eyes open, and evidently sees many of the difficulties which surround him in his journey; while Prichard, regarding only the object to be reached, at every leap shuts his eyes, to avoid injury from the thicket through which he breaks. But we prefer Prichard on account of the higher reputation he enjoys, for the same reason that the boy pursues the butterfly; and, perhaps, for a better reason, that he is generally regarded as the standard author on the subject.

To bring him fairly into court, we quote from his “ Natural History of Man,” page 4, his own statement of the principles upon which his natural history is constructed. "How different à being is the Esquimaux, who, in his burrow amid northern ices, gorges himself with the blubber of whales, from the lean and hungry Numidian, who pursues the lion under a vertical sun! And how different, whether compared with the skin-clad and oily fisher of the icebergs, or with the naked hunter of the Sahara, are the luxurious inmates of Eastern harems, or the energetic and intellectual inhabitants of the cities of Europe! That so great differences in external conditions, by the double influence of their physical and moral agency, should have effected during a long series of ages remarkable changes in the tribes of human beings subjected to their operationchanges which have rendered these several tribes fitted in a peculiar manner for their respective abodes,-is by no means an improbable conjecture; and it becomes something more than a conjecture, when we extend our view to the diversified breeds of those animals which men have domesticated, and have transferred with themselves from one climate to another. Considered in this point of view, it acquires, perhaps, the character of a legitimate theory, supported by adequate evidence, and by an extensive series of analogous facts.”

Let us not be mistaken in the foundation he has laid for his “ Natural History of Man.” First, a not "improbable conjecture” that the physical agency of the elements, and the moral agency of man, have produced all differences observable in the races of men ; second, that this " becomes something more than a conjecture," by analogy with domestic animals; and, third, by some process, which we confess we do not understand, (by pausing a moment and considering the power of such analogies,) it immediately becomes “ a legitimate theory, supported by adequate evidence." That is, that what is not an improbable guess in the first instance, becomes something more than a guess by another guess ;-and by merely reconsidering this second guess, without any addition of circumstance, becomes “

a legitimate theory, supported by adequate evidence,” as or. derly as the conclusion follows the two premises in a categorical syllogism. Shades of Aristotle and Bacon! what a foundation for a natural science! Two guesses, being reguessed, produce an axiom, make all the guesses certainties, substantial realities, capable of supporting the most massive and splendid structure in the regions of natural science! If he designed to write the natural history of the man in the moon, it is probable conjecture and analogy might furnish him with the materials; but the man of this earth he could see and feel; his nature was accessible to him through his condition, religious, social, and political, and through his works, in the arts, sciences, literature, &c., of all nations and people. This, the natural method of investigation, came recommended to him by the highest authority--the experience of at least 6,000 years, fortified in natural history by Aristotle, Ray, Linnæus, and the very men whose say

27 are now.'

ing was his law, Blumenbach and Cuvier, in everything they attempted, but the history of man ;--and, in general philosophy, by the perpetual president of philosophers, the immortal Bacon.

But we deny the probability of the conjecture. Van Amringe, in his Natural History of Man, pp. 323-4, says:

“ We also make an assertion, and defy proof to the contrary; that there is not upon record a single instance of a physical change of any people, ancient or modern, which can be detected by the anatomist, and which we have good reason to believe has been produced by civilization. We prove it, first, by the admission of the authors in question; for they have unhesitatingly classed very ancient nations by their skulls, and told whether they were of the Caucas. sian, Mangolian, or Ethiopian variety; which would be absurd if they had no confidence in the permanence of peculiar characteristics. We prove it, secondly, by the uniform testimony of history, from Herodotus down to the present day, in which the different races of men are always described with the same characteristics. We prove it, thirdly, by the figures adorning the tombs of the ancient kings of Egypt, in which the physiognomy and color of the different races of men are preserved, and exhibit them to have been, nearly four thousand years ago, identically the same as they

