| By Author | [ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | Other Symbols ] |
| By Title | [ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | Other Symbols ] |
| By Language |
|
Download this book: [ ASCII | PDF ] Look for this book on Amazon Tweet |
Title: The Moral and Intellectual Diversity of Races - With Particular Reference to Their Respective Influence in the Civil and Political History of Mankind
Author: Gobineau, comte de, Arthur, T. S. (Timothy Shay), 1809-1885
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.
*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "The Moral and Intellectual Diversity of Races - With Particular Reference to Their Respective Influence in the Civil and Political History of Mankind" ***
This book is indexed by ISYS Web Indexing system to allow the reader find any word or number within the document.
DIVERSITY OF RACES***
+---------------------------------------------------------+
|Transcriber's note: |
| |
| Text transliterated from Greek is enclosed by tilde |
| characters (~transliterated Greek~). |
| |
| Text that was in small capitals has been converted to |
| all upper case. |
| |
| The oe ligature has been removed from words such as |
| Boeotia and foetus. |
| |
| A list of corrections is at the end of this e-book. |
+---------------------------------------------------------+
THE MORAL AND INTELLECTUAL DIVERSITY OF RACES.
With Particular Reference to Their Respective Influence
in the Civil and Political History Of Mankind.
From the French of COUNT A. DE GOBINEAU:
With an Analytical Introduction and Copious Historical Notes.
By H. Hotz.
To Which Is Added an Appendix Containing a Summary
of the Latest Scientific Facts Bearing upon the
Question of Unity or Plurality of Species.
By J. C. Nott, M. D., of Mobile.
Philadelphia:
J. B. Lippincott & Co.
1856.
Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1855, by
J. B. Lippincott & Co.,
in the Office of the Clerk of the District Court of the United
States in and for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
TO THE
STATESMEN OF AMERICA,
THIS WORK,
THE FIRST ON THE RACES OF MEN CONTEMPLATED FROM THE
POINT OF VIEW OF THE STATESMAN AND HISTORIAN
RATHER THAN THE NATURALIST,
IS
RESPECTFULLY DEDICATED
BY THE
AMERICAN EDITOR.
EDITOR'S PREFACE.
It has been truly observed that a good book seldom requires, and a bad
one never deserves, a long preface. When a foreign book, however, is
obtruded on the notice of the public, it is but just that the reasons
for so doing should be explained; and, in the present case, this is the
more necessary, as the title of the work might lead many to believe that
it was intended to re-agitate the question of unity or plurality of the
human species--a question which the majority of readers consider
satisfactorily and forever settled by the words of Holy Writ. Such,
however, is not the purpose of either the author or the editor. The
design of this work is, to contribute toward the knowledge of the
leading mental and moral characteristics of the various races of men
which have subsisted from the dawn of history to the present era, and to
ascertain, if possible, the degree to which they are susceptible of
improvement. The annals of the world demonstrate beyond a doubt, that
the different branches of the human family, like the individual members
of a community, are endowed with capacities, different not only in
degree but in kind, and that, in proportion to these endowments, they
have contributed, and still contribute to that great march of progress
of the human race, which we term civilization. To portray the nature of
these endowments, to estimate the influence of each race in the
destinies of all, and to point out the effects of mixture of races in
the rise and fall of great empires, has been the task to the
accomplishment of which, though too extensive for one man, the author
has devoted his abilities. The troubles and sufferings of his native
country, from sudden political gyrations, led him to speculate upon
their causes, which he believes are to be traced to the great variety of
incongruous ethnical elements composing the population of France. The
deductions at which he arrived in that field of observation he subjected
to the test of universal history; and the result of his studies for many
years, facilitated by the experiences of a diplomatic career, are now
before the American public in a translation. That a work, on so
comprehensive a subject, should be exempt from error, cannot be
expected, and is not pretended; but the aim is certainly a noble one,
and its pursuit cannot be otherwise than instructive to the statesman
and historian, and no less so to the general reader. In this country, it
is peculiarly interesting and important, for not only is our immense
territory the abode of the three best defined varieties of the human
species--the white, the negro, and the Indian--to which the extensive
immigration of the Chinese on our Pacific coast is rapidly adding a
fourth, but the fusion of diverse nationalities is nowhere more rapid
and complete; nowhere is the great problem of man's perfectibility being
solved on a grander scale, or in a more decisive manner. While, then,
nothing can be further removed from our intentions, or more repugnant to
our sentiments, than to wage war on religion, or throw ridicule on the
labors of the missionary and philanthropist, we thought it not a useless
undertaking to lay before our countrymen the opinions of a European
thinker, who, without straining or superseding texts to answer his
purposes, or departing in any way from the pure spirit of Christianity,
has reflected upon questions which with us are of immense moment and
constant recurrence.
H. H.
PHILADELPHIA, _Nov. 1, 1855_.
CONTENTS.
ANALYTICAL INTRODUCTION.
The discussion of the moral and intellectual diversity of races
totally independent of the question of unity or plurality of
origin--Leading propositions of this volume, with illustrations and
comments.
CHAPTER I.
POLITICAL CATASTROPHES.
Perishable condition of all human societies--Ancient ideas concerning
this phenomenon--Modern theories 105
CHAPTER II.
ALLEGED CAUSES OF POLITICAL CATASTROPHES EXAMINED.
FANATICISM--Aztec Empire of Mexico.--LUXURY--Modern European States
as luxurious as the ancient.--Corruption of morals--The standard of
morality fluctuates in the various periods of a nation's history:
example, France--Is no higher in youthful communities than in old
ones--Morality of Paris.--IRRELIGION--Never spreads through all
ranks of a nation--Greece and Rome--Tenacity of Paganism 114
CHAPTER III.
INFLUENCE OF GOVERNMENT UPON THE LONGEVITY OF NATIONS.
Misgovernment defined--Athens, China, Spain, Germany, Italy, etc.--Is
not in itself a sufficient cause for the ruin of nations. 138
CHAPTER IV.
DEFINITION OF THE WORD DEGENERACY--ITS CAUSE.
Skeleton history of a nation--Origin of castes, nobility,
etc.--Vitality of nations not necessarily extinguished by
conquest--China, Hindostan--Permanency of their peculiar
civilizations. 146
CHAPTER V.
THE MORAL AND INTELLECTUAL DIVERSITY OF RACES IS NOT THE RESULT OF
POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS.
Antipathy of races--Results of their mixture--The scientific axiom of
the absolute equality of men, but an extension of the
political--Its fallacy--Universal belief in unequal endowment of
races--The moral and intellectual diversity of races not
attributable to institutions--Indigenous institutions are the
expression of popular sentiments; when foreign and imported, they
never prosper--Illustrations: England and France--Roman
Empire--European Colonies--Sandwich Islands--St. Domingo--Jesuit
missions in Paraguay 172
CHAPTER VI.
THIS DIVERSITY IS NOT THE RESULT OF GEOGRAPHICAL SITUATION.
America--Ancient empires--Phenicians and Romans--Jews--Greece and
Rome--Commercial cities of Europe--Isthmus of Darien 201
CHAPTER VII.
INFLUENCE OF CHRISTIANITY UPON MORAL AND INTELLECTUAL DIVERSITY OF
RACES.
The term Christian civilization examined--Reasons for rejecting
it--Intellectual diversity no hindrance to the universal diffusion
of Christianity--Civilizing influence of Christian religion by
elevating and purifying the morals, etc.; but does not remove
intellectual disparities--Various instances--Cherokees--Difference
between imitation and comprehension of civilized life 215
INTRODUCTORY NOTE TO CHAPTERS VIII. AND IX.
Rapid survey of the populations comprised under the appellation
"Teutonic"--Their present ethnological area, and leading
characteristics--Fondness for the sea displayed by the Teutonic
tribes of Northwestern Europe, and perceptible in their
descendants 234
CHAPTER VIII.
CIVILIZATION.
Mr. Guizot's and Mr. W. von Humboldt's definitions examined. Its
elements 246
CHAPTER IX.
ELEMENTS OF CIVILIZATION--CONTINUED.
Definition of the term--Specific differences of
civilizations--Hindoo, Chinese, European, Greek, and Roman
civilizations--Universality of Chinese civilization--Superficiality
of ours--Picture of the social condition of France 272
CHAPTER X.
QUESTION OF UNITY OR PLURALITY OF RACES.
Systems of Camper, Blumenbach, Morton, Carus--Investigations of Owen,
Vrolik, Weber--Prolificness of hybrids, the great scientific
stronghold of the advocates of unity of species 312
CHAPTER XI.
PERMANENCY OF TYPES.
The language of Holy Writ in favor of common origin--The permanency
of their characteristics separates the races of men as effectually
as if they were distinct creations--Arabs, Jews--Prichard's
argument about the influence of climate examined--Ethnological
history of the Turks and Hungarians 336
CHAPTER XII.
CLASSIFICATION OF RACES.
Primary varieties--Test for recognizing them; not always
reliable--Effects of intermixture--Secondary varieties--Tertiary
varieties--Amalgamation of races in large cities--Relative scale of
beauty in various branches of the human family--Their inequality in
muscular strength and powers of endurance 368
NOTE TO THE PRECEDING CHAPTER.
The position and treatment of woman among the various races of men a
proof of their moral and intellectual diversity 384
CHAPTER XIII.
PERFECTIBILITY OF MAN.
Imperfect notions of the capability of savage tribes--Parallel
between our civilization and those that preceded it--Our modern
political theories no novelty--The political parties of Rome--Peace
societies--The art of printing a means, the results of which depend
on its use--What constitutes a "living" civilization--Limits of the
sphere of intellectual acquisitions 391
CHAPTER XIV.
MUTUAL RELATIONS OF DIFFERENT MODES OF INTELLECTUAL CULTURE.
Necessary consequences of a supposed equality of all races--Uniform
testimony of history to the contrary--Traces of extinct
civilizations among barbarous tribes--Laws which govern the
adoption of a state of civilization by conquered
populations--Antagonism of different modes of culture; the Hellenic
and Persian, European and Arab, etc. 414
CHAPTER XV.
MORAL AND INTELLECTUAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE THREE GREAT VARIETIES.
Impropriety of drawing general conclusions from individual
cases--Recapitulatory sketch of the leading features of the Negro,
the Yellow, and the White races--Superiority of the
latter--Conclusion of volume the first 439
APPENDIX.
BY J. C. NOTT, M. D.
A.--Dr. Morton's later tables 461
B.--Species; varieties. Latest experiments upon the laws of
hybridity 473
C.--Biblical connections of the question of unity or plurality of
species 504
ANALYTICAL INTRODUCTION.
Before departing on one's travels to a foreign country, it is well to
cast a glance on the map, and if we expect to meet and examine many
curiosities, a correct itinerary may not be an inconvenient travelling
companion. In laying before the public the present work of Mr. Gobineau,
embracing a field of inquiry so boundless and treating of subjects of
such vast importance to all, it has been thought not altogether useless
or inappropriate to give a rapid outline of the topics presented to the
consideration of the reader--a ground-plan, as it were, of the extensive
edifice he is invited to enter, so that he may afterwards examine it at
leisure, and judge of the symmetry of its parts. This, though fully
sensible of the inadequacy of his powers to the due execution of the
task, the present writer has endeavored to do, making such comments on
the way, and using such additional illustrations as the nature of the
subject seemed to require.
* * * * *
Whether we contemplate the human family from the point of view of the
naturalist or of the philosopher, we are struck with the marked
dissimilarity of the various groups. The obvious physical
characteristics by which we distinguish what are termed different races,
are not more clearly defined than the psychical diversities observable
among them. "If a person," says the learned vindicator of the unity of
the human species,[1] "after surveying some brilliant ceremony or court
pageant in one of the splendid cities of Europe, were suddenly carried
into a hamlet in Negro-land, at the hour when the sable tribes recreate
themselves with dancing and music; or if he were transported to the
saline plains over which bald and tawny Mongolians roam, differing but
little in hue from the yellow soil of their steppes, brightened by the
saffron flowers of the iris and tulip; if he were placed near the
solitary dens of the Bushman, where the lean and hungry savage crouches
in silence, like a beast of prey, watching with fixed eyes the birds
which enter his pitfall, or greedily devouring the insects and reptiles
which chance may bring within his grasp; if he were carried into the
midst of an Australian forest, where the squalid companions of kangaroos
may be seen crawling in procession, in imitation of quadrupeds, would
the spectator of such phenomena imagine the different groups which he
had surveyed to be the offspring of one family? And if he were led to
adopt that opinion, how would he attempt to account for the striking
diversities in their aspect and manner of existence?"
These diversities, so graphically described by Mr. Prichard, present a
problem, the solution of which has occupied the most ingenious minds,
especially of our times. The question of unity or plurality of the human
species has of late excited much animated discussion; great names and
weighty authorities are enlisted on either side, and a unanimous
decision appears not likely to be soon agreed upon. But it is not my
purpose, nor that of the author to whose writings these pages are
introductory, to enter into a contest which to me seems rather a dispute
about words than essentials. The distinguishing physical characteristics
of what we term races of man are recognized by all parties, and whether
these races are _distinct species_ or _permanent varieties_[2] only of
the same, cannot affect the subject under investigation. In whatever
manner the diversities among the various branches of the human family
may have originated, whether they are primordial or were produced by
external causes, their permanency is now generally admitted. "The
Ethiopian cannot change his skin." If there are, or ever have been,
external agencies that could change a white man into a negro, or _vice
versa_, it is obvious that such causes have either ceased to operate, or
operate only in a lapse of time so incommensurable as to be imponderable
to our perceptions, for the races which now exist can be traced up to
the dawn of history, and no well-authenticated instance of a
transformation under any circumstances is on record. In human reasoning
it is certainly legitimate to judge of the future by the experiences of
the past, and we are, therefore, warranted to conclude that if races
have preserved their identity for the last two thousand years, they will
not lose it in the next two thousand.
It is somewhat singular, however, that while most writers have ceased to
explain the physical diversities of races by external causes, such as
climate, food, etc., yet many still persist in maintaining the absolute
equality of all in other respects, referring such differences in
character as are undeniable, solely to circumstances, education, mode of
life, etc. These writers consider all races as merely in different
stages of development, and pretend that the lowest savage, or at least
his offspring, may, by judicious training, and in course of time, be
rendered equal to the civilized man. Before mentioning any facts in
opposition to this doctrine, let us examine the reasoning upon which it
is based.
"Man is the creature of circumstances," is an adage extended from
individuals to races, and repeated by many without considering its
bearing. The celebrated author of _Wealth of Nations_[3] says, "that the
difference between the most dissimilar characters, between a philosopher
and a common street porter, for example, arises, not so much from
nature, but from habit and education." That a mind, which, with proper
nurture, might have graced a philosopher, should, under unfavorable
circumstances, remain forever confined in a narrow and humble sphere,
does not, indeed, seem at all improbable; but Dr. Smith certainly does
not mean to deny the existence of natural talents, of innate peculiar
capacities for the accomplishment of certain purposes. This is what they
do who ascribe the mental inequality of the various branches of the
human family to external circumstances only. "The intellectual qualities
of man," say they, "are developed entirely by education. The mind is, at
first, a perfect blank, fitted and ready to receive any kind of
impressions. For these, we are dependent on the political, civil, and
religious institutions under which we live, the persons with whom we are
connected, and the circumstances in which we are placed in the different
periods of life. Wholly the creatures of association and habit, the
characters of men are formed by the instruction, conversation, and
example of those with whom they mix in society, or whose ideas they
imbibe in the course of their reading and studies."[4] Again: "As all
men, in all nations, are of the same species, are endowed with the same
senses and feelings, and receive their perceptions and ideas through
similar organs, the difference, whether physical or moral, that is
observed in comparing different races or assemblages of men, can arise
only from external and adventitious circumstances."[5] The last position
is entirely dependent on the first; if we grant the first, relating to
individuals, the other follows as a necessary consequence. For, if we
assume that the infinite intellectual diversities of individuals are
owing solely to external influences, it is self-evident that the same
diversities in nations, which are but aggregations of individuals, must
result from the same causes. But are we prepared to grant this first
position--to assert that man is but an automaton, whose wheelwork is
entirely without--the mere buffet and plaything of accident and
circumstances? Is not this the first step to gross materialism, the
first argument laid down by that school, of which the great Locke has
been stigmatized as the father, because he also asserts that the human
mind is at first a blank tablet. But Locke certainly could not mean that
all these tablets were the same and of equal value. A tablet of wax
receives an impression which one of marble will not; on the former is
easily effaced what the other forever retains. We do not deny that
circumstances have a great influence in moulding both moral and
intellectual character, but we do insist that there is a primary basis
upon which the degree of that influence depends, and which is the work
of God and not of man or chance. What agriculturist could be made to
believe that, with the same care, all plants would thrive equally well
in all soils? To assert that the character of a man, whether good or
wicked, noble or mean, is the aggregate result of influences over which
he has no control, is to deny that man is a free agent; it is infinitely
worse than the creed of the Buddhist, who believes that all animated
beings possess a detached portion of an all-embracing intelligence,
which acts according to the nature and capacity of the machine of clay
that it, for the time, occupies, and when the machine is worn out or
destroyed, returns, like a rivulet to the sea, to the vast ocean of
intelligence whence it came, and in which again it is lost. In the name
of common sense, daily observation, and above all, of revelation, we
protest against a doctrine which paves the road to the most absurd as
well as anti-religious conclusions. In it we recognize the fountain
whence flow all the varied forms and names under which Atheism disguises
itself. But it is useless to enter any further upon the refutation of
an argument which few would be willing seriously to maintain. It is one
of those plausible speculations which, once admitted, serve as the basis
of so many brilliant, but airy, theories that dazzle and attract those
who do not take the trouble of examining their solidity.
Once we admit that circumstances, though they may impede or favor the
development of powers, cannot give them; in other words, that they can
call into action, but cannot create, moral and intellectual resources;
no argument can be drawn from the unity of species in favor of the
mental equality of races. If two men, the offspring of the same parents,
can be the one a dunce, the other a genius, why cannot different races,
though descended of the same stock, be different also in intellectual
endowments? We should laugh at, or rather, pity the man who would try to
persuade us that there is no difference in color, etc., between the
Scandinavian and the African, and yet it is by some considered little
short of heresy to affirm, that there is an imparity in their minds as
well as in their bodies.
We are told--and the objection seems indeed a grave one--that if we
admit psychical as well as physical gradations in the scale of human
races, the lowest must be so hopelessly inferior to the higher, their
perceptions and intellectual capacities so dim, that even the light of
the gospel cannot illumine them. Were it so, we should at once abandon
the argument as one above human comprehension, rather than suppose that
God's mercy is confined to any particular race or races. But let us
earnestly investigate the question. On so vital a point the sacred
record cannot but be plain and explicit. To it let us turn. Man--even
the lowest of his species--has a soul. However much defaced God's image,
it is vivified by His breath. To save that soul, to release it from the
bondage of evil, Christ descended upon earth and gave to mankind, not a
complicated system of philosophy which none but the learned and
intellectual could understand, but a few simple lessons and precepts,
comprehensible to the meanest capacity. He did not address himself to
the wise of this world, but bade them be like children if they would
come unto him. The learned Pharisees of Judea jeered and ridiculed him,
but the poor woman of Canaan eagerly picked up the precious crumbs of
that blessed repast which they despised. His apostles were chosen from
among the lowly and simple, his first followers belonged to that class.
He himself hath said:[6] "I thank thee, O Father, Lord of Heaven and
earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and
hast revealed them unto babes." How then shall we judge of the degree of
intellect necessary to be a follower of Jesus? Are the most
intellectual, the best informed men generally the best Christians? Or
does the word of God anywhere lead us to suppose that at the great final
judgment the learned prelate or ingenious expositor of the faith will be
preferred to the humble, illiterate savage of some almost unknown coast,
who eagerly drinks of the living water whereof whosoever drinketh shall
never thirst again?
This subject has met with the attention which its importance deserves,
at the hands of Mr. Gobineau, and he also shows the fallacy of the idea
that Christianity will remove the mental inequality of races. True
religion, among all nations who are blessed with it and sincerely
embrace it, will purify their morals, and establish friendly relations
between man and his fellow-man. But it will not make an _intellectually_
inferior race equal to a superior one, because it was not designed to
bestow talents or to endow with genius those who are devoid of it.
Civilization is essentially the result of man's intellectual gifts, and
must vary in its character and degree like them. Of this we shall speak
again in treating of the _specific differences of civilization_, when
the term _Christian civilization_ will also be examined.
One great reason why so many refuse to recognize mental as well as
physical differences among races, is the common and favorite belief of
our time in the infinite perfectibility of man. Under various forms this
development-theory, so flattering to humanity, has gained an incredible
number of adherents and defenders. We believe ourselves steadily
marching towards some brilliant goal, to which every generation brings
us nearer. We look with a pity, almost amounting to contempt, upon those
who preceded us, and envy posterity, which we expect to surpass us in a
ratio even greater than we believe ourselves to surpass our ancestors.
It is indeed a beautiful and poetic idea that civilization is a vast and
magnificent edifice of which the first generation laid the corner-stone,
and to which each succeeding age contributes new materials and new
embellishments. It is our tower of Babel, by which we, like the first
men after the flood, hope to reach heaven and escape the ills of life.
Some such idea has flattered all ages, but in ours it has assumed a more
definite form. We point with pride to our inventions, annihilating--we
say--time and distance; our labor-saving machines refining the mechanic
and indirectly diffusing information among all classes, and confidently
look forward to a new era close at hand, a millennium to come. Let us,
for a moment, divest ourselves of the conceit which belongs to every
age, as well as to every country and individual; and let us ask
ourselves seriously and candidly: In what are we superior to our
predecessors? We have inventions that they had not, it is true, and
these inventions increase in an astonishing ratio; we have clearer ideas
of the laws which govern the material world, and better contrivances to
apply these laws and to make the elements subservient to our comfort.
But has the human mind really expanded since the days of Pythagoras and
Plato? Has the thinker of the nineteenth century faculties and
perceptions which they had not? Have we one virtue more or one vice less
than former generations? Has human nature changed, or has it even
modified its failings? Though we succeed in traversing the regions of
air as easily and swifter than we now do broad continents and stormy
seas; though we count all the worlds in the immensity of space; though
we snatch from nature her most recondite secrets, shall we be aught but
men? To the true philosopher these conquests over the material world
will be but additional proofs of the greatness of God and man's
littleness. It is the vanity and arrogance of the creature of clay that
make him believe that by his own exertions he can arrive at God-like
perfection. The insane research after the philosopher's stone and the
elixir of life may be classed among the many other futile attempts of
man to invade the immutable decree: "Thus far, and no farther." To
escape from the moral and intellectual imperfections of his nature,
there is but one way; the creature must humbly and devoutly cast himself
into the ever-open arms of the Creator and seek for knowledge where none
knocketh in vain. This privilege he has enjoyed in all ages, and it is a
question which I would hesitate to answer whether the progress of
physical science has not, in many cases at least, rather the effect of
making him self-sufficient and too confident in his own powers, than of
bringing him nearer to the knowledge of the true God. It is one of the
fatal errors of our age in particular, to confound the progress of
physical science with a supposed moral progress of man. Were it so, the
Bible would have been a revelation of science as well as of religion,
and that it is not is now beginning to be conceded, though by no means
so generally as true theology would require; for the law of God was
intended for every age, for every country, for every individual,
independent of the state of science or a peculiar stage of civilization,
and not to be modified by any change which man might make in his
material existence. With due deference, then, to those philosophers who
assert that the moral nature of the human species has undergone a change
at various periods of the world's history; and those enthusiasts who
dream of an approaching millennium, we hold, that human nature has
always been the same and always will be the same, and that no inventions
or discoveries, however promotive of his material well-being, can effect
a moral change or bring him any nearer to the Divine essence than he was
in the beginning of his mundane existence. Science and knowledge may
indeed illumine his earthly career, but they can shed no light upon the
path he is to tread to reach a better world.
Christ himself has recognized the diversity of intellectual gifts in his
parable of the talents, from which we borrow the very term to designate
those gifts; and if, in a community of pure and faithful Christians,
there still are many degrees and kinds of talents, is it reasonable to
suppose that in that millennium--the only one I can imagine--when all
nations shall call on His name with hope and praise, all mental
imparities of races will be obliterated? There are, at the present time,
nations upon whom we look down as being inferior in civilization to
ourselves, yet they are as good--if, indeed, not better--Christians than
we are as a people. The progress of physical science, by facilitating
the intercourse between distant parts of the world, tends, indeed, to
diffuse true religion, and in this manner--and this manner
only--promotes the moral good of mankind. But here it is only an
instrument, and not an agent, as the machines which the architect uses
to raise his building materials do not erect the structure.
One more reason why the unity of the human species cannot be considered
a proof of equal intellectual capability of races. It is a favorite
method of naturalists to draw an analogy between man and the brute
creation; and, so far as he belongs to the animal kingdom, this method
is undoubtedly correct and legitimate. But, with regard to man's higher
attributes, there is an impassable barrier between him and the brute,
which, in the heat of argument, contending parties have not always
sufficiently respected. The great Prichard himself seems sometimes to
have lost sight of it.[7] Thus, he speaks of "psychological" diversities
in varieties of the same undoubted species of animal, though it is
obvious that animals can have no psychological attributes. But I am
willing to concede to Mr. Prichard all the conclusions he derives from
this analogy in favor of unity of the human species. All dogs, he
believes, are derived from one pair; yet, there are a number of
varieties of dogs, and these varieties are different not only in
external appearance, but in what Mr. Prichard would call psychological
qualities. No shepherd expects to train a common cur to be the
intelligent guardian of a flock; no sportsman to teach his hounds, or
their unmixed progeny, to perform the office of setters. That the
characteristics of every variety of dogs are permanent so long as the
breed remains pure, every one knows, and that their distinctive type
remains the same in all countries and through all time, is proved by the
mural paintings of Egypt, which show that, 2,000 years B. C., they were
as well known as in our day.[8] If, then, this permanency of
"psychological" (to take Mr. Prichard's ground) diversity is compatible
with unity of origin in the dog, why not in the case of man? I am far
from desiring to call into question the unity of our species, but I
contend that the rule must work both ways, and if "psychological"
diversities can be permanent in the branches of the same species of
animals, they can be permanent also in the branches of the human family.
In the preceding pages, I have endeavored to show that the unity of
species is no proof of equal intellectual capability of races, that
mental imparities do not conflict with the universality of the gospel
tidings, and that the permanency of these imparities is consistent with
the reasoning of the greatest expounder of the unity theory. I shall now
proceed to state the facts which prove the intellectual diversities
among the races of man. In doing so, it is important to guard against an
error into which so many able writers have fallen, that of comparing
individuals rather than masses.
What we term national character, is the aggregate of the qualities
preponderating in a community. It is obvious that when we speak of the
artistic genius of the Greeks, we do not mean that every native of
Hellas and Ionia was an artist; and when we call a nation unwarlike or
valorous, we do not thereby either stigmatize every individual as a
coward, or extol him as a hero. The same is the case with races. When,
for example, we assert that the black race is intellectually inferior to
the white, it is not implied that the most intelligent negro should
still be more obtuse than the most stupid white man. The maximum
intellect and capacity of one race may greatly exceed the minimum of
another, without placing them on an equality. The testimony of history,
and the results of philanthropic experiment, are the data upon which the
ethnologist must institute his inquiries, if he would arrive at
conclusions instructive to humanity.
Let us take for illustration the white and the black races, supposed by
many to represent the two extremes of the scale of gradation. The whole
history of the former shows an uninterrupted progress; that of the
latter, monotonous stagnation. To the one, mankind owes the most
valuable discoveries in the domain of thought, and their practical
application; to the other, it owes nothing. For ages plunged in the
darkest gloom of barbarism, there is not one ray of even temporary or
borrowed improvement to cheer the dismal picture of its history, or
inspire with hope the disheartened philanthropist. At the boundary of
its territory, the ever-encroaching spirit of conquest of the European
stops powerless.[9] Never, in the history of the world, has a grander
or more conclusive experiment been tried than in the case of the negro
race. We behold them placed in immediate possession of the richest
island in the richest part of the globe, with every advantage that
climate, soil, geographical situation, can afford; removed from every
injurious contact, yet with every facility for constant intercourse with
the most polished nations of the earth; inheriting all that the white
race had gained by the toil of centuries in science, politics, and
morals; and what is the result? As if to afford a still more
irrefragable proof of the mental inequality of races, we find separate
divisions of the same island inhabited, one by the pure, the other by a
half-breed race; and the infusion of the white blood in the latter case
forms a population incontestably and avowedly superior. In opposition to
such facts, some special pleader, bent upon establishing a preconceived
notion, ransacks the records of history to find a few isolated instances
where an individual of the inferior race has displayed average ability,
and from such exceptional cases he deduces conclusions applicable to
the whole mass! He points with exultation to a negro who calculates, a
negro who is an officer of artillery in Russia, a few others who are
employed in a counting-house. And yet he does not even tell us whether
these _raræ aves_ are of pure blood or not, as is often the case.[10]
Moreover, these instances are proclaimed to the world with an air of
triumph, as if they were drawn at random from an inexhaustible arsenal
of facts, when in reality they are all that the most anxious research
could discover, and form the stock in trade of every declaimer on the
absolute equality of races.
Had it pleased the Creator to endow all branches of the human family
equally, all would then have pursued the same career, though, perhaps,
not all with equal rapidity. Some, favored by circumstances, might have
distanced others in the race; a few, peculiarly unfortunately situated,
would have lagged behind. Still, the progress of all would have been in
the same direction, all would have had the same stages to traverse. Now
is this the case? There are not a few who assert it. From our earliest
infancy we are told of the savage, barbarous, semi-civilized, civilized,
and enlightened states. These we are taught to consider as the steps of
the ladder by which man climbs up to infinite perfection, we ourselves
being near the top, while others are either a little below us, or have
scarcely yet firmly established themselves upon the first rounds. In the
beautiful language of Schiller, these latter are to us a mirror in which
we behold our own ancestors, as an adult in the children around him
re-witnesses his own infancy. This is, in a measure, true of nations of
the same race, but is it true with regard to different races? It is
little short of presumption to venture to combat an idea perhaps more
extensively spread than any of our time, yet this we shall endeavor to
do. Were the differences in civilization which we observe in various
nations of the world, differences of degree only, and not of kind, it is
obvious that the most advanced individual in one degree must closely
approach the confines of a higher. But this is not the case. The highest
degree of culture known to Hindoo or Chinese civilization, approaches
not the possessor one step nearer to the ideas and views of the
European. The Chinese civilization is as perfect, in its own way, as
ours, nay more so.[11] It is not a mere child, or even an adult not yet
arrived at maturity; it is rather a decrepit old man. It too has its
degrees; it too has had its periods of infancy, of adult age, of
maturity. And when we contemplate its fruits, the immense works which
have been undertaken and completed under its ægis, the systems of morals
and politics to which it gave rise, the inventions which signalized its
more vigorous periods, we cannot but admit that it is entitled in a high
degree to our veneration and esteem.[12] Moreover it has excellencies
which our civilization as yet has not; it pervades all classes, ours
not. In the whole Chinese empire, comprising, as it does, one-third of
the human race, we find few individuals unable to read and write; in
China proper, none. How many European countries can pretend to this? And
yet, because Chinese civilization has a different tendency from ours,
because its course lies in another direction, we call it a
semi-civilization. At what time of the world's history then have we--the
_civilized_ nations--passed through this stage of semi-civilization?
The monuments of Sanscrit literature, the magnificent remains of palaces
and temples, the great number of ingenious arts, the elaborate systems
of metaphysics, attest a state of intellectual culture, far from
contemptible, among the Hindoos. Yet their civilization, too, we term a
semi-civilization, albeit it is as little like the Chinese as it is like
anything ever seen in Europe.
Few who will carefully investigate and reflect upon these facts, will
doubt that the terms Hindoo, Chinese, European civilization, are not
indicative of degrees only, but mean the respective development of
powers essentially different in their nature. We may consider our
civilization the best, but it is both arrogant and unphilosophical to
consider it as the only one, or as the standard by which to measure all
others. This idea, moreover, is neither peculiar to ourselves nor to our
age. The Chinese even yet look upon us as barbarians; the Hindoos
probably do the same. The Greeks considered all extra-Hellenic peoples
as barbarians. The Romans ascribed the same pre-excellency to
themselves, and the predilections for these nations, which we imbibe
already in our academic years from our classical studies, cause us to
share the same opinion, and to view with their prejudices nations less
akin to us than they. The Persians, for instance, whom the Greeks
self-complacently styled outside-barbarians, were, in reality, a highly
cultivated people, as no one can deny who will examine the facts which
modern research has brought to light. Their arts, if not Hellenic, still
attained a high degree of perfection. Their architecture, though not of
Grecian style, was not inferior in magnificence and splendor. Nay, I for
one am willing to render myself obnoxious to the charge of classical
heresy, by regarding the pure Persians as a people, in some respects at
least, superior to the Greeks. Their religious system seems to me a much
purer, nobler one than the inconsistent, immoral mythology of our
favorites. Their ideas of a good and an evil power in perpetual
conflict, and of a mediator who loves and protects the human race; their
utter detestation of every species of idolatry, have to me something
that prepossesses me in their favor.
I have now alleged, in a cursory manner, my principal reasons for
considering civilizations as specifically distinct. To further dilate
upon the subject, though I greatly desire to do so, would carry me too
far; not, indeed, beyond the scope of the inquiries proposed in this
volume, but beyond the limited space assigned for my introduction. I
shall add only, that--assuming the intellectual equality of all branches
of the human family--we can assign no causes for the differences of
_degree only_ of their development. Geographical position cannot explain
them, because the people who have made the greatest advance, have not
always been the most favorably situated. The greatest geographical
advantages have been in possession of others that made no use of them,
and became of importance only by changing owners. To cite one of a
thousand similar instances. The glorious Mississippi Valley, with its
innumerable tributary streams, its unparalleled fertility and mineral
wealth, seems especially adapted by nature for the abode of a great
agricultural and commercial nation. Yet, the Indians roamed over it, and
plied their canoes on its rivers, without ever being aware of the
advantages they possessed. The Anglo-Saxon, on the contrary, no sooner
perceived them than he dreamed of the conquest of the world. We may
therefore compare such and other advantages to a precious instrument
which it requires the skill of the workman to use. To ascribe
differences of civilizations to the differences of laws and political
institutions, is absolutely begging the question, for such institutions
are themselves an effect and an inherent portion of the civilization,
and when transplanted into foreign soils, never prosper. That the moral
and physical well-being of a nation will be better promoted when liberty
presides over her councils than when stern despotism sits at the helm,
no one can deny; but it is obvious that the nation must first be
prepared to receive the blessings of liberty, lest they prove a curse.
Here is the place for a few remarks upon the epithet Christian, applied
to our civilization. Mr. Gobineau justly observes, that he knows of no
social or political order of things to which this term may fitly be said
to belong. We may justly speak of a Brahminic, Buddhistic, Pagan, Judaic
civilization, because the social or political systems designated by
these appellations were intimately connected with a more or less
exclusive theocratical formula. Religion there prescribed everything:
social and political laws, government, manners, nay, in many instances,
dress and food. But one of the distinguishing characteristics of
Christianity is its universality. Right at the beginning it disclaimed
all interference in temporal affairs. Its precepts may be followed under
every system of government, in every path of life, every variety of
modes of existence. Such is, in substance, Mr. Gobineau's view of the
subject. To this I would add a few comments of my own. The error is not
one of recent date. Its baneful effects have been felt from almost the
first centuries of the establishment of the Church down to our times.
Human legislation ought, indeed, to be in strict accordance with the law
of God, but to commend one system as Christian, and proscribe another
as unchristian, is opening the door to an endless train of frightful
evils. This is what, virtually, they do who would call a civilization
Christian, for civilization is the aggregate social and political
development of a nation, or a race, and the political is always in
direct proportion to the social progress; both mutually influence each
other. By speaking of a Christian civilization, therefore, we assert
that some particular political as well as social system, is most
conformable to the spirit of our religion. Hence the union of church and
State, and the influence of the former in temporal affairs--an influence
which few enlightened churchmen, at least of our age, would wish to
claim. Not to speak of the danger of placing into the hands of any class
of men, however excellent, the power of declaring what legislation is
Christian or not, and thus investing them with supreme political as well
as spiritual authority; it is sufficient to point out the disastrous
effects of such a system to the interests of the church itself. The
opponents of a particular political organization become also the
opponents of the religion which advocates and defends it. The
indifferentism of Germany, once so zealous in the cause of religion, is
traceable to this source. The people are dissatisfied with their
political machinery, and hate the church which vindicates it, and
stigmatizes as impious every attempt at change. Indeed, one has but to
read the religious journals of Prussia, to understand the lukewarmness
of that people. Mr. Brace, in his _Home Life in Germany_, says that many
intelligent natives of that country had told him: Why should we go to
church to hear a sermon that extols an order of things which we know to
be wicked, and in the highest degree detestable? How can a religion be
true which makes adherence to such an order a fundamental article of its
creed?
One of the features of our constitution which Mr. De Tocqueville most
admires, is the utter separation of church and State. Mere religious
toleration practically prevails in most European countries, but this
total disconnection of the religious from the civil institutions, is
peculiar to the United States, and a lesson which it has given to the
rest of the world.
I do not mean that every one who makes use of the word Christian
civilization thereby implies a union of church and State, but I wish to
point out the principle upon which this expression is based, viz: that a
certain social and political order of things is more according to the
spirit of the Christian religion than another; and the consequences
which must, or at least may, follow from the practical acceptation of
this principle. Taking my view of the subject, few, I think, will
dispute that the term Christian civilization is a misnomer. Of the
civilizing influence of Christianity, I have spoken before, but this
influence would be as great in the Chinese or Hindoo civilizations,
without, in the least, obliterating their characteristic features.
Few terms of equal importance are so vaguely defined as the term
CIVILIZATION; few definitions are so difficult. In common parlance, the
word civilization is used to designate that moral, intellectual, and
material condition at which the so-called European race, whether
occupying the Eastern or the Western continent, has arrived in the
nineteenth century. But the nations comprised in this race differ from
one another so extensively, that it has been found necessary to invent a
new term: _enlightenment_. Thus, Great Britain, France, the United
States, Switzerland, several of the States of the German Confederacy,
Sweden, and Denmark, are called enlightened; while Russia, Spain,
Portugal, Italy, Brazil, and the South American republics are merely
civilized. Now, I ask, in what does the difference consist?
Is the diffusion of knowledge by popular education to be the test? Then
Great Britain and France would fall far below some countries now placed
in the second, or even third rank. Denmark and China would be the most
civilized countries in the world; nay, even Thibet, and the rest of
Central Asia, would take precedence before the present champions of
civilization. The whole of Germany and Switzerland would come next, then
the eastern and middle sections of the United States, then the southern
and western; and, after them, Great Britain and France. Still retaining
the same scale, Russia would actually be ranked above Italy, the native
clime of the arts. In Great Britain itself, Scotland would far surpass
England in civilization[13].
Is the perfection to which the arts are carried, the test of
civilization? Then Bavaria and Italy are the most civilized countries.
Then are we far behind the Greeks in civilization. Or, are the useful
arts to carry the prize? Then the people showing the greatest mechanical
genius is the most civilized.
Are political institutions to be the test? Then the question, "Which is
the best government?" must first be decided. But the philosophic answer
would be: "That which is best adapted to the genius of the people, and
therefore best answers the purposes for which all government is
instituted." Those who believe in the abstract superiority of any
governmental theory, may be compared to the tailor who would finish some
beau-ideal of a coat, without taking his customer's measure. We could
afford to laugh at such theorists, were not their schemes so often
recorded in blood in the annals of the world. Besides, if this test be
admitted, no two could agree upon what was a civilized community. The
panegyrist of constitutional monarchy would call England the only
civilized country; the admirer of municipal liberty would point to the
Hanse towns of the Middle Ages, and their miserable relics, the present
free cities of Germany; the friend of sober republicanism would exclude
from the pale of civilization all but the United States and Switzerland;
the lover of pure democracy would contend that mankind had retrograded
since the time of Athens, and deplore that civilization was now confined
to some few rude mountain or nomadic tribes with few and simple wants;
finally, the defender of a paternal autocracy would sigh for the days of
Trajan or Marcus Aurelius, and hesitate whether, in our age, Austria or
Russia deserved the crown.
Neither pre-eminence in arts and sciences, nor in popular instruction,
nor in government, can singly be taken as the test of civilization.
Pre-eminence in all, no country enjoys. Yet all these are signs of
civilization--the only ones by which we distinguish and recognize it.
How, then, shall we define this term? I would suggest a simple and, I
think, sufficiently explicit definition: Civilization is the continuous
development of man's moral and intellectual powers. As the aggregate of
these differs in different nations, so differs the character of their
civilization. In one, civilization manifests itself in the perfection of
the arts, either useful or polite; in another, in the cultivation of the
sciences; in a third; in the care bestowed upon politics, or, in the
diffusion of knowledge among the masses. Each has its own merits, each
its own defects; none combines the excellencies of all, but whichever
combines the most with fewest defects, may be considered the best, or
most perfect. It is because not keeping this obvious truth in view that
John Bull laughs (or used to laugh) self-complacently at Monsieur
Crapaud, and that we ourselves sometimes laugh at his political capers,
forgetting that the thinkers of his nation have, for the last century at
least, led the van in science and politics--yes, even in politics.[14]
It is, for the same reason, that the Frenchman laughs at the German, or
the Dutchman; that the foreigner cannot understand that there is an
_American civilization_ as well, and, bringing his own country's
standard along with him, finds everything either too little or too
great; or, that the American, going to the native soil of the ripest
scholars in the world, and seeing brick and mortar carried up by hand to
the fourth story of a building in process of erection,[15] or seeing
five men painfully perform a job which his youngest son would have
accomplished without trouble by the simplest, perhaps self-invented,
contrivance, revolves in his own mind how it is possible that these
people--when the schoolmaster is abroad, too--are still so many
centuries "behind the time." Thus each nation has its own standard by
which it judges its neighbors; but when extra-European nations, such as
the Chinese or Hindoos, are to be judged, all unite in voting them
_outside barbarians_.
Here, then, we have indubitable proofs of moral and intellectual
diversities, not only in what are generally termed different races, but
even in nations apparently belonging to the same race. Nor do I see in
this diversity ought that can militate against our ideas of universal
brotherhood. Among individuals, diversity of talent does not preclude
friendly intercourse; on the contrary, it promotes it, for rivals seldom
are friends. Neither does superior ability exempt us from the duties
which we owe to our fellow-man.
I have repeatedly made use of the analogy between societies and the
individuals that compose them. I cannot more clearly express my idea of
civilization than by recurring to it again. Civilization, then, is to
nations what the development of his physical and intellectual powers is
to an individual; indeed, it is nothing but the aggregate result of all
these individual powers; a common reservoir to which each contributes a
share, whether large or small. The analogy may be extended further.
Nations may be considered as themselves members of societies, bearing
the same relations to each other and to the whole, as individuals. Thus,
all the nations of Europe contribute, each in its own manner and degree,
to what has been called the _European_ civilization. And, in the same
manner, the nations of Asia form distinct systems of civilizations. But
all these systems ultimately tend to one great aim--the general welfare
of mankind. I would therefore carefully distinguish between the
civilizations of particular nations, of clusters of nations, and of the
whole of our species. To borrow a metaphor from the mechanism of the
universe, the first are like the planets of a solar system,
revolving--though in different orbits, and with different
velocities--around the same common centre; but the solar systems
again--with all their planets--revolve round another, more distant
point.
Let us take two individuals of undoubted intellect. One may be a great
mathematician, the other a great statesman. Place the first at the head
of a cabinet, the second in an observatory, and the mathematician will
as signally fail in correctly observing the changes in the political
firmament, as the other in noting those in the heavenly. Yet, who would
decide which had the superior intellect? This diversity of gifts is not
the result of education. No training, however ingenious, could have
changed an Arago into a Pitt, or _vice versa_. Raphael could under no
circumstances have become a Handel, or either of them a Milton. Nay, men
differ in following the same career. Can any one conceive that Michael
Angelo could ever have painted Vandyke's pictures, Shakspeare written
Milton's verses, Mozart composed Rossini's music, or Jefferson followed
Hamilton's policy? Here, then, we have excellencies, perhaps of equal
degree, but of very different kinds. Nature, from her inexhaustible
store, has not only unequally, but variously, bestowed her favors, and
this infinite variety of gifts, as infinite as the variety of faces, God
has doubtless designed for the happiness of men, and for their more
intimate union, in making them dependent one on another. As each
creature sings his Maker's praise in his own voice and cadence, the
sparrow in his twitter, the nightingale in her warble, so each human
being proclaims the Almighty's glory by the rightful use of his talents,
whether great or small, for the promotion of his fellow-creatures'
happiness; one may raise pious emotion in the breast by the tuneful
melody of his song; another by the beauty and vividness of his images on
canvas or in verse; a third discovers new worlds--additional evidences
of His omnipotence who made them--and, by his calculations,
demonstrates, even to the sceptic, the wonderful mechanism of the
universe; to another, again, it is given to guide a nation's councils,
and, by His assistance, to avert danger, or correct evils. Fie upon
those who would raise man's powers above those of God, and ascribe
diversity of talents to education and accident, rather than to His
wisdom and design. Can we not admire the Almighty as well in the variety
as in a fancied uniformity of His works? Harmony consists in the union
of different sounds; the harmony of the universe, in the diversity of
its parts.
What is true of a society composed of individuals, is true of that vast
political assemblage composed of nations. That each has a career to run
through, a destiny to fulfil, is my firm and unwavering belief. That
each must be gifted with peculiar qualities for that purpose, is a mere
corollary of the proposition. This has been the opinion of all ages:
"The men of Boeotia are noted for their stolidity, those of Attica for
their wit." Common parlance proves that it is now, to-day, the opinion
of all mankind, whatever theorists may say. Many affect to deride the
idea of "manifest destiny" that possesses us Anglo-Americans, but who in
the main doubts it? Who, that will but cast one glance on the map, or
look back upon our history of yesterday only, can think of seriously
denying that great purposes have been accomplished, will still be
accomplished, and that these purposes were designed and guided by
something more than blind chance? Unroll the page of history--of the
great chain of human events, it is true, we perceive but few links;
like eternity, its beginning is wrapt in darkness, its end a mystery
above human comprehension--but, in the vast drama presented to us, in
which nations form the cast, we see each play its part, then disappear.
Some, as Mr. Gobineau has it, act the kings and rulers, others are
content with inferior roles.
As it is incompatible with the wisdom of the Creator, to suppose that
each nation was not specially fitted[16] for the part assigned to it, we
may judge of what they were capable of by what they have accomplished.
History, then, must be our guide; and never was epoch more propitious,
for never has her lamp shone brighter. The study of this important
science, which Niebuhr truly calls the _magistra vitæ_, has received
within our days an impulse such as it never had before. The invaluable
archæological treasures which the linguists and antiquarians of Europe
have rescued from the literature and monuments of the great nations of
former ages, bring--as it were--back to life again the mouldered
generations of the dim past. We no longer content ourselves with
chronological outlines, mere names, and unimportant accounts of kings
and their quarrels; we seek to penetrate into the inner life of those
multitudes who acted their part on the stage of history, and then
disappeared, to understand the modes of thought, the feelings, ideas,
_instincts_, which actuated them, and made them what they were. The
hoary pyramids of the Nile valley are forced to divulge their age, the
date of a former civilization; the temples and sepulchres, to furnish a
minute account of even the private life of their builders;[17] the
arrow-headed characters on the disinterred bricks of the sites of
Babylon and Nineveh, are no longer a secret to the indefatigable
orientalists; the classic writers of Hindostan and China find their most
zealous scholiasts, and profoundest critics, in the capitals of Western
Europe. The dross of childish fables, which age after age has
transmitted to its successor under the name of history, is exposed to
the powerful furnace of reason and criticism, and the pure ore
extracted, by such men as Niebuhr, Heeren, Ranke, Gibbon, Grote. The
enthusiastic lover of ancient Rome now sees her early history in
clearer, truer colors than did her own historians.
But, if history is indispensable to ethnology, the latter is no less so
to a true understanding of history. The two sciences mutually shed light
on one another's path, and though one of them is as yet in its infancy,
its wonderful progress in so short a time, and the almost unparalleled
attention which it has excited at all hands, are bright omens for the
future. It will be obvious that, by _ethnology_, we do not mean
_ethnography_, with which it has long been synonymous. Their meaning
differs in the same manner, they bear almost the same relation to one
another as _geology_ and _geography_. While ethnography contents herself
with the mere description and classification of the races of man,
ethnology, to borrow the expressive language of the editor of the
_London Ethnological Journal_, "investigates the mental and physical
differences of mankind, and the organic laws upon which they depend;
seeks to deduce from these investigations principles of human guidance,
in all the important relations of social and national existence."[18]
The importance of this study cannot be better expressed than in the
words of a writer in the _North British Review_ for August, 1849: "No
one that has not worked much in the element of history, can be aware of
the immense importance of clearly keeping in view the differences of
race that are discernible among the nations that inhabit different parts
of the world.... In speculative history, in questions relating to the
past career and the future destinies of nations, _it is only by a firm
and efficient handling of this conception of our species, as broken up
into so many groups or masses, physiologically different to a certain
extent, that any progress can be made, or any available conclusions
accurately arrived at_."[19]
But in attempting to divide mankind into such groups, an ethnologist is
met by a serious and apparently insurmountable difficulty. The gradation
of color is so imperceptible from the clearest white to the jettest
black; and even anatomical peculiarities, normal in one branch, are
found to exist, albeit in exceptional cases, in many others; so that the
ethnographers scarce know where to stop in their classification, and
while some recognize but three grand varieties, others contend for five,
for eleven, or even for a much greater number. This difficulty arises,
in my estimation, mainly from the attempt to class mankind into
different species, that is, groups who have a separate origin; and
also, from the proneness to draw deductions from individual instances,
by which almost any absurdity can be sustained, or truth refuted. As we
have already inveighed against the latter error, and shall therefore try
to avoid falling into it; and as we have no desire to enter the field of
discussion about unity or plurality of species, we hope, in a great
measure, to obviate the difficulties that beset the path of so many
inquirers. By the word _race_[20] we mean, both here and in the body of
the work, such branches of the human family as are distinguished in the
aggregate by certain well-defined physical or mental peculiarities,
independent of the question whether they be of identical or diverse
origin. For the sake of simplicity, these races are arranged in several
principal classes, according to their relative affinities and
resemblances. The most popular system of arrangement is that of
Blumenbach, who recognizes five grand divisions, distinguished by
appellations descriptive either of color or geographical position, viz:
the White, Circassian, or European; the Yellow, Altaic, Asiatic, or
Mongolian; the Red, American, or Indian; the Brown, or Malay; and,
lastly, the Black, African, or negro. This division, though the most
commonly adopted, has no superior claims above any other. Not only are
its designations liable to very serious objections, but it is, in
itself, entirely arbitrary. The Hottentot differs as much from the negro
as the latter does from the Malay; and the Polynesian from the Malay
more than the American from the Mongolian. Upon the same principle,
then, the number of classes might be indefinitely extended. Mr. Gobineau
thought three classes sufficient to answer every purpose, and these he
calls respectively the white, yellow, and black. Mr. Latham,[21] the
great ethnographer, adopts a system almost precisely similar to our
author's, and upon grounds entirely different. Though, for my own part,
I should prefer a greater number of primary divisions, I confess that
this coincidence of opinion in two men, pursuing, independent of, and
unknown to each other, different paths of investigation, is a strong
evidence of the correctness of their system, which, moreover, has the
merit of great simplicity and clearness.
It must be borne in mind that the races comprised under these divisions,
are by no means to be considered equal among themselves. We should lay
it down as a general truth, that while the entire groups differ
principally in _degree_ of intellectual capacity, the races comprised in
each differ among themselves rather in kind. Thus, we assert upon the
testimony of history, that the white races are superior to the yellow;
and these, in turn, to the black. But the Lithuanian and the Anglo-Saxon
both belong to the same group of races, and yet, history shows that
they differ; so do the Samoyede and the Chinese, the negro of Lower
Guinea, and the Fellah. These differences, observable among nations
classed under the same head, as, for instance, the difference between
the Russians and Italians (both white), we express in every day's
language by the word "genius." Thus, we constantly hear persons speak of
the artistic, administrative, nautical genius of the Greeks, Romans, and
Phenicians, respectively; or, such phrases as these, which I borrow from
Mr. Gobineau: "Napoleon rightly understood the _genius_ of his nation
when he reinstated the Church, and placed the supreme authority on a
secure basis; Charles I. and his adviser did not, when they attempted to
bend the neck of Englishmen under the yoke of absolutism." But, as the
word _genius_ applied to the capacities or tendencies of a nation, in
general implies either too much or too little, it has been found
convenient, in this work, to substitute for it another term--_instinct_.
By the use of this word, it was not intended to assimilate man to the
brute, to express aught differing from intellect or the reasoning
capacity; but only to designate the peculiar manner in which that
intellect or reasoning capacity manifests itself; in other words, the
special adaptation of a nation for the part assigned to it in the
world's history; and, as this part is performed involuntarily and, for
the most part, unconsciously, the term was deemed neither improper nor
inappropriate. I do not, however, contend for its correctness, though I
could cite the authority of high names for its use in this sense; I
contend merely for its convenience, for we thereby gain an easy method
of making distinctions of _kind_ in the mental endowments of races, in
cases where we would hesitate to make distinctions of _degree_. In fact,
it is saying of multitudes only what we say of an individual by speaking
of his _talent_; with this difference, however, that by talent we
understand excellency of a certain order, while instinct applies to
every grade. Two persons of equal intellectual calibre may have, one a
talent for mathematics, the other for literature; that is, one can
exhibit his intellect to advantage only in calculation, the other only
in writing. Thus, of two nations standing equally high in the
intellectual scale, one shall be distinguished for the high perfection
attained in the fine arts, the other for the same perfection in the
useful.
At the risk of wearying the reader with my definitions, I must yet
inflict on him another which is essential to the right understanding of
the following pages. In common parlance, the terms _nation_ and
_people_ have become strictly synonymous. We speak indifferently of the
French people, or the French nation; the English people, or the English
nation. If we make any distinction at all, we perhaps designate by the
first expression the masses; by the second, rather the sovereignty.
Thus, we say the French people are versatile, the French nation is at
war with Russia. But even this distinction is not always made.
My purpose is to restore the word nation to its original signification,
in which it expresses the same as the word race, including, besides, the
idea of some sort of political organization. It is, in fact, nothing but
the Latin equivalent of that word, and was applied, like tribe, to a
collection of individuals not only living under the same government, but
also claiming a closer consanguinity to one another than to their
neighbors. It differs from tribe only in this respect, that it is
applied to greater multitudes, as for instance to a coalescence of
several closely-allied tribes, which gives rise to more complicated
political forms. It might therefore be defined by an ethnologist as _a
population consisting of homogeneous ethnical elements_.
The word _people_, on the contrary, when applied to an aggregation of
individuals living under the same government, implies no immediate
consanguineous ties among them. _Nation_ does not necessarily imply
political unity; _people_, always. Thus, we speak of the Greek _nation_,
though the Greeks were divided into a number of independent and very
dissimilar sovereignties; but, we say the Roman _people_, though the
whole population of the empire obeyed the same supreme head. The Russian
empire contains within its limits, besides the Russians proper, an
almost equal number of Cossacks, Calmucks, Tartars, Fins, and a number
of other races, all very different from one another and still more so
from the Russians, not only in language and external appearance, but in
manners, modes of thinking: in one word, in instincts. By the expression
Russian people I should therefore understand the whole population of
that empire; by Russian nation, only the dominant race to which the Czar
belongs. It is hardly possible to exaggerate the importance of keeping
in view this distinction, as I shall prove by another instance. The
Hungarian people are very nearly equally divided (exclusive of about one
million Germans) into two nations, the Magyars and the Sclaves. Not only
have these two, though for centuries occupying the same soil, remained
unmixed and distinct, but the most intense antipathy exists between
them, which only requires an occasion to display itself in acts of
bloodshed and relentless cruelty, that would make the tenants of hell
shudder. Such an occasion was the recent revolution, in which, while the
Magyars fought like lions for their independence, the Sclaves, knowing
that they would not participate in any advantage the others might gain,
proved more formidable opponents than the Austrians.[22]
If I have been successful in my discrimination between the two words, it
follows plainly that a member of one nation, strictly speaking, can no
more become a member of another by process of law, than a man, by
adopting a child, can make it the fruit of his loins. This rule, though
correct in the abstract, does not always apply to individual cases; but
these, as has already been remarked, cannot be made the groundwork of
general deductions. In conclusion of this somewhat digressional
definition, I would observe that, owing to the great intermixture of the
European populations, produced by their various and intimate mutual
relations, it does not apply with the same force to them as to others,
and this I regard as the reason why the signification of the word has
become modified.
If we will carefully examine the history of great empires, we shall be
able, in almost every instance, to trace their beginning to the activity
of what, in the strictest sense of the word, may be called a nation.
Gradually, as the sphere of that nation expands, it incorporates, and in
course of time amalgamates with foreign elements.
Nimrod, we learn from sacred history, established the Assyrian empire.
At first, this consisted of but little more than the city of Babylon,
and must necessarily have contained a very homogeneous population, if
from no other cause than its narrow geographical limits. At the dawn of
profane history, however, we find this empire extending over boundless
tracts, and uniting under one rule tribes and nations of the most
dissimilar manners and tongues.
The Assyrian empire fell, and that of the Medes rose on its ruins. The
Median monarchy had an humble beginning. Dejoces, says tradition, united
the independent tribes of the Medes. Later, we find them ruling nations
whose language they did not understand, whose manners they despised.
The Persian empire exceeded in grandeur its mighty predecessors.
Originating in a rebellion of a few liberty-loving tribes, concerted and
successfully executed by a popular leader (Cyrus), two generations of
rulers extended its boundaries to the banks of the Nile. In Alexander's
time, it was a conglomeration of a countless number of nations, many of
whom remained under their hereditary rulers while rendering allegiance,
and paying tribute to the great king.
I pass over the Macedonian empire, as of too short a duration to be a
fair illustration. The germ of the Roman empire consisted of a
coalescence of very closely allied tribes: Romulus's band of adventurers
(who must have come from neighboring communities), the Sabines, Albans,
and Latins. At the period of its downfall, it ruled, at least nominally,
over every then known race.
In all these instances, the number of which might be further increased,
we find homogeneousness of population at first, ethnical mixture and
confusion at the end. "But what does this prove? will be asked. That too
great an extension of territory is the cause of weakness? The idea is
old, and out of date in our times, when steam and electricity bring the
outskirts of the largest empire in closer proximity than formerly were
the frontiers of the humblest sovereignty." Extension of territory does
not itself prove a cause of weakness and ruin. The largest empire in the
world is that of China, and, without steam or electricity, it has
maintained itself for 4,000 years, and bids fair, spite of the present
revolution, to last a good long while yet. But, when extension of
territory is attended with the incorporation of heterogeneous masses,
having different interests, different instincts, from the conqueror,
then indeed the extension must be an element of weakness, and not of
strength.
The armies which Xerxes led into Greece were not Persians; but a small
fragment of that motley congregation, the _élite_, the leaven of the
whole mass, was composed of the king's countrymen. Upon this small body
he placed his principal reliance, and when, at the fatal battle of
Salamis, he beheld the slaughter of that valiant and noble band, though
he had hundreds of thousands yet at his command, he rent his garments
and fled a country which he had well-nigh conquered. Here is the
difference between the armies of Cyrus and those of Xerxes and Darius.
The rabbles which obeyed the latter, perhaps contained as much valor as
the ranks of the enthusiastic followers of the first, though the fact
of their fighting under Persian standards might be considered as a proof
of their inferiority. But what interest had they in the success of the
great king? To forge still firmer their own fetters? Could the name of
Cyrus, the remembrance of the storming of Sardis, the siege of Babylon,
the conquest of Egypt, fire them with enthusiasm? Perhaps, in some of
those glorious events, their forefathers became slaves to the tyrants
they now serve, tyrants whose very language they do not understand.
The last armies of tottering Rome were drafted from every part of her
boundless dominions, and of the men who were sent to oppose the
threatening barbarians of the north, some, it might be, felt the blood
of humbled Greece in their veins; some had been torn from a distant home
in Egypt, or Libya; others, perhaps, remembered with pride how their
ancestors had fought the Romans in the times of Juba, or Mithridates;
others, again, boiled with indignation at the oppression of their Gallic
brethren;--could those men respect the glorious traditions of Rome,
could they be supposed to emulate the former legions of the proud city?
It is not, then, an extensive territory that ruins nations; it is a
diversity of instincts, a clashing of interests among the various parts
of the population. When each province is isolated in feelings and
interests from every other, no external foe is wanted to complete the
ruin. Ambitious and adroit men will soon arise who know how to play upon
these interests, and employ them for the promotion of their own schemes.
Nations, in the various stages of their career, have often been compared
to individuals. They have, it is said, their period of infancy, of
youth, of manhood, of old age. But the similitude, however striking, is
not extended further, and, while individuals die a natural death,
nations are supposed always to come to a violent end. Probably, we do
not like to concede that all nations, like all individuals, must
ultimately die a natural death, even though no disease anticipates it;
because we dislike to recognize a rule which must apply to us as well.
Each nation fancies its own vitality imperishable. When we are young, we
seldom seriously think of death; in the same manner, societies in the
period of their youthful vigor and energy, cannot conceive the
possibility of their dissolution. In old age and decrepitude, they are
like the consumptive patient, who, while fell disease is severing the
last thread that binds him to the earth, is still forming plans for
years to come. Falling Rome dreamed herself eternal. Yet, the mortality
of nations admits of precisely the same proof as that of
individuals--universal experience. The great empires that overshadowed
the world, where are they? The memory of some is perpetuated in the
hearts of mankind by imperishable monuments; of others, the slightest
trace is obliterated, the vaguest remembrance vanished. As the great
individual intelligences, whose appearance marks an era in the history
of human thought, live in the minds of posterity, even though no
gorgeous tombstone points out the resting-place of their hull of clay;
while the mausoleum of him whose grandeur was but temporary, whose
influence transient only, carries no meaning on its sculptured surface
to after ages; even so the ancient civilizations which adorned the
globe, if their monuments be not in the domain of thought, their
gigantic vestiges serve but to excite the wonder of the traveller and
antiquary, and perplex the historian. Their sepulchres, however grand,
are mute.[23]
Many have been the attempts to detect the causes why nations die, in
order to prevent that catastrophe; as the physicians of the Middle Ages,
who thought death was always the consequence of disease, sought for the
panacea that was to cure all ills and thus prolong life forever. But
nations, like individuals, often survive the severest attacks of the
most formidable disease, and die without sickness. In ancient times,
those great catastrophes which annihilated the political existence of
millions, were regarded as direct interpositions of Providence, visiting
in its wrath the sins of a nation, and erecting a warning example for
others; just as the remarkable destruction of a noted individual, or the
occurrence of an unusual phenomenon was, and by many is even now,
ascribed to the same immediate agency. But when philosophy discovered
that the universe is governed by pre-established, immutable laws, and
refused to credit miracles not sanctioned by religion; then the dogma
gained ground that punishment follows the commission of sin, as effect
does the cause; and national calamities had to be explained by other
reasons. It was then said, nations die of luxury, immorality, bad
government, irreligion, etc. In other words, success was made the test
of excellency and failure of crime. If, in individual life, we were to
lay it down as an infallible rule, that he who commits no excesses lives
forever, or at least very long; and he who does, will immediately die;
that he who is honest in his dealings, will always prosper more than he
who is not; we should have a very fluctuating standard of morality,
since it has pleased God to sometimes try the good by severe
afflictions, and let the wicked prosper. We should therefore be often
called upon to admire what is deserving of contempt or punishment, and
to seek for guilt in the innocent. This is what we do in nations. Wicked
institutions have been called good, because they were attended with
success; good ones have been pronounced bad, because they failed.
A more critical study of history has demonstrated the fallibility of
this theory, which is now in a great measure discarded, and another
adopted in its stead. It is argued that, at a certain period in its
existence, a nation infallibly becomes degenerated, and thus falls. But,
asks Mr. Gobineau, what is degeneracy? A nation is said to be
degenerated when the virtues of its ancestry are lost. But why are they
lost? Because the nation is degenerated. Is not this like the reasoning
in the child's story-book: Why is Jack a bad boy? Because he disobeys
his parents. Why does he disobey his parents? Because he is a bad boy.
It is necessary, then, to show what degeneracy is. This step in advance,
Mr. Gobineau attempts to make. He shows that each race is distinguished
by certain capabilities, which, if its civilizing genius is sufficiently
strong to enable it to assume a rank among the nations of the world,
determine the character of its social and political development. Like
the Phenicians, it may become the merchant and barterer of the world;
or, like the Greeks, the teacher of future generations; or, like the
Romans, the model-giver of laws and forms. Its part in the drama of
history may be an humble one or a proud, but it is always proportionate
to its powers. These powers, and the instincts or aspirations which
spring from them, never change as long as the race remains pure. They
progress and develop themselves, but never alter their nature. The
purposes of the race are always the same. It may arrive at great
perfection in the useful arts, but, without infiltration of a different
element, will never be distinguished for poetry, painting, sculpture,
etc.; and _vice versa_. Its nature may be belligerent, and it will
always find causes for quarrel; or it may be pacific, and then it will
manage to live at peace, or fall a prey to a neighbor.
In the same manner, the government of a race will be in accordance with
its instincts, and here I have the weighty authority of the author of
_Democracy in America_, in my favor, and the author's whom I am
illustrating. "A government," says De Tocqueville,[24] "retains its sway
over a great number of citizens, far less by the voluntary and rational
consent of the multitude, than by that _instinctive_, and, to a certain
extent, involuntary agreement, which results from similarity of
feelings, and resemblances of opinions. I will never admit that men
constitute a social body, simply because they obey the same head and the
same laws. A society can exist only when a great number of men consider
a great number of things in the same point of view; when they hold the
same opinions upon many subjects, and when the same occurrences suggest
the same thoughts and impressions to their minds." The laws and
government of a nation are always an accurate reflex of its manners and
modes of thinking. "If, at first, it would appear," says Mr. Gobineau,
"as if, in some cases, they were the production of some superior
individual intellect, like the great law-givers of antiquity; let the
facts be more carefully examined, and it will be found that the
law-giver--if wise and judicious--has contented himself with consulting
the genius of his nation, and giving a voice to the common sentiment.
If, on the contrary, he be a theorist like Draco, his system remains a
dead letter, soon to be superseded by the more judicious institutions of
a Solon who aims to give to his countrymen, not the best laws possible,
but the best he thinks them capable of receiving." It is a great and a
very general error to suppose that the sense of a nation will always
decide in favor of what we term "popular" institutions, that is to say,
such in which each individual shares more or less immediately in the
government. Its genius may tend to the establishment of absolute
authority, and in that case the autocrat is but an impersonation of the
_vox populi_, by which he must be guided in his policy. If he be too
deaf or rash to listen to it, his own ruin will be the inevitable
consequence, but the nation persists in the same career.
The meaning of the word degeneracy is now obvious. This inevitable evil
is concealed in the very successes to which a nation owes its splendor.
Whether, like the Persians, Romans, &c., it is swallowed up and
absorbed by the multitudes its arms have subjected, or whether the
ethnical mixture proceeds in a peaceful manner, the result is the same.
Even where no foreign conquests add suddenly hundreds of thousands of a
foreign population to the original mass, the fertility of uncultivated
fields, the opulence of great commercial cities, and all the advantages
to be found in the bosom of a rising nation, accomplish it, if in a less
perceptible, in a no less certain manner. The two young nations of the
world are now the United States and Russia. See the crowds which are
thronging over the frontiers of both. Both already count their foreign
population by millions. As the original population--the initiatory
element of the whole mass--has no additions to its numbers but its
natural increase, it follows that the influent elements must, in course
of time, be of equal strength, and the influx still continuing, finally
absorb it altogether. Sometimes a nation establishes itself upon the
basis of a much more numerous conquered population, as in the case of
the Frankish conquerors of Gaul; then the amalgamation of ranks and
classes produces the same results as foreign immigration. It is clear
that each new ethnical element brings with it its own characteristics or
instincts, and according to the relative strength of these will be the
modifications in government, social relations, and the whole tendencies
of the race. The modifications may be for the better, they may be for
the worse; they may be very gradual, or very sudden, according to the
merit and power of the foreign influence; but in course of time they
will amount to radical, positive changes, and then the original nation
has ceased to exist.
This is the natural death of human societies. Sometimes they expire
gently and almost imperceptibly; oftener with a convulsion and a crash.
I shall attempt to explain my meaning by a familiar simile. A mansion is
built which in all respects suits the taste and wants of the owner.
Succeeding generations find it too small, too dark, or otherwise ill
adapted to their purposes. Respect for their progenitor, and family
association, prevent, at first, very extensive changes, still each one
makes some; and as these associations grow fainter, the changes become
more radical, until at last nothing of the old house remains. But if it
had previously passed into the hands of a stranger, who had none of
these associations to venerate and respect, he would probably have
pulled it down at once and built another.
An empire, then, falls, when the vitalizing principle which gave it
birth is exhausted; when its parts are connected by none but artificial
ties, and artificial ties are all those which unite races possessed of
different instincts. This idea is expressed in the beautiful image of
the inspired prophet, when he tells the mighty king that great truth,
which so many refuse to believe, that all earthly kingdoms must perish
until "the God of Heaven set up a kingdom which shall never be
destroyed."[25] "Thou, O king, sawest, and behold a great image. This
great image, whose brightness was excellent, stood before thee, and the
form thereof was terrible. This image's head was of fine gold, his
breast and his arms of silver, his belly and his thighs of brass, his
legs of iron, his feet part of iron and part of clay. Thou sawest till
that a stone was cut without hands, which smote the image upon his feet
that were of iron and clay, and brake them to pieces. Then was the iron,
the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold, broken to pieces
together, and became like the chaff of the summer threshing-floors; and
the wind carried them away, that no place was found for them."[26]
I have now illustrated, to the best of my abilities, several of the most
important propositions of Mr. Gobineau, and attempted to sustain them
by arguments and examples different from those used by the author. For a
more perfect exposition I must refer the reader to the body of the work.
