{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_37115/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_37115","id":"gutenberg_37115","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/37115","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Archaeology & Anthropology","Category: History - Other","Category: Politics","Category: Sociology","Civilization -- Philosophy","Ethnology","Race","Race relations"],"text":"</pre>\n\nE-text prepared by Fritz Ohrenschall, Sarah Thomson, and the Online\nDistributed Proofreading Team (http://www.pgdp.net)\n\n\n\n   +---------------------------------------------------------+\n   |Transcriber's note:                                      |\n   |                                                         |\n   |  Text transliterated from Greek is enclosed by tilde    |\n   |      characters (~transliterated Greek~).               |\n   |                                                         |\n   |  Text that was in small capitals has been converted to  |\n   |      all upper case.                                    |\n   |                                                         |\n   |  The oe ligature has been removed from words such as    |\n   |      Boeotia and foetus.                                |\n   |                                                         |\n   |  A list of corrections is at the end of this e-book.    |\n   +---------------------------------------------------------+\n\n\n\n\n\nTHE MORAL AND INTELLECTUAL DIVERSITY OF RACES.\n\nWith Particular Reference to Their Respective Influence\nin the Civil and Political History Of Mankind.\n\nFrom the French of COUNT A. DE GOBINEAU:\n\nWith an Analytical Introduction and Copious Historical Notes.\nBy H. Hotz.\n\nTo Which Is Added an Appendix Containing a Summary\nof the Latest Scientific Facts Bearing upon the\nQuestion of Unity or Plurality of Species.\nBy J. C. Nott, M. D., of Mobile.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nPhiladelphia:\nJ. B. Lippincott & Co.\n1856.\n\nEntered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1855, by\nJ. B. Lippincott & Co.,\nin the Office of the Clerk of the District Court of the United\nStates in and for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.\n\n\n\n\n                                 TO THE\n\n                          STATESMEN OF AMERICA,\n\n                               THIS WORK,\n\n          THE FIRST ON THE RACES OF MEN CONTEMPLATED FROM THE\n              POINT OF VIEW OF THE STATESMAN AND HISTORIAN\n                      RATHER THAN THE NATURALIST,\n\n                                  IS\n\n                        RESPECTFULLY DEDICATED\n\n                                BY THE\n\n                           AMERICAN EDITOR.\n\n\n\n\nEDITOR'S PREFACE.\n\n\nIt has been truly observed that a good book seldom requires, and a bad\none never deserves, a long preface. When a foreign book, however, is\nobtruded on the notice of the public, it is but just that the reasons\nfor so doing should be explained; and, in the present case, this is the\nmore necessary, as the title of the work might lead many to believe that\nit was intended to re-agitate the question of unity or plurality of the\nhuman species--a question which the majority of readers consider\nsatisfactorily and forever settled by the words of Holy Writ. Such,\nhowever, is not the purpose of either the author or the editor. The\ndesign of this work is, to contribute toward the knowledge of the\nleading mental and moral characteristics of the various races of men\nwhich have subsisted from the dawn of history to the present era, and to\nascertain, if possible, the degree to which they are susceptible of\nimprovement. The annals of the world demonstrate beyond a doubt, that\nthe different branches of the human family, like the individual members\nof a community, are endowed with capacities, different not only in\ndegree but in kind, and that, in proportion to these endowments, they\nhave contributed, and still contribute to that great march of progress\nof the human race, which we term civilization. To portray the nature of\nthese endowments, to estimate the influence of each race in the\ndestinies of all, and to point out the effects of mixture of races in\nthe rise and fall of great empires, has been the task to the\naccomplishment of which, though too extensive for one man, the author\nhas devoted his abilities. The troubles and sufferings of his native\ncountry, from sudden political gyrations, led him to speculate upon\ntheir causes, which he believes are to be traced to the great variety of\nincongruous ethnical elements composing the population of France. The\ndeductions at which he arrived in that field of observation he subjected\nto the test of universal history; and the result of his studies for many\nyears, facilitated by the experiences of a diplomatic career, are now\nbefore the American public in a translation. That a work, on so\ncomprehensive a subject, should be exempt from error, cannot be\nexpected, and is not pretended; but the aim is certainly a noble one,\nand its pursuit cannot be otherwise than instructive to the statesman\nand historian, and no less so to the general reader. In this country, it\nis peculiarly interesting and important, for not only is our immense\nterritory the abode of the three best defined varieties of the human\nspecies--the white, the negro, and the Indian--to which the extensive\nimmigration of the Chinese on our Pacific coast is rapidly adding a\nfourth, but the fusion of diverse nationalities is nowhere more rapid\nand complete; nowhere is the great problem of man's perfectibility being\nsolved on a grander scale, or in a more decisive manner. While, then,\nnothing can be further removed from our intentions, or more repugnant to\nour sentiments, than to wage war on religion, or throw ridicule on the\nlabors of the missionary and philanthropist, we thought it not a useless\nundertaking to lay before our countrymen the opinions of a European\nthinker, who, without straining or superseding texts to answer his\npurposes, or departing in any way from the pure spirit of Christianity,\nhas reflected upon questions which with us are of immense moment and\nconstant recurrence.\n\n  H. H.\n\n  PHILADELPHIA, _Nov. 1, 1855_.\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS.\n\n\nANALYTICAL INTRODUCTION.\n\n  The discussion of the moral and intellectual diversity of races\n    totally independent of the question of unity or plurality of\n    origin--Leading propositions of this volume, with illustrations and\n    comments.\n\n\nCHAPTER I.\n\nPOLITICAL CATASTROPHES.\n\n  Perishable condition of all human societies--Ancient ideas concerning\n    this phenomenon--Modern theories                                 105\n\n\nCHAPTER II.\n\nALLEGED CAUSES OF POLITICAL CATASTROPHES EXAMINED.\n\n  FANATICISM--Aztec Empire of Mexico.--LUXURY--Modern European States\n    as luxurious as the ancient.--Corruption of morals--The standard of\n    morality fluctuates in the various periods of a nation's history:\n    example, France--Is no higher in youthful communities than in old\n    ones--Morality of Paris.--IRRELIGION--Never spreads through all\n    ranks of a nation--Greece and Rome--Tenacity of Paganism         114\n\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\nINFLUENCE OF GOVERNMENT UPON THE LONGEVITY OF NATIONS.\n\n  Misgovernment defined--Athens, China, Spain, Germany, Italy, etc.--Is\n    not in itself a sufficient cause for the ruin of nations.        138\n\n\nCHAPTER IV.\n\nDEFINITION OF THE WORD DEGENERACY--ITS CAUSE.\n\n  Skeleton history of a nation--Origin of castes, nobility,\n    etc.--Vitality of nations not necessarily extinguished by\n    conquest--China, Hindostan--Permanency of their peculiar\n    civilizations.                                                   146\n\n\nCHAPTER V.\n\nTHE MORAL AND INTELLECTUAL DIVERSITY OF RACES IS NOT THE RESULT OF\nPOLITICAL INSTITUTIONS.\n\n  Antipathy of races--Results of their mixture--The scientific axiom of\n    the absolute equality of men, but an extension of the\n    political--Its fallacy--Universal belief in unequal endowment of\n    races--The moral and intellectual diversity of races not\n    attributable to institutions--Indigenous institutions are the\n    expression of popular sentiments; when foreign and imported, they\n    never prosper--Illustrations: England and France--Roman\n    Empire--European Colonies--Sandwich Islands--St. Domingo--Jesuit\n    missions in Paraguay                                             172\n\n\nCHAPTER VI.\n\nTHIS DIVERSITY IS NOT THE RESULT OF GEOGRAPHICAL SITUATION.\n\n  America--Ancient empires--Phenicians and Romans--Jews--Greece and\n    Rome--Commercial cities of Europe--Isthmus of Darien             201\n\n\nCHAPTER VII.\n\nINFLUENCE OF CHRISTIANITY UPON MORAL AND INTELLECTUAL DIVERSITY OF\nRACES.\n\n  The term Christian civilization examined--Reasons for rejecting\n    it--Intellectual diversity no hindrance to the universal diffusion\n    of Christianity--Civilizing influence of Christian religion by\n    elevating and purifying the morals, etc.; but does not remove\n    intellectual disparities--Various instances--Cherokees--Difference\n    between imitation and comprehension of civilized life            215\n\n\nINTRODUCTORY NOTE TO CHAPTERS VIII. AND IX.\n\n  Rapid survey of the populations comprised under the appellation\n    \"Teutonic\"--Their present ethnological area, and leading\n    characteristics--Fondness for the sea displayed by the Teutonic\n    tribes of Northwestern Europe, and perceptible in their\n    descendants                                                      234\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII.\n\nCIVILIZATION.\n\n  Mr. Guizot's and Mr. W. von Humboldt's definitions examined. Its\n    elements                                                         246\n\n\nCHAPTER IX.\n\nELEMENTS OF CIVILIZATION--CONTINUED.\n\n  Definition of the term--Specific differences of\n    civilizations--Hindoo, Chinese, European, Greek, and Roman\n    civilizations--Universality of Chinese civilization--Superficiality\n    of ours--Picture of the social condition of France               272\n\n\nCHAPTER X.\n\nQUESTION OF UNITY OR PLURALITY OF RACES.\n\n  Systems of Camper, Blumenbach, Morton, Carus--Investigations of Owen,\n    Vrolik, Weber--Prolificness of hybrids, the great scientific\n    stronghold of the advocates of unity of species                  312\n\n\nCHAPTER XI.\n\nPERMANENCY OF TYPES.\n\n  The language of Holy Writ in favor of common origin--The permanency\n    of their characteristics separates the races of men as effectually\n    as if they were distinct creations--Arabs, Jews--Prichard's\n    argument about the influence of climate examined--Ethnological\n    history of the Turks and Hungarians                              336\n\n\nCHAPTER XII.\n\nCLASSIFICATION OF RACES.\n\n  Primary varieties--Test for recognizing them; not always\n    reliable--Effects of intermixture--Secondary varieties--Tertiary\n    varieties--Amalgamation of races in large cities--Relative scale of\n    beauty in various branches of the human family--Their inequality in\n    muscular strength and powers of endurance                        368\n\n\nNOTE TO THE PRECEDING CHAPTER.\n\n  The position and treatment of woman among the various races of men a\n    proof of their moral and intellectual diversity                  384\n\n\nCHAPTER XIII.\n\nPERFECTIBILITY OF MAN.\n\n  Imperfect notions of the capability of savage tribes--Parallel\n    between our civilization and those that preceded it--Our modern\n    political theories no novelty--The political parties of Rome--Peace\n    societies--The art of printing a means, the results of which depend\n    on its use--What constitutes a \"living\" civilization--Limits of the\n    sphere of intellectual acquisitions                              391\n\n\nCHAPTER XIV.\n\nMUTUAL RELATIONS OF DIFFERENT MODES OF INTELLECTUAL CULTURE.\n\n  Necessary consequences of a supposed equality of all races--Uniform\n    testimony of history to the contrary--Traces of extinct\n    civilizations among barbarous tribes--Laws which govern the\n    adoption of a state of civilization by conquered\n    populations--Antagonism of different modes of culture; the Hellenic\n    and Persian, European and Arab, etc.                             414\n\n\nCHAPTER XV.\n\nMORAL AND INTELLECTUAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE THREE GREAT VARIETIES.\n\n  Impropriety of drawing general conclusions from individual\n    cases--Recapitulatory sketch of the leading features of the Negro,\n    the Yellow, and the White races--Superiority of the\n    latter--Conclusion of volume the first                           439\n\n\nAPPENDIX.\n\nBY J. C. NOTT, M. D.\n\n  A.--Dr. Morton's later tables                                      461\n\n  B.--Species; varieties. Latest experiments upon the laws of\n      hybridity                                                      473\n\n  C.--Biblical connections of the question of unity or plurality of\n      species                                                        504\n\n\n\nANALYTICAL INTRODUCTION.\n\n\nBefore departing on one's travels to a foreign country, it is well to\ncast a glance on the map, and if we expect to meet and examine many\ncuriosities, a correct itinerary may not be an inconvenient travelling\ncompanion. In laying before the public the present work of Mr. Gobineau,\nembracing a field of inquiry so boundless and treating of subjects of\nsuch vast importance to all, it has been thought not altogether useless\nor inappropriate to give a rapid outline of the topics presented to the\nconsideration of the reader--a ground-plan, as it were, of the extensive\nedifice he is invited to enter, so that he may afterwards examine it at\nleisure, and judge of the symmetry of its parts. This, though fully\nsensible of the inadequacy of his powers to the due execution of the\ntask, the present writer has endeavored to do, making such comments on\nthe way, and using such additional illustrations as the nature of the\nsubject seemed to require.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nWhether we contemplate the human family from the point of view of the\nnaturalist or of the philosopher, we are struck with the marked\ndissimilarity of the various groups. The obvious physical\ncharacteristics by which we distinguish what are termed different races,\nare not more clearly defined than the psychical diversities observable\namong them. \"If a person,\" says the learned vindicator of the unity of\nthe human species,[1] \"after surveying some brilliant ceremony or court\npageant in one of the splendid cities of Europe, were suddenly carried\ninto a hamlet in Negro-land, at the hour when the sable tribes recreate\nthemselves with dancing and music; or if he were transported to the\nsaline plains over which bald and tawny Mongolians roam, differing but\nlittle in hue from the yellow soil of their steppes, brightened by the\nsaffron flowers of the iris and tulip; if he were placed near the\nsolitary dens of the Bushman, where the lean and hungry savage crouches\nin silence, like a beast of prey, watching with fixed eyes the birds\nwhich enter his pitfall, or greedily devouring the insects and reptiles\nwhich chance may bring within his grasp; if he were carried into the\nmidst of an Australian forest, where the squalid companions of kangaroos\nmay be seen crawling in procession, in imitation of quadrupeds, would\nthe spectator of such phenomena imagine the different groups which he\nhad surveyed to be the offspring of one family? And if he were led to\nadopt that opinion, how would he attempt to account for the striking\ndiversities in their aspect and manner of existence?\"\n\nThese diversities, so graphically described by Mr. Prichard, present a\nproblem, the solution of which has occupied the most ingenious minds,\nespecially of our times. The question of unity or plurality of the human\nspecies has of late excited much animated discussion; great names and\nweighty authorities are enlisted on either side, and a unanimous\ndecision appears not likely to be soon agreed upon. But it is not my\npurpose, nor that of the author to whose writings these pages are\nintroductory, to enter into a contest which to me seems rather a dispute\nabout words than essentials. The distinguishing physical characteristics\nof what we term races of man are recognized by all parties, and whether\nthese races are _distinct species_ or _permanent varieties_[2] only of\nthe same, cannot affect the subject under investigation. In whatever\nmanner the diversities among the various branches of the human family\nmay have originated, whether they are primordial or were produced by\nexternal causes, their permanency is now generally admitted. \"The\nEthiopian cannot change his skin.\" If there are, or ever have been,\nexternal agencies that could change a white man into a negro, or _vice\nversa_, it is obvious that such causes have either ceased to operate, or\noperate only in a lapse of time so incommensurable as to be imponderable\nto our perceptions, for the races which now exist can be traced up to\nthe dawn of history, and no well-authenticated instance of a\ntransformation under any circumstances is on record. In human reasoning\nit is certainly legitimate to judge of the future by the experiences of\nthe past, and we are, therefore, warranted to conclude that if races\nhave preserved their identity for the last two thousand years, they will\nnot lose it in the next two thousand.\n\nIt is somewhat singular, however, that while most writers have ceased to\nexplain the physical diversities of races by external causes, such as\nclimate, food, etc., yet many still persist in maintaining the absolute\nequality of all in other respects, referring such differences in\ncharacter as are undeniable, solely to circumstances, education, mode of\nlife, etc. These writers consider all races as merely in different\nstages of development, and pretend that the lowest savage, or at least\nhis offspring, may, by judicious training, and in course of time, be\nrendered equal to the civilized man. Before mentioning any facts in\nopposition to this doctrine, let us examine the reasoning upon which it\nis based.\n\n\"Man is the creature of circumstances,\" is an adage extended from\nindividuals to races, and repeated by many without considering its\nbearing. The celebrated author of _Wealth of Nations_[3] says, \"that the\ndifference between the most dissimilar characters, between a philosopher\nand a common street porter, for example, arises, not so much from\nnature, but from habit and education.\" That a mind, which, with proper\nnurture, might have graced a philosopher, should, under unfavorable\ncircumstances, remain forever confined in a narrow and humble sphere,\ndoes not, indeed, seem at all improbable; but Dr. Smith certainly does\nnot mean to deny the existence of natural talents, of innate peculiar\ncapacities for the accomplishment of certain purposes. This is what they\ndo who ascribe the mental inequality of the various branches of the\nhuman family to external circumstances only. \"The intellectual qualities\nof man,\" say they, \"are developed entirely by education. The mind is, at\nfirst, a perfect blank, fitted and ready to receive any kind of\nimpressions. For these, we are dependent on the political, civil, and\nreligious institutions under which we live, the persons with whom we are\nconnected, and the circumstances in which we are placed in the different\nperiods of life. Wholly the creatures of association and habit, the\ncharacters of men are formed by the instruction, conversation, and\nexample of those with whom they mix in society, or whose ideas they\nimbibe in the course of their reading and studies.\"[4] Again: \"As all\nmen, in all nations, are of the same species, are endowed with the same\nsenses and feelings, and receive their perceptions and ideas through\nsimilar organs, the difference, whether physical or moral, that is\nobserved in comparing different races or assemblages of men, can arise\nonly from external and adventitious circumstances.\"[5] The last position\nis entirely dependent on the first; if we grant the first, relating to\nindividuals, the other follows as a necessary consequence. For, if we\nassume that the infinite intellectual diversities of individuals are\nowing solely to external influences, it is self-evident that the same\ndiversities in nations, which are but aggregations of individuals, must\nresult from the same causes. But are we prepared to grant this first\nposition--to assert that man is but an automaton, whose wheelwork is\nentirely without--the mere buffet and plaything of accident and\ncircumstances? Is not this the first step to gross materialism, the\nfirst argument laid down by that school, of which the great Locke has\nbeen stigmatized as the father, because he also asserts that the human\nmind is at first a blank tablet. But Locke certainly could not mean that\nall these tablets were the same and of equal value. A tablet of wax\nreceives an impression which one of marble will not; on the former is\neasily effaced what the other forever retains. We do not deny that\ncircumstances have a great influence in moulding both moral and\nintellectual character, but we do insist that there is a primary basis\nupon which the degree of that influence depends, and which is the work\nof God and not of man or chance. What agriculturist could be made to\nbelieve that, with the same care, all plants would thrive equally well\nin all soils? To assert that the character of a man, whether good or\nwicked, noble or mean, is the aggregate result of influences over which\nhe has no control, is to deny that man is a free agent; it is infinitely\nworse than the creed of the Buddhist, who believes that all animated\nbeings possess a detached portion of an all-embracing intelligence,\nwhich acts according to the nature and capacity of the machine of clay\nthat it, for the time, occupies, and when the machine is worn out or\ndestroyed, returns, like a rivulet to the sea, to the vast ocean of\nintelligence whence it came, and in which again it is lost. In the name\nof common sense, daily observation, and above all, of revelation, we\nprotest against a doctrine which paves the road to the most absurd as\nwell as anti-religious conclusions. In it we recognize the fountain\nwhence flow all the varied forms and names under which Atheism disguises\nitself. But it is useless to enter any further upon the refutation of\nan argument which few would be willing seriously to maintain. It is one\nof those plausible speculations which, once admitted, serve as the basis\nof so many brilliant, but airy, theories that dazzle and attract those\nwho do not take the trouble of examining their solidity.\n\nOnce we admit that circumstances, though they may impede or favor the\ndevelopment of powers, cannot give them; in other words, that they can\ncall into action, but cannot create, moral and intellectual resources;\nno argument can be drawn from the unity of species in favor of the\nmental equality of races. If two men, the offspring of the same parents,\ncan be the one a dunce, the other a genius, why cannot different races,\nthough descended of the same stock, be different also in intellectual\nendowments? We should laugh at, or rather, pity the man who would try to\npersuade us that there is no difference in color, etc., between the\nScandinavian and the African, and yet it is by some considered little\nshort of heresy to affirm, that there is an imparity in their minds as\nwell as in their bodies.\n\nWe are told--and the objection seems indeed a grave one--that if we\nadmit psychical as well as physical gradations in the scale of human\nraces, the lowest must be so hopelessly inferior to the higher, their\nperceptions and intellectual capacities so dim, that even the light of\nthe gospel cannot illumine them. Were it so, we should at once abandon\nthe argument as one above human comprehension, rather than suppose that\nGod's mercy is confined to any particular race or races. But let us\nearnestly investigate the question. On so vital a point the sacred\nrecord cannot but be plain and explicit. To it let us turn. Man--even\nthe lowest of his species--has a soul. However much defaced God's image,\nit is vivified by His breath. To save that soul, to release it from the\nbondage of evil, Christ descended upon earth and gave to mankind, not a\ncomplicated system of philosophy which none but the learned and\nintellectual could understand, but a few simple lessons and precepts,\ncomprehensible to the meanest capacity. He did not address himself to\nthe wise of this world, but bade them be like children if they would\ncome unto him. The learned Pharisees of Judea jeered and ridiculed him,\nbut the poor woman of Canaan eagerly picked up the precious crumbs of\nthat blessed repast which they despised. His apostles were chosen from\namong the lowly and simple, his first followers belonged to that class.\nHe himself hath said:[6] \"I thank thee, O Father, Lord of Heaven and\nearth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and\nhast revealed them unto babes.\" How then shall we judge of the degree of\nintellect necessary to be a follower of Jesus? Are the most\nintellectual, the best informed men generally the best Christians? Or\ndoes the word of God anywhere lead us to suppose that at the great final\njudgment the learned prelate or ingenious expositor of the faith will be\npreferred to the humble, illiterate savage of some almost unknown coast,\nwho eagerly drinks of the living water whereof whosoever drinketh shall\nnever thirst again?\n\nThis subject has met with the attention which its importance deserves,\nat the hands of Mr. Gobineau, and he also shows the fallacy of the idea\nthat Christianity will remove the mental inequality of races. True\nreligion, among all nations who are blessed with it and sincerely\nembrace it, will purify their morals, and establish friendly relations\nbetween man and his fellow-man. But it will not make an _intellectually_\ninferior race equal to a superior one, because it was not designed to\nbestow talents or to endow with genius those who are devoid of it.\nCivilization is essentially the result of man's intellectual gifts, and\nmust vary in its character and degree like them. Of this we shall speak\nagain in treating of the _specific differences of civilization_, when\nthe term _Christian civilization_ will also be examined.\n\nOne great reason why so many refuse to recognize mental as well as\nphysical differences among races, is the common and favorite belief of\nour time in the infinite perfectibility of man. Under various forms this\ndevelopment-theory, so flattering to humanity, has gained an incredible\nnumber of adherents and defenders. We believe ourselves steadily\nmarching towards some brilliant goal, to which every generation brings\nus nearer. We look with a pity, almost amounting to contempt, upon those\nwho preceded us, and envy posterity, which we expect to surpass us in a\nratio even greater than we believe ourselves to surpass our ancestors.\nIt is indeed a beautiful and poetic idea that civilization is a vast and\nmagnificent edifice of which the first generation laid the corner-stone,\nand to which each succeeding age contributes new materials and new\nembellishments. It is our tower of Babel, by which we, like the first\nmen after the flood, hope to reach heaven and escape the ills of life.\nSome such idea has flattered all ages, but in ours it has assumed a more\ndefinite form. We point with pride to our inventions, annihilating--we\nsay--time and distance; our labor-saving machines refining the mechanic\nand indirectly diffusing information among all classes, and confidently\nlook forward to a new era close at hand, a millennium to come. Let us,\nfor a moment, divest ourselves of the conceit which belongs to every\nage, as well as to every country and individual; and let us ask\nourselves seriously and candidly: In what are we superior to our\npredecessors? We have inventions that they had not, it is true, and\nthese inventions increase in an astonishing ratio; we have clearer ideas\nof the laws which govern the material world, and better contrivances to\napply these laws and to make the elements subservient to our comfort.\nBut has the human mind really expanded since the days of Pythagoras and\nPlato? Has the thinker of the nineteenth century faculties and\nperceptions which they had not? Have we one virtue more or one vice less\nthan former generations? Has human nature changed, or has it even\nmodified its failings? Though we succeed in traversing the regions of\nair as easily and swifter than we now do broad continents and stormy\nseas; though we count all the worlds in the immensity of space; though\nwe snatch from nature her most recondite secrets, shall we be aught but\nmen? To the true philosopher these conquests over the material world\nwill be but additional proofs of the greatness of God and man's\nlittleness. It is the vanity and arrogance of the creature of clay that\nmake him believe that by his own exertions he can arrive at God-like\nperfection. The insane research after the philosopher's stone and the\nelixir of life may be classed among the many other futile attempts of\nman to invade the immutable decree: \"Thus far, and no farther.\" To\nescape from the moral and intellectual imperfections of his nature,\nthere is but one way; the creature must humbly and devoutly cast himself\ninto the ever-open arms of the Creator and seek for knowledge where none\nknocketh in vain. This privilege he has enjoyed in all ages, and it is a\nquestion which I would hesitate to answer whether the progress of\nphysical science has not, in many cases at least, rather the effect of\nmaking him self-sufficient and too confident in his own powers, than of\nbringing him nearer to the knowledge of the true God. It is one of the\nfatal errors of our age in particular, to confound the progress of\nphysical science with a supposed moral progress of man. Were it so, the\nBible would have been a revelation of science as well as of religion,\nand that it is not is now beginning to be conceded, though by no means\nso generally as true theology would require; for the law of God was\nintended for every age, for every country, for every individual,\nindependent of the state of science or a peculiar stage of civilization,\nand not to be modified by any change which man might make in his\nmaterial existence. With due deference, then, to those philosophers who\nassert that the moral nature of the human species has undergone a change\nat various periods of the world's history; and those enthusiasts who\ndream of an approaching millennium, we hold, that human nature has\nalways been the same and always will be the same, and that no inventions\nor discoveries, however promotive of his material well-being, can effect\na moral change or bring him any nearer to the Divine essence than he was\nin the beginning of his mundane existence. Science and knowledge may\nindeed illumine his earthly career, but they can shed no light upon the\npath he is to tread to reach a better world.\n\nChrist himself has recognized the diversity of intellectual gifts in his\nparable of the talents, from which we borrow the very term to designate\nthose gifts; and if, in a community of pure and faithful Christians,\nthere still are many degrees and kinds of talents, is it reasonable to\nsuppose that in that millennium--the only one I can imagine--when all\nnations shall call on His name with hope and praise, all mental\nimparities of races will be obliterated? There are, at the present time,\nnations upon whom we look down as being inferior in civilization to\nourselves, yet they are as good--if, indeed, not better--Christians than\nwe are as a people. The progress of physical science, by facilitating\nthe intercourse between distant parts of the world, tends, indeed, to\ndiffuse true religion, and in this manner--and this manner\nonly--promotes the moral good of mankind. But here it is only an\ninstrument, and not an agent, as the machines which the architect uses\nto raise his building materials do not erect the structure.\n\nOne more reason why the unity of the human species cannot be considered\na proof of equal intellectual capability of races. It is a favorite\nmethod of naturalists to draw an analogy between man and the brute\ncreation; and, so far as he belongs to the animal kingdom, this method\nis undoubtedly correct and legitimate. But, with regard to man's higher\nattributes, there is an impassable barrier between him and the brute,\nwhich, in the heat of argument, contending parties have not always\nsufficiently respected. The great Prichard himself seems sometimes to\nhave lost sight of it.[7] Thus, he speaks of \"psychological\" diversities\nin varieties of the same undoubted species of animal, though it is\nobvious that animals can have no psychological attributes. But I am\nwilling to concede to Mr. Prichard all the conclusions he derives from\nthis analogy in favor of unity of the human species. All dogs, he\nbelieves, are derived from one pair; yet, there are a number of\nvarieties of dogs, and these varieties are different not only in\nexternal appearance, but in what Mr. Prichard would call psychological\nqualities. No shepherd expects to train a common cur to be the\nintelligent guardian of a flock; no sportsman to teach his hounds, or\ntheir unmixed progeny, to perform the office of setters. That the\ncharacteristics of every variety of dogs are permanent so long as the\nbreed remains pure, every one knows, and that their distinctive type\nremains the same in all countries and through all time, is proved by the\nmural paintings of Egypt, which show that, 2,000 years B. C., they were\nas well known as in our day.[8] If, then, this permanency of\n\"psychological\" (to take Mr. Prichard's ground) diversity is compatible\nwith unity of origin in the dog, why not in the case of man? I am far\nfrom desiring to call into question the unity of our species, but I\ncontend that the rule must work both ways, and if \"psychological\"\ndiversities can be permanent in the branches of the same species of\nanimals, they can be permanent also in the branches of the human family.\n\nIn the preceding pages, I have endeavored to show that the unity of\nspecies is no proof of equal intellectual capability of races, that\nmental imparities do not conflict with the universality of the gospel\ntidings, and that the permanency of these imparities is consistent with\nthe reasoning of the greatest expounder of the unity theory. I shall now\nproceed to state the facts which prove the intellectual diversities\namong the races of man. In doing so, it is important to guard against an\nerror into which so many able writers have fallen, that of comparing\nindividuals rather than masses.\n\nWhat we term national character, is the aggregate of the qualities\npreponderating in a community. It is obvious that when we speak of the\nartistic genius of the Greeks, we do not mean that every native of\nHellas and Ionia was an artist; and when we call a nation unwarlike or\nvalorous, we do not thereby either stigmatize every individual as a\ncoward, or extol him as a hero. The same is the case with races. When,\nfor example, we assert that the black race is intellectually inferior to\nthe white, it is not implied that the most intelligent negro should\nstill be more obtuse than the most stupid white man. The maximum\nintellect and capacity of one race may greatly exceed the minimum of\nanother, without placing them on an equality. The testimony of history,\nand the results of philanthropic experiment, are the data upon which the\nethnologist must institute his inquiries, if he would arrive at\nconclusions instructive to humanity.\n\nLet us take for illustration the white and the black races, supposed by\nmany to represent the two extremes of the scale of gradation. The whole\nhistory of the former shows an uninterrupted progress; that of the\nlatter, monotonous stagnation. To the one, mankind owes the most\nvaluable discoveries in the domain of thought, and their practical\napplication; to the other, it owes nothing. For ages plunged in the\ndarkest gloom of barbarism, there is not one ray of even temporary or\nborrowed improvement to cheer the dismal picture of its history, or\ninspire with hope the disheartened philanthropist. At the boundary of\nits territory, the ever-encroaching spirit of conquest of the European\nstops powerless.[9] Never, in the history of the world, has a grander\nor more conclusive experiment been tried than in the case of the negro\nrace. We behold them placed in immediate possession of the richest\nisland in the richest part of the globe, with every advantage that\nclimate, soil, geographical situation, can afford; removed from every\ninjurious contact, yet with every facility for constant intercourse with\nthe most polished nations of the earth; inheriting all that the white\nrace had gained by the toil of centuries in science, politics, and\nmorals; and what is the result? As if to afford a still more\nirrefragable proof of the mental inequality of races, we find separate\ndivisions of the same island inhabited, one by the pure, the other by a\nhalf-breed race; and the infusion of the white blood in the latter case\nforms a population incontestably and avowedly superior. In opposition to\nsuch facts, some special pleader, bent upon establishing a preconceived\nnotion, ransacks the records of history to find a few isolated instances\nwhere an individual of the inferior race has displayed average ability,\nand from such exceptional cases he deduces conclusions applicable to\nthe whole mass! He points with exultation to a negro who calculates, a\nnegro who is an officer of artillery in Russia, a few others who are\nemployed in a counting-house. And yet he does not even tell us whether\nthese _rar\u00e6 aves_ are of pure blood or not, as is often the case.[10]\nMoreover, these instances are proclaimed to the world with an air of\ntriumph, as if they were drawn at random from an inexhaustible arsenal\nof facts, when in reality they are all that the most anxious research\ncould discover, and form the stock in trade of every declaimer on the\nabsolute equality of races.\n\nHad it pleased the Creator to endow all branches of the human family\nequally, all would then have pursued the same career, though, perhaps,\nnot all with equal rapidity. Some, favored by circumstances, might have\ndistanced others in the race; a few, peculiarly unfortunately situated,\nwould have lagged behind. Still, the progress of all would have been in\nthe same direction, all would have had the same stages to traverse. Now\nis this the case? There are not a few who assert it. From our earliest\ninfancy we are told of the savage, barbarous, semi-civilized, civilized,\nand enlightened states. These we are taught to consider as the steps of\nthe ladder by which man climbs up to infinite perfection, we ourselves\nbeing near the top, while others are either a little below us, or have\nscarcely yet firmly established themselves upon the first rounds. In the\nbeautiful language of Schiller, these latter are to us a mirror in which\nwe behold our own ancestors, as an adult in the children around him\nre-witnesses his own infancy. This is, in a measure, true of nations of\nthe same race, but is it true with regard to different races? It is\nlittle short of presumption to venture to combat an idea perhaps more\nextensively spread than any of our time, yet this we shall endeavor to\ndo. Were the differences in civilization which we observe in various\nnations of the world, differences of degree only, and not of kind, it is\nobvious that the most advanced individual in one degree must closely\napproach the confines of a higher. But this is not the case. The highest\ndegree of culture known to Hindoo or Chinese civilization, approaches\nnot the possessor one step nearer to the ideas and views of the\nEuropean. The Chinese civilization is as perfect, in its own way, as\nours, nay more so.[11] It is not a mere child, or even an adult not yet\narrived at maturity; it is rather a decrepit old man. It too has its\ndegrees; it too has had its periods of infancy, of adult age, of\nmaturity. And when we contemplate its fruits, the immense works which\nhave been undertaken and completed under its \u00e6gis, the systems of morals\nand politics to which it gave rise, the inventions which signalized its\nmore vigorous periods, we cannot but admit that it is entitled in a high\ndegree to our veneration and esteem.[12] Moreover it has excellencies\nwhich our civilization as yet has not; it pervades all classes, ours\nnot. In the whole Chinese empire, comprising, as it does, one-third of\nthe human race, we find few individuals unable to read and write; in\nChina proper, none. How many European countries can pretend to this? And\nyet, because Chinese civilization has a different tendency from ours,\nbecause its course lies in another direction, we call it a\nsemi-civilization. At what time of the world's history then have we--the\n_civilized_ nations--passed through this stage of semi-civilization?\n\nThe monuments of Sanscrit literature, the magnificent remains of palaces\nand temples, the great number of ingenious arts, the elaborate systems\nof metaphysics, attest a state of intellectual culture, far from\ncontemptible, among the Hindoos. Yet their civilization, too, we term a\nsemi-civilization, albeit it is as little like the Chinese as it is like\nanything ever seen in Europe.\n\nFew who will carefully investigate and reflect upon these facts, will\ndoubt that the terms Hindoo, Chinese, European civilization, are not\nindicative of degrees only, but mean the respective development of\npowers essentially different in their nature. We may consider our\ncivilization the best, but it is both arrogant and unphilosophical to\nconsider it as the only one, or as the standard by which to measure all\nothers. This idea, moreover, is neither peculiar to ourselves nor to our\nage. The Chinese even yet look upon us as barbarians; the Hindoos\nprobably do the same. The Greeks considered all extra-Hellenic peoples\nas barbarians. The Romans ascribed the same pre-excellency to\nthemselves, and the predilections for these nations, which we imbibe\nalready in our academic years from our classical studies, cause us to\nshare the same opinion, and to view with their prejudices nations less\nakin to us than they. The Persians, for instance, whom the Greeks\nself-complacently styled outside-barbarians, were, in reality, a highly\ncultivated people, as no one can deny who will examine the facts which\nmodern research has brought to light. Their arts, if not Hellenic, still\nattained a high degree of perfection. Their architecture, though not of\nGrecian style, was not inferior in magnificence and splendor. Nay, I for\none am willing to render myself obnoxious to the charge of classical\nheresy, by regarding the pure Persians as a people, in some respects at\nleast, superior to the Greeks. Their religious system seems to me a much\npurer, nobler one than the inconsistent, immoral mythology of our\nfavorites. Their ideas of a good and an evil power in perpetual\nconflict, and of a mediator who loves and protects the human race; their\nutter detestation of every species of idolatry, have to me something\nthat prepossesses me in their favor.\n\nI have now alleged, in a cursory manner, my principal reasons for\nconsidering civilizations as specifically distinct. To further dilate\nupon the subject, though I greatly desire to do so, would carry me too\nfar; not, indeed, beyond the scope of the inquiries proposed in this\nvolume, but beyond the limited space assigned for my introduction. I\nshall add only, that--assuming the intellectual equality of all branches\nof the human family--we can assign no causes for the differences of\n_degree only_ of their development. Geographical position cannot explain\nthem, because the people who have made the greatest advance, have not\nalways been the most favorably situated. The greatest geographical\nadvantages have been in possession of others that made no use of them,\nand became of importance only by changing owners. To cite one of a\nthousand similar instances. The glorious Mississippi Valley, with its\ninnumerable tributary streams, its unparalleled fertility and mineral\nwealth, seems especially adapted by nature for the abode of a great\nagricultural and commercial nation. Yet, the Indians roamed over it, and\nplied their canoes on its rivers, without ever being aware of the\nadvantages they possessed. The Anglo-Saxon, on the contrary, no sooner\nperceived them than he dreamed of the conquest of the world. We may\ntherefore compare such and other advantages to a precious instrument\nwhich it requires the skill of the workman to use. To ascribe\ndifferences of civilizations to the differences of laws and political\ninstitutions, is absolutely begging the question, for such institutions\nare themselves an effect and an inherent portion of the civilization,\nand when transplanted into foreign soils, never prosper. That the moral\nand physical well-being of a nation will be better promoted when liberty\npresides over her councils than when stern despotism sits at the helm,\nno one can deny; but it is obvious that the nation must first be\nprepared to receive the blessings of liberty, lest they prove a curse.\n\nHere is the place for a few remarks upon the epithet Christian, applied\nto our civilization. Mr. Gobineau justly observes, that he knows of no\nsocial or political order of things to which this term may fitly be said\nto belong. We may justly speak of a Brahminic, Buddhistic, Pagan, Judaic\ncivilization, because the social or political systems designated by\nthese appellations were intimately connected with a more or less\nexclusive theocratical formula. Religion there prescribed everything:\nsocial and political laws, government, manners, nay, in many instances,\ndress and food. But one of the distinguishing characteristics of\nChristianity is its universality. Right at the beginning it disclaimed\nall interference in temporal affairs. Its precepts may be followed under\nevery system of government, in every path of life, every variety of\nmodes of existence. Such is, in substance, Mr. Gobineau's view of the\nsubject. To this I would add a few comments of my own. The error is not\none of recent date. Its baneful effects have been felt from almost the\nfirst centuries of the establishment of the Church down to our times.\nHuman legislation ought, indeed, to be in strict accordance with the law\nof God, but to commend one system as Christian, and proscribe another\nas unchristian, is opening the door to an endless train of frightful\nevils. This is what, virtually, they do who would call a civilization\nChristian, for civilization is the aggregate social and political\ndevelopment of a nation, or a race, and the political is always in\ndirect proportion to the social progress; both mutually influence each\nother. By speaking of a Christian civilization, therefore, we assert\nthat some particular political as well as social system, is most\nconformable to the spirit of our religion. Hence the union of church and\nState, and the influence of the former in temporal affairs--an influence\nwhich few enlightened churchmen, at least of our age, would wish to\nclaim. Not to speak of the danger of placing into the hands of any class\nof men, however excellent, the power of declaring what legislation is\nChristian or not, and thus investing them with supreme political as well\nas spiritual authority; it is sufficient to point out the disastrous\neffects of such a system to the interests of the church itself. The\nopponents of a particular political organization become also the\nopponents of the religion which advocates and defends it. The\nindifferentism of Germany, once so zealous in the cause of religion, is\ntraceable to this source. The people are dissatisfied with their\npolitical machinery, and hate the church which vindicates it, and\nstigmatizes as impious every attempt at change. Indeed, one has but to\nread the religious journals of Prussia, to understand the lukewarmness\nof that people. Mr. Brace, in his _Home Life in Germany_, says that many\nintelligent natives of that country had told him: Why should we go to\nchurch to hear a sermon that extols an order of things which we know to\nbe wicked, and in the highest degree detestable? How can a religion be\ntrue which makes adherence to such an order a fundamental article of its\ncreed?\n\nOne of the features of our constitution which Mr. De Tocqueville most\nadmires, is the utter separation of church and State. Mere religious\ntoleration practically prevails in most European countries, but this\ntotal disconnection of the religious from the civil institutions, is\npeculiar to the United States, and a lesson which it has given to the\nrest of the world.\n\nI do not mean that every one who makes use of the word Christian\ncivilization thereby implies a union of church and State, but I wish to\npoint out the principle upon which this expression is based, viz: that a\ncertain social and political order of things is more according to the\nspirit of the Christian religion than another; and the consequences\nwhich must, or at least may, follow from the practical acceptation of\nthis principle. Taking my view of the subject, few, I think, will\ndispute that the term Christian civilization is a misnomer. Of the\ncivilizing influence of Christianity, I have spoken before, but this\ninfluence would be as great in the Chinese or Hindoo civilizations,\nwithout, in the least, obliterating their characteristic features.\n\nFew terms of equal importance are so vaguely defined as the term\nCIVILIZATION; few definitions are so difficult. In common parlance, the\nword civilization is used to designate that moral, intellectual, and\nmaterial condition at which the so-called European race, whether\noccupying the Eastern or the Western continent, has arrived in the\nnineteenth century. But the nations comprised in this race differ from\none another so extensively, that it has been found necessary to invent a\nnew term: _enlightenment_. Thus, Great Britain, France, the United\nStates, Switzerland, several of the States of the German Confederacy,\nSweden, and Denmark, are called enlightened; while Russia, Spain,\nPortugal, Italy, Brazil, and the South American republics are merely\ncivilized. Now, I ask, in what does the difference consist?\n\nIs the diffusion of knowledge by popular education to be the test? Then\nGreat Britain and France would fall far below some countries now placed\nin the second, or even third rank. Denmark and China would be the most\ncivilized countries in the world; nay, even Thibet, and the rest of\nCentral Asia, would take precedence before the present champions of\ncivilization. The whole of Germany and Switzerland would come next, then\nthe eastern and middle sections of the United States, then the southern\nand western; and, after them, Great Britain and France. Still retaining\nthe same scale, Russia would actually be ranked above Italy, the native\nclime of the arts. In Great Britain itself, Scotland would far surpass\nEngland in civilization[13].\n\nIs the perfection to which the arts are carried, the test of\ncivilization? Then Bavaria and Italy are the most civilized countries.\nThen are we far behind the Greeks in civilization. Or, are the useful\narts to carry the prize? Then the people showing the greatest mechanical\ngenius is the most civilized.\n\nAre political institutions to be the test? Then the question, \"Which is\nthe best government?\" must first be decided. But the philosophic answer\nwould be: \"That which is best adapted to the genius of the people, and\ntherefore best answers the purposes for which all government is\ninstituted.\" Those who believe in the abstract superiority of any\ngovernmental theory, may be compared to the tailor who would finish some\nbeau-ideal of a coat, without taking his customer's measure. We could\nafford to laugh at such theorists, were not their schemes so often\nrecorded in blood in the annals of the world. Besides, if this test be\nadmitted, no two could agree upon what was a civilized community. The\npanegyrist of constitutional monarchy would call England the only\ncivilized country; the admirer of municipal liberty would point to the\nHanse towns of the Middle Ages, and their miserable relics, the present\nfree cities of Germany; the friend of sober republicanism would exclude\nfrom the pale of civilization all but the United States and Switzerland;\nthe lover of pure democracy would contend that mankind had retrograded\nsince the time of Athens, and deplore that civilization was now confined\nto some few rude mountain or nomadic tribes with few and simple wants;\nfinally, the defender of a paternal autocracy would sigh for the days of\nTrajan or Marcus Aurelius, and hesitate whether, in our age, Austria or\nRussia deserved the crown.\n\nNeither pre-eminence in arts and sciences, nor in popular instruction,\nnor in government, can singly be taken as the test of civilization.\nPre-eminence in all, no country enjoys. Yet all these are signs of\ncivilization--the only ones by which we distinguish and recognize it.\nHow, then, shall we define this term? I would suggest a simple and, I\nthink, sufficiently explicit definition: Civilization is the continuous\ndevelopment of man's moral and intellectual powers. As the aggregate of\nthese differs in different nations, so differs the character of their\ncivilization. In one, civilization manifests itself in the perfection of\nthe arts, either useful or polite; in another, in the cultivation of the\nsciences; in a third; in the care bestowed upon politics, or, in the\ndiffusion of knowledge among the masses. Each has its own merits, each\nits own defects; none combines the excellencies of all, but whichever\ncombines the most with fewest defects, may be considered the best, or\nmost perfect. It is because not keeping this obvious truth in view that\nJohn Bull laughs (or used to laugh) self-complacently at Monsieur\nCrapaud, and that we ourselves sometimes laugh at his political capers,\nforgetting that the thinkers of his nation have, for the last century at\nleast, led the van in science and politics--yes, even in politics.[14]\nIt is, for the same reason, that the Frenchman laughs at the German, or\nthe Dutchman; that the foreigner cannot understand that there is an\n_American civilization_ as well, and, bringing his own country's\nstandard along with him, finds everything either too little or too\ngreat; or, that the American, going to the native soil of the ripest\nscholars in the world, and seeing brick and mortar carried up by hand to\nthe fourth story of a building in process of erection,[15] or seeing\nfive men painfully perform a job which his youngest son would have\naccomplished without trouble by the simplest, perhaps self-invented,\ncontrivance, revolves in his own mind how it is possible that these\npeople--when the schoolmaster is abroad, too--are still so many\ncenturies \"behind the time.\" Thus each nation has its own standard by\nwhich it judges its neighbors; but when extra-European nations, such as\nthe Chinese or Hindoos, are to be judged, all unite in voting them\n_outside barbarians_.\n\nHere, then, we have indubitable proofs of moral and intellectual\ndiversities, not only in what are generally termed different races, but\neven in nations apparently belonging to the same race. Nor do I see in\nthis diversity ought that can militate against our ideas of universal\nbrotherhood. Among individuals, diversity of talent does not preclude\nfriendly intercourse; on the contrary, it promotes it, for rivals seldom\nare friends. Neither does superior ability exempt us from the duties\nwhich we owe to our fellow-man.\n\nI have repeatedly made use of the analogy between societies and the\nindividuals that compose them. I cannot more clearly express my idea of\ncivilization than by recurring to it again. Civilization, then, is to\nnations what the development of his physical and intellectual powers is\nto an individual; indeed, it is nothing but the aggregate result of all\nthese individual powers; a common reservoir to which each contributes a\nshare, whether large or small. The analogy may be extended further.\nNations may be considered as themselves members of societies, bearing\nthe same relations to each other and to the whole, as individuals. Thus,\nall the nations of Europe contribute, each in its own manner and degree,\nto what has been called the _European_ civilization. And, in the same\nmanner, the nations of Asia form distinct systems of civilizations. But\nall these systems ultimately tend to one great aim--the general welfare\nof mankind. I would therefore carefully distinguish between the\ncivilizations of particular nations, of clusters of nations, and of the\nwhole of our species. To borrow a metaphor from the mechanism of the\nuniverse, the first are like the planets of a solar system,\nrevolving--though in different orbits, and with different\nvelocities--around the same common centre; but the solar systems\nagain--with all their planets--revolve round another, more distant\npoint.\n\nLet us take two individuals of undoubted intellect. One may be a great\nmathematician, the other a great statesman. Place the first at the head\nof a cabinet, the second in an observatory, and the mathematician will\nas signally fail in correctly observing the changes in the political\nfirmament, as the other in noting those in the heavenly. Yet, who would\ndecide which had the superior intellect? This diversity of gifts is not\nthe result of education. No training, however ingenious, could have\nchanged an Arago into a Pitt, or _vice versa_. Raphael could under no\ncircumstances have become a Handel, or either of them a Milton. Nay, men\ndiffer in following the same career. Can any one conceive that Michael\nAngelo could ever have painted Vandyke's pictures, Shakspeare written\nMilton's verses, Mozart composed Rossini's music, or Jefferson followed\nHamilton's policy? Here, then, we have excellencies, perhaps of equal\ndegree, but of very different kinds. Nature, from her inexhaustible\nstore, has not only unequally, but variously, bestowed her favors, and\nthis infinite variety of gifts, as infinite as the variety of faces, God\nhas doubtless designed for the happiness of men, and for their more\nintimate union, in making them dependent one on another. As each\ncreature sings his Maker's praise in his own voice and cadence, the\nsparrow in his twitter, the nightingale in her warble, so each human\nbeing proclaims the Almighty's glory by the rightful use of his talents,\nwhether great or small, for the promotion of his fellow-creatures'\nhappiness; one may raise pious emotion in the breast by the tuneful\nmelody of his song; another by the beauty and vividness of his images on\ncanvas or in verse; a third discovers new worlds--additional evidences\nof His omnipotence who made them--and, by his calculations,\ndemonstrates, even to the sceptic, the wonderful mechanism of the\nuniverse; to another, again, it is given to guide a nation's councils,\nand, by His assistance, to avert danger, or correct evils. Fie upon\nthose who would raise man's powers above those of God, and ascribe\ndiversity of talents to education and accident, rather than to His\nwisdom and design. Can we not admire the Almighty as well in the variety\nas in a fancied uniformity of His works? Harmony consists in the union\nof different sounds; the harmony of the universe, in the diversity of\nits parts.\n\nWhat is true of a society composed of individuals, is true of that vast\npolitical assemblage composed of nations. That each has a career to run\nthrough, a destiny to fulfil, is my firm and unwavering belief. That\neach must be gifted with peculiar qualities for that purpose, is a mere\ncorollary of the proposition. This has been the opinion of all ages:\n\"The men of Boeotia are noted for their stolidity, those of Attica for\ntheir wit.\" Common parlance proves that it is now, to-day, the opinion\nof all mankind, whatever theorists may say. Many affect to deride the\nidea of \"manifest destiny\" that possesses us Anglo-Americans, but who in\nthe main doubts it? Who, that will but cast one glance on the map, or\nlook back upon our history of yesterday only, can think of seriously\ndenying that great purposes have been accomplished, will still be\naccomplished, and that these purposes were designed and guided by\nsomething more than blind chance? Unroll the page of history--of the\ngreat chain of human events, it is true, we perceive but few links;\nlike eternity, its beginning is wrapt in darkness, its end a mystery\nabove human comprehension--but, in the vast drama presented to us, in\nwhich nations form the cast, we see each play its part, then disappear.\nSome, as Mr. Gobineau has it, act the kings and rulers, others are\ncontent with inferior roles.\n\nAs it is incompatible with the wisdom of the Creator, to suppose that\neach nation was not specially fitted[16] for the part assigned to it, we\nmay judge of what they were capable of by what they have accomplished.\n\nHistory, then, must be our guide; and never was epoch more propitious,\nfor never has her lamp shone brighter. The study of this important\nscience, which Niebuhr truly calls the _magistra vit\u00e6_, has received\nwithin our days an impulse such as it never had before. The invaluable\narch\u00e6ological treasures which the linguists and antiquarians of Europe\nhave rescued from the literature and monuments of the great nations of\nformer ages, bring--as it were--back to life again the mouldered\ngenerations of the dim past. We no longer content ourselves with\nchronological outlines, mere names, and unimportant accounts of kings\nand their quarrels; we seek to penetrate into the inner life of those\nmultitudes who acted their part on the stage of history, and then\ndisappeared, to understand the modes of thought, the feelings, ideas,\n_instincts_, which actuated them, and made them what they were. The\nhoary pyramids of the Nile valley are forced to divulge their age, the\ndate of a former civilization; the temples and sepulchres, to furnish a\nminute account of even the private life of their builders;[17] the\narrow-headed characters on the disinterred bricks of the sites of\nBabylon and Nineveh, are no longer a secret to the indefatigable\norientalists; the classic writers of Hindostan and China find their most\nzealous scholiasts, and profoundest critics, in the capitals of Western\nEurope. The dross of childish fables, which age after age has\ntransmitted to its successor under the name of history, is exposed to\nthe powerful furnace of reason and criticism, and the pure ore\nextracted, by such men as Niebuhr, Heeren, Ranke, Gibbon, Grote. The\nenthusiastic lover of ancient Rome now sees her early history in\nclearer, truer colors than did her own historians.\n\nBut, if history is indispensable to ethnology, the latter is no less so\nto a true understanding of history. The two sciences mutually shed light\non one another's path, and though one of them is as yet in its infancy,\nits wonderful progress in so short a time, and the almost unparalleled\nattention which it has excited at all hands, are bright omens for the\nfuture. It will be obvious that, by _ethnology_, we do not mean\n_ethnography_, with which it has long been synonymous. Their meaning\ndiffers in the same manner, they bear almost the same relation to one\nanother as _geology_ and _geography_. While ethnography contents herself\nwith the mere description and classification of the races of man,\nethnology, to borrow the expressive language of the editor of the\n_London Ethnological Journal_, \"investigates the mental and physical\ndifferences of mankind, and the organic laws upon which they depend;\nseeks to deduce from these investigations principles of human guidance,\nin all the important relations of social and national existence.\"[18]\nThe importance of this study cannot be better expressed than in the\nwords of a writer in the _North British Review_ for August, 1849: \"No\none that has not worked much in the element of history, can be aware of\nthe immense importance of clearly keeping in view the differences of\nrace that are discernible among the nations that inhabit different parts\nof the world.... In speculative history, in questions relating to the\npast career and the future destinies of nations, _it is only by a firm\nand efficient handling of this conception of our species, as broken up\ninto so many groups or masses, physiologically different to a certain\nextent, that any progress can be made, or any available conclusions\naccurately arrived at_.\"[19]\n\nBut in attempting to divide mankind into such groups, an ethnologist is\nmet by a serious and apparently insurmountable difficulty. The gradation\nof color is so imperceptible from the clearest white to the jettest\nblack; and even anatomical peculiarities, normal in one branch, are\nfound to exist, albeit in exceptional cases, in many others; so that the\nethnographers scarce know where to stop in their classification, and\nwhile some recognize but three grand varieties, others contend for five,\nfor eleven, or even for a much greater number. This difficulty arises,\nin my estimation, mainly from the attempt to class mankind into\ndifferent species, that is, groups who have a separate origin; and\nalso, from the proneness to draw deductions from individual instances,\nby which almost any absurdity can be sustained, or truth refuted. As we\nhave already inveighed against the latter error, and shall therefore try\nto avoid falling into it; and as we have no desire to enter the field of\ndiscussion about unity or plurality of species, we hope, in a great\nmeasure, to obviate the difficulties that beset the path of so many\ninquirers. By the word _race_[20] we mean, both here and in the body of\nthe work, such branches of the human family as are distinguished in the\naggregate by certain well-defined physical or mental peculiarities,\nindependent of the question whether they be of identical or diverse\norigin. For the sake of simplicity, these races are arranged in several\nprincipal classes, according to their relative affinities and\nresemblances. The most popular system of arrangement is that of\nBlumenbach, who recognizes five grand divisions, distinguished by\nappellations descriptive either of color or geographical position, viz:\nthe White, Circassian, or European; the Yellow, Altaic, Asiatic, or\nMongolian; the Red, American, or Indian; the Brown, or Malay; and,\nlastly, the Black, African, or negro. This division, though the most\ncommonly adopted, has no superior claims above any other. Not only are\nits designations liable to very serious objections, but it is, in\nitself, entirely arbitrary. The Hottentot differs as much from the negro\nas the latter does from the Malay; and the Polynesian from the Malay\nmore than the American from the Mongolian. Upon the same principle,\nthen, the number of classes might be indefinitely extended. Mr. Gobineau\nthought three classes sufficient to answer every purpose, and these he\ncalls respectively the white, yellow, and black. Mr. Latham,[21] the\ngreat ethnographer, adopts a system almost precisely similar to our\nauthor's, and upon grounds entirely different. Though, for my own part,\nI should prefer a greater number of primary divisions, I confess that\nthis coincidence of opinion in two men, pursuing, independent of, and\nunknown to each other, different paths of investigation, is a strong\nevidence of the correctness of their system, which, moreover, has the\nmerit of great simplicity and clearness.\n\nIt must be borne in mind that the races comprised under these divisions,\nare by no means to be considered equal among themselves. We should lay\nit down as a general truth, that while the entire groups differ\nprincipally in _degree_ of intellectual capacity, the races comprised in\neach differ among themselves rather in kind. Thus, we assert upon the\ntestimony of history, that the white races are superior to the yellow;\nand these, in turn, to the black. But the Lithuanian and the Anglo-Saxon\nboth belong to the same group of races, and yet, history shows that\nthey differ; so do the Samoyede and the Chinese, the negro of Lower\nGuinea, and the Fellah. These differences, observable among nations\nclassed under the same head, as, for instance, the difference between\nthe Russians and Italians (both white), we express in every day's\nlanguage by the word \"genius.\" Thus, we constantly hear persons speak of\nthe artistic, administrative, nautical genius of the Greeks, Romans, and\nPhenicians, respectively; or, such phrases as these, which I borrow from\nMr. Gobineau: \"Napoleon rightly understood the _genius_ of his nation\nwhen he reinstated the Church, and placed the supreme authority on a\nsecure basis; Charles I. and his adviser did not, when they attempted to\nbend the neck of Englishmen under the yoke of absolutism.\" But, as the\nword _genius_ applied to the capacities or tendencies of a nation, in\ngeneral implies either too much or too little, it has been found\nconvenient, in this work, to substitute for it another term--_instinct_.\nBy the use of this word, it was not intended to assimilate man to the\nbrute, to express aught differing from intellect or the reasoning\ncapacity; but only to designate the peculiar manner in which that\nintellect or reasoning capacity manifests itself; in other words, the\nspecial adaptation of a nation for the part assigned to it in the\nworld's history; and, as this part is performed involuntarily and, for\nthe most part, unconsciously, the term was deemed neither improper nor\ninappropriate. I do not, however, contend for its correctness, though I\ncould cite the authority of high names for its use in this sense; I\ncontend merely for its convenience, for we thereby gain an easy method\nof making distinctions of _kind_ in the mental endowments of races, in\ncases where we would hesitate to make distinctions of _degree_. In fact,\nit is saying of multitudes only what we say of an individual by speaking\nof his _talent_; with this difference, however, that by talent we\nunderstand excellency of a certain order, while instinct applies to\nevery grade. Two persons of equal intellectual calibre may have, one a\ntalent for mathematics, the other for literature; that is, one can\nexhibit his intellect to advantage only in calculation, the other only\nin writing. Thus, of two nations standing equally high in the\nintellectual scale, one shall be distinguished for the high perfection\nattained in the fine arts, the other for the same perfection in the\nuseful.\n\nAt the risk of wearying the reader with my definitions, I must yet\ninflict on him another which is essential to the right understanding of\nthe following pages. In common parlance, the terms _nation_ and\n_people_ have become strictly synonymous. We speak indifferently of the\nFrench people, or the French nation; the English people, or the English\nnation. If we make any distinction at all, we perhaps designate by the\nfirst expression the masses; by the second, rather the sovereignty.\nThus, we say the French people are versatile, the French nation is at\nwar with Russia. But even this distinction is not always made.\n\nMy purpose is to restore the word nation to its original signification,\nin which it expresses the same as the word race, including, besides, the\nidea of some sort of political organization. It is, in fact, nothing but\nthe Latin equivalent of that word, and was applied, like tribe, to a\ncollection of individuals not only living under the same government, but\nalso claiming a closer consanguinity to one another than to their\nneighbors. It differs from tribe only in this respect, that it is\napplied to greater multitudes, as for instance to a coalescence of\nseveral closely-allied tribes, which gives rise to more complicated\npolitical forms. It might therefore be defined by an ethnologist as _a\npopulation consisting of homogeneous ethnical elements_.\n\nThe word _people_, on the contrary, when applied to an aggregation of\nindividuals living under the same government, implies no immediate\nconsanguineous ties among them. _Nation_ does not necessarily imply\npolitical unity; _people_, always. Thus, we speak of the Greek _nation_,\nthough the Greeks were divided into a number of independent and very\ndissimilar sovereignties; but, we say the Roman _people_, though the\nwhole population of the empire obeyed the same supreme head. The Russian\nempire contains within its limits, besides the Russians proper, an\nalmost equal number of Cossacks, Calmucks, Tartars, Fins, and a number\nof other races, all very different from one another and still more so\nfrom the Russians, not only in language and external appearance, but in\nmanners, modes of thinking: in one word, in instincts. By the expression\nRussian people I should therefore understand the whole population of\nthat empire; by Russian nation, only the dominant race to which the Czar\nbelongs. It is hardly possible to exaggerate the importance of keeping\nin view this distinction, as I shall prove by another instance. The\nHungarian people are very nearly equally divided (exclusive of about one\nmillion Germans) into two nations, the Magyars and the Sclaves. Not only\nhave these two, though for centuries occupying the same soil, remained\nunmixed and distinct, but the most intense antipathy exists between\nthem, which only requires an occasion to display itself in acts of\nbloodshed and relentless cruelty, that would make the tenants of hell\nshudder. Such an occasion was the recent revolution, in which, while the\nMagyars fought like lions for their independence, the Sclaves, knowing\nthat they would not participate in any advantage the others might gain,\nproved more formidable opponents than the Austrians.[22]\n\nIf I have been successful in my discrimination between the two words, it\nfollows plainly that a member of one nation, strictly speaking, can no\nmore become a member of another by process of law, than a man, by\nadopting a child, can make it the fruit of his loins. This rule, though\ncorrect in the abstract, does not always apply to individual cases; but\nthese, as has already been remarked, cannot be made the groundwork of\ngeneral deductions. In conclusion of this somewhat digressional\ndefinition, I would observe that, owing to the great intermixture of the\nEuropean populations, produced by their various and intimate mutual\nrelations, it does not apply with the same force to them as to others,\nand this I regard as the reason why the signification of the word has\nbecome modified.\n\nIf we will carefully examine the history of great empires, we shall be\nable, in almost every instance, to trace their beginning to the activity\nof what, in the strictest sense of the word, may be called a nation.\nGradually, as the sphere of that nation expands, it incorporates, and in\ncourse of time amalgamates with foreign elements.\n\nNimrod, we learn from sacred history, established the Assyrian empire.\nAt first, this consisted of but little more than the city of Babylon,\nand must necessarily have contained a very homogeneous population, if\nfrom no other cause than its narrow geographical limits. At the dawn of\nprofane history, however, we find this empire extending over boundless\ntracts, and uniting under one rule tribes and nations of the most\ndissimilar manners and tongues.\n\nThe Assyrian empire fell, and that of the Medes rose on its ruins. The\nMedian monarchy had an humble beginning. Dejoces, says tradition, united\nthe independent tribes of the Medes. Later, we find them ruling nations\nwhose language they did not understand, whose manners they despised.\n\nThe Persian empire exceeded in grandeur its mighty predecessors.\nOriginating in a rebellion of a few liberty-loving tribes, concerted and\nsuccessfully executed by a popular leader (Cyrus), two generations of\nrulers extended its boundaries to the banks of the Nile. In Alexander's\ntime, it was a conglomeration of a countless number of nations, many of\nwhom remained under their hereditary rulers while rendering allegiance,\nand paying tribute to the great king.\n\nI pass over the Macedonian empire, as of too short a duration to be a\nfair illustration. The germ of the Roman empire consisted of a\ncoalescence of very closely allied tribes: Romulus's band of adventurers\n(who must have come from neighboring communities), the Sabines, Albans,\nand Latins. At the period of its downfall, it ruled, at least nominally,\nover every then known race.\n\nIn all these instances, the number of which might be further increased,\nwe find homogeneousness of population at first, ethnical mixture and\nconfusion at the end. \"But what does this prove? will be asked. That too\ngreat an extension of territory is the cause of weakness? The idea is\nold, and out of date in our times, when steam and electricity bring the\noutskirts of the largest empire in closer proximity than formerly were\nthe frontiers of the humblest sovereignty.\" Extension of territory does\nnot itself prove a cause of weakness and ruin. The largest empire in the\nworld is that of China, and, without steam or electricity, it has\nmaintained itself for 4,000 years, and bids fair, spite of the present\nrevolution, to last a good long while yet. But, when extension of\nterritory is attended with the incorporation of heterogeneous masses,\nhaving different interests, different instincts, from the conqueror,\nthen indeed the extension must be an element of weakness, and not of\nstrength.\n\nThe armies which Xerxes led into Greece were not Persians; but a small\nfragment of that motley congregation, the _\u00e9lite_, the leaven of the\nwhole mass, was composed of the king's countrymen. Upon this small body\nhe placed his principal reliance, and when, at the fatal battle of\nSalamis, he beheld the slaughter of that valiant and noble band, though\nhe had hundreds of thousands yet at his command, he rent his garments\nand fled a country which he had well-nigh conquered. Here is the\ndifference between the armies of Cyrus and those of Xerxes and Darius.\nThe rabbles which obeyed the latter, perhaps contained as much valor as\nthe ranks of the enthusiastic followers of the first, though the fact\nof their fighting under Persian standards might be considered as a proof\nof their inferiority. But what interest had they in the success of the\ngreat king? To forge still firmer their own fetters? Could the name of\nCyrus, the remembrance of the storming of Sardis, the siege of Babylon,\nthe conquest of Egypt, fire them with enthusiasm? Perhaps, in some of\nthose glorious events, their forefathers became slaves to the tyrants\nthey now serve, tyrants whose very language they do not understand.\n\nThe last armies of tottering Rome were drafted from every part of her\nboundless dominions, and of the men who were sent to oppose the\nthreatening barbarians of the north, some, it might be, felt the blood\nof humbled Greece in their veins; some had been torn from a distant home\nin Egypt, or Libya; others, perhaps, remembered with pride how their\nancestors had fought the Romans in the times of Juba, or Mithridates;\nothers, again, boiled with indignation at the oppression of their Gallic\nbrethren;--could those men respect the glorious traditions of Rome,\ncould they be supposed to emulate the former legions of the proud city?\n\nIt is not, then, an extensive territory that ruins nations; it is a\ndiversity of instincts, a clashing of interests among the various parts\nof the population. When each province is isolated in feelings and\ninterests from every other, no external foe is wanted to complete the\nruin. Ambitious and adroit men will soon arise who know how to play upon\nthese interests, and employ them for the promotion of their own schemes.\n\nNations, in the various stages of their career, have often been compared\nto individuals. They have, it is said, their period of infancy, of\nyouth, of manhood, of old age. But the similitude, however striking, is\nnot extended further, and, while individuals die a natural death,\nnations are supposed always to come to a violent end. Probably, we do\nnot like to concede that all nations, like all individuals, must\nultimately die a natural death, even though no disease anticipates it;\nbecause we dislike to recognize a rule which must apply to us as well.\nEach nation fancies its own vitality imperishable. When we are young, we\nseldom seriously think of death; in the same manner, societies in the\nperiod of their youthful vigor and energy, cannot conceive the\npossibility of their dissolution. In old age and decrepitude, they are\nlike the consumptive patient, who, while fell disease is severing the\nlast thread that binds him to the earth, is still forming plans for\nyears to come. Falling Rome dreamed herself eternal. Yet, the mortality\nof nations admits of precisely the same proof as that of\nindividuals--universal experience. The great empires that overshadowed\nthe world, where are they? The memory of some is perpetuated in the\nhearts of mankind by imperishable monuments; of others, the slightest\ntrace is obliterated, the vaguest remembrance vanished. As the great\nindividual intelligences, whose appearance marks an era in the history\nof human thought, live in the minds of posterity, even though no\ngorgeous tombstone points out the resting-place of their hull of clay;\nwhile the mausoleum of him whose grandeur was but temporary, whose\ninfluence transient only, carries no meaning on its sculptured surface\nto after ages; even so the ancient civilizations which adorned the\nglobe, if their monuments be not in the domain of thought, their\ngigantic vestiges serve but to excite the wonder of the traveller and\nantiquary, and perplex the historian. Their sepulchres, however grand,\nare mute.[23]\n\nMany have been the attempts to detect the causes why nations die, in\norder to prevent that catastrophe; as the physicians of the Middle Ages,\nwho thought death was always the consequence of disease, sought for the\npanacea that was to cure all ills and thus prolong life forever. But\nnations, like individuals, often survive the severest attacks of the\nmost formidable disease, and die without sickness. In ancient times,\nthose great catastrophes which annihilated the political existence of\nmillions, were regarded as direct interpositions of Providence, visiting\nin its wrath the sins of a nation, and erecting a warning example for\nothers; just as the remarkable destruction of a noted individual, or the\noccurrence of an unusual phenomenon was, and by many is even now,\nascribed to the same immediate agency. But when philosophy discovered\nthat the universe is governed by pre-established, immutable laws, and\nrefused to credit miracles not sanctioned by religion; then the dogma\ngained ground that punishment follows the commission of sin, as effect\ndoes the cause; and national calamities had to be explained by other\nreasons. It was then said, nations die of luxury, immorality, bad\ngovernment, irreligion, etc. In other words, success was made the test\nof excellency and failure of crime. If, in individual life, we were to\nlay it down as an infallible rule, that he who commits no excesses lives\nforever, or at least very long; and he who does, will immediately die;\nthat he who is honest in his dealings, will always prosper more than he\nwho is not; we should have a very fluctuating standard of morality,\nsince it has pleased God to sometimes try the good by severe\nafflictions, and let the wicked prosper. We should therefore be often\ncalled upon to admire what is deserving of contempt or punishment, and\nto seek for guilt in the innocent. This is what we do in nations. Wicked\ninstitutions have been called good, because they were attended with\nsuccess; good ones have been pronounced bad, because they failed.\n\nA more critical study of history has demonstrated the fallibility of\nthis theory, which is now in a great measure discarded, and another\nadopted in its stead. It is argued that, at a certain period in its\nexistence, a nation infallibly becomes degenerated, and thus falls. But,\nasks Mr. Gobineau, what is degeneracy? A nation is said to be\ndegenerated when the virtues of its ancestry are lost. But why are they\nlost? Because the nation is degenerated. Is not this like the reasoning\nin the child's story-book: Why is Jack a bad boy? Because he disobeys\nhis parents. Why does he disobey his parents? Because he is a bad boy.\n\nIt is necessary, then, to show what degeneracy is. This step in advance,\nMr. Gobineau attempts to make. He shows that each race is distinguished\nby certain capabilities, which, if its civilizing genius is sufficiently\nstrong to enable it to assume a rank among the nations of the world,\ndetermine the character of its social and political development. Like\nthe Phenicians, it may become the merchant and barterer of the world;\nor, like the Greeks, the teacher of future generations; or, like the\nRomans, the model-giver of laws and forms. Its part in the drama of\nhistory may be an humble one or a proud, but it is always proportionate\nto its powers. These powers, and the instincts or aspirations which\nspring from them, never change as long as the race remains pure. They\nprogress and develop themselves, but never alter their nature. The\npurposes of the race are always the same. It may arrive at great\nperfection in the useful arts, but, without infiltration of a different\nelement, will never be distinguished for poetry, painting, sculpture,\netc.; and _vice versa_. Its nature may be belligerent, and it will\nalways find causes for quarrel; or it may be pacific, and then it will\nmanage to live at peace, or fall a prey to a neighbor.\n\nIn the same manner, the government of a race will be in accordance with\nits instincts, and here I have the weighty authority of the author of\n_Democracy in America_, in my favor, and the author's whom I am\nillustrating. \"A government,\" says De Tocqueville,[24] \"retains its sway\nover a great number of citizens, far less by the voluntary and rational\nconsent of the multitude, than by that _instinctive_, and, to a certain\nextent, involuntary agreement, which results from similarity of\nfeelings, and resemblances of opinions. I will never admit that men\nconstitute a social body, simply because they obey the same head and the\nsame laws. A society can exist only when a great number of men consider\na great number of things in the same point of view; when they hold the\nsame opinions upon many subjects, and when the same occurrences suggest\nthe same thoughts and impressions to their minds.\" The laws and\ngovernment of a nation are always an accurate reflex of its manners and\nmodes of thinking. \"If, at first, it would appear,\" says Mr. Gobineau,\n\"as if, in some cases, they were the production of some superior\nindividual intellect, like the great law-givers of antiquity; let the\nfacts be more carefully examined, and it will be found that the\nlaw-giver--if wise and judicious--has contented himself with consulting\nthe genius of his nation, and giving a voice to the common sentiment.\nIf, on the contrary, he be a theorist like Draco, his system remains a\ndead letter, soon to be superseded by the more judicious institutions of\na Solon who aims to give to his countrymen, not the best laws possible,\nbut the best he thinks them capable of receiving.\" It is a great and a\nvery general error to suppose that the sense of a nation will always\ndecide in favor of what we term \"popular\" institutions, that is to say,\nsuch in which each individual shares more or less immediately in the\ngovernment. Its genius may tend to the establishment of absolute\nauthority, and in that case the autocrat is but an impersonation of the\n_vox populi_, by which he must be guided in his policy. If he be too\ndeaf or rash to listen to it, his own ruin will be the inevitable\nconsequence, but the nation persists in the same career.\n\nThe meaning of the word degeneracy is now obvious. This inevitable evil\nis concealed in the very successes to which a nation owes its splendor.\nWhether, like the Persians, Romans, &c., it is swallowed up and\nabsorbed by the multitudes its arms have subjected, or whether the\nethnical mixture proceeds in a peaceful manner, the result is the same.\nEven where no foreign conquests add suddenly hundreds of thousands of a\nforeign population to the original mass, the fertility of uncultivated\nfields, the opulence of great commercial cities, and all the advantages\nto be found in the bosom of a rising nation, accomplish it, if in a less\nperceptible, in a no less certain manner. The two young nations of the\nworld are now the United States and Russia. See the crowds which are\nthronging over the frontiers of both. Both already count their foreign\npopulation by millions. As the original population--the initiatory\nelement of the whole mass--has no additions to its numbers but its\nnatural increase, it follows that the influent elements must, in course\nof time, be of equal strength, and the influx still continuing, finally\nabsorb it altogether. Sometimes a nation establishes itself upon the\nbasis of a much more numerous conquered population, as in the case of\nthe Frankish conquerors of Gaul; then the amalgamation of ranks and\nclasses produces the same results as foreign immigration. It is clear\nthat each new ethnical element brings with it its own characteristics or\ninstincts, and according to the relative strength of these will be the\nmodifications in government, social relations, and the whole tendencies\nof the race. The modifications may be for the better, they may be for\nthe worse; they may be very gradual, or very sudden, according to the\nmerit and power of the foreign influence; but in course of time they\nwill amount to radical, positive changes, and then the original nation\nhas ceased to exist.