Page images
PDF
EPUB

CHAPTER IX.

THE ARGUMENT FROM LANGUAGE.

The Hebrew formerly believed to have been the Primitive Language. Discovery of the Sanskrit, and its Effects. - Views of Stewart and Lord Monboddo. — Labors of Sanskrit Scholars. Key to the Classification of Indo-European Languages. Three great Families. — I. The Aryan. — II. The Semitic. -III. The Turanian. - Classification according to Structure. - Monosyllabic, Agglutinative, and Inflectional. - Bearing of the Diversity of Languages on the Argument. -1. The Miraculous "Confusion of Tongues."-2. Languages have much in common between them. - 3. Differences diminish as our Knowledge increases. 4. Languages undergo rapid Changes.

- Conclusión.

SCARCELY three fourths of a century have elapsed since the belief prevailed almost universally that the Hebrew was the primitive language of mankind, and that all other languages have been derived from it. If we go back one or two centuries more, we arrive at a time when this opinion was quite universal. According to Professor Müller, Leibnitz was "the first who really conquered the prejudice that Hebrew

[ocr errors]

the lapse of time, yet all the existing races had reached their present types at the very beginning of the historic period, within a very few centuries, at most, of the flood - a space much too short to have developed the differences between them. Representations both of men and animals are found on the oldest monuments of Egypt and Assyria, which show all the diversities now existing among different nations. Even then, if we concede the common origin of men, we are compelled to throw it so far back in time as to be wholly inconsistent with the Mosaic chronology.

To this allegation Dr. Bachman well replies. that the monumental figures referred to are too rude and imperfect to have any real value in the argument.

"The reduced figures in Nott and Gliddon we have not compared with the originals. Taking them, however, just as they are presented to the reader, and presuming them to be faithful copies, we have no hesitation in saying that, for all the purposes of the naturalist in the designation of species or varieties, the figures of animals on the monuments are entirely valueless, and can not advance him a single step in a science which requires the closest accuracy. Let us only look at the figures on a single page, the 388th of Nott and Gliddon's Types,' and then inquire what lights these would afford us in the

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

designation of species or varieties. If the upper figure is a greyhound, as is stated, it must be not only a new species, but a new genus, since we have evidently nothing in nature at the present day to correspond to it. If this is an accurate representation of the greyhound, as it then existed (with a short tail turned upward like that of the rabbit), it affords one of the strongest evidences of the changes which time has effected, since no such variety of greyhound exists in our day. We feel convinced that the ancient artists were no naturalists, and are inclined to the belief that they had no specimens before them to aid in their delineations that with them a dog was a dog; and it now requires the aid of the imagination to decide on the variety. We feel no disposition in this place to enter on an investigation of those caricatures of dogs, as we are fully aware that the book of nature is a much safer guide to the naturalist in the investigation of species than the very imperfect and unsatisfactory figures on the monuments.

We may here observe that the figures of dogs and men (the latter only are of any scientific value) on the Eastern monuments have been carefully studied and delineated by master minds - men at whose feet Gliddon has sat as a humble copyist. They have commenced giving to the world the result of their scientific researches. Both Lepsius and Bunsen have already proclaimed their belief in the doctrine of the unity of the human race. Thus these monumental records, which caused Gliddon to pronounce, in the

[ocr errors]

"All our quadrupeds, birds, reptiles, and even our plants, in the temperate regions of America, are found to differ from those in every other part of the world.* The fauna of Europe so much resembles our own in its genera, that the American traveler feels in that country as if he was among neighbors, but not quite in his own family, inasmuch as the species, though nearly allied, all differ, with the exception of those that have been transported and become naturalized. Of birds, we are at present acquainted with 520 species that exist in America, north of the Tropic of Cancer. Of these, twenty-six land birds and seventy-six water birds are identical with those of Europe. The land birds here enumerated resort to the polar regions in summer, for the purpose of rearing their young, and in autumn find their way to the temperate regions of both continents. A few of the water birds, such as the wandering shear-water (Puffinus Anglorum), and the petrels, possess such powers of flight that they cross the Atlantic in any latitude. The geese, ducks, gulls, terns, common gannet, etc., proceed far north during summer, and, by their aquatic habits and great powers of flight, migrate southerly along the shores of the Atlantic, both in Northern Europe and America. Of the remaining 418 species, they are restricted within. certain latitudes in America, and are found in no other country.

"We have within the parallels of latitude referred to

* Except, of course, those which have been introduced by man. - B.

[ocr errors]

above, in North America, two hundred and seven species of quadrupeds. Of these, only eight, all of which are polar animals, are found in the north of Europe, or the adjoining continent of Asia; these are, the polar bear, arctic fox, wolverine, ermine, pine martin, wolf, beaver, and the polar hare. The remainder are restricted to certain geographical ranges, and are found nowhere else."

[ocr errors]

Professor B. advances similar statements respecting fishes and plants, and concludes as follows: Reasoning then from analogy, we are led to conclude that, since no species of quadruped, bird, or reptile, and, we may add, insect or plant, has been created in two or more localities; therefore we are not warranted in adopting the improbable idea that God would create the same species of man in five, ten, or fifty localities, and thereby not only violate the order of creation, but even act contrary to the very laws of probability." (p. 266.)

[ocr errors]

It should be added, in this connection, that Professor Agassiz himself concedes that his view of the plural origin of man is an exception to the general rule in the animal creation. While [the lower] animals are of distinct species in the different zoölogical provinces to which they belong, man, notwithstanding the diversity of his races, constitutes one only and the same species over all the surface of the globe. In this respect, as in many others, man

« PreviousContinue »