Chapter XXI: Appendix (2)

_Permanence of type_, then, is the only test which he can adduce for the designation of species, and he here comes back plainly to the position we have taken. Let us now test the races of men by this rule. The white Asiatic races, the Jew, the Arab, the Egyptian, the negro, at least, are distinctly figured on the monuments of Egypt and Assyria, as distinct as they are now, and _time_ and change of climate have not transformed any one type into another. In whatever unexplored regions of the earth the earliest voyagers have gone, they have found races equally well marked. These races are all prolific _inter se_, and there is every reason to believe that we here find the fourth and last degree of hybridity. Whether the prolificacy is _unlimited_ between all the races or species of men is still an unsettled point, and experiments have not yet been fully and fairly made to determine the question. The dog and wolf become sterile at the _third_. The dog and jackal at the fourth generation, and who can tell whether the law of hybridity might not show itself in man, after a longer succession of generations. There are no observations yet of this kind in the human family. It is a common belief in our Southern States, that mulattoes are less prolific, and attain a less longevity than the parent stocks. I am convinced of the truth of this remark, when applied to the mulatto from the strictly white and black races, and I am equally convinced, from long personal observation, that the _dark_-skinned European races, as Spaniards, Portuguese, Italians, Basques, &c., mingle much more perfectly with the negroes than do fair races, thus carrying out the law of gradation in hybridity. If the mulattoes of New Orleans and Mobile be compared with those of the Atlantic States, the fact will become apparent.

The argument in favor of unlimited prolificacy between species may be strongly corroborated by an appeal to the history of our domestic animals, whose history is involved in the same impenetrable mystery as that of man. M. Geoffroy St. Hilaire very justly remarks that we know nothing of the origin of our domestic animals; because we find wild hogs, goats, sheep, &c., in certain parts of Europe, several thousand years subsequent to the early migrations of man, this does not prove that the domestic come from these wild ones. The reverse may be the case.[209]

We have already made some general observations on the _genus canis_, whose natural history is most closely allied to that of man. Let us now inquire whether the domestic dog is but one species, or whether under this head have been included many proximate species of unlimited prolificacy. If we try the question by _permanency of type_, like the races of men, and all well-marked species, the doubt must be yielded.

There are strong reasons given by Dr. Morton and other naturalists, for supposing that our common dogs, independent of mixtures of _their_ various races, may also have an infusion of the blood of foxes, wolves, jackals, and even the hyena; thus forming, as we see every day around us, _curs_ of every possible grade; but setting aside all this, we have abundant evidence to show that each zoological province has its original dog, and, perhaps, not unfrequently several.

In one chapter on hybridity in the "_Types of Mankind_," it is shown that our Indian dogs in America present several well-marked types, unlike any in the Old World, and which are indigenous to the soil. For example, the Esquimaux dog, the Hare Indian dog, the North American dog, and several others. We have not space here to enter fully into the facts, but they will be found at length in the work above mentioned. These dogs, too, are clearly traced to wild species of this continent.

In other parts of the world we find other species equally well marked, but we shall content ourselves with the facts drawn from the ancient monuments of Egypt. It is no longer a matter of dispute that as far back, at least, as the twelfth dynasty, about 2300 years before Christ, we find the common small dog of Egypt, the greyhound, the staghound, the turnspit, and several other types which do not correspond with any dogs that can now be identified.[210] We find, also, the mastiff admirably portrayed on the monuments of Babylon, which dog was first brought from the East to Greece by Alexander the Great, 300 years B. C. The museums of natural history, also, everywhere abound in the remains of _fossil_ dogs, which long antedate all living species.

The wolf, jackal, and hyena are also found distinctly drawn on the early monuments of Egypt, and a greyhound, exactly like the English greyhound, with semi-pendent ears, is seen on a statue in the Vatican, at Rome. It is clear, then, that the leading types of dogs of the present day (and probably all) existed more than four thousand years ago, and it is equally certain that the type of a dog, when kept pure, will endure in opposite climates for ages. Our staghounds, greyhounds, mastiffs, turnspits, pointers, terriers, &c., are bred for centuries, not only in Egypt and Europe without losing their types, but in any climate which does not destroy them. No one denies that climate influences these animals greatly, but the greyhound, staghound, or bulldog can never be transformed into each other.

