ut of sight below the surface
of the oceans. The representation of some speculators that the condition
of the human race since its first appearance on earth has been a
condition of universal and hopeless savagery down to a comparatively
modern date, is an assumption merely, an unwarranted assumption used in
support of an unproved and unprovable theory of man's origin. Its use in
the name of science by advocates of this theory, like the theory itself,
shows that the constructive power of fancy and imagination will
sometimes supersede every thing else, and substitute its ingenious
constructions for legitimate conclusions, even in scientific
speculation.

We may claim reasonably that Brasseur de Bourbourg's Atlantic theory is
not proved, and on this ground refuse to accept it. So far as appears,
it is a fanciful theory which can not be proved. No one is under
obligation to attempt disproving it. It may, in some cases, win
supporters by enlisting in its favor all the forces of imagination, to
which it appeals with seductive plausibility. On the other hand, it will
be rejected without much regard to what can be said in its favor, for it
interferes with current unreasoning beliefs concerning antiquity and
ancient history, and must encounter vehement contradiction from habits
of thought fixed by these beliefs. True, some of the stock views of
antiquity, by which it will be earnestly opposed, are themselves far
more destitute of foundation in either fact or reason; but this will
make no difference, as the habit of never allowing them to be subjected
to the searching power of reason does not permit such persons either to
believe or deny any thing connected with this topic in a reasonable
manner.

Some of the uses made of this theory can not endure criticism. For
instance, when he makes it the basis of an assumption that all the
civilization of the Old World went originally from America, and claims
particularly that the supposed "Atlantic race" created Egypt, he goes
quite beyond reach of the considerations used to give his hypothesis a
certain air of probability. It may be, as he says, that for every
pyramid in Egypt there are a thousand in Mexico and Central America, but
the ruins in Egypt and those in America have nothing in common. The two
countries were entirely different in their language, in their styles of
architecture, in their written characters, and in the physical
characteristics of their earliest people, as they ar