MAN. Of all the objects which nature presents to our observation, there is none that so powerfully demands our attention, none indeed with which it so much concerns us to be intimately acquainted, as man. If we admit that he is the only being possessed of reason, there is no other creature which can for a moment be brought into competition with him. It must be allowed, indeed, that, whether we consider him as a solitary being, superior in form, structure, and intelligence, to all the other classes of animated nature; or in his social character, as possessing the sentiments of affection, friendship, gratitude, benevolence, and so constituted as to be capable of accommodating himself to every variety of external circumstances, as well as of making continual advances in knowledge and in wisdom; his position is such, that to his fellow-men he certainly presents the most interesting object to which they can direct their attention. Hence a full examination of everything relating to the human species would include nearly all that is curious in nature, or interesting and useful in science.

The present work, for instance, embodying a laborious digest of the vast mass of human knowledge, is in fact little else than a collection of details and reasonings, which, either mediately or immediately, relate to man. In the first place, he may be considered as constituting a tribe or species of animals differing from all others in his structure, functions, and diseases, and, above all, as possessing the faculty of reason. Now the structure and organization of man constitute the subject of one science; his functions that of another; the diseases and accidents to which he is exposed belong to a third; whilst the nature and exercise of his reasoning powers are treated of under distinct heads, as separate branches of human knowledge, the respective boundaries of which have been clearly defined. Secondly, man may be considered as differing from others of the same species or tribe, in height, in features, in colour, in disposition, and in manners; and these secondary varieties may be viewed as either original and indelible, or as superinduced by the gradual operation of external circumstances, whether physical or moral; in short, as the effects of a number of minute causes, acting continually during a long tract of ages, and ultimately rendered apparent in the differences observable amongst the inhabitants of different parts of the earth. Thirdly, man may be considered as a dependent and an accountable being, in relation to his Creator, his neighbour, and himself; in which view, his appetites and passions, as well as his moral and religious duties, the nature and history of his social condition, the peculiar character of his civil and political institutions, and the sentiments connected with the relation in which he stands to the Supreme Being, the author of his existence, and upon whom he continually depends, form respectively the subjects of another class of sciences, having for their principal object and end to teach him how to employ to the best advantage those high powers and faculties with which it has pleased God to endow him, for promoting his own welfare and that of his fellow-creatures. Lastly, man may be considered with respect to the relations which subsist between him and the inferior classes of the creation, as these minister to his necessities, supply his wants, abridge his comforts, or oppose his progress. In his relations to the external world, he is prompted, first by necessity, and afterwards by curiosity, as well as by a desire to extend his dominion, improve his condition, and advance the wellbeing of his kind, to explore the different kingdoms and compartments of nature, and to ascertain the laws by which they are governed, by examining and classing the various phenomena therein observed; and hence spring the natural sciences in all their complicated variety, yet mutual relation and dependence.

In a word, of those writers who treat directly of man, the philosopher and the moralist consider him in the abstract; the geographer describes him as he exists in communities; the historian traces the origin of society, the progress of man in arts, civilization, and refinement, and the changes which have taken place amongst the human species, either from the operation of physical causes, or from the folly, wickedness, and ambition of princes and rulers; the biographer treats of man as an individual, and exhibits the effects of exalted virtue, eminent abilities, or striking vices, both on their possessor and on the community at large. It is the business of the naturalist to describe the external form of man, as it differs from that of other animals; to consider the varieties thereof which obtain amongst different nations, and the more striking peculiarities which are occasionally found in individuals; and to describe the habits and manners of the human species, the progress of man from infancy to death, the duration of life and its causes, and the effects produced upon the body by death. The natural history of man, in its most comprehensive sense, constitutes a subject of immense extent and endless variety; one, indeed, which would demand a familiar acquaintance with almost the whole circle of human knowledge, and a combination of the most opposite talents and pursuits. But this labour, much too extensive to be executed by any individual, is divided into several subordinate branches. The anatomist and the physiologist unfold the uses of the corporeal mechanism; the surgeon and the physician describe its diseases; the metaphysician and moralist occupy themselves with the functions of mind and with the moral sentiments. Man in society, his progress in the various countries and ages of the world, his multiplication and extension, form the province of the historian and the political economist.

Our principal object at present is to consider him chiefly < as an object of zoology, to describe him as a subject of the t animal kingdom, to examine the distinctions between him t and other animals, and to attempt to account for the prin- s cipal differences observable between the various races of mankind. But, even in this comparatively limited view of the subject, the questions which arise are of the very highest interest and importance; whilst the difficulties by which the inquiry is beset are such as to require the greatest caution in the examination of evidence, and a watchful anxiety to avoid rash or hasty generalization. “Les influences physiques des climats et des températures,” says Μ. Virey, “celles des territoires dans toutes les regions habitées de la terre, l’action prolongée des nourritures, les maladies, et les variétés de race apportées dans les constitutions humaines, l’empire des habitudes sociales conservées durant plusieurs ages, et qui ne modifient pas moins les intelligences que les corps, enfin les effets réunis de tant de causes long-temps agissantes, imposent de laborieuses combinaisons pour en apprécier les résultats, et les épurer par one judicieuse critique.” In fact, the inquiries which claim our attention in a mere zoological survey of the human species are numerous and intricate. What climates, what degrees of heat, can man endure? How is he enabled to bear all the diversified influences of such different abodes as those in which he is found? Is he indebted for this power of adaptation to the strength and flexibility of his organization, or to his mental functions, his reason, and the arts which he has thence derived? Is he a species [7:14:194]broadly and clearly distinguished from all others, or is he specifically allied to the orang-utang and other monkeys? What are his corporeal, what his mental distinctions? Are the latter different in kind, or only superior in degree, to those of the higher animals? Is there one species of men only, or are there several distinct species? What particulars of external form and inward structure characterize the several races? What relation is observed between the differences of structure and those of moral feeling, mental capability, and actual progress in arts, sciences, literature, government, and social condition? How is man affected, and to what extent, by the external influences of climate, food, and mode of life? Are these, or any other, operating on beings originally alike, sufficient to account for all the diyersities hitherto observed; or must we suppose that several kinds of men were created originally, each for its own peculiar situation? If we adopt the supposition of a single species, what country did it first inhabit, and what was the appearance of the original type? Did he go erect or upon all fours; was he a Patagonian or a Laplander, a Negro or a Georgian? To suppose that it is in our power to furnish satisfactory replies to all, or even the greater part of these questions, would imply a degree of presumption which it is scarcely necessary for us to disclaim. We mention them only as examples, partly to convey some idea of the extent and difficulty of the subject, and partly to account for the comparatively small progress which has yet been made in this complicated investigation; requiring, as it does, a thorough acquaintance with the anatomy and physiology of our frame, with comparative anatomy, and with the principles of general physiology, as well as the analogies derivable from the whole of living nature. In fact, it is only in our time, and principally through the labours and writings of Blumenbach, that the natural history of man has begun to receive its due share of attention. The example of Buffon and Blumenbach, however, has been followed by some others, as Zimmerman, Meiners, Soemmering, and Ludwig in Germany; Smith in America; Prichard and Lawrence in England; and Hunter and Kames in Scotland. The two most important works which have as yet appeared on the subject are Dr Prichard’s researches into the Physical History of Mankind, and Mr Lawrence’s Lectures on the Natural History of Man ; the former characterized by clear statement, varied information, and convincing reasoning; and the latter distinguished for profound and extensive scientific knowledge, united with much vigour and originality in discussing and appreciating the speculations and hypotheses of preceding writers.

Linnaeus places man in the order primates of the class Mammalia, and gives him as companions the monkeys, lemurs, and bats, the last of which must be somewhat surprised, we should think, at finding themselves in such a situation. The characters of this order arc, “Front teeth incisors; the superior, four; parallel; two pectoral mammae.” But surely the principles must be incorrect which lead to such an extraordinary approximation.

The only animals which bear any striking resemblance to man in point of structure are the monkeys, especially the orang-utang and chimpansé, which have hence been denominated anthropomorphous; but there are some principal circumstances which particularly distinguish man from these animals. One of these consists in the strength of the muscles of the legs, by which the body is supported in a vertical position, and in the articulation of the head with the neck by the middle of its base. We stand*upright, bend our body, and walk, without thinking of the power by which we are supported in these several positions, and which resides chiefly in the muscles, constituting the principal part of the calf of the leg. The exertion of these muscles is felt, and their motion is visible externally, when we stand upright and bend our body backwards or forwards. Nor is the peculiar power which we thus possess less considerable when we walk upon a horizontal plane; but in ascending a height, the weight of the body is more sensibly felt than in descending. All these motions are natural to man. Other animals, however, when placed upon their hind legs, are either incapable of performing them at all, or do it partially, with great difficulty, and only for a short time. The orang-utang (simia satyrus') and chimpansé (simia troglodytes) can stand upright with much less difficulty than other brutes; but the restraint they 'are under in this attitude, plainly shows that it is not natural to them. From their peculiar structure, they have the power of imitating many human actions, and they are also excellent climbers; but they cannot easily stand or walk upright, because the foot rests on its outer edge, the heel does not touch the ground, and the narrowness of the pelvis renders the trunk unsteady. Hence they are neither biped, nor, though quadrumanous, strictly quadruped. They resemble man in the general form of the cranium, and in the configuration of the brain, the two hemispheres of which are however greatly reduced; but there is a constantly increasing deviation from the human structure, by the elongation of the muzzle, and the advances towards the attitude and progression of quadrupeds. Another of those circumstances which distinguish man from the other anthropomorphous animals, is the want of the intermaxillary bone. The superior maxillary bones of the human subject are united to each other, and contain the whole of the upper series of teeth; but in the other mammalia they are separated by a third bone of a cuneiform shape, which contains the incisor teeth, and has therefore been called the os incisivum. This bone is moreover found where there are no incisor teeth, as in the horned ruminants, and also where there are no teeth at all, as in the ant-eater and some of‘the whale species. Man, however, possesses nothing analogous to the intermaxillary bone of brutes.

Μ. Daubenton has shown, that the attitudes proper to man and to other animals are pointed out by the very different modes in which the head is articulated with the neck. The : two points by which the osseous part of the head is connected with the first joint of the neck, and on which every movement of the head is made with the greatest facility, are placed at the edge of the great hole of the occipital bone, which in man is situated near the centre of the base of the skull (affording a passage for the medullary substance into the vertebral canaD, as upon a pivot or point of support. The face is in a vertical line, almost parallel to that of the body and the neck; and the jaws, which are very short when compared with those of most other animals, extend very little farther forwards than the forehead. There is almost no animal but man which has its hind legs as long as the head and the trunk taken together, measuring from the vertex to the os pubis. In all the monkey tribe they fall far short of this proportion; even in the orang-utang and the chimpansé they are short and weak, and manifestly inadequate to sustain the body erect. This circumstance alone effectually disqualifies the most anthropomorphous monkey for participating with man in the grand attribute of upright stature, and would of itself be a sufficient ground of specific distinction between the former and the latter.

In the frame of the human body the principal parts are nearly the same with those of other animals; but in the connection and form of the bones there is as great a difference as in the attitudes proper to each. Were a man to assume the natural posture of quadrupeds, and to try to walk by the help of his hands and feet, he would find himself in a most unnatural situation; he could not move his feet and hands except with the greatest difficulty and pain; and, let him make what exertions he pleased, he would find it impossible to attain a steady and continued pace.
[7:14:195]

The principal obstacles he would meet with arise from the ‘ peculiar structure of the pelvis, as well as from that of the hands, the feet, and the head.

