POLYGENISM. - From the Greek πολός = many and γένος = origin, it is the hypothesis that derives present-day mankind from several initial couples, whether belonging to a single already-human stock (D. Rosa, G. Montandon, G. Colosi, P. Teilhard de Chardin) or to several already-human stocks (H. Klaatsch, G. Sergi, G. L. Sera, J. Arldt). In the first case we would have monophyletism, in the second polyphyletism.
The couples would have appeared simultaneously over the whole earth (hologenesis) or over a circumscribed zone, either "by brood" or "by lineage" (Sergi) or "by bush" (A. and J. Bouyssonie). Polygenism is owed to Isaac de la Peyrère (1594-1676), a Marrano, Calvinist and finally Catholic, who, in order to reconcile the conflicts between biblical chronology and the literary sources of the Chaldeans, the Egyptians, etc., and the demands of astronomy, astrology, etc., and to explain the differences among the human races, especially the American and Australian ones, elaborated with twenty years of unremitting study the theory of the pre-Adamites. Recently he has been followed, albeit unwittingly, by P. Lecomte du Noüy. Others embraced polygenism for scientific reasons: Desmoulins, Gerdy, Morton, Nott, Gliddon; among the moderns, Klaatsch (1910), G. Sergi (1911), Sera (1918), the hologenists, Teilhard de Chardin; M. Calhoun for political reasons. Others, especially among Catholics, strove to reconcile polygenism with the texts of Sacred Scripture (J. Guitton, R. Boigelot, H. Rondet, Dubarle, A. and J. Bouyssonie, J. Bataini). However, the majority of scientists and Catholic writers are opposed to polygenism.
Isaac de la Peyrère (Praeadamitae..., s. l. 1655; Systema theologicum ex Praeadamitarum hypothesi, part I, s. l. 1655) bases his theory on Sacred Scripture and finds in Genesis two creations of mankind. The first, in Gen. 1, 26-31, of the pre-Adamites, carried out together with that of the plants and animals. The pre-Adamites would have been drawn from the dust "verbo Dei" simultaneously, over the whole earth, in innumerable couples, so that they would not be brothers among themselves and in Sacred Scripture would be called "filii hominum."
After the pre-Adamites had populated the earth, God would have created Adam "infans" and from Adam would have drawn Eve (second creation: Gen. 2, 2-25). Eve, having become an adult, would have been led by God to Adam, who would not have found among the women of the pre-Adamites a helper like himself.
The creation of Adam would differ from that of the pre-Adamites because it was made from that from which the earth itself was drawn and "manu (non verbo) Dei et lutum manibus subigendo." The descendants of Adam would be called filii Dei and "sons of Adam."
To them would belong Cain, Ham, Ishmael, Esau, the Jews. They would be descendants of Adam in the same way that Christ is presented as son of Adam and of God (Lk. 3, 23-38). The descendants of the pre-Adamites would be the gentiles, the Americans, the Australians, the Greenlanders, the home-born slaves of Abraham (Gen. 17, 22. 27). To the pre-Adamites God would have given only the natural law but without sanction and the corresponding imputability; to Adam the positive law with its corresponding sanction. He would have been placed in the earthly paradise to represent the person of all men. Hence his sin would have been imputed to all mankind, including the pre-Adamites.
De la Peyrère draws his principal argument from Rom. 5, 12-14 interpreted in a wholly arbitrary manner (for its exposition and confutation see B. Mariani, Il P. e s. Paolo: Rom. 5, 12-14, in Eustes docete, 4 [1951] pp. 126-45). The system of de la Peyrère was condemned by ecclesiastical authority, abjured by the author himself and opposed by all his contemporaries. P. Lecomte du Noüy too, in Genesis, distinguishes two creations. According to Gen. 1, 26-28 a couple would have been created endowed with only the human form and deprived of the soul and of consciousness. Indeed God would have given it an order, "Increase and multiply," which it could not evade. According to Gen. 2, 7-25 (the eighth day, according to Lecomte) God would have fashioned Adam, would have breathed the soul into his nostrils and would have communicated consciousness to him. Indeed he would have given him an order which he was free to transgress, forbidding him, on pain of death, to eat the forbidden fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The Bible would be interested only in the descendants of Adam because "he alone, by virtue of consciousness, is capable, through his struggle against animal instincts, of ensuring properly human progress."
This theory too has no biblical foundation, because in Genesis there is no question of two creations, but only of two accounts of the same creation.
[Nor can the infusion of the soul and of consciousness be reserved to the second humanity. On the contrary, only of the first is it said that it was created in the image and likeness of God. While the one that fell into sin was the second! (cf. B. Mariani, article cited, pp. 132-36).
