play a prominent part in these changes, nor what is- the general
character of the masses whom they influence. None can predict how
long the power or existence of these men will last, nor foretell what
will he the character of those who succeed them. If we wish to predict
the future, we must ascertain those great fundamental laws of
humanity to which all human passions and human thoughts must
ultimately be subject. We must know universal, as well as individual
man. These are questions upon which science alone has the right to
pronounce.
“ Where, we ask, are the historic evidences of universal human equality, or unity ? The
farther we trace hack the records of the past, the more broadly marked do we find all
human diversities. In no part of Europe, at the present day, can we discover the striking
national contrasts which Tacitus describes, still less those represented in the more ancient
pages of Herodotus.” 8
And nowhere on the face of the globe do we find a greater diver-
sity, or more strongly-marked types, than on the monuments of Egypt,
antedating the Christian era more than 3000 years.
Dr. James Cowles Prichard, for the last half century, has been the
grand orthodox authority with the advocates of a common origin for
the races of men. His ponderous work on the “ Physical History of
Mankind” is one of the noblest monuments of learning and labour
to he found in any language. It has been the never-exhausted reservoir
of knowledge from which most subsequent writers on Ethnology
have drawn; hut, nevertheless, as Mr. Burke has sagely remarked,
Prichard has been the “ victim of a false theory.” He commenced,
when adolescent, by writing a graduating thesis, at Edinburgh, in
support of the unity of races, and the remainder of his lo'ng life was
devoted to the maintenance of this first impression. We behold him,
year after year, like a hound giant, struggling with increasing strength
against the cords which cramp him, and we are involuntarily looking
with anxiety to see him hurst them asunder. But how few possess
the moral power to break through a deep-rooted prejudice!
Prichard published no less than three editions of his “ Physical
History of Mankind,” viz.: in 1813, 1826, and 1847. To one, how-
ever, who, like ouftelves, has followed him line by line, throughout his
whole Bteraiy life, the constant changes of his opinions, his “ special
pleading,” and his cool suppression of adverse facts, leave little confidence
in his judgment or his cause. He set out, in youth, by distorting
history and science to suit the theological notions of the day; and,
in his mature age, concludes the final chapter of his last volume by
abandoning the authenticity of the Pentateuch, which for forty years
had been the stumbling-block of his life. >
Dr. Prichard’s defence of the Book of Genesis, in the Appendix to
the fifth volume of his “Researches,” is certainly a very extraordinary
performance. He denies its genealogies ; denies its chronology; denies
all its historical and scientific details ; denies that it was written
by Moses ; admits that nobody knows who did write it ; and yet,
withal, actually endeavours “ to show that the sacred and canonical
authority of the Book of Genesis is not injured.”
We confess that we cannot understand why one half of the historical
portion of a book should be condemned as false and the other received
as true, when both stand upon equal authority. Nor do we think that
his dissection of other parts of the Old Testament leaves them in
much better condition, as regards their account of human origins.
Behold a sample :
“ The time of Ezra, after the Captivity, was the era of historical compilation, soon after
which the Hebrew language gave way to a more modern dialect. There are indications
that the whole of the Sacred Books passed, under several recensions during these successive
ages, when they were, doubtless, copied, and recopied, and illustrated by additional passages,
or by glosses, that might’ be1 requisite, in order to preserie their meaning to later times.
Such passages and glosses occur frequently in the different Books of Moses, and in the
older historical books, and we may thus, in a probable way, account for the presence of
many explanatory notices and comments, of comparatively later date, which, unless thus
accounted for, would add weight to the hypotheses ( ? ) of some German writers, who deny
the high antiquity of the Pentateuch.” 9
On the degree of orthodoxy claimed by the erudite Doctor in respect
to chronology, thè following extract will speak for itself :
“ Beyond that event [arrival of Abraham In Palestine,] we can never know how many
centuries, nor even how many thousands of years, may have elapsed since the first man of
clay received the image of God, and the breath of life. Still, as the thread of genealogy
has been traced, though probably with many great intervals, the whole duration of time
from the beginning must apparently have been within moderate bounds, and by no means
so wide and vast a space as the great periods of the Indian and Egyptian fabulists.”
Instead of thus nervously shifting his scientific and theological
grounds from year to year, how much more dignified, and becoming
to both science and religion, would it have, been, had Prichard simply
followed facts, wherever they might lead in science; and had he
frankly acknowledged that the Bible really gives no history of all the
races of Men, and but a meagre account of one ? He was indeed the
victim of a false theory; and we could not but be struck by the
applicability of the following pencil-note to his first volume (1813),
written on the margin, just forty years ago, by the late distinguished
Dr. Thomas Cooper, President of South Carolina College :
“ This is a book by an industrious compiler, but an inconclusive reasoner ; he wears the
orthodox costume of his nation and his day. No man can be a good reasoner who is marked
by clerical prejudices.”
Alas ! for his fame, Dr. Prichard continued to change his costume
with the fashion ; and some truths of the Universe, most essential to