' VARIETIES OF MANKIND. 



1319 



urged by Professor Agassiz, who has adopted 

 in regard to the human races the same views 

 as he has put forth with respect to many other 

 species (p. 1310.) ; and who thus upholds the 

 " unity of mankind," whilst contending for the 

 diversity of " protoplasts." 



" We recognise," he says, " the fact of the 

 unity of mankind. It excites a feeling that raises 

 men to the most elevated sense of their connec- 

 tion with each other. It is but the reflection of 

 that Divine nature which pervades their whole 

 being. It is because men feel thus related to 

 each other that they acknowledge those ob- 



ligations of kindness and moral responsibility 

 which rest upon them in their mutual relations. 

 And it is because they have this innate feeling, 

 that they are capable of joining in regular 

 societies, with all their social and domestic 

 affinities. This feeling unites men from the 

 most diversified regions. Do we cease to 

 recognise this unity of mankind, because we 

 are not of the same family, because we ori- 

 ginate in various countries, and are born in 

 America, England, Germany, France, Switzer- 

 land ? Where the relationship of blood has 

 ceased, do we cease to acknowledge that ge- 

 neral bond which unites all men of every na- 

 tion? By no means. This is a bond which 

 every man feels more and more, the farther he 

 advances in his intellectual and moral culture, 

 and which in this development is continually 

 placed upon higher and higher ground ; so 

 much so, that the physical relation arising 

 from a common descent is finally entirely lost 

 sight of, in the consciousness of the higher 

 moral obligations. It is this consciousness 

 which constitutes the true unity of mankind." 

 This unity, he continues, may become a yet 

 stronger bond of moral affinity, than that 

 afforded by community of descent. " Where 

 men of the same -nation, individuals whose 

 studies, whose calling in life have developed 

 in them the same faculties, the same feelings, 

 are brought closely together, relations spring 

 up between them so intimate as by far to 

 outweigh the natural bonds which a com- 

 mon parentage may establish between men. 

 Such individuals do not feel themselves to be 

 near each other, do not sympathise in their 

 aspirations, do not join in the same purposes, 

 because they are brothers, because they belong 

 to the same family, because they are of the 

 same nation ; but because they feel that they 

 are men, and that the natural dispositions 

 wherewith they are endowed as men are de- 

 veloped in them in a similar manner, and with 

 reference to the same great human interests. 

 Is there any one who would consider the ties 

 between two such individuals on that intel- 

 lectual and moral ground, as lessened because 

 they may not be physically related at all ? or 

 who would consider the differences in their 

 physical features as an objection to their being 

 more intimately connected than other men 

 who in features resembled them more, or are 

 related to them more closely, perhaps by the 

 nearest ties of blood ? We can therefore take 

 it as a matter of fact, that, as we find men 

 actually living together in the world, it is not 



the physical relation which establishes the 

 closest connection between them, but that 

 higher relation arising from the intellectual 

 constitution of man." Professor Agassiz then 

 refers to various departments of Natural His- 

 tory, as affording proof " that the closest and 

 most intimate unity may exist without a com- 

 mon origin, without a common descent, with- 

 out that relationship which is often denoted 

 by the expression 'ties of blood.' On the 

 other hand, that these ties of blood may exist, 

 without necessarily calling forth the higher 

 connections which may be found between in- 

 dividuals of the same type, is, alas I too plainly 

 shown by the history of mankind. The im- 

 mediate conclusion from these facts, however, 

 is the distinction we have made above, that 

 to acknowledge a unity in mankind, to show 

 that such a unity exists, is not to admit that 

 men have a common origin, nor to grant that 

 such a conclusion may be justly derived from 

 such premises. We maintain, therefore, that 

 the unity of mankind does not imply a com- 

 munity of origin for men ; we believe, on the 

 contrary, that a higher view of this unity of 

 mankind can be taken, than that which is de- 

 rived from a mere sensual connection; that 

 we need not search for the highest bond of 

 humanity in a mere animal function, whereby 

 we are most closely related to the brutes."* 



The Anatomical differences by which the 

 several races of Mankind are distinguished 

 from each other, may be referred to the fol- 

 lowing heads : 



1. Conformation of the cranium. 



2. Conformation of the pelvis. 



3. Conformation of other parts of the 

 skeleton. 



4. Colour of the skin. 



5. Colour, texture, and mode of growth of 

 the hair. 



By most writers on the diversities of 

 mankind, the varieties which are observable 

 in the conformation of the bony skeleton, 

 and particularly in that of the cranium and 

 pelvis, have been thought to furnish distinc- 

 tive characters of more importance than those 

 derived from the colour of the skin, or the 

 texture of the hair; since, while a certain 

 capability of alteration in the latter, under 

 climatic influences, can scarcely be gainsayed, 

 it might be supposed, a priori, that strongly 

 marked peculiarities in the configuration of 

 the skull, in the proportion of the parts of the 

 body, and in the development of the brain, 

 would be less likely to undergo alteration. 

 Special attention will be here bestowed, there- 

 fore, upon the first three of this series of 

 characters. 



1 . Conformation of the Cranium. In esti- 

 mating the degrees of diversity presented by 

 the skulls of various races, it is absolutely 

 necessary that some definite method of com- 

 parison should be fixed upon. The first 

 attempt of this kind of which we have any 

 account, was made by Camper j who main- 



* Christian Examiner, Boston, N.E. Jan. 1850. 

 4P 4 



