MORAL AND INTELLECTUAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE THREE GREAT VARIETIES.
Impropriety of drawing general conclusions from individual
cases--Recapitulatory sketch of the leading features of the Negro,
the Yellow, and the White races--Superiority of the
latter--Conclusion of volume the first.
In the preceding pages, I have endeavored to show that, though there are
both scientific and religious reasons for not believing in a plurality
of origins of our species, the various branches of the human family are
distinguished by permanent and irradicable differences, both mentally
and physically. They are unequal in intellectual capacity,[191] in
personal beauty, and in physical strength. Again I repeat, that in
coming to this conclusion, I have totally eschewed the method which is,
unfortunately for the cause of science, too often resorted to by
ethnologists, and which, to say the least of it, is simply ridiculous.
The discussion has not rested upon the moral and intellectual worth of
isolated individuals.
With regard to moral worth, I have proved that all men, to whatever race
they may belong, are capable of receiving the lights of true religion,
and of sufficiently appreciating that blessing to work out their own
salvation. With regard to intellectual capacity, I emphatically protest
against that mode of arguing which consists in saying, "every negro is a
dunce;" because, by the same logic, I should be compelled to admit that
"every white man is intelligent;" and I shall take good care to commit
no such absurdity.
I shall not even wait for the vindicators of the absolute equality of
all races, to adduce to me such and such a passage in some missionary's
or navigator's journal, wherefrom it appears that some Yolof has become
a skilful carpenter, that some Hottentot has made an excellent domestic,
that some Caffre plays well on the violin, or that some Bambarra has
made very respectable progress in arithmetic.
I am prepared to admit--and to admit without proof--anything of that
sort, however remarkable, that may be related of the most degraded
savages. I have already denied the excessive stupidity, the incurable
idiotcy of even the lowest on the scale of humanity. Nay, I go further
than my opponents, and am not in the least disposed to doubt that, among
the chiefs of the rude negroes of Africa, there could be found a
considerable number of active and vigorous minds, greatly surpassing in
fertility of ideas and mental resources, the average of our peasantry,
and even of some of our middle classes. But the unfairness of deductions
based upon a comparison of the most intelligent blacks and the least
intelligent whites, must be obvious to every candid mind.
Once for all, such arguments seem to me unworthy of real science, and I
do not wish to place myself upon so narrow and unsafe a ground. If Mungo
Park, or the brothers Lander, have given to some negro a certificate of
superior intelligence, who will assure us that another traveller,
meeting the same individual, would not have arrived at a diametrically
opposite conclusion concerning him? Let us leave such puerilities, and
compare, not the individuals, but the masses. When we shall have
clearly established of what the latter are capable, by what tendencies
they are characterized, and by what limits their intellectual activity
and development are circumscribed, whether, since the beginning of the
historic epoch, they have acted upon, or been acted upon by other
groups--when we shall have clearly established these points, we may then
descend to details, and, perhaps, one day be able to decide why the
greatest minds of one group are inferior to the most brilliant geniuses
of another, in what respects the vulgar herds of all types assimilate,
and in what others they differ, and why. But this difficult and delicate
task cannot be accomplished until the relative position of the whole
mass of each race shall have been nicely, and, so to say, mathematically
defined. I do not know whether we may hope ever to arrive at results of
such incontestable clearness and precision, as to be able to no longer
trust solely to general facts, but to embrace the various shades of
intelligence in each group, to define and class the inferior strata of
every population and their influence on the activity of the whole. Were
it possible thus to divide each group into certain strata, and compare
these with the corresponding strata of every other: the most gifted of
the dominant with the most gifted of the dominated races, and so on
downwards, the superiority of some in capacity, energy, and activity
would be self-demonstrated.
After having mentioned the facts which prove the inequality of various
branches of the human family, and having laid down the method by which
that proof should be established, I arrived at the conclusion that the
whole of our species is divisible into three great groups, which I call
primary varieties, in order to distinguish them from others formed by
intermixture. It now remains for me to assign to each of these groups
the principal characteristics by which it is distinguished from the
others.
The dark races are the lowest on the scale. The shape of the pelvis has
a character of animalism, which is imprinted on the individuals of that
race ere their birth, and seems to portend their destiny. The circle of
intellectual development of that group is more contracted than that of
either of the two others.
If the negro's narrow and receding forehead seems to mark him as
inferior in reasoning capacity, other portions of his cranium as
decidedly point to faculties of an humbler, but not the less powerful
character. He has energies of a not despicable order, and which
sometimes display themselves with an intensity truly formidable. He is
capable of violent passions, and passionate attachments. Some of his
senses have an acuteness unknown to the other races: the sense of taste,
and that of smell, for instance.
But it is precisely this development of the animal faculties that stamps
the negro with the mark of inferiority to other races. I said that his
sense of taste was acute; it is by no means fastidious. Every sort of
food is welcome to his palate; none disgusts[192] him; there is no flesh
nor fowl too vile to find a place in his stomach. So it is with regard
to odor. His sense of smell might rather be called greedy than acute. He
easily accommodates himself to the most repulsive.
To these traits he joins a childish instability of humor. His feelings
are intense, but not enduring. His grief is as transitory as it is
poignant, and he rapidly passes from it to extreme gayety. He is seldom
vindictive--his anger is violent, but soon appeased. It might almost be
said that this variability of sentiments annihilates for him the
existence of both virtue and vice. The very ardency to which his
sensibilities are aroused, implies a speedy subsidence; the intensity of
his desire, a prompt gratification, easily forgotten. He does not cling
to life with the tenacity of the whites. But moderately careful of his
own, he easily sacrifices that of others, and kills, though not
absolutely bloodthirsty, without much provocation or subsequent
remorse.[193] Under intense suffering, he exhibits a moral cowardice
which readily seeks refuge in death, or in a sort of monstrous
impassivity.[194]
With regard to his moral capacities, it may be stated that he is
susceptible, in an eminent degree, of religious emotions; but unless
assisted by the light of the Gospel, his religious sentiments are of a
decidedly sensual character.
Having demonstrated the little intellectual and strongly sensual[195]
character of the black variety, as the type of which I have taken the
negro of Western Africa, I shall now proceed to examine the moral and
intellectual characteristics of the second in the scale--the yellow.
This seems to form a complete antithesis to the former. In them, the
skull, instead of being thrown backward, projects. The forehead is
large, often jutting out, and of respectable height. The facial
conformation is somewhat triangular, but neither chin nor nose has the
rude, animalish development that characterizes the negro. A tendency to
obesity is not precisely a specific feature, but it is more often met
with among the yellow races than among any others. In muscular vigor, in
intensity of feelings and desires, they are greatly inferior to the
black. They are supple and agile, but not strong. They have a decided
taste for sensual pleasures, but their sensuality is less violent, and,
if I may so call it, more vicious than the negro's, and less quickly
appeased. They place a somewhat greater value upon human life than the
negro does, but they are more cruel for the sake of cruelty. They are as
gluttonous as the negro, but more fastidious in their choice of viands,
as is proved by the immoderate attention bestowed on the culinary art
among the more civilized of these races. In other words, the yellow
races are less impulsive than the black. Their will is characterized by
obstinacy rather than energetic violence; their anger is vindictive
rather than clamorous; their cruelty more studied than passionate; their
sensuality more refinedly vicious than absorbing. They are, therefore,
seldom prone to extremes. In morals, as in intellect, they display a
mediocrity: they are given to grovelling vices rather than to dark
crimes; when virtuous, they are so oftener from a sense of practical
usefulness than from exalted sentiments. In regard to intellectual
capacity, they easily understand whatever is not very profound, nor very
sublime; they have a keen appreciation of the useful and practical, a
great love of quiet and order, and even a certain conception of a slight
modicum of personal or municipal liberty. The yellow races are practical
people in the narrowest sense of the word. They have little scope of
imagination, and therefore invent but little: for great inventions, even
the most exclusively utilitarian, require a high degree of the
imaginative faculty. But they easily understand and adopt whatever is of
practical utility. The _summum bonum_ of their desires and aspirations
is to pass smoothly and quietly through life.
It is apparent from this sketch, that they are superior to the blacks in
aptitude and intellectual capacity. A theorist who would form some
model society, might wish such a population to form the substratum upon
which to erect his structure; but a society, composed entirely of such
elements, would display neither great stamina nor capacity for anything
great and exalted.
We are now arrived at the third and last of the "primary" varieties--the
white. Among them we find great physical vigor and capacity of
endurance; an intensity of will and desire, but which is balanced and
governed by the intellectual faculties. Great things are undertaken, but
not blindly, not without a full appreciation of the obstacles to be
overcome, and with a systematic effort to overcome them. The utilitarian
tendency is strong, but is united with a powerful imaginative faculty,
which elevates, ennobles, idealizes it. Hence, the power of invention;
while the negro can merely imitate, the Chinese only utilize, to a
certain extent, the practical results attained by the white, the latter
is continually adding new ones to those already gained. His capacity for
combination of ideas leads him perpetually to construct new facts from
the fragments of the old; hurries him along through a series of
unceasing modifications and changes. He has as keen a sense of order as
the man of the yellow race, but not, like him, from love of repose and
inertia, but from a desire to protect and preserve his acquisitions. At
the same time, he has an ardent love of liberty, which is often carried
to an extreme; an instinctive aversion to the trammels of that rigidly
formalistic organization under which the Chinese vegetates with
luxurious ease; and he as indignantly rejects the haughty despotism
which alone proves a sufficient restraint for the black races.
The white man is also characterized by a singular love of life. Perhaps
it is because he knows better how to make use of it than other races,
that he attaches to it a greater value and spares it more both in
himself and in others. In the extreme of his cruelty, he is conscious of
his excesses; a sentiment which it may well be doubted whether it exist
among the blacks. Yet though he loves life better than other races, he
has discovered a number of reasons for sacrificing it or laying it down
without murmur. His valor, his bravery, are not brute, unthinking
passions, not the result of callousness or impassivity: they spring from
exalted, though often erroneous, sentiments, the principal of which is
expressed by the word "honor." This feeling, under a variety of names
and applications, has formed the mainspring of action of most of the
white races since the beginning of historical times. It accommodates
itself to every mode of existence, to every walk of life. It is as
puissant in the pulpit and at the martyr's stake, as on the field of
battle; in the most peaceful and humble pursuits of life as in the
highest and most stirring. It were impossible to define all the ideas
which this word comprises; they are better felt than expressed. But this
feeling--we might call it instinctive--is unknown to the yellow, and
unknown to the black races: while in the white it quickens every noble
sentiment--the sense of justice, liberty, patriotism, love, religion--it
has no name in the language, no place in the hearts, of other races.
