PREFACE. xi 



Mr. Mivart, therefore, either has read Suarez and 

 has totally misrepresented him a hypothesis which, I 

 hope I need hardly say, I do not for a moment en- 

 tertain : or, he has got his information at second 

 hand, and has himself been deceived. But in that 

 case, it is surely an imprudence on his part, to 

 reproach me with having "read Suarez ad hoc, and 

 evidently without the guidance of anyone familiar with 

 that author." No doubt, in the matter of guidance, 

 Mr. Mivart has the advantage of me. Nevertheless, the 

 guides who supplied him with his references to Suarez' 

 " Metaphysica," while they left him in ignorance of the 

 existence of the " Tractatus," are guides with whose 

 services it might be better to dispense ; leaders who 

 wilfully shut their eyes, being even more liable to 

 lodge one in a ditch, than blind leaders. 



At the time when the essay on " Methods and Results 

 of Ethnology" was written, I had not met with a 

 passage in Professor Max Miiller's "Last Results of 

 Turanian Researches" 1 which shows so appositely, that 

 the profoundest study of philology leads to conclusions 

 respecting the relation of Ethnology with Philology, 

 similar to those at which I had arrived in approaching 

 the question from the Anatomist's side, that I cannot 

 refrain from quoting it : 



"Nor should we, in our phonological studies, either expect or 

 desire more than general hints from physical ethnology. The proper 

 and rational connection between the two sciences is that of mutual 



1 Bunsen's " Outlines of the Philosophy of Universal History," vol. i. 

 p. 349. 1854. 



