended to the\nideal, the other tended to transform it. Certain trees which we see\nthrown down in the bas-relief of the great temple of Karnak, are\nassuredly pure imagination. It may have been the same with many other\nsubjects to which a scientific value has been given.\n\nLet us return to anatomical differences, and to that which has,\nsince antiquity, most vividly struck the masses, as well as serious\ninvestigators. We are going to speak about those colours in the skin\nof man which run through almost the whole of the chromatic scale, from\ndead white to the deepest brown.[128] There is no system which has not\nbeen thought of in order to explain these differences, even up to the\ninfluence of Noah\u2019s curse.[129]\n\nUnfortunately, we are wanting in those histological and chemical\nresearches which are necessary in order to form the bases of a complete\nhistory of the colours of the skin in the human race.[130] We can\nmerely say, that the recent works upon certain morbid states, such\nas Addison\u2019s disease, and others which may approach it, by making\nus acquainted with the pathological circumstances under which the\nEuropean with a white skin becomes almost as black as a Negro, and by\nidentical anatomical modifications, have nearly proved that atmospheric\nphenomena have not the influence which monogenists give to them, and\nthat the first origin of the colour of the epidermis in the human race\nresides rather in the depths of the organism, inaccessible to celestial\nradiation.[131]\n\nThe varieties which the pilous system presents is the chief point,\nand equal at least in importance to those of the cutaneous system.\nIf we think that a classification of races, based simply upon the\ncharacteristics of the hair, as has been proposed,[132] would leave\nmuch to be desired, and would be far too artificial, we do not doubt,\nhowever, but that the pilous system can furnish indications of great\nvalue when they have been combined in a wise manner with other\ncharacteristics, as Isidore Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire has done.[133]\nDoubtless, the colours of the hair, from flaxen to black, and from\nbrown to red, are innumerable in France, and as generally so in\ncountries where the mixture of races has been carried as far as\npossible; but it must be remembered that among a purer population,\nless mixed with foreign blood, the constancy of characteristics taken\nfrom the hair is remarkably great.[134] Besides, the differences which\npresent themselves do not relate merely to colour; the hair of a race\nof men may be either smooth, or woolly, or crisped, for in general\nthese two latter terms are wrongly and indifferently used, when they\nought really to point out two particular and distinct states. It is\nthus that the inhabitants of Lower Nubia, for instance, who have a very\ndeep shade of colour, possess curled hair, truly _woolly_, and quite\ndifferent to that of the Negro, whose hair is really _crisped_.[135]\nOther characteristics may be demanded from the length of the\nhair, from its transverse section,--the figure of which may vary\nconsiderably,--from its flexibility or its quantity; in fact, even from\nits manner of being placed in the head, the arrangement of which upon\nthe scalp has never been properly studied, and which may, perhaps, vary\nwith the different races of mankind. In fact, human hairs, like that\nof many mammalia, are not placed at equal distances the one from the\nother; they approach each other in little groups. This is especially\nseen in the nape of the neck, and among the Negro race much more so\nthan among the Europeans.\n\nThis fact, joined to the irregularly prismatic form of the hair in the\nNegro, is doubtless the origin of the following peculiarity: when the\nhead of a Negro has been shaved, and the hair begins to grow afresh,\none is especially struck with its strange appearance. It is arranged\nin little tufts about the size of a pea, so that the head, it has been\nremarked,[136] resembles nothing more closely than an old worn-out\nbrush.\n\nThis peculiarity is special to the Negro, and is not found in the\nnorth-east of Africa, where the neighbouring population have _woolly_\nhair. Among the enumeration of the numberless perfections which a\ndogmatic Hind\u00fa requires from Buddha, and which \u00c7akhya-Mouni possessed,\nit is said, \u201cThe hair of Buddha shoots forth in little ringlets.\u201d[137]\nIt is impossible to describe better what happens with the Negro.\nAll this Hindoo tradition is, besides, a veritable enigma for the\nanthropologist. Why is Buddha depicted with the palms of the hands\ndescending to the knees?[138] Why is the mendicant son of a king,\nborn on the banks of the Ganges, always represented with the features\nor characteristics of a Negro, with black skin, and crisped hair?\nNevertheless, \u00c7akhya-Mouni did not belong to these inferior varieties\nof the human race, of whose existence in the Indian Peninsula we have\nalready spoken; in that case, he would have been unfit to formulate any\ndoctrine, either moral or philosophic.\n\nThe rest of the pilous system, not less than that of the hair, merits\nthe attention of the anthropologist. Thus, a very especial fact,\nand to which, in our opinion, sufficient importance has never been\nattached, is, on the one hand, the relative abundance of the beard\namong the various races of mankind; and on the other, the time of its\ndevelopment. The Chinese, for example, is for a long time beardless,\nand it is only about his fortieth year that a few stiff hairs begin to\nappear upon his face.\n\nAmong the Negroes, the Americans, and the Polar race, the hair is, in\nthe same way, very slightly developed on the face. \u201cThe length of our\nbeards (of thirty days growth), which had not been shaved since we left\nthe _Victory_,\u201d said Sir John Ross,[139] \u201cwas, among other things, a\nsource of great amusement, while one of them, a stranger, whose beard\nwas of unusual length among this tribe, claimed consanguinity with us\non that ground.\u201d The thick and close beard seems, in regarding the\nmatter closely, the exclusive appanage of that race which, sprung\nfrom the Ima\u00fcs, spread over the whole of Europe, and whose finest\nrepresentatives still inhabit the table-lands of Iran.[140] Our\nneighbours, the Semites, are far from being so well provided; and\nLieut.-Colonel H. Smith has[141] not, perhaps, done wrong in proposing\nto make an abundant pilous system the characteristic of one race, just\nas the crisped state of the hair would become the characteristic of\nanother.\n\nThe systems of animal life, doubtless, show as many varieties among\ndifferent races of men as the systems of the life of relationship; only\nthese varieties are much less known. It will be sufficient for us to\nremember in this place the darker colour of the blood and the _sperma_\namong the Negro race, as already remarked by Aristotle and verified by\nJacquinot, and the equally dark tint of the nervous centres; so that\nthe whole \u0153conomy of the Negro is, even in the most hidden parts (and\nthose most distant from solar or atmospheric influence), impregnated\nwith colouring matter.\n\nLet us notice, also, the development of the small _labia_ among\nthe Hottentot women, that of the _prepuce_ and the _clitoris_\namong the Semitic race, and even the size of the _penis_ among the\nEthiopians--such a size that it would almost impede the union of a\nblack man with a white woman, whilst the union of a white man with\na Negress would occur without any impediment. This remark, quite in\nagreement with the theories of M. d\u2019Eichthal, has been made by a\nmonogenist;[142] we have merely the right to wonder at it. How can\nwe reconcile this impossibility, were it even a shade of a real one,\nwith the notion of indefinite and universal reproduction, which all\nmonogenists--wrongly, as we shall see--make one of their strongest\narguments in favour of the specific unity of man?\n\nII. What we call physiological differences are certain functional\nforms of the same organ, particular to certain races. This is, as may\nbe seen, an entirely artificial distinction, since these differences\nmust necessarily and forcibly refer to material, that is, to anatomical\ndifferences.\n\nThese alone, either from their small value, or from some other\ncause, have been hitherto unknown; whilst their effects, being more\nsensible, have not failed to escape our observation. If an Esquimaux,\nfor instance, eats in one day the food of six English sailors,[143]\nit is evident that the intestines, the stomach, and the glands which\nborder on them, present special modifications with reference to this\nkind of nourishment, so different from the frugivorous diet for which\nman\u2019s organism is adapted. When a Tartar sees further than a European\nwho is using a telescope,[144] it is certain that such a functional\nsuperiority depends only on the material quality of the organ,--from\na more perfect arrangement of the visual apparatus,--from the more\nperfect nature of the medium refractive powers of the eye.\n\nIt has often been desired to refer these kind of modifications to the\neducation of the race or the individual. The education of the race by\nitself, independently of the ordinary course, seems to us difficult\nto admit, since education, in this case, would suppose a triumphant\nstruggle against the ordinary course of things. Every animal comes\ninto the world as its parents came, or, at least, apparently so. If he\nbrings with him, by inheritance, certain particular characteristics,\nthey must necessarily in time become obliterated either by their\nown means, or by destroying all those who possess them (the case of\nhereditary degeneracy). In fact, if perfection in a race were possible\nby means of an individual, the consequence would be that very soon our\ndescendants would be no longer in relationship with the circumambient\nmedium, which would be an absurdity.[145]\n\nAs to individual education, it has an undeniable influence; but this\ndoes not suffice to explain such important differences. We never find\nthat Europeans, who happen to be thrown among savages, attain to these\npeculiarly fine and delicate perceptions so special to many aborigines.\nAnd, moreover, the American residing in boundless forests, where the\nview is always restricted, has as piercing a glance as the Kalmuc upon\nhis plain. The question of the education of an organ or a system by\nthe individual himself will be cleared up, doubtless, one of these\ndays, by attentive anatomy. And since we are upon the subject, let us\nremember that an important study still remains, hitherto merely glanced\nat,--that of the influence which, for instance, the milk of an animal\nor a female of another race may have upon the development or the health\nof a white child.\n\nThe differences which we call physiological are very numerous; we\nshall, however, only quote two or three from among the most striking.\nThe principal point, perhaps, is the peculiar smell of the Negro.\nThis is so strong, that it even impregnates for some time a place\nwhere a Negro may only have remained for a few hours, and it is so\ncharacteristic, that it alone constitutes a grave presumption in\nmatters of slave-trading; for Humboldt has stated concerning the\nPeruvians what Le Cat and Haller said about the savages of the\nAntilles, that they could perfectly trace a Negro by scent, thanks to\nthis odour; and it is, at the same time, a new proof of the sensitive\nperfection of the American race. This odour is quite independent\nof age, and sometimes is almost insupportable in young children;\nit is also independent of sweat, and, in fact, of all the means of\ncleanliness of which a Negro can make use.[146] It is due, according to\nall appearance, to a secretion from the same glands which, in the white\nman, give such a peculiar odour to the arm-pits; but this latter is\nabsolutely different from that of the Negro.[147] With regard to this,\nwe must not lose the occasion of noticing one of those contradictions\ninto which monogenists have so often fallen, and, indeed, it could\nnot be otherwise. \u201cThe dog does not come from the jackal,\u201d says M.\nFlourens,[148] \u201cfor the jackal has such a peculiar smell, that it does\nnot seem possible that, in this case, the dog should not have preserved\nsome traces of it at least.\u201d Shall we reason in the same manner in\norder to make a special race of the Negro, and would this monogenist\naccept it?\n\nAnother very remarkable physiological peculiarity, and one quite\nas worthy of being noticed, since it has a certain effect upon\nphysiognomy, upon the _facies_ of a race, is a special mode of\nstanding, consisting in holding oneself in a squatting position, the\nsole of the foot on the ground, and the thighs bent up against the\nhams, without the _ischia_ touching the ground. This effect is what\nCook called \u201ca monkey countenance.\u201d[149]\n\nWe find nowhere that the Greeks,--the inhabitants of the ancient\ncontinent generally,--the Arabs, or even the ancient Egyptians\nthemselves, have ever been accustomed to this position, which\nnecessarily implies some anatomical modification, whether it be in the\nseparation of the pelvis, the direction of the neck of the thigh-bone,\nor the torsion of the bones, etc.[150] This position seems, on the\ncontrary, to have been always the peculiarity of the Melanesian races;\nit is the ordinary mode of _standing_ among the inhabitants in the\nupper course of the Nile, and the Negroes of Africa and the Oceanic\nIslands. They place themselves thus in order to look at anything,\nto chat together, or to deliberate. The magnificent drawings which\nillustrate the account of the travels of the English Embassy to the\nEmperor of Abyssinia,[151] represent this monarch as reviewing an\nentire army of infantry drawn up in order of battle, and all squatting\nin this manner.\n\nThe ancient Egyptians generally kept themselves either on their knees\nor seated on the ground, the legs brought together, and the knees\ntouching in front of the chest, as thousands of statues, figures, and\npictures show us. But their artists have just revealed to us that the\npeople of Central Africa have always been as they are at the present\nday. The great painting of Be\u00eft-Oually, in Nubia,[152] represents\nRameses the Great as charging a troop of Negroes from Soudan; on\none side, farther off, we see a Negro near a saucepan, preparing,\ndoubtless, some food; he is squatting in the manner of which we\nhave just spoken. In this place, as is often the case, the Egyptian\nartist has been clever in seizing a profile by its most significant\ncharacteristic.[153]\n\nG\u00e9ricault wished at one time to make a drawing of an episode in the\n\u201cShipwreck of the Medusa,\u201d Cor\u00e9ard making signs to an African chief\nwho was seated on the sand; he placed in his composition a Negro\nsquatting, but he drew him with one foot resting entirely on the\nground, and the other bearing only on the extremity of the metatarsi.\nAt that time G\u00e9ricault had only a white man as a model; a Negro would\nhave placed himself differently, with both his feet flat on the ground.\n\nWe might pursue the history of these physiological varieties _ad\ninfinitum_,--it is a large field for the enquirer; and to mention one\nfact alone, the compared history of development among the different\nraces of mankind has still to be accomplished, especially the history\nof the intra-uterine development of the Negro, and even partly the\nhistory of the first months of his a\u00ebrial life.\n\nIII. If organism, operating normally among different races, presents\nsuch varieties, why can we not suppose that it would hence show\ncorrelative differences in its morbid changes? should there not\nbe, also, an ethnic pathology? This contains a large question, and\nyet it was scarcely thought of a few years ago. It seems to have\nbeen first proposed and studied by F. Schnurrer in his treatise on\n_Geographical Pathology_,[154] in 1813, in which the author seems to\nhave perceived imperfectly, in all its vastness, the matter which now\noccupies our attention. The book is divided into three parts; the\nfirst is entirely geographical, the second entirely anthropological,\nand the third is given up to a description of maladies, commencing\nwith two introductory chapters; the first describing the diseases\nof each zone, and the second, containing eleven pages, is a \u201cGlance\nat the general Characteristics of Disease in each Race.\u201d \u201cIn fact,\u201d\nsays Dr. Boudin,[155] in pointing out the novelty of these enquiries,\n\u201cthere are some races who show themselves completely rebellious to\ncertain pathological forms, for which others, on the contrary, show a\nremarkable pre-disposition.\u201d\n\nTwo particular maladies have been pointed out in this point of\nview,--_marsh-poisoning_ in all its forms, and _yellow fever_.\nAfricans are evidently, at least in parts, exempt from these two\ndiseases, which only attack them with a very minor force. It has\nbeen said that the question of marsh-poisoning is still very\ndoubtful; it was allowed that the Negroes were less exposed to its\nattacks than other men, but it was desired to enter the question of\nacclimatisation[156] into the calculation of facts. All the countries\nwe know that are inhabited by blacks, being nearly all subject to the\nnoxious influence of marshes, it was pretended that even stranger\nNegroes had acquired from infancy, in their own country, an immunity by\nwhich they benefited later in life, and even had the power of handing\nit down to their descendants.[157] It is thus that some have explained,\nfor instance, the unhappy results of the English expedition to the\nNiger in 1841. Out of 145 whites belonging to the crews, the three\nvessels, after a navigation of about forty-nine days on the river, had\nlost 40 men (130 were attacked). Out of the twenty-five coloured men\nembarked in England, and who were mostly born in America, eleven were\nseized with illness, but not one of them died.[158] This individual\nacclimatisation can only be either a fiction, or a proof in support\nof the ideas which we defend. In the presence of a morbid influence\nwhich shows itself and continues, two things alone can happen,--either\ndestruction, or permanent (that is to say, _specific_) modifications\nof \u0153conomy, in harmony with the ordinary manner in which this animal\npopulation continues to exist.\n\nThe yellow fever, exercising its ravages upon shores equally distant\nfrom whites and negroes, has brought very decisive arguments into\nthe question. We know, in fact, that the whites suffer in America\nfrom the black vomit in all its violence; whilst the Negroes are not\nattacked by it, or if they are, its effects are insignificant.[159] A\nferocious maxim, one worthy of the conquerors, has explained--since\nthe sixteenth century--this prerogative, which the Spaniards had so\nmuch reason to envy, \u201cIf we did not hang a Negro, he would never\ndie.\u201d[160] If some authors have timidly advanced the theory of a former\nacclimatisation[161] with regard to marsh-poisoning, the greater number\nof observers, Fenner, Nott, and Bryant, ought to admit that there was,\neven in the constitution of the black man, an obstacle--otherwise\nabsolutely unknown in his nature--to the manifestation of the\nyellow fever;[162] and that the black blood appeared to carry on\nthis resisting force to the mixed breed, even if they were born far\naway.[163]\n\nAn extremely interesting experiment relating to this immunity of the\nNegro from the yellow fever, was tried largely during the disastrous\nMexican expedition, and the conditions of this experience ought to\ngive it a capital value. At first, our soldiers paid a terrible\ntribute to this scourge, and then the French Government took up the\nexcellent idea of profiting by the resistance of the Negro race\nto the black vomit. It asked for a battalion of blacks from the\nviceroy of Egypt, consisting of men recruited from the limits of\nSoudan, from Berber to Khartoum. It was not without anxiety that the\nissue of this physiological experiment was watched, since it did not\nhappen, as in our laboratories, _in anima vili_. Some had confidence\nin the functional uniformity of the Negro race, as being beyond all\nlocal action; others believing wrongly, as we said, in a former\nacclimatisation of the only inhabitants of the western coast of Africa,\nexpected to find that all these Negroes from the other side of the\ncontinent would perish. However, in spite of what they had at first\nsaid, they could very soon verify the almost complete immunity of the\nNegro battalion at Vera-Cruz.[164] It was the first time, if we are not\nmistaken, that anthropology has been directly applied in the Old World\nto social science. Some time ago anthropologists were consulted by the\ngovernment of the Northern States of America upon certain questions\nof slavery, at the time when terrible dissensions were budding in the\nshadows of the distance.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V.\n\nINTELLECTUAL AND PHILOLOGICAL VARIETIES.\n\n\nFrom time immemorial, common sense has enlightened mankind upon the\nintellectual differences which make one nation differ from another,\nand one race from another. Almost all nations, in admitting that they\nare superior to their neighbours, acknowledge thereby a characteristic\ndifference between themselves and those whom they thus place below\ntheir own level. An overweening sense of vanity may possibly cause\ndeception in this case; but this belief is, at least, based on a\nveritable fact,--intellectual inequality. There are, indeed, sensible\nand manifest differences, which no one will deny, especially those who\nseek in the literary monuments of a race for the history of its ideas\nand its tendencies, and those who have mingled with other nations, and\nwho have examined their manners, their customs and their religion. \u201cIt\nis sufficient to have seen the blacks,\u201d says their most enthusiastic\ndefender,[165] \u201cto have lived some time with them, to feel that there\nis in them a humanity quite different to that of the white man.\u201d[166]\nSome persons have wished to deceive themselves; they have wished to\nraise the Negro race to our own level, in the name of some sort of\nsentimental feeling, which, moreover, has always turned out to be a\nmistake. Many persons have been engaged upon them. Not being able to\ngive them plastic equality, they had recourse to intelligence,--they\nwished to deceive themselves, like Desdemona, when she said,--\n\n  \u201cI saw Othello\u2019s visage in his mind.\u201d[167]\n\nThe Negro was declared to be our equal by the moral law, only with\ncertain shades of distinction depending on some particular and\ntransient circumstances which would soon disappear. It was announced\nthat, _in their turn_, they would advance ideas, and would work at what\nis called _progress_, that is to say, \u201cthe increase of good on the\nearth.\u201d[168] \u201cIn proportion as work makes vital energy to predominate\nin the head,\u201d said M. Marcel de Serres in 1844, \u201cthese deeply coloured\nmen,[169] with crisped, woolly, or short hair, will tend in a manifest\nmanner towards the white race,--will march with them in the path\nof progress.\u201d[170] And farther on, \u201cThis experiment has scarcely\ncommenced, but it already shows sensible effects.\u201d Unfortunately, the\ntwenty years which have passed since these words were written, have\nnot shown that they are true; and the challenge offered by an American\nhas never yet been accepted, \u201cLet anyone quote to me one single line\nwritten by a Negro which is worthy of being remembered.\u201d[171] They are\nnot more advanced now than at the time when Mohammed refused them the\ngift of prophecy.[172] And, as Dr. Hunt remarks, there is certainly no\nmeans of civilising those who have been uncivilised for three thousand\nyears, during which time they have been connected with the Egyptians,\nthe Carthaginians, the Arabs, the Portuguese, the Dutch and the\nEnglish.[173] If it be objected that they have always been slaves, we\nmay say our Gallic and German ancestors were so also; but we ask, _Why\ndo they continue to be slaves?_\n\nThe merit of first endeavouring to distinguish races of men by\ncharacteristics taken from without the physical world, by the quality\nof the manifestations of their intelligence, is, perhaps, due to\nLinn\u00e6us. With this spirit of laconism, which led him to group in one\nsimple and easy formula the characteristic facts which he desired to\nimpress on the mind of the reader as being important, he endeavoured to\ndetermine, in a few words, the various tendencies of different races,\nand it must be acknowledged that he has at times been happy in this\nkind of synoptic classification.[174]\n\nIn proportion as modern knowledge has made us penetrate more deeply\ninto the minds of races,--since we are no longer contented with\nstudying them superficially in the ordinary manifestations of life,\nwhich we may call \u201ccommon-place,\u201d and which belong to nearly all\ncountries,--we perceive that insuperable limits separate one set of\nmen from another with regard to intellectual affinity, so that here,\nas in the case of physical characteristics, each race is almost to\nbe distinguished from its neighbours. \u201cProfound and unchangeable\ndifferences,\u201d said M. Paul de Remusat,[175] in 1854, \u201cwhich would,\nperhaps, suffice of themselves to found definite and thoroughly limited\nclassifications.\u201d\n\nIt was in order to point out a new branch of anthropology, a new and\nfruitful branch,--that a work appeared which was destined to throw\na bright light on the subject. It was necessary to explain these\ndistinctions, and not merely to enunciate them. The merit in this\nmatter belongs to M. Renan, who, in his treatise on the languages\nof the great Semitic family, has painted, from the most favourable\ncharacteristics, this humanity which is, morally, so different from\nour own, however like it may be in external form. The intellectual\ndisparity of races is henceforward an undeniable fact.\n\nThe religious or moral system of a people being the highest\nmanifestations of its intellectual tendencies, we see that the study\nof religions enters quite naturally into anthropology; it is a part\nof this comparable study of the human mind, unfortunately too much\nneglected, but which begins to take a place worthy of its importance\nin the world of science.[176] We do not wish to discuss theological\nor religious questions, the anthropologist ought to leave them to\nothers. His duty is to endeavour to put himself outside the narrow\ncircle in which nature has placed him; to forget, as much as possible,\nhis inclinations and personal sentiments; to look around him; to put\nthe world in one view, and to endeavour to be the sole spectator of the\nsame. Then a curious phenomenon will strike his gaze,--the chains of\nmountains and the rivers which separate the various races of mankind,\nwill also separate different religions. Like the sea which breaks on\nthe shore, every belief has seen its disciples, armed with the sword,\nor with the pacific weapons of persuasion, stop at certain limits, over\nwhich they are not permitted to pass. Of course, we only speak here of\ntrue proselytism, of real progress in religion in its form and spirit.\nHumboldt and Bonpland saw, one day, in the Cordilleras, a savage\ncrowd dancing and brandishing the war-hatchet round an altar where\na Franciscan was elevating the Host. Such neophytes are only called\nChristians in the _Annales de la Propagation de la Foi_,--they are not\nconverts in the opinion of the anthropologist.\n\nPure monotheism seems always to have been the religion of the Semitic\nrace. Most European nations, on the contrary, have professed from\nantiquity, a polytheism or a pantheism, more or less disguised, more\nor less acknowledged. In fact, by the side of those nations of Asia\nand Europe, where civilisation and religious ideas appear to have\nsimultaneously been developed, although in different directions, we\nfind other people who have neither religious ideas, nor gods, nor any\nkind of worship.[177]\n\nThree vast regions of the earth, inhabited by people still in a savage\nstate, appear to have remained, up to the present day, free from\nreligious beliefs; these are Central Africa, Australia, and the country\naround the North Pole,--that is to say, the three parts of the world\nwhich are most difficult to explore,--the only parts which have even\nnot yet been thoroughly examined. And this is one consequence of this\nwant of exploration; it supposes a sort of sequestration from the rest\nof the world, which has not even succumbed to civilisation by this\ncontact and imitation of which we have already spoken. Let us admit\nthat relations were established by these people with their neighbours;\nthey would soon have imported from the foreigner conceptions which\nwould even then have never taken a form, on account of the small\nportion of intellect which nature had given to them.\n\nReferring to the inhabitants of Australia, Latham acknowledges that\nthe general opinion is, in fact, that they have not yet commenced to\nshape the rudest elements of a _religion_,[178] \u201can opinion,\u201d he says,\n\u201cwhich causes the idea that their intellects are too sluggish even\nfor the maintenance of superstition.\u201d It is certainly true that, in\nthe American expedition under Captain Gray, it was thought that some\nreligious ideas could be perceived among them; but it appears from\nthe same account that the song which constituted all this apparent\nreligion, had been brought from far by strangers, and adopted by\nthe natives,--doubtless, by other Australians, who had already been\ninfluenced by the Christian ideas of the white men, or the Buddhist\nprinciples of the Malays.\n\nTo relate the history of the introduction of an idea among a people\nis, in reality, to declare and prove that this idea did not exist\nthere before, which is sufficient for us if we can be assured of the\nfact. The testimony of missionaries[179] is, besides, consonant with\nthat which we have just said; and we may remark on the importance of\nassertions coming from men whose whole study is to discover, in the\npeople whom they desire to convert, ideas analogous to those which\nthey endeavour to propagate. \u201cThey have no idea of a Divine Being,\u201d\nsays one of these men; \u201cthey appear to have no comprehension of the\nthings they commit to memory,--I mean especially as regards religious\nsubjects.\u201d \u201cWhat can we do,\u201d says another, \u201cwith a nation whose\nlanguage possesses no terms corresponding to _justice_ or _sin_, and to\nwhose mind the ideas expressed by these words are completely strange\nand inexplicable?\u201d\n\nAs to Central Africa, we confine ourselves to relating a few facts\nrelative to this want of religious belief, gathered from different\npoints in the periphery of the vast triangle, almost unexplored\nand unknown, which is described by lines joining together Senegal,\nZanzibar, and the Cape.\n\nAn American missionary,[180] who lived four years amongst the Mpongwes,\none of the most important nations of Central Africa, the Mandingos,\nand the Grebos, and who knew their language perfectly, declares that\nthey had neither religion, nor priests, nor idolatry, nor any religious\nassemblies whatsoever. Dr. Livingstone says the same thing concerning\nthe Bechuanas.[181] The Austrian missionaries, established upon the\ndistant banks of the White Nile, have met with the same want of\nreligion, the same void[182] in the mind. In fact, among the Caffres,\nthe name which they give to the Divine Being, as among the Hottentots,\nis undeniable evidence that they formerly had no idea of anything\nsimilar. This name is _Tixo_, and its history is too curious not to\nbe related; it is composed of two words which, together, signify the\n\u201cwounded knee.\u201d It was, they say, the name of a doctor or sorcerer,\nwell known among the Hottentots and Namaquas, on account of some\nwound which he had received on his knee. Having been held in great\nestimation for his extraordinary power during his life, the Wounded\nKnee continued to be invoked even after his death, as being able to\ncomfort and protect; and consequently his name became the term which\nbest represented, to the minds of his countrymen, their confused idea\nof the missionaries\u2019 God!\n\nAs to the Esquimaux, since 1612, Whitebourne wrote that they had no\nknowledge of God, and lived without any form of civil government.\nAnd we can add to this distant testimony the following lines from\nthe journal of Sir John Ross, who lived for a long time in the midst\nof them. \u201cDid they comprehend anything of all that I attempted to\nexplain, explaining the simplest things in the simplest manner that I\ncould devise? I could not conjecture. Should I have gained more had I\nbetter understood their language? I have _much reason_ to doubt. That\nthey have a moral law of some extent \u2018written in the heart,\u2019 I could\nnot doubt, as numerous traits of their conduct show, but beyond this,\nI could satisfy myself of nothing; nor did these efforts, and many\nmore, enable me to conjecture aught worth recording. Respecting their\nopinions on the essential points from which I might have presumed on a\nreligion, I was obliged at present to abandon the attempt, and I was\ninclined to despair.\u201d[183]\n\nThis extract is so much the more important for our thesis, since we\nperceive in every word the chagrin of a man who did not find in the\nhearts of others a fraternal echo to his dearest sentiments. It is, in\ntruth, a difficulty peculiar to the study of questions of this nature.\nWe must, therefore, be very careful in discussing the value of any\ntestimony which may be brought forward, and to distrust those minds\nwhich begin by declaring _\u00e0 priori_ the universality of beliefs, hopes,\nand fears among mankind, as a natural consequence of the primitive\nunity of the human species. We must always examine most minutely the\naccounts of travellers to which we are obliged to refer. Thus, for\nexample, it is evident that the older the evidence, the better it is;\nbut at the same time, the farther it goes back, the less chance there\nis that it emanates from an independent and impartial mind, free from\nall prejudice.\n\nHappily, the exaggeration of these ideas must often suffice to put us\non our guard against them, like the candid Jesuit, whose zealous but\nhazy faith thought it had discovered traces of St. Thomas\u2019s preaching\nin Brazil.[184] In an otherwise good notice of the Esquimaux,[185]\nDr. King says, \u201cthat these people have preserved, like many other\nuncivilised races, a vague remembrance of the creation and of the\ndeluge, and that they believe in future rewards and punishments.\u201d\nIn his religious zeal, Dr. King forgets that if the Esquimaux had\nbeen able to bring a confused tradition of even the deluge and the\ncreation from the valley of the Euphrates, it was impossible it could\nhave been the same with a belief in future rewards and punishments,\nseeing that the Jews themselves never possessed this belief before\ntheir contact with Assyrian civilisation. We may read in Dr. Brecher\u2019s\nexcellent work[186] the whole history of the development of this\nbelief in the immortality of the soul. If the German doctor wishes\npiously to prove that the Jews ought, morally, to have always believed\nin this immortality, at all events, his zeal has been able to invent\nreal proofs, which in fact, are wanting. The famous _scheol_, which\nis mentioned so often in old Hebrew books, appears to be merely\nthe kingdom of the _dead_, and not that of _souls_, like hell,\nTartarus, the Elysian fields, and Paradise; the _scheol_ is but an\nideal representation of the tomb. Even at the time when the Jews had\ngenerally adopted the ideas of their neighbours, during the Talmudic\nperiod, the belief in the immortality of the soul, if it existed, was\nneither completely clear nor well reasoned, since they refused all\nparticipation in a future life to those who denied the resurrection and\nthe last judgment, \u201cwhich was equivalent to entire annihilation.