And finally, Alfred Maury, no raw recruit even in the physical
sciences, the analysis of which preceded his present high status in the
archaeological and ethnographic—reviewing H otz’s De Gobineau, and
s Ungleiehheit menschlicher Dassen,100 critically observes “ The
constitution of the human mind is one, without doubt; hut what sur-
mfies the mental unity of humanity, if, in its application, men treat
each other as members of inimical or rival families,—if the force of
things always condemns the ones to fall beneath the domination of
the others, and to extinguish themselves in their arms ? To dispute
about knowing whether races constitute different ‘species,’ or merely
‘varieties,’ is to put forth school-divinity and not science. That which
is necessary is, to measure the extent of separations, and hence ascertain
the proportions of those inequalities that none can deny. The
name which one may give to human races will not affect the thing
itself, nor in any way alter the reality.”
“ V a r io s S d c r o n e h s i s a i t , Æ m i l iu s S c a it r it s n e g a t : u t r i c r e d it is , q u irit 'e s ? ” ™
In the face of such objections, before an archæologist can subscribe
unconditionally to the “ unity of the human ‘specifes,’ ” he ought to
wait until some revelation enables those who use this apothegm to
show that they really comprehend the signification of a term logically
inherent in their proposition. That is to say, _ adopting here the
orcible if trite aphorism of a scientific colleague—in plain English
and without diplomatic circumlocution, when dictionaries furnish me'
with as precise a meaning for the term “ species ” as I can discover
for such words as beef, or mutton,102 it will he time enough for accepting
its alleged corollary, viz : the “ unity” of sanguineous, or congenital,
descent for all the diverse groups of men—now distinct in
colors, in conformations, in languages, in geographical habitats, in
historical traditions, and in all their other countless moral, intellectual,
and physical phenomena—from a mythic “ Adam and Eve.”
“ At the very onset we are met by the question, What is a species?
and sides will be taken according to the answer each one is ready to
adopt. The definition of a species does not necessarily include
descent from a single pair, because the first male [AISA1 and the
first female [AISAaH] would, by the definition, be of different species,
—acutely remarks Prof. H a ldem an .103 -
In that whereon everybody, whether competent to decide or not,
volunteers an “ opinion,” typographical facilities coeteris paribus
100 Athenoeum Français, P a r i s , 19 Aral, 1856 ; p 328
101 B e n t “ y > e d . 1836 ; i . , p . x i i . ; from Vol. Max. Mi. 7.
in ™üiïem^ o Z T re unpeu fêTow; Ma“’ sacri bim' ü est w m
m Recent Freshwater Mollusca ( s u p r a ) p p . 3 - 4 .
enable me to do the same; and mine, on this mystified term “ species,
as applicable to the genus homo alone, will, like that of other
men, pass for what it may be worth: the critic always remembering
that a definition is precise in the ratio of the fewness of its words!
I submit to fellow-archseologists__
S p e c ie s ; that which, through conjunction with itself, always,
according to experience, reproduces itself.
Thus, byway of example, the union of a negro with a n egress
produces a negro ; that of an American Indian with a squaw produces
an Indian; that of a Jew (circumcision, in- or ex- elusive) with a
Jewess produces a Jew; that of a Saxon male with a Saxon female
produces a Saxon; and so forth, invariably, throughout all the families
of men. In any case where the offspring of each chances not
to be identical, in its race-character, with the supposed parents, such
deviation can occur only where either parent is not of pure blood;
and proves, ipso facto, that the ancestral pedigrees of one or the other
procreator must, within the limit of about three to seven (or more)
preceding generations, have been crossed by a foreign stock.
. Indeed’.I do not why the first definition of Prichard does not
circumscribe all the above examples. It is that given in the second
edition,1 1826, of his erudite works; which differs, not merely
through the entire absence of this lucid rule in theirs«,1051813; but
also essentially from the one laid down at a later period, 1837, in
the third.™ Prichard’s capacious mind, like that of all conscientious
inquirers, was progressive; and those who really know the various
editions of his “ Researches,” cannot fail to admire how quickly he
dropped one hypothesis after another, until his last volume closes
with a complete abandonment of the unity of Genesis itself.107 It
is probable that his biographer, Dr. Cull, is as little acquainted with
toese bibliophile discrepancies, as with ethnological criticism gene-
1826~HebreW pal8e°graphy^inclusive.108 Prichard printed in a . d.
“ The meaning attached to the term Species [almost identical with
m Researches into the Physical History of Man, London, 2d edition, 8vo, 1826 • vol. I
pp. 90—1.
106 °P nt"' lst ed!tion’ London> 8vo, 1813—nothing of the kind!
of M a ? k iS ”^ s i 410“’ L°nd0n’ 8V0’ 1837: TOl‘ P' 105:- oited at - “ Types
Physical History of Mankind, 8vo, London, 1847; vol. V, pp. 560-65.
‘« N o r r is ’s edition of Prichard’s Natural History of Man; London, Baillikre, 1854-
Secre’taPr v ”X t o X : _ “ Sh,°rl bi0graPlliCal NOti°e’” by El0HAED Cd“ ’ “ Honorary
Pane! B i i 1 1 1 may be “ en-ed from his critique of Agassiz’s
P (Add,ess to the Ethnological Society of London, May, 1854; London, 8vo, pp 12-13 k