The Catholic authors who claim to reconcile the texts of Sacred Scripture with polygenism and with the dogma of original sin maintain: a) that in Rom. 5, 12-21 what would be brought out principally is "the universal and hereditary guilt of mankind and the fullness of redemption," and less, instead, the common origin of mankind (A. and J. Bouyssonie). b) In Genesis there would be no question of a rigorously single sin. More than on the uniqueness of the sin, insistence would be placed on the decadence produced by sin (Dubarle; cf. Teilhard de Chardin, Guitton, Boigelot, Rondet, Chaine). c) Original sin would have been committed by a whole hypothetical humanity contemporary with Adam (A. and J. Bouyssonie, R. Seeberg). d) The Adam-Christ parallelism (Rom. 5) would have a purely illustrative value (Bataini). e) Others tend to minimize the historical value of the first chapters of Genesis. However, all these authors admit that their attempts depart from the obvious and traditional interpretation of the texts in question and that they are moved by the desire (hence the preconception) to reconcile the sources of Revelation with the presumed polygenism of the sciences.
But that present-day mankind descends from a single progenitor, from a single initial couple, from the biblical Adam and Eve, can be demonstrated from Sacred Scripture and from Tradition. They decisively teach monogenism and therefore exclude polygenism (v. MONOGENISMO and B. Mariani, article cited, pp. 126-132, 136-45).
Genesis is polygenist for the lower beings: God created them in their species. Man, on the other hand, was created according to a most perfect, unique species, that is, according to the image and likeness of God. The couple Adam-Eve is connected with the creative work of God and with the historical succession of mankind through the links of the genealogies of the Patriarchs (v.) before and after the flood. Apart from Adam - according to Genesis - God created no other man, apart from Eve he drew no other woman from Adam. Adam is considered "the προτόπλαστος, the πατέρα κόσμου, the only one created, the one who came forth from the earth, the seed from which all mankind descends" (Wis. 10, 1; 7, 1; Tob. 8, 8). From a single woman sin has its beginning (Sir. 25, 24). Mankind is a conglomerate of "bènè 'Adhâm" (Deut. 32, 8; Eccl. 3, 21 etc.). The texts of the New Testament: Rom. 5, 12, 19; I Cor. 15, 21. 22. 45-49; Act. 17, 26 depend on Genesis and are more explicitly contrary to polygenism (on this see B. Mariani, art. cited, pp. 137-46, 1932; F. Ceuppens, Le p. et la Bible, in Angelicum, 24 [1947], pp. 20-32). They exclude the collective origin of mankind and reconnect it implicitly and explicitly to a single man, by reason of original sin and its consequences and of the "psychic" body that is inherited by carnal descent from Adam.
The Pontifical Biblical Commission and the Vatican Council are opposed to polygenism. In Humani generis only that polygenism is condemned according to which: 1) Adam would not be the progenitor by generation of the entire present human race; and which 2) considers Adam not a single individual, but a collectivity of progenitors. And this because it cannot be reconciled with the dogma of the universality of original sin. If indeed humanity does not descend by generation from Adam, it would not contradict it. It does not therefore deal with pre-Adamites extinct before Adam, nor with beings who were not true men, even if introduced into present humanity, nor with men contemporary with Adam, except insofar as they are progenitors by generation of present humanity. The scientist is therefore free to range over that field, having as his guide Sacred Scripture and the doctrine of the Church.
The arguments of the sciences in favor of polygenism are drawn: 1) from the grandeur of the human race: « La science laissée à elle-même ne songerait jamais (c'est le moins qu'on puisse dire) à attribuer une base aussi étroite que deux individus, à l'énorme édifice du genre humaine » (Teilhard de Chardin, Que faut il penser du transformisme?, in Revue des questions scientifiques, 97 [1930], p. 95). 2) From comparative anatomy: a) similarities between animal species and human races more clear-cut than those existing among the human races; b) differences among the human races: a) morphological: shape of the head, nose, eyes, hair, proportion of the trunk, of the limbs, color of the skin, etc., by which, for example, the Pygmies differ from the Scandinavians, the Australians from the Eskimos, the Mongols from the Mediterraneans, etc. b) physiological: a) presence of four groups of individuals distinguished on the basis of variations in substances (agglutinins and agglutinogens) permitting or hindering the mutual transfusion of blood. b) Pubertal periods that begin not at the same age, but range from a minimum age of 9/10 years to 20/21. γ) psychic: quickness and kind of intelligence, intensity, affectivity, eroticism, etc. At one time the white race was derived from the chimpanzee, the yellow from the orangutan, the black from the gorilla. Klaatsch placed at the base of the genealogical tree a Propithecanthropus hypotheticus which would have branched as follows: 1') Australian men + neighboring races; 2') Pithecanthropus + gibbon; 3') Neanderthal Man + gorilla + chimpanzee + negrillos. 4') Orangutan + Homo Aurignacensis (cf. H. V. Vallois, Les preuves anatomiques de l'origine monophylétique de l'homme, in L'Anthropol., 39 [1929], in Marcozzi, Poligenesi ed evoluzione nelle origini dell'uomo, in Gregorianum, 29 [1948], p. 348; id., La vita e l'uomo, Milan 1946, p. 360). Even greater differences are found in fossil man, between the type of Homo Sapiens, the Pithecanthropus, the Sinanthropus and the Neanderthal man. 5') From hologenesis. Biogeography would show that at a given moment human life appears everywhere, therefore not from a single couple.
