« 이전계속 »
by anthropology, and the legends of other peoples confirm them, for a golden age is the extreme boundary of all national histories. In conclusion, I will mention one curious way in which some Darwinians have applied the theory of the struggle for existence to man. “The supremacy,” says Haeckel, “which, thanks to natural selection, the white races have attained over other races of men in the struggle for existence will no doubt increase more and more, so that only a few races will be able to prolong the struggle for existence with white men for any length of time. Already the Papuans, the Hottentots, the Australian negroes, the Malays or Polynesians, and the Red Indians are decreasing year by year, and give way more and more rapidly to the white intruders.” The facts which have been collected by several investigators, most of which are to be found in a book on this subject by Gerland,” show that there is no reason for supposing that these races have a mysterious natural tendency to disappear; the excesses which exist among them, infanticide, etc., the wars of tribes with one another, the pernicious physical and moral influence exercised upon them by many of the so-called civilised races, sufficiently explain the dying out of those races; they must be possessed of a truly marvellous power of resistance to be able to withstand all these harmful influences. In the next lecture I shall begin the discussion of the unity of the human race. To-day I will only make one remark on this subject, which is connected with the theory of descent, and its application to man. Some theologians have supposed that the propagation of Darwin's theory would have at least one good result, in that it would silence the doubts as to the possibility of the common descent of the different races of men. No doubt if apes and men are of one race, negroes and Caucasians may be related. Lyell, Wallace, Huxley, and others admit this unhesitatingly; Huxley even says that he believes there is nothing to prove that mankind is descended from more than one pair." Others, however, maintain that although according to Darwin's theory the possibility of the common descent of mankind must be admitted, there is nothing to prevent our assuming that in different lands,-perhaps in the far south of Asia, where the orang is found, and in Africa, where the gorilla lives, quite independently of one another, but under almost similar natural conditions, animal life developed from imperfect forms into the ape and the man.” Under these circumstances we cannot be surprised if men like Vogt, who are never more consistent than in their love for everything that is not in harmony “with the thousand year old lawbook of the old Jews,” “maintain in one breath the possibility of our descent from the quadrupeds, and the impossibility of the descent of both negroes and Europeans from one pair. “There are people,” says Th. H. Martin, “who appeal consecutively to two contradictory statements, which are both false, but which will both serve their object. One of these statements exaggerates the mutability of species, and enables them to assert, in opposition to the Bible, that if only we go far enough back, we shall undoubtedly find human ancestors who were not men, but monkeys, that the apes also must have had animals of the lower kinds as ancestors, and so on to the lowest rung in the ladder of living beings. The other statement, on the other hand, exaggerates the immutability of races, and enables them to assert, in opposition to the Bible, that men of different races do not belong to the same species, and cannot therefore be brothers and be descended from the same ancestors, however far back one may go. It seems as if one would have to choose between these contradictory exaggerations. But no ; there are people who instead of choosing between them assume both. They will not have negroes for their brothers, but they will have apes for their ancestors, not from brotherly hatred to the negroes, not from filial affection for the apes, nor from love for science, with which such arbitrary and contradictory assertions would ill harmonize, but in order twice to give the lie to the Bible, once in the name of the unlimited mutability of species, and once in the name of the absolute immutability of races, as if we did not know that the differences of race are less durable than the difference of species.” " * Les Sciences, p. 104. See also Pfaff, Die neuesten Forschungen, p. 108.
! Entstehung, etc. p. 74. Cf. Wat. Schöpfungsgeschichte, p. 618.
* Gerland, Ueber das Aussterben der Naturvâlker, Leipzig 1868. Cf. Th. Waitz, Anthropologie, i. 158. Quatrefages, Rapport, p. 356. Rauch, Die Einheit des Menschengeschlechts, p. 258.
* Lyell, The Antiquity of Man. Huxley, On our Knowledge, etc., p. 117.
* Archiv für Anthr. iii. 264. Haeckel, Mat. Schöpfungsgeschichte, pp. 590, 598,621. He thinks that the race of “speechless primaeval man” (Alali or Pithecanthropi) sprang from an extinct species of Anthropoidae : but that as all human languages cannot be derived from one common language, these divided into several races, who all formed their own primaeval language, and that in this way different kinds of “real men, Homines,” originated independently of one another. The present men are descended from at least two of these species.
* Worlesungen, i. p. 6.
THE descent of all men from one pair is certainly asserted by Holy Scripture, and is also necessarily assumed in the Christian doctrine of original sin. But in the Old Testament not only is Adam said to be the ancestor of the whole human race, but Noah is also said to be the ancestor of all the peoples now existing. For Genesis says that all the then living men, with the exception of Noah and his family, were destroyed by the Deluge, and that the different lands were repeopled by the descendants of the three sons of Noah.' Genesis tells us nothing of how the different races of men were formed. The so-called “generations” (Gen. x.) give us a series of peoples, who are descended from Shem, Ham, and Japhet; but the series does not pretend to be complete,_only those peoples whom the Israelites in the time of Moses knew of are expressly mentioned,—neither does the division into the descendants of Shem, Ham, and Japhet claim to coincide with the anthropological division of races.” It is quite wrong to say, as Frohschammer does,” that the account given in the ninth chapter of Genesis of * Gen. vi. 16, vii. 21, x. 32.
* Kurtz, Geschichte des Alten Bundes, i. 29. * Das Christenthum, p. 216.
the words spoken by Noah after the shameful deed of Ham, gives us a Biblical statement about the formation of races. He thinks that “from a Biblical point of view, only two races exist; the Ethiopian (descendants of Ham) and perhaps the Caucasian; since the descendants of Shem and Japhet must evidently, from a scientific point of view, be included in this race; but that the formation of the first race was caused by a miracle, for in consequence of the divine curse incurred by Ham, his descendants, according to Genesis, were not only punished by being condemned to slavery, labour, and suffering, but also by the degradation and deterioration of the inner and outer, physical and intellectual nature; that is, by a compulsory natural incapacity to equal the descendants of the other two sons of Noah.” This is just as bad as the old mistake of saying that Noah's curse justified slavery. It is worth while for me to show its falsity by a correct explanation of the passage in question, before I proceed to my real subject, especially as commentators sometimes interpret it wrongly."
* Cornelius à Lapide on Wisd. xii. 11 : Haec maledictio etiamnum durat; unde videmus AEthiopes et Mauros, quos vulgo nigros vocant, qui ex Cham prognati sunt, magna ex parte esse mancipia esseque obtusioris ingenii et vilioris prae ceteris servis conditionis. Cornelius explains Gen. ix. 25 correctly. Keil, commenting on Gen. ix. 25, says: “In the sin of Ham is foreshadowed the blot on all his race. It was characterized by sexual sin, and the curse which, Noah pronounced on this sin still rests on the descendants of Ham. The Canaanites were partly destroyed and partly condemned to the lowest slavery by the Israelites; the Phoenicians, with the Carthagenians and Egyptians, were subdued by the Persians, Macedonians, and Romans, and the other tribes descended from Ham either shared the same fate, or, burdened with the sin of their ancestor, are still groaning, as for instance the negroes and other African tribes, in the most oppressive slavery.” Lord Arundell of Wardour (Tradition, principally with Reference to Mythology and the Law of Nations, London 1872) even thinks that after Noah's curse Canaan became suddenly black, and thus was the ancestor of a “new, unnatural, and ugly race.” Cf. Dublin Review, new series, vol. xix. (Oct. 1872) p. 438.