\u201d[187]\nTo believe this, is certainly not to believe in the immortality of the\nsoul, since they regarded eternal life not as a necessary consequence,\nbut as a recompense for _good principles_, and having faith in them.\nSuch an inconsistency is the clearest possible proof that, even at this\nperiod, these ideas had not undergone the change which brought them\nto the actual point of clearness. They were also not yet completely\nfreed from the ancient belief which the Sadducees, besides, had not\nabandoned; they were the faithful preservers of the ancient faith, and\nthe pure tradition of the sons of Israel. \u201cThey have the theory that\nthe soul dies with the body,\u201d wrote Josephus,[188] \u201cand consider that\nthey ought to keep nothing but the law.\u201d\n\nWe must be pardoned for insisting so much upon this point; but it is\nof importance as regards our thesis to show that the belief in the\nimmortality of the soul, and in a divinity, is not universal on the\nglobe, that one general characteristic of humanity could not be formed\nfrom it, and that we ought even less to rely upon the existence of\nsuch ideas in order to establish a human kingdom. We have only spoken\nof people who are either entirely savage, or of Jewish opinions, which\nhave long been lost in the past. Even in our own time, there are two\nhundred million Buddhists on the earth, who have reached a marvellous\npoint of civilisation, who ignore, in the most absolute manner,\nthe notion of another life and that of a divinity. Eug\u00e8ne Burnouf,\nwhose ability no one will deny, has already said it; M. Barth\u00e9lemy\nSaint-Hilaire, after much hesitation, which will remain as the seal\nof a firmly established conviction, has decided in the same way, in\nthe last edition of _Bouddha et sa Religion_.[189] We quote his own\nwords:--\u201cThere is not the slightest trace of a belief in God in all\nBuddhism; and to suppose that it admits the absorption of the human\nsoul into a divine or infinite soul, is a gratuitous supposition which\ncannot even enter into the ideas of the Buddhist. In order to believe\nthat man can lose himself in the God to which he is reunited, this God\nmust first be _believed in_ as a necessary commencement. But we can\nscarcely say that the Buddhist does not believe in Him. He ignores God\nin such a complete manner, that he does not even care about denying\nHis existence; he does not care about trying to abolish Him; he\nneither mentions such a being in order to explain the origin or the\nanterior existence of man, his present life, nor for the purpose of\nconjecturing his future state, and his eventual freedom. The Buddhist\nhas no acquaintance whatsoever with a God, and, quite given up to his\nown heroic sorrows and sympathies, he has never cast his eyes so far or\nso high.\u201d And the author adds the following lines, which have a direct\nbearing on anthropology, and which are like the sum of all we have just\nbrought forward:--\u201cThe human mind has scarcely been observed but in the\nraces to which we ourselves belong. These races deserve, certainly, a\nhigh place in our studies; but if they are the most important, they do\nnot stand alone. Ought not the others to be noticed, although they are\nsaid to be so inferior? If they do not enter into the hastily drawn\noutline, must they be disfigured by submitting them to over-strict\ntheories? Is it not a better plan to acknowledge that old systems are\nfaulty, and that they are not comprehensive enough in _everything_\nwhich they undertake to explain?\u201d[190]\n\nThe question of intellectual differences, like, indeed, all the other\npoints in anthropological study, has largely exercised the inventive\ngenius of monogenists, for it must be owned that all the efforts of\nimagination proceed from them. It is not more difficult to admit the\ndevelopment of one or twenty human species upon our planet, than the\ndevelopment of a single moss or sea-weed; they are phenomena of the\nsame order, and equally beyond the actual limits of our knowledge; but\nthis first step taken, anthropology opens itself to the polygenist as\nsimple and easy; he follows, without any trouble, all phenomena, from\ncause to effect,--everything enters into one general order,--everything\nis marvellously simple, in spite of apparent complication. It is\nnot the same with the monogenist; ruled continually by his theory,\nhe goes on almost painfully, and at every step some new obstacle is\nraised to impede his progress. If he thinks he has conquered physical\ndifferences, psychological varieties start up; then will arise families\nof different tongues, quite as radically distinct and as difficult to\nexplain; and yet it is in vain that the obstacle seems so great and\ninsurmountable, it _must_ be overcome, it _must_ be passed in the name\nof an admitted principle, cost what it may so to do. Thus it is that\nmonogenists have sometimes arrived at the most curious, but at the same\ntime most unfortunate, results.\n\nAnd if we wished to form sentiment from science, we should ask,\nwhich is the most reasonable, the most worthy, and the most\nconsoling,--whether to believe that we alone are perfect, and that\nnine-tenths of our brethren who cover the globe are disinherited;\nor to consider all these varied existences which we see around\nus as forming equal, if not similar, species, pursuing, each in\nits own way, a destiny, different, indeed, but not degraded,--not\ndegenerated,--in certain points even better arranged than our own.\n\u201cGod,\u201d said Niebuhr, \u201chas marked on each race of men their destination\nwith the characteristic which best suits them\u201d and the philosopher had\nalready learnt by history that when civilisation has been suddenly\nintroduced from without among a savage nation,[191] the consequence\nis an immediate physical degeneracy, that is to say, the destruction\nof the people which has wandered from its usual mode of life. The\nhistorian thus proclaimed a physiological law, which most monogenists\nare glad to forget,--that all degeneracy ends necessarily in death;\nit kills itself, and always at the tenth generation, if not at the\nfirst. No group of human beings, after two or three generations of\nunmixed existence, can be considered as degraded or degenerated, not\nmore than we should admit that a young girl, attacked with cretinism in\nits greatest degree, had the characteristics of the Esquimaux or the\nMongolian race.[192]\n\nWe can see, even in a humanitarian point of view,--the point of view\nin which we refuse to place ourselves,--that the polygenists have the\nadvantage. The mind is not offended, and cannot be so, to see certain\ncreatures possess some particular faculty to the exclusion of others.\nDoes not harmony obtain an absolute value from a necessary inequality\nof parts, whilst she herself restores to each part an equal value, in\nmaking them all co-operate towards the same end, the same _action_,\nin which are distributed great and minor parts,--some brilliant, some\nhumble, some concealed?[193]\n\nThat fine North American race, which is so much admired by all who have\nlived among them, will be no longer, according to Dr. Martius,[194]\nthe worthy descendant of the first murderer, a collection of maniacs\nand insane folks, brought to that state by misery and the reprobation\nof God. We only see in them men endowed like ourselves, but more in\nharmony with the nature which animates them, having, of course, their\nimperfections like ourselves, but giving us also an example of great\nqualities, firmness, courage, patience, and an intense love of liberty.\nWhites and blacks may be slaves, but the American has never served a\nmaster.[195] The Negro himself has his advantages; and we could not,\nperhaps, struggle with him about affective or hateful faculties. M. de\nGobineau seems to us to be strangely mistaken in the portrait which he\nhas attempted to draw of the black man; he has made his race hideous;\nit is only inferior _in relation to ourselves_; it is equal to some,\nand superior to others, not partaking, indeed, of all the advantages of\nthe Iranian or Semitic races, but able to display other qualities which\nbelong particularly to itself.\n\nIn the place of this spectacle, which is thus presented to our view,\nof degraded beings covering half the earth, we simply see, for our\npart, intelligence developing itself in each race, following certain\ndirections and tendencies at the expense of others. These special\ntendencies are sometimes very remarkable. In his intercourse with\nthe Esquimaux, Sir John Ross, whose observing mind we have several\ntimes had occasion to notice, found that they were nearly all good\ngeographers. He put into their hands a pencil and paper (of the use\nof which they were certainly ignorant), and they drew with great\ncorrectness the bays, rivers, islands, and lakes of their country,\nas well as the exact spots where they had encamped at some former\nemigration. This is a curious contrast with most of the African and\nArab peoples, who seem to have but a very vague idea of distance\nor time; indeed, the difficulty of finding out routes among the\ninhabitants of Soudan, which we have ourselves experienced, has\nbecome almost proverbial.[196] Without going so far as all that, our\nneighbours, the Semites, differ from ourselves in the manner and\nquality of their mind to an extraordinary degree; on the one side is\nthe Aryan, an analyst, a pantheist, given to the plastic or perspective\nreproduction of everything which surrounds him; on the other, the\nSemite, a sensualist, a monotheist, an iconoclast. If it is radically\nimpossible for the Semite to follow us in the depths of metaphysics,\nhis language even being opposed to all philosophic demonstration;\nin our turn, perhaps, we are less religious,--that is to say, less\nsolemnly struck by the universe. The thought of demonstrating God,\nand proving this thought, will never come to the Semite as it did to\nBossuet, F\u00e9n\u00e9lon, and Newton.[197] The Semite feels God, if we may\nso express it; and, as if absorbed and astounded by this personified\ncreative force, whose shadow presses on him, he does not understand the\narts of reproduction, although among all the people who excel in it.\n\nIn fact, history itself will teach us that these tendencies are so much\naccused and so general, that they are found everywhere; in one place\nrising even above conquest, in another, modifying itself to imported\nreligions. When a religion, in accordance with the genius of the men to\nwhom it has been addressed from the cradle, passes from this race to\nanother, it is necessarily modified. Pure monotheism, born in the east,\nhas only conquered the west and the Iranian race by transforming itself\nto their pleasure. The Persians accepted Islam; but they have not been\nable to renounce this necessity for plastic reproduction, which is one\nof the characteristics of the Iranian family: a schism became formed,\nwhich authorised all the arts, and left in entire freedom that natural\ntendency which could not be smothered. Far more than the monsters in\nIsaiah\u2019s dream, the lions of the Alhambra were a terrible prophesy.\nThose who see them may read in their huge figures the vitality of a\nconquered nation, whose love of the living form invaded even the palace\nof the conquerors, and which were soon to make them fly. The race which\nflourished at Athens and at Rome only accepted Christianity, which\nalso came from the east, by despoiling it of its original character;\nand this religion would, at the present day, be incapable of making\nproselytes in that east where it first took its rise. The preaching\nof Mohammed was, as M. Renan has remarked, but a reaction of pure\nmonotheism against degenerated Christianity, concealing but badly its\npolytheistic tendencies.\n\nIn truth, the psychological study of the human race is a new science,\nwhich has been examined into on some points, but not in all. To desire\nto sketch it would be to fall into the alternative either of doing what\nothers have done perfectly, or to fall into error for want of necessary\nmaterials. We can only quote, as having been well studied,--first,\nthe Iranian race, by all our moralists and philosophers; secondly, the\nSemitic race, by M. Renan; and thirdly, the American race, by Humboldt\nand Bonpland,[198] by d\u2019Orbigny,[199] Morton,[200] and Coombe.[201]\n\nII. The study of languages is connected, on the one hand, to the\nphysiology of the human race, but more immediately still to the study\nof the varieties of the human mind, of which they are in some measure\nthe organ. They can by this means assist also in classifying mankind\ninto natural groups. But where the study of languages affects more\nespecially the anthropologist,[202] is when it touches on the origin\nof the varieties of language, and of the primitive state (either\nintellectual or social) of the speaking man: when it endeavours\nto fathom the past each day farther back,--each day nearer to the\n_origin_. Thus bound together, the two sciences ought to have the same\ndestiny; philology has had its monogenists and its polygenists. The\nfirst have been obliged to give way, overpowered by the number and\nthe superiority of their opponents. They are done for; and the field\nremains free to the latter, who affirm, through their studies, the\nmultiplied origin of human language, leaving the consequences to be\ndeduced, or deducing them themselves.[203]\n\nOne sole declaration will suffice us, that of the history of Semitic\nidioms. \u201cIf the planets, whose physical nature seems to be analogous\nto that of the earth,\u201d says M. Renan,[204] \u201care peopled with beings\norganised like ourselves, we may presume that the history and the\nlanguage of those planets does not differ more from our own than\ndoes the history and language of the Chinese.\u201d It is impossible to\nestablish by a clearer and more striking image the individuality of the\ndifferent families of language, not one of which owes its origin to\nits neighbours, and which have, probably, never been in one another\u2019s\npresence, except when they had already been formed, bringing with them\ntheir own characteristics, their fundamental and profound type, as\nunalterable by contact as is the physical type of the men who spoke\nthem. These, in presence of others, may have been able to alter their\ntraditions, their remembrances, their words, but these were never more\nthan simple _loans_; we may be certain that these men were strangers\none to the other on the day when they uttered their first words in\ntheir cradles.\n\nWe must limit ourselves merely to recording the result, which is, that\neach system of language is absolutely irreducible to others, both by\nits basis and its form; all born in human thought, it is true, but this\nthought following at each point a particular path, so that each of\nthese systems, as M. Renan has said, only abuts on the others by the\ncommunity of the aim it is intended to reach.\n\nCertain families of languages do not differ solely by their\nconstitution, they show special phonetic or physiological\nqualities;[205] that is to say, we can observe, in two different\nlanguages, varieties of the same order which is explained among\nanimals, by the words barking, braying, cooing, etc. This is\nparticularly the case with the strange language spoken by the\nclear-complexioned race of South Africa, probably much more widely\ndiffused in former times than at present. It resembles no other known\nlanguage, and consists in a _clucking_ which has, they say, nothing\nanalogous to it among any other nation on the earth. The English have\ncharacterised it by the names of _sighing_, or _clucking_, and also\nespecially _click language_.[206] Here is a new difference,--a radical\ndifference in relation to so many others, which decidedly forms, from\nthese Bosjesmans, a people whom it is impossible to ally, it does not\nsignify how, or under what aspect, to any other of the divisions of the\ngreat human family.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI.\n\nTHE INFLUENCE OF CLIMATE.\n\n\nMonogenists--starting from unity of origin as a fact, if not proved, at\nleast accepted and unquestionable,--were necessarily led to discover a\nphysiological explanation of the profound differences which we find at\nthe present day among mankind, and which would have led them, according\nto monogenists, from one extreme state to the other, or from a medium\nstate to the two extremes.\n\nNow, it is necessary to remember that every question concerning\ninfluence implies a previous historic notion. We cannot establish that\na modification is not produced in a body (here is humanity), except\nby comparing it with itself at two distinct moments of duration, more\nor less distant. When a monogenist admits as an origin one uniform\nhuman race, he places a term of comparison in the past, he gives an\nhistorical date more or less definite to this uniform human species.\nAnd it is because religious cosmogonies alone dare, at the present day,\nto arrogate to themselves the power of making history dart back to the\ncommencement of humanity, that we shall always be much troubled by\nnot seeing a theological influence as the basis of monogenist ideas;\nnow, they say, however, that they have discovered the trace of this\nhuman uniformity upon which they rely, in order to prove this great\nhistorical fact.\n\nIn our own opinion, history is very far from commencing with mankind;\nit only goes back two or three ages before the invention of figurative\nlanguage,--a more important and difficult language for man than\narticulated language, which was discovered long before, and at many\ndifferent points. It is _writing_ which makes the Asiatics and the\nlost people of Central America better than savages; and if we were\nasked for a specific distinction with regard to intelligence between\nmankind and animals, we should only be able to find it there. It will\nbe seen later that we are far from denying the influence of a middle\ncourse; but we maintain that every term of comparison is wanting at the\npresent day to show that man, since the most distant historic periods,\nhas ever shown less dissimilarities than now. Most monogenists,\ndisagreeing about the whole system of modifying causes, agree generally\nin acknowledging that climates and hybridity have a decisive creative\ninfluence as regards races of men. These two kinds of influence alone\ndeserve our consideration. We shall commence by climate, putting on one\nside, for the present, the study of the specious question of hybridity,\nwhose part is so badly understood by those who believe that it creates\nvarieties, when it can only weaken differences.\n\nAn important part in the means of alteration from one race to another\nhas been given, by Hippocrates, to external influences. He seems\nto have been the first to point this out, in his _Treatise on Air,\nWater, and Places_.[207] \u201cThe form, colour, and manners of nations,\u201d\nsays Polybius, \u201cdepend solely on the diversity of climates.\u201d[208] In\ngeneral, the ancients believed in the immediate and sudden influence of\nclimate, so much so that a stranger, at the end of a few years, would\nbe completely changed and altered to the type of the inhabitants of the\nsame place.\n\nIn our days, Cabanis alone has dared to go so far as this.[209]\n\nSome monogenists have simply enlarged Grecian theories, and explained\neverything by the prolonged duration of the same influences. Others\nhave supposed that local changes in the atmospheric conditions of the\nworld, anterior to the actual epoch, were the cause. This is a sort of\nprogress beyond the preceding hypothesis, in the sense that at least we\nmust recognise the insufficiency of actually existing causes, in order\nto explain the great differences observed at the present day between\nmen. Isidore Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire has agreed with his father upon the\ngreat question of the influence of the surrounding medium; but death\nseized him before he could apply these theories to mankind. However,\nthe high position that his _Histoire Naturelle G\u00e9n\u00e9rale_ has taken in\nscience obliges us to pause a moment on the subject of his opinions,\nwhich have, besides, easily triumphed over the ruins of Cuvier\u2019s\nschool. And if we do not agree with all the doctrines propounded by the\nsecond Geoffroy, we are all the more satisfied, since, differing from\nthe son, we incline more to the theories of the father.\n\nIsidore Geoffroy believed in a decisive influence of the medium, but\nonly under certain conditions. He believed that these influences are\nlimited, as he himself calls it, every time that it relates to anything\nbeyond the action of man, that is to say, on savage or free animals.\nIn this case, the action of the _medium_, according to him, would be\nconfined exclusively to the producing of varieties in form and in the\ncolour of the skin,[210]--a form we never see varied in the same class\nof men; the colour of the skin,--which is sensibly the same among men,\namong whom the fair type is itself exceptional, and spread over a very\nsmall portion of the ancient north-west continent.\n\nIn every case, Isidore Geoffroy acknowledged that these variations\nare sometimes very inconsiderable;[211] and although they have in no\nway approached those which separate human races, we may be allowed to\nbelieve that the differences observed among savage species were, in\nhis eyes, much less important. He has endeavoured, on the contrary, to\ncompare insignificant differences among free animals with varieties\nmuch more marked, and much clearer than those shown by domestic\nanimals, and therefore, doubtless, he wished to make a step towards\nthe fundamental question of anthropology, which was evidently at the\nbottom of his thoughts, and which he had for a long time resolved in a\nmonogenist sense.\n\nBut domestic animals have quite special conditions, which do not\nallow the assimilation of these varieties with those which have been\nsimply produced by natural forces. Cuvier[212] had already pointed out\nthis difference, and rejected all assimilation between them and free\nanimals. Without taking too much account of the reasons which impelled\nhim towards such opinions, we believe that upon this point, at least,\nhe was entirely in the right; as to the rest, Isidore Geoffroy himself\nfurnishes us with weapons against his own theories. \u201cSince nature,\nleft to herself,\u201d he says, \u201cdoes not give us witnesses of the great\nchanges in the conditions of existence, it is clear that there only\nremains one means of seeing such changes, and of deducing therefrom\nthe effects upon organisation,--it is _to force nature to do what she\nwould not do voluntarily_.\u201d[213] All the condemnation of this system of\nIsidore Geoffroy is contained, in our opinion, in these last words. As\nfor ourselves, we reject, in the most absolute and formal manner, the\nconnexion which some have desired to make between man and the domestic\nanimals. Man is a sociable animal, like many others; but he only\nbecomes exceptionally a domestic animal when he falls into slavery. The\ndomestic animal is a being drawn from the normal state, and constrained\nby man. He is constrained by nature to obey the influence of his\nmaster alone,--an influence infinitely variable. It resembles itself\nno longer; the habit of obedience does not even leave it its will; it\nceases to be a personality, and becomes a mere machine, producing for\nthe benefit of another person.\n\nDomesticity has certain characteristics of degeneracy; the animal loses\nits activity, it becomes less eager, and assimilates itself more; it\nbecomes almost incapable of subsisting alone; it vegetates; together\nwith its personality it has lost this resistance to the ambient medium,\nwhich is the necessary characteristic of the species, the condition of\nthe _nisus formativus_; it modifies itself to everybody\u2019s will. Its\norganism may be considered as being in a state of unstable equilibrium,\nso that the least influence causes this organism to vary, and with\nthe least possible delay, to a considerable degree.[214] But when man\nceases for an instant to be attentive in directing these modifications,\nwhen he forgets himself for a moment, nature--always vigilant and ready\nto seize upon her rights--destroys all this human edifice, and recalls\nthe animal to a type which may be called normal, but which is not the\ntype of the stock, since nature, acting on an organism endowed, as we\nhave just said, with the wonderful malleability and ductility acquired\nby domesticity, immediately and naturally modifies the animal, which is\nrestored to liberty, by the power of the new medium into which it is\ncast.\n\nNothing of the same sort takes place with mankind. This does not mean,\nhowever, that he cannot also be reduced to a state of domesticity.[215]\nSlaves, indeed, are nothing else; and all that is wanting in order to\nplace them in comparison with animal domesticity, would be the history\nof a race of Ilotes, which has always been free from any mixture, and\nhas continued so during a time equal to that which separates us from\nthe first conquest of the dog, the sheep, and the ox, upon the high\ntable-lands of Asia.\n\nLet us, then, leave all comparison[216] between man, free to come, to\ngo, and to choose his own food,--and domestic animals. Let us return\nto those who live free, and say, once for all, that if we stop our\nprogress with so many details concerning these comparisons, it is\nfrom a kind of respect for the character of certain learned men who\nhave thus treated anthropological science. We believe very little in\nbiology, or in demonstrations by _similarities_. Every animal, every\norgan, every anatomical element, has its own life, its own laws of\nbirth, development, nutrition, and reproduction. At the commencement\nof science, everything is clear and easy, like the cellular theory,\nfor instance, in the elements of anatomy; but every day the laws of\nlife (we might say, the laws of nature) are multiplied and complicated;\nevery morning the searcher after truth must expect to discover some\nphenomenon which will disturb the scientific belief of the night\nbefore. \u201cEvery evening,\u201d said one of the masters of science, \u201cour best\nprayer is to form afresh a synthesis of the sciences.\u201d[217] Well, if\nmodern anatomy has taught us that the initial phase of the development\nof the egg differs according to the animal,[218] even as nothing\nresembles less the development of certain bones of the face than that\nof their neighbours, how shall we dare to compare any animal with\nman?[219] Having said this, let us return to the influence of climate\nupon wild or free animals.\n\nIsidore Geoffroy quotes, with complacency, the instance of the Corsican\nand African stag taken from Europe to these two countries scarcely\ntwenty centuries ago, which form at the present day two clearly\ndistinct varieties. From that the author of the _Histoire Naturelle\nG\u00e9n\u00e9rale_ argues rapid and sensible modifications, caused by the action\nof the medium. But, first of all, the evidence of this fact is simply\nnegative; the old authors, who denied the existence of the stag in\nCorsica and Africa, were perhaps simply ignorant of it. Then, this\nintroduction, if it did take place, was perhaps performed by means\nof animals which had been kept in domesticity or captivity for many\ngenerations, and consequently, were easily able to change their mode of\nlife directly they recovered their liberty, as we have already said.\nHowever this may be, it is simply man himself whom it is necessary to\nexamine, without comparing him to any animal, and without misleading\nourselves with the connexion of climates, generally compared too\nhastily, and with regard to mere equality of temperature.\n\nIt is sufficient to run over, in Humboldt\u2019s _Cosmos_, the lengthy\nenumeration of circumstances which make up a climate, in order to\nunderstand that all the comparisons which our minds may make between\nany two regions of the world are, at least, rash. The analogy of two\nclimates is rather a sort of experimental notion, which can only be\nreasonably deduced by the similarity of the biological as well as\nthe meteorological phenomena of every kind in the two regions to be\ncompared. And when climates shall have been able to change a white\nman into a black (a fact we energetically deny), must we also lay to\nthe charge of meteorological influence the clear moral aptitude and\nprofound differences of the various species of mankind? Shall we admit\nthat a little more cold or heat will alter the intellect? and why not\nlanguage?\n\nBut _we_ are not the first to doubt all these marvels. Bacon[220]\nand Albin[221] fairly doubted the effect of the sun on the colour of\nthe skin. Camper, who admitted that all varieties come from external\ninfluences, acknowledged, and with good faith, that the influences\nwhich we can appreciate are not sufficient to explain fully either the\nprominent jaw-bone in the Negro, the cheek-bone in the Kalmuc, or the\nobliquity of the eyes in the Chinese and the Malay, etc. We can declare\nthe same about all the other peculiarities of the same order,--the\nflattening of the nose, the crisped state of the hair, the colouring\nmatter which we find even in the arch of the palate in the Negro, etc.\n\nWe owe a very good observation to Camper: \u201cThe black colour which\nis noticed in the natural parts of both sexes, and even in white\nindividuals, clearly proves that our reticular membrane has its colour\nonly from the blood.\u201d[222] This fact alone should have long ago given\na more rational impulse to researches on this subject. If--putting all\nthese hypotheses on one side, for all that we can bring forward has no\nother value--if we wish to study in a _positive_ manner the influence\nof the sky upon man, we have only in reality one resource,--it is to\nshut ourselves up in the limits of history, to study the effect of the\nmigrations of which it tells us, and to see whether man, transported\nfar away, _does_ become modified, and how this modification takes\nplace. Then we shall find two answers to these questions, which form\ntogether a kind of anthropological law.\n\nLAW.--_In historical times, either man_ (we mean a society of men) _who\nis taken far from his medium does not alter his type, or he entirely\ndisappears_.\n\nWhat nation has been transformed? We cannot answer, even with history\nin our hand; we know not of any. And yet, the short period of time\nembraced by the records of mankind would be quite sufficient if it were\ntrue, as Isidore Geoffroy thought, that we could conclude from animals\nto men, and that two thousand years would have been sufficient to alter\nfundamentally the _genus_ stag.[223] It is a well-known fact, that the\ninhabitants of the Island of Bourbon, who were colonists established\nin the high lands for two centuries, have preserved intact the purity\nof their blood.[224] The Spanish and Portuguese families established\nin Brazil, and who have carefully avoided foreign marriages, have\nlost nothing, it is said, of their original characteristics.[225] The\nIcelanders have not become Laplanders in their own island, and they\nhave now been established there eight hundred years; they are as fair\nand _German-looking_ as at first.[226] The Dutch have prospered at\nthe Cape under the name of Boers. They say that at Cochin and Malabar\nthere exists a Jewish tribe, which has been established there for a\nlong time, and which traces back its origin to the captivity; it has\nremained pure,[227] and as similar to the inhabitants of the Jewish\nquarter at Cairo, as to the Jews in Leonardo da Vinci\u2019s Last Supper,\nand in the pictures of the Flemish school.\n\nIndeed, among ourselves in Europe, have not the Irish preserved, under\ntheir foggy and cold sky, that southern nature which is revealed in\ntheir taste for certain arts, their small height, their black hair,\nthe vivacity of the women, and the indolence of the men? Now, here is\nanother order of facts,--man is not altered by emigration. Perhaps\nthese facts are not very conclusive to all people, either on account of\nthe difficulty of observation, or the short period which they embrace.\nThey must be taken just as science offers them to us, and we must give\nour attention solely to reckoning the conclusion from the value of the\npremises.\n\nWe now arrive at the second term of the law which we have laid\ndown,--that man, transported to another country, eventually disappears.\nThe theory which we thus form is of considerable importance. It has\neven received a particular name, it has been called the _Theory of\nthe non-Cosmopolitanism of Man_. It is at the present day defended in\nFrance by Dr. Boudin, with as much energy as talent. In this matter,\nfacts are abundant enough, and they at once take a considerable\nsignificance; and this is determined by figures, so that we must\nacknowledge that in most cases each race is by its nature attached to\nthe ground which supports it, and that it is not with impunity that it\noversteps its limits.\n\nIt is because a foreign climate has in general a really destructive\ninfluence, producing degeneracy among emigrants, that is to say, a\nparallel morbid alteration of both the intellect and the body, that\nwe always see the same races moving about in the same areas, and\ndisappear when they pass them.[228] If the Semite, who has left Yemen,\nhas come to pasture his camels near the shores of the ocean, opposite\nthe Fortunate Islands, it is because he and his animals find in the\nRiff the same conditions of life that they did by the Nile and the\nIsthmus of Suez. Whatever has been said about the Jews and some other\nraces, not one of them seems to be really cosmopolitan. To admit that a\nJewish tribe, thrown into the midst of a black population, has become\nblack by the sole action of the climate, is to admit that there were\nno conversions, no adoptions, and no sexual unions contrary to the\nlaw of Moses; and in this way the philosophic editors of the Code\nNapol\u00e9on, as well as daily medical practice, teach us what to think.\nFor our part, we only see in these transformations of Jewish families,\nestablished far away, the result of the absorption of the type of a\nsmall group of emigrants by a population which outnumbers them. The Jew\nhas disappeared; the language has been transmitted like the belief, and\nalso the name.\n\nThe acclimatisation of man, as well as of the wild animal, takes place\nonly when he finds the conditions of existence sensibly identical with\nthose in which he has been created. Beyond that, nature punishes him\nfor having overstepped the limits which she had assigned to him, and\nwithin which he ought to continue to move his organism in relation to\nthis defined medium. The domestic animal, on the contrary, by reason\nof this malleability of which we have before spoken, accommodates\nitself in general very conveniently. And the varieties which it shows\non recovering its liberty, are of themselves a proof that it has been\nunder a different sky to that of its original country.\n\nSuch is, in our opinion, the sole manner of explaining at the present\nday, in a serious and general point of view, all climateric influences.\nWe must render justice to some monogenists, that they have perfectly\nunderstood the real part taken by these influences. Blumenbach calls\nthem _caus\u00e6 degenerationis_; and here the German anatomist, in\ndefending, like Prichard, the specific unity of the human race, raises\nhimself above the English anthropologist, without, however, reaching\nwhat we believe to be the truth. Prichard, inclining to the belief that\nhumanity is entirely descended from the Negroes,[229] acknowledged,\nconsequently, a kind of _caus\u00e6 perfectionis_, that is to say, an\nascending march of phenomena, where his predecessor had only seen an\ninverse march. Now, this ascending march of phenomena is difficult to\nreconcile with the notion of the specific unity of man. Every species,\nin fact, is necessarily constituted by reason of the defined space in\nwhich it ought to move. It is unreasonable to suppose that elsewhere\nthe same organism and the same species can meet with more favourable\nconditions of existence.