The plane of the great occipital hole, which in man is almost horizontal, places the head in a kind of equilibrium upon the neck when we stand erect in our natural attitude; but when we assume the attitude of quadrupeds, it prevents us from raising the head so as to look forwards, because the movement of the head is stopped by the protuberance of the occiput, which then approaches too near t the vertebrae of the neck. In most animals, the great hole of the occipital bone is situated at the back part of the head; the jaws are very long; and the occiput has no protuberance beyond the aperture, the plane of which is in a vertical direction, or inclined a little forwards or backwards, so that the head is dependent, and joined to the neck by its posterior part. This position of the head enables quadrupeds, though their bodies are in a horizontal direction, to present their muzzle forwards, and to raise it so as to reach above them, or to touch the earth with the extremity of their jaws when they bring their neck and head down to their feet. In the attitude of a quadruped man could touch the earth only with the fore part of the top of the head. To these differences of structure we may add, that when a man is standing, his heel rests upon the earth as well as the other parts of his foot; when he walks it is the first part which touches the ground; and he cannot stand upon one foot. These are peculiarities in structure and in the manner of moving which are not to be found in other animals. It is evident therefore that man cannot be ranked in the class of quadrupeds.

We may add, that in man the brain is much larger, and the jaws are much shorter, than in any other animal. The brain, by its great extent, forms the protuberance of the occipital bone, the forehead, and all that part of the head which is above the ears. In the inferior animals, the brain is so small that most of them have no occiput, and the front is either wanting or but little raised. Man combines by far the largest cranium with the smallest face; and animals deviate from these relations in proportion as they increase in stupidity and ferocity. In animals which have large foreheads, such as the horse, the ox, and the elephant, they are placed as low as the ears, and even lower. In man only is the face placed perpendicularly under the front of the cranium. The face of animals is placed in front of the cranium rather than under it; and that cavity is so diminished in size that its anterior expanded portion or forehead is soon lost as we recede from man. The animals to which we have referred likewise want the occiput, and the top of the head is of very small extent. The jaws, which form the greatest portion of the muzzle, are large in proportion to the smallness of the brain. The length of the muzzle varies in different animals; it is short in the orang-utang, and in man it does not exist at all; no beard grows on the muzzle; and this part is wanting in every animal. The idea of stupidity is associated, even by the vulgar, with the elongation of the snout, which necessarily lowers the facial line, or rendersit more oblique; and hence the crane and snipe have become proverbial. On the contrary, when the facial line is elevated by any cause which does not increase the capacity of the cranium, the animal acquires a particular air of intelligence, and gains credit for qualities which it probably does not in reality possess.

Man alone, then, of all the animals with which we∙ are acquainted, can constantly and uniformly support himself in the erect posture. This is his natural attitude. He is the only being fitted by his organization to go erect. Enslaved by their senses, and partaking only of physical enjoyments, other animals have their heads directed towards the earth; they belong to the species “quae natura prona, atque ventri obedientia finxit.” Man, whose more elevated nature is connected to surrounding objects by moral relations, who can pursue the concatenations of causes and effects, and embrace in his mind the system of the universe, boldly regards the vast expanse of the heavens, and directs his sight even into the starry regions.

Pronaque cum spectent animalia terram, Os homini sublime dedit; coelumque videre J ussit, et erectos tollere ad sidera vultus.

This fine expression of the poet is corroborated by the authority of the comparative anatomist. “There are,” says Cuvier, “several circumstances in the anatomical structure of man, which sufficiently prove that nature never intended him to walk on all fours. In this situation his eyes would be directed towards the earth; but not being possessed of the cervical ligament that is found in quadrupeds, he would not be able to support his head. His inferior extremities would be too much elevated in proportion to his arms, and his feet too short to enable him conveniently to bend them like other animals who tread only on their toes. His chest is so large that it would impede the free motion of his arms. He could not even climb with so much facility as apes, because he has not, like them, the great toe separated from the rest; nor could he climb like the cats, on account of the weakness of his nails.”

The body of a well-shaped man ought to be square, the muscles strongly marked, the general contour of the members boldly delineated, and the features of the face well defined. In women, all the parts are more rounded and softer, the features are more delicate, and the complexion brighter. To man belong strength and majesty; whilst gracefulness and beauty are the portions of the other sex. The structure essential to each will be found explained in the description of the human skeleton. (See Anatomy.) Indeed everything in both sexes points them out as the sovereigns of the earth; even the external appearance of man declares his superiority to other creatures. His body is erect; his attitude is that of command; and his august countenance, which is turned towards heaven, bears the impression of his dignity. The image of his soul is displayed in his face; and the excellence of his nature pierces through the material organs, giving a fire and animation to the features of his countenance. His majestic deportment, his firm and emboldened gait, announce the nobleness of his rank. He touches the earth only with his extremity; he views it at a distance, and seems to despise it. In a word, the erect stature is suited to the organization of the human subject, and it is exclusively peculiar to man.

It has justly been observed, that the human countenance is the mirror of the human mind. In the looks of no animal are the expressions of passion painted with such energy and rapidity, or with such gentle shades and gradations, as in those of man. We know that in certain emotions of the mind the blood rises to the face, and produces blushing; and that in others the countenance turns pale. These two symptoms, the appearance of which depends upon the structure and the transparency of the reticulum, especially redness, constitute a peculiar beauty. In our climate, the natural colour of the face of a man in good health is white, with a lively red suffused upon the cheeks. Paleness of the countenance is always a suspicious symptom. That colour which is shaded with black is a sign of melancholy; and constant and universal redness is a proof that the blood is carried with too much impetuosity to the brain. A livid colour is a morbid and dangerous symptom; and that which has a tint of yellow is a sign of jaundice or repletion of bile. The colour of the skin is frequently altered by want of sleep or of nourishment, by diarrhoea, and other diseases. But notwithstanding the general similitude of countenance in nations, and families, there is a wonderful diversity of features. No one, however, is at a loss to recollect the person to whom he intends to speak, provided he has once fully seen him.
[7:14:196]

One man has liveliness and gaiety painted in his countenance, and, by the cheerfulness of his appearance, announces beforehand the character which he is to support in society. The tears which bedew the cheeks of another man excite compassion even in the most unfeeling heart. Thus, in the face of man are represented the types or symptoms of his moral and physical affections; tranquillity, anger, menace, joy, smiles, laughter, malice, love, envy, jealousy, pride, contempt, disdain or indignation, scorn, arrogance, tears, terror, astonishment, horror, fear, shame or humiliation, sorrow and affliction, compassion, meditation, particular convulsions, sleep, death. The difference of these characters indeed appears of sufficient importance to constitute a principal article in the natural history of man.

When the mind is at ease, all the features of the face are in a state of profound tranquillity, and by their proportion, harmony, and union, point out the serenity of the thoughts. But when the soul is greatlyagitated, the human countenance becomes a living canvass, upon which the passions are represented with equal delicacy and energy; where every emotion of the soul is expressed by some feature, and every action by some mark, the lively impression of which anticipates the will, and reveals by pathetic signs our secret emotions, and those intentions which we are anxious to conceal. It is in the eyes that the soul is pictured in the strongest colours, and also with the nicest shades. The different colours of the eyes are, dark hazel, light hazel, green, blue, gray, and whitish gray; but the most common of these colours are hazel and blue, both of which are often found in the same eye. Eyes which are commonly called black, are only dark hazel; they appear black in consequence of being contrasted with the white of the eye. Wherever there is a tint of blue, however slight, it becomes the prevailing colour, and outshines the hazel, with which it is intermixed, to such a degree indeed that the mixture cannot be perceived without a very narrow examination. The most∙beautiful eyes are those which appear black or blue. In the former there is more of expression and vivacity; in the latter more of sweetness, and perhaps of delicacy. Next to the eyes, the parts of the face by which the physiognomy is most strongly marked are the eyebrows. They are like shadow in a picture, which gives relief to the other colours and forms. The forehead is one of the largest parts of the face, and contributes the most to its beauty. Everybody knows that the hair is important in the physiognomy, and that baldness is a great defect. When old age approaches, the hair which first’ falls off is that which covers the crown of the head and the parts above the temples. We seldom see the hair of the lower part of the temples, or of the back of the head, completely fall off. The nose is the most prominent feature of the face; but as it has very little motion, it contributes less to the expression than to the beauty of the countenance. The nose is seldom perpendicular to the middle of the face, but is for the most part slightly turned towards the one side or the other; an irregularity which, according to painters, is perfectly consistent with beauty. Next to the eyes, the mouth and lips have the greatest motion and expression. The mouth, set off by the vermilion of the lips and the enamel of the teeth, marks, by the various forms it assumes, their different characters; and this feature receives animation from the organ of the voice, which communicates to it more life and expression than is possessed by any other feature. The cheeks are uniform features, having no motion, and little expression, excepting what arises from the involuntary redness or paleness with which they are covered in different passions; such as shame, anger, pride, and joy, producing redness, and fear, terror, and sorrow, producing paleness.

In different passions, the whole head assumes different positions, and is affected with different motions. It hangs forward when we are affected with shame, humility, and sorrow; it inclines to one side in languor and compassion; it is elevated in pride or haughtiness, erect and fixed in obstinacy and self-conceit. In astonishment, it is thrown backwards; and it moves from side to side in contempt, ridicule, anger, and indignation. In grief, joy, love, shame, and compassion, the eyes swell and the tears flow. The effusion of tears is always accompanied with an extension of the muscles of the face, which opens the mouth. In sorrow, the corners of the mouth are depressed, the under lip rises, the eyelids become depressed, the pupil of the eye is round and half concealed by the eyelid. The other muscles of the face are relaxed, so that the distance between the eyes and the mouth is greater than ordinary, and hence the countenance appears to be lengthened. In fear, terror, consternation, and horror, the forehead is wrinkled, the eyebrows are raised, the eyelids open as wide as possible, and the upper lid uncóvers a part of the white above the pupil, which is depressed and partly concealed by the under lid. At the same time the mouth opens, and the lips recede from each other, discovering the teeth both above and below. In contempt and derision, the upper lip is raised to one side, exposing the teeth, whilst the other side of the lip moves a little, and wears the appearance of a smile.' The nostril on the elevated side of the lip shrivels up, and the corner of the mouth falls down. The eye on the same side is almost shut, whilst the other is open as usual; but the pupils of both are depressed, as when one looks down from a height. In jealousy, envy, and malice, the eyebrows are depressed. The upper lip is elevated on both sides, whilst the corners of the mouth are a little lowered, and the under lip rises to join the middle of the upper. In laughter the corners of the mouth are drawn back, and a little elevated; the upper parts of the cheeks rise; the eyes are more or less closed; the upper lip rises, and the under one falls; the mouth opens, and, in cases of immoderate laughter, the skin of the nose wrinkles. That gentler and more gracious kind of laughter which is called smiling, is seated wholly in the parts of the mouth. The under lip rises; the angles of the mouth are drawn back, the cheeks are puffed up, the eyelids approach one another, and a small twinkling is observed in the eyes. It is remarkable, that laughter may be excited either by a moral cause without the immediate action of external objects, or by a particular irritation of the nerves without any feeling of joy. Thus an involuntary laugh is excited by a slight tickling of the lips, the palm of the hand, the sole of the foot, or the armpits, and, indeed, below the middle of the ribs. We generally laugh when two dissimilar ideas, the union of which was unexpected, are simultaneously presented to the mind, and when.one or both of these ideas, or their union, includes some absurdity which excites an emotion of disdain mingled with joy. In general, striking contrasts never fail to produce laughter. A change is produced in the features of the countenance by weeping as well as by laughing. In weeping, the under lip is separated from the teeth; the forehead is wrinkled; the eyebrows are depressed; the dimple, which gives a gracefulness to laughter, forsakes the cheek; the eyes are unusually compressed, and bathed in tears. In laughter, tears not unfrequently appear, but they flow more seldom and less copiously. The arms, hands, and every part of the body, contribute to the expression of the passions. In joy, for instance, all the members of the body are agitated with quick and varied motions. In languor and sorrow, the arms hang down, and the whole body remains fixed and immoveable. In admiration and surprise, a similar suspension of motion is likewise observed. In love and hope, the head and eyes are raised to heaven, as if to solicit the wished-for good; the body inclines forward, as if to approach it; and the arms [7:14:197]are stretched out, as if to seize beforehand on the desired object. On the other hand, in fear, in hatred, and in horror, the arms seem to push backwards, and repel the object of aversion. We turn away our head and eyes, as if to avoid the sight of it; and we start back, as if to shun it. At his birth, man is the most feeble of all animals; he cannot subsist, even for a short period, except by the care of his parents, which he has occasion for during a much longer period than any other animal. Hence the natural continuance of conjugal affection, and the intimate ties which bind the parents to each other and to their children. As the father shares with his companion the care of educating their children, man ought more than any other animal to live in a state of monogamy, the propriety of which is besides demonstrated by the nearly equal numbers of male and female children that on an average come into the world. Man indeed is formed for society, which is rendered essentially necessary to him from his natural weakness, and without which he would not be able to resist the wild beasts of the forest, or to procure for himself the necessaries of life. He has no arms offensive or defensive, such as horns, claws, scales; nor indeed any thing that resembles the faculty called instinct, which many species of animals derive from nature herself, and by which they construct themselves habitations, or change their climate, according to the diversity of the season. But still he is by no means left without resource. At first evils assail him on every side, whilst the remedies remain hidden; but having received from his Creator the gift of inventive genius, he is soon enabled to discover them. His exertions are roused by the various wants of food, clothing, and dwelling; by the infinite variety of climate, soil, and other circumstances. This prerogative of invention appeared so important in the earlier periods of society, that it was impersonated in the Thoth of Egypt and the Hermes of Greece; it received divine honours, and became an object of popular worship.

