Another solution seems to me equally ready to hand, and to solve so much more. But first, how does Mr Hunter account for this bitter feeling? He suggests contempt for their "uncouth talk," "their gross habits of eating," and, what comes near to the truth, as I apprehend it, their blackness and their paganism. Suppose, then, we go a step further, and say that the highly intellectual Japhetic race met thus suddenly and unexpectedly the outcast Canaanitish race, with the curse upon them, recognisable in their colour and deficiencies, and of whom they would have remembered that it had been said, "that they should be the servants of their brethren"--will not this explain something of their animosity? I must here remark that although scientific inquiry takes designations of its own, in order the more conveniently to express its distinctions, yet whether we accept the ethnological or philological demarcations of mankind, it is curious how inevitably, as I think De Maistre remarked, we are led back to Shem, Ham, and Japhet. And this is as true now after a half century of scientific progress, as it was when De Maistre wrote. Without asserting that the divisions may ever be distinctly traced with the minuteness of Bochart in his "Geog. Sacra," I still say, that the broad lines of the traditional apportionment of the world, and the three-fold or four-fold division of the race indicated in Scripture, is seen behind the ultimate divisions into which science is brought to separate mankind, whether into Caucasian, Ethiopian, Mongol, with two intermediate varieties, as by Blumenbach; or into Australioid, Negroid, Mongoloid, and Xanthochroic, as by Huxley; or into Brace's division into Aryan, Semitic, Turanian, and Hamitic. Behind these various systems, as behind a grill, we seem to see the forms and faces of the progenitors of the human race discernible, but their existence not capable of contact and actual demonstration, because of the intercepting bars and lattice work.[36] [36] I am throughout assuming acquaintance, on the part of my readers, with the third and fourth of Cardinal Wiseman's "Lectures on Science and Revealed Religion;" for although my argument is distinct from that of the Cardinal, yet I everywhere regard his argument as the background and support of my position; and it is, moreover, part of the aim and intention of this work to show that the general ground and framework (this is, in fact, understating the truth) of Cardinal Wiseman's argument remains intact. There is, I think, somewhere in the Cardinal's works, a passage to the above effect, but I have not been able to recover it.