My purpose was humbly to clear away such obstacles as the author has
left in the path, and remove difficulties that escaped his notice. The
task which I have set myself, would, however, be far from accomplished,
were I to pass over what I consider a serious error on his part, in
silence and without an effort at emendation.
Civilization, says Mr. Gobineau, arises from the combined action and
mutual reaction of man's moral aspirations, and the pressure of his
material wants. This, in a general sense, is obviously true. But let us
see the practical application. I shall endeavor to give a concise
abstract of his views, and then to point out where and why he errs.
In some races, says he, the spiritual aspirations predominate over their
physical desires, in others it is the reverse. In none are either
entirely wanting. According to the relative proportion and intensity of
either of these influences, which counteract and yet assist each other,
the tendency of the civilization varies. If either is possessed in but a
feeble degree, or if one of them so greatly outweighs the other as to
completely neutralize its effects, there is no civilization, and never
can be one until the race is modified by intermixture with one of higher
endowments. But if both prevail to a sufficient extent, the
preponderance of either one determines the character of the
civilization. In the Chinese, it is the material tendency that prevails,
in the Hindoo the other. Consequently we find that in China,
civilization is principally directed towards the gratification of
physical wants, the perfection of material well-being. In other words,
it is of an eminently utilitarian character, which discourages all
speculation not susceptible of immediate practical application.
This well describes the Chinese, and is precisely the picture which M.
Huc, who has lived among them for many years, and has enjoyed better
opportunities for studying their genius than any other writer, gives of
them in his late publication.[27]
Hindoo culture, on the contrary, displays a very opposite tendency.
Among that nation, everything is speculative, nothing practical. The
toils of human intellect are in the regions of the abstract where the
mind often loses itself in depths beyond its sounding. The material
wants are few and easily supplied. If great works are undertaken, it is
in honor of the gods, so that even their physical labor bears homage to
the invisible rather than the visible world. This also is a tolerably
correct picture.
He therefore divides all races into these two categories, taking the
Chinese as the type of the one and the Hindoos as that of the other.
According to him, the yellow races belong pre-eminently to the former,
the black to the latter, while the white are distinguished by a greater
intensity and better proportion of the qualities of both. But this
division, and no other is consistent with the author's proposition, by
assuming that in the black races the moral preponderates over the
physical tendency, comes in direct conflict not only with the plain
teachings of anatomy, but with all we know of the history of those
races. I shall attempt to show wherein Mr. Gobineau's error lies, an
error from the consequences of which I see no possibility for him to
escape, and suggest an emendation which, so far from invalidating his
general position, tends rather to confirm and strengthen it. In doing
so, I am actuated by the belief that even if I err, I may be useful by
inviting others more capable to the task of investigation. Suggestions
on important subjects, if they serve no other purpose than to provoke
inquiry, are never useless. The alchemists of the Middle Ages, in their
frivolous pursuit of impossibilities, discovered many invaluable secrets
of nature and laid the foundation of that science which, by explaining
the intimate mutual action of all natural bodies, has become the
indispensable handmaiden of almost every other.
The error, it seems to me, lies in the same confusion of distinct ideas,
to which I had already occasion to advert. In ordinary language, we
speak of the physical and moral nature of man, terming physical whatever
relates to his material, and moral what relates to his immaterial being.
Again, we speak of _mind_, and though in theory we consider it as a
synonyme of soul, in practical application it has a very different
signification. A person may cultivate his mind without benefiting his
soul, and the term _a superior mind_, does not necessarily imply moral
excellency. That mental qualifications or acquisitions are in no way
connected with sound morality or true piety, I have pointed out before.
Should any further illustrations be necessary, I might remark that the
greatest monsters that blot the page of history, have been, for the most
part, men of what are called superior minds, of great intellectual
attainments. Indeed, wickedness is seldom very dangerous, unless joined
to intellect, as the common sense of mankind has expressed in the adage
that a fool is seldom a knave. We daily see men perverting the highest
mental gifts to the basest purposes, a fact which ought to be carefully
weighed by those who believe that education consists in the cultivation
of the intellect only. I therefore consider the moral endowments of man
as practically different from the mental or intellectual, at least in
their manifestations, if not in their essence. To define my idea more
clearly, let me attempt to explain the difference between what I term
the moral and the intellectual nature of man. I am aware of the
dangerous nature of the ground I am treading, but shall nevertheless
make the attempt to show that it is in accordance with the spirit of
religion to consider what in common parlance is called the moral
attributes of man, and which would be better expressed by the word
_psychical_, as divisible into two, the strictly moral, and the
intellectual.
The former is what leads man to look beyond his earthly existence, and
gives even the most brutish savage some vague idea of a Deity. I am
making no rash or unfounded assertion when I declare, Mr. Locke's
weighty opinion to the contrary notwithstanding, that no tribe has ever
been discovered in which some notion of this kind, however rude, was
wanting, and I consider it innate--a yearning, as it were, of the soul
towards the regions to which it belongs. The feeling of religion is
implanted in our breast; it is not a production of the intellect, and
this the Christian church confirms when it declares that _faith_ we owe
to the grace of God.
Intellect is that faculty of soul by which it takes cognizance of,
classes and compares the facts of the _material_ world. As all
perceptions are derived through the senses, it follows that upon the
nicety of these its powers must in a great measure depend. The vigor and
delicacy of the nerves, and the size and texture of the brain in which
they all centre, form what we call native intellectual gifts. Hence,
when the body is impaired, the mind suffers; "mens sana in corpore
sano;" hence, a fever prostrates, and may forever destroy, the most
powerful intellect; a glass of wine may dim and distort it. Here, then,
is the grand distinction between soul and mind. The latter, human
wickedness may annihilate; the former, man killeth not. I should wish to
enter more fully upon this investigation, not new, indeed, in
speculative science, yet new in the application I purpose to make of it,
were it not for fear of wearying my reader, to whom my only apology can
be, that the discussion is indispensable to the proper investigation of
the moral and intellectual diversities of races. When I say moral
diversities, I do not mean that man's moral endowments, strictly
speaking, are unequal. This assertion I am not prepared to make,
because--as religion is accessible and comprehensible to them all--it
may be supposed that these are in all cases equal. But I mean that the
manifestation of these moral endowments varies, owing to causes which I
am now about to consider. I have said that the moral nature of man leads
him to look beyond the confines of the material world. This, when not
assisted by revelation, he attempts to do by means of his intellect. The
intellect is, as it were, the visual organ by which the soul scans the
abyss between the present and the future existence. According to the
dimness or brightness of this mental eye, are his perceptions. If the
intellectual capacity is weak, he is content with a grovelling
conception of the Deity; if powerful, he erects an elaborate fabric of
philosophical speculations. But, as the Almighty has decreed that human
intellect, even in its sublimest flight, cannot soar to His presence; it
follows that the most elaborate fabric of the philosopher is still a
_human_ fabric, that the most perfect human theology is still _human_,
and hence--the necessity of revelation. This divine light, which His
mercy has vouchsafed us, dispenses with, and eclipses, the feeble
glimmerings of human intellect. It illumines as well the soul of the
rude savage as of the learned theologian; of the illiterate as of the
erudite. Nay, very often the former has the advantage, for the erudite
philosopher is prone to think his own lamp all-sufficient. If it be
objected that a highly cultivated mind, if directed to rightful
purposes, will assist in gaining a _nobler_ conception of the Deity, I
shall not contradict, for in the study of His works, we learn still more
to admire the Maker. But I insist that true piety can, and does exist
without it, and let those who trust so much in their own powers beware
lest they lean upon a broken staff.
The strictly moral attributes of man, therefore, those attributes which
enable him to communicate with his Maker, are common--probably in equal
degree--to all men, and to all races of men. But his communications with
the external world depend on his physical conformation. The body is the
connecting link between the spirit and the material world, and, by its
intimate relations to both, specially adapted to be the means of
communication between them. There seems to me nothing irrational or
irreligious in the doctrine that, according to the perfectness of this
means of communication, must be the intercourse between the two. A
person with dull auditory organs can never appreciate music, and
whatever his talents otherwise may be, can never become a Meyerbeer or a
Mozart. Upon quickness of perception, power of analysis and combination,
perseverance and endurance, depend our intellectual faculties, both in
their degree and their kind; and are not they blunted or otherwise
modified in a morbid state of the body? I consider it therefore
established beyond dispute, that a certain general physical conformation
is productive of corresponding mental characteristics. A human being,
whom God has created with a negro's skull and general _physique_, can
never equal one with a Newton's or a Humboldt's cranial development,
though the soul of both is equally precious in the eyes of the Lord, and
should be in the eyes of all his followers. There is no tendency to
materialism in this idea; I have no sympathy with those who deny the
existence of the soul, because they cannot find it under the scalpel,
and I consider the body not the mental agent, but the servant, the tool.
It is true that science has not discovered, and perhaps never will
discover, what physical differences correspond to the differences in
individual minds. Phrenology, starting with brilliant promises, and
bringing to the task powers of no mean order, has failed. But there is a
vast difference between the characteristics by which we distinguish
individuals of the same race, and those by which we distinguish
races themselves. The former are not strictly--at least not
immediately--hereditary, for the child most often differs from both
parents in body and mind, because no two individuals, as no two leaves
of one tree, are precisely alike. But, although every oak-leaf differs
from its fellow, we know the leaf of the oak-tree from that of the
beech, or every other; and, in the same manner, races are distinguished
by peculiarities which are hereditary and permanent. Thus, every negro
differs from every other negro, else we could not tell them apart; yet
all, if pure blood, have the same characteristics in common that
distinguish them from the white. I have been prolix, but intentionally
so, in my discrimination between individual distinction and those of
race, because of the latter, comparative anatomy takes cognizance; the
former are left to phrenology, and I wished to remove any suspicion that
in the investigation of moral and intellectual diversities of races,
recourse must be had to the ill-authenticated speculations of a dubious
science. But, from the data of comparative anatomy, attained by a slow
and cautious progress, we deduce that races are distinguished by certain
permanent physical characteristics; and, if these physical
characteristics correspond to the mental, it follows as an obvious
conclusion that the latter are permanent also. History ratifies the
conclusion, and the common sense of mankind practically acquiesces in
it.
To return, then, to our author. I would add to his two elements of
civilization a third--intellect _per se_; or rather, to speak more
correctly, I would subdivide one of his elements into two, of which one
is probably dependent on physical conformation. The combinations will
then be more complex, but will remove every difficulty.
I remarked that although we may consider all races as possessed of equal
moral endowments, we yet may speak of moral diversities; because,
without the light of revelation, man has nothing but his intellect
whereby to compass the immaterial world, and the manifestation of his
moral faculties must therefore be in proportion to the clearness of his
intellectual, and their preponderance over the animal tendencies. The
three I consider as existing about in the following relative proportions
in the three great groups under which Mr. Gobineau and Mr. Latham[28]
have arranged the various races--a classification, however, which, as I
already observed, I cannot entirely approve.
BLACK RACES, OR YELLOW RACES, OR WHITE RACES, OR
ATLANTIDÆ.[29] MONGOLIDÆ.[29] JAPETIDÆ.[29]
INTELLECT Feeble Mediocre Vigorous.
ANIMAL }
PROPENSITIES } Very strong Moderate Strong.
MORAL } Partially Comparatively Highly
MANIFESTATIONS } latent developed cultivated.
But the races comprised in each group vary among themselves, if not with
regard to the relative proportion in which they possess the elements of
civilization, at least in their intensity. The following formulas will,
I think, apply to the majority of cases, and, at the same time, bring
out my idea in a clearer light:--
If the animal propensities are strongly developed, and not tempered by
the intellectual faculties, the moral conceptions must be exceedingly
low, because they necessarily depend on the clearness, refinement, and
comprehensiveness of the ideas derived from the material world through
the senses. The religious cravings will, therefore, be contented with a
gross worship of material objects, and the moral sense degenerate into
a grovelling superstition. The utmost elevation which a population, so
constituted, can reach, will be an unconscious impersonation of the good
aspirations and the evil tendencies of their nature under the form of a
good and an evil spirit, to the latter of which absurd and often bloody
homage is paid. Government there can be no other than the right which
force gives to the strong, and its forms will be slavery among
themselves, and submissiveness of all to a tyrannical absolutism.
When the same animal propensities are combined with intellect of a
higher order, the moral faculties have more room for action. The
penetration of intellect will not be long in discovering that the
gratification of physical desires is easiest and safest in a state of
order and stability. Hence a more complex system of legislation both
social and political. The conceptions of the Deity will be more elevated
and refined, though the idea of a future state will probably be
connected with visions of material enjoyment, as in the paradise of the
Mohammedans.
Where the animal propensities are weak and the intellect feeble, a
vegetating national life results. No political organization, or of the
very simplest kind. Few laws, for what need of restraining passions
which do not exist. The moral sense content with the vague recognition
of a superior being, to whom few or no rites are rendered.
But when the animal propensities are so moderate as to be subordinate to
an intellect more or less vigorous, the moral aspirations will yearn
towards the regions of the abstract. Religion becomes a system of
metaphysics, and often loses itself in the mazes of its own subtlety.
The political organization and civil legislation will be simple, for
there are few passions to restrain; but the laws which regulate social
intercourse will be many and various, and supposed to emanate directly
from the Deity.
Strong animal passions, joined to an intellect equally strong, allow the
greatest expanse for the moral sense. Political organizations the most
complex and varied, social and civil laws the most studied, will be the
outward character of a society composed of such elements. Internally we
shall perceive the greatest contrasts of individual goodness and
wickedness. Religion will be a symbolism of human passions and the
natural elements for the many, an ingenious fabric of moral speculations
for the few.
I have here rapidly sketched a series of pictures from nature, which
the historian and ethnographer will not fail to recognize. Whether the
features thus cursorily delineated are owing to the causes to which I
ascribe them, I must leave for the reader to decide. My space is too
limited to allow of my entering into an elaborate argumentation. But I
would observe that, by taking this view of the subject, we can
understand why all human--and therefore false--religions are so
intimately connected with the social and political organization of the
peoples which profess them, and why they are so plainly mapped out on
the globe as belonging to certain races, to whom alone they are
applicable, and beyond whose area they cannot extend: while Christianity
knows no political or social forms, no geographical or ethnological
limits. The former, being the productions of human intellect, must vary
with its variation, and perish in its decay, while revelation is
universal and immutable, like the Intelligence of which it is the
emanation.
It is time now to conclude the task, the accomplishment of which has
carried me far beyond the limits I had at first proposed to myself. If I
have so long detained the reader on the threshold of the edifice, it was
to facilitate his after progress, and to give him a chart, that he may
not lose himself in the vast field it covers. There he may often meet
me again, and if I be sometimes deemed officious with my proffered
explanations, he will at least give me credit for good intentions, and
he may, if he chooses, pass me without recognition. Both this
introduction and notes in the body of the work were thought necessary
for several reasons. First, the subject is in some measure a new one,
and it was important to guard against misconception, and show, right at
the beginning, what was attempted to be proved, and in what manner.
Secondly, the author wrote for a European public, and many allusions are
made, or positions taken, upon an assumed knowledge of facts, of which
the general reader on this side of the ocean can be supposed to have but
a slight and vague apprehension. Thirdly, the author has, in many cases,
contented himself with abstract reasoning, and therefore is sometimes
chargeable with obscureness, on which account familiar illustrations
have been supplied. Fourthly, the volume now presented to the reader is
one of a series of four, the remainder of which, if this meets the
public approbation, may in time appear in an English garb. But it was
important to make this, as much as possible, independent of the others
and complete in itself. The discussion of the moral and intellectual
diversities of the various groups of the human family, is, as I have
before shown, totally independent of the question of unity or diversity
of species; yet, as it increases the interest attached to the solution
of that question, which has been but imperfectly discussed by the
author, my esteemed friend, Dr. J. C. Nott, who has so often and so ably
treated the subject, has promised to furnish, in notes and an appendix,
such additional facts pertaining to his province as a naturalist, as may
assist the reader in arriving at a correct opinion.
With regard to the translation, it must be observed that it is not a
_literal_ rendering of the original. The translator has aimed rather at
giving the meaning, than the exact words or phraseology of the author,
at no time, however, departing from the former. He has, in some
instances, condensed or omitted what seemed irrelevant, or useless to
the discussion of the question in this country, and in a few cases, he
has transposed a sentence to a different part of the paragraph, where it
seemed more in its place, and more effective. To explain and justify
these alterations, we must remind our readers that the author wrote for
a public essentially different from that of the translator; that
continental writers on grave subjects are in general more intent upon
vindicating their opinions than the form in which they express them,
and seldom devote that attention to style which English or American
readers expect; to which may be added that Count Gobineau wrote in the
midst of a multiplicity of diplomatic affairs, and had no time, even if
he had thought it worth his while, to give his work that literary finish
which would satisfy the fastidious. Had circumstances permitted, this
translation would have been submitted to his approbation, but at the
time of its going to press he is engaged in the service of his country
at the court of Persia.
* * * * *
For obtruding the present work on the notice of the American public, no
apology will be required. The subject is one of immense importance, and
especially in this country, where it can seldom be discussed without
adventitious circumstances biassing the inquirers. To the
philanthropist, the leading idea of the book, "that different races,
like different individuals, are specially fitted for special purposes,
for the fulfilment of which they are accountable in the measure laid
down in Holy Writ: 'To whom much is given, from him much will be asked,'
and that they are _equal_ only when they truly and faithfully perform
the duties of their station"--to the philanthropist, this idea must be
fraught with many valuable suggestions. So far from loosening the ties
of brotherhood, it binds them closer, because it teaches us not to
despise those who are endowed differently from us; and shows us that
they, too, may have excellencies which we have not.
To the statesman, the student of history, and the general reader, it is
hoped that this volume will not be altogether useless, and may assist to
a better understanding of many of the problems that have so long puzzled
the philosopher. The greatest revolutions in national relations have
been accomplished by the migrations of races, the most calamitous wars
that have desolated the globe have been the result of the hostility of
races. Even now, a cloud is lowering in the horizon. The friend of peace
and order watches it with silent anxiety, lest he hasten its coming. The
spirit of mischief exults in its approach, but fears to betray his
plans. Thus, western and central Europe now present the spectacle of a
lull before the storm. Monarchs sit trembling on their thrones, while
nations mutter curses. Nor have premonitory symptoms been wanting. Three
times, within little more than half a century, have the eruptions of
that ever-burning political volcano--France--shaken the social and
political system of the civilized world, and shown the amount of
combustible materials, which all the efforts of a ruling class cannot
always protect from ignition. The grand catastrophe may come within our
times. And, is it the result of any particular social condition, the
action of any particular class in the social scale, the diffusion of any
particular political principles? No, because the revolutionary
tendencies are various, and even opposite; if republican in one place,
monarchical in another; if democratic in France, aristocratic in Poland.
Nor is it a particular social class wherein the revolutionary principle
flourishes, for the classes which, in one country, wish subversion, in
another, are firmly attached to the established order of things. The
poor in Germany are proletarians and revolutionists; in Spain, Portugal,
and Italy, the enthusiastic lovers of their king. The better classes in
the former country are mostly conservative; in the latter, they are the
makers, or rather attempters, of revolutions. Nor is it any particular
social condition, for no class is so degraded as it has been; never was
poverty less, and prosperity greater in Europe than in the present
century; and everywhere the political institutions are more liberal than
ever before. Whence, then, this gathering storm? Does it exist only in
the minds of the visionary, or is it a mere bugbear of the timorous? Ask
the prudent statesman, the traveller who pierces the different strata of
the population; look behind the grates of the State-prisons; count--if
this be possible--the number of victims of military executions in
Germany and Austria, in 1848 and 1849; read the fearful accounts of the
taking of Vienna, of Rome, of Ancona, of Venice, during the same short
space of time. Everywhere the same cry: Nationality. It is not the
temporary ravings of a mob rendered frantic by hunger and misery. It is
a question of nationality, a war of races. Happy we who are removed from
the immediate scene of the struggle, and can be but remotely affected by
it. Yet, while I write, it seems as though the gales of the Atlantic had
blown to our peaceful shores some taints of the epidemic that rages in
the Old World. May it soon pass over, and a healthy atmosphere again
prevail!
H. H.
MOBILE, Aug. 20, 1855.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] _Researches into the Physical History of Mankind_. By James Cowles
Prichard, M. D., London, 1841. Vol. i. p. 1.
[2] "Mr. Prichard's _permanent variety_, from his own definition, is to
all intents and purposes _a species_."--_Kneeland's Introduction to
Hamilton Smith's Natural History of the Human Species_, p. 84.
[3] Smith's Wealth of Nations, Amer. ed., vol. i. p. 29.
[4] _Vide_ Bigland's Effects of Physical and Moral Causes on the
Character and Circumstances of Nations. London, 1828, p. 282.
[5] _Op. cit._, p. 7.
[6] St. Matthew, ch. xi. v. 25.
[7] _Vide_ Prichard's _Natural History of Man_, p. 66, _et passim_. "His
theory," says Van Amringe, "required that animals should be analogous to
man. It was therefore highly important that, as he was then laying the
foundation for all his future arguments and conclusions, he should
elevate animals to the proper eminence, to be analogous; rather than, as
Mr. Lawrence did, sink man to the level of brutes. It was an ingenious
contrivance by which he could gain all the advantages, and escape the
censures of the learned lecturer. It is so simple a contrivance,
too--merely substituting the word 'psychological' for 'instinctive
characteristics,' and the whole animal kingdom would instantly rise to
the proper platform, to be the types of the human family. To get the
psychology of men and animals thus related, without the trouble of
philosophically accomplishing so impossible a thing, by the mere use of
a word, was an ingenious, though not an ingenuous achievement. It gave
him a specious right to use bees and wasps, rats and dogs, sheep, goats,
and rabbits--in short, the whole animal kingdom--as human psychical
analogues, which would be amazingly convenient when conclusions were to
be made."--_Natural History of Man_, by W. F. VAN AMRINGE. 1848, p. 459.
[8] This fact is considered by Dr. Nott as a proof of _specific_
difference among dogs.--_Types of Mankind._ Phila., 1854.
[9] In 1497, Vasco di Gama sailed around Cape Good Hope; even previous
to that, Portuguese vessels had coasted along the western shores of
Africa. Since that time the Europeans have subjected the whole of the
American continents, southern Asia and the island world of the Pacific,
while Africa is almost as unknown as it ever was. The Cape Colony is not
in the original territory of the negro. Liberia and Sierra Leone contain
a half-breed population, and present experiments by no means tested. It
may be fairly asserted that nowhere has the power and intelligence of
the white race made less impression, produced fewer results, than in the
domain of the negro.
[10] Roberts, the president of the Liberian Republic, boasts of but a
small portion of African blood in his veins. Sequoyah, the often-cited
inventor of the Cherokee alphabet, so far from being a pure Indian, was
the son of a white man.
[11] For the great perfection to which the Chinese have carried the
luxuries and amenities of life, see particularly M. Huc's _Travels in
China_. He lived among them for years, and, what few travellers do,
spoke their language so fluently and perfectly that he was enabled,
during a considerable number of years, to discharge the duties of a
missionary, disguised as a native.
[12] It would be useless to remind our readers of the famous Great Wall,
the Imperial Canals, that largest of the cities of the world--Pekin. The
various treatises of the Chinese on morals and politics, especially that
of Confucius, have been admired by all European thinkers. _Consult
Pauthier's elaborate work on China._ It is equally well known that the
Chinese knew the art of printing, gunpowder and its uses, the mariner's
compass, etc., centuries before we did. For the general diffusion of
elementary knowledge among the Chinese, see _Davis's Sketches_, and
other authors. Those who may think me a biassed panegyrist of the
Chinese, I refer to the following works as among the most reliable of
the vast number written on the subject:--
_Description Historique, Géographique, et Littéraire de la Chine._ Par
M. G. PAUTHIER. Paris, 1839.
_China Opened._ By REV. CHS. GUTZLAFF. London, 1838.
_China, Political, Commercial, and Social._ By R. MONTGOMERY MARTIN.
London, 1847.
_Sketches of China._ By JOHN F. DAVIS. London, 1841.
And above all, for amusing and instructive reading,
_Journey through the Chinese Empire._ By M. HUC. New York, 1855; and
_Mélanges Asiatiques._ Par ABEL REMUSAT. Paris, 1835.
[13] Unwilling to introduce statistic pedantry into a composition of so
humble pretensions as an introduction, I have refrained to give the
figures--not always very accurate, I admit--upon which the preceding
gradation is based, viz: the number of persons able to read and write in
each of the above-named countries. How far England and France are
behindhand in this respect, compared either with ourselves, or with
other European nations, is tolerably well known; but the fact that not
only in China proper, but in Thibet, Japan, Anam, Tonquin, etc., few can
be found devoid of that acquirement, will probably meet with many
incredulous readers, though it is mentioned by almost every traveller.
(See _J. Mohl's Annual Report to the Asiatic Society_, 1851.) But, it
may be safely asserted that, in the whole of that portion of Asia lying
south of the Altai Mountains, including Japan, altogether the most
populous region of the globe, the percentage of males unable to read and
write is by far smaller than in the entire population of Europe. Be it
well understood, that I do not, therefore, claim any superiority for the
inhabitants of the former region over those of the latter.
"In China," says M. Huc, "there are not, as in Europe, public libraries
and reading-rooms; but those who have a taste for reading, and a desire
to instruct themselves, can satisfy their inclinations very easily, as
books are sold here at a lower price than in any other country. Besides,
the Chinese find everywhere something to read; they can scarcely take a
step without seeing some of the characters of which they are so proud.
One may say, in fact, that all China is an immense library; for
inscriptions, sentences, moral precepts, are found in every corner,
written in letters of all colors and all sizes. The façades of the
tribunals, the pagodas, the public monuments, the signs of the shops,
the doors of the houses, the interior of the apartments, the corridors,
all are full of fine quotations from the best authors. Teacups, plates,
vases, fans, are so many selections of poems, often chosen with much
taste, and prettily printed. A Chinese has no need to give himself much
trouble in order to enjoy the finest productions of his country's
literature. He need only take his pipe, and walk out, with his nose in
the air, through the principal streets of the first town he comes to.
Let him enter the poorest house in the most wretched village; the
destitution may be complete, things the most necessary will be wanting;
but he is sure of finding some fine maxims written out on strips of red
paper. Thus, if those grand large characters, which look so terrific in
our eyes, though they delight the Chinese, are really so difficult to
learn, at least the people have the most ample opportunities of studying
them, almost in play, and of impressing them ineffaceably on their
memories."--_A Journey through the Chinese Empire_, vol. i. pp. 327-328.
[14] Is it necessary to call to the mind of the reader, that the most
prominent physicians, the greatest chemists, the best mathematicians,
were French, and that to the same nation belong the Comptes, the De
Maistres, the Guizots, the De Tocquevilles; or that, notwithstanding its
political extravaganzas, every liberal theory was first fostered in its
bosom? The father of our democratic party was the pupil of French
governmental philosophy, by the lessons of which even his political
opponents profited quite as much as by its errors.
[15] Brace, in his _Home Life in Germany_, mentions an instance of this
kind, but not having the volume at hand, I cannot cite the page. To
every one, however, that has travelled in Europe, or has not, such facts
are familiar. It is well known, for instance, that in some of the most
polished European countries, the wooden ploughshare is still used; and
that, in Paris, that metropolis of arts and fashion, every drop of water
must be carried, in buckets, from the public fountains to the Dutchess'
_boudoir_ in the first, and to the Grisette's garret in the seventh
story. Compare this with the United States, where--not to mention
Fairmount and Croton--the smallest town, almost, has her water-works, if
required by her topography. Are we, then, so infinitely more civilized
than France?
[16] Since writing the above, I lit upon the following striking
confirmation of my idea by Dr. Pickering, whose analogism here so
closely resembles mine, as almost to make me suspect myself of
unconscious plagiarism. "While admitting the general truth, that mankind
are essentially alike, no one doubts the existence of character,
distinguishing not only individuals, but communities and nations. I am
persuaded that there is, besides, a character of race. It would not be
difficult to select epithets; such as 'amphibious, enduring,
insititious;' or to point out as accomplished by one race of men, that
which seemed beyond the powers of another. Each race possessing its
peculiar points of excellence, and, at the same time, counterbalancing
defects, it may be that union was required to attain the full measure of
civilization. In the organic world, each field requires a new creation;
each change in circumstances going beyond the constitution of a plant or
animal, is met by a new adaptation, until the whole universe is full;
while, among the immense variety of created beings, two kinds are hardly
found fulfilling the same precise purpose. Some analogy may possibly
exist in the human family; and it may even be questioned, whether any
one of the races existing singly would, up to the present day, have
extended itself over the whole surface of the globe."--_The Races of
Man, and their Geographical Distribution._ By CHARLES PICKERING, M. D.
Boston, 1811. (_U. S. Exploring Expedition_, vol. ix. p. 200.)
[17] Since Champollion's fortunate discovery of the Rosetta stone, which
furnished the key to the hieroglyphics, the deciphering of these once so
mysterious characters has made such progress, that Lepsius, the great
modern Egyptologist, declares it possible to write a minute court
gazette of the reign of Ramses II., the Sesostris of the Greeks, and
even of monarchs as far back as the IVth dynasty. To understand that
this is no vain boast, the reader must remember that these hieroglyphics
mostly contain records of private or royal lives, and that the mural
paintings in the temples and sepulchral chambers, generally represent
scenes illustrative of trades, or other occupations, games, etc.,
practised among the people of that early day.
[18] _Ethnological Journal_, edited by Luke Burke, London, 1848; June 1,
No. 1, from _Types of Mankind_. By NOTT and GLIDDON, p. 49.
[19] From _Types of Mankind_. By NOTT and GLIDDON, p. 52.
[20] The term "race" is of relative meaning, and, though often
erroneously used synonymously with _species_, by no means signifies the
same. The most strenuous advocates of sameness of species, use it to
designate well-defined groups, as the white and black. If we consider
ourselves warranted by the language of the Bible, to believe in separate
origins of the human family, then, indeed, it may be considered as
similar in meaning to species; otherwise, it must signify but
subdivisions of one. We may therefore speak of ten or a hundred races of
man, without impugning their being descended from the same stock. All
that is here contended for is, that the distinctive features of such
races, in whatever manner they may have originated, are now persistent.
Two men may, the one arrive at the highest honors of the State, the
other, with every facility at his command, forever remain in mediocrity.
Yet, these two men may be brothers.
That the question of species, when disconnected from any theological
bearing, is one belonging exclusively to the province of the naturalist,
and in which the metaphysician can have but a subordinate part, may be
illustrated by a homely simile. Diversity of talent in the same family
involves no doubt of parentage; but, if one child be born with a black
skin and woolly hair, questions about the paternity might indeed arise.
[21] _Natural History of the Varieties of Man._ By ROBERT GORDON LATHAM.
London, 1850.
[22] The collision between these two nationalities, only a few years
ago, was attended by scenes so revolting--transcending even the horrors
of the Corcyrian sedition, the sack of Magdeburg, or the bloodiest page
in the French Revolution--that, for the honor of human nature, I would
gladly disbelieve the accounts given of them. But the testimony comes
from neutral sources, the friends of either party being interested in
keeping silence. I shall have occasion to allude to this subject again,
and therefore reserve further details for a note in the body of the
work.
[23] Even the historians of ancient Greece wondered at those gigantic
ruins, of which many are still extant. Of these cyclopean remains, as
they were often called, no one knew the builders or the history, and
they were considered as the labors of the fabulous heroes of a
traditional epoch. For an account of these memorials of an
_ante-hellenic civilization in Greece, of which we have no record_,
particularly the ruins of Orchomonos, Tirgus, Mycene, and the tunnels of
Lake Copais, see _Niebuhr's Ancient History_, vol. i. p. 241, _et
passim_.
[24] Democracy in America, vol. ii. ch. xviii. p. 424.
[25] Daniel ii. 44.
[26] Daniel ii. 31 to 35.
[27] Among many passages illustrative of the ultra utilitarianism of the
Chinese, I can find space but for one, and that selected almost at
random. After speaking of the exemplary diffusion of primary instruction
among the masses, he says that, though they all read, and frequently,
yet even their reading is of a strictly utilitarian character, and never
answers any but practical purposes or temporary amusement. The name of
the author is seldom known, and never inquired after. "That class are,
in their eyes, only idle persons, who pass their time in making prose or
verse. They have no objection to such a pursuit. A man may, they say,
'amuse himself with his pen as with his kite, if he likes it as well--it
is all a matter of taste.' The inhabitants of the celestial empire would
never recover from their astonishment if they knew to what extent
intellectual labor may be in Europe a source of honor and often wealth.
If they were told that a person among us may obtain great glory by
composing a drama or a novel, they would either not believe it, or set
it down as an additional proof of our well-known want of common sense.
How would it be if they should be told of the renown of a dancer or a
violin player, and that one cannot make a bound, nor the other draw a
bow anywhere without thousands of newspapers hastening to spread the
important news over all the kingdoms of Europe!
"The Chinese are too decided utilitarians to enter into our views of the
arts. In their opinion, a man is only worthy of the admiration of his
fellow-creatures when he has well fulfilled the social duties, and
especially if he knows better than any one else how to get out of a
scrape. You are regarded as a man of genius if you know how to regulate
your family, make your lands fruitful, traffic with ability, and realize
great profits. This, at least, is the only kind of genius that is of any
value in the eyes of these eminently practical men."--_Voyages en
Chine_, par M. Huc, Amer. trans., vol. i. pp. 316 and 317.
[28] Nat. Hist. of the Varieties of Man. London.
[29] According to Latham's classification, _op. cit._
DIVERSITY OF RACES.
CHAPTER I.
POLITICAL CATASTROPHES.
Perishable condition of all human societies--Ancient ideas concerning
this phenomenon--Modern theories.
The downfall of civilizations is the most striking, and, at the same
time, the most obscure of all the phenomena of history. If the sublime
grandeur of this spectacle impresses the mind with awe, the mystery in
which it is wrapped presents a boundless field for inquiry and
meditation to a reflecting mind. The study of the birth and growth of
nations is, indeed, fraught with many valuable observations: the gradual
development of human societies, their successes, conquests, and
triumphs, strike the imagination in a lively manner, and excite an ever
increasing interest. But these phenomena, however grand and interesting,
seem susceptible of an easy explanation. We consider them as the
necessary consequences of the intellectual and moral endowments of man.
Once we admit the existence of these endowments, their results will no
longer surprise us.
But we perceive that, after a period of glory and strength, all
societies formed by man begin to totter and fall; all, I said, because
there is no exception. Scattered over the surface of our globe, we see
the vestiges of preceding civilizations, many of which are known to us
only by name, or have not left behind them even that faint memorial, and
are recorded only by the mute stones in the depths of primeval
forests.[30] If we glance at our modern States, we are forced to the
conclusion that, though their date is but of yesterday, some of them
already exhibit signs of old age. The awful truth of prophetic language
about the instability of all things human, applies with equal force to
political bodies and to individuals, to nations and their civilizations.
Every association of men for social and political purposes, though
protected by the most ingenious social and political ties and
contrivances, conceals among the very elements of its life, the germ of
inevitable destruction, contracted the day it was formed. This terrible
fact is proved by the history of all ages as well as of our own. It is
owing to a natural law of death which seems to govern societies as well
as individuals; but, does this law operate alike in all cases? is it
uniform like the result it brings about, and do all civilizations perish
from the same pre-existing cause?
A superficial glance at the page of history would tempt us to answer in
the negative, for the apparent causes of the downfall of the great
empires of antiquity were very different in each case. Yet, if we pierce
below the surface, we find in this very necessity of decay, which weighs
so imperiously upon all societies without exception, the evidence of the
existence of some general, though concealed, cause, producing a natural
death, even where no external causes anticipate it by violent
destruction. We also discover that all civilizations, after a short
duration, exhibit, to the acute observer, certain intimate disturbances,
difficult to define, but whose existence is undeniable; and that these
present in all cases an analogous character. Finally, if we distinguish
the ruin of civilizations from that of States (for we sometimes see the
same culture subsist in a country under foreign domination, and survive
the destruction of the political body which gave it birth; while,
again, comparatively slight misfortunes cause it to be transformed, or
to disappear altogether), we become more and more confirmed in the idea
that this principle of death in all societies is not only a necessary
condition of their life, independent, in a great measure, of external
causes, but is also uniform in all. To fix and determine this principle,
and to trace its effects in the lives of those nations, of whom history
has left us records, has been my object and endeavor in the studies, the
results of which I now lay before the reader.
The fact that every human agglomeration, and the peculiar culture
resulting from it, is doomed to perish, was not known to the ancients.
Even in the epochs immediately preceding ours, it was not believed. The
religious spirit of Asiatic antiquity looked upon the great political
catastrophes in the same light that they did upon the sudden destruction
of an individual: as a demonstration of Divine wrath, visiting a nation
or an individual whose sins had marked them out for signal punishment,
which would serve as an example to those criminals whom the rod had as
yet spared. The Jews, misunderstanding the meaning of the promise,
believed their empire imperishable. Rome, at the very moment when the
threatening clouds lowered in the horizon of her grandeur, entertained
no doubt as to the eternity of hers.[31] But our generation has profited
by experience; and, as no one presumes to doubt that all men must die,
because all who came before us have died; so we are firmly convinced,
that the days of nations, as of individuals, however many they be, are
numbered. The wisdom of the ancients, therefore, will afford us but
little assistance in the unravelling of our subject, if we except one
fundamental maxim: that the finger of Divine Providence is always
visible in the conduct of the affairs of this world. From this solid
basis we shall not depart, accepting it in the full extent that it is
recognized by the church. It cannot be contested that no civilization
will perish without the will of God, and to apply to the mortal
condition of all societies, the sacred axiom by which the ancients
explained certain remarkable, and, in their opinion, isolated cases of
destruction, is but proclaiming a truth of the first order, of which we
must never lose sight in our researches after truths of secondary
importance. If it be further added that societies perish by their sins,
I willingly accede to it; it is but drawing a parallel between them and
individuals who also find their death, or accelerate it, by disobedience
to the laws of the Creator. So far, there is nothing contradictory to
reason, even when unassisted by Divine light; but these two truths once
admitted and duly weighed, the wisdom of the ancients, I repeat, affords
no further assistance. They did not search into the ways by which the
Divine will effected the ruin of nations; on the contrary, they were
rather inclined to consider these ways as essentially mysterious, and
above comprehension. Seized with pious terror at the aspect of the
wrecks, they easily imagined that Providence had specially interfered
thus to strike and completely destroy once powerful states. Where a
miracle is recorded by the Sacred Scriptures, I willingly submit; but
where that high testimony is wanting, as it is in the great number of
cases, we may justly consider the ancient theory as defective, and not
sufficiently enlightened. We may even conclude, that as Divine Justice
watches over nations unremittingly, and its decrees were pronounced ere
the first human society was formed, they are also enforced in a
predeterminate manner, and according to the unalterable laws of the
universe, which govern both animated nature and the inorganic world.
If we have cause to reproach the philosophers of the earlier ages, for
having contented themselves, in attempting to fathom the mystery, with
the vindication of an incontestable theological truth, but which itself
is another mystery; at least, they have not increased the difficulties
of the question by making it a theme for a maze of errors. In this
respect, they rank highly above the rationalist schools of various
epochs.
The thinkers of Athens and Rome established the doctrine, which has
retained its ground to our days, that states, nations, civilizations,
perished only through luxury, enervation, bad government, corruption of
morals, fanaticism. All these causes, either singly or combined, were
supposed to account for the downfall of civilizations. It is a necessary
consequence of this doctrine, that where neither of these causes are in
operation, no destructive agency is at work. Societies would therefore
possess this advantage over individuals, that they could die no other
but a violent death; and, to establish a body politic as durable as the
globe itself, nothing further would be necessary than to elude the
dangers which I enumerated above.
The inventors of this thesis did not perceive its bearing. They
considered it as an excellent means for illustrating the doctrine of
morality, which, as is well known, was the sole aim of their historical
writings. In their narratives of events, they were so strongly
preoccupied with showing the happy rewards of virtue, and the disastrous
results of crime and vice, that they cared little for what seemed to
furnish no illustration. This erroneous and narrow-minded system often
operated contrary to the intention of the authors, for it applied,
according to occasion, the name of virtue and vice in a very arbitrary
manner; still, to a great extent, the severe and laudable sentiment upon
which it was based, excuses it. If the genius of a Plutarch or a Tacitus
could draw from history, studied in this manner, nothing but romances
and satires, yet the romances were sublime, and the satires generous.
I wish I could be equally indulgent to the writers of the eighteenth
century, who made their own application of the same theory; but there
is, between them and their teachers, too great a difference. While the
ancients were attached to the established social system, even to a
fault, our moderns were anxious for destruction, and greedy of untried
novelties. The former exerted themselves to deduce useful lessons from
their theory; the latter have perverted it into a fearful weapon against
all rational principles of government, which they stigmatized by every
term that mankind holds in horror. To save societies from ruin, the
disciples of Voltaire would destroy religion, law, industry, commerce;
because, if we believe them, religion is fanaticism; laws, despotism;
industry and commerce, luxury and corruption.
I have not the slightest intention of entering the field of polemics; I
wished merely to direct attention to the widely diverging results of
this principle, when applied by Thucydides, or the Abbé Raynal.
Conservative in the one, cynically aggressive in the other, it is
erroneous in both.
The causes to which the downfall of nations is generally ascribed are
not the true ones, and whilst I admit that these evils may be rifest in
the last stages of dissolution of a people, I deny that they possess in
themselves sufficient strength, and so destructive an energy, as to
produce the final, irremediable catastrophe.
FOOTNOTES:
[30] A. de Humboldt, Examen Critique de l'Histoire de la Géographie du
Nouveau Continent. Paris.
[31] Amadée Thierry, _La Gaule sous l'Administration Romaine_, vol. i.
p. 244.
CHAPTER II.
ALLEGED CAUSES OF POLITICAL CATASTROPHES EXAMINED.
FANATICISM--Aztec Empire of Mexico.--LUXURY--Modern European States
as luxurious as the ancient.--Corruption of morals--The standard of
morality fluctuates in the various periods of a nation's history:
example, France--Is no higher in youthful communities than in old
ones--Morality of Paris.--IRRELIGION--Never spreads through all
ranks of a nation--Greece and Rome--Tenacity of Paganism.
Before entering upon my reasons for the opinion expressed at the end of
the preceding chapter, it will be necessary to explain and define what I
understand by the term society. I do not apply this term to the more or
less extended circle belonging to a distinct sovereignty. The republic
of Athens is not, in my sense of the word, a society; neither is the
kingdom of Magadha, the empire of Pontus, or the caliphat of Egypt in
the time of the Fatimites. These are fragments of societies, which are
transformed, united, or subdivided, by the operation of those
primordial laws into which I am inquiring, but whose existence or
annihilation does not constitute the existence or annihilation of a
society. Their formation is, for the most part, a transient phenomenon,
which exerts but a limited, or even indirect influence upon the
civilization that gave it birth. By the term society, I understand an
association of men, actuated by similar ideas, and possessed of the same
general instincts. This association need by no means be perfect in a
political sense, but must be complete from a social point of view. Thus,
Egypt, Assyria, Greece, India, China, have been, or are still, the
theatres upon which distinct societies have worked out their destinies,
to which the perturbations in their political relations were merely
secondary. I shall, therefore, speak of the fractions of these societies
only when my reasoning applies equally to the whole. I am now prepared
to proceed to the examination of the question before us, and I hope to
prove that fanaticism, luxury, corruption of morals, and irreligion, do
not _necessarily_ occasion the ruin of nations.
All these maladies, either singly or combined, have attacked, and
sometimes with great virulence, nations which nevertheless recovered
from them, and were, perhaps, all the more vigorous afterward.
The Aztec empire, in Mexico, seemed to flourish for the especial glory
and exaltation of fanaticism. What can there be more fanatical than a
social and political system, based on a religion which requires the
incessant and profuse shedding of the blood of fellow-beings?[32] Our
remote ancestors, the barbarous nations of Northern Europe, did indeed
practise this unholy rite, but they never chose for their sacrifices
innocent victims,[33] or, at least, such as they considered so: the
shipwrecked and prisoners of war, were not considered innocent. But, for
the Mexicans, all victims were alike; with that ferocity, which a modern
physiologist[34] recognizes as a characteristic of the races of the New
World, they butchered their own fellow-citizens indiscriminately, and
without remorse or pity. And yet, this did not prevent them from being a
powerful, industrious, and wealthy nation, who might long have
continued to blaspheme the Deity by their dark creed, but for Cortez's
genius and the bravery of his companions. In this instance, then,
fanaticism was not the cause of the downfall.[35]
Nor are luxury or enervation more powerful in their effects. These
vices are almost always peculiar to the higher classes, and seldom
penetrate the whole mass of the population. But I doubt whether among
the Greeks, the Persians, or the Romans, whose downfall they are said to
have caused, luxury and enervation, albeit in a different form, had
risen to a higher pitch than we see them to-day in some of our modern
States, in France, Germany, England, and Russia, for instance. The two
last countries are especially distinguished for the luxury prevalent
among the higher classes, and yet, these two countries seem to be endued
with a vitality much more vigorous and promising than most other
European States. In the Middle Ages, the Venetians, Genoese, Pisanese,
accumulated in their magazines the treasures and luxuries of the world;
yet, the gorgeous magnificence of their palaces, and the splendid
decorations of their vessels, did certainly not diminish their power, or
subvert their dominion.[36]
Even the corruption of morals, this most terrible of all scourges, is
not necessarily a cause of national ruin. If it were, the prosperity of
a nation, its power and preponderance, would be in a direct ratio to the
purity of its manners; and it is hardly necessary to say that this is
not the case. The odd fashion of ascribing all sorts of imaginary
virtues to the first Romans, is now pretty much out of date.[37] Few
would now dare to hold up as models of morality those sturdy patricians
of the old school, who treated their women as slaves, their children as
cattle, and their creditors like wild beasts. If there should still be
some who would defend so bad a cause, their reasoning could easily be
refuted, and its want of solidity shown. Abuse of power, in all epochs,
has created equal indignation; there were deeper reasons for the
abolition of royalty than the rape of Lucretia, for the expulsion of the
decemvirs than the outrage of Appius; but these pretexts for two
important revolutions, sufficiently demonstrate the public sentiment
with regard to morals. It is a great mistake to ascribe the vigor of a
young nation to its superior virtues; since the beginning of historical
times, there has not been a community, however small, among which all
the reprehensible tendencies of human nature were not visible,
notwithstanding which, it has increased and prospered. There are even
instances where the splendor of a state was owing to the most abominable
institutions. The Spartans are indebted for their renown, and place in
history, to a legislation fit only for a community of bandits.[38]
So far from being willing to accord to youthful communities any
superiority in regard to morals, I have no doubt that, as nations
advance in age and consequently approach their period of decay, they
present to the eyes of the moralist a far more satisfactory
spectacle.[39] Manners become milder; men accommodate themselves more
readily to one another; the means of subsistence become, if not easier,
at least more varied; reciprocal obligations are better defined and
understood; more refined theories of right and wrong gain ground. It
would be difficult to show that at the time when the Greek arms
conquered Darius, or when Greek liberty itself fled forever from the
battle-field of Chæronæa, or when the Goths entered Rome as victors;
that the Persian monarchy, Athens, or the imperial city, in those times
of their downfall, contained a smaller proportion of honest and virtuous
people than in the most glorious epochs of their national existence.
But we need not go so far back for illustrations. If any one were
required to name the place where the spirit of our age displayed itself
in the most complete contrast with the virtuous ages of the world (if
such there were), he would most certainly point out Paris. Yet, many
learned and pious persons have assured me, that nowhere, and in no
epoch, could more practical virtue, solid piety, greater delicacy of
conscience, be found than within the precincts of this great and corrupt
city. The ideal of goodness is as exalted, the duties of a Christian as
well understood, as by the most brilliant luminaries of the Church in
the seventeenth century. I might add, that these virtues are divested of
the bitterness and severity from which, in those times, they were not
always exempt; and that they are more united with feelings of toleration
and universal philanthropy.[40] Thus we find, as if to counterbalance
the fearful aberrations of our own epoch, in the principal theatre of
these aberrations, contrasts more numerous and more striking, than
probably blessed the sight of the faithful in preceding ages.
I cannot even perceive that great men are wanting in those periods of
corruption and decay; on the contrary, these periods are often
signalized by the appearance of men remarkable for energy of character
and stern virtue.[41] If we look at the catalogue of Roman emperors, we
find a great number of them as exalted in merit as in rank; we meet with
names like those of Trajan, Antoninus Pius, Septimius Severus, Alexander
Severus, Jovian; and if we glance beneath the throne, we see a glorious
constellation of great doctors of our faith, of martyrs, and apostles of
the primitive church; not to consider the number of virtuous pagans.
Active, firm, and valorous minds filled the camps and the forums, so
that it may reasonably be doubted whether Rome, in the times of
Cincinnatus, possessed so great a number of eminent men in every
department of human activity. Many other examples might be alleged, to
prove that senile and tottering communities, so far from being deficient
in men of virtue, talent, and action, possess them probably in greater
number than young and rising states; and that their general standard of
morals is often higher.
Public morality, indeed, varies greatly at different periods of a
nation's history. The history of the French nation, better than any
other, illustrates this fact. Few will deny that the Gallo-Romans of
the fifth and sixth centuries, though a subject race, were greatly
superior in point of morals to their heroic conquerors.[42] Individually
taken, they were often not inferior to the latter in courage and
military virtue.[43] The intermixture of the two races, during the
eighth, ninth, and tenth centuries, reduced the standard of morals among
the whole nation to a disgraceful level. In the three succeeding
centuries, the picture brightens again. Yet, this period of comparative
light was succeeded by the dark scenes of the fourteenth and fifteenth
centuries, when tyranny and debauchery ran riot over the land, and
infected all classes of society, not excepting the clergy; when the
nobles robbed their vassals, and the commonalty sold their country to a
foreign foe. This period, so distinguished for the total absence of
patriotism, and every honest sentiment, was emphatically one of decay;
the state was shaken to its very foundation, and seemed ready to bury
under its ruins so much shame and dishonor. But the crisis passed;
foreign and intestine foes were vanquished; the machinery of government
reconstructed on a firmer basis; the state of society improved.
Notwithstanding its bloody follies, the sixteenth century dishonors less
the annals of the nation than its predecessors, and it formed the
transition period to the age of those pure and ever-brilliant lights,
Fenelon, Bossuet, Montausier, and others. This period, again, was
succeeded by the vices of the regency, and the horrors of the
Revolution. Since that time, we have witnessed almost incredible
fluctuations of public morality every decade of years.
I have sketched rapidly, and merely pointed out the most prominent
changes. To do even this properly, much more to descend to details,
would require greater space than the limits and designs of this work
permit. But I think what I have said is sufficient to show that the
corruption of public morals, though always a great, is often a transient
evil, a malady which may be corrected or which corrects itself, and
cannot, therefore, be the sole cause of national ruin, though it may
hasten the catastrophe.
The corruption of public morals is nearly allied to another evil, which
has been assigned as one of the causes of the downfall of empires. It is
observed of Athens and Rome, that the glory of these two commonwealths
faded about the same time that they abandoned their national creeds.
These, however, are the only examples of such a coincidence that can be
cited. The religion of Zoroaster was never more flourishing in the
Persian empire, than at the time of its downfall. Tyre, Carthage, Judea,
the Mexican and Peruvian empires expired at the moment when they
embraced their altars with the greatest zeal and devotion. Nay, I do not
believe that even at Athens and Rome, the ancient creed was abandoned
until the day when it was replaced in every conscience, by the complete
triumph of Christianity. I am firmly convinced that, politically
speaking, irreligion never existed among any people, and that none ever
abandoned the faith of their forefathers, except in exchange for
another. In other words, there never was such a thing as a religious
interregnum. The Gallic Teutates gave way to the Jupiter of the Romans;
the worship of Jupiter, in its turn, was replaced by Christianity. It is
true that, in Athens, not long before the time of Pericles, and in Rome,
towards the age of the Scipios, it became the fashion among the higher
classes, first to reason upon religious subjects, next to doubt them,
and finally to disbelieve them altogether, and to pride themselves upon
scepticism. But though there were many who joined in the sentiment of
the ancient "freethinker" who dared the augurs to look at one another
without laughing, yet this scepticism never gained ground among the mass
of the people.
Aspasia at her evening parties, and Lelius among his intimates, might
ridicule the religious dogmas of their country, and amuse themselves at
the expense of those that believed them. But at both these epochs, the
most brilliant in the history of Greece and Rome, it would have been
highly dangerous to express such sentiments publicly. The imprudence of
his mistress came near costing Pericles himself dearly, and the tears
which he shed before the tribunal, were not in themselves sufficiently
powerful to save the fair sceptic. The poets of the times, Aristophanes,
Sophocles, and afterwards Æschylus, found it necessary, whatever were
their private sentiments, to flatter the religious notions of the
masses. The whole nation regarded Socrates as an impious innovator, and
would have put to death Anaxagoras, but for the strenuous intercession
of Pericles. Nor did the philosophical and sceptical theories penetrate
the masses at a later period. Never, at any time, did they extend beyond
the sphere of the elegant and refined. It may be objected that the
opinion of the rest, the mechanics, traders, the rural population, the
slaves, etc., was of little moment, as they had no influence in the
policy of the state. If this were the case, why was it necessary, until
the last expiring throb of Paganism, to preserve its temples and pay the
hierophants? Why did men, the most eminent and enlightened, the most
sceptical in their religious notions, not only don the sacerdotal robe,
but even descend to the most repugnant offices of the popular worship?
The daily reader of Lucretius[44] had to snatch moments of leisure from
the all-absorbing game of politics, to compose a treatise on haruspicy.
I allude to the first Cæsar.[45] And all his successors, down to
Constantine, were compelled to unite the pontificial with the imperial
dignity. Even Constantine himself, though as a Christian prince he had
far better reasons for repugnance to such an office than any of his
predecessors, was compelled to compromise with the still powerful
ancient religion of the nation.[46] This is a clear proof of the
prevalence of the popular sentiment over the opinion of the higher and
more enlightened classes. They might appeal to reason and common sense,
against the absurdities of the masses, but the latter would not, could
not, renounce one faith until they had adopted another, confirming the
old truth, that in the affairs of this world, the positive ever takes
precedent over the negative. The popular sentiment was so strong that,
in the third century, it infected even the higher classes to some
extent, and created among them a serious religious reaction, which did
not entirely subside until after the final triumph of Christianity. The
revolution of ideas which gradually diffused true religion among all
classes, is highly interesting, and it may not be altogether irrelevant
to my subject, to point out the principal causes which occasioned it.
In the latter stages of the Roman empire, the armies had acquired such
undue political preponderance, that from the emperor, who inevitably
was chosen by them, down to the pettiest governor of a district, all the
functionaries of the government issued from the ranks. They had sprung
from those popular masses, of whose passionate attachment to their faith
I have already spoken, and upon attaining their elevated stations, came
in contact with the former rulers of the country, the old distinguished
families, the municipal dignitaries of cities, in fact those classes who
took pride and delight in sceptical literature. At first there was
hostility between these latter and the real rulers of the state, whom
they would willingly have treated as upstarts, if they had dared. But as
the court gave the tone, and all the minor military chiefs were, for the
most part, devout and fanatic, the sceptics were compelled to disguise
their real sentiments, and the philosophers set about inventing systems
to reconcile the rationalistic theories with the state religion. This
revival of pagan piety caused the greater number of the persecutions.
The rural populations, who had suffered their faith to be outraged by
the atheists so long as the higher classes domineered over them, now,
that the imperial democracy had reduced all to the same level, were
panting for revenge; but, mistaking their victims, they directed their
fury against the Christians. The real sceptics were such men as King
Agrippa, who wishes to hear St. Paul[47] from mere curiosity; who hears
him, debates with him, considers him a fool, but never thinks of
persecuting him because he differs in opinion; or Tacitus, the
historian, who, though full of contempt for the believers in the new
religion, blames Nero for his cruelties towards them.
Agrippa and Tacitus were pagan sceptics. Diocletian was a politician,
who gave way to the clamors of an incensed populace. Decius and Aurelian
were fanatics, like the masses they governed, and from whom they had
sprung.
Even after the Christian religion had become the religion of the state,
what immense difficulties were experienced in attempting to bring the
masses within its pale! So hopeless was in some places the contest with
the local divinities, that in many instances conversion was rather the
result of address, than the effect of persuasion. The genius of the holy
propagators of our religion was reduced to the invention of pious
frauds. The divinities of the groves, fields, and fountains, were still
worshipped, but under the name of the saints, the martyrs, and the
Virgin. After being for a time misdirected, these homages would finally
find the right way. Yet such is the obstinacy with which the masses
cling to a faith once received, that there are traces of it remaining in
our day. There are still parishes in France, where some heathenish
superstition alarms the piety, and defies the efforts of the minister.
In Catholic Brittany, even in the last centuries, the bishop in vain
attempted to dehort his flock from the worship of an idol of stone. The
rude image was thrown into the water, but rescued by its obstinate
adorers; and the assistance of the military was required to break it to
pieces. Such was, and such is the longevity of paganism. I conclude,
therefore, that no nation, either in ancient or modern times, ever
abandoned its religion without having duly and earnestly embraced
another, and that, consequently, none ever found itself, for a moment,
in a state of irreligion, which could have been the cause of its ruin.
Having denied the destructive effects of fanaticism, luxury, and
immorality, and the political possibility of irreligion, I shall now
speak of the effects of bad government. This subject is well worthy of
an entire chapter.
FOOTNOTES:
[32] See Prescott's _History of the Conquest of Mexico_.
[33] C. F. Weber, _M. A. Lucani Pharsalia_. Leipzig, 1828, vol. i. pp.
122-123, _note_.
[34] Prichard, _Natural History of Man_.--Dr. Martius is still more
explicit. (See _Martius and Spix_, _Reise in Brasilien_. Munich, vol. i.
pp. 379-380.)
Mr. Gobineau quotes from M. Roulin's French translation of Prichard's
great work, and as I could not always find the corresponding pages in
the original, I have sometimes been obliged to omit the citation of the
page, that in the French translation being useless to English
readers.--_Transl._
[35] I greatly doubt whether the fanaticism of even the ancient Mexicans
could exceed that displayed by some of our not very remote ancestors.
Who, that reads the trials for witchcraft in the judicial records of
Scotland, and, after smiling at the frivolous, inconsistent testimony
against the accused, comes to the cool, uncommented marginal note of the
reporter: "Convicta et combusta," does not feel his heart leap for
horror? But, if he comes to an entry like the following, he feels as
though lightning from heaven could but inflict too mild a punishment on
the perpetrators of such unnatural crimes.
"1608, Dec. 1.--The Earl of Mar declared to the council, that some women
were taken in Broughton as witches, and being put to an assize, and
convicted, albeit they persevered constant in their denial to the end,
they were burnt quick (alive), after such a cruel manner, that some of
them died in despair, renouncing and blaspheming God; and _others,
half-burned, brak out of the fire, and were cast in it again, till they
were burned to death_." Entry in Sir Thomas Hamilton's _Minutes of
Proceedings in the Privy Council_. (From W. Scott's _Letters on
Demonology and Witchcraft_, p. 315.)
Really, I do not believe that the Peruvians ever carried fanaticism so
far. Yet, a counterpart to this horrible picture is found in the history
of New England. A man, named Cory, being accused of witchcraft, and
refusing to plead, was accordingly pressed to death. And when, in the
agony of death, the unfortunate man thrust out his tongue, the sheriff,
without the least emotion, crammed it back into the mouth with his cane.
(See Cotton Mather's _Magnalia Christi Americana_, Hardford. _Thau.
Pneu_, c. vii. p. 383, _et passim_.)
Did the ferocity of the most brutish savages ever invent any torture
more excruciating than that in use in the British Isles, not much more
than two centuries ago, for bringing poor, decrepit old women to the
confession of a crime which never existed but in the crazed brain of
bigots. "The nails were torn from the fingers with smith's pincers; pins
driven into the places which the nails defended; the knees were crushed
in the _boots_, the finger-bones splintered in the _pilniewinks_," etc.
(Scott, _op. cit._, p. 312.) But then, it is true, they had a more
_gentle_ torture, which an English Lord (Eglington) had the honor and
humanity to invent! This consisted in placing the legs of a poor woman
in the stocks, and then _loading the bare shins with bars of iron_.
Above thirty stones of iron were placed upon the limbs of an unfortunate
woman before she could be brought to the confession which led her to the
stake. (Scott, _op. cit._, pp. 321, 324, 327, etc. etc.)
As late as 1682, not yet 200 years ago, three women were hanged, in
England, for witchcraft; and the fatal statute against it was not
abolished until 1751, when the rabble put to death, in the most horrible
manner, an old pauper woman, and very nearly killed another.
And, in the middle of last century, eighty-five persons were burnt, or
otherwise executed, for witchcraft, at Mohra, in Sweden. Among them were
fifteen young children.
If God had ordained that fanaticism should be punished by national ruin,
were not these crimes, in which, in most cases, the whole nation
participated, were not they horrible enough to draw upon the
perpetrators the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah? Surely, if fanaticism were
the cause of national decay, most European nations had long since been
swept from the face of the globe, "so that their places could nowhere be
found."--H.
[36] There seem, at first sight, to be exceptions to the truth of the
assertion, that luxury, in itself, is not productive of national ruin.
Venice, Genoa, Pisa, etc., were _aristocratic_ republics, in which, as
in monarchies, a high degree of luxury is not only compatible with, but
may even be greatly conducive to the prosperity of the state. But the
basis of a _democratic_ republic is a more or less perfect equality
among its citizens, which is often impaired, and, in the end, subverted
by too great a disparity of wealth. Yet, even in them, glaring contrasts
between extravagant luxury and abject poverty are rather the sign than
the cause, of the disappearance of democratic principles. Examples might
be adduced from history, of democracies in which great wealth did not
destroy democratic ideas and a consequent simplicity of manners. These
ideas must first be forgotten, before wealth can produce luxury, and
luxury its attendant train of evils. Though accelerating the downfall of
a democratic republic, it is therefore not the primary cause of that
downfall.--H.
[37] Balzac, _Lettre à Madame la Duchesse de Montausier_.
[38] That this stricture is not too severe will be obvious to any one
who reflects on the principles upon which this legislation was based.
Inculcating that war was the great business of life, and to be terrible
to one's enemies the only object of manly ambition, the Spartan laws
sacrificed the noblest private virtues and domestic affections. They
deprived the female character of the charms that most adorn it--modesty,
tenderness, and sensibility; they made men brutal, coarse, and cruel.
They stunted individual talents; Sparta has produced but few great men,
and these, says Macaulay, only became great when they ceased to be
Lacedemonians. Much unsound sentimentality has been expended in
eulogizing Sparta, from Xenophon down to Mitford, yet the verdict of the
unbiassed historian cannot differ very widely from that of Macaulay:
"The Spartans purchased for their government a prolongation of its
existence by the sacrifice of happiness at home, and dignity abroad.
They cringed to the powerful, they trampled on the weak, they massacred
their helots, they betrayed their allies, they contrived to be a day too
late for the battle of Marathon, they attempted to avoid the battle of
Salamis, they suffered the Athenians, to whom they owed their lives and
liberties, to be a second time driven from their country by the
Persians, that they might finish their own fortifications on the
Isthmus; they attempted to take advantage of the distress to which
exertions in their cause had reduced their preservers, in order to make
them their slaves; they strove to prevent those who had abandoned their
walls to defend them, from rebuilding them to defend themselves; they
commenced the Peloponnesian war in violation of their engagements with
their allies; they gave up to the sword whole cities which had placed
themselves under their protection; they bartered for advantages confined
to themselves the interests, the freedom, and the lives of those who had
served them most faithfully; they took, with equal complacency, and
equal infamy, the stripes of Elis and the bribes of Persia; they never
showed either resentment or gratitude; they abstained from no injury,
and they revenged none. Above all, they looked on a citizen who served
them well as their deadliest enemy."--_Essays_, iii. 389.--H.
[39] The horrid scenes of California life, its lynch laws, murders, and
list of all possible crimes, are still ringing in our ears, and have not
entirely ceased, though their number is lessened, and they are rapidly
disappearing before lawful order. Australia offered, and still offers,
the same spectacle. Texas, but a few years ago, and all newly settled
countries in our day, afford another striking illustration of the
author's remark. Young communities ever attract a great number of
lawless and desperate men; and this has been the case in all ages. Rome
was founded by a band of fugitives from justice, and if her early
history be critically examined, it will be found to reveal a state of
society, with which the Rome described by the Satirists, and upbraided
by the Censors, compares favorably. Any one who will cast a glance into
Bishop Potter's _Antiquities_, can convince himself that the state of
morals, in Athens, was no better in her most flourishing periods than at
the time of her downfall, if, indeed, as good; notwithstanding the
glowing colors in which Isocrates and his followers describe the virtues
of her youthful period, and the degeneracy of the age. Who can doubt
that public morality has attained a higher standard in England, at the
present day when her strength seems to have departed from her, than it
had at any previous era in her history. Where are the brutal fox-hunting
country squires of former centuries? the good old customs, when
hospitality consisted in drinking one's guest underneath the table? What
audience could now endure, or what police permit, the plays of Congreve
and of Otway? Even Shakspeare has to be pruned by the moral censor,
before he can charm our ears. Addison himself, than whom none
contributed more to purify the morals of his age, bears unmistakable
traces of the coarseness of the time in which he wrote. It will be
objected that we are only more prudish, no better at the bottom. But,
even supposing that the same vices still exist, is it not a great step
in advance, that they dare no longer parade themselves with unblushing
impudence? Many who derive their ideas of the Middle Ages, of chivalry,
etc., from the accounts of romance writers, have very erroneous notions
about the manners of that period. "It so happens," says Byron, "that the
good old times when '_l'amour du bon vieux temps, l'amour antique_'
flourished, were the most profligate of all possible centuries. Those
who have any doubts on the subject may consult St. Palay, particularly
vol. ii. p. 69. The vows of chivalry were no better kept than any other
vows whatever, and the songs of the troubadour were not more decent, and
certainly much less refined, than those of Ovid. The 'cours d'amour,
parlements d'amour, ou de courtoisie et de gentilesse,' had much more of
love than of courtesy and gentleness. (See Roland on the same subject
with St. Palay.)" _Preface to Childe Harold._ I should not have quoted
the authority of a poet on historical matters, were I not convinced,
from my own investigations, that his pungent remarks are perfectly
correct. As a further confirmation, I may mention that a few years ago,
in rummaging over the volumes of a large European library, I casually
lit upon a record of judicial proceedings during the fourteenth and
fifteenth centuries, in a little commonwealth, whose simplicity of
manners, and purity of public morals, especially in that period, has
been greatly extolled by historians. There, I found a list of crimes, to
which the most corrupt of modern great cities can furnish no parallel.
In horror and hellish ingenuity, they can be faintly approached only by
the punishment which followed them. Of many, our generation ignores even
the name, and, of others, dares not utter them.--H.
[40] This assertion may surprise those who, in the words of a piquant
writer on Parisian life, "have thought of Paris only under two
aspects--one, as the emporium of fashion, fun, and refinement; the abode
of good fellows somewhat dissipated, of fascinating ladies somewhat
over-kind; of succulent dinners, somewhat indigestible; of pleasures,
somewhat illicit;--the other, as the place _par excellence_, of
revolutions, _émeutes_, and barricades." Yet, all who have pierced below
the brilliant surface, and penetrated into the recesses of destitution
and crime, have seen the ministering angel of charity on his errand, and
can bear witness to the truth of the author's remark. No city can show a
greater number of benevolent institutions, none more active and
practical _private_ charity, which inquires not after the country or
creed of its object.--H.
[41] Tottering, falling Greece, gave birth to a Demosthenes, a Phocian;
the period of the downfall of the Roman republic was the age of Cicero,
Brutus, and Cato.--H.
[42] The subjoined picture of the manners of the Frankish conquerors of
Gaul, is selected on account of the weighty authority from which it
comes, from among a number of even darker ones. "The history of Gregory
of Tours shows us on the one hand, a fierce and barbarous nation; and on
the other, kings of as bad a character. These princes were bloody,
unjust, and cruel, because all the nation was so. If Christianity seemed
sometimes to soften them, it was only by the terror which this religion
imprints in the guilty; the church supported herself against them by the
miracles and prodigies of her saints. The kings were not sacrilegious,
because they dreaded the punishments inflicted on sacrilegious people:
but this excepted, they committed, either in their passion or cold
blood, all manner of crimes and injustice, because in these the avenging
hand of the Deity did not appear so visible. The Franks, as I have
already observed, bore with bloody kings, because they were fond of
blood themselves; they were not affected with the wickedness and
extortion of their princes, because this was their own character. There
had been a great many laws established, but the kings rendered them all
useless by the practice of issuing _preceptions_, a kind of decrees,
after the manner of the rescripts of the Roman emperors. These
preceptions were orders to the judges to do, or to tolerate, things
contrary to law. They were given for illicit marriages, and even those
with consecrated virgins; for transferring successions, and depriving
relations of their rights; for putting to death persons who had not been
convicted of any crime, and not been heard in their defence,
etc."--MONTESQUIEU, _Esprit des Lois_, b. 31, c. 2.--H.
