Serres,143 Herder, Carpenter, and many other writers, of more or less
note, upon physiological. To these, although his proper locus standi
should be under the letter A, may he added Dr. Hall,144 the learned
editor of Bohn’s London edition of P ickering’s Races of Man.m
An eminent and far-travelled naturalist, accustomed to observe facts
and weigh evidence equitably, the latter has maintained strict neutrality
in describing the H eleven races of men ” seen by himself;
and the best proof of the high value attached to Dr. Pickering’s
opinion, no less than of his impartiality, is, that passages of his work
have been cited by Morton in support of diversity, and by others of
the unity of mankind.
There is a third hypothesis to which it is still more difficult to
assign a place. Emanating from the schools of transcendental anatomy,
none hut embryologists are competent to discuss its manifestations.
Posited in the language of Dr. Knox,146 its logical consequences
would certainly demonstrate an unity of human origins ;
but upon principles, it strikes me, more disagreeable to theologers
than even the establishment of diversity itself !
“ ‘ There is hut one animal,’ said Geoffroy, I not many and to this
vast and philosophic view, the mind of Cuvier himself, towards the
close of life, gradually approached. It is, no doubt, a correct one.
Applied to man, the doctrine amounts to this, — Mankind is of one
family, one origin. In every embryo is the type of all the races of
148 Le Moniteur, Paris, 3 Fey., 1855 ; Feuilleton, “ Muséum d’histoire naturelle—Cours
d’Anthropologie de M. Serres”—“ M, Serres a déclaré tout d’ahord ses convictions en ce qui
touche Vunité humaine. Il y croit fermement, et s’indigne (!) parfois contre ceux qui osent
élever la-dessus l’ombre d’une doute.” This virtuous indignation sits well on the author of
Anatomie comparée du Cerveau dans les 4 classes des Animaux Vertébrés (Paris, 1824—see Atlas,
p. 40, figs. 264, 266; and Pl. xiv., figs. 264-6), who, under the head, which he was
unable to procure, of an “ encéphale du lion (felis leo)” drawn a fourth of its size, actually
substituted that of a cat ; as some of his malicious colleagues of the Académie des Sciences
proved in public session !
144 “ An Analytical Synopsis of the Natural History of Man ’’—^-London, 12mo., 1851 ; pp.
xxvii-xliii — being a sort of rifacimento of “ Interesting Facts connected with the Animal
Kingdom -, with some remarks on the Unity of our Species” (London, 8vo., 1841 ; pp. 93r-
102 ; indeed, passim to p. 206) :—which appropriately ends with a saying of “ the preacher,
* The black man is God’s image like ourselves [!] though carved in ebony.’ ”
Does he really mean what he says? Has he ever thought of the converse of this antiquated
Jewish proposition [Gen. i. 26) ? If so, we part company in conceptions of Creative
Power (see “ Types,” p. 564) : and I leave our preacher to translate a French commentary
—“ ‘ Dieu créa Vhomme selon son image f et Vhomme le lui a bien rendu / ”
145 United States Exploring Expedition, vol. ix., Boston, 4to., 1848.
146 Races of Men, Phil, éd., 1850; pp. 297-8. For the contrary argument, see Nouveau
Discours sur les Révolutions du Globe, par Aj. d e Gr. et P. (translators of Lyell’s Principles
of Geology), Paris, 1836 ; ii. pp. 36-47—“ De la permanence des Espèces, en d’autres termes,
jusqu’à quel point les espèces peuvent-elles être modifiées ?”
men; the circumstances determining these various races of men as
they now, and have existed, are as yet unknown; but they exist,’no
doubt, and must be physical; regulated by secondary laws, not
changing, slowly or suddenly, the existing order of things. The
idea of new creations, or of any creation saving that of living
matter, is wholly inadmissible. * * * In conclusion: the permanent
varieties of men, permanent at least seemingly during the historic
period, originate m laws elucidated in part by embryology bv the
aws of the unity of organization, in a word, by the great laws of
transcendental anatomy.”
Between Dr. Knox’s embryonic suggestions, and the “ development
theory espoused by a previous defender of unity,™ it is not
f w ¡ 8 i m 6 the hne °f demarcatioLK Certain, however, is it
that this brilliant writer, whatever may have been his success in
supplementary editions of his daring book, while repelling assaults
upon his accuracy m other fields of speculative science, broke down
hopelessly when he treated on mankind,—the authorities cited by
him being sufficient testimony that his reading on, ethnology was
exceedingly limited; and, still more unfortunately, it is patent that
through assumption of a- single origin for all the races of men he
makes humanity itself an , exception to the so-called law of organic
development which his antecedent pages, with singular ingenuity
had endeavored to establish. His “ unity” becomes, in consequence
a non-seqmtur; whereas (without committing myself to any opinion
on a theory which Agassiz143 pronounced to be “ contrary to all the
modern results of science”), had the author of “ Vestiges” sought in
paleontological discoveries and in historical inductions, for evidences
that sundry inferior races of men preceded, in epoch, the superior, I
11 not say that he could, eleven years ago, have proved a new proposition,
of which science, even yet, has only caught some glimmerng8.’
but he would> at a11 ^ents, have satisfied the requirements of
consistency.
Yet another monogenistio point of view has been recently pre-
f ? n ~ t0 mySelf> however, not very intelligible. “ I do not, therefore,
writes p r. Draper, “ contemplate the human race as COnsistl
l l l ^ ^ N,ew York ed- 18451 “ Hypothesis of the Development of the
1» 1 and Animal kingdoms;” and, for man, pp. 223-32, compared with p. 177
the E S 2 natnral P™ ™ 63 of the Animal World, and their relation to
M P T l « P<!S ’ P' : ^published in substance by Mr. James Heywood,
1855 ’and w - tp « 8,8 “ t PpendlX ‘° 1 of hi? .translation of Von B o h lm ’s Genesis,
fp 27«? i i Y SUal m:stake of “ Hottentot realmg instead of “ Hottentot fa u n a "
tetiewe!’. / 7 I * ! a PreVi0US iDStanoe of thi3 particular oversight in our
timewers [supra, note 108); as we proceed, many others will be indicated.
Human Physiology, New York, 1856, pp. 565-6
29