in Time's hour-glass. Of 400,000 inhabitants of the Sandwich Islands, far less than 100,000 survive, and these are daily sinking beneath civilization, missionaries, and rum. In New Holland, New Guinea, many of the Pacific islands, and other parts of the world, the same work of destruction is going on; and the labors of proselytism are. vain, save to hasten its accomplishment.

Pourquoi cela?" asks Bodichon.455 "It is because their social state is a perpetual strife against humanity. Thus, murder, depredations, incessant useless strifes of one against another, are their natural state. They practise human sacrifices and mutilations of men; they are imbued with hostility and antipathy towards all not of their race. They maintain polygamy, slavery, and submit women to labor incompatible with female organization.

"In the eyes of theology they are lost men; in the eyes of morality vicious men; in the eyes of humanitary economy they are non-producers. From their origin they have not recognized, and they still refuse to recognize, a supreme law imposed by the Almighty; viz. the obligation of labor.

"On the other hand, all nations of the earth have made war upon the Jews for 4000 years: the Egyptians, the Assyrians, the Greeks, the Romans, &c.; - Christians and Mahommedans by turns; with innumerable cruelties, physical and moral: nevertheless, that race lives and prospers. Why? Because they have everywhere played their part in the progress of civilization.

"True philanthropy (insists Bodichon) should not tolerate the existence of a race whose nationality is opposed to progress, and who constantly struggle against the general rights and interests of humanity."

Omnipotence has provided for the renovation of manhood in countries where effeminacy has prostrated human energies. Earth has its tempests as well as the ocean. There are reserved, without doubt, in the destinies of nations, fearful epochs for the ravage of human races; and there are times marked on the divine calendar for the ruin of empires, and for the periodical renewal of the mundane features.

"In the midst of this crash of empires (says the philosophical VIREY), which rise and fall on every side, immutable Nature holds the balance, and presides, ever dispassionately, over such events; which are but the re-establishment of equilibrium in the systems of organized beings."

J. C. N.

CHAPTER XIII.

COMPARATIVE ANATOMY OF RACES.

[BY J. C. N.]

"Craniorum inquam quibus ad gentilitias varietates distinguendas et definiendas nulla alia humani corporis pars aptior videtur, cum caput osseum (præterquam quod animæ domicilium et officina, imo vero interpres quasi et explanator ejus sit, utpote universæ physiognomiæ basin et firmamentum constituens) stabilitati suæ maximam conformationis et partium relativæ proportionis varietatem junctam habeat, unde characteres nationum certissimas desumere licet." BLUMENBACH.

IN examining the physical organization of races, the anatomist of the present day possesses many advantages over his predecessors: his materials for comparison are far more complete than theirs; and the admission now generally made by anthropologists, that the leading types of mankind now seen over the earth have existed, independently of all known physical causes, for some 5000 years at least, gives quite a new face to this part of the investigation.

It has been shown in preceding chapters that permanence of type must be considered the most satisfactory criterion of specific character, both in animals and plants. The races of mankind, when viewed zoologically, must have been governed by the same universal law; and the Jew, the Celt, the Iberian, the Mongol, the Negro, the Polynesian, the Australian, the American Indian, can be regarded in no other light than as distinct, or as amalgamations of very proximate, species. When, therefore, two of these species are placed beside each other for comparison, the anatomist is at once struck by their strong contrast; and his task is narrowed down to a description of those well-marked types which are known to be permanent. The form and capacity of the skull, the contour of the face, many parts of the skeleton, the peculiar development of muscles, the hair and skin, all present strong points of contrast.

It matters not to the naturalist how or when the type was stamped upon each race; its permanence makes it specific. If all the races sprang from a single pair, nothing short of a miracle could have produced such changes as contenders for "unity" demand; because (it is now generally conceded) no causes are in operation which can

transmute one type of man into another. If, as for centuries it was supposed, the races became actually transformed when tongues were confounded at Babel, I presume this was effected by an instantaneous fiat of the Almighty; and when done it was "ipso "facto" irrevocable. No terrestrial causes, consequently, could reverse His decree; nor, afterwards, metamorphose a white man into a Negro, or vice versa, any more than they could change a horse into an ass.

