CHARLES WILLIAM WASON COLLECTION CHINA AND THE CHINESE THE GIFT OF CHARLES WILLIAM WASON CLASS OF 1876 1918 Cornell University Library GN 353.B95 What Is truth? :An inquiry concerning th 3 1924 023 245 107 Cornell University Library The original of tliis book is in tine Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924023245107 What is Truth? AN INQUIRY CONCERNING THE ANTIQUITY AND UNITY HUMAN RACE; AN EXAMINATION OF RECENT SCIENTIFIC SPECULATIONS ON THOSE SUBJECTS. BY REV. EBENEZER BURGESS, A. M., MEMBER OF THE AMERICAN ORIENTAL SOCIETY, AUTHOR OF A MAHRATTA GRAMMAR, TRANS4.ATOR OF THE SURYA SIDDHANTA, . ETC., ETC. PUBLISHED BY ISRAEL P. WARREN, 52 Washington Street, BOSTON. BIS- Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1871,- By MRS. A. T. BURGESS, In the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washinglon. \AI ^^.^0 Stereotyped at the Boston Stereotype Foundry,, No. 19 Spring Lane. TO THE * AMERICAN BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS FOR FOREIGN MISSIONS IS RESPECTFULLY DEDICATED, BY THE AUTHOR. TESTIMONIAL. The following testimonial was adopted at the close of the author's twelve lectures, as expressive of the opinions of the auditors respecting their interest and value : — " We, the ladies and gentlemen of the city of Boston, who have attended the valuable and highly instructive course of lectures on the Antiquity of Man, delivered at the Lowell Institute, by the. Rev. E. Burgess, do hereby express our hearty thanks and unqualified appreciation of the same. "We would also express the hope that our worthy and much esteemed friend, the Rev. E. Burgess, will at an early day publish the said lectures, in order that all may have the benefit of the important facts therein contained. " Ordered, That the foregoing resolutions be published in the daily papers in the city of Boston. "Boston, February 23, 1867." PREFACE. A , DISTINGUISHED American scholar has recently put forth the following declaration respecting the subject discussed in the present volume : — " It has been supposed that the first introduction of man into the midst of this prepared creation was distant six or seven thousand years from our day, and we had hoped to be able to read the record of his brief career even back to its beginning ; but science is now accumu- lating so rapidly, and from so many quarters, proofs that the current estimate of his existence ngust be greatly lengthened out, — even perhaps many times multiplied, — that universal acceptation of this conclusion is not, it appears, much longer to be avoided." The opinion here expressed is — it may be safely said — that entertained by a large class of professedly scientific, serni-scientific, and literary men of the day ; that is, judg- ing from the yeafly reports of the meetings of the various scientific bodies, American and European, and papers 5 O PREFACE. frequently found in certain prominent quarterlies and other periodicals. The object of the present volume is to show what science does teach in regard to the antiquity of man on earth. Science, in its true sense, is based on actual facts and established principles ; and a scientific conclusion is one that is fairly deduced from such facts and principles, though it is admitted that the words " science " and " scientific " have an appropriate use in connection with supposed facts, or in reasoning about things that are confessedly only probable, or possible. And there is no objection to the phrase " scientific speculation ; " for every science has connected with its true domain a margin — more or less' wide — within which all things are, to say the least, not settled, and in which she must be allowed to speculate with the utmost freedom. It is only by al- lowing this freedom that the domain of true and real science can oe enlarged. But always and eveiywhere great caution is, to be observed in regard to taking a fact or principle belonging to this doubtful margin within the field of. true science. The non-observance of this caution, it is well known, has been the occasion of endless and- bitter disputes among scientific men. Another caution is needed in this connection. In ad- ducing scientific evidence in any discussion, it should be kept in mind that it makes a difference whether the PREFACE. 7 alleged facts are derived from the speculative margin of the science concferned, or from its posit've domain ; e. g., when a demonstrated fact in astronomj' or chemistry is brought forward, it should have the weight of scientific truth ; but when the alleged fact is a part of some theory or hypothesis not yet established, it certainly is not en- titled to the sahie weight. Is not this principle, though so very obvious, often overlooked in so-called scientific reasoning ?■ Has it not especially been overlooked in the discussions of the subject treated of in this volume ? This suggests another important fact, viz., that indi- cated by the very common and trite remark, — so common that an apology almost is required for introducing it, — that all the sciences harmonize among themselves ; that one science can not conflict with another; that a truth in one of her departments is consistent with all truth in every otiier department. Science ! Scientific Knowledge ! Not. supposition ! Knowledge of things in heaven above,_^in the earth be- neath, and the waters under the earth ! Knowledge of God, of angels, demons, and men ! Knowledge of matter and spirit! Knowledge, in short, of whatever can be known in this wide universe, whether connected with matter or mind, or the abstract principles of things ! It is true that there are things in the universe — or it is proba- ble there are — respecting which so little is known that 8 PREFACE. they have not yet been assigned their true place in the realm of science. But in general, it may be said that the realm of science embraces the whole-universe. But this universe is one, having one Author, and all its parts constituting one harmonious whole ; and these parts, as represented in the various sciences, properly understood, perfectly harmonize with each other. When Alexander's generals first saw the river Indus in the far east, they supposed it to be identical with the Nile, ■vvith which they were familiar in the west. This was in accordance with the well-known principle of the human mind to generalize all its knowledge. It was well enough, only they were a little hasty in their generalization. It is true the Nile and the Indus belong to the same system, as we may say, the facts connected with them being dis- cussed by the same science. Does not this, incident often find a parallel in the scientific speculations that have been recorded since the time of Alexander to the present day.? How often is the gap between a meager premise and the conclusion as wide as that between the Indus and the Nile ! — the interval being unexplored, and as unknown as was that whieh separated those ancient rivers. The literature of the subject discussed in the present volume abounds in such cases. In order that the importance, drift, and application of these general remarks may be appreciated, a few specifi- cations are called for. PREFACE. 9 It has been said that all the sciences are parts of one whole, and consequently must harmonize together ; that the facts of one science, rightly interpreted, can not conflict with those of anotlier. This being the case, it follows that no one science has a right to decide a point, or regard a point as decided, — though it be clearly within her domain, — until she has obtained the concurrence of all her sister sciences. As illustrative of this principle, let us take one or two obvious cases. Philology, according to some of her students, says the great diversity of languages proves that these languages could not have had a common originj or that the great diversity in the languages spoken by mankind proves the ' plural origin of the human races ; and with a parade of facts makes out a plausible argument. But here other sciences, as ethnology, mythology, physiology, and natu- ral history in some of her departments^ step in and claim a right to have a voice in the discussion. Ethnology and mythology prove, or render highly probable, e. g., the common origin of the Semitic nations with those called Indo-European, and the same with other peoples speaking diverse languages, affording strong analogical ground for ' extending the argument to all mankind ; and physiology and natural history claim that they prove the common origin of the human race. On whichever side the weight •)f argument may be thought to be by the opposing advo- lO PREFACE. cates, it is evident tnat all the sciences named above, and perhaps others, have a right to be heard in the discussion. Other illustrations of the principle here contended for might be adduced. The author is deeply sensible of the imperfections of his work. As the reader sees these imperfections, he is asked to call to mind that the field traversed in the argu- ment is very vvride, and that one mind, unless it be of uncommon grasp, could not be expected to be equally familiar with every part of it, and do equal justice to all the points that are discussed. The author does not profess to have done justice to any point, but hopes, imperfect as it is, his work will be found of some value as a part of the literature of the subject under discussion, and especially in the presentation of the facts upon which a correct decision must be based. With these remarks, and with great diffidence, the work is submitted to the judgment of the candid public. NOTE BY THE EDITOR. The excellent author of this work was called to his rest before he had completed its preparation for the press. It was a w^ork w^hich had occupied his attention more or less for many years, and believing it called for by the growing skepticism of the times, — a belief confirmed by the opinions of many scholars and divines whom he had made acquainted with his plan, — he ardently desired that it might be given to the world, as the last labor of a life which had long been devoted to the service of divine truth. It w^as in accordance with this desire that the manuscripts were placed in the hands of another for revis- ion and publication. It was not the expectation of the author to offer the fruits of his own independent investigation, except, per- haps, when discussing the literature and religion of India, where he had spent many years of missionary service. He aimed only to gather up the results which had been reached by the best authorities on the various branches of the subject, and present them in a popular form for the benefit of those who have not time nor opportunity to study it for themselves. His book, therefore, is a book for the feofle, rather than for savants. We believe it will be very valuable to clergymen, teachers, and others, for that purpose. 12 NOTE BY THE EDITOR. The work was left by the author in its original form, comprising Twelve Lectures, with copious materials de^ signed to be placed in an Appendix. So great, however, are the inconveniences of that form for the discussion of such a subject, compelling a reduction of the most im- portant topics within the single hour of the lecture, and involving repetitions and recapitulations not needed in a written work, that, with the approval of his family, the lecture form has been dropped, and the subdivisions arranged in chapters, as is customary. Many of the ma- terials which had been designed for the Appendix have been brought forward and incorporated into the body of the work. This has, of course, necessitated some re- arrangement and some revision of the language of the lectures. In some instances ampler citations from author- ities have been given, and in a very few cases, a fuller elaboration of the positions taken has been ventured on, to give more completeness or clearness to the discussion ; but in no case has anything been advanced differing from the author's well-known views. For • those views, of course, he would hold himself alone responsible. The editor regrets that he has not in all instances been able to verify the quotations introduced into the work. They are from a very wide range of reading, and many of the books referred to are not within present reach. He has done what he could, to secure entire accuracy, both in form and language ; but it is possible that some errors exist which have been overlooked. W. CONTENTS. Page Preface, . . • 5 Note by the Editor, ........ ii CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTORY. The Subject recently come into Notice, Former general Assent to the Bible Chronology, Origin of recent Doubts on the Subject, Modern Geological Discoveries, . Ethnology and Comparative Philology, Systems of Chronology, ^ . System of Bunsen, .... System of BoSckh, System of Rodier, Call for a new Consideration of the Subject; View of the Scripture Chronology, The three Versions of the Pentateuch, Period I. From the Creation to the Flood, From the Flood to the Birth of Abraham, From the Birth of Abraham to the Exodus, From the Exodus to the Foundation of the 19 20 21 22 23 24 24 2S 27 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 Period II. Period III. Period IV. Temple, Period V. From the Foundation of the Temple to its Destruction, 38 Period VI. 'From the Destruction of the Temple to the Birth of Christ, 40 Dates according to various Authors 42 Testimony of Megasthenes 45 Testimony of Abu-Milshar, 45 Testimony of Demetrius Phalereus, .... 46 Testimony of Eupolemus, 47 CHAPTER II. THE ARGUMENT FROM HISTORY. I, Egypt. Sources of our Knowledge of Egyptian Antiquities, . . 49 I. The Temples and Monuments, 49 2. Literary Remains, 3. Greek Historians, I. Testimonies relating to Pre-historic Times, Diogenes Laertius, Diodorus Siculus, 13 SP SO 52 52 53 14 CONTENTS. Herodotus, • S3 Pomponius Mela, S3 The Old Chronicle • S3 Eusebius, S3 Julius Africanus, • 54 Castor, S?, Practical Value of this Testimony, 56 The Accounts not to be taken literally. 5^ The Accounts inconsistent with each other, S6 Months reckoned as Years, .... S7 The Zodiac of Denderah, .... 6i Stobart's Wooden Tablets, . 65 II. Testimonies relating to Historic Times, 67 Egyptian Chronology without Dates, . 67 Manetho, his Hiotory and Writings, 68 His Lists of Dynasties, .... 69 I. Their Sources unknown, 71 2. Their present Form corrupt. 71 3. Internal Evidence against them, . 72 4. They are contradicted, .... 73 a. By the Old Chronicle, . 73 *. By Eratosthenes, . 74 c. Byjosephus, 77 d. By the Monuments, 79 CHAPTER III. THE ARGUMENT FROM HISTORY. i,C07tiinued.') II. Greece and Rome. Identity of Origin between the Greeks and Romans Practical Character of the Greeks, C. 776, The highest Date in Grecian History B. The Siege of Troy mythical, . The alleged Date of it, . Its Value as an Era in Chronology, The Greeks did not claim a remote Antiquity, Date of the Founding of Rome uncertain, Three principal Theories, .... 8S 86 86 87 88 89 89 90 CHAPTER IV. THE ARGUMENT FROM HISTORY. {,Conthizted.) III. The Chaldeans. Extravagant Claims of the Chaldeans, 91 Berosus, his History and Writings, ..... 92 His Annals of an Antediluvian Kingdom, • • ■ . 93 The ten Kings, 94 The Account mythical, ^ ....... 95 Elements of true History contained in them, • • • 95 Chaldean Measures of Time, 95 Earliest Historical Dynasty B. C. 2458, .... 102 CONTENTS. 15 CHAPTER V. THE ARGUMENT FROM HISTORY. IV. The Hindus. Importance of the Discovery of the Sanskrit, . • . . 103 View of the Sanskrit Literature, 104 The Vedas 104 The Upavedas, 105 The Vedangas, 105 TheUpangas, 105 This Literature has no historical Value, .... 106 Comparison between the Hindus and Greeks, . . . 109 Origin of the Vedas, iii Contents of the Vedas, 112 Antiquity of the Vedas, 113 CHAPTER VI. THE ARGUMENT FROM HISTORY {Continued.) V. The Chinese. First Explorers of Chinese Literature, 118 Jesuit Missionaries, 118 Protestant Missionaries, • ' 120 1. View of the Chinese Chronology, .... 120 The Ante-historic Period, i2i The Semi-historic Period 122 The Historic Period, 122 2. How-far is this Chronology reliable 123 Views of Pauthier, 124 Views of Amiot, 124 Views of Williams, 126 Examination of the Elements of Computation, . . 126 The Chinese Year, 127 The Cycle of Sixty Years, 129 Statements of Rev. J. Chalmers, . . . .130 Statements of Dr. Legge, 132 The Cycle of Sixty borrowed, i33 Chronology dates only from the Christian Era, . 134 The Materials of it unreliable, . • ■ " '35 Portions of it mythical, 13° The Shu-king, how compiled, . . . -137 Its Destruction and Recovery, . • • -139 Earliest historical Date B. C. 2637, . . r . 142 CHAPTER VII. THE ARGUMENT FROM ETHNOLOGY. Descent of all known Nations from Noah, . . • .144 The tenth Chapter of Genesis," I4S Descendants of Shem '4° 1 6 CONTENTS. Descendants of Japheth, Descendants of Ham, Agreement of this Account with History, The so-called Aboriginal Races Scripture Language not to be pressed too literally, Earlier and later Departures from original Seats, Alleged Aborigines pf Egypt, .... Evidence from Names of the Country and People, Evidence from Physical Characteristics and Language, Evidence from the Monuments, Alleged Aborigines of India, . Of Northern India, Of Southern India, .... Alleged Aborigines of Western Europe, Historic Times but little before J. Caesar, These Aborigines were of Celtic Origin, 147 149 151 152 IS3 ISS 158 160 162 163 164 165 166 167 167 CHAPTER VIII. THE ARGUMENT FROM PHYSIOLOGY. Rise of the Doctrine of a Plurality of Origin, La Peyrfere, his Character and Writings, Voltaire and Rousseau's Espousal of it. Its supposed Bearings on Slavery, .... Agassiz's Theory of Natural Provinces, Theory of Unity of Species, Estimate of this Theory, I. It is a mere Theory, II. Alleged Inconsistency with the Bible not real. The Case of Cain, The Case of Cain's Wife, Diversities among Races, 1. Man is of a single Species, a. Identity in Mental and Physical Charac- teristics, . . . . b. The single Head of the Animal Kingdom, c. Interinixture of Races fertile, d. Unity of Species proves Unity of Origin, 2. Changes are now constantly taking place, 3. Analogous Changes among Animals, III. This Theory contrary to Analogy, IV. Is opposed by Theological and Moral Science; . All Men possess the same Moral Nature, All Men sustain the same Moral Relations, 170 170 172 173 174 177 179 179 180 180 181 1S2 183 184 186 189 193 19s 202 202 206 207 208 CHAPTER IX. THE ARGUMENT FROM LANGUAGE. The Hebrew once thought the Primitive Language, . . 209 Discovery of the Sanskrit, . , 210 Views of Stewart, 2io CONTENTS. 17 Views of Lord Monboddo, . . . . . . .211 Labors of Sanskrit Scholars, ...... 213 Key to the Classification of Languages, .... 214 Three great Families of Languages, 215 I. The Aryan Family, ....... 215 II. The Semitic Family 216 III. The Turanian Family, 218 Classification according to Structure, ..... 221 1. Monosyllabic Languages, 222 2. Agglutinative Languages, ...... 222 3. Inflectional Languages 223 Bearing of the Diversity of, Languages on the Argument, 223 1. The Miraculous Confusion of Tongues, . . . 224 2. Languages have still much in common, . , , . 225 3. Differences diminish as our Knowledge increases, . 227 4. Languages subject to rapid Changes, . - . . 229 CHAPTER X. THE ARGUMENT FROM TRADITION. Traditions of Primitive Ages to be expected. Such Traditions exist, .... Independent Traditions only valuable, 1. Traditions of one God, 2. Traditions of the Creatipn, . 3. Traditions of the Garden of Eden, 4. Traditions of the Temptation and Fall, 5. Traditions of a Sevenfold Division of Time, 6. Traditions' of the Deluge, . Among the Mexicans and Peruvians, Among the Greeks, Among the Phrygians, . Among the Chaldeans, . Among the Chinese, Among the Egyptians, Among the Hindus, 23s 236 237 238 239 .243 244 245 246 246 247 249 250 252 253 2S4 CHAPTER XI. THE ARGUMENT FROM MYTHOLOGY. Mythology, its Nature, 261 All Myths founded in Fact, 262 Examples pf rnodern Myths, 264 Characteristicsi of Greek Writers, 266 Specimens of their Mistakes, 267 I. All Mythologies had a common Origin, . . . 270 The Roman and Greek Mythologies, .... 271 The Egyptian, 271 The Phoenician and Chaldean, 272 The Hindu, 272 2 l8 CONTENTS. II. That Origin in the Bible Narrative 273 Myths of the Creation 274 Myths of the Flood, 275 Myths of the Antediluvians, 276 Myths of Noah, 277 Myths of the Ark 280 Myths.Df the Dove, 282 Myths of the Rainbow,! ....... 284 Myths of the eight Persons saved 286 Myths of Noah's three Sons 288 CHAPTER XII. THE ARGUMENT FROM GEOLOGY. 287 287 290 291 292 293 295 300 300 302 304 306 308 3" 312 320 321 322 Alleged Facts proving a Remote Antiquity, 1. FTagments of Briclc and Pottery from Egypt, . The Data not verified, Changes in the Nile Valley, .... Burnt Brick unknown to the Ancient Egyptians, 2. Human Fossil in Mississippi Valley, . 3. Skeleton found near New Orleans, . 4. Remains in the Florida Coral Reefs, . 5. Flint Implements in the Valley of the Somme, . Geological History of the Valley, No Proof that the Remains were contemporaneous. No Proof of their extreme Antiquity, Geological Changes in the Valley, Assumed to be wrought by existing Agencies, . The Assumption rejected by various Authors, . 6. Human Remains in Peat-bogs, etc The Stone, the Iron, and the Bronze Age, The Remains belonged to the Celtic Race, APPENDIX. A. Chronology of Bunsen, 327 B. Chronology qf Bqeckh, 348 C. Chronology of Rodier 349 D. Manetho, 357 E. Manetho's Lists, 359 F. The Old Chronicle, 377 G. Eratosthenes and Apollodorus, .... 378 H. Manetho, according to Josefhus, .... 383 I. Chinese Astronomy, 391 J. Superficial Character of Diversities betv^een Races, 393 K. Variations in Species among Domestic Animals, 401 L. Visit of Dionusos to India, 412 M. Chinese Theo;,ogy, . • 413 N. The Celts (N Europe, , . . , . . .417 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF THE HUMAN RACE. CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTORY. — VIEW OF THE BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. The Slibject recently come into Notice. — Former general Assent to the received Chronology of Man's Creation. — Testimony of Hitchcock and Lyell. — Origin of recent Doubts concerning- it. — Geological Discoveries. — Ethnology and Comparative Philology. — Systems of Chronology. — System of Bunsen. — System of BoSckh. — System of Rodier. — These Systems never critically examined. — Call for a new Discussion of the Subject. — View of the Scripture Chronology. — Three Ver- sions of the Pentateuch. — Period I. From the Creation to the Flood. — II. From the Flood to the Birth of Abraham. — III. From the Birth of Abraham to the Exodus. — IV. From the Exodus to the Founding of the Temple. — V. From the Founding of the Temple to its first Destruction. — VI. From the Destruction of the Temple to the Birth of Christ. — State- ments of heathen Writers. The Antiquity of Man is one of those subjects \ vs'hich have very recently' come into prominent notice among learned njen. It is scarcely a fourth of a 19 20 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF century since the apparent teachings of the Bible chronology, which fix his creation at less than six thousand years ago, were generally received with- out question. For a little time, indeed, the discov- eries of the new science of geology had disturbed the commonly received views on this subject, as astronomy in the days of Copernicus and Galileo had so greatly modified the ancient theories of the physical structure of the universe. But a re-examina- tion of the sacred text^ with the aid of a broader phi- lology, soon demonstrated that there was no neces- sary discrepancy between it and the new science;, nay, even derived fresh evidence from the very facts adduced by the latter in support of its own correct- ness. It was seen that the first verse of Genesis, " In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth," would permit the date of the creation to be carried back to any indefinite antiquity, leaving the subsequent account to cover successive periods in which the earth was fitted foi* human abode, stocked with the present species of vegetable and animal life, and lastly, crowned with the introduction of man, the destined lord and proprietor of all. In this fact of the comparatively recent origin of man, Genesis and geology were entirely agreed. Says Dr. Hitchcock, "As to the period when the creation of such a being by the most astonishing of all miracles took place, I THE HUMAN RACE. 21 believe there is no diversity of opinion. At least all agree that it was very recent ; nay, although geology can rarely give chronological dates, but only a suc- cession of events, she is able to say, from the monu- ments she deciphers, that man can not have occu- pied the globe more than six thousand years." Sir Charles Lyell also, in his "Principles of Geology " (vol. i. p. 240), a work published before the recent discoveries of fossil human remains, remarks, " I need not dwell on the proofs of the low antiquity of our species, for it is not controverted by any ex- perienced geologist; indeed, the real difficulty con- sists in tracing back the signs of man's existence on the earth to that comparatively modern period when species now his contemporaries began to predom- inate. If there be a difference of opinion respecting the occurrence in deposits of the remains of man and his work, it is always in reference to strata con- fessedly of the most modern order ; and it is never pretended that our race co-existed with assemblages # of animals and plants, of which all, or even a great part, of the species are extinct." Until very recently, therefore, the researches of science, and the supposed teachings of the Scriptures respecting the age of man on the earth, had been in entire accord. But within the last twenty years a series of investigations has been made which to 22 ANTIQJJITY AND UNITY OF some extent have again awakened doubt on this subject. Human bones and implements of labor and defense, together with domestic utensils, and even rude attempts of art, have been found in ancient peat beds, in bone caverns, and in the shallow lakes of Europe, in such geological connections as seem to demand for them a much higher antiquity than has hitherto been claimed for the race. Professor H. D. Rogers, of the University of Glasgow, writing in i860, remarks, " Geologists and archasologists have recently somewhat startled the public by announcing the discovery, in the north-east of France and the adjacent corner of England, of supposed indications of the existence of the human race in the remote age when these tracts were inhabited by the extinct elephant, rhinoceros,' hippopotamus, and other an- imals whose bones are preserved in the diluvium, or great superficial deposit attributed to the last wide geological inundation." * These researches have b^n pursued with great industry and zeal, and are already giving us a new science, not yet twenty years old, called "pre- historic archaeology." "It is," says Lenormant,-f " like all sciences which are still in their infancy, pre- sumptuous, and claims, at any rate in the case of * Blackwood's Magazine, October, i860, p. 422. t Manual of the Ancient History of the East. Vol. i. pp. 24, 25. THE HUMAN RACE, 23 some of its adepts, to overturn tradition, to .abolish all authority, and to be the only exponent of the prob- lem of our origin. These are bold pretensions which will never be realized. Prehistoric archaeology, moreover, is yet but in its infancy; it still leaves great gaps, and many problems without solution. There is too often a desire to establish a system, and many scholars hasten to build theories on an insuf- ficient amount of observations. • Finally, all the facts of this science are not yet established with perfect certainty." These claims for the high antiquity of man, derived from his fossil remains, have been fortified by similar claims deduced from the related sciences of eth- nology and comparative philology. It is argued that the present races of men, with their great diver- sities of feature, color, and language, could not,, according to any known rate or law of change, have descended from a single pair within the period that has elapsed since the received date of the creation, or rather of the deluge of Noah. Some, indeed, go further, and deny altogether the Bible doctrine of the unity of the race, insisting both upon its plu- rality of origin and its vast antiquity. As these views will be considered hereafter at length, it is only necessary to remark here that they are advo- cated with great zeal, and a display of learning 24 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF which is well calculated to confound, if it does not convert, the believers in the Mosaic narrative, espe- cially those whose time and attainments will not permit them to examine the subject for themselves. In accordance with these claims of recent scien- tific research, numerous elaborate systems of chro- nology have been constructed, all of enormous reach. Some of these systems, indeed, are not new ; but inasmuch as they never before acquired any credit beyond that of mere speculation, they did not seriously disturb the faith of mankind in the chronology of the Bible. It may not be inappropri- ate to give an outline of these speculations in this place, partly because they will not need any ex- tended consideration further, and partly since they will serve to show us, at the outset, the extravagance of those speculations, as contrasted with the mod- erate and reasonable teachings of the Scriptures. It has been remarked * that not less than ninety- seven systems of chronology have been put forth, some of them professing to be derived from the Bible, but most of them avowedly and irreconcilably differing from it. There are three of these which are specially worthy of notice, viz., the systems of Bunsen, Boeckh, and Rodier. The system of Baron Bunsen is too elaborate to * Iteler, in Halma's Almageste, vol. iv. p. 165. THE HUMAN RAPE. 25 be fully set forth here. In this system the creation of man is placed at B. C. 20,000, the flood of Noah at B. C. 10,000, the founding of the Egyptian em- pire by Menes at B. C. 3623, the birth of Abraham at B. C. 2870, the exodus at B. C. 1320, &c. For his reasons for these dates, and for a consideration of the value of his system, see Appendix, A. The chronological system of Boeckh * is confined to Egyptian history and antiquities. According to this writer, Hepaestus, the first god-king of Egypt, began to reign on the 20th of July, B. C. 30,522. He reigned nine thousand years, and was followed by other gods, as Sol, Typhon, Horus, Jupiter, &c., then by demigods, heroes, and manes. Of the gods there were three dynasties, of demigods three, together extending through nineteen thousand and twenty-four years. These were followed by a dynasty of manes, ruling five thousand eight hun- dred and thirteen years. The whole period thus embraced under the government of the gods, demi- gods, and manes, which he styles tem^us mythtcum (the mythic period), amounts to twenty-four thou- sand eight hundred and thirty-seven years, reach- ing down to July 20, B. C. 5702. Then follow historic titaes. * See Mailer's Fragmenta Hist. Grjec, vol. ii. pp. 599-606, at the close of a resumi of the fragments that have been pre- served of Manetho. 36 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF Menes, the first mortal king of Egypt, begins his reign July 20, B. C. 5702. The chronology of thirty-one dynasties of kings is then given^ extend- ing to the conquest of Egypt by Alexander, Novem- . ber 14, B. C. 332, in the thirty thousand two hun- dred and twelfth year of the world. Of ten or twelve dynasties he gives the date only of the beginning and the end ; of others he gives that of the individual kings ; so that from Menes, July 20, B. C. 5702, to Alexander, November 14, B. C. 332, a period of five thousand thr«e hundred and seventy years, we have one hundred and sixty-five dates, assigned with a precision that extends to the very day of the month ! This feature of the chronology, as it seems to me, is alone sufficient to stamp it as utterly unworthy of confidence. The first god-king begins to reign pre- cisely on the 20th of July, thirty thousand five hun- dred and twenty-two years before Christ I ' Then fol- low gods, demigods, and manes, i. e., demons, for exactly twenty-four thousand eight hundred and thirty-seven years, till the accession of Menes, July 20, B. C. 5702 ! The first dynasty of human kings, eight in number, lasts fronj July 20, B. C. 5702, till May 18, B. C. 5449 ! And so on to the end of the chapter. Surely the student of history has a right to know on what grounds an author THE HUMAN RACE. • 27 bases such definiteness and precision in periods of high antiquity. The unlearned and credulous are likely to receive all this as the simple truth, when they see it so confidently put forth by an author of acknowledged eminence. For a more comprehen- sive view of the system, and of its real value, see Appendix, B. In 1862, a work on chronology was published at Paris by Rodier, entitled, " Antiquity of the Human Races ; Reconstruction of the Chronology and His- tory of the Primitive Peoples, by an Examination of the original Documents, and by Astronomy." * In a second edition, which appeared in i86a, the author says, in his preface, that he has neglected no occasion and no means of eliciting criticism for the detection of errors ; but as no criticisms of conse- quence have been offered, he issues the second edi- tion as a simple reprint of the first. He evidently has increased confidence in the soundness of his work from the favor with which it was received. The following paragraphs from the Introduction, showing the author's claims for his work, are all I need quote in this place : — " To show clearly the field of discussion^ let us an- * Antiquity des Races Humaines ; Reconstitution de la Chro- nologie et I'Histoire des Peuples Primitifs, par I'Examen des Documents originaux et par I'Astronomie. Par G. Rodier. Deuxieme 6d. Paris, 1844, 8vo., pp. 454. 28 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF nounce, in the outset, that we are able to demonstrate with precision {en mesure de demontrer), both chrono- logically and astronomically, the following epochs, viz. : — "The epoch of the year 14,611 B. C, the Egyptian period called Md. " The epoch of the Egyptian calendar at the end of the seventh dynasty, in the year B. C. 4266. ■' The epoch of a reform of the Babylonian calendar, about the year B. C. 2783. " The epoch of the reform of the Iranian calendar, by King Djemschid, about the year B. C. 7000, according to the chronology, or precisely in the year 7048, according to the cycles and astronomical verifications.- " The epoch of the commencement of the period, called the Satya Tuga of the Hindus, in the year B. C. 13,901. " The commencement of the Treta Tuga of the same people, in the year B. C. 9101. " Several other epochs are capable of verification by astronomy, but with less precision ; for example, the era of the Manavantaras in India, corresponding to the year 5. C. 19,337) the era of Thoth in Egypt, corresponding to B. C. 17,932, &c., &c. " All these eras constitute a complete whole {pnt entre elles une soHdarite), more or less perfect, but undeniable and characteristic ; they proceed one from another by a filiation which becomes evident as soon as one has caught a glimpse of it. There are thus revealed, among the primitive peoples, connections and reciprocal in- fluences of which history has lost the remembrance. " We well know that to announce that our researches THE' HUMAN RACE. 29 lead to such results is to mark them for the contempt, perhaps even the hostility, of our readers. Every new truth assails at its birth old opinions, which never disap- pear without offering a resistance more or less active and determined. Reason always ends, however, by triumph- ing over opposition. Profoundly convinced that our work re-establishes in their ancient rights very important truths which have been long obscured by a fatal misap- prehension, we present it with confidence to the small number of readers who may be disposed to examine it without taking sides in advance." Appendix, C. Such are the leading features of three elaborate systems of chronology, which profess to extend the period of man's existence to from twenty to thirty thousand years before Christ. They fall in with and seem to strengthen the geological and ethno- logical arguments for a high human antiquity. And I am not aware that the principles and details of either of them have been subjected to a critical examination. The consequence is, that our pommon system (or systems, for there are several, according to the different versions used) of Bible chronology is rejected as unworthy of credence. Many devout believers in inspiration, indeed, who till recently had never doubted its correctness, already feel their faith in it shaken. A professor in one of our colleges writes me that very recently he was visiting the geological cabinet in company with a friend 30 ANTIQIJITY AND UNITY OF and professed geologist, when, as they were look- ing at a stone ^dz, his friend remarked that it was certainly the work of man, and " gave unquestion- able evidence, by the situation in which it was found, of being at least one hundred thousand years old." Similar opinions are finding frequent expression in our current popular literature. One of our most respectable daily papers, after giving an account of a late meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, in which the discoveries in the river-drifts and caves of France and England were related, remarks, " The results of these researches thus far must revolutionize the long- accepted theory of the age of man, and add many thousand years (we dare not venture to say how many) to the period when it is believed he first trod the earth."* In view of these things, is there not a call for a new and thorough discussion of the question thus involved? If man has existed on the earth twenty, fifty, or a hundred thousand years, what, precisely, is the evidence of it? What traces of his existence during that long period has he left behind him? Do the facts adduced in opposition to the common view, when carefully and candidly weighed, pi^ove what is claimed for them? Do they invalidate the * Providence Daily Journal, October 4, i865. THE HUMAN RACE. 31 authority .and accuracy of the sacred Scriptures? Especially is it important to ascertain what are the facts. In dealing with these matters, writers have substituted speculations for facts, until the reader often knows not what to attribute to the one and what to the other. He who can eliminate the one from the other, who can show distinctly what is properly substantiated as truth, and what is hypo- thetical and imaginary, will perform a real, though it be humble, service both to the cause of science and the Bible. Such is the object which I- have proposed to myself in this work. And if in some instances, as will unavoidably be the case, it shall, from a deficiency of the data, be necessary, in order to bridge over a chasm, to make suppositions and draw inferences, — in other words to speculate, — I shall endeavor to do it in such a way that my readers shall know I am speculating, and not reciting facts. Inasmuch as the question before us implies a comparison between the Bible Chronology and that alleged to be demonstrated by Science, there will be an advantage in exhibiting the former in this place. What, then, do the Scriptures teach us as TO the age of man on the earth? It is well known that there are considerable dis- crepancies in the conclusions which have been 32 ANTIQIJITY AND UNITY OF reached by different authors on this subject. The ages of the patriarchs who lived before Abraham are variously given in the three ancient versions of the Pentateuch, the Heb"rew, the Samaritan, and the Greek of the Septuagint, the variations amount- ing in the aggregate to about fifteen hundred years. We have not space to go at length into the origin of these discrepancies, or attempt to decide positively which of them is most accurate. Each version may have been subject to alteration, perhaps by accident, perhaps also by design. I will only say that the numbers of the Septuagint appear to me the most probable, and best give the true chronology as re- corded by Moses, — a little indefiniteness being admitted as possible in consequence of various readings. The following is an outline of the chronology of the Septuagint, according to our most approved texts of that version of the Old Testament Scrip- tures. These texts are, (i) that of Cardinal Mai's edition, which is after the celebrated Vatican MS., and, (2) that of Tischendorf, which is from a collation of most ancient MSS., the Vatican being the basis.* We make Mai our basis, giving the various readings of Tischendorf. * Tischendorf says in his title-page, " Textum Vaticanum Romanum emendatius edidit, . . . pmnem lectionis varietatem THE HUMAN RACE. 33 While it is not within our object to enter into any discussion in regard to the comparative claims oY the Septuagint and Hebrew chronologies, still, in order to afford the facility of comparing the two, I shall notice the points of difference between them, and give a parallel synopsis of both at the close. Period I. From the Creation of Apam to the Flood. Years before Birth of a Son. Residue of Life. Whole Life, 1. Adam, . . 230 700 930 2. Seth, . . .205 707 912 3. Enos, . . 190 715 905 4. Cainan, . .170 740 910 5. Malaleel, , 165 730 895 6. Jared, . . .162 800 962 7. Enoch, . . 165 200 365 8. Methuselah, (167) 187 782 969 9. Lamech, . 188 565 «753 ID. Noah to the flood, 600 (2242) 2262 The above table differs from a. corresponding one drawn from the Hebrew in this : The lives of the Codicum Vetustiorum Alexandrini, Ephraemi Syri, Friderico- Augustani, subjunxit." And Mai says (title-page), "Ex anti- quissimo Codice Vaticano." But as the first forty-six chapters of Genesis are wanting in this MS., we ean easily account for the diiference between Tischendorf and Mai in regard to some of the patriarchal numbers hereafter noticed. 3 34 ANTIQyiTY AND UNITY OF lirst five and the seventh patriarchs, before thie' birth of the son who succeeded in the patriarchal line, in the Hebrew, are just a century shorter, which cen- tury is added to the residue of life, making the whole life precisely the same ; the years of Lamech before the birth of Noah are, in the Hebrew, one hundred and eighty-two, his residue five hundred and ninety-five, and his whole life seven hundred and seventy-seven jears, instead of as above. In the Hebrew, then, the duration of the period is sixteen hundred and fifty-six years. The various reading of one hundred and sixty- seven, in the life of Methuselah, is edited by Tis- chendorf. Period II. From the Flood to the Birth of Abraham. ^ YeaiB. Shem, after the flood to the birth of Arphaxad, 2 1. Arphaxad, to the birth of a son, . . .135 2. Gainan, ....... 130 3- Sala, 130 4- Eber, 134 5. Peleg, 130 6. Reu, ........ 132 ■ 7. Serug, . . . . *. . . .130 8. Nahor, (79) 179 9. Terah, 70 10. Abraham born, (1072) 1172 THE HUMAN RACE. 35 According to the Hebrew, the lives of the first seven patriarchs (excluding Cainan) are just a hun- dred years shorter before the birth of a son, Cainan is entirely omitted, and the years of Nahor, previous to the birth of Terah, are only twenty-nine, making the period two hundred and ninety-two years.* The reading seventy-nine, in the life of Nahor, is found in many MSS., and is edited bj'^ Grabe, and by Field in an edition of the LXX recently published by the Society for Propagating the Gos- pel. But one hundred and seventy-nine is edited by both Mai and Tischendorf, and, in fact, by almost all editors of the LXX. Period III. 'From the Birth of 'Abraham to thk Exodus. In regard to the duration of this period there is no difference between the Septuagint and the He- brew.' By a wonderful agreement of almost all chronologers, both ancient and modern, this duration is estimated at five hundred and five years. The texts upon which this estimate is based are the same .in the Septuagint as in the Hebrew. These texts are. Gen. xii. 4 and Ex. xii. 40, 41. Abraham was seventy-five years old at the " Call," * Usher and some others — Hebraists — make this period three hundred and fifty-two years. This is done by making Abraham to be born in the one hundred and thirtieth year of Terah, com- paring Gen. xi. 32 with xii. 4. 36 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF and the exodus was four hundred and thirty years after. For, by the consent of all the chronologers, the four hundred and thirty years began when the patriarch, at the divine call, left his land and kin- dred. And Paul corroborates this in his statement that the law came four hundred and thirty years after the promise. (Gal. iii. 17.) This interpreta- tion is strengthened by the particular reading of -the Septuagint in Ex. xii. 40,. this translation adding, after the words "who dwelt in Egypt," the words " and in Canaan." The chronology of this period, then, according to the Septuagint, is the same as in the Hebrew, viz. : — Abraham to the " Call," .... 75 From the Call to the Exodus, . . 430 Total, 505 Period IV. From the Exodus to the Foundation OF Solomon's Temple. This period is shorter according to the Septuagint than it is according to the Hebrew, and that whether we determine the duration by the single text, i. Kings vi. i , or by the details of the current history. In X Kings vi. i, it is said that the temple was begun four hundred and forty years * after the chil- * Five MSS. collated bj Holmes and the Compl. Ed. have four hundred and eighty in i Kings vi. i. THE HUMAN RACE. 37 dren of Israel came out of Egypt, and in the current history only twenty years are assigned to Eli instead of forty, as in the Hebrew. In all other respects the details are the same in both.* And both are alike indefinite in regard to the time of Joshua and the Elders, and that of Samuel and Saul. The duration of this period, then, according to the Septuagint, if we adopt the present reading of I Kings vi. i , is four hundred and forty years ; but if we adopt the details in the current history, giving to Joshua twenty-seven years, according to the an- cient chronologers generally, and to Samuel and Saul forty, according to Paul (Acts xiii. 18-21), it is six hundred years, as follows : — Years. Moses in the desert, ..... 40 Joshua, 37 1st Servitude (Mesop.), . . Judges iii. 8 8 Othniel, " iii. 11 40 2d Servitude (Moab), . . " iii. 14 18 Ehud and Shamgar, ..." iii. 30 80 3d Servitude (Canaan), . . " iv. 3 20 * Clinton (^Fasii Romani, v61. ii., Append, p. 226) says the details from which the chronology of the period is determined are precisely the same in the LXX as in the Hebrew ; and he presents the details in parallel columns in which forty years are assigned to Eli in the LXX. Parker (in a recent elaborate work on Chronology) says the same. See next note. 38 ANTIQiJITY AND UNITY OF Years. Deborah and Barak, . Judges 1 v. 31 40 4th Servitude (Midian), ^l Vi. I 7 Gideon, .... li viii. 28 40 Abimelech, .... a ix. 22 3 Tola, n X. 2 23 Jair; (( X- 3 22 5th Servitude (Philist.), (( X. 8 18 Jephthah, .... (( xii. 7 6 Ibzan, .... (( xii. 9 7 Elon, (( xii. 11 10 Abdon, .... (( xii. 14 8 - 6th Servitude (Philist), ct xiii. I 40 Samson, . . Judges 3cv. 20, and xvi. 31 20 Eli, . ... 1 Sam 1. iv. 18 20* Samuel and Saul, . . 40 David, . . • . . . 40 Solomon to foundation of the Temple, • 3 Total, . I • 580 Or, according to i Kings vi. i, 440. Period V. From the Foundation of Solomon's Tem- ple TO ITS Destruction by Nebuchadnezzar. There are some difficulties in the chronology of this period on account of discrepancies in the sacred * This is forty in the Complut. Aldine and Georg. Slav, edi- tions of the LXX, and some two or three MSS., as noted by Holmes. But all our present editions have tvirenty. THE HUMAN RACE. 39 text ; but these discrepancies are the same in the Septuagint as in the Hebrew, and the details in regard to numbers upon which the duration of the period rests are precisely the same in both, as fol- lows : ■■ — Yrs. Mos. 37 17 2 41 25 7 • I 6 40 29 52 16 15 29 55 2 31 II II I. Solomon, 2. Rehoboam, 3- Abijam, current 3, complete. 4- Asa, ...... 5- Jehoshaphat, . 6. Joram, current 8, complete. 7- Ahaziah, 8. Athaliah, .... 9- Joash, .... ID. Amaziah, .... II. Azariah; or Uzziah, 12. Jotham, .... 13- Ahaz, current 16, complete, 14. Hezekiah, .... 15- Manasseh, 16. Amon, .... 17- Josiah, .... 18. Jehoahaz, .... 19. Jehoiakim, 20. Jehoiachin, 21. Zedekiah, Total, . Or, as we may say, 427 years. 427 6 40 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF A close examination of the history of the period shows that the numbers of some of the reigns should be reduced by one to denote complete years. Such we regard the third, sixth, and thirteenth reigns. The grounds for this 'conclusion will be seen on comparing i Kings i. i and i. lo, 2 Kings viii. 16 and viii. 25, and xvi. i and xvii. i. We have put down the time of those reigns accordingly. Period VI. From the Destruction of the Temple by Nebuchadnezzar to the Birth of Jesus Christ. The duration of this period cannot be determined by any scriptural data alone. For its commence- ment and chronological details we have to resort to profane history; In reference to this point, the Sep- tuagint and the Hebrew occupy the same; ground. For, as we have before intimated, all essential dif- ference between the two is confined to the first two periods, or the . patriarchal ages, there being only a slight discrepancy afterward, viz., in the fourth period, the years of Eli or the statement in i Kings vi. I. Since, then, our object is to give the chro- nology of the Septuagint, we, without discussion, remark that the destruction of the temple by Neb- uchadnezzar has been fixed by means of Ptolemy's canon at about B. C. 586, by the ablest chronolo- THE HUMAN RACE. 41 gers,* some varying two or three years on one side or the other of that date. Waiving the discussion of that point to another place, we assume that as the date of the destruction of the temple. The chronology of the Septuagint, presented in tabular form, stands thus (that of the Hebrew being added for convenience of comparison) : — THE SEPTUAGINT. 1 HEBREW. Mai's Ed. Tischen. Ed. | - Yrs. B. C. Yrs. B. C. Yrs. B.C. I. Creation, 2262 SS32 2242 SSI2 1656 4066. 2. Flood, . 1 172 3270 1 172 3270 292 2410 3. Birth of Abraham, . SOS 2098 SOS 2098 SOS 2118 4. Exodus, . S8o IS93 S8o IS93 600 1613 5. Founding of Temple, 427 1013 427 1013 427 1013 6. Destruction of Tem- ple^ . S86 586 S86 S86 586 S86 The first column of figures in each system denotes the length of the periods, and the second, the date * The author of "The History of the World," Philip Smith, B. A., one of the principal contributors to Smith's Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography, in his Note on Chronology, p. 10, says, "The epoch of the destruction of the temple is fixed by a concurrence of proofs from sacred and profane history, with only a variation of one, or, at the most, two years, between B. C. 588 and 586. Clinton's date is June, B. C. 587." This margin should be extended a little on each side of 586, as some, as Bede, have 589, and some as low as 583. 42 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF of the epochs beginning them. It should be re- marked, in regard to the Hebrew computation in the above table, that Hebraists generally make the second interval three hundred and fifty-two years, by regarding ■ Abraham as the youngest son of Terah, and born when his father was one hundred and thirty years old, instead of seventy, and the fourth period, four hundred and eighty, from i Kings vi. i, instead of six hundred, making the time from the creation to Christ sixty years less than it is in our table, placing the creation at B. C. 4006. The sum four thousand and four, as indicat- ing the date of the creation in our received chro- nology, is made up, in addition to the above modifi- cations, by shortening the fifth period. But our table presents what we regard as the coraect He- brew chronology.* * Dates according to. irarious authors : - - S 1 P (0 •a i 1 .m Creation, . 3983 4004 54" 5426 5361 Ab. 20,000 Flood, 2327 2348 3155 3170 3099 Ab. 10,000 Birth of Abraham, 1961 192 1 2078 2023 2157 Exodus, 1531 1491 1648 IS93 1652 1320 Founding of Temple, 1012 1012 1027 1014 lOII 1004 Destruction of Temple, S89 588 586 586 586 586 THE HUMAN RACE. 43 It should be further remarked, that most Sep- tuagintarian chronologers make the first period twenty-two hundred and fifty-six, out of deference to Josephus-; they likewise make the second period only ten hundred and seventy-two,* by putting the years of Nahor at seventy-nine instead of one hun- dred and seventy-nine ; or nine hundred and forty- two,! by leaving out the second Cainan with his gene- ration of one hundred and thirty years ; or ten hun- dred and two,t by giving Terah one hundred and thirty years to the birth of Abraham, We simply remark that our object is to present the chronology of the Septuagint according to the most approved texts. This we have done. We would state, how- ever, that we think this version should be corrected to ma^e it harmonize with Josephus in the length of the first period, since, by giving Methuselah only one hundred and sixty-seven years before the birth of Lamech, we make him survive the flood fourteen years ; and the one hundred and eighty-eight years of Lamech should doubtless be corrected by the Hebrew and Josephus, and made one hundred and eighty-two; we would likewise give to Eli forty instead of twenty years. * As Jackson. t As Eusebius. X As Hales. Hales, a Septuagintarian in chronology, gives Nahor seventy-nine, leaves out the second Cainan, ^nd makgs Terah one hundred and thirty at the birth of Abraham. 44 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF Thus it appears that the highest date of the crea- tion of man, according to the Septuagint, — and that is according to Mai's edition, — is B. C. 5532, and the lowest (arrived at by taking the lowest numbers found in any text, of Methuselah, viz., one hundred and sixty-seven, and Nahor, viz., seventy-nine, and the four hundred and forty of i Kings vi. i, for the fourth period) is two hundred and sixty years less, i. e., B. C. 5272. The difference between the Septuagint and the Hebrew, according to our computation, is fourteen hundred and sixty-six or fourteen hundred and forty-six. This difference, by taking other num- bers of the various readings, might be increased to sixteen hundred and twenty. It may be remarked, however, that the amount of difference, which is to be set down as the probable result of designed alter- ation in one or the other, is thirteen hundred years, or, if we include Cainan's generation in this class, fourteen hundred and thirty,* viz., six hundred in the period before, and seven hundred or eight hun- dred and thirty in the period after the flood, the lives of thirteen patriarchs before the birth of the son who succeeded being shortened or lengthened a century * We are inclined to the opinion, however, that the interpola- tion or omission of the second Cainan, whichever is adopted, is the result of mistake of copyists. THE HUMAN RACE. ^|.5 each, and the second Cainan. being interpolated or left out. Other differences are probably the result of mistakes by copyists. • These results, deducible from the sacred history alone, receive some remarkable confirmations from early heathen writers, which may properly be ex- hibited in this place. 1. We have a fragment of a work on India, writ- ten by Megasthenes, a Greek historian contempo- raneous with Alexander the Great, about B. C. 323, in which he gives an account of the institutions and customs of the people of that country. He says, " The Hindus and the Jews are the only people who had a just conception of the creation of the world and the beginnings of things." And he adds, "The Hindus did not carry back their history and antiqui- ties above five thousand and forty-two [some manu- scripts read six thousand and forty-two] years and three months from Alexander's. invasion of India,"* — viz., 327 B. C. This would place the creation at B-. C. 5369, differing less than two hundred years from the date now given. 2. In an Arabic work, attributed to Abu-M§,shar, in the conjunction of the planets, the author remarks that the Indians reckoned three thousand seven hundred and twenty-five years (Persian) and * * Hales' Chronofogy, vol. i. p. 195. 46 ANTIQJJITY AND UNITY OF three hundred and forty-eight days between the deluge and the Hegira (A. D. 622), which would bring the date of the former at B. C. 3102. This is the date of the commencement of the celebrated Kali-Tug, an - historico-astronomical epoch of the Hindus, which doubtless had its origin in that great event, the Flood, of Noah. 3. Demetrius Phalereus, a Greek writer, born B. C. 345, is quoted by Alexander Polyhistor, another Greek author, as making the period before the flood to be two thousand two hundred and sixty-two years, and from thence to the birth of Abraham, one thousand and seventy-two years. 4. Another heathen writer, named Eupolemus, said to have flourished about B. C. 160, who wrote several works on the history of the Jews, has a par- agraph to this effect : " That from Adam to .the fifth year of Demetrius, and the twelfth of Ptolemy, king of Egypt, are five thousand one hundred and forty- nine years." Reference must here be made to Demetrius Soter, king of Syria, who began to reign about B. C. 163, and Ptolemy Physcoh, who began B. C. 170. The fifth of the former and the twelfth of the latter concur in B. C. 158, which makes the date of the creation, according to this writer, to be B. C. 5307. The numbers given, both by him and Demetrius, were evidently originally derived from THE HUMAN RACE. 47 the Mosaic records, and can not, therefore, be re- garded as independent testimony in support of those records. Their testimony, nevertheless, is valuable, as showing how the Jewish chrqnology had found its way into heathen writings many years before the Christian era.* * Demetrius and Eupolemus are both mentioned by Josephus (Cont. Apion, i. 23) as foreign writers who had " not greatly missed the truth about our aifairs ; whose lesser mistakes ought, therefore, to be forgiven them, for it was not in their power to understand our writings with the utmost accuracy." 48 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF CHAPTER II. THE ARGUMENT FROM HISTORY. I. EGYPT. Source of our Knowledge of Egyptian Antiquities. — I. The Temples and Monuments. — Afford little Help in this Inquiry. — No monumental Date earlier than B. C. 2500. — II. Liter- ary Remains. — Art of Writing early known. — Number of Egyptian Books. — These contain no Chronology. — III. Greek Historians. — Their Study of Egyptian Antiquities. — Divided into two Classes. — Testimonies relating to Pre- historic Times. — Diogenes Laertius. — Diodorus Siculus. — Herodotus. — Pomponius Mela. — The "Old Chronicle." — Eusebius. — Julius Africanus. — Castor. — These Accounts not to be taken literally, — Discrepancies between them. — Months reckoned as Years. — Were ancient Annals forged? — Supposed astronomical Evidence. — Story of the Zodiac of Dendera. — Of the wooden Tablets. — Historic Times. — Egyptian Chronology without Dates. — Manetho, his Histo- ry and Character. — His Lists of the Egyptian Dynasties.' — These Lists examined. — I. Their Sources unknown. — II. Have been corrupted. — III. Intrinsic Evidence of their Un- trustworthiness. — IV. Contradicted by the " Old Chronicle." — By Eratosthenes. — By Josephus V. Not sustained by the Monuments. — Conclusion as to their Value. We propose to inquire, in the first place, of His- tory, whether she has any evidence to afford us of THE HUMAN RACE. 49 . the alleged remote antiquity of man on earth. And we will begin with what is confessedly one of the- oldest of known nations — ancient Egypt. Our knowledge of the antiquities of Egypt io derived partly from its temples and monuments,, partly from the papyrus rolls and other literary remains still extant, and partly from the writings of historians and scholars of other lands, who have transmitted to us the facts and traditions known in their day, but which have otherwise been lost. The first of these sources of infoi-mation affords little help in determining the question before us. The work of deciphering the monumental inscrip- tions, since the discovery of the key to the system of hieroglyphics, as furnished by the Rosetta Stone, has been one of great interest, and some important results have been reached. Still it admits of a ques- tion whether, in the hands of those who but imper- fectly understand them, they have not introduced much confusion into Egyptian history. However that maj' be, the data they furnish are too recent to bo of much weight in the inquiry under consideration. It is the general admission of Egyptologers, that no monumental record can be dated back anterior to about B. C. 2500. Says Mr. Poole,* "The earliest record which all Egyptologers are agreed to regard * Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, Art. Egypt. 4 so ANTIQillTY AND UNITY OF as affording a date, is of the fifteenth century before Christ, and no one has alleged any such record to be of any earlier time than the twenty-fourth century before Christ." The same thing is substantially true of the literary remains of ancient Egypt. It is generally admitted that the art of writing was known at a very early period, perhaps as early as the commencement of the empire under Menes, its first king. Clemens Alexandrinus mentions sacred Egyptian books to the number of forty-two ; others, eleven hundred ; others still, twenty thousand, and thirty-six thousand five hundred.* Some of these may still be extant in the numerous papyrus rolls now deposited in the museums of Egypt. It is, however,' generally agreed that these books contain no history or chronology ; and certain it is that, if they do, neither has, . as yet, been brought to light. Bunsen (vol. ii. p. i6) expressly says, " We possess no Egyptian historical work." For the history and chronology of ancient Egypt, then, we have to depend almost solely upon writers of other nations, mostly of the Greeks. Diodorus Siculus (I. ii. 36) gives a list of the names "of " illustrious Greeks," as he terms them, who- had traveled in Egypt. He says that the * Bunsen, vol. i. p. 7. THE HUMAN RACE. 5 I priests of that country read in their annals the names of these men whom they have seen among them, beginning with the semi-fabulous name of Orpheus. He then mentions Homer, Lycurgus, and others, down to his own time, giving more than half a score in all. Plutarch furnishes a similar list. Thus it appears that the principal of the Greek historians, philosophers, and poets visited Egypt for the ex- press purpose of studying its customs, institutions, and whatever else was worthy to be known. And we find, in corroboration of these staternents, very many things in Grecian mythology and science credited to that people. More than a dozen Grecian and Roman writers speak of Egypt in their works. Some, as Herodotus and Diodorus, go into details respecting the history of the country and its laws ; others, as Plutarch, dwell more on matters pertain- ing to religion and the gods ; others, still, speak of its language, pyramids, and other monuments. Now, when we consider the eminently practical character of the Greek mind, what those writers said of Egypt is of great importance in our discus- sion, although we may often be sorely vexed at the meagerness of the information they furnish on par- ticular points, when they evidently had the means and the opportunity of giving us the very knowledge we seek. $2 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF In exhibiting the accounts which these writers have left us, it will be convenient to divide them into two classes — those which relate to prehistoric times, and those which relate to historic times. The time of separation between these has usually been placed at the reign of Menes, the first mortal king, though there is some evidence that Menes himself is a mythological personage. I. The Prehistoric Times op Egypt. The following are among the testimonies of an- cient writers on this subject : — From Diogenes Laertius (Int. § a). " The Egyptians say that Vulcan was the son of Nilus, and that he was the author of philosophy. . . . From his age to that' of Alexander, king of the Macedonians, were forty-eight thousand eight hundred and sixty-three years, and, during this time, there were three hundred and seventy-three eclipses of the sun, and eight hundred and thirty-two eclipses of the moon." From Diodorus Siculus (I. i. § 14). " The priests of Egypt, summing up the time from the reign of Helius (the sun) to the passage of Alexandei into Asia, find it more than twenty-three thousand years." THE HUMAN RACE. 53 From Herodotus (II. 43). " But there was a certain ancient god with the Egyp- tians, by name Hercules. Seventeen thousand years before the reign of Amasis, the twelve gods were, they affirm, produced from the eight, and, of these twelve, Hercules is one." From Pomfonius Mela (Cory's Anc. Fragments, p. 163). " The Egyptians, according to their own accounts, are the most ancient of men, and they reckon, in their series of annals, three hundred and thirty kings, who reigned above thirteen thousand years." From the " Old Chronicle." * This venerable document is reported to us by George Syncellus, a Greek writer of the ninth century. It pro- fesses to give the duration of thirty dynasties of Egyptian kings, covering a period of- thirty-six thousand five hun- dred .and twenty-five years. ' The first fourteen of these belonged to prehistoric times, embracing thirty-four thou- sand two hundred and one years. According to this Chronicle, only the last sixteen of the thii-ty dynasties be- long to historic times, which are made to commence about B. C. 2043. From Eusebius. This distinguished historian and chronologer devotes a chapter in his " Chronicon " (book i. ch. 20) to Egyp- * See page 73. 54 ANTiqyiTY AND UNITY OF tian chronology, expressly mentioning Manetho * as his authority. He makes the reigns of the gods, from Vul- can (Hephaistus) to Bytis, to have been thirteen thousand nine hundred years, and those of demigods, manes, heroes, and other kings of the same age, eleven thousand years — in all, twenty-four thousand nine hundred years. He then gives an account of the so-called thirty-one dynasties, beginning with Menes, the first mortal king, who, according to the numbers mentioned, — if the dynas- ties are regarded as consecutive, — began his reign about B. C. 5500, thus carrying back the full antiquity of the Egyptian people to about 30,500 B. C. From yulius Africanus. This writer was a learned chronologer of the second century after Christ. He gives us a version of Manetho, which, so far as relates to the mythologic times of Egypt, differs, in essential particulars, from that of Eusebius. He states the reigns of the gods, beginning with Hephais- tus, — whose sway was nine thousand year.s, — to have been eleven thousand nine hundred and eighty-five years, :md those of the demigods, heroes, and manes, to have been eight hundred and fiflyrthrep years.f Then follow * The great differences that appear in the statements of the different writers who, in the matter of Egyptian history and chronology, have professed to take Manetho as authority, are an anomaly in literature. t There is some doubt how far the details of this account are to be ascribed to Africanus, and how far to later historians antj THE HUMAN RACE. 55 the thirty-one dynasties, more nearly agreeing with the account of Eusebius. What is worthy of note in this connection is, that these two writers agree in putting the reigns of the gods,»demigods, and manes before the so- called thirty-one dynasties, while other accounts, as that of the " Old Chronicle " and Castor, include them within the latter. . From Castor. This w^as a heathen writer, who is believed to have flourished in the second century before Christ.* He also expressly mentions Manetho as his authority. Accord- ing to him, the duration of the reigns of the gods was fifteen hundred and fifty years ; then, of the demigods, heroes, and manes, twenty-one thousand years. Thus Egyptian prehistoric times, as measured by this writer, amount to but thirty-six hundred and fifty years, although the numbers he gives in the summing up do not agree with the details. The fragment of his work which has come down to us is, however, so corrupted that his state- ments are often self-contradictory. Like the preceding chronologers, as Panodorus, Anianus, and Syncellus. The statements of Syncellus are not always definite, so that we can not determine whether he is giving his own language or that of another. There is scarcely room for doubt, however, that the numbers above given are, for the most part, correctly ascribed to Africanus. * The chronological work of a Castor, supposed to be this author, is referred to by Apollodorus, who died about B. C. 140. — Smith's Diet. Gr. a^d Rom,, ^iog., art. Castof. 56 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF authors, he makes Hephaistus, or Vulcan, the first of the gods, and^Menes the first of the mortal kings. He enu- merates only seventeen dynasties." What, now, is the practical value of this testimony in determining the problem before us? How far does it go to prove the existence of man on earth, at a period antecedent to the date assigned to his creation in the Scriptures? That these accounts are not to be taken literally is evident upon the face of them. It would be an insult to the understanding of my readers to assure them that gods, i. e., superhuman beings, demi- gods (persons half divine and half human), and manes (which are the spirits or ghosts of the dead) , did, in fact, reign over men on the earth at any time, or during any period. Yet, strange as it may seem, there have been writers of eminence who have actually made these accounts the basis of their chronology, and taken them into their systems as having some substantial value. How true is the remark, that no persons manifest so much credulity in the acceptance of extravagant and impossible theories, as those who profess themselves incredu- lous of the statements of the Bible ! The worthlessness of these stories, as an element of chronology, is also shown by the discrepancies THE HUMAN RACE. 57 between them. The duration of the reign of the gods, &c., is variously stated to be all the wa};^ between thirty-six hundred and fifty and forty-eight thousand eight hundred and sixty-three years. There can be little doubt that these historians faith- fully reported the accounts given them, either orally or in the sacred books. How evident it is, then, that those original authorities were utterly untrust- worthy ! — either that the earlier Egyptian records were not understood in the times of Herodotus, Diodorus, and Manetho,* or that the work of Mane- tho himself has been so abridged and corrupted by epitomizers, through whose writings alone it ap- pears to have been known after the times of Jose- phus, that it is now of little or no value for purposes of accurate chronology. There is, however, a mode of estimating these long prehistoric periods which should be adverted to in this place. "We know," says Palmer (Egyp. ♦ Dr. Samuel Birch, of the British Museum, in his translation of the " Book of the Dead," says, " The new exegetical researches into the hieratic papyri have contributed to throw additional light on many obscure passages ; but there are others, the mean- ing of which will probably long remain ambiguous — a ciroum- stance not to be wondered at when it is remembered that the correct or ancient reading was so to the Egyptians themselves at a very early period of their theology." — Additional Notes, P- 333- S8 ANTIQJJITY AND UNITY OF Chron. vol. i. p. 30), "that under the Ptolemies and the Romans the idea existed that the vast periods of the Egyptians, of the Chronicle, and of Manetho in particular, had been swelled to their apparent bulk by counting, for the earlier spaces of time, mgnths under the name of years." Herodotus and Plato, or Eudoxus, no less than later writers, had heard that the earliest Egyptian " years " were months of thirty days : " El dh xai S q>7]CTi.v 'EiSo^og ^kijOlg, on Allinxioi rdv [iriva iviavtbi' ix&Xovv^ o-6x &v f^ rav noi.lii)}' zoiiav ivinvx&v &noiQl6/iyatg s/oi xt Oav/iaaTdv ," * (Proclus. in Tim. p. 31, 1. 50.) Diodorus Siculus qdds more particularly that, according to some, the long reigns of the earlier gods, who had above 1200 years each, were composed oi months of thirty days, not real years ; and those of the later gods, who had over 300 years each, were composed oi seasons, ^ of four months each, the native Egyptian year being divided into three seasons, of spring, summer, and winter, not four, like the Greek. On this ground, Eusebius reduced the whole period of the gods, demigods, and manes, to 2,206 years, which is an affroximation to the sf ace from the creation to the deluge, according to the Se;ptuagint chronology, * " And if Eudoxus reports correctly, that the Egyptians calt a month a year, the reckoning of those many years would not contain anything wonderful." j ^oat. THE HUMAN RACE. 59 The " Old Chronicle " allots 34,201 years to the ante-human reigns, which, reduc.ed upon the same principle, amounts to 2765 solar years. Thus in- terpreted, we obtain a clew to the actual duration of the mythological period of the ancient Egyptians, viz., that there had been a space of between two and three thousand years from the creation to the commencement of the Egyptian monarchy. This, certainly, is a possible explanation of the matter. I know, indeed, 'that Bunsen mentions it with a sneer, and dismisses it as not entitled to a moment's thought. He regards it as a mere expe- dient of Christian chronographers to bring the chro- nology of Egypt into harmony with that of the Jew- ish Scriptures. Wilkinson likewise says that this ground is untenable. 'But the explanation was not first made by Christian writers. When Herodotus, Diodorus, and others spoke of it as an ancient method of reckoning time, they doubtless had evi- dence of the fact, which may now be lost; and they manifestly give it as a fact, and not as a mere opinion of their own. Such a mode of reckoning time would, at first, be the most natural and easy. It is, in fact, that of almost all uncultivated nations to this day. The revolutions of the moon are more obvious and defi- nite than those of the earth, the diurnal excepted, 6o ANTIQIJITY AND UNITY OF and the supposition is more than plausible, that, in the earliest ages, the lunar measure of time would prevail. Besides, if this mode of explaining the immense periods of Egyptian chronology be rejected, what is the true one? Let those who sneer at this tell us what those periods do mean. Do those thirteen thousand nine hundred years of the reign of the gods signify a real condition of men and things on earth ? Did the twelve hundred and fifty-five years' sway of the demigods — beings whose fathers were gods and mothers women, or vice versa — cover an actual state of affairs in this world ? So with the fifty-eight hundred and thirteen years attributed to the demigods and manes. What is the practi- cal meaning . of these ? Perhaps our friends the "spiritualists" can explain them. I cannot. Per- haps they may find in these old Egyptian legends evidence of the actual participation of departed spirits in the affairs of men. Be it so. But a sober student of history and chronology, when confronted with myths like these, cannot help asking some questions in regard to them which are not so easily disposed of. And the only rational conclusion he ' can reach is, that as to determining the actual exist- ence of man on earth, unless upon the supposition that they involve other than the usual modes of reckoning, they are utterly worthless. THE HUMAN RACE. 6l It has been sometimes said that ancient nations have forged the large periods of their early annals for the express purpose of gratifying their pride of a high antiquity. But I doubt the assertion. Such a motive would imply an appreciation of the value of history in the true sense of the term. And when such an appreciation is reached by any people, it is too late to falsify it; or, if falsification were at- tempted, it could not be perpetuated. Still, if any one should maintain that, in remote prehistoric times, some bard or story-teller invented these large Egyptian numbers, and gave them currency before the true idea and value of history had been attained, I should have no controversy with him. But I have a controversy with those who accept these numbers as any part of authenticated history, and weave them into systems of chronology claiming our con- fidence or respect. . Before leaving the prehistoric times of Egypt, I should allude to certain evidence supposed to be derived from astronomical inscriptions upon the tem- ples corroborative, of the alleged extreme antiquity of that people. Among these was the famous Zodiac of Denderah, which attracted so much attention a few years ago.