All gregarious animals have a certain language, by which they can in some measure communicate their thoughts to each other. But man enjoys in this respect two remarkable prerogatives, viz. first, the faculty of articulating sounds, which no quadruped possesses in common with him, and which gives to his language an infinite variety and precision; and, secondly, an unlimited power of generalizing his ideas, and of fixing and retaining abstract notions by means of words. Upon this depend memory and judgment, which constitute the foundation of reason, or of that faculty of comparing and combining or analysing ideas, which is considered as the peculiar attribute of man. Language necessarily implies a train or sequence of thought, and for this reason brute animals are incapable of speech. Their external senses are not∙inferior to our own, and some of them appear to possess a faint glimmering of comparison, reflection, and judgment; yet with all this they are incapable of forming that association of ideas in which alone the essence of thought consists. The possession of speech, therefore, corresponds to the more numerous, diversified, and exalted intellectual and moral endowments of man, and is a necessary aid to their exercise and their full development. The ruder faculties and simpler feelings of animals do not require such assistance, because the natural language of inarticulate sounds, and gestures, and actions, is sufficient for their purposes. But it is otherwise with man, whose endowments would have been bestowed on him in vain, had the aid of language been denied him as an instrument for their improvement. The wonderful discovery of alphabetical writing, and the invention of printing, complete the benefits derived from the noble prerogative of speech.

It is by means of language that man communicates to the rest of his species the observations and discoveries made by individuals; and this communication is the source of the almost indefinite perfectibility of the human race. The first savages collected in the forests a few nourishing fruits or salutary herbs, and thus supplied their most immediate wants. The first shepherds observed that the stars move in a regular course, and made use of them, to guide their journeys through the pathless desert. Such was the origin of the mathematical and physical sciences. Genius, once convinced that it could combat nature by its own resources, commenced its active career; it watched without relaxation natural phenomena, and incessantly made new discoveries, all of them distinguished by some improvement in the condition of our race. “From that time,” says Cuvier, “a succession of conducting minds, faithful depositaries of the attainments already made, constantly occupied in connecting them, and in vivifying them by means of each other, have led us, in less than forty ages, from the first essays of rude observers, to the profound calculations of Newton and Laplace, to the learned classifications of Linnaeus and J ussieu. This precious inheritance perpetually increasing; brought from Chaldaea into Egypt, from Egypt into Greece; concealed during ages of disaster and darkness, recovered in more fortunate times, unequally spread amongst the nations of Europe; has everywhere been followed by wealth and power. The nations which have reaped it are become the mistresses of the world, whilst those who have neglected it are fallen into weakness and obscurity.” Such is the progression in science resulting from the intercommunications of“conducting minds.”

As to the arts, they are the offspring of science, produced by the combination of such recorded observations and discoveries as we have described, and by that address which results from the peculiar conformation, as well as the constitution, of man. By means of the arts man has learned to procure for himself subsistence, and to provide against the inclemencies of the weather in all the climates of the earth. Thus he has established himself everywhere, whilst the rest of the animal creation have each a determinate sphere, beyond which they cannot pass without the protection of man. r

The nations who established themselves in the frozen regions of the north, not finding there enough of vegetable nourishment, nor pasture sufficiently abundant for cattle, derived all their subsistence from the chase or from fishing. Obliged to devote all their time to the great object of procuring this subsistence, and multiplying but slowly, from the destruction of the game which surrounded them, it is not surprising that amongst them man has made less progress in arts and civilization than in other and more favoured regions. In such situations, the arts are confined to the construction of huts, to the preparation of skins for covering, and to the manufacture of spears and other weapons. The inhabitants of the northern and eastern parts of Siberia, and the savages of North America, are almost the only people who are still to be found in this primitive state. Other nations learned to secure for themselves certain subsistence in the possession of numerous herds, and to find sufficient leisure for increasing their knowledge; but their wandering life, in search of new pastures and more agreeable climates, kept them still within very narrow limits in respect of civilization. They, however, acquired more skill in the construction of their habitations, and formed the idea of property; the natural consequences of which were riches, and an inequality of condition. The Laplanders in the north of Europe, the Tartars who inhabit the vast regions in the interior of Asia; the Bedouin Arabs who occupy the sands of Arabia and the north of Africa,.and the Caffres and Hottentots in Southern Africa, are the principal wandering tribes with which we are acquainted. Mankind did not multiply to any considerable extent, nor attain to any great perfection in the arts and sciences, till landed property allowed them to pay attention to agriculture, by means of which the l∩h∩ιιr of onp nnrt ∩f fĥe mm-munity[7:14:198] could procure subsistence for the rest, and leave them sufficient leisure to employ themselves in the study of arts less necessary than ornamental. Finally, the invention of money, by facilitating the transfer of commodities, encouraged industry, luxury, and inequality of fortune, and, by a natural consequence, engendered effeminacy in some, and avarice or ambition in others.

It is chiefly by the features of the countenance and the colour of the skin that the different varieties of the human species are distinguished. Independently of particular or individual differences, the human race may be distinguished into a number of principal varieties, the distinctive characters of which are so strongly stamped, as apparently to resist even the powerful influence of climate. In fact we see co-existing for ages, under the same parallel of latitude, and in the same country, the dark Hungarian or gipsy, and the fairest people of Europe; whilst the copper-coloured Peruvian, the brown Malay, and the almost white Abyssinian, are found in the same zone which is inhabited by the blackest people in the universe. The inhabitants of Van Diemen’s Land are black, whilst the Europeans of the same degree of north latitude are white; and the inhabitants of the Malabar coast, though placed beneath a sky much hotter than the natives of Siberia, are nevertheless not of a browner hue. The Dutch who colonized the Cape of Good Hope have not, during two centuries, acquired the same colour with the Hottentots; and the Parsees remainwhite in the midst of the olive-coloured Hindus. At the same time, it is to be observed, that every permanent and characteristical variety of the human species must be effected by slow and almost imperceptible degrees. Great and sudden changes produce violent disturbance, and tend to destroy rather than to alter the system. But changes which become incorporated therewith, and form the character of a nation or a race, are progressively carried on, through a long series of generations, until the causes which produce them have generated their maximum of effect. In this way the minutest causes, acting constantly for a long tract of ages, will necessarily produce conspicuous differences amongst mankind.

But of these causes the principal is undoubtedly climate, modified in its operation by the state, condition, circumstances, habits, and manners of society. Hence every zone is more or less marked by its distinctive colour. The black prevails under the equator, and the dark copper-colour under the tropics; from the tropic of Cancer to the seventieth degree,, of north latitude, may be successively discerned the olive, the brown, the fair, and the sanguine complexion; and of each of these there are several tints or shades. Does not this uniformity of effect, we ask, indicate an influence of climate which, under the same circumstances, will always produce the same, or nearly the same, results? In the different regions of the globe •may no doubt be discovered apparent deviations from this law; but such seeming anomalies, when closely examined, will be found to confirm it, and, instead of forming exceptions, will rather range themselves under the head of secondary illustrations. In fact, the power of climate is established by undeniable facts within the memory of history. From the Baltic to the Mediterranean, the different latitudes may almost be traced by varying shades of colour. From the same general stock, or from nations nearly resembling each other, are derived the fair German, the dark Frenchman, and the swarthy Spaniard and Sicilian. The south of Spain is distinguished by complexion from the north. The same observation may be applied to most of the other countries of Europe; and if we extend it beyond Europe, to the great nations of the East, it is applicable to Tuιkey, to Arabia, to Persia, and to China. The inhabitants of Pekin are fair; those of Canton are nearly black. The Persians near the Caspian are amongst the fairest people in the world; but near the Gulf of Ormus they are of a dark olive. Similar differences of colour may be observed in the inhabitants of Arabia Petraea, Arabia Deserta, and Arabia Felix; in the first and second they are tawny, in the third as black as Ethiopians. In these ancient nations, colour seems to follow a regular progression from the equator. But no example can carry with it greater force than that of the Jews. Descended from one stock, prohibited by their institutions from intermarrying with other nations, yet dispersed throughout every country of the globe, this single people is marked with the colours of all: they are fair in Britain and in Germany, brown in France and in Turkey, swarthy in Spain and in Portugal, tawny or copper-coloured in Arabia and in Egypt.

But the colouring matter in the mucous membrane below the skin is not the only distinctive character that marks the varieties of the human species. In each of them there is a peculiar form, distinguished by constant marks, depending upon the general structure and conformation of the skeleton. One variety has an oval and straight face, with the different parts moderately distinct from one another; a high and expanded forehead; the nose narrow and slightly aquiline, or at least with the bridge somewhat convex; no prominence of the cheekbones; a small mouth, with lips slightly turned out, particularly the lower one, and a full rounded chin. Another is distinguished for a broad and flattened face, with the parts slightly distinguished, and, as it were, running together; the space between the eyes flat and broad, flat nose, and rounded projecting cheeks; narrow and linear aperture of the eye-lids extending towards the temples (yeux bridés) ; the internal angle of the eye depressed towards the nose, and the superior eye-lid continued at that part into the inferior by a rounded sweep; and the chin slightly prominent. The third variety has the face broad, but not flat and depressed, with prominent cheek-bones, and the parts, when viewed in profile, as it were more distinctly and deeply carved; short forehead, eyes deeply seated, and nose flattish but prominent. This is the type of the American countenance. The fourth is marked by a narrow-face projecting towards the lower parts; narrow, slanting, and arched forehead; eyes prominent; a thick nose confused on either side with the projecting cheeks; the lips, particularly the upper one, very thick; the jaws prominent, and the chin retracted. This is the Guinea face, or the negro countenance. The last variety has the face not so narrow as in the preceding, rather projecting downwards, with the different parts, in a side view, rising more freely and distinctly; the nose rather flat and broad, and thicker towards its apex; with the mouth large. This is the face of the Malays, particularly of the South-Sea Islanders. This distribution, however, is only meant to indicate the leading traits, and hence details and minute particulars are not taken into consideration. In features, as in colour, indeed, the different races of men are connected to each other by the nicest gradations; so that, although any two extremes, when contrasted, appear strikingly different, yet they are joined together by numerous intermediate and slightly-differing degrees, and no formation is exhibited so constantly as not to admit of numerous exceptions. When we place an ugly negro beside a specimen of the Greek ideal model, we perceive an astonishing difference; but when we trace all the intermediate gradations, with their almost insensible transitions, this striking diversity vanishes.

