{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_38365/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_38365","id":"gutenberg_38365","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/38365","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - Other","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","History","History -- Philosophy"],"text":"Produced by Adam Buchbinder and the Online Distributed\nProofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This book was\nproduced from scanned images of public domain material\nfrom the Google Print project.)\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  THE\n  PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY;\n\n\n  IN A\n  COURSE OF LECTURES,\n  DELIVERED AT VIENNA,\n  BY FREDERICK VON SCHLEGEL.\n\n\n  TRANSLATED FROM THE GERMAN,\n  WITH A MEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR,\n  BY JAMES BURTON ROBERTSON, ESQ.\n\n  IN TWO VOLUMES.\n  VOL. I.\n\n  LONDON\n  SAUNDERS AND OTLEY, CONDUIT STREET.\n\n  MDCCCXXXV.\n\n\n\n\n  B. BENSLEY, PRINTER.\n\n\n\n\n  MEMOIR\n  OF THE LITERARY LIFE\n  of\n  FREDERICK VON SCHLEGEL.\n\n\nIn the following sketch of the literary life of the late Frederick Von\nSchlegel, it is the intention of the writer to take a rapid review of\nthat author's principal productions, noticing the circumstances out of\nwhich they grew, and the influence they exerted on his age; giving at\nthe same time a fuller analysis of his political and metaphysical\nsystems:--an analysis which is useful, nay almost necessary to the\nelucidation of very many passages in the work, to which this memoir is\nprefixed. Of the inadequacy of his powers to the due execution of such a\ntask, none can be more fully sensible than the writer himself; but he\ntrusts that he will experience from the kindness of the reader, an\nindulgence proportionate to the difficulty of the undertaking.\n\nIn offering to the British public a translation of one of the last\nworks of one among the most illustrious of German writers, the\nTranslator is aware, that after the excellent translation which\nappeared in 1818 of this author's \"History of Literature,\" and also\nafter the admirable translation of his brother's \"Lectures on\nDramatic Literature,\" by Mr. Black, his own performance must appear\nin a very disadvantageous point of view. But this is a circumstance\nwhich only gives it additional claims to indulgent consideration.\n\nThe family of the Schlegels seem to have been peculiarly favoured by\nthe Muses. Elias Schlegel, a member of this family, was a\ndistinguished dramatic writer in his own time; and some of his plays\nare, I believe, acted in Germany at the present day. Adolphus\nSchlegel, the father of the subject of the present biography, was a\nminister of the Lutheran church, distinguished for his literary\ntalents, and particularly for eloquence in the pulpit. His eldest\nson, Charles Augustus Schlegel, entered with the Hanoverian regiment\nto which he belonged into the service of our East India Company, and\nhad begun to prosecute with success his studies in Sanscrit\nliterature--a field of knowledge in which his brothers have since\nobtained so much distinction--when his youthful career was unhappily\nterminated by the hand of death. Augustus William Schlegel, the\nsecond son, who was destined to carry to so high a pitch the\nliterary glory of his family, was born at Hanover in 1769--a year so\npropitious to the birth of genius. Frederick Schlegel was born at\nHanover in 1772. Though destined for commerce, he received a highly\nclassical education; and in his sixteenth year prevailed on his\nfather to allow him to devote himself to the Belles Lettres. After\ncompleting his academical course at Gottingen and Leipzig, he\nrejoined his brother, and became associated with him in his literary\nlabours. He has himself given us the interesting picture of his own\nmind at this early period. \"In my first youth,\" says he, \"from the\nage of seventeen and upwards, the writings of Plato, the Greek\ntragedians, and Winkelmann's enthusiastic works, formed the\nintellectual world in which I lived, and where I often strove in a\nyouthful manner, to represent to my soul the ideas and images of\nancient gods and heroes. In the year 1789, I was enabled, for the\nfirst time, to gratify my inclination in that capital so highly\nrefined by art--Dresden; and I was as much surprised as delighted to\nsee really before me those antique figures of gods I had so long\ndesired to behold. Among these I often tarried for hours, especially\nin the incomparable collection of Mengs's casts, which were then to\nbe found, disposed in a state of little order in the Bruehl garden,\nwhere I often let myself be shut up, in order to remain without\ninterruption. It was not the consummate beauty of form alone, which\nsatisfied and even exceeded the expectation I had secretly formed;\nbut it was still more the life--the animation in those Olympic\nmarbles, which excited my astonishment; for the latter qualities I\nhad been less able to picture to myself in my solitary musings.\nThese first indelible impressions were in succeeding years, the\nfirm, enduring ground-work for my study of classical antiquity.\"[1]\nHere he found the sacred fire, at which his genius lit the torch\ndestined to blaze through his life with inextinguishable brightness.\n\nHe commenced his literary career in 1794, with a short essay on the\ndifferent schools of Greek poetry. It is curious to watch in this little\npiece the buddings of his mind. Here we see, as it were, the germ of the\nfirst part of the great work on ancient and modern literature, which he\npublished nearly twenty years afterwards. We are astonished to find in a\nyouth of twenty-two an erudition so extensive--an acquaintance not only\nwith the more celebrated poets and philosophers of ancient Greece, but\nalso with the obscure, recondite Alexandrian poets, known to\ncomparatively few scholars even of a maturer age. We admire, too, the\nclearness of analytic arrangement--the admirable method of\nclassification, in which the author and his brother have ever so far\noutshone the generality of German writers. The essay displays, also, a\ndelicacy of observation and an originality of views, which announce the\ngreat critic. It is, in short, the labour of an infant Hercules.\n\nAs this essay gives promise of a mighty critic; so two treatises, which\nthe author wrote in the following years, 1795 and 1796--one entitled\n\"Diotima,\" and which treats of the condition of the female sex in\nancient Greece--the other, a parallel between Caesar and Alexander, not\npublished, however, till twenty-six years afterwards--both show the\ndawnings of his great historical genius. Rarely have the promises of\nyouth been so amply fulfilled--rarely has the green foliage of Spring\nbeen followed by fruits so rich and abundant. It is interesting to\nobserve the fine, organic development of Schlegel's mental powers--to\ntrace in these early productions, the germs of those great historical\nworks which it was reserved for his manhood and age to achieve. In the\nlatter and most remarkable of these essays, he examines the respective\nmerits of Caesar and Alexander, considered as men, as generals, and as\nstatesmen. To the Macedonian he assigns greater tenderness of feeling, a\nmore generous and lofty disinterestedness of character--and a finer\npower of perception for the beauties of art. To the Roman he ascribes\ngreater coolness and sobriety of judgment, an extraordinary degree of\nself-controul, a mind tenacious of its purpose, but careless as to the\nmeans by which it was accomplished, an exquisite sense of fitness and\npropriety in the smallest as in the greatest things, yet little\nsusceptibility for the beautiful in art. With respect to military\ngenius, he shows that Caesar united to the fire and rapidity of the\nMacedonian, greater constancy and perseverance; yet that the temerity of\nAlexander was not always the effect of impetuous passion, but sometimes\nthe result at once of situation and deliberate reflection. As regards\nthe political capacities of these two great conquerors, he shows that\nCaesar possessed an over-mastering ascendancy over the minds of men--the\ntalent of guiding their wills, and making them subservient to his own\nviews and interests--in short, a consummate skill in the tactics of a\nparty-leader. Yet he thinks him destitute of the wisdom of a law-giver,\nor what he emphatically calls, the _organic genius of state_--the power\nto found, or renovate a constitution. To Alexander, on the contrary, he\nattributes the plastic genius of legislation--the will and the ability\nto diffuse among nations the blessings of civilization--to plant cities,\nand establish free, flourishing and permanent communities.\n\nIn the year 1797, Schlegel published his first important work,\nentitled \"the Greeks and the Romans.\" This work was two or three\nyears afterwards followed by another, entitled \"History of Greek\nPoetry.\" These two writings in their original form are no longer to\nbe met with--for in the new edition of the author's works, they not\nonly have undergone various alterations and additions, but have\nbeen, as it were, melted into one work. Winkelmann's history of art\nwas the model which Schlegel proposed to himself in this history of\nGreek poetry; and we must allow that the noble school which that\nillustrious man, as well as Lessing, Herder, and Goethe, had founded\nin Germany, never received a richer acquisition than in the work\nhere spoken of. Prior to the illustrious writers I have named,\nGermany had produced a multitude of scholars distinguished for\nprofound learning and critical acuteness; but their labours may be\nconsidered as only ancillary and preliminary to the works of men\nwho, with an erudition and a perspicacity never surpassed, united a\npoetical sense and a philosophic discernment that could catch the\nspirit of antiquity, reanimate her forms, and place them in all\ntheir living freshness before our eyes.\n\nIn the first chapter of the \"History of Greek Poetry,\" Schlegel\nspeaks of the religious rites and mysteries of the primitive Greeks,\nand of the Orphic poetry to which they gave rise. Contrary to the\nopinion of many scholars who, though they admit the present form of\nthe Orphic hymns to be the work of a later period, yet refer their\nsubstance to a very remote antiquity, Schlegel assigns their origin\nto the age of Hesiod. \"Enthusiasm,\" he says, \"is the characteristic\nof the Orphic poetry--repose that of the Homeric poems.\" His\nobservations however on the early religion of the Greeks, form, in\nmy humble opinion, the least satisfactory portion of this work. He\nnext gives an interesting account of the state of society in Greece\nin the age of Homer, as well as in the one preceding, and shews by a\nlong process of inductive evidence, how the Homeric poetry was the\ncrown and perfection of a long series of Bardic poems.\n\nHe then examines, at great length, the opinions of the ancients from\nthe earliest Greek to the latest Roman critics, on the plan, the\ndiction and poetical merits of the Iliad and the Odyssey;\ninterweaving in this review of ancient criticism his own remarks,\nwhich serve either to correct the errors, supply the deficiencies,\nor illustrate the wisdom of those ancient judges of art. After this\nsurvey of ancient criticism, he proceeds to point out some of the\ncharacteristic features of the Homeric poems. He enquires what is\nunderstood by natural poetry, or the poetry of nature; shews that it\nis perfectly compatible with art--that there is a wide difference\nbetween the natural and the rude--that Homer is distinguished as\nmuch for delicacy of perception, accuracy of delineation, and\nsagacity of judgment, as for fertility of fancy and energy of\npassion. The author next passes in review the Hesiodic epos, the\nmiddle epos, or the works of the Cyclic poets, and lastly, the\nproductions of the Ionic, AEolic, and Doric schools of lyric poetry.\nThe fragments on the lyric poetry of Greece are particularly\nbeautiful, and comprise not only excellent criticisms on the genius\nof the different lyrists themselves, but also most interesting\nobservations on the character, manners, and social institutions of\nthe races that composed the Hellenic confederacy.\n\nIt was Schlegel's intention to have given a complete history of\nGreek poetry; but the execution of this task was abandoned, not from\nany want of perseverance, as some have imagined, but from some\npeculiar circumstances in the world of letters at that period. The\nliterary scepticism of Wolf, supported with so much learning and\nability, was then convulsing the German mind; and while the purity\nof the Homeric text, and the unity and integrity of the Homeric\npoems themselves were so ably contested, Schlegel deemed it a\nhazardous task to attempt to draw public attention to any aesthetic\nenquiries on the elder Greek poetry. Hence the second part of this\nwork, which treats of the lyric poets, remained unfinished. The\ngeneral qualities, which must strike all in this history of Greek\npoetry are, a masterly acquaintance with classical literature--a\nwariness and circumspection of judgment, rare in any writer,\nespecially in one so young--a critical perspicacity, that draws its\nconclusions from the widest range of observation--and a poetic\nflexibility of fancy, that can transport itself into the remotest\nperiods of antiquity. In a word, the author analyzes as a critic,\nfeels as a poet, and observes like a philosopher.\n\nBut a new career now expanded before the ardent mind of Schlegel. The\nenterprising spirit of British scholars had but twenty years before\nopened a new intellectual world to European inquiry:--a world many of\nwhose spiritual productions, disguised in one shape or another, the\nWestern nations had for a long course of ages admired and enjoyed,\nignorant as they were of the precise region from which they were\nbrought. For the knowledge of the Sanscrit tongue and literature--an\nevent in literary importance inferior only to the revival of Greek\nlearning, and in a religious and philosophic point of view, pregnant,\nperhaps, with greater results;--mankind have been indebted to the\ninfluence of British commerce; and it is not one of the least services\nwhich that commerce has rendered to the cause of civilization. In the\npromotion of Sanscrit learning, the merchant princes of Britain emulated\nthe noble zeal displayed four centuries before by the merchant princes\nof Florence, in the encouragement and diffusion of Hellenic literature.\nBy dint of promises and entreaties, they extorted from the Brahmin the\nmystic key, which has opened to us so many wonders of the primitive\nworld. And as a great Christian philosopher of our age[2] has observed,\nit is fortunate that India was not then under the dominion of the\nFrench; for during the irreligious fever which inflamed and maddened\nthat great people, their insidious guides--those detestable sophists of\nthe eighteenth century--would most assuredly have leagued with the\nBrahmins to suppress the truth, to mutilate the ancient monuments of\nSanscrit lore, and thus would have for ever poisoned the sources of\nIndian learning. A British society was established at Calcutta--whose\nobject it was to investigate the languages, historical antiquities,\nsciences, and religious and philosophical systems of Asia, and more\nespecially of Hindostan. Sir William Jones--a name that will be revered\nas long as genius, learning, and Christian philosophy command the\nrespect of mankind--was the soul of this enterprise. He brought to the\ninvestigation of Indian literature and history, a mind stored with the\ntreasures of classical and oriental scholarship--a spirit of\nindefatigable activity--and a clear, methodical and capacious intellect.\nNo man, too, so fully understood the religious bearings of these\ninquiries, and had so well seized the whole subject of Asiatic\nantiquities in its connection with the Bible. But at the period at which\nwe have arrived, this great spirit had already taken its departure; nor\nin its flight had it dropped its mantle of inspiration on any of the\nformer associates of its labours. For among the academicians of\nCalcutta, though there were men of undoubted talent and learning, there\nwere none who inherited the philosophic mind of Jones. At this period,\ntoo, the fanciful temerity of a Wilford was bringing discredit on the\nIndian researches--a temerity which would necessarily provoke a\nre-action, and lead, as in some recent instances, to a prosaic\nnarrow-mindedness, that would seek to bring down the whole system of\nIndian civilization to the dull level of its own vulgar conceptions.\n\nSchlegel saw that the moment was critical. He saw that the edifice\nof oriental learning, raised at the cost of so much labour by Sir\nWilliam Jones, was in danger of falling to pieces--that all the\nmighty results which Christian philosophy had anticipated from these\ninquiries, would be, if not frustrated, at least indefinitely\npostponed--that a wild, uncritical, extravagant fancifulness on the\none hand, or a dull and dogged Rationalism on the other--(equally\nadverse as both are to the cause of historic truth)--would soon\nbring these researches into inextricable confusion; in short, that\nthe time had arrived when they should be fairly brought before the\nmore enlarged philosophy of Germany. Filled with this idea, and\nanimated by that pure zeal for science, which is its own best\nreward, Schlegel resolves to betake him to the study of the Sanscrit\ntongue. But for the considerations I have ventured to suggest, such\na resolution on the part of such a man would be surely calculated to\nexcite regret. We should be inclined to lament that a mind so\noriginal, already saturated with so much elegant literature and\nsolid learning, should be thus doomed in the bloom of its existence,\nto consume years in the toilsome acquisition of the most difficult\nof all languages.\n\nIn prosecution of his undertaking, Schlegel repaired in the year 1802,\nto Paris, which had been long celebrated for her professors in the\nEastern tongues, and where the national library presented to the\noriental scholar, inexhaustible stores of wealth. Here, with the able\nassistance of those distinguished orientalists, M. M. de Langles and\nChezy, Schlegel made considerable progress in the study of Persian and\nSanscrit literature. But while engaged in these laborious pursuits, he\ncontrives to find time to plunge into the then almost unexplored mines\nof Provencal poesy--to undertake profound researches into the history of\nthe middle age, and to deliver lectures on Metaphysics in the French\nlanguage. If these lectures did not meet with all the success which\nmight have been hoped for, this cannot surprise us, when we consider\nthat the gross materialism which had long weighed on the Parisian mind,\nand from which it was then but slowly emerging, could ill accord with\nthe lofty Platonism of the German; nor when we add to the disadvantage\nunder which every one labours when speaking in a foreign tongue, the\nfact that nature had not favoured this extraordinary man with a happy\ndelivery. From Paris, he wrote a series of articles on the early\nItalian, Spanish, Portuguese, and Provencal poetry. The article on\nPortuguese poetry is singularly beautiful, and contains, among other\nthings, some remarks as new as they are just, on the influence of\nclimate and locality in the formation of dialects. It comprises, too, an\nadmirable critique on the noble poem of the Lusiad, which in allusion to\nthe great national catastrophe that so soon followed on its publication,\nand by which the ancient power, energy, and glory of Portugal were for\never destroyed, he calls \"the swan-like cry of a people of heroes prior\nto its downfall.\" This essay and others of the same period furnish also\na proof how very soon Frederick Schlegel had framed his critical views\nand opinions on the various works of art. His aesthetic system seems to\nhave been formed at a single cast--we might almost say, that from the\nhead of this intellectual Jove, the Pallas of criticism had leaped all\narmed. His metaphysical theories, on the contrary, appear to have been\nslowly elaborated--to have undergone many modifications and improvements\nin the lapse of years, and never to have been moulded into a form of\nperfect symmetry, until the last years of his life.\n\nDuring his abode in France, he addressed to a friend in Germany, a\nseries of beautiful letters on the different schools and epochs of\nChristian painting. The pictorial treasures of a large part of Europe\nwere then concentrated in the French capital; and Schlegel, availing\nhimself of this golden opportunity, gave an account of the various\nmaster-pieces of modern art, contained in the public and private\ncollections of Paris; interweaving in these notices, general views on\nthe nature, object, and limits of Christian painting. These letters the\nauthor has since revised and enlarged; and they now form one of the most\ndelightful volumes in the general collection of his works.\n\nThe three arts, sculpture, music, and painting, correspond, according to\nthe author, to the three parts of human consciousness, the body--the\nsoul--and the mind. Sculpture, the most material of the fine arts, best\nrepresents the beauty of form, and the properties of sense: Music\nexplores and gives utterance to the deepest feelings of the human soul:\nbut it is reserved for the most spiritual of the arts--Painting, to\nexpress all the mysteries of intelligence--all the divine symbolism in\nnature and in man. He shows that the three arts have objects very\ndistinct, and which must by no means be confounded. But the respective\nlimits of these arts have not always been duly observed. Hence,\nconfining his observation to painting, there are some artists, whom he\ncalls sculpture-painters, like the great Angelo--others again musical\npainters, like Correggio and Murillo.\n\nThe various schools of art--the elder Italian--the later Italian--the\nSpanish--the old German--and the Flemish, pass successively under\nreview. The distinctive qualities of the mighty masters in each\nschool--the fantastic and truly Dantesque wildness of Giotto--the soft\noutline of Perugino--the depth of feeling that characterises Leonardo da\nVinci--the ideal beauty--the various, the infinite charm of Raphael--the\ngigantic conception of Angelo--the glowing reality of Titian--the\nharmonious elegance of Correggio--the bold vigour of Julio Romano--the\nnoble effort of the Caraccis to revive in a declining age the style of\nthe great masters--the true Spanish earnestness and concentrated energy\nof Murillo--the deep-toned piety of Velasquez--the profound and\ncomprehensive understanding which distinguishes his own Duerer, whom he\ncalls the Shakspeare of painting--the distinctive qualities of these\ngreat masters, (to name but a few of the more eminent) are analysed with\nincomparable skill, and set forth with charming diction. I regret that\nthe limits of this introductory memoir will not allow me to give an\nanalysis of these enchanting letters; but I cannot forbear observing in\nconclusion, that at the present moment, when there seems to be an\nearnest wish on all sides to revive the higher art among ourselves,\nwhoever would undertake a translation of these letters, would, I think,\nconfer a service on the public generally, and on our artists in\nparticular. To the friends and followers of art, such a work is the more\nnecessary, as the illustrious author has in a manner taken up the\nsubject where Winkelmann had left off. These letters are followed by\nothers equally admirable on Gothic architecture, where the\ncharacteristic qualities of the different epochs in the civil and\necclesiastical architecture of the middle age are set forth with the\nsame masterly powers of fancy and discrimination. This sublime art\nseemed to respond best to Schlegel's inmost feelings.\n\nBut I am now approaching a passage in the life of Schlegel, which will\nbe viewed in a different light according to the different feelings and\nconvictions of my readers. By some his conduct will be considered a\nblameable apostacy from the faith of his fathers--by others, a generous\nsacrifice of early prejudices on the altar of truth. To disguise my own\napprobation of his conduct, would be to do violence to my feelings, and\nwrong to my principles; but to enter into a justification of his\nmotives, would be to engage in a polemical discussion, most unseemly in\nan introduction to a work which is perfectly foreign to inquiries of\nthat nature. I shall therefore confine myself to a brief statement of\nfacts: noticing at the same time, the intellectual condition of the two\ngreat religious parties of Germany, immediately prior and subsequent to\nSchlegel's change of religion.\n\nIt was on his return from France in the year 1805, and in the ancient\ncity of Cologne, that the subject of this memoir was received into the\nbosom of the Catholic church. There--in that venerable city, which\nwas so often honoured by the abode of the great founder of\nChristendom--Charlemagne--which abounds with so many monuments of the\narts, the learning, the opulence and political greatness of the middle\nage--where the great Christian Aristotle of the thirteenth\ncentury--Aquinas--had passed the first years of his academic\ncourse--there, in that venerable minster, too, one of the proudest\nmonuments of Gothic architecture--was solemnized in the person of this\nillustrious man, the alliance between the ancient faith and modern\nscience of Germany--an alliance that has been productive of such\nimportant consequences, and is yet pregnant with mightier results.\n\nThe purity of the motives which directed Schlegel in this, the most\nimportant act of his life, few would be ignorant or shameless enough to\nimpeach. His station--his character--his virtues--all suffice to repel\nthe very suspicion of unworthy motives; and the least reflection will\nshew, that while in a country circumstanced like Germany, his change of\nreligion could not procure for him greater honours and emoluments than\nunder any circumstances, his genius would be certain to command; that\nchange would too surely expose him to obloquy, misrepresentation, and\ncalumny--and what to a heart so sensitive as his, must have been still\nmore painful--the alienation, perhaps, of esteemed friends. Had he\nremained a Protestant, he would instead of engaging in the service of\nAustria, have in all probability taken to that of Prussia, and there\ndoubtless have received the same honours and distinctions which have\nbeen so deservedly bestowed on his illustrious brother. We may suppose,\nalso, that a man of his mind and character, would not on slight and\nfrivolous grounds, have taken a step so important; nor in a matter so\nmomentous, have come to a decision, without a full and anxious\ninvestigation. In fact, his theological learning was extensive--he was\nwell-read in the ancient fathers--the schoolmen of the middle age, and\nthe more eminent modern divines; and though I am not aware that he has\ndevoted any special treatise to theology, yet the remarks scattered\nthrough his works, whether on Biblical exegesis, or dogmatic divinity,\nare so pregnant, original and profound, that we plainly see it was in\nhis power to have given to the world a \"_systema theologicum_,\" no less\nmasterly than that of his great predecessor--Leibnitz. The works of the\nearly Greek fathers, indeed, he appears to have made a special object of\nscientific research, well knowing what golden grains of philosophy may\nbe picked up in that sacred stream. The conversion of Schlegel was\nhailed with enthusiasm by the Catholics of Germany. This event occurred\nindeed, at a moment equally opportune to himself and to the Catholic\nbody. To himself--for though his noble mind would never have run\na-ground amid the miserable shallows of Rationalism, yet had it not then\ntaken refuge in the secure haven of Catholicism, it might have been\nsucked down in the rapid eddies of Pantheism. To the Catholic body in\nGermany, this event was no less opportune; and for the reasons that\nshall now be stated.\n\nGermany, which in the middle age had produced so many distinguished\npoets, artists, and philosophers, was, at the Reformation, shorn of much\nof her intellectual strength. In the disastrous thirty years' war, which\nthat event brought about, she saw her universities robbed of their most\ndistinguished ornaments, and the lights, which ought to have adorned her\nat home, shedding their lustre on foreign lands. The general languor and\nexhaustion of the German mind, consequent on that fearful and convulsive\nstruggle, was apparent enough in the literature of the age, which ensued\nafter the treaty of Westphalia. To these causes, which produced this\ngeneral declension of German intellect, must be added one which\nspecially applies to the Catholic portion of Germany.\n\nEvery great abuse of human reason, by a natural revulsion of feeling,\ninspires a certain dread and distrust of its powers. This has been more\nthan once exemplified in the history of the church. So, at this\nmomentous period, some of the German Catholic powers sought in\nobscurantism, a refuge and security against religious and political\ninnovations, and denied to science that encouragement which she had a\nright to look for at their hands:--a policy as infatuated as it is\nculpable, for, while ignorance draws down contempt and disgrace on\nreligion, it begets in its turn, as a melancholy experience has proved,\nthose very errors and that very unbelief, against which it was designed\nas a protection.\n\nHad the court of Austria acceded to the proposal of Leibnitz for\nestablishing at Vienna that academy of sciences which he afterwards\nsucceeded in founding at Berlin, the glory of that great resuscitation\nof the German mind, which occurred in the middle of the eighteenth\ncentury, would have then probably redounded to Catholic, rather than to\nProtestant, Germany. But the German Catholics, though they started later\nin the career of intellectual improvement, have at length reached, and\neven outstripped, their Protestant brethren in the race.\n\nThree or four years before Schlegel embraced the Catholic faith, the\nsignal for a return to the ancient church was given by the illustrious\nCount Stolberg. The religious impulse, which this great man imparted to\nGerman literature, was simultaneous with that Christian regeneration of\nphilosophy, commenced in France by the Viscount de Bonald. And these two\nillustrious men, in the noble career which five and thirty years' ago\nthey opened in their respective countries, have been followed by a\nseries of gigantic intellects, who have restored the empire of faith,\nregenerated art and science, and renovated, if I may so speak, the human\nmind itself.[3]\n\nForty years' ago, the Catholics of Germany, as I said, were in a state\nof the most humiliating intellectual inferiority to their Protestant\nbrethren--they could point to few writers of eminence in their own\nbody--Protestantism was the lord of the ascendant in every department of\nGerman letters:--and yet so well have the Catholics employed the\nintervening time, they now furnish the most valuable portion of a\nliterature, in many respects the most valuable in Europe. In every\nbranch of knowledge, they can now shew writers of the highest order. To\nname but a few of the most distinguished, they have produced the two\ngreatest Biblical critics of the age--Hug and Scholz--profound Biblical\nexegetists, like Alber, Ackermann, and, recently, Molitor, who has\ncreated a new era not only in Biblical literature, but in the Philosophy\nof History--divines, like Wiest, Dobmayer, Schwarz, Zimmer, Brenner,\nLiebermann, and Moehler, distinguished as they are for various and\nextensive learning, and understandings as comprehensive as they are\nacute--an ecclesiastical historian pre-eminent for genius, erudition,\nand celestial suavity, like Count Stolberg--philosophic archaiologists,\nlike Hammer and Schlosser--admirable publicists, like Gentz, Adam\nMueller, and the Swiss Haller--and two philosophers, possessed of vast\nacquirements and colossal intellects, like Goerres, and the subject of\nthis memoir. In Germany and elsewhere, Catholic genius seems only to\nhave slumbered during the eighteenth century, in order to astonish the\nworld by a new and extraordinary display of strength. It is undoubtedly\ntrue that several of the above-named individuals originally belonged to\nthe Protestant church--and that that church should have given birth to\nmen of such exalted genius, refined sensibility, and moral worth, is a\ncircumstance which furnishes our Protestant brethren with additional\nclaims to our love and respect. We hail these first proselytes as the\npledges of a more general, and surely not a very distant, re-union.\n\nThe vigorous graft of talent, which the Catholic thus received from the\nProtestant community, was imparted to a stock, where the powers of\nvegetation, long dormant, began now to revive with renovated strength.\nThe old Catholics zealously co-operated with the new in the regeneration\nof all the sciences--and the effects of their joint labours have been\napparent, not only in the transcendent excellence of individual\nproductions, but in the new life and energy infused into the learned\ncorporations--the universities as well as the institutes of science. The\nmixed universities, like those of Bonn, Freyburg, and others, are in a\ngreat degree supported by Catholic talent; and the great Catholic\nUniversity of Munich, which the present excellent King of Bavaria\nfounded in 1826, already by the celebrity of its professors, the number\nof its scholars, and the admirable direction of the studies, bids fair\nto rival the most celebrated Universities in Germany.[4]\n\nGratifying as it must have been to Schlegel to see by how many\ndistinguished spirits his example had been followed, and to witness the\nrapid literary improvement of that community in Germany to which he had\nnow united himself, he could not expect to escape those crosses and\ncontradictions which are, in this world, the heritage of the just. The\nrancorous invectives which the fanatic Rationalist--Voss, had never\nceased to pour out on his own early friend and benefactor--the\nheavenly-minded Stolberg, excited the contempt and disgust of every\nwell-constituted mind in the Protestant community. This Cerberus of\nRationalism opened his deep-mouthed cry on Schlegel also, as he set his\nfoot on the threshold of the Catholic church. In this instance, the\nreligious bigotry of Voss was inflamed and exasperated by literary\njealousy. By his criticisms, and masterly translation of Homer and other\nGreek poets, this highly gifted man had not only rendered imperishable\nservice to German literature, but had contributed to infuse a new life\ninto the study of classical antiquity. Jealous, therefore of his Greeks,\nwhom he worshipped with a sort of exclusive idolatry, he looked with\ndistrust and aversion on every attempt to introduce the orientals to the\nliterary notice of the Germans. He ran down Asiatic literature of every\nage and nation with the most indiscriminate and unsparing\nviolence--denounced the intentions of its admirers as evil and sinister;\nand, in allusion to the noble use which Stolberg, Schlegel, and others\nhad made of their oriental learning in support of Christianity,\npetulantly exclaimed on one occasion, \"The Brahmins have leagued with\nthe Jesuits, in order to subvert the Protestant, or (as we should\ntranslate that word in this country) the Rationalist religion.\"\n\nIt was in 1808, after several years spent in the study of Sanscrit\nliterature, Schlegel published the result of his researches and\nmeditations in the celebrated work entitled the \"Language and Wisdom of\nthe Indians.\" This work, the first part of which is occupied with a\ncomparative examination of the etymology and grammatical structure of\nthe Sanscrit, Persian, Greek, Roman, and German languages, the second\nwhereof traces the filiation and connection of the different religious\nand philosophical systems that have prevailed in the ancient oriental\nworld, and the last of which consists of metrical versions from the\nsacred and didactic poems of the Hindoos--this work, I say, might not be\ninaptly termed a grammar, syntax, and prosody of philosophy.\n\nWith respect to etymology, Schlegel points out the number of Sanscrit\nwords identical in sound and signification with words in the Persian, or\nthe Greek, or the Latin, or the German, or sometimes even in all those\nlanguages put together. He excludes words which are imitations of\nnatural sounds, and which therefore might have been adopted\nsimultaneously by nations unknown to each other; and selects those words\nonly which are of the most simple and primitive signification, such as\nrelate to those intellectual and physical objects most closely allied to\nman; as also auxiliary verbs, pronouns, nouns of number, and\nprepositions:--words which are less exposed than any to those casual and\npartial changes which conquest, commerce, and religion, introduce into\nlanguage. With respect to grammatical structure, the author shows that\nthe mode of declining nouns, and conjugating verbs, of forming the\ndegrees of comparison in adjectives, of marking the gender and number of\nsubstantives, of changing or modifying the signification of words by\nprefixed particles, is common to the Sanscrit, and the other derivative\nlanguages above-mentioned. It is from this strong external and internal\nresemblance, these languages have received the appellation of the\nIndo-Germanic. The prior antiquity of the Sanscrit the author infers\nfrom the greater length and fulness of its words, and the richness and\nrefinement of its grammatical forms; for, to use his own expression,\n\"words, like coin, are clipped by use, and the languages, where\nabbreviation prevails, are ever the most recent.\"\n\nThe prescient genius of Leibnitz had foretold a century and a half ago,\nthat the study of languages would be found one day to throw a great\nlight on history. No one better realized this prediction than Schlegel.\nIn the first part of this work, he has proved, by his own example, that\nlanguage is not a mere instrument of knowledge, but a science in itself;\nand when I consider the noble use he has made of his Sanscrit learning;\nwhen I contemplate all the great and brilliant results of his oriental\nresearches, I must recal the sort of regret I expressed a few pages\nabove. While in the course of the last fifty years, a number of\ndistinguished naturalists have carried the torch of science into the\ndark caverns of the earth, traced by its light the physical revolutions\nof our globe, and discovered the remains of an extinct world of nature;\nmany illustrious philologists have at the same time explored the inmost\nrecesses of language, and, by their profound researches, brought to\nlight the fossil remains of early history, discovered the migrations of\nnations and the changes of empire, and regained the lost traces of\nportions of our species. This remarkable parallelism in the moral and\nphysical inquiries of the age will be considered fortuitous by those\nonly, who have not watched the luminous course of that loving\nProvidence, whose hand is equally visible in the progress of science, as\nin every other department of human activity.\n\nBut on no branch of historical knowledge have the recent philological\nresearches thrown more light than on mythology--a science which the\npresent age may be said to have created. While illustrious defenders of\nthe Christian religion--a Count Stolberg[5] in Germany, and still more,\nan abbe de la Mennais[6] in France, treading in the footsteps of the\nancient fathers, and of the abler modern apologists, like Grotius, Huet\nand others, have victoriously proved the existence of a primeval\nrevelation, the diffusion and perpetuity of its doctrines among all the\nnations of the world, civilized and barbarous--the compatibility of a\nbelief in the unity of the God-head with the crime of idolatry, ranked\nby the apostle, \"among the works of the flesh,\"--the local nature and\nobject of the Mosaic law, destined by the Almighty for the special use\nof a people charged with maintaining, in its purity, that worship of\nJehovah mostly abandoned or neglected by the nations, who \"though they\nknew God, did not glorify him as God\"--and favoured also with the\npromises of \"the good things to come,\" intrusted with the prophetic\nrecords of the life and ministry of that Messiah, of whose future coming\nthe Gentiles had only a vague and obscure anticipation:--while these\nillustrious defenders of religion, I say, were proving the agreement of\nall the Heathen nations in the great dogmas of the primitive revelation;\nanother class of inquirers (and among these was Schlegel) laboured to\nshew the points of divergence in the different systems of Heathenism,\nstudied the peculiar genius of each, and traced the influence which\nclimate, circumstance, and national character have exerted over all. The\nobject of the former was to point out the general threads of primeval\ntruth in the fabric of Paganism--that of the latter to trace the later\nand fanciful intertexture of superstition. For in that fantastic web,\nwhich we call mythology, truth and fiction, poetry and history, physics\nand philosophy, are all curiously interwoven. Hence the arduous nature\nof these researches--hence the difficulties and perils which await the\ninvestigator at almost every step.\n\nOf the second part of this work on India, which treats of the religious\nand philosophical systems of the early Asiatic nations, it is the less\nnecessary here to speak, as the reader will find the subject amply\ndiscussed in the course of the following sheets. It may be proper,\nhowever, to observe that the different philosophic errors mentioned by\nSchlegel, as prevalent in the ancient Asiatic world, may all be resolved\nto two systems--Dualism and Pantheism--the two earliest heresies in the\nhistory of religion--the two gulfs, into which dark, but presumptuous,\nreason fell, when, rejecting the light of revelation, she attempted to\nexplain those unfathomable mysteries--the origin of evil on the one\nhand, and the co-existence of the finite and the infinite on the other.\n\nOn the whole, the \"Wisdom of the Indians\" is an admirable little book,\nwhether we consider the profound and extensive philological knowledge it\ndisplays--the rich variety of historical perceptions it discloses--the\nclearness of its arrangement, and the elegant simplicity of the style.\nIn the seven and twenty years which have elapsed since this production\nsaw the light, the subjects discussed in it have undergone ample\ninvestigation--many of its observations have passed into the current\ncoin of the learned world--truths which it vaguely surmised, have since\nbeen fully established--and the knowledge of Indian literature and\nphilosophy has been vastly extended; yet this is one of those works\nwhich will be always read with a lively interest. It is thus that, in\ndespite of the progress of classical philology, the writings of the\ngreat critical restorers of ancient literature have, after the lapse of\nthree centuries, retained their place in public estimation. It is\npleasing to watch the stream of learning in its various meanderings--to\ntrace it as it winds through a broader, but not always a deeper,\nchannel, sullied and disturbed not unfrequently by accidental\npollutions--it is pleasing to trace it to its source, where, from\nunderneath the rock, it wells out in all its limpid purity. Prior to the\npublication of this work, the Semitic languages of the East were alone,\nI believe, cultivated with much ardour in Germany; its appearance had\nthe effect of directing the national energies towards an intellectual\nregion, where they were destined to meet with the most brilliant\nsuccess; and, if Germany may now boast with reason of her illustrious\nprofessors of Sanscrit; if France, under the Restoration made such rapid\nprogress in oriental literature; if England, roused from her inglorious\napathy, has at last founded an Asiatic society in London, and more\nrecently, the Boden professorship at Oxford--these events are, in a\ngreat degree, attributable to the enthusiasm which this little book\nexcited.\n\nIn the year 1810, Schlegel delivered, at Vienna, a course of lectures on\n\"Modern History.\" This book, which was in two volumes, 8vo., has long\nbeen out of print; and the volumes destined to contain it in the general\ncollection of the author's works, have not yet been published. Hence no\naccount of it can be here given--a circumstance which I the more regret,\nas, in the opinion of some, it is Schlegel's masterpiece. It embodied in\na systematic form the views and opinions contained in a variety of the\nauthor's earlier historical essays, which are also out of print, and\nhave not yet been re-published. In it, I know, are to be found the\ndetailed proofs and evidences of many positions advanced in the second\nvolume of the work, to which this Memoir is prefixed.\n\nWe should, however, form a very inadequate estimate of the services this\ngreat writer has rendered to literature, and of the influence he has\nexerted on his age, were we to confine our attention solely to his\nlarger works. Throughout his whole life, he was an assiduous contributor\nto periodical literature--a species of writing which, in the present\nage, has been cultivated with signal success in England, France and\nGermany. At the commencement of the present century, he edited in\nconjunction with Tieck, Novalis and his brother, a literary journal,\nentitled the Athenaeum; and afterwards successively conducted political\nand philosophical journals, such as the \"Europa,\"--the \"German\nMuseum,\"--and lastly the \"Concordia;\" giving latterly, also, his zealous\nsupport to the Vienna Quarterly Review. Some of his earlier critiques\nhave already been noticed. Among the shorter literary essays, which\nappeared in the twelve years that elapsed from 1800 to 1812, I may\nnotice the one entitled \"the Epochs of Literature,\" 1800; and which may\nbe considered the first rude outline of those immortal lectures on the\n\"History of Literature,\" which he delivered in 1812. Often as he has\noccasion to treat the same subject, yet such is the inexhaustible wealth\nof his intellect, he seldom tires by repetition. Thus his minutest\nfragments, like the sketches of Raphael, are full of interest and\nvariety. Another essay of the same year, \"on the different style in\nGoethe's earlier and later works,\" shews with what a discriminating eye\nthe young critic had already scanned all the heights and the depths of\nthis wonderful poet. Of this great writer, the moral direction of some\nof whose writings he reprobated in the strongest degree, he did not\nhesitate to say that, like Dante in the middle age, he was the founder\nof a new order of poetry--that he had been the first to restore the art\nto the elevation from which, since the commencement of the seventeenth\ncentury, it had sunk--that he united the amenity of Homer--the ideal\nbeauty of Sophocles--and the wit of Aristophanes. The opinion which in\nyouth he had formed of the great national poet of Germany, his maturer\nexperience fully confirmed. Eight years afterwards he published a long\nand elaborate critique on Goethe's lays, songs, elegies, and\nmiscellaneous poems. Pre-eminently great as Goethe is in every branch of\npoetry, in songs he is allowed to stand perfectly unrivalled. \"From the\nshores of the Baltic to the frontiers of Alsace,\" says the Baron\nd'Eckstein, \"the lyric poetry of Goethe lives in the hearts and on the\nlips of an enthusiastic people.\" In this reviewal we find, among other\nthings, a learned and ingenious dissertation on the various species of\nlyric poetry--the lay, the romance, the ballad, and the occasional poem;\non the nature, object, and limits of each--their points of resemblance,\nand points of difference, together with observations on the fitness of\ncertain metres for certain kinds of poetry.\n\nFrom his youth upwards, Schlegel was in the habit of seeking, in the\ndelightful worship of the muse, a solace and relaxation from his severer\nand more laborious pursuits. Without making pretensions to anything of a\nvery high order his poetry is remarkable for a chaste, classical\ndiction, great harmony and flexibility of versification, a sweet\nelegance of fancy, and, at times, depth and tenderness of feeling.\nFriendship, patriotism and piety are the noble themes to which he\nconsecrates his strains. What spirit and fire in his lines on Mohammed's\nflight from Mecca! What a noble burst of nationality in his address to\nthe Rhine! How touching the verses to the memory of his much-loved\nfriend, Novalis--that sweet flower of poesy and philosophy, cut off in\nits early bloom! In the lines to Corinna, what lofty consolations are\nadministered to that illustrious woman, under the persecutions she had\nto sustain from the Imperial despotism of France! And in the sonnet\nentitled \"Peace,\" 1806, what lessons of exalted wisdom are given to the\nmen of our time!\n\nThe longer poem, entitled \"Hercules Musagetes,\" is among the most\nadmired of the author's pieces. His original poems equal in number,\nthough not in excellence, those of his brother; for it would be absurd\nto expect that this universal genius should shine equally in every\ndepartment of letters. The flexible, graceful, harmonious genius of\nAugustus William Schlegel has at different periods enriched his own\ntongue with the noblest literary treasures of ancient and modern Italy,\nof Portugal, Spain and England; and his immortal translations, which\nhave superior merit to any original poems, but those of the highest\norder, are admitted by competent judges to have done more than the works\nof any writer, except Goethe, for improving the rhythm and poetical\ndiction of his country. The great poetical powers which his short\noriginal pieces, as well as his translations, display, make it a matter\nof regret that he should have so much confined himself to translation,\nand never ventured on the composition of a great poem.\n\nBoth these incomparable brothers are minds eminently poetical, and\neminently philosophical. In one the poetic element prevails--in the\nother, the philosophical element, and, by a great deal, predominates. In\ntheir early productions we can scarcely discriminate the features of\nthese apparently intellectual twins: but, as their genius ripens to\nmanhood, the one becomes an etherial Apollo, full of grace, energy, and\nmajesty--the other an intellectual Hercules, of the most gigantic\nstrength and colossal stature.\n\nIn was in the Spring of 1812 that Schlegel delivered, before a\nnumerous and distinguished audience at Vienna, his lectures on\nancient and modern literature. Of this work, which a German critic\nhas characterised \"as a great national possession of the Germans,\"\nand which has been translated into several European languages, and\nis so well known to the English reader by the excellent translation\nwhich appeared in 1818, it is unnecessary to speak at much length.\nHere were concentrated in one focus all those radii of criticism\nthat this powerful mind had so long emitted. Here, at the bidding of\na potent magician, the lords of intellect--the mighty princes of\nliterature of all times--\n\n\"The dead, yet sceptred, sovereigns, who still rule Our spirits from\ntheir urns\"--pass before our eyes in stately procession--each with\nhis distinct physiognomy--his native port--and all clothed with a\nfresh immortality. Literature is considered not merely in reference\nto art--but in relation to the influence it has exerted on the\ndestinies of mankind, and to the various modifications which the\nreligion, the government, the laws, the manners, and habits of\ndifferent nations have caused it to undergo. The first quality that\nmust strike us in this work is the admirable arrangement which has\nformed so many and such various materials into one harmonious\nwhole. By what an easy and natural transition does the author pass\nfrom the Greek to the Roman literature! With what admirable skill he\npasses, in the age of Hadrian, from the old Roman to the oriental\nliterature, and from the latter back again to the Christian\nliterature of the middle age! How skilfully he has interwoven, in\nthis sketch of oriental letters, the notices of the ancients and the\nresearches of the moderns on the East! The next characteristic of\nthis work is gigantic learning. To that intimate familiarity with\nthe poets, historians, orators and philosophers of classical\nantiquity which his earlier writings had displayed--to the profound\nknowledge of oriental, and especially Sanscrit, literature evinced\nin the above-noticed work of India; we now see added a knowledge of\nthe long buried treasures of the old German and Provencal poetry of\nthe middle age--the scholastic philosophy--the principal modern\nEuropean literatures in their several periods of bloom, maturity and\ndecay. What a strong light, also, is thrown on some dark passages in\nthe history of philosophy! Where shall we find a more curious,\ngraphic, and interesting account of the mystics of the middle age,\nand of the German and Italian Platonists of the fifteenth and\nsixteenth centuries! Every page bears the stamp of long and diligent\ninquiry, and original investigation. The minute traits--the accurate\ndrawing--the freshness and vividness of colouring--the truth and\nlife-like reality in this whole picture of literature, prove that\nthe artist drew from the original, and not a copy. No better proof\ncan be adduced of the _accuracy_, as well as extent of learning\nwhich distinguished this illustrious man and his brother, than the\nfact that their different works on classical, oriental and modern\nliterature have received the approbation of such scholars, as made\nthose several branches of knowledge the special objects of their\nstudy and inquiry. Thus their labours on Greek and Roman poetry met\nwith the high sanction of a Heyne, a Wolf, and other distinguished\nHellenists--their works on Sanscrit literature have been commended\nby a Guignault--a Remusat--a Chezy, and our own academicians of\nCalcutta; and their critiques on Shakspeare and the early English\npoets have been approved by the national critics, and especially by\none who had devoted many years to the study of our elder poetry--I\nmean that able critic and accomplished scholar--the late Mr.\nGifford.\n\nThe other and more important characteristics of this work are delicacy\nof taste, solidity of judgment, vigour and boldness of fancy, and depth\nand comprehensiveness of understanding. Here we see united, though in a\nmore eminent degree, the acuteness, sagacity, and erudition of\nLessing--the high artist-like enthusiasm of Winkelmann--and that\nexquisite sense of the beautiful, that vigorous, flexible and excursive\nfancy which made the genius of Herder at home in every region of art,\nand in every clime of poesy. The intellectual productions of every age\nand country--the primitive oriental world--classical antiquity--the\nmiddle age--and modern times, pass under review, and receive the same\nimpartial attention--the same just appreciation--the same masterly\ncharacterization. In a work so full of beauties, it is difficult to make\nselections--but, were I called upon to point out specimens of succinct\ncriticism, which, for justness and delicacy of discrimination--a poetic\nsoaring of conception--and depth of observation, are unsurpassed,\nperhaps, in the whole range of literature, I should name the several\ncritiques on Homer--Lucretius--Dante--Calderon--and Cervantes. The part\nleast well done is that which treats of the literature of the last two\ncenturies; but, from the vast multiplicity of details, it was impossible\nfor the author, within his narrow limits, to do full justice to this\npart of his subject. He has not paid due homage to several of the great\nwriters that adorned the reign of Louis XIV. He drops but one word on\nPascal, and passes Mallebranche over in silence; though if ever there\nwere writers deserving the notice of the historian of literature and\nphilosophy, it was surely those two eminent men. In general, Schlegel\nwas too fond of crowding his figures within a narrow canvass--hence many\nof them could not be placed in a suitable light or position; and several\nof his heads appear but half-sketched. This is not a mere book of\ncriticism--it is a philosophical work in the widest sense of the\nword--the genius of the author is ever soaring above his subject--ever\nspringing from the lower world of art, to those high and aerial regions\nof philosophy still more native to his spirit. To him the beautiful was\nonly the symbol of the divine--hence the tone of earnestness and\nsolemnity which he carries even into aesthetic dissertations. The style\ntoo, of this \"history of literature\" leaves little to be desired. To the\nlightness, clearness, and elegance of diction which had distinguished\nSchlegel's earlier productions, was here united a greater richness and\ncopiousness of expression, and a more harmonious fulness and roundness\nof period. From this time, however, (if an Englishman may presume to\noffer an opinion on such a subject,) a decline may, I think, be observed\nin his style. His mind, indeed, seemed to gain strength and expansion\nwith the advance of years--the horizon of his views was perpetually\nenlarged--and in vastness of conception, and profundity of observation,\nhis last philosophical works outshine even those of his early manhood.\nYet to whatever cause we are to attribute the fact--whether it be that\nhis last works had not received from his hands the same careful\nrevisal--or whether some men as they advance in life, become as\nnegligent in their style as in their dress--or whether he at last gave\nin to the bad practice so prevalent in Germany, of disregarding the\nlighter graces of diction--certain it is, that his later writings, much\nas they may have gained in excellence of matter, and presenting, as they\ndo, passages perhaps of superior power and splendour, are on the whole\nno longer characterised by the same uniform terseness and perspicuity of\nlanguage.\n\nWith the \"History of ancient and modern literature,\" Schlegel closed\nhis critical career. He never afterwards mounted the tribunal of\ncriticism, except on one occasion, when he awarded in favour of the\nearly poetical effusions of M. de la Martine, a solemn sentence of\napprobation.[7] He now devoted himself with exclusive ardour to the\ngraver concerns of politics and philosophy. Nor can we regret this\nresolution on his part, when we reflect that as far as regards\nliterature, he had done all that was necessary--that he had now only\nto leave to time to work out his aesthetic principles in the German\nmind--and that should further elucidation on these topics be\nrequired, the distinguished Tieck, and his illustrious brother were\nat hand to furnish the requisite aid. But in metaphysics and\npolitical philosophy, what German could supply his place?\n\nIn the four eventful years which elapsed from 1808 to 1812, occupations\nas new to Schlegel as they were important and various in themselves,\nfilled up the active life of this extraordinary man. In the Austrian\ncampaign of 1809, he was employed as secretary to the Archduke Charles;\nand it is said that his eloquent proclamations had considerable effect\nin kindling the patriotism of the Austrian people. It was about the same\ntime, he founded a daily paper, called \"the Austrian Observer,\" which\nhas since become the official organ of the Austrian government. The\nestablishment of this journal--the situation which Schlegel had\npreviously held at the head-quarters of the Archduke Charles--the\ndiplomatic missions in which after the peace of 1814, he was employed by\nPrince Metternich who, be it said to the glory of that illustrious\nstatesman, ever honoured him with his friendship and patronage--and\nfinally the pension, letters of nobility, and office of Aulic\nCouncillor, which the emperor was pleased to confer on him, may induce\nsome of my readers to suppose that his political views were identified\nwith those of the government, in whose service he was occasionally\nengaged; and that he was an unqualified admirer of the whole foreign and\ndomestic policy of Austria. No conception can be more erroneous. As\nSecretary to the Archduke Charles, he knew he lent his support to a\ngovernment which had shown itself the most honest, vigilant, and\npowerful friend of German independence--he knew he fought the battle of\nhis country against an unholy and execrable tyranny, which, whatever\nshape it might assume--whether that of a lawless democracy or a ruthless\ndespotism--was alike inimical to Christianity--alike fatal to the peace,\nthe happiness, and the liberties of every country it subdued. In the\nnext place, it is not usual even in the representative system, still\nless under a government constituted like that of Austria, to exact a\nperfect conformity of political sentiments between diplomatic agents and\nthe heads of administration. Again the pension, title, and dignity which\nSchlegel received at the hands of the Emperor of Austria, were the\nwell-earned recompence of distinguished services, and not the badges of\nservility. Lastly with respect to the \"Austrian Observer,\" his motive in\nestablishing that journal was purely patriotic. To enkindle the warlike\nenthusiasm of the Austrian people--to unite the weakened, divided, and\ndistracted states of Germany in a common league against a common foe--to\nprocure for his country the first of all political blessings--that\nwithout which all others are valueless--national independence; such was\nhis object in this undertaking--such the object of every sincere and\nreflecting patriot of Germany at that period. The leaning towards a\nstationary absolutism, which has marked this journal since Schlegel gave\nup the conduct of it, belongs to its present editors; but that tone of\ndignified moderation, which according to the express acknowledgment of\nGerman Liberals, it carries into the discussion of political\nmatters--that aversion from all extreme and violent parties and measures\nin politics, which distinguishes this journal, betray the illustrious\nhand which first set it in motion.\n\nNothing, in fact, can be more dissimilar than the policy long\nfollowed by the Austrian government, and that which Schlegel would\nhave recommended, and did in fact recommend. What, especially since\nthe time of the Emperor Joseph II., has characterized the general\npolicy of this government? In respect to ecclesiastical matters, we\nstill see (though the evil was mitigated by the piety of the late\nemperor), we still see that government, by a restless, encroaching\nspirit of jealousy, hamper the jurisdiction, and cramp the moral and\nintellectual energies of the clergy. In relation to the people, its\nsway is mild and paternal, indeed, but at the same time, intrusive,\nmeddling and vexatious--it is, in short, a dead, mechanical\nabsolutism, where all spontaneity of popular action has been\ndestroyed--all equilibrium of powers overturned--and where royalty,\nby an irregular attraction, has disturbed, deranged, or compressed\nthe movements of the other social bodies. With respect to science,\nthose best acquainted with the policy of this government affirm,\nthat its patronage is too exclusively confined to the mechanical\narts and the physical sciences. In short, no where has the political\nmaterialism of the eighteenth century attained a more systematic\ndevelopment than in the Austrian government. Yet in that empire are\nto be found all the elements of a great social regeneration; and to\na minister desirous of earning enduring fame, to a monarch ambitious\nof living for ever in the hearts of a grateful people, the noblest\nopportunity is presented for reviving, renovating, and bringing to\nperfection the free, glorious, but now alas! mutilated and\nhalf-effaced institutions of the middle age.\n\nIf such is the policy of the Austrian government in relation to the\nchurch, to liberty, and to science, it is needless to observe how\nentirely opposed it was to the views of Schlegel. His whole life was\ndevoted to the cultivation and diffusion of elegant literature and\nliberal science; and any policy which tended to obstruct their\nprogress, or shackle the energies of the human mind, must have been\nmost adverse to his feelings and wishes. As a sincere friend to\nreligious liberty, as well as a good Catholic, he must have deplored\nthe bondage under which the church groaned; and how ardently\nattached he was to the cause of popular freedom, how utterly averse\nfrom any thing like absolutism in politics, the reader will soon\nhave an opportunity of judging for himself.\n\nBut before I quit this subject, I cannot forbear noticing the very\nexaggerated statements sometimes put forth by party spirit in\nEngland, respecting the state of learning in the Austrian empire.\nWithout pretending to any personal knowledge of that country, there\nare however a certain number of admitted and well-attested facts,\nwhich prove that however inferior in mental cultivation Austria may\nbe to some other states of Catholic as well as Protestant Germany,\nshe yet holds a distinguished place in literature and science. The\nvery general diffusion of popular education in that country--the\ngreat success with which all the arts and sciences connected with\nindustry are cultivated--the admirable organization of its medical\nboard--the distinguished physicians, theoretical as well as\npractical, whom it has produced--the great attention bestowed on\nstrategy and the sciences subservient to it--the excellence to which\nthe histrionic art has there attained--the universal passion for\nmusic, and the unrivalled degree of perfection the art has there\nreached--the acknowledged superiority of the Quarterly Review of\nVienna, (the Wiener Jahrbuecher)--lastly, the favour, countenance,\nand encouragement extended by the Austrian public to the oral\nlectures and published writings of the eminent literary characters,\nwhether natives or foreigners, who for the last thirty years have\nthrown such a glory over their capital--all these incontrovertible\nfacts, I say, prove this people to have reached an advanced stage of\nintellectual refinement. So far from finding among the Viennese that\nBaeotian dulness of which we sometimes hear them accused, Augustus\nWilliam Schlegel (and his testimony is impartial, for he is neither\na native nor resident of Austria,) confesses[10] that he discovered\nin them great aptness of intelligence, a keen relish for the\nbeauties of poetry, and much of the vivacity of the Southern\ntemperament. And the crowded audiences which flocked to the\nphilosophical lectures Frederick Schlegel delivered on various\noccasions at Vienna, a metaphysician of equal celebrity might in\nvain look for in another European capital I could name, and which\ncertainly considers itself very enlightened. There is no doubt that\nthis Archduchy of Austria, which in the middle age produced some of\nthe most celebrated Minnesingers, would with free institutions and a\nmore generous policy on the part of the government, soon attain that\nintellectual station, to which its political greatness, and recent\nas well as ancient military glory alike bid it to aspire. If the\nstatesmen that rule the destinies of that country were to regard the\nmatter merely in a political point of view, they might see what\nmoral dignity, weight and importance, the patronage of letters has\ngiven to the Protestant King of Prussia on the one hand, and to the\nCatholic King of Bavaria on the other.\n\nFor several years after the peace of 1814, Schlegel was one of the\nrepresentatives of the Court of Vienna at the diet of Frankfort. These\ndiplomatic functions occasioned a temporary interruption to his literary\npursuits--an interruption which will be regretted by those only who have\nnot reflected on the advantages of active life to the man of letters.