[43] Augustin Thierry, _Récit des Temps Mérovingiens_. (See particularly
the _History of Mummolus_.)
[44] Lucretius was the author of _De Rerum Natura_, and one of the most
distinguished of pagan "free-thinkers." He labored to combine the
philosophy of Epicurus, Evhenius, and others, into a sort of moral
religion, much after the fashion of some of the German mystics and
Platonists of our times.--H.
[45] Cæsar, whose private opinions were both democratical and sceptical,
found it convenient to speak very differently in public, as the funeral
oration in honor of his aunt proves. "On the maternal side, said he, my
aunt Julia is descended from the kings; on the paternal, from the
immortal gods. For my aunt's mother was of the family of the Martii, who
are descended from King Ancus Martius; and the Julii, to which stock our
family belongs, trace their origin to Venus. Thus, in her blood was
blended the majesty of kings, the most powerful of men, and the sanctity
of the gods, who have even the kings in their power."--_Suetonius_,
_Julius_, 5.
Are not these sentiments very monarchical for a democrat; very religious
for an atheist?
[46] It is well known that Constantine did not receive the rite of
baptism until within the last hours of his life, although he professed
to be a sincere believer. The coins, also, struck during his reign, all
bore pagan emblems.--H.
[47] Acts xxvi. 24, 28, 31.
CHAPTER III.
INFLUENCE OF GOVERNMENT UPON THE LONGEVITY OF NATIONS.
Misgovernment defined--Athens, China, Spain, Germany, Italy, etc.--Is
not in itself a sufficient cause for the ruin of nations.
I am aware of the difficulty of the task I have undertaken in attempting
to establish a truth, which by many of my readers will be regarded as a
mere paradox. That good laws and good government exert a direct and
powerful influence upon the well-being and prosperity of a nation, is an
indisputable fact, of which I am fully convinced; but I think that
history proves that they are not absolute conditions of the existence of
a community; or, in other words, that their absence is not necessarily
productive of ruin. Nations, like individuals, are often preyed upon by
fearful diseases, which show no outward traces of the ravages within,
and which, though dangerous, are not always fatal. Indeed, if they
were, few communities would survive the first few years of their
formation, for it is precisely during that period that the government is
worst, the laws most imperfect, and least observed. But here the
comparison between the body political and the human organization ceases,
for while the latter dreads most the attack of disease during infancy,
the former easily overcomes it at that period. History furnishes
innumerable examples of successful contest on the part of young
communities with the most formidable and most devastating political
evils, of which none can be worse than ill-conceived laws, administered
in an oppressive or negligent manner.[48]
Let us first define what we understand by bad government. The varieties
of this evil are as various as nations, countries, and epochs. It were
impossible to enumerate them all. Yet, by classing them under four
principal categories, few varieties will be omitted.
A government is bad, when imposed by foreign influence. Athens
experienced this evil under the thirty tyrants. Yet she shook off the
odious yoke, and patriotism, far from expiring, gained renewed vigor by
the oppression.
A government is bad, when based upon absolute and unconditional
conquest. Almost the whole extent of France in the fourteenth century,
groaned under the dominion of England. The ordeal was passed, and the
nation rose from it more powerful and brilliant than before. China was
overrun and conquered by the Mongol hordes. They were ejected from its
territories, after having previously undergone a singular
transformation. It next fell into the hands of the Mantchoo conquerors,
but though they already count the years of their reign by centuries,
they are now at the eve of experiencing the same fate as their Mongol
predecessors.
A government is especially bad, when the principles upon which it was
based are disregarded or forgotten. This was the fate of the Spanish
monarchy. It was based upon the military spirit of the nation, and upon
its municipal freedom, and declined soon after these principles came to
be forgotten. It is impossible to imagine greater political
disorganization than this country represented. Nowhere was the authority
of the sovereign more nominal and despised; nowhere did the clergy lay
themselves more open to censure. Agriculture and industry, following the
same downward impulse, were also involved in the national marasmus. Yet
Spain, of whom so many despaired, at a moment when her star seemed
setting forever, gave the glorious example of heroic and successful
resistance to the arms of one who had hitherto experienced no check in
his career of conquest. Since that, the better spirit of the nation has
been roused, and there is, probably, at this time, no European state
with more promising prospects, and stronger vitality.[49]
A government is also very bad, when, by its institutions, it authorizes
an antagonism either between the supreme power and the nation, or among
the different classes of which it is composed. This was the case in the
Middle Ages, when the kings of France and England were at war with their
great vassals, and the peasants in perpetual feud with the lords. In
Germany, the first effects of the liberty of thought, were the civil
wars of the Hussites, Anabaptists, and other sectaries. Italy, at a
more remote period, was so distracted by the division of the supreme
authority for which emperor, pope, nobles, and municipalities contended,
that the masses, not knowing whom to obey, in many instances finished by
obeying neither. Yet in the midst of all these troubles, Italian
nationality did not perish. On the contrary, its civilization was at no
time more brilliant, its industry never more productive, its foreign
influence never greater.
If communities have survived such fearful political tempests, it cannot
well be said that national ruin is a necessary cause of misgovernment.
Besides, wise and happy reigns are few and far between, in the history
of every nation; and these few are not considered such by all.
Historians are not unanimous in their praise of Elizabeth, nor do they
all consider the reign of William and Mary as an epoch of prosperity for
England. Truly this science of statesmanship, the highest and most
complicated of all, is so disproportionate to the capacity of man,[50]
and so various are the opinions concerning it, that nations have early
and frequent opportunities of learning to accommodate themselves to
misgovernment, which, in its worst forms, is still preferable to
anarchy. It is a well-proved fact, which even a superficial study of
history will clearly demonstrate, that communities often perish under
the best government of a long series that came before.[51]
FOOTNOTES:
[48] It will be understood that I speak here, not of the political
existence of a centre of sovereignty, but of the life of an entire
nation, the prosperity of a civilization. Here is the place to apply the
definition given above, page 114.
[49] This assertion will appear paradoxical to those who are in the
habit of looking upon Spain as the type of hopeless national
degradation. But whoever studies the history of the last thirty years,
which is but a series of struggles to rise from this position, will
probably arrive at the same conclusions as the author. The revolution of
1820 redeems the character of the nation. "The Spanish Constitution"
became the watchword of the friends of constitutional liberty in the
South of Europe, and ere thirteen months had fully passed, it had become
the fundamental law of three other countries--Portugal, Naples, and
Sardinia. At the mere sound of those words, two kings had resigned their
crowns. These revolutions were not characterized by excesses. They were,
for the most part, accomplished peacefully, quietly, and orderly. They
were not the result of the temporary passions of an excited mob. The
most singular feature of these countries is that the lowest dregs of the
population are the most zealous adherents of absolutism. No, these
revolutions were the work of the best elements in the population, the
most intelligent classes, of people who knew what they wanted, and how
to get it. And then, when Spain had set that ever glorious example to
her neighbors, the great powers, with England at the head, concluded to
re-establish the former state of things. In those memorable congresses
of plenipotentiaries, the most influential was the representative of
England, the Duke of Wellington. And by his advice, or, at least, with
his sanction, an Austrian army entered Sardinia, and abolished the new
constitution; an Austrian army entered Naples and abolished the new
constitution; English vessels of war threatened Lisbon, and Portugal
abolished her new constitution; and finally a French army entered Spain,
and abolished the new constitution. So Naples and Portugal regained
their tyrants, and Spain her imbecile dynasty. For years the Spaniards
have tried to shake it off, and English influence alone has maintained
on a great nation's throne, a wretch that would have disgraced the
lowest walks of private life. But the day of Spanish liberty and Spanish
_independence_ will dawn, and perhaps already has dawned. The efforts of
the last Cortes were wisely directed, and their proceedings marked with
a manliness, a moderation, and a firmness that augur well for the future
weal of Spain.--H.
[50] Who is not reminded of Oxenstierna's famous saying to his son: "Cum
parva sapientiâ mundus gubernatur."--H.
[51] It is obvious that so long as the vitality of a nation remains
unimpaired, misgovernment can be but a temporary ill. The regenerative
principle will be at work to remove the evil and heal the wounds it has
inflicted; and though the remedy be sometimes violent, and throw the
state into fearful convulsions, it will seldom be found ineffectual. So
long as the spirit of liberty prevailed among the Romans, the
Tarquiniuses and Appiuses were as a straw before the storm of popular
indignation; but the death of Cæsar could but substitute a despot in the
stead of a mild and generous usurper. The first Brutus might save the
nation, because he was the expression of the national sentiment; the
second could not, because he was one man opposed to millions. It is a
common error to ascribe too much to individual exertions, and whimsical
philosophers have amused themselves to trace great events to petty
causes; but a deeper inquiry will demonstrate that the great
catastrophes which arrest our attention and form the landmarks of
history, are but the inevitable result of all the whole chain of
antecedent events. Julius Cæsar and Napoleon Bonaparte were, indeed,
especially gifted for their great destinies, but the same gifts could
not have raised them to their exalted positions at any other epoch than
the one in which each lived. Those petty causes are but the drop which
causes the measure to overflow, the pretext of the moment; or as the
small fissure in the dyke which produces the _crevasse_: the wall of
waters stood behind. No man can usurp supreme power, unless the
prevailing tendency of the nation favors it; no man can long persist in
hurrying a nation along in a course repulsive to it; and in this sense,
therefore, not with regard to its abstract justness, it is undoubtedly
true, that the voice of the nation is the voice of God. It is the
expression of what shall and must be.--H.
CHAPTER IV.
DEFINITION OF THE WORD DEGENERACY--ITS CAUSE.
Skeleton history of a nation--Origin of castes, nobility,
etc.--Vitality of nations not necessarily extinguished by
conquest--China, Hindostan--Permanency of their peculiar
civilizations.
If the spirit of the preceding pages has been at all understood, it will
be seen that I am far from considering these great national maladies,
misgovernment, fanaticism, irreligion, and immorality, as mere trifling
accidents, without influence or importance. On the contrary, I sincerely
pity the community which is afflicted by such scourges, and think that
no efforts can be misdirected which tend to mitigate or remove them. But
I repeat, that unless these disorganizing elements are grafted upon
another more destructive principle, unless they are the consequences of
a greater, though concealed, evil; we may rest assured that their
ravages are not fatal, and that society, after a shorter or longer
period of suffering, will escape their toils, perhaps with renewed vigor
and youth.
The examples I have alleged seem to me conclusive; their number, if
necessary, might be increased to any extent. But the conviction has
already gained ground, that these are but secondary evils, to which an
undue importance has hitherto been attached, and that the law which
governs the life and death of societies must be sought for elsewhere,
and deeper. It is admitted that the germ of destruction is inherent in
the constitution of communities; that so long as it remains latent,
exterior dangers are little to be dreaded; but when it has once attained
full growth and maturity, the nation must die, even though surrounded by
the most favorable circumstances, precisely as a jaded steed breaks
down, be the track ever so smooth.
Degeneracy was the name given to this cause of dissolution. This view of
the question was a great step towards the truth, but, unfortunately, it
went no further; the first difficulty proved insurmountable. The term
was certainly correct, etymologically and in every other respect, but
how is it with the definition. A people is said to be degenerated, when
it is badly governed, abuses its riches, is fanatical, or irreligious;
in short, when it has lost the characteristic virtues of its
forefathers. This is begging the question. Thus, communities succumb
under the burden of social and political evils only when they are
degenerate, and they are degenerate only when such evils prevail. This
circular argument proves nothing but the small progress hitherto made in
the science of national biology. I readily admit that nations perish
from degeneracy, and from no other cause; it is when in that wretched
condition, that foreign attacks are fatal to them, for then they no
longer possess the strength to protect themselves against adverse
fortune, or to recover from its blows. They die, because, though exposed
to the same perils as their ancestors, they have not the same powers of
overcoming them. I repeat it, the term _degeneracy_ is correct; but it
is necessary to define it, to give it a real and tangible meaning. It is
necessary to say how and why this vigor, this capacity of overcoming
surrounding dangers, are lost. Hitherto, we have been satisfied with a
mere word, but the thing itself is as little known as ever.[52] The step
beyond, I shall attempt to make.
In my opinion, a nation is degenerate, when the blood of its founders no
longer flows in its veins, but has been gradually deteriorated by
successive foreign admixtures; so that the nation, while retaining its
original name, is no longer composed of the same elements. The
attenuation of the original blood is attended by a modification of the
original instincts, or modes of thinking; the new elements assert their
influence, and when they have once gained perfect and entire
preponderance, the degeneration may be considered as complete. With the
last remnant of the original ethnical principle, expires the life of the
society and its civilization. The masses, which composed it, have
thenceforth no separate, independent, social and political existence;
they are attracted to different centres of civilization, and swell the
ranks of new societies having new instincts and new purposes.
In attempting to establish this theorem, I am met by a question which
involves the solution of a far more difficult problem than any I have
yet approached. This question, so momentous in its bearings, is the
following:--
Is there, in reality, a serious and palpable difference in the capacity
and intrinsic worth of different branches of the human family?
For the sake of clearness, I shall advance, _à priori_, that this
difference exists. It then remains to show how the ethnical character of
a nation can undergo such a total change as I designate by the term
_degeneracy_.
Physiologists assert that the human frame is subject to a constant wear
and tear, which would soon destroy the whole machine, but for new
particles which are continually taking the form and place of the old
ones. So rapid is this change said to be, that, in a few years, the
whole framework is renovated, and the material identity of the
individual changed. The same, to a great extent, may be said of nations,
only that, while the individual always preserves a certain similarity
of form and features, those of a nation are subject to innumerable and
ever-varying changes. Let us take a nation at the moment when it assumes
a political existence, and commences to play a part in the great drama
of the world's stage. In its embryo, we call it a tribe.
The simplest and most natural political institution is that of tribes.
It is the only form of government known to rude and savage nations.
Civilization is the result of a great concentration of powerful physical
and intellectual forces,[53] which, in small and scattered fragments, is
impossible. The first step towards it is, therefore, undoubtedly, the
union of several tribes by alliance or conquest. Such a coalescence is
what we call a nation or empire. I think it admits of an easy
demonstration, that in proportion as a human family is endowed with the
capacity for intellectual progress, it exhibits a tendency to enlarge
the circle of its influence and dominion. On the contrary, where that
capacity is weak, or wanting, we find the population subdivided into
innumerable small fragments, which, though in perpetual collision,
remain forever detached and isolated. The stronger may massacre the
weaker, but permanent conquest is never attempted; depredatory
incursions are the sole object and whole extent of warfare. This is the
case with the natives of Polynesia, many parts of Africa, and the Arctic
regions. Nor can their stagnant condition be ascribed to local or
climatical causes. We have seen such wretched hordes inhabiting,
indifferently, temperate as well as torrid or frigid zones; fertile
prairies and barren deserts; river-shores and coasts as well as inland
regions. It must therefore be founded upon an inherent incapacity of
progress. The more civilizable a race is, the stronger is the tendency
for aggregation of masses. Complex political organizations are not so
much the effect as the cause of civilization.[54] A tribe with superior
intellectual and physical endowments, soon perceives that, to increase
its power and prosperity, it must compel its neighbors to enter into the
sphere of its influence. Where peaceful means fail, war is resorted to.
Territories are conquered, a division into classes established between
the victorious and the subjugated race; in one word, a nation has made
its appearance upon the theatre of history. The impulse being once
given, it will not stop short in the career of conquest. If wisdom and
moderation preside in its councils, the tracks of its armies will not be
marked by wanton destruction and bloodshed; the monuments, institutions,
and manners of the conquered will be respected; superior creations will
take the place of the old, where changes are necessary and useful;--a
great empire will be formed.[55] At first, and perhaps for a long time,
victors and vanquished will remain separated and distinct. But
gradually, as the pride of the conqueror becomes less obtrusive, and the
bitterness of defeat is forgotten by the conquered; as the ties of
common interest become stronger, the boundary line between them is
obliterated. Policy, fear, or natural justice, prompts the masters to
concessions; intermarriages take place, and, in the course of time, the
various ethnical elements are blended, and the different nations
composing the state begin to consider themselves as one. This is the
general history of the rise of all empires whose records have been
transmitted to us.[56] An inferior race, by falling into the hands of
vigorous masters, is thus called to share a destiny, of which, alone, it
would have been incapable. Witness the Saxons by the Norman
conquest.[57] But, if there is a decided disparity in the capacity of
the two races, their mixture, while it ennobles the baser, deteriorates
the nobler; a new race springs up, inferior to the one, though superior
to the other, and, perhaps, possessed of peculiar qualities unknown to
either. The modification of the ethnical character of the nation,
however, does not terminate here.
Every new acquisition of territory, by conquest or treaty, brings an
addition of foreign blood. The wealth and splendor of a great empire
attract crowds of strangers to its capital, great inland cities, or
seaports. Apart from the fact that the conquering race--that which
founds the empire, and supports and animates it--is, in most cases,
inferior in numbers to the masses which it subdued and assimilated; the
conspicuous part which it takes in the affairs of the state, renders it
more directly exposed to the fatal results of battles, proscriptions,
and revolts.[58] In some instances, also, it happens that the
substratum of native populations are singularly prolific--witness the
Celts and Sclaves. Sooner or later, therefore, the conquering race is
absorbed by the masses which its vigor and superiority have aggregated.
The very materials of which it erected its splendor, and upon which it
based its strength, are ultimately the means of its weakness and
destruction. But the civilization which it has developed, may survive
for a limited period. The forward impulse, once imparted to the mass,
will still propel it for a while, but its force is continually
decreasing. Manners, laws, and institutions remain, but the spirit
which animated them has fled; the lifeless body still exhibits the
apparent symptoms of life, and, perhaps, even increases, but the real
strength has departed; the edifice soon begins to totter, at the
slightest collision it will crumble, and bury beneath its ruins the
civilization which it had developed.
If this definition of degeneracy be accepted, and its consequences
admitted, the problem of the rise and fall of empires no longer presents
any difficulty. A nation lives so long as it preserves the ethnical
principle to which it owes its existence; with this principle, it loses
the _primum mobile_ of its successes, its glory, and its civilization:
it must therefore disappear from the stage of history. Who can doubt
that if Alexander had been opposed by real Persians, the men of the
Arian stock, whom Cyrus led to victory, the issue of the battle of
Arbela would have been very different. Or if Rome, in her decadence, had
possessed soldiers and senators like those of the time of Fabius,
Scipio, and Cato, would she have fallen so easy a prey to the barbarians
of the North?
It will be objected that, even had the integrity of the original blood
remained intact, a time must have come when they would find their
masters. They would have succumbed under a series of well-combined
attacks, a long-continued overwhelming pressure, or simply by the
chances of a lost battle. The political edifice might have been
destroyed in this manner, not the civilization, not the social
organization. Invasion and defeat would have been reverses, sad ones,
indeed, but not irremediable. There is no want of facts to confirm this
assertion.
In modern times, the Chinese have suffered two complete conquests. In
each case they have imposed their manners and their institutions upon
the conquerors; they have given them much, and received but little in
return. The first invaders, after having undergone this change, were
expelled; the same fate is now threatening the second.[59] In this case
the vanquished were intellectually and numerically superior to their
victors. I shall mention another case where the victors, though
intellectually superior, are not possessed of sufficient numerical
strength to transform the intellectual and moral character of the
vanquished.
The political supremacy of the British in Hindostan is perfect, yet they
exert little or no moral influence over the masses they govern. All that
the utmost exertion of their power can effect upon the fears of their
subjects, is an outward compliance. The notions of the Hindoo cannot be
replaced by European ideas--the spirit of Hindoo civilization cannot be
conquered by any power, however great, of the law. Political forms may
change, and do change, without materially affecting the basis upon which
they rest; Hyderabad, Lahore, and Delhi may cease to be capitals: Hindoo
society will subsist, nevertheless. A time must come, sooner or later,
when India will regain a separate political existence, and publicly
proclaim those laws of her own, which she now secretly obeys, or of
which she is tacitly left in possession.
The mere accident of conquest cannot destroy the principle of vitality
in a people. At most, it may suspend for a time the exterior
manifestations of that vitality, and strip it of its outward honors. But
so long as the blood, and consequently the culture of a nation, exhibit
sufficiently strong traces of the initiatory race, that nation exists;
and whether it has to deal, like the Chinese, with conquerors who are
superior only materially; or whether, like the Hindoos, it maintains a
struggle of patience against a race much superior in every respect; that
nation may rest assured of its future--independence will dawn for it one
day. On the contrary, when a nation has completely exhausted the
initiatory ethnical element, defeat is certain death; it has consumed
the term of existence which Heaven had granted it--its destiny is
fulfilled.[60]
I, therefore, consider the question as settled, which has been so often
discussed, as to what would have been the result, if the Carthaginians,
instead of succumbing to the fortune of Rome, had conquered Italy. As
they belonged to the Phenician family, a stock greatly inferior to the
Italian in political capacity, they would have been absorbed by the
superior race after the victory, precisely as they were after the
defeat. The final result, therefore, would have been the same in either
case.
The destiny of civilizations is not ruled by accident; it depends not on
the issue of a battle, a thrust of a sword, the favors or frowns of
fickle fortune. The most warlike, formidable, and triumphant nations,
when they were distinguished for nothing but bravery, strategical
science, and military successes, have never had a nobler fate than that
of learning from their subjects, perhaps too late, the art of living in
peace. The Celts, the nomad hordes of Central Asia, are memorable
illustrations of this truth.
The whole of my demonstration now rests upon one hypothesis, the proof
of which I have reserved for the succeeding chapters: THE MORAL AND
INTELLECTUAL DIVERSITIES OF THE VARIOUS BRANCHES OF THE HUMAN FAMILY.
FOOTNOTES:
[52] The author has neglected to advert to one very clear explanation of
this word, which, from its extensive popularity, seems to me to deserve
some notice. It is said, and very commonly believed, that there is a
physical degeneracy in mankind; that a nation cultivating for a long
time the arts of peace, and enjoying the fruits of well-directed
industry, loses the capacity for warfare; in other words becomes
effeminate, and, consequently, less capable of defending itself against
ruder, and, therefore, more warlike invaders. It is further said, though
with less plausibility, that there is a general degeneracy of the human
race--that we are inferior in physical strength to our ancestors, etc.
If this theory could be supported by incontestable facts--and there are
many who think it possible--it would give to the term degeneracy that
real and tangible meaning which the author alleges to be wanting. But a
slight investigation will demonstrate that it is more specious than
correct.
In the first place, to prove that an advance in civilization does not
lessen the material puissance of a nation, but rather increases it, we
may point to the well-known fact that the most civilized nations are the
most formidable opponents in warfare, because they have brought the
means of attack and defence to the greatest perfection.
But that for this strength they are not solely indebted to artificial
means, is proved by the history of modern civilized states. The French
now fight with as much martial ardor and intrepidity, and with more
success than they did in the times of Francis I. or Louis XIV., albeit
they have since both these epochs made considerable progress in
civilization, and this progress has been most perceptible in those
classes which form the bulk and body of armies. England, though,
perhaps, she could not muster an army as large as in former times, has
hearts as stout, and arms as strong as those that gained for her
imperishable glory at Agincourt and Poitiers. The charge at Balaklava,
rash and useless as it may be termed, was worthy of the followers of the
Black Prince.
A theory to be correct, must admit of mathematical demonstration. The
most civilized nations, then, would be the most effeminate; the most
barbarous, the most warlike. And, descending from nations to
individuals, the most cultivated and refined mind would be accompanied
by a deficiency in many of the manly virtues. Such an assertion is
ridiculous. The most refined and fastidious gentleman has never, as a
class, displayed less courage and fortitude than the rowdy and fighter
by profession. Men sprung from the bosom of the most polished circles in
the most civilized communities, have surpassed the most warlike
barbarians in deeds of hardihood and heroic valor.
Civilization, therefore, produces no degeneracy; the cultivation of the
arts of peace, no diminution of manly virtues. We have seen the peaceful
burghers of free cities successfully resist the trained bands of a
superior foe; we have seen the artisans and merchants of Holland
invincible to the veteran armies of the then most powerful prince of
Christendom, backed as he was by the inexhaustible treasures of a newly
discovered hemisphere; we have seen, in our times, troops composed of
volunteers who left their hearthstones to fight for their country, rout
incredible odds of the standing armies of a foe, who, for the last
thirty years, has known no peace.
I believe that an advanced state of civilization, accompanied by long
peace, gives rise to a certain _domestication_ of man, that is to say,
it lays on a polish over the more ferocious or pugnacious tendencies of
his nature; because it, in some measure deprives him of the
opportunities of exercising them, but it cannot deprive him of the
power, should the opportunity present itself. Let us suppose two
brothers born in some of our great commercial cities, one to enter a
counting-house, the other to settle in the western wilderness. The
former might become a polished, elegant, perhaps even dandified young
gentleman; the other might evince a supreme contempt for all the
amenities of life, be ever ready to draw his bowie-knife or revolver,
however slight the provocation. The country requires the services of
both; a great principle is at stake, and in some battle of Matamoras or
Buena Vista, the two brothers fight side by side; who will be the
braver?
I believe that both individual and national character admit of a certain
degree of pressure by surrounding circumstances; the pressure removed,
the character at once regains its original form. See with what
kindliness the civilized descendant of the wild Teuton hunter takes to
the hunter's life in new countries, and how soon he learns to despise
the comforts of civilized life and fix his abode in the solitary
wilderness. The Normans had been settled over six centuries in the
beautiful province of France, to which they gave their name; their
nobles had frequented the most polished court in Europe, adapted
themselves to the fashions and requirements of life in a luxurious
metropolis; they themselves had learned to plough the soil instead of
the wave; yet in another hemisphere they at once regained their ancient
habits, and--as six hundred years before--became the most dreaded
pirates of the seas they infested; the savage buccaneers of the Spanish
main. I can see no difference between Lolonnois and his followers, and
the terrible men of the north (his lineal ancestors) that ravaged the
shores of the Seine and the Rhine, and whose name is even yet mentioned
with horror every evening, in the other hemisphere, by thousands of
praying children: "God preserve us from the Northmen." Morgan, the Welch
buccaneer, who, with a thousand men, vanquished five times as many
well-equipped Spaniards, took their principal cities, Porto Bello and
Panama; who tortured his captives to make them reveal the hiding-place
of their treasure; Morgan might have been--sixteen centuries
notwithstanding--a tributary chief to Caractacus, or one of those who
opposed Cæsar's landing in Britain. To make the resemblance still more
complete, the laws and regulations of these lawless bands were a precise
copy of those to which their not more savage ancestors bound themselves.
I regret that my limited space precludes me from entering into a more
elaborate exposition of the futility of the theory that civilization, or
a long continued state of peace, can produce physical degeneracy or
inaptitude for the ruder duties of the battle-field; but I believe that
what I have said will suffice to suggest to the thoughtful reader
numerous confirmations of my position; and I may, therefore, now refer
him to Mr. Gobineau's explanation of the term degeneracy.--H.
[53] "Nothing but the great number of citizens in a state can occasion
the flourishing of the arts and sciences. Accordingly, we see that, in
all ages, it was great empires only which enjoyed this advantage. In
these great states, the arts, especially that of agriculture, were soon
brought to great perfection, and thus that leisure afforded to a
considerable number of men, which is so necessary to study and
speculation. The Babylonians, Assyrians, and Egyptians, had the
advantage of being formed into regular, well-constituted
states."--_Origin of Laws and Sciences, and their Progress among the
most Ancient Nations._ By President DE GOGUET. Edinburgh, 1761, vol. i.
pp. 272-273.--H.
[54] "Conquests, by uniting many nations under one sovereign, have
formed great and powerful empires, out of the ruins of many petty
states. In these great empires, men began insensibly to form clearer
views of politics, juster and more salutary notions of government.
Experience taught them to avoid the errors which had occasioned the ruin
of the nations whom they had subdued, and put them upon taking measures
to prevent surprises, invasions, and the like misfortunes. With these
views they fortified cities, secured such passes as might have admitted
an enemy into their country, and kept a certain number of troops
constantly on foot. By these precautions, several States rendered
themselves formidable to their neighbors, and none durst lightly attack
powers which were every way so respectable. The interior parts of such
mighty monarchies were no longer exposed to ravages and devastations.
War was driven far from the centre, and only infected the frontiers. The
inhabitants of the country, and of the cities, began to breathe in
safety. The calamities which conquests and revolutions had occasioned,
disappeared; but the blessings which had grown out of them, remained.
Ingenious and active spirits, encouraged by the repose which they
enjoyed, devoted themselves to study. _It was in the bosom of great
empires the arts were invented, and the sciences had their
birth._"--_Op. cit._, vol. i. Book 5, p. 326.--H.
[55] The history of every great empire proves the correctness of this
remark. The conqueror never attempted to change the manners or local
institutions of the peoples subdued, but contented himself with an
acknowledgment of his supremacy, the payment of tribute, and the
rendering of assistance in war. Those who have pursued a contrary
course, may be likened to an overflowing river, which, though it leaves
temporary marks of its destructive course behind, must, sooner or later,
return to its bed, and, in a short time, its invasions are forgotten,
and their traces obliterated.--H.
[56] The most striking illustration of the correctness of this
reasoning, is found in Roman history, the earlier portion of which
is--thanks to Niebuhr's genius--just beginning to be understood. The
lawless followers of Romulus first coalesced with the Sabines; the two
nations united, then compelled the Albans to raze their city to the
ground, and settle in Rome. Next came the Latins, to whom, also, a
portion of the city was allotted for settlement. These two conquered
nations were, of course, not permitted the same civil and political
privileges as the conquerors, and, with the exception of a few noble
families among them (which probably had been, from the beginning, in the
interests of the conquerors), these tribes formed the _plebs_. The
distinction by nations was forgotten, and had become a distinction of
_classes_. Then began the progress which Mr. Gobineau describes. The
Plebeians first gained their _tribunes_, who could protect their
interests against the one-sided legislation of the dominant class; then,
the right of discussing and deciding certain public questions in the
_comitia_, or public assembly. Next, the law prohibiting intermarriage
between the Patricians and Plebeians was repealed; and thus, in course
of time, the government changed from an oligarchical to a democratic
form. I might go into details, or, I might mention other nations in
which the same process is equally manifest, but I think the above
well-known facts sufficient to bring the author's idea into a clear
light, and illustrate its correctness. The history of the Middle Ages,
the establishment of serfdom and its gradual abolition, also furnish an
analogue.
Wherever we see an hereditary aristocracy (whether called class or
caste), it will be found to originate in a race, which, if no longer
_dominant_, was once conqueror. Before the Norman conquest, the English
aristocracy was _Saxon_, there were no nobles of the ancient British
blood, east of Wales; after the conquest, the aristocracy was _Norman_,
and nine-tenths of the noble families of England to this day trace, or
pretend to trace, their origin to that stock. The noble French families,
anterior to the Revolution, were almost all of _Frankish_ or
_Burgundian_ origin. The same observation applies everywhere else. In
support of my opinion, I have Niebuhr's great authority: "Wherever there
are castes, they are the consequence of foreign conquest and
subjugation; it is impossible for a nation to submit to such a system,
unless it be compelled by the calamities of a conquest. By this means
only it is, that, contrary to the will of a people, circumstances arise
which afterwards assume the character of a division into classes or
castes."--_Lect. on Anc. Hist._ (In the English translation, this
passage occurs in vol. i. p. 90.)
In conclusion, I would observe that, whenever it becomes politic to
flatter the mass of the people, the fact of conquest is denied. Thus,
English writers labored hard to prove that William the Norman did not,
in reality, conquer the Saxons. Some time before the French Revolution,
the same was attempted to be proved in the case of the Germanic tribes
in France. L'Abbé du Bos, and other writers, taxed their ingenuity to
disguise an obvious fact, and to hide the truth under a pile of
ponderous volumes.--H.
[57] "It has been a favorite thesis with many writers, to pretend that
the Saxon government was, at the time of the conquest, by no means
subverted; that William of Normandy legally acceded to the throne, and,
consequently, to the engagements of the Saxon kings.... But, if we
consider that the manner in which the public power is formed in a state,
is so very essential a part of its government, and that a thorough
change in this respect was introduced into England by the conquest, we
shall not scruple to allow that a _new government_ was established. Nay,
as almost the whole landed property in the kingdom was, at that time,
transferred to other hands, a new system of criminal justice introduced,
and the language of the law moreover altered, the revolution may be said
to have been such as is not, perhaps, to be paralleled in the history of
any other country."--DE LOLME'S _English Constitution_, c. i., _note_
c.--"The battle of Hastings, and the events which followed it, not only
placed a Duke of Normandy on the English throne, but gave up the whole
population of England to the tyranny of the Norman race. The subjugation
of a nation has seldom, even in Asia, been more complete."--MACAULAY'S
_History of England_, vol. i. p. 10.--H.
[58] This assertion seems self-evident; it may, however, be not
altogether irrelevant to the subject, to direct attention to a few facts
in illustration of it. Great national calamities like wars,
proscriptions, and revolutions, are like thunderbolts, striking mostly
the objects of greatest elevation. We have seen that a conquering race
generally, for a long time even after the conquest has been forgotten,
forms an aristocracy, which generally monopolizes the prominent
positions. In great political convulsions, this aristocracy suffers
most, often in numbers, and always in proportion. Thus, at the battle of
Cannæ, from 5,000 to 6,000 Roman knights are said to have been slain,
and, at all times, the officer's dress has furnished the most
conspicuous, and at the same time the most important target for the
death-dealing stroke. In those fearful proscriptions, in which Sylla and
Marius vied with each other in wholesale slaughter, the number of
victims included two hundred senators and thirty-three ex-consuls. That
the major part of the rest were prominent men, and therefore patricians,
is obvious from the nature of this persecution. Revolutions are most
often, though not always, produced by a fermentation among the mass of
the population, who have a heavy score to settle against a class that
has domineered and tyrannized over them. Their fury, therefore, is
directed against this aristocracy. I have now before me a curious
document (first published in the _Prussian State-Gazette_, in
1828, and for which I am indebted to a little German volume, _Das
Menschengeschlecht auf seinem Gegenwärtigen Standpuncte_, by
SMIDT-PHISELDECK), giving a list of the victims that fell under the
guillotine by sentence of the revolutionary tribunal, from August, 1792,
to the 27th of July, 1794, in a little less than two years. The number
of victims there given is 2,774. Of these, 941 are of rank unknown. The
remaining 1,833 may be divided in the following proportions:--
1,084 highest nobility (princes, dukes, marshals of France, generals,
and other officers, etc. etc.)
636 of the gentry (members of Parliament, judges, etc. etc.)
113 of the bourgeoisie (including non-commissioned officers and
soldiers.)
-----
1,833
Such facts require no comments.--H.
[59] The recent insurrection in China has given rise to a great deal of
speculation, and various are the opinions that have been formed
respecting it. But it is now pretty generally conceded that it is a
great national movement, and, therefore, must ultimately be successful.
The history of this insurrection, by Mr. Callery and Dr. Ivan (one the
interpreter, and the other the physician of the French embassy in China,
and both well known and reliable authorities) leaves no doubt upon the
subject. One of the most significant signs in this movement is the
cutting off the tails, and letting the hair grow, which is being
practised, says Dr. Ivan, in all the great cities, and in the very teeth
of the mandarins. (_Ins. in China_, p. 243.) Let not the reader smile at
this seemingly puerile demonstration, or underrate its importance.
Apparently trivial occurrences are often the harbingers of the most
important events. Were I to see in the streets of Berlin or Vienna, men
with long beards or hats of a certain shape, I should know that serious
troubles are to be expected; and in proportion to the number of such
men, I should consider the catastrophe more or less near at hand, and
the monarch's crown in danger. When the Lombard stops smoking in the
streets, he meditates a revolution; and France is comparatively safe,
even though every street in Paris is barricaded, and blood flows in
torrents; but when bands march through the streets singing the _ça ira_,
we know that to-morrow the _Red Republic_ will be proclaimed. All these
are silent, but expressive demonstrations of the prevalence of a certain
principle among the masses. Such a one is the cutting off of the tail
among the Chinese. Nor is this a mere emblem. The shaved crown and the
tail are the brands of conquest, a mark of degradation imposed by the
Mantchoos on the subjugated race. The Chinese have never abandoned the
hope of one day expelling their conquerors, as they did already once
before. "Ever since the fall of the Mings," says Dr. Ivan, "and the
accession of the Mantchoo dynasty, clandestine associations--these
intellectual laboratories of declining states--have been incessantly in
operation. The most celebrated of these secret societies, that of the
Triad, or the _three principles_, commands so extensive and powerful an
organization, that its members may be found throughout China, and
wherever the Chinese emigrate; so that there is no great exaggeration in
the Chinese saying: 'When three of us are together, the Triad is among
us.'" (_Hist. of the Insur. in Ch._, p. 112.) Again, the writer says:
"The revolutionary impetus is now so strong, the affairs of the
pretender or chief of the insurrection in so prosperous a condition,
that the success of his cause has nothing to fear from the loss of a
battle. It would require a series of unprecedented reverses to ruin his
hopes" (p. 243 and 245).
I have written this somewhat lengthy note to show that Mr. Gobineau
makes no rash assertion, when he says that the Mantchoos are about to
experience the same fate as their Tartar predecessors.--H.
[60] The author might have mentioned Russia in illustration of his
position. The star of no nation that we are acquainted with has suffered
an eclipse so total and so protracted, nor re-appeared with so much
brilliancy. Russia, whose history so many believe to date from the time
of Peter the Great only, was one of the earliest actors on the stage of
modern history. Its people had adopted Christianity when our forefathers
were yet heathens; its princes formed matrimonial alliances with the
monarchs of Byzantine Rome, while Charlemagne was driving the reluctant
Saxon barbarians by thousands into rivers to be baptized _en masse_.
Russia had magnificent cities before Paris was more than a collection of
hovels on a small island of the Seine. Its monarchs actually
contemplated, and not without well-founded hopes, the conquest of
Constantinople, while the Norman barges were devastating the coasts and
river-shores of Western Europe. Nay, to that far-off, almost polar
region, the enterprise of the inhabitants had attracted the genius of
commerce and its attendants, prosperity and abundance. One of the
greatest commercial cities of the first centuries after Christ, one of
the first of the Hanse-Towns, was the great city of Novogorod, the
capital of a republic that furnished three hundred thousand fighting
men. But the east of Europe was not destined to outstrip the west in the
great race of progress. The millions of Tartars, that, locust-like--but
more formidable--marked their progress by hopeless devastation, had
converted the greater portion of Asia into a desert, and now sought a
new field for their savage exploits. Russia stood the first brunt, and
its conquest exhausted the strength of the ruthless foe, and saved
Western Europe from overwhelming ruin. In the beginning of the
thirteenth century, five hundred thousand Tartar horsemen crossed the
Ural Mountains. Slow, but gradual, was their progress. The Russian
armies were trampled down by this countless cavalry. But the resistance
must have been a brave and vigorous one, for few of the invaders lived
long enough to see the conquest. Not until after a desperate struggle of
fifty years, did Russia acknowledge a Tartar master. Nor were the
conquerors even then allowed to enjoy their prize in peace. For two
centuries more, the Russians never remitted their efforts to regain
their independence. Each generation transmitted to its posterity the
remembrance of that precious treasure, and the care of reconquering it.
Nor were their efforts unsuccessful. Year after year the Tartars saw the
prize gliding from their grasp, and towards the end of the fifteenth
century, we find them driven to the banks of the Volga, and the coasts
of the Black Sea. Russia now began to breathe again. But, lo! during the
long struggle, Pole and Swede had vied with the Tartar in stripping her
of her fairest domains. Her territory extended scarce two hundred miles,
in any direction from Moscow. Her very name was unknown. Western Europe
had forgotten her. The same causes that established the feudal system
there, had, in the course of two centuries and a half, changed a nation
of freemen into a nation of serfs. The arts of peace were lost, the
military element had gained an undue preponderance, and a band of
soldiers, like the Pretorian Guards of Rome, made and deposed
sovereigns, and shook the state to its very foundations. Yet here and
there a vigorous monarch appeared, who controlled the fierce element,
and directed it to the weal of the state. Smolensk, the fairest portion
of the ancient Russian domain, was re-conquered from the Pole. The
Swede, also, was forced to disgorge a portion of his spoils. But it was
reserved for Peter the Great and his successors to restore to Russia the
rank she had once held, and to which she was entitled.
I will not further trespass on the patience of the reader, now that we
have arrived at that portion of Russian history which many think the
first. I would merely observe that not only did Peter add to his empire
no territory that had not formerly belonged to it, but even Catharine,
at the first partition of Poland (I speak not of the subsequent ones),
merely re-united to her dominion what once were integral portions. The
rapid growth of Russia, since she has reassumed her station among the
nations of the earth, is well known. Cities have sprung up in places
where once the nomad had pitched his tent. A great capital, the
handsomest in the world, has risen from the marsh, within one hundred
and fifty years after the founder, whose name it perpetuates, had laid
the first stone. Another has risen from the ashes, within less than a
decade of years from the time when--a holocaust on the altar of
patriotism--its flames announced to the world the vengeance of a nation
on an intemperate aggressor.
Truly, it seems to me, that Mr. Gobineau could not have chosen a better
illustration of his position, that the mere accident of conquest can not
annihilate a nation, than this great empire, in whose history conquest
forms so terrible and so long an episode, that the portion anterior to
it is almost forgotten to this day.--H.
CHAPTER V.
THE MORAL AND INTELLECTUAL DIVERSITY OF RACES IS NOT THE RESULT OF
POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS.
Antipathy of races--Results of their mixture--The scientific axiom of
the absolute equality of men, but an extension of the
political--Its fallacy--Universal belief in unequal endowment of
races--The moral and intellectual diversity of races not
attributable to institutions--Indigenous institutions are the
expression of popular sentiments; when foreign and imported, they
never prosper--Illustrations: England and France--Roman
Empire--European Colonies--Sandwich Islands--St. Domingo--Jesuit
missions in Paraguay.
The idea of an innate and permanent difference in the moral and mental
endowments of the various groups of the human species, is one of the
most ancient, as well as universally adopted, opinions. With few
exceptions, and these mostly in our own times, it has formed the basis
of almost all political theories, and has been the fundamental maxim of
government of every nation, great or small. The prejudices of country
have no other cause; each nation believes in its own superiority over
its neighbors, and very often different parts of the same nation regard
each other with contempt. There seems to exist an instinctive antipathy
among the different races, and even among the subdivisions of the same
race, of which none is entirely exempt, but which acts with the greatest
force in the least civilized or least civilizable. We behold it in the
characteristic suspiciousness and hostility of the savage; in the
isolation from foreign influence and intercourse of the Chinese and
Japanese; in the various distinctions founded upon birth in more
civilized communities, such as castes, orders of nobility and
aristocratic privileges.[61] Not even a common religion can extinguish
the hereditary aversion of the Arab[62] to the Turk, of the Kurd to the
Nestorian of Syria; or the bitter hostility of the Magyar and Sclave,
who, without intermingling, have inhabited the same country for
centuries. But as the different types lose their purity and become
blended, this hostility of race abates; the maxim of absolute and
permanent inequality is first discussed, then doubted. A man of mixed
race or caste will not be apt to admit disparity in his double ancestry.
The superiority of particular types, and their consequent claims to
dominion, find fewer advocates. This dominion is stigmatized as a
tyrannical usurpation of power.[63] The mixture of castes gives rise to
the political axiom that all men are equal, and, therefore, entitled to
the same rights. Indeed, since there are no longer any distinct
hereditary classes, none can justly claim superior merit and privileges.
But this assertion, which is true only where a complete fusion has taken
place, is applied to the whole human race--to all present, past, and
future generations. The political axiom of equality which, like the bag
of Æolus, contains so many tempests, is soon followed by the scientific.
It is said--and the more heterogeneous the ethnical elements of a
nation are, the more extensively the theory gains ground--that, "all
branches of the human family are endowed with intellectual capacities of
the same nature, which, though in different stages of development, are
all equally susceptible of improvement." This is not, perhaps, the
precise language, but certainly the meaning. Thus, the Huron, by proper
culture, might become the equal of the Englishman and Frenchman. Why,
then, I would ask, did he never, in the course of centuries, invent the
art of printing or apply the power of steam; why, among the warriors of
his tribe, has there never arisen a Cæsar or a Charlemagne, among his
bards and medicine-men, a Homer or a Hippocrates?
These questions are generally met by advancing the influence of climate,
local circumstances, etc. An island, it is said, can never be the
theatre of great social and political developments in the same measure
as a continent; the natives of a southern clime will not display the
energy of those of the north; seacoasts and large navigable rivers will
promote a civilization which could never have flourished in an inland
region;--and a great deal more to the same purpose. But all these
ingenious and plausible hypotheses are contradicted by facts. The same
soil and the same climate have been visited, alternately, by barbarism
and civilization. The degraded fellah is charred by the same sun which
once burnt the powerful priest of Memphis; the learned professor of
Berlin lectures under the same inclement sky that witnessed the miseries
of the savage Finn.
What is most curious is, that while the belief of equality may influence
institutions and manners, there is not a nation, nor an individual but
renders homage to the contrary sentiment. Who has not heard of the
distinctive traits of the Frenchman, the German, the Spaniard, the
English, the Russ. One is called sprightly and volatile, but brave; the
other is sober and meditative; a third is noted for his gravity; a
fourth is known by his coldness and reserve, and his eagerness of gain;
a fifth, on the contrary, is notorious for reckless expense. I shall not
express any opinion upon the accuracy of these distinctions, I merely
point out that they are made daily and adopted by common consent. The
same has been done in all ages. The Roman of Italy distinguished the
Roman of Greece by the epithet _Græculus_, and attributed to him, as
characteristic peculiarities, want of courage and boastful loquacity. He
laughed at the colonist of Carthage, whom he pretended to recognize
among thousands by his litigious spirit and bad faith. The Alexandrians
passed for wily, insolent, and seditious. Yet the doctrine of equality
was as universally received among the Romans of that period as it is
among ourselves. If, then, various nations display qualities so
different; if some are eager for war and glory; others, lovers of their
ease and comfort, it follows that their destinies must be very diverse.
The strongest will act in the great tragedy of history the roles of
kings and heroes, the weaker will be content with the humbler parts.
I do not believe that the ingenuity of our times has succeeded in
reconciling the universally adopted belief in the special character of
each nation with the no less general conviction that they are all equal.
Yet this contradiction is very flagrant, the more so as its partisans
are not behindhand in extolling the superiority of the Anglo-Saxons of
North America over all the other nations of the same continent. It is
true that they ascribe that superiority to the influence of political
institutions. But they will hardly contest the characteristic aptitude
of the countrymen of Penn and Washington, to establish wherever they go
liberal forms of government, and their still more valuable ability to
preserve them, when once established. Is not this a very high
prerogative allotted to that branch of the human family? the more
precious, since so few of the groups that have ever inhabited the globe
possessed it.
I know that my opponents will not allow me an easy victory. They will
object to me the immense potency of manners and institutions; they will
show me how much the spirit of the government, by its inherent and
irresistible force, influences the development of a nation; how vastly
different will be its progress when fostered by liberty or crushed by
despotism. This argument, however, by no means invalidates my position.
Political institutions can have but two origins: either they emanate
from the people which is to be governed by them, or they are the
invention of a foreign nation, by whom they are imposed, or from whom
they are copied.
In the former case, the institutions are necessarily moulded upon the
instincts and wants of the people; and if, through carelessness or
ignorance, they are in aught incompatible with either, such defects will
soon be removed or remedied. In every independent community the law may
be said to emanate from the people; for though they have not apparently
the power of promulgating it, it cannot be applicable to them unless it
is consonant with their views and sentiments: it must be the reflex of
the national character.[64] The wise law-giver, to whose superior genius
his countrymen seem solely indebted, has but given a voice to the wants
and desires of all. The mere theorist, like Draco, finds his code a dead
letter, and destined soon to give place to the institutions of the more
judicious philosopher who would give to his compatriots "not the best
laws possible, but such only as they were capable of receiving." When
Charles I., guided by the fatal counsels of the Earl of Strafford,
attempted to curb the English nation under the yoke of absolutism, king
and minister were treading the bloody quagmire of theories. But when
Ferdinand the Catholic ordered those terrible, but, in the then
condition of the nation, politically necessary persecutions of the
Spanish Moors, or when Napoleon re-established religion and authority in
France, and flattered the military spirit of the nation--both these
potentates had rightly understood the genius of their subjects, and were
building upon a solid and practical foundation.
False institutions, often beautiful on paper, are those which are not
conformed to the national virtues _or failings_, and consequently
unsuitable to the country, though perhaps perfectly practicable and
highly useful in a neighboring state. Such institutions, were they
borrowed from the legislation of the angels, will produce nothing but
discord and anarchy. Others, on the contrary, which the theorist will
eschew, and the moralist blame in many points, or perhaps throughout,
may be the best adapted to the community. Lycurgus was no theorist; his
laws were in strict accordance with the spirit and manners of his
countrymen.[65] The Dorians of Sparta were few in number, valiant, and
rapacious; false institutions would have made them but petty
villains--Lycurgus changed them into heroic brigands.[66]
The influence of laws and political institutions is certainly very
great; they preserve and invigorate the genius of a nation, define its
objects, and help to attain them; but though they may develop powers,
they cannot create them where they do not already exist. They first
receive their imprint from the nation, and then return and confirm it.
In other words, it is the nation that fashions the laws, before the
laws, in turn, can fashion the nation. Another proof of this fact are
the changes and modifications which they undergo in the course of time.
I have already said above, that in proportion as nations advance in
civilization, and extend their territory and power, their ethnical
character, and, with it, their instincts, undergo a gradual alteration.
New manners and new tendencies prevail, and soon give rise to a series
of modifications, the more frequent and radical as the influx of blood
becomes greater and the fusion more complete.
England, where the ethnical changes have been slower and less
considerable than in any other European country, preserves to this day
the basis of the social system of the fourteenth and fifteenth
centuries. The municipal organization of the times of the Plantagenets
and the Tudors flourishes in almost all its ancient vigor. There is the
same participation of the nobility in the government, and the same
manner of composing that nobility; the same respect for ancient
families, united to an appreciation of those whose merits raise them
above their class. Since the accession of James I., and still more
since the union, in Queen Anne's reign, there has indeed been an influx
of Scotch and Irish blood; foreign nations have also, though
imperceptibly, furnished their contingent to the mixture; alterations
have consequently become more frequent of late, but without, as yet,
touching the original spirit of the constitution.
In France, the ethnical elements are much more numerous, and their
mixtures more varied; and there it has repeatedly happened that the
principal power of the state passed suddenly from the hands of one race
to those of another. Changes, rather than modifications, have therefore
taken place in the social and political system; and the changes were
abrupt or radical, in proportion as these races were more or less
dissimilar. So long as the north of France, where the Germanic element
prevailed, preponderated in the policy of the country, the fabric of
feudalism, or rather its inform remains, maintained their ground. After
the expulsion of the English in the fifteenth century, the provinces of
the centre took the lead. Their efforts, under the guidance of Charles
VII., had recently restored the national independence, and the
Gallo-Roman blood naturally predominated in camp and council. From this
time dates the introduction of the taste for military life and foreign
conquests, peculiar to the Celtic race, and the tendency to concentrate
and consolidate the sovereign authority, which characterized the Roman.
The road being thus prepared, the next step towards the establishment of
absolute power was made at the end of the sixteenth century, by the
Aquitanian followers of Henry IV., who had still more of the Roman than
of the Celtic blood in their veins. The centralization of power,
resulting from the ascendency of the southern populations, soon gave
Paris an overweening preponderance, and finally made it, what it now is,
the sovereign of the state. This great capital, this modern Babel, whose
population is a motley compound of all the most varied ethnical
elements, no longer had any motive to love or respect any tradition or
peculiar tendency, and, coming to a complete rupture with the past,
hurried France into a series of political and social experiments of
doctrines the most remote from, and repulsive to, the ancient customs
and traditional tendencies of the realm.
These examples seem to me sufficient to prove that political
institutions, when not imposed by foreign influence, take their mould
from the national character, not only in the first place, but throughout
all subsequent changes. Let us now examine the second case, when a
foreign code is, _nolens volens_, forced upon a nation by a superior
power.
There are few instances of such attempts. Indeed, they were never made
on a grand scale, by any truly sagacious governments of either ancient
or modern times. The Romans were too politic to indulge in such
hazardous experiments. Alexander, before them, had never ventured it,
and his successors, convinced, either by reason or instinct, of the
futility of such efforts, had been contented to reign, like the
conqueror of Darius, over a vast mosaic of nations, each of which
retained its own habits, manners, laws, and administrative forms, and,
at least so long as it preserved its ethnical identity, resembled its
fellow-subjects in nothing but submission to the same fiscal and
military regulations.
There were, it is true, among the nations subdued by the Romans, some
whose codes contained practices so utterly repugnant to their masters,
that the latter could not possibly have tolerated them. Such were the
human sacrifices of the Druids, which were, indeed, visited with the
severest penalties. But the Romans, with all their power, never
succeeded in completely extirpating this barbarous rite. In the
Narbonnese, the victory was easy, for the Gallic population had been
almost completely replaced by Roman colonists; but the more intact
tribes of the interior provinces made an obstinate resistance; and, in
the peninsula of Brittany, where, in the fourth century, a British
colony re-imported the ancient instincts with the ancient blood, the
population, in spite of the Romans, continued, either from patriotism or
veneration for their ancient traditions, to butcher fellow-beings on
their altars, as often as they could elude the vigilance of their
masters. All revolts began with the restoration of this fearful feature
of the national creed, and even Christianity could not entirely efface
its traces, until after protracted and strenuous efforts. As late as the
seventeenth century, the shipwrecked were murdered, and wrecks plundered
in all the maritime provinces where the Kimric blood had preserved
itself unmixed. These barbarous customs were in accordance with the
manners of a race which, not being yet sufficiently admixed, still
remained true to its irrepressible instincts.
One characteristic of European civilization is its intolerance.
Conscious of its pre-eminence, we are prone to deny the existence of any
other, or, at least, to consider it as the standard of all. We look with
supreme contempt upon all nations that are not within its pale, and when
they fall under our influence, we attempt to convert them to our views
and modes of thinking. Institutions which we know to be good and useful,
but which persuasion fails to propagate among nations to whose instincts
they are foreign, we force upon them by the power of our arms. Where are
the results? Since the sixteenth century, when the European spirit of
discovery and conquest penetrated to the east, it does not seem to have
operated the slightest change in the manners and mode of existence of
the populations which it subjected.
I have already adduced the example of British India. All the other
European possessions present the same spectacle. The aborigines of Java,
though completely subjugated by the Dutch, have not yet made the first
step towards embracing the manners of their conquerors. Java, at this
day, preserves the social regulations of the time of its independence.
In South America, where Spain ruled with unrestrained power for
centuries, what effect has it produced? The ancient empires, it is true,
are no longer; their traces, even, are almost obliterated. But while the
native has not risen to the level of his conqueror, the latter has been
degraded by the mixture of blood.[67] In the North, a different method
has been pursued, but with results equally negative; nay, in the eyes
of philanthropy, more deplorable; for, while the Spanish Indians have
at least increased in numbers,[68] and even mixed with their masters, to
the Red-Man of the North, the contact with the Anglo-Saxon race has been
death. The feeble remnants of these wretched tribes are fast
disappearing, and disappearing as uncivilized, as uncivilizable, as
their ancestors. In Oceanica, the same observation holds good. The
number of aborigines is daily diminishing. The European may disarm them,
and prevent them from doing him injury, but change them he cannot.
Where-ever he is master, they no longer eat one another, but they fill
themselves with firewater, and this novel species of brutishness is all
they learn of European civilization.
There are, indeed, two governments framed by nations of a different
race, after our models: that of the Sandwich Islands, and that of St.
Domingo. A glance at these two countries will complete the proof of the
futility of any attempts to give to a nation institutions not suggested
by its own genius.
In the Sandwich Islands, the representative system shines with full
lustre. We there find an Upper House, a Lower House, a ministry who
govern, and a king who reigns; nothing is wanted. Yet all this is mere
decoration; the wheel-work that moves the whole machine, the
indispensable motive power, is the corps of missionaries. To them alone
belongs the honor of finding the ideas, of presenting them, and carrying
them through, either by their personal influence over their neophytes,
or, if need be, by threats. It may be doubted, however, whether the
missionaries, if they had no other instruments but the king and
chambers, would not, after struggling for a while against the inaptitude
of their pupils, find themselves compelled to take a more direct, and,
consequently, more apparent part in the management of affairs. This
difficulty is obviated by the establishment of a ministry composed of
Europeans, or half-bloods. Between them and the missionaries, all public
affairs are prearranged; the rest is only for show. King Kamehameha III.
is, it seems, a man of ability. For his own account, he has abandoned
tattooing, and although he has not yet succeeded in dissuading all his
courtiers from this agreeable practice, he enjoys the satisfaction of
seeing their countenances adorned with comparatively slight designs. The
mass of the nation, the country nobility and common people, persist upon
this as all other points, in the ancient ideas and customs.[69] Still, a
variety of causes tend to daily increase the European population of the
Isles. The proximity of California makes them a point of great interest
to the far-seeing energy of our nations. Runaway sailors, and mutineers,
are no longer the only white colonists; merchants, speculators,
adventurers of all sorts, collect there in considerable numbers, build
houses, and become permanent settlers. The native population is
gradually becoming absorbed in the mixture with the whites. It is highly
probable that, ere long, the present representative form of government
will be superseded by an administration composed of delegates from one
or all of the great maritime powers.
Of one thing I feel firmly convinced, that these imported institutions
will take firm root in the country, but the day of their final triumph,
by a necessary synchronism, will be that of the extinction of the native
race.
In St. Domingo, national independence is intact. There are no
missionaries exercising absolute, though concealed, control, no foreign
ministry governing in the European spirit; everything is left to the
genius and inspiration of the population. In the Spanish part of the
island, this population consists of mulattoes. I shall not speak of
them. They seem to imitate, in some fashion, the simplest and easiest
features of our civilization. Like all half-breeds, they have a tendency
to assimilate with that branch of their genealogy which does them most
honor. They are, therefore, capable of practising, in some degree, our
usages. The absolute question of the capacity of races cannot be studied
among them. Let us cross the mountain ridge which separates the republic
of Dominica from the empire of Hayti.
There we find institutions not only similar to ours, but founded upon
the most recent maxims of our political wisdom. All that, since sixty
years, the voice of the most refined liberalism has proclaimed in the
deliberative assemblies of Europe, all that the most zealous friends of
the freedom and dignity of man have written, all the declarations of
rights and principles, have found an echo on the banks of Artibonite. No
trace of Africa remains in the _written_ laws, or the _official_
language; the recollections of the land of Ham are _officially_ expunged
from every mind; once more, the institutions are completely European.
Let us now examine how they harmonize with the manners.
What a contrast! The manners are as depraved, as beastly, as ferocious
as in Dahomey[70] or the country of the Fellatahs. The same barbarous
love of ornament, combined with the same indifference to form; beauty
consists in color, and provided a garment is of gaudy red, and adorned
with imitation gold, taste is little concerned with useless attention to
materials or fitness; and as for cleanliness, this is a superfluity for
which no one cares. You desire an audience with some high functionary:
you are ushered into the presence of an athletic negro, stretched on a
wooden bench, his head wrapped in a dirty, tattered handkerchief, and
surmounted by a three-cornered hat, profusely decorated with gold. The
general apparel consists of an embroidered coat (without suitable
nether-garments), a huge sword, and slippers. You converse with this
mass of flesh, and are anxious to discover what ideas can occupy a mind
under so unpromising an exterior. You find an intellect of the lowest
order combined with the most savage pride, which can be equalled only by
as profound and incurable a laziness. If the individual before you opens
his mouth, he will retail all the hackneyed common-places that the
papers have wearied you with for the last half century. This barbarian
knows them by heart; he has very different interests, different
instincts; he has no ideas of his own. He will talk like Baron Holbach,
reason like Grimm, and at the bottom has no serious care except chewing
tobacco, drinking spirits, butchering his enemies, and propitiating his
sorcerers. The rest of the time he sleeps.
The state is divided into two factions, not separated by incompatibility
of politics, but of color--the negroes and the mulattoes. The latter,
doubtless, are superior in intelligence, as I have already remarked with
regard to the Dominicans. The European blood has modified the nature of
the African, and in a community of whites, with good models constantly
before their eyes, these men might be converted into useful members of
society. But, unfortunately, the superiority of numbers belongs at
present to the negroes, and these, though removed from Africa by several
generations, are the same as in their native clime. Their supreme
felicity is idleness; their supreme reason, murder. Among the two
divisions of the island the most intense hatred has always prevailed.
The history of independent Hayti is nothing but a long series of
massacres: massacres of mulattoes by the negroes, when the latter were
strongest; of the negroes by the mulattoes, when the power was in their
hands. The institutions, with all their boasted liberality and
philanthropy, are of no use whatever. They sleep undisturbedly and
impotently upon the paper on which they were written, and the savage
instincts of the population reign supreme. Conformably to the law of
nature which I pointed out before, the negro, who belongs to a race
exhibiting little aptitude for civilization, entertains the most
profound horror for all other races. Thus we see the Haytien negroes
energetically repel the white man from their territory, and forbid him
even to enter it; they would also drive out the mulattoes, and
contemplate their ultimate extermination. Hostility to the foreigner is
the _primum mobile_ of their local policy. Owing to the innate laziness
of the race, agriculture is abandoned, industry not known even by name,
commerce drivelling; misery prevents the increase of the population,
while continual wars, insurrections, and military executions diminish it
continually. The inevitable and not very remote consequence of such a
condition of things is to convert into a desert a country whose
fertility and natural resources enriched generations of planters, which
in exports and commercial activity surpassed even Cuba.[71]
These examples of St. Domingo and the Sandwich Islands seem to me
conclusive. I cannot, however, forbear, before definitely leaving the
subject, from mentioning another analogous fact, the peculiar character
of which greatly confirms my position. I allude to the attempts of the
Jesuit missionaries to civilize the natives of Paraguay.[72]
These missionaries, by their exalted intelligence and self-sacrificing
courage, have excited universal admiration; and the most decided enemies
of their order have never refused them an unstinted tribute of praise.
If foreign institutions have ever had the slightest chance of success
with a nation, these assuredly had it, based as they were upon the
power of religious feelings, and supported and applied with a tact as
correct as it was refined. The fathers were of the pretty general
opinion that barbarism was to nations what childhood is to the
individual, and that the more savage and untutored we find a people, the
younger we may conclude them to be. To educate their neophytes to
adolescence, they therefore treated them like children. Their government
was as firm in its views and commands as it was mild and affectionate in
its forms. The aborigines of the American continent have generally a
tendency to republicanism; a monarchy or aristocracy is rarely found
among them, and then in a very restricted form. The Guaranis of Paraguay
did not differ, in this respect, from their congeners. By a happy
circumstance, however, these tribes displayed rather more intelligence
and less ferocity than their neighbors, and seemed capable, to some
extent, of conceiving new wants and adopting new ideas. About one
hundred and twenty thousand souls were collected in the villages of the
missions, under the guidance of the fathers. All that experience, daily
study, and active charity could teach the Jesuits, was employed for the
benefit of their pupils; incessant efforts were made to hasten success,
without hazarding it by rashness. In spite of all these cares, however,
it was soon felt that the most absolute authority over the neophytes
could hardly constrain them to persist in the right path, and occasions
were not wanting that revealed the little real solidity of the
edifice.[73]
When the measures of Count Aranda deprived Paraguay of its pious and
skilful civilizers, the sad truth appeared in complete light. The
Guaranis, deprived of their spiritual guides, refused all confidence in
the lay directors sent them by the Spanish crown. They showed no
attachment to their new institutions. Their taste for savage life
revived, and at present there are but thirty-seven little villages
still vegetating on the banks of the Parana, the Paraguay, and Uraguay,
and these contain a considerable nucleus of half-breed population. The
rest have returned to the forest, and live there in as savage a state as
the western tribes of the same stock, the Guaranis and Cirionos. I will
not say that the deserters have readopted their ancient manners
completely, but there is little trace left of the pious missionaries'
labors, and this because it is given to no human race to be oblivious of
its instincts, nor to abandon the path in which the Creator has placed
them.
It may be supposed, had the Jesuits continued to direct their missions
in Paraguay, that their efforts, assisted by time, would have been
crowned with better success. I am willing to concede this, but on one
condition only, always the same: that a group of Europeans would
gradually have settled in the country under the protection of the Jesuit
directors. These would have modified, and finally completely transformed
the native blood, and a state would have been formed, bearing probably
an aboriginal name, whose inhabitants might have prided themselves upon
descending from autochthonic ancestors, though as completely belonging
to Europe as the institutions by which they might be governed.
FOOTNOTES:
[61] The author of _Democracy in America_ (vol. ii. book 3, ch. 1),
speculating upon the total want of sympathy among the various classes of
an aristocratic community, says: "Each caste has its own opinions,
feelings, rights, manners, and mode of living. The members of each caste
do not resemble the rest of their fellow-citizens; they do not think and
feel in the same manner, and believe themselves a distinct race.... When
the chroniclers of the Middle Ages, who all belonged to the aristocracy
by birth and education, relate the tragical end of a noble, their grief
flows apace; while they tell, with the utmost indifference, of massacres
and tortures inflicted on the common people. In this they were actuated
by an _instinct_ rather than by a passion, for they felt no habitual
hatred or systematic disdain for the people: war between the several
classes of the community was not yet declared." The writer gives
extracts from Mme. de Sevigné's letters, displaying, to use his own
words, "a cruel jocularity which, in our day, the harshest man writing
to the most insensible person of his acquaintance would not venture to
indulge in; and yet Madame de Sevigné was not selfish or cruel; she was
passionately attached to her children, and ever ready to sympathize with
her friends, and she treated her servants and vassals with kindness and
indulgence." "Whence does this arise?" asks M. De Tocqueville; "have we
really more sensibility than our forefathers?" When it is recollected,
as has been pointed out in a previous note, that the nobility of France
were of Germanic, and the peasantry of Celtic origin, we will find in
this an additional proof of the correctness of our author's theory.
Thanks to the revolution, the barriers that separated the various ranks
have been torn down, and continual intermixture has blended the blood of
the Frankish noble and of the Gallic boor. Wherever this fusion has not
yet taken place, or but imperfectly, M. De Tocqueville's remarks still
apply.--H.
[62] The spirit of clanship is so strong in the Arab tribes, and their
instinct of ethnical isolation so powerful, that it often displays
itself in a rather odd manner. A traveller (Mr. Fulgence Fresnel, if I
am not mistaken) relates that at Djidda, where morality is at a rather
low ebb, the same Bedouine who cannot resist the slightest pecuniary
temptation, would think herself forever dishonored, if she were joined
in lawful wedlock to the Turk or European, to whose embrace she
willingly yields while she despises him.
[63]
The man
Of virtuous soul commands not, nor obeys.
Power, like a desolating pestilence,
Pollutes whate'er it touches; and obedience,
Bane of all genius, virtue, freedom, truth,
Makes slaves of man, and of the human frame
A mechanized automaton.
SHELLEY, _Queen Mab_.
[64] Montesquieu expresses a similar idea, in his usual epigrammatic
style. "The customs of an enslaved people," says he, "are a part of
their servitude; those of a free people, a part of their
liberty."--_Esprit des Lois_, b. xix. c. 27.--H.
[65] "A great portion of the peculiarities of the Spartan constitution
and their institutions was assuredly of ancient Doric origin, and must
have been rather given up by the other Dorians, than newly invented and
instituted by the Spartans."--_Niebuhr's Ancient History_, vol. i. p.
306.--H.
[66] See note on page 121.
[67] The amalgamation of races in South America must indeed be
inconceivable. "I find," says Alex. von Humboldt, in 1826, "by several
statements, that if we estimate the population of the whole of the
Spanish colonies at fourteen or fifteen millions of souls, there are, in
that number, at most, _three_ millions of pure whites, including about
200,000 Europeans." (_Pers. Nar._, vol. i. p. 400.) Of the progress
which this mongrel population have made in civilization, I cannot give a
better idea than by an extract from Dr. Tschudi's work, describing the
mode of ploughing in some parts of Chili. "If a field is to be tilled,
it is done by two natives, who are furnished with long poles, pointed at
one end. The one thrusts his pole, pretty deeply, and in an oblique
direction, into the earth, so that it forms an angle with the surface of
the ground. The other Indian sticks his pole in, at a little distance,
and also obliquely, and he forces it beneath that of his fellow-laborer,
so that the first pole lies, as it were, upon the second. The first
Indian then presses on his pole, and makes it work on the other, as a
lever on its fulcrum, and the earth is thrown up by the point of the
pole. Thus they gradually advance, until the whole field is furrowed by
this laborious process." (_Dr. Tschudi, Travels in Peru, during the
years 1838-1842._ London, 1847, p. 14.) I really do not think that a
counterpart to this could be found, except, perhaps, in the manner of
working the mines all over South America. Both Darwin and Tschudi speak
of it with surprise. Every pound of ore is brought out of the shafts on
men's shoulders. The mines are drained of the water accumulating in
them, in the same manner, by means of water-tight bags. Dr. Tschudi
describes the process employed for the amalgamation of the quicksilver
with the silver ore. It is done by causing them to be trodden together
by horses', or human feet. Not only is this method attended with
incredible waste of material, and therefore very expensive, but it soon
kills the horses employed in it, while the men contract the most
fearful, and, generally, incurable diseases! (_Op. cit._, p.
331-334.)--H.
[68] A. von Humboldt, _Examen critique de l'Histoire et de la Géographie
du N. C._, vol. ii. p. 129-130.
The same opinion is expressed by Mr. Humboldt in his _Personal
Narrative_. London, 1852, vol. i. p. 296.--H.