However important anatomical characteristics may be, I doubt whether the physiognomy of races is not equally so. There exist minor differences of features, various minute combinations of details, certain palpable expressions of face and aspect, which language cannot describe and yet, how indelible is the image of a type once impressed on the mind's eye! When, for example, the word "Jew" is pronounced, a type is instantly brought up by memory, which could not be so described to another person as to present to his mind a faithful portrait. The image must be seen to be known and remembered; and so on with the faces of all men, past, present, or to come. Although the Jews are genealogically, perhaps, the purest race living, they are, notwithstanding (as we have shown), an extremely adulterated people; but yet there is a certain face among them that we recognize as typical of the race, and which we never meet among any other than Chaldaic nations.

If we now possessed correct portraits, even of those people who were contemporary with the founders of the Egyptian empire, how many of our interminable disputes would be avoided! Fortunately, the early monuments of Egypt, Assyria, Greece, Rome, &c., and even of America, afford much information of this iconographic kind, which decides the early diversity of types: but still, science is ill-supplied with these desiderata to afford a full understanding of the subject. Our first glimpse of human races, though dating far back in time, does not (we have every reason to believe with Bunsen,) reach beyond the "middle ages" of mankind's duration.

The very earliest monumental record, or written history, exhibits man, not in nomadic tribes, but in full-grown nations borne on the flood-tide of civilization. Even the writers of the Book of Genesis could not divest their imaginations of the idea of some civilization coeval with the creation of their first parents; because the man, A-DaM, gave names, in Paradise, "to all the cattle," 456 BeHaiMaH; which implies either that, in the cosmogenical conception of those writers, some animals (oxen, horses, camels, and so forth,) had been already domesticated; or, writing thousands of years subsequently to animal domesticity, they heedlessly attributed, to ante-historic times past, conditions existing in their own days present. They

could not conceive such a thing as a time when cattle were untamed; any more than archæology can admit that anybody could describe events prior to their occurrence.

[This is no delusion. Open Lepsius's Denkmäler, and upon the copies of monuments of the IVth Memphite dynasty, dating more than 2000 years before Moses, (to whom the Pentateuch is ascribed,) you will behold cattle of many genera-bulls, cows, calves, oxen, oryxes, donkeys (no horses or camels) — together with dogs, sheep, goats, gazelles; besides birds, such as geese, cranes, ducks (no common fowls), ibises, &c. ; the whole of them in a state of entire subjection to man in Egypt; and none represented but those animals indigenous to the Nilotic zoological centre of creation.

Wherever we may turn, in ancient annals, the domestication of every domesticable animal has preceded the epoch of the chronicle through which the fact is made known to us; and, still more extraordinary, there are not a dozen quadrupeds and birds that man has tamed, or subdued from a wild to a prolifically-domestic condition, but were already in the latter state at the age when the document aequainting us with the existence, anywhere, of a given domestic animal, was registered. In these new questions of monumental zoology, Greece, Etruria, Rome, Judæa, Hindostan, and Europe, are too modern to require notice; because none of their earliest historians antedate, while some fall centuries below, Solomon's era, B. C. 1000. Verify, in any lexicons, upon all cases but Jewish fabled-antiquity, and no exception to this rule will be found sustainable against historical criticism. The monuments of Assyria, whose utmost antiquity may be fixed 457 about 1300 B. C., only prove that every tameable animal represented by Chaldæans (single and double humped camels, elephants, &c., inclusive) was already tamed at the epoch of the sculpture. Egyptian zoology has been cited. Chinese,458 (in this respect the only detailed), proves that, in the times of the ancient writer, the domestication of six animals; viz.: the horse, ox, fowl, hog, dog, and sheep-was ascribed to FoU-HI's semi-historical era, about 3400 years before Christ.

