proof, and is altogether inconclusive and unreliable. It is clear that language does not determine race. Indeed, the opinion that all languages had a common origin is almost abandoned, and, of course, the argument for the unity of the human race derived from that source falls with it.

The idea of one common language for all races of the present day is based on the assumption of the natural equality of all races, and the capability of the inferior for the civilization of the superior: it could be possible only for the civilized races. There is not much greater probability of all languages coalescing and forming one universal tongue than there is of all the nations and tribes of people of the world mongrelizing into one great yellow mass-an unnatural, revolting and beastly consummation to which some fanatics look forward as the goal of human progress and the millennium of earthly brotherhood.

The Jesuit, Breitung, comes to the conclusion that, in connection with other reasons, "the argument from linguistics makes it the more probable hypothesis that the white race alone can trace its origin to Noe."

CHAPTER IX.

PERMANENCY OF TYPE.

TYPES DISTINCTLY MARKED FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS.-CASE OF THE TURKS AND MAGYARS.-PERMANENCY OF CUSTOMS AND CIVILIZATIONS. ADAM A CIVILIZED MAN, AND HIS RACE ALWAYS THE REPRESENTATIVE OF CIVILIZATION. THE CHINESE.-No INSTANCE OF CHANGE OF TYPE.-CLIMATE AND MODE OF LIFE EFFECT NO IMPORTANT CHANGE IN THE HUMAN SPECIES.

THE

HE history of the world affords no satisfactory evidence that the different types of mankind ever run into one another; but, on the other hand, goes to show that they are fixed and permanent. There is no evidence that a white man is ever degraded into Mongolian, Indian or African, or that the inferior races ever have been or can be raised to the physical, mental or moral likeness of the Caucasian. In all climates and under all circumstances the several races have maintained their distinctive features from the earliest history. The Caucasian, Mongolian, Indian, Eskimo and negro are now, so far as evidence goes, what they have always been, with slight modifications that do not materially affect original types. The diversity of races, we know, has existed for several thousand years, and no physical causes have, in that length of time, had

any influence in changing one type of man into another. It will not be disputed that the white races (including Jew, Arab and Egyptian) and the negro were as distinct and different four thousand years ago as they are now. Indeed, we may go further and safely assert that in the last five thousand years no physical change has been effected in Caucasian and negro. This is clearly proved by Egyptian and Assyrian monuments. For these monumental records some claim a chronology running back ten thousand years before the Christian era: they can confidently be referred to a period nearly 3000 B. C. No one will regard it as extravagant to assert that these old records (pictorial and monumental) prove distinct types to have existed four thousand years ago, if not much longer, and they have not changed within that period. The scene from "Belzoni's Tomb," at Thebes, about 1500 B. C., of later date than some others, depicts four distinct types, colored red, yellow, black and white, as known to the Egyptians, with their respective features so plainly delineated as to be beyond question. Topinard says: "Whether assisted or not by archæology, history narrates that under the twelfth dynasty, about 2300 B. C., the Egyptians consisted of four races: (1) The Rot, or Egyptians, painted red, and similar to the peasants now living on the banks of the Nile; (2) The Namu, painted yellow, with the aquiline nose, corresponding to the populations of Asia

to the east of Egypt; (3) The Nahsu, or prognathous negroes, with woolly hair; (4) The Tamahu, whites, with blue eyes." The above date of Topinard (2300 B. C.) M. Mariette puts at 3064 B. C., and Lepsius at 2380 B. C. The mummies of Egypt are of the same type as the Egyptians of the present day: the oldest of these desiccated remains date about 4000 B. C.

The era of Menes carries us back still further, nearly 4000 B. C., as will be seen in the chapter on Chronology. We may, then, confidently claim that the different human types were as distinctly marked as at the present day about six thousand years ago, and we may reasonably infer that they have been the same from creation. Any other inference is inadmissible and unreasonable, unless it could be clearly shown that causes have been in operation sufficient to change primitive types. In this long period of time there is not the slightest proof that a white man ever did or could become a negro, or that a negro ever did or could become a white man; for the slight changes caused by environment afford no proof of change of type.

The Jew, in every climate and under every form of social and physical environment, has preserved the features of his race; thus proving that physical characteristics are independent of climate and other physical causes. "Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots?" was a proverbial ex

pression to denote an impossible thing, quoted by the prophet Jeremiah two thousand five hundred years ago, and shows that the old Jews recognized the permanency of racial differences. Whether the prophet or proverb referred to the dark-complected inhabitants of Asiatic Ethiopia or the black African, he seems to have regarded the color of men as fixed and permanent as the spots of the leopard: neither could be changed.

The pure Hindoos of the Aryan race have been three thousand years in a hot and sultry climate, and are still unchanged. The fact that the different types have remained unchanged, or retained the same distinct form and feature for more than a hundred generations, affords a reasonable presumption that the same distinctions existed long before, and that they are permanent. If four thousand years, to adopt a moderate chronology, has done nothing towards transforming one race into another, we can conceive of no period of time that would obliterate racial distinctions.

It may be said that the monumental and pictorial records are unreliable, inasmuch as the portraits and figures are defaced and were unskillfully drawn, and are caricatures of the originals; but they are sufficient, and do clearly identify the distinct features of Caucasian, Mongol and negro. This really was never questioned until late years, when a fanaticism that can perceive no specific differences between the