\n\nIn Blumenbach\u2019s opinion, all races are unhealthy deviations from a\nprimitive type, of which we are the representatives;[230] so that\nnine-tenths of the human kind are, according to him, composed of\ndegenerate individuals. Blumenbach did not know that one of the\nessential characters of degeneracy is the limited development of its\nproduce, that is to say, the disappearance of the race at a more or\nless distant period.[231] We ask ourselves only how monogenists, who\nall partake more or less of Blumenbach\u2019s opinions, and who nearly all\npride themselves on moral and humanitarian sentiments, can consent\nto lower in this manner the number of human beings who are worthy of\nthis name? Is not the best part, if there could be one in the case of\nscience, played by the polygenists, who consider that other races are\nspecial entities, pursuing an end, which is their own and not ours,\nand dividing with us the planet, inaccessible in all its extent to the\nIranian; just as certain kinds of animals, likewise, cover the globe\nwith different species? Climate, we have said, has a decisive influence\nupon a man taken to another country; it must only be understood in\nthe sense of this influence, and we have seen that it is generally a\npernicious one.[232] It makes itself felt in the physical and moral\nnature of man, both deeply and superficially.\n\nWe may point out among the most simple and the most profound climateric\ninfluences, the _sun-burn_, the study of which is so interesting in\nanthropological study. We know, at the present day, that the sun is\nfar from being always the cause of it; that a bivouac _at night_ has\nas powerful an action in the same manner, and that the north-pole\nexplorers found that their hands and faces were browned under a\nnorthern sky.[233]\n\nAre these not facts which will diminish the decisive part which has so\nlong been given to solar heat in the production of colouring matter in\nthe Negro?[234] The colour of sun-burn does not even seem to remain\nin the layers of the epidermis, in which the normal colour is found.\nIndeed, we must remember, that it is always easy to distinguish a\nsun-burnt nation, since individuals who, for some reason or other,\nare but seldom exposed to external influences, like the women, are\ninfinitely whiter; children are quite white when born, but as soon as\nthey go much into the air, they become brown.\n\nUnfortunately, the action of climate upon a man taken from his own\ncountry is not merely a case of sun-burn. And medical statistics have\nshown, in treating on the different races of mankind, the dangers of\nchanging one\u2019s position on the surface of the globe, even if it takes\nplace in the sense of isothermal lines. We find from the results\nof careful inquiries made in the English colonies at the Antilles\nfor about forty years, that the black population is continually\ndiminishing, the number of deaths being to that of births :: 28 : 24.\nUnder the tropics, northern organisations are much disquieted, life\nchanges its aspect, and its course is much more rapid. The glandular\nsystem governs;[235] man becomes \u201cmore sensible to pleasure, and less\ndisposed to activity,\u201d[236] his mind loses its vivacity. Those noble\nfaculties, which have made the white man the monarch of creation,\nbecome weakened, and that especially in some colonies where government\nis obliged to entrust everything to Europeans.[237] Dr. Barnard Davis\nlately announced to the Paris Anthropological Society,[238] that one of\nhis friends, Dr. J. A. Wise, after thirty years residence in India, had\nnever been able, after numerous inquiries, to find any descendants of a\nEuropean in the third generation.\n\nOur temperate regions are to the Negro what the tropical zone is to\nthe European. Even at Gibraltar,[239] the Negro contingent that was\nemployed in the English army paid a heavy tribute to death.[240] On\nthe contrary, official documents for 1861 tell us that, at Sierra\nLeone,[241] the respective mortality of English and Negro soldiers was\nas follows:--\n\n                         Deaths per 1000.\n                     English.        Negroes.\n  Marsh fevers        410\u00b72            2\u00b74\n  Dysentery            41\u00b73            5\u00b73\n  Liver disease         6\u00b70            1\u00b71\n\nIt is an indubitable fact that, in general, the mortality of an\nemigrated population is in an inverse ratio to the distance they are\ntaken.[242] During many years the island of Ceylon was occupied by\nHind\u00fa troops (from Madras and Bengal), Malays, Negroes and English. The\nmortality of these races respectively was, 12, 24, 50, and 69.\n\nThis is so clearly a biological law, that we again meet with its\napplication even in certain particular cases. Concerning the yellow\nfever, for instance, Townsend has thus laid down a rule,--\u201cThe\nmortality to the new-comer from the cooler latitudes may be said to\nbe in an exact ratio to the distance from the equator of his place of\nnativity.\u201d[243] Daniel Blair[244] has given the following statistics,\naccording to his observations of the same disease, made in British\nGuiana, from 1827 to 1835:--\n\n  Natives (West Indian Islanders)    6\u00b79\n  French and Italians               17\u00b71\n  English, Scotch, and Irish        19\u00b73\n  Germans and Dutch                 20\u00b72\n  Scandinavians and Russians        27\u00b77\n\nThe epidemic of 1853, at New Orleans, allowed Barton to make a scale of\nmortality on the same principle, and absolutely comparable, and which\nwould take away all doubt in this respect, if any existed.[245]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII.\n\nTHE INFLUENCE OF HYBRIDITY.\n\n\nWe must regard hybridity in a double point of view, as being able or\nunable to give an indication of the real value of different human\nraces, as compared with the acknowledged natural groups in the greater\nnumber of zoological classifications; and on the other hand, we must\nstudy hybridity, belonging, as has been asserted, to the creation of\nnew races.\n\nIt has been said, we repeat, that all men being able to reproduce one\nwith another, the genus _homo_ only constitutes one single family.\nThat this argument should hold good, it was necessary to be proved\nthat among animals (for thence it was that it was borrowed) two well\nacknowledged species, more different even than two human races, should\nnever be prolific one with the other. Now, this is far from being the\ncase. Isidore Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, who has treated this subject in a\nmasterly manner in his _Histoire Naturelle G\u00e9n\u00e9rale_, acknowledges that\nanimals belonging to two different genera can, by a union, produce a\nmixed breed, which, consequently he calls _bigenerate hybrids_.\n\nSo we will not give ourselves the trouble of contesting, as some\npolygenists have done, the universality of reproduction between all\nraces of mankind; we will not ask if every degree of combination has\nbeen observed,--the union, for instance, of an Esquimaux with a Negro,\nan American with an Australian, a Tartar with a Bosjesman. Let us\nadmit, what is, perhaps, hardly the truth, that all races produce one\nwith another,--we will admit all this; and yet it will prove nothing\nin favour of the monogenists who have brought forward this fact, since\nwe henceforth know that there is no basis in this universality of\nreproduction for a serious argument,--since we know that two distinct\nspecies, two genera, in fact, can produce cross-breeds. This faculty\nof reproduction has had too much importance given to it,--it is only\na function, that is to say, a physiological character quite improper\nfor classification; the existence of _bigenerate hybrids_ shows\nthis sufficiently. It is a bad characteristic, because it is not a\nconstant one; because either the man or the animal does not bear it\nin him, and that a given uniformity of circumstances is necessary in\norder to reveal this characteristic to an observer. It is the same\nwith animal forms, which do not countenance in any manner such an\nobservation; it is sufficient to recall the alternating generations\nof the invertebrata. Where shall we place all these agamous animals?\nhow shall we class these _proscolex_ and _scolex_, which have no sex,\nand which will never have one? Instead of the idea of fecundity,\nwhich is insufficient to characterise a species, we must substitute\nanother, that of the development of the produce. If everything shows\nus that zoosperms, proceeding from very different animals, can equally\nfecundate any given ovum,--if we even admit that we have no good reason\nfor rejecting the theory that each ovum can be impregnated by different\nkinds of zoosperms, it is very easy, on the contrary, to account for\nthe fact that offspring will have no chance of life, except so far as\nthe two parents show a sufficient identity, but which we cannot regard\nas fit to characterise species.\n\nAs the produce of two organisms, a descendant ought always to be\nconsidered as the result of two united halves fitted together, and\ncombined one with the other. If the two halves are identical, the\nanimal is like its progenitors in everything. If the two beings,\nwho have endeavoured to unite themselves, are too dissimilar, the\ntwo forces cannot combine, and there is either no produce, or it is\narrested in its development from the first moment of its embryo life.\nIf the two forces, or the sum of the two forces, have a certain amount\nof common direction, they can produce a new being, but an imperfect\none, and which will not have all the conditions of existence like its\nparents; it will not have genital power, and consequently will not\nbe fitted to become the founder of a series of individuals similar\nto itself, succeeding it through time, \u201cnaturally, regularly, and\nindefinitely.\u201d[246]\n\nPutting on one side the power of reproduction, we must attend solely to\nthe union of different human races with regard to vitality of produce,\nand let us see what observation will teach us on this subject.\n\nJacquinot states, that \u201cone can scarcely quote any cross between\nAustralians and Europeans.\u201d When the ancient inhabitants of Van\nDiemen\u2019s Land, reduced to the number of two hundred and ten, were taken\nfrom Flinder\u2019s Island, not only had the union of the women with the\nunscrupulous convicts been unable to form a distinct race, but only two\nadults were found who were the produce of these unions.[247]\n\n\u201cThe Mulattoes,\u201d says Nott, \u201care the shortest-lived of any of the\nbranch races; when they unite amongst themselves, they are less\nprolific than if united to one or other of the branches.[248]\u201d This\nassertion is especially true concerning the cross-breeds born of\nNegroes and inhabitants of the north of Europe. At Java, crosses\nbetween Malays and Dutch appear not to be able to reproduce beyond the\nthird generation.[249] \u201cThe _half-caste_ of India,\u201d says Warren, \u201ccomes\nto a premature end, generally without reproduction; and if there are\nany offspring, they are always wretched and miserable.\u201d[250]\n\nWe must say another word about Isidore Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire\u2019s\nopinion on the important question of cross-breeding in mankind. After\nhaving reproached Cuvier, and with reason, with having often, in the\ninterest of particular views, admitted, as regards mankind, a flagrant\ncontravention of the biological laws which his genius proclaimed for\nother animals, Isidore Geoffroy seems to us to have, in his turn,\nfallen into a contradiction of the same kind. He especially calls\n_hybrids_ the crosses which occur from the cross of two different\nspecies, and he remarks, besides, that hybrids have generally tolerably\ndecided characteristics, which are partly those of the father and\npartly those of the mother; so that the offspring, he adds, can\nresemble one more than the other, but not _exclusively_ either of them:\nthe cross is always to be found in it. On the contrary, it is not\n_always_ so with the cross between two varieties of the same species;\nthe produce has often the characteristics of both its parents, but very\nfrequently, also, it resembles one of them exclusively.\n\nFor these beings who are the offspring of two varieties of the same\nspecies, and _who very frequently reproduce entire the type of one\nof their parents_ to the exclusion of the other, Isidore Geoffroy\nreserved the name of _homo\u00efdes_. Well, we ask him this,--in taking,\nas an example, the offspring of a union between a white and a black,\nshall we find in it the characteristics of a homo\u00efd cross? Will it\nnever resemble exclusively one of the two founders? Are not the\ncharacteristics of the Mulatto perfectly represented, perfectly\ndefined, and always medium? Are not exceptions, if any can be quoted,\nof extreme rarity?[251] In the name of this consistency, ought not\nIsidore Geoffroy to have seen in a Mulatto something besides a homo\u00efd\nmongrel, and to doubt even more that the different races of mankind\nconstituted only varieties of the same species?\n\nHowever, let us examine into hybridity so far as it may serve to\nproduce new, or modify existing races, as Blumenbach and Flourens have\nadmitted.[252] Let us only remark that these two authors, like most\nmonogenists, in placing hybridity, as the modifying cause, in the same\nrank as climate or medium, commit a great error. Hybridity, even in\ngiving it the creative power which some have desired, goes entirely\ninto the second rank, for it supposes a pre-existing plurality. It can\nonly act, in the end, by weakening differences, by creating a middle\nterm to two extremes. It cannot of itself produce variety of origin, it\nis the consequence of it, and we shall see that the part it takes on\nthis matter is extremely restricted.\n\nWhite[253] supposes a colony composed of an equal number of blacks\nand whites; then he tries to find out what will happen in the course\nof time, by supposing that a thirtieth part of them die and are born\neach year. He arrives, by his calculations, at the following results:\nin sixty-five years the number of blacks, whites, and mulattos will be\nequal; in ninety-one years the whites will only form one-tenth of the\ntotal population, and the blacks one-tenth; in three centuries, there\nwould not remain one hundredth part of them, either black or white.\n\nThis proposition is true, theoretically speaking; it is practically\nfalse: it rests upon what we may call an unstable equilibrium. In\nthe physical world we may, by care, happen to put an ellipsoid in a\nstate of equilibrium on the extremity of its greater axis, or a cone\non its apex; these are also unstable equilibria, but the least cause\nintervening, the smallest movement, and the balance is instantly\ndestroyed. If we admit into White\u2019s theory a birth which does not\ntake place, or an unproductive union, the conclusions are overturned\nat once; a part of the new generation will preserve the primitive\ntype,[254] and this portion will be much more considerable than White\nimagined. When the facts of arrest of development, quoted above, are\nnot sufficient to prove that a mongrel breed cannot subsist by itself,\ncan we anywhere find one? Do we find a people preserving for centuries\na medium type between two other types which gave it birth? We see them\nnowhere,--just as little as we see a race of mules. The fact is that\nsuch a hybrid race, intermediate to two defined types, can only have a\nsubjective and ephemeral existence.\n\nThe definition of the word _type_, both in natural history and in the\nparticular case in which we are engaged, is rather a difficult matter,\nand which we can _feel_ much better than we can express it in writing.\nWhen we have seen a certain number of men belonging to one race, the\nmind, without any particular study, takes from each a number of\ngeneral characteristics, and forms from them a sort of ideal being, to\nwhich it refers the real beings which it may henceforth see, and with\nwhich it identifies those who have a sufficient amount of similarity\nwith this being.[255]\n\nWe have seen in the preceding chapter that, as regards historic times\nat least, a type invariably reproduces itself through time and space,\nwhen it does not succumb to the new climate in which it is about to\nlive. If we admit, however, that two types may have met with a harmony\nof influences, a medium in which they can both live, we say that--even\nwith all the care that may be taken to mix them--we shall always find,\nwhatever White may say, black people and white people, if these races\nwere black and white originally; and this by reason of laws which we\nthink we can shape, and whose demonstration will be as positive as that\nof the domain of history.\n\nLAW I.--_A medium type cannot exist by itself, except on the condition\nof being supported by the two creating types._\n\nLAW II.--_When two types become united, two phenomena may arise: 1.\nEither one of them will absorb the other; or, 2. They may subsist\nsimultaneously in the midst of a greater or less number of hybrids._\n\nThese two laws are only, in fact, the formula of the principles which\nPrichard[256] himself laid down long ago, and which are held also by\nthe editor of the _Ethnological Journal_,[257] by Knox,[258] and by\nWilliam Edwards.[259]\n\nBy reason of these laws, we find that nowhere can a medium race either\nestablish itself on the ruins of two creating races, or replace them,\nand live by itself with an independent existence, formed entirely of\nhybrids which propagate among themselves. In fact we have laid down\na rule that conditions of development are very much restricted among\nhybrids, and that they can only go on decreasing in their descendants,\nif they are capable of producing any. The crossed race will only exist\nin the condition of being supported by the two creating types remaining\nin the midst of it. If the value of this law is only deduced from a\nnegative fact,--that is to say, from the absence on the surface of the\nglobe of any real hybrid race existing by itself on a certain extent\nof territory,--we shall find, as regards the second, a great number of\n_positive_ facts.\n\nWhen two types unite, we said, a double phenomenon may be observed;\neither of these two types will absorb the other, or they may subsist\nsimultaneously, one near the other. The first case ought to be the most\nfrequent; but it is the least appreciable, because it does not leave\nsensible traces. We must endeavour to discover in history the remains\nof a people who formerly existed, and who have since disappeared.\nThus, the colony of Nubians, taken to the banks of the Phasis by\nR\u00e1mases, have left no trace of their sojourn among the inhabitants of\nthe land. It is the same with the Greek colonies of the Mediterranean\ncoasts.[260] The Normans have only left, on the coasts of Labrador,\ntheir engraved _stel\u00e6_;[261] their race has not remained. The primitive\nTurkish and Asiatic type has likewise disappeared from Europe. This\nhas been attributed to the introduction of Georgian women into the\nseraglios, and it is, perhaps, a reason only too readily accepted. It\nis, indeed, very natural that the repeated introduction of Georgian\nand Circassian women into the h\u00e1rems should deprive the descendants of\nthe conquerors of their original characteristics; but if this were the\ncase, the Turks of our days would, from continued unions with the same\nrace, have become real Georgians and Circassians themselves. It has not\nbeen so, however, because the harems are recruited in Europe as well as\nin Asia, and even then the fact would only be applicable to families of\nhigh position. The truth seems to be that the real Turkish blood has\nnearly disappeared, and has been encroached upon and replaced by the\nold blood of the country, either Macedonian or Thracian.\n\nWe are ignorant of the laws which govern the disappearance of one race\nin the sight of another. Sometimes it happens very rapidly; sometimes\nit does not show itself. The complex conditions which rule it enter\ninto the great order of facts which Darwin has so ingeniously classed\nunder the name of the _struggle for existence_. They have always\nseemed to us to present a complete analogy with the disappearance of\ncertain animal species before others, the steps of which disappearance\nhistory sometimes allows us to measure; so that there seems to be a\ncurious similarity between the great fluctuations of nations and of\nanimals upon continents. We are almost tempted to say that the invasion\nof the West by the Barbarians, the black rat, and the field mouse,\nis the triple expression of one and the same biological law. The\nAmerican population retrogrades, like certain animals;[262] that of the\nAustralian coasts has disappeared; and we believe that the Negroes of\nAfrica themselves will be called, at some distant period, to give up\ntheir place in their turn.\n\nWe do not know any more about the conditions which allow two types\nto subsist indefinitely one near the other: must we attribute this\nresistance to the country, or the races which are always before them?\nWhy, if the Normans have disappeared in America, Italy, and Asia,\nshould they still remain in Normandy, few in number, it is true, but\nalways the same, and perfectly described by Linn\u00e6us, when he said\nof the Goths in the Scandinavian peninsula, \u201cThey have smooth, fair\nhair, and the iris of the eye is of a bluish colour.\u201d[263] Even when\ncross-breedings take place between more than two races,--even when\nthese various influences are mixed together, struggled with, and\nassisted in a thousand ways, so that the question has become almost\ninextricable to the anthropologist, in the midst of the varied produce\nresulting from all these combinations, we are astonished to see here\nand there individuals who have the absolute and complete character\nof one of the original stock. Whilst there remains among a people a\nconsiderable amount of mixed blood, we may always expect to see some\none appear who will have the pure characteristics of the race which was\nbelieved to be extinguished, and mingled for ever with the blood of\nothers.[264]\n\nThe most remarkable instance which can be quoted about these crosses,\nand at the same time the easiest to notice, is that presented by\nEngland, where two races live side by side, mixed together, without one\nhaving absorbed the other since the time of Strabo, Tacitus, and Julius\nC\u00e6sar. England, isolated from Europe, ought necessarily to be a fertile\nfield for the anthropologist, and it will be there where the history of\nhistoric and pre-historic races will soonest be made. Eminent men work\nat it with ardour; and the certainty of remounting, through arch\u00e6ology\nand pal\u00e6ontology, to the first races which invaded England, at a time\nwhen the use of metals was unknown in the west, makes this study one of\nthe most interesting of the present day.\n\nTwo distinct races divide Great Britain, or, at least, representatives\nof two races are found there; and in the midst of an immense number of\nintermediate individualities, the least accustomed eye will not fail to\ndistinguish these two fundamental types, as different as two men with\nwhite skins can be. One of these races is composed of tall, strong,\npowerful men, with transparent skin, and blue eyes;[265] the other,\nwith a more tawny complexion, has black, curling hair.[266] The first\nwere formerly called Caledonians, the second Silurians, very like the\nIberians of the Spanish peninsula: the first, of Germanic, or northern\norigin; the second, of Celtic, or southern origin. Nobody denies,\nat the present day, that these two races are well characterised,\nand every day one can meet perfect specimens of them in England. We\nmay quote certain districts where the Silurian, Iberian, or Celtic\nrace, as tradition wills it, are dominant;[267] for example, in the\nnorth-west of Glamorganshire, in the outskirts of Merthyr, and in the\nVale of Neath.[268] Mr. John Philips finds them equally abundant in the\nDanelag[269] district, between Leicester, Nottingham, and Derby, with\nthe same characteristics, \u201cblack eyes and hair, uniform, or rather,\ndark complexion.\u201d[270] Among these two races there are of necessity a\nconsiderable number of cross-breeds who, allying themselves among one\nanother, or to the pure types, produce varied results, and in this\nmanner unite the two groups by a multitude of inappreciable shades of\ndifference.\n\nSuch is also the case in France. Edwards[271] has divined it almost\nby inspiration; and M. P\u00e9rier[272] has powerfully added to his\npresumptions, by examining more attentively all ancient documents which\ntreat on the inhabitants of Gaul. M. Broca, in the _M\u00e9moire_ which\ninaugurated the proceedings of the Paris Anthropological Society,[273]\nhas proved in the clearest possible manner, that if we draw a line\npassing by Cherbourg and Nice,[274] we shall divide France into two\ndistinct zones as regards the appearance and height of the inhabitants.\nIn the south-west, the ancient Celtic population is of small height,\nas is proved by the great number of military exemptions.[275] In the\nnorth-west, in the region which was always encroached upon by the fair\nand powerful races of the north, the result is quite the contrary.\nHere, then, are two distinct races: the one, formerly mistress of the\nwest, and then pushed to the extremity of the continent; the other,\nleaving its forests and encroaching on the rest,--both differing as\nmuch as possible by physical aspect and by moral aptitudes, but now\nfilling up their numbers, so to speak, by each other\u2019s help, and\nworking together for the glory and prosperity of their common land.\n\nWe must not, however, give a general meaning to these last words, and\nthus extend their meaning to all cases of ethnic cross-breeding. The\ntwo united terms must not be too dissimilar, so that the two branches\nmay reunite as regards progress. This is essential; and if we have\nendeavoured to prove that the hybrids of distant races do not possess\nall the necessary conditions of animal life and of propagation, it\nwould be easy to find numerous proofs in order to show that, generally,\nthe intellectual conditions of hybrids are not much more satisfactory\nthan their physical condition, since the two intelligent organisms\nwhich are there combined do not show a decided similarity.\n\nDoctor Tschudi[276] says, in speaking of the Zambos (hybrids from\naborigines and Negroes at Lima), \u201cAs men, they are greatly inferior\nto the pure races; and as members of society, they are the worst\nclass of citizens:\u201d they alone furnish four-fifths of the criminals\nin the prisons of Lima. Mr. E. G. Squier[277] has made almost the\nsame observation about the Zambos of Nicaragua. In his part of the\ncountry, the union of Spaniards with these same Americans, seems to\nhave only produced degenerate men, who show no capability whatsoever\nfor perfection or improvement. In fact, it is on account of these\nsame principles that M. de Gobineau[278] has set himself to prove\nat length that the mixture of races necessarily conducts mankind to\ndegradation and universal debasement. Cabanis had the same ideas on the\nsubject.[279]\n\nThe supposition which Cabanis and M. de Gobineau have taken up will,\ndoubtless, never be realised. To admit that all human races can reach\na complete hybridity, would be to admit that each race is cosmopolite,\nwhich it is not. But at least it remains true, that when two _very\ndifferent_ races are united, we must not hope for anything good or\ndurable from their union. The same phenomenon happens, with the simple\ndifference of _intensity_, when two different _species_ of animals are\nunited. So the monogenists are astonished at such a result in man, \u201ca\nresult quite contrary,\u201d says one of them,[280] \u201cto what one generally\nexpects in crossing a race.\u201d[281] The astonishment of the learned man,\nof whom we speak, is explained easily enough by the ideas which he\nholds of human races, where he only sees degenerated varieties of the\noriginal type, preserved by the European in its primitive purity.\n\nIt is evident that in this monogenic hypothesis, which we shall not\ntouch on again, the union of one of these degenerated races with the\npure stock would be a sort of _hygid_[282] consanguinity, and therefore\nfavourable to the offspring. Here there would happen something\nanalogous to the practice of the peasants in the _cr\u00e9tin_ districts,\nwho try to struggle against the scourge by seeking for marriages in\nthe plains, in order to give purer blood to each generation. In a more\ngeneral manner it is evident that if we suppose two sets of people born\nof the same stock, and that one of them, after various fortunes, after\nhaving undergone fatal influences, should unite itself with the other,\nwhich had remained unaltered, it is evident that the produce of such a\nunion ought to tend to reproduce in its purity the primitive type.[283]\nIf it is not so with the union of different races of men, the reason is\nsimply that they do not directly descend the one from the other; and\nfrom this debasement of produce there results a new proof in favour of\nthe ideas which we are defending.\n\nIt remains for us to speak of hybridity, as applied to the propagation\nof a deformity or a monstrosity. We know that when we experimentally\nunite one of this class to the other, two individuals whose organism\nhas equally deviated from the usual type, \u201cnothing is more difficult\nthan to prevent these mischances from being done away with.\u201d[284] A\nstronger reason, then, for the same when one of these individuals alone\nis deformed, which happens always in a state of nature. The races which\nwe can thus produce are a kind of experiment which exist, but which it\nwould be illogical to deduce can exist naturally. Because we make in a\nlaboratory oxygenated water, or mixtures of hydrogen and chlorine, must\nwe admit that these bodies are to be found united in nature? Quite the\ncontrary; we deduce from their instability that they do not, and cannot\nthus exist in a natural state.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII.\n\nSPECIES.\n\n\nWe have now arrived at the limits of the task which we proposed to\nattempt, and we hope, after what has gone before, that we shall be able\nto arrive at some scientific conclusion.\n\nAfter having endeavoured to establish in the introduction the route\nwe had to follow in anthropological studies, we gave an account of\nthe system of purely philosophic researches, putting every foreign\nor prejudicial idea on one side, and, resting on facts and on\nmathematical reasoning, we have endeavoured to apply these principles.\nWe endeavoured at first to prove that man was not a being as foreign\nand superior to the rest of animal nature, as certain naturalists have\nthought, taking themselves, the first from among men, as the point of\ncomparison. We have considered the inferior races, and we have shown\nthat between these and the first animals the distance was neither\nabsolute nor well-defined; that man came into the zoological series,\nand that he only forms definitively a separate _family_. Changing our\ndirection, we abandoned this acquired knowledge, and we passed on to\nthe study of varieties among men; we found them profound, indeed, and\nof every description.\n\nThen came the study of the influences to which man may be subjected.\nWe saw that hybridity did not play any serious part in this, since it\ncould only weaken pre-existing differences. On the other hand, we have\nacknowledged that _in the limits of time accessible to our knowledge_,\nnothing justified the hypothesis, that climate had such an extensive\ninfluence in changing man so as to make the differences which we may\nobserve between ancestors and descendants such as would suffice, in\nany other zoological group, to characterise distinct species.\n\nIn regarding man as a separate kingdom, we are, by this fact, exempted\nfrom applying the same rules as in zoology; but, by proving that he\ncomes into the zoological series, we have implicitly proved that he\nmust be submitted to the same laws. Science cannot have two different\nmodes of proceeding: it must follow the same paths in the same subjects\nin order to arrive at comparable results. It is the only truly\nphilosophic road: nature is _one_, and the work of the modern sciences\nis precisely to tend towards unity. The most diverse phenomena in the\nhands of analysts compare and assimilate themselves to the rays of\na spirit of synthesis; magnetism, electricity, light, heat, motion,\neverything is mingled and linked together so well, that we know not how\nto make a distinction any more.\n\nThe pure and simple adoption of the law of organic unity brings us to\nthe following proposition:--\n\nPROPOSITION.--_Either we must admit different species in the genus\nHomo, or we must entirely reform zoological classification._\n\nThis last hypothesis will mean, then, that the works of Linn\u00e6us,\nCuvier, De Blainville, and the two Geoffroys, will be of no value, and\nthat we must commence anew the great work of classification upon the\nsame basis which we wish to adopt in anthropology. Of the two terms of\nthe preceding proposition, the second merits particular consideration.\nZoological classification has been created and established by the\ngreatest thinkers of which humanity can boast; even more, independent\nby its nature from all religious influence, it has been freely done,\nand without prejudice, as every scientific question ought to be, by\nmeans of facts and reasoning. It has not always been so with the works\nof those who desire that man should be an exception to universal\nnature, and beyond the limits of the animal kingdom. Zoological\nclassification need not be reformed,--it is that of the genus _Homo_.\n\nWe touch now on the much discussed and controverted question of\nspecies, and at the same time on the question of the origin of man. We\ndo not believe, as many eminent men have done, that this origin must\neternally be concealed, that man will never be permitted to tear the\nveil from this statue of Isis. Let it suffice us to say that we are\nabout to enter on slippery ground, where we shall only find as few\nresting places as the stones of a ford half destroyed by a torrent.\nAnd since we shall only find here and there the fragile aid of one\nhypothesis against so many others, in order to assist the consequents\nof our reasonings, is it a reason for drawing back? We do not think so.\n\nEvery period of a science has its own tendency; at given moments the\nefforts of all tend involuntarily towards one sole end,--one question\nabsorbs all, and all partial solutions tend to the same general\nsolution. At the present day, the great question in natural history\nis that of species; inquiries are ardently pursued, and materials\nare produced from every side,--opinions are mooted, and objections\nraised. We have only to call attention on this point to the works of\nIsidore Geoffroy, Morton, Nott, Godron, Broca,[285] Darwin, F\u00e9e, etc.\nThe question of spontaneous generation is but a phase of the same\ndiscussion, an episode in the work of the birth of time.\n\nSome people have made a sort of bugbear out of this word _spontaneous\ngeneration_, or rather, _spontaneous genesis_.[286] And yet, here\nis one of these truths to which, we think, we shall be led by the\nobservation of facts and by reasoning. The great harm of examining\ninto the question is to be strangely mistaken as to its bearing, and\ninclined to restrict its limits. It has, in fact, been said, that\nevery day genital organs are discovered in beings whom it was thought\nwere reproduced spontaneously. This is a specious argument to which\nPlutarch has long ago done justice. A person, whom he brings forward in\none of his books, asks, \u201cWhich had the first existence, the egg or the\nhen?\u201d and concludes that \u201cit was evidently the hen.