* The following narrative concern- * Though the pretensions based upon this zodiac are now so completely exploded, yet it is still adduced by some as proving a 62 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF ing it is from the pen of a learned writer, who had a personal knowledge of some of the things of which he speaks, and was familiar with the whole sub- ject : ■ — " Some time about the year 1798, General Bonaparte, with his host of French soldiery and a number of literary men, entered the small town of Denderah, in Central Egypt, and found there a large and small temple, in a good state of preservation, both of which were decorated with images of deities and hieroglyphics. The literary men copied the drawings as w^ell as their time would per- mit, but they secured the whole ceiling of the smaller, flat temple, by cutting out the stone slab by means of a saw. They were also -fortunate enough in getting the old, black, and smoky stone — which, by the way, had the length and breadth of the ceiling of a middle-sized room — safe to -Paris. Arrived here, the literati went to work in deciphering the inscriptions and figures of both tem- ples. And what did they make of them ? " Why, they thought, from the inscriptions,- that both temples must be at least 17,000 years old, and tried to prove this by their astronomical calculations — in short, made it mathematically sure. Volume after volume was then published on this subject. But in this case, as in many others, the reckoning had been made without their high date for the* human occupancy of the Nile valley. Since these pages were written, a gentleman urged it to prove to me the incorrectness of the Mosaic chronology. For this reason I refer to it in this place. THE HUMAN RACE. 63 host, for men of letters could not agree altogether. Some considered the stone older, and others of less age ; but all united on one point, that both temples at Denderah must have stood before the great deluge, and even the creation. A certain professor of the University of Breslau edited, for instance, a pamphlet, entitled ' Invincible Proof that our Earth is at least ten times older than taught by the Bible.' More than fifty publications, of a similar purport, have treated of the temples of Denderah. Besides these, a host of newspaper vifriters trumpeted the great discover}* of the nineteenth century, in innumerable sheets and periodicals all over Europe. " The stone of Denderah was kept, at this time, in the National Library at Paris, and ivas visited by hundreds of thousands of the curious, all anxious to see the antedi- luvian monument. But King Charles X. was compelled, at last, to place it in a dark chamber, because the crowd became too large and unruly. This naturally cause4 a great' deal of grumbling, because the king and priesthood had combined, as they said, to keep the people from becoming enlightened. " This was a time of woe for a small band of Chris- tians, and of great rejoicing for the infidels of all coun- tries. ' You credulous fools,' failed they, ' don't you see how you have been imposed upon by the wily priesthood, with the chronology of your " Word of God " ? There was never a deluge, nor a creation, at least not at the period stated by the Bible. Now you can see that the Old and New Testaments contain, from beginning to end, a series 64 ANTIQJJITY AND UNITY OF of lies ! ' Nobody was able, in those times, to gainsay so many books of learning, and many poor Christians were led astray." The author then proceeds to explain the method by which so great an antiquity was deduced from the inscription. They found certain marks, from which they inferred that the vernal equinox, at the time the temple was erected, was between the signs Cancet and Leo, of the zodiac, and, as the equi- noxes recede at the rate of about fifty seconds a year, or one degree in seventy-two years, a simple calcu- lation showed that it must have been at the point supposed not less than 17,000 years ago. Hence the date of the temple, and hence, too, the demon- stration that the Bible was false ! But alas for pre- tensions so confident ! When Champollion, having discovered the mode of deciphering the hiero- glyphics, examined this famous zodiac, he read upon it the name and titles of Augustus Ccesar, showing that its origin was no more ancient than the Christian era. And this conclusion has been abundantly confirmed by others. Thus Letronne,* having recited some of the principal facts, particu- larly in relation to a zodiac found in a mummy-case, — precisely like that at Denderah, — on which was * Recueil des Inscriptions, Grecques et Latines, de I'Egypt. Paris, 1842. Introd. p. 20. THE HUMAN RACE. 6$ traced a Greek inscription, giving the name of the deceased, and date of his death, which was the nine- teenth year of Trajan, remarks, — " Thus it was demonstrated that all the zodiacal repre- sentations which existed in Egypt are found only upon monuments of the Greek and Roman periods, and that none of those of Pharaonic times — temples, tombs, or mummies — offer the least trace of them ; from which re- sults the evident proof that the zodiac, so far from having originated in Egypt, as was generally believed, after the opinion of Dupuis, was a stranger in that country till after it had 'passed through the hands of the Greeks." The same writer adds, in another work,* that, in his opinion, all the six Egyptian zodiacs which have been discovered were posterior to the reign of Tiberius, and were "executed in the space of less than one hundred years — between 57 and 150 of our era." Similar results have been derived from an exam- ination of four wooden tablets brought from Egypt by Rev. Henry Stobart in 1854.! These measured each four by two and a half inches, and were covered on both sides with quintuple columns of demotic characters, which proved to be a series of * Sur rOrigine Grecque des zodiaqwes pretendus Egyptiennes. Paris, 1837. t Dr. J. P. Thompson, in Bib. Sacra, vol. xiv. pp. 651-654. s 66 ANTIQJJITY AND UNITY OF observations upon the places of the five planets in the signs of the zodiac. The reading of these tablets by the eminent Egyptologists Brugsch and Lepsius affords a curions example of the different conclusions reached by the masters of Egyptian interpretation. In regard to four out of the five- planets, the two are in entire disagreement, that of Mars alone being the same in both readings. M. Brugsch submitted a careful translation of these tablets to some of the leading astronomers of Eu- rope, and received a reply from M. Biot, of Paris, transmitting the calculations of Mr. Ellis, of the Greenwich Observatory, to the effect that "these are, without doubt, records of the places of the planets. Those which he has restored extendyrom the year 105 to the year 1 14 6/" our era. This last point corresponds with the close of the reign of Tra- jan in Egypt." Mr. Biot adds, " That these nota* tions of planetary places were made after actual observations seems to me not at all probable. In fact, for this there must have been, in the time of Trajan, at Thebes or Memphis, a grand observa- tory, manned by accomplished observers, well ap- pointed with instruments, and making constant note of the movements of the planets ; all things of which there is no trace in Egypt at that epoch except at Alexandria, and there only to a limited extent. THE HUMAN RACE. 67 I therefore incline to regard these tablets as having been the note-book {calefin) or the year-book of a Roman or Greek astrologer living in Egypt, who thus inscribed for his own use the places of the .planets calculated in advance, according to the Greek astronomy, merely transforming the dates of the vague year into corresponding dates of the fixed year." * Enough has now been said to show the fallacy of any conclusion respecting the antiquity of our race, drawn from the mythologic period of Egyptian chronolgy. We come next to consider, — II. The Historic Times of Egypt. It is almost universally admitted that historic times in Egypt began with Menes, although, for myself, I cannot, as heretofore remarked, but re- gard him more as a mythological than an historical personage. But, conceding for the present the common view, that he was the founder of the Egyp- tian empire, the inquiry before us is. When did he live? And here it is important to remark that Egyptian chronology has no dates. There was no common era, like that of the Greek olympiads, or of the founding of Rome, or our own Christian era, to * Ibidem. 68 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF which events were referred, and the time of their occurrence noted. Sometimes the year of the reign- ing monarch is mentioned, but neither this, nor the date of the dynasty of which this was a part, was recorded. The only mode, then, in which the foun- dation of the empire may be even approximately ascertained, is by summing up the whole number of reigns, and the duration of each, as given us in the lists of Manetho. The importance of these lists, as lying at the very foundation of Egyptian chronology, requires some particular notice, both of them and their author. Manetho was a high priest of the temple of Isis at Sebennytus, a town in Lower Egypt, in the time of Ptolemy Philadelphus, about B. C. 276. He wrote a history of Egypt, in three books, which he pro- fessed to have derived from sacred writings pre- served in the temples, which had been handed down from ancient times. His original work is now lost, but portions of it were incorporated by Julius Afri- canus, in a work on chronology, written in the third century, and transmitted to us in another work on the same subject by George Syncellus,* a writer at Constantinople, of the ninth century. Another ver- sion of Manetho is found in the writings of Euse- bius, the church historian, of which some fragments * See Appendix, D. THE HUMAN RACE. 6g are also given by Syncellus, and a more perfect copy, in Armenian, found at Constantinople, and published in 1818. Some suppose that Eusebius copied from Africanus, but the differences between them make this improbable. It is more likely that both of them copied from epitomes of Manetho's work, and that these differences existed in those epitomes themselves. The charge of arbitrarily altering the numbers, etc., of his authorities, so often made against Eusebius, is- not well sustained, at least to the extent alleged by Bunsen and some others. The following is a summary of the dynasties, with the number of reigns in each, and their duration, as given by Manetho in the two versions above de- scribed.* Those marked * in the list of Eusebius are transcftibed from Africanus : — According to According to Africanus. No. of Eusebius. No. of Dyn. Name. Thinite, Kings. Years 2S3 Dyn. Name. Kings. 8 Years. I. 8 I. Thinite, *=53 II. Thinite, 9 302 II. Thinite, 9 297 III. Memphite, 9 214 III. Memphite, 8 197 IV. Memphite, 8 274 IV. Memphite, 17 448 V. Elepnanline 9 248 V. Elephantine, 11 »248 VI. Memphite, 6 203 VI. Memphite,* *6 203 VII. Memphite, 70 7ody's VII. Memphite, S 75 VIII. Memphite, 27 146 VIII. Memphite, 9 100 IX. Heracleopolite, J9 409 IX. Heracleopolite, 4 100 X. Heracleopolite, 19 i8s X. Heracleopolite, '? i8s XI. Diospolite, i6 43 XI. Diospolite, 16 43 XII. Diospolite, 7 160 XII. Diospolite, 7 245 XIII. Diospolite, 60 453 XIII. Diospolite, 6o 453 * See Appendix, E. 70 ANTIQJJITY AND UNITY OF According to According to Africanus. No. of EUSEBIUS. No. of Dyn. Name. Kings. Years. Dyn. Name. Kings. Years. XIV. Xoite, 76 184 XIV. Xoite, i^ 484 XV. Shepherds, 6 284 XV. Diospolite, 250 XVI. Shepherds, 32 S18 XVI. Theban, S 190 XVII. Shephercs and Diospolites, 86 151 XVII. Shepherds, 4 103 XVIII. Diospolite, 16 263 XVIII. Diospolite, 14 348 XIX. Diospolite, 7 &9 XIX. Diospolite, S 194 XX. Diospolite. 12 135 XX. Diospolite, 12 172 XXI. Tanite, 7 130 XXI. Tanite, 7 130 XXII. Buhastite^ 9 Z20 XXII. Bubastite, 3 49 XXIII. Tanite, 4 89 XXIII. Tanite, 3 44 ■XXIV. Saite, I 44 XXIV. Saite, I* 44 XXV. Ethiopian, 3 40 XXV. Ethiopian, 3 40 XXVI. Saite, 9 150 XXVI. Saite, 9 167 XXVII. Persian, 8 124 XXVII. Persian, 8 124 XXVIII. Saite, I 6 XXVIII. Saite, 1 6 XXIX. Mendesian, 4 *o XXIX. Mendesian, 5 2Z XXX. Sebennyte, 3 38 XXX Sebennyte, 3 20 XXXI. Persian, 3 9 XXXI. Persian, 3 16 £154 5.404 367 S249 Without noticing now the discrepancies between these lists, and assuming, as is generally done, that that given by Africanus is to be preferred, we have only to ascertain the date of their termination at the close of the XXXIst dynasty, and add fb this the whole number of years covered by them to arrive at the age of'Menes. The XXXIst dynasty ended with the death of Nectanebus, fifteen years before the accession of Alexander of Macedon, B. C. 339.* The whole duration of the monarchy being S404 years, we arrive at the conclusion that Menes began to reign 5743 years before the Christian era, which was at least sixty-two years before the creation, ' according to the Septuagint chronology. This date * Smith's Diet. Gr. and Rom. Geog., art. ^gyftus. THE HUMAN RACE. 7 I is otherwise fixed, owing to different readings of the lists, by Rodier at B. C. 5853, by Boeckh at B. C. 5702, by Lenormant at B. C. 5004, by Brugsch at B. C. 4555, etc. It now devolves upon us to inquire into the trust- worthiness of this conclusion, and of the data from which it is derived. 1. We know nothing as to the truthfulness of the original sources from which Manetho professed to derive his account. His authority was the priests, and the sacred books under their care. But we know from Herodotus what incredible stories the priests were wont to relate to inquisitive travel- ers, — t^les of mingled fact and fable too gross even for those who were in quest of the marvelous and strange to believe. We know not whence the priests derived their information in the first place, how truthful they were in recording and transmitting it, or with what fidelity and accuracy Manetho him- self transcribed it. The very first elements are wanting of a basis for an intelligent belief of the document. 2. Even if the account were originally true, it has evidently become so corruft that it is now utterly impossible to determine what its genuine contents were. The copies we have, all come to us at second or third hand, and present the greatest 72 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF discrepancies with each other. Bunsen exhibits a tabular view of these in the three leading versions : first, of Africanus ; second, of Eusebius, as quoted by Syncellus ; and third, of Eusebius, as translated from the Armenian. These three contain about one Jiun- dred numbers, in less than twenty of which is thei^e entire harmony in all the versions. Two of the three harmonize in some eight or ten more. The number of reigns varies from 366 — some say from 288 — to 554; their aggregate duration from 4922 to 5404 years. Granting, then, that what Manetho actually wrote is to be received, the question still remains undecided. What did he write? In the present multiplicitj'^ of versions and of ijeadings, nobody can tell. Sober criticism can not employ them to fix a single date. 3. The lists themselves bear internal evidence of their untrustworthiness. They relate the reigns of the gods, and demigods, and ghosts as posi- tively, and with the same exact report of the years embraced in them, as in the case of the human monarchs who succeeded them. Many whole dy- nasties, covering, together, nearly 2000 years, show not the name of a single king. It gravely records that the Nile flowed with honey for eleven days, that one dynasty of seventy kings reigned just seventy days, and that, under one reign, a lamb THE HUMAN RACE. ^3 spoke — stories evidently no better than old wives' fables. It is, besides, self-contradictory. The sum of the years assigned to the several kings of a dynast}'^ often differs from the alleged duration of the dynasty itself, and the aggregate duration of ■all the dynasties it expressly declares was only 3555 years, which is 1849 less than the footing of the details.* A document exhibiting within itself such evidences of untruthfulness, is utterly unworthy of confidence. Only the most unbounded credulity can give, to it any weight of authority. 4. The statements of Manetho are abundantly contradicted and refuted by other authority of far greater reliability than they. . (a.) The first is that of the Old Chronicle, so called. Syncellus, who transmitted to us the lists of Manetho, as above related (p. 68), states as follows (pp. 51, ,52) : "There is extant among the Egyp- tians a certain Old Chronicle, the source, as I suppose, which led Manetho astray, — if o5 «ai zhv Mavsda nEnlav^adai, vo/j.i'Qm, — exhibiting thirty dynas- ties, and again one hundred and thirteen generations, with an infinite space of time, — not the same, either, as that of Manetho, — viz., three myriads six thou- sand five hundred and twenty-five years, first of the ^rit£e, secondly of the Mestraeans, and thirdly of * See page 70. 74 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF Egyptiq.ns." * Of these 36,525 years, it proceeds to say the first fifteen dynasties are of gods (-^ritae) and demigods (Mestraeans) , who together reigned 34,644 years, leaving the human period to begin with the XVIth dynasty, and extending only 1881 years. This, Syncellus says, " is accounted the oldest Egyptian document," — uvttj fisv ^ nalawriQa vo/iitpfiivij Aiyvmimv avyyqoKpii, — i. e., probably the oldest Written. in Greek. It was, according to this author, one of the documents 'Consulted, by Manetho in making up his lists, in regard to which he made the mistake of reckoning all the dynasties, instead of the last fifteen only, as mortal kings, and carrying up the begin- ning of the monarchy 3523 years above the date at which it was set by the Chronicle — a very grave mistake truly, and rendering the list, as usually read, entirely worthless. According to this venera- ble document, therefore, the true date of Menes is B. C. 2220. (b.) Nearly contemporary' with Manetho was the distinguished scholar, historian, and critic Eratos- thenes, who wrote an important work on the history of Egypt, of which portions are preserved to us in the writings of Apollodorus, an equally eminent scholar of the succeeding century. Bunsen (vol. i. pp. 119-121) styles Eratosthenes "the father of chronology and geography," and says, — * See Appendix, F. THE HUMAN RACE. 75 " Everything relative to Egypt, emanating from a man. of such rare talent and extensive learning, is deserving of the highest respect. Besides wrhich, we must also reflect that for the history of Egypt, above that of all other coun- tries, every attainable material was at his disposal. B6rn in the 126th Olympiad, about B. C. 276, in the early part, therefore, of the reign of Philadelphus, he succeeded, probably under Evergetes, to the honorable post of director of the Alexandrian Library, which he filled to the time of his death, in his eightieth or eighty-second year. The very researches to which our attention is here directed, were undertaken by the command of the king, consequently with every advantage that royal patronage could procure for the investigation from the Egyptian priests." Of Apollodorus, also, Bunsen speaks in terms scarcely less eulogistic. The testimony of these eminent scholars is reported to us by Syncellus, as follows : — " The chronographer Apollodorus has written of an- other kingdom (Egyptian) of thirty-eight Theban kings, so called, amounting to 1076 years, which began at the 2900th, and ended in the 3975th (3976th) year of the world, the knowledge of which he says Eratosthenes derived from Egyptian records and lists of names, and by royal command translated into Greek, thus." Then, after reciting the names, he adds, ""The dominion (dg/i^) of the thirty-eight kings, called, in Egypt, Theban, whose names Eratosthenes received from the sacred 76 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF scribes in Diospolis, and translated from Egyptian into Greek, ended here, having begun at the 2900th year of the world, — 1 24 years after the confusion of tongues, — and terminating at this 3975th (3976th) year of the ^v6rld. But the names of the fifty-three other Theban lings after these, I think it needless to give here, since they are nothing to my purpose, as, indeed, is true of those already given.'' According to this eminent authoritjs therefore, the entire Egyptian monarchy extended through only ninety-one reigns, instead of the several hun- dred claimed for it by Manetho. It is true that Bunsen denies that the fifty-three unnamed kings reached down to the close of the empire, and in- sists that they belong to what he calls the " Middle Kingdom," extending from the Xllth to the XVIIIth dynasty. In this, however, he stands alone, so far as I am aware. He concedes, however, that the thirty-eight reigns cover the first twelve dynasties ; and there is decisive evidence from the monuments, as we shall presently see, that the XVIIIth dynasty immediately succeeded the Xllth, the intermediate ones either not existing at all, or being scattered in fragments, contemporaneous with those preceding or following. In this view the so-called Middle King- dom wholly disappears. The fifty-three unnamed kings of Eratosthenes, then, probably covered the THE HUMAN RACE. 77 remainder of the monarchy from the beginning of the XVIIIth dynasty, which may be the reason why Syncellus deemed it unnecessary to name them, as they agreed substantially with Manetho's lists (in Eusebius). At any rate, the fact is admitted by Lepsius,* one of the greatest Egyptologers, and can not well be disputed. This period, according to Africanus, was 1377 years, which, added to the 1076 of the preceding thirty-eight, reigns, makes the entire duration of the monarchy 2453 years, and, dating back from Alex- ander, B. C. 340, carries the age of Menes to B. C. 2793, or 362 years after the flood, which sufficiently harmonizes with the Scripture chronology, f (c.) Our next authority on the point before us is yosepAus, the eminent Jewish historian, who, for the elegance and vigor of his style, has been named the Greek Livy. His work, entitled " Against Apion," is a vindication of the antiquity of his nation from ♦ He points out the important fact that, according to Syncel- lus, there were just fifty-three kings from Amosis I., who ex- pelled the Shepherds, to Amosis II., the c_ontemporai-y of Cam- byses. t Bunsen himself places the beginning of the XVIIIth dynasty at B'. C. 1633, which all admit to be near the truth. Thus, in- stead of carrying up the era of Menes, as he does, to B. C. 3623, or 3059, we bring it down by the list of Eratosthenes^ to (1633 -|- 1076) B. C. 2709. See Appendix, G. 78 ANTIQJJITY AND UNITY OF the charge that it had not been mentioned by Greek historians. In this work he refers to Manetho by name, and gives, professedly verbatim, long ex- tracts from him.* In comparing these with what we have of that author, we find very little resem- blance between them. Of the narrative portion cited by Josephus there is absolutely nothing. His list of kings, twenty-five in all, begins with the XVth dynast}'^ of Africanus, and ends with the early part of the XXth — a period to which Manetho assigns ninety-eight kings. In Eusebius it begins with the XVIIth dynasty, and includes a period of but nine- teen kings. The whole duration of these reigns in Josephus is 492 years, in Africanus 1216, in Euse- bius 451. Nothing more, surely, is needed to show how utterly unworthy of confidence are the lists of Manetho. There is no reason to believe that Jose- phus did not give, literally, his extracts, as he pro- fessed to do, or that his works, which have been otherwise so well preserved, have been corrupted. i le evidently had what he regarded as the original work before him. We see not how to avoid the conclusion, that Africanus and Eusebius, or Syn- cellus, who reported them, used some abridgment or epitome made by some other" person, either a bungling transcriber, a willful falsifier, or an impos-; * See Appendix, H. THE HUMAN RACE. 79 tor, who put forth his own work under the stolen name of Manetho. (d.) The lists before us are not sustained by the evidence furnished by the monuments. We have no space to exhibit this fact in detail, and must be content with some general statements. The first is, that but a small portion of the names given by Ma- netho can be identified. Of the 554 in Africanus, or 367 in Eusebius, occurring in the first seventeen dynasties, Bunsen, with his utmost ingenuity, does not pretend to have identified more than no, Lep- sius about as many, Poole only 76, etc. No trace whatever is found of dynasties VII., VIII., IX., X., XIII., XIV., XV.. Euseb., XVI., XVII. Afric. A period of Egyptian history, midway in its splen- did career of art and arms, as long as the interval from Alfred the Great to Victoria, has left not a sin- gle fact or monument, nor even a grave, to attest its existence. • Even Bunsen admits that it is " improb- able and unexampled that a foreign people (the so- called " Shepherds ") should maintain themselves in Egypt for nine, or even five centuries, and have lived so like barbarians that not a single monument of theirs can be pointed out." "But this," adds Canon Trevor,* " is far from stating the entire mar- vel. Not only is no Hyksos monument remaining, * Ancient Egypt, p. 262. 8o ANTIQJJITY AND UNITY OF • but none belonging to the native princes, their tribu- taries. Not one pyramid, obelisk, teinple, palace, or tomb, nor the fragment of one, can be found for the whole period. Not that Egyptian art had as yet no existence, for the works of the IVth and Xllth dynasties attest its progress up to the time in question. Not that it was then suddenly and perma- nently quenched under the inroad of the barbarians, for Bunsen himself observes that, ' at the end of this period, which is longer, perhaps, than the duration of the historical life of most modern people, the old Egyptian empire comes forth again in ^renovated youth, and in fact, as the monuments prove, with its national peculiarities, its religion, its language, its vvriting, its art, in precisely the same condition as if no interruption had occurred, or, at most, noth- ing beyond the temporary inroad of some Bedouin robbers ! ' " Nay, more ; the tablet of Abydos clearly shows that such a period never existed. The es- cutcheon or cartouche, bearing the name and titles of Amosis, the first sovereign of the XVIIIth dynasty, stands there immediately after that of Ammenemes, the last of the Xllth. Not a single monument re- mains which can positively be assigned a date ear- lier than Sesonchosis, or Sheshonk, of the XXIId dynasty — the Shishak of the Scriptures, who was contemporary with Rehoboam, about B. C. 972. THE HUMAN RACE. 8l Doubtless the pyramids and many other structures are much older, but they bear no independent data of their own by which their real age can be deter- mined, much less that carry us back within 500 years of the flood. But, while these lists of Manetho are thus, by numerous proofs, shown to be utterly unreliable, as establishing a positive chronology of Egypt, we do not think it necessary, on the other hand, to discard them altogether. The truth seems to be that, origi- nally, they were a collection of names of sovereigns, handed down by tradition, with such exaggerations and additions as would naturally be made in the progress of time, who were believed to have reigned somewhere and at some time in that country. That portion which is earlier than the XVIIIth dynasty may be related to true history, much as the names transmitted from the semi-fabulous periods of Eng- land, the Briton, Welsh, and Saxon chieftains, who for a thousand years before the Norman conquest exercised a sway more or less extensive in that island, are related to the authentic records of later times. But what historian would gravely undertake, by grouping these names into " dynasties," and counting up their number, and the alleged years of their reign, to arrive at the foundation of monarchy in England, or the exact date at which its first in- habitants came thither ! 82 ANTIQJJITY AND UNITY OF There is another consideration of much impor- tance in this connection. Even if we concede that the persons embraced in the lists really existed and reigned in Egypt, it does not follow that their reigns were all consecutive. The contrary supposition seems every way probable. " Egypt," says Osborn (Mon. Hist. vol. i. p. 183), ''on its first settlement, was divided into nomes or provinces. The boun- daries of these nomes, and the customs and usages of each of them, were component parts of the com- mon law of Egypt at all periods of its history. What, therefore, is more probable, — we had almost said more certain, — than that, in the first place, the founder of each new city would be accounted the king of it, and of the nome or district that sur- rounded it ? This was the case on the settlement of all other countries in the ancient world,* and that Egypt would not depart from this universal rule is the highest of all conceivable probabilities." It has been claimed, however, that Manetho has made due allowance for this state of things, and excluded from his list all nierely contemporary reigns. Says M. Mariette, " It would certainly be contrary to estab- lished facts to pretend that, from the days of Menes to the Greek conquest, Egypt always formed one united kingdom, and it is possible that unexpected * Gen. chaps. 10, 14, 36, etc. THE HUMAN RACE. 83 discoveries may one day prove that throughout nearly the whole duration of this vast empire, there were even more collateral dynasties than the parti- sans of that system now contend for. But every- thing shows us that the work of elimination has been already performed on the lists of Manetho, in the state in which they have reached us. If, in fact, these lists contained the collateral dynasties, we should find in them, either before or after the XXIst, the dynasty of high priests who reigned at Thebes, while the XXIst occupied Tanis. In the same way we should have to count, either before or after the XXIIId, the seven or eight independent kings who were contemporary with it, and who, if Manetho had not rejected them, would have added as many successive royal families to the lists of the Egyptian priest, the dodecarchy for one, at least, between the XXVth and XXVIth dynasties, and, finally, the Theban kings, rivals of the Shepherds, would have taken rank before or after the XVIIth. There were, therefore, incontestably contemporane- ous dynasties in Egypt ; but Manetho has thrown them out, and admitted those only whom he re- garded as legitimate, and his lists contain no others. If it were not so, it would not be thirty-one dynas- ties that we should have to reckon in the list of royal families previous to Alexander, but probably nearer sixty." 84 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF We submit that this reasoning is not conclusive. If the unsettled state of the monarchy, during its long existence, was such as to make necessary the cutting down of its royal annals one half, — from sixty to thirty-one d3'nasties, — what evidence is there that it did not require a further curtailment? That such is the fact, is agreed by the great body of Egyptolo- gers, though they may differ as to how much and" where it should be made. Our conclusion, then, is very certain. We look in vain into the history and antiquities of Egypt for any evidence whatever of the existence of man ear- lier than the time of Noah. According to the Sep- tuagint chronology, we may allow full thirty centu- ries between that time and the Christian era, a period amply sufficient to account for every known trace of man in the valley of the Nile. THE HUMAN RACE. ' 8$ CHAPTER III. THE ARGUMENT FROM HISTORY (^Continued). II.. GREECE AND ROME. Identity of Origin between the Greftks and Romans. — Practical Character of the Greek Mind. — Greek Literature compre- hended all known Science. — Date of the First Olympiad. — Mythological Character of Times preceding. — The Trojan War. — Its Value in History and Chronology. — No Claim to an Antiquity exceeding Eighteen Centuries before Christ. — Date of the Foundation of Rome. The Greeks and Romans were so connected in their origin, as is indicated by their larfguage, reli- gion, and mythology, that a separate consideration of their respective antiquities is not required by my present object. Indeed, the mythologic or prehis- toric traditions of the two peoples are so interwoven and so nearly identical, that a separate consideration of them would scarcely be possible. It will be ne- cessary, therefore, to exhibit only the fuller and older traditions embodied in the Greek literature, to show all that has a bearing on our subject. 86 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF The evidence drawn from this source, in relation to the antiquity of our race, is of great importance, in some respects more important than that afforded us by the literature of' any other ancient nation. For the Greeks were eminently practical. History and philosophy, as well as poetry, were cultivated by them, and their writings embody nearly all that was known in their times. A literature which has preserved in its poetry the most ancient traditions of the race, in its philosophical speculations the re- searches of the wisest men in antiquity as to the origin of things,, and in its history all that the most learrifed men and travelers knew of other nations and people as well as their own, can scarcely fail to afford much valuable evidence in ■ relation to the inquiry before us. We have already seen that we are indebted to it for njearly all the information we have of Egyptian antiquities, and its testimony can not be less trustworthy concerning those of Greece and Rome. Omitting, for the present, what is purely mytho- logical, the highest date in Grecian history, which is accurately fixed, is the first Olympiad, usually called the Olympiad of Choroebus, B. C. 776. There was history before that time, but no accurate chro- nology. Many things are recorded, and many ac- tual events described, but there was.no era to which THE HUMAN RACE. 87 to refer them, so that their true times can not be ascertained. Nor is this all. In Greece, as else- where, historic times emerge out of the dim ages of fable and legend, in whicli fact and fiction were indistinguishably blended. The period preceding the Olympic era can do little more than furnish a kind of background for the true historical picture of later times ; and -if it can not afford us accurate chronology, it may furnish some materials to aid in fixing its outlines and limits. The most conspicuous event of which we have any account in that remote age, was the siege and destruction of Troy. It can hardly be called an his- torical event at all. A war in which the gods take sides, and enter into combat with each other and with men, whose heroes are demigods, and who fight in armor forged by divinities, can not be set down as sober fact. We are told that the beautiful Helen, the immediate occasion of the war, was the daughter of Jupiter or Zeus. Achilles, the most illustrious chieftain of the Greeks, was the son of Thetis, an ocean nymph, ^neas, one of the Trojan heroes, was a son of Venus. The very oc- casion of the war originated in a dispute between the goddesses Juno, Venus, and Minerva, as to which was the most beautiful. And so on to the end of the chapter. Now, such a story belongs to 88 ANTIQiTITY AND UNITY OF mythology, rather than to history. And yet there can be no doubt that there was some historical fact at the foundation. There must have been an ancient city called Troy, which was besieged and taken by the Greeks. But that there ever were such person- ages, divine and human, as Homer describes, or such exploits as he attributes to them, may certainly more thari admit of a doubt. Though the narrative of the Trojan war can not, therefore, be set down as veritable history, yet enough of fact was embraced under it to give it a real value, both in history and chronology. The Greek writers made it an era, to which they referred the events and supposed events of their early ages. The highest assigned date for the fall of Troy was that of Herodotus, about B. C. 1263. The Parian marble places it at B. C. 1209. Eratosthenes fixed it at B. C. 1183, or about 156 years prior to the build- ing^of the temple by Solomon. The lowest date I have found in any author is B. C. 11 20.* The date of 'Eratosthenes was adopted by Eusebius, and seems to be. the most generally received." This era was a convenient one for the Greek' historians. For in- stance, the " dynasty of Pelasgic chiefs which ex- * Clinton's Fasti Hellenici. The dates now given are taken from that author's Epitome of Grecian Chronology (ed. Oxford, 1S51), compiled from the larger work. pp. 61, 63. THE HUMAN RACE. 89 isted in Greece before any other dynasty is h^ard of in Greek traditions," can be traced back only eighteen generations before the Trojan war. "Ina- chus, the father of Phofoneus, was the highest term in Grecian history."* The latter was of the eighteenth generation before the war, in the fifty- fifth year of whose reign the flood of Ogyges is said to have occurred, B. C 1796. " Excepting this line," says Clinton, " none of the genealogies ascend Jiigher than the ninth, eighth, or seventh generation before the Trojan war." f The foundation of the Grecian states, then, was placed, by their own traditions, at a comparatively low antiquity, not exceeding, in any case, eighteen centuries before Christ. At that time the genera- tions of men were accounted the immediate descend- ants of the gods. Inachus was a deity, and his sons were said to h^ autochthonous, '\. e., sprung from the soil, or aborigines of the country. J The Greeks did not claim, in ^heir traditions, to be the oldest of nations, as did the Egyptians, Phrygians, and Scythians. § Danaus, Cadmus, Cecrops, and Pelops, the reputed founders of as many of their states, were immigrants from abroad, and brought with them arts and institutions already known in their native lands. * Clinton's Fasti Hel-lenici. t Ibid. % Ibid. § Ibid. go ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF The origin of Rome is as uncertain as that of Greece. No fewer than twenty-five different le- gends have come down to us out of the mists of antiquity relating to the foundation of that city. They may, however, be reduced to three principal theories : first, that it was founded by Evander in the age preceding the Trojan war; second, by ^neas and his associates shortly after that war; and third, by Romulus and Remus, the twins, in the year B. C. 753. For our present purpose, it matters not which of these is preferred. In point of fact, neither of them is of undoubted authen- ticity, and most modern historians do not pretend to carry back the beginnings of Roman history more than two or three hundred years before Christ, regarding all before, this as fabulous. Nothing, then, can be derived from either Greek or Roman history invalidating in the slightest de- gree the sacred chronology as to the age of man on the earth. The beginning of that history is con- fessedly far within the date of the time of Noah. THE HUMAN RACE. 91 CHAPTER IV. THE ARGUMENT FROM HISTORY {continued). III. THE CHALDEANS. Extravagant Claims. — Berosus and his Writings. — His Annals of an Antediluvian Kingdom. — These evidently mythical. — His Measures of Time. — Elements of true History in them. — Negatively, they contain Nothing inconsistent with Bible Chronology. — Positively, they tend to its Confirmation. — Earliest Historic Dynasty, B. C. 2458. The ancient Chaldeans, according to the usual interpretation of their records, claimed for their nation a higher antiquity than any other people, the Hindus, perhaps, excepted. As usual, however, in statements of this kind, there is great discrepancy in the numbers. I believe the largest number of years claimed by them, antecedent to historic times, is two million one hundred and ffty thousands Other estimates claim 720,000, 490,000, 473,000, 470,000, 432,000, 270,000, 31,000,* etc. Sometimes * Sir G. C. Lewis's Survey of the Astronomy of the Ancients, pp. 263, 286. , 92 ANTIQpiTY AND UNITY OF these numbers profess to give the duration of Chal- dean history previous to the time of Alexander. Thus, according to Porphyry, a writer of the third century, " Callisthenes sent from Babylon to Aris- totle a series of astronomical observations, reaching back from the time of Alexander over a space of 31,000 years." The authority most generally quoted in reference to Chaldean antiquities is Berosus, a priest of Belus at Babylon, and an historian who lived in the time of Alexander. He wrote the Chaldean history in three books. This work is now lost, except some few extracts preserved mostly in Josephus, Euse- bius, and Syncellus,- which again, especially those found in the last two authors named, were taken from the original work of Berosus b}'^ three heathen writers, — Apollodorus, Abydenus^, and Alexander Polyhistor, — all of whom flourished between the time of Alexander the Great and the Christian era. According to them, Berosus " narrates that there were at Babylon the writings of many authors, pre- served with the greatest care, which comprised a , history through a period of 215 mj'riads (2,150,000) of years,* in which was an account of the computa- * Thus in Euseb. Chron. (in Arraen.), chap. ii. col. 109; but in Syncellus, p. 28, it is "fifteen myriads (150,000) years;" vjisQ fivQiuSwv dtxaTtivre, THE HUMAN RACE. 93 tions of time, a history of the heaven, the earth, and the sea, of the birth of mankind, of kings, and of their memorable deeds." The portion of these extracts which relates par- ticularly to our present object, is that which pro- fesses to give the annals of an antediluvian Chal- dean kingdom, of the flood, and of a long succession of the kings following through a period amounting in aggregate to 462,080 years. After this are enumer- ated five or six dynasties of Median, Chaldean, As- syrian, and Arabian monarchs, through a period of 1550 years, to Pul, the Assyrian king mentioned in 2 Kings XV. '19, I Chron. v. 26, B. C. 770. It devolves upon us, then, to inquire what historical value is to be attached to these supposed records. The antediluvian kingdom of ten reigns is said to have -extended, through a duration of 120 sari. " The first king," says Eusebius, quoting Berosus,* "was Alorus, a Chaldean from Babylon. He reigned ten sari. Now, a sarus is 3600 years ; he adds, " I know not how many neri and sossi." A ncrus, he says, is 600 years, and a sossus 60 years. f Thus he reckons years in connection with the af- • fairs of the ancients. * Chron.- Armen. I. chap. i. t Syncellus says (p. 1.7), " Berosus wrote in sari, neri, and sossi, of which a sarus is 3600 years, a neriis is 600, and a sossus 60 years." 94 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF " Having said these things, he goes on and enu- merates the Assyrian kings, giving their names in order. There were ten kings from Alorus, the first, to Xisuthrus, in whose time happened that first great flood of which Moses speaks. Now, the sum of the years which these kings reigned is 120 sari, that is, forty-three myriads, and two thousand (432,000) years. He then writes in these express words. He says, 'Alorus being dead, his son Ala- parus reigned three sari ; after Alaparus, Almelon, from the city of PantibibHs, a Chaldean, thirteen sari ; Ammenon, also from PantibibHs, a Chaldean, succeeded Almenon, thirteen sari ; then Amegala- rus, of PantibibHs, reigned eighteen sari ; then Da- onus, a Shepherd, from PantibibHs, reigned ten sari ; afterwards Edoranchus, a Pantibiblian, reigned eighteen sari ; then Amempsimus, from Lancharis, a Chaldean, reigned ten sari ; then Otiartes, from Lancharis, a Chaldean, took the kingdom, eight sari ; Otiartes being dead, Xisuthrus ruled the king- dom .eighteen sari. In his time happened the great flood. The sum is ten kings, pnd one hundred and • twenty sari.^ Now, they say that these one hundred and twenty sari amount to forty-three myriads and two thousand years (432,000), since a sarus is 3600 years. These things Alexander Polyhistor nar- rates in his books. Now, if any one yields confi- THE HUMAN RACE. 95 dence to these books, boasting of so many myriads of years, he must likewise believe many other mani- festly incredible things which they contain." It is very evident that this account, as it stands, is mythical. It is not history, and can afford us, therefore, no reliable chronology. No advocate of the extreme antiquity of the race, however san- guine, would, on the credit of this statement, pretend to date man's actual creation at 720,000, or 432,000 years B. C. These immense periods must be classed with those that meet us in" the earliest Egyp- tian chronology, which were appropriately remitted to the reigns of the gods and manes. But if not historical, have they not historical ele- ments in them? If they are not to be taken literally, do they not at least warrant the general conclusion that man has lived during a very long period ; thus, in some sense, justifying such authors as Bunsen, and Rodier, and Lyell, in their assumptions, .and countenancing the tendency.of the age to set aside the Mosaic narrative of the creation d's unsupported and unworthy of acceptance? To answer these inquiries satisfactorily, let us examine, with some care, the statement itself. Various opinions have been held as to. the meas- ures of time named in it. Suidas regards the sarus as equal to 222 lunar months, or nearly i8|^ 96 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF years,* so that the 120 sari, assigned to the antedi- luvian kings, amount, according to him, to 2222 years. This number he doubtless intended for 2242, the space of time between the creation and. flood, as given in the Alexandrian Septuagint, thus mak- ing the Chaldean antediluvian period coextensive with that related by Moses. Latham, f a distin- guished chronologer, regards the sarus equal to 4 years and 340 days ; Raske, a space of 23 months ; and Ideler,! a lunar period which he can not define. But the most probable opinion is that of Alexander Polyhistor,§ that the sarus was a period of ten years, of 360 days each, which was the j'ear of the most ancient times — an opinion held by the two learned monks Anianus and Polydorus (who flour- ished about A. D. 400) ; also by Africanus,|| al- though regarded by many as a mere expedient to get rid of a difficulty. This interpretation is strongly * Sari, a measure and number among the Chaldeans. They make 120 sari egual to 2222 years, since a sarus is 222 lunar months, which amount to eighteen years and six months. Lex. sub voce Slxqoi, t Latham's Chrohographical Essays, pp. 81, 84. % Ideler on the era of the Chaldeans, in " Recherche Historique sur les Observationes astronomiques des Anciens," in ^^Ima's Almageste, vol. iv. p. 62. § Syncellus, p. 32, B. II See Jackson's Chron. Ant. vol. i. pp. 200-202. THE HUMAN RACE. gij corroborated by the probable etymology of the terms. Saros, or sar, as it is very properly Anglicized, seems to have been allied to the Hebrew word its, T T asar, ten, and sossus, irora tim shesh* six, so that a sar would be lo years or 3600 days, a soss a sixth of a year, or 60 days, and a nerus, or ner, of which the etymology is not apparent, a sixth of a sar, or 600 days. This view is further confirmed by the fact that in the Semitic languages the word to desig- nate days was sometimes employed to signify years. Jackson asserts directly that in the Chaldee the word yomim, as in Hebrew the corresponding ydmim, was employed to signify both days and years. f Indeed, the words denoting periods of time, in most ancient languages, etymologically mean a completed course or circuit, such as annus in Latin, eVos, eVoj, iviavThg, in Greek, nJia in Hebrew, etc., and hence are sometimes applied to any revolution, whether of the sun or moon, so that the same word might de- note the solar year, the lunar month, or the solar day. Hence it would be both easy and natural for Berosus, or any one translating ancient records, to make the mistake of calling days years, especially when influenced by the desire, so common among historians, of enhancing, as much as possible, the antiquity of their own nations. * Latham's Essays, p. 84. f Chron. Ant. vol. i. p. 200. ■ 7 98 ANTIQJJITY AND UNITY OF As a further evidence of the correctness of this interpretation, it should be mentioned that this ancient manner of reckoning was continued after the flood of Xisuthrus through 9 sari, 2 neri, and 8 sossi, when these terms are suddenly dropped, and the reigns given in solar years. It is true that the break is after a succession of 86 kings, but the king- dom continues with a simple change of dynasties ; there is no passing from the reign of gods or demi- gods to that of mortal men, such as would be not only natural, but necessary, in order to account for the immense difference in the duration of the reigns. While the pretended antediluvian reigns varied from 10,060 to 64,800 years in length, and those immedi- ately following averaged full 400 years each, the eight Median kings that succeeded /extended only over 224 years, or an average of about 28 years ; after which came other dynasties (Chaldean, Ara- bian, and Assyrian), all of ordinary historical lengths. These discrepancies can only be ex- plained by the supposition that, in the prehistoric periods, days and months were magnified into years, as we have already seen was the case in the mythologic chronology of Egypt.* I have dwelt the longer on these measures of time in Chaldea, becaus.e the subject has not met * Ante, p. 67 seq. THE HUMAN RACE. 99 with justice from some writers of high standing. For example, Sir George Cornwall Lewis, in his Survey of the Astronomy of the Ancients, in speaking of Chaldean antiquities, gives all the high numbers which he found scattered through ancient authors, as expressing the antiqiiity of that nation, as 720,000, 432,000, etc., years ; but he adds not a word as to the peculiar manner in which time was computed by that people, and which would render an interpretation more nearly consistent with his- tory both plausible and probable. And Philip Smith, in his History of the World, — a very valuable work, — mentions the Chaldean antediluvian period of 432,000 years, and the postdiluvian period of 34,080 years, as computed by sars, and explains that a sar is 3600 years, without a word to intimate that any other value has ever been given to the term, or is even possible.* He then exhibits a chrono- logical table of Babylonian history, of eight postdi- * He adds a note in the following unqualified language: "In the Babylonian system of notation, the numbers 6 and lo were employed alternately. Time was measured ordinarily by the soss, the ner, and the sar — the soss being lo X 6 = 60 years, the ner 60 H 10 = 600 years, and the sar 600 X 6 ^ 3600 years. The next term in this series would evidently be 3600 X 10 = 36,000^ years, and the term following 36,006 X 5 ^ 216,000 years. Bero- sus' antediluvian cycle consists of 432,000, or two such periods." Vol. i. p. 195. lOO ANTIQJJITY AND UNITY OF luvian dynasties, extending down to B. C. 538, the first of which comprised eighty-six kings during the aforesaid period of 34,080 years. He simply styles this " mythic ; " yet when we consider how natural is the reckoning which makes the sarus 3600 days instead of years, — i. e., 10 years of 360 days each, — how simple and consistent with the rude and elementary knowledge of those early times, and how harmonious also with the facts of history as learned from other sources, we cannot but wondei that eminent scholars should have disregarded it, and preferred theories so much more complicated instead. Such preferences wholly mistake the char- acter of those remote ages when knowledge, espe- cially astronomical knowledge, was very simple, and embraced only the most obvious facts. At that time nothing was known of what in later times were called " lunar periods." . The whole meaning was on the surface, and not involved in a mass of recondite facts, which required an intricate calcula- tion to discover, and an intricate theory to explain them. Our conclusion, then, is this: that while the im- mense periods of Chaldean antediluvian reigns are "not historical, neither are they wholly mythical. In this respect they differ from the corresponding periods of Egyptian chronology. They contain his- THE HUMAN RACE. lOI torical elements which have a twofold value — neg- ative, and positive. The negative is that, inter- preted as they have now been, they contain nothing inconsistent with the Mosaic account of the creation. The very longest duration assigned to the antedilu- vian period may easily be brought within the 2256 years assigned to it in the Septuagint. The positive value is, that so far as they go, they confirm the sacred record. As in the latter, they assert that there was an antediluvian period. The ten genera- tions of kings correspond with the line of ten patri- archs from Adam to Noah. The details of Chal- dean tradition are but dim and distorted, but easily recognizable, copies of the events mentioned in the Scriptures. Chaldean and Jewish antiquities cover precisely the same ground. Moses and Berosus speak of the same times, and, in general, of the same facts ; not, indeed, always with the same full- ness, — some particulars being recorded by one and some by the other, — but the ground covered by each is the same, and the two narratives, instead of being set in antagonism, should be taken as mutually con- firmatory. The date of the earliest historical dynasty after the flood is thought to be established thus : The list of astronomical observations, sent by Callisthenes to Aristotle, in the time of Alexander the Great, ex- I02 ANTIQUITY AND CNITV OF tended backward in an uninterrupted series 1903 years, i. e., till B. C. 2234. This is supposed to have been at the beginning of the Hid dynasty of Berosus, which was Chaldean, and under which the worship of the heavenly bodies began. Previous to this, a Median dynasty, who were probably of the Turanian or Scythian race, had reigned 224 years, carrying up the monarchy to B. C. 2458. Still fur- ther back was the before-mentioned " mythic " dy- nasty of 86 kings, whose duration was said to have been 34,080 years, so that the earliest historical date is that of the beginning of the second dynasty, B. C. 2458.* The existence, however, of this Median dynasty, much more its assigned duration, is very uncertain, lying, as it does, in the very border land between fable and history, and with both, probably, in varying proportions, intermingling in it. * Smith's History of the World, vol. i. p. 196. THE HUMAN RACE. IO3 CHAPTER V. THE ARGUMENT FROM HISTORY {continued). III. THE HINDUS. Importance of the Discovery of the Sanskrit. — View of the San- skrit Literature. — The Vedas. — The Upavedas. — The Ve- DANGAS. — The Upangas. — These contain no History. — Severe Judgment upon the Sanskrit Literature by Mission- aries. ■ — Reason for this. — Comparison between the Hindus and Greeks. — Origin of the Vedas. — Their Contents. — Their Antiquity. — They contain Nothing inconsistent with the Bible Chronology. The discovery of the Sanskrit language and liter- ature may almost be said to have constituted an era in the world. A§ the discovery of the continent of India — for it may appropriately be termed such — by the Portuguese, at the close of the fifteenth cen- tury, was an era in the history of commerce, so the introduction of its sacred language, and the treasures it contains, to the knowledge of Europeans, was an event of signal importance in the history of litera- ture, philology, and ethnology. This event oc- I04 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF curred about one hundred years ago, at which time the language began to be successfully unfolded by Sir William Jones and other Oriental scholars. At the present time, the Sanskrit literature has been pretty fully explored, though much remains to be done in reference to portions of it. Within the last ten years, several important works have been pub- lished upon it, and much discussion, active, if not violent, has been had both among European and American investigators. I shall endeavor, first, to give a summary idea of the nature of the Sanskrit literature, and, secondly, inquire what it contains, as bearing upon the ques- tion of the antiquity of man on the earth. I. The whole circle of Hindu knowledge and science is divided into eighteen parts. The first four of these are the Vedas proper, so called from ved, the law, which are named respectively the Rig-Veda, the Yajur-Veda, the Sama-Veda, and the Atharva-Veda. These are regarded as having come immediately from God, and as containing the true knowledge of the Deity, of his religion, and of h-is worship. Each Veda consists of two parts, the first called Sanhita, comprising hymns, prayers, and ceremonies to be used in sacrifices and oblations; the second, Brakmana, describing the First Cause, and the creation of the world, also THE HUMAN RACE. IO5 moral precepts, duties, rewards, punishments, puri- fications, etc. Next to these rank the Upavedas, or supplementary Vedas, of which there are four, treating of disease and medicine, of music, of the fabrication and use of arms, and of the mechanic arts. Next are six Vedangas, i. e., members of the Vedas, which are also supplementary to them, relating to the sacred sciences, pronunciation, meter, grammar, explanation of words, astronomy, and ceremonials. Lastly, four Upangas, called Purana, or history, Nyaya, or logic, Mimansa, or moral philosophy, and Dkarmskastra, or jurispru- dence. Several of these departments of literature contain numerous treatises. For example, there are six systems of philosophy, eighteen puranas, eighteen siddhanta, or treatises on astronomy, besides works on grammaj-, logic, etc. In addition to these, there are the Institutes of Manu, a code of civil and religious laws, and the two great epic poems, the Ramayana and the Mahabharata, which are sometimes called a fifth Veda. Our purpose does not call for any detailed ac- count of the contents of these sacred books. It would indeed require a large volume, perhaps many volumes, to do this. The single inquiry before us is. What do they contain that affords any light as to the past duration of oiir race on earth? I06 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF The following estimate of the Sanskrit literature, from the pen of one who had thoroughly studied it, given in the Calcutta Review, will be, per- haps, our best answer to this inquiry : — "The Sanskrit language contains nothing of genuine importance, no national annals, no biog- raphy of eminent patriots, statesmen, warriors, philosophers, poets, or others, who have figured on the theater of Indian life, public or private. Not a single page of pure historical matter, un- mixed with monstrous and absurd fable, is extant, or probably was ever written in it. It supplies us with no assistance whatever in rescuing from eter- nal oblivion the worthies or the curses of past ages. It affords no certain clew to the discovery or even the origin of the races who first spoke or adopted it. Fabulous and extravagant legends are all that in this class it furnishes. European inge- nuity, penetration, and perseverance, may indeed, by dint of hard and continued labor, elicit a few isolated facts here and there, and by comparison of dates and circumstances, rejecting the crudities and absurdities that have gathered round them, bring them to bear upon some point of ancient story yet in the depths of obscurity. But nothing is certain ; all is only a happy guess, or probable inference, at best." The very principle of historic narration THE HUMAN RACE. IO7 appears either to have never entered into the minds of early writers in this language, or else a base and selfish policy led them to falsify, obscure, and mysti- cize all events, in order to conceal their own usurpa- tions, violence, and injustice."' The writer then proceeds to specify particulars in exemplification of these remarks, such as relate to geography, astronomy, music, medicine, the. fine arts, etc., and making a partial exception in favor of logic, geometry, and arithmetic, finds little in these treatises worthy of commendation, or as hav- ing any value. Or if they contain some truth and real science, it is still mixed with a great deal that is criide, and fanciful, and puerile. He adds, "The real domain of Sanskrit literature is in the depart- ments of grammar, rhetoric, and poetry." (p. i8.) In this estimate this author is doubtless, in general, correct, though possibly, in some respects, he may be too severe. Missionaries — to which class he belongs — have often been accused of unfair judg- ments respecting the heathen, especially the Hin- dus. The explanation is natural and easy, and does not compromise either their ability or disposi- tion to judge fairly. In their every-day work they come into contact with heathenism in all its corrup- tions, degradation, and sin, and know these to be the legitimate fruit of the doctrines embodied in their I08 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF literature. With this knowledge they are not in a state of mind to be carried into ecstasies over a fine piece of poetry, or an exhibition of refined skill in. the niceties of grammar and logic, and are not likely to speak of them in terms of high commendation. When they draw a' picture of any of these systems, there will of necessity be a dark background of practical heathen life that will impart more or less of its shade to the whole. On the other hand, our western philosopher and learned Orientalist, in the seclusion of his study, from which he steps into the most refined circles of Christian society, examines at his leisure a few of the masterpieces of the hea- then poets and philosophers, and is rapt into admi- ration of them. It is not necessary to weigh one of these judgments against the other. Both may be right from the point of view in which the estimates are made. It is doubtless unjust to judge the Sanskrit litera- ture by that of later and more enlightened times. Grant that science is found in it intermixed with fable ; the same was true of that of all the ancient nations. Excepting perhaps the Greeks, as much credit is due for the successful cultivation of science and art to the Hindus as to any people of that age ; and if we go back of the times of Herodotus, they stand without a rival in any department of ancient THE HUMAN RACE. IO9 learning. Professor Max MuUer, in his history of Sanskrit literature, gives an interesting comparison between the characters of the Hindus and the Greeks, a single paragraph from which I will quote. " Greece and India are indeed the two opposite poles in the historical development of the Aryan man. To the Greek, existence is full of life and reality ; to the Hindu, it is a dream and illusion. The Greek is at home where he is born. All his energies belong to "his country: he stands or falls with his party, and is ready to sacrifice even his life to the glory and independence of Hellas. The Hindu enters this world as -a stranger ; all his thoughts are directed to another world ; he takes no part even where he is driven to act, and when he sacrifices his life it is but to be delivered from it." (p. 18.) This is strikingly true. The Greeks were emi- nently a practical people. This characteristic stands out prominently from the very beginning of their national existence. The opposite is true of the Hin- dus. Their speculations in philosophy and religion are almost all connected with a preexistent state in the' past, or an equally shadowy one in the future, or with topics of pure imagination ; and it is very remarkable how seldom their literature in any de- partment has to do with the realities of this worldly no ANTICiyiTY AND UNITY OF life. Hence that most singular fact noticed by the writer before quoted, that from the first hymn of the first Veda to the last chapter in the last of the Pura- nas, there is not in all that literatlire, extending over a period of three thousand years; a single page of plain matter-of-fact history unmixed with fable, or a single truthful biographical account of any poet, statesman, or philosopher, such as constitutes so valuable a portion of Grecian literature. Nor has the Sanskrit any chronology. It does not in all its extent furnish a single reliable date by which any event, or series of events, of which it treats, may be assigned its proper chronological place in the world's history. We are actually indebted to the Greek historians for the only trustworthy date that can be used as a starting-point in Hindu chronology. It is the fortunate occurrence of the name of an Indian prince in connection with the name of one of Alex- ander's successors that enables us to fix the date of that prince's reign, and from thence determine ap- proximately that of other events, either before or after it, in the annals of that people. While, however, we look in vain in the Sanskrit for any history or chronology asserting an eaflier history of our race than we have been taught to believe, it may be asked whether the Sanscrit itself is not such evidence. There can be no doubt that THB HUMAN RACE. Ill the Vedas are among the oldest of the extant writ- ings of antiquity, perhaps the very oldest. It is an important inquiry, as bearing upon the subject in hand, What were their origin and their probable date? In respect to their origin, the Hindus put forth various conflicting statements ; and even in the later portions of the writings which are regarded as parts of the Vedas, it ip ascribed to different sources. Thus it is alleged that they are eternal ; that they issued from the mouth of Brahma at the creation ; that they are the breath of Brahma, etc. It is said that the Rig- Veda was produced from fire, the Ya- jur-Veda from air, and the Sama-Veda from the sun ; again, that the goddess Saraswati is the mother of the Vedas ; still again, that they are de- rived from the mystical victim Purusha, or from the Gayatri, a sacred verse personified as a god- dess, the wife of Brahma ; * or once more, that they * The Gayatri, or holiest verse in the Vedas. This'is nierely a prayer, as follows : " Let us adore the supremacy of that divine sun, the godhead, who illuminates all, who recreates all, from whom all •proceed, to whom all must return, whom we invoke, to direct our understandings aright in our progress towards his holy seat." — Rammokun Roy, p. 117. This verse is preceded by a mysterious monosyllable (Om), a type of the three divinities Brahma, Vishnu, Siva, and the essence of the Vedas, and by the three scarcely less sacred 112 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF are the offspring of Time. This enumeration is not designed to be exhaustive. These assertions show that there was much specu- lation among the Hindus regarding the origin of their sacred books ; not, however, as implying any question as to their divine inspiration, which was never denied except by a single one of their schools of philosophy, and the heretical sect of the Buddhists. Nor did these statements, so far as I am aware, indicate speculations or discussions analogous to those held respecting the origin and inspiration' of the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures, but rather as to the divine character and authority of these writ- ings', in what the Hindus would call a higher sense. Each sukia, or hymn, has for its reputed author words, bhur, bhutuar, and sivar, denoting earth, atmosphere, and heaven." It is said, " Whoever shall repeat these lines, day by day, for three years, without negligence, shall approach the most high God, become free as air, and acquire after death an ethereal essence." — Rammohun Roy, pp. no, 117. "The Veda begins," says Rammohun Roy, "and concludes with three peculiar and mysterious epithets of God: first, Om; second, Tat; third, SuT. The first of these signifies 'that being which preserves, destroys, creates.' The second implies ' that only being which is neither male nor fertiale.' The third announces ' the true being.' These collective terms simply affirm, One unknown true being is the Creator, Preserver, AND Destroyer of the universe." — Trans, of the Vedas, p. 2?. THE HUMAN RACE. II3 a rtski, or teacher, by whom, in Brahmanical phra- seology, it was " seen," that is, to whom it was re- vealed. For the names of these rishis we are indebted, except when incidentally mentioned in the hymns themselves, to an indgx of the contents of the Vedas, which also specifies the meter and the num- ber of stanzas in each hymn. The Rig-Veda has 1017 hymns, and 10,417 stanzas (there is a differ- ence of six or eight stanzas in different enumera- tions) , the authorship of which is attributed to nearly icx) different rishis. Many of these hymns and parts of hymns appear in the three other Vedas, which are of a later date ; indeed, the whole of the second or Sama-Veda has been found to have been taken from the first. The same is true of large por- tions of the contents of the Yajur and Atharva Vedas, . so that these 1017 hymns of the Rig- Veda are re- garded as constituting almost all of the original Vedic hymns. Some of their reputed authors are the subjects of legends in the later mythology, but many are not mentioned in other parts of Sanskrit literature. In regard to the antiquity of these ancient writ- ings, scholars are by no, means agreed. Baron Bunsen thinks that some of the hymns were com- posed as long ago as B. C. 3000. Professor Whitney, who is probably the first Sanskrit scholar in Amer- 8 114 ANTIQJJITY AND UNITY OF ica, has expressed the opinion that they were written during the first half of the second millennium before Christ (B. C. 2000-1500). Professor Max Miillei", who has nearly completed his most valuable edition of the Rig-Veda, thinks that their collection and arrangement in their present form took place at least as early as from the 12th to the 10th century before Christ, but that their composition occupied quite an indefinite period of some centuries before. The late Professor Wilson, who was, I believe, re- garded as the best Sanskrit scholar in England, thought Miiller's date too recent by .some two or three centuries. Ritter supposes they were com- posed or collected from 1600 to 1400. B. C. The most modern date I recollect to have seen is from 1000 to 1200 B. C. In each ^ase, some centu- ries previous are allowed for their composition. My own opinion, if I may be allowed to express one, after the eminent scholars just named, is, that the collection and arrangement of these hymns, as we now have them in the Rig-Veda Sanhita, was made as early as the iSth or 16th century before Christ, and that the composition of the earliest of them may have been some five centuries previous, carrying it back to . about the time of Abraham. This opinion is based partly on the st}fle of the language, which is simple and archaic, and had THE HUMAN RACE. 11^ become in a measure obsolete when the next por- tion of the Vedic literature (the Brahmanas) were written. The meters also are archaic, and unknown in later versification, and in the later of the hymns reference is made to the earlier ones as already ancient. Now, since the period of the Brahraana must, on separate grounds, be made to begin at least as early as B. C. looo, it seems necessary to date the collection and arrangement of the hymns two or three centuries earlier, and their composition at least as many more. Again, there is appended to these collections of hymns a tract on astronomy — the lyotisha, — the object of which is to prescribe rules for regulating the time of the sacrifices prescribed in the hymns. In this treatise there is a record of the places of the solstitial points at the time. These places are about twenty-four degrees east of those they occupied at the time when the modern Hindu sphere was fixed, •viz., Mesha, in the ist of Aries, which was about A. D. 500. Calculating from the known rate of the precession of the equinoxes, we are carried back to the early part, of the twelfth century before Christ as the time when the recorded " observation was made. And we are safe in assuming that so much knowledge of astronomy as is disclosed in this observation and record, and in the complicated rujeg Il6 ANTIQiJITY AND UNITY OF derived from them for regulating the times of the sacrifices, requires at least a period of several cen- turies for its growth. Such a system of rites, so regulated, with its corresponding literature, is not the product of one century, or of two or three. And this view is strengthened by the fact that there are, in connection with Hindu astronomical works, inti- mations that at the time the modern Hindu sphere was fixed at the ist degree of Aries, A. D. 500, the equinoxes had fallen back twenty-seven degrees from the places they occupied when first observed by their ancient astronomers. This brings the time of those first observations into the middle of the fif- teenth century before the Christian era. It should, however, in fairness, be added, that some Sanskrit scholars do not attach so much, importance to this lyotisha record as is implied in the foregoing re- marks, since it is assumed that in the absence of suitable astronomical instruments, it was not possible for the Hindus to make their observations with a sufficient degree of accuracy to warrant these definite results. Our conclusion, then, from a careful survey of the Sanskrit language and literature, is the same as from that of the other ancient peoples of the East. The oldest Hindu writings, and the earliest astro- nomical observation on record, can not be f roved THE HUMAN RACE. U^ to have had an earlier date than the fourteenth or fifteenth century before Christ, though a few hun- dred more may be conceded as probable. The old- est astronomical treatise, which has been regarded as an important witness against the Bible, is proved incontrovertibly to have been composed some four or five centuries after Christ. And as the work of bringing to light the ancient literature of the Brah- mas proceeds, the tendency among European schol- ars is to bring it within more and more modern limits. This, tendency to modernize is sometimes, doubtless, suifered to proceed too far. But however this rhay be, , this fact may be regarded as estab- lished, viz., that the ancient literature of India affords no materials for disproving the truthfulness of the Bible ; on the contrary, it contains much that cor- roborates the claims of the sacred volume to a divine authenticity. Il8 ANTIQiJITy AND UNITY OF CHAPTER VI. THE ARGUMENT FROM HISTORY (^Continued). V. THE CHINESE. First explorers of Chinese Literature. — Jesuit and Protestant Missionaries. — View of the Chinese Chronology. — Pauthier's System. — The Ante-historic Period. — ' The Semi-historic. — The Historic. — How far is this Chronology reliable ? — Views of Pauthier. — Of Amiot. — Of Williams. — Examination of the Elements of Computation. — Testimony of the Shu-king. — The Cycle of Sixty Years. — Statements of Rev. J. Cham- bers. — Of Dr. Legge. — Elements of the Chinese ChronoI6gy borrowed. — Its present Form dates only to about the Chris- tian Era. — Materials for the History of the earliest Dynasties unreliable. — The Shu-king, how compiled. — Its Destruc- tion and Recovery. — Conclusion. The first European explorers of the literature and antiquities of China were the Jesuit missionaries, who labored in that country in the early part of the eighteenth century, among the most prominent of whom were Fathers Amiot, Souciet, and Gaubil. The latter of these appears to have been distin- guished for his investigations in the department of THE HUMAN RACE. Up science for which his mathematical education had specially prepared him. M. Gaubil went to China in 1723, at the age of thirty-four, and died there, after a laborious life, in 1759. ^^^ dissertations on various subjects — particularly on the astronomy of the Chinese, which he sent to his friends at home — awakened an interest in Oriental studies, and, with the contributions of other missionaries, greatly aided the study of Chinese literature in France. At the close of the last century and the beginning of the present, Europe, especially France, could boast of many eminent Sinologues, as M. vStanislaus Julien, M. G. Pauthier, MM. Biot, father and son. It is worthy of notice that the principal writers on Chinese astronomy, as Delambre and Biot, rely mostly on the works of Gaubil as authority. His writings and opinions are always mentioned with respect, though they have been subjected to severe criticism. Bfis translations have been revised, and in some passages modified. This was to have been expected, while as a pioneer in Chinese studies his labors have been very valuable. The position of the Jesuit missionaries in connection with, and at the head of, the Tribunal of Mathematics, afforded them rare opportunities for becoming acquainted with the science of that country ; and the results of their labors furnished a good foundation for those who I20 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF should come after them in the same field of re- search. In the present century, Protestant missionaries, English and American, have pursued these studies with success, and, in connection with other Eu- ropean scholars, have brought the treasures of Chinese literature, such as they are, within reach of all. The last, if not the greatest contribution to this end, is a work by the Rev. James Legge, D. D., of the London Missionary Society, entitled The Chinese Classics : with a Translation, Critical and Exegetical Notes, Prolegomena, and Co-pious In- dexes. The work consists of seven volumes, and contains the Confucian Analects, an account of Mencius, his disciple^s and doctrines, the Shu-king, the annals of the Bamboo books, so called, etc. These are specially valuable as bearing upon our present discussion, the Shu-king being the most im- portant of the Chinese classics, in exhibiting the ancient science of that country. Two points of inquiry here claim our attention : 1. What is the ancient Chinese chronology? and 2. What are the reasons for regarding it as reliable, or otherwise? In regard to the first, I give the elements of the system as found in M. G. Pauthier's His- tory of China, in the Univers, which is, I be- THE HUMAN RACE. 121 lieve, the commonly received chronology of China.