[69] Speaking of the habit of tattooing among the South Sea Islanders,
Mr. Darwin says that even girls who had been brought up in missionaries'
houses, could not be dissuaded from this practice, though in everything
else, they seemed to have forgotten the savage instincts of their race.
"The wives of the missionaries tried to prevent them, but a famous
operator having arrived from the South, they said: 'We really must have
just a few lines on our lips, else, when we grow old, we shall be so
ugly.'"--_Journal of a Naturalist_, vol. ii. p. 208.--H.
[70] For the latest details, see Mr. Gustave d'Alaux's articles in the
_Revue des Deux Mondes_, 1853.
[71] The subjoined comparison of the exports of Haytien staple products
may not be uninteresting to many of our readers, while it serves to
confirm the author's assertion. I extract it from a statistical table in
Mackenzie's report to the British government, upon the condition of the
then republic (now empire). Mr. Mackenzie resided there as special
_envoyé_ several years, for the purpose of collecting authentic
information for his government, and his statements may therefore be
relied upon. (_Notes on Hayti_, vol. ii. note FF. London, 1830.)
SUGAR. COTTON. COFFEE.
lbs. lbs. lbs.
1789 141,089,831 7,004,274 76,835,219
1826 32,864 620,972 32,189,784
It will be perceived, from these figures, that the decrease is greatest
in that staple which requires the most laborious cultivation. Thus,
sugar requires almost unremitting toil; coffee, comparatively little.
All branches of industry have fearfully decreased; some of them have
ceased entirely; and the small and continually dwindling commerce of
that wretched country consists now mainly of articles of spontaneous
growth. The statistics of imports are in perfect keeping with those of
exports. (_Op. cit._, vol. ii. p. 183.) As might be expected from such a
state of things, the annual expenditure in 1827 was estimated at a
little more than _double_ the amount of the annual revenue! (_Ibid._,
"Finance.")
That matters have not improved under the administration of that Most
Gracious, Most Christian monarch, the Emperor Faustin I., will be seen
by reference to last year's _Annuaire de la Revue del deux Mondes_,
"Haiti," p. 876, _et seq._, where some curious details about his majesty
and his majesty's sable subjects will be found.
[72] Upon this subject, consult Prichard, d'Orbigny, and A. de Humboldt.
[73] I recollect having read, several years ago, in a Jesuit missionary
journal (I forget its name and date, but am confident that the authority
is a reliable one), a rather ludicrous account of an instance of this
kind. One of the fathers, who had a little isolated village under his
charge, had occasion to leave his flock for a time, and his place,
unfortunately, could not be replaced by another. He therefore called the
most promising of his neophytes, and committed to their care the
domestic animals and agricultural implements with which the society had
provided the newly-converted savages, then left them with many
exhortations and instructions. His absence being prolonged beyond the
period anticipated, the Indians thought him dead, and instituted a grand
funeral feast in his honor, at which they slaughtered all the oxen, and
roasted them by fires made of the ploughs, hoe-handles, etc.; and he
arrived just in time to witness the closing scenes of this mourning
ceremony.--H.
CHAPTER VI.
THIS DIVERSITY IS NOT THE RESULT OF GEOGRAPHICAL SITUATION.
America--Ancient empires--Phenicians and Romans--Jews--Greece and
Rome--Commercial cities of Europe--Isthmus of Darien.
It is impossible to leave entirely out of the question the influence
which climate, the nature of the soil, and topographical circumstances,
exert upon the development of nations. This influence, so much overrated
by many of the learned, I shall investigate more fully, although I have
rapidly glanced at it already, in another place.
It is a very common opinion that a nation living under a temperate sky,
not too warm to enervate the man, nor too cold to render the soil
unproductive; on the shores of large rivers, affording extensive and
commodious means of communication; in plains and valleys adapted to
varied cultivation; at the foot of mountains pregnant with the useful
and precious ores--that a nation thus favored by nature, would soon be
prompted to cast off barbarism, and progress rapidly in
civilization.[74] On the other hand, and by the same reasoning, it is
easily admitted that tribes, charred by an ardent sun, or benumbed by
unceasing cold, and having no territory save sterile rocks, would be
much more liable to remain in a state of barbarism. According to this
hypothesis, the intellectual powers of man could be developed only by
the aid of external nature, and all his worth and greatness are not
implanted in him, but in the objects without and around. Specious as is
this opinion at first sight, it has against it all the numerous facts
which observation furnishes.
Nowhere, certainly, is there a greater variety of soil and climate than
in the extensive Western Continent. Nowhere are there more fertile
regions, milder skies, larger and more numerous rivers. The coasts are
indented with gulfs and bays; deep and magnificent harbors abound; the
most valuable riches of the mineral kingdom crop out of the ground;
nature has lavished on the soil her choicest and most variegated
vegetable productions, and the woods and prairies swarm with alimentary
species of animals, presenting still more substantial resources. And
yet, the greater part of these happy countries is inhabited, and has
been for a series of centuries, by tribes who ignore the most mediocre
exploration of all these treasures.
Several of them seem to have been in the way of doing better. A meagre
culture, a rude knowledge of the art of working metals, may be observed
in more than one place. Several useful arts, practised with some
ingenuity, still surprise the traveller. But all this is really on a
very humble scale, and never formed what might be termed a civilization.
There certainly has existed at some very remote period, a nation which
inhabited the vast region extending from Lake Erie to the Mexican Gulf.
There can be no doubt that the country lying between the Alleghany and
the Rocky Mountains, and extending from Lake Erie to the Gulf of Mexico,
was, at some very remote epoch, inhabited by a nation that has left
remarkable traces of its existence behind.[75] The remains of
buildings, inscriptions on rocks, the tumuli,[76] and mummies which they
inclose, indicate a high degree of intellectual culture. But there is no
evidence that between this mysterious people and the tribes now
wandering over its tombs, there is any very near affinity. However this
may be, if by inheritance or slavish imitation the now existing
aborigines derive their first knowledge of the arts which they now
rudely practise, from the former masters of the soil, we cannot but be
struck by their incapacity of perfecting what they had been taught; and
I see in this a new motive for adhering to my opinion, that a nation
placed amid the most favorable geographical circumstances, is not,
therefore, destined to arrive at civilization.
On the contrary, there is between the propitiousness of soil and climate
and the establishment of civilization, a complete independence. India
was a country which required fertilization; so was Egypt.[77] Here we
have two very celebrated centres of human culture and development.
China, though very productive in some parts, presented in others
difficulties of a very serious character. The first events recorded in
its history are struggles with rivers that had burst their bonds; its
heroes are victors over the ruthless flood; the ancient emperors
distinguished themselves by excavating canals and draining marshes. The
country of the Tigris and Euphrates, the theatre of Assyrian splendor
and hallowed by our most sacred traditions, those regions where,
Syncellus says, wheat grew spontaneously, possess a soil so little
productive, when unassisted by art, that only a vast and laborious
system of irrigation can render it capable of giving the means of
subsistence to its inhabitants. Now that the canals are filled up or
obstructed, sterility has reassumed its former dominion. I am,
therefore, inclined to think that nature had not so greatly favored
these countries as is usually supposed. Yet, I shall not discuss this
point.
I am willing to admit that China, Egypt, India, and Mesopotamia were
regions perfectly adapted in every respect to the establishment of great
empires, and the consequent development of brilliant civilizations. But
it cannot be disputed that these nations, to profit by these superior
advantages, must have previously brought their social system to a high
degree of perfection. Before the great watercourses became the highways
of commerce, industry, or at least agriculture, must have flourished to
some extent. The great advantages accorded to these countries
presuppose, therefore, in the nations that have profited by them, a
peculiar intellectual vocation, and even a certain anterior degree of
civilization. But from these specially favored regions let us glance
elsewhere.
When the Phenicians migrated from the southeast, they fixed their abode
on an arid, rocky coast, inclosed by steep and ragged mountains. Such a
geographical situation would appear to preclude a people from any
expansion, and force them to remain forever dependent on the produce of
their fisheries for sustenance. The utmost that could be expected of
them was to see them petty pirates. They were pirates, indeed, but on a
magnificent scale; and, what is more, they were bold and successful
merchants and speculators. They planted colonies everywhere, while the
barren rocks of the mother country were covered with the palaces and
temples of a wealthy and luxurious community. Some will say, that "the
very unpropitiousness of external circumstances forced the founders of
Tyre and Sidon to become what they were. Necessity is the mother of
invention; their misery spurred them on to exertion; had they inhabited
the plains of Damascus, they would have been content with the peaceful
products of agriculture, and would probably never have become an
illustrious nation."[78]
And why does not misery spur on other nations placed under similar
circumstances? The Kabyles of Morocco are an ancient race; they have had
sufficient time for reflection, and, moreover, every possible inducement
for mere imitation; yet they have never imagined any other method for
alleviating their wretched lot except petty piracy. The unparalleled
facilities for commerce afforded by the Indian archipelago and the
island clusters of the Pacific, have never been improved by the natives;
all the peaceful and profitable relations were left in the hands of
foreign races--the Chinese, Malays, and Arabs; where commerce has fallen
into the hands of a semi-indigenous or half-breed population, it has
instantly commenced to languish. What conclusions can we deduce from
these observations than that pressing wants are not sufficient for
inciting a nation to profit by the natural facilities of its coasts and
islands, and that some special aptitude is needed for establishing a
commercial state even in localities best adapted for that purpose.
But I shall not content myself with proving that the social and
political aptitudes of races are not dependent on geographical
situations, whether these be favorable or unfavorable; I shall,
moreover, endeavor to show that these aptitudes have no sort of relation
with any exterior circumstances. The Armenians, in their almost
inaccessible mountains, where so many other nations have vegetated in a
state of barbarism from generation to generation, and without any access
to the sea, attained, already at a remote period, a high state of
civilization. The Jews found themselves in an analogous position; they
were surrounded by tribes who spoke kindred dialects, and who, for the
most part, were nearly related to them in blood. Yet, they excelled all
these groups. They were warriors, agriculturists, and merchants. Under a
government in which theocracy, monarchy, patriarchal authority, and
popular will, were singularly complicated and balanced, they traversed
centuries of prosperity and glory. The difficulties which the narrow
limits of their patrimonial domain opposed to their expansion, were
overcome by an intelligent system of emigration. What was this famous
Canaan? Modern travellers bear witness to the laborious and
well-directed efforts by which the Jewish agriculturists maintained the
factitious fertility of their soil. Since the chosen race no longer
inhabits these mountains and plains, the wells where Jacob's flocks
drank are dried up; Naboth's vineyard is invaded by the desert, Achab's
palace-gardens filled with thistles. In this miserable corner of the
world, what were the Jews? A people dextrous in all they undertook, a
free, powerful, intelligent people, who, before losing bravely, and
against a much superior foe, the title of independent nation, had
furnished to the world almost as many doctors as merchants.[79]
Let us look at Greece. Arcadia was the paradise of the shepherd, and
Boeotia, the favored land of Ceres and Triptolemus: yet, Arcadia and
Boeotia play but a very inferior part in history. The wealthy Corinth,
the favorite of Plutus and Venus, also appears in the second rank. To
whom pertains the glory of Grecian history? To Attica, whose whitish,
sandy soil afforded a scanty sustenance to puny olive-trees; to Athens,
whose principal commerce consisted in books and statues. Then to Sparta,
shut up in a narrow valley between masses of rocks, where victory went
in search of it.
Who would dare to assert that Rome owed her universal empire to her
geographical position? In the poor district of Latium, on the banks of a
tiny stream emptying its waters on an almost unknown coast, where
neither Greek nor Phenician vessel ever landed, except by accident, the
future mistress of the world was born. So soon as the nations of the
earth obeyed the Roman standard, politicians found the metropolis
ill-placed, and the eternal city was neglected: even abandoned. The
first emperors, being chiefly occupied with the East, resided in Greece
almost continually. Tiberius chose Caprea, in the centre of his empire.
His successors went to Antioch. Several lived at Trebia. Finally, a
decree deprived Rome of the very name of capital, and gave it to Milan.
If the Romans have conquered the world, it is certainly in spite of the
locality whence issued forth their first armies, and not on account of
its advantages.
In modern history, the proofs of the correctness of my position are so
abundant, that I hardly know how to select. I see prosperity abandoning
the coasts of the Mediterranean, evidence that it was not dependent on
them. The great commercial cities of the Middle Ages rise where no
theorist of a preceding age could have predicted them. Novogorod
flourishes in an almost arctic region, Bremen on a coast nearly as
cold. The Hanse-towns of Germany rise in a country where civilization
has scarcely dawned; Venice appears at the head of a long, narrow gulf.
Political preponderance belongs to places before unknown. Lyons,
Toulouse, Narbonne, Marseilles, Bordeaux, lose the importance assigned
them by the Romans, and Paris becomes the metropolis--Paris, then a
third-rate town, too far from the sea for commerce, too near it for the
Norman barges. In Italy, cities formerly obscure, surpass the capital of
the popes. Ravenna rises in the midst of marshes; Amalfi, for a long
time, enjoys extensive dominion. It must be observed, that in all these
changes accident has no part: they all are the result of the presence of
a victorious and preponderating race. It is not the place which
determines the importance of a nation, it is the nation which gives to
the place its political and economical importance.
I do not, however, deny the importance of certain situations for
commercial depots, or for capitals. The observations made with regard to
Alexandria and Constantinople, are incontestable.[80] There are, upon
our globe, various points which may be called the keys of the world.
Thus, it is obvious that a city, built on the proposed canal which is
to pierce the Isthmus of Darien, would act an important part in the
affairs of the world.
But, such a part a nation may act well or badly, or even not at all,
according to its merits. Aggrandize Chagres, and let the two oceans
unite under her walls, the destiny of the city would depend entirely on
the race by which it was peopled. If this race be worthy of their good
fortune, they will soon discover whether Chagres be the point whence the
greatest benefits can be derived from the union of the two oceans; and,
if it is not, they will leave it, and then, untrammelled, develop
elsewhere their brilliant destinies.[81]
FOOTNOTES:
[74] Consult, among others, Carus: _Uber ungleiche Befähigung der
vershiedenen Menschen-stämme für höhere geistige Entwickelung._ Leipzig,
1849, p. 96 _et passim_.
[75] Prichard, _Natural History of Man_, vol. ii.
See particularly the recent researches of E. G. Squier, published in
1847, under the title: _Observations on the Aboriginal Monuments of the
Mississippi Valley_, and also in various late reviews and other
periodicals.
[76] The very singular construction of these tumuli, and the numerous
utensils found in them, occupy at this moment the penetration and talent
of American antiquaries. I shall have occasion, in a subsequent volume,
to express an opinion as to their value in the inquiries about a former
civilization; at present, I shall only say that their almost incredible
antiquity cannot be called in question. Mr. Squier is right in
considering this proved by the fact merely, that the skeletons exhumed
from these tumuli crumble into dust as soon as exposed to the
atmosphere, although the condition of the soil in which they lie, is the
most favorable possible; while the human remains under the British
cromlichs, and which have been interred for at least eighteen centuries,
are perfectly solid. It is easily conceived, therefore, that between the
first possessors of the American soil and the Lenni-Lenape and other
tribes, there is no connection. Before concluding this note, I cannot
refrain from praising the industry and skill manifested by American
scholars in the study of the antiquities of their immense continent. To
obviate the difficulties arising from the excessive fragility of the
exhumed skulls, many futile attempts were made, but the object was
finally accomplished by pouring into them a bituminous preparation which
instantly solidifies and thus preserves the osseous parts. This process,
which requires many precautions, and as much skill as promptitude, is
said to be generally successful.
[77] Ancient India required, on the part of its first white colonists,
immense labor of cultivation and improvement. (See Lassen, _Indische
Alterthumskunde_, vol. i.) As to Egypt, see what Chevalier Bunsen,
_Ægypten's Stelle in der Weltgeschichte_, says of the fertilization of
the Fayoum, that gigantic work of the earliest sovereigns.
[78] "Why have accidental circumstances always prevented some from
rising, while they have only stimulated others to higher
attainments?"--_Dr. Kneeland's Introd. to Hamilton Smith's Nat. Hist. of
Man_, p. 95.--H.
[79] Salvador, _Histoire des Juifs_.
[80] M. Saint-Marc Girardin, _Revue des Deux Mondes_.
[81] See, upon this often-debated subject, the opinion--somewhat acerbly
expressed--of a learned historian and philologist:--
"A great number of writers have suffered themselves to be persuaded that
the country made the nation; that the Bavarians and Saxons were
predestined, by the nature of their soil, to become what they are
to-day; that Protestantism belonged not to the regions of the south; and
that Catholicism could not penetrate to those of the north; and many
similar things. Men who interpret history according to their own slender
knowledge, their narrow hearts, and near-sighted minds, would, by the
same reasoning, make us believe that the Jews had possessed such and
such qualities--more or less clearly understood--because they inhabited
Palestine, and not India or Greece. But, if these philosophers, so
dextrous in proving whatever flatters their notions, were to reflect
that the Holy Land contained, in its limited compass, peoples of the
most dissimilar religions and modes of thinking, that between them,
again, and their present successors, there is the utmost difference
conceivable, although the country is still the same; they would
understand how little influence, upon the character and civilization of
a nation has the country they inhabit."--EWALD, _Geschichte des Volkes
Israel_, vol. i. p. 259.
CHAPTER VII.
INFLUENCE OF CHRISTIANITY UPON MORAL AND INTELLECTUAL DIVERSITY OF
RACES.
The term Christian civilization examined--Reasons for rejecting
it--Intellectual diversity no hindrance to the universal diffusion
of Christianity--Civilizing influence of Christian religion by
elevating and purifying the morals, etc.; but does not remove
intellectual disparities--Various instances--Cherokees--Difference
between imitation and comprehension of civilized life.
By the foregoing observations, two facts seem to me clearly established:
first, that there are branches of the human family incapable of
spontaneous civilization, so long as they remain unmixed; and, secondly,
that this innate incapacity cannot be overcome by external agencies,
however powerful in their nature. It now remains to speak of the
civilizing influence of Christianity, a subject which, on account of its
extensive bearing, I have reserved for the last, in my consideration of
the instruments of civilization.
The first question that suggests itself to the thinking mind, is a
startling one. If some races are so vastly inferior in all respects, can
they comprehend the truths of the gospel, or are they forever to be
debarred from the blessing of salvation?
In answer, I unhesitatingly declare my firm conviction, that the pale of
salvation is open to them all, and that all are endowed with equal
capacity to enter it. Writers are not wanting who have asserted a
contrary opinion. They dare to contradict the sacred promise of the
Gospel, and deny the peculiar characteristic of our faith, which
consists in its accessibility to all men. According to them, religions
are confined within geographical limits which they cannot transgress.
But the Christian religion knows no degrees of latitude or longitude.
There is scarcely a nation, or a tribe, among whom it has not made
converts. Statistics--imperfect, no doubt, but, as far as they go,
reliable--show them in great numbers in the remotest parts of the globe:
nomad Mongols, in the steppes of Asia, savage hunters in the table-lands
of the Andes; dark-hued natives of an African clime; persecuted in
China;[82] tortured in Madagascar; perishing under the lash in Japan.
But this universal capacity of receiving the light of the gospel must
not be confounded, as is so often done, with a faculty of entirely
different character, that of social improvement. This latter consists in
being able to conceive new wants, which, being supplied, give rise to
others, and gradually produce that perfection of the social and
political system which we call civilization. While the former belongs
equally to all races, whatever may be their disparity in other respects,
the latter is of a purely intellectual character, and the prerogative of
certain privileged groups, to the partial or even total exclusion of
others.
With regard to Christianity, intellectual deficiencies cannot be a
hindrance to a race. Our religion addresses itself to the lowly and
simple, even in preference to the great and wise of this earth.
Intellect and learning are not necessary to salvation. The most
brilliant lights of our church were not always found among the body of
the learned. The glorious martyrs, whom we venerate even above the
skilful and erudite defender of the dogma, or the eloquent panegyrist of
the faith, were men who sprang from the masses of the people; men,
distinguished neither for worldly learning, nor brilliant talents, but
for the simple virtues of their lives, their unwavering faith, their
self-devotion. It is exactly in this that consists one great superiority
of our religion over the most elaborate and ingenious systems devised by
philosophers, that it is intelligible to the humblest capacity as well
as to the highest. The poor Esquimaux of Labrador may be as good and as
pure a Christian as the most learned prelate in Europe.
But we now come to an error which, in its various phases, has led to
serious consequences. The utilitarian tendency of our age renders us
prone to seek, even in things sacred, a character of material
usefulness. We ascribe to the influence of Christianity a certain order
of things, which we call _Christian civilization_.
To what political or social condition this term can be fitly applied, I
confess myself unable to conceive. There certainly is a Pagan, a
Brahmin, and Buddhistic, a Judaic civilization. There have been, and
still are, societies so intimately connected with a more or less
exclusive theological formula, that the civilizations peculiar to them,
can only be designated by the name of their creed. In such societies,
religion is the sole source of all political forms, all civil and social
legislation; the groundwork of the whole civilization. This union of
religious and temporal institutions, we find in the history of every
nation of antiquity. Each country had its own peculiar divinity, which
exercised a more or less direct influence in the government,[83] and
from which laws and civilization were said to be immediately derived.
It was only when paganism began to wane, that the politicians of Rome
imagined a separation of temporal and religious power, by attempting a
fusion of the different forms of worship, and proclaiming the dogma of
legal toleration. When paganism was in its youth and vigor, each city
had its Jupiter, Mercury, or Venus, and the local deity recognized
neither in this world nor the next any but compatriots.
But, with Christianity, it is otherwise. It chooses no particular
people, prescribes no form of government, no social system. It
interferes not in temporal matters, has naught to do with the material
world, "its kingdom is of another." Provided it succeeds in changing the
interior man, external circumstances are of no import. If the convert
fervently embraces the faith, and in all his actions tries to observe
its prescriptions, it inquires not about the built of his dwelling, the
cut of his garments, or the materials of which they are composed, his
daily occupations, the regulations of his government, the degree of
despotism, or of freedom, which pervades his political institutions. It
leaves the Chinese in his robes, the Esquimaux in his seal-skins; the
former to his rice, the latter to his fish-oil; and who would dare to
assert that the prayers of both may not breathe as pure a faith as those
of the _civilized_ European? No mode of existence can attract its
preference, none, however humble, its disdain. It attacks no form of
government, no social institution; prescribes none, because it has
adopted none. It teaches not the art of promoting worldly comforts, it
teaches to despise them. What, then, can we call a Christian
civilization? Had Christ, or his disciples, prescribed, or even
recommended any particular political or social forms,[84] the term would
then be applicable. But his law may be observed under all--of whatever
nature--and is therefore superior to them all. It is justly and truly
called the _Catholic_, or Universal.
And has Christianity, then, no civilizing influence? I shall be asked.
Undoubtedly; and a very great one. Its precepts elevate and purify the
soul, and, by their purely spiritual nature, disengage the mind from
worldly things, and expand its powers. In a merely human point of view,
the material benefits it confers on its followers are inestimable. It
softens the manners, and facilitates the intercourse between man and his
fellow-man; it mitigates violence, and weans him from corrosive vices.
It is, therefore, a powerful promoter of his worldly interests. But it
only expands the mind in proportion to the susceptibility of the mind
for being expanded. It does not give intellect, or confer talents,
though it may exalt both, and render them more useful. It does not
create new capacities, though it fosters and develops those it finds.
Where the capacities of an individual, or a race, are such as to admit
an improvement in the mode of existence, it tends to produce it; where
such capacities are not already, it does not give them. As it belongs to
no particular civilization, it does not compel a nation to change its
own. In fine, as it does not level all individuals to the same
intellectual standard, so it does not raise all races to the same rank
in the political assemblage of the nations of the earth. It is wrong,
therefore, to consider the equal aptitude of all races for the true
religion, as a proof of their intellectual equality. Though having
embraced it, they will still display the same characteristic
differences, and divergent or even opposite tendencies. A few examples
will suffice to set my idea in a clearer light.
The major portion of the Indian tribes of South America have, for
centuries, been received within the pale of the church, yet the European
civilization, with which they are in constant contact, has never become
their own.[85] The Cherokees, in the northern part of the same
continent, have nearly all been converted by the Methodist
missionaries. At this I am not surprised, but I should be greatly so, if
these tribes, without mixing with the whites, were ever to form one of
the States, and exercise any influence in Congress. The Moravians and
Danish Lutheran missionaries in Labrador and Greenland, have opened the
eyes of the Esquimaux to the light of religion; but their neophytes have
remained in the same social condition in which they vegetated before. A
still more forcible illustration is afforded by the Laplanders of
Sweden, who have not emerged from the state of barbarism of their
ancestors, though the doctrine of salvation was preached to them, and
believed by them, centuries ago.
I sincerely believe that all these peoples may produce, and, perhaps,
already have produced, persons remarkable for piety and pure morals; but
I do not expect ever to see among them learned theologians, great
statesmen, able military leaders, profound mathematicians, or
distinguished artists;--any of those superior minds, whose number and
perpetual succession are the cause of power in a preponderating race;
much less those rare geniuses whose meteor-like appearance is productive
of permanent good only when their countrymen are so constituted as to be
able to understand them, and to advance under their direction. We
cannot, therefore, call Christianity a promoter of civilization in the
narrow and purely material sense of some writers.
Many of my readers, while admitting my observations in the main to be
correct, will object that the modifying influence of religion upon the
manners must produce a corresponding modification of the institutions,
and finally in the whole social system. The propagators of the gospel,
they will say, are almost always--though not necessarily--from a nation
superior in civilization to the one they visit. In their personal
intercourse, therefore, with their neophytes, the latter cannot but
acquire new notions of material well-being. Even the political system
may be greatly influenced by the relations between instructor and pupil.
The missionary, while he provides for the spiritual welfare of his
flock, will not either neglect their material wants. By his teaching and
example, the savage will learn how to provide against famine, by tilling
the soil. This improvement in his condition once effected, he will soon
be led to build himself a better dwelling, and to practise some of the
simpler useful arts. Gradually, and by careful training, he may acquire
sufficient taste for things purely intellectual, to learn the alphabet,
or even, as in the case of the Cherokees, to invent one himself. In
course of time, if the missionaries' labors are crowned with success,
they may, perhaps, so firmly implant their manners and mode of living
among this formerly savage tribe, that the traveller will find among
them well-cultivated fields, numerous flocks, and, like these same
Cherokees, and the Creeks on the southern banks of the Arkansas, black
slaves to work on their plantations.
Let us see how far facts correspond with this plausible argument. I
shall select the two nations which are cited as being the furthest
advanced in European civilization, and their example will, it seems to
me, demonstrate beyond a doubt, how impossible it is for any race to
pursue a career in which their own nature has not placed them.
The Cherokees and Creeks are said to be the remnants or descendants of
the Alleghanian Race, the supposed builders of those great monuments of
which we still find traces in the Mississippi Valley. If this be the
case, these two nations may lay claim to a natural superiority over the
other tribes of North America.
Deprived of their hereditary dominions by the American government, they
were forced--under a treaty of transplantation--to emigrate to regions
selected for them by the latter. There they were placed under the
superintendence of the Minister of War, and of Protestant missionaries,
who finally succeeded in persuading them to embrace the mode of life
they now lead. Mr. Prichard,[86] my authority for these facts, and who
derives them himself from the great work of Mr. Gallatin,[87] asserts
that, while all the other Indian tribes are continually diminishing,
these are steadily increasing in numbers. As a proof of this, he alleges
that when Adair visited the Cherokee tribes, in 1762, the number of
their warriors was estimated at 2,300; at present, their total
population amounts to 15,000 souls, including about 1,200 negroes in
their possession. When we consider that their schools, as well as
churches, are directed by white missionaries; that the greater number of
these missionaries--being Protestants--are probably married and have
children and servants also white, besides, very likely, a sort of
retinue of clerks and other European employees;--the increase of the
aboriginal population becomes extremely doubtful,[88] while it is easy
to conceive the pressure of the white race upon its pupils. Surrounded
on all sides by the power of the United States, incommensurable to their
imagination; converted to the religion of their masters, which they
have, I think, sincerely embraced; treated kindly and judiciously by
their spiritual guides; and exposed to the alternation of working or of
starving in their contracted territory;--I can understand that it was
possible to make them tillers of the earth.
It would be underrating the intelligence of the humblest, meanest
specimen of our kind, to express surprise at such a result, when we see
that, by dexterously and patiently acting upon the passions and wants of
animals, we succeed in teaching them what their own instincts would
never have taught them. Every village fair is filled with animals which
are trained to perform the oddest tricks, and is it to be wondered at
that men submitted to a rigorous system of training, and deprived of the
means of escaping from it, should, in the end, be made to perform
certain mechanical functions of civilized life; functions which, even in
the savage state, they are capable of understanding, though they have
not the will to practise them? This were placing human beings lower in
the scale of creation than the learned pig, or Mr. Leonard's
domino-playing dogs.[89] Such exultation on the part of the believers in
the equality of races is little flattering to those who excite it.
I am aware that this exaggeration of the intellectual capacity of
certain races is in a great measure provoked by the notions of some very
learned and distinguished men, who pretend that between the lowest races
of men, and the highest of apes there was but a shade of distinction.
So gross an insult to the dignity of man, I indignantly reject.
Certainly, in my estimation, the different races are very unequally
endowed, both physically and mentally; but I should be loath to think
that in any, even in the most degraded, the unmistakable line of
demarcation between man and brute were effaced. I recognize no link of
gradation which would connect man mentally with the brute creation.
But does it follow, that because the lowest of the human species is
still unmistakably human, that all of that species are capable of the
same development? Take a Bushman, the most hideous and stupid of human
families, and by careful training you may teach him, or if he is already
adult, his son, to learn and practise a handicraft, even one that
requires a certain degree of intelligence. But are we warranted thence
to conclude that the nation to which this individual belongs, is
susceptible of adopting our civilization? There is a vast difference
between mechanically practising handicrafts and arts, the products of an
advanced civilization, and that civilization itself. Let us suppose that
the Cherokee tribes were suddenly cut off from all connection with the
American government, the traveller, a few years hence, would find among
them very unexpected and singular institutions, resulting from their
mixture with the whites, but partaking only feebly of the character of
European civilization.
We often hear of negroes proficient in music, negroes who are clerks in
counting-rooms, who can read, write, talk like the whites. We admire,
and conclude that the negroes are capable of everything that whites are.
Notwithstanding this admiration and these hasty conclusions, we express
surprise at the contrast of Sclavonian civilization with ours. We aver
that the Russian, Polish, Servish nations, are civilized only at the
surface, that none but the higher classes are in possession of our
ideas, and this, thanks to their intermixture with the English, French,
and German stock; that the masses, on the contrary, evince a hopeless
inaptitude for participating in the forward movement of Western Europe,
although these masses have been Christians for centuries, many of them
while our ancestors were heathens. Are the negroes, then, more closely
allied to our race than the Sclavonic nations? On the one hand, we
assert the intellectual equality of the white and black races; on the
other, a disparity among subdivisions of our own race.
There is a vast difference between imitation and comprehension. The
imitation of a civilization does not necessarily imply an eradication
of the hereditary instincts. A _nation_ can be said to have adopted a
civilization, only when it has the power to progress in it unprompted,
and without guidance. Instead of extolling the intelligence of savages
in handling a plough, after being shown; in spelling and reading, after
they have been taught; let a single example be alleged of a tribe in any
of the numerous countries in contact with Europeans, which, with our
religion, has also made the ideas, institutions, and manners of a
European nation so completely its own, that the whole social and
political machinery moves forward as easily and naturally as in our
States. Let an example be alleged of an extra-European nation, among
whom the art of printing produces effects analogous to those it produces
among us; where new applications of our discoveries are attempted; where
our systems of philosophy give birth to new systems; where our arts and
sciences flourish.
But, no; I will be more moderate in my demands. I shall not ask of that
nation to adopt, together with our faith, all in which consists our
individuality. I shall suppose that it rejects it totally, and chooses
one entirely different, adapted to its peculiar genius and
circumstances. When the eyes of that nation open to the truths of the
Gospel, it perceives that its earthly course is as encumbered and
wretched as its spiritual life had hitherto been. It now begins the work
of improvement, collects its ideas, which had hitherto remained
fruitless, examines the notions of others, transforms them, and adapts
them to its peculiar circumstances; in fact, erects, by its own power, a
social and political system, a civilization, however humble. Where is
there such a nation? The entire records of all history may be searched
in vain for a single instance of a nation which, together with
Christianity, adopted European civilization, or which--by the same grand
change in its religious ideas--was led to form a civilization of its
own, if it did not possess one already before.
On the contrary, I will show, in every part of the world, ethnical
characteristics not in the least effaced by the adoption of
Christianity. The Christian Mongol and Tartar tribes lead the same
erratic life as their unconverted brethren, and are as distinct from the
Russian of the same religion, who tills the soil, or plies his trade in
their midst, as they were centuries ago. Nay, the very hostilities of
race survive the adoption of a common religion, as we have already
pointed out in a preceding chapter. The Christian religion, then, does
not equalize the intellectual disparities of races.
FOOTNOTES:
[82] Although the success of the Chinese missions has not been
proportionate to the self-devoting zeal of its laborers, there yet are,
in China, a vast number of believers in the true faith. M. Huc tells us,
in the relation of his journey, that, in almost every place where he and
his fellow-traveller stopped, they could perceive, among the crowds that
came to stare at the two "Western devils" (as the celestials courteously
call us Europeans), men making furtively, and sometimes quite openly,
the sign of the cross. Among the nomadic hordes of the table-lands of
Central Asia, the number of Christians is much greater than among the
Chinese, and much greater than is generally supposed. (See _Annals of
the Propagation of the Faith_, No. 135, et seq.)--H.
[83] The tutelary divinity was generally a typification of the national
character. A commercial or maritime nation, would worship Mercury or
Neptune; an aggressive and warlike one, Hercules or Mars; a pastoral
one, Pan; an agricultural one, Ceres or Triptolemus; one sunk in luxury,
as Corinth, would render almost exclusive homage to Venus.
As the author observes, all ancient governments were more or less
theocratical. The regulations of castes among the Hindoos and Egyptians
were ascribed to the gods, and even the most absolute monarch dared not,
and could not, transgress the limits which the immortals had set to his
power. This so-called divine legislation often answered the same purpose
as the charters of modern constitutional monarchies. The authority of
the Persian kings was confined by religious regulations, and this has
always been the case with the sultans of Turkey. Even in Rome, whose
population had a greater tendency for the positive and practical, than
for the things of another world, we find the traces of theocratical
government. The sibylline books, the augurs, etc., were something more
than a vulgar superstition; and the latter, who could stop or postpone
the most important proceedings, by declaring the omens unpropitious,
must have possessed very considerable political influence, especially in
the earlier periods. The rude, liberty-loving tribes of Scandinavia,
Germany, Gaul, and Britain, were likewise subjected to their druids, or
other priests, without whose permission they never undertook any
important enterprise, whether public or private. Truly does our author
observe, that Christianity came to deliver mankind from such trammels,
though the mistaken or interested zeal of some of its servants, has so
often attempted, and successfully, to fasten them again. How ill adapted
Christianity would be, even in a political point of view, for a
theocratical formula, is well shown by Mr. Guizot, in his _Hist. of
Civilization_, vol. i. p. 213.--H.
[84] I have already pointed out, in my introduction (p. 41-43), some of
the fatal consequences that spring from that doctrine. It may not,
however, be out of place here to mention another. The communists,
socialists, Fourrierites, or whatever names such enemies to our social
system assume, have often seduced the unwary and weak-minded, by the
plausible assertion that they wished to restore the social system of the
first Christians, who held all goods in common, etc. Many religious
sectaries have created serious disturbances under the same pretence. It
seems, indeed, reasonable to suppose, that if Christianity had given its
exclusive sanction to any particular social and political system, it
must have been that which the first Christian communities adopted.--H.
[85] See note on page 188.--H.
[86] _Natural History of Man_, p. 390. London, 1843.
[87] _Synopsis of the Indian Tribes of North America._
[88] Had I desired to contest the accuracy of the assertions upon which
Mr. Prichard bases his arguments in this case, I should have had in my
favor the weighty authority of Mr. De Tocqueville, who, in speaking of
the Cherokees, says: "What has greatly promoted the introduction of
European habits among these Indians, is the presence of so great a
number of half-breeds. The man of mixed race--participating as he does,
to a certain extent, in the enlightenment of the father, without,
however, entirely abandoning the savage manner of the mother--forms the
natural link between civilization and barbarism. As the half-breeds
increase among them, we find savages modify their social condition, and
change their manners." (_Dem. in Am._, vol. i. p. 412.) Mr. De
Tocqueville ends by predicting that the Cherokees and Creeks, albeit
they are half-breeds, and not, as Mr. Prichard affirms, pure aborigines,
will, nevertheless, disappear before the encroachments of the whites.
[89] "When four pieces of cards were laid before them, each having a
number pronounced _once_ in connection with it, they will, after a
re-arrangement of the pieces, select any one named by its number. They
also play at domino, and with so much skill as to triumph over biped
opponents, whining if the adversary plays a wrong piece, or if they
themselves are deficient in the right one."--_Vest. of Cr._, p. 236.--H.
INTRODUCTORY NOTE TO CHAPTERS VIII. AND IX.
Rapid survey of the populations comprised under the appellation
"Teutonic"--Their present ethnological area, and leading
characteristics--Fondness for the sea displayed by the Teutonic
tribes of Northwestern Europe, and perceptible in their
descendants.
Several of the ideas expressed by the author in the course of the two
next following chapters, seemed to the annotator of this volume to call
for a few remarks on his part, which could not conveniently be condensed
within the limited space of foot-notes. Besides, the text is already
sufficiently encumbered with them, and any increase in their length or
number could not but be displeasing to the eye, while it would divert
attention from the main subject. He has, therefore, taken the
liberty--an unwarranted one, perhaps--of introducing his remarks in this
form and place.
* * * * *
The leading proposition in this volume is, that the civilization
originated and developed by a race, is the clearest index of its
character--the mirror in which its principal features are truthfully
reflected. In other words, that every race, capable of developing a
civilization, will develop one peculiar to itself, and impossible to
every other. This the author illustrates by the actual state of our
civilization, which he asserts to be originated by the Teutonic race,
but modified in proportion to the admixture of that race with a
different blood. To clearly comprehend his idea, and to appreciate the
value of his arguments, it is, therefore, necessary for the reader to
take a rapid survey of the populations comprised under the appellation
_Teutonic_, and to examine into the present geographical extension of
that race. This I shall endeavor to do, not, indeed, by entering into an
elaborate ethnological disquisition--a task greatly beyond my powers,
and the due performance of which would require a space much larger than
the whole of this volume--but by merely grouping together well-known
facts, in such a manner as to set the author's idea in a clearer light.
The words _Teutonic_ and _Germanic_ are generally used synonymously, and
we shall not depart from this custom. Strict accuracy, however, would
probably require that the term Teutonic should be used as the general
appellation of all those swarms of northern warriors, who, under various
names, harassed and finally subverted the overgrown dominion of ancient
Rome, while the term Germanic would apply to a portion of them only. The
Northern Barbarians, as the Romans contemptuously styled them, all
claimed to belong to the "_Thiudu_," or the nation _par excellence_, and
from that word the term Teutonic is supposed to be derived. Many of
their descendants still retain the name: _Teutsch_ or _Deutsch_
(German). The Romans called them _Germanes_, from the boastful title of
"the warlike," or "the men of war," which the first invading tribes had
given themselves. These _Germanes_ of the Romans were again divided into
two classes, the Saxon tribes, and the Suevic; terms expressive of their
mode of life, the former having fixed habitations and inclosed farms,
the latter cultivating the fields by turn, and being prone to change
their abodes. The first class comprised many other tribes besides those
who figure in history, under the name of Saxons, as the invaders and
conquerors of Britain. But as I desire to avoid all not well-authorized
distinctions, I shall use the terms Teutonic and Germanic
indiscriminately.
The Germans appear to have been at all times an eminently warlike and
courageous race. History first speaks of them as warriors alarming, nay,
terrifying, the arrogant Romans, and that not in the infancy of Rome's
power, when the Samnites and Volscians were formidable antagonists, but
in the very fulness of its strength, in the first vigor of youthful
manhood, when Italy, Spain, part of Gaul, the northern coasts of Africa,
Greece, Syria, and Asia Minor, were subdued to the republican yoke. Then
it was that the Cimbri and Teutones invaded and harassed Italy, chilling
the mistress of the world with fear.
The Germans next meet us in Cæsar's Commentaries. The principal
resistance which the future usurper experienced in subduing Gaul,
appears to have been offered, not by the Gallic population, but either
by German tribes, settled in that country, or German armies from the
right banks of the Rhine, who longed to dispute the tempting prize with
the Romans. The great general twice crossed the Rhine, but probably more
for the _éclat_ of such an exploit, than with the hope of making
permanent conquests. The temporary successes gained by his imperial
successors were amply counterbalanced by the massacre of the flower of
the Roman armies.
At the end of the first five centuries after Christ, nothing was left of
the great Roman empire but ruins. Every country in Northern, Western,
and Southern Europe acknowledged German masters. The tribes of the
extreme north had entered Russia, and there established a powerful
republic; the tribes of the northwest (the Angles and Saxons) had
conquered Britain; a confederation of the southern tribes, under the
name of Franks, had conquered Gaul; the various Gothic tribes of the
east, the Heruli, the Longobardi, Ostrogoths, etc., had subjected Italy
to their arms, and disputed its possession among themselves. Other
Gothic tribes (the Visigoths, Burgundians, and Vandals) had shared with
the Franks the beautiful tracts of Gaul, or had carried their victorious
arms to Spain, and the northern coasts of Africa. The three most
beautiful and most fertile countries of Europe, to this day, retain the
name of their conquerors--England, France, Lombardy.
It is impossible now to determine with accuracy the amount of German
blood in the populations of the various states founded by the Teutonic
tribes. Yet certain general results are easily arrived at in this
interesting investigation.
Thus, we know that Germany, notwithstanding its name, contains by no
means a pure Germanic population. The fierce Scythian hordes, whom
Attila led on to the work of devastation, after the death of their
leader, incorporated themselves with various of the Teutonic tribes.
They form one of the ethnical elements of the population of Italy, but
especially of the south and southeast of Germany. While, therefore, the
population of Northern Germany is comparatively pure Teutonic, that of
the southern and eastern portion is a mixture of Teutonic and Sclavonian
elements.
The Danes, Swedes, and Norwegians, are probably the most Germanic
nations of continental Europe.
In Spain, the Visigoths were, in a great measure, absorbed by the native
population, consisting of the aboriginal Celtiberians and the numerous
Roman colonists. In the tenth century, an amalgamation began with the
eastern blood brought by the Arab conquerors.
Italy, already at the time of the downfall of Rome, contained an
extremely mixed population, drawn thither by the all-absorbing vortex of
the Eternal City. In the north, the Germanic element had time to engraft
itself in some measure; but the south, passing into the hands of the
Byzantine emperors, received an addition of the already mixed Greek
blood of the east.
Gaul, at the time of the Frankish conquest, was an extremely populous
country. Beside the aboriginal Gauls, the population consisted of
numerous Roman colonists. The Mediterranean coast of Gaul had, from the
earliest times, received Phenician, Carthaginian, and Greek settlers,
who founded there large and prosperous cities. The original differences
in the population of Gaul are to this day perceptible. The Germanic
element preponderates in the north, where already, in Cæsar's time, the
Germans had succeeded in making permanent settlements, and in the
northeast, where the Burgundians had well-nigh extirpated and
completely supplanted the Gallic natives.[90] But everywhere else,[91]
the Germanic element forms but a small portion of the population, and
this is well illustrated by the striking resemblance of the character of
the modern French to that of the ancient Gauls. But though vastly
inferior in numbers, the descendants of the German conquerors, for one
thousand years, were the dominant race in France. Until the fifteenth
century, all the higher nobility were of Frankish or Burgundian origin.
But, after the Celtic and Celto-Roman provinces south of the Loire had
rallied around a youthful king, to reconquer their capital and best
territories from the English foe, the Frankish blood ruled with less
exclusive sway in all the higher offices of the state; and the
distinction was almost entirely lost by the accession of the first
southern dynasty, that of the Bourbons, towards the end of the sixteenth
century. The corresponding variations in the national policy and the
exterior manifestations of the national character, Mr. Gobineau has
rapidly pointed out elsewhere.[92]
While the population of France presents so great a mixture of various
different races, and but a slight infusion of German blood, that of
England, on the contrary, is almost purely Teutonic. The original
inhabitants of the country were, for the most part, driven into the
mountain fastnesses of Wales by the German invaders, where they
preserve, to this day, their original language. Every subsequent great
addition to the population of England was by the German race. The Danes,
and, after them, the Normans, were tribes of the same stock as the
Saxons, and all came from very nearly the same portion of Europe. It is
obvious, therefore, that England, even after the Norman conquest, when,
for a time, the upper and the lower classes spoke different languages,
contained a more homogeneous population than France did at the same, or
any subsequent epoch. In England, from the Saxon yeoman up to the
proudest Norman lord, all belonged to the great German race; in France,
only the nobility, while the peasants were Gauls. The wars between the
two countries afford a striking proof of the difference of these two
races. The battles of Cressy, of Poitiers, and of Agincourt, which will
never be forgotten so long as English poetry can find an echo in an
English breast, were won by the English against greatly superior
numbers. "Victories, indeed, they were," says Macaulay, "of which a
nation may justly be proud; for they are to be attributed to the moral
superiority of the victors, _a superiority which was most striking in
the lowest ranks_. The knights of England found worthy rivals in the
knights of France. Chandos encountered an equal foe in Du Guesclin. But
France had no infantry that dared to face the English bows and bills."
The Celt has probably, at no time, been inferior to the Teuton in valor;
in martial enthusiasm, he exceeds him. But, at a time when bodily
strength decided the combat, the difference between the sturdy Saxon and
the small, slight--though active--Gaul, must have been great.
In this rapid and necessarily imperfect sketch, I have endeavored to
show the relative proportion of the Teutonic blood in the population of
the various countries of Europe. I have endeavored to direct the
reader's attention to the fact, that though it forms an element in the
population of all, it exists in perfect purity in but few, and that
England presents a happy fusion of some of the most distinguished
branches of the German family. If we now glance at the United States, we
shall there find--at least in the first years of her national
existence--a pendant to what has been asserted of England. The elements
of the population of the original thirteen States, were almost
exclusively of English, Lowland Scotch, Dutch, and Swedish blood; that
is to say, decidedly Germanic. Ireland was as yet slightly represented.
France had made but inconsiderable contributions to the population.
Since we have assumed a rank among the great powers of the earth, every
portion of the inhabited globe has sent us its contingent of blood, yet
even now, the great body of the nation belongs to the Teutonic race.
Much has been said of the effects of ethnical mixture. Many consider it
as decidedly beneficial, others as decidedly deleterious. It seems to me
susceptible of mathematical demonstration, that when a very inferior
race amalgamates with one of higher order, the compound--though superior
to the one, must be inferior to the other. In that case, therefore,
mixture is injurious. But when various branches of the same race, or
nearly cognate races mix, as in the case of the Saxons, Angles, Danes,
and Normans, the mixture cannot but be beneficial. For, while none of
the higher qualities are lost, the compound presents a felicitous
combination of some of the virtues peculiar to each.
If our civilization received its tone and character from the Teutonic
race, as Mr. Gobineau asserts, this character must be most strikingly
displayed wherever that race forms the preponderating element of the
population.
Before investigating this question, we must cast a glance on the manners
and modes of thinking that characterized this race in the earliest
times. Unfortunately, but few records are left to assist us in forming a
judgment. Tacitus's celebrated treatise was, probably, more an imaginary
sketch, which he wished to hold up to a people sunk in luxury and vice,
as were his countrymen. In our times, the North American Indian has
often been held up as a model of uncorrupted simplicity, and many
touching romances have been written on the theme, now rather hackneyed
and out of fashion. But though the noble Roman may have highly colored
the picture, the incorruptible love of truth, which shines so
brilliantly in all his works, assures us of the truth of its outlines.
Of one thing we can entertain no doubt, viz: that history nowhere shows
us our Germanic forefathers in the same state of barbarism that we find
other races--many of the American Indians, the South-Sea Islanders, and
others. In the earliest times they practised agriculture, they
cultivated rye, barley, oats and wheat. Many of the tribes had regular
farms, which were inclosed. They knew how to work iron, an art which
even the most civilized of the American Indians had never learned. They
had extensive and complicated political relations, often forming
themselves in vast confederacies. But, above all, they were an
eminently chaste people; they respected woman,[93] and assigned to her
her legitimate place in the social circle. Marriage with them was a
sacred institution.
The greatest point of superiority of our civilization, over all
preceding and contemporaneous ones--a point which Mr. Gobineau has
omitted to mention--is the high rank which woman occupies in the modern
structure of society. The boasted civilizations of Greece and Rome, if
superior in others, are vastly inferior to us in this respect. And this
glorious superiority we owe to the pure and chaste manners of our
forefathers.
Representative government, trial by jury, and all the discoveries in
political science upon which we pride ourselves most, are the necessary
development of their simple institutions, to which, indeed, they can be
distinctly traced.
I have purposely selected these two characteristics of the German
races--respect for woman, and love of liberty, or, what is more, a
capacity for establishing and preserving liberal institutions. The
question now resolves itself into this: Does woman occupy the highest
rank, do liberal institutions best flourish where the Germanic race is
most pure? I will not answer the question, but beg the reader to compare
the more Germanic countries with those that are less so--England,
Holland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and Northern Germany, with France,
Spain, Italy, Greece, and Russia; the United States and Canada, with
Mexico and the South American republics.
Mr. Gobineau speaks of the utilitarian character of the Germanic races,
but furnishes no proofs of his assertion. I shall therefore endeavor to
supply the deficiency.
Those countries which ethnology tells us contain the most Germanic
populations, viz: England, the northern States of Europe, including
Holland, and the United States, have the entire commerce, and nearly all
the manufacture of the whole world in their hands. They have given to
mankind all the great inventions which shed an everlasting lustre over
our era. They, together, possess nine-tenths of all the railroads built
in the world, and the greater part of the remaining tenth was built by
_their_ enterprise and capital. Whatever perfection in the useful arts
one of these countries attains, is readily adopted by all; slowly only,
and sometimes never by any of the others.
On the other hand, we find that the polite arts do not meet, in these
countries, with a very congenial soil. Artists may flock thither, and,
perhaps, reap a harvest of gold; but they seldom stay. The admiration
which they receive is oftenest the mere dictate of fashion. It is true
that England, Denmark, Holland, Sweden, and the United States, have
produced some eminent artists, but the mass of the population do not
exhibit that innate taste, that passionate fondness for the arts, which
we find among all classes in Italy, Spain, and to some extent in France
and Southern Germany.
* * * * *
Before I conclude this hasty sketch, for which I crave the reader's
indulgence, I wish to draw attention to a striking instance of the
permanency of ethnical characteristics. The nations that most fondly and
most successfully plough the briny main, are the English, the
Americans, the Swedes, Danes, Dutch. Notwithstanding the littleness of
these latter, they have successfully competed in maritime discovery with
larger nations; and even now, own considerable and far distant colonial
possessions. The Dutch, for a time, were the greatest maritime power in
the world, and to this day carry on an extensive and profitable
commerce. History tells us that the forefathers of these nations were
distinguished by the same nautical genius.
The real Saxons--the invaders of England--are mentioned already in the
middle of the second century, by Ptolemy, as skilful sailors. In the
fourth and fifth century, they became dreaded from their piracies. They
and their confederates, the Angles, originally inhabited the present
Holstein, and the islands in the vicinity of the Baltic coast. Their
neighbors, the Danes, were equally famous for maritime exploits. Their
celebrated vykings still live in song and tale. Their piratical
incursions and settlements in England, are known to every schoolboy. How
familiar the Normans were with the watery element, is abundantly proved
by history. They ascended the Rhine, and other rivers, for hundreds of
miles, marking their landing-place by devastation.
Of the Angle, the Saxon, the Dane, and the Norman, the present
Englishman and his adventurous brother of Massachusetts, are lineal
descendants. The best sailors in our commercial navy, next to the native
sailors, are the Danes and the Swedes. Normandy, to this day, furnishes
the best for the French service.--H.
FOOTNOTES:
[90] In those portions of the present France, over one million and a
half of the inhabitants speak German. The pure Gauls in the Landes have
not yet learned the French language, and speak a peculiar--probably
their original--_patois_.
[91] With the exception of Normandy.
[92] See p. 183.
[93] I am not aware that any writer has ever presumed to doubt this fact
except Mr. Guizot, who dismisses it with a sneer. Fortunately, a sneer
is not an argument, though it often has more weight.
CHAPTER VIII.
CIVILIZATION.
Mr. Guizot's and Mr. W. von Humboldt's definitions examined. Its
elements.
The reader will here pardon me an indispensable digression. I make use
at almost every moment of a term comprising in its extensive
signification a collection of ideas which it is important to define
accurately: _civilization_. The greater or less degree in which this
term is applicable to the social condition of various nations, is my
only standard for the comparative merit of races. I also speak of a
_European_ civilization, in contradistinction to others of a different
character. It is the more necessary to avoid the least vagueness, as I
am under the disagreeable necessity of differing from a celebrated
writer, who has assumed the special task of determining the meaning and
comprehensiveness of this expression.
Mr. Guizot, in his _History of Civilization in Modern Europe_, makes
use of a term which seems to me to give rise to a serious confusion of
ideas, and lead to positive errors. He says that civilization is a
_fact_.
Now, either the word fact must here be understood in a sense much less
strict and precise than common usage requires, a sense so indistinct--I
might almost say elastic--as has never pertained to it, or what we
comprehend under the term civilization cannot be expressed by the word
fact. Civilization is not _a fact_; it is a _series_, a _concatenation
of facts_, more or less logically united, and resulting from ideas often
sufficiently diverse: ideas and facts continually reproduce each other.
Civilization is a term applied to a certain state or condition in which
a society exists--a condition which is of its own creation, bears its
character, and, in turn, reacts upon it. This condition is of so
variable a nature, that it cannot be called a fact; for a fact cannot be
variable without ceasing to be a fact. In other words, there is more
than one civilization: there are various kinds. Thus, a civilization may
flourish under every form of government, and it does not cease to exist
when civil commotions destroy or alter that form.
Let it not be understood that I esteem governmental forms of little
importance. Their choice is intimately connected with the prosperity of
the society: if judicious, promoting and developing it; if unpractical,
endangering its destruction. But I speak not here of the temporary
prosperity or misery of a society. I speak of its civilization; and this
is a phenomenon whose causes must be sought elsewhere, and deeper than
in transient political forms. Its character, its growth, fecundity, or
barrenness, depends upon elementary principles of far greater
importance.
But, in Mr. Guizot's opinion, civilization is a fact, a unity; and it is
of an essentially political character. Let us see how he defines it. He
has chosen a series of hypotheses, describing society in various
conditions, and then asks if the state so described is, in the general
opinion of mankind, the state of a people advancing in civilization--if
it answers to the signification which mankind generally attaches to this
word.[94]
"First imagine a people whose outward circumstances are easy and
agreeable; few taxes; few hardships; justice is fairly administered; in
a word, physical existence, taken altogether, is satisfactorily and
happily regulated. But, with all this, the moral and intellectual
energies of this people are studiously kept in a state of torpor and
inertness. It can hardly be called oppression; its tendency is not of
that character--it is rather compression. We are not without examples of
this state of society. There have been a great number of little
aristocratic republics, in which the people have been thus treated like
a flock of sheep, carefully tended, physically happy, but without the
least intellectual and moral activity. Is this civilization? Do we
recognize here a people in a state of moral and social advancement?"
I know not whether such a people is in a state of advancement, but it
certainly may be in a very advanced state of civilization, else we
should find ourselves compelled to class among the savages or barbarians
all those aristocratic republics of ancient and modern times, which
answer Mr. Guizot's description. But the common sense of mankind would
never ratify a method which ejected from within the pale of civilization
not only the Phenicians, Carthaginians, and Lacedæmonians, but even
Venice, Genoa, Pisa, the free cities of Germany--in fact, all the
powerful municipalities of the last centuries. But, besides this mode of
proceeding being too paradoxical and restrictive, it seems to me to
encounter another difficulty. Those little aristocratic states, to whom,
on account of their form of government, Mr. Guizot denies the aptitude
for civilization, have, for the most part, never been in possession of a
special culture peculiar to themselves. Powerful as many of them have
been, they assimilated, in this respect, with nations differently
governed, but of consanguineous affinity; they formed a fragment only of
a greater and more general civilization. Thus, the Carthaginians and
Phenicians, though at a great distance from one another, had a similar
mode of culture, the type of which must be sought in Assyria. The
Italian republics participated in the same ideas and opinions which
developed themselves in the bosom of neighboring monarchies. The
imperial cities of Thuringia and Suabia, although perfectly independent
in a political point of view, were nevertheless intimately united with
the general progressive or retrogressive movement of the whole German
race. Mr. Guizot, therefore, by assigning to the people of different
countries degrees of merit proportionate to the degree and form of their
liberty, creates unjustifiable subdivisions in the same race, and makes
distinctions without a difference. A lengthy discussion is not in its
place here, and I shall therefore proceed rapidly. If, however, it were
necessary to enter into a controversy, might we not justly protest
against recognizing any inferiority in the case of Genoa, Pisa, Venice,
and others, when compared with countries like Milan, Naples, or Rome?
Mr. Guizot has himself foreseen this difficulty, and removed the
objection. If he does not recognize a state of civilization among a
people "mildly governed, but in a state of compression," neither does he
accord this prerogative to another, "whose outward circumstances are
less favorable and agreeable, although supportable, but whose
intellectual and moral cravings have not been entirely neglected; among
whom pure and elevated sentiments have been cultivated, and religious
and moral notions reached a certain degree of improvement, but among
whom the desire of liberty has been stifled; where a certain portion of
truth is doled out to each, but no one permitted to seek for it himself.
This is the condition to which most of the populations of Asia are sunk,
because theocratical governments there restrain the progress of mankind;
such, for instance, is the state of the Hindoos."
Thus, besides the aristocratic nations of the earth, we must moreover
exclude from the pale of civilization the Hindoos, Egyptians, Etruscans,
Peruvians, Thibetans, Japanese--nay, even modern Rome and her
territories.
I omit the last two hypotheses, because, thanks to the first two, the
state of civilization is already restricted within boundaries so
contracted that scarce any people on the globe is justified in
pretending to it. A nation, then, can be called civilized only when it
enjoys institutions happily blending popular liberty and the requisite
strength of authority for maintaining order; when its progress in
material well-being and its moral development are co-ordinate in a
certain manner, and no other; where religion, as well as government, is
confined within limits accurately defined, which neither ever
transgresses; where each individual possesses clearly determinate and
inalienable rights. According to this formula, no nation can be
civilized unless its political institutions are of the constitutional
and representative form, and consequently it is impossible to save many
European nations from the reproach of barbarism. Then, measuring the
_degree_ of civilization by the perfection of this same and only
political form, we are compelled to place in a second rank all those
constitutional states which have ill employed the engine of parliament,
to reserve the crown exclusively for those who know how to make good use
of it. By this reasoning, I am forced to consider as truly civilized,
in the past as well as the present, none but the single English
nation.[95]
I sincerely respect and admire that great people, whose victories,
industry, and universal commerce have left no portion of our globe
ignorant of its puissance and the prodigies it has performed. But
still, I do not feel disposed to respect and admire in the world no
other: it would seem to me too humiliating and cruel to humanity to
confess that, since the beginning of time, it has never succeeded in
producing a civilization anywhere but upon a small island of the Western
Ocean, has never discovered the laws and forms which produce this state
until the reign of William and Mary. Such a conception of civilization
might seem to many rather a little too narrow and restrictive. But there
is another objection. If we attach the idea of civilization to a
political form, reason, observation, and science will soon lose their
vote in the decision of the question, which must thenceforth be left to
the passions and prejudices of parties. There will be some whose
preferences will lead them stoutly to deny that the institutions of the
British Isles are the "perfection of human reason:" their enthusiasm,
perchance, will be expended in praising the order established in St.
Petersburg or in Vienna. Many, again, and perhaps the greater number of
all living between the Rhine and the Pyrenees, will sustain to the last
that, notwithstanding a few blemishes, the most polished, the most
civilized country of the world is _la belle France_. The moment that the
decision of the degree of intellectual culture becomes a matter of
preference, a question of sentiment, to come to an understanding is
impossible. Each one will think him the man most advanced in
civilization who shall coincide with his views about the respective
duties of the governing and the governed; while those who are
unfortunate enough to differ, will be set down as men behind the age,
little better than barbarians, mere "old fogies," whose visual organs
are too weak for the dazzling lights of the epoch; or else as daring,
incendiary innovators, who wish to destroy all established order, and
sap the very foundation of civilization. I think few will differ from me
in considering Mr. Guizot's definition as defective, and the source from
which he derives civilization as not the real one.
Let us now examine Baron W. Von Humboldt's definition. "Civilization,"
says that celebrated statesman, "is the humanization of nations in their
outward institutions, in their manners, and in the inward feelings upon
which these depend."[96]
Here we meet with a defect of the very opposite kind to that which I
took the liberty to point out in Mr. Guizot's definition. The formula is
too vague, the boundary lines too indistinct. If civilization consists
in a softening of manners, more than one untutored tribe, some extremely
low in the scale of races, might take precedence over several European
nations whose character contains more acerbity. There are in the South
Sea Islands, and elsewhere, very inoffensive populations, of
exceedingly gentle manners, and kind, accommodating dispositions; yet,
though we may praise them, no one would think of placing them, in the
scale of civilization, above the rough Norwegians, or even above the
ferocious Malays, who, dressed in brilliant garments of their own
fabric, and upon skilfully constructed vessels of their own making,
traverse the Indian seas, at the same time the terror and scourge of
maritime commerce, and its most successful votaries. This observation
could not escape so great a mind as William Von Humboldt's; and he
therefore imagines, besides civilization, a higher degree of
development, which he calls _culture_, and by which he declares that
nations gain, above their gentle manners, "_science and the arts_."[97]
When the world shall have arrived at this higher state, it will be
peopled by _affectionate_ and _sympathetic_ beings, very erudite,
poetic, and artistic, but, by reason of this same reunion of qualities,
ignoring the grosser wants of existence: strangers to the necessity of
war, as well as those of rude mechanical toil.
When we reflect upon the limited leisure that the mass of even those
can enjoy whose lot is cast in the happiest epoch, to abandon themselves
to purely intellectual occupations--when we consider how incessant and
arduous must ever be the strife of man with nature and the elements to
insure the mere means of subsistence, it will soon be perceived that the
philosopher of Berlin aimed less at depicting realities than at drawing
from the domain of abstraction certain entities which appeared to him
beautiful and sublime, and which are so, indeed, and at causing them to
act and move in a sphere as ideal as themselves. If any doubts should
still remain in this respect, they are soon dispelled when we arrive at
the culminating point of the system, consisting of a third and last
degree superior to the two others. This greatest point of perfection is
that upon which stands the _finished_ man (_der Gebildete_); that is to
say, the man who, in his nature, possesses "something higher and more
inward or essential; a clear and comprehensive faculty of seeing all
things in their true light; a recognition and appreciation of the
ultimate goal of man's moral and intellectual aspirations, which
diffuses itself harmoniously over all his feelings and his
character."[98]
We here have a regular gradation from man in a civilized or "humanized"
state, to the man of cultivation--the philosopher, the poet, the artist;
and thence still higher to the _finished_, the _perfect_ man, who has
attained the greatest elevation possible to our species; a man who, if I
seize rightly Mr. Humboldt's idea, had his living counterpart in
Goethe, as that towering mind is described to us in its olympic
serenity. This theory rests upon no other basis than Mr. Von Humboldt's
perception of the immense difference between the civilization of a
nation and the comparative height of perfection attained by great,
isolated individualities. This difference is so great that civilizations
different from ours, and perhaps inferior to it, have produced men in
some respects superior to those we admire most.
Upon this point I fully coincide with the great philosopher whose theory
I am unfolding. It is perfectly correct, that our state of
development--what we call the European civilization--produces neither
the profoundest nor the sublimest thinkers, nor the greatest poets, nor
the most skilful artists. Yet I venture to differ from the illustrious
philologist in believing that to give a practical meaning to the word
civilization, it is necessary to divest one's self, if but for a moment,
from the prejudices or prepossessions resulting from the examination of
mere details in any particular civilization. We must take the aggregate
result of the whole, and not make the requisites too few, as in the case
of the man of the first degree, whom I persist in not acknowledging as
civilized merely because his manners are gentle; nor too many, as in the
case of the sage of the third, for then the development of human
faculties would be limited to a few individuals, and would produce
results purely isolated and typical.
The Baron Von Humboldt's system, however, does honor to that exquisite
and generous sensibility, that grand sublimity which was the dominant
characteristic of this great mind; and in its purely abstract nature may
be compared to the fragile worlds of Brahmin philosophy. Born from the
brain of a slumbering god, they rise in the air like the irised bubbles
that the child blows from the suds, bursting and succeeding one another
as the dreams that amuse the celestial sleeper.
But the character of my researches permits me not to indulge in mere
abstractions, however brilliant and attractive; I must arrive at results
tangible to practical sense and common experience. I do not wish, like
Mr. Guizot, to investigate the conditions more or less favorable to the
prosperity of societies, nor, like Mr. William Von Humboldt, to
speculate upon the isolated elevation of individual intelligences; my
purpose is to encompass, if possible, the aggregate power, moral as well
as material, which is developed in great masses of men. It is not
without trepidation that I engage in a path in which two of the most
admired men of our century have lost themselves; and to avoid the errors
into which they have fallen, I shall descend to first principles, and
define civilization by first investigating from what causes it results.
If the reader, then, will follow me patiently and attentively through
the mazes into which I am forced to enter, I shall endeavor to throw as
much light as I am capable of, upon this inherently obscure and abstruse
subject.
There is no human being so degraded, so brutish, in whom a twofold
instinct, if I may be permitted so to call it, is not manifest; the
instinct which incites to the gratification of material wants, and that
which leads to higher aspirations. The degree of intensity of either of
these two is the first and principal measure of the differences among
races. In none, not even in the lowest tribes, are the two instincts
precisely balanced. Among some, the physical wants or animal
propensities preponderate; in others, these are subordinate to the
speculative tendencies--the cravings for the abstract, the supernatural.
Thus, the lowest of the yellow races seem to me to be dominated rather
by the first, the physical instinct, without, however, being absolutely
deprived of all capacity for abstractions. On the contrary, among the
majority of the black races of corresponding rank, the habits are less
active than pensive; imagination there attaches greater value to the
things of the invisible than to those of the visible world. I do not
thence deduce any conclusion of superior capacity for civilization on
the part of those latter races over the former, for history demonstrates
that both are equally insusceptible to attain it. Centuries, thousands
of years, have passed by without either of them doing aught to
ameliorate their condition, because they have never been able to
associate a sufficient number of ideas with the same number of facts, to
begin the march of progress. I wish merely to draw attention to the
fact, that even among the lowest races we find this double current
differently constituted. I shall now follow the ascending scale.
Above the Samoyedes on the one hand, and the Fidas and Pelagian negroes
on the other, we must place those tribes who are not content with a mere
hut of branches, and a social condition based upon force only, but who
are capable of comprehending and aspiring to a better condition. These
are one degree above the most barbarous.
If they belong to the first category of races--those who act more than
they think, among whom the material tendency predominates over that for
the abstract--their development will display itself in a greater
perfection of their instruments of labor, and of war, in a greater care
and skill in their ornaments, etc. In government, the warriors will
take precedence over the priests; in their intercourse with others, they
will show a certain aptitude and readiness for trafficking. Their wars,
though still characterized by cruelty, will originate rather in a love
of gain, than in the mere gratification of vindictive passions. In one
word, material well-being, physical enjoyments, will be the main pursuit
of each individual. I find this picture realized among several of the
Mongol races, and also, to some extent, among the Quichuas and Azmaras
of Peru.
On the other hand, if they belong to the second category--to those who
have a predominating tendency for the speculative, the abstract--less
care will be bestowed upon the material interests; the influence of the
priests will preponderate in the government; in fact, we perceive a
complete antithesis to the condition above described. The Dahomees, of
Western Africa, and the Caffres of the south, are examples of this
state.
Leaving those races whose progressive tendency is not sufficiently
vigorous to enable them to extend their influence over great
multitudes,[99] we come to those of a higher order, in whom this
tendency is so vigorous that they are capable of incorporating, and
bringing within their sphere of action, all those they come in contact
with. They soon ingraft their own social and political system upon
immense multitudes, and impose upon vast countries the dominion of that
combination of facts and ideas--more or less co-ordinate--which we call
a _civilization_. Among these races, again, we find the same difference,
the same division, that I already pointed out in those of inferior
merit--in some the speculative, in others the more materially active
tendency predominates. It is, indeed, among these races only, that this
difference has important consequences, and is clearly perceptible. When
a tribe, by incorporating with it great multitudes, has become a people,
has founded a vast dominion, we find that these two currents or
tendencies have augmented in strength, according to the character of the
populations which enter into the combination, and there become blended.
Whatever tendency prevails among these populations, they will
proportionably modify the character of the whole. It will be remarked,
moreover, that at different periods of the life of a people, and in
strict accordance with the mixture of blood and the fusion of different
elements, the oscillation between the two tendencies becomes more
violent, and it may happen that their relative proportion changes
altogether; that one, at first subordinate, in time becomes predominant.