\u201d Even in treating\nlightly on this subject,--in making it a familiar conversation, the\nGreek physician was, however, not mistaken about the importance of\nthe matter. \u201cSo that,\u201d answers one of the guests, \u201cwith this little\nquestion of the egg and the hen, we raise, as with a lever, the great\nand dark question of the generation of the world.\u201d[287]\n\nThat the animals which we know all reproduce by eggs, is possible,\nalthough it has not been proved, but this is not an important point;\nwe want to know if all the animals which we are able to observe do not\nremount necessarily, in a more or less direct manner, and at a more or\nless distant period, to a spontaneous beginning.[288] The difficulty is\neverywhere the same,--everywhere we arrive at that immense obscurity\nwhich envelopes the origin of life on the surface of our planet; but it\nis essential in every case not to give to the phenomenon of spontaneous\nbeginning any other signification than it ought to have. We must not\nbelieve, for instance, that matter is formed by the agglomeration of\nparts which do not yet live in a perfect being, having already all its\norgans distributed and proportionate, uniting in one living whole. This\nwould be to cast ourselves on the field of an absolutely improbable\nhypothesis. Histology teaches us that each animal, its instincts and\nintellect included, is at a given moment merely a mass of amorphous\nmatter, which, at a later period, will form itself, or in the midst of\nwhich will be _spontaneously_ developed an anatomical element, that\nis to say, an organised body. To admit spontaneous genesis, then, is\nsimply to admit the formation of organic amorphous primitive matter\napart from an already living body, at the cost of and in the heart\nof which can be born the initial anatomical element of one of these\nanimals, very properly called _protozoa_. We can even ask, whether\nthis latent primary life, this atomic life, has not always been the\nruling life on our planet.[289] And since, when account is taken of\neverything, we are almost entirely ignorant of the conditions necessary\nto the fecundity of any primitive embryo, excepting certain physical\nconditions of temperature, liquidity, etc.; and as, on the other hand,\nnothing authorises us to believe that the laws existing at the origin\nof life on our planet have since been abrogated, we see that, if we\nmust necessarily conclude a spontaneous primitive genesis, there is\nnothing irrational in admitting, until we know farther on the subject,\nthe persistence of the phenomenon.\n\nLet us return to the subject of species, which, however, we did not\nquite leave in speaking on the subject of spontaneous generation.\nIsidore Geoffroy wishes to advance slowly in this matter, and only when\nfacts become patent to all. But he himself has more than once shown, by\na noble example, the benefits which science obtains by casting itself\nbeyond the limits of fact, provided that care is taken at first not to\ngive more than a simple hypothetical value to that which we may desire\nto bring forward. In the question which occupies our attention, we must\nembrace at one glance the whole animal kingdom since its commencement,\nin order to deduce the truth of facts which have been observed; only\nthen these relations, for which science so ardently seeks, would appear\nin their proper light. On account of this impossibility, we must\nhope for some more enlightenment, chiefly from geology, and perhaps\nfrom experiments. \u201cHow many facts would be necessary,\u201d said Buffon,\n\u201cin order to pronounce authoritatively, or even to conjecture? How\nmany experiments are to be tried in order to discover these facts,\nto acknowledge them, or even to anticipate them by well-founded\nconjectures?\u201d\n\nTwo opinions on the origin of species deserve to be noticed,--those\nof Cuvier and Lamarck. This last held Buffon\u2019s opinions at the end of\nhis career, and it ought to find in \u00c9tienne Geoffroy a defender even\nmore powerful in our eyes than Isidore Geoffroy himself; and especially\nDarwin, to whom belongs the merit, however, of having propagated, in\nhis popular work, the ideas of Lamarck.\n\nCuvier\u2019s theory seems to be still the dominant one; it is surrounded by\nthat scholastic _prestige_ which is explained by the word _classical_;\nit is only fit for universities. Cuvier proclaimed the _immutability of\nspecies_, and wished that at every revolution of the globe (the word\nalone then made his fortune), a new _fauna_ might come ready made from\nthe hands of God, to animate the burning or icy lands of the old world.\nBut Cuvier, in proclaiming organic immutability, excepted mankind. We\nmust be allowed to doubt whether it was done with good faith. \u201cCuvier,\nfull of good taste regarding political propriety,\u201d said a son of the\nrepublic, his former master, now his adversary,--\u201cCuvier, filling his\nmind with wise mental reservations concerning the future of society,\ndeclared that it was not fitting that new discoveries, just dug from\nthe heart of the earth, should attack and oppose with hostile malignity\nthe venerated and ancient revelations of our holy books.\u201d[290] This\nremark, in which \u00c9tienne Geoffroy has concealed his anger and contempt\nunder a guise of perfect urbanity, will remain to the end, we are\nconvinced, as the judgment of posterity upon the naturalist statesman,\nand upon that which they call in France at the present day _official\nscience_. Species was, then, a definite entity in Cuvier\u2019s opinion,\nand if he had been consistent, he would doubtless have become the\npromoter of the idea which has been taken up by Agassiz,--that there\nwere several centres of creation on the surface of our planet after the\n_last_ flood; in each of these centres would appear a special fauna,\nand also one of the species constituting the genus _homo_.\n\nThese different species of men and these different fauna would since\nhave continued to occupy the same geographical areas with merely some\nalteration. An absolute value is given to species in Cuvier\u2019s theory,\nas well as in that of Agassiz; it is unchangeable; it may disappear,\nbut cannot be modified, so that \u201ceach of them,\u201d as Buffon said at the\ncommencement of his career, when he held the same views, \u201cremains\nalways separated from the others by an interval which nature cannot\noverstep.\u201d[291]\n\nSuch has been, for a long time, the theory of the origin of species\nwhich we have held, and which we maintained in the first edition\nof this book. In fact, the solution which we now offer differs\nconsiderably from that which we then gave. But there is evolution\nrather than contradiction in going from one to the other. The\ndifferences which separate mankind are not lessened, and have not\ndiminished in value in our eyes: we merely explain these differences in\nanother way. It cannot be called contradiction, or even inconsistency,\nto change one\u2019s manner of viewing things with the times; to regard\nthings otherwise which, as we said before, have no absolute basis; or\nto change in five years one\u2019s opinion concerning the origin of the\nliving beings on the surface of the globe.\n\nIn Buffon\u2019s last opinion[292] species was not that definite entity in\nwhich Cuvier believed, commencing at a given geological moment, in\norder to terminate at another. Buffon says, in his latest works, that\nthe idea of species can only be seized upon by man at \u201cthis or that\ninstant of his age,\u201d[293] and that it is merely the expression of the\nambient medium. Let this remain as before, it will not change; but when\nthe conditions of the medium become modified, _species_ will change. We\nthus arrive at this definition:--\n\nDEFINITION.--\u201c_Species is a collection or group of individuals\ncharacterised by a similarity of distinctive points; the transmission\nof which is accomplished naturally, regularly, and indefinitely, in a\ngiven order of things._\u201d[294]\n\nIt is, in more scientific terms, the definition by Lamarck, \u201ca\ncollection of similar individuals which generation perpetuates in\nthe same state, so that the circumstances of their situation do not\nsufficiently alter so as to make their habits, their character, or\ntheir form vary.\u201d[295] Lamarck, to whom Isidore Geoffroy has rendered\ngreater justice than any one else before or after him,[296] admitted\nthe _unlimited variableness of species_. He admitted that we all\ndescend, just as we are, from an anatomical element, developed in a\ndeterminate sense, and that we may have been worms, insects,[297]\nbirds, and mammals before becoming men, running through all the phases\nthrough which animal organisation has passed during our uterine life.\nWe see that Lamarck approached frankly and resolutely the problem of\nthe origin of humanity.\n\nIn taking but superficially certain exaggerations into which Lamarck\nfell, at a time less rich in facts than our own, it is not difficult\nto give a certain grotesque turn to his ideas, and to laugh at them as\nbeing unnatural; but we must not thus judge the work of a man\u2019s whole\nlife, and we must appreciate Lamarck by the basis of his doctrine more\nthan by the examples he has given us: \u201ca profound philosopher,\u201d said\n\u00c9tienne Geoffroy,[298] \u201cable in laying down principles, less able in\nthe choice of his proofs.\u201d\n\nWe must judge Lamarck as Isidore Geoffroy has done in his _Histoire\nNaturelle G\u00e9n\u00e9rale_, where we find a complete and impartial\nchronological statement concerning the grave question of species.[299]\n\u201cCircumstances have an influence upon form and organisation,\u201d such is\nthe fundamental principle of Lamarck\u2019s doctrine;[300] he says the same\nelsewhere:[301] \u201cCircumstances determine positively what each body\nmay be;\u201d and he concludes, \u201camong living bodies, nature only shows\nindividuals who succeed one another. Species, amongst themselves, are\nonly _relative_, and are only temporarily so.\u201d[302]\n\nIf from these general considerations we enter in detail into Lamarck\u2019s\ntheory, we find room for the objections with which the opponents\nof the system of variety are engrossed, with which they have made\nthose weapons of ridicule which act so well on minds which are not\nforewarned, and who are ignorant of this master\u2019s _whole system_ of\nideas. The grandeur of Lamarck\u2019s views, the majestic simplicity of\nhis theory, ought to be sufficient to shield him from such attacks.\nHe saw at the beginning organic matter grouping itself under simple\nforms. These first outlines, altered by time and circumstances, have\nsuccessively given birth to radiated creatures, to the inferior\nmolluscs, the articulate animals, then the lowest fishes, then man.\n\nHere is a mistake, in our opinion; if there exists (until we know more)\nan immense and impassable difference somewhere in the animal kingdom,\nit is between the vertebrate and the invertebrate animals. Whilst the\nfirst show an admirable unity of organic composition, the second do\nnot seem to have any at all, so that they do not admit of serial or\nlinear classification. Each of the groups which they form is united\nby some particularity to all the other groups, and naturalists have\neven been able to differ about what must be considered as the highest\nround in the animal ladder. The organism of the invertebrata possesses\na flexibility and immense variety, which is almost a characteristic\nspecial to these beings in which the nervous system ceases to present\nthe profound unity which we see in the vertebrata; whilst the entire\ngroup has only a negative characteristic, _the want of vertebr\u00e6_, which\nis sufficient alone to show how unnatural it is. As for the rest, the\nvertebrate animal, even at the first moment of his embryo life, is\nabsolutely irreducible to any invertebrate type whatsoever, contrary\nto Lamarck\u2019s opinion. A vertebrate is to an invertebrate as two first\nnumbers are to one another; all the vertebrata, on the contrary, are\none to another as a simple number raised to different powers; they can\nall be brought back to their origin, and both the most complicated and\nthe most elevated of the series are only the most simple ones arrived\nat a state of considerable perfection.\n\nA still weaker side of Lamarck\u2019s theory is certainly the decided\ninfluence which he attributes to the _actions_ and _habits_ of\norganised beings, so as to modify them by their own means. The pedantic\ncaprice of his enemies has always hit on this point. \u201cThe habit of\nexercising an organ,\u201d he says, \u201cmakes it acquire developments and\ndimensions which insensibly change it, so that in time it becomes very\ndifferent. On the contrary, the faulty continual exercise of an organ\nimpoverishes it gradually, and ends by destroying it.\u201d[303] But it must\nnot be thought that Lamarck gave an _appreciable_ alteration to the\norgan,--an alteration sufficiently rapid to be noticed by ourselves.\nIf some passages of his works make the reader think so, it is plain\nthat they are only the wanderings of a great mind, always weak on the\nside of the ideas which he has created, and which he cherishes. Lamarck\nknew very well that an _infinite time_ is the condition of unlimited\nvariability.[304]\n\nDarwin is the direct successor of Lamarck, and, in our opinion, the\nsuccess of his book both in England and France is an index of the\nprogress which scientific ideas have made, since the days of Cuvier,\nin the path of liberty and independence. Darwin, like Lamarck, admits\nunlimited variety; he thinks that all animals must descend from four\nor five primitive types, and plants from about an equal number; he\nis almost disposed to admit but one primordial type for all organic\nnature.[305]\n\nDarwin, however, seems to us to have fallen into a grievous\nexaggeration, or error of interpretation, formerly laid to Lamarck\u2019s\ncharge, while he is at the same time defending an excellent cause.\nWithout speaking here of the relationship (forced, in our opinion)\nwhich Darwin makes out between wild and domestic animals (of which we\nhave before spoken), the learned Englishman seems to have accorded too\nmuch to individual action in the production of specific modification.\nHe sees a powerful activity, which he calls _natural selection_, where\nwe can only see absolute passiveness. We will explain what we mean:\nin the midst of this vital concurrence, which he has in part so well\ndescribed,--in the midst of this immense struggle, where all which\nhas life on our planet is engaged in combat one against the other, or\nagainst all, on this eternal field of battle, where the victors become\nthe victims, Darwin supposes that an animal brings into the world with\nhim, _by chance_, some psychological modification, or some anatomical\ndisposition, which is individually advantageous to him in the great\nstruggle for life; after this he will have a chance of being among the\nvictors, of uniting himself to another animal as happily endowed by\nbirth by having also conquered; they will together leave a numerous\nposterity, and there is every chance that some of the descendants of\nsuch a couple may inherit either the same instinctive disposition or\nthe same conformation; definitively, and by the repeated action of\nthis natural proceeding, a new variety can be formed, and may either\nsupplant the parent species or coexist with it.[306]\n\nSuch is, in a few words, the theory of natural selection. In our ideas,\nthere is here a false interpretation of facts; we do not believe in\nthis _chance_ of a native disposition, which thus transmits itself in\norder to become in time a specific characteristic. We have shown,\nwhile speaking of hybridity, that a native _individual_ disposition\nought always to disappear by the mere fact of its being individual;\nit quickly disappears through cross-breeding at the tenth generation,\nif not at the first, in the midst of a population which does not\npossess it. We fully admit, like Lamarck, that species are formed from\none another by the appearance of organic modifications, more or less\ndecided; but we do not leave anything to chance in this phenomenon, as\nDarwin does, and we can only see there the application of general laws.\n\nIt is not one or two animals, born with some special psychological or\nanatomical disposition, who are destined to generalise themselves by\ngeneration: it will be _all_ the individuals of the same species in a\ncertain radius, who will be born with a scarcely appreciable organic\nmodification, resulting, as far as we can tell, in an action of the\nmedium also nearly inappreciable by ourselves, but which long ago\nwill have made itself felt by the parents. The new variety will be\npropagated quite naturally, since it is general, and can but increase\nwith each generation as long as the modifying cause continues to act.\n\n\u00c9tienne Geoffroy had been the worthy successor of Lamarck, with\na larger and more philosophical mind. He never fell into his\nexaggerations, nor into the restrictive applications of the system,\nlike Darwin. Let us see how Isidore Geoffroy[307] continues his\nfather\u2019s theory: \u201cSpecies is variable under the influence of the\nambient medium; differences, more or less considerable according to the\npower of the modifying causes, may in time be produced, and the present\nbeings may be the descendants of the former being.\u201d This doctrine is\nour own also.\n\nAs to the idea of limited variety, propounded by Isidore Geoffroy,\nwe can only see in it an unfortunate restriction of his father\u2019s\ntheory,--one of those errors into which even the most judicious minds\nare liable to fall. Limited! Does he mean that there is a point where\nthese variations stop, and consequently a point where they have\ncommenced? Does he mean that some neighbouring animal species are\nderived from a given prototype, similar to themselves, and without\nany antecedents in the organic world? This is to return to Cuvier!\nLimited! Does he mean that the modifications will not be considerable\nin the present state of things, on account of this present state being\nmore or less modified? It comes to nothing directly we admit variety\nas a consequence of the medium. \u00c9tienne Geoffroy was led by this kind\nof idea, when, limiting his view to the short period of historical\ntime, and thinking he had discovered that our present climates do not\nsensibly alter existing species,[308] he asked, \u201cif there had not been\non the earth revolutions and disturbances of so vast a character that\ntheir influence may not have been enormous; whilst in our days, changes\nmay have been according to the power of their effects, that is to say,\nalmost nothing.\u201d And he explained everything by this convenient theory\nof geological floods.\n\nBefore going farther, let us consider what we ought to think about\nthe disturbances of the terrestrial globe thus invoked by \u00c9tienne\nGeoffroy. Now, to our mind, we have no authentic proof that the past of\nour planet has really been marked by such frightful revolutions, and\ngeology does not make the tradition as clear as some have desired. We\nthink, although this is not the place to prove it, that if the changes\nwhich have happened to the surface of the globe have been considerable,\nthey ought to be proportionally _weak_, resulting less from sudden and\npowerful efforts than from those small and continuous actions[309] in\nwhich nature puts forth its most formidable energies, but the progress\nof which is not to be measured by the memory of man. In general, our\nmind seizes but badly the notion of duration beyond certain limits. It\nis not the same with the notion of force. Hence, the belief in floods.\nIn the presence of gigantic effects, the mind, in the appreciation of\nthe movers of this effect, has done what we have done every day in\nmechanics. \u201cIt has changed mind into force.\u201d It is certain that weak\nbut continuous forces (everywhere, however, the most powerful) have\nbeen able to play a grander part in the history of our globe, than\nthese disturbances which we are in the habit of seeing everywhere.\n\nWe consider that there ought to be an entire revolution in the system\nof geological research; it ought to commence at ancient times, and\ncome down to the present day, not _vice vers\u00e2_; we ought, in fact, to\nsubstitute synthetic for analytical geology. After having carefully\nnoticed contemporaneous phenomena, we should doubtless be in time able\nto read simply the trace of a feeble revolution in the geological\npast, accomplished under the government of the same forces which are\ndaily preparing new lands, new elevations, new depressions, and a new\norganic world on the surface of the globe, for the future. If it is\nprobable that the atmosphere has changed within certain limits, if\nthe nature of the waters has also been altered,--at least all these\ngeological phenomena, these abysses, chains of mountains, and submerged\ncontinents, can only be the result of the forces now at work under our\nown eyes,--the comparison of animals which formerly existed with those\nwhich exist at the present day, shows, as we shall see farther on, that\nthe conditions of life have not sensibly changed on the surface of the\nglobe since the formation of the rocks subjacent to the metamorphous\nrocks.\n\nWe deny that the earth is actually passing through a period of repose,\nand we do not believe that it has ever formerly been more disturbed.\nSince the age of the first vestiges of the organic life, which we find\nin the most ancient rocks, we think that our planet has not ceased to\nmove in a calm and continuous march of existence; we think, in fact,\nthat geological phenomena of all sorts, which we hear of now-a-days,\nare the exact history of the past, during which some volcanic phenomena\nhave also taken place, but in an entirely sporadic manner. \u201cThe day\nis, perhaps, not very distant,\u201d said M. Lartet, at the Institute,[310]\nin 1858, \u201cwhen it will be proposed to strike out the word \u2018flood\u2019\nfrom the vocabulary of positive geology.\u201d This day approaches still\nnearer.[311]\n\nBefore mooting, in our turn, a theory about the vertebrate animal\nkingdom (the only one which ought to occupy our attention) on the\nsurface of the globe, we simply ask, what is meant by \u00c9tienne Geoffroy\nby the words _some considerable time_? This is a difficulty, we own,\nand we have just said so. We wish that the thirty thousand years,[312]\nthe maximum time which we give to the farthest origin of man, should be\nconsidered as being the age which separates us from the first organic\nmatter cast into the bosom of the waters, in the same proportion as the\nradius of the earth is to the distance which separates our sun from the\nmost distant star of the most distant nebulous system which the best\ntelescope can observe. The extent alone of the heavens can give us an\nidea of the extent of the past.\n\nThis being granted, let us see how we can represent the history of\norganic development upon the earth in a few words, without hiding from\nourselves the immense obscurity which covers all origins. We are here\nexpressing merely a hypothesis. It will suffice us to see if this\nhypothesis will agree in a satisfactory manner with the facts noticed\nat the present day, on the surface and in the interior of the globe.\n\nAt the origin of the vertebrate world, since we are only examining\nthis, it seems rational to admit a primordial commencement, which\nnothing prevents us from considering as a new and special combination\nof organic matter, derived from the invertebrate world, which we may\nbelieve to have formerly existed. In the heart of this _embryo_ will\nhave appeared, by spontaneous generation, the first organism connected\nwith the vertebrate type. This was, doubtless, a simple anatomical\nelement, like that which histologists see every day formed in certain\ngranular liquids.\n\nWe do not imagine that the origin of life can be otherwise represented;\nfor to admit, as Isidore Geoffroy has done in certain passages of his\nworks, that the will of a God peopled the earth suddenly with perfect\nbeings, fit for producing other beings like themselves, would be to\nadmit a miracle, and science teaches us at the present day what to\nthink of all divine interventions, either past or present.[313]\n\nWe defy anyone to get out of this alternative,--either that there\nwas an instantaneous and miraculous creation of a certain number of\nperfect animals;[314] or that there was a successive evolution, which\nis Lamarck\u2019s idea, modified by the sense of the new knowledge which we\nhave at the present day, arising, on the one hand, from geology, and on\nthe other, from philosophical anatomy.\n\nLet us return to this primordial anatomical element which we may\ncall _individual-element_. It virtually represents a vertebrate\nanimal just as the ovum detached from the ovary of the female\nrepresents a man, who is only waiting for favourable circumstances\nin order to develope himself. This individual-element, according\nto our hypothesis, is at first simply reproduced; then, after some\nconsiderable time, its descendants, will, little by little, in their\nown sphere of activity, give birth to other elements in juxtaposition\nto themselves, in this manner perfecting it and identifying it more and\nmore with the vertebrate type which it offers for our consideration.\nAfter some considerable time vertebrates of as simple an organism\nas mixin\u00e6 and lampreys will have thus appeared. Then, again, after\nanother considerable lapse of time--millions of centuries, rather\nthan thousands--these animals with elementary vertebra will have\nsuccessively produced, by transformation, all the vertebrata which\nstock the globe at the present day.\n\nWe must here make an important remark. We have inferred by all which\nprecedes this, that the vertebrata of the present day and the fossil\nvertebrata all descend from the same individual-element prototype,\nwhose existence we have admitted. In one word, we think that all\nthe vertebrata, both present and past, have the same genealogy, and\nare all relations. That may doubtless be the case; but nothing will\nmake us admit that there once existed on our planet conditions fit\nfor the birth of this individual-element prototype, and that these\ncircumstances have never since been represented; so that the most\nsimple vertebrata of our time may very well descend from a less ancient\nspontaneous genesis than the mammalia and man himself. Nothing hinders\nsuch a supposition. It does not cost us any more to admit that one day\nor other a simple organic element is formed, endowed with a life of\nits own, and, even more, with a latent life, which it can, by means of\ntime and circumstances, diffuse around it; it does not cost us more to\nadmit this than to admit that similar elements have arisen at different\nperiods of time. This last supposition may even be regarded as so much\nmore probable, that we must renounce entirely, in order to explain\nspecific transformations, the influence of the geological revolutions\nof which \u00c9tienne Geoffroy took so much account. We have seen higher up\nthat these were far from being proved; we can add, in support of our\nassertion, a fact which we think has not been sufficiently remarked. If\nthese revolutions ever existed, we have a strong proof that they have\nonly very slightly altered the conditions of life on the surface of\nthe globe, at least since the ancient periods during which the first\nalluvium was deposited; if we dredge some yards deep in the ocean,\nthe drag brings up terebratul\u00e6 and encrini; that is to say, animals\nidentical with those which we find in the most ancient alluvia. Is\nit not remarkable that the lowest placed fossil in the stratigraphic\nladder of the beds of the terrestrial surface, the most ancient fossil\nwhich we know, is precisely this same terebratula, which still lives\nin our seas? What must we hence conclude? That there once existed on\nthe globe, at least to a certain extent, conditions of aquatic life\nsensibly identical with those which exist at the present day.\n\nWhether all the species of vertebrata descend from one original\nspontaneous beginning, or from many successive ones, signifies very\nlittle, since, in the second case, the primordial individual-elements\nwhich have thus appeared at various times, would always show a great\nanalogy to one another.\n\nNow, after all that we have said, this is how we may, in our opinion,\nrepresent by a graphic figure the whole of the vertebrate kingdom,[315]\nin the present and in the past. Let us image a conical figure: the\nindividual-element of which we have spoken will occupy its summit.\nFrom this point a number of straight lines, few at first, will start,\nbranching off and always multiplying themselves with more or less\nregularity, but so as to form an immense cone.[316]\n\nEach of these straight lines would represent a _specific modification_,\naccomplished after a certain number of generations under the combined\ninfluence of the ambient medium and of some considerable time: in other\nterms, each ramification would represent a species having once existed\nor now existing on our planet. The length of each line would measure\nthe time which the species in question has existed. These lines would\nnever converge, because we do not believe in the creation of permanent\nspecies by means of hybridity.\n\nNow the mind must admit here all possible combinations; certain species\nhave disappeared without producing any others after them:--others exist\nactually without our having any idea of one of the intermediary species\nwhich have been allied to primitive species;--others have subsisted\nslightly or not at all altered from the remotest antiquity up to our\nown days, thus becoming through contemporaneous time the transformed\ndescendants of fossil species, of which they were also formerly the\ncontemporaries; it is even not impossible but that certain species\nsucceeding one another may have presented a retrograde evolution,\nso that we must not always conclude that because one animal is only\ninferior to another, it has therefore preceded it:--without going so\nfar as all this, the evolution of certain species may have presented\na long time of cessation whilst all others were progressing around\nthem, so that they appear to have retrograded. This is what has made\nM. Michelet[317] say, \u201cNature has not progressed with a continuous\nflow, but with retrograde movements, and stoppages, which allow her to\nharmonise everything.\u201d These times of repose in a specific evolution,\nas well as the hypothesis of successive geneses which are already\nadmitted, explain how the stratified beds of the earth\u2019s surface, in\nshowing from low to high what we may call more perfect organic means,\nunveil at the same time to our eyes here and there a certain number of\nspecies, inferior in organisation to those in the most ancient rocks.\n\nAs to explaining how a part of the ancient species has been able to\nmodify itself whilst another has remained stationary, we must admit\nthat all these influences of _medium_ have always been exclusively\nlocal, so that all the coexisting vertebrata have never been able\nto submit at once to its influence. We must understand by medium,\n_the whole of the circumstances, past or present, which are able to\ninfluence organism mediately or immediately in any manner whatsoever_.\nThe ancestors of an animal, as well as the sun which warms it, and the\nparasites which devour it, make up a part of this medium.\n\nBut if it is easy to explain variety by the medium, it is a difficulty\nagainst which the mind struggles. How can we explain ascending and\nprogressive variety? must we believe in some finality, an end settled\nbeforehand? We do not think so. Finality is a sort of divine prevision,\nand the world as regards this hypothesis is still in tutelage; we\nwould rather believe in a creating intelligence. A simple example will\nmake our meaning understood. In the vegetable world this strikes us\nforcibly:--the most simply formed plants are precisely those which\napproach most nearly to animals by reason of their physiological\nmanifestations.[318] The plants which they call superior, by placing\nthem in an organographic point of view, are in reality inferior,\nso that these plants are simple in reference to the dicotyledons\nwhich have necessarily succeeded them, and there has been in reality\na retrograde march of life, instead of the ascending march of the\nanimal kingdom. Must we seek for the reason of this difference in the\npresence of a nervous system? We think so. We then would admit that\norganism would tend to modify itself by an inconscient act of the will,\nanalogous to those which rule most physiological actions; this would be\nsomething like the possible increase or growth of the head by reason\nof the influence of civilisation of which we have before spoken.[319]\nAnd whilst all the specific varieties would result among plants from\nthe influence of the physical medium, we must add to the notion of this\nmedium, as regards animals, the nervous activity of the ancestors.\n\nBy the side of this creating influence we must recognise in the medium\na parallel destructive influence. Now, we can appreciate this every\nday. The present tells us about the past; we cannot doubt but that\nspecies formerly disappeared exactly as we see them still disappear\nunder our eyes by the manifestation of some new condition of the\nmedium; these may be sudden; volcanic phenomena, floods, extreme\nvariations of temperature, diseases, famines, enemies--all these\nhypotheses are possible, and all equally reasonable: the _dodo_ has\ndisappeared some years ago, having been destroyed by the hand of\nman; they say that the _apterix_ will soon disappear in the same\nway, devoured by cats. But actions only moderately destructive were\ndoubtless otherwise very important, and we find here all the phenomena\nwhich have been so well described, and so well explained by Darwin[320]\nunder the name of _vital competition_. By this we see, even since\nthe most ancient historic periods, that certain savage animals, like\nthe lion,[321] crocodile,[322] and hippopotamus,[323] retire before\nmankind; that the black rat is disappearing in Europe to give place\nto the field mouse, and that a race of savages disappears when their\ncountry begins to be inhabited by a more civilised race, even when the\nvictors in this organic, as well as political, struggle, are not able\nto reproach themselves with any cruelty.\n\nNow, let us apply to man the theory of the origin of species which we\nwish to be dominant, for there is no reason to think that man forms\nany exception to the common rule. Before all things, we must remember\nthat human races cannot lend themselves to any classification in\nnatural series. It is also as impossible for the naturalist to point\nout a race at the present day from which all the others are derived,\neither parallelly or successively, as for the historian to discover\nin the past any trace of a homogeneous humanity. If even such an\nuniformity had ever existed, how would the remembrance of it have been\nkept, for it is evident that this primitive form, constituting at the\nbeginning all the human genus, would be the same _inferior_ form, such\nas the Negro or the Bosjesman, for instance, nature rising in general\nfrom inferiority to perfection. This was for a long time Prichard\u2019s\nidea, and certain monogenists think the same at the present day. This\nhypothesis, entering at its basis into the doctrine of evolution, has\nnothing in itself which is startling; we can only say one thing against\nit, and that is in its admitting as proved that filiation which would\nconnect one with the other all the groups composing in our times the\ngenus _homo_. For our part, we wish simply to extend the same manner\nof viewing the matter, to generalise it, and to place it in relation\nwith this immense unknown which is behind us, and of which monogenists\ndo not take enough notice. We maintain that there has existed in the\nnight of time a certain species, less perfect than the most imperfect\nman, remounting by a certain number of intermediary species, of whose\nnature it is impossible for us at present to form any idea,--to\nthis primordial vertebrate animal which we admit. This species, a\nrough outline of what man now is, gave birth, after a considerable\ntime, to many other species, whose parallel and unequal evolution,\nfollowing what we have said concerning animals, has at the present\nday as contemporaneous (but not the last) illustration, the different\n_species_ of men designated by the name of races. So that all humanity\nwould be in relationship, if the expression be allowed us, not in the\n_serial sense_, as monogenists take it, but in the _collateral sense_,\nand at a degree which we cannot determine; the prognathous races\nprobably less deviated from the former type, the others more separated\nfrom this type, and more perfect.