\n\nThis is the natural death of human societies. Sometimes they expire\ngently and almost imperceptibly; oftener with a convulsion and a crash.\nI shall attempt to explain my meaning by a familiar simile. A mansion is\nbuilt which in all respects suits the taste and wants of the owner.\nSucceeding generations find it too small, too dark, or otherwise ill\nadapted to their purposes. Respect for their progenitor, and family\nassociation, prevent, at first, very extensive changes, still each one\nmakes some; and as these associations grow fainter, the changes become\nmore radical, until at last nothing of the old house remains. But if it\nhad previously passed into the hands of a stranger, who had none of\nthese associations to venerate and respect, he would probably have\npulled it down at once and built another.\n\nAn empire, then, falls, when the vitalizing principle which gave it\nbirth is exhausted; when its parts are connected by none but artificial\nties, and artificial ties are all those which unite races possessed of\ndifferent instincts. This idea is expressed in the beautiful image of\nthe inspired prophet, when he tells the mighty king that great truth,\nwhich so many refuse to believe, that all earthly kingdoms must perish\nuntil \"the God of Heaven set up a kingdom which shall never be\ndestroyed.\"[25] \"Thou, O king, sawest, and behold a great image. This\ngreat image, whose brightness was excellent, stood before thee, and the\nform thereof was terrible. This image's head was of fine gold, his\nbreast and his arms of silver, his belly and his thighs of brass, his\nlegs of iron, his feet part of iron and part of clay. Thou sawest till\nthat a stone was cut without hands, which smote the image upon his feet\nthat were of iron and clay, and brake them to pieces. Then was the iron,\nthe clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold, broken to pieces\ntogether, and became like the chaff of the summer threshing-floors; and\nthe wind carried them away, that no place was found for them.\"[26]\n\nI have now illustrated, to the best of my abilities, several of the most\nimportant propositions of Mr. Gobineau, and attempted to sustain them\nby arguments and examples different from those used by the author. For a\nmore perfect exposition I must refer the reader to the body of the work.\nMy purpose was humbly to clear away such obstacles as the author has\nleft in the path, and remove difficulties that escaped his notice. The\ntask which I have set myself, would, however, be far from accomplished,\nwere I to pass over what I consider a serious error on his part, in\nsilence and without an effort at emendation.\n\nCivilization, says Mr. Gobineau, arises from the combined action and\nmutual reaction of man's moral aspirations, and the pressure of his\nmaterial wants. This, in a general sense, is obviously true. But let us\nsee the practical application. I shall endeavor to give a concise\nabstract of his views, and then to point out where and why he errs.\n\nIn some races, says he, the spiritual aspirations predominate over their\nphysical desires, in others it is the reverse. In none are either\nentirely wanting. According to the relative proportion and intensity of\neither of these influences, which counteract and yet assist each other,\nthe tendency of the civilization varies. If either is possessed in but a\nfeeble degree, or if one of them so greatly outweighs the other as to\ncompletely neutralize its effects, there is no civilization, and never\ncan be one until the race is modified by intermixture with one of higher\nendowments. But if both prevail to a sufficient extent, the\npreponderance of either one determines the character of the\ncivilization. In the Chinese, it is the material tendency that prevails,\nin the Hindoo the other. Consequently we find that in China,\ncivilization is principally directed towards the gratification of\nphysical wants, the perfection of material well-being. In other words,\nit is of an eminently utilitarian character, which discourages all\nspeculation not susceptible of immediate practical application.\n\nThis well describes the Chinese, and is precisely the picture which M.\nHuc, who has lived among them for many years, and has enjoyed better\nopportunities for studying their genius than any other writer, gives of\nthem in his late publication.[27]\n\nHindoo culture, on the contrary, displays a very opposite tendency.\nAmong that nation, everything is speculative, nothing practical. The\ntoils of human intellect are in the regions of the abstract where the\nmind often loses itself in depths beyond its sounding. The material\nwants are few and easily supplied. If great works are undertaken, it is\nin honor of the gods, so that even their physical labor bears homage to\nthe invisible rather than the visible world. This also is a tolerably\ncorrect picture.\n\nHe therefore divides all races into these two categories, taking the\nChinese as the type of the one and the Hindoos as that of the other.\nAccording to him, the yellow races belong pre-eminently to the former,\nthe black to the latter, while the white are distinguished by a greater\nintensity and better proportion of the qualities of both. But this\ndivision, and no other is consistent with the author's proposition, by\nassuming that in the black races the moral preponderates over the\nphysical tendency, comes in direct conflict not only with the plain\nteachings of anatomy, but with all we know of the history of those\nraces. I shall attempt to show wherein Mr. Gobineau's error lies, an\nerror from the consequences of which I see no possibility for him to\nescape, and suggest an emendation which, so far from invalidating his\ngeneral position, tends rather to confirm and strengthen it. In doing\nso, I am actuated by the belief that even if I err, I may be useful by\ninviting others more capable to the task of investigation. Suggestions\non important subjects, if they serve no other purpose than to provoke\ninquiry, are never useless. The alchemists of the Middle Ages, in their\nfrivolous pursuit of impossibilities, discovered many invaluable secrets\nof nature and laid the foundation of that science which, by explaining\nthe intimate mutual action of all natural bodies, has become the\nindispensable handmaiden of almost every other.\n\nThe error, it seems to me, lies in the same confusion of distinct ideas,\nto which I had already occasion to advert. In ordinary language, we\nspeak of the physical and moral nature of man, terming physical whatever\nrelates to his material, and moral what relates to his immaterial being.\nAgain, we speak of _mind_, and though in theory we consider it as a\nsynonyme of soul, in practical application it has a very different\nsignification. A person may cultivate his mind without benefiting his\nsoul, and the term _a superior mind_, does not necessarily imply moral\nexcellency. That mental qualifications or acquisitions are in no way\nconnected with sound morality or true piety, I have pointed out before.\nShould any further illustrations be necessary, I might remark that the\ngreatest monsters that blot the page of history, have been, for the most\npart, men of what are called superior minds, of great intellectual\nattainments. Indeed, wickedness is seldom very dangerous, unless joined\nto intellect, as the common sense of mankind has expressed in the adage\nthat a fool is seldom a knave. We daily see men perverting the highest\nmental gifts to the basest purposes, a fact which ought to be carefully\nweighed by those who believe that education consists in the cultivation\nof the intellect only. I therefore consider the moral endowments of man\nas practically different from the mental or intellectual, at least in\ntheir manifestations, if not in their essence. To define my idea more\nclearly, let me attempt to explain the difference between what I term\nthe moral and the intellectual nature of man. I am aware of the\ndangerous nature of the ground I am treading, but shall nevertheless\nmake the attempt to show that it is in accordance with the spirit of\nreligion to consider what in common parlance is called the moral\nattributes of man, and which would be better expressed by the word\n_psychical_, as divisible into two, the strictly moral, and the\nintellectual.\n\nThe former is what leads man to look beyond his earthly existence, and\ngives even the most brutish savage some vague idea of a Deity. I am\nmaking no rash or unfounded assertion when I declare, Mr. Locke's\nweighty opinion to the contrary notwithstanding, that no tribe has ever\nbeen discovered in which some notion of this kind, however rude, was\nwanting, and I consider it innate--a yearning, as it were, of the soul\ntowards the regions to which it belongs. The feeling of religion is\nimplanted in our breast; it is not a production of the intellect, and\nthis the Christian church confirms when it declares that _faith_ we owe\nto the grace of God.\n\nIntellect is that faculty of soul by which it takes cognizance of,\nclasses and compares the facts of the _material_ world. As all\nperceptions are derived through the senses, it follows that upon the\nnicety of these its powers must in a great measure depend. The vigor and\ndelicacy of the nerves, and the size and texture of the brain in which\nthey all centre, form what we call native intellectual gifts. Hence,\nwhen the body is impaired, the mind suffers; \"mens sana in corpore\nsano;\" hence, a fever prostrates, and may forever destroy, the most\npowerful intellect; a glass of wine may dim and distort it. Here, then,\nis the grand distinction between soul and mind. The latter, human\nwickedness may annihilate; the former, man killeth not. I should wish to\nenter more fully upon this investigation, not new, indeed, in\nspeculative science, yet new in the application I purpose to make of it,\nwere it not for fear of wearying my reader, to whom my only apology can\nbe, that the discussion is indispensable to the proper investigation of\nthe moral and intellectual diversities of races. When I say moral\ndiversities, I do not mean that man's moral endowments, strictly\nspeaking, are unequal. This assertion I am not prepared to make,\nbecause--as religion is accessible and comprehensible to them all--it\nmay be supposed that these are in all cases equal. But I mean that the\nmanifestation of these moral endowments varies, owing to causes which I\nam now about to consider. I have said that the moral nature of man leads\nhim to look beyond the confines of the material world. This, when not\nassisted by revelation, he attempts to do by means of his intellect. The\nintellect is, as it were, the visual organ by which the soul scans the\nabyss between the present and the future existence. According to the\ndimness or brightness of this mental eye, are his perceptions. If the\nintellectual capacity is weak, he is content with a grovelling\nconception of the Deity; if powerful, he erects an elaborate fabric of\nphilosophical speculations. But, as the Almighty has decreed that human\nintellect, even in its sublimest flight, cannot soar to His presence; it\nfollows that the most elaborate fabric of the philosopher is still a\n_human_ fabric, that the most perfect human theology is still _human_,\nand hence--the necessity of revelation. This divine light, which His\nmercy has vouchsafed us, dispenses with, and eclipses, the feeble\nglimmerings of human intellect. It illumines as well the soul of the\nrude savage as of the learned theologian; of the illiterate as of the\nerudite. Nay, very often the former has the advantage, for the erudite\nphilosopher is prone to think his own lamp all-sufficient. If it be\nobjected that a highly cultivated mind, if directed to rightful\npurposes, will assist in gaining a _nobler_ conception of the Deity, I\nshall not contradict, for in the study of His works, we learn still more\nto admire the Maker. But I insist that true piety can, and does exist\nwithout it, and let those who trust so much in their own powers beware\nlest they lean upon a broken staff.\n\nThe strictly moral attributes of man, therefore, those attributes which\nenable him to communicate with his Maker, are common--probably in equal\ndegree--to all men, and to all races of men. But his communications with\nthe external world depend on his physical conformation. The body is the\nconnecting link between the spirit and the material world, and, by its\nintimate relations to both, specially adapted to be the means of\ncommunication between them. There seems to me nothing irrational or\nirreligious in the doctrine that, according to the perfectness of this\nmeans of communication, must be the intercourse between the two. A\nperson with dull auditory organs can never appreciate music, and\nwhatever his talents otherwise may be, can never become a Meyerbeer or a\nMozart. Upon quickness of perception, power of analysis and combination,\nperseverance and endurance, depend our intellectual faculties, both in\ntheir degree and their kind; and are not they blunted or otherwise\nmodified in a morbid state of the body? I consider it therefore\nestablished beyond dispute, that a certain general physical conformation\nis productive of corresponding mental characteristics. A human being,\nwhom God has created with a negro's skull and general _physique_, can\nnever equal one with a Newton's or a Humboldt's cranial development,\nthough the soul of both is equally precious in the eyes of the Lord, and\nshould be in the eyes of all his followers. There is no tendency to\nmaterialism in this idea; I have no sympathy with those who deny the\nexistence of the soul, because they cannot find it under the scalpel,\nand I consider the body not the mental agent, but the servant, the tool.\n\nIt is true that science has not discovered, and perhaps never will\ndiscover, what physical differences correspond to the differences in\nindividual minds. Phrenology, starting with brilliant promises, and\nbringing to the task powers of no mean order, has failed. But there is a\nvast difference between the characteristics by which we distinguish\nindividuals of the same race, and those by which we distinguish\nraces themselves. The former are not strictly--at least not\nimmediately--hereditary, for the child most often differs from both\nparents in body and mind, because no two individuals, as no two leaves\nof one tree, are precisely alike. But, although every oak-leaf differs\nfrom its fellow, we know the leaf of the oak-tree from that of the\nbeech, or every other; and, in the same manner, races are distinguished\nby peculiarities which are hereditary and permanent. Thus, every negro\ndiffers from every other negro, else we could not tell them apart; yet\nall, if pure blood, have the same characteristics in common that\ndistinguish them from the white. I have been prolix, but intentionally\nso, in my discrimination between individual distinction and those of\nrace, because of the latter, comparative anatomy takes cognizance; the\nformer are left to phrenology, and I wished to remove any suspicion that\nin the investigation of moral and intellectual diversities of races,\nrecourse must be had to the ill-authenticated speculations of a dubious\nscience. But, from the data of comparative anatomy, attained by a slow\nand cautious progress, we deduce that races are distinguished by certain\npermanent physical characteristics; and, if these physical\ncharacteristics correspond to the mental, it follows as an obvious\nconclusion that the latter are permanent also. History ratifies the\nconclusion, and the common sense of mankind practically acquiesces in\nit.\n\nTo return, then, to our author. I would add to his two elements of\ncivilization a third--intellect _per se_; or rather, to speak more\ncorrectly, I would subdivide one of his elements into two, of which one\nis probably dependent on physical conformation. The combinations will\nthen be more complex, but will remove every difficulty.\n\nI remarked that although we may consider all races as possessed of equal\nmoral endowments, we yet may speak of moral diversities; because,\nwithout the light of revelation, man has nothing but his intellect\nwhereby to compass the immaterial world, and the manifestation of his\nmoral faculties must therefore be in proportion to the clearness of his\nintellectual, and their preponderance over the animal tendencies. The\nthree I consider as existing about in the following relative proportions\nin the three great groups under which Mr. Gobineau and Mr. Latham[28]\nhave arranged the various races--a classification, however, which, as I\nalready observed, I cannot entirely approve.\n\n\n                    BLACK RACES, OR   YELLOW RACES, OR   WHITE RACES, OR\n                     ATLANTID\u00c6.[29]    MONGOLID\u00c6.[29]     JAPETID\u00c6.[29]\n\n  INTELLECT           Feeble           Mediocre           Vigorous.\n\n  ANIMAL           }\n    PROPENSITIES   }  Very strong      Moderate           Strong.\n\n  MORAL            }  Partially        Comparatively      Highly\n    MANIFESTATIONS }    latent           developed          cultivated.\n\n\nBut the races comprised in each group vary among themselves, if not with\nregard to the relative proportion in which they possess the elements of\ncivilization, at least in their intensity. The following formulas will,\nI think, apply to the majority of cases, and, at the same time, bring\nout my idea in a clearer light:--\n\nIf the animal propensities are strongly developed, and not tempered by\nthe intellectual faculties, the moral conceptions must be exceedingly\nlow, because they necessarily depend on the clearness, refinement, and\ncomprehensiveness of the ideas derived from the material world through\nthe senses. The religious cravings will, therefore, be contented with a\ngross worship of material objects, and the moral sense degenerate into\na grovelling superstition. The utmost elevation which a population, so\nconstituted, can reach, will be an unconscious impersonation of the good\naspirations and the evil tendencies of their nature under the form of a\ngood and an evil spirit, to the latter of which absurd and often bloody\nhomage is paid. Government there can be no other than the right which\nforce gives to the strong, and its forms will be slavery among\nthemselves, and submissiveness of all to a tyrannical absolutism.\n\nWhen the same animal propensities are combined with intellect of a\nhigher order, the moral faculties have more room for action. The\npenetration of intellect will not be long in discovering that the\ngratification of physical desires is easiest and safest in a state of\norder and stability. Hence a more complex system of legislation both\nsocial and political. The conceptions of the Deity will be more elevated\nand refined, though the idea of a future state will probably be\nconnected with visions of material enjoyment, as in the paradise of the\nMohammedans.\n\nWhere the animal propensities are weak and the intellect feeble, a\nvegetating national life results. No political organization, or of the\nvery simplest kind. Few laws, for what need of restraining passions\nwhich do not exist. The moral sense content with the vague recognition\nof a superior being, to whom few or no rites are rendered.\n\nBut when the animal propensities are so moderate as to be subordinate to\nan intellect more or less vigorous, the moral aspirations will yearn\ntowards the regions of the abstract. Religion becomes a system of\nmetaphysics, and often loses itself in the mazes of its own subtlety.\nThe political organization and civil legislation will be simple, for\nthere are few passions to restrain; but the laws which regulate social\nintercourse will be many and various, and supposed to emanate directly\nfrom the Deity.\n\nStrong animal passions, joined to an intellect equally strong, allow the\ngreatest expanse for the moral sense. Political organizations the most\ncomplex and varied, social and civil laws the most studied, will be the\noutward character of a society composed of such elements. Internally we\nshall perceive the greatest contrasts of individual goodness and\nwickedness. Religion will be a symbolism of human passions and the\nnatural elements for the many, an ingenious fabric of moral speculations\nfor the few.\n\nI have here rapidly sketched a series of pictures from nature, which\nthe historian and ethnographer will not fail to recognize. Whether the\nfeatures thus cursorily delineated are owing to the causes to which I\nascribe them, I must leave for the reader to decide. My space is too\nlimited to allow of my entering into an elaborate argumentation. But I\nwould observe that, by taking this view of the subject, we can\nunderstand why all human--and therefore false--religions are so\nintimately connected with the social and political organization of the\npeoples which profess them, and why they are so plainly mapped out on\nthe globe as belonging to certain races, to whom alone they are\napplicable, and beyond whose area they cannot extend: while Christianity\nknows no political or social forms, no geographical or ethnological\nlimits. The former, being the productions of human intellect, must vary\nwith its variation, and perish in its decay, while revelation is\nuniversal and immutable, like the Intelligence of which it is the\nemanation.\n\nIt is time now to conclude the task, the accomplishment of which has\ncarried me far beyond the limits I had at first proposed to myself. If I\nhave so long detained the reader on the threshold of the edifice, it was\nto facilitate his after progress, and to give him a chart, that he may\nnot lose himself in the vast field it covers. There he may often meet\nme again, and if I be sometimes deemed officious with my proffered\nexplanations, he will at least give me credit for good intentions, and\nhe may, if he chooses, pass me without recognition. Both this\nintroduction and notes in the body of the work were thought necessary\nfor several reasons. First, the subject is in some measure a new one,\nand it was important to guard against misconception, and show, right at\nthe beginning, what was attempted to be proved, and in what manner.\nSecondly, the author wrote for a European public, and many allusions are\nmade, or positions taken, upon an assumed knowledge of facts, of which\nthe general reader on this side of the ocean can be supposed to have but\na slight and vague apprehension. Thirdly, the author has, in many cases,\ncontented himself with abstract reasoning, and therefore is sometimes\nchargeable with obscureness, on which account familiar illustrations\nhave been supplied. Fourthly, the volume now presented to the reader is\none of a series of four, the remainder of which, if this meets the\npublic approbation, may in time appear in an English garb. But it was\nimportant to make this, as much as possible, independent of the others\nand complete in itself. The discussion of the moral and intellectual\ndiversities of the various groups of the human family, is, as I have\nbefore shown, totally independent of the question of unity or diversity\nof species; yet, as it increases the interest attached to the solution\nof that question, which has been but imperfectly discussed by the\nauthor, my esteemed friend, Dr. J. C. Nott, who has so often and so ably\ntreated the subject, has promised to furnish, in notes and an appendix,\nsuch additional facts pertaining to his province as a naturalist, as may\nassist the reader in arriving at a correct opinion.\n\nWith regard to the translation, it must be observed that it is not a\n_literal_ rendering of the original. The translator has aimed rather at\ngiving the meaning, than the exact words or phraseology of the author,\nat no time, however, departing from the former. He has, in some\ninstances, condensed or omitted what seemed irrelevant, or useless to\nthe discussion of the question in this country, and in a few cases, he\nhas transposed a sentence to a different part of the paragraph, where it\nseemed more in its place, and more effective. To explain and justify\nthese alterations, we must remind our readers that the author wrote for\na public essentially different from that of the translator; that\ncontinental writers on grave subjects are in general more intent upon\nvindicating their opinions than the form in which they express them,\nand seldom devote that attention to style which English or American\nreaders expect; to which may be added that Count Gobineau wrote in the\nmidst of a multiplicity of diplomatic affairs, and had no time, even if\nhe had thought it worth his while, to give his work that literary finish\nwhich would satisfy the fastidious. Had circumstances permitted, this\ntranslation would have been submitted to his approbation, but at the\ntime of its going to press he is engaged in the service of his country\nat the court of Persia.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nFor obtruding the present work on the notice of the American public, no\napology will be required. The subject is one of immense importance, and\nespecially in this country, where it can seldom be discussed without\nadventitious circumstances biassing the inquirers. To the\nphilanthropist, the leading idea of the book, \"that different races,\nlike different individuals, are specially fitted for special purposes,\nfor the fulfilment of which they are accountable in the measure laid\ndown in Holy Writ: 'To whom much is given, from him much will be asked,'\nand that they are _equal_ only when they truly and faithfully perform\nthe duties of their station\"--to the philanthropist, this idea must be\nfraught with many valuable suggestions. So far from loosening the ties\nof brotherhood, it binds them closer, because it teaches us not to\ndespise those who are endowed differently from us; and shows us that\nthey, too, may have excellencies which we have not.\n\nTo the statesman, the student of history, and the general reader, it is\nhoped that this volume will not be altogether useless, and may assist to\na better understanding of many of the problems that have so long puzzled\nthe philosopher. The greatest revolutions in national relations have\nbeen accomplished by the migrations of races, the most calamitous wars\nthat have desolated the globe have been the result of the hostility of\nraces. Even now, a cloud is lowering in the horizon. The friend of peace\nand order watches it with silent anxiety, lest he hasten its coming. The\nspirit of mischief exults in its approach, but fears to betray his\nplans. Thus, western and central Europe now present the spectacle of a\nlull before the storm. Monarchs sit trembling on their thrones, while\nnations mutter curses. Nor have premonitory symptoms been wanting. Three\ntimes, within little more than half a century, have the eruptions of\nthat ever-burning political volcano--France--shaken the social and\npolitical system of the civilized world, and shown the amount of\ncombustible materials, which all the efforts of a ruling class cannot\nalways protect from ignition. The grand catastrophe may come within our\ntimes. And, is it the result of any particular social condition, the\naction of any particular class in the social scale, the diffusion of any\nparticular political principles? No, because the revolutionary\ntendencies are various, and even opposite; if republican in one place,\nmonarchical in another; if democratic in France, aristocratic in Poland.\nNor is it a particular social class wherein the revolutionary principle\nflourishes, for the classes which, in one country, wish subversion, in\nanother, are firmly attached to the established order of things. The\npoor in Germany are proletarians and revolutionists; in Spain, Portugal,\nand Italy, the enthusiastic lovers of their king. The better classes in\nthe former country are mostly conservative; in the latter, they are the\nmakers, or rather attempters, of revolutions. Nor is it any particular\nsocial condition, for no class is so degraded as it has been; never was\npoverty less, and prosperity greater in Europe than in the present\ncentury; and everywhere the political institutions are more liberal than\never before. Whence, then, this gathering storm? Does it exist only in\nthe minds of the visionary, or is it a mere bugbear of the timorous? Ask\nthe prudent statesman, the traveller who pierces the different strata of\nthe population; look behind the grates of the State-prisons; count--if\nthis be possible--the number of victims of military executions in\nGermany and Austria, in 1848 and 1849; read the fearful accounts of the\ntaking of Vienna, of Rome, of Ancona, of Venice, during the same short\nspace of time. Everywhere the same cry: Nationality. It is not the\ntemporary ravings of a mob rendered frantic by hunger and misery. It is\na question of nationality, a war of races. Happy we who are removed from\nthe immediate scene of the struggle, and can be but remotely affected by\nit. Yet, while I write, it seems as though the gales of the Atlantic had\nblown to our peaceful shores some taints of the epidemic that rages in\nthe Old World. May it soon pass over, and a healthy atmosphere again\nprevail!\n\n  H. H.\n  MOBILE, Aug. 20, 1855.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[1] _Researches into the Physical History of Mankind_. By James Cowles\nPrichard, M. D., London, 1841. Vol. i. p. 1.\n\n[2] \"Mr. Prichard's _permanent variety_, from his own definition, is to\nall intents and purposes _a species_.\"--_Kneeland's Introduction to\nHamilton Smith's Natural History of the Human Species_, p. 84.\n\n[3] Smith's Wealth of Nations, Amer. ed., vol. i. p. 29.\n\n[4] _Vide_ Bigland's Effects of Physical and Moral Causes on the\nCharacter and Circumstances of Nations. London, 1828, p. 282.\n\n[5] _Op. cit._, p. 7.\n\n[6] St. Matthew, ch. xi. v. 25.\n\n[7] _Vide_ Prichard's _Natural History of Man_, p. 66, _et passim_. \"His\ntheory,\" says Van Amringe, \"required that animals should be analogous to\nman. It was therefore highly important that, as he was then laying the\nfoundation for all his future arguments and conclusions, he should\nelevate animals to the proper eminence, to be analogous; rather than, as\nMr. Lawrence did, sink man to the level of brutes. It was an ingenious\ncontrivance by which he could gain all the advantages, and escape the\ncensures of the learned lecturer. It is so simple a contrivance,\ntoo--merely substituting the word 'psychological' for 'instinctive\ncharacteristics,' and the whole animal kingdom would instantly rise to\nthe proper platform, to be the types of the human family. To get the\npsychology of men and animals thus related, without the trouble of\nphilosophically accomplishing so impossible a thing, by the mere use of\na word, was an ingenious, though not an ingenuous achievement. It gave\nhim a specious right to use bees and wasps, rats and dogs, sheep, goats,\nand rabbits--in short, the whole animal kingdom--as human psychical\nanalogues, which would be amazingly convenient when conclusions were to\nbe made.\"--_Natural History of Man_, by W. F. VAN AMRINGE. 1848, p. 459.\n\n[8] This fact is considered by Dr. Nott as a proof of _specific_\ndifference among dogs.--_Types of Mankind._ Phila., 1854.\n\n[9] In 1497, Vasco di Gama sailed around Cape Good Hope; even previous\nto that, Portuguese vessels had coasted along the western shores of\nAfrica. Since that time the Europeans have subjected the whole of the\nAmerican continents, southern Asia and the island world of the Pacific,\nwhile Africa is almost as unknown as it ever was. The Cape Colony is not\nin the original territory of the negro. Liberia and Sierra Leone contain\na half-breed population, and present experiments by no means tested. It\nmay be fairly asserted that nowhere has the power and intelligence of\nthe white race made less impression, produced fewer results, than in the\ndomain of the negro.\n\n[10] Roberts, the president of the Liberian Republic, boasts of but a\nsmall portion of African blood in his veins. Sequoyah, the often-cited\ninventor of the Cherokee alphabet, so far from being a pure Indian, was\nthe son of a white man.\n\n[11] For the great perfection to which the Chinese have carried the\nluxuries and amenities of life, see particularly M. Huc's _Travels in\nChina_. He lived among them for years, and, what few travellers do,\nspoke their language so fluently and perfectly that he was enabled,\nduring a considerable number of years, to discharge the duties of a\nmissionary, disguised as a native.\n\n[12] It would be useless to remind our readers of the famous Great Wall,\nthe Imperial Canals, that largest of the cities of the world--Pekin. The\nvarious treatises of the Chinese on morals and politics, especially that\nof Confucius, have been admired by all European thinkers. _Consult\nPauthier's elaborate work on China._ It is equally well known that the\nChinese knew the art of printing, gunpowder and its uses, the mariner's\ncompass, etc., centuries before we did. For the general diffusion of\nelementary knowledge among the Chinese, see _Davis's Sketches_, and\nother authors. Those who may think me a biassed panegyrist of the\nChinese, I refer to the following works as among the most reliable of\nthe vast number written on the subject:--\n\n_Description Historique, G\u00e9ographique, et Litt\u00e9raire de la Chine._ Par\nM. G. PAUTHIER. Paris, 1839.\n\n_China Opened._ By REV. CHS. GUTZLAFF. London, 1838.\n\n_China, Political, Commercial, and Social._ By R. MONTGOMERY MARTIN.\nLondon, 1847.\n\n_Sketches of China._ By JOHN F. DAVIS. London, 1841.\n\nAnd above all, for amusing and instructive reading,\n\n_Journey through the Chinese Empire._ By M. HUC. New York, 1855; and\n\n_M\u00e9langes Asiatiques._ Par ABEL REMUSAT. Paris, 1835.\n\n[13] Unwilling to introduce statistic pedantry into a composition of so\nhumble pretensions as an introduction, I have refrained to give the\nfigures--not always very accurate, I admit--upon which the preceding\ngradation is based, viz: the number of persons able to read and write in\neach of the above-named countries. How far England and France are\nbehindhand in this respect, compared either with ourselves, or with\nother European nations, is tolerably well known; but the fact that not\nonly in China proper, but in Thibet, Japan, Anam, Tonquin, etc., few can\nbe found devoid of that acquirement, will probably meet with many\nincredulous readers, though it is mentioned by almost every traveller.\n(See _J. Mohl's Annual Report to the Asiatic Society_, 1851.) But, it\nmay be safely asserted that, in the whole of that portion of Asia lying\nsouth of the Altai Mountains, including Japan, altogether the most\npopulous region of the globe, the percentage of males unable to read and\nwrite is by far smaller than in the entire population of Europe. Be it\nwell understood, that I do not, therefore, claim any superiority for the\ninhabitants of the former region over those of the latter.\n\n\"In China,\" says M. Huc, \"there are not, as in Europe, public libraries\nand reading-rooms; but those who have a taste for reading, and a desire\nto instruct themselves, can satisfy their inclinations very easily, as\nbooks are sold here at a lower price than in any other country. Besides,\nthe Chinese find everywhere something to read; they can scarcely take a\nstep without seeing some of the characters of which they are so proud.\nOne may say, in fact, that all China is an immense library; for\ninscriptions, sentences, moral precepts, are found in every corner,\nwritten in letters of all colors and all sizes. The fa\u00e7ades of the\ntribunals, the pagodas, the public monuments, the signs of the shops,\nthe doors of the houses, the interior of the apartments, the corridors,\nall are full of fine quotations from the best authors. Teacups, plates,\nvases, fans, are so many selections of poems, often chosen with much\ntaste, and prettily printed. A Chinese has no need to give himself much\ntrouble in order to enjoy the finest productions of his country's\nliterature. He need only take his pipe, and walk out, with his nose in\nthe air, through the principal streets of the first town he comes to.\nLet him enter the poorest house in the most wretched village; the\ndestitution may be complete, things the most necessary will be wanting;\nbut he is sure of finding some fine maxims written out on strips of red\npaper. Thus, if those grand large characters, which look so terrific in\nour eyes, though they delight the Chinese, are really so difficult to\nlearn, at least the people have the most ample opportunities of studying\nthem, almost in play, and of impressing them ineffaceably on their\nmemories.\"--_A Journey through the Chinese Empire_, vol. i. pp. 327-328.\n\n[14] Is it necessary to call to the mind of the reader, that the most\nprominent physicians, the greatest chemists, the best mathematicians,\nwere French, and that to the same nation belong the Comptes, the De\nMaistres, the Guizots, the De Tocquevilles; or that, notwithstanding its\npolitical extravaganzas, every liberal theory was first fostered in its\nbosom? The father of our democratic party was the pupil of French\ngovernmental philosophy, by the lessons of which even his political\nopponents profited quite as much as by its errors.\n\n[15] Brace, in his _Home Life in Germany_, mentions an instance of this\nkind, but not having the volume at hand, I cannot cite the page. To\nevery one, however, that has travelled in Europe, or has not, such facts\nare familiar. It is well known, for instance, that in some of the most\npolished European countries, the wooden ploughshare is still used; and\nthat, in Paris, that metropolis of arts and fashion, every drop of water\nmust be carried, in buckets, from the public fountains to the Dutchess'\n_boudoir_ in the first, and to the Grisette's garret in the seventh\nstory. Compare this with the United States, where--not to mention\nFairmount and Croton--the smallest town, almost, has her water-works, if\nrequired by her topography. Are we, then, so infinitely more civilized\nthan France?\n\n[16] Since writing the above, I lit upon the following striking\nconfirmation of my idea by Dr. Pickering, whose analogism here so\nclosely resembles mine, as almost to make me suspect myself of\nunconscious plagiarism. \"While admitting the general truth, that mankind\nare essentially alike, no one doubts the existence of character,\ndistinguishing not only individuals, but communities and nations. I am\npersuaded that there is, besides, a character of race. It would not be\ndifficult to select epithets; such as 'amphibious, enduring,\ninsititious;' or to point out as accomplished by one race of men, that\nwhich seemed beyond the powers of another. Each race possessing its\npeculiar points of excellence, and, at the same time, counterbalancing\ndefects, it may be that union was required to attain the full measure of\ncivilization. In the organic world, each field requires a new creation;\neach change in circumstances going beyond the constitution of a plant or\nanimal, is met by a new adaptation, until the whole universe is full;\nwhile, among the immense variety of created beings, two kinds are hardly\nfound fulfilling the same precise purpose. Some analogy may possibly\nexist in the human family; and it may even be questioned, whether any\none of the races existing singly would, up to the present day, have\nextended itself over the whole surface of the globe.\"--_The Races of\nMan, and their Geographical Distribution._ By CHARLES PICKERING, M. D.\nBoston, 1811. (_U. S. Exploring Expedition_, vol. ix. p. 200.)\n\n[17] Since Champollion's fortunate discovery of the Rosetta stone, which\nfurnished the key to the hieroglyphics, the deciphering of these once so\nmysterious characters has made such progress, that Lepsius, the great\nmodern Egyptologist, declares it possible to write a minute court\ngazette of the reign of Ramses II., the Sesostris of the Greeks, and\neven of monarchs as far back as the IVth dynasty. To understand that\nthis is no vain boast, the reader must remember that these hieroglyphics\nmostly contain records of private or royal lives, and that the mural\npaintings in the temples and sepulchral chambers, generally represent\nscenes illustrative of trades, or other occupations, games, etc.,\npractised among the people of that early day.\n\n[18] _Ethnological Journal_, edited by Luke Burke, London, 1848; June 1,\nNo. 1, from _Types of Mankind_. By NOTT and GLIDDON, p. 49.\n\n[19] From _Types of Mankind_. By NOTT and GLIDDON, p. 52.\n\n[20] The term \"race\" is of relative meaning, and, though often\nerroneously used synonymously with _species_, by no means signifies the\nsame. The most strenuous advocates of sameness of species, use it to\ndesignate well-defined groups, as the white and black. If we consider\nourselves warranted by the language of the Bible, to believe in separate\norigins of the human family, then, indeed, it may be considered as\nsimilar in meaning to species; otherwise, it must signify but\nsubdivisions of one. We may therefore speak of ten or a hundred races of\nman, without impugning their being descended from the same stock. All\nthat is here contended for is, that the distinctive features of such\nraces, in whatever manner they may have originated, are now persistent.\nTwo men may, the one arrive at the highest honors of the State, the\nother, with every facility at his command, forever remain in mediocrity.\nYet, these two men may be brothers.\n\nThat the question of species, when disconnected from any theological\nbearing, is one belonging exclusively to the province of the naturalist,\nand in which the metaphysician can have but a subordinate part, may be\nillustrated by a homely simile. Diversity of talent in the same family\ninvolves no doubt of parentage; but, if one child be born with a black\nskin and woolly hair, questions about the paternity might indeed arise.\n\n[21] _Natural History of the Varieties of Man._ By ROBERT GORDON LATHAM.\nLondon, 1850.\n\n[22] The collision between these two nationalities, only a few years\nago, was attended by scenes so revolting--transcending even the horrors\nof the Corcyrian sedition, the sack of Magdeburg, or the bloodiest page\nin the French Revolution--that, for the honor of human nature, I would\ngladly disbelieve the accounts given of them. But the testimony comes\nfrom neutral sources, the friends of either party being interested in\nkeeping silence. I shall have occasion to allude to this subject again,\nand therefore reserve further details for a note in the body of the\nwork.\n\n[23] Even the historians of ancient Greece wondered at those gigantic\nruins, of which many are still extant. Of these cyclopean remains, as\nthey were often called, no one knew the builders or the history, and\nthey were considered as the labors of the fabulous heroes of a\ntraditional epoch. For an account of these memorials of an\n_ante-hellenic civilization in Greece, of which we have no record_,\nparticularly the ruins of Orchomonos, Tirgus, Mycene, and the tunnels of\nLake Copais, see _Niebuhr's Ancient History_, vol. i. p. 241, _et\npassim_.\n\n[24] Democracy in America, vol. ii. ch. xviii. p. 424.\n\n[25] Daniel ii. 44.\n\n[26] Daniel ii. 31 to 35.\n\n[27] Among many passages illustrative of the ultra utilitarianism of the\nChinese, I can find space but for one, and that selected almost at\nrandom. After speaking of the exemplary diffusion of primary instruction\namong the masses, he says that, though they all read, and frequently,\nyet even their reading is of a strictly utilitarian character, and never\nanswers any but practical purposes or temporary amusement. The name of\nthe author is seldom known, and never inquired after. \"That class are,\nin their eyes, only idle persons, who pass their time in making prose or\nverse. They have no objection to such a pursuit. A man may, they say,\n'amuse himself with his pen as with his kite, if he likes it as well--it\nis all a matter of taste.' The inhabitants of the celestial empire would\nnever recover from their astonishment if they knew to what extent\nintellectual labor may be in Europe a source of honor and often wealth.\nIf they were told that a person among us may obtain great glory by\ncomposing a drama or a novel, they would either not believe it, or set\nit down as an additional proof of our well-known want of common sense.\nHow would it be if they should be told of the renown of a dancer or a\nviolin player, and that one cannot make a bound, nor the other draw a\nbow anywhere without thousands of newspapers hastening to spread the\nimportant news over all the kingdoms of Europe!\n\n\"The Chinese are too decided utilitarians to enter into our views of the\narts. In their opinion, a man is only worthy of the admiration of his\nfellow-creatures when he has well fulfilled the social duties, and\nespecially if he knows better than any one else how to get out of a\nscrape. You are regarded as a man of genius if you know how to regulate\nyour family, make your lands fruitful, traffic with ability, and realize\ngreat profits. This, at least, is the only kind of genius that is of any\nvalue in the eyes of these eminently practical men.\"--_Voyages en\nChine_, par M. Huc, Amer. trans., vol. i. pp. 316 and 317.\n\n[28] Nat. Hist. of the Varieties of Man. London.\n\n[29] According to Latham's classification, _op. cit._\n\n\n\n\n                          DIVERSITY OF RACES.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I.\n\nPOLITICAL CATASTROPHES.\n\n  Perishable condition of all human societies--Ancient ideas concerning\n    this phenomenon--Modern theories.\n\n\nThe downfall of civilizations is the most striking, and, at the same\ntime, the most obscure of all the phenomena of history. If the sublime\ngrandeur of this spectacle impresses the mind with awe, the mystery in\nwhich it is wrapped presents a boundless field for inquiry and\nmeditation to a reflecting mind. The study of the birth and growth of\nnations is, indeed, fraught with many valuable observations: the gradual\ndevelopment of human societies, their successes, conquests, and\ntriumphs, strike the imagination in a lively manner, and excite an ever\nincreasing interest. But these phenomena, however grand and interesting,\nseem susceptible of an easy explanation. We consider them as the\nnecessary consequences of the intellectual and moral endowments of man.\nOnce we admit the existence of these endowments, their results will no\nlonger surprise us.\n\nBut we perceive that, after a period of glory and strength, all\nsocieties formed by man begin to totter and fall; all, I said, because\nthere is no exception. Scattered over the surface of our globe, we see\nthe vestiges of preceding civilizations, many of which are known to us\nonly by name, or have not left behind them even that faint memorial, and\nare recorded only by the mute stones in the depths of primeval\nforests.[30] If we glance at our modern States, we are forced to the\nconclusion that, though their date is but of yesterday, some of them\nalready exhibit signs of old age. The awful truth of prophetic language\nabout the instability of all things human, applies with equal force to\npolitical bodies and to individuals, to nations and their civilizations.\nEvery association of men for social and political purposes, though\nprotected by the most ingenious social and political ties and\ncontrivances, conceals among the very elements of its life, the germ of\ninevitable destruction, contracted the day it was formed. This terrible\nfact is proved by the history of all ages as well as of our own. It is\nowing to a natural law of death which seems to govern societies as well\nas individuals; but, does this law operate alike in all cases? is it\nuniform like the result it brings about, and do all civilizations perish\nfrom the same pre-existing cause?\n\nA superficial glance at the page of history would tempt us to answer in\nthe negative, for the apparent causes of the downfall of the great\nempires of antiquity were very different in each case. Yet, if we pierce\nbelow the surface, we find in this very necessity of decay, which weighs\nso imperiously upon all societies without exception, the evidence of the\nexistence of some general, though concealed, cause, producing a natural\ndeath, even where no external causes anticipate it by violent\ndestruction. We also discover that all civilizations, after a short\nduration, exhibit, to the acute observer, certain intimate disturbances,\ndifficult to define, but whose existence is undeniable; and that these\npresent in all cases an analogous character. Finally, if we distinguish\nthe ruin of civilizations from that of States (for we sometimes see the\nsame culture subsist in a country under foreign domination, and survive\nthe destruction of the political body which gave it birth; while,\nagain, comparatively slight misfortunes cause it to be transformed, or\nto disappear altogether), we become more and more confirmed in the idea\nthat this principle of death in all societies is not only a necessary\ncondition of their life, independent, in a great measure, of external\ncauses, but is also uniform in all. To fix and determine this principle,\nand to trace its effects in the lives of those nations, of whom history\nhas left us records, has been my object and endeavor in the studies, the\nresults of which I now lay before the reader.\n\nThe fact that every human agglomeration, and the peculiar culture\nresulting from it, is doomed to perish, was not known to the ancients.\nEven in the epochs immediately preceding ours, it was not believed. The\nreligious spirit of Asiatic antiquity looked upon the great political\ncatastrophes in the same light that they did upon the sudden destruction\nof an individual: as a demonstration of Divine wrath, visiting a nation\nor an individual whose sins had marked them out for signal punishment,\nwhich would serve as an example to those criminals whom the rod had as\nyet spared. The Jews, misunderstanding the meaning of the promise,\nbelieved their empire imperishable. Rome, at the very moment when the\nthreatening clouds lowered in the horizon of her grandeur, entertained\nno doubt as to the eternity of hers.[31] But our generation has profited\nby experience; and, as no one presumes to doubt that all men must die,\nbecause all who came before us have died; so we are firmly convinced,\nthat the days of nations, as of individuals, however many they be, are\nnumbered. The wisdom of the ancients, therefore, will afford us but\nlittle assistance in the unravelling of our subject, if we except one\nfundamental maxim: that the finger of Divine Providence is always\nvisible in the conduct of the affairs of this world. From this solid\nbasis we shall not depart, accepting it in the full extent that it is\nrecognized by the church. It cannot be contested that no civilization\nwill perish without the will of God, and to apply to the mortal\ncondition of all societies, the sacred axiom by which the ancients\nexplained certain remarkable, and, in their opinion, isolated cases of\ndestruction, is but proclaiming a truth of the first order, of which we\nmust never lose sight in our researches after truths of secondary\nimportance. If it be further added that societies perish by their sins,\nI willingly accede to it; it is but drawing a parallel between them and\nindividuals who also find their death, or accelerate it, by disobedience\nto the laws of the Creator. So far, there is nothing contradictory to\nreason, even when unassisted by Divine light; but these two truths once\nadmitted and duly weighed, the wisdom of the ancients, I repeat, affords\nno further assistance. They did not search into the ways by which the\nDivine will effected the ruin of nations; on the contrary, they were\nrather inclined to consider these ways as essentially mysterious, and\nabove comprehension. Seized with pious terror at the aspect of the\nwrecks, they easily imagined that Providence had specially interfered\nthus to strike and completely destroy once powerful states. Where a\nmiracle is recorded by the Sacred Scriptures, I willingly submit; but\nwhere that high testimony is wanting, as it is in the great number of\ncases, we may justly consider the ancient theory as defective, and not\nsufficiently enlightened. We may even conclude, that as Divine Justice\nwatches over nations unremittingly, and its decrees were pronounced ere\nthe first human society was formed, they are also enforced in a\npredeterminate manner, and according to the unalterable laws of the\nuniverse, which govern both animated nature and the inorganic world.\n\nIf we have cause to reproach the philosophers of the earlier ages, for\nhaving contented themselves, in attempting to fathom the mystery, with\nthe vindication of an incontestable theological truth, but which itself\nis another mystery; at least, they have not increased the difficulties\nof the question by making it a theme for a maze of errors. In this\nrespect, they rank highly above the rationalist schools of various\nepochs.\n\nThe thinkers of Athens and Rome established the doctrine, which has\nretained its ground to our days, that states, nations, civilizations,\nperished only through luxury, enervation, bad government, corruption of\nmorals, fanaticism. All these causes, either singly or combined, were\nsupposed to account for the downfall of civilizations. It is a necessary\nconsequence of this doctrine, that where neither of these causes are in\noperation, no destructive agency is at work. Societies would therefore\npossess this advantage over individuals, that they could die no other\nbut a violent death; and, to establish a body politic as durable as the\nglobe itself, nothing further would be necessary than to elude the\ndangers which I enumerated above.\n\nThe inventors of this thesis did not perceive its bearing. They\nconsidered it as an excellent means for illustrating the doctrine of\nmorality, which, as is well known, was the sole aim of their historical\nwritings. In their narratives of events, they were so strongly\npreoccupied with showing the happy rewards of virtue, and the disastrous\nresults of crime and vice, that they cared little for what seemed to\nfurnish no illustration. This erroneous and narrow-minded system often\noperated contrary to the intention of the authors, for it applied,\naccording to occasion, the name of virtue and vice in a very arbitrary\nmanner; still, to a great extent, the severe and laudable sentiment upon\nwhich it was based, excuses it. If the genius of a Plutarch or a Tacitus\ncould draw from history, studied in this manner, nothing but romances\nand satires, yet the romances were sublime, and the satires generous.\n\nI wish I could be equally indulgent to the writers of the eighteenth\ncentury, who made their own application of the same theory; but there\nis, between them and their teachers, too great a difference. While the\nancients were attached to the established social system, even to a\nfault, our moderns were anxious for destruction, and greedy of untried\nnovelties. The former exerted themselves to deduce useful lessons from\ntheir theory; the latter have perverted it into a fearful weapon against\nall rational principles of government, which they stigmatized by every\nterm that mankind holds in horror. To save societies from ruin, the\ndisciples of Voltaire would destroy religion, law, industry, commerce;\nbecause, if we believe them, religion is fanaticism; laws, despotism;\nindustry and commerce, luxury and corruption.\n\nI have not the slightest intention of entering the field of polemics; I\nwished merely to direct attention to the widely diverging results of\nthis principle, when applied by Thucydides, or the Abb\u00e9 Raynal.\nConservative in the one, cynically aggressive in the other, it is\nerroneous in both.\n\nThe causes to which the downfall of nations is generally ascribed are\nnot the true ones, and whilst I admit that these evils may be rifest in\nthe last stages of dissolution of a people, I deny that they possess in\nthemselves sufficient strength, and so destructive an energy, as to\nproduce the final, irremediable catastrophe.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[30] A. de Humboldt, Examen Critique de l'Histoire de la G\u00e9ographie du\nNouveau Continent. Paris.\n\n[31] Amad\u00e9e Thierry, _La Gaule sous l'Administration Romaine_, vol. i.\np. 244.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II.\n\nALLEGED CAUSES OF POLITICAL CATASTROPHES EXAMINED.\n\n  FANATICISM--Aztec Empire of Mexico.--LUXURY--Modern European States\n    as luxurious as the ancient.--Corruption of morals--The standard of\n    morality fluctuates in the various periods of a nation's history:\n    example, France--Is no higher in youthful communities than in old\n    ones--Morality of Paris.--IRRELIGION--Never spreads through all\n    ranks of a nation--Greece and Rome--Tenacity of Paganism.\n\n\nBefore entering upon my reasons for the opinion expressed at the end of\nthe preceding chapter, it will be necessary to explain and define what I\nunderstand by the term society. I do not apply this term to the more or\nless extended circle belonging to a distinct sovereignty. The republic\nof Athens is not, in my sense of the word, a society; neither is the\nkingdom of Magadha, the empire of Pontus, or the caliphat of Egypt in\nthe time of the Fatimites. These are fragments of societies, which are\ntransformed, united, or subdivided, by the operation of those\nprimordial laws into which I am inquiring, but whose existence or\nannihilation does not constitute the existence or annihilation of a\nsociety. Their formation is, for the most part, a transient phenomenon,\nwhich exerts but a limited, or even indirect influence upon the\ncivilization that gave it birth. By the term society, I understand an\nassociation of men, actuated by similar ideas, and possessed of the same\ngeneral instincts. This association need by no means be perfect in a\npolitical sense, but must be complete from a social point of view. Thus,\nEgypt, Assyria, Greece, India, China, have been, or are still, the\ntheatres upon which distinct societies have worked out their destinies,\nto which the perturbations in their political relations were merely\nsecondary. I shall, therefore, speak of the fractions of these societies\nonly when my reasoning applies equally to the whole. I am now prepared\nto proceed to the examination of the question before us, and I hope to\nprove that fanaticism, luxury, corruption of morals, and irreligion, do\nnot _necessarily_ occasion the ruin of nations.\n\nAll these maladies, either singly or combined, have attacked, and\nsometimes with great virulence, nations which nevertheless recovered\nfrom them, and were, perhaps, all the more vigorous afterward.\n\nThe Aztec empire, in Mexico, seemed to flourish for the especial glory\nand exaltation of fanaticism. What can there be more fanatical than a\nsocial and political system, based on a religion which requires the\nincessant and profuse shedding of the blood of fellow-beings?[32] Our\nremote ancestors, the barbarous nations of Northern Europe, did indeed\npractise this unholy rite, but they never chose for their sacrifices\ninnocent victims,[33] or, at least, such as they considered so: the\nshipwrecked and prisoners of war, were not considered innocent. But, for\nthe Mexicans, all victims were alike; with that ferocity, which a modern\nphysiologist[34] recognizes as a characteristic of the races of the New\nWorld, they butchered their own fellow-citizens indiscriminately, and\nwithout remorse or pity. And yet, this did not prevent them from being a\npowerful, industrious, and wealthy nation, who might long have\ncontinued to blaspheme the Deity by their dark creed, but for Cortez's\ngenius and the bravery of his companions. In this instance, then,\nfanaticism was not the cause of the downfall.[35]\n\nNor are luxury or enervation more powerful in their effects. These\nvices are almost always peculiar to the higher classes, and seldom\npenetrate the whole mass of the population. But I doubt whether among\nthe Greeks, the Persians, or the Romans, whose downfall they are said to\nhave caused, luxury and enervation, albeit in a different form, had\nrisen to a higher pitch than we see them to-day in some of our modern\nStates, in France, Germany, England, and Russia, for instance. The two\nlast countries are especially distinguished for the luxury prevalent\namong the higher classes, and yet, these two countries seem to be endued\nwith a vitality much more vigorous and promising than most other\nEuropean States. In the Middle Ages, the Venetians, Genoese, Pisanese,\naccumulated in their magazines the treasures and luxuries of the world;\nyet, the gorgeous magnificence of their palaces, and the splendid\ndecorations of their vessels, did certainly not diminish their power, or\nsubvert their dominion.[36]\n\nEven the corruption of morals, this most terrible of all scourges, is\nnot necessarily a cause of national ruin. If it were, the prosperity of\na nation, its power and preponderance, would be in a direct ratio to the\npurity of its manners; and it is hardly necessary to say that this is\nnot the case. The odd fashion of ascribing all sorts of imaginary\nvirtues to the first Romans, is now pretty much out of date.[37] Few\nwould now dare to hold up as models of morality those sturdy patricians\nof the old school, who treated their women as slaves, their children as\ncattle, and their creditors like wild beasts. If there should still be\nsome who would defend so bad a cause, their reasoning could easily be\nrefuted, and its want of solidity shown. Abuse of power, in all epochs,\nhas created equal indignation; there were deeper reasons for the\nabolition of royalty than the rape of Lucretia, for the expulsion of the\ndecemvirs than the outrage of Appius; but these pretexts for two\nimportant revolutions, sufficiently demonstrate the public sentiment\nwith regard to morals. It is a great mistake to ascribe the vigor of a\nyoung nation to its superior virtues; since the beginning of historical\ntimes, there has not been a community, however small, among which all\nthe reprehensible tendencies of human nature were not visible,\nnotwithstanding which, it has increased and prospered. There are even\ninstances where the splendor of a state was owing to the most abominable\ninstitutions. The Spartans are indebted for their renown, and place in\nhistory, to a legislation fit only for a community of bandits.[38]\n\nSo far from being willing to accord to youthful communities any\nsuperiority in regard to morals, I have no doubt that, as nations\nadvance in age and consequently approach their period of decay, they\npresent to the eyes of the moralist a far more satisfactory\nspectacle.[39] Manners become milder; men accommodate themselves more\nreadily to one another; the means of subsistence become, if not easier,\nat least more varied; reciprocal obligations are better defined and\nunderstood; more refined theories of right and wrong gain ground. It\nwould be difficult to show that at the time when the Greek arms\nconquered Darius, or when Greek liberty itself fled forever from the\nbattle-field of Ch\u00e6ron\u00e6a, or when the Goths entered Rome as victors;\nthat the Persian monarchy, Athens, or the imperial city, in those times\nof their downfall, contained a smaller proportion of honest and virtuous\npeople than in the most glorious epochs of their national existence.\n\nBut we need not go so far back for illustrations. If any one were\nrequired to name the place where the spirit of our age displayed itself\nin the most complete contrast with the virtuous ages of the world (if\nsuch there were), he would most certainly point out Paris. Yet, many\nlearned and pious persons have assured me, that nowhere, and in no\nepoch, could more practical virtue, solid piety, greater delicacy of\nconscience, be found than within the precincts of this great and corrupt\ncity. The ideal of goodness is as exalted, the duties of a Christian as\nwell understood, as by the most brilliant luminaries of the Church in\nthe seventeenth century. I might add, that these virtues are divested of\nthe bitterness and severity from which, in those times, they were not\nalways exempt; and that they are more united with feelings of toleration\nand universal philanthropy.[40] Thus we find, as if to counterbalance\nthe fearful aberrations of our own epoch, in the principal theatre of\nthese aberrations, contrasts more numerous and more striking, than\nprobably blessed the sight of the faithful in preceding ages.\n\nI cannot even perceive that great men are wanting in those periods of\ncorruption and decay; on the contrary, these periods are often\nsignalized by the appearance of men remarkable for energy of character\nand stern virtue.[41] If we look at the catalogue of Roman emperors, we\nfind a great number of them as exalted in merit as in rank; we meet with\nnames like those of Trajan, Antoninus Pius, Septimius Severus, Alexander\nSeverus, Jovian; and if we glance beneath the throne, we see a glorious\nconstellation of great doctors of our faith, of martyrs, and apostles of\nthe primitive church; not to consider the number of virtuous pagans.\nActive, firm, and valorous minds filled the camps and the forums, so\nthat it may reasonably be doubted whether Rome, in the times of\nCincinnatus, possessed so great a number of eminent men in every\ndepartment of human activity. Many other examples might be alleged, to\nprove that senile and tottering communities, so far from being deficient\nin men of virtue, talent, and action, possess them probably in greater\nnumber than young and rising states; and that their general standard of\nmorals is often higher.\n\nPublic morality, indeed, varies greatly at different periods of a\nnation's history. The history of the French nation, better than any\nother, illustrates this fact. Few will deny that the Gallo-Romans of\nthe fifth and sixth centuries, though a subject race, were greatly\nsuperior in point of morals to their heroic conquerors.[42] Individually\ntaken, they were often not inferior to the latter in courage and\nmilitary virtue.[43] The intermixture of the two races, during the\neighth, ninth, and tenth centuries, reduced the standard of morals among\nthe whole nation to a disgraceful level. In the three succeeding\ncenturies, the picture brightens again. Yet, this period of comparative\nlight was succeeded by the dark scenes of the fourteenth and fifteenth\ncenturies, when tyranny and debauchery ran riot over the land, and\ninfected all classes of society, not excepting the clergy; when the\nnobles robbed their vassals, and the commonalty sold their country to a\nforeign foe. This period, so distinguished for the total absence of\npatriotism, and every honest sentiment, was emphatically one of decay;\nthe state was shaken to its very foundation, and seemed ready to bury\nunder its ruins so much shame and dishonor. But the crisis passed;\nforeign and intestine foes were vanquished; the machinery of government\nreconstructed on a firmer basis; the state of society improved.\nNotwithstanding its bloody follies, the sixteenth century dishonors less\nthe annals of the nation than its predecessors, and it formed the\ntransition period to the age of those pure and ever-brilliant lights,\nFenelon, Bossuet, Montausier, and others. This period, again, was\nsucceeded by the vices of the regency, and the horrors of the\nRevolution. Since that time, we have witnessed almost incredible\nfluctuations of public morality every decade of years.\n\nI have sketched rapidly, and merely pointed out the most prominent\nchanges. To do even this properly, much more to descend to details,\nwould require greater space than the limits and designs of this work\npermit. But I think what I have said is sufficient to show that the\ncorruption of public morals, though always a great, is often a transient\nevil, a malady which may be corrected or which corrects itself, and\ncannot, therefore, be the sole cause of national ruin, though it may\nhasten the catastrophe.\n\nThe corruption of public morals is nearly allied to another evil, which\nhas been assigned as one of the causes of the downfall of empires. It is\nobserved of Athens and Rome, that the glory of these two commonwealths\nfaded about the same time that they abandoned their national creeds.\nThese, however, are the only examples of such a coincidence that can be\ncited. The religion of Zoroaster was never more flourishing in the\nPersian empire, than at the time of its downfall. Tyre, Carthage, Judea,\nthe Mexican and Peruvian empires expired at the moment when they\nembraced their altars with the greatest zeal and devotion. Nay, I do not\nbelieve that even at Athens and Rome, the ancient creed was abandoned\nuntil the day when it was replaced in every conscience, by the complete\ntriumph of Christianity. I am firmly convinced that, politically\nspeaking, irreligion never existed among any people, and that none ever\nabandoned the faith of their forefathers, except in exchange for\nanother. In other words, there never was such a thing as a religious\ninterregnum. The Gallic Teutates gave way to the Jupiter of the Romans;\nthe worship of Jupiter, in its turn, was replaced by Christianity. It is\ntrue that, in Athens, not long before the time of Pericles, and in Rome,\ntowards the age of the Scipios, it became the fashion among the higher\nclasses, first to reason upon religious subjects, next to doubt them,\nand finally to disbelieve them altogether, and to pride themselves upon\nscepticism. But though there were many who joined in the sentiment of\nthe ancient \"freethinker\" who dared the augurs to look at one another\nwithout laughing, yet this scepticism never gained ground among the mass\nof the people.\n\nAspasia at her evening parties, and Lelius among his intimates, might\nridicule the religious dogmas of their country, and amuse themselves at\nthe expense of those that believed them. But at both these epochs, the\nmost brilliant in the history of Greece and Rome, it would have been\nhighly dangerous to express such sentiments publicly. The imprudence of\nhis mistress came near costing Pericles himself dearly, and the tears\nwhich he shed before the tribunal, were not in themselves sufficiently\npowerful to save the fair sceptic. The poets of the times, Aristophanes,\nSophocles, and afterwards \u00c6schylus, found it necessary, whatever were\ntheir private sentiments, to flatter the religious notions of the\nmasses. The whole nation regarded Socrates as an impious innovator, and\nwould have put to death Anaxagoras, but for the strenuous intercession\nof Pericles. Nor did the philosophical and sceptical theories penetrate\nthe masses at a later period. Never, at any time, did they extend beyond\nthe sphere of the elegant and refined. It may be objected that the\nopinion of the rest, the mechanics, traders, the rural population, the\nslaves, etc., was of little moment, as they had no influence in the\npolicy of the state. If this were the case, why was it necessary, until\nthe last expiring throb of Paganism, to preserve its temples and pay the\nhierophants? Why did men, the most eminent and enlightened, the most\nsceptical in their religious notions, not only don the sacerdotal robe,\nbut even descend to the most repugnant offices of the popular worship?\nThe daily reader of Lucretius[44] had to snatch moments of leisure from\nthe all-absorbing game of politics, to compose a treatise on haruspicy.\nI allude to the first C\u00e6sar.[45] And all his successors, down to\nConstantine, were compelled to unite the pontificial with the imperial\ndignity. Even Constantine himself, though as a Christian prince he had\nfar better reasons for repugnance to such an office than any of his\npredecessors, was compelled to compromise with the still powerful\nancient religion of the nation.[46] This is a clear proof of the\nprevalence of the popular sentiment over the opinion of the higher and\nmore enlightened classes. They might appeal to reason and common sense,\nagainst the absurdities of the masses, but the latter would not, could\nnot, renounce one faith until they had adopted another, confirming the\nold truth, that in the affairs of this world, the positive ever takes\nprecedent over the negative. The popular sentiment was so strong that,\nin the third century, it infected even the higher classes to some\nextent, and created among them a serious religious reaction, which did\nnot entirely subside until after the final triumph of Christianity. The\nrevolution of ideas which gradually diffused true religion among all\nclasses, is highly interesting, and it may not be altogether irrelevant\nto my subject, to point out the principal causes which occasioned it.\n\nIn the latter stages of the Roman empire, the armies had acquired such\nundue political preponderance, that from the emperor, who inevitably\nwas chosen by them, down to the pettiest governor of a district, all the\nfunctionaries of the government issued from the ranks. They had sprung\nfrom those popular masses, of whose passionate attachment to their faith\nI have already spoken, and upon attaining their elevated stations, came\nin contact with the former rulers of the country, the old distinguished\nfamilies, the municipal dignitaries of cities, in fact those classes who\ntook pride and delight in sceptical literature. At first there was\nhostility between these latter and the real rulers of the state, whom\nthey would willingly have treated as upstarts, if they had dared. But as\nthe court gave the tone, and all the minor military chiefs were, for the\nmost part, devout and fanatic, the sceptics were compelled to disguise\ntheir real sentiments, and the philosophers set about inventing systems\nto reconcile the rationalistic theories with the state religion. This\nrevival of pagan piety caused the greater number of the persecutions.\nThe rural populations, who had suffered their faith to be outraged by\nthe atheists so long as the higher classes domineered over them, now,\nthat the imperial democracy had reduced all to the same level, were\npanting for revenge; but, mistaking their victims, they directed their\nfury against the Christians. The real sceptics were such men as King\nAgrippa, who wishes to hear St. Paul[47] from mere curiosity; who hears\nhim, debates with him, considers him a fool, but never thinks of\npersecuting him because he differs in opinion; or Tacitus, the\nhistorian, who, though full of contempt for the believers in the new\nreligion, blames Nero for his cruelties towards them.\n\nAgrippa and Tacitus were pagan sceptics. Diocletian was a politician,\nwho gave way to the clamors of an incensed populace. Decius and Aurelian\nwere fanatics, like the masses they governed, and from whom they had\nsprung.\n\nEven after the Christian religion had become the religion of the state,\nwhat immense difficulties were experienced in attempting to bring the\nmasses within its pale! So hopeless was in some places the contest with\nthe local divinities, that in many instances conversion was rather the\nresult of address, than the effect of persuasion. The genius of the holy\npropagators of our religion was reduced to the invention of pious\nfrauds. The divinities of the groves, fields, and fountains, were still\nworshipped, but under the name of the saints, the martyrs, and the\nVirgin. After being for a time misdirected, these homages would finally\nfind the right way. Yet such is the obstinacy with which the masses\ncling to a faith once received, that there are traces of it remaining in\nour day. There are still parishes in France, where some heathenish\nsuperstition alarms the piety, and defies the efforts of the minister.\nIn Catholic Brittany, even in the last centuries, the bishop in vain\nattempted to dehort his flock from the worship of an idol of stone. The\nrude image was thrown into the water, but rescued by its obstinate\nadorers; and the assistance of the military was required to break it to\npieces. Such was, and such is the longevity of paganism. I conclude,\ntherefore, that no nation, either in ancient or modern times, ever\nabandoned its religion without having duly and earnestly embraced\nanother, and that, consequently, none ever found itself, for a moment,\nin a state of irreligion, which could have been the cause of its ruin.\n\nHaving denied the destructive effects of fanaticism, luxury, and\nimmorality, and the political possibility of irreligion, I shall now\nspeak of the effects of bad government. This subject is well worthy of\nan entire chapter.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[32] See Prescott's _History of the Conquest of Mexico_.\n\n[33] C. F. Weber, _M. A. Lucani Pharsalia_. Leipzig, 1828, vol. i. pp.\n122-123, _note_.\n\n[34] Prichard, _Natural History of Man_.--Dr. Martius is still more\nexplicit. (See _Martius and Spix_, _Reise in Brasilien_. Munich, vol. i.\npp. 379-380.)\n\nMr. Gobineau quotes from M. Roulin's French translation of Prichard's\ngreat work, and as I could not always find the corresponding pages in\nthe original, I have sometimes been obliged to omit the citation of the\npage, that in the French translation being useless to English\nreaders.--_Transl._\n\n[35] I greatly doubt whether the fanaticism of even the ancient Mexicans\ncould exceed that displayed by some of our not very remote ancestors.\nWho, that reads the trials for witchcraft in the judicial records of\nScotland, and, after smiling at the frivolous, inconsistent testimony\nagainst the accused, comes to the cool, uncommented marginal note of the\nreporter: \"Convicta et combusta,\" does not feel his heart leap for\nhorror? But, if he comes to an entry like the following, he feels as\nthough lightning from heaven could but inflict too mild a punishment on\nthe perpetrators of such unnatural crimes.\n\n\"1608, Dec. 1.--The Earl of Mar declared to the council, that some women\nwere taken in Broughton as witches, and being put to an assize, and\nconvicted, albeit they persevered constant in their denial to the end,\nthey were burnt quick (alive), after such a cruel manner, that some of\nthem died in despair, renouncing and blaspheming God; and _others,\nhalf-burned, brak out of the fire, and were cast in it again, till they\nwere burned to death_.\" Entry in Sir Thomas Hamilton's _Minutes of\nProceedings in the Privy Council_. (From W. Scott's _Letters on\nDemonology and Witchcraft_, p. 315.)\n\nReally, I do not believe that the Peruvians ever carried fanaticism so\nfar. Yet, a counterpart to this horrible picture is found in the history\nof New England. A man, named Cory, being accused of witchcraft, and\nrefusing to plead, was accordingly pressed to death. And when, in the\nagony of death, the unfortunate man thrust out his tongue, the sheriff,\nwithout the least emotion, crammed it back into the mouth with his cane.\n(See Cotton Mather's _Magnalia Christi Americana_, Hardford. _Thau.\nPneu_, c. vii. p. 383, _et passim_.)\n\nDid the ferocity of the most brutish savages ever invent any torture\nmore excruciating than that in use in the British Isles, not much more\nthan two centuries ago, for bringing poor, decrepit old women to the\nconfession of a crime which never existed but in the crazed brain of\nbigots. \"The nails were torn from the fingers with smith's pincers; pins\ndriven into the places which the nails defended; the knees were crushed\nin the _boots_, the finger-bones splintered in the _pilniewinks_,\" etc.\n(Scott, _op. cit._, p. 312.) But then, it is true, they had a more\n_gentle_ torture, which an English Lord (Eglington) had the honor and\nhumanity to invent! This consisted in placing the legs of a poor woman\nin the stocks, and then _loading the bare shins with bars of iron_.\nAbove thirty stones of iron were placed upon the limbs of an unfortunate\nwoman before she could be brought to the confession which led her to the\nstake. (Scott, _op. cit._, pp. 321, 324, 327, etc. etc.)\n\nAs late as 1682, not yet 200 years ago, three women were hanged, in\nEngland, for witchcraft; and the fatal statute against it was not\nabolished until 1751, when the rabble put to death, in the most horrible\nmanner, an old pauper woman, and very nearly killed another.\n\nAnd, in the middle of last century, eighty-five persons were burnt, or\notherwise executed, for witchcraft, at Mohra, in Sweden. Among them were\nfifteen young children.\n\nIf God had ordained that fanaticism should be punished by national ruin,\nwere not these crimes, in which, in most cases, the whole nation\nparticipated, were not they horrible enough to draw upon the\nperpetrators the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah? Surely, if fanaticism were\nthe cause of national decay, most European nations had long since been\nswept from the face of the globe, \"so that their places could nowhere be\nfound.\"--H.\n\n[36] There seem, at first sight, to be exceptions to the truth of the\nassertion, that luxury, in itself, is not productive of national ruin.\nVenice, Genoa, Pisa, etc., were _aristocratic_ republics, in which, as\nin monarchies, a high degree of luxury is not only compatible with, but\nmay even be greatly conducive to the prosperity of the state. But the\nbasis of a _democratic_ republic is a more or less perfect equality\namong its citizens, which is often impaired, and, in the end, subverted\nby too great a disparity of wealth. Yet, even in them, glaring contrasts\nbetween extravagant luxury and abject poverty are rather the sign than\nthe cause, of the disappearance of democratic principles. Examples might\nbe adduced from history, of democracies in which great wealth did not\ndestroy democratic ideas and a consequent simplicity of manners. These\nideas must first be forgotten, before wealth can produce luxury, and\nluxury its attendant train of evils. Though accelerating the downfall of\na democratic republic, it is therefore not the primary cause of that\ndownfall.--H.\n\n[37] Balzac, _Lettre \u00e0 Madame la Duchesse de Montausier_.\n\n[38] That this stricture is not too severe will be obvious to any one\nwho reflects on the principles upon which this legislation was based.\nInculcating that war was the great business of life, and to be terrible\nto one's enemies the only object of manly ambition, the Spartan laws\nsacrificed the noblest private virtues and domestic affections. They\ndeprived the female character of the charms that most adorn it--modesty,\ntenderness, and sensibility; they made men brutal, coarse, and cruel.\nThey stunted individual talents; Sparta has produced but few great men,\nand these, says Macaulay, only became great when they ceased to be\nLacedemonians. Much unsound sentimentality has been expended in\neulogizing Sparta, from Xenophon down to Mitford, yet the verdict of the\nunbiassed historian cannot differ very widely from that of Macaulay:\n\"The Spartans purchased for their government a prolongation of its\nexistence by the sacrifice of happiness at home, and dignity abroad.\nThey cringed to the powerful, they trampled on the weak, they massacred\ntheir helots, they betrayed their allies, they contrived to be a day too\nlate for the battle of Marathon, they attempted to avoid the battle of\nSalamis, they suffered the Athenians, to whom they owed their lives and\nliberties, to be a second time driven from their country by the\nPersians, that they might finish their own fortifications on the\nIsthmus; they attempted to take advantage of the distress to which\nexertions in their cause had reduced their preservers, in order to make\nthem their slaves; they strove to prevent those who had abandoned their\nwalls to defend them, from rebuilding them to defend themselves; they\ncommenced the Peloponnesian war in violation of their engagements with\ntheir allies; they gave up to the sword whole cities which had placed\nthemselves under their protection; they bartered for advantages confined\nto themselves the interests, the freedom, and the lives of those who had\nserved them most faithfully; they took, with equal complacency, and\nequal infamy, the stripes of Elis and the bribes of Persia; they never\nshowed either resentment or gratitude; they abstained from no injury,\nand they revenged none. Above all, they looked on a citizen who served\nthem well as their deadliest enemy.\"--_Essays_, iii. 389.--H.\n\n[39] The horrid scenes of California life, its lynch laws, murders, and\nlist of all possible crimes, are still ringing in our ears, and have not\nentirely ceased, though their number is lessened, and they are rapidly\ndisappearing before lawful order. Australia offered, and still offers,\nthe same spectacle. Texas, but a few years ago, and all newly settled\ncountries in our day, afford another striking illustration of the\nauthor's remark. Young communities ever attract a great number of\nlawless and desperate men; and this has been the case in all ages. Rome\nwas founded by a band of fugitives from justice, and if her early\nhistory be critically examined, it will be found to reveal a state of\nsociety, with which the Rome described by the Satirists, and upbraided\nby the Censors, compares favorably. Any one who will cast a glance into\nBishop Potter's _Antiquities_, can convince himself that the state of\nmorals, in Athens, was no better in her most flourishing periods than at\nthe time of her downfall, if, indeed, as good; notwithstanding the\nglowing colors in which Isocrates and his followers describe the virtues\nof her youthful period, and the degeneracy of the age. Who can doubt\nthat public morality has attained a higher standard in England, at the\npresent day when her strength seems to have departed from her, than it\nhad at any previous era in her history. Where are the brutal fox-hunting\ncountry squires of former centuries? the good old customs, when\nhospitality consisted in drinking one's guest underneath the table? What\naudience could now endure, or what police permit, the plays of Congreve\nand of Otway? Even Shakspeare has to be pruned by the moral censor,\nbefore he can charm our ears. Addison himself, than whom none\ncontributed more to purify the morals of his age, bears unmistakable\ntraces of the coarseness of the time in which he wrote. It will be\nobjected that we are only more prudish, no better at the bottom. But,\neven supposing that the same vices still exist, is it not a great step\nin advance, that they dare no longer parade themselves with unblushing\nimpudence? Many who derive their ideas of the Middle Ages, of chivalry,\netc., from the accounts of romance writers, have very erroneous notions\nabout the manners of that period. \"It so happens,\" says Byron, \"that the\ngood old times when '_l'amour du bon vieux temps, l'amour antique_'\nflourished, were the most profligate of all possible centuries. Those\nwho have any doubts on the subject may consult St. Palay, particularly\nvol. ii. p. 69. The vows of chivalry were no better kept than any other\nvows whatever, and the songs of the troubadour were not more decent, and\ncertainly much less refined, than those of Ovid. The 'cours d'amour,\nparlements d'amour, ou de courtoisie et de gentilesse,' had much more of\nlove than of courtesy and gentleness. (See Roland on the same subject\nwith St. Palay.)\" _Preface to Childe Harold._ I should not have quoted\nthe authority of a poet on historical matters, were I not convinced,\nfrom my own investigations, that his pungent remarks are perfectly\ncorrect. As a further confirmation, I may mention that a few years ago,\nin rummaging over the volumes of a large European library, I casually\nlit upon a record of judicial proceedings during the fourteenth and\nfifteenth centuries, in a little commonwealth, whose simplicity of\nmanners, and purity of public morals, especially in that period, has\nbeen greatly extolled by historians. There, I found a list of crimes, to\nwhich the most corrupt of modern great cities can furnish no parallel.\nIn horror and hellish ingenuity, they can be faintly approached only by\nthe punishment which followed them. Of many, our generation ignores even\nthe name, and, of others, dares not utter them.--H.\n\n[40] This assertion may surprise those who, in the words of a piquant\nwriter on Parisian life, \"have thought of Paris only under two\naspects--one, as the emporium of fashion, fun, and refinement; the abode\nof good fellows somewhat dissipated, of fascinating ladies somewhat\nover-kind; of succulent dinners, somewhat indigestible; of pleasures,\nsomewhat illicit;--the other, as the place _par excellence_, of\nrevolutions, _\u00e9meutes_, and barricades.\" Yet, all who have pierced below\nthe brilliant surface, and penetrated into the recesses of destitution\nand crime, have seen the ministering angel of charity on his errand, and\ncan bear witness to the truth of the author's remark. No city can show a\ngreater number of benevolent institutions, none more active and\npractical _private_ charity, which inquires not after the country or\ncreed of its object.--H.\n\n[41] Tottering, falling Greece, gave birth to a Demosthenes, a Phocian;\nthe period of the downfall of the Roman republic was the age of Cicero,\nBrutus, and Cato.--H.