* Pauthier divides his chronology into three pe- riods — ante-historic, sem.i-kistoric, and historic. The first period begins with Pan-kou, the prim- eval man, who is placed. by the native historians at from 2,000,000 to 96,000,000 years before the death of Confucius, B. C. 479. During this in- terval flourished the three sovereignties of Heaven, Earth, and Man, followed by the ten periods, the last of which began with the Emperor Hoang-ti. In reference to those mythic times, I need only remark that there is much in the details to remind us of the corresponding era among the Hindus. -Indeed, Pauthier says, if the tradition in respect to» Pan-kou is not borrowed from India, it comes from the same source as the Hindu traditions ; "for," he continues, " it is impossible not to recog- nize in the name and attributes of the Chinese Pan-kou, or, softening the pronunciation, Man-hou, — a transcription as exact as the former for a cer- tain latitude, — the Indian Manou, who acts the same * It is followed by Drs. Gutzlaff and Williams, in their works on China, except in relation to ante-historic times. After the emperor Hoang-ti, they agree. Before this, Gutzlaff gives no dates, and Williams goes back to Fuh-hi, making his reign to begin B. C. 2853. 122 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF part in the mythological tradition of India." (Chine, vol. ii. p. 22.) Both the Hindu and Chinese tra- ditions, as we shall show hereafter, are derived originally from the events related in the Mosaic records. The ten periods are, doubtless, the ten generations from Adam to Noah. Semi-historic times began with Fuh-hi, B. C. 3468,* who is said to have reigned 150 years. He was succeeded by Chin-noung (Shinnung) and others, the last of whom was Hoang-ti, whose reign began in B. C. 2698. Williams, however, enumer- ates these emperors thus : Fuh-hi, 115 years i Shin- nung, 140 years ; Hoang-ti, 100 years, who began to reign B. C. 2697. He regards historic times as commencing with Fuh-hi. Historic times begin in the reign of Hoang-ti. The first cycle of sixty years, so famous in Chinese chronology, dates from the sixty-first year of this emperor, B. C. 2637. After him, Shati-hau reigned 84 years ; Chiuen-hiuh, 78 ; Kuh, 78 ; Yau, 102 ; Shun, 50. Then follow 26 dynasties of monarchs, beginning with the Hia, B. C. 2205, and ending with the present (the Tau-kwang), embracing 235 sovereigns. Or, if we begin with Fuh-hi, the num- * Williams puts the beginning of Fuh-hi's reign at B. C. 2852. — Mid. Kingdom, ii. p. 203. THE HUMAN RACE. 123 ber is 243, embracing a period of 4721 years, to A. D. 1869.* Minute chronological detail does not fall within my present purpose. We are now concerned only with the earliest portion of the system, and in this only with the principal dates. The author informs us that this chronological record was forwarded from Peking, in 1767, by the Catholic missionary P. Amiot, who says of it, " It is a chronological table of all the sovereigns who have reigned in China, ranged in the order of the cycles, and exactly calculated from authentic mon- uments, from the sixty-first year of the Emperor Hoang-ti ... to the present reigning monarch (1769), . . . and printed at Peking, in the imperi- al palace, after having been subjected to the close examination of the different academies or literary tribunals of this capital, in the 32^ year of Kien- loung, — i. e., in 1767 of our era, — to serve ever after as a rule for the historians and (Jther public writers of the empire." f The inquiry now-arises. Is this chronology relia- ble? It comes to us, with high claims, in a scientific dress, and challenges our confidence. How far is this confidence desefved?- * Williams CSummary, ii. p. 229), whom I have followed in the number of the dynasties, being more definite and complete than Pauthier. t Pauthier's Chine, ii. p. 268. 124 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF In answering this inquiry, I will first allude to some of the opinions which have been expressed in its favor, and then adduce what may be said on the other side. M. Pauthier evidently accepts this chronology, even in its. earliest dates. In summing up what he has to sa}' regarding it, he remarks, " This confi- dence granted to the Chinese historians can not be condemned, for we can boldly affirm that no people ever possessed bodies of history so complete and so authentic as the Chinese. This should not surprise us, when we recollect that through all time, history, or the intelligent registering of human events, has been honored and favored in China ; that since the Emperor Hoang-ti, 2637 years before our era, there has existed an historical tribunal in the capital of the empire, the members of which, chosen from the most distinguished of the literati, have, in many 'respects, the prerogatives and permanency of our magistrates." He then cites, at length, the opinion of Amiot, one of the most laborious and learned of the French missionaries in China, to the following import : — " The Chinese annals are preferable to the historic monuments of all other nations because they are the most free from fables, the most ancient, the most consecutive, and the most abounding in facts. . . . ■ They have THE HUMAN RACE. 1 25 epochs, demonstrated by astronomical observations, joined to the monuments of every kind, in which the aimals abound ; they fiirnish to each other reciprocal proofs, mutually sustain each other, and together concur to show the good faith of the writers who have transmitted them to us. . . . They can aid us to mount up surely, even to the first centuries after the renewal of the world, as they furnish, for that purpose, the necessary guides and assistants, such as the cycle of sixty years, . . . the radical epoch of which is B. C. 2637 ; . . . genealo- gies of the first sovereigns vvhich bear the stamp of verity in the lacunae which are found in them, and which no one has attempted to fill, though it would have been easy to do so had any one wished to add anything of his own ; chronological .tables which mark with exactitude the uninterrupted succession of all the emperors that have reigned for more than four thousand years. " And, finally, those annals are in themselves the most #aut:hentic literary work there is in the world, because there is not in the world {tout I'univers) a work which has been so elaborated during the space of nearly eigh- teen hundred years, that has been revised, corrected, and augmented as new material was discovered, by so great a number of learned men united, provided with all possible assistance, etc." And Pauthier indorses all this, as he closes the argument, by saying, ^' Chinese history, there- fore, possesses' all the characters of certitude which his- (;prical criticism has a right to demand." * • Pauthier's Chine, vol. ii. pp. 32, 33. 126 ANTIQJJITY AND UNITY OF This opinion of Amiot, and of his biographer Pauthier, has been very extensively received. Wil- liams, in his "Middle Kingdom" (vol. ii. p. 201), says of it, " The earliest records of the Chinese correspond rather too closely with their present character to receive full belief; but while they may be considered as unworthy of entire confidence, it will be allowed that they present an appearance of probability and naturalness hardly possessed by the early annals of Greece." Let us now turn to the other side, and see what grounds there are for calling in question the relia- bleness of that chronology, at least in regard to its earlier dates. Pauthier gives the following as " the chronological elements that serve as a basis to the certainty of the Chinese history : " — " These elements are very simple and very regu-' lar. They are, i. The civil or equinoctial year, composed of three hundred and sixty-five and a quarter sidereal days, recognized and followed in China from the highest antiquity, as we shall see hereafter, and which corresponds perfectly to our Julian year; %. The cycle of sixty years, the series of which has been continued, without interruption, from the 6ist year of the reign of Hoang-ti (B. C. 2637), and with ^s niuch regularity as the centuries THE HUMAN RACE. 1 27 in European computation. Our common year 1834 thus corresponds to the 3isf of the 75th sexagenary Chinese cycle. There is no other chronology which offers so much certainty for so long a space of time." (Vol. ii. p. 27.) I. These assumptions respecting the Chinese calendar, with its alleged Julian year of 365J days, are based upon a passage occurring in the Shu-king, which Pauthier renders in French, thus : — " L'Empereur dit, ' Hi et Ho ; une periode solaire est de trois cent soixante-six jours ; en intercalant une lune et en determinant ainsi quatre saisons, I'annde se trouve exactement completee. Cela 6tant parfaitement r%le, chaque functionnaire s'acquittera, selon le temps et la saison de son emploi ; et tout sera dans le bon ordre.' " * Dr. Legge's translation is as follows : " The em- peror said, 'Ah, you! Hi and Ho; a round year consists of three hundred sixty and six days. By means of an intercalary month do you fix the four seasons, and complete the determination of the year. Thereafter, in exact accordance with this, regulat- ing the various officers, all the works of the year will be fully performed." f ♦ Translation of Le Chou-king in Les Livres Sacr^s de rOrient, p. 47, par. 8. ■f Chin. Classics, vol. iii. part i, p. 23. Appendix, I. 128 ANTIQJIITV AND UNITY OF There is some difference in these versions, though perhaps it is not greatly important as bearing on the present subject. That of Dr. Legge makes the emperor to command the astronomers by inter- calating a month to fix the four seasons, and com- plete the determination of the year, saying that the round j^ear consists of 366 days. The other ver- sion represents the work of adjustment as already made. The two points of interest apparently con- tained in it are a knowledge of the year as consist- ing of 366 days, and of the principle of intercala- tion to bring the seasons into their proper places. As to the first, the French missionaries all assume that it means only that each fourth year has 366 days, the three intervening ones having but 365. But the passage itself, in either version, has not a' word to warrant this assumption. As to the second, the intercalation was not to be of one daj'^ each fourth year, but of one month- Whether this was to be done at stated intervals, in order to retain the seasons in their proper places, or once for all, does not appear. What were, the princi- ples of intercalation observed at that early period, if any,' Dr. Legge says " we cannot tell." He adds, " Previous to the Han dynasty, Chinese history does not furnish us with the details on the subject of intercalation. In the time of that dy- THE HUMAN RACE. 1 29 nasty (B. C. 202-A. D. 221), we find what is called the Metonic cycle,* well known. It is not mentioned as any discovery of that age. . . . No doubt it came down to the Han from the Chan, and was probably known in China long before Meton reformed the Athenian calendar ac- cording to its principles, B. C. 432." Dr. Legge also quotes from a native commen- tator of the Shu-king this remark : " When it is said that the year consists of 366 days, we are to understand that Yaou was speaking only in round numbers." While, therefore, we must concede no small praise to the ancient Chinese, on account of their calendar, we can not admit that there is any evi- dence of the accuracy that is claimed for it. The inference, that in the 24th century before Christ they were acquainted with the Julian year of 365^ days, is an unwarrantable straining of the text. 2.' The other chronological element embraced in the Chinese system, according to Pauthier, is the cycle of sixty years. We have seen that this' claims to have been introduced into use in the year B. C. 2637. If it could be proved that it was actually so employed from that early date, it * Note, p. 134. 9 130 ANTiqyiTY AND UNITY OF would be a fact of great importance. Williams says of it, * " The uniform adherence to this pecu- liar mode of reckoning time, certainly since the days of Confucius, and the high probability that it was generally adopted long before his time, the remembrance of the individual Nau the Great, who invented it, and the odd date of its adoption in the middle of a reign, are all strong testimonies in favor of the date and antiquity ascribed to it." This very claim, however, in its qualifying phrase, " certainly since the days of Confucius," is a vir- tual admission that there is no froof of its use prior to that time. But the claim itself is not borne out by facts. Other aiithorities of equal credit assert that the sexagenary cycle was not used to chronicle years till within about a century of the Christian era ; some say till even after that era. Dr. Leg'ge, in his Prolegomena to the translation of the Shu-king, has inserted an essay by the Rev. John Chalmers, " On the Astronomy of the ancient Chinese," in which this point, among others relevant to our sub- ject, is ably discussed. I quote a few para- graphs : — . " The invention of the cycle of sixty is ascribed to Hoang-ti (B. C. 2637), and in particular its applica- tion to years is affirmed to have commenced in his * Mid. Kingdom, ii. p. 201. THE HUMAN. RACE. I3I reign ; but this is a mere fiction. It was not applied to years even in the time of Confucius." The writer then describes the structure of the cycle, showing that its original application was to days, for which purpose he admits it was " of very ancient practice." The first instance of its. use in this manner, so far as known, dates back to B. C. 1752, in the commonlj' received chronology, which, however, he pro- nounces worthless. He then continues : — " The state of confusion in which Chinese chro- nology is found to be, down to the time of the East- ern Chan,* and the fact that not a single instance of- the application of the cycle to years can be found till after the classical period; are sufficient to satisfy ii's that this invaluable method of dating years was never used in ancient times. Tlie first attempt to arrange the years in cycles of 60 is found in Sze- ma-Ts'een's Historical Records, in a table con- structed for the purpose of intercalation, and extend- ing over a period of seventy-six years, the first year being B. C. 103. But instead of using the Chinese cyclical characters, he employs words of two and three syllables, which, considered from, a Chinese stand-point, must be pronounced barbarous." Mr. Chalmers closes his discussion of this point * The Chan dynasty began to reign B. C. Ii2i. t The Tsin dynasty began B. C. 249 ; the Han B. C. 202. 132 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF in these words : " So, then, the cycle of sixty years can not have commenced earlier than the Han, and owes its present form to the scholars of the Tsin, although the Chinese, for the most part, still glory in the delusion that it was invented by Hoang-ti ( 60 X 75 = ) 4500 years ago." Dr. Legge's own testimony is to the same effect. Having advanced the opinion that Hoang-ti, to whom the invention of the cycle is ascribed, is a fabulous person, he adds, — " What is of more importance to observe is, that the cycle, as it is now universally recited and written, was not employed before the end of the former Han dynasty, i. e., until after the commencement of the Christian era, to chronicle years at all ; its exclusive use was to chronicle days. Koo-yen-weo, one of the ablest scholars of the present dynasty, says expressly on this point, ' The twenty-two cycle' characters (i. e., the ten stem characters from k'da to kifiei, and the twelve branch characters from tsze to hae) were used by the ancients to chronicle days, not years. For recording years, there were the ten names of ok-Jung, etc., down to twan-mung, and the twelve branch names, she-f e-kih, etc., down to juy-han. The way of later times, to say that a year was k'iSr-tsze,' and so on, was not the ancient way.' Yen-woo then quotes from the preface of the Wae-ke, or ' Additional Records,' a supplement to the ' General Survey ' of history by Sze-ma-kwang, with whom Lew-shu, its author, was THE HUMAN RACE. I33 associated, the following testimony: 'The years of the sovereigns before and after Fu-hi down to King Le, are, I apprehend, dark, and hardly to be ascertained,* and we borrow the names of the kea-tsze cycle to chronicle them, adding himself, ' When did this practice of using the cycle names to chronicle years commence ? It commenced in the time of the usurper Mang.' (A. D. 9-22)." -j- Mr. Chalmers is of the opinion that the Chinese borrowed the elements of their chronological sys- tem. He remarks, "In the second century before the Christian era, the Chinese made extraordinary efforts to open communication with the west. They explored due west as far as the borders of Persia. At the same time they became acquainted with the northern parts of India. Sze-ma-Ts'een, who gives * The first king, Le, in the list of Chinese sovereigns, is the tenth of the Chan dynasty, beginning to reign B. C. 878. t Legge's Chinese Classics, vol. iii. prol. p. 82. " Sze-ma- kwang gets the credit of fixing the standard chronology ; but let me call the attention of the student to Choo-he's (died A. X). 1200) account of thie matter. He tells us, ' When Kwang first made a chronological soheme, his earliest date was the first year of Wei-ISe (B. C. 424). Afterward he extended his dates to the time of Kung and Ho (B. C. 840). After this again, he made his " Examination of Antiquity," beginning with the highest period ; but he could give no dates earlier than that time of Kung and Ho. It was. Shaou-K'ang-ts«6 who pushed the calculations up to th,e first year of Yaou,' " — i. e., to B. C. 2357. — lb. I am unable to state the precise time when Szcrma-kwang lived. 134 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF a full history of these discoveries, does not, indeed, tell us that they became acquainted with the period of Calippus,* either through the Bactrians or the Hindus ; but there is scarcely a shadow of doubt that this was the case. In no other way can we ac- count for the sudden appearance in Ts'een's history of a method so far in advance of anything known before in China, and one which had already been employed in the west for more than two centuries, f This opinion, while probably correct in the main, is, I think, erroneous as to the derivation of the cycle of sixty* from a foreign source. There seems to be good evidence that it was employed in comparatively ancient times, though its. applica- tion was to days only. This supposition may ex- plain some seeming contradictions and inconsisten- cies in the Chinese records, while it admits the antiquity of the cycle itself. From what has now been advanced, it appears that the received Chinese chronological system, in its present form, owes its origin to scholars of the Han * A correction of the Metonic cycle of 19 solar years, at which time the new moons return to the same days of the year. This period exceeding 235 lunations by yi hours, Calippus pro- posed to drop a day at the end of four cycles, or 76 years, by changing one of the months of 30 days to 29 days. — Brandos Diet. t Chin. Classics, vol. iii. prol. pp. 96, 99. THE HUMAN RACE. I35 dynasties (B. C. aoa-A. D. 220.) That was the Augustan age in Chinese literature. Those schol- ars, doubtless, made the best use of the materials at their command in constructing an accurate chro- nology of their national history. The question then remains, Were those materials reliable? Did they have sufficient data for constructing an accurate chronology for times very long anterior to their own? On this point. Dr. Legge remarks (vol. iii. prol. P* ^3) » " There can be no doubt that, before the Han dynasty, a list of sovereigns, and the lengths of their several reigns, was the only means which the Chinese had of determining the duration of their national history. And it would still be a sufficiently satisfactory method if we had a list of sovereigns, and of the years each reigned, that was complete and reliable. We do not have this, however. Even in the earlier part of the Han dynasty, Sze-ma- Ts'een's father and himself were obliged to content themselves with giving simply the names and order of most of the rulers of Shang and Hia.* The lengths of the several reigns in the standard chro- nology have been determined mainly, I believe, to make the whole line stretch out to the years which had been fixed, on astronomical considerations, for * The Illd and lid dynasties, B. C. 2205-1122. 136 ANTIQpiTY AND UNITY OF the periods of Chung-k'ang of the Hia dynasty, and of Yaou." From< this opinion of Dr. Legge I see no good reason for dissenting. It finds abundant support in the facts and .arguments which he has furnished. He seems to regard the chronology from the com- mencement of the Chan dynasty (B. C. 1122) as reliable; that of the Shang dynasty (B. C. 1766- 1122) as doubtful in regard to the details of reigns and dates ; while that of the first or Hia dynasty is still more unreliable. The founder of this dynasty was Yu the Great.. The accounts given of him show that he was a mythological personage. His birth was preternatr ural. The record says, " His mother saw a falling star, which went through the constellation Maou, and in a dream her thoughts were moved till she became pregnant; after which she swallowed a spirit's pearl. Her back opened in due time, and she gave birth to Yu in Shih-neu. He had a tiger nose and a large mouth. . . . When he grew up, he had the virtue of a sage, and was nine cubits and six inches long." * The story of his great, deeds^ especially in draining off the waters of the inundation, is evidently mythical. One is reminded, * Translation of the Annals of the Bamboo Books, in Dr. Legge's Chin. Classics, vol. iii. part i, p. 117. THE HUMAN RACE. 1 37 in reading it, of the labors of Hercules. So with his predecessors just named. Their births were as mafvelous as that of Yu. Things are related of some of them which suggest a suspicion that they are confused traditions of events described in the Mosaic records. What more plausible supposition than that the inventor of the famous cycle of sixty, Nau (or Nao) the Great is no other than the Jew- ish patriarch himself, with but the slightest change or corruption of the name? One certainly can not but be surprised that such a writer as Pauthier should say, as before quoted, " Chinese history pos- sesses all the characters of certitude which historic criticism has a right to demand." (Vol. ii. p. 33.) And here the question naturally arises, whether the Chinese historians had the materials for writing authentic annals of the early Ages of that country. The mos.t valued of the Chinese classics, as already intimated, is the Shu-king, or Book of Records, of which Confucius is the reputed author or com- piler (born B. C. S49). It is a series of dialogues designed to give a brief history of China from the time of Yaou down to Ping Wang, of the Chan dy- nasty, B. C. 770. " The internal evidence," says Williams (Mid. King. i. p. 504), "leads to the conclusion that Confucius acted principally as editor of documents existing in his day ; but the changes 138 ANTIQJJITY AND UNITY OF that this ancient work underwent in his hands can not now be ascertained." One of^ his commentators gives the following description of the manner in which he used his materials : — " He examined and arranged the grand monu- ments and records, deciding to commence with Yaou and Shun, and to come down to the times of Chan. When there was perplexit}^ and confusion he removed them. Expfessions frothy and unallow- able he cut away. What embraced great principles he retained and developed* What were more mi- nute, and yet of importance, he carefully selected. Of those deserving to be handed down to other ages, and to supply permanent lessons, he made in all one hundred books, consisting of canons, coun- sels, instructions, announcements, speeches, and charges."* How much, therefore, in this venerable work are the genuine remains of remote antiquitj"^, and how much originated with the compiler, we c^n not know. That the materiajs which came to his hand were more or less modified by him, is apparent. The whole cast of the work shows its author to have been more of a philosopher than historian. In read- ing these fragments in their translation, one can not but exclaim, How very different from the writ- ♦ Chin. Classics, vol. iii. prol. p. 4. THE HUMAN RACE. 135 ings of Herodotus, who wrote at, nearly the same time ! There is another fact of some importance. What- ever the Shu-king may have btfen originally, as to faithfully transmitting the early history and chro- nology of that nation, we now have that work only in mutilated form ; and the mutilation is so exten- sive, and of such a character, as seriously to impair its authority in every particular. All readers of Chinese history are familiar with the burning of the books by the Emperor jChi Hoang-ti, B. C. 213, famed also as being the builder of the Great Wall : — " The vanity of this monarch led him to endeavor to destroy all records written anterior to his own reign, that he might he by posterity regarded as the first emperor of the Chinese race. Orders were issued that every book should be burned, and especially the writings of Confu- cius and Mencius upon the feudal states of Chan, whose remembrance he w^ished to blot out. This strange com- mand was executed to such an extent that many of the Chinese literati believe that not a perfect copy of the clas- sical works escaped destruction, and the texts were only recovered by rewriting them from the memories of old scholars — a mode of reproduction that does not appear so singular to a Chinese as it does to us. . . . The destruction was, no doubt, as nearly complete as possible ; and not only were many works entirely destroyed, but a 140 ANTIQJTITY AND UNITY OF shade of doubt thereby thrown over the accuracy of others, and the records of the ancient dynasties rendered suspi- cious as well as incomplete. Not only were the books sought after to be destroyed, but nearly five hundred literati were buried alive, in order that no one might remain to reproach, in their writings, the first emperor with having committed so barbarous and insane an act." * As to the mode in which the Shu-king was recov- ered, accounts somewhat differ. One story is, that about thirty-seven years after the burning, some twenty-eight or twenty-nine chapters were partially restored from the memory of Fuh-Shang, a man then ninety years old. When the Ch'aou Ts'o, or imperial messenger, went to him, Fuh-Shang, being so aged, was unable to speak plainly, and made use of a daughter to repeat what he said ; and her dia- lect being different from Ts'o's, he lost two or three in every ten words, supplying them, as he best could, according to his conception of the meaning. This account, as being more marvelous, has be- come the accepted history of the manner in which so many books of the Shu were recovered. Another story relates that, when the orders were issued for the destruction of the books, the old man hid his copy in a wall, During the struggle that * Williams's Mid. Kingdom, vol. ii. pp. 212, 213. THE HUMAN RACE. I4I ensued, he was a fugitive in various parts ; but when the rule of the Han was established, he went to look for his treasure, but many of the tablets had per- ished. He recovered only twenty-nine of the books. Forthwith he commenced teaching, making these the basis of his instructions, and from all parts of Shan-tung scholars resorted to him, and sat at his feet. In all this time no copy had reached the court. The Emperor Wan (B. C. 178-156), after ineffec- tual- attempts to find some scholar who could repro- duce it, heard at last of Fuh-Shang, and sent to call him. Fuh was then more than ninety years old, and could not travel, and an officer called Ch'aou Ts'o was sent to receive from him wh^t he had of the Shu.' These books appear to have been tran- scribed in the new form of character introduced under the Tsin dynasty, as they were designated ever after " the modern text." About forty years later, i, e., seventy-three after the burning, another mutilated copy of the Shu was discovered in the ruined house of Confucius, by one of his descendants. In this copy were found the twenty-nine books already recovered, and some twenty-five or thirty more, making in all fifty-eight of the one hundred, of which the work originally consisted. 142 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF We come, then, to the conclusion that there is nothing in the literature or antiquitiesof China which contravenes or is inconsistent with the Mosaic his- tory. Its most venerable classics, even conceding their genuineness in their present form, afford us no reliable chronology prior to the Chan dynasty (B. C. 112 1). Their highest historical date, from which the cycle of sisity is reputed to be reckoned, is B. C. 2637, which is more than five hundred years subsequent to the flood of Noah, according to the Septuagint chronology.- Fuh-hi himself lived only B. C. 2852. (Williams.) We have shown, besides, that exactness of dates in that earlier period can not be affirmed, since neither the Chinese cal- endar nor the cycle of sixty, which are professedly " the elements of Chinese chronology," can be relied on as accurate. Dr. Legge's conclusion on this subject is as fol- lows : " The accession of Yu, the first sovereign of the nation, was probably at some time in the nine- teenth century before Christ ; and previous to him there were the chiefs Shun and Yaou. Twenty centuries before our era, the Chinese nation appears beginning to be. To attempt to carry its early his- tory to a higher antiquity is without any historical justification. There may have been such person- ages as Chinese writers talk of under the appella- THE HUMAN RACE. 1 43 tions of Chiuen-hiuh, Hoang-ti, Shinnung, Fuh-hi, etc., but they can not have been rulers of China. They are children of the mist of tradition, if we should not rather place them in the land of phan- tasy." 144 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF CHAPTER VII. THE ARGUMENT FROM ETHNOLOGY. Descent of all known Nations from Noah. — The Tenth Chapter of Genesis. — Importance of this Statement. — The Posterity of Shem ; of Japheth ; of Ham. — Agreement of this Account with History. — The so-called Aboriginal Races. — Scripture Language not to be pressed too literally. — Earlier and later Departures from the original Seats of Population. — Opinion of Rawlinson. — Alleged Aborigines of Egypt; of India; of Western Europe. In the preceding chapters " we have shown at length that there is nothing in the known history or antiquities of the most ancient nations that is incon- sistent with the Mosaic records. No authentic date goes back so far as the Noachian deluge ; no event of which any memorial has been preserved in writ- ten annals or monumental inscriptions can be as- signed to a period so remote. We are now prepared to show, on the other hand, that all human history, so far as it speaks on the subject, confirms those sacred records. It testifies THE HUMAN RACE. 1 45 both that all the nations of the earth whose history is known, or can be traced back to their origin, are descended from the family of Noah; and that this has taken place since the period at which, according to the Septuagint chronology, he and his sons went forth from the ark to be the new heads of the human race. At the same time it may be shown that there is nothing in the' condition or known facts of any nation inconsistent with the same origin. In other words, it may be proved beyond reasonable doubt, from the traces which man himself has left in the world, that all the known races and families which have peopled the earth sprung from a common source, on the continent of Asia, at a period not exceeding 5000 years ago, while there is no evidence as to any other race or people that is not reconcilable with that conclusion. The Scripture account of the origin and descent of the various nations of men is given in the tenth chapter of Genesis. This chapter has always been considered a document of great interest to students of ethnology, and that, too, to whatever school of biblical interpretation they may belong, whether they accept or reject the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, whether' they assign the date of its com- position to the reputed time of Moses, or a thousand years later. This is justly due to its subject-matter, 10 146 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF and the place it occupies in the sacred narrative. It occurs just at that point where the account ceases to be general, and is thenceforth devflted more espe- cially to a single branch of the human family. The first five chapters are occupied with the creation and the history of the antediluvian generations, the next three to the deluge, the ninth to the new laws and instructions given to Noah as the second founder of ■ the race, and to the birth and conduct of his sons. Then follows, in the tenth chapter, a more detailed account of " the generations of the sons of Noah," giving the descendants of each, in some. instances, to the third or fourth generation, and, in other casesj pointing out the geographical localities occupied by particular families. This account is as follows, beginning with Shem, who was probably the oldest of the three sons : — I. "The children of Shem, Elam, and Asshur, and Arphaxad, and Lud, and Aram." (Ver. 22.) Elam was the father of the Elumites, who dwelt around the northern shore of the Persian Gulf, in the province of Susiana, a part of ancient Babylonia. Asshur- is identical with the Assyrians in the upper valleys of the Tigris. After the Cushite invasion under Nimrod, this became a great Shemitic monarchy, whose capital, Nineveh, was one of the most splendid cities of ancient times. THE HUMAN RACE. 14,7 Arpkaxad, the eldest son of Shem, born two years after the flood, is believed to have settled the southern .part of the Armenian highlands, near the sources of the Tigris. He was the ancestor of the Hebrews, so named from Eber, his grandson. Through Joktan, one of the sons of Eber, he is also the ancestor of numerous tribes of Semitic Arabs, the heads of whose families are given in ver. 26—30, and whose abode was " from Mesha as thou goest unto Sephar, a mount of the east," the modern Zafari or Dhafar, in the southern part of the Ara- bian peninsula. JLud was the progenitor of the Lydians, in Asia Minor. Aram, from a word signifying high, was the ancestor of the people occupying the highlands of Syria, and spreading thence into the vast plains of Mesopotamia. One of iiis sons, Uz, seems to have given his name to a district in the latter region, dis- tinguished as the residence of the patriarch Job. 2. The second son of Noah was Japheth, a name signifying " enlargement," and denoting the wide extent of country which was to be occupied by his descendants. It is intimated, also, that this was to be the dominant race among the families of mankind (chap. ix. 27), both of which predictions have been signally verified in their subsequent his- tory. ■ 148 ANTIOyiTY AND UNITY OF "The sons of Japheth : Gomer, and Magog, and Madai, and Javan,,and Tubal, and Meshech, and. Tiras." (Ver. 2.) Gomer is regarded as the founder of the tribes which first settled on the shores of the Black Sea, and from thence, under the names of Cimmerians, Cimbri, or Kymry, ultimately spread throughout Northern Europe. His sons were Ashkenaz, Ri- phath, and Togarmah. The first is supposed by some to have given its name to Asia ; * others regard it as equivalent to the Gothic As-chunis, the race of Ases, representing " the Germanic and Scan- dinavian nations not yet separated, and inhabiting a limited district to the north-east of the Black Sea." •[• Riphath is " the group of Celts, or Gauls, then es- tablished in their first European settlements on the Rifhman Mountains, — the present Carpathians, — before entering on their last migration toward the France of our d^ys." | Togarmah is univer- sally regarded as Armenia. Magog -WSLS the progenitor of an extensive race of wild people, north of the Caucasus, called by the Greeks Scythians. The ultimate subdivisions of this race, and their migrations in Europe. and Asia, are little known.- Many suppose them to constitute * Philip Smith's Hist, of the World, p. 41. t Anc. Hist, of the East, vol. ii. p. 61. % Ibid. THE HUMAN RACE. 149 what is called the Turanian races, including the Hungarians and Sarmatians of the west, the Turks, Finns, Tatars of tfie north, and the original tribes of Central and Southern India on the south. Madai represents the Medes, or the great Ira- nian family of Persia. yavan was the father of the lonians and Greeks. Of his four sons, Elishah is supposed to be the same as Hellas ; Tarshish is thought to be Tartessus, in Spain, or, as others suggest, " the Tyrrhenian Pe- lasgians, who formed the primitive population of a great part of Italy ; * Kittim, the inhabitants of Cyprus, where was the ancient town of Citium ; and Dodanim, the Dardanians of Asia Minor, or the Epirotes, among whom was the famous town and oracle oi Dodona. Tubal is identified with the Tibareni of Pontus. Meshech is probably the Moschi mentioned by Herodotus, as living in the same vicinity. Tiras was the ancestor of the Thracians. 3. Ham was the youngest son of Noah. (Chap, ix. 24.) The word means "black,", or "sun- burned," and is especially applicable to the dark- skinned families of mankind, although individuals of other families, living in hot countries, acquire ^Iso dark complexions. * .^nc. Hist, of the East, vol. ii. p. 61, 150 ANTIQyiTY AND UNITY OF " The sons of Ham : Cush, and Mizraim, and Phut, and Canaan." (Ver. 6.) Cush vi as the ancestor of t£e Ethiopians. His eldest son, Seba, gave his name to the capital of the ancient kingdom of Meroe, and perhaps to the Sabeans, who dwelt partly in Arabia and partly in Abyssinia. His remaining sons, Havilah, Sabtah, Raamah, 'and Sabtechah, occupied the Arabian peninsula, and regions adjacent. From some one of these was descended Nimrod, the founder of the Babylonian empire, embracing the cities of Babel, Erech, Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar, and possibly also the Assyrian kingdom, including the cities of Nineveh, Rehoboth, Caleb, and Resen.* Traces of this dynasty are seen in the names Cuthah, Cossaei, Chuzistan (Susiana), as also in the Hindu Koosh, the name still borne by the mountain regions of the Upper Indus. Mizraim, a word in the dual form, meaning the two Egypts, i. e., the Upper and Lower. The Arabs still apply the name Misr both to the country itself and to its capital. The Ludim, ♦ The reading of Gen. x. 11, now generally preferred, is, "Out of that land he (i. e., Cush) went into Assyria." But it is not certain that the authorized version is not correct. Asshur, the son of Shem, may have heen driven from the country before by this fierce Cushite invader, and founded the more northern mon- archy called from him i^ssyri^. » THE HUMAN RACE. 15I Anamim, Lehabim, Naphtuhim, Pathrusim, and Caphtorim are not personal names, but the appel- lations of tribes descended from Mizraim, which settled the country .west pf Egypt, the Delta, the maritime coast of Philistia, and perhaps Crete, and some of the neighboring islands. The Caph- torim may have given their name to the Copts, which, in turn, originated the Greek designation of the country, viz., At-guftos, Egypt, the land of the Copt. Phut was probably the ancestor of the Libyans, inhabiting the country lying west of Egypt, along the northern shore of Africa. Canaan was the father of the tribes which origi- nally occupied Palestine, and which for the most part were exterminated by the Hebrews after their exodus from Egypt. Such is a concise view of the origin and affinities of the various nations of mankind, as given in the Scriptures. That it is in entire harmony with secu- lar history, so far as the latter is known, is evident to all intelligent readers. "Now, this general fact, even if we can go no further, is very remarkable. We need not suggest how utterly unlike this in- spired genealogy is to those wrhich are found in the literature of any other people. Confessedly one pf the oldest documents in the world, written in an 152 ANTiqyiTY AND UNITY OF age when as yet historical science had not begun to be, it maps out the existing families of mankind, and the localities they occupied, so minutely and accu- rately that the very latest investigations of modern science, with all the helps which have accumulated through thousands of years, serve only to verify and illustrate it. The very names contained in these patriarchal lists, entering into the numerous and intermingling channels of history, and floating down through the most diverse languages and dialects, are still, for the most part, recognizable as the distinc- tive appellations of the leading nationalities and peo- ples of this day. We know not how to resist the demonstration thus afforded both of the unity of all the known branches of the human race, and their origin at a date no more remote than the family of Noah. But there are, or have been, nations and tribes of men whose descent from Noah can not be traced through any line of actual history. When -his descendants migrated from the primitive seats in which, after the flood, "they settled, to the countries which were to be their future homes, they found everywhere, it is said, aboriginal races already occupants of the soil. "We have," says Agassiz, "nowhere a positive record of a people having migrated far, and found countries entirely destitute THE HUMAN RACE. 153 of inhabitants." * These aboriginal races, "often designated the pre-historic, but whom I would rather name the un-historic nations, prove, it is claimed, " the primitive ubiquity of mankind upon earth," and refute both the unity and the recent origin of the human. family. We think this statement, as is usual with objec- tions of this kind, exaggerated. . We know of no evidence to show the fact so universal as is alleged. Where is the " positive record of a people having migrated far," and not having '' found countries entirely destitute of inhabitants"? The Pelasgians. claimed to have been autochthons in Greece, though certainly having emigrated from Asia. We have never seen any evidence, or even allegation, that the ancient Egyptians did not consider them- selves autochthons in the valley of the Nile. But without insisting on this, we may freely concede the reality of these so called aboriginal races without any detriment to the authority of the sacred record. For, first. Scripture language in general state- ments is not always to be pressed to a rigidly literal meaning. Such a general statement is that of Gen. .ix. 19 : " These are the three sons of Noah, and of them was the whole earth overspread." This may be taken literally, as, until recently, has always * Christian Examiner, March, 1850. 154 ANTIQyiTY AND UNITY OF beerr done, or its application may be limited to the ' " Adamite race," whose creation had just been re- corded, and whose history is given in the subsequent portions of the sacred writings, without either affirm- ing or denying the existence of another race not descended from Adam. The latter interpretation, though less obvious than the former, is certainly consistent with usage in other parts of the Bible. For example, the statement in Luke ii. i, that "there went out a decree from Ceesar Augustus, that all the ■world should be taxed." Also, Matt. iii. 5, that there " went out to him [John] Jerusalem and all Judasa, and all the region round about Jordan." These statements are certainly to be understood in a sense more restricted than the literal one. Numer- ous other passages of a similar kind might be cited. Such being the case, the truthfulness of the Mosaic account, in the tenth chapter of Genesis, would not necessarily be impaired should it be proved that there has existed a race of races of men descended neither from Noah nor Adam. There are distin- guished scholars who maintain the polygenetic origin of mankind, and endeavor to prove it from the Bible, believing that' such an interpretation is consistent with the truthfulness of the sacred narrative.* But without resorting to this possible view of the * Page 170. THE HUMAN RACE. tf 155 matter,: — one in which I must, by no means, be understood to concur, — it is sufficient to say that if history does not, in the case of these nations now under consideration, establish their descent from Noah, neither, on the other hand, does it disprove it. The argument is at best a negative one, and determines nothing. If the Scripture narrative lacks confirmation as respects them, it is because there are no sufficient historical data in the case. At the same time these facts create a strong -proba- hility in favor of including these nations within the comprehension of the sacred record. If this be found to be literally true as respects all the nations whose history is known, the presumption is irresisti- ble that it must be true respecting those whose his- tory is unknown. There is still another view which I deem more satisfactory ; indeed, I see not why it does not meet all the exigencies of the case. It is conceded by all that the ancestors of the Semitic and Indo-European races remained together in their primitive seats longer than did those of the Turanian families ; and some of the greatest scholars in comparative phi- lology explain the diversity of language between these races by the supposition of an earlier depart- ure of the latter from those seats. It has, indeed, been the common opinion that the whole race re- 156 il! ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF mained together in the region around Babylon till the confounding of their language, as described in the eleventh chapter of Gfenesis ; and this, certainly, is the most obvious import of the record. But as I have already said, such is the use of general, com- prehensive terms in the Bible, that there is nothing to forbid the idea of repeated earlier separations of colonies from the primitive seat, and their migration to different parts Qf the earth. The following ex- tract gives the views of one of the most accom- plished ethnographers, Sif Henry Rawlinson, on this point : — " It must have been during this interval," referring to what he denominates the " Ante-Semitic Period," " that the nationalities must have been established, and that the original Scyths or Hamites appear to have been the prin- cipal movers in this great work of social organization. They would seem, indeed, simultaneously or progressively to have passed, in onexlirection, by Southern Persia into India ; in another, through Southern Arabia to Ethiopia, Egypt, and Numidia. They must have spread themselves, at the same time, over Syria and Asia Minor, sending out colonies from one country to Mauritania, Sicily, and Iberia ; from the other, to the southern coasts of Greece and Italy. They further, probably, occupied the whole area of modern Persia, and, thence proceeding to the north of Chalcis and the Caucasus, they penetrated to the extreme northern point of the European and Asiatic con- THE HUMAN RACE. 1 57 tinents. ' It is well known to ethnographers that the pas- sage of the Scyths is to be traced along these lines either by direct historical traditiorw or by the cognate dialects spoken by their descendants at the present day ; and it is further pleasing to remark, that if we were to be guided by the mere linguistic paths, and independently of all reference to the scriptural record, we should still be led to fix upon the plains of Shinar as the focus from which the various lines had radiated. " When I propose to class the multitude of nations here indicated in a common category, I do not pretend that a connection can be established between them by direct his- torical evidence,^or by any positive test of philology. All that I maintain is, that certain special ethnic names have everywhere prevailed amongst, them, and that either from ancient monuments, or from tradition, or from the dialects now spoken by their descendants, we are authorized to infer that, at some very remote period before the rise of the Semitic, and Aryan nations, a great Scytkic population must have overspread Europe, Asia, and Africa, speak- ing languages all more or less dissimilar in their vocabu- lary, but possessing similarity in certain common organic . characteristics of grammar and construction." * I have quoted this opinion of Rawlinson — which more strictly belongs to the argument from Phi- lology — because it so clearly enunciates the fact of * Notes on the early history of the Babylonians. — yournal Roy. Asiatic Soc, vol. xv. p. 232. 158 ANTIQjriTY AND UNITY OF an earlier immigration from the primitive seats of the race, than that which originated the nations of his- tory, which fact, as it sefems to me, is sufficient to account for the existence of the un-historic nations, without resorting to the supposition that they be- longed to a pre-Adamite or a non-Adamite race. But let us consider these so-called pre-historic races more in detail. Those of most importance are the alleged aborigines of Egypt, of India, and of West- ern Europe.* I have already, in Chapter II., shown at length the entire want of evidence that any such primeval race ever occupied the valley of the Nile, or that Menes, the reputed founder of the nation, lived at a period at all inconsistent with the chronology of Moses, According to the Septuagint. Doubtless Egypt was one of the earliest nations, 'dating back, according to the best authority we have, — that of Eratosthenes, — as far as the 27th or 28th century B. C.f But this will allow some four or five hun- dred years after the fiood in which that earliest Hamitic emigration from the first abode of Noah's family to the Nile valley may have taken place — a * Mr. J. D. Baldwin makes these three cases corner-stones of his theory, which would attribute to the human race an antiquity of some 10,000 or 20,000 years. See his " Pre-historic Nations." t Ante, p. 77. ' , -. - THE HUMAN RACE. I59 period amply sufficient to meet all the exigencies of the case. While there is, therefore, no proof of an alleged pre-:historic people and civilization in Egypt, there is, on the other hand, much evidence confirmatory of the Mosaic account of the origin of that nation in the family of Ham. We have, first, its name. This, in the language of its earliest inhabitants, was Ham, written in the hieroglyphics Kem, and in Coptic variously Chame, Chemi, and Cheme. The word even was applied to the soil itself, and thus, from its rich, dark color, came to signify " black," or rather " sunburned." Among the Hebrews, the name of the country was MiSRAiM, the dual form of which seems to have denoted the two provinces of Upper and Lower Egypt — equivalent to the "two Egypts." This name is retained by the Arabs at the present day, who call the country Misr. Traces of the names of the sub-families are also found in Egypt and the vicinity. " The Ludim were the true and dominant Egyptian race, called, in their language, Rut, or Lut, i. e., 'men' par excellence. Next, the Pathrusim, or 'people of the southern country,' that is, of the Thebaid, in Egyp- tian, P-TO-RES. The Naphtuhim, or people of Memphis, the sacerdotal name of which was Na l6o ANTIQJJITY AND UNITY OF Phtah (the 'Part of Phtah'), and lastly, the Ana- mim, the Anu of the Egyptian monuments, who seem originally to have been dispersed throughout the whole Nile valley, and who have left traces of their name in the cities of Heliopolis (in Egyptian, An), Tentyris or Denderah (also sometimes called An), and Hermonthis (An-res, Southern An). A branch of this race maintained, for a long time, a separate existence in a part of the Sinaitic penin- sula."* The Caphtorim, from whom were de- scended the Philistines,! are believed to have origi- nated the name Coptos, as applied to the district or nome which they first settled, which, in its turn, suggested the Greek designation now borne by the entire country, viz., Ai-gu;ptos, Egypt, i. e:, the land of Copt. The Casluhim are supposed to have been the aborigines of Casiotis, a region lying on the bor- ders of Egypt, toward Arabia Petrsa, where is the modern town of El-kas. The Lehabim were un- doubtedly the Libyans, who dwelt in the country west of Egypt, stretching across the desert to the Atlantic. Second, The physical characteristics and language * Anc. Hist, of the East, Lenormant, p. 202. t In Gen. x. 14, they are said to have proceeded from the Cas- luhim. But this is probably an error, the clause having been transposed from Caphtorim. Compare Jer. xlvii. 4, Amos ix. 7. THE HUMAN RACE. l6l of the people* The "Coptic skull and facial outline" are of" the Caucasian type." " We may allow, too, for considerable admixture with the cognate races to the south and east ; and hence, on the one hand, the fullness of lips, and, on the other, the elongated Nubian eye, need not compel us to define the inhab- itants of the Nile valley as an African rather than an Asiatic race. The Egyptians may be said to be intermediate between the Syro-Arabian and the Ethiopic type." * Osburn is still more emphatic in expressing the same opinion. " There is yet another historic trait whereby thi* most ancient of languages and of modes of writing discourses of its origin. A large class of words in it are Semitic, or (to drop the terminology of a system which modern discovery has shown to be erroneous) are identical with the Hebrew of the Bible. The personal pronoun, the numerals, as well as many names and verbs, expressing actions or objects of very common occur- rence, were the same in the Hebrew and Egyptian languages. . . . The words of the iancient Egyptian language, derived from the Hebrew, seem to be those which are of the very essence of human intercommunication. Such are pronouns, numerals, appellations for heat, cold, sitting, standing, moving, * Smith's Diet, of Geog., art. ^gyfitus. II l62 ANTIQjaiTY AND UNITY OF dividing, etc., etc. We believe there exists, either in the Coptic or hieroglyphic texts, words identical with the Hebrew for these and other objects and ideas, all of which, so far as we can collect, are of this primitive and essential character in the structure of speech. Without them, it would be impossible for human beings to interchange thoughts or hold communication by speech at all." * The testimony of the monuments is to the same effect, proving that the first settlement of the coun- try was in Lower Egypt, precisely where the theory of an Asiatic origin would place it. Mr. Osburn shows this at length, quoting also thg opinions of that eminent scholar Lepsius, that " the antiquity of Egyptian monuments, considered in relation to the larger masses of their remains, becomes less remote the higher we ascend the valley, in direct opposi- tion to that which might have been anticipated according to the very eminently received theory, which assumes that the Egyptian civilization in the valley of the Nile originated in the south, and extended . itself northward." He then continues, " Thus are we able to indicate, with absolute cer- tainty, the point in the valley of the Nile in which are found the monuments of the remotest antiquity, and therefore, by the unerring analogy of the cus- * Monumental History of Egypt, vol. i. pp. 209, 210. THE HUMAN RACE. 163 toms of all ancient nations, the spot in 'which the first settlement in Egypt took place. Everything, both to the northward and southward of this point, is more modern. It will also be seen, by a refer- ence to the map, that this point lies exactly parallel to the Isthmus of Suez, and is precisely the place at which immigrants over that thoroughfare between Asia and Africa, would first find a locality suited to their purpose, after traversing the sands of the des- ert, and attempting in vain to penetrate the swamps of the Delta." The second of the supposed pre-historic nations, which, it is thought, could not have been of the Noachian family, are the aborigines of India. The Sanskrit, as is well known, belongs to the Aryan, or, as it is sometimes called, the Japetic family of languages, and is a sufficient proof that the people of India, who spoke that tongue, were of the Japetic stock. But it is claimed that when the Aryans came into India, they found there a primitijje people of another race. Mr. Baldwin regards these as Cush- ites from Arabia, who were themselves preceded by a nation of Malays. He speaks of the " Cyclopean works of the Cushites " as found in the rock-cut tem- ples, pagodas, etc., which Orientalists have gen- erally regarded as not antedating the time of Buddha, say from five to six centuries B. C. 164 ANTiqUITY AND UNITY OF Now, we fully admit that the earliest writings of the Sanskrit-speaking people afford evidence that when that people i-eached the Punjaub, in Northern India, they found the country already occupied by inhabitants ; but the same writings also as clearly seem to intimate that these were not a distinct race from the new comers. This evidence may be regarded as conclusive, at least in reference to those tribes called .in the Vedas and elsewhere Dasyas* and, in fact, all the original tribes of Northern India. This is shown, at some length, by Muir, in his " Sanskrit Texts," one of the most valuable works we have on Indian archaeology, f He says, in con- clusion, " I have gone over the names of the Das- yas, or Asuras, mentioned in the Rig- Veda, with the view of discovering whether any of them would be regarded as of non-Aryan or indigenous origin, but I have not observed any that appear to be of this character." % He also quotes Professors Miiller * This, and notDasyu (sing.), as Muir writes it, is the proper orthography, according to the usual way of Anglicizing Sanskrit words. The vowel in the last syllable is the same as in the first, viz., short 5, pronounced like » in but — DSsyi. t Original Sanskrit Texts, on the Origin and Progress of the Religion and Institutions of India, Part I.' and History of the People of India, their Religion and Institutions, Part 11. By J. Miiir, Esq., D. C. L., late of the Bengal civil service. London, 1858 and 1860. I Ibid p. 403. THE HUMAN RACE. 165 and Lassen, to the same effect. " Dasyu simply means enemy ; for instance, where Indra is praised 'because he destroyed the Dasyus,and protected the Aryan Color.' The Dasyus, in the Veda, may mean non-Aryan races in many hymns, yet the mere fact of tribes being called the enemies of cer- tain kings or priests can hardly be said to prove their barbarian origin." * " Though in individual passages of the Mahabharata hatred and contempt are expressed in reference to the tribes living on the Indus and its five great tributaries, yet there is no trace of these tribes being ever regarded as of non-Indian origin. That there was no essential difference in their language is proved, as regards a later period, by the testimony of Panini."f It is more probable that the primitive inhabitants of Southern India were of a non-Aryan stock, though I do not regard it as proved. Muir sup- poses them to have been allied to the Finnish or Tatar races, and Baldwin, as we have seen, to the Cushites. But in reality the question, both as it relates to them and to the more northern tribes, is of little comparative importance in the present discussion. It may be conceded that neither were Aryans without any danger of im- * Mailer, "Last Results of the Turanian Researches," p. 344; t LasSen, Zeitsch. fur die Kunde des Morgenl, iii. 206. 1 66 ANTIQJJITY AND UNITY OF. pugning their descent from Noah. All the data- we have from the Sanskrit, or elsewhere, show that the Aryans did not arrive in the upper valleys of the Indus and the Ganges much before the 13th century before Christ. Professor Miiller, indeed, places it as early as the 15th century.* Even if we take this date, we have a period of some 1600 or 1700 years between it and the deluge, according to the Septuagint chronology, — a period amply suffi- cient to. admit of repeated migrations from the original seats of the race. It is perfectly consistent with all the known facts respecting the original inhabitants of India, to assume that six, eight, or ten centuries after the deluge, straggling colonies of unlettered men wandered from their primitive home into this country, where they were found by the lettered Ar- yans perhaps as m'any centuries later. The suppo- sition meets every exigency of the case, without resorting to the theory of a non-Adamite race, or a condition of human population at all inconsistent with- the Bible chronology. ^ The remaining nations, termed pre-historic, which are claimed to have had an antiquity exceeding that of the deluge, are those whose remains are found in Europe, in association with the bones of antedilu- vian animals, accompanied by rude implements of * Last Results, etc., p. 432. THE HUMAN RACE. 167 flint and stone ; also in ancient peat-beds, and at the bottom of various lakes. The character and proba- ble origin of these remains will be considered at length in a subsequent chapter.* It will be sufficient here to observe that the fact that all historical traces of these people are lost, — in other words, that they are pre-historic, — is, in the circumstances, no proof of a remote antiquity. His- toric times in France, Germany, and Britain go but a-little way back of Julius Caesar. Even if we carry them as far as to the founding of Rome, B. C. 753, we have left a period of some twenty-five hundred years subsequent to the flood — a period amply suffi- cient for the rise, decay, and extinction of numerous nati'ons, without having left even a name to indicate their origin or affinities. It will be showa further that the most diligent ex- plorers into the subject of these ancient rema>ins are clearly of opinion that the people to whom they belonged were of Celtic origin, a branch of the great Aryan or Indo-European family, which confessedly were among the latest to leave the primeval seats of emigratioji in Asia. The conclusion, then, to which Ethnology brings us, is in accordance with that derived from her sister sciences. So far as she can trace the origin and * Infra, p. 320. 1 68 ANTiqyiTY and unity of affinities of all, whether historic or unhistoric nations, she refers them to Central Asia and the family of Noah, and of course brings them into harmony with the chronology of that event. Where she can not trace that origin, she still leaves all the probabilities pointing the same way. She allows ample time, in the period since the flood, for all the migrations and developments required by the hypothesis of such a common despent, and, what is equally significant, she affords not one fact, nor even one reasonable probability, which is in the least inconsistent with it. THE HUMAN RACE. 1 69 CHAPTER VIII. THE ARGUMENT FROM PHYSIOLOGY. Differences in existing Races of Men urged to prove a Plurality of Origin. — This Doctrine first advanced by La Peyrere. — Espoused by Infidel Writers. — Its supposed Bearings on Slavery. — Agassiz's Theory of Natural Provinces. — And of Unity of Species. — Estimate" of this Theory. — I. It is a mere Theory. — II. No Inconsistency of knovyn Facts with the Bible Narrative. — The Case of Cain and his "Wife. — The Diversities among Races. — i. Man is of a single Species, having same Physical and Mental Characteristics. — The single Head of the Animal Kingdom. — Intermixture of Races futile. — Unity of Species proves Unity of Origin. — 2. Sim- ilar Changes how taking place. — 3. Similar Changes among other Animals. — III. The Theory contrary to Analogy in other Departments of Creation. — IV. Opposed by Theologi- cal and Moral Science. — Conclusion. The preceding chapter was devoted to the argu- ment from Ethnology, in what may be denominated its historical department. It is necessary, in view of objections which have been raised, to consider the same subject further under its physiological aspect. lyO ANTIQJJITY AND UNITY OF We have argued the recent origin of man on earth from the fact that all known nations and fami- lies have descended from Noah, and therefore must come within the range of the Noachian chronology. But, apart from the historical evidence of such descent, it is urged, from a study of man as he now is, the diversities of his form, size, color, physiog- nomjr, etc., that existing races could not have had a common origin. It is claimed that this diversity re- quires, and that the Scriptures themselves virtually warrant, the belief that beside Adam and his de- scendants, there has been at least one, perhaps several, other original stocks of the human family, older than that of Adam ; that the Scripture account of the creation does not include these, being designed to refer only to that branch to which the Jews, and the white races generally, belonged ; and therefore that we are at liberty to assign to this elder branch or branches any supposable antiquity which modern scientific discoveries may require. This doctrine of the plurality of the human species was first advanced by La Peyr^re, a French writer, in a work published in 1655. The ground on which he professed to base it was the Bible itself, which, he maintained, gave clear intimations of a non- Adamite race. The principal passage he adduced in support of this theory was that which speaks of THE HUMAN RACE. I^I Cain, after he received sentence for his crime, going out from the presence of the Lord, and dwelling in the land of Nod, marrying a wife there, and build- ing a city. (Gen. iv. i6, 17.) ■ In the preceding verses, also, when complaining of his sentence, he says, " I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth, and it shall come to pass that every one that findeth me shall slay me ; " in consequence of which "the Lord set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him." La Peyr^re argued from these passages that there were, at that time, other men beside the family of Adam, which then consisted of only three persons ; and that these other men, or this other race, must have been previously createti. They were, he thought, the ancestors of the Gen- tiles, while Adam was the ancestor of the Jewish race, with whose creation and history the Bible is mainly occupied. The distinguished writer * from whom I derive this account says that La Peyr^re was in no sense a free thinker (n'est nullement un libre penseur). "He was a theologian, a believer, who admits as true all that is in the Bible, and miracles in particu- lar. . . . He ailways finds in the book which serves him as a guide some reason to support his interpretation. In a word, we find throughout, in * Quatrefages, Introduction, pp. 7, 8. 172 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF La Peyrere, a mixture of complete faith and free criticism. This book convinced no one, and the doctrine of the author soon fell into forgetfulriess, until within a few years since it has been repro- duced and welcomed with a favor sufficiently unex- pected." It is not surprising that a theory so repugnant to the general teachings of Christianity should have met with favor from the apostles of French infidelity. Voltaire and Rousseau reproduced this argument in their attempts to shake the authority of the Scrip- tures.* But, according to Quatrefages, it was reserved for America to bring this doctrine into ndtice, and give it any considerable currency. His account of the matter is substantially this : In 1846 Professor L. Agassiz, in a visit to Charleston, -S. C, broached the theory of the plurality of origin for the human race in the " Literary Conversations Club," of that city. The expression of these views aroused a decided antagonism in that meeting. The pro- fessor found two able opponents in the persons of the Rev. Drs. Bachman and Smyth, who both spoke and wrote in opposition to him. Professor A. pub- lished his views in extenso in the " Christian Exam- iner" for March and July, 1850; and afterward, in 1854. in an essay entitled " The Natural Provinces * Smyth's Unity of the Human Species, p. 163, Eng. ed. THE HUMAN RACE. 1 73 of the Animal World, and their Relation to the Dif- ferent Types of Man," inserted in Nott and Gliddon's " Types of Mankind." In 1849 Dr. Nott published his work entitled " Biblical and Physical History of Man," being the substance of two lectures delivered by him in New Orleans the previous year. In 1854 Nott and Gliddon issued the book just mentioned on the " Types of Mankind." It was in this manner that the discussion of the question as to the unity of the human race was renewed, after a silence of two hundred years. The agitation of it on this side of the Atlantic drew atten- tion to it on the other, and brought into the field a considerable number of able writers, most of whom, so far as I am aware, took ground . in favor of the unity of the race as descended from the family of Noah. According to Quatrefages, the chief interest of the discussion in this country. grew out of its sup- posed bearings upon the institution of slavery. " Thus in America," he says, " the anthropological question is complicated with that of slavery ; and from reading the greater part of the writings that have come to us from beyond the Sea, it is clear that there they are, before all, advocates or opponents of that institution. But ir^ the United States it is ne- cessary always tQ be biblical ; and hence came the 174 ANTIQJJITY AND UNITY OF particular shades which distinguish certain anthro- pological works in that country. The anti-slavists are generally outspoken monogenists, and accept the dogma of Adam as it is commonly understood. Such is, also, professedly the faith of a certain num- ber of slavists. These latter, to justify their conduct toward their black brethren, refer to the history of Noah and his sons. Ham, say they, was cursed by his father, and condemned to be the servant of his brethren. The negroes descended from Ham ; therefore, in reducing them to slavery, we are obey- ing Holy Writ. But America reckons .some beside slavists who are polygenists. yhese latter have again placed- in honor, under different forms and in support of modern knowledge, the doctrine of La Peyrdre, of which otherwise they say but little. All, speaking highly of the inspiration of the Old and New Testaments, endeavor to demonstrate, by lin- guistic, geographical, and historical researches, that the biblical accoiints relative to the origin and affiliation of men apply only to the white races. Thus put at ease, they.have regarded the different groups as so many distinct species.".* By far the most distinguished of this latter class of writers is Professor Agassiz. His opinions I will cite at length from the essay before referred to, !* C3[iiatrefages, p. ii. THE HUMAN RACE. 175 published in the " Christian Ejsaminer " for July, 1850. " The circumstance that, wherever we find a human race naturally circumscribed, it is connected in its limita- tion with what we call, in natural history, a zoological and botanical province, — that is to say, with a natural limitation of a particular association of animals and plants, — shows most unequivocally the intimate relation existing between mankind and the animal kingdom in thfeir adap- tation to the physical world. The Arctic race of men, covering the treeless region near the Arctics, in Europe, Asia, and America, is circumscribed, in the three conti- nents, within limits very similar to those occupied by that particular combination of animals which are peculiar, to the same tracts of land and sea. " The region inhabited by the Mongolian race is also a natural zoological province, covered by a combination of animals naturally circumscribed within the same re- gions. The Malay race covers also a natural zoological province. New Holland again constitutes a very peculiar zoological province, in which we have another particular race of men. And it is further remarkable, in this con- nection, that the plants and animals now living on the continent of Africa, south of the Atlas, within the same range within which the Negroes are naturally circum- scribed, have a character differing widely from that of the plants and animals of the northern shores of Africa and the valley of Egypt ; while the Cape of Good Hope, within the limits inhabited by Hottentots, is characterized 176 ANTIQJJITY AND UNITY OF by a vegetation and a fauna equally peculiar, and differing in its features from that over which the African race is spread. " Such identical circumscriptions between the limits of two series of organized beings, so widely differing as man, and animals, and plants, and so entirely unconnected in point of descent, would, to the mind of a naturalist, amount to a demonstration that they originated together within the districts which they now inhabit. We say that such an accumulation of evidence would amount to demon- stration ; for how could it, on the contrary, be supposed that man alone would assume peculiarities and features so different from his primitive ghatacteristics, while the ani- mals and plants circumscribed within the same limits, would continue to preserve their natural relations to the fauna and flora of other parts of the world .'' " If the Creator of one set of these living beings had not been also the Creator of the other, and if we did not trace the same general laws throughout nature, there might be room for the suppositipn that, while men inhabiting dif- ferent parts of tjie world originated from a common center, the plants and animals now associated with them in the same countries originated on the spot. But such incon- sistencies do riot occur in the laws of nature; ^^ The coincidences of the geographical distribution of the human r^ces with that of animals, the disconnection of the climatic conditions where we have similar races, and the connection of climatic conditions where we have different human races, show, further, that the adaptation THE HUMAN RACE. 1 77 of the different races of men to different parts of the world must be intentional, as well as that of other beings ; tliat men were priniitively located in the various parts they inhabit ; and that they arose everywhere in those har- monious numeric proportions with, other living beings, which would at once secure their preservation, and con- tribute to their welfare. To suppose that all men origi- nated from Adam and Eve is to assume that the order of creation has been changed in the course of historical times, and to give to the Mosaic record a meaning that it was never intended to have. On that ground we wbuld particularly insist upon the propriety of considering Gen- esis as chiefly relating to the history of the white race, with special reference, to the history of the Jews." Notwithstanding that the learned professor thus denies the common descent of mankind from Adam and Eve, he still insists that the race is but of one species. He remarks, — " There are two distinct questions involved in the sub- ject which we have under discussion — the' Unity of Man- kind, and the Diversity of Origin of the Human Races. These are two distinct questions, having almost no con- nection with each other; but they are constantly con- founded, as if they were but one."