fident that I can scatter some of your facts to the winds— yet in others you will be very
apt to trip up my own heels; so let us work harmoniously together. At the English Universities
they hare wranglers, but no quarrellers.”
This seems manly and friendly, and Morton, feeling it to he such,
was very much gratified. He certainly never could have regarded it
as a prelude to an attack upon himself; yet such it was. The next
spring (1850) witnessed the publication of Dr. B.’s hook on Unity, as
well as his Monograph on Hybridity, in the Charleston Medical Journal,
m both of which Morton is made the object of assault and attempted
ridicule. The former work I have already referred to, (p. xlvi.) The
author starts with what amounts, under the circumstances, to a broad
and unequivocal confession of ignorance of his topic — a confession
which, however praiseworthy on the score of frankness, may be regarded
as wholly supererogatory; for no reader of ordinary intelligence
can open the book without perceiving the fact for himself. His reading
seems to have been singularly limited,* while the topic, involving, as
it does, the characteristics of remote races, &c., demands a wide and
careful consultation of authorities. For one who is confessedly
neither an archaeologist, an anatomist, nor a philologist, to attempt
to teach Ethnology on the strength of having, many years ago, read
on the subject a single work — and he scarcely recollects what — is a
conception as bold as it is original. His production required no
notice, of course, at the hand of Morton. On tfie special subject of
Hybridity, however, he was entitled to an attentive hearing as a gentleman
of established authority, particularly in the mammalian department
of Zoology. Had he discussed it in the spirit foreshadowed
by his letter, and which Morton anticipated, there would have been
no controversy, but an amicable comparison of views, advancing the
cause of science. But his tone was- arrogant and offensive. Hot only
to the general reader in his book, but also to Morton in his letters,
* “ In preparing these notes we hare even resolved not to refer to Prichard—who, we
believe, is justly regarded as one of our best authorities—whofe work we read with ghat interest
some years ago, (and which is allowed even by his opponents to have been written in a
spirit of great fairness,) and many of whose arguments we at the time considered unan-
swerable.” (p. 16.)
“ After this work was nearly printed, we procured Prichard’s Natural History of Man —
his other works we have not seen. We were aware of the conclusions at which his mind had
arrived, but not of the process by which his investigations had been pursued,” (p. 304.)
Now, as the Natural History was not published until 1843, it cpuld hardly be the book
read “ some years ago” (prior to 1849); especially as Dr. B. confesses ignorance “ of the
process, &e.” [supra.] That must have been one of the earlier volumes of the Physical
Researches, commenced in 1812, probably the very first, which leaves the subject short of
the point to which Blumenbach subsequently brought it. But Dr. B. assures us again, that
other work of Prichard than the Natural History he “ has never seen.” Then he never saw
any, before writing his own book! His memory is certainly extremely vague. It is safe
to conclude, however, that he undertook to write upon this difficult subjeot without the
direct consultation of a single authority:—the result is what might be readily anticipated.
does he speak de Tiaut en has, as if, from the height of the pulpit, he
was looking down upon men immeasurably removed from him by
his sacred office. This faulty manner perhaps results from his profession,
as does his verbose and declamatory style. But this consideration
will not excuse the patronizing way in which he addresses
one of higher scientific rank than himself. He reminds Morton of
the countenance he has heretofore given him,—that he even subscribed
for his book! The authorities relied upon by the latter he treats with
supreme contempt, individually and collectively, characterizing them
as pedantic, antiquated, and “ musty.”* All this is carried through
in a bold, dashing, off-hand way, calculated to impress forcibly any
reader ignorant of the matter under discussion. I t argues the most
confident self-complacency and conviction of superiority on the part
of the writer, and doubtless his admiring readers shared the feeling.
For a short season there was quite a jubilation over the assumed
defeat of the physicists.
But there is an Italian proverb which says, Non sernpre chi cantando
viene, cantando va! and which Dr. B. was destined to illustrate. To
his first paper Morton replied in a letter dated March 30th, 1850, the
tone of which is calm, dignified, and friendly. He defends his authorities,
: accumulates new evidence, and strengthens and defines his
position. This called forth Dr. B.’s'most objectionable letter of June
12th, 1850, also published in the Charleston Journal, and in which
he entirely passes the bounds of propriety. Ho longer satisfied with
his poor attempts at wit, which consist almost exclusively in the use
of the word “ old” and its synonymes, he becomes denunciatory, and
even abusive. He charges Morton with taking' part in a deliberate
conspiracy, having.its ramifications in four cities, for the overthrow
of a doctrine “ nearly connected with the faith and hope of the Christian,
for this world and for eternity.” In another paragraph, (p. 507,)
he says, that infidelity must inevitably spring up as the consequence
of adopting Morton’s views. How, we all know that when 'gentlemen
of ,Dr. B.’s cloth use that word, they mean war usque ad necem.
Its object is simply to do mischief and give pain. It cannot injure
* Dr. Bachman’s contempt for everything “ old” is certainly very curious in one so likely,
from calling and position, to be particularly conservative. Nor is this his only singularity.
His pertinacious ascription of a remote date to every one whose name has a Latinized
termination, reminds one of the story told of the backwoods lawyer, who persisted in
numbering “ old Cantharides” among the sages of antiquity. He is particularly hard upon
“ °ld Hellenius,” never failing to give him a passing flout, and talking abqut raising his
ghost. The writings of Dr. B. do not indicate a very sensitive person, yet even he must
have felt a considerable degree of the sensation known as cutis anserina, when he received
the information, conveyed in Morton’s quietest manner, that “ old Hellenius,” with others
of his so-called “ musty” authorities, were his own contemporaries! The work of Chevreul,
which he disposes of in the same supercilious way, bears the extreme date of 1846!