\n\nIt may be seen, and we are bound to make the remark, that we no more\npretend to make man a descendant of the ape, than a white man a\ndescendant of a Negro; but it is not impossible, in our opinion, that\nspecies of men, as well as the great apes whose relationship hurts our\nvanity so much, may remount infinitely far in the past to an unknown\nsingle species, whose descendants, submitted to multiplied influences,\nmight be modified in different ways by reason of these different\ninfluences.\n\nWe admit, then, that species is an instant of a constant evolution;\nthat it does not exist by itself; and that it is only an appreciation\nof our senses, localised by time. In our opinion, if species is fixed,\nit is fixed after the manner of the sun. That is to say, that we cannot\nperceive any movement in it beyond the merest trifle.\n\nIt requires thousands of years to discover either solar displacement or\nspecific alteration. This is what makes the determination of species so\ndifficult; some of which may be considered as in progress of formation\nin reference to others. The difficulty is the same with mankind as it\nis with animals. We would not dare to contradict, for instance, the\nopinions of those who see in the Hind\u00fa, German, and Celtic population\nthree species in course of formation, all three being probably derived\nfrom a species anterior to that which history endeavours at the present\nday to name; that Aryan race of which such a noble picture is made,\nand which we believe to be primitive because it is in the horizon of\nhistory, just as the ancients saw in the ocean the limits of the world.\nIn a short time, perhaps, some discovery in a poor Asiatic field will\ntake away from the Aryas the characteristic nobility and intelligence\nwhich we give to them with so much satisfaction. It belongs to human\npal\u00e6ontology alone to enlighten us upon the origin of the _present_\nhuman types; it alone can lead us in a sure path towards the great\nproblem of their origin.\n\nBut both geology, and pal\u00e6ontology which depends on it, have the\nsingular destiny of showing at one and the same time both great\ncertainties and insoluble doubts. The stratification of rocks, for\nexample, gives us very clearly the notion of the succession of\nthese rocks with regard to one another. But it leaves us in absolute\nignorance of all which has passed between the deposit of one stratum\nand the deposit of that which we meet with above it; in this unknown\ntime all may take place, ten series of rocks may have been placed upon\nit, and then have been so well mingled together that we cannot discover\ntheir individual trace. Who will tell us about the continents engulphed\nby the sea; has it not already ground up under its waves those\nmemorials of ancient days, which would be so useful to us as a means of\nreconstructing the history of man? Geology is a gigantic inscription\nlacerated for ever: each age will decipher some fragment, but we shall\nnever be able to read it in its perfect state.\n\nBesides its great advantages, pal\u00e6ontological inquiry has its great\ninconveniences. Its advantages are the studying of animal forms\nwhich are fixed for ever, and not seeing the field of such studies\ncontinually increasing on our view. The limit of its inquiries is the\norigin of the alluvium; all the facts which we are thereby called\nupon to study are within this boundary. Pal\u00e6ontology alone, among the\nsciences of the present day, knows the extent of its domain.\n\nBut pal\u00e6ontology, proceeding step by step, by blows of the pickaxe in\nan otherwise inaccessible mass, is composed of two orders of facts,\nwhich must be distinguished one from the other, resting either on\naffirmative evidence (the existence of organic remains in a rock) or\non negative evidence (the absence of organic remains in a rock). Human\npal\u00e6ontology itself has its own inconveniences. A bone or a skull of\na man are things which are well known; they have not that strange\nappearance in the eyes of the crowd which makes them take ammonites\nfor petrified serpents, hamites[324] for leeches, radiated animals for\nstars; when we dig up some singular bone, some carapace of a lizard, a\nfish, or of some unknown animal, we pick it up, and take great care of\nit. But if it is a man\u2019s head, it is generally replaced religiously in\nthe earth, and these remains are for ever lost to the scientific world.\n\nThere result from all this two sorts of ideas in pal\u00e6ontology, the one\npositive, the other negative: it is true, however, that the latter\ndiminish continually the profit we obtain from the former, and it is\nimportant to remember that this negative evidence is the only basis\nupon which rests the hypothesis that man is so new to our globe as some\nimagine. Every moment we may expect to see the interior of the earth\nprove the contrary. Instead of discoveries following one another, and\nbeing linked together as in other sciences, forming a whole which hangs\ntogether by itself, pal\u00e6ontology goes on from hand to mouth, as it\nwere, at the caprice of whatever may happen, without knowing the wonder\nwhich is about to be revealed, perhaps at a few steps from a path which\nmillions of men have passed by.\n\nIt is very true that the human bones which have hitherto been found\nin the ground in caverns seem to proceed from a form but slightly\ndifferent from our own; but all this is very recent, relatively to this\n_considerable time_ of which we have before spoken. Who can say but\nthat we may find very soon a skull which must be classed, whether one\nwill or not, between the anthropomorphous apes and man?\n\n\u00c9tienne Geoffroy, led by the logical nature of his ideas, naturally\nadmitted this intermediary form, anterior to our own; but seeing the\nmammalia of the last geological ages generally larger than those\nwhich are contemporary with ourselves, he concluded besides that our\nimmediate ancestors were giants, and that we have degenerated, like the\ndescendants of the bears and hyenas found in caverns.[325] Nothing has\nappeared in order to justify this hypothesis, and everything seems to\nshow that since that epoch the height of the genus _homo_ has not much\naltered, whilst the size of the different genera of ferines, ruminants,\nand pachyderms has positively varied.\n\n_Recapitulation._ Since we have found that man is comparable in all\npoints to animals, we ought to seek for him and for them a common\norigin, and the difficulty of admitting an initial miracle has led us\nto the idea of _evolution_. If in the science of observation it is\npermitted to refer to general ideas, assuredly it is so in this case;\nphilosophy commences where science ends, and it belongs to it to give\nus an explanation of the matter; but we must wait for the future for a\ntrue positive solution of the problem, perhaps from advanced geology,\nperhaps from experiments. The genius of man has no bounds, who can say\nto what it may reach? who knows whether, like a new Prometheus,[326]\na creator in his turn, he may not one day breathe life into some new\nspecies, which will suddenly appear from his laboratories?\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IX.\n\nSYSTEM.\n\n\nAll science leads necessarily to a _system_; and system signifies\nhere, not the proceeds of observation or a route followed by analysis\nor synthesis in order to arrive at the knowledge of the truth. System\nhere means, a mode of classifying beings or observed facts, a mode\nessentially in connection with the science which treats of these beings\nor of these facts, and often applicable to itself alone.\n\nA perfect system can only be really established _\u00e0 posteriori_, after\nthe knowledge has been acquired of all the phenomena which are to be\nclassed. This is absolute. In practice, a system can only be observed\n_\u00e0 priori_, by reference to a certain number of facts which it is\ndestined afterwards to embrace; it is only true that the more facts\nwe acquire, the more chance has a system of being exact, without\nour ever having the right of proclaiming it to be absolutely good;\nit may be satisfactory, and remain so for a long time, but one fine\nday a new fact may prove it to be false. \u201cI am of opinion,\u201d said\n\u00c9tienne Geoffroy, \u201cthat a perfect system cannot exist; it is a sort of\nphilosopher\u2019s stone, impossible to be discovered.\u201d[327]\n\nA science being given, it does not at all follow that there already\nexists a proper method for classifying in a natural series the\nphenomena which manifest themselves to us in this branch of human\nknowledge. If we have not yet succeeded in discovering a true\nanthropological system, if Camper, Prichard, and Morton have been\nfoiled, it is because the science of mankind is still too new.\n\nEven in making an abstract of the difficulties always to be found in\ndetermining every animal _species_, difficulties which are derived\nfrom the way in which we understand its evolution,[328] must we be\nastonished that the human race is not yet divided into distinct groups,\nwhen animals, much more easy to class on account of their lesser\ndegree of intellectual and social activity, are not yet classed in a\nsatisfactory manner,[329] when the Geoffroys, Cuvier, and De Blainville\nhave failed in something or other, since this question seems still\nworthy of examination by the greatest minds of Europe with which the\nnatural sciences are honoured at the present day? The natural history\nof man is of to-day, and the difficulties are great, because by virtue\nof his intellect man possesses resistance and special affinity.\nLiving by nations, he lives a double life; his own, and that of the\nnation--which is a separate thing--into which a neighbouring race or\nspecies can enter wholly, adopting the same customs, the same dress,\nand the same language. There are difficulties which we meet with in\nanthropology, and which we only meet with there. A species has been\nknown to disappear, for instance, and has left its name to some group\nentirely different from it, for if the Ethnic name has served at\nthe origin to name the inhabited country, the geographical name has\nreacted in its turn, and has imposed itself on all the people who have\nsuccessively occupied the same area. Other difficulties will arise from\nregions inhabited by distinct species, if these limits are not marked\nby some physical barrier almost impossible to be passed.\n\nThus we are far, even at the present day, from agreeing about the\nbases of a good anthropological classification. Many methods have\nbeen tried, but none have as yet succeeded. Some have adopted\ngeographical division. Others, the colour of the skin. Others, the\nstate of the hair. Others (the most numerous class), have stopped at\nthe shape of the head. The skull has chiefly exercised the sagacity of\nanatomists and anthropologists, and we can say fairly that there is no\ncombination to which it has not been submitted in order to arrive at\nthe distribution of mankind into natural groups. We must remark that\nall these cranioscopic classifications rest involuntarily upon this\n_datum_, that the different kinds of men are unequally endowed with\nintellect. Starting, then, from this principle, that the volume of the\nbrain is in _ratio_ to intelligence, or that intellect is in _ratio_ to\nthe volume of the brain, people tried to find a simple, rather than an\neasy, method of taking account of such an irregular solid: and Camper\nopened the way with his famous angle.\n\nThis system was soon followed by others who are less celebrated,\nhaving come after him. We may quote, among others, the interior angle\nof Walther, described by two lines, the one going from the occipital\nprotuberance to the _crista galli_ process, the other from the frontal\nprominence to the root of the nose. There is also the external angle of\nMulders, described by the facial line of Camper, and another line going\nfrom the base of the process to the root of the nose. And, lastly,\nthat of Daubenton, described by a line going from the inferior margin\nof the orbit to the posterior region of the occipital orifice, and by\nanother following the direction of the plane of the same.[330] All\nthese systems are worth as much as Camper\u2019s. All, including Camper\u2019s,\nare false and worthless, from the mere fact that they pretend to\nmeasure a solid by the inclination of two of its boundary-planes one\nupon the other. After these methods of measurement, and superior to\nall of them, comes the _norma verticalis_ of Blumenbach; then the\nmeasurements of Cuvier, Owen, etc. Here we gain a step; we endeavour\nto measure a solid by its outline, or by the area of a systematic\ndivision or section. Already had Camper, better gifted than his angle\nwould inform us, endeavoured to compare the different diameters of the\nprofile of the skull, as seen in front.[331] As to Cuvier\u2019s division,\nit is a very happy modification of a former proposed measurement, the\nincisive-occipital line of Doornick. It is obtained by lowering a\nvertical line to the plane of the external auditory orifice, and by\nleading another line from the incisors to the extreme protuberance of\nthe occipital region. The relation of the two determinated divisions in\nthis line by its intersection with the first, will give the statistics\nof comparison.[332]\n\nProgress has been immense, and yet our systems remain very\nunsatisfactory; the skull seems to escape every method of measurement.\nSome time ago a meeting of craniologists took place at Gottingen, and\nyet the learned assembly was obliged to separate without settling\nanything.[333] It seems that the old saying of Bernard Palissy about\nmeasuring some peculiar skull, will remain true in spite of all our\nefforts: \u201cI have never known how to obtain a correct measurement.\u201d[334]\nAnother method is that of Morton, to which he has attached his name by\nthe multiplicity of facts which he has drawn, from it, by the justice\nof the views which he has expressed, after having used it thousands\nof times; we speak of the direct measurement of the interior capacity\nof the skull. It is for ever to be regretted that Morton finished his\nlaborious career without having been able to publish the ultimate\nresults of his long researches; but this method (which M. Broca has\nactively applied), is, however, not quite perfect. If there was merely\na difference among the different races in the amount of intellect\nshown in their works, this measurement would be sufficient to establish\na division; but there is more than that; all races have different\naptitudes, and here is to be found the fault of Morton\u2019s system, which\nonly takes the whole, which makes no distinction between very different\nskulls if they have the same volume, like those of the Esquimaux, for\ninstance, and those of Americans. The subject of measurement differs,\nlike intellect, otherwise than merely in dimension, and that which\ncraniology wants is the definition of all these special tendencies of\nthe intellect by as many tangible varieties as possible.[335]\n\nCraniology is not anthropology; it assists it materially, but the\npartial results which it obtains have not necessarily the same value in\nthe more general point of view of anthropology. Every classification,\nbased on the form of the skull, will be necessarily an artificial\nclassification, because it will only rest upon one sole order of\nphenomena. Besides, this study presents great difficulties from the\nindividual differences which the various heads show, in which the\nqualities belonging to the individual have been so far able to hide the\ngeneral characters of the race, that these often remain unrecognisable.\nDivisions have also increased in proportion as craniological\ncollections have come richer in specimens. Morton only reckoned\neleven human races, but he believed under the truth. We may very well\nhave a poor idea of the value of this classification by studying the\nmaterials which were used by the philosopher of Philadelphia. Besides\nthe American race, Morton had only a very few skulls at his disposal.\nThe Philadelphian collection, which has been much increased since\nhis death, contained, only a few years ago, 1035 skulls, 38 of them\npathological; there remain therefore but 997. Out of this number the\nAmerican race figures in 502, or more than one-half. There remains,\ntherefore 495, 154 of which came from the valley of the Nile; so that\nmerely 350 skulls represent the whole of Europe, Asia, the Oceanic\ncountries, and Africa (excepting Egypt). This is not much for the\npurpose of classing a population likely to be raised to five hundred\nmillions of inhabitants.[336]\n\nIt remains for us to study and determine the intrinsic value of each of\nthese heads. The authentic production of a skull is not always easy to\nbe established when it comes from the other side of the world, obtained\nby travellers who have not made a special study of anthropology; it is\neven less so when a skull is dug up in a burial ground, where there\nmay be a certain promiscuousness very apt to hinder our inquiries.\nErrors of this kind steal into science only too often, and we have\nfor a long time in particular objected to the name of _Gallic mummy_,\nwhich has been given to a body in a collection at Paris, the history\nof which does not at all justify this denomination, since we simply\nbelieve that _when it was first dug up_ it was only referred back to\nthe _thirteenth_ century![337]\n\nCraniology was anthropology itself, whilst this science was being\ncultivated merely by learned men in their studies. If a skull does\nnot always bear about it the stamp of the race to which it belongs,\nwe must nevertheless own that it is the best representative of the\ndead individual. Craniology obtains all its weight and powers from the\nstudy of ancient races and extinct peoples. There it ought to intervene\nwith an unequalled importance, for want of better points of reference.\nBy its means anthropology can search in the past, clearing up those\nquestions which history is incapable of explaining. In this manner\nMorton has been able to prove better than by any historical document\nthat Ancient Egypt was inhabited by very mixed races, and composed of\nthe most different elements, exactly as in our own days. But there\nremained a problem even more interesting: that of knowing if the\ndifferent races who then inhabited the banks of the Nile were as much\ndivided into various occupations as at the present day: the Albanians\nare all soldiers, the Copts all scribes and officials, the Fellahs\nall labourers, etc. Doubtless it would be possible, if not easy, to\narrive at the solution of this new problem by collecting skulls and\nmummies with more care than has hitherto been done, and, above all,\nby assisting the researches of the Egyptiologists, who can read upon\nthe coffin that such and such a body is that of a workman, a priest, or\na king. We may thus be able to ascertain if the kings of such or such\na dynasty were black or yellow; if the dominant population of such or\nsuch a _nome_ had the Coptic, Berberine, or Fellah type. Here we have a\nlarge field for study, which has been almost entirely neglected by the\nAmerican school of anthropology, precisely because Morton found himself\nwithout information about the production and true age of the immense\nmaterials which he had at his disposal.\n\nBut we must not be forgetful: the classification of skulls by their\nshape, of hairs by their colour, or skins by their hue, is not the\nclassification of races of mankind. We only perceive here one order of\nphenomena. A classification established upon such bases has its point\nof departure only in the mind of him who conceived it, and not in the\nnature of things.\n\nWe shall only have a natural and rational classification by comparing\nentire individuals one with the other.[338] To this we must come;\nwe must study at one and the same time the height, the skin with\nits dependencies, and, above all, the character of the countenance,\nthe attitude, the _facies_, and the _habitus_ of different races,\nwhich Caldwell called \u201cthe variety discoverable in the complexion\nand feature, the figure and stature of the human race;[339]\u201d this\n_something_ is explained in one word, which we call _type_, about\nwhich we are never mistaken, and which makes us say, \u201cThis is a man\nfrom the south, that is a man from the north; this is a Mongolian,\nthat an Indian.\u201d[340] By this means alone we can form natural groups;\ndifficulties will, doubtless, be great at the beginning, but light will\ncome little by little, and time will teach us surely to distinguish\ncertain distinctive characteristics, whose expression will be gradually\nmore and more simple. This is a work for the future.\n\nAnthropology regarding man as a whole, classifiers ought not to neglect\nhis psychological value. Although craniology is only an indirect\nappreciation of the same, few had ever thought, Linn\u00e6us excepted, of\nusing the purely intellectual characteristics of races in order to\nassist them in classification, when all at once the American school\ngave an immense importance to these characteristics, and placed\npsychological varieties above all the material differences which can\nbe observed in the configuration of the bony case of the skull. The\nAmerican school has gone too far, for it is tangible forms especially\nwhich must furnish specific characteristics in the animal kingdom.\n\nHowever this may be, we may willingly give a secondary value to the\nintellectual classification of the human race, although _data_ are\nstill wanting in order to establish one which can be considered as\ncomplete. We will even add that the characteristics of this order\nare the more authentic and the more precious since they are not\nthe expression of a given moment, nor that of a certain number of\nindividuals. They belong to a whole race.\n\nWe must seek for them in the literary remains of a people. These teach\nus surely, even after many ages have elapsed, about the mind, belief,\nand thoughts of their readers. The monuments of plastic art remain,\neven if they were a complete contradiction against their time, their\nepoch, the men who ordered them, and the crowd which now regards\nwithout understanding them.[341] A book, on the contrary, has no\nsuccess except as it enters into the mind of a people,--except as the\nideas which it expresses are those of all the world. Each book which\nis published, then (like the Mosaic books among the Jews, the Kor\u00e1n\namongst the Mussulmen), is the true expression of the mind of a race at\nall the periods of its existence, even were it written in a language\nwhich is no longer spoken. The best Greek and Roman works, written for\nmen of the same blood as ourselves, have remained classical. We must\nunderstand them, even at the present day, and we do understand them,\nbecause the thoughts which animated their authors are still our own.\nIf, on the contrary, we wish to penetrate into any foreign literature,\nit becomes a labour and a fatigue, we only reach it by making an\nabstraction of our thoughts and our ideas, by endeavouring to enter\nentirely, by a violent effort, into the life and feelings of another\npeople.\n\nLanguages also have been considered capable of serving as a basis for\nthe classification of the human race. Their importance has been largely\ndiscussed, and counts numerous warm partisans.[342] At their head we\nmay perhaps mention Latham, who wishes the ancient history of mankind\nto be studied by languages,[343] and agreeing in Prichard\u2019s ideas\nabout the production of intermediary hybrid races, he only sees this\nmethod of reading the history of the past, and he is quite naturally\nled to language, which seems to him to offer better conditions of\nresistance[344] than physical characteristics.\n\nIt is true that philology, applied to anthropological research, is of\nimmense assistance to it; it can give us powerful inductions on the\nhistory of the past, and on the origin of the present human species.\nBut even these, solutions agree very well with the theory of gradual\nevolution, and with the corollary of this theory, namely, that man has\nnot always possessed the faculty of speech.[345] Philologists tell\nus, for instance, that two sister tribes may have been able, at some\npast time, to create on each side of a mountain two different idioms,\nwhich may produce in their turn two families of languages absolutely\nirreducible one from the other. This is what would take place,\naccording to M. Renan, when the sons of the same parents, separating\non the sides of the Im\u00e4us, became the double branch from whence have\nsprung the Semites on one side, and the Aryas on the other. This would\nbe the explanation of the fact so embarrassing for anthropologists,\nthat physical characteristics are sensibly identical among the Semites\nand Europeans, whilst these races are as distinct as possible in the\nmatter of language. Now, we may even go further, and infer from these\nfacts that the common species from whence the Semites, on the one hand,\nand the Aryas, on the other, are descended, did not yet know how to\nspeak.\n\nInversely to Latham, some anthropologists have given, in our opinion,\ntoo little importance to language: we speak especially of Edwards and\nM. Omalius d\u2019Halloy.[346] The truth lies, doubtless, between these two\nextremes. It must be acknowledged that language can very often furnish\nexcellent evidence, but it must not be forgotten that it shows at the\nsame time a more rapid liability to change than moral characteristics\nand corporal form. Niebuhr seems to us to be right when he insists upon\nthe precautions to be taken in order to apply philology in a useful\nmanner to the determination of races, and he concludes that we must\ngive the greatest attention to physical configuration.[347] This is\nalso the opinion of Humboldt[348] and M. Vivien.[349] A language, like\nevery custom, and every act of individual relation, can transmit itself\nfrom one race to another which is very different. The unity of a family\nof languages is not always sufficient to establish that the people who\nspeak these idioms are of one and the same origin; we can only conclude\nfrom it that they have been in relation one with the other, and it is\neven reasonable to admit that this cause has been able to act with a\ndecisive influence at the epoch when man first commenced to lisp.[350]\nThese two tribes meeting for the first time, physically strangers one\nto the other, were doubtless able to borrow mutually certain habits,\nand to mingle in a decided manner their two manners of explaining their\nthoughts, from which has resulted one sole language, in which we cannot\ndistinguish except by analysis the two different branches which have\ncontributed to its formation. This hypothesis has been even elevated\nto a general thesis by several philologists, and M. d\u2019Escayrac de\nLauture, among others, believes that the centre of Africa, that land\nof the unknown and of mystery, is reserved to us as a spectacle of\nthis phenomenon.[351] Without going back to origin, it is evident that\ntwo neighbouring peoples, in continual relation one with the other,\nought to end by borrowing mutually the forms of language, letters, and\narticulation, especially when they have neither of them any literature\ncapable of retaining the language within its limits, and of preserving\nit from all separation.\n\nHence it results that anthropology must take its most precious\nauthorities from the study of languages, in the language of the\nislands, for instance, and in the idioms spoken at the extremity of the\ncontinents: thus surrounded by the sea, in relation by its less extent\nwith the others, these idioms will be preserved even more intact. We\nshall find here the real expression of the most ancient state of things\nwhich we can directly recognise by philology. The _click_ language, so\npeculiar to one single race,[352] exists only in the most southern part\nof Africa. They still speak the ancient Pali[353] in the south of Asia\nand at Ceylon. The most ancient language of Europe, so far as we know,\nnamely the Celtic, still remains in Britanny and in Wales.\n\nFrom all which has gone before, we may then conclude that in order\nto establish a rational classification of human species, the first\ncharacteristics to be considered will be the _external aspect_, and\nperhaps the _moral characteristics_; the rest will come in the second\nrank: at first, language, then deep anatomical varieties which do not\nstrike us at the first glance, then physiological and pathological\nvarieties, etc. Such is, we think, the only certain basis upon which\nanthropology can rest--the true distinctions between human species.\nWe do not even yet know exactly their number, and naturalists do not\nat all agree on this subject; the work is to be done over again, by\nfollowing a new route.\n\nWithout troubling ourselves with enquiring into the whole system of\nthe genus _homo_, we must at first examine these well-characterised\ncentres of population which are entirely distinct as regards aspect and\nphysiognomy. We must mark these centres with care, paying attention\nto all the physical, moral, and philological varieties which we are\nable to notice. M. Flourens has given some excellent principles for\nthe study of animal species; he wishes simply to apply them to the\nstudy of human species; and from this connection, which nobody can\ncontradict as a means of investigation, there arises a farther proof\nof the rank which we must give to man in the organic series. \u201cWe must\nobserve the living animal,\u201d said M. Flourens; \u201cwe must observe him\nfor a long time, and also both sexes and all ages. We must study his\nnature, his instincts, and his intellect. Each of these things has its\nown characteristic in each animal, and it is by the whole of these\ncharacteristics put together that species is defined.\u201d It is impossible\nto trace in a better manner the anthropologists\u2019 task.\n\nWhen we have well studied a homogeneous centre of population under all\nits aspects, when we have rendered an account of its physiological,\npsychological, and philological characteristics, we may stop; and\nwithout prejudging anything concerning the area of this race, may then\npass on to another centre, which we shall notice in the same way,\nwithout troubling ourselves with intermediary varieties, which will\nalways be in a greater or lesser number wherever we do not happen to\nmeet with a physical barrier, like the sea or a chain of mountains,\nwhich may separate the two centres which are to be observed. Then we\nshall, doubtless, have numberless shades and transitions; but these are\nmerely the phenomena of hybridity, entirely secondary, and which ought\nnot at all to influence our essays on anthropological classification.\nAt a later period, when we know more, we shall be able to review all\nthese intermediary varieties, when we understand their conditions of\nexistence better. In this manner we must take care at the beginning to\nstudy certain countries, places of travel, and meeting, to which all\nthe neighbouring races have given some portion of their blood. Such are\nmost European countries, and such always was the Valley of the Nile\nand the Blue Nile. The streets of Cairo are not only a picturesque\nspectacle; from thence did \u00c9tienne Geoffroy borrow his grand views\nabout the position of the genus _homo_ in nature; the man of science\nprofits here as much in his search after truth as the artist in his\nsearch after the beautiful.\n\nWho can forget, even if he has only once seen it, this phantasmagoria\nof customs and physiognomies which developes itself before our eyes\nat every moment; here a gigantic Circassian, there a smaller sized\nCopt, with an arched nose; a Nubian, with his \u201cviolet ebony\u201d colour,\nbut with a pleasing figure, nose straight and small, thin lips, well\narranged teeth; a Turk, with as white and transparent a skin as a\nman of the north; a Negro, with crisped hair, flat nose, prominent\ncheek-bones, thick lips, large and projecting teeth; a Fellah, with\nolive complexion; a Bedouin, almost as black as a Nubian, but tall,\nwith aquiline nose, thin lips, and kingly bearing.\n\nWe must not seek for a pure population in the streets of Paris, London,\nMarseilles, Trieste, or Constantinople: we only find in these capitals\nisolated facts, good specimens, perhaps, of different species, but\nlost in the multitude of hybrids. We can only study in these places\n_individuals_, not _species_. In those parts alone which we must make\ncentres of observation, can we see the same man indefinitely multiplied\namong really primitive people, still free from intermixture, or with\nthe least possible taint of the same. Then we must hasten to seize his\ngeneral characteristics, and take both his physical and moral portrait.\n\nThe physical portrait in particular comprises two series of _data_,\nfeatures and colour. As to feature, photography is an unequalled\nresource, but it belongs to anthropological study to settle its\napplication in a clear manner: we must always choose some individual\npresenting the usual type of the population in the midst of which he\nis found, rather than among the chiefs or nobles of the land. We must\nselect this type in the prime of life, when the animal \u0153conomy has\narrived at its perfect development, and has not yet commenced to decay,\nand still shines in all the splendour of its reproductive force; this\nwould be, for man, from twenty-two to twenty-seven years of age. For\nphotographic portraits to be of real utility to anthropologists, they\nought to represent the individual completely full face, or in profile;\nthus only can they be of use in measurements. For it is important not\nto confound anthropology with ethnology, as is done every day. They are\ntwo things entirely different. _Dressed-up_ portraits are the domain of\nthe latter, the _natural_ history of man demands _always_ absolutely\nnude representations, and the best will be those which show us the\nindividual with untouched beard and hair.\n\nAs to colour, we must refer as much as possible to oil-painting. In\nfact, the colour of the human skin, as we have formerly said,[354] is,\nin reality, a complex visual impression; all the coloured rays (we\nemploy the term here in the conventional sense given to it in physics)\nwhich emanate from the skin, and which strike the eye of the observer,\nare not formed by the same plane surface; they arise from the more\nor less profound parts seen by transparency, through a more or less\ndiaphanous medium, more or less favourable for the emission of these\nrays. Hence results, as regards the eye, a special sensation, and as\nregards the mind, a special notion, which we explain in the arts by the\nword _transparency_ or _diaphaneity_.\n\nNow, this kind of sensation will not be reproduced by the artist unless\nhe employs certain processes recalling to the mind those of nature\nitself. This is not the case with water-colour painting. The colouring\nmatter, reduced to extremely fine particles, is applied, it is true,\nin a transparent vehicle--water; but this, destined to evaporate\nalmost immediately, leaves the colour on the surface of the paper,\nstretched into an extremely fine layer, without appreciable thickness.