« PreviousContinue »
the Latin alius. Hence the Alamanni, who gave their name to Allemagne, i.e., Germany, were called. There was also a Gaulish tribe called the Allobroges, who would seem to have derived the first part of their name from the same source.*
Mr. Crawfurd says “ of the etymology of the word Britannia, employed by the Romans, there is certainly no certain know. ledge.
Some have derived it from the Prydain of the Welsh or the Bhreatunn of the Irish, but I think it far more likely that both these words are corruptions of the Latin word Britannia.” This is not at all probable. The word Britannia, in Latin, means nothing at all; and is merely the latinized form of the original name of the country. The etymologies of the name Britain are legion; but perhaps the most reasonable is that from bret inn, “high island.” Mr. Crawfurd is of opinion that the appellations of all great countries have been bestowed by strangers more civilized than their own inhabitants, and that the names of Italy, Spain, and Germany are examples in Europe; and India and China in Asia, to say nothing of the great geographical divisions, Europe, Asia, Africa, America, and Australia. Perhaps the author of the paper is right, although he has not proved it by all the examples which he has given. Further, whatever may be the European designation, it will be found to have been formed in many instances from a native word. Mr. Crawfurd concludes, “If the facts and arguments adduced in the course of this paper are valid, the languages which are its subject are two distinct and separate tongues. Bede, indeed, seven centuries ago, pronounced the Welsh and Irish to be as different from each other as Latin and Saxon. So far, then, as language can be considered a test of race, and to the extent that one European race of man differs from another, the parties speaking the two languages must be viewed as distinct original races.” It remains to be seen whether by the facts and arguments which have been adduced, Mr. Crawfurd has proved his case.
To conclude: notwithstanding that a large amount of matter has been brought together in a small space, I am disposed to think that Mr. Crawfurd's paper is illogical and inconclusive; and that it is totally unworthy of the author of the very able dissertation on the Malay language.
* Allobroges, pop. Galliæ Narbonesis, sic dictus, quod ex alio agro translatus esset. Vetus Scholiastes ad Sat. 8, Juvenalis : Allobroge Galli sunt. Ideo autem dicti ALLOBROGÆ, quoniam Broga Galli agrum dicunt, ALLA autem aliud. Dicti igitur, quia ex alio loco fuerant translati. Wachter,
Personal Recriminations in Section D. The following discussion, though having no reference to the subject matter of the paper, took place in Section D, after Mr. Carter Blake's paper on “Syndactyly in Man and Apes” had been read.
Professor ROLLESTON said he really had no remarks to make upon the paper which had just been read; but there was one thing that he would wish to lay before the Section, in order that they might see that the Sub-Section of Zoology had not been idle. When he heard that a paper was going to be read upon the hands and feet of apes, it struck him that Section D was not wanting in its duty; and a statement having been made, and having received-from causes which he would not specify—a large amount of circulation, it occurred to him that this paper might have some reference to the difference which that statement alluded to between the foot of the anthropoid ape and the foot of man.
He thought that the propositions laid down by a gentleman in whom Newcastle had not realized the proverb that a prophet had no honour in his own country, might be going to be controverted; and under these circumstances, Dr. Embleton, another Northumbrian, and himself had thought it their duty to facilitate the proceedings of this Section by bringing forward the arguments and authorities that could bear upon the subject. They did not consider that the question was one to be settled by rhetoric, and so they set to work, and, as the result of four hours labour, they had prepared a comparison of the foot and hand of the ape with the foot and hand of the human subject. His business for six months in the year was demonstrator of anatomy; and he should be glad if any one who took an interest in the question would call upon him in Subsection D, to act as a demonstrator of anatomy upon this subject, and he had no doubt of being able to remove any doubts that might exist upon it.
The PRESIDENT thought their thanks were due to the President and members of the Sub-Section for their visit, and also for the valuable papers which that department had contributed to the Association. He should be glad, and he had no doubt it would give great satisfaction to all who were present, if Professor Rolleston would at once make the statement to which he had alluded.