Supported by such an array of facts, we deny, not only the probability of the conjecture, but also that the analogy of domesticated animals is adequate evidence” that the conjecture becomes “ a legitimate theory;" for if domestic animals have changed, they are not the analogues of man, as he has not changed; and if they have not changed, they prove nothing to the

purpose. To show conclusively that this assertion by Dr. Prichard, that the analogy of domesticated animals " is adequate evidence" of " legitimate theory," for the natural history of man is an assumption founded only on a remote probability, and consequently very weak, if it is evidence, we quote again from Van Amringe's Natural History of Man, p. 219, et seq.: " Domestic animals are constantly relied on as the analogues of man in this as well as all other respects, by the advocates of the unity of the species. As analogues they should migrate to the respective regions voluntarily, and provide their own food and comforts. No instance of the kind has ever been known. Of the very few wild animals which have an indefinite range—the fox, for instance—we think it highly probable that, upon a close investigation, it will be found that the limits of particular species are more circumscribed than is generally believed. But these widely.spread animals are not those which are selected for analogues. From necessity, domestic animals must be resorted to. And yet we know not a single domestic animal, but the turkey, the wild type of which is known to zoologists. Who can tell the wild type of sheep? Who can tell what change domestication has made on them? " Abel was a keeper of sheep;” and if the whole race of our domestic breed was not appropriated to man, at his expulsion from Eden, most assuredly the remainder cannot be discovered, by the most elaborate researches. One circumstance makes it highly probable that the whole race was so appropriated; for it is remarkable that this animal will not live in any climate, without the protection of man. In America the horse, the ox, and the hog, have run wild, have multiplied, and have resumed uniform colors and habits ; but who has, at any time, or anywhere, heard of sheep running wild and propagating? This is a remarkable fact, and an important item, to prove the Divine origin of the Mosaic history. If he did not write from inspiration, it is a most unaccountable circumstance, that the only animal he mentions to have been the associate of Adam and family, is the only one which, to this day, clings to his posterity for support, protection, and existence.”

“ Profane history gives no intimation of the time when the horse, the ox, the ass, and the camel, were domesticated. It is fair, therefore, to presume that they were all 'in a state of domestication long before the commencement of such history; and as we have no mention in any history, that any of them have undergone any constitutional changes, it is also a fair presumption, that they had all arrived at their present permanent characters long before the era of history: consequently, that domestication has produced no change in them for at least 2,500 years. Sacred history informs us, not positively, but negatively, that sheep, oxen, camels and asses, were domesticated long before horses. All the other animals are mentioned by Moses, as common objects of property, during the lives of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Esau, and Joseph; but the horse is not mentioned until the 9th Exodus, v. 3, after which he is frequently introduced. It is thus proved, negatively, that the horse was domesticated at least 500 years after the ox, the camel, and the ass; and the sheep is mentioned long before any of the others, and is always enumerated with them. But although the horse does not appear to have been domesticated much longer than about 1500 years, A.C., his type in a wild state is entirely lost, and his native country is unknown.”

“ An important circumstance is mentioned by the sacred historian, in the history of Jacob. It is that cattle and sheep of Laban's herds and flocks, had the same constitutional facility to change color, or even a greater facility, than they now possess. This fact leans strongly against the supposition that their constitutional tendency to change was induced by domestication. It makes it more probable that it was originally inherent in the animals. However this may be, the facts contained in this early history prove positively that there is a marked difference in different kinds of animals, in regard to the tendency to change color; and, therefore, that no animal is an analogue for another in this respect. The sheep, which is the oldest domestic animal we possess, changes in color only from white to black, or rather dark brown. The ass and the camel, although domesticated simultaneously, or nearly so, with the ox, never assume the variety of colors of this animal; and the horse, the last domesticated, is more variable than any of them. On the theory contended for by writers, that “the state of domestication" produces these variations, the sheep should be the most variable of all our domestic animals, whereas it is the least.”

“ Among some other domestic animals, equally as long domesticated as the horse at least the mouse, for instance--no disposition to change, in color, or form, is known to have taken place. The brown rat of Persia, although only a domestic in Europe short of 300 years, and from thence imported into America, has been, from the earliest period, a constant associate and pest of man in Central Asia, without undergoing any known change ; and since his wide dispersion over Europe, America, and throughout the Islands of the Pacific, he has invariably preserved his original color and type. Thus it appears, when we take a comprehensive

לל

view of all domestic animals, the associates of man, that there is a vast difference between them in respect to changes, even granting, what by no means follows as a matter of course, that domestication produces all the known changes. Hence, it is apparent that it should not to be taken for granted that domestic animals are the analogues of man, in regard to organic and functional changes."