The facts above stated cannot be questioned, and it is admitted that these species are all prolific without limit _inter se_.

The llama affords another strong argument in favor of the fourth degree of hybridity. Cuvier admits but two species--the llama (_camelus llacma_), of which he regards the _alpaca_ as a variety, and the vigogne (_camelus vicunna_). More recent naturalists regard the alpaca as a distinct species, among whom is M. Geoffroy St. Hilaire.[211] At all events, it seems settled that they _all_ breed together without limit.

"A son tour, après la vigogne, viendra bientôt l'alpavigogne,
fruit du croisement de l'alpaca avec la vigogne. Don Francisco de
Theran, il ya quarante ans, et M. de Castelnau, avaient annoncé
déjà que ce métis est fécond, et qu'il porte une laine presque
aussi longue que celle de l'alpaca, presque aussi fine que celle
de la vigogne.... M. Weddell a mis tout récemment l'Académie des
Sciences à même de voir et d'admirer cette admirable toison. Il a
confirmé en même temps un fait que n'avait trouvé que des
incrédules parmi les naturalists--la fécondité de
l'alpaca-vigogne: l'abbé Cabrera, curé de la petite ville de
Macusani, a obtenu une race qui se perpétue et dont il possède
déjà tout un troupeau. C'est, donc, pour ainsi dire, une
nouvelle espèce créée par l'homme; et si paradoxal qu' ait pu
sembler ce résultat, il est, fort heureusement pour l'industrie,
_définitivement acquis à la science_.

"Ce résultat n'aurait rien de paradoxal, si l'alpaca n'était,
comme l'ont pensé plusieurs auteurs, qu'une race domestique et
três modifiée de la vigogne. Cette objection contre le pretendu
principe de l'infécondite des mulets ne serait d'ailleurs levée
que pour faire place à une autre; _l'alpa-llama_ serait alors un
mulet, issu de deux espèces distincts, et l'alpa-llama est fécond
comme l'alpa-vigogne."[212]

We have recently seen exhibited in Mobile a beautiful hybrid of the alpaca and common sheep, and the owner informed us that he had a flock at home, which breed perfectly.

Dr. Bachman confesses that he has not examined the drawings given in the works of Lepsius, Champollion, Rossellini, and other Egyptologists, of various animals represented on the monuments, and ridicules the idea of their being received as authority in matters of natural history. Although many of the drawings are rudely done, most of them, in outline, are beautifully executed, and Dr. B. is the first, so far as we know, to call the fact in question. Dr. Chas. Pickering is received by Dr. B. as high authority in scientific matters--he has not only examined these drawings, but their originals. Lepsius, Champollion, Rossellini, Wilkinson, and all the Egyptologists, have borne witness to the reliability of these drawings, and have enumerated hundreds of animals and plants which are perfectly identified.

Martin, the author of the work on "_Man and Monkeys_," is certainly good authority. He says:--

"Now we have in modern Egypt and Arabia, and also in Persia,
varieties of greyhound closely resembling those of the ancient
remains of art, and it would appear that two or three varieties
exist--one smooth, another long haired, and another smooth with
long-haired ears, resembling those of the spaniel. In Persia, the
greyhound, to judge from specimens we have seen, is silk-haired,
with a fringed tail. They are of a black color; but a fine breed,
we are informed, is of a slate or ash color, as are some of the
smooth-haired greyhounds depicted in the Egyptian paintings. In
Arabia, a large, rough, powerful race exists; and about Akaba,
according to Laborde, a breed of slender form, fleet, with a long
tail, very hairy, in the form of a brush, with the ears erect and
pointed, closely resembling, in fact, many of those figured by
the ancient Egyptians."[213]

He goes on to quote Col. Sykes, and others, for other varieties of greyhound in the east, unlike any in Europe.