Agreeably to this or some other analogous view of the subject, naturalists have classed the different varieties of the human race. Of these Linnaeus makes five, viz. I. Americans, of copper-coloured complexion, choleric constitution, and remarkably erect; II. Europeans, of fair complexion, [7:14:199]sanguine temperament, and brawny form; III. Asiatics, of sooty complexion, melancholic temperament, and rigid fibre; IV. Africans, of black complexion, phlegmatic temperament, and relaxed fibre; and, V. Monsters. Under this last head are comprehended, 1. Alpini, or the inhabitants^ of the northern mountains, who are small in stature,active, and timid in their disposition; 2.Patagonici, or the Patagonians of South America, of large size, and indolent habits; Monorchides, or the Hottentots, having one testicle extirpated; 4. Imberbes, or most of the American nations, who eradicate their beards and the hair from every part of the body except the scalp; 5. Macrocephali ; and, 6. Plagiocephali, or the Canadian Indians, who, when young, have the fore part of their heads flattened by com" pression.;

The next arrangement of the varieties of the human species is that offered by Gmelin as more convenient than the division of Linnaeus. This classification is likewise fivefold, and includes, I. White {Homo Albus), formed by the rules of symmetrical elegance and beauty, or at least what we consider as such. This division includes almost all the inhabitants of Europe; those of Asia on this side of the Obi, the Caspian, Mount Imaus, and the Ganges; likewise the natives of the north of Africa, of Greenland, and the Esquimaux. II. Brown {Homo Badius), of a yellowish brown colour, with scanty hairs, flat features, and small eyes. This variety includes the whole inhabitants of Asia not included in the preceding division. III. Black {Homo Niger), of black complexion, with frizly hair, a flat nose, and thick lips. This variety comprehends the inhabitants of Africa, excepting those of its more northern parts. IV. Copper-coloured {Homo Cupreus), in which the complexion of the skin resembles the colour of copper not burnished. This includes the inhabitants of America, except the Greenlanders and Esquimaux. V.'fawny {Homo Fuscus), chiefly of a dark blackish-brown colour, having a broad nose, and harsh coarse straight hair. This variety embraces the inhabitants of the South Sea Islands, and of most of those in the Indian archipelago.

Buffon enumerates six varieties, namely, the polar or Lapland race, the Tartar or Mongol, the Southern Asiatic, i the European, the Ethiopian, and the American. An account of these varieties will be found in the great work of this eminent naturalist and eloquent writer, and also in Virey’s Histoire Naturelle du Genre Humain, as well as in Herder’s Outlines of the Philosophy of the History of Man. Virey, the disciple of Buffon, has distributed man into five varieties, namely, the Celtic race, containing most of the Europeans; the Mongol and Lapland; the Malay; the Negro and Hottentot; and the Caribb. But this arrangement has been considerably altered and modified in the enlarged and improved edition of the same work published in 1824.

Another division is that proposed by Cuvier in his Tableau Elémentaire de l’ Histoire Naturelle des Animaux, and which, be it observed, is founded chiefly on the secondary distinction of colour. This enumeration is as follows:

I. The white race, with oval visage, long hair, and *pointed nose. To this belong the polished natives of Europe, accounted by us the most comely of all the varieties, and also far superior to the rest in strength of genius, courage, and activity; the Tartars, properly so called, from whom the Turks are descended; the Circassians, and other tribes inhabiting the Caucasus, who are the fairest of the human race; the Persians, the native inhabitants of Hindustan, the Arabians, the Moors who inhabit the north of Africa, and the Abyssinians, who appear to be derived from the Arabians. These nations are larger and fairer in the north; their hair is fair and their eyes "are blue; whereas in the south they are dark, and often very brown, and their hair and eyes are black. There are intermixtures of these colours in the more temperate regions.

II. All the north of the two continents is peopled with men who are very dark, with flat visage, black hair and eyes, and with a body thick and extremely short. To this belong the Laplanders in Europe, the Samoiedes, Ostiaks, Tschutski in Asia, the Greenlanders and the Esquimaux in America. The inhabitants of Finland resemble these almost in every circumstance, excepting that their stature is of the European standard. The Hungarians and several wandering tribes of Asia have a similar form, and similar language and manners, with the Finns.

III. The Mongol race, to which belong most of the people whom we call Tartars, as the Mongols, the Mantchoos, the Calmucks, who have extended their conquests from China to Hindustan, and are even advanced as far as the frontiers of Europe, is characterized by a flat forehead, a small nose, prominent cheek-bones, black hair, thin beard, small oblique eyes, thick lips, and a colour more or less yellow. The Chinese and Japanese, and the Indians beyond the Ganges, to whom we give the name of Malays, appear to bear a close resemblance to the Mongols. The islands of the South Sea, and the great continent of New Holland, are inhabited by original Malays. Those who live nearest the equator have the skin almost as black as the negroes.

IV. The Negroes inhabit all the coasts on the south of Africa, from the river Senegal to the Red Sea. Besides the blackness of their skin, they are distinguished by a flat nose and forehead, long muzzle, prominent cheek-bones, and frizled hair. They are blacker ithan the inhabitants of Guinea, and have the nose excessively long. Those of Congo are the most comely. Towards the tropic of Capricon they become a little paler, and take the name of Caffres. Almost all the inhabitants of the eastern coast of Africa are of this sub-variety. The Hottentots form another subdivision, which is found in the most southern point, and they have cheek-bones so prominent that their visage appears triangular. Their colour, is a brown olive.

V. America was peopled with men of a copper colour, having long and coarse hair, who, according to most travellers, generally want the beard, and even the hair on the body, whilst others assure us that they eradicate these. It is also said that the fanciful form of their heads arises from the compression which these undergo in infancy. This race comprehends the savage nations of America, and the remaining inhabitants of Mexicoand Peru. It is towards the southern point of this continent that we find the tall race of men of whom so many fables have been related; butTheir height, which the earlier travellers represented as gigantic, scarcely exceeds six feet. These are the people so celebrated under the name of Patagonians, a tall but not a gigantic race of men.

Another distribution, however, has been proposed by Blumenbach, which, though not wholly free from objection, is perhaps the best that has yet been suggested; notwithstanding that, according to some, the five varieties under which he has arranged the several tribes of our species ought rather to be regarded as principal divisions, each of them including several varieties. This acute and ingenious naturalist divides the single species which the genus Homo contains, into the Caucasian, Mongolian, Ethiopian, American, and Malay varieties. The Caucasian he regards as the primitive stock, which, however, deviates into two extremes most remote from each other; the Mongolian on one side, and the Ethiopian on the other. The other two varieties hold the middle places, or, if we may so express it, are mean terms between the Caucasian and the two extremes; that is, the American comes in between the Caucasian and Mongolian, and the Malay between[7:14:200] the Caucasian and Ethiopian. The following marks and descriptions will serve to define these five varieties :·—

I. The Caucasian Variety. The characters of this variety are, a white skin, either with a fair rosy tint, or inclining to brown; red cheeks; hair black, or of the various lighter colours, copious, soft, and generally more or less curled or waving; irides dark in those of brown skin, light, blue, gray, or greenish, in the fair or rosy complexioned; large cranium, with small face, the upper or anterior regions of the former particularly developed, and the latter falling perpendicularly under them; face oval and straight, with features distinct from each other; expanded forehead, narrow and rather aquiline nose, and small mouth; front teeth of both jaws perpendicular; lips, particularly the lower, gently turned out; chin full and rounded. In this variety, the moral feelings and intellectual powers are most energetic, being susceptible of the highest development and culture. It includes all the ancient and modern Europeans, except the Laplanders and the rest of the Finnish race; the former and present inhabitants of Western Asia, as far as the river Obi, the Caspian Sea, and the Ganges, that is, the Assyrians, Medes, and Chaldaeans; the Sarmatians, Scythians, and Parthians; the Philistines, Phoenicians, Jews, and inhabitants of Syria generally; the Tartars, properly so called; the several tribes actually occupying the chain of the Caucasus; the Georgians, Circassians, Mingrelians, and Armenians; the Turks, Persians, Arabians, Afghans, and Hindus of high caste; the northern Africans, including not only those north of the Sahara, but even some tribes placed in more southern regions; the Egyptians, Abyssinians, and Guanches.

II. The Mongolian Variety is characterized by olive colour, which in many cases is very light, and black eyes; black, straight, strong, and thin hair; little or no beard; head of a square form, with small and low forehead; broad and flattened face, with the features running together; the glabella flat and very broad; nose small and flat, cheeks projecting externally and narrow, linear aperture of the eyelids; eyes placed very obliquely; slight projection of the chin; with the ears large, and the lips thick. The stature, particularly in the countries within the arctic circle, is inferior to that of Europeans. This variety includes the Mongols, Calmucks, and Burats; the Mantchoos or Mandshurs, Daourians, Tongusses, and Coreans; the Samoiedes, Yukagirs, Coriacks, Tschutski, and Kamtschadales; the Chinese and Japanese; the inhabitants of Thibet and Bootan; those of Tonquin, Cochin-China, Ava, Pegu, Cambodia, Laos, and Siam; the Finnish races of Northern Europe, as the Laplanders; and the tribes of Esquimaux, extending over the northern parts of America, from Behring’s Strait to the extremity of Greenland.

III. In the Ethiopian Variety, the skin and the eyes are black; the hair black and woolly; the skull compressed laterally, and elongated towards the front; the forehead low, narrow, and slanting; the cheek-bones are prominent; the jaws narrow and projecting; the upper front teeth oblique, and the chin receding; the eyes are prominent; the nose is broad, thick, flat, and confused with the extended jaw; the lips, particularly the upper one, are thick; and the knees, in many instances, turn inwards. All the natives of Africa not included in the first belong to this variety. The striking peculiarities of the African organization, especially the great difference between its colour and our own, have led many persons to adopt the opinion of Voltaire, that the Africans belong to a distinct species. But Mr Lawrence has clearly shown that there is no one character peculiar or common to the Africans, which is not frequently found in the other varieties; that negroes often want this character; and that the distinguishing marks of this variety pass, by insensible gradations, into those of the neighbouring races, as may be perceived by comparing together different tribes of this race, the Foulahs, Jaloffs, Mandingos, Caffres, and Hottentots, and observing how in these subvarieties they approach to the Moors, New Hollanders, Chinese, and other tribes or races of men.

IV. The American Variety is characterized by a dark skin, of a tint more or less red; black, straight, and strong hair; small beard, which is generally eradicated; with a countenance and skull very similar to those of the Mongolian tribes. The forehead is low, the eyes are deep, and the face is broad, particularly across the cheeks, which are prominent and rounded; but it is not so flattened as in the Mongols, the nose and other features being more distinct and projecting. The mouth is large, and the lips are rather thick, whilst the forehead and vertex are in some cases deformed by art. This variety includes all the Americans, with the exception of the Esquimaux. It may be observed here, that the redness of the skin is not constant; in many instances it varies towards a brown, and in some situations approaches to the white colour.