The results of this mobility are important, as they influence, in a
sensible manner, the character of a civilization, and its
stability.[100]
For the sake of simplicity, I shall distinguish the two categories of
races by designations expressive of the tendency which predominates in
them, and shall call them accordingly, either _speculative_ or
_utilitarian_.[101] As I have before observed, these terms imply neither
praise nor blame. I use them merely for convenience, to designate the
leading characteristic, without thereby expressing a total absence of
the other. Thus, the most utilitarian of the speculative races would
closely approximate to the most speculative of the utilitarian. At the
head of the utilitarian category, as its type, I place the Chinese; at
the head, and as the type of the other, the Hindoos. Next to the Chinese
I would put the majority of the populations of ancient Italy, the first
Romans of the time of the republic, and the Germanic tribes. On the
opposite side, among the speculative races, I would range next to the
Hindoos, the Egyptians, and the nations of the Assyrian empire.
I have said already that the oscillations of the two principles or
tendencies sometimes result in the preponderance of one, which before
was subordinate, and thus the character of the civilization is changed.
Minor modifications, the history of almost every people presents. Thus,
even the materialistic utilitarian tendency of the Chinese has been
somewhat modified by their amalgamation with tribes of another blood,
and a different tendency. In the south, the Yunnan particularly, where
this population prevailed, the inhabitants are much less exclusively
utilitarian than in the north, where the Chinese element is more pure.
If this admixture of blood operated so slight a change in the genius of
that immense nation, that its effects have ceased, or make themselves
perceptible only in an exceedingly slow manner, it is because its
quantity was so extremely small, compared to the utilitarian population
by which it was absorbed.
Into the actual populations of Europe, the Germanic tribes infused a
strong utilitarian tendency, and in the north, this has been continually
recruited by new accessions of the same ethnical element; but in the
south (with some exceptions, Piedmont, and the North of Spain, for
example), the Germanic element forms not so great a portion of the whole
mass, and the utilitarian tendency has there been overweighed by the
opposite genius of the native populations.
Among the speculative races we have signalized the Hindoos. They are
endowed in a high degree with the tendency for the supernatural, the
abstract. Their character is more meditative than active and practical.
As their ancient conquests incorporated with them races of a similar
disposition, the utilitarian element has never prevailed sufficiently to
produce decided results. While, therefore, their civilization has
arrived at a high degree of perfection in other respects, it has lagged
far behind in all that promotes material comfort, in all that is
strictly useful and practical.
Rome, at first strictly utilitarian, changed its character gradually as
the fusion with Greek, Asiatic, and African elements proceeded, and when
once the ancient utilitarian population was absorbed in this ethnical
inundation, the practical character of Rome was lost.
* * * * *
From the consideration of these and similar facts, I arrive at the
conclusion, that all intellectual or moral activity results from the
combined action and mutual reaction of these two tendencies, and that
the social system can arrive at that development which entitles it to
the name of civilization, only in races which possess, in a high degree,
either of the two, without being too much deficient in the other.
I now proceed to the examination of other points also deserving of
notice.
FOOTNOTES:
[94] Hazlitt's translation, vol. i. p 21. New York, 1855.--H.
[95] A careful comparison of Mr. Guizot's views with those expressed by
Count Gobineau upon this interesting subject convinced me that the
differences of opinion between these two investigators required a more
careful and minute examination than the author has thought necessary.
With this view, I subjoin further extracts from the celebrated "_History
of Civilization in Europe_," from which, I think, it will appear that
few of the great truths comprised in the definition of _civilization_
have escaped the penetration and research of the illustrious writer, but
that, being unable to divest himself of the idea of _unity_ of
civilization, he has necessarily fallen into an error, with which a
great metaphysician justly charges so many reasoners. "It is hard," says
Locke, speaking of the abuse of words, "to find a discourse written on
any subject, especially of controversy, wherein one shall not observe,
if he read with attention, the same words (and those commonly the most
material in the discourse, and upon which the argument turns) used
sometimes for one collection of simple ideas, and sometimes for
another.... A man, in his accompts with another, might with as much
fairness, make the characters of numbers stand sometimes for one, and
sometimes for another collection of units (_e. g._, this character, 3,
stand sometimes for three, sometimes for four, and sometimes for eight),
as, in his discourse or reasoning, make the same words stand for
different collections of simple ideas."
* * * * *
Mr. Guizot opens his first lecture by declaring his intention of giving
a "general survey of the history of _European civilization_, of its
_origin_, its _progress_, its _end_, its _character_. I say European
civilization, because there is evidently so striking a uniformity in the
civilization of the different states of Europe, as fully to warrant this
appellation. Civilization has flowed to them all from sources so much
alike, it is so connected in them all--notwithstanding the great
differences of time, of place, and circumstances--by the same
principles, and it tends in them all to bring about the same results,
that no one will doubt of there being _a civilization essentially
European_."
Here, then, Mr. Guizot acknowledges one great truth contended for in
this volume; he virtually recognizes the fact that there may be other
civilizations, having different origins, a different progress, different
characters, different ends.
"At the same time, it must be observed, that this civilization cannot be
found in--its history cannot be collected from--the history of any
single state of Europe. However similar in its general appearance
throughout the whole, its variety is not less remarkable, nor has it
ever yet developed itself completely in any particular country. Its
characteristic features are widely spread, and we shall be obliged to
seek, as occasion may require, in England, in France, in Germany, in
Spain, for the elements of its history."
This is precisely the idea expressed in my introduction, that according
to the character of a nation, its civilization manifests itself in
various ways; in some, by perfection in the arts, useful or polite; in
others, by development of political forms, and their practical
application, etc. If I had then wished to support my opinion by a great
authority, I should, assuredly, have quoted Mr. Guizot, who, a few pages
further on, says:--
"Wherever the exterior condition of man becomes enlarged, quickened, and
improved; wherever the intellectual nature of man distinguishes itself
by its energy, brilliancy, and its grandeur; wherever these signs occur,
notwithstanding the gravest imperfections in the social system, there
man proclaims and applauds a civilization."
"_Notwithstanding the gravest imperfections in the social system_," says
Mr. Guizot, yet in the series of hypotheses, quoted in the text, in
which he attempts a negative definition of civilization, by showing what
civilization is _not_, he virtually makes a political form the test of
civilization.
In another passage, again, he says that civilization "is a course for
humanity to run--a destiny for it to accomplish. Nations have
transmitted, from age to age, something to their successors which is
never lost, but which grows, and continues as a common stock, and will
thus be carried on to the end of all things. For my part (he continues),
I feel assured that human nature has such a destiny; that a general
civilization pervades the human race; that at every epoch it augments;
and that there, consequently, is a universal history of civilization to
be written."
It must be obvious to the reader who compares these extracts, that Mr.
Guizot expresses a totally distinct idea or collection of ideas in each.
First, the civilization of a particular nation, which exists "wherever
the intellectual nature of man distinguishes itself by its energy,
brilliancy, and grandeur." Such a civilization may flourish,
"notwithstanding the greatest imperfections in the social system."
Secondly, Mr. Guizot's _beau-idéal_ of the best, most perfect
civilization, where the political forms insure the greatest happiness,
promote the most rapid--yet well-regulated--progress.
Thirdly, a great system of particular civilizations, as that of Europe,
the various elements of which "are connected by the same principles, and
tend all to bring about the same general results."
Fourthly, a supposed general progress of the whole human race toward a
higher state of perfection.
To all these ideas, provided they are not confounded one with another, I
have already given my assent. (See _Introduction_, p. 51.) With regard
to the latter, however, I would observe that it by no means militates
against a belief in the intellectual imparity of races, and the
permanency of this imparity. As in a society composed of individuals,
all enjoy the fruits of the general progress, though all have not
contributed to it in equal measure, and some not at all: so, in that
society, of which we may suppose the various branches of the human
family to be the members, even the inferior participate more or less in
the benefits of intellectual labor, of which they would have been
incapable. Because I can transport myself with almost the swiftness of a
bird from one place to another, it does not follow that--though I profit
by Watt's genius--I could have invented the steam-engine, or even that I
understand the principles upon which that invention is based.--H.
[96] W. Von Humboldt, _Ueber die Kawi-Sprache auf der Insel Java;
Einleitung_, vol. i. p. 37. Berlin. "Die _Civilization_ ist die
Vermenschlichung der Völker in ihren äusseren Einrichtungen und
Gebräuchen, und der darauf Bezug habenden inneren Gesinnung."
[97] William Von Humboldt. "Die Kultur fügt dieser Veredlung des
gesellschaftlichen Zustandes Wissenschaft und Kunst hinzu."
[98] W. Von Humboldt, _op. cit._, p. 37: "Wenn wir in unserer Sprache
_Bildung_ sagen, so meinen wir damit etwas zugleich Höheres und mehr
Innerlicheres, nämlich die Sinnesart, die sich aus der Erkenntniss und
dem Gefühle des gesammten geistigen und sittlichen Streben harmonish auf
die Empfindung und den Charakter ergiesst."
As nothing can exceed the difficulty of rendering an abstract idea from
the French into English, except to transmit the same from German into
French, and as if _all_ these processes must be undergone, the identity
of the idea is greatly endangered, I have thought proper to translate at
once from the original German, and therefore differ somewhat from Mr.
Gobineau, who gives it thus: "L'homme formé, c'est-à-dire, l'homme qui,
dans sa nature, possède quelque chose de plus haut, de plus intime à la
fois, c'est-à-dire, une façon de comprendre qui répand harmonieusement
sur la sensibilité et le charactère les impressions qu'elle reçoit de
l'activité intellectuelle et morale dans son ensemble." I have taken
great pains to express clearly Mr. Von Humboldt's idea, and have
therefore amplified the word _Sinnesart_, which has not its precise
equivalent in English.--TRANS.
[99] See page 154.
[100] Mr. Klemm (_Allgemeine Culturgeschichte der Menschheit_, Leipzig,
1849) adopts, also, a division of all races into two categories, which
he calls respectively the _active_ and the _passive_. I have not had the
advantage of perusing his book, and cannot, therefore, say whether his
idea is similar to mine. It would not be surprising that, in pursuing
the same road, we should both have stumbled over the same truth.
[101] The translator has here permitted himself a deviation from the
original. Mr. Gobineau, to express his idea, borrows from the symbolism
of the Hindoos, where the feminine principle is represented by Prakriti,
and the masculine by Purucha, and calls the two categories of races
respectively feminine and masculine. But as he "thereby wishes to
express nothing but a mutual fecundation, without ascribing any
superiority to either," and as the idea seems fully rendered by the
words used in the translation, the latter have been thought preferable,
as not so liable to misrepresentation and misconception.--H.
CHAPTER IX.
ELEMENTS OF CIVILIZATION--CONTINUED.
Definition of the term--Specific differences of
civilizations--Hindoo, Chinese, European, Greek, and Roman
civilizations--Universality of Chinese civilization--Superficiality
of ours--Picture of the social condition of France.
When a tribe, impelled by more vigorous instincts than its neighbors,
succeeds in collecting the hitherto scattered and isolated fragments
into a compact whole, the first impetus of progress is thus given, the
corner-stone of a civilization laid. But, to produce great and lasting
results, a mere political preponderance is not sufficient. The dominant
race must know how to lay hold of the feelings of the masses it has
aggregated, to assimilate their individual interests, and to concentrate
their energies to the same purposes. When the different elements
composing the nation are thus blended into a more or less homogeneous
mass, certain principles and modes of thinking become general, and form
the standard around which all rally. These principles and modes of
thinking, however, cannot be arbitrarily imposed, and must be resulting
from, and in the main consonant with, pre-existing sentiments and
desires.[102] They will be characterized by a utilitarian or a
speculative tendency, according to the degree in which either instinct
predominates in the constituent elements of the nation.
This harmony of views and interests is the first essential to
civilization; the second is stability, and is a natural consequence of
the first. The general principles upon which the political and social
system rests, being based upon instincts common to all, are by all
regarded with the most affectionate veneration, and firmly believed to
be perpetual. The purer a race remains, the more conservative will it be
in its institutions, for its instincts never change. But the admixture
of foreign blood produces proportionate modifications in the national
ideas. The new-comers introduce instincts and notions which were not
calculated upon in the social edifice. Alterations therefore become
necessary, and these are often wholesome, especially in the youthful
period of the society, when the new ethnical elements have not as yet
acquired an undue preponderance. But, as the empire increases, and
comprises elements more and more heterogeneous, the changes become more
radical, and are not always for the better. Finally, as the initiatory
and conservative element disappears, the different parts of the nation
are no longer united by common instincts and interests; the original
institutions are not adapted to their wants; sudden and total
transformations become common, and a vain phantom of stability is
pursued through endless experiments. But, while thus vacillating betwixt
conflicting interests, and changing its purpose every hour, the nation
imagines itself advancing to some imaginary goal of perfection. Firmly
convinced of its own perpetuity, it holds fast to the doctrine which its
daily acts disprove, that one of the principal features of a
civilization is God-like immutability. And though each day brings forth
new discontents and new changes equally futile, the apprehensions of the
day are quieted with the expectations of to-morrow.
I have said that the conditions necessary for the development of a
civilization are--the aggregation of large masses, and stable
institutions resulting from common views and interests. The sociable
inclinations of man, and the less noble attributes of his nature,
perform the rest. While the former bring him in intimate and varied
connections with his fellow-men, the latter give rise to continual
contests and emulation. In a large community, a strong fist is no longer
sufficient to insure protection and give distinction, and the resources
of the mind are applied and developed. Intellect continually seeks and
finds new fields for exertion, either in the regions of the abstract, or
in the material world. By its productions in either, we recognize an
advanced state of society. The most common source of error in judging
foreign nations, is that we are apt to look merely at the exterior
demonstrations of their civilization, and because, in this respect,
their civilization does not resemble ours, we hastily conclude that they
are barbarous, or, at least, greatly inferior to us. A conclusion, drawn
from such premises, must needs be very superficial, and therefore ought
to be received with caution.
I believe myself now prepared to express my idea of a civilization, by
defining it as
_A state of comparative stability, in which a large collection of
individuals strive, by peaceful means, to satisfy their wants, and
refine their intelligence and manners._
This definition includes, without exception, all the nations which I
have mentioned as being civilized. But, as these nations have few points
of resemblance, the question suggests itself: Do not, then, all
civilizations tend to the same results? I think not; for, as the nations
called to the noble task of accomplishing a civilization, are endowed
with the utilitarian and speculative tendencies in various degrees and
proportions, their paths must necessarily lie in very divergent
directions.
What are the material wants of the Hindoo? Rice and butter for his
nourishment, and a piece of cotton cloth for his garment. Nor can this
abstemiousness be accounted for by climate, for the native of Thibet,
under a much more rigorous sky, displays the same quality. In these
peoples, the imaginative faculty greatly predominates, their
intellectual efforts are directed to abstractions, and the fruits of
their civilization are therefore seldom of a practical or utilitarian
character. Magnificent temples are hewn out of mountains of solid rock
at an expense of labor and time that terrifies the imagination; gigantic
constructions are erected;--all this in honor of the gods, while nothing
is done for man's benefit, unless it be tombs. By the side of the
miracles wrought by the sculptor's chisel, we admire the finished
masterpieces of a literature full of vigor, and as ingenious and subtle
in theology and metaphysics, as beautiful in its variety: in speculative
efforts, human thought descends without trepidation to immeasurable
depths; its lyric poetry challenges the admiration of all mankind.
But if we leave the domain of idealistic reveries, and seek for
inventions of practical utility, and for the sciences that are their
theoretical basis, we find a deplorable deficiency. From a dazzling
height, we suddenly find ourselves descended to a profound and darksome
abyss. Useful inventions are scarce, of a petty character, and, being
neglected, remain barren of results. While the Chinese observed and
invented a great deal, the Hindoos invented but little, and of that
little took no care; the Greeks, also, have left us much information,
but little worthy of their genius; and the Romans, once arrived at the
culminating point of their history, could no longer make any real
progress, for the Asiatic admixture in which they were absorbed with
surprising rapidity, produced a population incapable of the patient and
toilsome investigation of stern realities. Their administrative genius,
however, their legislation, and the useful monuments with which they
provided the soil of their territories, attest sufficiently the
practical character which, at one time, so eminently characterized that
people; and prove that if the South of Europe had not been so rapidly
submerged with colonists from Asia and the North of Africa, positive
science would have been the gainer, and less would have been left to be
accomplished by the Germanic races, which afterward gave it a renewed
impulse.
The Germanic conquerors of the fifth century were characterized by
instincts of a similar kind to those of the Chinese, but of a higher
order. While they possessed the utilitarian tendency as strongly, if not
stronger, they had, at the same time, a much greater endowment of the
speculative. Their disposition presented a happy blending of these two
mainsprings of activity. Where-ever the Teutonic blood predominates, the
utilitarian tendency, ennobled and refined by the speculative, is
unmistakable. In England, North America, and Holland, this tendency
governs and preponderates over all the other national instincts. It is
so, in a lesser degree, in Belgium, and even in the North of France,
where everything susceptible of practical application is understood with
marvellous facility. But as we advance further south, this
predisposition is less apparent, and, finally, disappears altogether. We
cannot attribute this to the action of the sun, for the Piedmontese
live in a much warmer climate than the Provençals and the inhabitants of
the Languedoc; it is the effect of blood.
The series of speculative races, or those rendered so by admixture,
occupies the greater portion of the globe, and this observation is
particularly applicable to Europe. With the exception of the Teutonic
family, and a portion of the Sclavonic, all other groups of our part of
the world are but slightly endowed with the faculty for the useful and
practical; or, having already acted their part in the world's history,
will not be able to recommence it. All these races, from the Gaul to the
Celtiberian, and thence to the variegated compounds of the Italian
populations, present a descending scale from a utilitarian point of
view. Not that they are devoid of all the aptitudes of that tendency,
but they are wanting in some of the most essential.
The union of the Germanic tribes with the races of the ancient world,
this engrafting of a vigorous utilitarian principle upon the ideas of
that variegated compound, produced our civilization; the richness,
diversity, and fecundity of our state of culture is the natural result
of that combination of so many different elements, which each
contributed their part, and which the practical vigor of our Germanic
ancestors, succeeded in blending into a more or less harmonious whole.
Wherever our state of civilization extends, it is characterized by two
traits; the first, that the population contains a greater or less
admixture of Teutonic blood; the other, that it is Christian. This last
feature, however, as I said before, though the most obvious and
striking, is by no means essential, because many nations are Christian,
and many more may become so, without participating in our civilization.
But the first feature is positive, decisive. Wherever the Germanic
element has not penetrated, our civilization cannot flourish.[103]
This leads me to the investigation of a serious and important question:
"Can it be asserted that all the European nations are really and
thoroughly civilized?" Do the ideas and facts which rise upon the
surface of our civilization, strike root in the basis of our social and
political structure, and derive their vitality from that source? Are the
results of these ideas and facts such as are conformable to the
instincts, the tendencies, of the masses? Or, in other words, have the
lowest strata of our populations the same direction of thought and
action as the highest--that direction which we may call the spirit or
genius of our progressive movement?
To arrive at a true and unbiassed solution of this question, let us
examine other civilizations, different from ours, and then institute a
comparison.
The similarity of views and ideas, the unity of purpose, which
characterized the whole body of citizens in the Grecian states, during
the brilliant period of their history, has been justly admired. Upon
every essential point, the opinions of every individual, though often
conflicting, were, nevertheless, derived from the same source, emanated
from the same general views and sentiments; individuals might differ in
politics, one wishing a more oligarchical, another a more democratic
government; or they might differ in religion, one worshipping, by
preference, the Eleusinian Ceres, another the Minerva of the Parthenon;
or in matters of taste, one might prefer Æschylus to Sophocles, Alceus
to Pindar. At the bottom, the disputants all participated in the same
views and ideas, ideas which might well be called national. The question
was one of degree, not of kind.[104]
Rome, previous to the Punic wars, presented the same spectacle; the
civilization of the country was uniform, and embraced all, from the
master to the slave.[105] All might not participate in it to the same
extent, but all participated in it and in no other.
But in Rome, after the Punic wars, and in Greece, soon after Pericles,
and especially after Philip of Macedon, this character of homogeneity
began to disappear. The greater mixture of nations produced a
corresponding mixture of civilizations, and the compound thus formed
exceeded in variety, elegance, refinement, and learning, the ancient
mode of culture. But it had this capital inconvenience, both in Hellas
and in Italy, that it belonged exclusively to the higher classes. Its
nature, its merits, its tendencies, were ignored by the sub-strata of
the population. Let us take the civilization of Rome after the Asiatic
wars. It was a grand, magnificent monument of human genius. It had a
cosmopolitan character: the rhetoricians of Greece contributed to it the
transcendental spirit, the jurists and publicists of Syria and
Alexandria gave it a code of atheistic, levelling, and monarchical
laws--each part of the empire furnished to the common store some portion
of its ideas, its sciences, and its character. But whom did this
civilization embrace? The men engaged in the public administration or in
great monetary enterprises, the people of wealth and of leisure. It was
merely submitted to, not adopted by the masses. The populations of
Europe understood nothing of those Asiatic and African contributions to
the civilization; the inhabitants of Egypt, Numidia, or Asia, were
equally uninterested in what came from Gaul and Spain, countries with
which they had nothing in common. But a small minority of the Roman
people stood on the pinnacle, and being in possession of the secret,
valued it. The rest, those not included in the aristocracy of wealth and
position, preserved the civilization peculiar to the land of their
birth, or, perhaps, had none at all. Here, then, we have an example of a
great and highly perfected civilization, dominating over untold
millions, but founding its reign not in their desires or convictions,
but in their exhaustion, their weakness, their listlessness.
A very different spectacle is presented in China. The boundless extent
of that empire includes, indeed, several races markedly distinct, but I
shall speak at present only of the national race, the Chinese proper.
One spirit animates the whole of this immense multitude, which is
counted by hundreds of millions. Whatever we think of their
civilization, whether we admire or censure the principles upon which it
is based, the results which it has produced, and the direction which it
takes; we cannot deny that it pervades all ranks, that every individual
takes in it a definite and intelligent part. And this is not because the
country is free, in our sense of the word: there is no democratic
principle which secures, by law, to every one the position which his
efforts may attain, and thus spurs him on to exertions. No; I discard
all Utopian pictures. The peasant and the man of the middle classes, in
the Celestial Empire, are no better assured of rising by their own merit
only, than they are elsewhere. It is true that, in theory, public honors
are solely the reward of merit, and every one is permitted to offer
himself as a candidate;[106] but it is well known that, in reality, the
families of great functionaries monopolize all lucrative offices, and
that the scholastic diplomas often cost more money than efforts of
study. But disappointed or hopeless ambition never leads the possessor
to imagine a different system; the aim of the reformer is to remedy the
abuses of the established organization, not to substitute another. The
masses may groan under ills and abuses, but the fault is charged, not to
the social and political system, which to them is an object of
unqualified admiration, but to the persons to whose care the performance
of its duties is committed. The head of the government, or his
functionaries, may become unpopular, but the form itself, the
government, never. A very remarkable feature of the Chinese is that
among them primary instruction is so universal; it reaches classes whom
we hardly imagine to have any need of it. The cheapness of books, the
immense number and low price of the schools, enable even the poorest to
acquire the elements of knowledge, reading and writing.[107] The laws,
their spirit and tendency, are well known and understood by all classes,
and the government prides itself upon facilitating the study of this
useful science.[108] The instinct of the masses is decidedly averse to
all political convulsions. Mr. Davis, who was commissioner of H. B.
Majesty in China, and who studied its affairs with the assiduity of a
man who is interested in understanding them well, says that the
character of the people cannot be better expressed than by calling them
"a nation of steady conservatives."[109]
Here, then, we have a most striking contrast to the civilization of Rome
in her latter days, when governmental changes occurred in fearfully
rapid succession, until the arrival of the nations of the north. In
every portion of that vast empire, there were whole populations that had
no interest in the preservation of established order, and were ever
ready to second the maddest schemes, to embark in any enterprise that
seemed to promise advantage, or that was represented in seductive colors
by some ambitious demagogue. During that long period of several
centuries, no scheme was left untried: property, religion, the sanctity
of family relations, were all called in question, and innovators in
every portion of the empire, found multitudes ever disposed to carry
their theories into practice by force. Nothing in the Greco-Roman world
rested on a solid basis, not even the imperial unity, so indispensable,
it would seem, to the mere self-preservation of such a state of
society. It was not only the armies, with their swarm of _improvisto_
Cæsars, that undertook the task of shaking this palladium of national
safety; the emperors themselves, beginning with Diocletian, had so
little faith in monarchy, that they willingly made the experiment of
dualism in the government, and finally found four at a time not too many
for governing the empire.[110] I repeat it, not one institution, not one
principle, was stable in that wretched state of society, which continued
to preserve some outward form, merely from the physical impossibility of
assuming any others, until the men of the north came to assist in its
demolition.
Between these two great societies, then, the Roman empire, and that of
China, we perceive the most complete contrast. By the side of the
civilization of Eastern Asia, I may mention that of India, Thibet, and
other portions of Central Asia, which is equally universal, and diffused
among all ranks and classes. As in China there is a certain level of
information to which all attain, so in Hindostan, every one is animated
by the same spirit; each individual knows precisely what his caste
requires him to learn, to think, to believe. Among the Buddhists of
Thibet, and the table-lands of Asia, nothing is rarer than to find a
peasant who cannot read, and there everybody has the same convictions
upon important subjects.
Do we find this homogeneity in European nations? It is scarce worth
while to put the question. Not even the Greco-Roman empire presents
incongruities so strange, or contrasts so striking, as are to be found
among us; not only among the various nationalities of Europe, but in the
bosom of the same sovereignty. I shall not speak of Russia, and the
states that form the Austrian empire; the demonstration of my position
would there be too facile. Let us turn to Germany; to Italy, Southern
Italy in particular; to Spain, which, though in a less degree, presents
a similar picture; or to France.
I select France. The difference of manners, in various parts of this
country, has struck even the most superficial observer, and it has long
since been observed that Paris is separated from the rest of France by a
line of demarcation so decided and accurately defined, that at the very
gates of the capital, a nation is found, utterly different from that
within the walls. Nothing can be more true: those who attach to our
political unity the idea of similarity of thoughts, of character--in
fine, of nationality, are laboring under a great delusion. There is not
one principle that governs society and is connected with our
civilization, which is understood in the same manner in all our
departments. I do not speak here merely of the peculiarities that
characterize the native of Normandy, of Brittany, Angevin, Limousin,
Gascony, Provence. Every one knows how little alike these various
populations are,[111] and how they differ in their tendencies and modes
of thinking. I wish to draw attention to the fact, that while in China,
Thibet, India, the most essential ideas upon which the civilization is
based, are common to all classes, participated in by all, it is by no
means so among us. The very rudiments of our knowledge, the most
elementary and most generally accessible portion of it, remain an
impenetrable mystery to our rural populations, among whom but few
individuals are found acquainted with reading and writing. This is not
for want of opportunities--it is because no value is attached to these
acquisitions, because their utility is not perceived. I speak from my
own observation, and that of persons who had ample facilities, and
brought extensive information and great judgment to the task of
investigation. Government has made the most praiseworthy efforts to
remedy the evil, to raise the peasantry from the sink of ignorance in
which they vegetate. But the wisest laws, and the most carefully
calculated institutions have proved abortive. The smallest village
affords ample opportunities for common education; even the adult, when
conscription forces him into the army, finds in the regimental schools
every facility for acquiring the most necessary branches of knowledge.
Compulsion is resorted to--every one who has lived in the provinces
knows with what success. Parents send their children to school with
undisguised repugnance, for they regret the time thus spent as wasted,
and, therefore, eagerly seize the most trifling pretext for withdrawing
them, and never suffer them to exceed the legal term of attendance. So
soon as the young man leaves school, or the soldier has served his time,
they hasten to forget what they were compelled to learn, and what they
are heartily ashamed of. They return forever after to the local
_patois_[112] of their birthplace, and pretend to have forgotten the
French language, which, indeed, is but too often true. It is a painful
conclusion, but one which many and careful observations have forced upon
me, that all the generous private and public endeavors to instruct our
rural population, are absolutely futile, and can tend no further than to
enforce an outward compliance. They care not for the knowledge we wish
to give them--they will not have it, and this not from mere negligence
or apathy, but from a feeling of positive hostility to our
civilization. This is a startling assertion, but I have not yet adduced
all the proofs in support of it.
In those parts of the country where the laboring classes are employed in
manufactures principally, and in the great cities, the workmen are
easily induced to learn to read and write. The circumstances with which
they are surrounded, leave them no doubt as to the practical advantages
accruing to them from these acquisitions. But so soon as these men have
sufficiently mastered the first elements of knowledge, to what use do
they, for the most part, apply them? To imbibe or give vent to ideas and
sentiments the most subversive of all social order. The instinctive, but
passive hostility to our civilization, is superseded by a bitter and
active enmity, often productive of the most fearful calamities. It is
among these classes that the projectors of the wildest, most incendiary
schemes readily recruit their partisans; that the advocates of
socialism, community of goods and wives, all, in fact, who, under the
pretext of removing the ills and abuses that afflict the social system,
propose to tear it down, find ready listeners and zealous believers.
There are, however, portions of the country to which this picture does
not apply; and these exceptions furnish me with another proof in favor
of my proposition. Among the agricultural and manufacturing populations
of the north and northeast, information is general; it is readily
received, and, once received, retained and productive of good fruits.
These people are intelligent, well-informed, and orderly, like their
neighbors in Belgium and the whole of the Netherlands. And these, also,
are the populations most closely akin to the Teutonic race, the race
which, as I said in another place, gave the initiative to our
civilization.
The aversion to our civilization, of which I spoke, is not the only
singular feature in the character of our rural populations. If we
penetrate into the privacy of their thoughts and beliefs, we make
discoveries equally striking and startling. The bishops and parish
clergy have to this day, as they had one, five, or fifteen centuries
ago, to battle with mysterious superstitions, or hereditary tendencies,
some of which are the more formidable as they are seldom openly avowed,
and can, therefore, be neither attacked nor conquered. There is no
enlightened priest, that has the care of his flock at heart, but knows
from experience with what deep cunning the peasant, however devout,
knows how to conceal in his own bosom some fondly cherished traditional
idea or belief, which reveals itself only at long intervals, and
without his knowledge. If he is spoken to about it, he denies or evades
the discussion, but remains unshaken in his convictions. He has
unbounded confidence in his pastor, unbounded except upon this one
subject, that might not inappropriately be called his secret religion.
Hence that taciturnity and reserve which, in all our provinces, is the
most marked characteristic of the peasant, and which he never for a
moment lays aside towards the class he calls _bourgeois_; that
impassable barrier between him and even the most popular and
well-intentioned landed proprietor of his district.
It must not be supposed that this results merely from rudeness and
ignorance. Were it so, we might console ourselves with the hope that
they will gradually improve and assimilate with the more enlightened
classes. But these people are precisely like certain savages; at a
superficial glance they appear unreflecting and brutish, because their
exterior is humble, and their character requires to be studied. But so
soon as we penetrate, however little, into their own circle of ideas,
the feelings that govern their private life, we discover that in their
obstinate isolation from our civilization, they are not actuated by a
feeling of degradation. Their affections and antipathies do not arise
from mere accidental circumstances, but, on the contrary, are in
accordance with logical reasoning based upon well-defined and clearly
conceived ideas.[113] In speaking of their religious notions awhile
ago, I should have remarked what an immense distance there is between
our doctrines of morals and those of the peasantry, how widely different
are their ideas from those which we attach to the same word.[114] With
what pertinacious obstinacy they continue to look upon every one not
peasant like themselves, as the people of remote antiquity looked upon a
foreigner. It is true they do not kill him, thanks to the singular and
mysterious terror which the laws, in the making of which they have no
part, inspire them; but they hate him cordially, distrust him, and if
they can do so without too great a risk, fleece him without scruple and
with immense satisfaction. Yet they are not wicked or ill-disposed.
Among themselves they are kind-hearted, charitable, and obliging. But
then they regard themselves as a distinct race--a race, they tell
you--that is weak, oppressed, and that must resort to cunning and
stratagem to gain their due, but which, nevertheless, preserves its
pride and contempt for all others. In many of our provinces, the laborer
believes himself of much better stock than his former lord or present
employer. The family pride of many of our peasants is, to say the least,
as great as that of the nobility during the Middle Ages.[115]
It cannot be doubted that the lower strata of the population of France
have few features in common with the higher. Our civilization penetrates
but little below the surface. The great mass is indifferent--nay,
positively hostile to it. The most tragic events have stained the
country with torrents of blood, unparalleled convulsions have destroyed
every ancient fabric, both social and political. Yet the agricultural
populations have never been roused from their apathetic
indifference,[116] have never taken any other part but that to which
they were forced. When their own personal and immediate interests were
not at stake, they allowed the tempests to blow by without concern,
without even passive sympathy on one side or the other. Many persons,
frightened and scandalized at this spectacle, have declared the
peasantry as irreclaimably perverse. This is at the same time an
injustice, and a very false appreciation of their character. The
peasants regard us almost as their enemies. They comprehend nothing of
our civilization, contribute nothing to it of their own accord, and they
think themselves authorized to profit by its disasters, whenever they
can. Apart from this antagonism, which sometimes displays itself in an
active, but oftener in a passive manner, it cannot be doubted that they
possess moral qualities of a high order, though often singularly
applied.
Such is the state of civilization in France. It may be asserted that of
a population of thirty-six millions, ten participate in the ideas and
mode of thinking upon which our civilization is based, while the
remaining twenty-six altogether ignore them, are indifferent and even
hostile to them, and this computation would, I think, be even more
flattering than the real truth. Nor is France an exception in this
respect. The picture I have given applies to the greater part of Europe.
Our civilization is suspended, as it were, over an unfathomable gulf, at
the bottom of which there slumber elements which may, one day, be roused
and prove fearfully, irresistibly destructive. This is an awful, an
ominous truth. Upon its ultimate consequences it is painful to reflect.
Wisdom may, perhaps, foresee the storm, but can do little to avert it.
But ignored, despised, or hated as it is by the greater number of those
over whom it extends its dominion, our civilization is, nevertheless,
one of the grandest, most glorious monuments of the human mind. In the
inventive, initiatory quality it does not surpass, or even equal some
of its predecessors, but in comprehensiveness it surpasses all. From
this comprehensiveness arise its powers of appropriation, of conquest;
for, to comprehend is to seize, to possess. It has appropriated all
their acquisitions, and has remodelled, reconstructed them. It did not
create the exact sciences, but it has given them their exactitude, and
has disembarrassed them from the divagations from which, by a singular
paradox, they were anciently less free than any other branch of
knowledge. Thanks to its discoveries, the material world is better known
than at any other epoch. The laws by which nature is governed, it has,
in a great measure, succeeded in unveiling, and it has applied them so
as to produce results truly wonderful. Gradually, and by the clearness
and correctness of its induction, it has reconstructed immense fragments
of history, of which the ancients had no knowledge; and as it recedes
from the primitive ages of the world, it penetrates further into the
mist that obscures them. These are great points of superiority, and
which cannot be contested.
But these being admitted, are we authorized to conclude--as is so
generally assumed as a matter of course--that the characteristics of our
civilization are such as to entitle it to the pre-eminence among all
others? Let us examine what are its peculiar excellencies. Thanks to the
prodigious number of various elements that contributed to its formation,
it has an eclectic character which none of its predecessors or
contemporaries possess. It unites and combines so many various qualities
and faculties, that its progress is equally facile in all directions;
and it has powers of analysis and generalization so great, that it can
embrace and appropriate all things, and, what is more, apply them to
practical purposes. In other words, it advances at once in a number of
different directions, and makes valuable conquests in all, but it cannot
be said that it advances at the same time _furthest_ in all. Variety,
perhaps, rather than great intensity, is its characteristic. If we
compare its progress in any one direction with what has been done by
others in the same, we shall find that in few, indeed, can our
civilization claim pre-eminence. I shall select three of the most
striking features of every civilization; the art of government, the
state of the fine arts, and refinement of manners.
In the art of government, the civilization of Europe has arrived at no
positive result. In this respect, it has been unable to assume a
definite character. It has laid down no principles. In every country
over which its dominion extends, it is subservient to the exigencies of
the various races which it has aggregated, but not united. In England,
Holland, Naples, and Russia, political forms are still in a state of
comparative stability, because either the whole population, or the
dominant portion of it, is composed of the same or homogeneous elements.
But everywhere else, especially in France, Central Italy, and Germany,
where the ethnical diversity is boundless, governmental theories have
never risen to the dignity of recognized truth; political science
consisted in an endless series of experiments. Our civilization,
therefore, being unable to assume a definite political feature, is
devoid, in this respect, of that stability which I comprised as an
essential feature in my definition of a civilization. This impotency is
not found in many other civilizations which we deem inferior. In the
Celestial Empire, in the Buddhistic and Brahminical societies, the
political feature of the civilization is clearly enounced, and clearly
understood by each individual member. In matters of politics all think
alike; under a wise administration, when the secular institutions
produce beneficent fruits, all rejoice; when in unskilled or malignant
hands, they endanger the public welfare, it is a misfortune to be
regretted as we regret our own faults; but no circumstance can abate
the respect and admiration with which they are regarded. It may be
desirable to correct abuses that have crept into them, but never to
replace them by others. It cannot be denied that these civilizations,
therefore, whatever we may think of them in other respects, enjoy a
guarantee of durability, of longevity, in which ours is sadly wanting.
With regard to the arts, our civilization is decidedly inferior to
others. Whether we aim at the grand or the beautiful, we cannot rival
either the imposing grandeur of the civilization of Egypt, of India, or
even of the ancient American empires, nor the elegant beauty of that of
Greece. Centuries hence--when the span of time allotted to us shall have
been consumed, when our civilization, like all that preceded it, shall
have sunk in the dim shades of the past, and have become a matter of
inquiry only to the historical student--some future traveller may wander
among the forests and marshes on the banks of the Thames, the Seine, or
the Rhine, but he will find no glorious monuments of our grandeur; no
sumptuous or gigantic ruins like those of Philæ, of Nineveh, of Athens,
of Salsetta, or of Tenochtitlan. A remote posterity may venerate our
memory as their preceptors in exact sciences. They may admire our
ingenuity, our patience, the perfection to which we have carried
inductive reasoning--not so our conquests in the regions of the
abstract. In poesy we can bequeath them nothing. The boundless
admiration which we bestow upon the productions of foreign civilizations
both past and present, is a positive proof of our own inferiority in
this respect.[117]
Perhaps the most striking features of a civilization, though not a true
standard of its merit, is the degree of refinement which it has
attained. By refinement I mean all the luxuries and amenities of life,
the regulations of social intercourse, delicacy of habits and tastes. It
cannot be denied that in all these we do not surpass, nor even equal,
many former as well as contemporaneous civilizations. We cannot rival
the magnificence of the latter days of Rome, or of the Byzantine empire;
we can but imagine the gorgeous luxury of Eastern civilizations; and in
our own past history we find periods when the modes of living were more
sumptuous, polished intercourse regulated by a higher and more exacting
standard, when taste was more cultivated, and habits more refined. It is
true, that we are amply compensated by a greater and more general
diffusion of the comforts of life; but in its exterior manifestations,
our civilization compares unfavorably with many others, and might almost
be called shabby.
* * * * *
Before concluding this digression upon civilization, which has already
extended perhaps too far, it may not be unnecessary to reiterate the
principal ideas which I wished to present to the mind of the reader. I
have endeavored to show that every civilization derives its peculiar
character from the race which gave the initiatory impulse. The
alteration of this initiatory principle produces corresponding
modifications, and even total changes, in the character of the
civilization. Thus our civilization owes its origin to the Teutonic
race, whose leading characteristic was an elevated utilitarianism. But
as these races ingrafted their mode of culture upon stocks essentially
different, the character of the civilization has been variously modified
according to the elements which it combined and amalgamated. The
civilization of a nation, therefore, exhibits the kind and degree of
their capabilities. It is the mirror in which they reflect their
individuality.
I shall now return to the natural order of my deductions, the series of
which is yet far from being complete. I commenced by enouncing the truth
that the existence and annihilation of human societies depended upon
immutable and uniform laws. I have proved the insufficiency of
adventitious circumstances to produce these phenomena, and have traced
their causes to the various capabilities of different human groups; in
other words, to the moral and intellectual diversity of races. Logic,
then, demands that I should determine the meaning and bearing of the
word race, and this will be the object of the next chapter.
FOOTNOTES:
[102] See a quotation from De Tocqueville to the same effect, p. 77.
[103] One striking observation, in connection with this fact, Mr.
Gobineau has omitted to make, probably not because it escaped his
sagacity, but because he is himself a Roman Catholic. Wherever the
Teutonic element in the population is predominant, as in Denmark,
Sweden, Holland, England, Scotland, Northern Germany, and the United
States, Protestantism prevails; wherever, on the contrary, the Germanic
element is subordinate, as in portions of Ireland, in South America, and
the South of Europe, Roman Catholicism finds an impregnable fortress in
the hearts of the people. An ethnographical chart, carefully made out,
would indicate the boundaries of each in Christendom. I do not here mean
to assert that the Christian religion is accessible only to certain
races, having already emphatically expressed my opinion to the contrary.
I feel firmly convinced that a Roman Catholic may be as good and pious a
Christian as a member of any other Christian Church whatever, but I see
in this fact the demonstration of that leading characteristic of the
Germanic races--independence of thought, which incites them to seek for
truth, even in religion, for themselves; to investigate everything, and
take nothing upon trust.
I have, moreover, in favor of my position, the high authority of Mr.
Macaulay: "The Reformation," says that distinguished essayist and
historian, "was a national as well as a moral revolt. It had been not
only an insurrection of the laity against the clergy, but _also an
insurrection of the great German race against an alien domination_. It
is a most significant circumstance, that no large society of which the
tongue is not Teutonic, has ever turned Protestant, and that, wherever a
language derived from ancient Rome is spoken, the religion of modern
Rome to this day prevails." (_Hist. of England_, vol. i. p. 53.)--H.
[104] Thus Sparta and Athens, respectively, stood at the head of the
oligarchic and democratic parties, and the alternate preponderance of
either of the two often inundated each state with blood. Yet Sparta and
Athens, and the partisans of each in every state, possessed the spirit
of liberty and independence in an equal degree. Themistocles and
Aristides, the two great party leaders of Athens, vied with each other
in patriotism.
This uniformity of general views and purpose, Mr. De Tocqueville found
in the United States, and he correctly deduces from it the conclusion
that "though the citizens are divided into 24 (31) distinct
sovereignties, they, nevertheless, constitute a single nation, and form
more truly a state of society, than many peoples of Europe, living under
the same legislation, and the same prince." (Vol. i. p. 425.) This is an
observation which Europeans make last, because they do not find it at
home; and in return, it prevents the American from acquiring a clear
conception of the state of Europe, because he thinks the disputes there
involve no deeper questions than the disputes around him. In certain
fundamental principles, all Americans agree, to whatever party they may
belong; certain general characteristics belong to them all, whatever be
the differences of taste, and individual preferences; it is not so in
Europe--England, perhaps, excepted, and Sweden and Denmark. But I will
not anticipate the author.--H.
[105] It is well known that, in both Greece and Rome, the education of
the children of wealthy families was very generally intrusted to slaves.
Some of the greatest philosophers of ancient Greece were bondsmen.--H.
[106] China has no hereditary nobility. The class of mandarins is
composed of those who have received diplomas in the great colleges with
which the country abounds. A decree of the Emperor JIN-TSOUNG, who
reigned from 1023 to 1063, regulated the modes of examination, to which
all, indiscriminately, are admitted. The candidates are examined more
than once, and every precaution is taken to prevent frauds. Thus, the
son of the poorest peasant may become a mandarin, but, as he afterwards
is dependent on the emperor for office or employment, this dignity is
often of but little practical value. Still, there are numerous instances
on record, in the history of China, of men who have risen from the
lowest ranks to the first offices of the State, and even to the imperial
dignity. (See _Pauthier's Histoire de la Chine_.)--H.
[107] John F. Davis, _The Chinese_. London, 1840, p. 274. "Three or four
volumes of any ordinary work of the octavo size and shape, may be had
for a sum equivalent to two shillings. A Canton bookseller's manuscript
catalogue marked the price of the four books of Confucius, including the
commentary, at a price rather under half a crown. The cheapness of their
common literature is occasioned partly by the mode of printing, but
partly also by the low price of paper."
These are Canton prices; in the interior of the empire, books are still
cheaper, even in proportion to the value of money in China. Their
classic works are sold at a proportionably lower price than the very
refuse of our literature. A pamphlet, or small tale, may be bought for a
sapeck, about the seventeenth part of a cent; an ordinary novel, for a
little more or less than one cent.--H.
[108] There are certain offences for which the punishment is remitted,
if the culprit is able to explain lucidly the nature and object of the
law respecting them. (See _Huc's Trav. in China_, vol. ii. p. 252.) In
the same place, Mr. Huc bears witness to the correctness of our author's
assertion. "Measures are taken," says he, "not only to enable the
magistrates to understand perfectly the laws they are called upon to
apply, but also to diffuse a knowledge of them among the people at
large. All persons in the employment of the government, are ordered to
make the code their particular study; and a special enactment provides,
that at certain periods, all officers, in all localities, shall be
examined upon their knowledge of the laws by their respective superiors;
and if their answers are not satisfactory, they are punished, the high
officials by the retention of a month's pay; the inferior ones by forty
strokes of the bamboo." It must not be imagined that Mr. Huc speaks of
the Chinese in the spirit of a panegyrist. Any one who reads this highly
instructive and amusing book (now accessible to English readers by a
translation), will soon be convinced of the contrary. He seldom speaks
of them to praise them.--H.
[109] Op. cit., p. 100.
[110] The reader will remember that DIOCLETIAN, who, the son of a slave,
rose from the rank of a common soldier, to the throne of the empire of
the world, associated with himself in the government, his friend
MAXIMIAN, A. D. 286. After six years of this joint reign, they took two
other partners, GALERIUS and CONSTANTIUS. Thus, the empire, though
nominally one sovereignty, had in reality four supreme heads. Under
Constantine the Great, the imperial unity was restored; but at his
decease, the purple was again parcelled out among his sons and nephews.
A permanent division of the empire, however, was not effected until the
death of Theodosius the Great, who for sixteen years had enjoyed
undivided power.
[111] It is not universally known that the various populations of France
differ, not only in character, but in physical appearance. The native of
the southern departments is easily known from the native of the central
and northern. The average stature in the north is said to be an inch and
a half more than in the south. This difference is easily perceptible in
the regiments drawn from either.--H.
[112] Many of these patois bear but little resemblance to the French
language: the inhabitants of the Landes, for example, speak a tongue of
their own, which, I believe, has roots entirely different. For the most
part, they are unintelligible to those who have not studied them. Over a
million and a half of the population of France speak German or German
dialects.--H.
[113] Mr. Gobineau's remarks apply with equal, and, in some cases, with
greater force, to other portions of Europe, as I had myself ample means
for observing. I have always considered the character of the European
peasantry as the most difficult problem in the social system of those
countries. Institutions cannot in all cases account for it. In Germany,
for instance, education is general and even compulsory: I have never met
a man under thirty that could not read and write. Yet, each place has
its local _patois_, which no rustic abandons, for it would be deemed by
his companions a most insufferable affectation. I have heard ministers
in the pulpit use local dialects, of which there are over five hundred
in Germany alone, and most of them widely different. Together with their
_patois_, the rustics preserve their local costumes, which mostly date
from the Middle Ages. But the peculiarity of their manners, customs, and
modes of thinking, is still more striking. Their superstitions are often
of the darkest, and, at best, of the most pitiable nature. I have seen
hundreds of poor creatures, males and females, on their pilgrimage to
some far distant shrine in expiation of their own sins or those of
others who pay them to go in their place. On these expeditions they
start in great numbers, chanting _Aves_ on the way the whole day long,
so that you can hear a large band of them for miles. Each carries a bag
on the back or head, containing their whole stock of provisions for a
journey of generally from one to two weeks. At night, they sleep in
barns, or on stacks of hay in the fields. If you converse with them, you
will find them imbued with superstitions absolutely idolatrous. Yet they
all know how to read and write. The perfect isolation in which these
creatures live from the world, despite that knowledge, is altogether
inconceivable to an American. As Mr. Gobineau says of the French
peasants, they believe themselves a distinct race. There is little or no
discontent among them; the revolutionary fire finds but scanty fuel
among these rural populations. But they look upon those who govern and
make the laws as upon different beings, created especially for that
purpose; the principles which regulate their private conduct, the whole
sphere of their ideas, are peculiar to themselves. In one word, they
form, not a class, but a caste, with lines of demarcation as clearly
defined as the castes of India. I have said before that this is not from
want of education; nor can any other explanation of the mystery be
found. It is not poverty, for among these rustics there are many wealthy
people, and, in general, they are not so poor as the lower classes in
cities. Nor do the laws restrain them within the limits of a caste. In
Germany, hereditary aristocracy is almost obsolete. The ranks of the
actual aristocracy are daily recruited from the burgher classes. The
highest offices of the various states are often found in possession of
untitled men, or men with newly created titles. The colleges and
universities are open to all, and great facilities are afforded even to
the poorest. Yet these differences between various parts of the
population remain, and this generally in those localities which the
ethnographer describes as strongly tinctured with non-Teutonic
elements.--H.
[114] A nurse from Tours had put a bird into the hands of her little
ward, and was teaching him to pull out the feathers and wings of the
poor creature. When the parents reproached her for giving him this
lesson of wickedness, she answered: "C'est pour le rendre _fier_."--(It
is to make him fierce or high-spirited.) This answer of 1847 is in
strict accordance with the most approved maxims of education of the
nurse's ancestors in the times of Vercingetorix.
[115] A few years ago, a church-warden was to be elected in a very small
and very obscure parish of French Brittany, that part of the former
province which the real Britons used to call the _pays Gallais_, or
Gallic land. The electors, who were all peasants, deliberated two days
without being able to agree upon a selection, because the candidate, a
very honest, wealthy, and highly respected man and a good Christian, was
a _foreigner_. Now, this _foreigner_ was born in the locality, and his
father had resided there before him, and had also been born there, but
it was recollected that his grandfather, who had been dead many years,
and whom no one in the assembly had known, came from somewhere else.
[116] This is no exaggeration, as every one acquainted with French
history knows. In the great revolution of the last century, the
peasantry of France took no interest and no part. In the Vendée, indeed,
they fought, and fought bravely, for the ancient forms, their king, and
their feudatory lords. Everywhere else, the rural districts remained in
perfect apathy. The revolutions since then have been decided in Paris.
The _émeutes_ seldom extended beyond the walls of the great cities. It
is a well-known fact, that in many of the rural districts, the peasants
did not hear of the expulsion of the Bourbon dynasty, until years
afterwards, and even then had no conception of the nature of the change.
Bourbon, Orleans, Republic, are words, to them, of no definite meaning.
The only name that can rouse them from their apathy, is "Napoleon." At
that sound, the Gallic heart thrills with enthusiasm and thirst for
glory. Hence the unparalleled success with which the present emperor has
appealed to universal suffrage.--H.
[117] It is not generally appreciated how much we are indebted to
Oriental civilizations for our lighter and more graceful literature. Our
first works of fiction were translations or paraphrases of Eastern tales
introduced into Western Europe by the returning crusaders. The songs of
the troubadour, the many-tomed romances of the Middle Ages--those
ponderous sires of modern novels--all emanated from that source. The
works of Dante, Tasso, Ariosto, Boccacio, and nearer home, of Chaucer
and Spenser, are incontestable proofs of this fact. Even Milton himself
drew from the inexhaustible stores of Eastern legends and romances. Our
fairy tales, and almost all of our most graceful lyric poesy, that is
not borrowed from Greece, is of Persian origin. Almost every popular
poet of England and the continent has invoked the Oriental muse, none
more successfully than Southey and Moore. It would be useless to allude
to the immense popularity of acknowledged versions of Oriental
literature, such as the _Thousand and One Nights_, the Apologues,
Allegories, &c. What we do not owe to the East, we have taken from the
Greeks. Even to this day, Grecian mythology is the never-failing
resource of the lyric poet, and so familiar has that graceful imagery
become to us, that we introduce it, often _mal-à-propos_, even in our
colloquial language.
In metaphysics, also, we have confessedly done little more than revive
the labors of the Greeks.--H.
CHAPTER X.
QUESTION OF UNITY OR PLURALITY OF SPECIES.
Systems of Camper, Blumenbach, Morton, Carus--Investigations of Owen,
Vrolik, Weber--Prolificness of hybrids, the great scientific
stronghold of the advocates of unity of species.
It will be necessary to determine first the physiological bearing of the
word _race_.
In the opinion of many scientific observers, who judge from the first
impression, and take extremes[118] as the basis of their reasoning, the
groups of the human family are distinguished by differences so radical
and essential, that it is impossible to believe them all derived from
the same stock. They, therefore, suppose several other genealogies
besides that of Adam and Eve. According to this doctrine, instead of but
one species in the genus _homo_, there would be three, four, or even
more, entirely distinct ones, whose commingling would produce what the
naturalists call _hybrids_.
General conviction is easily secured in favor of this theory, by placing
before the eyes of the observer instances of obvious and striking
dissimilarities among the various groups. The critic who has before him
a human subject with a skin of olive-yellow; black, straight, and thin
hair; little, if any beard, eyebrows, and eyelashes; a broad and
flattened face, with features not very distinct; the space between the
eyes broad and flat; the orbits large and open; the nose flattened; the
cheeks high and prominent; the opening of the eyelids narrow, linear,
and oblique, the inner angle the lowest; the ears and lips large; the
forehead low and slanting, allowing a considerable portion of the face
to be seen when viewed from above; the head of somewhat a pyramidal
form; the limbs clumsy; the stature humble; the whole conformation
betraying a marked tendency to obesity:[119] the critic who examines
this specimen of humanity, at once recognizes a well characterized and
clearly defined type, the principal features of which will readily be
imprinted in his memory.
Let us suppose him now to examine another individual: a negro, from the
western coast of Africa. This specimen is of large size, and vigorous
appearance. The color is a jetty black, the hair crisp, generally called
_woolly_; the eyes are prominent, and the orbits large; the nose thick,
flat, and confounded with the prominent cheeks; the lips very thick and
everted; the jaws projecting, and the chin receding; the skull assuming
the form called prognathous. The low forehead and muzzle-like elongation
of the jaws, give to the whole being an almost animal appearance, which
is heightened by the large and powerful lower-jaw, the ample provision
for muscular insertions, the greater size of cavities destined for the
reception of the organs of smell and sight, the length of the forearm
compared with the arm, the narrow and tapering fingers, etc. "In the
negro, the bones of the leg are bent outwards; the tibia and fibula are
more convex in front than in the European; the calves of the legs are
very high, so as to encroach upon the hams; the feet and hand, but
particularly the former, are flat; the os calcis, instead of being
arched, is continued nearly in a straight line with the other bones of
the foot, which is remarkably broad."[120]
In contemplating a human being so formed, we are involuntarily reminded
of the structure of the ape, and we feel almost inclined to admit that
the tribes of Western Africa are descended from a stock which bears but
a slight and general resemblance to that of the Mongolian family.
But there are some groups, whose aspect is even less flattering to the
self-love of humanity than that of the Congo. It is the peculiar
distinction of Oceanica to furnish about the most degraded and repulsive
of those wretched beings, who seem to occupy a sort of intermediate
station between man and the mere brute. Many of the groups of that
latest-discovered world, by the excessive leanness and starveling
development of their limbs;[121] the disproportionate size of their
heads; the excessive, hopeless stupidity stamped upon their
countenances; present an aspect so hideous and disgusting,
that--contrasted with them--even the negro of Western Africa gains in
our estimation, and seems to claim a less ignoble descent than they.
We are still more tempted to adopt the conclusions of the advocates for
the plurality of species, when, after having examined types taken from
every quarter of the globe, we return to the inhabitants of Europe and
Southern and Western Asia. How vast a superiority these exhibit in
beauty, correctness of proportion, and regularity of features! It is
they who enjoy the honor of having furnished the living models for the
unrivalled masterpieces of ancient sculpture. But even among these races
there has existed, since the remotest times, a gradation of beauty, at
the head of which the European may justly be placed, as well for
symmetry of limbs as for vigorous muscular development. Nothing, then,
would appear more reasonable than to pronounce the different types of
mankind as foreign to each other as are animals of different species.
Such, indeed, was the conclusion arrived at by those who first
systematized their observations, and attempted to establish a
classification; and so far as this classification depended upon general
facts, it seemed incontestable.
_Camper_ took the lead. He was not content with deciding upon merely
superficial appearances, but wished to rest his demonstrations upon a
mathematical basis, by defining, anatomically, the distinguishing
characteristics of different types. If he succeeded in this, he would
thereby establish a strict and logical method of treating the subject,
preclude all doubt, and give to his opinions that rigorous precision
without which there is no true science. I borrow from Mr. Prichard,[122]
Camper's own account of his method. "The basis on which the distinction
of nations[123] is founded, says he, may be displayed by two straight
lines; one of which is to be drawn through the _meatus auditorius_ (the
external entrance of the ear) to the base of the nose; and the other
touching the prominent centre of the forehead, and falling thence on the
most prominent part of the upper jaw-bone, the head being viewed in
profile. In the angle produced by these two lines, may be said to
consist, not only the distinctions between the skulls of the several
species of animals, but also those which are found to exist between
different nations; and it might be concluded that nature has availed
herself of this angle to mark out the diversities of the animal kingdom,
and at the same time to establish a scale from the inferior tribes up to
the most beautiful forms which are found in the human species. Thus it
will be found that the heads of birds display the smallest angle, and
that it always becomes of greater extent as the animal approaches more
nearly to the human figure. Thus, there is one species of the ape tribe,
in which the head has a facial angle of forty-two degrees; in another
animal of the same family, which is one of those simiæ most
approximating in figure to mankind, the facial angle contains exactly
fifty degrees. Next to this is the head of an African negro, which, as
well as that of the Kalmuc, forms an angle of seventy degrees; while the
angle discovered in the heads of Europeans contains eighty degrees. On
this difference of ten degrees in the facial angle, the superior beauty
of the European depends; while that high character of sublime beauty,
which is so striking in some works of ancient statuary, as in the head
of Apollo, and in the Medusa of Sisocles, is given by an angle which
amounts to one hundred degrees."
This method was seductive from its exceeding simplicity. Unfortunately,
facts were against it, as happens to a good many theories. The curious
and interesting discoveries of Prof. Owen have proved beyond dispute,
that Camper, as well as other anatomists since him, founded all their
observations on orangs of immature age, and that, while the jaws become
enlarged, and lengthened with the increase of the maxillary apparatus,
and the zygomatic arch is extended, no corresponding increase of the
brain takes place. The importance of this difference of age, with
respect to the facial angle, is very great in the simiæ. Thus, while
Camper, measuring the skull of young apes, has found the facial angle
even as much as sixty-four degrees; in reality, it never exceeds, in the
most favored specimen, from thirty to thirty-five. Between this figure
and the seventy degrees of the negro and Kalmuc, there is too wide a gap
to admit of the possibility of Camper's ascending series.
The advocates of phrenological science eagerly espoused the theory of
the Dutch _savant_. They imagined that they could detect a development
of instincts corresponding to the rank which the animal occupied in his
scale. But even here facts were against them. It was objected that the
elephant--not to mention numerous other instances--whose intelligence
is incontestably superior to that of the orang, presents a much more
acute facial angle than the latter. Even among the ape tribes, the most
intelligent, those most susceptible of education, are by no means the
highest in Camper's scale.
Besides these great defects, the theory possessed another very weak
point. It did not apply to all the varieties of the human species. The
races with pyramidal skulls found no place in it. Yet this is a
sufficiently striking characteristic.
Camper's theory being refuted, _Blumenbach_ proposed another system. He
called his invention _norma verticalis_, the vertical method. According
to him,[124] the comparison of the breadth of the head, particularly of
the vertex, points out the principal and most strongly marked
differences in the general configuration of the cranium. He adds that
the whole cranium is susceptible of so many varieties in its form, the
parts which contribute more or less to determine the national character
displaying such different proportions and directions, that it is
impossible to subject all these diversities to the measurement of any
lines and angles. In comparing and arranging skulls according to the
varieties in their shape, it is preferable to survey them in that method
which presents at one view the greatest number of characteristic
peculiarities. "The best way of obtaining this end is to place a series
of skulls, with the cheek-bones on the same horizontal line, resting on
the lower jaws, and then, viewing them from behind, and fixing the eye
on the vertex of each, to mark all the varieties in the shape of parts
that contribute most to the national character, whether they consist in
the direction of the maxillary and malar bones, in the breadth or
narrowness of the oval figure presented by the vertex, or in the
flattened or vaulted form of the frontal bone."
The results which Blumenbach deduced from this method, were a division
of mankind into five grand categories, each of which was again
subdivided into a variety of families and types.
This classification, also, is liable to many objections. Like Camper's,
it left out several important characteristics. _Owen_ supposed that
these objections might be obviated by measuring the basis of the skull
instead of the summit. "The relative proportions and extent," says
Prichard, "and the peculiarities of formation of the different parts of
the cranium, are more fully discovered by this mode of comparison, than
by any other." One of the most important results of this method was the
discovery of a line of demarcation between man and the anthropoid apes,
so distinct, and clearly drawn, that it becomes thenceforward impossible
to find between the two genera the connecting link which Camper supposed
to exist. It is, indeed, sufficient to cast one glance at the bases of
two skulls, one human, and the other that of an orang, to perceive
essential and decisive differences. The antero-posterior diameter of the
basis of the skull is, in the orang, very much longer than in man. The
zygoma is situated in the middle region of the skull, instead of being
included, as in all races of men, and even human idiots, in the anterior
half of the basis cranii; and it occupies in the basis just one-third
part of the entire length of its diameter. Moreover, the position of the
great occipital foramen is very different in the two skulls; and this
feature is very important, on account of its relations to the general
character of structure, and its influence on the habits of the whole
being. This foramen, in the human head, is very near the middle of the
basis of the skull, or, rather, it is situated immediately behind the
middle transverse diameter; while, in the adult chimpantsi, it is
placed in the middle of the posterior third part of the basis
cranii.[125]
Owen certainly deserves great credit for his observations, but I should
prefer the most recent, as well as ingenious, of cranioscopic systems,
that of the learned American, Dr. Morton, which has been adopted by Mr.
Carus.[126]
The substance of this theory is, that individuals are superior in
intellect in proportion as their skulls are larger.[127] Taking this as
the general rule, Dr. Morton and Mr. Carus proceed thereby to
demonstrate the difference of races. The question to be decided is,
whether all types of the human race have the same craniological
development.
To elucidate this fact, Dr. Morton took a certain number of skulls,
belonging to the four principal human families--Whites, Mongolians,
Negroes, and North American Indians--and, after carefully closing every
aperture, except the _foramen magnum_, he measured their capacity by
filling them with well dried grains of pepper. The results of this
measurement are exhibited in the subjoined table.[128]
-------------------------+-----------+----------+----------+----------
| Number | | |
| of skulls | Average | Maximum. | Minimum.
| measured. | capacity.| |
-------------------------|-----------|----------|----------|----------
White races | 52 | 87 | 109 | 75
Yellow races {Mongolians| 10 | 83 | 93 | 69
{Malays | 18 | 81 | 89 | 64
Copper-colored races | 147 | 82 | 100 | 60
Negroes | 29 | 78 | 94 | 65
-------------------------+-----------+----------+----------+----------
The results given in the first two columns are certainly very curious,
but to those in the last two I attach little value. These two columns,
giving the maximum and minimum capacities, differ so greatly from the
second, which shows the average, that they could be of weight only if
Mr. Morton had experimented upon a much greater number of skulls, and if
he had specified the social position of the individuals to whom they
belonged. Thus, for his specimens of the white and copper-colored races,
he might select skulls that had belonged to individuals rather above the
common herd.[129] But the Blacks and Mongolians were not represented by
the skulls of their great chiefs and mandarins. This explains why Dr.
Morton could ascribe the figure 100 to an aboriginal of America, while
the most intelligent Mongolian that he examined did not exceed 93, and
is surpassed even by the negro, who reaches 94. Such results are
entirely incomplete, fortuitous, and of no scientific value. In
questions of this kind, too much care cannot be taken to reject
conclusions which are based upon the examination of individualities. I
am, therefore, unable to accept the second half of Dr. Morton's
calculations.
I am also disposed to doubt one of the details in the other half. The
figures 100, 83, and 78, respectively indicating the average capacity of
the skull of the white, Mongolian, and negro, follow a clear and evident
gradation. But the figures 83, 81, and 82, given for the Mongol, the
Malay, and the red-skin, are conflicting; the more so, as Mr. Carus does
not hesitate to comprise the Mongols and Malays into one and the same
race, and thus unites the figures 83 and 81--by which he receives, as
the average capacity of the yellow race, 82, or the same as that of the
red-skins. Wherefore, then, take the figure 82 as the characteristic of
a distinct race, and thus create, quite arbitrarily, a fourth great
subdivision of our species.
This anomaly supports the weak side of Mr. Carus's system. The learned
Saxon amuses himself by supposing that, just as we see our planet pass
through the four stages of day, night, morning twilight, and evening
twilight, so there _must_ be four subdivisions of the human species,
corresponding to these variations of light. He perceives in this a
symbol,[130] which is always a dangerous temptation to a mind of refined
susceptibilities. The white races are to him the nations of day; the
black, those of night; the yellow, those of morning; the red, those of
evening. It will be perceived how many ingenious analogies may be
brought forward in support of this fanciful invention. Thus, the
European nations, by the brilliancy of their scientific discoveries and
their superior civilization, are in an enlightened state, while the
blacks are plunged in the gloomy darkness of ignorance. The Eastern
nations live in a sort of twilight, which affords them an incomplete,
though powerful, social existence. And as for the Indians of the Western
World, who are rapidly disappearing, what more beautiful image of their
destiny can be found than the setting sun?
Unfortunately, parables are no arguments, and Mr. Carus has somewhat
injured his beautiful theory by unduly abandoning himself to this
poetical current. Moreover, what I have said with regard to all other
ethnological theories--those of Camper, Blumenbach, and Owen--holds good
of this: Mr. Carus does not succeed in systematizing regularly the
whole of the physiological diversities observable in races.[131]
The advocates for unity of species have not failed to take advantage of
this inability on the part of their opponents to find a system which
will include the many varieties of the human family; and they pretend
that, as the observations upon the conformation of the skull cannot be
reduced to a system which demonstrates the original separation of types,
the different varieties must be regarded as simple divergencies
occasioned by adventitious and secondary causes, and which do not prove
a difference of origin.
This is crying victory too soon. The difficulty of finding a method does
not always prove that none can be found. But the believers in the unity
of species did not admit this reserve. To set off their theory, they
point to the fact that certain tribes, belonging to the same race,
instead of presenting the same physical type, diverge from it very
considerably. They cite the different groups of the mixed
Malay-Polynesian family; and, without paying attention to the proportion
of the elements which compose the mixtures, they say that if groups of
the same origin can assume such totally different craniological and
facial forms, the greatest diversities of that kind do not prove the
primary plurality of origins.[132] Strange as it may be to European
eyes, the distinct types of the negro and the Mongolian are not then
demonstrative of difference of species; and the differences among the
human family must be ascribed simply to certain local causes operating
during a greater or less lapse of time.[133]
The advocates for the plurality of races, being met with so many
objections, good as well as bad, have attempted to enlarge the circle of
their arguments, and, ceasing to make the skull their only study, have
proceeded to the examination of the entire individual. They have rightly
shown that the differences do not exist merely in the aspect of the face
and formation of the skull, but, what is no less important, they exist
also in the shape of the pelvis, the relative proportion of the limbs,
and the nature of the pilous system.
Camper and other naturalists had long since perceived that the pelvis of
the negro presented certain peculiarities. Dr. Vrolik extended his
researches further, and observed that in the European race the
differences between the male and female pelvis are much less distinctly
marked, while the pelvis of the negro, of either sex, partakes in a very
striking degree of the animal character. The Amsterdam _savant_,
starting from the idea that the formation of the pelvis necessarily
influences that of the foetus, concludes that there must be difference
of origin.[134]
Mr. Weber has attacked this theory with but little success. He was
obliged to allow that certain formations of the pelvis occur more
frequently in one race than in another; and all he could do, was to show
that the rule is not without exceptions, and that some individuals of
the American, African, or Mongol race presented the forms common among
the European. This is not proving a great deal, especially as it never
seems to have occurred to Mr. Weber that these exceptions might be owing
to a mixture of blood.
The adversaries of the unity doctrine pretend that the European is
better proportioned. They are answered that the excessive leanness of
the extremities among those nations which subsist principally on
vegetable diet, or whose alimentation is imperfect, is not at all
surprising; and this reply is certainly valid. But a much less
conclusive reply is made to the argument drawn from the excessive
development of bust among the mountaineers of Peru (Quichuas) by those
who are unwilling to recognize it as a specific characteristic; for to
pretend, as they do, that it can be explained by the elevation of the
Andes, is not advancing a very serious reason.[135] There are in the
world many mountain populations who are constituted very differently
from the Quichuas.[136]
The color of the skin is another argument for diversity of origin. But
the opposite party refuse to accept this as a specific characteristic,
for two reasons: first, because, they say, this coloration depends upon
climatic circumstances, and is not permanent--which is, to say the least
of it, a very bold assertion; secondly, because color is liable to
indefinite gradations, by which white insensibly passes into yellow,
yellow into black, so that it is impossible to find a line of
demarcation sufficiently decided. This fact simply proves the existence
of innumerable hybrids; an observation to which the advocates for unity
are constantly inattentive.
With regard to the specific differences in the formation of the pile,
Mr. Flourens brings his great authority in favor of the original unity
of race.[137]
I have now passed rapidly in review the more or less inconsistent
arguments of the advocates of unity; but their strongest one still
remains. It is of great force, and I therefore reserved it for the
last--the facility with which the different branches of the human family
produce hybrids, and the fecundity of these hybrids themselves.
