306 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



[2»<« S. VI. 146., Oct. 16. '68. 



Elsewhere (In Man all the World Over, now in 

 preparation), I have unfoUled and examined this 

 hypothesis in all its bearings. I must here con- 

 tent myself with the remark that the " Mono- 

 uenesis " opinion is but feebly defended on scien- 

 tific grounds. Dr. Prichard's reasonings are mere 

 plausibilities, which his numerous facts plainly 

 contradict ; .ind one of the latest advocates in the 

 same vein (M. Ilollard, De V Homme et des Races 

 Humaines) favours us with abstractions which re- 

 quire us to beg the question at every step. For 

 instance, he asks : — 



" If there be a wide difference between the Caucasian 

 and the Negro-type, is there not also a wide difference 

 between the climate of the temperate zone and that of 

 equatorial Africa ? " 



The " polygenist " might answer this question 

 by simply saying : — Of course there is — and 

 that is precisely the reason why there should be 

 as wide a difference between the Man of the re- 

 spective " stations " as between their *bther ani- 

 mals and plants — considering the wonderful 

 fitness and adaptation, wisdom and bounty, every- 

 where apparent throughout Creation — as God 

 has willed it. The question must indeed be 

 thoroughly and honestly studied. 



12th, 13tb, and 14th verses of the fifth chapter of the 

 Epistle of the Apostle Paul to the Romans. By which 

 it is proved that the first men were created before Adam." 

 He contends (b. iii. c. i.) that Adam was only " author 

 of the lineage of the Jews," and " proves " it from the 

 narrative of Genesis. Frederick Klee, a recent writer, 

 supposes Adam to be the progenitor of the " Caucasian 

 race " only XLe Deluge, 191.), and " proves," in like 

 manner, from the Bible and other sources, that other 

 men existed at the time of Adam, appealing to " the 

 ancient literature " of the Indians, Persians, Babylonians, 

 and Egyptians. (/6. c. iii.) Indeed it is difficult, other- 

 wise, to see how Cain could build a city, as recorded — to 

 say nothing of the murderer's apprehension : — " And it 

 shall come to pass that every one that findeth me shall 

 slay me." ( Gen. iv. 14. 17.) It seems that had he not 

 known there were other men besides the members of his 

 own family, he would have felt safer at a distance from 

 those whom he had offended. See Bayle, Diet. " Cain." 



I would add, that after all, the main difiiculty of the 

 question, as to its scientific point of view, is in the ar- 

 bitrary definition given to the term " species." Why 

 not reject it altogether, and speak of the Genus Homo, 

 including numerous " types," as suggested by the Ame- 

 rican Ethnologists ?— each type being wisely adapted to 

 its " station " by the Creator : — for, contrary to the very 

 common opinion, nothing is more certain than that man is 

 no " cosmopolite " in the absolute or physical sense of fje 

 ■^v^ord — and that his migrations involve him in physical 

 penalties varying in severity according to the changes 

 • to which he is subjected by force or the restless yearnings 

 of his dominant will or caprice. Of course to infer that 

 such difference of "type" involves a justification of 

 slavery would be monstrous. Each type is adapted ac- 

 cording to the will of the Creator to its proper function 

 in the world's economy — and, as such alone, must be 

 equal to any other in His sight, who " is no respecter of 

 persons." {Acts, x. 34.) " Then Peter opened his mouth 

 and said. Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter 

 of persons." 



After many years of a laborious life spent in the 

 investigation of Ethnology — after compiling the 

 most comprehensive work on the subject in exist- 

 ence — Dr. Prichard hesitated at last to affirm 

 the unity of the Human Species, if he did not 

 indirectly deny it in his last edition — concluding 

 his great labours by adopting Astruc's proposed 

 elucidation of the Book of Genesis — and showing 

 its " fragmentary character " — a subject subse- 

 quently developed by Luke Burke, apparently in 

 a very conclusive manner. (Prichard, Researches, 

 V. 560., ed. 1847 ; Astruc, Conjectures sur les Me- 

 moh-es Originaiix dont il parait q%ie Moyse s'est 

 servi, Sfc. ; Luke Burke, Ethnolog. Journal, 197. ; 

 and cf. Rask, Den celdeste Hehraiske Tidsregning 

 indtil Moses, ^-c.) Now, if the ancient belief in a 

 polygenesis of Mankind be probable from Genesis 

 as it stands, it amounts to a demonstration if the 

 order of the text be " rectified " according to 

 these suggestions, which seem to remove all con- 

 tradictions from the inspired narrative, without 

 interfering with its integrity."* The impression 

 left on my mind after reading Dr. Prichard's 

 book is, that he could not, at last, resist the poly- 

 genesis-hypothesis, but felt compelled to shrink 

 from the acknowledgment. Had he become ac- 

 quainted with Peyrere's reconciling arguments, 

 perhaps he would have treated the monogenesis- 

 opinion as he treats the recorded "great longevity 

 of the ante-Abrahamic patriarchs" — namely, that 

 it " is founded on a mistake in the interpretation 

 of numbers or numerical signs " (v. 568.). But 

 his laudable prudence did not permit him to 

 make this averment without a preliminary dis- 

 sertation to prove that his disbelief in this respect 

 was allowable, and not heretical {ib. 562.) The 

 American ethnologists animadvert as follows on 

 Dr. Prichard's apparent inconsistencies : — 



" Prichard's capacious mind, like that of all conscien- 

 tious inquirers, was progressive ; and those who really 

 kuow the various editions of his ' Researches,' cannot fail 

 to admire how quickly he dropped one hypothesis after 

 another, until his last volume closes with a complete 

 abandonment of the unity of Genesis itself." (Gliddon, 

 op. cit. 441.) 



* Astruc's discover}', in 1753, was received as a bold 

 paradox : — it is now adopted by all the enlightened 

 critics of Germany. See Ernest Renau, Histoire des 

 Langues S^miiiques, p. 117, et seg. ed. 1858. The different 

 "documents" or distinct "fragments" united but not 

 assimilated in a continued text," may be designated by 

 the different names of the Deity as rendered in the Eng- 

 lish version. Where the word Elohim occurs in the He- 

 brew, it is constantly translated into God; — Jehovah- 

 Elohim, the Lord God; — and Jehovah, the Lord. There 

 is but one exception to this rule in the early portion of 

 Genesis. In the Ethnological Journal above quoted, the 

 reader will find a reconstruction of the text according to 

 this indication alone — all the portions being brought 

 together according to the name given to the Creator, and 

 forming distinct and continuous narratives of the same 

 events. 