\n\n[42] The subjoined picture of the manners of the Frankish conquerors of\nGaul, is selected on account of the weighty authority from which it\ncomes, from among a number of even darker ones. \"The history of Gregory\nof Tours shows us on the one hand, a fierce and barbarous nation; and on\nthe other, kings of as bad a character. These princes were bloody,\nunjust, and cruel, because all the nation was so. If Christianity seemed\nsometimes to soften them, it was only by the terror which this religion\nimprints in the guilty; the church supported herself against them by the\nmiracles and prodigies of her saints. The kings were not sacrilegious,\nbecause they dreaded the punishments inflicted on sacrilegious people:\nbut this excepted, they committed, either in their passion or cold\nblood, all manner of crimes and injustice, because in these the avenging\nhand of the Deity did not appear so visible. The Franks, as I have\nalready observed, bore with bloody kings, because they were fond of\nblood themselves; they were not affected with the wickedness and\nextortion of their princes, because this was their own character. There\nhad been a great many laws established, but the kings rendered them all\nuseless by the practice of issuing _preceptions_, a kind of decrees,\nafter the manner of the rescripts of the Roman emperors. These\npreceptions were orders to the judges to do, or to tolerate, things\ncontrary to law. They were given for illicit marriages, and even those\nwith consecrated virgins; for transferring successions, and depriving\nrelations of their rights; for putting to death persons who had not been\nconvicted of any crime, and not been heard in their defence,\netc.\"--MONTESQUIEU, _Esprit des Lois_, b. 31, c. 2.--H.\n\n[43] Augustin Thierry, _R\u00e9cit des Temps M\u00e9rovingiens_. (See particularly\nthe _History of Mummolus_.)\n\n[44] Lucretius was the author of _De Rerum Natura_, and one of the most\ndistinguished of pagan \"free-thinkers.\" He labored to combine the\nphilosophy of Epicurus, Evhenius, and others, into a sort of moral\nreligion, much after the fashion of some of the German mystics and\nPlatonists of our times.--H.\n\n[45] C\u00e6sar, whose private opinions were both democratical and sceptical,\nfound it convenient to speak very differently in public, as the funeral\noration in honor of his aunt proves. \"On the maternal side, said he, my\naunt Julia is descended from the kings; on the paternal, from the\nimmortal gods. For my aunt's mother was of the family of the Martii, who\nare descended from King Ancus Martius; and the Julii, to which stock our\nfamily belongs, trace their origin to Venus. Thus, in her blood was\nblended the majesty of kings, the most powerful of men, and the sanctity\nof the gods, who have even the kings in their power.\"--_Suetonius_,\n_Julius_, 5.\n\nAre not these sentiments very monarchical for a democrat; very religious\nfor an atheist?\n\n[46] It is well known that Constantine did not receive the rite of\nbaptism until within the last hours of his life, although he professed\nto be a sincere believer. The coins, also, struck during his reign, all\nbore pagan emblems.--H.\n\n[47] Acts xxvi. 24, 28, 31.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\nINFLUENCE OF GOVERNMENT UPON THE LONGEVITY OF NATIONS.\n\n  Misgovernment defined--Athens, China, Spain, Germany, Italy, etc.--Is\n    not in itself a sufficient cause for the ruin of nations.\n\n\nI am aware of the difficulty of the task I have undertaken in attempting\nto establish a truth, which by many of my readers will be regarded as a\nmere paradox. That good laws and good government exert a direct and\npowerful influence upon the well-being and prosperity of a nation, is an\nindisputable fact, of which I am fully convinced; but I think that\nhistory proves that they are not absolute conditions of the existence of\na community; or, in other words, that their absence is not necessarily\nproductive of ruin. Nations, like individuals, are often preyed upon by\nfearful diseases, which show no outward traces of the ravages within,\nand which, though dangerous, are not always fatal. Indeed, if they\nwere, few communities would survive the first few years of their\nformation, for it is precisely during that period that the government is\nworst, the laws most imperfect, and least observed. But here the\ncomparison between the body political and the human organization ceases,\nfor while the latter dreads most the attack of disease during infancy,\nthe former easily overcomes it at that period. History furnishes\ninnumerable examples of successful contest on the part of young\ncommunities with the most formidable and most devastating political\nevils, of which none can be worse than ill-conceived laws, administered\nin an oppressive or negligent manner.[48]\n\nLet us first define what we understand by bad government. The varieties\nof this evil are as various as nations, countries, and epochs. It were\nimpossible to enumerate them all. Yet, by classing them under four\nprincipal categories, few varieties will be omitted.\n\nA government is bad, when imposed by foreign influence. Athens\nexperienced this evil under the thirty tyrants. Yet she shook off the\nodious yoke, and patriotism, far from expiring, gained renewed vigor by\nthe oppression.\n\nA government is bad, when based upon absolute and unconditional\nconquest. Almost the whole extent of France in the fourteenth century,\ngroaned under the dominion of England. The ordeal was passed, and the\nnation rose from it more powerful and brilliant than before. China was\noverrun and conquered by the Mongol hordes. They were ejected from its\nterritories, after having previously undergone a singular\ntransformation. It next fell into the hands of the Mantchoo conquerors,\nbut though they already count the years of their reign by centuries,\nthey are now at the eve of experiencing the same fate as their Mongol\npredecessors.\n\nA government is especially bad, when the principles upon which it was\nbased are disregarded or forgotten. This was the fate of the Spanish\nmonarchy. It was based upon the military spirit of the nation, and upon\nits municipal freedom, and declined soon after these principles came to\nbe forgotten. It is impossible to imagine greater political\ndisorganization than this country represented. Nowhere was the authority\nof the sovereign more nominal and despised; nowhere did the clergy lay\nthemselves more open to censure. Agriculture and industry, following the\nsame downward impulse, were also involved in the national marasmus. Yet\nSpain, of whom so many despaired, at a moment when her star seemed\nsetting forever, gave the glorious example of heroic and successful\nresistance to the arms of one who had hitherto experienced no check in\nhis career of conquest. Since that, the better spirit of the nation has\nbeen roused, and there is, probably, at this time, no European state\nwith more promising prospects, and stronger vitality.[49]\n\nA government is also very bad, when, by its institutions, it authorizes\nan antagonism either between the supreme power and the nation, or among\nthe different classes of which it is composed. This was the case in the\nMiddle Ages, when the kings of France and England were at war with their\ngreat vassals, and the peasants in perpetual feud with the lords. In\nGermany, the first effects of the liberty of thought, were the civil\nwars of the Hussites, Anabaptists, and other sectaries. Italy, at a\nmore remote period, was so distracted by the division of the supreme\nauthority for which emperor, pope, nobles, and municipalities contended,\nthat the masses, not knowing whom to obey, in many instances finished by\nobeying neither. Yet in the midst of all these troubles, Italian\nnationality did not perish. On the contrary, its civilization was at no\ntime more brilliant, its industry never more productive, its foreign\ninfluence never greater.\n\nIf communities have survived such fearful political tempests, it cannot\nwell be said that national ruin is a necessary cause of misgovernment.\nBesides, wise and happy reigns are few and far between, in the history\nof every nation; and these few are not considered such by all.\nHistorians are not unanimous in their praise of Elizabeth, nor do they\nall consider the reign of William and Mary as an epoch of prosperity for\nEngland. Truly this science of statesmanship, the highest and most\ncomplicated of all, is so disproportionate to the capacity of man,[50]\nand so various are the opinions concerning it, that nations have early\nand frequent opportunities of learning to accommodate themselves to\nmisgovernment, which, in its worst forms, is still preferable to\nanarchy. It is a well-proved fact, which even a superficial study of\nhistory will clearly demonstrate, that communities often perish under\nthe best government of a long series that came before.[51]\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[48] It will be understood that I speak here, not of the political\nexistence of a centre of sovereignty, but of the life of an entire\nnation, the prosperity of a civilization. Here is the place to apply the\ndefinition given above, page 114.\n\n[49] This assertion will appear paradoxical to those who are in the\nhabit of looking upon Spain as the type of hopeless national\ndegradation. But whoever studies the history of the last thirty years,\nwhich is but a series of struggles to rise from this position, will\nprobably arrive at the same conclusions as the author. The revolution of\n1820 redeems the character of the nation. \"The Spanish Constitution\"\nbecame the watchword of the friends of constitutional liberty in the\nSouth of Europe, and ere thirteen months had fully passed, it had become\nthe fundamental law of three other countries--Portugal, Naples, and\nSardinia. At the mere sound of those words, two kings had resigned their\ncrowns. These revolutions were not characterized by excesses. They were,\nfor the most part, accomplished peacefully, quietly, and orderly. They\nwere not the result of the temporary passions of an excited mob. The\nmost singular feature of these countries is that the lowest dregs of the\npopulation are the most zealous adherents of absolutism. No, these\nrevolutions were the work of the best elements in the population, the\nmost intelligent classes, of people who knew what they wanted, and how\nto get it. And then, when Spain had set that ever glorious example to\nher neighbors, the great powers, with England at the head, concluded to\nre-establish the former state of things. In those memorable congresses\nof plenipotentiaries, the most influential was the representative of\nEngland, the Duke of Wellington. And by his advice, or, at least, with\nhis sanction, an Austrian army entered Sardinia, and abolished the new\nconstitution; an Austrian army entered Naples and abolished the new\nconstitution; English vessels of war threatened Lisbon, and Portugal\nabolished her new constitution; and finally a French army entered Spain,\nand abolished the new constitution. So Naples and Portugal regained\ntheir tyrants, and Spain her imbecile dynasty. For years the Spaniards\nhave tried to shake it off, and English influence alone has maintained\non a great nation's throne, a wretch that would have disgraced the\nlowest walks of private life. But the day of Spanish liberty and Spanish\n_independence_ will dawn, and perhaps already has dawned. The efforts of\nthe last Cortes were wisely directed, and their proceedings marked with\na manliness, a moderation, and a firmness that augur well for the future\nweal of Spain.--H.\n\n[50] Who is not reminded of Oxenstierna's famous saying to his son: \"Cum\nparva sapienti\u00e2 mundus gubernatur.\"--H.\n\n[51] It is obvious that so long as the vitality of a nation remains\nunimpaired, misgovernment can be but a temporary ill. The regenerative\nprinciple will be at work to remove the evil and heal the wounds it has\ninflicted; and though the remedy be sometimes violent, and throw the\nstate into fearful convulsions, it will seldom be found ineffectual. So\nlong as the spirit of liberty prevailed among the Romans, the\nTarquiniuses and Appiuses were as a straw before the storm of popular\nindignation; but the death of C\u00e6sar could but substitute a despot in the\nstead of a mild and generous usurper. The first Brutus might save the\nnation, because he was the expression of the national sentiment; the\nsecond could not, because he was one man opposed to millions. It is a\ncommon error to ascribe too much to individual exertions, and whimsical\nphilosophers have amused themselves to trace great events to petty\ncauses; but a deeper inquiry will demonstrate that the great\ncatastrophes which arrest our attention and form the landmarks of\nhistory, are but the inevitable result of all the whole chain of\nantecedent events. Julius C\u00e6sar and Napoleon Bonaparte were, indeed,\nespecially gifted for their great destinies, but the same gifts could\nnot have raised them to their exalted positions at any other epoch than\nthe one in which each lived. Those petty causes are but the drop which\ncauses the measure to overflow, the pretext of the moment; or as the\nsmall fissure in the dyke which produces the _crevasse_: the wall of\nwaters stood behind. No man can usurp supreme power, unless the\nprevailing tendency of the nation favors it; no man can long persist in\nhurrying a nation along in a course repulsive to it; and in this sense,\ntherefore, not with regard to its abstract justness, it is undoubtedly\ntrue, that the voice of the nation is the voice of God. It is the\nexpression of what shall and must be.--H.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV.\n\nDEFINITION OF THE WORD DEGENERACY--ITS CAUSE.\n\n  Skeleton history of a nation--Origin of castes, nobility,\n    etc.--Vitality of nations not necessarily extinguished by\n    conquest--China, Hindostan--Permanency of their peculiar\n    civilizations.\n\n\nIf the spirit of the preceding pages has been at all understood, it will\nbe seen that I am far from considering these great national maladies,\nmisgovernment, fanaticism, irreligion, and immorality, as mere trifling\naccidents, without influence or importance. On the contrary, I sincerely\npity the community which is afflicted by such scourges, and think that\nno efforts can be misdirected which tend to mitigate or remove them. But\nI repeat, that unless these disorganizing elements are grafted upon\nanother more destructive principle, unless they are the consequences of\na greater, though concealed, evil; we may rest assured that their\nravages are not fatal, and that society, after a shorter or longer\nperiod of suffering, will escape their toils, perhaps with renewed vigor\nand youth.\n\nThe examples I have alleged seem to me conclusive; their number, if\nnecessary, might be increased to any extent. But the conviction has\nalready gained ground, that these are but secondary evils, to which an\nundue importance has hitherto been attached, and that the law which\ngoverns the life and death of societies must be sought for elsewhere,\nand deeper. It is admitted that the germ of destruction is inherent in\nthe constitution of communities; that so long as it remains latent,\nexterior dangers are little to be dreaded; but when it has once attained\nfull growth and maturity, the nation must die, even though surrounded by\nthe most favorable circumstances, precisely as a jaded steed breaks\ndown, be the track ever so smooth.\n\nDegeneracy was the name given to this cause of dissolution. This view of\nthe question was a great step towards the truth, but, unfortunately, it\nwent no further; the first difficulty proved insurmountable. The term\nwas certainly correct, etymologically and in every other respect, but\nhow is it with the definition. A people is said to be degenerated, when\nit is badly governed, abuses its riches, is fanatical, or irreligious;\nin short, when it has lost the characteristic virtues of its\nforefathers. This is begging the question. Thus, communities succumb\nunder the burden of social and political evils only when they are\ndegenerate, and they are degenerate only when such evils prevail. This\ncircular argument proves nothing but the small progress hitherto made in\nthe science of national biology. I readily admit that nations perish\nfrom degeneracy, and from no other cause; it is when in that wretched\ncondition, that foreign attacks are fatal to them, for then they no\nlonger possess the strength to protect themselves against adverse\nfortune, or to recover from its blows. They die, because, though exposed\nto the same perils as their ancestors, they have not the same powers of\novercoming them. I repeat it, the term _degeneracy_ is correct; but it\nis necessary to define it, to give it a real and tangible meaning. It is\nnecessary to say how and why this vigor, this capacity of overcoming\nsurrounding dangers, are lost. Hitherto, we have been satisfied with a\nmere word, but the thing itself is as little known as ever.[52] The step\nbeyond, I shall attempt to make.\n\nIn my opinion, a nation is degenerate, when the blood of its founders no\nlonger flows in its veins, but has been gradually deteriorated by\nsuccessive foreign admixtures; so that the nation, while retaining its\noriginal name, is no longer composed of the same elements. The\nattenuation of the original blood is attended by a modification of the\noriginal instincts, or modes of thinking; the new elements assert their\ninfluence, and when they have once gained perfect and entire\npreponderance, the degeneration may be considered as complete. With the\nlast remnant of the original ethnical principle, expires the life of the\nsociety and its civilization. The masses, which composed it, have\nthenceforth no separate, independent, social and political existence;\nthey are attracted to different centres of civilization, and swell the\nranks of new societies having new instincts and new purposes.\n\nIn attempting to establish this theorem, I am met by a question which\ninvolves the solution of a far more difficult problem than any I have\nyet approached. This question, so momentous in its bearings, is the\nfollowing:--\n\nIs there, in reality, a serious and palpable difference in the capacity\nand intrinsic worth of different branches of the human family?\n\nFor the sake of clearness, I shall advance, _\u00e0 priori_, that this\ndifference exists. It then remains to show how the ethnical character of\na nation can undergo such a total change as I designate by the term\n_degeneracy_.\n\nPhysiologists assert that the human frame is subject to a constant wear\nand tear, which would soon destroy the whole machine, but for new\nparticles which are continually taking the form and place of the old\nones. So rapid is this change said to be, that, in a few years, the\nwhole framework is renovated, and the material identity of the\nindividual changed. The same, to a great extent, may be said of nations,\nonly that, while the individual always preserves a certain similarity\nof form and features, those of a nation are subject to innumerable and\never-varying changes. Let us take a nation at the moment when it assumes\na political existence, and commences to play a part in the great drama\nof the world's stage. In its embryo, we call it a tribe.\n\nThe simplest and most natural political institution is that of tribes.\nIt is the only form of government known to rude and savage nations.\nCivilization is the result of a great concentration of powerful physical\nand intellectual forces,[53] which, in small and scattered fragments, is\nimpossible. The first step towards it is, therefore, undoubtedly, the\nunion of several tribes by alliance or conquest. Such a coalescence is\nwhat we call a nation or empire. I think it admits of an easy\ndemonstration, that in proportion as a human family is endowed with the\ncapacity for intellectual progress, it exhibits a tendency to enlarge\nthe circle of its influence and dominion. On the contrary, where that\ncapacity is weak, or wanting, we find the population subdivided into\ninnumerable small fragments, which, though in perpetual collision,\nremain forever detached and isolated. The stronger may massacre the\nweaker, but permanent conquest is never attempted; depredatory\nincursions are the sole object and whole extent of warfare. This is the\ncase with the natives of Polynesia, many parts of Africa, and the Arctic\nregions. Nor can their stagnant condition be ascribed to local or\nclimatical causes. We have seen such wretched hordes inhabiting,\nindifferently, temperate as well as torrid or frigid zones; fertile\nprairies and barren deserts; river-shores and coasts as well as inland\nregions. It must therefore be founded upon an inherent incapacity of\nprogress. The more civilizable a race is, the stronger is the tendency\nfor aggregation of masses. Complex political organizations are not so\nmuch the effect as the cause of civilization.[54] A tribe with superior\nintellectual and physical endowments, soon perceives that, to increase\nits power and prosperity, it must compel its neighbors to enter into the\nsphere of its influence. Where peaceful means fail, war is resorted to.\nTerritories are conquered, a division into classes established between\nthe victorious and the subjugated race; in one word, a nation has made\nits appearance upon the theatre of history. The impulse being once\ngiven, it will not stop short in the career of conquest. If wisdom and\nmoderation preside in its councils, the tracks of its armies will not be\nmarked by wanton destruction and bloodshed; the monuments, institutions,\nand manners of the conquered will be respected; superior creations will\ntake the place of the old, where changes are necessary and useful;--a\ngreat empire will be formed.[55] At first, and perhaps for a long time,\nvictors and vanquished will remain separated and distinct. But\ngradually, as the pride of the conqueror becomes less obtrusive, and the\nbitterness of defeat is forgotten by the conquered; as the ties of\ncommon interest become stronger, the boundary line between them is\nobliterated. Policy, fear, or natural justice, prompts the masters to\nconcessions; intermarriages take place, and, in the course of time, the\nvarious ethnical elements are blended, and the different nations\ncomposing the state begin to consider themselves as one. This is the\ngeneral history of the rise of all empires whose records have been\ntransmitted to us.[56] An inferior race, by falling into the hands of\nvigorous masters, is thus called to share a destiny, of which, alone, it\nwould have been incapable. Witness the Saxons by the Norman\nconquest.[57] But, if there is a decided disparity in the capacity of\nthe two races, their mixture, while it ennobles the baser, deteriorates\nthe nobler; a new race springs up, inferior to the one, though superior\nto the other, and, perhaps, possessed of peculiar qualities unknown to\neither. The modification of the ethnical character of the nation,\nhowever, does not terminate here.\n\nEvery new acquisition of territory, by conquest or treaty, brings an\naddition of foreign blood. The wealth and splendor of a great empire\nattract crowds of strangers to its capital, great inland cities, or\nseaports. Apart from the fact that the conquering race--that which\nfounds the empire, and supports and animates it--is, in most cases,\ninferior in numbers to the masses which it subdued and assimilated; the\nconspicuous part which it takes in the affairs of the state, renders it\nmore directly exposed to the fatal results of battles, proscriptions,\nand revolts.[58] In some instances, also, it happens that the\nsubstratum of native populations are singularly prolific--witness the\nCelts and Sclaves. Sooner or later, therefore, the conquering race is\nabsorbed by the masses which its vigor and superiority have aggregated.\nThe very materials of which it erected its splendor, and upon which it\nbased its strength, are ultimately the means of its weakness and\ndestruction. But the civilization which it has developed, may survive\nfor a limited period. The forward impulse, once imparted to the mass,\nwill still propel it for a while, but its force is continually\ndecreasing. Manners, laws, and institutions remain, but the spirit\nwhich animated them has fled; the lifeless body still exhibits the\napparent symptoms of life, and, perhaps, even increases, but the real\nstrength has departed; the edifice soon begins to totter, at the\nslightest collision it will crumble, and bury beneath its ruins the\ncivilization which it had developed.\n\nIf this definition of degeneracy be accepted, and its consequences\nadmitted, the problem of the rise and fall of empires no longer presents\nany difficulty. A nation lives so long as it preserves the ethnical\nprinciple to which it owes its existence; with this principle, it loses\nthe _primum mobile_ of its successes, its glory, and its civilization:\nit must therefore disappear from the stage of history. Who can doubt\nthat if Alexander had been opposed by real Persians, the men of the\nArian stock, whom Cyrus led to victory, the issue of the battle of\nArbela would have been very different. Or if Rome, in her decadence, had\npossessed soldiers and senators like those of the time of Fabius,\nScipio, and Cato, would she have fallen so easy a prey to the barbarians\nof the North?\n\nIt will be objected that, even had the integrity of the original blood\nremained intact, a time must have come when they would find their\nmasters. They would have succumbed under a series of well-combined\nattacks, a long-continued overwhelming pressure, or simply by the\nchances of a lost battle. The political edifice might have been\ndestroyed in this manner, not the civilization, not the social\norganization. Invasion and defeat would have been reverses, sad ones,\nindeed, but not irremediable. There is no want of facts to confirm this\nassertion.\n\nIn modern times, the Chinese have suffered two complete conquests. In\neach case they have imposed their manners and their institutions upon\nthe conquerors; they have given them much, and received but little in\nreturn. The first invaders, after having undergone this change, were\nexpelled; the same fate is now threatening the second.[59] In this case\nthe vanquished were intellectually and numerically superior to their\nvictors. I shall mention another case where the victors, though\nintellectually superior, are not possessed of sufficient numerical\nstrength to transform the intellectual and moral character of the\nvanquished.\n\nThe political supremacy of the British in Hindostan is perfect, yet they\nexert little or no moral influence over the masses they govern. All that\nthe utmost exertion of their power can effect upon the fears of their\nsubjects, is an outward compliance. The notions of the Hindoo cannot be\nreplaced by European ideas--the spirit of Hindoo civilization cannot be\nconquered by any power, however great, of the law. Political forms may\nchange, and do change, without materially affecting the basis upon which\nthey rest; Hyderabad, Lahore, and Delhi may cease to be capitals: Hindoo\nsociety will subsist, nevertheless. A time must come, sooner or later,\nwhen India will regain a separate political existence, and publicly\nproclaim those laws of her own, which she now secretly obeys, or of\nwhich she is tacitly left in possession.\n\nThe mere accident of conquest cannot destroy the principle of vitality\nin a people. At most, it may suspend for a time the exterior\nmanifestations of that vitality, and strip it of its outward honors. But\nso long as the blood, and consequently the culture of a nation, exhibit\nsufficiently strong traces of the initiatory race, that nation exists;\nand whether it has to deal, like the Chinese, with conquerors who are\nsuperior only materially; or whether, like the Hindoos, it maintains a\nstruggle of patience against a race much superior in every respect; that\nnation may rest assured of its future--independence will dawn for it one\nday. On the contrary, when a nation has completely exhausted the\ninitiatory ethnical element, defeat is certain death; it has consumed\nthe term of existence which Heaven had granted it--its destiny is\nfulfilled.[60]\n\nI, therefore, consider the question as settled, which has been so often\ndiscussed, as to what would have been the result, if the Carthaginians,\ninstead of succumbing to the fortune of Rome, had conquered Italy. As\nthey belonged to the Phenician family, a stock greatly inferior to the\nItalian in political capacity, they would have been absorbed by the\nsuperior race after the victory, precisely as they were after the\ndefeat. The final result, therefore, would have been the same in either\ncase.\n\nThe destiny of civilizations is not ruled by accident; it depends not on\nthe issue of a battle, a thrust of a sword, the favors or frowns of\nfickle fortune. The most warlike, formidable, and triumphant nations,\nwhen they were distinguished for nothing but bravery, strategical\nscience, and military successes, have never had a nobler fate than that\nof learning from their subjects, perhaps too late, the art of living in\npeace. The Celts, the nomad hordes of Central Asia, are memorable\nillustrations of this truth.\n\nThe whole of my demonstration now rests upon one hypothesis, the proof\nof which I have reserved for the succeeding chapters: THE MORAL AND\nINTELLECTUAL DIVERSITIES OF THE VARIOUS BRANCHES OF THE HUMAN FAMILY.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[52] The author has neglected to advert to one very clear explanation of\nthis word, which, from its extensive popularity, seems to me to deserve\nsome notice. It is said, and very commonly believed, that there is a\nphysical degeneracy in mankind; that a nation cultivating for a long\ntime the arts of peace, and enjoying the fruits of well-directed\nindustry, loses the capacity for warfare; in other words becomes\neffeminate, and, consequently, less capable of defending itself against\nruder, and, therefore, more warlike invaders. It is further said, though\nwith less plausibility, that there is a general degeneracy of the human\nrace--that we are inferior in physical strength to our ancestors, etc.\nIf this theory could be supported by incontestable facts--and there are\nmany who think it possible--it would give to the term degeneracy that\nreal and tangible meaning which the author alleges to be wanting. But a\nslight investigation will demonstrate that it is more specious than\ncorrect.\n\nIn the first place, to prove that an advance in civilization does not\nlessen the material puissance of a nation, but rather increases it, we\nmay point to the well-known fact that the most civilized nations are the\nmost formidable opponents in warfare, because they have brought the\nmeans of attack and defence to the greatest perfection.\n\nBut that for this strength they are not solely indebted to artificial\nmeans, is proved by the history of modern civilized states. The French\nnow fight with as much martial ardor and intrepidity, and with more\nsuccess than they did in the times of Francis I. or Louis XIV., albeit\nthey have since both these epochs made considerable progress in\ncivilization, and this progress has been most perceptible in those\nclasses which form the bulk and body of armies. England, though,\nperhaps, she could not muster an army as large as in former times, has\nhearts as stout, and arms as strong as those that gained for her\nimperishable glory at Agincourt and Poitiers. The charge at Balaklava,\nrash and useless as it may be termed, was worthy of the followers of the\nBlack Prince.\n\nA theory to be correct, must admit of mathematical demonstration. The\nmost civilized nations, then, would be the most effeminate; the most\nbarbarous, the most warlike. And, descending from nations to\nindividuals, the most cultivated and refined mind would be accompanied\nby a deficiency in many of the manly virtues. Such an assertion is\nridiculous. The most refined and fastidious gentleman has never, as a\nclass, displayed less courage and fortitude than the rowdy and fighter\nby profession. Men sprung from the bosom of the most polished circles in\nthe most civilized communities, have surpassed the most warlike\nbarbarians in deeds of hardihood and heroic valor.\n\nCivilization, therefore, produces no degeneracy; the cultivation of the\narts of peace, no diminution of manly virtues. We have seen the peaceful\nburghers of free cities successfully resist the trained bands of a\nsuperior foe; we have seen the artisans and merchants of Holland\ninvincible to the veteran armies of the then most powerful prince of\nChristendom, backed as he was by the inexhaustible treasures of a newly\ndiscovered hemisphere; we have seen, in our times, troops composed of\nvolunteers who left their hearthstones to fight for their country, rout\nincredible odds of the standing armies of a foe, who, for the last\nthirty years, has known no peace.\n\nI believe that an advanced state of civilization, accompanied by long\npeace, gives rise to a certain _domestication_ of man, that is to say,\nit lays on a polish over the more ferocious or pugnacious tendencies of\nhis nature; because it, in some measure deprives him of the\nopportunities of exercising them, but it cannot deprive him of the\npower, should the opportunity present itself. Let us suppose two\nbrothers born in some of our great commercial cities, one to enter a\ncounting-house, the other to settle in the western wilderness. The\nformer might become a polished, elegant, perhaps even dandified young\ngentleman; the other might evince a supreme contempt for all the\namenities of life, be ever ready to draw his bowie-knife or revolver,\nhowever slight the provocation. The country requires the services of\nboth; a great principle is at stake, and in some battle of Matamoras or\nBuena Vista, the two brothers fight side by side; who will be the\nbraver?\n\nI believe that both individual and national character admit of a certain\ndegree of pressure by surrounding circumstances; the pressure removed,\nthe character at once regains its original form. See with what\nkindliness the civilized descendant of the wild Teuton hunter takes to\nthe hunter's life in new countries, and how soon he learns to despise\nthe comforts of civilized life and fix his abode in the solitary\nwilderness. The Normans had been settled over six centuries in the\nbeautiful province of France, to which they gave their name; their\nnobles had frequented the most polished court in Europe, adapted\nthemselves to the fashions and requirements of life in a luxurious\nmetropolis; they themselves had learned to plough the soil instead of\nthe wave; yet in another hemisphere they at once regained their ancient\nhabits, and--as six hundred years before--became the most dreaded\npirates of the seas they infested; the savage buccaneers of the Spanish\nmain. I can see no difference between Lolonnois and his followers, and\nthe terrible men of the north (his lineal ancestors) that ravaged the\nshores of the Seine and the Rhine, and whose name is even yet mentioned\nwith horror every evening, in the other hemisphere, by thousands of\npraying children: \"God preserve us from the Northmen.\" Morgan, the Welch\nbuccaneer, who, with a thousand men, vanquished five times as many\nwell-equipped Spaniards, took their principal cities, Porto Bello and\nPanama; who tortured his captives to make them reveal the hiding-place\nof their treasure; Morgan might have been--sixteen centuries\nnotwithstanding--a tributary chief to Caractacus, or one of those who\nopposed C\u00e6sar's landing in Britain. To make the resemblance still more\ncomplete, the laws and regulations of these lawless bands were a precise\ncopy of those to which their not more savage ancestors bound themselves.\n\nI regret that my limited space precludes me from entering into a more\nelaborate exposition of the futility of the theory that civilization, or\na long continued state of peace, can produce physical degeneracy or\ninaptitude for the ruder duties of the battle-field; but I believe that\nwhat I have said will suffice to suggest to the thoughtful reader\nnumerous confirmations of my position; and I may, therefore, now refer\nhim to Mr. Gobineau's explanation of the term degeneracy.--H.\n\n[53] \"Nothing but the great number of citizens in a state can occasion\nthe flourishing of the arts and sciences. Accordingly, we see that, in\nall ages, it was great empires only which enjoyed this advantage. In\nthese great states, the arts, especially that of agriculture, were soon\nbrought to great perfection, and thus that leisure afforded to a\nconsiderable number of men, which is so necessary to study and\nspeculation. The Babylonians, Assyrians, and Egyptians, had the\nadvantage of being formed into regular, well-constituted\nstates.\"--_Origin of Laws and Sciences, and their Progress among the\nmost Ancient Nations._ By President DE GOGUET. Edinburgh, 1761, vol. i.\npp. 272-273.--H.\n\n[54] \"Conquests, by uniting many nations under one sovereign, have\nformed great and powerful empires, out of the ruins of many petty\nstates. In these great empires, men began insensibly to form clearer\nviews of politics, juster and more salutary notions of government.\nExperience taught them to avoid the errors which had occasioned the ruin\nof the nations whom they had subdued, and put them upon taking measures\nto prevent surprises, invasions, and the like misfortunes. With these\nviews they fortified cities, secured such passes as might have admitted\nan enemy into their country, and kept a certain number of troops\nconstantly on foot. By these precautions, several States rendered\nthemselves formidable to their neighbors, and none durst lightly attack\npowers which were every way so respectable. The interior parts of such\nmighty monarchies were no longer exposed to ravages and devastations.\nWar was driven far from the centre, and only infected the frontiers. The\ninhabitants of the country, and of the cities, began to breathe in\nsafety. The calamities which conquests and revolutions had occasioned,\ndisappeared; but the blessings which had grown out of them, remained.\nIngenious and active spirits, encouraged by the repose which they\nenjoyed, devoted themselves to study. _It was in the bosom of great\nempires the arts were invented, and the sciences had their\nbirth._\"--_Op. cit._, vol. i. Book 5, p. 326.--H.\n\n[55] The history of every great empire proves the correctness of this\nremark. The conqueror never attempted to change the manners or local\ninstitutions of the peoples subdued, but contented himself with an\nacknowledgment of his supremacy, the payment of tribute, and the\nrendering of assistance in war. Those who have pursued a contrary\ncourse, may be likened to an overflowing river, which, though it leaves\ntemporary marks of its destructive course behind, must, sooner or later,\nreturn to its bed, and, in a short time, its invasions are forgotten,\nand their traces obliterated.--H.\n\n[56] The most striking illustration of the correctness of this\nreasoning, is found in Roman history, the earlier portion of which\nis--thanks to Niebuhr's genius--just beginning to be understood. The\nlawless followers of Romulus first coalesced with the Sabines; the two\nnations united, then compelled the Albans to raze their city to the\nground, and settle in Rome. Next came the Latins, to whom, also, a\nportion of the city was allotted for settlement. These two conquered\nnations were, of course, not permitted the same civil and political\nprivileges as the conquerors, and, with the exception of a few noble\nfamilies among them (which probably had been, from the beginning, in the\ninterests of the conquerors), these tribes formed the _plebs_. The\ndistinction by nations was forgotten, and had become a distinction of\n_classes_. Then began the progress which Mr. Gobineau describes. The\nPlebeians first gained their _tribunes_, who could protect their\ninterests against the one-sided legislation of the dominant class; then,\nthe right of discussing and deciding certain public questions in the\n_comitia_, or public assembly. Next, the law prohibiting intermarriage\nbetween the Patricians and Plebeians was repealed; and thus, in course\nof time, the government changed from an oligarchical to a democratic\nform. I might go into details, or, I might mention other nations in\nwhich the same process is equally manifest, but I think the above\nwell-known facts sufficient to bring the author's idea into a clear\nlight, and illustrate its correctness. The history of the Middle Ages,\nthe establishment of serfdom and its gradual abolition, also furnish an\nanalogue.\n\nWherever we see an hereditary aristocracy (whether called class or\ncaste), it will be found to originate in a race, which, if no longer\n_dominant_, was once conqueror. Before the Norman conquest, the English\naristocracy was _Saxon_, there were no nobles of the ancient British\nblood, east of Wales; after the conquest, the aristocracy was _Norman_,\nand nine-tenths of the noble families of England to this day trace, or\npretend to trace, their origin to that stock. The noble French families,\nanterior to the Revolution, were almost all of _Frankish_ or\n_Burgundian_ origin. The same observation applies everywhere else. In\nsupport of my opinion, I have Niebuhr's great authority: \"Wherever there\nare castes, they are the consequence of foreign conquest and\nsubjugation; it is impossible for a nation to submit to such a system,\nunless it be compelled by the calamities of a conquest. By this means\nonly it is, that, contrary to the will of a people, circumstances arise\nwhich afterwards assume the character of a division into classes or\ncastes.\"--_Lect. on Anc. Hist._ (In the English translation, this\npassage occurs in vol. i. p. 90.)\n\nIn conclusion, I would observe that, whenever it becomes politic to\nflatter the mass of the people, the fact of conquest is denied. Thus,\nEnglish writers labored hard to prove that William the Norman did not,\nin reality, conquer the Saxons. Some time before the French Revolution,\nthe same was attempted to be proved in the case of the Germanic tribes\nin France. L'Abb\u00e9 du Bos, and other writers, taxed their ingenuity to\ndisguise an obvious fact, and to hide the truth under a pile of\nponderous volumes.--H.\n\n[57] \"It has been a favorite thesis with many writers, to pretend that\nthe Saxon government was, at the time of the conquest, by no means\nsubverted; that William of Normandy legally acceded to the throne, and,\nconsequently, to the engagements of the Saxon kings.... But, if we\nconsider that the manner in which the public power is formed in a state,\nis so very essential a part of its government, and that a thorough\nchange in this respect was introduced into England by the conquest, we\nshall not scruple to allow that a _new government_ was established. Nay,\nas almost the whole landed property in the kingdom was, at that time,\ntransferred to other hands, a new system of criminal justice introduced,\nand the language of the law moreover altered, the revolution may be said\nto have been such as is not, perhaps, to be paralleled in the history of\nany other country.\"--DE LOLME'S _English Constitution_, c. i., _note_\nc.--\"The battle of Hastings, and the events which followed it, not only\nplaced a Duke of Normandy on the English throne, but gave up the whole\npopulation of England to the tyranny of the Norman race. The subjugation\nof a nation has seldom, even in Asia, been more complete.\"--MACAULAY'S\n_History of England_, vol. i. p. 10.--H.\n\n[58] This assertion seems self-evident; it may, however, be not\naltogether irrelevant to the subject, to direct attention to a few facts\nin illustration of it. Great national calamities like wars,\nproscriptions, and revolutions, are like thunderbolts, striking mostly\nthe objects of greatest elevation. We have seen that a conquering race\ngenerally, for a long time even after the conquest has been forgotten,\nforms an aristocracy, which generally monopolizes the prominent\npositions. In great political convulsions, this aristocracy suffers\nmost, often in numbers, and always in proportion. Thus, at the battle of\nCann\u00e6, from 5,000 to 6,000 Roman knights are said to have been slain,\nand, at all times, the officer's dress has furnished the most\nconspicuous, and at the same time the most important target for the\ndeath-dealing stroke. In those fearful proscriptions, in which Sylla and\nMarius vied with each other in wholesale slaughter, the number of\nvictims included two hundred senators and thirty-three ex-consuls. That\nthe major part of the rest were prominent men, and therefore patricians,\nis obvious from the nature of this persecution. Revolutions are most\noften, though not always, produced by a fermentation among the mass of\nthe population, who have a heavy score to settle against a class that\nhas domineered and tyrannized over them. Their fury, therefore, is\ndirected against this aristocracy. I have now before me a curious\ndocument (first published in the _Prussian State-Gazette_, in\n1828, and for which I am indebted to a little German volume, _Das\nMenschengeschlecht auf seinem Gegenw\u00e4rtigen Standpuncte_, by\nSMIDT-PHISELDECK), giving a list of the victims that fell under the\nguillotine by sentence of the revolutionary tribunal, from August, 1792,\nto the 27th of July, 1794, in a little less than two years. The number\nof victims there given is 2,774. Of these, 941 are of rank unknown. The\nremaining 1,833 may be divided in the following proportions:--\n\n  1,084 highest nobility (princes, dukes, marshals of France, generals,\n          and other officers, etc. etc.)\n    636 of the gentry (members of Parliament, judges, etc. etc.)\n    113 of the bourgeoisie (including non-commissioned officers and\n          soldiers.)\n  -----\n  1,833\n\nSuch facts require no comments.--H.\n\n[59] The recent insurrection in China has given rise to a great deal of\nspeculation, and various are the opinions that have been formed\nrespecting it. But it is now pretty generally conceded that it is a\ngreat national movement, and, therefore, must ultimately be successful.\nThe history of this insurrection, by Mr. Callery and Dr. Ivan (one the\ninterpreter, and the other the physician of the French embassy in China,\nand both well known and reliable authorities) leaves no doubt upon the\nsubject. One of the most significant signs in this movement is the\ncutting off the tails, and letting the hair grow, which is being\npractised, says Dr. Ivan, in all the great cities, and in the very teeth\nof the mandarins. (_Ins. in China_, p. 243.) Let not the reader smile at\nthis seemingly puerile demonstration, or underrate its importance.\nApparently trivial occurrences are often the harbingers of the most\nimportant events. Were I to see in the streets of Berlin or Vienna, men\nwith long beards or hats of a certain shape, I should know that serious\ntroubles are to be expected; and in proportion to the number of such\nmen, I should consider the catastrophe more or less near at hand, and\nthe monarch's crown in danger. When the Lombard stops smoking in the\nstreets, he meditates a revolution; and France is comparatively safe,\neven though every street in Paris is barricaded, and blood flows in\ntorrents; but when bands march through the streets singing the _\u00e7a ira_,\nwe know that to-morrow the _Red Republic_ will be proclaimed. All these\nare silent, but expressive demonstrations of the prevalence of a certain\nprinciple among the masses. Such a one is the cutting off of the tail\namong the Chinese. Nor is this a mere emblem. The shaved crown and the\ntail are the brands of conquest, a mark of degradation imposed by the\nMantchoos on the subjugated race. The Chinese have never abandoned the\nhope of one day expelling their conquerors, as they did already once\nbefore. \"Ever since the fall of the Mings,\" says Dr. Ivan, \"and the\naccession of the Mantchoo dynasty, clandestine associations--these\nintellectual laboratories of declining states--have been incessantly in\noperation. The most celebrated of these secret societies, that of the\nTriad, or the _three principles_, commands so extensive and powerful an\norganization, that its members may be found throughout China, and\nwherever the Chinese emigrate; so that there is no great exaggeration in\nthe Chinese saying: 'When three of us are together, the Triad is among\nus.'\" (_Hist. of the Insur. in Ch._, p. 112.) Again, the writer says:\n\"The revolutionary impetus is now so strong, the affairs of the\npretender or chief of the insurrection in so prosperous a condition,\nthat the success of his cause has nothing to fear from the loss of a\nbattle. It would require a series of unprecedented reverses to ruin his\nhopes\" (p. 243 and 245).\n\nI have written this somewhat lengthy note to show that Mr. Gobineau\nmakes no rash assertion, when he says that the Mantchoos are about to\nexperience the same fate as their Tartar predecessors.--H.\n\n[60] The author might have mentioned Russia in illustration of his\nposition. The star of no nation that we are acquainted with has suffered\nan eclipse so total and so protracted, nor re-appeared with so much\nbrilliancy. Russia, whose history so many believe to date from the time\nof Peter the Great only, was one of the earliest actors on the stage of\nmodern history. Its people had adopted Christianity when our forefathers\nwere yet heathens; its princes formed matrimonial alliances with the\nmonarchs of Byzantine Rome, while Charlemagne was driving the reluctant\nSaxon barbarians by thousands into rivers to be baptized _en masse_.\nRussia had magnificent cities before Paris was more than a collection of\nhovels on a small island of the Seine. Its monarchs actually\ncontemplated, and not without well-founded hopes, the conquest of\nConstantinople, while the Norman barges were devastating the coasts and\nriver-shores of Western Europe. Nay, to that far-off, almost polar\nregion, the enterprise of the inhabitants had attracted the genius of\ncommerce and its attendants, prosperity and abundance. One of the\ngreatest commercial cities of the first centuries after Christ, one of\nthe first of the Hanse-Towns, was the great city of Novogorod, the\ncapital of a republic that furnished three hundred thousand fighting\nmen. But the east of Europe was not destined to outstrip the west in the\ngreat race of progress. The millions of Tartars, that, locust-like--but\nmore formidable--marked their progress by hopeless devastation, had\nconverted the greater portion of Asia into a desert, and now sought a\nnew field for their savage exploits. Russia stood the first brunt, and\nits conquest exhausted the strength of the ruthless foe, and saved\nWestern Europe from overwhelming ruin. In the beginning of the\nthirteenth century, five hundred thousand Tartar horsemen crossed the\nUral Mountains. Slow, but gradual, was their progress. The Russian\narmies were trampled down by this countless cavalry. But the resistance\nmust have been a brave and vigorous one, for few of the invaders lived\nlong enough to see the conquest. Not until after a desperate struggle of\nfifty years, did Russia acknowledge a Tartar master. Nor were the\nconquerors even then allowed to enjoy their prize in peace. For two\ncenturies more, the Russians never remitted their efforts to regain\ntheir independence. Each generation transmitted to its posterity the\nremembrance of that precious treasure, and the care of reconquering it.\nNor were their efforts unsuccessful. Year after year the Tartars saw the\nprize gliding from their grasp, and towards the end of the fifteenth\ncentury, we find them driven to the banks of the Volga, and the coasts\nof the Black Sea. Russia now began to breathe again. But, lo! during the\nlong struggle, Pole and Swede had vied with the Tartar in stripping her\nof her fairest domains. Her territory extended scarce two hundred miles,\nin any direction from Moscow. Her very name was unknown. Western Europe\nhad forgotten her. The same causes that established the feudal system\nthere, had, in the course of two centuries and a half, changed a nation\nof freemen into a nation of serfs. The arts of peace were lost, the\nmilitary element had gained an undue preponderance, and a band of\nsoldiers, like the Pretorian Guards of Rome, made and deposed\nsovereigns, and shook the state to its very foundations. Yet here and\nthere a vigorous monarch appeared, who controlled the fierce element,\nand directed it to the weal of the state. Smolensk, the fairest portion\nof the ancient Russian domain, was re-conquered from the Pole. The\nSwede, also, was forced to disgorge a portion of his spoils. But it was\nreserved for Peter the Great and his successors to restore to Russia the\nrank she had once held, and to which she was entitled.\n\nI will not further trespass on the patience of the reader, now that we\nhave arrived at that portion of Russian history which many think the\nfirst. I would merely observe that not only did Peter add to his empire\nno territory that had not formerly belonged to it, but even Catharine,\nat the first partition of Poland (I speak not of the subsequent ones),\nmerely re-united to her dominion what once were integral portions. The\nrapid growth of Russia, since she has reassumed her station among the\nnations of the earth, is well known. Cities have sprung up in places\nwhere once the nomad had pitched his tent. A great capital, the\nhandsomest in the world, has risen from the marsh, within one hundred\nand fifty years after the founder, whose name it perpetuates, had laid\nthe first stone. Another has risen from the ashes, within less than a\ndecade of years from the time when--a holocaust on the altar of\npatriotism--its flames announced to the world the vengeance of a nation\non an intemperate aggressor.\n\nTruly, it seems to me, that Mr. Gobineau could not have chosen a better\nillustration of his position, that the mere accident of conquest can not\nannihilate a nation, than this great empire, in whose history conquest\nforms so terrible and so long an episode, that the portion anterior to\nit is almost forgotten to this day.--H.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V.\n\n\nTHE MORAL AND INTELLECTUAL DIVERSITY OF RACES IS NOT THE RESULT OF\nPOLITICAL INSTITUTIONS.\n\n  Antipathy of races--Results of their mixture--The scientific axiom of\n    the absolute equality of men, but an extension of the\n    political--Its fallacy--Universal belief in unequal endowment of\n    races--The moral and intellectual diversity of races not\n    attributable to institutions--Indigenous institutions are the\n    expression of popular sentiments; when foreign and imported, they\n    never prosper--Illustrations: England and France--Roman\n    Empire--European Colonies--Sandwich Islands--St. Domingo--Jesuit\n    missions in Paraguay.\n\n\nThe idea of an innate and permanent difference in the moral and mental\nendowments of the various groups of the human species, is one of the\nmost ancient, as well as universally adopted, opinions. With few\nexceptions, and these mostly in our own times, it has formed the basis\nof almost all political theories, and has been the fundamental maxim of\ngovernment of every nation, great or small. The prejudices of country\nhave no other cause; each nation believes in its own superiority over\nits neighbors, and very often different parts of the same nation regard\neach other with contempt. There seems to exist an instinctive antipathy\namong the different races, and even among the subdivisions of the same\nrace, of which none is entirely exempt, but which acts with the greatest\nforce in the least civilized or least civilizable. We behold it in the\ncharacteristic suspiciousness and hostility of the savage; in the\nisolation from foreign influence and intercourse of the Chinese and\nJapanese; in the various distinctions founded upon birth in more\ncivilized communities, such as castes, orders of nobility and\naristocratic privileges.[61] Not even a common religion can extinguish\nthe hereditary aversion of the Arab[62] to the Turk, of the Kurd to the\nNestorian of Syria; or the bitter hostility of the Magyar and Sclave,\nwho, without intermingling, have inhabited the same country for\ncenturies. But as the different types lose their purity and become\nblended, this hostility of race abates; the maxim of absolute and\npermanent inequality is first discussed, then doubted. A man of mixed\nrace or caste will not be apt to admit disparity in his double ancestry.\nThe superiority of particular types, and their consequent claims to\ndominion, find fewer advocates. This dominion is stigmatized as a\ntyrannical usurpation of power.[63] The mixture of castes gives rise to\nthe political axiom that all men are equal, and, therefore, entitled to\nthe same rights. Indeed, since there are no longer any distinct\nhereditary classes, none can justly claim superior merit and privileges.\nBut this assertion, which is true only where a complete fusion has taken\nplace, is applied to the whole human race--to all present, past, and\nfuture generations. The political axiom of equality which, like the bag\nof \u00c6olus, contains so many tempests, is soon followed by the scientific.\nIt is said--and the more heterogeneous the ethnical elements of a\nnation are, the more extensively the theory gains ground--that, \"all\nbranches of the human family are endowed with intellectual capacities of\nthe same nature, which, though in different stages of development, are\nall equally susceptible of improvement.\" This is not, perhaps, the\nprecise language, but certainly the meaning. Thus, the Huron, by proper\nculture, might become the equal of the Englishman and Frenchman. Why,\nthen, I would ask, did he never, in the course of centuries, invent the\nart of printing or apply the power of steam; why, among the warriors of\nhis tribe, has there never arisen a C\u00e6sar or a Charlemagne, among his\nbards and medicine-men, a Homer or a Hippocrates?\n\nThese questions are generally met by advancing the influence of climate,\nlocal circumstances, etc. An island, it is said, can never be the\ntheatre of great social and political developments in the same measure\nas a continent; the natives of a southern clime will not display the\nenergy of those of the north; seacoasts and large navigable rivers will\npromote a civilization which could never have flourished in an inland\nregion;--and a great deal more to the same purpose. But all these\ningenious and plausible hypotheses are contradicted by facts. The same\nsoil and the same climate have been visited, alternately, by barbarism\nand civilization. The degraded fellah is charred by the same sun which\nonce burnt the powerful priest of Memphis; the learned professor of\nBerlin lectures under the same inclement sky that witnessed the miseries\nof the savage Finn.\n\nWhat is most curious is, that while the belief of equality may influence\ninstitutions and manners, there is not a nation, nor an individual but\nrenders homage to the contrary sentiment. Who has not heard of the\ndistinctive traits of the Frenchman, the German, the Spaniard, the\nEnglish, the Russ. One is called sprightly and volatile, but brave; the\nother is sober and meditative; a third is noted for his gravity; a\nfourth is known by his coldness and reserve, and his eagerness of gain;\na fifth, on the contrary, is notorious for reckless expense. I shall not\nexpress any opinion upon the accuracy of these distinctions, I merely\npoint out that they are made daily and adopted by common consent. The\nsame has been done in all ages. The Roman of Italy distinguished the\nRoman of Greece by the epithet _Gr\u00e6culus_, and attributed to him, as\ncharacteristic peculiarities, want of courage and boastful loquacity. He\nlaughed at the colonist of Carthage, whom he pretended to recognize\namong thousands by his litigious spirit and bad faith. The Alexandrians\npassed for wily, insolent, and seditious. Yet the doctrine of equality\nwas as universally received among the Romans of that period as it is\namong ourselves. If, then, various nations display qualities so\ndifferent; if some are eager for war and glory; others, lovers of their\nease and comfort, it follows that their destinies must be very diverse.\nThe strongest will act in the great tragedy of history the roles of\nkings and heroes, the weaker will be content with the humbler parts.\n\nI do not believe that the ingenuity of our times has succeeded in\nreconciling the universally adopted belief in the special character of\neach nation with the no less general conviction that they are all equal.\nYet this contradiction is very flagrant, the more so as its partisans\nare not behindhand in extolling the superiority of the Anglo-Saxons of\nNorth America over all the other nations of the same continent. It is\ntrue that they ascribe that superiority to the influence of political\ninstitutions. But they will hardly contest the characteristic aptitude\nof the countrymen of Penn and Washington, to establish wherever they go\nliberal forms of government, and their still more valuable ability to\npreserve them, when once established. Is not this a very high\nprerogative allotted to that branch of the human family? the more\nprecious, since so few of the groups that have ever inhabited the globe\npossessed it.\n\nI know that my opponents will not allow me an easy victory. They will\nobject to me the immense potency of manners and institutions; they will\nshow me how much the spirit of the government, by its inherent and\nirresistible force, influences the development of a nation; how vastly\ndifferent will be its progress when fostered by liberty or crushed by\ndespotism. This argument, however, by no means invalidates my position.\n\nPolitical institutions can have but two origins: either they emanate\nfrom the people which is to be governed by them, or they are the\ninvention of a foreign nation, by whom they are imposed, or from whom\nthey are copied.\n\nIn the former case, the institutions are necessarily moulded upon the\ninstincts and wants of the people; and if, through carelessness or\nignorance, they are in aught incompatible with either, such defects will\nsoon be removed or remedied. In every independent community the law may\nbe said to emanate from the people; for though they have not apparently\nthe power of promulgating it, it cannot be applicable to them unless it\nis consonant with their views and sentiments: it must be the reflex of\nthe national character.[64] The wise law-giver, to whose superior genius\nhis countrymen seem solely indebted, has but given a voice to the wants\nand desires of all. The mere theorist, like Draco, finds his code a dead\nletter, and destined soon to give place to the institutions of the more\njudicious philosopher who would give to his compatriots \"not the best\nlaws possible, but such only as they were capable of receiving.\" When\nCharles I., guided by the fatal counsels of the Earl of Strafford,\nattempted to curb the English nation under the yoke of absolutism, king\nand minister were treading the bloody quagmire of theories. But when\nFerdinand the Catholic ordered those terrible, but, in the then\ncondition of the nation, politically necessary persecutions of the\nSpanish Moors, or when Napoleon re-established religion and authority in\nFrance, and flattered the military spirit of the nation--both these\npotentates had rightly understood the genius of their subjects, and were\nbuilding upon a solid and practical foundation.\n\nFalse institutions, often beautiful on paper, are those which are not\nconformed to the national virtues _or failings_, and consequently\nunsuitable to the country, though perhaps perfectly practicable and\nhighly useful in a neighboring state. Such institutions, were they\nborrowed from the legislation of the angels, will produce nothing but\ndiscord and anarchy. Others, on the contrary, which the theorist will\neschew, and the moralist blame in many points, or perhaps throughout,\nmay be the best adapted to the community. Lycurgus was no theorist; his\nlaws were in strict accordance with the spirit and manners of his\ncountrymen.[65] The Dorians of Sparta were few in number, valiant, and\nrapacious; false institutions would have made them but petty\nvillains--Lycurgus changed them into heroic brigands.[66]\n\nThe influence of laws and political institutions is certainly very\ngreat; they preserve and invigorate the genius of a nation, define its\nobjects, and help to attain them; but though they may develop powers,\nthey cannot create them where they do not already exist. They first\nreceive their imprint from the nation, and then return and confirm it.\nIn other words, it is the nation that fashions the laws, before the\nlaws, in turn, can fashion the nation. Another proof of this fact are\nthe changes and modifications which they undergo in the course of time.\n\nI have already said above, that in proportion as nations advance in\ncivilization, and extend their territory and power, their ethnical\ncharacter, and, with it, their instincts, undergo a gradual alteration.\nNew manners and new tendencies prevail, and soon give rise to a series\nof modifications, the more frequent and radical as the influx of blood\nbecomes greater and the fusion more complete.\n\nEngland, where the ethnical changes have been slower and less\nconsiderable than in any other European country, preserves to this day\nthe basis of the social system of the fourteenth and fifteenth\ncenturies. The municipal organization of the times of the Plantagenets\nand the Tudors flourishes in almost all its ancient vigor. There is the\nsame participation of the nobility in the government, and the same\nmanner of composing that nobility; the same respect for ancient\nfamilies, united to an appreciation of those whose merits raise them\nabove their class. Since the accession of James I., and still more\nsince the union, in Queen Anne's reign, there has indeed been an influx\nof Scotch and Irish blood; foreign nations have also, though\nimperceptibly, furnished their contingent to the mixture; alterations\nhave consequently become more frequent of late, but without, as yet,\ntouching the original spirit of the constitution.\n\nIn France, the ethnical elements are much more numerous, and their\nmixtures more varied; and there it has repeatedly happened that the\nprincipal power of the state passed suddenly from the hands of one race\nto those of another. Changes, rather than modifications, have therefore\ntaken place in the social and political system; and the changes were\nabrupt or radical, in proportion as these races were more or less\ndissimilar. So long as the north of France, where the Germanic element\nprevailed, preponderated in the policy of the country, the fabric of\nfeudalism, or rather its inform remains, maintained their ground. After\nthe expulsion of the English in the fifteenth century, the provinces of\nthe centre took the lead. Their efforts, under the guidance of Charles\nVII., had recently restored the national independence, and the\nGallo-Roman blood naturally predominated in camp and council. From this\ntime dates the introduction of the taste for military life and foreign\nconquests, peculiar to the Celtic race, and the tendency to concentrate\nand consolidate the sovereign authority, which characterized the Roman.\nThe road being thus prepared, the next step towards the establishment of\nabsolute power was made at the end of the sixteenth century, by the\nAquitanian followers of Henry IV., who had still more of the Roman than\nof the Celtic blood in their veins. The centralization of power,\nresulting from the ascendency of the southern populations, soon gave\nParis an overweening preponderance, and finally made it, what it now is,\nthe sovereign of the state. This great capital, this modern Babel, whose\npopulation is a motley compound of all the most varied ethnical\nelements, no longer had any motive to love or respect any tradition or\npeculiar tendency, and, coming to a complete rupture with the past,\nhurried France into a series of political and social experiments of\ndoctrines the most remote from, and repulsive to, the ancient customs\nand traditional tendencies of the realm.\n\nThese examples seem to me sufficient to prove that political\ninstitutions, when not imposed by foreign influence, take their mould\nfrom the national character, not only in the first place, but throughout\nall subsequent changes. Let us now examine the second case, when a\nforeign code is, _nolens volens_, forced upon a nation by a superior\npower.\n\nThere are few instances of such attempts. Indeed, they were never made\non a grand scale, by any truly sagacious governments of either ancient\nor modern times. The Romans were too politic to indulge in such\nhazardous experiments. Alexander, before them, had never ventured it,\nand his successors, convinced, either by reason or instinct, of the\nfutility of such efforts, had been contented to reign, like the\nconqueror of Darius, over a vast mosaic of nations, each of which\nretained its own habits, manners, laws, and administrative forms, and,\nat least so long as it preserved its ethnical identity, resembled its\nfellow-subjects in nothing but submission to the same fiscal and\nmilitary regulations.\n\nThere were, it is true, among the nations subdued by the Romans, some\nwhose codes contained practices so utterly repugnant to their masters,\nthat the latter could not possibly have tolerated them. Such were the\nhuman sacrifices of the Druids, which were, indeed, visited with the\nseverest penalties. But the Romans, with all their power, never\nsucceeded in completely extirpating this barbarous rite. In the\nNarbonnese, the victory was easy, for the Gallic population had been\nalmost completely replaced by Roman colonists; but the more intact\ntribes of the interior provinces made an obstinate resistance; and, in\nthe peninsula of Brittany, where, in the fourth century, a British\ncolony re-imported the ancient instincts with the ancient blood, the\npopulation, in spite of the Romans, continued, either from patriotism or\nveneration for their ancient traditions, to butcher fellow-beings on\ntheir altars, as often as they could elude the vigilance of their\nmasters. All revolts began with the restoration of this fearful feature\nof the national creed, and even Christianity could not entirely efface\nits traces, until after protracted and strenuous efforts. As late as the\nseventeenth century, the shipwrecked were murdered, and wrecks plundered\nin all the maritime provinces where the Kimric blood had preserved\nitself unmixed. These barbarous customs were in accordance with the\nmanners of a race which, not being yet sufficiently admixed, still\nremained true to its irrepressible instincts.\n\nOne characteristic of European civilization is its intolerance.\nConscious of its pre-eminence, we are prone to deny the existence of any\nother, or, at least, to consider it as the standard of all. We look with\nsupreme contempt upon all nations that are not within its pale, and when\nthey fall under our influence, we attempt to convert them to our views\nand modes of thinking. Institutions which we know to be good and useful,\nbut which persuasion fails to propagate among nations to whose instincts\nthey are foreign, we force upon them by the power of our arms. Where are\nthe results? Since the sixteenth century, when the European spirit of\ndiscovery and conquest penetrated to the east, it does not seem to have\noperated the slightest change in the manners and mode of existence of\nthe populations which it subjected.\n\nI have already adduced the example of British India. All the other\nEuropean possessions present the same spectacle. The aborigines of Java,\nthough completely subjugated by the Dutch, have not yet made the first\nstep towards embracing the manners of their conquerors. Java, at this\nday, preserves the social regulations of the time of its independence.\nIn South America, where Spain ruled with unrestrained power for\ncenturies, what effect has it produced? The ancient empires, it is true,\nare no longer; their traces, even, are almost obliterated. But while the\nnative has not risen to the level of his conqueror, the latter has been\ndegraded by the mixture of blood.[67] In the North, a different method\nhas been pursued, but with results equally negative; nay, in the eyes\nof philanthropy, more deplorable; for, while the Spanish Indians have\nat least increased in numbers,[68] and even mixed with their masters, to\nthe Red-Man of the North, the contact with the Anglo-Saxon race has been\ndeath. The feeble remnants of these wretched tribes are fast\ndisappearing, and disappearing as uncivilized, as uncivilizable, as\ntheir ancestors. In Oceanica, the same observation holds good. The\nnumber of aborigines is daily diminishing. The European may disarm them,\nand prevent them from doing him injury, but change them he cannot.\nWhere-ever he is master, they no longer eat one another, but they fill\nthemselves with firewater, and this novel species of brutishness is all\nthey learn of European civilization.\n\nThere are, indeed, two governments framed by nations of a different\nrace, after our models: that of the Sandwich Islands, and that of St.\nDomingo. A glance at these two countries will complete the proof of the\nfutility of any attempts to give to a nation institutions not suggested\nby its own genius.\n\nIn the Sandwich Islands, the representative system shines with full\nlustre. We there find an Upper House, a Lower House, a ministry who\ngovern, and a king who reigns; nothing is wanted. Yet all this is mere\ndecoration; the wheel-work that moves the whole machine, the\nindispensable motive power, is the corps of missionaries. To them alone\nbelongs the honor of finding the ideas, of presenting them, and carrying\nthem through, either by their personal influence over their neophytes,\nor, if need be, by threats. It may be doubted, however, whether the\nmissionaries, if they had no other instruments but the king and\nchambers, would not, after struggling for a while against the inaptitude\nof their pupils, find themselves compelled to take a more direct, and,\nconsequently, more apparent part in the management of affairs. This\ndifficulty is obviated by the establishment of a ministry composed of\nEuropeans, or half-bloods. Between them and the missionaries, all public\naffairs are prearranged; the rest is only for show. King Kamehameha III.\nis, it seems, a man of ability. For his own account, he has abandoned\ntattooing, and although he has not yet succeeded in dissuading all his\ncourtiers from this agreeable practice, he enjoys the satisfaction of\nseeing their countenances adorned with comparatively slight designs. The\nmass of the nation, the country nobility and common people, persist upon\nthis as all other points, in the ancient ideas and customs.[69] Still, a\nvariety of causes tend to daily increase the European population of the\nIsles. The proximity of California makes them a point of great interest\nto the far-seeing energy of our nations. Runaway sailors, and mutineers,\nare no longer the only white colonists; merchants, speculators,\nadventurers of all sorts, collect there in considerable numbers, build\nhouses, and become permanent settlers. The native population is\ngradually becoming absorbed in the mixture with the whites. It is highly\nprobable that, ere long, the present representative form of government\nwill be superseded by an administration composed of delegates from one\nor all of the great maritime powers.\n\nOf one thing I feel firmly convinced, that these imported institutions\nwill take firm root in the country, but the day of their final triumph,\nby a necessary synchronism, will be that of the extinction of the native\nrace.\n\nIn St. Domingo, national independence is intact. There are no\nmissionaries exercising absolute, though concealed, control, no foreign\nministry governing in the European spirit; everything is left to the\ngenius and inspiration of the population. In the Spanish part of the\nisland, this population consists of mulattoes. I shall not speak of\nthem. They seem to imitate, in some fashion, the simplest and easiest\nfeatures of our civilization. Like all half-breeds, they have a tendency\nto assimilate with that branch of their genealogy which does them most\nhonor. They are, therefore, capable of practising, in some degree, our\nusages. The absolute question of the capacity of races cannot be studied\namong them. Let us cross the mountain ridge which separates the republic\nof Dominica from the empire of Hayti.\n\nThere we find institutions not only similar to ours, but founded upon\nthe most recent maxims of our political wisdom. All that, since sixty\nyears, the voice of the most refined liberalism has proclaimed in the\ndeliberative assemblies of Europe, all that the most zealous friends of\nthe freedom and dignity of man have written, all the declarations of\nrights and principles, have found an echo on the banks of Artibonite. No\ntrace of Africa remains in the _written_ laws, or the _official_\nlanguage; the recollections of the land of Ham are _officially_ expunged\nfrom every mind; once more, the institutions are completely European.\nLet us now examine how they harmonize with the manners.\n\nWhat a contrast! The manners are as depraved, as beastly, as ferocious\nas in Dahomey[70] or the country of the Fellatahs. The same barbarous\nlove of ornament, combined with the same indifference to form; beauty\nconsists in color, and provided a garment is of gaudy red, and adorned\nwith imitation gold, taste is little concerned with useless attention to\nmaterials or fitness; and as for cleanliness, this is a superfluity for\nwhich no one cares. You desire an audience with some high functionary:\nyou are ushered into the presence of an athletic negro, stretched on a\nwooden bench, his head wrapped in a dirty, tattered handkerchief, and\nsurmounted by a three-cornered hat, profusely decorated with gold. The\ngeneral apparel consists of an embroidered coat (without suitable\nnether-garments), a huge sword, and slippers. You converse with this\nmass of flesh, and are anxious to discover what ideas can occupy a mind\nunder so unpromising an exterior. You find an intellect of the lowest\norder combined with the most savage pride, which can be equalled only by\nas profound and incurable a laziness. If the individual before you opens\nhis mouth, he will retail all the hackneyed common-places that the\npapers have wearied you with for the last half century. This barbarian\nknows them by heart; he has very different interests, different\ninstincts; he has no ideas of his own. He will talk like Baron Holbach,\nreason like Grimm, and at the bottom has no serious care except chewing\ntobacco, drinking spirits, butchering his enemies, and propitiating his\nsorcerers. The rest of the time he sleeps.\n\nThe state is divided into two factions, not separated by incompatibility\nof politics, but of color--the negroes and the mulattoes. The latter,\ndoubtless, are superior in intelligence, as I have already remarked with\nregard to the Dominicans. The European blood has modified the nature of\nthe African, and in a community of whites, with good models constantly\nbefore their eyes, these men might be converted into useful members of\nsociety. But, unfortunately, the superiority of numbers belongs at\npresent to the negroes, and these, though removed from Africa by several\ngenerations, are the same as in their native clime. Their supreme\nfelicity is idleness; their supreme reason, murder. Among the two\ndivisions of the island the most intense hatred has always prevailed.\nThe history of independent Hayti is nothing but a long series of\nmassacres: massacres of mulattoes by the negroes, when the latter were\nstrongest; of the negroes by the mulattoes, when the power was in their\nhands. The institutions, with all their boasted liberality and\nphilanthropy, are of no use whatever. They sleep undisturbedly and\nimpotently upon the paper on which they were written, and the savage\ninstincts of the population reign supreme. Conformably to the law of\nnature which I pointed out before, the negro, who belongs to a race\nexhibiting little aptitude for civilization, entertains the most\nprofound horror for all other races. Thus we see the Haytien negroes\nenergetically repel the white man from their territory, and forbid him\neven to enter it; they would also drive out the mulattoes, and\ncontemplate their ultimate extermination. Hostility to the foreigner is\nthe _primum mobile_ of their local policy. Owing to the innate laziness\nof the race, agriculture is abandoned, industry not known even by name,\ncommerce drivelling; misery prevents the increase of the population,\nwhile continual wars, insurrections, and military executions diminish it\ncontinually. The inevitable and not very remote consequence of such a\ncondition of things is to convert into a desert a country whose\nfertility and natural resources enriched generations of planters, which\nin exports and commercial activity surpassed even Cuba.[71]\n\nThese examples of St. Domingo and the Sandwich Islands seem to me\nconclusive. I cannot, however, forbear, before definitely leaving the\nsubject, from mentioning another analogous fact, the peculiar character\nof which greatly confirms my position. I allude to the attempts of the\nJesuit missionaries to civilize the natives of Paraguay.[72]\n\nThese missionaries, by their exalted intelligence and self-sacrificing\ncourage, have excited universal admiration; and the most decided enemies\nof their order have never refused them an unstinted tribute of praise.\nIf foreign institutions have ever had the slightest chance of success\nwith a nation, these assuredly had it, based as they were upon the\npower of religious feelings, and supported and applied with a tact as\ncorrect as it was refined. The fathers were of the pretty general\nopinion that barbarism was to nations what childhood is to the\nindividual, and that the more savage and untutored we find a people, the\nyounger we may conclude them to be. To educate their neophytes to\nadolescence, they therefore treated them like children. Their government\nwas as firm in its views and commands as it was mild and affectionate in\nits forms. The aborigines of the American continent have generally a\ntendency to republicanism; a monarchy or aristocracy is rarely found\namong them, and then in a very restricted form. The Guaranis of Paraguay\ndid not differ, in this respect, from their congeners. By a happy\ncircumstance, however, these tribes displayed rather more intelligence\nand less ferocity than their neighbors, and seemed capable, to some\nextent, of conceiving new wants and adopting new ideas. About one\nhundred and twenty thousand souls were collected in the villages of the\nmissions, under the guidance of the fathers. All that experience, daily\nstudy, and active charity could teach the Jesuits, was employed for the\nbenefit of their pupils; incessant efforts were made to hasten success,\nwithout hazarding it by rashness. In spite of all these cares, however,\nit was soon felt that the most absolute authority over the neophytes\ncould hardly constrain them to persist in the right path, and occasions\nwere not wanting that revealed the little real solidity of the\nedifice.[73]\n\nWhen the measures of Count Aranda deprived Paraguay of its pious and\nskilful civilizers, the sad truth appeared in complete light. The\nGuaranis, deprived of their spiritual guides, refused all confidence in\nthe lay directors sent them by the Spanish crown. They showed no\nattachment to their new institutions. Their taste for savage life\nrevived, and at present there are but thirty-seven little villages\nstill vegetating on the banks of the Parana, the Paraguay, and Uraguay,\nand these contain a considerable nucleus of half-breed population. The\nrest have returned to the forest, and live there in as savage a state as\nthe western tribes of the same stock, the Guaranis and Cirionos. I will\nnot say that the deserters have readopted their ancient manners\ncompletely, but there is little trace left of the pious missionaries'\nlabors, and this because it is given to no human race to be oblivious of\nits instincts, nor to abandon the path in which the Creator has placed\nthem.\n\nIt may be supposed, had the Jesuits continued to direct their missions\nin Paraguay, that their efforts, assisted by time, would have been\ncrowned with better success. I am willing to concede this, but on one\ncondition only, always the same: that a group of Europeans would\ngradually have settled in the country under the protection of the Jesuit\ndirectors. These would have modified, and finally completely transformed\nthe native blood, and a state would have been formed, bearing probably\nan aboriginal name, whose inhabitants might have prided themselves upon\ndescending from autochthonic ancestors, though as completely belonging\nto Europe as the institutions by which they might be governed.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[61] The author of _Democracy in America_ (vol. ii. book 3, ch. 1),\nspeculating upon the total want of sympathy among the various classes of\nan aristocratic community, says: \"Each caste has its own opinions,\nfeelings, rights, manners, and mode of living. The members of each caste\ndo not resemble the rest of their fellow-citizens; they do not think and\nfeel in the same manner, and believe themselves a distinct race.... When\nthe chroniclers of the Middle Ages, who all belonged to the aristocracy\nby birth and education, relate the tragical end of a noble, their grief\nflows apace; while they tell, with the utmost indifference, of massacres\nand tortures inflicted on the common people. In this they were actuated\nby an _instinct_ rather than by a passion, for they felt no habitual\nhatred or systematic disdain for the people: war between the several\nclasses of the community was not yet declared.\" The writer gives\nextracts from Mme. de Sevign\u00e9's letters, displaying, to use his own\nwords, \"a cruel jocularity which, in our day, the harshest man writing\nto the most insensible person of his acquaintance would not venture to\nindulge in; and yet Madame de Sevign\u00e9 was not selfish or cruel; she was\npassionately attached to her children, and ever ready to sympathize with\nher friends, and she treated her servants and vassals with kindness and\nindulgence.\" \"Whence does this arise?\" asks M. De Tocqueville; \"have we\nreally more sensibility than our forefathers?\" When it is recollected,\nas has been pointed out in a previous note, that the nobility of France\nwere of Germanic, and the peasantry of Celtic origin, we will find in\nthis an additional proof of the correctness of our author's theory.\nThanks to the revolution, the barriers that separated the various ranks\nhave been torn down, and continual intermixture has blended the blood of\nthe Frankish noble and of the Gallic boor. Wherever this fusion has not\nyet taken place, or but imperfectly, M. De Tocqueville's remarks still\napply.--H.\n\n[62] The spirit of clanship is so strong in the Arab tribes, and their\ninstinct of ethnical isolation so powerful, that it often displays\nitself in a rather odd manner. A traveller (Mr. Fulgence Fresnel, if I\nam not mistaken) relates that at Djidda, where morality is at a rather\nlow ebb, the same Bedouine who cannot resist the slightest pecuniary\ntemptation, would think herself forever dishonored, if she were joined\nin lawful wedlock to the Turk or European, to whose embrace she\nwillingly yields while she despises him.\n\n[63]\n                          The man\n    Of virtuous soul commands not, nor obeys.\n    Power, like a desolating pestilence,\n    Pollutes whate'er it touches; and obedience,\n    Bane of all genius, virtue, freedom, truth,\n    Makes slaves of man, and of the human frame\n    A mechanized automaton.\n\nSHELLEY, _Queen Mab_.\n\n[64] Montesquieu expresses a similar idea, in his usual epigrammatic\nstyle. \"The customs of an enslaved people,\" says he, \"are a part of\ntheir servitude; those of a free people, a part of their\nliberty.\"--_Esprit des Lois_, b. xix. c. 27.--H.\n\n[65] \"A great portion of the peculiarities of the Spartan constitution\nand their institutions was assuredly of ancient Doric origin, and must\nhave been rather given up by the other Dorians, than newly invented and\ninstituted by the Spartans.\"--_Niebuhr's Ancient History_, vol. i. p.\n306.--H.\n\n[66] See note on page 121.\n\n[67] The amalgamation of races in South America must indeed be\ninconceivable. \"I find,\" says Alex. von Humboldt, in 1826, \"by several\nstatements, that if we estimate the population of the whole of the\nSpanish colonies at fourteen or fifteen millions of souls, there are, in\nthat number, at most, _three_ millions of pure whites, including about\n200,000 Europeans.\" (_Pers. Nar._, vol. i. p. 400.) Of the progress\nwhich this mongrel population have made in civilization, I cannot give a\nbetter idea than by an extract from Dr. Tschudi's work, describing the\nmode of ploughing in some parts of Chili. \"If a field is to be tilled,\nit is done by two natives, who are furnished with long poles, pointed at\none end. The one thrusts his pole, pretty deeply, and in an oblique\ndirection, into the earth, so that it forms an angle with the surface of\nthe ground. The other Indian sticks his pole in, at a little distance,\nand also obliquely, and he forces it beneath that of his fellow-laborer,\nso that the first pole lies, as it were, upon the second. The first\nIndian then presses on his pole, and makes it work on the other, as a\nlever on its fulcrum, and the earth is thrown up by the point of the\npole. Thus they gradually advance, until the whole field is furrowed by\nthis laborious process.