\nThe high dignity with which he was now invested--the commanding view\nwhich his station gave him of European politics--the insight he was\nenabled to obtain into the political state and relations of Germany--as\nwell as the society and conversation of some of the most illustrious\nstatesmen of the age, were all of inestimable service to the Publicist;\nand by making him acquainted with the excellencies as well as defects of\nexisting governments, the obstacles which retard the progress of\nimprovement, the ill success which sometimes attends even\nwell-considered measures of Reform, were calculated to check the\nrashness of speculation, inspire sobriety of judgment, and at the same\ntime enlarge his views of political philosophy. In the year 1818, he\nreturned to Vienna, and resumed his literary occupations with renewed\nardour. He wrote the following year in the Vienna Quarterly Review, (the\nWiener Jahrbuecher,) a long and elaborate reviewal of M. Rhode's work on\nprimitive history. This reviewal, which from its length may fairly be\ncalled a treatise, contains a clear, succinct, and masterly exposition\nof those views on the early history of mankind, which he has on some\npoints more fully developed in the work, of which a translation is now\ngiven. This article, which alternately delights and astonishes us by the\nhistorical learning, the philological skill, the curious geographical\nlore, and the bold, profound and original philosophy it displays, may be\nconsidered one of the most admirable commentaries ever written on the\nfirst eleven chapters of the book of Genesis; and in none of his shorter\nessays has the genius of the illustrious writer shone more pre-eminently\nthan this.[11]\n\nThe year 1820 was marked by the simultaneous outbreak of several\nrevolutions in different countries of Europe, and by symptoms of general\ndiscontent, distrust, and agitation in other parts. The violent, though\ntransitory volcanic eruptions which convulsed and desolated the south of\nEurope, scattered sparkles and ashes on the already burning soil of\nFrance, and shook on her rocky bed even the ocean-queen. In Germany the\nwild revolutionary enthusiasm which pervaded a large portion of the\nyouth--the frenzied joy with which the assassination of Kotzbue had been\nhailed--the wide spread of associations fatal to the peace and freedom\nof mankind, and the pernicious anti-social doctrines proclaimed in many\nwritings, and even from some professorial chairs, led the different\ngovernments to measures of severe scrutiny and jealous vigilance, likely\nby a re-action to prove dangerous to the cause of liberty. The causes of\nthese various social phenomena it is not my business here to point out;\nbut I may observe in passing, that these discontents--these\nstruggles--these revolutions had their origin partly in natural causes,\npartly in the errors both of governments and nations. The general\ndisjointing of all interests--the derangement in the concerns of all\nclasses of society produced by the transition from a state of long\nprotracted warfare to a state of general peace--the blunders committed\nby the Congress of Vienna in the settlement of Europe--the blind\nrecurrence in some European states to the thoroughly worn-out absolutism\nof the eighteenth century, injurious as that political system had proved\nto religion, to social order, and to national prosperity--in other\ncountries, a rash imitation of the mere outward forms of the British\nconstitution, without any true knowledge of its internal organism--above\nall, the deadly legacy of anti-christian doctrines, and anti-social\nprinciples, which the last age had bequeathed to the present--such,\nindependently of minor and more local reasons, are the principal causes,\nto which, I think, the impartial voice of history will ascribe the\npolitical commotions of that period. It was now evident that the great\nwork of European Restoration had been but half-accomplished; and that\nthe malignant Typhon of revolution was collecting his scattered members,\nrecruiting his exhausted energies, and preparing anew to assault,\noppress, and desolate the world.\n\nAlarmed at the political aspect of Germany and Europe, Schlegel deemed\nthe moment had arrived, when every friend of religion and social order\nshould be found at his post. The importance of the struggle--the\nviolence of parties--the false line of policy adopted by most\ngovernments--the errors and delusions too prevalent even among many of\nthe defenders of legitimacy, rendered the warning voice of an\nenlightened mediator more necessary than ever. In conjunction with his\nillustrious friend, Adam Mueller, and some of the Redemptorists--a most\nable, amiable, and exemplary body of ecclesiastics at Vienna--he\nestablished in 1820, a religious and political journal, entitled\n\"Concordia.\" In a series of articles, entitled \"Characteristics of the\nage,\" and which contain a most masterly sketch of the political state\nand prospects of the principal European countries, Schlegel has given a\nfuller exposition of his political principles, than in any other of his\nwritings which have come under my notice. The extreme interest and\nimportance of the matters discussed in these articles, and still more,\nthe light they throw on very many passages in the following translation,\nhave induced me to lay before the reader a rapid analysis of such parts\nas embody the author's political system. I shall therefore now proceed\nto this task, premising that in this analysis I shall occasionally\ninterweave a remark of my own, to illustrate the author's views.--\n\nThere are five essential and eternal corporations in human society--the\nfamily--the church--the state--the guild--and the school.\n\nI. The family is the smallest and simplest corporation--the ground-work\nof all the others;--and on its right constitution and moral development\ndepend, as we shall presently see, the freedom, prosperity, and\nenlightenment of the state, the guild, and the school.\n\nII. With respect to the church, its constitution under the primitive\nrevelation was purely domestic; religious instruction and the\nsolemnization of religious offices, being intrusted to the heads of\nfamilies and tribes. In the Mosaic law, the Almighty founded a _public_\nministry in the synagogue, which was an admirable type of the future\nconstitution of the Christian church. Unlike the local and temporary\nsynagogue, the Christian church is perpetual and universal--but like the\nsynagogue, it hath a public ministry. \"This church, to use Schlegel's\nown words, is that great and divine corporation which embraces all other\nsocial relations, protects them under its vault, crowns them with\ndignity, and lovingly imparts to them the power of a peculiar\nconsecration. The church is not a mere substitute formed to supply or\nrepair the deficiencies of the other social institutes and corporations;\nbut is itself a free, peculiar, independent corporation, pervading all\nstates, and in its object exalted far above them--an union and society\nwith God, from whom it immediately derives its sustaining power.\"[12]\n\nIII. Between these two corporations the family--that deep, solid\nfoundation of the social edifice below--and the church, that high,\nexpansive and illumined vault above--stands the state. Schlegel defines\nthe state, \"a corporation armed for the maintenance of peace.\" \"Its\nexistence,\" says he, \"is bound up with all the other corporations; it\nlives and moves in them; they are its natural organs; and as soon as the\nstate, whether with despotic or anarchical views, attempts to impede the\nnatural functions of these organs, to disturb or derange their peculiar\nsphere of action, it impairs its own vital powers, and prepares the way\nsooner or later for its own destruction.\"\n\nIV. There are two intermediate corporations--the guild, which stands\nbetween the family and the state; and the school, which stands between\nthe church and the state. By the guild, Schlegel understands \"every\nspecies of traffic, industry and commerce, bound together in every part\nof the world by the common tie of money.\" The object of this corporation\nis the advancement of the material interests of the family; interests\nwhich it is the bounden duty of the state to protect and promote.\n\nV. By the school, the author signifies the \"whole intellectual culture\nof mankind--not merely the existing republic of letters, but all the\ntradition of science from the remotest ages to the present times.\" This\ncorporation, I should say, has for its object the glorification of the\nchurch, the utility of the state, and the intellectual activity of the\nfamily, or rather its individual members.\n\nBut among these primary corporations, it is the state which forms the\nimmediate object of the author's inquiries. I shall now proceed to lay\nbefore the reader the several characteristics which, according to the\nauthor, distinguish the Christian state, or the state animated with the\nspirit of Christianity.\n\n\nSec.Sec. I. _The Christian state is without slaves, and honours the sanctity\nof the nuptial tie._\n\nChristianity first mitigated, and then abolished slavery. Slavery is\nincompatible with the spirit of Christianity, not only on account of the\nmaltreatment, injuries, and oppression to which it subjects men; not\nonly on account of the dangers to which it exposes female virtue; but\nchiefly and especially, because the state of slavery is one inconsistent\nwith the dignity of a being made after the likeness of God. This\ncomplete emancipation of the lower classes from the bonds of servitude\npre-eminently distinguishes the modern Christian states from those of\nclassical antiquity on the one hand, and those of the primitive\noriental world on the other. In the former, domestic and predial slavery\nwere carried to the last degree of harshness and severity--in the\nlatter, especially in India, a totally different form of servitude\nexisted. There the innocent descendants of those who had been guilty of\ncertain crimes, or who had contracted unlawful marriages, were doomed to\na state of irremediable oppression, debarred from all civil rights, and\nexcluded from the very charities of life. The fate of these hapless\nbeings was even harder than that of the slaves among the ancient Greeks\nand Romans. As the exclusion of a whole class from the rights of\ncitizenship and the offices of religion is incompatible with the\nprinciples of Christian love; so the hereditary transmission of the\nsacerdotal dignity is inconsistent with the Christian doctrine, which\ninculcates the necessity of a divine call to the priesthood. Hence the\nincompatibility which exists between the system of castes and the\nChristian religion.\n\nThe author shows that the various species of vassalage are clearly\ndistinguishable from slavery; yet that even these have yielded to the\nbenign spirit of Christianity. The existence of slavery in the Christian\ncolonies no wise militates against the principle here laid down: for the\nslave-trade has ever been condemned by all Christian nations as wicked\nand unjust; and slavery, the introduction of which into the colonies the\nchurch had so strenuously opposed, was afterwards tolerated by her only\nas a necessary evil. For, as Schlegel observes with his characteristic\nwisdom, \"the sudden abolition of an evil that has become an inveterate\nhabit in society, is mostly attended with danger, and frequently works\nanother wrong of an opposite kind.\"[13] But this is one of those\ntruths, which the giddy, reckless spirit of a spurious philanthropy can\nnever be made to comprehend.\n\nAs the Christian state abhors slavery from its inconsistency with the\ndignity of man, so, for the same reason, it guards with jealous\nvigilance, the sanctity and inviolability of the nuptial tie. Polygamy\ndegrades woman from her natural rank in society--destroys the happiness\nof private life--poisons the very well-springs of education--and\nconnected as it too frequently is with a traffic in slaves, plunges the\nmale sex into irremediable degradation.[14] This practice is supposed to\nhave originated with the Cainites in the ante-diluvian world; but for\nhigh and prudential reasons, it was tolerated rather than approved under\nthe Patriarchal dispensation and the Mosaic law. In the ancient Asiatic\nmonarchies, especially in the period of their decline, this usage\nsometimes prevailed to a licentious extent; but in the modern Mahometan\nstates, where polygamy is indulged in to the most libidinous excess,\nthis defective constitution of the family has proved one of the greatest\nbarriers to political and intellectual improvement.\n\nIn ancient Greece and Rome, how far superior was the legislation on\nmarriage! How much more healthful and vigorous was the constitution of\ndomestic society! What a fine idea do we conceive of the early Romans,\nwhen we read that though the law sanctioned divorce, yet that for the\nfirst five hundred years, no individual took advantage of such a law! In\nthe corrupt ages of Imperial Rome, divorce, permitted and practised on\nthe most frivolous pretexts, was productive of more baneful consequences\nthan Polygamy in its worst form.\n\nPolygamy is proscribed in all Christian states. In the Catholic church,\nmarriage is raised to the dignity of a sacrament; and divorce is not\npermitted, even in the case of adultery. Hereby woman is invested with\nthe highest degree of dignity, and even influence--the union and\nhappiness of the family are best secured--and the peace and stability of\nthe state itself acquire the strongest guarantees. It is well known that\nsome of the ablest divines of the church of England also uphold in all\ncases the indissolubility of the nuptial tie; and the British\nlegislature, by according divorce only after adultery, and by rendering\nthe obtaining of it a matter of difficulty and expense, has wisely\nopposed limitations to the practice. Yet, as was truly observed some\nyears ago in parliament, the increase in the number of applications for\ndivorce, is one among the many signs of the decline of morality in this\ncountry.\n\nThe principal Protestant churches regard marriage as a religious\nceremony; and so the general proposition of Schlegel is correct, that\nall Christian states recognise the sanctity of the nuptial bond. And\nhere is one of the main causes of the superior happiness, freedom and\ncivilisation enjoyed by Christian nations.\n\n\nSec.Sec. II. _Christian justice is founded on a system of equity, and the\nChristian state has from its constitution, an essentially pacific\ntendency._\n\nSchlegel observes that the difference between strict law and equitable\nlaw is the most arduous problem in all jurisprudence. Strict law is an\nabstract law, deduced from certain general principles, applied without\nthe least regard to adventitious circumstances. Equity, on the other\nhand, pays due regard to such circumstances, examines into the peculiar\nstate of things, and the mutual relations of parties; and forms her\ndecisions not according to the caprice of fancy, or the waywardness of\nfeeling, but according to the general principles of right, applied to\nthe variable circumstances and situations of parties.\n\nAccording to the author's definition, the object of the institution of\nthe state is the maintenance of internal and external peace. Justice is\nthe only basis of peace; but _justice is here the means, and not the\nend_. If justice were the end for which the state was constituted, then\nneither external nor internal peace could ever be procured or\nmaintained; for the state would then be compelled to wage eternal war\nagainst all who, at home or abroad, were guilty of injustice, and could\nnever lay down its arms till that injustice were removed.\n\nAs peace is essentially the end of that great corporation called the\nstate; it follows that the justice by which its foreign and domestic\npolicy must be regulated, is not that strict or absolute justice spoken\nof above, but that temperate or conciliatory equity, which is alone\napplicable to the concerns of men. The maxim, \"a thousand years' wrong\ncannot constitute an hour's right,\" if applied to civil jurisprudence,\nwould introduce interminable confusion, hardship and misery in the\naffairs of private life, and if applied to constitutional and\ninternational law, would lead to perpetual anarchy at home, and to\nendless, exterminating war abroad.\n\nThe Christian religion, as it comes from God, is eminently social--hence\nit abhors the principle of absolute or inexorable right, whether applied\nto civil or public law--hence the Christian state, or the state animated\nwith the spirit of Christianity, is in its tendency essentially pacific.\n\nThis pacific policy of the state, however, so far from excluding,\nnecessarily implies the firm, uncompromising vindication of its rights\nand interests, whether at home or abroad; and the repression of evil\ndoers within, or a just war without, is often the only means of\nattaining the object for which the state was constituted--to wit, the\nmaintenance of peace. On the other hand, the revolutionary state, or\nthe state where, in opposition to existing rights and interests, new\nrights and interests are violently enforced; and where, in subversion of\nall established institutions, new institutions, conceived according to\nabstract and arbitrary theories, are violently introduced; the\nrevolutionary state, I say, is, from its nature and origin--no matter\nwhat form it may assume--necessarily driven to a course of iniquitous\npolicy--to disorganizing tyranny within, and to fierce, relentless\nhostility without.\n\nAgainst the pacific character of the Christian state, the bloody wars of\nCharlemagne with the Saxons, the Crusades of a later period, and the\nreligious wars of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries are commonly\nobjected. In the course of the work, to which this memoir is prefixed,\nthe reader will find these several objections victoriously answered.\n\n\nSec. III. _The Christian state recognizes the legal existence of\nCorporations, and depends on their organic co-operation._\n\nThe author has before shown that the Christian religion, following the\nprinciple of conciliatory equity, recognizes, without reference to their\norigin, all existing rights and interests. Hence the Christian religion\ncan co-exist, and has in fact co-existed, with every form or species of\ngovernment. But there are some governments which, from their spirit and\nconstitution, are more congenial than others to Christianity; and it is\nin this sense we speak of the Christian state.\n\nWe have already seen that there are five essential and eternal\ncorporations--the family--the church--the state--the guild, and the\nschool. These great corporations have each their several and subordinate\ninstitutions or corporations, which are accidental and transitory by\nnature, and consequently vary with time, place, and circumstances.\n\nThe Christian state is that which best secures and preserves to those\nessential corporations, and all their subordinate institutions, their\ndue sphere of action. Hence our author shows that, under certain\ncircumstances, and in certain countries, the Republic, whether\ndemocratic or aristocratic, may answer that end as well or even better\nthan monarchy; and that it is only because, in great empires, monarchy\nis best calculated to maintain the free developement and organic\nco-operation of corporations, that it may be called, par excellence, the\nChristian state. But what form of monarchy is best adapted for this end?\nThe absolute monarchy[15] is certainly the least: there then remain only\nthe representative system, and the constitution of the three estates, or\nas the Germans call that mode of government, Staende-verfassung. Schlegel\nproceeds to examine the respective characteristics of those two forms of\ngovernment, and to show the points in which they agree, and in which\nthey differ. The constitution of estates is the old, legitimate\nconstitution of the European states, whether republican or monarchical;\nbut, in too many countries, this noble institution has been undermined\nby despotism, or destroyed by revolution. On the other hand, the\nrepresentative system is comparatively modern, and, on the continent,\nhas, amid the great convulsions produced by the French revolution,\nsprung out of a defective and superficial imitation of the British\nconstitution. It is therefore to the latter constitution the author,\nwhen he has occasion to treat of the representative system, principally\ndirects the attention of his readers.\n\nAs to the points of resemblance between this system, and the\nstates-constitution, both have legislative assemblies--in both,\npetitions and remonstrances are addressed to the throne, and in both,\nthe grant of subsidies rests chiefly with the commons; while to the\nenactment of every law, the concurrence of the different branches of the\nlegislature is essentially requisite. But, in many important\npoints, these two forms of government totally differ. In the\nstates-constitution, the crown is invested with more power and dignity.\nWith more dignity, because to the crown landed estates are annexed; and\nthe sovereign, instead of being a pensioner on the bounty of his\nparliament, is the first independent proprietor:--with more power,\nbecause in the representative system, the King, with the single\nexception of choosing an administration, can perform no act without the\nsanction of his ministers. Thus in this political system, according to\nthe author's remark, the substantial power of royalty is vested in the\nhands of the ministry.\n\nThe next point of difference is that the representative system,\nparticularly in England, rests too exclusively on the material basis of\nproperty; and that intelligence is there deprived of an adequate share\nin the national representation.[16] In the states-constitution, where\nthe clerical and scientific classes form a separate estate, or distinct\nbranch of the legislature, intelligence is invested with all the dignity\nand glory which human society can confer. The clergy, who are the\nrepresentatives of revealed faith, or the fixed and immutable part of\nintelligence, correspond to the aristocracy, or the representatives of\nfixed property--while the scientific class, representing science, or the\nvariable and progressive part of intelligence, corresponds to the\nCommons, the representatives of moveable property. Hence, Francis\nBaader has ingeniously called the clergy the Upper House of\nintelligence, and the scientific class, the Lower House.[17]\n\nThe last point of difference is that, while in many of the modern\nrepresentative systems, municipal corporations are despised and\nrejected, they form the very key-stone of the states-constitution. The\nRevolutionists, who have had so prominent a share in the formation of\nthese representative governments, know full well that municipal\ncorporations form the best security of the rights of the family--the\nfirmest ramparts of popular freedom. They are thus objects of peculiar\nhatred to men who, so far from wishing the commonalty to obtain\nstability or cohesion in their constitution, are desirous they should\never remain a loose, shifting mass of disunited atoms, ready to receive\nany form or impress which despotism may impose. Hence the war which at\ndifferent times, and in different countries, regal or democratic tyranny\nhas waged against these admirable institutions. In the English\nconstitution, on the other hand, which has preserved so many elements of\nthe old Christian monarchy, the free, municipal institutions have been\ncarefully maintained. \"The true internal strength and greatness of\nEngland, (says Schlegel) consist, as is now almost universally admitted\nby profound political observers, far more in the vigour and freedom of\nmunicipal corporations, better preserved in that country than elsewhere,\nthan in her admired political constitution itself.\"[18] Defective as\nmany parts of that constitution appeared to the author, yet on the\nwhole, he highly valued the vigorously constituted, but temperate and\nmitigated, aristocracy of 1688. He knew that the remnants of the old\nChristian constitution were better preserved there than in any of the\ngreat continental monarchies:[19] that the British government possessed\nelements of stability as well as of freedom, to which those monarchies,\nin their existing degeneracy, could in vain pretend; and that the very\npeculiarities in the British constitution, to which he most strongly\nobjected, had their origin in local circumstances, deep-rooted wants,\nand remote historical events. That extreme jealousy of regal power which\nthat constitution betrays--that undue preponderance of property over\nintelligence--that political predominance of the aristocracy, which,\nthough rendered necessary by the excessive depression of royalty and of\nthe clergy, was certainly calculated to impede the organic development\nof the democracy, and thereby to expose the body politic to dangerous\nrevulsions--in fine, that fierce collision of parties, which that\nconstitution nurses and encourages--all reveal the fearful struggles by\nwhich it came into life. The imitation of this constitution which, by\nbringing back to the European nations the reminiscence of their ancient\nfreedom, has naturally excited their enthusiastic admiration--the\nimitation of that constitution, I say, difficult at all times, has been\nrendered in some countries utterly impracticable by the studious\nrejection of two of the great hinges on which, for a hundred and fifty\nyears, it has turned--I mean the predominance of the aristocracy on the\none hand, and the free, municipal organization of the commonalty on the\nother. In many of the German states, as the author observes, the\nrepresentative system works well; because the legislators have had the\nwisdom to connect the new with anterior institutions.\n\nOn the whole, what has been said of the Gothic architecture, may be\napplied to the old Christian monarchy--it was never brought to\nperfection. That lofty ideal of government, which Christianity had\ntraced to the nations of the middle age--that admirable constitution,\nwhich was a partial reflection of the constitution of the church itself,\nand wherein were blended and united the principles of love and\nintelligence, stability and activity--in other words, where a paternal\nroyalty, an enlightened priesthood, a mild aristocracy, a loyal, yet\nfree-spirited, commonalty controlled, aided, balanced, and defended each\nother--that lofty ideal has never been--probably never will be--fully\nrealized. Yet there are many reasons to suppose that a momentous, and\nnot very distant, futurity will be charged with realizing, as far as\nhuman infirmity will permit, this ideal conception of the Christian\nstate.\n\nSuch is an outline of the principal features in Schlegel's political\nsystem--a system which I have endeavoured, as far as my feeble powers\npermitted, to explain, illustrate, and enforce.\n\nBut while in the East of Germany, this great luminary and his satellite\nwere shedding their mild radiance of political wisdom, a star of the\nfirst magnitude rose above the Western horizon of Germany, and filled\nthe surrounding heaven with the splendour of its light. The illustrious\nGoerres, already celebrated for his profound researches in archaeology,\nand many admirable political writings, published in 1819 his work,\nentitled \"Germany and the Revolution,\" which produced so extraordinary a\nsensation, and was at the time so ably translated by Mr. Black. This\nwork was followed in 1821 by that writer's still more wonderful\nproduction, entitled \"Europe and the Revolution,\" a production which in\nthe soundness of its doctrines--the generosity of its sentiments--the\ndepth and comprehensiveness of its views--and the copiousness and\nvariety of historical illustration brought forward in their\nsupport--surpasses perhaps all the mighty works in defence of social\norder and liberty which the momentous events of the last fifty years\nhave called forth in different parts of Europe. With a few slight shades\nof difference, the political views of Goerres mainly accord with those\nof Schlegel; but, living under the free government of Bavaria, the\nformer is able boldly to proclaim truths which the latter at Vienna was\nable only to hint. Goerres unites the strong, practical sense of\nGentz--the masterly learning and profound and comprehensive\nunderstanding of F. Schlegel--to great boldness of character, and a\nstyle of peculiar force and condensation. While the political glance of\nSchlegel was mostly directed towards the past--that of Gentz to the\npresent hour--the eye of Goerres is turned more particularly to the\nfuture. Had the counsels of this illustrious man been more generally\nfollowed, the perilous crisis, in which for the last five years Germany\nhas been involved, would have been happily averted, or at least better\nprovided against. Himself and Schlegel may be considered as the supreme\noracles of that illustrious school of liberal Conservatives, founded by\nour great Burke, and which numbers besides the eminent Germans, whose\nnames have already been mentioned, a Baron de Haller in Switzerland--a\nViscount de Bonald in France[20]--a Count Henri de Merode in\nBelgium--and a Count Maistre in Piedmont: men whose writings contain, in\na greater or less degree, the seeds of the future political regeneration\nof Europe.\n\nWhile engaged in the editorship of the Concordia, Schlegel gave a new\nedition of his works with considerable improvements and augmentations.\nActively as his time had been employed, a long period had now elapsed\nsince he had given any great production to the world; and he was now\npreparing those immortal works, which were to shed so bright an\neffulgence round the close of his life. In the rapid review which has\nbeen here taken of his critical, philological and historical writings,\nnothing has been said of his philosophical pursuits; and yet philosophy\nwas his darling study--philosophy, which the ancients called \"the\nscience of divine and human things,\" was alone capable of filling the\nvast capacity of Schlegel's mind. At the age of nineteen, he had already\nread all the works of Plato in their original tongue; and six-and-thirty\nyears afterwards, he expressed a vivid recollection of the delight and\nenthusiasm which the perusal had excited in his youthful mind. In 1800,\nhe commenced his philosophical career at the University of Jena before\nan admiring audience; we have already seen him at Paris, amid his\nphilological labours, devoting a portion of his time to the cultivation\nof philosophy; and, amid all the struggles and occupations of his\nsubsequent life, he would ever and anon snatch some moment to pay his\nhomage to this celestial maid--this mistress of his heart--this object\nof his earliest enthusiasm and latest worship.\n\nA very distinguished friend and disciple of Schlegel's, the Baron\nd'Eckstein asserts that, towards the close of the last century, a\nconfederacy was formed among some men of the most superior minds for the\nregeneration of natural science--for the revival of the lofty physics of\nremote antiquity, when nature was regarded only as the splendid and\nalmost transparent veil of the spiritual world. The members of this\nintellectual association were Schelling, the two Schlegels, the poet\nTirek, Novalis, and the celebrated geographer Ritter. This confederacy\nwas dissolved, when the pantheistical tendency of Schelling's philosophy\nbecame more apparent; and Frederick Schlegel, in particular, became\nafterwards the most strenuous and formidable opponent of a philosophic\nsystem which appeared to him, and rightly enough, only a more subtle and\nrefined Spinozism. On the true nature of this philosophy, however,\nopinion was much divided; many religious men among the Protestants\nranged themselves under its banners; even some of the Orthodox entered\ninto terms of accommodation with it; and the great Catholic theologian,\nZimmer, thought that, by means of this system, he could obtain a clearer\nconception of the great Christian mystery of the Trinity. Enormous as\nmay be the errors contained in this philosophy, yet, as few philosophic\nsystems are entirely erroneous, the philosophy of Schelling, which\nappears to have undergone a purification in its course, has been\nattended with some beneficial results. It has led to a more profound and\nspiritual knowledge of nature--it has been, to many, a point of\ntransition from the materialism and rationalism of the eighteenth\ncentury to the Christian Religion--and, indeed, this effect it has had\non its illustrious founder himself, who has for some years returned to\nthe bosom of Christianity, and who probably will be remembered by\nposterity more for his recent labours as a profound Christian\nnaturalist, than for the pantheistic reveries of his youth.[21]\n\nSchlegel's earlier philosophical, as well as historical, works are no\nlonger to be met with, and have not yet been re-published. In the\nConcordia for 1820, we find an outline of those lectures on the\nPhilosophy of life, which the author delivered at Vienna, in the year\n1827. This work immediately preceded the one to which this memoir is\nprefixed; and, as it embodies those general philosophical principles, of\nwhich in the latter an application is made to history, a rapid analysis\nof its doctrines, particularly in the psychological and ontological\nparts, will be useful, nay, almost necessary, to the elucidation of many\npassages in the following translation. But how can I attempt the\nanalysis of a work where the arrangement of a formal, didactic\ndiscussion is studiously avoided--where the author pours forth his\nthoughts with all the freedom of conversation--high, spiritual\nconversation--where such is the exuberant fulness of his ideas, such\nthe shadowy subtilty of his perceptions, that even the German language,\ncopious and philosophical as it is, seems at times inadequate to their\nexpression. Long as Germany had been habituated to the genius of\nSchlegel, she herself seems to have been startled by the appearance of a\nwork where the boldest, the most unlooked for, the sublimest vistas of\nphilosophy were opened to her astonished view.\n\nBespeaking then the indulgence of the reader, I will now proceed to lay\nbefore him an outline of some of the principal ideas on psychology and\nontology, contained in the Philosophy of Life.\n\nThe consciousness of man is composed of mind, soul, and body. The soul\nis the centre of consciousness. The consciousness of man may be best\nunderstood by comparing it with that of other created beings. The\nexistence of brutes is extremely simple--they have only a body--they\nhave no mind--they have, properly speaking, no soul--at least, their\nsoul is completely mingled with their corporeal frame; so that on the\ndestruction of the latter, it reverts to the elements, or is absorbed in\nthe general vital energy of nature (Natur-seele). In the scale of\nexistence superior to man, the angelic spirits are represented in Holy\nWrit, and in the Traditions of all nations, as pure, intellectual\nbeings, devoid of a _gross_ corporeal frame. But have they no body\nwhatsoever? Schlegel ascribes to them what he calls in his beautiful\nlanguage, \"an etherial body of light.\" This opinion, it must be\nconfessed, has comparatively few supporters in the modern schools of\ntheology, whether in the Catholic or Protestant churches; but it was\nmaintained by many of the ancient Fathers, and, in modern times, it has\nmet with the high sanction of the great Leibnitz. Schlegel assigns no\nreason for his opinion; but I have means of knowing that another great\nChristian philosopher of the age has, in his unpublished system of\nmetaphysics, adduced very cogent arguments in support of this theory.\nWith the exception of this subtle, etherial, luminous body, the\ncelestial Spirits, according to the author, are nothing but intelligence\nor mind. They have, strictly speaking, no soul; for the distinctive\nfaculties of the soul (as will be presently shown) are reason and\nimagination; and these faculties cannot be ascribed to beings in whom\nan intuitive understanding needs not the slow deductions, and analytic\nprocess of reason; nor wants a medium of communication with the world of\nsense, like imagination. Hence the lines of the great German poet fully\nrepresent the difference, as well as the resemblance, in the\nintellectual action of man and the angelic spirits:\n\n  \"Science, O man, thou shar'st with higher spirits;\n  But Art thou hast alone.\"\n\nHence the nature of brutes is simple--that of angels two-fold--that of\nmen three-fold.\n\nThe third part of human consciousness, the body--its organic laws,\npowers, and properties, the philosopher must leave to the naturalist. It\nis only when it has reference to the higher parts of consciousness that\nits properties can be made the matter of his investigation. The soul and\nthe mind form the fit and peculiar subject of his enquiries. To the mind\nbelong the faculties of will and understanding--to the soul, those of\nreason and imagination. Schlegel observes it is remarkable that the\nthree different species of mental alienation correspond to the three\nparts of human consciousness. Thus monomania springs from some error\ndeeply rooted in the mind--frenzy is the disorder of a soul that has\nbroken loose from all the restraints of reason; and idiotcy arises from\nsome organic defect in the brain. The last is the effect of physical,\nthe two former the consequence of moral, and frequently accidental,\ncauses. The author lays it down as a general principle, subject,\nhowever, to many modifications and exceptions, that in man mind or\nthought predominates--in woman soul or feeling prevails. Hence in\nmarriage, which is a sacred union of souls, the deficiencies in the\npsychology of either sex are happily and mutually supplied. On this\nsubject, Schlegel has some of the most touching and beautiful\nreflections, which a loving heart and a noble fancy have ever inspired.\n\nImagination (Einbildungs-kraft) is the inventive faculty--Reason\n(Vernunft) the regulative--Understanding (Verstand) the penetrative, or\nin a higher degree the intuitive--and the Will (Wille) the moral,\nfaculty. To these primary faculties, or as the author styles them, these\nmain boughs of human consciousness, four secondary faculties are\nsubservient--the memory--the conscience--the passions or natural\nimpulses, and the outward senses. The memory is the intermediate faculty\nbetween the understanding and the reason--the conscience the\nintermediate faculty between the reason and the will--the passions or\nnatural impulses the intermediate faculty between the will and the\nimagination--and the outward senses form the connecting link between the\nimagination and the body.\n\nReason is the regulative faculty implanted in the soul. In real life, it\ncorresponds to what we commonly call judgment, and is that faculty by\nwhich the transactions of men are regulated, and the resolutions of the\nwill are brought to maturity, whether in sacred or secular concerns. In\nscience, Reason is the dialectical or analytic faculty, by which the\ndiscoveries of Imagination and the perceptions of the Understanding\nreceive a definite form--the faculty of analysis, arrangement, and\ncombination. Reason in itself is not inventive--it makes no\ndiscoveries--it is rather a negative than a positive faculty--but it is\nthe indispensable arbitress, to whose decision Understanding and\nImagination must submit their various productions.\n\nImagination, on the other hand, is the inventive faculty in art, poetry\nand even science. No great discovery, says the author, can be made even\nin the mathematics, without imagination. This assertion may strike us\nas strange; but we must remember that Leibnitz declared he was led to\nhis great mathematical discoveries by the aid of metaphysics; and that\nimagination necessarily enters into the composition of a great\nmetaphysical genius, few will be disposed to question. Here, however, if\nI may be allowed to offer an opinion, Schlegel does not appear to me to\nhave traced, with sufficient distinctness, the boundaries between\nimagination and understanding.\n\nUnderstanding is the faculty of apprehension--it penetrates into the\ninward essence of things, and discerns the manifestations of the divine\nor human mind in their several revelations and communications.--Thus the\nnaturalist, whose eye searches into the inward life of nature--the\nstatesman, who can fathom the most deep-laid plans of a hostile\npolicy--the theologian, who can discover the most hidden sense of\nScripture, may be said to possess in an eminent degree, the faculty of\nunderstanding.\n\nWill is the other faculty implanted in the mind of man--the faculty on\nwhose good or evil direction that of all the other faculties of mind and\nsoul essentially depends. Independently of the moral direction of the\nwill, its innate strength or weakness, its steadiness or vacillation,\nproportionably augment or diminish the power of all the other faculties.\nHow far moderate abilities, when directed by a firm, tenacious,\nperseverant will can avail--to what a degree of success they may\nsometimes lead, daily experience may serve to convince us.\n\nOriginally all these faculties, will and understanding, reason and\nimagination, were harmoniously blended and united in the human\nconsciousness; but since, at the fall of man, a dark spirit interposed\nits shadow betwixt him and the Sun of Righteousness, disorder and\nconfusion have entered into his mind and soul, and troubled their\nseveral faculties. Thus the understanding often points out a course\nwhich the will refuses to follow; and the will, on the other hand, is\noften disposed to pursue the good and right path, were the blind or\nnarrow understanding competent to direct it. Not only are will and\nunderstanding in frequent collision with one another, but each is at\nvariance with itself. What the will resolves to-day it shrinks from\nto-morrow! How often does the understanding view the same subject in a\ndifferent light at different times! How much do time, circumstance, and\nhumour, place the same truth in a clearer or obscurer aspect! The same\nopposition is observable betwixt reason and imagination. Where fancy is\nthe strongest in the house, how often doth she spurn the warnings of her\nmore homely and unpretending sister--reason. Again, where reason has the\nascendancy, what groundless aversion, and paltry jealousy does she not\nfrequently evince at the superior nature of her brilliant sister! Or, to\ndrop this figurative language, how often do we behold a man of lofty\nimagination very deficient in practical sense; and again, in your man of\nstrong sense, how frequently dull and pedestrian is the fancy! In real\nlife what a deplorable schism exists between poets and artists on the\none hand, and men of business on the other! What mutual contempt and\naversion do they not frequently exhibit! Well, this schism is nothing\nelse than the external realization of the inward conflict between reason\nand imagination.\n\nWith respect to the four secondary faculties--memory--conscience--the\nnatural impulses--and the outward senses--faculties, which, as the\nauthor says, cannot from their importance be termed subordinate, but\nshould rather be called subsidiary or assigned;--Schlegel shews that, as\nregards the first, the decay of the memory precedes the decline of the\nreason, and its sudden and entire loss brings about the extinction of\nthe latter faculty. In the same way the deadness of the conscience\nargues the utmost depravity of the will. The conscience is the memory of\nthe will, as the memory is the conscience of the understanding.\n\n\"The natural impulses,\" says Schlegel, \"where they appear exalted to\npassion, are to be regarded as nothing else but the motions of a will,\nthat has been overpowered by the false illusions of imagination. The\nmiddle position of the impulses betwixt the will and the imagination, as\nwell as the abused co-operation of those two faculties in any passion or\nsensual gratification, become habitual, is apparent particularly in\nthose inclinations which man has in common with the brute, and where the\nviciousness lies only in their excess or violence.\"[22] \"Aspiration\nafter infinity is natural to man, and belongs essentially to his being.\nWhatever is defective or disorderly in his impulses, consists only in\ntheir unbounded gratification--in the perversion of that aspiration\nafter infinity towards perishable, sensual, material, and often most\nunworthy, objects; for that aspiration, natural as it is to man, where\nit is pure and genuine, can be gratified by no sensual indulgence and no\nearthly possession.\"[23] In the brute, the gratification of the natural\nappetites is regular, uniform, subject to no vicissitudes or excesses,\nand entails no injury on his nature, because undisturbed and unvitiated\nby the false illusions of imagination.\n\nLastly, with regard to the outward senses, there are, philosophically\nspeaking, but three, sight, hearing, and touch--for under the last,\ntaste and smell are included; and it is remarkable how these severally\ncorrespond to the three parts of human consciousness. The sight is\npre-eminently the sense of the mind--hearing the sense of the\nsoul--while the touch is peculiarly the sense of the body; the sense\ngiven to the body for its special protection and preservation. The loss\nof the first two senses the body can survive--but it perishes with the\nutter extinction of the last. Those expressions in common parlance, a\ngood artist-like eye--a fine musical ear--prove the close connexion\nwhich mankind has always felt to exist between the outer senses and the\nhigher faculties of man.\n\n\"Had the soul,\" says the author, \"not been originally darkened and\ntroubled--had it remained in a clear, luminous repose in its God--then\nthe human consciousness would have been of a far more simple nature than\nat present; for it would have consisted only of _understanding_, _soul_,\nand _will_. Reason and imagination, which are now in such frequent\ncollision with the will and understanding, as well as with each other,\nwould then have been absorbed in those higher faculties. Even the\nconscience would not then have been a special act, or special function\nof the judgment--but a tender feeling--a gentle, almost unconscious\npulsation of the soul. The senses and the memory, those ministrant\nfaculties which, in the present dissonance of the human consciousness,\nform so many distinct powers of the soul, would, in its state of\nharmony, have been mere bodily organs.\"[24]\n\nSo much for the author's psychology--let us now proceed to the\nontological part of the work.\n\nTo the Supreme Being, will and understanding belong in a supreme degree;\nin him they exist in the most perfect harmony--will is understanding,\nand understanding will. But with no propriety can the faculty of reason\nbe ascribed to the Deity; and it is remarkable, says the author, that\nnowhere in Holy Writ, nor in the sacred traditions of the primitive\nnations, nor in the writings of the great philosophers of antiquity, is\nthe term reason ever used in reference to Almighty God. It is only among\na few of the later, degenerate, and rationalist sects of philosophy, the\nStoics for example, that the expression _Divine Reason_ is ever met\nwith. If such an expression is incorrect or unsound, with still less\nfitness and decorum can the faculty of imagination be assigned to the\nGod-head--the very term would shock the understandings, and revolt the\ninmost feelings, of all men.\n\nThe Deity reveals himself unto men in four different ways--in Scripture,\n(including of course its running and necessary commentary,\necclesiastical Tradition);--in Nature--in Conscience, and in History.\n\n\"Holy Writ,\" says the author, \"as it is delivered to us, and as it was\nbegun and founded three-and-thirty centuries ago, does not exclude the\nelder sacred traditions of the preceding two thousand four hundred\nyears; or the revelation, which was the common heritage of the whole\nhuman race. On the contrary, it contains very explicit allusions to the\nfact that such a revelation was imparted to the first man, as well as to\nthat patriarch who, after the destruction of the primeval world of\ngiants, was the second progenitor of mankind. As the sacred knowledge,\nderived from this revelation, flowed on every side, and in copious\nstreams over the succeeding generations of men, the ancient and holy\ntraditions were soon disfigured, and covered over with fictions and\nfables; where, amid a multitude of remarkable vestiges and glorious\ntraits of true religion, immoral mysteries and Bacchanalian rites were\noften intermixed, and truth itself, as in a second chaos, buried under a\nmass of contradictory symbols. Thence arose that Babylonish confusion of\nlanguages, sagas, and symbols, which is universally found among the\nancient, and even the primitive nations. In the great work of the\nrestoration of true religion, which accordingly we must regard as a\nsecond revelation, or rather as a second stage of revelation, a rigid\nproscription of those heathen fictions, and of all the immorality\nconnected with them, was the first and most essential requisite. But in\nthat gospel of creation, which forms the introduction to the whole\nBible, that elder revelation, accorded to the first man and to the\nsecond progenitor, is expressly laid down as the ground-work; and in\nthis introduction, we shall find the clue to the history and religion of\nthe primitive world--nay, it is the true Genesis of all historical\nscience.\"[25]\n\nNow with respect to the secondary or more indirect modes, by which the\nDeity communicates himself to men, the author observes that \"Nature,\ntoo, is a book written on both sides, within and without, in which the\nfinger of God is clearly visible:--a species of Holy Writ, in a bodily\nform--a glorious panegyric, as it were, on God's omnipotence, expressed\nin the most vivid symbols. Together with these two great witnesses of\nthe glory of the Creator, scripture, and nature--the voice of conscience\nis an inward revelation of God--the first index of those other two\ngreater and more general sources of revealed truths; while History, by\nlaying before our eyes the march of Divine Providence--a Providence\nwhose loving agency is apparent as well in the lives of individuals as\nin the social career of nations--History, I say, constitutes the fourth\nrevelation of God.\"[26]\n\nWe have next to consider the conduct of Divine Providence in the\neducation of the human race. How do we educate the boy? We first\nendeavour to awaken his sense--then we cultivate his soul, or his moral\nfaculties; while at the same time, we aid the gradual unfolding of his\nunderstanding. It is so with the divine education of mankind. In the\nprimitive revelation, indeed, the first man received the highest\nintellectual illumination; an illumination which, though at his fall it\nwas obscured by sin, still shines with a shorn splendour through all the\nhistory and traditions of the primeval world. When, however, by the\nabuse he had made of his great intellectual powers, man was successively\ndeprived of all those high gifts with which he had been originally\nendowed; when by the errors of idolatry, he had lapsed into a state of\nintellectual infancy; then it was necessary that his sense should first\nbe awakened to divine things; and this was accomplished in the Mosaic\nrevelation. But this revelation was only preparatory to another,\ndestined to renovate the soul of humanity, and gradually illumine its\nintelligence. This regeneration of the moral faculties of man was\nachieved immediately and directly by Christianity; for, without this\nmoral regeneration, any sudden illumination of the intellect would have\nbeen hurtful rather than beneficial to mankind. Under the benign\ninfluence of Christianity, the scientific enlightenment of the human\nmind has been wisely progressive; but it seems reserved for the last\nglorious ages of the triumphant church to witness the full meridian\nsplendour of human intelligence. Then the great scheme of creation will\nbe fulfilled; and the intellectual light, which played around the\ncradle, will brighten the last age, of humanity.\n\nLet us now proceed to consider Nature in herself, and in her relations\nto God, to the spiritual intelligences, and to man.\n\nNature was originally the beautiful, the faultless work of the\nAlmighty's hand. But the rebel angel in his fall brought disorder and\ndeath into all material creation. Hence arose that chaos, which the\nbreath of creative Power only could remove. Thus, according to the\nauthor, a wide interval occurs between the first and second verse of\nGenesis. \"In the beginning,\" says the inspired historian, \"God made\nheaven and earth,\" that is, as the Nicene Creed explains it, the visible\nand invisible world. \"And the earth was without form, and void: and\ndarkness was upon the face of the deep.\" But that void--that\ndarkness--that chaos proceeded not from the luminous hand of an all-wise\nand all perfect Maker--but from the disturbing influence of that fiend\nwhom Holy Writ hath called, with such unfathomable depth, the \"murderer\nfrom the beginning.\" Hence Schlegel terms him in his sublime language,\n\"the author or original of death\"--(Erfinder des Todes).\n\nOn a subject of such vast importance, I presume not to offer an opinion:\nbut I must merely content myself with the humble task of analysis. It\nmay be proper to observe, however, that this opinion of Schlegel's would\nseem, from a passage in the work of the great Catholic writer--Molitor,\nto be consonant with the tradition of the ancient synagogue. \"The\nCabala,\" says he, \"was divided into two parts--the theoretical and the\npractical. The former was composed of the patriarchal traditions on the\nholy mystery of God, and the divine persons; on the spiritual creation,\nand the fall of the angels; _on the origin of the chaos of matter, and\nthe renovation of the world in the six days of creation_; on the\ncreation of man, his fall, and the divine ways conducive to his\nrestoration.\"[27]\n\n\"Death,\" says Schlegel, \"came by sin into the world. As by the fall of\nthe first man, who was not created for death, nor originally designed\nfor death, death was transmitted to the whole human race; so by the\npreceding fall of him, who was the first and most glorious of all\ncreated Spirits, death came into the universe, that is, the eternal\ndeath, whose fire is inextinguishable. Hence it is said: 'Darkness was\nupon the face of the deep, and the earth was without form, and void'--as\nthe mere tomb-stone of that eternal death; 'but the Spirit of God moved\nover the waters, and therein lay the first vital germ of the new\ncreation.'\"[28]\n\nBut if such is the origin of Nature, how is its existence perpetuated,\nand what will be its final destiny?\n\nNature, as was said above, is a book of God's revelation, written within\nand without. The outer part of this sacred volume attests the supreme\npower, wisdom, and goodness of the Creator in characters too clear and\nluminous to be unperceived or misread by the dullest or the most\nvitiated eye. The inner pages of this book comprise a still more\nglorious revelation of God--but their language is more mysterious, and\nmuch which they contain seems to have been wisely withheld, or rather\nwithdrawn from the knowledge of mankind. It was this acquaintance with\nthe internal secrets of Nature, derived partly from revelation, and\npartly from intuition, which gave the men of the primitive, and\nespecially the ante-diluvian, world such a vast superiority over all the\nsucceeding generations of mankind. But it was the abuse of that\nknowledge, also, which brought about in the primeval world a Satanic\ndelusion, and a gigantic moral and intellectual corruption, of which we\ncan now scarcely form the remotest idea. But this key to the inward\nscience of Nature, which was taken away from a corrupt world, that had\nso grossly abused it, seems now about to be restored to man, renovated\nas his soul and intelligence have been by a long Christian education.\nThe physical researches of the last fifty years, especially in Germany,\nlead the enquirer more and more to the knowledge of this important\ntruth, stamped on all the pages of ancient tradition, and never effaced\nfrom the recollection of mankind, to wit, the action of spiritual\nintelligences on the material world. The nature of this action is\nbriefly adverted to in the following passage (among many others to the\nsame purport), in the Philosophy of Life. \"It is especially of\nimportance,\" says the author, \"for the understanding of the general\nsystem of Nature, to observe how the modern chemistry mostly dissolves\nand decomposes all solid bodies, as well as water itself, into different\nforms of elements of air, and thereby has taken away from Nature the\nappearance of rigidity and petrifaction. There are every where living\nelemental powers hidden and shut up under this appearance of rigidity.\nThe quantity of water in the air is so great that it would suffice for\nmore than one deluge; a similar inundation of light would occur, if all\nthe light latent in darkness were at once set free; and all things would\nbe consumed by fire, if that element in the quantity in which it exists,\nwere suddenly let loose. The salutary bonds, by which these elemental\npowers are held in due equilibrium, one bound by the other, and kept\nwithin its prescribed limits, I will not now make a matter of\ninvestigation; nor now examine the question, whether _these bonds be not\nperhaps of a higher kind than naturalists commonly suppose_.\"\n\nThe great apostle of the Gentiles represents all Nature as sighing for\nher deliverance from the bondage of death. \"Every creature groaneth and\ntravaileth in pain, even now.\" Some chapters in the Philosophy of life\nmay be considered as one luminous commentary on that text. My limits\nwill permit me to cite but one passage.\n\n\"That planetary world of sense, and the soul of the earth imprisoned\ntherein, is only apparently dead. Nature only sleeps, and may again be\nawakened: and sleep is, if not the essence, yet a characteristic mark of\nNature. Every thing in Nature hath this quality of sleep; not the\nanimals merely, but the plants also sleep; and in the course of the\nseasons on the surface of the globe, there is a constant alternation\nbetween waking and slumber.\"... \"That soul, he continues, which\nslumbers under the prodigious tomb-stone of outward nature--a soul,\nwhich is not alien, but half akin to us--is divided between the\ntroubled, painful reminiscence of eternal death, in which it\noriginated--and the bright flowers of celestial Hope, which grow on the\nborders of that dark abyss. For this earthly Nature, as Holy Writ saith,\nis indeed subjected to nothingness--yet without its will, and without\nits fault: so it looks forward in expectation of Him who hath so\nsubjected it--it looks forward in the hope that it may one day be\nfree--one day have a share in the general resurrection and consummate\nrevelation of God's glory; and for this last great day of future\ncreation Nature anxiously sighs, and yearns from her inmost soul.\"[29]\n\nI will now wind up this analysis with the following passage, in which\nthe distinctive peculiarities of the different parts of ontology are\nshortly stated: \"The distinctive characteristic of nature is sleep, or\nthe struggle between life and death; the distinctive characteristic of\nman is imagination (for reason is a more negative faculty); the\ndistinctive characteristic of the intelligences superior to man is\nrestless, eternal activity, implanted in the very constitution of their\nbeing; and the distinctive characteristic of the Deity, in relation to\nhis creatures, is infinite condescension.\"\n\nSuch is a brief summary of some of the principal observations in the\npsychological and ontological parts of the Philosophy of Life. And in\nthis summary it has been my intention not so much to give an analysis of\nthose parts, as to convey to the reader a clue for the better\nunderstanding of many passages in the work I have translated. The\nremaining parts of the \"Philosophy of Life\" are devoted to a variety of\nethical, political, and aesthetic reflections, which it is unnecessary to\nenter into here.\n\nScarce had Germany recovered from the enthusiasm which this work, (the\nPhilosophy of Life) excited; when its illustrious author delivered, in\nthe year 1828, the following course of Lectures on the \"_Philosophy of\nHistory_,\" which are now presented to the reader in an English garb.\nDefective as may be the medium through which the English reader becomes\nacquainted with this work, he will be enabled to form on it a more\nimpartial, as well as more enlightened, judgment than any the translator\ncould pronounce; and he will, therefore, only venture to observe that it\nhas been considered in every respect worthy of its author's high\nreputation.\n\nTowards the close of the year 1828, Schlegel repaired to Dresden; and\nthat city, where the torch of his early enthusiasm had been first\nkindled, was now to witness its final extinction. He delivered in this\ncity, before a numerous and distinguished auditory, nine lectures on the\n\"Philosophy of Language,\" (Philosophie der Sprache), wherein he\ndeveloped and expanded those philosophical views already laid down in\nhis \"Philosophy of Life.\" This work is even more metaphysical than the\none last named--with untiring wing, the author here sustains his flight\nthrough the sublimest regions of philosophy. This production displays at\ntimes a gigantic vastness of conception which almost appals--we might\nalmost say, that this mighty intelligence had in his ardent aspirations\nafter Immortality, burst his earthly fetters--or that Divine Providence,\njudging a degenerate world unworthy of hearing such sublime accents, had\ncalled him to continue his hymn in eternity. On Sunday, the 11th of\nJanuary, 1829, he was, between ten and eleven o'clock at night,\npreparing a lecture, which he was to deliver on the following Wednesday.\nHe had in his former lectures spoken of Time and Eternity--he had called\nTime a distraction of Eternity--he had adverted to those ecstacies of\ngreat Saints, which he called transitions to Eternity. He was now in\nthis lecture discoursing of the different degrees of knowledge\nattainable by man--of the perception--the notion--and the idea. He began\na sentence with these remarkable words:--\"Das ganz vollendete und\nvollkommne verstehen selbst aber\"--\"But the consummate and the perfect\nknowledge\"--when the hand of sickness arrested his pen. That consummate\nand perfect knowledge he himself was now destined to attain in another\nand a better world; for, at one o'clock on the same night, he breathed\nout his pure and harmonious soul to heaven.\n\nHis death, though sudden, was not unprovided. He had ever lived up to\nhis faith--through his writings there runs an under-current of calm,\nunostentatious piety; and I know no writer more deeply impressed with a\nsense of the loving agency of Providence. A gentleman, well acquainted\nwith some of his most intimate friends, has assured me that, for some\ntime prior to his death, he had prosecuted his devotional exercises with\nmore than ordinary fervour; and that on the morning of that Sunday on\nwhich his last illness seized him, he had been united to his Lord in the\nHoly Communion--a presage and an earnest, let us hope, of that intimate\nunion he was destined to enjoy in the long and cloudless day of\nEternity!\n\nThe melancholy news of his death, when conveyed to his distinguished\nfriend--Adam Mueller, then at Vienna, gave such a violent shock to his\nfeelings, that it brought on a stroke of apoplexy, which terminated his\nexistence. A chain of the most exalted sympathies had united those souls\nin life--what marvel if the electric stroke, which prostrated the one\nshould have laid low the other!\n\nFrederick Schlegel married early in life the daughter of the celebrated\nJewish philosopher Mendelsohn. This lady followed her husband in his\nchange of religion. Mrs. Schlegel is one of the most intellectual women\nin Germany--she is advantageously known to the literary world by her\nGerman translation of Madame de Stael's Corinne; and report has ascribed\nto her elegant pen several of the poems in her husband's collection.[30]\n\nIn conclusion, I will endeavour to recapitulate the obligations which\nliterature and science owe to the great man, whose literary biography I\nhave attempted to sketch.\n\nTo have, in common with his illustrious brother, established a system of\nbroad, comprehensive, synthetic criticism, by which the principles of\nancient and modern art were unfolded to view--by which we were\nintroduced into the intellectual laboratories of genius, made to assist\nat the birth of her mighty conceptions, and by whose plastic touch the\ngreat works of ancient and modern poetry were in a manner created\nanew:--to have unlocked the fountains of the old Germanic minstrelsy,\nand refreshed the poetry of his age with a new stream of fictions:--to\nhave been among the first to do for philology what the Stagyrite had\ndone for natural history; by classifying languages not according to\ntheir outward form, but their internal organization, not according to a\nspecious, though often delusive, etymology, but according to grammatical\nstructure: to have deciphered the mysterious wisdom of old days, and\nwith admirable tact to have caught the spirit of the primitive world, as\ndisclosed in its sagas and its symbols, its poetry and its philosophy:\nnext to have evoked from the dust the better philosophy of ancient\nGreece, and presented her venerable form to the renewed love and respect\nof mankind, partly by an admirable translation of portions of Plato,[31]\npartly by luminous critiques, and partly again by the example of his own\nphilosophy, in form as well as spirit so eminently Platonic: then, in\nthe field of modern history, to have traced the rise and progress of the\nEuropean states, the genius of their civil and political institutions,\nthe causes and effects of their moral and social revolutions, with an\nextent of learning, a spirit of impartiality, and a depth and\ncomprehensiveness of understanding, unsurpassed by preceding writers,\nand in his own age rivalled only by his illustrious countryman--Goerres:\nlastly, to have put the crowning glory to a life so full of glorious\nachievement by his last philosophical works, where a strong and broad\nlight is thrown upon the mysteries of psychology, where the most\nimportant questions of ontology are treated with equal boldness and\nsublimity of thought, and magnificence of fancy, while even on physics\nmany bright hints are thrown out, which a deeper science will know one\nday how to turn to account: such are the the services which this\nillustrious man has rendered to the cause of literature and philosophy.\nLiving in an age which is only an epoch of momentous transition from the\nadolescence to the virility of the human mind, he was evidently,\ntogether with some other chosen spirits of his time, the precursor of an\nera of Christian philosophy, when, to use the language of a young, but\nvery distinguished French writer,[32] \"the sterile dust of futile\nabstractions will be swept away, and the antique faith will appear\ncrowned with all the rays of science.\" \"Already,\" continues the writer\njust quoted, \"even infidel science, astonished at her own discoveries,\nwhich disconcert alike ideology and materialism, begins to suspect\n\n  \"There are more things in heaven and earth\n  Than are dreamt of in that philosophy.\"[33]\n\n\n\n\nTHE\n\nAUTHOR'S PREFACE.\n\n\nThe most important subject, and the first problem of philosophy, is the\nrestoration in man of the lost image of God; so far as this relates to\nscience.\n\nShould this restoration in the internal consciousness be fully\nunderstood and really brought about, the object of pure philosophy is\nattained.\n\nTo point out historically in reference to the whole human race, and in\nthe outward conduct and experience of life, the progress of this\nrestoration in the various periods of the world, constitutes the object\nof the Philosophy of History.\n\nIn this way, we shall clearly see how, in the first ages of the world,\nthe original word of Divine revelation formed the firm central point of\nfaith for the future re-union of the dispersed race of man; how later,\namid the various power, intellectual as well as political, which in the\nmiddle period of the world, all-ruling nations exerted on their times\naccording to the measure allotted to them, it was alone the power of\neternal love in the Christian religion which truly emancipated and\nredeemed mankind: and how, lastly, the pure light of this Divine truth,\nuniversally diffused through the world, and through all science--the\nterm of all Christian hope, and Divine promise, whose fulfilment is\nreserved for the last period of consummation--crowns in conclusion the\nprogress of this restoration.