“ There is yet another difficulty equally insurmountable. We know absolutely nothing of the wild types of the sheep, the ox, the horse, the camel, and the dog; therefore, as we have said, we cannot say how much, or from what they have changed constitutionally-or if they have changed at all. Animals of the ox and horse kinds, which have run wild in our southern prairies and savannahs, generally assume a uniform color and shape; but this, although a general, is by no means a universal rule. Many of them have, and retain, a variety of colors. Therefore, they prove nothing absolutely, although they afford a reasonable presumption that a large majority of the wild stock was of one color; but the variety of color prevailing among them is equally conclusive that there was, originally, the same diversity in the wild, as the domestic state. It is well known to importers and dealers in hides brought from California and South America, both of the ox and the horse, that although there is a general tendency to one color, yet there are many of the ordinary colors of our domestic breeds."

" It is apparent, from what we have said, that the advocates for the unity of the human species, by reason of analogies with domestic animals, do so by two assumptions : First, that these animals actually become constitutionally changed, anatomically and functionally, by domestication ;-and, secondly, that man is constitutionally similar to any and every domestic animal, and subject to the same changes, although none of them agree with one another.”

The design of this article is to exhibit the truth of our assertion—" that the natural history of man, until very recently, has been only a series of speculations, unsupported by any of those sound arguments which we most generally find used by the supporters of speculations in other branches of science.” We now appeal to our readers for judgment. We know that our judges are prepossessed in favor of the party on trial. Dr. Prichard, supported by Cuvier, Blumenbach, Lawrence, and many philosophers of less weight of character, and backed by the great body of clergymen who regard him as the champion of orthodoxy, because he advocates the unity of the human species, is not to be convicted on slight grounds of accusation and proof. We ask, therefore, are the grounds of accusation slight? Is the proof slight or full? The accusation is—that he has founded his Natural History of Man on a series of speculationsand the proof is from his own mouth, that he has built upon a not“ improbable conjecture,” which“ becomes something more than a conjecture when we extend our view to the diversified breeds of those animals which men have domesticated,” which, when “ considered in this point of view, acquires, perhaps, the character of a legitimate theory, supported by adequate evidence, and by an extensive series of analagous facts.” If these items do not constitute “ a series of speculations,” he must be acquitted; but if they do, he cannot escape conviction, notwithstanding his own lofty character, supported by some of the most eminent men of the age. The second count our indictment is, that this series of speculations

4

VOL. XXVII. NO. II.

is “ unsupported by any of those sound arguments which we most generally find used by the supporters of speculations in other branches of science.” We have already said that good logical powers are very common with educated men, compared with genius, which is a rare possession. That the first is an acquisition, an art, which must, it is true, be founded on good common sense to become distinguished, but which may be respectable if engrafted on ordinary minds; while the last is a gift, which art can only prune, chasten, or direct, but never bestow. It is for this reason we find so many sound arguments predicated false premises, in the superstructure of which not a gap can be discovered, while the whole fabric will fall in ruins by the slightest touch of its foundation. The middle age abounds with authors and disputants of this description, and “ The Vestiges of Creation” is no bad modern example. We wish we could say the same of Dr. Prichard's Natural History of Man. Our present limits will not permit us to discuss this branch of the subject as fully as we intended. We therefore postpone it to a future paper, when, in conjunction with it, we expect to show, that the doctrine of the unity of the human species is, in the nature of the arguments necessarily used to sustain it, as well as in the conclusions to which it necessarily leads, anti-scriptural. . We then expect to show that Lawrence has been severely censured, anathematized, for avowing openly, the same things for which Dr. Prichard receives unqualified praise for avowing covertly. In the meantime, however, we refer the reader to the extracts in this article from Van Amringe's history, which prove that the alleged changes produced by domestication in animals, are supposititious, mere speculations, incapable of proof; and that if true, these animals are not analogues for each other, much less for man, who has suffered no change in color or structure, since the period of sacred, civil, and monumental history.