V. The Malay Variety is distinguished by a brown colour, varying from a light tawny tint, not deeper than that of the Spaniards and Portuguese, to a deep brown approaching to black; black hair, more or less curled, and abundant; head rather narrow; bones of the face large and prominent; nose full and broad towards the apex; and mouth large. To this division belong the inhabitants of the peninsula of Malacca, of Sumatra, Java, Borneo, Celebes, and the adjacent Asiatic islands; of New Holland, Van Diemen’s Land, New Guinea, New Zealand, and the numberless islands scattered throughout the whole of the South Sea. It is called the Malay, because most of the tribes speak the Malay language, which, in the various ramifications of this race, may be traced from Madagascar to Easter Island. Under this variety, to which, in fact, no well-marked common characters can be assigned, are included races very different in organization and distinctive qualities; too different indeed to be arranged with propriety under one head or division, but as yet too imperfectly known for the purposes of satisfactory arrangement.

Such is the distribution of the varieties of the human species proposed by Blumenbach as a general scheme of classification. It is to be understood as subject to limitation in some cases, and to modification or extension in others. When numerous races are assigned to one variety, the assemblage of these under the same general head must not be held to indicate that they are all alike in physical conformation and moral qualities. In fact, the distribution of one species into five divisions must be regarded as merely approximative, or as proceeding on the assumption of a general conformity, which is not inconsistent with various and strongly-marked modifications. These are more numerous in the Caucasian than in the other varieties, arising perhaps from greater natural softness, delicacy, and flexibility of organization, combined with the influence of more ancient and complete civilization. Blumenbach is inclined to think that the primitive form of the human race was that which belongs to the Caucasian variety, the most beautiful specimens of which are now exhibited by the Georgians, Turks, Greeks, and some Europeans; and, in support of this opinion, it maybe stated, that the part of Asia which seems to have been the cradle of the race has always been, and still is, inhabited by tribes of the same general formation, and that the inhabitants of Europe may, in great part, trace back their origin to the west of Asia. The highest mental powers have ever distinguished this variety, which has discovered nearly all the sciences and arts, and from which have been derived our richest treasures of literature and knowledge.

All these different varieties of men are capable of intermixing and procreating children, which are found to hold [7:14:201]when physiologists reason as if man were the" only organized being in nature, and consider the varieties in his species as strange and problematical; without reflecting that all these varieties are not more striking or more uncommon than those which so many thousands of other species of organized beings exhibit in degenerating, as it were, before our eyes.This position Blumenbach illustrates by a curious comparison of the human race and swine, intended to refute the second error above mentioned, into which he conceives several naturalists to have fallen in treating of the varieties of the human race.“More reasons than one,” says he, “have induced me to make choice of swine for this comparison; but, in particular, because they have a great similarity, in many respects, to man; not, however, in the form of their entrails, as people formerly believed, and therefore studied the anatomy of the human body purposely in swine; so that, even in the seventeenth century, a celebrated dispute, which arose between the physicians of Heidelberg and those of Durlach, respecting the position of the heart in man, was determined, in consequence of orders from government, by inspecting a sow, to the great triumph of the party which was really in the wrong. Nor is it because in the time of Galen, according to repeated assertions, human flesh was said to have a taste perfectly similar to that of swine; nor because the fat and the tanned hides of both are very like to each other; but because both, in regard to the economy of their bodily structure, taken upon the whole, show unexpectedly, on the first view, as well as on closer examination, a very striking similitude.“Both, for example, are domestic animals, both omnivorous; both are dispersed throughout all the four quarters of the world; and both consequently are exposed, in numerous ways, to the principal causes of degeneration arising from climate, mode of life, nourishment, &c. Both, for the same reason, are subject to many diseases rarely found amongst other animals than men and swine, such as the stone in the bladder; or to diseases exclusively peculiar to these two, such as the worms found in measled swine.“Another reason why I have made choice of swine for the present comparison is, because the degeneration and descent from the original race are far more certain in these animals, and can be better traced, than in the varieties of other domestic animals. No naturalist, I believe, has carried his scepticism so far as to doubt the descent of domestic swine from the wild boar; which is much the more evident, as it is well known that wild pigs, when caught, may be easily rendered as tame and familiar as domestic swine. And the contrary is also the case; for if the latter, by any accident, get into the woods, they as readily become wild again; so that there are instances of such animals being shot for wild swine, and it has not been till they were opened, and found castrated, that people were led to a discovery of their origin, and how, and at what time, they ran away. It is well ascertained that, before the discovery of America by the Spaniards, swine were unknown in that quarter of the world, and that they were afterwards carried thither from Europe. All the varieties, therefore, through which this animal has since degenerated, belong, with the original European race, to one and the same species; and since no bodily difference is found in the human race, either in regard to stature, colour, the form of the skull, or in other respects, as will presently appear, which is not observed in the same proportion in the swine race, this comparison, it is to be hoped, will silence those sceptics who have thought proper, on account of those varieties of the human species, to admit more than one species.“With regard to stature or height, the Patagonians, as is well known, have afforded the greatest employment to an-

a sort of mean between the forms and colours of their parents; and such crosses may again mix with the original races, and produce approaches to these races according to the degree of mixture. We cannot enter into the details illustrative of this statement, but its truth is nevertheless undeniable. If, when two varieties copulate, the offspring resembles neither parent wholly, but partakes of the form and other properties of both (and this law holds universally), such an intermixture cannot with propriety be termed hybrid generation, as the term is applied to the animals produced by the copulation of different species, as of the horse and the ass, or the canary-bird and the goldfinch. In this sense hybrids are never produced in the human species. The offspring of every imaginable intermixture of the varieties above mentioned is as prolific as the parents from whom they spring.

But a question here presents itself, namely, Whence have arisen all the varieties above enumerated, with the diversities and the modifications which are to be found in each? Have they been produced by accidental circumstances? or were their prototypes originally created with all those diversities in the colour and texture of the skin, hair, and iris, the features of the face, the skull and brain, the form and proportions of the body, the stature and animal economy, the moral and intellectual powers, by which they are still more or less distinguished? There have not been wanting philosophers who have multiplied the species in exact proportion to the varieties of men, and 'maintained that the characteristical distinctions of the latter are coeval with the origin of the human race. But although considerations of climate, food, and social condition, may not satisfactorily account for the permanence of the differences above alluded to, yet the numerous gradations which we meet with in each of the races above mentioned, form an insuperable objection to the notion of specific difference ; whilst, on the other hand, the analogies derived from the animal kingdom demonstrate that the characteristics of the various human tribes must, like the corresponding diversities in other animals, be referred to variation. Nor is this all. Nature herself has provided against the confusion of different species by a conservative law, according to which all hybrids are barren. But hybrids are never produced by the intermixture of different races of men; and hence, as all the varieties sexually unite, and produce an offspring which is also progenitive, it follows that, though external agencies, whether physical or moral, may not account for the bodily and mental differences which characterize the several tribes of mankind, the latter constitute but one species, diversified, according to the analogy of nature, by various races or breeds. Some physiologists, indeed, appear to doubt whether the different races of men should be considered as mere varieties which have arisen from degeneration, or as so many species altogether distinct. The cause of this seems to be, that having taken too narrow a view in their researches, they perhaps selected two races the most different from each other possible, and, overlooking the intermediate races which formed the connecting links between them, compared these two together; or that they fixed their attention too exclusively on man, without examining other species of animals, and comparing their varieties and degeneration with those of the human species. The first error is, when, for example, they compare a Senegal negro and a model of European beauty, and at the same time neglect to attend to the circumstance, that there is not one of the bodily differences of these two beings, whatever it be, which does not gradually rim into that of the other, by such an imperceptible variety of shades, that no physiologist or naturalist is able to draw a line of demarcation between the different gradations, or to estimate the sum and effect of all, as exemplified in the extremes. The second error is, [7:14:202]thropologists. The romantic tales, however, of the old travellers, who give to these inhabitants of the southern extremity of America a stature of ten feet and more, are scarcely worth notice; and even the more modest relations of later English navigators, who make their height from six to seven feet, have been doubted by other travellers, who on the same coast sought in vain for such children of Anak. But even admitting everything that has been said of the size of these Patagonians, by Byron, Wallis, and Carteret (the first of whom assigns to their chief and several of his attendants a height of not less than seven feet, as far as could be determined by the eye; whilst the second, who asserts that he actually measured them, gives to the greater part a height of from five feet ten inches to six feet, to some six feet five or six inches, and to the tallest of them six feet seven), there is not amongst them nearly such an excess of stature as that observed in many parts of America amongst the swine originally carried thither from Europe, particularly those of Cuba, which are more than double the size of the original Europeans.

“The natives of Guinea, Madagascar, New Holland, New Guinea, &c. are black; many American tribes are reddish brown, and the Europeans are white. An equal difference is observed amongst swine in different countries. In Piedmont, for example, they are black. When I passed through that country during the great fair for swine at Salenge, I did not see a single one of any other colour. In Bavaria they are reddish brown; in Normandy they are all white.

“Human hair is indeed somewhat different from swine’s bristles, yet, in the present point of view, they may be compared with each other. Fair hair is soft, and of a silky texture; black hair is coarser, and amongst several tribes, such as the Abyssinians, Negroes, and the inhabitants of New Holland, it is woolly, and most so amongst the Hottentots. In like manner, amongst the white swine in Normandy, as I was assured by an incomparable observer, Sulzer of Bonnebnrg, the hair on the whole body is longer and softer than amongst other swine; and even the bristles on the back are very little different, but he flat, and are only longer than the hair on the other parts of the body. They cannot, therefore, be employed by the brush-makers. The difference between the hair of the wild boar and the domestic swine, particularly in regard to the softer part between the strong bristles, is, as is well known, still greater.

“The whole difference between the cranium of a negro and that of an European is not in the least degree greater than that equally striking difference which exists between the cranium of the wild boar and that of the domestic swine. Those who have not observed this in the animals themselves need only to cast their eye on the figure which Daubenton has given of both.

“I shall pass over less national varieties, which may be found amongst swine as well as amongst men, and only mention, that I have been assured by Mr Sulzer, that the peculiarity of having the bone of the leg remarkably long, as is the case amongst the Hindus, has been remarked with regard to the swine in Normandy. ‘ They stand very long on their hind legs; their back, therefore, is highest at the rump, forming a kind of inclined plane; and the head proceeds in the same direction, so that the snout is not far from the ground.’ I shall here add, that the swine in some countries have degenerated into races which in singularity far exceed everything that has been found strange in bodily variety amongst the human race. Swine with solid hoofs were known to the ancients, and large herds of them are still found in Hungary, Sweden, &c. In like manner, the European swine, first carried by the Spaniards, in 1509, to the island of Cuba, at that time celebrated for its pearl fishery, degenerated into a monstrous race, with hoofs which were half a span in length.”

From these facts Blumenbach concludes, that as it is absurd to maintain that the vast variety of swine have not descended from one original pair, so it is not less unreasonable to contend that the varieties of men constitute so many distinct species. Indeed the latter notion is now very generally abandoned by writers of eminence on the subject of anthropology. Great differences of opinion no doubt prevail as to the causes of the varieties of the human species, both in complexion (see the article Complexion, in which the nature and causes of the different colours of the skin amongst different races are particularly treated of) and in physical conformation; butin regard to the main question, namely, as to the unity of the species, all writers of any name are agreed. On this subject, Dr Prichard and Mr Lawrence are atone with Dr Smith of New Jersey and Μ. Blumenbach. The two former, indeed, deny that climate, food, and social habits are capable of producing those varieties in complexion and structure which are exclusively attributed to these causes by the two latter; but it is admitted on both sides, that, however these diversities may be accounted for or explained, the idea of distinct species is preposterous and untenable.