* And again,. "We began by stating that the subject of unity and plurality of races involves two distinct questions — the question of the essential unity of mankind, and the question of the origin * Christ. Exam. July, 1850, p. no. 12 178 ANTIQyiTY AND UNITY OF of men upon our globe. There is another View involved in this second question, which we would not dismiss without a few remarks. " Are men, even if diversity of origin is established, to be considered as belonging to one species? or are we to conclude that there are several different species among them.? The writer has been in this respect strangely misrepresented. Because he has at one time said that mankind constitutes one species, and at another time has said that men did not originate from one common stock, he has been represented as contradicting himself, as stat- ing at one time one thing and at another time another. He would, therefore, insist upon this distinction — that the unity of species does not involve a unity of origin, and that a diversity of origin does not involve a plurality of species. Moreover, what we should now consider as the characteristic of species is something very different from what has formerly been so considered. As soon as it was ascertained that animals differ so widely, it was found that what constitutes a species in certain types is some- thing very different from what constitutes a species in other types, and that facts which prote an identity of species in some animals do not prove an identity or plurality in another group." (p. 113.) Thus we see this distinguished naturalist holds to the doctrine of the unity of mankind, but with this he likewise maintains the plurality of origin ; a posi- tion which, according to the manner in which cer- THE HUMAN RACE. 1 79 tain matters in natural science have heretofore been viewed, is a strange one. But some others have adopted it ; and they maintain the unity of the human races in such a way as to be consistent, in their own view, with the declaration of Paul, when he says, " He [God] hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth." (Acts xvii. 26.) There is the actual relationship of con- sanguinity — all are made of one blood, although the different races are descended from different, dis- tinct, primitive pairs, which were created at different times in different parts of the earth. And Prof. Agas- siz is particular to state that he regards all the races, though descended from different primeval pairs, as having the same relations to the moral government of God, as constituting, spiritually and intellectually, one brotherhood, and as having one destiny. He claims, moreover, that all this is consistent with the sacred Scriptures, and feels it keenly that he has been represented as holding doctrines at variance with the teachings of the Bible. Let us now inquire what estimate should be placed upon the theory thus set forth. I. In the first place, let it be remembered that it is a mere theory. No one, so far as we know, has attempted to frove jt, or even claimed that it is sus- ceptible of proof. It is an hypothesis resorted to for l8o ANTIQiJITY AND UNITY OF the purpose of escaping the difficulties supposed to arise from the inconsistency of certain facts revealed by modern science with th'e ordinary view of the chronology and unity of the race. It is not pre- tended that any clear traces can be discerned along the track of man's history of a plural origin of the race. There is certainly, as we go back in time, a convergence of lineage, of language, and of tradition toward one parental center; there is not toward any other. The streams of migration during the ages have apparently come from one common foun- tain in Central Asia ; there is no other such fountain from which they came. If there are or have been any nations whose origin can not be traced to Adam or Noah, it is sufficient to say that neither can they be traced to any other source. All positive evidence that there was more than one parental stock, from whom the various races and families have de- scended, is absolutely wanting. II. The alleged inconsistency of any known facts of science with the Scripture doctrine, to obviate which resort is had to the theory of plurality, has never yet been demonstrated. Take, first, the case of Cain. It is said that he was afraid that somebody would slay him for his crime of murdering Abel ; and as there were then but three living persons of the family of Adam, he THE HUMAN RACE. l8l must have referred to people of another race. But how is it ascertained that there were then but three persons living? Who know^s how many children may have been born to our first parents between these two brothers, or how many after the birth of Abel? Who can tell what the age of either of the brothers was at the time of the homicide? Certainly, even Abel had grown to something like man's es- tate, and Cain was older than he. Besides, why limit the murderer's fears to persons then living? There were generations, to come, among whom he knew that the story would be told ; and he might well apprehend that some avenger of blood would arise long years after that, to redress the wrong done to his kinsman, and inflict justice upon his slayer. In the matter of Cain's wife, also, the difiiculty is greatly exaggerated. It is conceded that the first marriage among Adam's descendants must have been between a bi"other and sister. But it by no means follows that such a marriage, in those circum- stances, was incestuous, in the later signification of that term. He who appointed marriage for the wel- fare of the race could have sanctioned it, in this necessary instance, as readily as he forbade the repetition of it afterward. Besides, the difficulty is not obviated by the supposition of another race, among whom Cain may have found a wife. For l82 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF she must, again, have been descended from some primeval pair, in whose family the same difficulty must have existed — a marriage equally incestuous. Or if, to avoid this, you suppose still another race, whence the needed wife or husband might have come, you only shift the difficulty again to this. You must, therefore, resort to the absurd supposi- tion of an infinite number of distinct human races, or you must confront the marriage itself, and justify it in its own nature, which you can as well do in the case of Cain and his sister-wife as in any other. But the chief difficulties which have caused a resort to the theory under examination grow out of the diversities in color, physiognomy, and other personal characteristics existing among different branches of the race. If is claimed that these diversities are too great, and have been of too long standing to be consistent with the idea of a common descent, especially within the circumscribed period between their actual appearance and the time of Noah. In the proof and illustration of these diver- sities, great research and learning have been ex- hibited, and many able works have been written. To treat this topic according to its importance will require a somewhat lengthened consideration.. The subject really involves two questions : first. Can the known diversities existing in the various THE HUMAN RACE. 1 83 branches of the human race have come, in the way of gradual variation, from one original type? and second. If intrinsically possible, can it have been done within the limited space of time which, with the most pliant Scripture chronology, we are able to allow for it? These questions, however, though properly separate, so run into each other, that it will be more easy to consider them together. The affirmative of both of them is argued, i . From the superficial character of these diversfties ; 2. The actual changes which have been observed as taking place in particular circumstances of the race; 3. From the analogy of similar changes which have occurred in other animals, particularly in those most nearly associated with man, and subject to the same general influences that have operated on him. I. Naturalists are not a'^reed as to the number of sub-races into which the human family should be divided. Some make two only, the white and the black. Morton reckons twenty-two, and Burke six- ty-three. Agassiz makes eight principal centers of creation, which he calls " zoological provinces," viz., the Arctic, the Mongolian, the European, the American, the Negro, the Hottentot, the Malay, and the Australian. But whatever be the number, it is now regarded as settled that the differences between them are not s-pecijic — that the entire genus homo consists of but a single sfecies. 184 ANTIQJJITY AND UNITY. OF In this position all the best authorities are agreed. "Linnseus, Blumenbach, Cuvier, Lawrence, Cam- per, Dr. Prichard, Humboldt, Zimmerman, Pick- ering, and many other distinguished naturalists, consider the species as sufficiently proved ; and the French Academy of Science, in one of its reports, speaking of Blumenbach, remarks that ' a profound gulf, without connection or passage, separates the human species from every other. There is no other species that is akin to the human, nor. any genus whatever. The human race; stands alone.'"* This is proved, first, from the fact that " there is an essential identity among men of all races in physical and mental characteristics." j Our space will not allow us to go over the whole field, and show this fact in detail. Dr. Bachman, in his " Doc- trine of the Unity of the 'Human Race," adduces a large number of particulars in the osteological struc-^ ture of man in which the various races are identical. Professor Godron, the distinguished French natural- ist, in the second chapter of his great work,| treats * Dr. John Hall, in Pickering's Races of Men, Introd. p. 27. t Professor J. D. Dana, Geology, p. 584. + De I'Esp^ce et des Races dans les ^tres Organises, et speciale- ment de I'UnitS de I'Esp^ce Humaine. Par D. A. Godron, Doc- teur en Medecine, Docteur 6s Sciences, Doyen de la Faculty des Sciences de Nancy, Professeur d'Histoire Naturelle k la mfime Faculty, Directeur du Jardin des Plantes, etc. 2 vols., 8vo. THE HUMAN RACE. 1 85 of the organic, physiological, and psychological dif- ferences which were present among themselves, and compares them with those which are shown among domestic animals. He takes into view all the vari- ations in the form of the skull, and bones in other parts of the body, the size, color of the skin, color and quality of the hair, etc., etc., and draws from the whole the following conclusion : " The organic and physiological differences seen in the different varieties of mankind are analogous to those which are known to exist among the domestic animals, and the psychological differences of the different peoples of the earth are neither original nor perma- nent." And Professor Owen, than whom there is no greater authority on topics of this kind, says, " With regard to the value to be assigned to the dis- tinctions of race, in consequence of not any of these differences being equivalent to those characteristics - of the skeleton or other parts of the frame upon which specific differences are founded by naturalists in reference to the rest of the animal creation, I have come to the conclusion that man forms one species, and that differences are but indicative of varieties. . These varieties merge into each other by easy gradations. The Malay and the Polynesian link the Mongolian and the Indian [Indo-European] varieties, and fhe Indian is linked by the Esqui- l86 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF maux again to the Mongolian. The inhabitants of the Andaman Islands, New Guinea, New Cale- donia, and Australia, in a minor degree, seem to fill up the hiatus between the Malay and the Ethiopian varieties ; and in no case can a well-marked, definite line be drawn between the physical characteristics of allied varieties, these merging more or less grada- tionally the one into the other." * " The unity of the human species is demonstrated by the constancy of those osteological and dental characters to which the attention is more particularly directed in the investigation of the corresponding characters in the higher quadrumana." | 2. In the ascending scale of animals the number of species in any genus diminishes as we rise, and should, by analogy, be the smallest at the head of the series. Professor Dana states this rule thus : " Among the mammals the higher genera have few species, and the highest group next to man — that of the orang outang — contains only eight, and these eight belong to two genera. . . . Analogy re- quires that man should here have the preeminence. If more than one species be admitted, there is scarcely a limit to the number that may be made." f The diflferent varieties shade off into each other by * Lect. before Cambridge University, May lo, 1859, P- 98- t Ibid. p. 103. t Geology, p. 584. THE HUMAN RACE. 187 insensible gradations. " Some," says Bachman,* " have divided man into two species, some into three, some into five, one into eight separate creations, and one, more enthusiastic than all the rest, can see no reason why ' there were not originally a hundred species.' (Nott's Bib. Hist. p. 33.)" A position which thus violates one of the great principles that rule through the whole animal world can not be ad- mitted without the m($st stringent necessity. 3. All the varieties of the race are capable of intermixture, and the mixed breeds have the power of self-perpetuation to any extent, which is not true of hybrids between two distinct species. It is a law both of the animal and vegetable kingdoms, that the union of different species can never produce a perpetually fertile offspring. In other words, the distinction of species through the whole realm of life is fixed and permanent ; it is never obliterated by intermixtures ; it is extinguished only by the ex- tinction of the race itself. This law is set forth so clearly and forcibly by Professor Dana,t that we take leave to quote it in full. " Permanence of Species. " What now may we infer with regard to the perma- nence or fixedness of, species from a general survey of nature ? * Examination of the Character of Genera and Species, p. 18. t In the Bib. Sacra for October, 1857, pp. 862-86^, 1 88 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF " Let us turn again to the inorganic world. Do we there find oxygen blending by indefinite shadings with hydrogen, or with any other element? Is its combining number, its potential equivalent, • a varying number — usually 8, but at times 8 and a fraction, 9, and so on ? Far from this ; the number is as fixed as the universe. There are no indefinite blendings of elements. There are combinations by multiples or sub-multiples, but these prove the dominance and fixedness of the combining numbers. ' " But further than this, fixed numbers, definite in value and defiant of all destroying powers, are well known to characterize nature from its basement to its top-stone. We find them in combinations by volume as well as weight, that is, in all the relations of chemical attraction ; in the mathematical forms of crystals and the simple ratios in their modifications — evidence, of a numerical basis to cohesive attraction ; in the laws of light, heat, and sound. Indeed, as we have elsewhere said, the whole constitution of inorganic nature, and of our minds with reference to nature, involves fixed numbers ; and the universe is not only based on mathematics, but on finite determinate num- bers, in the very natures of all its elemental forces. Thus the temple of nature is made, we may say, of hewn and measured stones, so that, although reaching to the fieavens, we may measure, and thus use the finite to rise toward the infinite. " This being true for inorganic nature, it is necessarily the law for all nature ; for the ideas that pervade the uni- THE HUMAN RACE. 1 89 verse are not ideas of contrariety, but of unity and univer- sality beneath and through diversity. " Looking to facts in nature, we . see, accordingly, everywhere, that the purity of species has been guarded with great precision. It strikes us naturally with wonder, that even in senseless plants, without the emotional repug- nance of instinct, and with reproductive organs that are all outside, the free winds being often the means of transmis- sion, there should be rigid law sustained against intermix- ture. The supposed cases of perpetuated fertile hybridity are so exceedingly few as almost to condemn themselves, as no true examples of an abnormity so abhorrent to the system. They violate a principle so essential to the in- tegrity of the plant-kingdom, and so opposed to nature's whole plan, that we rightly demand long and careful study before admitting the exceptions. "A few words will explain what is meant by perpetu- ated fertile hybridity. The following are the supposa- ble grades of results from intermixture between two species : — " I. No issue whatever — the usual case in nature. " 2. Mules (naming thus the issue) that are wholly infertile, whether among themselves or in case of con- nection with the pure or original stock. " 3. Mules that are wholly infertile among themselves, but may have issue for a generation or two by connection with one of the original stock. " 4. Mules that are wholly infertile among themselves, 190 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF but may have issue through indefinite generations by connection for each with an individual of the original stock. " 5. Mules that are fertile among themselves through one or two generations. " 6. Mules that are fertile among themselves through mapy generations. " 7. Mules that are fertile among themselves through an indefinite number of generations. " The cases i to 5 are known to be established facts in nature, and each bears its testimony to the gi'and law of purity and permanence. The examples under the heads 2 to 5 become severally less and less numerous, and art must generally use an unnatural play of forces or arrangements to bring them about. " Again, in the animal kingdom there is the same aver- sion in nature to intermixture, and it is emotional as well as physical. The supposed cases of fertile hybridity are fewer than among plants. " Moreover, in both kingdoms, if hybridity be begun, nature commences at once to purify herself as of an ulcer on the system. It is treated like a disease, and the ener- gies of the species combine to throw it off. The short run of hybridity between the horse and the ass, — species very closely related, — reaching its end in one single gen- eration^ instead of favoring the idea that the perpetuated fertile hybridity is possible, is a speaking protest against a principle that would ruin the system, if allowed free scope. THE HUMAN RACE. 191 " The finiteness of nature in all her proportions, and the necessity of finiteness and fixedness for the very exist- ence of a kingdom of life, or of human science its im- press on finite mind, are hence strong arguments for the belief that hybridity can not seriously trifle witli the true units of nature, and, at the best, can only make temporary variations. " It is fair to make the supposition that, in case of a very close proximity of species, there might be a degree of fertile hybridity allowed, and that a closer and closer aflBnity might give a longer and longer range of fertility. But the j;ase just now ajluded to, seems to cut the hypoth- esis short ; and, moreover, it is not reasonable to attribute such indefiniteness to nature's outlines, for it is at vari- ance with the spirit of her system. " Were such a case demonstrated by well-established facts, it would necessarily be admitted ; and we would add, that investigations directed to this point are the most important that modern science can undertake.' But until proved by arguments better than those dra!wa from domes- ticated animals, we may plead the general principle against the possibilities on the other side. If there is a law to be discovered, it is a wide and comprehensive law, for such arfe all nature's principles. Nature will teach it, not in one corner of her system only, but more or less in every part. We have, therefore, a right to ask for well- defined facts, taken from the study of successive genera- tions of the interbreeding of species known to be distinct. " Least of all should we expect that a law which is so 192 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF rigid among plants and the lower animals should have its main exceptions in the highest class of the animal kingdom, and its most extravagant violations in the genus Homo ; for if there are more than one species of Man, they have become, in the main, indefinite by intermixture. The very crown of the kingdom has been despoiled ; for a kingdom in nature is perfect only as it retains all its original parts in their full symmetry, undefaced and un- blurred. Man, by receiving a plastic body, in accordance with a law that species most capable of domestication should necessarily be most pliant, w^as fitted to take the whole earth as his dominion, and live under every zone. And surely it would have been a very clumsy method of accomplishing the. same result, to have made him of many species, all admitting of indefinite or nearly indefinite hybridization, in direct opposition to a grand principle elsewhere recognized in the organic kingdoms. It would have been using a process that produces impotence or nothing among animals for the perpetuation and progress of the human race. " We have, therefore, reason to believe, from man's fer- tile intermixture, that he is one in species ; and that all organic species are divine appointments, which cannot be obliterated unless by annihilating^ the individuals repre- senting the species." We regard it, then, as a settled truth, no longer capable of being controverted, that the human'family, throughout all its varieties, constitutes one species. THE HUMAN RACE. 193 And. if so, then they may, at least, have all de- scended from a single parental pair. However great the diversities between them, or of however long standing, there is nothing in this fact to disprove the Bible doctrine of the unity of the race, or to make necessary the hypothesis of one, or any num- .ber of races, different from and perhaps older than that which descended from Adam. We have said that they may have all descended from one pair ; and this is all that my argument requires in this place. But we might go further, and insist that the unity of species requires the idea of such a descent ; that it is given, indeed, in the very nature of a species. " We unite," says Can- doUe, " under the designation of a sfecies all those individuals who mutually bear to each other so close a resemblance as to allow of our supposing that they may have -proceeded originally from a single being or a single -pair." * Professor Dana's defi- nition appears to amount to the same thing. He says, " A species corresponds to a specific amount or condition of concentrated force, defined in the act or law of creation. . . . The species in any partic- ular case began its existence when the first germ-cell or individual was created. . . . But the germ- cell is but an incipient state in a cycle of changes, * Physiologie V6g6tale, ii. p. 689. 13 194 ANTICiyiTY AND UNITY OF and is not the same for two. successive instants; and this cycle is such that it includes, in its flow, a re- production after an interval of a precise equivalent of the parent germ-cell. Thus an indefinite per- petuation of the germ-cell is in fact effected, yet it is not mere endless being, but like evolving like in an unlimited round. Hence, when individuals mul- tiply from generation to generation, it is but a repe- tition of the primordial type-idea ; and the true no- tion of the species is not in the resulting group, but in the idea or potential element which is at the basis of every individual of the group ; that is, the specific law of force, alike in all, upon which the power of each, as an existence and agent in nature, depends." * This is but saying, in exact, scientific language, that all the individuals of a species are developed by this law of forcd from one " parent germ-cell." If, then, all the individuals of the human family are of one species, their descent from one pair is, by that very fact, established. But we are aware that this idea of a species, as including the element of descent from a single pair or individual, is not conceded by polygenists. Agassiz, as we have seen, though asserting the specific unity of mankind, holds such an idea of species as to permit their descent from eight origi- * Bib. Sac. October, 1857, p. S61. THE HUMAN RACE. 195 nal centers. We will not, therefore, insist on the argument here, though we still claim that, on this point, he and all pluralists depart from the estab- lished usage of science, inventing definitions of their own for the sole purpose of maintaining precon- ceived theories.* 2. Not only are the diversities in the human family consistent with the unity of the species, but changes are even now constantly taking place, anal- ogous, both in kind and degree, to those which originated those diversities. Nor are these changes confined to any race or countrj'. The}'^ are seen in all cases where there is any considerable change in the condition and circumstances under which they live. Says the writer of the article " Man," in the "CyclopEedia of Natural History," "What maybe the precise influences which have caused so much difference to exist between the individuals of the human race, we are unable to say ; but instances are constantly occurring which seem to show us how possible it is that all the varieties in human beings have occurred in a common family. Even amongst the races of our own island, when exposed- to circumstances which deprive them of their usual nutriment and means of developing the civilized * See Bachman's "Examination," etc. 196 ANTIQJJITY AND UNITY OF instincts of mankind, we find that they sink in char- acter, and become physically degraded to a level with races whose features, at first sight, are verj"- far removed. We need but to travel across the Irish Channel to see many groups of our Celtic fel- low-subjects, who have been reduced by famine and disease to a degraded condition closely bordering on that of these savages." To the same effect re- marks Professor Whitney,* " Physical science is as yet far from having determined the kind, the rate, and the amount of modification which external con- ditions, as climate and mode of life, can introduce into a race-type ; but that within certain undefined limits their influence is very powerful, is fully ac- knowledged. There is, to be sure, a party among zoologists and ethnologists who insist much upon the dogma of ' fixity of type,' and assert that all human races are original ; but the general tendency of scientific opinion is in the other direction, toward the fuller admission of the variability of species. The first naturalists are still, and more than ever, willing to admit that all the differences now existing among human races may be the effects of variation from a single type, and that it is at least not neces- sary to resort to the hypothesis of different origins in order to explain them." * Language, and the Study of Language, p. 376. THE HUMAN RACE. I97 Two or three instances of change in the" physical characteristics of a people are all that our space will permit us to cite. One is that of the Jews. " For 1800 years," says Owen,* " that race has been dis- persed in different latitudes and climates, and they have preserved themselves distinct from intermix- ture with other races of mankind. There are some Jews still lingering in the valley of the Jordan, hav- ing been oppressed by the successive conquerors of Syria for ages — a low race of people, and de- scribed, by trustworthy travelers, as being black as any of the Ethiopian races. Others of the Jew- ish people, participating in European civilization, and dwelling in the northern nations, show instances of the light complexion, the blue eyes, and the fair hair of the Scandinavian families. The condition of the Hebrews since their dispersion has not been such as to admit of much admixture by the prose- lytism of household slaves. We are thus led to account for the differences in color by the influence of climate, without having to refer them to original or specific distinctions." Another case is that of the Portuguese, who set- tled in the East Indies in the beginning of the six- teenth century. They have now become as dark in their complexions as the native Hindus. * Lecture before Camb. University, 1859, p. 96. 198 ANTIQUITy AND UNITY OF Latham * thus speaks of changes which have taken place in the Mantchu population of Tartary : "Well- clothed, warmly lodged, and with an envi- ronment of civilization, many of the Mantchus of China have changed their physiognomy no less than their habits. Sir John Barrow saw both men and women of Mantchu blood who were extremely fair, and of a florid complexion. Some had light blue eyes, straight or aquiline noses, brown hair, immense bushy beards, and had more the appearance of Greeks than of Tatars. Whatever intermixtures may account for this description, it will not explain the beards. The Chinese have nothing of the kind ; still less have the Mongols." Mr. Reade, the writer quoted so largely in the Appendix, J, p. 396, after mentioning the various sub-classes of the African population, describes at length the changes which take place among them as they remove from their native districts toward the Atlantic coast, the proper locality of the typical negro. " That the red races change to black when they descend into the lowlands can not, I think, be easily disputed. I was told by the Senegal residents, that some years ago it was very rarely that one saw a black Fula or Puelh. It is now almost impossible to find a Fula without travel- * Descriptive pthnology, i. p. 264, THE HUMAN RACE. 1 99 ing some distanc& into the interior. With the Manr dingos it is much the same. These two tribes are driving out the negroes that they may command certain positions on the river ; the result of which is, that they are becom- ing negroes tliemselves. " In the same manner the Fans, of the Sierra del Crys- tal, are taking possession of the lower Gaboon. There are now no black Fans. But they will be found there by future travelers. " Sangnier, in his ' Voyage au Senegal,' writes, ' The Satinguets (African), people of Podor, toward the Sen- egal, are not as black as the other negroes, but copper- colored and red ; their children, who come to the Senegal and dwell there for some timej have a skin much blacker than it was.' " It frequently occurs, too, that families or tribes with negro characters are found under circumstances which ren- der an intermixture of race impossible ; the cause, there- fore, can only be ascribed to physical influence. . . . " It has been frequently asserted that the Ethiopian can not change his skin ; that Nature has placed, like a curse, an indelible stamp upon his form and features, which will never change, to whatever climate he may be borne. " But proverbs are not arguments, nor assertions facts. That the type is stubborn I will allow, but I can not admit that it is permanent." But it may be said that though certain changes in physical characteristics may have taken place in 200 ANTIQyiTY AND UNITY OF the lapse of time, yet all the existing races had reached their present types at the ver}-^ beginning of the historic period, within a very few centuries, at most, of the flood — a space much too short to have developed the differences between them. Represen- tations both of men and animals are found on the oldest monuments of Egypt and Assyria, which show all- the diversities now existing among, dif- ferent nations. Even then, if we concede the com- mon origin of men, we are compeHed to throw it so far back in time as to be wholly inconsistent with the Mosaic chronology. To this allegation Dr. Bachman well replies that the monumental figures referred to are too rude and imperfect to have any real value in the argument. " The reduced figures in Nott and Gliddon we have not compared with the originals. Taking them, however, just as they are presented to the reader, and presuming them to be faithful copies, we have no hesitation in saying that, for all the purposes of the naturalist in the designa- tion of species or varieties, the figures of animals on the monuments are entirely valueless, and can not advance him a single step in a science which requires the closest accuracy. . . . Let us only look at the figures on a single page, the 388th of ' Nott and Gliddon's Types,' and then inquire what lights these would afford us in the ; THE HUMAN RACE. 20I designation of species or varieties. If the upper figure is a greyhound, as is stated, it must be not only a new- species, but a new genus, since we have evidently nothing in-nature at the present day to correspond to it. If this is an accurate representation of the greyhound, as it then existed (with a short tail turned upward like that of the rabbit), it affords one of the strongest evidences of the changes which time has effected, since no such variety of greyhound exists in our day. . . . We feel con- vinced that the ancient artists were no naturalists, and are inclined to the belief that they had no specimens before them to aid in their delineations — that with them a dog was a dog ; and it now requires the aid of the imagination to decide on the variety. We feel no dis- position in this place to enter on an investigation of those caricatures of dogs, as we are fully aware that the book of nature is a much safer guide to the natu- ralist in the investigation of species tlian the very im- perfect and unsatisfactory figures on the monuments. . . . We may here observe that the figures of dogs and men (the latter only are of any scientific value) on the Eastern monuments have been carefully studied and delineated by master minds — men at whose feet Glid- don has sat as a' humble copyist. They have com- menced giving to the world the result of their scientific researches. Both Lepsius and Bunsen have already proclaimed their belief in the doctrine of the unTty of the human race. . . . Thus these monumental records, which caused Gliddon to pronounce, in the 202 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF f language of scorn and obloquy,* a tirade against the Scriptures, convinced the minds of Lepsius and Bunsen of their truth, and filled them with humility, reverence, and avire. Their scientific researches satisfied them of the doctrines proclaimed by Moses and confirmed by Paul. ' And [God] hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth.' . . . " These distinguished naturalists both arrived at the conclusion from these very monuments, that the negro race had only been developed, in the course of ages, within the African tropics, and were derived from Egypt." 3. The possibility of the development of the ex- isting races of men from a common origin, within the period since the time of Noah, is strongly con- firmed by the analogous changes which have taken place in the various species of domestic animals ^the horse, the ox, the swine, the sheep, the dog; also fowls, geese, ducks, etc. For an able exhibi- tion of this argument, and of the facts which sub- stantiate it, see Appendix, K. III. The theory of the plural origin of the human species, in different localities and at different times, is contrary to the analogy afforded by all other departments of the animal kingdom. It is a law of universal creation, so far as known, that every * A true charge. See Types of Mankind. THE HUMAN RACE. 2O3 species of animals had a single origin. Says Professor Dana, — " Among the higher mammals no species is known to have existed originally within the tropics or temperate zones on both the oriental and occidental continents. . . . And more than this, species have a limited range on that particular continent to which they are con- fined. " The same species among monkeys — the tribe at the -head of the brute mammals — in no instance occurs on both, nor even the same genus, nor even the same family, for the American type is that of the inferior Platyr- rkines, while the African is that of the Caiarrhines, which most approach man in their features and struc- ture. This is only the highest of an extensive range of facts in zoology, sustaining the principle in view. If, therefore, man is of one species, he should be restricted also to one continent in his origin. " Moreover, man's capability of spreading to all lands, and of adaptation to all climates, renders creation in different localities over the globe eminently unnecessary, and directly opposed to his own good. It would be doing for man what man could do of himself. It would be contracting the field of conquest before him in nature, thereby lessening his means and opportunities of devel- opment." * Says Dr. Bachman, — * Geology, p. 585. 204 ANTIQJJITY AND UNITY OF " All our quadrupeds, birds, reptiles, and even our plants, in the temperate regions of America, are found to differ from those in every other part of the v^forld.* The fauna of Europe so much resembles our own in its genera, that the American traveler feels in that country as if he was among neighbors, but not quite in his own family, inasmuch as the species, though nearly allied, all differ, with the exception of those that have been transported and become naturalized. Of birds, we are at present acquainted with 520 species that exist in America, north of the Tropic of Cancer. Of these, twenty-six land birds and seventy-six water birds are identical with those of Europe. The land birds here enumerated resort 'to the polar regions in summer, for the purpose of rearing their young, and in autumn find their way to the tem- perate regions of both continents. A few of the water birds, such as the wandering shear-water {^Ptiffinus An- glorum)^ and the petrels, possess such powers, of flight that they cross the Atlantic in any latitude. The geese, ducks, gulls, terns, common gannet, etc., proceed far north during summer, and, by their aquatic habits and great powers of flight, migrate southerly along the shores of the Atlantic, both in Northern Europe and America. Of the remaining 418 species, they are restricted within certain latitudes in America, and are found in no other country. " We have within the parallels of latitude referred to * Except, of course, those which have been introduced by man. — B. THE HUMAN RACE. 205 above, in North America, two hundred and seven species of quadrupeds. Of these, only eight, all of which are polar animals, are found in the north of Europe, or the adjoining continent of Asia ; these are the polar bear, arctic fox, wolverine, ermine, pine martin, wolf, beaver, and the polar hare. The remaitider are restricted to cer- tain geographical ranges, and are found nowhere else." Professor B. advances similar statements respect- ing fishes and plants, and concludes as follows : " Reasoning then from analogy, we are led to con- clude that, since no species of quadruped, bird, or Feptile, and, we may add, insect or plant, has been created in two or more localities ; therefore we are not warranted in adopting the improbable idea that God would create the same species of man in five, ten, or fifty localities, and thereby not only violate the order of creation, but even act contrary to the very laws of probability." (p. 266.) It should be added, in this connection, that Pro- fessor Agassiz himself concedes that his view of the plural origin of man is an exception to the general rule in the animal creation. " While [the lower] animals are of distinct species in the different zoolo- gical provinces to which they belong, man, notwith- standing the diversity of his races, constitutes one . only and the same species over all the surface of the globe. In this respect, as in many others, man 2o6 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF seems to us to form an exception to the general rule in this creation, of which he is, at the same time, the object an<^the end." * IV. The polygenetie theory of the origin of mankind' meets with a formidable objection from theological and moral science. I know that many naturalists repudiate all reference to theology in the discussion of such a question as this. But are they consistent in so doing? They endeavor, as much as possible, to gather weapons from every depart- ment of natural science against theology ; but when the batteries are turned in reply, they exclaim, " This is a question of science, and theology has nothing to do with it." But, we may ask, is not theology a science? And though professed theo- logians differ in regard to man}'^ essential doctrines of theology, yet do they differ more than do the nat- uralists — even the masters — in regard to some of thd natural scieaces, say, e. g., that of theology? It is a maxim with scientific men that all the sciences harmonize with each other, audit is always customary to bring facts and illustrations from one to elucidate and confirm another. And it would be strange, indeed, if theology could shed no light on a * An account of the geographical distribution of animals, by L. Agassiz, in the Swiss Review, Neufchatel. Quoted by Dr.' Bachman, p. 248. THE HUMAN RACE. 207 question so directly concerning a religious being. We admit that man is an animal, but he is a moral and religious animal. And having discussed the subject, as we properly may, in its purely natural aspects, by whose dictum shall we be debarred from considering it also in its supernatural, its religious aspects? Such an objection finds no w^rant in true science, which looks for truth wherever it is to be found. Two points here, merit our attention. Whatever be the characteristics that make man a moral and religious being, they are possessed in common by all races of men. These characteristics are the power of speech, the moral sense, the aesthetic faculty, etc. I do not say that all races, in their rude condi- tion, have these in a like decree, but that they 'all possess them. Not a people on the globe has been found so degraded that these qualities, under the in- fluence of Christian missions, have not been devel- oped among them. Of. course teaching does not create them. It merely calls into exercise qualities which previously existed, though, in some cases, in almost a dormant state. In the fact that man thus possesses a moral nature, he stands apart from the entire animal creation besides, and constitutes a sin- gle distinct species. The other fact is, that all men sustain a like rela- 208 ANTIQJJITV AND UNITY OF tion to God and his government. All are in a fallen and morally debased state, and need redemption and salvation. And it is a doctrine of Christian the- ology, that Jesus Christ is a divine Redeemer for all. Now, this fact can not be adjusted to the theory of a plurality of origin without doing violence to the plainest teachings of the New Testament. By one man sin entered into the world, and the race became a fallen race ; by one man also salvation is pro- vided, and its blessings are opened to all. The very fact of the common relation of all men to Adam, their parental head, is made the type and the ground of their similar common relation to Christ, the second Adam, the Saviour of the world.* We conclude, then, that Ethnology, in its physio- logical aspects, concurs with history as respects the unity of the race. She presents to us no facts which are inconsistent with that unity ; she finds nothing in the analogies from the lower races of animals which does not illustrate and confirm it. * Rom. V. 12-19 ; I Cor. xv. 21, 22, 45. THE HUMAN RACE. 2O9 CHAPTER IX. THE ARGUMENT FROM LANGUAGE. The Hebrew formerly believed to have been the Primitive Lan- guage. — Discovery of the Sanskrit, and its Eflfects. — Views of Stewart and Lord Monboddo. — Labors of Sanskrit Schol- ars. — Key to the Classification of Indo-European Languages. — Three great Families. — I. The Aryan. — II. The Semitic. — III. The Turanian. — Classification according to Structure. — Monosyllabic, Agglutinative, and Inflectional. — Bearing of the Diversity of Languages on the Argument 1. The Miraculous "Confusion of Tongues." — 2. Languages have much in common between them. — 3. DiflFerences diminish as our Knowledge increases 4. Languages undergo rapid Changes. — Conclusion. Scarcely three fourths, of a century have elapsed since the belief prevailed almost universally that the Hebrew was the primitive language of mankind, and that all other languages have been derived from it. If we go back one or two centuries more, we arrive at a time when this opinion was quite universal. According to Professor Miiller, Leibnitz was "the first who really conquered the prejudice that Hebrew 14 2IO ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF was the source of all language." * "It is astonish- ing," he remarks, "what an immense amount of real . learning and ingenuity was wasted on this question during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. It finds, perhaps, but one parallel — in the laborious calculations and constructions of early astronomers, who had to account for the movements of the heav- enly bodies, always taking it for granted that the earth must be the fixed center of the planetary sys- tem, f " These labors continued till near the close of the last century, when the discovery and opening up of the Sanskrit literature wrought an entire revolution in regard to the whole subject of the classification of languages. So great was the excitement caused by this discovery, so radical and important were the results which it was perceived must flow from it, that sonie of the first scholars and philosophers of Europe doubted its genuineness. For example, Dugald Stewart denied the reality of such a lan- guage as the Sanskrit altogether, and wrote his famous essay to prove that it had been put together after the model of the Greek and .Latin by those arch forgers and liars the Brahmans, and that the whole of the Sanskrit literature was an imposition." J * Science of Lang., first series, p. 134. t Ibid. p. 133. X Ibid. p. 164. THE HUMAN RACE. 211 Lord Monboddo treated the subject more philosoph- ically, though scarcely more consistently. " He had," says Miiller, "just finished his great work ' On the Origin and Progress of Languages,' in which he derives all mankind from a couple of apes, and all the dialects of the world from a language originally franied by some Egyptian gods, when the discovery of the Sanskrit came on him like a thun- derbolt. It must be said, however, to his credit, that he at once perceived the immense importance of the discovery. He could not be expected to sac- rifice his primeval monkeys or his Egyptian idols, but with that reservation the conclusions which he drew . . . are highly creditable to his acute- ness. He says (1792),'! have got such certain information from India, that if I live to finish my history of man, which I have begun in my third volume of " Ancient Metaphysics," I shall be able clearly to prove that the Greek is derived from the Sanskrit, which was the ancient language of Egypt, arid was carried by the Egyptians into India with their other arts, and into Greece with the colonies which settled there.' "A few years later (1795) he had arrived at more definite views on the relation of Sanskrit to Greek ; and he writes, ' Mr. Wilkins has proved to my con- viction such a resemblance between the Greek and 212 ANTIQJJITY AND UNITY OF the Sanskrit, that the one must be a dialect of the other, or both of some original language. Now, the Greek is certainly not a dialect of the Sanskrit, any more than the Sanskrit is of the Greek. They must, therefore, be both dialects of the same lan- guage ; and that language could be no other than the language of Egypt brought into India by Osiris, of which undoubtedly the Greek was a dialect.' " * But I must give another quotation from this dis- tinguished nobleman and philosopher, to show his idea of the origin of human speech. " I have supposed that language could not be in- vented without supernatural assistance, and accord- ingly I have maintained that it was the invention of the daemon kings of Egypt, who, being more than men, first taught themselves to articulate, and then taught others. But even among them, I am per- suaded there was a progress in the art, and that such a language as the Sanskrit was not at once invented." f This passage constrains me to remark that, so far as' I am aware, his lordship was the first to make any practical account of thfe deemon^ynasties — the Manes — of Egypt. It is true that others had allowed them a place in chronology, with a period of many * Science of Lang., First Series, p. 140. t Ibid. p. 160. Monboddo's Anc. Metaphysics, vol. iv. p. 357. THE HUMAN RACE. 213 thousand years' duration, but it was reserved for our Scotch philosopher to tell us what those-g-Aosi mon- archs did in the practical affairs of men. They in- vented the Sanskrit language I These notices of two great scholars of the last cen- tury have a substantial value in relation to our sub- ject. They should teach us the uselessness, the danger, of premature generalizations, when as yet we have but a partial view of the facts involved. Lord Monboddo died in 1799, and Dugald Stewart in 1828 ; yet m the brief space of time since elapsed, what an entire revolution, both in knowledge and opinion, has taken place in regard to things on which they pronounced with so much authority ! And how often do we still see repetitions of the same haste in the conclusions which are drawn from im- perfect data, especially as bearing on the divine origin and authority of the Bible ! The history of what may be called European Sanskrit philology dates from the foundation of the Asiatic Society at Calcutta, in 1784. It was through the efforts of Sir William Jones, the mis- sionary Carey, and other English scholars, as Fos- ter, Wilkins, Colebrooke, etc., members of that society, that the. language and literature of the Brahmans first became accessible to Europeans. In 1808 Frederick Schlegel published his little 214 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF work on " The Language and Wisdom of the In- dians," whicfh, says Professor Miiller, " was like the wand of a magician." It pointed out the place where a new mine of knowledge should be opened, and it was not long before the most distinguished scholars of the day were sinking their shafts and raising the ore. The savants of the continent — as Bopp, Schle- gel, Lassen, Rosen, and Burnouf — resorted to Eng- land for the purpose of copying manuscripts at the East India House, and receiving assistance from Wilkins, Colebrooke, Wilson, and other distin- guished members of the old Indian civil service. The first elaborate comparison of the Sanskrit with the Greek and Latin was by Francis Bopp, in an essay published in 1816. Other works of his soon followed, and in 1833 appeared the first volume of his " Comparative Grammar of the Sanskrit, Zend, Greek, Latin, Lithuanian, Sclavonic, Gothic, and German languages." This work was not completed till 1852, nearly twenty years later. Other scholars entered the same rich field, and gathered from it very important and valuable fruits. But why, it may naturally be asked, should the discovery of the Sanskrit have wrought so great a change in the classifioatory study of languages ? The answer is, that it furnished a key to the puzzle which had previously existed in the problem of languages. THE HUMAN RACE. 215 It showed that the Sanskrit was intimately related to the Greek, Latin, and most of the European lan- guages, not as their parent, but as a sister in the same family. And as the modern Italian, French, Span- ish, and other Romance languages are sisters, de- rived from the Latin as their parent, so the San- skrit, with its affiliated tongues, must have had a common parent. When this was ascertained, " all languages," says Miiller, " seemed to fall of them- selves into their right position;" i. e., they all took their places as members of groups having natural relations to each other. The classification, how- ever, is not complete, there being some languages, as, for instance, the Chinese, respecting which phi- lologists differ in opinion as to the place they should occupy. Languages are comprehended, as is well known, by philologists under three general families — the Aryan, the Semitic, and the Turanian. My limits do not permit, nor does my object require, more than a bare enumeration of the different branches of these several families, with a mention of the geographical limits to which they properly belong. I, The Aryan * family, or, as it is frequently * By some, Arian. Both forms are found in Mailer's writings. The Sanskrit has Aryh. It is the same as the Arioi of Herodo- tus and other Greek writers. 2l6 ^ ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF called, the Inpo-European, the former " being the most ancient name by which the ancestors of. this family distinguished themselves " (Miiller), the lat- ter indicating the geographical extent of the family in Asia and Europe. The former is the shortest, and contains a valuable historical reminiscence ; the latter shows at a glance the localities where it is to be found. It is subdivided into two groups — the northern or European, and the southern or Asiatic. At the head of the Asiatic group we, of course, place the Sanskrit with its dialects, the old Pali, and the Prakrit, ancient and modern, including the Bengali, the Hindi, the Punjaubi, and, according to some, the Urya, Marathi, and Guzerathi. Coming further west we find the languages of Afghanistan, Bokhara, Kurdistan, Media, Persia, Armenia, and some others, extending to the Black and Mediter- ■ ranean Seas. The European group embraces the Greek, the Latin, the Sclavonic including the Lith- uanian, the Germanic, and the Celtic, with -the various dialects derived from them. II. The Semitic family, so called because spoken mostly among the descendants of Shem. This has usually been subdivided into three branches — the Hebrew, the Aramaic, and the Arabic. The Hebrew — now a dead language — was spo- ken in Palestine from or before the days of Moses to THE HUMAN RACE. 2l7 the time of Nehemiah and the Maccabees, when it was replaced by the Chaldee or Aramaic. The lan- guage of the Phoenicians and Carthaginians be- longed to this branch. The Aramaic consists of the Syrian (ancient and modern) and the Chaldean, the geographical limits of which are Syria, Mesopotamia, and part of Baby- lonia. Here are classed the dialects of the Assyrian and Babylonian ruins, written in the cuneiform or arrow-shaped characters. The Arabic had for its original seat the Arabian peninsula. Here it is still spoken by a compact mass of aboriginal inhabitants, and the ancient inscriptions there (Himyaritic) testify to its early pres.ence. In its more modern form, it has spread over Egypt and the northern coast of Africa, and is largely spoken in Turkey and Persia — indeed, wherever the Mohammedan religion has extended. There is a fourth group of languages, which by many are assigned a place in the Semitic family, but by others are established as a distinct family by themselves, called The Hamitic, from the Egyp- tian, — its most important member, — supposed to have been spoken by the descendants of Ham. This also is subdivided into three branches — the Egyptian — which was an older form of the modern Coptic, — the Ethiopian, the Libyan, or Berber, ex- 2l8 ANTIQUITY ANP UNITY OF tending along the northern coast of Africa, and the Hottentot, embracing the dialects of tribes at the southern extremity of the continent. This family of languages present many analogies with the Semitic. Both the Egyptian and Babylonian, says Miiller, "though clearly marked with a Semitic stamp, represent two scions of the Semitic stem, which branched off at a period of history so early, or rather so long before the beginning of all history, that they may be considered as independent colonies, rather . than as constituent parts of the kingdom of Shem. The same remark applies to Semitic tribes in the north of Africa, the number and extent of which is almost daily increased by the researches of African travelers and missionaries." * III. The third family of languages is the Tura- nian. The name is derived from Tur, who, in an old Persian legend, was one of the three brothers from whom, it is said, the races of mankind are de- scended. Irej, another brother, was the founder of the race of Iran, i. e., the native Persians ; Tur, of the Turans, their neighbors on the north-east, between which two races was an incessant warfare. f It comprises all the languages of Asia and Europe not included in the two preceding families, except, * Languages spoken at the Seat of War, p. 23. ■f Whitney, Language, etc., p. 325. THE HUMAN RACE. 219 perhaps, the Chinese and its dialects. These are divided into two classes — the northern and south- ern. The first comprises the Tungusic, Mongolic, Turkic, Samoyedic, and Finnic, and occupies the regions to the north and west of China, as far as the Euxine and Mediterranean. To this division belong also the dialects of the Lapps and the Finns of Northern Europe, and the Magyars of Hungary. Its limits have been greatly extended in modern times by the conquests ot the Turks, thus encroach- ing on the original territories of the Semites and the Aryans. The southern division comprises the Gan- getic, i. e., the Thibetian and other dialects called Trans-Himmalayan and Sub-Himmalayan ; theTaic, or the dialects of Siam ; the Lohitic, i. e., dialects of Assam, Arakan, Burraah, and some others ; the Ma- layic, comprising the languages of the Malayan peninsula and the Polynesian Islands ; and the Tamulic, or the languages of Southern India, as~the Canarese, Tamil, Telugu, Malayalam, and other minor dialects.* * Mailer, Sci. of Lang. vol. i. p. 398. For the last mentioned group, see likewise Caldwell's Comp. Grammar of the Dravidian Languages. But Professor MtlUer is the authority for the general classification and arrangement of this southern group, as well as for that of the northern. In regard to the last-mentioned group, the Tamulic, faithfulness to the subject requires me to add partic- ularly, that the affiliation of those dialects with the Scythian or 220 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF Such is the classification of languages made by the masters in philology, as indicated in the trip- artite division just named. In this the Chinese and the body of languages in Central Africa and in America — the speech of more than one third of mankind — are confessedly not included. Those also which are placed in the third family — the Tu- ranian — are not grouped there, certainly not all of them, because of internal resemblances or afEnities, but because they do not belong to either of the others. (Miiller, p. 86.) These facts show how exceedingly imperfect the science of comparative philology still is, and ought to abate some of the confidence with which conclusions are drawn from it contrary to the teachings of the Scriptures. As it now stands, this classification,, so far as respects the third family, is little more than a confession of ignorance as to the real character of the languages themselves. Some groups under it are, perhaps, Turanian languages is doubted by some of our first linguists. Such aiBliation can not, indeed, be positively denied, but the evi- dence is not regarded as conclusive. See some very judicious remarks on this point by Professor W. D. Whitney, Journ. Am. Or. Soc. vol. vii. p. 296, seq., appended to a valuable risume of Caldwell's work above named, by Rev. E. Webb. After all, we have here only another striking illustration of the indefiniteness of the classification of languages under the third division — the Turanian. THE HUMAN RACE. 221 sufficiently defined to be set by themselves, others' by themselves ; yet the vast majority of the dialects are too little known or studied to have their true lin- guistic characteristics fully defined.* There is still another classification of languages, founded upon their internal structure, which ought to be mentioned here. It divides them into three primary families, distinguished by the characteristics of their leading words. These are 'stated by Pro- fessor Miiller as follows : — " I. Roots may be used as words, each root pre- serving its full independence. " 2. Two roots may be joined together to form * Since the above was written, the admirable . work of Pro- fessor W. D. Whitney, "I,anguuge, and the Study of Language," has appeared, and I am pleased at finding my own opinions on many important points so much in accord with those he has expressed in this volume. He speaks rather disparagingly of the results of comparative philology, — as much so, perhaps, as I have myself. He'of course accords a proper value to what has been settled by linguistic study respecting the Semitic and Euro- pean families of languages, but is not satisfied with the classifi- cation of philologists in regard to the other languages. He pre- fers the term Scythian to Turanian for designating the third family (so called), and thinks the 'evidence on which dialects have been grouped together often unsatisfactory. He is emi- nently conservative. I approve of his use of Scythian for Tura- nian, and can not but wish he had done more to solve the problem of relationship- between that vast number of dialects ranked in this family. , 222 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF words, and in these compounds one root may lose its independence. " 3. Two roots may be joined together to form words, and in these compounds both roots may lose their independence." * The fij-st class gives rise to monosyllabic lan- guages. These are " wholly unsusceptible of gram- matical mutations ; there is no formal distinction between verb and noun, substantive and adjective, preposition and conjunction ; there are no inflections, no case- or person-terminations of . any kind ; the bare root forms the sole and whole substance of the language." f The following specimen of a Chinese sentence will illustrate this : " King speak : Sage ! not far thousand mile and come ; also will have use gain me realm, hey?" That is, "The king spoke, O Sage, since thou dost not count a thousand miles far to come, wilt thou not too have brought some- thing for the weal of my realm ? " J The second class characterizes what are called agglutinative languages. Of the two or more roots of which jts words are composed, one ex- pressing the substantive idea is not liable to varia- tion, and the others are somewhat loosely attached * Lectures, first series, eighth lecture. t Smith's Bib. Diet. art. Confusion of Tongues. X Schleicher's Lang, of Europe, quoted by Whitney, p. 331. THE HUMAN RACE. 223 or glued to it to express the various modifications, the latter losing their independent form in so doing, as joy-ful-ly, from the three roots joy, full, and like. So in Turkish, to the root sev, signifying love, are joined five formative roots, making the word sev-ish-dir-il-eme-mek, i. e., not capable of being made to love one another.* The third class composes what are termed inflec- tional languages, where all the roots lose their inde- pendent form, and by fusion with each other con- stitute a new, indivisible word, as the root true, with its prefix and affixes, makes the word untruthful- ness, etc. Comparing these two modes of classification with each other, it is found that the Aryan and Semitic families are, for the most part, inflectional lan- guages ; the Turanian, including the dialects of Cen- tral Africa and America, • agglutinative ; and the Chinese, and its related dialects, monosyllabic. At the same time, words of each type are found more or less in them all. This fact, and the importance of it to the discussion in hand, will be again ad- verted to presently. The question now recurs to us, How does the existence of these numerous families and groups of languages bear upon the antiquity of man on the * Whitney, p. 319. 224 • ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF earth? Do not the radical differences between them — differences traceable back beyond the pe- riod of authentic history — prove that they could not have had a common origin in any one primitive tongue; or, if that were intrinsically possible, that it could not have been within the space of time which the Bible chronology allows subsequent to the date of Noah? To this inquiry we may reply, — I. There stands at the very threshold of that period the recorded fact of a miraculous " confusion of tongues" by which the antecedent speech was broken up into a variety of dialects, each unintelli- gible to those who spoke the others. Before that time, " the whole earth was of one language and of one lip" (Gen. xi. i, margin), i. e., probably one in substance and one in utterance. To defeat their design of building a city and tower, which should preserve them as one people in one locality forever, God " confounded their language, that they might not understand one another's speech." And this event is distinctly assigned as the reason why the one family was broken up and scattered into the various parts of the earth. Here, then, is an ade- quate and complete explanation of the origin of diversity in human speech. We know not, indeed, precisely what was the thing done, whether a change was wrpught in the vocabulary or the gram-: THE HUMAN RACE. 225 mar of language, or in pronunciation only, nor into how many portions the' one common speech was divided. From the analogy of other miracles, we should judge it probable, that no more was done than was needful to effect the purpose in view. There is always, so to speak, a husbanding of divine power, by which the contravention or tran- scending of nature's laws is made as slight as possi- ble. We may well suppose, that while real changes were introduced into the forms of language, its sub- stance should have remained essentially the same. But be this as it may,, here is the great fact of diversity accounted for. Neither the degree of that diversity, nor the- length of time required for it on natural principles, affords any further difficulty. And this fact, let me remark further, is to be taken with the Scripture chronology, both to explain and confirm it. If the latter fixes the confusion of language and the dispei-sion of the nations at a point no more remote than a few centuries before the era of history, it also affords the very key that was needed to show how those events were chronologically possible. If science, so called, rejects the miracle, she throws away the only key which can solve the mystery. Let her find a better one if she can. 2. In accordance with the supposition just made, 15 226 ANTIQJIITY AND UNITY OF it is ascertained that under all the apparent differ- ences existing among languages, there is very much also in common between them. Our space will not permit us to go into details on this point. They may be seen in the works on comparative grammar, £ind other treatises of philology. The article in Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, already referred to, men- tions four particulars in which manifest tokens of unity between the families of languages may be dis- cerned, viz., "in the original material omX. of which language was formed " (monosyllabic roots) ; " in the stages of formation through which it has passed ; in the general principle of grammatical expression ; and, lastly, in the sfirit and fower displayed in the development of these various formations." The ar- ticle adds, " Such a result, though it does not prove the unity of language in respect to its radical ele- ments, nevertheless tends to establish the ci friori probability of this unity ; for if all connected with the forms of language may be referred to certain general laws, — if nothing in that department owes its origin to chance or arbitrary appointment, — it surely favors the presumption that the same principle would extend to the formation of the roots, which are the very core and kernel- of language. Here, too, we might expect to find the operation of fixed laws of some kind or other producing results of a THE HUMAN RACE. 227 uniform character ; here, too, actual variety may not be inconsistent with original unity." On the question of an original identity in the roots of the different families, it seems to be agreed by philologers that the time has not come for pronoun- cing a positive opinion. Too little is yet known respecting the primary elements of languages to warrant definite conclusions. There certainly is no proof that the original roots were not identical. The most that can be affirmed seems to be, as expressed by Professor Whitney, " that language affords cer- tain indications of doubtful value, which, taken along with certain other ethnological considerations, also of questionable pertinency, furnish ground for sus- pecting an ultimate relationship. The question, in short, is not yet ripe for settlement." * 3. In proportion as our knowledge of the various families of languages increases, the differences be- tween them diminish, and new affinities come to light. It is ascertained that classes are not sepa- rated from each other so widely, and by such. sharp lines of demarcation, as at first appeared. "The agglutinative languages are not wholly agglutina- tive ; the Finnish and Turkish classes of the Ural- Altaian family are, in- certain instances, inflectional, the relational adjunct being fully incorporated with * Language, p. 308. 228 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF the predicable stem, and having undergone a large amount of attrition for that purpose. Nor, again, are the inflectional languages wholly inflectional; Hebrew, for instance, abounds with agglutinative forms, and also avails itself largely of separate par- ticles for the expression of relational ideas. Our own language, though classed as inflectional, retains nothing more than the vestiges of inflection, and is, in many respects, as isolating and juxtapositional as any language of that class." * Thus not unfre- quently resemblances and aflinities are disclosed where they had not been suspected. I have already mentioned the results following the discovery of the Sanskrit and its literature, this proving to be the " missing link " requisite to complete the chain of connection betweenlihe various members of the Indo- European family. In the same wajs what is of late taking the name of the Hamitic group, or, as Bun- sen denominated it, Khamism, gives indications of becoming a connecting link between the Aryan and Semitic families. f Hence, too, the difficulties of classification which are found in many cases, cer- * Smith's Diet, of the Bible, art. Confusion of Tongues. t " The old Egyptian clearly stands between the Semitic and the Indo-European, for its forms and roots cannot be explained by either of them singly, but are evidently a combination of the two.'' — Bunsen, Egypt's Place, etc. p. lo. See also the remark of Osburn, cited on pp. i6i, 162. THE HUMAN RACE. 229 tain languages showing resemblances in opposite directions, leading them to be placed by one lin- guist in one class and by another in another. It is impossible to say, when all existing languages shall ' have been sufficiently studied, and their ultimate elements and principles of formation are known, how nearly they may be brought into affinity with each other. We hold the fact to be a significant one, that the tendencies are all one way, toward an original unity among the whole. 4. Languages, while in their unwritten and un- cultivated state, are liable to ra^id changes. There being nothing to retain them in their ancient forms, they are free to adapt themselves to the varying cir- cumstances and necessities of the people who use them. There is, first, the law of " growth," already adverted to. In its earliest stage, language was monosyllabic, its words short, without grammatical variations, and with the simplest possible syntax — a fit vehicle for the simple thoughts of a primitive age. But gradually, as men's experience was enlarged, and new ideas were developed, this monosyllabic speech began to take on a more complex form, modifying and relational words attached or glued themselves to the roots, till another phase of language was reached, sufficiently removed from the former to rank it in a distinct class — the agglutinative. Later 230 ANTIQyiTY AND UNITY OF Still, by a continuation of the same process, the in- flectional stage was reached, differing as much from the last as that did from the original. "Among all languages, ancient and modern," says M. Maury, " some have passed through the three phases ; others have been arrested in their development. Thus agglutination includes the monosyllabic state, and inflection includes both the agglutinative and the monosyllabic states. Exactly as among species of animals, some remain as elementary organisms, whilst others progress, during the period of gesta- tion, from that organism to a higher and more de- veloped organization." * Other changes also, equally important, have oc- curred in the ever-changing circumstances of man- kind. Old languages have been broken up, and their fragments, assuming each a vitality of their own, have become separate living dialects, as the modern Romance languages of Europe have sprung from the Latin. Two or more languages, under outward force, have been compressed into one, as our own tongue sprung from the fusion of the Saxon and the Norman. And these changes have often taken place with great rapidity. In the instance last men- tioned, two languages, greatly dissimilar in mate- * Quoted in Anc. Hist, of tlie East, by Lenormant and Che- vallier, p. 67. THE HUMAN RACE. 23I rials and structure, were, in a little more than three centuries, wrought into a third, so unlike both that it would be wholly unintelligible to those who spoke either of the parent tongues. Among savage nations this susceptibility to change is still greater. "We read," says Miiller, "of mis- sionaries in Central America who attempted to write down the language of savage tribes, and who com- piled, with great care, a dictionary of all the, words they could lay hold of. Returning to the same tribes after the lapse of only ten years, they found that this dictionary had become antiquated and use- less. Old words had sunk to the ground, and new ones had risen to the surface, and, to all outward appearance, the language was completely changed." Again, he refers to tribes in the north of Asia, who " though really speaking the same language, have produced so many words and forms peculiar to each tribe, that even within the limits of twelve or twenty German miles, communication among them becomes extremely difficult." In a limited district in the mountain ranges of the Irrawaddy, " were collected no less than twelve dialects, some of them spoken by no more than thirty or forty families, yet so differ- ent from the rest as to be unintelligible to the nearest neighbor." * ♦ Science of Lang., vol. ii. pp. 63, 63. 