MAN. 



MAN. 



670 



created beings upon the surface of the earth. The same evidence is 

 also in favour of the supposition that many of the animals and plants 

 by which man is surrounded at the present moment are contem- 

 poraneous creations with himself. What the exact date of man's 

 creation is science cannot answer. Dr. Latham has however shown 

 that the arguments raised in favour of a much higher antiquity than 

 is given in the books of Moses, from the civilisation of the Chinese, 

 are of no value ; and he has also pointed out, in his ' Varieties of 

 Man/ that the civilisation of the Chinese is much more modern than 

 the Chinese believe. 



It haa only been within these last few years that the importance of 

 employing the language spoken by man has been fully appreciated as 

 a means of affording characters by which our knowledge of the rela- 

 tions of the races of men might be facilitated. It will be however 

 speedily felt, when the nature of language is considered, that if pro- 

 perly studied it must be capable of throwing great light on the 

 relation that exists between certain races and nations. The great 

 cause that has retarded the application of the study of language in 

 this direction has been the assumption of erroneous views with regard 

 to the derivation and origin of languages. Thus, to take an example, 

 writers on the English language have constantly assumed that our 

 language has been derived from the Latin and Greek-on the one hand, 

 and the Celtic or supposed ancient British on the other. It never 

 occurred to the old etymologist to inquire whether Latin, Greek, 

 Celtic, and English might not all have been derived from a common 

 stock, which is really the case ; not that we have not, and do not 

 constantly import words from both Latin and Greek as such words 

 as ' communicate,' ' investigate,' and ' condemnation,' from the former, 

 and ' geology,' ' anatomy,' and ' ethnology,' from the latter, fully 

 testify; but we find a vast number of words in Latin and Greek 

 which correspond as much with words in the Sanscrit and Persian as 

 they do with the English ; and a complete investigation of the subject 

 shows that the English, German, French, Celtic, Latin, Greek, Persian, 

 and other languages, are but branches of a common root, which has 

 hitherto been traced to the Sanscrit. 



Although modern philologists have succeeded in tracing cognate 

 languages to certain primitive stocks, they are not yet in a position to 

 demonstrate that there was but one original language, or what was 

 the probable nature of that language. But if, as we have seen, there 

 is reason to believe that the human race originated in a single pair, 

 we must assume an original language, or at least such modes of 

 expression as would originate in a common family. In the investi- 

 gation of language however, for ethnological purposes, we are not 

 allowed to assume one language, and trace its roots through all known 

 varieties ; but we proceed from particular forms, and, comparing them 

 with one another, ascend or pass back in time to those that were 

 earlier, and have been parents of the first. 



This process, although at firat eight it might appear easy, is one 

 that only can be pursued according to the special laws of change 

 which it is known words in passing from one language to another 

 have undergone. It appears that as long as a language is unwritten, 

 it is subject to change ; but these changes, although they go on more 

 or less quickly according to circumstances, are never sudden, violent, 

 or arbitrary. As an instance of the kind of change that take!! place, 

 we may quote the fact, that in the Teutonic languages the letter c of 

 the Latin is almost invariably converted into h. Were it not for a 

 knowledge of this fact, an inquirer would find it difficult to discover 

 in the Latin word cor the analogue of our word ' heart ;' yet when we 

 call to mind the regularity of the conversion, the little importance of 

 the vowels in all spoken languages, we shall see that the r with its 

 preceding letter constitutes the true root of the word. This brings 

 u to another point in the study of words, and that is, that for the 

 sake of denoting a relationship, letters and syllables are either placed 

 after or before certain words, called prefixes and affixes, and in order 

 to discover the root of these words, it is necessary to separate such 

 additions. In such Latin nominatives as cani-s and lupu-s, and accu- 

 satives, as canc-m and lupu^m, the last letters a and m are no essential] 

 part* of the word, but indicate the relations of the word to which 

 they are attached to other words in a sentence. So with such words 

 aa ama-b am, mon-c-bam, audi-e-bam, the syllables ba, or eba, are the 

 sign of the past imperfect tense, whilst the letter m is the sign of the 

 person or pronoun /. The root of the nouns then, in these cases, 

 must be sought in the words cani and lupu in the nouns, and ama, 

 man, and audi amongst the verbs. As illustrations amongst the adjec- 

 tives, we may take such words as gracilis, similis, docilii, utilii, in 

 which Hit is evidently the sign of the adjective, and the root is to be 

 found in the words yrac-, tim-, doc-, and ut-. 



In ascertaining the relation of languages to each other, there are 

 three principal methods by which the relation between the different 

 words that compose a sentence i.s indicated. Of these three different 

 methods, the Chinese, the English, and the Latin and Greek, may be 

 taken as examples. In referring to the roots of words in Latin, we 

 (poke of the prefixes and affixes whjch altered their form ; and this 

 mode of expressing the relation of words in a language is characteristic 

 of the L;itin and Greek languages, and is called the classical method. 

 The words added are called Inflections, and such languages Inflectional. 

 In iuch a proposition aa te-tig-i homin-em, the em in the last word indi- 

 cates the relation between the object (the man touched), and the action 



expressed by the verb tetigi, that is, ' of touching." In tha verb the le 

 denotes the time, the i the agent. 