\nWe perceive from this the radical imperfection of water-colour for\nportraiture, and the impossibility of rendering by such means, at least\nwith truth, the effect of skin colours. Oil painting offers far better\nresources, and here is the secret of its incomparable superiority. The\ncolouring matter, diluted by the oil, remains suspended as before in\nits transparent medium when the painting is dry; so that the luminous\nrays, in order to arrive at the eye, start from the surface of the\npaint as well as from its interior substance. We find exactly the\nsame process in nature; an impalpable powder, like the pigmentary\ngranulations, or the globules of blood in the capillaries of the skin,\nis spread over a diaphanous substance.\n\nWe may now understand the advantage of such a process in\nanthropological iconography. We must, indeed, almost give up all\nother methods. It is easy to convince oneself of the fact by examining\nthe coloured portraits which illustrate the works of Prichard,[355]\nNott, and Gliddon,[356] who are, however, extremely particular about\nthe correctness of the types which they bring before our notice. But\nall these coloured portraits are unsatisfactory, and when we see some\nanthropologist invoke the authority of these bad prints, we really ask\nourselves which we ought most to admire, either the blind confidence\nof the _savant_, the imprudence of the author, or the rashness of the\nartist. Fancy, however, attacking with such platitudes the portraits\nof dark-coloured men which the masters of painting have left us, from\nVeronese to G\u00e9ricault! They alone have been able, by their process, to\nseize the reality of the complexion and colour of their models.[357]\n\nBut the surest method of arriving at conclusive evidence in\nanthropology is necessarily _travels_. Doubtless the study alone of\nthe materials collected from afar is of the greatest possible use. But\nwe repeat concerning the study of mankind what we said about the study\nof animals; the anthropologist must leave his library and go into the\ngreat continents, in order to study by means of his own eye-sight. \u201cWe\ncan only arrive at the distinction of species,\u201d says M. Flourens, \u201cby\n_direct and complete personal observation_.\u201d That it must be complete,\nwe have endeavoured to show; but the only condition for its being\ncomplete is its being direct. Had we even the genius of Buffon,[358] we\nshould see but poorly by means of others; facts reach us distorted and\naltered, because they have not always been observed by competent men;\nthey are not comparable, resulting as they do from diverse individual\nimpressions. It will be especially necessary to control with care\ntravellers\u2019 tales as regards the study of intellectual tendencies,\nsince they are too often influenced by their own ideas on the subject.\n\nLet us say this before concluding: among the _\u00e0 priori_ proofs which\npolygenists can bring forward on their side, there is one which is\nof some importance; it is this, that while contrary ideas have been\nsustained and defended by men who never go beyond their own studies,\nthe former have been generally brought forward by travellers and\nsailors, by those indeed who have been best able to put in practice\nthis _direct observation_, which is generally conclusive and decisive.\nIt is these whom we find the most ready to separate mankind into\ndistinct groups, and to recognise in the inferior species a manifest\ntendency to approach nearer the nature of the anthropomorphous apes.\nA valuable source of information, from which anthropologists must not\nneglect to borrow, are the accounts of those who landed for the first\ntime on certain islands and continents.\n\nIf they have even conceived any erroneous ideas, it must usually\nbe acknowledged that they are most likely to be able to give us a\ntolerably faithful portrait of the nations with whom they have met,\neven more important in certain points of view than the accounts\nafterwards given of them, since at that time these people have not\nbeen submitted to the various influences which necessarily result from\ncontact with Europeans.\n\nWe can study philology and craniology in the library and in solitude,\nassisted by proper documents and sufficient materials, _but not\nanthropology_; because anthropology is a science still in its\ncradle, and observation must have furnished its proper and necessary\ncontingent before we can endeavour to apply any general idea or view.\nBut anthropology ought, more especially, to disengage itself from all\ntrammels of former ideas, as well as from all pretended humanitarian\ntendencies. It would be nonsense to believe that the advance of the\ntruth will not contribute to social progress. The searcher after it can\nfree himself in all tranquillity of mind from this kind of trouble.\nHaller has said, in reference to this matter, \u201cThe cultivation of\ntruth alone is sufficient for the good man.\u201d[359] That which is\ntrue,[360] cannot be evil, because it is in the eternal order of nature.\n\nThus, free from fetters, and obeying pure reason, resting on all the\nsciences which can assist it, anatomy, physiology, psychology, and\nphilology, the science of mankind will advance, like every other\nscience, towards the conquest of that truth which is so much to be\ndesired; and sooner or later, by means of arch\u00e6ology and pal\u00e6ontology,\nretracing its steps in the past beyond history itself, and beyond the\nremotest geological epochs of which we have any record, science will\neventually discover the grand problem of the origin of mankind, if the\nelements themselves are not for ever engulphed in the depths of the\nocean.\n\n\nFINIS.\n\n\n\n\nINDEX OF SUBJECTS.\n\n\n  Aborigines, 54\n\n  Abou Simbel, 50\n\n  Abyssinia, 57\n\n  Acclimatisation, 58, 89\n\n  A\u00ebrolites, 112\n\n  Africa, Central, inhabitants of, 14, 68\n\n  African equality with European, 8\n\n  Age of the world, 122\n\n  Aldridge, Ira, 63\n\n  America, 6, 67, 74\n\n  Anatomy, human, 13\n\n  Angles of the skull, 137\n\n  Anoplotherium, 42\n\n  Anthropological Societies of Paris and London, 7\n\n  Anthropomorphous apes, 11, 41\n\n  Antilles, 56\n\n  Ants, 33\n\n  Arabs, 47\n\n  Aryan family, 19, 131, 143\n\n  Asiatic tribes, 18\n\n  Australia, 14, 67\n\n  Australian aborigines, 5, 16, 17, 44\n\n\n  Babel, Tower of, 5\n\n  Bedouin, 147\n\n  Bees, 33\n\n  Bigenerate hybrids, 96\n\n  Bimana, order of, 38\n\n  Blood, 53\n\n  Bosjesmans, 55, 79\n\n  Bourbon, Isle of, 87\n\n  Bowed legs, 47\n\n  Brain, 12\n\n  Brazil, 69\n\n  Brute and man, 19\n\n  Buddha, 52, 67, 71\n\n\n  Caffres, 68, 79\n\n  Cairo, 146\n\n  \u00c7akhya-Mouni, 52\n\n  Caledonians, 103\n\n  Cartesian theory, 26\n\n  Caus\u00e6 degenerationis, 90\n\n  Central America, 81\n\n  Chain of gradation, 37\n\n  Chinese, 5, 53, 78\n\n  Circassia, 147\n\n  Classification, 64, 135\n\n  Climate, 92\n\n  Clitoris, 54\n\n  Colour, 148\n\n  Consanguinity, 107\n\n  Consciousness, 12\n\n  Copts, 147\n\n  Cordilleras, 66\n\n  Craniology, 138\n\n  Cr\u00e9tins, 106\n\n  Crocodile, 128\n\n  Cross-breeding, 97\n\n\n  Danelag, 104\n\n  Degraded nations, 75\n\n  Desdemona, 63\n\n  Development of animals, 15\n\n  Dhargonis, 18\n\n  Disease, 58\n\n  Dog, 34\n\n\n  Earth, motion of, round the sun, 6\n\n  Egyptians, 49, 139\n\n  England, 103\n\n  Esquimaux, 15, 17, 18, 53, 54, 68, 75\n\n  Eurygnathi, 45\n\n  \u00c9vangile de l\u2019Enfance, 64\n\n  Evolution, 122\n\n\n  Family of man, 42\n\n  Fellah, 147\n\n  Flinder\u2019s Island, 97\n\n  Flood, the word, 122\n\n  Foot, 49\n\n  Forearm in Negro, 48\n\n  France, ethnology of, 104\n\n  Frugivorous man, 39\n\n\n  Gallic mummy, 139\n\n  God, belief in, 71\n\n  Good and evil, 23\n\n  Goths, 62\n\n  Gradation, chain of, 37\n\n  Grecian, theories, 81\n\n\n  Hair, colour of, 50, 52\n\n  Half-castes, 98\n\n  Hamites, 131\n\n  Harems, 101\n\n  Height, differences of, 47\n\n  Hindoostan, 40, 145\n\n  Hippopotamus, 128\n\n  History, 80\n\n  Homo\u00efdes, 98\n\n  Host, elevation of the, 66\n\n  Hottentots, 68\n\n  Human kingdom, 10\n\n  Humanitarian considerations, 73\n\n  Hybridity, 95\n\n\n  Iconography, 148\n\n  Ilotes, 84\n\n  Index, the congregation of the, 6\n\n  Individual-element, 124\n\n  Intelligence of man, 12\n\n\n  Japanese, 5\n\n  Jesus, 64\n\n  Jews, 70, 89\n\n\n  Kor\u00e1n, 1, 141\n\n\n  Labrador, 101\n\n  Language, 30, 33, 142, 145\n\n  Leucous, 51\n\n  Lima, 105\n\n  Linear series, 10\n\n  Lions, 128\n\n\n  Man and brute, 18\n\n  Marsh fever, 59\n\n  Material substance, 12\n\n  Mathesiological order of science, 2\n\n  Mechanical theory of mind, 26\n\n  Medi\u00e6val science, 1\n\n  Medium, action of, 82\n\n  Melanesians, 57\n\n  Melanocomous, 51\n\n  Monkey-countenance, 56\n\n  Monkey-people, 18\n\n  Monogenists, 3, 80\n\n  Monotheism, 66\n\n  Moral sense, 23\n\n  Mosaic statement, 114, 141\n\n\n  Namaquas, 68\n\n  Natural selection, 119\n\n  Negroes, 5, 39, 44, 48, 52, 53, 54, 58, 59, 60, 63, 64, 86, 147\n\n  Neo-Platonists, the, 2\n\n  New Guinea, 40\n\n  Nicaragua, 106\n\n  Niger, 59\n\n  Nile, 68\n\n  Nile-boats, 39\n\n  Noah\u2019s curse, 50\n\n  Norma verticalis, 136\n\n  Normans, 101, 102\n\n  Nubians, 39, 101, 147\n\n\n  Official science, 113\n\n  Orang-outang, 19, 20, 22, 24, 41\n\n  Orthodox ethnology, 5\n\n  Orthognathi, 45\n\n  Othello, 63\n\n\n  Pal\u00e6ontology, 131\n\n  Pali, 145\n\n  Pandora, 133\n\n  Pathological varieties, 43, 58\n\n  Pelvis, form of, 46\n\n  Penis, 54\n\n  Peruvians, 55\n\n  Phidias, 5\n\n  Physiological varieties, 43\n\n  Polygenists, 3\n\n  Praxiteles, 5\n\n  Prepuce, 54\n\n  Prognathi, 45\n\n  Prometheus, 133\n\n  Protozoa, 111\n\n  Psychology, comparative, 24, 36\n\n\n  Races, 65\n\n  Reason and faith, 23\n\n  \u201cRecords of Creation,\u201d 37\n\n  Religious dogmas, 9, 65, 67, 85\n\n  Reproduction by eggs, 111\n\n  R\u00e9union, Isle of, 88\n\n  Revealed religion, 2\n\n     \u201d        \u201d relations with science, 4\n\n  Revolution, 122\n\n  Riff, 89\n\n  Rosin-makers of the Landes, 39\n\n\n  Scandinavian antiquities, 48\n\n  Scriptures, the Holy, 1\n\n  Selection, natural, 118\n\n  Self-consciousness, 28\n\n  Semitic race, 1, 53, 65, 75, 89, 143\n\n  Sidereal kingdom, 11\n\n  Sierra Leone, 41, 93\n\n  Silurians, 103\n\n  Slaves, 84\n\n  Soudan, 45, 61\n\n  Soul in animals, 25\n\n  South Africa, 78\n\n  Spaniards, 47\n\n  Species, definition of, 108\n\n  Speech, 30\n\n  Sperma, 53\n\n  Spontaneous generation, 110, 123\n\n  Squatting attitude, 57\n\n  Stags, 85\n\n  Stirrup leather, 39\n\n  Struggle for existence, 102\n\n  Sumatran animal, 21\n\n  Sunburn, 91\n\n\n  Tartars, 47, 54\n\n  Thomas, St., 69\n\n  Toe, great, 39, 42\n\n  Truth, the reign of, 9, 23\n\n  Tu\u00e2n, an orang-outang, 20\n\n  Turk, 147\n\n  Type, 99\n\n\n  Valm\u00eeki, poem of, 40\n\n  Vanikoro, 49\n\n  Variability of species, 115\n\n  Vera Cruz, 61\n\n  Vertebrate kingdom, 125\n\n  Vital competition, 128\n\n  Voice in animals, 34\n\n  Vulcan, 133\n\n\n  Wild man of the woods, 14\n\n  Woolly hair, 51\n\n\n  Xanthus, 51\n\n\n  Yellow Fever, 94\n\n\n  Zambos, 105\n\n  Zoology, 65, 85, 109\n\n\n\n\nINDEX OF AUTHORS.\n\n\n  About, 63\n\n  Agassiz, 113\n\n  Albin, 44\n\n  Albinus, 86\n\n  Apollonius, 35\n\n  Appleyard, 79\n\n  Aristotle, 2, 28, 37, 53\n\n  Arnold, 59, 94\n\n\n  Baeck, 44\n\n  Bancroft, 60\n\n  Barri\u00e8re, 44\n\n  Bartlett, 59\n\n  Barton, 94\n\n  Bayle, 4, 28\n\n  Beavan, 59, 88\n\n  B\u00e9rard, 20, 45, 46, 50\n\n  Bert, 11\n\n  Bertillon, 5, 68\n\n  Bertrand de Saint-Germain, 120\n\n  Biot, 6\n\n  Blainville, 37, 38, 41, 109, 135\n\n  Blair, 60, 93\n\n  Blake, Carter, 57, 65, 85, 110\n\n  Blumenbach, 3, 90, 98\n\n  Bonaparte, 38, 42\n\n  Bonnet, 15, 37\n\n  Bonpland, 6\n\n  Bont\u00e9, 84\n\n  Bory de Saint-Vincent, 17, 39, 50, 88\n\n  Bossuet, 12\n\n  Boudin, 58\n\n  Bourdet, 3, 88, 91, 97\n\n  Brayley, 7\n\n  Brecher, 70\n\n  Broca, 3, 35, 48, 110, 137\n\n  Brunet, 64\n\n  Bryant, 60\n\n  Brydone, 122\n\n  B\u00fcchner, 66\n\n  Buffon, 21, 28, 102, 111, 113\n\n  Bunsen, 11, 144\n\n  Burnouf, 30, 52\n\n  Busk, 137\n\n\n  Cabanis, 81, 106\n\n  Caldwell, 140\n\n  Cameron, 59\n\n  Camper, 46, 134, 136\n\n  Carus, 50, 63\n\n  Charles IV, 6\n\n  Charnock, 77\n\n  Chav\u00e9e, 77, 142\n\n  Chevreul, 8, 23, 35\n\n  Chrysostom, Saint, 25\n\n  Cohen, 76\n\n  Collingwood, 66, 91\n\n  Cook, 56\n\n  Coombes, 77\n\n  Copernicus, 6\n\n  Cor\u00e9ard, 57\n\n  Courtet de l\u2019Isle, 14, 100\n\n  Crawfurd, 40, 52\n\n  Crocius, 26\n\n  Crull, 136\n\n  Cull, 104\n\n  Cuvier, Frederic, 25, 28, 38, 41, 42\n\n  Cuvier, G., 38, 41, 42, 82, 83, 109, 112\n\n\n  Dally, 88\n\n  Darwin, 110, 115, 118, 126\n\n  Davis, 92\n\n  Davy, 48\n\n  D\u2019Eichthal, 54, 62\n\n  Descartes, 4, 12, 26\n\n  D\u2019Escayrac de Lauture, 75, 144\n\n  De Maillet, 63\n\n  Desmoulins, 15\n\n  Dickinson, 94\n\n  Dickson, 94\n\n  Didot, 111\n\n  Doornick, 136\n\n  D\u2019Orbigny, 74, 77\n\n  Durer, 48\n\n\n  Earl, 52\n\n  Edwards, 89, 99, 100, 140, 143\n\n  Ehrenberg, 19\n\n  Epianus, 7\n\n  Epp, 59\n\n\n  Fauche, 40\n\n  F\u00e9e, 110\n\n  Fenner, 60\n\n  Ferguson, 94\n\n  Fleury, 5\n\n  Flourens, 20, 27, 28, 30, 37, 44, 98, 107, 115, 142, 145\n\n\n  Galen, 13\n\n  Galileo, 3, 6\n\n  Garnot, 16, 104\n\n  G\u00e9n\u00e9brard, 71\n\n  Geoffroy St.-Hilaire, Barth\u00e9lemy, 71, 97\n\n  Geoffroy St.-Hilaire, \u00c9tienne, 4, 17, 20, 27, 38, 39, 109, 114, 132, 146\n\n  Geoffroy St.-Hilaire, Isidore, 11, 12, 20, 34, 38, 39, 79, 81, 83, 84,\n      87, 95, 109, 110, 113\n\n  G\u00e9ricault, 56\n\n  Geulinx, 27\n\n  Gibson, 34\n\n  Gliddon, 63\n\n  Gobineau, 3, 63, 105\n\n  Godron, 110\n\n  Grandsagne, 48\n\n  Grant, 20, 24\n\n  Gratiolet, 30\n\n  Gray, 66\n\n  Grimm, 30\n\n  Gros, 27\n\n  Guillain, 42\n\n\n  Hale, 16\n\n  Haller, 56\n\n  Hanneman, 50\n\n  Harris, 49\n\n  Hasskarl, 66\n\n  Herder, 30\n\n  Herrera, 60\n\n  Herschop, 149\n\n  Heymann, 59\n\n  Hippocrates, 81\n\n  Hirsch, 59, 60, 93\n\n  Holsteinius, 26\n\n  Huber, 33\n\n  Humboldt, 6, 19, 55, 57, 66, 77, 84, 144\n\n  Hunt, 63, 77\n\n  Hunter, 59, 90\n\n  Huxley, 39\n\n\n  Jackson, 60\n\n  Jacquinot, 53, 97\n\n  Jobin, 59\n\n  Josephus, 70\n\n  Joulin, 46\n\n  Jouvencel, 5\n\n  Julius C\u00e6sar, 103\n\n\n  Kaempfer, 5, 6\n\n  Karr, 7\n\n  King, 6\n\n  Kirchoff, 11\n\n  Klemnius, 27\n\n  Kluegel, 44\n\n  Knox, 43, 54, 81, 100\n\n\n  Lallemand, 94\n\n  Lamarck, 112, 115\n\n  Lartet, 121\n\n  Latham, 66, 78, 101, 104, 142\n\n  Laugenhert, 27\n\n  Lawrence, 45, 48\n\n  Le Cat, 44, 56\n\n  Leibnitz, 15, 37, 120\n\n  Leighton, 68\n\n  Lepsius, 50\n\n  Lesseps, 68\n\n  Lesson and Garnot, 16, 20, 25\n\n  Linn\u00e6us, 37, 41, 64, 102, 109\n\n  Livingstone, 68\n\n  Longfellow, 151\n\n\n  Maire, 26, 28\n\n  Malte-Brun, 59\n\n  Martius, 74\n\n  Maupertuis, 20, 29, 34\n\n  Maury, 22, 46, 49\n\n  McCabe, 59\n\n  Meckel, 44\n\n  Meigs, 137\n\n  Mercurius Trismegistus, 36\n\n  Michelet, 126, 141\n\n  Mitchell, 44, 86\n\n  Montagne, 13\n\n  Morel, 74, 79, 81, 90, 97, 100, 106\n\n  Morton, 76, 110, 134, 137, 138\n\n  Mulders, 136\n\n  M\u00fcller, 77\n\n\n  Newton, 76\n\n  Niebuhr, 73, 89\n\n  Nott, 50, 60, 97, 110\n\n\n  Omalius D\u2019Halloy, 143\n\n  O\u2019Rourke, 17\n\n  Owen, 20, 36, 38, 42, 135\n\n\n  Palissy, 137\n\n  Pallas, 48, 54\n\n  Pardies, 32\n\n  Parker, 66\n\n  Pereira, 26\n\n  P\u00e9rier, 87, 98, 104\n\n  Philips, 104\n\n  Piddington, 17, 18\n\n  Plato, 4, 22, 122\n\n  Plutarch, 111\n\n  Polybius, 81\n\n  Porphyrius, 26\n\n  Pouchet, 50, 123\n\n  Prichard, 3, 51, 78, 100, 129, 134, 142\n\n  Proudhon, 5, 8, 24\n\n  Prout, 114\n\n  Pruner-Bey, 50, 51\n\n  Pucheran, 8\n\n  Pyrard, 41\n\n  Pythagoras, 26\n\n\n  Quatrefages, 1, 4, 11, 12, 13, 17, 20, 23, 27\n\n  Quekett, 137\n\n  Quoy and Gaimard, 17, 49\n\n\n  Rechtenbach, 25\n\n  Remusat, 65\n\n  Renan, 32, 64, 65, 76, 78, 143\n\n  Robertson, 35\n\n  Robin, 20, 56, 84\n\n  Romay, 94\n\n  Ross, 17, 18, 53, 54, 69, 75\n\n  Roulin, 34\n\n\n  Schlegel, 73\n\n  Schmidt, 66\n\n  Schnurrer, 58\n\n  Schomburgk, 94\n\n  Serres, 6, 8, 54, 62\n\n  Servetus, 1\n\n  Shoutten, 41\n\n  Smith, Hamilton, 4, 51, 53\n\n  S\u00f6mmering, 44, 46, 56\n\n  Speke, 62\n\n  Squier, 105\n\n  Stahl, 27\n\n  Steinthal, 31, 32\n\n  Strabo, 103\n\n  Strope, 139\n\n  Sumner, 37\n\n\n  Tacitus, 103\n\n  Thomas, Saint, 69\n\n  Thomson, 59\n\n  Thurnam, 104\n\n  Tidyman, 59\n\n  Tiedemann, 43\n\n  Toussenel, 33\n\n  Townsend, 93\n\n  Trail, 19\n\n  Tschudi, 59, 105\n\n\n  Verneuil, 84\n\n  Vitruvius, 81\n\n  Vivien, 140, 144\n\n  Voltaire, 7\n\n  Vrolik, 46\n\n\n  Wagner, 44, 106\n\n  Waitz, 9\n\n  Warren, 97\n\n  Weber, 46\n\n  White, 46, 79, 88\n\n  Whitebourne, 69\n\n  Wied, 88\n\n  Wilkes, 17\n\n  Wilson, 48\n\n  Wise, 92\n\n\n  Yvan, 20, 87\n\n\n  Zimpel, 94\n\n  Zobrega, 69.\n\n\n\n\nERRATA.\n\n\nPage 122, line 11 from bottom, _for \u201cAtalantis\u201d read \u201cAtlantis_.\u201d\n[Transcriber's note: Footnote 312 has been corrected.]\n\n\u201d 135, bottom line, _for_ \u201cBritish Association for the Advancement\nof Science, 1857,\u201d _read_ \u201cJournal of Linnean Society, 1857.\u201d\n[Transcriber's note: Footnote 329 has been corrected.]\n\n\nT. RICHARDS, 37, GREAT QUEEN STREET.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[1] We must here inform the reader, once for all, that we shall use,\nuntil we say anything to the contrary, the word \u201c_race_,\u201d to designate\nthe different natural groups of the human genus (genus Homo). We intend\ndefinitely to prove that these groups constitute veritable _species_.\nM. de Quatrefages has on this matter reproached us with a confusion,\nwhich is accounted for partly by the incorrectness of his quotation.\nHe makes us say, \u201c_The plurality of_ original _races_, otherwise _the\nplurality of the species_, of the genus \u2018man\u2019\u201d (_Unit\u00e9 de l\u2019Esp\u00e8ce\nHumaine_, 1861, p. 309). It stands as follows in our own text: \u201cThe\noriginal plurality of races, otherwise the plurality of the _species_\ncomposing the genus \u2018_man_,\u2019\u201d etc. It is evident that the confusion\nwhich is found in these words is entirely voluntary.\n\n[2] One day, I was talking with one of the principal officers of\nMehemet-Sa\u00efd, at Korosko, in Nubia, about the earthquake which was felt\nin Lower Egypt on the 12th of October, 1856. He asked me the cause of\nthis phenomenon. I attempted an explanation suited to the understanding\nof a man who was without the slightest knowledge of this part of\nscientific information. He replied by telling me the history of the cow\nwho throws the earth from one horn to the other, saying, that this was\nwritten, and therefore, such a belief ought to suffice him.\n\n[With this opinion may be compared the doctrine of the Muyscas or\nChibchas of New Granada, who consider that the earth is supported\nby Chibchacum, their deity, on pillars of _guiacum_-wood, and that\nearthquakes are produced by his shifting the burden from one shoulder\nto the other.--EDITOR.]\n\n[3] It is only necessary, in order to be sure of this fact, to glance\nover the _Bulletins de la Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 d\u2019Anthropologie_, the creation of\nwhich is due above all to the indefatigable zeal of a partisan of the\ndoctrines which we defend--to M. P. Broca.\n\n[4] Anthropology is not the only branch in modern science which opens\nnew paths to the human mind: see Michelet, _L\u2019Insecte_, p. 106; see\nalso Bourdet, _Trait\u00e9 d\u2019\u00e9ducation positive_, 1863.\n\n[5] This name has been definitely adopted in France in preference to\nthat of \u201cUnitarians\u201d (_Unitaires_), used by M. de Gobineau.\n\n[6] \u201cAll monogenists,\u201d we said in the first edition of this book. M.\nde Quatrefages has exclaimed loudly against these words (_Unit\u00e9 de\nl\u2019Esp\u00e8ce Humaine_, 1861, p. 299), and in the same passage has shown\nhimself an open enemy to all mingling of religion in the domain of\nscience. We are too glad of this declaration not to recall it in this\nplace. We should be sorry not to be able always to agree in these pages\nwith the masters of science,--with those, indeed, who have been our\nown. We have been led to touch on several questions already treated of\nby them, by following another path,--by looking at facts from another\npoint of view; therefore, there are some differences of opinion. Our\nexcuse lies in the universal right of free inquiry; for the rest, we\nshall always name the persons with whom we think we do not agree. \u201cNot\nto do so,\u201d as Bayle said, \u201cis in some measure an excess of ceremony\nprejudicial to the liberty which we ought to enjoy in the republic of\nletters; it is to introduce therein works of supererogation. It should\nbe always allowable to name those whom we disprove; this is sufficient\nto prevent a bitter, injurious, or dishonest spirit.\u201d--_Dictionnaire\nPhilosophique_, art. _Pereira_, note D.\n\n[7] \u00c9. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire has not, however, been able to free\nhimself completely from the unhappy influences which we endeavour to\noppose. See _Comptes rendus de l\u2019Acad\u00e9mie des Sciences_, vol. iv, p. 78.\n\n[8] \u201cIt is too evident,\u201d says a modern philosopher, \u201cthat in the eyes\nof science, which, reasoning about discoveries, makes a rule to admit\nnothing as a theory which cannot be proved by experience, the agreement\nof faith with reason is a chimera: to speak more exactly, such a\nproblem does not exist. The conditions of science are the observation\nof facts,--not of facts exceptionally produced, seen by chance, noted\nby privileged witnesses, and unable to be reproduced at will; but\nconstant facts, placed under one\u2019s hand for observation, and always\nable to be verified. We must consider that religion can in no way\nsubmit to such exigencies, and that the faith which it proclaims must\nbe, _in this light_, radically inconsistent.\u201d--P. J. Proudhon, _De la\nJustice_, vol. ii, p. 309. See also on this subject, L. Fleury, _Le\nProgr\u00e8s_, 1858, No. 4, p. 92. De Jouvencel, _Bulletins de la Soci\u00e9t\u00e9\nd\u2019Anthropologie_, May 2, 1861.\n\n[9] See Bertillon, _Bulletins de la Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 d\u2019Anthropologie_, June 18,\n1863.\n\n[10] _The Natural History of the Human Species_, 1848, p. 40.\n\n[11] Kaempfer, _Histoire Naturelle, etc., du Japon_, Lahaye, 1729, vol.\ni, p. 75.\n\n[12] Marcel de Serres, _De l\u2019Unit\u00e9 de l\u2019Esp\u00e8ce Humaine: Bib. Univ. de\nGen\u00e8ve_, new series, vol. liv, 1844, p. 145.\n\n[13] \u201cThe doctrine attributed to Copernicus,\u201d said the declaration made\nby the Pope, and published by the Holy Office, \u201cthat the earth moves\nround the sun, and that the sun remains motionless in the centre of the\nworld without moving either to the east or to the west, is contrary\nto Holy Scripture, and consequently, can neither be professed nor\ndefended.\u201d--Biot, _La v\u00e9rit\u00e9 sur le Proc\u00e8s de Galil\u00e9e_, in the _Journal\ndes Savants_, July 1858, p. 401.\n\n[14] _Essai Politique sur la Nouvelle Espagne_, vol. ii, p. 79.\n\n[15] _Essai sur les M\u0153urs_: Introd., \u00a7 2.\n\n[16] There is an idea of adding to the Linnean Society a new section\nof Anthropology.--See \u201cLetter from E. W. Brayley,\u201d _Medical Times and\nGazette_, p. 491, May 10, 1862.\n\n[17] Alphonse Karr was the first who proposed to substitute\nthe name of \u201csearcher\u201d (_chercheur_) for that of \u201clearned man\u201d\n(_savant_).--_Nouvelles Gu\u00eapes_, February 1859.\n\n[18] See, for example, Pucheran, _Consid\u00e9rations Anatomiques sur les\nFormes de la t\u00eate osseuse_.--Paris, 1841 (Thesis).\n\n[19] M. de Serres, in his Lectures on Anthropology, at the _Jardin des\nPlantes_.\n\n[20] P. J. Proudhon has said, in another arrangement of facts depending\non social science, \u201cRevolution is not atheistical; it does not deny the\nabsolute, it removes it altogether\u201d (_De la Justice_, vol. ii, p. 301).\nSee, for fuller development of our ideas on this subject, the _Progr\u00e8s_\nof the 20th of May, 1859, article on _Science et Religion_.\n\n[21] _Discours sur le M\u00e9thode._\n\n[22] _Lettres \u00e0 M. Villemain sur la M\u00e9thode_, Paris, 1856, p. 3.\n\n[23] See these ideas categorically explained, vol. ii, p. 281.\n\n[24] M. de Quatrefages admits a _sidereal kingdom_; and such a thesis\nseems to us a very difficult one to sustain, after the experiments of\nBunsen and Kirchoff on the chemical composition of the stars. M. de\nQuatrefages admits also a _human kingdom_; but admitting that animals\n_think_, he makes _morality_ and _religion_ characteristics of this\nkingdom. _Unit\u00e9 de l\u2019Esp\u00e8ce Humaine_, 1861, p. 30. We shall have\noccasion to revert again to these two points. See Bert., _Bulletins de\nla Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 d\u2019Anthropologie_, August 7, 1862.\n\n[25] See Is. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, _Histoire Naturelle G\u00e9n\u00e9rale des\nr\u00e8gnes organiques_, vol. ii, p. 252.\n\n[26] Certain essential oils, like those of coffee, tea, or hemp.\n\n[27] Alcoholic liquors.\n\n[28] Narcotics.\n\n[29] \u201cIf I am not mistaken,\u201d says M. de Quatrefages, \u201cthere is in this\nresult, independently of the scientific consequences which may proceed\nfrom it, a something which responds to our most noble aspirations.\nMan confers upon himself dominion _of his own will_; he loves to\nproclaim himself legitimate sovereign of all things on the surface\nof this globe; and, in fact, no creature will dare to dispute with\nhim an empire which, day by day, extends and increases. Well! is it\nnot satisfactory to behold _anthropological characteristics_ sanction\nand ennoble this empire by placing by the side of the _right_, which\nsprings from intellectual superiority, the notion of _duty_, which\narises from morality and religion?\u201d (_Unit\u00e9 de l\u2019Esp\u00e8ce Humaine_, p.\n33.)\n\n[30] Courtet de l\u2019Isle has already made this remark. (_Tableau\nEthnographique du Genre Humain_, 1849, p. 8.)\n\n[31] See the _Voyage de l\u2019Isabelle_; also Desmoulins, _Histoire\nNaturelle des Races Humaines_, 1826, p. 276.\n\n[32] Cirripeds, tortoises, ornithodelphi, and generally speaking, the\nextreme representatives of the divisions of each natural classification.\n\n[33] _M\u00e9moire sur les Tasmaniens, sur les Alfourous, et sur les\nAustraliens_, in the _Annales des Sciences Naturelles_, 1827, vol. x,\np. 155.\n\n[34] Hale, _Natives of Australia_, etc. See _American Journal of\nScience_, second series, vol. i, p. 302, May 1846; extract from the\naccount of C. Wilkes\u2019 Expedition: _Narrative of the U. S. Exploring\nExpedition during the years 1838-1842_, vol. vi, \u201cEthnography and\nPhilology.\u201d\n\n[35] _Voyage de l\u2019Astrolabe: Zoologie_, vol. i, p. 43.\n\n[36] Even after the assertions of M. de Quatrefages in the _Unit\u00e9 des\nRaces Humaines_, p. 162, and following, we have not thought ourselves\njustified in changing our opinions on the subject of the Australians,\nwhich have lately been confirmed at the Anthropological Society; a Mr.\nO\u2019Rourke, an eyewitness, having answered M. de Quatrefages (_Bulletins\nde la Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 d\u2019Anthropologie_, 21 June, 1860).\n\n[37] J. Ross, _Narrative of a Second Voyage_, etc., 1835, p. 448.\n\n[38] J. Ross, _Narrative of a Second Voyage_, p. 490.\n\n[39] See \u00c9tienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, _Comptes Rendus_, vol. v,\np. 42. [We should very much like to know at what period our author\nimagines this to have been the case, and whether he considers that\nthese apes were the \u201cmen of the day.\u201d--EDITOR.]\n\n[40] \u201cMemorandum on an Unknown Forest Race,\u201d etc., _Journal of the\nAsiatic Society of Bengal_, 1855, vol. xxiv, p. 207.\n\n[41] M. Ehrenberg, speaking one day of the unknown centre of Africa,\nsaid to us, \u201cthat it might not be impossible to find there men\nso different from us that we ought to make of them, willingly or\nunwillingly, a special group.\u201d I quote these words in no way with the\ndesign of presuming that there is such an order of beings; but in\norder to show that the father of the naturalists of Europe, the friend\nof Humboldt, believes in something else than the unity of the human\nspecies, because he admits that a generic plurality is possible.\n\n[42] R. Owen, _On the Characters of the Class Mammalia_, 1857, p. 20,\n_note_. The illustrious _savant_ has himself treated on this subject,\n_ex professo_, in the catalogue of the collection in the College of\nSurgeons.\n\n[43] \u201cThe orang-outang is capable of a kind of laugh when pleasantly\nexcited,\u201d J. Grant, \u201cAccount of the Structure of an Orang-Outang\u201d\n(_Edinburgh Journal of Science_, vol. ix, 1828).\n\n[44] Artificial love itself, with all the complexity of ideas which it\nis supposed must thence arise, is not, as one may think, the debauchery\nof civilisation; it belongs to animals akin to man as well as to\nman himself. See Ch. Robin and B\u00e9raud, _Pr\u00e9cis de la Physiologie de\nl\u2019Homme_, vol. ii, p. 384. It is the same with impure connection, or\ncoupling, radically inexplicable by _instinct_. See Isidore Geoffroy\nSaint-Hilaire, _Histoire Naturelle G\u00e9n\u00e9rale des R\u00e8gnes Organiques_,\nvol. iii, p. 142.\n\n[45] Doctor Yvan commanded the _Archimedes_; he has written an account\nof his voyage: _Voyages et R\u00e9cits_, Brussels, 1853, 2 vols. in 12mo.\n\n[46] \u201cThe Australians only wear woollen clothing in order to protect\nthe chest; ... no idea of shame has ever led them to hide the natural\nparts.\u201d Lesson et Garnot, _Annales des Sciences Naturelles_, 1827, vol.\nx.\n\n[47] The orang observed by J. Grant also showed these signs of\ndesperation; \u201che poured it (a saucer) angrily out on the floor,\nwhined in a peculiar manner, and threw himself passionately on his\nback on the ground, striking his breast and paunch with his palms,\nand giving a kind of reiterated _croak_.\u201d--\u201cAccount of the Structure\nof an Orang-Outang,\u201d _Edinburgh Journal of Science_, vol. ix, p. 11.\n[The same demonstration of feeling was showed by the orangs in the\nZoological Gardens, May 1864.--EDITOR.]\n\n[48] [Tagal, a chief town of Java.--EDITOR.]\n\n[49] _Comptes Rendus de l\u2019Acad\u00e9mie des Sciences_, vol. ii, p. 582.\n\n[50] _Essai Philosophique sur l\u2019\u00e2me des b\u00eates_, 1728, p. 132.\n\n[51] [_Guenon_, the _Simia nasalis_ of Buffon.--EDITOR.]\n\n[52] Plato, _Leges_, x, 1. See Maury, _Religions_, vol. iii, p. 4,\n_note_ 2.\n\n[53] After having said that the idea of good and evil (_moralit\u00e9_)\nexists among all men, M. de Quatrefages adds, that \u201cthe notion of the\nDivinity and that of another life are also generally diffused\u201d (_Unit\u00e9\nde l\u2019Esp\u00e8ce Humaine_, p. 23). We shall demonstrate further on (chap. v)\nthat this statement is incorrect, and how fragile the bases are upon\nwhich M. de Quatrefages rests the _fundamental_ characteristics which,\naccording to him, distinguish the human kingdom.\n\n[54] M. Chevreul has already defined the \u201cBeautiful\u201d as \u201cthe expression\nof causes whose influence has most force in moving mankind by appealing\nto their senses\u201d (_Lettres \u00e0 M. Villemain sur la M\u00e9thode_, 1856, p.\n169).\n\n[55] [\u201cTruth lies at the bottom of a well,\u201d is an old saying, but our\nauthor does not seem to agree with it. We should be very sorry to think\nthat truth was only to be found in science. This is, doubtless, the\nopinion of a great many learned men at the present day; but we must\ncandidly own we do not agree with it, and certainly are not able to\nendorse M. Pouchet\u2019s sentiment. We have ourselves not arrived at the\npoint, and in this we are, doubtless, old-fashioned,--of referring\neverything to \u201creason,\u201d as opposed to faith.--EDITOR.]\n\n[56] _Edinburgh Journal of Science_, 1828, vol. ix, p. 10.\n\n[57] _Comptes Rendus de l\u2019Acad\u00e9mie des Sciences_, vol. iii, p. 29.\n\n[58] We can compare this passage from the naturalist philosopher with\nthe other quotations we made farther back. \u201cFemales are extremely\ncurious about this spectacle (the fondness of a \u201cmother\u201d monkey for\nher young one), and doubtless their attention is caused by discovering\ntherein a true manifestation of the feelings they have themselves\nexperienced as mothers; they are, above all things, astonished to\nrecognise in these ardent attentions the joy and pride of maternity, of\nwhich they believed themselves alone to be susceptible.\u201d (\u00c9. Geoffroy\nSaint-Hilaire, _Cours d\u2019Histoire Naturelle des Mammif\u00e8res_, Paris,\n1829, vol. i; Lesson, vi, p. 16).\n\n[59] Proudhon has already laid down as a principle the establishment\nof a psychology among animals (_De la Justice_, vol. ii, p. 279).\nFrederick Cuvier has done the same.\n\n[60] Hom. iv _in Acta Apostolorum_. See Rechtenbach, _De Sermone\nBrutorum_, Erfurt, 1706, p. 1.\n\n[61] Sometimes this restraint is openly avowed; and we see M. Maire,\nwho is also engaged upon the same questions, admit that, without these\ninfluences, he would embrace the same ideas that we are endeavouring\nto bring forward. \u201cLet us frankly avow,\u201d he says, \u201cif we had not\ncontinually before our minds the doctrines of a religion which we\nrespect,--if we had not a sincere faith, this intuitive belief which\ntells us we _must_ make a mistake,--we should dare to write thus.\nThe more the organisation of the animal is perfected, the more the\nspiritual element produced by the action of the various functions is\nitself perfected.... There would then be only a hierarchical gradation\nof one and the same principle. The psychical fluid would be always\nthe same in all individuals. The difference in its manifestations\nwould refer to the difference in the organisations which produce them\u201d\n(_Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 Havraise d\u2019Etudes Diverses_, p. 169, 1855-1856).\n\n[62] [We cannot exactly see why it must necessarily have been offensive\nto Christianity. There is nothing injurious to religion in the theory\nof intellectual gradation.--EDITOR.]\n\n[63] Jam vero nobis ostendendum est eam (bestia) habere rationem\ninternam et intus conceptam. Videtur sane a nostra differre, non\nessentia sed gradu. Uti nonnulli existimant Deorum a nostra discrepare\nrationem, non differentia essentiali, sed quod illorum magis, nostra\nminus sit accurata. Et quidem quod ad sensum attinet et reliquam, tum\ninstrumentorum sensus, tum carnis univers\u00e6, conformationem attinet,\neam eodem nobiscum modo se habere in animalibus, ab omnibus fere\nconceditur.--Porphyrius, transl. by Holsteinius, _De Abstinenti\u00e2_,\n1655, p. 108. Is not unity of composition here conjectured, both for\nthe intellect and the body?\n\n[64] _Disquisitio de Anim\u00e2 Brutorum_, Brem\u00e6, 1676.\n\n[65] _Logic\u00e6 Brutorum_, Hamburg, 1697. This little treatise, in spite\nof the extreme ideas of its author, is not the less precious. J. Stahl\nwas one of those wells of learning which Germany has so often produced.\nThere is, perhaps, not one passage in the old authors who wrote on this\npoint to which he has not referred in his work.\n\n[66] See, among others, S. Gros, _De Anim\u00e2 Brutorum_, Wittemberg, 1680;\nKlemnius, _De Anim\u00e2 Brutorum_, Vittembergi\u00e6, 1704.\n\n[67] Upon this point, M. de Quatrefages agrees with M. Flourens; but\nthe distinction which he endeavours to establish, being based upon\n_morality_ and _religion_, seems to us much more restricted and much\nless clear. Not being able to answer everybody, we have been obliged to\nattend merely to the opinions of that partisan of the human kingdom who\ngives to animals the largest portion of it.\n\n[68] Proudhon says, in language which is even more concise and\naffirmative, \u201cIn man, the mind knows itself; whilst elsewhere it\nseems to us that it does not do so\u201d (_Syst\u00e8me des Contradictions\n\u00e9conomiques_, vol. i, 1850, p. 20).\n\n[69] _Annales du Mus\u00e9um d\u2019Histoire Naturelle_, vol. xvi, p. 58.\n\n[70] Maire, _Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 Havraise d\u2019Etudes Diverses_, 1855-1856.\n\n[71] _Unit\u00e9 de l\u2019Esp\u00e8ce Humaine_, 1861, p. 24.