consort of mankind, but which can and must owe its origin to a common descent, with ourselves, from Adam as the author of the race. As to the diversity of languages, which are very different from each other, there are two very powerful reasons why they cannot be opposed as a sort of hobgoblin to the common origin of man: one is that learned and ingenious men, such as P. Masson and O. Rudbeck, jun., and others, have shown that it is impossible to deny the existence of a great affinity between languages which seem to be very different from each other; the other is, that it is not wonderful, considering the many divergent colonies, which in the long lapse of time and amidst such a variety of men and climates, that the very traces of the primeval tongue should be effaced. See T. S. Bayer, in the preface to the Museum Sinicum, pp. 30, 100. "In the small communities of the early world, when fathers and mothers possibly laboured under some defect of the tongue, the throat, or the nostrils, they handed down to their posterity instances of the same kind of speech. Thus, the Malabars do not make use of their lips in enunciation so easily as we do; we can scarcely pronounce the words of the Arabians, the Ethiopians and the Armenians, nor can they in turn pronounce ours. The Ethiopians and Hottentots rejoice in thrusting the ends of their tongues against the palate and teeth with a certain crackling noise. The Tunguses rather vomit their words. from a strumous throat than utter them. The Chinese dislike the canine letters; others rather hiss than speak.”

CONCLUSION.

Thus, then, from all these various facts, which up to this time have been collected together, nothing can be deduced, as I have shown, to invalidate the credit which is due to the inspired writer, Moses, who derives all mankind from the protoplast of one parent. One remark I have still to make, that the vastness of the ocean which separates the continents, and the corresponding isolation of the land, cannot afford a sufficient argument to show that it is incredible that the antipodes, and the inhabitants of the New World, are descended from

the same stock as ourselves, or cannot be numbered among the posterity of Adam. I do not want to make a great collection of what has been copiously noted by learned men in entire and special treatises about the origin of the Americans, the traces of the Old World which have been found in the New, the concurrence of institutions, the comparative proximity of the land of each continent towards the north, the extensive commerce and maritime expeditions of the ancient Carthaginians, and other nations. One fact is enough for my purpose, and I think it has been placed beyond all doubt, that for a long time it might very easily and very frequently have happened, that through the mistakes of navigators,—which must have been very often the case in early times, or at all events when people were actually on an expedition,-tempests would suddenly arise and compel them to go out of their course, and bring them to other shores and lands lying under another climate. Not only is it clear that this might have taken place, but nothing but a miracle could have prevented its being done during so many ages of that continuous and rough navigation, when we all know that such accidents are by no means rare, even to the most experienced sailors, who have the advantage of being acquainted with the magnet and the course of the winds.

TABLE OF CONTENTS.

PREFACE. The truth and utility of the learning about Adam, the common parent of all mankind. The objections against it derived from differences in the shape and constitution of the human body re-examined, and refuted.

Chap. I. On the opinion and arguments of those who contend that various species of men of different origin exist on our planet. Against those who dream of the eternity of mankind, and the perpetual succession of human generations, taking each other up in order. S. 1. Against the Emp. Julian who asserts that a number of men were produced at once by God. 2. On

Peryrere, and the confuters of the stories of the præ-Adamites. 3. The opinions of Theoph. Paracelsus, Giordano Bruno, and others, upon the derivation of the origin of man, from different protoplasts. 4. The division of mankind into five different species by a celebrated traveller.

Chap. II. On the false traditions about the human form, which seem properly attributable to fable. 2. Blemy with no heads. 3. Nisita with three or four eyes; others with eyes in the shoulders, or breast, or a single one in the forehead. 4. Panotii with ears which cover the whole body. 5. The Hippopodes with feet like horses. 6. Feet on the back of the legs. 7. Essay of H. Gimmi on fabulous men. 8. Tales of the upper and under demons; supposititious children; transformation of men into beasts rejected. 9. Tales of tiger-men and goat-footed satyrs; also of Scylla, the Stymphalis, Nereids, Sirens, and Harpies, and their pictures.

Chap. III. On stories which, though true, are wrongly ascribed to men, or ought to be ascribed to human monsters. 1. Apes and monkeys given out as men. 2. Monstrous fish, resembling in some way the human form. 3. People with horns, hermaphrodites, and other human monsters. 4, 5, 6. Nothing in these to prove that they do not spring from Adam.

Chap. IV. On Giants, Pygmies, and Negroes. Providence has wisely provided for the stature of man; and much which has been said of giants is fabulous. 2. Some men have exceeded the common stature. 3. Possibly, also, nations; inquiry into the causes of increase or decrease. 4. Though what is said of pygmies may be false, still there are certainly dwarfs, etc. 5. No argument that they do not come from Adam. 6. On the habit and colour of the Negroes, etc., 7, Due to climate and mode of life. 8. Effect of these on plants, animals, and man.

Chap. V. On things brought about by human customs and institutions. 1. Staining the skin: Gypsies: T. Lehmann. 2. Men taken to be rough and hairy. 3. Flattening the nose in infancy. 4. Amazons, etc. 5. Flattened heads, feet, etc. 6. Psylli, Marsi, Anthropophagi, etc. 7. L. Quist.

Conclusion.

PART II.

On the Anthropology of Linnæus.-1735-1776.

THE publication of the first edition of the Systema Naturæ took place in 1735. It is difficult at the present day to form an idea of the courage that must have been necessary to put forth those few folio pages, at the end of which Man, for the first time, was classed as one with the rest of the animal creation. As I shall have to make constant reference to the various editions of the Systema Nature, and the changes made in them by the author, according to the changes which naturally took place in his views from time to time, I shall commence by giving the tabulary view of these editions, printed by Linnæus himself in the twelfth, as he calls it, and last edition which he issued.

I have examined all these editions, except the eighth, which

I have not been able to find, with these results :

In the first edition, man is thus treated* (1735) :

CLASSIS I.-QUADRUPEDIA.

:

Corpus hirsutum. Pedes quatuor. Feminæ vivipar., lactiferæ.

"The satyr, tailed, hairy, bearded, with a human body, much given to gesticulations, extremely lascivious, is a species of ape, if one has ever been seen. The tailed men, also, of whom modern travellers relate so much, is of the same genus."

Here we see that man is not only considered as an animal, but even a quadruped, and placed in the same Order with the ape and the sloth; and by the motto, Nosce te ipsum, the task of distinguishing him further is wittily cast upon the reader. The second edition was published in 1740. In it, man is treated thus:

SYSTEMA NATURE.-ED. 1740.

CLASSIS I.Quadrupedia. ORDO I. Anthropomorpha. Dentes primores utrinque quatuor, aut nulli.

1. Homo. Nosce te ipsum.-Homo variat.: Europæus albus, Americanus rubescens, Asiaticus fuscus, Africanus niger.

2. Simia. Os dentatum.

Mammæ pectorales.

Pedes pentactyli scandentes.

Simia mammis quaternis; capite ad aures crinito. Animal cynocephalum, tardigradum dictum, simii species. Seb. 1, p. 55, t. 35, f. 1, 2.

Simiarum species descriptæ non sunt, nec earum differentiæ detectæ. E. gr. Papio, Satyrus, Cercopithecus, Cynocephalus.

* I give the original Latin of the text throughout.