\n\nWhy the progress of this restoration in human history, according to the\nword, the power, and the light of God, as well as the struggle against\nall that was opposed to this Divine principle in humanity, can be\nclearly described and pointed out only by a vivid sketch of the\ndifferent nations, and particular periods of the world; I have alleged\nthe reasons in various passages of the present work. With this view, I\nhave, for the purpose of my present undertaking, availed myself, as far\nas these discoveries lay within my reach, of the rich acquisitions which\nthe recent historical researches of the last ten years have furnished\nfor the better understanding of the primitive world, its spirit, its\nlanguages, and its monuments. Besides the well-known names mentioned\nwith gratitude in the text, of Champollion, Abel Remusat, Colebrooke, my\nbrother, Augustus William Von Schlegel, the two Barons Humboldt; and\nfor what relates to natural history, G. H. Schubert; I have to name with\nthe utmost commendation for the section on China, Windischmann's\nPhilosophy; and for what relates to the Hebrew Traditions, drawn from\nthe esoteric doctrines and other Jewish sources of information, which\nare here most copiously used, I have been much indebted to a very\nvaluable work which appeared at Frankfort, 1827, entitled \"The\nPhilosophy of Tradition,\" and which reflects the highest honour on its\nanonymous author.[34] To these I might add the names of Niebuhr, and\nRaumer; but in the later periods of history, we are not so much\nconcerned about new researches on certain special points as about a\nright comparison of things already known, and a just conception of the\nwhole. In the Philosophy of History, historical events can and ought to\nbe not so much matter of discussion, as matter for example and\nillustration; and if on those points, where the researches of the\nlearned into antiquity are as yet incomplete, any historical particulars\nshould, in despite of my utmost diligence, have been imperfectly\nconceived or represented, yet the main result, I trust, will in no case\nbe thereby materially impaired.\n\nThe following sketch of the subject will shew the order of the Lectures,\nand give a general insight into the plan of the work. The first two\nLectures embrace, along with the Introduction, the question of man's\nrelation towards the earth, the division of mankind into several\nnations, and the two-fold condition of humanity in the primitive world.\n\nThe subjects discussed in the seven succeeding Lectures are as\nfollows:--the antiquity of China, and the general system of her\nempire--the mental culture, moral and political institutions, and\nphilosophy of the Hindoos--the science and corruption of Egypt--the\nselection of the Hebrew people for the maintenance of Divine revelation\nin its purity--the destinies and special guidance of that nation--next\nan account of those nations of classical antiquity, to whom were\nassigned a mighty historical power, and a paramount influence over the\nworld--such as the Persians, with their Nature-worship, their manners,\nand their conquests--the Greeks, with the spirit of their science, and\ndominion--and the Romans, together with the universal empire which they\nwere the first to establish in Europe. The next five Lectures treat of\nChristianity, its consolidation and wider diffusion throughout the\nworld--of the emigration of the German tribes, and its consequences--and\nof the Saracenic empire in the brilliant age of the first Caliphs. Then\nfollows an account of the various epochs and the various stages of the\nprogress which the modern European nations have made in science and\ncivil polity, according to their use and application of the light of\ntruth vouchsafed to them. So the subjects here treated are--the\nestablishment of a Christian imperial dignity in the old German\nempire--the great schism of the West, and the struggles of the middle\nage and the period of the Crusades, down to the discovery of the New\nWorld, and the new awakening of science. The three following Lectures\nare devoted to the Religious Wars, the period of Illuminism, and the\ntime of the French Revolution.\n\nThe eighteenth and concluding Lecture turns on the prevailing spirit of\nthe age, and on the universal regeneration of society.\n\nWe have yet to make the following observations with respect to this\nundertaking, in which we have attempted to lay the foundations of a new\ngeneral Philosophy.\n\nThe first awakening and excitement of human consciousness to the true\nperception and knowledge of truth has been already unfolded in my work\non \"the Philosophy of Life.\"\n\nTo point out now the progressive restoration in humanity of the effaced\nimage of God, according to the gradation of grace in the various periods\nof the world, from the revelation of the beginning, down to the middle\nrevelation of redemption and love, and from the latter to the last\nconsummation, is the object of this Philosophy of History.\n\nA third work, treating of the science of thought in the department of\nfaith and nature, will with more immediate reference to the Philosophy\nof Language, comprehend the complete restoration of consciousness,\naccording to the triple divine principle.\n\nIt is my wish that this work should as soon as circumstances will\npermit, speedily follow the two works \"The Philosophy of Life,\" and \"The\nPhilosophy of History,\" now presented to the Public.\n\n\n  _Vienna, Sept. 6th, 1828._\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS\n\nOF VOL. I.\n\n\n  Memoir of the Literary Life of Frederick Von Schlegel.      iii\n\n  Author's Preface.      lxxix\n\n  LECTURE I.\n\n  INTRODUCTION.\n\n  LECTURE II.\n\n  On the dispute in primitive history, and on the division of\n  the human race.      40\n\n  LECTURE III.\n\n  Of the Constitution of the Chinese Empire.--The moral\n  and political condition of China.--The character of Chinese\n  intellect and Chinese science.      86\n\n  LECTURE IV.\n\n  Of the Institutions of the Indians.--The Brahminical caste,\n  and the hereditary priesthood.--Of the doctrine of the\n  transmigration of souls, considered as the basis of Indian\n  life, and of Indian philosophy.      126\n\n  LECTURE V.\n\n  A comparative view of the intellectual character of the\n  four principal nations in the primitive world--the Indians,\n  the Chinese, the Egyptians, and the Hebrews;\n  next of the peculiar spirit and political relations of the\n  ancient Persians.      167\n\n  LECTURE VI.\n\n  Of the Hindoo Philosophy.--Dissertation on Languages.--Of\n  the peculiar political Constitution and Theocratic Government\n  of the Hebrews.--Of the Mosaic Genealogy of\n  Nations.      202\n\n  LECTURE VII.\n\n  General considerations upon the nature of man, regarded\n  in a historical point of view, and on the two-fold view\n  of history.--Of the ancient Pagan Mysteries.--Of the\n  universal Empire of Persia.      245\n\n  LECTURE VIII.\n\n  Variety of Grecian life and intellect.--State of education and of\n  the fine arts among the Greeks.--The origin of their philosophy and\n  natural science.--Their political degeneracy. 281\n\n  LECTURE IX.\n\n  Character of the Romans.--Sketch of their conquests.--On\n  strict law, and the law of equity in its application to\n  History, and according to the idea of divine justice.--Commencement\n  of the Christian dispensation.      318\n\n\n  ERRATUM.\n\n  At the 7th line from the top of page xxxviii (Life of Schlegel)\n  instead of \"put forth by party spirit,\" read \"put forth by ignorance\n  or party spirit.\"\n\n\n\n\nPHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY.\n\nLECTURE I.\n\nINTRODUCTION.\n\n    \"And the earth was without form, and void, and darkness was upon\n    the face of the deep; but the Spirit of God moved upon the face\n    of the waters.\" GEN. i. 2.\n\n\nBy philosophy of history must not be understood a series of remarks or\nideas upon history, formed according to any concerted system, or train\nof arbitrary hypotheses attached to facts. History cannot be separated\nfrom facts, and depends entirely on reality; and thus the Philosophy of\nhistory, as it is the spirit or idea of history, must be deduced from\nreal historical events, from the faithful record and lively narration of\nfacts--it must be the pure emanation of the great whole--the one\nconnected whole of history, and for the right understanding of this\nconnexion a clear arrangement is an essential condition and an important\naid. For although this great edifice of universal history, where the\nconclusion at least is still wanting, is in this respect incomplete, and\nappears but a mighty fragment of which even particular parts are less\nknown to us than others;--yet is this edifice sufficiently advanced, and\nmany of its great wings and members are sufficiently unfolded to our\nview, to enable us, by a lucid arrangement of the different periods of\nhistory, to gain a clear insight into the general plan of the whole.\n\nIt is thus my intention to render as intelligible as I possibly can the\ngeneral results and the connection of all the past transactions in the\nhistory of the human race; to form a true judgment on the particular\nportions or sections of history, according to their intrinsic nature and\nreal value in reference to the general progress of mankind, carefully\ndistinguishing what was injurious, what advantageous, and what\nindifferent; and thereby, as far as is possible to the limited\nperceptions of man, to comprehend in some degree that mighty whole. This\nperception--this comprehension--this right discernment of the great\nevents and general results of universal history, is what might be termed\na science of history; and I would have here preferred that term, were it\nnot liable to much misconception, and might have been understood as\nreferring more to special and learned inquiries, than the other name I\nhave adopted to denote the nature of the present work.\n\nIf we would seize and comprehend the general outline of history, we must\nkeep our eye steadily upon it; and must not suffer our attention to be\nconfused by details, or drawn off by the objects immediately surrounding\nus. Judging from the feelings of the present, nothing so nearly concerns\nour interests as the matter of peace or war; and this is natural, as in\na practical point of view they are both affairs of the highest moment;\nwhile the courageous and successful conduct of the one insures the\nhighest degree of glory, and the solid establishment and lasting\nmaintenance of the other may be considered as the greatest problem of\npolitical art and human wisdom. But it is otherwise in universal\nhistory, when this is conceived in a comprehensive and enlarged spirit.\nThen the remotest Past, the highest antiquity, is as much entitled to\nour attention as the passing events of the day, or the nearest concerns\nof our own time.\n\nWhen a war, indeed, carried on more than two thousand years ago, in\nwhich the belligerent parties have long since ceased to exist, when\nevery thing has been since changed--when a long series of historical\ncatastrophes has intervened between that period and our own; when such a\nwarfare, offering as it does but at best a remote analogy to the\ncircumstances of nearer times, and consequently possessing no immediate\ninterest, has been investigated by the mighty intellect of a Thucydides,\npourtrayed by him in the highest style of eloquence, and unfolded to our\nview with the most consummate knowledge of mankind, of public life, and\nof the most intimate relations of Government; such a warfare then\nretains a permanent interest, and is a lasting source of instruction. We\nlove to dive into the minutest details of an event so widely removed\nfrom us--and such a study is to be regarded and prized as highly useful,\nwere it only as an exercise of historical reflection, and a school of\npolitical science. This remark will equally hold good, when the internal\nfeuds of a less powerful state have been analyzed and laid open by the\nacute perspicacity and delicate discrimination of a Machiavelli. And\nstill more, perhaps, when a great system of pacification, like that\nwhich Augustus gave, or promised to give to the whole civilized world,\nand established for a certain period at least, has been fathomed by the\nsearching eye of a Tacitus, and by his masterly hand delineated in its\nulterior progress and remoter effects; shewing, as he does, how that\nsurface, apparently so calm, concealed numberless sources of\ndisquiet--an abyss of crime and destruction--how that evil principle in\nthe degenerate government of Rome became more and more apparent, and,\nunder a succession of wicked rulers, broke out into paroxysms more and\nmore fearful.\n\nAs a school of political science and historical reflection, the study of\nthese and similar classical historical works is of inestimable\nadvantage. But independently of this, and considered merely in\nthemselves, all those countless battles--those endless, and even, for\nthe greater part, useless wars, of which the long succession fills up\nfor so many thousand years the annals of all nations, are but little\natoms compared with the great whole of human destiny. The same, with a\nslight distinction, will hold good of so many celebrated treaties of\npeace in past ages, when these have lost all interest for real life and\nthe present order of things;--treaties, which though brought about by\ngreat labour, and upheld by consummate art, were yet internally\ndefective, and sooner or later, and often quickly enough, fell to pieces\nand were destroyed.\n\nFrom all these descriptions of ancient wars, and treaties of peace, no\nlonger applicable or of interest to the present world or present order\nof things, historical philosophy can deduce but one, though by no means\nunimportant, result. It is this--that the internal discord, innate in\nman and in the human race, may easily and at every moment break out into\nreal and open strife--nay, that peace itself--that immutable object of\nhigh political art, when regarded from this point of view, appears to be\nnothing else than a war retarded or kept under by human dexterity; for\nsome secret disposition--some diseased political matter, is almost ever\nat hand to call it into existence. In the same way as a scientific\nphysician regards the health of the body, or its right temperature, as a\nhappy equipoise--a middle line not easy to be observed between two\ncontending evils--we must ever expect in such an organic imperfection a\ntendency to, or the seeds of, disease in one shape or another.\n\nPolitical events form but one part, and not the whole, of human history.\nA knowledge of details, however great and various it may be, constitutes\nno science in the philosophic sense of the word, for it is in the right\nand comprehensive conception of the whole that science consists.\n\nAs the greater part of the nine hundred millions of men on the whole\nsurface of the earth, according to the highest estimate of a hazardous\ncalculation, are born, live and die, without a history of them being\npossible, or without their reckoning a fraction in the general\nhistory--so that the extremely small number of those called historical\nmen, forms but a rare exception--so there are nations and countries,\nwhich in a general comparative survey of nations, serve but as a mark or\nevidence of some particular stage of civilization, without of themselves\nholding any place in the general history of our species, or conducing to\nthe social progress of mankind, or possessing any weight or importance\nin the scale of humanity.\n\nThere is a point of view, indeed, from which the matter appears under a\ndifferent aspect, and is really different. To the all-seeing eye of\nProvidence, every human life, however brief its duration, however\napparently insignificant, presents a point of internal development and\ncrisis, consequently a species of history, cognizable and visible to\nthat Eye only, and therefore not entirely without an object. But this\npoint of view belongs to another order of things, and is no longer\nhistorical--it has reference to the immortal destinies of the human\nsoul, and the connection of the present life with another world\ninvisible to us. But our historical science is limited to the department\nof man's present existence; and in our historical enquiries we must not\nlose sight of this principle.\n\nBut the internal development of mind, so far as it is historical,\nbelongs as much as the external events of politics to the department of\nhuman history, and must by no means be excluded from it. Among these\nrare exceptions of historical men, must be named that ancient master of\nhuman acuteness who was the teacher of Alexander the Great, and who\nperhaps holds not an humbler or less important place in this exalted\nsphere than the conqueror himself, although this philosopher, whose\ngenius embraced nature, the world and life, was by his own\ncontemporaries less honoured and celebrated than by a remote posterity.\nHere in our western world, and long after the kingdoms founded by the\nMacedonian conqueror had disappeared, and were forgotten, Aristotle for\nmany centuries reigned the absolute lord of the Christian schools, and\ndirected the march of human science and human speculation in the middle\nage. Whether he were always rightly understood and studied in the right\nway is another question, for here we are speaking of his overruling\ninfluence and historical importance. Nay, in later times, he has\nmaterially served the cause of the better natural philosophy founded on\nexperience, in which he himself accomplished things so extraordinary for\nhis age, and was originally, and for a long while, the guide and master.\n\nThe first fundamental rule of historical science and research, when by\nthese is sought a knowledge of the general destinies of mankind, is to\nkeep these and every object connected with them steadily in view,\nwithout losing ourselves in the details of special enquiries and\nparticular facts, for the multitude and variety of these subjects is\nabsolutely boundless; and on the ocean of historical science the main\nsubject easily vanishes from the eye. In history, as in every branch of\nmental culture, the first elementary school--instruction is not merely\nan important, but an essential, condition to a higher and more\nscientific knowledge. At first indeed it is merely a nomenclature of\ncelebrated personages and events--a sketch of the great historical eras,\ndivided according to chronological dates, or a geographical plan--which\nmust be impressed on the memory, and which serves as a basis preparatory\nto that more vivid and comprehensive knowledge to be obtained in riper\nyears. Thus this first knowledge stored up in the memory, and necessary\nfor methodizing and arranging the mass of historical learning to be\nafterwards acquired, is more a preparation for the study of history,\nthan the real science of history itself. In the higher grades of\nacademic instruction, the lessons on history must vary with each one's\ncalling and pursuits--one course of historical reading is necessary for\nthe Theologian, another for the lawyer or civilian. To the physician,\nand in general to the naturalist, natural history, and what in the\nhistory of man is most akin to that science, will ever be the most\ncaptivating. And the philologist will find a boundless field for enquiry\nin special antiquarian researches, particularly now when, in addition to\nclassical learning and the more common oriental tongues, the languages\nand historical antiquities of the remoter nations of Asia have attracted\nthe attention of European scholars, and the original sources are\nbecoming every day more accessible.\n\nEven the sphere of modern political history, from which for the\npractical business of government so much is to be learned, will be found\nequally extensive--when, besides the modern classical works, we look to\nthe countless multitude of private memoirs and other historical and\npolitical writings; especially at a time and in a world where even\nperiodical publications and newspapers have become a power and an art or\na science, and society itself falls more and more under the sway of\njournalism. If in this department of politics and statistics, we add\nalso the number of unprinted documents, we shall find that the archives\nof many a state would alone furnish occupation for more than a man's\nlife.\n\nIn all such special departments of historical science, the great whole\nof history is made subordinate to some secondary object; and this cannot\nbe otherwise. It may even be advantageous for the profounder knowledge\nand more skilful exposition of universal history that we should\nseriously investigate some particular branch of history; and, in a\nscience so various, select some special subject for more minute enquiry;\nbut this can never be done without some decided predilection--some\nalmost party bias towards the subject. Yet such special enquiries are\nonly preparatory or auxiliary to the general science or philosophy of\nhistory--but not that science itself. Thus at the outset of my literary\ncareer, I devoted a considerable time to a very minute study of the\nGreeks--[35] and subsequently I applied myself to the Hindoo language\nand philosophy, at that time more difficult of access than at the\npresent day.[36] In the struggles of life, and amid the public dangers\nof our times, I was alive to a patriotic feeling for the history of my\nown country, and recent times; and, perhaps, there are some among my\npresent hearers who remember the historical lectures I delivered in this\nspirit eighteen years ago in this imperial city.[37] It is now my wish,\nand the object I propose to myself, to discard all antiquarian, oriental\nor European predilections for particular branches of history, and to\nunfold to view, and render completely clear and intelligible, the great\nedifice of universal history in all its parts, members and degrees.\n\nThe first fundamental rule here laid down, with respect to the mode of\ntreating general history--namely to keep the attention fixed on the main\nsubject, and not to let it be distracted or dissipated by a number of\nminute details--concerned more the method of historical science. The\nsecond rule regards the subject and purport of history, and stands in\nmore immediate connexion with the first portion of this work--that\nrelating to primitive history. This second fundamental rule of\nhistorical science may be thus simply expressed:--we should not wish to\nexplain every thing. Historical tradition must never be abandoned in the\nphilosophy of history--otherwise we lose all firm ground and footing.\nBut historical tradition, ever so accurately conceived and carefully\nsifted, doth not always, especially in the early and primitive ages,\nbring with it a full and demonstrative certainty. In such cases, we have\nnothing to do but to record, as it is given, the best and safest\ntestimony which tradition, so far as we have it, can afford; supposing\neven that some things in that testimony appear strange, obscure and even\nenigmatical; and perhaps a comparison with some other part of historical\nscience--or, if I may so speak, stream of tradition, will unexpectedly\nlead to the solution of the difficulty. Extremely hazardous is the\ndesire to explain every thing, and to supply whatever appears a gap in\nhistory--for in this propensity lies the first cause and germ of all\nthose violent and arbitrary hypotheses which perplex and pervert the\nscience of history far more than the open avowal of our ignorance, or\nthe uncertainty of our knowledge: hypotheses which give an oblique\ndirection, or an exaggerated and false extension, to a view of the\nsubject originally not incorrect. And even if there are points which\nappear not very clear to us, or which we leave unexplained--this will\nnot prevent us from comprehending, so far at least as the limited\nconception of man is able, the great outline of human history, though\nhere and there a gap should remain.\n\nThis matter will be best explained by an example that will bring us at\nonce to the subject we propose to treat. Let us imagine some bold\nNavigators (and what we here suppose by way of example has more than\nonce actually occurred) touching at some island inhabited by wild\nsavages in the midst of the great ocean between America and Eastern\nAsia. This island lies, we suppose, at a very great distance from either\nContinent, and the same will hold good of it, though there be a group of\nislands. These savages have but miserable fishing-boats made of hollow\ntrunks of trees, by which it is not easy to conceive how they could have\nbeen transported so far. The question now naturally occurs how has this\nrace of men come hither?--\n\nA Pagan natural philosophy, which even now dares often enough to raise\nits voice, would be very ready with its answer: \"There, it would say,\nyou see plainly how every thing has sprung from the pap of the\nearth--the primitive slime--there is no need of the far-fetched idea of\nan imaginary Creator--these self-existing men of the earth--these well\nknown autocthones of the ancients--these true sons of nature--have risen\nup or crawled out of the fruitful slime of the earth.\"\n\nA deeper physiological science would, independently of every other\nconsideration, and looking merely to the natural organization of man,\nscout this wild chaotic hypothesis respecting his origin from slime. For\nthis organic frame of the human body, which has become a body of death,\nis still endowed with many and wonderful powers, and still encloses the\nhidden light of its celestial origin.--Without, however, entering\nfurther into this enquiry, which falls not within the limits here\nprescribed, let us rather tacitly believe that although, as the ancient\nhistory saith, man was formed out of the slime of the earth; yet it was\nby the same Hand which invisibly conducts each individual through life,\nand has more than once rescued all mankind from the brink of the abyss,\nthat his marvellous body was framed, into which the Maker himself\nbreathed the immortal spirit of life. This divine in-dwelling spark in\nman, the Heathens themselves, notwithstanding the opinion about the\nautocthones, recognized in the beautiful tradition or fiction of\nPrometheus; and many of their first spirits, philosophers, orators and\npoets, and grave and moral teachers, have in one form or another, and\nunder a variety of figurative expressions, borne frequent and loud and\nrepeated testimony to the truth of a higher spirit, a divine flame,\nanimating the breast of man. This universal faith in the heavenly\nPromethean light--or as we should rather say, this spark of our\nbosoms--is the only thing we must here pre-suppose, and from which all\nour historical deductions must be taken. With the opposite\ndoctrine--with the absolute unbelief in all which constitutes man really\nman--no history, and no science of history, is possible; and this is the\nonly remark we shall here oppose to an infidelity that denies the\nexistence of every thing high and godly. For the question respecting the\ncreation of man, or as atheism terms it, the first springing up of the\nhuman race, is beyond the limits of history, and must be left to the\ndecision of revelation and faith; for the question can be reached by no\nhistory, no science of history--no historical research. History begins,\nas this will be presently shown, with man's second step; which\nimmediately follows his concealed origin antecedent to all history.\n\nTo recur now to the example already given of an island situated in the\nmiddle of the ocean, with its savage inhabitants and their miserable\nfishing-boats--the real solution, as experience has really proved, of\nthis apparent difficulty is, on a nearer acquaintance with the subject,\neasily found. If, for example, the language and traditions of this rude,\nsavage, or at least degraded, tribe, are minutely studied and\ninvestigated, then so striking a resemblance and affinity will be found\nwith the languages and traditions of the races in either of the remotely\nsituated continents, that the most sceptical mind will hardly entertain\na doubt respecting the common origin of both; for this community in\nlanguage and traditions is too strong, too strikingly evident, to be\nascribed with any degree of probability to the sport of accident. This\ntruth now once firmly established, (for a community of language,\ntradition and race among all the nations of the earth is a truth almost\nunanimously received and acknowledged by those historical enquirers most\nversed in nature, and most learned in philology of the present age,) it\nbecomes a mere matter of indifference, or one at least of minor\nimportance, how and in what way this originally savage, or at least\nbarbarized tribe first arrived hither; and it were a mere waste of\nlabour to select, among the hundred conceivable or inconceivable\naccidents and possibilities which may have occasioned or led to this\narrival, any particular one as the best explanation, and to found\nthereon some ingenious hypothesis, how the land on both sides may have\nbeen differently situated, before a closer connexion with this little\nisland was broken off by the destructive floods; or in which of the last\ngreat catastrophes of the earth that disjunction may have taken place.\nWe may leave such conjectures to themselves, and, satisfied with the\nmain result, proceed further in the historical investigation and survey\nof the earth. For, in truth, the earth's surface more narrowly and\ncarefully examined, furnishes in reference to man and his primitive\nhistory, far other and weightier problems than those involved in the\nexample first selected.\n\nIt is generally known that in a great many places situated in various\nparts of the earth, in the interior of mountains and even on plains,\nsometimes near the surface, and sometimes at a greater or less depth in\nthe interior of mountainous chains rising to a very great elevation\nabove the level of the sea, there are found whole strata of scattered\nbones belonging to animal species either actually existing, or which\nformerly existed and are now totally extinct--the chaotic remains of an\nall destroying inundation that immediately remind us of the general\ntradition respecting the great Flood. In other places again extensive\nlayers of coral, sea-shells, marine plants, and other products of the\nsea, imbedded in the firm soil, prove these tracts of land to have been\nan ancient bottom of the sea. According to all appearance, these are not\nonly monuments of one great natural revolution, but these elemental\ngigantic sepulchres of the primitive world offer to the mind many and\nvarious problems which more nearly, indeed, regard the earth, but as\nthat planet is the habitation of man, have in consequence an indirect,\nbut proximate, reference to mankind and their earliest history. A single\nexample will best serve to point out among so many things, which are no\nlonger perhaps susceptible of explanation, that which is of most moment\nto the historian; as well as the limits within which he should keep.\n\nNot long back, about nine years ago, a cave was discovered in the county\nof Yorkshire in England, filled for the most part with the bones and\nskeletons of hyaenas, of the same species now found in the southernmost\npoint of Africa--the Cape of Good Hope. These bones were intermixed with\nthose of tigers, bears, wolves, as also of elephants, rhinosceri, and\nother animals, among which were found the remains of the old large deer,\nthat is not now to be met with in England. The profound Naturalist,\nSchubert, whom, in subjects of this kind, I willingly take for my guide,\nobserves in his natural history with respect to this newly discovered\ncavern (which evidently belongs to another, long extinct, and anterior\nworld of nature); that the opinion which would make a whole stratum of\nbones to have been swept thither by floods in so sound a state, and from\nso remote a distance, is perfectly inadmissible. He shews it to be much\nmore probable that this cave was the den of a troop of hyaenas, which had\ndragged thither the bones of the other animals; for this fell and\nrapacious animal feeds by preference on bones, which it knows how to\nbreak, as it is in the habit of raking up dead bodies.--What an immense\ninterval separates that now highly civilized state--those flourishing\nprovinces--that country abounding, and almost overteeming with all the\nfruits of human industry, with all the productions of mechanic\nskill;--that cultivated garden, that Island-Queen, the mistress of every\nsea;--what an immense interval separates her from those savage times,\nwhen troops of hyaenas prowled about the land, together with the other\ngigantic animals of the southern zone, and tropic clime!\n\nThus it is natural to suppose that in one of the last great revolutions\nof nature the climate of the earth has undergone a total change; and\nthat originally the now icy north enjoyed a glowing warmth, a rich\nfertility, and all the fulness of luxuriant life. A number of still more\ndecisive facts declare for this supposition, or, to speak more properly,\nthis certainty; since we discover in the upper parts of Northern Asia,\nand in general throughout the Polar regions, entire forests of palm in\nthe subterraneous strata, as also well-preserved remains of whole herds\nof elephants, and of many other kindred species of animals now totally\nextinct. Long before most of these facts were discovered, Leibnitz had\nconjectured that originally the earth in general, even in the north,\nenjoyed a much warmer temperature than in the present period of\nall-ruling and progressive frost; and Buffon and others have established\non this idea their hypothesis of a vast central fire in the interior of\nthe earth. The interior parts of the earth and its internal depths are a\nregion totally impervious to the eye of mortal man, and can least of all\nbe approached by those ordinary paths of hypothesis adopted by\nnaturalists and geologists. The region designed for the existence of\nman, and of every other creature endowed with organic life, as well as\nthe sphere open to the preception of man's senses, is confined to a\nlimited space between the upper and lower parts of the earth,\nexceedingly small in proportion to the diameter, or even semi-diameter\nof the earth, and forming only the exterior surface, or outer skin, of\nthe great body of the earth. Even at a very slight depth below the\nearth's surface, all change of seasons ceases, and an even temperature\neternally prevails, approximating rather to cold, than living heat. Yet\non this side the earth is more easy of access than in the upper regions,\nwhere not only the higher Alps and glaciers are the last attainable\nlimit to human daring, but even the pure ether of the supernal\natmosphere made an aeronaut, celebrated for his disaster, learn at his\nown cost, how very near is that boundary where, in deadening cold, all\nlife and all observation cease. It is in the physical, as in the moral\nworld--where light and heat should exist, there two things are\nnecessary--a power to give light and communicate heat, and a substance\ncapable of receiving and absorbing the one and the other. Where either\ncondition is wanting, there reigns eternal darkness, and deadly and\neternal cold; and so the fact, that the whole action of heat, and of all\nthe life it produces, is confined entirely to this lower atmosphere,\nshould awake attention rather than create surprise. In all matters, even\nof this sort, we cannot be too mindful of the necessity of confining our\nresearches to that small narrowly circumscribed sphere inhabited by man,\nand of never exceeding those limits.\n\nThus to explain the fact that the habitable earth has not, as\noriginally, so warm a temperature as the north, we need not have\nrecourse to any supposition of a central fire suddenly extinguished,\nlike an oven that becomes cold, or to any other violent hypothesis of\nthe same kind; for this fact may be sufficiently accounted for by the\nlast great revolution of Nature--the general deluge, which as may be\nassumed with great probability, produced a change in the heretofore much\npurer, balmier, and more genial atmosphere. That, towards the equator,\nthe position of the earth's axis has undergone a change, and that\nthereby this great revolution in the earth's climate was occasioned, is\nindeed a bare possibility; but until further proof, this must be\nregarded as a purely gratuitous hypothesis. But without subscribing to\nthese fanciful suppositions, and mathematical theories, and without\nwishing to penetrate, with some geologists, into the hidden depths of\nthe earth in quest of an imagined central fire, we shall find on the\ninhabited surface of the globe, or very near it, many proofs and\nindications of the once superior energy of the principle of fire--a\nprinciple whereof volcanoes whether subsisting or extinct, and the\nkindred phenomena of earthquakes, may be considered the last feeble,\nsurviving effects; for not basalt only, but porphyry, granite, and in\ngeneral all the primary rocks, and those which, according to the\nclassifications of geologists, are more immediately akin to them, can be\nproved to be of a volcanic nature with as much certainty, as we can\ntrace, in the horizontal secondary formations, the destructive influence\nand operation of the element of water. Hence this layer of\nsubterraneous, though now in general slumbering fire, with all its\nvolcanic arteries and veins of earthquakes, may once have been as widely\ndiffused over the surface of the globe as the element of water, now\noccupying so large a portion of that surface. As volcanic rocks exist in\nthe ocean, or rather at its bottom, and as their eruptions burst through\nthe body of waters up to the surface of the sea; as their volcanic\nagency gives birth to earthquakes, and not unfrequently raises and\nheaves up new islands from the depths of the ocean; naturalists have\nconcluded, with reason from these various facts, that the volcanic basis\nof the earth's surface though tolerably near, must still be somewhat\ndeeper than the bottom of the sea. And without stopping to examine the\nhypothesis relative to the immeasurable depth of the ocean, the opinion\nwhich fixes the earth's basis at about 30,000 feet, or one geographical\nmile and a half below the surface of the sea, does not exceed the modest\nlimits of a well-considered probability. In the present period of the\nglobe, water is the predominant element on the earth's surface. But if\nthat volcanic power which lies deeper in the bosom of the earth, and the\nkindred principle of fire, had at an earlier epoch of nature, the same\ninfluence and operation on the earth, as water afterwards had; we can\nwell imagine such an influence to have materially affected the lower\natmosphere, and to have rendered the climate of the earth, even in the\nNorth, totally different from what it is at present.\n\nThe strata of bones formed by the old flood, and the buried remains of a\nformer race of animals, call forth a remark, which is not without\nimportance in respect to the primitive history of man:--it is, that\namong the many bones of other large and small land animals, which form\nof themselves a rich and varied collection of the subterraneous products\nof nature, the fossile remains of man are scarcely any where to be\nfound. It has sometimes happened that what were at first considered the\nbones of human giants have been afterwards proved to have been those of\nanimals. It is so very rare an instance to meet in fossile remains with\na real human bone, skull, jaw-bone or entire human skeleton (as in one\nparticular instance was found enclosed in a lime-stone, mixed with some\nfew utensils and instruments of the primitive world, such as a\nstone-knife, a copper axe, an iron club, and a dagger of a very ancient\nform, together with some human bones); that the very rareness of the\nexception serves only to confirm the general rule. Were we from this\nfact immediately to draw the conclusion that during all those\nrevolutions of nature mankind had not yet existence, such an hypothesis\nwould be rash, groundless, completely at variance with history--one to\nwhich many even physical objections, too long to detail here, might be\nopposed. That so very few, and indeed scarcely any human bones are to be\nfound among the fossile remains of the primitive world, may possibly be\nowing to the circumstance that by the very artificial, hot, and highly\nseasoned food of men, their bones, from their chemical nature and\nqualities, are more liable to destruction than those of other animals. I\nmay here repeat what I have already had occasion to remark, and what is\nhere of especial importance, as applying particularly to the history and\ncircumstances of the primitive world;--namely, that all things are not\nsusceptible of an entire, satisfactory, and absolutely certain\nexplanation; and that yet we may form a tolerably correct conception of\ngeneral facts; though many of the particulars may remain for a time\nunexplained, or at least not capable of a full explanation. So on the\nother hand, it would be premature, and little conformable to the grave\ncircumspection of the historian, to reduce all those natural\ncatastrophes (the vouching monuments and mysterious inscriptions of\nwhich are now daily disclosed to the eye of Science as she explores the\ndeep sepulchres of the earth)--to reduce, I say, all those natural\ncatastrophes exclusively to the one nearest to the historical times, and\nwhich indeed is attested by the clear, unanimous tradition of all, or at\nleast of most ancient nations; for several mighty and violent,\nrevolutions of nature, of various kinds, though of a less general\nextent, may possibly have happened, and very probably did really happen\nsimultaneously with, or subsequently, or even previously to the last\ngeneral flood.\n\nThe irruption of the Black Sea into the Thracian Bosphorus is regarded\nby very competent judges in such matters, as an event perfectly\nhistorical, or at least, from its proximity to the historical times, as\nnot comparatively of so primitive a date. A celebrated Northern\nnaturalist has shewn it to be extremely probable, that the Caspian Sea,\nand the lake Aral were originally united with the Euxine, and that on\nthe other hand the North Sea extended very far over land, and even near\nto those regions, leaving some marine plants very different from those\nof the Southern Seas. The sea originally must have stretched much\nfarther over the earth and even over many places where now is dry land,\nas may easily be inferred from the great and extensive salt-steppes in\nAsia, Africa, and some parts of Eastern Europe, which furnish many and\nirrefragable proofs that the land was once occupied by the sea.\n\nAll these great physical changes are not necessarily and exclusively to\nbe ascribed to the last general deluge. The presumed irruption of the\nMediterranean into the ocean, as well as many other mere partial\nrevolutions in the earth and sea, may have occurred much later and quite\napart from this great event. The original magnificence of the climate of\nthe North, as displayed in the luxuriant richness of all organic\nproductions, is commemorated in many traditions of the primitive\nnations, especially those of Southern Asia; and in these sagas, the\nNorth is ever made the subject of uncommon eulogy. That the North enjoys\na certain natural pre-eminence appears to be matter of certainty, and to\nbe even susceptible of scientific demonstration. The northern and\nsouthern extremities of our planet appear at least to be very unlike, if\nwe judge the terraqueous globe according to the present state of\ngeographical knowledge. While the old and new continents, the north of\nAsia and of America, extend in long and wide tracts of land high up\ntowards the North Pole, so that the boundaries of land cannot be every\nwhere perfectly defined; water is the predominant element around the\ncolder South Pole, towards which even the southernmost point of America,\nand the remotest Island of Polynesia--the extreme verge of land--make no\nnear approach; and beyond these points, so far as the boldest navigators\nhave been able to penetrate, they have discovered only sea and ice, and\nno where a real Polar region of any great extent. Thus the South Pole is\nthe cold and watery side, or as we should say in dynamics, the negative\nand weaker end of the earth's body, while the North Pole on the other\nhand appears to be the positive and stronger extremity; for, though the\ncentre of the earth's magnetic attraction and magnetic life, accords not\nmathematically with the northern point, yet it lies at no very great\ndistance from it. In other phenomena of nature, too, the real seat and\nprinciple of life will be found, not at the mathematical point, but a\nlittle removed from it.\n\nAnother circumstance worthy of consideration is, that the Northern\nfirmament possesses by far the largest and most brilliant\nconstellations, and that though the Southern firmament is embellished by\nits own, they are neither in the same number, nor of the same beauty. To\nthe impressions made by such objects, the men of the primitive ages were\ncertainly far more alive than those of the present day; and an obscure\nfeeling for nature, grounded on the real natural superiority of the\nNorth, as well as the poetical sagas which were in part the natural\noffspring of such feelings, may have contributed to direct the stream of\nthe first migrations of nations towards the North, and have occasioned\nthe very early colonization and settlement of its regions: for, in\nprimitive antiquity, a certain presentient instinct, it is right to\nsuppose, was much oftener the primary cause of those migrations than\nsuch a spirit of commercial speculation as afterwards animated the\nPhoenicians and their various colonies. We may here also observe that\neven in its present state, the remoter North has its own peculiar charms\nand advantages, and that by human industry it may attain to a much\nhigher degree of productiveness, than we should be at first-sight\ntempted to suppose. In this sense ought to be taken the tradition of\nantiquity, as to the happy and virtuous people of the Hyperboreans; and\nit is easy to understand it in this sense without inferring thence too\nmany consequences. If on the other hand, some able and learned\nnaturalists, led away by this fact, appear almost inclined to regard the\nregion of the North Pole, once in the enjoyment of a warm southern\ntemperature, as one of the earliest, nay the very earliest abode of the\nhuman race; I cannot follow them in their hypothesis, opposed as it is\nto the positive and unanimous tradition of many and most ancient\nnations, pointing with one concurrent voice to central Asia as man's\nprimitive dwelling-place. It appears indeed that the tradition of\nantiquity as to the Island of Atlantis ought to be considered\nhistorical; but instead of regarding this country as an island of the\nBlessed situated in the arctic circle, I think it much more natural to\nrefer the whole tradition to an obscure nautical knowledge of America,\nor of those adjacent islands at which Columbus first touched, and to\nwhich the Phoenician pilots (who beyond all doubt circumnavigated\nAfrica) may not improbably have been driven in the course of their\nvoyage.\n\nI have laid it down as an invariable maxim constantly to follow\nhistorical tradition, and to hold fast by that clue, even when many\nthings in the testimony and declarations of tradition appear strange and\nalmost inexplicable, or at least enigmatical; for so soon as in the\ninvestigations of ancient history, we let slip that thread of Ariadne,\nwe can find no outlet from the labyrinth of fanciful theories, and the\nchaos of clashing opinions. For this reason I cannot concur in the very\nviolent hypothesis which a celebrated geologist, towards the close of\nthe last century, M. De Luc, has hazarded respecting the deluge, and\nwhich the excellent Stolberg has adopted in his great historical\nwork;[38] although the author of this theory, so far from intending to\noppose it to the Mosaic account of the deluge, or to set aside the\nnarrative of the inspired historian, conceived his hypothesis was\ncalculated to furnish the strongest confirmation and clearest\nillustration of the sacred text. But I cannot reconcile his theory\neither with Holy Writ, or with the general testimony of historical\ntradition. The supposition is this, that the deluge was not a general\ninundation of the whole earth, according to the ordinary belief, but a\nmere change of the solid and fluid parts of the earth's surface, a\ndynamical transmutation of land and sea, so that what was formerly land\nbecame sea, and vice versa. This is much more than can be found in the\nold account of the Noachian flood, or than a sound critical\ninterpretation would infer; and the supposition that the names of rivers\nand countries occurring in the Bible, refer to those objects as they\nexisted in the original dry land; and are again to be transferred to\nsimilar objects in the new land that sprang up with, or after, or out of\nthe deluge; this supposition, I say, bears too evidently the stamp of\narbitrary conjecture, to gain admission and credit with those who have\ntaken historical tradition for their guide. If by the geological facts\nwhich offer, or which we think offer, satisfactory proof, not only of\nthe general Noachian flood, but of more than one deluge and of still\nmore violent catastrophes of nature; if by these geological facts before\nour eyes, such a total revolution and dynamic transmutation of land and\nsea were really proved (and the character of these proofs I must abandon\nto the investigation and judgment of others); this great revolution\nexamined in an historical point of view, and in reference to the Mosaic\nhistory, must then be rather referred to that elder period, whereof it\nis said: \"The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the\nface of the deep; but the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the\nwaters.\"\n\nThese words which announce the presage of a new morn of creation, not\nonly represent a darker and wilder state of the globe, but very clearly\nshow the element of water to be still in predominant force. Even the\ndivision of the elements of the waters above the firmament, and of the\nwaters below it, on the second day of creation--the permanent limitation\nof the sea for the formation and visible appearance of dry land,\nnecessarily imply a mighty revolution in the earth, and afford\nadditional proof that the Mosaic history speaks not only of one, but of\nseveral catastrophes of nature; a circumstance that has not been near\nenough attended to in the geological interpretation and illustration of\nthe Bible. But to the bold and ill-founded hypothesis above-mentioned,\nmany geological facts may be opposed, for in the midst of vast tracts\nand strata of an ancient bottom of the sea, many spots are found covered\nwith the accumulated remains of land animals, with trunks of trees and\nvarious other products of vegetation, pertaining not to the sea, but to\ndry land.\n\nWith the clearest and most indubitable precision, the Mosaic history\nfixes the primitive dwelling-place of man in that central region of\nWestern Asia situate near two great rivers, and amid four inland seas,\nthe Persian and Arabian gulfs on the one hand, and the Caspian and\nMediterranean seas on the other, and which is likewise designated for\nthe same purpose by the concurrent traditions of most other primitive\nnations. The ancient tradition of the European nations as to their own\norigin and early history, conducts the enquirer constantly to the\nCaucasian regions, to Asia Minor, to Phoenicia, and to Egypt;\ncountries all of them contiguous to, in the vicinity and even on the\ncoast of, that central region. Among the primitive Asiatic nations, the\nChinese place the cradle of their origin and civilization in the\nnorth-western province of Shensee; and the Indians fix theirs towards\nthe north of the Himalaya mountains. Thus this last tradition points to\nBactriana, which, as it borders on Persia, approximates consequently to\nthat central region; whereof the holy and primitive country of the\nPersian Sagas, Atropatena or land of fire, now known by the name of\nAdherbijan forms a part. With a clearness and precision which admit of\nno doubt, the Mosaic history designates the two great rivers of that\ncentral region, the Tigris and Euphrates, by the same names which they\nhave ever afterwards borne; and even the name of Eden, down to a later\nperiod, was affixed to a country near Damascus, and to another in\nAssyria. The third river of Paradise has been sought for by some in a\nmore Northerly direction--in the region of Mount Caucasus; and though\nnot with equal certainty as in the other two instances, they have\nthought to find it in the Phasis. The fourth river towards the South,\nthe old Interpreters generally took to be the Nile; but the description\nof its course is so widely different from the present situation of that\nriver, and the present geography of the whole of those regions, that\nhere at least a very great change must have occurred, in order to\noccasion this discrepancy between the old description of this river's\ncourse, and the present geography of the country.\n\nIn another circumstance, also, which has been mostly too little attended\nto, this disparity between the Mosaic description and the present\nconformation of those regions is particularly striking. The geography of\nthe rivers of Paradise, at least of two or three, may be easily traced,\nthough the fourth remains a matter of uncertainty; but the one source of\nParadise in which those four rivers had their rise, in order thence to\nspread, and diffuse fertility over the whole earth--this one source,\nwhich is precisely the object of most importance, can no where be found\non the earth; whether it be dried or filled up, or howsoever it has been\nremoved. In attending to some indications in Scripture, and without\ntransgressing the due limits of interpretation, may we not be permitted\nto conjecture that the first chastisement inflicted on man by expulsion\nfrom his first glorious habitation and primeval home, may have been\naccompanied by a change in Paradise brought about by some natural\nconvulsion? To judge by analogy, and from circumstances, which even a\npassage in Holy Writ alludes to, this convulsion must have been rather a\nvolcanic eruption, by which even at the present day the sources of\nrivers are dried up, and their course completely changed, than a mere\ninundation that we are ever wont to regard as the sole possible cause of\nphysical revolutions. Many vestiges of such changes may perhaps be\nproved from even geological observation;--thus to cite only one example,\nthe dead sea in Palestine itself may be included in the number of those\nlakes that bear very evident traces of a volcanic origin. The\nsupposition, however, which we have ventured to make, must not be looked\nupon in the light of a formal hypothesis, but rather as a question\ndictated by a love of enquiry, and by a desire for the further\nelucidation of a subject not yet sufficiently understood.\n\nThus have I now taken a general survey of the early condition of the\nglobe, considered as the habitation of man, and as far as was necessary\nfor that object; and in this rapid sketch, I have endeavoured, as far as\nwas possible for a layman, to place in the clearest light the most\nremarkable and best attested facts and discoveries of geology, with a\nconstant attention to the testimony of primitive and historical\ntradition. No longer embarrassed by these physical discussions, we may\nnow proceed to meet the main question: \"What relation hath man to this\nhis habitation--earth; what place doth he occupy therein; and what rank\ndoth he hold among the other creatures and co-habitants of this globe,\nwhat is his proper destiny upon, and in relation to, the earth, and what\nis it which really constitutes him Man?\"\n\nThe absolute, and, for that reason, Pagan system of natural philosophy\nspoken of above, has indeed in these latter times had the courage,\nlaudable perhaps in the perverse course which it had taken, to rank man\nwith the ape, as a peculiar species of the general kind. When in its\nanatomical investigations, it has numbered the various characteristics\nof this human ape, according to the number of its vertebrae, its toes,\n&c. it concedes to man, as his distinguishing quality, not what we are\nwont to call reason, perfectibility, or the faculty of speech, but \"a\ncapacity for Constitutions!\" Thus man would be a liberal ape! And so far\nfrom disagreeing with the author of this opinion, we think man may\nundoubtedly become so to a certain extent, although the idea that he was\noriginally nothing more than a nobler or better disciplined ape is alike\nopposed to the voice of history, and the testimony of natural science.\nIf in the examination of man's nature we will confine our view\nexclusively to the lower world of animals, I should say that the\npossible contagion and communication of various diseases, and organic\nproperties and powers of animals, would prove in man rather a greater\nsympathy and affinity of organic life and animal blood with the cow, the\nsheep, the camel, the horse and the elephant, than with the ape. Even in\nthe venomous serpent and the mad dog, this deadly affinity of blood and\nthis fearful contact of internal life exist in a different and nearer\ndegree, than have yet been discovered in the ape. The docility too, of\nthe elephant and other generous animals, bears much stronger marks of\nanalogy with reason than the cunning of the ape, in which the native\nsense of a sound, unprejudiced mind will always recognize an\nunsuccessful and abortive imitation of man. The resemblance of\nphysiognomy and cast of countenance in the lion, the bull, and the\neagle, to the human face--a resemblance so celebrated in sculpture and\nthe imitative arts, and which was interwoven into the whole mythology\nand symbolism of the ancients--this resemblance is founded on far deeper\nand more spiritual ideas than any mere comparison of dead bones in an\nanimal skeleton can suggest.\n\nThe extremes of error, when it has reached the height of extravagance,\noften accelerate the return to truth; and thus to the assertion that man\nis nothing more than a liberalized ape, we may boldly answer that man,\non the contrary, was originally, and by the very constitution of his\nbeing, designed to be the lord of creation, and, though in a subordinate\ndegree, the legitimate ruler of the earth and of the world around\nhim--the vice-gerent of God in nature. And if he no longer enjoys this\nhigh prerogative to its full extent, as he might and ought to have done,\nhe has only himself to blame; if he exercises his empire over creatures\nrather by indirect means and mechanical agency than by the immediate\npower and native energy of his own intellectual pre-eminence, he still\nis the lord of creation, and has retained much of the power and dignity\nhe once received, did he but always make a right use of that power.\n\nThe distinguishing characteristic of man, and the peculiar eminence of\nhis nature and his destiny, as these are universally felt and\nacknowledged by mankind, are usually defined to consist, either in\nreason, or in the faculty of speech. But this definition is defective in\nthis respect, that, on one hand, reason is a mere abstract faculty,\nwhich to be judged, requires a psychological investigation or analysis;\nand that on the other hand, the faculty of speech is a mere\npotentiality, or a germ which must be unfolded before it can become a\nreal entity. We should therefore give a much more correct and\ncomprehensive definition, if, instead of this, we said: The peculiar\npre-eminence of man consists in this--that to him alone among all other\nof earth's creatures, the word has been imparted and communicated. The\nword actually delivered and really communicated is not a mere dead\nfaculty, but an historical reality and occurrence; and for that very\nreason, the definition we have given stands much more fitly at the head\nof history, than the other more abstract one.\n\nIn the idea of the word, considered as the basis of man's dignity and\npeculiar destination, the internal light of consciousness and of our own\nunderstanding, is undoubtedly first included--this word is not a mere\nfaculty of speech, but the fertile root whence the stately trunk of all\nlanguage has sprung. But the word is not confined to this only--it next\nincludes a living, working power--it is not merely an object and organ\nof knowledge--an instrument of teaching and learning; but the medium of\naffectionate union and conciliatory accommodation, judicial arbitrement\nand efficacious command, or even creative productiveness, as our own\nexperience and life itself manifest each of those significations of the\nword; and thus it embraces the whole plenitude of the excellencies and\nqualities which characterize man.\n\nNature too, has her mute language and her symbolical writing; but she\nrequires a discerning intellect to gain the key to her secrets, to\nunravel her profound enigmas; and, piercing through her mysteries,\ninterpret the hidden sense of her word, and thus reveal the fulness of\nher glory. But he, to whom alone among all earth's creatures, the word\nhas been imparted has been for that reason constituted the lord and\nruler of the earth. As soon, however, as he abandons that divine\nprinciple implanted in his breast; as soon as he loses that word of life\nwhich had been communicated and confided to him; he sinks down to a\nlevel with nature, and, from her lord, becomes her vassal; and here\ncommences the history of man.\n\n\nEND OF LECTURE I.\n\n\n\n\nLECTURE II.\n\nON THE DISPUTE IN PRIMITIVE HISTORY, AND ON THE DIVISION OF THE HUMAN\nRACE.\n\n    \"In the beginning man had the word, and that word was from God.\"\n\n\nThus the divine, Promethean spark in the human breast, when more\naccurately described and expressed in less figurative language, springs\nfrom the word originally communicated or intrusted to man, as that\nwherein consist his peculiar nature, his intellectual dignity and his\nhigh destination.--The pregnant expression borrowed above from the New\nTestament, on the mystery and internal nature of God, may with some\nvariation, and bating, as is evident, the immense distance between the\ncreature and the Creator, be applied to man and his primitive condition;\nand may serve as a superscription or introduction to primitive history\nin the following terms: \"In the beginning man had the word, and that\nword was from God--and out of the living power communicated to man in\nand by that word, came the light of his existence.\"--This is at least\nthe divine foundation of all history--it falls not properly within the\ndomain of history, but is anterior to it.--To this position the _state\nof nature_ among savages forms no valid objection; for that this was the\nreally original condition of mankind is by no means proved, and is\narbitrarily assumed; nay, on the contrary, the savage state must be\nlooked upon as a state of degeneracy and degradation--consequently not\nas the first, but as the second, phenomenon in human history--as\nsomething which, as it has resulted from this second step in man's\nprogress, must be regarded as of a later origin.\n\nIn history, as in all science and in life itself the principal point on\nwhich every thing turns, and the all-deciding problem, is whether all\nthings should be deduced from God, and God himself should be considered\nthe first, nature the second, existence--the latter holding undoubtedly\na very important place;--or, whether, in the inverse order, the\nprecedency should be given to nature, and, as invariably happens in such\ncases, all things should be deduced from nature only, whereby the deity,\nthough not by express, unequivocal words, yet in fact is indirectly set\naside, or remains at least unknown. This question cannot be settled, nor\nbrought to a conclusion, by mere dialectic strife, which rarely leads to\nits object. It is the will which here mostly decides; and, according to\nthe nature and leaning of his character, leads the individual to choose\nbetween the two opposite paths, the one he would follow in speculation\nand in science, in faith and in life.\n\nThus much at least we may say, in reference to the science of history,\nthat they who in that department will consider nature only, and view man\nbut with the eye of a naturalist (specious and plausible as their\nreasons may at first sight appear), will never rightly comprehend the\nworld and reality of history, and never obtain an adequate conception,\nnor exhibit an intelligible representation of its phenomena.--On the\nother hand, if we proceed not solely and exclusively from nature, but\nfirst from God and that beginning of nature appointed by God, so this is\nby no means a degradation or misapprehension of nature; nor does it\nimply any hostility towards nature--an hostility which could arise only\nfrom a very defective, erroneous, or narrow-minded conception of\nhistorical philosophy. On the contrary, experience has proved that by\nthis course of speculation we are led more thoroughly to comprehend the\nglory of God in nature, and the magnificence of nature herself--a course\nof speculation quite consistent with the full recognition of nature's\nrights, and the share due to her in the history and progress of man.\n\nRegarded in an historical point of view, man was created free--there lay\ntwo paths before him--he had to choose between the one, conducting to\nthe realms above, and the other, leading to the regions below;--and thus\nat least he was endowed with the faculty of two different wills. Had he\nremained steadfast in his first will--that pure emanation of the\ndeity--had he remained true to the word which God had communicated to\nhim--he would have had but one will. He would, however, have still been\nfree; but his freedom would have resembled that of the heavenly spirits,\nwhom we must not imagine to be devoid of freedom because they are no\nlonger in a state of trial, and can never be separated from God. We\nshould, besides, greatly err, if we figured to ourselves the Paradisaic\nstate of the first man as one of happy indolence; for, in truth, it was\nfar otherwise designed, and it is clearly and expressly said that our\nfirst parent was placed in the garden of the earth to guard and to\ncultivate it. \"To guard,\" because an enemy was to be at hand, against\nwhom it behoved to watch and to contend. \"To cultivate,\" possibly in a\nvery different manner, yet still with labour, though, doubtless, a\nlabour blessed with far richer and more abundant recompense than\nafterwards when, on man's account, the earth was charged with\nmalediction.\n\nThis first divine law of nature, if we may so speak, by virtue of which\nlabour and struggle became from the beginning the destiny of man, has\nretained its full force through all succeeding ages, and is applicable\nalike to every class, and every nation, to each individual as well as to\nmankind in general, to the most important, as to the most insignificant,\nrelations of society. He who weakly shrinks from the struggle, who will\noffer no resistance, who will endure no labour nor fatigue, can neither\nfulfil his own vocation, whatever it be, nor contribute aught to the\ngeneral welfare of mankind.--But since man hath been the prey of\ndiscord, two different wills have contended within him for the\nmastery--a divine and a natural will. Even his freedom is no longer that\nhappy freedom of celestial peace--the freedom of one who hath conquered\nand triumphed--but a freedom, as we now see it--the freedom of\nundetermined choice--of arduous, still undecided, struggle. To return to\nthe divine will, or the one conformable to God--to restore harmony\nbetween the natural and the divine will, and to convert and transform\nmore and more the lower, earthly and natural will into the higher, and\ndivine one, is the great task of mankind in general, as of each\nindividual in particular. And this return--this restoration--this\ntransformation--all the endeavours after such--the progress or\nretrogressions in this path--constitute an essential part of universal\nhistory, so far as this embraces the moral development and intellectual\nmarch of humanity.--But the fact that man, so soon as he loses the\ninternal sheet-anchor of truth and life--so soon as he abandons the\neternal law of divine ordinance, falls immediately under the dominion of\nnature, and becomes her bondsman, each individual may learn from his own\ninterior, his own experience, and a survey of life; since the violent,\ndisorderly might of passion herself is only a blind power of nature\nacting within us. Although this fact is historical, and indeed the first\nof all historical facts, yet as it belongs to all mankind, and recurs in\neach individual, it may be regarded as a psychological fact and\nphenomenon of human consciousness. And on this very account it does not\nprecisely fall within the limits of history, and it precedes all\nhistory; but all the consequences or possible consequences of this fact,\nall the consequences that have really occurred, are within the essential\nprovince of history.