My final corroboration of the Humboldts’ doctrine has to be drawn
from the antipodes. Strange! Whilst amid the civilizations of Europe
and America no independent Ethnologic serial has hitherto
been able to survive, far less to remunerate its editor, mankind’s
most “ proper study ” has found, for some ten years, asylum and
patronage at Singapore!37
The merit is due to the genius, acquirements, and enterprise of
an individual. If each of the eight zoological realms over which
Agassiz distributes the various groups of mankind could boast of
possessing its Mr. L ogan, English science would not have to deplore
the continued absence of that true spirit of ethnological investigation,
coupled with perfect knowledge of the instruments to be employed
in nearly all but the Malayan.
“Ethnology, in its etymological and narrowest sense,38 is ”—according
to Logan’s judgment—“ the science of nations. It investigates
the characteristics and history of the various tribes of man. The
time seems to be already come when we may venture to define it
more comprehensively as the science of the Human Race. From the
investigation of the peculiarities and histories of particular tribes it
rises to the conception of mankind as one race, and combining the
truth which it gathers from every tribd, presents the whole as the
science of the ethnic development of man. Those who may consider
it premature to unite all nations in the idea of one race, can still
accept the definition as indicating the science that results from a
comparison of nations and their developments. Whether all men
are descended from one stock or not, may be placed apart as an
enquiry t^y itself, for those who think it worth while to pursue it in the
present state of our knowledge. All are agreed that man is of one
kind. If the millions who now people the earth had some hundreds
of progenitors instead of a single pair, the science which the definition
comprises will remain unaffected.” * * * *
I may state here, once for all, that ethnology can only be pursued
as a scientific study by viewing the Hebraic religious development,
and the Hebrew records, in their human aspect; that is, as
entering into the ethnic development of the Aramaean race and of
the world. The supernatural element, and all the discussions respecting
the limits of inspiration and the methods of interpretation, belong
to theological science, and amongst all the discordant systems of the81
The Journal of the Indian Archipelago and Eastern Asia, 1847-56; edited by J. R.
Lo g a n , Singapore.
. 88 Journ. of the East. Indian Archip., vol. iv., 1850; “ The Ethnology of the Indian Archipelago;
embracing inquiries into the continental relations of the Indo-Pacific Islanders;”
pp. 262, 263 note: and vol. vi., 1852; p. 678-9.
ology, that can only be true which is in harmony with the truths
established by the observation of God’s works.” * * * * * *
“ There is a deep-rooted source of error in Bunsen’s ethnic speculations,
39 as in those of many other German philosophers, the
Schlegels amongst them. It is assumed that the ethnology of the
ancient Hebrews, as preserved in their sacred books, is a full reflection
of that of the world. I have, in another place, protested
against this resumption, in ethnology, of the system that has impeded
the progress of eveiy branch of knowledge in succession,
from Astronomy to Geology, that of endeavoring to bind down the
human mind to the science of the ancient Hebrews. There has
been no divine revelation of Ethnology any more than of Geology,
Zoology, or any other purely-mundane science.
“We might as justly refuse to recognize the existence of plants,
animals, and planets, that are not mentioned in the Bible, as base
our Ethnology on that of a people who were perhaps the least
ethnologic of all great civilized nations that have existed. It is
obvious that any ethnic science that does not embrace every tribe
and language in the world must be needlessly imperfect, and that
an exclusion of large sections of the human race must render it
grossly so. How it is certain that the Hebrews were ignorant of
39 Alluding probably to the Chevalier’s paper, “ On the results of recent Egyptian researches,”
&c.— Three linguistic Dissertations ; Report of the British Assoc, for the Adv. of
Science for 1847; London, 8vo., 1848:—because the Outlines of the Philosophy of Universal
History (supra, note 16), 1854, could not have arrived at' Singapore four years previously.
And, while on this subject, let me repudiate the preposterously-misnamed Turanian theory, as
applied to the Aborigines of America! Conceding, to the learned Egyptologist and classical
scholar, the highest admiration for his acquirements in such arduous studies, it would
have been prudent in him, perhaps, by withholding an endorsement of S c h o o l c r a f t ’s
Historf of the Indian Tribes of North America (already five volumes, elephant quarto!), not
to have exposed himself to the charge of discussing themes upon which he possesses little
or no knowledge himself, and his authority, save in the capacity of recorder of the habits
of such living tribes as official peregrinations afforded, but a trifle more. Chev. Bunsen
labors under singular delusion, if he considers that this “ great national work” (Outlines, II,
pp. 111-13), carries any weight among men of science in this country. Americans feel
proud, that their Legislature should have generously voted “ $80,856.50” (cost of the first
three volumes alone! see the North American Review, Boston, 1853, Art. XI, on Parts I, II,
and III, p. 246), towards the promotion of knowledge; Philadelphia may justly boast of
the beautiful typography, splendid paper, and superb mechanical execution, of the work;
and it likewise contains several contributions of a high order from distinguished men:
but I will frankly state, from personal acquaintance with scientific sentiment, during fifteen
years that I have visited, the best-educated States in the Union, that, in the opinion of those
qualified to judge, a twenty-five-cent pamphlet could easily condense all the knowledge
paraded, in these five big volumes, by its industrious author. With this respectful hint
to Chev. Bunsen and Prof. Max-Muller, I postpone specifications to a more suitable occa-
8lon; because, at present, with regard to this and other Washingtonian literary. nstitutions,
Nunquam concessa moveri Camarina (Virgil, AEn., I ll, 701).