This I consider as the principal reason of the superiority of our branch
of the human family over all others; because even in the lowest, the
most debased of our race, we generally find some spark of this redeeming
trait, and however misapplied it may often be, and certainly is, it
prevents us, even in our deepest errors, from falling so fearfully low
as the others. The extent of moral abasement in which we find so many of
the yellow and black races is absolutely impossible even to the very
refuse of our society. The latter may equal, nay, surpass them in crime;
but even they would shudder at that hideous abyss of corrosive vices,
which opens before the friend of humanity on a closer study of these
races.[196]
Before concluding this picture, I would add that the immense superiority
of the white races in all that regards the intellectual faculties, is
joined to an inferiority as strikingly marked, in the intensity of
sensations. Though his whole structure is more vigorous, the white man
is less gifted in regard to the perfection of the senses than either the
black or the yellow, and therefore less solicited and less absorbed by
animal gratifications.
* * * * *
I have now arrived at the historical portion of my subject. There I
shall place the truths enounced in this volume in a clearer light, and
furnish irrefragable proofs of the fact, which forms the basis of my
theory, that nations degenerate only in consequence and in proportion to
their admixture with an inferior race--that a society receives its
death-blow when, from the number of diverse ethnical elements which it
comprises, a number of diverse modes of thinking and interests contend
for predominance; when these modes of thinking, and these interests
have arisen in such multiplicity that every effort to harmonize them, to
make them subservient to some great purpose, is in vain; when,
therefore, the only natural ties that can bind large masses of men,
homogeneity of thoughts and feelings, are severed, the only solid
foundation of a social structure sapped and rotten.
To furnish the necessary details for this assertion, to remove the
possibility of even the slightest doubt, I shall take up separately,
every great and independent civilization that the world has seen
flourish. I shall trace its first beginnings, its subsequent stages of
development, its decadence and final decay. Here, then, is the proper
test of my theory; here we can see the laws that govern ethnical
relations in full force on a magnificent scale; we can verify their
inexorably uniform and rigorous application. The subject is immense, the
panorama spread before us the grandest and most imposing that the
philosopher can contemplate, for its tableaux comprise the scene of
action of every instance where man has really worked out his mission "to
have dominion over the earth."
The task is great--too great, perhaps, for any one's undertaking. Yet,
on a more careful investigation, many of the apparently insuperable
difficulties which discouraged the inquirer will vanish; in the
gorgeous succession of scenes that meet his glance, he will perceive a
uniformity, an intimate relation and connection which, like Ariadne's
thread, will enable the undaunted and persevering student to find his
way through the mazes of the labyrinth: we shall find that every
civilization owes its origin, its development, its splendors, to the
agency of the white races. In China and in India, in the vast continent
of the West, centuries ere Columbus found it--it was one of the group of
white races that gave the impetus, and, so long as it lasted, sustained
it. Startling as this assertion may appear to a great number of readers,
I hope to demonstrate its correctness by incontrovertible historical
testimony. Everywhere the white races have taken the initiative,
everywhere they have _brought_ civilization to the others--everywhere
they have sown the seed: the vigor and beauty of the plant depended on
whether the soil it found was congenial or not.
The migrations of the white race, therefore, afford us at once a guide
for our historical researches, and a clue to many apparently
inexplicable mysteries: we shall learn to understand why, in a vast
country, the development of civilization has come to a stand, and been
superseded by a retrogressive movement; why, in another, all but feeble
traces of a high state of culture has vanished without apparent cause;
why people, the lowest in the scale of intellect, are yet found in
possession of arts and mechanical processes that would do honor to a
highly intellectual race.
Among the group of white races, the noblest, the most highly gifted in
intellect and personal beauty, the most active in the cause of
civilization, is the Arian[197] race. Its history is intimately
associated with almost every effort on the part of man to develop his
moral and intellectual powers.
It now remains for me to trace out the field of inquiry into which I
propose to enter in the succeeding volumes. The list of great,
independent civilizations is not long. Among all the innumerable nations
that "strutted their brief hour on the stage" of the world, ten only
have arrived at the state of complete societies, giving birth to
distinct modes of intellectual culture. All the others were imitators or
dependents; like planets they revolved around, and derived their light
from the suns of the systems to which they belonged. At the head of my
list I would place:--
1. The Indian civilization. It spread among the islands of the Indian
Ocean, towards the north, beyond the Himalaya Mountains, and towards the
east, beyond the Brahmapootra. It was originated by a white race of the
Arian stock.
2. The Egyptian civilization comes next. As its satellites may be
mentioned the less perfect civilizations of the Ethiopians, Nubians, and
several other small peoples west of the oasis of Ammon. An Arian colony
from India, settled in the upper part of the Nile valley, had
established this society.
3. The Assyrians, around whom rallied the Jews, Phenicians, Lydians,
Carthaginians, and Hymiarites, were indebted for their social
intelligence to the repeated invasions of white populations. The
Zoroastrian Iranians, who flourished in Further Asia, under the names of
Medes, Persians, and Bactrians, were all branches of the Arian family.
4. The Greeks belonged to the same stock, but were modified by Shemitic
elements, which, in course of time, totally transformed their character.
5. China presents the precise counterpart of Egypt. The light of
civilization was carried thither by Arian colonies. The substratum of
the social structure was composed of elements of the yellow race, but
the white civilizers received reinforcements of their blood at various
times.
6. The ancient civilization of the Italian peninsula (the Etruscan
civilization), was developed by a mosaic of populations of the Celtic,
Iberian, and Shemitic stock, but cemented by Arian elements. From it
emerged the civilization of Rome.
7. Our civilization is indebted for its tone and character to the
Germanic conquerors of the fifth century. They were a branch of the
Arian family.
8, 9, 10. Under these heads I class the three civilizations of the
western continent, the Alleghanian, the Mexican, and the Peruvians.
This is the field I have marked out for my investigations, the results
of which will be laid before the reader in the succeeding volumes. The
first part of my work is here at an end--the vestibule of the structure
I wish to erect is completed.
FOOTNOTES:
[191] I do not hesitate to consider as an unmistakable mark of
intellectual inferiority, the exaggerated development of instincts that
characterizes certain savages. The perfection which some of their senses
acquire, cannot but be at the expense of the reasoning faculties. See,
upon this subject, the opinions of Mr. Lesson des Papous, in a memoir
inserted in the tenth volume of the _Annales des Sciences Naturelles_.
[192] "The negro's sense of smell and of taste is as powerful as it is
unselecting. He eats everything, and I have good reasons for asserting,
that odors the most disagreeable to us, are positively pleasant to him."
(Pruner, _Op. cit._, vol. i. p. 133.)
Mr. Pruner's assertions would, I think, be corroborated by every one who
has lived much among the negroes. It is a notorious fact that the blacks
on our southern plantations eat every animal they can lay hold of. I
have seen them discuss a piece of fox, or the still more strongly
flavored pole-cat, with evident relish. Nay, on one occasion, I have
known a party of negroes feast on an alligator for a whole week, during
which time they bartered their allowance of meat for trinkets. Upon my
expressing surprise at so strange a repast, I was assured that it was by
no means uncommon; that it was a favorite viand of the negroes in their
native country, and that even here they often killed them with the
prospect of a savory roast or stew. I am aware that some persons north
of the Mason's & Dixon's line might be disposed to explain this by
asserting that _hunger_ drove them to such extremities; but I can
testify, from my own observation, that this is not the case. In the
instances I have mentioned, and in many others which are too repulsive
to be committed to paper, the banqueters were well fed, and evidently
made such a feast from choice. There are, in the Southern States, many
of the poor white population who are neither so well clothed nor so well
fed as these negroes were, and yet I never heard of their resorting to
such dishes.
In regard to the negro's fondness for odors, I am less qualified to
speak from my own observations, but nearly every description of the
manners of his native climes that I have read, mentioned the fact of
their besmearing themselves with the strong musky fluid secreted by many
animals--the alligator, for instance. And I remember having heard
woodsmen in the South say, that while the white man shuns the polecat
more than he does the rattlesnake, and will make a considerable circuit
to get out of its way, the negro is but little afraid of this formidable
animal and its nauseous weapon.--H.
[193] This is illustrated by many of their practices in their natural
state. For instance, the well-known custom of putting to death, at the
demise of some prince or great man, a number--corresponding with the
rank of the deceased--of his slaves, in order that they may wait upon
him in the other world. Hundreds of poor creatures are often thus
massacred at the funeral celebrations in honor of some king or ruler.
Yet it would be unjust to call the negro ferocious or cruel. It merely
proves the slight estimation in which he holds human life.--H.
[194] There is a callousness in the negro, which strikingly
distinguishes him from the whites, though it is possessed in perhaps an
equal degree by other races. I borrow from Mr. Van Amringe's _Nat. Hist.
of Man_, a few remarks on this subject by Dr. Mosely, in his _Treatise
on Tropical Diseases_: "Negroes," says the Doctor, "whatever the cause
may be, are devoid of sensibility (physical) to a surprising degree.
They are not subject to nervous diseases. They sleep sound in every
disease, nor does any mental disturbance ever keep them awake. They bear
chirurgical operations much better than white people, and what would be
the cause of insupportable pain to a white man, a negro would almost
disregard. I have amputated the legs of many negroes, who have held the
upper part of the limb themselves." Every southern planter, and every
physician of experience in the South, could bear witness to these
facts.--H.
[195] Thinking that it might not be uninteresting to some of our readers
to see the views concerning the negro of another European writer besides
Mr. Gobineau, I subjoin the following extract from Mr. Tschudi's
_Travels in South America_. Mr. Tschudi is a Swiss naturalist of
undoubted reputation, an experienced philosophic observer, and a candid
seeker for truth. His opinion is somewhat harsher than would be that of
a man who had resided among that class all his life, but it nevertheless
contains some valuable truths, and is, at least, curious on account of
the source whence it comes.
"In Lima, and, indeed, throughout the whole of Peru, the free negroes
are a plague to society. Too indolent to support themselves by laborious
industry, they readily fall into any dishonest means of getting money.
Almost all the robbers that infest the roads on the coast of Peru are
free negroes. Dishonesty seems to be a part of their very nature; and,
moreover, all their tastes and inclinations are coarse and sensual. Many
warm defenders excuse these qualities by ascribing them to the want of
education, the recollection of slavery, the spirit of revenge, etc. But
I here speak of free-born negroes, who are admitted into the houses of
wealthy families, who, from their early childhood, have received as good
an education as falls to the share of many of the white Creoles--who are
treated with kindness and liberally remunerated, and yet they do not
differ from their half-savage brethren who are shut out from these
advantages. If the negro has learned to read and write, and has thereby
made some little advance in education, he is transformed into a
conceited coxcomb, who, instead of plundering travellers on the highway,
finds in city life a sphere for the indulgence of his evil
propensities.... My opinion is, that the negroes, in respect to
capability for mental improvement, are far behind the Europeans; and
that, considered in the aggregate, they will not, even with the
advantages of careful education, attain a very high degree of
cultivation. This is apparent from the structure of the skull, on which
depends the development of the brain, and which, in the negro,
approximates closely to the animal form. The imitative faculty of the
monkey is highly developed in the negro, who readily seizes anything
merely mechanical, whilst things demanding intelligence are beyond his
reach. Sensuality is the impulse which controls the thoughts, the acts,
the whole existence of the negroes. To them, freedom can be only
nominal, for if they conduct themselves well, it is because they are
compelled, not because they are inclined to do so. Herein lie at once
the cause of, and the apology for, their bad character." (_Travels in
Peru_, London, 1848, p. 110, _et passim_.)--H.
