« PredošláPokračovať »
these districts; and it is remarkable that it is seen in the soldiers and others on ancient bas-reliefs, as well as in the emperors; and as Rome was founded by a small band, it was probably even then the type of the surrounding country. According to Niebuhr, the Sabines and other enemies of the Romans were of the same race as their conquerors. This race appears to have extended formerly, as now, into Tuscany.
But another type was found along with it in this latter country by Dr E.; and one which had long attracted his attention. All the busts and pictures of Dante agree in giving that poet a very marked physiognomy. He had a long head, not broad; the forehead was high and well developed, the nose curved so that the point of it drooped, the wings of the nose raised, and the chin prominent.
Dr E. saw at Radicofani people who possessed this type, and one of whom was the image of Dante. He had also observed it in the busts of many of the Medici, and other distinguished men of the Republic of Florence; and even traced it in some Etruscan bas-reliefs. He continued to observe it at Bologna, Ferrara, Padua, and the intermediate towns. It was very frequent at Venice. When examining at this last place the picture of a saint painted by one of the Venetian school, the cicerone desired him to observe how much it resembled Dante. In the Ducal Palace he observed that a great majority of the Doges, whose portraits he saw, had the same character.
In proceeding towards Milan, this type became still more frequent, and was sometimes absolutely caricatured. In one village where he stopped for an hour or two, he saw a number of peasants, and could scarcely take his eyes off them, so great was their similarity to those whom he had seen in the market place at Châlons. Being now in Cisalpine, as he had formerly been in Transalpine Gaul, he naturally concluded that this was a Gaulish type. In crossing the Alps, he met first with a German type, then with the Burgundian, and finally near to and in Geneva, with the type observed at Châlons and in Tuscany. Here, then, was a population composed of two races, each having its own type, and forming a complete contrast to each other. The one observed in Burgundy, Dauphiny, Savoy, and the Valais, having the head more round than oval, and rounded features, with a middling stature. The other, observed in Tuscany, at Geneva, and at Châlons, having the head long, the forehead broad and high, the curved nose, the prominent chin, and a tall stature. With the Roman type we have nothing to do at present.
M. Thierry, to whom the work of Dr Edwards is addressed, has shewn in his History of the Gauls, that the greater part of
Gaul was occupied by two great families, differing in language, habits and social state.
Dr Edwards discovers in the same part of Gaul two predo minant types, so distinct that it is impossible to confound them. Had there been no foreign intrusion, we could not hesitate to ascribe these types to two Gaulish tribes. But we know that since the period alluded to, different nations have successively conquered the whole or parts of this territory. How, then, are we to distinguish? On the principle established previously, that the smaller number never imposes its type on the larger. Now we know the extreme disproportion of the conquerors of Gaul to its inhabitants, who have consequently retained their own type.
Of these two families, which are named by M. Thierry Gauls and Kimris (Cimbri), the former should be the more numerous, as he has shewn that they were the ancient inhabitants, who occupied almost the whole of Gaul before the establishment of the Kimris. Hence Dr Edwards concludes that the type first observed by him in Burgundy, which was the most numerous, is that of the Gauls, and the other that of the Kimris; and their geographical distribution corresponds to this view.
The type of the Gauls is as follows:-The head is nearly spherical. The forehead of middling size, somewhat arched, and retreating towards the temples. The eyes are large and open. The nose is nearly straight, and rounded at the point. The chin is likewise round; and the stature is middling. In a word, the head is more round than oval, the features rounded, and the stature middling. This type occurs in the east and south-east of France, where M. Thierry, from historical considerations, places the Gauls.
The Kimris, whose type has already been described in speaking of Dante, are placed by M. Thierry chiefly in the north of France, in the Belgium of Cæsar, and in Armorica. Now Dr Edwards in a former journey had observed this type to predominate in the most marked way in the country extending from the mouth of the Somme to that of the Seine, and we have seen that he recognised it at Châlons and in Tuscany. Although occurring in Burgundy, it cannot be the type of the Burgundian conquerors, because it appears in Picardy and Normandy, where the Burgundians never appeared; neither can it be that of the Scandinavian Normans, because it occurs at Macon and Châlons in Burgundy, which the Normans never approached. It must therefore belong to the previous inhabitants, the Cimbri or Kimris.
According to M. Thierry, England was chiefly occupied by the same people who possessed the north of Gaul, viz. the Kimris, and Dr Edwards has recognised the type of this people
very abundantly in England. Those who exhibit it he considers as the descendants of the ancient Britons, whose supposed extermination he very properly doubts.
In that part of Switzerland where French is spoken, formerly called Helvetia, Dr Edwards finds both races. The Helveti, according to Thierry, were Gauls, but must have been either then or subsequently mixed with Kimris.
From the earliest period, the north of Italy, between the Alps and Apennines, was inhabited by Gaulish races. Thierry says, that both Gauls and Kimris formed the population of Cisalpine as well as of Transalpine Gaul. We have already seen, that the type of the latter is abundant in the north of Italy; and Dr Edwards also saw the type of the Gauls, though less distinctly and marked, in some parts of that country.
