Types of mankind, or, Ethnological researches, based upon the ancient monuments, paintings, sculptures, and crania of races, and upon their natural, geographical, philological and Biblical history / illustrated by selections from the inedited papers of Samuel George Morton and by additional contributions from L. Agassiz, W. Usher, and H.S. Patterson ; by J.C. Nott and Geo. R. Gliddon.

  • Nott, Josiah C. (Josiah Clark), 1804-1873.
Date:
1860
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Types of mankind, or, Ethnological researches, based upon the ancient monuments, paintings, sculptures, and crania of races, and upon their natural, geographical, philological and Biblical history / illustrated by selections from the inedited papers of Samuel George Morton and by additional contributions from L. Agassiz, W. Usher, and H.S. Patterson ; by J.C. Nott and Geo. R. Gliddon. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    64/800 (page 54)
    fident that I can scatter some of your facts to the winds — yet in others you will be very apt to trip up my own heels; so let us work harmoniously together. At the English Uni- versities they have wranglers, but no quarrellers.” This seems manly and friendly, and Morton, feeling it to be such, was very much gratified. He certainly never could have regarded it as a prelude to an attack upon himself; yet such it was. The next spring (1850) witnessed the publication of Dr. B.’s book on Unity, as well as his Monograph on Ilybridity, in the Charleston Medical Journal, in both of which Morton is made the object of assault and attempted ridicule. The former work I have already referred to, (p. xlvi.) The author starts with what amounts, under the circumstances, to a broad and unequivocal confession of ignorance of his topic — a confession which, however praiseworthy on the score of frankness, may be re- garded as wholly supererogatory; for no reader of ordinary intelligence can open the book without perceiving the fact for himself. His reading seems to have been singularly limited,* while the topic, involving, as it does, the characteristics of remote races, &c., demands a wide and careful consultation of authorities. For one who is confessedly neither an archaeologist, an anatomist, nor a philologist, to attempt to teach Ethnology on the strength of having, many years ago, read on the subject a single work — and he scarcely recollects what — is a conception as bold as it is original. His production required no notice, of course, at the hand of Morton. On the special subject of Ilybridity, however, he was entitled to an attentive hearing as a gen- tleman of established authority, particularly in the mammalian de- partment of Zoology. Had he discussed it in the spirit foreshadowed by his letter, and which Morton anticipated, there would have been no controversy, but an amicable comparison of views, advancing the cause of science. But his tone was arrogant and offensive. Hot only to the general reader in his book, but also to Morton in his letters, * “ In preparing these notes we have even resolved not to refer to Prichard—who, we believe, is justly regarded as one of our best authorities—whose work we read with great in- terest some years ago, (and which is allowed even by his opponents to have been written in a spirit of great fairness,) and many of whose arguments we at the time considered unan- swerable.” (p. 16.) “ After this work was nearly printed, we procured Prichard's Natural History of Man — his other works we have not seen. We were aware of the conclusions at which his mind had arrived, but not of the process by which his investigations had been pursued.” (p. 304.) Now, as the Natural History was not published until 1843, it could hardly be the book read “some years ago” (prior to 1849); especialty as Dr. B. confesses ignorance “of the process, &c.” [supra.] That must have been one of the earlier volumes of the Physical Researches, commenced in 1812, probably the very first, which leaves the subject short of the point to which Blumenbach subsequently brought it. But Dr. B. assures us again, that other work of Prichard than the Natural History he “has never seen.” Then he never saw any before writing his own book ! His memory is certainly extremely vague. It is safe to conclude, however, that he undertook to write upon this difficult subject without the direct consultation of a single authority:—the result is what might be readily anticipated.