[196] The sickening moral degradation of some of the branches of our
species is well known to the student of anthropology, though, for
obvious reasons, details of this kind cannot find a place in books
destined for the general reader.--H.
[197] As many of the terms of modern ethnography have not yet found
their way into the dictionaries, I shall offer a short explanation of
the meaning of this word, for the benefit of those readers who have not
paid particular attention to that science.
The word "Arian" is derived from _Aryas_ or ~Arioi~, respectively
the indigenous and the Greek designation of the ancient Medes, and is
applied to a race, or rather a family of races, whose original
ethnological area is not as yet accurately defined, but who have
gradually spread from the centre of Asia to the mouth of the Ganges, to
the British Isles, and the northern extremities of Scandinavia. To
this family of races belong, among others, the ancient Medes and
Persians, the white conquerors of India (now forming the caste of the
Brahmins), _and the Germanic races_. The whole group is often called
Indo-European. The affinities between the Greek and the German languages
had long been an interesting question to philologists; but Schlegel, I
believe, was the first to discover the intimate relations between these
two and the Sanscrit, and he applied to the whole three, and their
collateral branches, the name of _Indo-Germanic_ languages. The
discovery attracted the attention both of philologists and
ethnographers, and it is now indubitably proved that the civilizers of
India, and the subverters of the Roman Empire are descended from the
same ethnical stock. It is known that the Sanscrit is as unlike all
other Indian languages, as the high-caste Brahmins are unlike the
Pariahs and all the other aboriginal races of that country; and Latham
has lately come to the conclusion that it has actually been _carried to
India from Europe_. It will be seen from this that Mr. Gobineau, in his
view of the origin of various civilizations, is supported in at least
several of the most important instances.
It is a familiar saying that _civilization travels westward_: if we
believe ethnologists, the Arian races have _always migrated in that
direction_--from Central Asia to India, to Asia Minor, to Egypt, to
Greece, to Western Europe, to the western coasts of the Atlantic, and
the same impulse of migration is now carrying them to the Pacific.--H.
APPENDIX.
BY J. C. NOTT, M. D.,
MOBILE, ALABAMA.
APPENDIX.
I have seldom perused a work which has afforded me so much pleasure and
instruction as the one of Count Gobineau, "_Sur l'Inégalité des Races
Humaines_," and regard most of his conclusions as incontrovertible.
There are, however, a few points in his argument which should not be
passed without comment, and others not sufficiently elaborated. My
original intention was to say much, but, fortunately for me, my
colleague, Mr. Hotz, has so fully and ably anticipated me, in his
Introduction and Notes, as to leave me little of importance to add.
The essay of Count Gobineau is eminently practical and useful in its
design. He views the various races of men rather as a historian than a
naturalist, and while he leaves open the long mooted question of _unity_
of origin, he so fully establishes the _permanency_ of the actual moral,
intellectual, and physical diversities of races as to leave no ground
for antagonists to stand upon. Whatever _remote causes_ may be assigned,
there is no appeal from the conclusion that white, black, Mongol, and
other races were fully developed in nations some 3000 years before
Christ, and that no physical causes, during this long course of time,
have been in operation, to change one type of man into another. Count
Gobineau, therefore, accepts the _existing_ diversity of races as at
least an _accomplished fact_, and draws lessons of wisdom from the plain
teachings of history. Man with him ceases to be an abstraction; each
race, each nation, is made a separate study, and a fertile but
unexplored field is opened to our view.
Our author leans strongly towards a belief in the _original diversity_
of races, but has evidently been much embarrassed in arriving at
conclusions by religious scruples and by the want of accurate knowledge
in that part of natural history which treats of the designation of
_species_, and the laws of _hybridity_; he has been taught to believe
that two distinct species cannot produce perfectly prolific offspring,
and therefore concludes that all races of men _must_ be of one origin,
because they are prolific _inter se_. My appendix will therefore be
devoted mainly to this question of species.
A.
Our author has taken the facts of Dr. Morton at second hand, and,
moreover, had not before him Dr. Morton's later tables and more matured
deductions; I shall therefore give an abstract of his results as
published by himself in 1849, with some comments of my own. The figures
represent the internal capacity of the skull in cubic inches, and were
obtained by filling the cavity with shot and afterwards pouring them
into an accurately graduated measure.
It must be admitted that the collection of Morton is not sufficiently
full in all its departments to enable us to arrive at the absolute
capacity of crania in the different races; but it is sufficiently
complete to establish beyond cavil, the fact that the crania of the
white are much larger than those of the dark races. His table is very
incomplete in Mongol, Malays, and some others; but in the white races of
Europe, the black races, and the American, the results are substantially
correct. I have myself had ample opportunities for examining the heads
of living negroes and Indians of America, as well as a considerable
number of crania, and can fully indorse Dr. Morton's results. It will be
seen that his skulls of American aborigines amount to 338.
_Table, showing the Size of the Brain in Cubic Inches, as obtained by
the Measurement of 623 Crania of various Races and Families of Man._
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
| No. of | Largest | Smallest | |
RACES AND FAMILIES. | skulls.| internal | internal | Mean.| Mean.
| | capacity.| capacity.| |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
MODERN CAUCASIAN GROUP. | | | | |
TEUTONIC FAMILY | | | | |
Germans | 18 | 114 | 70 | 90 }
English | 5 | 105 | 91 | 96 } 92
Anglo-Americans | 7 | 97 | 82 | 90 }
PELASGIC FAMILY | | | | |
Persians } | | | |
Armenians } 10 | 94 | 75 | 84 |
Circassians } | | | |
CELTIC FAMILY | | | | |
Native Irish | 6 | 97 | 78 | 87 |
INDOSTANIC FAMILY | | | | |
Bengalees, &c. | 32 | 91 | 67 | 80 |
SHEMITIC FAMILY | | | | |
Arabs | 3 | 98 | 84 | 89 |
NILOTIC FAMILY | | | | |
Fellahs | 17 | 96 | 66 | 80 |
| | | | |
ANCIENT CAUCASIAN GROUP.| | | | |
PELASGIC FAMILY | | | | |
Greco-Egyptians | 18 | 97 | 74 | 88 |
(from Catacombs) | | | | |
NILOTIC FAMILY | | | | |
Egyptians | 55 | 96 | 68 | 80 |
(from Catacombs) | | | | |
| | | | |
MONGOLIAN GROUP. | | | | |
CHINESE FAMILY | 6 | 91 | 70 | 82 |
| | | | |
MALAY GROUP. | | | | |
MALAYAN FAMILY | 20 | 97 | 68 | 86 }
POLYNESIAN FAMILY | 8 | 84 | 82 | 83 } 85
| | | | |
AMERICAN GROUP. | | | | |
TOLTECAN FAMILY | | | | |
Peruvians | 155 | 101 | 58 | 75 }
Mexicans | 22 | 92 | 67 | 79 }
BARBAROUS TRIBES | | | | }
Iroquois } | | | } 79
Lenapè } | | | }
Cherokee } 161 | 104 | 70 | 84 }
Shoshonè, &c. } | | | |
| | | | |
NEGRO GROUP. | | | | |
NATIVE AFRICAN FAMILY | 62 | 99 | 65 | 83 }
AMERICAN-BORN NEGROES | 12 | 89 | 73 | 82 } 83
HOTTENTOT FAMILY | 3 | 83 | 68 | 75 |
ALFOREAN FAMILY | | | | |
Australians | 8 | 83 | 63 | 75 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Morton's mind, it will be seen by this table, had not yet freed
itself from the incubus of artificial and unnatural classifications.
Like Tiedemann and others, he has grouped together races which have not
the slightest affinity in physical, moral, or linguistic characters. In
the _Caucasian_ group, for example, are placed the Teutonic, Indostanic,
Shemitic, and Nilotic families, each of which, it can be shown, has
existed utterly distinct for 5000 years, not to mention many
subdivisions.
The table of Dr. Morton affords some curious results. His ancient
Pelasgic heads and those of the modern white races, give the same size
of brain, viz: 88 cubic inches; and his ancient Egyptians and their
modern representatives, the Fellahs, yield the same mean, 80 cubic
inches; the difference between the two groups being 8 cubic inches.
These facts have a strong bearing on the question of _permanence_ of
types. The small-headed Hindoos present the same cranial capacity as the
Egyptians, and though these races have each been the repository of early
civilization, it is a question whether either was the originator of
civilization. The Egyptian race, from the earliest monumental dawn,
exhibits Shemitic adulteration; and Latham proves that the Sanscrit
language was not indigenous to India, but was carried there from
Northern Europe in early ages by conquerors.
Again, in the negro group, while it is absolutely shown that certain
African races, whether born in Africa, or of the tenth descent in
America, give a cranial capacity almost identical, 83 cubic inches; we
see, on the contrary, the Hottentot and Australian yielding a mean of
but 75 inches, thereby showing a like difference of eight cubic inches.
In the American group, also, the same parallel holds good. The Toltecan
family, the most civilized race, exhibit a mean of but 77 inches, while
the barbarous tribes give 84, that is, a difference of 7 inches in favor
of the savage. While, however, the Toltecans have the smaller heads,
they are, according to Combe, much more developed in the anterior or
_intellectual_ lobes, which may serve to explain this apparent paradox.
When we compare the highest and lowest races with each other, the
contrast becomes still more striking, viz: the Teutonic with the
Hottentot and Australian. The former family gives a mean capacity of 92
inches, while the latter two yield but 75, or a difference of _17 cubic
inches_ between the skulls of these types!
Now, as far back as history and monuments carry us, as well as crania
and other testimonies, these various types have been _permanent_; and
most of them we can trace back several thousand years. If such
permanence of type through thousands of years, and in defiance of all
climatic influences, does not establish _specific_ characters, then is
the naturalist at sea without a compass to guide him.
These facts determine clearly the arbitrary nature of all
classifications heretofore adopted; the Teuton, the Jew, the Hindoo,
the Egyptian, &c., have all been included under the term _Caucasian_;
and yet they have, as far as we know, been through all time as distinct
in physical and moral characters from each other, as they have from the
negro races of Africa and Oceanica. The same diversity of types is found
among all the other groups, or arbitrary divisions of the human family.
Rich and rare as is the collection of Dr. Morton, it is very defective
in many of its divisions, and it occurred to me that this deficiency
might to some degree be supplied by the hat manufacturers of various
nations; notwithstanding that the information derived from this source
could give but one measurement, viz: the _horizontal periphery_. Yet
this one measurement alone, on an extended scale, would go far towards
determining the general size of the brain. I accordingly applied to
three hat dealers in Mobile, and a large manufacturer in New Jersey, for
statements of the relative number of hats of each size sold to adult
males; their tables agree so perfectly as to leave no doubt as to the
circumference of the heads of the white population of the United States.
The three houses together dispose of about 15,000 hats annually.
