Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

LECTURE THE THIRD;

ON

THE NATURAL HISTORY OF THE HUMAN RACE.

PART I.

HISTORY of this science.-Division of Human Families among the Greeks.-Aristotle's Classification.-Who are his Egyptians?-Proofs that they represent the Negro race; the Scythians and the Thracians are Germanic and Mongul tribes.Later writers.-System of Camper explained; its difficulties.— Blumenbach's System of Classification.-Division into three primary, and two secondary, Families: first, by the form of the skull; secondly, by the colour, hair, and iris.-Geographical distribution of families.-Distinction between Tartars and Monguls.-Labours of Dr. Prichard.-Opposers of the unity of the human race; Virey, Desmoulins, Borey de Saint-Vincent; Theory of Lamarck. RESULTS.-I. Remote examination of the subject by analogy of plants and animals.— Examples of varieties in these of a similar character to those observable in man. II. Direct examination of phenomena on a small scale.-Tendency of one family to produce varieties possessing the characteristics of another. Examples of more extraordinary peculiarities springing up among men.-Reflections on the identity of moral feelings in all races, as applicable to the proof of their common origin.

Ir St. Paul warns us to avoid perplexing ourselves with vain and endless genealogies, it might be thought that the study whereon we are now

entering, belongs to the forbidden class. For, assuredly, the attempt to trace out the course and origin of each variety in the human species back to one common progenitor, must seem an almost hopeless task; when we consider how the investigation it requires has been involved in numerous and complicated questions, by the contradictory statements of writers, and by the conflicting principles on which it has been conducted. Still, the successful results of the science last discussed may well encourage us to undertake the examination of this its sister science-the history of the human race. It may, indeed, be said that their objects are very nearly the same, even so far that a common name might perhaps be given them, descriptive of their object, with a distinctive epithet to mark the processes whereby they seek to attain it. And if the former was rightly called philological, this might be not unaptly styled physiognomical Ethnography.

The former has already brought us to the satisfactory conclusion, that so far as languages in their comparative bearings may be heard in evidence on the subject, the entire human race formed originally one family, or, in the words of the sacred penman, were of one lip and one speech." But, if great difficulties had to be overcome for the vindication of this scriptural assertion, arising from the great variety of idioms which now divide the tribes of earth, a stronger and more complicated one yet remains, striking

more directly at the unity of the human race, and its origin from one stock. This consists in the consideration of those physical differences that distinguish the human form, in various regions of the globe.

The Word of God hath always considered mankind as descended from one parent, and the great mystery of redemption rests upon the belief that all men sinned in their common father. Suppose different and unconnected creations of men, and the deep mystery of original sin, and the glorious mystery of redemption, are blotted out from religion's book. Is it not then important to answer their reasoning, who maintain it is impossible to reduce the many varieties of human families into one species, or trace them to one common progenitor; who assert that natural history doth show such deeply-entrenched divisions between the physical characteristics of different nations, as that one could never have been derived from the other; and that no conceivable action of causes, either instantaneous or progressive, could have ever altered the European's shape or colour into the negro's, or caused "the Ethiopian to change his skin," and produce the Asiatic race? And how shall this confutation be obtained? Assuredly by no other means than I have already suggested to you, and intend often yet to inculcate and exemplify-by the deeper study of that very science which has engendered the objection-by the collection of yet better

evidence than has already been produced-and by a well-digested classification of phenomena, whence satisfactory conclusions may be drawn.

This task, pursuant to my engagements, I enter upon this morning. I will premise a historical view of this science, dwelling, perhaps, more fully than may appear consistent with my plan, upon the earliest stages of its history, for motives which will easily be seen; I will then endeavour to classify and arrange the conclusions which the study in its present state may justly warrant us to draw, supporting them with such additional illustrations as I have been able to collect, and then will leave you to compare these conclusions with the history of the human race delivered to us in Genesis.

The mention of this sacred record brings before my mind, with regret, a passage, which being, as it were, preliminary to the very subject I am going to handle, and presenting a direct contradiction to what I have just asserted, I may not in silence pass over. "The Mosaic account," says a learned writer, "does not make it quite clear that the inhabitants of the world descended from Adam and Eve. Moreover, the entire, or even partial inspiration of the various writings comprehended in the Old Testament, has been, and is, doubted by many persons, including learned divines, and distinguished oriental and biblical scholars To the grounds of doubt respecting inspiration, which arise from the examination of various nar

ratives, from knowledge of the original and other oriental languages, and from the irreconcileable opposition between the passions and sentiments ascribed to the Deity by Moses, and that religion of peace and love unfolded by the Evangelists, I have only to add, that the representations of all the animals being brought before Adam in the first instance, and, subsequently, of their being all collected in the ark, if we are to understand them as being applied to the living inhabitants of the whole world, are zoologically impossible." The first assertion in this quotation is supported in a note, by citing the passages where it is said, "God created man, male and female," and again (chap. v.), "in the day that God created man, male and female he created them." These passages the author supposes to refer to a different creation from that of Eve.* I am sorry to offer any comment upon this passage, because its author, I am sure, no longer holds the opinions he here incautiously expressed. But the value of the work itself, as a great collection of important facts, connected together by very learned observations, will continue to give it weight, and ensure it the perusal of the young. And therefore I will venture to make a few remarks upon the theological portion of the argument. The author's conclusions from the investigation of the science are perfectly in accordance

* Lectures on Physiology, Zoology, and the Natural History of Man. Lond. 1819, p. 248.

« AnteriorContinuar »