The observations of naturalists seem to have well established the fact
that half-breeds can spring only from nearly related species, and that
even in that case they are condemned to sterility. It has been further
observed that, even among closely allied species, where fecundation is
possible, copulation is repugnant, and obtained, generally, either by
force or ruse, which would lead us to suppose that, in a state of
nature, the number of hybrids is even more limited than that obtained by
the intervention of man. It has, therefore, been concluded that, among
the number of specific characteristics, we must place the faculty of
producing prolific offspring.
As nothing authorizes us to believe that the human race are exempt from
this law, so nothing has hitherto been able to shake the strength of
this objection,[138] which, more than all the others, holds the
advocates for plurality in check. It is, indeed, affirmed that, in
certain portions of Oceanica, indigenous women, after having brought
forth a half-breed European child, can no longer be fecundated by
compatriots. If this assertion be admitted as correct, it might serve as
a starting point for further investigations; but at present it could not
be used to invalidate the admitted principles of science upon the
generation of hybrids--against the deductions drawn from these it proves
nothing.
FOOTNOTES:
[118] M. Flourens, _Eloge de Blumenbach, Mémoires de l'Académie des
Sciences_. Paris, 1847, p. xiii. This _savant_ justly protests against
such a method.
[119] For the description of types in this and other portions of this
chapter, I am indebted to
M. WILLIAM LAWRENCE, _Lect. on the Nat. Hist. of Man_. London, 1844. But
especially to the learned
JAMES COWLES PRICHARD, _Nat. Hist. of Man_. London, 1848.
[120] Prichard, _op. cit._, p. 129.
[121] It is impossible to conceive an idea of the scarce human form of
these creatures, without the aid of pictorial representations. In
Prichard's _Natural History of Man_ will be found a plate (No. 23, p.
355) from M. d'Urville's atlas, which may assist the reader in gaining
an idea of the utmost hideousness that the human form is capable of. I
cannot but believe that the picture there given is considerably
exaggerated, but with all due allowance in this respect, enough ugliness
will be left to make us almost ashamed to recognize these beings as
belonging to our kind.--H.
[122] _Op. cit._, p. 111.
[123] It will be observed that Prichard and Camper, and further on
Blumenbach, here use the word _nation_ as synonymous to _race_. See my
introduction, p. 65.--H.
[124] Prichard, _op. cit._, p. 115.
[125] _Op. cit._, p. 117.
[126] Carus, _Ueber ungleiche Befähigung_, etc., p. 19.
[127] _Op. cit._, p. 20.
[128] As Mr. Gobineau has taken the facts presented by Dr. Morton at
second hand, and, moreover, had not before him Dr. Morton's later tables
and more matured deductions, Dr. Nott has given an abstract of the
result arrived at by the learned craniologist, as published by himself
in 1849. This abstract, and the valuable comments of Dr. Nott himself,
will be found in the Appendix, under A.--H.
[129] I fear that our author has here fallen into an error which his own
facts disprove, and which is still everywhere received without
examination, viz: that cultivation can change the form or size of the
head, either of individuals or races; an opinion, in support of which,
no facts whatever can be adduced. The heads of the barbarous races of
Europe were precisely the same as those of civilized Europe in our day;
this is proven by the disinterred crania of ancient races, and by other
facts. Nor do we see around us among the uneducated, heads inferior in
form and size to those of the more privileged classes. Does any one
pretend that the nobility of England, which has been an educated class
for centuries, have larger heads, or more intelligence than the ignoble?
On the contrary, does not most of the talent of England spring up from
plebeian ranks? Wherever civilization has been brought to a population
of the white race, they have accepted it at once--their heads required
no development. Where, on the contrary, it has been carried to Negroes,
Mongols, and Indians, they have rejected it. Egyptians and Hindoos have
small heads, but we know little of the early history of their
civilization. Egyptian monuments prove that the early people and
language of Egypt were strongly impregnated with Semitic elements.
Latham has shown that the Sanscrit language was carried _from_ Europe to
India, and probably civilization with it.
I have looked in vain for twenty years for evidence to prove that
cultivation could enlarge a _brain_, while it expands the mind. The head
of a boy at twelve is as large as it ever is.--N.
[130] Carus, _op. cit._, p. 12.
[131] There are some very slight ones, which nevertheless are very
characteristic. Among this number I would class a certain enlargement on
each side of the lower lip, which is found among the English and
Germans. I find this indication of Germanic origin in several paintings
of the Flemish school, in the _Madonna_ of Rubens, in the museum of
Dresden, in the _Satyrs_ and _Nymphs_ of the same collection, in a
_Lute-player_ of Miéris, etc. No cranioscopic method whatever could
embrace such details, which, however, are not without value in the great
mixture of races which Europe presents.
[132] Prichard, _op. cit._, p. 329.
[133] Job Ludolf, whose facilities of observation must necessarily have
been very defective when compared with those we enjoy at the present
day, nevertheless combats in very forcible language, and with
arguments--so far as concerns the negro--invincible, the opinion here
adopted by Mr. Prichard. I cannot refrain from quoting him in this
place, not for any novelty contained in his arguments, but to show their
very antiquity: "De nigredine Æthiopum hic agere nostri non
est instituti, plerique ardoribus solis atquæ zonæ torridæ id tribuant.
Verum etiam intra solis orbitam populi dantur, si non plane albi, saltem
non prorsus nigri. Multi extra utrumque tropicum a media mundi linea
longius absunt quam Persæ aut Syri, veluti pramontorii Bonæ Spei
habitantes, et tamen iste sunt nigerrimi. Si Africæ tantum et Chami
posteris id inspectari velis, Malabares et Ceilonii aliique remotiores
Asiæ populi æque nigri excipiendi erunt. Quod si causam ad coeli
solique naturam referas, non homines albi in illis regionibus
renascentes non nigrescunt? Aut qui ad occultas qualitates confugiunt,
melius fecerint si sese nescire fateantur."--JOBUS LUDOLFUS,
_Commentarium ad Historiam Æthiopicam_, fol. Norimb. p. 56.
[134] Prichard, _op. cit._, p. 124.
[135] Prichard, _op. cit._, p. 433.
[136] Neither the Swiss, nor the Tyrolese, nor the Highlanders of
Scotland, nor the Sclaves of the Balkan, nor the tribes of the Himaleh,
nor any other mountaineers whatever, present the monstrous appearance of
the Quichuas.
[137] The distinguished microscopist, Dr. Peter A. Browne, of
Philadelphia, has published the most elaborate observations on hair, of
any author I have met with; and he asserts that the pile of the negro is
_wool_, and not hair. He has gone so far as to distinguish the leading
races of men by the direction, shape, and structure of the hair. The
reader is referred to his works for much very curious, new, and valuable
matter.--N.
To those of our readers who may not have the inclination or opportunity
of consulting Mr. Browne's work, the following concise and excellent
synopsis of his views, which I borrow from Dr. Kneeland's _Introduction
to Hamilton Smith's Natural History of Man_, may not be unacceptable:
"There are, on microscopical examination, three prevailing forms of the
transverse section of the filament, viz: the cylindrical, the oval, and
the eccentrically elliptical. There are also three directions in which
it pierces the epidermis. The straight and lank, the flowing or curled,
and the crisped or frizzled, differ respectively as to the angle which
the filament makes with the skin on leaving it. The cylindrical and oval
pile has an oblique angle of inclination. The eccentrically elliptical
pierces the epidermis at right angles, and lies perpendicularly in the
dermis. The hair of the white man is oval; that of the Choctaw, and some
other American Indians, is cylindrical; that of the negro is
eccentrically elliptical or flat. The hair of the white man has, beside
its cortex and intermediate fibres, a central canal, which contains the
coloring matter when present. The pile of the negro has no central
canal, and the coloring matter is diffused, when present, either
throughout the cortex or the intermediate fibres. Hair, according to
these observations, is more complex in its structure than wool. In hair,
the enveloping scales are comparatively few, with smooth surfaces,
rounded at their points, and closely embracing the shaft. In wool, they
are numerous, rough, sharp-pointed, and project from the shaft. _Hence,
the hair of the white man will not felt, that of the negro will._ In
this respect, therefore, it comes near to true wool"--pp. 88, 89.--H.
[138] A full answer to this objection will be found in our Appendix,
under _B_.--N.
CHAPTER XI.
PERMANENCY OF TYPES.
The language of Holy Writ in favor of common origin--The permanency
of their characteristics separates the races of men as effectually
as if they were distinct creations--Arabs, Jews--Prichard's
argument about the influence of climate examined--Ethnological
history of the Turks and Hungarians.
The believers in unity of race affirm that types are different in
appearance only; that, in fact, the differences existing among them are
owing to local circumstances still in operation, or to an accidental
peculiarity of conformation in the progenitor of a branch, and that,
though they all, more or less, diverge from the original prototype, they
all are capable of again returning to it. According to this, then, the
negro, the North American savage, the Tungoose of North Siberia, might,
under favorable circumstances, gain all the physical and mental
attributes which now distinguish the European. Such a theory is
inadmissible.
We have shown above that the only solid scientific stronghold of the
believers in unity of species is the prolificness of human hybrids. This
fact, which seems at present so difficult to refute, may not always
present the same difficulties, and would not, by itself, suffice to
arrest my conclusions, were it not supported by another argument which,
I confess, appears to me of greater moment: Scripture is said to declare
against difference of origin.
If the text is clear, peremptory, and indisputable, we must submit; the
most serious doubts must disappear; human reason, in its imperfection,
must bow to faith. Better to let the veil of obscurity cover a point of
erudition, than to call in question so high and incontestable an
authority. If the Bible declares that mankind are descended from the
same common stock, all that goes to prove the contrary is mere
semblance, unworthy of consideration. But is the Bible really explicit
on this point? The sacred writings have a much higher purpose than the
elucidation of ethnological problems; and if it be admitted that they
may have been misunderstood in this particular, and that without
straining the text, it may be interpreted otherwise, I return to my
first impression.
The Bible evidently speaks of Adam as the progenitor of the white race,
because from him are descended generations which--it cannot be
doubted--were white. But nothing proves that at the first redaction of
the Adamite genealogies the colored races were considered as forming
part of the species. There is not a word said about the yellow nations,
and I hope to prove, in my second volume, that the pretended black color
of the patriarch Ham rests upon no other basis than an arbitrary
interpretation. At a later period, doubtless, translators and
commentators, who affirmed that Adam was the father of all beings called
men, were obliged to bring in as descendants of the sons of Noah all the
different varieties with whom they were acquainted. In this manner,
Japheth was considered the progenitor of the European nations, while the
inhabitants of the greater portion of Asia were looked upon as the
descendants of Shem; and those of Africa, of Ham. This arrangement
answers admirably for one portion of the globe. But what becomes of the
population of the rest of the world, who are not included in this
classification?
I will not, at present, particularly insist upon this idea. I dislike
the mere appearance of impugning even simple interpretations if they
have the sanction of the church, and wish merely to intimate that their
authority might, perhaps, be questioned without transgressing the limits
established by the church.[139] If this is not the case, and we must
accept, in the main, the opinions of the believers in unity, I still do
not despair that the facts may be explained in a manner different from
theirs, and that the principal physical and moral differences among the
branches of the human family may exist, with all their necessary
consequences, independently of unity or plurality of origin.
The specific identity of all canines is acknowledged,[140] but who would
undertake the difficult task of proving that all these animals, to
whatever variety they may belong, were possessed of the same shapes,
instincts, habits, qualities? The same is the case with many other
species, the equine, bovine, ursine, etc. Here we find perfect identity
of origin, and yet diversity in every other respect, and a diversity so
radical, that even intermixture can not produce a real identity of
character in the several types. On the contrary, so long as each type
remains pure, their distinctive features are permanent, and reproduced,
without any sensible deviation, in each successive generation.[141]
This incontestable fact has led to the inquiry whether in those species
which, by domestication, have lost their original habits, and contracted
others, the forms and instincts of the primitive stock were still
discernible. I think this highly improbable, and can hardly believe that
we shall ever be able to determine the shape and characteristics of the
prototype of each species, and how much or how little it is approached
by the deviations now before our eyes. A very great number of vegetables
present the same problem, and with regard to man, whose origin it is
most interesting and important for us to know, the inquiry seems to be
attended with the greatest and most insurmountable difficulties.
Each race is convinced that its progenitor had precisely the
characteristics which now distinguish it. This is the only point upon
which their traditions perfectly agree. The white races represent to
themselves an Adam and Eve, whom Blumenbach would at once have
pronounced Caucasians; the Mohammedan negroes, on the contrary, believe
the first pair to have been black; these being created in God's own
image, it follows that the Supreme Being, and also the angels, are of
the same color, and the prophet himself was certainly too greatly
favored by his Sender to display a pale skin to his disciples.[142]
Unfortunately, modern science has as yet found no clue to this maze of
opinions. No admissible theory has been advanced which affords the least
light upon the subject, and, in all probability, the various types
differ as much from their common progenitor--if they possess one--as
they do among themselves. The causes of these deviations are
exceedingly difficult to ascertain. The believers in the unity of origin
pretend to find them, as I remarked before, in various local
circumstances, such as climate, habits, &c. It is impossible to coincide
with such an opinion, for, although these circumstances have always
existed, they have not, within historical times, produced such
alterations in the races which were exposed to their influence as to
make it even probable that they were the causes of so vast and radical a
dissimilarity as we now see before us. Suppose two tribes, not yet
departed from the primitive type, to inhabit, one an alpine region in
the interior of a continent, the other some isolated isle in the
immensity of the ocean. Their atmospheric and alimentary conditions
would, of course, be totally different. If we further suppose one of
these tribes to be abundantly provided with nourishment, and the other
possessing but precarious means of subsistence; one to inhabit a cold
latitude, and the other to be exposed to the action of a tropical sun;
it seems to me that we have accumulated the most essential local
contrasts. Allowing these physical causes to operate a sufficient lapse
of time, the two groups would, no doubt, ultimately assume certain
peculiar characteristics, by which they might be distinguished from each
other. But no imaginable length of time could bring about any
essential, organic change of conformation; and as a proof of this
assertion, I would point to the populations of opposite portions of the
globe, living under physical conditions the most widely different, who,
nevertheless, present a perfect resemblance of type.
The Hottentots so strongly resemble the inhabitants of the Celestial
Empire, that it has even been supposed, though without good reasons,
that they were originally a Chinese colony. A great similarity exists
between the ancient Etruscans, whose portraits have come down to us, and
the Araucanians of South America. The features and outlines of the
Cherokees seem to be perfectly identical with those of several Italian
populations, the Calabrians, for instance. The inhabitants of Auvergne,
especially the female portion, much more nearly resemble in physiognomy
several Indian tribes of North America than any European nation. Thus we
see that in very different climes, and under conditions of life so very
dissimilar, nature can reproduce the same forms. The peculiar
characteristics which now distinguish the different types cannot,
therefore, be the effects of local circumstances such as now exist.[143]
Though it is impossible to ascertain what physical changes different
branches of the human family may have undergone anterior to the historic
epoch, yet we have the best proofs that since then, no race has changed
its peculiar characteristics. The historic epoch comprises about one
half of the time during which our earth is supposed to have been
inhabited, and there are several nations whom we can trace up to the
verge of ante-historic ages; yet we find that the races then known have
remained the same to our days, even though they ceased to inhabit the
same localities, and consequently were no longer exposed to the
influence of the same external conditions.
Witness the Arabs. As they are represented on the monuments of Egypt, so
we find them at present, not only in the arid deserts of their native
land, but in the fertile regions and moist climate of Malabar,
Coromandel, and the islands of the Indian Ocean. We find them again,
though more mixed, on the northern coasts of Africa, and, although many
centuries have elapsed since their invasion, traces of Arab blood are
still discernible in some portions of Roussillon, Languedoc, and Spain.
Next to the Arabs I would instance the Jews. They have emigrated to
countries in every respect the most dissimilar to Palestine, and have
not even preserved their ancient habits of life. Yet their type has
always remained peculiar and the same in every latitude and under every
physical condition. The warlike Rechabites in the deserts of Arabia
present to us the same features as our own peaceable Jews. I had
occasion not long since to examine a Polish Jew. The cut of his face,
and especially his eyes, perfectly betrayed his origin. This inhabitant
of a northern zone, whose direct ancestors for several generations had
lived among the snows and ice of an inhospitable clime, seemed to have
been tanned but the day before, by the ardent rays of a Syrian sun. The
same Shemitic face which the Egyptian artist represented some four
thousand or more years ago, we recognize daily around us; and its
principal and really characteristic features are equally strikingly
preserved under the most diverse climatic circumstances. But the
resemblance is not confined to the face only, it extends to the
conformation of the limbs and the nature of the temperament. German Jews
are generally smaller and more slender in stature than the European
nations among whom they have lived for centuries; and the age of puberty
arrives earlier with them than with their compatriots of another
race.[144]
This is, I am aware, an assertion diametrically opposed to Mr.
Prichard's opinions. This celebrated physiologist, in his zeal to prove
the unity of species, attempts to prove that the age of puberty in both
sexes is the same everywhere and among all races. His arguments are
based upon the precepts of the Old Testament and the Koran, by which the
marriageable age of women is fixed at fifteen, and even eighteen,
according to Abou-Hanifah.[145]
I hardly think that biblical testimony is admissible in matters of this
kind, because the Scriptures often narrate facts which cannot be
accounted for by the ordinary laws of nature. Thus, the pregnancy of
Sarah at an extreme old age, and when Abraham himself was a centenarian,
is an event upon which no ordinary course of reasoning could be based.
As for the precepts of the Mohammedan law, I would observe that they
were intended to insure not merely the physical aptitude for marriage,
but also that degree of mental maturity and education which befit a
woman about to enter on the duties of so serious a station. The prophet
makes it a special injunction that the religious education of young
women should be continued to the time of their marriage. Taking this
view, the law-giver would naturally incline to delay the period of
marriage as long as possible, in order to afford time for the
development of the reasoning faculties, and he would therefore be less
precipitate in his authorizations than nature in hers. But there are
some other proofs which I would adduce against Mr. Prichard's grave
arguments, which, though of less weighty character, are not the less
conclusive, and will settle the question, I think, in my favor.
Poets, in their tales of love, are mainly solicitous of exhibiting their
heroines in the first bloom of beauty, without caring much about their
moral and mental development. Accordingly, we find that oriental poets
have always made their lovers much younger than the age prescribed by
the Koran. Zelika and Leila are not, surely, fourteen years old. In
India, this difference is still more striking. Sacontala, in Europe,
would be quite a small girl, a mere child. The spring-time of life for
a Hindoo female is from the age of nine to that of twelve. In the
Chinese romance, _Yu-Kiao-li_, the heroine is sixteen; and her father is
in great distress, and laments pathetically that at so advanced an age
she should still be unmarried. The Roman writers, following in the
footsteps of their Greek preceptors, took fifteen as the period of bloom
of a woman's life; our own authors for a long time adhered to these
models, but since the ideas of the North have begun to exert their
influence upon our literature, the heroines of our novels are full-grown
young ladies of eighteen, and very often more.[146]
But arguments of a more serious character are by no means wanting.
Besides what I said of the precocity of the Jews in Germany, I may point
out the reverse as a peculiarity of the population of many portions of
Switzerland. Among them the physical development is so slow, that the
age of puberty is not always attained at twenty. The Zingaris, or
gypsies, display the same physical precocity as their Hindoo ancestry,
and, under the austere sky of Russia and Moldavia, they preserve,
together with their ancient notions and habits, the general aspect of
face and form of the Pariahs.[147]
I do not, however, wish to attack Mr. Prichard upon all points. There is
one of his conclusions which I readily adopt, viz.: "_that the
difference of climate occasions very little, if any, important diversity
as to the periods of life and the physical changes to which the human
constitution is subject_."[148] This conclusion is very well founded,
and I shall not seek to invalidate it; but it appears to me that it
contradicts a little the principles so ably advocated by the learned
physiologist and antiquary.
The reader must have perceived that the discussion turns solely upon
permanency of type. If it can be proved that the different branches of
the human family are each possessed of a certain individuality which is
independent of climate and the lapse of ages, and can be effaced only by
intermixture, the question of origin is reduced to little importance;
for, in that case, the different types are no less completely and
irrevocably separated than if their specific differences arose from
diversity of origin.
That such is the case, we have already proved by the testimony of
Egyptian sculptures with regard to the Arabs, and by our observations
upon the Jews and gypsies. Should any further proofs be needed, we would
mention that the paintings in the temples and subterraneous buildings of
the Nile valley as indubitably attest the permanence of the negro type.
There we see the same crisped hair, prognathous skull, and thick lips.
The recent discovery of the bas-reliefs of Khorsabad[149] has removed
beyond doubt the conclusions previously formed from the figured
monuments of Persepolis, viz.: that the present Assyrian nations are
physiologically identical with those who formerly inhabited the same
regions.
If similar investigations could be made upon a greater number of
existing races, the results would be the same. We have established the
fact of permanence of types in all cases where investigation is
possible, and the burden of proof, therefore, falls upon the dissenting
party.
Their arguments, indeed, are in direct contradiction to the most obvious
facts. Thus they allege, although the most ordinary observation shows
the contrary, that climate _has_ produced alterations in the Jewish
type, inasmuch as many light-haired, blue-eyed Jews are found in
Germany. For this argument to be of any weight in their position, the
advocates for unity of race must recognize climate to be the sole, or at
least principal, cause of this phenomenon. But the adherents of that
doctrine elsewhere assert that the color of the eyes, hair, and skin, no
ways depends upon geographical situation or the action of heat and
cold.[150] As an evidence of this, they justly cite the Cinghalese, who
have blue eyes and light hair;[151] they even observe among them a very
considerable difference of complexion, varying from a light brown to
black. Again, they admit that the Samoiedes and Tungusians, though
living on the borders of the Frozen Ocean,[152] have an exceedingly
swarthy complexion. If, therefore, climate exerts no influence upon the
complexion and color of hair and eyes, these marks must be considered as
of no importance, or as pertaining to race. We know that red hair is not
at all uncommon in the East, and at no time has been so; it cannot,
therefore, create much surprise if we occasionally find it among the
Jews of Germany. This fact cannot be adduced as evidence either in
favor of, or against, the permanence of types.
The advocates for unity are no less unfortunate in their historical
arguments. They furnish but two; the Turks and the Magyars. The Asiatic
origin of the former is supposed to be established beyond doubt, as well
as of their intimate relationship with the Finnic branches of the
Laplanders and Ostiacs. It follows from this that they must originally
have displayed the yellow skin, projecting cheek bones, and low stature
of the Mongolian races. This point being settled, we are told to look at
the Turks of our day, who exhibit all the characteristics of the
European type. Types, then, are not permanent, it is victoriously
concluded, because the Turks have undergone such a transformation. "It
is true," say the adherents of the unity school, "that some pretend
there had been an admixture of Greek, Georgian, and Circassian blood.
But this admixture can have taken place only to a very limited extent;
all Turks are not rich enough to buy their wives in the Caucasus, or to
have seraglios filled with white slaves; on the other hand, the hatred
which the Greeks cherish for their conquerors, and the religious
antipathies of both nations, were not favorable to alliances between
them, and consequently we see them--though inhabiting the same
country--as distinct at this day as at the time of the conquest."[153]
These arguments are more specious than solid. In the first place, I am
greatly disposed to doubt the Finnic origin of the Turkish race, because
the only evidence that has hitherto been produced in favor of this
supposition is affinity of language, and I shall hereafter give my
reasons for believing this argument--when unsupported by any other--as
extremely unreliable, and open to doubt. But even if we suppose the
ancestors of the Turkish nation to belong to the yellow race, it is easy
to show why their descendants have so widely departed from that type.
Centuries elapsed from the time of the first appearance of the Turanian
hordes to the day which saw them the masters of the city of Constantine,
and during that period, multifarious events took place; the fortune of
the Western Turks has been a checkered one. Alternately conquerors or
conquered, masters or slaves, they have become incorporated with various
nationalities. According to the annalists,[154] their Orghuse ancestors,
who descended from the Altai Mountains, inhabited in Abraham's time the
immense steppes of Upper Asia which extend from Katai to the sea of
Aral, from Siberia to Thibet, and which, as has recently been
proved--were then the abode of numerous Germanic tribes.[155] It is a
singular circumstance, that the first mentioning by Oriental writers of
the tribes of Turkestan is in celebrating them for their beauty of face
and form.[156] The most extravagant hyperboles are lavished on them
without reserve, and as these writers had before their eyes the
handsomest types of the old world with which to compare them, it is not
probable that they should have wasted their enthusiasm on creatures so
ugly and repulsive as are generally the races of pure Mongolian blood.
Thus, notwithstanding the dicta of philology, I think serious doubts
might be raised on that point.[157]
But I am willing to admit that the Turcomannic tribes were, indeed, as
is supposed, of Finnic origin. Let us come down to a later period--the
Mohammedan era. We then find these tribes under various denominations
and in equally various situations, dispersed over Persia and Asia Minor.
The Osmanli were not yet existing at that time, and their predecessors,
the Seldjuks, were already greatly mixed with the races that had
embraced Islamism. We see from the example of Ghaïased-din-Keikosrew,
who lived in 1237, that the Seljuk princes were in the habit of
frequently intermarrying with Arab women. They must have gone still
further, for we find that Aseddin, the mother of one of the Seljuk
dynasties, was a Christian. It is reasonable to suppose, that if the
chiefs of the nation, who everywhere are the most anxious to preserve
the purity of their genealogy, showed themselves so devoid of prejudice,
their subjects were still less scrupulous on that point. Their constant
inroads in which they ranged over vast districts, gave them ample
opportunities for capturing slaves, and there is every reason to believe
that already in the 13th century, the ancient Orghuse branch was
strongly tinctured with Shemitic blood.
To this branch belonged Osman, the son of Ortoghrul, and father of the
Osmanli. But few families were collected around his tent. His army was,
at first, little better than a band of adventurers, and the same
expedient which swelled the ranks of the first builders of Rome,
increased the number of adherents of this new Romulus of the Steppes.
Every desperate adventurer or fugitive, of whatever nation, was welcome
among them, and assured of protection. I shall suppose that the
downfall of the Seljuk empire brought to their standards a great number
of their own race. But we have already said that this race was very much
mixed; and besides, this addition was insufficient, as is proved by the
fact that, from that time, the Turks began to capture slaves for the
avowed purpose of repairing, by this means, the waste which constant
warfare made in their own ranks. In the beginning of the 14th century,
the sultan Orkhan, following the advice of his vizier, Khalil
Tjendereli, surnamed the Black, instituted the famous military body
called Janissaries.[158] They were composed entirely of Christian
children captured in Poland, Germany, Italy, or the Bizantine Empire,
who were educated in the Mohammedan religion and the practice of arms.
Under Mohammed IV., their number had increased to 140,000 men. Here,
then, we find an influx of at least half a million male individuals of
European blood in the course of four centuries.
But the infusion of European blood was not limited to this. The piracy
which was carried on, on so large a scale, in the whole basin of the
Mediterranean, had for one of its principal objects the replenishment of
the harems. Every victory gained increased the number of believers in
the Prophet. A great number of the prisoners of war abjured
Christianity, and were henceforth counted among the true believers. The
localities adjacent to the field of battle supplied as many females as
the marauding victors could lay hold of. In some cases, this sort of
booty was so plentiful that it became inconvenient to dispose of. Hammer
relates[159] that, on one occasion, the handsomest female captive was
bartered for _one boot_. When we consider that the Turkish population of
the whole Ottoman empire never exceeded twelve millions, it becomes
apparent that the history of so amalgamated a nation affords no
arguments, either for or against, the permanency of type. We will now
proceed to the second historic argument advanced by the believers in
unity.
"The Magyars," they say, "are of Finnic origin, nearly related to the
Laplanders, Samoiedes, and Esquimaux, all of which are people of low
stature, with big faces, projecting cheek-bones, and yellowish or dirty
brown complexion. Yet the Magyars are tall, well formed, and have
handsome features. The Finns have always been feeble, unintelligent,
and oppressed; the Magyars, on the contrary, occupy a distinguished
rank among the conquerors of the earth, and are noted for their love
of liberty and independence. As they are so immensely superior,
both physically and morally, to all the collateral branches of the
Finnic stock, it follows that they have undergone an enormous
transformation."[160]
If such a transformation had ever taken place, it would, indeed, be
astonishing and inexplicable even to those who ascribe the least
stability to types, for it must have occurred within the last 800 years,
during which we know that the compatriots of St. Stephen[161] mixed but
little with surrounding nations. But the whole course of reasoning is
based upon false premises, for the Hungarians are most assuredly not of
Finnic origin. Mr. A. De Gérando[162] has placed this fact beyond doubt.
He has proved, by the authority of Greek and Arab historians, as well as
Hungarian annalists and by indisputable philological arguments, that the
Magyars are a fragment of that great inundation of nations which swept
over Europe under the denomination of Huns. It will be objected that
this is merely giving the Hungarians another parentage, but which
connects them no less intimately with the yellow race. Such is not the
case. The designation of Huns applies not only to a nation, but is also
a collective appellation of a very heterogeneous mass. Among the tribes
which rallied around the standards of Attila and his ancestors, there
were some which have at all times been distinguished from the rest by
the term _white Huns_. Among them the Germanic blood predominated.[163]
It is true, that the close contact with the yellow race somewhat
adulterated the breed; but this very fact is singularly exhibited in the
somewhat angular and bony facial conformation of the Hungarians. I
conclude, therefore, that the Magyars were _white Huns_, and of Germanic
origin, though slightly mixed with the Mongolian stock.
The philological difficulty of their speaking a non-Germanic dialect is
not insurmountable. I have already alluded to the Mongolian Scyths who
yet spoke an Arian tongue;[164] I might, moreover, cite the Norman
settlers in France who, not many years after their conquest, exchanged
their Scandinavian dialect, in a great measure, for the Celto-Latin of
their subjects,[165] whence sprang that singular compound called
Norman-French, which the followers of William the Conqueror imported
into England, and which now forms an element of the English language.
There is, therefore, no reason to suppose that the agency of climate and
change of habits have transformed a Laplander, or an Ostiak, or a
Tunguse, or a Permian, into a St. Stephen or a Kossuth.
Having thus, I think, refuted the only two historical instances which
the believers in unity of species adduce, of a pretended alteration of
type by local circumstances and change of habits, and having, moreover,
instanced several cases where these causes could produce no alteration;
the fact of permanency of type seems to me to be incontestably
established.[166] Thus, whichever side we take, whether we believe in
original unity, or original diversity, is immaterial; the several groups
of the human species are, at present, so perfectly separated from each
other, that no exterior influence can efface their distinctive
peculiarities. The permanency of these differences, so long as there is
no intermixture, produces precisely the same physical and moral results
as if the groups were so many distinct and separate creations.
In conclusion, I shall repeat what I have said above, that I have very
serious doubts as to the unity of origin. These doubts, however, I am
compelled to repress, because they are in contradiction to a scientific
fact which I cannot refute--the prolificness of half-breeds; and
secondly, what is of much greater weight with me, they impugn a
religious interpretation sanctioned by the church.
FOOTNOTES:
[139] For the arguments which may be deduced from the language of Holy
Writ, in favor of plurality of origins, see Appendix _C_.--H.
[140] Among others, FRÉDÉRIC CUVIER, _Annales du Muséum_, vol. xi. p.
458.
[141] The reader will be struck by the remarkable illustration of the
truth of this remark, which the equine species affords. The vast
difference between the swift courser, who excites the enthusiasm of
admiring multitudes, and the common hack, need not be pointed out, and
it is as well known that either, if the breed be preserved unmixed, will
perpetuate their distinctive qualities to a countless progeny.--H.
[142] A free mulatto, who had received a very good education in France,
once seriously undertook to prove to me that the Saviour's earthly form
partook, at the same time, of the characteristics of the white and the
black races; in other words, was that of a half-breed. The arguments by
which he supported this singular hypothesis were drawn from theology, as
well as Scriptural ethnology, and were remarkably plausible and
ingenious. I am convinced that if the real opinion of colored Christians
on this subject could be collected, a vast majority would be found to
agree with my informant.--H.
[143] Our author here gives evidence of a want of critical study of
races--the resemblances he has traced do not exist. There is no type in
Africa south of the equator, or among the aborigines of America, that
bears any resemblance to any race in Europe or Asia.--N.
[144] Müller, _Handbuch der Physiologie des Menschen_, vol. ii. p. 639.
[145] Prichard, _op. cit._, pp. 484, 485.
[146] An exception, however, must be made in the case of Shakspeare,
while painting on an Italian canvas. In _Romeo and Juliet_, Capulet
says:--
"My child is yet a stranger in the world,
She hath not seen the change of fourteen years;
Let two more summers wither in their pride,
Ere we may think her ripe to be a bride."
To which Paris answers:--
"Younger than she are happy mothers made."
[147] According to M. Krapff, a Protestant minister in Eastern Africa,
among the Wanikos both sexes marry at the age of twelve. (_Zeitschrift
der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft_, vol. iii. p. 317.) In
Paraguay, the Jesuits had established the custom, which subsists to this
day, of marrying their neophytes, the girls at the age of ten, the boys
at that of thirteen. It is not rare to find, in that country, widowers
and widows eleven and twelve years old. (A. D'ORBIGNY, _L'Homme
Américain_, vol. i. p. 40.) In Southern Brazil, females marry at the age
of ten and eleven. Menstruation there begins also at a very early age,
and ceases equally early. (MARTIUS and SPIX, _Reise in Brasilien_, vol.
i. p. 382.) I might increase the number of similar quotations
indefinitely.
[148] Prichard, _op. cit._, p. 486.
[149] Botta, _Monumens de Ninive_. Paris, 1850.
[150] _Edinburgh Review_, "Ethnology, or the Science of Races," Oct.
1844, p. 144, _et passim_. "There is probably no evidence of original
diversity of race which is so generally and unhesitatingly relied upon
as that derived from the _color of the skin_ and the _character of the
hair_; ... but it will not, we think, stand the test of serious
examination.... Among the Kabyles of Algiers and Tunis, the Tuarites of
Sahara, the Shelahs or mountaineers of Southern Morocco, and other
people of the same race, there are very considerable differences of
complexion." (p. 448.)
[151] _Ibid._, _loc. cit._, p. 453. "The Cinghalese are described by Dr.
Davy as varying in color from light brown to black, the prevalent hue of
their hair and eyes is black, but hazel eyes and brown hair are not very
uncommon; gray eyes and red hair are occasionally seen, though rarely,
and sometimes the light-blue or red eye and flaxen hair of the albino."
[152] _Ibid._, _loc. cit._ "The Samoiedes, Tungusians, and others living
on the borders of the Icy Sea, have a dirty-brown or swarthy
complexion."
[153] Edinburgh Review, p. 439.
[154] Hammer, _Geschichte des Osmanischen Reiches_, vol. i. p. 2.
(_History of the Ottoman Empire._)
[155] Ritter, _Erdkunde Asien_, vol. i. p. 433, et passim, p. 1115,
etc. Lassen, _Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes_, vol. ii. p.
65. Benfey, _Encyclopædie_, by Ersch and Gruber, _Indien_, p. 12.
Alexander Von Humboldt, speaking of this fact, styles it one of the most
important discoveries of our times. (_Asie Centrale_, vol. ii. p. 649.)
With regard to its bearings upon historical science, nothing can be more
true.
[156] Nouschirwan, whose reign falls in the first half of the sixth
century of our era, married Scharouz, the daughter of the Khakan of the
Turks. She was the most beautiful woman of her time. (Haneberg,
_Zeitschr. f. d. K. des Morgenl._, vol. i. p. 187.) This is by no means
an isolated instance; Schahnameh furnishes a number of similar ones.
[157] The Scythes, though having adopted a language of the Arian
classes, were, nevertheless, a Mongolian nation; there would, therefore,
be nothing very surprising if the Orghuses had been an Arian nation,
though speaking a Finnic dialect. This hypothesis is singularly
corroborated by a passage in the relations of the traveller Rubruquis,
who was sent by St. Louis as ambassador to the sovereign of the Mongols.
"I was struck," says the worthy monk, "with the prince's resemblance to
the deceased _M. John de Beaumont_, whose complexion was equally fresh
and colored." Alexander Von Humboldt, justly interested by this remark,
adds: "This physiognomical observation acquires importance, when we
recollect that the monarch here spoken of belonged to the family of
Tchinguiz, who were really of Turkish, not of Mogul origin." And
pursuing this trace, the great _savant_ finds another corroborating
fact: "The absence of Mongolian features," says he, "strikes us also in
the portraits which we possess of the Baburides, the conquerors of
India." (_Asie Centrale_, vol. i. p. 248, and note.)
[158] It will be seen that Mr. Gobineau differs, in the date he gives of
the institution of the Janissaries, from all other European writers, who
unanimously ascribe the establishment of this corps to Mourad I., the
third prince of the line of Othman. This error, into which Gibbon
himself has fallen, originated with Cantemir: but the concurrent
testimony of every Turkish historian fixes the epoch of their formation
and consecration by the Dervish Hadji-Becktash, to the reign of Orkhan,
the father of Mourad, who, in 1328, enrolled a body of Christian youths
as soldiers under this name (which signifies, "new regulars"), by the
advice of his cousin Tchenderli, to whose councils the wise and simple
regulations of the infant empire are chiefly attributed. Their number
was at first only a thousand; but it was greatly augmented when Mourad,
in 1361, appropriated to this service, by an edict, the _imperial fifth_
of the European captives taken in the war--a measure which has been
generally confounded with the first enrolment of the corps. At the
accession of Soliman the Magnificent, their effective strength had
reached 40,000; and under Mohammed IV., in the middle of the seventeenth
century, that number was more than doubled. But though the original
composition of the Janissaries is related by every writer who has
treated of them, it has not been so generally noticed that for more than
two centuries and a half not a single native Turk was admitted into
their ranks, which were recruited, like those of the Mamelukes, solely
by the continual supply of Christian slaves, at first captives of tender
age taken in war, and afterwards, when this source proved inadequate to
the increased demand, by an annual levy among the children of the lower
orders of Christians throughout the empire--a dreadful tax, frequently
alluded to by Busbequius, and which did not finally cease till the reign
of Mohammed IV.
At a later period, when the Krim Tartars became vassals of the Porte,
the yearly inroads of the fierce cavalry of that nation into the
southern provinces of Russia, were principally instrumental in
replenishing this nursery of soldiers; and Fletcher, who was ambassador
from Queen Elizabeth to Ivan the Terrible, describes, in his quaint
language, the method pursued in these depredations: "The chief bootie
the Tartars seeke for in all their warres, is to get store of captives,
specially young boyes and girles, whom they sell to the Turkes, or
other, their neighbours. To this purpose, they take with them great
baskets, made like bakers' panniers, _to carrie them tenderly_; and if
any of them happens to tyre, or bee sicke on the way, they dash him
against the ground, or some tree, and so leave him dead." (_Purchas's
Pilgrims_, vol. iii. p. 441.)
The boys, thus procured from various quarters, were assembled at
Constantinople, where, after a general inspection, those whose personal
advantages or indications of superior talent distinguished them from the
crowd, were set aside as pages of the seraglio or Mamelukes in the
households of the pashas and other officers, whence in due time they
were promoted to military commands or other appointments: but the
remaining multitude were given severally in charge to peasants or
artisans of Turkish race, principally in Anatolia, by whom they were
trained up, till they approached the age of manhood, in the tenets of
the Moslem faith, and inured to all the privations and toils of a hardy
and laborious life. After this severe probation, they were again
transferred to the capital, and enrolled in the different _odas_ or
regiments; and here their military education commenced.--H.
[159] _Erdkunde, Asien_, vol. i. p. 448.
[160] _Ethnology_, etc., p. 439: "The Hungarian nobility ... is proved
by historical and philological evidence to have been a branch of the
great Northern Asiatic stock, closely allied in blood to the stupid and
feeble Ostiaks, and the untamable Laplander."
[161] St. Stephen reigned about the year 1000, nearly one century and a
half after the first invasion of the Magyars, under their leaders, Arpad
and Zulta. He introduced Christianity among his people, on which account
he was canonized, and is now the tutelary saint of his nation. It may
not be known to the generality of our readers, that the Magyars, though
they have now resided nearly one thousand years in Hungary, have, with
few exceptions, never applied themselves to the tillage of the soil.
Agriculture, to this day, remains almost exclusively in the hands of the
original (the Slowack or Sclavonian) population. The Magyar's wealth
consists in his herds, or, if he owns land, it is the Slowacks that
cultivate it for him. It is a singular phenomenon that these two races,
though professing the same religion, have remained almost entirely
unmixed, and each still preserves its own language.--H.
[162] _Essai Historique sur l'Origine des Hongrois._ Paris, 1844.
[163] It appears that we shall be compelled henceforward to considerably
modify our usually received opinions with regard to the nations of
Central Asia. It cannot now be any longer doubted that many of these
populations contain a very considerable admixture of white blood, a fact
of which our predecessors in the study of history had not the slightest
apprehension. Alexander Von Humboldt makes a very important remark upon
this subject, in speaking of the Kirghis-Kazakes, mentioned by Menander
of Byzant, and Constantine Porphyrogenetus; and he shows conclusively
that the Kirghis (~cherchis~) concubine spoken of by the former
writer as a present of the Turkish chief Dithubùl to Zemarch, the
ambassador of Justinian II., in A. D. 569, was a girl of mixed
blood--partly white. She is the precise counterpart of those beautiful
Turkish girls, whose charms are so much extolled by Persian writers, and
who did not belong, any more than she, to the Mongolian race. (Vide
_Asie Centrale_, vol. i. p. 237, _et passim_, and vol. ii. pp. 130,
131.)
[164] Schaffarick, _Slawische Alterthümer_, vol. i. p. 279, _et passim_.
[165] Aug. Thierry, _Histoire de la Conquite de l'Angleterre_. Paris,
1846, vol. i. p. 155.
[166] In my introductory note to Chapters VIII. and IX. (see p. 244), I
have mentioned a remarkable instance of the permanency of
characteristics, even in branches of the same race. An equally, if not
more striking illustration of this fact is given by Alex. Von Humboldt.
It is well known that Spain contains a population composed of very
dissimilar ethnical elements, and that the inhabitants of its various
provinces differ essentially, not only in physical appearance, but still
more in mental characteristics. As in all newly-settled countries,
immigrants from the same locality are apt to select the same spot, the
extensive Spanish possessions on this continent were colonized, each
respectively, by some particular province in the mother country. Thus
the Biscayans settled Mexico; the Andalusians and natives of the Canary
Islands, Venezuela; the Catalonians, Buenos Ayres; the Castillians,
Peru, etc. Although centuries have elapsed since these original
settlements, and although the character of the Spanish Americans must
have been variously modified by the physical nature of their new homes,
whether situated in the vicinity of coasts, or of mining districts, or
in isolated table-lands, or in fertile valleys; notwithstanding all
this, the great traveller and experienced observer still clearly
recognizes in the character of the various populations of South America,
the distinctive peculiarities of the original settlers. Says he: "The
Andalusians and Canarians of Venezuela, the Mountaineers and the
Biscayans of Mexico, the Catalonians of Buenos Ayres, evince
considerable differences in their aptitude for agriculture, for the
mechanical arts, for commerce, and for all objects connected with
intellectual development. _Each of these races has preserved, in the
new, as in the old world, the shades that constitute its national
physiognomy_; its asperity or mildness of character; its freedom from
sordid feelings, or its excessive love of gain; its social hospitality,
or its taste of solitude.... In the inhabitants of Caracas, Santa Fé,
Quito, and Buenos Ayres, we still recognize the features that belong to
the race of the first settlers."--_Personal Narrative_, Eng. Trans.,
vol. i. p. 395.--H.
CHAPTER XII.
CLASSIFICATION OF RACES.
Primary varieties--Test for recognizing them; not always
reliable--Effects of intermixture--Secondary varieties--Tertiary
varieties--Amalgamation of races in large cities--Relative scale of
beauty in various branches of the human family--Their inequality in
muscular strength and powers of endurance.
[In supervising the publication of this work, I have thought
proper to omit, in this place, a portion of the translation,
because containing ideas and suggestions which--though they might
be novel to a French public--have often been laid before English
readers, and as often proven untenable. This omission, however,
embraces no essential feature of the book, no link of the chain
of argumentation. It extends no further than a digressional
attempt of the author to account for the diversities observable
in the various branches of the human family, by imagining the
existence of cosmogonal causes, long since effete, but operating
for a time soon after the creation of man, when the globe was
still in a nascent and chaotic state. It must be obvious that all
such speculations can never bridge over the wide abyss which
separates _hypotheses_ from _facts_. They afford a boundless
field for play to a fertile imagination, but will never stand the
test of criticism. Even if we were to suppose that such causes
had effected diversities in the human family in primeval times,
the types thus produced must all have perished in the flood, save
that to which Noah and his family belonged. If these writers,
however, should be disposed to deny the universality of the
deluge, they would evidently do greater violence to the language
of Holy Writ, than by at once supposing a plurality of origins
for mankind.
The legitimate field of human science is the investigation of the
laws _now_ governing the material world. Beyond this it may not
go. Whatever is recognized as not coming within the scope of
action of these laws, belongs not to its province. We have proved,
and I think it is generally admitted, that the actual varieties of
the human family are _permanent_; that there are no causes _now in
operation_, which can transform them. The investigation of those
causes, therefore, cannot properly be said to belong to the
province of human science. In regard to their various systems of
classification, naturalists may be permitted to dispute about
unity or plurality of species, because the use of the word species
is more or less arbitrary; it is an expedient to secure a
convenient arrangement. But none, I hope, presume ever to be able
to fathom the mysteries of Creative Power--to challenge the fiat
of the Almighty, and inquire into his _means_.--H.]
In the investigation of the moral and intellectual diversities of races,
there is no difficulty so great as an accurate classification. I am
disposed to think a separation into three great groups sufficient for
all practical purposes. These groups I shall call primary varieties, not
in the sense of distinct creations, but as offering obvious and
well-defined distinguishing characteristics. I would designate them
respectively by the terms white, yellow, and black. I am aware of the
inaccuracy of these appellations, because the complexion is not always
the distinctive feature of these groups: other and more important
physiological traits must be taken into consideration. But as I have not
the right to invent new names, and am, therefore, compelled to select
among those already in use, I have chosen these because, though by no
means correct, they seemed preferable to others borrowed from geography
or history, and not so apt as the latter to add to the confusion which
already sufficiently perplexes the investigator of this subject. To
obviate any misconception here and hereafter, I wish it to be distinctly
understood that by "white" races I mean those usually comprised under
the name of Caucasian, Shemitic, Japhetic; by "black," the Hamitic,
African, etc.; by "yellow," the Altaic, Mongolian, Finnic, and Tartar.
These I consider to be the three categories under which all races of the
human family can be placed. I shall hereafter explain my reasons for
not recognizing the American Indians as a separate variety, and for
classing them among the yellow races.[167]
It is obvious that each of these groups comprises races very dissimilar
among themselves, each of which, besides the general characteristics
belonging to the whole group, possesses others peculiar to itself. Thus,
in the group of black races we find marked distinctions: the tribes
with prognathous skull and woolly hair, the low-caste Hindoos of
Kamaoun and of Dekhan, the Pelagian negroes of Polynesia, etc. In the
yellow group, the Tungusians, Mongols, Chinese, etc. There is every
reason to believe that these sub-varieties are coeval; that is, the same
causes which produced one, produced at the same time all the others.
It is, moreover, extremely difficult to determine the typical character
of each variety. In the white, and also in the yellow group, the mixture
of the sub-varieties is so great, that it is impossible to fix upon the
type. In the black group, the type is perhaps discernible; at least, it
is preserved in its greatest purity.
To ascertain the relative purity or mixture of a race, a criterion has
been adopted by many, who consider it infallible: this is resemblance of
face, form, constitution, etc. It is supposed that the purer a race has
preserved itself, the greater must be the exterior resemblances of all
the individuals composing it. On the contrary, considerable and varied
intermixtures would produce an infinite diversity of appearance among
individuals. This fact is incontestable, and of great value in
ethnological science, but I do not think it quite so reliable as some
suppose.
Intermixture of races does, indeed, produce at first individual
dissemblances, for few individuals belong in precisely the same degree
to either of the races composing the mixture. But suppose that, in
course of time, the fusion has become complete--that every individual
member of the mixed race had precisely the same proportion of mixed
blood as every other--he could not then differ greatly from his
neighbor. The whole mass, in that case, must present the same general
homogeneity as a pure race. The perfect amalgamation of two races of the
same group would, therefore, produce a new type, presenting a fictitious
appearance of purity, and reproducing itself in succeeding generations.
I imagine it possible, therefore, that a "secondary" type may in time
assume all the characteristics of a "primary" one, viz: resemblance of
the individuals composing it. The lapse of time to produce this
complete fusion would necessarily be commensurate to the original
diversity of the constituent elements. Where two races belonging to
different groups combine, such a complete fusion would probably never be
possible. I can illustrate this by reference to individuals. Parents of
widely different nations generally have children but little resembling
each other--some apparently partaking more of the father's type, some
more of the mother's. But if the parents are both of the same, or at
least of homogeneous stocks, their offspring exhibits little or no
variety; and though the children might resemble neither of the parents,
they would be apt to resemble one another.
To distinguish the varieties produced by a fusion of proximate races
from those which are the effect of intermixture between races belonging
to different groups, I shall call the latter _tertiary_ varieties. Thus
the woolly-headed negro and the Pelagian are both "primary" varieties
belonging to the same group; their offspring I would call a "secondary"
variety; but the hymen of either of them with a race belonging to the
white or yellow groups, would produce a "tertiary" variety. To this
last, then, belong the mulatto, or cross between white and black, and
the Polynesian, who is a cross between the black and the yellow.[168]
Half-breeds of this kind display, in various proportions and degrees,
the special characteristics of both the ancestral races. But a complete
fusion, as in the case of branches of the same group, probably never
results from the union of two widely dissimilar races, or, at least,
would require an incommensurable lapse of time.
If a tertiary type is again modified by intermixture with another, as is
the case in a cross between a mulatto and a Mongolian, or between a
Polynesian and a European, the ethnical mixture is too great to permit
us, in the present state of the science, to arrive at any general
conclusions. It appears that every additional intermixture increases the
difficulty of complete fusion. In a population composed of a great
number of dissimilar ethnical elements, it would require countless ages
for a thorough amalgamation; that is to say, so complete a mixture that
each individual would have precisely the kind and relative proportion of
mixed blood as every other. It follows, therefore, that, in a
population so constituted, there is an infinite diversity of form and
features among individuals, some pertaining more to one type than
another. In other words, there being no equilibrium between the various
types, they crop out here and there without any apparent reason.
We find this spectacle among the great civilized nations of Europe,
especially in their capitals and seaports. In these great vortexes of
humanity, every possible variety of our species has been absorbed.
Negro, Chinese, Tartar, Hottentot, Indian, Malay, and all the minor
varieties produced by their mixture, have contributed their contingent
to the population of our large cities. Since the Roman domination, this
amalgamation has continually increased, and is still increasing in
proportion as our inventions bring in closer proximity the various
portions of the globe. It affects all classes to some extent, but more
especially the lowest. Among them you may see every type of the human
family more or less represented. In London, Paris, Cadiz,
Constantinople, in any of the greater marts and thoroughfares of the
world, the lower strata of the _native_ population exhibit every
possible variety, from the prognathous skull to the pyramidal: you shall
find one man with hair as crisp as a negro's; another, with the eyes of
an ancient German, or the oblique ones of a Chinese; a third, with a
thoroughly Shemitic countenance; yet all three may be close relations,
and would be greatly surprised were they told that any but the purest
white blood flows in their veins. In these vast gathering places of
humanity, if you could take the first comer--a native of the place--and
ascend his genealogical tree to any height, you would probably be amazed
at the strange ancestry at the top.
It may now be asked whether, for all the various races of which I have
spoken, there is but one standard of beauty, or whether each has one of
its own. Helvetius, in his _De l'Esprit_, maintains that the idea of
beauty is purely conventional and variable. This assertion found many
advocates in its time, but it is at present superseded by the more
philosophical theory that the conception of the beautiful is an absolute
and invariable idea, and can never have a merely optional application.
Believing the latter view to be correct, I do not hesitate to compare
the various races of man in point of beauty, and to establish a regular
scale of gradation. Thus, if we compare the various races, from the
ungainly appearance of the Pelagian or Pecherai up to the noble
proportions of a Charlemagne, the expressive regularity of features of a
Napoleon, or the majestic countenance of a Louis XIV., we shall find in
the lowest on the scale a sort of rudimentary development of the beauty
which attracts us in the highest; and in proportion to the perfectness
of that development, the races rise in the scale of beauty.[169] Taking
the white race as the standard of beauty, we perceive all the others
more or less receding from that model. There is, then, an inequality in
point of beauty among the various races of men, and this inequality is
permanent and indelible.[170]
The next question to be decided is, whether there is also an inequality
in point of physical strength. It cannot be denied that the American
Indians and the Hindoos are greatly inferior to us in this respect. Of
the Australians, the same may safely be asserted. Even the negroes
possess less muscular vigor.[171] It is necessary, however, to
distinguish between purely muscular force--that which exerts itself
suddenly at a given moment--and the force of resistance or capacity for
endurance. The degree of the former is measured by its intensity, that
of the other by its duration. Of the two, the latter is the typical--the
standard by which to judge of the capabilities of races. Great muscular
strength is found among races notoriously weak. Among the lowest of the
negro tribes, for instance, it would not be difficult to find
individuals that could match an experienced European wrestler or English
boxer. This is equally true of the Lascars and Malays. But we must take
the masses, and judge according to the amount of long-continued,
persevering toil and fatigue they are capable of. In this respect, the
white races are undoubtedly entitled to pre-eminence.
But there are differences, again, among the white races, both in beauty
and in strength, which even the extensive ethnical mixture, that
European nations present, has not entirely obliterated. The Italians are
handsomer than the French and the Spaniards, and still more so than the
Swiss and Germans. The English also present a high degree of corporeal
beauty; the Sclavonian nations a comparatively humble one.
In muscular power, the English rank far above all other European
nations; but the French and Spaniards are greatly superior in power of
endurance: they suffer less from fatigue, from privations, and the
rigors and changes of climate. This question has been settled beyond
dispute by the fatal campaign in Russia. While the Germans, and other
troops from the North, who yet were accustomed to severe cold, were
almost totally annihilated, the French regiments, though paying
fearfully dear for their retreat, nevertheless saved the greatest number
of men. Some have attempted to explain this by a supposed superiority on
the part of the French in martial education and military spirit. But the
German officers had certainly as high a conception of a soldier's duty,
as elevated a sentiment of honor, as our soldiers; yet they perished in
incredibly greater numbers. I think it can hardly be disputed that the
masses of the population of France possess a superiority in certain
physical qualities, which enables them to defy with greater impunity
than most other nations the freezing snows of Russia and the burning
sands of Egypt.
FOOTNOTES:
[167] I have already alluded to the classification adopted by Mr.
Latham, the great ethnographer, which, though different in the
designations, is precisely similar to that of Mr. Gobineau. Hamilton
Smith also comes to the conclusion that, "as there are only three
varieties who attain the typical standard, we have in them the
foundation of that number being exclusively aboriginal." He therefore
divides the races of men into three classes, which he calls "typical
forms," and which nearly correspond to Mr. Gobineau's and Mr. Latham's
"primary varieties." But, notwithstanding this weight of authorities
against me, I cannot entirely agree as to the correctness of this
classification. Fewer objections seem to me to lie against that proposed
by Van Amringe, which I recommend to the consideration of the reader,
and, though perhaps out of place in a mere foot-note, subjoin at full
length. It must be remembered that the author of this system, though he
uses the word species to distinguish the various groups, is one of the
advocates for _unity of origin_. (The words _Japhetic_ and _Shemitic_
are also employed in a sense somewhat different from that which common
usage has assigned them.)
THE SHEMITIC SPECIES.
_Psychical or Spiritual Character_, viz:--
All the Physical Attributes developed harmoniously.--Warlike, but
not cruel, or destructive.
_Temperament._--Strenuous.
_Physical Character_, viz:--
A high degree of sensibility; fair complexion; copious, soft,
flowing hair, often curled, or waving; ample beard; small, oval,
perpendicular face, with features very distinct; expanded forehead;
large and elevated cranium; narrow elevated nose, distinct from the
other features; small mouth, and thin lips; chin, round, full, and
somewhat prominent, generally equal with the lips.
VARIETIES.
The Israelites, Greeks, Romans, Teutones, Sclavons, Celts, &c., and
many sub-varieties.
THE JAPHETIC SPECIES.
_Psychical or Spiritual Character_, viz:
Attributes unequally developed. Moderately mental--originative,
inventive, but not speculative. Not warlike, but destructive.
_Temperament._--Passive.
_Physical Character_, viz:--
Medium sensibility; olive yellow complexion; hair thin, coarse, and
black; little or no beard; broad, flattened, and triangular face;
high, pyramidal, and square-shaped skull; forehead small and low;
wide and small nose, particularly broad at the root; linear and
highly arched eyebrows; very oblique eyes, broad, irregular, and
half-closed, the upper eyelid extending a little beyond the lower;
thick lips.
VARIETIES.
The Chinese, Mongolians, Japanese, Chin Indians, &c., and probably
the Esquimaux, Toltecs, Aztecs, Peruvians.
THE ISHMAELITIC SPECIES.
_Psychical or Spiritual Character_, viz:--
Attributes generally equally developed. Moderately mental; not
originative, or inventive, but speculative; roving, predatory,
revengeful, and sensual. Warlike and highly destructive.
_Temperament._--Callous.
_Physical Character._--Sub-medium sensibility; dark skin, more or less
red, or of a copper-color tinge; hair black, straight, and strong;
face broad, immediately under the eyes; high cheek-bones; nose
prominent and distinct, particularly in profile; mouth and chin,
European.
VARIETIES.
Most of the Tartar and Arabian tribes, and the whole of the American
Indians, unless those mentioned in the second species should be
excepted.
THE CANAANITIC SPECIES.
_Psychical or Spiritual Character_, viz:--
Attributes equally undeveloped. Inferiorly mental; not originative,
inventive, or speculative; roving, revengeful, predatory, and highly
sensual; warlike and destructive.
_Temperament._--Sluggish.
_Physical Character._--Sluggish sensibility, approaching to torpor;
dark or black skin; hair black, generally woolly; skull compressed
on the sides, narrow at the forehead, which slants backwards;
cheek-bones very prominent; jaws projecting; teeth oblique, and chin
retreating, forming a muzzle-shaped profile; nose broad, flat, and
confused with the face; eyes prominent; lips thick.
VARIETIES.
The Negroes of Central Africa, Hottentots, Cafirs, Australasian
Negroes, &c.; and probably the Malays, &c.
_Nat. Hist. of Man_, p. 73 _et passim_.
If the reader will carefully examine the psychical characteristics of
these groups, as given in the above extract, he will find them to accord
better with the whole of Mr. Gobineau's theories, than Mr. Gobineau's
own classification.--H.
[168] It is probably a typographical error, that makes Mr. Flourens
(_Eloge de Blumenbach_, p. 11) say that the Polynesian race was "a
mixture of two others, the _Caucasian_ and the Mongolian." The Black and
the Mongolian is undoubtedly what the learned Academician wished to say.
[169] This may be so in our eyes. It is natural for us to think those
the most pleasing in appearance, that closest resemble our own type. But
were an African to institute a comparative scale of beauty, would he not
place his own race highest, and declare that "all races rose in the
scale of beauty in proportion to the perfectness of the development" of
African features? I think it extremely probable--nay, positively
certain.
Mr. Hamilton Smith takes the same side as the author. "It is a mistaken
notion," says he, "to believe that the standard contour of beauty and
form differs materially in any country. Fashion may have the influence
of setting up certain deformities for perfections, both at Pekin and at
Paris, but they are invariably apologies which national pride offers for
its own defects. The youthful beauty of Canton would be handsome (?) in
London," etc.
Mr. Van Amringe, on the contrary, after a careful examination of the
facts brought to light by travellers and other investigators, comes to
the conclusion that "the standard of beauty in the different species
(see p. 371, _note_) of man is wholly different, physically, morally,
and intellectually. Consequently, that taste for personal beauty in each
species is incompatible with the perception of sexual beauty out of the
species." (_Op. cit._, p. 656.) "A difference of taste for sexual beauty
in the several races of men is the great natural law which has been
instrumental in separating them, and keeping them distinct, more
effectually than mountains, deserts, or oceans. This separation has been
perfect for the whole historic period, and continues to be now as wide
as it is or has been in any distinct species of animals. Why has this
been so? Did prejudice operate four thousand years ago exactly as it
does now? If it did not, how came the races to separate into distinct
masses at the very earliest known period, and, either voluntarily or by
force, take up distinct geographical abodes?" (_Ibid._, pp. 41 and
42.)--H.
[170] This inequality is not the less great, nor the less permanent, if
we suppose each type to have its own standard. Nay, if the latter be
true, it is a sign of a more _radical_ difference among races.--H.
[171] Upon the aborigines of America, consult Martius and Spix, _Reise
in Brasilien_, vol. i. p. 259; upon the negroes, Pruner, _Der Neger,
eine aphoristische Skizze aus der medicinischen Topographie von Cairo_.
In regard to the superiority in muscular vigor over all other races, see
Carus, _Ueber ungl. Bef._, p. 84.
NOTE TO THE PRECEDING CHAPTER.
The position and treatment of woman among the various races of men a
proof of their moral and intellectual diversity.
The reader will pardon me if to Mr. Gobineau's scale of gradation in
point of beauty and physical strength, I add another as accurate, I
think, if not more so, and certainly as interesting. I allude to the
manner in which the weaker sex is regarded and treated among the various
races of men.
In the words of Van Amringe, "from the brutal New Hollander, who secures
his wife by knocking her down with a club and dragging the prize to his
cave, to the polished European, who, fearfully, but respectfully and
assiduously, spends a probation of months or years for his better half,
the ascent may be traced with unfailing precision and accuracy." The
same writer correctly argues that if any principle could be inferred
from analogy to animals, it would certainly be a uniform treatment of
the female sex among all races of man; for animals are remarkably
uniform in the relations of the male and female in the same species. Yet
among some races of men _polygamy has always prevailed, among others
never_. Would not any naturalist consider as distinct species any
animals of the same genus so distinguished? This subject has not yet met
with due attention at the hands of ethnologists. "When we hear of a race
of men," says the same author, "being subjected to the tyranny of
another race, either by personal bondage or the more easy condition of
tribute, our sympathies are enlisted in their favor, and our constant
good wishes, if not our efforts, accompany them. But when we hear of
hundreds of millions of the truest and most tender-hearted of human
creatures being trodden down and trampled upon in everything that is
dear to the human heart, our sympathies, which are so freely expended on
slighter occasions or imaginary evils, are scarcely awakened to their
crushing woes."
With the writer from whom I have already made copious extracts, I
believe that the _moral and intellectual diversity_ of the races of men
cannot be thoroughly and accurately investigated without taking into
consideration the relations which most influence individual as well as
national progress and development, and which result from the position
occupied by woman towards man. This truth has not escaped former
investigators--it would be singular if it had--but they have contented
themselves with asserting that the condition of the female sex was
indicative of the degree of civilization. Had they said, of the
intrinsic worth of various races, I should cheerfully assent. But the
elevation or degradation of woman in the social scale is generally
regarded as a _result_, not a _cause_. It is said that all barbarians
treat their women as slaves; but, as they progress in civilization,
woman gradually rises to her legitimate rank.
For the sake of the argument, I shall assume that all now civilized
nations at first treated their women as the actual barbarians treat
theirs. That this is not so, I hope to place beyond doubt; but, assuming
it to be the case, might not the fact that some left off that
treatment, while others did not, be adduced as a proof of the inequality
of races? "The law of the relation of the sexes," says Van Amringe, "is
more deeply engraven upon human nature than any other; because, whatever
theories may be adopted in regard to the origin of society, languages,
etc., no doubt can be entertained that the _influence of woman must have
been anterior to any improvements of the original condition of man_.
Consequently it was antecedent and superior to education and government.
That these relations were powerfully instrumental in the origin of
development, to give it a direction and character according to the
natures operating and operated upon, cannot be doubted by any one who
has paid the slightest attention to domestic influences, from and under
which education, customs, and government commenced."
But I totally deny that all races, in their first state of development,
treated their women equally. There is not only no historical testimony
to prove that _any_ of the white races were ever in such a state of
barbarity and in such moral debasement as most of the dark races are to
this day, and have always been, but there is positive evidence to show
that our barbarous ancestors assigned to woman the same position we
assign her now: she was the companion, and not the slave, of man. I have
already alluded to this in a previous note on the Teutonic races; I
cannot, however, but revert to it again.
As I have not space for a lengthy discussion, I shall mention but one
fact, which I think conclusive, and which rests upon incontrovertible
historical testimony. "To a German mind," says Tacitus (Murphy's
transl., vol. vii. 8), "the idea of a woman led into captivity is
insupportable. In consequence of this prevailing sentiment, the states
which deliver as hostages the daughters of illustrious families are
bound by the most effectual obligations." Did this assertion rest on the
authority of Tacitus only, it might perhaps be called in question. It
might be said that the illustrious Roman had drawn an ideal picture,
etc. But Cæsar dealt with realities, not idealities; he was a shrewd,
practical statesman, and an able general; yet Cæsar _did_ take females
as hostages from the German tribes, in preference to men. Suppose Cæsar
had made war against the King of Ashantee, and taken away some of his
three thousand three hundred and thirty-three wives, the mystical number
being thus forcibly disturbed, might have alarmed the nation, whose
welfare is supposed to depend on it; but the misfortune would soon have
been remedied.
But it is possible to demonstrate not only that all races did not treat
their women equally in their first stage of development, but also that
no race which assigned to woman in the beginning an inferior position
ever raised her from it in any subsequent stage of development. I select
the Chinese for illustration, because they furnish us with an example of
a long-continued and regular intellectual progress,[172] which yet never
resulted in an alteration of woman's position in the social structure.
The decadent Chinese of our day look upon the female half of their
nation as did the rapidly advancing Chinese of the seventh and eighth
centuries; and the latter in precisely the same manner as their
barbarous ancestors, the subjects of the Emperor _Fou_, more than twenty
centuries before.
I repeat it, the relations of the sexes, in various races, are equally
dissimilar in every stage of development. The state of society may
change, the tendency of a race never. Faculties may be developed, but
never lost.
As the mothers and wives of our Teutonic ancestors were near the
battle-field, to administer refreshments to the wearied combatants, to
stanch the bleeding of their wounds, and to inspire with renewed courage
the despairing, so, in modern times, matrons and maidens of the highest
rank--worthy daughters of a heroic ancestry--have been found by
thousands ready to sacrifice the comforts and quiet of home for the
horrors of a hospital.[173] As the rude warrior of a former age won his
beloved by deeds of valor, so, to his civilized descendant, the hand of
his mistress is the prize and reward of exertion. The wives and mothers
of the ancient Germans and Celts were the counsellors of their sons and
husbands in the most important affairs; our wives and mothers are our
advisers in our more peaceful pursuits.
But the Arab, when he had arrived at the culminating point of his
civilization, and when he had become the teacher of our forefathers of
the Middle Ages in science and the arts, looked upon his many wives in
the same light as his roaming brother in the desert had done before, and
does now. I do not ask of all these races that they should assign to
their women the same rank that we do. If intellectual progress and
social development among them showed the slightest tendency to produce
ultimately an alteration in woman's position towards her lord, I might
be content to submit to the opinion of those who regard that position
as the effect of such a progress and such a development. But I cannot,
in the history of those races, perceive the slightest indication of such
a result, and all my observations lead me to the conclusion that the
relations between the sexes are a cause, and not an effect.
The character of the women of different races differs in essential
points. What a vast difference, for instance, between the females of the
rude crusaders who took possession of Constantinople, and the more
civilized Byzantine Greeks whom they so easily conquered; between the
heroic matron of barbarous Germany and the highly civilized Chinese
lady! These differences cannot be entirely the effect of education, else
we are forced to consider the female sex as mere automatons. They must
be the result of diversity of character. And why not, in the
investigation of the moral and intellectual diversity of races and the
natural history of man, take into consideration the peculiarities that
characterize the female portion of each race, a portion--I am forced to
make this trite observation, because so many investigators seem to
forget it--which comprises at least one-half of the individuals to be
described?--H.
FOOTNOTES:
[172] Because we now find the Chinese apparently stationary, many
persons unreflectingly conclude that they were always so; which would
presuppose that the Chinese were placed upon earth with the faculty of
making porcelain, gunpowder, paper, etc., somewhat after the manner in
which bees make their cells. But in the annals of the Chinese empire,
the date of many of their principal inventions is distinctly recorded.
There was a long period of vigorous intellectual activity among that
singular people, a period during which good books were written, and
ingenious inventions made in rapid succession. This period has ceased,
but the Chinese are not therefore stationary. They are _retrograding_.
No Chinese workman can now make porcelain equal to that of former ages,
which consequently bears an exorbitant price as an object of _virtû_.
The secret of many of their arts has been lost, the practice of all is
gradually deteriorating. No book of any note has been written these
hundreds of years in that great empire. Hence their passionate
attachment to everything old, which is not, as is so generally presumed,
the _cause_ of their stagnation: it is the _sign_ of intellectual
decadence, and the brake which prevents a still more rapid descent.
Whenever a nation begins to extravagantly prize the productions of
preceding ages, it is a confession that it can no longer equal them: it
has begun to retrograde. But the very retrogression is a proof that
there once was an opposite movement.
[173] The fearful scenes of blood which the beginning of our century
witnessed, had crowded the hospitals with wounded and dying.