However, it is not difficult to answer these arguments. Indeed: 1) today the unity of origin for all human races presently living is commonly admitted. According to the Mendelian laws of heredity a new stock (phylum) can originate not only from very few, but even from a single individual by way of the chromosomes (P. Leonardi, in Palestra del Clero, 28 [1949], pp. 228-30. Cf. Cuenot, J. Rostand in Renie). 2) The similarities between human races and animal species are very limited (configuration of the lacrimal bone and of the neighboring regions of the face, particulars of the femur and of the humerus). They are not complete and are found to be conflicting in one and the same individual (cf. H. V. Vallois, op. cit.; Guy Picard, La science expérimentale est-elle favorable au polygénisme?, in Sciences ecclésiastiques, 4 [1951], pp. 68-70; Mendès Correa, cited therein). The morphological, physiological and psychic differences are quantitative and not qualitative and do not induce specifically different forms or characters, but show all possible forms of transition not only in the different races, but in the different individuals of one and the same group. For example, as regards the color of the skin, the Leucoderms range from the pinkish-white of the Norwegians to the dark brown, almost black, of the Ethiopians. The Xanthoderms from the light yellow, almost white, of the northern Chinese, to the yellow-brown, almost chocolate, of the southern Chinese. The same may be said of the color of the hair, of the eyes, of the shape of the head, of the nose, of the pigmentary spots, of the cranial capacity, structure of the brain, etc. (cf. Marcozzi, Poligenesi ed evoluzione, pp. 10-15). The classification of the rhythm of growth, of the period of puberty, of the blood groups is also found in types of the same race (cf. the classification of Ottenberg in Marcozzi, op. cit., p. 16).
The psychic differences are less favorable to polygenism because it is demonstrated that all races have a substantially equal psyche, that is, they possess the same principles of causality, of identity, the same tendency toward the beautiful, toward the good, the same instinctive language, the same instinct of modesty, the same faculty of speech, etc. (to the contrary: M. Canella, Principi di psicologia razziale, Florence 1941; but cf. Marcozzi, La vita e l'uomo, Milan 1946, pp. 367-68). Therefore it is in favor of unity of origin. So too is the proof of interfecondity. Since all unions even between the most disparate races have produced fertile hybrids, for example, the Boers, a cross of Dutch + Hottentots; the Griqua, of Europeans + Bushmen, etc. Moreover, among all races there are found types with all or almost all the characters of other racial groups, for example, negroid or Mongoloid faces in European populations, European faces in Celebes, etc.
It is more difficult to pronounce on the differences of the extinct races because sufficient control data are not available. However, the races from the Paleolithic onward (Grimaldi, Cro-Magnon, Chancelade, Combe Capelle, etc.) are substantially equal to the present ones morphologically and psychically (burial, weapons, religious rites). It is true that the Neanderthal race presents very primitive characters, but these are found in a more attenuated degree also in the present races (cf. K. Z. Jazuta, in Marcozzi, op. cit., p. 21). Their psychic manifestations are common to the other races. For the Pithecanthropus its human nature is not certain. The Sinanthropus has a more apelike form, but presents human psychic characters. Moreover the forms of the Africanthropus (Lake Niarasa), of the Ngandong man (Java) can be considered intermediate between the Sinanthropus and the Neanderthal type. Thus also intermediate forms between the Neanderthal and the present races are the types of Steinheim, Uzbekistan, the skeletons of Carmel and the skull of Sacco Pastore (cf. H. Weinert, W. F. F. Oppenworth, F. Berckhemer, G. T. Debetz, Th. D. Mc Cown, A. Keith-Mc Cown in Marcozzi, p. 23).
The argument from hologenesis supposes that living beings, appearing independently and dispersed like drops of dew, would have been of a single species and that by evolution, simultaneously and everywhere, they would have been transformed, giving origin to new species. The human family too would have appeared with many representatives here and there. Its remains would be the most ancient surviving fossils. However, from paleontology the contrary results, namely that the origin of the species is circumscribed to one place from which it emigrates at a later time (for example, the Camelids and the Dugongs). Many species have never had a notable expansion. Regarding man it cannot be established whether the Sinanthropus (Peking), the man of Kanam (Africa) and that of Piltdown (England) are contemporary in the Lower Pleistocene.
The Quaternary embraces periods of many thousands of years. Nor can it be established whether the Lower Pleistocene of Africa corresponds exactly to the Lower Pleistocene of England and of Peking and vice versa.
On the contrary, it is commonly admitted that humanity had a cradle of origin and a center of diffusion like the other species.
In conclusion, the arguments in favor of polygenism serve as working hypotheses for the sciences. On the purely human plane, there are for now no means of determining whether humanity had a polygenist or monogenist origin. Science cannot oppose anything to a monogenist origin. Almost all scientists favor monogenism. Indeed, P. C. J. Carles (L'unité de l'espèce humaine, in Archives de philos., 18 [1948], 88 ff.) goes so far as to establish a single couple. But where human science does not reach, the guidance of Revelation has intervened: Sacred Scripture and the infallible Magisterium of the Church (cf. Guy Picard, op. cit., p. 88 ff.; Marcozzi, op. cit., p. 25).