\n\nThe next consequence which, after this internal discord had broken out\nin the consciousness and life of man, flowed from the developement of\nthis principle, was the division of the single race of man into a\nplurality of nations, and the consequent diversity of languages. As long\nas the internal harmony of the soul was undisturbed and unbroken, and\nthe light of the mind unclouded by sin, language could be nought else\nthan the simple and beautiful copy or expression of internal serenity;\nand consequently there could be but one speech. But after the internal\nword, which had been communicated by God to man, had become obscured;\nafter man's connection with his Creator had been broken; even outward\nlanguage necessarily fell into disorder and confusion. The simple and\ndivine truth was overlaid with various and sensual fictions, buried\nunder illusive symbols, and at last perverted into a horrible phantom.\nEven Nature, that, like a clear mirror of God's creation, had originally\nlain revealed and transparent to the unclouded eye of man, became now\nmore and more unintelligible, strange and fearful; once fallen away from\nhis God, man fell more and more into a state of internal conflict and\nconfusion.--Thus there sprang up a multitude of languages, alien one\nfrom the other, and varying with every climate, in proportion as mankind\nbecame morally disunited, geographically divided and dispersed, and even\ndistinguished by an organic diversity of form;--for when man had once\nfallen under the power and dominion of nature, his physical conformation\nchanged with every climate. As a plant or animal indigenous to Africa or\nAmerica has a totally different form and constitution in Asia, so it is\nwith man; and the races of mankind form so many specific variations of\nthe same kind, from the negro to the copper-coloured American and the\nsavage islander of the south sea.--The expression _races_, however,\napplied to man, involves something abhorrent from his high uplifted\nspirit, and debasing to its native dignity.--This diversity of races\namong men no one ought to exaggerate in a manner so as to raise doubts\nas to the identity of their origin, for, according to a general organic\nlaw, which indeed is allowed to hold good in the natural history of\nanimals, races capable of a prolific union must be considered of the\nsame origin, and as constituting the same species.--Even the apparent\nchaos of different languages may be classed into kindred families, which\nthough separated by the distance of half the globe, seem still very\nclosely allied. Of these different families of tongues, the first and\nmost eminent are those which by their internal beauty, and by the noble\nspirit breathing through them and apparent in their whole construction,\ndenote for the most part a higher origin and divine inspiration; and,\nmuch as all these languages differ from each other, they appear, after\nall, to be merely branches of one common stem.\n\nThe American tribes appeared indeed to be singularly strange, and to\nstand at a fearful distance from the rest of mankind; yet the European\nwriter[39] most deeply conversant with those nations and their languages\nhas found in their traditions and tongues, and even in their manners and\ncustoms, many positive and incontestable points of analogy with eastern\nAsia and its inhabitants.\n\nWhen man had once fallen from virtue, no determinable limit could be\nassigned to his degradation; nor how far he might descend by degrees,\nand approximate even to the level of the brute; for, as from his origin\nhe was a being essentially free, he was in consequence capable of\nchange, and even in his organic powers most flexible.\n\nWe must adopt this principle as the only clue to guide us in our\nenquiries, from the negro who, as well from his bodily strength and\nagility as from his docile and in general excellent character, is far\nfrom occupying the lowest grade in the scale of humanity, down to the\nmonstrous Patagonian, the almost imbecile Peshwerais, and the horrible\ncannibal of New Zealand, whose very portrait excites a shudder in the\nbeholder. How, even in the midst of civilization, man may degenerate\ninto the savage state; to what a pitch of moral degradation he may\ndescend, those can attest who have had opportunities of investigating\nmore closely the criminal history of great culprits, and even, at some\nperiods, the history of whole nations. In fact, every revolution is a\ntransient period of barbarism, in which man, while he displays partial\nexamples of the most heroic virtue and generous self-devotion, is often\nhalf a savage. Nay, a war conducted with great animosity and protracted\nto extremities, may easily degenerate into such a state of savage\nferocity: hence it is the highest glory of truly civilized nations to\nrepress and subdue by the sentiment of honour, by a system of severe\ndiscipline, and by a generous code of warfare, respected alike by all\nbelligerent parties, that tendency and proneness to cruelty and\nbarbarity inherent in man.\n\nAmong the different tribes of savages, there are many indeed that appear\nto be of a character incomparably better and more noble than those above\nmentioned; yet, after the first ever so favourable impression, a closer\ninvestigation will almost always discover in them very bad traits of\ncharacter and manners.--So far from seeking with Rousseau and his\ndisciples for the true origin of mankind, and the proper foundation of\nthe social compact, in the condition even of the best and noblest\nsavages; and so little disposed are we to remodel society upon this\nboasted ideal of a pretended state of nature, that we regard it, on the\ncontrary, as a state of degeneracy and degradation. Thus in his origin,\nand by nature, man is no savage:--he may indeed at any time and in any\nplace, and even at the present day, become one easily and rapidly, but\nin general, not by a sudden fall, but by a slow and gradual declension;\nand we the more willingly adopt this view as there are many historical\ngrounds of probability that, in the origin of mankind, this second fall\nof man was not immediate and total, but slow and gradual, and that\nconsequently all those tribes which we call savage are of the same\norigin with the noblest and most civilized nations, and have only by\ndegrees descended to their present state of brutish degradation.\n\nEven the division of the human race into a plurality of nations, and the\nchaotic diversity of human tongues, appear, from historical tradition,\nto have become general and complete only at a more advanced period; for,\nin the beginning, mention is made but of one separation of mankind into\ntwo races or hostile classes. I use the general expression historical\ntradition; for the brief and almost enigmatical, but very significant\nand pregnant, words, in which the first great outward discord, or\nconflict of mankind in primitive history, is represented in the Mosaic\nnarrative, are corroborated in a very remarkable degree by the Sagas of\nother nations, among which I may instance in particular those of the\nGreeks and the Indians. Although this primitive conflict, or opposition\namong men, is represented in these traditions under various local\ncolours, and not without some admixture of poetical embellishment, yet\nthis circumstance serves only for the better confirmation of the\nfundamental truth, if we separate the essential matter from the\nadventitious details. Before I attempt to place in a clearer light this\nfirst great historical event, which indeed constitutes the main subject\nof all primitive history, by showing the strong concurrence of the many\nand various authorities attesting it; it may be proper to call your\nattention to a third fundamental canon of historical criticism, which\nindeed requires no lengthened demonstration, and is merely this, that in\nall enquiries, particularly into ancient and primitive history, we must\nnot reject as impossible or improbable whatever strikes us at first as\nstrange or marvellous. For it often happens that a closer investigation\nand a deeper knowledge of a subject proves those things precisely to be\ntrue, which at the first view or impression, appeared to us as the most\nsingular; while on the other hand, if we persist in estimating truth and\nprobability by the sole standard of objects vulgar and familiar to\nourselves; and if we will apply this exclusive standard to a world and\nto ages so totally different, and so widely remote from our own, we\nshall be certainly led into the most violent, and most erroneous\nhypotheses.\n\nIn entering on this subject we must observe that, in the Mosaic account,\nprimitive and, what we call, universal history, does not properly\ncommence with the first man, his creation or ulterior destiny, but with\nCain--the fratricide and curse of Cain. The preceding part of the sacred\nnarrative regards, if we may so speak, only the private life of Adam,\nwhich however will always retain a deep significacy for all the\ndescendants of the first progenitor.\n\nThe origin of discord in man, and the transmission of that mischief to\nall ages and all generations, is indeed the first historical fact; but\non account of its universality, it forms, at the same time, as I have\nbefore observed, a psychological phenomenon; and while, in this first\nsection of sacred history, everything points and refers to the mysteries\nof religion; the fratricide of Cain on the other hand, and the flight of\nthat restless criminal to Eastern Asia, are the first events and\ncircumstances which properly belong to the province of history. In this\naccount we see first the foundation of the most ancient city, by which\nundoubtedly we must understand a great, or at least an old and\ncelebrated city of Eastern Asia; and secondly, the origin of various\nhereditary classes, trades and arts; especially of those connected with\nthe first knowledge and use of metals, and which doubtless hold the\nfirst place in the history of human arts and discoveries.\n\nThe music, which is attributed to those primitive ages, consisted\nprobably rather in a medicinal or even magical use of that art, than in\nthe beautiful system of later melody. Among the various works and\ninstruments of smith-craft, and productions of art which the knowledge\nof mines and metals led to, the momentous discovery of the sword is\nparticularly mentioned: by the brief enigmatic words which relate this\ndiscovery, it is difficult to know whether we are to understand them as\nthe expression of a spirit of warlike enthusiasm, or of a renewed curse\nand dire wailing over all the succeeding centuries of hereditary murder,\nand progressive evil, under the divine permission. In all probability,\nthese words refer to the origin of human sacrifices, emanating as they\ndid from an infernal design, which we must consider as one of the\nstrongest characteristics of this race; and those bloody sacrifices of\nthe primitive world seem to have stamped on the rites and customs, as\nwell as on the traditions and sentiments, of many nations a peculiar\ncharacter of gloom and sadness. From this race were descended not only\nthe inhabitants of cities, but nomade tribes, whereof many led, several\nthousand years ago, the same wandering life which they follow at the\npresent day in the central parts of Eastern Asia; where vast remains of\nprimitive mining operations are frequently found.\n\nIt is worthy of remark that, among one of these nations, the Ishudes,\nwho inhabit a metallic mountain, we find, if we may so speak, an\ninverted history of Cain; mention is made of the enmity between the\nfirst two brothers of mankind, but all the circumstances are set forth\nin a party-spirit favourable to Cain. It is said that the elder brother\nacquired wealth by gold and silver mines, but that the younger, becoming\nenvious, drove him away, and forced him to take refuge in the East.[40]\n\nSo is the race of Cain and Cain's sons represented from its origin, as\none attached to the arts, versed in the use of metals, disinclined to\npeace, and addicted to habits of warfare and violence, as again at a\nlater period, it appears in scripture as a haughty and wicked race of\ngiants.\n\nOn the other hand the peaceful race of Patriarchs who lived in a docile\nreverence of God and with a holy simplicity of manners, were descended\nfrom Seth. This second progenitor of mankind occupies a very prominent\nplace even in the traditions of other nations, which make particular\nmention of the columns of Seth, signifying no doubt, in the language of\nremote antiquity, very ancient monuments, and, as it were, the stony\nrecords of sacred tradition. In general the first ten holy Progenitors\nor Patriarchs of the primitive world are mentioned under different names\nin the Sagas, not only of the Indians, but of several other Asiatic\nnations, though undoubtedly with important variations, and not without\nmuch poetical colouring. But as in these traditions we can clearly\ndiscern the same general traits of history, this diversity of\nrepresentation serves only to corroborate the main truth, and to\nillustrate it more fully and forcibly. The views, therefore, of those\nmodern theologians, who represent the concurrent testimony of Gentile\nnations to the truths of primitive history as derived solely from the\nMosaic narrative, and as it were transcribed from a genuine copy of our\nBible, are equally narrow-minded and erroneous.\n\nIt would be more just and more consonant with the whole spirit of the\nprimitive world, to assert, what indeed may be conceded with little\ndifficulty, that these nations had received much from the primeval\nsource of sacred tradition; but they regarded as a peculiar possession,\nand represented under peculiar forms, the common blessings of primitive\nrevelation; and, instead of preserving in their integrity and purity the\ntraditions and oracles of the primitive world, they overlaid them with\npoetical ornament, so that their whole traditions wear a fabulous\naspect, until a nearer and more patient investigation clearly discovers\nin them the main features of historic truth.\n\nUnder these two different forms, therefore doth Tradition reveal to us\nthe primitive world, or in other words, these are the two grand\nconditions of humanity which fill the records of primitive history. On\nthe one hand, we see a race, lovers of peace, revering God, blessed with\nlong life which they spend in patriarchal simplicity and innocence, and\nstill no strangers to deeper science, especially in all that relates to\nsacred tradition and inward contemplation, and transmitting their\nscience to posterity in the old or symbolical writing, not in fragile\nvolumes, but on durable monuments of stone. On the other hand, we behold\na giant race of pretended demi-gods, proud, wicked and violent, or, as\nthey are called in the later Sagas of the heroic times, the\nheaven-storming Titans.\n\nThis opposition, and this discord,--this hostile struggle between the\ntwo great divisions of the human race, forms the whole tenour of\nprimitive history. When the moral harmony of man had once been deranged,\nand two opposite wills had sprung up within him, a divine will or a will\nseeking God, and a natural will or a will bent on sensible objects,\npassionate and ambitious, it is easy to conceive how mankind from their\nvery origin must have diverged into two opposite paths.\n\nAlthough this primitive division of mankind is now characterized as a\ndifference of races, this is far from being merely the case; and that\nopposition which distracted the primitive world had far deeper causes\nthan the mere distinction of a noble and a meaner race of men. It is\nsomewhat in this manner a German scholar of the last generation, divided\nall nations now existing, or which have appeared within the later\nhistorical ages, into two classes; wherever he imagined he found his\nfavourite Celts and their descendants, he had not words strong enough to\nextol their romantic heroism; while he pursued with the most pitiless\nanimosity, over the whole face of the earth, the unfortunate Monguls and\nall those he deduced from that stock. The struggle which divided the\nprimitive world into two great parties arose far more from the\nopposition of feelings and of principles, than from difference of\nextraction. Great as is the interval which separates those ages and that\nworld from our own, we can easily comprehend how this first mighty\ncontest of nations, which history makes mention of, was in fact a\nstruggle between two religious parties--two hostile sects, though indeed\nunder far other forms, and in different relations from anything we\nwitness in the present state of the world. It was, in one word, a\ncontest between religion and impiety, conducted however on the mighty\nscale of the primitive world, and with all those gigantic powers which,\naccording to ancient tradition, the first men possessed.[41]\n\nThe Greek Sagas represent this two-fold state of mankind in the\nprimitive ante-historical ages in a very peculiar manner, as the gradual\ndecline and corruption of successive generations; of this kind is the\ntradition of the ages of the world, whereof four or five are numbered.\nThe Golden age of human felicity and the brazen age of all-ruling\nviolence form the two essential terms of this tradition; and the\nintermediate ages are mere links, or points of transition to render the\naccount more complete.\n\nIn the age of Saturn, the first race allied to the Gods lived in peace\nand happiness, and were blessed with eternal youth; the earth poured\nforth her fruits and gifts in spontaneous abundance, and even the end of\nhuman life was not a real or painful death, but a gentle slumber into\nanother and higher world of immortal spirits. But the next generation in\nthe age of Silver is represented as wicked, devoid of reverence for the\nGods, and giving loose to every turbulent passion. In the Brazen age\nthis state of crime and disorder reached its highest pitch; lordly\nviolence was the characteristic of the rude and gigantic Titans. Their\narms were of copper and their instruments and utensils of brass, and\neven, in the construction of their edifices, they made use of copper;\nfor as the old poet says, \"black iron was not then known;\" a\ncircumstance which we must consider as strictly historical and as\ncharacteristic of the primitive nations. Between this and the following\nage, the better heroic race of poetical and even historic tradition is\nsomewhat strangely introduced; and the whole series of generations is\nclosed by the Iron age, the present and last period of the world--the\nterm of man's progressive degeneracy.\n\nThis idea of a gradual and deeper degradation of human kind in each\nsucceeding age appears at first sight not to accord very well with the\ntestimony which sacred tradition furnishes on man's primitive state; for\nit represents the two races of the primitive world as cotemporary; and\nindeed Seth, the progenitor of the better and nobler race of virtuous\nPatriarchs, was much younger than Cain. However, this contradiction is\nonly apparent, if we reflect that it was the wicked and violent race\nwhich drew the other into its disorders, and that it was from this\ncontamination a giant corruption sprang, which continually increased\ntill, with a trifling exception, it pervaded the whole mass of mankind,\nand till the justice of God required the extirpation of degenerate\nhumanity by one universal Flood.\n\nIn the Indian Sagas, the two races of the primitive world are\nrepresented in a state of continual or perpetually renewed\nwarfare:--wicked nations of giants attack one or other of the two\nBrahminical races that descend from the virtuous Patriarchs; generous\nand divinely inspired heroes come to their assistance, and achieve many\nwonderful victories over these formidable foes. Such is the chief\nsubject of all the great epic poems, and most ancient heroic Sagas of\nthe Indians. In conformity to their present modes of thinking, and to\ntheir present constitution of society, they describe that fierce race of\ngiants as a degraded caste of warriors; and they even give that\ndenomination to many nations well known in later history, such as the\nChinese, who bear the same name with them as with ourselves; the\nPahlavas, who were a tribe of the ancient Medes and Persians,\ncorresponding to one of the two sacred languages of ancient Persia--the\nPahlavi--and the Ionians or Yavanas according to the Asiatic\ndenomination of the primitive Greeks. It may even be a matter of doubt,\nwhether a regular caste of warriors, and an hereditary priesthood,\naccording to the very ancient system of the hereditary division of\nclasses, did not exist in the primitive world. However great may be the\nchronological confusion evinced in these poems and Sagas, however much,\nperhaps, of later history may have been interwoven into their ancient\nnarratives, and however much of poetical embellishment and gigantic\nhyperbole the whole may have received, the leading features of historic\ntruth may still be distinguished with certainty in the chequered tablet\nof tradition. For the hostility of two rival races in the primitive\nworld, considered in itself, and independently of adventitious\ncircumstances, must be looked upon as a positive and well authenticated\nfact. It might perhaps be proved before the tribunal of the severest\nhistorical criticism that poetry, that is to say, primitive historic\ntradition clothed with the ornaments of poetry--is often much nearer the\ntruth in its representations of the primitive world than a dull Reason,\nthat draws its estimate of probability from mere vulgar analogies, and\nwhich sees or affects to see every where only stupid and brutish\nsavages.\n\nA circumstance which we must never lose sight of in this inquiry is that\nman did not suffer an immediate and entire loss of those high powers\nwith which he had been endowed at his origin; but that the loss was\ngradual, and that for a long time yet he retained much of those powers,\nand that it was indeed the fearful abuse of those faculties in his last\nstage of degeneracy which produced that enormous licentiousness and\nwickedness spoken of in Holy Writ. And this is the real clue to the\nwhole purport of primitive history, and to all that appears to us in it\nso full of enigma. This leading subject of primitive history--the\nstruggle between two races, as it is the first great event in universal\nhistory, is also of the utmost importance in the investigation of the\nsubsequent progress of nations; for this original contest and opposition\namong men, according to the two-fold direction of the will, a will\nconformable to that of God, and a will carnal, ambitious, and enslaved\nto Nature, often recurs, though on a lesser scale, in later history; or\nat least we can perceive something like a feeble reflection or a distant\necho of this primal discord. And even at the present period, which is\ncertainly much nearer to the last than to the first ages of the world,\nit would appear sometimes as if humanity were again destined, as at its\norigin, to be more and more separated into two parties, or two hostile\ndivisions. And as the greatest of German philosophers, Leibnitz,\nadmirably observed that the sect of atheism would be the last in\nChristendom and in the world; so it is highly probable that this sect\nwas the last in the primitive world, though stamped with the peculiar\nform which society at that period must have given to it, and on a scale\nof more gigantic magnitude.\n\nOn this important subject we have another observation to make, which\nrefers more properly to an incidental circumstance in primitive history;\nfor our great business is with the moral and intellectual progress of\nman. But even in respect to this more important object, the circumstance\nwhich we allude to should not be passed over in silence, as it tends to\nexemplify, illustrate and confirm the principle we have already had\noccasion to enforce; namely that we ought not to estimate by the narrow\nstandard of present analogies and vulgar probabilities, all those facts\nin primitive nature and in primitive history which strike us as so\nstrange, mysterious, and marvellous; provided they be really attested by\nancient monuments and ancient tradition. We should ever bear in mind\nwhat a mighty wall of separation--what an impassable abyss--divides us\nfrom that remote world both of nature and of man. I refer to the\nunanimous testimony of ancient tradition respecting the gigantic forms\nof the first men, and their corresponding longevity, far exceeding, as\nit did, the present ordinary standard of the duration of human life.\nWith respect to the latter circumstance, indeed, there are so very many\ncauses contributing to shorten considerably the length of human life,\nthat we have completely lost every criterion by which to estimate its\noriginal duration; and it would be no slight problem for a profound\nphysiological science to discover and explain from a deeper\ninvestigation of the internal constitution of the earth, or of\nastronomical influences, which are often susceptible of very minute\napplications the primary cause of human longevity. By a simpler course\nof life and diet than the very artificial, unnatural and over-refined\nmodes we follow, there are even at the present day numerous examples of\na longevity far beyond the ordinary duration of human life. In India it\nis by no means uncommon to meet with men, especially in the Brahminical\ncaste, more than a hundred years of age, and in the enjoyment of a\nrobust, and even generative vigour of constitution. In the labouring\nclass in Russia, whose mode of living is so simple, there are examples\nof men living to more than a hundred, a hundred and twenty, and even a\nhundred and fifty years of age; and although these instances form but\nrare exceptions, they are less uncommon there than in other European\ncountries. There are even remarkable cases of old men, who after the\nentire loss of their teeth, have gained a complete new set as if their\nconstitution had received a new sap of life, and a principle of second\ngrowth. What, in the present physical degeneracy of mankind, forms but a\nrare exception, may originally have been the ordinary measure of the\nduration of human life, or at least may afford us some trace and\nindication of such a measure; more especially as other branches of\nnatural science offer correspondent analogies. On the other side of that\ngreat wall of separation which divides us from the primitive ages--in\nthat remote world so little known to us, a standard for the duration of\nhuman life very different from the present may have prevailed; and such\nan opinion is extremely probable, supported as it is by manifold\ntestimony, and confirmed by the sacred record of man's divine origin.\n\nIn order better to understand and judge more correctly of the biblical\nnumber of years in human life, we ought never to overlook the very\nreligious purport of the symbolical relation of numbers in the divine\nchronology. We should thus ever keep ourselves in readiness, as,\naccording to the expression of Holy Writ, the hairs on a man's head are\nnumbered--and how much more so the years of his life!--and as nothing\nhere must be considered fortuitous, but all things as predetermined and\nregulated according to the views of Providence. Again, as the Scripture\noften mentions that, in the hidden decrees of his mercy, the Almighty\nhath graciously been pleased to shorten the duration of a determined\nspace of time:--as, for example, a course of irreversible suffering--or\non the other hand, hath added a certain number of years to a determined\nperiod of grace, or prolonged the duration of a man's life; it behoves\nus to examine which of these two courses of divine favour be in any\nproposed case discoverable. In the extreme longevity of the holy\nPatriarchs of the primitive world--a longevity which as has been long\nproved and acknowledged, must be understood with reference only to the\ncommon astronomical years, the latter course of the divine goodness is\ndiscernible, and human life in those ages must be regarded as\nmiraculously and supernaturally prolonged.[42] In the duration of\nEnoch's life, that holy prophet of the primitive world, whose\ntranslation was no death, but which, as the exit originally designed for\nman, should on that account be considered natural, the coincidence with\nthe astronomical number of days in the sun's course round the earth is\nthe more striking, as in the number of 365 years the number 33 is\ncomprised as the root--a number which, in every respect and in the most\nvarious application, is discovered to be the primary number of the\nearth. For, with the slight difference of an unit, the number of 365\nyears corresponds to the sum of 333, with the addition of 33; but the\nnumber of days strictly comprised in those 365 years amounts to four\ntimes 33,000, with the addition of four times 330 days.\n\nWith regard to the gigantic stature attributed to the primitive race of\nmen, by the authentic testimony of universal tradition;--a testimony\nwhich it is easy to distinguish from mere poetical embellishment or\nexaggeration--it is singular that those who are otherwise so disposed to\napply the analogies of nature to the human species, should in this\ninstance at least hold up the now ordinary scale of human bulk as the\nonly standard of probability and certainty. The remains, more than once\nalluded to, of that primitive world which has perished, show that of the\nelephant, rhinoceros, and hippopotamus, the largest of all existing\nanimals, there were originally from twenty to thirty different tribes\nand species which are now extinct. Of the mammoth, that gigantic animal\nof antiquity, remains of which are found not only in Siberia and\nAmerica, but in the different counties of Europe, near Paris, and even\nin this immediate neighbourhood, a great number of various species have\nbeen also proved to have existed from the investigation of these\nante-diluvian remains. Even of animals more familiar to us, bones and\nother remains have been discovered of a very unusual and truly gigantic\nsize. Bulls' horns fastened together by a front-bone--antlers of stags,\nand elephants' tusks have been found, which prove those animals to have\nbeen of a dimension three, four, and even five times greater than they\nusually are at present. If in this elder period of organic nature, and\nof an animal kingdom which has become extinct, this gigantic style was\nso very prevalent, is it not reasonable to infer a similar analogy in\nthe human species, so far at least as relates to their physical\nconformation, especially when this analogy is unanimously attested by\nthe primitive Sagas and traditions of all nations?\n\nAs regards our sacred writings, I must observe that they tacitly imply\nand indeed pretty clearly attest the superior stature as well as great\nlongevity of the first men; while, on the other hand, they represent the\nreally gigantic structure of body as an organic degradation and\ndegeneracy, originating in the illicit union of the two primitive\nraces--the Cainites and the Sethites--an union which was the source of\nuniversal corruption--as the all-destroying deluge was a mighty judgment\nbrought about by the pride and wickedness of those giants, and was\nindeed against these principally directed.--Even at a later period, the\nScripture speaks of some nations of giants, that, prior to the\nintroduction of the Israelites into the promised land, occupied several\nof its provinces, such as Moab, Ammon, Bashan, and the country about the\nprimitive city of giants--Hebron. These tribes are represented as\ncelebrated for valour indeed, yet as inclined solely to warfare, wild,\nand wicked; and even the individual giants, that appear in the age of\nMoses and in the history of David, are described as peculiarly monstrous\nfrom their great corporal deformity. The only savage tribe now existing,\n(as far as our present knowledge of the globe can enable us to speak,)\npossessed of a very uncommon, enormous and almost gigantic stature--the\nPatagonians of America, are at the same time noted for their personal\ndeformity. With them it is the upper part of the body that is of such a\ndisproportionate length, for when seen on horseback they appear to be\nreal giants, and hence they were so accounted at first. When on a closer\ninspection we see the whole length of their bodies in the attitude\neither of standing or of walking, we perceive indeed they are of the\nvery extraordinary height of from seven to eight feet, but not of that\ngigantic stature which the first impression led us to suppose, and which\nmay so naturally have given rise to exaggerated accounts.\n\nAfter all this, and what has been above stated, I need say no more than\nfrankly declare that, as to these two points, the extraordinary\nlongevity and gigantic stature of the first men,--I never could have the\ncourage to raise a formal doubt against the plain declaration of Holy\nWrit, and the general testimony of primitive tradition. The full\nexplanation, the more correct conception, and the perfect comprehension\nof these two facts are perhaps reserved for a later period, and the\ninvestigations of a deeper physical science.\n\nThere exist also monuments, or rather fragments of edifices, of the most\nprimitive antiquity, which, as they are connected with the subject under\ndiscussion, are here deserving of a slight notice. I allude to those\nCyclopean walls, which are to be found in several parts of Italy, and\nwhich those who have once seen will not easily forget, nor the singular\nstamp of antiquity they bear. In this very peculiar architecture, we\nsee, instead of the stones of the usual cubical or oblong form, huge\nfragments of rock rudely cut into the shape of an irregular polygon, and\nskilfully enough joined together. Even the great, and often admired,\nsubterraneous aqueduct, or Cloaca of ancient Rome is considered as\nbelonging to this cyclopean architecture, remains of which exist also\nnear Argos and in several other parts of Greece. These edifices were\ncertainly not built by the celebrated nations that at a later period\noccupied those countries; for even they regarded them as the work and\nproduction of a primitive and departed race of giants; and hence the\nname which these monuments received. When we consider how very imperfect\nmust have been the instruments of those remote ages, and that they\ncannot be supposed to have possessed that knowledge in mechanics which\nthe Egyptians, for instance, display in the erection of their obelisks;\nwe can easily conceive how men were led to imagine that more vigorous\narms and other powers, than those belonging to the present race of men,\nwere necessary to the construction of those edifices of rock.\n\nThus have we now endeavoured to explain, as far as was necessary for our\npurpose, the origin of that dissension, which is inherent in human\nnature, and forms the basis of all history. We have in the next place\nsought to unfold and illustrate the universal tradition, which attests\nthe hostility between the virtuous Patriarchs and the proud Titans of\nthe primitive world, or the different and opposite spirit that\ncharacterized the two primitive races of mankind; assigning, at the same\ntime, to savage nations, or to the more degraded portions of human kind,\ntheir proper place in history--a place important undoubtedly, but still\nsecondary in the great scheme of humanity.\n\nThese facts, too important to be passed over in silence, form the\nintroduction and are, as it were, the porch to universal history, and to\nthe civilization of the human species in the later historical ages. Now\nthat we have seen mankind divided and split into a plurality of nations,\nour next task, in the period which follows, is to discover the most\nremarkable and most civilized nations, and to observe what peculiar form\nthe Word, whether innate in man, or communicated to him--the word which\nmay be considered as the essence of all the high prerogatives and\ncharacteristic qualities of man; to observe, we say, what peculiar form\nthe word assumed among each of those nations, in their language and\nwriting, in their religious traditions, their historical Sagas, their\npoetry, art, and science. In the account of ancient nations, we shall\nadopt the ethnographical mode of treating history; and it will be only\nin modern and more recent times that this method will gradually give\nplace to the synchronical; and the reasons of this change will be\nsuggested by the very nature of the subject. In this general survey, we\nmust confine ourselves to those mighty and celebrated nations who have\nattained to a high degree of intellectual excellence; and we shall\nselect and briefly state remarkable traits or extraordinary historical\nfacts illustrative of the manners, social institutions, political\nrefinement, and even political history of every nation, worthy of\noccupying a place in this sketch, in order the better to mark the\nprogress of the intellectual principle in the peculiar culture and modes\nof thinking of each. It is only at a later period that political history\nbecomes the main object of attention, and almost the leading principle\nin the progressive march, and even the partial retrogressions of\nmankind.\n\nIn this general picture of the earliest development of the human mind,\nwe can select such nations only as are sufficiently well known, or\nrespecting whom the sources of information are now at least of easier\naccess; for were we to comprehend in this general survey, nations with\nwhom we were less perfectly acquainted, we should be led into minute and\ninterminable researches, without, after all, perhaps, obtaining any new\nor satisfactory result for the principal object in view. In the first\nperiod of antiquity will figure the Chinese, the Indians and the\nEgyptians, besides the isolated, and the so-called chosen people of the\nHebrews; and if I commence by the remotest of the civilized countries of\nAsia, China, I beg leave to premise that I mean to determine no question\nof priority as to the respective antiquity of those nations, or to\nadjudge any preference to one or other amongst them. Indeed their own\nchronological accounts and pretensions, which often deserve the name of\nchronological fictions, turn out, on a closer inquiry, to be mere\ncalculations of astronomical periods; and a sound historical criticism\nwill not admit that they were originally meant to be chronological.\nSuffice it to say that the three nations we have mentioned belonged to\nthe same period of the world, and attained to an equal, or a very\nsimilar, degree of moral and intellectual refinement; and so in respect\nto that higher object, the chronological dispute becomes unnecessary, or\nis, at least, of minor importance. Among those, however, who take an\nactive part in these researches, a partiality for one or other of these\nnations, and for their respective antiquity easily springs up; for even\nobjects the most remote will excite in the human breast the spirit of\nparty. In order to keep as free as possible from prepossessions of this\nkind, I have adopted a species of geographical division of my subject,\nwhich, when I come to treat later of the different periods of modern\nhistory, will give place to a more chronological arrangement. I said a\n_species_ of geographical division, for undoubtedly from the special\nnature of this historical enquiry, it must be supposed I shall take a\ndifferent point of view in the geographical survey of the earth than\nordinarily occurs in geographical investigations. The geographies for\ncommon use properly take as their basis the present situation of the\ndifferent states and kingdoms now in existence. But a more scientific\ngeography adopts the direction of mountains, and the course of rivers,\nthe vallies produced by the former, and the space occupied by the waters\nof the latter, as the leading clue to the division and arrangement of\nthe earth. Thus in the philosophy of history the series of the principal\ncivilized states will form a high, commanding chain; and the philosophic\nhistorian will have to follow from east to west, or in any other\ndirection that history may point out, not merely rivers transporting\narticles of commerce, but the mighty stream of traditions and doctrines\nwhich has traversed and fertilized the world.\n\nAs the individuals who can be termed historical, form but rare\nexceptions among mankind, so in the whole circumference of the globe,\nthere are only a certain number of nations that occupy an important and\nreally historical place in the annals of civilization. By far the\ngreater part of the inhabited or habitable globe, however rich and ample\na field it may offer to the investigations of the naturalist, cannot be\nincluded in this class, or has not attained to this degree of eminence.\nIn the whole continent of Africa there is, besides Egypt, only the\nnorthern coast stretching along the Mediterranean, that is at all\nconnected with the history and intellectual progress of the civilized\nworld. The other coasts of Africa, including its southernmost cape,\nfurnish points of importance to commerce, navigation, and even some\nattempts at colonization; while the interior parts of this continent,\nstill so little known, possess much to excite the attention and wonder\nof the naturalist; but beyond this, its maritime as well as central\nregions, cannot be said to occupy a place in the intellectual history,\nor in the moral progress, of our species. It is only since it has formed\na province of the Russian empire that the vast territory of Northern\nAsia has become known to us, and has been, as it were, newly discovered.\nFrom central and eastern Asia, from the south of Tartary and the north\nof China, many mighty and conquering nations have issued, that have\nspread the terror of their arms over the face of civilization, as far as\nthe frontiers of Europe.\n\nBut, in the march and development of the human mind, these nations are\nfar from occupying the same eminent station. In this respect, also, the\nfifth continent of the globe, Polynesia--though nearly equal to Europe\nin extent, counts as nought. Even America, the largest of those\ncontinents, occupies here a comparatively subordinate rank; and it is\nonly in latter ages, and since its discovery, that it can be said to\nbelong to history. Since that period, indeed, the inhabitants of this\nportion of the world have adopted, for the most part, the language, the\nmanners, the modes of thinking, and the political Institutions of\nEurope; for the still subsisting remnant of its ancient savages is very\ninconsiderable: so that America may be regarded as a remote dependency,\nand, as it were, a continuation of old Europe on the other side of the\nAtlantic. Great as the re-action may be, which this second Europe,\nsprung up in the solitudes of the new world, has during the last fifty\nyears exerted on its mother-continent, still as this influence forms a\npart but of very recent history, it is only in very modern times that\nAmerica has obtained any historical weight and importance.\n\nEven in its natural configuration, the new world is more widely\ndifferent from the old, than the principal parts of the latter are from\neach other. As in comparing the Northern extremity of the earth with its\nSouthern or aqueous extremity, we observe a striking disparity, and\nalmost complete opposition between the two; so we shall find this to be\nthe case, if, in advancing in the opposite direction from east to west,\nwe divide the whole surface of the earth into two equal parts. On one\nhand that more important division of the earth, extending from the\nWestern coast of Africa to the Eastern coast of Asia, comprises the\nthree ancient continents, which, from the upper to the middle part,\noccupy almost the whole space of this half of the globe. Here is the\ngreatest quantity of land, and the animal kingdom, too, is on a more\nlarge and magnificent scale. It is only at the Southern extremity of\nthis hemisphere that sea and water are predominant; and here a\ncontinuous chain of islands from the southernmost point of Asia reaches\nto the fifth and last portion of the globe--Australia, making it a sort\nof Asiatic dependency. In the American hemisphere, the element of water\nis predominant, not only at the Southern extremity, but towards the\nmiddle; for, large as America may be, it can bear no comparison with the\nother continents in respect to extent of surface. Our hemisphere is more\nremarkable even for extent of population than for the quantity of land.\nHere indeed is the chief seat of population, and the principal theatre\nof human history and human civilization.\n\nThe entire population of America, which, as it is for the most part of\nEuropean extraction, is better known to us than that of many countries\nmore contiguous--the entire population of America at the highest\ncomputation of the whole number of inhabitants on the globe, forms but a\nthirtieth part, and at the lowest computation, not a four-and-twentieth\npart of the whole. Widely extended as this thinly peopled continent is,\nthe whole number of its inhabitants scarcely exceeds the population of a\nsingle great European state, such as either France or Germany, whose\npopulation, indeed, it about equals. Vegetation, indeed, is most rich\nand luxuriant in America; but the two most generous plants reared by\nhuman culture, and which are so closely connected with the primitive\nhistory of man--corn and the vine--were originally unknown in this\nquarter of the world. In the animal kingdom, America is far inferior to\nthe other and more ancient continents of the globe. Many of the noblest\nand most beautiful species of animals did not exist there originally;\nand others again were found most unseemly in form, and most degenerate\nin nature. Some species of animals indigenous to that continent form but\na feeble compensation for the absence of others, the most useful and\nmost necessary for the purposes of husbandry and the domestic uses of\nman. We may boldly lay it down as a general proposition not to be taxed\nwith error or exaggeration, that in the new hemisphere, vegetation is\npredominant, while in the old, animal force preponderates, and is more\nfully developed. This superiority is apparent not only in the\ncomparative extent of population, but in the organic structure of the\nhuman form. Even the African tribes are far superior in bodily strength\nand agility to the aboriginal natives of America; and in point of\nlongevity and fecundity, the latter are not to be compared with the\nMalayan race, and the Mongul tribes in the central or North-eastern\nparts of Asia, and in Southern Tartary, races with whom, in other\nrespects, they seem to bear some analogy.\n\nAs the American continent, in other respects so incomplete, is mostly\nseparated from all the others; and its form is more simple and less\ncomplex than that of the ancient divisions of the globe, it well\ndeserves our consideration in that point of view; and it may perhaps\nfurnish the general type and true geographical outline of a continent in\nits natural state. A narrow isthmus connects the upper half, stretching\nin a widely extended tract towards the North Pole, and the inferior\npart, with its Southern peak; and thus both form, according to general\nimpression but one and the same continent; and so prove, in fact, how\ntotally the Northern and Southern parts of a continent may differ. That\nnow in the period when the Euxine was still united to the Caspian, when\nthe White sea stretched farther into land, and the Ural mountains formed\nan island, or were surrounded to the North and South by the sea, Asia\nand Europe were probably separated towards the North, is a point to\nwhich we have already had occasion to allude. But if, on the one hand,\nEurope were separated from Asia, it might on the other have been easily\njoined to Africa by an isthmus, where it is now divided from it by a\nstraight, and so have formed with it one connected continent; in the\nsame way as Australia is united with Asia, if at least we consider the\nlong chain of islands between them as one unbroken continuity. Then in\ntruth there would have been but three continents of a form similar to\nthe above-mentioned one of America; except that the two nobler\ncontinents closely entangled with one another would not on that account\nhave so well preserved the original conformation. That it is on the\nwhole more correct, and more consonant with nature, as well as with\ntheory, to suppose the existence of only three original portions of the\nglobe, might be shown by much additional evidence.\n\nBut, laying aside these geological facts and observations, ideas and\nconjectures, the philosophic historian can reckon over the whole surface\nof the globe but fifteen historical and important civilized countries of\ngreater or less extent, which can form the subject, and furnish the\ngeographical outline of his remarks. This historical chain of lands, or\nthis stream of historical nations from the south-east of Asia to the\nNorthern and Western extremities of Europe, forms a tract, through both\ncontinents, which though of considerable breadth, is not, in proportion\nto the extent of these continents, of very great magnitude, and which\nmay be divided into three classes, coinciding chronologically in their\nseveral periods of historical glory and development with the great eras\nor sections of universal history from the primitive ages down to the\npresent times. In the first class of these mighty and celebrated\ncivilized countries, I would place the three great magnificent regions\nin Eastern and Southern Asia, China, India, between which the ancient\nBactriana forms a point of transition and connecting link--and lastly\nPersia. In a more westerly and somewhat more northerly direction than\nthe three countries just named, the second or middle class is composed\nof four or five regions remarkable for extent and beauty, and above all\nfor their historical importance and celebrity. First of all, there is\nthat middle country of Western Asia above-mentioned, which is situate\nnear two great streams--the Tigris and the Euphrates, and bounded by\nfour inland seas, the Persian and Arabian gulfs, and the Caspian and\nMediterranean seas. Upon this midland country of ancient history, in\nevery respect so worthy of notice, I have but one observation to add,\nthat in this great series of civilized countries it occupies nearly the\nmiddle place; for the Southern extremity of India is about as far\nremoved from it as, in the opposite direction, the North of Scotland.\nAnd the Eastern part of China is not much more distant from this region\nthan in the opposite quarter the Western coast of the Hesperian\nPeninsula. Next must be included in this class the circumjacent\ncountries, Arabia, Egypt, and Asia Minor, together with the Caucasian\nregions.\n\nAs in the flourishing period of her ancient history, Greece was in every\nway far more closely connected with Asia Minor, Phoenicia, and Egypt,\nthan with the countries of Europe, she also must be comprised in this\ndivision of Central Asia. On the other hand, there is no country in\nEurope which, considered in itself, bears so strongly the distinctive\ngeographical configuration peculiar to the European continent. This\npeculiar configuration of Europe, so well adapted to the purposes of\nsettlement, and to the progress of civilization, consists in this--that\nin no other continent does the same given space of territory present to\nthe sea so extensive and diversified a line of coast, and furnish it\nwith so many streams, great and small, as Europe shut in, as it is,\nbetween two inland seas, and the great ocean, and which runs out into so\nmany great and commodiously situated Peninsulas, and possesses large,\nmagnificent, and, in part, very anciently and highly civilized islands,\nlike Sicily and the British Isles. What Europe is in a large way, Greece\nis in a small--a region of coasts, islands and peninsulas. Belonging\nmore to one continent in its natural conformation, and to the other by\nits historical connexion, Greece forms the point of transition and the\nintermediate link between Asia and Europe.\n\nThe other six or seven principal countries in Europe, taken according to\na strict geographical classification, and without paying attention to\nthe political variations of territory, whether in antiquity, the middle\nages, or modern times, form the members of the third class. These are\nfirst the two beautiful peninsulas, Italy and Spain; next France on the\nNorth and South washed by two different seas, and towards the North,\njutting out into a by no means inconsiderable peninsula--further on, the\nBritish isles, the ancient Germany with its Northern coast stretching\nalong two seas, to which must be annexed from the ancient consanguinity\nof their inhabitants, the Cimbric and Scandinavian islands and\npeninsulas; lastly, the vast Sarmatia, towards the North and East\nextending far into Asia, in the wide tract from the Euxine to the Frozen\nsea. From Sarmatia, however, must be separated, on account of their\nnatural situation, the great Danubian countries, extending from the\nSouth of the Carpathian mountains, down to the other mountainous chain\nnorthward of Greece--such as the ancient Illyricum, Pannonia and\nDacia--regions which, in a strict geographical point of view, must be\nregarded as forming a distinct class. In an historical point of view,\nthe whole Northern coast of Africa, stretching along the Mediterranean,\nshould be included in this division of European countries, not only from\nthat early commercial and colonial connexion, established in the time of\nthe Carthaginian republic, and in the first period of the Roman wars and\nconquests; but from the prevalence in that country, down to the fourth\nand fifth centuries, of European manners, language and refinement. Even\nduring the existence of the Saracenic empire, a very close intercourse\nsubsisted for many centuries between this coast and Spain.\n\nSuch, according to a general geographical survey of the globe, would be\nthe historical land-chart of civilization, if I may so express myself,\nwhich forms the grand outline I must steadily keep in view, in the\nfollowing sketch of nations, in which I will endeavour to explain with\nthe utmost clearness and precision, and point out closely in all its\nparticular bearings, the principle laid down in this work respecting the\ninternal Word, as the essential characteristic of man.\n\n\nEND OF LECTURE II.\n\n\n\n\nLECTURE III.\n\n     Of the constitution of the Chinese Empire--the moral and political\n     condition of China--the character of Chinese intellect and Chinese\n     science.\n\n\n\"Man and the earth,\"--this has been the subject of our previous\ndisquisitions, and might serve as the superscription to this first\nportion of the work. In the second part, comprised in the four or five\nfollowing lectures, the subject discussed is sacred Tradition, according\nto the peculiar form which it assumed among each of the great and most\nremarkable nations in primitive antiquity, and as it is known from the\nvisible and universally scattered traces of a divine Revelation. It will\nbe our duty to trace, with a discriminating eye, the various course\nwhich, in the lapse of ages, this sacred tradition followed among each\nof those nations; and at the same time to point out, as far as the\nsubject will admit of historical proof, the one common source whence, as\nfrom a centre, issued those different streams of tradition to diffuse\nthroughout all the regions of the earth fertility and life, or to be\nlost and dried up in the sterile sands of human error. It will be also\nour task more accurately to define the share allotted to each of those\nleading nations in divine truth, or the heritage of higher knowledge\nwhich had been imparted to them. Closely connected with this subject, is\nthe designation of the internal Word, constituting as it does the\ndistinguishing mark and intellectual being of man and mankind; and\nwhich, as it has been variously manifested and developed in the\nlanguage, writings, Sagas, history, art and science--in the faith, the\nlife and modes of thinking of each of those nations, will be described\nin its most essential traits.\n\nI shall commence with the Chinese Empire, because, among the fifteen\nhistorical countries included in the line of civilization we have drawn\nabove, it occupies the extreme point of Eastern Asia. The names of East\nand West are indeed purely relative; and have not the same permanent and\ndefinite signification as the North or South pole in every portion of\nthe globe. China lies to the west of Peru; and to North America, or\nBrazil, Europe forms the east or north-east point. We still however\nadhere to common speech, purely relative as it is, and take our point of\nview from this Asiatic and European hemisphere, in which we dwell. If we\nwould extend in a westerly direction and to the great continent of\nAmerica, which is more and more assuming an important place in the\nhistory of the world, that series of great and civilized states,\nstretching from the south-east to the north-west in our mightier, more\ncelebrated, and earlier civilized hemisphere, we might add to the\nbefore-mentioned fifteen ancient and modern countries three young or\nrising states in the new world, which, springing in a three-fold\ndivision from British, Spanish, and Portuguese extraction, would\nconstitute the most recent, or last historical links in this chain of\ncommunities.\n\nThe Chinese empire is the largest of all the Monarchies now existing on\nthe earth, and even in this respect may well challenge the attention of\nthe historical enquirer. This empire is not absolutely the greatest in\nterritorial extent, though even in this respect it is scarcely inferior\nto the greatest; but in point of population it is in all probability the\nfirst. Spain, if we could now include in the number of her possessions\nher American colonies, would exceed all empires in extent. The same may\nbe said of Russia, with her annexed colonies, and boundless provinces in\nthe north of Asia. But, great as the population of this Empire may be,\nwhen considered in itself and relatively to the other European states,\nit can sustain no comparison with that of China. England with the East\nIndies and her colonial possessions in the three divisions of the globe,\nPolynesia, Africa, and America, has indeed a very wide extent, and,\nperhaps, when we include the hundred and ten millions that own her sway\nin India, comes the nearest in point of population to China. Of the\namount of the Chinese population, which is not with certainty known,\nthat of India may furnish a criterion for a conjectural and probable\nestimate. The British ambassador, Lord Macartney received an official\ndocument, in which the whole population of China was computed at the\nmonstrous amount of 330 millions. Even if the Chinese possessed those\nexact statistical estimates we have in Europe, it would still be a\nmatter of doubt how far in such cases we could confide in their\nveracity, especially in their relations with foreigners and Europeans.\nIn another and somewhat earlier statistical work, composed towards the\nclose of the 18th century, the population of this empire is estimated at\n147 millions; and the very incredible statement is added, that a hundred\nand fifty years before, or about the middle of the 17th century, the\nChinese population amounted only to 27 millions and a half. This rapid\nrise, or rather this prodigious stride in the numbers of a people, would\nbe in utter opposition to all principles and observations on the growth\nand progressive increase of population, even in the most civilized\ncountries. Thus even the statistical estimates of the Chinese furnish us\nwith no certain information on this subject. However as this vast region\nis every where intersected by navigable rivers and canals, every where\nstudded with large and highly populous cities, and enjoys a climate as\ngenial, or even still more genial, and certainly far more salubrious\nthan that of India; as, like the latter country, it every where presents\nto the eye the richest culture, and is in all appearance as much\npeopled, or over-peopled, we may take India, whose total population is\nnot near included in the 110 millions under British rule, as furnishing\na pretty accurate standard for the computation of the Chinese\npopulation. Now, when we reflect that even the proper China is larger\nthan the whole western peninsula of India, and that the vast countries\ndependent on China, such as Thibet and southern Tartary are very\npopulous, the conjectural calculation of the English writer, from whom I\nhave taken these critical remarks on the early estimates of Chinese\npopulation, and who reckons it at 150 millions, may be regarded as a\nvery moderate computation, and may with perfect safety, be considerably\nraised. Thus then the Chinese population is nearly as large as the whole\npopulation of Europe, and constitutes, if not a fourth, at least a\nfifth, of the total population of the globe.\n\nI permit myself to indulge in cursory comparisons of this kind, and for\nthe reason that the history of civilization, which forms the basis, and\nas it were the outward body, of the philosophy of history, which should\nbe the inner and higher sense of the whole, is deeply interested in all\nthat refers to the general condition of humanity. And such an interest,\nwhich does not of itself lie in mere statistical calculations, but in\nthe outward condition of mankind, as the symbol of its inward state, may\nvery well attach to comparisons of this nature.\n\nThe interest, however, which the philosophic historian should take in\nall that relates to humanity in general, and to the various nations of\nthe earth, ought not to be regulated by the false standard of an\nindiscriminate equality, that would consider all nations of equal\nimportance, and pay equal attention to all without distinction. This\nwould indeed betray an indifference to, or at least ignorance of, the\nhigher principle implanted in the human breast. But this interest should\nbe measured not merely by the degree of population in a state, or by\ngeographical extent of territory, or by external power, but by\npopulation, territory and power combined--by moral worth and\nintellectual pre-eminence, by the scale of civilization to which the\nnation has attained. The Tongoosses, though a very widely diffused race,\nthe Calmucks, though, compared with the other nations of central Asia,\nthey have much to claim our attention, cannot certainly excite equal\ninterest, or hold as high a place in the history of human civilization,\nas the Greeks or the Egyptians; though the territory of Egypt itself is\ncertainly not particularly large, nor according to our customary\nstandard of population, were its inhabitants in all probability ever\nvery numerous. In the same way, the Empire of the Moguls, which embraced\nChina itself, has not the same high interest and importance in our eyes\nas the Roman Empire either in its rise or in its fall. Writers on\nuniversal history have not however always avoided this fault, and have\nbeen too much disposed to place all nations on the same historical\nfooting,--on the false level of an indiscriminate equality; and to\nregard humanity in a mere physical point of view, and according to the\nnatural classification of tribes and races. In these sketches of\nhistory, the high and the noble is often ranked with the low and the\nvulgar, and neither what is truly great, nor what is of lesser\nimportance, (for this, too, should not be overlooked) has its due place\nin these portraits of mankind.\n\nA numerous, or even excessive population is undoubtedly an essential\nelement of political power in a state; but it is not the only, nor in\nany respect, the principal symptom or indication of the civilization of\na country. It is only in regard to civilization that the population of\nChina deserves our consideration. Although in these latter times, when\nEurope by her political ascendency over the other parts of the world has\nproved the high pre-eminence of her arts and civilization; England and\nRussia have become the immediate neighbours of China towards the north\nand west; still these territorial relations affect not the rest of\nEurope; and China, when we leave out of consideration its very important\ncommerce, cannot certainly be accounted a political power in the general\nsystem. Even in ancient, as well as in modern times, China never figured\nin the history of Western Asia or Europe, and had no connection whatever\nwith their inhabitants; but this great country has ever stood apart,\nlike a world within itself, in the remote, unknown Eastern Asia. Hence\nthe earlier writers on universal history have taken little or no notice\nof this great Empire, shut out as it was from the confined horizon of\ntheir views. And this was natural, when we consider that the conquests\nand expeditions of the Asiatic nations were considered by these writers\nas subjects of the greatest weight and importance. No conquerors have\never marched from China into Western Asia, like Xerxes, for instance,\nwho passed from the interior of Persia to Athens; or Alexander the\nGreat, who extended his victorious march from his small paternal\nprovince of Macedon, to beyond the Indus, and almost to the borders of\nthe Ganges, though the latter river, he was in despite of all his\nefforts, unable to reach. But the great victorious expeditions have\nproceeded not from China, but from central Asia, and the nations of\nTartary, who have invaded China itself; though in these invasions the\nmanners, mind, and civilization of the Chinese have evinced their power,\nas their Tartar conquerors, in the earliest as in the latest times, have\nafter a few generations, invariably conformed to the manners and\ncivilization of the conquered nation, and become more or less Chinese.\n\nNot only the great population and flourishing agriculture of this\nfruitful country, but the cultivation of silk, for which it has been\ncelebrated from all antiquity; the culture of the tea-plant, which forms\nsuch an important article of European trade; as well as the knowledge of\nseveral most useful medicinal productions of nature; and unique and, in\ntheir way, excellent products of industry and manufacture; prove the\nvery high degree of civilization which this people has attained to. And\nhow should not that people be entitled to a high or one of the highest\nplaces among civilized nations, which had known, many centuries before\nEurope, the art of printing, gun-powder, and the magnet--those three so\nhighly celebrated and valuable discoveries of European skill? Instead of\nthe regular art of printing with transposeable letters, which would not\nsuit the Chinese system of writing, this people make use of a species of\nlithography, which, to all essential purposes is the same, and attended\nwith the same effects. Gunpowder serves in China, as it did in Europe in\nthe infancy of the discovery, rather for amusement and for fire-works,\nthan for the more serious purpose of warlike fortification and conquest:\nand though this people are acquainted with the magnetic needle, they\nhave never made a like extended application of its powers, and never\nemploy it either in a confined river and coasting navigation, or on the\nwide ocean, on which they never venture.\n\nThe Chinese are remarkable too for the utmost polish and refinement of\nmanners, and even for a fastidious urbanity and a love of stately\nceremonial. In many respects indeed their politeness and refinement\nalmost equal those of European nations, or at least are very superior to\nwhat we usually designate by the term of oriental manners--a term which\nin our sense can apply only to the more contiguous Mahometan countries\nof the Levant. Of this assertion we may find a sufficient proof in any\nsingle tale that pourtrays the present Chinese life and manners, in the\nnovel, for instance, translated by M. Remusat.