Professional nurses could afford little help after battles like those of
Jena, of Eylau, of Feldbach, or of Leipsic. It was then that, in
Northern Germany, thousands of ladies of the first families sacrificed
their health, and, in too many instances, their lives, to the Christian
duty of charity. Many of the noble houses still mourn the loss of some
fair matron or maiden, who fell a victim to her self-devotion. In the
late war between Denmark and Prussia, the Danish ladies displayed an
equal zeal. Scutari also will be remembered in after ages as a monument
of what the women of our race can do. But why revert to the past, and to
distant scenes? Have we not daily proofs around us that the heroic
virtues of by-gone ages still live in ours?
CHAPTER XIII.
PERFECTIBILITY OF MAN.
Imperfect notions of the capability of savage tribes--Parallel
between our civilization and those that preceded it--Our modern
political theories no novelty--The political parties of Rome--Peace
societies--The art of printing a means, the results of which depend
on its use--What constitutes a "living" civilization--Limits of the
sphere of intellectual acquisitions.
To understand perfectly the differences existing among races, in regard
to their intellectual capacity, it is necessary to ascertain the lowest
degree of stupidity that humanity is capable of. The inferior branches
of the human family have hitherto been represented, by a majority of
scientific observers, as considerably more abased than they are in
reality. The first accounts of a tribe of savages almost always depict
them in exaggerated colors of the darkest cast, and impute to them such
utter intellectual and reasoning incapacity, that they seem to sink to
the level of the monkey, and below that of the elephant. There are,
indeed, some contrasts. Let a navigator be well received in some
island--let him succeed in persuading a few of the natives to work,
however little, with the sailors, and praises are lavished upon the
fortunate tribe: they are declared susceptible of every improvement; and
perhaps the eulogist will go so far as to assert that he has found among
them minds of a very superior order.
To both these judgments we must object--the one being too favorable, the
other too severe. Because some natives of Tahiti assisted in repairing a
whaler, or some inhabitant of Tonga Tabou exhibited good feelings
towards the white strangers who landed on his isle, it does not follow
that either are capable of receiving our civilization, or of being
raised to a level with us. Nor are we warranted in classing among brutes
the poor naturals of a newly-discovered coast, who greet their first
visitors with a shower of stones and arrows, or who are found making a
dainty repast on raw lizards and clods of clay. Such a meal does not,
indeed, indicate a very superior intelligence, or very refined manners.
But even in the most repulsive cannibal there lies latent a spark of the
divine flame, and reason may be awakened to a certain extent. There are
no tribes so very degraded that they do not reason in some degree,
whether correctly or otherwise, upon the things which surround them.
This ray of human intelligence, however faint it may be, is what
distinguishes the most degraded savage from the most intelligent brute,
and capacitates him for receiving the teachings of religion.
But are these mental faculties, which every individual of our species
possesses, susceptible of indefinite development? Have all men the same
capacity for intellectual progress? In other words, can cultivation
raise all the different races to the same intellectual standard? and are
no limits imposed to the perfectibility of our species? My answer to
these questions is, that all races are capable of improvement, but all
cannot attain the same degree of perfection, and even the most favored
cannot exceed a certain limit.
The idea of infinite perfection has gained many partisans in our times,
because we, like all who came before us, pride ourselves upon possessing
advantages and points of superiority unknown to our predecessors. I have
already spoken of the distinguishing features of our civilization, but
willingly revert to this subject again.
It may be said, that in all the departments of science we possess
clearer and more correct notions; that, upon the whole, our manners are
more polished, and our code of morals is preferable to that of the
ancients. It is further asserted, as the principal proof of our
superiority, that we have better defined, juster and more tolerant ideas
with regard to political liberty. Sanguine theorists are not wanting,
who pretend that our discoveries in political science and our
enlightened views of the rights of man will ultimately lead us to that
universal happiness and harmony which the ancients in vain sought in the
fabled garden of Hesperides.
These lofty pretensions will hardly bear the test of severe historical
criticism.
If we surpass preceding generations in scientific knowledge, it is
because we have added our share to the discoveries which they bequeathed
to us. We are their heirs, their pupils, their continuators, just as
future generations will be ours. We achieve great results by the
application of the power of steam; we have solved many great problems in
mechanics, and pressed the elements as submissive slaves into our
service. But do these successes bring us any nearer to omniscience. At
most, they may enable us ultimately to fathom all the secrets of the
material world. And when we shall have achieved that grand conquest, for
which so much requires still to be done that is not yet commenced, nor
even anticipated; have we advanced a single step beyond the simple
exposition of the laws which govern the material world? We may have
learned to direct our course through the air, to approach the limits of
the respirable atmosphere; we may discover and elucidate several
interesting astronomical problems; we may have greater powers for
controlling nature and compelling her to minister to our wants, but can
all this knowledge make us better, happier beings? Suppose we had
counted all the planetary systems and measured the immense regions of
space, would we know more of the grand mystery of existence than those
that came before us? Would this add one new faculty to the human mind,
or ennoble human nature by the eradication of one bad passion?
Admitting that we are more enlightened upon some subjects, in how many
other respects are we inferior to our more remote ancestors? Can it be
doubted, for instance, that in Abraham's times much more was known of
primordial traditions than the dubious beams which have come down to us?
How many discoveries which we owe to mere accident, or which are the
fruits of painful efforts, were the lost possessions of remote ages? How
many more are not yet restored? What is there in the most splendid of
our works that can compare with those wonders by which Egypt, India,
Greece, and America still attest the grandeur and magnificence of so
many edifices which the weight of centuries, much more than the impotent
ravages of man, has caused to disappear? What are our works of art by
the side of those of Athens; our thinkers by the side of those of
Alexandria or India; our poets by the side of a Valmiki, Kalidasa,
Homer, Pindar?
The truth is, we pursue a different direction from that of the human
societies whose civilization preceded ours. We apply our mind to
different purposes and different investigations; but while we clear and
cultivate new lands, we are compelled to neglect and abandon to
sterility those to which they devoted their attention. What we gain in
one direction we lose in another. We cannot call ourselves superior to
the ancients, unless we had preserved at least the principal
acquisitions of preceding ages in all their integrity, and had succeeded
in establishing by the side of these, the great results which they as
well as we sought after. Our sciences and arts superadded to theirs have
not enabled us to advance one step nearer the solution of the great
problems of existence, the mysteries of life and death. "I seek, but
find not," has always been, will ever be, the humiliating confession of
science when endeavoring to penetrate into the secrets concealed by the
veil that it is not given to mortal to lift. In criticism[174] we are,
undoubtedly, much in advance of our predecessors; but criticism implies
classification, not acquisition.
Nor can we justly pride ourselves upon any superiority in regard to
political ideas. Political and social theories were as rife in Athens
after the age of Pericles as they are in our days. To be convinced of
this, it is necessary only to study Aristophanes, whose comedies Plato
recommends to the perusal of whoever wishes to become acquainted with
the public morals of the city of Minerva. It has been pretended that our
present structure of society, and that of the ancients, admit of no
comparison, owing to the institution of slavery which formed an element
of the latter. But the only real difference is that demagogism had then
an even more fertile soil in which to strike root. The slaves of those
days find their precise counterpart in our working classes and
proletarians.[175] The Athenian people propitiating their servile class
after the battle of Arginuses, might be taken for a picture of the
nineteenth century.
Look at Rome. Open Cicero's letters. What a specimen of the moderate
Tory that great Roman orator was; what a similarity between his republic
and our constitutional bodies politic, with regard to the language of
parties and parliamentary debates! There, too, the background of the
picture was occupied by degraded masses of a servile and prædial
population, always eager for change, and ready to rise in actual
rebellion.
Let us leave those dregs of the population, whose civil existence the
law ignored, and who counted in politics but as the formidable tool of
designing individuals of free birth. But does not the free population of
Rome afford a perfect analogue to a modern body politic? There is the
mob crying for bread, greedy of shows, flattery, gratuitous
distributions, and amusements; the middle classes (_bourgeoisie_)
monopolizing and dividing among themselves the public offices; the
hereditary aristocracy, continually assailed at all points, continually
losing ground, until driven in mere self-defence to abjure all superior
claims and stipulate for equal rights to all. Are not these perfect
resemblances?
Among the boundless variety of opinions that make themselves heard in
our day, there is not one that had not advocates in Rome. I alluded a
while ago to the letters written from the villa of Tusculum; they
express the sentiments of the Roman conservative _Progressist_ party. By
the side of Sylla, Pompey and Cicero were Radicals.[176] Their notions
were not sufficiently radical for Cæsar; too much so for Cato. At a
later period we find in Pliny the younger a mild royalist, a friend of
quiet, even at some cost. Apprehensive of too much liberty, yet jealous
of power too absolute; very practical in his views, caring but little
for the poetical splendor of the age of the Fabii, he preferred the more
prosaic administration of Trajan. There were others not of his opinion,
good people who feared an insurrection headed by some new Spartacus, and
who, therefore, thought that the Emperor could not hold the reins too
tight. Then there were others, from the provinces, who obstreperously
demanded and obtained what would now be called "constitutional
guaranties." Again, there were the socialists, and their views found no
less an expounder than the Gallic Cæsar, C. Junius Posthumus, who
exclaims: "Dives et pauper, inimici," the rich and the poor are enemies
born.
Every man who had any pretensions to participate in the lights of the
day, declaimed on the absolute equality of all men, their "inalienable
rights," the manifest necessity and ultimate universality of the
Greco-Latin civilization, its superiority, its mildness, its future
progress, much greater even than that actually made, and above all its
perpetuity. Nor were those ideas merely the pride and consolation of the
pagans; they were the firm hopes and expectations of the earliest and
most illustrious Fathers of the Church, whose sentiments found so
eloquent an interpreter in Tertullian.
* * * * *
And as a last touch, to complete the picture, let us not forget those
people who, then as now, formed the most numerous of all parties: those
that belonged to none--people who are too weak-minded, or indifferent,
or apprehensive, or disgusted, to lay hold of a truth, from among the
midst of contradictory theories that float around them--people who are
content with order when it exists, submit passively in times of disorder
and confusion; who admire the increase of conveniences and comforts of
life unknown to their ancestors, and who, without thinking further,
centre their hope in the future and pride in the present, in the
reflection: "What wonderful facilities we enjoy now-a-days."
There would be some reason for believing in an improvement in political
science, if we had invented some governmental machinery which had
hitherto been unknown, or at least never carried into practice. This
glory we cannot arrogate to ourselves. Limited monarchies were known in
every age. There are even some very curious examples of this form of
government found among certain Indian tribes who, nevertheless, have
remained savages. Democratic and aristocratic republics of every form,
and balanced in the most varied manner, flourished in the new world as
well as the old. Tlascala is as complete a model of this kind as
Athens, Sparta, or Mecca before Mohammed's times. And even supposing
that we have applied to governmental science some secondary principle of
our own invention, does this justify us in our exaggerated pretension to
unlimited perfectibility? Let us rather be modest, and say with the
wisest of kings: "_Nil novi sub sole._"[177]
It is said that our manners are milder than those of the other great
human societies; this assertion also is very open to criticism. There
are some philanthropists who would induce nations no longer to resort to
armies in settling their quarrels. The idea is borrowed from Seneca.
Some of the Eastern sages professed the same principles in this respect
as the Moravian Brethren. But assuming that the members of the Peace
Congress succeed in disgusting Europe with the turmoil and miseries of
warfare, they would still have the difficult task left of forever
transforming the human passions. Neither Seneca nor the Eastern sages
have been able to accomplish this, and it may reasonably be doubted
whether this grand achievement is reserved for our generation. We
possess pure and exalted principles, I admit, but are they carried into
practice? Look at our fields, the streets of our cities--the bloody
traces of contests as fierce as any recorded in history are scarcely yet
effaced. Never since the beginning of our civilization has there been an
interval of peace of fifty years, and we are, in this respect, far
behind ancient Italy, which, under the Romans, once enjoyed two
centuries of perfect tranquillity. But even so long a repose would not
warrant us in concluding that the temple of Janus was thenceforth to be
forever closed.
The state of our civilization does not, therefore, prove the unlimited
perfectibility of man. If he have learned many things, he has forgotten
others. He has not added another to his senses; his soul is not enriched
by one new faculty. I cannot too much insist upon the great though sad
truth, that whatever we gain in one direction is counterbalanced by some
loss in another; that, limited as is our intellectual domain, we are
doomed never to possess its whole extent at once. Were it not for this
fatal law, we might imagine that at some period, however distant, man,
finding himself in possession of the experience of successive ages, and
having acquired all that it is in his power to acquire, would have
learned at last to apply his acquisitions to his welfare--to live
without battling against his kind, and against misery; to enjoy a state,
if not of unalloyed happiness, at least of abundance and peace.
But even so limited a felicity is not promised us here below, for in
proportion as man learns he unlearns; whatever he acquires, is at the
cost of some previous acquisition; whatever he possesses he is always in
danger of losing.
We flatter ourselves with the belief that our civilization is
imperishable, because we possess the art of printing, gunpowder, the
steam engine, &c. These are valuable means to accomplish great results,
but the accomplishment depends on their use.
The art of printing is known to many other nations beside ourselves, and
is as extensively used by them as by us.[178] Let us see its fruits. In
Tonquin, Anam, Japan, books are plentiful, much cheaper than with
us--so cheap that they are within the reach of even the poorest--and
even the poorest read them. How is it, then, that these people are so
enervated, so degraded, so sunk in sloth and vice[179]--so near that
stage in which even civilized man, having frittered away his physical
and mental powers, may sink infinitely below the rude barbarian, who, at
the first convenient opportunity, becomes his master? Whence this
result? Precisely because the art of printing is a means, and not an
agent. So long as it is used to diffuse sound, sterling ideas, to afford
wholesome and refreshing nutriment to vigorous minds, a civilization
never decays. But when it becomes the vile caterer to a depraved taste,
when it serves only to multiply the morbid productions of enervated or
vitiated minds, the senseless quibbles of a sectarian theology instead
of religion, the venomous scurrility of libellists instead of politics,
the foul obscenities of licentious rhymers instead of poesy--how and why
should the art of printing save a civilization from ruin?
It is objected that the art of printing contributes to the preservation
of a civilization by the facility with which it multiplies and diffuses
the masterpieces of the human mind, so that, even in times of
intellectual sterility, when they can no longer be emulated, they still
form the standard of taste, and by their clear and steady light prevent
the possibility of utter darkness. But it should be remembered that to
delve in the hoarded treasures of thought, and to appropriate them for
purposes of mental improvement, presupposes the possession of that
greatest of earthly goods--an enlightened mind. And in epochs of
intellectual degeneracy, few care about those monuments of lost virtues
and powers; they are left undisturbed on their dusty shelves in
libraries whose silence is but seldom broken by the tread of the
anxious, painstaking student.
The longevity which Guttenberg's invention assures to the productions of
genius is much exaggerated. There are a few works that enjoy the honor
of being reproduced occasionally; with this exception, books die now
precisely as formerly did the manuscripts. Works of science, especially,
disappear with singular rapidity from the realms of literature. A few
hundred copies are struck off at first, and they are seldom, and, after
a while, never heard of more. With considerable trouble you can find
them in some large collection. Look what has become of the thousands of
excellent works that have appeared since the first printed page came
from the press. The greater portion are forgotten. Many that are still
spoken of, are never read; the titles even of others, that were
carefully sought after fifty years ago, are gradually disappearing from
every memory.
So long as a civilization is vigorous and flourishing, this
disappearance of old books is but a slight misfortune. They are
superseded; their valuable portions are embodied in new ones; the seed
exists no longer, but the fruit is developing. In times of intellectual
degeneracy it is otherwise. The weakened powers cannot grapple with the
solid thought of more vigorous eras; it is split up into more convenient
fragments--rendered more portable, as it were; the strong beverage that
once was the pabulum of minds as strong, must be diluted to suit the
present taste; and innumerable dilutions, each weaker than the other,
immediately claim public favor; the task of learning must be lightened
in proportion to the decreasing capacity for acquiring; everything
becomes superficial; what costs the least effort gains the greatest
esteem; play upon words is accounted wit; shallowness, learning; the
surface is preferred to the depth. Thus it has ever been in periods of
decay; thus it will be with us when we have once reached that point
whence every movement is retrogressive. Who knows but we are near it
already?--and the art of printing will not save us from it.
To enhance the advantages which we derive from that art, the number and
diffusion of manuscripts have been too much underrated. It is true that
they were scarce in the epoch immediately preceding; but in the latter
periods of the Roman empire they were much more numerous and much more
widely diffused than is generally imagined. In those times, the
facilities for instruction were by no means of difficult access; books,
indeed, were quite common. We may judge so from the extraordinary number
of threadbare grammarians with which even the smallest villages swarmed;
a sort of people very much like the petty novelists, lawyers, and
editors of modern times, and whose loose morals, shabbiness, and
passionate love for enjoyments, are described in Pretronius's Satyricon.
Even when the decadence was complete, those who wished for books could
easily procure them. Virgil was read everywhere; so much so, that the
illiterate peasantry, hearing so much of him, imagined him to be some
dangerous and powerful sorcerer. The monks copied him; they copied
Pliny, Dioscorides, Plato, and Aristotle; they copied Catullus and
Martial. These books, then, cannot have been very rare. Again, when we
consider how great a number has come down to us notwithstanding
centuries of war and devastation--notwithstanding so many conflagrations
of monasteries, castles, libraries, &c.--we cannot but admit that, in
spite of the laborious process of transcription, literary productions
must have been multiplied to a very great extent. It is possible,
therefore, to greatly exaggerate the obligations under which science,
poetry, morality, and true civilization lie to the typographic art; and
I repeat it, that art is a marvellous instrument, but if the arm that
wields it, and the head that directs the arm, are not, the instrument
cannot be, of much service.
Some people believe that the possession of gunpowder exempts modern
societies from many of the dangers that proved fatal to the ancient.
They assert that it abates the horrors of warfare, and diminishes its
frequency, bidding fair, therefore, to establish, in time, a state of
universal peace. If such be the beneficial results attendant on this
accidental invention, they have not as yet manifested themselves.
Of the various applications of steam, and other industrial inventions, I
would say, as of the art of printing, that they are great means, but
their results depend upon the agent. Such arts might be practised by
rote long after the intellectual activity that produced them had ceased.
There are innumerable instances of processes which continue in use,
though the theoretical secret is lost. It is therefore not unreasonable
to suppose, that the practice of our inventions might survive our
civilization; that is, it might continue when these inventions were no
longer possible, when no further improvements were to be hoped for.
Material well-being is but an external appendage of a civilization;
intellectual activity, and a consequent progress, are its life. A state
of intellectual torpor, therefore, cannot be a state of civilization,
even though the people thus stagnating, have the means of transporting
themselves rapidly from place to place, or of adorning themselves and
their dwellings. This would only prove that they were the _heirs_ of a
former civilization, but not that they actually possessed one. I have
said, in another place, that a civilization may thus preserve, for a
time, every appearance of life: the effect may continue after the cause
has ceased. But, as a continuous change seems to be the order of nature
in all things material and immaterial, a downward tendency is soon
manifest. I have before compared a civilization to the human body. While
alive, it undergoes a perpetual modification: every hour has wrought a
change; when dead, it preserves, for a time, the appearance of life,
perhaps even its beauty; but gradually, symptoms of decay become
manifest, and every stage of dissolution is more precipitate than the
one before, as a stone thrown up in the air, poises itself there for an
inappreciable fraction of time, then falls with continually increasing
velocity, more and more swiftly as it approaches the ground.
Every civilization has produced in those who enjoyed its fruits, a firm
conviction of its stability, its perpetuity.
When the palanquins of the Incas travelled rapidly on the smooth,
magnificent causeways which still unite Cuzco and Quito, a distance of
fifteen hundred miles, with what feelings of exultation must they have
contemplated the conquests of the present, what magnificent prospects of
the future must have presented themselves to their imaginations! Stern
time, with one blow of his gigantic wings, hurled their empire into the
deepest depths of the abyss of oblivion. These proud sovereigns of
Peru--they, too, had their sciences, their mechanical inventions, their
powerful machines: the works they accomplished we contemplate with
amazement, and a vain effort to divine the means employed. How were
those blocks of stone, thirty-five feet long and eighteen thick, raised
one upon another? How were they transported the vast distance from the
quarries where they were hewn? By what contrivance did the engineers of
that people hoist those enormous masses to a dizzy height? It is indeed
a problem--a problem, too, which we will never solve. Nor are the ruins
of Tihuanaco unparalleled by the remains of European civilizations of
ante-historic times. The cyclopean walls with which Southern Europe
abounds, and which have withstood the all-destroying tooth of time for
thousands upon thousands of years--who built them? Who piled these
monstrous masses, which modern art could scarcely move?
Let us not mistake the results of a civilization for its causes. The
causes cease, the results subsist for a while, then are lost. If they
again bear fruit, it is because a new spirit has appropriated them, and
converted them to purposes often very different from those they had at
first. Human intelligence is finite, nor can it ever reign at once in
the whole of its domain:[180] it can turn to account one portion of it
only by leaving the other bare; it exalts what it possesses, esteems
lightly what it has lost. Thus, every generation is at the same time
superior and inferior to its predecessors. Man cannot, then, surpass
himself: man's perfectibility is not infinite.
FOOTNOTES:
[174] The word _criticism_ has here been used by the translator in a
sense somewhat unusual in the English language, where it is generally
made to signify "the art of judging of literary or artistic
productions." In a more comprehensive sense, it means _the art of
discriminating between truth and error_, or rather, perhaps, between
_the probable and the improbable_. In this sense, the word is often used
by continental metaphysicians, and also, though less frequently, by
English writers. As the definition is perfectly conformable to
etymology, I have concluded to let the above passage stand as it is.--H.
[175] It will be remembered that Mr. Gobineau speaks of Europe.--H.
[176] The term "Radical" is used on the European continent to designate
that party who desire thorough, uncompromising reform: the plucking out
of evils by the _root_.--H.
[177] The principles of government applied to practice at the formation
of our Constitution, Mr. Gobineau considers as identical with those laid
down at the beginning of every society founded by the Germanic race. In
his succeeding volumes he mentions several analogues.--H.
[178] M. J. Mohl, _Rapport Annuel à la Société Asiatique_, 1851, p. 92:
"The Indian book trade of indigenous productions is extremely lively,
and consists of a number of works which are never heard of in Europe,
nor ever enter a European's library even in India. Mr. Springer asserts
in a letter, that in the single town of Luknau there are thirteen
lithographical establishments exclusively occupied with multiplying
books for the schools, and he gives a list of considerable length of
books, none of which have probably ever reached Europe. The same is the
case in Delhi, Agra, Cawnpour, Allahabad, and other cities."
[179] The Siamese are probably the most debased in morals of any people
on earth. They belong to the remotest outskirts of the Indo-Chinese
civilization; yet among them every one knows how to read and write.
(Ritter, _Erdkunde, Asien_, vol. iii. p. 1152.)
[180] No individual can encompass the whole circle of human knowledge:
no civilization comprise at once all the improvements possible to
humanity.--H.
CHAPTER XIV.
MUTUAL RELATIONS OF DIFFERENT MODES OF INTELLECTUAL CULTURE.
Necessary consequences of a supposed equality of all races--Uniform
testimony of history to the contrary--Traces of extinct
civilizations among barbarous tribes--Laws which govern the
adoption of a state of civilization by conquered
populations--Antagonism of different modes of culture; the Hellenic
and Persian, European and Arab, etc.
Had it been the will of the Creator to endow all the branches of the
human family with equal intellectual capacities, what a glorious tableau
would history not unfold before us. All being equally intelligent,
equally aware of their true interests, equally capable of triumphing
over obstacles, a number of simultaneous and flourishing civilizations
would have gladdened every portion of the inhabited globe. While the
most ancient Sanscrit nations covered Northern India with harvests,
cities, palaces, and temples; and the plains of the Tigris and Euphrates
shook under the trampling of Nimrod's cavalry and chariots, the
prognathous tribes of Africa would have formed and developed a social
system, sagaciously constructed, and productive of brilliant results.
Some luckless tribes, whose lot fortune had cast in inhospitable climes,
burning sands, or glacial regions, mountain gorges, or cheerless steppes
swept by the piercing winds of the north, would have been compelled to a
longer and severer struggle against such unpropitious circumstances,
than more fortunate nations. But being not inferior in intelligence and
sagacity, they would not have been long in discovering the means of
bettering their condition. Like the Icelanders, the Danes, and
Norwegians, they would have forced the reluctant soil to afford them
sustenance; if inhabitants of mountainous regions, they would, like the
Swiss, have enjoyed the advantages of a pastoral life, or like the
Cashmerians, resorted to manufacturing industry. But if their
geographical situation had been so unfavorable as to admit of no
resource, they would have reflected that the world was large, contained
many a pleasant valley and fertile plain, where they might seek the
fruits of intelligent activity, which their stepmotherly native land
refused them.
Thus all the nations of the earth would have been equally enlightened,
equally prosperous; some by the commerce of maritime cities, others by
productive agriculture in inland regions, or successful industry in
barren and Alpine districts. Though they might not exempt themselves
from the misfortunes to which the imperfections of human nature give
rise--transitory dissensions, civil wars, seditions, etc.--their
individual interests would soon have led them to invent some system of
relative equiponderance. As the differences in their civilizations
resulted merely from fortuitous circumstances, and not from innate
inequalities, a mutual interchange would soon have assimilated them in
all essential points. Nothing could then prevent a universal
confederation, that dream of so many centuries; and the inhabitants of
the most distant parts of the globe would have been as members of one
great cosmopolite people.
Let us contrast this fantastic picture with the reality. The first
nations worthy of the name, owed their formation to an instinct of
aggregation, which the barbarous tribes near them not only did not feel
then, but never afterward. These nations spread beyond their original
boundaries, and forced others to submit to their power. But the
conquered neither adopted nor understood the principles of the
civilization imposed upon them. Nor has the force of example been of
avail to those in whom innate capacity was wanting. The native
populations of the Spanish peninsula, and of Transalpine and Ligurian
Gaul, saw Phenicians, Greeks, and Carthaginians, successively establish
flourishing cities on their coasts, without feeling the least incitement
to imitate the manners or forms of government of these prosperous
merchants.
What a glorious spectacle do not the Indians of North America witness at
this moment. They have before their eyes a great and prosperous nation,
eminent for the successful practical application of modern theories and
sciences to political and social forms, as well as to industrial art.
The superiority of this foreign race, which has so firmly established
itself upon his former patrimony, is evident to the red man. He sees
their magnificent cities, their thousands of vessels upon the once
silent rivers, their successful agriculture; he knows that even his own
rude wants, the blanket with which he covers himself, the weapon with
which he slays his game, the ardent spirits he has learned to love so
well, can be supplied only by the stranger. The last feeble hope to see
his native soil delivered from the presence of the conqueror's race, has
long since vanished from his breast; he feels that the land of his
fathers is not his own. Yet he stubbornly refuses to enter the pale of
this civilization which invites him, solicits him, tries to entice him
with superior advantages and comforts. He prefers to retreat from
solitude to solitude, deeper and deeper into the primitive forest. He is
doomed to perish, and he knows it; but a mysterious power retains him
under the yoke of his invincible repugnances, and while he admires the
strength and superiority of the whites, his conscience, his whole
nature, revolts at the idea of assimilating to them. He cannot forget or
smother the instincts of his race.
The aborigines of Spanish America are supposed to evince a less
unconquerable aversion. It is because the Spanish metropolitan
government had never attempted to civilize them. Provided they were
Christians, at least in name, they were left to their own usages and
habits, and, in many instances, under the administration of their
Caziques. The Spaniards colonized but little, and when the conquest was
completed and their sanguinary appetites glutted by those unparalleled
atrocities which brand them with indelible disgrace, they indulged in a
lazy toleration, and directed their tyranny rather against individuals
than against modes of thinking and living. The Indians have, in a great
measure, mixed with their conquerors, and will continue to live while
their brethren in the vicinity of the Anglo-Saxon race are inevitably
doomed to perish.
But not only savages, even nations of a higher rank in the intellectual
scale are incapable of adopting a foreign civilization. We have already
alluded to the failure of the English in India and of the Dutch in Java,
in trying to import their own ideas into their foreign dependencies.
French philanthropy is at this moment gaining the same experience in the
new French possession of Algeria. There can be no stronger or more
conclusive proof of the various endowments of different races.
If we had no other argument in proof of the innate imparity of races
than the actual condition of certain barbarous tribes, and the
supposition that they had always been in that condition, and,
consequently, always would be, we should expose ourselves to serious
objections. For many barbarous nations preserve traces of former
cultivation and refinement. There are some tribes, very degraded in
every other respect, who yet possess traditional regulations respecting
the marriage celebration, the forms of justice and the division of
inheritances, which evidently are remnants of a higher state of society,
though the rites have long since lost all meaning. Many of the Indian
tribes who wander over the tracts once occupied by the Alleghanian race,
may be cited as instances of this kind. The natives of the Marian
Islands, and many other savages, practise mechanically certain processes
of manufacture, the invention of which presupposes a degree of ingenuity
and knowledge utterly at variance with their present stupidity and
ignorance. To avoid hasty and erroneous conclusions concerning this
seeming decadence, there are several circumstances to be taken into
consideration.
Let us suppose a savage population to fall within the sphere of activity
of a proximate, but superior race. In that case they may gradually learn
to conform externally to the civilization of their masters, and acquire
the technicalities of their arts and inventions. Should the dominant
race disappear either by expulsion or absorption, the civilization would
expire, but some of its outward forms might be retained and perpetuated.
A certain degree of mechanical skill might survive the scientific
principles upon which it was based. In other words, practice might long
continue after the theory was lost. History furnishes us a number of
examples in support of this assertion.
Such, for instance, was the attitude of the Assyrians toward the
civilization of the Chaldeans; of the Iberians, Celts, and Illyrians
towards that of the Romans. If, then, the Cherokees, the Catawbas,
Muskogees, Seminoles, Natchez and other tribes, still preserve a feeble
impress of the Alleghanian civilization, I should not thence conclude
that they are the pure and direct descendants of the initiatory element
of that people, which would imply that a race may once have been
civilized, and be no longer so. I should say, on the contrary, that the
Cherokees, if at all ethnically connected with the ancient dominant
type, are so by only a collateral tie of consanguinity, else they could
never have relapsed into a state of barbarism. The other tribes which
exhibit little or no vestiges of the former civilization are probably
the descendants of a different conquered population which formed no
constituent element of the society, but served rather as the substratum
upon which the edifice was erected. It is no matter of surprise, if this
be the case, that they should preserve--without understanding them and
with a sort of superstitious veneration--customs, laws, and rites
invented by others far more intelligent than themselves.
The same may be said of the mechanical arts. The aborigines of the
Carolines are about the most interesting of the South Sea islanders.
Their looms, sculptured canoes, their taste for navigation and commerce
show them vastly superior to the Pelagian negroes, their neighbors. It
is easy to account for this superiority by the well-authenticated
admixture of Malay blood. But as this element is greatly attenuated, the
inventions which it introduced have not borne indigenous fruits, but, on
the contrary, are gradually, but surely, disappearing.
The preceding observations will, I think, suffice to show that the
traces of civilization among a barbarous tribe are not a necessary proof
that this tribe itself has ever been really civilized. It may either
have lived under the domination of a superior but consanguineous race,
or living in its vicinity, have, in an humble and feeble degree,
profited by its lessons. This result, however, is possible only when
there exists between the superior and the inferior race a certain
ethnical affinity; that is to say, when the former is either a noble
branch of the same stock, or ennobled by intermixture with another. When
the disparity between races is too great and too decided, and there is
no intermediate link to connect them, the contact is always fatal to the
inferior race, as is abundantly proved by the disappearance of the
aborigines of North America and Polynesia.
I shall now speak of the relations arising from the contact of different
civilizations.
The Persian civilization came in contact with the Grecian; the Egyptian
with the Grecian and Roman; the Roman with the Grecian; and finally the
modern civilization of Europe with all those at present subsisting on
the globe, and especially with the Arabian.
The contact of Greek intelligence with the culture of the Persians was
as frequent as it was compulsory. The greater portion of the Hellenic
population, and the wealthiest, though not the most independent, was
concentrated in the cities of the Syrian coast, the Greek colonies of
Asia Minor, and on the shores of the Euxine, all of which formed a part
of the Persian dominions. Though these colonies preserved their own
local laws and politics, they were under the authority of the satraps of
the great king. Intimate relations, moreover, were maintained between
European Greece and Asia. That the Persians were then possessed of a
high degree of civilization is proved by their political organization
and financial administration, by the magnificent ruins which still
attest the splendor and grandeur of their cities. But the principles of
government and religion, the modes and habits of life, the genius of the
arts, were very differently understood by the two nations; and,
therefore, notwithstanding their constant intercourse, neither made the
slightest approach toward assimilation with the other. The Greeks called
their puissant neighbors barbarians, and the latter, no doubt, amply
returned the compliment.
In Ecbatana no other form of government could be conceived than an
undivided hereditary authority, limited only by certain religious
prescriptions and a court ceremonial. The genius of the Greeks tended to
an endless variety of governmental forms; subdivided into a number of
petty sovereignties. Greek society presented a singular mosaic of
political structures; oligarchical in Sparta, democratical in Athens,
tyrannical in Sicyon, monarchical in Macedonia, the forms of government
were the same in scarcely two cities or districts. The state religion of
the Persians evinced the same tendency to unity as their politics, and
was more of a metaphysical and moral than a material character. The
Greeks, on the contrary, had a symbolical system of religion, consisting
in the worship of natural objects and influences, which gradually
changed into a perfect prosopopoeia, representing the gods as
sentient beings, subject to the same passions, and engaged in the same
pursuits and occupations as the inhabitants of the earth. The worship
consisted principally in the performance of rites and demonstrations of
respect to the deities; the conscience was left to the direction of the
civil laws. Besides, the rites, as well as the divinities and heroes in
whose honor they were practised, were different in every place.
As for the manners and habits of life, it is unnecessary to point out
how vastly different they were from those of Persia. Public contempt
punished the young, wealthy, pleasure-loving cosmopolitan, who attempted
to live in Persian style. Thus, until the time of Alexander, when the
power of Greece had arrived at its culminating point, Persia, with all
her preponderance, could not convert Hellas to her civilization.
In the time of Alexander, this incompatibility of dissimilar modes of
culture was singularly demonstrated. When the empire of Darius succumbed
to the Macedonian phalanxes, it was expected, for a time, that a
Hellenic civilization would spread over Asia. There seemed the more
reason for this belief when the conqueror, in a moment of aberrancy,
treated the monuments of the land with such aggressive violence as
seemed to evince equal hatred and contempt. But the wanton incendiary
of Persepolis soon changed his mind, and so completely, that his design
became apparent to simply substitute himself in the room of the dynasty
of Achæmenes, and rule over Persia like a Persian king, with Greece
added to his estates. Great as was Alexander's power, it was
insufficient for the execution of such a project. His generals and
soldiers could not brook to see their commander assume the long flowing
robes of the eastern kings, surround himself with eunuchs, and renounce
the habits and manners of his native land. Though after his death some
of his successors persisted in the same system, they were compelled
greatly to mitigate it. Where the population consisted of a motley
compound of Greeks, Syrians, and Arabs, as in Egypt and the coast of
Asia Minor, a sort of compromise between the two civilizations became
thenceforth the normal state of the country; but where the races
remained unmixed, the national manners were preserved.
In the latter periods of the Roman empire, the two civilizations had
become completely blended in the whole East, including continental
Greece; but it was tinged more with the Asiatic than the Greek
tendencies, because the masses belonged much more to the former element
than to the latter. Hellenic forms, it is true, still subsisted, but it
is not difficult to discover in the ideas of those periods and countries
the Oriental stock upon which the scions of the Alexandrian school had
been engrafted. The respective influence of the various elements was in
strict proportion to the quantity of blood; the intellectual
preponderance belonged to that which had contributed the greatest share.
The same antagonism which I pointed out between the intellectual culture
of the Greeks and that of the Persians, will be found to result from the
contact of all other widely different civilizations. I shall mention but
one more instance: the relations between the Arab civilization[181] and
our own.
There was a time when the arts and sciences, the muses and their train,
seemed to have forsaken their former abodes, to rally around the
standard of Mohammed. That our forefathers were not blind to the
excellencies of the Arab civilization is proved by their sending their
sons to the schools of Cordova. But not a trace of the spirit of that
civilization has remained in Europe, save in those countries which still
retain a portion of Ishmaelitic blood. Nor has the Arab civilization
found a more congenial soil in India over which, also, its dominion
extended. Like those portions of Europe which were subjected to Moslem
masters, that country has preserved its own modes of thinking intact.
But if the pressure of the Arab civilization, at the time of its
greatest splendor and our greatest ignorance, could not affect the modes
of thinking of the races of Western Europe, neither can we, at present,
when the positions are reversed, affect in the slightest degree the
feeble remnants of that once so flourishing civilization. Our action
upon these remnants is continuous--the pressure of our intellectual
activity upon them immense; we succeed only in destroying, not in
transforming or remodelling.[182]
Yet this civilization was not even original, and might, therefore, be
supposed to have a less obstinate vitality. The Arab nation, it is well
known, based its empire and its intellectual culture upon fragments of
races which it had aggregated by the weight of the sword. A variegated
compound like the Islamitic populations, could not but develop a
civilization of an equally variegated character, to which each ethnical
element contributed its share. These elements it is not difficult to
determine and point out.
The nucleus, around which aggregated those countless multitudes, was a
small band of valiant warriors who unfurled in their native deserts the
standard of a new creed. They were not, before Mohammed's time, a new or
unknown people. They had frequently come in contact with the Jews and
Phenicians, and had in their veins the blood of both these nations.
Taking advantage of their favorable situation for commerce, they had
performed the carrier trade of the Red Sea, and the eastern coast of
Africa and India, for the most celebrated nations of ancient times, the
Jews and the Phenicians, later still, for the Romans and Persians. They
had the same traditions in common with the Shemitic and Hamitic families
from which they sprung.[183] They had even taken an active part in the
political life of neighboring nations. Under the Arsacides and the sons
of Sassan, some of their tribes exerted great influence in the politics
of the Persian empire. One of their adventurers[184] had become Emperor
of Rome; one of their princes protected the majesty of Rome against a
conqueror before whom the whole east trembled, and shared the imperial
purple with the Roman sovereign;[185] one of their cities had become,
under Zenobia, the centre and capital of a vast empire that rivalled and
even threatened Rome.[186]
It is evident, therefore, that the Arab nation had never ceased, from
the remotest antiquity, to entertain intimate relations with the most
powerful and celebrated ancient societies. It had taken part in their
political and intellectual[187] activity; and it might not
inappropriately be compared to a body half-plunged into the water, and
half exposed to the sun, as it partook at the same time of an advanced
state of civilization and of complete barbarism.
Mohammed invented the religion most conformable to the ideas of a
people, among whom idolatry had still many zealous adherents, but where
Christianity, though having made numerous converts, was losing favor on
account of the endless schisms and contentions of its followers.[188]
The religious dogma of the Koreishite prophet was a skilful compromise
between the various contending opinions. It reconciled the Jewish
dispensation with the New Law better than could the Church at that time,
and thus solved a problem which had disquieted the consciences of many
of the earlier Christians, and which, especially in the east, had given
rise to many heretical sects. This was in itself a very tempting bait,
and, besides, any theological novelty had decided chances of success
among the Syrians and Egyptians.[189] Moreover, the new religion
appeared with sword in hand, which in those times of schismatical
propagandism seemed a warrant of success more relied upon by the masses
to whom it addressed itself, than peaceful persuasion.
Thus arrayed, Islamism issued from its native deserts. Arrogant, and
possessed but in a very slight degree of the inventive faculty, it
developed no civilization peculiar to itself, but it had adopted, as far
as it was capable of doing, the bastard Greco-Asiatic civilization
already extant. As its triumphant banners progressed on the east and
south of the Mediterranean, it incorporated masses imbued with the same
tendencies and spirit. From each of these it borrowed something. As its
religious dogmas were a patchwork of the tenets of the Church, those of
the Synagogue, and of the disfigured traditions of Hedjaz and Yemen, so
its code of laws was a compound of the Persian and the Roman, its
science was Greco-Syrian[190] and Egyptian, its administration from the
beginning tolerant like that of every body politic that embraces many
heterogeneous elements.
It has caused much useless surprise, that Moslem society should have
made such rapid strides to refinement of manners. But the mass of the
people over whom its dominion extended, had merely changed the name of
their creed; they were old and well-known actors on the stage of
history, and have simply been mistaken for a new nation when they
undertook to play the part of apostles before the world. These people
gave to the common store their previous refinement and luxury; each new
addition to the standard of Islamism, contributed some portion of its
acquisitions. The vitalizing principle of the society, the motive power
of this cumbrous mass, was the small nucleus of Arab tribes that had
come forth from the heart of the peninsula. They furnished, not artists
and learned men, but fanatics, soldiers, victors, and masters.
The Arab civilization, then, is nothing but the Greco-Syrian
civilization, rejuvenated and quickened, for a time, with a new and
energetic, but short-lived, genius. It was, besides, a little renovated
and a little modified, by a slight dash of Persian civilization.
Yet, motley and incongruous as are the elements of which it is composed,
and capable of stretching and accommodating itself as such a compound
must be, it cannot adapt itself to any social structure erected by other
elements than its own. In other words, many as are the races that
contributed to its formation, it is suited to none that have _not_
contributed to it.
This is what the whole course of history teaches us. Every race has its
own modes of thinking; every race, capable of developing a civilization,
develops one peculiar to itself, and which it cannot engraft upon any
other, except by amalgamation of blood, and then in but a modified
degree. The European cannot win the Asiatic to his modes of thinking; he
cannot civilize the Australian, or the Negro; he can transmit but a
portion of his intelligence to his half-breed offspring of the inferior
race; the progeny of that half-breed and the nobler branch of his
ancestry, is but one degree nearer, but not equal to that branch in
capacity: the proportions of blood are strictly preserved. I have
adduced illustrations of this truth from the history of various branches
of the human family, of the lowest as well as of the higher in the scale
of intellectual progress. Are we not, then, authorized to conclude that
the diversity observable among them is constitutional, innate, and not
the result of accident or circumstances--that there is an absolute
inequality in their intellectual endowments?
FOOTNOTES:
[181] The word _Arab_ is here used instead of the more common, but less
correct, term _Saracen_, which was the general appellation bestowed on
the first propagators of the Islam by the Greeks and Latins. The Arab
civilization reached its culminating point about the reign of Harun al
Rashid. At that time, it comprised nearly all that remained of the arts
and sciences of former ages. The splendor and magnificence for which it
was distinguished, is even yet the theme of romancers and poets; and may
be discerned to this day in the voluptuous and gorgeous modes of life
among the higher classes in those countries where it still survives, as
well as in the remains of Arab architecture in Spain, the best preserved
and most beautiful of which is the well-known Alhambra. Though the Arab
civilization had a decidedly sensual tendency and character, it was not
without great benefits to mankind. From it our forefathers learned some
valuable secrets of agriculture, and the first lessons in horticulture.
The peach, the pear, the apricot, the finer varieties of apples and
plums, and nearly all of our most valued fruits were brought into
Western and Central Europe by the returning crusaders from the land of
the Saracens. Many valuable processes of manufacture, and especially of
the art of working metals, are derived from the same source. In the
science of medicine, the Arabs laid the foundation of that noble
structure we now admire. Though they were prevented by religious
scruples from dissecting the human body, and, therefore, remained in
ignorance of the most important facts of anatomy, they brought to light
innumerable secrets of the healing powers in the vegetable kingdom; they
first practised the art of distillation and of chemical analysis. They
were the beginners of the science of Chemistry, to which they gave its
name, and in which many of the commonest technical terms (such as
alkali, alembic, alcohol, and many others), still attest their labors.
In mathematical science they were no less industrious. To them we owe
that simple and useful method which so greatly facilitates the more
complex processes of calculation, without which, indeed, some of them
would be impossible, and which still retains its Arabic name--Algebra.
But what is more, to them we owe our system of notation, so vastly
superior to that of the Greeks and Romans, so admirable in its efficacy
and simplicity, that it has made arithmetic accessible to the humblest
understanding; at the present time, the whole Christian world uses
Arabic numerals.--H.
[182] It is supposed by many that Turkey will ultimately be won to our
civilization, and, as a proof of this, great stress is laid upon the
efforts of the present Sultan, as well as his predecessor, to
"Europeanize" the Turks. Whoever has carefully and unbiassedly studied
the present condition of that nation, knows how unsuccessful these
efforts, backed, though they were, by absolute authority, and by the
immense influence of the whole of Western Europe, have hitherto been and
always will be. It is a notorious fact, that the Turks fight less well
in their semi-European dress and with their European tactics, of which
so much was anticipated, than they did with their own. The Moslem now
regards the Christian with the same feelings that he did in the zenith
of his power, and these feelings are not the less bitter, because they
can no longer be so ostentatiously displayed.--H.
[183] The Arabs believed themselves the descendants of Ishmael, the son
of Hagar. This belief, even before Mohammed's time, had been curiously
blended with the idolatrous doctrines of some of their tribes.--H.
[184] _Philip_, an Arabian adventurer who was prefect of the prætorian
guards under the third Gordian, and who, through his boldness and
ability, succeeded that sovereign on the throne in A. D. 244.--H.
[185] _Odenathus_, senator of Palmyra, after Sapor, the King of Persia,
had taken prisoner the Emperor of Rome, and was devastating the empire,
met the ruthless conqueror with a body of Palmyrians, and several times
routed his much more numerous armies. Being the only one who could
protect the Eastern possessions of the Roman empire against the
aggressions of the Persians, he was appointed _Cæsar_, or coadjutor to
the emperor by Gallienus, the son of Valerian, the captive
sovereign.--H.
[186] The history of _Zenobia_, the Queen of the East, as she styled
herself, and one of the most interesting characters in history, is well
known. As in the preceding notes, I shall, therefore, merely draw
attention to familiar facts, with a view to refresh the reader's memory,
not to instruct him.
The famous Arabian queen was the widow of Odenathus, of Palmyra, who
bequeathed to her his dignity as _Cæsar_, or protector of the Eastern
dominions of Rome. It soon, however, became apparent that she disdained
to owe allegiance to the Roman emperors, and aimed at establishing a new
great empire for herself and her descendants. Though the most
accomplished, as well as the most beautiful woman of her time, she led
her armies in person, and was so eminently successful in her military
enterprises that she soon extended her dominion from the Euphrates to
the Nile. Palmyra thus became the centre and capital of a vast empire,
which, as Mr. Gobineau observes, rivalled and even threatened Rome
itself. She was, however, defeated by Aurelian, and, in A. D. 273,
graced the triumph of her conqueror on his return to Rome.
The former splendor of the now deserted Palmyra is attested by the
magnificent ruins which still form an inexhaustible theme for the
admiration of the traveller and antiquarian.--H.
[187] Though the mass of the nation were ignorant of letters, the Arabs
had already before Mohammed's times some famous writers. They had even
made voyages of discovery, in which they went as far as China. The
earliest, and, as modern researches have proved, the most truthful,
account of the manners and customs of that country is by Arab
writers.--H.
[188] At the time of the appearance of the false prophet, Arabia
contained within its bosom every then known religious sect. This was
owing not only to the central position of that country, but also to the
liberty which was then as now a prerogative of the Arab. Among them
every one was free to select or compose for himself his own private
religion. While the adjacent countries were shaken by the storms of
conquest and tyranny, the persecuted sects fled to the happy land where
they might profess what they thought, and practice what they professed.
A religious persecution had driven from Persia many who professed the
religion of the ancient Magi. The Jews also were early settlers in
Arabia. Seven centuries before the death of Mohammed they had firmly
established themselves there. The destruction of Jerusalem brought still
greater numbers of these industrious exiles, who at once erected
synagogues, and to protect the wealth they rapidly acquired, built and
garrisoned strongly fortified towns in various portions of the
wilderness. The Bible had at an early day been translated into the
Arabic tongue. Christian missionaries were not wanting, and their active
zeal was eminently successful. Several of the Arab tribes had become
converts. There were Christian churches in Yemen; the states of Hira and
Gassan were under the jurisdiction of Jacobite and Nestorian bishops.
The various heretical sects found shelter and safety among the
hospitable Arabs. But this very fact proved detrimental to the progress
of the Christian religion, and opened the path for the creed of
Mohammed. So many and various were the Christian sects that crowded
together in that country, and so widely departed from the true spirit of
Christianity were some of them, that bitter hostilities sprung up among
them, and their religion fell into contempt. The Eastern Christians of
the seventh century had insensibly relapsed into a semblance of
paganism, one of the sects (the Collyridian heretics) had even gone so
far as to invest the virgin Mary with the name and honors of a goddess.
This is what the author alludes to in saying that Christianity was
losing favor in Arabia at the time of the appearance of Mohammed.--H.
[189] The student of ecclesiastical history knows what a number of sects
had sprung up about that time to distress and harass the Church. It is
not so generally appreciated, however, that for the first hundred years,
the progress of Islamism was almost exclusively at the expense of
Christianity. The whole of the present Ottoman empire, and almost the
whole northern coast of Africa were previously Christian countries.
Whether the loss is greatly to be regretted, I know not, for the Syrians
and Egyptians, from being very indifferent Christians, became good
Mohammedans. These populations were to the Christian Church like a
cankered limb, the lopping off of which may have been ordained by an
all-wise Providence for the salvation of what was yet sound in the
body.--H.
[190] W. Von Humboldt. _Ueber die Karo-Sprache, Einleitung_,
p. 243. "Durch die Richtung auf diese Bildung und durch innere
Stammes-verwandschaft wurden sie wirklich für griechischen Geist und
griechische Sprache empfänglich, da die Araber vorzugsweise nur an den
wissenschaftlichen Resultaten griechischer Forschung hiengen."
CHAPTER XV.
MORAL AND INTELLECTUAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE THREE GREAT VARIETIES.
Impropriety of drawing general conclusions from individual
cases--Recapitulatory sketch of the leading features of the Negro,
the Yellow, and the White races--Superiority of the
latter--Conclusion of volume the first.
In the preceding pages, I have endeavored to show that, though there are
both scientific and religious reasons for not believing in a plurality
of origins of our species, the various branches of the human family are
distinguished by permanent and irradicable differences, both mentally
and physically. They are unequal in intellectual capacity,[191] in
personal beauty, and in physical strength. Again I repeat, that in
coming to this conclusion, I have totally eschewed the method which is,
unfortunately for the cause of science, too often resorted to by
ethnologists, and which, to say the least of it, is simply ridiculous.
The discussion has not rested upon the moral and intellectual worth of
isolated individuals.
With regard to moral worth, I have proved that all men, to whatever race
they may belong, are capable of receiving the lights of true religion,
and of sufficiently appreciating that blessing to work out their own
salvation. With regard to intellectual capacity, I emphatically protest
against that mode of arguing which consists in saying, "every negro is a
dunce;" because, by the same logic, I should be compelled to admit that
"every white man is intelligent;" and I shall take good care to commit
no such absurdity.
I shall not even wait for the vindicators of the absolute equality of
all races, to adduce to me such and such a passage in some missionary's
or navigator's journal, wherefrom it appears that some Yolof has become
a skilful carpenter, that some Hottentot has made an excellent domestic,
that some Caffre plays well on the violin, or that some Bambarra has
made very respectable progress in arithmetic.
I am prepared to admit--and to admit without proof--anything of that
sort, however remarkable, that may be related of the most degraded
savages. I have already denied the excessive stupidity, the incurable
idiotcy of even the lowest on the scale of humanity. Nay, I go further
than my opponents, and am not in the least disposed to doubt that, among
the chiefs of the rude negroes of Africa, there could be found a
considerable number of active and vigorous minds, greatly surpassing in
fertility of ideas and mental resources, the average of our peasantry,
and even of some of our middle classes. But the unfairness of deductions
based upon a comparison of the most intelligent blacks and the least
intelligent whites, must be obvious to every candid mind.
Once for all, such arguments seem to me unworthy of real science, and I
do not wish to place myself upon so narrow and unsafe a ground. If Mungo
Park, or the brothers Lander, have given to some negro a certificate of
superior intelligence, who will assure us that another traveller,
meeting the same individual, would not have arrived at a diametrically
opposite conclusion concerning him? Let us leave such puerilities, and
compare, not the individuals, but the masses. When we shall have
clearly established of what the latter are capable, by what tendencies
they are characterized, and by what limits their intellectual activity
and development are circumscribed, whether, since the beginning of the
historic epoch, they have acted upon, or been acted upon by other
groups--when we shall have clearly established these points, we may then
descend to details, and, perhaps, one day be able to decide why the
greatest minds of one group are inferior to the most brilliant geniuses
of another, in what respects the vulgar herds of all types assimilate,
and in what others they differ, and why. But this difficult and delicate
task cannot be accomplished until the relative position of the whole
mass of each race shall have been nicely, and, so to say, mathematically
defined. I do not know whether we may hope ever to arrive at results of
such incontestable clearness and precision, as to be able to no longer
trust solely to general facts, but to embrace the various shades of
intelligence in each group, to define and class the inferior strata of
every population and their influence on the activity of the whole. Were
it possible thus to divide each group into certain strata, and compare
these with the corresponding strata of every other: the most gifted of
the dominant with the most gifted of the dominated races, and so on
downwards, the superiority of some in capacity, energy, and activity
would be self-demonstrated.
After having mentioned the facts which prove the inequality of various
branches of the human family, and having laid down the method by which
that proof should be established, I arrived at the conclusion that the
whole of our species is divisible into three great groups, which I call
primary varieties, in order to distinguish them from others formed by
intermixture. It now remains for me to assign to each of these groups
the principal characteristics by which it is distinguished from the
others.
The dark races are the lowest on the scale. The shape of the pelvis has
a character of animalism, which is imprinted on the individuals of that
race ere their birth, and seems to portend their destiny. The circle of
intellectual development of that group is more contracted than that of
either of the two others.
If the negro's narrow and receding forehead seems to mark him as
inferior in reasoning capacity, other portions of his cranium as
decidedly point to faculties of an humbler, but not the less powerful
character. He has energies of a not despicable order, and which
sometimes display themselves with an intensity truly formidable. He is
capable of violent passions, and passionate attachments. Some of his
senses have an acuteness unknown to the other races: the sense of taste,
and that of smell, for instance.
But it is precisely this development of the animal faculties that stamps
the negro with the mark of inferiority to other races. I said that his
sense of taste was acute; it is by no means fastidious. Every sort of
food is welcome to his palate; none disgusts[192] him; there is no flesh
nor fowl too vile to find a place in his stomach. So it is with regard
to odor. His sense of smell might rather be called greedy than acute. He
easily accommodates himself to the most repulsive.
To these traits he joins a childish instability of humor. His feelings
are intense, but not enduring. His grief is as transitory as it is
poignant, and he rapidly passes from it to extreme gayety. He is seldom
vindictive--his anger is violent, but soon appeased. It might almost be
said that this variability of sentiments annihilates for him the
existence of both virtue and vice. The very ardency to which his
sensibilities are aroused, implies a speedy subsidence; the intensity of
his desire, a prompt gratification, easily forgotten. He does not cling
to life with the tenacity of the whites. But moderately careful of his
own, he easily sacrifices that of others, and kills, though not
absolutely bloodthirsty, without much provocation or subsequent
remorse.[193] Under intense suffering, he exhibits a moral cowardice
which readily seeks refuge in death, or in a sort of monstrous
impassivity.[194]
With regard to his moral capacities, it may be stated that he is
susceptible, in an eminent degree, of religious emotions; but unless
assisted by the light of the Gospel, his religious sentiments are of a
decidedly sensual character.
Having demonstrated the little intellectual and strongly sensual[195]
character of the black variety, as the type of which I have taken the
negro of Western Africa, I shall now proceed to examine the moral and
intellectual characteristics of the second in the scale--the yellow.
This seems to form a complete antithesis to the former. In them, the
skull, instead of being thrown backward, projects. The forehead is
large, often jutting out, and of respectable height. The facial
conformation is somewhat triangular, but neither chin nor nose has the
rude, animalish development that characterizes the negro. A tendency to
obesity is not precisely a specific feature, but it is more often met
with among the yellow races than among any others. In muscular vigor, in
intensity of feelings and desires, they are greatly inferior to the
black. They are supple and agile, but not strong. They have a decided
taste for sensual pleasures, but their sensuality is less violent, and,
if I may so call it, more vicious than the negro's, and less quickly
appeased. They place a somewhat greater value upon human life than the
negro does, but they are more cruel for the sake of cruelty. They are as
gluttonous as the negro, but more fastidious in their choice of viands,
as is proved by the immoderate attention bestowed on the culinary art
among the more civilized of these races. In other words, the yellow
races are less impulsive than the black. Their will is characterized by
obstinacy rather than energetic violence; their anger is vindictive
rather than clamorous; their cruelty more studied than passionate; their
sensuality more refinedly vicious than absorbing. They are, therefore,
seldom prone to extremes. In morals, as in intellect, they display a
mediocrity: they are given to grovelling vices rather than to dark
crimes; when virtuous, they are so oftener from a sense of practical
usefulness than from exalted sentiments. In regard to intellectual
capacity, they easily understand whatever is not very profound, nor very
sublime; they have a keen appreciation of the useful and practical, a
great love of quiet and order, and even a certain conception of a slight
modicum of personal or municipal liberty. The yellow races are practical
people in the narrowest sense of the word. They have little scope of
imagination, and therefore invent but little: for great inventions, even
the most exclusively utilitarian, require a high degree of the
imaginative faculty. But they easily understand and adopt whatever is of
practical utility. The _summum bonum_ of their desires and aspirations
is to pass smoothly and quietly through life.
It is apparent from this sketch, that they are superior to the blacks in
aptitude and intellectual capacity. A theorist who would form some
model society, might wish such a population to form the substratum upon
which to erect his structure; but a society, composed entirely of such
elements, would display neither great stamina nor capacity for anything
great and exalted.
We are now arrived at the third and last of the "primary" varieties--the
white. Among them we find great physical vigor and capacity of
endurance; an intensity of will and desire, but which is balanced and
governed by the intellectual faculties. Great things are undertaken, but
not blindly, not without a full appreciation of the obstacles to be
overcome, and with a systematic effort to overcome them. The utilitarian
tendency is strong, but is united with a powerful imaginative faculty,
which elevates, ennobles, idealizes it. Hence, the power of invention;
while the negro can merely imitate, the Chinese only utilize, to a
certain extent, the practical results attained by the white, the latter
is continually adding new ones to those already gained. His capacity for
combination of ideas leads him perpetually to construct new facts from
the fragments of the old; hurries him along through a series of
unceasing modifications and changes. He has as keen a sense of order as
the man of the yellow race, but not, like him, from love of repose and
inertia, but from a desire to protect and preserve his acquisitions. At
the same time, he has an ardent love of liberty, which is often carried
to an extreme; an instinctive aversion to the trammels of that rigidly
formalistic organization under which the Chinese vegetates with
luxurious ease; and he as indignantly rejects the haughty despotism
which alone proves a sufficient restraint for the black races.
The white man is also characterized by a singular love of life. Perhaps
it is because he knows better how to make use of it than other races,
that he attaches to it a greater value and spares it more both in
himself and in others. In the extreme of his cruelty, he is conscious of
his excesses; a sentiment which it may well be doubted whether it exist
among the blacks. Yet though he loves life better than other races, he
has discovered a number of reasons for sacrificing it or laying it down
without murmur. His valor, his bravery, are not brute, unthinking
passions, not the result of callousness or impassivity: they spring from
exalted, though often erroneous, sentiments, the principal of which is
expressed by the word "honor." This feeling, under a variety of names
and applications, has formed the mainspring of action of most of the
white races since the beginning of historical times. It accommodates
itself to every mode of existence, to every walk of life. It is as
puissant in the pulpit and at the martyr's stake, as on the field of
battle; in the most peaceful and humble pursuits of life as in the
highest and most stirring. It were impossible to define all the ideas
which this word comprises; they are better felt than expressed. But this
feeling--we might call it instinctive--is unknown to the yellow, and
unknown to the black races: while in the white it quickens every noble
sentiment--the sense of justice, liberty, patriotism, love, religion--it
has no name in the language, no place in the hearts, of other races.
This I consider as the principal reason of the superiority of our branch
of the human family over all others; because even in the lowest, the
most debased of our race, we generally find some spark of this redeeming
trait, and however misapplied it may often be, and certainly is, it
prevents us, even in our deepest errors, from falling so fearfully low
as the others. The extent of moral abasement in which we find so many of
the yellow and black races is absolutely impossible even to the very
refuse of our society. The latter may equal, nay, surpass them in crime;
but even they would shudder at that hideous abyss of corrosive vices,
which opens before the friend of humanity on a closer study of these
races.[196]
Before concluding this picture, I would add that the immense superiority
of the white races in all that regards the intellectual faculties, is
joined to an inferiority as strikingly marked, in the intensity of
sensations. Though his whole structure is more vigorous, the white man
is less gifted in regard to the perfection of the senses than either the
black or the yellow, and therefore less solicited and less absorbed by
animal gratifications.
* * * * *
I have now arrived at the historical portion of my subject. There I
shall place the truths enounced in this volume in a clearer light, and
furnish irrefragable proofs of the fact, which forms the basis of my
theory, that nations degenerate only in consequence and in proportion to
their admixture with an inferior race--that a society receives its
death-blow when, from the number of diverse ethnical elements which it
comprises, a number of diverse modes of thinking and interests contend
for predominance; when these modes of thinking, and these interests
have arisen in such multiplicity that every effort to harmonize them, to
make them subservient to some great purpose, is in vain; when,
therefore, the only natural ties that can bind large masses of men,
homogeneity of thoughts and feelings, are severed, the only solid
foundation of a social structure sapped and rotten.
To furnish the necessary details for this assertion, to remove the
possibility of even the slightest doubt, I shall take up separately,
every great and independent civilization that the world has seen
flourish. I shall trace its first beginnings, its subsequent stages of
development, its decadence and final decay. Here, then, is the proper
test of my theory; here we can see the laws that govern ethnical
relations in full force on a magnificent scale; we can verify their
inexorably uniform and rigorous application. The subject is immense, the
panorama spread before us the grandest and most imposing that the
philosopher can contemplate, for its tableaux comprise the scene of
action of every instance where man has really worked out his mission "to
have dominion over the earth."
The task is great--too great, perhaps, for any one's undertaking. Yet,
on a more careful investigation, many of the apparently insuperable
difficulties which discouraged the inquirer will vanish; in the
gorgeous succession of scenes that meet his glance, he will perceive a
uniformity, an intimate relation and connection which, like Ariadne's
thread, will enable the undaunted and persevering student to find his
way through the mazes of the labyrinth: we shall find that every
civilization owes its origin, its development, its splendors, to the
agency of the white races. In China and in India, in the vast continent
of the West, centuries ere Columbus found it--it was one of the group of
white races that gave the impetus, and, so long as it lasted, sustained
it. Startling as this assertion may appear to a great number of readers,
I hope to demonstrate its correctness by incontrovertible historical
testimony. Everywhere the white races have taken the initiative,
everywhere they have _brought_ civilization to the others--everywhere
they have sown the seed: the vigor and beauty of the plant depended on
whether the soil it found was congenial or not.
The migrations of the white race, therefore, afford us at once a guide
for our historical researches, and a clue to many apparently
inexplicable mysteries: we shall learn to understand why, in a vast
country, the development of civilization has come to a stand, and been
superseded by a retrogressive movement; why, in another, all but feeble
traces of a high state of culture has vanished without apparent cause;
why people, the lowest in the scale of intellect, are yet found in
possession of arts and mechanical processes that would do honor to a
highly intellectual race.
Among the group of white races, the noblest, the most highly gifted in
intellect and personal beauty, the most active in the cause of
civilization, is the Arian[197] race. Its history is intimately
associated with almost every effort on the part of man to develop his
moral and intellectual powers.
It now remains for me to trace out the field of inquiry into which I
propose to enter in the succeeding volumes. The list of great,
independent civilizations is not long. Among all the innumerable nations
that "strutted their brief hour on the stage" of the world, ten only
have arrived at the state of complete societies, giving birth to
distinct modes of intellectual culture. All the others were imitators or
dependents; like planets they revolved around, and derived their light
from the suns of the systems to which they belonged. At the head of my
list I would place:--
1. The Indian civilization. It spread among the islands of the Indian
Ocean, towards the north, beyond the Himalaya Mountains, and towards the
east, beyond the Brahmapootra. It was originated by a white race of the
Arian stock.
2. The Egyptian civilization comes next. As its satellites may be
mentioned the less perfect civilizations of the Ethiopians, Nubians, and
several other small peoples west of the oasis of Ammon. An Arian colony
from India, settled in the upper part of the Nile valley, had
established this society.
3. The Assyrians, around whom rallied the Jews, Phenicians, Lydians,
Carthaginians, and Hymiarites, were indebted for their social
intelligence to the repeated invasions of white populations. The
Zoroastrian Iranians, who flourished in Further Asia, under the names of
Medes, Persians, and Bactrians, were all branches of the Arian family.
4. The Greeks belonged to the same stock, but were modified by Shemitic
elements, which, in course of time, totally transformed their character.
5. China presents the precise counterpart of Egypt. The light of
civilization was carried thither by Arian colonies. The substratum of
the social structure was composed of elements of the yellow race, but
the white civilizers received reinforcements of their blood at various
times.
6. The ancient civilization of the Italian peninsula (the Etruscan
civilization), was developed by a mosaic of populations of the Celtic,
Iberian, and Shemitic stock, but cemented by Arian elements. From it
emerged the civilization of Rome.
7. Our civilization is indebted for its tone and character to the
Germanic conquerors of the fifth century. They were a branch of the
Arian family.
8, 9, 10. Under these heads I class the three civilizations of the
western continent, the Alleghanian, the Mexican, and the Peruvians.
This is the field I have marked out for my investigations, the results
of which will be laid before the reader in the succeeding volumes. The
first part of my work is here at an end--the vestibule of the structure
I wish to erect is completed.
FOOTNOTES:
[191] I do not hesitate to consider as an unmistakable mark of
intellectual inferiority, the exaggerated development of instincts that
characterizes certain savages. The perfection which some of their senses
acquire, cannot but be at the expense of the reasoning faculties. See,
upon this subject, the opinions of Mr. Lesson des Papous, in a memoir
inserted in the tenth volume of the _Annales des Sciences Naturelles_.
[192] "The negro's sense of smell and of taste is as powerful as it is
unselecting. He eats everything, and I have good reasons for asserting,
that odors the most disagreeable to us, are positively pleasant to him."
(Pruner, _Op. cit._, vol. i. p. 133.)
Mr. Pruner's assertions would, I think, be corroborated by every one who
has lived much among the negroes. It is a notorious fact that the blacks
on our southern plantations eat every animal they can lay hold of. I
have seen them discuss a piece of fox, or the still more strongly
flavored pole-cat, with evident relish. Nay, on one occasion, I have
known a party of negroes feast on an alligator for a whole week, during
which time they bartered their allowance of meat for trinkets. Upon my
expressing surprise at so strange a repast, I was assured that it was by
no means uncommon; that it was a favorite viand of the negroes in their
native country, and that even here they often killed them with the
prospect of a savory roast or stew. I am aware that some persons north
of the Mason's & Dixon's line might be disposed to explain this by
asserting that _hunger_ drove them to such extremities; but I can
testify, from my own observation, that this is not the case. In the
instances I have mentioned, and in many others which are too repulsive
to be committed to paper, the banqueters were well fed, and evidently
made such a feast from choice. There are, in the Southern States, many
of the poor white population who are neither so well clothed nor so well
fed as these negroes were, and yet I never heard of their resorting to
such dishes.
In regard to the negro's fondness for odors, I am less qualified to
speak from my own observations, but nearly every description of the
manners of his native climes that I have read, mentioned the fact of
their besmearing themselves with the strong musky fluid secreted by many
animals--the alligator, for instance. And I remember having heard
woodsmen in the South say, that while the white man shuns the polecat
more than he does the rattlesnake, and will make a considerable circuit
to get out of its way, the negro is but little afraid of this formidable
animal and its nauseous weapon.--H.
[193] This is illustrated by many of their practices in their natural
state. For instance, the well-known custom of putting to death, at the
demise of some prince or great man, a number--corresponding with the
rank of the deceased--of his slaves, in order that they may wait upon
him in the other world. Hundreds of poor creatures are often thus
massacred at the funeral celebrations in honor of some king or ruler.
Yet it would be unjust to call the negro ferocious or cruel. It merely
proves the slight estimation in which he holds human life.--H.
[194] There is a callousness in the negro, which strikingly
distinguishes him from the whites, though it is possessed in perhaps an
equal degree by other races. I borrow from Mr. Van Amringe's _Nat. Hist.
of Man_, a few remarks on this subject by Dr. Mosely, in his _Treatise
on Tropical Diseases_: "Negroes," says the Doctor, "whatever the cause
may be, are devoid of sensibility (physical) to a surprising degree.
They are not subject to nervous diseases. They sleep sound in every
disease, nor does any mental disturbance ever keep them awake. They bear
chirurgical operations much better than white people, and what would be
the cause of insupportable pain to a white man, a negro would almost
disregard. I have amputated the legs of many negroes, who have held the
upper part of the limb themselves." Every southern planter, and every
physician of experience in the South, could bear witness to these
facts.--H.
[195] Thinking that it might not be uninteresting to some of our readers
to see the views concerning the negro of another European writer besides
Mr. Gobineau, I subjoin the following extract from Mr. Tschudi's
_Travels in South America_. Mr. Tschudi is a Swiss naturalist of
undoubted reputation, an experienced philosophic observer, and a candid
seeker for truth. His opinion is somewhat harsher than would be that of
a man who had resided among that class all his life, but it nevertheless
contains some valuable truths, and is, at least, curious on account of
the source whence it comes.