“In tracing the globe from the pole to the equator,” says Dr Smith, “we observe a gradation in the complexion nearly in proportion to the latitude of the country. Immediately below the arctic circle a high and sanguine colour prevails. From this you descend to the mixture of red and white. Afterwards succeed the brown, the olive, the tawny, and at length the black, as you proceed to the line. The same distance from the sun, however, does not, in every region, indicate the same temperature or climate. Some secondary causes must be taken into consideration, as correcting and limiting its influence. The elevation of the land, its vicinity to the sea, the nature of the soil, the state of cultivation, the course of winds, and many other circumstances, enter into this view. Elevated and mountainous countries are cool in proportion to their altitude above the sea. Vicinity to the ocean produces opposite effacts in northern and southern latitudes; for the ocean being of more equal temperature than the land, in the one case corrects the cold, in the other modifies the heat, hanges of mountains, by interrupting the course of winds, render the protected countries below them warmer, and the countries above them colder, than is equivalent to the proportional difference of latitude. The frigid zone in Asia is much wider than it is in Europe; and that continent hardly knows a temperate zone. From the northern ocean to the Caucasus, says Montesquieu, Asia may be considered as aflat mountain. Thence to the ocean that washes Persia and India, it is a low and level country, without seas, and protected by this immense range of hills from the polar winds. The Asiatic is therefore warmer than the European continent below the fortieth degree of latitude, and above that latitude it is much colder.” Climate, according to the same writer, also receives some difference from the nature of the soil, the degree of cultivation, and other modifying circumstances; and, upon the whole, he concludes that there is a general ratio of heat and cold, called climate, and a general resemblance of nations, according to the latitude from the equator; subject, however, to innumerable varieties, arising from combinations of the circumstances already suggested. But this doctrine is disputed both by Mr Lawrence and others. The uniform colour of all parts of the body is, according to him, a strong argument against those who ascribe the blackness of the negro to the same cause as that which produces tanning in white people, namely, the sun’s rays. “The glans penis, the cavity of the axilla, the inside of the thigh,” says he, “are just as black as any other part; indeed the organs of generation, which are always covered, are amongst the blackest parts of the body.” In a word, he is of opinion that climate does not cause the diversities of mankind. The same différence of opinion prevails in [7:14:203]regard to varieties of structure, which, according to Smith 'and Blumenbach, are all superinduced by the long-continued action of climate, food, and external condition or habits of life; whilst, on the other hand, Prichard and Lawrence contend that acquired peculiarities, or characters impressed by adventitious circumstances, and not arising in the spontaneous development of the bodily structure, are never transmitted to progeny. « Nothing,” says the former, “seems to hold true more generally, than that all acquired conditions of body, whether produced by art or accident, end with the life of the individual in whom they are produced.” The real question however is, whether this salutary law, but for which almost every race of animals would exhibit a frightful spectacle, applies not to mutilations, or artificial mouldings, or conformations, but to those changes produced by the imperceptible operation of minute causes, long continued; and whether the latter, which only become visible in their effects after a great interval of time, coalesce with the variety, and are thus transmitted to progeny.

But, without dwellinglonger on differences of opinion respecting points which do not seem, in the present state of our knowledge, to admit of a satisfactory solution, we shall content ourselves with exhibiting a view of the general results deducible from the most comprehensive views which have yet been taken of the natural history of man. And, first, in reference to the problem, whether, in each particular species of the animal and vegetable creation, it is probable that there exists only one stock or family; or whether, in general, it may be supposed that the same species was at once spread over distant countries from many different centres; Dr Prichard investigated this question by observing the distribution of genera and species over different parts of the earth, and he inferred that the whole number in each species respectively has probably descended from a single primitive stock ;—an inference which seems to be strengthened by a consideration of the wonderful means provided by nature for the extension and dispersion of species. Secondly, this fact being established in regard to organized beings in general, it remained to inquire whether there existed amongst mankind any specific varieties, or any physical differences of such a description as to constitute original characters and form distinct species. This inquiry Dr Prichard commenced by pointing out the different methods of determining the limits of species, and of discovering what races are of the same and what of distinct species. He then pursued it, first, physiologically, by a comparison of the principal facts relating to the animal economy, such as the duration of life proper to each kind of animals, the circumstances connected with their breeding, the periods of utero-gestation, the number of progeny, the laws of the natural functions, the diseases to which each tribe is exposed, and the character of its faculties, instincts, and habits ;—secondly, a criterion for determining the unity or diversity of species was sought in the capability of propagating, or sterility, of the animal which is the mixed progeny of two races, there being evidently in nature a principle by which the permanent intermixture of species is guarded against ;— thirdly, the analogical or comparative method was employed to ascertain whether the particular diversities which require to be accounted for arc analogous to those deviations which are known to make their appearance as varieties in a single race ;—and, lastly, by examining the history of different races of men, and noticing the instances of variety in form and complexion which appear to have arisen from the same stock, and the most remarkable differences in physical character which exist amongst tribes nearly allied to each other in kindred, he found that there is no clearly-traced and definite line which the tendency to deviation or variety cannot pass, and therefore no spécific distinction. The character of one race passes, by insensible deviation and transition, into that of another; nay, even within the limits of a particular race, it is sometimes possible to point out a wide range of varieties, and in some instances it may be shown that the most different complexions, and the greatest diversities of figure, are to be found amongst tribes which appear to belong to the same nation or family of nations. These conclusions have resulted from surveying the physical history of the most extensively diffused nations, indeed of all the principal races or divisions of mankind; and, upon the whole, it appears that the human kind, however seemingly diversified, contains but one species, and therefore but one race. In fact, the real sum of all the varieties observable amongst mankind is by no means so great as the apparent. For, as the eye takes in at one view, not only the actual change made in each feature, but their multiplied relations to one another, and to the whole, and as each new relation gives to the same feature a different aspect by comparison, the final result appears prodigious, though the real diversity may be inconsiderable. A change made in the eye, for instance, produces a change in the whole countenance; and a change in the complexion presents not only its own difference, but a much greater effect by a similar combination with the whole.

It thus appears, that the general deductions of science, guided by an enlightened philosophy, are not at variance with the statements of Scripture respecting the origin and diffusion of the human race; and that the Mosaic account, which, notwithstanding all that has been said by Mr Lawrence, makes it quite clear that the inhabitants of the world are all descended from one pair, is corroborated by the most comprehensive and laborious investigation of physical facts. The question is not, as Mr Lawrence has strangely supposed, whether “the entire or even partial inspiration of the various writings comprehended in the Old Testament has been and is doubted by many persons, including learned divines, and distinguished oriental and biblical scholars but whether the natural history of man, when studied in a truly philosophical spirit, embraces facts, or leads to conclusions, inconsistent with or adverse to the account contained in Genesis of the creation of man and animals, and their dispersion over the face of the earth. And to this important question Dr Prichard’s elaborate Researches into the Physical History of Mankind may be considered, in as far at least as regards anthropology, to afford a scientific answer in the negative. It is in vain to pretend that “the account of the creation and subsequent events has the allegorical figurative character common to eastern compositions.” This is a principle which, if it evades some difficulties, at the same time destroys all belief and annihilates all authority. Mr Lawrence admits that this account is distinguished amongst the cosmogonies by a simple grandeur and natural sublimity; but if it is neither dictated by inspiration nor supported by truth, and if it is to be construed, not as a plain, direct narrative, but as a sort of cosmological allegory or romance, the esoteric import of which no one has determined, or perhaps cares to investigate, its qualities as a mere composition are of very little avail. In our view, however, the latter are altogether inseparable from the contrary supposition; and it is distinguished by a simple grandeur and natural sublimity, because, in the most simple and concise language, it conveys the grandest and most sublime truths.

But the conclusion that all the races or varieties of men are the offspring of a single family, has been met by another objection, of which no notice has yet been taken, though it is perhaps of not less moment thanŢhose which have already been considered. This objection is founded upon the diversity of languages. “On the supposition of one race,” says Lord Kames, “there never could have existed a diversity of languages.” But if there were any thing in the objection here stated, it would prove a great deal too much for the purpose of those who employ it. For if it be maintained that the diversity of languages presents [7:14:204] an insuperable objection to the opinion that all mankind are descended from one original, this argument plainly implies that there must have been as many distinct races of men as there are distinct languages in the world. Assuming that the supposition of one race is untenable because there are many languages, it follows that, by this principle, the supposition of one language only is compatible with the supposition of but one race; yet instead of one universal language, there are many idioms in the world, and hence there must have been as many different races of men as there are distinct forms of speech. The objection of Lord Kames and others, therefore, by proving too much, indeed a great deal more than the most fanciful sceptic ever contended for, proves in reality nothing at all. Either there must be as many races as there are languages; or, from the diversity of languages, no inference whatever can be drawn, affecting the question at issue, namely, whether the various races of men are distinct species, or merely varieties of one and the same species.

There are not data sufficient for estimating with any degree of accuracy the number of existing languages; but we know that it mustbe very considerable. Amongst savage nations in different parts of the world great diversity prevails in the forms of speech. In New Holland, and amongst the Papua tribes, an infinite variety of jargons are to be found, each petty horde differing entirely in speech from its nearest neighbours; in South America the languages of the native tribes are very numerous; and in Africa, although there are some nations of greater physical and moral energy than the rest, who have spread their dialects through a great extent of country, yet there is also a multitude of small and insulated tribes, whose languages are said to be altogether peculiar to themselves. But whatever may be the number of distinct languages now extant, it is probable that this number would at least be doubled were the idioms of all the nations who have been exterminated in the continual wars of savage races to be taken into the account. If, then, it be maintained (as on the hypothesis we are considering it must be) that each distinct idiom marks the limits of a particular race, with what a vast number of separate families must we suppose the earth to have been covered at the beginning! Multitudes of distinct families must have been created at once; and this must have been equally the case, whether we allow that the whole human race contains but one natural species, or maintain, with some naturalists, that there exist four or five distinct species of men. All this might agree very well with the supposition that, from the beginning, organized beings of each tribe have been generally diffused over the world, and that, at the hour of their creation, they were nearly as numerous as at present; but (to say nothing of the statement of Scripture) it is quite irreconcileable with the conclusions which have been found to result from the facts already brought together for illustrating the natural history of man; and unless these conclusions are altogether fallacious, indeed the very reverse of the truth, such a representation must be contrary to the nature and the reality of things.

“A comparison of languages,” says Μ. Klaproth, “furnishes, in default of history, the only method of distinguishing correctly from each other the different races of people who are spread over the earth. It is much to be regretted,” he adds, “that attempts which have been made by many persons to avail themselves of this resource have not been directed by the wisest principles, nor productive of any solid advantage.” He then states that, according to the opinion he has formed, there are two different sorts of affinity amongst human languages; one of which may be termed the general relation, and the other the particular relation, or resemblance, existing between those languages which are of the same stock or family. Μ. Klaproth illustrates the general relation or affinity of languages by showing that there are numerous words to be found, in the idioms of nations the most unconnected with each other, which are similar in sound and meaning; and that many of those nations in whose vocabularies corresponding terms have been observed, not only inhabit countries far separated, but are distinguished from each other by striking varieties of physical conformation. The second or particular relation of languages, being that alone which concerns our present purpose, is exemplified by the striking affinity discovered between the Indian, Persian, German, and other Indo-European idioms, as they are called. “This family relation of languages,” says Μ. Klaproth, “subsists in the idioms of nations allied by physical structure and historical traditions, when in those idioms a multitude of similar words can be traced, together with a striking and manifest analogy in grammatical forms.” Now this applies to the whole Indo-European family, including under that denomination Sanscrit, Zend, Greek, Latin, Gothic, Slavonic, Lithuanian, and their descendants. In fact, it is now as certain that Greek, Gothic, and Slavonic are the descendants of some ancient dialect nearly allied to the Sanscrit, as that Italian, Spanish, and Portuguese are chiefly derived from the Latin.

