90 Chronicles of Science. [Jan., 



assert it properly to be the de facto science of men and monkeys. 

 Perhaps there is not much in a name, and if there were anything 

 better done in Anthropology than in Ethnology, we might not feel 

 disposed to quibble more about the one than the other, any more than 

 we should over Geognosy and Geology. It is not, however, certain 

 whether we ought to regard the study which Ethnology pursues as 

 the " Science of Man ; " it is much to be questioned whether we should 

 not begin at least with the " study of Races" for whether all mankind 

 came from a single source, or from a plurality of origins, it is equally 

 a fact, equally certain, that numerous races of men do exist. If then, 

 we can classify, and describe under an accurate system of terms those 

 races which do exist, there will have been established the rudiments of 

 a proper science, which can be expanded and elaborated in all direc- 

 tions. But whilst one person describes a Celt as having a round head, 

 or brachyccphalic skull, and another insists that his head was long 

 and his skull dolichocephalic, it would be idle to contend that even 

 the proper foimdations of the Science have as yet been clearly esta- 

 blished. Nor is Anthropology in any better position. All that has 

 been done under either name — valuable though much of it be — has 

 been in a high degree erratic and unsatisfactory. Nor, in saying this, 

 Avould we in any way detract from the valuable labours of Blumenbach, 

 Pritchard, Latham, Knox, Nott, and Gliddon, Crawfurcl, Broca, and 

 many others, living and dead, not the least of whom, and, to the mind 

 of the writer, the most philosophical of all, is Georges Pouchet, whose 

 concise and logical work ' Sur la Pluralite des Paces Humaines,' 

 deserves to be everywhere read, albeit that it is violently opposed to 

 the ordinary faith in the unity of mankind. Of this remarkable book 

 a second edition was recently published, and was almost immediately 

 followed by a translation under the direction of the Anthropological 

 Society of London, but which, to the regret of every one, has proved 

 so full of errors, both of translation and in the rendering of the 

 author's meaning, as to have been universally condemned by the critics 

 of the periodical press. Perhaps it is this fear of admitting a plurality 

 of origins for the varieties of mankind that has been the greatest cause 

 of obstruction to the progress of Ethnology as a science ; certainly 

 the hard tuggings in opj>osite directions by the monogenists and poly- 

 genists have been the primary source of all the confusions and contra- 

 dictions with which both Ethnology and Anthropology abound. Both 

 views should be candidly and fairly discussed, unbiassed by any 

 religious faith or any theological considerations. The chemist does 

 not work in his laboratory Bible in hand, why then should the Ethno- 

 logist any more than the Geologist be restricted to seeing everything 

 through the first chapter of Genesis ? If all human beings, black, red, 

 and white, be the children of one primitive Adam, let us philosophi- 

 cally prove it by the inherent force of truth elicited from facts by 

 logical deductions. If the various races come from different origins, 

 and bear, like species of plants and animals, the impress of different 

 natures and adaptations for different uses, then let it be so admitted 

 frankly and fearlessly, when facts and proper arguments h&ve positively 

 proved it. 