232 ANTIQJJITY AND UNITY OF With such evidences before us of the susceptibility of language to change, we have no need to resort to the theory of a plurality of . origin to account for all the diversities now existing in human speech. Growth alone is sufficient to have originated the differing characteristics of the three leading fami- lies. If we suppose that the ancestors of the Chi- nese, for instance, and the other tribes of Eastern Asia, departed from the original abodes at a peri- od when language was still monosyllabic, we are enabled to see that this archaic type of speech should have prevailed and been perpetuated among them. This principle is distinctly recognized by all the leading philologists, though perhaps not to the ex- tent which facts would warrant. Bunsen refers to it in numerous instances in explaining the differ- ences between groups of dialects. Miiller, upon this ground, attempts to show the relative . ages of the Turanian races. Muir remarks that " the ancestors of the Indians and Persians appear to have lived together as one nation to a later period than the other branches of the Aryan race." * We would not claim that this alone is sufficient to explain the whole problem before us, but it is enough to relieve us of its chief difficulties. The results, then, to which we arrive on this sub- * Sanskrit Texts, Part. II. chap. ii. THE HUMAN RACE. 233 ject are twofold — negative and positive : i. Com- parative Philology has not proved, and can not prove, that all the languages of man did not have a common origin. 2. She has proved that all the more important languages are spoken by nations whose ancestors were the direct descendants, of Noah ; and she exhibits many facts, both as to the materials and the form of all languages, which show traces of such original unity. Or, in the words of Professor Miiller, — " I . Nothing necessitates the admission of different independent beginnings for the material elements of the Turanian, Semitic, and Aryan branches of speech ; nay, it is possible even now to point out radicals, which, under various changes and dis- guises, have been current in these branches ever since their first separation. " 2. Nothing necessitates the admission of differ- ent beginnings for tYie/iprmal elements of the Tura- nian, Semitic, and Aryan branches of speech ; and although it is not possible to derive the Aryan sys- tem of grammar from the Semitic, or the Semitic from the Aryan, we can perfectly understand how, either through individual influences, or by the wear and tear of speech in its own continuous working, the different systems of Asia and Europe may have been produced." * * Science of Lang., vol. i. p. 340. 234 ANTIQJJITy AND UNITY OF And says Professor Whitney, "Our general con- clusion, which may be looked on as incontrovertibly established, is this : If the tribes of men are of diifer- ent parentage, their languages could not be expected to be more unlike than they in fact are ; while, on the other hand, if all mankind are of one blood, their tongues need not be more alike than we actually find them to be." * * Language, p. 394. THE HUMAN RACE. 235 CHAPTER X. THE ARGUMENT FROM TRADITION. Traditions of Primitive Ages to be expected. — Such Traditions found to exist — Statement of Dr. Smyth. — Those only of Value in the Argument which are not derived from the Bible. — I. Traditions of one God 2. Of the Creation. — 3. Of the Garden of Eden. — 4. Of the Temptation and Fall'. ■— 5. Of the Weekly Division of Time. —6. Of the Deluge of Noah. If all men have descended from a single origin, and that so late as the flood of Noah, it might be expected that they would preserve some traditions of that fact, and of the chief events occurring in the infancy of the race. We should anticipate, indeed, that these would vary according to the genius and the outer history of the different nations, some re- taining more vivid reminiscences than others, and all of them, perhaps, holding them in forms more or less disguised, with such additions or other modifications as might naturally arise in the lapse of centuries. And wherever such traditions are found, clearly de- fined and of unmistakable import, they afford strong 236 ANTIQJJITY- AND UNITY OF collateral evidence as to the origin of the .people who entertain them. Such traditions, in fact, exist. "The primitive condition of mankind," says Dr. Smyth ; " the purity and happiness of the golden age ; the location of man in a garden ; the tree of knowledge of good and evil ; the influence of a serpent in the seduction and ruin of man ; the consequent curse inflicted on man, on woman, and upon the ea'rth; the promise of an incarnate Redeemer; traditions respecting Cain and Abel, Enoch and Noah ; the longevity of the ancient patriarchs, and the existence of ten genera- tions from Adam to Noah ; the growing deteriora- tions of human nature ; the reduction of man's age and power ; the deluge and destruction of all man- kind except a single family ; the building of an ark, and its resting on a mountain, and the flying of the dove ; the building of the ToWer of Babel, and the miraculous confusion of languages ; the institution of sacrifices ; the rainbow, as the sign and symbol of destruction and of hope ; the fable of the man in the moon — which is equally known in opposite quarters of the globe ; the great mother, who is a mythus of the ark ; the hermaphrodite unity of all the gods and goddesses, from a mistaken notion of the creation of Adam and Eve ; the nature and pur- port of the piysteries in the Old and New World ; THE HUMAN RACE. 237 groves, and mountains, and caves, as places of wor- ship ; traditions also of Sodom and Gomorrah, of Abraham-, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, and the Red Sea; the division of time by weeks ; and the expla- nation pf the future conflagration of the earth ; — these, and many other facts which lie at the founda- tion of sacred history, and the earliest events of humanity, are all found imbedded, like the fossils of the earth, in the traditionary legends, both written and oral, of every tribe and people under the whole heavens." * I am inclined to think that this language is too strong, certainly as affirming thg existence of these, traditions among every tribe and people. There may be casual resemblances in some single particulars which have no proper historical character, just as there are striking coincidences in many facts of the natu- ral world, which have no vital connection with each other. It must be borne in mind, also, that only those traditions which have not been derived from the Bible itself, have any value in this argument. The influence of the Jewish and Christian religions has been very great and very wide in the world, and many things contained in them may have made their way thence within the knowledge of surrounding nations. Such, for instance, was probably the gen- * T. Smyth, Oh the Unity of the Human Races, pp. 237, 238. 238 ANTIQJJITY AND UNITY OF eral expectation of the advent of some illusfrious personage, about the time of Christ, who was to be a new Benefactor to the world.* It is only inde- ■pendent traditions, which have come down from remote antiquity within the bosom of the nations themselves, that can avail anything for proving their common origin. And of these, without going to the extent of the writer just quoted, there are not a few of great interest and importance, which I will men- tion. I . The existence of one supreme and eternal God, the First Cause of all things. — " Those men," says Jablonski, " who were most distinguished for wisdbm among the Egyptians, acknowledged God to be a certain unbegotten Eternal Spirit, prior to all things which exist ; who created, preserves, contains, per- vades, and vivifies -everything ; who is the spirit of the universe, but the guardian and protector of men." f Many of the Greek poets and philosophers held the same truth. In one of the Orphic Frag- ' ments preserved by Proclus, we find it expressly declared that " there is one Power, one Deity, the great Governor of all things." The verses which were sung in the Eleusinian mysteries contained * Hesiod, Works and Days, 109; Ovid, Met. i. 89; Virgil, Eel. iv., etc. t Brande's Encyclopoedia, art. Monotheism. THE HUMAN RACE. 239 the following passage : " Pursue thy path rightly, and contemplate the King of the world. He is one and of himself alone, and to that One all things have owed their being. He encompasses them. No mortal hath beheld him ; but he sees everything." * Says Professor Wilson, "TheVedas are authority for the existence of one Divine Being, supreme over the universe, and existing before all worlds. In the beginning this all [the universe] was in darkness. He, the Supreme, was alone, without a second. He reflected, I am one ; I will become many. Will was conceived in the divine mind, and creation ensued." In the Vishnu Purana it is said, "That which is im- perceptible, undecaying, inconceivable, unborn, in- exhaustible, indescribable; which has neither form, nor hands, nor feet ; which is almighty, omnipresent, eternal ; the cause of all things, and without cause ; permeating all, itself unpenetrated, and from which all things proceed ; — that is Brahma." f 2. The Creation of the World and of Man. — " The Greeks, in their legends, represented Prome- theus as playing the part of a demiurgus, or secondary creator, who molded from clay the first individuals of our species, and gave them life by means of the fire which he stole from heaven. In the cosmogony of * Brande's Encyclopoedia, art. Monotheism. t Wilson's Translation, p. 642. 240 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF Peru the first man created hy- the divine power was called Alpa Camasca, ' animated earth.' Among the tribes of North America, the Mandans believed that the Great Spirit formed two figures of clay, which he dried and animated by the breath of his mouth ; the one received the name of the 'first man,' the other that of ' companion.' The great god of Tahiti, Toeroa, made- man of red earth, and the Dyacks of Borneo, stubbornly opposed to all Mos- lem influences, repeated from generation to genera- tion that man had been formed from the earth." * The following view of the Hindu cosmogony I take from the Laws of Manu, written probably in the seventh or eighth century before Christ. It is regarded by the Hindus as a "revelation from Brahma. " This universe existed only in darkness, imper- ceptible, undefinable, undiscoverable by reason, un- discovered, as if it were wholly immersed in sleep. Then the self-existing power, himself undiscovered, but making this world discernible with five elements and other principles, appeared with undiminished glory, dispelling the gloom. He whom the mind alone can perceive, whose essence eludes the exter- nal organs, who has no visible parts, who exists from eternity ; even He, the soul of all beings, whom • Anc. Hist, of the East, pp. 9, 10. THE HUMAN RACE. 24I no being can comprehend, shone forth in person. He having willed to produce various beings from his own substance, first, with a thought, created the waters, and placed in them a productive seed. The seed became an egg, bright as gold, blazing like the luminary, with a thousand beams ; and in that egg he was born himself in the form of Brahma * the great forefather of all spirits. The waters are called Nara because they were the offspring of Nara, the Supreme Spirit, and as in them his first ayana (progress) in the character of Brahma took place, he is thence Narayana (he whose place of- moving was the waters). From that which is, the cause, not the object, of sense, existing everywhere in sub- stance, not existing to pur ^perception, v^iihout be- ginning or end, was produced the divine male, famed in all the worlds as Brahma. In that egg the great power sat inactive a whole year of the Creator, at the close of Which, by his thought alone, he caused the egg to divide itself, and from its two divisions he framed the heaven above and the earth beneath ; in the midst- he placed the subtile ether, the eight regions, and the permanent receptacle of * The -vior A Brahma — the final a short as in America — is a neuter noun, denoting the abstract Supreme Spirit. The mascu- line Brahma — the final vowel having the long Italian sound of ah — denotes the active Creator. ' 16 242 ANTIQyiTY AND UNITY OF the waters. . . . He gave being to time and the divisions of time ; to the stars also, and the planets; to rivers, oceans, and mountains; to level plains and uneven valleys ; to devotion, speech, complacency, desire, and wrath ; and to creation. For the sake of distinguishing action, he made a total difference between right and wrong. "That the human race might be multiplied, he caused the Brahman, the'Kshatriya, the Vaishya, and the Shudra (the four castes) to proceed from his mouth, his arm, his thigh, and his foot. Having divided, his own substance, the mighty power be- came half male and half female, and from that female he produced Viraj. Know me, O most excellent Brahmans, to be that person, whom the male power Viraj produced by himself — Me, the secondary framer of all this visible world." The resemblances between this cosmogony and the Scripture account of the creation are striking. First, the Supreme Deity, shining forth upon the darkness of chaos ; then the creation of the waters ; the formation of the heaven above and the earth beneath, with the air and clouds between ; the celes- tial bodies, and the divisions of time ; the mountains, valleys, and plains ; and, lastly, man himself. It is remarkable, also, that, as in the Bible, the act of cre- ation is attributed not to the Supreme Spirit, the THE HUMAN RACE. 243 Father, but to his Son. " No man hath seen God at any time ; the only-begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." " All things were made by him, and without him was not anything made that was made." 3. The Garden of Eden. — The Vishnu Purana (p. 169) describes the city of Brahma, on Mount Meru, in the midst of the Jambu Dwipa, the inhab- ited world. I do not doubt that it is a tradition of Eden. The account is as follows : " On the summit of Meru is the vast city of Brahma, extending four- teen thousand leagues, and renowned in heaven. The capital of Brahma is enclosed by the River Ganges, which, issuing .from the foot of Vishnu, and washing the lunar orb, falls here from the skies, and, after encircling the city, divides into four mighty rivers, and flows in opposite directions." The Greeks had the fable of the garden of the Hesperides, which was shut in by high mountains on account of an oracle which predicted that, at a certain day, a person, would come and carry off the golden apples that hung on a mysterious tree in the midst of the garden. Notwithstanding the precau- tions used, the hero Hercules came. at last, destroyed the watchful serpent that kept the tree, and gathered the apples. This event was represented pictorially, the serpent being wreathed about the tree precisely 244 ANTIOyiTY AND UNITY OF as in the modern pictures of Eve's temptation. It is also a striking part of the legend, that Hercules is represented as the mortal son of Zeus, the Supreme God, and was attempted to be destroyed in his in- fancy by two serpents, which he slew. 4. The Temptation and Fall of Man. — The story of Pandora is the Grecian legend of Eve. She is represented as the first woman, exceedingly beauti- ful, sent by Zeiis to be a punishment to man for the stolen fire of Prometheus. The gods each bestowed on her a gift, such as beauty, cunning, etc., which she was to use for the ruin of mankind. Prome- theus had shut up in a box all the diseases and woes which the ,anger of the gods had denounced, but Pandora, lifting the cover of the box, let them loose upon the world, hope only -remaining behind. The Chinese held that man was originally innocent and happy, and free from disease and death. In an evil hour he yielded to flattery, or, according to others, the inordinate thirst of knowledge, or, others still, the temptation of a woman, and sinned. He lost his purity, his self-control, and his intellectual pre-emi- nence, and the beasts, birds, and reptiles became his enemies.* Similar traditions exist among the wor- shippers of the Grand Lama, and the Buddhists of Ceylon, and are recounted, also, in the Vishnu * M6moires Chinoises, vol. i. 107. THE HUMAN RACE. 24s Purana of the Hindus. The ancient Persians had, in a sacred book called Bundehesh, a story of the temptation, almost exactly like that of the Bible, in which all the essential features are found, even to that of the tempter having assumed the form of a serpent.* 5 . The Division of Time into Weeks. — Such a division prevailed all over the East, from the ear- liest ages, among the Assyrians, Arabs, and Egyp- tians. To the last-named people, Dion Cassius ascribes its invention. Oldendorf found it among the tribes in the interior of Africa. The Peruvians and Mexicans had similar periods, derived from the phases of the moon. Many nations have named the days of the week after the gods, as did our own pagan ancestors. Among the Hindus the word ■wara, day, affixed to the names of the deities, con- stitutes the name, thus : — Latin. Saxon. Hindu. Sol, Dies Solis. Sun,' Sunday. Aditya, Adityawara. Luna, etc. Moon, Monday. Soma, Somawara. Mars, " Tuesco, Tuesday. Mangala, Mangalawara. Mercurius, " Woden, Wednesday. Budha, Budhawara. Jupiter, " Thor, Thursday. Brahaspati, Brahaspatwara. Vertus, " Freya, Friday. Shuhra, Shuhrawara. Saturnus, " Sseter, Saturday. Shani, Shaniwara. * Anc. Hist, of the East, vol. i. p. 10. 246 ANTiqjJITY AND UNITY OF Attempts have indeed been made to show that this world-wide observance is to be accounted for from natural causes, the observed phases of the moon, the occult properties of numbers, or, as Proudhon calls it, a certain "spontaneous genius, a sort of magnetic vision, which discovered primitive arts, developed langiiage, invented writing, and created systems of religion and philosophy." * Far easier and more probable is the view whiCh is ad- mitted by nearly all writers, that it is due to a uni- versal tradition, which has descended from the pri- mary institution of the Sabbath, as recorded by Moses. 6. But the one tradition which, perhaps, more than any other, has been absolutely universal, both in ancient and modern times, is that of a jlood, sent upon the world in punishment for the wickedness of man. Our space will not permit us to dwell at length on this very curious subject, and we can do little more than to allude to. many of its details. The Mexicans and Peruvians preserved this tra- dition in a form strikingly resembling that of the Bible. "The first age, called Atonatiuh, i. e., 'the siin of the waters,' was terminated by a universal deluge. The Noah of the Mexican cataclysm is Coxcox, called by some people Teo Cipactli, or * Kittp's Bib. Cycl., new edition, art. Sabbath. THE HUMAN RACE. 247 Tezpi. He saved himself, with his wife, Xochiqi>et- zal, in a bark, or, according to other traditions, a raft of cypress-wood. . . . It is said that Tezpi embarked in a spacious vessel with his wife, his children, and many animals, and such seeds as were necessary for the subsistence of mankind. When the Great Spirit, Tezcatlicopa, ordered the waters to subside, Tezpi sent out of the ark a vulture. That bird, which lived on dead bodies, did not come back, on account of the great number of corpses scattered on the recently dried earth. Tezpi sent other birds, among which the humming-bird alone returned, holding in his mouth a branch with leaves. Then Tezpi, seeing that the soil was beginning to be covered with new verdure, came out of his ship on the mountain Colhuaean." * Traditions of a sim- ilar character are found among all the North Amer- ican tribes. Among the ancient Greeks, mention was made of two such catastrophes — the first called the deluge of Ogyges, which was placed by Varro about 1600 years before the first Olympiad, i. e., B. C. 2376, which differs from the Hebrew date of Noah only twenty-eight years. This, however, was only a local inundation, of no great extent, it being the overflow of the Lake Copais, which submerged the * Anc. Hist, of the East, vol. i. p. 17. 248 ANTiqyiTY AND UNITY OF valle}' of Boeotia. The other, which far more nearly resembled the Scripture narrative of the deluge, was called the flood of Deucalion. Even Bunsen is constrained to say, "Our previous re- searches will not permit us to doubt that the oldest Hellenic tradition about the flood of Deucalion was a legendary reminiscence of that great historical deluge." The account of it, as given by Lucian, is as follows : — " I have heard, among the Greeks, the story of Deucalion, which they relate respecting him. They fable it as follows : The present generation of men is not the same as the former. That generation all perished ; the men of the present are immediately descended from Deucalion. Mankind, having be- come exceedingly haughty, were lawless, for they did not regard their oaths, perform the rights of hos- pitality, or spare ^he suppliants. On account of these things, a great calamity came upon them ; the earth suddenly poured forth floods of water, great rains fell, the rivers were swollen, and the sea overflowed, until all became submerged under water, and all flesh perished. Deucalion alone of men was preserved for a second race ; this was on account both of his justice and piety. His deliver- ance was in this wise : Having put his sons and their wives into a, great ark, which he had prepared, THE HUMAN RACE. 249 he went in himself, and the animals, swine, horses, lions, and whatever else lived on the earth, all came to him in pairs. He received them all, and was not injured by them, but there was great harmony throughout. In this one ark they all floated as long as the waters prevailed. These things are related by the Greeks respecting Deucalion." * The sequel to this story represents the ark to have floated on the waters nine days, when it landed on Mount Parnassus, or, according to others, on Mount Athos. When the flood had subsided, Deucalion offered a sacrifice to Jupiter, who sent to him Mer- ciiry, with a promise that he would grant any prayer he might offer. Deucalion asked that Jupiter would restore mankind. He and his wife Pyrrha were directed to cover their heads, and throw the bones of their mother behind them. After some doubts and scruples as to the meaning of this command, they agreed that the bones of their mother must be the stones of the earth. They accordingly threw these behind them, and those thrown by Deucalion became men, and those by Pyrrha women. From these the present family of mankind are descended. Still more remarkable than this is the Phrygian tradition relating to the citj' of Apamea, where, it is said, the ark rested after the flood. The city itself * Lucian's Works, Paris, 1840, p. 735- 250 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF was anciently called "Kibotos," or the Ark, and a medal was struck on which a representation of that vessel was shown, with two persons going forth from it, and two birds, one flying, the other rest- ing upon it, with the name NSlE inscribed on the side. Aqiong the Chaldeans, frequent mention is made of the flood of Xisuthrus, of which' Berosus gives the following account: "After the. death of Arda- tus, his son Xisuthrus reigned 18 sari. In his time occurred a great deluge, which is thus described : The deity Kronus appeared to him in his sleep, and made known to him that upon the 15th day of the month Daesius there would be a flood by which man- kind would be destroyed. He therefore commanded him to write a history of the beginning, progress, and conclusion of all things, and bury it in the city of the sun at Sippara ; also to build a vessel, and take with him into it his friends and relatives, with food and drink, and the different animals, both birds and quadrupeds, preparing all for the voyage. Hav- ing asked the deity whither he was to sail, he was answered, 'To the gods.' Offering up a praj'er-for the good of mankind, he obeyed the divine injunc- tion, and built a vessel five stadia in length and two in breadth. Into this he put everything he had pre- pared, with his wife, children, and friends. THE HUMAN RACE. 2^1 " After the flood had been long upon the earth, and had somewhat abated, Xisuthrus sent out cer- tain birds, which, not finding any food, or place whereon to rest their feet, returned to the vessel. After some days, he sent forth birds a second time. These returned with their feet smeared with mud. He sent them forth a third time, and they returned no more. From this Xisuthrus knew that the earth had appeared above the waters, and, making an opening in the sides of the vessel, he perceived that it was stranded upon a mountain. He then left the vessel, with his wife, and daughter, and the pilot, and, having worshiped the earth, he built an altar, and offered sacrifice to the gods. Then, with those who had come out of the vessel with him, he disap- peared. " Those that remained in the vessel, finding that Xisuthrusand his company did not return, went out to seek him, calling him loudly by name. They saw him no more, but they heard his voice in the air commanding them to pay proper regard to reli- gion, for he, on account of his piety, had gone to dwell with the gods, and his wife, his daughter, and the pilot, had been made partakers of the same honor. He further directed them to repair to Baby- lon, and, as had been commanded, search for the books he had buried at Sippara, and give them to 252 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF mankind. They wfere then in the country of Ar- menia. Having heard these words, they, too, sacri- ficed to the gods, and proceeded to Babylon. " Of this vessel, thus stranded in Armenia, it is said that a part still remains in the Corcyraean moun- tains of Armenia, and that the people, scraping off the bitumen with which it was coated, carry it away to keep it for charms and amulets. The comrades of Xisuthrus, having arrived at Babylon, dug up the writings buried at Sippara ; they also built cities and tepiples, and Babylon was again inhabited." * The resemblance between this account and that given in the Hebrew Scriptures is very striking. It has been suggested f that Berosus was acquainted with the latter, and drew his statement from them. There is no evidence, however, of this fact. On the contrary, while his narrative in general so much resembles that of Moses, there is sufl5cient discrep- ancy in details to show that he could not have bor- rowed it from him. It is much more probable that he derived the incidents of his story from traditions, either oral or written, preserved at Babylon, which embodied the memory of an event common to the history of -all nations. The Chinese preserve a striking tradition of the * Cory's Ancient Fragments. t Smith's Diet. Gr. and Rom. Biog., art. Berosus. THE HUMAN RACE. 253 flood, which they say took place in the reign of Fuh-hi, 4000 years B. C. He, his wife, three sons, and three daughters, alone escaped, and from these the whole circle of the universe was repeopled. Dr. Gutzlaif relates that he saw in one of the Buddhist temples, " in beautiful stucco, the scene where Kwan-Yin, the goddess of mercy, looks down from heaven upon the lonely Noah in his ark, amidst the raging waves of the deluge, with the dolphins swimming round, as his last means of safety, and the dove, with an olive branch in its beak, flying toward the vessel. Nothing could have exceeded the beauty of the execution." * It has been frequently said (by Lepsius and others) that there was no trace of the tradition of a deluge among the ancient Egyptians, the only flood of which they knew anything being the harbinger of fertility and plenty. This statement, however, is fully refuted by Osburn. He says, as to there being " no trace of Noah or the deluge in the hieroglyphic legends, we have no hesita- tion whatever in stating our conviction that Lep- sius is mistaken. Our proof is a very direct and plain appeal to the senses. . . . It is to be found in the name of one of the most ancient gods * Smith's Bib. Diet., art. Noah. 254 ANTIQpiTY AND UNITY OF of Egypt, who was eatitled ' the father of the gods,' ' the giver of (pythic life to all beneath him.' Birch has truly identified this god with water. He was in reality the mythic impersonation of the annual overflow of the Nile. His name is written S^^^ . . . ChampoUion and Birch identified the name of this god with the word ^ K , nou or nh, which signifies ' the primordial water,' ' the abyss.' How it is possible not to recognize in this idol the apothe- osis of the patriarch Noah (Hebrew, N-h or Nuh), we must confess ourselves unable to understand, es- pecially when we call to mind that so indissolubly was the name of Noah linked with the remembrance of the general deluge, that it was afterward called by the Hebrews ' the waters of Noah.' (Isa. iv. 9. )" * Nowhere, however, is the tradition of the flood more remarkable for its conformity to the Mosaic narrative than in the Hindu Vedas, which relate the Avataras, or incarnations of Vishnu. It is gener- ally agreed that the first three of these owe their origin to that tradition. The first is called the Matsya, or Fish-Avatara. The legend is found in the Mahabharata, one of the great epic poems of the Sanskrit. It is likewise repeated in several of the Puranas, with slight variations. The substance of * Monum. Hist, of Egypt, vol. i. pp. 239, 240. THE HUMAN RACE. 255 it is, that Brahma, — in the Pi?ranas, Vishnu, — as- suming the form of a fish, informs Manu, a holy sage, that the earth is to be overwhelmed by a flood of waters, and directs him to build a ship, in which himself and seven other holy sages, with the living seeds of all things, will be preserved. When well secured in the great ship, the deity would appear in the form of a fish. The holy sage was to fasten the vessel to the fish's horn, and it would then ride safe over the turbulent waters. All this took place as predicted, and the ship, with its precious freight, rested at last on the loftiest peak of the Himalaya Mountains. But the points of resemblance between the Hindu legend and the Mosaic account will best be seen from an extract. It is taken from the poetic version of Milman, late professor of poetry in Oxford Uni- versity. Though clothed in poetic language, it appears to be a correct version of the original, pre- serving at the same time, in good degree, its meas- ure and form of verse. Passing over the introduction, which contains some unimportant particulars respecting the manner in which the' fish-form deity w^as introduced to Manu,* * The name Manuja, Manu-born, as the appellative of the human race (in Sanskrit books) is from Manu; from thence the Gothic Manu, which we have preserved. Manu is the represen- tative of man. — Milman's Version, p. 11. 256 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF the holy sage, the account is as follows — the fish continuing his divine directions : — " When the awful time approaches, hear from me what thou must do. In a little time, O blessed, ' all this firm and seated earth. All that moves upon its surface, shall a deluge sweep away. Near it comes, of all creation the ablution day is near ; Therefore what I now forewarn thee may thy highest weal secure. All the fixed and all the moving, all that stirs, or stirreth not, •Lo, of all the time approaches, the tremendous time pf doom. Build thyself a ship, O Manu ! strong with cables well prepared, And thyself, with the seven sages, mighty Manu, enter in-. All the living seeds of all things, by the Brahmans named of yore. Place thou first within thy vessel, well secured, divided well. From thy ship keep watch, O hermit, watch for me as I draw near ; Horn6d shall I swim before thee; bj' my horn thoul't know me well. This the work thou must accomplish. I depart ; so fare thee well. Over those tumultuous waters none without mine aid can sail. THE HUMAN RACE. 257 Doubt not thou, O lofty minded, of my warning speech the truth.' To the fish thus answered Manu ; ' All that thou requirest I will do.' " Manu, having done as directed, and 'launched his vessel on the sea with its precious freight, the fish appears, and the vessel is bound to his head, and — " Dancing with the tumbling billows, dashing through the roaring spray. Tossed about with winds tumultuous, in the vast and heaving sea. Like a trembling, drunken woman, reeled that ship, O king of men. Earth was seen no more, no region, nor the intermediate space ; All around a waste of waters, water all, and air, and sky. In the whole world of creation, princely son of Bharata, None was seen, but those seven sages, Manu only and the fish. Years on years, and still unwearied drew that fish the bark along. Till at length it came, where lifted Himavan its loftiest peak. There at length it came, and smiling, thus the fish addressed the sage : ' To the peak of Himalaya bind thou now thy stately ship.' At the fish's mandate quickly, to the peak of Himavan 17 258 ANTIQJJITY AND UNITY OF Bound the sage his bark, and ever to this day, that loftiest peak Bears the name of Manhubandhan, from the binding of the bark. To the sage, the god of mercy, ^ thus with fix6d look bespake : ' I am Lord of all creation, Brahmi, higher than all height j I in fish-like form have saved thee, Manu, in the perilous hour; But from thee new tribes of creatures, gods, asuras, men, must spring. All the worlds must be created, all that moves, or moveth not. By an all-surpassing penance, this great work must be achieved. Through my mercy, thy creation to confusion ne'er shall run.' • Spake the fish, and on the instant, to the invisible he passed." Manu immediately begins his penance and the work of creation. The legend closes, — " Such the old, the famous legend, named the Story of the Fish, Which to thee I have related; this for all our sins atones. He that hears it, — Manu's legend, — in the full possession he Of all things complete and perfect, to -the heavenly world ascends." While the ark floats fastened to the fish, Manu THE HUMAN RACE. 259 enters into conversation with his divine guide and preserver ; and his questions and the replies of the deity form, in the Purana, the main substance of the compilation. The principal subjects are, as usual in these books, an account of the creation, the royal dynasties, the duties of the diiferent orders, and various mythological legends. The foregoing are but specimens of the traditions which are found among all nations respecting the great events of the primitive ages. The curious reader will find very much in the authorities cited, and others, that will well repay his researches into this subject. We ask now, in view of these facts, of the number of these traditions, their striking resemblances both to the Bible narrative and to each other, with just those differences that show independent lines of descent from the beginning, how they can be explained but upon the supposi- tion that they are reminiscences coming down from a period in the history of mankind when as yet they were an unbroken family. That they could have been derived by one nation from another, will be conceded, by all familiar with the history of these nations, to be impossible. That they should have sprung up spontaneously among peo- ples so wide apart in lineage, in abode, and it^ speech, no one will maintain. ^Ye regard them, 26o ANTIQJJITY AND UNITY OF as they have ever been regarded bj' scholars and historians, as among the most conclusive evidences both of the unity of the race and of the com- mencement of the separate existence of those peo- ples since the time of Noah. TftE HUMAN RACE. 261 CHAPTER XI. THE ARGUMENT FROM MYTHOLOGY. Mythology, its Nature. — All Myths founded in Fact. — In- stances of the Origin of modern Myths. — Character of Greek Writers. — Specimens of their Mistakes respecting foreign Names and Personages. — I. All Mythologies had a common Origin. — The Roman and Greek. — The Egyptian. — The Phoenician. —The Chaldean. — The Hindu. —II. That Ori- gin in the Bible Narrative of the Creation and the Flood. — Myths of the' Creation. ^- Of the Antediluvians. — of Noah. — Of the Ark. — Of the Dove. — of the Rainbowr. — Of the eight Persons saved. — Of Noah's three Sons. — Results. Mythology is a species of tradition which, among pagan nations, embraces the facts and prin- ciples of religion. It is true that there are secular myths, — legendary stories of individuals and tribes, — having no sacred import. Still, so active was the supposed participation of the gods in human aiFairs, that few of these fables are entirely destitute of allusions to them. Indeed, the whole theology of the ancient pagan world was essentially mythical ; the names, characters, and actions of the -gods, their 262 ANTIQyiTY AND UNITY OF relations to men, and the modes in which they were to be worshiped, were recounted by the poets and fabulists, and formed collectively that mass of tradi- tions and writings which we call mythology. It is apparent, then, that the field which mythology opens to us may afford important aid in the consid- eration of the question now in hand. Religious belief has the strongest hold upon the heart, and is transmitted with the greatest care from one genera- tion to another. If all men have sprung from a common parentage, we ought to find, as we ascend the stream of history, traces of a similarity in faith and religious rites among them. Even though the primitive belief and worship of one God were early lost through that depravity of heart which the apos- tle Paul so graphically describes in the first chapter of Romans, still the idolatry which came in its place, having been derived from common sources in the traditions of the past, ought tp show those evidences of the fact which will powerfully demon- strate the original unity of those who hold it. It is important to observe that all myths, how- ever absurd and incredible their form, were founded upon foot. Thus says C. O. Miiller: "It is quite clear that two distinct ii^gredients enter into mythol- ogy, viz., the statement of things done and things imagined. . . . We always find a chain of THE HUMAN RACE. 263 facts leading from history into mythology." * That is, some actual person existed, or was believed to have existed, or some event, rea,l or supposed, took place, which formed, as it were, the nucleus of the tradition, round which, in the lapse of time, was gathered, under the influence of an active imagination, a mass of fictitious incident, until it finally reached its present form. I am aware that some have held a different theory as to the process of its growth, believing that some abs'tract idea, philosophical or ethical, was the germ, which cre- ated for itself a legend of personification and nar- rative for its expression. Thus says George : f " Mythus is the creation of a fact out of an idea." Professor Powell says, "A myth is a doctrine ex- pressed in a narrative form ; an abstract moral or spiritual truth, dramatized in action and personifica- tion, where the object is to enforce faith, not in the parable, but in the moral." J I think these defini- tions are quite wrong. I do not believe a myth, properly so called, ever originated in an idea, but exactly the reverse. There is first the fact, real or supposed ; then a distortion of it through misappre- hension, or an amplification of it for ornament or * Introd. to a' Scientific System of Mythology, p. 9. t Mythus and Sage, quoted by Rawlinson Hist. So., p. 231. t Ibid. 264 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF explanation ; a personification, apotheosis, and the like. I know that myths frequently reach that form in which an id^a or a doctrine becomes their chief import; but still I maintain that they began with simple facts or actual beings. The opposite theory, that abstract ideas or principles, in primitive times, clothed themselves' in mythical forms, creating gods, and heroes, and fictitious events, as a mode of ex- pression, endows the infancy of the race with too much of a philosophic sense. It reverses" the nat- ural order of development, imaginative childhood first, refiective and reasoning manhood afterward. I have said that misapprehension of the original facts was a fruitful source of mythology. Professor M. Miiller gives several curious instances illustrative of this in modern times. " Many of the old signs of taverns contain what we may call hieroglyphic mythology. There was a house on Stoken-church Hill, near Oxford, exhib- iting on its sign-board ' P'eathers and a Plum.' The house itself was vulgarly called the 'Plum and Feathers ; ' it was originally the ' Plume of Feath- ers,' from the crest of the Prince of Wales. " ' A Cat with a Wheel ' is the corrupt emblem of 'St. Catharine's Wheel ; ' the 'Bull and Gate' was originally intended as a trophy of the taking of Bou- logne by Henry VIII. ; and the ' Goat and Com- THE HUMAN RACE. 265 passes ' have taken the place of the fine old Puritan sign-board, ' God encompasses us.' " There is much of this popular mythology floating about among the people, arising from a very natural and very general tendency, viz., from a conviction that every name must have a meaning. At Lincoln, immediately below the High Bridge, there is an inn bearing now the sign of the ' Black Goats.' It for- merly had the sign of the ' Three Goats,' a name derived from the three gowts or drains by which the water from the Swan Pool, a large lake which for- merly existed to the west of the city, was conducted into the bed of the Witham below. A public house having arisen on the bank of the principal of these go-wts, in honor, probably, of the work when it was made, the name became corrupted into 'Three Goats ' — a corruption easily accomplished in the Lincolnshire dialect. " One of our colleges at Oxford is now called and spelled Brasenose. Over the gate of the college there is a brazen nose, and the arms of the college display the same shield, and have done so for sev- eral centuries. I have not heard of any legend to account for the startling presence of that emblem over the gate of the college ; but this is simply owing to the want of poetic imagination on the part of the Oxford ciceroni. In Greece, Pausanias would have 266 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF ■told US ever so many traditions commemorated by such a monument. At Oxford we are simply told that the college was originally a brew-house, and that its original name, Brasen-huis (brasserie), was gradually changed to Brasenose." Mistakes of this nature, sometimes originating in ignorance and sometimes in design, were exceed- ingly common among the Greeks, from whose writers we derive our chief knowledge, not only of their own mythology, but of those of other peoples. Of this propensity Bryant speaks as follows : — "As their traditions were obsolete, and filled with extraneous matter, it rendered it impossible for them to arrange properly the principal events of their country. They did not separate and distinguish, but often took to themselves the merit of transac- tions which were of a prior date and of another clime. These they adopted, and made their own. Hence, when they came to digest their history, it was all confused, and they were embarrassed with num- berless contradictions and absurdities which it was impossible to remedy. . . . They had a child- ish antipathy to every foreign language, and were equally prejudiced in favor of , their own. This was attended with the most fatal consequences. They were misled by the too great delicacy of their ear, and could not bear any term which appeared THE HUMAN RACE. 267 to them barbarous and uncouth. On this account they either rejected foreign appellations, or so mod- eled and changed them, that they became, in sound and meaning, essentially different. And as they were attached to their own country and its customs, they presumed that everything was to be looked for among themselves. They did not consider that the titles of their gods, the names of cities, and their terms of worship were imported, that their ancient hymns were grown obsolete, and that time had wrought a great change. They explained every- thing by the language in use, without the least ret- rospect or allowance, and all names and titles from other countries were liable to the same rule. If the name were dissonant and disagreeable to their ear, it was rejected as barbarous ; but if it were at all similar in sound to any word in their language, they changed it to that word, though the name were of Syriac original, or introduced from Egypt or Baby- lonia. The purport of the term was by these means changed, and the history which depended upon it either perverted or effaced." * Many examples are given by this author in illus- tration of these statements, of which only a specimen or two can here be mentioned. The myth of Mount Olympus being the residence of the gods originated ' Ancient Mythology, vol. i. pp. 204, 2io. 268 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF thus : Ham, the progenitor of the Egyptians, was worshiped as a god {El), being the same that the Greeks called Amun, or Ammon. Phi signifies a mouth,* and was used especially to denote the voice or oracle of a god. Hence El-Ham-Phi, or Elampi, would mean the oracle of the god Amun. Trie Greeks, knowing or caring nothing /or the etymol- ogy, wrote it Ol-um-pos (Olympus), and then in- vented the legend corresponding, locating it, as ora- cles were generally placed, on a mountain, and making it the home of Zeus (the Greek equivalent of Amun) , and of course of his divine court. The same word, slightly changed, Am-^hi-el, gave rise to another notion equally absurd. The sound of it somewhat resembled that of their own word omphalos, a navel. Hence they fabled that Delphi, the seat of the oracle of Apollo, was the navel, i. e., the center of the world. Sophocles calls it the " umbilical oracle of the earth," f and Livy, " umbilicum orbis terrarum." '% Towns and cities, where similar oracles existed, were often called Omphalian, and their people Omphalians ; and Quintus Curtius, describing the temple of Jupi- » As in the Hebrew words Peniel, Pibeseth, Pihahiroth, Phi- col, etc. t Miali^iifala TT/s fiavrita, CEdip. Tyr., v. 487. t L. 38, c. 47. THE HUMAN RACE. 269 ter Amun, gravely informs us that there was an Omphalus there, and that the deity was represented in the form of a Navel, set around with precious stones.* In like manner the Egyptian Caken-Cafh-El, meaning the " priests of the temple of the god " (the sun), was, from a rude similarity of sound, trans- formed into Cyno-cefh-al-oi, i. e., "beings with dogs' heads ; " and the absurd story invented that the Egyptians kept in their temples baboons with dogs' heads, who were wonderfully skilled in the motions of the heavenly bodies, who could read and write, and " whenever one of them was introduced into the sacred apartments for probation, the priest pre- sented him with a tablet, and with a pen and ink, and, by his writing, could immediately find out if he were of the true intelligent breed," | the latter cir- cumstiance referring to the examination to which novices were subjected before they were admitted to the priesthood. % These illustrations we deem very valuable, as throwing a flood of light on the whole subject of the heathen mythology, enabling us to account for many " Umbilico maxirne similis est habitus, smaragdo et gemmis coagmentus, 1. 4, u. 7. •f Horapollo, 1. I, c. 14, p. 28. X Bryant, Anc. Myth., vol. ii. pp. 20-23. 270, ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF of its wildest absurdities. Not that we are able to trace the rise and progress of every myth, but we can easily imagine, after these examples, modern as well as ancient, how they may have risen and run a wild course to the shape in which we now find them. If the name of an old brew-house can be so changed as to become a brazen nose, if three drains for conducting off the waters of a lake can become, even on the very spot, Three Goats, if the pious expression of confidence in the divine care can be transformed into the Goat and Compasses, and all this in recent historic times, and near the very seats of modern science, what might we not expect among the ignorant and superstitious peoples of other lands and other times ? The views thus exhibited of the nature of myths, and the origiij and growth of mythology in general, will prepare the way for the proposition which will bring the subject into connection with our present discussion, viz., That all the systems of ancient mythology had a common origin, and that origin ■was in the persons and events described in the Mosaic account of the primeval ages of man, in the first chapters of Genesis. I. The first part of this proposition, that all the systems of ancient mythology had a common origin, need not detain us long. THE HUMAN RACE. 27 1 That the Roman mythology was essentially the same as the Greek is familiar to every classical scholar. The names of the gods were, indeed, for the most part, different ; but their characters and his- tories were sufficiently alike to cause them to be recognized by the writers of both countries as sub- stantially the same. I speak now of the chief deities only, for there were numerous local and subordinate divinities, both in Greece and Italy, who were not known elsewhere. Nor are we to understand that the Roman mythology, except partially, in later times, when intercourse between the two countries became frequent, was borrowed from the Greek. Rather, the two mj'thologies, like the two lan- guages, were sisters, being each derived from a common source, in a period antecedent to the settle- ment of either country. In like manner the Greek mythology, in its main elements, was the same as that of Egypt. The Grecian writers, from Herodotus down, represent that the names and characters of the principal gods and goddesses were derived from the East, mostly from Egypt. Herodotus (ii. 52) says this expressly, and Diodorus Siculus dwells upon it at great length. All that was peculiarly Grecian was the localizing and modifying of the names in the manner already described, with the invention of new fictions to cor- 272 ANTIQillTY AND UNITY OF respond to those alterations. I think it a mistake, however, to affirm that the Greek mythology was derived from Egypt, and' would prefer to say that both the Egyptian and the Grecian were originally from a common source, and owe to this their mutual resemblance to each other. This resemblance, again, is found between the Egyptian, Phoenician, and Chaldean or Babylonian systems. Bunsen expressly says, " All Egypt's roots are in Asia," and he gives very conclusive examples of such derivation. The Jupiter, Mars, Venus, and Mercury of the West, and the Amun, Muntru, Athor, and Thoth of Egypt, are at Nineveh and Babylon, Bel-Merodach, Nergal, Ishtar, and Nebo. And so in_ numerous other instances. There is some reason to think that the gods of the Assyrian and Babylonian mythologies, as deciphered from the cuneiform inscriptions, are nearer the common source from which all are derived, than any other. In the Hindu mythology, we are met again by striking points of resemblance to those already men- tioned. It is, says M. Miiller, a " fact which can not be doubted, and which, if fully appreciated, will be felt to be pregnant with the most startling and the most instructive lessons of antiquity — the fact, I mean, that Zeus, the most sacred name in Greek mythology, is the same word as Dyaits, or Dyu THE HUMAN RACE. 273 in Sanskrit,. Jovis or Ju in Jupiter in Latin, Tiw in Anglo-Saxon (preserved in TiwsdEeg, Tuesday, the day of the Eddie god Tyr) , Zio in old High German," * and, he might have added, Ti in Chi- nese, and Teo in Mexican. ' And a writer in the Christian Examiner, f reviewing this work of Mii.l- ler, remarks further, " As the Sanskrit has, in most cases, preserved its roots in a more primitive form than the other Aryan languages, so in the Rig- Veda we find the same mythic phraseology as in Homer and Hesiod, but in a far more rudimentary and un- intelligible condition. Zeus, Eros, Helena, Oura- nos, and Cerberus reappear as Dyaus, Arusha, Sarameias, Sarama, Varuna, and Sawara ; but instead of completely developed personalities, they are presented to us only as vague powers, with their nature and attributes dimly defined, and their rela- tions to each other fluctuating, and often- contradic- tory. There is no theogony, no mythologic system. The same pair of divinities appear now as father and daughter, now as brother and sister, now as husband and wife ; now they entirely lose their per- sonality, and become undifferentiated Forces. In the Vedas, the early significancy of myths has not faded, but continually recurs to the mind of the * Science of Lang., second series, p. 444. t May, 1865, p. 380. 18 274 ANTICiyiTY AND UNITY OF poet. In the Homeric poems, that significance is almost entirely lost sight of, and its influence upon the poet is an unconscious influence." I remark here, as before; that these resemblances do not prove that the Greeks derived their my- ^ thology from India. In the mass, and in details, it has very little in common with that of the latter country, although many of the names in them are etymologically the same. The most that I would claim is, that the elementary roots of the two systems were derived from a common source. Or, rather, those roots existed as a common stock among the remote ancestors of the two peoples before they sep- arated in the primeval times, and when the separa- tions took place, these elementary roots developed, in the different countries to which- they were car- ried into the different systems subsequently found there. II. The second part of our proposition is, that all the various systems of mythology existing among the ancient nations had their origin in the persons and events mentioned by Moses in the earliest chap- ters of Genesis. The full exhibition of this fact would require a volume, or rather many volumes. Of course only some hints of the argument can be given here. The reader is referred, for a detailed view, to Bryant's THE HUMAN RACE. 275 Ancient Mythology, Faber's Origin of Pagan Idol- atry, Kitto's Daily Bible Illustrations, vol. i., etc. It is not meant, of course, that every particular of the vast mass of fable, poetry, and song, which constitute those mythologies, was derived from the source mentioned, but only their roots, or the pri- mary and leading facts from which all the rest have been developed. Some of these primary facts are the following : — The creation of the world. According to Mo- ses, the earth was originally "without form and void" (Heb., emptiness and desolation), "and darkness was upon the face of the deep." The first thing formed was light, or the Day ; then the firmament called Heaven ; the dry land. Earth ; the collections of waters. Seas ; riext veg.etable life, yielding seed and fruit; after that, the sun, moon, and stars. Now, all this, told in the Greek and Roman mythologies, is as follows : — First was Chaos, " the confused mass containing the elements of all things," * who was the mother of Erehos and Nyx, i. e., Darkness and Night. These intermarrying, begat y^ther and Hemera, the Air, * Smith's Diet, of Biog. and Myth., which will be our author- ity in the subsequent statements, unless otherwise noticed. Where two namas are given together, the first is Greek, and the second its Latin equivalent. 276 ANTIQiJITy AND UNITY OF or Welkin, and the Day. The eldest of the gods was Ouranos, Coelus, who married Ge, Terra, i. e., the Heaven and Earth, and was the father of the Titans, viz., Oceanus, Cronus, Hyperion, lape- tus, CcEus, and Crius. Oceanus, the ocean, mar- ried_ his sister Tethys, and begat the Oceanides, nymphs of the ocean; the Nereides, nymphs of the Mediterranean ; the Potametdes, nymphs of the rivers ; the Naiades, nymphs of fountains, etc. Kronos, Saturn, marrying his sister Rhea, was the father oi Hestia, Vesta, i. e., fire ; Demeter, Ceres, i. e., mother-earth, the goddess of corn and fertility; Zeus, Jupiter, and his sister-wife Hera, Juno, the gods of the sky or upper air ; Poseidon, Neptune, the sea (Mediterranean) ; and Hades, Pluto, the under-world, hell. Hyferion, marrying another sister, Theia, was the father of Helios, Sol, the sun ; Selene, Luna, the moon, and Eos, Aurora, the dawn. Equally fruitful in fable has been the record of man's creation and fall. In Genesis, God is repre- sented as taking counsel with himself, and then making man out of the dust of the earth, and ani- mating him with an immortal soul, endowed with the divine image. Subsequently woman was made, and brought to the man, who, being tempted, brings sin and death into the world, " and all our woe," THE HUMAN RACE. 277 but to whom is given in mercy the hope of a De- liverer. This is told, mythologically, thus : — la-petus, one of the Titans, was the father of Prometheus, i. e., forethought or counsel. He made the first man of clay, and then, with the aid of Athene, stole from heaven a celestial spark, with which to animate him. In punishment for this theft, Zeus ordered Hepheestus to make a woman, Pan- dora, — so called because endowed with " every gift," beauty, wisdom, etc., — and gave her in marriage to Efimetheus, i. e., afterthought or repentance. She, led by curiosity, lifted the lid of the box in which Prometheus had confined diseases, misfortunes, and other woes, and let them loose to afflict mankind. In the bottom of the vessel, however, hope re- mained, which is appointed to solace man under his sufferings. Before the flood there was, according to the Bible, a succession of ten patriarchs, who lived each many hundred years. From these, we cannot doubt, originated the idea, which prevailed among nearly all nations, of a series of antediluvian -kings, some- times regarded as divine, sometimes as human, whose reigns covered immense periods of time. These were the gods, demigods, and manes, -of Egyptian chronology, that reigned before Menes, who, I doubt not, was Noah. In respect to the 278 ' ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF term Manes (Gr. vixvsg), Bryant remarks (iv. 441), that the Egyptian word was Nechus, or JVecho, signifying a king, as seen in the name Pharaoh- Necho (2 Kings xxiii. 29), also in Nech-epsos, Nech-aos, etc., and that the Greeks, not under- standing it, rendered it by vixvg, a dead person ; hence manes, or spirits of the dead. Instead, there- fore, of " gods, demigods, and manes," he would read, " gods, and demigods, and kings who were mortals." These, it is said, reigned in all 24,900 years.* The Chaldeans, as we have seen (p. 94), enumerated ten kings before Xisuthrus and the flood, who reigned 432,000 years. So among the Hindus there were ten lords of created beings, and among the Chinese the first man, Pan-kou, who chiseled the heavens and earth out of granite, lived 18,000 years, and was followed by a succession of sovereigns called celestial, terrestrial, and human, until Fuh-hi (Noah), covering a period variously given as from 45,000 to 500,000 years. f In consequence of the wickedness of the race, God, it is said, repented him that he had made man, and determined to destroy them with a deluge. What else Nou or Nuh, signifying the " primordial water," also in Kneph, Chnoubis, Chnouphis, and in the city No-Amun, etc. In the Vedas, the name of the •person saved from the flood is Ma-nu, and one of the earliest Chinese kings is Nau the Great, to whom is attributed the invention of the cycle of 60 years. The so-called first man, Pan-kou, or, as it may equally well be pronounced Man-hou, is probably, also, the same name, f * Appendix L. f Appendix M. THE HUMAN RACE. 28 1 The tradition of the ark itself is preserved in many ways. Its name in Hebrew was mti, teba, or theba, which was the name given to numerous cities, all of which show some traces of connection with Noah. Thebes, in Egypt, was said to have been founded by Menes (Noah) , and was called No (Ezek. XXX. 14, 15, 16; Nah. iii. 8). From this city Osiris set forth on a tour of the world to teach men agriculture. During his absence Typhon (signifying storm, or deluge) conspired against him, and let loose a flood upon the world, and, on his return, Typhon killed him, and placed the body in a beautiful ark, which he threw upon the waters. This was cast upon the shore of Phoenicia, where Osiris returned to life, and became the patron of agriculture, etc. Thebes, in Greece, was the birth- place of Dio-nysus, or Bacchus, the god pi wine, another name for Noah, as already seen. There was also a Thiba in Pontus, in regard to which there was a tradition that its inhabitants could not be drowned. Another Hebrew word for ark was Wis, argoz, translated coffer in i Sam. vi. 8, ii, which doubtless gave its name to the various cities called Argos. Argos, in Achaia, was founded by I-nachus (Noah) , and its citadel built by Da-naus (another name of Noah), who is said to have come in a large ship from Egypt, with his fifty daughters, 282 ANTIQJJITY AND UNITY OF and who deposited in the citadel a model of the ves- sel called the Amfhifrumnon, i. e., having two prows, hence lunar-shaped. Here lived Argus, the builder of the ship Argo, who went on the famous Argonautic expedition, and Da-nae,\}a.& mother of Perseus, who conceived by Zeus, who came to her in a golden shower, and was afterwards shut up with her infant in an ark, and thrown into the sea, where she floated to an island, and was saved by a fisherman named Dictys. In Greek the ark was called Kibotos, which was another name of Apamea in Phrygia, where was struck the famous medal, having on it the representation of the ark and dove with Noah and his wife. The dove which Noah sent from the ark has given rise to a multitude of traditions. The word, in Hebrew is nsi'i, Yonah, in Greek o\v{u;, whence probably Venus, in Latin, the goddess of love. She is said to have risen from the foam of the sea, hence called Venus Anadyomene. She presided over the waters, and had power to appease the troubled ocean, and cause a universal calm. The dove was especially sacred to her, and she was represented in a chariot drawn by these birds. All this is plainly suggestive of the dove sent forth from the ark, who flew to and fro on the waters, finding no rest for the sol-e of her foot, and whose return THE HUMAN RACE. 283 was the signal that the flood had abated, and fair weather returned to the earth. As the prophet who preached to the Ninevites was named Jonah, so the patriarch who preached to the antediluvians was called by Berosus Oan, or Oannes, which are the same name. He is represented, with evident allu- sion to the flood, as being below the waist a fish (dag) J hence Dag-on, the fish deity of the Baby- lonians and Phoenicians. He is said to have been a benevolent being, who came out of the sea, taught mankind to build temples and cities, and cultivate the earth, etc. From the same source, also, probably originated Juno, the queen of the gods. She was called I-nachia by the poets, and "was accompanied by Jris^ the rainbow, etc. The eight persons saved in the ark are supposed to be represented by the Cabiri, who were four gods and four goddesses, children of Zadik, i. e., the righteous one, the first of whom, as deciphered by Wilkinson from the monuments, bore the well- known Egyptian names of the patriarch Nou, Noub, Cnoubis, Cnouphis, Kneph, etc. In other combina- tions we have the names of three gods and god- desses, and of twelve, the number being doubled, as is not uncommon in mythology ; as Herodotus says, " The twelve gods were, they affirm, produced from 284 ANTIQJJITY AND UNITY OF the eight." It is remarkable, also, how triads abound in almost all mythologies, as among the Greeks, Zeus, Poseidon, and Hades ; among the Romans, Jupiter, Neptune, and Pluto ; in Egypt, Osiris, Isis, Horus, etc. Wilkinson says, " If, in every town or district of Egypt, the principal temple had been pre- served, we might discover the nature of the triad worshiped there, as well as the name of the chief deity who presided in it." * Tacitus relates that the ancient Germans celebrated in songs the praises of their god Tuisco and his son Man-nus, the founders of three Germanic nations. To Man-nus (compare Egyptian, Menes, Hindu, Manu, etc.) they assign three sons, by whose names the people occupying different parts of the country were called. Among the Persians, Feridun had three sons, Selim, Tur, and Irij, to whom he gave respectively Rum, Turan, and Iran. But we can pursue these illustrations no further. The subject is certainly a curious one, and will amply repay the investigations of every scholar of antiquity. Making, now, all due allowances for mistake in some particulars, from erroneous ety- mologies, or insufficient points of resemblance, we are sure that the general conclusion, can not well be disputed. In some respects it seems ♦ Anc. Egypt, second series, vol. i. p. 230, THE HUMAN RACE. 285 even more reliable than that derived from His tory, Ethnology, or Language. Mythology has to deal with the origin of things, especially of re- ligious things, and seems to carry us further back than either of its sister sciences. And though at first view the vast mass of fiction and fable which it presents to us seems scarcely less confused than the original chaos of the earth, yet a little patient study will enable us to find the clew which will lead us intelligently and safely through it, and show a very simple origin for the whole, in the inspired account of creation, the antediluvian world, and the flood ; thus corroborating the truth of that narrative, and proving the descent of all nations from one common source. 286 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF CHAPTER XII. THE ARGUMENT FROM GEOLOGY. Lyell's "Geological Evidences." — Alleged Facts proving a Re- mote Antiquity for the Race. — i. Fragments of Brick and Pottery from Egypt. — The Data not verified. — Changes in the Nile Valley. — Burnt Brick unknown to the Ancient Egyptians. — 2. Human Fossil in Mississippi Valley. — 3. Skeleton found near New Orleans. — 4. Remains in the Florida Coral R«efs. — 5. Flint Implements in the Valley of the Somme. — Diagram of the Valley. — • Its assumed Geologi- cal History. — The Association of Human and Animal Re- mains no Proof that they were contemporaneous. — If contem- poraneous, no proof of extreme Antiquity. — Opinion of Westminster Review. — Opinion of Professor Rogers. — Al- leged Geological Changes in the Somme Vall6y. — Assumed to be wrought by existing Agencies. — Uniformitarians. — Testimony of President Hitchcock. — Of Professor Duns. — Of Sir R. Murchison. — Of Professor Wilson. —Of Elie de Beaumont. — Of Professor Rogers. — 6. Human Remains in Peat-bogs, Shell-mounds, and Lakes. — The Stone, the Bronze, and the Iron Age. — All pertaining to the Celtic Race. — Opinion of Dr. Keller. — Of Troyon. — Conclusion. I PROPOSE now to pass under review the leading facts presented us in Geology, which are relied on THE HUMAN RACE. 287 by many to prove a very high antiquity. They are taken chiefly from the elaborate work of Sir Charles Lyell, entitled, " The Geological Evidences of the Antiquity of Man" (Am. edition, 1863). In that volume the distinguished author has col- lected " all the important facts furnished by his favorite science, whether brought to light by him- self or by the labors of others. The work may be regarded as exhaustive on that side of the question. I. The first case that I will notice of alleged geological discoveries, which are supposed to prove the very remote antiquity of our race, is that of the fragments of brick and pottery dug up from the valley of the Nile. This case is the more important, as it is cited by almost every author who avowedly opposes the Bible chro- nology. In the year 185 1, the Royal Society of London instituted a series of borings in the sediment of the Nile valley, under the care of Mr. Leonard Horner, the expense of which was partly sus- tained by the viceroy. Sixty workmen, with sev- eral engineers, were employed for this purpose — men accustomed to the climate, and capable of pursuing the work during the hot months, after the annual inundation was passed. " The results," 288 ANTIQyiTY AND UNITY OF says Sir Charles Lyell, " of chief importance were obtained from two sels of shafts and borings, sunk at intervals in lines crossing the great valley from east to west. One of these consisted of no less than fifty-one pits and artesjan perforations made where the valley is sixteen miles wide from side to side, between. the Arabian and Libyan deserts, in the latitude of Heliopolis, about eight miles above the apex of the delta. The other line of borings and pits, twenty-seven in number, was in the parallel of Memphis, where the valley is only five miles broad. . . . " In some instances the excavations were on a large scale for the first sixteen or twenty-four feet, in which cases jars, vases, pots, and a small human figure in burnt clay, a copper knife, and other entire articles were^ dug up ; but when water, soak- ing through from the Nile, was reached, the boring instrument used was too small to allow of more than fragments of works of art being brought up. Pieces of burnt brick and pottery were extracted almost everywhere, and from all depths, even where they sank sixty feet below the surface toward the central parts of the valley. In none of these cases did they get to the bottom of the alluvial soil." * The mode in which these pieces of brick and pot- * Geological Evidences, etc., pp. 34, 36. THE HUMAN RACE. 289 tery are made to testify to the antiquity of man, is by estimating the length of time requisite for their burial at the alleged depth under the sediment de- posited by the overflow of the Nile. "M. Girard, of the French expedition to Egypt, supposed the average rate of the increase of Nile mud in the plain between Assouan and Cairo to be five English inches . in a century. This conclusion, according to Mr. Horner, is very vague, and founded on insufiicient data ; the amount of matter thrown down by the waters in different parts of the plain varying so much that to strike an average with any approach to accuracy must be most difficult. Were we to assume six inches in a century, the burnt brick met with at a depth of sixty feet would be 12,000 years old. "Another fragment of red brick was found by Linant Bey in a boring seventy-two feet deep, being two or three feet below the level of the Medi- terranean, in the parallel of the apex of the delta, 200 metres distant from the river, on the Libyan side of the Rosetta branch. M. Rosiere, in the great French work on Egypt,* has estimated the mean rate of deposit of sediment in the delta at two inches and three lines in a century. Were we to take two and a half inches, a work of art seventy- * Description de I'Egypt (Histoife Naturelle, torn. ii. p. 494). 19 290 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF twb feet deep must have been buried more than 30,000 years ago. But if the boring of Linant Bey was made where an arm of the river had been silted up at a time when the apex of the delta was some- what further south, or more distant from the sea than now, the brick in question might be comparatively very modern." (pp. 37, 38.) It is truly surprising that any author of repute should build such a conclusion on data so imperfect, and involving so many elements of doubt. What assurance have we that these fragments of brick and pottery were actually found in the places alleged ? In Egypt, and throughout the East generally, the native population are skilled in the art of furnishing artificial antiques, and will always produce whatever specimens are supposed to be wanted. Or, conced- ing their genuineness, what evidence is there of a uniform rate of increase in the Nile deposits for so many thousands of years. Lyell himself admits that the Egyptians were " in the habit of inclosing with embankments the areas on which they erected temples, statues, and obelisks, so as to exclude the waters of the Nile," and " Herodotus tells us that in his time those spots from which the Nile waters had been shut out for centuries, appeared sunk, and could be looked down into from the surrounding grounds, which had been raised by the gradual THE HUMAN RACE. Spl accumulation over them of sediment annually thrown down. If the waters at length should break into such depressions, they must at first carry with them into the inclosure much mud, washed from the steep surrounding banks, so that a greater quantity would be deposited in a few years than perhaps in as many centuries on the great plain outside the depressed area where no such disturbing causes intervened." (PP- 38, 39-> It has been suggested, also, that these fragments may have fallen into wells, or into some of the innu- merable fissures into which the soil is rent in the dry season, which are often very deep. The bed of the. Nile itself has often changed its site. " Accord- ing to an ancient tradition (Herod, ii. 99), Menes, . when he founded Memphis, is related to have diverted the course of the Nile, by a dam, about one hundred stadia (12 miles) south of the city, and thus to have dried up the old bed." * • " We know from the testimony of Makrizi, that less than a thou- sand years ago the Nile flowed close by the western limits of Cairo, from which it is now separated by a plain extending to the width of more than a mile. In this plain, therefore, one might now dig to the depth of twenty feet or more, and find plenty of fragments of potterj' and other remains, less than a thousand * Quarterly Rev., 1859, P- 4^°- 292 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF years old. Natural changes in the course of the Nile, similar^o that which we have here mentioned, and some of them, doubtless, much greater have taken place in almost gvery part of its passage through Egypt." * It is further alleged, that burnt brick was un- known in Egypt till the time of the Romans. " If a coin of Trajan or Diocletian had been found in these spots, even Mr. Horner would have been obliged to admit that he had made a fatal mistake in his conclusions ; but a piece of burnt brick, found be- neath the soil, tells the same tale that, a Roman coin would tell under the same circumstances. . . • There is not a single known structure of burnt brick, from one end of Egypt to the other, earlier than the period of the Roman dominion. These ' fragments of burnt brick,' therefore, have been deposited after the Christian era, and, instead of establishing the existence of man in Egypt more than 13,000 years, supply a convincing proof of the worthlessness of Mr. Horner's theory." \ Sir Charles Lyell notices most of these objections to his theory, and attempts to parry the force of them, but with indifferent success. As to the last, he claims, on the authority of Mr. Birch, of the British Museum, that it is erroneous in fact, there * Quarterly Rev., 1859, p. 420. t Ibid. THE HUMAN RACE. 293 being two burnt bricks in the Museum, with inscrip- tions that refer them to the i8th and 19th dynasties (B. C. 1250-1300). But on the main point of the argument, he confesses what is a virtual abandon- ment of it. "This conclusion," according to Mr. Horner, " of an average rate of increase of Nile mud equaling five inches in a century, is very vague, and founded on insufficient data, the amount of matter thrown down by the waters in different parts of the plain varying so much that to strike an average with any approach to accuracy must be most difficult." Again, " The experiments instituted by Mr. Horner, in the hope of obtaining an accurate chronometric scale for testing the thickness of Nile sediment, are not considered, by experienced Egyptologists, to have been satisfactory." (pp. 37, 38.) 