The first or general relation of languages is, according to Μ. Klaproth, from antediluvian times, and hitherto un-, explained. The second is postdiluvian, and its causes are∣ much less hidden from our view, so that we have, it seems, “no need of availing ourselves of the story of Babel, which, like many others in the history of Western Asia, seems to have been invented to suit the meaning of a local name.” Without concerning ourselves, however, about this strange hypothesis, or the conjectures upon which it is built, and without attempting to give any explanation of the phenomena which indicate a remote connection between idioms otherwise entirely, distinct from each other, we may observe, that the comparison of languages displays four principal relations between them. 1. There are certain classes of languages which have no connection in their vocabularies, or next to none, that is, few or no words in common, but which, when carefully examined, nevertheless exhibit a remarkable and extensive analogy in the laws of their grammatical construction. The resemblance here is in the general scheme and structure, not in the materials or words; and it may be so close as, notwithstanding the difference of vocabularies, to prove that the languages in which it appears are connected in their origin, or have been formed from a common model. As examples of this relation may be mentioned, first, the idioms of all the native American races, which obviously belong to one family of languages; and, secondly, the monosyllabic class of languages spoken by the Chinese and Indo-Chinese nations. 2. A second relation between languages is observed in those instances where there is little or no resemblance in grammatical structure, but an extensive coincidence in their vocabularies. The most remarkable instance of this species of relation is found on comparing the vocabularies of the Semitic and Indo-European idioms; classes of languages which have scarcely anything common in their grammatical formation. In fact, a large proportion of Hebrew words (we say nothing of roots, which are often the creation of lexicoraphers) may be recognised and identified in one or other of the Indo-European dialects. 3. But a still nearer and closer relation than either of those just mentioned is to be found when both of them are combined, or, in other words, when languages are connected by the double tie of grammatical structure and extensive coincidence in their vocabularies. This is the description of affinity which subsists between the different languages of the Indo-European family, viz. Sanscrit, Zend, Greek, Latin, Gothic, Slavonic, Lithuanian, with their descendants, [7:14:205]or affiliated dialects. 4. A fourth result arising from the comparison of languages is where none of these marks of resemblance can be discovered; where there is neither any analogy in grammatical forms nor any correspondence in terms sufficient to indicate connection or affinity. Languages thus distinguished are not of the same class or family, and generally belong to nations which in point of situation are remote from each other. Few idioms, however, are entirely insulated from all others; indeed most of them are connected by those widely-spread coincidences which Μ. Klaproth hypothetically regards as antediluvian.

To attempt to explain, upon any general principle, all these phenomena of diversity and resemblance, would be a very difficult, if not, in the actual state of our knowledge, a hopeless task. The theory of languages, and the laws which govern their deflections, are so imperfectly known, and facts recently brought to light are so much at variance with all previously-entertained opinions, that no reliance can be placed upon probable conjectures or premature generalizations. How such diversities have arisen in the languages of nations descended from one race, it is not easy to determine; nor, on the other hand, are we warranted to hold that the mere fact of the existence of these diversities affords any valid argument to prove that all mankind are descended from one stock or family. But since it appears that, under certain circumstances, languages which are constructed on the same principles must have had one origin, though they have lost all resemblance in their vocabularies; and that, under different circumstances, languages connected by the possession of a common stock of words have different laws of grammar, and are entirely distinct from each other in their general principles of formation; it is probable that, in other instances, both these indications of ancient affinity have been lost, and that nations who now speak languages having no resemblance, either in grammatical structure or in vocabularies, may nevertheless at some remote period have employed a common dialect. Again, it may be observed that, in general, the number and diversity of languages is nearly in proportion to the barbarism of nations. Where we find the human race most degraded, physically and morally, there we discover the greatest difference of languages. But amongst nations whose civilization dates from a remote antiquity, the features of resemblance in the languages have been in a corresponding degree permanent. This is strikingly exemplified in all the idioms of the Indo-European family, whose double affinity has been established by the clearest evidence. On the other hand, such marks of affinity gradually disappear in proportion to the degree of barbarism to which various nations are known to have been reduced in early times, and ultimately become evanescent. These considerations, suggested by a general survey of the subject, appear to sanction the opinion, that the diversity of human languages has arisen from the minute division and dispersion of families, and from their having been, at an early period, reduced to a barbarous and destitute condition.

There is no part of the natural history of man which is more interesting than that which describes the progressive advancement and decay of human life, from the cradle to the grave. Nothing exhibits such a striking picture of our weakness, as the condition of an infant immediately after birth. Incapable of employing its organs, it requires assistance of every kind. In the first moments of existence, it presents an image of pain and misery, and is weaker and more helpless than the young of any other animal. At birth, the infant passes from one element to another; when it leaves the gentle warmth of the tranquil fluid by which it was completely surrounded in the womb of the mother, it becomes exposed to the impressions of the air, and instantly feels the effects of that active element. The air, acting upon the olfactory nerves, and also upon the organs of respiration, produces a shock something like that of sneezing, by which the breast is expanded, and the air admitted into the lungs. In the mean time, the agitation of the diaphragm presses-upon the bowels, and the excrements are thus for the first time discharged from the intestines, as well as the urine from the bladder. The air dilates the vesicles of the lungs, and, after being rarefied to a certain degree, is expelled by the spring of the dilated fibres re-acting upon this rarefied fluid. The infant now respires, and begins to utter sounds or cries. Most animals are blind for some days after their birth. Infants behold the light the moment they come into the world; but their eyes are dull and fixed, and commonly blue. The new-born child cannot distinguish objects, because it is incapable offixing its eyes upon them. The organ of vision is as yet imperfect; the cornea is wrinkled; and perhaps the retina is too soft for receiving the images of external objects, and for communicating the sensation of distinct vision. At the end of forty days the infant begins to hear and to smile. About the same time it directs its eyes towards bright objects, and frequently turns,them towards the window, a candle, or any other light. Now likewise it begins to weep; for its former cries and groans were not accompanied with tears. About the fortieth day from its birth, it begins to smile, and to recognise the features of those who approach it. “Incipe, parve puer, risu cognoscere matrem.” Smiles and tears are the effect of· two internal sensations, both of which depend upon the action of the mind; they are peculiar to the human race, and serve to express mental pain or pleasure; whilst the cries, motions, and other marks of bodily pain and pleasure, are common to man and most of the other animals. Indeed pain and pleasure form the universal power which sets all our passions in motion.

An infant born at the full time commonly measures about twenty-one inches in height; and that foetus, which nine months before was but an imperceptible bubble, now weighs about ten or twelve pounds, and sometimes more. The head is large in proportion to the body; and this disproportion, which is still greater in the first stage of the foetus, continues during the period of infancy. The skin of a newborn child is of a reddish colour, because it is so fine and transparent as to allow a slight tint of the colour of the blood to shine through it. The form of the body and members is by no means perfect in a child soon after birth; indeed all the parts appear to be swollen. At the end of three days, a kind of jaundice generally appears, and about the same time milk is found in the breasts of the infant, which may be squeezed out by the fingers. But the swelling decreases as thechild grows up. The liquor contained in the amnios leaves a viscid whitish matter upon the body of the child. In this country we take the precaution to wash the new-born infant with warm water; but it is the custom amongst several nations inhabiting the coldest climates to plunge their infants into cold water as soon as they are born. It is even said that the Laplanders leave their children in the snow till the cold has almost stopped their respiration, and then plunge them into a warm bath. Amongst these people, the children are also washed thrice a day during the first year of their life, lhe inhabitants of northern countries are persuaded that the cold bath tends to make men stronger and more robust, and on that account they accustom their children to the use of it from their infancy. The truth is, that we are totally ignorant of the power of habit, or how far it can render our bodies capable of suffering, acquiring, or losing strength.

The child is not presented to the breast as soon as it is born; but time is allowed for the discharge of the liquor and slime from the stomach, and of the meconium or excrement, which is of a black colour, from the intestines. As these substances might sour the milk on the stomach, [7:14:206] a little diluted wine mixed with sugar is first given to the infant, and the breast is not presented to it before ten or twelve hours have elapsed. The young of quadrupeds can of themselves find the way to the teat of the mother; but it is not so with man. The mother, in order to suckle her child, must raise it to her breasts; and, at this feeble period of life, the infant can express its wants only by its crics. New-born children have need of frequent nourishment. During the day the breast ought to be given them every two hours, and during the night as often as they awake. At first they sleep almost continually; and they seem never to awake but when pressed by hunger and pain. Sleep is useful and refreshing to them; and it is sometimes considered as necessary to employ narcotic doses, proportioned to the age and constitution of the child, for the purpose of procuring it repose. The common method of appeasing the crics of children is by rocking them in a cradle; but this agitation must be very gentle, otherwise there is a great risk of confusing the infant’s brain, and producing a total derangement. It is necessary to their enjoying good health, that their sleep should be long and natural. It is possible, however, that they may sleep too much, and thereby endanger their constitution. In such a case, it is proper to take them out of the cradle, and to awaken them by a gentle motion, or by presenting some bright object to their eyes. At this age infants receive the first impressions from the senses, which, without doubt, are more important during the rest of life than is generally imagined. For the first six or seven months, no other food should be given to the child but the milk of the nurse; and when it is of a weak and delicate constitution, this nourishment exclusively should be continued for some time longer. A child, however robust and healthy, may be exposed to great danger and inconvenience if any other aliment be administered before the end of the first month. In Holland, Italy, Turkey, and the whole of the Levant, the food of children is limited to the milk of the nurse for about a year. The savages of Canada give their children suck for four, five, six, and sometimes even seven years. In this country, as nurses generally have not a sufficient quantity of milk to satisfy the appetite of their children, they commonly supply the want of it by panada, or other light preparations.

The teeth usually begin to appear about the age of seven months. The cutting of the teeth, though a natural operation, does not follow the common course of nature, which acts continually on the human body without occasioning the smallest pain, or even producing any sensation. Here a violent and painful effort is made, accompanied with cries and tears. Children at first lose their sprightliness and gaiety; they become sad, restless, and fretful. The gums are red and swelled; but they afterwards become white, when the pressure of the teeth increases so as to stop the circulation of the blood. Children apply their fingers to their mouths, that they may remove the irritation which they feel there; and some relief is afforded, by putting into their hands a bit of ivory or coral, or of some other hard and smooth substance with which they may rub the gums at the affected part. This pressure, being opposed to that of the teeth, calms the pain for a moment, contributes to render the membrane of the gum thinner, and facilitates its rupture. Nature here acts in opposition to herself; and an incision of the gum must sometimes take place, to allow a passage to the tooth. The eight incisive teeth, of which four are placed in each jaw, usually make their appearance in eight or ten months; the four canine, or eyeteeth, pierce the gum about the tenth month; and in the twelfth or fourteenth, the jaw-teeth, or grinders, are generally protruded, to the number of sixteen, thus making twenty-eight teeth in all. At the age of twenty-six or thirty years, four grinders, generally two at the bottom of each jaw, and commonly called dentes sapientiae, on account of their tardy appearance, are developed, and complete die entire number. The last, however, are not always present in the female subject. Whoever is much conversant with the condition of infancy must also have observed, that the periods, modes, and symptoms of dentition, vary considerably in different individuals. Towards the age of six or seven years, a new impulse is given to the nutritive system of the child, which not only acquires an accession of vigour, but sheds its incisive milk teeth, which are replaced by others of larger dimensions and stronger texture. The four canine, and the first four grinders, are in like manner supplanted by others. But children have been occasionally born with the incisive teeth already cut.

