[Pg i]
Publications of the
Anthropological Society of London.
THE PLURALITY OF THE HUMAN RACE.
POUCHET.
[Pg iii]
BY
GEORGES POUCHET,
DOCTOR OF MEDICINE, LICENTIATE OF NATURAL SCIENCE, AIDE-NATURALISTE IN THE MUSEUM OF ROUEN, MEMBER OF THE ANTHROPOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF PARIS, CORRESPONDING MEMBER OF THE ANTHROPOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF LONDON, ETC.
TRANSLATED AND EDITED,
(From the Second Edition),
BY
HUGH J. C. BEAVAN, F.R.G.S., F.A.S.L.,
OF THE MIDDLE TEMPLE, BARRISTER-AT-LAW.
LONDON:
PUBLISHED FOR THE ANTHROPOLOGICAL SOCIETY, BY
LONGMAN, GREEN, LONGMAN, AND ROBERTS,
PATERNOSTER ROW.
1864.
[Pg v]
DEDICATED
TO
THE RIGHT HONOURABLE
SIR EDWARD G. E. L. BULWER-LYTTON, BART.,
M.P., D.C.L., ETC.
With all the respect
DUE TO A GREAT WRITER AND LEARNED MAN,
BY
HUGH J. C. BEAVAN.
[Pg vii]
A few words by way of preface to a book on the Plurality of theHuman Race are necessary as well as advisable. They are especiallyso when the Author and Editor differ considerably in their opinions, asin this case; and although it is by no means a sine quâ non thatthey should always agree, there are certain points on which a few linesmay be required.
The Publishing Committee of the Anthropological Society of Londonhonoured me by committing the translation and editing of this book tomy care, and I set about the task with some diffidence, as this isprobably the first work of the kind which has ever been given to theEnglish literary world in a convenient and popular form. Such being thecase, there will sometimes be found expressions which may be thoughtforeign; but I have preferred on these occasions giving the moreliteral translation, instead of one which possibly might fail to conveythe Author’s real meaning. In books containing such very peculiar ideasas those of M. Pouchet, it is requisite to be especially careful onthis head.
Of the clever nature and terse expression of the work there canbe little doubt, but I am sorry to find in it opinions with whichI cannot at all agree, and in order to prove which, or ratherendeavour to do so, science is strained in an unnatural manner. Thetheory of spontaneous generation is by no means a new one; but M.Pouchet can throw very little light on the subject, and leaves it asbefore—entirely unproved. The extreme sceptical nature of his views ismuch to be regretted, and in[Pg viii] this esp