Professor ROLLESTON said, if he thought that what he had to say was worth very much, he should not have acceded to that request, because, though not a Newcastle man, he was quite north countryman enough to know that there was nothing like standing by old friends; and, therefore, when he had had anything good to communicate, he had always taken it to Sub-Section D. A statement appearing in a journal of large circulation and popularity must have weight in the proceedings of an assembly like the British Association, which itself possessed popular elements; and every now and then, in such periodicals, statements did find place that astonished men of science, and misled persons who had no claim to that title. A statement of this kind, to which he wished now to refer, asserted that every naturalist knew that the muscle that bound the great toe was, in the ape, also a flexor or bender of the other toes; whereas, in the human foot, it was a single muscle, the effect of which was illustrated in the pirouette of the dancer. So far from every anatomist knowing this to be the case, every anatomist could contradict it. There was no single work, ancient or modern, upon anatomy, which could give authority for such a statement. Henle, one of the best of the old authorities, so far from saying that the great toe of a human being had only one flexor, represented the muscle as sending out its branches to two other toes also. And every competent anatomist would deny the opinion which the writer of the article in question attributed to them all. There were several in that room who would confirm his words—who, with him, had taken the trouble to examine the question; and they would be happy to show to any one the results at which they had arrived. His fellow-countryman Mr. Church, who had written one of the best papers upon the muscles, was in the room, and no doubt his word would be taken; but, if it would not, no one would question the authority of Dr. Embleton, who was also present and ready to confirm what he (Professor Rolleston) stated. A broad and sweeping statement was made, and the world was informed, ex cathedra, in a periodical of great circulation, that every anatomist was acquainted with the fact mentioned. He appealed to those gentlemen whom he had named, and also to Mr. Turner and Dr. Cleland, to say whether the statement was correct.
Mr. TURNER could confirm in every respect what Dr. Rolleston had said. There did exist in the human foot a connection between the flexor muscle of the great toe and the other toes, and that connection was the rule and not the exception.
Dr. JAMES HUNT wished to ask Professor Rolleston whether he had any objection to name the "journal of large circulation" in which the statement occurred. If that were done, they would then be in a better position to discuss the matter.
Professor ROLLESTON scarcely thought that the gentleman who put the question could be ignorant of the name of the journal, but would state at once that it was the Edinburgh Review.
Mr. BLAKE, in order that the question might be adequately considered, would suggest that the Edinburgh Review of April last should be placed upon the table, and the passage in question read at full length. He thought the references in the way in which it had been mentioned, to an article published in accordance with all literary ethics, were calculated much to complicate the subject by the introduction of personal and irrelevant controversy. The customs which usually governed these literary publications prevented the avowal or the disavowal of the review in question ; but he might request that the whole of the passage might be read, and further, that certain of the passages in the same publication upon analogous subjects might be read also.
Dr. E. PERCEVAL WRIGHT wished say a word, in confirmation of the statements of Dr. Rolleston and Dr. Turner. During the last two winters he had taken every opportunity of examining this point, and in no one instance was he fortunate enough to discover a single exception to what he was inclined to believe was the normal anatomy of this muscle. He had likewise talked over this subject with his friend Professor Hyrtl, of Vienna, whose opportunities for prosecuting the study of human anatomy were immense. and the exceptions to the ordinary state of things found by him were very rare indeed, so that it would appear that the author of the statement in the review in question had mistaken some popular statement for a scientific though easily acquired fact.
Dr. CLELAND could also confirm, so far as his knowledge went, the statement of Professor Rolleston.
Mr. BLAKE said he should be glad to have the statement shown to him in the article in question, in which simpliciter it was declared that the insertion of this muscle in the great toe was unaccompanied by any further diversion of it. All that was there stated was, that the force concentrated upon the great toe.