The following table was obligingly sent me by Messrs. Vail & Yates, of
Newark; and they accompanied it with the remark, that their hats were
sent principally to our Western States, where there is a large
proportion of German population; also that the sizes of these hats were
a little larger (about one fourth of an inch) than those sold in the
Southern States. This remark was confirmed by the three dealers in
Mobile. Our table gives, 1st. The number or size of the hat. 2d. The
circumference of the head corresponding. 3d. The circumference of the
hat; and lastly, the relative proportion of each No. sold out of 12
hats.
Size--inches. Circum. Circum. Relative
of head. of hat. prop. in 12.
6-7/8 21-5/8 22-3/8 1
7 22 22-3/4 2
7-1/8 22-3/8 23-1/8 3
7-1/4 22-3/4 23-1/2 3
7-3/8 23-1/8 23-7/8 2
7-1/2 23-1/2 24-1/4 1
All hats larger than these are called "extra sizes."
The average size, then, of the crania of white races in the United
States, is about 22-1/2 inches circumference, including the hair and
scalp, for which about 1-1/2 inches should be deducted, leaving a mean
horizontal periphery, for adult males, of 21 inches. The measurements of
the purest Teutonic races in Germany and other countries, would give a
larger mean; and I have reason to believe that the population of France,
which is principally Celtic, would yield a smaller mean. I hope that
others will extend these observations.
Dr. Morton's measurements of aboriginal American races, give a mean of
but 19-1/2 inches; and this statement is greatly strengthened by the
fact that the Mexicans and other Indian races wear much smaller hats
than our white races. (See _Types of Mankind_, p. 289 and 453.)
Prof. Tiedemann, of Heidelberg, asserts that the head of the negro is as
large as that of the white man, but this we have shown to be an error.
(_Types of Mankind_, p. 453.)
Tiedemann adopted the vulgar error of grouping together under the term
_Caucasian_, all the Indo-Germanic, Shemitic, and Nilotic races; also
all the black and dark races of Africa under the term _Negro_. Now I
have shown that the Hindoo and Egyptian races possess about 12 cubic
inches less of brain than the Teutonic; and the Hottentots about 8
inches less than the Negro proper. I affirm that no valid reason has
ever been assigned why the Teuton and Hindoo, or Hottentot and Negro,
should be classed together in their cranial measurements. I can discover
no facts which can assign a greater age to one of these races than
another; and unless Professor Tiedemann can overcome these difficulties,
he has no right to assume identity for the various races he is pleased
to group under each of his arbitrary divisions. Mummies from the
catacombs, and portraits on the monuments, show that the heads of races
on both sides of the Red Sea have remained unchanged 4000 years.
As Dr. Morton tabulated his skulls on the same arbitrary basis, I
abandon his arrangement and present his facts as they stand in nature,
allowing the reader to compare and judge for himself. The following
table gives the _internal capacity_ in cubic inches, and it will be
seen that the measurements arrange themselves in a sliding scale of 17
cubic inches from the Teuton down to the Hottentot and Australian.
_Internal Capacity of Brain in Cubic Inches._
RACES. Internal Internal
capacity. capacity.
Mean. Mean.
MODERN WHITE RACES--
Teutonic group 92 92
Pelasgic " 84 }
Celtic " 87 } 88
Shemitic " 89 }
ANCIENT PELASGIC 88
MALAYS 85 } 83-1/2
CHINESE 82 }
NEGROES (AFRICAN) 83 83
INDOSTANESE 80 }
FELLAHS (modern Egyptians) 80 } 80
EGYPTIANS (ancient) 80 }
AMERICAN GROUP--
Toltecan family 77 } 79
Barbarous tribes 84 }
HOTTENTOTS 75 } 75
AUSTRALIANS 75 }
Such has been, through several thousand years, the incessant commingling
of races, that we are free to admit that absolute accuracy in
measurements of crania cannot now be attained. Yet so constant are the
results in contrasting groups, that no unprejudiced mind can deny that
there is a wide and well-marked disparity in the cranial developments of
races.
B.
As the discussion stands at the present day, we may assume that the
scientific world is pretty equally divided on the question of unity of
the human family, and the point is to be settled by facts, and not by
names. Natural history is a comparatively new and still rapidly
progressing science, and the study of man has been one of the last
departments to attract serious attention. Blumenbach and Prichard, who
may be regarded among the early explorers in this vast field, have but
recently been numbered with the dead; and we may safely assert that the
last ten years have brought forth materials which have shed an entirely
new light on this subject.
Mr. Agassiz, Dr. Morton, Prof. Leidy, and many other naturalists of the
United States, contend for an original diversity in the races of men,
and we shall proceed to give some of the reasons why we have adopted
similar views. Two of the latest writers of any note on the opposite
side are the Rev. Dr. Bachman, of Charleston, and M. Flourens, of Paris;
and as these gentlemen have very fully travelled over the argument
opposed to us, we shall take the liberty, in the course of our remarks,
to offer some objections to their views.
The great difficulty in this discussion is, to define clearly what
meaning should be attached to the term _species_; and to the
illustration of this point, mainly, will our labors be confined.
_Genera_ are, for the most part, well defined by _anatomical_
characters, and little dispute exists respecting them; but no successful
attempt has yet been made to designate _species_ in this way, and it is
by their _permanency of type alone_, as ascertained from written or
monumental records, that our decision can be guided.
SPECIES.
The following definitions of species have been selected by Dr. Bachman,
and may be received as unexceptionable as any others; but we shall show
that they fall far short of the true difficulties of the case.
"We are under the necessity of admitting the existence of certain
forms, which have perpetuated themselves, from the beginning of
the world, without exceeding the limits prescribed: all the
individuals belonging to one of these forms constitute a
_species_."--CUVIER.
"We unite under the designation species all those individuals who
mutually bear to each other so close a resemblance as to allow of
our supposing that they may have proceeded originally from a
single being, or a single pair."--DE CANDOLLE.
"The name species is applied to an assemblage of individuals which
bear a strong resemblance to each other, and which are perpetuated
with the same essential qualities. Thus man, the dog, the horse,
constitute to the zoologist so many distinct species."--MILNE
EDWARDS and ACHILLE COMPTE.
We have no objection to this definition, but the examples cited are
points in dispute, and not received by many of the leading naturalists
of the day.
"Species are fixed and permanent forms of being, exhibiting
indeed certain modes of variation, of which they may be more or
less susceptible, but maintaining throughout those modifications
a sameness of structural essentials, transmitted from generation
to generation, and never lost by the influence of causes which
otherwise produce obvious effects. _Varieties_ are either
accidental or the result of the care and culture of
man."[198]--MARTIN.
Dr. Bachman gives another, substantially the same, from Agassiz; and
also one of his own, to which he appends, as an additional test of
species, the production of "_fertile offspring by association_." In this
definition the doctor _assumes_ one of the main points in dispute.
"_Varieties_," says Dr. Bachman, "are those that are produced
within the limits of particular species, and have not existed
from its origin. They sometimes originate in wild species,
especially those that have a wide geographical range, and are
thus exposed to change of climate and temperature," &c. * * *
"_Permanent varieties_ are such as, having once taken place, are
propagated in perpetuity, and do not change their characteristics
unless they breed with other varieties."
We may remark that the existence of such _permanent varieties_ as here
described is also in dispute.
The same author continues:--
"On comparing these definitions, as given by various naturalists,
each in his own language, it will be perceived that there is no
essential difference in the various views expressed in regard to
the characters by which a species is designated. They all regard
it as 'the lowest term to which we descend, with the exception of
_varieties_, such as are seen in domestic animals.' They are, to
examine the external and internal organization of the animal or
plant--they are, to compare it with kindred species, and if by
this examination they are found to possess _permanent characters
differing from those of other species, it proves itself to be a
distinct species_. When this fact is satisfactorily ascertained,
and the specimen is not found a domestic species, in which
varieties always occur, presumptive evidence is afforded of its
having had a primordial existence. We infer this from the fact
that no species is the production of blind chance, and that
within the _knowledge of history_ no true species, but
_varieties_ only, whose origin can be _distinctly traced to
existing and well-known species_, have made their appearance in
the world. This, then, is the only means within the knowledge of
man by which any species of plant or animal _can be shown_ to be
primordial. The peculiar form and characters designated the
species, and its origin was a necessary inference derived from
the characters stamped on it by the hand of the Creator."
To all the positions thus far taken by Dr. Bachman, we most cheerfully
subscribe; they are strictly scientific, and by such criteria alone do
we desire to test the unity of the human family; but we must enter a
decided demurrer to the assertion which follows, viz: that, "according
to the universally received definition of species, all the individuals
of the human race are proved to be of one species." When it shall be
shown that all the races of men, dogs, horses, cattle, wolves, foxes,
&c., are "varieties only, _whose origin can be distinctly traced to
existing and well-known species_," we may then yield the point; but we
must be permitted to say that Dr. Bachman is the only naturalist, as far
as we know, who has assumed to know these original types.
Now, if the reader will turn back and review carefully all the
definitions of species cited, he will perceive that they are not based
upon _anatomical characters_, but simply on the _permanency_ of certain
organic forms, and that this permanence of form is determined by its
_history_ alone.
Professor Owen, of London, has thrown the weight of his great name into
the scale, and tells us that "man is the sole species of his genus, the
sole representative of his order." But proving that man is not a monkey,
as the professor has done in the lecture alluded to, does not prove that
men are all of _one_ species, according to any definition yet received:
he has made the assertion, but has assigned no scientific reasons to
sustain it. No one would be more rejoiced than ourselves, to see the
great talent and learning of Professor Owen brought fully to bear on
this point; but, like most naturalists, he has overlooked one of the
most important points in this discussion--_the monumental history of
man_.
Will Professor Owen or Dr. Bachman tell us wherein the lion and
tiger--the dog, wolf, fox, and jackal--the fossil horse, and living
species--the Siberian mammoth and the Indian elephant, differ more from
each other than the white man and the negro? Are not all these regarded
by naturalists as distinct species, and yet who pretends to be able to
distinguish the skeleton of one from the other by specific characters?
The examples just cited, of living species, have been decided upon
simply from their permanency of type, as derived from their history; and
we say that, by the same process of reasoning, the races of men
depicted on the monuments of Egypt, five thousand years ago, and which
have maintained their types through all time and all climates since, are
_distinct species_.
Dr. Morton defines species--"a primordial organic form," and determines
these forms by their permanence through all human records; and Mr.
Agassiz, who adopts this definition, adds: "Species are thus distinct
forms of organic life, the origin of which is lost in the primitive
establishment of the state of things now existing; and varieties are
such modification of the species as may return to the typical form under
temporary influences."
Dr. Bachman objects very strongly to this definition, and declares it a
"cunning device, and, to all intents, an _ex post facto_ law," suddenly
conjured up during a controversy, to avoid the difficulties of the case;
but we have serious doubts whether these gentlemen are capable of such
subterfuge in matters of science, and confess that we cannot see any
substantial difference between their definition and those given by Dr.