\n\n[72] Maire, _Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 Havraise d\u2019Etudes Diverses_, 1855-1856. We can\nmake the same comparison with a passage almost similar from Maupertuis,\n_Essai Philosophique sur l\u2019\u00e2me des B\u00eates_, 1728, p. 134.\n\n[73] _Essai Philosophique sur l\u2019\u00e2me des B\u00eates_, 1728, p. 95.\n\n[74] See \u00c9. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, _Comptes Rendus des S\u00e9ances de\nl\u2019Acad\u00e9mie des Sciences_, vol. iv, p. 261.\n\n[75] See Flourens, _Histoire des Travaux de Buffon_, 1844, p. 135.\nDescartes made use of the absence of speech in animals as a strong\nargument against them.\n\n[76] See Gratiolet, _Bulletins de la Soc. d\u2019Anthropologie de Paris_, 18\nApril, 1861.\n\n[77] See J. Grimm, _De l\u2019Origine du Langage_, transl., 1859, p. 53.\n\n[78] _Trait\u00e9 de l\u2019Origine du Langage_, Engl. transl., 1827, p. 6.\n\n[79] _De l\u2019Origine du Langage_, transl., 1859.\n\n[80] _De l\u2019Origine du Langage_, 2nd edit., 1858.\n\n[81] It is by tracing, according to custom, effects to their causes,\nthat the Buddhist philosophy arrives at the principles of joint\nresponsibility, which, according to it, unites reason to language,\nmaking them mutually flow one from the other. \u201cName and form have\nas a cause, _intellect_, and intellect has for a cause, _name_ and\n_form_.\u201d--See Burnouf, _Le Lotus de la bonne loi_, p. 550. Mercurius\nTrismegistus, in the Pimander (Pimander, _De sapienti\u00e2 et potestate\nDei_), says almost the same thing: \u201cSpeech is the sister of intellect;\nintellect is the sister of language.\u201d See Rechtenbach, _De Sermone\nBrutorum_, 1706, p. 2.\n\n[82] See _De l\u2019Origine du Langage_, transl., 1859.\n\n[83] _De l\u2019Origine du Langage_, 1858, p. 31.\n\n[84] See Jacob Grimm, _De l\u2019Origine du Langage_, transl., 1859, p. 29.\n\n[85] Father Pardies (S. J.), in a work, otherwise of no great value,\n_Discours de la Connaissance des B\u00eates_, 1672, p. 39.\n\n[86] _Recherches sur les m\u0153urs de fourmis indig\u00e8nes_, Gen\u00e8ve, 1810.\n\n[87] We refer our readers for all these questions to the remarkable\nworks of M. Toussenel.\n\n[88] _Essai Philosophique sur l\u2019\u00e2me des B\u00eates_, 1728, p. 217.\n\n[89] It may be seen, in analysing these two simple facts, that they\nlead us to admit the existence of a notion of _duty_ among animals,\nalthough, perhaps, an obscure one:--they know that they _ought_ to act\nas they are doing from fear of a whipping, and this is an operation of\nthe mind which no one, we think, will deny to be complex in its nature,\nand purely intellectual.\n\n[90] Isid. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, _Histoire Naturelle G\u00e9n\u00e9rale_, vol.\niii, 1860, p. 114. M. Roulin has remarked, that there is something\nanalogous in this as regards the cat, which loses, in the savage state,\nthose troublesome mewings which we hear so often during the night from\nthe European race.--_M\u00e9moires du Mus\u00e9um d\u2019Histoire Naturelle_, vol.\nxvii.\n\n[91] It is because there is a sort of capability for education\nin the animal, and indeed in the whole of his race, placed under\ncertain circumstances; it is because, on the other hand, we refuse\nto certain human races the \u201cinitiative in progress,\u201d (see Broca,\n_Bulletins de la Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 d\u2019Anthropologie_, May 24 and June 21, 1860),\nthat we cannot accept the \u201c_class man_\u201d of M. Chevreul, preceding\nthe \u201c_class mammalia_,\u201d and having, as a characteristic, the\n_capability of perfection in the individual, and in the association\nof individuals_.--See _Expos\u00e9 d\u2019un moyen de D\u00e9finir et de Nommer les\nCouleurs_, \u00a7 185. (_M\u00e9moires de l\u2019Acad\u00e9mie des Sciences_, vol. xxxiii,\n1861.)\n\n[92] See Dr. Gibson, Amer. Assoc. (compare _Ami des Sciences_, 29\nAugust, 1858.)\n\n[93] It would be a curious study, for instance, to find out if certain\nnoises,--certain sounds which have no signification to our ears, do not\nproduce, among some animals, clearly determined impressions, having\ntheir first origin in these animals themselves, or in their mutual\nrelations, the education we give them going for nothing in this sort of\nevidence.\n\n[94] [The Rev. F. W. Robertson (who died some years ago), states some\nopinions in his published sermons which show he was almost before his\ntime in his ideas concerning animals. He says, in comparing them with\nmankind, \u201cThere is the same external form, the same material in the\nblood-vessels, in the nerves, and in the muscular system. Nay, more\nthan that, our appetites and instincts are alike, our lower pleasures\nlike their lower pleasures, our lower pain like their lower pain;\nour life is supported by the same means, and our animal functions\nare almost indistinguishably the same.\u201d _Sermons_, 3rd series, 1857\n(preached in 1850), p. 49. \u201cIt is the law of being, that in proportion\nas you rise from lower to higher life, the parts are more distinctly\ndeveloped, while yet the unity becomes more entire. You find, for\nexample, in the lowest forms of animal life, one organ performs several\nfunctions; one organ being, at the same time, heart, and brain, and\nblood-vessel. But when you come to man, you find all these various\nfunctions existing in different organs, and every organ more distinctly\ndeveloped; and yet the unity of a man is a higher unity than that of a\nlimpet.\u201d (_Sermons_, p. 57.)--EDITOR.]\n\n[95] _A Treatise on the Records of the Creation_, by J. Bird Sumner,\nLord Archbishop of Canterbury, 6th edit., 8vo, London, 1850.\n\n[96] Nullum characterem hactenus eruere potui, unde homo a simia\ninternoscatur.--Linn\u00e6us, _Fauna Suecica_: pr\u00e6fatio.\n\n[97] Owen, _On the Characters of the Class Mammalia_, p. 20, _note_\n(_Journal of Proceedings of Linnean Society_, 1857.)\n\n[98] _Comptes Rendus de l\u2019Acad\u00e9mie des Sciences_, vol. ii, p. 581.\n\n[99] See the magnificent work, _Sketches of Central Africa_, and the\nportrait of the chief, Kan\u00e9ma, in _Barth\u2019s Travels_, vol. iii.\n\n[100] Isidore Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, _Hist. Naturelle G\u00e9n\u00e9rale_, vol.\nii, pp. 200-515.\n\n[101] [See Huxley\u2019s _Man\u2019s Place in Nature_, 8vo, London, 1863; and the\narticle thereon in the _Edinburgh Review_, April, 1863.--EDITOR.]\n\n[102] Crawfurd, _On the Negro Race_, etc. (_British Association for the\nAdvancement of Science_, 1852, p. 86.)\n\n[103] See the translation of this veritable _Iliad_, by M. H. Fauche.\n_R\u00e2m\u00e2yana_, 1857.\n\n[104] [We are told in the _Voyages de Fran\u00e7ois Pyrard_, vol. ii, p.\n331, Paris, 1615, \u201cthat in the province of Sierra Leone there is a\nspecies (of orang-outang) so strong limbed and so industrious that,\nwhen properly trained and fed, they work like servants; that they\ngenerally walk on the two hind feet; that they pound any substances\nin a mortar; that they go and bring water from the river in small\npitchers, which they carry, full, on their heads. But when they arrive\nat the door, if the pitchers are not soon taken off, they allow them\nto fall; and when they perceive the pitchers overturned and broken\nthey weep and lament.\u201d In the _Voyages de Guat. Shoutten aux Indes\nOrientales_, we find nearly the same account of the orang: \u201cthey\nare taken with snares, taught to walk on their hind feet, and to\nuse their fore-feet as hands in performing different operations, as\nrinsing glasses, carrying drink round to the company, turning a spit,\u201d\netc.--EDITOR.]\n\n[105] _Comptes Rendus de l\u2019Acad\u00e9mie des Sciences_, vol. ii. See, also,\nfor the separation of the great toe, the photographs in the _Voyage \u00e0\nla C\u00f4te Orientale d\u2019Afrique_, by Captain Guillain.\n\n[106] _Odontography_, London, 1840, p. 452. _Catalogue of the Hunterian\nCollection_, \u201cOsteology,\u201d vol. ii, p. 800.\n\n[107] [A character which, as the Cuviers and Owen have pointed out, man\nshares with the fossil _Anoplotherium_ and its allies, from the Paris\ngypsum.--EDITOR.]\n\n[108] Tiedemann, of Heidelberg, wrote to Knox with reference to the\nnervous system, that he had great reason to believe that the natives of\nAustralia differed in this matter from Europeans in an extraordinary\ndegree.--Knox, _The Races of Men_, London, 1850, p. 2.\n\n[109] \u201cThe physical characteristics which distinguish human races,\none from the other, are, perhaps, the _one fact in natural history_\nwhich has always most struck the imagination of mankind.... Historians\nrelate, that when Columbus first returned, Europeans could not take\ntheir eyes off the plants and unknown animals which he had brought with\nhim; and above all, the Indians, so different from all the races of men\nthey had ever seen.\u201d--Flourens, _Consid\u00e9rations sur l\u2019enseignement de\nl\u2019Histoire Naturelle de l\u2019Homme_. (_Annales des Sciences Naturelles_,\nvol. x, p. 357.) This wonder is renewed every day; and I once knew\nan intelligent negro who had a very unpleasant remembrance of the\nFrench provinces, where he had been the object of a very general and\nindiscreet curiosity.\n\n[110] The works which followed one another on this subject are due to\nReinhold Wagner (1699), B. S. Albin (1737), Barri\u00e8re (1742), Mitchell\n(1744), Baeck (1748), Meckel (1753-1757), Le Cat (1756-1765), etc. See\nG. Pouchet, _Des Colorations de l\u2019Epiderme_, 4to, Paris, 1864.\n\n[111] The analysis of the anatomical differences in the skeleton has\nbeen, perhaps, best made by B\u00e9rard, in France, and Lawrence in England;\nI may refer for the details to these two authors. B\u00e9rard, _Cours\nde Physiologie_, 1848, vol. i; Lawrence, _Lectures on Comparative\nAnatomy_, 9th edition, 1848.\n\n[112] Is. Geoffroy de Saint-Hilaire, \u201cSur la Classification\nAnthropologique,\u201d _M\u00e9m. de la Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 d\u2019Anthropologie_, 1861, vol. i,\np. 125.\n\n[113] [Compare Joulin, _Anatomie et Physiologie compar\u00e9 du bassin des\nMammif\u00e8res_, 8vo, Paris, 1864; and _M\u00e9moire sur le bassin consid\u00e9r\u00e9\ndans les Races Humaines_, 8vo, Paris, 1864.--EDITOR.]\n\n[114] The proportion given by Camper is this: the great diameter is to\nthe little,\n\n  In the European :: 41 : 27.\n  In the Negro :: 39 : 27\u00b75.\n\n\n[115] _Account of the Regular Gradation of Man_, 4to, London, 1799, p.\n118.\n\n[116] _Cours de Physiologie_, Paris, 1848, vol. i, p. 394. See, also,\non the same question, A. Maury, in the _Ath\u00e9n\u00e9um Fran\u00e7ais_, 1853, No.\n47.\n\n[117] [We cannot entirely agree with the author regarding the low\nstature of the Spaniards. From our own observation we may unreservedly\nsay that, at all events, the inhabitants of the _south_ and _south\nwestern_ parts of Spain are a fine race, not at all liable to the\ncharge of being different in height from the Anglo-Saxons.--EDITOR.]\n\n[118] [Although our author rather despises the idea of the legs\nbeing bowed by riding, it is tolerably well known in this country\nthat too much riding on horseback, _when young_, and especially on\nlarge animals, is very apt to alter the shape of delicate and weakly\nlimbs.--EDITOR.]\n\n[119] \u201cTribus Mongoles,\u201d translated by S. A. de Grandsagne, in the\n_M\u00e9moires du Mus\u00e9um_, vol. xvii.\n\n[120] See Broca, _Bulletins de la Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 d\u2019Anthropologie_, 3rd April,\n1862.\n\n[121] See Lawrence, _Lectures on Comparative Anatomy_, London, 1848, p.\n410.\n\n[122] Davy, _An Account of the Interior of Ceylon_, 1821, p. 109.\n\n[123] See Daniel Wilson, in the _British Review_, 1851; and in\nStephens, the description of the Temple of Uxmal.\n\n[124] See _Bulletins de la Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 de G\u00e9ographie_, 4th series, vol. x,\np. 45. It must not be forgotten that these weapons with a small handle\nmay have been used by those valiant heroines, whose praises have so\noften been sung in the songs of the north.\n\n[125] Presented by A. C. Harris, Esq., 1840.\n\n[126] [Compare the memoir of Professor C. G. Carus, _Ueber die Typisch\ngeurdenen abbildungen menschlichen kopfformen namentlich auf m\u00fcnzen in\nverschiedenen zeiten und volkern_, published in the _Novorum Actorum\nAcademi\u00e6 C\u00e6sare\u00e6 Leopoldini-Carolin\u00e6 Germanic\u00e6 natur\u00e6 curiosum_ for\n1863, in which the author gives characteristic examples of the ancient\ntypes, as deduced from the examination of coins, etc. Compare, also,\nNott and Gliddon, _Types of Mankind_.--EDITOR.]\n\n[127] See especially Lepsius, _Denkmaeler von Egypten und \u0152thiopen_,\nvol. ii, pl. 133; vol. iii, pl. 116, 117, 118, 136.\n\n[128] B\u00e9rard, _Cours de Physiologie_, Paris, 1848, vol. i, p. 394.\n\n[129] See J. H. Hanneman, _Curiosum Scrutinium Nigredinus Posterorum\nCham_, in 4to, Kiloni, 1677, \u00a7 14.\n\n[130] See Pruner-Bey, _Bulletins de la Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 d\u2019Anthropologie_, 5th\nMarch, 1863.\n\n[131] See, upon this point, G. Pouchet, _Des Colorations de\nl\u2019Epiderme_, 4to, Paris, 1864.\n\n[132] Bory de Saint-Vincent divided mankind into _Leucotriques_ and\n_Ulotriques_ (see B\u00e9rard, _Cours de Physiologie_, 1848, vol. i, p.\n394). Prichard refers all these races to the three following types:--1.\n_Melanocomous_; 2. _Leucous_; 3. _Xanthous_ (see _English Cyclop\u00e6dia_,\nart. \u201cMan\u201d).\n\n[133] _Tableau Synoptique des Races Humaines_ (_M\u00e9m. de la Soci\u00e9t\u00e9\nd\u2019Anthropologie_, vol. i, p. 143).\n\n[134] See Pruner-Bey, _De la Chevelure_ (_M\u00e9m. de la Soc. d\u2019Anthrop._,\nvol. ii, p. 1).\n\n[135] See Smith, _The Natural History of the Human Species_, p. 189.\n\n[136] See Earl, quoted by Crawfurd, _On the Negro Race_, etc. (_British\nAssociation_, 1852, p. 86.)\n\n[137] Compare Burnouf, _Le Lotus de la bonne loi_, p. 562.\n\n[138] Compare, _idem_, _ibidem_, p. 569.\n\n[139] _Narrative of a Second Voyage_, etc., 1835, p. 427.\n\n[140] [The name given to Persia by its inhabitants.--EDITOR.]\n\n[141] Compare _The Natural History of the Human Species_.\n\n[142] M. de Serres, in his _Lectures on Anthropology_, at the Museum of\nNatural History.\n\n[143] Ross, _Narrative of a Second Voyage_, etc., p. 446.\n\n[144] This fact is related by Pallas, _M\u00e9moires du Mus\u00e9um_, vol. xvii,\np. 238. A Kalmuc saw a body of men thirty versts off [nearly twenty\nmiles English], while the Russian general could see nothing even with a\ntelescope.\n\n[145] It would be interesting to discover if the fact related by Knox\n(_The Races of Men_, 1850, p. 271) is true; namely, that the sharpness\nof sight, which the Bosjesmans possess in a very high degree, is lost\nimmediately on crossing the breed with the whites.\n\n[146] Le Cat, _Trait\u00e9 des Sens_, 1744; Haller, _Elementa Physiologi\u00e6_,\nvol. v, p. 179; Humboldt, _Relation Personnelle_, vol. iii, p. 229.\n\n[147] See Robin, _Annales des Sciences Naturelles_, 1845; _Zoologie_,\nvol. iv, p. 380.\n\n[148] _Histoire des Travaux de Buffon_, p. 92.\n\n[149] [\u201cFace to face with the present position of metaphysical thought\nin England, that anthropology, which can find no higher employment\nfor the human mind than the ascertainment of man\u2019s relations with\nthe baboons, will find no place at all.... We have no real fear that\nthe consequences which may result from the practical application of\nthis law (transmutation) will be prejudicial to religion, morality,\nor society.... But until the day comes when such a law shall be\nfully, entirely, and satisfactorily established, we must strenuously\nprotest against the diffusion, even amongst the \u2018wider circle of the\nintelligent public,\u2019 of essays, the object of which is to render \u2018Man\u2019s\nPlace in Nature\u2019 closer to that of the brute creation.\u201d C. Carter\nBlake, _Man and Beast_ (_Anthropological Review_, vol. i, pp. 154,\n161).--EDITOR.]\n\n[150] See S\u00f6mmering, 1785, p. 42.\n\n[151] _Sketches of Central Africa._\n\n[152] There is a copy of it at the British Museum.\n\n[153] We only know of one painting in which Egyptians themselves are\nrepresented in a like position; it is in the British Museum, and is\non a tomb. It is a group of persons squatted behind a flock of geese.\nIt is right to remark, however, that the artist may have been rather\npuzzled about its composition, more complicated than usual, and that\nthe inartistic profiles of his figures, which almost cover one another,\ngreatly diminish the value of the picture with reference to our subject.\n\n[154] _Geographische Nosologie oder die Lehre von den Ver\u00e4nderungen der\nKrankheiten in den Verschiedenen Gegenden der Erde, in Verbindung mit\nPhysicher G\u00e9ographie und Naturgeschichte des Menschen_, 8vo, Stuttgart,\n1813.\n\n[155] _Trait\u00e9 de G\u00e9ographie M\u00e9dicale_, 1857: Introduction, p. 29.\n\n[156] [\u201cThe great question of acclimatisation has hitherto been\ntreated lightly enough. \u2018A firm resolution not to be conquered by a\nmalady,\u2019 says Malte-Brun, \u2018is, in the opinion of most doctors, one\nof the most efficacious preventives of disease. Our body depends\non our intelligence. In every climate the nerves, the muscles, the\nblood-vessels, in relaxing or in stretching, in dilating or in\ncontracting, soon take the particular state which suits the degree\nof heat or cold which is borne by the body.\u2019 Thus, according to this\ncelebrated geographer, man has only to exercise his _will_ in order to\naccommodate his organism to all the difficulties of a new temperature\nand a new climate.\u201d H. J. C. Beavan, _The Acclimatisation of Man_\n(_Social Science Review_, February 21, 1863.)--EDITOR.]\n\n[157] Hirsch, _Handbuch der Historisch-Geographischen Pathologie_, \u00a7\n10. With the author of this immense compilation we refer our readers\n(with reference to this relative immunity of Negroes from marsh-fever)\nto the works of Jobin, Tschudi, M\u2019Cabe, Hunter, Arnold, Cameron,\nHeymann, Epp, Bartlett, Thomson, Tidyman (_Philad. Journ. of Med.\nScience_, vol. iii, No. 6), etc.\n\n[158] _Epidemiological Society_, 3rd June, 1861; _Medical Times and\nGazette_, 29th June, 1861, No. 574.\n\n[159] [\u201cIn spite of \u2018previous acclimatisation,\u2019 a Negro regiment was\nalmost entirely destroyed by chest disease at Gibraltar, in 1817,\nwithin the short space of fifteen months.\u201d _Acclimatisation of Man_\n(_Social Science Review_, February 21, 1863).--EDITOR.]\n\n[160] \u201cSi no acontec\u00eda ahorcar al Negro, nunca mor\u00eda.\u201d Compare Herrera,\n_Hist. Gener. de los Hechos de los Castellanos_, dec. 2, Book III,\nchap. xiv.\n\n[161] Bancroft (Essay 273); Blair, _Some Account of the last Yellow\nFever Epidemic of British Guiana_, London, 1850; Jackson; Hirsch,\n_Handbuch der Historisch-Geographischen Pathologie_, \u00a7 36.\n\n[162] \u201cIt is a well-established fact, that there is something in the\nNegro constitution which affords him protection against the worst\neffects of yellow fever, but what it is I am unable to say.\u201d--Fenner.\nCompare Hirsch, _Handbuch_, \u00a7 36.\n\n[163] \u201cThe smallest admixture of Negro blood, even though the subject\nbe brought from a more northerly state, seems to be a potent antidote\nagainst the morbid poison.\u201d--Nott, _Southern Journal of Medicine_,\nFebruary, 1847. \u201cThe coloured people resisted the epidemic influence\nbetter than the whites; and, I believe I may hazard the observation,\nthat their degree in resistance was in proportion to the admixture of\nwhite blood.\u201d--Bryant, _American Journal_, April, 1856, p. 301. Compare\nHirsch, _Handbuch_, \u00a7 36.\n\n[164] See _M\u00e9moires de M\u00e9decine et de Chirurgie Militaire_, November\nand December 1863; _Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 d\u2019Anthropologie_, meeting of 19th March,\n1864.\n\n[165] M. d\u2019Eichthal, _Lettres sur la Race noire_, 1839, p. 15.\n\n[166] [\u201cThe Arabs say that Mohammed, whilst on the road from Medina to\nMecca, one day happened to see a widow woman sitting before her house,\nand asked how she and her three sons were; upon which the troubled\nwoman (for she had concealed one of her sons on seeing Mohammed\u2019s\napproach, lest he, as is customary when there are three males of a\nfamily present, should seize one and make him do porterage), said,\n\u2018Very well; but I\u2019ve only two sons!\u2019 Mohammed, hearing this, said to\nthe woman, reprovingly, \u2018Woman, thou liest! thou hast three sons; and\nfor trying to conceal this matter from me, henceforth remember that\nthis is my decree,--that the two boys whom thou hast not concealed\nshall multiply and prosper, have fair faces, become wealthy, and reign\nlords over all the earth; but the progeny of your third son shall, in\nconsequence of your having concealed him, produce _seedis_ as black\nas darkness, who will be sold in the market like cattle, and remain\nin perpetual servitude to the descendants of the other two.\u2019\u201d This is\nthe Arab theory of the Negro\u2019s origin, mentioned in _What led to the\nDiscovery of the Source of the Nile_, by J. H. Speke, p. 341, London,\n1864.--EDITOR.]\n\n[167] _Othello_, Act I, Scene 3. [Othello was, however, a _Moor_, not\na Negro, and capable of a far higher delicacy of mental perceptions\nthan the veritable \u201cunbleached African.\u201d Perhaps one of the most absurd\ntheatrical errors was committed when the part of Othello was acted by a\ngenuine Negro, Ira Aldridge.--EDITOR.]\n\n[168] Edmond About, _Le Progr\u00e8s_, 1864, p. 15.\n\n[169] These are Negroes of whom he is speaking.\n\n[170] \u201c_De l\u2019Unit\u00e9 de l\u2019Esp\u00e8ce Humaine_,\u201d _Biblioth. Univ. de Gen\u00e8ve_,\nnouv. ser., vol. liv, p. 145, 1844.\n\n[171] Gliddon, _Types of Mankind_, p. 59. Carus has observed, that\namong the remarkable Negroes mentioned by Blumenbach, not one of\nthem was distinguished either in politics, literature, or in any\nhigh conception of art. Compare Gobineau, _De l\u2019In\u00e9galit\u00e9 des Races\nHumaines_, vol. i, p. 122, 1853.\n\n[172] See De Maillet, _Telliamed_, 8vo, vol. ii, p. 187, Amsterdam,\n1748. For want of those passages of the Kor\u00e1n to which he refers, we\ngive the whole of Maillet\u2019s remark on the subject:--\u201cMohammed was so\nstruck with the difference between white and black men, that he did\nnot hesitate to say, that God had made the first with _white earth_,\nand the latter with _black_. He did not imagine that men so different,\nnot only in colour but in figure and inclination, could possibly be of\none and the same origin. He observes, in another place, that although\nthere have been prophets of all other nations, there was never one\namong the blacks; which shows that they have so little mind, that the\ngift of foresight,--the effect of natural wisdom, which has sometimes\nbeen honoured with the name of prophecy,--has never fallen to the lot\nof any of them.\u201d This passage is, besides, remarkable; because this\ncustom of prophecy seems to be a special attribute of the Semitic race\n(compare Renan, _Histoire G\u00e9n\u00e9rale des Langues S\u00e9mitiques_, 8vo, p. 8,\nParis, 1855), and Mohammed, in making this distinction, declared almost\na specific characteristic. In the translation of the \u201c\u00c9vangile de\nl\u2019Enfance,\u201d by G. Brunet (_Evangiles Apocryphes_, 12mo, Paris, 1849),\nthere is this curious document (Jesus had just changed some children\ninto rams in the sight of some women, who asked for their pardon), \u201cThe\nLord Jesus having answered, that _the children of Israel were, among\nother nations, like the Ethiopians_; the women said,\u201d etc. This is\nmerely a proof of the contempt which overwhelmed this unhappy race in\nthe east.\n\n[173] _On the Negro\u2019s Place in Nature_ (Dr. Hunt, _Anthropological\nSociety of London_, November 17, 1863).\n\n[174] See the table taken from the _Systema Natur\u00e6_. We know that\nLinn\u00e6us had adopted the geographical classification of human races.\n\n  Homo Americanus. { _Pertin\u00e6_, contentus, liber.\n                   { Regitur consuetudine.\n    \u201d  Europ\u00e6us.   { Levis, argutus, _inventor_.\n                   { Regitur ritibus.\n    \u201d  Asiaticus.  { _Severus_, fastuosus, avarus,\n                   { _Regitur opinionibus._\n    \u201d  Afer.       { Vafer, segnis, negligens,\n                   { _Regitur arbitrio._\n\n\n[175] _Des Races Humaines_, in the _Revue des Deux Mondes_.\n\n[176] [It is, indeed, worthy of a place in science, though not\napparently in the sense which is meant by our author. C. Carter\nBlake says, and says truly, \u201cIn zoology, as in all other methods of\nhuman thought, the sincere searcher after truth will reap some solid\nbenefit for his labours if carried on in a fair and honest spirit.\nWhat science reveals to us,--and we know of no source of knowledge\nwhence the revelation of the truth, as it is manifested in living\nnature, can be impugned,--what science teaches us, a simple-minded\nstudent will accept, that which the unbiassed evidences of his senses\nand the manifestations of his own consciousness tell him to be true.\u201d\n(C. Carter Blake, _On the Doctrine of Final Causes, as illustrated\nby Zoology_, Hastings Philosophical Society, meeting of January 13,\n1864.)--EDITOR.]\n\n[177] [\u201cThe natives of Australia,\u201d observes Hasskarl, \u201care deficient in\nthe idea of a Creator or moral Governor of the world, and all attempts\nto instruct them terminate in a sudden break up of the conversation.\nThe Bechuanas, one of the most intelligent tribes of the interior\nof South Africa, have no idea of a Supreme Being; and there is no\nword to be found in their language for the conception of a Creator.\u201d\n(_Force and Matter_, by Dr. Louis B\u00fcchner, transl. and edited by J. F.\nCollingwood, F.R.S.L., F.G.S., F.A.S.L.).--EDITOR.]\n\n[178] I translate in this way the word _mythology_, used by Latham;\nit is the real translation. Every religion is necessarily based on a\n_fable_, for whoever does not practise it, \u201cMutato nomine, de te fabula\nnarratur.\u201d [This is an assertion which our author has no right to make,\nand which certainly does not redound to his credit. We must earnestly\nprotest against it. A moment\u2019s consideration, however, will satisfy\nmost men that the translator\u2019s license has here been carried to a most\nunwarrantable extent.--EDITOR.]\n\n[179] The Reverend Messrs. Schmidt, Parker, etc.\n\n[180] John Leighton.\n\n[181] See Bertillon, _Bulletins de la Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 d\u2019Anthropologie_, March\n15, 1860. [See above, p. 66, _note_.--EDITOR.]\n\n[182] I had this fact from the mouth of M. de Lesseps, on his return\nfrom a journey to Khart\u00fbm.\n\n[183] J. Ross, _Narrative of a Second Voyage_, p. 548, 1835.\n\n[184] Emanuel Zobrega wrote to the Company from Brazil, in 1552:--\u201cThe\ninhabitants acknowledge Saint Thomas, whom they call Zom\u00e9 (changing the\n_Th_ into _Z_, according to their dialect); and they have a tradition\nthat he once journeyed through this country.\u201d His letter is fully given\nby Nieremberg, _Historia Natur\u00e6_, fol., Antuerpi\u00e6, 1635.\n\n[185] \u201cOn the Intellectual Character of the Esquimaux\u201d (_Edinburgh New\nPhilosophical Journal_, vol. xxxviii, p. 306, October 1844 to April\n1845.)\n\n[186] _L\u2019Immortalit\u00e9 de l\u2019\u00e2me chez les Juifs_, transl. by I. Cohen,\n12mo, Paris, 1857.\n\n[187] See Brecher, _L\u2019Immortalit\u00e9 de l\u2019\u00e2me chez les Juifs_, p. 81.\n\n[188] Josephus, _Antiquities_, xviii, ch. 2, transl. by D. G.\nG\u00e9n\u00e9brard, Paris, 1639.\n\n[189] Chapter upon the \u201cNirv\u00e2na.\u201d\n\n[190] Barth\u00e9lemy Saint-Hilaire, _Bouddha et sa Religion_, chapter upon\nthe \u201cNirv\u00e2na,\u201d 1862.\n\n[191] Niebuhr quoted, in support of this, the Nalhkis and the Guaranis\nin the New Californian and Cape Missions. Schlegel (_Essais_, p. 341,\nParis, 1841) declares, that most savage nations ought always to remain\nso by the will of nature.\n\n[192] See _Comptes rendus de l\u2019Acad\u00e9mie des Sciences_, meeting of July\n20, 1857.\n\n[193] \u201cI maintain,\u201d says Courtet de l\u2019Isle (_Tableau Ethnographique du\ngenre humain_, p. 89, 8vo, Paris, 1849), \u201cthat human races are unequal\nin intellectual power, that they are, consequently, not susceptible of\nthe same degree of development, and that each of them is called upon to\nfill, in unequal conditions, a mission marked out by Providence.\u201d\n\n[194] Doctor Martius is a curious example of the extravagances to which\nmonogenist ideas may lead. In order to explain the moral character of\nthe Americans, he is obliged to suppose a frightful cataclysm [great\ninundation] which happened, he cannot say when, and adds, \u201cIs it the\nprofound terror felt by those unhappy people who escaped from this\nawful calamity which, being transmitted without a diminished intensity\nto following generations, has troubled their reason, obscured their\nintelligence, and hardened their heart?\u201d Compare Morel, _Trait\u00e9 des\nD\u00e9g\u00e9n\u00e9rescences de l\u2019esp\u00e8ce humaine_, 1857, and _Discours Inaugural \u00e0\nl\u2019Acad\u00e9mie de Rouen_, 1857.\n\n[195] D\u2019Orbigny saw the Charruas continue a war against the Spaniards\n(who decimated them) rather than renounce their much-valued\nindependence. (_Voyage dans l\u2019Am\u00e9rique M\u00e9ridionale_, vol. iv,\nIntroduction p. 4.) [Our author ought not to compare the northern\nAmericans with the southern aborigines, giving to _both_ of them,\napparently, the same characteristics. The northerners are whites, and\n(supposing the Canadians and the north-western settlers are spoken\nof) worthy of his praise. We put the present _Northern States_ on one\nside altogether, as the character given by our author cannot possibly\napply to them. The Charruas, who are mentioned in the above note,\nare Indians, inhabiting the banks of the Uruguay in South America,\nand therefore, whatever may be their courage and love of liberty _as\naborigines_, they cannot properly be classed with white inhabitants,\nwho are merely _settlers_.--EDITOR.]\n\n[196] Compare D\u2019Escayrac de Lauture, _Le D\u00e9sert et le Soudan_; _M\u00e9moire\nsur le Soudan_, etc. [These people are not so very peculiar in this\nrespect. Even in our own land, there is sometimes a good deal of\ndifficulty in obtaining information about routes; and agricultural\nlabourers especially are much given to scratching their heads and\nchewing the cud of meditation, ending with an indecision quite\ndelightful to the tired traveller.--EDITOR.]\n\n[197] See _Philosophi\u00e6 Naturalis Principia Mathematica_, pp. 482, 483,\n4to, Amstelodami, 1723.\n\n[198] See _Essai Politique sur le royaume de la Nouvelle Espagne_,\nParis, 1811.\n\n[199] _Voyage dans l\u2019Am\u00e9rique M\u00e9ridionale._\n\n[200] _Crania Americana_, Introduction.\n\n[201] _M\u00e9moire_ on the preceding work.\n\n[202] [Dr. Hunt, however, does not think that language is such\nan unfailing test as our author appears to imagine. He considers\nthat language must be utterly discarded as the first principle of\nanthropological classification, and gives a far higher value to\nreligion and to art, considering language merely as the third element.\nIt is possible to change the language of a race; but apparently\nimpossible to change either their religion or their innate ideas of\nart. See Hunt on _Anthropological Classification_ (_Brit. Assoc._,\n1863), _Anthrop. Rev._, vol. i, p. 383. \u201cOn ethnology, Professor\nM\u00fcller says, \u2018The science of language and the science of ethnology\nhave both suffered most seriously from being mixed up together. The\nclassification of races and languages should be quite independent of\neach other. Races may change their languages; and history supplies us\nwith several instances where one race adopted the language of another.\nDifferent languages, therefore, may be spoken by one race, or the\nsame language may be spoken by different races; so that any attempt\nat squaring the classification of races and tongues must necessarily\nfail.\u2019\u201d(_On the Science of Language_, R. S. Charnock; _Anthrop. Rev._,\nvol. i, p. 200.)--EDITOR.]\n\n[203] See Chav\u00e9e, _Les Langues et les Races_, 1862.\n\n[204] _Histoire des Langues S\u00e9mitiques_, p. 467, Paris, 1855.\n\n[205] See Prichard, _The Eastern Origin of the Celtic Nations_, edited\nby Latham, 1857.\n\n[206] \u201cThe sound of their voice resembles sighing.\u201d \u201cTheir language\nresembles the clucking of a turkey.\u201d Compare White, _Account of the\nregular gradation of Man_, p. 67, London, 1799. Appleyard, _The Kafir\nLanguage_, p. 3, 8vo, King William\u2019s Town, 1850. Morel, _Trait\u00e9 des\nD\u00e9g\u00e9n\u00e9rescences de l\u2019esp\u00e8ce humaine_, p. 42, Paris, 1857. \u201cThe Kafirs\nhave adopted some of the inflexions in use among their neighbours, but\nas a simple ornament to their speech, without attributing any special\nsignification to these \u2018cluckings.\u2019\u201d--Is. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire\n(_Correspondence_).\n\n[207] Compare Cabanis, _Rapports du Physique et du Moral_, 13th year,\nvol. ii, p. 201: Knox, _The Races of Men_, p. 82, London, 1850: Morel,\n_D\u00e9g\u00e9n\u00e9rescences de l\u2019Esp\u00e8ce Humaine_, Paris, 1857.\n\n[208] See Beddom in _English Cyclop\u00e6dia_: see, also, Vitruvius, book\nvi, ch. i.\n\n[209] _Rapports du Physique et du Moral_, 13th year, vol. ii, p. 294.\n\n[210] _Histoire Naturelle G\u00e9n\u00e9rale_, vol. iii, p. 319, 1860. We do\nnot here quote the facts relative to the Barbary and Corsican stag\n(_ibidem_, p. 407), since they rest only on the negative assertion of\nan old author.\n\n[211] \u201cPartout de petits changements, nulle part de grands.\u201d _Hist.\nNaturelle G\u00e9n\u00e9rale_, vol. iii, p. 388.\n\n[212] _Recherches sur les Ossements Fossiles_, 4to, vol. i, p. 59, 1831.\n\n[213] _Histoire Naturelle G\u00e9n\u00e9rale_, vol. iii, p. 389.\n\n[214] \u201cWhat would be thought of a breeder who took Norman colts or\nFlemish calves to the high lands of the Alps and the Pyrenees, and then\nexpected to see them reproduce (their training having been finished)\nall the pure characteristics of the original races?\u201d--Isidore Geoffroy\nSaint-Hilaire, _Histoire Naturelle G\u00e9n\u00e9rale_, vol. iii, p. 307.\n\n[215] See Verneuil, _Bulletins de la Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 d\u2019Anthropologie_, February\n2, 1860.--Bont\u00e9, _ibidem_, August 6, 1863.\n\n[216] [\u201cA priest who has drunk wine shall migrate into a moth or a\nfly, feeding on ordure. He who steals the gold of a priest, shall pass\na thousand times into the bodies of spiders. If a man shall steal\nhoney, he shall be born a great stinging gnat; if oil, an oil-drinking\nbeetle; if salt, a cicada; if a household utensil, an ichneumon\nfly\u201d (_Institutes of Menu_, \u00a7 353). Thus, apparently with regard to\n_comparison_, the Hind\u00fa considers insects to be the lowest form of\nanimal life, into which _moral_ criminals are to pass after death,\naccording to their doctrine of metempsychosis.--EDITOR.]\n\n[217] [Why will some scientific men persist in separating, so strongly,\nreligion and science, as if _both_ could not be practised? This is what\nthe \u201cmaster of science\u201d appears to think. Each _student_ of science may\nwell apply the following lines: \u201cIt is your duty to go on steadfastly,\nunwaveringly, _ohne Hast, ohne Rast_, conscious that you interpret,\nto the best of your finite ability, your conceptions of the truths of\nscience, equally conscious that whatever may be the immediate result of\nyour labours, they must eventually fulfil the aspiration which tends\n_ad majorem Dei gloriam_.\u201d--C. Carter Blake _On the Doctrine of Final\nCauses_ (_Hastings Philosophical Society_, meeting of January 13,\n1864).--EDITOR.]\n\n[218] Robin, _M\u00e9moire sur la Production du Blastoderme_ (_Journal de\nPhysiologie_, p. 358, 1862).\n\n[219] It is thus that we do not see realised in man that general\nlaw which decrees that animal species are large in proportion to\nthe continent which they inhabit; the mean size of the mammalia, in\nparticular, is regularly proportional to the extent of Australia,\nAmerica, the ancient continent, and the bottom of the ocean.