Mr. Church thought that an allusion had been made to his paper. He might be excused for making an observation. It was stated in the review, in reference to this muscle, that in the foot of the various wild nations, and particularly in climbers of trees, it showed more deflection generally. He had tried to find out the differences which the muscles in the human form showed, and though he had had the advantage of the Bodleian and the Radcliffe libraries, he had been unable to find any anatomical account of the wild races of man, in reference to the foot : and he should be glad to know where such accounts were to be found.
Professor Rolleston might perhaps be allowed to hint that the discussion had gone quite far enough. The article contained the words, this “ solitary tendon passes along the sole of the foot,” &c., and after stating the position it occupied with regard to the great toe, proceeded to compare it with that in the foot of the orang-outang which possessed three tendons, so that there could be no question as to the construction which the words bore. On a question of this kind authorities were better than rhetoric, assertions, or opinions, and to authorities he had therefore confined himself.
Mr. BLAKE believed the words “solitary tendon" as the reviewer had used them were strictly correct. By the assertion that one solitary tendon passed along the sole of the foot he was not aware that by any logical construction was conveyed a denial of the fact that before the muscle sent forth its greatest slips, other divergent slips may not be sent forth, and in no passage had the presence of those divergent slips which Mr. Church and Mr. Turner had pointed out been denied. He must complain that such unfair stress should be , laid upon the passage, that its meaning should be thus warped, that the logical signification of the words should be, he hoped unintentionally, misrepresented, and that dust should be thus thrown in the eyes of zoologists, as had been done in the theatre of Albemarle Street. He was certain that his anatomical brethren would give the writer of the passage in question credit for having offered a fair and true explanation of the broad differences between the foot of the ape
and the foot of a human being, and the best explanation he could have given to a general audience. The broad question was left just as it was—the whole force of the long flexor in the man was concentrated upon the great toe; but a different condition prevailed in the apes, the force of the long flexor being in their case divided amongst several toes. He was unprepared for a discussion of the myology of apes arising upon a question of their integument, and the subject seemed to have travelled far beyond the record.
The PRESIDENT (Professor Balfour) observed that the question had reference only to the tendon, and reading the passage in the review in the ordinary sense, they had a solitary tendon in the one case, contrasted with three tendons in the other, so that it seemed Professor Rolleston was justified in the construction he put upon the words.
Dr. EMBLETON said he had at one time entertained the belief that that which Mr. Blake had stated was the general rule; but on referring to old authorities as well as to the more recent works upon the subject, he found that the cases where there was a single tendon only attached to the long flexor were the exceptions only.
Dr. CLELAND said the dispute narrowed itself very much to this:Mr. Blake found fault with the article being treated unfairly; but the force of the reviewer's arguments appeared to be that whereas in the monkey there were three tendons going to three different toes, in the human being the force was concentrated upon the great toe only. The fact was, that the tendon was connected not merely with the great toe, but with all the other toes also, and exercised its pressure upon one as well as upon the other, so that it could not logically be said that the force of the muscle was concentrated upon the great toe.
Professor ROLLESTON wished, before the discussion closed, to ask whether it was not the duty of the president of a section to call attention to such statements, bearing upon his department, as appeared in journals of scientific pretensions? He had thought it his duty, in the sub-section over which he presided, to draw the attention of those who attended the section to statements that were growing current in the periodical literature of the present day. He had taken pains to make himself master of such subjects as came before the section, and to acquaint himself with the popular as well as scientific literature in reference to them, and in that way he had referred to the article in the Edinburgh Review.
The PRESIDENT (Professor Balfour) considered that Professor Rolleston had done quite right in calling attention to this matter. It was a great advantage for subjects of this kind to be brought forward and discussed, and he had no doubt that Mr. Blake would agree with him in that opinion.
Mr. BLAKE admitted that Dr. Cleland had very well put the case, and if the word “concentration” was objected to, he would say the greatest power of the muscle was used on the great toe, or employ any analogous word; there was the greatest portion of the power directed upon the great toe in a human being, and there were also divergent slips the existence of which the reviewer did not deny, while, with respect to apes, the force was diverted to several toes. He could