[43] In their present\nmanners and fashions, however, there are many things utterly at variance\nwith European taste and feelings; I need only mention the custom of the\ndignitaries, functionaries, and men of letters, letting their nails grow\nto the length of birds' claws, and that other custom in women of rank,\nof compressing their feet to a most artificial diminutiveness. Both\ncustoms, according to the recent account of a very intelligent\nEnglishman, serve to mark and distinguish the upper class; for the\nformer renders the men totally incapable of hard or manual labour, and\nthe latter impedes the women of rank in walking, or at least gives them\na mincing gait, and a languid, delicate and interesting air. These\nminute traits of manners should not be overlooked in the general sketch\nof this nation, for they perfectly correspond to many other\ncharacteristic marks and indications of unnatural stiffness, childish\nvanity, and exaggerated refinement, which we meet with in the more\nimportant province of its intellectual exertions. Even in the basis of\nall intellectual culture, the language, or rather the writing of the\nChinese, this character of refinement pushed beyond all bounds and all\nconception is visible, while on the other hand it is coupled with great\nintellectual poverty and jejuneness. In a language where there are not\nmuch more than three hundred, not near four hundred, and (according to\nthe most recent critical investigation,) only 272 monosyllabic primitive\nroots without any kind of grammar; where the not merely various but\nutterly unconnected significations of one and the same word are marked\nin the first place by a varying modulation of the voice, according to a\nfourfold method of accentuation; in the next place, and chiefly by the\nwritten characters, which amount to the prodigious number of eighty\nthousand; while the Egyptian hieroglyphs do not exceed the number, of\neight hundred; and this Chinese system of writing is the most artificial\nin the whole world. An inference which is not invalidated by the fact\nthat, out of that great number of all actual or possible written\ncharacters, but a fourth part perhaps is really in use, and a still less\nportion is necessary to be learned. As the meaning, especially of more\ncomplex notions and abstract ideas can be fully fixed and accurately\ndetermined only by such artificial ciphers; the language is far more\ndependent on these written characters than on living sound; for one and\nthe same sound may often be designated by 160 different characters, and\nhave as many significations. It not rarely occurs that Chinese, when\nthey do not very well understand each other in conversation, have\nrecourse to writing, and by copying down these ciphers are enabled to\ndivine each other's meaning, and become mutually intelligible. To\ncomprehend rightly this immeasurable chaos of originally symbolic, but\nnow merely conventional signs--in other words, to be able to read and\nwrite, though this science involves great and difficult problems even\nfor the most practised, constitutes the real subject and purport of the\nscientific education of a Chinese. Indeed it furnishes labour sufficient\nto fill up the life of man, for even the European scholars, who have\nengaged in this study, find it a matter of no small difficulty to devise\na system whereby a dictionary, or rather a systematic catalogue of all\nthese written characters may be composed, to serve as a fit guide on\nthis ocean of Chinese signs.--But we shall have again occasion to recur\nto this subject; and indeed it is only in connexion with the peculiar\nbearings of the Chinese mind this writing system can be properly\nexplained and understood in its true meaning, or rather its meaningless\nconstruction and elaborateness.\n\nOf the external civilization of China, we have a striking proof and a\nstanding monument in the construction of so many canals that intersect\nthe whole country, and in every thing connected therewith. As the\nextraordinary fertility of the soil is produced by the many rivers of\ngreater or less magnitude that intersect the country, but which at the\nsame time threaten the flat plains with inundation, it is the first\nobject and most important care of government, to avert the danger of\nsuch inundations, to distribute the fertilizing waters in equal\nabundance over the whole country, and thus by means of canals, to\nmaintain in all parts the communication by water which is at the same\ntime of equal benefit and importance to industry and internal commerce.\nIn no civilized state are establishments of this kind so extensively\ndiffused and brought to so high a state of perfection as in China. The\ngreat imperial canal which extends to the length of 120 geographical\nleagues, has, it is said, no parallel on the earth. Although the\nconstruction of canals, and all the regulations on water-carriage could\nhave attained by degrees only to their present state of perfection,\nstill this alone would prove the very early attention which this people\nhad bestowed on the arts of civilized life. Mention is often made of\nthem in the old Chinese histories and imperial annals; and the canals of\nChina, like the Nile in Egypt, were ever the objects of most anxious\nsolicitude to the government. These annals, whenever they have occasion\nto speak of those great inundations and destructive floods, which are of\nsuch frequent occurrence in Chinese history, invariably represent the\nattention bestowed on water-courses and water-regulations, as the most\ncertain mark of a wise, benevolent, and provident administration. On the\nother hand the neglect of this most important of administrative concerns\nis ever regarded as the proof of a wicked, reckless and unfortunate\nreign; and in these histories some great calamity, or even violent\ncatastrophe, is sure to follow, like a stroke of divine vengeance, on\nthis unpardonable neglect of duty. Together with the imperial canal, the\ngreat Chinese wall, which extends on the Northern frontier of China\nproper, to the length of 150 geographical leagues, is another no less\nimportant, and still standing monument of the comparatively high\ncivilization which this country had very early attained. Such is the\nheight and thickness of this wall, that it has been calculated that its\ncubic contents exceed all the mass of stone employed in all the\nbuildings in England and Scotland; or again that the same materials\nwould serve to construct a wall of ordinary height and moderate\nthickness round the whole earth. This great wall of China may be\nconsidered as a characteristic, and as it were a symbol of the seclusive\nspirit and aversion to every thing foreign in person, manners and modes\nof thinking which distinguish the Chinese state. This spirit, however\nhas been as little able as the great wall itself, to defend China\nagainst foreign conquests, or even against the introduction of foreign\nsects. This wall, which was built about two centuries before the\nChristian era, is a historical monument, which furnishes far stronger\nproof than all the dubious accounts of the old annals that even in\nancient times, and long before the conquest of the Monguls, and the\nestablishment of the present dynasty of Mantchou Tartars, the empire had\nbeen often conquered, or at least was constantly exposed to the\ninvasions of the Tartar tribes of the North.\n\nThe long succession of the different native dynasties of China, Tchin,\nHan, Tang, and Sung, down to the Monguls, which fills the diffuse annals\nof the empire, furnishes few important data on the intellectual progress\nof the Chinese; and every thing of importance to the object of our\npresent inquiries, that can be gathered out of the mass of political\nhistory, may be reduced to a very few plain facts. The English writer,\nwhom we have already cited, though otherwise inclined to a certain\ndegree of scepticism in his views, fixes the commencement of the\nhistorical ages of authentic history in the ancient dynasty of Chow,\neleven hundred years before the Christian era. The first fact of\nimportance, as regards the moral and intellectual civilization of China,\nis that this country was originally divided into many small\nprincipalities, and, under petty sovereigns, whose power was more\nlimited, enjoyed a greater share of liberty; and that it was formed into\na great and absolute monarchy only two hundred years before Christ. The\ngeneral burning of the books, of which more particular mention will be\npresently made, as well as the erection of the great wall, are\nattributed to the first general Emperor of all China, Chi-ho-angti; in\nwhose reign, too, Japan became a Chinese colony, or received from China\na political establishment. At a still later period, as in the fifth\ncentury of our era, and again at the time of the Mogul conquest under\nZingis Khan, China was divided into two kingdoms, a northern and a\nsouthern. But there is another fact already mentioned that throws still\nstronger light on the high civilization of China--it is that at every\nperiod, when this empire has been conquered by the Moguls and Tartars,\nthe conquerors, overcome in their turn by the ascendancy of Chinese\ncivilization, have, within a short time, invariably adopted the manners,\nlaws, and even language of China, and thus its institutions have\nremained, on the whole, unaltered. But here is a circumstance in Chinese\nhistory particularly worthy of our attention. In no state in the world\ndo we see such an entire, absolute, and rigid monarchical unity as in\nthat of China, especially under its ancient form; although this\ngovernment is more limited by laws and manners, and is by no means of\nthat arbitrary and despotic character which we are wont to attribute to\nthe more modern oriental states. In China, before the introduction of\nthe Indian religion of Buddha, there was not even a distinct sacerdotal\nclass--there is no nobility, no hereditary class with hereditary\nrights--education, and employment in the service of the state, form the\nonly marks of distinction; and the men of letters and government\nfunctionaries are blended together in the single class of Mandarins; but\nthe state is all in all. However, this absolute monarchical system has\nnot conduced to the peace, stability, and permanent prosperity of the\nstate, for the whole history of China, from beginning to end, displays\none continued series of seditions, usurpations, anarchy, changes of\ndynasty, and other violent revolutions and catastrophes. This is proved\nby the bare statement of facts, though the official language of the\nImperial annals ever concedes the final triumph to the monarchical\nprinciple.\n\nThe same violent revolutions occurred in the department of science and\nof public doctrines, as in the instance already cited of the general\nburning of the books by order of the first general Emperor; when the men\nof letters, or at least a party of them, were persecuted, and four\nhundred and sixty followers of Confucius burnt. This act of tyranny\nundoubtedly supposes a very violent contest between factions--an\nimportant political struggle between hostile sects, and a mighty\nrevolution in the intellectual world. At the same time, too, a favourite\nof this tyrannical prince introduced a new system of writing, which has\nled to the greatest confusion, even in subsequent ages. Such an\nintellectual revolution is doubtless evident on the introduction of the\nIndian religion of Buddha, or Fo (according to the Chinese appellation),\nwhich took place precisely three-and-thirty years after the foundation\nof Christianity. The conquest of China by the Moguls, under Zingis Khan,\noccurred at the same time that their expeditions towards the opposite\nquarter of Europe spread terror and desolation over Russia and Poland,\nas far as the confines of Silesia. This conquest produced a re-action,\nand a popular revolution, conducted by a common citizen of China, by\nname Chow, restored the Empire; this citizen afterwards ascended the\nthrone, and became the founder of a new Chinese dynasty. The Emperors of\nthe present dynasty of Mantchou Tartars, that has now governed China\nsince the middle of the 17th century, are distinguished for their\nattachment to the old customs and institutions of China, and even to its\nlanguage and science; and their elevation to the throne has given rise\nto many great scientific enterprises, and has been singularly favourable\nto the investigations of those European scholars whose object it is to\nmake us better acquainted with China. But at the moment I am speaking, a\ngreat rebellion has broken out in the northern part of the kingdom, and\nin the opposite extremity the Christians are exposed to a more than\nordinary persecution.\n\nThese few leading incidents in Chinese history may suffice to make known\nthe principal epochs in the intellectual progress and civilization of\nthis people. As the constitution and development of the human mind are\nin each of those ancient nations closely connected with the nature of\ntheir language, and even sometimes (as in the case of the Chinese) with\ntheir system of writing, the language of the latter people, being on\naccount of its amazing copiousness less fit for conversation than for\nwriting, I shall now make a few remarks on the very artificial mode of\nChinese writing, which is perfectly unique in its kind; but I shall\nconfine my observations to its general character, and shall forbear\nentering into the vast labyrinth of the 80,000 cipher-signs of speech,\nand all the problems and difficulties which they involve. The Chinese\nwriting was undoubtedly in its origin symbolical; though the rude marks\nof those primitive symbols can now scarcely be discerned in the\nenigmatical abbreviations, and in the complex combinations of the\ncharacters at present in use. It is no slight problem even for the\nlearned of China to reduce with any degree of certainty the boundless\nquantity of their written characters to their simple elements and\nprimitive roots; in this, however, they have succeeded, and have shown\nthat all these elements are to be found in the 214 symbols, or keys of\nwriting as they call them. The Chinese characters of the primitive ages\ncomprise only such representations indicated by a few rude strokes, of\nthose first simple objects which surround man while living in the most\nsimple state of society--such as the sun and moon, the most familiar\nanimals, the common plants, the instruments of human labour, weapons,\nand the different parts of human dwellings. This is the same rude\nsymbolical writing which we find among other uncivilized nations, the\nAmericans for example, and among these, the Mexicans in particular.\n\nThe celebrated French orientalist, Abel Remusat, who in our times has\ninfused a new life into the study of Chinese literature, and especially\nthrown on the whole subject a much greater degree of clearness than\noriginally belonged to it, has, in his examination of this first very\nmeagre outline of the infant civilization of China, wherein he discovers\nthe then very contracted circle of Chinese ideas, passed many\nintellectual observations, and drawn many historical deductions. And if,\nas he conjectures, the discovery of Chinese writing must date its origin\nfrom four thousand years back, this would bring it within three or four\ngenerations from the Deluge, according to the vulgar era--an estimate\nwhich certainly is not exaggerated. If this European scholar, intimately\nconversant as he is with Chinese antiquities and science, is at a loss\nadequately to describe his astonishment at the extreme poverty of these\nfirst symbols of Chinese writing, so no one, doubtless, possesses in a\nhigher degree than himself all the necessary attainments to enable him\nto appreciate the immeasurable distance between this first extreme\njejuneness of ideas and the boundless wealth displayed in the later,\nartificial and complex writing of the Chinese.\n\nBut when, among other things, he calls our attention to the fact that,\nin this primitive writing, even the sign or symbol of a priest is\nwanting,--a symbol which together with the class itself must exist among\nthe very rudest nations--I cannot concur in the truth of the remark; for\nhe himself adduces, among other characters, one which must represent a\nmagician. Now among the heathen nations of the primitive age, the one\npersonage was certainly identical with the other, as even among the\nCainites was very probably the case. Even the combination of several of\nthose simple characters, which generally serves to denote the more\nabstract ideas, seems often, or at least originally not to have been\nregulated by any profound principle of symbolism, but to have arisen\nmerely out of the vulgar perceptions or impressions of every-day life.\nFor instance, the character denoting happiness is composed of two signs,\nof which one represents an open mouth, and the other a hand full of\nrice, or rice by itself. Here we see no allusion is made to any very\nlofty or chimerical idea of happiness, or to any mystic or spiritual\nconception of the same subject; but, as this written-character well\nevinces, the Chinese notion of happiness is simply represented by a\nmouth filled and saturated with good rice. Another example of nearly the\nsame kind is given by Remusat with something of shyness and\nreserve;--the character designating woman, when doubled, signifies\nstrife and contention, and when tripled, immoral and disorderly conduct.\nHow widely removed are all these coarse and trivial combinations of\nideas from an exquisite sense--a deep symbolism of Nature--from those\nspiritual emblems in the Egyptian hieroglyphics, so far as they have\nbeen deciphered; although these emblems may have been, and were in fact\napplied to the purpose of alphabetic usage. In the hieroglyphics there\nis, beside the bare literal meaning, a high symbolical inspiration, like\na soul of life--like the breathing of a high in-dwelling spirit,--a\ndeeply felt significancy--a lofty and beautiful design apparent through\nthe dead character denoting any particular name or fact.[44]\n\nBut independently of this boundless chaos of written-characters, the\nChinese undoubtedly possess a system of scientific symbols, and\nsymbolical signs, which constitute the purport of the most ancient of\ntheir sacred books--the I--King--which signifies the book of unity, or,\nas others explain it, the book of changes; and either name will agree\nwith the meaning of those symbols which, when rightly understood, and\nconceived in the spirit of early antiquity, will appear to be of a very\nremarkable and scientific nature. There are only two primary figures or\nlines, from which proceed originally the four symbols and the eight koua\nor combinations representing nature, which form the basis of the high\nChinese philosophy. These first two primary principles are a straight,\nunbroken line, and a line broken or divided into two. If these first\nsimple elements are doubled: namely--two straight lines put under each\nother like our arithmetical sign of equation, and two broken or divided\nlines also put together, the different lines are formed. According as\none broken line occupies the upper or the lower place, there are two\npossible variations--when put together, there are four possible\nvariations; and these constitute the four symbols. But if three lines of\nthese two kinds, the straight and the broken, are united or placed under\neach other, so, according to the number or the upper, middle or lower\nplace of either species of line, there are eight possible combinations,\nand these are the eight koua, which, together with the four symbols,\nrefer to the natural elements, and to the primary principles of all\nthings, and serve as the symbolical expression, or scientific\ndesignation, of these.\n\nWhat is now the real sense and the proper signification of those\nscientific primary lines among the Chinese, which exert an influence\nover the whole of their ancient literature, and upon which they\nthemselves have written an incredible number of learned commentaries?\nLeibnitz supposed them to contain a reference to the modern algebraical\ndiscoveries, and especially to the binary calculation. Other writers,\nespecially among the English, drawing their observations more from real\nlife, remark on the other hand, that this ancient system of mystical\nlines serves at present the purpose of a sort of oracular play of\nquestions, like the turning up of cards among Europeans, and is\nconverted to many superstitious uses, especially for making pretended\ndiscoveries in alchymy, to which the Chinese are very much addicted. But\nthis is only an abuse of modern times, which no longer understand this\nprimitive system of symbolical signs and lines. The high antiquity of\nthese lines and of the eight koua can be the less a matter of doubt as\neven mythology has ascribed them to the primitive Patriarch of the\nChinese--Fohi, who is represented as having espied these lines on the\nback of a tortoise, and having thence deduced the written characters;\nwhich many of the learned Chinese wish to derive from these eight koua\nor combinations of the first symbolical lines. But the French scholar,\nwhom I have more than once had occasion to name, and who is well able to\nform a competent opinion on the subject, is most decidedly opposed to\nthis Chinese derivation of all the written characters from the eight\nkoua; and it would appear, indeed, that the latter differ totally from\nthe common system of Chinese writing, and must be looked upon as of a\ndistinct scientific nature.\n\nPerhaps we may find a natural explanation of the true, and not very\nhidden sense of these signs, by comparing the fundamental doctrines in\nthe elder Greek philosophy and science of nature. Thus, in the writings\nof Plato, mention is often made of the one and of the other, or of unity\nand duality, as the original elements of nature and first principles of\nall existence. By this is meant the doctrine of the first opposition and\nof the many oppositions derived from the first; and also of the\npossible, and conceivable, or required adjustment and compromise between\nthe two, and of the restoration of the first unity and eternal equality\nanterior to all opposition, and which terminates and absorbs in itself\nall discord. Thus these eight koua, and mathematical signs or symbolical\nlines of ancient China, would comprise nothing more than a dry outline\nof all dynamical speculation and science. And it is therefore quite\nconsistent that the old sacred book which contains these principles of\nChinese science should be termed either the book of unity, or the book\nof changes; for doubtless this title refers to the doctrine of an\nabsolute unity, as the fundamental principle of all things, and to the\ndoctrine of differences, or oppositions or changes springing out of that\nfirst unity. This doctrine of an opposition in all things, in thought as\nin nature--will become more apparent if we reflect on the new and\nbrilliant discoveries in natural philosophy. For as in this science, the\noxygen and hydrogen parts in the chemistry of metals, or the positive\nand negative end of electrical phenomena, in the attracting and\nrepelling pole of magnetism, reveal such an opposition and dynamic play\nof living powers in nature; so in this philosophy of China, the abstract\ndoctrine of this opposition and dynamical change of existence seems to\nbe laid down with a sort of mathematical generality, as the basis of all\nfuture science. In our higher natural philosophy, indeed, all this has\nbeen proved from facts and experience; and, besides, this dynamic life\nforms but the one element, and the one branch of the science to be\nacquired; and a philosophy founded entirely on this dynamical law of\nexistence, without any regard to the other and higher principle of\ninternal experience and moral life, intellectual intuition and divine\nrevelation, would be at best a very partial system, and by no means of\ngeneral application; or if a general application of such a system were\nmade, it must lead to endless mistakes, errors and contradictions. That\nsuch a system of dynamical speculation and science, if extended to\nobjects where it cannot be corroborated by facts--to all things divine\nand human, real, possible, or impossible, will undoubtedly lead to such\na chaotic confusion of ideas; we have had a memorable experience in the\nGerman \"Philosophy of Nature\" of the last generation;[45] a philosophy\nwhich consisted in a fanciful play of thought with _Polarities, and\noppositions, and points of indifference between them_, but which has\nbeen long appreciated in its true worth and real nature, and consigned\nto its proper limits.\n\nThus this outline of the old Chinese symbols of thought, which have a\npurely metaphysical import, would lay before us the most recent error\nclothed in the most antique form--but the Chinese system is in itself\nvery remarkable and important. The fundamental text of the old sacred\nbook on this doctrine of unity and oppositions, and which may now be\neasily comprehended, runs thus, according to Remusat's literal\ntranslation: \"The great first Principle has engendered or produced two\nequations and differences, or primary rules of existence; but the two\nprimary rules or two oppositions, namely Yn and Yang, or repose and\nmotion (the affirmative and negative as we might otherwise call them)\nhave produced four signs or symbols; and the four symbols have produced\nthe eight koua, or further combinations.\" These eight koua are kien or\nether, kui or pure water, li or pure fire, tchin or thunder, siun, the\nwind, kan, common water, ken, a mountain, and kuen, the earth.\n\nOn this ancient basis of Chinese philosophy, proceeding from\nindifference to differences, was afterwards founded the rationalist\nsystem of Lao-tseu, whose name occurs somewhat earlier than that of\nConfucius. The Taosse, or disciples of Reason, as the followers of this\nphilosopher entitle themselves, have very much degenerated, and have\nbecome a complete atheistical sect; though the guilt of this must be\nattributed, not to the founder, but to his disciples only. It is however\nacknowledged that the atheistical principles of this dead science of\nreason, have been very widely diffused throughout the Chinese empire,\nand for a certain period were almost generally prevalent.\n\nAs it is necessary to keep in view a certain chronological order, in our\ninvestigations of the progressive development of Chinese intellect, I\nmay here observe that, as far as European research has been able to\nascertain, we may distinguish three principal and successive epochs in\nthe history both of the religion and science of China. The first epoch\nis that of sacred tradition, and of the old constitution of the Chinese\nempire, and discloses those primitive views, and that primitive system\nof ethics, on which the empire was founded. The second, which we may fix\nabout six centuries before our era, is the period of scientific\nphilosophy, that pursued two opposite paths of enquiry. Confucius\napplied his attention entirely to the more practical study of ethics,\nwith which, indeed, the old constitution, history and sacred traditions\nof the Chinese were very intimately connected; and the pure morality of\nConfucius which was the first branch of Chinese philosophy known in\nEurope, excited to a high degree the enthusiasm of many European\nscholars, who, by their too exclusive admiration, were prevented from\nforming a right estimate of the general character of Chinese philosophy.\n\nAnother system of philosophy, purely speculative and widely different\nfrom the practical and ethical doctrine of Confucius, was the system of\nLao-tseu and his school, whence issued the above-mentioned rationalist\nsect of Taosse that has at last fallen into atheism. As to the question\nwhether Lao-tseu travelled into the remote West, or in case he came only\nas far as Western Asia, whether he derived his system from the Persian\nor Egyptian doctrines or mediately from the Greek philosophy--this\nquestion I shall not here stop to discuss; for the matter is very\ndoubtful in itself, and, were it even proved, still all the doctrines\nborrowed from the West were invested in a form purely Chinese, and\nclothed in quite a native garb. Those signs in the I--King, we have\nalready spoken of, evidently comprise the germ of such an absolute,\nnegative, and consequently atheistic rationalism--a mechanical play of\nidle abstractions. The third epoch in the progress of Chinese opinions\nis formed by the introduction of the Indian religion of Buddha or of Fo.\nThe great revolution which had previously occurred in the old doctrines\nand manners of China; and the ruling spirit of that false and absolute\nrationalism, had already paved the way for the foreign religion of\nBuddha, which, of all the Pagan imitations of truth, occupies the lowest\ngrade.\n\nThe old sacred traditions of the Chinese are not so overlaid, nor\ndisfigured with fictions, as those of most other Asiatic nations; those\nof the Indians, for example, and of the early nations of Pagan Europe;\nbut their traditions breathe the purer spirit of genuine history. Hence\nthe poetry of the Chinese is not mythological, like that of other\nnations; but is either lyrical, (as in the Shi--King, a book of sacred\nsongs, composed or compiled by Confucius); or is entirely confined to\nthe representation of real life, and of the social relations (as in the\nmodern tales and novels, several of which have been translated into the\nEuropean languages).\n\nThe old traditions of the Chinese have many traits of a kindred\ncharacter with, or at least of a strong resemblance to, the Mosaic\nrevelation, and even to the sacred traditions of the nations of Western\nAsia, particularly the Persians; and in these traditions we find much\nthat either corroborates the testimony of Holy Writ, or at least affords\nmatter for further comparison. We have before mentioned the very\npeculiar manner in which the Chinese speak of the great Flood, and how\ntheir first progenitors struggled against the savage waters, and how\nthis task was afterwards neglected by bad or improvident rulers, who in\nconsequence of this neglect were brought to ruin.\n\nI will cite but one instance, where the parallel is indeed remarkable.\nIn the I--King mention is made of the fallen dragon, or of the spirit of\nthe dragon that, for his presumption in wishing to ascend to heaven, was\nprecipitated into the abyss; and the words in which this event is\ndescribed are precisely the same, or at least very similar to those\nwhich our Scriptures apply to the rebel angel, and the Persian books to\nAhriman. However this dragon is whimsically, we might almost say,\nartlessly, made the sacred symbol of the Chinese empire and Emperor. The\npaternal power of the latter is understood in a much too absolute sense:\nnot only is the Emperor styled the lord of heaven and earth, and even\nthe son of God; but his will it revered as the will of God, or rather\ncompletely identified with it; and even the most determined eulogists of\nthe Chinese constitution and manners cannot deny that the monarch is\nalmost the object of a real worship. Christianity teaches that all power\nis from God; but it does not thereby declare that all power is one and\nthe same with God. Even a dominion over nature and her powers is\nascribed to the Emperor of China, as the illustrious lord of heaven and\nearth.\n\nMoreover, no hereditary nobility, no classes separated by distinctions\nof birth, exist in this country, as in India. The Emperor, half\nidentified with the Deity, had alone the privilege in ancient times of\noffering on the sacred heights the great sacrifice to God. Some European\nwriters have, from this circumstance, conceived the Chinese constitution\nto be theocratic; but if it be so, it is only in its outward form, or\noriginal mould; for it would be difficult to shew in it any trace of a\ntrue, vital theocracy. All that pomp of sacred ceremony and religious\ntitles, so strangely abused, forms a striking contrast with real\nhistory, and with that long succession of profligate and unfortunate\nreigns and perpetual revolutions which fill most of the pages of the\nChinese annals. We should err greatly were we to regard all these high\nimperial titles as the mere swell and exaggeration of Eastern\nphraseology. The Chinese speak of their celestial Empire of the Medium,\nas they call their country, in terms which no European writer would\napply to a Christian state, and such indeed as the Scriptures and\nreligious authors use in reference only to the kingdom of God. They\ncannot conceive it possible for the earth to contain two emperors at one\nand the same time, and own the sway of more than one such absolute lord\nand master. Hence they look on every solemn foreign embassy as a debt of\nhomage; nor is this sentiment the idle effect of vanity, or fancy--it is\na firm and settled belief, perfectly coinciding with the whole system of\ntheir religious and political doctrines. This political idolatry of the\nstate, which the Chinese identify with the emperor's person, is a pagan\nerror: all excess, all exaggeration is sure to produce opposition and\nre-action, or a tendency thereto. Hence the pages of Chinese history\npresent by the side of this high boasted ideal of absolute power, as a\nfearful concomitant, and fitting commentary, one continuous series of\npolitical revolutions and catastrophes. Neither the pure morality of\nthose ancient books revered by the Chinese as sacred, whatever be the\nmorality of books in which the principle of rationalism is so\nexclusively predominant; nor all the high refinement of philosophic\nspeculation in the scientific period of their history, have prevented\nthis people from falling into the grossest of idolatries, and adopting a\nforeign superstition, which of all false religions is unquestionably the\nmost reprehensible. Some persons have sought to trace a certain\nresemblance to Christianity in this religion of Fo, partly on account of\nsome external institutions, and partly on account of the fundamental\nprinciple of the incarnation, equally perverted and misapplied in this\nsuperstition, as in the rival mythology of Brahma. The enemies of\nChristianity, since the time of Voltaire, have not failed, at the name\nof Bonzis, to throw out many malicious epigrams against religion. The\nsimilarity here observed is not real, but is that caricature resemblance\nthe ape bears to man, and which has led many naturalists into error; for\nthe ape has with man no real affinity, no true internal sympathy in his\norganic conformation, but merely the likeness of a spiteful parody, such\nas we may suppose an evil spirit to have devised to mock the image of\nGod--the masterpiece of creation; and indeed the frailties and\ncorruption of degenerate man may well give occasion to such a parody. We\nmay lay it down as a general principle that the greater the apparent\nresemblance which a false religion, utterly and fundamentally different\nin its spiritual character, and moral tendency, externally bears to the\ntrue, the more reprehensible will it be in itself, and the greater its\nhostility to the truth. An example near at hand will place the truth of\nthis remark in the clearest light. If, for instance, Mahomet, instead of\nmerely giving himself out as a prophet, had declared he was the son of\nGod, the eternal Word, the incarnate Deity, the true and real Christ,\nhis religious system would certainly have been far more adverse and\nrepulsive to our feelings than it now is, and would have shocked alike\nevery mind trained in the intellectual discipline of Europe, brought up\nwith Christian feelings, and even unconsciously imbued with such. But\nthis is precisely the characteristic feature, the peculiar doctrine of\nthe religion of Buddha; for not only is Buddha himself worshipped as an\nincarnate divinity, but this prerogative of a divine incarnation has\nbeen transmitted to his chief priests through every generation; and thus\nthis personal idolatry has ever been kept alive. In regard to morals,\ntoo, a comparison between the religion of the Buddhists and of the\nMahometans would be equally disadvantageous to the former. The injurious\ninfluence which polygamy, and that degradation of the female sex it\nnecessarily involves, exert on the manners and intellectual character of\nMahometan nations, has been often observed, and can never be questioned.\nBut that that other and opposite abuse of marriage, poly-andry, which is\nlegally established among the Buddhist nations, is infinitely more\nrepugnant to, and destructive of morality, and more debasing to the male\ncharacter, must be perceptible to the feelings of every individual, and\ncan require no comment. I do not find, indeed, in the different accounts\nof China, any mention made of this abominable practice; and it is very\npossible that in this, as in other cases, the good old customs of the\nChinese have had the ascendancy, and preserved their beneficial\ninfluence: but in Thibet, the chief seat of Buddhism, in many parts of\nIndia, and in other countries where this religion prevails, the\nunnatural custom exists.\n\nThe writer[46] best versed in the language and writings of the Buddhist\nMonguls boasts of their superior humanity and mildness of manners, when\ncompared with the Mahometan nations; but this observation must be taken\nonly in a relative sense, and understood of a mere outward polish, and\nsuperficial refinement of manner; for history does not show the Monguls\nto have been at all more humane in their conduct. The indescribable\nconfusion in the mythological system of the Buddhists, their innumerable\nbooks of metaphysics, all wearisomely prolix and unintelligible,\naccording to the explicit avowal of the critic just now cited, M.\nRemusat, prove the essentially false direction of speculation and\nphilosophy among the Buddhists--a philosophy which, by a dialectic or\nrather ideal course, has been led into a chaos of void abstractions, and\na pure nihilism; and more scientific observers have ever judged it to be\nan absolute system of atheism.\n\nIt would appear that the Nestorians, or other degenerate Christian\nsects, have exerted some influence on Buddhism, and co-operated in its\nfurther development;--so we may well imagine that this exotic influence\nhas not tended to the amelioration or improvement of a religion false in\nits essence, and fundamentally corrupt; but that its vices and\nabsurdities have remained equally flagrant, or, as it is easy to\nsuppose, have been aggravated in the progress of time.\n\nThis religion of Fo must not be considered as resembling Christianity,\nbecause its followers have monastic institutions, and make use of a kind\nof rosary; but as the political idolatry of the Chinese for their state\nand sovereign is widely different from the true principle of Christian\ngovernment, _that all power is from God_, so this false religion of\nBuddha is further removed than any other from Christianity: it is on the\ncontrary adverse to our religion, and, so far from being half similar to\nChristianity, is a decidedly anti-Christian creed.[47]\n\nWe may thus sum up the result of our enquiries:--among the great nations\nof primitive antiquity who stood the nearest, or at least very near, to\nthe source of sacred tradition--the word of primitive revelation,--the\nChinese hold a very distinguished place; and many passages in their\nprimitive history, many remarkable vestiges of eternal truth--the\nheritage of old thoughts--to be found in their ancient classical works,\nprove the originally high eminence of this people. But at a very early\nperiod, their science had taken a course completely erroneous, and even\ntheir language partly followed this direction, or at least assumed a\nvery stiff and artificial character. Descending from one degree of\npolitical idolatry to a grade still lower, they have at last openly\nembraced a foreign superstition--a diabolic mimicry of Christianity,\nwhich emanated from India, has made Thibet its principal seat, prevails\nin China, and, widely diffused over the whole middle Asia, reckons a\ngreater number of followers than any other religion on the earth.\n\n\nEND OF LECTURE III.\n\n\n\n\nLECTURE IV.\n\n     Of the Institutions of the Indians--the Brahminical caste, and the\n     hereditary priesthood.--Of the doctrine of the transmigration of\n     souls, considered as the basis of Indian life, and of Indian\n     philosophy.\n\n\nWhen Alexander the Great had attained the object of his most ardent\ndesires and, realizing the fabulous expedition of Bacchus and his train\nof followers, had at last reached India, the Greeks found this vast\nregion, even on this side of the Ganges--(for that river, the peculiar\nobject of Alexander's ambition, the conqueror in despite of all his\nefforts, was unable to reach)--the Greeks found this country extensive,\nfertile, highly cultivated, populous, and filled with flourishing\ncities, as it was, divided into a number of great and petty kingdoms.\nThey found there an hereditary division of castes, such as still\nsubsists; although they reckoned not four, but seven castes, a\ncircumstance, however, which, as we shall see later, argues no essential\ndifference in the division of Indian classes at that period. They\nremarked, also, that the country was divided into two religious parties\nor sects, the _Brachmans and the Samaneans_. By the first, the Greeks\ndesignated the followers of the religion of Brahma, as well as of\nVishnoo and Siva, a religion which still subsists, and is more deeply\nrooted and more widely diffused and prevalent in India than any other\nreligious system; distinguished as it is by its leading dogma of the\ntransmigration of souls, which has exerted the mightiest influence on\nevery department of thought, on the whole bearing of Indian philosophy,\nand on the whole arrangement of Indian life. But by the Greek\ndenomination of _Samaneans_ we must certainly understand the Buddhists,\nas, among the rude nations of central Asia, and in other countries, the\npriests of the religion of Fo bear at this day the name of _Schamans_.\nThese priests indeed appear to be little better than mere sorcerers and\njugglers, as are the priests of all idolatrous nations that are sunk to\nthe lowest degree of barbarism and superstition. The word itself is pure\nIndian, and occurs frequently in the religious and metaphysical\ntreatises of that people; for originally, and before it had received\nsuch a mean acceptation among those Buddhist nations, it had quite a\nphilosophical sense, as it still has in the Sanscrit. This word denotes\nthat equability of mind, or that deep internal equanimity which,\naccording to the Indian philosophy, must precede, and is indispensably\nrequisite to the perfect union with the God-head. In general all the\nnames by which Buddha, the priests of his religion, and its important\nand fundamental doctrines are known, whether in Thibet, or among the\nMongul nations, in Siam, in Pegu, or in Japan--in general, we say, all\nthose names are pure Indian words; for the tradition of all those\nnations, with unanimous accord, deduces the origin of this sect from\nIndia.\n\nThe name of Buddha, which the Chinese have changed, or shortened into\nthat of Fo, is rather an honorary appellation, and is expressive of the\ndivine wisdom with which, in the opinion of his followers, he was\nendowed; or which rather, according to their belief, became visible in\nhis person. The period of his existence is fixed by many at six hundred\nyears, by others again at a thousand years, before the Christian era.\nHis real and historical name was Gautama; and it is remarkable that the\nsame name was borne by the author of one of the principal philosophical\nsystems of the Hindoos, the Nyaya philosophy, the leading principles of\nwhich will be the subject of future consideration, when we come to speak\nof the Indian philosophy. Indeed, the dialectic spirit, which pervades\nthe Nyaya philosophy would seem to be of a kindred nature and like\norigin with the confused metaphysics of the Buddhists. But the names,\nnotwithstanding their identity, denote two different persons; although\neven the founder of the dialectic system, like almost all other\ncelebrated names in the ancient history, traditions and science of the\nIndians, figures in the character of a mythological personage. But we\nmust first take a view of the state of manners, and the state of\npolitical civilization, in India, in order to be able to form a right\njudgment and estimate of the intellectual and scientific exertions of\nits inhabitants, and of the peculiar nature and tendency of the Indian\nopinions.\n\nBy the manner in which the Greek writers speak of the two religious\nparties, into which Alexander found the country divided, it can scarcely\nbe doubted that the Buddhists at that period were far more numerous, and\nmore extensively diffused throughout India, than they are at the present\nday, and this inference is even corroborated by many historical vouchers\nof the Indians themselves. Although the Buddhists are now but an obscure\nsect of dissenters in the Western Peninsula, they are still tolerably\nnumerous in several of its provinces; while, on the other hand, they\nhave complete possession of the whole Eastern and Indo-Chinese\npeninsula. Besides this sect, there are many other religious dissenters\neven in Hindostan; such for instance, as the sect of _Jains_, who steer\na middle course between the followers of the old and established\nreligion of Brahma, and the Buddhists; for, like the latter, they reject\nthe Indian division and system of castes. Even the established religion\nitself is divided into three parties, which, though they do not form\nprecisely separate sects, still are marked by no inconsiderable\ndifferences in their opinions, views, and conduct: according as each of\nthese parties acknowledges the supremacy, or renders a nearly exclusive\nworship to one or other of the three principal Hindoo divinities,\nBrahma, Vishnoo, and Siva. And, although in the empire of the great\nMogul, the number of the Mahometan conquerors, and of those that\naccompanied them into India, was very small, compared with the mass of\nthe native population, yet, after the total destruction of this empire,\nthere still remain several millions of Mahometans in the country. Even\nthe Persian language, or a corrupt dialect of it, which these conquerors\nintroduced, is still in many places in use as the language of ordinary\nlife, trade, and business; in the same way as the Portuguese in the\nmaritime and commercial cities of India, or the Lingua Franca in our\neastern factories, serves as the usual and convenient medium of\ncommunication.\n\nThe Indian is not the only, or exclusively prevailing, language in the\nwhole peninsula; in several provinces, as for instance, on the southern\ncoast, and in the Isle of Ceylon, quite a different language prevails;\nand the old cultivated and classical speech of India is there unknown.\nThe name of Sanscrit, by which the latter is designated, denotes a\ncultivated or highly wrought language; but the Pracrit, which is\nemployed together or alternately with the Sanscrit in the theatrical\npieces of the Indians, signifies a natural and artless speech, and is\nnot so much a distinct dialect as a softer pronunciation of the\nSanscrit, which smoothes, suppresses, or melts down the hard and crowded\nconsonants, and pays less regard to the more elaborate grammatical forms\nof this language. The Pracrit, which is used in dramatic pieces,\nparticularly in the female parts, stands from its more simple grammar,\nin the same relation to the Sanscrit as the softer Italian or Portuguese\nis to the old Latin, without however the same heterogeneous alloy. But,\nindependently of these variations in the later and beautiful language of\nIndian poetry, the language of that country is split and divided into a\nnumber of dissimilar and widely dissimilar dialects, such as the\nMalabar, for example; and almost in every province the common language\nundergoes a variety of changes; and this is the case even in Bengal. The\ncountry of the Upper Ganges, especially Benares, is renowned for being\nthe chief seat of the Sanscrit tongue,--the place, at least, where it is\nbest understood, and spoken with the greatest purity.\n\nThose languages which differ totally from the Indian belong in part to\nquite a different race of men, mostly, perhaps, to the Malays: for, so\nfar is India from being entirely peopled by one single race of\ninhabitants, that we find in several of its provinces tribes of an\norigin totally different from that of the Hindoos. This great variety in\nthe whole life, manners, and political institutions of the Indians,\nforms a striking contrast with the absolute unity, and internal\nuniformity of the Chinese Empire. It was perhaps this variety in the\nmoral and political aspect of ancient India that gave rise to the\ndenomination which it has received in the old sacred Median books of\nZoroaster, where, in the first _fargard_, or section of the Vendidat, it\nis described as the fifteenth pure region of the earth, created by\nOrmuzd, and designated by the name of _Hapte Heando_--a name which\nsignifies the seven Indias. As India is still split into a multitude of\nsects and religions, and divided into different tribes, speaking various\nlanguages; so, as Herodotus long ago observed, it has for the most part\nbeen ever composed of a multitude of great and petty states, although\nfrom its natural boundaries it might easily have been formed into one\ngreat monarchy, and really constitutes but one country in its\ngeographical circumscription.\n\nThe historian of India would have principally to speak of the successes\nof a long series of foreign conquerors, who, from Alexander the Great to\nNadir Shah, have invaded this country by the North-west side from\nPersia. The Greeks were indeed told that, before Alexander the Great, no\nforeign conqueror had ever invaded India; and even after this invasion,\nand on the death of Sandracottus, when the Indians were liberated from\nthe transient dominion of the Greeks, they were for a long lapse of ages\ngoverned by native princes; and their country was parcelled out into a\nnumber of great and petty kingdoms, such as those of Magadha, Ayodha,\n&c. It is a striking incident in the moral, and intellectual history of\nthe Hindoos that amid all the revolutions under their ancient and native\nrulers, and amid all the later vicissitudes of foreign conquest, their\npeculiar modes of life and their institution of castes should have been\npreserved, and, in despite of all the changes of time and of empire,\nshould have stood unchanged, like the one surviving monument of the\nprimitive world. In the administration and government of this country,\nthe absolute monarchical sway which exists in China, and the unlimited\ndespotism of other oriental countries, could never be realized; for that\nhereditary division of classes, and those hereditary rights belonging to\neach, which, as they form a part of the Indian constitution, have taken\nsuch deep root in the soil; and which, as they rest on the immoveable\nbasis of ancient faith, have become, as it were, the second nature of\nthis people--all these present an unassailable rampart, which not even a\nforeign conqueror could ever succeed in overthrowing. We can hence\nunderstand what led the Greeks to believe and assert that there were\nRepublican states in India. If from prepossessions, which were natural\nto that people, they asserted too much, or thought they saw more than a\nnearer investigation proves to be actually the case; still their\nassertion is not totally without foundation, for the Indian system of\ncastes is in many respects more favourable to institutions of a\nRepublican nature, or at least Republican tendency, than the\nconstitution of any other Asiatic state. When those modern writers\ntherefore, who were the declared enemies of all hereditary rank and\nhereditary rights, spoke with contempt and abhorence of the Indian\nconstitution of castes, represented it as the peculiar basis of\ndespotism, and even applied the name of caste as a party-word to the\nsocial relations of Europe; their assertions were false and utterly\nopposed to history. The invectives of these writers may be easily\naccounted for, from their very democratic views, or rather from their\ndoctrine of absolute equality, as this equality itself is ever the\nattendant of despotism, produces it, or proceeds from it, and is one of\nits most distinctive characteristics. In confirmation of what we have\nsaid, we may observe, that even at the present day most of the cities of\nIndia possess municipal institutions, which are much admired by English\nwriters, who attest from their personal experience and observation,\ntheir salutary influence on individual and public prosperity. In general\nthe English have paid very great attention to the jurisprudence and\ncivil legislation of India; as the fundamental principle of their Indian\ngovernment is to rule that country according to its own laws, customs\nand privileges; while, on the contrary, the other European powers that\nonce had obtained a firm footing in India, formed alliances with, and\nattached themselves by preference to, the Mahometan sovereigns of the\ncountry. By this simple, but enlightened principle in their Indian\npolicy and administration, the English have obtained the ascendency over\nall their rivals or opponents, and have become complete masters of the\nwhole of this splendid region.\n\nThe scholars of Europe began their Indian researches by the study and\ntranslation of the laws and jurisprudence of the Hindoos, the text as\nwell as commentaries, and it was only at a later period they extended\ntheir inquiries to other subjects. The Indian jurisprudence is\nundoubtedly a standing proof and monument of the comparatively high and\nvery ancient moral and intellectural refinement of that people; and a\nmore minute and profound investigation of that jurisprudence would no\ndoubt give rise to many interesting points of comparison, and to many\nstriking analogies, partly with the old Athenian, or first Roman laws,\npartly with the Mosaic legislation, and even in some particular points,\nwith the Germanic constitution. As the caste of warriors in India, who\nconstitute the class of landed proprietors, and the aristocracy of the\ncountry, are founded on exactly the same principle as the hereditary\nnobility of Germany, it cannot excite surprise, if we find in India, not\nindeed the elaborate and complex feudality of the Germans, but a more\nsimple system of fiefs.\n\nBut, according to the plan we have proposed to ourselves, in the history\nof all ancient, and especially of the primitive Asiatic nations, the\nmatter of greatest moment must be to trace their intellectual progress,\ntheir scientific labours, and predominant opinions; all those views of\ndivine and human things, that have a mighty influence on life; and\nfinally the peculiar religious feelings and principles of each of those\nancient nations. In the second part of this work, when we shall have to\nspeak of the progress of mankind in modern times, we may perhaps change\nour point of view, and find it of more importance to trace the mutual\nrelations between the external state of society and the internal\ndevelopment of intellect. But in that remote antiquity, which is\ncontiguous to the primitive ages, the points of greatest moment, as we\nhave already observed, are the intellectual character, the modes of\nthinking, and the religion of those nations. On the other hand, their\ncivil legislation, and even their political constitutions, however\nimportant, interesting and instructive the closer investigation of those\nsubjects may be in other respects, can occupy in this history but a\nsecondary place; and it will suffice for our purpose to point out some\nleading points of legislation that serve as the foundation and principle\nof the moral and intellectual character of those nations. In India this\nleading point is the institution of castes, the most remarkable feature\nin all Indian life, and which in its essential traits existed in Egypt.\nThis singular phenomenon of Indian life has even some points of\nconnexion with a capital article of their creed, the doctrine of the\ntransmigration of souls--a doctrine which will be later the subject of\nour enquiries, and which we shall endeavour to place in a nearer and\nclearer light. In shewing the influence of the institution of castes on\nthe state of manners in India, I may observe, in the first place, that\nin this division of the social ranks there is no distinct class of\n_slaves_ (as was indeed long ago remarked by the _Greeks_); that is to\nsay, no such class of bought slaves--no men, the property and\nmerchandise of their fellow-men--as existed in ancient Greece and Rome,\nas exist even at this day among Mahometan nations; and, as in the case\nof the Negroes, are still to be found in the colonial possessions of the\nChristian and European states. The labouring class of the _Sudras_ is\nundoubtedly not admitted to the high privileges of the first classes,\nand is in a state of great dependance upon these; but this very caste of\nSudras has its hereditary and clearly defined rights. It is only by a\ncrime that a man in India can lose his caste, and the rights annexed to\nit. These rights are acquired by birth; except in the instance of the\noffspring of unlawful marriages between persons of different castes. The\nfate of these hapless wretches is indeed hard,--harder, almost, than\nthat of real slaves among other nations. Ejected, excommunicated as it\nwere, loaded with malediction, they are regarded as the outcasts of\nsociety, yea almost, of humanity itself. This terrible exclusion,\nhowever, from the rights of citizenship occurs only in certain clearly\nspecified cases. There are even some cases of exception explicitly laid\ndown, where a marriage with a person of different caste is permitted; or\nwhere at least the only consequence to the children of such marriage is\na degradation to an inferior class of society. But the general rule is\nthat a lawful marriage can be contracted only with a woman of the same\ncaste. Women participate in all the rights of their caste; in the high\nprerogatives of Brahmins, if they are of the sacerdotal race (although\nthere are not and never were priestesses among the Indians as among the\nother heathen nations of antiquity); or in the privileges of nobility,\nif they belong to the caste of the _Cshatriyas_. These privileges which\nbelong and are secured to women, and this participation in the rights\nand advantages of their respective classes, must tend much undoubtedly\nto mitigate the injurious effects of polygamy. The latter custom has\never prevailed, and still prevails, in India; though not to the same\ndegree of licentiousness, nor with the same unlimited and despotic\ncontroul, as in Mahometan countries; but a plurality of wives is there\npermitted only under certain conditions, and with certain legal\nrestrictions; consequently in that milder form, under which it existed\nof old in the warm climes of Asia, and according to the patriarchal\nsimplicity of the yet thinly peopled world. The much higher social rank,\nand better moral condition of the female sex in India, are apparent from\nthose portraits of Indian life which are drawn in their beautiful works\nof poetry, whether of a primitive or a later date; and from that deep\nfeeling of tenderness, that affectionate regard and reverence, with\nwhich the character of woman and her domestic relations are invariably\nrepresented. These few examples suffice to show the moral effects of the\nIndian division of castes; and while they serve to defend this\ninstitution against a sweeping sentence of condemnation, or the\nindiscriminate censure of too partial prejudice, they place the subject\nin its true and proper light, and present alike the advantages and\ndefects of the system.\n\nFrom its connexion with the general plan of my work, I am desirous of\nentering more deeply into the internal principle of this singular\ndivision and rigid separation of the social ranks, and into the\nhistorical origin of this strange constitution of human society. When\nthe Greeks, who accompanied or followed Alexander into India, numbered\nseven instead of four castes in that country, they did not judge\ninaccurately the outward condition of things; but they paid not\nsufficient attention to the Indian notions of castes; and their very\nenumeration of those castes proves they had mistaken some points of\ndetail. In this enumeration they assign the first rank to the\n_Brachmans_, or wise men; and by the artisans, they no doubt understood\nthe trading and manufacturing class of the Vaisyas. The councillors and\nintendants of kings and princes do not constitute a distinct caste, but\nare mere officers and functionaries; who, if they be lawyers, belong to,\nand must be taken from, the caste of Brahmins; though the other two\nupper castes are not always rigidly excluded from these functions. The\nclass again that tends the breeding of cattle, and lives by the chase,\nforms not a distinct caste, but merely follows a peculiar kind of\nemployment. And when the Greeks make two castes of the agriculturists\nand the warriors, they only mean to draw a distinction between the\nlabourers and the masters, or the real proprietors of the soil. Even the\nname of _Cshatriyas_ signifies landed proprietor; and, as in the old\nGermanic constitution, the arriere-ban was composed of landed\nproprietors, and the very possession of the soil imposed on the nobility\nthe obligation of military service; so, in the Indian constitution, the\ntwo ideas of property in land, and military service, are indissolubly\nconnected. Some modern enquirers have attached very great importance to\nthe undoubtedly wide and remarkable separation of the fourth or menial\ncaste of Sudras from the three upper castes. They have thought they\nperceived, also, a very great difference in the bodily structure and\ngeneral physiognomy of this fourth caste from those of the others; and\nhave thence concluded that the caste of Sudras is descended from a\ntotally different race, some primitive and barbarous people whom a more\ncivilized nation, to whom the three upper castes must have belonged,\nhave conquered and subdued, and degraded to that menial condition, the\nlowest grade in the social scale,--a grade to which the iron arm of law\neternally binds them down. This hypothesis is in itself not very\nimprobable; and it may be proved from history that the like has really\noccurred in several Asiatic, and even European, countries. In the\nback-ground of old, mighty and civilized nations we can almost always\ntrace the primeval inhabitants of the country, who, dispossessed of\ntheir territory, have been either reduced to servitude by their\nconquerors, or have gradually been incorporated with them. These\nprimitive inhabitants, when compared with their later and more civilized\nconquerors, appear indeed in general rude and barbarous; though we find\namong them a certain number of ancient customs and arts, which by no\nmeans tend to confirm the notion of an original and universal savage\nstate of nature. It is possible that the same circumstances have\noccurred in India; though this is by no means a necessary inference, for\nhumanity, in its progress, follows not one uniform course, but pursues\nvarious and widely different paths; and, hitherto at least, no adequate\nhistorical proof has, in my opinion, been adduced for the reality of\nsuch an occurrence in India. It has also been conjectured that the caste\nof warriors, or the princes and hereditary nobility, possessed\noriginally greater power and influence; and that it is only by degrees\nthe race of Brahmins has attained to that great preponderance which it\ndisplays in later times, and which it even still possesses. We find,\nindeed, in the old epic, mythological, and historical poems of the\nIndians, many passages which describe a contest between these two\nclasses, and which represent the deified heroes of India victoriously\ndefending the wise and pious Brahmins from the attacks of the fierce and\npresumptuous Cshatriyas. This account, however, is susceptible of\nanother interpretation, and should not be taken exclusively in this\npolitical sense. That in the brilliant period of their ancient and\nnational dynasties and governments, the princes and warlike nobility\npossessed greater weight and importance than at present, is quite in the\nnature of things, and appears indeed to have been undoubtedly the case.\nFrom many indications in the old Indian traditions and histories, it\nwould appear that the caste of Cshatriyas, was partially at least, of\nforeign extraction; while those traditionary accounts constantly\nrepresent the caste of Brahmins as the highest class, and nobler part,\nnay, the corner-stone of the whole community.\n\nThe origin of an hereditary caste of warriors, when considered in\nitself, may be easily accounted for, and it is no wise contrary to the\nnature of things that, even in a state of society where legal rights are\nyet undefined, the son, especially the eldest, should govern and\nadminister the territory or property which his deceased father\npossessed, and even in those cases where it was necessary, should take\npossession, administer, and defend this property by open force and the\naid of his dependents.\n\nBut afterwards, when the social relations became more clearly fixed by\nlaw, and an union on a larger scale was formed by a general league, as\nthe duties of military service were annexed to the soil, so the right to\nthe soil was again determined by, and depended on, military service;\nnow, in that primitive period of history, such a political union might\nhave been formed by a common subordination to a higher power, or by a\nconfederacy between several potentates; and this has really been the\norigin of an hereditary landed nobility in many countries.\n\nThe hereditary continuance or transmission of arts and trades, whereby\nthe son pursues the occupation of the father, and learns and applies\nwhat the latter has discovered, has nothing singular in itself, and\nappears indeed to contain its own explanation. But it is not easy, or at\nleast equally so, to account for the exclusive distribution and the\nexact and rigid separation of castes, particularly by any religious\nmotives and principles, which are, however, indubitably connected with\nthis institution. Still less can we understand the existence of a great\nhereditary class of priests, eternally divided from the rest of the\ncommunity, such as existed both in India and Egypt. To comprehend this\nstrange phenomenon, we must endeavour to discover its origin, and trace\nit back, as far as is possible, to the primitive ages of the world.--If,\nfor the sake of brevity, I have used the expression, \"a class of\n_hereditary priests_,\" I ought to add, in order to explain my meaning\nmore clearly, that the word _priests_ must not be taken in that limited\nsense which antiquity attached to it; that the Brahmins are not merely\nconfined to the functions of prayer, but are strictly and eminently\ntheologians, since they alone are permitted to read and interpret the\nVedas, while the other castes can read only with their sanction such\npassages of those sacred writings as are adapted to their circumstances,\nand the fourth caste are entirely prohibited from hearing any portion of\nthem. The Brahmins are also the lawyers and physicians of India, and\nhence the Greeks did not designate them erroneously when they termed\nthem the _caste of philosophers_.\n\nWe have already had occasion to observe that the Mosaic narrative,--that\nfirst monument of all history, (which a very intellectual German writer\nhas called the primitive document of the human race, and which it indeed\nis even in a mere historical sense, and in the literal acceptation of\nthe word,) that the Mosaic narrative, we say, ascribes to the Cainites\nthe origin of hereditary arts and trades. And there are two which are\nparticularly worthy of remark, and to which I drew your attention--the\nknowledge of metals, and the art of music. I used the general\nexpression, the knowledge of metals, because in the primitive ages of\nthe world, the art of working mines, or of exploring and extracting\nmetals from the earth, was essentially connected with the art of\npreparing and polishing them; and this knowledge of metals was very\ninstrumental in forwarding the infant civilization of the primitive\nworld, as the art of working and polishing them has ever contributed to\nthe refinement of mankind. By the music of the Cainites, I said we were\nnot to understand our own more elaborate and sublime system of melody.\nThis art was chiefly consecrated in those ancient times, to the uses of\ndivine service; still older, perhaps, was the medicinal, or rather the\nmagical, use and influence of music. This is at least indicated by the\ntradition and mythology of all nations; and such a supposition is quite\nconformable to the spirit of those early ages; and I would here remind\nyou that, in the primitive symbolical writing of the Chinese, the sign\nof a magician represents also a priest--a character which, as Remusat\nhas observed, is not to be found in the narrow circle of their symbols.