\" (_Dr. Tschudi, Travels in Peru, during the\nyears 1838-1842._ London, 1847, p. 14.) I really do not think that a\ncounterpart to this could be found, except, perhaps, in the manner of\nworking the mines all over South America. Both Darwin and Tschudi speak\nof it with surprise. Every pound of ore is brought out of the shafts on\nmen's shoulders. The mines are drained of the water accumulating in\nthem, in the same manner, by means of water-tight bags. Dr. Tschudi\ndescribes the process employed for the amalgamation of the quicksilver\nwith the silver ore. It is done by causing them to be trodden together\nby horses', or human feet. Not only is this method attended with\nincredible waste of material, and therefore very expensive, but it soon\nkills the horses employed in it, while the men contract the most\nfearful, and, generally, incurable diseases! (_Op. cit._, p.\n331-334.)--H.\n\n[68] A. von Humboldt, _Examen critique de l'Histoire et de la G\u00e9ographie\ndu N. C._, vol. ii. p. 129-130.\n\nThe same opinion is expressed by Mr. Humboldt in his _Personal\nNarrative_. London, 1852, vol. i. p. 296.--H.\n\n[69] Speaking of the habit of tattooing among the South Sea Islanders,\nMr. Darwin says that even girls who had been brought up in missionaries'\nhouses, could not be dissuaded from this practice, though in everything\nelse, they seemed to have forgotten the savage instincts of their race.\n\"The wives of the missionaries tried to prevent them, but a famous\noperator having arrived from the South, they said: 'We really must have\njust a few lines on our lips, else, when we grow old, we shall be so\nugly.'\"--_Journal of a Naturalist_, vol. ii. p. 208.--H.\n\n[70] For the latest details, see Mr. Gustave d'Alaux's articles in the\n_Revue des Deux Mondes_, 1853.\n\n[71] The subjoined comparison of the exports of Haytien staple products\nmay not be uninteresting to many of our readers, while it serves to\nconfirm the author's assertion. I extract it from a statistical table in\nMackenzie's report to the British government, upon the condition of the\nthen republic (now empire). Mr. Mackenzie resided there as special\n_envoy\u00e9_ several years, for the purpose of collecting authentic\ninformation for his government, and his statements may therefore be\nrelied upon. (_Notes on Hayti_, vol. ii. note FF. London, 1830.)\n\n            SUGAR.     COTTON.    COFFEE.\n             lbs.       lbs.       lbs.\n\n  1789   141,089,831  7,004,274  76,835,219\n  1826        32,864    620,972  32,189,784\n\nIt will be perceived, from these figures, that the decrease is greatest\nin that staple which requires the most laborious cultivation. Thus,\nsugar requires almost unremitting toil; coffee, comparatively little.\nAll branches of industry have fearfully decreased; some of them have\nceased entirely; and the small and continually dwindling commerce of\nthat wretched country consists now mainly of articles of spontaneous\ngrowth. The statistics of imports are in perfect keeping with those of\nexports. (_Op. cit._, vol. ii. p. 183.) As might be expected from such a\nstate of things, the annual expenditure in 1827 was estimated at a\nlittle more than _double_ the amount of the annual revenue! (_Ibid._,\n\"Finance.\")\n\nThat matters have not improved under the administration of that Most\nGracious, Most Christian monarch, the Emperor Faustin I., will be seen\nby reference to last year's _Annuaire de la Revue del deux Mondes_,\n\"Haiti,\" p. 876, _et seq._, where some curious details about his majesty\nand his majesty's sable subjects will be found.\n\n[72] Upon this subject, consult Prichard, d'Orbigny, and A. de Humboldt.\n\n[73] I recollect having read, several years ago, in a Jesuit missionary\njournal (I forget its name and date, but am confident that the authority\nis a reliable one), a rather ludicrous account of an instance of this\nkind. One of the fathers, who had a little isolated village under his\ncharge, had occasion to leave his flock for a time, and his place,\nunfortunately, could not be replaced by another. He therefore called the\nmost promising of his neophytes, and committed to their care the\ndomestic animals and agricultural implements with which the society had\nprovided the newly-converted savages, then left them with many\nexhortations and instructions. His absence being prolonged beyond the\nperiod anticipated, the Indians thought him dead, and instituted a grand\nfuneral feast in his honor, at which they slaughtered all the oxen, and\nroasted them by fires made of the ploughs, hoe-handles, etc.; and he\narrived just in time to witness the closing scenes of this mourning\nceremony.--H.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI.\n\nTHIS DIVERSITY IS NOT THE RESULT OF GEOGRAPHICAL SITUATION.\n\n  America--Ancient empires--Phenicians and Romans--Jews--Greece and\n    Rome--Commercial cities of Europe--Isthmus of Darien.\n\n\nIt is impossible to leave entirely out of the question the influence\nwhich climate, the nature of the soil, and topographical circumstances,\nexert upon the development of nations. This influence, so much overrated\nby many of the learned, I shall investigate more fully, although I have\nrapidly glanced at it already, in another place.\n\nIt is a very common opinion that a nation living under a temperate sky,\nnot too warm to enervate the man, nor too cold to render the soil\nunproductive; on the shores of large rivers, affording extensive and\ncommodious means of communication; in plains and valleys adapted to\nvaried cultivation; at the foot of mountains pregnant with the useful\nand precious ores--that a nation thus favored by nature, would soon be\nprompted to cast off barbarism, and progress rapidly in\ncivilization.[74] On the other hand, and by the same reasoning, it is\neasily admitted that tribes, charred by an ardent sun, or benumbed by\nunceasing cold, and having no territory save sterile rocks, would be\nmuch more liable to remain in a state of barbarism. According to this\nhypothesis, the intellectual powers of man could be developed only by\nthe aid of external nature, and all his worth and greatness are not\nimplanted in him, but in the objects without and around. Specious as is\nthis opinion at first sight, it has against it all the numerous facts\nwhich observation furnishes.\n\nNowhere, certainly, is there a greater variety of soil and climate than\nin the extensive Western Continent. Nowhere are there more fertile\nregions, milder skies, larger and more numerous rivers. The coasts are\nindented with gulfs and bays; deep and magnificent harbors abound; the\nmost valuable riches of the mineral kingdom crop out of the ground;\nnature has lavished on the soil her choicest and most variegated\nvegetable productions, and the woods and prairies swarm with alimentary\nspecies of animals, presenting still more substantial resources. And\nyet, the greater part of these happy countries is inhabited, and has\nbeen for a series of centuries, by tribes who ignore the most mediocre\nexploration of all these treasures.\n\nSeveral of them seem to have been in the way of doing better. A meagre\nculture, a rude knowledge of the art of working metals, may be observed\nin more than one place. Several useful arts, practised with some\ningenuity, still surprise the traveller. But all this is really on a\nvery humble scale, and never formed what might be termed a civilization.\nThere certainly has existed at some very remote period, a nation which\ninhabited the vast region extending from Lake Erie to the Mexican Gulf.\nThere can be no doubt that the country lying between the Alleghany and\nthe Rocky Mountains, and extending from Lake Erie to the Gulf of Mexico,\nwas, at some very remote epoch, inhabited by a nation that has left\nremarkable traces of its existence behind.[75] The remains of\nbuildings, inscriptions on rocks, the tumuli,[76] and mummies which they\ninclose, indicate a high degree of intellectual culture. But there is no\nevidence that between this mysterious people and the tribes now\nwandering over its tombs, there is any very near affinity. However this\nmay be, if by inheritance or slavish imitation the now existing\naborigines derive their first knowledge of the arts which they now\nrudely practise, from the former masters of the soil, we cannot but be\nstruck by their incapacity of perfecting what they had been taught; and\nI see in this a new motive for adhering to my opinion, that a nation\nplaced amid the most favorable geographical circumstances, is not,\ntherefore, destined to arrive at civilization.\n\nOn the contrary, there is between the propitiousness of soil and climate\nand the establishment of civilization, a complete independence. India\nwas a country which required fertilization; so was Egypt.[77] Here we\nhave two very celebrated centres of human culture and development.\nChina, though very productive in some parts, presented in others\ndifficulties of a very serious character. The first events recorded in\nits history are struggles with rivers that had burst their bonds; its\nheroes are victors over the ruthless flood; the ancient emperors\ndistinguished themselves by excavating canals and draining marshes. The\ncountry of the Tigris and Euphrates, the theatre of Assyrian splendor\nand hallowed by our most sacred traditions, those regions where,\nSyncellus says, wheat grew spontaneously, possess a soil so little\nproductive, when unassisted by art, that only a vast and laborious\nsystem of irrigation can render it capable of giving the means of\nsubsistence to its inhabitants. Now that the canals are filled up or\nobstructed, sterility has reassumed its former dominion. I am,\ntherefore, inclined to think that nature had not so greatly favored\nthese countries as is usually supposed. Yet, I shall not discuss this\npoint.\n\nI am willing to admit that China, Egypt, India, and Mesopotamia were\nregions perfectly adapted in every respect to the establishment of great\nempires, and the consequent development of brilliant civilizations. But\nit cannot be disputed that these nations, to profit by these superior\nadvantages, must have previously brought their social system to a high\ndegree of perfection. Before the great watercourses became the highways\nof commerce, industry, or at least agriculture, must have flourished to\nsome extent. The great advantages accorded to these countries\npresuppose, therefore, in the nations that have profited by them, a\npeculiar intellectual vocation, and even a certain anterior degree of\ncivilization. But from these specially favored regions let us glance\nelsewhere.\n\nWhen the Phenicians migrated from the southeast, they fixed their abode\non an arid, rocky coast, inclosed by steep and ragged mountains. Such a\ngeographical situation would appear to preclude a people from any\nexpansion, and force them to remain forever dependent on the produce of\ntheir fisheries for sustenance. The utmost that could be expected of\nthem was to see them petty pirates. They were pirates, indeed, but on a\nmagnificent scale; and, what is more, they were bold and successful\nmerchants and speculators. They planted colonies everywhere, while the\nbarren rocks of the mother country were covered with the palaces and\ntemples of a wealthy and luxurious community. Some will say, that \"the\nvery unpropitiousness of external circumstances forced the founders of\nTyre and Sidon to become what they were. Necessity is the mother of\ninvention; their misery spurred them on to exertion; had they inhabited\nthe plains of Damascus, they would have been content with the peaceful\nproducts of agriculture, and would probably never have become an\nillustrious nation.\"[78]\n\nAnd why does not misery spur on other nations placed under similar\ncircumstances? The Kabyles of Morocco are an ancient race; they have had\nsufficient time for reflection, and, moreover, every possible inducement\nfor mere imitation; yet they have never imagined any other method for\nalleviating their wretched lot except petty piracy. The unparalleled\nfacilities for commerce afforded by the Indian archipelago and the\nisland clusters of the Pacific, have never been improved by the natives;\nall the peaceful and profitable relations were left in the hands of\nforeign races--the Chinese, Malays, and Arabs; where commerce has fallen\ninto the hands of a semi-indigenous or half-breed population, it has\ninstantly commenced to languish. What conclusions can we deduce from\nthese observations than that pressing wants are not sufficient for\ninciting a nation to profit by the natural facilities of its coasts and\nislands, and that some special aptitude is needed for establishing a\ncommercial state even in localities best adapted for that purpose.\n\nBut I shall not content myself with proving that the social and\npolitical aptitudes of races are not dependent on geographical\nsituations, whether these be favorable or unfavorable; I shall,\nmoreover, endeavor to show that these aptitudes have no sort of relation\nwith any exterior circumstances. The Armenians, in their almost\ninaccessible mountains, where so many other nations have vegetated in a\nstate of barbarism from generation to generation, and without any access\nto the sea, attained, already at a remote period, a high state of\ncivilization. The Jews found themselves in an analogous position; they\nwere surrounded by tribes who spoke kindred dialects, and who, for the\nmost part, were nearly related to them in blood. Yet, they excelled all\nthese groups. They were warriors, agriculturists, and merchants. Under a\ngovernment in which theocracy, monarchy, patriarchal authority, and\npopular will, were singularly complicated and balanced, they traversed\ncenturies of prosperity and glory. The difficulties which the narrow\nlimits of their patrimonial domain opposed to their expansion, were\novercome by an intelligent system of emigration. What was this famous\nCanaan? Modern travellers bear witness to the laborious and\nwell-directed efforts by which the Jewish agriculturists maintained the\nfactitious fertility of their soil. Since the chosen race no longer\ninhabits these mountains and plains, the wells where Jacob's flocks\ndrank are dried up; Naboth's vineyard is invaded by the desert, Achab's\npalace-gardens filled with thistles. In this miserable corner of the\nworld, what were the Jews? A people dextrous in all they undertook, a\nfree, powerful, intelligent people, who, before losing bravely, and\nagainst a much superior foe, the title of independent nation, had\nfurnished to the world almost as many doctors as merchants.[79]\n\nLet us look at Greece. Arcadia was the paradise of the shepherd, and\nBoeotia, the favored land of Ceres and Triptolemus: yet, Arcadia and\nBoeotia play but a very inferior part in history. The wealthy Corinth,\nthe favorite of Plutus and Venus, also appears in the second rank. To\nwhom pertains the glory of Grecian history? To Attica, whose whitish,\nsandy soil afforded a scanty sustenance to puny olive-trees; to Athens,\nwhose principal commerce consisted in books and statues. Then to Sparta,\nshut up in a narrow valley between masses of rocks, where victory went\nin search of it.\n\nWho would dare to assert that Rome owed her universal empire to her\ngeographical position? In the poor district of Latium, on the banks of a\ntiny stream emptying its waters on an almost unknown coast, where\nneither Greek nor Phenician vessel ever landed, except by accident, the\nfuture mistress of the world was born. So soon as the nations of the\nearth obeyed the Roman standard, politicians found the metropolis\nill-placed, and the eternal city was neglected: even abandoned. The\nfirst emperors, being chiefly occupied with the East, resided in Greece\nalmost continually. Tiberius chose Caprea, in the centre of his empire.\nHis successors went to Antioch. Several lived at Trebia. Finally, a\ndecree deprived Rome of the very name of capital, and gave it to Milan.\nIf the Romans have conquered the world, it is certainly in spite of the\nlocality whence issued forth their first armies, and not on account of\nits advantages.\n\nIn modern history, the proofs of the correctness of my position are so\nabundant, that I hardly know how to select. I see prosperity abandoning\nthe coasts of the Mediterranean, evidence that it was not dependent on\nthem. The great commercial cities of the Middle Ages rise where no\ntheorist of a preceding age could have predicted them. Novogorod\nflourishes in an almost arctic region, Bremen on a coast nearly as\ncold. The Hanse-towns of Germany rise in a country where civilization\nhas scarcely dawned; Venice appears at the head of a long, narrow gulf.\nPolitical preponderance belongs to places before unknown. Lyons,\nToulouse, Narbonne, Marseilles, Bordeaux, lose the importance assigned\nthem by the Romans, and Paris becomes the metropolis--Paris, then a\nthird-rate town, too far from the sea for commerce, too near it for the\nNorman barges. In Italy, cities formerly obscure, surpass the capital of\nthe popes. Ravenna rises in the midst of marshes; Amalfi, for a long\ntime, enjoys extensive dominion. It must be observed, that in all these\nchanges accident has no part: they all are the result of the presence of\na victorious and preponderating race. It is not the place which\ndetermines the importance of a nation, it is the nation which gives to\nthe place its political and economical importance.\n\nI do not, however, deny the importance of certain situations for\ncommercial depots, or for capitals. The observations made with regard to\nAlexandria and Constantinople, are incontestable.[80] There are, upon\nour globe, various points which may be called the keys of the world.\nThus, it is obvious that a city, built on the proposed canal which is\nto pierce the Isthmus of Darien, would act an important part in the\naffairs of the world.\n\nBut, such a part a nation may act well or badly, or even not at all,\naccording to its merits. Aggrandize Chagres, and let the two oceans\nunite under her walls, the destiny of the city would depend entirely on\nthe race by which it was peopled. If this race be worthy of their good\nfortune, they will soon discover whether Chagres be the point whence the\ngreatest benefits can be derived from the union of the two oceans; and,\nif it is not, they will leave it, and then, untrammelled, develop\nelsewhere their brilliant destinies.[81]\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[74] Consult, among others, Carus: _Uber ungleiche Bef\u00e4higung der\nvershiedenen Menschen-st\u00e4mme f\u00fcr h\u00f6here geistige Entwickelung._ Leipzig,\n1849, p. 96 _et passim_.\n\n[75] Prichard, _Natural History of Man_, vol. ii.\n\nSee particularly the recent researches of E. G. Squier, published in\n1847, under the title: _Observations on the Aboriginal Monuments of the\nMississippi Valley_, and also in various late reviews and other\nperiodicals.\n\n[76] The very singular construction of these tumuli, and the numerous\nutensils found in them, occupy at this moment the penetration and talent\nof American antiquaries. I shall have occasion, in a subsequent volume,\nto express an opinion as to their value in the inquiries about a former\ncivilization; at present, I shall only say that their almost incredible\nantiquity cannot be called in question. Mr. Squier is right in\nconsidering this proved by the fact merely, that the skeletons exhumed\nfrom these tumuli crumble into dust as soon as exposed to the\natmosphere, although the condition of the soil in which they lie, is the\nmost favorable possible; while the human remains under the British\ncromlichs, and which have been interred for at least eighteen centuries,\nare perfectly solid. It is easily conceived, therefore, that between the\nfirst possessors of the American soil and the Lenni-Lenape and other\ntribes, there is no connection. Before concluding this note, I cannot\nrefrain from praising the industry and skill manifested by American\nscholars in the study of the antiquities of their immense continent. To\nobviate the difficulties arising from the excessive fragility of the\nexhumed skulls, many futile attempts were made, but the object was\nfinally accomplished by pouring into them a bituminous preparation which\ninstantly solidifies and thus preserves the osseous parts. This process,\nwhich requires many precautions, and as much skill as promptitude, is\nsaid to be generally successful.\n\n[77] Ancient India required, on the part of its first white colonists,\nimmense labor of cultivation and improvement. (See Lassen, _Indische\nAlterthumskunde_, vol. i.) As to Egypt, see what Chevalier Bunsen,\n_\u00c6gypten's Stelle in der Weltgeschichte_, says of the fertilization of\nthe Fayoum, that gigantic work of the earliest sovereigns.\n\n[78] \"Why have accidental circumstances always prevented some from\nrising, while they have only stimulated others to higher\nattainments?\"--_Dr. Kneeland's Introd. to Hamilton Smith's Nat. Hist. of\nMan_, p. 95.--H.\n\n[79] Salvador, _Histoire des Juifs_.\n\n[80] M. Saint-Marc Girardin, _Revue des Deux Mondes_.\n\n[81] See, upon this often-debated subject, the opinion--somewhat acerbly\nexpressed--of a learned historian and philologist:--\n\n\"A great number of writers have suffered themselves to be persuaded that\nthe country made the nation; that the Bavarians and Saxons were\npredestined, by the nature of their soil, to become what they are\nto-day; that Protestantism belonged not to the regions of the south; and\nthat Catholicism could not penetrate to those of the north; and many\nsimilar things. Men who interpret history according to their own slender\nknowledge, their narrow hearts, and near-sighted minds, would, by the\nsame reasoning, make us believe that the Jews had possessed such and\nsuch qualities--more or less clearly understood--because they inhabited\nPalestine, and not India or Greece. But, if these philosophers, so\ndextrous in proving whatever flatters their notions, were to reflect\nthat the Holy Land contained, in its limited compass, peoples of the\nmost dissimilar religions and modes of thinking, that between them,\nagain, and their present successors, there is the utmost difference\nconceivable, although the country is still the same; they would\nunderstand how little influence, upon the character and civilization of\na nation has the country they inhabit.\"--EWALD, _Geschichte des Volkes\nIsrael_, vol. i. p. 259.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII.\n\nINFLUENCE OF CHRISTIANITY UPON MORAL AND INTELLECTUAL DIVERSITY OF\nRACES.\n\n  The term Christian civilization examined--Reasons for rejecting\n    it--Intellectual diversity no hindrance to the universal diffusion\n    of Christianity--Civilizing influence of Christian religion by\n    elevating and purifying the morals, etc.; but does not remove\n    intellectual disparities--Various instances--Cherokees--Difference\n    between imitation and comprehension of civilized life.\n\n\nBy the foregoing observations, two facts seem to me clearly established:\nfirst, that there are branches of the human family incapable of\nspontaneous civilization, so long as they remain unmixed; and, secondly,\nthat this innate incapacity cannot be overcome by external agencies,\nhowever powerful in their nature. It now remains to speak of the\ncivilizing influence of Christianity, a subject which, on account of its\nextensive bearing, I have reserved for the last, in my consideration of\nthe instruments of civilization.\n\nThe first question that suggests itself to the thinking mind, is a\nstartling one. If some races are so vastly inferior in all respects, can\nthey comprehend the truths of the gospel, or are they forever to be\ndebarred from the blessing of salvation?\n\nIn answer, I unhesitatingly declare my firm conviction, that the pale of\nsalvation is open to them all, and that all are endowed with equal\ncapacity to enter it. Writers are not wanting who have asserted a\ncontrary opinion. They dare to contradict the sacred promise of the\nGospel, and deny the peculiar characteristic of our faith, which\nconsists in its accessibility to all men. According to them, religions\nare confined within geographical limits which they cannot transgress.\nBut the Christian religion knows no degrees of latitude or longitude.\nThere is scarcely a nation, or a tribe, among whom it has not made\nconverts. Statistics--imperfect, no doubt, but, as far as they go,\nreliable--show them in great numbers in the remotest parts of the globe:\nnomad Mongols, in the steppes of Asia, savage hunters in the table-lands\nof the Andes; dark-hued natives of an African clime; persecuted in\nChina;[82] tortured in Madagascar; perishing under the lash in Japan.\n\nBut this universal capacity of receiving the light of the gospel must\nnot be confounded, as is so often done, with a faculty of entirely\ndifferent character, that of social improvement. This latter consists in\nbeing able to conceive new wants, which, being supplied, give rise to\nothers, and gradually produce that perfection of the social and\npolitical system which we call civilization. While the former belongs\nequally to all races, whatever may be their disparity in other respects,\nthe latter is of a purely intellectual character, and the prerogative of\ncertain privileged groups, to the partial or even total exclusion of\nothers.\n\nWith regard to Christianity, intellectual deficiencies cannot be a\nhindrance to a race. Our religion addresses itself to the lowly and\nsimple, even in preference to the great and wise of this earth.\nIntellect and learning are not necessary to salvation. The most\nbrilliant lights of our church were not always found among the body of\nthe learned. The glorious martyrs, whom we venerate even above the\nskilful and erudite defender of the dogma, or the eloquent panegyrist of\nthe faith, were men who sprang from the masses of the people; men,\ndistinguished neither for worldly learning, nor brilliant talents, but\nfor the simple virtues of their lives, their unwavering faith, their\nself-devotion. It is exactly in this that consists one great superiority\nof our religion over the most elaborate and ingenious systems devised by\nphilosophers, that it is intelligible to the humblest capacity as well\nas to the highest. The poor Esquimaux of Labrador may be as good and as\npure a Christian as the most learned prelate in Europe.\n\nBut we now come to an error which, in its various phases, has led to\nserious consequences. The utilitarian tendency of our age renders us\nprone to seek, even in things sacred, a character of material\nusefulness. We ascribe to the influence of Christianity a certain order\nof things, which we call _Christian civilization_.\n\nTo what political or social condition this term can be fitly applied, I\nconfess myself unable to conceive. There certainly is a Pagan, a\nBrahmin, and Buddhistic, a Judaic civilization. There have been, and\nstill are, societies so intimately connected with a more or less\nexclusive theological formula, that the civilizations peculiar to them,\ncan only be designated by the name of their creed. In such societies,\nreligion is the sole source of all political forms, all civil and social\nlegislation; the groundwork of the whole civilization. This union of\nreligious and temporal institutions, we find in the history of every\nnation of antiquity. Each country had its own peculiar divinity, which\nexercised a more or less direct influence in the government,[83] and\nfrom which laws and civilization were said to be immediately derived.\nIt was only when paganism began to wane, that the politicians of Rome\nimagined a separation of temporal and religious power, by attempting a\nfusion of the different forms of worship, and proclaiming the dogma of\nlegal toleration. When paganism was in its youth and vigor, each city\nhad its Jupiter, Mercury, or Venus, and the local deity recognized\nneither in this world nor the next any but compatriots.\n\nBut, with Christianity, it is otherwise. It chooses no particular\npeople, prescribes no form of government, no social system. It\ninterferes not in temporal matters, has naught to do with the material\nworld, \"its kingdom is of another.\" Provided it succeeds in changing the\ninterior man, external circumstances are of no import. If the convert\nfervently embraces the faith, and in all his actions tries to observe\nits prescriptions, it inquires not about the built of his dwelling, the\ncut of his garments, or the materials of which they are composed, his\ndaily occupations, the regulations of his government, the degree of\ndespotism, or of freedom, which pervades his political institutions. It\nleaves the Chinese in his robes, the Esquimaux in his seal-skins; the\nformer to his rice, the latter to his fish-oil; and who would dare to\nassert that the prayers of both may not breathe as pure a faith as those\nof the _civilized_ European? No mode of existence can attract its\npreference, none, however humble, its disdain. It attacks no form of\ngovernment, no social institution; prescribes none, because it has\nadopted none. It teaches not the art of promoting worldly comforts, it\nteaches to despise them. What, then, can we call a Christian\ncivilization? Had Christ, or his disciples, prescribed, or even\nrecommended any particular political or social forms,[84] the term would\nthen be applicable. But his law may be observed under all--of whatever\nnature--and is therefore superior to them all. It is justly and truly\ncalled the _Catholic_, or Universal.\n\nAnd has Christianity, then, no civilizing influence? I shall be asked.\nUndoubtedly; and a very great one. Its precepts elevate and purify the\nsoul, and, by their purely spiritual nature, disengage the mind from\nworldly things, and expand its powers. In a merely human point of view,\nthe material benefits it confers on its followers are inestimable. It\nsoftens the manners, and facilitates the intercourse between man and his\nfellow-man; it mitigates violence, and weans him from corrosive vices.\nIt is, therefore, a powerful promoter of his worldly interests. But it\nonly expands the mind in proportion to the susceptibility of the mind\nfor being expanded. It does not give intellect, or confer talents,\nthough it may exalt both, and render them more useful. It does not\ncreate new capacities, though it fosters and develops those it finds.\nWhere the capacities of an individual, or a race, are such as to admit\nan improvement in the mode of existence, it tends to produce it; where\nsuch capacities are not already, it does not give them. As it belongs to\nno particular civilization, it does not compel a nation to change its\nown. In fine, as it does not level all individuals to the same\nintellectual standard, so it does not raise all races to the same rank\nin the political assemblage of the nations of the earth. It is wrong,\ntherefore, to consider the equal aptitude of all races for the true\nreligion, as a proof of their intellectual equality. Though having\nembraced it, they will still display the same characteristic\ndifferences, and divergent or even opposite tendencies. A few examples\nwill suffice to set my idea in a clearer light.\n\nThe major portion of the Indian tribes of South America have, for\ncenturies, been received within the pale of the church, yet the European\ncivilization, with which they are in constant contact, has never become\ntheir own.[85] The Cherokees, in the northern part of the same\ncontinent, have nearly all been converted by the Methodist\nmissionaries. At this I am not surprised, but I should be greatly so, if\nthese tribes, without mixing with the whites, were ever to form one of\nthe States, and exercise any influence in Congress. The Moravians and\nDanish Lutheran missionaries in Labrador and Greenland, have opened the\neyes of the Esquimaux to the light of religion; but their neophytes have\nremained in the same social condition in which they vegetated before. A\nstill more forcible illustration is afforded by the Laplanders of\nSweden, who have not emerged from the state of barbarism of their\nancestors, though the doctrine of salvation was preached to them, and\nbelieved by them, centuries ago.\n\nI sincerely believe that all these peoples may produce, and, perhaps,\nalready have produced, persons remarkable for piety and pure morals; but\nI do not expect ever to see among them learned theologians, great\nstatesmen, able military leaders, profound mathematicians, or\ndistinguished artists;--any of those superior minds, whose number and\nperpetual succession are the cause of power in a preponderating race;\nmuch less those rare geniuses whose meteor-like appearance is productive\nof permanent good only when their countrymen are so constituted as to be\nable to understand them, and to advance under their direction. We\ncannot, therefore, call Christianity a promoter of civilization in the\nnarrow and purely material sense of some writers.\n\nMany of my readers, while admitting my observations in the main to be\ncorrect, will object that the modifying influence of religion upon the\nmanners must produce a corresponding modification of the institutions,\nand finally in the whole social system. The propagators of the gospel,\nthey will say, are almost always--though not necessarily--from a nation\nsuperior in civilization to the one they visit. In their personal\nintercourse, therefore, with their neophytes, the latter cannot but\nacquire new notions of material well-being. Even the political system\nmay be greatly influenced by the relations between instructor and pupil.\nThe missionary, while he provides for the spiritual welfare of his\nflock, will not either neglect their material wants. By his teaching and\nexample, the savage will learn how to provide against famine, by tilling\nthe soil. This improvement in his condition once effected, he will soon\nbe led to build himself a better dwelling, and to practise some of the\nsimpler useful arts. Gradually, and by careful training, he may acquire\nsufficient taste for things purely intellectual, to learn the alphabet,\nor even, as in the case of the Cherokees, to invent one himself. In\ncourse of time, if the missionaries' labors are crowned with success,\nthey may, perhaps, so firmly implant their manners and mode of living\namong this formerly savage tribe, that the traveller will find among\nthem well-cultivated fields, numerous flocks, and, like these same\nCherokees, and the Creeks on the southern banks of the Arkansas, black\nslaves to work on their plantations.\n\nLet us see how far facts correspond with this plausible argument. I\nshall select the two nations which are cited as being the furthest\nadvanced in European civilization, and their example will, it seems to\nme, demonstrate beyond a doubt, how impossible it is for any race to\npursue a career in which their own nature has not placed them.\n\nThe Cherokees and Creeks are said to be the remnants or descendants of\nthe Alleghanian Race, the supposed builders of those great monuments of\nwhich we still find traces in the Mississippi Valley. If this be the\ncase, these two nations may lay claim to a natural superiority over the\nother tribes of North America.\n\nDeprived of their hereditary dominions by the American government, they\nwere forced--under a treaty of transplantation--to emigrate to regions\nselected for them by the latter. There they were placed under the\nsuperintendence of the Minister of War, and of Protestant missionaries,\nwho finally succeeded in persuading them to embrace the mode of life\nthey now lead. Mr. Prichard,[86] my authority for these facts, and who\nderives them himself from the great work of Mr. Gallatin,[87] asserts\nthat, while all the other Indian tribes are continually diminishing,\nthese are steadily increasing in numbers. As a proof of this, he alleges\nthat when Adair visited the Cherokee tribes, in 1762, the number of\ntheir warriors was estimated at 2,300; at present, their total\npopulation amounts to 15,000 souls, including about 1,200 negroes in\ntheir possession. When we consider that their schools, as well as\nchurches, are directed by white missionaries; that the greater number of\nthese missionaries--being Protestants--are probably married and have\nchildren and servants also white, besides, very likely, a sort of\nretinue of clerks and other European employees;--the increase of the\naboriginal population becomes extremely doubtful,[88] while it is easy\nto conceive the pressure of the white race upon its pupils. Surrounded\non all sides by the power of the United States, incommensurable to their\nimagination; converted to the religion of their masters, which they\nhave, I think, sincerely embraced; treated kindly and judiciously by\ntheir spiritual guides; and exposed to the alternation of working or of\nstarving in their contracted territory;--I can understand that it was\npossible to make them tillers of the earth.\n\nIt would be underrating the intelligence of the humblest, meanest\nspecimen of our kind, to express surprise at such a result, when we see\nthat, by dexterously and patiently acting upon the passions and wants of\nanimals, we succeed in teaching them what their own instincts would\nnever have taught them. Every village fair is filled with animals which\nare trained to perform the oddest tricks, and is it to be wondered at\nthat men submitted to a rigorous system of training, and deprived of the\nmeans of escaping from it, should, in the end, be made to perform\ncertain mechanical functions of civilized life; functions which, even in\nthe savage state, they are capable of understanding, though they have\nnot the will to practise them? This were placing human beings lower in\nthe scale of creation than the learned pig, or Mr. Leonard's\ndomino-playing dogs.[89] Such exultation on the part of the believers in\nthe equality of races is little flattering to those who excite it.\n\nI am aware that this exaggeration of the intellectual capacity of\ncertain races is in a great measure provoked by the notions of some very\nlearned and distinguished men, who pretend that between the lowest races\nof men, and the highest of apes there was but a shade of distinction.\nSo gross an insult to the dignity of man, I indignantly reject.\nCertainly, in my estimation, the different races are very unequally\nendowed, both physically and mentally; but I should be loath to think\nthat in any, even in the most degraded, the unmistakable line of\ndemarcation between man and brute were effaced. I recognize no link of\ngradation which would connect man mentally with the brute creation.\n\nBut does it follow, that because the lowest of the human species is\nstill unmistakably human, that all of that species are capable of the\nsame development? Take a Bushman, the most hideous and stupid of human\nfamilies, and by careful training you may teach him, or if he is already\nadult, his son, to learn and practise a handicraft, even one that\nrequires a certain degree of intelligence. But are we warranted thence\nto conclude that the nation to which this individual belongs, is\nsusceptible of adopting our civilization? There is a vast difference\nbetween mechanically practising handicrafts and arts, the products of an\nadvanced civilization, and that civilization itself. Let us suppose that\nthe Cherokee tribes were suddenly cut off from all connection with the\nAmerican government, the traveller, a few years hence, would find among\nthem very unexpected and singular institutions, resulting from their\nmixture with the whites, but partaking only feebly of the character of\nEuropean civilization.\n\nWe often hear of negroes proficient in music, negroes who are clerks in\ncounting-rooms, who can read, write, talk like the whites. We admire,\nand conclude that the negroes are capable of everything that whites are.\nNotwithstanding this admiration and these hasty conclusions, we express\nsurprise at the contrast of Sclavonian civilization with ours. We aver\nthat the Russian, Polish, Servish nations, are civilized only at the\nsurface, that none but the higher classes are in possession of our\nideas, and this, thanks to their intermixture with the English, French,\nand German stock; that the masses, on the contrary, evince a hopeless\ninaptitude for participating in the forward movement of Western Europe,\nalthough these masses have been Christians for centuries, many of them\nwhile our ancestors were heathens. Are the negroes, then, more closely\nallied to our race than the Sclavonic nations? On the one hand, we\nassert the intellectual equality of the white and black races; on the\nother, a disparity among subdivisions of our own race.\n\nThere is a vast difference between imitation and comprehension. The\nimitation of a civilization does not necessarily imply an eradication\nof the hereditary instincts. A _nation_ can be said to have adopted a\ncivilization, only when it has the power to progress in it unprompted,\nand without guidance. Instead of extolling the intelligence of savages\nin handling a plough, after being shown; in spelling and reading, after\nthey have been taught; let a single example be alleged of a tribe in any\nof the numerous countries in contact with Europeans, which, with our\nreligion, has also made the ideas, institutions, and manners of a\nEuropean nation so completely its own, that the whole social and\npolitical machinery moves forward as easily and naturally as in our\nStates. Let an example be alleged of an extra-European nation, among\nwhom the art of printing produces effects analogous to those it produces\namong us; where new applications of our discoveries are attempted; where\nour systems of philosophy give birth to new systems; where our arts and\nsciences flourish.\n\nBut, no; I will be more moderate in my demands. I shall not ask of that\nnation to adopt, together with our faith, all in which consists our\nindividuality. I shall suppose that it rejects it totally, and chooses\none entirely different, adapted to its peculiar genius and\ncircumstances. When the eyes of that nation open to the truths of the\nGospel, it perceives that its earthly course is as encumbered and\nwretched as its spiritual life had hitherto been. It now begins the work\nof improvement, collects its ideas, which had hitherto remained\nfruitless, examines the notions of others, transforms them, and adapts\nthem to its peculiar circumstances; in fact, erects, by its own power, a\nsocial and political system, a civilization, however humble. Where is\nthere such a nation? The entire records of all history may be searched\nin vain for a single instance of a nation which, together with\nChristianity, adopted European civilization, or which--by the same grand\nchange in its religious ideas--was led to form a civilization of its\nown, if it did not possess one already before.\n\nOn the contrary, I will show, in every part of the world, ethnical\ncharacteristics not in the least effaced by the adoption of\nChristianity. The Christian Mongol and Tartar tribes lead the same\nerratic life as their unconverted brethren, and are as distinct from the\nRussian of the same religion, who tills the soil, or plies his trade in\ntheir midst, as they were centuries ago. Nay, the very hostilities of\nrace survive the adoption of a common religion, as we have already\npointed out in a preceding chapter. The Christian religion, then, does\nnot equalize the intellectual disparities of races.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[82] Although the success of the Chinese missions has not been\nproportionate to the self-devoting zeal of its laborers, there yet are,\nin China, a vast number of believers in the true faith. M. Huc tells us,\nin the relation of his journey, that, in almost every place where he and\nhis fellow-traveller stopped, they could perceive, among the crowds that\ncame to stare at the two \"Western devils\" (as the celestials courteously\ncall us Europeans), men making furtively, and sometimes quite openly,\nthe sign of the cross. Among the nomadic hordes of the table-lands of\nCentral Asia, the number of Christians is much greater than among the\nChinese, and much greater than is generally supposed. (See _Annals of\nthe Propagation of the Faith_, No. 135, et seq.)--H.\n\n[83] The tutelary divinity was generally a typification of the national\ncharacter. A commercial or maritime nation, would worship Mercury or\nNeptune; an aggressive and warlike one, Hercules or Mars; a pastoral\none, Pan; an agricultural one, Ceres or Triptolemus; one sunk in luxury,\nas Corinth, would render almost exclusive homage to Venus.\n\nAs the author observes, all ancient governments were more or less\ntheocratical. The regulations of castes among the Hindoos and Egyptians\nwere ascribed to the gods, and even the most absolute monarch dared not,\nand could not, transgress the limits which the immortals had set to his\npower. This so-called divine legislation often answered the same purpose\nas the charters of modern constitutional monarchies. The authority of\nthe Persian kings was confined by religious regulations, and this has\nalways been the case with the sultans of Turkey. Even in Rome, whose\npopulation had a greater tendency for the positive and practical, than\nfor the things of another world, we find the traces of theocratical\ngovernment. The sibylline books, the augurs, etc., were something more\nthan a vulgar superstition; and the latter, who could stop or postpone\nthe most important proceedings, by declaring the omens unpropitious,\nmust have possessed very considerable political influence, especially in\nthe earlier periods. The rude, liberty-loving tribes of Scandinavia,\nGermany, Gaul, and Britain, were likewise subjected to their druids, or\nother priests, without whose permission they never undertook any\nimportant enterprise, whether public or private. Truly does our author\nobserve, that Christianity came to deliver mankind from such trammels,\nthough the mistaken or interested zeal of some of its servants, has so\noften attempted, and successfully, to fasten them again. How ill adapted\nChristianity would be, even in a political point of view, for a\ntheocratical formula, is well shown by Mr. Guizot, in his _Hist. of\nCivilization_, vol. i. p. 213.--H.\n\n[84] I have already pointed out, in my introduction (p. 41-43), some of\nthe fatal consequences that spring from that doctrine. It may not,\nhowever, be out of place here to mention another. The communists,\nsocialists, Fourrierites, or whatever names such enemies to our social\nsystem assume, have often seduced the unwary and weak-minded, by the\nplausible assertion that they wished to restore the social system of the\nfirst Christians, who held all goods in common, etc. Many religious\nsectaries have created serious disturbances under the same pretence. It\nseems, indeed, reasonable to suppose, that if Christianity had given its\nexclusive sanction to any particular social and political system, it\nmust have been that which the first Christian communities adopted.--H.\n\n[85] See note on page 188.--H.\n\n[86] _Natural History of Man_, p. 390. London, 1843.\n\n[87] _Synopsis of the Indian Tribes of North America._\n\n[88] Had I desired to contest the accuracy of the assertions upon which\nMr. Prichard bases his arguments in this case, I should have had in my\nfavor the weighty authority of Mr. De Tocqueville, who, in speaking of\nthe Cherokees, says: \"What has greatly promoted the introduction of\nEuropean habits among these Indians, is the presence of so great a\nnumber of half-breeds. The man of mixed race--participating as he does,\nto a certain extent, in the enlightenment of the father, without,\nhowever, entirely abandoning the savage manner of the mother--forms the\nnatural link between civilization and barbarism. As the half-breeds\nincrease among them, we find savages modify their social condition, and\nchange their manners.\" (_Dem. in Am._, vol. i. p. 412.) Mr. De\nTocqueville ends by predicting that the Cherokees and Creeks, albeit\nthey are half-breeds, and not, as Mr. Prichard affirms, pure aborigines,\nwill, nevertheless, disappear before the encroachments of the whites.\n\n[89] \"When four pieces of cards were laid before them, each having a\nnumber pronounced _once_ in connection with it, they will, after a\nre-arrangement of the pieces, select any one named by its number. They\nalso play at domino, and with so much skill as to triumph over biped\nopponents, whining if the adversary plays a wrong piece, or if they\nthemselves are deficient in the right one.\"--_Vest. of Cr._, p. 236.--H.\n\n\n\n\nINTRODUCTORY NOTE TO CHAPTERS VIII. AND IX.\n\n  Rapid survey of the populations comprised under the appellation\n    \"Teutonic\"--Their present ethnological area, and leading\n    characteristics--Fondness for the sea displayed by the Teutonic\n    tribes of Northwestern Europe, and perceptible in their\n    descendants.\n\n\nSeveral of the ideas expressed by the author in the course of the two\nnext following chapters, seemed to the annotator of this volume to call\nfor a few remarks on his part, which could not conveniently be condensed\nwithin the limited space of foot-notes. Besides, the text is already\nsufficiently encumbered with them, and any increase in their length or\nnumber could not but be displeasing to the eye, while it would divert\nattention from the main subject. He has, therefore, taken the\nliberty--an unwarranted one, perhaps--of introducing his remarks in this\nform and place.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe leading proposition in this volume is, that the civilization\noriginated and developed by a race, is the clearest index of its\ncharacter--the mirror in which its principal features are truthfully\nreflected. In other words, that every race, capable of developing a\ncivilization, will develop one peculiar to itself, and impossible to\nevery other. This the author illustrates by the actual state of our\ncivilization, which he asserts to be originated by the Teutonic race,\nbut modified in proportion to the admixture of that race with a\ndifferent blood. To clearly comprehend his idea, and to appreciate the\nvalue of his arguments, it is, therefore, necessary for the reader to\ntake a rapid survey of the populations comprised under the appellation\n_Teutonic_, and to examine into the present geographical extension of\nthat race. This I shall endeavor to do, not, indeed, by entering into an\nelaborate ethnological disquisition--a task greatly beyond my powers,\nand the due performance of which would require a space much larger than\nthe whole of this volume--but by merely grouping together well-known\nfacts, in such a manner as to set the author's idea in a clearer light.\n\nThe words _Teutonic_ and _Germanic_ are generally used synonymously, and\nwe shall not depart from this custom. Strict accuracy, however, would\nprobably require that the term Teutonic should be used as the general\nappellation of all those swarms of northern warriors, who, under various\nnames, harassed and finally subverted the overgrown dominion of ancient\nRome, while the term Germanic would apply to a portion of them only. The\nNorthern Barbarians, as the Romans contemptuously styled them, all\nclaimed to belong to the \"_Thiudu_,\" or the nation _par excellence_, and\nfrom that word the term Teutonic is supposed to be derived. Many of\ntheir descendants still retain the name: _Teutsch_ or _Deutsch_\n(German). The Romans called them _Germanes_, from the boastful title of\n\"the warlike,\" or \"the men of war,\" which the first invading tribes had\ngiven themselves. These _Germanes_ of the Romans were again divided into\ntwo classes, the Saxon tribes, and the Suevic; terms expressive of their\nmode of life, the former having fixed habitations and inclosed farms,\nthe latter cultivating the fields by turn, and being prone to change\ntheir abodes. The first class comprised many other tribes besides those\nwho figure in history, under the name of Saxons, as the invaders and\nconquerors of Britain. But as I desire to avoid all not well-authorized\ndistinctions, I shall use the terms Teutonic and Germanic\nindiscriminately.\n\nThe Germans appear to have been at all times an eminently warlike and\ncourageous race. History first speaks of them as warriors alarming, nay,\nterrifying, the arrogant Romans, and that not in the infancy of Rome's\npower, when the Samnites and Volscians were formidable antagonists, but\nin the very fulness of its strength, in the first vigor of youthful\nmanhood, when Italy, Spain, part of Gaul, the northern coasts of Africa,\nGreece, Syria, and Asia Minor, were subdued to the republican yoke. Then\nit was that the Cimbri and Teutones invaded and harassed Italy, chilling\nthe mistress of the world with fear.\n\nThe Germans next meet us in C\u00e6sar's Commentaries. The principal\nresistance which the future usurper experienced in subduing Gaul,\nappears to have been offered, not by the Gallic population, but either\nby German tribes, settled in that country, or German armies from the\nright banks of the Rhine, who longed to dispute the tempting prize with\nthe Romans. The great general twice crossed the Rhine, but probably more\nfor the _\u00e9clat_ of such an exploit, than with the hope of making\npermanent conquests. The temporary successes gained by his imperial\nsuccessors were amply counterbalanced by the massacre of the flower of\nthe Roman armies.\n\nAt the end of the first five centuries after Christ, nothing was left of\nthe great Roman empire but ruins. Every country in Northern, Western,\nand Southern Europe acknowledged German masters. The tribes of the\nextreme north had entered Russia, and there established a powerful\nrepublic; the tribes of the northwest (the Angles and Saxons) had\nconquered Britain; a confederation of the southern tribes, under the\nname of Franks, had conquered Gaul; the various Gothic tribes of the\neast, the Heruli, the Longobardi, Ostrogoths, etc., had subjected Italy\nto their arms, and disputed its possession among themselves. Other\nGothic tribes (the Visigoths, Burgundians, and Vandals) had shared with\nthe Franks the beautiful tracts of Gaul, or had carried their victorious\narms to Spain, and the northern coasts of Africa. The three most\nbeautiful and most fertile countries of Europe, to this day, retain the\nname of their conquerors--England, France, Lombardy.\n\nIt is impossible now to determine with accuracy the amount of German\nblood in the populations of the various states founded by the Teutonic\ntribes. Yet certain general results are easily arrived at in this\ninteresting investigation.\n\nThus, we know that Germany, notwithstanding its name, contains by no\nmeans a pure Germanic population. The fierce Scythian hordes, whom\nAttila led on to the work of devastation, after the death of their\nleader, incorporated themselves with various of the Teutonic tribes.\nThey form one of the ethnical elements of the population of Italy, but\nespecially of the south and southeast of Germany. While, therefore, the\npopulation of Northern Germany is comparatively pure Teutonic, that of\nthe southern and eastern portion is a mixture of Teutonic and Sclavonian\nelements.\n\nThe Danes, Swedes, and Norwegians, are probably the most Germanic\nnations of continental Europe.\n\nIn Spain, the Visigoths were, in a great measure, absorbed by the native\npopulation, consisting of the aboriginal Celtiberians and the numerous\nRoman colonists. In the tenth century, an amalgamation began with the\neastern blood brought by the Arab conquerors.\n\nItaly, already at the time of the downfall of Rome, contained an\nextremely mixed population, drawn thither by the all-absorbing vortex of\nthe Eternal City. In the north, the Germanic element had time to engraft\nitself in some measure; but the south, passing into the hands of the\nByzantine emperors, received an addition of the already mixed Greek\nblood of the east.\n\nGaul, at the time of the Frankish conquest, was an extremely populous\ncountry. Beside the aboriginal Gauls, the population consisted of\nnumerous Roman colonists. The Mediterranean coast of Gaul had, from the\nearliest times, received Phenician, Carthaginian, and Greek settlers,\nwho founded there large and prosperous cities. The original differences\nin the population of Gaul are to this day perceptible. The Germanic\nelement preponderates in the north, where already, in C\u00e6sar's time, the\nGermans had succeeded in making permanent settlements, and in the\nnortheast, where the Burgundians had well-nigh extirpated and\ncompletely supplanted the Gallic natives.[90] But everywhere else,[91]\nthe Germanic element forms but a small portion of the population, and\nthis is well illustrated by the striking resemblance of the character of\nthe modern French to that of the ancient Gauls. But though vastly\ninferior in numbers, the descendants of the German conquerors, for one\nthousand years, were the dominant race in France. Until the fifteenth\ncentury, all the higher nobility were of Frankish or Burgundian origin.\nBut, after the Celtic and Celto-Roman provinces south of the Loire had\nrallied around a youthful king, to reconquer their capital and best\nterritories from the English foe, the Frankish blood ruled with less\nexclusive sway in all the higher offices of the state; and the\ndistinction was almost entirely lost by the accession of the first\nsouthern dynasty, that of the Bourbons, towards the end of the sixteenth\ncentury. The corresponding variations in the national policy and the\nexterior manifestations of the national character, Mr. Gobineau has\nrapidly pointed out elsewhere.[92]\n\nWhile the population of France presents so great a mixture of various\ndifferent races, and but a slight infusion of German blood, that of\nEngland, on the contrary, is almost purely Teutonic. The original\ninhabitants of the country were, for the most part, driven into the\nmountain fastnesses of Wales by the German invaders, where they\npreserve, to this day, their original language. Every subsequent great\naddition to the population of England was by the German race. The Danes,\nand, after them, the Normans, were tribes of the same stock as the\nSaxons, and all came from very nearly the same portion of Europe. It is\nobvious, therefore, that England, even after the Norman conquest, when,\nfor a time, the upper and the lower classes spoke different languages,\ncontained a more homogeneous population than France did at the same, or\nany subsequent epoch. In England, from the Saxon yeoman up to the\nproudest Norman lord, all belonged to the great German race; in France,\nonly the nobility, while the peasants were Gauls. The wars between the\ntwo countries afford a striking proof of the difference of these two\nraces. The battles of Cressy, of Poitiers, and of Agincourt, which will\nnever be forgotten so long as English poetry can find an echo in an\nEnglish breast, were won by the English against greatly superior\nnumbers. \"Victories, indeed, they were,\" says Macaulay, \"of which a\nnation may justly be proud; for they are to be attributed to the moral\nsuperiority of the victors, _a superiority which was most striking in\nthe lowest ranks_. The knights of England found worthy rivals in the\nknights of France. Chandos encountered an equal foe in Du Guesclin. But\nFrance had no infantry that dared to face the English bows and bills.\"\nThe Celt has probably, at no time, been inferior to the Teuton in valor;\nin martial enthusiasm, he exceeds him. But, at a time when bodily\nstrength decided the combat, the difference between the sturdy Saxon and\nthe small, slight--though active--Gaul, must have been great.\n\nIn this rapid and necessarily imperfect sketch, I have endeavored to\nshow the relative proportion of the Teutonic blood in the population of\nthe various countries of Europe. I have endeavored to direct the\nreader's attention to the fact, that though it forms an element in the\npopulation of all, it exists in perfect purity in but few, and that\nEngland presents a happy fusion of some of the most distinguished\nbranches of the German family. If we now glance at the United States, we\nshall there find--at least in the first years of her national\nexistence--a pendant to what has been asserted of England. The elements\nof the population of the original thirteen States, were almost\nexclusively of English, Lowland Scotch, Dutch, and Swedish blood; that\nis to say, decidedly Germanic. Ireland was as yet slightly represented.\nFrance had made but inconsiderable contributions to the population.\nSince we have assumed a rank among the great powers of the earth, every\nportion of the inhabited globe has sent us its contingent of blood, yet\neven now, the great body of the nation belongs to the Teutonic race.\n\nMuch has been said of the effects of ethnical mixture. Many consider it\nas decidedly beneficial, others as decidedly deleterious. It seems to me\nsusceptible of mathematical demonstration, that when a very inferior\nrace amalgamates with one of higher order, the compound--though superior\nto the one, must be inferior to the other. In that case, therefore,\nmixture is injurious. But when various branches of the same race, or\nnearly cognate races mix, as in the case of the Saxons, Angles, Danes,\nand Normans, the mixture cannot but be beneficial. For, while none of\nthe higher qualities are lost, the compound presents a felicitous\ncombination of some of the virtues peculiar to each.\n\nIf our civilization received its tone and character from the Teutonic\nrace, as Mr. Gobineau asserts, this character must be most strikingly\ndisplayed wherever that race forms the preponderating element of the\npopulation.\n\nBefore investigating this question, we must cast a glance on the manners\nand modes of thinking that characterized this race in the earliest\ntimes. Unfortunately, but few records are left to assist us in forming a\njudgment. Tacitus's celebrated treatise was, probably, more an imaginary\nsketch, which he wished to hold up to a people sunk in luxury and vice,\nas were his countrymen. In our times, the North American Indian has\noften been held up as a model of uncorrupted simplicity, and many\ntouching romances have been written on the theme, now rather hackneyed\nand out of fashion. But though the noble Roman may have highly colored\nthe picture, the incorruptible love of truth, which shines so\nbrilliantly in all his works, assures us of the truth of its outlines.\n\nOf one thing we can entertain no doubt, viz: that history nowhere shows\nus our Germanic forefathers in the same state of barbarism that we find\nother races--many of the American Indians, the South-Sea Islanders, and\nothers. In the earliest times they practised agriculture, they\ncultivated rye, barley, oats and wheat. Many of the tribes had regular\nfarms, which were inclosed. They knew how to work iron, an art which\neven the most civilized of the American Indians had never learned. They\nhad extensive and complicated political relations, often forming\nthemselves in vast confederacies. But, above all, they were an\neminently chaste people; they respected woman,[93] and assigned to her\nher legitimate place in the social circle. Marriage with them was a\nsacred institution.\n\nThe greatest point of superiority of our civilization, over all\npreceding and contemporaneous ones--a point which Mr. Gobineau has\nomitted to mention--is the high rank which woman occupies in the modern\nstructure of society. The boasted civilizations of Greece and Rome, if\nsuperior in others, are vastly inferior to us in this respect. And this\nglorious superiority we owe to the pure and chaste manners of our\nforefathers.\n\nRepresentative government, trial by jury, and all the discoveries in\npolitical science upon which we pride ourselves most, are the necessary\ndevelopment of their simple institutions, to which, indeed, they can be\ndistinctly traced.\n\nI have purposely selected these two characteristics of the German\nraces--respect for woman, and love of liberty, or, what is more, a\ncapacity for establishing and preserving liberal institutions. The\nquestion now resolves itself into this: Does woman occupy the highest\nrank, do liberal institutions best flourish where the Germanic race is\nmost pure? I will not answer the question, but beg the reader to compare\nthe more Germanic countries with those that are less so--England,\nHolland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and Northern Germany, with France,\nSpain, Italy, Greece, and Russia; the United States and Canada, with\nMexico and the South American republics.\n\nMr. Gobineau speaks of the utilitarian character of the Germanic races,\nbut furnishes no proofs of his assertion. I shall therefore endeavor to\nsupply the deficiency.\n\nThose countries which ethnology tells us contain the most Germanic\npopulations, viz: England, the northern States of Europe, including\nHolland, and the United States, have the entire commerce, and nearly all\nthe manufacture of the whole world in their hands. They have given to\nmankind all the great inventions which shed an everlasting lustre over\nour era. They, together, possess nine-tenths of all the railroads built\nin the world, and the greater part of the remaining tenth was built by\n_their_ enterprise and capital. Whatever perfection in the useful arts\none of these countries attains, is readily adopted by all; slowly only,\nand sometimes never by any of the others.\n\nOn the other hand, we find that the polite arts do not meet, in these\ncountries, with a very congenial soil. Artists may flock thither, and,\nperhaps, reap a harvest of gold; but they seldom stay. The admiration\nwhich they receive is oftenest the mere dictate of fashion. It is true\nthat England, Denmark, Holland, Sweden, and the United States, have\nproduced some eminent artists, but the mass of the population do not\nexhibit that innate taste, that passionate fondness for the arts, which\nwe find among all classes in Italy, Spain, and to some extent in France\nand Southern Germany.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nBefore I conclude this hasty sketch, for which I crave the reader's\nindulgence, I wish to draw attention to a striking instance of the\npermanency of ethnical characteristics. The nations that most fondly and\nmost successfully plough the briny main, are the English, the\nAmericans, the Swedes, Danes, Dutch. Notwithstanding the littleness of\nthese latter, they have successfully competed in maritime discovery with\nlarger nations; and even now, own considerable and far distant colonial\npossessions. The Dutch, for a time, were the greatest maritime power in\nthe world, and to this day carry on an extensive and profitable\ncommerce. History tells us that the forefathers of these nations were\ndistinguished by the same nautical genius.\n\nThe real Saxons--the invaders of England--are mentioned already in the\nmiddle of the second century, by Ptolemy, as skilful sailors. In the\nfourth and fifth century, they became dreaded from their piracies. They\nand their confederates, the Angles, originally inhabited the present\nHolstein, and the islands in the vicinity of the Baltic coast. Their\nneighbors, the Danes, were equally famous for maritime exploits. Their\ncelebrated vykings still live in song and tale. Their piratical\nincursions and settlements in England, are known to every schoolboy. How\nfamiliar the Normans were with the watery element, is abundantly proved\nby history. They ascended the Rhine, and other rivers, for hundreds of\nmiles, marking their landing-place by devastation.\n\nOf the Angle, the Saxon, the Dane, and the Norman, the present\nEnglishman and his adventurous brother of Massachusetts, are lineal\ndescendants. The best sailors in our commercial navy, next to the native\nsailors, are the Danes and the Swedes. Normandy, to this day, furnishes\nthe best for the French service.--H.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[90] In those portions of the present France, over one million and a\nhalf of the inhabitants speak German. The pure Gauls in the Landes have\nnot yet learned the French language, and speak a peculiar--probably\ntheir original--_patois_.\n\n[91] With the exception of Normandy.\n\n[92] See p. 183.\n\n[93] I am not aware that any writer has ever presumed to doubt this fact\nexcept Mr. Guizot, who dismisses it with a sneer. Fortunately, a sneer\nis not an argument, though it often has more weight.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII.\n\nCIVILIZATION.\n\n  Mr. Guizot's and Mr. W. von Humboldt's definitions examined. Its\n    elements.\n\n\nThe reader will here pardon me an indispensable digression. I make use\nat almost every moment of a term comprising in its extensive\nsignification a collection of ideas which it is important to define\naccurately: _civilization_. The greater or less degree in which this\nterm is applicable to the social condition of various nations, is my\nonly standard for the comparative merit of races. I also speak of a\n_European_ civilization, in contradistinction to others of a different\ncharacter. It is the more necessary to avoid the least vagueness, as I\nam under the disagreeable necessity of differing from a celebrated\nwriter, who has assumed the special task of determining the meaning and\ncomprehensiveness of this expression.\n\nMr. Guizot, in his _History of Civilization in Modern Europe_, makes\nuse of a term which seems to me to give rise to a serious confusion of\nideas, and lead to positive errors. He says that civilization is a\n_fact_.\n\nNow, either the word fact must here be understood in a sense much less\nstrict and precise than common usage requires, a sense so indistinct--I\nmight almost say elastic--as has never pertained to it, or what we\ncomprehend under the term civilization cannot be expressed by the word\nfact. Civilization is not _a fact_; it is a _series_, a _concatenation\nof facts_, more or less logically united, and resulting from ideas often\nsufficiently diverse: ideas and facts continually reproduce each other.\nCivilization is a term applied to a certain state or condition in which\na society exists--a condition which is of its own creation, bears its\ncharacter, and, in turn, reacts upon it. This condition is of so\nvariable a nature, that it cannot be called a fact; for a fact cannot be\nvariable without ceasing to be a fact. In other words, there is more\nthan one civilization: there are various kinds. Thus, a civilization may\nflourish under every form of government, and it does not cease to exist\nwhen civil commotions destroy or alter that form.\n\nLet it not be understood that I esteem governmental forms of little\nimportance. Their choice is intimately connected with the prosperity of\nthe society: if judicious, promoting and developing it; if unpractical,\nendangering its destruction. But I speak not here of the temporary\nprosperity or misery of a society. I speak of its civilization; and this\nis a phenomenon whose causes must be sought elsewhere, and deeper than\nin transient political forms. Its character, its growth, fecundity, or\nbarrenness, depends upon elementary principles of far greater\nimportance.\n\nBut, in Mr. Guizot's opinion, civilization is a fact, a unity; and it is\nof an essentially political character. Let us see how he defines it. He\nhas chosen a series of hypotheses, describing society in various\nconditions, and then asks if the state so described is, in the general\nopinion of mankind, the state of a people advancing in civilization--if\nit answers to the signification which mankind generally attaches to this\nword.[94]\n\n\"First imagine a people whose outward circumstances are easy and\nagreeable; few taxes; few hardships; justice is fairly administered; in\na word, physical existence, taken altogether, is satisfactorily and\nhappily regulated. But, with all this, the moral and intellectual\nenergies of this people are studiously kept in a state of torpor and\ninertness. It can hardly be called oppression; its tendency is not of\nthat character--it is rather compression. We are not without examples of\nthis state of society. There have been a great number of little\naristocratic republics, in which the people have been thus treated like\na flock of sheep, carefully tended, physically happy, but without the\nleast intellectual and moral activity. Is this civilization? Do we\nrecognize here a people in a state of moral and social advancement?\"\n\nI know not whether such a people is in a state of advancement, but it\ncertainly may be in a very advanced state of civilization, else we\nshould find ourselves compelled to class among the savages or barbarians\nall those aristocratic republics of ancient and modern times, which\nanswer Mr. Guizot's description. But the common sense of mankind would\nnever ratify a method which ejected from within the pale of civilization\nnot only the Phenicians, Carthaginians, and Laced\u00e6monians, but even\nVenice, Genoa, Pisa, the free cities of Germany--in fact, all the\npowerful municipalities of the last centuries. But, besides this mode of\nproceeding being too paradoxical and restrictive, it seems to me to\nencounter another difficulty. Those little aristocratic states, to whom,\non account of their form of government, Mr. Guizot denies the aptitude\nfor civilization, have, for the most part, never been in possession of a\nspecial culture peculiar to themselves. Powerful as many of them have\nbeen, they assimilated, in this respect, with nations differently\ngoverned, but of consanguineous affinity; they formed a fragment only of\na greater and more general civilization. Thus, the Carthaginians and\nPhenicians, though at a great distance from one another, had a similar\nmode of culture, the type of which must be sought in Assyria. The\nItalian republics participated in the same ideas and opinions which\ndeveloped themselves in the bosom of neighboring monarchies. The\nimperial cities of Thuringia and Suabia, although perfectly independent\nin a political point of view, were nevertheless intimately united with\nthe general progressive or retrogressive movement of the whole German\nrace. Mr. Guizot, therefore, by assigning to the people of different\ncountries degrees of merit proportionate to the degree and form of their\nliberty, creates unjustifiable subdivisions in the same race, and makes\ndistinctions without a difference. A lengthy discussion is not in its\nplace here, and I shall therefore proceed rapidly. If, however, it were\nnecessary to enter into a controversy, might we not justly protest\nagainst recognizing any inferiority in the case of Genoa, Pisa, Venice,\nand others, when compared with countries like Milan, Naples, or Rome?\n\nMr. Guizot has himself foreseen this difficulty, and removed the\nobjection. If he does not recognize a state of civilization among a\npeople \"mildly governed, but in a state of compression,\" neither does he\naccord this prerogative to another, \"whose outward circumstances are\nless favorable and agreeable, although supportable, but whose\nintellectual and moral cravings have not been entirely neglected; among\nwhom pure and elevated sentiments have been cultivated, and religious\nand moral notions reached a certain degree of improvement, but among\nwhom the desire of liberty has been stifled; where a certain portion of\ntruth is doled out to each, but no one permitted to seek for it himself.\nThis is the condition to which most of the populations of Asia are sunk,\nbecause theocratical governments there restrain the progress of mankind;\nsuch, for instance, is the state of the Hindoos.\"\n\nThus, besides the aristocratic nations of the earth, we must moreover\nexclude from the pale of civilization the Hindoos, Egyptians, Etruscans,\nPeruvians, Thibetans, Japanese--nay, even modern Rome and her\nterritories.\n\nI omit the last two hypotheses, because, thanks to the first two, the\nstate of civilization is already restricted within boundaries so\ncontracted that scarce any people on the globe is justified in\npretending to it. A nation, then, can be called civilized only when it\nenjoys institutions happily blending popular liberty and the requisite\nstrength of authority for maintaining order; when its progress in\nmaterial well-being and its moral development are co-ordinate in a\ncertain manner, and no other; where religion, as well as government, is\nconfined within limits accurately defined, which neither ever\ntransgresses; where each individual possesses clearly determinate and\ninalienable rights. According to this formula, no nation can be\ncivilized unless its political institutions are of the constitutional\nand representative form, and consequently it is impossible to save many\nEuropean nations from the reproach of barbarism. Then, measuring the\n_degree_ of civilization by the perfection of this same and only\npolitical form, we are compelled to place in a second rank all those\nconstitutional states which have ill employed the engine of parliament,\nto reserve the crown exclusively for those who know how to make good use\nof it. By this reasoning, I am forced to consider as truly civilized,\nin the past as well as the present, none but the single English\nnation.[95]\n\nI sincerely respect and admire that great people, whose victories,\nindustry, and universal commerce have left no portion of our globe\nignorant of its puissance and the prodigies it has performed. But\nstill, I do not feel disposed to respect and admire in the world no\nother: it would seem to me too humiliating and cruel to humanity to\nconfess that, since the beginning of time, it has never succeeded in\nproducing a civilization anywhere but upon a small island of the Western\nOcean, has never discovered the laws and forms which produce this state\nuntil the reign of William and Mary. Such a conception of civilization\nmight seem to many rather a little too narrow and restrictive. But there\nis another objection. If we attach the idea of civilization to a\npolitical form, reason, observation, and science will soon lose their\nvote in the decision of the question, which must thenceforth be left to\nthe passions and prejudices of parties. There will be some whose\npreferences will lead them stoutly to deny that the institutions of the\nBritish Isles are the \"perfection of human reason:\" their enthusiasm,\nperchance, will be expended in praising the order established in St.\nPetersburg or in Vienna. Many, again, and perhaps the greater number of\nall living between the Rhine and the Pyrenees, will sustain to the last\nthat, notwithstanding a few blemishes, the most polished, the most\ncivilized country of the world is _la belle France_. The moment that the\ndecision of the degree of intellectual culture becomes a matter of\npreference, a question of sentiment, to come to an understanding is\nimpossible. Each one will think him the man most advanced in\ncivilization who shall coincide with his views about the respective\nduties of the governing and the governed; while those who are\nunfortunate enough to differ, will be set down as men behind the age,\nlittle better than barbarians, mere \"old fogies,\" whose visual organs\nare too weak for the dazzling lights of the epoch; or else as daring,\nincendiary innovators, who wish to destroy all established order, and\nsap the very foundation of civilization. I think few will differ from me\nin considering Mr. Guizot's definition as defective, and the source from\nwhich he derives civilization as not the real one.\n\nLet us now examine Baron W. Von Humboldt's definition. \"Civilization,\"\nsays that celebrated statesman, \"is the humanization of nations in their\noutward institutions, in their manners, and in the inward feelings upon\nwhich these depend.\"[96]\n\nHere we meet with a defect of the very opposite kind to that which I\ntook the liberty to point out in Mr. Guizot's definition. The formula is\ntoo vague, the boundary lines too indistinct. If civilization consists\nin a softening of manners, more than one untutored tribe, some extremely\nlow in the scale of races, might take precedence over several European\nnations whose character contains more acerbity. There are in the South\nSea Islands, and elsewhere, very inoffensive populations, of\nexceedingly gentle manners, and kind, accommodating dispositions; yet,\nthough we may praise them, no one would think of placing them, in the\nscale of civilization, above the rough Norwegians, or even above the\nferocious Malays, who, dressed in brilliant garments of their own\nfabric, and upon skilfully constructed vessels of their own making,\ntraverse the Indian seas, at the same time the terror and scourge of\nmaritime commerce, and its most successful votaries. This observation\ncould not escape so great a mind as William Von Humboldt's; and he\ntherefore imagines, besides civilization, a higher degree of\ndevelopment, which he calls _culture_, and by which he declares that\nnations gain, above their gentle manners, \"_science and the arts_.\"[97]\nWhen the world shall have arrived at this higher state, it will be\npeopled by _affectionate_ and _sympathetic_ beings, very erudite,\npoetic, and artistic, but, by reason of this same reunion of qualities,\nignoring the grosser wants of existence: strangers to the necessity of\nwar, as well as those of rude mechanical toil.\n\nWhen we reflect upon the limited leisure that the mass of even those\ncan enjoy whose lot is cast in the happiest epoch, to abandon themselves\nto purely intellectual occupations--when we consider how incessant and\narduous must ever be the strife of man with nature and the elements to\ninsure the mere means of subsistence, it will soon be perceived that the\nphilosopher of Berlin aimed less at depicting realities than at drawing\nfrom the domain of abstraction certain entities which appeared to him\nbeautiful and sublime, and which are so, indeed, and at causing them to\nact and move in a sphere as ideal as themselves. If any doubts should\nstill remain in this respect, they are soon dispelled when we arrive at\nthe culminating point of the system, consisting of a third and last\ndegree superior to the two others. This greatest point of perfection is\nthat upon which stands the _finished_ man (_der Gebildete_); that is to\nsay, the man who, in his nature, possesses \"something higher and more\ninward or essential; a clear and comprehensive faculty of seeing all\nthings in their true light; a recognition and appreciation of the\nultimate goal of man's moral and intellectual aspirations, which\ndiffuses itself harmoniously over all his feelings and his\ncharacter.\"[98]\n\nWe here have a regular gradation from man in a civilized or \"humanized\"\nstate, to the man of cultivation--the philosopher, the poet, the artist;\nand thence still higher to the _finished_, the _perfect_ man, who has\nattained the greatest elevation possible to our species; a man who, if I\nseize rightly Mr. Humboldt's idea, had his living counterpart in\nGoethe, as that towering mind is described to us in its olympic\nserenity. This theory rests upon no other basis than Mr. Von Humboldt's\nperception of the immense difference between the civilization of a\nnation and the comparative height of perfection attained by great,\nisolated individualities. This difference is so great that civilizations\ndifferent from ours, and perhaps inferior to it, have produced men in\nsome respects superior to those we admire most.\n\nUpon this point I fully coincide with the great philosopher whose theory\nI am unfolding. It is perfectly correct, that our state of\ndevelopment--what we call the European civilization--produces neither\nthe profoundest nor the sublimest thinkers, nor the greatest poets, nor\nthe most skilful artists. Yet I venture to differ from the illustrious\nphilologist in believing that to give a practical meaning to the word\ncivilization, it is necessary to divest one's self, if but for a moment,\nfrom the prejudices or prepossessions resulting from the examination of\nmere details in any particular civilization. We must take the aggregate\nresult of the whole, and not make the requisites too few, as in the case\nof the man of the first degree, whom I persist in not acknowledging as\ncivilized merely because his manners are gentle; nor too many, as in the\ncase of the sage of the third, for then the development of human\nfaculties would be limited to a few individuals, and would produce\nresults purely isolated and typical.\n\nThe Baron Von Humboldt's system, however, does honor to that exquisite\nand generous sensibility, that grand sublimity which was the dominant\ncharacteristic of this great mind; and in its purely abstract nature may\nbe compared to the fragile worlds of Brahmin philosophy. Born from the\nbrain of a slumbering god, they rise in the air like the irised bubbles\nthat the child blows from the suds, bursting and succeeding one another\nas the dreams that amuse the celestial sleeper.\n\nBut the character of my researches permits me not to indulge in mere\nabstractions, however brilliant and attractive; I must arrive at results\ntangible to practical sense and common experience. I do not wish, like\nMr. Guizot, to investigate the conditions more or less favorable to the\nprosperity of societies, nor, like Mr. William Von Humboldt, to\nspeculate upon the isolated elevation of individual intelligences; my\npurpose is to encompass, if possible, the aggregate power, moral as well\nas material, which is developed in great masses of men. It is not\nwithout trepidation that I engage in a path in which two of the most\nadmired men of our century have lost themselves; and to avoid the errors\ninto which they have fallen, I shall descend to first principles, and\ndefine civilization by first investigating from what causes it results.\nIf the reader, then, will follow me patiently and attentively through\nthe mazes into which I am forced to enter, I shall endeavor to throw as\nmuch light as I am capable of, upon this inherently obscure and abstruse\nsubject.\n\nThere is no human being so degraded, so brutish, in whom a twofold\ninstinct, if I may be permitted so to call it, is not manifest; the\ninstinct which incites to the gratification of material wants, and that\nwhich leads to higher aspirations. The degree of intensity of either of\nthese two is the first and principal measure of the differences among\nraces. In none, not even in the lowest tribes, are the two instincts\nprecisely balanced. Among some, the physical wants or animal\npropensities preponderate; in others, these are subordinate to the\nspeculative tendencies--the cravings for the abstract, the supernatural.\nThus, the lowest of the yellow races seem to me to be dominated rather\nby the first, the physical instinct, without, however, being absolutely\ndeprived of all capacity for abstractions. On the contrary, among the\nmajority of the black races of corresponding rank, the habits are less\nactive than pensive; imagination there attaches greater value to the\nthings of the invisible than to those of the visible world. I do not\nthence deduce any conclusion of superior capacity for civilization on\nthe part of those latter races over the former, for history demonstrates\nthat both are equally insusceptible to attain it. Centuries, thousands\nof years, have passed by without either of them doing aught to\nameliorate their condition, because they have never been able to\nassociate a sufficient number of ideas with the same number of facts, to\nbegin the march of progress. I wish merely to draw attention to the\nfact, that even among the lowest races we find this double current\ndifferently constituted. I shall now follow the ascending scale.\n\nAbove the Samoyedes on the one hand, and the Fidas and Pelagian negroes\non the other, we must place those tribes who are not content with a mere\nhut of branches, and a social condition based upon force only, but who\nare capable of comprehending and aspiring to a better condition. These\nare one degree above the most barbarous.\n\nIf they belong to the first category of races--those who act more than\nthey think, among whom the material tendency predominates over that for\nthe abstract--their development will display itself in a greater\nperfection of their instruments of labor, and of war, in a greater care\nand skill in their ornaments, etc. In government, the warriors will\ntake precedence over the priests; in their intercourse with others, they\nwill show a certain aptitude and readiness for trafficking. Their wars,\nthough still characterized by cruelty, will originate rather in a love\nof gain, than in the mere gratification of vindictive passions. In one\nword, material well-being, physical enjoyments, will be the main pursuit\nof each individual. I find this picture realized among several of the\nMongol races, and also, to some extent, among the Quichuas and Azmaras\nof Peru.\n\nOn the other hand, if they belong to the second category--to those who\nhave a predominating tendency for the speculative, the abstract--less\ncare will be bestowed upon the material interests; the influence of the\npriests will preponderate in the government; in fact, we perceive a\ncomplete antithesis to the condition above described. The Dahomees, of\nWestern Africa, and the Caffres of the south, are examples of this\nstate.