"In Lima, and, indeed, throughout the whole of Peru, the free negroes
are a plague to society. Too indolent to support themselves by laborious
industry, they readily fall into any dishonest means of getting money.
Almost all the robbers that infest the roads on the coast of Peru are
free negroes. Dishonesty seems to be a part of their very nature; and,
moreover, all their tastes and inclinations are coarse and sensual. Many
warm defenders excuse these qualities by ascribing them to the want of
education, the recollection of slavery, the spirit of revenge, etc. But
I here speak of free-born negroes, who are admitted into the houses of
wealthy families, who, from their early childhood, have received as good
an education as falls to the share of many of the white Creoles--who are
treated with kindness and liberally remunerated, and yet they do not
differ from their half-savage brethren who are shut out from these
advantages. If the negro has learned to read and write, and has thereby
made some little advance in education, he is transformed into a
conceited coxcomb, who, instead of plundering travellers on the highway,
finds in city life a sphere for the indulgence of his evil
propensities.... My opinion is, that the negroes, in respect to
capability for mental improvement, are far behind the Europeans; and
that, considered in the aggregate, they will not, even with the
advantages of careful education, attain a very high degree of
cultivation. This is apparent from the structure of the skull, on which
depends the development of the brain, and which, in the negro,
approximates closely to the animal form. The imitative faculty of the
monkey is highly developed in the negro, who readily seizes anything
merely mechanical, whilst things demanding intelligence are beyond his
reach. Sensuality is the impulse which controls the thoughts, the acts,
the whole existence of the negroes. To them, freedom can be only
nominal, for if they conduct themselves well, it is because they are
compelled, not because they are inclined to do so. Herein lie at once
the cause of, and the apology for, their bad character." (_Travels in
Peru_, London, 1848, p. 110, _et passim_.)--H.
[196] The sickening moral degradation of some of the branches of our
species is well known to the student of anthropology, though, for
obvious reasons, details of this kind cannot find a place in books
destined for the general reader.--H.
[197] As many of the terms of modern ethnography have not yet found
their way into the dictionaries, I shall offer a short explanation of
the meaning of this word, for the benefit of those readers who have not
paid particular attention to that science.
The word "Arian" is derived from _Aryas_ or ~Arioi~, respectively
the indigenous and the Greek designation of the ancient Medes, and is
applied to a race, or rather a family of races, whose original
ethnological area is not as yet accurately defined, but who have
gradually spread from the centre of Asia to the mouth of the Ganges, to
the British Isles, and the northern extremities of Scandinavia. To
this family of races belong, among others, the ancient Medes and
Persians, the white conquerors of India (now forming the caste of the
Brahmins), _and the Germanic races_. The whole group is often called
Indo-European. The affinities between the Greek and the German languages
had long been an interesting question to philologists; but Schlegel, I
believe, was the first to discover the intimate relations between these
two and the Sanscrit, and he applied to the whole three, and their
collateral branches, the name of _Indo-Germanic_ languages. The
discovery attracted the attention both of philologists and
ethnographers, and it is now indubitably proved that the civilizers of
India, and the subverters of the Roman Empire are descended from the
same ethnical stock. It is known that the Sanscrit is as unlike all
other Indian languages, as the high-caste Brahmins are unlike the
Pariahs and all the other aboriginal races of that country; and Latham
has lately come to the conclusion that it has actually been _carried to
India from Europe_. It will be seen from this that Mr. Gobineau, in his
view of the origin of various civilizations, is supported in at least
several of the most important instances.
It is a familiar saying that _civilization travels westward_: if we
believe ethnologists, the Arian races have _always migrated in that
direction_--from Central Asia to India, to Asia Minor, to Egypt, to
Greece, to Western Europe, to the western coasts of the Atlantic, and
the same impulse of migration is now carrying them to the Pacific.--H.
APPENDIX.
BY J. C. NOTT, M. D.,
MOBILE, ALABAMA.
APPENDIX.
I have seldom perused a work which has afforded me so much pleasure and
instruction as the one of Count Gobineau, "_Sur l'Inégalité des Races
Humaines_," and regard most of his conclusions as incontrovertible.
There are, however, a few points in his argument which should not be
passed without comment, and others not sufficiently elaborated. My
original intention was to say much, but, fortunately for me, my
colleague, Mr. Hotz, has so fully and ably anticipated me, in his
Introduction and Notes, as to leave me little of importance to add.
The essay of Count Gobineau is eminently practical and useful in its
design. He views the various races of men rather as a historian than a
naturalist, and while he leaves open the long mooted question of _unity_
of origin, he so fully establishes the _permanency_ of the actual moral,
intellectual, and physical diversities of races as to leave no ground
for antagonists to stand upon. Whatever _remote causes_ may be assigned,
there is no appeal from the conclusion that white, black, Mongol, and
other races were fully developed in nations some 3000 years before
Christ, and that no physical causes, during this long course of time,
have been in operation, to change one type of man into another. Count
Gobineau, therefore, accepts the _existing_ diversity of races as at
least an _accomplished fact_, and draws lessons of wisdom from the plain
teachings of history. Man with him ceases to be an abstraction; each
race, each nation, is made a separate study, and a fertile but
unexplored field is opened to our view.
Our author leans strongly towards a belief in the _original diversity_
of races, but has evidently been much embarrassed in arriving at
conclusions by religious scruples and by the want of accurate knowledge
in that part of natural history which treats of the designation of
_species_, and the laws of _hybridity_; he has been taught to believe
that two distinct species cannot produce perfectly prolific offspring,
and therefore concludes that all races of men _must_ be of one origin,
because they are prolific _inter se_. My appendix will therefore be
devoted mainly to this question of species.
A.
Our author has taken the facts of Dr. Morton at second hand, and,
moreover, had not before him Dr. Morton's later tables and more matured
deductions; I shall therefore give an abstract of his results as
published by himself in 1849, with some comments of my own. The figures
represent the internal capacity of the skull in cubic inches, and were
obtained by filling the cavity with shot and afterwards pouring them
into an accurately graduated measure.
It must be admitted that the collection of Morton is not sufficiently
full in all its departments to enable us to arrive at the absolute
capacity of crania in the different races; but it is sufficiently
complete to establish beyond cavil, the fact that the crania of the
white are much larger than those of the dark races. His table is very
incomplete in Mongol, Malays, and some others; but in the white races of
Europe, the black races, and the American, the results are substantially
correct. I have myself had ample opportunities for examining the heads
of living negroes and Indians of America, as well as a considerable
number of crania, and can fully indorse Dr. Morton's results. It will be
seen that his skulls of American aborigines amount to 338.
_Table, showing the Size of the Brain in Cubic Inches, as obtained by
the Measurement of 623 Crania of various Races and Families of Man._
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
| No. of | Largest | Smallest | |
RACES AND FAMILIES. | skulls.| internal | internal | Mean.| Mean.
| | capacity.| capacity.| |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
MODERN CAUCASIAN GROUP. | | | | |
TEUTONIC FAMILY | | | | |
Germans | 18 | 114 | 70 | 90 }
English | 5 | 105 | 91 | 96 } 92
Anglo-Americans | 7 | 97 | 82 | 90 }
PELASGIC FAMILY | | | | |
Persians } | | | |
Armenians } 10 | 94 | 75 | 84 |
Circassians } | | | |
CELTIC FAMILY | | | | |
Native Irish | 6 | 97 | 78 | 87 |
INDOSTANIC FAMILY | | | | |
Bengalees, &c. | 32 | 91 | 67 | 80 |
SHEMITIC FAMILY | | | | |
Arabs | 3 | 98 | 84 | 89 |
NILOTIC FAMILY | | | | |
Fellahs | 17 | 96 | 66 | 80 |
| | | | |
ANCIENT CAUCASIAN GROUP.| | | | |
PELASGIC FAMILY | | | | |
Greco-Egyptians | 18 | 97 | 74 | 88 |
(from Catacombs) | | | | |
NILOTIC FAMILY | | | | |
Egyptians | 55 | 96 | 68 | 80 |
(from Catacombs) | | | | |
| | | | |
MONGOLIAN GROUP. | | | | |
CHINESE FAMILY | 6 | 91 | 70 | 82 |
| | | | |
MALAY GROUP. | | | | |
MALAYAN FAMILY | 20 | 97 | 68 | 86 }
POLYNESIAN FAMILY | 8 | 84 | 82 | 83 } 85
| | | | |
AMERICAN GROUP. | | | | |
TOLTECAN FAMILY | | | | |
Peruvians | 155 | 101 | 58 | 75 }
Mexicans | 22 | 92 | 67 | 79 }
BARBAROUS TRIBES | | | | }
Iroquois } | | | } 79
Lenapè } | | | }
Cherokee } 161 | 104 | 70 | 84 }
Shoshonè, &c. } | | | |
| | | | |
NEGRO GROUP. | | | | |
NATIVE AFRICAN FAMILY | 62 | 99 | 65 | 83 }
AMERICAN-BORN NEGROES | 12 | 89 | 73 | 82 } 83
HOTTENTOT FAMILY | 3 | 83 | 68 | 75 |
ALFOREAN FAMILY | | | | |
Australians | 8 | 83 | 63 | 75 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Morton's mind, it will be seen by this table, had not yet freed
itself from the incubus of artificial and unnatural classifications.
Like Tiedemann and others, he has grouped together races which have not
the slightest affinity in physical, moral, or linguistic characters. In
the _Caucasian_ group, for example, are placed the Teutonic, Indostanic,
Shemitic, and Nilotic families, each of which, it can be shown, has
existed utterly distinct for 5000 years, not to mention many
subdivisions.
The table of Dr. Morton affords some curious results. His ancient
Pelasgic heads and those of the modern white races, give the same size
of brain, viz: 88 cubic inches; and his ancient Egyptians and their
modern representatives, the Fellahs, yield the same mean, 80 cubic
inches; the difference between the two groups being 8 cubic inches.
These facts have a strong bearing on the question of _permanence_ of
types. The small-headed Hindoos present the same cranial capacity as the
Egyptians, and though these races have each been the repository of early
civilization, it is a question whether either was the originator of
civilization. The Egyptian race, from the earliest monumental dawn,
exhibits Shemitic adulteration; and Latham proves that the Sanscrit
language was not indigenous to India, but was carried there from
Northern Europe in early ages by conquerors.
Again, in the negro group, while it is absolutely shown that certain
African races, whether born in Africa, or of the tenth descent in
America, give a cranial capacity almost identical, 83 cubic inches; we
see, on the contrary, the Hottentot and Australian yielding a mean of
but 75 inches, thereby showing a like difference of eight cubic inches.
In the American group, also, the same parallel holds good. The Toltecan
family, the most civilized race, exhibit a mean of but 77 inches, while
the barbarous tribes give 84, that is, a difference of 7 inches in favor
of the savage. While, however, the Toltecans have the smaller heads,
they are, according to Combe, much more developed in the anterior or
_intellectual_ lobes, which may serve to explain this apparent paradox.
When we compare the highest and lowest races with each other, the
contrast becomes still more striking, viz: the Teutonic with the
Hottentot and Australian. The former family gives a mean capacity of 92
inches, while the latter two yield but 75, or a difference of _17 cubic
inches_ between the skulls of these types!
Now, as far back as history and monuments carry us, as well as crania
and other testimonies, these various types have been _permanent_; and
most of them we can trace back several thousand years. If such
permanence of type through thousands of years, and in defiance of all
climatic influences, does not establish _specific_ characters, then is
the naturalist at sea without a compass to guide him.
These facts determine clearly the arbitrary nature of all
classifications heretofore adopted; the Teuton, the Jew, the Hindoo,
the Egyptian, &c., have all been included under the term _Caucasian_;
and yet they have, as far as we know, been through all time as distinct
in physical and moral characters from each other, as they have from the
negro races of Africa and Oceanica. The same diversity of types is found
among all the other groups, or arbitrary divisions of the human family.
Rich and rare as is the collection of Dr. Morton, it is very defective
in many of its divisions, and it occurred to me that this deficiency
might to some degree be supplied by the hat manufacturers of various
nations; notwithstanding that the information derived from this source
could give but one measurement, viz: the _horizontal periphery_. Yet
this one measurement alone, on an extended scale, would go far towards
determining the general size of the brain. I accordingly applied to
three hat dealers in Mobile, and a large manufacturer in New Jersey, for
statements of the relative number of hats of each size sold to adult
males; their tables agree so perfectly as to leave no doubt as to the
circumference of the heads of the white population of the United States.
The three houses together dispose of about 15,000 hats annually.
The following table was obligingly sent me by Messrs. Vail & Yates, of
Newark; and they accompanied it with the remark, that their hats were
sent principally to our Western States, where there is a large
proportion of German population; also that the sizes of these hats were
a little larger (about one fourth of an inch) than those sold in the
Southern States. This remark was confirmed by the three dealers in
Mobile. Our table gives, 1st. The number or size of the hat. 2d. The
circumference of the head corresponding. 3d. The circumference of the
hat; and lastly, the relative proportion of each No. sold out of 12
hats.
Size--inches. Circum. Circum. Relative
of head. of hat. prop. in 12.
6-7/8 21-5/8 22-3/8 1
7 22 22-3/4 2
7-1/8 22-3/8 23-1/8 3
7-1/4 22-3/4 23-1/2 3
7-3/8 23-1/8 23-7/8 2
7-1/2 23-1/2 24-1/4 1
All hats larger than these are called "extra sizes."
The average size, then, of the crania of white races in the United
States, is about 22-1/2 inches circumference, including the hair and
scalp, for which about 1-1/2 inches should be deducted, leaving a mean
horizontal periphery, for adult males, of 21 inches. The measurements of
the purest Teutonic races in Germany and other countries, would give a
larger mean; and I have reason to believe that the population of France,
which is principally Celtic, would yield a smaller mean. I hope that
others will extend these observations.
Dr. Morton's measurements of aboriginal American races, give a mean of
but 19-1/2 inches; and this statement is greatly strengthened by the
fact that the Mexicans and other Indian races wear much smaller hats
than our white races. (See _Types of Mankind_, p. 289 and 453.)
Prof. Tiedemann, of Heidelberg, asserts that the head of the negro is as
large as that of the white man, but this we have shown to be an error.
(_Types of Mankind_, p. 453.)
Tiedemann adopted the vulgar error of grouping together under the term
_Caucasian_, all the Indo-Germanic, Shemitic, and Nilotic races; also
all the black and dark races of Africa under the term _Negro_. Now I
have shown that the Hindoo and Egyptian races possess about 12 cubic
inches less of brain than the Teutonic; and the Hottentots about 8
inches less than the Negro proper. I affirm that no valid reason has
ever been assigned why the Teuton and Hindoo, or Hottentot and Negro,
should be classed together in their cranial measurements. I can discover
no facts which can assign a greater age to one of these races than
another; and unless Professor Tiedemann can overcome these difficulties,
he has no right to assume identity for the various races he is pleased
to group under each of his arbitrary divisions. Mummies from the
catacombs, and portraits on the monuments, show that the heads of races
on both sides of the Red Sea have remained unchanged 4000 years.
As Dr. Morton tabulated his skulls on the same arbitrary basis, I
abandon his arrangement and present his facts as they stand in nature,
allowing the reader to compare and judge for himself. The following
table gives the _internal capacity_ in cubic inches, and it will be
seen that the measurements arrange themselves in a sliding scale of 17
cubic inches from the Teuton down to the Hottentot and Australian.
_Internal Capacity of Brain in Cubic Inches._
RACES. Internal Internal
capacity. capacity.
Mean. Mean.
MODERN WHITE RACES--
Teutonic group 92 92
Pelasgic " 84 }
Celtic " 87 } 88
Shemitic " 89 }
ANCIENT PELASGIC 88
MALAYS 85 } 83-1/2
CHINESE 82 }
NEGROES (AFRICAN) 83 83
INDOSTANESE 80 }
FELLAHS (modern Egyptians) 80 } 80
EGYPTIANS (ancient) 80 }
AMERICAN GROUP--
Toltecan family 77 } 79
Barbarous tribes 84 }
HOTTENTOTS 75 } 75
AUSTRALIANS 75 }
Such has been, through several thousand years, the incessant commingling
of races, that we are free to admit that absolute accuracy in
measurements of crania cannot now be attained. Yet so constant are the
results in contrasting groups, that no unprejudiced mind can deny that
there is a wide and well-marked disparity in the cranial developments of
races.
B.
As the discussion stands at the present day, we may assume that the
scientific world is pretty equally divided on the question of unity of
the human family, and the point is to be settled by facts, and not by
names. Natural history is a comparatively new and still rapidly
progressing science, and the study of man has been one of the last
departments to attract serious attention. Blumenbach and Prichard, who
may be regarded among the early explorers in this vast field, have but
recently been numbered with the dead; and we may safely assert that the
last ten years have brought forth materials which have shed an entirely
new light on this subject.
Mr. Agassiz, Dr. Morton, Prof. Leidy, and many other naturalists of the
United States, contend for an original diversity in the races of men,
and we shall proceed to give some of the reasons why we have adopted
similar views. Two of the latest writers of any note on the opposite
side are the Rev. Dr. Bachman, of Charleston, and M. Flourens, of Paris;
and as these gentlemen have very fully travelled over the argument
opposed to us, we shall take the liberty, in the course of our remarks,
to offer some objections to their views.
The great difficulty in this discussion is, to define clearly what
meaning should be attached to the term _species_; and to the
illustration of this point, mainly, will our labors be confined.
_Genera_ are, for the most part, well defined by _anatomical_
characters, and little dispute exists respecting them; but no successful
attempt has yet been made to designate _species_ in this way, and it is
by their _permanency of type alone_, as ascertained from written or
monumental records, that our decision can be guided.
SPECIES.
The following definitions of species have been selected by Dr. Bachman,
and may be received as unexceptionable as any others; but we shall show
that they fall far short of the true difficulties of the case.
"We are under the necessity of admitting the existence of certain
forms, which have perpetuated themselves, from the beginning of
the world, without exceeding the limits prescribed: all the
individuals belonging to one of these forms constitute a
_species_."--CUVIER.
"We unite under the designation species all those individuals who
mutually bear to each other so close a resemblance as to allow of
our supposing that they may have proceeded originally from a
single being, or a single pair."--DE CANDOLLE.
"The name species is applied to an assemblage of individuals which
bear a strong resemblance to each other, and which are perpetuated
with the same essential qualities. Thus man, the dog, the horse,
constitute to the zoologist so many distinct species."--MILNE
EDWARDS and ACHILLE COMPTE.
We have no objection to this definition, but the examples cited are
points in dispute, and not received by many of the leading naturalists
of the day.
"Species are fixed and permanent forms of being, exhibiting
indeed certain modes of variation, of which they may be more or
less susceptible, but maintaining throughout those modifications
a sameness of structural essentials, transmitted from generation
to generation, and never lost by the influence of causes which
otherwise produce obvious effects. _Varieties_ are either
accidental or the result of the care and culture of
man."[198]--MARTIN.
Dr. Bachman gives another, substantially the same, from Agassiz; and
also one of his own, to which he appends, as an additional test of
species, the production of "_fertile offspring by association_." In this
definition the doctor _assumes_ one of the main points in dispute.
"_Varieties_," says Dr. Bachman, "are those that are produced
within the limits of particular species, and have not existed
from its origin. They sometimes originate in wild species,
especially those that have a wide geographical range, and are
thus exposed to change of climate and temperature," &c. * * *
"_Permanent varieties_ are such as, having once taken place, are
propagated in perpetuity, and do not change their characteristics
unless they breed with other varieties."
We may remark that the existence of such _permanent varieties_ as here
described is also in dispute.
The same author continues:--
"On comparing these definitions, as given by various naturalists,
each in his own language, it will be perceived that there is no
essential difference in the various views expressed in regard to
the characters by which a species is designated. They all regard
it as 'the lowest term to which we descend, with the exception of
_varieties_, such as are seen in domestic animals.' They are, to
examine the external and internal organization of the animal or
plant--they are, to compare it with kindred species, and if by
this examination they are found to possess _permanent characters
differing from those of other species, it proves itself to be a
distinct species_. When this fact is satisfactorily ascertained,
and the specimen is not found a domestic species, in which
varieties always occur, presumptive evidence is afforded of its
having had a primordial existence. We infer this from the fact
that no species is the production of blind chance, and that
within the _knowledge of history_ no true species, but
_varieties_ only, whose origin can be _distinctly traced to
existing and well-known species_, have made their appearance in
the world. This, then, is the only means within the knowledge of
man by which any species of plant or animal _can be shown_ to be
primordial. The peculiar form and characters designated the
species, and its origin was a necessary inference derived from
the characters stamped on it by the hand of the Creator."
To all the positions thus far taken by Dr. Bachman, we most cheerfully
subscribe; they are strictly scientific, and by such criteria alone do
we desire to test the unity of the human family; but we must enter a
decided demurrer to the assertion which follows, viz: that, "according
to the universally received definition of species, all the individuals
of the human race are proved to be of one species." When it shall be
shown that all the races of men, dogs, horses, cattle, wolves, foxes,
&c., are "varieties only, _whose origin can be distinctly traced to
existing and well-known species_," we may then yield the point; but we
must be permitted to say that Dr. Bachman is the only naturalist, as far
as we know, who has assumed to know these original types.
Now, if the reader will turn back and review carefully all the
definitions of species cited, he will perceive that they are not based
upon _anatomical characters_, but simply on the _permanency_ of certain
organic forms, and that this permanence of form is determined by its
_history_ alone.
Professor Owen, of London, has thrown the weight of his great name into
the scale, and tells us that "man is the sole species of his genus, the
sole representative of his order." But proving that man is not a monkey,
as the professor has done in the lecture alluded to, does not prove that
men are all of _one_ species, according to any definition yet received:
he has made the assertion, but has assigned no scientific reasons to
sustain it. No one would be more rejoiced than ourselves, to see the
great talent and learning of Professor Owen brought fully to bear on
this point; but, like most naturalists, he has overlooked one of the
most important points in this discussion--_the monumental history of
man_.
Will Professor Owen or Dr. Bachman tell us wherein the lion and
tiger--the dog, wolf, fox, and jackal--the fossil horse, and living
species--the Siberian mammoth and the Indian elephant, differ more from
each other than the white man and the negro? Are not all these regarded
by naturalists as distinct species, and yet who pretends to be able to
distinguish the skeleton of one from the other by specific characters?
The examples just cited, of living species, have been decided upon
simply from their permanency of type, as derived from their history; and
we say that, by the same process of reasoning, the races of men
depicted on the monuments of Egypt, five thousand years ago, and which
have maintained their types through all time and all climates since, are
_distinct species_.
Dr. Morton defines species--"a primordial organic form," and determines
these forms by their permanence through all human records; and Mr.
Agassiz, who adopts this definition, adds: "Species are thus distinct
forms of organic life, the origin of which is lost in the primitive
establishment of the state of things now existing; and varieties are
such modification of the species as may return to the typical form under
temporary influences."
Dr. Bachman objects very strongly to this definition, and declares it a
"cunning device, and, to all intents, an _ex post facto_ law," suddenly
conjured up during a controversy, to avoid the difficulties of the case;
but we have serious doubts whether these gentlemen are capable of such
subterfuge in matters of science, and confess that we cannot see any
substantial difference between their definition and those given by Dr.
Bachman. Morton and Agassiz determine a form to be "_primordial_" by its
permanency, as proved by history, and the other definitions assign no
other test.
Professor Leidy, who has not only studied the "lower departments of
zoology," like Mr. Agassiz, but also the "higher forms of animal life,"
says that "too much importance has been attached to the term species,"
and gives the following definition: "A species of plant or animal may be
defined to be an immutable organic form, whose characteristic
distinctions may always be recognized by _a study of its history_."[199]
M. Jourdain, under the head "Espèce," in his _Dictionnaire des Termes
des Sciences Naturelles_, after citing a long list of definitions from
leading authors, concludes with the following remarks, which, as the
question now stands before the world, places the term species just where
it should be:--
"It is evident that we can, among organized bodies, regard as a
_species_ only such a collection of beings as resemble each other
more than they resemble others, and which, by a consent more or
less unanimous, it is agreed to designate by a common name; for a
_species_ is but a simple _abstraction of the mind_, and not a
group, exactly determined by nature herself, as ancient as she
is, and of which she has irrevocably traced the limits. It is in
the definition of species that we recognize how far the influence
of ideas adopted without examination in youth is powerful in
obscuring the most simple ideas of general physics."
Although not written with the expectation of publication, I will take
the liberty of publishing the following private letter just received
from Prof. Leidy. He has not appeared at all in this controversy before
the public, and we may safely say that no one can be better qualified
than he is to express an opinion on this question of species.
"With all the contention about the question of what constitutes a
_species_, there appears to be almost no difficulty,
comparatively, in its practical recognition. Species of plants
and animals are daily determined, and the characters which are
given to distinguish them are viewed by the great body of
naturalists as sufficient. All the definitions, however, which
have been given for a species, are objectionable. Morton says: 'A
species is a primordial organic form.' But how shall we
distinguish the latter? How can it be proved that any existing
forms primordially were distinct? In my attempted definition, I
think, I fail, for I only direct how species are discovered.
"According to the practical determination of a species by
naturalists, in a late number of the _Proceedings_ of our Academy
(vol. vii. p. 201), I observe: 'A species is a mere convenient
word with which naturalists empirically designate groups of
organized beings possessing characters of comparative constancy,
as far as historic experience has guided them in giving due weight
to such constancy.'
"According to this definition, the races of men are evidently
distinct species. But it may be said that the definition is given
to suit the circumstances. So it is, and so it should be; or, if
not, then all characterized species should conform to an arbitrary
definition. The species of gypætus, haliætus, tanagra, and of many
other genera of birds, are no more distinguishable than the
species of men; and, I repeat, the anatomy of one species of
haliætus, or of any other genus, will answer for that of all the
other species of the same genus. The same is the case with
mammals. One species of felis, ursus, or equus will give the exact
anatomy of all the other species in each genus, just as you may
study the anatomy of the white man upon the black man. While Prof.
Richard Owen will compare the orang with man, and therefore deduce
all races of the latter to be of one species, he divides the genus
cervus into several other genera, and yet there is no difference
in their internal anatomy; while he considers the horse and the
ass as two distinct genera, and says that a certain fossil
horse-tooth, carefully compared with the corresponding tooth of
the recent horse, showed no differences, excepting in being a
little more curved, he considers it a distinct species, under the
name of equus curvidens; and yet, with differences of greater
value in the jaws of the negro and white man, he considers them
the same.
"In the restricted genera of vertebrata of modern naturalists, the
specific characters are founded on the external appendages, for
the most part--differences in the scales, horns, antlers,
feathers, hairs, or bills. Just as you separate the black and
white man by the difference in the color of the skin and the
character of the hair, so do we separate the species of bears, or
cats, &c.
"PHILADELPHIA, _April 18, 1855_."
We might thus go on and multiply, to the extent of an octavo volume,
evidence to show how vague and unsettled is the term species among
naturalists, and that, when we abandon historical records, we have no
reliable guide left. Moreover, were we able to establish perfectly
reliable landmarks between species, we still have no means of
determining whether they were originally created in one pair, or many
pairs. The latter is certainly the most rational supposition: there is
every reason to believe that the earth and the sea brought forth
"_abundantly_" of each species.
It must be clear to the reader, from the evidence above adduced, that
Dr. Bachman claims far too much when he asserts that--
"Naturalists can be found, in Europe and America, who, without
any _vain boast_, can distinguish every species of bird and
quadruped on their separate continents; and the characters which
distinguish and separate the several species are as distinct and
infallible as are those which form the genera."[200]
And, again, when he says:--
"From the opportunities we have enjoyed in the examination of the
varieties and species of domesticated quadrupeds and birds, we
have never found any difficulty in deciding on the species to
which these varieties belong."
Those of us who are still groping in darkness certainly have a right to
ask who are the authorities alluded to, and what are those "characters
which distinguish and separate species" as distinctly and infallibly as
"genera?" They are certainly not in print.
The doctor must pardon us for reminding him that there is printed
evidence that his own mind is not always free from doubts. In the
introduction of Audubon and Bachman's _Quadrupeds of America_, p. vii.,
it is said:--
"Although _genera_ may be easily ascertained by the forms and
dental arrangements peculiar to each, many _species_ so nearly
approach each other in size, while they are so variable in color,
that it is exceedingly difficult to separate them with positive
certainty."
Again, in speaking of the genus _vulpes_ (foxes), the same work says:--
"The characters of this genus differ so slightly from those of
the genus _canis_, that we are induced to pause before removing
it from the sub-genus in which it had so long remained. As a
general rule, we are obliged to _admit that a large fox is a
wolf, and a small wolf may be termed a fox_. So inconveniently
large, however, is the list of species in the old genus _canis_,
that it is, we think, advisable to separate into distinct groups
such species as possess any characters different from true
wolves."
Speaking of the origin of the domestic dog, Dr. Bachman, in his work on
_Unity of Races_, p. 63, says:--
"Notwithstanding all these difficulties--and we confess we are
not free from some doubts in regard to their identity (dog and
wolf)--if we were called upon to decide on any wild species as
the progenitor of our dogs, we would sooner fix upon the large
wolf than on any other dog, hyena, or jackal," &c.
The doctor is unable, here at least (and we can point out many other
cases), to "designate species;" and the recent investigations of
Flourens, at the _Jardin des Plantes_, prove him wrong as regards the
origin of the dog. The dog is not derived from the "large wolf," but,
with it, produces hybrids, sterile after the third generation. The dog
forms a genus apart.
We repeat, then, that in a large number of _genera_, the species cannot
be separated by any anatomical characters, and that it is from their
history alone naturalists have arrived at those minute divisions now
generally received. We may, without the fear of contradiction, go a step
further, and assert that several of the races of men are as widely
separated in physical organization, physiological and psychological
characters, as are the canidæ, equidæ, felines, elephants, bears and
others. When the white races of Europe, the Mongols of Asia, the
aborigines of America, the black races of Africa and Oceanica are placed
beside each other, they are marked by stronger differences than are the
species of the genera above named. It has been objected that these gaps
are filled by intermediate links which make the chain complete from one
extremity to the other. The admission of the fact does not invalidate
our position, for we have shown elsewhere (see _Types of Mankind_)
_gradation_ is the law of nature. The extreme types, we have proven,
have been distinct for more than 5000 years, and no existing causes
during that time have transformed one type into another. The well-marked
negro type, for example, stands face to face with the white type on the
monuments of Egypt; and they differ more from each other than the dog
and wolf, ass and _Equis Hemionus_, lion and tiger, &c. The hair and
skin, the size and shape of head, the pelvis, the extremities, and other
points, separate certain African and Oceanican negroes more widely than
the above species. This will not be questioned, whatever difference of
opinion may exist with regard to the permanency of these forms. In the
language of Prof. Leidy, "the question to be determined is, whether the
differences in the races of men are as permanent and of as much value as
those which characterize species in the lower genera of animals." These
races of men too are governed by the same laws of geographical
distribution, as the species of the lower genera; they are found, as far
back as history can trace them, as widely separated as possible, and
surrounded by local Floræ and Faunæ.
VARIETIES.
This term is very conveniently introduced to explain all the
difficulties which embarrass this discussion. Dr. Bachman insists that
all the races of men are mere _varieties_, and sustains the opinion by a
repetition of those analogies which have been so often drawn from the
animal kingdom by Prichard and his school. It is well known that those
animals which have been domesticated undergo, in a few generations, very
remarkable changes in color, form, size, habits, &c. For example, all
the hogs, black, white, brown, gray, spotted, &c., now found scattered
over the earth, have, it is said, their parentage in one pair of wild
hogs. "This being admitted," says Dr. B. "we invite the advocates of
plurality in the human species to show wherein these varieties are less
striking than their eight (alluding to Agassiz) originally created
nations." Again--
"And how has the discovery been made that all the permanent races
are mere varieties, and not 'originally created' species, or
'primitive varieties?' Simply because the naturalists of Germany,
finding that the original wild hog still exists in their forests,
have, in a thousand instances, reclaimed them from the woods. By
this means they have discovered that their descendants, _after a
few generations_, lose their ferocity, assume all colors," &c.
The same reasoning is applied to horses, cattle, goats, sheep, &c.,
while many, if not most of the best naturalists of the day deny that we
know anything of the origin of our domestic animals. Geoffroy St.
Hilaire, in his work, just out, denies it in toto. We are, however, for
the sake of argument, willing to admit all the examples, and all he
claims with regard to the origin of endless varieties in domesticated
animals.[201]
Let us, on the other hand, "invite the advocates of _unity_ of the human
species" to say when and where such varieties have sprung up in the
human family. We not only have the written history of man for 2000
years, but his monumental history for 2000 more; and yet, while the
naturalists of Germany are catching wild hogs, and recording in a
thousand instances "after a few generations" these wonderful changes, no
one has yet pointed out anything analogous in the human family; the
porcupine family in England, a few spotted Mexicans, &c., do not meet
the case; history records the origin of no permanent variety. No race of
men has in the same country turned black, brown, gray, white, and
spotted. The negroes in America have not in ten generations turned to
all colors, though fully _domesticated_, like pigs and turkeys. The
Jews in all countries for 2000 years are still Jews. The gypsies are
everywhere still gypsies. In India, the different castes, of different
colors, have been living together several thousand years, and are still
distinct, &c. &c.
Nor does domestication affect all animals and fowls equally; compare the
camel, ass, and deer, with the hog and dog; the Guinea fowl, pea fowl,
and goose, with pigeons, turkeys, and common fowls. In fact, no one
animal can be taken as an analogue for another: each has its own
physiological laws; each is influenced differently and in different
degrees by the same external influences. How, then, can an animal be
taken as an analogue for man?
We have also abundant authority to show that all wild species do not
present the same uniformity in external characters.
"All packs of American wolves usually consist of various shades
of color, and varieties nearly black have been occasionally found
in every part of the United States.... In a gang of wolves which
existed in Colleton District, South Carolina, a few years ago
(sixteen of which were killed by hunters in eighteen months), we
were informed that about one-fifth were black, and the others of
every shade of color, from black to dusky gray and yellowish
white."--AUDUBON & BACHMAN, 2d Amer. ed., vol. ii. pp. 130-1.
Speaking of the white American wolf, the same authors say:--
"Their gait and movements are precisely the same as those of the
common dog, and their mode of copulating and number of young
brought forth at a litter, are about the same." (It might have
been added that their number of bones, teeth, whole anatomical
structure are the same.) "The diversity of their size and color
is remarkable, no two being quite alike."... "The wolves of the
prairies ... produce from six to eleven at a birth, of which
there are very seldom two alike in color."--_Op. cit._, p. 159.
"The common American wolf, Richardson observes, sometimes shows
remarkable diversity of color. On the banks of the Mackenzie River
I saw five young wolves leaping and tumbling over each other with
all the playfulness of the puppies of the domestic dog, and it is
not improbable they were all of one litter. One of them was pied,
another black, and the rest showed the colors of the common gray
wolves."
The same diversity is seen in the prairie wolf, and naturalists have
been much embarrassed in classifying the various wolves on account of
colors, size, &c.
All this is independent of _domestication_, and shows the uncertainty of
analogues; and still it is remarkable that though considerable variety
exists in the native dogs of America in color and size, they do not run
into the thousand grotesque forms seen on the old continent, where a
much greater mixture exists. The dogs of America, like the aboriginal
races of men, are comparatively uniform. In the East, where various
races have come together, the men, like the dogs, present endless
varieties, Egypt, Assyria, India, &c.
Let us suppose that one variety of hog had been discovered in Africa,
one in Asia, one in Europe, one in Australia, another in America, as
well marked as those Dr. B. describes; that these varieties had been
transferred to other climates as have been Jews, gypsies, negroes, &c.,
and had remained for ages without change of form or color, would they be
considered as distinct species or not?--can any one doubt? The rule must
work both ways, or the argument falls to the ground.
In fact the Dr. himself makes admissions which fully refute his whole
theory.
"Whilst," says he, "we are willing to allow some weight to the
argument advanced by President Smyth, who endeavors to account
for the varieties in man from the combined influences of three
causes, 'climate, the state of society, and manner of living,' we
are free to admit that it is impossible to account for the
varieties in the human family from the causes which he has
assigned."[202]
The Dr. further admits, in the same work, that the races have been
_permanent_ since the time of the old Egyptian empire, and _supposes_
that at some extremely remote time, of which we have no record, that
"they were more susceptible of producing varieties than at a later
period." These suppositions answer a very good purpose in theology, but
do not meet the requirements of science.
HYBRIDITY.
Having shown the insufficiency of all the other arguments in
establishing the landmarks of _species_, let us now turn to those based
on _hybridity_, which seems to be the last stronghold of the unity
party. On this point hang all the difficulties of M. Gobineau, and had
he been posted up to date here, his doubts would all have vanished. The
last twelve months have added some very important facts to those
previously published, and we shall, with as little detail as possible,
present the subject in its newest light.
It is contended that when two animals of distinct species, or, in other
words, of distinct origin, are bred together, they produce a hybrid
which is _infertile_, or which at least becomes sterile in a few
generations if preserved free from admixture with the parent stocks. It
is assumed that unlimited prolificness is a certain test of community of
origin.
We, on the contrary, contend that there is no abrupt line of
demarcation; that no complete laws of hybridity have yet been
established; that there is a _regular gradation_ in the prolificness of
the species, and that, according to the best lights we now possess,
there is a continued series from perfect sterility to perfect
prolificacy. The degrees may be expressed in the following language:--
1. That in which hybrids never reproduce; in other words, where the
mixed progeny begins and ends with the first cross.
2. That in which the hybrids are incapable of producing _inter se_, but
multiply by union with the parent stock.
3. That in which animals of unquestionably distinct species produce a
progeny which are prolific _inter se_, but have a tendency to run out.
4. That which takes place between closely proximate species; among
mankind, for example, and among those domestic animals most essential to
human wants and happiness; here the prolificacy is unlimited.
It seems to be a law that in those genera where several or many species
exist, there is a certain gradation which is shown in degrees of
hybridity; some having greater affinity than others. Experiments are
still wanting to make our knowledge perfect, but we know enough to
establish our points.
There are many points we have not space to dwell on, as the relative
influence of the male and female on the offspring; the tendency of one
species to predominate over another; the tendency of types to "crop out"
after lying dormant for many generations; the fact that in certain
species some of the progeny take after one parent and some after the
other, while in other cases the offspring presents a medium type, &c.
The genus _Equus_ (Horse) comprises six species, of which three belong
to Asia, and three to Africa. The Asiatic species are the _Equus
Caballus_ (Horse), _Equus Hemionus_ (Dzigguetai), and _Equus Asinus_
(Ass). Those of Africa are the _Equus Zebra_ (Zebra), _Equus Montanus_
(Daw), and the _Equus Quaccha_ (Quagga). The horse and ass alone have
been submitted to domestication from time immemorial; the others have
remained wild.
It is well known that the horse and ass produce together an unprolific
mule, and as these two species are the furthest removed from each other
in their physical structure, Dr. Morton long since suggested that
intermediate species bred together would show a higher degree of
prolificness, and this prediction has been vindicated by experiments
recently made in the Garden of Plants at Paris, where the ass and
dzigguetai have been bred together for the last ten years. "What is very
remarkable, these hybrids differ considerably from each other; some
resemble much more closely the dzigguetai, others the ass." In regard to
the product of the male dzigguetai and the jenny, Mr. Geoffroy St.
Hilaire says:[203]--
"Another fact, not less worthy of interest, is the fecundity, if
not of all the mules, at least the firstborn among them; with
regard to this, the fact is certain; he has produced several
times with Jennies, and once with the female dzigguetai, the only
one he has covered."[204]
At a meeting of the "Société Zoologique d'Acclimation,"
M. Richard (du Cantal) "parle des essais de croisements de
l'hémione avec l'anesse, et dit qu'ils ont donnè un mulet
beaucoup _plus ardent_ que l'âne. Il asserte que les produits de
l'hémione avec l'âne, sont féconds, et que le métis, nommé Polka,
à déja produit."
To what extent the prolificness of these two species will go is yet to
be determined, and there is an unexplored field still open among the
other species of this genus; it is highly probable that a gradation may
be established from sterility, up to perfect prolificacy.
Not only do the female ass and the male onager breed together, but a
male offspring of this cross, with a mare, produces an animal more
docile than either parent, and combining the best physical qualities,
such as strength, speed, &c.; whence the ancients preferred the onager
to the ass, for the production of mules.[205] Mr. Gliddon, who lived
upwards of twenty years in Egypt and other eastern countries, informs me
this opinion is still prevalent in Egypt, and is acted upon more
particularly in Arabia, Persia, &c., where the _gour_, or wild ass,
still roams the desert. The zebra has also been several times crossed
with the horse.
The genus _canis_ contains a great many species, as domestic dogs,
wolves, foxes, jackals, &c., and much discussion exists as to which are
really species and which mere varieties. In this genus experiments in
crossing have been carried a step further than in the _Equidæ_, but
there is much yet to be done. All the species produce prolific
offspring, but how far the prolificness might extend in each instance is
not known; there is reason to believe that every grade would be found
except that of absolute sterility which is seen in the offspring of the
horse and ass.
The following facts are given by M. Flourens, and are the result of his
own observations at the _Jardin des Plantes_.
"The hybrids of the dog and wolf are sterile after the _third_
generation; those of the jackal and dog, are so after the
_fourth_.
"Moreover, if one of these hybrids is bred with one of the
primitive species, they soon return, completely and totally, to
this species.
"My experiments on the crossing of species have given me
opportunities of making a great many observations of this kind.
"The union of the dog and jackal produces a hybrid--a mixed
animal, an animal partaking almost equally of the two, but in
which, however, the type of the _jackal_ predominates over that of
the _dog_.
"I have remarked, in fact, in my experiments, that all types are
not equally dominant and persistent. The type of the dog is more
persistent than that of the wolf--that of the jackal more than
that of the dog; that of the horse is less than that of the ass,
&c. The hybrid of the dog and the wolf partakes more of the dog
than the wolf; the hybrid of the jackal and dog, takes more after
the jackal than dog; the hybrid of the horse and the ass partakes
less of the horse than the ass; it has the ears, back, rump, voice
of the ass; the horse neighs, the ass brays, and the mule brays
like the ass, &c.
"The hybrid of the dog and jackal, then, partakes more of the
jackal than dog--it has straight ears, hanging tail, does not
bark, and is wild--it is more jackal than dog.
"So much for the FIRST cross product of the dog with the jackal. I
continue to unite, from generation to generation, the successive
products with one of the two primitive stocks--with that of the
dog, for example. The hybrid of the _second generation_ does not
yet bark, but has already the ears pendent at the ends, and is
less savage. The hybrid of the third generation barks, has the
ears pendent, the tail turned up, and is no longer wild. The
hybrid of the _fourth generation_ is entirely a dog.
"Four generations, then, have sufficed to re-establish one of the
two primitive types--the type of the dog; and four generations
suffice, also, to bring back the other type."[206]
From the foregoing facts, M. Flourens deduces, without assigning a
reason, the following _non sequitur_:--
"Thus, then, either hybrids, born of the union of two distinct
species, unite and soon become sterile, or they unite with one of
the parent stocks, and soon return to this type--they in no case
give what may be called a new species, that is to say, an
intermediate durable species."[207]
The dog also produces hybrids with the fox and hyena, but to what extent
has not yet been determined. The hybrid fox is certainly prolific for
several generations.
There are also bovine, camelline, caprine, ovine, feline, deer with the
ram, and endless other hybrids, running through the animal kingdom, but
they are but repetitions of the above facts, and experiments are still
far from being complete in establishing the _degrees_ which attach to
each two species. We have abundant proofs, however, of the three first
degrees of hybridity. 1st. Where the hybrid is infertile. 2d. Where it
produces with the parent stock. 3d. Where it is prolific for one, two,
three, or four generations, and then becomes sterile. Up to this point
there is no diversity of opinion. Let us now inquire what evidence there
is of the existence of the 4th degree, in which hybrids may form a new
and permanent race.
To show how slow has been our progress in this question, and what
difficulties beset our path, we need only state that the facts
respecting the dog, wolf, and jackal, quoted above from Flourens, have
only been published within the last twelve months. The identity of the
dog and wolf has heretofore been undetermined, and the _degrees_ of
hybridity of the dog with the wolf and jackal were before unknown. These
experiments do not extend beyond one species of wolf.
M. Flourens says:--
"_Les espèces ne s'altèrent point, ne changent point, ne passent
point de l'une à l'autre; les espèces sont_ FIXÉS."
"If species have a tendency to transformation, to pass one into
another, why has not time, which, in everything, effects all that
can happen, ended by disclosing, by betraying, by implying this
tendency.
"But time, they may tell me, is wanting. It is not wanting. It is
2000 years since Aristotle wrote, and we recognize in our day all
the animals which he describes; and we recognize them by the
characters which he assigns.... Cuvier states that the history of
the elephant is more exact in Aristotle than in Buffon. They bring
us every day from Egypt, the remains of animals which lived there
two or three thousand years ago--the ox, crocodiles, ibis, &c.
&c., which are the same as those of the present day. We have under
our eyes _human mummies_--the skeleton of that day is identical
with that of the Egyptian of our day."
(M. Flourens might have added that the mummies of the white and black
races show them to have been as distinct then as now, and that the
monumental drawings represent the different races more than a thousand
years further back.)
"Thus, then, through three thousand years, no species has
changed. An experiment which continues through three thousand
years, is not an experiment to be made--it is an experiment
_made_. Species do not change."[208]
_Permanence of type_, then, is the only test which he can adduce for the
designation of species, and he here comes back plainly to the position
we have taken. Let us now test the races of men by this rule. The white
Asiatic races, the Jew, the Arab, the Egyptian, the negro, at least, are
distinctly figured on the monuments of Egypt and Assyria, as distinct as
they are now, and _time_ and change of climate have not transformed any
one type into another. In whatever unexplored regions of the earth the
earliest voyagers have gone, they have found races equally well marked.
These races are all prolific _inter se_, and there is every reason to
believe that we here find the fourth and last degree of hybridity.
Whether the prolificacy is _unlimited_ between all the races or species
of men is still an unsettled point, and experiments have not yet been
fully and fairly made to determine the question. The dog and wolf become
sterile at the _third_. The dog and jackal at the fourth generation,
and who can tell whether the law of hybridity might not show itself in
man, after a longer succession of generations. There are no observations
yet of this kind in the human family. It is a common belief in our
Southern States, that mulattoes are less prolific, and attain a less
longevity than the parent stocks. I am convinced of the truth of this
remark, when applied to the mulatto from the strictly white and black
races, and I am equally convinced, from long personal observation, that
the _dark_-skinned European races, as Spaniards, Portuguese, Italians,
Basques, &c., mingle much more perfectly with the negroes than do fair
races, thus carrying out the law of gradation in hybridity. If the
mulattoes of New Orleans and Mobile be compared with those of the
Atlantic States, the fact will become apparent.
The argument in favor of unlimited prolificacy between species may be
strongly corroborated by an appeal to the history of our domestic
animals, whose history is involved in the same impenetrable mystery as
that of man. M. Geoffroy St. Hilaire very justly remarks that we know
nothing of the origin of our domestic animals; because we find wild
hogs, goats, sheep, &c., in certain parts of Europe, several thousand
years subsequent to the early migrations of man, this does not prove
that the domestic come from these wild ones. The reverse may be the
case.[209]
We have already made some general observations on the _genus canis_,
whose natural history is most closely allied to that of man. Let us now
inquire whether the domestic dog is but one species, or whether under
this head have been included many proximate species of unlimited
prolificacy. If we try the question by _permanency of type_, like the
races of men, and all well-marked species, the doubt must be yielded.
There are strong reasons given by Dr. Morton and other naturalists, for
supposing that our common dogs, independent of mixtures of _their_
various races, may also have an infusion of the blood of foxes, wolves,
jackals, and even the hyena; thus forming, as we see every day around
us, _curs_ of every possible grade; but setting aside all this, we have
abundant evidence to show that each zoological province has its original
dog, and, perhaps, not unfrequently several.
In one chapter on hybridity in the "_Types of Mankind_," it is shown
that our Indian dogs in America present several well-marked types,
unlike any in the Old World, and which are indigenous to the soil. For
example, the Esquimaux dog, the Hare Indian dog, the North American dog,
and several others. We have not space here to enter fully into the
facts, but they will be found at length in the work above mentioned.
These dogs, too, are clearly traced to wild species of this continent.
In other parts of the world we find other species equally well marked,
but we shall content ourselves with the facts drawn from the ancient
monuments of Egypt. It is no longer a matter of dispute that as far
back, at least, as the twelfth dynasty, about 2300 years before Christ,
we find the common small dog of Egypt, the greyhound, the staghound, the
turnspit, and several other types which do not correspond with any dogs
that can now be identified.[210] We find, also, the mastiff admirably
portrayed on the monuments of Babylon, which dog was first brought from
the East to Greece by Alexander the Great, 300 years B. C. The museums
of natural history, also, everywhere abound in the remains of _fossil_
dogs, which long antedate all living species.
The wolf, jackal, and hyena are also found distinctly drawn on the early
monuments of Egypt, and a greyhound, exactly like the English greyhound,
with semi-pendent ears, is seen on a statue in the Vatican, at Rome. It
is clear, then, that the leading types of dogs of the present day (and
probably all) existed more than four thousand years ago, and it is
equally certain that the type of a dog, when kept pure, will endure in
opposite climates for ages. Our staghounds, greyhounds, mastiffs,
turnspits, pointers, terriers, &c., are bred for centuries, not only in
Egypt and Europe without losing their types, but in any climate which
does not destroy them. No one denies that climate influences these
animals greatly, but the greyhound, staghound, or bulldog can never be
transformed into each other.
The facts above stated cannot be questioned, and it is admitted that
these species are all prolific without limit _inter se_.
The llama affords another strong argument in favor of the fourth degree
of hybridity. Cuvier admits but two species--the llama (_camelus
llacma_), of which he regards the _alpaca_ as a variety, and the vigogne
(_camelus vicunna_). More recent naturalists regard the alpaca as a
distinct species, among whom is M. Geoffroy St. Hilaire.[211] At all
events, it seems settled that they _all_ breed together without limit.
"A son tour, après la vigogne, viendra bientôt l'alpavigogne,
fruit du croisement de l'alpaca avec la vigogne. Don Francisco de
Theran, il ya quarante ans, et M. de Castelnau, avaient annoncé
déjà que ce métis est fécond, et qu'il porte une laine presque
aussi longue que celle de l'alpaca, presque aussi fine que celle
de la vigogne.... M. Weddell a mis tout récemment l'Académie des
Sciences à même de voir et d'admirer cette admirable toison. Il a
confirmé en même temps un fait que n'avait trouvé que des
incrédules parmi les naturalists--la fécondité de
l'alpaca-vigogne: l'abbé Cabrera, curé de la petite ville de
Macusani, a obtenu une race qui se perpétue et dont il possède
déjà tout un troupeau. C'est, donc, pour ainsi dire, une
nouvelle espèce créée par l'homme; et si paradoxal qu' ait pu
sembler ce résultat, il est, fort heureusement pour l'industrie,
_définitivement acquis à la science_.
"Ce résultat n'aurait rien de paradoxal, si l'alpaca n'était,
comme l'ont pensé plusieurs auteurs, qu'une race domestique et
três modifiée de la vigogne. Cette objection contre le pretendu
principe de l'infécondite des mulets ne serait d'ailleurs levée
que pour faire place à une autre; _l'alpa-llama_ serait alors un
mulet, issu de deux espèces distincts, et l'alpa-llama est fécond
comme l'alpa-vigogne."[212]
We have recently seen exhibited in Mobile a beautiful hybrid of the
alpaca and common sheep, and the owner informed us that he had a flock
at home, which breed perfectly.
Dr. Bachman confesses that he has not examined the drawings given in the
works of Lepsius, Champollion, Rossellini, and other Egyptologists, of
various animals represented on the monuments, and ridicules the idea of
their being received as authority in matters of natural history.
Although many of the drawings are rudely done, most of them, in outline,
are beautifully executed, and Dr. B. is the first, so far as we know, to
call the fact in question. Dr. Chas. Pickering is received by Dr. B. as
high authority in scientific matters--he has not only examined these
drawings, but their originals. Lepsius, Champollion, Rossellini,
Wilkinson, and all the Egyptologists, have borne witness to the
reliability of these drawings, and have enumerated hundreds of animals
and plants which are perfectly identified.
Martin, the author of the work on "_Man and Monkeys_," is certainly good
authority. He says:--
"Now we have in modern Egypt and Arabia, and also in Persia,
varieties of greyhound closely resembling those of the ancient
remains of art, and it would appear that two or three varieties
exist--one smooth, another long haired, and another smooth with
long-haired ears, resembling those of the spaniel. In Persia, the
greyhound, to judge from specimens we have seen, is silk-haired,
with a fringed tail. They are of a black color; but a fine breed,
we are informed, is of a slate or ash color, as are some of the
smooth-haired greyhounds depicted in the Egyptian paintings. In
Arabia, a large, rough, powerful race exists; and about Akaba,
according to Laborde, a breed of slender form, fleet, with a long
tail, very hairy, in the form of a brush, with the ears erect and
pointed, closely resembling, in fact, many of those figured by
the ancient Egyptians."[213]
He goes on to quote Col. Sykes, and others, for other varieties of
greyhound in the east, unlike any in Europe.
Dr. Pickering, after enumerating various objects identified on the
monuments of the third and fourth dynasties, as Nubians, white races,
the ostrich, ibis, jackal, antelope, hedgehog, goose, fowls, ducks,
bullock, donkey, goats, dog-faced ape, hyena, porcupine, wolves, foxes,
&c. &c., when he comes down to the twelfth dynasty, says:--
"The paintings on the walls represent a vast variety of subjects;
including, most unexpectedly, the greater part of the _arts_ and
_trades_ practised among civilized nations at the present day;
also birds, quadrupeds, fishes, and insects, amounting to an
_extended treatise on zoology_, well deserving the attention of
naturalists. The date accompanying these representations has
been astronomically determined by Biot, at about B. C. 2200
(Champollion-Figeac, _Egyp. Arc._); and Lepsius's chronological
computation corresponds."[214]
Dr. P. gives us a fauna and flora of Egypt, running further back than
Usher's date for the creation, and it cannot be doubted that the
drawings are as reliable as those in any modern work on natural history.
FOOTNOTES:
[198] Natural History of Man and Monkeys.
[199] Fauna and Flora within Living Animals, p. 9.
[200] Doctrine of the Unity of the Human Race, p. 10.
[201] We are told that the pigs in one department of France are all
black, in another, all white, and local causes are assigned! When I was
a boy, my father introduced what was then called the China hog into the
Union District, South Carolina; they were black, with white faces. On a
visit to that district about twelve years ago, I found the whole country
for 40 miles covered with them. On a visit one year ago, I found they
had been supplanted entirely by other breeds of different colors: the
old familiar type had disappeared.
[202] _Op. cit._, p. 177.
[203] _Domestication et Naturalization des Animaux utiles_, par M.
Isadore Geoffroy St. Hilaire, p. 71, Paris, 1854.
[204] Ibid.
[205] Columbia, p. 135.
[206] _De la Longevité Humaine_, &c., par P. Flourens, Paris, 1855.
[207] M. Flourens here, perhaps, speaks too positively. The blood of the
apparently lost species will show itself from time to time for many, if
not endless generations.
[208] _Op. cit._
[209] _Op. cit._, p. 122.
[210] It has been objected, that the drawings cannot be relied on, as
some of these types are no longer to be found. But there are several
well-marked types of domestic animals on the old monuments that no
longer exist, because they have been supplanted by better breeds. In
this country several varieties of the Indian dogs are rapidly
disappearing for the same reason. The llama must give place, in the same
way, to the cow and the horse. Many other instances may be cited.
[211] _Op. cit._, p. 29. 1854.
[212] _Op. cit._, p. 101.
[213] _Op. cit._, p. 53.
[214] _Geographical Dist._, p. 17.
This work, I believe, is not yet issued, but Dr. Pickering has kindly
sent me the first 150 pages, as printed.
C.
Mr. Gobineau remarks (p. 367), that he has very serious doubts as to the
unity of origin. "These doubts, however," he continues, "I am compelled
to repress, because they are in contradiction to a scientific fact,
which I cannot refute--the prolificness of half-breeds; and secondly,
what is of much greater weight with me, they impugn a religious
interpretation sanctioned by the church."
With regard to the prolificness of half-breeds, I have already mentioned
such facts as might have served to dispel the learned writer's doubts,
had he been acquainted with them. In reference to the other, more
serious, obstacle to his admission of the plurality of origins, he
himself intimates (p. 339) that the authority of this interpretation
might, perhaps, be questioned without transgressing the limits imposed
by the church. Believing this view to be correct, I shall venture on a
few remarks upon this last scruple of the author, which is shared by
many investigators of this interesting subject.
"The strict rule of scientific scrutiny," says the most learned
and formidable opponent in the adversary's camp,[215] "exacts,
according to modern philosophers, in matters of inductive
reasoning, an exclusive homage. It requires that we should close
our eyes against all presumptive and exterior evidence, and
_abstract our minds from all considerations not derived from the
matters of fact which bear immediately on the question_. The
maxim we have to follow in such controversies is 'fiat justitia,
ruat coelum.' _In fact, what is actually true, it is always
desirous to know, whatever consequences may arise from its
admission._"
To this sentiment I cheerfully subscribe: it has always been my maxim.
Yet I find it necessary, in treating of this subject, to touch on its
_biblical_ connections, for although we have great reason to rejoice at
the improved tone of toleration, or even liberality which prevails in
this country, the day has not come when science can be severed from
theology, and the student of nature can calmly follow her truths, no
matter whither they may lead. What a mortifying picture do we behold in
the histories of astronomy, geology, chronology, cosmogony, geographical
distribution of animals, &c.; they have been compelled to fight their
way, step by step, through human passion and prejudice, from their
supposed contradiction to Holy Writ. But science has been
vindicated--their great truths have been established, and the Bible
stands as firmly as it did before. The last great struggle between
science and theology is the one we are now engaged in--the _natural
history of man_--it has now, for the first time, a fair hearing before
Christendom, and all any question should ask is "_daylight and fair
play_."
The Bible should not be regarded as a text-book of natural history. On
the contrary, it must be admitted that none of the writers of the Old or
New Testament give the slightest evidence of knowledge in any department
of science beyond that of their profane contemporaries; and we hold that
the natural history of man is a department of science which should be
placed upon the same footing with others, and its facts dispassionately
investigated. What we require for our guidance in this world is truth,
and the history of science shows how long it has been stifled by bigotry
and error.
It was taught for ages that the sun moved around the earth; that there
had been but one creation of organized beings; that our earth was
created but six thousand years ago, and that the stars were made to shed
light upon it; that the earth was a plane, with sides and ends; that all
the animals on earth were derived from Noah's ark, &c. But what a
different revelation does science give us? We now know that the earth
revolves around the sun, that the earth is a globe which turns on its
own axis, that there has been a succession of destructions and creations
of living beings, that the earth has existed countless ages, and that
there are stars so distant as to require millions of years for their
light to reach us; that instead of one, there are many centres of
creation for existing animals and plants, &c.
If so many false readings of the Bible have been admitted among
theologians, who has authority or wisdom to say to science--"thus far
shalt thou go, and no further?" The doctrine of _unity_ for the human
family may be another great error, and certainly a denial of its truth
does no more, nay, less violence to the language of the Bible, than do
the examples above cited.
It is a popular error, and one difficult to eradicate, that all the
species of animals now dwelling on the earth are descendants of pairs
and septuples preserved in Noah's ark, and certainly the language of
Genesis on this point is too plain to admit of any quibble; it does
teach that every living being perished by the flood, except those alone
which were saved in the ark. Yet no living naturalist, in or out of the
church, believes this statement to be correct. The centres of creation
are so numerous, and the number of animals so great that it is
impossible it should be so.
On the other hand, the first chapter of Genesis gives an account
entirely in accordance with the teachings of science.
"And God said, let the earth bring forth _grass_, the herb
yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit, after his kind,
whose seed is in itself upon the earth; and it was so." _Gen._ i.
11.
"And God said, let the waters bring forth _abundantly_, the moving
creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in
the open firmament of heaven." v. 20.
"And God created great _whales_, and every living creature that
moveth, which the waters brought forth _abundantly_," &c. v. 21.
"And God said, let the earth bring forth the living creature after
his kind, cattle and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after
his kind, and it was so." v. 24.
"God created _man_ in his own image; _male_ and _female_ created
he _them_."
In the language above quoted, nothing is said about one seed or one
blade of grass; about one fruit tree, or about _single pairs_ of animals
or human beings. On the contrary, this chapter closes with the distinct
impression on the mind that everything was created _abundantly_. The
only difficulty arises with regard to the human family, and we are here
confused by the contradictory statements of the first and second
chapters. In the first chapter, man was created _male and female_, on
the sixth day--in the second chapter, woman was not created until after
Adam was placed in the Garden of Eden. Commentators explain this
discrepancy by the difference in style of the two chapters, and the
inference that Genesis is a compilation made up by Moses from two or
three different writers; but it is not our purpose here to open these
theological discussions. Both sides are sustained by innumerable
authorities. From what we have before shown, it is clear that the
inspired writers possessed no knowledge of physical sciences, and as
little respecting the natural history of man, as of any other
department.
Their _moral_ mission does not concern our subject, and we leave that to
theologians, to whom it more properly belongs. On the other hand, we ask
to be let alone in our study of the physical laws of the universe. The
theologian and the naturalist have each an ample field without the
necessity of interfering with each other.
The Bible is here viewed only in its relations with physical science. We
have already alluded to the fact that in astronomy, geology, &c., the
authors of the Bible possessed no knowledge beyond that of their profane
contemporaries, and a dispassionate examination of the text from Genesis
to Revelation will show that the writers had but an imperfect knowledge
of contemporary races, and did not design to teach the doctrine of unity
of mankind, or rather origin from a single pair. The writer of the
_Pentateuch_ could attach little importance to such an idea, as he
nowhere alludes to a future existence, or rewards and punishments--all
good and evil, as far as the human race is concerned, with him, were
merely temporal.
This idea of a future state does not distinctly appear in the Jewish
writings until after their return from the Babylonish captivity.
The extent of the surface of the globe, known even to the writers of the
New Testament, formed but a small fraction of it--little beyond the
confines of the Roman empire. No allusion is even made to Southern and
Eastern Asia; Africa, south of the Desert; Australia, America, &c.; all
of which were inhabited long before the time of Moses; and of the races
of men inhabiting these countries, and their languages, they certainly
knew nothing. The Chinese and Indian empires, at least, are beyond
dispute. The early Hebrews were a pastoral people; had little commercial
or other intercourse with the rest of the world, and were far from being
"learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians." The Egyptian empire was
fully developed--arts and science as flourishing--pyramids and gorgeous
temples built, not only before the time of Moses, but long prior to that
of the Patriarch Abraham, who, with Sarah, went to Egypt to buy corn of
the reigning Pharaoh. What is remarkable, too, the Egyptians had their
ethnographers, and had already classified the human family into four
races, and depicted them on the monuments, viz: the black, white,
yellow, and red.[216]
In fact, nothing can be more incomplete, contradictory, and
unsatisfactory than the ethnography of Genesis. We see Cain going into a
foreign land and taking a wife before there were any women born of his
parent stock. Cities are seen springing up in the second and third
generations, in every direction, &c. All this shows that we have in
Genesis no satisfactory history of the human family, and that we can
rely no more upon its ethnography than upon its geography, astronomy,
cosmogony, geology, zoology, &c.
We have already alluded to the fact that the writers of the New
Testament give no evidence of additional knowledge in such matters. The
sermon from the Mount comes like a light from Heaven, but this volume is
mute on all that pertains to the physical laws of the universe.
If the common origin of man were such an important point in the eyes of
the Almighty as we have been taught to believe, is it reasonable to
suppose it would have been left by the inspired writers in such utter
confusion and doubt? The coming of Christ changed the whole question,
and we should expect, at least in the four Gospels, for some authority
that would settle this vital point; but strange as the assertion may
seem, there is not a single passage here to be found, which, by any
distortion, can be made to sustain this _unity_; and on searching
diligently the New Testament, from one end to the other, we were not a
little surprised to find but a single text that seemed to bear directly
upon it, viz: the oft quoted one in Acts xvii. 26: "And hath made of
_one blood_ all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the
earth," &c. Being astonished at the fact that this great question of
common origin of man should thus be made to hang so much upon a single
verse, it occurred to me that there might be some error, some
interpolation in the text, and having no material at hand for such an
investigation in Mobile, I wrote to a competent friend in Philadelphia,
to examine for me all the Greek texts and old versions, and his reply
confirmed fully my suspicions. The word _blood_ is an interpolation, and
not to be found in the original texts. The word _blood_ has been
rejected by the Catholic Church, from the time of St. Jerome to the
present hour. The text of Tischendorf is regarded, I believe, generally
as the most accurate Greek text known, and in this the word blood does
not appear. I have at hand a long list of authorities to the same
effect, but as it is presumed no competent authority will call our
assertion in question, it is needless to cite them. The verse above
alluded to in Acts should, therefore, read:--
"And hath made of _one_ all races (genus) of men," &c.
The word _blood_ is a gloss, and we have just as much right to
interpolate _one form_, _one substance_, _one nature_, _one
responsibility_, or anything else, as _blood_.
These remarks on the ethnography of the Bible might be greatly extended,
but my object here is simply to show that the Bible, to say the least,
leaves the field open, and that I have entered it soberly, discreetly,
and advisedly.
FOOTNOTES:
[215] Prichard, _Nat. Hist. of Man_, p. 8. London, 1843.
[216] See "_Types of Mankind_," by Nott and Gliddon.
THE END.
Titles in This Series
1 Joseph Adams. _A Treatise on the Supposed Hereditary Properties of
Diseases._ London, 1814.
2 Beatrice Bateson, ed. _William Bateson, F.R.S._ Cambridge, 1928.
3 Ruth Schwartz Cowan. _Sir Francis Galton and the Study of Heredity in
the Nineteenth Century._ New York, 1984.
4 Leonard Darwin. _The Need for Eugenic Reform._ London, 1926.
5 Charles B. Davenport. _The Feebly Inhibited._ Washington, D. C., 1915.
6 A. De Gobineau. _The Moral and Intellectual Diversity of Races._
Philadelphia, 1856.
7 First International Congress of Eugenics. _Problems in Eugenics._
London, 1912.
8 Second International Congress of Eugenics. _Vol. I, Eugenics,
Genetics, and the Family._ _Vol. 2, Eugenics in Race and State._
Baltimore, 1923.
9 Third International Congress of Eugenics. _A Decade of Progress in
Eugenics._ Baltimore, 1934.
10 Lyndsay A. Farrall. _The Origins and Growth of the English Eugenics
Movement, 1865-1925._ New York, 1984.
11 Arthur E. Fink. _Causes of Crime._ Philadelphia, 1938.
12 Orson Fowler. _Hereditary Descent: Its Laws and Facts Applied to
Human Improvement._ New York, 1847.
13 The Francis Galton Laboratory for National Eugenics. _Eugenics
Laboratory Lecture Series._ London, 1900-1912. New York, 1984.
14 ------. _Questions of the Day and of the Fray._ London, 1910-1914.
New York, 1984.
15 ------. _Selected Eugenics Laboratory Memoirs._ London, 1907-1921.
New York, 1984.
16 Francis Galton. _Essays in Eugenics._ London, 1909.
17 Henry H. Goddard. _Human Efficiency and Levels of Intelligence._
Princeton, 1920.
18 Paul Kammerer. _The Inheritance of Acquired Characteristics._ New
York, 1924.
19 Cesare Lombroso. _The Man of Genius._ London, 1910.
20 W. D. McKim. _Heredity and Human Progress._ New York, 1900.
21 H. J. Muller. _Out of the Night. A Biologist's View of the Future._
New York, 1935.
22 Nicholas Pastore. _The Nature-Nurture Controversy._ New York, 1949.
23 Simon Patten. _Heredity and Social Progress._ New York, 1903.
24 Hester Pendleton. _The Parent's Guide._ New York, 1871.
25 Paul Popenoe. _The Conservation of the Family._ Baltimore, 1926.
26 Robert Reid Rentoul. _Race Culture; or, Race Suicide._ London, 1906.
27 F.C.S. Schiller. _Social Decay and Eugenical Reform._ New York, 1932.
28 Lothrop Stoddard. _The Revolt Against Civilization. The Menace of the
Under Man._ New York, 1923.
29 S.A.K. Strahan. _Marriage and Disease._ New York, 1892.
30 Eugene S. Talbot. _Degeneracy. Its Causes, Signs, and Results._
London, 1899.
31 William Cecil Dampier-Whetham and Catherine Wetham. _The Family and
the Nation._ London, 1909.
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
|Transcriber's note: |
| |
| Inconsistent use of law-giver vs. lawgiver was made |
| consistent as "law-giver". |
| |
| Page 476: Corrected typographical error "criterea". |
| |
| Footnote 39: Placement of quotation marks has been |
| made consistent. |
| |
| Footnote 59: Added missing closing quotation mark "...'When|
| three of us are together, the Triad is among us.'" |
| |
| Footnote 85: I believe the editor meant "page 187". |
| |
| Footnote 195: Added dash to sign-off "--H." to conform to |
| other footnotes. |
| |
| All other inconsistencies, variant spellings, and a large |
| number of mis-quoted references have been preserved. |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
*** End of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "The Moral and Intellectual Diversity of Races - With Particular Reference to Their Respective Influence in the Civil and Political History of Mankind" ***
Copyright 2023 LibraryBlog. All rights reserved.