Bachman. Morton and Agassiz determine a form to be "_primordial_" by its
permanency, as proved by history, and the other definitions assign no
other test.
Professor Leidy, who has not only studied the "lower departments of
zoology," like Mr. Agassiz, but also the "higher forms of animal life,"
says that "too much importance has been attached to the term species,"
and gives the following definition: "A species of plant or animal may be
defined to be an immutable organic form, whose characteristic
distinctions may always be recognized by _a study of its history_."[199]
M. Jourdain, under the head "Espèce," in his _Dictionnaire des Termes
des Sciences Naturelles_, after citing a long list of definitions from
leading authors, concludes with the following remarks, which, as the
question now stands before the world, places the term species just where
it should be:--
"It is evident that we can, among organized bodies, regard as a
_species_ only such a collection of beings as resemble each other
more than they resemble others, and which, by a consent more or
less unanimous, it is agreed to designate by a common name; for a
_species_ is but a simple _abstraction of the mind_, and not a
group, exactly determined by nature herself, as ancient as she
is, and of which she has irrevocably traced the limits. It is in
the definition of species that we recognize how far the influence
of ideas adopted without examination in youth is powerful in
obscuring the most simple ideas of general physics."
Although not written with the expectation of publication, I will take
the liberty of publishing the following private letter just received
from Prof. Leidy. He has not appeared at all in this controversy before
the public, and we may safely say that no one can be better qualified
than he is to express an opinion on this question of species.
"With all the contention about the question of what constitutes a
_species_, there appears to be almost no difficulty,
comparatively, in its practical recognition. Species of plants
and animals are daily determined, and the characters which are
given to distinguish them are viewed by the great body of
naturalists as sufficient. All the definitions, however, which
have been given for a species, are objectionable. Morton says: 'A
species is a primordial organic form.' But how shall we
distinguish the latter? How can it be proved that any existing
forms primordially were distinct? In my attempted definition, I
think, I fail, for I only direct how species are discovered.
"According to the practical determination of a species by
naturalists, in a late number of the _Proceedings_ of our Academy
(vol. vii. p. 201), I observe: 'A species is a mere convenient
word with which naturalists empirically designate groups of
organized beings possessing characters of comparative constancy,
as far as historic experience has guided them in giving due weight
to such constancy.'
"According to this definition, the races of men are evidently
distinct species. But it may be said that the definition is given
to suit the circumstances. So it is, and so it should be; or, if
not, then all characterized species should conform to an arbitrary
definition. The species of gypætus, haliætus, tanagra, and of many
other genera of birds, are no more distinguishable than the
species of men; and, I repeat, the anatomy of one species of
haliætus, or of any other genus, will answer for that of all the
other species of the same genus. The same is the case with
mammals. One species of felis, ursus, or equus will give the exact
anatomy of all the other species in each genus, just as you may
study the anatomy of the white man upon the black man. While Prof.
Richard Owen will compare the orang with man, and therefore deduce
all races of the latter to be of one species, he divides the genus
cervus into several other genera, and yet there is no difference
in their internal anatomy; while he considers the horse and the
ass as two distinct genera, and says that a certain fossil
horse-tooth, carefully compared with the corresponding tooth of
the recent horse, showed no differences, excepting in being a
little more curved, he considers it a distinct species, under the
name of equus curvidens; and yet, with differences of greater
value in the jaws of the negro and white man, he considers them
the same.
"In the restricted genera of vertebrata of modern naturalists, the
specific characters are founded on the external appendages, for
the most part--differences in the scales, horns, antlers,
feathers, hairs, or bills. Just as you separate the black and
white man by the difference in the color of the skin and the
character of the hair, so do we separate the species of bears, or
cats, &c.
"PHILADELPHIA, _April 18, 1855_."
We might thus go on and multiply, to the extent of an octavo volume,
evidence to show how vague and unsettled is the term species among
naturalists, and that, when we abandon historical records, we have no
reliable guide left. Moreover, were we able to establish perfectly
reliable landmarks between species, we still have no means of
determining whether they were originally created in one pair, or many
pairs. The latter is certainly the most rational supposition: there is
every reason to believe that the earth and the sea brought forth
"_abundantly_" of each species.
It must be clear to the reader, from the evidence above adduced, that
Dr. Bachman claims far too much when he asserts that--
"Naturalists can be found, in Europe and America, who, without
any _vain boast_, can distinguish every species of bird and
quadruped on their separate continents; and the characters which
distinguish and separate the several species are as distinct and
infallible as are those which form the genera."[200]
And, again, when he says:--
"From the opportunities we have enjoyed in the examination of the
varieties and species of domesticated quadrupeds and birds, we
have never found any difficulty in deciding on the species to
which these varieties belong."
Those of us who are still groping in darkness certainly have a right to
ask who are the authorities alluded to, and what are those "characters
which distinguish and separate species" as distinctly and infallibly as
"genera?" They are certainly not in print.
The doctor must pardon us for reminding him that there is printed
evidence that his own mind is not always free from doubts. In the
introduction of Audubon and Bachman's _Quadrupeds of America_, p. vii.,
it is said:--
"Although _genera_ may be easily ascertained by the forms and
dental arrangements peculiar to each, many _species_ so nearly
approach each other in size, while they are so variable in color,
that it is exceedingly difficult to separate them with positive
certainty."
Again, in speaking of the genus _vulpes_ (foxes), the same work says:--
"The characters of this genus differ so slightly from those of
the genus _canis_, that we are induced to pause before removing
it from the sub-genus in which it had so long remained. As a
general rule, we are obliged to _admit that a large fox is a
wolf, and a small wolf may be termed a fox_. So inconveniently
large, however, is the list of species in the old genus _canis_,
that it is, we think, advisable to separate into distinct groups
such species as possess any characters different from true
wolves."
Speaking of the origin of the domestic dog, Dr. Bachman, in his work on
_Unity of Races_, p. 63, says:--
"Notwithstanding all these difficulties--and we confess we are
not free from some doubts in regard to their identity (dog and
wolf)--if we were called upon to decide on any wild species as
the progenitor of our dogs, we would sooner fix upon the large
wolf than on any other dog, hyena, or jackal," &c.
The doctor is unable, here at least (and we can point out many other
cases), to "designate species;" and the recent investigations of
Flourens, at the _Jardin des Plantes_, prove him wrong as regards the
origin of the dog. The dog is not derived from the "large wolf," but,
with it, produces hybrids, sterile after the third generation. The dog
forms a genus apart.
We repeat, then, that in a large number of _genera_, the species cannot
be separated by any anatomical characters, and that it is from their
history alone naturalists have arrived at those minute divisions now
generally received. We may, without the fear of contradiction, go a step
further, and assert that several of the races of men are as widely
separated in physical organization, physiological and psychological
characters, as are the canidæ, equidæ, felines, elephants, bears and
others. When the white races of Europe, the Mongols of Asia, the
aborigines of America, the black races of Africa and Oceanica are placed
beside each other, they are marked by stronger differences than are the
species of the genera above named. It has been objected that these gaps
are filled by intermediate links which make the chain complete from one
extremity to the other. The admission of the fact does not invalidate
our position, for we have shown elsewhere (see _Types of Mankind_)
_gradation_ is the law of nature. The extreme types, we have proven,
have been distinct for more than 5000 years, and no existing causes
during that time have transformed one type into another. The well-marked
negro type, for example, stands face to face with the white type on the
monuments of Egypt; and they differ more from each other than the dog
and wolf, ass and _Equis Hemionus_, lion and tiger, &c. The hair and
skin, the size and shape of head, the pelvis, the extremities, and other
points, separate certain African and Oceanican negroes more widely than
the above species. This will not be questioned, whatever difference of
opinion may exist with regard to the permanency of these forms. In the
language of Prof. Leidy, "the question to be determined is, whether the
differences in the races of men are as permanent and of as much value as
those which characterize species in the lower genera of animals." These
races of men too are governed by the same laws of geographical
distribution, as the species of the lower genera; they are found, as far
back as history can trace them, as widely separated as possible, and
surrounded by local Floræ and Faunæ.
VARIETIES.
This term is very conveniently introduced to explain all the
difficulties which embarrass this discussion. Dr. Bachman insists that
all the races of men are mere _varieties_, and sustains the opinion by a
repetition of those analogies which have been so often drawn from the
animal kingdom by Prichard and his school. It is well known that those
animals which have been domesticated undergo, in a few generations, very
remarkable changes in color, form, size, habits, &c. For example, all
the hogs, black, white, brown, gray, spotted, &c., now found scattered
over the earth, have, it is said, their parentage in one pair of wild
hogs. "This being admitted," says Dr. B. "we invite the advocates of
plurality in the human species to show wherein these varieties are less
striking than their eight (alluding to Agassiz) originally created
nations." Again--
"And how has the discovery been made that all the permanent races
are mere varieties, and not 'originally created' species, or
'primitive varieties?' Simply because the naturalists of Germany,
finding that the original wild hog still exists in their forests,
have, in a thousand instances, reclaimed them from the woods. By
this means they have discovered that their descendants, _after a
few generations_, lose their ferocity, assume all colors," &c.
The same reasoning is applied to horses, cattle, goats, sheep, &c.,
while many, if not most of the best naturalists of the day deny that we
know anything of the origin of our domestic animals. Geoffroy St.
Hilaire, in his work, just out, denies it in toto. We are, however, for
the sake of argument, willing to admit all the examples, and all he
claims with regard to the origin of endless varieties in domesticated
animals.[201]
Let us, on the other hand, "invite the advocates of _unity_ of the human
species" to say when and where such varieties have sprung up in the
human family. We not only have the written history of man for 2000
years, but his monumental history for 2000 more; and yet, while the
naturalists of Germany are catching wild hogs, and recording in a
thousand instances "after a few generations" these wonderful changes, no
one has yet pointed out anything analogous in the human family; the
porcupine family in England, a few spotted Mexicans, &c., do not meet
the case; history records the origin of no permanent variety. No race of
men has in the same country turned black, brown, gray, white, and
spotted. The negroes in America have not in ten generations turned to
all colors, though fully _domesticated_, like pigs and turkeys. The
Jews in all countries for 2000 years are still Jews. The gypsies are
everywhere still gypsies. In India, the different castes, of different
colors, have been living together several thousand years, and are still
distinct, &c. &c.
Nor does domestication affect all animals and fowls equally; compare the
camel, ass, and deer, with the hog and dog; the Guinea fowl, pea fowl,
and goose, with pigeons, turkeys, and common fowls. In fact, no one
animal can be taken as an analogue for another: each has its own
physiological laws; each is influenced differently and in different
degrees by the same external influences. How, then, can an animal be
taken as an analogue for man?
We have also abundant authority to show that all wild species do not
present the same uniformity in external characters.
"All packs of American wolves usually consist of various shades
of color, and varieties nearly black have been occasionally found
in every part of the United States.... In a gang of wolves which
existed in Colleton District, South Carolina, a few years ago
(sixteen of which were killed by hunters in eighteen months), we
were informed that about one-fifth were black, and the others of
every shade of color, from black to dusky gray and yellowish
white."--AUDUBON & BACHMAN, 2d Amer. ed., vol. ii. pp. 130-1.