\n\nLeaving those races whose progressive tendency is not sufficiently\nvigorous to enable them to extend their influence over great\nmultitudes,[99] we come to those of a higher order, in whom this\ntendency is so vigorous that they are capable of incorporating, and\nbringing within their sphere of action, all those they come in contact\nwith. They soon ingraft their own social and political system upon\nimmense multitudes, and impose upon vast countries the dominion of that\ncombination of facts and ideas--more or less co-ordinate--which we call\na _civilization_. Among these races, again, we find the same difference,\nthe same division, that I already pointed out in those of inferior\nmerit--in some the speculative, in others the more materially active\ntendency predominates. It is, indeed, among these races only, that this\ndifference has important consequences, and is clearly perceptible. When\na tribe, by incorporating with it great multitudes, has become a people,\nhas founded a vast dominion, we find that these two currents or\ntendencies have augmented in strength, according to the character of the\npopulations which enter into the combination, and there become blended.\nWhatever tendency prevails among these populations, they will\nproportionably modify the character of the whole. It will be remarked,\nmoreover, that at different periods of the life of a people, and in\nstrict accordance with the mixture of blood and the fusion of different\nelements, the oscillation between the two tendencies becomes more\nviolent, and it may happen that their relative proportion changes\naltogether; that one, at first subordinate, in time becomes predominant.\nThe results of this mobility are important, as they influence, in a\nsensible manner, the character of a civilization, and its\nstability.[100]\n\nFor the sake of simplicity, I shall distinguish the two categories of\nraces by designations expressive of the tendency which predominates in\nthem, and shall call them accordingly, either _speculative_ or\n_utilitarian_.[101] As I have before observed, these terms imply neither\npraise nor blame. I use them merely for convenience, to designate the\nleading characteristic, without thereby expressing a total absence of\nthe other. Thus, the most utilitarian of the speculative races would\nclosely approximate to the most speculative of the utilitarian. At the\nhead of the utilitarian category, as its type, I place the Chinese; at\nthe head, and as the type of the other, the Hindoos. Next to the Chinese\nI would put the majority of the populations of ancient Italy, the first\nRomans of the time of the republic, and the Germanic tribes. On the\nopposite side, among the speculative races, I would range next to the\nHindoos, the Egyptians, and the nations of the Assyrian empire.\n\nI have said already that the oscillations of the two principles or\ntendencies sometimes result in the preponderance of one, which before\nwas subordinate, and thus the character of the civilization is changed.\nMinor modifications, the history of almost every people presents. Thus,\neven the materialistic utilitarian tendency of the Chinese has been\nsomewhat modified by their amalgamation with tribes of another blood,\nand a different tendency. In the south, the Yunnan particularly, where\nthis population prevailed, the inhabitants are much less exclusively\nutilitarian than in the north, where the Chinese element is more pure.\nIf this admixture of blood operated so slight a change in the genius of\nthat immense nation, that its effects have ceased, or make themselves\nperceptible only in an exceedingly slow manner, it is because its\nquantity was so extremely small, compared to the utilitarian population\nby which it was absorbed.\n\nInto the actual populations of Europe, the Germanic tribes infused a\nstrong utilitarian tendency, and in the north, this has been continually\nrecruited by new accessions of the same ethnical element; but in the\nsouth (with some exceptions, Piedmont, and the North of Spain, for\nexample), the Germanic element forms not so great a portion of the whole\nmass, and the utilitarian tendency has there been overweighed by the\nopposite genius of the native populations.\n\nAmong the speculative races we have signalized the Hindoos. They are\nendowed in a high degree with the tendency for the supernatural, the\nabstract. Their character is more meditative than active and practical.\nAs their ancient conquests incorporated with them races of a similar\ndisposition, the utilitarian element has never prevailed sufficiently to\nproduce decided results. While, therefore, their civilization has\narrived at a high degree of perfection in other respects, it has lagged\nfar behind in all that promotes material comfort, in all that is\nstrictly useful and practical.\n\nRome, at first strictly utilitarian, changed its character gradually as\nthe fusion with Greek, Asiatic, and African elements proceeded, and when\nonce the ancient utilitarian population was absorbed in this ethnical\ninundation, the practical character of Rome was lost.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nFrom the consideration of these and similar facts, I arrive at the\nconclusion, that all intellectual or moral activity results from the\ncombined action and mutual reaction of these two tendencies, and that\nthe social system can arrive at that development which entitles it to\nthe name of civilization, only in races which possess, in a high degree,\neither of the two, without being too much deficient in the other.\n\nI now proceed to the examination of other points also deserving of\nnotice.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[94] Hazlitt's translation, vol. i. p 21. New York, 1855.--H.\n\n[95] A careful comparison of Mr. Guizot's views with those expressed by\nCount Gobineau upon this interesting subject convinced me that the\ndifferences of opinion between these two investigators required a more\ncareful and minute examination than the author has thought necessary.\nWith this view, I subjoin further extracts from the celebrated \"_History\nof Civilization in Europe_,\" from which, I think, it will appear that\nfew of the great truths comprised in the definition of _civilization_\nhave escaped the penetration and research of the illustrious writer, but\nthat, being unable to divest himself of the idea of _unity_ of\ncivilization, he has necessarily fallen into an error, with which a\ngreat metaphysician justly charges so many reasoners. \"It is hard,\" says\nLocke, speaking of the abuse of words, \"to find a discourse written on\nany subject, especially of controversy, wherein one shall not observe,\nif he read with attention, the same words (and those commonly the most\nmaterial in the discourse, and upon which the argument turns) used\nsometimes for one collection of simple ideas, and sometimes for\nanother.... A man, in his accompts with another, might with as much\nfairness, make the characters of numbers stand sometimes for one, and\nsometimes for another collection of units (_e. g._, this character, 3,\nstand sometimes for three, sometimes for four, and sometimes for eight),\nas, in his discourse or reasoning, make the same words stand for\ndifferent collections of simple ideas.\"\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nMr. Guizot opens his first lecture by declaring his intention of giving\na \"general survey of the history of _European civilization_, of its\n_origin_, its _progress_, its _end_, its _character_. I say European\ncivilization, because there is evidently so striking a uniformity in the\ncivilization of the different states of Europe, as fully to warrant this\nappellation. Civilization has flowed to them all from sources so much\nalike, it is so connected in them all--notwithstanding the great\ndifferences of time, of place, and circumstances--by the same\nprinciples, and it tends in them all to bring about the same results,\nthat no one will doubt of there being _a civilization essentially\nEuropean_.\"\n\nHere, then, Mr. Guizot acknowledges one great truth contended for in\nthis volume; he virtually recognizes the fact that there may be other\ncivilizations, having different origins, a different progress, different\ncharacters, different ends.\n\n\"At the same time, it must be observed, that this civilization cannot be\nfound in--its history cannot be collected from--the history of any\nsingle state of Europe. However similar in its general appearance\nthroughout the whole, its variety is not less remarkable, nor has it\never yet developed itself completely in any particular country. Its\ncharacteristic features are widely spread, and we shall be obliged to\nseek, as occasion may require, in England, in France, in Germany, in\nSpain, for the elements of its history.\"\n\nThis is precisely the idea expressed in my introduction, that according\nto the character of a nation, its civilization manifests itself in\nvarious ways; in some, by perfection in the arts, useful or polite; in\nothers, by development of political forms, and their practical\napplication, etc. If I had then wished to support my opinion by a great\nauthority, I should, assuredly, have quoted Mr. Guizot, who, a few pages\nfurther on, says:--\n\n\"Wherever the exterior condition of man becomes enlarged, quickened, and\nimproved; wherever the intellectual nature of man distinguishes itself\nby its energy, brilliancy, and its grandeur; wherever these signs occur,\nnotwithstanding the gravest imperfections in the social system, there\nman proclaims and applauds a civilization.\"\n\n\"_Notwithstanding the gravest imperfections in the social system_,\" says\nMr. Guizot, yet in the series of hypotheses, quoted in the text, in\nwhich he attempts a negative definition of civilization, by showing what\ncivilization is _not_, he virtually makes a political form the test of\ncivilization.\n\nIn another passage, again, he says that civilization \"is a course for\nhumanity to run--a destiny for it to accomplish. Nations have\ntransmitted, from age to age, something to their successors which is\nnever lost, but which grows, and continues as a common stock, and will\nthus be carried on to the end of all things. For my part (he continues),\nI feel assured that human nature has such a destiny; that a general\ncivilization pervades the human race; that at every epoch it augments;\nand that there, consequently, is a universal history of civilization to\nbe written.\"\n\nIt must be obvious to the reader who compares these extracts, that Mr.\nGuizot expresses a totally distinct idea or collection of ideas in each.\n\nFirst, the civilization of a particular nation, which exists \"wherever\nthe intellectual nature of man distinguishes itself by its energy,\nbrilliancy, and grandeur.\" Such a civilization may flourish,\n\"notwithstanding the greatest imperfections in the social system.\"\n\nSecondly, Mr. Guizot's _beau-id\u00e9al_ of the best, most perfect\ncivilization, where the political forms insure the greatest happiness,\npromote the most rapid--yet well-regulated--progress.\n\nThirdly, a great system of particular civilizations, as that of Europe,\nthe various elements of which \"are connected by the same principles, and\ntend all to bring about the same general results.\"\n\nFourthly, a supposed general progress of the whole human race toward a\nhigher state of perfection.\n\nTo all these ideas, provided they are not confounded one with another, I\nhave already given my assent. (See _Introduction_, p. 51.) With regard\nto the latter, however, I would observe that it by no means militates\nagainst a belief in the intellectual imparity of races, and the\npermanency of this imparity. As in a society composed of individuals,\nall enjoy the fruits of the general progress, though all have not\ncontributed to it in equal measure, and some not at all: so, in that\nsociety, of which we may suppose the various branches of the human\nfamily to be the members, even the inferior participate more or less in\nthe benefits of intellectual labor, of which they would have been\nincapable. Because I can transport myself with almost the swiftness of a\nbird from one place to another, it does not follow that--though I profit\nby Watt's genius--I could have invented the steam-engine, or even that I\nunderstand the principles upon which that invention is based.--H.\n\n[96] W. Von Humboldt, _Ueber die Kawi-Sprache auf der Insel Java;\nEinleitung_, vol. i. p. 37. Berlin. \"Die _Civilization_ ist die\nVermenschlichung der V\u00f6lker in ihren \u00e4usseren Einrichtungen und\nGebr\u00e4uchen, und der darauf Bezug habenden inneren Gesinnung.\"\n\n[97] William Von Humboldt. \"Die Kultur f\u00fcgt dieser Veredlung des\ngesellschaftlichen Zustandes Wissenschaft und Kunst hinzu.\"\n\n[98] W. Von Humboldt, _op. cit._, p. 37: \"Wenn wir in unserer Sprache\n_Bildung_ sagen, so meinen wir damit etwas zugleich H\u00f6heres und mehr\nInnerlicheres, n\u00e4mlich die Sinnesart, die sich aus der Erkenntniss und\ndem Gef\u00fchle des gesammten geistigen und sittlichen Streben harmonish auf\ndie Empfindung und den Charakter ergiesst.\"\n\nAs nothing can exceed the difficulty of rendering an abstract idea from\nthe French into English, except to transmit the same from German into\nFrench, and as if _all_ these processes must be undergone, the identity\nof the idea is greatly endangered, I have thought proper to translate at\nonce from the original German, and therefore differ somewhat from Mr.\nGobineau, who gives it thus: \"L'homme form\u00e9, c'est-\u00e0-dire, l'homme qui,\ndans sa nature, poss\u00e8de quelque chose de plus haut, de plus intime \u00e0 la\nfois, c'est-\u00e0-dire, une fa\u00e7on de comprendre qui r\u00e9pand harmonieusement\nsur la sensibilit\u00e9 et le charact\u00e8re les impressions qu'elle re\u00e7oit de\nl'activit\u00e9 intellectuelle et morale dans son ensemble.\" I have taken\ngreat pains to express clearly Mr. Von Humboldt's idea, and have\ntherefore amplified the word _Sinnesart_, which has not its precise\nequivalent in English.--TRANS.\n\n[99] See page 154.\n\n[100] Mr. Klemm (_Allgemeine Culturgeschichte der Menschheit_, Leipzig,\n1849) adopts, also, a division of all races into two categories, which\nhe calls respectively the _active_ and the _passive_. I have not had the\nadvantage of perusing his book, and cannot, therefore, say whether his\nidea is similar to mine. It would not be surprising that, in pursuing\nthe same road, we should both have stumbled over the same truth.\n\n[101] The translator has here permitted himself a deviation from the\noriginal. Mr. Gobineau, to express his idea, borrows from the symbolism\nof the Hindoos, where the feminine principle is represented by Prakriti,\nand the masculine by Purucha, and calls the two categories of races\nrespectively feminine and masculine. But as he \"thereby wishes to\nexpress nothing but a mutual fecundation, without ascribing any\nsuperiority to either,\" and as the idea seems fully rendered by the\nwords used in the translation, the latter have been thought preferable,\nas not so liable to misrepresentation and misconception.--H.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IX.\n\nELEMENTS OF CIVILIZATION--CONTINUED.\n\n  Definition of the term--Specific differences of\n    civilizations--Hindoo, Chinese, European, Greek, and Roman\n    civilizations--Universality of Chinese civilization--Superficiality\n    of ours--Picture of the social condition of France.\n\n\nWhen a tribe, impelled by more vigorous instincts than its neighbors,\nsucceeds in collecting the hitherto scattered and isolated fragments\ninto a compact whole, the first impetus of progress is thus given, the\ncorner-stone of a civilization laid. But, to produce great and lasting\nresults, a mere political preponderance is not sufficient. The dominant\nrace must know how to lay hold of the feelings of the masses it has\naggregated, to assimilate their individual interests, and to concentrate\ntheir energies to the same purposes. When the different elements\ncomposing the nation are thus blended into a more or less homogeneous\nmass, certain principles and modes of thinking become general, and form\nthe standard around which all rally. These principles and modes of\nthinking, however, cannot be arbitrarily imposed, and must be resulting\nfrom, and in the main consonant with, pre-existing sentiments and\ndesires.[102] They will be characterized by a utilitarian or a\nspeculative tendency, according to the degree in which either instinct\npredominates in the constituent elements of the nation.\n\nThis harmony of views and interests is the first essential to\ncivilization; the second is stability, and is a natural consequence of\nthe first. The general principles upon which the political and social\nsystem rests, being based upon instincts common to all, are by all\nregarded with the most affectionate veneration, and firmly believed to\nbe perpetual. The purer a race remains, the more conservative will it be\nin its institutions, for its instincts never change. But the admixture\nof foreign blood produces proportionate modifications in the national\nideas. The new-comers introduce instincts and notions which were not\ncalculated upon in the social edifice. Alterations therefore become\nnecessary, and these are often wholesome, especially in the youthful\nperiod of the society, when the new ethnical elements have not as yet\nacquired an undue preponderance. But, as the empire increases, and\ncomprises elements more and more heterogeneous, the changes become more\nradical, and are not always for the better. Finally, as the initiatory\nand conservative element disappears, the different parts of the nation\nare no longer united by common instincts and interests; the original\ninstitutions are not adapted to their wants; sudden and total\ntransformations become common, and a vain phantom of stability is\npursued through endless experiments. But, while thus vacillating betwixt\nconflicting interests, and changing its purpose every hour, the nation\nimagines itself advancing to some imaginary goal of perfection. Firmly\nconvinced of its own perpetuity, it holds fast to the doctrine which its\ndaily acts disprove, that one of the principal features of a\ncivilization is God-like immutability. And though each day brings forth\nnew discontents and new changes equally futile, the apprehensions of the\nday are quieted with the expectations of to-morrow.\n\nI have said that the conditions necessary for the development of a\ncivilization are--the aggregation of large masses, and stable\ninstitutions resulting from common views and interests. The sociable\ninclinations of man, and the less noble attributes of his nature,\nperform the rest. While the former bring him in intimate and varied\nconnections with his fellow-men, the latter give rise to continual\ncontests and emulation. In a large community, a strong fist is no longer\nsufficient to insure protection and give distinction, and the resources\nof the mind are applied and developed. Intellect continually seeks and\nfinds new fields for exertion, either in the regions of the abstract, or\nin the material world. By its productions in either, we recognize an\nadvanced state of society. The most common source of error in judging\nforeign nations, is that we are apt to look merely at the exterior\ndemonstrations of their civilization, and because, in this respect,\ntheir civilization does not resemble ours, we hastily conclude that they\nare barbarous, or, at least, greatly inferior to us. A conclusion, drawn\nfrom such premises, must needs be very superficial, and therefore ought\nto be received with caution.\n\nI believe myself now prepared to express my idea of a civilization, by\ndefining it as\n\n_A state of comparative stability, in which a large collection of\nindividuals strive, by peaceful means, to satisfy their wants, and\nrefine their intelligence and manners._\n\nThis definition includes, without exception, all the nations which I\nhave mentioned as being civilized. But, as these nations have few points\nof resemblance, the question suggests itself: Do not, then, all\ncivilizations tend to the same results? I think not; for, as the nations\ncalled to the noble task of accomplishing a civilization, are endowed\nwith the utilitarian and speculative tendencies in various degrees and\nproportions, their paths must necessarily lie in very divergent\ndirections.\n\nWhat are the material wants of the Hindoo? Rice and butter for his\nnourishment, and a piece of cotton cloth for his garment. Nor can this\nabstemiousness be accounted for by climate, for the native of Thibet,\nunder a much more rigorous sky, displays the same quality. In these\npeoples, the imaginative faculty greatly predominates, their\nintellectual efforts are directed to abstractions, and the fruits of\ntheir civilization are therefore seldom of a practical or utilitarian\ncharacter. Magnificent temples are hewn out of mountains of solid rock\nat an expense of labor and time that terrifies the imagination; gigantic\nconstructions are erected;--all this in honor of the gods, while nothing\nis done for man's benefit, unless it be tombs. By the side of the\nmiracles wrought by the sculptor's chisel, we admire the finished\nmasterpieces of a literature full of vigor, and as ingenious and subtle\nin theology and metaphysics, as beautiful in its variety: in speculative\nefforts, human thought descends without trepidation to immeasurable\ndepths; its lyric poetry challenges the admiration of all mankind.\n\nBut if we leave the domain of idealistic reveries, and seek for\ninventions of practical utility, and for the sciences that are their\ntheoretical basis, we find a deplorable deficiency. From a dazzling\nheight, we suddenly find ourselves descended to a profound and darksome\nabyss. Useful inventions are scarce, of a petty character, and, being\nneglected, remain barren of results. While the Chinese observed and\ninvented a great deal, the Hindoos invented but little, and of that\nlittle took no care; the Greeks, also, have left us much information,\nbut little worthy of their genius; and the Romans, once arrived at the\nculminating point of their history, could no longer make any real\nprogress, for the Asiatic admixture in which they were absorbed with\nsurprising rapidity, produced a population incapable of the patient and\ntoilsome investigation of stern realities. Their administrative genius,\nhowever, their legislation, and the useful monuments with which they\nprovided the soil of their territories, attest sufficiently the\npractical character which, at one time, so eminently characterized that\npeople; and prove that if the South of Europe had not been so rapidly\nsubmerged with colonists from Asia and the North of Africa, positive\nscience would have been the gainer, and less would have been left to be\naccomplished by the Germanic races, which afterward gave it a renewed\nimpulse.\n\nThe Germanic conquerors of the fifth century were characterized by\ninstincts of a similar kind to those of the Chinese, but of a higher\norder. While they possessed the utilitarian tendency as strongly, if not\nstronger, they had, at the same time, a much greater endowment of the\nspeculative. Their disposition presented a happy blending of these two\nmainsprings of activity. Where-ever the Teutonic blood predominates, the\nutilitarian tendency, ennobled and refined by the speculative, is\nunmistakable. In England, North America, and Holland, this tendency\ngoverns and preponderates over all the other national instincts. It is\nso, in a lesser degree, in Belgium, and even in the North of France,\nwhere everything susceptible of practical application is understood with\nmarvellous facility. But as we advance further south, this\npredisposition is less apparent, and, finally, disappears altogether. We\ncannot attribute this to the action of the sun, for the Piedmontese\nlive in a much warmer climate than the Proven\u00e7als and the inhabitants of\nthe Languedoc; it is the effect of blood.\n\nThe series of speculative races, or those rendered so by admixture,\noccupies the greater portion of the globe, and this observation is\nparticularly applicable to Europe. With the exception of the Teutonic\nfamily, and a portion of the Sclavonic, all other groups of our part of\nthe world are but slightly endowed with the faculty for the useful and\npractical; or, having already acted their part in the world's history,\nwill not be able to recommence it. All these races, from the Gaul to the\nCeltiberian, and thence to the variegated compounds of the Italian\npopulations, present a descending scale from a utilitarian point of\nview. Not that they are devoid of all the aptitudes of that tendency,\nbut they are wanting in some of the most essential.\n\nThe union of the Germanic tribes with the races of the ancient world,\nthis engrafting of a vigorous utilitarian principle upon the ideas of\nthat variegated compound, produced our civilization; the richness,\ndiversity, and fecundity of our state of culture is the natural result\nof that combination of so many different elements, which each\ncontributed their part, and which the practical vigor of our Germanic\nancestors, succeeded in blending into a more or less harmonious whole.\n\nWherever our state of civilization extends, it is characterized by two\ntraits; the first, that the population contains a greater or less\nadmixture of Teutonic blood; the other, that it is Christian. This last\nfeature, however, as I said before, though the most obvious and\nstriking, is by no means essential, because many nations are Christian,\nand many more may become so, without participating in our civilization.\nBut the first feature is positive, decisive. Wherever the Germanic\nelement has not penetrated, our civilization cannot flourish.[103]\n\nThis leads me to the investigation of a serious and important question:\n\"Can it be asserted that all the European nations are really and\nthoroughly civilized?\" Do the ideas and facts which rise upon the\nsurface of our civilization, strike root in the basis of our social and\npolitical structure, and derive their vitality from that source? Are the\nresults of these ideas and facts such as are conformable to the\ninstincts, the tendencies, of the masses? Or, in other words, have the\nlowest strata of our populations the same direction of thought and\naction as the highest--that direction which we may call the spirit or\ngenius of our progressive movement?\n\nTo arrive at a true and unbiassed solution of this question, let us\nexamine other civilizations, different from ours, and then institute a\ncomparison.\n\nThe similarity of views and ideas, the unity of purpose, which\ncharacterized the whole body of citizens in the Grecian states, during\nthe brilliant period of their history, has been justly admired. Upon\nevery essential point, the opinions of every individual, though often\nconflicting, were, nevertheless, derived from the same source, emanated\nfrom the same general views and sentiments; individuals might differ in\npolitics, one wishing a more oligarchical, another a more democratic\ngovernment; or they might differ in religion, one worshipping, by\npreference, the Eleusinian Ceres, another the Minerva of the Parthenon;\nor in matters of taste, one might prefer \u00c6schylus to Sophocles, Alceus\nto Pindar. At the bottom, the disputants all participated in the same\nviews and ideas, ideas which might well be called national. The question\nwas one of degree, not of kind.[104]\n\nRome, previous to the Punic wars, presented the same spectacle; the\ncivilization of the country was uniform, and embraced all, from the\nmaster to the slave.[105] All might not participate in it to the same\nextent, but all participated in it and in no other.\n\nBut in Rome, after the Punic wars, and in Greece, soon after Pericles,\nand especially after Philip of Macedon, this character of homogeneity\nbegan to disappear. The greater mixture of nations produced a\ncorresponding mixture of civilizations, and the compound thus formed\nexceeded in variety, elegance, refinement, and learning, the ancient\nmode of culture. But it had this capital inconvenience, both in Hellas\nand in Italy, that it belonged exclusively to the higher classes. Its\nnature, its merits, its tendencies, were ignored by the sub-strata of\nthe population. Let us take the civilization of Rome after the Asiatic\nwars. It was a grand, magnificent monument of human genius. It had a\ncosmopolitan character: the rhetoricians of Greece contributed to it the\ntranscendental spirit, the jurists and publicists of Syria and\nAlexandria gave it a code of atheistic, levelling, and monarchical\nlaws--each part of the empire furnished to the common store some portion\nof its ideas, its sciences, and its character. But whom did this\ncivilization embrace? The men engaged in the public administration or in\ngreat monetary enterprises, the people of wealth and of leisure. It was\nmerely submitted to, not adopted by the masses. The populations of\nEurope understood nothing of those Asiatic and African contributions to\nthe civilization; the inhabitants of Egypt, Numidia, or Asia, were\nequally uninterested in what came from Gaul and Spain, countries with\nwhich they had nothing in common. But a small minority of the Roman\npeople stood on the pinnacle, and being in possession of the secret,\nvalued it. The rest, those not included in the aristocracy of wealth and\nposition, preserved the civilization peculiar to the land of their\nbirth, or, perhaps, had none at all. Here, then, we have an example of a\ngreat and highly perfected civilization, dominating over untold\nmillions, but founding its reign not in their desires or convictions,\nbut in their exhaustion, their weakness, their listlessness.\n\nA very different spectacle is presented in China. The boundless extent\nof that empire includes, indeed, several races markedly distinct, but I\nshall speak at present only of the national race, the Chinese proper.\nOne spirit animates the whole of this immense multitude, which is\ncounted by hundreds of millions. Whatever we think of their\ncivilization, whether we admire or censure the principles upon which it\nis based, the results which it has produced, and the direction which it\ntakes; we cannot deny that it pervades all ranks, that every individual\ntakes in it a definite and intelligent part. And this is not because the\ncountry is free, in our sense of the word: there is no democratic\nprinciple which secures, by law, to every one the position which his\nefforts may attain, and thus spurs him on to exertions. No; I discard\nall Utopian pictures. The peasant and the man of the middle classes, in\nthe Celestial Empire, are no better assured of rising by their own merit\nonly, than they are elsewhere. It is true that, in theory, public honors\nare solely the reward of merit, and every one is permitted to offer\nhimself as a candidate;[106] but it is well known that, in reality, the\nfamilies of great functionaries monopolize all lucrative offices, and\nthat the scholastic diplomas often cost more money than efforts of\nstudy. But disappointed or hopeless ambition never leads the possessor\nto imagine a different system; the aim of the reformer is to remedy the\nabuses of the established organization, not to substitute another. The\nmasses may groan under ills and abuses, but the fault is charged, not to\nthe social and political system, which to them is an object of\nunqualified admiration, but to the persons to whose care the performance\nof its duties is committed. The head of the government, or his\nfunctionaries, may become unpopular, but the form itself, the\ngovernment, never. A very remarkable feature of the Chinese is that\namong them primary instruction is so universal; it reaches classes whom\nwe hardly imagine to have any need of it. The cheapness of books, the\nimmense number and low price of the schools, enable even the poorest to\nacquire the elements of knowledge, reading and writing.[107] The laws,\ntheir spirit and tendency, are well known and understood by all classes,\nand the government prides itself upon facilitating the study of this\nuseful science.[108] The instinct of the masses is decidedly averse to\nall political convulsions. Mr. Davis, who was commissioner of H. B.\nMajesty in China, and who studied its affairs with the assiduity of a\nman who is interested in understanding them well, says that the\ncharacter of the people cannot be better expressed than by calling them\n\"a nation of steady conservatives.\"[109]\n\nHere, then, we have a most striking contrast to the civilization of Rome\nin her latter days, when governmental changes occurred in fearfully\nrapid succession, until the arrival of the nations of the north. In\nevery portion of that vast empire, there were whole populations that had\nno interest in the preservation of established order, and were ever\nready to second the maddest schemes, to embark in any enterprise that\nseemed to promise advantage, or that was represented in seductive colors\nby some ambitious demagogue. During that long period of several\ncenturies, no scheme was left untried: property, religion, the sanctity\nof family relations, were all called in question, and innovators in\nevery portion of the empire, found multitudes ever disposed to carry\ntheir theories into practice by force. Nothing in the Greco-Roman world\nrested on a solid basis, not even the imperial unity, so indispensable,\nit would seem, to the mere self-preservation of such a state of\nsociety. It was not only the armies, with their swarm of _improvisto_\nC\u00e6sars, that undertook the task of shaking this palladium of national\nsafety; the emperors themselves, beginning with Diocletian, had so\nlittle faith in monarchy, that they willingly made the experiment of\ndualism in the government, and finally found four at a time not too many\nfor governing the empire.[110] I repeat it, not one institution, not one\nprinciple, was stable in that wretched state of society, which continued\nto preserve some outward form, merely from the physical impossibility of\nassuming any others, until the men of the north came to assist in its\ndemolition.\n\nBetween these two great societies, then, the Roman empire, and that of\nChina, we perceive the most complete contrast. By the side of the\ncivilization of Eastern Asia, I may mention that of India, Thibet, and\nother portions of Central Asia, which is equally universal, and diffused\namong all ranks and classes. As in China there is a certain level of\ninformation to which all attain, so in Hindostan, every one is animated\nby the same spirit; each individual knows precisely what his caste\nrequires him to learn, to think, to believe. Among the Buddhists of\nThibet, and the table-lands of Asia, nothing is rarer than to find a\npeasant who cannot read, and there everybody has the same convictions\nupon important subjects.\n\nDo we find this homogeneity in European nations? It is scarce worth\nwhile to put the question. Not even the Greco-Roman empire presents\nincongruities so strange, or contrasts so striking, as are to be found\namong us; not only among the various nationalities of Europe, but in the\nbosom of the same sovereignty. I shall not speak of Russia, and the\nstates that form the Austrian empire; the demonstration of my position\nwould there be too facile. Let us turn to Germany; to Italy, Southern\nItaly in particular; to Spain, which, though in a less degree, presents\na similar picture; or to France.\n\nI select France. The difference of manners, in various parts of this\ncountry, has struck even the most superficial observer, and it has long\nsince been observed that Paris is separated from the rest of France by a\nline of demarcation so decided and accurately defined, that at the very\ngates of the capital, a nation is found, utterly different from that\nwithin the walls. Nothing can be more true: those who attach to our\npolitical unity the idea of similarity of thoughts, of character--in\nfine, of nationality, are laboring under a great delusion. There is not\none principle that governs society and is connected with our\ncivilization, which is understood in the same manner in all our\ndepartments. I do not speak here merely of the peculiarities that\ncharacterize the native of Normandy, of Brittany, Angevin, Limousin,\nGascony, Provence. Every one knows how little alike these various\npopulations are,[111] and how they differ in their tendencies and modes\nof thinking. I wish to draw attention to the fact, that while in China,\nThibet, India, the most essential ideas upon which the civilization is\nbased, are common to all classes, participated in by all, it is by no\nmeans so among us. The very rudiments of our knowledge, the most\nelementary and most generally accessible portion of it, remain an\nimpenetrable mystery to our rural populations, among whom but few\nindividuals are found acquainted with reading and writing. This is not\nfor want of opportunities--it is because no value is attached to these\nacquisitions, because their utility is not perceived. I speak from my\nown observation, and that of persons who had ample facilities, and\nbrought extensive information and great judgment to the task of\ninvestigation. Government has made the most praiseworthy efforts to\nremedy the evil, to raise the peasantry from the sink of ignorance in\nwhich they vegetate. But the wisest laws, and the most carefully\ncalculated institutions have proved abortive. The smallest village\naffords ample opportunities for common education; even the adult, when\nconscription forces him into the army, finds in the regimental schools\nevery facility for acquiring the most necessary branches of knowledge.\nCompulsion is resorted to--every one who has lived in the provinces\nknows with what success. Parents send their children to school with\nundisguised repugnance, for they regret the time thus spent as wasted,\nand, therefore, eagerly seize the most trifling pretext for withdrawing\nthem, and never suffer them to exceed the legal term of attendance. So\nsoon as the young man leaves school, or the soldier has served his time,\nthey hasten to forget what they were compelled to learn, and what they\nare heartily ashamed of. They return forever after to the local\n_patois_[112] of their birthplace, and pretend to have forgotten the\nFrench language, which, indeed, is but too often true. It is a painful\nconclusion, but one which many and careful observations have forced upon\nme, that all the generous private and public endeavors to instruct our\nrural population, are absolutely futile, and can tend no further than to\nenforce an outward compliance. They care not for the knowledge we wish\nto give them--they will not have it, and this not from mere negligence\nor apathy, but from a feeling of positive hostility to our\ncivilization. This is a startling assertion, but I have not yet adduced\nall the proofs in support of it.\n\nIn those parts of the country where the laboring classes are employed in\nmanufactures principally, and in the great cities, the workmen are\neasily induced to learn to read and write. The circumstances with which\nthey are surrounded, leave them no doubt as to the practical advantages\naccruing to them from these acquisitions. But so soon as these men have\nsufficiently mastered the first elements of knowledge, to what use do\nthey, for the most part, apply them? To imbibe or give vent to ideas and\nsentiments the most subversive of all social order. The instinctive, but\npassive hostility to our civilization, is superseded by a bitter and\nactive enmity, often productive of the most fearful calamities. It is\namong these classes that the projectors of the wildest, most incendiary\nschemes readily recruit their partisans; that the advocates of\nsocialism, community of goods and wives, all, in fact, who, under the\npretext of removing the ills and abuses that afflict the social system,\npropose to tear it down, find ready listeners and zealous believers.\n\nThere are, however, portions of the country to which this picture does\nnot apply; and these exceptions furnish me with another proof in favor\nof my proposition. Among the agricultural and manufacturing populations\nof the north and northeast, information is general; it is readily\nreceived, and, once received, retained and productive of good fruits.\nThese people are intelligent, well-informed, and orderly, like their\nneighbors in Belgium and the whole of the Netherlands. And these, also,\nare the populations most closely akin to the Teutonic race, the race\nwhich, as I said in another place, gave the initiative to our\ncivilization.\n\nThe aversion to our civilization, of which I spoke, is not the only\nsingular feature in the character of our rural populations. If we\npenetrate into the privacy of their thoughts and beliefs, we make\ndiscoveries equally striking and startling. The bishops and parish\nclergy have to this day, as they had one, five, or fifteen centuries\nago, to battle with mysterious superstitions, or hereditary tendencies,\nsome of which are the more formidable as they are seldom openly avowed,\nand can, therefore, be neither attacked nor conquered. There is no\nenlightened priest, that has the care of his flock at heart, but knows\nfrom experience with what deep cunning the peasant, however devout,\nknows how to conceal in his own bosom some fondly cherished traditional\nidea or belief, which reveals itself only at long intervals, and\nwithout his knowledge. If he is spoken to about it, he denies or evades\nthe discussion, but remains unshaken in his convictions. He has\nunbounded confidence in his pastor, unbounded except upon this one\nsubject, that might not inappropriately be called his secret religion.\nHence that taciturnity and reserve which, in all our provinces, is the\nmost marked characteristic of the peasant, and which he never for a\nmoment lays aside towards the class he calls _bourgeois_; that\nimpassable barrier between him and even the most popular and\nwell-intentioned landed proprietor of his district.\n\nIt must not be supposed that this results merely from rudeness and\nignorance. Were it so, we might console ourselves with the hope that\nthey will gradually improve and assimilate with the more enlightened\nclasses. But these people are precisely like certain savages; at a\nsuperficial glance they appear unreflecting and brutish, because their\nexterior is humble, and their character requires to be studied. But so\nsoon as we penetrate, however little, into their own circle of ideas,\nthe feelings that govern their private life, we discover that in their\nobstinate isolation from our civilization, they are not actuated by a\nfeeling of degradation. Their affections and antipathies do not arise\nfrom mere accidental circumstances, but, on the contrary, are in\naccordance with logical reasoning based upon well-defined and clearly\nconceived ideas.[113] In speaking of their religious notions awhile\nago, I should have remarked what an immense distance there is between\nour doctrines of morals and those of the peasantry, how widely different\nare their ideas from those which we attach to the same word.[114] With\nwhat pertinacious obstinacy they continue to look upon every one not\npeasant like themselves, as the people of remote antiquity looked upon a\nforeigner. It is true they do not kill him, thanks to the singular and\nmysterious terror which the laws, in the making of which they have no\npart, inspire them; but they hate him cordially, distrust him, and if\nthey can do so without too great a risk, fleece him without scruple and\nwith immense satisfaction. Yet they are not wicked or ill-disposed.\nAmong themselves they are kind-hearted, charitable, and obliging. But\nthen they regard themselves as a distinct race--a race, they tell\nyou--that is weak, oppressed, and that must resort to cunning and\nstratagem to gain their due, but which, nevertheless, preserves its\npride and contempt for all others. In many of our provinces, the laborer\nbelieves himself of much better stock than his former lord or present\nemployer. The family pride of many of our peasants is, to say the least,\nas great as that of the nobility during the Middle Ages.[115]\n\nIt cannot be doubted that the lower strata of the population of France\nhave few features in common with the higher. Our civilization penetrates\nbut little below the surface. The great mass is indifferent--nay,\npositively hostile to it. The most tragic events have stained the\ncountry with torrents of blood, unparalleled convulsions have destroyed\nevery ancient fabric, both social and political. Yet the agricultural\npopulations have never been roused from their apathetic\nindifference,[116] have never taken any other part but that to which\nthey were forced. When their own personal and immediate interests were\nnot at stake, they allowed the tempests to blow by without concern,\nwithout even passive sympathy on one side or the other. Many persons,\nfrightened and scandalized at this spectacle, have declared the\npeasantry as irreclaimably perverse. This is at the same time an\ninjustice, and a very false appreciation of their character. The\npeasants regard us almost as their enemies. They comprehend nothing of\nour civilization, contribute nothing to it of their own accord, and they\nthink themselves authorized to profit by its disasters, whenever they\ncan. Apart from this antagonism, which sometimes displays itself in an\nactive, but oftener in a passive manner, it cannot be doubted that they\npossess moral qualities of a high order, though often singularly\napplied.\n\nSuch is the state of civilization in France. It may be asserted that of\na population of thirty-six millions, ten participate in the ideas and\nmode of thinking upon which our civilization is based, while the\nremaining twenty-six altogether ignore them, are indifferent and even\nhostile to them, and this computation would, I think, be even more\nflattering than the real truth. Nor is France an exception in this\nrespect. The picture I have given applies to the greater part of Europe.\nOur civilization is suspended, as it were, over an unfathomable gulf, at\nthe bottom of which there slumber elements which may, one day, be roused\nand prove fearfully, irresistibly destructive. This is an awful, an\nominous truth. Upon its ultimate consequences it is painful to reflect.\nWisdom may, perhaps, foresee the storm, but can do little to avert it.\n\nBut ignored, despised, or hated as it is by the greater number of those\nover whom it extends its dominion, our civilization is, nevertheless,\none of the grandest, most glorious monuments of the human mind. In the\ninventive, initiatory quality it does not surpass, or even equal some\nof its predecessors, but in comprehensiveness it surpasses all. From\nthis comprehensiveness arise its powers of appropriation, of conquest;\nfor, to comprehend is to seize, to possess. It has appropriated all\ntheir acquisitions, and has remodelled, reconstructed them. It did not\ncreate the exact sciences, but it has given them their exactitude, and\nhas disembarrassed them from the divagations from which, by a singular\nparadox, they were anciently less free than any other branch of\nknowledge. Thanks to its discoveries, the material world is better known\nthan at any other epoch. The laws by which nature is governed, it has,\nin a great measure, succeeded in unveiling, and it has applied them so\nas to produce results truly wonderful. Gradually, and by the clearness\nand correctness of its induction, it has reconstructed immense fragments\nof history, of which the ancients had no knowledge; and as it recedes\nfrom the primitive ages of the world, it penetrates further into the\nmist that obscures them. These are great points of superiority, and\nwhich cannot be contested.\n\nBut these being admitted, are we authorized to conclude--as is so\ngenerally assumed as a matter of course--that the characteristics of our\ncivilization are such as to entitle it to the pre-eminence among all\nothers? Let us examine what are its peculiar excellencies. Thanks to the\nprodigious number of various elements that contributed to its formation,\nit has an eclectic character which none of its predecessors or\ncontemporaries possess. It unites and combines so many various qualities\nand faculties, that its progress is equally facile in all directions;\nand it has powers of analysis and generalization so great, that it can\nembrace and appropriate all things, and, what is more, apply them to\npractical purposes. In other words, it advances at once in a number of\ndifferent directions, and makes valuable conquests in all, but it cannot\nbe said that it advances at the same time _furthest_ in all. Variety,\nperhaps, rather than great intensity, is its characteristic. If we\ncompare its progress in any one direction with what has been done by\nothers in the same, we shall find that in few, indeed, can our\ncivilization claim pre-eminence. I shall select three of the most\nstriking features of every civilization; the art of government, the\nstate of the fine arts, and refinement of manners.\n\nIn the art of government, the civilization of Europe has arrived at no\npositive result. In this respect, it has been unable to assume a\ndefinite character. It has laid down no principles. In every country\nover which its dominion extends, it is subservient to the exigencies of\nthe various races which it has aggregated, but not united. In England,\nHolland, Naples, and Russia, political forms are still in a state of\ncomparative stability, because either the whole population, or the\ndominant portion of it, is composed of the same or homogeneous elements.\nBut everywhere else, especially in France, Central Italy, and Germany,\nwhere the ethnical diversity is boundless, governmental theories have\nnever risen to the dignity of recognized truth; political science\nconsisted in an endless series of experiments. Our civilization,\ntherefore, being unable to assume a definite political feature, is\ndevoid, in this respect, of that stability which I comprised as an\nessential feature in my definition of a civilization. This impotency is\nnot found in many other civilizations which we deem inferior. In the\nCelestial Empire, in the Buddhistic and Brahminical societies, the\npolitical feature of the civilization is clearly enounced, and clearly\nunderstood by each individual member. In matters of politics all think\nalike; under a wise administration, when the secular institutions\nproduce beneficent fruits, all rejoice; when in unskilled or malignant\nhands, they endanger the public welfare, it is a misfortune to be\nregretted as we regret our own faults; but no circumstance can abate\nthe respect and admiration with which they are regarded. It may be\ndesirable to correct abuses that have crept into them, but never to\nreplace them by others. It cannot be denied that these civilizations,\ntherefore, whatever we may think of them in other respects, enjoy a\nguarantee of durability, of longevity, in which ours is sadly wanting.\n\nWith regard to the arts, our civilization is decidedly inferior to\nothers. Whether we aim at the grand or the beautiful, we cannot rival\neither the imposing grandeur of the civilization of Egypt, of India, or\neven of the ancient American empires, nor the elegant beauty of that of\nGreece. Centuries hence--when the span of time allotted to us shall have\nbeen consumed, when our civilization, like all that preceded it, shall\nhave sunk in the dim shades of the past, and have become a matter of\ninquiry only to the historical student--some future traveller may wander\namong the forests and marshes on the banks of the Thames, the Seine, or\nthe Rhine, but he will find no glorious monuments of our grandeur; no\nsumptuous or gigantic ruins like those of Phil\u00e6, of Nineveh, of Athens,\nof Salsetta, or of Tenochtitlan. A remote posterity may venerate our\nmemory as their preceptors in exact sciences. They may admire our\ningenuity, our patience, the perfection to which we have carried\ninductive reasoning--not so our conquests in the regions of the\nabstract. In poesy we can bequeath them nothing. The boundless\nadmiration which we bestow upon the productions of foreign civilizations\nboth past and present, is a positive proof of our own inferiority in\nthis respect.[117]\n\nPerhaps the most striking features of a civilization, though not a true\nstandard of its merit, is the degree of refinement which it has\nattained. By refinement I mean all the luxuries and amenities of life,\nthe regulations of social intercourse, delicacy of habits and tastes. It\ncannot be denied that in all these we do not surpass, nor even equal,\nmany former as well as contemporaneous civilizations. We cannot rival\nthe magnificence of the latter days of Rome, or of the Byzantine empire;\nwe can but imagine the gorgeous luxury of Eastern civilizations; and in\nour own past history we find periods when the modes of living were more\nsumptuous, polished intercourse regulated by a higher and more exacting\nstandard, when taste was more cultivated, and habits more refined. It is\ntrue, that we are amply compensated by a greater and more general\ndiffusion of the comforts of life; but in its exterior manifestations,\nour civilization compares unfavorably with many others, and might almost\nbe called shabby.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nBefore concluding this digression upon civilization, which has already\nextended perhaps too far, it may not be unnecessary to reiterate the\nprincipal ideas which I wished to present to the mind of the reader. I\nhave endeavored to show that every civilization derives its peculiar\ncharacter from the race which gave the initiatory impulse. The\nalteration of this initiatory principle produces corresponding\nmodifications, and even total changes, in the character of the\ncivilization. Thus our civilization owes its origin to the Teutonic\nrace, whose leading characteristic was an elevated utilitarianism. But\nas these races ingrafted their mode of culture upon stocks essentially\ndifferent, the character of the civilization has been variously modified\naccording to the elements which it combined and amalgamated. The\ncivilization of a nation, therefore, exhibits the kind and degree of\ntheir capabilities. It is the mirror in which they reflect their\nindividuality.\n\nI shall now return to the natural order of my deductions, the series of\nwhich is yet far from being complete. I commenced by enouncing the truth\nthat the existence and annihilation of human societies depended upon\nimmutable and uniform laws. I have proved the insufficiency of\nadventitious circumstances to produce these phenomena, and have traced\ntheir causes to the various capabilities of different human groups; in\nother words, to the moral and intellectual diversity of races. Logic,\nthen, demands that I should determine the meaning and bearing of the\nword race, and this will be the object of the next chapter.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[102] See a quotation from De Tocqueville to the same effect, p. 77.\n\n[103] One striking observation, in connection with this fact, Mr.\nGobineau has omitted to make, probably not because it escaped his\nsagacity, but because he is himself a Roman Catholic. Wherever the\nTeutonic element in the population is predominant, as in Denmark,\nSweden, Holland, England, Scotland, Northern Germany, and the United\nStates, Protestantism prevails; wherever, on the contrary, the Germanic\nelement is subordinate, as in portions of Ireland, in South America, and\nthe South of Europe, Roman Catholicism finds an impregnable fortress in\nthe hearts of the people. An ethnographical chart, carefully made out,\nwould indicate the boundaries of each in Christendom. I do not here mean\nto assert that the Christian religion is accessible only to certain\nraces, having already emphatically expressed my opinion to the contrary.\nI feel firmly convinced that a Roman Catholic may be as good and pious a\nChristian as a member of any other Christian Church whatever, but I see\nin this fact the demonstration of that leading characteristic of the\nGermanic races--independence of thought, which incites them to seek for\ntruth, even in religion, for themselves; to investigate everything, and\ntake nothing upon trust.\n\nI have, moreover, in favor of my position, the high authority of Mr.\nMacaulay: \"The Reformation,\" says that distinguished essayist and\nhistorian, \"was a national as well as a moral revolt. It had been not\nonly an insurrection of the laity against the clergy, but _also an\ninsurrection of the great German race against an alien domination_. It\nis a most significant circumstance, that no large society of which the\ntongue is not Teutonic, has ever turned Protestant, and that, wherever a\nlanguage derived from ancient Rome is spoken, the religion of modern\nRome to this day prevails.\" (_Hist. of England_, vol. i. p. 53.)--H.\n\n[104] Thus Sparta and Athens, respectively, stood at the head of the\noligarchic and democratic parties, and the alternate preponderance of\neither of the two often inundated each state with blood. Yet Sparta and\nAthens, and the partisans of each in every state, possessed the spirit\nof liberty and independence in an equal degree. Themistocles and\nAristides, the two great party leaders of Athens, vied with each other\nin patriotism.\n\nThis uniformity of general views and purpose, Mr. De Tocqueville found\nin the United States, and he correctly deduces from it the conclusion\nthat \"though the citizens are divided into 24 (31) distinct\nsovereignties, they, nevertheless, constitute a single nation, and form\nmore truly a state of society, than many peoples of Europe, living under\nthe same legislation, and the same prince.\" (Vol. i. p. 425.) This is an\nobservation which Europeans make last, because they do not find it at\nhome; and in return, it prevents the American from acquiring a clear\nconception of the state of Europe, because he thinks the disputes there\ninvolve no deeper questions than the disputes around him. In certain\nfundamental principles, all Americans agree, to whatever party they may\nbelong; certain general characteristics belong to them all, whatever be\nthe differences of taste, and individual preferences; it is not so in\nEurope--England, perhaps, excepted, and Sweden and Denmark. But I will\nnot anticipate the author.--H.\n\n[105] It is well known that, in both Greece and Rome, the education of\nthe children of wealthy families was very generally intrusted to slaves.\nSome of the greatest philosophers of ancient Greece were bondsmen.--H.\n\n[106] China has no hereditary nobility. The class of mandarins is\ncomposed of those who have received diplomas in the great colleges with\nwhich the country abounds. A decree of the Emperor JIN-TSOUNG, who\nreigned from 1023 to 1063, regulated the modes of examination, to which\nall, indiscriminately, are admitted. The candidates are examined more\nthan once, and every precaution is taken to prevent frauds. Thus, the\nson of the poorest peasant may become a mandarin, but, as he afterwards\nis dependent on the emperor for office or employment, this dignity is\noften of but little practical value. Still, there are numerous instances\non record, in the history of China, of men who have risen from the\nlowest ranks to the first offices of the State, and even to the imperial\ndignity. (See _Pauthier's Histoire de la Chine_.)--H.\n\n[107] John F. Davis, _The Chinese_. London, 1840, p. 274. \"Three or four\nvolumes of any ordinary work of the octavo size and shape, may be had\nfor a sum equivalent to two shillings. A Canton bookseller's manuscript\ncatalogue marked the price of the four books of Confucius, including the\ncommentary, at a price rather under half a crown. The cheapness of their\ncommon literature is occasioned partly by the mode of printing, but\npartly also by the low price of paper.\"\n\nThese are Canton prices; in the interior of the empire, books are still\ncheaper, even in proportion to the value of money in China. Their\nclassic works are sold at a proportionably lower price than the very\nrefuse of our literature. A pamphlet, or small tale, may be bought for a\nsapeck, about the seventeenth part of a cent; an ordinary novel, for a\nlittle more or less than one cent.--H.\n\n[108] There are certain offences for which the punishment is remitted,\nif the culprit is able to explain lucidly the nature and object of the\nlaw respecting them. (See _Huc's Trav. in China_, vol. ii. p. 252.) In\nthe same place, Mr. Huc bears witness to the correctness of our author's\nassertion. \"Measures are taken,\" says he, \"not only to enable the\nmagistrates to understand perfectly the laws they are called upon to\napply, but also to diffuse a knowledge of them among the people at\nlarge. All persons in the employment of the government, are ordered to\nmake the code their particular study; and a special enactment provides,\nthat at certain periods, all officers, in all localities, shall be\nexamined upon their knowledge of the laws by their respective superiors;\nand if their answers are not satisfactory, they are punished, the high\nofficials by the retention of a month's pay; the inferior ones by forty\nstrokes of the bamboo.\" It must not be imagined that Mr. Huc speaks of\nthe Chinese in the spirit of a panegyrist. Any one who reads this highly\ninstructive and amusing book (now accessible to English readers by a\ntranslation), will soon be convinced of the contrary. He seldom speaks\nof them to praise them.--H.\n\n[109] Op. cit., p. 100.\n\n[110] The reader will remember that DIOCLETIAN, who, the son of a slave,\nrose from the rank of a common soldier, to the throne of the empire of\nthe world, associated with himself in the government, his friend\nMAXIMIAN, A. D. 286. After six years of this joint reign, they took two\nother partners, GALERIUS and CONSTANTIUS. Thus, the empire, though\nnominally one sovereignty, had in reality four supreme heads. Under\nConstantine the Great, the imperial unity was restored; but at his\ndecease, the purple was again parcelled out among his sons and nephews.\nA permanent division of the empire, however, was not effected until the\ndeath of Theodosius the Great, who for sixteen years had enjoyed\nundivided power.\n\n[111] It is not universally known that the various populations of France\ndiffer, not only in character, but in physical appearance. The native of\nthe southern departments is easily known from the native of the central\nand northern. The average stature in the north is said to be an inch and\na half more than in the south. This difference is easily perceptible in\nthe regiments drawn from either.--H.\n\n[112] Many of these patois bear but little resemblance to the French\nlanguage: the inhabitants of the Landes, for example, speak a tongue of\ntheir own, which, I believe, has roots entirely different. For the most\npart, they are unintelligible to those who have not studied them. Over a\nmillion and a half of the population of France speak German or German\ndialects.--H.\n\n[113] Mr. Gobineau's remarks apply with equal, and, in some cases, with\ngreater force, to other portions of Europe, as I had myself ample means\nfor observing. I have always considered the character of the European\npeasantry as the most difficult problem in the social system of those\ncountries. Institutions cannot in all cases account for it. In Germany,\nfor instance, education is general and even compulsory: I have never met\na man under thirty that could not read and write. Yet, each place has\nits local _patois_, which no rustic abandons, for it would be deemed by\nhis companions a most insufferable affectation. I have heard ministers\nin the pulpit use local dialects, of which there are over five hundred\nin Germany alone, and most of them widely different. Together with their\n_patois_, the rustics preserve their local costumes, which mostly date\nfrom the Middle Ages. But the peculiarity of their manners, customs, and\nmodes of thinking, is still more striking. Their superstitions are often\nof the darkest, and, at best, of the most pitiable nature. I have seen\nhundreds of poor creatures, males and females, on their pilgrimage to\nsome far distant shrine in expiation of their own sins or those of\nothers who pay them to go in their place. On these expeditions they\nstart in great numbers, chanting _Aves_ on the way the whole day long,\nso that you can hear a large band of them for miles. Each carries a bag\non the back or head, containing their whole stock of provisions for a\njourney of generally from one to two weeks. At night, they sleep in\nbarns, or on stacks of hay in the fields. If you converse with them, you\nwill find them imbued with superstitions absolutely idolatrous. Yet they\nall know how to read and write. The perfect isolation in which these\ncreatures live from the world, despite that knowledge, is altogether\ninconceivable to an American. As Mr. Gobineau says of the French\npeasants, they believe themselves a distinct race. There is little or no\ndiscontent among them; the revolutionary fire finds but scanty fuel\namong these rural populations. But they look upon those who govern and\nmake the laws as upon different beings, created especially for that\npurpose; the principles which regulate their private conduct, the whole\nsphere of their ideas, are peculiar to themselves. In one word, they\nform, not a class, but a caste, with lines of demarcation as clearly\ndefined as the castes of India. I have said before that this is not from\nwant of education; nor can any other explanation of the mystery be\nfound. It is not poverty, for among these rustics there are many wealthy\npeople, and, in general, they are not so poor as the lower classes in\ncities. Nor do the laws restrain them within the limits of a caste. In\nGermany, hereditary aristocracy is almost obsolete. The ranks of the\nactual aristocracy are daily recruited from the burgher classes. The\nhighest offices of the various states are often found in possession of\nuntitled men, or men with newly created titles. The colleges and\nuniversities are open to all, and great facilities are afforded even to\nthe poorest. Yet these differences between various parts of the\npopulation remain, and this generally in those localities which the\nethnographer describes as strongly tinctured with non-Teutonic\nelements.--H.\n\n[114] A nurse from Tours had put a bird into the hands of her little\nward, and was teaching him to pull out the feathers and wings of the\npoor creature. When the parents reproached her for giving him this\nlesson of wickedness, she answered: \"C'est pour le rendre _fier_.\"--(It\nis to make him fierce or high-spirited.) This answer of 1847 is in\nstrict accordance with the most approved maxims of education of the\nnurse's ancestors in the times of Vercingetorix.\n\n[115] A few years ago, a church-warden was to be elected in a very small\nand very obscure parish of French Brittany, that part of the former\nprovince which the real Britons used to call the _pays Gallais_, or\nGallic land. The electors, who were all peasants, deliberated two days\nwithout being able to agree upon a selection, because the candidate, a\nvery honest, wealthy, and highly respected man and a good Christian, was\na _foreigner_. Now, this _foreigner_ was born in the locality, and his\nfather had resided there before him, and had also been born there, but\nit was recollected that his grandfather, who had been dead many years,\nand whom no one in the assembly had known, came from somewhere else.\n\n[116] This is no exaggeration, as every one acquainted with French\nhistory knows. In the great revolution of the last century, the\npeasantry of France took no interest and no part. In the Vend\u00e9e, indeed,\nthey fought, and fought bravely, for the ancient forms, their king, and\ntheir feudatory lords. Everywhere else, the rural districts remained in\nperfect apathy. The revolutions since then have been decided in Paris.\nThe _\u00e9meutes_ seldom extended beyond the walls of the great cities. It\nis a well-known fact, that in many of the rural districts, the peasants\ndid not hear of the expulsion of the Bourbon dynasty, until years\nafterwards, and even then had no conception of the nature of the change.\nBourbon, Orleans, Republic, are words, to them, of no definite meaning.\nThe only name that can rouse them from their apathy, is \"Napoleon.\" At\nthat sound, the Gallic heart thrills with enthusiasm and thirst for\nglory. Hence the unparalleled success with which the present emperor has\nappealed to universal suffrage.--H.\n\n[117] It is not generally appreciated how much we are indebted to\nOriental civilizations for our lighter and more graceful literature. Our\nfirst works of fiction were translations or paraphrases of Eastern tales\nintroduced into Western Europe by the returning crusaders. The songs of\nthe troubadour, the many-tomed romances of the Middle Ages--those\nponderous sires of modern novels--all emanated from that source. The\nworks of Dante, Tasso, Ariosto, Boccacio, and nearer home, of Chaucer\nand Spenser, are incontestable proofs of this fact. Even Milton himself\ndrew from the inexhaustible stores of Eastern legends and romances. Our\nfairy tales, and almost all of our most graceful lyric poesy, that is\nnot borrowed from Greece, is of Persian origin. Almost every popular\npoet of England and the continent has invoked the Oriental muse, none\nmore successfully than Southey and Moore. It would be useless to allude\nto the immense popularity of acknowledged versions of Oriental\nliterature, such as the _Thousand and One Nights_, the Apologues,\nAllegories, &c. What we do not owe to the East, we have taken from the\nGreeks. Even to this day, Grecian mythology is the never-failing\nresource of the lyric poet, and so familiar has that graceful imagery\nbecome to us, that we introduce it, often _mal-\u00e0-propos_, even in our\ncolloquial language.\n\nIn metaphysics, also, we have confessedly done little more than revive\nthe labors of the Greeks.--H.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER X.\n\nQUESTION OF UNITY OR PLURALITY OF SPECIES.\n\n  Systems of Camper, Blumenbach, Morton, Carus--Investigations of Owen,\n    Vrolik, Weber--Prolificness of hybrids, the great scientific\n    stronghold of the advocates of unity of species.\n\n\nIt will be necessary to determine first the physiological bearing of the\nword _race_.\n\nIn the opinion of many scientific observers, who judge from the first\nimpression, and take extremes[118] as the basis of their reasoning, the\ngroups of the human family are distinguished by differences so radical\nand essential, that it is impossible to believe them all derived from\nthe same stock. They, therefore, suppose several other genealogies\nbesides that of Adam and Eve. According to this doctrine, instead of but\none species in the genus _homo_, there would be three, four, or even\nmore, entirely distinct ones, whose commingling would produce what the\nnaturalists call _hybrids_.\n\nGeneral conviction is easily secured in favor of this theory, by placing\nbefore the eyes of the observer instances of obvious and striking\ndissimilarities among the various groups. The critic who has before him\na human subject with a skin of olive-yellow; black, straight, and thin\nhair; little, if any beard, eyebrows, and eyelashes; a broad and\nflattened face, with features not very distinct; the space between the\neyes broad and flat; the orbits large and open; the nose flattened; the\ncheeks high and prominent; the opening of the eyelids narrow, linear,\nand oblique, the inner angle the lowest; the ears and lips large; the\nforehead low and slanting, allowing a considerable portion of the face\nto be seen when viewed from above; the head of somewhat a pyramidal\nform; the limbs clumsy; the stature humble; the whole conformation\nbetraying a marked tendency to obesity:[119] the critic who examines\nthis specimen of humanity, at once recognizes a well characterized and\nclearly defined type, the principal features of which will readily be\nimprinted in his memory.\n\nLet us suppose him now to examine another individual: a negro, from the\nwestern coast of Africa. This specimen is of large size, and vigorous\nappearance. The color is a jetty black, the hair crisp, generally called\n_woolly_; the eyes are prominent, and the orbits large; the nose thick,\nflat, and confounded with the prominent cheeks; the lips very thick and\neverted; the jaws projecting, and the chin receding; the skull assuming\nthe form called prognathous. The low forehead and muzzle-like elongation\nof the jaws, give to the whole being an almost animal appearance, which\nis heightened by the large and powerful lower-jaw, the ample provision\nfor muscular insertions, the greater size of cavities destined for the\nreception of the organs of smell and sight, the length of the forearm\ncompared with the arm, the narrow and tapering fingers, etc. \"In the\nnegro, the bones of the leg are bent outwards; the tibia and fibula are\nmore convex in front than in the European; the calves of the legs are\nvery high, so as to encroach upon the hams; the feet and hand, but\nparticularly the former, are flat; the os calcis, instead of being\narched, is continued nearly in a straight line with the other bones of\nthe foot, which is remarkably broad.\"[120]\n\nIn contemplating a human being so formed, we are involuntarily reminded\nof the structure of the ape, and we feel almost inclined to admit that\nthe tribes of Western Africa are descended from a stock which bears but\na slight and general resemblance to that of the Mongolian family.\n\nBut there are some groups, whose aspect is even less flattering to the\nself-love of humanity than that of the Congo. It is the peculiar\ndistinction of Oceanica to furnish about the most degraded and repulsive\nof those wretched beings, who seem to occupy a sort of intermediate\nstation between man and the mere brute. Many of the groups of that\nlatest-discovered world, by the excessive leanness and starveling\ndevelopment of their limbs;[121] the disproportionate size of their\nheads; the excessive, hopeless stupidity stamped upon their\ncountenances; present an aspect so hideous and disgusting,\nthat--contrasted with them--even the negro of Western Africa gains in\nour estimation, and seems to claim a less ignoble descent than they.\n\nWe are still more tempted to adopt the conclusions of the advocates for\nthe plurality of species, when, after having examined types taken from\nevery quarter of the globe, we return to the inhabitants of Europe and\nSouthern and Western Asia. How vast a superiority these exhibit in\nbeauty, correctness of proportion, and regularity of features! It is\nthey who enjoy the honor of having furnished the living models for the\nunrivalled masterpieces of ancient sculpture. But even among these races\nthere has existed, since the remotest times, a gradation of beauty, at\nthe head of which the European may justly be placed, as well for\nsymmetry of limbs as for vigorous muscular development. Nothing, then,\nwould appear more reasonable than to pronounce the different types of\nmankind as foreign to each other as are animals of different species.\n\nSuch, indeed, was the conclusion arrived at by those who first\nsystematized their observations, and attempted to establish a\nclassification; and so far as this classification depended upon general\nfacts, it seemed incontestable.\n\n_Camper_ took the lead. He was not content with deciding upon merely\nsuperficial appearances, but wished to rest his demonstrations upon a\nmathematical basis, by defining, anatomically, the distinguishing\ncharacteristics of different types. If he succeeded in this, he would\nthereby establish a strict and logical method of treating the subject,\npreclude all doubt, and give to his opinions that rigorous precision\nwithout which there is no true science. I borrow from Mr. Prichard,[122]\nCamper's own account of his method. \"The basis on which the distinction\nof nations[123] is founded, says he, may be displayed by two straight\nlines; one of which is to be drawn through the _meatus auditorius_ (the\nexternal entrance of the ear) to the base of the nose; and the other\ntouching the prominent centre of the forehead, and falling thence on the\nmost prominent part of the upper jaw-bone, the head being viewed in\nprofile. In the angle produced by these two lines, may be said to\nconsist, not only the distinctions between the skulls of the several\nspecies of animals, but also those which are found to exist between\ndifferent nations; and it might be concluded that nature has availed\nherself of this angle to mark out the diversities of the animal kingdom,\nand at the same time to establish a scale from the inferior tribes up to\nthe most beautiful forms which are found in the human species. Thus it\nwill be found that the heads of birds display the smallest angle, and\nthat it always becomes of greater extent as the animal approaches more\nnearly to the human figure. Thus, there is one species of the ape tribe,\nin which the head has a facial angle of forty-two degrees; in another\nanimal of the same family, which is one of those simi\u00e6 most\napproximating in figure to mankind, the facial angle contains exactly\nfifty degrees. Next to this is the head of an African negro, which, as\nwell as that of the Kalmuc, forms an angle of seventy degrees; while the\nangle discovered in the heads of Europeans contains eighty degrees. On\nthis difference of ten degrees in the facial angle, the superior beauty\nof the European depends; while that high character of sublime beauty,\nwhich is so striking in some works of ancient statuary, as in the head\nof Apollo, and in the Medusa of Sisocles, is given by an angle which\namounts to one hundred degrees.\"\n\nThis method was seductive from its exceeding simplicity. Unfortunately,\nfacts were against it, as happens to a good many theories. The curious\nand interesting discoveries of Prof. Owen have proved beyond dispute,\nthat Camper, as well as other anatomists since him, founded all their\nobservations on orangs of immature age, and that, while the jaws become\nenlarged, and lengthened with the increase of the maxillary apparatus,\nand the zygomatic arch is extended, no corresponding increase of the\nbrain takes place. The importance of this difference of age, with\nrespect to the facial angle, is very great in the simi\u00e6. Thus, while\nCamper, measuring the skull of young apes, has found the facial angle\neven as much as sixty-four degrees; in reality, it never exceeds, in the\nmost favored specimen, from thirty to thirty-five. Between this figure\nand the seventy degrees of the negro and Kalmuc, there is too wide a gap\nto admit of the possibility of Camper's ascending series.\n\nThe advocates of phrenological science eagerly espoused the theory of\nthe Dutch _savant_. They imagined that they could detect a development\nof instincts corresponding to the rank which the animal occupied in his\nscale. But even here facts were against them. It was objected that the\nelephant--not to mention numerous other instances--whose intelligence\nis incontestably superior to that of the orang, presents a much more\nacute facial angle than the latter. Even among the ape tribes, the most\nintelligent, those most susceptible of education, are by no means the\nhighest in Camper's scale.\n\nBesides these great defects, the theory possessed another very weak\npoint. It did not apply to all the varieties of the human species. The\nraces with pyramidal skulls found no place in it. Yet this is a\nsufficiently striking characteristic.\n\nCamper's theory being refuted, _Blumenbach_ proposed another system. He\ncalled his invention _norma verticalis_, the vertical method. According\nto him,[124] the comparison of the breadth of the head, particularly of\nthe vertex, points out the principal and most strongly marked\ndifferences in the general configuration of the cranium. He adds that\nthe whole cranium is susceptible of so many varieties in its form, the\nparts which contribute more or less to determine the national character\ndisplaying such different proportions and directions, that it is\nimpossible to subject all these diversities to the measurement of any\nlines and angles. In comparing and arranging skulls according to the\nvarieties in their shape, it is preferable to survey them in that method\nwhich presents at one view the greatest number of characteristic\npeculiarities. \"The best way of obtaining this end is to place a series\nof skulls, with the cheek-bones on the same horizontal line, resting on\nthe lower jaws, and then, viewing them from behind, and fixing the eye\non the vertex of each, to mark all the varieties in the shape of parts\nthat contribute most to the national character, whether they consist in\nthe direction of the maxillary and malar bones, in the breadth or\nnarrowness of the oval figure presented by the vertex, or in the\nflattened or vaulted form of the frontal bone.\"\n\nThe results which Blumenbach deduced from this method, were a division\nof mankind into five grand categories, each of which was again\nsubdivided into a variety of families and types.\n\nThis classification, also, is liable to many objections. Like Camper's,\nit left out several important characteristics. _Owen_ supposed that\nthese objections might be obviated by measuring the basis of the skull\ninstead of the summit. \"The relative proportions and extent,\" says\nPrichard, \"and the peculiarities of formation of the different parts of\nthe cranium, are more fully discovered by this mode of comparison, than\nby any other.\" One of the most important results of this method was the\ndiscovery of a line of demarcation between man and the anthropoid apes,\nso distinct, and clearly drawn, that it becomes thenceforward impossible\nto find between the two genera the connecting link which Camper supposed\nto exist. It is, indeed, sufficient to cast one glance at the bases of\ntwo skulls, one human, and the other that of an orang, to perceive\nessential and decisive differences. The antero-posterior diameter of the\nbasis of the skull is, in the orang, very much longer than in man. The\nzygoma is situated in the middle region of the skull, instead of being\nincluded, as in all races of men, and even human idiots, in the anterior\nhalf of the basis cranii; and it occupies in the basis just one-third\npart of the entire length of its diameter. Moreover, the position of the\ngreat occipital foramen is very different in the two skulls; and this\nfeature is very important, on account of its relations to the general\ncharacter of structure, and its influence on the habits of the whole\nbeing. This foramen, in the human head, is very near the middle of the\nbasis of the skull, or, rather, it is situated immediately behind the\nmiddle transverse diameter; while, in the adult chimpantsi, it is\nplaced in the middle of the posterior third part of the basis\ncranii.[125]\n\nOwen certainly deserves great credit for his observations, but I should\nprefer the most recent, as well as ingenious, of cranioscopic systems,\nthat of the learned American, Dr. Morton, which has been adopted by Mr.\nCarus.[126]\n\nThe substance of this theory is, that individuals are superior in\nintellect in proportion as their skulls are larger.[127] Taking this as\nthe general rule, Dr. Morton and Mr. Carus proceed thereby to\ndemonstrate the difference of races. The question to be decided is,\nwhether all types of the human race have the same craniological\ndevelopment.\n\nTo elucidate this fact, Dr. Morton took a certain number of skulls,\nbelonging to the four principal human families--Whites, Mongolians,\nNegroes, and North American Indians--and, after carefully closing every\naperture, except the _foramen magnum_, he measured their capacity by\nfilling them with well dried grains of pepper. The results of this\nmeasurement are exhibited in the subjoined table.[128]\n\n  -------------------------+-----------+----------+----------+----------\n                           |  Number   |          |          |\n                           | of skulls | Average  | Maximum. | Minimum.\n                           | measured. | capacity.|          |\n  -------------------------|-----------|----------|----------|----------\n   White races             |     52    |     87   |    109   |    75\n   Yellow races {Mongolians|     10    |     83   |     93   |    69\n                {Malays    |     18    |     81   |     89   |    64\n   Copper-colored races    |    147    |     82   |    100   |    60\n   Negroes                 |     29    |     78   |     94   |    65\n  -------------------------+-----------+----------+----------+----------\n\nThe results given in the first two columns are certainly very curious,\nbut to those in the last two I attach little value. These two columns,\ngiving the maximum and minimum capacities, differ so greatly from the\nsecond, which shows the average, that they could be of weight only if\nMr. Morton had experimented upon a much greater number of skulls, and if\nhe had specified the social position of the individuals to whom they\nbelonged. Thus, for his specimens of the white and copper-colored races,\nhe might select skulls that had belonged to individuals rather above the\ncommon herd.[129] But the Blacks and Mongolians were not represented by\nthe skulls of their great chiefs and mandarins. This explains why Dr.\nMorton could ascribe the figure 100 to an aboriginal of America, while\nthe most intelligent Mongolian that he examined did not exceed 93, and\nis surpassed even by the negro, who reaches 94. Such results are\nentirely incomplete, fortuitous, and of no scientific value. In\nquestions of this kind, too much care cannot be taken to reject\nconclusions which are based upon the examination of individualities. I\nam, therefore, unable to accept the second half of Dr. Morton's\ncalculations.\n\nI am also disposed to doubt one of the details in the other half. The\nfigures 100, 83, and 78, respectively indicating the average capacity of\nthe skull of the white, Mongolian, and negro, follow a clear and evident\ngradation. But the figures 83, 81, and 82, given for the Mongol, the\nMalay, and the red-skin, are conflicting; the more so, as Mr. Carus does\nnot hesitate to comprise the Mongols and Malays into one and the same\nrace, and thus unites the figures 83 and 81--by which he receives, as\nthe average capacity of the yellow race, 82, or the same as that of the\nred-skins. Wherefore, then, take the figure 82 as the characteristic of\na distinct race, and thus create, quite arbitrarily, a fourth great\nsubdivision of our species.\n\nThis anomaly supports the weak side of Mr. Carus's system. The learned\nSaxon amuses himself by supposing that, just as we see our planet pass\nthrough the four stages of day, night, morning twilight, and evening\ntwilight, so there _must_ be four subdivisions of the human species,\ncorresponding to these variations of light. He perceives in this a\nsymbol,[130] which is always a dangerous temptation to a mind of refined\nsusceptibilities. The white races are to him the nations of day; the\nblack, those of night; the yellow, those of morning; the red, those of\nevening. It will be perceived how many ingenious analogies may be\nbrought forward in support of this fanciful invention. Thus, the\nEuropean nations, by the brilliancy of their scientific discoveries and\ntheir superior civilization, are in an enlightened state, while the\nblacks are plunged in the gloomy darkness of ignorance. The Eastern\nnations live in a sort of twilight, which affords them an incomplete,\nthough powerful, social existence. And as for the Indians of the Western\nWorld, who are rapidly disappearing, what more beautiful image of their\ndestiny can be found than the setting sun?\n\nUnfortunately, parables are no arguments, and Mr. Carus has somewhat\ninjured his beautiful theory by unduly abandoning himself to this\npoetical current. Moreover, what I have said with regard to all other\nethnological theories--those of Camper, Blumenbach, and Owen--holds good\nof this: Mr. Carus does not succeed in systematizing regularly the\nwhole of the physiological diversities observable in races.[131]\n\nThe advocates for unity of species have not failed to take advantage of\nthis inability on the part of their opponents to find a system which\nwill include the many varieties of the human family; and they pretend\nthat, as the observations upon the conformation of the skull cannot be\nreduced to a system which demonstrates the original separation of types,\nthe different varieties must be regarded as simple divergencies\noccasioned by adventitious and secondary causes, and which do not prove\na difference of origin.\n\nThis is crying victory too soon. The difficulty of finding a method does\nnot always prove that none can be found. But the believers in the unity\nof species did not admit this reserve. To set off their theory, they\npoint to the fact that certain tribes, belonging to the same race,\ninstead of presenting the same physical type, diverge from it very\nconsiderably. They cite the different groups of the mixed\nMalay-Polynesian family; and, without paying attention to the proportion\nof the elements which compose the mixtures, they say that if groups of\nthe same origin can assume such totally different craniological and\nfacial forms, the greatest diversities of that kind do not prove the\nprimary plurality of origins.[132] Strange as it may be to European\neyes, the distinct types of the negro and the Mongolian are not then\ndemonstrative of difference of species; and the differences among the\nhuman family must be ascribed simply to certain local causes operating\nduring a greater or less lapse of time.[133]\n\nThe advocates for the plurality of races, being met with so many\nobjections, good as well as bad, have attempted to enlarge the circle of\ntheir arguments, and, ceasing to make the skull their only study, have\nproceeded to the examination of the entire individual. They have rightly\nshown that the differences do not exist merely in the aspect of the face\nand formation of the skull, but, what is no less important, they exist\nalso in the shape of the pelvis, the relative proportion of the limbs,\nand the nature of the pilous system.