216 
no one will cash. (Laughter.) That is the case with many of the possibilities 
in this paper. I do not wish to go through them all, but I have a number of 
most serious objections to urge. Let us take up the main theory of the paper, 
that there were several creations. I am aware that it is a very debate- 
able point, and that there is much to be said on both sides, but I fail to 
find anything in the shape of reasoning here, either on one side or the 
other ; and we cannot be called upon to believe anything on the mere 
ipse dixit of any one. I want a distinct and good reason for what I be- 
lieve, and I expect a person will tell me not only what he thinks but 
his reason for thinking so. I do not wish to occupy your time in dis- 
cussing the negative portions of the paper ; but I want to call your atten- 
tion to the fact that its historical statements are entirely unsupported by 
historical evidence as facts. I am unable to find any evidence of these 
various migrations. No doubt they are possible, but it does not follow 
because they are possible that we have any evidence of them in history. 
Let me turn to the beginning of the paper, and to the important question 
raised though not debated there. I mean the important question raised by 
Archbishop Whately as to the impossibility of barbarous races raising 
themselves up to civilization ; and I regret that I have not had time to 
read the Duke of Argyll’s or Sir John Lubbock’s observations on the sub- 
ject. This question of the origin of civilization is a most important one. 
The Archbishop of Dublin has maintained, and maintained justly, that so far 
as history goes, it is impossible to prove or quote an instance in which a 
barbarous race have civilized themselves by their own power. It is some 
time since I read Archbishop Whately’s book, and I am not prepared to say 
whether the reasoning he pursued is that which is described here by Professor 
Macdonald ; but the Professor seems to think that he proved that could not 
have been the case, and that the Archbishop inferred the impossibility from 
the fact that it never had taken place within historical knowledge. Now 
this is most important, although it does not involve the whole argument. If 
it can be shown, as I think it can, from any real, apart from mythical 
history, that no savage race have ever civilized themselves, that is a strong- 
ground for believing that man did not originate in a savage, but in a civilized 
state. So far I think the argument is exceedingly sound ; but now let 
us have a look at the facts of the case. Let us look at the first stage 
of historical knowledge ; and I will not deal with a mere set of myths. 
The Professor has referred to the myth of the island of Atalanta, and no 
doubt there is allusion to it in Plato ; but I believe it is a pure myth, and 
I do not think it is worthy of being dignified with the name of history. 
The Greek race can unquestionably be traced back to a very early period. 
We have the Homeric poems, which furnish the strongest possible testimony 
to the fact that the Greek race was not in a savage state when they were 
composed ; and it is certain, from the structure of the Greek language, that 
it did not originate with a race which was in a savage condition. Now, I have 
several times made observations upon language which have been misunder- 
stood. In speaking of language, I have not meant the mere framework of 