2. The next instance which I will notice is that of the human fossil discovered in a ravine near Natchez, Miss. The ravine was caused by the, earthquakes which occurred in the Mississippi val- ley in 1811— 12, and is named, from the bones found in it, the Mammoth Ravine. Mr. Lyell describes the fossil referred to as follows : — " I satisfied myself that the ravine had been considera- bly enlarged and lengthened, a short time before my visit, and it was then freshly undermined, and undergoing con- stant waste. From a clayey deposit, immediately below 294 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF the yellow loam, bones of the Mastodon Okioiicus, a species of megalonyx, bones of the genera Equus, Bos, and others, some of exti^jct and some presumed to be of living species, had been detached, and had fallen to the base of the cliffs. Mingled with the rest, the pelvic bone of a man (05 innominatwn) was obtained by Dr. Dicke- son, of Natchez, in whose collection I saw it. It appeared to be quite in the same state of preservation, and was of the same black color, as the other fossils, and was be- lieved to have come, like them, from a depth of about thirty feet from the surface. In my ' Second Visit to America,' in 1846,* I suggested, as a possible explanation of this association of a human bone with the remains of a mastodon and megalonyx, that the former may possibly have been derived from the vegetable soil at the top of the cliff, whereas the remains of extinct mammalia were dis- lodged from a lower position, and both may have fallen into the same heap, or talus, at the bottom of the ravine. The pelvic bone might, I conceived, have acquired its black color by having lain, for years or centuries, in a dark, superficial, peaty soil, common in that region. I was informed that there were many human bones in old Indian graves in the same district, stained of as black a dye. On suggesting this hypothesis to Colonel Wiley, of Natchez, I found that the same idea had already occurred to his mind. No doubt, had the pelvic bone belonged to any recent mammifer other than man, such a theory would never have been resorted to ; but so long as we have only * Vol. ii. p. 197. THE HUMAN RACE. 295 one isolated case, and are without the testimony of a geologist who was present to behold the bone when still engaged in tlie matrix, and to extract it with his own hands, it is allowable to suspend our judgment as to the high antiquity of the fossil." * Allowable ! And is this science, which from the finding of a bone that confessedly may have come from the soil itself, — possibly from an old Indian grave, — makes a merit of its candor in only not claiming it as demonstration that man lived in the Mississippi valley " more than a thousand centuries ago"? Why did not Sir Charles say as much, at least, as that we are required to suspend judgment ; or, rather, that the case proves nothing at all, except the willingness of the author to find evidence in sup- port of what was, in his mind, alreadji-'a foregone conclusion? 3. The next case adduced for the same purpose is that of the skeleton found near New Orleans. " In one part of the modern delta, near New Orleans, a large excavation has been made for gas works, where a succession of beds, almost wholly made up of vegetable matter, has been passed through, such as we now see forming in the cypress swamps of the neighborhood, where the deciduous cypress (^Taxodium distichum), with its strong and spreading roots, plays a conspicuous — * Geological Evidences, pp. 202, 203. 296 ANTIQJJITY AND UNITY OF part. In this excavation, at the depth of sixteen feet from the surface, beneath four buried forests, superimposed one upon the other, the workmen are stated by Dr. B. Dow- ler, to have found some charcoal and a human skeleton, the cranium of which is said to belong to the aboriginal type of the red Indian race. As the discovery in question had not been made when I saw the excavation in prog- ress at the gas works in 1846, I can not form an opinion as to the value of the chronological calculations which have led Dr. Dowler to ascribe to this skeleton an an- tiquity of 50,000 years." * This case has always been regarded as an im- portant one by the advocates of a high human an- tiquity. Who. has not heard of this skeleton, under the " four buried forests " ! And yet how very uht certain the data ! Mr. Lyell gives them at second or third hand, and admits that he can not judge of the evidence adduced as to the great age of this fossil. In his " Second Visit to the United States" (vol. ii. p. 191), he describes the growth of the cypress swamp, and quotes from a writer in Silliman's Jour- nal (Sec. series, vol. v. p. 17), as follows: "Sec- tions of such filled-up cypress basins, exposed by the changes in the position of the river, exhibit undis- turbed, perfect, and erect stumps, in a series of every elevation with respect to each other, extending from * Geological Evidence, pp. 43, 44. THE HUMAN RACE. 297 high-water mark down to at least twenty-five feet below, measuring out a time when not less than ten fully matured cypress growths must have succeeded each other, the average of whose age could not have been less than four hundred years, thus making an aggregate of 4000 years since the first cypress tree vegetated in the basin. There are also instances where prostrate trunks, of huge dimensions, are found imbedded in the clay, immediately over which are erect stumps of trees numbering no less than 800 concentric layers." But. the skeleton referred to was found under four of these " buried forests," or "cypress growths ; " so that, according to the mode of calculation here proposed, its antiquity is only 1600 years. And we venture to suggest, what to our view is at least equally probable, that if it was sunk in the soft mud of the swamp, or in some ancient grave, it may have reached the place where it .was found even within the time since Europeans settled in the country. Sir Charles Lyell is inclined to think the delta of the Mississippi very ancient. " Although we can not estimate correctly how many years it may have required for the river to bring down from the upper country so large a quantity of earthy matter, — the data for such computation being as yet incomplete, — we may still approximate to a minimum of the 298 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF time which such an operation must have taken, by ascertaining, experimentally, the annual discharge of water by the Mississippi, and the mean annual amount- of solid matter contained in its waters. The lowest estimate of the time required would lead us to assign a high antiquity, amounting to many tens of thousands of years (probably more than 100,000)', to the existing Delta." (p. 43.) But a recent "Report upon the Physics and Hydraulics of the Mississippi River," by Captain A. A. Humphreys, and Lieu- tenant H. L. Abbot, of the United States Topograph- ical Engineers, states that it is apparent " from many considerations, that the mouth of the river was once more than two hundred miles above where it now is, and that it is building out into the gulf new land at the rate of 262 feet every year." * Assuming this as the basis of calculation, we find but little more than 4000 .years requisite for the formation of the Delta from at least one hundred miles above New Orleans. Still another estimate is that of Major Stoddard, in a treatise on the State of Louisiana, f who says, " It is calculated that from 1720, a period of eighty years, the land has advanced fifteen miles into the sea; and there are those who assert that it * N. Am. Rev. for April, 1862. t Quoted in " Campaign to the Rocky Mountains," p. 240, by James Hildreth. THE HUMAN RACE. 299 has advanced three miles within the memory of middle-aged men." These data give an increase of 990 feet in a year, requiring no more than 1160 years for the formation of the entire Delta. These methods of computation are all too uncer- tain to have any value in discussions like this. Many geologists frankly confess that they are wholly unreliable. " Many ingenious calculations," says Page,* "have, no doubt, beeq made to approxi- mate the dates of certain geological events ; but these, it must be confessed, are more amusing than instructive. For example, so many inches of silt are yearly laid down in the Delta of the Mississippi — how many centuries will it have taken to accumulate a thickness of 30, 60, or 100 feet? Again, the ledges of Niagara are wasting at the rate of so many feet per century — how many years must the river have taken to cut its way back from Queenstown to the present falls? . . . For these and similar computations, the student will at once perceive we want the necessary uniformity of factor ; and, until we can bring elements of calculation as exact as those of astronomy to bear on geological chronology, it will be better to regard our ' eras,' and 'epochs,' and ' systems,' as so many terms, indefinite in their * Advanced Text-book of Geology, by David Page, F. G. S. Edinburgh, 1861, p. 385. 300 ANTIQiJITY AND UNITY OF duration, but sufEcient for the liiagnitude of the operations embraced within their limits." 4. Sir Charles Lyell mentions, biit does not dwell upon, an allegeddiscovery of human remains in cer- tain coral reefs on the coast of Florida. These reefs are in a process of growth by which it is esti- mated that the land advances upon the sea at the rate of one foot in a -century. " In a calcareous conglomerate forming part of the above-mentioned series of reefs, and supposed by Agassiz, in accord- ance with his mode of estimating the rate of growth of those reefs, to, be about 10,000 years old, some fossil huinan remains were found by Count Pourta- lis. They consist of jaws and teeth, with some bones of the foot." (Geol. Ev. p. 44.) This case is too indefinite to have any value. Nothing is stated as to the position of these remains, or the reasons for attributing to them an antiquity equal to that of the reef itself. For. aught that appears, they may be of a similar class with the famous Guadaloupe skeleton found in a ledge of shell limestone now in process of formation on the shore of that island, which is now ascertained to be the remains of a Carib Indian killed in battle about two hundred years ago.* 5. But the case most relied on to prove the re- * Dana's Manual of Geology, p. 580. THE HUMAN RACE. . 30I mote antiquity of man on earth appears to be that of the discovery of flint implements, constructed by man, in certain beds of river drift, accompanied by the remains of ancient animals in the valley of the Somme, in Picardy, France. Chalk- The above diagram will aid us in comprehending the phenomena of this valley. " It is situated geo- logically in a region of white chalk, with flints, the strata of which are neaj-ly horizontal. The chalk hills which bound the valley are almost everywhere between 200 and 300 feet in height. On ascending to that elevation, we find ourselves on an extensive table-land, in which there are slight elevations and depressions. The white chalk itself is scarcely ever exposed at the surface on this plateau, although seen on the slopes of the hills as at a and b. The general surface of the upland region is covered continuously for miles in every direction by loam or brick earth (5), about five feet thick, devoid of fossils. To the wide extent of this loam the soil of Picardy chiefly owes its great fertility. Here and there we also observe on the chalk outlying patches of tertiary sand and clay (6) , with eocene fossils, the remnants 302 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF of a formation once more extensive, and which probably once spread in one continuous mass over the chalk, before the present system of valleys had begun to be shaped out." (Geol. Ev. p. io6.) In the bottom of the valley, which has an average width of one mile, there is a bed of gravel (i) from three to fourteen feet thick, and upon this, separated by a thin layer of impervious clay, a growth of peat (2) from ten to thirty feet in depth, through which the river now flows (c) . Upon the sides of the val- ley (3 and 4) are beds of gravel, resembling an- cient river banks, the lower one but little above the peat, the upper from eighty to a hundred feet higher. In these gravel beds are found the bones of numer- ous animals of races now extinct, such as the ele- phant, the rhinoceros, the horse, ox, deer, tiger, hyena, and others, and, mingled with these, various tools of flint, supposed to have been.used for hatchets, spear-heads, knives, etc. The geological history of this valley is assumed to have been as follows : Originall^f the chalk forma- tion was continuous, filling the entire space. In some way a stream of water began to flow across this formation, by which the chalk was gradually worn away to the level of the upper gravel beds (4) , and of a width equal to the present breadth of the valley at that level. Here the process was for a THE HUMAN RACE. 3O3 time arrested, and the gravel bed, formed of the in- soluble materials not carried away, settled itself in the then bottom of the valley, reaching, of course, from side to side. During this period lived and died the anirpals above named, and their remains were mingled and imbedded in the alluvium of the stream. At the same time, some of the primitive race of men lived there, who, not knowing the use of iron, fashioned for themselves rude instruments out of the flints once contained in the chalk forma- tion, which they used for defense, and hunting, and for digging canoes, building huts, and the like; which implements, also, as they became worn or lost, were buried in the earth, along with the re- mains of the animals that perished there. After a long period, owing, probably, to an elevation of the land, the process of washing away was resumed, and the valley was further excavated to the level of the lower gravel beds (3), leaving behind the traces of the earlier alluvium, as we now find them. Then a like period of repose, followed by similar results, gave rise to the lower beds. Still another elevation caused a further scooping out of the valley to its present depth, leaving it filled with the bottom bed of gravel, which still remains. Upon this have since accumulated the vegetable remains which have cov- ered it with a bed of peat in some places more than thirty feet in thickness. 304 ANTIQJJITY AND UNITY OF In the facts and theory thus succinctly stated are found the data on which is based the remote an- tiquity of our race. The argument is twofold ; first, from the intermixture of the flint implements with the .animal remains, showing that the men who fashioned and used the former were contemporaneous with the latter, and secondly, from the immense periods of time necessary to thS geological changes described. We may consider these two classes of proof separately. First : does the association of human remains with those of animals now extinct, prove that they ex- isted contemporaneously in a former geological period? On this point I can not claim to advance an independent opinion of my own of any value, neither have I room for the details of this argument. I shall content myself with citing the testimony of savants who, if any, are competent to speak con^ cerning it, and whose names are at least equal in weight with those of any who have spoken on the other side. Professor H. D. Rogers sums up the evidence in reference, to this question as follows : — " The argument which we erect upon all these manifest indications of turbulent action in the waters which left this very promiscuous, deposit is, that by pointing to an agency — an incursion, we mean, of the by no means dis- THE HUMAN RACE. 305 tant ocean — perfectly capable of invading the dry land within historic times, and mixing up its more recent sur- face objects with previously buried relics of an earlier or pre-historic epoch, we are debarred from assuming that the two classes of tnonuments were coeval, and that from the imputed age of the one we are to infer the an- tiquity of the other. This is what those do who view all the surface drifts as but one formation, pointing to but one date, calling it the Diluvium. We pray the reader to observe that it is far from our meaning here that we can disprove the contemporaneousness of the flint-shaping men and the great antediluvian quadrupeds. We only assert, but assert confidently, that the fhenom.ena utterly fail to frove it. The burden of the case is with those who, treating the Diluvium as one and indivisible in the mode of formation, and in date, accept the mere fact of present association in it as evidence of co-existence in time. If, therefore, it can be shown, on an interpretation of geology in accordance with sound physical principles, that a redressing of the deposit m,ay have taken place, the verdict must be, that this co-existence in time is not estab- lished, and the antediluvian antiquity of man must be cast out of the high court of science with a verdict of Not Proven'' * But it is not necessary to insist upon this negative conclusion. Let it be conceded that man was con- temporaneous with those ancient quadrupeds, the * Blackwood's Mag., Oct., i860, p. 430, Am. ed. 20 306 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF question of their actual date remains still undeter- mined. Says a writer in the Westminster RdView for April, 1863, who is evidently an able geologist and an ardent advocate of the doctrine of man's remote antiquity, — "_ Regarding the contemporaneousness of man with the great extinct Pachyderms as fully proved by the facts and reasonings already adduced, we have now to inquire how this contemporaneousness is to be accounted for ; whether by affirming the prolonged existence of these mammals into the human period, as ordinarily understood, or by antedating the commencement of the human period so as to place it in some part of what has been designated the Post-pliocene, as distinguished from the ' Recent epoch. The acceptance of the former solution might be justified by the unquestionable fact that the existence of the £os Primogenius was prolonged even into the historic period, and seems favored by the preservation of the carcasses of the mammoth and rhinoceros. But it is obviously not required by either of these facts ; since many species of animals, whose first introduction dates much further back in geological time, are at present contemporaneous with man ; and carcasses once frozen up might be preserved for thousands of years as well as for hundreds, for millions as well as for thousands." That is, the mere fact that man was contempo- rary with those extinct animal tribes proves nothing as to his antiquity. They may have come down to THE HUMAN RACE. 307 his day, or he may have begun to b^ in theirs ; and the bare juxtaposition of their remains in a geologi- cal formation can not tell us which. Professor Rogers is very explicit to the same effect : — " Let us admit that the wrought flints are truly con- temporaneous w^ith the animals whose bones lie side by side with them, and that the deposit imbedding both is the general Diluvium' or mammalian drift, do these facts determine the flints to have been fashioned in an age pre- ceding the usually assigned date of the birth of man ? Logically, it must be conceded they do not ; for, inde- pendent of the absence or presence of these or other ves- tiges of man in the Diluvium, its antiquity, or relation to historic time, is obviously not ascertainable. Apart from human relics in, or over, or under the drift, how can we link it on to historic time at all ? Before the flint imple- ments were found in this superficial formation, or so long as the traces of man were known only in deposits later than the Diluvium, it was deemed to belong to an age antecedent to the creation of man, and had, therefore, a relatively high antiquity assigned to it ; but now, granting that the relics of man have been authenticated as buried in it, is it sound reasoning, we would' ask, to infer for these relics the very antiquity which was only attributable to the Diluvium because it was believed destitute of all such human vestiges.? The Diluvium of the geologists has, since the illustrious Cuvier, been always looked upon a§ 3o8 ANTIQjriTY AND UNITY OF something very ancient, simply because he and his suc- cessors, finding it replete with the remains of huge land mammals no longer living, never succeeded in detecting in it a solitary bone or tooth of any human being, nor indeed of anything indicative of man's existence ; but now that things indicative of man have been found, it is surely illogical, and a begging of the very question itself, to impute an age incompatible with his then existing. " As matters now stand, is it not as natural to infer the relative recency of the extinct Etefhas Primogenius, and the other mammals of the Diluvium, fro'm the co-exist- ence of the works of man with them, on the ground that the human is the living and the modern race, as it is to deduce the antiquity of man from the once erroneously assumed greater age of those animals? I would repeat, then, that a specially remote age is not attributable to the flint-carrying men of the Diluvium, simply because it is the Diluvium or the mammoth-imbedding gravel which contains them. If the association with these extinct ani- mals does intimate a long pre-historic antiquity, the evi- dences of this are to be sought in some of the other attendant phenomena." * We come, then, to the second argument derived from these alleged " attendant phenomena," viz., the geological changes recorded in the features of the Somme valley, and the immense {)eriods of time which they must have required. * Blackwood's Mag., Oct., i860, pp. 428-431. THE HUMAN RACE. 309 The most recent fact is the deposit of the peat-bed in the bottom of the valley. (See the diagram, p. 301.) " Careful observations," says Sir Charles Lyell, " have not been made with a view of calcu- lating, the minimum of time which the accumulation of so dense a mass of vegetable matter must have taken. A foot in thickness of highly compressed peat, such as is sometimes reached in the bottom of the bogs, is obviously the equivalent in time of a much greater, thickness of peat of spongy and loose texture, found near the surface. The workmen who cut peat, or dredge it up from the bottom of swamps and ponds, declare that, in the course of their lives, none of the hollows which they have found, or caused by extracting peat, have ever been refilled, even to a small extent. They deny, there- fore, that the peat grows. This, as M. Boucher de Perthes observes, is a mistake ; but it implies that the increase in one generation is not very apprecia- ble by the unscientific. "The antiquary finds near the surface Gallo- Roman remains, and, still deeper, Celtic weapons of the stone period. But the depth at which Roman woirks of art occur varies in different places, and is no sure test of age, because in some parts of the swamps, especially near the river, the peat is often so fluid that heavy substances may sink through it, 3IO ANTIQyiTY AND UNITY OF carried down by their own gravity. In one case, however, M. Boucher de Perthes observed several large flat dishes of Roman pottery lying in a hori- zontal position in the peat, the shape of which must have prevented them from sinking or penetrating through the underlying peat. Allowing about four- teen centuries for the growth of the superincumbent vegetable matter, he calculated that the thickness gained in a hundred years would be no more than three French centimetres (1.17 inches). This rate of increase would demand many tens of thousands of years (30,000) for the formation of the entire thickness of thirty feet." — Geolog. Evid., pp. no, III. But the formation of the peat could not have com- menced till after the process of excavating the val- ley was completed. The gravel bed, nejit above it, was carried away, leaving only the small portions, 3,3. (See diagram.) Previous to this was the for- mation of that bed ; still further back, the denudation of the upper gravel bed, 4, and the wearing away of the rock eighty feet or more, between it and 3 ; and lastly, the.formation of the upper bed with its inclosed bones and flint implements — a series of events involving an ascending scale of time into the past, the lower step of which was not less than 30,000 years, and each higher one possibly still THE HUMAN RACE. 3II longer. " No one," says the writer before quoted (p. 306), "who gives to these considerations their due weight, can hesitate in admitting that they carry back the origin of man into that dim remoteness in which air account -of time is lost." * It is to be observed, that this computation assumes that the only agencies which have been concerned in producing the phenomena of this valley, are those that now exist, both in kind and degree of activity. Sir Cliarles Lyell, and those who agree with him in his views on this subject, are, in geologi- cal parlance, Uniformitarians;\ and his reasonings throughout, whether having relation to the filling of river deltas, the growth of peat, the denudation of valleys, and the like, are all based upon this assumption as a first principle of geological science. * Westm. Rev., April, 1863, p. 281. t Professor Rogers describes the two schools of geologists thus : " The Uniformitarian School, or, as sometimes desig- nated, ^uzetists, who, interpreting the past changes in the earth's surface by the natural forces, especially the gentler ones, now in operation, overlook the more energetic and promptly acting ones ; the other, the School of the Catastrophists, perhaps more fitly termed the Paroxysmists, who, blind in the opposite eye, see only the most vehement energies of nature, the earthquake and the inundation, Snd take no account of the softer but unceasingly efficient agencies which gradually depress and lift the land, or silently erode and reconstruct it." — Blackw. Mag., Oct., i860, P- 432- 312 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF Such assumption, however, is not .to be conceded without question. Even if the growth of peat by- vegetable deposit, under the present conditions of the surrounding country, is as slow as alleged, what does this prove as to its rate at a former period, when the land was covered with forests and dense un- dergrowths, and when, being so covered, its cli- matal conditions probably differed widely from those of the present time ? So with the formation of the valley; what evidence is there that it was ever caused, by the action of running water at all, and not by those great subterranean powers to which both mountain ranges and valleys so generally owe their origin, becoming the bed of the Somme, not because excavated by it, but because previously ex- isting, and therefore determining the direction of the flow of the surface waters of that district? But without multiplying these inquiries, which so readily suggest themselves even to persons unskilled in geological speculations, let us listen to some who are worthy to speak authoritatively on the subject. Says' the late President Hitchcock,* " The in- crease of peat varies so much, under difFerefit cir- cumstances, that it is of no use to attempt to ascer- tain its rate of growth. On the continent of Eu- rope it is stated to have gained seven feet in -thirty * Elem. Geology, p. 222. THE HUMAN RACE. 313 years. — Macculloch's Sys. of Geology, vol. ii. P- 344-" Professor J. Duns, of New College, Edinburgh, relates, on the authority of Captain F. L. N. Thomas, that in the Hebrides peat has accumulated over some of the ancient pagan monuments to the depth of six feet in looo years.* As to the origin of the Somme valley, Professor Duns says, "Taking the depths of the valley as given above, are we warranted to conclude that the Somme once ran at the level of the higher gravels, and that it has cut a path for itself to its present depths? I believe that other and more powerful agencies than the erosive power of running water have been at work in that part of France. Yet this question might be answered in the affirmative, and its value, as favorable to Sir Charles Lyell's views of the antiquity of man, destroyed by an appeal to facts for whose truth he himself is the voucher." Professor D. then refers to the facts adduced in Lyell's " Principles of Geology," in regard to the ero- sive power of running water, among which is the following : — " At the western base of yEtna, a current of lava, de- scending from near the summit of the great volcano, has flowed to the distance of five or six miles, and diea reached * Science and Christian Thought, p. 249. ^14 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF the alluvial plain of the Simeto, the largest of the Sicilian livers, which skirts the base of ^tna, dnd falls into the sea a few miles south of Catania. The lava entered the river about three miles above the town of Adano, and not only occupied its channel for some distance, but, crossing to the opposite side of the valley, accumulated there in a rocky mass. Gemmellaro gives the year 1603 as the date of the eruption. ... In the course, therefore, of about two centuries, the Simeto has eroded a passage from fifty to several hundred feet wide, and in some parts from forty to fifty feet deep. The portion of lava cut through is in no part porous or scoriaceous, but consists of a homogeneous mass of hard blue rock, somewhat inferior in weight to ordinary basalt, and containing crystals of olivine and glassy felspar. The general declivity of this part of the bed of the Simeto is not considerable. . . . The external forms of the hard blue lava are as massive as any of the most ancient trap rocks of Scotland." " From this point of view, then," remarks Profess- or Duns, " the question comes to be a very simple one. If the. Simeto has in two hundred years cut a ravine, through hard volcanic rock, a hundred feet wide and fifty feet deep, how long would the Somme require to excavate its present valley in the soft chalk rocks over which it runs? In the latter case, we have not only hundreds, but thousands, of years at our disposal. It is, however, most likely that the explanation of the formation of the Somme val- THE HUMAN RACE. 315 ley Is to be found in connection with other natural forces." * Professor Duns quotes also from a paper by Sir Roderick. Murchison, "On the Distribution of the Flint Drifts of the South-east of England," from which I take the following paragraphs : — " No analogy of tidal or fluviatile action can explain either the condition or position of the debris and unrolled flints and bones. On the contrary, by referring their dis- tribution to those great oscillations and ruptures by which the earth's surface has been so powerfully affected in former times, we may well imagine how the large area under consideration was suddenly broken up and sub- merged. This hypothesis seems to me to be an appeal to a vera causa commensurate with the results. As re- spects the south-east of England,f the operations must have been modern, in a geological sense. " Alluding to geologists who ' rank all ancient geologi- cal phenomena in the category of existing causation,' Sir R. Murchison says, ' The endeavor to refer all former fractures of the strata, as well as their overthrow on a great scale, as in the Alps, to causes of no greater intensity of action than those which now prevail, is in opposition to the observations I have made in every mountain chain as well as in the modest cliffs of Brighton and Dover.' The uniformitarian theory, so strongly condemned here, is that » Science and Christian Thought, p. 229. t The same remark must appljr to the opposite coast of France, neparated from it only by the Straits of Dover. 3l6 ANTIQpiTY AND UNITY OF which Sir Charles Lyell has applied throughout his dis- cussions on this question. He has assigned to Norway * a mean rate of continuous vertical elevation of two and a half feet in a century,' and assumed this as the standard rate of elevation in most other quarters. But if- anything is sure in physical geology, the variable intensity of these agencies is. Indeed, this theory of uniform intensity is contradicted at every point. Many circumstances, for example, influence the rate at which mud is deposited in lakes, in river-courses, and in estuaries. The growth of peat depends mucli on climatal conditions, which vary in different degrees of latitude. Tlien what so capricious and so variable in its intensity as the force whicli makes itself known in the rocking earthquake, or as that which finds expression in the volcanic eruption.'' Even the introduction and disappearance of zoological species, of which so much has recently been made, not only refuse to give that testimony in favor of uniformitarian views, so anxiously sought from them, but bear witness to facts of an entirely different kind. When, then, we sum up the strongest points in favor of an antiquity for man far more remote than is assigned to him in the Word of God, I think the conclusion is warranted, if not irresistible, that they signally fail to cast distrust on the biblical histori- cal record." * Professor Wilson, in his " Pre-historic Man " (vol. i. p. 50), after quoting Sir Charles Lyell on the flint implements and weapons at Abbeville and Amiens, adds, — * Science and Christian Thought, pp. 276, seq. THE HUMAN RACE. 317 " Subsequent investigation by experienced geologists has somewhat modified the ideas here expressed. Pro- fessor J. S. Henslow, after minute observations, comes to the conclusion that ' no one can doubt the evidence to be in favor of a cataclysmic action, and rapid deposition of the lower and larger portion of the gravel at the spot near St. Acheul, where the hatchets occur.' Neither does he suppose that the facts witnessed by him indicate, of ne- cessity, that the bones of extinct mammals, found along- side of the flint implements, were contemporary with the unskilled workmen by whom these were wrought ; or that the evidence carries man altogether out of the range of human history. The fossil bones and the human imple- ments are mingled in a gravel formed as a re-disposition by fresh water 'agency out of older materials, probably belonging to very different periods, though the most modern of them undoubtedly pertain to a period long prior to the oldest dates of Gaulish history." — Athenceum, Oct. 20, 1869, p. 5 1 6. M. Elie de Beaumont, the distinguished French savant, concurs in this view. At a meeting of a special commission of naturalists and geologists, French and English, called to examine a human tooth and jaw found in the flint beds at Moulin Quignon, near Abbeville, M. Beaumont " made a statement so positive and so unexpected as, to judge by the contemporary reports, produced an unusual ^nd almost electric sensation on the scientific audi- 3l8 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF tory. His opinion, or decision, was to this effect - that the Moulin Quignon beds are not ' diluvium, they are not even alluvia, deposited by the en croachments of rivers on their banks, but are sim ply composed of washed soil deposited on the flanks of the valley by excessive falls of rain," such as may be supposed to have occurred excep- tionally once or twice in a thousand years. A week later, this geologist reiterated his opinion to the same illustrious assembly, adding that the age of this formation belongs, in his opinion, to the stone period, or is analogous lo that of the peat mosses, and the Swiss lake habitations." — Edinb. Rev., July, 1863, p. 138. Enough, then, I trust, has been said to show that the facts presented us by the Somme valley do not bear out the conclusions derived from them in regard to tlje remote antiquity of man on earth. Neither the data themselves, nor the reasoning employed, are to be accepted without question. We dismiss the case, therefore, by citing the fol- lowing judicious and weighty language of Profess- or Rogers : — "To the interrogation, How far are we entitled to attribute a high antiquity to these earliest phys- ical records of mankind, from the nature of the containing and oyerlying ' sedimentary deposits? THE HUMAN RACK. 319 my response again is, that as the two schools of geologists now named differ widely in their trans- lation of geologic time of all phenomena of the kind here described, this question . . . does not admit, in the present state of the science, of a s-pecific or quantitative answer, "In conclusion, then, of the whole inquiry, con- densing into one expression my answer to the general question whether a remote pre-historic an- tiquity for the human race has been established from the recent discovery of specimens of man's handiwork in the so-called Diluvium, I maintain that it is not proven, — by no means asserting that it can be disproved, but insisting simply that it remains Not Proven." — Blackw. Mag., Oct., i860, p. 438. The valley of the Somme is confessedly the most important locality in which human relics have been found indicative of a high human antiquity. I shall not, therefore, go into an examination of other simi- lar localities in France, Sicily, and elsewhere, nor of the "bone caverns" in England, Belgium, etc. To the evidence they furnish, the same arguments apply as those which have now been advanced ; in- deed, the matured opinions of Professor Rogers and others, which we have cited, were professedly given in view of all the facts presented by them. 320 ANTIQpiTY AND UNITY OF 6. There is another class of facts which is often adduced for the same purpose as the preceding, derived from extensive human remains found in peat beds, in shell mounds, or ancient rubbish heaps, and in the lakes of Switzerland, and other parts of Europe. » These peat beds in " the Danish islands are from ten to thirty feet deep; and contain trunks of firs, oaks, and birches, of great size, and of species not now growing in that country. There are found in them flint, bronze, and iron implements, with the bones of man and the various domestic animals. The refuse mounds consist mostl)' of collections of oyster and clam shells, mingled with bones of quad- rupeds, birds, and fish, flint knives, hatchets, and arrows, fragments of pottery, etc. They are called by the Danes kjokken-modding, i. e., kitchen refuse heaps, composed as they are so largely of the remains of animals used for food. The relics found in the lakes indicate the former ex- istence of villages built upon piles in the shallow waters. All these traces of man prove the existence of tribes of a pre-historic people inhabiting the greater part of Europe, the memorials of which are other- wise lost in remote antiquity. A careful study of these remains, has led investigators to divide them THE HUMAN RACE. 32 1 into three classes, according to the periods in which they are supposed to have lived, called respectively the stone, the bronze, and the iron age, from the materials and workmanship of the implements then in use. The question with which we are now interested re- lates to the time when these primitive people ex- isted. Sir Charles Lyell, after summing up the evidence on this point, and showing that the three ages were of very unequal antiquity, pronounces all the calculations hitherto made by archieologists and geologists of merit respecting it, " as being tenta- tive," and " a rough approximation to the truth." He adds, "They have led to the assignment of 4000 and 7000 years before our time as the lowest antiquity which can be ascribed to certain events and monuments ; but much collateral evidence will be required to confirm- these estimates, and to decide whether the number of centuries has been under or over rated." — Geol. Evid., p. 273. M. Frederic Troyon, in his work entitled " Ha- bitations Lacustres des Temps Anciens et Mo- dernes," takes care to say, near the commencement of the volume, -I' To avoid all mistake, it is well to be understood that the stone age [the oldest of all] , of which we find remains in the lakes and tombs, is 21 322 ANTIQJTITY AND UNITY OF considered in this work as posterior to the deluge mentioned by Moses." * But the most important fact relating to this primi- tive population of Europe is, that whatever be the exact date at wTiich they lived, they belonged to the Celtic race. Dr. Keller, than whom there is no higher authority on the subject, remarks as fol- lows : — " It is very evident that the earliest founders came into Middle Europe as a pastoral people, and possessed the most important domestic animals, such as the dog, the cow, the sheep, the goat, and the horse.. All these ani- mals have their origin not in Europe, but in Asia, and were brought here by the settlers through all their long wanderings from the east. They understood agriculture, and cultivated grains (wheat and barley), also flax — plants which, in like manner, they did not meet with in Europe, but brought with them out of Asia, or received them by commerce from the south." (p. 310.) " It has already been remarked, that on comparing the implements of stone and bronze from the lake dwellings with those of the Swiss museums, some of which were found in graves and tumuli, and others met with by chance in the fields, we are not able to discover the smallest dif- ference, either in material, form, or ornamentation, and we consequently consider ourselves authorized in ascrib- * Quoted in Appendix to " The Lake Dwellings," by Dr. Kel- ler, p. 14. THE HUMAN RACE. 323 ing all these specimens, which appear to have come from the same factories to the industry of one and the same people. The identity of the inhabitants of the main land and those of the lake dwellings appears still more striking if we compare the settlements founded by both classes of the" people as well as their whole arrangement." (p. 311.) " In the very same graves and tumuli, implements of stone and bone, precisely alike in form, have been found lying together, and the same remark will apply in other graves to implements of bronze and iron. The products of the jTotter's art, also, are seen with all their character- istic peculiarities, through all the stages of their develop- ment, and form links in the outward phenomena of the different periods." (p. 312.) " Knowing that history makes no mention of any other people but the Celts; who, in the very earliest ages, pos- sessed the middle of Europe, and, in the later times, received their civilization from the Romans, we believe that it would be contrary to all the facts adduced, to arrive at any conclusion but this — that the builders of the lake dwellings were a branch of the Celtic population of Swit- zerland, but that the earlier settlements belong to the pre- historic period, and had already fallen into decay before the Celts took their place in the history of Europe." (P- 313-)* As to who the people of these earlier' settlements * The Lake Dwellings of Switzerland and other Parts of Eu- rope, by Dr. Ferdinand Keller, Pres. Antiq. Assoc, of Zurich. Translated by John Edward Lee, F. S. A., F. G. S., etc. 324 ANTIQJTITy AND DNITY OF were, Dr. Keller remarks, in a section entitled " Origin and Age of the Iron Implements of Marin," " We can not refrain from once more repeating what we have stated in the previous parts of this volume. There can be no doubt that from the earliest ages the above mentioned countr}^ and also the land, beyond the Jura, was inhabited by races of a Celtic origin." (p. 262.) * I am not aware that this author has assigned, even by conjecture, any specific date to the relics which he describes, other than " a very high an- tiquity." (p. 292'.) . M. Troyon's opinion is that " the population of the first period were a primitive people, perhaps be- longing to a P*innish or Iberian race, which came out of Asia several thousand years before our era, and, following the course of the Rhone, or the Rhine, wandered into the valleys of the Alps." f If these opinions may be accepted, — and I know of none more probable, or freer from objections, — they go to confirm, rather than to weaken, the scriptural chronology as to the antiquity of man. These prim- itive people were a branch of the great Indo-Eu- ropean, family, the origin of which was in Asia, as was that of the domestic animals they brought with them. As to the " several thousand years before * Appendix N. 't Appendix to Lake Dwellings, p. 395. THE HUMAN RACE. 325 our era," one or two thousand are sufficient to meet all the exigencies of the case. In view, then, of all the facts adduced by geology, we are warranted, I think, in the following definite conclusion, viz., that in order to account for every case of the existence of human relics in Western Europe, whether bones, implements, or dwellings, whether in caves or French drift, we do not need an antiquity of more than six or eight centuries before Christ, while we may go back twenty cen- turies and be still more than a thousand years distant from the Noachian deluge — a time sufficient to permit man to wander a- long way, and do a great many things. APPENDIX. A. Page 25. CHRONOLOGY OF BUNSEN. The conception of Bunsen's work is a vast one. " Egypt's Place in Universal History ! " Egypt ! that land of pyra'mids ; whose kings are enumerated in history under thirty distinct dynasties ; whose monuments ante- date the oldest historic records ; whose language has con- sumed the lives of some of the greatest scholars ; the source whence the wisest of the ancient Greeks drew their wisdom ; whose empire had extended from the Nile to the Indus, before Greece and Rome had even a name ! And can Egypfs place in history be determined and described? Bunsen has attempted it. He has placed himself - on her ancient monuments, and surveyed the immense periods of her historic existence, and, as -he thinks, ascertained her "place" in the history of man. To his own great industiy and learning he has joined that of all the learned Egyptologers from ChampoUion to Lepsius ; in short, what human learning and industry could do to fix Egypfs place in history, it would seem has been done by Bunsen in these five volumes. 327 328 APPENDIX, A. It is with his system — that of chronology — that we are now concerned. We shall give that system, and the principal facts and reasons on which it rests, as near as we can, in the author's own words. In general, we think these facts and reasons need only to be stated in orddr to be discarded as insufficient for the basis of such superstructure : — " SYNOPSIS OF THE FOUR AGES OF THE WORLD. " First Age of the World. "Ancient Antediluvian History — from the Creation to the Flood ; Primitive Formation of Language ; and the Beginning of the Formation of Mythology. "The Historical Primitive World (I., II., III.). (1-10,000 Year of Man; 20,000-10,000 B. C). " First Period (I.). — Formation and Deposit of Sinism (20,000-15,000 B. C). " Primitive language, spoken with rising or falling cadence — elucidated by gesture — accompanied by pure pictorial writing; every syllable a word, every word a full substantive, one repre- sentable by a picture. " Deposit of this language in Northern China (Shensi), in the country of the source of the Houngho-Sinisra. The earliest po- larization of religious consciousness : Kosmos or Universe, and the Soul of Personality. Objective worship, the firmament; sub- jective worship, the soul of parents, or the manifestation of divine in the family. " Second Period of the World (11.) Formation and Deposit of Primitive Turanism : The eastern polarization of Sinism "(15.000-14,000 B. C). " Pure agglutinative language : formation of polysyllabic words by means of unity of accent (word accent). " Origin of particles, words no longer substantive and full, but CHRONOLOGY OF BUNSEN. 329 denoting the mutual relation of persons and things ; finally, of complete parts of speech. " Deposit of this stage of formation in Thibet (Botya -lan- guage). " Germ of mythology in substantiation of inanimate things and of properties. " Third Period (III.). — Formation and Deposit of Kkamism and the Flood: Western polarization of Sinism (14,000-11,000 B. C). "Formation of stems into roots producing derivative words ; complete parts of speech beyond the distinction between full words (nouns, verbs, and adjectives) and formative words (14,000). "Declensions and conjugations with affixes and endings; stage of the Egyptian (13,000). " Commencement of symbolical Hieroglyphics, i. e., picture writing; but without the introduction of the phonetic element or designation of sound (12,000). ."Deposit of this language in Egypt, owing to the earliest immigration of West Asiatic primitive Semites. Invention of, or advancement in, hieroglyphic signs : primitive syllabarium (11,000). "The Flood. — Convulsion in Northern Asia. Emigration of the Aryans out of the country of the sources of the Oxus (Gihon) and Jaxartes, and of the Semites out of the country of the sources of the Euphrates and Tigris (11,000-105000). " Second Age of the World. "Ancient Postdiluvian History — from the Emigration after the Flood down to Abraham in Mesopotamia. Formation of the historical tribes and empires of Asia (10,000-2878 B. C.)." * We will not occupy space with the details of this » Egypt's Place in Universal History, vol. iv. pp. 485-497. 330 APPENDIX, A. " age." Suffice it to say, the- author exhibits the same wonderful knowledge in regard to the history of the " Egyptian deposit " from 10,000 down to 4000 B, C, as in reference to the preceding age. He gives definite Hates for numerous events in the civil and religious his- tory, e. g, : — B. c. The formation of Osirism, ..... 10,000 Close of the republican period, . . . 9,086 Duration of the sacerdotal kings, according to Manetho, 1855 years ; end of the sacerdotal kings, . . 7,231 Beginning of hereditary kings in Lower Egypt, . . 5,413 Duration of them according to Manetho, 1790 years ; end, . . ' . . . . . 3,624 Perfect formative language, .... 4,000 . Menes, the first king of the first dynasty, . . . 3,623 Abraham, ...... 2,878 The exodus, ....... 1,320 It is safe to say, in general, that such a mass of pure assumption as our author has here put forth is nowhere else to be found in any professedly historical or chron- ological work. He frequently says, "According to Manetho," while Manfftho affords not the least support for the declaration put forth on his authority. The following sentences are valuable, as showing our author's manner of assuming his premises and drawing his conclusions, as well as exhibiting a cardinal principle of his work : — "B«tifwefind, almost four thousand years before our era, a mighty empire possessing organic members of a very ancient type, a peculiar virritten character and national art and science. CHRONOLOGY OF BUNSEN. 33 1 we must admit that it required thousands of years to bnng them to maturity in the valley of the Nile. If, again, its language be shown to be a deposit of Asiatic, and by no means the oldest formation, it will be admitted upon reflection to be a sober con- clusion that we require some twenty thousand years to explain the beginnings of the development of man, which have been only once violently interrupted in its primeval birthplace." (Vol. iv. p. 21.) " The question as to the place of Egypt, in historical chro- nology, is thus at once changed to that of its place in the whole development of man. We pass out of the domains of chro- nology and history into that of pure philosophy." (Vol. iv. p. 22.) We have here a statement of a fundamental principle of the author — a principle by which he is guided, and which underlies his whole work. It is the founding of a system of chronology on the principles of philosophy. We are fond of philosophy when it is sound and in its place ; and we do not assert that it has no connection with chronology. When the materials for a strict his- torical chronology do not exist, we have no objections to philosophy doing her utmost to elucidate and present probable truth. But the danger is, that she will transcend the limits of her just domain. This we think she has done under the guidance of Bunsen. She magnifies the difficulties arising from the received chronology of Bible history, and then resorts to expedients that destroy the. truthfulness of that history. Certainly in such a work as this she should be watched, and her supposed facts and her expedients be severely scrutinized. If our faith in Bible history is to be undermined by philosophy,. let us know what is proposed in its place. 332 APPENDIX, A. The principal facts on which the author rests his sys- tem, and the mode of argumentation, are foreshadowed in the following extracts : — " Philosophy has discovered the existence of two vast branches of cognate organic languages, the Semitic and Iranian. The stage anterior to Semism is Khamism. This antecedent stage is antediluvian. People history is postdiluvian. We find in it, thousands of years before Menes, first of all a world-wide empi^p — the realm of Nimrod, the Kushite, . . . which probably embraced Egypt as well as Western Asia, the district of the Euphrates and Tigris. " If we connect these views with the historical development before us, we shall find, in the first place, ancient history divided into antediluvian and postdiluvian. For the former we require ten thousand years, which we can prove proximately to be the extent of the latter period before Christ." (Vol. iv. p. 24.) " The legends of the classics about colonies from Egypt, in so far as they have any historical foundation, are explainable, just as are the expressions in the Bible that Kanaan, who was driven back out of Lower Egypt, was the son of Kham." * (Vol. iv. " I must, on the other hand, repudiate all historical connec- tion between the Helleno-Italic mythology and the Indians, or even their patriarchs, the Iranians and Bactrians." (Vol. iv. P- 31O " We start, therefore, with this premise, that in the Egyptian we have obtained a fixed chronological point, and, in fact, the highest in general history. In it we find a perfectly formed lan- guage which we can prove to have been in existence about the middle of the fourth millennium B. C. We have, moreover, the means of determining approximately the epoch of the beginnings of regal government immediately before Menes. We therefore * A reference to the expulsion of the Shepherds from Egypt. CHRONOLOGY OF BUNSEN. 333 arrive at the very threshold of the foundation of language." (Vol. iv. p. 45.) With regard to " the premise" here named, with which the author starts, we simply remark here, that we do not admit it. Nor do we admit the existence of the " per- fectly formed language " which he says he " can prove to have existed in the middle of the fourth millennium B; C." See remarks on this point below. " The result of criticism goes to prove, however, that we can not compute, by the ordinarily received chronology, the interval between the above starting-point of the present life of man and the oldest conquests in Asia, — those of Nimrod, — or the interval between them both and Abraham, the first historical personage in the Semitic reminiscences. " On the other hand, the period of twenty-one thousand years, which has been adopted by all the great astronomers of the day, for the deviation of the earth's axis, brings us to two resting- places. The consequence of the deviation is a change of the proportion of the cold and heat at the poles, the greatest of which gives eight days more cold or heat. "At' the present time, in the northern temperate zone, spring and summer are seven days longer than autumn and winter; in the southern hemisphere, consequently, the proportion is reversed. " In the year 1248 this favorable change in our hemisphere had reached its maximum, namely, eight days more *armth, and therefore the same number of days less cold. Consequently, after a gradual decrease during five thousand two hundred and fifty years, in the year 6498, the two seasons will be in equilibrio, but in the year 11,748 (five thousand two hundred and fifty years more) the hot period will have reached its lowest point. "Now, if we calculate backward five thousand two hundred and fifty years from 124S, we shall find that in the year 4002 334 APPENDIX, A. B. C. the two seasons must have been in equilibrio fti our hemi- sphere. In the year 9252 B. C. the cold season had attained its maximum. The opposite or most favorable division of heat and cold took place, therefore, in the year 19,752 B. C. "This epoch explains very simply the reason why the north pole is surrounded with perpetual ice only from about the seven- tieth degree, when at the south pole it is found at the sixty-fifth. In other words, the history of progressive human civilization, with which we are acquainted, is comprise^ within one henu- sphere, and under climactei-ic accidents the most favorable* to advancement. " Now, as we must suppose that the date of the commencement of our race was the most favorable both for its origin and con- tinuance, and as, on the other hand, the catastrophe which we call the flood would have arrived at the next unfavorable period for our hemisphere, that epoch, the central point of which is the year 9250 B. C, would seem the most probable one for the change in climatic relations. This assumption is confirmed by the most ancient monuments and traditions.* The chronology of Egypt shows still more clearly than traditions preserve'd in the Rabbinical Book of the Origines, that the flood of Noah could not have taken place later than about 10,000 B. C, and could not have taken place much earlier. " The only question, therefore, is; whether the history of the human race, and consequently the origines of the primitive world, date from the above-mentioned favorable epoch, about 20,000 B. C, or whether we are justified in going back to the last epoch but one, or about 40,000 B. C." (Vol. iv. 52-54.) The following extracts show an important part of the .argument adopted to maintain these assumptions : — * What monuments and traditions.' As far as we know, even our author has failed to specify them ; unless such a specification is intended by his brief allusions to the mythological periods of some of the ancient nations. CHRONOLOGY OF BUNSEN. 335 "The formative words in the Egyptian mark the transition from Sinism to Khamisra — from the particle language to the language of parts of speech. . . . The earliest Turanism to the east of Khamism marks the first stage of organic language, i. e., of language with the parts of speech. The second is Kham- ism, i. e., the stage of language we meet with in Egypt." (Vol. iv. p. ss8.) " The shortest line from inorganic language to organic is that o/ Sinism through primitive Turanism to primitive Semism, the deposit of which in the valley of the Nile we have in Egyptian. The last emigration was probably that of the Aryans to the coun- try of the five rivers. The oldest hymns in the country of the Punjaub go back to 3000 B. C. This community of language must then, at all events, be supposed to have existed much ear- lier than 3000 B. C. They had, consequently, at that time long got over the stage of underived Iranism and Semism. Between K),ooo and 4000 B. C, the vast step in Asiatic advancement from Khamism to Semism, and from Semism to Iranism, was made. If the step from Lati*to Italian be taken as a unit, this previous step must be reckoned at least at ten or at twenty." (Vol. iv. p. 562.) " From all this it appears that the period of one great revolu- tion of the earth's axis (twenty-one thousand years) is a very- probable time for the development of human language in the shortest line ; and that the double of this, which we should be obliged to suppose, would be a highly improbable one." (Vol. iv. P- 563..) ^ " It has been shown at the commencement of this volume, that we may hope by a combination of researches and observations to establish that mankind has only terminated one astronomical period, and commenced the second in the year 1240 of our era; and there are reasons for placing the intermediate catastrophe in the most unfavorable part of that period, or about 10,000 B. C. As to subdivisions, if too large a space has been assumed in this one, there is room enough for it in the other. We see no reason 33^ APPENDIX, A. for "going back to a preceding epoch of twenty-one thousand years ; but less than one period is impossible, were it only because of the stubborn fact of the strata of languages. To what point, then, is Egypt brought back by this calculation? To the middle, at least, or the ninth millennium of man, as the period of the immigration of the western branch of our race into the val- ley of the Nile. But this is the very close of the primitive world in the strict sense, that is to say, of the history of our race before the great convulsion of that part of Central Asia to which we turn as the cradle of mankind. This convulsion, which we know as the flood of Noah, in all probability coincides with that epoch of the northern hemisphere when the temperature was lowest, or from 9000 to 10,000 B. C, just as the origin of our race coincides with that period of it when the temperature was highest, which was ten thousand five hundred years earlier. " If this principle be correct, the Egyptians can have known nothing of the flood, allusions to which we find everywhere among the Iranians and Semites ; and in truth no such tradition is current among them, any more thaiftt was among the old Turanians and Chinese." (Vol. iv. p. 664.) In regard to the above hypothesis of the great antiquity of man on the earth, and the arguments in support of it, we think little needs to be said by way of confutation. We must, however, briefly state the reasons why we do not receive the hypothesis, and think the arguments inconclusive. We might use the words " absurd," " irra- tional," and other stronger disparaging epithets, in rela- tion to the author's reasoning, and think ourselves justified in their use. But the use of such terms generally weakens an argument. For what one calls absurd, another regards merely as inconclusive, a third, fair reasoning, and a fourth, sound argument. We, therefore, will endeavor to CHRONOLOGY OF BUNSEN. 337 meet the argument of our author in a sober, matter-of-fact style of reasoning. And first as to his astronomical argument. The sub- stance of the argument is this : On account of." the devia- tion of the earth's axis," the northern and southern hemi- spheres enjoy unequal degrees of heat and cold. When this difference is at the extreme, the seasons of " spring and summer are eight days longer than autumn and win- ter." But " the history of progressive human civilization with which we are acquainted is comprised within one hemisphere, and under climacteric accidents the most favorable to advancement." These "favorable climac- teric accidents" are the. seasons of spring and summer being longer than autumn and winter. Therefore, as man has mostly lived in the northern hemisphere, his creation must have taken place when the heat was great- est in this hemisphere, i. e., about 20,000 B. C, and the flood must have taken place about ro,ooo B. C, when the cold was at its maximum. , In regard to this argument, we remark : First, we neither admit the premises nor the conclusion. Having passed some fifteen years in the southern part of that belt which has been most densely peopled by the race, we have a little experience that bears directly on the point. We thought and felt decid_edly, that the cool season was more favorable to physical and mental vigor, to physical and mental development, than the hot season. And, if we mistake not, such were decidedly the thoughts and feelings of all in that land who had much to do in the various spheres of bodily and mental activity. So that if 22 338 APPENDIX, A. we were to use Bunsen's premises, we should draw the conclusion the opposite to that which he has drawn. We confess we should never advance this argument to prove that man was created about 10,000 B. C. ; but we think it worth as much in support of such an epoch of the creation as that of our author in favor of the higher one of ten thousand years earlier. Again, in point of fact, in what climate has the race of man attained to the highest degree of development in both body and mind ? If we look at the present genera- tion, we certainly cannot point to the mildest parts of the temperate zone as furnishing the best specimens of intel- lectual and physical vigor. Edinburgh and Glasgow are almost 56° N. Lat. ; London is almost 52° ; Berlin is far- ther north, and Paris is about 49° N. It is true that, as we go back into the early historic times, we find the region of human superiority a little further south. Greece is between 37° and 45° N., and Italy between 40° and 46° N. ; and Palestine, and Egypt, and Chaldea were still further south. But the ancients were not equal to the modems. The reason was, they, through love of ease, delighted in the softness of tropical climates, where a little effort suffices to meet the wants of a degenerate physical nature. They settled along the banks of such stieams as the Nile, the Euphrates and Tigris, the Indus and Ganges. It was when they settled in the more north- ern and cooler climates that the greater strength of body and mind was developed in the race. Where, we would ask, was the garden of Eden ? Mount Ararat is in about 40° N. Lat. ; and since geologists tell us that the mighty CHRONOLOGY OF BUNSEN. 339 currents which have swept, over the earth, the marks of which are now seen on' the solid rocks, were from north to south, and that which caused the deluge of Noah was probably in the same direction, the ark floated south dur- ing that one hundred and fifty days ; hence the garden of Eden was north of the mountain where it rested, and was therefore about in the middle of the temperate zone ; whereas, according to our author's theory and argument, it should have been further soiith. We beg our readers not to spend time to criticise this argument, for in itself considered it w^ill not bear criticism. We only put it forth to meet the reasoning of our author. In fact, the line of argumentation is about parallel to his, and equally conclusive. If we placed any value on the argument from heat and cold as aiding to fix the epoch of the crea- tion of man, we should be inclined to place the epoch at the time w^hen the heat and cold of our hemisphere were in equilibrio, which would be for the last time (according to our. author) about 4002 B. C. This differs only two years from the commonly received chronology. But we do not believe in this heat-and-cold argument. Even if we should admit the premises, that the time when spring and summer are eight days longer in our hemisphere than autumn and winter, is most favorable to human develop- ment, it would by no means follow that the creation of man took place at that time. We must devote a little space to our author's chro- nology of the patriarchs, especially to his era of Abraham. We have here some - rich specimens of 34° APPENDIX, A. " philosophy." Wb need dojittle more than exhibit the philpsopher's theory in his own words : — "We will now take a glance at dates. Here the first step undoubtedly must be to abandon the views and system adopted by the narrator, from the impossibility of an historian dealing with men who beget children like other people at the age of thirty, and live more than four hundred years afterwards. Those upon whom this consideration fails to make an impression may still be staggered by the fact) that upon this calculation the patriarch Noah lived down to the time of Abraham,* without troubling himself about the history of the world. Neither can we venture, like the authors of the Septuagint, to falsify the text,t and, in order to get rid of the disproportion, add one hun- dred years to the ages of these geographical patriarchal mon- sters at the time of their marriage. We have, therefore, but one alternative — to ascertain which of the two is the really tradi- tional date, that of the ages after the birth of the first son, or that of the whole date.; to ascertain, in other words, whether the nar- rator had the authority of tradition for the former date, and, in order to assist his chronology, added, at random, thirty or forty years to their ages when the first son waj born; or whether he found the whole sum total recorded, and deducted from it what- ever suited his purpose.J The fact of his not stating the sum total would incline us to adopt the former view. But in the immediately preceding entries about Noah and Shem, we can prove that the complete sum total is the actual traditional date. * This is a real objection or difficulty if we adopt the Hebrew chronology, but it entirely vanishes if we adopt that of the Sep- tuagint. t This is amusing, standing, as it does, in connection with the author's radical alteration of the text of Scripture. I On such suppositions, what becomes of the inspiration of the Scriptures, or even* of their authenticity? Yet our author professes great reverence and regard for the Bible. He would not alter a date. CHRONOLOGY OF BUNSEN. 34I In each case it is six hundred years, which was shown to be the original Chaldaic equation between lunar and solar years. We must, therefore, assume that it is so here also." * The postdiluvian times to Abraham are thus disposed of (the tabular form being somewhat abridged for the sake of space) : — " There are three periods or divisions : — " A. Sem (Arapakithis), i. c, the primeval land of the Kas- dim (Chaldees), the frontier mountains of Armenia toward Assyria, four hundred and thirty-eight years. "B. Selah, 'The Mission,' four hundred and thirty-three years; Heber, the settler over the river (Tigris), four hundred and sixty-four years; Peleg, derivation, partition, four hundred and thirty-nine years ; Yohtan (father of thirteen South Arabian races). " C. RdHu, district of the shepherd country of Edessa (Rofii), two hundred and thirty-nine years ; Serug (in Osrofine, Sarug, west of Edessa), two hundred and thirty years' " D. Nahor goes to Ur of the Kasdim (Chaldees), one hundred and forty-eight years. "Terah leaves Ur of the Chaldees, and goes to Haran (Karra), a day's journey south of Edessa, two hundred and seventy-five years (70 -J- 205). " Nahor sets out from Sarug to Ur of the Chaldees, one hun- dred and forty-eight years (39-1-^19), "Terah sets out from Ur to Hqran, that is, back toward Os- roSne, on the way to Canaan. He liyes two Jiundred and five years. At the age of seventy he begets three sons i|i Ur. " There is a remarkable closeness between the first three * Our eyes h^ve not fallen on this proof. We knoyf that Jose- phus (Antiq. i. iii. 9) speaks of a " great year" of six hundred common years ; but what has that to do with the si^ Jiundredth year of the life of Noah, as the date of the flood, and the duration pf Shem's life ? It is all assumption. , 342 APPENDIX, A. (geographical historical) dates, Arphaxad, Selah, and Eber: Arphaxad four hundred and thirty-eight years, Selah four hun- dred and thirty-five, and Heber four hundred and sixty-four. " Supposing Arphaxad to represent the duration of the Semitic settlement Arapakithis, the mountainous district above Assyria, prior to the memory of man, ' The Mission ' would represent the journey towards the plains three years before the close of this migration, and 'Heber' would represent the period when the migrating race passed over the Upper Tigris on their way to the Upper Mesopotamia. The year 464 would, in that case, be the one in which they entered Mesopotamia proper, and the tribe must have remained in a compact body two hundred and thirty-nine years before a portion of them commenced the great migration southward, the result of which was the foundation of the kingdom of Southern Asia." (Vol. iii. p. 367.) " This would make nine hundred and thirty-three years to Nahor, the grandfather of Abraham " (i. e., 464 + 239 + 230 = 933 years). (Vol. iii.j). 369.) Sober criticism on the above would be entirely out of place. We venture to affirm that there is not within the whole compass of literature another such perversion of an evidently plain historical narrative into a monstrous historico-chronologico-geographical jumble. " Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of waters was upon the earth." (Gen. vii. 6.) This six hun- dred years is " the Chaldaic equation between the lunar and solar years." " And Noah lived after the flood three hundred and £fty years." This is " half of another equa- tion, with a surplus of fifty years.'' Only fifty more ! " Arphaxad lived five and thirty years, and begat Salah ; and Arph3,5?a4 lived after he begat Salah four hundred and three year^, and begEjt sons and daughters." (Gen. xi. CHR0N0L06Y OF BUNSEN. 343 12, 13.) This four hundred and thirty-eight years repre- sents " the duration of the Semitic settle rtient in Arapa- kithis, the mountainous district above Assyria, prior to the memory of man." And the sacred writer probably, " in order to assist his chronology, added at random the thirty-five years when the first son was born." (!) " And Salah lived thirty years, and begat Eber ; and Salah lived, after he begat Eber, four hundred and three years, and begat sons and daughters." (Gen. xi. 14, 15.) Salah means " the mission." " The four hundred and thirty- three years represent the commencement of the journey toward the plains, three years before the close of this migration." " Heber" means " the settler over the river" (Tigris) ; and " represents the period when the migrat- ing race passed over the Upper Tigris on their way to Upper Mesopotamia. The year 464 would, in that case, be the one in which they entered Mesopotamia proper, and the tribe must have remained in a compact body two hundred and thirty-nine years before a portion of them commenced the great migration southward, which was the foundation of the primeval kingdom of Southern Asia." And so of the other names and numbers. But Bunsen has not told us what was meant, on his theory, by the frequently recurring phrase, " and he begat sons and daughters." This he was certainly bound to do. It is true that in the case of the two sons of Heber, Peleg and Yoktan, he makes the former mean " derivation," " divis- ion, two hundred and thirty-nine years," and the latter the real " father of thirteen South Arabian races ; " which distinction appears to have been made on some principle 344 APPENDIX, A. of philosophy peculiar to him ; but he ought not to have left unexplained so important a phrase so frequently- occurring as " sons and daughters." We must devote a little space to our author's chro- nology of Abraham and the two or three succeeding gen- • erations. For in this his " philosophy " appears to pecu- liar advantage. After giving the well-known numbers, as in the following table, — . Abraham lived 175 years, Isaac, 180 years, Jacob, 147 years, Joseph, no years, Bunsen proceeds to say, — " Here it is not a question of a solitary exception in the case of one individual. It is true that no instance can be adduced demonstrably of any one reaching the age of one hundred and eighty. Such a case, however, as an exception, would not con- travene the laws of nature. But that three patriarchs should have lived, one after the other, one hundred and fifty years, and even more, and the viceroy, Joseph, their successor, one hundred and ten, cannot be historical. There must be some means of detecting some blunder here, or else the historical nature of the narrative will be liable to grave suspicion. None but those who cling to the infatuation that the antediluvian patriarchs, as well as Noah and Shem, lived from six hundred to one thousand years, have any excuse to offer for such purely childish delu- sions, persistence in which can only be jiroductive of doubt and unbelief. " But there is no country in which it is so improbable that a man a hundred years old should have a son as in a land of early development, like Syria and Canaan.* But are wS^ compelled,' * Our author's " philosophy " likewise sets aside the plain declarations of the New Testament. What becomes, on his theory, of Rom. iv. 19 and Heb. xi. ii, which indorse the account in Gen. xviii. 10-15 and xxi. s? CHRONOLOGY OF BUNSEN. 345 on that account, to regard these four ages of the patriarchs as primitive inventions? No one wrho admits the strictly historical character-of the principal branch of the family narrative of this period will come to this conclusion."