I have spoken above of a three-fold and four-fold division as equally indicated in Scripture, and I think, from non-observance of this, the close approximation of these systems to Genesis is not sufficiently recognised. I refer to the three progenital races, and the Canaanite marked off and distinguished from the rest by a curse. I shall enlarge upon this point in another chapter (Chap. v). I will only observe now that I do not venture to say that the Canaanite is co-extensive with the Turanian, which is more a philological than an ethnological division of mankind, or that their characteristics in all respects correspond.[37] I limit my argument now to indicating the correspondence between the Canaanite and the aboriginal tribes in India. [37] If space allowed, I think the traditional lines might be indicated as plainly from the philological as from the ethnological point of view. This correspondence I find not only in the features already noted--their blackness and their intellectual inferiority--but in their enslavement to the superior races of mankind whenever they came into contact and collision with them. Is not this everywhere also the mark of the Turanian race? are not these conflicts in primitive life always with the Turanian race? and are they not in Asia, as in Africa, in a state of subjugation or dependence? At any rate, this is the condition in which we find the Turanian in India, so fully expressed in their name of "Sudras."[38] [38] "According to the sacred law-book, entitled the Ordinances of Menu, the Creator, that the human race might be multiplied, caused the Brahmin, Cshatriya, the Vaisya, and the _Sudra_ (so named from Scripture, protection, wealth, and _labour_), to proceed from his mouth, arm, thigh, and foot."--_Brit. Ency._ The "Fatimala," a Sanskrit work on Hindu castes, says, "the other, _i.e._, the Sudra, should voluntarily serve the three other tribes, and therefore he became a Sudra; he _should_ humble himself at their feet."