It

his tomb an early offering of Christian affection. gives us great pleasure to learn that we shall soon receive, through his nephew and literary executor, the Rev. Henry Wordsworth, the entire poem of which fragments are given us in his works under the name of "The Recluse." We anticipate a rich treat of autobiography in this work.

A. B. M.

ART. VIII. -THE DIVERSITY OF ORIGIN OF THE HUMAN RACES.

We have a right to consider the questions growing out of men's physical relations as merely scientific questions, and to investigate them without reference to either politics or religion.

There are two distinct questions involved in the subject which we have under discussion, the Unity of Mankind, and the Diversity of Origin of the Human Races. These are two distinct questions, having almost no connection with each other, but they are constantly confounded as if they were but one.

We recognize the fact of the Unity of Mankind. It excites a feeling that raises men to the most elevated sense of their connection with each other. It is but the reflection of that Divine nature which pervades their whole being. It is because men feel thus related to each other, that they acknowledge those obligations of kindness and moral responsibility which rest upon them in their mutual relations. And it is because they have this innate feeling, that they are capable of joining in regular societies with all their social and domestic affinities. This feeling unites men from the most diversified regions. Do we cease to recognize this unity of mankind because we are not of the same family? - because we originate in various countries, and are born in America, England, Germany, France, Switzerland? Where the relationship of blood has ceased, do we cease to acknowledge that general bond which unites all men of every nation? By no means. This is a bond which every man feels more and more the farther he advances in

his intellectual and moral culture, and which in this development is continually placed upon higher and higher ground, so much so, that the physical relation arising from a common descent is finally entirely lost sight of in the consciousness of the higher moral obligations. It is this consciousness which constitutes the true unity of mankind.

But we know so little respecting the origin of that first human pair to which the white race is distinctly referred, that, even if it were possible to show that all men originated from that one pair, the naturalist would still be required to exert himself to throw more light upon the process by which they were created, in the same manner as geologists have done respecting the formations and changes in the physical condition of our globe. We know so little respecting the first appearance of organized beings in general, that, even if there were no questions with regard to the origin of men, we might still inquire into the method of the origin of that first human pair, who have been considered as the acknowledged source whence all mankind have sprung, though it may be that they were not the only source.

Such an investigation into the ways of nature, into the ways of the Creator, and into the circumstances under which organized beings were created, is a question wholly disconnected with religion, belonging entirely to the department of natural history. But, at the same time, we deny that, in the view which we take of these questions, there is any thing contradicting the records in Genesis. Whatever is said there can be best explained by referring it to the historical races.* We have no statements relating to the origin of the inhabitants now found in those parts of the world which were unknown to the ancients.

Do we find in any part of the Scriptures any reference to the inhabitants of the arctic zone, of Japan, of China, of New Holland, or of America? Now, as philosophers,

* In speaking of the historical and the non-historical races, we do not mean to say that the nations of the white race only have historical records, and that these records alone are highly valuable, for we know that the history of the Chinese extends far back, and how full their records are. We only intend, in making this distinction, to refer to the history in Genesis, in which the branches of the white race only are alluded to, and nowhere the colored races as such.

we ask, Whence did these nations come? And if we should find as an answer, that they were not related to Adam and Eve, and that they have an independent origin, and if this should be substantiated by physical evidence, would there be any thing to conflict with the statements in Genesis? We have no narrative of the manner in which these parts of the world were peopled. We say, therefore, that, as far as the investigation will cover that ground, it has nothing to do with Genesis. We meet all objections at once, we dare to look them in the face; for there is no impropriety in considering all the possible meanings of the Scriptures, and nobody can object to such a course except those whose religion consists in a blind adoration of their own construction of the Bible.