Dr. Pickering, after enumerating various objects identified on the monuments of the third and fourth dynasties, as Nubians, white races, the ostrich, ibis, jackal, antelope, hedgehog, goose, fowls, ducks, bullock, donkey, goats, dog-faced ape, hyena, porcupine, wolves, foxes, &c. &c., when he comes down to the twelfth dynasty, says:--

"The paintings on the walls represent a vast variety of subjects;
including, most unexpectedly, the greater part of the _arts_ and
_trades_ practised among civilized nations at the present day;
also birds, quadrupeds, fishes, and insects, amounting to an
_extended treatise on zoology_, well deserving the attention of
naturalists. The date accompanying these representations has
been astronomically determined by Biot, at about B. C. 2200
(Champollion-Figeac, _Egyp. Arc._); and Lepsius's chronological
computation corresponds."[214]

Dr. P. gives us a fauna and flora of Egypt, running further back than Usher's date for the creation, and it cannot be doubted that the drawings are as reliable as those in any modern work on natural history.

FOOTNOTES:

[198] Natural History of Man and Monkeys.

[199] Fauna and Flora within Living Animals, p. 9.

[200] Doctrine of the Unity of the Human Race, p. 10.

[201] We are told that the pigs in one department of France are all black, in another, all white, and local causes are assigned! When I was a boy, my father introduced what was then called the China hog into the Union District, South Carolina; they were black, with white faces. On a visit to that district about twelve years ago, I found the whole country for 40 miles covered with them. On a visit one year ago, I found they had been supplanted entirely by other breeds of different colors: the old familiar type had disappeared.

[202] _Op. cit._, p. 177.

[203] _Domestication et Naturalization des Animaux utiles_, par M. Isadore Geoffroy St. Hilaire, p. 71, Paris, 1854.

[204] Ibid.

[205] Columbia, p. 135.

[206] _De la Longevité Humaine_, &c., par P. Flourens, Paris, 1855.

[207] M. Flourens here, perhaps, speaks too positively. The blood of the apparently lost species will show itself from time to time for many, if not endless generations.

[208] _Op. cit._

[209] _Op. cit._, p. 122.

[210] It has been objected, that the drawings cannot be relied on, as some of these types are no longer to be found. But there are several well-marked types of domestic animals on the old monuments that no longer exist, because they have been supplanted by better breeds. In this country several varieties of the Indian dogs are rapidly disappearing for the same reason. The llama must give place, in the same way, to the cow and the horse. Many other instances may be cited.

[211] _Op. cit._, p. 29. 1854.

[212] _Op. cit._, p. 101.

[213] _Op. cit._, p. 53.

[214] _Geographical Dist._, p. 17.

This work, I believe, is not yet issued, but Dr. Pickering has kindly sent me the first 150 pages, as printed.

C.

Mr. Gobineau remarks (p. 367), that he has very serious doubts as to the unity of origin. "These doubts, however," he continues, "I am compelled to repress, because they are in contradiction to a scientific fact, which I cannot refute--the prolificness of half-breeds; and secondly, what is of much greater weight with me, they impugn a religious interpretation sanctioned by the church."

With regard to the prolificness of half-breeds, I have already mentioned such facts as might have served to dispel the learned writer's doubts, had he been acquainted with them. In reference to the other, more serious, obstacle to his admission of the plurality of origins, he himself intimates (p. 339) that the authority of this interpretation might, perhaps, be questioned without transgressing the limits imposed by the church. Believing this view to be correct, I shall venture on a few remarks upon this last scruple of the author, which is shared by many investigators of this interesting subject.

"The strict rule of scientific scrutiny," says the most learned
and formidable opponent in the adversary's camp,[215] "exacts,
according to modern philosophers, in matters of inductive
reasoning, an exclusive homage. It requires that we should close
our eyes against all presumptive and exterior evidence, and
_abstract our minds from all considerations not derived from the
matters of fact which bear immediately on the question_. The
maxim we have to follow in such controversies is 'fiat justitia,
ruat coelum.' _In fact, what is actually true, it is always
desirous to know, whatever consequences may arise from its
admission._"

To this sentiment I cheerfully subscribe: it has always been my maxim. Yet I find it necessary, in treating of this subject, to touch on its _biblical_ connections, for although we have great reason to rejoice at the improved tone of toleration, or even liberality which prevails in this country, the day has not come when science can be severed from theology, and the student of nature can calmly follow her truths, no matter whither they may lead. What a mortifying picture do we behold in the histories of astronomy, geology, chronology, cosmogony, geographical distribution of animals, &c.; they have been compelled to fight their way, step by step, through human passion and prejudice, from their supposed contradiction to Holy Writ. But science has been vindicated--their great truths have been established, and the Bible stands as firmly as it did before. The last great struggle between science and theology is the one we are now engaged in--the _natural history of man_--it has now, for the first time, a fair hearing before Christendom, and all any question should ask is "_daylight and fair play_."