* (Vol. iii. pp. 340, 341.) " But, then, this family possessed an era, as was always the case with noble Semitic races; this era must have been that of the immigration." f i^Ibid.') " In the history of Abraham we find two predominant num- bers, the seventy-fifth year (that of the immigration), and the one hundredth (the birth of Isaac). In this interval, so many events occurred, also, as to require a considerably long sojourn in Canaan prior to his birth. " We assume, therefore, seventy-five as the year before the birth of'lsaftc, twenty-five as the duration of the Sojourn in Canaan, and, consequently, fifty-one as the first year of the set- tlement in Canaan. " But there is also a place for the one hundredth year (which is said to be that of the birth of Isaac), as the year in which Abra- ham died. This, again, can not be accidental. The computation backward — the turning-point is so historically important and well established — leads directly to the same conclusion. Ac- cording to this, Jacob died in the one hundred and forty-seventh year, not of his own life, but of the era from the immigration of Abraham. Joseph again, not of his own age, but of the era of Jacob." (Vol. iii. p. 344.) " The redder tuill here find an account taken of every date ■which occurs in the Scripture narrative-X Whatever is deter- mined upon grounds of internal probability, such as the births of Isaac and Jacob, is placed in brackets. There can not, there- fore, be an error of more than two or three years at most.§ * Our author distinctly admits that Abrahanf is strictly an his- torical person, as well as Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph. t Mere assumption. J The Italics are ours. § Referring to a table which is not copied, the essential part appearing in what follows. 34? APPENDIX, A. Those which are placed in parentheses are such as arise out of the entries in- the Bible in reference to years of marriage. These are, consequently, in themselves thoroughly authentic. All the other dates are taken directly from the Bible." * Truly, this is taking the subject of chronology "out of the domain of chronology and history^ into that of pure philosophy." .(Vol. iv. p. 22.) An account is taken of every date in the Scripture narrative ! Only the date of the son's birth is changed to that of the death of the father, the real date of this latter event being ignored altogether. Is any language, proper foV a Christian to use, too severe in reprehension of such a procedure.? What! we involuntarily exclaim, was the man insane.? Had he become imbpcile ? Had he so long been groping amid the sepulchral monuments of antiquity that he could not recognize, in the clear light of day which other men use, a plain historical fact.' " And Abraham was an hundred years old when Isaac was born" (CJen. xxi. 5) ; that is, as our author interprets it, " he was a hundred years old when he died." " And Abraham was seventy-five years old when he departed out of Haran " (Gen. xii. 4) ; that is, " the seventy-fifth' year is the year before Isaac was born." And so of other dates and events in connection with the Scripture narra- tive. " An account is taken of every date in the Scripture narrative." He might as well have taken the alphabetical letters and figures in the first fifteen chapters of Genesis, and so transposed and arranged them as to make out a story of the creation about 20,000 B. C, and of the flood * Egypt's Place in Universal History, vol. iii. p. 344. CHRONOLOGY OF BUNSEN. 347 occurring io,ooo_ B.. C, and the "development" and " strata " of languages, &c., according to his system, and then have claimed the Bible as authority, telling us we should find "an account taken of every letter and figure in the Scripture narrative. If any x's or z's, or other let- ters, or any figures, had remained unappropriated, he could have found a " place" for them. We say, had he done this, the process would have been about as rational as that which he has adopted in relation to the history of Abraham and his successors in the patriarchal line. ^ Bunsen lays great stress on the improbability of a man having a son at the age of a hundred years, especially in such a land as Palestine, this improbability being even a corner-stone in his argument. With him, in his " philos- ophy," the assertion of the sacred writer that the event is miraculous, and the indorsement of the miracle by an inspired apostle (Rom. iv. 19, and Heb. xi. 11), go for nothing. Thus the New Testament suffers alike with the Old under this rationalizing process. When we first read the following caustic criticism on Bunseh's work, we thought it probably- a little extrava- gant. But we are now prepared to receive it as just. " Sesostris is the great name of Egyptian antiquity. Even the builders of the Pyramids and of the Labyrinth shrink into insig- nificance bj' the side of this mighty conqueror. Nevertheless, his historical identity is not proof against the dissolving and recompounding process of the Egyptological method. Bunsen distributes him into portions, and identifies each portion with a dififerent king. Sesostris, as we have stated, stands in Mane- tho's list as third king of the twelfth dynasty, at 3320 B.. C, and a notice is appended to his name, clearly identifying him with 34^ APPENDIX, B. the Sesostris of Herodotus. Bunsen first takesa portion of him, and identifies it with Tosorthrus (-written Sesorthrus by Euse- bius), the second king of the third dynasty, whose date is 3119 B. C, being a difference in the dates of seventeen hundred and ninety-nine years — about the same interval as between Augus- tus Caesar and Napoleon. He then takes another portion, and identifies it with Sesonchosisf a king of the twelfth dynasty; a third portion of Sesostris is finally assigned to himself. It seems that these three fragments make up the entire Sesostris." * B. Page 27. CHRONOLOGY OF BOECKH. BoECKH makes the duration of the reign of the gods to be seventeen Sothic cycles, beginning July 20, B. C. 30,522, and reaching to July 20, B. C. 5703. The gov- erning principle in his system seems to be the aforesaid cycle, and the distinguished author did not hesitate to make alterations in numbers in order to apply it. His Ischeme is confessedly artificial. Thus Bunsen saj's, " We believe that no Egyptologer has ever ventured upon so many and such bold alterations in the dates of Manetho as Boeckh was obliged to propose, in order to make good his assumption that Manetho's chronology was an artifi- cial system of applying cyclical numbers to Egyptian his- tory. There is every reason to suppose that the illustrious master of Hellenic archjeology long ago abandoned a * Sir G. C. Lewis's Survey of the Astronomy of the Ancients, p. 369. CHRONOLOGY OF RODIER. 349 theory so triumphantly refuted by the most stubborn facts of contemporary evidence. On the other hand, it is to be hoped that Egyptologers will not hesitate to admit the instinct of genius which led him to assume a certain connection between Manetho and the Sothic cycles, inas- much as his three books of Egyptian history were divided according to that cycle of 1460 years." (Vol. v. p. 119.) The first part of this criticism appears emiently just. We doubt, however, if the " instinct of genius" ever led any one " to assume " anything in chronology or history. C Page 29. CHRONOLOGY OF RODIER. RoDiER places his highest date in human history at about B. C. 24,000. This, however, is not the beginning of history ; for before this, at undefined dates, he makes to have taken place the " dissemination of the Proto- Scyths," and the movement of thejapetite or Indo-Eu- ropean races toward Western Asia and Europe. But about B. C. 24,000, he says, took place " the breaking up of the ice at the north f»ole. The shock which this gave to the crust of the earth was perhaps the cause of the sud- den cold which drove the Japetite Aryans from primitive Asia." Intermediate between B. C. 24,000 and 21,778 was the commencement of the period Phta in Egypt, and the outline of Egyptian civilization. At B. C. 21,778 was the commencement of the period of Phre. At B. C. 19,564 3SO APPENDIX, C. was the commencement of the period of Osiris, and his conquests in Ethiopia and Asia. AtB. C. 19,337 was the commencement of the period of the " Manouantaras " in fndia, a " date chronologically precise and approxima- tively verified by astronomy." At B. C. 14,611 was the '• era of Ma. Chronologically the number is 14,606 ; astronomical Verifications, very precise, give 14,611." And here the author places the " origin of the great cycles of fourteen hundred and seventy-five years, and of the vague year of three hundred and sixly-five days.'' At B. C. 13,901 he places the " era of the Maha-Yuga, the origin of the period called Satya-Yuga, the Institutes of Manu, or legislator Vaivasvata, surnamed Satyavrata, the end of the Vedic epoch, the recension of the Vedas. . . . The exactness of this date is as rigorous as that of the Egyptian date." Omitting the mention of some intermediate dates, at which important historical events are represented to have taken place, we come down to B. C. 9101, a date which is "rigorously verified,", at which " Maya compiled the treatise of astronomy called the Surya Siddhanta." At B. C. 42S6 is another " date rigorously verified by astronomy," as that when the Egyptian calendar was reformed, &c., &c. These speci- fications are sufficient to place before the reader the character and pretensions of this remarkable work. Now, the question arises. How does this author make out these high dates, some of which, he affirms, are veri- fied approximatively, and others rigorously, by astron- omy? I need only to indicate his processes in two or three instances. Take first the date B. C. 9101, which he CHRONOLOGY OF RODIER. 35 1 says is "rigorously verified," when the astronomical treatise called the SuryA SiddharitS, was compiled. Hav- ing translated that work from the Sanskrit, while in India, I am pretty well acquainted with it, and with the astronomical literature of the Hindus ; and I may state that the treatise itself contains astronomical data which refer the compilation of the work, in its present form, to the latter part of the fifth or the first part of the sixth cen- tury after Christ, though it doubtless comprises astronom- ical knowledge which had existed among the Hindus for centuries before. These are" the facts as recognized by all oriental scholars who have given attention to this subject. Now, how does our author make out the date of B. C. 9101? In this wise: In the commencement oi the trea- tise, it is said it was revealed by the Sun to the Asura Maya, at the close of the Krita or Satya-Yuga (or age) of the present Maha-Yuga, which consists of four million three hundi"ed and twenty thousand solar years. But these are equal to twelve thousand divine years, or years of the gods — one year of the gods being equal to three hundred and sixty years of mortals, i. e., solar years. This is expressly stated in the work itself. Now, our author, setting aside or ignoring the express declarations of the treatise, and of other astronomical treatises, makes the Maha-Yuga to consist of twelve thousand sidereal years, instead of four million three hundred and twenty thousand ; and this would bring the end of the Krita- Yuga at B. C. 9101, when the Surj'a SiddhantS was com- piled. The declaration in the treatise itself makes the 352 APPENDIX, C. compilation, of rather revelation of it, to haye been at about B. C. 2,163,101. Rodier thinks this a mistake, and, arbitrarily altering the date, makes it to be B. C. 9101, which- he says "is rigorously verified;" while the treatise itself furnishes unequivocal evidence that its com- pilation, in its present form, canbe dated no earlier than the sixth century before Christ. Rodier might, with equal consistency, have made the epoch of the compila- tion of the SuryS, Siddhant^ to have been 2,163,101, instead of 9101, B. C. Take another of his dates, " rigorously verified," that of B. C. 13,901, the epoch of the Institutions of Manu,- end of the Vedic epoch, the date of the recensions of the Vedas, of the adoption of the Egyptian Zodiac, &c., &c. How does ffe make this out? Very easily, in this way: There is appended to the Vedas an astronomical part called the lyotisha; in this the position of the solstitial colure is given for the time, which a simple calculation shows to have been B. C. 1181 (Rodier says 1500). The original Sanskrit text, in defining the position, mentions the summer solstice as being at the particular point at that time, or what is equivalent to it. Now, Rodier has the ^o/fl?^?cj5, as he terms it, to suppose that it is not the summer solstice that is meant, but the winter; and this carries back the epoch of the observation a space of time equal to that in which the equinoxes would retrograde through one half the whole circle of the ecliptic, i. e., about twelve thousand nine hundred and sixty years.* This, added to the Vedic date, as admitted by Sanskrit scholars generally, viz., 1181, makes out Rodier's epoch * Rodier, p. 470. CHRONOLOGY OF RODIER. 353 of B. C. 13,901. (He has mistaken some of his num- bers.) He arbitrarily alters a fact — a fact which all oriental scholars recognize as such ; i. e., puts the win- ter solstice for the summer solstice, thus making a clear difference of more than twelve thousand nine hundred years, and th_en declares .the result a " rigorous astronomi- cal verification." Was ever audacity, in a professedly scientific writer, surpassed by this .'' Take another of his dates, " the era of Ma," of which he says, " Very precise astronomical verifications give rigorously B. C. 14,611, the date of the origin of the great cycles of fourteen hundred and seventy-five years, and of f the vague year of three hundred and sixty-five days, the invention of the zodiac, &c., the institution of the monarchical regime." Now, how does he make this out.' Why, he takes the highest numbers he can find, that are used in giving the duration of the Egyptian empire from Menes to Alexander, and then extends them somewhat, so that he makes the era of Menes at least one hundred and fifty years earlier than any other writer, and a number of hun- dreds of years earlier than the numbers necessitate, even if we reckon the thirty dynasties consecutive, and about two thousand years earlier than Lepsius and Bunsen, and more than three thousand years earlier than Poole, and others ; i. e., he places Menes, the first mortal king of Egypt, at B. C. 5853. He then, from this, mounts up into antiquity on the mythological numbers furnished by Manetho, as interpreted by Eusebius, and corrected by the Turin Papyrus, according to his fancy ; i. e., previous 23 354 APPENDIX, C. to Menes, he makes the kingdom of the Nehuas — usually interpreted Manes, or spirits of dead men (he has another interpretation, which I do not comprehend) — of five thousand six hundred and thirteen years, and then the period of Ma, purely mythological, of thirty-one hundred and forty years : this brings us to the epoch, the " commencementof the period of Ma, B. C. 14,606." This is historical, and the date is verified by abtrpnomy ! His process is short and easy. He says Claudius Ptol- emy, the , great Grecian astronomer, employed, in his tables, a cycle of fourteen hundred and seventy-five years. Then, starting at the year A. D. 139, — the end of the Sothic period of fourteen hundred and sixty years, which* terminated next after the Christian era, — he reckons back by periods of fourteen hundred and seventy-five years — ten such steps bringing him to B.C. 14,611; and as this date differs only five years from- 14,606, to which he had arrived historically, the difference of Jive years, as he says, being easily accounted for by the loss of fractions of years in the reckoning of Manetho. And this he calls demonstrating the "precision" of the date B. C. 14,611 by astronomy. In order to put this matter in its true light, it is scarcely necessary to remark, that there is hardly a datum involved which is reliable. Take the historical part. It is true that a Sothic period, according to Censorinus, terminated A. D. 139. But the Sothic cycle was a period of fourteen hundred and sixty * * i. e., fourteen hundred and sixty solar years, and fourteen hundred and si»ty-one Egyptian or vague years. * CHRONOLOGY OF RODIER. 355 years; and on what authority does the writer make this the starting-point for a reckoning with another cycle of -fourteen hundred and seventy-five years, if there be such a cycle? And then, again, what becomes of his reckoning, when it is regarded as demonstrable, that the thirty dynasties of Manetho were not all con- secutive — that part of them were contemporaneous? by which fact the duration of the Egyptian empire, from Menes to Alexander, is curtailed from two to three thousand years. He had the works of Bunsen, Lep- sius, Poole, and Wilkinson, etc., before him, — or ought to have had, — in which the various versions of Manetho are given ; but, as far as I am aware, he has not even hinted that different results had been arrived at by those scholars and others. Whereas-, in point of fact, there are equally authentic numbers, both historical and mythological, which, if employed, would have varied that date several hundreds, or even thousands, of years ; so that, instead of a coincidence between the historical and astronomical numbers within' the limits oi Jive years, there might have been made a discrepancy of some two or three thousand. But the point of his argument all turns on this coincidence within Jive years. But the astronomy of Rodier is worse than his his- tory. He says that Claudius Ptolemy made use, in his tables, of a cycle of fourteen hundred and seventy-five years, referring to Syncellus (p. 52) for authority. But his authority does not sustain the assertion. Ptolemy made use of no such cycle ; at least, the passage referred to does not prove that he did. But supposing he did, how 3S6 APPENDIX, C. does that authorize him (Rodier) to take that number, and by it ascend into antiquity, and verify a date fifteen thousand years before ? Even if the number were legit- imate or true, it could not be available for such a use. Such an application of it is unscientific and absurd. The absurdity may be well illustrated by a reference to the Julian period. The Julian period is formed by multiplying together the numbers of the solar cycle, lunar cycle, and cycle of indiction, i. e., 28 X 19 X ^S- The product of these numbers is 7980. This period began B. C. 4713 ; i. e., the commencements of these three cycles coincide that year, as is found by reckoning backward from any point of time when the cycles were in use in the Roman empire. Now, supposing any one should at- tempt to maintain from this that the Roman state was in being, and the particular civil matters connected with the cycle of indiction were in vogue, B. C. 4713, his argument would be parallel to that of our French savant in the premises before us. I ask, in all soberness, is any language of denunciation too severe properly to ' characterize such a vvork? If there is in the whole compass of scientific literature a more inconclusive argu- ment, a more irrational or uncritical process, than that of our author in his astronomical verification, as he terms it, of the date B. C. 14,611, it has not come under my notice. Others of Rodier's dates, of a high antiquity, are open to the same criticism that I have bestowed on the few above mentioned. MANETHO. 357 I>_. Page 68. MANETHO. The following is the account of Manetho, as given by Syncellus : — " It remains, therefore, to make certain extracts concerning the dynasties of the Egyptians from the writings of Manetho the Sebennyte, the high priest of the idolatrous temples of Egypt in the time of Ptolemy Philadelphus. These, according to his own account, hS copied from the inscriptions wliich were engraved in the sacred dialect and hieroglyphic characters upon the columns set up in the Seriadic land by Thoth, the first Hermes ; and, after the .deluge, translated from the sacred dialect, into the Greek tongue, in hieroglyphic characters ; and committed to writing in books, and deposited by Agathodsemon, the son of the second Hermes, the father of TSt, in the penetralia of the temples of Egypt. He has addressed and explained them to Philadelphus, the second king Ptolemy, in the book entitled Sothis, as fol- lows : — " '■The Efistle of Mattetho, the Sebennyte, to Ptolemy Philadel- fhus. To the great and august king Ptolemy Philadelphus, Manetho, the high priest and scribe of the sacred adyta, being by birth a Sebennyte, and citizen of Heliopolis, to his sovereign, Ptolemy, greeting : — " ' It is right for us, most mighty king, to pay due attention to all things which it is your pleasure we should take into con- sideration. In answer, therefore, to your inquiries concerning the things that shall take place in the world, I shall, according to your commands, lay before you what I have gathered from the sacred books written by Hermes Trismegistus, our forefather. Farewell, my prince and sovereign.'"* * Syncellus, Chron. p. 40. 3S8 APPENDIX, D. Syncellus then, after the letter, thus proceeds : — " He says these things respecting the interpretation of the books 6f the second Hermes ; he afterwards gives a narrative con- cerning the five Egyptian nations, called with them gods, demi- gods, manes, and mortals, of whom Eusebius, alluding to them in his chronological writings, thus speaks : ' The Egyptians have strung together many trifling legends respecting gods and demi- gods, and with them manes (^vixvSv), and other mortal kings. For the most ancient among them reckoned by lunar years of thirty days each, but those, who came after called the horas (aigous), periods of three months, years.'" It should be remarked that this letter to Ptolemy Phila- delphus (with the work spoken of by Syncellus, Bl§los t^s SibdEixii) is pronounced by many* a forgery executed by some Jewish or Christian writer subsequent to the Chris- tian era. This opinion, however, or charge of forgery, I can not think to be well sustained. " Kenrick (Anc. Eg., vol. ii. p. 72) says the Book of Sothis " is proved to be spurious bythe epithet Se^aaro?, which the in- troductory epistle gives to Ptolemy, the translation of Augustus, and never found among the titles of the Ptolemies." And the writer of the article Manetko, in Smith's Dictionary, is equally positive that the letter and Book of Sothis are forgeries ; and he mentions the occurrence of the epithet 5eia5^oj as the principal reason for regarding them as the work of a. fseudo Manetho. Though the epithet may not have been used as an official title given to, or assumed by, the Ptolemies, may it not have been applied occasionally to those sovereigns, e. g., Philadelphus.' I have not yet seen satisfactory evidence that the letter above quoted and the Book of Sothis, spoken of by Syncellus, were not from the pen of the true Manetho, the great Egyptian historian. MANETHO'S LISTS. 359 E. Page 69. MANETHO*S LISTS, AS GIVEN BY AFRICANUS AND EUSEBIUS. The version of Africanus is reported to us by Syncellus (Chron. pp. iS, 19) under this heading: '•^Africanus respecting the Mythological Chronology of the Egyp- tians and Chaldeans" We regard the passage, there- fore, as a quotation from Africanus, though Rawlinson (Herod, vol. ii. p. 69) thinks it is from Manetho. The point, however, is not important. " Manetho, the Sebennyte, priest of the impure sacred rites in Egypt, who lived after Berosus, in the time of Ptolemy Philadel- phus, like Berosus weaving lies, wrote to this same Ptolemy respecting the six* dynasties (that is, of the seven gods who ■never existed), who, he says, reigned through a period of 11,985 years. The first of these, the god Hephaistos, reigned 9000 years. But these 9000 years some of our historians (regarding them as so many lunar months, and dividing the whole number of days in them by 365, the number of days in a solar year) re- duce to 727I years, thinking they have made a wonderful correc- tion, whereas they have rather confounded truth with error in a manner that is ridiculous." * So in the original, though there is reason to think that the language as written was sixteen, viz., seven gods and nine demi- gods. The passage, as it stands, does not make sense, and is evidently corrupted. 36o APPENDIX, E. "THE FIRST DYNASTY. 1. Hephaistos (Vulcan) reigned over the Solar Years. Lunar Years. Egyptians 727! 2. Helios, son of Hephaistos, 3. Agathodaimon, . . . . , 4. Kronos, .,..,. 5. Osiris and Isis, . . . . , 6. Typhon, Sum, 7. Horus, demigod, 8. Ares, .. 9. Atiubis, 10. Heracles, . 11. Apollo, 12. Ammon, . 13. Tithoes, 14. Sosos, 15. Zeus, . Deficiency, im 9000 8°J 992 561^^ 700 404 SOI 35 433 29 359 969 11985 Quarters of Years. 25 100 23 92 17 68- IS 60 25 100 30 220 27 108 32 12S 20 80 h 2 Sum, 2144 858" That is, the gods reigned 11985 years = 969 solar years. The demigods, . . 858 " = 2144 " t Totals, . . . 12843 1 1834 The year of the gods is lunar = i month ; and the year of the demigods is trimestre, and called mjos, four of which make one solar year. In this table the names with the numbering, and the du- ration of the reigns in solar years, are as found in Syncel- lus ; in the second column, or that of lunar years (months), only the 9000 of the first god-king are given by Syncellus, MANBTHO'S LISTS. 361 with the statement that they equal 727! solar years, and that the whole duration of the reigns of the gods was 1 1 ,985 lunar years (months) ; that is, lunar periods of 30 days each, according to the early Christian chronographers. But Syncellus (p. 41) gives additional statements, ap- parently on the authority of Panodorus, that the 1 1 ,985 month-years of the gods are equal to 969 solar years, and that the duration of the reigns of the " two dynasties of nine demigods " was 214J solar years, deduced from 858 &Q01. or TQoniby, i. e., tri-monthly periods, the "whole amount- ing to 1 1 83 J- solar years. These critical points and coraputatibns would not deserve the prominent notice we have given them but for the fact that the result, 1183^ solar years, is an important numberwith the early chronog- raphers, since by adding it to another ' number, viz., 1058, the number of years from the creation of Adam to the commencement of the reign of the gods, according to their computation (Sync. Chron. p. 41, c), they make out the sum of 2242 years, the length of the period from the creation to the flood, according to the Septuagint. And this result we regard as worthy of notice. The ante-historic reigns in Egypt are given by Eusebius, in his Chronology, lib. I, chap. xx. i. The chapter is headed, " Ex ^gyptiacis Manethonis monumentis, qui in tres libros historian! suam tribuit. De diis, et de heroi- bus, de manibus et de mortalibu's regibus qui in ^gypto prsefuerunt -usque ad regem Persarum Darium." "The first god of the Egyptians was Vulcan, who is celebrated as the inventor of fife. After him was Sol, then Agathodsemon, then Saturn, then Osiris, then Typhon, brother of Osiris, and 362 APPENDIX, E. lastly Horus, son of Osiris and Isis ; these first ruled over the Egyptians. Afterwards, the royal authority continued in regular sucdession to Bytis, through a period of 13.900 years. But I un- derstand the year to be lunar, consisting of thirty days ; for what we call a montJt the Egyptians formerly indicated by the name of year. Years. After the gods, heroes reigned, . ^ . . • . 1255 Then other kings, ..... 1817 Then other 30 Memphite kings, .... 1790 Then other 10 Thinite kings, .... 350 Then followed the rule of manes and heroes, . . 5813 The whole sum amounts to n, 000, (really) 11,025 years, which are lunar, that is, monthly. But, in truth, the rule of gods, heroes, and manes, which the Egyptians narrate, is sup- posed to be a period of 24,900 lunar years, which make only 2206 solar years." Eusebiiis then, after some remarks to the import that Mizraim of the Holy Scriptures was the founder of the Egyptian race, and that the foregoing chronology can be made to harmonize essentially with . that of the Hebrew Scriptures by regarding the year as equal to a lunar month,* proceeds to give, in detail, the thirty dynasties. * . . . plane asquum est, ut hi «»»«' in menses convertantur . quot ab Hebrseis memorati anni ; nempe ut qui menses conti- nentur in memoratis apud Hebrseos annis, li totidem intelli- gantur .^gyptiorum lunares anni, pro ea temporum surama quae a primo condito homine ad Mezraira usque colligitur. Etenim Mezraimus yEgyptiaci auctor fuit ab eaque prima .^gyptiorum dynastia credenda est. Quod si temporum copia adhuc exuberet, reputandum sedulo est plures fortasse .^gyptiorum reges una eademque state exstitisse : namque Thinitas regnavisse aiunt at Memphitas et Saitas et .(Ethiopes eodemque tempore alios. Vi- dentur prseterea alii quoque alibi imperium tenuisse, etc. . . — Lat. transl. of the Armenian, etc., B. I ch. xx. 3. MANETHOS LISTS. 363 THE THIRTY DYNASTIES. ACCORDING TO AFRICANUS. DYNASTY I. After the manes and demi- gods, the first dynasty is reck- oned of eight kings, of whom the first was Menes, who reigned 62 years. He was destroyed by a hippopotamus. 2. Athothis, his son, 57 years. He established the kingdom in Memphis. He is said to have been the author of books on anatomy, for he was a physi- cian. 3. Kenkenes, his son, 31 years. 4. Venephes, his son, 23 years. In his time a famine afflicted Egypt. He built the Pyramids, near Kochome. 5. Usaphaidus, his son, 20 years. 6. Miebes, his son, 26 years. 7. Semempses, his son, 18 years. In his time a great pes- tilence afflicted Egypt. 8. Bieneches, his son, 26 years. In all 253 (263) years. ACCORDING TO EUSEBIUS. DYNASTY I. After the manes and heroes, they reckon the first dynasty of eight kings ; of whom the first was Menes, remarkable for his glorious administration. Com- mencing from him, we carefully record the families reigning in succession, of ■which the series is as follows : — 1. Menes, the Thinite, and his seven successors, whom Herod- otus calls Mina. He reigned 30 (60) years. He went, with his army, beyond the limits of his own country ; became illustrious for his exploits. He was de- stroyed by a hippopotamus. 2. Athothis, his son, enjoyed the regal power 27 years. He cultivated the art of medicine, and wrote books on surgery. 3. Cencenes, his son, 39 years. 4. Vanenephis, 42 years. In his time a famine afflicted the land. He erected the pyramid near Kochome. 3^4 APPENDIX, E ACCORDING TO AFRICANUS, DYNASTY II. OP NINE THINITE KINGS. 1. Boethos, 38 years. In his time a chasm opened in the earth, in Bubastusj and many perished. 2. Kseachos, 39 years. In his time the bulls Apis, in Mem- phis, Mnevis, in Heliopolis, and the Mendesian goat, were de- clared to be gods. 3. Binothris, 47 years. In his time it was decreed that women might exercise regal power. 4. Tlas, 17 years. 5. Sethenes, 44 years. 6. Choeres, 17 years. 7. Nephercheres, 25 years. In his time the Nile is fabled to have flowed, mingled with hon- ey, for eleven days. [Both Routh (Rel. Soc. vol. ii. p. 248) and Cory (Anc. Frag. p. 98) add the 8th and 9th kings, according to Euse- bius, or as Eiisebius has them, but they are not in the text. These writers likewise give the sum of the years of this dy- nasty as 302 .years.] ACCORDING TO EUSEBIUS. DYNASTY II. OF NINE KINGS. 1. Bochus.* In his time a great chasm opened in the earth at Bubastus, and many persons perished. 2. After him Cechous; in which time Apis, and Mnevis, and the Mendesian goat are re- garded as gods. 3. Then Biophis, under whom it was enacted by law that wo- men might exercise regal power. 4. 5, 6. Then three others, in whose time no wonderful acts were performed. 7. Under the seventh, the fab- ulists say the Nile flowed with honey and water for 1 1 days. 8. Afterward Sesochris, 48 years, whose height, they say, was five cubits and three hand- breadths. 9. Under the ninth, nothing worthy of mention occurred. These reigned 297 years. » In the orthography of the names I follow the Latin of the Armenian version of Eusebius. MANETHOS LISTS. 365 ACCORDING TO AFRICANUS. ACCORDING TO BUSEBIUS. DYNASTY III. NINE MEMPHITE KINGS. 1. Necherophes, 28 years. In his time the Libyans revolted from the Egyptians, but through fear, on account of an unnatural increase of the moon, they gave themselves up. 2. Tosorthrus, 29 years. He is called Asklepius by the Egyp- tians on account of his medical knowledge. He invented house- building with hewn stones, and patronized literature. 3. Tyris, 7 years. 4. Mesochris, 17 years. 5. Soyphis, i6 years. 6. Tosertasis, 19 years. 7. Aches, 42 years. 8. Sephuris, 30 years. 9. Kerpheres, 26 years. In all 214 years. Altogether, of the three dynasties, accord- ing to Africanus, 769 (779). DYNASTY IV. OF EIGHT MEJIPHITE KINGS OF A DIFFEllENT RACE. 1. Soris, 29 years. 2. Suphis, 63 years. He built the largest pyramid, which He- rodotus says was constructed by Cheops. He was haughty to- wards the gods, and wrote a sa- pred book, which the Egyptians DYNASTY III. OF EIGHT MEMPHITE KINGS. Necherochis, in whose time the Libyans revolted from the Egyptians ; but on account of a sudden and immense increase in the size of the moon, they re- turned to their allegiance. Then Sesorthus, who, on ac- count of his knowledge in med- icine, was called ^sculapius by the Egyptians. He was the in- ventor of building houses with hewn stone, and gave much at- tention to writing. The six remaining kings per- formed nothing worthy of men- tion. These reigned 197 years. DYNASTY IV. OF SEVENTEEN MEMPHITE KINGS, FROM ANOTHER ROY- AL FAMILY. Of whom the third was Su- phis, author of the greatest pyramid, which Herodotus says was erected by Cheops, who be- came haughty toward the gods ; then, becoming penitent, wrote 366 APPENDIX, E. ACCORDING TO APRICANUS. regard as a work of great im- portance. 3. Suphis, 66 years. 4. Mencheres, 63 years. 5. RhatcEses, 25 years. 6. Bicheres, 22 years. 7. Sebercheres, 7 years. 8. Thampthis, 9 years. In all 274 (284) years. In all of the four dynasties after the flood, according to Africanus, 1046 (1063) years. ' DYNASTY V. OF EIGHT ELEPHANTINE KINGS. 1. Usercheres, 28 years. 2. Sephres, 13 years. 3. Nephercheres, 20 years. 4. Sisires, 7 years. 5. Cheres, 20 years. 6. Rhathuris, 44 years. 7. Mencheres, 9 years. 8. Tancheres, 44 years. 9. Obnos, 33 years. In all 248 (218) years, with the 1046 (1063) of the four pre- ceding dynasties, 1294 (1281) years. DYNASTY yi, OF SIX MEMPHITE KINGS. 1. Othoes, 30 years. He was killed by his body-guards. 3. Phius, 53 jygars, ACCORDING TO EUSEBIUS. a sacred book, which the Egyp- tians regard as a great treasure. Respecting the remaining kings, nothing worthy of record has been related. They reigned 448 years. DYNASTY V. OP THIRTY-ONE ELEPHANTINE KINGS. Of whom the first, Othius, was slain by his body-guards. The fourth was Phiops, who, from the sixth year of his age, exercised the regal power till his ;ooth year. DYNASTY VI. A certain woman named Nit- ocris reigned. She was the bravest and most beautiful wo- man of her time, -with rosy pheeks (flaya riibris gepis), {t MANETHOS LISTS. 367 ACCORDING TO AFRICANUS. 3. Methusuphis, 7 years. 4. Phiops, who began to reign at the age of 6years, and reigned kill he was a hundred years old. 5. Menthesuphis, i year. 6. Nitocris, who was the most beautiful woman of her time, of florid complexion. She built the third pyramid, and reigned 12 years. In all 203 years, which, with the 1294 (1281) of the preceding 5 dynasties, make 1497 (1484). DYNASTY VII. OF SEVENTY MEMPHITE KINGS, who reigned 70 days. DYNASTY VIII. OF TWENTY-SEVEN MEMPHITE KINGS, who reigned 146 years; with those before, 1639 years for the eight dynasties. DYNASTY IX. OF NINETEEN HErACLEOPOLITE KINGS, who reigned 409. years. fhe first was Acthoes, who was more cruel than all his pred- ACCORDING TO EUSEBIUS. is said she erected the third_pyr- amid. a huge mass like a hill.* These reigned 203 years. DYNASTY VII. OF FIVE MEMPHITE KINGS, who reigned 75 years. DYNASTY VIII. OF NINE MEMPHITE KINGS (Greek, 5), who reigned 100 years. DYNASTY IX. OF FOUR HERACLEOPOLITE KINGS, loo years. The first of these, Octhois, the most cruel of all the kings * Armen. (Mignes' ed.), speciemcollis pra3 se ferens — but as given in Cory's Ancieijt Fragments (p. 107), quae est moles erecta coUis instar. 368 APPENDIX, E. ACCORDIKG TO AFRICANUS. ecessors. He did much injury to all the inhabitants of Egypt. Being seized with madness, he was killed by a crocodile. DYNASTY X. OF NINETEEN HERACLBOPOLITE KINGS, • who reigned 185 years. DYNASTY XI. OF SIXTEEN DIOSPOLITE kiNGS, "who reigned 43 years. After whom,* Ammenemes reigned 16 years. Thus far the first book of Manetho; in all, 192 (20b) kings, 2300 (2308) years and 70 days. ACCORDING TO EUSEBIUS. who preceded him, filled all Egypt with dire calamities. He was finally seized with madness, and destroyed by a crocodile. DYNASTY X. OF NINETEEN HERACLEOPOLITB KINGS, 185 years. DYNASTY XI. OF SIXTEEN DIOSPOLITE KINGS, 43 years. After whom,t Ammenemes, 16 years. Thus far extends the first book of Manetho. There are 192 kings, and 2300 years. Thk Second Book of Manetho. DYNASTY XII. OF SEVEN DIOSPOLITE KINGS. 1. Sessonchosis, son of Am- menemes, 46 years. (Syncellus, 8th.) 2. Ammenemes, 38 years. He was slain by his eunuchs. (Syncellus, 9th.) DYNASTY XII. OF SEVEN DIOSPOLITE KINGS. Of whom the first, Sesoncho- sis,son of Ammenenes, 46 years. Ammenemes, 38 years, who was slain by his eunuchs. Sesostris, 48 years, who is said to have been four cubits * iii6' Sve, which Cory (Anc. Frag. p. 108) translates among ■whom. Routh (Rel. Sac. vol. il. p. 253) has it, quibus Ammene? mes succedlt, &c. t Post quos. MANETHO'S LISTS. 369 ACCORDING TO AFRICANUS. 3. Sesostris, 48 years. He subdued all Asia in nine years, and Europe as far as Thrace. He everywhere erected monu- ments of his conquests of the nations. He erected pillars, engraven virith male emblems, among the people who y/ere brave, and with female emblems among those who were coward- ly. By the Egyptians he is held in honor first after Osiris. 4. Lachares, 8 years. He built a labyrinth in Arseiioite, as a tomb for himself. 5. Ammeres, 8 years. 6. Ammenemes, 8 years. 7. Skemiophris, his sister, 4 years. In all, 160 years. DYNASTY XIII. OF SIXTY DIOSPOLITE KINGS, ■who reigned 453 years. DYNASTY XIV. OF SEVENTY-SIX XOITE KINGS, who reigned 184 years. DYNASTY XV. SHEPHERDS. They were six foreign Phoeni- cian kings, who took Memphis. The first, Saites, reigned 19 years; after whom, the Saite 24 ACCORDING TO EUSEBIUS. three spans and two digits in height. He subdued all Asia in nine years, and parts of Eu- rope as far as Thrace. In all the conquered countries, he erected monuments on which he inscribed, among, the brave, virilia; among the cowardly, feminea pudenda ignominise causa. Wherefore he is held by the Egyptians next in honor af- ter Osiris. Lampares succeeded, 8 years. He constructed the labyrinth in Arsinois for his tomb. His sucpessors reigned 43 years. The duration of all their reigns was 245 years. DYNASTY XIII. OF SIXTY DIOSPOLITE KINGS, who reigned 453 years. DYNASTY XIV. OF SEVENTY-SIX XOITE KINGS, who reigned 484 years. DYNASTY XV. OP DIOSPOLITAN KINGS, who reigned 250 years. 370 APPENDIX, E. ACCORDING TO AFRICANUS. Nome was named. They found- ed a city in the -Sethroite Nome, from which, going forth, they conquered Egypt. 2. Bnon, 44 years. (27 of Syncellus). 3. Pachnan, 61 years. 4. Staan, 50 years. 5. Arehles, 49 years. 6. Aphobis, 61 years. (29 of Syncellus) . In all, 2S4 years. DYNASTY XVI. •OF THIRTY-TWO OTHER SHEP- HERD KINGS, who reigned 518 years. DYNASTY XVII. OF FORTY-THREE OTHER SHEP- HERD KINGS, AND FORTY- THREE THEBAN DIOSPOLITES. Altogether, the Shepherd and Theban kings reigned 151 years. ACCORDING TO BUSEBIUS. • DYNASTY XVI. OF FIVE THEBAN KINGS, who reigned 190 years. DYNASTY XVII. OF SHEPHERDS, who were Phoenician brothers, and foreign^ kings, who took Memphis. Of whom, 1. Saites reigned 19 years, from whom the Saite Nome was named. They built, in the Seth- roite Nome, a city, from which, going forth, they subdued Egypt. 2. Bnon, 40 yeaiis. 3. Arehles, 30 years. 4. Apophis, 14 years. In all, 103 years. [The same in the Greek.] It was in the time of these kings that Joseph was in Egypt. MANETHO'S LISTS. 371 ACCORDING TO AFRICANUS. DYNASTY XVIII. OF SIXTEEN DIOSPOLITE KINOS. 1. Amos, in whose time Mo- ses went out of Egypt, as we show.* 2. Chebros, 13 years. 3. Amenophthis, 24 years. 4. Amersis, 22 years. 5. Misaphris, 13 years. 6. Misphragmuthosis, 26 years. In his time happened the deluge of Deucalion. 7. Tuthmosis, 9 years. 8. Amenophis, 31 years. He is supposed to be the Memnon, the sounding-stone. 9. Horus, 37 years. 10. Acherrhes, 32 years. 11. Rathos, 6 years. 12. Chebres, 12 years. 13. Acherrhes, 12 years. 14. Armases, 5 years. 15. Ramesses, i year. 16. Amenophath, 19 years. In all, 263 years. [In reality ACCORDING TO EU^BIUS. DYNASTY XVIII. OP fourteen! DIOSPOLITE KINGS, of whom 1. Amoses, 45 years. 2. Chebron, 13 years. 3. Amophis (Ammenophis), 21 years. 4. Memphres (Miphres), 12 years. 5. Mispharmuthosis (Mis- phragmuthosis), 26 years. 6. Tuthmosis, 9 years. 7. Amenophis, 31 years, who is Memnon the speaking (sound- ing) stone. .8. Orus, 28 (38) years. 9. Achencheres, 16 years. In his days Moses offered himself to the Hebrews as a leader, to take them out of Egypt. J [This is put in the time of the nth king in the Greek.] 10. Acherres, 8 years (Atho- ris, 39 years). * It is added, -apparently by Syncellus, "but by the present reckoning, we are compelled to regard Moses at this time as still a young man." t So in the Greek likewise ; but the Greek, in the detail, gives 16 kings. Josephus has 17 names from Tuthoses (Amoses) to Amenophis included, he inserting a female's name in the fourth place. J Greek, in Syncellus, " led the Hebrews," &c. Syncellus says "Eusebius alone says the exodus of Israel took place un- der this king, no one agreeing with him, but all before opposing him, as he confesses " p. 72, D. 372 APPENDIX, E. ACCORDING TO AFRICANUS. 262, without assigning anytime to the first king.] DYNASTY XIX. OF SEVEN DIOSPOLITE KINGS. Sethos,.si years. Rapsakes, 6i years. Ammenephthes, 20 years. Ramesses, 60 years. Ammenemes; 5 years. 5. Thuoris, Who is called, by Homer, Polybius, the husband of Alcandra, in whose time Troy ACCORDING TO EUSEBIUS. 11. Cherres, 15 years (Chen- cheres, 16 years. In his time Moses led the Jews out of Egypt ) [Acherres and Cherres are the 12th and 13th kings in the Greek, so that Athoris and Chencheres are the two in the Greek which are not in the Ar- menian.] 12. Armais, who is Danaus, 5 years ; after which, being driven from Egypt, and fleeing from his brother Egyptus, he escaped into Greece, and, having con- quered Argos, ruled over the Argives. [Armais is the 14th king in the Greek.] 13. Ramesses, who is Egyp- tus, 68 years. (47 Syncellus.) 14. Amenophis, 40 years. [These last two are 15th and 16th in the Greek.] Sum of the reigns, 348. [Same in the Greek, but in reality only 317 or 327.] DYNASTY XIX. OF FIVE DIOSPOLITE KINGS. 1. Sethos, 55- years. 2. Rampses, 65 years. 3. Ammenephthis, 40 years._ 4. Ammenemes, 26 years. 5. Thuoris, called, by Homer, Polybius, a bold and brave man, in whose time Troy was taken [Greek : called by Polybius, by MANETHO'S LISTS. 373 ACCORDING TO AFRICANUS. was taken, 7 years (Syncellus, 49)- In all 209 (204) yearsj, In this second book of Mane- tho are 96 kings and 2121 (2216) years. ACCORDING TO EUSEBIUS. Homer, husband of Alcandra, in whose time Troy was taken], 7 years. In all, 194 years. In this second book of Mane- tho are contained 92 kings and 2121 years. The Third Book of Manetho. DYNASTY XX. OP TWELVE DIOSPOLITE KINGS, who reigned 135 years. DYNASTY XXI. OF SEVEN TANITE KINGS. 1. Smendes, 26 years. 2. Psusennes, 41 (46) years. 3. Nephelcheres, 4 years. 4. Amenophthis, 9 years. 5. Osochor, 6 years. 6. Psinaches, 9 years. 7. ^Psusennes, 35 (14) years. In all, 130 years. DYNASTY XXII. OF NINE BUBASTITE KINGS. 1. Sesonchosis, 2i years. 2. Osorthon, 15 years. 3. 4, 5. Three others, 25 years. 6. Takelothis, 13 years. 7, 8, 9. Three others, 42 years. In all, 120 (116) years. DYNASTY XX. OP TWELVE DIOSPOLITE KINGS, who reigned 172 (178) years. DYNASTY XXI. OF SEVEN TANITE KINGS. 1. Smendis, 26 years. 2. Psusennes, 41 years. 3. Nephercheres, 4 years. 4. Amenophthis, 9 years. 5. Osochor, 6 years. 6. Psinaches, 9 years. 7. Psusennes, 35 years. Sum,- 130 years. DYNASTY XXII. OF THREE BUBASTITE KINGS. 1. Sesonchosis, 21 years. 2. Osorthon, 15 years. 3. Takelothis, 13 years. In all, 49 years. 374 APPENDIX, E ACCORDING TO AFRICANUS. DYNASTY XXIII. OF FOUR TANITE KINGS. 1. Petubates, 40 years. In his time the first Olympiad commenced. 2. Osorcho, 8 years, whom the Egyptians caH Heracles. 3. Psammus, 10 years. 4. Zeet, 31 years. In all, 89 years. DYNASTY XXIV. Bocchoris, the Saite, 6 years, in whose time a lamb spoke, 99 years.* DYNASTY XXV. OF THREE ETHIOPIAN KINGS. 1. Sabakon, who, taking Boc- choris captive, burned him alive. He reigned 8 years. 2. Sebichos, 14 years. 3. Tarkus, 18 years. In all, 40 years. DYNASTY XXVI. OF NINE SAITE KINGS. 1. Stephinates, 7 years. 2. Nechepsos, 6 years. 3. Nechao, 8 years. 4. Psammeticus, 54 years. 5. Necho II., 6 years. He ACCORDING TO EUSEBIUS. DYNASTY XXIII. OF THREE TANITE KINGS. 1. Petubastis, 25 years. 2. Osorthon, 9 years, whom the Egyptians called Heracles. 3. Psammus, 10 years. In all, 44 years. DYNASTY XXIV. Bocchoris, the Saite, 44 years, in whose time a lamb spoke. In all, 44 years. DYNASTY XXV. OF THREE ETHIOPIAN KINGS. 1. Sabakon, who, taking Boc- choris captive,burned him alive, and reigned 12 years. 2. Sebichos, his son, 12 years. 3. Tarakus, 2o years. In all, 40 years. DYNASTY XXVI. OF NINE SAITE KINGS. 1. Ammeris,- the Ethiopian, 12 years. 2. Stephinathes, 7 years. 3. Nechepsos, 6 years. 4. Nechaus, 8 years. * Thus in original. MANETHO'S LISTS. 375 ACCORDING TO AFRICANUS. took Jerusalem, and carried Joachaz, the king, captive to Egypt. 6. Psammuthis (another), 6 years. 7. Vaphris, 19 years, to whom the remainder of the Jews fled when Jerusalem was taken by the Assyrians. 8. Amosis, 44 years (86th of Syncellus). 9. Psammecherites, 6 months. In all, 150 years and 6 months. DYNASTY XXVII. OF BIGHT PERSIAN KINGS. 1. Cambyses reigned over Persia, his own kingdom, 5 years, and over Egypt 6 years. 2. Darius, son of Hystaspes, 36 years. 3. Xerxes the Great, 21 years. 4. Artabanes, 7 months. 5. Artaxerxes, 41 years. 6. Xerxes, 2 months. 7. Sogdianus, 7 months. 8. Darius, son of Xerxes, 19 years. In all, I24years and 4 months. DYNASTY XXVIII. Amyrteus, the Saite, 6 years. ACCORDING TO EUSEBIUS. 5. Psametichus, 44 (45) years- 6. Nechaus II., 6 years. He . took Jerusalem, and led Joachas captive into Egypt. 7. Psammuthis (another), who is Psametichus, 17 years. 8. Vaphres, 25 years ; to whom, Jerusalem being taken by the Assyrians, the remainder of the Jews fled for refuge. 9. Amosis, 42 years. In all, 167 (163) years. DYNASTY XXVII. OF EIGHT PERSIAN KINGS. 1. Cambyses, in the fifth year of his reign, ruled in Egypt 3 years. 2. The Magi, 7 months. 3. Darius, 36 years. 4. Xerxes, son of Darius, 21 years. 5. Artaxerxes Longimanus, 40 years. 5. Xerxes II., 2 months. 7. Sogdianus, 7 months. 8. Darius, son of Xerxes, 19 years. In ail, 120 years and 4 months. DYNASTY XXVIII. Amyrtseus, the Saite, 6 years. 376 APPENDIX, E. ACCORDING TO AFRICANUS. DYNASTY XXIX. OF FOUR MENDESIAN KINGS. 1. Nepherites, 6 years. 2. Achoris, 13 years. 3. Psamrauthis, i year. 4. Nephprites, 4 months. In all, 20 years and 4 months. DYNASTY XXX. OF THREE SEBENNYTE KINGS. 1. Nectanebus, 18 years. 2. Teos, 2 years. 3. Nectanebus, 18 years. In all, 38 years. DYNASTY XXXI. OF THREE PERSIAN KINGS. 1. Ochus, in the 20th year of his reign in Persia, reigned (be- gan to reign) in Egypt, 2 years. 2. Arses, 3 years. 3. Darius, 4 years. The whole number of years in the third book is 1050. Thus far Manetho. The subsequent history is to be sought from Grecian writers. ACCORDING TO EUSEBIUS. DYNASTY XXIX. of four mendesian kings (really five). 1. Nepheritus, 6 years. 2. Achoris,- 13 years. 3. Psammuthis, I year. 4. Muthes, I year. 5. Nepheritus, 4 months In all, 21 years and 4 months. DYNASTY XXX. OF THREE SEBENNYTE KINGS. 1. Nectanebus, 10 years. 2. Teos, 2 years. 3. Nectanebus, 8 years. In all, 20 years. DYNASTY XXXI. OF THREE PERSIAN KINGS. I. Ochus, in the 20th year of his reign in Persia, took Egypt, and reigned 6 (2) years. 2. Arses, son of Ochus, 4 years. 3. Then Darius, 6 years, whom Alexander of Macedon slew. These are the contents of the third book of Manetho. The subsequent history is related by Grecian writers. Syncellus, pp. 55-78. THE OLD CHRONICLE. 377 F. Page 74. THE OLD CHRONICLE! This is one of the most important fragments relating to ■ Egyptian archaeology that have come down to us from antiquity. It is found in Syncellus, pp. 51, 52. " Reign of the Gods according to the Old Chronicle. "The time of Hephaestus is not given, as he appeared both night and day. Years. Helius, the son of Hephaestus, reigned. ■ . 30,000 Then Kronos, and the other 12 gods, reigned 3>984 Then the 8 demigods, . . 217 After these, they enumerate 15 generations of the Cy aic Cycle, in . . 443 Then the i6th dynasty of Tanites, 8 generations, 190 17th Memphites, 4 103 18th (f 14 348 19th Diospolites, S 194 20th t( 8 228 2lst Tanites, 6 121 22d a 3 48 23d Diospolites, 2 " 19 24th Saites, 3 44 2Sth Ethiopians, 3 44 26th Memphites, 7 177 27th Persians, S 124 [ " 28th Saite, I " 6]* * Supplied from Manetho, according to Eusebius and Afri- canus. See Mailer's Frag. Hist. Grsec. vol. ii. p. S34- 378 APPENDIX, G. Years. Then the 29th dynasty of Tanites, 39 Lastly, the 30th " Tanite, i generation, 15 In all, 30 dynasties, and 36,525 years. • " This number, resolved and divided into its parts, that is, 25 times 1461, shovirs the time of the restitution (anoxcnamaair) of the zodiac, as fabled among the Egyptians and Greeks, which is its revolution from a particular point to the same again. This point is the first minute of the first degree of the equinoctial sign which they call the Ratn, as is explained in the Genesis of Hernies, and the Cyraunian books." eS-. Page 77. ERATOSTHENES AND APOLLODORUS. The testimony of these two eminent writers is so im- portant in Egyptian chronology, that a fuller exhibit should be made of the outlines of their system. Eratosthenes' list of names is as follows : — Years. 1. First reigned Menes, a Thenite (i. e., a Theban), who is called Aionios (Eternal), . . . .62 2. Athothis, son of Menes, surnamed Hermogenes, . 59 3. Athothis II., . . . . . • . 32 4. Diabies, son of Athothis, .... 19 5. Pemphos, son of Athothis, called Herakleides, . 8 6. Toigar, the Invincible, a Memphite monocheir, sur- named Tisandros, a giant, . . . •19 7. Stoichos, his son, called Ares, the Senseless, >. 6 8. Gosormies, the Desire of All, . . . .30 9. Manes, his son, named Heliodorus (gift of the sun), 26 ERATOSTHENES AND APOLLODORUS. 379 10. Anouphis, the Long-haired, 11. Sirios, named the son of the eye, 12. Chnoubos Gneuros, i. e., Chryses, son of Chryses, 13. Rhanosis, the Supreme, .... 14. Biuris, ...... 15. Saophis, the Long-haired, called by some the Money- getter, ...... 16. Saophis IL, ...... 17. Moscheres, Heliodotos (given by the sun), 18. Mosthes, ...... 19. Pammes, Ruler of the Land, 20. Apappus, Most Great, .... 21. Echeskosokaras, ..... 22. Nitokris, a woman, surnamed Athene, the Victorious, 23. Myrtseos Ammonodotos (given by Amun), 24. Thuosimares, the Mighty, the Sun, . 25. Thinillos, who increased the power of his father, 26. Semphroukrates, surnamed Hercules Arpocrates, 27. Chouther Tauros, a tyrant, 28. Meures, Philoskoros (Lover of the Eye), . 29. Chomaephtha, the World, loving Phtah, 30. Soikunios, the Sharp, a tyrant, 31. Peteathyres, 32. Sistosis (?) (Palmer supplies Ammenemes I.), . 33. Ammenemes II., • 34 Sistosichermes, the Strength of Hercules, . 35. Mares, ...... 36. Siphoas, who is also Hermes, son of Phtah, 37. Phrouron, or Nilos, .... 38. Amunthantaios, ..... Total Years. 20 l8 22 13 10 29 27 31 33 38 100 I 6 22 J3 8 18 7 12 II 60 7(?) 42 23 55 43 5 19 63 1076 Several points here deserve attention. The first is the alleged- commencement of the above list in the year of 380 APPENDIX, G. the world 2900 (V'S ^g^aro idv ta P^ izEi TOu «6(T/iov). Bunsen and Lepsius assume that this date was added by Syncellus ; but of this there is no proof. Syncellus' own date for the creation of the world is B. C. 5500, and his era of Menes is B. C. 2776, i. e., in the year A. M. 2724, 124 years earlier than that given in the list of Eratos- thenes. The particularity of the date A. M. 2900 creates a strong probability that it was either given ex- pressly by the latter, or derivtd from some other definite date, which was well known,_ possibly that of the con- quest of Egypt by Cambyses, B. C. 525, or Artaxerxes Ochus, B. C. 341, from which it would be easy to ireckon back to the beginning of the list. At any rate, it clearly was not a date given by Syncellus, and it can not be shown that it was not inserted by Eratosthenes himself. This computation places Menes at 638 years after the flood, according to the LXX. The second point worthy of notice is the reason why Syncellus did not give the names of the fifty-three other kings mentioned by Apollodorus. Bunsen is quite se- vere upon him for the omission. . " The • only natural explanation which suggested itself to us when njaking the inquiry, was that Syncellus lost his patience in epitomizing that list. With infinite pains he had toiled through the awkward Egyptian names it contained, and the Greek ver- sions of them, which he did not understand. With infinite pains he had made his calculations of the year of the world which coin- cided with each of the thirty reigns ; taking as his starting-point the nearest possible year after the flood, according to his system. In reference to the calculation of the Father of Chronology, he njade the epoch from the confusion of tongues down to Abra- ERATOSTHENES AND APOLLODORUS. 381 ham as long as he thought admissible, and now, when he had arrived at the end of 1076 years, he was obliged to admit that all his pains had been thrown away. . . . He gives way to his ill humor, throws the list into the fire, and can not refrain from exclaiming, • Even those names are totally unmanageable ; how much more these fifty- three ! ' " (Egypt's Place, etc., vol. ii. p. 4S6.) This charge of " losing his temper," we pass over with- out more notice. But the cause of it deserves a further remark. Syncellus found th*e list " unmanageable," and so, " in ill humor," cast it aside when less than half tran- scribed. The German savant himself finds no little diffi- culty of the same kind, and finds it much easier to dispose of the fifty-three names that were not transcribed. These, " the hasty words " of Syncellus, " prove most decisively were the kings of the middle empire, who reigned between the downfall of the old empire and the restoration, while the Hyksos had the supremacy, or at least possessed Lower Egypt and . Memphis." This is a most remarkable assumption, and Bunsen acknowledges that Lepsius combats the position. The thirty-eight reigns came down to about B. C. 1525, according to Syncellus, bordering on the time of the restoration, as we understand Bunsen ; and besides, the chronology of Eratosthenes evi- dently was, that the whole 91 (= 38 -|- 53) reigns of Tlie- ban kings- covered the entire period from Menes till the time Egypt was conquered by Cambyses, about B. C. 526 ; at least, the eighty-six reigns of Egyptian kings, given by Syncellus, cover the whole of this period, com- mencing 1 24 years earlier. Bunsen compares the names of the kings in this list 382 APPENDIX, G. with those of Manetho, and of the thirty-eight he claims to find nineteen in the latter, which " are either identical with them, or so nearly so, that to any one moderately versed in the system of Egyptian royal nomenclature the actual or possible correspondence between the two sets will be at once apparent." (Vol. i. p. 134.) It is true that the two first names, Menes and Athothis, and the twenty-second, Nitocris, are the same in each list. Three or four names are nearly the same, as Stamme- nemes for Ammenemes, Saophis for Suphis, and two or three others, have some resemblance ; but to make Ram- mes to be the same as Thamphthis, Apappus as Phios, and Gosormies as Sesorthos, is making the " royal nom- enclature " a very indefinite affair. A name may be made anything or nothing. Bunsen says, " The occasional discrepancy in the( years of the reigns may be satisfac- torily explained in various ways." Now, this " occasional discrepancy" is simply this : there is entire harmon)6in only three of the reigns he has identified ; the discrep- ancy is almost universal." The probability is, that some few of the names in the list of Eratosthenes are those of kings found in the list of Manetho ; but still a great difficulty remains, which Bunsen has done little or nothing to remove. MANETHO ACCORDING TO JOSEPHUS. 383 n. MANETHO ACCOEX)ING TO JOSEPHUS. " I SHALL begin with the writings of the Egyptians ; not indeed of those that have written in the Egyptian language, "which it is impossible for me to do. But Manetho was a man who was by birth an Egyptian ; yet had he made himself master of the Greek learning, as is very evident, for he wrote the history of his own country in the Greek tongue, by translating it, as he saith him- self, out of their sacred records ; he also finds great fault with Herodotus for his ignorance and false relation of Egyptian affairs. Now, this Manetho, in the second book of his Egyptian history, writes concerning us in the following manner. I will set down his very words, as if I were to bring the man himself into a court for a witness. " ' There was a king of ours, whose name was Timaus. Under him it came to pass, I know not how, that God was averse to us ; and there came, after a surprising manner, men of ignoble birth out 'of the eastern parts, and had boldness enough to make an expedition into our country, and with ease subdued it by force, yet without our hazarding a battle with them. So when they had gotten those that governed us under their power, they after- wards burnt down our cities, and demolished the temples of the gods, and used all the inhabitants after a most barbarous man- ner; nay, some they slew, and led their children and their wives into slavery. At length they made one of themselves king, whose name was Salatis ; he also lived at Memphis, and made both the upper and lower regions pay tribute, and left garrisons in places that were the most proper for them. . . . When this man had reigned thirteen years, after him reigned another, whose name was Beon, for forty-four years ; after him reigned another, called Afacknas,. thirty-six years and seven months; 384 APPENDIX, H. after him Apophis reigned sixty-one years, and then Juntas fifty years and one month; after all these reigned Assis forty-nine years and two months. And these six were the first rulers among them, who were all along making war with the Egyptians, and were very desirous, gradually, to destroy them to the very roots. This whole nation was styled Hycsos, that is. Shepherd- kings ; for the first syllable, Hyc, according to the sacred dialect, denotes a king, as is Sos a shepherd — but this according to the ordinary dialect; and of these is compounded Hycsos. But some say that these people were Arabians.' Now, in another copy it is said that this word does not denote kings, but, on the contrary, denotes captive shepherds, and this on account of the particle Hyc ; for that Hyc, with the aspiration in the Egyptian tongue again, denotes shepherds, and that expressly also ; and this, to me, seems the more probable opinion, and more agreeable to aiicient history. [But Manetho goes on :] ' These people, whom vire have before named kings, and called shepherds also, and their descendants,' as he says, ' kept possession of Egypt five hundred and eleven years.' After these he says, ' That the kings of The- bais, and of other parts of Egypt, made an insurrection against the Shepherds, and that a terrible and long war was made between them.' He says further: ' That under a king, whose name was AlisfhragmuthQsis, the Shepherds were subdued by him, and were indeed driven out of other parts of Egypt, but were shut up in a place that contained ten thousand acres; this place was named Avaris.' Manetho says, ' That the Shepherds built a wall round- all this place, which was a large and strong wall, and this in order to keep all their possessions and their prey within a place of strength, but that ThUmmosis, the son of Alisphrag- muthosis, made an attempt to take them by force and by siege, with four hundred and eighty thousand men to lie round about them ; but that, upon his despair of taking the place by that siege, they came to a composition with them, that they should leave Egypt and go, without any harm to be done to them, whithersoever they would ; and that after this composition was MANETHO ACCORDING TO JOSEPHUS. 385 made, they went away, with their whole families and effects, not fewer in number than two hundred and forty thousand, and took their journey from Egypt through the wilderness for Syria; but that as they were in fear of the Assyrians, who had then the do- minion over Asia, they built a city in that country which is now called Judea, and that large enough to contain this great number of men, and called it Jerusalem.' Now Manetho, in another book of his, says, ' That this nation thus called Shepherds were also called captives in their sacred books.' And this account of his is the truth ; for feeding of sheep was the employment of our fore- fathers in the most ancient ages ; and as they led such a wan- dering life in feeding sheep, they were called shepherds. Nor was it without reason that they were called captives by the Egyptians, since one of our ancestors, Joseph, told the king of Egypt that he was a captive, and afterward sent for his brethren into Egypt, by the king's permission ; but as for these matters, I shall make a more exact inquiry about them elsewhere. "But now I shall produce the Egyptians as witness to the an- tiquity of our nation. I shall therefore here bring in Manetho again, and what he writes as to the order of the times in this case ; and thus he speaks : ' When this people, or Shepherds, were gone out of Egj'pt to Jerusalem, Teihmosts, the king of Egypt who drove them out, reigned afterward twenty-five years and four months, and then died ; after him his son, Chebron, took the kingdom for thirteen- years ; after whom came Atneno- phis, for twenty years and seven months; then came his sister, Amessas, for twenty-one years and nine months ; after her came Mephres, for twelve years and nine months ; after her was Mephramuthosis, for twenty-five years and ten months ; after him was Tethmosis, for nine years and eight months; after him carae Amenophis, for thirty years and . ten months ; after him came Orus, for thirty-six years and five months ; then came his daughter, Acencheres, for twelve years and one month ; then was her brother, Rathotis, for nine years ; then was Acencheres, for twelve years and five months ; then came another Acencheres, 25 386 APPENDIX, H. for twelve years and three months; after him Armais. for four years and one month ; after him was Harnesses, for one year and four months ; after him came Armesses Miammoiin, for sixty years and two months; after him Amenophis, for nineteen years and six months; after him came Setfiosis, and Harnesses, who had an army of horse and a naval force. This king appointed his brother Armais to be his deputy over Egypt.' In another copy it stood thus : ' Aft&r him came Sethosis and Harnesses, two brethren, the former of whom had a naval force, and in a hostile manner destroyed those that met him upon the sea; but as he slew Harnesses in no long time afterward, so he appointed another of his brethren to be his deputy over Egypt. He also gave him all the authority of a king, but with these only injunc- tions, that he should not wear the diadem, nor be injurious to the queen, the mother of his children, and that he should not meddle with the other concubines of the king; wiiile he made an expedition against Cyprus and Phoenicia, and beside against the Assyrians and the Medes. He then«subdued them all, some by his arms, some without fighting, and some by the terror of his great army; and being puffed up by the great success he had had, he still went on the more boldly, and overthrew the cities and countries that lay in the eastern parts ; but after some con- siderable time, Armais, who was left in Egypt, did all these very things, by the way of opposition, which his brother had forbidden him to do, without fear; for he used violence to the queen, and continued to make use of the rest of the concubines, without sparing any of them ; nay, at the persuasion of his friefnds he put on the diadem, and set up to oppose his brother; but then he who was set over the priests of Egypt wrote letters, to Seikosis, and informed him of all that had happened, and how his brother had set up to opppse him ; he therefore returned back to Pelu- sim immediately, and recovered his kingdoms again. The country also was called from his name Egyjit ; forManetho says that Sethosis himself was called Egyptus, as was his brother Armais called Danaus.' " MANETHO ACCORDING TO JOSEPHUS. 387 The language of the last paragraph gives rise to a doubt as to where the quotation from Manetho should close. We have placed the quotation marks as we find them in the translation of Whiston. For the sake of convenience in comparing this list of Josephus with those of Africanus and Eusebius for the same period in history, we arrange the names in a concise tabular form : : — OF SHEPHERD KINGS. Years. 44 36 1. Salatis, 2. Beon, 3. Apachnas, 4. Apophis, 61 5. Janias So 6. Assis, 49 Months. KINGS OF THEBAIS, OR THOSE AFTER THE EX- PULSION OF THE SHEPHERDS. I. Tethmosis, . ^. Chebron, 3. Amenophis, 4. Amesses, his sister, 5. Mephres,^ . 6. Mephramuthosis, . 7. TRrnosis, 8. Amenophis, . g. Horus, . 10. Acencheres, his daughter, 11. Rathotis, her brother, 12. Acencheres, . 13. Acencheres, another, Years. Months 2S 4 13 20 •7 21 9 12 9 25 10 9 8 30 10 36 5 12 I 9 12 S 13 3 388 APPENDIX, H. Years. Months. 14. Armais, 4 i 15^ Ramesses, i 4 16. Armesses, son of Miammes, . . 66 2 17. Amenophis, 19 6 19. Sethosis, who is Ramesses. In comparing these names of Josephus with the cor- responding ones of Africanus and Eusebius, the following points of resemblance and discrepancy appear : — As to the Shepherd kings: Africanus has 81 names, whose reigns (allotting one half of the duration of the 17th dynasty to the Shepherds) covered 877 years ; Euse- bius" gives 4 names, with a period of 103 years ; and Jose- phus 6, with a period of 260 years, saying that the time the Shepherds dwelt in Egypt was 518 years. Africanus assigns the 15th, i6th, and a part of the 17th dynasty to the Shepherds ; Eusebius makes the 1 7th dy- nasty only to consist of Shepherd kings. The 15th dynasty of Africanus, of 6 Shepherd kings, corresponds nearly with the 6 Shepherd kings of Jose- phus, three or four of the names being nearly alike, and the duration of five reigns being exactly the same, months excepted, the other reign differing by 25 years. In view of these facts, we think we are warranted in drawing the following conclusion : — The Manetho of Josephus is. not the same person as the Manetho of Africanus and Eusebius ; or if, as sortie suppose (e. g., Bunsen, as we understand him), Africanus made an epitome of the work from which Josephus quotes, or used one made by others before him (Eusebius MANETHO ACCORDING TO JOSEPHUS. 389 only having before him the epitome of Afiicanus), this epitome was so imperfect and erroneous, or is so corrupt through carelessness or design, or both, that it is of little or no critical value, except in its later portions. But the supposition that the lists of Afiicanus and Eusebius are epitomized from the work which Josephus quotes, can not be sustained on critical grounds. The Jewish historian quotes in extenso a number of passages from a work of Manetho in three books, which he says the latter wrote in Greek, translating from the Egyptian language ; his ex- tracts are in good Greek, quoted, professedly, verbatim; he gives the duration of the reigns in years and months, stating the historical incidents connected with them in historical style. Now, in an epitome of such a work, should we not at least expect an essential correspondence in names (since the language is the same), and in the duration of the reigns, and in the principal historical in- cidents, that might be. noticed? But what is the fact? Why, in regard to the so-called Shepherd kings, where Josephus gives six names, covering a period of 260 years, Africanus speaks of 81 kings, covering a period of about 877 years ; of the six names which the latter gives of the Shepherds in his 15th dyfiasty, none are exactly the same as those of Josephus, three have a near resemblance, and three are almost entirely different, the duration of five of the reigns being exactly the same, the months excepted. The latter fact identifies historically the 15th dynasty of Africanus with the six kings mentioned by Josephus ; while the discrepancy in the names, and the additional number of Shepherd kings which ponstitute his i6th and 39° APPENDIX, H. 17th dynasty, show that the list was not derived from the same work which Josephus quotes, but from other documents and records, which were perhaps but imper- fectly understood. The same is true in regard td the succeeding seventeen names given by Josephus, which evidently make the i8th dynasty of Africanus ; while some resemblance in names, and a correspondence in duration in reigns, identify the kings historically, yet the discrepancies clearly prove that the list of Africanus could not have been derived from the work which Josephus quotes, but from other sources, perhaps the original rec- ords from which that work was compiled, not perfectly understood. Different translators would transfer the same names in a different form ; and in regard to such records as those of ancient Egypt, parts would be obscure, and naturally understood differently by different interpreters. The supposition, then, which best harmonizes with all the known facts of the case, is, that the Manetho of Jose- phus is not the Manetho of Africanus and Eusebius ; that the list of Africanus was derived from another work than that quoted by Josephus, peirhaps the so-called Pseudo- Manetho, or some writer who undertook to rearrange the dynasties, and put forth his work under the name of the first leading writer of Egyptian history. He may have stated that his work was mainly compiled from that of the original Manetho, which statement has not been preserved. CHINESE ASTRONOMY. 39I I. Page 127. CHINESE ASTRONOMY. The following, from the Shu-King, is the entire origi- nal passage on vsrhich is based the high claim for the Chi- nese of a knowledge of astronomy as early as the 24th century B. C. : — " Thereupon Yaou commanded He and Ho, in reverent accord- ance with their observation of the wide heavens, to calculate and delineate the movements and appearances of the sun, the moon, the stars, and the zodiacal spaces, and so to deliver respectfully the same to the people. " He separately commanded the second brother He to reside at Yu-e, in what was called the Bright Valley, and there respectfully to receive, as a guest, the rising sun, and to adjust and arrange the labors of the spring. ' The day,' he said, ' is of the medium length, and the star is in Neaou. You may thus exactly deter- mine mid-spring. The people begin to disperse, and birds and beasts breed and copulate.' " He further commanded the third brother He to reside at Neankeaou, and arrange the transformations of summer, and respectfully to observe the extreme limit of the shadow. ' The day,' said he, ' is at its longest, and the star is Ho ; you may thus exactly determine mid-summer. The people are more dispersed ; and the birds and beasts have their feathers and hair thin, and change their coats.' " He separately commanded the second brother Ho to reside at the west, in what was called the Dark Valley, and there re- spectfully to convoy the setting sun, and to adjust and arrange the completing labors of the autumn. ' The night,' he said, ' is of the medium length, and the star is Heu ; you may thus exactly 392 APPENDIX, I. determine mid-autumn. The people begin to feel at ease, and birds and beasts have their coats in good condition.' " He further commanded the third brother Ho to reside in the northern region, in what was called the Sombre Capital, and there to adjust and examine the changes of the winter. ' The day,' said he, ' is at its shortest, and the star is Maou ; thus you may exactly determine mid-winter. The people keep their cosy corners ; and the coats of birds and beasts are downy and thick.' " The emperor said, ' Ah, you ! He and Ho, a round year con- sists of three hundred and sixty and six days. By means of an intercalary month do you fix the four seasons, and complete the determination of the year. Thereafter, in exact accordance with this I'egulating the various officers, all the works of the year will be fully performed." — Chinese Classics, vol. iii. part i. pp. 18-21. " Now here are He and Ho. . They have entirely subverted their virtue, and are sunk and lost in wine. They have violated the duties of their office, and left their posts. They have been the first to allow the regulations of heaven to get into disorder, put- ting far from ' them their proper business. On the first day of the last month of autumn, the sun and moon did not meet har- moniously in Fang. The bliiid musicians beat their drums ; the inferior officers and common people bustled and ran about. He and Ho, however, as if they were mere person ators of the dead in their offices, heard nothing and knew nothing — so stupidly went they astray from their duty in the matter of the heavenly appearances, and. rendered themselves liable to the death ap- pointed by former kings. The statutes of the government say, ' When they anticipate the time, let them be put to death without mercy ; when they are behind the time, let them be put to death without mercy ! ' " — Id. p. 165. DIVERSITIES BETWEEN RACES. 393 J- Page 198. SUPERFICIAL CHARACTER OF DIVERSITIES BETWEEN RACES. The greatest physical difference between any two races is, of course, that which exists between the blaclis and the w^hites, or rather between the Negro and the Cauca- sian. If this be not sufficient to constitute difference of species, it will be conceded that such difference does not exist. Upon this point the following statements are wor- thy to be considered : — "The ablest living anatomist of Germany — Professor Tiede- mann — has lately directed his researches with singular felicity to the vindication of the uncivilized man's capacity for improve- ment. In the vyorks mentioned at the head of this article, and in the translation read at the Royal Society of London, of which the professor is a foreign member, that important question seems to be set at rest forever. The results of a most exact analysis of cases are thus stated by him : — " ' I. The brain of the negro is, upon the whole, quite as large as that of the European and other human races. The weight of the brain, its dimensions, and the capacity of the cavum cranii, prove this fact. Many anatomists have also incorrectly asserted that Europeans have a larger brain than negroes. " '2. The nerves of the negro, relatively to the size of the brain, are not thicker than those of Europeans, as Soemmerring and his followers have said. "'3. The outward form of the spinal cord, the medulla ob- longata, the cerebellum, and cerebrum of the negro show no important difference from those of the European. " '4. Nor does the inward structure — the order of the cortical 394 APPENDIX, J. and medullary substance — nor the inward organization of the negro brain show any difference from those of the European. " ' 5. The negro brain does not resemble that of the orang- outang more than the European brain, except in the more sym- metrical distribution of the gyri and sula. It is not even certain that this is always the case. We can not, therefore, coincide with the opinion of many naturalists, who say that the negro has more resemblance to apes than Europeans in reference to the brain a'nd nervous system.' " And after a minute survey of proofs respecting the intellectual faculties of the negro, Professor Tiedemann concludes in the following words : -^ "The principal result of my researches on the brain of the negro is, that neither anatomy nor physiology can justify our placing them beneath Europeans in a moral or intellectual point of view." * Another distinguished ethnologist, in defining a negro, says, — "The negroes are referable to an extreme rather than a nor- mal type; and so far are they from being co-extensive with the Africans, that it is almost exclusively along the valleys of rivers that they are to be found. There are none in the extratropical parts of Northern, none in the corresponding parts of Southern Africa, and but few on the table-lands of even the two sides of the equator. Their areas, indeed, are scanty and small. Qne lies on the Upper Nile, one on the Bower Gambia and Senegal, one on the Lower Niger, and the last along the western coast, where the smaller rivers that originate in the Kong Mountains form hot and moist alluvial tracts." Again : — "If the word negro mean the combination of woolly hair with a jetty black skin, depressed nose, thick lips, narrow forehead, acute facial angle,, and prominent jaw, it applies to Africans as * For. Quarterly Review, Oct., 1839. DIVERSITIES BETWEEN RACES. 