\n\nCamper and other naturalists had long since perceived that the pelvis of\nthe negro presented certain peculiarities. Dr. Vrolik extended his\nresearches further, and observed that in the European race the\ndifferences between the male and female pelvis are much less distinctly\nmarked, while the pelvis of the negro, of either sex, partakes in a very\nstriking degree of the animal character. The Amsterdam _savant_,\nstarting from the idea that the formation of the pelvis necessarily\ninfluences that of the foetus, concludes that there must be difference\nof origin.[134]\n\nMr. Weber has attacked this theory with but little success. He was\nobliged to allow that certain formations of the pelvis occur more\nfrequently in one race than in another; and all he could do, was to show\nthat the rule is not without exceptions, and that some individuals of\nthe American, African, or Mongol race presented the forms common among\nthe European. This is not proving a great deal, especially as it never\nseems to have occurred to Mr. Weber that these exceptions might be owing\nto a mixture of blood.\n\nThe adversaries of the unity doctrine pretend that the European is\nbetter proportioned. They are answered that the excessive leanness of\nthe extremities among those nations which subsist principally on\nvegetable diet, or whose alimentation is imperfect, is not at all\nsurprising; and this reply is certainly valid. But a much less\nconclusive reply is made to the argument drawn from the excessive\ndevelopment of bust among the mountaineers of Peru (Quichuas) by those\nwho are unwilling to recognize it as a specific characteristic; for to\npretend, as they do, that it can be explained by the elevation of the\nAndes, is not advancing a very serious reason.[135] There are in the\nworld many mountain populations who are constituted very differently\nfrom the Quichuas.[136]\n\nThe color of the skin is another argument for diversity of origin. But\nthe opposite party refuse to accept this as a specific characteristic,\nfor two reasons: first, because, they say, this coloration depends upon\nclimatic circumstances, and is not permanent--which is, to say the least\nof it, a very bold assertion; secondly, because color is liable to\nindefinite gradations, by which white insensibly passes into yellow,\nyellow into black, so that it is impossible to find a line of\ndemarcation sufficiently decided. This fact simply proves the existence\nof innumerable hybrids; an observation to which the advocates for unity\nare constantly inattentive.\n\nWith regard to the specific differences in the formation of the pile,\nMr. Flourens brings his great authority in favor of the original unity\nof race.[137]\n\nI have now passed rapidly in review the more or less inconsistent\narguments of the advocates of unity; but their strongest one still\nremains. It is of great force, and I therefore reserved it for the\nlast--the facility with which the different branches of the human family\nproduce hybrids, and the fecundity of these hybrids themselves.\n\nThe observations of naturalists seem to have well established the fact\nthat half-breeds can spring only from nearly related species, and that\neven in that case they are condemned to sterility. It has been further\nobserved that, even among closely allied species, where fecundation is\npossible, copulation is repugnant, and obtained, generally, either by\nforce or ruse, which would lead us to suppose that, in a state of\nnature, the number of hybrids is even more limited than that obtained by\nthe intervention of man. It has, therefore, been concluded that, among\nthe number of specific characteristics, we must place the faculty of\nproducing prolific offspring.\n\nAs nothing authorizes us to believe that the human race are exempt from\nthis law, so nothing has hitherto been able to shake the strength of\nthis objection,[138] which, more than all the others, holds the\nadvocates for plurality in check. It is, indeed, affirmed that, in\ncertain portions of Oceanica, indigenous women, after having brought\nforth a half-breed European child, can no longer be fecundated by\ncompatriots. If this assertion be admitted as correct, it might serve as\na starting point for further investigations; but at present it could not\nbe used to invalidate the admitted principles of science upon the\ngeneration of hybrids--against the deductions drawn from these it proves\nnothing.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[118] M. Flourens, _Eloge de Blumenbach, M\u00e9moires de l'Acad\u00e9mie des\nSciences_. Paris, 1847, p. xiii. This _savant_ justly protests against\nsuch a method.\n\n[119] For the description of types in this and other portions of this\nchapter, I am indebted to\n\nM. WILLIAM LAWRENCE, _Lect. on the Nat. Hist. of Man_. London, 1844. But\nespecially to the learned\n\nJAMES COWLES PRICHARD, _Nat. Hist. of Man_. London, 1848.\n\n[120] Prichard, _op. cit._, p. 129.\n\n[121] It is impossible to conceive an idea of the scarce human form of\nthese creatures, without the aid of pictorial representations. In\nPrichard's _Natural History of Man_ will be found a plate (No. 23, p.\n355) from M. d'Urville's atlas, which may assist the reader in gaining\nan idea of the utmost hideousness that the human form is capable of. I\ncannot but believe that the picture there given is considerably\nexaggerated, but with all due allowance in this respect, enough ugliness\nwill be left to make us almost ashamed to recognize these beings as\nbelonging to our kind.--H.\n\n[122] _Op. cit._, p. 111.\n\n[123] It will be observed that Prichard and Camper, and further on\nBlumenbach, here use the word _nation_ as synonymous to _race_. See my\nintroduction, p. 65.--H.\n\n[124] Prichard, _op. cit._, p. 115.\n\n[125] _Op. cit._, p. 117.\n\n[126] Carus, _Ueber ungleiche Bef\u00e4higung_, etc., p. 19.\n\n[127] _Op. cit._, p. 20.\n\n[128] As Mr. Gobineau has taken the facts presented by Dr. Morton at\nsecond hand, and, moreover, had not before him Dr. Morton's later tables\nand more matured deductions, Dr. Nott has given an abstract of the\nresult arrived at by the learned craniologist, as published by himself\nin 1849. This abstract, and the valuable comments of Dr. Nott himself,\nwill be found in the Appendix, under A.--H.\n\n[129] I fear that our author has here fallen into an error which his own\nfacts disprove, and which is still everywhere received without\nexamination, viz: that cultivation can change the form or size of the\nhead, either of individuals or races; an opinion, in support of which,\nno facts whatever can be adduced. The heads of the barbarous races of\nEurope were precisely the same as those of civilized Europe in our day;\nthis is proven by the disinterred crania of ancient races, and by other\nfacts. Nor do we see around us among the uneducated, heads inferior in\nform and size to those of the more privileged classes. Does any one\npretend that the nobility of England, which has been an educated class\nfor centuries, have larger heads, or more intelligence than the ignoble?\nOn the contrary, does not most of the talent of England spring up from\nplebeian ranks? Wherever civilization has been brought to a population\nof the white race, they have accepted it at once--their heads required\nno development. Where, on the contrary, it has been carried to Negroes,\nMongols, and Indians, they have rejected it. Egyptians and Hindoos have\nsmall heads, but we know little of the early history of their\ncivilization. Egyptian monuments prove that the early people and\nlanguage of Egypt were strongly impregnated with Semitic elements.\nLatham has shown that the Sanscrit language was carried _from_ Europe to\nIndia, and probably civilization with it.\n\nI have looked in vain for twenty years for evidence to prove that\ncultivation could enlarge a _brain_, while it expands the mind. The head\nof a boy at twelve is as large as it ever is.--N.\n\n[130] Carus, _op. cit._, p. 12.\n\n[131] There are some very slight ones, which nevertheless are very\ncharacteristic. Among this number I would class a certain enlargement on\neach side of the lower lip, which is found among the English and\nGermans. I find this indication of Germanic origin in several paintings\nof the Flemish school, in the _Madonna_ of Rubens, in the museum of\nDresden, in the _Satyrs_ and _Nymphs_ of the same collection, in a\n_Lute-player_ of Mi\u00e9ris, etc. No cranioscopic method whatever could\nembrace such details, which, however, are not without value in the great\nmixture of races which Europe presents.\n\n[132] Prichard, _op. cit._, p. 329.\n\n[133] Job Ludolf, whose facilities of observation must necessarily have\nbeen very defective when compared with those we enjoy at the present\nday, nevertheless combats in very forcible language, and with\narguments--so far as concerns the negro--invincible, the opinion here\nadopted by Mr. Prichard. I cannot refrain from quoting him in this\nplace, not for any novelty contained in his arguments, but to show their\nvery antiquity: \"De nigredine \u00c6thiopum hic agere nostri non\nest instituti, plerique ardoribus solis atqu\u00e6 zon\u00e6 torrid\u00e6 id tribuant.\nVerum etiam intra solis orbitam populi dantur, si non plane albi, saltem\nnon prorsus nigri. Multi extra utrumque tropicum a media mundi linea\nlongius absunt quam Pers\u00e6 aut Syri, veluti pramontorii Bon\u00e6 Spei\nhabitantes, et tamen iste sunt nigerrimi. Si Afric\u00e6 tantum et Chami\nposteris id inspectari velis, Malabares et Ceilonii aliique remotiores\nAsi\u00e6 populi \u00e6que nigri excipiendi erunt. Quod si causam ad coeli\nsolique naturam referas, non homines albi in illis regionibus\nrenascentes non nigrescunt? Aut qui ad occultas qualitates confugiunt,\nmelius fecerint si sese nescire fateantur.\"--JOBUS LUDOLFUS,\n_Commentarium ad Historiam \u00c6thiopicam_, fol. Norimb. p. 56.\n\n[134] Prichard, _op. cit._, p. 124.\n\n[135] Prichard, _op. cit._, p. 433.\n\n[136] Neither the Swiss, nor the Tyrolese, nor the Highlanders of\nScotland, nor the Sclaves of the Balkan, nor the tribes of the Himaleh,\nnor any other mountaineers whatever, present the monstrous appearance of\nthe Quichuas.\n\n[137] The distinguished microscopist, Dr. Peter A. Browne, of\nPhiladelphia, has published the most elaborate observations on hair, of\nany author I have met with; and he asserts that the pile of the negro is\n_wool_, and not hair. He has gone so far as to distinguish the leading\nraces of men by the direction, shape, and structure of the hair. The\nreader is referred to his works for much very curious, new, and valuable\nmatter.--N.\n\nTo those of our readers who may not have the inclination or opportunity\nof consulting Mr. Browne's work, the following concise and excellent\nsynopsis of his views, which I borrow from Dr. Kneeland's _Introduction\nto Hamilton Smith's Natural History of Man_, may not be unacceptable:\n\"There are, on microscopical examination, three prevailing forms of the\ntransverse section of the filament, viz: the cylindrical, the oval, and\nthe eccentrically elliptical. There are also three directions in which\nit pierces the epidermis. The straight and lank, the flowing or curled,\nand the crisped or frizzled, differ respectively as to the angle which\nthe filament makes with the skin on leaving it. The cylindrical and oval\npile has an oblique angle of inclination. The eccentrically elliptical\npierces the epidermis at right angles, and lies perpendicularly in the\ndermis. The hair of the white man is oval; that of the Choctaw, and some\nother American Indians, is cylindrical; that of the negro is\neccentrically elliptical or flat. The hair of the white man has, beside\nits cortex and intermediate fibres, a central canal, which contains the\ncoloring matter when present. The pile of the negro has no central\ncanal, and the coloring matter is diffused, when present, either\nthroughout the cortex or the intermediate fibres. Hair, according to\nthese observations, is more complex in its structure than wool. In hair,\nthe enveloping scales are comparatively few, with smooth surfaces,\nrounded at their points, and closely embracing the shaft. In wool, they\nare numerous, rough, sharp-pointed, and project from the shaft. _Hence,\nthe hair of the white man will not felt, that of the negro will._ In\nthis respect, therefore, it comes near to true wool\"--pp. 88, 89.--H.\n\n[138] A full answer to this objection will be found in our Appendix,\nunder _B_.--N.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XI.\n\nPERMANENCY OF TYPES.\n\n  The language of Holy Writ in favor of common origin--The permanency\n    of their characteristics separates the races of men as effectually\n    as if they were distinct creations--Arabs, Jews--Prichard's\n    argument about the influence of climate examined--Ethnological\n    history of the Turks and Hungarians.\n\n\nThe believers in unity of race affirm that types are different in\nappearance only; that, in fact, the differences existing among them are\nowing to local circumstances still in operation, or to an accidental\npeculiarity of conformation in the progenitor of a branch, and that,\nthough they all, more or less, diverge from the original prototype, they\nall are capable of again returning to it. According to this, then, the\nnegro, the North American savage, the Tungoose of North Siberia, might,\nunder favorable circumstances, gain all the physical and mental\nattributes which now distinguish the European. Such a theory is\ninadmissible.\n\nWe have shown above that the only solid scientific stronghold of the\nbelievers in unity of species is the prolificness of human hybrids. This\nfact, which seems at present so difficult to refute, may not always\npresent the same difficulties, and would not, by itself, suffice to\narrest my conclusions, were it not supported by another argument which,\nI confess, appears to me of greater moment: Scripture is said to declare\nagainst difference of origin.\n\nIf the text is clear, peremptory, and indisputable, we must submit; the\nmost serious doubts must disappear; human reason, in its imperfection,\nmust bow to faith. Better to let the veil of obscurity cover a point of\nerudition, than to call in question so high and incontestable an\nauthority. If the Bible declares that mankind are descended from the\nsame common stock, all that goes to prove the contrary is mere\nsemblance, unworthy of consideration. But is the Bible really explicit\non this point? The sacred writings have a much higher purpose than the\nelucidation of ethnological problems; and if it be admitted that they\nmay have been misunderstood in this particular, and that without\nstraining the text, it may be interpreted otherwise, I return to my\nfirst impression.\n\nThe Bible evidently speaks of Adam as the progenitor of the white race,\nbecause from him are descended generations which--it cannot be\ndoubted--were white. But nothing proves that at the first redaction of\nthe Adamite genealogies the colored races were considered as forming\npart of the species. There is not a word said about the yellow nations,\nand I hope to prove, in my second volume, that the pretended black color\nof the patriarch Ham rests upon no other basis than an arbitrary\ninterpretation. At a later period, doubtless, translators and\ncommentators, who affirmed that Adam was the father of all beings called\nmen, were obliged to bring in as descendants of the sons of Noah all the\ndifferent varieties with whom they were acquainted. In this manner,\nJapheth was considered the progenitor of the European nations, while the\ninhabitants of the greater portion of Asia were looked upon as the\ndescendants of Shem; and those of Africa, of Ham. This arrangement\nanswers admirably for one portion of the globe. But what becomes of the\npopulation of the rest of the world, who are not included in this\nclassification?\n\nI will not, at present, particularly insist upon this idea. I dislike\nthe mere appearance of impugning even simple interpretations if they\nhave the sanction of the church, and wish merely to intimate that their\nauthority might, perhaps, be questioned without transgressing the limits\nestablished by the church.[139] If this is not the case, and we must\naccept, in the main, the opinions of the believers in unity, I still do\nnot despair that the facts may be explained in a manner different from\ntheirs, and that the principal physical and moral differences among the\nbranches of the human family may exist, with all their necessary\nconsequences, independently of unity or plurality of origin.\n\nThe specific identity of all canines is acknowledged,[140] but who would\nundertake the difficult task of proving that all these animals, to\nwhatever variety they may belong, were possessed of the same shapes,\ninstincts, habits, qualities? The same is the case with many other\nspecies, the equine, bovine, ursine, etc. Here we find perfect identity\nof origin, and yet diversity in every other respect, and a diversity so\nradical, that even intermixture can not produce a real identity of\ncharacter in the several types. On the contrary, so long as each type\nremains pure, their distinctive features are permanent, and reproduced,\nwithout any sensible deviation, in each successive generation.[141]\n\nThis incontestable fact has led to the inquiry whether in those species\nwhich, by domestication, have lost their original habits, and contracted\nothers, the forms and instincts of the primitive stock were still\ndiscernible. I think this highly improbable, and can hardly believe that\nwe shall ever be able to determine the shape and characteristics of the\nprototype of each species, and how much or how little it is approached\nby the deviations now before our eyes. A very great number of vegetables\npresent the same problem, and with regard to man, whose origin it is\nmost interesting and important for us to know, the inquiry seems to be\nattended with the greatest and most insurmountable difficulties.\n\nEach race is convinced that its progenitor had precisely the\ncharacteristics which now distinguish it. This is the only point upon\nwhich their traditions perfectly agree. The white races represent to\nthemselves an Adam and Eve, whom Blumenbach would at once have\npronounced Caucasians; the Mohammedan negroes, on the contrary, believe\nthe first pair to have been black; these being created in God's own\nimage, it follows that the Supreme Being, and also the angels, are of\nthe same color, and the prophet himself was certainly too greatly\nfavored by his Sender to display a pale skin to his disciples.[142]\n\nUnfortunately, modern science has as yet found no clue to this maze of\nopinions. No admissible theory has been advanced which affords the least\nlight upon the subject, and, in all probability, the various types\ndiffer as much from their common progenitor--if they possess one--as\nthey do among themselves. The causes of these deviations are\nexceedingly difficult to ascertain. The believers in the unity of origin\npretend to find them, as I remarked before, in various local\ncircumstances, such as climate, habits, &c. It is impossible to coincide\nwith such an opinion, for, although these circumstances have always\nexisted, they have not, within historical times, produced such\nalterations in the races which were exposed to their influence as to\nmake it even probable that they were the causes of so vast and radical a\ndissimilarity as we now see before us. Suppose two tribes, not yet\ndeparted from the primitive type, to inhabit, one an alpine region in\nthe interior of a continent, the other some isolated isle in the\nimmensity of the ocean. Their atmospheric and alimentary conditions\nwould, of course, be totally different. If we further suppose one of\nthese tribes to be abundantly provided with nourishment, and the other\npossessing but precarious means of subsistence; one to inhabit a cold\nlatitude, and the other to be exposed to the action of a tropical sun;\nit seems to me that we have accumulated the most essential local\ncontrasts. Allowing these physical causes to operate a sufficient lapse\nof time, the two groups would, no doubt, ultimately assume certain\npeculiar characteristics, by which they might be distinguished from each\nother. But no imaginable length of time could bring about any\nessential, organic change of conformation; and as a proof of this\nassertion, I would point to the populations of opposite portions of the\nglobe, living under physical conditions the most widely different, who,\nnevertheless, present a perfect resemblance of type.\n\nThe Hottentots so strongly resemble the inhabitants of the Celestial\nEmpire, that it has even been supposed, though without good reasons,\nthat they were originally a Chinese colony. A great similarity exists\nbetween the ancient Etruscans, whose portraits have come down to us, and\nthe Araucanians of South America. The features and outlines of the\nCherokees seem to be perfectly identical with those of several Italian\npopulations, the Calabrians, for instance. The inhabitants of Auvergne,\nespecially the female portion, much more nearly resemble in physiognomy\nseveral Indian tribes of North America than any European nation. Thus we\nsee that in very different climes, and under conditions of life so very\ndissimilar, nature can reproduce the same forms. The peculiar\ncharacteristics which now distinguish the different types cannot,\ntherefore, be the effects of local circumstances such as now exist.[143]\n\nThough it is impossible to ascertain what physical changes different\nbranches of the human family may have undergone anterior to the historic\nepoch, yet we have the best proofs that since then, no race has changed\nits peculiar characteristics. The historic epoch comprises about one\nhalf of the time during which our earth is supposed to have been\ninhabited, and there are several nations whom we can trace up to the\nverge of ante-historic ages; yet we find that the races then known have\nremained the same to our days, even though they ceased to inhabit the\nsame localities, and consequently were no longer exposed to the\ninfluence of the same external conditions.\n\nWitness the Arabs. As they are represented on the monuments of Egypt, so\nwe find them at present, not only in the arid deserts of their native\nland, but in the fertile regions and moist climate of Malabar,\nCoromandel, and the islands of the Indian Ocean. We find them again,\nthough more mixed, on the northern coasts of Africa, and, although many\ncenturies have elapsed since their invasion, traces of Arab blood are\nstill discernible in some portions of Roussillon, Languedoc, and Spain.\n\nNext to the Arabs I would instance the Jews. They have emigrated to\ncountries in every respect the most dissimilar to Palestine, and have\nnot even preserved their ancient habits of life. Yet their type has\nalways remained peculiar and the same in every latitude and under every\nphysical condition. The warlike Rechabites in the deserts of Arabia\npresent to us the same features as our own peaceable Jews. I had\noccasion not long since to examine a Polish Jew. The cut of his face,\nand especially his eyes, perfectly betrayed his origin. This inhabitant\nof a northern zone, whose direct ancestors for several generations had\nlived among the snows and ice of an inhospitable clime, seemed to have\nbeen tanned but the day before, by the ardent rays of a Syrian sun. The\nsame Shemitic face which the Egyptian artist represented some four\nthousand or more years ago, we recognize daily around us; and its\nprincipal and really characteristic features are equally strikingly\npreserved under the most diverse climatic circumstances. But the\nresemblance is not confined to the face only, it extends to the\nconformation of the limbs and the nature of the temperament. German Jews\nare generally smaller and more slender in stature than the European\nnations among whom they have lived for centuries; and the age of puberty\narrives earlier with them than with their compatriots of another\nrace.[144]\n\nThis is, I am aware, an assertion diametrically opposed to Mr.\nPrichard's opinions. This celebrated physiologist, in his zeal to prove\nthe unity of species, attempts to prove that the age of puberty in both\nsexes is the same everywhere and among all races. His arguments are\nbased upon the precepts of the Old Testament and the Koran, by which the\nmarriageable age of women is fixed at fifteen, and even eighteen,\naccording to Abou-Hanifah.[145]\n\nI hardly think that biblical testimony is admissible in matters of this\nkind, because the Scriptures often narrate facts which cannot be\naccounted for by the ordinary laws of nature. Thus, the pregnancy of\nSarah at an extreme old age, and when Abraham himself was a centenarian,\nis an event upon which no ordinary course of reasoning could be based.\nAs for the precepts of the Mohammedan law, I would observe that they\nwere intended to insure not merely the physical aptitude for marriage,\nbut also that degree of mental maturity and education which befit a\nwoman about to enter on the duties of so serious a station. The prophet\nmakes it a special injunction that the religious education of young\nwomen should be continued to the time of their marriage. Taking this\nview, the law-giver would naturally incline to delay the period of\nmarriage as long as possible, in order to afford time for the\ndevelopment of the reasoning faculties, and he would therefore be less\nprecipitate in his authorizations than nature in hers. But there are\nsome other proofs which I would adduce against Mr. Prichard's grave\narguments, which, though of less weighty character, are not the less\nconclusive, and will settle the question, I think, in my favor.\n\nPoets, in their tales of love, are mainly solicitous of exhibiting their\nheroines in the first bloom of beauty, without caring much about their\nmoral and mental development. Accordingly, we find that oriental poets\nhave always made their lovers much younger than the age prescribed by\nthe Koran. Zelika and Leila are not, surely, fourteen years old. In\nIndia, this difference is still more striking. Sacontala, in Europe,\nwould be quite a small girl, a mere child. The spring-time of life for\na Hindoo female is from the age of nine to that of twelve. In the\nChinese romance, _Yu-Kiao-li_, the heroine is sixteen; and her father is\nin great distress, and laments pathetically that at so advanced an age\nshe should still be unmarried. The Roman writers, following in the\nfootsteps of their Greek preceptors, took fifteen as the period of bloom\nof a woman's life; our own authors for a long time adhered to these\nmodels, but since the ideas of the North have begun to exert their\ninfluence upon our literature, the heroines of our novels are full-grown\nyoung ladies of eighteen, and very often more.[146]\n\nBut arguments of a more serious character are by no means wanting.\nBesides what I said of the precocity of the Jews in Germany, I may point\nout the reverse as a peculiarity of the population of many portions of\nSwitzerland. Among them the physical development is so slow, that the\nage of puberty is not always attained at twenty. The Zingaris, or\ngypsies, display the same physical precocity as their Hindoo ancestry,\nand, under the austere sky of Russia and Moldavia, they preserve,\ntogether with their ancient notions and habits, the general aspect of\nface and form of the Pariahs.[147]\n\nI do not, however, wish to attack Mr. Prichard upon all points. There is\none of his conclusions which I readily adopt, viz.: \"_that the\ndifference of climate occasions very little, if any, important diversity\nas to the periods of life and the physical changes to which the human\nconstitution is subject_.\"[148] This conclusion is very well founded,\nand I shall not seek to invalidate it; but it appears to me that it\ncontradicts a little the principles so ably advocated by the learned\nphysiologist and antiquary.\n\nThe reader must have perceived that the discussion turns solely upon\npermanency of type. If it can be proved that the different branches of\nthe human family are each possessed of a certain individuality which is\nindependent of climate and the lapse of ages, and can be effaced only by\nintermixture, the question of origin is reduced to little importance;\nfor, in that case, the different types are no less completely and\nirrevocably separated than if their specific differences arose from\ndiversity of origin.\n\nThat such is the case, we have already proved by the testimony of\nEgyptian sculptures with regard to the Arabs, and by our observations\nupon the Jews and gypsies. Should any further proofs be needed, we would\nmention that the paintings in the temples and subterraneous buildings of\nthe Nile valley as indubitably attest the permanence of the negro type.\nThere we see the same crisped hair, prognathous skull, and thick lips.\nThe recent discovery of the bas-reliefs of Khorsabad[149] has removed\nbeyond doubt the conclusions previously formed from the figured\nmonuments of Persepolis, viz.: that the present Assyrian nations are\nphysiologically identical with those who formerly inhabited the same\nregions.\n\nIf similar investigations could be made upon a greater number of\nexisting races, the results would be the same. We have established the\nfact of permanence of types in all cases where investigation is\npossible, and the burden of proof, therefore, falls upon the dissenting\nparty.\n\nTheir arguments, indeed, are in direct contradiction to the most obvious\nfacts. Thus they allege, although the most ordinary observation shows\nthe contrary, that climate _has_ produced alterations in the Jewish\ntype, inasmuch as many light-haired, blue-eyed Jews are found in\nGermany. For this argument to be of any weight in their position, the\nadvocates for unity of race must recognize climate to be the sole, or at\nleast principal, cause of this phenomenon. But the adherents of that\ndoctrine elsewhere assert that the color of the eyes, hair, and skin, no\nways depends upon geographical situation or the action of heat and\ncold.[150] As an evidence of this, they justly cite the Cinghalese, who\nhave blue eyes and light hair;[151] they even observe among them a very\nconsiderable difference of complexion, varying from a light brown to\nblack. Again, they admit that the Samoiedes and Tungusians, though\nliving on the borders of the Frozen Ocean,[152] have an exceedingly\nswarthy complexion. If, therefore, climate exerts no influence upon the\ncomplexion and color of hair and eyes, these marks must be considered as\nof no importance, or as pertaining to race. We know that red hair is not\nat all uncommon in the East, and at no time has been so; it cannot,\ntherefore, create much surprise if we occasionally find it among the\nJews of Germany. This fact cannot be adduced as evidence either in\nfavor of, or against, the permanence of types.\n\nThe advocates for unity are no less unfortunate in their historical\narguments. They furnish but two; the Turks and the Magyars. The Asiatic\norigin of the former is supposed to be established beyond doubt, as well\nas of their intimate relationship with the Finnic branches of the\nLaplanders and Ostiacs. It follows from this that they must originally\nhave displayed the yellow skin, projecting cheek bones, and low stature\nof the Mongolian races. This point being settled, we are told to look at\nthe Turks of our day, who exhibit all the characteristics of the\nEuropean type. Types, then, are not permanent, it is victoriously\nconcluded, because the Turks have undergone such a transformation. \"It\nis true,\" say the adherents of the unity school, \"that some pretend\nthere had been an admixture of Greek, Georgian, and Circassian blood.\nBut this admixture can have taken place only to a very limited extent;\nall Turks are not rich enough to buy their wives in the Caucasus, or to\nhave seraglios filled with white slaves; on the other hand, the hatred\nwhich the Greeks cherish for their conquerors, and the religious\nantipathies of both nations, were not favorable to alliances between\nthem, and consequently we see them--though inhabiting the same\ncountry--as distinct at this day as at the time of the conquest.\"[153]\n\nThese arguments are more specious than solid. In the first place, I am\ngreatly disposed to doubt the Finnic origin of the Turkish race, because\nthe only evidence that has hitherto been produced in favor of this\nsupposition is affinity of language, and I shall hereafter give my\nreasons for believing this argument--when unsupported by any other--as\nextremely unreliable, and open to doubt. But even if we suppose the\nancestors of the Turkish nation to belong to the yellow race, it is easy\nto show why their descendants have so widely departed from that type.\n\nCenturies elapsed from the time of the first appearance of the Turanian\nhordes to the day which saw them the masters of the city of Constantine,\nand during that period, multifarious events took place; the fortune of\nthe Western Turks has been a checkered one. Alternately conquerors or\nconquered, masters or slaves, they have become incorporated with various\nnationalities. According to the annalists,[154] their Orghuse ancestors,\nwho descended from the Altai Mountains, inhabited in Abraham's time the\nimmense steppes of Upper Asia which extend from Katai to the sea of\nAral, from Siberia to Thibet, and which, as has recently been\nproved--were then the abode of numerous Germanic tribes.[155] It is a\nsingular circumstance, that the first mentioning by Oriental writers of\nthe tribes of Turkestan is in celebrating them for their beauty of face\nand form.[156] The most extravagant hyperboles are lavished on them\nwithout reserve, and as these writers had before their eyes the\nhandsomest types of the old world with which to compare them, it is not\nprobable that they should have wasted their enthusiasm on creatures so\nugly and repulsive as are generally the races of pure Mongolian blood.\nThus, notwithstanding the dicta of philology, I think serious doubts\nmight be raised on that point.[157]\n\nBut I am willing to admit that the Turcomannic tribes were, indeed, as\nis supposed, of Finnic origin. Let us come down to a later period--the\nMohammedan era. We then find these tribes under various denominations\nand in equally various situations, dispersed over Persia and Asia Minor.\nThe Osmanli were not yet existing at that time, and their predecessors,\nthe Seldjuks, were already greatly mixed with the races that had\nembraced Islamism. We see from the example of Gha\u00efased-din-Keikosrew,\nwho lived in 1237, that the Seljuk princes were in the habit of\nfrequently intermarrying with Arab women. They must have gone still\nfurther, for we find that Aseddin, the mother of one of the Seljuk\ndynasties, was a Christian. It is reasonable to suppose, that if the\nchiefs of the nation, who everywhere are the most anxious to preserve\nthe purity of their genealogy, showed themselves so devoid of prejudice,\ntheir subjects were still less scrupulous on that point. Their constant\ninroads in which they ranged over vast districts, gave them ample\nopportunities for capturing slaves, and there is every reason to believe\nthat already in the 13th century, the ancient Orghuse branch was\nstrongly tinctured with Shemitic blood.\n\nTo this branch belonged Osman, the son of Ortoghrul, and father of the\nOsmanli. But few families were collected around his tent. His army was,\nat first, little better than a band of adventurers, and the same\nexpedient which swelled the ranks of the first builders of Rome,\nincreased the number of adherents of this new Romulus of the Steppes.\nEvery desperate adventurer or fugitive, of whatever nation, was welcome\namong them, and assured of protection. I shall suppose that the\ndownfall of the Seljuk empire brought to their standards a great number\nof their own race. But we have already said that this race was very much\nmixed; and besides, this addition was insufficient, as is proved by the\nfact that, from that time, the Turks began to capture slaves for the\navowed purpose of repairing, by this means, the waste which constant\nwarfare made in their own ranks. In the beginning of the 14th century,\nthe sultan Orkhan, following the advice of his vizier, Khalil\nTjendereli, surnamed the Black, instituted the famous military body\ncalled Janissaries.[158] They were composed entirely of Christian\nchildren captured in Poland, Germany, Italy, or the Bizantine Empire,\nwho were educated in the Mohammedan religion and the practice of arms.\nUnder Mohammed IV., their number had increased to 140,000 men. Here,\nthen, we find an influx of at least half a million male individuals of\nEuropean blood in the course of four centuries.\n\nBut the infusion of European blood was not limited to this. The piracy\nwhich was carried on, on so large a scale, in the whole basin of the\nMediterranean, had for one of its principal objects the replenishment of\nthe harems. Every victory gained increased the number of believers in\nthe Prophet. A great number of the prisoners of war abjured\nChristianity, and were henceforth counted among the true believers. The\nlocalities adjacent to the field of battle supplied as many females as\nthe marauding victors could lay hold of. In some cases, this sort of\nbooty was so plentiful that it became inconvenient to dispose of. Hammer\nrelates[159] that, on one occasion, the handsomest female captive was\nbartered for _one boot_. When we consider that the Turkish population of\nthe whole Ottoman empire never exceeded twelve millions, it becomes\napparent that the history of so amalgamated a nation affords no\narguments, either for or against, the permanency of type. We will now\nproceed to the second historic argument advanced by the believers in\nunity.\n\n\"The Magyars,\" they say, \"are of Finnic origin, nearly related to the\nLaplanders, Samoiedes, and Esquimaux, all of which are people of low\nstature, with big faces, projecting cheek-bones, and yellowish or dirty\nbrown complexion. Yet the Magyars are tall, well formed, and have\nhandsome features. The Finns have always been feeble, unintelligent,\nand oppressed; the Magyars, on the contrary, occupy a distinguished\nrank among the conquerors of the earth, and are noted for their love\nof liberty and independence. As they are so immensely superior,\nboth physically and morally, to all the collateral branches of the\nFinnic stock, it follows that they have undergone an enormous\ntransformation.\"[160]\n\nIf such a transformation had ever taken place, it would, indeed, be\nastonishing and inexplicable even to those who ascribe the least\nstability to types, for it must have occurred within the last 800 years,\nduring which we know that the compatriots of St. Stephen[161] mixed but\nlittle with surrounding nations. But the whole course of reasoning is\nbased upon false premises, for the Hungarians are most assuredly not of\nFinnic origin. Mr. A. De G\u00e9rando[162] has placed this fact beyond doubt.\nHe has proved, by the authority of Greek and Arab historians, as well as\nHungarian annalists and by indisputable philological arguments, that the\nMagyars are a fragment of that great inundation of nations which swept\nover Europe under the denomination of Huns. It will be objected that\nthis is merely giving the Hungarians another parentage, but which\nconnects them no less intimately with the yellow race. Such is not the\ncase. The designation of Huns applies not only to a nation, but is also\na collective appellation of a very heterogeneous mass. Among the tribes\nwhich rallied around the standards of Attila and his ancestors, there\nwere some which have at all times been distinguished from the rest by\nthe term _white Huns_. Among them the Germanic blood predominated.[163]\nIt is true, that the close contact with the yellow race somewhat\nadulterated the breed; but this very fact is singularly exhibited in the\nsomewhat angular and bony facial conformation of the Hungarians. I\nconclude, therefore, that the Magyars were _white Huns_, and of Germanic\norigin, though slightly mixed with the Mongolian stock.\n\nThe philological difficulty of their speaking a non-Germanic dialect is\nnot insurmountable. I have already alluded to the Mongolian Scyths who\nyet spoke an Arian tongue;[164] I might, moreover, cite the Norman\nsettlers in France who, not many years after their conquest, exchanged\ntheir Scandinavian dialect, in a great measure, for the Celto-Latin of\ntheir subjects,[165] whence sprang that singular compound called\nNorman-French, which the followers of William the Conqueror imported\ninto England, and which now forms an element of the English language.\n\nThere is, therefore, no reason to suppose that the agency of climate and\nchange of habits have transformed a Laplander, or an Ostiak, or a\nTunguse, or a Permian, into a St. Stephen or a Kossuth.\n\nHaving thus, I think, refuted the only two historical instances which\nthe believers in unity of species adduce, of a pretended alteration of\ntype by local circumstances and change of habits, and having, moreover,\ninstanced several cases where these causes could produce no alteration;\nthe fact of permanency of type seems to me to be incontestably\nestablished.[166] Thus, whichever side we take, whether we believe in\noriginal unity, or original diversity, is immaterial; the several groups\nof the human species are, at present, so perfectly separated from each\nother, that no exterior influence can efface their distinctive\npeculiarities. The permanency of these differences, so long as there is\nno intermixture, produces precisely the same physical and moral results\nas if the groups were so many distinct and separate creations.\n\nIn conclusion, I shall repeat what I have said above, that I have very\nserious doubts as to the unity of origin. These doubts, however, I am\ncompelled to repress, because they are in contradiction to a scientific\nfact which I cannot refute--the prolificness of half-breeds; and\nsecondly, what is of much greater weight with me, they impugn a\nreligious interpretation sanctioned by the church.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[139] For the arguments which may be deduced from the language of Holy\nWrit, in favor of plurality of origins, see Appendix _C_.--H.\n\n[140] Among others, FR\u00c9D\u00c9RIC CUVIER, _Annales du Mus\u00e9um_, vol. xi. p.\n458.\n\n[141] The reader will be struck by the remarkable illustration of the\ntruth of this remark, which the equine species affords. The vast\ndifference between the swift courser, who excites the enthusiasm of\nadmiring multitudes, and the common hack, need not be pointed out, and\nit is as well known that either, if the breed be preserved unmixed, will\nperpetuate their distinctive qualities to a countless progeny.--H.\n\n[142] A free mulatto, who had received a very good education in France,\nonce seriously undertook to prove to me that the Saviour's earthly form\npartook, at the same time, of the characteristics of the white and the\nblack races; in other words, was that of a half-breed. The arguments by\nwhich he supported this singular hypothesis were drawn from theology, as\nwell as Scriptural ethnology, and were remarkably plausible and\ningenious. I am convinced that if the real opinion of colored Christians\non this subject could be collected, a vast majority would be found to\nagree with my informant.--H.\n\n[143] Our author here gives evidence of a want of critical study of\nraces--the resemblances he has traced do not exist. There is no type in\nAfrica south of the equator, or among the aborigines of America, that\nbears any resemblance to any race in Europe or Asia.--N.\n\n[144] M\u00fcller, _Handbuch der Physiologie des Menschen_, vol. ii. p. 639.\n\n[145] Prichard, _op. cit._, pp. 484, 485.\n\n[146] An exception, however, must be made in the case of Shakspeare,\nwhile painting on an Italian canvas. In _Romeo and Juliet_, Capulet\nsays:--\n\n    \"My child is yet a stranger in the world,\n    She hath not seen the change of fourteen years;\n    Let two more summers wither in their pride,\n    Ere we may think her ripe to be a bride.\"\n\nTo which Paris answers:--\n\n    \"Younger than she are happy mothers made.\"\n\n[147] According to M. Krapff, a Protestant minister in Eastern Africa,\namong the Wanikos both sexes marry at the age of twelve. (_Zeitschrift\nder deutschen morgenl\u00e4ndischen Gesellschaft_, vol. iii. p. 317.) In\nParaguay, the Jesuits had established the custom, which subsists to this\nday, of marrying their neophytes, the girls at the age of ten, the boys\nat that of thirteen. It is not rare to find, in that country, widowers\nand widows eleven and twelve years old. (A. D'ORBIGNY, _L'Homme\nAm\u00e9ricain_, vol. i. p. 40.) In Southern Brazil, females marry at the age\nof ten and eleven. Menstruation there begins also at a very early age,\nand ceases equally early. (MARTIUS and SPIX, _Reise in Brasilien_, vol.\ni. p. 382.) I might increase the number of similar quotations\nindefinitely.\n\n[148] Prichard, _op. cit._, p. 486.\n\n[149] Botta, _Monumens de Ninive_. Paris, 1850.\n\n[150] _Edinburgh Review_, \"Ethnology, or the Science of Races,\" Oct.\n1844, p. 144, _et passim_. \"There is probably no evidence of original\ndiversity of race which is so generally and unhesitatingly relied upon\nas that derived from the _color of the skin_ and the _character of the\nhair_; ... but it will not, we think, stand the test of serious\nexamination.... Among the Kabyles of Algiers and Tunis, the Tuarites of\nSahara, the Shelahs or mountaineers of Southern Morocco, and other\npeople of the same race, there are very considerable differences of\ncomplexion.\" (p. 448.)\n\n[151] _Ibid._, _loc. cit._, p. 453. \"The Cinghalese are described by Dr.\nDavy as varying in color from light brown to black, the prevalent hue of\ntheir hair and eyes is black, but hazel eyes and brown hair are not very\nuncommon; gray eyes and red hair are occasionally seen, though rarely,\nand sometimes the light-blue or red eye and flaxen hair of the albino.\"\n\n[152] _Ibid._, _loc. cit._ \"The Samoiedes, Tungusians, and others living\non the borders of the Icy Sea, have a dirty-brown or swarthy\ncomplexion.\"\n\n[153] Edinburgh Review, p. 439.\n\n[154] Hammer, _Geschichte des Osmanischen Reiches_, vol. i. p. 2.\n(_History of the Ottoman Empire._)\n\n[155] Ritter, _Erdkunde Asien_, vol. i. p. 433, et passim, p. 1115,\netc. Lassen, _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr die Kunde des Morgenlandes_, vol. ii. p.\n65. Benfey, _Encyclop\u00e6die_, by Ersch and Gruber, _Indien_, p. 12.\nAlexander Von Humboldt, speaking of this fact, styles it one of the most\nimportant discoveries of our times. (_Asie Centrale_, vol. ii. p. 649.)\nWith regard to its bearings upon historical science, nothing can be more\ntrue.\n\n[156] Nouschirwan, whose reign falls in the first half of the sixth\ncentury of our era, married Scharouz, the daughter of the Khakan of the\nTurks. She was the most beautiful woman of her time. (Haneberg,\n_Zeitschr. f. d. K. des Morgenl._, vol. i. p. 187.) This is by no means\nan isolated instance; Schahnameh furnishes a number of similar ones.\n\n[157] The Scythes, though having adopted a language of the Arian\nclasses, were, nevertheless, a Mongolian nation; there would, therefore,\nbe nothing very surprising if the Orghuses had been an Arian nation,\nthough speaking a Finnic dialect. This hypothesis is singularly\ncorroborated by a passage in the relations of the traveller Rubruquis,\nwho was sent by St. Louis as ambassador to the sovereign of the Mongols.\n\"I was struck,\" says the worthy monk, \"with the prince's resemblance to\nthe deceased _M. John de Beaumont_, whose complexion was equally fresh\nand colored.\" Alexander Von Humboldt, justly interested by this remark,\nadds: \"This physiognomical observation acquires importance, when we\nrecollect that the monarch here spoken of belonged to the family of\nTchinguiz, who were really of Turkish, not of Mogul origin.\" And\npursuing this trace, the great _savant_ finds another corroborating\nfact: \"The absence of Mongolian features,\" says he, \"strikes us also in\nthe portraits which we possess of the Baburides, the conquerors of\nIndia.\" (_Asie Centrale_, vol. i. p. 248, and note.)\n\n[158] It will be seen that Mr. Gobineau differs, in the date he gives of\nthe institution of the Janissaries, from all other European writers, who\nunanimously ascribe the establishment of this corps to Mourad I., the\nthird prince of the line of Othman. This error, into which Gibbon\nhimself has fallen, originated with Cantemir: but the concurrent\ntestimony of every Turkish historian fixes the epoch of their formation\nand consecration by the Dervish Hadji-Becktash, to the reign of Orkhan,\nthe father of Mourad, who, in 1328, enrolled a body of Christian youths\nas soldiers under this name (which signifies, \"new regulars\"), by the\nadvice of his cousin Tchenderli, to whose councils the wise and simple\nregulations of the infant empire are chiefly attributed. Their number\nwas at first only a thousand; but it was greatly augmented when Mourad,\nin 1361, appropriated to this service, by an edict, the _imperial fifth_\nof the European captives taken in the war--a measure which has been\ngenerally confounded with the first enrolment of the corps. At the\naccession of Soliman the Magnificent, their effective strength had\nreached 40,000; and under Mohammed IV., in the middle of the seventeenth\ncentury, that number was more than doubled. But though the original\ncomposition of the Janissaries is related by every writer who has\ntreated of them, it has not been so generally noticed that for more than\ntwo centuries and a half not a single native Turk was admitted into\ntheir ranks, which were recruited, like those of the Mamelukes, solely\nby the continual supply of Christian slaves, at first captives of tender\nage taken in war, and afterwards, when this source proved inadequate to\nthe increased demand, by an annual levy among the children of the lower\norders of Christians throughout the empire--a dreadful tax, frequently\nalluded to by Busbequius, and which did not finally cease till the reign\nof Mohammed IV.\n\nAt a later period, when the Krim Tartars became vassals of the Porte,\nthe yearly inroads of the fierce cavalry of that nation into the\nsouthern provinces of Russia, were principally instrumental in\nreplenishing this nursery of soldiers; and Fletcher, who was ambassador\nfrom Queen Elizabeth to Ivan the Terrible, describes, in his quaint\nlanguage, the method pursued in these depredations: \"The chief bootie\nthe Tartars seeke for in all their warres, is to get store of captives,\nspecially young boyes and girles, whom they sell to the Turkes, or\nother, their neighbours. To this purpose, they take with them great\nbaskets, made like bakers' panniers, _to carrie them tenderly_; and if\nany of them happens to tyre, or bee sicke on the way, they dash him\nagainst the ground, or some tree, and so leave him dead.\" (_Purchas's\nPilgrims_, vol. iii. p. 441.)\n\nThe boys, thus procured from various quarters, were assembled at\nConstantinople, where, after a general inspection, those whose personal\nadvantages or indications of superior talent distinguished them from the\ncrowd, were set aside as pages of the seraglio or Mamelukes in the\nhouseholds of the pashas and other officers, whence in due time they\nwere promoted to military commands or other appointments: but the\nremaining multitude were given severally in charge to peasants or\nartisans of Turkish race, principally in Anatolia, by whom they were\ntrained up, till they approached the age of manhood, in the tenets of\nthe Moslem faith, and inured to all the privations and toils of a hardy\nand laborious life. After this severe probation, they were again\ntransferred to the capital, and enrolled in the different _odas_ or\nregiments; and here their military education commenced.--H.\n\n[159] _Erdkunde, Asien_, vol. i. p. 448.\n\n[160] _Ethnology_, etc., p. 439: \"The Hungarian nobility ... is proved\nby historical and philological evidence to have been a branch of the\ngreat Northern Asiatic stock, closely allied in blood to the stupid and\nfeeble Ostiaks, and the untamable Laplander.\"\n\n[161] St. Stephen reigned about the year 1000, nearly one century and a\nhalf after the first invasion of the Magyars, under their leaders, Arpad\nand Zulta. He introduced Christianity among his people, on which account\nhe was canonized, and is now the tutelary saint of his nation. It may\nnot be known to the generality of our readers, that the Magyars, though\nthey have now resided nearly one thousand years in Hungary, have, with\nfew exceptions, never applied themselves to the tillage of the soil.\nAgriculture, to this day, remains almost exclusively in the hands of the\noriginal (the Slowack or Sclavonian) population. The Magyar's wealth\nconsists in his herds, or, if he owns land, it is the Slowacks that\ncultivate it for him. It is a singular phenomenon that these two races,\nthough professing the same religion, have remained almost entirely\nunmixed, and each still preserves its own language.--H.\n\n[162] _Essai Historique sur l'Origine des Hongrois._ Paris, 1844.\n\n[163] It appears that we shall be compelled henceforward to considerably\nmodify our usually received opinions with regard to the nations of\nCentral Asia. It cannot now be any longer doubted that many of these\npopulations contain a very considerable admixture of white blood, a fact\nof which our predecessors in the study of history had not the slightest\napprehension. Alexander Von Humboldt makes a very important remark upon\nthis subject, in speaking of the Kirghis-Kazakes, mentioned by Menander\nof Byzant, and Constantine Porphyrogenetus; and he shows conclusively\nthat the Kirghis (~cherchis~) concubine spoken of by the former\nwriter as a present of the Turkish chief Dithub\u00f9l to Zemarch, the\nambassador of Justinian II., in A. D. 569, was a girl of mixed\nblood--partly white. She is the precise counterpart of those beautiful\nTurkish girls, whose charms are so much extolled by Persian writers, and\nwho did not belong, any more than she, to the Mongolian race. (Vide\n_Asie Centrale_, vol. i. p. 237, _et passim_, and vol. ii. pp. 130,\n131.)\n\n[164] Schaffarick, _Slawische Alterth\u00fcmer_, vol. i. p. 279, _et passim_.\n\n[165] Aug. Thierry, _Histoire de la Conquite de l'Angleterre_. Paris,\n1846, vol. i. p. 155.\n\n[166] In my introductory note to Chapters VIII. and IX. (see p. 244), I\nhave mentioned a remarkable instance of the permanency of\ncharacteristics, even in branches of the same race. An equally, if not\nmore striking illustration of this fact is given by Alex. Von Humboldt.\n\nIt is well known that Spain contains a population composed of very\ndissimilar ethnical elements, and that the inhabitants of its various\nprovinces differ essentially, not only in physical appearance, but still\nmore in mental characteristics. As in all newly-settled countries,\nimmigrants from the same locality are apt to select the same spot, the\nextensive Spanish possessions on this continent were colonized, each\nrespectively, by some particular province in the mother country. Thus\nthe Biscayans settled Mexico; the Andalusians and natives of the Canary\nIslands, Venezuela; the Catalonians, Buenos Ayres; the Castillians,\nPeru, etc. Although centuries have elapsed since these original\nsettlements, and although the character of the Spanish Americans must\nhave been variously modified by the physical nature of their new homes,\nwhether situated in the vicinity of coasts, or of mining districts, or\nin isolated table-lands, or in fertile valleys; notwithstanding all\nthis, the great traveller and experienced observer still clearly\nrecognizes in the character of the various populations of South America,\nthe distinctive peculiarities of the original settlers. Says he: \"The\nAndalusians and Canarians of Venezuela, the Mountaineers and the\nBiscayans of Mexico, the Catalonians of Buenos Ayres, evince\nconsiderable differences in their aptitude for agriculture, for the\nmechanical arts, for commerce, and for all objects connected with\nintellectual development. _Each of these races has preserved, in the\nnew, as in the old world, the shades that constitute its national\nphysiognomy_; its asperity or mildness of character; its freedom from\nsordid feelings, or its excessive love of gain; its social hospitality,\nor its taste of solitude.... In the inhabitants of Caracas, Santa F\u00e9,\nQuito, and Buenos Ayres, we still recognize the features that belong to\nthe race of the first settlers.\"--_Personal Narrative_, Eng. Trans.,\nvol. i. p. 395.--H.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XII.\n\nCLASSIFICATION OF RACES.\n\n  Primary varieties--Test for recognizing them; not always\n    reliable--Effects of intermixture--Secondary varieties--Tertiary\n    varieties--Amalgamation of races in large cities--Relative scale of\n    beauty in various branches of the human family--Their inequality in\n    muscular strength and powers of endurance.\n\n\n    [In supervising the publication of this work, I have thought\n    proper to omit, in this place, a portion of the translation,\n    because containing ideas and suggestions which--though they might\n    be novel to a French public--have often been laid before English\n    readers, and as often proven untenable. This omission, however,\n    embraces no essential feature of the book, no link of the chain\n    of argumentation. It extends no further than a digressional\n    attempt of the author to account for the diversities observable\n    in the various branches of the human family, by imagining the\n    existence of cosmogonal causes, long since effete, but operating\n    for a time soon after the creation of man, when the globe was\n    still in a nascent and chaotic state. It must be obvious that all\n    such speculations can never bridge over the wide abyss which\n    separates _hypotheses_ from _facts_. They afford a boundless\n    field for play to a fertile imagination, but will never stand the\n    test of criticism. Even if we were to suppose that such causes\n    had effected diversities in the human family in primeval times,\n    the types thus produced must all have perished in the flood, save\n    that to which Noah and his family belonged. If these writers,\n    however, should be disposed to deny the universality of the\n    deluge, they would evidently do greater violence to the language\n    of Holy Writ, than by at once supposing a plurality of origins\n    for mankind.\n\n    The legitimate field of human science is the investigation of the\n    laws _now_ governing the material world. Beyond this it may not\n    go. Whatever is recognized as not coming within the scope of\n    action of these laws, belongs not to its province. We have proved,\n    and I think it is generally admitted, that the actual varieties of\n    the human family are _permanent_; that there are no causes _now in\n    operation_, which can transform them. The investigation of those\n    causes, therefore, cannot properly be said to belong to the\n    province of human science. In regard to their various systems of\n    classification, naturalists may be permitted to dispute about\n    unity or plurality of species, because the use of the word species\n    is more or less arbitrary; it is an expedient to secure a\n    convenient arrangement. But none, I hope, presume ever to be able\n    to fathom the mysteries of Creative Power--to challenge the fiat\n    of the Almighty, and inquire into his _means_.--H.]\n\nIn the investigation of the moral and intellectual diversities of races,\nthere is no difficulty so great as an accurate classification. I am\ndisposed to think a separation into three great groups sufficient for\nall practical purposes. These groups I shall call primary varieties, not\nin the sense of distinct creations, but as offering obvious and\nwell-defined distinguishing characteristics. I would designate them\nrespectively by the terms white, yellow, and black. I am aware of the\ninaccuracy of these appellations, because the complexion is not always\nthe distinctive feature of these groups: other and more important\nphysiological traits must be taken into consideration. But as I have not\nthe right to invent new names, and am, therefore, compelled to select\namong those already in use, I have chosen these because, though by no\nmeans correct, they seemed preferable to others borrowed from geography\nor history, and not so apt as the latter to add to the confusion which\nalready sufficiently perplexes the investigator of this subject. To\nobviate any misconception here and hereafter, I wish it to be distinctly\nunderstood that by \"white\" races I mean those usually comprised under\nthe name of Caucasian, Shemitic, Japhetic; by \"black,\" the Hamitic,\nAfrican, etc.; by \"yellow,\" the Altaic, Mongolian, Finnic, and Tartar.\nThese I consider to be the three categories under which all races of the\nhuman family can be placed. I shall hereafter explain my reasons for\nnot recognizing the American Indians as a separate variety, and for\nclassing them among the yellow races.[167]\n\nIt is obvious that each of these groups comprises races very dissimilar\namong themselves, each of which, besides the general characteristics\nbelonging to the whole group, possesses others peculiar to itself. Thus,\nin the group of black races we find marked distinctions: the tribes\nwith prognathous skull and woolly hair, the low-caste Hindoos of\nKamaoun and of Dekhan, the Pelagian negroes of Polynesia, etc. In the\nyellow group, the Tungusians, Mongols, Chinese, etc. There is every\nreason to believe that these sub-varieties are coeval; that is, the same\ncauses which produced one, produced at the same time all the others.\n\nIt is, moreover, extremely difficult to determine the typical character\nof each variety. In the white, and also in the yellow group, the mixture\nof the sub-varieties is so great, that it is impossible to fix upon the\ntype. In the black group, the type is perhaps discernible; at least, it\nis preserved in its greatest purity.\n\nTo ascertain the relative purity or mixture of a race, a criterion has\nbeen adopted by many, who consider it infallible: this is resemblance of\nface, form, constitution, etc. It is supposed that the purer a race has\npreserved itself, the greater must be the exterior resemblances of all\nthe individuals composing it. On the contrary, considerable and varied\nintermixtures would produce an infinite diversity of appearance among\nindividuals. This fact is incontestable, and of great value in\nethnological science, but I do not think it quite so reliable as some\nsuppose.\n\nIntermixture of races does, indeed, produce at first individual\ndissemblances, for few individuals belong in precisely the same degree\nto either of the races composing the mixture. But suppose that, in\ncourse of time, the fusion has become complete--that every individual\nmember of the mixed race had precisely the same proportion of mixed\nblood as every other--he could not then differ greatly from his\nneighbor. The whole mass, in that case, must present the same general\nhomogeneity as a pure race. The perfect amalgamation of two races of the\nsame group would, therefore, produce a new type, presenting a fictitious\nappearance of purity, and reproducing itself in succeeding generations.\n\nI imagine it possible, therefore, that a \"secondary\" type may in time\nassume all the characteristics of a \"primary\" one, viz: resemblance of\nthe individuals composing it. The lapse of time to produce this\ncomplete fusion would necessarily be commensurate to the original\ndiversity of the constituent elements. Where two races belonging to\ndifferent groups combine, such a complete fusion would probably never be\npossible. I can illustrate this by reference to individuals. Parents of\nwidely different nations generally have children but little resembling\neach other--some apparently partaking more of the father's type, some\nmore of the mother's. But if the parents are both of the same, or at\nleast of homogeneous stocks, their offspring exhibits little or no\nvariety; and though the children might resemble neither of the parents,\nthey would be apt to resemble one another.\n\nTo distinguish the varieties produced by a fusion of proximate races\nfrom those which are the effect of intermixture between races belonging\nto different groups, I shall call the latter _tertiary_ varieties. Thus\nthe woolly-headed negro and the Pelagian are both \"primary\" varieties\nbelonging to the same group; their offspring I would call a \"secondary\"\nvariety; but the hymen of either of them with a race belonging to the\nwhite or yellow groups, would produce a \"tertiary\" variety. To this\nlast, then, belong the mulatto, or cross between white and black, and\nthe Polynesian, who is a cross between the black and the yellow.[168]\nHalf-breeds of this kind display, in various proportions and degrees,\nthe special characteristics of both the ancestral races. But a complete\nfusion, as in the case of branches of the same group, probably never\nresults from the union of two widely dissimilar races, or, at least,\nwould require an incommensurable lapse of time.\n\nIf a tertiary type is again modified by intermixture with another, as is\nthe case in a cross between a mulatto and a Mongolian, or between a\nPolynesian and a European, the ethnical mixture is too great to permit\nus, in the present state of the science, to arrive at any general\nconclusions. It appears that every additional intermixture increases the\ndifficulty of complete fusion. In a population composed of a great\nnumber of dissimilar ethnical elements, it would require countless ages\nfor a thorough amalgamation; that is to say, so complete a mixture that\neach individual would have precisely the kind and relative proportion of\nmixed blood as every other. It follows, therefore, that, in a\npopulation so constituted, there is an infinite diversity of form and\nfeatures among individuals, some pertaining more to one type than\nanother. In other words, there being no equilibrium between the various\ntypes, they crop out here and there without any apparent reason.\n\nWe find this spectacle among the great civilized nations of Europe,\nespecially in their capitals and seaports. In these great vortexes of\nhumanity, every possible variety of our species has been absorbed.\nNegro, Chinese, Tartar, Hottentot, Indian, Malay, and all the minor\nvarieties produced by their mixture, have contributed their contingent\nto the population of our large cities. Since the Roman domination, this\namalgamation has continually increased, and is still increasing in\nproportion as our inventions bring in closer proximity the various\nportions of the globe. It affects all classes to some extent, but more\nespecially the lowest. Among them you may see every type of the human\nfamily more or less represented. In London, Paris, Cadiz,\nConstantinople, in any of the greater marts and thoroughfares of the\nworld, the lower strata of the _native_ population exhibit every\npossible variety, from the prognathous skull to the pyramidal: you shall\nfind one man with hair as crisp as a negro's; another, with the eyes of\nan ancient German, or the oblique ones of a Chinese; a third, with a\nthoroughly Shemitic countenance; yet all three may be close relations,\nand would be greatly surprised were they told that any but the purest\nwhite blood flows in their veins. In these vast gathering places of\nhumanity, if you could take the first comer--a native of the place--and\nascend his genealogical tree to any height, you would probably be amazed\nat the strange ancestry at the top.\n\nIt may now be asked whether, for all the various races of which I have\nspoken, there is but one standard of beauty, or whether each has one of\nits own. Helvetius, in his _De l'Esprit_, maintains that the idea of\nbeauty is purely conventional and variable. This assertion found many\nadvocates in its time, but it is at present superseded by the more\nphilosophical theory that the conception of the beautiful is an absolute\nand invariable idea, and can never have a merely optional application.\nBelieving the latter view to be correct, I do not hesitate to compare\nthe various races of man in point of beauty, and to establish a regular\nscale of gradation. Thus, if we compare the various races, from the\nungainly appearance of the Pelagian or Pecherai up to the noble\nproportions of a Charlemagne, the expressive regularity of features of a\nNapoleon, or the majestic countenance of a Louis XIV., we shall find in\nthe lowest on the scale a sort of rudimentary development of the beauty\nwhich attracts us in the highest; and in proportion to the perfectness\nof that development, the races rise in the scale of beauty.[169] Taking\nthe white race as the standard of beauty, we perceive all the others\nmore or less receding from that model. There is, then, an inequality in\npoint of beauty among the various races of men, and this inequality is\npermanent and indelible.[170]\n\nThe next question to be decided is, whether there is also an inequality\nin point of physical strength. It cannot be denied that the American\nIndians and the Hindoos are greatly inferior to us in this respect. Of\nthe Australians, the same may safely be asserted. Even the negroes\npossess less muscular vigor.[171] It is necessary, however, to\ndistinguish between purely muscular force--that which exerts itself\nsuddenly at a given moment--and the force of resistance or capacity for\nendurance. The degree of the former is measured by its intensity, that\nof the other by its duration. Of the two, the latter is the typical--the\nstandard by which to judge of the capabilities of races. Great muscular\nstrength is found among races notoriously weak. Among the lowest of the\nnegro tribes, for instance, it would not be difficult to find\nindividuals that could match an experienced European wrestler or English\nboxer. This is equally true of the Lascars and Malays. But we must take\nthe masses, and judge according to the amount of long-continued,\npersevering toil and fatigue they are capable of. In this respect, the\nwhite races are undoubtedly entitled to pre-eminence.\n\nBut there are differences, again, among the white races, both in beauty\nand in strength, which even the extensive ethnical mixture, that\nEuropean nations present, has not entirely obliterated. The Italians are\nhandsomer than the French and the Spaniards, and still more so than the\nSwiss and Germans. The English also present a high degree of corporeal\nbeauty; the Sclavonian nations a comparatively humble one.\n\nIn muscular power, the English rank far above all other European\nnations; but the French and Spaniards are greatly superior in power of\nendurance: they suffer less from fatigue, from privations, and the\nrigors and changes of climate. This question has been settled beyond\ndispute by the fatal campaign in Russia. While the Germans, and other\ntroops from the North, who yet were accustomed to severe cold, were\nalmost totally annihilated, the French regiments, though paying\nfearfully dear for their retreat, nevertheless saved the greatest number\nof men. Some have attempted to explain this by a supposed superiority on\nthe part of the French in martial education and military spirit. But the\nGerman officers had certainly as high a conception of a soldier's duty,\nas elevated a sentiment of honor, as our soldiers; yet they perished in\nincredibly greater numbers. I think it can hardly be disputed that the\nmasses of the population of France possess a superiority in certain\nphysical qualities, which enables them to defy with greater impunity\nthan most other nations the freezing snows of Russia and the burning\nsands of Egypt.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[167] I have already alluded to the classification adopted by Mr.\nLatham, the great ethnographer, which, though different in the\ndesignations, is precisely similar to that of Mr. Gobineau. Hamilton\nSmith also comes to the conclusion that, \"as there are only three\nvarieties who attain the typical standard, we have in them the\nfoundation of that number being exclusively aboriginal.\" He therefore\ndivides the races of men into three classes, which he calls \"typical\nforms,\" and which nearly correspond to Mr. Gobineau's and Mr. Latham's\n\"primary varieties.\" But, notwithstanding this weight of authorities\nagainst me, I cannot entirely agree as to the correctness of this\nclassification. Fewer objections seem to me to lie against that proposed\nby Van Amringe, which I recommend to the consideration of the reader,\nand, though perhaps out of place in a mere foot-note, subjoin at full\nlength. It must be remembered that the author of this system, though he\nuses the word species to distinguish the various groups, is one of the\nadvocates for _unity of origin_. (The words _Japhetic_ and _Shemitic_\nare also employed in a sense somewhat different from that which common\nusage has assigned them.)\n\n\n  THE SHEMITIC SPECIES.\n\n  _Psychical or Spiritual Character_, viz:--\n    All the Physical Attributes developed harmoniously.--Warlike, but\n    not cruel, or destructive.\n\n  _Temperament._--Strenuous.\n\n  _Physical Character_, viz:--\n    A high degree of sensibility; fair complexion; copious, soft,\n    flowing hair, often curled, or waving; ample beard; small, oval,\n    perpendicular face, with features very distinct; expanded forehead;\n    large and elevated cranium; narrow elevated nose, distinct from the\n    other features; small mouth, and thin lips; chin, round, full, and\n    somewhat prominent, generally equal with the lips.\n\n  VARIETIES.\n\n    The Israelites, Greeks, Romans, Teutones, Sclavons, Celts, &c., and\n      many sub-varieties.\n\n\n  THE JAPHETIC SPECIES.\n\n  _Psychical or Spiritual Character_, viz:\n    Attributes unequally developed. Moderately mental--originative,\n    inventive, but not speculative. Not warlike, but destructive.\n\n  _Temperament._--Passive.\n\n  _Physical Character_, viz:--\n    Medium sensibility; olive yellow complexion; hair thin, coarse, and\n    black; little or no beard; broad, flattened, and triangular face;\n    high, pyramidal, and square-shaped skull; forehead small and low;\n    wide and small nose, particularly broad at the root; linear and\n    highly arched eyebrows; very oblique eyes, broad, irregular, and\n    half-closed, the upper eyelid extending a little beyond the lower;\n    thick lips.\n\n\n  VARIETIES.\n\n    The Chinese, Mongolians, Japanese, Chin Indians, &c., and probably\n      the Esquimaux, Toltecs, Aztecs, Peruvians.\n\n\n  THE ISHMAELITIC SPECIES.\n\n  _Psychical or Spiritual Character_, viz:--\n    Attributes generally equally developed. Moderately mental; not\n    originative, or inventive, but speculative; roving, predatory,\n    revengeful, and sensual. Warlike and highly destructive.\n\n  _Temperament._--Callous.\n\n  _Physical Character._--Sub-medium sensibility; dark skin, more or less\n    red, or of a copper-color tinge; hair black, straight, and strong;\n    face broad, immediately under the eyes; high cheek-bones; nose\n    prominent and distinct, particularly in profile; mouth and chin,\n    European.\n\n\n  VARIETIES.\n\n    Most of the Tartar and Arabian tribes, and the whole of the American\n      Indians, unless those mentioned in the second species should be\n      excepted.\n\n\n  THE CANAANITIC SPECIES.\n\n  _Psychical or Spiritual Character_, viz:--\n    Attributes equally undeveloped. Inferiorly mental; not originative,\n    inventive, or speculative; roving, revengeful, predatory, and highly\n    sensual; warlike and destructive.\n\n  _Temperament._--Sluggish.\n\n  _Physical Character._--Sluggish sensibility, approaching to torpor;\n    dark or black skin; hair black, generally woolly; skull compressed\n    on the sides, narrow at the forehead, which slants backwards;\n    cheek-bones very prominent; jaws projecting; teeth oblique, and chin\n    retreating, forming a muzzle-shaped profile; nose broad, flat, and\n    confused with the face; eyes prominent; lips thick.\n\n\n  VARIETIES.\n\n    The Negroes of Central Africa, Hottentots, Cafirs, Australasian\n      Negroes, &c.; and probably the Malays, &c.\n\n  _Nat. Hist. of Man_, p. 73 _et passim_.\n\nIf the reader will carefully examine the psychical characteristics of\nthese groups, as given in the above extract, he will find them to accord\nbetter with the whole of Mr. Gobineau's theories, than Mr. Gobineau's\nown classification.--H.\n\n[168] It is probably a typographical error, that makes Mr. Flourens\n(_Eloge de Blumenbach_, p. 11) say that the Polynesian race was \"a\nmixture of two others, the _Caucasian_ and the Mongolian.\" The Black and\nthe Mongolian is undoubtedly what the learned Academician wished to say.\n\n[169] This may be so in our eyes. It is natural for us to think those\nthe most pleasing in appearance, that closest resemble our own type. But\nwere an African to institute a comparative scale of beauty, would he not\nplace his own race highest, and declare that \"all races rose in the\nscale of beauty in proportion to the perfectness of the development\" of\nAfrican features? I think it extremely probable--nay, positively\ncertain.\n\nMr. Hamilton Smith takes the same side as the author. \"It is a mistaken\nnotion,\" says he, \"to believe that the standard contour of beauty and\nform differs materially in any country. Fashion may have the influence\nof setting up certain deformities for perfections, both at Pekin and at\nParis, but they are invariably apologies which national pride offers for\nits own defects. The youthful beauty of Canton would be handsome (?) in\nLondon,\" etc.\n\nMr. Van Amringe, on the contrary, after a careful examination of the\nfacts brought to light by travellers and other investigators, comes to\nthe conclusion that \"the standard of beauty in the different species\n(see p. 371, _note_) of man is wholly different, physically, morally,\nand intellectually. Consequently, that taste for personal beauty in each\nspecies is incompatible with the perception of sexual beauty out of the\nspecies.\" (_Op. cit._, p. 656.) \"A difference of taste for sexual beauty\nin the several races of men is the great natural law which has been\ninstrumental in separating them, and keeping them distinct, more\neffectually than mountains, deserts, or oceans. This separation has been\nperfect for the whole historic period, and continues to be now as wide\nas it is or has been in any distinct species of animals. Why has this\nbeen so? Did prejudice operate four thousand years ago exactly as it\ndoes now? If it did not, how came the races to separate into distinct\nmasses at the very earliest known period, and, either voluntarily or by\nforce, take up distinct geographical abodes?\" (_Ibid._, pp. 41 and\n42.)--H.\n\n[170] This inequality is not the less great, nor the less permanent, if\nwe suppose each type to have its own standard. Nay, if the latter be\ntrue, it is a sign of a more _radical_ difference among races.--H.\n\n[171] Upon the aborigines of America, consult Martius and Spix, _Reise\nin Brasilien_, vol. i. p. 259; upon the negroes, Pruner, _Der Neger,\neine aphoristische Skizze aus der medicinischen Topographie von Cairo_.\nIn regard to the superiority in muscular vigor over all other races, see\nCarus, _Ueber ungl. Bef._, p. 84.\n\n\n\n\nNOTE TO THE PRECEDING CHAPTER.\n\n  The position and treatment of woman among the various races of men a\n    proof of their moral and intellectual diversity.\n\n\nThe reader will pardon me if to Mr. Gobineau's scale of gradation in\npoint of beauty and physical strength, I add another as accurate, I\nthink, if not more so, and certainly as interesting. I allude to the\nmanner in which the weaker sex is regarded and treated among the various\nraces of men.\n\nIn the words of Van Amringe, \"from the brutal New Hollander, who secures\nhis wife by knocking her down with a club and dragging the prize to his\ncave, to the polished European, who, fearfully, but respectfully and\nassiduously, spends a probation of months or years for his better half,\nthe ascent may be traced with unfailing precision and accuracy.\" The\nsame writer correctly argues that if any principle could be inferred\nfrom analogy to animals, it would certainly be a uniform treatment of\nthe female sex among all races of man; for animals are remarkably\nuniform in the relations of the male and female in the same species. Yet\namong some races of men _polygamy has always prevailed, among others\nnever_. Would not any naturalist consider as distinct species any\nanimals of the same genus so distinguished? This subject has not yet met\nwith due attention at the hands of ethnologists. \"When we hear of a race\nof men,\" says the same author, \"being subjected to the tyranny of\nanother race, either by personal bondage or the more easy condition of\ntribute, our sympathies are enlisted in their favor, and our constant\ngood wishes, if not our efforts, accompany them. But when we hear of\nhundreds of millions of the truest and most tender-hearted of human\ncreatures being trodden down and trampled upon in everything that is\ndear to the human heart, our sympathies, which are so freely expended on\nslighter occasions or imaginary evils, are scarcely awakened to their\ncrushing woes.\"\n\nWith the writer from whom I have already made copious extracts, I\nbelieve that the _moral and intellectual diversity_ of the races of men\ncannot be thoroughly and accurately investigated without taking into\nconsideration the relations which most influence individual as well as\nnational progress and development, and which result from the position\noccupied by woman towards man. This truth has not escaped former\ninvestigators--it would be singular if it had--but they have contented\nthemselves with asserting that the condition of the female sex was\nindicative of the degree of civilization. Had they said, of the\nintrinsic worth of various races, I should cheerfully assent. But the\nelevation or degradation of woman in the social scale is generally\nregarded as a _result_, not a _cause_. It is said that all barbarians\ntreat their women as slaves; but, as they progress in civilization,\nwoman gradually rises to her legitimate rank.\n\nFor the sake of the argument, I shall assume that all now civilized\nnations at first treated their women as the actual barbarians treat\ntheirs. That this is not so, I hope to place beyond doubt; but, assuming\nit to be the case, might not the fact that some left off that\ntreatment, while others did not, be adduced as a proof of the inequality\nof races? \"The law of the relation of the sexes,\" says Van Amringe, \"is\nmore deeply engraven upon human nature than any other; because, whatever\ntheories may be adopted in regard to the origin of society, languages,\netc., no doubt can be entertained that the _influence of woman must have\nbeen anterior to any improvements of the original condition of man_.\nConsequently it was antecedent and superior to education and government.\nThat these relations were powerfully instrumental in the origin of\ndevelopment, to give it a direction and character according to the\nnatures operating and operated upon, cannot be doubted by any one who\nhas paid the slightest attention to domestic influences, from and under\nwhich education, customs, and government commenced.\"\n\nBut I totally deny that all races, in their first state of development,\ntreated their women equally. There is not only no historical testimony\nto prove that _any_ of the white races were ever in such a state of\nbarbarity and in such moral debasement as most of the dark races are to\nthis day, and have always been, but there is positive evidence to show\nthat our barbarous ancestors assigned to woman the same position we\nassign her now: she was the companion, and not the slave, of man. I have\nalready alluded to this in a previous note on the Teutonic races; I\ncannot, however, but revert to it again.\n\nAs I have not space for a lengthy discussion, I shall mention but one\nfact, which I think conclusive, and which rests upon incontrovertible\nhistorical testimony. \"To a German mind,\" says Tacitus (Murphy's\ntransl., vol. vii. 8), \"the idea of a woman led into captivity is\ninsupportable. In consequence of this prevailing sentiment, the states\nwhich deliver as hostages the daughters of illustrious families are\nbound by the most effectual obligations.\" Did this assertion rest on the\nauthority of Tacitus only, it might perhaps be called in question. It\nmight be said that the illustrious Roman had drawn an ideal picture,\netc. But C\u00e6sar dealt with realities, not idealities; he was a shrewd,\npractical statesman, and an able general; yet C\u00e6sar _did_ take females\nas hostages from the German tribes, in preference to men. Suppose C\u00e6sar\nhad made war against the King of Ashantee, and taken away some of his\nthree thousand three hundred and thirty-three wives, the mystical number\nbeing thus forcibly disturbed, might have alarmed the nation, whose\nwelfare is supposed to depend on it; but the misfortune would soon have\nbeen remedied.\n\nBut it is possible to demonstrate not only that all races did not treat\ntheir women equally in their first stage of development, but also that\nno race which assigned to woman in the beginning an inferior position\never raised her from it in any subsequent stage of development. I select\nthe Chinese for illustration, because they furnish us with an example of\na long-continued and regular intellectual progress,[172] which yet never\nresulted in an alteration of woman's position in the social structure.\nThe decadent Chinese of our day look upon the female half of their\nnation as did the rapidly advancing Chinese of the seventh and eighth\ncenturies; and the latter in precisely the same manner as their\nbarbarous ancestors, the subjects of the Emperor _Fou_, more than twenty\ncenturies before.\n\nI repeat it, the relations of the sexes, in various races, are equally\ndissimilar in every stage of development. The state of society may\nchange, the tendency of a race never. Faculties may be developed, but\nnever lost.\n\nAs the mothers and wives of our Teutonic ancestors were near the\nbattle-field, to administer refreshments to the wearied combatants, to\nstanch the bleeding of their wounds, and to inspire with renewed courage\nthe despairing, so, in modern times, matrons and maidens of the highest\nrank--worthy daughters of a heroic ancestry--have been found by\nthousands ready to sacrifice the comforts and quiet of home for the\nhorrors of a hospital.[173] As the rude warrior of a former age won his\nbeloved by deeds of valor, so, to his civilized descendant, the hand of\nhis mistress is the prize and reward of exertion. The wives and mothers\nof the ancient Germans and Celts were the counsellors of their sons and\nhusbands in the most important affairs; our wives and mothers are our\nadvisers in our more peaceful pursuits.\n\nBut the Arab, when he had arrived at the culminating point of his\ncivilization, and when he had become the teacher of our forefathers of\nthe Middle Ages in science and the arts, looked upon his many wives in\nthe same light as his roaming brother in the desert had done before, and\ndoes now. I do not ask of all these races that they should assign to\ntheir women the same rank that we do. If intellectual progress and\nsocial development among them showed the slightest tendency to produce\nultimately an alteration in woman's position towards her lord, I might\nbe content to submit to the opinion of those who regard that position\nas the effect of such a progress and such a development. But I cannot,\nin the history of those races, perceive the slightest indication of such\na result, and all my observations lead me to the conclusion that the\nrelations between the sexes are a cause, and not an effect.\n\nThe character of the women of different races differs in essential\npoints. What a vast difference, for instance, between the females of the\nrude crusaders who took possession of Constantinople, and the more\ncivilized Byzantine Greeks whom they so easily conquered; between the\nheroic matron of barbarous Germany and the highly civilized Chinese\nlady! These differences cannot be entirely the effect of education, else\nwe are forced to consider the female sex as mere automatons. They must\nbe the result of diversity of character. And why not, in the\ninvestigation of the moral and intellectual diversity of races and the\nnatural history of man, take into consideration the peculiarities that\ncharacterize the female portion of each race, a portion--I am forced to\nmake this trite observation, because so many investigators seem to\nforget it--which comprises at least one-half of the individuals to be\ndescribed?--H.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[172] Because we now find the Chinese apparently stationary, many\npersons unreflectingly conclude that they were always so; which would\npresuppose that the Chinese were placed upon earth with the faculty of\nmaking porcelain, gunpowder, paper, etc., somewhat after the manner in\nwhich bees make their cells. But in the annals of the Chinese empire,\nthe date of many of their principal inventions is distinctly recorded.