When children are allowed to cry too long, or too frequently, ruptures are sometimes occasioned by the efforts which they in consequence make. These accidents, however, may easily be cured by the speedy application of bandages; but if this remedy be too long delayed,-the disease may continue throughout life. Children are likewise very subject to worms. Some of the evil effects occasioned by these animals might, according to Buffon, be prevented by giving them now and then a little wine or fermented liquors, which have a tendency to prevent their generation. Though the body is very delicate in the state of infancy, it is then less sensible of cold than at any other period of life, because the internal heat generated appears to be greater. The pulse in children is much quicker than in adults, and from this it may certainly be inferred that the internal heat is in the same proportion greater. Till three years of age, the life of a child is exceedingly precarious. In two or three years after it becomes more certain, and at seven years of age a child has a better chance of living than at any other period of life. A table of the progressive decrement of life amongst a thousand infants of each sex born together has been constructed by Mr Finlaison, from his observations on the mortality of the nominees in the government tontines and life annuities. The rate of mortality which this table exhibits is, as might be expected, decidedly less than in the Carlisle table; the lives in the latter being the average of the population, whereas those in the former are all picked. Still, however, it is curious, inasmuch as it sets the superiority of female life in a very striking point of view. Children begin learning to speak about the age of twelve or fifteen months. In all languages, and amongst every people, the first syllables they utter are the sounds most natural to man, consisting of that vowel (a) and those consonants (ρ i l>, and d) the pronunciation of which requires the smallest exertion of the organs of speech. Some children at two years of age articulate distinctly, and repeat whatever is said to them; but most children do not speak till the age of two and a half, or three years, and often later. The period of infancy, extending from the moment of birth to about twelve years of age, has already been considered.

The period of infancy is followed by that of adolescence. This commences, together with puberty, at the age of twelve or fourteen, and commonly ends in girls at fifteen, and in boys at eighteen, but sometimes not till twenty-one, twenty-three, and twenty-five years of age. According to its etymology (adolescentia), it i s completed when the body has attained its full height. Thus puberty becomes adolescence, and precedes youth. This is the spring of life; this is the time of pleasures, of loves, and of graces; but this smiling season is of short duration. Soon after the age of puberty the body of man attains its full stature. Some young people cease to grow after fifteen or sixteen; whilst others continue to increase in height till twenty, or even twenty-three. During this interval they are usually slender, but by degrees the limbs swell out, and assume their proper shape; and before the age of thirty, the body has generally attained its greatest perfection with regard to [7:14:207]strength, and consistence, and symmetry. Adolescence is considered as terminating at the age of twenty or twenty-five; and at this period, according to the usual division of man’s life into ages, youth begins. This continues till the age of thirty or thirty-five.

The stature of man varies considerably in different climates, and under different external circumstances; and hence authors are by no means agreed as to what should be considered as the medium height of the human body. Buffon states it at from five feet or five feet and an inch, to five feet four inches, thus making the medium height about five feet two inches. Haller, on the contrary, reckons the true medium height of men in the temperate climates of Europe at about five feet five or five feet six inches. In general, women are several inches shorter than men. It has also been remarked by Haller, that in mountainous countries, such as Switzerland, the inhabitants of the plains are commonly much taller than those of the higher situations. It is difficult to ascertain with precision the actual limits of the human stature; but we may observe, that in surveying the inhabited parts of the earth, we find more remarkable differences in the stature of different individuals of the same nation, than in the general height of different nations. In the same climate, amongst the same people, and often even in the same family, we find some individuals who are far above the medium standard, and others as far below it. But though there be no fixed law determining invariably the human stature, yet there is a standard, as in other species of animals, from which the deviations, independently of accident or disease, are not very considerable on either side. In the temperate climates of Europe the height of the human race varies from four feet and a half to six feet. Individuals of six feet and some inches are not uncommon in this and other European countries; and occasional instances have been known in various parts of the world, of individuals reaching the height of seven, eight, or even nine feet; whilst some ancient and modern authors speak of the human stature as having reached ten and even eighteen feet. The latter representations are grounded on the large bones dug out of the earth, and which have been erroneously supposed to form parts of human skeletons, whereas, by the accurate examinations of science, they have been discovered to belong to extinct species of animals of the elephant and other cognate species. These, however, with the ordinary propensity to believe and report the marvellous, and the notion that mankind have undergone a physical as well as moral degeneracy since their first formation, have led to a common belief that the human stature in general is less now than it was in remote ages. But that men in general were taller in the early ages of the world than at present, or that examples of very tall men were much more frequent then than now, has been asserted without any proof, and is even contrary to well-ascertained facts. The remains of human bones, and particularly the teeth, which are found unchanged in the most ancient urns and burial-places, the mummies, and the sarcophagus of the great pyramid of Egypt, not to mention others, demonstrate this point clearly; and every fact which we can collect from ancient works of art, from armour, as helmets, breastplates, haubergeons, mailed gloves, and cuisses, or from buildings designed for the abode and accommodation of man, concurs in strengthening the proof. That man cannot have degenerated in consequence of the habits of civilized life is evident, because the individuals of nations living in the savage state, such as the native Americans, Africans, and South-Sea Islanders, do not exceed us in stature; indeed it has been generally observed of these races, that they are, upon the average, shorter than Europeans.

The body having acquired its full height during the period of adolescence, and its full dimensions in youth, remains for some years in the same state before it begins to decay. This is the period of manhood, which extends from the age of thirty or thirty-five to that of forty or forty-five years. During this stage of life the powers of the body continue in full vigour, and the principal change which takes place in the human figure arises from the formation of adipose matter in different parts.

Physiologists give the name of old age to that period of life which commences immediately after the age of manhood and ends at death, and they distinguish green old age from the age of decrepitude. But such an extensive signification of the word ought not to be admitted. Men are not old at the age of forty or forty-five years, and though the body then gives signs of decay, it has not yet arrived at the period of old age. Μ. Daubenton observes, that it would be more proper to call it “the declining age,” because nature then becomes retrograde; the fatness and good plight of the body diminish; and certain parts of it do not perform their functions with equal vigour. The age of decline is from forty or forty-five, to sixty or sixty-five years of age. At this time of life, the diminution of fat is the cause of those wrinkles which begin to appear in the face and in other parts of the body. The skin, not being supported by the same quantity of fat, and being incapable, for want of elasticity, of contracting, sinks down and forms folds. In the decline of life, a remarkable change also takes place in vision. In the vigour of age, the crystalline lens, being thicker and more diaphanous than the humours of the eye, enables us to read letters of a very small character at the distance of eight or ten inches. But when the period of decline arrives, the quantity of the humours of the eye diminishes; they lose their clearness, and the transparent cornea becomes less convex. Another mark of the decline of life is a weakness of the stomach, and indigestion, in most people who do not take sufficient exercise in proportion to the quantity and quality of their food. At sixty, sixty-three, or sixty-five years of age, the signs of decline become more and more visible, and indicate old age. This period commonly extends to the age of seventy, sometimes to seventy-five, but seldom to eighty. The eyes and stomach then become weaker and weaker, leanness increases the number of the wrinkles, the beard and the hair become white, and the strength and the memory begin to fail.

After seventy, or at most at eighty years of age, the life of man is, as the royal bard of Israel observed, nothing but labour and sorrow. Some men of strong constitutions enjoy old age for a long time without decrepitude; but such instances are not very common. Infirmities and decrepitude continually increase, and at length death closes the scene. The signs which announce the approaching dissolution of the body are humiliating to the pride and vain-glory of man. The memory fails, the fibres become hard, and the nerves blunted; deafness and blindness take place; the senses of smell, of touch, and of taste, are destroyed; the appetite fails; the necessity of eating, and more frequently that of drinking, are alone felt; after the teeth have fallen out, mastication is imperfectly performed, and the digestion is bad; the lips shrink inwards; the edges of the jaws can no longer approach each other; and the muscles of the lower jaw become so weak that they are unable to raise and support it. The body sinks down; the spine is bent outward, and the vertebrae grow together at the interior part; the body becomes extremely lean; and the strength fails. The decrepid wretch is unable to support himself; he is obliged to remain on a seat, or he stretched on his bed; the bladder becomes paralytic; the intestines lose their spring; the circulation of the blood becomes slower; the strokes of the pulse become fewer and feebler to the extent of more than two thirds; respiration is slower; the body loses its heat; the circulation [7:14:208]of the blood ceases; death follows; and the dream of life is at an end.

Man has no right to complain of the shortness of life. Throughout the whole range of living beings, there are few who unite in a greater degree all the internal causes which tend to prolong its different periods. The term of gestation is very considerable; the rudiments of the teeth are late in unfolding themselves; the growth of the body is slow, and is not completed before about twenty years have elapsed. The age of puberty, also, is much later in man than in any other animal. In short, the parts of his body are composed of a much softer and more flexible substance, and are not so soon indurated as those of inferior animals. Man, therefore, seems to receive at his birth the seeds of a long life; and if he reach not the distant period which nature seemed to promise him, it must be owing to accidental causes foreign to himself. The total duration of life is in some measure proportioned to the period of growth. A tree or an animal which soon acquires its full size, decays much sooner than another which continues to grow for a longer time. If it be true that the life of animals is eight times longer than the period of their growth, the duration of human life might be extended to a century and a half. Μ. Daubenton has given a table of the probabilities of the duration of life, of which the following is an abridgment. Of 23,994 children born at the same time, there will probably die,
[table]

In further illustration of this subject, we shall here introduce Mr Finlaison’s table (already referred to) of the decrement of life amongst a thousand infants of each sex, founded upon his observations on the mortality of the nominees of the government tontines and life annuities in Great Britain.
[table]
[table]

It thus appears that, even in favourable circumstances, a small number of men pass through all the periods of life, and arrive at extreme old age. This is strikingly exemplified, even in Mr Finlaison’s table. In fact, innumerable causes accelerate the dissolution of the body. The life of man consists in the activity and exercise of his organs, which grow up and acquire strength during infancy, adolescence, and youth. But no sooner has the body attained its utmost perfection than it begins to decline. Its decay is at first imperceptible, yet, as age advances, the membranes become cartilaginous, and the cartilages acquire the consistence of bone; the fibres are hardened; and the venous system of circulation prevails over the arterial. The glands are contracted in volume and action; the humours assume greater consistence, and become more acrid; the secretions are less abundant; the senses, especially those of sight and hearing, fail; “the grinders cease because they are few, and those that look out of the windows be darkened ;” a state of second childhood supervenes, when even “the grasshopper becomes a burden and dissolution at length consigns us to that narrow but hospitable home which nature has provided for all her children. In the vision of Mirza, the passengers along the bridge of life are continually dropping off, and as they advance towards the further extremity, one or two only are seen trembling and tottering amongst the broken arches, until at length all disappear, and are swallowed up in the boundless ocean of eternity. This, however, is “the period few attain, the death of nature

And could these laws have changed, Nestor might now the fates of Troy relate, And Homer live immortal as his song.
[7:14:209]