Miscellaneous Back Matter [pp. 472A-RD06]

THE SERPENT, THE APE AND THE NEGRO.
centuries-for which the good have striven in all time past, and
for which some have died-remain to us and to our descendants unimpaired; and that in all the length and breadth of
our land we have no synonym for the Bastile.
ART. III.-DR. CARTWRIGHT ON THE SERPENT, THE APE AND THE
NEGRO.
[The views which follow are in continuation of a paper which was published in
the May and June number of the Review.-ED.]
In the third chapter of Genesis, Moses gives an account of the
temptation of our first parents by a creature, of which the IHebrew name is NACIIASHu. The learned and pious Dr. Adam Clarke,
in his commentary, states that this word has a great variety of
meanings, of which one is " serpent;" but he thinks that, in the
passage in question, some other word should be sought to designate the nachash "than the word serpent, which, on every view
of the subject, appears inefficient and inapplicable." From the
account given by -Moses, he infers that this creature walked erect,
and was endued with the gifts of speech and reason. At this
point the speculation is taken up by Dr. Samuel A. Cartwright,
of New Orleans, who, by adoption, becomes entitled to the benefit of the arguments which brought Dr. Clarke thus far. These
must be disposed of; therefore, before those are considered which
Dr. Cartwright has superadded. In their conclusions, the doctors disagree. Dr. Clarke conjectures that the beguiler was
" a creature of the ape or orang outang kind." Dr. Cartwright
thinks that if Dr. Clarke "had lived in Louisiana instead of
England, he would have recognized thp negro gardener."* The
issue thus raised between the two does not properly fall within
the scope of the present inquiry; and all of Dr. Clarke's arguments which tend to identify the nachash with the ape, but will
not equally avail for the negro, might be omitted. But as so
much of his theory necessarily comes under review, it will require no great additional labor, and will be more just to him, to
investigate all his arguments. He remarks that his theory
"has been ridiculed, but not disproved."t It might be retorted
that the burden of proof is on him, and a simple denial is sufficient until his theory has been made probable; but, as his reasons seems to have satisfied himself; and are, to a great extent,
endorsed by Dr. Cartwright, they deserve respectful consideration. In such cases, positive proof or disproof is not to be expected. No'more can be required than to expose the insufficiency of Dr. Clarke's arguments.
* De Bow's Review, New Series, Vol. IV, p. 130, Aug., 1860.
t On Eccles. x, 11.
507
. w.
6