\nThere was a long period of vigorous intellectual activity among that\nsingular people, a period during which good books were written, and\ningenious inventions made in rapid succession. This period has ceased,\nbut the Chinese are not therefore stationary. They are _retrograding_.\nNo Chinese workman can now make porcelain equal to that of former ages,\nwhich consequently bears an exorbitant price as an object of _virt\u00fb_.\nThe secret of many of their arts has been lost, the practice of all is\ngradually deteriorating. No book of any note has been written these\nhundreds of years in that great empire. Hence their passionate\nattachment to everything old, which is not, as is so generally presumed,\nthe _cause_ of their stagnation: it is the _sign_ of intellectual\ndecadence, and the brake which prevents a still more rapid descent.\nWhenever a nation begins to extravagantly prize the productions of\npreceding ages, it is a confession that it can no longer equal them: it\nhas begun to retrograde. But the very retrogression is a proof that\nthere once was an opposite movement.\n\n[173] The fearful scenes of blood which the beginning of our century\nwitnessed, had crowded the hospitals with wounded and dying.\nProfessional nurses could afford little help after battles like those of\nJena, of Eylau, of Feldbach, or of Leipsic. It was then that, in\nNorthern Germany, thousands of ladies of the first families sacrificed\ntheir health, and, in too many instances, their lives, to the Christian\nduty of charity. Many of the noble houses still mourn the loss of some\nfair matron or maiden, who fell a victim to her self-devotion. In the\nlate war between Denmark and Prussia, the Danish ladies displayed an\nequal zeal. Scutari also will be remembered in after ages as a monument\nof what the women of our race can do. But why revert to the past, and to\ndistant scenes? Have we not daily proofs around us that the heroic\nvirtues of by-gone ages still live in ours?\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIII.\n\nPERFECTIBILITY OF MAN.\n\n  Imperfect notions of the capability of savage tribes--Parallel\n    between our civilization and those that preceded it--Our modern\n    political theories no novelty--The political parties of Rome--Peace\n    societies--The art of printing a means, the results of which depend\n    on its use--What constitutes a \"living\" civilization--Limits of the\n    sphere of intellectual acquisitions.\n\n\nTo understand perfectly the differences existing among races, in regard\nto their intellectual capacity, it is necessary to ascertain the lowest\ndegree of stupidity that humanity is capable of. The inferior branches\nof the human family have hitherto been represented, by a majority of\nscientific observers, as considerably more abased than they are in\nreality. The first accounts of a tribe of savages almost always depict\nthem in exaggerated colors of the darkest cast, and impute to them such\nutter intellectual and reasoning incapacity, that they seem to sink to\nthe level of the monkey, and below that of the elephant. There are,\nindeed, some contrasts. Let a navigator be well received in some\nisland--let him succeed in persuading a few of the natives to work,\nhowever little, with the sailors, and praises are lavished upon the\nfortunate tribe: they are declared susceptible of every improvement; and\nperhaps the eulogist will go so far as to assert that he has found among\nthem minds of a very superior order.\n\nTo both these judgments we must object--the one being too favorable, the\nother too severe. Because some natives of Tahiti assisted in repairing a\nwhaler, or some inhabitant of Tonga Tabou exhibited good feelings\ntowards the white strangers who landed on his isle, it does not follow\nthat either are capable of receiving our civilization, or of being\nraised to a level with us. Nor are we warranted in classing among brutes\nthe poor naturals of a newly-discovered coast, who greet their first\nvisitors with a shower of stones and arrows, or who are found making a\ndainty repast on raw lizards and clods of clay. Such a meal does not,\nindeed, indicate a very superior intelligence, or very refined manners.\nBut even in the most repulsive cannibal there lies latent a spark of the\ndivine flame, and reason may be awakened to a certain extent. There are\nno tribes so very degraded that they do not reason in some degree,\nwhether correctly or otherwise, upon the things which surround them.\nThis ray of human intelligence, however faint it may be, is what\ndistinguishes the most degraded savage from the most intelligent brute,\nand capacitates him for receiving the teachings of religion.\n\nBut are these mental faculties, which every individual of our species\npossesses, susceptible of indefinite development? Have all men the same\ncapacity for intellectual progress? In other words, can cultivation\nraise all the different races to the same intellectual standard? and are\nno limits imposed to the perfectibility of our species? My answer to\nthese questions is, that all races are capable of improvement, but all\ncannot attain the same degree of perfection, and even the most favored\ncannot exceed a certain limit.\n\nThe idea of infinite perfection has gained many partisans in our times,\nbecause we, like all who came before us, pride ourselves upon possessing\nadvantages and points of superiority unknown to our predecessors. I have\nalready spoken of the distinguishing features of our civilization, but\nwillingly revert to this subject again.\n\nIt may be said, that in all the departments of science we possess\nclearer and more correct notions; that, upon the whole, our manners are\nmore polished, and our code of morals is preferable to that of the\nancients. It is further asserted, as the principal proof of our\nsuperiority, that we have better defined, juster and more tolerant ideas\nwith regard to political liberty. Sanguine theorists are not wanting,\nwho pretend that our discoveries in political science and our\nenlightened views of the rights of man will ultimately lead us to that\nuniversal happiness and harmony which the ancients in vain sought in the\nfabled garden of Hesperides.\n\nThese lofty pretensions will hardly bear the test of severe historical\ncriticism.\n\nIf we surpass preceding generations in scientific knowledge, it is\nbecause we have added our share to the discoveries which they bequeathed\nto us. We are their heirs, their pupils, their continuators, just as\nfuture generations will be ours. We achieve great results by the\napplication of the power of steam; we have solved many great problems in\nmechanics, and pressed the elements as submissive slaves into our\nservice. But do these successes bring us any nearer to omniscience. At\nmost, they may enable us ultimately to fathom all the secrets of the\nmaterial world. And when we shall have achieved that grand conquest, for\nwhich so much requires still to be done that is not yet commenced, nor\neven anticipated; have we advanced a single step beyond the simple\nexposition of the laws which govern the material world? We may have\nlearned to direct our course through the air, to approach the limits of\nthe respirable atmosphere; we may discover and elucidate several\ninteresting astronomical problems; we may have greater powers for\ncontrolling nature and compelling her to minister to our wants, but can\nall this knowledge make us better, happier beings? Suppose we had\ncounted all the planetary systems and measured the immense regions of\nspace, would we know more of the grand mystery of existence than those\nthat came before us? Would this add one new faculty to the human mind,\nor ennoble human nature by the eradication of one bad passion?\n\nAdmitting that we are more enlightened upon some subjects, in how many\nother respects are we inferior to our more remote ancestors? Can it be\ndoubted, for instance, that in Abraham's times much more was known of\nprimordial traditions than the dubious beams which have come down to us?\nHow many discoveries which we owe to mere accident, or which are the\nfruits of painful efforts, were the lost possessions of remote ages? How\nmany more are not yet restored? What is there in the most splendid of\nour works that can compare with those wonders by which Egypt, India,\nGreece, and America still attest the grandeur and magnificence of so\nmany edifices which the weight of centuries, much more than the impotent\nravages of man, has caused to disappear? What are our works of art by\nthe side of those of Athens; our thinkers by the side of those of\nAlexandria or India; our poets by the side of a Valmiki, Kalidasa,\nHomer, Pindar?\n\nThe truth is, we pursue a different direction from that of the human\nsocieties whose civilization preceded ours. We apply our mind to\ndifferent purposes and different investigations; but while we clear and\ncultivate new lands, we are compelled to neglect and abandon to\nsterility those to which they devoted their attention. What we gain in\none direction we lose in another. We cannot call ourselves superior to\nthe ancients, unless we had preserved at least the principal\nacquisitions of preceding ages in all their integrity, and had succeeded\nin establishing by the side of these, the great results which they as\nwell as we sought after. Our sciences and arts superadded to theirs have\nnot enabled us to advance one step nearer the solution of the great\nproblems of existence, the mysteries of life and death. \"I seek, but\nfind not,\" has always been, will ever be, the humiliating confession of\nscience when endeavoring to penetrate into the secrets concealed by the\nveil that it is not given to mortal to lift. In criticism[174] we are,\nundoubtedly, much in advance of our predecessors; but criticism implies\nclassification, not acquisition.\n\nNor can we justly pride ourselves upon any superiority in regard to\npolitical ideas. Political and social theories were as rife in Athens\nafter the age of Pericles as they are in our days. To be convinced of\nthis, it is necessary only to study Aristophanes, whose comedies Plato\nrecommends to the perusal of whoever wishes to become acquainted with\nthe public morals of the city of Minerva. It has been pretended that our\npresent structure of society, and that of the ancients, admit of no\ncomparison, owing to the institution of slavery which formed an element\nof the latter. But the only real difference is that demagogism had then\nan even more fertile soil in which to strike root. The slaves of those\ndays find their precise counterpart in our working classes and\nproletarians.[175] The Athenian people propitiating their servile class\nafter the battle of Arginuses, might be taken for a picture of the\nnineteenth century.\n\nLook at Rome. Open Cicero's letters. What a specimen of the moderate\nTory that great Roman orator was; what a similarity between his republic\nand our constitutional bodies politic, with regard to the language of\nparties and parliamentary debates! There, too, the background of the\npicture was occupied by degraded masses of a servile and pr\u00e6dial\npopulation, always eager for change, and ready to rise in actual\nrebellion.\n\nLet us leave those dregs of the population, whose civil existence the\nlaw ignored, and who counted in politics but as the formidable tool of\ndesigning individuals of free birth. But does not the free population of\nRome afford a perfect analogue to a modern body politic? There is the\nmob crying for bread, greedy of shows, flattery, gratuitous\ndistributions, and amusements; the middle classes (_bourgeoisie_)\nmonopolizing and dividing among themselves the public offices; the\nhereditary aristocracy, continually assailed at all points, continually\nlosing ground, until driven in mere self-defence to abjure all superior\nclaims and stipulate for equal rights to all. Are not these perfect\nresemblances?\n\nAmong the boundless variety of opinions that make themselves heard in\nour day, there is not one that had not advocates in Rome. I alluded a\nwhile ago to the letters written from the villa of Tusculum; they\nexpress the sentiments of the Roman conservative _Progressist_ party. By\nthe side of Sylla, Pompey and Cicero were Radicals.[176] Their notions\nwere not sufficiently radical for C\u00e6sar; too much so for Cato. At a\nlater period we find in Pliny the younger a mild royalist, a friend of\nquiet, even at some cost. Apprehensive of too much liberty, yet jealous\nof power too absolute; very practical in his views, caring but little\nfor the poetical splendor of the age of the Fabii, he preferred the more\nprosaic administration of Trajan. There were others not of his opinion,\ngood people who feared an insurrection headed by some new Spartacus, and\nwho, therefore, thought that the Emperor could not hold the reins too\ntight. Then there were others, from the provinces, who obstreperously\ndemanded and obtained what would now be called \"constitutional\nguaranties.\" Again, there were the socialists, and their views found no\nless an expounder than the Gallic C\u00e6sar, C. Junius Posthumus, who\nexclaims: \"Dives et pauper, inimici,\" the rich and the poor are enemies\nborn.\n\nEvery man who had any pretensions to participate in the lights of the\nday, declaimed on the absolute equality of all men, their \"inalienable\nrights,\" the manifest necessity and ultimate universality of the\nGreco-Latin civilization, its superiority, its mildness, its future\nprogress, much greater even than that actually made, and above all its\nperpetuity. Nor were those ideas merely the pride and consolation of the\npagans; they were the firm hopes and expectations of the earliest and\nmost illustrious Fathers of the Church, whose sentiments found so\neloquent an interpreter in Tertullian.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nAnd as a last touch, to complete the picture, let us not forget those\npeople who, then as now, formed the most numerous of all parties: those\nthat belonged to none--people who are too weak-minded, or indifferent,\nor apprehensive, or disgusted, to lay hold of a truth, from among the\nmidst of contradictory theories that float around them--people who are\ncontent with order when it exists, submit passively in times of disorder\nand confusion; who admire the increase of conveniences and comforts of\nlife unknown to their ancestors, and who, without thinking further,\ncentre their hope in the future and pride in the present, in the\nreflection: \"What wonderful facilities we enjoy now-a-days.\"\n\nThere would be some reason for believing in an improvement in political\nscience, if we had invented some governmental machinery which had\nhitherto been unknown, or at least never carried into practice. This\nglory we cannot arrogate to ourselves. Limited monarchies were known in\nevery age. There are even some very curious examples of this form of\ngovernment found among certain Indian tribes who, nevertheless, have\nremained savages. Democratic and aristocratic republics of every form,\nand balanced in the most varied manner, flourished in the new world as\nwell as the old. Tlascala is as complete a model of this kind as\nAthens, Sparta, or Mecca before Mohammed's times. And even supposing\nthat we have applied to governmental science some secondary principle of\nour own invention, does this justify us in our exaggerated pretension to\nunlimited perfectibility? Let us rather be modest, and say with the\nwisest of kings: \"_Nil novi sub sole._\"[177]\n\nIt is said that our manners are milder than those of the other great\nhuman societies; this assertion also is very open to criticism. There\nare some philanthropists who would induce nations no longer to resort to\narmies in settling their quarrels. The idea is borrowed from Seneca.\nSome of the Eastern sages professed the same principles in this respect\nas the Moravian Brethren. But assuming that the members of the Peace\nCongress succeed in disgusting Europe with the turmoil and miseries of\nwarfare, they would still have the difficult task left of forever\ntransforming the human passions. Neither Seneca nor the Eastern sages\nhave been able to accomplish this, and it may reasonably be doubted\nwhether this grand achievement is reserved for our generation. We\npossess pure and exalted principles, I admit, but are they carried into\npractice? Look at our fields, the streets of our cities--the bloody\ntraces of contests as fierce as any recorded in history are scarcely yet\neffaced. Never since the beginning of our civilization has there been an\ninterval of peace of fifty years, and we are, in this respect, far\nbehind ancient Italy, which, under the Romans, once enjoyed two\ncenturies of perfect tranquillity. But even so long a repose would not\nwarrant us in concluding that the temple of Janus was thenceforth to be\nforever closed.\n\nThe state of our civilization does not, therefore, prove the unlimited\nperfectibility of man. If he have learned many things, he has forgotten\nothers. He has not added another to his senses; his soul is not enriched\nby one new faculty. I cannot too much insist upon the great though sad\ntruth, that whatever we gain in one direction is counterbalanced by some\nloss in another; that, limited as is our intellectual domain, we are\ndoomed never to possess its whole extent at once. Were it not for this\nfatal law, we might imagine that at some period, however distant, man,\nfinding himself in possession of the experience of successive ages, and\nhaving acquired all that it is in his power to acquire, would have\nlearned at last to apply his acquisitions to his welfare--to live\nwithout battling against his kind, and against misery; to enjoy a state,\nif not of unalloyed happiness, at least of abundance and peace.\n\nBut even so limited a felicity is not promised us here below, for in\nproportion as man learns he unlearns; whatever he acquires, is at the\ncost of some previous acquisition; whatever he possesses he is always in\ndanger of losing.\n\nWe flatter ourselves with the belief that our civilization is\nimperishable, because we possess the art of printing, gunpowder, the\nsteam engine, &c. These are valuable means to accomplish great results,\nbut the accomplishment depends on their use.\n\nThe art of printing is known to many other nations beside ourselves, and\nis as extensively used by them as by us.[178] Let us see its fruits. In\nTonquin, Anam, Japan, books are plentiful, much cheaper than with\nus--so cheap that they are within the reach of even the poorest--and\neven the poorest read them. How is it, then, that these people are so\nenervated, so degraded, so sunk in sloth and vice[179]--so near that\nstage in which even civilized man, having frittered away his physical\nand mental powers, may sink infinitely below the rude barbarian, who, at\nthe first convenient opportunity, becomes his master? Whence this\nresult? Precisely because the art of printing is a means, and not an\nagent. So long as it is used to diffuse sound, sterling ideas, to afford\nwholesome and refreshing nutriment to vigorous minds, a civilization\nnever decays. But when it becomes the vile caterer to a depraved taste,\nwhen it serves only to multiply the morbid productions of enervated or\nvitiated minds, the senseless quibbles of a sectarian theology instead\nof religion, the venomous scurrility of libellists instead of politics,\nthe foul obscenities of licentious rhymers instead of poesy--how and why\nshould the art of printing save a civilization from ruin?\n\nIt is objected that the art of printing contributes to the preservation\nof a civilization by the facility with which it multiplies and diffuses\nthe masterpieces of the human mind, so that, even in times of\nintellectual sterility, when they can no longer be emulated, they still\nform the standard of taste, and by their clear and steady light prevent\nthe possibility of utter darkness. But it should be remembered that to\ndelve in the hoarded treasures of thought, and to appropriate them for\npurposes of mental improvement, presupposes the possession of that\ngreatest of earthly goods--an enlightened mind. And in epochs of\nintellectual degeneracy, few care about those monuments of lost virtues\nand powers; they are left undisturbed on their dusty shelves in\nlibraries whose silence is but seldom broken by the tread of the\nanxious, painstaking student.\n\nThe longevity which Guttenberg's invention assures to the productions of\ngenius is much exaggerated. There are a few works that enjoy the honor\nof being reproduced occasionally; with this exception, books die now\nprecisely as formerly did the manuscripts. Works of science, especially,\ndisappear with singular rapidity from the realms of literature. A few\nhundred copies are struck off at first, and they are seldom, and, after\na while, never heard of more. With considerable trouble you can find\nthem in some large collection. Look what has become of the thousands of\nexcellent works that have appeared since the first printed page came\nfrom the press. The greater portion are forgotten. Many that are still\nspoken of, are never read; the titles even of others, that were\ncarefully sought after fifty years ago, are gradually disappearing from\nevery memory.\n\nSo long as a civilization is vigorous and flourishing, this\ndisappearance of old books is but a slight misfortune. They are\nsuperseded; their valuable portions are embodied in new ones; the seed\nexists no longer, but the fruit is developing. In times of intellectual\ndegeneracy it is otherwise. The weakened powers cannot grapple with the\nsolid thought of more vigorous eras; it is split up into more convenient\nfragments--rendered more portable, as it were; the strong beverage that\nonce was the pabulum of minds as strong, must be diluted to suit the\npresent taste; and innumerable dilutions, each weaker than the other,\nimmediately claim public favor; the task of learning must be lightened\nin proportion to the decreasing capacity for acquiring; everything\nbecomes superficial; what costs the least effort gains the greatest\nesteem; play upon words is accounted wit; shallowness, learning; the\nsurface is preferred to the depth. Thus it has ever been in periods of\ndecay; thus it will be with us when we have once reached that point\nwhence every movement is retrogressive. Who knows but we are near it\nalready?--and the art of printing will not save us from it.\n\nTo enhance the advantages which we derive from that art, the number and\ndiffusion of manuscripts have been too much underrated. It is true that\nthey were scarce in the epoch immediately preceding; but in the latter\nperiods of the Roman empire they were much more numerous and much more\nwidely diffused than is generally imagined. In those times, the\nfacilities for instruction were by no means of difficult access; books,\nindeed, were quite common. We may judge so from the extraordinary number\nof threadbare grammarians with which even the smallest villages swarmed;\na sort of people very much like the petty novelists, lawyers, and\neditors of modern times, and whose loose morals, shabbiness, and\npassionate love for enjoyments, are described in Pretronius's Satyricon.\nEven when the decadence was complete, those who wished for books could\neasily procure them. Virgil was read everywhere; so much so, that the\nilliterate peasantry, hearing so much of him, imagined him to be some\ndangerous and powerful sorcerer. The monks copied him; they copied\nPliny, Dioscorides, Plato, and Aristotle; they copied Catullus and\nMartial. These books, then, cannot have been very rare. Again, when we\nconsider how great a number has come down to us notwithstanding\ncenturies of war and devastation--notwithstanding so many conflagrations\nof monasteries, castles, libraries, &c.--we cannot but admit that, in\nspite of the laborious process of transcription, literary productions\nmust have been multiplied to a very great extent. It is possible,\ntherefore, to greatly exaggerate the obligations under which science,\npoetry, morality, and true civilization lie to the typographic art; and\nI repeat it, that art is a marvellous instrument, but if the arm that\nwields it, and the head that directs the arm, are not, the instrument\ncannot be, of much service.\n\nSome people believe that the possession of gunpowder exempts modern\nsocieties from many of the dangers that proved fatal to the ancient.\nThey assert that it abates the horrors of warfare, and diminishes its\nfrequency, bidding fair, therefore, to establish, in time, a state of\nuniversal peace. If such be the beneficial results attendant on this\naccidental invention, they have not as yet manifested themselves.\n\nOf the various applications of steam, and other industrial inventions, I\nwould say, as of the art of printing, that they are great means, but\ntheir results depend upon the agent. Such arts might be practised by\nrote long after the intellectual activity that produced them had ceased.\nThere are innumerable instances of processes which continue in use,\nthough the theoretical secret is lost. It is therefore not unreasonable\nto suppose, that the practice of our inventions might survive our\ncivilization; that is, it might continue when these inventions were no\nlonger possible, when no further improvements were to be hoped for.\nMaterial well-being is but an external appendage of a civilization;\nintellectual activity, and a consequent progress, are its life. A state\nof intellectual torpor, therefore, cannot be a state of civilization,\neven though the people thus stagnating, have the means of transporting\nthemselves rapidly from place to place, or of adorning themselves and\ntheir dwellings. This would only prove that they were the _heirs_ of a\nformer civilization, but not that they actually possessed one. I have\nsaid, in another place, that a civilization may thus preserve, for a\ntime, every appearance of life: the effect may continue after the cause\nhas ceased. But, as a continuous change seems to be the order of nature\nin all things material and immaterial, a downward tendency is soon\nmanifest. I have before compared a civilization to the human body. While\nalive, it undergoes a perpetual modification: every hour has wrought a\nchange; when dead, it preserves, for a time, the appearance of life,\nperhaps even its beauty; but gradually, symptoms of decay become\nmanifest, and every stage of dissolution is more precipitate than the\none before, as a stone thrown up in the air, poises itself there for an\ninappreciable fraction of time, then falls with continually increasing\nvelocity, more and more swiftly as it approaches the ground.\n\nEvery civilization has produced in those who enjoyed its fruits, a firm\nconviction of its stability, its perpetuity.\n\nWhen the palanquins of the Incas travelled rapidly on the smooth,\nmagnificent causeways which still unite Cuzco and Quito, a distance of\nfifteen hundred miles, with what feelings of exultation must they have\ncontemplated the conquests of the present, what magnificent prospects of\nthe future must have presented themselves to their imaginations! Stern\ntime, with one blow of his gigantic wings, hurled their empire into the\ndeepest depths of the abyss of oblivion. These proud sovereigns of\nPeru--they, too, had their sciences, their mechanical inventions, their\npowerful machines: the works they accomplished we contemplate with\namazement, and a vain effort to divine the means employed. How were\nthose blocks of stone, thirty-five feet long and eighteen thick, raised\none upon another? How were they transported the vast distance from the\nquarries where they were hewn? By what contrivance did the engineers of\nthat people hoist those enormous masses to a dizzy height? It is indeed\na problem--a problem, too, which we will never solve. Nor are the ruins\nof Tihuanaco unparalleled by the remains of European civilizations of\nante-historic times. The cyclopean walls with which Southern Europe\nabounds, and which have withstood the all-destroying tooth of time for\nthousands upon thousands of years--who built them? Who piled these\nmonstrous masses, which modern art could scarcely move?\n\nLet us not mistake the results of a civilization for its causes. The\ncauses cease, the results subsist for a while, then are lost. If they\nagain bear fruit, it is because a new spirit has appropriated them, and\nconverted them to purposes often very different from those they had at\nfirst. Human intelligence is finite, nor can it ever reign at once in\nthe whole of its domain:[180] it can turn to account one portion of it\nonly by leaving the other bare; it exalts what it possesses, esteems\nlightly what it has lost. Thus, every generation is at the same time\nsuperior and inferior to its predecessors. Man cannot, then, surpass\nhimself: man's perfectibility is not infinite.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[174] The word _criticism_ has here been used by the translator in a\nsense somewhat unusual in the English language, where it is generally\nmade to signify \"the art of judging of literary or artistic\nproductions.\" In a more comprehensive sense, it means _the art of\ndiscriminating between truth and error_, or rather, perhaps, between\n_the probable and the improbable_. In this sense, the word is often used\nby continental metaphysicians, and also, though less frequently, by\nEnglish writers. As the definition is perfectly conformable to\netymology, I have concluded to let the above passage stand as it is.--H.\n\n[175] It will be remembered that Mr. Gobineau speaks of Europe.--H.\n\n[176] The term \"Radical\" is used on the European continent to designate\nthat party who desire thorough, uncompromising reform: the plucking out\nof evils by the _root_.--H.\n\n[177] The principles of government applied to practice at the formation\nof our Constitution, Mr. Gobineau considers as identical with those laid\ndown at the beginning of every society founded by the Germanic race. In\nhis succeeding volumes he mentions several analogues.--H.\n\n[178] M. J. Mohl, _Rapport Annuel \u00e0 la Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 Asiatique_, 1851, p. 92:\n\"The Indian book trade of indigenous productions is extremely lively,\nand consists of a number of works which are never heard of in Europe,\nnor ever enter a European's library even in India. Mr. Springer asserts\nin a letter, that in the single town of Luknau there are thirteen\nlithographical establishments exclusively occupied with multiplying\nbooks for the schools, and he gives a list of considerable length of\nbooks, none of which have probably ever reached Europe. The same is the\ncase in Delhi, Agra, Cawnpour, Allahabad, and other cities.\"\n\n[179] The Siamese are probably the most debased in morals of any people\non earth. They belong to the remotest outskirts of the Indo-Chinese\ncivilization; yet among them every one knows how to read and write.\n(Ritter, _Erdkunde, Asien_, vol. iii. p. 1152.)\n\n[180] No individual can encompass the whole circle of human knowledge:\nno civilization comprise at once all the improvements possible to\nhumanity.--H.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIV.\n\nMUTUAL RELATIONS OF DIFFERENT MODES OF INTELLECTUAL CULTURE.\n\n  Necessary consequences of a supposed equality of all races--Uniform\n    testimony of history to the contrary--Traces of extinct\n    civilizations among barbarous tribes--Laws which govern the\n    adoption of a state of civilization by conquered\n    populations--Antagonism of different modes of culture; the Hellenic\n    and Persian, European and Arab, etc.\n\n\nHad it been the will of the Creator to endow all the branches of the\nhuman family with equal intellectual capacities, what a glorious tableau\nwould history not unfold before us. All being equally intelligent,\nequally aware of their true interests, equally capable of triumphing\nover obstacles, a number of simultaneous and flourishing civilizations\nwould have gladdened every portion of the inhabited globe. While the\nmost ancient Sanscrit nations covered Northern India with harvests,\ncities, palaces, and temples; and the plains of the Tigris and Euphrates\nshook under the trampling of Nimrod's cavalry and chariots, the\nprognathous tribes of Africa would have formed and developed a social\nsystem, sagaciously constructed, and productive of brilliant results.\n\nSome luckless tribes, whose lot fortune had cast in inhospitable climes,\nburning sands, or glacial regions, mountain gorges, or cheerless steppes\nswept by the piercing winds of the north, would have been compelled to a\nlonger and severer struggle against such unpropitious circumstances,\nthan more fortunate nations. But being not inferior in intelligence and\nsagacity, they would not have been long in discovering the means of\nbettering their condition. Like the Icelanders, the Danes, and\nNorwegians, they would have forced the reluctant soil to afford them\nsustenance; if inhabitants of mountainous regions, they would, like the\nSwiss, have enjoyed the advantages of a pastoral life, or like the\nCashmerians, resorted to manufacturing industry. But if their\ngeographical situation had been so unfavorable as to admit of no\nresource, they would have reflected that the world was large, contained\nmany a pleasant valley and fertile plain, where they might seek the\nfruits of intelligent activity, which their stepmotherly native land\nrefused them.\n\nThus all the nations of the earth would have been equally enlightened,\nequally prosperous; some by the commerce of maritime cities, others by\nproductive agriculture in inland regions, or successful industry in\nbarren and Alpine districts. Though they might not exempt themselves\nfrom the misfortunes to which the imperfections of human nature give\nrise--transitory dissensions, civil wars, seditions, etc.--their\nindividual interests would soon have led them to invent some system of\nrelative equiponderance. As the differences in their civilizations\nresulted merely from fortuitous circumstances, and not from innate\ninequalities, a mutual interchange would soon have assimilated them in\nall essential points. Nothing could then prevent a universal\nconfederation, that dream of so many centuries; and the inhabitants of\nthe most distant parts of the globe would have been as members of one\ngreat cosmopolite people.\n\nLet us contrast this fantastic picture with the reality. The first\nnations worthy of the name, owed their formation to an instinct of\naggregation, which the barbarous tribes near them not only did not feel\nthen, but never afterward. These nations spread beyond their original\nboundaries, and forced others to submit to their power. But the\nconquered neither adopted nor understood the principles of the\ncivilization imposed upon them. Nor has the force of example been of\navail to those in whom innate capacity was wanting. The native\npopulations of the Spanish peninsula, and of Transalpine and Ligurian\nGaul, saw Phenicians, Greeks, and Carthaginians, successively establish\nflourishing cities on their coasts, without feeling the least incitement\nto imitate the manners or forms of government of these prosperous\nmerchants.\n\nWhat a glorious spectacle do not the Indians of North America witness at\nthis moment. They have before their eyes a great and prosperous nation,\neminent for the successful practical application of modern theories and\nsciences to political and social forms, as well as to industrial art.\nThe superiority of this foreign race, which has so firmly established\nitself upon his former patrimony, is evident to the red man. He sees\ntheir magnificent cities, their thousands of vessels upon the once\nsilent rivers, their successful agriculture; he knows that even his own\nrude wants, the blanket with which he covers himself, the weapon with\nwhich he slays his game, the ardent spirits he has learned to love so\nwell, can be supplied only by the stranger. The last feeble hope to see\nhis native soil delivered from the presence of the conqueror's race, has\nlong since vanished from his breast; he feels that the land of his\nfathers is not his own. Yet he stubbornly refuses to enter the pale of\nthis civilization which invites him, solicits him, tries to entice him\nwith superior advantages and comforts. He prefers to retreat from\nsolitude to solitude, deeper and deeper into the primitive forest. He is\ndoomed to perish, and he knows it; but a mysterious power retains him\nunder the yoke of his invincible repugnances, and while he admires the\nstrength and superiority of the whites, his conscience, his whole\nnature, revolts at the idea of assimilating to them. He cannot forget or\nsmother the instincts of his race.\n\nThe aborigines of Spanish America are supposed to evince a less\nunconquerable aversion. It is because the Spanish metropolitan\ngovernment had never attempted to civilize them. Provided they were\nChristians, at least in name, they were left to their own usages and\nhabits, and, in many instances, under the administration of their\nCaziques. The Spaniards colonized but little, and when the conquest was\ncompleted and their sanguinary appetites glutted by those unparalleled\natrocities which brand them with indelible disgrace, they indulged in a\nlazy toleration, and directed their tyranny rather against individuals\nthan against modes of thinking and living. The Indians have, in a great\nmeasure, mixed with their conquerors, and will continue to live while\ntheir brethren in the vicinity of the Anglo-Saxon race are inevitably\ndoomed to perish.\n\nBut not only savages, even nations of a higher rank in the intellectual\nscale are incapable of adopting a foreign civilization. We have already\nalluded to the failure of the English in India and of the Dutch in Java,\nin trying to import their own ideas into their foreign dependencies.\nFrench philanthropy is at this moment gaining the same experience in the\nnew French possession of Algeria. There can be no stronger or more\nconclusive proof of the various endowments of different races.\n\nIf we had no other argument in proof of the innate imparity of races\nthan the actual condition of certain barbarous tribes, and the\nsupposition that they had always been in that condition, and,\nconsequently, always would be, we should expose ourselves to serious\nobjections. For many barbarous nations preserve traces of former\ncultivation and refinement. There are some tribes, very degraded in\nevery other respect, who yet possess traditional regulations respecting\nthe marriage celebration, the forms of justice and the division of\ninheritances, which evidently are remnants of a higher state of society,\nthough the rites have long since lost all meaning. Many of the Indian\ntribes who wander over the tracts once occupied by the Alleghanian race,\nmay be cited as instances of this kind. The natives of the Marian\nIslands, and many other savages, practise mechanically certain processes\nof manufacture, the invention of which presupposes a degree of ingenuity\nand knowledge utterly at variance with their present stupidity and\nignorance. To avoid hasty and erroneous conclusions concerning this\nseeming decadence, there are several circumstances to be taken into\nconsideration.\n\nLet us suppose a savage population to fall within the sphere of activity\nof a proximate, but superior race. In that case they may gradually learn\nto conform externally to the civilization of their masters, and acquire\nthe technicalities of their arts and inventions. Should the dominant\nrace disappear either by expulsion or absorption, the civilization would\nexpire, but some of its outward forms might be retained and perpetuated.\nA certain degree of mechanical skill might survive the scientific\nprinciples upon which it was based. In other words, practice might long\ncontinue after the theory was lost. History furnishes us a number of\nexamples in support of this assertion.\n\nSuch, for instance, was the attitude of the Assyrians toward the\ncivilization of the Chaldeans; of the Iberians, Celts, and Illyrians\ntowards that of the Romans. If, then, the Cherokees, the Catawbas,\nMuskogees, Seminoles, Natchez and other tribes, still preserve a feeble\nimpress of the Alleghanian civilization, I should not thence conclude\nthat they are the pure and direct descendants of the initiatory element\nof that people, which would imply that a race may once have been\ncivilized, and be no longer so. I should say, on the contrary, that the\nCherokees, if at all ethnically connected with the ancient dominant\ntype, are so by only a collateral tie of consanguinity, else they could\nnever have relapsed into a state of barbarism. The other tribes which\nexhibit little or no vestiges of the former civilization are probably\nthe descendants of a different conquered population which formed no\nconstituent element of the society, but served rather as the substratum\nupon which the edifice was erected. It is no matter of surprise, if this\nbe the case, that they should preserve--without understanding them and\nwith a sort of superstitious veneration--customs, laws, and rites\ninvented by others far more intelligent than themselves.\n\nThe same may be said of the mechanical arts. The aborigines of the\nCarolines are about the most interesting of the South Sea islanders.\nTheir looms, sculptured canoes, their taste for navigation and commerce\nshow them vastly superior to the Pelagian negroes, their neighbors. It\nis easy to account for this superiority by the well-authenticated\nadmixture of Malay blood. But as this element is greatly attenuated, the\ninventions which it introduced have not borne indigenous fruits, but, on\nthe contrary, are gradually, but surely, disappearing.\n\nThe preceding observations will, I think, suffice to show that the\ntraces of civilization among a barbarous tribe are not a necessary proof\nthat this tribe itself has ever been really civilized. It may either\nhave lived under the domination of a superior but consanguineous race,\nor living in its vicinity, have, in an humble and feeble degree,\nprofited by its lessons. This result, however, is possible only when\nthere exists between the superior and the inferior race a certain\nethnical affinity; that is to say, when the former is either a noble\nbranch of the same stock, or ennobled by intermixture with another. When\nthe disparity between races is too great and too decided, and there is\nno intermediate link to connect them, the contact is always fatal to the\ninferior race, as is abundantly proved by the disappearance of the\naborigines of North America and Polynesia.\n\nI shall now speak of the relations arising from the contact of different\ncivilizations.\n\nThe Persian civilization came in contact with the Grecian; the Egyptian\nwith the Grecian and Roman; the Roman with the Grecian; and finally the\nmodern civilization of Europe with all those at present subsisting on\nthe globe, and especially with the Arabian.\n\nThe contact of Greek intelligence with the culture of the Persians was\nas frequent as it was compulsory. The greater portion of the Hellenic\npopulation, and the wealthiest, though not the most independent, was\nconcentrated in the cities of the Syrian coast, the Greek colonies of\nAsia Minor, and on the shores of the Euxine, all of which formed a part\nof the Persian dominions. Though these colonies preserved their own\nlocal laws and politics, they were under the authority of the satraps of\nthe great king. Intimate relations, moreover, were maintained between\nEuropean Greece and Asia. That the Persians were then possessed of a\nhigh degree of civilization is proved by their political organization\nand financial administration, by the magnificent ruins which still\nattest the splendor and grandeur of their cities. But the principles of\ngovernment and religion, the modes and habits of life, the genius of the\narts, were very differently understood by the two nations; and,\ntherefore, notwithstanding their constant intercourse, neither made the\nslightest approach toward assimilation with the other. The Greeks called\ntheir puissant neighbors barbarians, and the latter, no doubt, amply\nreturned the compliment.\n\nIn Ecbatana no other form of government could be conceived than an\nundivided hereditary authority, limited only by certain religious\nprescriptions and a court ceremonial. The genius of the Greeks tended to\nan endless variety of governmental forms; subdivided into a number of\npetty sovereignties. Greek society presented a singular mosaic of\npolitical structures; oligarchical in Sparta, democratical in Athens,\ntyrannical in Sicyon, monarchical in Macedonia, the forms of government\nwere the same in scarcely two cities or districts. The state religion of\nthe Persians evinced the same tendency to unity as their politics, and\nwas more of a metaphysical and moral than a material character. The\nGreeks, on the contrary, had a symbolical system of religion, consisting\nin the worship of natural objects and influences, which gradually\nchanged into a perfect prosopopoeia, representing the gods as\nsentient beings, subject to the same passions, and engaged in the same\npursuits and occupations as the inhabitants of the earth. The worship\nconsisted principally in the performance of rites and demonstrations of\nrespect to the deities; the conscience was left to the direction of the\ncivil laws. Besides, the rites, as well as the divinities and heroes in\nwhose honor they were practised, were different in every place.\n\nAs for the manners and habits of life, it is unnecessary to point out\nhow vastly different they were from those of Persia. Public contempt\npunished the young, wealthy, pleasure-loving cosmopolitan, who attempted\nto live in Persian style. Thus, until the time of Alexander, when the\npower of Greece had arrived at its culminating point, Persia, with all\nher preponderance, could not convert Hellas to her civilization.\n\nIn the time of Alexander, this incompatibility of dissimilar modes of\nculture was singularly demonstrated. When the empire of Darius succumbed\nto the Macedonian phalanxes, it was expected, for a time, that a\nHellenic civilization would spread over Asia. There seemed the more\nreason for this belief when the conqueror, in a moment of aberrancy,\ntreated the monuments of the land with such aggressive violence as\nseemed to evince equal hatred and contempt. But the wanton incendiary\nof Persepolis soon changed his mind, and so completely, that his design\nbecame apparent to simply substitute himself in the room of the dynasty\nof Ach\u00e6menes, and rule over Persia like a Persian king, with Greece\nadded to his estates. Great as was Alexander's power, it was\ninsufficient for the execution of such a project. His generals and\nsoldiers could not brook to see their commander assume the long flowing\nrobes of the eastern kings, surround himself with eunuchs, and renounce\nthe habits and manners of his native land. Though after his death some\nof his successors persisted in the same system, they were compelled\ngreatly to mitigate it. Where the population consisted of a motley\ncompound of Greeks, Syrians, and Arabs, as in Egypt and the coast of\nAsia Minor, a sort of compromise between the two civilizations became\nthenceforth the normal state of the country; but where the races\nremained unmixed, the national manners were preserved.\n\nIn the latter periods of the Roman empire, the two civilizations had\nbecome completely blended in the whole East, including continental\nGreece; but it was tinged more with the Asiatic than the Greek\ntendencies, because the masses belonged much more to the former element\nthan to the latter. Hellenic forms, it is true, still subsisted, but it\nis not difficult to discover in the ideas of those periods and countries\nthe Oriental stock upon which the scions of the Alexandrian school had\nbeen engrafted. The respective influence of the various elements was in\nstrict proportion to the quantity of blood; the intellectual\npreponderance belonged to that which had contributed the greatest share.\n\nThe same antagonism which I pointed out between the intellectual culture\nof the Greeks and that of the Persians, will be found to result from the\ncontact of all other widely different civilizations. I shall mention but\none more instance: the relations between the Arab civilization[181] and\nour own.\n\nThere was a time when the arts and sciences, the muses and their train,\nseemed to have forsaken their former abodes, to rally around the\nstandard of Mohammed. That our forefathers were not blind to the\nexcellencies of the Arab civilization is proved by their sending their\nsons to the schools of Cordova. But not a trace of the spirit of that\ncivilization has remained in Europe, save in those countries which still\nretain a portion of Ishmaelitic blood. Nor has the Arab civilization\nfound a more congenial soil in India over which, also, its dominion\nextended. Like those portions of Europe which were subjected to Moslem\nmasters, that country has preserved its own modes of thinking intact.\n\nBut if the pressure of the Arab civilization, at the time of its\ngreatest splendor and our greatest ignorance, could not affect the modes\nof thinking of the races of Western Europe, neither can we, at present,\nwhen the positions are reversed, affect in the slightest degree the\nfeeble remnants of that once so flourishing civilization. Our action\nupon these remnants is continuous--the pressure of our intellectual\nactivity upon them immense; we succeed only in destroying, not in\ntransforming or remodelling.[182]\n\nYet this civilization was not even original, and might, therefore, be\nsupposed to have a less obstinate vitality. The Arab nation, it is well\nknown, based its empire and its intellectual culture upon fragments of\nraces which it had aggregated by the weight of the sword. A variegated\ncompound like the Islamitic populations, could not but develop a\ncivilization of an equally variegated character, to which each ethnical\nelement contributed its share. These elements it is not difficult to\ndetermine and point out.\n\nThe nucleus, around which aggregated those countless multitudes, was a\nsmall band of valiant warriors who unfurled in their native deserts the\nstandard of a new creed. They were not, before Mohammed's time, a new or\nunknown people. They had frequently come in contact with the Jews and\nPhenicians, and had in their veins the blood of both these nations.\nTaking advantage of their favorable situation for commerce, they had\nperformed the carrier trade of the Red Sea, and the eastern coast of\nAfrica and India, for the most celebrated nations of ancient times, the\nJews and the Phenicians, later still, for the Romans and Persians. They\nhad the same traditions in common with the Shemitic and Hamitic families\nfrom which they sprung.[183] They had even taken an active part in the\npolitical life of neighboring nations. Under the Arsacides and the sons\nof Sassan, some of their tribes exerted great influence in the politics\nof the Persian empire. One of their adventurers[184] had become Emperor\nof Rome; one of their princes protected the majesty of Rome against a\nconqueror before whom the whole east trembled, and shared the imperial\npurple with the Roman sovereign;[185] one of their cities had become,\nunder Zenobia, the centre and capital of a vast empire that rivalled and\neven threatened Rome.[186]\n\nIt is evident, therefore, that the Arab nation had never ceased, from\nthe remotest antiquity, to entertain intimate relations with the most\npowerful and celebrated ancient societies. It had taken part in their\npolitical and intellectual[187] activity; and it might not\ninappropriately be compared to a body half-plunged into the water, and\nhalf exposed to the sun, as it partook at the same time of an advanced\nstate of civilization and of complete barbarism.\n\nMohammed invented the religion most conformable to the ideas of a\npeople, among whom idolatry had still many zealous adherents, but where\nChristianity, though having made numerous converts, was losing favor on\naccount of the endless schisms and contentions of its followers.[188]\nThe religious dogma of the Koreishite prophet was a skilful compromise\nbetween the various contending opinions. It reconciled the Jewish\ndispensation with the New Law better than could the Church at that time,\nand thus solved a problem which had disquieted the consciences of many\nof the earlier Christians, and which, especially in the east, had given\nrise to many heretical sects. This was in itself a very tempting bait,\nand, besides, any theological novelty had decided chances of success\namong the Syrians and Egyptians.[189] Moreover, the new religion\nappeared with sword in hand, which in those times of schismatical\npropagandism seemed a warrant of success more relied upon by the masses\nto whom it addressed itself, than peaceful persuasion.\n\nThus arrayed, Islamism issued from its native deserts. Arrogant, and\npossessed but in a very slight degree of the inventive faculty, it\ndeveloped no civilization peculiar to itself, but it had adopted, as far\nas it was capable of doing, the bastard Greco-Asiatic civilization\nalready extant. As its triumphant banners progressed on the east and\nsouth of the Mediterranean, it incorporated masses imbued with the same\ntendencies and spirit. From each of these it borrowed something. As its\nreligious dogmas were a patchwork of the tenets of the Church, those of\nthe Synagogue, and of the disfigured traditions of Hedjaz and Yemen, so\nits code of laws was a compound of the Persian and the Roman, its\nscience was Greco-Syrian[190] and Egyptian, its administration from the\nbeginning tolerant like that of every body politic that embraces many\nheterogeneous elements.\n\nIt has caused much useless surprise, that Moslem society should have\nmade such rapid strides to refinement of manners. But the mass of the\npeople over whom its dominion extended, had merely changed the name of\ntheir creed; they were old and well-known actors on the stage of\nhistory, and have simply been mistaken for a new nation when they\nundertook to play the part of apostles before the world. These people\ngave to the common store their previous refinement and luxury; each new\naddition to the standard of Islamism, contributed some portion of its\nacquisitions. The vitalizing principle of the society, the motive power\nof this cumbrous mass, was the small nucleus of Arab tribes that had\ncome forth from the heart of the peninsula. They furnished, not artists\nand learned men, but fanatics, soldiers, victors, and masters.\n\nThe Arab civilization, then, is nothing but the Greco-Syrian\ncivilization, rejuvenated and quickened, for a time, with a new and\nenergetic, but short-lived, genius. It was, besides, a little renovated\nand a little modified, by a slight dash of Persian civilization.\n\nYet, motley and incongruous as are the elements of which it is composed,\nand capable of stretching and accommodating itself as such a compound\nmust be, it cannot adapt itself to any social structure erected by other\nelements than its own. In other words, many as are the races that\ncontributed to its formation, it is suited to none that have _not_\ncontributed to it.\n\nThis is what the whole course of history teaches us. Every race has its\nown modes of thinking; every race, capable of developing a civilization,\ndevelops one peculiar to itself, and which it cannot engraft upon any\nother, except by amalgamation of blood, and then in but a modified\ndegree. The European cannot win the Asiatic to his modes of thinking; he\ncannot civilize the Australian, or the Negro; he can transmit but a\nportion of his intelligence to his half-breed offspring of the inferior\nrace; the progeny of that half-breed and the nobler branch of his\nancestry, is but one degree nearer, but not equal to that branch in\ncapacity: the proportions of blood are strictly preserved. I have\nadduced illustrations of this truth from the history of various branches\nof the human family, of the lowest as well as of the higher in the scale\nof intellectual progress. Are we not, then, authorized to conclude that\nthe diversity observable among them is constitutional, innate, and not\nthe result of accident or circumstances--that there is an absolute\ninequality in their intellectual endowments?\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[181] The word _Arab_ is here used instead of the more common, but less\ncorrect, term _Saracen_, which was the general appellation bestowed on\nthe first propagators of the Islam by the Greeks and Latins. The Arab\ncivilization reached its culminating point about the reign of Harun al\nRashid. At that time, it comprised nearly all that remained of the arts\nand sciences of former ages. The splendor and magnificence for which it\nwas distinguished, is even yet the theme of romancers and poets; and may\nbe discerned to this day in the voluptuous and gorgeous modes of life\namong the higher classes in those countries where it still survives, as\nwell as in the remains of Arab architecture in Spain, the best preserved\nand most beautiful of which is the well-known Alhambra. Though the Arab\ncivilization had a decidedly sensual tendency and character, it was not\nwithout great benefits to mankind. From it our forefathers learned some\nvaluable secrets of agriculture, and the first lessons in horticulture.\nThe peach, the pear, the apricot, the finer varieties of apples and\nplums, and nearly all of our most valued fruits were brought into\nWestern and Central Europe by the returning crusaders from the land of\nthe Saracens. Many valuable processes of manufacture, and especially of\nthe art of working metals, are derived from the same source. In the\nscience of medicine, the Arabs laid the foundation of that noble\nstructure we now admire. Though they were prevented by religious\nscruples from dissecting the human body, and, therefore, remained in\nignorance of the most important facts of anatomy, they brought to light\ninnumerable secrets of the healing powers in the vegetable kingdom; they\nfirst practised the art of distillation and of chemical analysis. They\nwere the beginners of the science of Chemistry, to which they gave its\nname, and in which many of the commonest technical terms (such as\nalkali, alembic, alcohol, and many others), still attest their labors.\nIn mathematical science they were no less industrious. To them we owe\nthat simple and useful method which so greatly facilitates the more\ncomplex processes of calculation, without which, indeed, some of them\nwould be impossible, and which still retains its Arabic name--Algebra.\nBut what is more, to them we owe our system of notation, so vastly\nsuperior to that of the Greeks and Romans, so admirable in its efficacy\nand simplicity, that it has made arithmetic accessible to the humblest\nunderstanding; at the present time, the whole Christian world uses\nArabic numerals.--H.\n\n[182] It is supposed by many that Turkey will ultimately be won to our\ncivilization, and, as a proof of this, great stress is laid upon the\nefforts of the present Sultan, as well as his predecessor, to\n\"Europeanize\" the Turks. Whoever has carefully and unbiassedly studied\nthe present condition of that nation, knows how unsuccessful these\nefforts, backed, though they were, by absolute authority, and by the\nimmense influence of the whole of Western Europe, have hitherto been and\nalways will be. It is a notorious fact, that the Turks fight less well\nin their semi-European dress and with their European tactics, of which\nso much was anticipated, than they did with their own. The Moslem now\nregards the Christian with the same feelings that he did in the zenith\nof his power, and these feelings are not the less bitter, because they\ncan no longer be so ostentatiously displayed.--H.\n\n[183] The Arabs believed themselves the descendants of Ishmael, the son\nof Hagar. This belief, even before Mohammed's time, had been curiously\nblended with the idolatrous doctrines of some of their tribes.--H.\n\n[184] _Philip_, an Arabian adventurer who was prefect of the pr\u00e6torian\nguards under the third Gordian, and who, through his boldness and\nability, succeeded that sovereign on the throne in A. D. 244.--H.\n\n[185] _Odenathus_, senator of Palmyra, after Sapor, the King of Persia,\nhad taken prisoner the Emperor of Rome, and was devastating the empire,\nmet the ruthless conqueror with a body of Palmyrians, and several times\nrouted his much more numerous armies. Being the only one who could\nprotect the Eastern possessions of the Roman empire against the\naggressions of the Persians, he was appointed _C\u00e6sar_, or coadjutor to\nthe emperor by Gallienus, the son of Valerian, the captive\nsovereign.--H.\n\n[186] The history of _Zenobia_, the Queen of the East, as she styled\nherself, and one of the most interesting characters in history, is well\nknown. As in the preceding notes, I shall, therefore, merely draw\nattention to familiar facts, with a view to refresh the reader's memory,\nnot to instruct him.\n\nThe famous Arabian queen was the widow of Odenathus, of Palmyra, who\nbequeathed to her his dignity as _C\u00e6sar_, or protector of the Eastern\ndominions of Rome. It soon, however, became apparent that she disdained\nto owe allegiance to the Roman emperors, and aimed at establishing a new\ngreat empire for herself and her descendants. Though the most\naccomplished, as well as the most beautiful woman of her time, she led\nher armies in person, and was so eminently successful in her military\nenterprises that she soon extended her dominion from the Euphrates to\nthe Nile. Palmyra thus became the centre and capital of a vast empire,\nwhich, as Mr. Gobineau observes, rivalled and even threatened Rome\nitself. She was, however, defeated by Aurelian, and, in A. D. 273,\ngraced the triumph of her conqueror on his return to Rome.\n\nThe former splendor of the now deserted Palmyra is attested by the\nmagnificent ruins which still form an inexhaustible theme for the\nadmiration of the traveller and antiquarian.--H.\n\n[187] Though the mass of the nation were ignorant of letters, the Arabs\nhad already before Mohammed's times some famous writers. They had even\nmade voyages of discovery, in which they went as far as China. The\nearliest, and, as modern researches have proved, the most truthful,\naccount of the manners and customs of that country is by Arab\nwriters.--H.\n\n[188] At the time of the appearance of the false prophet, Arabia\ncontained within its bosom every then known religious sect. This was\nowing not only to the central position of that country, but also to the\nliberty which was then as now a prerogative of the Arab. Among them\nevery one was free to select or compose for himself his own private\nreligion. While the adjacent countries were shaken by the storms of\nconquest and tyranny, the persecuted sects fled to the happy land where\nthey might profess what they thought, and practice what they professed.\n\nA religious persecution had driven from Persia many who professed the\nreligion of the ancient Magi. The Jews also were early settlers in\nArabia. Seven centuries before the death of Mohammed they had firmly\nestablished themselves there. The destruction of Jerusalem brought still\ngreater numbers of these industrious exiles, who at once erected\nsynagogues, and to protect the wealth they rapidly acquired, built and\ngarrisoned strongly fortified towns in various portions of the\nwilderness. The Bible had at an early day been translated into the\nArabic tongue. Christian missionaries were not wanting, and their active\nzeal was eminently successful. Several of the Arab tribes had become\nconverts. There were Christian churches in Yemen; the states of Hira and\nGassan were under the jurisdiction of Jacobite and Nestorian bishops.\nThe various heretical sects found shelter and safety among the\nhospitable Arabs. But this very fact proved detrimental to the progress\nof the Christian religion, and opened the path for the creed of\nMohammed. So many and various were the Christian sects that crowded\ntogether in that country, and so widely departed from the true spirit of\nChristianity were some of them, that bitter hostilities sprung up among\nthem, and their religion fell into contempt. The Eastern Christians of\nthe seventh century had insensibly relapsed into a semblance of\npaganism, one of the sects (the Collyridian heretics) had even gone so\nfar as to invest the virgin Mary with the name and honors of a goddess.\nThis is what the author alludes to in saying that Christianity was\nlosing favor in Arabia at the time of the appearance of Mohammed.--H.\n\n[189] The student of ecclesiastical history knows what a number of sects\nhad sprung up about that time to distress and harass the Church. It is\nnot so generally appreciated, however, that for the first hundred years,\nthe progress of Islamism was almost exclusively at the expense of\nChristianity. The whole of the present Ottoman empire, and almost the\nwhole northern coast of Africa were previously Christian countries.\nWhether the loss is greatly to be regretted, I know not, for the Syrians\nand Egyptians, from being very indifferent Christians, became good\nMohammedans. These populations were to the Christian Church like a\ncankered limb, the lopping off of which may have been ordained by an\nall-wise Providence for the salvation of what was yet sound in the\nbody.--H.\n\n[190] W. Von Humboldt. _Ueber die Karo-Sprache, Einleitung_,\np. 243. \"Durch die Richtung auf diese Bildung und durch innere\nStammes-verwandschaft wurden sie wirklich f\u00fcr griechischen Geist und\ngriechische Sprache empf\u00e4nglich, da die Araber vorzugsweise nur an den\nwissenschaftlichen Resultaten griechischer Forschung hiengen.\"\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XV.\n\nMORAL AND INTELLECTUAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE THREE GREAT VARIETIES.\n\n  Impropriety of drawing general conclusions from individual\n    cases--Recapitulatory sketch of the leading features of the Negro,\n    the Yellow, and the White races--Superiority of the\n    latter--Conclusion of volume the first.\n\n\nIn the preceding pages, I have endeavored to show that, though there are\nboth scientific and religious reasons for not believing in a plurality\nof origins of our species, the various branches of the human family are\ndistinguished by permanent and irradicable differences, both mentally\nand physically. They are unequal in intellectual capacity,[191] in\npersonal beauty, and in physical strength. Again I repeat, that in\ncoming to this conclusion, I have totally eschewed the method which is,\nunfortunately for the cause of science, too often resorted to by\nethnologists, and which, to say the least of it, is simply ridiculous.\nThe discussion has not rested upon the moral and intellectual worth of\nisolated individuals.\n\nWith regard to moral worth, I have proved that all men, to whatever race\nthey may belong, are capable of receiving the lights of true religion,\nand of sufficiently appreciating that blessing to work out their own\nsalvation. With regard to intellectual capacity, I emphatically protest\nagainst that mode of arguing which consists in saying, \"every negro is a\ndunce;\" because, by the same logic, I should be compelled to admit that\n\"every white man is intelligent;\" and I shall take good care to commit\nno such absurdity.\n\nI shall not even wait for the vindicators of the absolute equality of\nall races, to adduce to me such and such a passage in some missionary's\nor navigator's journal, wherefrom it appears that some Yolof has become\na skilful carpenter, that some Hottentot has made an excellent domestic,\nthat some Caffre plays well on the violin, or that some Bambarra has\nmade very respectable progress in arithmetic.\n\nI am prepared to admit--and to admit without proof--anything of that\nsort, however remarkable, that may be related of the most degraded\nsavages. I have already denied the excessive stupidity, the incurable\nidiotcy of even the lowest on the scale of humanity. Nay, I go further\nthan my opponents, and am not in the least disposed to doubt that, among\nthe chiefs of the rude negroes of Africa, there could be found a\nconsiderable number of active and vigorous minds, greatly surpassing in\nfertility of ideas and mental resources, the average of our peasantry,\nand even of some of our middle classes. But the unfairness of deductions\nbased upon a comparison of the most intelligent blacks and the least\nintelligent whites, must be obvious to every candid mind.\n\nOnce for all, such arguments seem to me unworthy of real science, and I\ndo not wish to place myself upon so narrow and unsafe a ground. If Mungo\nPark, or the brothers Lander, have given to some negro a certificate of\nsuperior intelligence, who will assure us that another traveller,\nmeeting the same individual, would not have arrived at a diametrically\nopposite conclusion concerning him? Let us leave such puerilities, and\ncompare, not the individuals, but the masses. When we shall have\nclearly established of what the latter are capable, by what tendencies\nthey are characterized, and by what limits their intellectual activity\nand development are circumscribed, whether, since the beginning of the\nhistoric epoch, they have acted upon, or been acted upon by other\ngroups--when we shall have clearly established these points, we may then\ndescend to details, and, perhaps, one day be able to decide why the\ngreatest minds of one group are inferior to the most brilliant geniuses\nof another, in what respects the vulgar herds of all types assimilate,\nand in what others they differ, and why. But this difficult and delicate\ntask cannot be accomplished until the relative position of the whole\nmass of each race shall have been nicely, and, so to say, mathematically\ndefined. I do not know whether we may hope ever to arrive at results of\nsuch incontestable clearness and precision, as to be able to no longer\ntrust solely to general facts, but to embrace the various shades of\nintelligence in each group, to define and class the inferior strata of\nevery population and their influence on the activity of the whole. Were\nit possible thus to divide each group into certain strata, and compare\nthese with the corresponding strata of every other: the most gifted of\nthe dominant with the most gifted of the dominated races, and so on\ndownwards, the superiority of some in capacity, energy, and activity\nwould be self-demonstrated.\n\nAfter having mentioned the facts which prove the inequality of various\nbranches of the human family, and having laid down the method by which\nthat proof should be established, I arrived at the conclusion that the\nwhole of our species is divisible into three great groups, which I call\nprimary varieties, in order to distinguish them from others formed by\nintermixture. It now remains for me to assign to each of these groups\nthe principal characteristics by which it is distinguished from the\nothers.\n\nThe dark races are the lowest on the scale. The shape of the pelvis has\na character of animalism, which is imprinted on the individuals of that\nrace ere their birth, and seems to portend their destiny. The circle of\nintellectual development of that group is more contracted than that of\neither of the two others.\n\nIf the negro's narrow and receding forehead seems to mark him as\ninferior in reasoning capacity, other portions of his cranium as\ndecidedly point to faculties of an humbler, but not the less powerful\ncharacter. He has energies of a not despicable order, and which\nsometimes display themselves with an intensity truly formidable. He is\ncapable of violent passions, and passionate attachments. Some of his\nsenses have an acuteness unknown to the other races: the sense of taste,\nand that of smell, for instance.\n\nBut it is precisely this development of the animal faculties that stamps\nthe negro with the mark of inferiority to other races. I said that his\nsense of taste was acute; it is by no means fastidious. Every sort of\nfood is welcome to his palate; none disgusts[192] him; there is no flesh\nnor fowl too vile to find a place in his stomach. So it is with regard\nto odor. His sense of smell might rather be called greedy than acute. He\neasily accommodates himself to the most repulsive.\n\nTo these traits he joins a childish instability of humor. His feelings\nare intense, but not enduring. His grief is as transitory as it is\npoignant, and he rapidly passes from it to extreme gayety. He is seldom\nvindictive--his anger is violent, but soon appeased. It might almost be\nsaid that this variability of sentiments annihilates for him the\nexistence of both virtue and vice. The very ardency to which his\nsensibilities are aroused, implies a speedy subsidence; the intensity of\nhis desire, a prompt gratification, easily forgotten. He does not cling\nto life with the tenacity of the whites. But moderately careful of his\nown, he easily sacrifices that of others, and kills, though not\nabsolutely bloodthirsty, without much provocation or subsequent\nremorse.[193] Under intense suffering, he exhibits a moral cowardice\nwhich readily seeks refuge in death, or in a sort of monstrous\nimpassivity.[194]\n\nWith regard to his moral capacities, it may be stated that he is\nsusceptible, in an eminent degree, of religious emotions; but unless\nassisted by the light of the Gospel, his religious sentiments are of a\ndecidedly sensual character.\n\nHaving demonstrated the little intellectual and strongly sensual[195]\ncharacter of the black variety, as the type of which I have taken the\nnegro of Western Africa, I shall now proceed to examine the moral and\nintellectual characteristics of the second in the scale--the yellow.\n\nThis seems to form a complete antithesis to the former. In them, the\nskull, instead of being thrown backward, projects. The forehead is\nlarge, often jutting out, and of respectable height. The facial\nconformation is somewhat triangular, but neither chin nor nose has the\nrude, animalish development that characterizes the negro. A tendency to\nobesity is not precisely a specific feature, but it is more often met\nwith among the yellow races than among any others. In muscular vigor, in\nintensity of feelings and desires, they are greatly inferior to the\nblack. They are supple and agile, but not strong. They have a decided\ntaste for sensual pleasures, but their sensuality is less violent, and,\nif I may so call it, more vicious than the negro's, and less quickly\nappeased. They place a somewhat greater value upon human life than the\nnegro does, but they are more cruel for the sake of cruelty. They are as\ngluttonous as the negro, but more fastidious in their choice of viands,\nas is proved by the immoderate attention bestowed on the culinary art\namong the more civilized of these races. In other words, the yellow\nraces are less impulsive than the black. Their will is characterized by\nobstinacy rather than energetic violence; their anger is vindictive\nrather than clamorous; their cruelty more studied than passionate; their\nsensuality more refinedly vicious than absorbing. They are, therefore,\nseldom prone to extremes. In morals, as in intellect, they display a\nmediocrity: they are given to grovelling vices rather than to dark\ncrimes; when virtuous, they are so oftener from a sense of practical\nusefulness than from exalted sentiments. In regard to intellectual\ncapacity, they easily understand whatever is not very profound, nor very\nsublime; they have a keen appreciation of the useful and practical, a\ngreat love of quiet and order, and even a certain conception of a slight\nmodicum of personal or municipal liberty. The yellow races are practical\npeople in the narrowest sense of the word. They have little scope of\nimagination, and therefore invent but little: for great inventions, even\nthe most exclusively utilitarian, require a high degree of the\nimaginative faculty. But they easily understand and adopt whatever is of\npractical utility. The _summum bonum_ of their desires and aspirations\nis to pass smoothly and quietly through life.\n\nIt is apparent from this sketch, that they are superior to the blacks in\naptitude and intellectual capacity. A theorist who would form some\nmodel society, might wish such a population to form the substratum upon\nwhich to erect his structure; but a society, composed entirely of such\nelements, would display neither great stamina nor capacity for anything\ngreat and exalted.\n\nWe are now arrived at the third and last of the \"primary\" varieties--the\nwhite. Among them we find great physical vigor and capacity of\nendurance; an intensity of will and desire, but which is balanced and\ngoverned by the intellectual faculties. Great things are undertaken, but\nnot blindly, not without a full appreciation of the obstacles to be\novercome, and with a systematic effort to overcome them. The utilitarian\ntendency is strong, but is united with a powerful imaginative faculty,\nwhich elevates, ennobles, idealizes it. Hence, the power of invention;\nwhile the negro can merely imitate, the Chinese only utilize, to a\ncertain extent, the practical results attained by the white, the latter\nis continually adding new ones to those already gained. His capacity for\ncombination of ideas leads him perpetually to construct new facts from\nthe fragments of the old; hurries him along through a series of\nunceasing modifications and changes. He has as keen a sense of order as\nthe man of the yellow race, but not, like him, from love of repose and\ninertia, but from a desire to protect and preserve his acquisitions. At\nthe same time, he has an ardent love of liberty, which is often carried\nto an extreme; an instinctive aversion to the trammels of that rigidly\nformalistic organization under which the Chinese vegetates with\nluxurious ease; and he as indignantly rejects the haughty despotism\nwhich alone proves a sufficient restraint for the black races.\n\nThe white man is also characterized by a singular love of life. Perhaps\nit is because he knows better how to make use of it than other races,\nthat he attaches to it a greater value and spares it more both in\nhimself and in others. In the extreme of his cruelty, he is conscious of\nhis excesses; a sentiment which it may well be doubted whether it exist\namong the blacks. Yet though he loves life better than other races, he\nhas discovered a number of reasons for sacrificing it or laying it down\nwithout murmur. His valor, his bravery, are not brute, unthinking\npassions, not the result of callousness or impassivity: they spring from\nexalted, though often erroneous, sentiments, the principal of which is\nexpressed by the word \"honor.\" This feeling, under a variety of names\nand applications, has formed the mainspring of action of most of the\nwhite races since the beginning of historical times. It accommodates\nitself to every mode of existence, to every walk of life. It is as\npuissant in the pulpit and at the martyr's stake, as on the field of\nbattle; in the most peaceful and humble pursuits of life as in the\nhighest and most stirring. It were impossible to define all the ideas\nwhich this word comprises; they are better felt than expressed. But this\nfeeling--we might call it instinctive--is unknown to the yellow, and\nunknown to the black races: while in the white it quickens every noble\nsentiment--the sense of justice, liberty, patriotism, love, religion--it\nhas no name in the language, no place in the hearts, of other races.\nThis I consider as the principal reason of the superiority of our branch\nof the human family over all others; because even in the lowest, the\nmost debased of our race, we generally find some spark of this redeeming\ntrait, and however misapplied it may often be, and certainly is, it\nprevents us, even in our deepest errors, from falling so fearfully low\nas the others. The extent of moral abasement in which we find so many of\nthe yellow and black races is absolutely impossible even to the very\nrefuse of our society. The latter may equal, nay, surpass them in crime;\nbut even they would shudder at that hideous abyss of corrosive vices,\nwhich opens before the friend of humanity on a closer study of these\nraces.[196]\n\nBefore concluding this picture, I would add that the immense superiority\nof the white races in all that regards the intellectual faculties, is\njoined to an inferiority as strikingly marked, in the intensity of\nsensations. Though his whole structure is more vigorous, the white man\nis less gifted in regard to the perfection of the senses than either the\nblack or the yellow, and therefore less solicited and less absorbed by\nanimal gratifications.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nI have now arrived at the historical portion of my subject. There I\nshall place the truths enounced in this volume in a clearer light, and\nfurnish irrefragable proofs of the fact, which forms the basis of my\ntheory, that nations degenerate only in consequence and in proportion to\ntheir admixture with an inferior race--that a society receives its\ndeath-blow when, from the number of diverse ethnical elements which it\ncomprises, a number of diverse modes of thinking and interests contend\nfor predominance; when these modes of thinking, and these interests\nhave arisen in such multiplicity that every effort to harmonize them, to\nmake them subservient to some great purpose, is in vain; when,\ntherefore, the only natural ties that can bind large masses of men,\nhomogeneity of thoughts and feelings, are severed, the only solid\nfoundation of a social structure sapped and rotten.\n\nTo furnish the necessary details for this assertion, to remove the\npossibility of even the slightest doubt, I shall take up separately,\nevery great and independent civilization that the world has seen\nflourish. I shall trace its first beginnings, its subsequent stages of\ndevelopment, its decadence and final decay. Here, then, is the proper\ntest of my theory; here we can see the laws that govern ethnical\nrelations in full force on a magnificent scale; we can verify their\ninexorably uniform and rigorous application. The subject is immense, the\npanorama spread before us the grandest and most imposing that the\nphilosopher can contemplate, for its tableaux comprise the scene of\naction of every instance where man has really worked out his mission \"to\nhave dominion over the earth.\"\n\nThe task is great--too great, perhaps, for any one's undertaking. Yet,\non a more careful investigation, many of the apparently insuperable\ndifficulties which discouraged the inquirer will vanish; in the\ngorgeous succession of scenes that meet his glance, he will perceive a\nuniformity, an intimate relation and connection which, like Ariadne's\nthread, will enable the undaunted and persevering student to find his\nway through the mazes of the labyrinth: we shall find that every\ncivilization owes its origin, its development, its splendors, to the\nagency of the white races. In China and in India, in the vast continent\nof the West, centuries ere Columbus found it--it was one of the group of\nwhite races that gave the impetus, and, so long as it lasted, sustained\nit. Startling as this assertion may appear to a great number of readers,\nI hope to demonstrate its correctness by incontrovertible historical\ntestimony. Everywhere the white races have taken the initiative,\neverywhere they have _brought_ civilization to the others--everywhere\nthey have sown the seed: the vigor and beauty of the plant depended on\nwhether the soil it found was congenial or not.\n\nThe migrations of the white race, therefore, afford us at once a guide\nfor our historical researches, and a clue to many apparently\ninexplicable mysteries: we shall learn to understand why, in a vast\ncountry, the development of civilization has come to a stand, and been\nsuperseded by a retrogressive movement; why, in another, all but feeble\ntraces of a high state of culture has vanished without apparent cause;\nwhy people, the lowest in the scale of intellect, are yet found in\npossession of arts and mechanical processes that would do honor to a\nhighly intellectual race.\n\nAmong the group of white races, the noblest, the most highly gifted in\nintellect and personal beauty, the most active in the cause of\ncivilization, is the Arian[197] race. Its history is intimately\nassociated with almost every effort on the part of man to develop his\nmoral and intellectual powers.\n\nIt now remains for me to trace out the field of inquiry into which I\npropose to enter in the succeeding volumes. The list of great,\nindependent civilizations is not long. Among all the innumerable nations\nthat \"strutted their brief hour on the stage\" of the world, ten only\nhave arrived at the state of complete societies, giving birth to\ndistinct modes of intellectual culture. All the others were imitators or\ndependents; like planets they revolved around, and derived their light\nfrom the suns of the systems to which they belonged. At the head of my\nlist I would place:--\n\n1. The Indian civilization. It spread among the islands of the Indian\nOcean, towards the north, beyond the Himalaya Mountains, and towards the\neast, beyond the Brahmapootra. It was originated by a white race of the\nArian stock.\n\n2. The Egyptian civilization comes next. As its satellites may be\nmentioned the less perfect civilizations of the Ethiopians, Nubians, and\nseveral other small peoples west of the oasis of Ammon. An Arian colony\nfrom India, settled in the upper part of the Nile valley, had\nestablished this society.\n\n3. The Assyrians, around whom rallied the Jews, Phenicians, Lydians,\nCarthaginians, and Hymiarites, were indebted for their social\nintelligence to the repeated invasions of white populations. The\nZoroastrian Iranians, who flourished in Further Asia, under the names of\nMedes, Persians, and Bactrians, were all branches of the Arian family.\n\n4. The Greeks belonged to the same stock, but were modified by Shemitic\nelements, which, in course of time, totally transformed their character.\n\n5. China presents the precise counterpart of Egypt. The light of\ncivilization was carried thither by Arian colonies. The substratum of\nthe social structure was composed of elements of the yellow race, but\nthe white civilizers received reinforcements of their blood at various\ntimes.\n\n6. The ancient civilization of the Italian peninsula (the Etruscan\ncivilization), was developed by a mosaic of populations of the Celtic,\nIberian, and Shemitic stock, but cemented by Arian elements. From it\nemerged the civilization of Rome.\n\n7. Our civilization is indebted for its tone and character to the\nGermanic conquerors of the fifth century. They were a branch of the\nArian family.\n\n8, 9, 10. Under these heads I class the three civilizations of the\nwestern continent, the Alleghanian, the Mexican, and the Peruvians.\n\nThis is the field I have marked out for my investigations, the results\nof which will be laid before the reader in the succeeding volumes. The\nfirst part of my work is here at an end--the vestibule of the structure\nI wish to erect is completed.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[191] I do not hesitate to consider as an unmistakable mark of\nintellectual inferiority, the exaggerated development of instincts that\ncharacterizes certain savages. The perfection which some of their senses\nacquire, cannot but be at the expense of the reasoning faculties. See,\nupon this subject, the opinions of Mr. Lesson des Papous, in a memoir\ninserted in the tenth volume of the _Annales des Sciences Naturelles_.\n\n[192] \"The negro's sense of smell and of taste is as powerful as it is\nunselecting. He eats everything, and I have good reasons for asserting,\nthat odors the most disagreeable to us, are positively pleasant to him.\"\n(Pruner, _Op. cit._, vol. i. p. 133.)\n\nMr. Pruner's assertions would, I think, be corroborated by every one who\nhas lived much among the negroes. It is a notorious fact that the blacks\non our southern plantations eat every animal they can lay hold of. I\nhave seen them discuss a piece of fox, or the still more strongly\nflavored pole-cat, with evident relish. Nay, on one occasion, I have\nknown a party of negroes feast on an alligator for a whole week, during\nwhich time they bartered their allowance of meat for trinkets. Upon my\nexpressing surprise at so strange a repast, I was assured that it was by\nno means uncommon; that it was a favorite viand of the negroes in their\nnative country, and that even here they often killed them with the\nprospect of a savory roast or stew. I am aware that some persons north\nof the Mason's & Dixon's line might be disposed to explain this by\nasserting that _hunger_ drove them to such extremities; but I can\ntestify, from my own observation, that this is not the case. In the\ninstances I have mentioned, and in many others which are too repulsive\nto be committed to paper, the banqueters were well fed, and evidently\nmade such a feast from choice. There are, in the Southern States, many\nof the poor white population who are neither so well clothed nor so well\nfed as these negroes were, and yet I never heard of their resorting to\nsuch dishes.\n\nIn regard to the negro's fondness for odors, I am less qualified to\nspeak from my own observations, but nearly every description of the\nmanners of his native climes that I have read, mentioned the fact of\ntheir besmearing themselves with the strong musky fluid secreted by many\nanimals--the alligator, for instance. And I remember having heard\nwoodsmen in the South say, that while the white man shuns the polecat\nmore than he does the rattlesnake, and will make a considerable circuit\nto get out of its way, the negro is but little afraid of this formidable\nanimal and its nauseous weapon.