Now, although the English language has inflections, as is seen in such 

 words as ' sister-s,' ' touch-ed,' ' lov-ed,' yet, as a language, it may be 

 regarded, in contrast with the classical languages, as non-inflectional. 

 Thus, instead of saying tetigi, we say ' I have touched;' and instead of 

 homin-i, we say * to a man.' 



The Chinese resembles the English language in this respect, that it 

 has a separate word to express relations and objects, and is thus non- 

 inflectioual. The great difference however between the English and 

 Chinese languages is this, that the English has lost inflections which 

 it once had, whilst the Chinese has never acquired inflections. This 

 produces a great difference between the two languages, as in passing 

 through the condition of an inflectional language the Euglish has 

 acquired certain abstract terms which are not found in the Chinese. 

 Thus, when we should say ' I go to London,' the Chinese would say 

 ' I go end London.' They have no preposition indicating direction. 

 Instead of saying, ' The sun shines through the air,' the Chinese say, 

 ' The sun shines passage air,' and so on. 



In addition to these three kinds of language, we have another. 

 Instead of the inflections being merely letters or syllables added to 

 denote relationship, they are sometimes two words ; so that inflection 

 is developed as the result of juxtaposition, or composition. 



By these methods we can arrange all languages under the four 

 following heads : 



1. Aptotic (from a, not; and ptosls, a case). Languages without 

 inflections, and monosyllabic ; as the Chinese. 



2. Agglutinate. Languages which are inflectional, but which have 

 become so from the juxtaposition or composition of different words. 



3. Amalgamate. Languages with inflections, which cannot be shown 

 to have originated in separate and independent words. 



4. Anastatic (from ana, back ; and ptosis, a case). Languages which, 

 like the English, once possessed inflections, but have fallen back from 

 or lost them. 



In classifying the races of men, it must be remembered that the 

 divisions and subdivisions which are employed do not resemble those 

 which are used in the systematic classification of plants and animals. 

 When the whole of the species of the vegetable or the animal kingdom 

 have to be arranged, then we divide them into various primary and 

 subordinate groups, which are called classes, families, or orders, 

 genera, species, and varieties. Now man himself is but a species ; he 

 belongs to a subordinate group of a large division of the animal 

 kingdom. Zoologically considered, man is an animal belonging to the 

 class Vertebrata, the order Mammalia, the sub-order ffomiuidie, the 

 genus Homo, and species sapiens. 



The characters of this species given by Blumenbach, and generally 

 received, are : " Erect, 2-handed, unarmed, rational, endowed with 

 speech ; a prominent chin ; 4 incisor teeth above and below ; all the 

 teeth equally approximated ; the canine teeth of the same length as 

 the others ; the lower incisors erect." The same author divides the 

 species into five varieties, whose characters are as follows (Lawrence, 

 ' Lectures,' p. 477) : 



1. Caucasian Variety. A white skin, either with a fair roay tint, or 

 inclining to brown ; red cheeks ; hair black, or of the various lighter 

 colours, copious, soft, and generally curved or waving. Irides dark 

 in those with brown skin ; light in the fair or rosy complexioned. 

 Large cranium with small face ; the upper and anterior regions of 

 the former particularly developed, and the latter falling perpendicu- 

 larly under them. Face oval and straight, with distinct features ; 

 expanded forehead, narrow and rather aquiline nose, and small mouth ; 

 front teeth of both jaws perpendicular; lips, particularly the lower, 

 gently turned out ; chin full and rounded. Moral feelings and intel- 

 lectual powers most energetic, and susceptible of the highest develop- 

 ment and culture. This variety includes all the ancient and modern 

 Europaans except the Finns ; the former and present inhabitants of 

 Western Asia, as far as the river Oby, the Caspian Sea, and the Ganges 

 (that is, the Assyrians, Medes, and Chaldaeans ; the Sarmatians, 

 Scythians, and Parthians ; the Philistines, Phoenicians, Jews, and the 

 inhabitants of Syria generally ; the Tartars, properly so called ; the 

 tribes actually occupying the chain of Caucasus; the Georgians, 

 Circassians, Mingrelians, Armenians ; the Turks, Persians, Arabians, 

 Afghans, and Hindoos of high castes) ; and the northern Africans, the 

 Egyptians, Abyssiuiaas, and Guanches. 



2. The Mongolian Variety. Characterised by olive colour, which in 

 many cases is very light, and black eyes ; black, straight, strong, and 

 thin hair ; little or no beard ; head of a square form, with small and 

 low forehead; broad and flattened face, with the features running 

 together; the glabella flat and very broad; nose small and flat; 

 rounded cheeks, projecting externally ; narrow and linear aperture of 

 the eye-lids ; eyes placed very obliquely ; slight projection of the chin ; 

 large ears ; thick lips ; stature, particularly in the countries near the 

 North Pole, inferior to that of Europeans. It includes the tribes of 

 Central and Northern Asia, us the Mongols, Calmucks, and Buriats ; 

 the Mantchoos, Daiirians, Tungooses, and Coreans ; the Samoiedes, 

 Yukagtrs, Koriacs, Tschuktschi, audKamtchatkadales; the Chinese and 

 Japanese, the inhabitants of Tibet and Bootan, of Tonquin, Cochin- 

 China, Ava, Pegu, Cambodia, Laos, and Siam ; the Finnish races of 

 Northern Europe, as the Laplanders and the tribes of Esquimaux. 