Speaking of the white American wolf, the same authors say:--
"Their gait and movements are precisely the same as those of the
common dog, and their mode of copulating and number of young
brought forth at a litter, are about the same." (It might have
been added that their number of bones, teeth, whole anatomical
structure are the same.) "The diversity of their size and color
is remarkable, no two being quite alike."... "The wolves of the
prairies ... produce from six to eleven at a birth, of which
there are very seldom two alike in color."--_Op. cit._, p. 159.
"The common American wolf, Richardson observes, sometimes shows
remarkable diversity of color. On the banks of the Mackenzie River
I saw five young wolves leaping and tumbling over each other with
all the playfulness of the puppies of the domestic dog, and it is
not improbable they were all of one litter. One of them was pied,
another black, and the rest showed the colors of the common gray
wolves."
The same diversity is seen in the prairie wolf, and naturalists have
been much embarrassed in classifying the various wolves on account of
colors, size, &c.
All this is independent of _domestication_, and shows the uncertainty of
analogues; and still it is remarkable that though considerable variety
exists in the native dogs of America in color and size, they do not run
into the thousand grotesque forms seen on the old continent, where a
much greater mixture exists. The dogs of America, like the aboriginal
races of men, are comparatively uniform. In the East, where various
races have come together, the men, like the dogs, present endless
varieties, Egypt, Assyria, India, &c.
Let us suppose that one variety of hog had been discovered in Africa,
one in Asia, one in Europe, one in Australia, another in America, as
well marked as those Dr. B. describes; that these varieties had been
transferred to other climates as have been Jews, gypsies, negroes, &c.,
and had remained for ages without change of form or color, would they be
considered as distinct species or not?--can any one doubt? The rule must
work both ways, or the argument falls to the ground.
In fact the Dr. himself makes admissions which fully refute his whole
theory.
"Whilst," says he, "we are willing to allow some weight to the
argument advanced by President Smyth, who endeavors to account
for the varieties in man from the combined influences of three
causes, 'climate, the state of society, and manner of living,' we
are free to admit that it is impossible to account for the
varieties in the human family from the causes which he has
assigned."[202]
The Dr. further admits, in the same work, that the races have been
_permanent_ since the time of the old Egyptian empire, and _supposes_
that at some extremely remote time, of which we have no record, that
"they were more susceptible of producing varieties than at a later
period." These suppositions answer a very good purpose in theology, but
do not meet the requirements of science.
HYBRIDITY.
Having shown the insufficiency of all the other arguments in
establishing the landmarks of _species_, let us now turn to those based
on _hybridity_, which seems to be the last stronghold of the unity
party. On this point hang all the difficulties of M. Gobineau, and had
he been posted up to date here, his doubts would all have vanished. The
last twelve months have added some very important facts to those
previously published, and we shall, with as little detail as possible,
present the subject in its newest light.
It is contended that when two animals of distinct species, or, in other
words, of distinct origin, are bred together, they produce a hybrid
which is _infertile_, or which at least becomes sterile in a few
generations if preserved free from admixture with the parent stocks. It
is assumed that unlimited prolificness is a certain test of community of
origin.
We, on the contrary, contend that there is no abrupt line of
demarcation; that no complete laws of hybridity have yet been
established; that there is a _regular gradation_ in the prolificness of
the species, and that, according to the best lights we now possess,
there is a continued series from perfect sterility to perfect
prolificacy. The degrees may be expressed in the following language:--
1. That in which hybrids never reproduce; in other words, where the
mixed progeny begins and ends with the first cross.
2. That in which the hybrids are incapable of producing _inter se_, but
multiply by union with the parent stock.
3. That in which animals of unquestionably distinct species produce a
progeny which are prolific _inter se_, but have a tendency to run out.
4. That which takes place between closely proximate species; among
mankind, for example, and among those domestic animals most essential to
human wants and happiness; here the prolificacy is unlimited.
It seems to be a law that in those genera where several or many species
exist, there is a certain gradation which is shown in degrees of
hybridity; some having greater affinity than others. Experiments are
still wanting to make our knowledge perfect, but we know enough to
establish our points.
There are many points we have not space to dwell on, as the relative
influence of the male and female on the offspring; the tendency of one
species to predominate over another; the tendency of types to "crop out"
after lying dormant for many generations; the fact that in certain
species some of the progeny take after one parent and some after the
other, while in other cases the offspring presents a medium type, &c.
The genus _Equus_ (Horse) comprises six species, of which three belong
to Asia, and three to Africa. The Asiatic species are the _Equus
Caballus_ (Horse), _Equus Hemionus_ (Dzigguetai), and _Equus Asinus_
(Ass). Those of Africa are the _Equus Zebra_ (Zebra), _Equus Montanus_
(Daw), and the _Equus Quaccha_ (Quagga). The horse and ass alone have
been submitted to domestication from time immemorial; the others have
remained wild.
It is well known that the horse and ass produce together an unprolific
mule, and as these two species are the furthest removed from each other
in their physical structure, Dr. Morton long since suggested that
intermediate species bred together would show a higher degree of
prolificness, and this prediction has been vindicated by experiments
recently made in the Garden of Plants at Paris, where the ass and
dzigguetai have been bred together for the last ten years. "What is very
remarkable, these hybrids differ considerably from each other; some
resemble much more closely the dzigguetai, others the ass." In regard to
the product of the male dzigguetai and the jenny, Mr. Geoffroy St.
Hilaire says:[203]--
"Another fact, not less worthy of interest, is the fecundity, if
not of all the mules, at least the firstborn among them; with
regard to this, the fact is certain; he has produced several
times with Jennies, and once with the female dzigguetai, the only
one he has covered."[204]
At a meeting of the "Société Zoologique d'Acclimation,"
M. Richard (du Cantal) "parle des essais de croisements de
l'hémione avec l'anesse, et dit qu'ils ont donnè un mulet
beaucoup _plus ardent_ que l'âne. Il asserte que les produits de
l'hémione avec l'âne, sont féconds, et que le métis, nommé Polka,
à déja produit."
To what extent the prolificness of these two species will go is yet to
be determined, and there is an unexplored field still open among the
other species of this genus; it is highly probable that a gradation may
be established from sterility, up to perfect prolificacy.
Not only do the female ass and the male onager breed together, but a
male offspring of this cross, with a mare, produces an animal more
docile than either parent, and combining the best physical qualities,
such as strength, speed, &c.; whence the ancients preferred the onager
to the ass, for the production of mules.[205] Mr. Gliddon, who lived
upwards of twenty years in Egypt and other eastern countries, informs me
this opinion is still prevalent in Egypt, and is acted upon more
particularly in Arabia, Persia, &c., where the _gour_, or wild ass,
still roams the desert. The zebra has also been several times crossed
with the horse.
The genus _canis_ contains a great many species, as domestic dogs,
wolves, foxes, jackals, &c., and much discussion exists as to which are
really species and which mere varieties. In this genus experiments in
crossing have been carried a step further than in the _Equidæ_, but
there is much yet to be done. All the species produce prolific
offspring, but how far the prolificness might extend in each instance is
not known; there is reason to believe that every grade would be found
except that of absolute sterility which is seen in the offspring of the
horse and ass.
The following facts are given by M. Flourens, and are the result of his
own observations at the _Jardin des Plantes_.
"The hybrids of the dog and wolf are sterile after the _third_
generation; those of the jackal and dog, are so after the
_fourth_.
"Moreover, if one of these hybrids is bred with one of the
primitive species, they soon return, completely and totally, to
this species.
"My experiments on the crossing of species have given me
opportunities of making a great many observations of this kind.
"The union of the dog and jackal produces a hybrid--a mixed
animal, an animal partaking almost equally of the two, but in
which, however, the type of the _jackal_ predominates over that of
the _dog_.
"I have remarked, in fact, in my experiments, that all types are
not equally dominant and persistent. The type of the dog is more
persistent than that of the wolf--that of the jackal more than
that of the dog; that of the horse is less than that of the ass,
&c. The hybrid of the dog and the wolf partakes more of the dog
than the wolf; the hybrid of the jackal and dog, takes more after
the jackal than dog; the hybrid of the horse and the ass partakes
less of the horse than the ass; it has the ears, back, rump, voice
of the ass; the horse neighs, the ass brays, and the mule brays
like the ass, &c.
"The hybrid of the dog and jackal, then, partakes more of the
jackal than dog--it has straight ears, hanging tail, does not
bark, and is wild--it is more jackal than dog.
"So much for the FIRST cross product of the dog with the jackal. I
continue to unite, from generation to generation, the successive
products with one of the two primitive stocks--with that of the
dog, for example. The hybrid of the _second generation_ does not
yet bark, but has already the ears pendent at the ends, and is
less savage. The hybrid of the third generation barks, has the
ears pendent, the tail turned up, and is no longer wild. The
hybrid of the _fourth generation_ is entirely a dog.
"Four generations, then, have sufficed to re-establish one of the
two primitive types--the type of the dog; and four generations
suffice, also, to bring back the other type."[206]
From the foregoing facts, M. Flourens deduces, without assigning a
reason, the following _non sequitur_:--
"Thus, then, either hybrids, born of the union of two distinct
species, unite and soon become sterile, or they unite with one of
the parent stocks, and soon return to this type--they in no case
give what may be called a new species, that is to say, an
intermediate durable species."[207]
The dog also produces hybrids with the fox and hyena, but to what extent
has not yet been determined. The hybrid fox is certainly prolific for
several generations.
There are also bovine, camelline, caprine, ovine, feline, deer with the
ram, and endless other hybrids, running through the animal kingdom, but
they are but repetitions of the above facts, and experiments are still
far from being complete in establishing the _degrees_ which attach to
each two species. We have abundant proofs, however, of the three first
degrees of hybridity. 1st. Where the hybrid is infertile. 2d. Where it
produces with the parent stock. 3d. Where it is prolific for one, two,
three, or four generations, and then becomes sterile. Up to this point
there is no diversity of opinion. Let us now inquire what evidence there
is of the existence of the 4th degree, in which hybrids may form a new
and permanent race.
To show how slow has been our progress in this question, and what
difficulties beset our path, we need only state that the facts
respecting the dog, wolf, and jackal, quoted above from Flourens, have
only been published within the last twelve months. The identity of the
dog and wolf has heretofore been undetermined, and the _degrees_ of
hybridity of the dog with the wolf and jackal were before unknown. These
experiments do not extend beyond one species of wolf.
M. Flourens says:--
"_Les espèces ne s'altèrent point, ne changent point, ne passent
point de l'une à l'autre; les espèces sont_ FIXÉS."
"If species have a tendency to transformation, to pass one into
another, why has not time, which, in everything, effects all that
can happen, ended by disclosing, by betraying, by implying this
tendency.
"But time, they may tell me, is wanting. It is not wanting. It is
2000 years since Aristotle wrote, and we recognize in our day all
the animals which he describes; and we recognize them by the
characters which he assigns.... Cuvier states that the history of
the elephant is more exact in Aristotle than in Buffon. They bring
us every day from Egypt, the remains of animals which lived there
two or three thousand years ago--the ox, crocodiles, ibis, &c.