One very curious observation led him to suppose that this type might occur more frequently in those districts which he had not visited in the north of Italy. In a bookseller's shop at Milan, he saw an almanac containing a print, which represented wo grotesque characters mocking each other. These figures were the most exact caricatures of the Gaul and Kimri types, even to the difference of stature, the Kimri being very tall, and the Gaul of middling size. The painter surely thought neither of natural history nor of antiquity, but he must have drawn from what was before him, and furnished a ludicrous contrast. The gigantic Gauls, described by the Roman historians, were obviously Kimris. Dr Edwards has observed, that a tall stature very often accompanies the Kimri type in France, England, Switzerland, Italy, in short, wherever he has seen it. This also accounts for the circumstance, that in France, where the Gaul type predominates, the people are not tall, so that the question is often asked, what has become of those gigantic Gauls, formerly so terrible? They are still to be found even in France wherever the Kimri type prevails, as in Normandy.*
Such are the conclusions of Dr Edwards with regard to these two races. He next examines some of the Sclavonic tribes, which are found in the east of Europe. Having had an opportunity of examining many Austrian troops, he separated the different nations from each other, and studied their physical characters. There were Silesians, Bohemians, Moravians, Poles, and Hungarians. In none of these, however, did he find a characteristic type peculiar to the individual nation. But he soon saw a type which occurred frequently in all of them, and
• See the second article of our 18th number, (vol. v. p. 194), for an account of the comparative degrees of intelligence manifested by the inhabitants of the different departments of France. See also, with respect to the Gauls and Kimris, Malte Brun's System of Geography, Edinburgh edition, vol. vi. p. 77.
which he recognised as the Sclavonic type. It is found in the east of Europe, mixed with the German type, occurring very frequently among the nations above mentioned, and also among the Russians and Austrians. It is unnecessary to enter into details on this part of the subject.
Among the Sclavonic nations, Dr Edwards includes only at portion of the Hungarians, chiefly those inhabiting a circular strip of territory, varying in width, on the frontier of Hungary. But the central part of Hungary is peopled by a nation speaking the Madgiar language, which is quite different from the Sclavonic Hungarian. This would lead us to conclude, without consulting history, that a foreign people had established themselves among the Sclavonians, who may possibly represent the Dacians, the earliest inhabitants of this part of Europe. But what was the origin of the Madgiars? Dr Edwards has observed that many of those who speak the Madgiar language and pass for Madgiars, are of Selavonic type. Supposing the Madgiars to have conquered Hungary, they would, from their political ascendency," have perpetuated their language; while the Sclavonians, from their superiority of number, would have perpetuated their type. But Dr Edwards has shewn, that another type exists in Hungary, and is quite peculiar. He found it by comparing those Hungarians who were not of Sclavonic type. This new type corresponds accurately with the descriptions given by ancient authors of the Huns, who, in the fifth century, overran Hungary. The establishment of the Madgiars took place in the ninth century. This type, which Dr Edwards calls the Hun type, seems to him too abundantly diffused to have resulted from the Huns alone, whose empire in Hungary fell to pieces soon after the death of Attila, and who must have been greatly reduced in number by their constant wars. It has even been said that they were exterminated, which is improbable, but at all events their type must have been extended by some subsequent irruption of a similar race, probably the Madgiars. Now the tradition of the latter people is, that their chief, Arpad, was descended from Attila.
But further, the Hun type is Mongolian, and therefore we should trace the Huns to Asia. Now, De Guignes, in studying the races of the east of Asia, shows us a tribe called Hioungnou in their original seat, follows them to the westward, and finds them connecting themselves with the Finns, and establishing themselves in Hungary. Dr Edwards tells us, that the Finnish type is different, but that the Madgiar language is Finnish to a great extent, thus confirming the deductions of De Guignes, which were founded solely on historical considerations. The Hun or Mongol type, therefore, which is almost universal in the eastern half of Asia, is found in different parts of the west
of that continent, in Russia, and in Hungary. The study of the languages of the people possessing this type connects them all with the Mongol race.
It is justly observed by Dr Edwards, that this correspondence in the results obtained by different means, adds greatly to their interest. "If," says he, "De Guignes, beginning in the east of Tartary, recognises the same people in their distant expeditions, and in their communications with the Finns, and follows them even into Hungary; on the other hand I recognise, in a part of the inhabitants of Hungary speaking a Finnish dialect, physical characters which prove their ancestors to have come from Eastern Asia."
Dr Edwards gives some very ingenious remarks on language, and particularly on pronunciation, as a natural character. He distinctly traces, on the authority of Mezzofante the celebrated linguist of Bologna, the resemblance of the dialects and especially the pronunciation of northern Italy to those of France, to the fact that in both countries the Latin language was imposed on a Gaulish tribe; and shews that, as in the case of the English, the original tongue, (in this case Celtic), although lost, communicates a peculiar and recognisable accent to the language which has supplanted it. We shall not, however, dwell on this division of the subject, but rather offer a few remarks on that part of the work which more particularly interests us as phrenologists.
No one can read Dr Edwards's interesting statement without regretting that he had not the assistance of Phrenology, which would have doubled the interest and importance of his discoveries.
But, although not a phrenologist, we find him describing the characters drawn from the head and face as the most important, and laying great stress on the form of the head in all his types. We are therefore entitled to conclude, that where the type of a race appears pure, we shall find likewise the prevailing cerebral development of that race; and it is much to be desired that some of the many scientific men who have the opportunity, should endeavour to fill up the blank left by Dr Edwards. We should then see the national character as described in history illustrated by the development, while the identity of the race would be shown by the external characters or type.
While, therefore, we would offer our best thanks to Dr Edwards for this valuable contribution to the natural history of man, we earnestly hope to see the subject taken up, not only on a more extended scale, as Dr Edwards himself recommends, but also on phrenological principles.