It has been charged upon the views here advanced, that they tend to the support of slavery, as if the question in its most extensive bearing did not involve the origin of the Chinese, of the Malays, and of the Indians, as well as that of the negro race. If the question of slavery had ever been connected with the colored races of Asia and America, we would acknowledge that these views have some bearing upon that subject. But is it really so? Is that a fair objection to a philosophical investigation? Here we have to do only with the question of the origin of men; let the politicians, let those who feel themselves called upon to regulate human society, see what they can do with the results. It is for us to examine into the characters of different races, to ascertain their physical peculiarities, their natural developments. And we do nothing more than has already been attempted long ago, when authors have designed to characterize nations. Because the French differ in many respects from the English, the Greeks, the Italians, etc., and because we see in these nations different turns of mind, does it follow that the particular degree of civilization attained by one is also the best that others could enjoy, and the best that could be introduced into their social condition?

We disclaim, however, all connection with any question involving political matters. It is simply with reference to the possibility of appreciating the differences existing between different men, and of eventually determin

ing whether they have originated all over the world, and under what circumstances, that we have here tried to trace some facts respecting the human races, and the animal kingdom, in all their different classes.

We began by stating that the subject of unity and plurality of races involves two distinct questions, the question of the essential unity of mankind, and the question of the origin of men upon our globe. There is another view involved in this second question, which we would not dismiss without a few remarks.

Are men, even if the diversity of their origin is established, to be considered as all belonging to one species, or are we to conclude that there are several different species among them? The writer has been in this respect strangely misrepresented. Because he has at one time said that mankind constitutes one species, and at another time has said that men did not originate from one common stock, he has been represented as contradicting himself, as stating at one time one thing, and at another time another. He would therefore insist upon this distinction, that the unity of species does not involve a unity of origin, and that a diversity of origin does not involve a plurality of species. Moreover, what we should now consider as the characteristic of species is something very different from what has formerly been so considered. As soon as it was ascertained that animals differ so widely, it was found that what constitutes a species in certain types is something very different from what constitutes a species in other types, and that facts which prove an identity of species in some animals do not prove an identity or plurality in another group.

It is well known that the horse and ass produce mules, though they constitute distinct species; again, it may be shown that certain polyps produce jelly-fishes, though they never pair with each other, and that they nevertheless belong to the same species; but such facts would not constitute an evidence of unity or diversity in other groups of the animal kingdom. It would lead us too far into technical details to quote many more similar examples, which would show equally well the fallacy of conclusions derived from different quarters; but, on the other hand, we must insist upon the inestimable value of the inductions derived from facts of the same order, and nat

uralists will evince their competency to discuss these questions by keeping within their legitimate ground. We must, however, give some details with reference to the limitation of the characteristics of species, as it has a direct bearing upon the investigation of the origin of organized beings in general.

There are animals in which the dualism which so universally pervades the higher classes in the opposition between the sexes is not introduced, and in which all the individuals have, morphologically and functionally, the same identical structure. Here the characteristics of species must be very different from what they are among those animals in which we recognize males and females. There are other groups in which this peculiar combination of sexes presents very different proportions. We have among the higher animals about an equal number of individuals belonging to the two sexes. But in some of the classes, for instance, among insects, we have species in which the normal condition consists in a combination of one female, generally called the queen, with several males, and large numbers of individuals destitute of sex. Now this combination is there the normal combination, and the idea of species in such types must be derived from the knowledge that this combination is a normal one, and that therefore the proportion of individuals is to be considered as one of the characteristics of the species in some classes; but at the same time we must remember that these combinations are very different in other classes.

There are many trees and plants in which a single stalk represents the whole species; there are those in which we never see detached and distinct individuals, but in which a number of individuals are constantly combined in one community, leading a common life, such as the corals. There the idea of species is very different from that which we form when considering the higher animals in general.

But it is not only in this respect that we frequently find a difference in the combinations of individuals in different species. We find also peculiar adaptations in the mode of association of species with each other. There are species which everywhere occur in shoals, in numerous herds. A life in large communities is the characteristic that distinguishes them from others.