&c., which are the same as those of the present day. We have under
our eyes _human mummies_--the skeleton of that day is identical
with that of the Egyptian of our day."
(M. Flourens might have added that the mummies of the white and black
races show them to have been as distinct then as now, and that the
monumental drawings represent the different races more than a thousand
years further back.)
"Thus, then, through three thousand years, no species has
changed. An experiment which continues through three thousand
years, is not an experiment to be made--it is an experiment
_made_. Species do not change."[208]
_Permanence of type_, then, is the only test which he can adduce for the
designation of species, and he here comes back plainly to the position
we have taken. Let us now test the races of men by this rule. The white
Asiatic races, the Jew, the Arab, the Egyptian, the negro, at least, are
distinctly figured on the monuments of Egypt and Assyria, as distinct as
they are now, and _time_ and change of climate have not transformed any
one type into another. In whatever unexplored regions of the earth the
earliest voyagers have gone, they have found races equally well marked.
These races are all prolific _inter se_, and there is every reason to
believe that we here find the fourth and last degree of hybridity.
Whether the prolificacy is _unlimited_ between all the races or species
of men is still an unsettled point, and experiments have not yet been
fully and fairly made to determine the question. The dog and wolf become
sterile at the _third_. The dog and jackal at the fourth generation,
and who can tell whether the law of hybridity might not show itself in
man, after a longer succession of generations. There are no observations
yet of this kind in the human family. It is a common belief in our
Southern States, that mulattoes are less prolific, and attain a less
longevity than the parent stocks. I am convinced of the truth of this
remark, when applied to the mulatto from the strictly white and black
races, and I am equally convinced, from long personal observation, that
the _dark_-skinned European races, as Spaniards, Portuguese, Italians,
Basques, &c., mingle much more perfectly with the negroes than do fair
races, thus carrying out the law of gradation in hybridity. If the
mulattoes of New Orleans and Mobile be compared with those of the
Atlantic States, the fact will become apparent.
The argument in favor of unlimited prolificacy between species may be
strongly corroborated by an appeal to the history of our domestic
animals, whose history is involved in the same impenetrable mystery as
that of man. M. Geoffroy St. Hilaire very justly remarks that we know
nothing of the origin of our domestic animals; because we find wild
hogs, goats, sheep, &c., in certain parts of Europe, several thousand
years subsequent to the early migrations of man, this does not prove
that the domestic come from these wild ones. The reverse may be the
case.[209]
We have already made some general observations on the _genus canis_,
whose natural history is most closely allied to that of man. Let us now
inquire whether the domestic dog is but one species, or whether under
this head have been included many proximate species of unlimited
prolificacy. If we try the question by _permanency of type_, like the
races of men, and all well-marked species, the doubt must be yielded.
There are strong reasons given by Dr. Morton and other naturalists, for
supposing that our common dogs, independent of mixtures of _their_
various races, may also have an infusion of the blood of foxes, wolves,
jackals, and even the hyena; thus forming, as we see every day around
us, _curs_ of every possible grade; but setting aside all this, we have
abundant evidence to show that each zoological province has its original
dog, and, perhaps, not unfrequently several.
In one chapter on hybridity in the "_Types of Mankind_," it is shown
that our Indian dogs in America present several well-marked types,
unlike any in the Old World, and which are indigenous to the soil. For
example, the Esquimaux dog, the Hare Indian dog, the North American dog,
and several others. We have not space here to enter fully into the
facts, but they will be found at length in the work above mentioned.
These dogs, too, are clearly traced to wild species of this continent.
In other parts of the world we find other species equally well marked,
but we shall content ourselves with the facts drawn from the ancient
monuments of Egypt. It is no longer a matter of dispute that as far
back, at least, as the twelfth dynasty, about 2300 years before Christ,
we find the common small dog of Egypt, the greyhound, the staghound, the
turnspit, and several other types which do not correspond with any dogs
that can now be identified.[210] We find, also, the mastiff admirably
portrayed on the monuments of Babylon, which dog was first brought from
the East to Greece by Alexander the Great, 300 years B. C. The museums
of natural history, also, everywhere abound in the remains of _fossil_
dogs, which long antedate all living species.
The wolf, jackal, and hyena are also found distinctly drawn on the early
monuments of Egypt, and a greyhound, exactly like the English greyhound,
with semi-pendent ears, is seen on a statue in the Vatican, at Rome. It
is clear, then, that the leading types of dogs of the present day (and
probably all) existed more than four thousand years ago, and it is
equally certain that the type of a dog, when kept pure, will endure in
opposite climates for ages. Our staghounds, greyhounds, mastiffs,
turnspits, pointers, terriers, &c., are bred for centuries, not only in
Egypt and Europe without losing their types, but in any climate which
does not destroy them. No one denies that climate influences these
animals greatly, but the greyhound, staghound, or bulldog can never be
transformed into each other.
The facts above stated cannot be questioned, and it is admitted that
these species are all prolific without limit _inter se_.
The llama affords another strong argument in favor of the fourth degree
of hybridity. Cuvier admits but two species--the llama (_camelus
llacma_), of which he regards the _alpaca_ as a variety, and the vigogne
(_camelus vicunna_). More recent naturalists regard the alpaca as a
distinct species, among whom is M. Geoffroy St. Hilaire.[211] At all
events, it seems settled that they _all_ breed together without limit.
"A son tour, après la vigogne, viendra bientôt l'alpavigogne,
fruit du croisement de l'alpaca avec la vigogne. Don Francisco de
Theran, il ya quarante ans, et M. de Castelnau, avaient annoncé
déjà que ce métis est fécond, et qu'il porte une laine presque
aussi longue que celle de l'alpaca, presque aussi fine que celle
de la vigogne.... M. Weddell a mis tout récemment l'Académie des
Sciences à même de voir et d'admirer cette admirable toison. Il a
confirmé en même temps un fait que n'avait trouvé que des
incrédules parmi les naturalists--la fécondité de
l'alpaca-vigogne: l'abbé Cabrera, curé de la petite ville de
Macusani, a obtenu une race qui se perpétue et dont il possède
déjà tout un troupeau. C'est, donc, pour ainsi dire, une
nouvelle espèce créée par l'homme; et si paradoxal qu' ait pu
sembler ce résultat, il est, fort heureusement pour l'industrie,
_définitivement acquis à la science_.
"Ce résultat n'aurait rien de paradoxal, si l'alpaca n'était,
comme l'ont pensé plusieurs auteurs, qu'une race domestique et
três modifiée de la vigogne. Cette objection contre le pretendu
principe de l'infécondite des mulets ne serait d'ailleurs levée
que pour faire place à une autre; _l'alpa-llama_ serait alors un
mulet, issu de deux espèces distincts, et l'alpa-llama est fécond
comme l'alpa-vigogne."[212]
We have recently seen exhibited in Mobile a beautiful hybrid of the
alpaca and common sheep, and the owner informed us that he had a flock
at home, which breed perfectly.
Dr. Bachman confesses that he has not examined the drawings given in the
works of Lepsius, Champollion, Rossellini, and other Egyptologists, of
various animals represented on the monuments, and ridicules the idea of
their being received as authority in matters of natural history.
Although many of the drawings are rudely done, most of them, in outline,
are beautifully executed, and Dr. B. is the first, so far as we know, to
call the fact in question. Dr. Chas. Pickering is received by Dr. B. as
high authority in scientific matters--he has not only examined these
drawings, but their originals. Lepsius, Champollion, Rossellini,
Wilkinson, and all the Egyptologists, have borne witness to the
reliability of these drawings, and have enumerated hundreds of animals
and plants which are perfectly identified.
Martin, the author of the work on "_Man and Monkeys_," is certainly good
authority. He says:--
"Now we have in modern Egypt and Arabia, and also in Persia,
varieties of greyhound closely resembling those of the ancient
remains of art, and it would appear that two or three varieties
exist--one smooth, another long haired, and another smooth with
long-haired ears, resembling those of the spaniel. In Persia, the
greyhound, to judge from specimens we have seen, is silk-haired,
with a fringed tail. They are of a black color; but a fine breed,
we are informed, is of a slate or ash color, as are some of the
smooth-haired greyhounds depicted in the Egyptian paintings. In
Arabia, a large, rough, powerful race exists; and about Akaba,
according to Laborde, a breed of slender form, fleet, with a long
tail, very hairy, in the form of a brush, with the ears erect and
pointed, closely resembling, in fact, many of those figured by
the ancient Egyptians."[213]
He goes on to quote Col. Sykes, and others, for other varieties of
greyhound in the east, unlike any in Europe.
Dr. Pickering, after enumerating various objects identified on the
monuments of the third and fourth dynasties, as Nubians, white races,
the ostrich, ibis, jackal, antelope, hedgehog, goose, fowls, ducks,
bullock, donkey, goats, dog-faced ape, hyena, porcupine, wolves, foxes,
&c. &c., when he comes down to the twelfth dynasty, says:--
"The paintings on the walls represent a vast variety of subjects;
including, most unexpectedly, the greater part of the _arts_ and
_trades_ practised among civilized nations at the present day;
also birds, quadrupeds, fishes, and insects, amounting to an
_extended treatise on zoology_, well deserving the attention of
naturalists. The date accompanying these representations has
been astronomically determined by Biot, at about B. C. 2200
(Champollion-Figeac, _Egyp. Arc._); and Lepsius's chronological
computation corresponds."[214]
Dr. P. gives us a fauna and flora of Egypt, running further back than
Usher's date for the creation, and it cannot be doubted that the
drawings are as reliable as those in any modern work on natural history.
FOOTNOTES:
[198] Natural History of Man and Monkeys.
[199] Fauna and Flora within Living Animals, p. 9.
[200] Doctrine of the Unity of the Human Race, p. 10.
[201] We are told that the pigs in one department of France are all
black, in another, all white, and local causes are assigned! When I was
a boy, my father introduced what was then called the China hog into the
Union District, South Carolina; they were black, with white faces. On a
visit to that district about twelve years ago, I found the whole country
for 40 miles covered with them. On a visit one year ago, I found they
had been supplanted entirely by other breeds of different colors: the
old familiar type had disappeared.
[202] _Op. cit._, p. 177.
[203] _Domestication et Naturalization des Animaux utiles_, par M.
Isadore Geoffroy St. Hilaire, p. 71, Paris, 1854.
[204] Ibid.
[205] Columbia, p. 135.
[206] _De la Longevité Humaine_, &c., par P. Flourens, Paris, 1855.
[207] M. Flourens here, perhaps, speaks too positively. The blood of the
apparently lost species will show itself from time to time for many, if
not endless generations.
[208] _Op. cit._
[209] _Op. cit._, p. 122.