When COLUMBUS reached this country, A. D. 1492, he found no animals alien to our American continent, and none undomesticated that man could tame; and, when PIZARRO Overturned the Inca-kingdom, the llama had been, for countless ages, a tamed quadruped in Peru. GEOFFROI ST. HILAIRE is one of those authorities seldom controverted by naturalists. These, in substance, are his words:

There are forty species of animals reduced, at this day, to a state of domestication. Of these, thirty-five are now cosmopolitan, as the horse, dog, ox, pig, sheep and goat. The other five have remained in the region of their origin, like the llama and the alpaca on the plateaux of Bolivia and Peru; or have been transplanted only to those countries which most approximate to their original habitats in climatic conditions; as the Tongousian reindeer at St. Petersburg. Out of the thirty-five domesticated species possessed by Europe, thirty-one originate in Central Asia, Europe, and North Africa. Only four species have been contributed by the two Americas, Central and Southern Africa, Australia and Polynesia; although these portions of the globe contain the major number of our zoological types. In consequence, the great bulk of tamed animals in Europe are of exotic origin. Hardly any are derived from countries colder than France: on the contrary, almost the whole were primitively inhabitants of warmer climates.459

We thus arrive at the great fact, that the domestication by man of all domestic animals antecedes every history extant; and, measured chronologically by Egypt's pyramids, most of these animals were already domesticated thirty-five centuries B. C., or over 5300 years ago. Indeed, the first step of primordial man towards civilization must have been the subjection of animals susceptible of domesticity; and, it seems probable, that the dog became the first instrument for the subjugation of other genera. And, while these preliminary advances of incipient man demand epochas so far remote as to be inappreciable by ciphers, on the other hand it is equally astounding, that modern civilization has scarcely reclaimed from the savage state even half-a-dozen more animals than were already domesticated at every point of our globe when history dawns.

Consequently, inasmuch as all these domestications, together with the perfecting of those arts and sciences that enabled king CHEOPS to build the Great Pyramid, occupied Egyptian humanity unnumbered ages before the IVth dynasty, or prior to B. c. 3400, we may well consider that the earliest monuments of Egypt represent but the "middle ages” of humanity, and not mankind's commencements. -G. R. G.]

There was, then, a time before all history. During that blank period, man taught himself to write; and until he had recorded his thoughts and events in some form of writing- hieroglyphics, to wit -his existence prior to that act, if otherwise certain, is altogether unattainable by us, save through induction. The historical vicissitudes of each human type are, therefore, unknown to us until the age of written record began in each geographical centre. Of these documentary annals some go back 5300 years, others extend but to a few hundreds. Anatomy, however, possesses its own laws independently of history; and to its applications the present chapter is devoted.

A minute and extended anatomical comparison of races, in their whole structure, would afford many curious results; but such detail does not comport with the plan of this work, and would be fatiguing to any but the professed anatomist. It is indispensable, however, that we should enter somewhat fully into a comparison of crania; and it may be safely assumed, as a general law, that where important peculiarities exist in crania, others equally tangible belong to the same organism.

While engaged on this chapter, I had the good fortune to welcome Prof. Agassiz in Mobile, where he lectured on the "Geographical Distribution of Animals," &c. The instruction derived from his lectures and private conversation on these themes, I here take occasion to acknowledge.

Prof. Agassiz's researches in embryology possess most important bearings on the natural history of mankind. He states, for instance, that, during the foetal state, it is in most cases impossible to distinguish between the species of a genus; but that, after birth, animals, being governed by specific laws, advance each in diverging lines. The dog, wolf, fox, and jackal, for example- the different species of ducks, and even ducks and geese, in the foetal state cannot be distinguished from each other; but their distinctive characters begin to develop themselves soon after birth. So with the races of men. In the fœtal state there is no criterion whereby to distinguish even the Negro's from the Teuton's anatomical structure; but, after birth, they develop their respective characteristics in diverging lines, irrespectively of climatic influences. This I conceive to be a most important law; and it points strongly to specific difference. Why should Negroes, Spaniards, and Anglo-Saxons, at the end of ten generations (although in the foetal state the same), still diverge at birth, and develop specific characters? Why should the Jews in Malabar, at the end of 1500 years, obey the same law? That they do, undeviatingly, has been already demonstrated in Chapter IV.; and while this sheet is passing through the press, a letter from my friend Dr. J. Barnard Davis (one of the learned authors of the forthcoming Crania Britannica), opportunely substantiates my former statement:

"I find you have come to the same conclusions respecting them [the Jews] as myself. Seeing that the most striking circumstance adduced in the whole of Prichard's work was that of the change of the Jews to black in Cochin and Malabar; and finding Lawrence to state