395 widely different from each other as the Laplander is from the Samoeid and Eskimo, or the Englishman from the Finlander. It applies to the inhabitants of certain portions of different river- systems, indefendent of relationship, and vice versa. The ne- groes of Kordofan are nearer in descent to the Copts and Arabs than are the lighter-colored and civilized Fulahs. They are also nearer to the same than they are to the- blacks of Senegam- bia. If this be the case, the term has no place in ethnology, except so far as its extensive use makes it hard to abandon. Its real application is to anthropology, wherein it means the effects of certain influences upon certain intertropical Africans, irrespec- ■ tive of descent, but not irrespective of physical condition. As truly as a. short stature and light skin coincide with the occu- pancy of mountain ranges, the negro physiognomy coincides with that of the alluvia of rivers." * Dr. Livingstone,- the great African traveler,- is a writer wliose opinions few will dare to dispute. He says, — " All the inhabitants of this region, as well as those of Londa, may be called true negroes, if the limitations formerly made be borne in mind. The dark color, thick lips, heads elongated backwards and upwards, and covered with wool, flat noses, with other negro peculiarities, are general ; but while these character- istics place them in the true negro family, the reader would imbibe a wrong idea if he supposed that all these features com- bined are often met with in one indiyidual. All have a certain thickness and prominence of lip, but many are met with in every village in whom thickness and prominence are not more marked than in Europeans. All are dark, but the color is shaded off in different individuals from deep black to light yellow. As we go westward, we observe the light color predominating over the dark; and then again, when we come within the influence of damp from the sea air, we find the shade deepen into the general blackness of the coast population. The shape of the head, with its woolly crop, though general, is not universal. The tribes on * Latham, Man and his Migrations, p. 147. 396 APPENDIX, J. the eastern side of the continent, as the Caffres, have heads finely developed, and strongly European. Instances of this kind are frequently seen, and after I became so familiar with the dark' color as to forget it in viewing the countenance, I was struck by the strong resemblance some nations bore to certain of our own notabilities. The Bushmen and Hottentots are exceptions to these remarks, for both the shape of their heads and growth of wool are peculiar — the latter, for instance, springs from the scalp in tufts, with bare spaces between, and, when the crop is short, resembles a number of black pepper-corns stuck on the skin, and very unlike the thick, frizzly masses which cover the heads of the Balonda and Maravi. With every disposition to pay due deference to the opinions of those who have made eth- nology their special study, I have felt myself unable to believe that the exaggerated features usually put forth as those of the typical negro characterize the .majority of any nation of South Central Africa. The monuments of the ancient Egyptians seem to me to embody the ideal of the inhabitants of Londa better than the figures of any work of Ethnology I have met with." — Livingstone's Researches in South Africa. London ed., 1857, ch. xix. p. 378. The following facts and opinions respecting the negro race are from the work of another recent African traveler.* Having given a physical description of the negro which would satisfy any negro-hater, the writer pro- ceeds as follows : — "Thus it has been proved by measurements, by microscopes, by analysis, that the typical negro is something between a child, » " Savage Africa : Being the Narrative of a Tour in Equa- torial, South-western, and North-western Africa. .... By Winwood Reade, Fellow of the Geographical and Anthropologi- cal Societies of London, and Corresponding Member of the Geographical Society of Paris. Second edition, London. DIVERSITIES BETWEEN RACES. 397 a dotard, and a beast. I can not struggle against these sacred facts of science ; I can not venture to dispute the degradation of the negro. But I contend that it is only degradation ; that it is the result of disease; that it is not characteristic of the African continent; and that it is confined to a small geographical area. . . . But first I will remove the great stumbling-block of African ethnology. By defining the geography of the negro, I shall pave the way for the elucidation of that mystery which has perplexed the philosophers of all ages — the negro's place in nature. " Those who deny that the negro type has been produced by natural causes, have alleged that there are two distinct races in Africa, — the red and the black, — and that they inhabit the same localities. The reader will bear in mind that a series of mountain terraces runs along the whole length of Western Africa, and that between them and the sea are low and malarious swamps. These mountains are inhabited by the true African — a red-skinned race. Nations of these, descending into the swamps, have become degraded in body and mind, and their type completely changed. "The negro forms an exceptional race in Africa. He inhabits that immense tract of marshy land which lies between the moun- tains and the sea, from Senegal to Benguela, and the lowlands of the eastern side in the same manner. He is found in the parts about Lake Tchad, in Sennaar, along the marshy' banks of rivers, and in several isolated spots besides. But he is not found in the vast tracts which are occupied by the Berbers on the north, and the Bitshuanas of the south. He i^. not found in the highlands of Ethiopia, nor in those of Soudan. " In Africa there are three grand races, as there maybe said to be three grand geological divisions. "The Libyan stock inhabit the primitive and volcanic tracts. They have a tawny complexion, Caucasian features, and long black hair. " On the sandjstones will be found an intermediate type. 39^ APPENDIX, J. They are darker than their parents; they have short and very curly hair; their lips are thick, and their nostrils wide at the base. "And, finally, in the allUvia, one will find the negroes with a black skin, woolly hair, and prognathous development. " I do not mean to assert that light-colored tribes are never found in the alluvia, and that true negroes can never be met with in the dry plateaus. There is in Africa a continual movement towards the west. It is, therefore, common enough to see Fulas and Mandingos inhabiting the lowlands of Senegambia ; and the light-colored Fans are beginning to occupy the banks of the Gaboon. In the same manner, a tribe of negroes migrating across the continent from the east coast might be met with in a sandy desert of Central Africa. " My assertion that the negro is as exceptional a race in Africa as the livid inhabitants of the Fens in England, or of the Pontine marshes in Italy, and that he inhabits, comparatively speaking, a small geographical area, will excite great surprise. There is a general delusion respecting the negro which is not difficult to explain. The whole western coast, and a great portion of the eastern coast, are inhabited by negroes. It is natural that trav- elers and coast residents should accept them as types of the races of the continent. The slaves that have been imported into the New World were almost exclusively brought from these regions ; and I have always observed that slaves, even among negroes, present a lower type than that of the surrounding popu- lation. These also have been examined, and written upon by naturalists as true samples of the African." — pp. 509, 513. In regard to the cause of color in man, a distinguished French savant * writes as follows : — " When we seek for the cause of coloration in the human skin, an anatomical analysis presents particulars to which sufficient * De rUnit6 des Races Humaines. Par M. Ladevi Roche, Professeur Honoraire de Philosophic ^ la Faculty dc Lettres de Bordeaux. DIVERSITIES BETWEEN RACES. 399 attention has not been given. In proceeding from the outside, we at first meet with that thin, light pellicle, transparent and colorless tissue, called the epidermis ; and immediately below, the microscope reveals the colored matter called the pigmentary body (from the \^&tm pigmentum, painting), formed .of a multi- tude of granules, and always presenting a yellow, red, or black tint, which is reflected by the transparency of the epidermis. They (the polygenists) have gone further : they have wished to descend even to the true skin of man, to the dermis, in which are the roots of the hair, ... in the hope of finding there the efficient cause of coloration in the pigmentary matter. But, oh, surprise ! The dermis, the true skin of man, which they thought to. find black, yellow, red, or copper-colored, and, by these differ- ent shades, to justify the distinction and plurality of races, — the dermis, I say, turned and returned in every way, examined by the lens and the microscope, in the white, in the black, in the red, and in the yellow, constantly oflFers itself to the astonished eye with a uiii/orm color of faded white, as soon as it is disen- gaged from the blood that covers it ; and we have been forced to recognize — so evident was the fact — that the true skin of man — the two tissues which cover it being removed — was of the same complexion (d'une teinte unicoloree) in all men, and that, in this relation, no doubt can be entertained respecting the unity of the human races. Thus the variety of coloration depends solely on the presence of the pigmentary body. This body is a cellular network, of which each cell contains, under the form of granules, the coloring matter. It is very apparent in individuals who are black, red, olive, or tawny; it is less, and sometimes not at all, in those that are white ; so that the first observers declared that in the white man there was no trace of it — that which creates a difference between the white race and the other three. And already, taking advantage of this peculiarity, the polygenists cry with an air of triumph (G. Pouchet, p. 74), ' Be- hold an appendage {appareit) whrch is wanting in the white man, which the negro possesses, and which he alone possesses ! Be- 400 APPENDIX, J. hold a fundamental difference in the name of which we are able to proclaim the non-community of origin in the races ! ' "Not so fast (^)ie vous pressez ^as /««<), Messieurs ; you have nothing to proclaim. New researches, made with more care, by M. Flourens, in France,, and by M. Simon at Berlin, have dis- covered the pigmentary appendage even in the white. It is its presence which gives to the areole mamelon its brown color, and it is its appearance which, under the influence of the sun's rays, causes to appear blotches of red so frequent in men of a blond color. It has been found again by M. Flourens throughout the entire skin of a French soldier, who died in Algeria ; which ; would lead one to think that men carry in them the germ of this appendage, and that different outward influences, among which it is necessary to reckon climate, provoke its development (Go- dron, vol. ii. p. 144.) ... In the face of these facts, will the polygenists attempt to affirm that between the white and the black there is an impassable gulf.' "The pigmentum, or the coloring matter, which covers the surface of the dermis, and transmits its color to the epidermis, does not exist in the new-born infant, and commences to exist only some time after birth; it is asked, What is the cause of this? To this question several answers have been given. Some have said the formative cause is climate ; others, that it is alimentary regime; others, that it is the hygrometric state of the air; others, that it i§ the excess of carbon, which the blood contains in very warm countries. " This diversity of opinions in regard to the true formative agent of the pigmentary substance, proves that science is not yet settled on this point. But let us mark well that the indecision of science on this point does not weaken the certainty, (i.) of the existence of the pigmentary body; (2.) of the uniformity of color in the dermis; (3.) of the infinite variety of colors in each race; (4.) of the generation of the white by the black and the black by the white ; and as all these facts concur to demonstrate the unity of the human races, we see that this unity is altogether independent of the different explications VARIATIONS IN SPECIES AMONG ANIMALS. 4OI proposed, and not yet recognized as true, of the formation of the coloring matter." Again : — " They have desired to make the hair of the negro a character- istic of the race, saying that they alone have crisped or v?oolly hair. But they have forgotten to tell us that negroes offer in this, as in all other respects, the greatest variety. There are some with straight, smooth hair, others who have it curled, and others still who have long hair descending to the shoulders. In all cases, where the hair is crispy, it is never woolly. The hair, it is true, presents the appearance of wool, because il combines with it a kind of thick oil, soft to the touch ; but its anatomical conformation is different. The filaments of a fleece present small asperities, which permit them to felt, that is to say, to be entangled in such a manner as to form a tissue. Their free ends are thicker than the other* — a property that is never met with in the hair of the negro, from which neither cloth, nor anything resembling woolen stuff, can be made. L. Remusat, JRevue de Deux Mondes, May, 1854." li. Page 202. VARIATIONS IN SPECIES AMONG DOMESTIC ANIMALS. And here I need only allude to a few prominent facts. " I. Swine. Naturalists are generally agreed that all varieties of swine are descended from the wild boar ; f and yet what a * Leur bord libre est plus 6pais que leur autre extr6mit6. t "The hog descends from the common boar, now found wild ovgr the whole temperate zone in the Old World.-" (Agassiz, in 26 402 ' APPENDIX, K. great variety of races are now known to exist ! When transported into different climates, e. g.," into South Amer- ica, the change is sometimes very great. " Some have acquired erect ears, vaulted foreheads, and heads much larger thafl were found in the original breed. With some the color becomes bla:ck, and with others the skin acquires a thick fur, beneath which is a species of wool. Some, again, are fed ; others have solid hoofs. One breed is found, in Quebaya, with toes half a span long, white ears, pendent" belly, and long tusks,, crooked like the horns of oxen." There is a variety of swine in Hungary with solid hoofs, and a breed with the same peculiar characteristics has appeared in the Red River country, in the United States. The difference in the form of the crania of the varieties of swine — especially of the wild and the tame — is greater than is found among the most dissimilar of the human races, e. g., the Negro and the Caucasian. 2. Sheep. Very marked varieties have sprung up among sheep. And here we need not feel embarrassed in our argument by the fact that it has been, and still is, disputed what was the origin of the sheep ; * vs'hether the different varieties sprang from one or a number of primitive distinct species. All we have to do is to consider a few' marked cases of a a " Sketch of Natural World, and their Relation to the different Types of Men," published " Types of Mankind," p. Ixvii. * In regard to the single or plural origin of the species of our domestic animals in general, the following opinion of Quatre- fages is of great weight : " These examples will suffice to show VARIATIONS IN SPECIES AMONG ANIMALS. 4O3 change of iype in the same stock when subjected to differ- ent climatic influences. It is well known that sheep were not found on the western continent till after its discovery in the latter part of the 15th century ; hence the cases of marked change in the same stock are perfectly authentic. "Among those introduced into South America, a hairy breed has sprung up. A breed has been found with monstrous tails ; others are found with projecting lips and pendent ears." * " Several accounts have been published of the change which sheep from Europe undergo in the West Indies. Dr. Nicholson, of Antigua, informs me that, after the third generation, the wool disappears from the whole body, except over the loins ; and the animals then appear like a goat with a dirty door-mat on its back. A similar change is said to take place on the west coast of Africa." f " In some few instances new breeds have suddenly originated. Thus, in 1791, a ram lamb was born in Massachusetts having short crooked legs, and a long back, like a turn-spit dog. From this one lamb the otter or ancon semi-monstrous breed was raised. As these sheep could not leap over fences, it was thought they would be valuable ; but they have been supplanted by meri- nos, and thus exterminated." % They would breed truly, always that the profound study of our domestic races always leads more and more to attach to the same species all those which bear the same name, however different they may be." — ^latrefages. Unite de VBsjiice Humaine, p. 107. * Brace, Races of the Old World, p. 455, referring to De Salles. t Darwin, Variations of Animals and Plants, vol. i. p. 124, who refers to his numerous authorities for these and other facts. X Ibid, p. 126. The same fact is noticed by Cabell (p. 37), Quatrefages and other writers. It is an undoubted case of a new breed or variety springing up from a well-known stock, and hence, in its analogical bearings, is of great importance. 404 APPENDIX, K. producing ancon offspring. "When crossed with other breeds, the oifspring, with rare exceptions, instead of being intermediate, perfectly resembled either parent." "A more interesting case has Been recorded in the report of the juries of the great exhibition (1851), namely, the production of a merino ram lamb in 1828, which was remarkable for its long, smooth, straight, and silky wool."* " The sheep of Yemen introduced into Egypt have acquired a straight, rude hair, with a fine down at its roots. Some of the merino sheep are covered with wool, and others with hair, quite differing in structure; and sometimes* the same individual, under new circumstances, shows the changes from wool to hair."t 3. Cattle. Darwin remarks; — " That many breeds of cattle have originated through varia- tion, independently of descent from distinct species, we may infer from what we see in South America, where the genus Bos was not endemic, and where the cattle, which now exist in such vast numbers, are the descendants of a few imported from Spain and Portugal. In Colombia, Roulin describes two peculiar breeds, namely, j>elones, with extremely thin and fine hair, and calongos, absolutely naked. ... In Paraguay, Azara describes a breed which certainly originated in South America, called chi-vos, ' because they have straight, vertical horns, conical, and very large at the base.' He likewise de- scribes a dwarf race in Corrientes, with short horns ; and others, with reversed hair, have also originated in Paraguay." Darwin then mentions a " monstrous breed., called niatas, or natas," two small herds of which he saw on the banks of the Plata. " This breed," he says, " bears the same * Darwin, Variations,- etc., vol. i. p. 120. + Brace, Races of the Old World, p. 455. VARIATIONS IN SPECIES AMONG ANIMALS. 405 relation to other breeds as bull or pug dogs do to other dogs, or as improved pigs, according to Nathusius, do to other -pigs. Rutimeyer believes that these cattle belong to the pri- mogenius type. The forehead is very short and broad, with the nasal end of the skull, together with the whole plane of the upper molar teeth, curved upward. The slower jaw projects beyond the upper, and has a corresponding upward curvature. . . . The upper lip is widely open, the eyes project outward, and the horns are large. In walking,' the head is carried low, and the neck is short. The hind legs appear to be larger, compared with the front legs, than is usual. The exposed incisor teeth, the short head and upturned nostrils, give ^ these cattle the most ludicrous, self-confident air of deQance." * Dr. Bachman,t having quoted Darwin's account of this variety, makes the following pertinent remarks : — "We have here another example in evidence of the fact that, vpithout the slightest intermixture of foreign varieties, new breeds of cattle spring up in America. They made their first appearance about eighty years ago, when one was occasionally brought to Buenos Ayres. Now they have become the only race in an immense region of country where they are nearly wild. What causes have operated to produce this variety? There are no wild animals, not even the buffalo, in that country, from which any admixture could by any possibility have been derived. Were we not positive of their origin, they would unquestionably be regarded as a. new species." These facts, related by naturalists, — many more simi- lar ones might be cited, — are sufficient for our purpose. * Darwin, Variations of Animals and Plants, i. p. 113. t Unity of the Human Race, p. 305-6. 406 APPENDIX, K, But without resorting to extreme cases for illustrations, it would be perfectly legitimate to refer to tlie common varieties of cattle found in any country, — e. g., England, — the " Durhams," the " Herefords," the " Highland cattle," the " Alderneys," the " Short Horns," the " Long" Horns," etc., etc. ; for we find varieties arising in the same stock * as marked and, apparently distinct as are found in the human race. There are cattle without horns, with one horn, with short horns,' with long horns,! with straight horns, and crooked horns, with pendent horns and verti- cal horns, and of all possible colors ; with long legs, and short legs ; with crania wide and short, and long and narrow ; — exhibiting among themselves a far greater dif- ference than is seen among the crania of the most dissimi- lar of the human races. 4. Horses. The following is from Darwin : — "Whether the whole amount of difference between the vari- ous breeds be due to variation, is doubtful. From the fertility of the most distinct breeds when crossed, naturalists have gen- erally looked at all breeds as having descended from, a single species. Few will agree with Colonel H.Smith, who believes that they have descended from no less than five primitive and differ- ently colored stocks. But as several species and varieties of the horse existed during the later tertiary periods, and, as Rfltimeyer * There are enumerated "19 British breeds" of cattle, and " in the most recent work on cattle, engravings are given of 55 European breeds." (^Moll and Gayot, " La Connaissance Gen. du Bceuf," Paris, i860; Darwin, Variations, etc., vol. i. p. 103.) t Darwin mentions -a specimen S feet 8i inches from tip to tip, and 13 feet 5 inches as measured on the curve. — Variations, etc., vol. i. p. no. VARIATIONS IN SPECIES AMONG ANIMALS. 407 found differences in the size and form of Ihe skull in the earliest known domesticated horses, we ought not to feel sure that all our breeds have descended from a single species." * But, admitting the opinion of Colonel Hamilton Smith as correct, — it is only an opinion, — the facts furnished by Darwin himself, in regard to modifications in the same breed from change of climate and other influences, prove that the varieties in mankind may be accounted for without resort to the supposition of a plural origin. "There can be no doubt," says Darwin, " that horses become greatly reduced in size, and altered in appearance, by living on mountains and islands. . . . There were, or still are, on some of the islands on the coast of Virginia, ponies like those of the Shetland Islands, which are believed to have originated through exposure to unfavorable conditions. The Puno ponies, which inhabit the lofty regions of the Cordilleras, are, as I hear from Mr. D. Forbes, strange little creatures, very unlike their •Spanish progenitors." f "The horses, according to M. Roulin, transported to South America, have formed a race with fur instead of hair, and have changed to an almost uniform bay color." | 5. Dogs. The varieties found among dogs are probably greater and more marked than are known to exist in any other species of animals. There is the St. Bernard dog of the Alps and Mont Blanc, the Newfoundland dog, the bull dog, the " twelve kinds of greyhounds," § and all the way down through the spaniels, terriers, turnspits, pugs, etc., * Variations, etc., vol. i. p. 68. t Ibid., vol. i. p. 69. I Brace, p. 457. § Youatt, quoted by Darwin (Variations, etc., p. 49). 408 APPENDIX, K. to the lap-dog, — all forming an immense variety, in which Cuvier admits " that in form the differences are greater than those of any wild species of any natural genus." — Darwin, Var., etc., p. 49. We might admit all that any naturalist has imagined — no one has proved anything — in regard to a plural origin of the varieties of dogs, e. g., that they are derived from three, four, five, or six primordial stocks, as the wolf, the jackal, the anthus, the dingo, the d'kole, or thus, etc., etc., to the number of some six or seven.* For Darwin (Variations, etc., i. p. 48) well remarks, " But we can not explain by crossing the origin of such extreme forms as thorough-bred greyhounds, bloodhounds, bull dogs, Blenheim spaniels, terriers, pugs, &c., unless we believe that forms equally or more strongly characterized in these different respects once existed in nature. But hardly any one has been bold enough to suppose that such unnatural forms ever did or could exist in a wild state." The obvious truth of these remarks makes the illustra- tions drawn from the varieties of dogs perfectly conclu- sive. 6. Fowls. I must not omit to mention the great and marked varie- * As Colonel Hamilton Smith, cited by Dr. Bachman, " Unity, &c.," p. 61, from Dr. Morton. But the writer of the article Man, in the Cyclopsedia of Natu- ral History, states, " No one . . . will be inclined to deny that the varieties of dogs (which, according to Professor Owen, are undoubtedly of one species) present far greater diflFerences in form and color, and in some parts of their habits and instincts, than any that are observed in man." — p. 667. VARIATIONS IN SPECIES AMONG ANIMALS. 4O9 ties that are found among our domestic barn-yard fowls — the more especially since there seems to be little if any doubt that all of them are descended from a single origi- nal stock.* And yet how great the difference among the numerous breeds. Darwin enumerates thirteen distinct breeds, and a number of sub-breeds, among which we have the " diminutive elegant Bantam, the heavy Cochin (Shanghai), with its many peculiarities, and the Polish fowl, with its great top-knot and protuberant skull," the Dorking, with an additional toe, etc. There are rumpless fowls and tailless fowls ; single-crested and double-crested, and those without crests ; frizzled fowls, and silk fowls, and sooty fowls ; creepers, or jumpers, with legs so short " that they move by jumping rather than by walking " (Darwin) ; and those with legs so long that they can feed from the top of a barrel ; and with plumage of all varieties of colors — black, white, yellow, mottled, mixed, etc., etc. The time and place of the origin of some of these breeds are well known, and the single origin of the whole not doubted, or scarcely so, by naturalists generally. The analogical argument from the great varieties among domestic fowls is well nigh conclusive in favor of the single origin of all the varieties of mankind ; i. e., it com- pletely sets aside the main argument for a plural origin, * " Most naturalists, with the exception of Tethminck, believe that all the breeds have proceeded from a single species." (Dar- win, Variations, etc., vol. i. p. 280.) This author does not think that the evidence of the single origin of all the breeds of domes- tic fowls from a single original species is ,so conclusive as that for the single origin of the pigeon. But he seems to have . little or no doubt of the single origin. That original stock was the Galla Bankiva. 4^0 APPENDIX, K. which is based on variety of color and some differences in physical structure among men. 7. Pigeons. I will allude to only one more case of great variation among the lower animals for illustration — that of the domestic pigeon ; and these illustrations are the more val- uable " because the evidence that all the domestic races have descended from one known source is far clearer than with any other anciently domestic animal," . . . and because " from causes which we can partly under- stand, the amount of variation has been extraordinarily great." * The original species, as Dai-win thinks, is the wild rock pigeon {^Columba livid). Some authors describe 150 kinds. — Darwin, Var., etc., i. 164. " I have no doubt," says Darwin, " that there exist considerably above 150 kinds, which breed true, and have been separately named.. — Variations, etc., i. 165. Detail is here unnecessary. It is sufficient merely to name a few of the varieties described by Darwin, and other authors — as the f outer, the carrier, the runt, the barb, ^& fantail, the African oivl, the skort-yaced tum- bler, the Indian frill back, the trumpeter, etc. The osteological variations are great ; for examples of extremes in the form of the beak and skull, compare the short-faced * Darwin, Variations, etc., vol. i. p. 163. A few lines after, Darwin says, " Notwithstanding the clear evidence that all the breeds are the descendants of n single species, I could not per- suade myself, until some years had passed, that the whole amount of difference between them had arisen since man first domesticated the wild rock pigeon." VARIATIONS IN SPECIES AMONG ANIMALS. 4 II tumbler with the English carrier. The variations in the forms of the skull are far greater than are exhibited in the most dissimilar varieties of the human race. The argument for the unity of the human race, based on analogy from the lower animals, is attempted to be set aside by the allegation that it is only among domestic ani- mals that these variations take place. It is domestication that produces the change. Man is not a domestic ani- mal ; therefore the analogy fails.* Now, what are the facts in the case? Why, simply these : Man is a cosmopolite ; his constitution -:- mental and physical — is such that he can go everywhere, and live in every climate, and in the most djverse conditions. Under the influence of these various climatic conditions of heat and cold, of modes of living, etc., etc., changes take place, and he assumes the various physical types which exist. But he takes the so-called domestic; animals with him, which, in the various changed conditions, in the same manner become changed, and assume the various types which we see. This is all. The analogy is perfect. Writers seem to think that domestication is a power in itself to produce change of type. . Whereas the simple truth is, the animals follow- ing man necessarily, in the same manner with him, come under the influence of the various climates, conditions, habits of living, etc., etc., and the result is change of type. The reason why wiM animals generally preserve such a uniformity of type is because they have a comparatively * Pouchet, Plurality of the Human Race, pp. 83-, 84. And so with polygenists generally. 412 APPENDIX, L. limited range. There are a few, however, as the wolf, the bear, and some others, which have a wider range, and consequently exhibit greater varieties. The principle here stated, and the facts dependent upon it, have not, as I think, received a proper attention from naturalists. L. Page ■280. , VISIT OF DIONUSOS TO INDIA. DiODORUS, in his brief account of India, relates some ti-aditions of the Indians in regard to the expedition of Dionusos to their country. The following extract is of particular importance, as showing that Mt. Meru was the traditional Ararat of the Mosaic narrative, it being kept in mind that Dionusos (the same as Bacchus of the Romans, and Osiris of the Egyptians) was the traditional Noah. Of this there is no room for a reasonable doubt. Diodo- rus (i. 13) says distinctly that Osiris means Dionitsos, as do others ; and the accounts that are given of this deity, as elsewhere stated, leave no room to doubt that he is Noah deified. "And here it is proper to relate what the most learned among the Indians say respecting these things. "They say that when the people still dwelt in viIlages,'Dionu- sos came from the west with a powerful army, passing through all India, there b.eing no city that could resist his power; that on account of the great heat, his army began to perish with a pesti- lential disease; but he, as a skillful commander, withdrew his army from the plains to the mountainous regions. There, from CHINESE THEOLOGY. 4I3 the influence of the cool breezes and pure water flowing from the fountains, the plague was stayed. The place where Dionusos thus saved his array from the plague was called Meros. Hence the Greeks have a tradition respecting Dionusos, that he was nourished in the thigh (^ii;()6;).* In addition to these things, he imparted tothe Indians a knowledge of the cultivation of fruits, and gave them the invention of the wine, and other things useful to life. He founded cities and villages in healthy places, taught the people to worship the gods, and gave them laws. He established justice among' them, and by his favors merited the appellation of a deity, and obtained divine honors. They add that a great number of women accompanied his army, .... and that at last he died an old man, having reigned over all India fifty-two years." (Died. ii. xxvii.) M:. Page 280. CHINESE THEOLOGY. The following extracts from an able article, entitled " The Chinese on tlie Plains of Shinar, or a Connection established between the Chinese and all other Nations, through their Theology," by the Rev. T. M'Clatchie, M. A., missionary to the Chinese from the Church Mis- * "Zeus, or, according to others, Hermes (ApoUon. Rhod. iv. 1137'), saved the child (Dionusos) from the flames. It was sewed up in the thigh of Zeus, and thus came to maturity." — Smitk's Diet., article Dionusos, p. 1046.) The coincidence in, or rather the sameness of, the name of the place where Dionusos saved his army, with that of the famous sacred mountain of the Hindus, Mem, is truly remarkable. 414 APPENDIX, M. sionary Society,* are directly to my purpose, as connecting the Chinese in their origin with other nations, especially with the Hindus. In his prefatory remarks, the author makes the two fol- lowing general declarations : " I. The chief god of every, pagan system, without exception, is designated ' Mind ' {Novg, or Mens) ; 2. This chief god, whose body is the universe, triplicates, and also divides into eight portions in each system." — p. 369. He then gives numerous extracts from various Chinese writers, and the Greek and Roman classics, showing the resemblances between the theology of the Chinese and that of other nations.. These resemblances are perhaps sotnetimes a little fanciful, while they are often striking and convincing, especially in reference to the Triads and Ogdoads. And in the doctrine of Shang-ti, — Deity, the Soul of the World, and Mind, — there is a remarkable identity with the pantheism of the Hindus and more western nations of antiquity. The author claims for the outlines of tliese doctrines a common origin on the plain of Shinar, before the ancestors of these nations separated from each other, after the confusion of tongues. The following sentences indicate remarkable coinci- dences : — " The first man was Pwan-kou. . . . "Thus we have in this family of the first man (Pwan-kou, and his hermaphrodite successors) in reality eight persons, viz., Pwan-kou, or Shang-ti, or Mind, the Great Father, his wife, three sons, and their three wives ; and these eight individuals issue * In tfie Journal of the Roj-al As. Soc. of Great Britain and Ireland, vOl. xvi. pp. 368-435.) CHINESE THEOLOGY. 415 forth from chaos, or the ovum mundi, and correspond to the prominent characters in the family of Adam. " Shang-ti is also Fuh-hi. " It is plain, from what has been already stated, that the first man in his human form is in reality but a reappearance of a former first man, viz., animated Chaos; and between these two individuals intervenes a universal deluge, from which the second first man (if I may so designate him) escapes. Now, this first man, who escapes the deluge, and reappears at the commence- ment of each new world, is Fuh-hi, c. g. : — " ' Fuh-hi is the first (who appears) at each opening and spreading out (of the universe.)' — Sing-le, etc., xxvi. 19.)" " This Fuh-hi, who is but a reappearance of Pwan-kou, or Adam, escapes from the deluge with seven companions., and hence, in this material system of the universe, is not only divided into three, but also into eight. " Here we have a family of eight persons, who issue from the sacred circle, viz., Shang-ti, or Fuh-hi, his wife, and their six children. These ' six children ' we find, on reference to the Yih- king, vol. xii. chap. xvii. p. 18, are three sons and three daugh- ters; and these brothers, uniting in marriage with their three sisters, complete the universe. "In this Fuh-hi and his family, then, we have the prominent characters in Noah's family, who escaped from a general deluge, which destroyed the rest of the human race. " By the constant succession of similar worlds, the two periods of the world's history, viz.. Chaos (or creation) and the deluge are blended together, and consequently the families of Pwan-kou ■(or Adam) and Fuh-hi (or Noah) are also blended together, the latter being merely a reappearance of the former. . . . (ii. 9.) " As the deluge occupies so prominent a position in Chinese cosmogony, the first man, or Shang-ti, is rather Fuh-hi than Pwan-kou ; yet it is plain that the former is only a reappearance of the latter, or, in other words, the Chinese classical Shang-ti is the same being as the ' Great Father,' worshiped by the whole 4^6 APPENDIX, M. pagan world, under the different designations of Jupiter, Baal, Osiris, Brahm, &c., Adam reajipearing in Noah. "The above system of theology will be found, on examination, to correspond with remarkable accuracy to the general system adopted by the. subjects of Nimrod's kingdom before their dis- persion, and which was afterward carried by them into the various countries where they settled. " The Yih- king is the Chinese authority on cosmogony, and the doctrines of the Chinese philosophers are derived from this source. The doctrine of the endless succession of worlds, as drawn from ancient classics, by Choo-foo-tsze (ii. i), has striking points of resemblance to that taught by the Stoics. Choo-tsye attributes the destruction of each universe to the degeneracy of the human race, and also states that each return to chaos is caused by a general deluge. "These rounds of nature are designated ' Great Revolutions,' or ' Years ' of the world. The circle in which the universe is supposed to revolve is divided into twelve portions. — pp. 404, 405- 4 " Each complete revolution of this circle is called a Yuen, and each subdivision a Htuuy. A Hwuy is generally supposed to consist of io,8oo years. On this point, however, philosophers differ. In the first Hwuy, which answers to the Fuh diagram of the Yih-king, Heaven (Shang-ti) emerges from the ovum mundi, or chaos ; in the second. Earth ; in the third, Man — each world commencing with this triad. The deluge prevails during the twelfth and last Hwuy, — that is, the ninth period from the formation of the first man,* — and on the return to the first * Or the tenth, including the period of the first man. Noah was the tenth generation from the first, or Adam ; arjd can there be a reasonable doubt but that the name mentioned in the next sentence of the inventor of the cycle of sixty is that of the patri- arch of the Hebrew Scriptures.' Let it be noted how the word Tuen resembles the Greek Aiar, to which it corresponds in meaning. THE CELTS IN EUROPE. 417 Hwuy, the universe is again generated from chaos, as before. The cycle, which is formed by the combination of this circle with another often divisions, is said to have been invented by 'Naoij the Great,' after the deluge. — See Kae-feih-yeu-e, vol. i. pp. i, 2; also Kang-hien, etc., p. 11." IV- Page 324. THE CELTS IN EUROPE. The following remarks of the translator of Dr. Keller's work are worthy of notice : — "With respect to the name and ethnographical determination of the people who lived partly in lake dwellings and partly on the main land, and who at first made use of stone implements, and consequently are considered as aborigines, any one who has a fancy mky object to their having any relationship with the Celtic element, and attribute to them a Finnish or Iberian origin, or connect them with the race of men discovered by Boucher de Perthes. Thus far it is certain that tjiey do not diifer in the smallest degree, either in their abilities, their manner of life, or their industrial attainments, from the people who were provided with metals, but that in the whole phenomena of lake dwellings, from their very beginning to the end of their existence, a grad- ual, quiet, peaceful development may be observed. ' * " From what has been said,' it appears certain that there is no foundation for the hypothesis that the inhabitants of the lake dwellings are to be separated into distinct races, because, in the , earliest times, they had nornetal instruments, and in later times they possessed them. Nothing can be more true than the remark of Lindenschmidt respecting such suppositions as to the change of nationalities, based simply on a difference in implements. 'The simple exchange of material,'' he says, ' the transition from 27 4l8 APPENDIX, N. the use of stone to that of metal, is in itself not a sufficient ground for inferring a change of population. It is not so im- portant as the change of the spear to fire-arras, and if, at every advance of this kind, an entire change of population were to be supposed, the history of civilization would only have to relate the migrations of nations.' * " With respect to the immigration of the Celts into Europe, this event belongs to the primitive history of the peopling of our part of the world, and is shrouded in impenetrable darkness. No tradition speaks of the Celts pressing forward toward the countries in the possession of which we subsequently find them; though the Druids, on the other hand, taught that the Gauls were aborigines. At the very first appearance of historical nar- rative,! they appear in the far west of the Iberian peninsula, and afterward as the first among the great northern nations which pressed forward eastward from their homes in the west." — p. 398. * Lindenschmidt, Die Vaterlandischen Alterthumer, p. 159. t Herodotus, iii. 33 ; iv. 49. INDEX. Abraham, date of, 25. Aborigines, 152; of Egypt, 158; of In- dia, 163 ; of Western Europe, 168, 320. Abu-Mashar, 45. Abydenus. 92, AbydOB, 92. Adamite race. 1.54. -Etna, lava of, 313. Afrioanus, 54, 68, 77, 78. Agassiz, his views, 172; diecussion with Bachman and Smyth, 172; his Natural Provinces, 173, 175, 183; on unity of species, 177; estimate of his tlieory, 179; plural origin of man ex- ceptional, 205. Agglutinative languages, 222. Alpa Camasca, 240. American Fauna, peculiar, 204. Araiot, 123, 124. Anamim, 160. Anianus, 55, 06. Antediluvian generations, 33 ; myth of, 277. Antesemitic period, 156. Antiquities of Egypt, 49. Apamea, 249. ApoUodorua, 55, 74; Bunsen's testi- mony of, 75. Arabic languages, 217. Aram, 171: Aramaic languages, 217. Ark, myths of the, 281. Armenian version of Eusebius, 69. Arphaxad, 147. Aryan languages, 215. Ashkenaz, 148. Asiatic Society at Calcutta, 213. Astronomical inscriptions in Egypt, 61. Astronomy of the Chinese, 130. Asshur, Assyrians, 146. Augustus, name on the zodiacs, 64, AutocMhons, 163. Avataras, 254. • Bachman's discussion with Agassiz, 172; his doctrine of unity, 184, 187; on monumental figures of animals, 200 ; on the single origin of species, 204. Beaumont, de, on Sommo valley, 317. Berosus, 92, 94. Biot, M., 66. Birch, Dr. S., 57. Boeckh, 71 ; his chronological sys- tem, 25. Bone fossil near Natchez, 293. Book of the dead, 57. Bopp's comparative grammar, 214. Borings in the Nile valley, 287. Brahma, legend of, 241. Brasen-nose College 265. Brick in Nile valley, 288, 293. Brunch's clironology, 66, 71. Bryant on raytiiology, 266. Bundehesh, the book, 245. Bunsen's chronology 24; his sneer, 59; identifies one hundred and ten Egyptian iiings, 79. Cabiri, myths of the, 283. Cain and his wife, 171, 180. Cainan, 35, 44. Calepiu ol Egypt, 67. Calippus, piTJod of, 1.34. Callisthenes, 92, 101. Canaan, 151. Canon of Ptolemy, 40. 419 420 INDEX. Caphtorim, 151, 160. Casluhim, 160. Castes in India, 212. Castor, 55. Chaldean chronology, 91; tradition of the deluge, 250. Chalmers on Chinese astronomy, 130. Champollion, 61. Changes in races, 196 ; in languages, 229. Charles X., 6.3. Chinese astronomy, 130 ; characters, 131; chronology, 120, 133; language, 220; traditions of the flood, 252; year, . 126. Chronology of the Scriptures, 31 ! of antediluvian generations, 33 : from flood to Abraham, 34 ; Abraham to exodus, 35; exodus to the temple, 36; temple to birth of Christ, 40. Chronology of Chaldeans, 91; of Chinese, 120; of Egyptians, 48; of Greece and fiome, 85. Chronological systems, 24 ; of Bun- sen, 24; of Boeckh, 25; of Bodier, 2?. Cimbri, Cimmerians, 148. Claims of modem science, 23. Clemens Alexandrinus, SO. Clinton on O. T. chronology, 37. Comparison of Hebrew and Septua- gint, 23. Confucius, author of Shu-king, 137. Confusion of tongues, 224. Copts, 151, 160. Coxcoz, legend of, 246. Creation, date of, 25 ; myths of, 275. Curse of Ham, 174. Cush aud his family, 150. Cycle of sixty years, 122, 126, 129. Cynocephali, myth of the, 269. Dana, on unity of species, 186; on hybrids, 187; definition of species, 193 ; single origin of species, 203. Dasyas, 164. Date of creation, 25, 44 ; of the flood, 25; of Menes, 25, 26; of Abraham, I 26; of the exodus, 26; of earliest monumental record, 49. Dates, Egyptian chronology with- out, 67. Deluge, traditions of, 246, Mexican and Peruvian, 246 ; of Ogyges, 247 ; of Deucalion, 248 ; myths of, 279. Demetrius Fhalereus, 16. Demetrius Soter, 16. Demigods, reign of, 60. Denderah, zodiac of, 61. Deucalion and Pyrrha, 219. Diodorus Sicnlus, 60, 51, 52. Diogenes Laertius, 52. Discrepancies in Egyptian annals, 66. Diversities in races sQperflcJal, 183. Dodanim, 119. Domestic animals, changes in, 202. Dove, myths of the, 282. Duns, on the growth of peat, 313. Dupuis, 65. Dynasties of Egypt, 69. Dynasties, contemporaneous, 82. Dyacks, traditions of creation, 240. Earlier and later departures from the primitive seats, 155. Egyptian history, 18; books, 50; abo- rigines, 158 ; language, 161; tradition of flood, 253. Egyptians, physical features of, 150. Xilam, Elamites, 116. Elishah, 119. ■Era of the Trojan war, 88. Eratosthenes, 71 ; director of Alex- andrian library, 76; Bunsen's testi- mony of, 76 ; his date of Trojan war, 88. Ethnology, argument from, m. Ethiopian can change his skin, 199. Eudoxus, 58. Eupolemus, 16. Eusebius, 53, 69, 68, 78. Exodus, date of, 25, 36. Feridun and his sons, 281. Flint implements, ilOl, 316. Corgery of early annals, 61. INDEX. 421 Fossil bone near Natchez, 293 ; skele- toa near New Orleans, 295; skele- ton on Florida coast, 300. Fossils In valley of the Somme, 301; not contemporaneous, 304. Fuh-hl, 122. Garden of Eden, tradition of, 243. Gaubil, 119. Gayatri, 111. Genesis consistent with geology, 20? tenth chapter of, 145. Geology, argument from, 286. Greek and Homan chronology, 85. Greek mind practical, 51, 86. .Greek writers on Egypt, 50 ; on mythology, 266. Godron on diflTerence in races, 184. Gods, kings of Egypt, 56, Gomer, 148. Gutzlaff, 121. Hale'a dates, 42. Ham, early name of Egypt, 159; curse of, 174; his family, 149. Hamitio languages, 217, 228. Havilah, 150. Hebrides, growth of peat in, 31-3. Hebrew once thought the original ■ language, 209. Hercules, 53. Herodotus, 51, 5.3, 71 i date of Trojan war, 88. Hesperides, garden of, 243. HieroglypMcs, key to, 49. Hindus, character of, 107; compared with Greeks, 109. Hindu traditions of creation, 240 ; of the flood, 254. Historic times in Egypt, 67. History, argument from, 48. Hitchcock on date of creation, 20; on growth of peat, 312. Hoang-ti, 122. Hybrids, fertile and infertile, 187. Hyksos, 79. Inachus, 89. Indian aborigines, 163, Indo-Huropean languages, 216. Infidel rejoicing, 63. Inflectional languages, 223. Institutes of Menu, 105. Irej, 218, 284. Irish, changes in features of, 196. lyotisha, 115. Jablonski on traditions, 2.38. Jackson's dates, 42 ; on the word yomim, 97. Japheth and his family, 147. Javan and his family, 119. Jesuit missionaries in China, 118. Jews, change in features of, 197. Joktan, 147. Jones, Sir W., 104, 213. Josephus, the Greek Livy, 77 ; against Apion, 77; citation of Mane- tho, 78. Kali-Tug, 46. Keller on Swiss lake remains, 322. Khamism, 228. Kittim, 149. Kjokken-modding. 320. Iiake settlements in Switzerland, 320. Ijanguage, argument from, 209. Languages, classification of, 215; Ar- yan,2!5; Semitic, 216; Haraitic,217; Turanian, 218; monosyllabic, 222 ; agglutinative, 222; inflectional, 223; confusion of, 224 ; have much in com- mon, 226; approximate as better known, 227; rapid changes in, 227. Iia Peyrore, 170. Latham, 96, 198. 'Legge's Chineise classics, 120 ; on the Chinese year, 127, 132. Lehabim, 160. Lenormant on date of Menes, 71 ; on 'prehistoric arehseology, 22. Lepsius, 06, 77 ; identiflcs one hun- dred and ten kings of Egypt, 79. Letronne, 64. Lewis on Chaldean antiquities, 99. Lists of Manetho, 69. Literary remains of Egypt, 50. 422 INDEX. Iiud, Ludim, 147, 150, 159. Ijunar years ia Egypt, 59, 60, Iiyell's geological evidences, 289; on the date of creation, 21, Iiydions, 147. Ma, the Egyptian period, 28. Madai, 149. Magog, I4a Mahabharata, 105, 254. Makrizi, on changes in tbe Kile val- ley, 291. Manes, kings of Egypt, 56. Manetho, 54 ; his history, 68 ; his lists of dynasties, 69 ; his authorities unknown, 71 ; his lists corrupt, 71 ; different versions of, 72; internal evidence against them, 72; contra- dicted by the old chronicle, 73; by Eratosthenes, 74 : by Josephus, 77; by the monuments, 79. Mantchus, features of, changed, 198. Manu, legend of, 255. Manuscripts of the Septuagint, 32. Marlette, on the dynasties, 82. Measures of time among Chaldeans, 95. Medes, 149. Median kings, 98. Megasthenes, 45. Menes, mythological, 52 ; first king of Egypt, 67 ; date of, 70, 71. Meshech, 149. Methuselah's age, 34. Metonlc cycle, 129. Mexican tradition of the flood, 246. Milman's version of Manu, 255. Mississippi, delta of, 297. Mizraim, 150; early name of Egypt, 159. Monboddo's speculations on lan- guage, 211, Monosyllabic languages, 222. Months, reckoned as years, 58,' Monuments, against Manetho, 79. Monumental figures of .animals, 200. Monumental records of Egypt, 49. Moral characteristics of men, 207. Moral relations of men, 207. Movmt Olympus, mjrth ol, 267. Miiller, 109 ; on date of the Vedas, 114; on changes in language, 231 ; on unity of languages, 233. Mythology, argument from, 261 : the Roman, 271 ; Greek, 271 ; Egyptian, 271 ; Phoenician and Chaldean, 272 ; Hindu, 272. Mythologies bave a common origin, 270; in Bible events, 274. Myths founded on fact, 262 ; modern examples of, 204; of Mount Olym- pus, 267 ; of the Ompbalus, 268 ; of the Cynocephali, 269 ; of creation, 275; of the fall, 276; of the antedi- luvian generations, 277; of the flood, 279; of Noah, 279; of the dove, 282; of the Cabiri, 28.? ; of the ark, 281. ITaphtahim, 159. Ifatchez, fossil near, 293. ITau (or Nao) the great, 137. IN'e'W Orleans, skeleton, 295. Tfile, flowing with honey, 72 ; bor- ings in the valley, 287; annual in- crease of sediment, 2S9; changes in the bed of, 291. If imrod, 146, 150, JTineveh, 146, 150. iN'oah and bis family, 146 ; myths of, 279. IfottandGliddon's types, 173; history of man, 173. Oa, Oanes, 283. Ogyges, deluge of, 247. Old Chroniole, 53, 59, 73. Olympiad, the first, date of, 86, Omphalos, myth of, 268. Orpheus, 51. Osborn on contemporaneous dynas- ties, 82 ; on Egyptian language, 161, Owen ou difference in races, 185; on changes in features of the Jews, 197, Palmer's chronicles, 57. Pandora, myth of, 244. Pankou, 121 ; same as Hindu Manu, 121, INDEX. 423 Pandorus, 55. Papyrus rolls, 49. Parian marbia, 88. Pathrusim, 159. Pauthier's History of China, 120; view of Chinese chronology, 124. Peat in Somme valley, 309 j its rate of growth, 312. Peruvian tradition of the flood, 246. Petavius's dates, 42. Phut, 151. Physiology, argument from, 169. Plurality of race, advocates of, 170. Plutarch, 51. Polydorus, 96. Polyhistor, 92, 94. Pomponlus Mela, 53, Poole's dates, 42. Portuguese in India, 197. Prehistoric archaeology, 22 ; times in Kgypt, 52; period, how reckoned, 57; races, 158. Professor, in University of Breslau, 6". Prometheus, legend of, 239. Protestant missionaries in China, 120. Ptolemy Physcon, 46. Ptolemy's canon, 40. Puranas, 104. Quatrefages on La Peyrire, 171 ; oa slavery, 173. Quietists in geology, 311. Baamah, 150. Baces of men, 183. Bamayana, lOS. BawlinsOQ, Sir H., 156. Beads on the negro, 198. Biphath, Riphsean mountains, 148. Book temples of India, 163. Bodier's chronology, 27, 71. Bogers on new discoveries in geolo- gy, 22; on contemporaneousness of fossils, 305, 307, 318. Bome, time of its foundation uncer- tain, 89; three theories, 89. Bosetta stone, 49. Bousseau, 172. Sabtah, 160. Sabtechah, ISO. Sacred words of the Hindus, 111. Samaritan version of the Penta- teuch, 32. Sanskrit, discovery of, 103, 210 ; con- tains no history, 106; estimate of its value, 106 ; scholars, 213 ; key to classification of languages, 214. Saros, a measure of time, 95, 99. Satya Yuga, 28. Sohlegel's work on Sanskrit, 214. Scripture chronology, 31; language not always literal, 153. Scyths, migrations of, 156. Seasons in Egypt, 58. Seba, 150. Sebennytus, 68. Selim, 284. Semitic languages, 216. Septuagiut version, 32. Sexagenary cycle in China, 122, 126, 129. Shem and his family, 146. Shepherd kings in Egypt, 79. Shishak, 80. Shu-king, 130; ascribed to Confucius, 137; how mutilated, 139; burning of, 139 ; how recovered, 140. Sitneto, wearing of the bed of, 313. Skeleton, near New Orleans, 295. Smith, Philip, date of destruction of temple, 41 ; on the Sarus, 99. Smyth's discussion with Agassiz, 172; on primitive traditions, 236. Somme valley, 301 ; history of chan- ges in, 308. Species, unity of, 183. Stobart's tablets, 65. Stewart, Dugald, 210. Syncellus, 53, 68, 74, 77, 78. Tablet of Abydos, 80. Tablets, Egyptian, 65. Tahitian tradition of creation, 240. Tarshish, 149. Temple, date of, 36, 38. Temptation and fall, tradition of, 244; myth of, 276. 424 INDEX. Tentyxis, 160. Theology, opposed to plurality, 206. Thompaon, J. P., 66. • Tiras, 149. . Togarmah, 148. Tradition, arg:uraent from, 2.35. Traditions of primitive times. 236; of one god, 2.38 ; of the creation, 209; of Eden, 243; of the fall, 244 ; of the Siibb.ith, 245 ; of the flood, 246. Treta-Tuga, 28. Trevor, Canon, on the dynasties, 79. Trojan war mythical, 87; date of, 88. Troy, siege o(, 88. Troyon on Swiss lake remains, 324. Tubal, 140. Turanian language, 215, tTniformitarians, 311. ITpangas, 105. Upavedas, 105. Usher'a dates, 42. Uz, J47. Vedas, 104; origin of date of, 112; teach one God, 239. Vedamgaa, 105. Versions of the Pentateuch, 32. Voltaire, 172. "Weeks, time divided into, 245 ; days of, 245. ■WTiitney on date of the Vedas, 113; on changes in races, 106 ; on classifi- cation of languages, 221 ; on unity of languages, 227, 2.34. "Wilkinson on lunar years, 59. Williams on Chinese chronology, 121, 126; on the Shu-king, 137. "Wilson on the Somme valley, .316. Xisuthrus, 91, 230. Years in Egypt, lunar, 58 ; in China, 126, 127. "Xuthe Great, 136. Zodiac of Denderah, 61. Zodiacs, of Greek origin, 65. APPENDIX. A. Chronology of BunBon, 327. B. Chronology of Bo^ckh, 348. C. Chronology of Kodier, 349, D. lilanctho, 357. B. Mnnetho's Lists, 359. P. The Old Chronicle, 377. G. Kratosthenes nnd ApoUodoruB, 378. H. Manetho, according to Josephus, 383. I. Chinese Astronomy, 391. J. Superficial I haracter of Diversities between Races, 3 K. Variations in Species among Domestic Animals, 401. Ii. Visit of Dioausos to India, 412. M. Chinese Theology, 413. JS'. The Celts in Kurope, 417. The Sunday-School Commentary. THE MW TESTAMENT; With Notes, Pictorial Illustrations, AND References. By Rev. Israel P. Warren, D. D, The first volume of this work embraces the Gospels and Acts of the Apos- tles. It is designed to be a concise yet complete commentary, exhibiting the results of the best and most recent biblical scholarship, as given by Alford, Lange, Olshausen, Tholuck, Trench, Stuart, Robinson, Hackett, and others. The notes are both explanatory and practical. The text of the Gospels is divided into sections numbered to correspond to a Chronological Harmony given in tabular form. An Alphabetical In- dex is appended, by which the leading events and topics can be referred to without the aid of a Concordance. Numerous pictorial illustrations are given, chiefly of eastern customs and places. Also three maps : i Colored Map of Palestine : 2. The Sea of Galilee and the surrounding Region : 3. The missionary journeys of the apostle Paul. The first volume is complete in itself and is now ready. The second is in course of preparation. The fact that this work was first published by the American Tract Society (Boston) is a sufficient guaranty of its merit and its theological soundness. It is believed to be one of the most convenient, complete, and inexpensive aids in family and Sabbath-school instruction to 6e found. Published by Lee & Shepard, Boston ; and Lbe, Shepard & Dilling< HAM, New York. Price, $2.00, For sale also by Broughton & Wyman, 13 Bible House, New York; H. A. Sumner, no Dearborn St., Chicago, III. ; and by the Author, 52 Washington Street, Boston. 1 Testimonies of eminent clergymen to Dr. Warren's Sunday-School Commentary on the New Testament. Rev. E. N. Kirk, D. D. '• I am witness to the fidelity and diligence, the scrupulous care 'ant? sense of responsibility of the author, in preparing a popular exposition of the four Gospels. Others have labored in the same field, none, I believe with greater advantages or success than he. The - degree of examinatioi I have given to the work authorizes me to join with my brethren in com mending it to the confidence of the churches. Without denominationa bias, it is true to the doctrinal teachings of our common Christianity." Rev. N. Adams, D. D. " It is one of the most perfectly made books I ever saw. Externally, its shape and binding are all that one could desire, and within, it bears the marks of superior editorial ability and good taste. The notes show careful research, good judgment, power of condensation, tact, and, it seems to jne, will generally commend themselves to impartial readers, I especially like tlie practical thoughts. Viewed as a reprint of the New Testament text, it is a convenient and pleasant volume to handle and to use in common reading, as well as for critical purposes." Rev. E. B. Webb, D. D. "Th'e Commentary is in sympathy with the text. It is all laconic, con- densed, and yet not barren, for often ^ great deal of critical information and the result of extensive reading is packed away in a single line. There is no prolix discussion of any thing, but often great force and energy in a single practical reflection, and every now and then a happy turn of good ' common sense in paralyzing an objection that can not be. removed. It seems to me now that this Commentary will have a place and meet a want beyond what has been anticipated." Rev. Wm. Hague, D. D. " I am free to express my high appreciation of' the scholarly diligence, discrimination and power of condensed statement, which the work "exhibits firom the beginning to the end. Distinguished b_y these qualities in a high degree, and complete in one volume, it is well suited to meet a want that is widely felt. At the same time, the justness, aptness, and often the logical connection of the ' practical thoughts,' render the book eminently sug- gestive, and enhance its value as au aid to the Sunday-school teacher." Rev. Wm. Lamson, D. D. "The mechanical execution is admirable. The paper, type and illus- trations all give the eye pleasure. The notes, too, as far as we have exam- ined them, are judicious and clear, and the practical thoughts at the close of the chapters are natural and .pertinent. There is a great deal of con- densed information in the volume." 2 Testimonies to Dr. Warren's Sunday-School Commentary. Rev. N. G. Clark, D.D., Secretary A. B. C. F, M, " It is well suited to furnish the common mind with the best results of historical study and research upon this portion of the Scriptures, and with nractical thoug-hts and reflections of great value. The get- ting- up of the book is admirable; the typography is a model of skill, and just tlie thing for the purpose." Rev. S. G. Buckingham, D.D,, Springfield^ Mass. * *• It is elegantly got up. The notes are necessarily brief, but they are truly helps. Tlie practical thoughts are excellentj they have some scope, and are suggestive. I hope you will go on and finish tlie w^hole Bible." Rev. Z. S. Barstow, D.D., Keene^ N. H. " Itis not like a kernel of wheat in a bushel of chaff, but like ' apples of gold in a net-work of silver.' *' Rev. J. H. Thayer, Prof. Sacred Literature^ Andover, Mass. " A very beautiful book it is, with its chronolog^ical harmony, index, and map, — quite a model of completeness. I thmk it cannot but con- tribute to cause tlie Word of God to have free course and be glorified." Rev. S. W. Hanks, Secretary Am. Seamen's Friend Soc, Boston. *' It is admirably adapted for use by Sabbath-school teachers and in families. The cream of the fuller commentaries is collected for the ready use of those who desire tlie sincere milk of the Word for their spiritual nourishment." Rev. C. E. Fisher, La-wrence^ Mass. "I commend it to the confidence of all Bible readers as a critical, faithful, condensed, and valuable help to the study of God's Word." Rev. W. F. Snow, Lawrence, Mass. "Considering its limited size, it comes nearest my ideal of a Com- mentary for popular use, of any which I have met." Rev. Thomas Wickes, D.D., Jamestown, iV. T. " I esteem it a valuable addition to the existing aids for the study of the Scriptures, meeting the wants of that very large class in our churches who require an inexpensive Commentary, which at the same time contains a great deal, and within a brief compass presents those explanations of the text which are most needed." Rev. S. G. Willard, Colchester-, Ct. ■ " It more than answers my expectations. Concise, clear, telling just what the common reader desires to know, giving results, but omitting tiie painful process, it must be a treasure to that large class who have neither time to use, nor money to buy extended commentaries." Rev. p. B. Davis, Canton, Mass. " I know not where else, in so small a space, so much of exegetical value can be found." ' 3 Testimonies to Dr. Warren's Sunday-School Commentary, Rev. F. B. Perkins, Jamaica Plain, Mass, " I liked it when first published, and thoug^ht that in its special de- partment it had no equal, and I like it now. I have never seen reason to alter my opinion but for the better." Rev. Edward Ebbs, Aurora, III. " It is a very valuable work. I hope you may be enabled to com- plete the whole Bible on a similar plan." Rev, Chas. U. Dunning, Pastor Metk. Church, Lawrence, Mass, " Happy in its divisions, unusually satisfactory in its comments, concise in its statements, and clear in its illustrations." Rev. E. G. Chaddock, Pastor Baptist Church, Lawrence, Mass, " It is such a work as every Sabbath-school teacher and scholar should have." Rev. H. N. Gates, Northfield, Ct, " I think it admirably adapted to the purpose for which it was de- signed. The notes are short, compact, and to the point, making clear what needs elucidation, and wiseW letting alone what had better be let alone. One of its most valuable features is the arrang-ement, by which a harmony of the Gospels is incorporated into the work, while the order of the text is left undisturbed." Rev. H. a. Cooke, Pastor Baptist Church, Lawrence, Mass. " I am pleased to add my testimony to its utility in the family and Sabbath-school. The Chronological Harmony cannot fail to be of great service to every student." Rev. D. C. Knowles, Pastor Meth, Church, Lawrence, Mass, " This Commentary is a work of decided merit. It is pointed and suggestive, striking the pith of the matter in a few concise sentences. The practical reflections are superior. The Alphabetical Index at the close will prove a most valuable aid in tlie study of the Life of our Saviour.'* Rev. E. p. McElroy, Sinclairville, N. T, "This book is all that it claims to be. I cordially commend it to all who may wish to secure, at small cost and in small compass, a Com- mentary replete with information, and enriched with those explanations and illustrations of the sacred text which are tlie result of the patient and careful study of the most eminent scholars," Rev. C. H. Corey, Seahrooh, N. H. " We have used them in our school [of colored students of theology in Virginia,] to great profit. The students arevery much pleased with them, and have carried them away with them on Uieir vacation. The notes, so concise and to the point, are not only valuable, but the book itself, by the plan on which it is constructed, has served admirably to instruct the students in tlie use of a Commentary." 4 Notices by the press of Dr. Warren's Sun- day-school Commentary on the New Testament, The Boston Journal. It is in the best style of the book-making art. Its notes are brief, for the most part condensed and apposite. They evince high scholarship, excel- lent judgment, and a correct ideal of what snch a work should be. The page is exceedingly grateful to the eye, the catch-words are in b.rger type than the notes, and the illustrations, maps, &c., are very neatly done. It is one of the iinest works of the kind with which we are acquainted, and will be an iuvaluable aid to s tudents of the Bible and Sabbath-school teacliers. The Congregational Quarterly. " Common sense, eminent scholarship, persevering indu'stry, and a deep love of truth, and every other good quaJity of mind and heart, have been employed in explaining the great truths of revelation. The volume before us IS beautifully printed and illustrated on fine, tinted paper, and contains the best efforts of the writer in making plain, in a few words, what might be obscure to the uneducated. The * practical thoughts ' ' will be found very useful and suggestive." The Advance. " The author has condensed a large amount of information into hife prefa- tory Chronological Harmony, introductions to the several books, foot-notes, and practical tnoughts. He lias made free use of the best critical works of modern scholars. A convenient index of subjects is appended. The typo- graphy and binding are very attractive." _ The S. S. Times. " The notes are models of brevity and point. Sound judgment seems to have been exercised as to the subjects for comment. The cuts and maps are beautifully executed. The book is a marvel of beauty in its typographi- cal arrangements and execution. We should think this Testament woiUd be admirably suited for family reading." The Watchman and Reflector. "We know of no similar work that approaches it for compactness of thought, clearness of exposition, and brevity of expression. We are sur- prised at the cleverness which compresses so much m so little space. For the family, for private reading, and for S. S. teachers, the work will be a valuable hand-book on the gospels." The Morning Star. "We have in this volume the text of the four gospels in large and clear type, accompanied wiih brief^ comprehensive and pertinent notes and prac- tical suggestions, embodying the conclusions arrived at by the most eminent Biblical scholars, and appropriate ilkistrations. Convenient, in foim, attrac- tive in appearance, and presenting the results of laboretj investigations so that they may be comprehended at a glance, the work is in every way adapted for use in family devotions and the Sabbath-school, and meets a long" exist- ing want. We predict for it an extensive circulation and great popularity, especially among those in advanced years." The Bibliotheca Sacra. " This Commentary is printed beautifully, and is well adapted to populal use." 5 Notices by the Press of Dr. Warren's Sun- day-School Commentary. The Christian Mirror. *''We have been examining" this work with much interest and satis- faction. Stripped of the verbiage which characterizes some lar^-er works, and containing- the most valuable excjjetical and practical points presented by Alford, Lan^e, and other eminent scholars, we have an excellent manual for Sabbath-school teachers and all who desire an inexpensive, but helpful Commentary. It deserves a place in every pan.'=h library, and every teacher's hand." National Temperance Advocate. " A valuable companion to all Sabbath -school teachers, and parents, and those whose means, and learning, and time, do not admit of pa- tient, critical research." The Christian Era. " It will be found a valuable aid in the clear understanding of the sacred text, and its brevity and conciseness will be a high recommen- dation to many. The works of the best scholars from which it has been cliiefly drawn, are a good guarantee to its excellence in its inter- pretation of difficult passages. The design was evidently to make it as far as possible acceptable to all Christians of whatever name. The division into sections is a great advantage. The typography is in the highest style of elegance." The Christian Banner. "We are greatly pleased with this work. The qualities of clear- ness, condensation, and a careful selection of the passa|;es and words that need comment, are conspicuous. We have very little ciiance to take exception to opinions or statements. Wc commend the Com- mentary warmly as being filled to the brim with just what is needed to help in the study of this interesting portion of the Bible. The whole volume is an exceedingly useful and convenient pne for those ■who are engaged in studying a series of lessons on the Life of Christ. The division into sections, with the references to the chronological harmony, is very valuable for this purpose." The Religious Herald. "The object of this new Commentary is to aid readerS of the New Testament in learning its real meaning, and make the truths found the means of spiritual edification and salvation. It is well adapted to secure these ends, for it is carefully and judiciously prepared. The mechanical execution of the work is quite superior in all respects," The Pacific, San Fraficisco, " It is a help to both scholar and thinker, and will no doubt be read- ily sought after, as it embraces much that is valuable and interestingi It is finely illustrated, and contains a colored map of Palestine." 6 Notices by the Press of Dr. Warren's Sun- day-School Commentary. The Presbyterian, "The conclusions of the latest and best Biblical scholars are given concisely but clearly. We most heartily commend the style in which the book is produced. When we remember how our g-reat Societies and Boards were wont formerly to bring out their publications, and compare that with the present style, we are astonished at the advance." The 'American Presbyterian. "An admirably contrived apparatus for facilitating the study of the Scriptures. Its exterior is unusually attractive and elegant, the typog- raphy, presswork, and tinted paper, being amono; the finest specimens of^the art. The notes are brief expositions of difficult points, followed by equally brief and pointed suggestive practical comments on the principal ideas of the passage. Not a line of space is lost by unnec- essary multiplication of words. The student who has time to spare will be likely to find at once what he needs. It embodies results rather than processes. An alphabetical index of subjects closes the volume, which is a credit to the Society issuing it, and^ which will be likely to gain wide popularity." Phila. Daily News, _ "The principal feature which commends it is the notes and illustra- tions, by which all things contained in the four Gospels are made plain to the popuI:ir mind. This publication will supply a much needed household want, and will doubtless be largely sold." The Evangelical Repository. " We have examined this volume with some care, and with much satisfaction. It is, we thinlt, the most judicious Commentary in brief compass that we have met with. It contains the results of the best critical authorities, ancient and modern. The practical lessons at the close of each chapter are comprehensive, and exceedingly plain and pointed. Families and teachers that cannot afford a more extended or costly Commentary on the New Testament, cannot do better, in our judgment, than to obtain this one. The volume sent us is printed in good, clear type, and is very handsomely bound. It contains a map, appropriate engravings, and a full Alphabetical Index. We cordially commend tliis work to the attention of our readers, especially to those who are engaged in teaching in the Sabbath-school." The Christian Guardian, Toronto. " It is a most valuable Commentary, admirably adapted to Sabbath- school and family use. " , Lima (A^. T.) Recordkr. " The practical suggestions are particularly valuable for their pointed earnestness, which brings the truth of the text home to the heart of the reader. It is eminently catholic in spirit, being free from denom- inational bias, yet true to the teachings of Orthodox Christianity. Its cheapness and worth commend it to all," ISEAEL P. Warren, Pcblisher, Boston. The undersigned is publishing a Series of RELIGIOUS BOOKS FOR THE YOUNG, Both for Home Xfiea.ding' and the Sunday School ILiiln-ary. He will give his utmost care that all the publications bearing his name shall be of the very best. They will contain No Sensationalisms, Ko Strained and Unnatural Fictions, JTo Tjfisound Teachings, No liove Stories. No SX!CTA.MIANISM, While of various authorship, they will all be revised and edited by himself, and made as perfect as possible in contents and artistic merit. He will also give his personal attention to the SELECTION OF S. S. LIBRARIES, always a delicate, and now more than ever difficult, task, in view of the great multiplication of books and authors. His selections will be made from the best stock of all the publishers in this country, and only those placed in his list which, from personal examination, he can certify to be good and safe books, worthy of admission to every family. They will be furnished at 1^°" The IL.o-west Ibices. Send for terms to '^^ 62 Washington Street, Boston. ^'^T7Si!^w^p^^c5^JJ^^^S^^_