\nI added, that the existence of an hereditary caste of warriors among the\nCainites was possible, and even probable; though not so, in my opinion,\nthe existence of an hereditary sacerdotal caste. But though such an\ninstitution did not emanate from the Cainites, it may at least have been\noccasioned by them. As I said before, the Mosaic history represents the\nvast, boundless, prodigious corruption of the world in the age\nimmediately preceding the deluge, as produced solely by the union of the\nbetter and godly portion of mankind with the lawless descendants of\nCain. Thus this would supposes a certain dread and apprehension of any\nalliance and intercourse with a race laden with malediction, and\npregnant with calamity. And may not this very circumstance have given\nrise to the establishment of a distinctly separate and hereditary class,\nnot of priests in the later signification of that word, but of men\nchosen and consecrated by God, and entirely devoted to his service? and,\nconsequently, is it not among the later Sethites, we must look for the\norigin of this institution?\n\nWe should transport ourselves in imagination to the age of the\nPatriarchs, and then consider that, with the high powers which they\nstill possessed, they must have watched with the most jealous and\nfar-sighted solicitude over the fate of their posterity, in order to\npreserve them in their original purity and high hereditary dignity. The\nIndian traditions acknowledge and revere the succession of the first\nancestors of mankind, or the holy Patriarchs of the primitive world,\nunder the name of the seven great _Rishis_, or sages of hoary antiquity;\nthough they invest their history with a cloud of fictions. They place\nall these Patriarchs in the primitive world, and assign them to the race\nof Brahmins;--a circumstance which cannot here appear unfitting. It has\nbeen often observed that the Indians have no regular histories, no works\nof real historical science; and the reason is that with them the sense\nof the primitive world is still fresh and lively, and that not only do\nthey clothe their ideas in a poetical garb, but all their conceptions of\nhuman affairs and events are exclusively mythological; so that all the\nreal events of later historical times are absorbed in the element of\nmythology, or at least strongly tinged with its colours. It is in the\nsame way, the Panegyrists of the Chinese language remark that the almost\ntotal absence of grammar in that language, among a people of such highly\ncultivated intellect, should not be taken merely to denote the poverty\nand jejuneness of the infancy of speech, as this in a great measure\noriginated in the fact that the profound primitive emotions, which gave\nbirth to those first languages, were too absorbed in the subject of\ntheir contemplation, too much bent on giving utterance to the most\neffective word, or expressing themselves with the most condensed\nbrevity, to perplex or trouble themselves with nicer distinctions, and\nminor and often superfluous rules.\n\nThe providential care of these first Patriarchs for the preservation and\nprosperity of their offspring and race is evinced in those Patriarchal\nscenes described not only in the Sagas of other primitive nations, but\nalso in the sacred writings of the Hebrews; and where the hoary\ngrand-sire imparts and transmits to his sons and grand-sons the power of\nhis benediction, which was not a mere empty form of words, as the\nspecial inheritance of each. We see, too, that, after assigning the\nfirst rank to the eldest son, or to some favourite child, perhaps,\noriginally chosen and preferred by God, the venerable Patriarch utters\nsome words of warning which the succeeding history but too well\njustifies; or darkly indicates a deep, presentiment of some great\nimpending calamity. But there is, in particular, a passage relative to\nthe first great progenitor of mankind which deserves to be here noticed.\nWhen the calamitous epoch of the first fraternal contest, and the first\nfatal fratricide had elapsed, it is said in Holy Writ, \"Adam begat a son\nin his own likeness, after his image, and called his name Seth.\" The\nfirst thing that must strike us in this passage is the great and\nhumiliating inferiority which it involves. Adam was created after the\nlikeness of Almighty God; but Seth is begotten after the likeness of\nAdam. Yet there is no doubt that, from the peculiar style and manner of\nHoly Writ, a very high pre-eminence was here conferred on Seth. For in\nthe same way as we have seen that the Patriarchs were wont to impart\ntheir blessings to their sons and their posterity, Adam granted and\ncommunicated to Seth, as to his first-born in this second commencement\nof the human race, and as his inheritance and exclusive birth-right, all\nthose prerogatives and high gifts and powers, which he himself had\noriginally received from his Creator, and which, on his reconciliation\nwith his God, he had once more obtained. Nothing similar is said of the\nother sons and daughters afterwards begotten by Adam, and through whom\nother nations have derived their descent from the common parent. This\ncircumstance confirms and explains that high pre-eminence which,\naccording to sacred tradition, was conferred on the race of Seth. As to\nthe high powers which the father of mankind had preserved after his\nfall, or had a second time received, we may well suppose that, after the\ncrime and flight of Cain, he would endeavour to retrieve his errors by\nthe establishment of the better race of Seth, and by a consequent\nrenovation of humanity. This is not a mere arbitrary supposition, for it\nis expressly said in Holy Writ that the first man, ordained to be \"the\nfather of the whole earth,\" (as he is there called,) became on his\nreconciliation with his Maker, the wisest of all men, and, according to\ntradition, the greatest of prophets, who, in his far-reaching ken,\nforesaw the destinies of all mankind, in all successive ages down to the\nend of the world. All this must be taken in a strict historical sense,\nfor the moral interpretation we abandon to others. The pre-eminence of\nthe Sethites, chosen by God, and entirely devoted to his service, must\nbe received as an undoubted historical fact, to which we find many\npointed allusions even in the traditions of the other Asiatic nations.\nNay the hostility between the Sethites and Cainites, and the mutual\nrelations of these two races, form the chief clue to the history of the\nprimitive world, and even of many particular nations of antiquity. That,\nafter the violent but transient interruption occasioned by the deluge,\nthe remembrance of many things might revive, and the same or a similar\nhostility between the two races; which had existed in the ante-diluvian\nworld, might be a second time displayed, is a matter which it is\nunnecessary to examine any further. Equally needless would it be to shew\nthat, in the increasing degeneracy of man, every thing was soon more and\nmore disfigured and deranged, and finally became for the most part\nundistinguishable, till it was afterwards a problem for the historical\nenquirer to reduce to the simple elements of their origin the greatest,\nmost extraordinary and most remarkable phenomena which still remained,\nor were remembered, of the primitive ages.\n\nIf I think it not impossible that the Indian constitution of castes, and\nits most important branch, the Brahminical class--that is to say, the\nmoral and general conception of this ancient institution, may be\nconnected with the scriptural history and the sacred tradition\nrespecting the race of Seth; I must observe that to this hypothesis an\nobjection can no more be taken from the present character and moral\ncondition of the Brahmins, than we can estimate the high gifts, the\ngreat men and the mighty Prophets, that the Almighty once accorded to\nthe Jewish nation, or such noble natures as those of Moses and Elias, by\nthe present fallen state of that dispersed people.\n\nThese remarks may suffice to give an idea of the most important feature\nin Indian society. Before I attempt to examine the second great\ncharacteristic of this people,--the doctrine of the transmigration of\nsouls, a principle which, if it has not produced, has at least given the\npeculiar bent to their whole philosophy; I wish to take a general view\nof Polytheism, particularly as our notions of it, chiefly derived from\nthe Greeks, are by no means perfectly applicable to the primitive\nnations of Asia.\n\nWe are wont to regard the Grecian mythology, and its many-coloured world\nof fables, only as the beautiful effusion of poetry, or a playful\ncreation of fancy; and we never think of enquiring deeply or minutely\ninto its details, or of examining its moral import and influence. It is\nthe more natural that the mythology of the Greeks should produce this\nimpression on our minds, and that we should regard it in this light, as\nall the higher ideas and severer doctrines on the God-head, its\nsovereign nature and infinite might, on the eternal wisdom and\nprovidence that conducts and directs all things to their proper end, on\nthe infinite Mind, and supreme Intelligence that created all things, and\nthat is raised far above external nature; all these higher ideas and\nseverer doctrines have been expounded more or less perfectly by\nPythagoras, or by Anaxagoras and Socrates; and have been developed in\nthe most beautiful and luminous manner by Plato and the philosophers\nthat followed him. But all this did not pass into the popular religion\nof the Greeks, and it remained for the most part a stranger to these\nexalted doctrines; and, though we find in this mythology many things\ncapable of a deeper import and more spiritual signification,\nyet they appear but as rare vestiges of ancient truth--vague\npresentiments--fugitive tones--momentary flashes, revealing a belief in\na supreme Being, an almighty Creator of the universe, and the common\nFather of mankind.\n\nBut it is far otherwise in the Indian mythology. There, amid a sensual\nidolatry of nature more passionate and enthusiastic still than that of\nthe Greeks, amid Pagan fictions and conceptions far more gigantic than\nthose of the latter, we find almost all the truths of natural theology,\nnot indeed without a considerable admixture of error, expressed with the\nutmost earnestness and dignity. We meet too, in this mythology, with the\nmost rigidly scientific and metaphysical notions of the Supreme Being,\nhis attributes and his relations; and it is the peculiar character of\nthe Indian mythology to combine a gigantic wildness of fantasy, and a\nboundless enthusiasm for nature, with a deep mystical import, and a\nprofound philosophic sense. If the Pythagoreans had succeeded in the\ndesign, which they in all probability entertained, of rendering their\nlofty notions on the Deity and on man, on the immortality of the soul,\nand the invisible world, more generally prevalent, and of introducing\nthese ideas into the popular religion; as it was not their intention\nentirely to reject the vulgar creed, but only to mould it to their own\nprinciples, and impart to it a higher and more spiritual sense, (an\nattempt which was afterwards made by the New Platonists and the Emperor\nJulian, out of hatred to Christianity, though, as the time had then long\ngone by, their enterprise was attended with no permanent effects); if\nthe Pythagoreans, we say, had succeeded in their design, the Greek\nmythology might then have borne some resemblance to the Indian, and we\nmight have instituted a comparison between the two. In the Indian\nmythology this strange combination, this inconsistent junction of the\nsublimest truth with the most sensual error, of the wildest and most\nextravagant fiction with the most abstract metaphysics, and even the\npurest natural theology (if we may thus call the divine Revelation of\nthe primitive world); this strange combination, we say, has not been the\neffect of artful interpolation, but the fruit of native growth and of\nearliest development.\n\nWe must now be on our guard not to admit too lightly or too quickly the\ncoincidence of certain symbols and conceptions of mythology with truths\nand doctrines familiar to ourselves. How much, for instance, would a man\nerr, who would suppose that there was any analogy in the Indian symbol\nand notion of _Trimurti_, or the divine Triad, I do not say with the\nChristian doctrine of the Trinity, but with the opinion of either of the\nPlatonic schools on the triple essence, or the triple Personality of the\none God. In this symbol the heads of the three principal Hindoo\ndivinities, Brahma, Vishnoo, and Siva, the Gods of creation,\npreservation and destruction, are united in one figure; and this union\nundoubtedly indicates the primary energy common to all three. If we\nexamine each in particular, we shall see that the attributes assigned to\nBrahma, and the expressions usually applied to his person, when divested\nof their poetical garb, and mythic accompaniments, may often, almost\nliterally and in strict truth, be referred to the Deity. The\nall-pervading and self-transforming Vishnoo is much more the wonderful\nPrometheus of nature, than a real and well defined divinity. The third\nin this divine Triad, the formidable and destructive Siva, has but a\nvery remote analogy with the Deity that judges and chastises the world\naccording to justice. This God of destruction, whose worshippers appear\nto have been formerly the most numerous in India, as those of Vishnoo\nare at the present day; this God of destruction, with his serpents and\nbracelets of human skulls, appears evidently to be that demon of\ncorruption who brought death into all creation, and who here,\nwhimsically and inconsistently enough, has been introduced into the\nsymbol, and made a part of the Deity itself. This union or confusion of\nEternal Perfection with the Evil Principle is made in another way by the\nIndian philosophers; as some of them explain the doctrine of Trimurti,\nor the divine Triad by reference to the _Traigunyan_, or the three\n_qualities_. These three different regions, or degrees, into which,\naccording to the Indian doctrine, all existence is divided, are the pure\nworld of eternal truth, or of light, the middle region of vain\nappearance and illusion, and the abyss of darkness. However, it must be\nobserved that the Indians do not express the pure and metaphysical idea\nof the Supreme Being by either of the names of the two last-mentioned\npopular divinities; nor do they even denote this idea by the name of\nBrahma, the first person of their trinity, but by the word _Brahm_, a\nneuter noun which signifies the Supreme Being.\n\nAs there were now two conflicting elements in the breast of man--the old\ninheritance or original dowry of truth, which God had imparted to him in\nthe primitive revelation; and error, or the foundation for error in his\ndegraded sense and spirit now turned from God to Nature--how easily must\nerror have sprung up, when the precious gem of divine truth was no\nlonger guarded with jealous care, nor preserved in its pristine purity;\nhow much must truth have been obscured, as error advanced in all its\nformidable might, and in all its power of seduction; and how soon must\nnot this have happened among a people, like the Indians, with whom\nimagination and a very deep, but still sensual, feeling for Nature, were\nso predominant!--It was thus a wild enthusiasm, and a sensual idolatry\nof Nature, generally superseded the simple worship of Almighty God, and\nset aside or disfigured the pure belief in the eternal, uncreated\nSpirit. The great powers and elements of nature, and the vital principle\nof production and procreation through all generations, then the\ncelestial spirits, or the heavenly host (to speak the language of\nantiquity), the luminous choir of stars, which the whole ancient world\nregarded not as mere globes of light or bodies of fire, but as animated\nsubstances; next the Genii and tutelar spirits, and even the souls of\nthe dead received now divine worship; and men, instead of honouring the\nCreator in these, and of regarding these in reference to their Creator,\nconsidered them as Gods. Such is, when we have once supposed that man\nhad turned away from God to Nature, such is the natural origin of\nPolytheism, which in every nation assumed a different form according to\nthe peculiar modes of life, and the prevailing principles of life, in\neach.\n\nAmong the Indians this ruling principle of existence was the doctrine of\nthe transmigration of souls, which appears indeed to be the most\ncharacteristic of all their opinions, and was by its influence on real\nlife, by far the most important. We must in the first place remember,\nand keep well in our minds, that, among those nations of primitive\nantiquity, the doctrine of the immortality of the soul was not a mere\nprobable hypothesis, which, as with many moderns, needs laborious\nresearches and diffuse argumentations in order to produce conviction on\nthe mind. Nay, we can hardly give the name of faith to this primitive\nconception; for it was a lively certainty, like the feeling of one's own\nbeing, and of what is actually present; and this firm belief in a future\nexistence exerted its influence on all sublunary affairs, and was often\nthe motive of mightier deeds and enterprises than any mere earthly\ninterest could inspire. I said above that the doctrine of the\ntransmigration of souls was not unconnected with the Indian system of\ncastes; for the most honourable appellation of a Brahmin is _Tvija_,\nthat is to say, a second time born, or regenerated. On one hand this\nappellation refers to that spiritual renovation and second birth of a\nlife of purity consecrated to God, as in this consists the true calling\nof a Brahmin, and the special purpose of his caste. On the other hand\nthis term refers to the belief that the soul, after many transmigrations\nthrough various forms of animals, and various stages of natural\nexistence, is permitted in certain cases, as a peculiar recompense, when\nit has gone through its prescribed cycle of migrations to return to the\nworld, and be born in the class of Brahmins. This doctrine of the\ntransmigration of souls through various bodies of animals or other forms\nof existence, and even through more than one repetition of human life,\n(whether such migrations were intended as the punishment of souls for\ntheir viciousness and impiety, or as trials for their further\npurification and amendment)--this doctrine which has always been, and is\nstill so prevalent in India, was held likewise by the ancient Egyptians.\nThis accordance in the faith of these two ancient nations, established\nbeyond all doubt by historical testimony, is indeed remarkable; and even\nin the minutest particulars on the course of migration allotted to\nsouls, and on the stated periods and cycles of that migration, the\ncoincidence is often perfectly exact. How strangely now it this most\nsingular error mixed up, I do not say with truth, but with a feeling\nthat is certainly closely akin to primitive truth! When an individual of\nour own age, out of disgust with modern and well-known systems, or with\nthe vulgar doctrines, and from a love of paradox, adopted this ancient\nhypothesis of the transmigration of souls; he merely considered the bare\ntransmutation of earthly forms.[48] But among those ancient nations this\ndoctrine rested on a religious basis, and was connected with a sentiment\npurely religious. In this doctrine there was a noble element of\ntruth--the feeling that man, since he has gone astray, and wandered so\nfar from his God, must needs exert many efforts, and undergo a long and\npainful pilgrimage before he can rejoin the Source of all\nperfection;--the firm conviction and positive certainty that nothing\ndefective, impure, or defiled with earthly stains can enter the pure\nregion of perfect spirits, or be eternally united to God; and that thus,\nbefore it can attain to this blissful end, the immortal soul must pass\nthrough long trials and many purifications. It may now well be\nconceived, (and indeed the experience of this life would prove it,) that\nsuffering, which deeply pierces the soul, anguish that convulses all the\nmembers of existence, may contribute, or may even be necessary, to the\ndeliverance of the soul from all alloy and pollution, as, to borrow a\ncomparison from natural objects, the generous metal is melted down in\nfire and purged from its dross. It is certainly true that the greater\nthe degeneracy and the degradation of man, the nearer is his\napproximation to the brute; and when the transmigration of the immortal\nsoul through the bodies of various animals is merely considered as the\npunishment of its former transgressions, we can very well understand the\nopinion which supposes that man who, by his crimes and the abuse of his\nreason, had descended to the level of the brute, should at last be\ntransformed into the brute itself. But what could have given rise to the\nopinion that the transmigration of souls through the bodies of beasts\nwas the road or channel of amendment, was destined to draw the soul\nnearer to infinite perfection, and even to accomplish its total union\nwith the Supreme Being, from whom, in all appearance, it seemed\ncalculated to remove it further? And as regards a return to the present\nstate and existence of man, what thinking person would ever wish to\nreturn to a life divided and fluctuating as it is, between desire and\ndisgust, wasted in internal and external strife, and which, though\nbrightened by a few scattered rays of truth, is still encompassed with\nthe dense clouds of error;--even though this return to earthly existence\nshould be accomplished in the Brahminical class so highly revered in\nIndia, or in the princely and royal race so highly favoured by fortune?\nThere is in all this a strange mixture and confusion of the ideas of\nthis world with those of the next; and how the latter is separated from\nthe former by an impassable gulf, they seem not to have been\nsufficiently aware. Both these ancient nations, the Egyptians as well as\nthe Indians, regarded with few exceptions, the Metempsychosis, not as an\nobject of joyful hope, but rather as a calamity impending over the soul;\nand whether they considered it to be a punishment for earthly\ntransgressions, or a state of probation--a severe but preparatory trial\nof purification; they still looked on it as a calamity; which to avert\nor to mitigate, they deemed no attempt, no act, no exertion, no\nsacrifice, ought to be spared.\n\nIn the manner, however, in which these two nations conceived this\ndoctrine, there was a striking and fundamental difference; and if the\nleading tenet was the same among both, the views which each connected\nwith it were very dissimilar. Deprived, as we are, of the old books and\noriginal writings of the Egyptians, we are unable perfectly to\ncomprehend and seize their peculiar ideas on this subject, and state\nthem with the same assurance as we can those of the Indians, whose\nancient writings we now possess in such abundance, and which in all main\npoints perfectly agree with the accounts of the ancient classics. But we\nare left to infer the ideas of the Egyptians on the Metempsychosis only\nfrom their singular treatment of the dead, and the bodies of the\ndeceased; from that sepulchral art (if I may use the expression) which\nwith them acquired a dignity and importance, and was carried to a pitch\nof refinement, such as we find among no other people; from that careful\nand costly consecration of the corpse, which we still regard with wonder\nand astonishment in their mummies and other monuments. That all these\nsolemn preparations, and the religious rites which accompanied them,\nthat the inscriptions on the tombs and mummies had all a religious\nmeaning and object, and were intimately connected with the doctrine of\nthe transmigration of souls, can admit of no doubt; though it is a\nmatter of greater difficulty to ascertain with precision the peculiar\nideas they were meant to express. Did the Egyptians believe that the\nsoul did not separate immediately from the body which it had ceased to\nanimate, but only on the entire decay and putrefaction of the corpse? Or\ndid they wish by their art of embalmment to preserve the body from\ndecay, in order to deliver the soul from the dreaded transmigration? The\nEgyptian treatment of the dead would certainly seem to imply a belief\nthat, for some time at least after death, there existed a certain\nconnection between the soul and body. Yet we cannot adopt this\nsupposition to an unqualified extent, as it would be in contradiction\nwith those symbolical representations that so frequently occur in\nEgyptian art, and in which the soul immediately after death is\nrepresented as summoned before the judgment-seat of God, severely\naccused by the hostile demon, but defended by the friendly and guardian\nspirit, who employs every resource to procure the deliverance and\nacquittal of the soul. Or did the Egyptians think that by all these\nrites, as by so many magical expedients, they would keep off the\nmalevolent fiend from the soul, and obtain for it the succour of good\nand friendly divinities? Now that the gates of hieroglyphic science have\nbeen at last opened, we may trust that a further progress in the science\nwill disclose to us more satisfactory information on all these topics.\n\nThe Indians, however, who ever remained total strangers to the mode of\nburial and treatment of the dead practised in Egypt, adopted a very\ndifferent course to procure the deliverance of the human soul from\ntransmigration:--they had recourse to philosophy--to the highest\naspirings of thought towards God--to a total and lasting immersion of\nfeeling in the unfathomable abyss of the divine essence. They have never\ndoubted that by this means a perfect union with the Deity might be\nobtained even in this life, and that thus the soul, freed and\nemancipated from all mutation and migration through the various forms of\nanimated nature in this world of illusion, might remain for ever united\nwith its God. Such is the object to which all the different systems of\nIndian philosophy tend--such is the term of all their enquiries. This\nphilosophy contains a multitude of the sublimest reflections on the\nseparation from all earthly things, and on the union with the God-head;\nand there is no high conception in this department of metaphysics,\nunknown to the Hindoos. But this absorption of all thought and all\nconsciousness in God--this solitary enduring feeling of internal and\neternal union with the Deity, they have carried to a pitch and extreme\nthat may almost be called a moral and intellectual self-annihilation.\nThis is the same philosophy, though in a different form, which in the\nhistory of European intellect and science, has received the denomination\nof _mysticism_. The possible excesses--the perilous abyss in this\nphilosophy, have been in general acknowledged, and even pointed out in\nparticular cases, where egotism or pride has been detected under a\nsecret disguise, or where this total abstraction of thought and feeling\nhas spurned all limit, measure, and law. In general however, the\nEuropean mind, by its more temperate and harmonious constitution, by the\ngreater variety of its attainments, and above all, by the purer and\nfuller light of revealed truth, has been preserved from those\naberrations of mysticism which in India have been carried to such a\nfearful extent, not only in speculation, but in real life and practice;\nand which, transcending as they do all the limits of human nature, far\nexceed the bounds of possibility, or what men have in general considered\nas such. And the apparently incredible things which the Greeks related\nmore than two thousand years ago, respecting the recluses of India, or\n_Gymnosophists_, as they called those Yogis, are found to exist even at\nthe present day; and ocular experience has fully corroborated the truth\nof their narratives.\n\n\nEND OF LECTURE IV.\n\n\n\n\nLECTURE V.\n\n     A comparative view of the intellectual character of the four\n     principal nations in the primitive world--the Indians, the Chinese,\n     the Egyptians, and the Hebrews; next of the peculiar spirit and\n     political relations of the ancient Persians.\n\n\nAs, after discord had broken out among mankind, humanity became split\nand divided into a multitude of nations, races, and languages, into\nhostile and conflicting tribes, castes rigidly separated, and classes\nvariously divided; as indeed, when once we suppose this original\ndivision and primitive opposition in the human race, it could not be\notherwise from the very nature and even destiny of man; so in a\npsychological point of view, the moral unity of the individual man was\nbroken, and his faculties of will and understanding became mutually\nopposed, or followed contrary courses. The whole internal structure of\nhuman consciousness was deranged, and in the present divided state of\nthe human faculties, there is no longer the full play of the harmonious\nsoul--of the once unbroken spirit--but its every faculty hath now but a\nlimited, or, to speak more properly, one half of its proper power.\n\nThe restoration of the full life and entire operation of the divided\nfaculties of the human soul must be considered now only as a splendid\nexception--the high gift of creative genius, and of a more than ordinary\nstrength of character; and such a re-union of faculties must be looked\nupon as the high problem which constitutes the ultimate object and ideal\nterm of all the intellectual and moral exertions of man. When in an\nindividual a clear, comprehensive, penetrative understanding, that has\nmastered all sound science, is combined with a will not only firm, but\npure and upright, such an individual has attained the great object of\nhis existence; and when a whole generation, or mankind in general,\npresent this harmonious concord between science on the one hand, and\nmoral conduct and external life, or to characterize them by one word,\nthe general will, on the other, which is often in utter hostility with\nscience--we may then truly say that humanity has attained its destiny.\nThe great error of ordinary philosophy, and the principal reason that\nhas prevented it from accomplishing its ends, is the supposition it so\nhastily admits that the consciousness of man now entirely changed,\nbroken and mutilated, is the same as it was originally, and as it was\ncreated and fashioned by its Maker; without observing that, since the\ngreat primeval Revolution, man has not only been outwardly or\nhistorically disunited, but even internally and psychologically\nderanged. The moral being of man, a prey to internal discord, may be\nsaid to be quartered, because the four primary faculties of the soul and\nmind of man--Understanding and Will, Reason and Imagination, stand in a\ntwo-fold opposition one to the other, and are, if we may so speak,\ndispersed into the four regions of existence. Reason in man is the\nregulating faculty of thought; and so far it occupies the first place in\nlife and the whole system and arrangement of life; but it is\nunproductive in itself, and even in science it can pretend to no real\nfertility or immediate intuition. Imagination on the other hand is\nfertile and inventive indeed, but left to itself and without guidance,\nit is blind, and consequently subject to illusion. The best will, devoid\nof discernment and understanding, can accomplish little good. Still less\ncapable of good is a strong, and even the strongest understanding, when\ncoupled with a wicked and corrupt character; or should such an\nunderstanding be associated with an unsteady and changeable will, the\nindividual destitute of character, is entirely without influence.\n\nTo prove moreover how all the other faculties of the soul, or the mind,\nelsewhere enumerated are but the connecting links--the subordinate\nbranches[49] of those four primary faculties; how the general\ndismemberment of the human consciousness reaches even to them; how they\ndiverge from one another, and appear still more split and narrowed; to\nprove this would lead me too far, and is the less necessary, as, in the\npeculiar character of particular ages or nations, the historical\nenquirer can observe but those four primary faculties mentioned above,\nas the intellectual elements prevalent in each. As in the intellectual\ncharacter of particular men, or in any given system of human thought,\nfiction, or science (and these can be better described and more closely\nanalyzed than the fleeting and transient phenomena of real life and the\nsocial relations); as in every such individual production, I say, of\nhuman thought and human action, either Reason will preponderate as a\nsystematic methodizer and a moral regulator, or a fertile, inventive\nImagination will be displayed, or a clear, penetrative understanding, or\nagain a peculiar energy of will and strength of character will be\nobserved; so the same holds good in the great whole of universal\nhistory--in the moral and intellectual existence--the character, or the\nmind of particular ages or nations in the ancient world.\n\nThis is apparent not only in the very various manner, in which sacred\nTradition--the external word to man revealed--was conceived, developed\nand disfigured among each of those nations; but in the peculiar form and\ndirection which the internal word in man--that is to say his higher\nconsciousness and intellectual life assumed among each. Such an\nintellectual opposition evidently exists between those two great\nprimitive nations already characterized, that inhabit the extreme East\nand South of Asia--an opposition between reason and imagination. In\nregard to the intellectual and moral character of nations as well as of\nindividuals, Reason is that human faculty which is conversant with\ngrammatical construction, logical inferences, dialectic contests,\nsystematic arrangement; and in practical life it serves as the divine\nregulator, in so far as it adheres to the higher order of God. But when\nit refuses to do this, and wishes to deduce all from itself and its own\nindividuality, then it becomes an egotistical, over-refining, selfish,\ncalculating, degenerate Reason, the inventress of all the arbitrary\nsystems of science and morals, dividing and splitting every thing into\nsects and parties. Imagination must not be considered as a mere faculty\nfor fiction, nor confined to the circle of art and poetry--it includes a\nfaculty for scientific discoveries, nor did a mind destitute of all\nimagination ever make a great scientific discovery. There is even a\nhigher, purely speculative fancy which finds its proper sphere in a\nmysticism, like the Indian, that has already been described. Even if a\nmysticism, like that which constitutes the basis of the Indian\nphilosophy, were entirely free from all admixture of sensual feelings,\nand were entirely destitute of images, we should certainly not be right\nin refusing on that account to imagination its share in this peculiar\nintellectual phenomenon. That in the intellectual character of the\nChinese, reason, and not imagination, was the predominant element, it\nwould, after the sketch we have before given of that people, and which\nwas drawn from the best and most recent sources and authorities, be\nscarcely necessary to prove at any length--so clearly is that fact\nestablished. Originally when the old system of Chinese manners was\nregulated by the pure worship of God, not disfigured as among other\nnations by manifold fictions, but breathing the better spirit of\nConfucius, it was undoubtedly in a sound, upright Reason, conformable to\nGod, that the Chinese placed the foundation of their moral and political\nexistence; since they designated the Supreme Being by the name of Divine\nReason. Although some modern writers in our time have, like the Chinese,\napplied the term _divine reason_ to Almighty God; yet I cannot adopt\nthis Chinese mode of speech, since, though according to the doctrine\nfrom which I start, and the truth of which has been all along\npre-supposed, the living God is a spirit; yet it by no means follows\nthence that God is Reason or Reason God. If we examine the expression\nclosely and in its scientific rigour, we can with as little propriety\nattribute to God the faculty of reason, as the faculty of imagination.\nThe latter prevails in the poetical mythology of ancient Paganism; the\nformer, when the expression is really correct, designates rationalism or\nthe modern idolatry of Reason; and to this indeed we may discern a\ncertain tendency even in very early times, and particularly among the\nChinese. Among the latter people at a tolerably early period, a sound,\njust Reason conformable and docile to divine revelation was superseded\nby an egotistical, subtle, over-refining Reason, which split into\nhostile sects, and at last subverted the old edifice of sacred\nTradition, to re-construct it on a new revolutionary plan.\n\nEqually, and even still more strongly, apparent is the predominance of\nthe imaginative faculty among the Indians, as is seen even in their\nscience and in that peculiar tendency to mysticism which this faculty\nhas imparted to the whole Indian philosophy. The creative fulness of a\nbold poetical imagination is evinced by those gigantic works of\narchitecture which may well sustain a comparison with the monuments of\nEgypt; by a poetry, which in the manifold richness of invention is not\ninferior to that of the Greeks, while it often approximates to the\nbeauty of its forms; and, above all, by a mythology which in its leading\nfeatures, its profound import, and its general connexion resembles the\nEgyptian, while in its rich clothing of poetry, in its attractive and\nbewitching representations, it bears a strong similarity to that of the\nGreeks. This decided and peculiar character of the whole intellectual\nculture of the Indians, will not permit us to doubt which of the various\nfaculties of the soul is there the ruling and preponderant element.\n\nA similar, and equally decided opposition in the intellectual character\nand predominant element of human consciousness is observed between the\nHebrews and Egyptians; though this was an opposition of a different\nkind, and of a deeper import. To show this more clearly, I will take the\nliberty of interrupting for a moment the order I have hitherto followed,\nof characterizing each nation in regular succession, and with as much\naccuracy and fullness as possible; in order by a comparative view of the\nfour principal nations of remote antiquity, to draw such a general\nsketch of the first period of universal history as may serve at once for\na central point in our enquiries, and for the ground-work of subsequent\nremarks. Such a comparison will tend to facilitate our survey of the\nprimitive ages of the world: and in this general combination of the\nwhole, each part will appear in a clearer light.\n\nIf I wished to characterize in one word the peculiar bearing and ruling\nelement of the Egyptian mind; however unsatisfactory in other respects\nsuch general designations may be--I should say that the intellectual\neminence of that people was in its scientific profundity--in an\nunderstanding that penetrated or sought to penetrate by magic into all\nthe depths and mysteries of nature, even into their most hidden abyss.\nSo thoroughly scientific was the whole leaning and character of the\nEgyptian mind, that even the architecture of this people had an\nastronomical import, even far more than that of the other nations of\nearly antiquity. I have already had occasion to speak of the deep and\nmysterious signification of their treatment of the dead. In all the\nnatural sciences, in mathematics, astronomy, and even in medicine, they\nwere the masters of the Greeks; and even the profoundest thinkers among\nthe latter, the Pythagoreans, and afterwards the great Plato himself,\nderived from them the first elements of their doctrines, or caught at\nleast the first outline of their mighty speculations. Here too, in the\nbirth-place of hieroglyphics, was the chief seat of the Mysteries; and\nEgypt has at all times been the native country of many true, as well as\nof many false, secrets. These few remarks may here serve to characterize\nthis people; we shall later have occasion to add many minuter traits to\ncomplete this brief sketch of the Egyptian intellect.\n\nVery different was the character of the ancient Hebrews, who, in science\nas well as in art, can sustain no comparison with those other nations we\nhave spoken of, and to whom we must apply a very different criterion of\nexcellence. The moral eminence of this people, or the part allotted to\nit in high historical destiny, lies rather in the sphere of will, and in\na well-regulated conduct of the will. Moses himself was undoubtedly, as\nit is said of him, \"versed in all the science of the Egyptians;\" for he\nhad received a completely Egyptian education, which, by the care of an\nEgyptian princess, was of the highest and politest kind, and\nconsequently, as the customs of the country imply, extremely scientific.\nEven his name according to the credible testimony of several ancient\nwriters, was originally Egyptian, and afterwards hebraized; for\n_Moyses_,[50] as he is called in the Greek version of the Seventy,\nsignifies in Egyptian, _one saved out of the water_. But the Hebrew\npeople were far from possessing that Egyptian science of which Moses was\nso great a master; on the contrary, the Jewish legislator seemed to\nconsider the greater part of that foreign science, in which he himself\nwas so well versed, as of little service to his object; and in many\ninstances sought to withhold this knowledge from his nation. Many of the\nMosaic precepts indeed, especially such as have a reference to external\nlife, to subsistence, diet and health, and which are in part at least\nfounded on reasons of climate, are entirely conformable to Egyptian\nusages, and are found to have been practised among that people; for\nthese ancient law-givers and founders of Asiatic states did not scruple\nto give even medical precepts in their codes of moral legislation, that\nembraced the minutest circumstances of life. But to these precepts and\nusages the Hebrew legislator has imparted in general a higher import and\na religious consecration. We must not suppose, however, that he has\ntaken all his laws from this source, or make this a matter of reproach\nto the Jewish law-giver, as many critics of our own times have done;\nfor, to minds enslaved by the narrow spirit of the age, difficult,\nindeed, is it to transport themselves into that remote antiquity. It\nwould be a great error, also, to suppose that all the science which\nMoses had acquired by his Egyptian education, he wished to conceal from\nhis nation, and reserve for the secret use of himself and a few\nconfidential friends. It is evident, if we regard the subject only in an\nhistorical point of view, that a higher and better element, completely\nforeign to the science of Egypt, animated and pervaded all the views and\nconduct of this great man, whether we consider him as the founder and\nlaw-giver of the Hebrew state, or as the guide and instructor of the\nHebrew people. In the forty years' sojourn of Moses in the Arabian\ndesert with Jethro, one of whose seven daughters he married, and who has\nrightly been accounted an Emir, or petty pastoral prince of Arabia, this\nhigher principle silently grew up and expanded in the breast of this\nexalted man, until it at last burst forth in all the majesty of divine\npower. All that appeared to Moses truly sound and excellent in Egyptian\ncustoms and science, or serviceable to his purpose, he adopted and used\nwith choice and circumspection. But all that was incompatible with his\ndesigns, and which he knew to be corrupt, he strenuously rejected, or he\ngave to it a totally different application, and established a higher\nprinciple in its room.\n\nIn the same way he was not disconcerted by the secret arts of the\nEgyptian sorcerers, for it was no difficult matter for him to vanquish\nthem in the presence of the king by the higher power of God. It is thus\nwe should understand the conduct of Moses in reference to the science\nand modes of thinking of the Egyptians; and that conduct will be found\nnot only perfectly irreproachable in a human point of view, but entitled\nto our warmest admiration. If for instance we suppose that Moses, the\nfirst and greatest writer in the Hebrew tongue,--the founder and\nlegislator of that language also, was, if not the first that discovered,\nat least the first that fixed and regulated, the Hebrew alphabet, we may\neasily conceive him to have taken the first ten, as well as the last\ntwelve Hebrew letters from the Egyptian hieroglyphics; for even at that\nearly period, the hieroglyphics, while they retained their original\nsymbolical meaning, had acquired an alphabetical use. This supposition\nis at least extremely probable, for many of the Hebrew letters are found\nin precisely the same form in the hieroglyphical alphabet; though our\nknowledge of this alphabet is still so very imperfect, and though we\nhave deciphered but perhaps a tenth part of all the various literal\nsymbols which may there exist. But to continue our supposition, Moses\ndid not wish to take from the Egyptian hieroglyphics more than the\ntwenty-two literal signs; he neglected the other hieroglyphs and natural\nsymbols, for he had no need of them. On the contrary, he studiously\nexcluded all natural symbols from his religious system, and prohibited\nwith inexorable severity the chosen people the use of images and all\nthat was most remotely connected with such a service. He well foresaw\nthat if he made the slightest concession on this point, and permitted\nthe least indulgence, or left the slightest opening to the passion for\nnatural and symbolical representations, it would be impossible to set\nany restraint on this indulgence, and that the Hebrews when they had\nonce swerved from the path marked out for them, would follow the same\ncourse as the Pagan nations. The subsequent history of the Jewish nation\nsufficiently proves how important and necessary was that part of the\nMosaic legislation which proscribed all that was connected with the\nreligious use of images. But wherein consisted the peculiar bent of\nmind, the moral and intellectual character traced out to the Hebrews by\ntheir legislator and all their Patriarchs? Completely opposed to the\nEgyptian science--to the Egyptian understanding, that dived and\npenetrated by magical power into the profoundest secrets and mysteries\nof nature, the ruling element of the Hebrew spirit was the _will_--a\nwill that sought with sincerity, earnestness and ardour, its God and its\nMaker, far exalted above all nature, went after his light when\nperceived, and followed with faith, with resignation, and with unshaken\ncourage, his commands, and the slightest suggestions of his paternal\nguidance, whether through the stormy sea, or across the savage desert. I\ndo not mean to assert that the whole nation of the Jews was thoroughly,\nconstantly, and uniformly actuated and animated with such a pure spirit\nand such pure feelings--many pages of their history attest the contrary,\nand but too well manifest how often they were in contradiction with\nthemselves. But this and this alone was the fundamental principle, the\nfirst mighty impulse, the permanent course of conduct which Moses and\nthe other leaders and chosen men among the Hebrews sought to trace out\nto their people--this was the abiding character, the great distinctive\nmark which they had stamped upon their nation. This too, was the\ndistinguishing character of all the primitive Patriarchs, as represented\nin the sacred writings of the Old Testament.\n\nIndependently of particular traits of national character, and the\nspecial destiny of nations, it is philosophically certain, or if we may\nso speak, it is a truth grounded on psychological principles, that the\nwill and not the understanding is in man the principal organ for the\nperception of divine truths. And by this, we understand a will that\nseeks out with all the earnestness of desire the light of truth, which\nis God, and when that light has appeared clear, or begins to appear\nclear, follows with fidelity its guidance, and listens to the internal\nvoice of truth and all its high inspirations. I affirm that in man the\nunderstanding is not the principal organ for the perception of divine\ntruth--that is to say, the _understanding alone_. On the understanding\nalone, indeed, the light may dawn and may even be received--but if the\nwill be not there--if the will pursue a separate and contrary course;\nthat light of higher knowledge is soon obscured, and soon becomes\nclouded and unsteady; or, if it should still gleam, it is changed into\nthe treacherous meteor of illusion. Without the co-operation of a good\nwill, this light cannot be preserved or maintained in its purity; nay,\nthe will must make the first advances towards truth; it must lay the\nfirst basis for the higher science of divine truth, and religious\nknowledge. In other words, as the God whom we acknowledge and revere as\nthe Supreme Being is a living God; so truth, which is God, is a living\ntruth--it is only from life that it can be derived, by life attained,\nand in life learned. In the present state of man's existence, in this\nperiod of the world--a period of discord, of sunken power, of misery and\ndelusion--a period, which, as the Indians designate our fourth and last\nepoch of the world by the name of Caliyug, is the period of predominant\nwoe and misfortune; in this present life, the path marked out for man as\nleading to the knowledge of divine truth and to a higher life, is the\npath of patience, resignation, and perseverance in the struggle of\nlife--a toilsome probation cheered and supported by hope. Desire or love\nis the beginning or root of all higher science or divine knowledge;\nperseverance in desire, in faith, and in the combat of life forms the\nmid-way of our pilgrimage; but the term of this pilgrimage is only a\nterm of hope. This necessary period of preparation, of slow and irksome\npreparation, and gradual progression, cannot be avoided or overleaped by\nthe most heroic exertions of man. The supreme perfection and full\ncontentment of the soul--the intimate union of the spirit with God--and\nGod himself cannot be thus grasped, wrested, and held fast by a violent\nconcentration of all our thoughts on a single point, by a species of\narrogated omnipotence--the self-potency of obstinate and tenacious\nthought; as the Indian philosophy believes, and as the modern German\nphilosophy[51] for some time seemed to believe, or at least attempted.\n\nThe real character, and even history of the Jewish people are frequently\nmisunderstood, and ill appreciated; because the men of our times, who in\nall their speculations, and whatever may be the nature of their\nopinions, incline ever more and more to the spirit of _the absolute_,\nare unable to seize and enter into the idea of that epoch of preparation\nand progressive advancement which was as indispensable for the\nperfection of intellect and knowledge, as of moral life itself. The\nwhole historical existence and destiny of the Hebrews is confined within\none of those great epochs of providential dispensation--it marks but one\nstage in the wonderful march of humanity towards its divine goal. The\nwhole existence of this people turned on the pivot of hope, and the\nkey-stone of its moral life projected its far shadows into futurity.\nHerein consists the mighty difference between the sacred traditions of\nthe Hebrews and those of the other ancient Asiatic nations. When we\nexamine the primitive records and sacred books of these nations, who\nwere so much nearer the fountain-head of primitive revelation than the\nlater nations of the polished West;--when we leave out of sight the\nmoral precepts and ordinances of liturgy comprised in these books; we\nshall find their historical view is turned backward towards the glorious\nPast, and that they breathe throughout a melancholy regret for all that\nman and the world have since lost. And undoubtedly these primitive\ntraditions contain many ancient and beautiful reminiscences of primeval\nhappiness, for even Nature herself was then far different from what she\nis at present, more lovely, more akin to the world of spirits, peopled\nand encompassed with celestial genii; and not only the small garden of\nEden, but all creation, enjoyed a state of Paradisaic innocence and\nhappy infancy, ere strife had commenced in the world, and ere death was\nknown. Out of the multitude of these holy and affecting recollections,\nand out of the whole body of primitive traditions, Moses, by a wise law\nof economy, has retained but very little in the revelation, which was\nspecially destined for the Hebrew people, and has communicated only what\nappeared to him absolutely and indispensably necessary for his nation,\nand for his particular designs, or rather the designs of God, in the\nconduct of that nation. But the little he has said--the significant\nbrevity of the first pages of the Mosaic history, involves much profound\ntruth for us in these later ages, and comprises very many solutions as\nto the great problems of primitive history, did we but know how to\nextract the simple sense with like simplicity. But every thing else, and\nin general the whole tenour of the Mosaic writings, like the existence\nof the Hebrew nation, was formed for futurity--and to this were the\nviews of the Jewish legislator almost exclusively directed. And as all\nthe sacred writings of the Old Testament, which, by this direction\ntowards futurity, were even in their _outward form_ so clearly\ndistinguishable from the sacred books and primitive records of other\nancient nations; as all these sacred writings, I say, from the first\nlaw-giver, who in a high spiritual sense, delivered from the Egyptian\nbondage of nature his people chosen for that especial object, down to\nthe royal and prophetic Psalmist, and down to that last voice of warning\nand of promise that resounded in the desert, were both in their form and\nmeaning eminently prophetic; so the whole Hebrew people may, in a lofty\nsense, be called prophetic, and have been really so in their historical\nexistence and wonderful destiny.\n\nTo these four nations, whom we have compared, in respect to the\ndifferent shape and course which the primitive revelation and sacred\ntradition assumed, among them, as well as in respect to the diversities\nin their intellectual development,--the contrarieties in the internal\nWord, and higher consciousness of each;--to these nations, in order to\ncomplete the instructive parallel, we may now add a fifth--the Persians;\na people which in some points was similar, in others dissimilar to one\nor other of these nations, and which bearing a nearer affinity to some\nin its doctrines and views of life, or even in its language and turn of\nfancy, and more closely connected with others in the bonds of political\nintercourse, may be said to occupy a middle place among these nations.\nIn ancient history, the Persians form the point of transition from the\nfirst to the second epoch of the world; and in this they hold the first\nplace, in so far as they commenced the career of universal conquest; a\npassion which passed from them to the Greeks, and from these in a still\nfuller extent to the Romans, like some noxious humour--some deadly\ndisease transmitted with augmented virulence through every age from\ngeneration to generation; and even in modern times, this hereditary\nmalady in the human race has again broken out.\n\nBut, considered in a spiritual point of view, and with regard to their\nreligion and sacred traditions, the Persians must be classed with the\nfour great nations of the primitive world, and can be compared with them\nonly; for, in this respect, they so totally differed from the\nPhoenicians and Greeks, that no comparison can be instituted between\nthem and the latter; and no parallel, where the objects are so unlike,\ncan be productive of any useful result. To the Indians they bore the\nstrongest resemblance in their language, poetry, and poetic Sagas; their\nconquests, which stretched far into the provinces of central Asia,\nbrought them in contact with the remote eastern Asia, and the celestial\nEmpire of the Chinese, so completely sequestered from the western world;\nwith Egypt they were involved in political contests, till they finally\nsubdued it--and in their religious doctrines and traditions, they more\nnearly approximated to the Hebrews; or their views of God and religion\nwere more akin to the Hebrew doctrines than those of any other nation.\nOf the King of Heaven, and the Father of eternal light, and of the pure\nworld of light, of the eternal Word by which all things were created, of\nthe seven mighty spirits that stand next to the throne of Light and\nOmnipotence, and of the glory of those heavenly hosts which encompass\nthat throne; next, of the origin of evil and of the Prince of darkness,\nthe monarch of those rebellious spirits--the enemies of all good; they\nin a great measure entertained completely similar, or at least very\nkindred, tenets to those of the Hebrews. That, with all these doctrines\nmuch may have been, or really was, combined, which the ancient Hebrews\nand even we would account erroneous, is very possible, and indeed may\nalmost naturally be surmised; but this by no means impairs that strong\nhistorical resemblance we here speak of. A circumstance well worthy of\nobservation is the manner in which Cyrus and the Persians are\nrepresented in the historical books of the Old Testament, and are there\nso clearly distinguished from all other Pagan nations. Among the latter\nthey can with no propriety be numbered; nay, they felt towards the\nEgyptian Idolatry as strong an abhorrence, and in political life\nmanifested it more violently, than the Hebrews themselves. During their\nsway in Egypt, this Idolatry was an object of their persecution, and\nunder Cambyses, they pursued a regular plan for its utter extirpation.\nEven Xerxes in his expedition into Greece, destroyed many temples and\nerected fire-chapels in the whole course of his march; for it cannot be\nquestioned but religious views were principally instrumental in giving\nbirth to the Persian conquests, at least to those of an earlier date.\nThis is a circumstance which should not be overlooked, if we would\nrightly understand the whole course of these events, and penetrate into\nthe true spirit and original design of these mighty movements in the\nworld. From their fire-worship, we must not be led to accuse the ancient\nPersians of an absolute deification of the elements, and of a sensual\nidolatry of nature; in their religion, which was so eminently spiritual,\nthe earthly fire and the earthly sacrifice were but the signs and the\nemblems of another devotion and of a higher Power. Symbols and\nfigurative representations were in general not so rigidly excluded from\ntheir religious system, as from that of the Hebrews. Yet, among the\nPersians, these had a totally different character from those in the\nIndian or Egyptian idolatry. The generous character of the ancient\nPersians, their life and their manners, which display such an exalted\nsense of nature, possess in themselves something peculiarly winning and\ncaptivating for the feelings. The leading result of the few observations\nwe have made may be comprised in the following general remarks:--\n\nIf a poetical recollection of Paradise sufficed for the moral destiny of\nman--if the pure feeling, enthusiasm, and admiration for sideral nature\nwere alone capable of revealing all the glory of the celestial abodes,\nand of the heavenly hosts, of opening to mental eyes the gates of\neternal light--if this were the one thing necessary, and of the first\nnecessity for man--if it were, or could be conformable to the will of\nGod, that the eternal empire of pure light should be diffused over the\nwhole earth by the enthusiasm of martial glory, by the generous valour\nand heroic magnanimity of a chivalric nobility, such as the Persian\nundoubtedly was--then indeed would the Persians hold the pre-eminence,\nor be entitled to claim the first rank among those four nations that\nwere nearest the source of the primitive revelation. But it is otherwise\nordained; the path alone fit and salutary for man, and evidently marked\nout by the will of God, is the path of patience and perseverance--the\nunremitting struggle of slow preparation. Thus, as we may easily\nconceive, it was not the Persians, distinguished as that nation was by\nits noble character, and by its spiritual views of life; it was not the\nEgyptians, versed and initiated as they were in all the mysteries of\nnature and all the depths of science;--but it was the politically\ninsignificant, and, in an earthly point of view, the far less important,\nalmost imperceptible, people of the Hebrews, that were chosen to be the\nmedium of transition--the connecting link between the primitive\nrevelation and the full development of religion in modern times, and its\nlast glorious expansion towards the close of ages. They are now the\ncarriers, and, we may well say, the porters of the designs of\nProvidence, destined to bear the torch of primitive tradition and sacred\npromise from the beginning to the consummation of the world:--while the\nonce magnanimous nation of the Persians has sunk from that pure\nknowledge of truth, and those high spiritual notions of religion it once\nentertained, down to the anti-christian superstition of Mahomet; and the\nprofound people of Egypt has become totally extinct, and is not to be\ntraced even in the small community of Coptic Christians, who have\npreserved a feeble remnant of the ancient language.\n\nSince now this general sketch of the various and contrary directions\nwhich the human mind followed in the first ages of history has been\nrendered more clear and definite by a comparative view of the five\nprincipal nations of the primitive world, it only remains for us to\nsubjoin some important traits in the history of each, to complete this\npicture of the earliest nations; in order to pass over, along with the\nPersians, to the second period of the ancient world--a period which is\nso much nearer to us, and appears so much more clear and open to our\napprehension.\n\nThe origin of ancient heathenism we must seek among the Indians, and not\namong the Chinese, for the reason we have before alleged: namely, that,\nin the primitive ages, the Chinese observed a pure, simple, and\nPatriarchal worship of the Deity; and it was only when under the first\ngeneral and powerful Emperor of China, the rationalism introduced by the\nsect of Taosse had brought about a complete revolution in the whole\nsystem of Chinese faith, manners, and customs, that a real form of\nPaganism--the Indian superstition of Buddha--was subsequently introduced\ninto that country. This subversion of the whole system of ancient\ngovernment--of ancient doctrines--and of what among the Chinese was\ninseparably allied with the latter, the early system of writing, was a\nreal revolution in the public mind. As the general burning of the sacred\nbooks, and the persecution and execution of many of the learned were\nmeasures directed solely against the school of Confucius, that adhered\nto the old system of morals and government; it is by no means an\narbitrary and baseless hypothesis to ascribe to the antagonist party,\nthe rationalist sect of Taosse, a great share in this violent moral and\npolitical revolution; inasmuch as the powerful Emperor Chi-ho-angti must\nhave been quite in the interest of this party. Although the erection of\nthe great wall of China, and the settlement of a Chinese colony in\nJapan, gave external splendour to his reign; yet at home its despotic\nviolence rendered it thoroughly revolutionary. And so this mighty\ncatastrophe, which occurred two thousand years ago in the Chinese\nempire, widely removed as it is from us by the distance of space and\ntime, and different as is the form under which it occurred, bears\nnevertheless no slight resemblance or analogy to much we have seen and\nexperienced in our own times. To explain the contradiction which seems\ninvolved in the fact, that on one hand we have commended that pure,\nsimple, and Patriarchal worship of the Deity by the Chinese in the\nprimitive period; and much that denoted the comparatively high state of\ncivilization among this people, together with a science perverted and\ndegenerate indeed, yet carried to a high degree of refinement; and that,\non the other hand, we have pointed out many things in their primitive\nwriting-system, which displayed a great rudeness and poverty of ideas,\nand a very confined circle of symbols, we may observe that it is with\nChina, as with many other ancient civilized countries, where in the\nback-ground of a ruling and highly polished people, a close\ninvestigation will discover a race of primitive inhabitants more\nbarbarous, or at least less advanced in intellectual refinement. Such a\nrace is mentioned by historians as existing in different provinces of\nChina under the name of Miao--they are precisely characterized as an\nearlier, less polished race of inhabitants, and they have indeed been\npreserved down to later times. The historical enquirer meets almost\nalways in the first ages of the world with two strata of nations,\nconsisting of an elder and a younger race;--in the same way as the\ngeologist in his investigation of the earth's surface can clearly\ndistinguish a two-fold formation of mountains and separate periods in\nthe formation of that surface. Thus in China the more polished\nnew-comers and founders of the subsequent nation and state, accommodated\nthemselves in many respects to the manners and customs, the language and\neven perhaps symbolical writing of these half savages, as the Europeans\nhave partly done, when they have wished to civilize and instruct the\nMexicans and other barbarous nations; and as men must always act in\nsimilar cases, if they would wish success to crown their benevolent\nendeavours. All researches into the origin of the Chinese nation and\nChinese civilization ever conduct the enquirer to the north-west, where\nthe province of Shensee is situated, and to the countries lying beyond.\nThus this only serves to confirm the opinion, highly probable in itself,\nand supported by such manifold testimony, of the general derivation of\nall Asiatic civilization from the great central region of Western Asia.\n\nAgreeably to this opinion, the Indian traditions, as we have already\nmentioned, deduce the historical descent of Indian civilization from the\nnorthern mountainous range of the Himalaya and the country northwards;\nand in support of this tradition, we may cite the vast ruins, the\nimmense subterraneous temples hewn out of the rock, in the neighbourhood\nof the old and celebrated city of _Bamyan_. Though the latter city be\nnot in the proper India, but more northward towards Cabul, in Hindu\nCutch, still its ruins present to the eye of the spectator the peculiar\nforms and structure of the architecture and colossal images of India,\n(whereof they contain a great abundance,) such as are observed in the\nother great monumental edifices of the Indians at Ellore, in the centre\nof the southern province of Deccan, in the Isles of Salsette and\nElephanta in the neighbourhood of Bombay, in the island of Ceylon, and\nnear Mavalipuram on the coast of Madras. All these immense temples,\nwhich have been hewn in the cavities of rocks, or have been cut out of\nthe solid rock; and where often many temples are ranged above and beside\nthe other, together with the buildings for the use of the Brahmins and\nthe swarms of pilgrims, occupy in length and breadth the vast space of\nhalf a German mile, and even more. These temples form the regular places\nof Hindoo pilgrimage, whither immense multitudes of pilgrims flock from\nall the countries of India; and an English writer who wrote as an eye\nwitness, estimated the multitude at the almost incredible number of two\nmillions and a half. Together with the colossal images of gods and of\nsacred animals, such as the elephant and the nandi, or the bull sacred\nto Siva, we find the rocky walls of these subterraneous temples adorned\nwith an almost incalculable number of carved figures, representing\nvarious scenes from the Indian mythology. These figures jut so\nprominently from the rock, that it would almost seem as if their backs\nalone joined the wall. The multitude of figures is exceedingly great,\nand in the ruins near Bamyan, the number is computed at twelve thousand;\nthough this calculation may not perhaps be very accurate, for the thick\nforests which surround these now desolate ruins are often the repair of\ntigers and serpents, and thus all approach to them is attended with\ndanger. Besides in the ruins of Bamyan many of the figures, and even\nsome of the colossal idols, have been destroyed by the Mahometans; for\nwhenever their armies chance to pass by these ruins, they never fail to\npoint their cannon against the images of those fabulous divinities,\nwhich all Mahometans hold in so much abhorrence.