\n\n[220] Compare Mitchell, _An Essay upon the Causes of the Different\nColours_, etc. (_Philosophical Transactions_, 1745.)\n\n[221] \u201cSole colorari homines non dubium, eosque autem ut nigrescant non\nconstat.\u201d Albinus, _De Sede et Causa Coloris \u00c6thiopum_, p. 12. He also\nsays, still speaking of Negroes, that they are coloured, \u201cquod suum\nparentes colorem in liberos propagant ...; \u00e6thiops f\u0153mina si cum mare\n\u00e6thiope rem habuerit, \u00e6thiopem, ni quid forte natura ludat, gignit;\nalba si cum albo, album.\u201d--_Ibidem_, p. 10. It is in some manner the\npermanence of a declared type.\n\n[222] _Dissertation Physique sur les Diff\u00e9rences des Traits du Visage_,\np. 17.\n\n[223] See above, p. 85.\n\n[224] Yvan, _De France en Chine_, p. 175, Paris, 1853. [\u201cM. P\u00e9rier\nhas mentioned, according to Yvan, the beauty of the inhabitants of\nthe island of R\u00e9union, who descend from a few couples only, and yet\nhave known how to preserve their purity of blood\u201d (_An Inquiry into\nConsanguineous Marriages and Pure Races_, Dr. E. Dally; transl. by H.\nJ. C. Beavan, _Anthrop. Review_, p. 97, 1864).--EDITOR.]\n\n[225] White, _Account of the regular Gradation of Man_, p. 112. Morton,\n_Crania Americana_, Introduction. Prince de Wied, _Voyage au Br\u00e9sil_,\nvol. ii, p. 310. Bory de St. Vincent, _Essai Zoologique sur le genre\nhumain_, vol. ii, p. 20.\n\n[226] Desmoulins, _Histoire Naturelle des races humaines_, p. 162.\n_Indigenous Races of the Earth_, p. 585.\n\n[227] White, _Account of the regular Gradation of Man_, p. 104.\n\n[228] W. Edwards, _Des Caract\u00e8res Physiologiques des races humaines_,\np. 14. Niebuhr (transl.), _Lectures on Ethnography_, vol. i, p. 374.\n\n[229] John Hunter also thought that man was originally black; he had\nremarked that domestic animals become white by age. Compare White,\n_Account of the regular Gradation of Man_, p. 100. Hunter thus\nconfounded men with domestic animals. We have already said what must be\nthought of this connexion.\n\n[230] Compare Morel, _D\u00e9g\u00e9n\u00e9rescence de l\u2019esp\u00e8ce humaine_, p. 5, Paris,\n1857.\n\n[231] See above, p. 73.\n\n[232] Climateric influences act probably upon wild animals in the same\nmanner; it must be remarked, however, that a captive animal and a\nman, taken to another country, are not exposed in the same degree to\nthe action of the new medium; conditions are not similarly altered as\nregards both of them. Sometimes the man, sometimes the animal, will\nhave most chances of resistance; the one being always obliged by his\nmaster to submit to an intellectual government, approaching as much as\npossible his former state; the other, abandoned to himself, and drawn\nfatally into the new habits which he sees around him.\n\n[233] See, on this point, Boudin, _G\u00e9ographie M\u00e9dicale_, vol. ii, p.\n15, Paris, 1857. _Annuaire du Bureau des Longitudes_, p. 230, 1833. G.\nPouchet, _Des Colorations de l\u2019\u00e9piderme_, 4to, Paris, 1864.\n\n[234] [Dr. Waitz, in his _Introduction to Anthropology_ (translated\nand edited by J. F. Collingwood), gives an explanation concerning the\ncolouring matter in the Negro, which is very curious, but with which,\nhowever, he does not agree; viz., \u201cthat in hot climates the amount of\noxygen inspired is insufficient to change the carbon into carbonic\nacid, and that the unconsumed carbon is deposited in the pigment-cells\nof the skin.... It is, however, difficult to admit that the browning\nof the skin in our climate in summer is produced by the same causes as\nthe black colour of the Negro, and that it would only require a greater\nintensity and a longer duration to become so entirely.\u201d Part. I, sect.\ni, p. 35.--EDITOR.]\n\n[235] The precociousness of the genital functions is in direct relation\nwith this general fact.\n\n[236] W. Edwards, _Caract\u00e8res Physiologiques_, etc., p. 14. \u201cThe\ntropics alone produce the combination of infantine grace with the full\ndevelopment of female maturity.\u201d Smith, _Natural History_, etc., p.\n190. See, also, Cabanis, _Rapports du Physique et du Moral_, vol. ii;\nand Davy, _Account of Ceylon_. These two authors in particular have\nquite appreciated these changes.\n\n[237] Boudin, _G\u00e9ographie M\u00e9dicale_, vol. ii, p. 150, 1857.\n\n[238] Meeting of November 7, 1861.\n\n[239] [See above, p. 59, _note_.--EDITOR.]\n\n[240] It would appear from the documents collected by Nott (_Two\nLectures on the Natural History of the Caucasian and Negro Races_,\nMobile, 1844, compare Boudin, _G\u00e9ogr. M\u00e9d._, vol. ii, p. 144), that\nas we advance towards the upper part of the Northern States, madness\nbecomes very frequent among the Negroes. It reaches the proportion of\none case of insanity among twenty-eight sane persons in Massachusetts\nand Maine. We hesitate in acknowledging climateric influence, because\nthe number of cases seems to increase relatively to the degree of\ninstruction among the people; not that madness depends on education,\nbut because it finds out a great number of cases of which we should\notherwise have been ignorant, as often happens in the east among a less\nenlightened people.\n\n[241] Compare Boudin, _Bulletins de la Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 d\u2019Anthropologie_, August\n1, 1861.\n\n[242] Compare Boudin, _Trait\u00e9 de G\u00e9ographie M\u00e9dicale_, 1857,\nIntroduction.\n\n[243] _New York Medical Journal_, p. 399, February 1831 (see Hirsch,\n_Handbuch der Historisch-geographischen Pathologie_, \u00a7 35, p. 1).\n\n[244] _Some Account of the Last Yellow Fever Epidemic of British\nGuiana_, p. 59, 8vo, London, 1850.\n\n[245] Barton, _Report of the Sanitary Commission of New Orleans for\n1853_, p. 248, New Orleans, 1854 (see Hirsch, _Handbuch_, etc., \u00a7 35).\nHe brings forward several pieces of evidence in the same question.\nThey seem to us too decisive, in a polygenist point of view, for us\nnot to give the entire list of his quotations: Romay, _Diss. sobre la\nFiebre Amarilla_, etc., Habana, 1797: Arnold, _Treatise on the Bilious\nRemittent Fever_, etc., p. 26, London, 1840: Zimpel, _Jenaische Annalen\nf\u00fcr Med._, i, p. 68: Dickinson, _Observations on the Inflammatory\nEndemic incident to Strangers in the West Indies_, etc., p. 13, London,\n1819: Ferguson, _Notes and Reflections_, p. 150, London, 1846: Dickson,\n_Philadelphia Med. and Phys. Journal_, iii, p. 250: Lallemand, _Das\nGelbfieber_, etc., p. 121. [Schomburgk, _A Description of British\nGuiana_, etc., p. 22, London, 1840.--EDITOR.]\n\n[246] Words borrowed from the definition of species by Isidore\nGeoffroy, _Histoire Naturelle G\u00e9n\u00e9rale_, vol. ii, p. 437. \u201cThe act\nwhich appears most natural to living beings who are perfect, and who\nare not abortive, nor produced by spontaneous generation, is the\nproduction of a being like themselves, the animal producing an animal,\nthe plant a plant, so as to participate in the eternal and divine\nnature as much as they can.\u201d--_De l\u2019\u00e2me_, book ii, chap. iv, \u00a7 2,\ntransl. by Barth\u00e9lemy Saint-Hilaire.\n\n[247] Nott and Gliddon, _Indigenous Races of the Earth_, p. 443.\n\n[248] Nott and Gliddon, _Types of Mankind_, p. 373, 1854.\n\n[249] See Boudin, _G\u00e9ographie M\u00e9dicale_, Introduction, p. 39.\n\n[250] See Morel, _Trait\u00e9 des D\u00e9g\u00e9n\u00e9rescences_.\n\n[251] P\u00e9rier, _Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 d\u2019Anthropologie_, meeting of April 21, 1864.\n\n[252] _Des Races Humaines_, 1845.\n\n[253] _Account of the Regular Gradation of Man_, p. 146.\n\n[254] Compare W. Edwards, _Des Caract\u00e8res Physiologiques_, etc., p. 29.\n\n[255] Individual distinctions can only, then, be based on the\nalterations of type, in characteristics which are not those of the\nsupposed ideal. It hence results that, if we have lived with a stranger\nwho has all the characteristics of his race well marked, we think that\nwe see him while travelling among his fellow countrymen.\n\n[256] \u201cIt is one of the clearest facts in the animal, as well\nas in the vegetable world; all races generally reproduce and\nperpetuate themselves without mingling and confounding one with the\nother.\u201d--Prichard, _Histoire Naturelle de l\u2019Homme_, vol. i., p. 17.\nCompare Morel, _D\u00e9g\u00e9n\u00e9rescences de l\u2019esp\u00e8ce humaine_, p. 2.\n\n[257] Third number. Most of the articles in this remarkable production\nare unsigned.\n\n[258] \u201cNo race will amalgamate with another; they die out, or seem\nslowly to be becoming extinct.\u201d Compare the _Ethnological Journal_, p.\n98.\n\n[259] \u201cWe arrive at the fundamental conclusion that it is useless for\npeople belonging to varieties of different races, but neighbours,\nto ally themselves together; part of the new generation will always\npreserve the primitive type.\u201d--See Courtet de l\u2019Isle, _Tableau\nEthnographique_, p. 77.\n\n[260] Latham thinks, however, that he has discovered some vestiges of\nthe Ph\u0153nician race in Africa and Cornwall. Compare Knox, _The Races of\nMen_, 1850.\n\n[261] [Small columns, having neither base nor capital.--EDITOR.]\n\n[262] It is the case with the hippopotamus and the lion.\n\n[263] Thus, at least, Buffon translates \u201cGothi corpore\nproceriore, capillis albidis rectis, oculorum indibus\ncinere--c\u00e6rulescentibus.\u201d--Linn\u00e6us, _Fauna succica_, p. 1.\n\n[264] By virtue of the law which makes us find a family likeness in an\nindividual after it has been absent, or rather hidden, for one or more\ngenerations.\n\n[265] \u201cRutil\u00e6 com\u00e6, magni artus.\u201d--Tacitus, _Agricola_, ii, \u00a7 11.\n\n[266] \u201cColorati vultus et torti plerumque crines.\u201d--Idem, _ibidem_.\n\n[267] Idem, _ibidem_.\n\n[268] See Latham, _Celtic Language_, p. 371. J. B. Davis and J.\nThurnam, _Crania Britannica_, p. 53. Garnet, in the _Transactions of\nthe Philological Society_. R. Cull and Latham, in the _Edinburgh New\nPhysical Journal_, 1854. P\u00e9rier, _Fragments Ethnologiques_, Paris, 1857.\n\n[269] J. Philips, see _British Association_, 1849.\n\n[270] The name itself of this district shows, however, the habitation\nof these parts by the Scandinavians.\n\n[271] Compare W. Edwards, _Des Caract\u00e8res Physiologiques des Races\nHumaines_. Paris, 1829.\n\n[272] See P\u00e9rier, _Fragments Ethnologiques_, Paris, 1857.\n\n[273] _Recherches sur l\u2019Ethnologie de la France_ (_M\u00e9moires de la\nSoci\u00e9t\u00e9 d\u2019Anthropologie_, vol. i, p. 1). See, also, the discussion\nwhich followed the reading of this paper (_Bulletins de la Soci\u00e9t\u00e9\nd\u2019Anthropologie_, meetings of July 21 and August 4, 1859).\n\n[274] We may remark this line is precisely perpendicular to the\nclimateric parallels which divide France.\n\n[275] [The standard in France is, we believe, five feet.--EDITOR.]\n\n[276] _Peru_, 1846.\n\n[277] _Nicaragua: its People_, vol. ii, p. 153, New York, 1852.\n\n[278] _Essai sur l\u2019In\u00e9galit\u00e9 des Races Humaines_, Paris, 1852.\n\n[279] _Rapports du Physique et du Moral_, vol. i, p. 484.\n\n[280] M. Morel, _Trait\u00e9 des D\u00e9g\u00e9n\u00e9rescences_.\n\n[281] [\u201cAll races of mankind intermix, they are fertile, producing\ncross-breeds, mulattoes, mestizoes, etc., which again are productive.\nAll human races constitute, therefore, on physiological principles, but\none species, which is here identical with _genus humanum_.\u201d So thinks\nProfessor Rudolph Wagner, but his arguments are not very satisfactory.\nHe refers varieties of race in a great measure to climatic influence.\nSee _Creation of Man and Substance of the Mind_ (_Anthrop. Rev._, vol.\ni, p. 229).--EDITOR.]\n\n[282] Compare _Bulletins de la Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 d\u2019Anthropologie_, vol. iii, p.\n175.\n\n[283] In applying these principles to family consanguinity, we may say\nin a general manner, that it will be favourable or not to the offspring\naccording to the state of the parents. If the parents are perfectly\nhealthy, and exempt from all commencing degeneracy, they can only give\nbirth to children at least as healthy as themselves. If one of the two\nparents is tainted with a commencement of degeneracy, the descendant,\nin his quality of offspring, will perhaps bear the trace of this\ndegeneracy, but sensibly weakened. If the two parents are separately\ntainted with a different commencement of degeneracy, one or the other\nought to continue it in the child, only in a lesser degree. But if the\nsame degeneracy has already tainted both the parents, the offspring\nwill show it in a greater degree, and will tend towards entire\ndisappearance.\n\n[284] Flourens, _Histoire des Travaux de Buffon_, p. 180.\n\n[285] [_On the Phenomena of Hybridity in the Genus Homo_, edited by C.\nCarter Blake, F.G.S., F.A.S.L.--EDITOR.]\n\n[286] Compare G. Pouchet, _Pr\u00e9cis d\u2019Histologie Humaine_, \u00a7 5.\n\n[287] \u201cAc Sylla quidem sodalis noster, fatus nos parva qu\u00e6stione\ntanquam instrumento ingentem et gravem de origine mundi qu\u00e6stionem\nsubruere.\u201d _Qu\u00e6stionem Convivalium_, book ii, quest. 3; transl., edited\nby F. Didot, 1841.\n\n[288] Buffon said that (_Suppl\u00e9ments_, vol. iv, p. 335) this method\nof generation is not only the most frequent and the most general, but\nthe most ancient, that is, the first and most universal one. Plutarch\n(_Qu\u00e6st. Conviv._, book ii, quest. 3; transl., edited by F. Didot,\n1841) makes the same remark: \u201cProinde probabile est primum ortum ex\nterra gignentis perfectione ac robore absolutum fuisse, nihilque\nindigentem hujusmodi instrumentis, receptaculis et vasis, qualia nunc\nob imbecillitatem natura parit atque machinatur parientibus.\u201d\n\n[289] It must not be forgotten, that organic substances are supposed to\nhave been found even in the formation of certain a\u00ebrolites.\n\n[290] \u00c9. Geoffroy, _Comptes Rendus des s\u00e9ances de l\u2019Acad\u00e9mie des\nSciences_, vol. v, p. 193.\n\n[291] See Isidore Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, _Histoire Naturelle\nG\u00e9n\u00e9rale_, vol. iii, p. 210.\n\n[292] [We are almost tempted, in all kindness, to refer our author to\nthe following remarks in the _Reliques of Father Prout_, p. 264. \u201cI\nhave been at some pains to acquire a comprehensive notion of the Count\nde Buffon\u2019s system, and, aided by an old Jesuit, I have succeeded in\ncondensing the voluminous dissertation into a few lines, for the use of\nthose who are dissatisfied with the Mosaic statement:--\n\n1. In the beginning was the sun, from which a splinter was shot off by\nchance, and that fragment was our globe.\n\n2. And the globe had for its nucleus melted glass, with an envelope of\nhot water.\n\n3. And it began to twirl round, and became somewhat flattened at the\npoles.\n\n4. Now, when the water grew cool, insects began to appear, and\nshell-fish.\n\n5. And from the accumulation of shells, particularly oysters (see vol.\ni, p. 14, 4to, 2nd ed.), the earth was gradually formed, with ridges of\nmountains, on the principle of the Monte Testacio at the gate of Rome.\n\n6. But the melted glass kept warm for a long time, and the arctic\nclimate was as hot in those days as the tropics now are,--witness a\nfrozen rhinoceros found in Siberia.\u201d Let the leaven work, although a\nmere joke to M. Pouchet\u2019s reality.--EDITOR.]\n\n[293] _Histoire Naturelle_, vol. ix, p. 127, 1761. \u00c9tienne Geoffroy\n(_Comptes Rendus_, vol. iii, p. 29) says the same thing \u201cas regards\nthe actual constitution of the globe; each race is a species _sui\ngeneris_,--a form or combination of its own in nature.\u201d\n\n[294] The terms of this definition are almost entirely borrowed from\nIsidore Geoffroy. By ending it with these words, \u201cin the present order\nof things,\u201d Isidore Geoffroy only defined the existing species, and\ntook away, without any reason, the pal\u00e6ontologic species.\n\n[295] Lamarck, _Discours de l\u2019An XI_, p. 45.\n\n[296] See Flourens, _Examen du livre de M. Darwin sur l\u2019Origine des\nEsp\u00e8ces_, 18mo, Paris, 1864. We are at least astonished to find the\nname of the Geoffroys mentioned but once in such a work (p. 45). M.\nFlourens charges Darwin with only quoting the partisans of his own\nopinions (p. 40).\n\n[297] [See above, p. 84, _note_.--EDITOR.]\n\n[298] _Sur l\u2019Influence du monde ambiant_, 1831 (_M\u00e9moires de l\u2019Acad\u00e9mie\ndes Sciences_), vol. xii, p. 81.\n\n[299] Vol. ii, second part, 1859.\n\n[300] _Philosophie Zoologique_, vol. i, p. 221.\n\n[301] _Syst\u00e8me des Connaissances Positives_, p. 143, 1820.\n\n[302] _Discours de l\u2019An XI_, p. 45. He says, also, in another place\n(_Philosophie Zoologique_, vol. i, p. 66), \u201cWhat we call species, has\nonly a relative constancy in that state, and cannot be as ancient as\nnature itself.\u201d\n\n[303] Lamarck, _Organisation des Corps Vivants_, p. 53.\n\n[304] For nature \u201ctime has no limit, and consequently has it always at\nits disposal.\u201d Lamarck, _Syst\u00e8me des Animaux sans Vert\u00e8bres_, p. 13,\n1801.\n\n[305] Darwin _On the Origin of Species_, p. 518, London, 1861. \u201cI\nbelieve that animals have descended from at most only four or five\nprogenitors, and plants from an equal or less number. Analogy would\nlead me one step farther, namely, to the belief that all animals and\nplants have descended from some one prototype.\u201d\n\n[306] Compare Darwin _On the Origin of Species_, p. 96, 1861.\n\n[307] _Histoire Naturelle G\u00e9n\u00e9rale_, vol. ii, p. 421, 1859.\n\n[308] \u201cThe observation of species in a state of nature, by revealing\nto us a multitude of modifications more or less important, cannot show\nus any serious deviation from the types formed or preserved by the\ninfluence of the existing state of things.\u201d Isidore Geoffroy, _Vie\nd\u2019\u00c9tienne Geoffroy_, p. 349.\n\n[309] See Leibnitz, _Protog\u00e9e_, transl. by Bertrand de Saint-Germain,\nIntroduction, p. 61.\n\n[310] _Comptes rendus des s\u00e9ances de l\u2019Acad\u00e9mie_, February 22, 1858.\n\n[311] We shall be thanked for publishing here the following extract\nfrom a letter addressed to us by Isidore Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, the\n3rd of June, 1860, and which relates to all these questions. \u201cI said,\ntwo or three years ago, as I have learnt from M. Lartet (who remembered\nthe expression which I had myself forgotten), that the present movement\nof science tends to substitute in geology the idea of the _evolution_\nof the globe for that of _revolutions_. M. Lartet has taken up this\nview, and adheres to it. It is of great importance to me, as regards\nmy works on species, in which we must in this case substitute the\nnotion of _evolution_ for that of _revolution_; _revolutions_ are here\npretended creations, abruptly successive. It is time to have done with\nthese views, which, instead of taking creation as having been once\nconcluded, make at every instant the _Deus ex machin\u00e2_ intervene.\u201d\n\n[312] [\u201cIn the neighbourhood of Mount \u00c6tna, or on the sides of that\nextensive mountain, there are beds of lava covered over with a\nconsiderable thickness of earth; and at least another, again, which\nthough known from ancient monuments and historical records to have\nissued from the volcano at least two thousand years ago, is still\nalmost entirely destitute of soil and vegetation; in one place a pit\nhas been cut through seven different strata of lava; and these have\nbeen found separated from each other by almost as many thick beds of\nrich earth. Now, from the fact that a stratum of lava, two thousand\nyears old, is yet scantily covered with earth, it has been inferred\nby the ingenious Canon Recupero, who has laboured thirty years on the\nnatural history of Mount \u00c6tna, that the lowest of these strata which\nhave been found divided by so many beds of earth, must have been\nemitted from the volcanic crater at least _fourteen thousand_ years\nago, and consequently, that the age of the earth, whatever it may\nexceed this term of years, cannot possibly be less.\u201d--Brydone\u2019s _Tour\nthrough Sicily and Malta_ (1770). Plato, in his _Critias_, mentions the\nisland Atlantis as having been buried in the ocean nine thousand years\nbefore his own time. In the _Universal History_, vol. i, (preface,)\nwe are told that the astronomical records of the ancient Chaldeans\ncarry back the origin of society to the remote period of _four hundred\nand seventy-three thousand_ years. Among comparatively well-known\nauthorities, there is a good deal of difference in the time of the\nsupposed formation of the world. The Hebrew bible makes the creation\n3,944 years before the Christian era. The Samaritan bible, 4,305 years;\nthe Septuagint, 5,270 years; Usher, 4,004 years; Josephus, 4,658 years;\nM. Pezron, 5,872 years. In all these differences, however, there is\nnothing so striking as in the theories we mention above, of Recupero,\nthe Chaldeans, etc.--EDITOR.]\n\n[313] [Our author is quite right. Science _does_ teach us what to think\nof divine power in its outward manifestations. The more we understand\nnature, the more ready will earnest-minded men be to praise and give\nglory to the God who made it, who created man and beast with such\nmarvellous and exquisite regularity, and who continues to govern the\nworld and all that is upon it. Perhaps M. Pouchet thinks he himself\ncould have made a better one. It is a pity that a clever mind is so\nwarped by that science which ought to make him more satisfied than ever\nthat God is the creator of the world; and that spontaneous generation,\nand the never-clearly explained origin of the _first_ matter, about\nwhich even M. Pouchet cannot tell us, with all his scepticism, ought to\ngo to pave the \u201cpathway of good intentions.\u201d--EDITOR.]\n\n[314] [Why not?--EDITOR.]\n\n[315] Some may be astonished at our applying the word _kingdom_ to the\nvertebrata. We do so because, in truth, the distance which separates\nthem from other animals seems to us almost as great, and even more\ndecided, than that which separates the invertebrata from plants.\n\n[316] The diagram which Darwin has placed in his book _On the Origin of\nSpecies_, is only a fraction and piece of detail of the general figure\nwhich we are endeavouring to place before the mind of the reader.\n\n[317] _L\u2019Insecte_, p. 128, 1858.\n\n[318] Predominance of the immediate azotic principles, respiration\ncomparable to that of animals, voluntary movements, indivisibility of\norganism, etc.\n\n[319] [See above, pp. 46, 47.--EDITOR.]\n\n[320] See _On the Origin of Species_, chap. iii.\n\n[321] Lions hindered the army of Xerxes in Macedonia. They abounded\nin the province of Africa in the time of the Roman Emperors. At the\npresent time, however, G\u00e9rard was obliged to watch for three hundred\nnights in order to kill only thirty or forty.\n\n[322] The crocodile, which used to swarm on the Delta, is now only\nfound in Upper Egypt.\n\n[323] The hippopotamus, since the Roman occupation, has successively\nretired from the mouth of the Nile to the fourth cataract. Some years\nago, there existed one, and one only, at the Island of Argo, on this\nside of New Dongolah. Some hunters killed it, and since then, they have\nonly been found at the Berber level.\n\n[324] [_Hamites_, a genus of extinct Cephalopods, found in the\ngreensand formation in England.--EDITOR.]\n\n[325] _Comptes Rendus_, vol. iv, p. 58. Perhaps the only logical\ndeduction which we can really draw from the greater size of these\nanimals, is the greater extent of the continents which they inhabited.\nThe belief in the gigantic dimensions of the fossil _fauna_ and\n_flora_, is also a remains of the marvels which the first inquirers\ninto science involuntarily reported. In examining matters nearer and\nmore impartially, we see that certain zoological groups have been, in\nfact, formerly represented by larger species than at the present day;\nbut until we arrive at some new discovery, we have the right to think\nthat the other groups of animals, on the contrary, have a class of\nlarger representatives _than in former times_; like the quadrumana,\nthe cetacea, insects, cephalopods, acephalous mollusks, etc. But this\npretended decay is especially false as regards plants; if we find in\nthe ground some large ferns, or enormous grasses, we must subtract\na good deal from those so-called _antediluvian_ forests, which many\nhave not hesitated to bring forward in support of their ideas. All the\nfossil plants that we know are, without exception, extremely wretched\nin comparison with the gigantic conifers and dicotyledons in the\nforests of the old and new world.\n\n[326] [If this new handiwork of man, so charmingly arranged by our\nauthor, is not more successful than Pandora, as made by Vulcan, we\nfear the world will not gain much by it. In the olden times, the man\nwho propounded such curious ideas would probably have had a punishment\nawarded him, something similar to that suffered by Prometheus. Does\nM. Pouchet, in quoting this personage, entirely forget the rest of\nthe tale, and the _consequences_ of his rashness? We are really\nsorry, however, to see science perverted to a _pet idea_, if we may\nuse the expression, and twisted by means of \u201cbad anatomy and worse\ntheology,\u201d as a friend of ours calls it, for the sake of proving facts\nquite impossible to be solved. M. Pouchet gives us, in spontaneous\ngeneration, a first germ with which to start a _primordial anatomical\nelement_, as he calls it. He starts with this, and argues--in what\nmanner we leave it to our readers to determine--that, from this germ\nthere have, in time, sprung all the animals on the surface of the\nglobe. But he does not tell us how this _first germ_ itself arose. That\nis put entirely on one side, and taken for granted. We cannot take it\nfor granted however; and until we have it satisfactorily proved that he\nis right in any part of his idea, we shall go on thinking and believing\nas we have done before.--EDITOR.]\n\n[327] See Isidore Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, _Vie d\u2019E. Geoffroy\nSaint-Hilaire_, p. 287.\n\n[328] See above, chap. viii.\n\n[329] Compare Owen, _On the Characters, Principles of Division, and\nPrimary Groups of the Class Mammalia_ (_Journal of Linnean Society_,\n1857.)\n\n[330] See, for the explanation and discussion of these different\nsystems, Crull, _Dissertatio de Cranio_, 1810.\n\n[331] Compare Crull, _Dissertatio de Cranio_, p. 28, 1810.\n\n[332] Compare Crull, _Dissertatio de Cranio_, p. 52.\n\n[333] Busk and Quekett (_Medical Times and Gazette_).\n\n[334] One always endeavours to find some former indication or\npresentiment, although even confused and full of obscurity, beyond the\norigin of positive science; it is curious to find in the works of the\n_potter physician_ a sort of germ which, when developed, may have given\nbirth to cranioscopy,--a sort of foresight of the importance which the\nmeasurement of the skull would one day acquire. It is in the _Recepte\nV\u00e9ritable_: one of two speakers relates a dream in which he saw the\ndifferent instruments used in geometry dispute about precedence: he\nanswers them, that man is above them all; they exclaim, that man cannot\neven use one of them in order to measure any part of his body. [We\nthink it best to give the original here.--EDITOR.] \u201cQuoy voyant, il me\nprint envie de mesurer la teste d\u2019un homme, pour scauoir directement\nses mesures, et me sembla que la sauterelle, la reigle, et le compas\nme seroient fort propres pour ceste affaire, mais quoy qu\u2019il en soit,\nie n\u2019y sceu iamais trouver une mesure asseur\u00e9e.\u201d Bernard Palissy,\n_\u0152uvres_, p. 93, 12mo, Paris, 1844. Blumenbach says somewhere, \u201cThe\nhabit and constant use of my collection of skulls makes me understand\nevery day the impossibility of subjecting a variety of skulls to the\nrule of any possible angle, the head being susceptible of so many\nforms, and the parts which compose it being of so many different\nproportions and directions.\u201d See Morel, _Trait\u00e9 des D\u00e9g\u00e9n\u00e9rescences\ndans l\u2019esp\u00e8ce humaine_, p. 68. M. Aitken Meigs, at the present day,\nshows no less than twenty-nine different measurements of the skull\nwhich must be obtained if we wish to have anything like a satisfactory\nidea of the same.\n\n[335] See above, chap. iv.\n\n[336] See _Indigenous Races of the Earth_, p. 320.\n\n[337] See Strope, _Description d\u2019une Momie tr\u00e8s-ancienne_ (_Recueil\nP\u00e9riod. d\u2019Observ. de M\u00e9decine_, vol. iv, p. 290, Jan. 1756). One may\nsee in reading the account of a very able and judicious narrator how\nmuch ancient scientific observations alter with the times, when no care\nis taken to refer to the original sources.\n\n[338] See Vivien, in the _M\u00e9moires de la Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 Ethnologique_, vol.\nii, p. 59.\n\n[339] _Portfolio_, Philadelphia, 1814.\n\n[340] W. Edwards, _Des Caract\u00e8res Physiologiques des races humaines_,\np. 45, has especially noticed the great importance of external\ncharacteristics; he has only done wrong in excluding the hair, and\nattending solely to the form of the skull, which never concerns us when\nwe endeavour to picture or recall to our mind the features of a man.\n\n[341] See Michelet, with regard to the paintings in the Sixtine Chapel,\n_Histoire de France, Renaissance_.\n\n[342] \u201cPhilology is at once the most elevated and the most positive\nbranch of the natural history of the human race.\u201d Chav\u00e9e, _Mo\u00efse et\nles Langues_ (_La Revue_). M. Flourens seems to give philological\na superior rank to physical characteristics. [See above, p. 77,\n_note_.--EDITOR.]\n\n[343] He believes that by their means we can go back to the most\ndistant geological periods. See _Apophthegms_ (_Edinburgh New\nPhilosophical Journ._, vol. li.)\n\n[344] Latham thus explains it: \u201cThis is because whilst A and B, in the\nway of stock-blood or pedigree, will give C a true _tertium quid_,\nor a near approach to it, and A and B, in the way of language, will\nonly give themselves, _i. e._, they will give no true _tertium quid_,\nnor any very close approach to it.\u201d _Celtic Nations_, p. 33. We have\nendeavoured to prove that this true _tertium quid_--this _real mean\nterm_, is never produced as far as species.\n\n[345] [\u201cEither language must have been originally revealed from heaven,\nor it must be the fruits of human industry. The greater part of Jews\nand Christians, and even some of the wisest Pagans, have embraced the\nformer opinion, which seems to be supported by the authority of Moses,\nwho represents the Supreme Being as teaching our first parents the\n_names_ of animals. The latter opinion is held by Diodorus Siculus,\nLucretius, Horace, and many other Greek and Roman writers, who consider\nlanguage as one of the arts invented by man. The first men, say they,\nlived for some time in woods and caves, after the manner of beasts,\nuttering only confused and indistinct noises, till, associating for\nmutual assistance, they came by degrees to use articulate sounds\nmutually agreed upon, for the arbitrary signs or marks of those ideas\nin the mind of the speaker which he wanted to communicate to the\nhearer. This opinion sprung from the atomic cosmogony which was framed\nby Mochus, the Ph\u0153nician, and afterwards improved by Democritus and\nEpicurus; and though it is part of a system in which the first men are\nrepresented as having grown out of the earth, like trees and other\nvegetables, it has been adopted by several modern writers of high\nrank in the republic of letters, and is certainly in itself worthy of\nexamination.\u201d--_Encyclop. Brit._, vol. ix, p. 530, 1797.--EDITOR.]\n\n[346] I do not here mention the opinions of the Swede (see Latham,\n_Celtic Nations_, p. 2), who thinks that important changes can be\nintroduced into a language by certain customs of a people, who change,\nfor instance, the lips for the nostrils, and thus substitute nasal\nfor labial consonants. These facts are, perhaps, true in the detail,\nbut they ought not to have much importance, as they do not alter the\nspecific and personal character of the language, which is far from\nconsisting in the relative number of one or two kinds of letters.\n\n[347] Bunsen (Eng. transl.), Niebuhr\u2019s _Life and Letters_, vol. i, p.\n39.\n\n[348] \u201cLanguages,\u201d he says, \u201cgive but feeble probabilities in\nAnthropology.\u201d _Voyage aux regions Equinoxiales du Nouveau Continent_,\nvol. iii, p. 352.\n\n[349] See, in the _M\u00e9moires de la Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 Ethnologique_ (July 1843),\na letter in which M. Vivien denies a first rank to language as a\ndistinctive characteristic, and gives it to physical type.\n\n[350] See above, p. 32.\n\n[351] \u201cI am led to believe that familiar languages (if this\nphilological barbarism is permitted me) do not resemble one another\n_because_ they come from the same parent, but because they have been\nbrought up together; Africa especially seems to me to furnish a\nproof of it, for we must study the history of families of languages,\nespecially in the place where they began to be formed, and I believe\nthat language was formed in Africa. My hypothesis is not applicable\nto all cases, but to several; thus, the French, Italian, Spanish,\netc., come from the Latin, and were born at its death; but many other\nlanguages appear to me to take their features one from the other by\nsimple frequentation, by the natives being often in company together,\nand, as time goes on, these mutual loans make two or several languages,\nlike the branches of the same tree, only, in my idea, the tree does not\nexist.\u201d--_Correspondence_, 1857.\n\n[352] See above, p. 78.\n\n[353] [Pali, the ordinary language of daily life in Hindoostan at the\ntime when Sanscrit was used in elevated literature alone.--EDITOR.]\n\n[354] _Des Colorations de l\u2019\u00e9piderme_, 4to, Paris, 1864.\n\n[355] See _The Natural History of Man_, 1844.\n\n[356] See _Ethnographic Tableau_ (_Indigenous Races of the Earth_,\nLondon, 1857).\n\n[357] We may quote, as types of genus, two paintings, incomparable in\nan anthropological point of view, _Portrait d\u2019un N\u00e8gre_; _Portrait d\u2019un\nOriental_, by Herschop (Berlin Museum, Nos. 825 and 827).\n\n[358] M. Flourens, in saying that Buffon collected the accounts of\ndifferent travellers in order to write his _Histoire des Races_,\nadds, \u201cWhatever they have only seen with the eyes of their body,\nhe sees with the eyes of his mind, and by that means alone he sees\nbetter than they can; each of them has seen merely some scattered\ncharacteristics,--Buffon sees everything; he links together\nwhatever they may have separated, and separates whatever they have\nconfounded.\u201d--_Histoire des Id\u00e9es de Buffon_, p. 167.\n\n[359] \u201cBoni viri nullam oportet esse causam pr\u00e6ter veritatem.\u201d\n\n[360] [Yes, but the difficulty is to determine if it _is_ true. We\ncannot receive _anything_ as true merely because a _savant_ says it\nis so. We must go on enquiring in a proper spirit; but we must not\nput inquiry after truth in the same category with scepticism,--\u201cthat\ncheerlessness of soul to which certainty respecting anything and\neverything here on earth seems unattainable.\u201d This is the age for\nseeking after truth; but in how many different ways do men endeavour to\nattain to it! We must search the past carefully in all its scientific\nand natural facts, and as Longfellow beautifully says,--\n\n  \u201cNor deem the irrevocable past,\n    As wholly wasted, wholly vain,\n  If, rising on its wrecks, at last\n    To something nobler we attain.\u201d\n\nThis is the true aim of all inquiry.--EDITOR.]\n\n\n\n\nTranscriber\u2019s Notes\n\nObvious typographical errors have been silently corrected. Variations\nin hyphenation and accents have been standardised but all other\nspelling and punctuation remains unchanged.\n\nItalics are represented thus _italic_.\n\nThe \u201cErrata\u201d have been corrected in line.","title":"The plurality of the human race","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":62029}