[210] It has been objected, that the drawings cannot be relied on, as
some of these types are no longer to be found. But there are several
well-marked types of domestic animals on the old monuments that no
longer exist, because they have been supplanted by better breeds. In
this country several varieties of the Indian dogs are rapidly
disappearing for the same reason. The llama must give place, in the same
way, to the cow and the horse. Many other instances may be cited.
[211] _Op. cit._, p. 29. 1854.
[212] _Op. cit._, p. 101.
[213] _Op. cit._, p. 53.
[214] _Geographical Dist._, p. 17.
This work, I believe, is not yet issued, but Dr. Pickering has kindly
sent me the first 150 pages, as printed.
C.
Mr. Gobineau remarks (p. 367), that he has very serious doubts as to the
unity of origin. "These doubts, however," he continues, "I am compelled
to repress, because they are in contradiction to a scientific fact,
which I cannot refute--the prolificness of half-breeds; and secondly,
what is of much greater weight with me, they impugn a religious
interpretation sanctioned by the church."
With regard to the prolificness of half-breeds, I have already mentioned
such facts as might have served to dispel the learned writer's doubts,
had he been acquainted with them. In reference to the other, more
serious, obstacle to his admission of the plurality of origins, he
himself intimates (p. 339) that the authority of this interpretation
might, perhaps, be questioned without transgressing the limits imposed
by the church. Believing this view to be correct, I shall venture on a
few remarks upon this last scruple of the author, which is shared by
many investigators of this interesting subject.
"The strict rule of scientific scrutiny," says the most learned
and formidable opponent in the adversary's camp,[215] "exacts,
according to modern philosophers, in matters of inductive
reasoning, an exclusive homage. It requires that we should close
our eyes against all presumptive and exterior evidence, and
_abstract our minds from all considerations not derived from the
matters of fact which bear immediately on the question_. The
maxim we have to follow in such controversies is 'fiat justitia,
ruat coelum.' _In fact, what is actually true, it is always
desirous to know, whatever consequences may arise from its
admission._"
To this sentiment I cheerfully subscribe: it has always been my maxim.
Yet I find it necessary, in treating of this subject, to touch on its
_biblical_ connections, for although we have great reason to rejoice at
the improved tone of toleration, or even liberality which prevails in
this country, the day has not come when science can be severed from
theology, and the student of nature can calmly follow her truths, no
matter whither they may lead. What a mortifying picture do we behold in
the histories of astronomy, geology, chronology, cosmogony, geographical
distribution of animals, &c.; they have been compelled to fight their
way, step by step, through human passion and prejudice, from their
supposed contradiction to Holy Writ. But science has been
vindicated--their great truths have been established, and the Bible
stands as firmly as it did before. The last great struggle between
science and theology is the one we are now engaged in--the _natural
history of man_--it has now, for the first time, a fair hearing before
Christendom, and all any question should ask is "_daylight and fair
play_."
The Bible should not be regarded as a text-book of natural history. On
the contrary, it must be admitted that none of the writers of the Old or
New Testament give the slightest evidence of knowledge in any department
of science beyond that of their profane contemporaries; and we hold that
the natural history of man is a department of science which should be
placed upon the same footing with others, and its facts dispassionately
investigated. What we require for our guidance in this world is truth,
and the history of science shows how long it has been stifled by bigotry
and error.
It was taught for ages that the sun moved around the earth; that there
had been but one creation of organized beings; that our earth was
created but six thousand years ago, and that the stars were made to shed
light upon it; that the earth was a plane, with sides and ends; that all
the animals on earth were derived from Noah's ark, &c. But what a
different revelation does science give us? We now know that the earth
revolves around the sun, that the earth is a globe which turns on its
own axis, that there has been a succession of destructions and creations
of living beings, that the earth has existed countless ages, and that
there are stars so distant as to require millions of years for their
light to reach us; that instead of one, there are many centres of
creation for existing animals and plants, &c.
If so many false readings of the Bible have been admitted among
theologians, who has authority or wisdom to say to science--"thus far
shalt thou go, and no further?" The doctrine of _unity_ for the human
family may be another great error, and certainly a denial of its truth
does no more, nay, less violence to the language of the Bible, than do
the examples above cited.
It is a popular error, and one difficult to eradicate, that all the
species of animals now dwelling on the earth are descendants of pairs
and septuples preserved in Noah's ark, and certainly the language of
Genesis on this point is too plain to admit of any quibble; it does
teach that every living being perished by the flood, except those alone
which were saved in the ark. Yet no living naturalist, in or out of the
church, believes this statement to be correct. The centres of creation
are so numerous, and the number of animals so great that it is
impossible it should be so.
On the other hand, the first chapter of Genesis gives an account
entirely in accordance with the teachings of science.
"And God said, let the earth bring forth _grass_, the herb
yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit, after his kind,
whose seed is in itself upon the earth; and it was so." _Gen._ i.
11.
"And God said, let the waters bring forth _abundantly_, the moving
creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in
the open firmament of heaven." v. 20.
"And God created great _whales_, and every living creature that
moveth, which the waters brought forth _abundantly_," &c. v. 21.
"And God said, let the earth bring forth the living creature after
his kind, cattle and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after
his kind, and it was so." v. 24.
"God created _man_ in his own image; _male_ and _female_ created
he _them_."
In the language above quoted, nothing is said about one seed or one
blade of grass; about one fruit tree, or about _single pairs_ of animals
or human beings. On the contrary, this chapter closes with the distinct
impression on the mind that everything was created _abundantly_. The
only difficulty arises with regard to the human family, and we are here
confused by the contradictory statements of the first and second
chapters. In the first chapter, man was created _male and female_, on
the sixth day--in the second chapter, woman was not created until after
Adam was placed in the Garden of Eden. Commentators explain this
discrepancy by the difference in style of the two chapters, and the
inference that Genesis is a compilation made up by Moses from two or
three different writers; but it is not our purpose here to open these
theological discussions. Both sides are sustained by innumerable
authorities. From what we have before shown, it is clear that the
inspired writers possessed no knowledge of physical sciences, and as
little respecting the natural history of man, as of any other
department.
Their _moral_ mission does not concern our subject, and we leave that to
theologians, to whom it more properly belongs. On the other hand, we ask
to be let alone in our study of the physical laws of the universe. The
theologian and the naturalist have each an ample field without the
necessity of interfering with each other.
The Bible is here viewed only in its relations with physical science. We
have already alluded to the fact that in astronomy, geology, &c., the
authors of the Bible possessed no knowledge beyond that of their profane
contemporaries, and a dispassionate examination of the text from Genesis
to Revelation will show that the writers had but an imperfect knowledge
of contemporary races, and did not design to teach the doctrine of unity
of mankind, or rather origin from a single pair. The writer of the
_Pentateuch_ could attach little importance to such an idea, as he
nowhere alludes to a future existence, or rewards and punishments--all
good and evil, as far as the human race is concerned, with him, were
merely temporal.
This idea of a future state does not distinctly appear in the Jewish
writings until after their return from the Babylonish captivity.
The extent of the surface of the globe, known even to the writers of the
New Testament, formed but a small fraction of it--little beyond the
confines of the Roman empire. No allusion is even made to Southern and
Eastern Asia; Africa, south of the Desert; Australia, America, &c.; all
of which were inhabited long before the time of Moses; and of the races
of men inhabiting these countries, and their languages, they certainly
knew nothing. The Chinese and Indian empires, at least, are beyond
dispute. The early Hebrews were a pastoral people; had little commercial
or other intercourse with the rest of the world, and were far from being
"learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians." The Egyptian empire was
fully developed--arts and science as flourishing--pyramids and gorgeous
temples built, not only before the time of Moses, but long prior to that
of the Patriarch Abraham, who, with Sarah, went to Egypt to buy corn of
the reigning Pharaoh. What is remarkable, too, the Egyptians had their
ethnographers, and had already classified the human family into four
races, and depicted them on the monuments, viz: the black, white,
yellow, and red.[216]
In fact, nothing can be more incomplete, contradictory, and
unsatisfactory than the ethnography of Genesis. We see Cain going into a
foreign land and taking a wife before there were any women born of his
parent stock. Cities are seen springing up in the second and third
generations, in every direction, &c. All this shows that we have in
Genesis no satisfactory history of the human family, and that we can
rely no more upon its ethnography than upon its geography, astronomy,
cosmogony, geology, zoology, &c.
We have already alluded to the fact that the writers of the New
Testament give no evidence of additional knowledge in such matters. The
sermon from the Mount comes like a light from Heaven, but this volume is
mute on all that pertains to the physical laws of the universe.
If the common origin of man were such an important point in the eyes of
the Almighty as we have been taught to believe, is it reasonable to
suppose it would have been left by the inspired writers in such utter
confusion and doubt? The coming of Christ changed the whole question,
and we should expect, at least in the four Gospels, for some authority
that would settle this vital point; but strange as the assertion may
seem, there is not a single passage here to be found, which, by any
distortion, can be made to sustain this _unity_; and on searching
diligently the New Testament, from one end to the other, we were not a
little surprised to find but a single text that seemed to bear directly
upon it, viz: the oft quoted one in Acts xvii. 26: "And hath made of
_one blood_ all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the
earth," &c. Being astonished at the fact that this great question of
common origin of man should thus be made to hang so much upon a single
verse, it occurred to me that there might be some error, some
interpolation in the text, and having no material at hand for such an
investigation in Mobile, I wrote to a competent friend in Philadelphia,
to examine for me all the Greek texts and old versions, and his reply
confirmed fully my suspicions. The word _blood_ is an interpolation, and
not to be found in the original texts. The word _blood_ has been
rejected by the Catholic Church, from the time of St. Jerome to the
present hour. The text of Tischendorf is regarded, I believe, generally
as the most accurate Greek text known, and in this the word blood does
not appear. I have at hand a long list of authorities to the same
effect, but as it is presumed no competent authority will call our
assertion in question, it is needless to cite them. The verse above
alluded to in Acts should, therefore, read:--
"And hath made of _one_ all races (genus) of men," &c.
The word _blood_ is a gloss, and we have just as much right to
interpolate _one form_, _one substance_, _one nature_, _one
responsibility_, or anything else, as _blood_.
These remarks on the ethnography of the Bible might be greatly extended,
but my object here is simply to show that the Bible, to say the least,
leaves the field open, and that I have entered it soberly, discreetly,
and advisedly.
FOOTNOTES:
[215] Prichard, _Nat. Hist. of Man_, p. 8. London, 1843.
[216] See "_Types of Mankind_," by Nott and Gliddon.
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
|Transcriber's note: |
| |
| Inconsistent use of law-giver vs. lawgiver was made |
| consistent as "law-giver". |
| |
| Page 476: Corrected typographical error "criterea". |
| |
| Footnote 39: Placement of quotation marks has been |
| made consistent. |
| |
| Footnote 59: Added missing closing quotation mark "...'When|
| three of us are together, the Triad is among us.'" |
| |
| Footnote 85: I believe the editor meant "page 187". |
| |
| Footnote 195: Added dash to sign-off "--H." to conform to |
| other footnotes. |
| |
| All other inconsistencies, variant spellings, and a large |
| number of mis-quoted references have been preserved. |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+