[4] Anthropology is not the only branch in modern science which opens new paths to the human mind: see Michelet, L’Insecte, p. 106; see also Bourdet, Traité d’éducation positive, 1863.
[5] This name has been definitely adopted in France in preference to that of “Unitarians” (Unitaires), used by M. de Gobineau.
[6] “All monogenists,” we said in the first edition of this book. M. de Quatrefages has exclaimed loudly against these words (Unité de l’Espèce Humaine, 1861, p. 299), and in the same passage has shown himself an open enemy to all mingling of religion in the domain of science. We are too glad of this declaration not to recall it in this place. We should be sorry not to be able always to agree in these pages with the masters of science,—with those, indeed, who have been our own. We have been led to touch on several questions already treated of by them, by following another path,—by looking at facts from another point of view; therefore, there are some differences of opinion. Our excuse lies in the universal right of free inquiry; for the rest, we shall always name the persons with whom we think we do not agree. “Not to do so,” as Bayle said, “is in some measure an excess of ceremony prejudicial to the liberty which we ought to enjoy in the republic of letters; it is to introduce therein works of supererogation. It should be always allowable to name those whom we disprove; this is sufficient to prevent a bitter, injurious, or dishonest spirit.”—Dictionnaire Philosophique, art. Pereira, note D.
[7] É. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire has not, however, been able to free himself completely from the unhappy influences which we endeavour to oppose. See Comptes rendus de l’Académie des Sciences, vol. iv, p. 78.
[8] “It is too evident,” says a modern philosopher, “that in the eyes of science, which, reasoning about discoveries, makes a rule to admit nothing as a theory which cannot be proved by experience, the agreement of faith with reason is a chimera: to speak more exactly, such a problem does not exist. The conditions of science are the observation of facts,—not of facts exceptionally produced, seen by chance, noted by privileged witnesses, and unable to be reproduced at will; but constant facts, placed under one’s hand for observation, and always able to be verified. We must consider that religion can in no way submit to such exigencies, and that the faith which it proclaims must be, in this light, radically inconsistent.”—P. J. Proudhon, De la Justice, vol. ii, p. 309. See also on this subject, L. Fleury, Le Progrès, 1858, No. 4, p. 92. De Jouvencel, Bulletins de la Société d’Anthropologie, May 2, 1861.
[9] See Bertillon, Bulletins de la Société d’Anthropologie, June 18, 1863.
[10] The Natural History of the Human Species, 1848, p. 40.
[11] Kaempfer, Histoire Naturelle, etc., du Japon, Lahaye, 1729, vol. i, p. 75.
[12] Marcel de Serres, De l’Unité de l’Espèce Humaine: Bib. Univ. de Genève, new series, vol. liv, 1844, p. 145.
[13] “The doctrine attributed to Copernicus,” said the declaration made by the Pope, and published by the Holy Office, “that the earth moves round the sun, and that the sun remains motionless in the centre of the world without moving either to the east or to the west, is contrary to Holy Scripture, and consequently, can neither be professed nor defended.”—Biot, La vérité sur le Procès de Galilée, in the Journal des Savants, July 1858, p. 401.