--H.\n\n[193] This is illustrated by many of their practices in their natural\nstate. For instance, the well-known custom of putting to death, at the\ndemise of some prince or great man, a number--corresponding with the\nrank of the deceased--of his slaves, in order that they may wait upon\nhim in the other world. Hundreds of poor creatures are often thus\nmassacred at the funeral celebrations in honor of some king or ruler.\nYet it would be unjust to call the negro ferocious or cruel. It merely\nproves the slight estimation in which he holds human life.--H.\n\n[194] There is a callousness in the negro, which strikingly\ndistinguishes him from the whites, though it is possessed in perhaps an\nequal degree by other races. I borrow from Mr. Van Amringe's _Nat. Hist.\nof Man_, a few remarks on this subject by Dr. Mosely, in his _Treatise\non Tropical Diseases_: \"Negroes,\" says the Doctor, \"whatever the cause\nmay be, are devoid of sensibility (physical) to a surprising degree.\nThey are not subject to nervous diseases. They sleep sound in every\ndisease, nor does any mental disturbance ever keep them awake. They bear\nchirurgical operations much better than white people, and what would be\nthe cause of insupportable pain to a white man, a negro would almost\ndisregard. I have amputated the legs of many negroes, who have held the\nupper part of the limb themselves.\" Every southern planter, and every\nphysician of experience in the South, could bear witness to these\nfacts.--H.\n\n[195] Thinking that it might not be uninteresting to some of our readers\nto see the views concerning the negro of another European writer besides\nMr. Gobineau, I subjoin the following extract from Mr. Tschudi's\n_Travels in South America_. Mr. Tschudi is a Swiss naturalist of\nundoubted reputation, an experienced philosophic observer, and a candid\nseeker for truth. His opinion is somewhat harsher than would be that of\na man who had resided among that class all his life, but it nevertheless\ncontains some valuable truths, and is, at least, curious on account of\nthe source whence it comes.\n\n\"In Lima, and, indeed, throughout the whole of Peru, the free negroes\nare a plague to society. Too indolent to support themselves by laborious\nindustry, they readily fall into any dishonest means of getting money.\nAlmost all the robbers that infest the roads on the coast of Peru are\nfree negroes. Dishonesty seems to be a part of their very nature; and,\nmoreover, all their tastes and inclinations are coarse and sensual. Many\nwarm defenders excuse these qualities by ascribing them to the want of\neducation, the recollection of slavery, the spirit of revenge, etc. But\nI here speak of free-born negroes, who are admitted into the houses of\nwealthy families, who, from their early childhood, have received as good\nan education as falls to the share of many of the white Creoles--who are\ntreated with kindness and liberally remunerated, and yet they do not\ndiffer from their half-savage brethren who are shut out from these\nadvantages. If the negro has learned to read and write, and has thereby\nmade some little advance in education, he is transformed into a\nconceited coxcomb, who, instead of plundering travellers on the highway,\nfinds in city life a sphere for the indulgence of his evil\npropensities.... My opinion is, that the negroes, in respect to\ncapability for mental improvement, are far behind the Europeans; and\nthat, considered in the aggregate, they will not, even with the\nadvantages of careful education, attain a very high degree of\ncultivation. This is apparent from the structure of the skull, on which\ndepends the development of the brain, and which, in the negro,\napproximates closely to the animal form. The imitative faculty of the\nmonkey is highly developed in the negro, who readily seizes anything\nmerely mechanical, whilst things demanding intelligence are beyond his\nreach. Sensuality is the impulse which controls the thoughts, the acts,\nthe whole existence of the negroes. To them, freedom can be only\nnominal, for if they conduct themselves well, it is because they are\ncompelled, not because they are inclined to do so. Herein lie at once\nthe cause of, and the apology for, their bad character.\" (_Travels in\nPeru_, London, 1848, p. 110, _et passim_.)--H.\n\n[196] The sickening moral degradation of some of the branches of our\nspecies is well known to the student of anthropology, though, for\nobvious reasons, details of this kind cannot find a place in books\ndestined for the general reader.--H.\n\n[197] As many of the terms of modern ethnography have not yet found\ntheir way into the dictionaries, I shall offer a short explanation of\nthe meaning of this word, for the benefit of those readers who have not\npaid particular attention to that science.\n\nThe word \"Arian\" is derived from _Aryas_ or ~Arioi~, respectively\nthe indigenous and the Greek designation of the ancient Medes, and is\napplied to a race, or rather a family of races, whose original\nethnological area is not as yet accurately defined, but who have\ngradually spread from the centre of Asia to the mouth of the Ganges, to\nthe British Isles, and the northern extremities of Scandinavia. To\nthis family of races belong, among others, the ancient Medes and\nPersians, the white conquerors of India (now forming the caste of the\nBrahmins), _and the Germanic races_. The whole group is often called\nIndo-European. The affinities between the Greek and the German languages\nhad long been an interesting question to philologists; but Schlegel, I\nbelieve, was the first to discover the intimate relations between these\ntwo and the Sanscrit, and he applied to the whole three, and their\ncollateral branches, the name of _Indo-Germanic_ languages. The\ndiscovery attracted the attention both of philologists and\nethnographers, and it is now indubitably proved that the civilizers of\nIndia, and the subverters of the Roman Empire are descended from the\nsame ethnical stock. It is known that the Sanscrit is as unlike all\nother Indian languages, as the high-caste Brahmins are unlike the\nPariahs and all the other aboriginal races of that country; and Latham\nhas lately come to the conclusion that it has actually been _carried to\nIndia from Europe_. It will be seen from this that Mr. Gobineau, in his\nview of the origin of various civilizations, is supported in at least\nseveral of the most important instances.\n\nIt is a familiar saying that _civilization travels westward_: if we\nbelieve ethnologists, the Arian races have _always migrated in that\ndirection_--from Central Asia to India, to Asia Minor, to Egypt, to\nGreece, to Western Europe, to the western coasts of the Atlantic, and\nthe same impulse of migration is now carrying them to the Pacific.--H.\n\n\n\n\n                               APPENDIX.\n\n                         BY J. C. NOTT, M. D.,\n\n                            MOBILE, ALABAMA.\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX.\n\n\nI have seldom perused a work which has afforded me so much pleasure and\ninstruction as the one of Count Gobineau, \"_Sur l'In\u00e9galit\u00e9 des Races\nHumaines_,\" and regard most of his conclusions as incontrovertible.\nThere are, however, a few points in his argument which should not be\npassed without comment, and others not sufficiently elaborated. My\noriginal intention was to say much, but, fortunately for me, my\ncolleague, Mr. Hotz, has so fully and ably anticipated me, in his\nIntroduction and Notes, as to leave me little of importance to add.\n\nThe essay of Count Gobineau is eminently practical and useful in its\ndesign. He views the various races of men rather as a historian than a\nnaturalist, and while he leaves open the long mooted question of _unity_\nof origin, he so fully establishes the _permanency_ of the actual moral,\nintellectual, and physical diversities of races as to leave no ground\nfor antagonists to stand upon. Whatever _remote causes_ may be assigned,\nthere is no appeal from the conclusion that white, black, Mongol, and\nother races were fully developed in nations some 3000 years before\nChrist, and that no physical causes, during this long course of time,\nhave been in operation, to change one type of man into another. Count\nGobineau, therefore, accepts the _existing_ diversity of races as at\nleast an _accomplished fact_, and draws lessons of wisdom from the plain\nteachings of history. Man with him ceases to be an abstraction; each\nrace, each nation, is made a separate study, and a fertile but\nunexplored field is opened to our view.\n\nOur author leans strongly towards a belief in the _original diversity_\nof races, but has evidently been much embarrassed in arriving at\nconclusions by religious scruples and by the want of accurate knowledge\nin that part of natural history which treats of the designation of\n_species_, and the laws of _hybridity_; he has been taught to believe\nthat two distinct species cannot produce perfectly prolific offspring,\nand therefore concludes that all races of men _must_ be of one origin,\nbecause they are prolific _inter se_. My appendix will therefore be\ndevoted mainly to this question of species.\n\n\n\n\nA.\n\n\nOur author has taken the facts of Dr. Morton at second hand, and,\nmoreover, had not before him Dr. Morton's later tables and more matured\ndeductions; I shall therefore give an abstract of his results as\npublished by himself in 1849, with some comments of my own. The figures\nrepresent the internal capacity of the skull in cubic inches, and were\nobtained by filling the cavity with shot and afterwards pouring them\ninto an accurately graduated measure.\n\nIt must be admitted that the collection of Morton is not sufficiently\nfull in all its departments to enable us to arrive at the absolute\ncapacity of crania in the different races; but it is sufficiently\ncomplete to establish beyond cavil, the fact that the crania of the\nwhite are much larger than those of the dark races. His table is very\nincomplete in Mongol, Malays, and some others; but in the white races of\nEurope, the black races, and the American, the results are substantially\ncorrect. I have myself had ample opportunities for examining the heads\nof living negroes and Indians of America, as well as a considerable\nnumber of crania, and can fully indorse Dr. Morton's results. It will be\nseen that his skulls of American aborigines amount to 338.\n\n\n_Table, showing the Size of the Brain in Cubic Inches, as obtained by\nthe Measurement of 623 Crania of various Races and Families of Man._\n\n  -----------------------------------------------------------------------\n                            | No. of | Largest  | Smallest |      |\n     RACES AND FAMILIES.    | skulls.| internal | internal | Mean.| Mean.\n                            |        | capacity.| capacity.|      |\n  -----------------------------------------------------------------------\n    MODERN CAUCASIAN GROUP. |        |          |          |      |\n  TEUTONIC FAMILY           |        |          |          |      |\n      Germans               |   18   |    114   |     70   |  90  }\n      English               |    5   |    105   |     91   |  96  } 92\n      Anglo-Americans       |    7   |     97   |     82   |  90  }\n  PELASGIC FAMILY           |        |          |          |      |\n      Persians              }        |          |          |      |\n      Armenians             }   10   |     94   |     75   |  84  |\n      Circassians           }        |          |          |      |\n  CELTIC FAMILY             |        |          |          |      |\n      Native Irish          |    6   |     97   |     78   |  87  |\n  INDOSTANIC FAMILY         |        |          |          |      |\n      Bengalees, &c.        |   32   |     91   |     67   |  80  |\n  SHEMITIC FAMILY           |        |          |          |      |\n      Arabs                 |    3   |     98   |     84   |  89  |\n  NILOTIC FAMILY            |        |          |          |      |\n      Fellahs               |   17   |     96   |     66   |  80  |\n                            |        |          |          |      |\n    ANCIENT CAUCASIAN GROUP.|        |          |          |      |\n  PELASGIC FAMILY           |        |          |          |      |\n    Greco-Egyptians         |   18   |     97   |     74   |  88  |\n    (from Catacombs)        |        |          |          |      |\n  NILOTIC FAMILY            |        |          |          |      |\n    Egyptians               |   55   |     96   |     68   |  80  |\n  (from Catacombs)          |        |          |          |      |\n                            |        |          |          |      |\n    MONGOLIAN GROUP.        |        |          |          |      |\n  CHINESE FAMILY            |    6   |     91   |     70   |  82  |\n                            |        |          |          |      |\n    MALAY GROUP.            |        |          |          |      |\n  MALAYAN FAMILY            |   20   |     97   |     68   |  86  }\n  POLYNESIAN FAMILY         |    8   |     84   |     82   |  83  } 85\n                            |        |          |          |      |\n    AMERICAN GROUP.         |        |          |          |      |\n  TOLTECAN FAMILY           |        |          |          |      |\n      Peruvians             |  155   |    101   |     58   |  75  }\n      Mexicans              |   22   |     92   |     67   |  79  }\n  BARBAROUS TRIBES          |        |          |          |      }\n      Iroquois              }        |          |          |      } 79\n      Lenap\u00e8                }        |          |          |      }\n      Cherokee              }  161   |    104   |     70   |  84  }\n      Shoshon\u00e8, &c.         }        |          |          |      |\n                            |        |          |          |      |\n    NEGRO GROUP.            |        |          |          |      |\n  NATIVE AFRICAN FAMILY     |   62   |     99   |     65   |  83  }\n  AMERICAN-BORN NEGROES     |   12   |     89   |     73   |  82  } 83\n  HOTTENTOT FAMILY          |    3   |     83   |     68   |  75  |\n  ALFOREAN FAMILY           |        |          |          |      |\n      Australians           |    8   |     83   |     63   |  75  |\n  -----------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nDr. Morton's mind, it will be seen by this table, had not yet freed\nitself from the incubus of artificial and unnatural classifications.\nLike Tiedemann and others, he has grouped together races which have not\nthe slightest affinity in physical, moral, or linguistic characters. In\nthe _Caucasian_ group, for example, are placed the Teutonic, Indostanic,\nShemitic, and Nilotic families, each of which, it can be shown, has\nexisted utterly distinct for 5000 years, not to mention many\nsubdivisions.\n\nThe table of Dr. Morton affords some curious results. His ancient\nPelasgic heads and those of the modern white races, give the same size\nof brain, viz: 88 cubic inches; and his ancient Egyptians and their\nmodern representatives, the Fellahs, yield the same mean, 80 cubic\ninches; the difference between the two groups being 8 cubic inches.\nThese facts have a strong bearing on the question of _permanence_ of\ntypes. The small-headed Hindoos present the same cranial capacity as the\nEgyptians, and though these races have each been the repository of early\ncivilization, it is a question whether either was the originator of\ncivilization. The Egyptian race, from the earliest monumental dawn,\nexhibits Shemitic adulteration; and Latham proves that the Sanscrit\nlanguage was not indigenous to India, but was carried there from\nNorthern Europe in early ages by conquerors.\n\nAgain, in the negro group, while it is absolutely shown that certain\nAfrican races, whether born in Africa, or of the tenth descent in\nAmerica, give a cranial capacity almost identical, 83 cubic inches; we\nsee, on the contrary, the Hottentot and Australian yielding a mean of\nbut 75 inches, thereby showing a like difference of eight cubic inches.\n\nIn the American group, also, the same parallel holds good. The Toltecan\nfamily, the most civilized race, exhibit a mean of but 77 inches, while\nthe barbarous tribes give 84, that is, a difference of 7 inches in favor\nof the savage. While, however, the Toltecans have the smaller heads,\nthey are, according to Combe, much more developed in the anterior or\n_intellectual_ lobes, which may serve to explain this apparent paradox.\n\nWhen we compare the highest and lowest races with each other, the\ncontrast becomes still more striking, viz: the Teutonic with the\nHottentot and Australian. The former family gives a mean capacity of 92\ninches, while the latter two yield but 75, or a difference of _17 cubic\ninches_ between the skulls of these types!\n\nNow, as far back as history and monuments carry us, as well as crania\nand other testimonies, these various types have been _permanent_; and\nmost of them we can trace back several thousand years. If such\npermanence of type through thousands of years, and in defiance of all\nclimatic influences, does not establish _specific_ characters, then is\nthe naturalist at sea without a compass to guide him.\n\nThese facts determine clearly the arbitrary nature of all\nclassifications heretofore adopted; the Teuton, the Jew, the Hindoo,\nthe Egyptian, &c., have all been included under the term _Caucasian_;\nand yet they have, as far as we know, been through all time as distinct\nin physical and moral characters from each other, as they have from the\nnegro races of Africa and Oceanica. The same diversity of types is found\namong all the other groups, or arbitrary divisions of the human family.\n\nRich and rare as is the collection of Dr. Morton, it is very defective\nin many of its divisions, and it occurred to me that this deficiency\nmight to some degree be supplied by the hat manufacturers of various\nnations; notwithstanding that the information derived from this source\ncould give but one measurement, viz: the _horizontal periphery_. Yet\nthis one measurement alone, on an extended scale, would go far towards\ndetermining the general size of the brain. I accordingly applied to\nthree hat dealers in Mobile, and a large manufacturer in New Jersey, for\nstatements of the relative number of hats of each size sold to adult\nmales; their tables agree so perfectly as to leave no doubt as to the\ncircumference of the heads of the white population of the United States.\nThe three houses together dispose of about 15,000 hats annually.\n\nThe following table was obligingly sent me by Messrs. Vail & Yates, of\nNewark; and they accompanied it with the remark, that their hats were\nsent principally to our Western States, where there is a large\nproportion of German population; also that the sizes of these hats were\na little larger (about one fourth of an inch) than those sold in the\nSouthern States. This remark was confirmed by the three dealers in\nMobile. Our table gives, 1st. The number or size of the hat. 2d. The\ncircumference of the head corresponding. 3d. The circumference of the\nhat; and lastly, the relative proportion of each No. sold out of 12\nhats.\n\n  Size--inches.   Circum.    Circum.      Relative\n                  of head.   of hat.    prop. in 12.\n\n      6-7/8        21-5/8     22-3/8         1\n      7            22         22-3/4         2\n      7-1/8        22-3/8     23-1/8         3\n      7-1/4        22-3/4     23-1/2         3\n      7-3/8        23-1/8     23-7/8         2\n      7-1/2        23-1/2     24-1/4         1\n\nAll hats larger than these are called \"extra sizes.\"\n\nThe average size, then, of the crania of white races in the United\nStates, is about 22-1/2 inches circumference, including the hair and\nscalp, for which about 1-1/2 inches should be deducted, leaving a mean\nhorizontal periphery, for adult males, of 21 inches. The measurements of\nthe purest Teutonic races in Germany and other countries, would give a\nlarger mean; and I have reason to believe that the population of France,\nwhich is principally Celtic, would yield a smaller mean. I hope that\nothers will extend these observations.\n\nDr. Morton's measurements of aboriginal American races, give a mean of\nbut 19-1/2 inches; and this statement is greatly strengthened by the\nfact that the Mexicans and other Indian races wear much smaller hats\nthan our white races. (See _Types of Mankind_, p. 289 and 453.)\n\nProf. Tiedemann, of Heidelberg, asserts that the head of the negro is as\nlarge as that of the white man, but this we have shown to be an error.\n(_Types of Mankind_, p. 453.)\n\nTiedemann adopted the vulgar error of grouping together under the term\n_Caucasian_, all the Indo-Germanic, Shemitic, and Nilotic races; also\nall the black and dark races of Africa under the term _Negro_. Now I\nhave shown that the Hindoo and Egyptian races possess about 12 cubic\ninches less of brain than the Teutonic; and the Hottentots about 8\ninches less than the Negro proper. I affirm that no valid reason has\never been assigned why the Teuton and Hindoo, or Hottentot and Negro,\nshould be classed together in their cranial measurements. I can discover\nno facts which can assign a greater age to one of these races than\nanother; and unless Professor Tiedemann can overcome these difficulties,\nhe has no right to assume identity for the various races he is pleased\nto group under each of his arbitrary divisions. Mummies from the\ncatacombs, and portraits on the monuments, show that the heads of races\non both sides of the Red Sea have remained unchanged 4000 years.\n\nAs Dr. Morton tabulated his skulls on the same arbitrary basis, I\nabandon his arrangement and present his facts as they stand in nature,\nallowing the reader to compare and judge for himself. The following\ntable gives the _internal capacity_ in cubic inches, and it will be\nseen that the measurements arrange themselves in a sliding scale of 17\ncubic inches from the Teuton down to the Hottentot and Australian.\n\n_Internal Capacity of Brain in Cubic Inches._\n\n       RACES.                  Internal    Internal\n                               capacity.   capacity.\n                                 Mean.       Mean.\n  MODERN WHITE RACES--\n    Teutonic group                92          92\n    Pelasgic   \"                  84 }\n    Celtic     \"                  87 }        88\n    Shemitic   \"                  89 }\n  ANCIENT PELASGIC                88\n  MALAYS                          85 }        83-1/2\n  CHINESE                         82 }\n  NEGROES (AFRICAN)               83          83\n  INDOSTANESE                     80 }\n  FELLAHS (modern Egyptians)      80 }        80\n  EGYPTIANS (ancient)             80 }\n\n  AMERICAN GROUP--\n    Toltecan family               77 }        79\n    Barbarous tribes              84 }\n\n  HOTTENTOTS                      75 }        75\n  AUSTRALIANS                     75 }\n\nSuch has been, through several thousand years, the incessant commingling\nof races, that we are free to admit that absolute accuracy in\nmeasurements of crania cannot now be attained. Yet so constant are the\nresults in contrasting groups, that no unprejudiced mind can deny that\nthere is a wide and well-marked disparity in the cranial developments of\nraces.\n\n\n\n\nB.\n\n\nAs the discussion stands at the present day, we may assume that the\nscientific world is pretty equally divided on the question of unity of\nthe human family, and the point is to be settled by facts, and not by\nnames. Natural history is a comparatively new and still rapidly\nprogressing science, and the study of man has been one of the last\ndepartments to attract serious attention. Blumenbach and Prichard, who\nmay be regarded among the early explorers in this vast field, have but\nrecently been numbered with the dead; and we may safely assert that the\nlast ten years have brought forth materials which have shed an entirely\nnew light on this subject.\n\nMr. Agassiz, Dr. Morton, Prof. Leidy, and many other naturalists of the\nUnited States, contend for an original diversity in the races of men,\nand we shall proceed to give some of the reasons why we have adopted\nsimilar views. Two of the latest writers of any note on the opposite\nside are the Rev. Dr. Bachman, of Charleston, and M. Flourens, of Paris;\nand as these gentlemen have very fully travelled over the argument\nopposed to us, we shall take the liberty, in the course of our remarks,\nto offer some objections to their views.\n\nThe great difficulty in this discussion is, to define clearly what\nmeaning should be attached to the term _species_; and to the\nillustration of this point, mainly, will our labors be confined.\n_Genera_ are, for the most part, well defined by _anatomical_\ncharacters, and little dispute exists respecting them; but no successful\nattempt has yet been made to designate _species_ in this way, and it is\nby their _permanency of type alone_, as ascertained from written or\nmonumental records, that our decision can be guided.\n\n\nSPECIES.\n\nThe following definitions of species have been selected by Dr. Bachman,\nand may be received as unexceptionable as any others; but we shall show\nthat they fall far short of the true difficulties of the case.\n\n    \"We are under the necessity of admitting the existence of certain\n    forms, which have perpetuated themselves, from the beginning of\n    the world, without exceeding the limits prescribed: all the\n    individuals belonging to one of these forms constitute a\n    _species_.\"--CUVIER.\n\n    \"We unite under the designation species all those individuals who\n    mutually bear to each other so close a resemblance as to allow of\n    our supposing that they may have proceeded originally from a\n    single being, or a single pair.\"--DE CANDOLLE.\n\n    \"The name species is applied to an assemblage of individuals which\n    bear a strong resemblance to each other, and which are perpetuated\n    with the same essential qualities. Thus man, the dog, the horse,\n    constitute to the zoologist so many distinct species.\"--MILNE\n    EDWARDS and ACHILLE COMPTE.\n\nWe have no objection to this definition, but the examples cited are\npoints in dispute, and not received by many of the leading naturalists\nof the day.\n\n    \"Species are fixed and permanent forms of being, exhibiting\n    indeed certain modes of variation, of which they may be more or\n    less susceptible, but maintaining throughout those modifications\n    a sameness of structural essentials, transmitted from generation\n    to generation, and never lost by the influence of causes which\n    otherwise produce obvious effects. _Varieties_ are either\n    accidental or the result of the care and culture of\n    man.\"[198]--MARTIN.\n\nDr. Bachman gives another, substantially the same, from Agassiz; and\nalso one of his own, to which he appends, as an additional test of\nspecies, the production of \"_fertile offspring by association_.\" In this\ndefinition the doctor _assumes_ one of the main points in dispute.\n\n    \"_Varieties_,\" says Dr. Bachman, \"are those that are produced\n    within the limits of particular species, and have not existed\n    from its origin. They sometimes originate in wild species,\n    especially those that have a wide geographical range, and are\n    thus exposed to change of climate and temperature,\" &c. * * *\n    \"_Permanent varieties_ are such as, having once taken place, are\n    propagated in perpetuity, and do not change their characteristics\n    unless they breed with other varieties.\"\n\nWe may remark that the existence of such _permanent varieties_ as here\ndescribed is also in dispute.\n\nThe same author continues:--\n\n    \"On comparing these definitions, as given by various naturalists,\n    each in his own language, it will be perceived that there is no\n    essential difference in the various views expressed in regard to\n    the characters by which a species is designated. They all regard\n    it as 'the lowest term to which we descend, with the exception of\n    _varieties_, such as are seen in domestic animals.' They are, to\n    examine the external and internal organization of the animal or\n    plant--they are, to compare it with kindred species, and if by\n    this examination they are found to possess _permanent characters\n    differing from those of other species, it proves itself to be a\n    distinct species_. When this fact is satisfactorily ascertained,\n    and the specimen is not found a domestic species, in which\n    varieties always occur, presumptive evidence is afforded of its\n    having had a primordial existence. We infer this from the fact\n    that no species is the production of blind chance, and that\n    within the _knowledge of history_ no true species, but\n    _varieties_ only, whose origin can be _distinctly traced to\n    existing and well-known species_, have made their appearance in\n    the world. This, then, is the only means within the knowledge of\n    man by which any species of plant or animal _can be shown_ to be\n    primordial. The peculiar form and characters designated the\n    species, and its origin was a necessary inference derived from\n    the characters stamped on it by the hand of the Creator.\"\n\nTo all the positions thus far taken by Dr. Bachman, we most cheerfully\nsubscribe; they are strictly scientific, and by such criteria alone do\nwe desire to test the unity of the human family; but we must enter a\ndecided demurrer to the assertion which follows, viz: that, \"according\nto the universally received definition of species, all the individuals\nof the human race are proved to be of one species.\" When it shall be\nshown that all the races of men, dogs, horses, cattle, wolves, foxes,\n&c., are \"varieties only, _whose origin can be distinctly traced to\nexisting and well-known species_,\" we may then yield the point; but we\nmust be permitted to say that Dr. Bachman is the only naturalist, as far\nas we know, who has assumed to know these original types.\n\nNow, if the reader will turn back and review carefully all the\ndefinitions of species cited, he will perceive that they are not based\nupon _anatomical characters_, but simply on the _permanency_ of certain\norganic forms, and that this permanence of form is determined by its\n_history_ alone.\n\nProfessor Owen, of London, has thrown the weight of his great name into\nthe scale, and tells us that \"man is the sole species of his genus, the\nsole representative of his order.\" But proving that man is not a monkey,\nas the professor has done in the lecture alluded to, does not prove that\nmen are all of _one_ species, according to any definition yet received:\nhe has made the assertion, but has assigned no scientific reasons to\nsustain it. No one would be more rejoiced than ourselves, to see the\ngreat talent and learning of Professor Owen brought fully to bear on\nthis point; but, like most naturalists, he has overlooked one of the\nmost important points in this discussion--_the monumental history of\nman_.\n\nWill Professor Owen or Dr. Bachman tell us wherein the lion and\ntiger--the dog, wolf, fox, and jackal--the fossil horse, and living\nspecies--the Siberian mammoth and the Indian elephant, differ more from\neach other than the white man and the negro? Are not all these regarded\nby naturalists as distinct species, and yet who pretends to be able to\ndistinguish the skeleton of one from the other by specific characters?\n\nThe examples just cited, of living species, have been decided upon\nsimply from their permanency of type, as derived from their history; and\nwe say that, by the same process of reasoning, the races of men\ndepicted on the monuments of Egypt, five thousand years ago, and which\nhave maintained their types through all time and all climates since, are\n_distinct species_.\n\nDr. Morton defines species--\"a primordial organic form,\" and determines\nthese forms by their permanence through all human records; and Mr.\nAgassiz, who adopts this definition, adds: \"Species are thus distinct\nforms of organic life, the origin of which is lost in the primitive\nestablishment of the state of things now existing; and varieties are\nsuch modification of the species as may return to the typical form under\ntemporary influences.\"\n\nDr. Bachman objects very strongly to this definition, and declares it a\n\"cunning device, and, to all intents, an _ex post facto_ law,\" suddenly\nconjured up during a controversy, to avoid the difficulties of the case;\nbut we have serious doubts whether these gentlemen are capable of such\nsubterfuge in matters of science, and confess that we cannot see any\nsubstantial difference between their definition and those given by Dr.\nBachman. Morton and Agassiz determine a form to be \"_primordial_\" by its\npermanency, as proved by history, and the other definitions assign no\nother test.\n\nProfessor Leidy, who has not only studied the \"lower departments of\nzoology,\" like Mr. Agassiz, but also the \"higher forms of animal life,\"\nsays that \"too much importance has been attached to the term species,\"\nand gives the following definition: \"A species of plant or animal may be\ndefined to be an immutable organic form, whose characteristic\ndistinctions may always be recognized by _a study of its history_.\"[199]\n\nM. Jourdain, under the head \"Esp\u00e8ce,\" in his _Dictionnaire des Termes\ndes Sciences Naturelles_, after citing a long list of definitions from\nleading authors, concludes with the following remarks, which, as the\nquestion now stands before the world, places the term species just where\nit should be:--\n\n    \"It is evident that we can, among organized bodies, regard as a\n    _species_ only such a collection of beings as resemble each other\n    more than they resemble others, and which, by a consent more or\n    less unanimous, it is agreed to designate by a common name; for a\n    _species_ is but a simple _abstraction of the mind_, and not a\n    group, exactly determined by nature herself, as ancient as she\n    is, and of which she has irrevocably traced the limits. It is in\n    the definition of species that we recognize how far the influence\n    of ideas adopted without examination in youth is powerful in\n    obscuring the most simple ideas of general physics.\"\n\nAlthough not written with the expectation of publication, I will take\nthe liberty of publishing the following private letter just received\nfrom Prof. Leidy. He has not appeared at all in this controversy before\nthe public, and we may safely say that no one can be better qualified\nthan he is to express an opinion on this question of species.\n\n    \"With all the contention about the question of what constitutes a\n    _species_, there appears to be almost no difficulty,\n    comparatively, in its practical recognition. Species of plants\n    and animals are daily determined, and the characters which are\n    given to distinguish them are viewed by the great body of\n    naturalists as sufficient. All the definitions, however, which\n    have been given for a species, are objectionable. Morton says: 'A\n    species is a primordial organic form.' But how shall we\n    distinguish the latter? How can it be proved that any existing\n    forms primordially were distinct? In my attempted definition, I\n    think, I fail, for I only direct how species are discovered.\n\n    \"According to the practical determination of a species by\n    naturalists, in a late number of the _Proceedings_ of our Academy\n    (vol. vii. p. 201), I observe: 'A species is a mere convenient\n    word with which naturalists empirically designate groups of\n    organized beings possessing characters of comparative constancy,\n    as far as historic experience has guided them in giving due weight\n    to such constancy.'\n\n    \"According to this definition, the races of men are evidently\n    distinct species. But it may be said that the definition is given\n    to suit the circumstances. So it is, and so it should be; or, if\n    not, then all characterized species should conform to an arbitrary\n    definition. The species of gyp\u00e6tus, hali\u00e6tus, tanagra, and of many\n    other genera of birds, are no more distinguishable than the\n    species of men; and, I repeat, the anatomy of one species of\n    hali\u00e6tus, or of any other genus, will answer for that of all the\n    other species of the same genus. The same is the case with\n    mammals. One species of felis, ursus, or equus will give the exact\n    anatomy of all the other species in each genus, just as you may\n    study the anatomy of the white man upon the black man. While Prof.\n    Richard Owen will compare the orang with man, and therefore deduce\n    all races of the latter to be of one species, he divides the genus\n    cervus into several other genera, and yet there is no difference\n    in their internal anatomy; while he considers the horse and the\n    ass as two distinct genera, and says that a certain fossil\n    horse-tooth, carefully compared with the corresponding tooth of\n    the recent horse, showed no differences, excepting in being a\n    little more curved, he considers it a distinct species, under the\n    name of equus curvidens; and yet, with differences of greater\n    value in the jaws of the negro and white man, he considers them\n    the same.\n\n    \"In the restricted genera of vertebrata of modern naturalists, the\n    specific characters are founded on the external appendages, for\n    the most part--differences in the scales, horns, antlers,\n    feathers, hairs, or bills. Just as you separate the black and\n    white man by the difference in the color of the skin and the\n    character of the hair, so do we separate the species of bears, or\n    cats, &c.\n\n    \"PHILADELPHIA, _April 18, 1855_.\"\n\nWe might thus go on and multiply, to the extent of an octavo volume,\nevidence to show how vague and unsettled is the term species among\nnaturalists, and that, when we abandon historical records, we have no\nreliable guide left. Moreover, were we able to establish perfectly\nreliable landmarks between species, we still have no means of\ndetermining whether they were originally created in one pair, or many\npairs. The latter is certainly the most rational supposition: there is\nevery reason to believe that the earth and the sea brought forth\n\"_abundantly_\" of each species.\n\nIt must be clear to the reader, from the evidence above adduced, that\nDr. Bachman claims far too much when he asserts that--\n\n    \"Naturalists can be found, in Europe and America, who, without\n    any _vain boast_, can distinguish every species of bird and\n    quadruped on their separate continents; and the characters which\n    distinguish and separate the several species are as distinct and\n    infallible as are those which form the genera.\"[200]\n\nAnd, again, when he says:--\n\n    \"From the opportunities we have enjoyed in the examination of the\n    varieties and species of domesticated quadrupeds and birds, we\n    have never found any difficulty in deciding on the species to\n    which these varieties belong.\"\n\nThose of us who are still groping in darkness certainly have a right to\nask who are the authorities alluded to, and what are those \"characters\nwhich distinguish and separate species\" as distinctly and infallibly as\n\"genera?\" They are certainly not in print.\n\nThe doctor must pardon us for reminding him that there is printed\nevidence that his own mind is not always free from doubts. In the\nintroduction of Audubon and Bachman's _Quadrupeds of America_, p. vii.,\nit is said:--\n\n    \"Although _genera_ may be easily ascertained by the forms and\n    dental arrangements peculiar to each, many _species_ so nearly\n    approach each other in size, while they are so variable in color,\n    that it is exceedingly difficult to separate them with positive\n    certainty.\"\n\nAgain, in speaking of the genus _vulpes_ (foxes), the same work says:--\n\n    \"The characters of this genus differ so slightly from those of\n    the genus _canis_, that we are induced to pause before removing\n    it from the sub-genus in which it had so long remained. As a\n    general rule, we are obliged to _admit that a large fox is a\n    wolf, and a small wolf may be termed a fox_. So inconveniently\n    large, however, is the list of species in the old genus _canis_,\n    that it is, we think, advisable to separate into distinct groups\n    such species as possess any characters different from true\n    wolves.\"\n\nSpeaking of the origin of the domestic dog, Dr. Bachman, in his work on\n_Unity of Races_, p. 63, says:--\n\n    \"Notwithstanding all these difficulties--and we confess we are\n    not free from some doubts in regard to their identity (dog and\n    wolf)--if we were called upon to decide on any wild species as\n    the progenitor of our dogs, we would sooner fix upon the large\n    wolf than on any other dog, hyena, or jackal,\" &c.\n\nThe doctor is unable, here at least (and we can point out many other\ncases), to \"designate species;\" and the recent investigations of\nFlourens, at the _Jardin des Plantes_, prove him wrong as regards the\norigin of the dog. The dog is not derived from the \"large wolf,\" but,\nwith it, produces hybrids, sterile after the third generation. The dog\nforms a genus apart.\n\nWe repeat, then, that in a large number of _genera_, the species cannot\nbe separated by any anatomical characters, and that it is from their\nhistory alone naturalists have arrived at those minute divisions now\ngenerally received. We may, without the fear of contradiction, go a step\nfurther, and assert that several of the races of men are as widely\nseparated in physical organization, physiological and psychological\ncharacters, as are the canid\u00e6, equid\u00e6, felines, elephants, bears and\nothers. When the white races of Europe, the Mongols of Asia, the\naborigines of America, the black races of Africa and Oceanica are placed\nbeside each other, they are marked by stronger differences than are the\nspecies of the genera above named. It has been objected that these gaps\nare filled by intermediate links which make the chain complete from one\nextremity to the other. The admission of the fact does not invalidate\nour position, for we have shown elsewhere (see _Types of Mankind_)\n_gradation_ is the law of nature. The extreme types, we have proven,\nhave been distinct for more than 5000 years, and no existing causes\nduring that time have transformed one type into another. The well-marked\nnegro type, for example, stands face to face with the white type on the\nmonuments of Egypt; and they differ more from each other than the dog\nand wolf, ass and _Equis Hemionus_, lion and tiger, &c. The hair and\nskin, the size and shape of head, the pelvis, the extremities, and other\npoints, separate certain African and Oceanican negroes more widely than\nthe above species. This will not be questioned, whatever difference of\nopinion may exist with regard to the permanency of these forms. In the\nlanguage of Prof. Leidy, \"the question to be determined is, whether the\ndifferences in the races of men are as permanent and of as much value as\nthose which characterize species in the lower genera of animals.\" These\nraces of men too are governed by the same laws of geographical\ndistribution, as the species of the lower genera; they are found, as far\nback as history can trace them, as widely separated as possible, and\nsurrounded by local Flor\u00e6 and Faun\u00e6.\n\n\nVARIETIES.\n\nThis term is very conveniently introduced to explain all the\ndifficulties which embarrass this discussion. Dr. Bachman insists that\nall the races of men are mere _varieties_, and sustains the opinion by a\nrepetition of those analogies which have been so often drawn from the\nanimal kingdom by Prichard and his school. It is well known that those\nanimals which have been domesticated undergo, in a few generations, very\nremarkable changes in color, form, size, habits, &c. For example, all\nthe hogs, black, white, brown, gray, spotted, &c., now found scattered\nover the earth, have, it is said, their parentage in one pair of wild\nhogs. \"This being admitted,\" says Dr. B. \"we invite the advocates of\nplurality in the human species to show wherein these varieties are less\nstriking than their eight (alluding to Agassiz) originally created\nnations.\" Again--\n\n    \"And how has the discovery been made that all the permanent races\n    are mere varieties, and not 'originally created' species, or\n    'primitive varieties?' Simply because the naturalists of Germany,\n    finding that the original wild hog still exists in their forests,\n    have, in a thousand instances, reclaimed them from the woods. By\n    this means they have discovered that their descendants, _after a\n    few generations_, lose their ferocity, assume all colors,\" &c.\n\nThe same reasoning is applied to horses, cattle, goats, sheep, &c.,\nwhile many, if not most of the best naturalists of the day deny that we\nknow anything of the origin of our domestic animals. Geoffroy St.\nHilaire, in his work, just out, denies it in toto. We are, however, for\nthe sake of argument, willing to admit all the examples, and all he\nclaims with regard to the origin of endless varieties in domesticated\nanimals.[201]\n\nLet us, on the other hand, \"invite the advocates of _unity_ of the human\nspecies\" to say when and where such varieties have sprung up in the\nhuman family. We not only have the written history of man for 2000\nyears, but his monumental history for 2000 more; and yet, while the\nnaturalists of Germany are catching wild hogs, and recording in a\nthousand instances \"after a few generations\" these wonderful changes, no\none has yet pointed out anything analogous in the human family; the\nporcupine family in England, a few spotted Mexicans, &c., do not meet\nthe case; history records the origin of no permanent variety. No race of\nmen has in the same country turned black, brown, gray, white, and\nspotted. The negroes in America have not in ten generations turned to\nall colors, though fully _domesticated_, like pigs and turkeys. The\nJews in all countries for 2000 years are still Jews. The gypsies are\neverywhere still gypsies. In India, the different castes, of different\ncolors, have been living together several thousand years, and are still\ndistinct, &c. &c.\n\nNor does domestication affect all animals and fowls equally; compare the\ncamel, ass, and deer, with the hog and dog; the Guinea fowl, pea fowl,\nand goose, with pigeons, turkeys, and common fowls. In fact, no one\nanimal can be taken as an analogue for another: each has its own\nphysiological laws; each is influenced differently and in different\ndegrees by the same external influences. How, then, can an animal be\ntaken as an analogue for man?\n\nWe have also abundant authority to show that all wild species do not\npresent the same uniformity in external characters.\n\n    \"All packs of American wolves usually consist of various shades\n    of color, and varieties nearly black have been occasionally found\n    in every part of the United States.... In a gang of wolves which\n    existed in Colleton District, South Carolina, a few years ago\n    (sixteen of which were killed by hunters in eighteen months), we\n    were informed that about one-fifth were black, and the others of\n    every shade of color, from black to dusky gray and yellowish\n    white.\"--AUDUBON & BACHMAN, 2d Amer. ed., vol. ii. pp. 130-1.\n\nSpeaking of the white American wolf, the same authors say:--\n\n    \"Their gait and movements are precisely the same as those of the\n    common dog, and their mode of copulating and number of young\n    brought forth at a litter, are about the same.\" (It might have\n    been added that their number of bones, teeth, whole anatomical\n    structure are the same.) \"The diversity of their size and color\n    is remarkable, no two being quite alike.\"... \"The wolves of the\n    prairies ... produce from six to eleven at a birth, of which\n    there are very seldom two alike in color.\"--_Op. cit._, p. 159.\n\n    \"The common American wolf, Richardson observes, sometimes shows\n    remarkable diversity of color. On the banks of the Mackenzie River\n    I saw five young wolves leaping and tumbling over each other with\n    all the playfulness of the puppies of the domestic dog, and it is\n    not improbable they were all of one litter. One of them was pied,\n    another black, and the rest showed the colors of the common gray\n    wolves.\"\n\nThe same diversity is seen in the prairie wolf, and naturalists have\nbeen much embarrassed in classifying the various wolves on account of\ncolors, size, &c.\n\nAll this is independent of _domestication_, and shows the uncertainty of\nanalogues; and still it is remarkable that though considerable variety\nexists in the native dogs of America in color and size, they do not run\ninto the thousand grotesque forms seen on the old continent, where a\nmuch greater mixture exists. The dogs of America, like the aboriginal\nraces of men, are comparatively uniform. In the East, where various\nraces have come together, the men, like the dogs, present endless\nvarieties, Egypt, Assyria, India, &c.\n\nLet us suppose that one variety of hog had been discovered in Africa,\none in Asia, one in Europe, one in Australia, another in America, as\nwell marked as those Dr. B. describes; that these varieties had been\ntransferred to other climates as have been Jews, gypsies, negroes, &c.,\nand had remained for ages without change of form or color, would they be\nconsidered as distinct species or not?--can any one doubt? The rule must\nwork both ways, or the argument falls to the ground.\n\nIn fact the Dr. himself makes admissions which fully refute his whole\ntheory.\n\n    \"Whilst,\" says he, \"we are willing to allow some weight to the\n    argument advanced by President Smyth, who endeavors to account\n    for the varieties in man from the combined influences of three\n    causes, 'climate, the state of society, and manner of living,' we\n    are free to admit that it is impossible to account for the\n    varieties in the human family from the causes which he has\n    assigned.\"[202]\n\nThe Dr. further admits, in the same work, that the races have been\n_permanent_ since the time of the old Egyptian empire, and _supposes_\nthat at some extremely remote time, of which we have no record, that\n\"they were more susceptible of producing varieties than at a later\nperiod.\" These suppositions answer a very good purpose in theology, but\ndo not meet the requirements of science.\n\n\nHYBRIDITY.\n\nHaving shown the insufficiency of all the other arguments in\nestablishing the landmarks of _species_, let us now turn to those based\non _hybridity_, which seems to be the last stronghold of the unity\nparty. On this point hang all the difficulties of M. Gobineau, and had\nhe been posted up to date here, his doubts would all have vanished. The\nlast twelve months have added some very important facts to those\npreviously published, and we shall, with as little detail as possible,\npresent the subject in its newest light.\n\nIt is contended that when two animals of distinct species, or, in other\nwords, of distinct origin, are bred together, they produce a hybrid\nwhich is _infertile_, or which at least becomes sterile in a few\ngenerations if preserved free from admixture with the parent stocks. It\nis assumed that unlimited prolificness is a certain test of community of\norigin.\n\nWe, on the contrary, contend that there is no abrupt line of\ndemarcation; that no complete laws of hybridity have yet been\nestablished; that there is a _regular gradation_ in the prolificness of\nthe species, and that, according to the best lights we now possess,\nthere is a continued series from perfect sterility to perfect\nprolificacy. The degrees may be expressed in the following language:--\n\n1. That in which hybrids never reproduce; in other words, where the\nmixed progeny begins and ends with the first cross.\n\n2. That in which the hybrids are incapable of producing _inter se_, but\nmultiply by union with the parent stock.\n\n3. That in which animals of unquestionably distinct species produce a\nprogeny which are prolific _inter se_, but have a tendency to run out.\n\n4. That which takes place between closely proximate species; among\nmankind, for example, and among those domestic animals most essential to\nhuman wants and happiness; here the prolificacy is unlimited.\n\nIt seems to be a law that in those genera where several or many species\nexist, there is a certain gradation which is shown in degrees of\nhybridity; some having greater affinity than others. Experiments are\nstill wanting to make our knowledge perfect, but we know enough to\nestablish our points.\n\nThere are many points we have not space to dwell on, as the relative\ninfluence of the male and female on the offspring; the tendency of one\nspecies to predominate over another; the tendency of types to \"crop out\"\nafter lying dormant for many generations; the fact that in certain\nspecies some of the progeny take after one parent and some after the\nother, while in other cases the offspring presents a medium type, &c.\n\nThe genus _Equus_ (Horse) comprises six species, of which three belong\nto Asia, and three to Africa. The Asiatic species are the _Equus\nCaballus_ (Horse), _Equus Hemionus_ (Dzigguetai), and _Equus Asinus_\n(Ass). Those of Africa are the _Equus Zebra_ (Zebra), _Equus Montanus_\n(Daw), and the _Equus Quaccha_ (Quagga). The horse and ass alone have\nbeen submitted to domestication from time immemorial; the others have\nremained wild.\n\nIt is well known that the horse and ass produce together an unprolific\nmule, and as these two species are the furthest removed from each other\nin their physical structure, Dr. Morton long since suggested that\nintermediate species bred together would show a higher degree of\nprolificness, and this prediction has been vindicated by experiments\nrecently made in the Garden of Plants at Paris, where the ass and\ndzigguetai have been bred together for the last ten years. \"What is very\nremarkable, these hybrids differ considerably from each other; some\nresemble much more closely the dzigguetai, others the ass.\" In regard to\nthe product of the male dzigguetai and the jenny, Mr. Geoffroy St.\nHilaire says:[203]--\n\n    \"Another fact, not less worthy of interest, is the fecundity, if\n    not of all the mules, at least the firstborn among them; with\n    regard to this, the fact is certain; he has produced several\n    times with Jennies, and once with the female dzigguetai, the only\n    one he has covered.\"[204]\n\nAt a meeting of the \"Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 Zoologique d'Acclimation,\"\n\n    M. Richard (du Cantal) \"parle des essais de croisements de\n    l'h\u00e9mione avec l'anesse, et dit qu'ils ont donn\u00e8 un mulet\n    beaucoup _plus ardent_ que l'\u00e2ne. Il asserte que les produits de\n    l'h\u00e9mione avec l'\u00e2ne, sont f\u00e9conds, et que le m\u00e9tis, nomm\u00e9 Polka,\n    \u00e0 d\u00e9ja produit.\"\n\nTo what extent the prolificness of these two species will go is yet to\nbe determined, and there is an unexplored field still open among the\nother species of this genus; it is highly probable that a gradation may\nbe established from sterility, up to perfect prolificacy.\n\nNot only do the female ass and the male onager breed together, but a\nmale offspring of this cross, with a mare, produces an animal more\ndocile than either parent, and combining the best physical qualities,\nsuch as strength, speed, &c.; whence the ancients preferred the onager\nto the ass, for the production of mules.[205] Mr. Gliddon, who lived\nupwards of twenty years in Egypt and other eastern countries, informs me\nthis opinion is still prevalent in Egypt, and is acted upon more\nparticularly in Arabia, Persia, &c., where the _gour_, or wild ass,\nstill roams the desert. The zebra has also been several times crossed\nwith the horse.\n\nThe genus _canis_ contains a great many species, as domestic dogs,\nwolves, foxes, jackals, &c., and much discussion exists as to which are\nreally species and which mere varieties. In this genus experiments in\ncrossing have been carried a step further than in the _Equid\u00e6_, but\nthere is much yet to be done. All the species produce prolific\noffspring, but how far the prolificness might extend in each instance is\nnot known; there is reason to believe that every grade would be found\nexcept that of absolute sterility which is seen in the offspring of the\nhorse and ass.\n\nThe following facts are given by M. Flourens, and are the result of his\nown observations at the _Jardin des Plantes_.\n\n    \"The hybrids of the dog and wolf are sterile after the _third_\n    generation; those of the jackal and dog, are so after the\n    _fourth_.\n\n    \"Moreover, if one of these hybrids is bred with one of the\n    primitive species, they soon return, completely and totally, to\n    this species.\n\n    \"My experiments on the crossing of species have given me\n    opportunities of making a great many observations of this kind.\n\n    \"The union of the dog and jackal produces a hybrid--a mixed\n    animal, an animal partaking almost equally of the two, but in\n    which, however, the type of the _jackal_ predominates over that of\n    the _dog_.\n\n    \"I have remarked, in fact, in my experiments, that all types are\n    not equally dominant and persistent. The type of the dog is more\n    persistent than that of the wolf--that of the jackal more than\n    that of the dog; that of the horse is less than that of the ass,\n    &c. The hybrid of the dog and the wolf partakes more of the dog\n    than the wolf; the hybrid of the jackal and dog, takes more after\n    the jackal than dog; the hybrid of the horse and the ass partakes\n    less of the horse than the ass; it has the ears, back, rump, voice\n    of the ass; the horse neighs, the ass brays, and the mule brays\n    like the ass, &c.\n\n    \"The hybrid of the dog and jackal, then, partakes more of the\n    jackal than dog--it has straight ears, hanging tail, does not\n    bark, and is wild--it is more jackal than dog.\n\n    \"So much for the FIRST cross product of the dog with the jackal. I\n    continue to unite, from generation to generation, the successive\n    products with one of the two primitive stocks--with that of the\n    dog, for example. The hybrid of the _second generation_ does not\n    yet bark, but has already the ears pendent at the ends, and is\n    less savage. The hybrid of the third generation barks, has the\n    ears pendent, the tail turned up, and is no longer wild. The\n    hybrid of the _fourth generation_ is entirely a dog.\n\n    \"Four generations, then, have sufficed to re-establish one of the\n    two primitive types--the type of the dog; and four generations\n    suffice, also, to bring back the other type.\"[206]\n\nFrom the foregoing facts, M. Flourens deduces, without assigning a\nreason, the following _non sequitur_:--\n\n    \"Thus, then, either hybrids, born of the union of two distinct\n    species, unite and soon become sterile, or they unite with one of\n    the parent stocks, and soon return to this type--they in no case\n    give what may be called a new species, that is to say, an\n    intermediate durable species.\"[207]\n\nThe dog also produces hybrids with the fox and hyena, but to what extent\nhas not yet been determined. The hybrid fox is certainly prolific for\nseveral generations.\n\nThere are also bovine, camelline, caprine, ovine, feline, deer with the\nram, and endless other hybrids, running through the animal kingdom, but\nthey are but repetitions of the above facts, and experiments are still\nfar from being complete in establishing the _degrees_ which attach to\neach two species. We have abundant proofs, however, of the three first\ndegrees of hybridity. 1st. Where the hybrid is infertile. 2d. Where it\nproduces with the parent stock. 3d. Where it is prolific for one, two,\nthree, or four generations, and then becomes sterile. Up to this point\nthere is no diversity of opinion. Let us now inquire what evidence there\nis of the existence of the 4th degree, in which hybrids may form a new\nand permanent race.\n\nTo show how slow has been our progress in this question, and what\ndifficulties beset our path, we need only state that the facts\nrespecting the dog, wolf, and jackal, quoted above from Flourens, have\nonly been published within the last twelve months. The identity of the\ndog and wolf has heretofore been undetermined, and the _degrees_ of\nhybridity of the dog with the wolf and jackal were before unknown. These\nexperiments do not extend beyond one species of wolf.\n\nM. Flourens says:--\n\n    \"_Les esp\u00e8ces ne s'alt\u00e8rent point, ne changent point, ne passent\n    point de l'une \u00e0 l'autre; les esp\u00e8ces sont_ FIX\u00c9S.\"\n\n    \"If species have a tendency to transformation, to pass one into\n    another, why has not time, which, in everything, effects all that\n    can happen, ended by disclosing, by betraying, by implying this\n    tendency.\n\n    \"But time, they may tell me, is wanting. It is not wanting. It is\n    2000 years since Aristotle wrote, and we recognize in our day all\n    the animals which he describes; and we recognize them by the\n    characters which he assigns.... Cuvier states that the history of\n    the elephant is more exact in Aristotle than in Buffon. They bring\n    us every day from Egypt, the remains of animals which lived there\n    two or three thousand years ago--the ox, crocodiles, ibis, &c.\n    &c., which are the same as those of the present day. We have under\n    our eyes _human mummies_--the skeleton of that day is identical\n    with that of the Egyptian of our day.\"\n\n(M. Flourens might have added that the mummies of the white and black\nraces show them to have been as distinct then as now, and that the\nmonumental drawings represent the different races more than a thousand\nyears further back.)\n\n    \"Thus, then, through three thousand years, no species has\n    changed. An experiment which continues through three thousand\n    years, is not an experiment to be made--it is an experiment\n    _made_. Species do not change.\"[208]\n\n_Permanence of type_, then, is the only test which he can adduce for the\ndesignation of species, and he here comes back plainly to the position\nwe have taken. Let us now test the races of men by this rule. The white\nAsiatic races, the Jew, the Arab, the Egyptian, the negro, at least, are\ndistinctly figured on the monuments of Egypt and Assyria, as distinct as\nthey are now, and _time_ and change of climate have not transformed any\none type into another. In whatever unexplored regions of the earth the\nearliest voyagers have gone, they have found races equally well marked.\nThese races are all prolific _inter se_, and there is every reason to\nbelieve that we here find the fourth and last degree of hybridity.\nWhether the prolificacy is _unlimited_ between all the races or species\nof men is still an unsettled point, and experiments have not yet been\nfully and fairly made to determine the question. The dog and wolf become\nsterile at the _third_. The dog and jackal at the fourth generation,\nand who can tell whether the law of hybridity might not show itself in\nman, after a longer succession of generations. There are no observations\nyet of this kind in the human family. It is a common belief in our\nSouthern States, that mulattoes are less prolific, and attain a less\nlongevity than the parent stocks. I am convinced of the truth of this\nremark, when applied to the mulatto from the strictly white and black\nraces, and I am equally convinced, from long personal observation, that\nthe _dark_-skinned European races, as Spaniards, Portuguese, Italians,\nBasques, &c., mingle much more perfectly with the negroes than do fair\nraces, thus carrying out the law of gradation in hybridity. If the\nmulattoes of New Orleans and Mobile be compared with those of the\nAtlantic States, the fact will become apparent.\n\nThe argument in favor of unlimited prolificacy between species may be\nstrongly corroborated by an appeal to the history of our domestic\nanimals, whose history is involved in the same impenetrable mystery as\nthat of man. M. Geoffroy St. Hilaire very justly remarks that we know\nnothing of the origin of our domestic animals; because we find wild\nhogs, goats, sheep, &c., in certain parts of Europe, several thousand\nyears subsequent to the early migrations of man, this does not prove\nthat the domestic come from these wild ones. The reverse may be the\ncase.[209]\n\nWe have already made some general observations on the _genus canis_,\nwhose natural history is most closely allied to that of man. Let us now\ninquire whether the domestic dog is but one species, or whether under\nthis head have been included many proximate species of unlimited\nprolificacy. If we try the question by _permanency of type_, like the\nraces of men, and all well-marked species, the doubt must be yielded.\n\nThere are strong reasons given by Dr. Morton and other naturalists, for\nsupposing that our common dogs, independent of mixtures of _their_\nvarious races, may also have an infusion of the blood of foxes, wolves,\njackals, and even the hyena; thus forming, as we see every day around\nus, _curs_ of every possible grade; but setting aside all this, we have\nabundant evidence to show that each zoological province has its original\ndog, and, perhaps, not unfrequently several.\n\nIn one chapter on hybridity in the \"_Types of Mankind_,\" it is shown\nthat our Indian dogs in America present several well-marked types,\nunlike any in the Old World, and which are indigenous to the soil. For\nexample, the Esquimaux dog, the Hare Indian dog, the North American dog,\nand several others. We have not space here to enter fully into the\nfacts, but they will be found at length in the work above mentioned.\nThese dogs, too, are clearly traced to wild species of this continent.\n\nIn other parts of the world we find other species equally well marked,\nbut we shall content ourselves with the facts drawn from the ancient\nmonuments of Egypt. It is no longer a matter of dispute that as far\nback, at least, as the twelfth dynasty, about 2300 years before Christ,\nwe find the common small dog of Egypt, the greyhound, the staghound, the\nturnspit, and several other types which do not correspond with any dogs\nthat can now be identified.[210] We find, also, the mastiff admirably\nportrayed on the monuments of Babylon, which dog was first brought from\nthe East to Greece by Alexander the Great, 300 years B. C. The museums\nof natural history, also, everywhere abound in the remains of _fossil_\ndogs, which long antedate all living species.\n\nThe wolf, jackal, and hyena are also found distinctly drawn on the early\nmonuments of Egypt, and a greyhound, exactly like the English greyhound,\nwith semi-pendent ears, is seen on a statue in the Vatican, at Rome. It\nis clear, then, that the leading types of dogs of the present day (and\nprobably all) existed more than four thousand years ago, and it is\nequally certain that the type of a dog, when kept pure, will endure in\nopposite climates for ages. Our staghounds, greyhounds, mastiffs,\nturnspits, pointers, terriers, &c., are bred for centuries, not only in\nEgypt and Europe without losing their types, but in any climate which\ndoes not destroy them. No one denies that climate influences these\nanimals greatly, but the greyhound, staghound, or bulldog can never be\ntransformed into each other.\n\nThe facts above stated cannot be questioned, and it is admitted that\nthese species are all prolific without limit _inter se_.\n\nThe llama affords another strong argument in favor of the fourth degree\nof hybridity. Cuvier admits but two species--the llama (_camelus\nllacma_), of which he regards the _alpaca_ as a variety, and the vigogne\n(_camelus vicunna_). More recent naturalists regard the alpaca as a\ndistinct species, among whom is M. Geoffroy St. Hilaire.[211] At all\nevents, it seems settled that they _all_ breed together without limit.\n\n    \"A son tour, apr\u00e8s la vigogne, viendra bient\u00f4t l'alpavigogne,\n    fruit du croisement de l'alpaca avec la vigogne. Don Francisco de\n    Theran, il ya quarante ans, et M. de Castelnau, avaient annonc\u00e9\n    d\u00e9j\u00e0 que ce m\u00e9tis est f\u00e9cond, et qu'il porte une laine presque\n    aussi longue que celle de l'alpaca, presque aussi fine que celle\n    de la vigogne.... M. Weddell a mis tout r\u00e9cemment l'Acad\u00e9mie des\n    Sciences \u00e0 m\u00eame de voir et d'admirer cette admirable toison. Il a\n    confirm\u00e9 en m\u00eame temps un fait que n'avait trouv\u00e9 que des\n    incr\u00e9dules parmi les naturalists--la f\u00e9condit\u00e9 de\n    l'alpaca-vigogne: l'abb\u00e9 Cabrera, cur\u00e9 de la petite ville de\n    Macusani, a obtenu une race qui se perp\u00e9tue et dont il poss\u00e8de\n    d\u00e9j\u00e0 tout un troupeau. C'est, donc, pour ainsi dire, une\n    nouvelle esp\u00e8ce cr\u00e9\u00e9e par l'homme; et si paradoxal qu' ait pu\n    sembler ce r\u00e9sultat, il est, fort heureusement pour l'industrie,\n    _d\u00e9finitivement acquis \u00e0 la science_.\n\n    \"Ce r\u00e9sultat n'aurait rien de paradoxal, si l'alpaca n'\u00e9tait,\n    comme l'ont pens\u00e9 plusieurs auteurs, qu'une race domestique et\n    tr\u00eas modifi\u00e9e de la vigogne. Cette objection contre le pretendu\n    principe de l'inf\u00e9condite des mulets ne serait d'ailleurs lev\u00e9e\n    que pour faire place \u00e0 une autre; _l'alpa-llama_ serait alors un\n    mulet, issu de deux esp\u00e8ces distincts, et l'alpa-llama est f\u00e9cond\n    comme l'alpa-vigogne.\"[212]\n\nWe have recently seen exhibited in Mobile a beautiful hybrid of the\nalpaca and common sheep, and the owner informed us that he had a flock\nat home, which breed perfectly.\n\nDr. Bachman confesses that he has not examined the drawings given in the\nworks of Lepsius, Champollion, Rossellini, and other Egyptologists, of\nvarious animals represented on the monuments, and ridicules the idea of\ntheir being received as authority in matters of natural history.\nAlthough many of the drawings are rudely done, most of them, in outline,\nare beautifully executed, and Dr. B. is the first, so far as we know, to\ncall the fact in question. Dr. Chas. Pickering is received by Dr. B. as\nhigh authority in scientific matters--he has not only examined these\ndrawings, but their originals. Lepsius, Champollion, Rossellini,\nWilkinson, and all the Egyptologists, have borne witness to the\nreliability of these drawings, and have enumerated hundreds of animals\nand plants which are perfectly identified.\n\nMartin, the author of the work on \"_Man and Monkeys_,\" is certainly good\nauthority. He says:--\n\n    \"Now we have in modern Egypt and Arabia, and also in Persia,\n    varieties of greyhound closely resembling those of the ancient\n    remains of art, and it would appear that two or three varieties\n    exist--one smooth, another long haired, and another smooth with\n    long-haired ears, resembling those of the spaniel. In Persia, the\n    greyhound, to judge from specimens we have seen, is silk-haired,\n    with a fringed tail. They are of a black color; but a fine breed,\n    we are informed, is of a slate or ash color, as are some of the\n    smooth-haired greyhounds depicted in the Egyptian paintings. In\n    Arabia, a large, rough, powerful race exists; and about Akaba,\n    according to Laborde, a breed of slender form, fleet, with a long\n    tail, very hairy, in the form of a brush, with the ears erect and\n    pointed, closely resembling, in fact, many of those figured by\n    the ancient Egyptians.\"[213]\n\nHe goes on to quote Col. Sykes, and others, for other varieties of\ngreyhound in the east, unlike any in Europe.\n\nDr. Pickering, after enumerating various objects identified on the\nmonuments of the third and fourth dynasties, as Nubians, white races,\nthe ostrich, ibis, jackal, antelope, hedgehog, goose, fowls, ducks,\nbullock, donkey, goats, dog-faced ape, hyena, porcupine, wolves, foxes,\n&c. &c., when he comes down to the twelfth dynasty, says:--\n\n    \"The paintings on the walls represent a vast variety of subjects;\n    including, most unexpectedly, the greater part of the _arts_ and\n    _trades_ practised among civilized nations at the present day;\n    also birds, quadrupeds, fishes, and insects, amounting to an\n    _extended treatise on zoology_, well deserving the attention of\n    naturalists. The date accompanying these representations has\n    been astronomically determined by Biot, at about B. C. 2200\n    (Champollion-Figeac, _Egyp. Arc._); and Lepsius's chronological\n    computation corresponds.\"[214]\n\nDr. P. gives us a fauna and flora of Egypt, running further back than\nUsher's date for the creation, and it cannot be doubted that the\ndrawings are as reliable as those in any modern work on natural history.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[198] Natural History of Man and Monkeys.\n\n[199] Fauna and Flora within Living Animals, p. 9.\n\n[200] Doctrine of the Unity of the Human Race, p. 10.\n\n[201] We are told that the pigs in one department of France are all\nblack, in another, all white, and local causes are assigned! When I was\na boy, my father introduced what was then called the China hog into the\nUnion District, South Carolina; they were black, with white faces. On a\nvisit to that district about twelve years ago, I found the whole country\nfor 40 miles covered with them. On a visit one year ago, I found they\nhad been supplanted entirely by other breeds of different colors: the\nold familiar type had disappeared.\n\n[202] _Op. cit._, p. 177.\n\n[203] _Domestication et Naturalization des Animaux utiles_, par M.\nIsadore Geoffroy St. Hilaire, p. 71, Paris, 1854.\n\n[204] Ibid.\n\n[205] Columbia, p. 135.\n\n[206] _De la Longevit\u00e9 Humaine_, &c., par P. Flourens, Paris, 1855.\n\n[207] M. Flourens here, perhaps, speaks too positively. The blood of the\napparently lost species will show itself from time to time for many, if\nnot endless generations.\n\n[208] _Op. cit._\n\n[209] _Op. cit._, p. 122.\n\n[210] It has been objected, that the drawings cannot be relied on, as\nsome of these types are no longer to be found. But there are several\nwell-marked types of domestic animals on the old monuments that no\nlonger exist, because they have been supplanted by better breeds. In\nthis country several varieties of the Indian dogs are rapidly\ndisappearing for the same reason. The llama must give place, in the same\nway, to the cow and the horse. Many other instances may be cited.\n\n[211] _Op. cit._, p. 29. 1854.\n\n[212] _Op. cit._, p. 101.\n\n[213] _Op. cit._, p. 53.\n\n[214] _Geographical Dist._, p. 17.\n\nThis work, I believe, is not yet issued, but Dr. Pickering has kindly\nsent me the first 150 pages, as printed.\n\n\n\n\nC.\n\n\nMr. Gobineau remarks (p. 367), that he has very serious doubts as to the\nunity of origin. \"These doubts, however,\" he continues, \"I am compelled\nto repress, because they are in contradiction to a scientific fact,\nwhich I cannot refute--the prolificness of half-breeds; and secondly,\nwhat is of much greater weight with me, they impugn a religious\ninterpretation sanctioned by the church.\"\n\nWith regard to the prolificness of half-breeds, I have already mentioned\nsuch facts as might have served to dispel the learned writer's doubts,\nhad he been acquainted with them. In reference to the other, more\nserious, obstacle to his admission of the plurality of origins, he\nhimself intimates (p. 339) that the authority of this interpretation\nmight, perhaps, be questioned without transgressing the limits imposed\nby the church. Believing this view to be correct, I shall venture on a\nfew remarks upon this last scruple of the author, which is shared by\nmany investigators of this interesting subject.\n\n    \"The strict rule of scientific scrutiny,\" says the most learned\n    and formidable opponent in the adversary's camp,[215] \"exacts,\n    according to modern philosophers, in matters of inductive\n    reasoning, an exclusive homage. It requires that we should close\n    our eyes against all presumptive and exterior evidence, and\n    _abstract our minds from all considerations not derived from the\n    matters of fact which bear immediately on the question_. The\n    maxim we have to follow in such controversies is 'fiat justitia,\n    ruat coelum.' _In fact, what is actually true, it is always\n    desirous to know, whatever consequences may arise from its\n    admission._\"\n\nTo this sentiment I cheerfully subscribe: it has always been my maxim.\nYet I find it necessary, in treating of this subject, to touch on its\n_biblical_ connections, for although we have great reason to rejoice at\nthe improved tone of toleration, or even liberality which prevails in\nthis country, the day has not come when science can be severed from\ntheology, and the student of nature can calmly follow her truths, no\nmatter whither they may lead. What a mortifying picture do we behold in\nthe histories of astronomy, geology, chronology, cosmogony, geographical\ndistribution of animals, &c.; they have been compelled to fight their\nway, step by step, through human passion and prejudice, from their\nsupposed contradiction to Holy Writ. But science has been\nvindicated--their great truths have been established, and the Bible\nstands as firmly as it did before. The last great struggle between\nscience and theology is the one we are now engaged in--the _natural\nhistory of man_--it has now, for the first time, a fair hearing before\nChristendom, and all any question should ask is \"_daylight and fair\nplay_.\"\n\nThe Bible should not be regarded as a text-book of natural history. On\nthe contrary, it must be admitted that none of the writers of the Old or\nNew Testament give the slightest evidence of knowledge in any department\nof science beyond that of their profane contemporaries; and we hold that\nthe natural history of man is a department of science which should be\nplaced upon the same footing with others, and its facts dispassionately\ninvestigated. What we require for our guidance in this world is truth,\nand the history of science shows how long it has been stifled by bigotry\nand error.\n\nIt was taught for ages that the sun moved around the earth; that there\nhad been but one creation of organized beings; that our earth was\ncreated but six thousand years ago, and that the stars were made to shed\nlight upon it; that the earth was a plane, with sides and ends; that all\nthe animals on earth were derived from Noah's ark, &c. But what a\ndifferent revelation does science give us? We now know that the earth\nrevolves around the sun, that the earth is a globe which turns on its\nown axis, that there has been a succession of destructions and creations\nof living beings, that the earth has existed countless ages, and that\nthere are stars so distant as to require millions of years for their\nlight to reach us; that instead of one, there are many centres of\ncreation for existing animals and plants, &c.\n\nIf so many false readings of the Bible have been admitted among\ntheologians, who has authority or wisdom to say to science--\"thus far\nshalt thou go, and no further?\" The doctrine of _unity_ for the human\nfamily may be another great error, and certainly a denial of its truth\ndoes no more, nay, less violence to the language of the Bible, than do\nthe examples above cited.\n\nIt is a popular error, and one difficult to eradicate, that all the\nspecies of animals now dwelling on the earth are descendants of pairs\nand septuples preserved in Noah's ark, and certainly the language of\nGenesis on this point is too plain to admit of any quibble; it does\nteach that every living being perished by the flood, except those alone\nwhich were saved in the ark. Yet no living naturalist, in or out of the\nchurch, believes this statement to be correct. The centres of creation\nare so numerous, and the number of animals so great that it is\nimpossible it should be so.\n\nOn the other hand, the first chapter of Genesis gives an account\nentirely in accordance with the teachings of science.\n\n    \"And God said, let the earth bring forth _grass_, the herb\n    yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit, after his kind,\n    whose seed is in itself upon the earth; and it was so.\" _Gen._ i.\n    11.\n\n    \"And God said, let the waters bring forth _abundantly_, the moving\n    creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in\n    the open firmament of heaven.\" v. 20.\n\n    \"And God created great _whales_, and every living creature that\n    moveth, which the waters brought forth _abundantly_,\" &c. v. 21.\n\n    \"And God said, let the earth bring forth the living creature after\n    his kind, cattle and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after\n    his kind, and it was so.\" v. 24.\n\n    \"God created _man_ in his own image; _male_ and _female_ created\n    he _them_.\"\n\nIn the language above quoted, nothing is said about one seed or one\nblade of grass; about one fruit tree, or about _single pairs_ of animals\nor human beings. On the contrary, this chapter closes with the distinct\nimpression on the mind that everything was created _abundantly_. The\nonly difficulty arises with regard to the human family, and we are here\nconfused by the contradictory statements of the first and second\nchapters. In the first chapter, man was created _male and female_, on\nthe sixth day--in the second chapter, woman was not created until after\nAdam was placed in the Garden of Eden. Commentators explain this\ndiscrepancy by the difference in style of the two chapters, and the\ninference that Genesis is a compilation made up by Moses from two or\nthree different writers; but it is not our purpose here to open these\ntheological discussions. Both sides are sustained by innumerable\nauthorities. From what we have before shown, it is clear that the\ninspired writers possessed no knowledge of physical sciences, and as\nlittle respecting the natural history of man, as of any other\ndepartment.\n\nTheir _moral_ mission does not concern our subject, and we leave that to\ntheologians, to whom it more properly belongs. On the other hand, we ask\nto be let alone in our study of the physical laws of the universe. The\ntheologian and the naturalist have each an ample field without the\nnecessity of interfering with each other.\n\nThe Bible is here viewed only in its relations with physical science. We\nhave already alluded to the fact that in astronomy, geology, &c., the\nauthors of the Bible possessed no knowledge beyond that of their profane\ncontemporaries, and a dispassionate examination of the text from Genesis\nto Revelation will show that the writers had but an imperfect knowledge\nof contemporary races, and did not design to teach the doctrine of unity\nof mankind, or rather origin from a single pair. The writer of the\n_Pentateuch_ could attach little importance to such an idea, as he\nnowhere alludes to a future existence, or rewards and punishments--all\ngood and evil, as far as the human race is concerned, with him, were\nmerely temporal.\n\nThis idea of a future state does not distinctly appear in the Jewish\nwritings until after their return from the Babylonish captivity.\n\nThe extent of the surface of the globe, known even to the writers of the\nNew Testament, formed but a small fraction of it--little beyond the\nconfines of the Roman empire. No allusion is even made to Southern and\nEastern Asia; Africa, south of the Desert; Australia, America, &c.; all\nof which were inhabited long before the time of Moses; and of the races\nof men inhabiting these countries, and their languages, they certainly\nknew nothing. The Chinese and Indian empires, at least, are beyond\ndispute. The early Hebrews were a pastoral people; had little commercial\nor other intercourse with the rest of the world, and were far from being\n\"learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians.\" The Egyptian empire was\nfully developed--arts and science as flourishing--pyramids and gorgeous\ntemples built, not only before the time of Moses, but long prior to that\nof the Patriarch Abraham, who, with Sarah, went to Egypt to buy corn of\nthe reigning Pharaoh. What is remarkable, too, the Egyptians had their\nethnographers, and had already classified the human family into four\nraces, and depicted them on the monuments, viz: the black, white,\nyellow, and red.[216]\n\nIn fact, nothing can be more incomplete, contradictory, and\nunsatisfactory than the ethnography of Genesis. We see Cain going into a\nforeign land and taking a wife before there were any women born of his\nparent stock. Cities are seen springing up in the second and third\ngenerations, in every direction, &c. All this shows that we have in\nGenesis no satisfactory history of the human family, and that we can\nrely no more upon its ethnography than upon its geography, astronomy,\ncosmogony, geology, zoology, &c.\n\nWe have already alluded to the fact that the writers of the New\nTestament give no evidence of additional knowledge in such matters. The\nsermon from the Mount comes like a light from Heaven, but this volume is\nmute on all that pertains to the physical laws of the universe.\n\nIf the common origin of man were such an important point in the eyes of\nthe Almighty as we have been taught to believe, is it reasonable to\nsuppose it would have been left by the inspired writers in such utter\nconfusion and doubt? The coming of Christ changed the whole question,\nand we should expect, at least in the four Gospels, for some authority\nthat would settle this vital point; but strange as the assertion may\nseem, there is not a single passage here to be found, which, by any\ndistortion, can be made to sustain this _unity_; and on searching\ndiligently the New Testament, from one end to the other, we were not a\nlittle surprised to find but a single text that seemed to bear directly\nupon it, viz: the oft quoted one in Acts xvii. 26: \"And hath made of\n_one blood_ all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the\nearth,\" &c. Being astonished at the fact that this great question of\ncommon origin of man should thus be made to hang so much upon a single\nverse, it occurred to me that there might be some error, some\ninterpolation in the text, and having no material at hand for such an\ninvestigation in Mobile, I wrote to a competent friend in Philadelphia,\nto examine for me all the Greek texts and old versions, and his reply\nconfirmed fully my suspicions. The word _blood_ is an interpolation, and\nnot to be found in the original texts. The word _blood_ has been\nrejected by the Catholic Church, from the time of St. Jerome to the\npresent hour. The text of Tischendorf is regarded, I believe, generally\nas the most accurate Greek text known, and in this the word blood does\nnot appear. I have at hand a long list of authorities to the same\neffect, but as it is presumed no competent authority will call our\nassertion in question, it is needless to cite them. The verse above\nalluded to in Acts should, therefore, read:--\n\n    \"And hath made of _one_ all races (genus) of men,\" &c.\n\nThe word _blood_ is a gloss, and we have just as much right to\ninterpolate _one form_, _one substance_, _one nature_, _one\nresponsibility_, or anything else, as _blood_.\n\nThese remarks on the ethnography of the Bible might be greatly extended,\nbut my object here is simply to show that the Bible, to say the least,\nleaves the field open, and that I have entered it soberly, discreetly,\nand advisedly.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[215] Prichard, _Nat. Hist. of Man_, p. 8. London, 1843.\n\n[216] See \"_Types of Mankind_,\" by Nott and Gliddon.\n\n\n\n\n   +-------------------------------------------------------------+\n   |Transcriber's note:                                          |\n   |                                                             |\n   |  Inconsistent use of law-giver vs. lawgiver was made        |\n   |      consistent as \"law-giver\".                             |\n   |                                                             |\n   |  Page 476: Corrected typographical error \"criterea\".        |\n   |                                                             |\n   |  Footnote 39: Placement of quotation marks has been         |\n   |    made consistent.                                         |\n   |                                                             |\n   |  Footnote 59: Added missing closing quotation mark \"...'When|\n   |    three of us are together, the Triad is among us.'\"       |\n   |                                                             |\n   |  Footnote 85: I believe the editor meant \"page 187\".        |\n   |                                                             |\n   |  Footnote 195: Added dash to sign-off \"--H.\" to conform to  |\n   |    other footnotes.                                         |\n   |                                                             |\n   |  All other inconsistencies, variant spellings, and a large  |\n   |    number of mis-quoted references have been preserved.     |\n   +-------------------------------------------------------------+\n\n\n\n<pre id=\"pg-footer\">","title":"The Moral and Intellectual Diversity of Races: With Particular Reference to Their Respective Influence in the Civil and Political History of Mankind","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":115398}