The Bible should not be regarded as a text-book of natural history. On the contrary, it must be admitted that none of the writers of the Old or New Testament give the slightest evidence of knowledge in any department of science beyond that of their profane contemporaries; and we hold that the natural history of man is a department of science which should be placed upon the same footing with others, and its facts dispassionately investigated. What we require for our guidance in this world is truth, and the history of science shows how long it has been stifled by bigotry and error.

It was taught for ages that the sun moved around the earth; that there had been but one creation of organized beings; that our earth was created but six thousand years ago, and that the stars were made to shed light upon it; that the earth was a plane, with sides and ends; that all the animals on earth were derived from Noah's ark, &c. But what a different revelation does science give us? We now know that the earth revolves around the sun, that the earth is a globe which turns on its own axis, that there has been a succession of destructions and creations of living beings, that the earth has existed countless ages, and that there are stars so distant as to require millions of years for their light to reach us; that instead of one, there are many centres of creation for existing animals and plants, &c.

If so many false readings of the Bible have been admitted among theologians, who has authority or wisdom to say to science--"thus far shalt thou go, and no further?" The doctrine of _unity_ for the human family may be another great error, and certainly a denial of its truth does no more, nay, less violence to the language of the Bible, than do the examples above cited.

It is a popular error, and one difficult to eradicate, that all the species of animals now dwelling on the earth are descendants of pairs and septuples preserved in Noah's ark, and certainly the language of Genesis on this point is too plain to admit of any quibble; it does teach that every living being perished by the flood, except those alone which were saved in the ark. Yet no living naturalist, in or out of the church, believes this statement to be correct. The centres of creation are so numerous, and the number of animals so great that it is impossible it should be so.

On the other hand, the first chapter of Genesis gives an account entirely in accordance with the teachings of science.

"And God said, let the earth bring forth _grass_, the herb
yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit, after his kind,
whose seed is in itself upon the earth; and it was so." _Gen._ i.
11.

"And God said, let the waters bring forth _abundantly_, the moving
creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in
the open firmament of heaven." v. 20.

"And God created great _whales_, and every living creature that
moveth, which the waters brought forth _abundantly_," &c. v. 21.

"And God said, let the earth bring forth the living creature after
his kind, cattle and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after
his kind, and it was so." v. 24.

"God created _man_ in his own image; _male_ and _female_ created
he _them_."

In the language above quoted, nothing is said about one seed or one blade of grass; about one fruit tree, or about _single pairs_ of animals or human beings. On the contrary, this chapter closes with the distinct impression on the mind that everything was created _abundantly_. The only difficulty arises with regard to the human family, and we are here confused by the contradictory statements of the first and second chapters. In the first chapter, man was created _male and female_, on the sixth day--in the second chapter, woman was not created until after Adam was placed in the Garden of Eden. Commentators explain this discrepancy by the difference in style of the two chapters, and the inference that Genesis is a compilation made up by Moses from two or three different writers; but it is not our purpose here to open these theological discussions. Both sides are sustained by innumerable authorities. From what we have before shown, it is clear that the inspired writers possessed no knowledge of physical sciences, and as little respecting the natural history of man, as of any other department.

Their _moral_ mission does not concern our subject, and we leave that to theologians, to whom it more properly belongs. On the other hand, we ask to be let alone in our study of the physical laws of the universe. The theologian and the naturalist have each an ample field without the necessity of interfering with each other.

The Bible is here viewed only in its relations with physical science. We have already alluded to the fact that in astronomy, geology, &c., the authors of the Bible possessed no knowledge beyond that of their profane contemporaries, and a dispassionate examination of the text from Genesis to Revelation will show that the writers had but an imperfect knowledge of contemporary races, and did not design to teach the doctrine of unity of mankind, or rather origin from a single pair. The writer of the _Pentateuch_ could attach little importance to such an idea, as he nowhere alludes to a future existence, or rewards and punishments--all good and evil, as far as the human race is concerned, with him, were merely temporal.

This idea of a future state does not distinctly appear in the Jewish writings until after their return from the Babylonish captivity.