\n\nAs to architecture, the perfection which this art attained among the\nIndians is evident from the beautiful workmanship and varied decoration\nof their columns, whole rows of which, like a forest of pillars support\nthe massy roof of upper rock. Notwithstanding the essential difference\nwhich must exist in the architecture of temples hewn out of rocks, or\nconstructed in the cavities of rocks, we shall find that the prevailing\ntendency in Indian architecture is towards the pyramidal form. On the\nother hand, it is observed that the art of vaulting appears to have been\nless known, or at least not to have attained great perfection, or been\nin frequent use. We find, too, among these monuments, vast walls\nconstructed out of immense blocks of stone, and rudely cut fragments of\nrock, not unlike the old Cyclopean structures. The amateurs of such\nsubjects have acquired a more accurate knowledge of them by the splendid\nillustrations which the English have published; for a mere verbal\ndescription can with difficulty convey a just notion of the nature and\npeculiar character of this architecture. Of the political history of\nIndia, little can be said, for the Indians scarcely possess any regular\nhistory--any works to which we should give the denomination of\nhistorical; for their history is interwoven and almost confounded with\nmythology, and is to be found only in the old mythological works,\nespecially in their two great national and epic poems, the Ramayana and\nthe Mahabarata, and in the eighteen Puranas (the most select and\nclassical of the popular and mythological legends of India), and perhaps\nin the traditionary history of particular dynasties and provinces; and\neven the works we have mentioned are not merely of a mytho-historical,\nbut in a great measure of a theological and philosophical purport. The\nmore modern history of Hindostan, from the first Mahometan conquest at\nthe commencement of the eleventh century of our era, can indeed be\ntraced with pretty tolerable certainty; but as this portion of Indian\nhistory is unconnected with, and incapable of illustrating the true\nstate and progress of the intellectual refinement of the Hindoos, it is\nof no importance to our immediate object. The more ancient history of\nthat country, particularly in the earlier period, is mostly fabulous,\nor, to characterize it by a softer, and at the same time, more correct\nname, a history purely mythic and traditionary; and it would be no easy\ntask to divest the real and authentic history of ancient India of the\ngarb of mythology and poetical tradition; a task which at least has not\nyet been executed with adequate critical acumen.\n\nChronology, too, shares the same fate with the sister science of\nhistory, for in the early period it is fabulous, and in the more modern,\nit is often not sufficiently precise and accurate. The number of years\nassigned to the first three epochs of the world must be considered as\npossessing an astronomical import, rather than as furnishing any\ncriterion for an historical use. It is only the fourth and last period\nof the world--the age of progressive misery and all-prevailing woe,\nwhich the Indians term Caliyug, that we can in any way consider an\nhistorical epoch; and this, the duration of which is computed at four\nthousand years, began about a thousand years before the Christian era.\nOf the progress and term of this period of the world, considered in\nreference to the history of mankind, the Indians entertain a very simple\nnotion. They believe that the condition of mankind will become at first\nmuch worse, but will be afterwards ameliorated. The regular historical\nepoch when the chronology of India begins to acquire greater certainty,\nand from which indeed it is ordinarily computed, is the age of King\nVikramaditya, who reigned in the more civilized part of India, somewhat\nearlier than the Emperor Augustus in the West, perhaps about sixty years\nbefore our era. It was at the court of this monarch that flourished nine\nof the most celebrated sages and poets of the second era of Indian\nliterature; and among these was Calidas, the author of the beautiful\ndramatic poem of Sacontala, so generally known by the English and German\ntranslations. It was in the age of Vikramaditya, that the later poetry\nand literature of India, of which Calidas was so bright an ornament,\nreached its full bloom. The elder Indian poetry, particularly the two\ngreat epic poems above-mentioned, entirely belong to the early and more\nfabulous ages of the world; so far at least as the poets themselves are\nassigned to those ages, and figure in some degree, as fabulous\npersonages. We may, however, observe that in the style of poetry, in\nart, and even in the language itself, there reigns a very great\ndifference between these primitive heroic poems, and the works of\nCalidas and other contemporary poets--the difference is at least as\ngreat as that which exists between Homer and Theocritus, or the other\nBucolick poets of Greece. The oldest of the two epic poems of the\nIndians, the Ramayana by the poet Valmiki, celebrates Rama, his love for\na royal princess, the beautiful Sita, and his conquest of Lanka, or the\nmodern Isle of Ceylon. Although in the old historical Sagas of the\nIndians, we find mention made of far-ruling monarchs and all-conquering\nheroes; still these traditions seem to shew, as in the instance first\ncited, that in the oldest, as in the latest, times prior to foreign\nconquest, India was not united in one great monarchy, but was generally\nparcelled out into a variety of states; and this fact serves to prove\nthat such has ever been in general the political condition of that\ncountry. The whole body of ancient Indian traditions and mythological\nhistory is to be found in the other great epic of the Indians, the\nMaha-Barata, whose author, or at least compiler, was Vyasa, the founder\nof the Vedanta philosophy, the most esteemed, and most prevalent of all\nthe philosophical systems of the Hindoos. This leads us to observe a\nsecond remarkable, and singularly characteristic, feature in Indian\nintellect and Indian literature, so widely remote from the relation\nbetween poetry and philosophy among other nations, particularly the\nGreeks. This is the close connection, and almost entire fusion of poetry\nand philosophy among this people. Many of their more ancient\nphilosophical works were composed in metre, though they possess\nproductions of a later period, which display the highest logical\nsubtilty and analysis. Their great old poems, whatever may be the beauty\nof the language, and the captivating interest of the narrative, are\ngenerally imbued with, and pervaded by, the most profound philosophy;\nand among this people, even the history of Metaphysics ascends as far\nback as the mythic ages. This at least holds good of the authors, to\nwhom the invention of the leading philosophical systems has been\nascribed; although the subsequent commentaries belong to a much later\nand more historical period. Thus the Mahabarata contains as an episode a\ndidactic poem, or philosophical dialogue between the fabulous personages\nand heroes of the epic, known in Europe by the name of the Bhagavatgita,\nand which has recently been ably edited and expounded in Germany, by\nAugustus William Von Schlegel, and William Von Humboldt. The leading\nprinciples of the Vedanta philosophy are copiously set forth in this\npoem, which may be regarded as a manual of Indian mysticism; for such is\nthe ultimate object of all Indian philosophy; and of this peculiar\npropensity of the Hindoo mind we have already cited some remarkable\ntraits. For the accomplishment of our more immediate object, and in\norder rightly to understand the true place which the intellectual\nculture of India occupies in primitive history, a general knowledge of\nIndian philosophy is far more important and necessary, than any minute\nanalysis and criticism on the manifold beauties of the very rich poetry\nof that country; and this philosophy we shall now endeavour to\ncharacterize according to its various systems, and in its main and\nessential features.\n\n\nEND OF LECTURE V.\n\n\n\n\nLECTURE VI.\n\n     Of the Hindoo Philosophy.--Dissertation on Languages.--Of the\n     peculiar political Constitution and Theocratic Government of the\n     Hebrews.--Of the Mosaic Genealogy of Nations.\n\n\nThe Indian philosophy, from the place it holds in the primitive\nintellectual history of Asia, and from the insight it gives us into the\ncharacter and peculiar tendency of the human mind in that early period,\npossesses a high, almost higher, interest than that offered by the\nbeautiful and captivating poetry of this ancient people. However, even\nthe poetry of the Indians contains much that refers to, or bears the\nstamp of, that peculiar mystical philosophy which we have more than once\nspoken of. We shall give a more correct and comprehensive idea of the\nIndian philosophy, if we observe, beforehand, that the six Indian\nsystems which are the most prevalent and the most celebrated, and which,\nthough in many points differing from the Vedas, are not to be regarded\nas entirely reprehensible or heterodox, the six Indian systems, we say,\nmust be classed in couples, and that the first of each pair treats of\nthe beginning of the subject discussed in the second, and the second\ncontains the development and extension of the principles laid down in\nthe first, or applies those principles to another and higher object of\nenquiry. In the whole Indian philosophy, there are in fact only three\ndifferent modes of thought, or three systems absolutely divergent, and\nwe shall give a sufficiently clear idea of these systems, if we say that\nthe first is founded on nature,--the second on thought, or on the\nthinking self; and the third attaches itself exclusively to the\nrevelation comprised in the Vedas. The first system which seems to be\none of the most ancient, bears the name of the Sanchya philosophy--a\nname which signifies \"the philosophy of Numbers.\" This is not to be\nunderstood in the Pythagorean sense, that numbers are the principle of\nall things, or according to the very similar principle laid down in the\nChinese books of I--King, where we find the eight koua, or the symbolic\nprimary lines of all existence. But the Sanchya system bears this name\nbecause it reckons successively the first principles of all things and\nof all being to the number of four or five-and-twenty. Among these first\nprinciples, it assigns the highest place to Nature--the second to\nunderstanding, and by this is meant not merely human understanding, but\ngeneral and even Infinite Intelligence; so that we may consider this\nsystem as a very partial philosophy of Nature; and indeed it has been\nregarded by some Indian writers as atheistical--a censure in which the\nlearned Englishman, Mr. Colebrooke, (to whose extracts and notices we\nare indebted for our most precise information on this whole branch of\nIndian literature)[52] seems almost inclined to concur. This system was\nhowever, by no means a coarse materialism, or a denial of the Divinity\nand of every thing sacred. The doubts expressed in the passages cited by\nMr. Colebrooke, are directed far more against the Creation than against\nGod; they regard the motive which could have induced the Supreme Being,\nthe Spirit of Infinite perfection to create the external world, and the\npossibility of such a creation.\n\nThe Sanchya Philosophy would be more properly designated in our modern\nPhilosophic phraseology as a system of complete Dualism, where two\nsubstances are represented as co-existent--on one hand, a self-existent\nenergy of Nature, which emanated, or eternally emanates, from itself;\nand on the other hand, eternal truth, or the Supreme and Infinite Mind.\n\nThe Indian Philosophers in general were so inclined to regard the whole\noutward world of sense as the product of illusion, as a vain and idle\napparition, that we can well imagine they were unable to reconcile the\ncreation of such a world (which appeared to them a world of darkness, or\nperhaps, on a somewhat higher scale, as an intermediate state of\nillusion) with their mystical notion of the infinite perfection of the\nSupreme Being and Eternal Spirit. For even in ethics, they were wont to\nplace the idea of Supreme Perfection in a state of absolute repose, but\nnot (at least to an equal degree) in the state of active energy or\nexertion. Great as the error of such a system of dualism may be--there\nis yet a mighty difference between a philosophy which denies, or at\nleast misconceives, the Creation, and one which denies the existence of\nthe Deity; for such atheism never occurred to the minds of those\nphilosophers. The doctrine of a primary self-existing energy in Nature,\nor of the eternity of the Universe, may in a practical point of view,\nappear as gross an error; but in philosophy we must make accurate\ndistinctions, and forbear to place this ancient dualism on the same\nlevel with that coarse materialism--that destructive and atheistic\nAtomical philosophy, or any other doctrines professed by the later sects\nof a dialectic Rationalism.\n\nValuable, undoubtedly, as are such extracts and communications from the\noriginals in a branch of human science still so little known, yet they\nwill not alone suffice, and, without a certain philosophic flexibility\nof talent in the enquirer, they will fail to afford him a proper insight\ninto the true nature, the real spirit and tendency of those ancient\nsystems of philosophy. That the Indian philosophy, even when it has\nstarted from the most opposite principles, and when its circuitous or\ndevious course has branched more or less widely from the common path, is\nsure to wind round, and fall into the one general track--the uniform\nterm of all Indian philosophy--is well exemplified by the second part of\nthe Sanchya system (called the Yoga philosophy), where we find a totally\ndifferent principle proclaimed; and while it utterly abandons the\nprimary doctrine of a self-existent principle in Nature laid down in the\nfirst part of the philosophy, it unfolds those maxims of Indian\nmysticism which recur in every department of Hindoo literature. That\ntotal absorption in the one thought of the Deity, that entire\nabstraction from all the impressions and notions of sense--that\nsuspension of all outward, and in part even of inward, life effected by\nthe energy of a will tenaciously fixed and entirely concentrated on a\nsingle point; and by which, according to the belief of the Indians,\nmiraculous power and supernatural knowledge are attained,--are held up\nin the second part of the Sanchya system as the highest term of all\nmental exertion. The word Yoga signifies the complete union of all our\nthoughts and faculties with God--by which alone the soul can be\nfreed--that is, delivered from the unhappy lot of transmigration; and\nthis, and this only, forms the object of all Indian philosophy.\n\nThe Indian name of Yogi is derived from the same word, which designates\nthis philosophy. The Indian Yogi is a hermit or penitent who, absorbed\nin this mystic contemplation, remains often for years fixed immoveably\nto a single spot. In order to give a lively representation of a\nphenomenon so strange to us, which appears totally incredible and almost\nimpossible, although it has been repeatedly attested by eye-witnesses,\nand is a well-ascertained historical fact; I will extract from the drama\nof Sacontala by the poet Calidas, a description of a Yogi, remarkable\nfor its vivid accuracy, or, to use the expression of the German\ncommentator, its fearful beauty. King Dushmanta enquires of Indra's\ncharioteer the sacred abode of him whom he seeks; and to this the\ncharioteer replies:[53] \"a little beyond the grove, where you see a\npious Yogi, motionless as a pollard, holding his thick bushy hair and\nfixing his eyes on the solar orb. Mark:--his body is half covered with a\nwhite ant's edifice made of raised clay; the skin of a snake supplies\nthe place of his sacerdotal thread, and part of it girds his loins; a\nnumber of knotty plants encircle and wound his neck; and surrounding\nbirds' nests almost conceal his shoulders.\" We must not take this for\nthe invention of fancy, or the exaggeration of a poet; the accuracy of\nthis description is confirmed by the testimony of innumerable\neye-witnesses, who recount the same fact, and in precisely similar\ncolours. During that period of wonderful phenomena and supernatural\npowers--the first three centuries of the Christian church--we meet with\nonly one Simon Stylites, or column-stander;--and his conduct is by no\nmeans held up by Christian writers as a model of imitation, but is\nregarded, at best, as an extraordinary exception permitted on certain\nspecial grounds. In the Indian forests and deserts, and in the\nneighbourhood of those holy places of pilgrimage mentioned above, there\nare many hundreds of these hermits--these strange human phenomena of the\nhighest intellectual abstraction or delusion. Even the Greeks were\nacquainted with them, and, among so many other wonders, make mention of\nthem in their description of India under the name of the Gymnosophists.\nFormerly such accounts would have been regarded as incredible and as\nexceeding the bounds of possibility; but such conjectures can be of no\navail against historical facts repeatedly attested and undeniably\nproved. Now that men are better acquainted with the wonderful\nflexibility of human organization, and with those marvellous powers\nwhich slumber concealed within it, they are less disposed to form light\nand hasty decisions on phenomena of this description. The whole is\nindeed a magical intellectual self-exaltation, accomplished by the\nenergy of the will concentrated on a single point: and this\nconcentration of the mind, when carried to this excess, may lead not\nmerely to a figurative, but to a real intellectual self-annihilation,\nand to the disorder of all thought, even of the brain. While on the one\nhand we must remain amazed at the strength of a will so tenaciously and\nperseveringly fixed on an object purely spiritual, we must, on the other\nhand, be filled with profound regret at the sight of so much energy\nwasted for a purpose so erroneous, and in a manner so appalling.\n\nThe second species of Indian philosophy, totally different from the\nother two kinds, and which proceeds not from Nature, but from the\nprinciple of thought and from the thinking self, is comprised in the\nNyaya system, whose founder was Gautama--a personage whom several of the\nearlier investigators of Indian literature, particularly Dr. Taylor, in\nhis Translation of the \"Prabodha Chandrodaya,\"--(page 116.) have\nconfounded with, the founder of the Buddhist sect, as both bear the same\nname. But a closer enquiry has proved them to be distinct persons; and\nMr. Colebrooke himself finds greater points of coincidence or affinity\nbetween the Sanchya philosophy and Buddhism, than between the latter and\nthe Nyaya system. This Nyaya philosophy, proceeding from the act of\nthought, comprises in the doctrine of particulars, distinctions and\nsubdivisions, the application of the thinking principle; and this part\nof the system embraces all which among the Greeks went under the name of\nlogic or dialectic; and, which with us is partly classed under the same\nhead. Very many writings and commentaries have been devoted to the\ndetailed treatment and exposition of these subjects, which the Indians,\nseem to have discussed with almost the same diffuseness, or at least\ncopiousness, as the Greeks. Like the Indians, the learned Englishman,\nwho has first unlocked to our view this department of Indian literature,\nhas paid comparatively most attention to this second part of the Nyaya\nphilosophy. But all this logical philosophy, though it may furnish one\nmore proof (if such be necessary) of the extreme richness, variety and\nrefinement of the intellectual culture of the Hindoos, yet possesses no\nimmediate interest for the object we here propose to ourselves. Mr.\nColebrooke remarks, however, that the fundamental tenets of this\nphilosophy comprise, as indeed is evident, not merely a logic in the\nordinary acceptation of the word, but the metaphysics of all logical\nscience. On this part of the subject, I could have wished that in the\nauthentic extracts he has given us from the Sanscrit originals, he had\nmore distinctly educed the leading doctrines of the system, and thus\nfurnished us with the adequate data for forming a judgment on the\ngeneral character of this philosophy, as well as on its points of\ncoincidence with other systems, and with the philosophy of the\nBuddhists. For although it appears to be well ascertained that the\nreligion of Buddha sprang out of some perverted system of Hindoo\nphilosophy; yet the points of transition to such a religious creed\nexisting in the Indian systems of philosophy, have not yet been clearly\npointed out. The Vedanta philosophy must here evidently be excepted; for\nto this Buddhism is as much opposed as to the old Indian religion of the\nVedas. Moreover that endless confusion and unintelligibleness of the\nBuddhist metaphysics, which we have before spoken of, may first be\ntraced to the source of Idealism; though in the progress of that\nphilosophy, many errors have been associated with it--errors even which,\nin its origin, were most widely removed from it; for every system of\nerror asserts and even believes that it is perfectly consistent, though\nin none is such consistency found.\n\nThe basis and prevailing tendency of the Nyaya system (to judge from the\nextracts with which we have been furnished) is most decidedly ideal. On\nthe whole we can very well conceive that a system of philosophy\nbeginning with the highest act of thought, or proceeding from the\nthinking self, should run into a course of the most decided and absolute\nidealism, and that the general inclination of the Indian philosophers to\nregard the whole external world of sense as vain illusion, and to\nrepresent individual personality as absorbed in the God-head by the most\nintimate union, should have given birth to a complete system of\nself-delusion--a diabolic self-idolatry, very congenial with the\nprinciples of that most ancient of all anti-christian sects--the\nBuddhists.\n\nThe Indian authorities cited by Colebrooke, impute to the second part of\nthe Nyaya philosophy a strong leaning to the atomical system. We must\nhere recollect that, as the Indian mind pursued the most various and\nopposite paths of enquiry even in philosophy, there were besides the six\nmost prevalent philosophic systems, recognized as generally conformable\nto religion, several others in direct opposition to the established\ndoctrines on the Deity and on religion. Among these the Charvaca\nphilosophy, which, according to Mr. Colebrooke, comprises the\nmetaphysics of the sect of Jains, deserves a passing notice. It is a\nsystem of complete materialism founded on the atomical doctrines, such\nas Epicurus taught, and which met with so much favour and adhesion in\nthe declining ages of Greece and Rome;--doctrines which several moderns\nhave revived in latter times, but which the profound investigations of\nnatural philosophy, now so far advanced, will scarcely ever permit to\ntake root again.\n\nThe third species or branch of Indian philosophy, is that which is\nattached to the Vedas, and to the sacred revelation and traditions they\ncontain. The first part of this philosophy,--the Mimansa, is, according\nto Mr. Colebrooke, more immediately devoted to the interpretation of the\nVedas, and most probably contains the fundamental rules of\ninterpretation, or the leading principles, whereby independent reason is\nmade to harmonize with the word of revelation conveyed by sacred\ntradition. The second or finished part of the system is called the\nVedanta philosophy. The last word in this term, \"Vedanta,\" which is\ncompounded of two roots, is equivalent to the German word ende (end), or\nstill more to the Latin finis, and denotes the end or ultimate object of\nany effort; and so the entire term Vedanta will signify a philosophy\nwhich reveals the true sense, the internal spirit, and the proper object\nof the Vedas, and of the primitive revelation of Brahma comprised\ntherein. This Vedanta philosophy is the one which now generally exerts\nthe greatest influence on Indian literature and Indian life; and it is\nvery possible that some of the six recognized, or at least tolerated,\nsystems of philosophy may have been purposely thrown into the\nback-ground, or, when they clashed too rudely with the principles of the\nprevailing system, have been softened down by their partisans, and have\nthus come down to us in that state. A wide field is here opened to the\nfuture research and critical enquiries of Indian scholars.\n\nThis Vedanta philosophy is in its general tendency, a complete system of\nPantheism; but not the rigid, mathematical, abstract, negative Pantheism\nof some modern thinkers; for such a total denial of all Personality in\nGod, and of all freedom in man, is incompatible with the attachment\nwhich the Vedanta philosophy professes for sacred tradition and ancient\nmythology; and accordingly a modified, poetical, and half-mythological\nsystem of Pantheism may here naturally be expected, and actually exists.\nEven in the doctrine of the immortality of the soul and of the\nMetempsychosis, the personal existence of the human soul, inculcated by\nthe ancient faith, is not wholly denied or rejected by this more modern\nsystem of philosophy; though on the whole it certainly is not exempt\nfrom the charge of Pantheism. But all the systems of Indian philosophy\ntend more or less to one practical aim--namely the final deliverance and\neternal emancipation of the soul from the old calamity--the dreaded\nfate--the frightful lot--of being compelled to wander through the dark\nregions of Nature--through the various forms of the brute creation--and\nto change ever anew its terrestrial shape. The second point in which the\ndifferent systems of Indian philosophy mostly agree is this, that the\nvarious sacrifices prescribed for this end in the Vedas, are not free\nfrom blame or vice, partly on account of the effusion of blood\nnecessarily connected with animal sacrifice--and partly on account of\nthe inadequacy of such sacrifices to the final deliverance of the soul;\nuseful and salutary though they be in other respects.\n\nThe general and fundamental doctrine of the Metempsychosis has rendered\nthe destruction of animals extremely repulsive to Indian feelings, from\nthe strong apprehension that a case may occur where, unconsciously and\ninnocently, one may violate or injure the soul of some former relative\nin its present integument. But even the Vedas themselves inculcate the\nnecessity of that sublime science which rises above nature, for the\nattainment of the full and final deliverance of the soul; as is\nexpressed in an old remarkable passage of the Vedas, thus literally\ntranslated by Mr. Colebrooke.[54] \"Man must recognise the soul--man must\nseparate it from nature--then it comes not again--then it comes not\nagain.\" These last words signify, then the soul is delivered from the\ndanger of a return to earth--from the misfortune of transmigration, and\nit remains for ever united to God; an union which can be obtained only\nby that pure separation from nature, which is that sublimest science,\ninvoked in the first words of this passage.\n\nAnimal sacrifices for the souls of the departed, particularly for those\nof deceased parents, which were regarded as the most sacred duty of the\nson and of the posterity, were among those religious usages which\noccupied an important place in the Patriarchal ages, and were most\ndeeply interwoven with the whole arrangement of life in that primitive\nperiod, as is evident from all those Indian rites, and the system of\ndoctrines akin to them. These sacrifices are certainly of very ancient\norigin, and may well have been derived from the mourning Father of\nmankind, and the first pair of hostile brothers. To these may afterwards\nhave been added all that multitude of religious rites, and doctrines, or\nmarvellous theories respecting the immortal soul and its ulterior\ndestinies. Hence the indispensable obligation of marriage for the\nBrahmins, in order to insure the blessing of legitimate offspring,\nregarded as one of the highest objects of existence in the Patriarchal\nages, for the prayers of the son only could obtain the deliverance, and\nsecure the repose, of a departed parent's soul; and this was one of his\nmost sacred duties. The high reverence for women, among the Indians,\nrests on the same religious notion; as is expressed by the old poet in\nthese lines.\n\n  \"Woman is man's better half,\n   Woman is man's bosom friend,\n   Woman is redemption's source,\n   From Woman springs the liberator.\"\n\nThis last line signifies, what we mentioned above, that the son is the\nLiberator appointed by God, to deliver by prayer the soul of his\ndeceased father. The poet then continues;--\"Women are the friends of the\nsolitary--they solace him with their sweet converse; like to a father,\nin discharge of duty, consoling as a mother in misfortune.\"\n\nWe should scarcely conceive it possible (and it certainly tends to prove\nthe original power, copiousness and flexibility of the human mind,)\nthat, by the side of a false mysticism totally sunk and lost in the\nabyss of the eternally incomprehensible and unfathomable, like the\nIndian philosophy, a rich, various, beautiful and highly wrought poetry\nshould have existed. The Epic narrative of the old Indian poems bears a\ngreat resemblance to the Homeric poetry, in its inexhaustible\ncopiousness, in the touching simplicity of its antique forms, in\njustness of feeling, and accuracy of delineation. Yet in its subjects,\nand in the prevailing tone of its Mythological fictions, this Indian\nEpic poetry is characterized by a style of fancy incomparably more\ngigantic, such as occasionally prevails in the mythology of Hesiod--in\nthe accounts of the old Titanic wars--or in the fabulous world of\nAEschylus, and of the Doric Pindar. In the tenderness of amatory feeling,\nin the description of female beauty, of the character and domestic\nrelations of woman, the Indian poetry may be compared to the purest and\nnoblest effusions of Christian poesy; though, on the whole, from the\nthoroughly mythical nature of its subjects, and from the rhythmical\nforms of its speech, it bears a greater resemblance to that of the\nancients. Among the later poets, Calidas, who is the most renowned and\nesteemed in the dramatic poetry of the Indians, might be called by way\nof comparison, an Idyllic and sentimental Sophocles. The poetry of the\nIndians is not a little indebted to the genius of their beautiful\nlanguage, which bears indubitable traces of the same generous and lofty\npoetical spirit; and it may be therefore necessary, in this general\nsketch of the primitive state of the human mind, to make a few\nobservations on this very remarkable language.\n\nIn its grammatical structure the language of India is absolutely similar\nto the Greek and Latin, even to the minutest particulars. But the\ngrammatical forms of the Sanscrit are far richer and more varied than\nthose of the Latin tongue, and more regular and systematic than those of\nthe Greek. In its roots and words the Sanscrit has a very strong and\nremarkable affinity to the Persian and Germanic race of languages; an\naffinity which furnishes interesting disclosures, or gives occasion at\nleast for instructive comparisons, on the progress of ideas among those\nancient nations, and, as one and the same word is sometimes extended,\nsometimes contracted in its meaning or applied to kindred\nobjects--reveals the first natural impressions, or primary notions of\nlife in those early ages. To prove more clearly, by one or two examples,\nthis affinity between the languages of nations so widely removed from\none other, and almost separated by the distance of two quarters of the\nglobe, and to shew the important data which the discovery of such facts\nfurnishes to history, I will mention, as a striking instance, that the\nGerman word _mensch_ (man) perfectly agrees in root and signification\nwith the Indian word, _manuschya_, with this only difference, that in\nthe Sanscrit the latter word has a regular root, and is derived from the\nword _manu_, which means spirit. Thus the word mensch (man) in its\nprimitive root signifies a being endowed with spirit by way of\npre-eminence above all earthly creatures. It is evident, too, from this,\nthat the Latin word _mens_ (mind) is of a cognate kind, and belongs to\nthe same family of words; for, in these philological comparisons, the\nmembers of one radical word, scattered through different languages,\nserve when combined to illustrate each other. To cite an instance of a\nremarkable extension and contraction of meaning in one and the same\nword, we may remark that the same word which in the German _loch_,\nsignifies the space of a narrow aperture, and in the Latin locus,\ncomprehends the general notion of space, as well as of a particular\nplace, means the universe in the Sanscrit _lokas_. Thus the Sanscrit\nword _trailokas_ or _trailokyan_, signifies the three worlds or the\ntriple world--the world of truth or eternal being, the world of illusion\nor vain appearance, and the world of darkness;--a division which\nconstitutes one of the main points in the Indian philosophy, and is\nexpressed by the two Sanscrit words _trai_ and _lokas_, which are at the\nsame time also Latin and German. I will adduce but one more example. As\nmostly the ancient nations of Asia, and likewise of Europe, were led by\na certain natural feeling and a not erroneous instinct, (totally\nindependent of the nomenclature and classifications of our natural\nhistory,) to regard the bull the most useful and important of all the\nanimals which man has domesticated, as the representative of earthly\nfertility, and (as it were) the primary animal of the earth, and\nafterwards made that animal the emblem of all earthly existence and\nearthly energy; so it is extraordinary to see, (as Augustus William\nSchlegel has shewn by an interesting comparison of the words which\ndesignate either of these objects in various languages of a kindred\nstem,) it is extraordinary to see what mutual light and illustration\nthey reflect on each other. The Indian and Persian word, _gau_, with\nwhich the German _kuh_, (cow) perfectly coincides, quite agrees with the\nGreek word for earth, in the old Doric form of {~GREEK SMALL LETTER GAMMA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA~}: the Latin\n_bos_, (ox) in its inflection _bovis_ or _bove_, belongs to a whole\nfamily of Sanscrit words, such as _bhu_, _bhuva_, _bhumi_, which signify\nthe earth or earthly, or whatever is remotely connected therewith. So\noriginally in this language one and the same word served to denote the\nearth and the bull. Comparisons of this sort, when not strained by\netymological subtilty, but founded on matter of fact and clear\nself-evident deductions, may offer much curious illustration of the\nstate of opinion, and the nature and connexion of ideas in the primitive\nand mythic ages, or may serve at least to give us a clearer and more\nlively insight into the secret operations of the human mind, and into\nthe modes of thinking prevalent among ancient nations. And, besides the\nfew instances here cited, we might adduce many hundred examples of a\nsimilar kind.\n\nAs language in itself forms one of the corner-stones of man's history\n(and that not the least important), and as the different tongues spread\nin such amazing variety over the inhabited globe, are essentially\nconnected with universal history, and the history of particular races;\nit is necessary to say a few words on this subject, not that we would\nplunge deeper, than is here expedient, into the vast and immense\nlabyrinth of languages; but in order to shew the point of view whence\nthe philosophic historian should take his survey, if he would gain a\nclear and comprehensive notion of this otherwise immeasurable chaos.\nPerhaps the shortest way for this would be to figure to oneself all the\ndifferent dialects and modes of speech diffused over the habitable\nglobe, under the general image of a pyramid of languages of three\ndegrees, separated one from the other by a very simple principle of\ndivision. The broad basis of this pyramid would be formed by those\nlanguages whose roots and primitive words are mostly monosyllabic, and\nwhich either are entirely without a grammar like the Chinese language,\nor at best display only the rude lineaments of a very simple and\nimperfect grammatical structure. The languages belonging to this class\nare by far the most considerable in number, and the most widely spread\nover the four quarters of the globe; and if, in a general philological\ninvestigation, we would wish to reduce these to any species of\nclassification, we must adopt a geographical mode of arrangement, and\ndesignate them, for example, as the languages of Northern and Eastern\nAsia, of America, and of Africa. The Chinese must be considered as the\nmost important and remarkable language of this class, precisely because\nit best answers to the character of a monosyllabic speech totally\ndestitute of grammar, and has attained to as high a degree of refinement\nand perfection as languages of this kind are susceptible of. This is the\nstage of infancy in language, as children's first attempts at speech\nalmost always incline to monosyllables--it is the cry of nature which\nbreaks out in these simple sounds, or the infantine imitation of some\nnatural sound. This primitive character is still to be clearly traced in\nthe Chinese; although a very artificial mode of writing, and the high\ndegree of refinement to which science has been carried, have given a\nmighty extension, and a quite conventional character, to this infant\nlanguage. For any parallels or analogies which may be drawn between the\nperiods of natural life and the epochs of intellectual culture must\nnever be understood in an exact and literal sense.\n\nThe next degree in this pyramid of speech is occupied by the noble\nlanguages of the second class, and this race of languages, which are\nconnected with each other by strong and manifold ties of affinity, are\nthe Indo-Persic, the Graeco-Latin, and the Gothico--Teutonic[55]. Here\nthe roots are, for the most part at least, dyssyllabic; and these roots,\nwhich are by this means internally flexible, and become as it were\nliving and productive, afford room and occasion for a more varied\ngrammatical structure. The distinguishing character of these languages\nis a very artificial grammar, which enters so completely into the\nprimary formation of these languages, that the nearer we approach their\noriginal the more regular and systematic do we find their structure. In\ntheir progress these languages are characterized by a poetical fullness\nand variety in the forms of narration, and even by a rigid precision in\nscientific discussions.\n\nThe third and last class are the Semitic languages, as they are\nstyled--the Hebrew and the Arabic, which, together with their kindred\ndialects, form the summit or apex of this pyramid. In these languages\nthe ruling principle is that all the roots must be tri-syllabic, for\neach of the three letters, of which the root is regularly composed,\ncounts for a syllable, and is articulated as such. Whatever exceptions\nfrom this rule exist, must be treated as exceptions only. It cannot well\nbe doubted that this principle of tri-syllabic roots is purposely\nwrought into the whole internal structure of these languages, and\nperhaps not without some deep significancy--some presentient feeling\nimplied by that triplicity of roots.[56] In these languages the verb is\nthe first principle of derivation--the root from which every thing is\ndeduced, and hence a certain rapidity, fire, and vivacity in the\nexpression. But with such formal regularity the rich, full, elaborate\ngrammatical forms and structure which distinguish the languages of the\nIndo-Greek race, are not at all compatible;--these tri-syllabic tongues\nhave a certain tendency to monotony, and do not certainly possess that\npoetical variety, and that flexible adaptation to scientific purposes,\nwhich characterize the second class of languages. The general\ncharacteristic of the Semitic tongues is their peculiar fitness for\nprophetic inspiration and for profound symbolical import--this is their\nspecial character. We speak here of the language itself, and of its\ninternal structure, and not of the spirit which may direct it; and I\nshall only add that the character we have here assigned to the Semitic\nlanguages is according to the declaration of many of the most competent\njudges, more uniformly perceptible in the Arabic than in the Hebrew,\nalthough the former has received a totally different application, and\nhas undergone a very diversified culture. Thus the Hebrew tongue was\neminently adapted to the high spiritual destination of the Hebrew\npeople, and was a fit organ of the prophetic revelation and promises\nimparted to that nation; and, even in this respect, this Semitic\nlanguage is worthy of being considered the summit of the pyramid of\nhuman speech. But it never can be regarded as the basis of that pyramid,\nnor the root whence all other tongues have sprung, as many scholars in\nformer times conceived--an opinion which would seem tacitly to imply\nthat Adam could have spoken no other language in Paradise but the\nHebrew. But this language of the first man created by God--this language\nwhich God himself had taught him--this word of Nature which the Deity\nimparted to man together with the dominion over all other creatures, and\nover the whole visible world, may have been neither the Hebrew nor the\nIndian, nor any of the other known or existing languages of the earth.\nPossibly it was not a speech which we could learn or understand, or\nwhich, according to the present scheme of language, we can even conceive\nor imagine. In the same way no one is capable of proving or discovering\nthe geographical site of the one lost source in Paradise, whence those\nfour rivers took their rise, which are in part to be still traced on the\nearth. As to the Hebrew language, I think that a deeper inquiry would\nshew that it is not so far removed from the Indo-Greek family; and that\nit is even partially related to it, although this affinity may be at\nfirst very much concealed by the great difference of structure, and by\nthe total diversity of grammatical forms. In general we must not\nendeavour to enforce, with too rigid uniformity and too systematic\nprecision, the division of languages here marked out. It suffices to\nadhere to one general point of survey; but in other respects so\nluxuriant, so various, so irregular has been the growth of the human\nmind in the region of languages, that it may be compared to the\nexpansive life of free, uncultivated nature, to the wild variety of the\nthick-grown forest or of the flowery meadow.\n\nTo the second order of languages of the Indo-Greek race, _probably_\nbelongs the great Sclavonian family of languages, which, after the\nothers, would form the fourth member in this class; but a definite and\ndecisive judgment on this matter, I must leave to those philologists who\nare perfectly conversant with this branch of human speech. Between the\nsecond and third class of languages, there are a multitude of\nintermediate tongues which have sprung up out of that intermixture of\nraces and nations, occurring at all periods of history, and necessarily\naffecting more or less language itself. I allude particularly to such\nlanguages as are not perfectly monosyllabic, and which have nevertheless\na very simple and imperfect, or even a very irregular, strange, and\nawkward grammatical structure. Such for instance are some of the\nAmerican languages, which in this respect at least cannot be ranked in\nthe third class, while they do not bear a closer, or at all close,\naffinity to those of the second. Most of the fragments of the earlier\nlanguages of Europe which are still extant, belong to this intermediate\nclass of tongues partaking of both those species, or at least holding a\nmiddle place between them. Such are the Celtic or Gaelic languages, the\nFinnish and other ancient remnants of language, which must not escape\nthe study of the philologist, whose judgment is too frequently warped by\nsome patriotic partiality or some learned predilection.\n\nThe noble languages of the second class have from a remote antiquity\nbecome indigenous to Europe, and are there now generally prevalent. The\nother fragments of speech which are to be found on our Continent by the\nside of these, either bear to them a remote affinity like the various\nCeltic or Gaelic dialects, or lead the enquirer to the great Asiatic,\nperhaps even to the African family of tongues; for we could hardly\nexpect to find a native race of languages peculiar to this small quarter\nof the globe, which holds the lowest place in point of historical\nantiquity. From the historical connexion between the North of Africa,\nand the Southern coasts of Western Europe, especially the Hesperian\nPeninsula, (a connection which has subsisted from the remotest ages, and\nhas been renewed so frequently, and in such various forms), one might be\ninduced to suppose that the existence of this intercourse would have\nbeen attested by an affinity between the languages of the two countries.\nBut the ablest scholars and critics cannot trace in the Basque tongue\nany affinity with the primitive African family, though they can discover\nin it an analogy with the Scythian race of Finnish languages. The\n_Magiar_ language at the other eastern extremity of Europe is most\ndecidedly an Asiatic tongue, belonging to that class which prevails in\nthe central regions of Asia; but in its grammatical structure it bears\nsome analogy to the languages of the second class. If, in conclusion I\nmight be allowed to hazard a conjecture, I should say that nothing would\nmore materially contribute to a comprehensive knowledge of the whole\nsystem of human language, as well as to a deeper insight into its\ninternal principles and structure, than the success of the now rising\nschool of Egyptian philologists, who, in deciphering the hieroglyphics\nby the aid of the Coptic, endeavour to give us a more accurate\nknowledge, or at least a more minute conception, of the old Egyptian\ntongue. And if we would venture the attempt of approximating nearer to\nthe primitive speech (the lost or extinct source of all languages), we\nmust start from four different quarters, and thread our way not only\nthrough the Sanscrit and Hebrew languages, but through the primitive\nChinese and the old Egyptian, as far as we can trace the latter.\n\nHow extremely alike ancient Egypt and India were to each other, not only\nin their political Institutions, but in their system of Idolatry, in\ntheir fundamental doctrines of belief, and in their general views of\nlife, we have had ample opportunity of satisfying ourselves in the\npresent age, when both these countries have been more accurately\nsurveyed, and more closely investigated. In a remarkable expedition\nwhich occurred in our own times, this strong religious sympathy was\nstrikingly displayed in a spontaneous and instantaneous burst of\nfeeling. When, in the course of the French war in Egypt, an Indian army\nin British pay there landed, and, ascending up the country, came before\nthe old monuments of Upper Egypt, the soldiers prostrated themselves on\nthe earth, believing they had once more found the Deities of their\nnative land. Great, however, as the resemblance between the two nations\nmay be, they are still characterized by perceptible differences. On the\none hand the Egyptian mind, so far as it has been delineated by the\nGreeks, appears to have been more deeply conversant and initiated in\nnatural science: and on the other hand, the Egyptian idolatry was of a\nmore decided cast, and was even more material in its fundamental errors\nthan the Indian. The worship of animals, especially, was far more\ngeneral, and was not confined to the god Apis, who may be compared to\nthe Nandi, the bull sacred to Siva, but branched out into a variety of\nother forms. In the progress of Idolatry it needs came to pass that what\nwas originally revered only as the symbol of a higher principle was\ngradually confounded or identified with that object and worshipped, till\nthis error in worship led to a more degraded form of Idolatry; for it\nshould be remembered that an error is not merely the absence of truth,\nbut a false and counterfeit imitation of the truth, it has, like the\nlatter, a principle of permanent growth and internal development.\nSeveral writers, who, in a general review of all heathen religions, have\nattempted to classify them after the manner of naturalists, assign the\nlowest place to the Fetish worship so called, which they rank\nimmediately below the worship of animals. They make the essence of this\nFetish worship to consist in the divine adoration of a lifeless,\ncorporeal object; while they place on higher degrees, in this scale of\nPagan error, the sensual Nature-worship--the apotheosis of particular\nmen--and the adoration of the elements, the stars, and the different\npowers of Nature. However just and correct this view of the subject may\notherwise be, it should be remembered that the question agitated is not\nonly what were the objects of divine worship, but what were the views,\nintentions, and doctrines connected with that worship. For it is in\nthese moral views we must look, either for the half-effaced vestige of\nancient truth, or for the full enormity--the profound abyss of error.\nWhen we come to examine more closely the accounts of that Fetish worship\n(so called) which is most widely diffused though the interior of Africa,\nand prevails among some American tribes, and nations of the North East\nof Asia; it is easy to perceive, that magical rites are connected with\nit, and that all these corporeal objects are but magical instruments and\nconductors of magical power; and that the religion of these nations,\nsunk undoubtedly to the lowest grade of idolatry, comprises nothing\nbeyond the rude beginnings of a Pagan magic, such as in all probability\nwas practised by the _Cainites_, according to historical indications\nmentioned in an earlier part of this work. That the Egyptian mind had a\ncertain leaning towards magic, though towards a magic of a very\ndifferent, more comprehensive, and even more profound and scientific\nnature, cannot be called in question; for all the Hebrew, Greek, and\nnative vouchers and authorities are unanimous in the assertion.\n\nBut if the different religions of Paganism must be classed according to\ntheir _outward rites_ and _outward objects of worship_, the diversity of\nsacrifices would constitute a far better and more important standard of\nclassification. We are taught that a difference in the mode of sacrifice\nwas the principal cause of the dispute between the first two hostile\nbrothers among men. Although, if we were to judge from first impressions\nand according to human feelings, no sacrifice is so filial, so simple,\nso appropriate, as that of the first fruits of the earth in returning\nSpring, (such for instance as the flower-offering of the pious Brahmins,\nor a similar oblation of thanksgiving among the ancient Persians and\nother nations); still on account of their deeper import and typical\ncharacter, the pre-eminence has ever been allotted to animal-sacrifices;\nand these among the most civilized nations of Pagan antiquity have ever\nheld the foremost place. Of this kind is the great sacrifice of the\nhorse[57] in India, where in ancient times the bull was offered in\nsacrifice, till the destruction of the latter animal was severely\nprohibited, and came to be considered as a grievous crime. But there was\never a symbolical meaning attached to this sort of sacrifice,[58] and\nthe victim selected as it was out of the purest and noblest species of\ndomestic animals that surround man (such as the bull, the horse or the\nlamb), was looked upon only as the representative of another, and the\nemblem of a far higher victim.\n\nIt is an error to consider ancient Paganism as nothing more than mere\npoetry or agreeable fiction. The rites of the ancient Polytheism had\nvery distinct and practical objects in view; and were intended either to\n_propitiate_ the malignant powers of darkness, or to obtain by their\nagency preternatural power, or on the other hand, to conciliate the\nfavour and appease the anger of the Deity. And for this object the\nHeathens shrunk from no expedient--deemed no price--no victim too\ncostly, as the existence of human sacrifices, and especially the\nsacrifice of children may serve to convince us; and I cannot conclude\nthis first part of the ancient history of the world, without bestowing a\nmore particular examination on this extreme aberration of Paganism,\nwhich passed by inheritance from the remoter ages to the second, more\ncivilized, and, (in many respects) milder era of history. The species of\nhuman sacrifice most widely diffused among all the Phoenician nations\nwas that in which the idol Moloch, heated from below, grasped in his\nglowing arms the infant victim. Even in the Punic city, Carthage, this\ncruel custom long prevailed, and was for a long time secretly practised\nunder the Roman domination. These sacrifices existed among the Greeks\nand Romans, no less than among the Indians and Egyptians; and the\nChinese, so far at least as my acquaintance with their authentic records\nextends, are the only people among whom I do not recollect meeting with\nany mention of this kind of sacrifice. But in the civilized states of\nGreece and Rome, this ancient custom was in later and milder times\ngradually abolished, or silently supplanted by some equivalent.\n\nBesides the sacrifice of children, there was another species which was\ncustomary and particularly striking, and in one respect even more worthy\nthe historian's attention--I mean the sacrifice of pure youths. I may\nhere again enforce the maxim which I have before laid down--namely, that\nerror is the most appalling when it is connected in its origin, or mixed\nup in its principle, with some confused notion--some profound, though\nobscure, feeling of the truth. Bearing this in mind, we shall find that\nthe enigmatic lamentation of Lamech[59] over his mysterious slaying of a\nstripling, occurring in the Mosaic account of the Cainites, would seem\nto indicate that human sacrifices, and especially this particular kind,\nhad their origin among the race of Cain, deeply imbued even at that\nearly period with anti-christian errors; and that an unhappy delusion--a\nconfused anticipation of a real necessity and of a future reality,\ncontributed to the institution of these sacrifices. Of that great\nmystery of truth, which the holy Patriarch of the Hebrews, with a\nprophetic intuition, had discerned in the sacrifice of his well-beloved\nson commanded him by God, but through the divine mercy not\nconsummated--of this great mystery, we say, a diabolic imitation may\nhave led to the human sacrifices by the early Heathens. But these\nsacrifices were more widely diffused, even in the Druidical North, and\nthey continued down to a much later period than is commonly supposed, or\nat present asserted. Thus, for instance, the anti-christian Emperor\nJulian sought to revive them, in order to promote the infernal purposes\nof his dark magical rites. We are so habituated to look on the\ndivinities and beautiful fables of ancient Greece, as the fairy\ncreations of poetry, that we are painfully surprised when we\nunexpectedly stumble on some historical fact, which discloses the true\nspirit and internal essence of polytheism--the fact, for instance, that\nThemistocles himself, the deliverer of Greece, offered up three youths\nin sacrifice.\n\nThe profound abyss of error, in which the most civilized nations of\nancient Heathenism had sunk and were lost, becomes the more apparent,\nthe more closely it is investigated and the more fully it is understood.\nAnd on this account, we should learn to see how necessary and salutary\nwas that slow progression--that gradual preparation for a brighter\nfuturity, wherein, as I above stated, consisted the peculiar destination\nand spiritual career of the Hebrew people. It is only from this its\npeculiar destination for the Future, the Hebrew people presents so high\nan interest to historical philosophy, and holds the lofty place assigned\nto it in the first period of human civilization. The later destinies of\nthe Jewish nation, and the particular events and characters in their\nlater annals, are subjects of the highest moment in a history of\nreligion; for they can be rightly understood and fully appreciated only\nby their practical application, and profound symbolical reference to the\ncircumstances of Christianity. But it is only the political constitution\nof the Jewish state in the earliest period of its history--a\nconstitution which was so peculiar and unique in itself, so entirely\nwithout a parallel--that can be the appropriate subject of consideration\nin this general review of history; because this constitution was\nconnected with the prophetic calling of the Hebrew people, and even bore\na prophetic character itself. This constitution has been called a\ntheocracy, and so it was in the right and old signification of that\nword, by which was meant a government under the special and immediate\nprovidence of God. But in the now ordinary acceptation of the term,\nwhich implies a sacerdotal empire or dominion, the Jewish state was at\nno time and by no means a theocracy. Moses was no more a priest than a\nking; and after him all those men of Desire, as they were called from\nthe first circumstances of their institution, or men of the desert,\nbecause after a preparation in the solitude of the desert, they led and\nconducted the people in a literal or figurative sense, through the\nwilderness--all these men appointed by God, and without any other title\nor insignia but the staff, which as pilgrims they brought out of the\ndesert, governed and directed the people under the immediate providence\nof God. If on a certain occasion one of the prophets girded on the sword\nand led out an army--this was only a transient instance; and the\nprophets in general were nothing more than the men of God, and the\ndivinely appointed conductors of the people. When the wish in which the\nHebrews had so long indulged of having a king, like the heathen nations,\nwas at last gratified; a wish which in the higher views of Holy Writ,\nwas regarded as the culpable illusion of a carnal sense;--the last of\nthe prophets formed a party, and constituted in a very peculiar and\nsingular manner, a species of political Opposition, which was\nacknowledged to be, and was in fact, perfectly legitimate and just. And\nwhen some of them, like Elias for instance, had received from God the\nsupreme and immediate power over life and death, as the distinct badge\nof dominion; we cannot wonder that men should have followed them, the\npeople have been at their bidding, and kings themselves, even though\nthey followed not always their counsels, have hearkened at least to\ntheir warning voice. If those who are so fond of playing the part of\noppositionists in every country, could only once rise superior to vulgar\nforms and formulas, and not every where seek for the echo of their\nmodern opinions, an attentive study of the character of Elias would hold\nup to their admiring view an oppositionist, who in energy of conduct,\nand in burning zeal for the cause of truth and justice, or in other\nwords, of God, could not be perhaps easily equalled by any historical\npersonage whether of ancient republics, or of modern monarchies.\n\nAfter the Jewish state had become a kingdom of no very great dimensions,\nit shared the destiny of most of the petty states in those regions; and\nwas first a province of the Assyro-Babylonian empire, then became\nsubject to the Persian monarchs, and afterwards to the Greek kings of\nSyria and Egypt, till with these it was finally swallowed up in the vast\nempire of all-conquering Rome.\n\nIn that restoration of the Jewish state which the Maccabees accomplished\nin the last period of the Greek domination over Judea, the High-Priest\nacquired a concurrent political power; a power which he even still\nretained under the oppressive protectorate of the Romans, though his\nfunctions, which were those of a legislator and supreme judge, were\nconfined to the internal government of the state. But this does not\nconstitute a really sacerdotal dominion, and the term theocracy is as\nlittle applicable to such an order of things, as to the Greek\nPatriarchate in the Turkish empire. However, the holy city of Jerusalem,\nalong with Solomon's old, mighty and symbolical temple (whose deep\nimport and proper signification the Jews themselves at a later period no\nlonger understood), still continued to be the main centre of the old\nnational existence and ancient recollections of the Hebrews, as well as\nof their future hopes and prophetic promises. Even after the fearful\ndestruction of Jerusalem, this emblematic idea of the holy city still\nlived in the recollection of mankind, and a long time afterwards was, in\nChristian Europe, an animating incentive to the warlike nations of the\nMiddle Age.\n\nIn conclusion, we must add some observations, referring not so much to\nthe Jewish people and their history, as to their most ancient historical\nbooks, and to those general views of mankind which they contain, so far\nas such views relate to the general history of the primitive ages, and\nare connected with the philosophy of history. In the same way as it is\nneither necessary nor practicable to regard the Hebrew tongue as the\ngeneral root or primal source of all the languages spoken on the earth,\nbecause it was the organ of divine revelation; so the Mosaic genealogy\nof nations can with as little propriety be made the basis of a general\nhistory of the world; as has in earlier times been so often attempted,\nbut never accomplished without much violence to the text. Although it\nwould be difficult to find in the primitive records of the other Asiatic\nnations an historical survey of all the nations on the globe, at once so\nclear, luminous, and instructive; yet the Mosaic revelation had a far\ndifferent object in view than to furnish a school-compendium of\nhistorical learning. This historical genealogy, which in its way cannot\nbe too highly esteemed, was evidently destined by Moses more immediately\nfor his own people, and his own Book of the law; and in his account of\nthe origin of nations, the sacred historian proceeded on views and\nprinciples very different from ours. For instance, with us it is the\naffinity of languages, which forms the chief clue in the arrangement and\nclassification of the different races of mankind; and, according to this\nprinciple, we rank the Hebrews with the Phoenicians, and regard them\nas kindred nations. But in the Mosaic history these two nations,\nseparated by mutual hostility, stand at the widest distance one from the\nother; for in manners, religion, and feelings, they were diametrically\nopposed.\n\nIn this investigation, indeed, historical circumstances may often\noccur--such as the popular commotions and intermixture of nations\nhappening at all periods of the world--by which the question of the\norigin and affinity of different races undergoes considerable\nmodifications, and the whole subject is rendered unsusceptible of a\nsystematic division and arrangement. It often happens that one race\nadopts the language of another, without on that account losing its\nnational identity, or being totally confounded with the other; for, on\nthe contrary, its moral or intellectual character bears the clear traces\nof its original descent; so that here, at least, language alone will\ndecide nothing. Often a less numerous tribe will stamp its own native\nmoral and intellectual character on a whole people. In general the\ndescent of nations can be clearly traced and demonstrated in those cases\nonly, where the race has been kept up pure, and all marriage and\nconnection with other nations been strictly prevented. But such has been\nthe case among certain nations only; and even in those countries, where\nit was the law, it was not in every instance rigidly observed, nor\nconstantly maintained; as is exemplified in the frequent intermarriages\nof the Hebrews with the Phoenicians, severely prohibited as such\nintermarriages were. The ancient law-givers attached, indeed, a very\nhigh importance to lineage, as is proved by all those restrictive laws\non marriage, which were destined to preserve the purity of descent; but\nthey set a far higher value on the patrimonial inheritance of ancient\ncustoms, institutions, doctrines, and intellectual qualities, as\nconstituting the true essence of national character, and determining the\nrank which one race should hold above another. By Moses, in particular,\nthis intellectual character of the different races--their\nfeelings--modes of thinking--the whole spirit which animated them, in a\nword--the chain of sacred tradition, and its transmission and\npreservation among the different nations--all these are regarded of\nprimary importance, and they alone furnish us with a clue to the\ndiscovery of his views.\n\nThe great middle country in Western Asia, where the true Eden, the\noriginal abode of the first man, and great progenitor of mankind, was\nsituated, forms the central point in the general historical survey of\nMoses. The wide-spread race of Japhet comprehends the Caucasian nations\nin the North, and all its contiguous regions, and also those in the\ncentral Asia;--nations which were sound, vigorous, comparatively\nspeaking, less corrupt, and by no means entirely barbarous: but which\nwere debarred from that near and immediate participation in the sacred\nTraditions of primitive revelation, enjoyed by the peoples of the\nSemitic race in that midland country, whose distinctive character and\nhigh pre-eminence, according to Moses, consisted in this very\nparticipation. To the South, the race of Cham includes the degenerate,\ncorrupt, and ungodly Egypt (a country which in its native language bore\nthe name of Chemi), and beyond this, all the African tribes devoted to\nthe dark rites of magic. How entirely subjective in itself--how\nexclusively adapted to his own people, and his own national object, is\nthe genealogy of nations by Moses, may be proved among other things by\nthe fact that, while many great nations in remoter lands, or in the\ndistant Eastern Asia, cannot in this historical survey be traced without\ndifficulty to their proper place, or forced therein without violence to\nthe text, twelve or thirteen generations are given of the kindred\nArabian branch, or of the hostile Phoenician race. If regarded in this\nsimple point of view, the Mosaic genealogy of all the nations throughout\nthe inhabited globe will be found very clear, and, though the names of\nsome particular races remain matter of doubt, this summary is in general\nperfectly intelligible, and throws a broad light on the history of\nmankind.\n\n\nEND OF LECTURE VI.\n\n\n\n\nLECTURE VII.\n\n     General considerations upon the nature of man, regarded in an\n     historical point of view, and on the two-fold view of history.--Of\n     the ancient Pagan Mysteries.--Of the universal Empire of Persia.\n\n\nInstead of the Mosaic genealogy of nations, commented on in a hundred\ndifferent ways, and interpreted according to the received views of each\nindividual--a genealogy which was considered as the necessary basis of\nevery universal history, and which by the most false and arbitrary\nmethods was violently strained into an adaptation to all the data of\nhistory, evidently contrary to the real views and mighty object of its\ninspired author;--instead of this genealogy, we say, the sacred records\nof divine truth furnish us with a far more profound principle--a\nprinciple highly simple and comprehensive, and which is perfectly\napplicable to the philosophy of history. This is that principle laid\ndown in that revelation, at the commencement of all history, as the one\nwherein consists the peculiar nature--the true essence--and the final\ndestiny of man--I mean his likeness to his Creator. Now it is this\nprinciple which forms the ground-work of our whole plan--and now that we\nhave reached the conclusion of the first period of history, and are\nabout to pass to the second, it may be proper to examine more minutely\nthe nature of this principle, and to give an accurate definition of it.