The extent of the surface of the globe, known even to the writers of the New Testament, formed but a small fraction of it--little beyond the confines of the Roman empire. No allusion is even made to Southern and Eastern Asia; Africa, south of the Desert; Australia, America, &c.; all of which were inhabited long before the time of Moses; and of the races of men inhabiting these countries, and their languages, they certainly knew nothing. The Chinese and Indian empires, at least, are beyond dispute. The early Hebrews were a pastoral people; had little commercial or other intercourse with the rest of the world, and were far from being "learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians." The Egyptian empire was fully developed--arts and science as flourishing--pyramids and gorgeous temples built, not only before the time of Moses, but long prior to that of the Patriarch Abraham, who, with Sarah, went to Egypt to buy corn of the reigning Pharaoh. What is remarkable, too, the Egyptians had their ethnographers, and had already classified the human family into four races, and depicted them on the monuments, viz: the black, white, yellow, and red.[216]

In fact, nothing can be more incomplete, contradictory, and unsatisfactory than the ethnography of Genesis. We see Cain going into a foreign land and taking a wife before there were any women born of his parent stock. Cities are seen springing up in the second and third generations, in every direction, &c. All this shows that we have in Genesis no satisfactory history of the human family, and that we can rely no more upon its ethnography than upon its geography, astronomy, cosmogony, geology, zoology, &c.

We have already alluded to the fact that the writers of the New Testament give no evidence of additional knowledge in such matters. The sermon from the Mount comes like a light from Heaven, but this volume is mute on all that pertains to the physical laws of the universe.

If the common origin of man were such an important point in the eyes of the Almighty as we have been taught to believe, is it reasonable to suppose it would have been left by the inspired writers in such utter confusion and doubt? The coming of Christ changed the whole question, and we should expect, at least in the four Gospels, for some authority that would settle this vital point; but strange as the assertion may seem, there is not a single passage here to be found, which, by any distortion, can be made to sustain this _unity_; and on searching diligently the New Testament, from one end to the other, we were not a little surprised to find but a single text that seemed to bear directly upon it, viz: the oft quoted one in Acts xvii. 26: "And hath made of _one blood_ all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth," &c. Being astonished at the fact that this great question of common origin of man should thus be made to hang so much upon a single verse, it occurred to me that there might be some error, some interpolation in the text, and having no material at hand for such an investigation in Mobile, I wrote to a competent friend in Philadelphia, to examine for me all the Greek texts and old versions, and his reply confirmed fully my suspicions. The word _blood_ is an interpolation, and not to be found in the original texts. The word _blood_ has been rejected by the Catholic Church, from the time of St. Jerome to the present hour. The text of Tischendorf is regarded, I believe, generally as the most accurate Greek text known, and in this the word blood does not appear. I have at hand a long list of authorities to the same effect, but as it is presumed no competent authority will call our assertion in question, it is needless to cite them. The verse above alluded to in Acts should, therefore, read:--

"And hath made of _one_ all races (genus) of men," &c.

The word _blood_ is a gloss, and we have just as much right to interpolate _one form_, _one substance_, _one nature_, _one responsibility_, or anything else, as _blood_.

These remarks on the ethnography of the Bible might be greatly extended, but my object here is simply to show that the Bible, to say the least, leaves the field open, and that I have entered it soberly, discreetly, and advisedly.

FOOTNOTES:

[215] Prichard, _Nat. Hist. of Man_, p. 8. London, 1843.

[216] See "_Types of Mankind_," by Nott and Gliddon.

+-------------------------------------------------------------+
|Transcriber's note: |
| |
| Inconsistent use of law-giver vs. lawgiver was made |
| consistent as "law-giver". |
| |
| Page 476: Corrected typographical error "criterea". |
| |
| Footnote 39: Placement of quotation marks has been |
| made consistent. |
| |
| Footnote 59: Added missing closing quotation mark "...'When|
| three of us are together, the Triad is among us.'" |
| |
| Footnote 85: I believe the editor meant "page 187". |
| |
| Footnote 195: Added dash to sign-off "--H." to conform to |
| other footnotes. |
| |
| All other inconsistencies, variant spellings, and a large |
| number of mis-quoted references have been preserved. |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+

<pre id="pg-footer">