\n\nAccording to the different notions entertained of man's nature, there\nare but two opposite views of history--two mighty and conflicting\nparties in the department of historical science. It is quite unnecessary\nto observe that we include not, in either class, such writers as,\nconfining themselves to a bare detail of facts, indulge not in any\ngeneral historical views, or even such as, vacillating in their\nopinions, have no clear, definite, and consistent views on the subject.\nAccording to one party, man is merely an animal, ennobled and gradually\ndisciplined into reason, and finally exalted into genius; and therefore\nthe history of human civilization is but the history of a gradual,\nprogressive, and endless improvement. This theory may in a certain sense\nbe termed the liberalism of historical philosophy; and no one perhaps\nhas developed it with such clearness and mathematical rigour, as a very\ncelebrated French writer, entirely possessed with this idea, and who\nindeed became in his time a martyr to these principles.[60]\n\nIn the contests of opinion, which embrace the general relations of\nsociety, it is far less those dogmas in which each individual seeks\nlight, aid, strength and repose for his feelings and his conscience, his\ninward struggles and his final hopes--than the single article of faith\nrespecting man, and what constitutes his essential being, his internal\nnature, and his higher destiny, which determines the Christian or\nunchristian view--the religion or irreligion of history, if I may be\nallowed the expression. This principle of the endless perfectibility of\nman has something in it very accordant with reason; and if this\nperfectibility be considered as a mere possible disposition of the human\nmind, there is doubtless much truth in the theory, but it must be borne\nin mind that the _corruptibility_ of man is quite as great as his\nperfectibility.\n\nBut when this system is applied to the general course of history, it is\ndestitute of any real beginning; for this vague notion of an animal\ncapable of infinite improvement is not a beginning of any series of\nterms; and in philosophy, as in life and history, there is no true and\nsolid beginning for any thing out of God. And this principle is equally\ndestitute of any right end; for a mere interminable progress is not a\nfixed term nor positive object. But history presents a mass of stubborn\nfacts, which agree not always with this abstract law of an infinitely\nprogressive perfection, and, on the contrary, the annals not only of\nparticular nations, but of whole periods of the world, would prove that\nthe natural march of humanity lay rather in a circuitous course. This\ndisagreeable fact is utterly inexplicable according to the rationalist\nsystem of history--or if it be susceptible of explanation, it certainly\nis not reconcileable with the liberal view. As often as from the path of\nendless perfectibility, thus mathematically traced out for them, man and\nmankind swerve in eccentric deviations; or even should their course,\nlike that of the planets of our heaven at stated periods, be in\nappearance once retrogressive; the historical enquirer, who starts from\nthis principle, is immediately disconcerted by such a course of events\nso contrary to his theory; and, in his blind indignation in which he\ninvolves alike the present and future, as well as the past, and by the\nfalse light of the passionate spirit of time, he pronounces on these a\njudgment most iniquitous, or at best extremely partial, certainly at\nleast most repugnant to the dictates of truth.\n\nBut man is not merely a nobler animal, fashioned by degrees to reason or\ndignified into genius. His peculiar and distinctive excellence--his real\nessence--his true nature and destiny consist in his likeness to God; and\nfrom this principle proceeds a view of history totally different from\nthat we have just described; for, according to it, man's history must be\nthe history of the restoration of the likeness to God, or of the\nprogress towards that restoration. That this sublime origin of man being\nonce supposed--the divine image has been much altered, impaired, and\ndefaced in the inmost recesses of the human breast, both of man in\nparticular and of mankind in general, is a truth we may learn,\nindependently of the positive doctrine of religion; for clearly is it\nvouched and confirmed by the testimony of our own feelings, our own\nexperience of life, and a general survey of the world. No man who well\nknows that the image of God has been stamped on the human soul,--an\nimage, whose old, half-obliterated characters are still to be found on\nall the pages of primitive history, and whose impress, not utterly\neffaced, every reflecting mind may discover in its own interior--can\never forego the hope, that, much as that divine image may seem, or may\nin fact be, impaired, its restoration is still possible. The man who\nknows from human life, and from his own experience, how great and\narduous is this work--how many obstacles oppose its accomplishment, and\nhow easily, even after a partial success, what already appeared won, may\nbe again lost;--the man understanding this, will not be at a loss to\ncomprehend any pause or retrogression, real or apparent, in the march of\nmankind; he will judge the fact with more equity, and consequently more\naccuracy; and will, in every case, confide in the guidance of that\nsuperior Providence, clearly visible in this regeneration of the world.\nIf, in opposition to the Rationalist theory of man's endless\nperfectibility, we were to designate the opposite system of history\nfounded on man's inborn likeness to his Maker, as the _legitimacy_ of\nhistorical philosophy; this title would not be incorrect, since all\ndivine and human laws and rights, as they are found in history, depend\nin their first basis on the supposition of the high dignity and divine\ndestination of man. Hence this view of history is the only one which\nrestores to man the full rights and peculiar prerogatives of his being.\nEven to all other truths it restores their full force and rights; and it\nalone can do so without detriment to its own principle; for, as this is\nthe simple truth, it is therefore complete and comprehensive. It must\neven acknowledge that man, beside his higher dignity and divine destiny,\nis and remains in his outward existence a physical creature--and though\nhe be such not in an exclusive, but only secondary and subordinate\nsense, still, in respect to his external being and external development,\nhe may be subject to certain natural laws in history. In the same way it\nmay admit that man endowed with freedom, even when he rejects the\nreligious principle, is still a being gifted with reason; a being that\nconsequently on this foundation incessantly works, builds and improves,\nin good as in evil, essentially, interminably,--we might almost say,\nfearfully progressive. This legitimate philosophy of history, which\nproceeds from the high, divine point of view, should be, as far as the\nlimited capacity of man will permit, a recognition and a just\nappreciation of the truth, and thereby become a science of history--that\nis to say, of all which under Providence has occurred to the human race.\nThus it must by no means adopt a view of life and of the world,\ntranscending the true right and the right truth--it must avoid deviating\ninto _ultraism_--though this term of the present day involves in the\nexpression of a true idea, some inaccuracy and misconception. On the\ncontrary, this religious view of history and of life, precisely because\nit is such, can never in its historical judgments sanction a spirit of\nharsh, precipitate, unqualified censure. For as the Mosaic doctrine of\nthe divine image stamped on the human soul, forms the real and\ndistinctively Christian theory of man, and consequently of his history;\nso this evidently implies that, among all the laws of human conduct,\nemanating from this Christian theory, and from Christianity itself, the\nlaw of love is the first and the greatest:--a law which must retain its\nfull force and efficacy not only in life, but in science also. Yet love\nor charity is by no means incompatible with firmness of principle--the\nvacillations of judgment proceed only from indifference to, or the utter\nabsence of, all principle--the tomb of love, as well as of truth.\n\nThis divine image implanted in the human breast is not an isolated\nthought--a transient flash of light, like the kindling spark of\nPrometheus: nor is it a mere Platonic resemblance to the Deity--an ideal\nspeculation of the human mind, soaring beyond the range of vulgar\nconception. But, as this likeness to God forms the fundamental principle\nof human existence, it is interwoven with the internal structure of\nhuman consciousness; and the triple nature of the soul is intimately\nconnected with the principle of the divine resemblance. In its state of\ndiscord, the human consciousness, in its external operations, pursues\nfour opposite paths of direction towards reason (vernunft), or\nimagination (fantasie), or understanding (verstand), or will (wille), so\nlong as these faculties remain disunited. But, when consciousness is\nrestored to its primitive harmony, the internal life of man is\nthree-fold in mind, soul, and sense; and to expound and demonstrate this\ntruth, was the purport and object of the Philosophy of Life, which I\ntreated of in a former course of lectures. And this triple nature of\nspiritual life, which, among all creatures, characterizes man alone, is\nmost closely allied with the triple energy and personality of the one\nDivine Being, and constitutes, as far as the immeasurable distance\nbetween the creature and Creator will permit, the wonderful analogy\nbetween weak, mutable man, and the infinite Spirit of eternal Love. But\nthe original harmony of human consciousness--the triple nature of\nspiritual life, can be restored in individual man by the following means\nonly:--the soul, previously distracted, can regain its unity, or become\nagain whole, only by a divine illumination;--when this light--the first\nray of hope--is humbly received and imbibed by the soul. Enlightened by\nthis first incipient ray, the mind, the living mind, no longer now a\ncold, dead, abstract understanding, is enabled to embrace with faith the\npure word of truth (which is one with love), and to comprehend this word\naright, and, by this word, to comprehend the world and its\nownself:--while the understanding, in its former isolated and abstract\nstate, was both internally and externally distracted and divided between\nthe phantasmata of nature and the endless sophisms of contentious\ndialectic. When thus the strong hand of all-guiding love, hath loosed\nthe Gordian knot which bound the human consciousness in inextricable\nfolds;--the third fundamental faculty in man--the sense for divine\nthings--is then awakened and excited. This is now no longer a mere\npassive feeling for divine things--a will undetermined, or incapable of\ngood: but it becomes an energy acting on life--an energy which is itself\nlife and deed.\n\nBut the progressive march of social man which constitutes the subject of\nuniversal history, or, as we term it, the formation and growth of\nhumanity, are regulated by principles somewhat different from those\nwhich determine the internal life of individual man. Here the different\nstages of development cannot be classed according to the three\nfundamental faculties of consciousness in individual man; but the\nprinciple of development must be sought for in the divine impulse, as\nthe same is attested by history, and which, in every stage of social\nprogress, has been to mankind the source of a new life; though here\nagain from the very nature of things, three marked degrees of social\nadvancement occur. Corresponding to the divine image implanted in the\nbreast of individual man--the main subject of all history--the Word of\ndivine truth originally communicated to man, and which the sacred\ntraditions of all nations attest in so many and such various ways, forms\nthe leading clue of historical investigation and judgment, during the\nfirst stage of the progress of society. But in the second stage of\nsocial development, which most be fixed in that full noon-day period of\nrefinement, when victorious Power shines forth so conspicuously in the\nascendancy obtained by nations, to whom universal pre-eminence was\naccorded--the right notion of this power, or the question how far it\nwere just and godly, or pernicious in its application--whether it were\ninimical to God, or at least of a mixed nature--must constitute the true\nstandard of historical investigation. In the third or last stage,\nhowever, of this progress, which occurs in the modern period of the\nworld, the pure truths of Christianity, as they influence science and\nlife itself, can alone furnish the right clue of historical enquiry, and\ncan alone afford any indication as to the ulterior advances of society\nin future ages. Thus then the _Word_, the _Power_, and the _Light_, form\nthe three-fold divine principle, or the moral classification of\nhistorical philosophy--a classification which is founded on historical\nexperience and historical reality.\n\nThe existence of a primitive revelation--the establishment of\nChristianity, which was the principle and power of a new moral life in\nsociety--and the pre-eminence of modern Europe in civilization, in which\nshe outshines all other portions of the globe, and even in many respects\nmost periods of antiquity, are three historical data--three mighty facts\nin civilization, which evince the successive stages of human progress\nand improvement. And it is our task to appreciate in their full extent\neach of those different degrees of social advancement, and to comprehend\nand explain them aright in their relative bearings to the whole. That\nthe Christian nations and states of Europe have received, along with the\nlight of Divine truth, a high intellectual, moral and political\nillumination, no one will deny; and it is equally evident that this\nvital principle of modern society is still involved in the crisis of its\ndevelopment--a crisis which will form the principal subject of\nhistorical enquiry in the latter part of this work.\n\nIt is equally undeniable that, in the second period of the world, to\nwhich I now pass, each of those nations that attained to universal\nempire at that epoch, displayed a high intellectual or moral energy.\nThis energy was visible in that strong, deep sense of nature, which\ncharacterized the old ancestral faith and pure manners of the ancient\nPersians, and in that high martial enthusiasm, and fervent patriotism,\nwhich it so easily inspired. The power of inventive genius in the\nsciences, and in the fine arts, none can deny to the Greeks; none can\ndispute their pre-eminence in these; as, on the other hand, the Romans\nwere equally unrivalled in vigour of character, and in that moral energy\nof will, which they exhibited in all their contests with other states.\nHere now the question to be asked is, whether that high intellectual and\nmoral energy accorded to those nations, thus gifted with universal\ndominion, were always well employed: whether that power, exalted as it\nwas, were truly divine, or what were the earthly and pernicious elements\nintermixed with it;--whether this power, great and wonderful as it was\nin its way, were in itself adequate to the moral and intellectual\nregeneration of degraded humanity; or whether a power of another, far\npurer and higher nature were requisite to this end. I should think I had\namply solved the problem involved in the history of that first period of\nthe world, which I have here brought to a close, if, in this brief\nhistorical sketch, I have succeeded in proving the existence of an\noriginal revelation to mankind--the primitive word of divine\ntruth--whereof we find the clearest indications and scattered traces in\nthe sacred traditions of all the primitive nations--traces which, when\nviewed apart, appear like the broken remnants, the mysterious, and, as\nit were, hieroglyphic characters--of a mighty edifice that has been\ndestroyed. I should think, too, I had fully accomplished my task, if I\nhave succeeded in proving that, however much amid the growing degeneracy\nof mankind, this primal word of revelation may have been falsified by\nthe admixture of various errors, however much it may have been overlaid\nor obscured by numberless and manifold fictions, inextricably confused,\nand disfigured almost beyond the power of recognition; still a profound\nenquiry will discover in heathenism many luminous vestiges of primitive\ntruth.\n\nFor the old Heathenism (and we must add this remark as the result of our\nenquiries), the old Heathenism had a foundation in truth, and,\nthoroughly examined and rightly understood, would serve for a\nconfirmation of the same; for the profound researches of recent times on\nancient mythology, and its historical sources, though conducted with the\nmost opposite views, lead us more and more to this great end and result\nof all the knowledge of antiquity, or at least very near it. Were it\npossible, or could we succeed in separating the pure intuition into\nnature and the simple symbols of nature, that constituted the basis of\nall Heathenism, from the alloy of error, and the incumbrances of\nfiction; those first hieroglyphic traits of the instinctive science of\nthe first men would not be repugnant to truth and to a true knowledge of\nnature, but would offer on the contrary, an instructive image of a\nfreer, purer, more comprehensive, and more finished philosophy of life.\nFor, if man, who is the highest and most central object of nature on the\nearth, had not possessed in the beginning an instinctive science and\nimmediate insight into nature, he could never have attained to this\nknowledge by the resources of art, and by all the aids of instruments\nand machinery, or have acquired thereby a true understanding of nature,\nher internal life, and her hidden powers. The symbolical error which has\nproduced mythology, and which has again emanated from mythology--I mean\nthe identification of the symbol with the object itself, of which, as\nthe latter was something higher and more mysterious, the former\noriginally was, and should have been, nothing more than the mere\nexplanatory emblem--the symbolical error is comparatively the most\nexcusable; and, for a being constituted like man, whose soul is divided\nbetween figurative fancy and discursive reason, is almost natural, and\nhas grown into a psychological habit, and a second nature. This error\nwould never have arisen, if the confusion of the high and of the low, of\nthe principal and of the inferior, of God and of Nature, and the\ninversion of the due order of each, had not, in a partial degree at\nleast, previously taken place. The fundamental error of Paganism lay in\nthe sensual idolatry of nature, by which that inversion of things, and\nwith them of all moral doctrines, took place; although this destructive\nerror of materialism is to be found not only in the heathen religion,\nbut in the atomical philosophy and other false systems of science.\nBesides that sensual deification of nature, which was the predominant\nprinciple in the mythology and popular religion of the ancients, there\nwas another and capital error--magic, which was a dark and abusive\napplication--an illicit perversion of the high powers of nature, when\nthese were really understood, and the mind, penetrating through her\nsensible and external veil, had caught her true spirit and internal\nlife. This loftier, and, on that account, more dangerous error was not\nso prevalent in the popular and poetical religion of antiquity, but was\nchiefly to be found in the secret associations of the Pagan\nMysteries.--Although these Mysteries which, in Greece, as well as in\nEgypt, exerted such a mighty influence on public opinion, on science,\nand on the whole system of thinking, nay on life itself, disclosed far\ngraver and profounder doctrines than the vulgar mythology of the poets,\non all the great questions relative to the human soul, its capacity and\noriginal dignity, as well as to the hidden powers of Nature and the\nwhole invisible world; still we must not imagine that the influence of\nthese Mysteries was always salutary, or that their internal constitution\nand ruling spirit were in their ultimate tendency always entitled to\ncommendation. We may, in my opinion, ascribe to the Egyptians much\nscience, especially in physics, more perhaps than the Greeks in general,\nand the Pythagoreans in particular, had, as far as we yet know, learned\nand borrowed from them; but we must not imagine this Egyptian science to\nhave been exempt from a gross alloy of error, and the various abuses of\nmagic. When once the sacred standard and clue of truth are lost, when\nthe due order of things and of doctrines is once inverted, then the mind\nof man often associates the sublime, the mysterious, and the wonderful,\nwith the mean, the perverse, and the wicked. Amid all those false and\nwhimsical images of Gods, the mere symbols of Nature, but at least very\nequivocal emblems and hieroglyphs, the temple-sleep of the Egyptians\nmight easily nourish illusions of error and visions of darkness;\nespecially where a magical spirit prevailed, that is to say, an illicit\npurpose in the application of the high powers of nature--and a will\ninstigated to evil by the arts of the demon. And in all science the\nmatter of greatest moment, and that which determines its value, is its\nrelation to the higher and divine truth; that is to say, whether this\nscience be well employed, or whether, on the contrary, it be converted\nto a corrupt and destructive use; whether the due order and\nsubordination of inferior Nature, and of every thing earthly, towards\nGod and the things of God, which are the principal, be rightly observed\nand maintained. But this fundamental truth being once supposed, all\nscience, even that which penetrates the deepest into Nature and her most\nhidden springs of life, can conduce only to the greater glory of the\nmighty author of Nature. All these natural secrets, and their true\nexplanations, are to be found in various passages, notices, and\nallusions in the Old Testament, especially in the books of Moses; they\nare, indeed, to be found there, like so many golden grains of science in\nfull weight, but, scattered and dispersed, they serve at once to adorn\nand point out the path that leads to an object, ever regarded as the\nmost important in Holy Writ--namely, the revealing to man the wonderful\nways of divine Providence in the conduct of the human race--the holy ark\nof the covenant of divine mysteries and promises, if I may be allowed\nsuch an expression. Here every thing is subordinate to religion, every\nthing ministers to this higher object--and this is the distinctive mark\nand stamp of truth, even in the investigations of Nature, and of its\nrevealed or hidden mysteries.\n\nHow a slight deviation from truth may suffice to give birth in time to a\nmighty and progressive error, is strongly exemplified in the fundamental\ndoctrine of the ancient religion of Persia--a doctrine which was at\nfirst nothing more than a simple veneration of Nature, its pure elements\nand its primary energies--the sacred fire, and above all, light--the\nair, not the lower atmospheric air, but the purer and higher air of\nheaven--the breath that animates and pervades the breath of mortal life.\nIn India, too, this doctrine must have been very prevalent in the\nprimitive ages; for many and very ancient passages of the Vedas refer to\nthese elements, while on the other hand, the names of the later Hindoo\ndivinities appear to have been entirely unknown at that period. This\npure and simple veneration of nature is perhaps the most ancient, and\nwas by far the most generally prevalent in the primitive and Patriarchal\nworld. In its original conception, it was by no means a deification of\nNature, or a denial of the sovereignty of God--it was only at a later\nperiod that the symbol, as it so often happens, was confounded with the\nthing itself, and usurped the place of that higher Object which it was\ndestined originally to represent. And how can we doubt that these pure\nelements and primitive essences of created Nature would offer to the\nfirst men, who were still in a close communication with the Deity, not\nindeed a likeness or resemblance (for in man alone is that to be found),\nnor a mere fanciful image, or a poetical figure, but a natural and true\nsymbol of divine power;--how can we doubt this, I say, when we see that,\nin so many passages of Holy Writ (not to say in every part), the pure\nlight or sacred fire is employed as an image of the all-pervading and\nall-consuming power and omnipotence of God? Not to speak again of those\npassages of scripture, which describe the animating breath and\ninspiration of God as the first source of life, and speak of the gentle\nbreath, the light whisper of the breeze that announced to the prophet\nthe immediate presence of his God, before whom he fell prostrate, and\nmantled himself in awe and reverence; and this surely cannot be\nunderstood as a poetical and figurative expression! Undoubtedly the\nscriptures often oppose to that natural emblem or veil of divine power,\nin the pure elements, an evil, subterraneous and destructive fire--the\nfalse light of the fiends of error--the poisonous breath of moral\ncontagion. And how could it be otherwise? Nature in its origin was\nnought else than a beautiful image--a pure emanation--a wonderful\ncreation--a sport of omnipotent love; so, when it was severed from its\ndivine original, internally displaced, and turned against its Maker, it\nbecame vitiated in its substance, and fraught with evil. This alienation\nof Nature from God, this inversion of the right order in the relations\nbetween God and Nature, was the peculiar, essential and fundamental\nerror of ancient Paganism, its false Mysteries, and the abusive\napplication of the higher powers of Nature in magical rites. On the\nother hand, we ought to regard every similar inversion of things and of\nideas, every similar derangement in the divine system, though\nestablished on the basis of Christianity, and by Christian\nphilosophers--we ought, I say, to regard every such attempt as being in\nits essential nature and principle a heathen enterprise--the foundation\nof a scientific Paganism, although no altars be erected to Apollo, and\nno Mysteries be celebrated in honour of Isis.[61]\n\nThe pure symbolism of Nature, and the whole circle of the primitive\nsymbolical ideas of the Egyptians, several of the Greek writers\nattempted to gather out of the mass of idolatrous tenets, natural\nemblems, and hieroglyphic signs of speech; but their researches do not\ncorrespond to the importance of the subject itself, nor to the present\ndemands of science. It is well worthy of remark that the hieroglyphics,\nas far as they have yet been deciphered, do not indicate in their\nformation that variety of epochs observable in the Chinese system of\nwriting; but on the contrary they seem to be all of a single cast, and\noffer the same circle of ideas and the same style of emblems. And as\nimages of Gods are to be found in a diminutive form among the other\nhieroglyphic signs, we may conclude from this circumstance, that all the\nhieroglyphics must have had a simultaneous origin, and have remained\nsubsequently unchanged; and that their origin must have occurred at a\ntime when the Egyptian idolatry had already been wrought into a perfect\nsystem.\n\nIn the primitive ages, during the first thirty-three centuries of the\nworld, according to the ordinary computation, the various nations into\nwhich mankind were divided, followed in their development a separate and\nsecluded course; and two mighty nations, the Indians and the Chinese,\nhave remained to this day in this isolated and totally sequestered\nstate. The peculiar character which distinguishes the second from the\nfirst epoch of the world is that, along with the first mighty conquests,\nthere existed a much closer connection, a mutual influence, an active\ncommerce, and various intercourse among many nations, nay, among all the\nnations of the then civilized world. From this period, when the\nintercourse among nations becomes more intimate, History acquires\ngreater clearness, precision, and critical exactness; and this is only\nsix, or at most seven centuries before the Christian era. The first\nPersian conquerors advanced with rapid strides towards the objects of\ntheir ambition; for after the founder of the Persian empire--Cyrus, had\nmade himself master of the whole central region of Western Asia, as well\nas of the Lesser Asia, his successes were soon followed up by the\nconquest of Egypt by the arms of Cambyses; and a little subsequent to\nthis, by the great expedition of Xerxes into Greece, whose valiant\ndefenders, however, ruined his hopes of conquest. Egypt, which in its\nintellectual character, civilization, and political institutions, had a\nmuch stronger analogy and affinity with those two great primitive\nstates--India and China, shut out from the rest of the world, was\nengaged in political relations with the nations of Western Asia, and\nthose inhabiting the shores of the Mediterranean, such as the Persians,\nthe Phoenicians, and the Greeks; and hence a short sketch of its\npolitical history, down to the period of the Persian conquest, as far at\nleast as is necessary for the elucidation of general history, will not\nbe here inappropriate or misplaced.\n\nThe long list of names of kings, belonging to more than twenty dynasties\nof the ancient Pharaohs, furnishes indeed matter of little interest or\nimportance to the philosophic enquirer in his researches on universal\nhistory. It is, however, worthy of remark that many and vast expeditions\nappear to have been undertaken in the early ages of Egypt; though, while\nmention is made of such conquests, nothing is said of the permanent\npossession of the conquered countries. Sesostris, who, in the lifetime\nof his father, Amenophis, had seized the whole coast of Arabia, next\nvanquished, for the first time, Lybia and Ethiopia, afterwards extended\nhis conquests to Bactriana, subdued the Scythian nations in the\nCaucasian countries, in Colchis, and as far as the Don, and even took\npossession of Thrace. The descent of the Colchians from the Egyptians,\nor the existence of an Egyptian colony in Colchis, was regarded by the\nancients as an historical fact. The yet more ancient King Osymandas is\nsaid to have undertaken an expedition, attended by an immense army, to\nreconquer Bactriana that had revolted against the Egyptian sway; and the\ntriumphant arms of Osiris stretched on one hand as far as the Ganges,\nand on the other as far as the sources of the Danube. Here a question\narises:--did the Egyptians possess heroic poems similar to the Ramayana\nand Mahabarata of the Indians, and were these marvellous narratives\nextracted from these poems? Or had all these narratives a signification\npurely mythic, as we may easily conjecture to be the case in the\nexpedition of Osiris? In those historical ages which are better known to\nus, Egypt was certainly never a conquering power--at least its conquests\nwere never of a solid and permanent nature; though even in those times\nEgypt made some transient conquests, or at least expeditions; and,\nguilty of great political encroachments on other states and nations, was\noften doomed to experience from these a vigorous resistance to her\nattempts. A part of Libya, the coast of Arabia contiguous to the Red\nSea, and the Arabia Petraea, acknowledged for a long time the sceptre of\nthe Pharaohs, (and this fact indeed, the various monuments covered over\nwith hieroglyphics, which are found in those countries, would seem to\ncorroborate): Ethiopia, too, or at least a considerable portion of that\nregion, was for a long period in the possession of the Egyptian kings.\nThe construction of the many ancient and vast edifices and monuments\nwhich are crowded together in the province of Thebais must, to all\nappearance, have required a greater number of hands than the Proper\nEgypt (a country by no means of considerable extent) could have\nfurnished of itself. As Ethiopia had been conquered by the Egyptians, so\nthe Ethiopians in their turn invaded Egypt, and founded there a royal\ndynasty. The second of these Ethiopian kings, Tirhaka, sought to stretch\nhis conquests as far as Libya and the Northern coast of Africa, and must\nhave penetrated as far as the columns of Hercules, or the modern straits\nof Gibraltar. On the other hand, there is historical evidence that even\nthe Carthaginians, at the time when the family of Mago had the\nascendancy in their state, conquered and took possession of the Egyptian\ncity of Thebes. The king of Egypt, who is known in the historical books\nof the Hebrews by the name of Shishak, and who made the transient\nconquest of Jerusalem, is called Sheshonk or Sesonchis in the ancient\ninscriptions of the Pharaohs.\n\nIt is worthy of remark that we find, in the old Egyptian monuments,\npictures of war-scenes representing very strangely-formed, or at least\nvery remote, nations, as captives of war, and among these, we\ndistinguish some with red hair and blue eyes, tattooed on the legs,\nperfectly corresponding to the descriptions which many ancients have\nleft us of the Scythian nations. At a much earlier period, a Nomade\ntribe of Phoenician, or, most probably, Arabian descent, had taken\npossession of the throne of Egypt, and had established in that country\nthe national dynasty of the Hycsos, that is to say, the Shepherd-kings.\nSome have wished to connect these with the Israelites; but in the whole\nhistory of the latter--the hospitable reception of the Hebrew colony\nunder Joseph--its subsequent oppression--and its final expulsion from\nEgypt in the time of Moses, we can find no trace of any such dominion of\na pastoral nation of Hebrews, or of any dynasty founded by them in\nEgypt; and even other circumstances agree not at all with such a\nsupposition. With the neighbouring nations and tribes, Egypt had\nmanifold and various relations, which, though in some particulars they\nmight be similar, were far from being identical. If it is proved that\nSesostris ascended the throne immediately after his father had succeeded\nin expelling the Hycsos, it may fairly be presumed that as an internal\nrevolt against a foreign power and a foreign dynasty is wont to enkindle\na spirit of martial enthusiasm, which easily leads to ulterior and more\nvigorous undertakings; the expeditions and conquests of Sesostris,\nthough ever so much exaggerated, are not entirely destitute of\nhistorical foundation. Thus much is certain, that in antiquity there\nexisted in many places, comparatively remote from Egypt, whole colonies,\nespecially of a sacerdotal kind, whose origin was undoubtedly Egyptian;\nand that the first colonies which carried arts and civilization into\nGreece, and the other countries bordering on the Mediterranean; did not\ncome solely from Phoenicia; for even in Greece, the genealogy of many\nroyal families and ancient cities, as well as most, if not all, the\nMysteries, particularly the Orphic, pointed to Egypt as their common\nparent. And it is very possible that in those early ages, in which these\nEgyptian expeditions are said to have been undertaken, armed colonies\nmay have emigrated from Egypt, not always influenced however by those\ncommercial views which invariably directed the colonists of Phoenicia;\nbut animated by those higher motives of religion, which, for example,\nhad such an evident influence on the first Persian conquests--by a\ndesire to diffuse the Mysteries, and thereby, while they bound to Egypt\nthe then still barbarous nations of the West, to raise the latter to the\nmore exalted scale of Egyptian civilization. Even domestic troubles and\ncivil discord may have been instrumental in producing those distant\nemigrations, which at this distance of time appear to us so mysterious\nand unaccountable. Such civil discord indeed existed in Egypt under\nvarious forms. The country itself was often divided into several\nkingdoms; and even when united, we observe a great conflict of interests\nbetween the agricultural province of Upper Egypt, and the commercial and\nmanufacturing province of the Lower; as indeed a similar clashing of\ninterests is often to be noticed in modern states. In the period\nimmediately preceding the Persian conquest, the caste of warriors, that\nis to say, the whole class of nobility were decidedly opposed to the\nmonarchs, because they imagined them to promote too much the power of\nthe priesthood; in the same way as the history of India presents a\nsimilar rivalry or political hostility between the Brahmins and the\ncaste of the Cshatriyas. In the reign of the Egyptian king Psammetichus,\nwho had first checked or repelled the Scythian nations whose victorious\narms then menaced the whole of Asia, this disaffection of the native\nnobility obliged this prince to take Greek soldiers into his pay; and\nthus at length was the defence of Egypt intrusted to an army of foreign\nmercenaries. This circumstance, as well as the great commercial\nintercourse with the Greeks, and the number of Greek settlements in\nLower Egypt, had made this province half Greek even prior to the Persian\nconquest; and had paved the way, and opened the door, to this, as well\nas to the later, conquest by the Greeks: for, in general, states and\nkingdoms, before they succumb to a foreign conqueror, are, if not\noutwardly and visibly, yet secretly and internally undermined.\n\nThe classical writers of antiquity begin in general their universal\nhistory by an account of the Assyro-Babylonian empire, which preceded\nthe Medo-Persian, and the annals of the early mythic ages of this empire\nare embellished with the fabulous victories of Semiramis; as similar\nfictions indeed are to be found in the primitive Sagas of all the other\nAsiatic nations. However, the conquest of Media by Ninus, appears to be\nmore historical. The simplest, and for that reason, the most correct\nview of the subject is this, that in this great central region of\nWestern Asia, four countries were contiguous, which often formed\nseparate empires--Babylon and Assyria, Media and Persia; and which, when\nunited, were governed sometimes by one, sometimes by another province,\naccording to the country to which the ruling dynasty belonged; while the\ndifferent capitals of these four countries, Babylon, Ninive, Ecbatana,\nSusa, or Persepolis alternately formed during their flourishing period\nthe centre of a great empire. This first Assyro-Babylonian universal\nmonarchy, as it is called, should not be considered as a distinct period\nof history, but rather as the most ancient dynasty of a great Asiatic\nempire, which was succeeded by a second, the Medo-Persian dynasty; in\nthe same way as the successors of Alexander the Great founded in this\nvery country a new Greek kingdom, and as at a later period the\nParthians, whose original seat lay to the North-east, re-established in\nthis land a native sovereignty, that proved very formidable to the\nRomans. This great middle country of Western Asia is the native seat of\nconquest; it was hence that emanated the spirit of ambition and\nenterprise, which found indeed in the very situation of the country most\nextraordinary facilities. And it is here, too, that Holy Writ places the\nabode of the first universal conqueror--the cradle of all ambition and\nconquest. In the very place where the ancient Babylon stood there are\nnow immense ruins, to which the inhabitants of the country give the name\nof Nimrod's castle, and which involuntarily bring to the modern\ntraveller's mind the old history of the Tower of Babel; as these ruins\nin all probability formed a part of the great temple of Belus, which in\neight lofty stories rose to a prodigious height, and on the pinnacle\nwhereof stood a colossal idol of the National Divinity--the sun. Even\nnow the ruins of this temple, piled in immense heaps one upon the other,\nand which seem as if glazed by some raging fire, produce a very profound\nimpression on the mind; and to such a height do they rise that the\nclouds rest on their summit above, while lions couch on the walls, or\nhaunt the caverns below. Here, too, we look for the place where were the\nvast terraces, with their hanging or floating gardens, as the ancients\ncalled them, and which in a country by no means abounding in wood, the\nAssyrian monarch constructed from affection to his Median spouse. Here\nthe widely scattered heaps and mounds of brick, inscribed with the\ncuneal characters of Babylon, attest the existence and vast\ncircumference of the mighty capital, of whose dimensions no European\ncity, but the Asiatic cities only, can furnish an adequate idea. This\nBabylonish tower has been in every age a figure of the heaven-aspiring\nedifice of lordly arrogance, which sooner or later is sure to be struck\ndown and scattered afar by the arm of the divine Nemesis; and in Holy\nWrit itself, the Babylon giddied by the intoxicating cup of ambition,\ndrunk with the blood of nations, is a mighty historical emblem,\napplicable to every age from the earliest to the latest times, of the\nmad, people-destroying career of a Pagan pride. Here did the evil\ncommence, although the first Assyrian empire had no very extensive\ninfluence on the nations westward, and although the real epoch of\nuniversal conquest dates from the Persian Cyrus. Yet the ancient Babylon\ncontrived to maintain her power, for, as has so often been exemplified\nin history, she, by the moral contagion of her voluptuous manners,\nconquered her conquerors, who abandoned the gods of their ancestors, to\nembrace the sensual nature-worship of the Babylonians. In the new\nmonarchy founded by Cyrus, the Persians (now the ruling nation) were\nclosely united and politically, at least, incorporated with the once\nmore powerful Medes. Yet their race and language were originally very\ndifferent, and even at a later period we can still observe some traces\nof mutual jealousy in a change of dynasty, or the forcible dethronement\nof the prince. The institute of the Magi, which Cyrus established in his\nnew Persian empire, served outwardly at least, to cement this union; for\nthe Magi were of the Median race, and their sacred zend-books were not\ncomposed in the Persian language, but in two distinct dialects of Media,\nif one indeed were not rather Bactrian. The Magi were not so much an\nhereditary sacerdotal caste, as an order or association divided into\nvarious and successive ranks and grades, such as existed in the\nMysteries--the grade of apprenticeship--that of mastership--that of\nperfect mastership. Foreigners could not easily gain admission into this\nsacerdotal order; and it was only at the express solicitation of the\nKing of Persia, at whose court he resided, that this extraordinary\nfavour was accorded to Themistocles. Whether the old Persian doctrine\nand _system of light_[62] did not undergo material alterations in the\nhands of its Median restorer, Zoroaster; or whether this doctrine were\npreserved in all its purity by the order of the Magi, may well be\nquestioned. It is certain at least that that primitive veneration of\nnature is found completely disfigured and corrupted in the small\nexisting remnant of the sect of Guebers or fire-worshippers.\n\nOn the order of the Magi devolved the important trust of the monarch's\neducation--a trust which must necessarily have given them great weight\nand influence in the state. They were in high credit at the\n_Persiangates_--for that was the oriental name given to the capital of\nthe empire, and the abode of the prince; and they took the most active\npart in all the factions that encompassed the throne, or that were\nformed in the vicinity of the court. In Greece, and even in Egypt, the\nsacerdotal fraternities and associations of initiated, formed by the\nMysteries, had in general but an indirect, though not unimportant,\ninfluence on affairs of state; but in the Persian monarchy they acquired\na complete political ascendency. The next main pillar of the Persian\nmonarchy was its nobility, or the principal race of the Pasargads, who\nimmediately surrounded the throne, enjoyed the highest prerogatives, and\nformed indeed the flower of the Persian army. The strict moral and\nmilitary education which this nobility received, and of which Xenophon\nhas drawn such a beautiful ideal sketch, constituted the chief strength\nof the state. And certainly the neglect of this old Persian system of\neducation was one of the primary causes of the decline of the empire--a\ndecline which the progressive relaxation and corruption of public morals\naccelerated with a fearful rapidity. After the first mighty impulse, and\nthat severe moral character which Cyrus had imparted to Persia, had\ndisappeared, the same fate befel this empire, as has befallen all the\ngreat oriental monarchies. The same evils, which the domination of\nprovincial Satraps--a government of the Seraglio--invariably bring along\nwith it--the factions, the conspiracies, the changes of dynasty, and the\nother disorders incident to despotism, appear in exactly similar colours\nin the Persian annals; and even in the modern kingdom of Persia, we find\nmany of those characteristic traits or usages of Asiatic government, as\nthey existed in the ancient empire. Even the army for the most part\nconsisted of troops levied out of the conquered nations, and the greater\nwere its numbers, the less internal union did it possess. Hence we can\nwell conceive that a small army of Greeks, animated by patriotic valour,\nand commanded by generals possessed of a true tactical eye and genius,\nwere able to oppose to the immense hosts of Persia a resistance which in\na numerical point of view, appears almost incredible, and were even\nenabled to gain unexpected victories over their enemies. We can conceive\ntoo, how in the time of Alexander the Great, three battles should have\ndecided the fate of this great empire; for its moral life and energy\nwere gone, and the pillars of the state were completely decayed.\n\nThe Persian empire lasted but for the short period of two hundred and\ntwenty years, from its foundation by Cyrus to the reign of the last\nDarius, whose personal character and fate leave such an affecting and\ntragical impression on our minds. The universal conquests of the\nPersians, rapid, but transient, acted on the age with all the violence\nof the elemental powers of nature. Sudden and rapid, like a wind-storm,\nthey invaded and subdued all other states and kingdoms;--the expedition\nof Xerxes into Greece was a real inundation of nations--and as the\ndestructive fire, after blazing on high and desolating and consuming all\nthings around, sinks quickly again--it was so with the Persian empire.\nThe dominion of the Persians exerted no very permanent influence on\nthose other nations whose civilization was anterior to their own. Egypt,\nin despite of the violent persecution which she sustained under\nCambyses, remained still the ancient Egypt--and with yet greater\nfidelity did she cling to her ancient customs, under the milder sway of\nthe Ptolemies, whose government was so much more congenial to her spirit\nand character. Phoenicia, Palestine, and Asia Minor, also remained\nessentially unchanged. In an historical point of view, the main result\nof the Persian conquests was this--they brought the nations of Western\nAsia and of Egypt into a close contact, and a very active and permanent\nintercourse with the states of Greece, and those situated on the shores\nof the Mediterranean. The Persian dominion, and the contest of that\npower with Greece, had indeed a very great, though only indirect,\ninfluence on the latter country, inasmuch as it favoured the growth and\ndevelopment of Grecian liberty, and at a later period produced the great\nre-action under Alexander the Great. This Greek re-action was in its\nspirit and character somewhat similar to the previous irruption and\nambitious invasion of the Persians; in Alexander at least, we can\nclearly discover an oriental spirit that, not content with the narrow\nboundaries of his hereditary kingdom of Macedon, sought to transcend the\nsphere of Hellenic civilization, Hellenic doctrines, and Hellenic modes\nof thinking. And I call that an Asiatic enthusiasm which, with\nresistless impetuosity, bore away the Macedonian to the capital of\nPersia, and even beyond the banks of the Indus.\n\n\nEND OF LECTURE VII.\n\n\n\n\nLECTURE VIII.\n\n     Variety of Grecian life and intellect.--State of education and of\n     the fine arts among the Greeks.--The origin of their philosophy and\n     natural science.--Their political degeneracy.\n\n\nIt would be difficult to point out a more striking difference, a more\ndecided opposition in the whole circle of the intellectual and moral\ncharacter and habits of nations, as far at least as the sphere of known\nhistory extends, than that which exists between the seclusive and\nmonotonous character of Asiatic intellect--the generally unchangeable\nuniformity of oriental manners and oriental society, and the manifold\nactivity--the varied life of the Greeks, in the first flourishing ages\nof their history. This amazing diversity in the moral and intellectual\nhabits of the Greeks appears not only in their legislation, their forms\nof government, their manners, occupations, and usages of life, but in\ntheir various and widely dispersed settlements and colonies, in their\ndescent, which was composed of so many heterogeneous elements, in the\nfirst seeds of their civilization--as well as their distribution into\nhostile tribes and great and petty states, and even in their traditions,\ntheir history, and the arts and forms of art to which those gave\nrise--finally in a science, engaged in incessant strife, and marching\nfrom system to system, amid the noise and tumult of opposition. In Asia,\neven in those countries such as India, where the poetry, the views of\nlife, and the systems of philosophy were extremely various, and bore in\nthis respect an external resemblance to those of Greece; where even the\ncountry in ancient times was never permanently united into one compact\nempire; yet the whole way of thinking, the prevalent feeling was\nentirely monarchical, proceeding from, and returning again to,\nunchangeable unity. On the other hand, in Greece, science, like life\nitself, was thoroughly republican--and if we meet with particular\nthinkers, who leaned to this Asiatic doctrine of unity, we must regard\nthis as only an exception--a system adopted from a love of change, or\nout of a spirit of opposition to the vulgar and generally received\nopinion that all in nature and the world, as well as in man, was in a\nstate of perpetual movement, constant change, and freedom of life. Even\nthe fabulous world of Grecian divinities, as it has been painted by\ntheir poets, has a republican cast; for there every thing is in a state\nof change, of successive renovation, and of mutual collision in the war\nof Nature's elements, in the hostility of old and new deities of the\nsuperior and inferior Gods--of giants and of heroes--presenting, as it\ndoes, a state of poetical anarchy. Hence, even the historical traditions\nof the Greeks, and the first accounts of their early seats, settlements,\nand the migrations of their different races, present to the eye of the\nhistorical enquirer a dense forest of truth and fiction, of fanciful\nconjecture, absolute fable, and ancient and venerable knowledge--a\nlabyrinth of poetry and of history, in whose various and intricate mazes\nit is often difficult for the critic to find the true outlet, and to\nhold fast by the guiding clue of Ariadne, when he wishes to adopt a\nlucid arrangement, and assign to each part its due place in the system\nof the whole. The Greek tribes and nations inhabited not only the proper\nGreece, the Peninsula Peloponnesian, the contiguous islands, the\nSouthern plains of the Continent (on whose Northern frontiers it is\noften difficult to draw the line of demarcation between the tribes of\nGreek and foreign extraction); and also the Western coasts of Asia\nMinor; but they had founded a number of small states and planted many\nflourishing colonies in the remotest corners of the Euxine, in the Lower\nEgypt, where, long prior to the Persian wars, many Greek settlements\nexisted--along the Northern shore of Africa, where the flourishing\nCyrene was situated, on the Southern coasts of Spain and Gaul, in\nSicily, and throughout the whole of Southern Italy. Their navigation\nextended even to the Baltic, as the voyage of Pytheas evinces; and,\nthough they did not circumnavigate Africa,--a thing which it is still\ndoubtful whether the Phoenicians accomplished,--they rather surpassed\nthan yielded to the latter nation in the activity of their trade, and\nthe wealth and extent of their Colonies. The stupendous monuments and\nedifices of the Egyptians are indeed of more colossal dimensions; yet\nthe works of Grecian sculpture and architecture, while some of them are\non a very large scale, are incomparably more various, more rich in\nornament, more animated, and beautiful, than those of Egypt. The Greeks\nwere not a mere sea-faring and commercial people, like the\nPhoenicians; nor did they compete with the Egyptians in those proud\nmonuments of architecture whose erection required such thousands of\nhuman hands; but they were from their earliest period a martial people,\nwell trained to war. Independently of every feeling of patriotic\nenthusiasm and national defence, they looked on war as a trade and a\nliving, and they loved it accordingly. This is proved by the fact that,\nin the age preceding the Persian conquest, and long before the Persians\nwaged war with Greece, the Kings of Egypt had not only Greek squadrons\nin their service, but that the whole Egyptian army was for the most part\ncomposed of Grecian mercenaries. Such, too, was the case in Carthage,\nand, at a later period, in Persia, where whole legions and armies of\nGreeks were engaged in the service of the great king. This old custom\namong the Greeks of enlisting in the military service of foreign states,\nmay have been indeed an excellent preparation for their great national\nwars, though in these the first great exploits were achieved by small\ncompanies of troops from Athens, Sparta, and other free states, as well\nas by a select body of free citizens. But this custom could have had no\nvery favourable influence on national opinions and feelings, and the\nmutual relations of the Greek tribes and states.\n\nThe Republican form of government mostly prevailed in the various Greek\nsettlements and Colonies, established round the shores of the\nMediterranean; for it is to this species of government that maritime\nnations, commercial cities, and petty states almost always incline, as\nlong as their territories remain circumscribed. Yet in these states, we\nfind a great variety of political constitutions; for along with that\nmultitude of small commercial Republics, there were many, like Sparta\nand others, that depended exclusively, or for the most part, on\nagriculture and the riches of the soil. In these, the hereditary\nnobility, the proprietors of the soil, formed the principal class; for\nin general the Greeks attached a very high importance to the noble races\nand princely families that deduced their descent from the old heroic\ntimes. The original constitution of many, of almost the greater part of\nthese small Greek Republics, was a tolerably mild aristocracy, headed by\nan hereditary Prince, or chieftain. In some states, as for instance in\nAthens, the transition from this old aristocratical government, headed\nby an hereditary prince, to a thoroughly democratic constitution, was\nbut slow and gradual; as the memory of their ancient kings, for example,\nof Codrus, who fell in the defence of his country, was ever cherished by\nthe Athenian people with love and reverence. The popular hatred in\nAthens was directed only against those leaders of the state who, like\nPisistratus, after having obtained their power by means of popular\ninfluence, sought to stretch and perpetuate it by force of arms and the\nuse of foreign mercenaries. Yet even Pisistratus possessed great\nqualities, and his sway was in general mild, and conformable to the laws\nof Solon;--it cannot be denied, however, that his was an usurped\nauthority, and one founded on illegitimate force. At a later period, and\nwhen the Athenian state became more and more democratic--as there is not\na more thankless being in all nature than the sovereign people, in its\nlawless and capricious rule, the people of Athens, jealous of their\nfreedom, and too easily deluded by the arts of oratorical sophistry,\npointed their hatred at all the great men and deserving citizens of the\nstate. The general Miltiades perished in prison; Aristides the just,\nCimon and many others fell the victims of ostracism, and died in exile,\nas did the great historians, Herodotus and Thucydides. Themistocles\nhimself, who had been the liberator of Athens and of Greece, was obliged\nto take refuge at the court of the Persian monarch, from whom he\nreceived protection and hospitality. The wisest of the Athenians, the\nmaster of Plato, who had ever proved himself an honest citizen and a\nvaliant defender of his country, received the cup of poison for his\nrecompence.\n\nBut we no where discover in the early ages of Athens, and of the other\nGreek Republics, that hatred to kings and to royalty in general, which\neven the primitive history of Rome displays. Nay, in Sparta, amid a\nRepublican constitution, the kingly power and dignity were preserved\ninviolate down to the latest period; while in Macedon a new monarchy\ngrew up, which at first asserted a sort of Protectorate over the other\nstates, and at last established a very despotic ascendancy over all\nGreece. Even in those states where the constitution was more\ndemocratical, that is to say, where it was founded, not on an hereditary\nnobility and the possession of the soil, but chiefly on moveable\nproperty, on trade, and manufactures, we must not look for that sort of\narithmetical freedom and equality which exists in some modern Republics,\nfor instance, in the United States of America. The number of citizens\nreally free, eligible, and possessed of the right of suffrage, was\nexceedingly small when compared with the bulk of the population--by far\nthe greater part were not so, and a multitude of bought slaves,\nespecially in the commercial states, was employed in manufactures, and\nin the tillage of the land. This universally prevalent custom--the harsh\ntreatment and oppression of slaves--forms a very painful contrast in the\nancient Republics, little corresponding to our own ideal of social\nhappiness, and in itself very degrading to humanity. In the interior and\nmore aristocratic states, slavery assumed another shape--the remnant of\nthe original inhabitants of the soil, that had survived the conquest of\ntheir country, such as the Helots of Sparta, and the Penestae of\nThessaly, were not merely reduced by the conquerors in their\nnewly-founded governments to the condition of vassals, as we should term\nthem, or even of serfs; but were degraded to a state of absolute\nslavery, and generally treated with great severity. If we except this\none circumstance, the aristocracy, that ruled in most of the ancient\nRepublics of Greece, was on the whole, tolerably well constituted; a\nnumber of accessory circumstances had tended to soften its sway, and\neven, in some instances, it was ennobled by high worth. Ancestral\nmanners and customs--the very smallness of the states--all tended to\nmitigate its rule--a wise legislation, like that of Solon, and of other\nlaw-givers animated by the same spirit, had at once consolidated and\ntempered its power; while it was adorned by republican virtues and many\npersonal qualities in those elder and better times, ere the ancient\nsimplicity of manners was yet totally corrupted.\n\nIn most of the Greek Republics, besides, commerce daily acquired greater\ninfluence and importance, and it was impossible in such a state of\nthings that any rigidly exclusive aristocracy could have been formed, or\ncould have long maintained its ascendancy. Even the priesthood in Greece\n(for there there was no danger of the political predominance of an\nhereditary sacerdotal caste, as in Egypt), even the priesthood, by\nmaintaining ancient manners, customs and laws, on which indeed their own\nexistence depended, exerted a mild and beneficial influence in the\nstate; for they at least formed a counterpoise to a mere selfish\naristocracy, and sometimes opposed the last barrier to democratic\ntyranny.\n\nThe Mysteries too, in particular, which, although they did not at a\nlater period, as in their origin, diffuse a sounder morality than the\npopular mythology, yet certainly inculcated more serious doctrines, and\nmore spiritual views of life, exerted, together with the Olympic and\nIsthmian games, a gentle, and on the whole, a very beneficial,\ninfluence, and served as a bond of connection between the variously\ndivided and discordant nations of Greece. Nay these public and gymnastic\ngames, which were celebrated in the festive poetry of the Greeks, served\nto knit more firmly the bond of national union, so exceedingly loose\namong this people; and many times, in a moment of danger, has the oracle\nof Delphi roused and united all the sons of Hellas. These political\ndecisions of the oracle were not false, so far at least as in these\ncritical moments they gave no other counsel to the Greeks, but that of\npatriotic courage, prudent firmness, and national concord.\n\nWidely dissimilar as were the Greek tribes and nations in their original\nseats and settlements, their occupations and modes of living, their\nmanners and political institutions, they differed not less in the\nprimitive elements of their civilization. The Phoenician Cadmus,\naccording to tradition, brought the alphabet, and with it, undoubtedly,\nmany other elements of knowledge to the city of Thebes--the Egyptian\nCecrops laid the ground-work of the old Athenian manners and\ngovernment--the Thracian Orpheus, though his doctrines had much analogy\nto those of Egypt, founded the widely diffused Mysteries that bore his\nname, while he sought by song to mitigate the terrors of the lower\nworld, and to overcome the powers of darkness. To these many other names\nmight be added; and among them many which did not deduce their descent,\nlike most indeed, from Phoenicia and Egypt, but are clearly to be\ntraced, as well as the doctrines and sacred customs they introduced, to\nthe North; and, though they sprang more immediately from Asiatics on the\nnorthern side of the Caucasus, they were nearly allied to the nations\ndwelling further towards the North and West. The profound and concurrent\nresearches of many modern scholars have adduced such numerous and\nrepeated proofs from antiquity, of the existence of this Northern\nstratum in Greek antiquities, that this branch of Grecian history,\nformerly neglected, must no longer pass unobserved. The Greeks were of\nvery various extraction; and in the different countries of Greece we may\ndistinguish, along with the Hellenes, two if not more, principal\nnations, clearly distinct from the former. These were the Thracians in\nthe Northern provinces, or at least in those immediately contiguous--a\nrace for the most part of Northern descent, and, together with the\nIndian, the most numerous on the earth according to Herodotus--perhaps\nof the same origin with the nations on the banks of the Danube, or even\nthose further northward. There were, next, the Pelasgi, the real\naborigines of Greece, the authors of those gigantic walls and\nconstructions, which are known in Italy by the name of Cyclopean, and in\nGreece by that of Pelasgic, and some of which still exist, besides\nseveral others that existed in the Peloponnesus, and which are mentioned\nby the ancients. These Aborigines, or this primitive race of people,\noccur in many countries under the same, or at least very similar,\ntraits--to them we must ascribe those monuments of architecture we have\njust spoken of, a certain knowledge of metals, some rude religious\nrites, without any mythology, which was only of later origin, nay\nwithout any names of specific divinities;--human sacrifices--manners and\ncustoms, if not absolutely savage, still very rude and barbarous, and a\nconstant restlessness and a disposition to roam. Deucalion alone is to\nbe considered as the ancestor of the Hellenes, as all the noble families\nof kings and heroes derived their descent from him, and the later tribes\nof Greece, the AEolians, the Dorians, and Ionians, took their names from\nhis sons. According to every indication, this people would appear to be\na Caucasian race of Asiatics, of Indian, or at least of a cognate,\norigin. When these Hellenes, AEolians and Dorians, had taken possession\nof Thessaly, of the adjacent countries, and the Peloponnesus, and had\nthere formed settlements, the Pelasgi were every where dispossessed, or\noppressed, and thrown into the back-ground. But they certainly were not\nentirely extirpated, nor did they emigrate in full numbers; and it is\nbeyond a doubt that various causes contributed to unite the old and new\ninhabitants of Greece; for here intermarriages were not entirely\nprohibited and rigidly prevented, as in India or Egypt, by the\ninstitution of castes; and the two nations were gradually formed into\none race and one people, according as the circumstances or situation of\none country or the other favoured such an union. And hence we can\nunderstand why Herodotus, for example, should have attributed to the\nIonians in particular much that was Pelasgic, as if under this new\ndenomination they were in all essential points the ancient Pelasgi, or\nhad mingled more with the latter, and were not of such a pure Hellenic\nrace as the Dorians: for in other respects, the Pelasgi and Hellenes are\nrepresented as being originally two perfectly distinct nations. The\npeople of Thrace, too, although they continued as a separate nation to a\nmuch later period, undoubtedly mingled considerably with the Hellenic\ntribes that inhabited the borders of Thrace, or that lived among the\ninhabitants of that country.\n\nThe primitive inhabitants of Greece were in general extremely rude and\nbarbarous in their manners and tenets; until the noble race of\nPrometheus, the sons of Deucalion, who had come from the regions of\nMount Caucasus, and colonies still more civilized that had emigrated\nfrom Phoenicia, Egypt, and other countries of Asia, exerted their\nbeneficial influence, and gave by degrees an entirely new form and\nfashion to the people of Greece, and even to the country itself. For\nthat region, which afterwards presented so beautiful an aspect, which\nwas so richly endowed, and splendidly embellished by the hand of Nature,\nwas, until it had been well cultivated and fertilized, and until the\npower of boisterous elements had been subdued, a complete wilderness,\nand the scene of many violent revolutions of nature; which were very\nnaturally considered as a sort of partial and feeble imitation of the\ndestructive and universal flood of elder times, when water was the\nall-prevailing element on the earth. In Greece there was an old obscure\ntradition, of the original existence of a continent called Lectonia,\nwhich occupied a portion of the subsequent Greek sea, and of which the\nislands form now the only existing remains; the rest of the continent\nhaving been sunk and destroyed, at the very time when the Black Sea,\nwhich had been originally connected with the Caspian, burst through the\nBosphorus, and precipitated its waves into the Mediterranean. At this\nvery remote period, all Thessaly was one vast lake, till, in a natural\ncatastrophe of a similar kind, the river Peneus burst its way through a\ndefile of rocks, and found an outlet into the sea. The lake Copais in\nBaeotia in an inundation overflowed the whole circumjacent flat country\nin the time of Ogyges; and thus the name and tradition of Ogyges served\nafterwards to designate the epoch of those early floods. At a later\nperiod, and when the civilization of the Greeks was more advanced, in\nthe true flourishing era of their power and literature, the two\nprincipal races among this people, the Ionians and the Dorians, were\ncompletely opposed to each other in arts and manners, in government,\nmodes of thinking, and even in philosophy. Athens was at the head of the\nIonic race; Sparta took the lead in the Doric confederacy; and this\ninternal discord did not a little contribute towards the utter ruin of\nGreece, and towards the consummation of that internal and external\nanarchy that dragged all things into its abyss.\n\nNow that we enter upon that period when all the great political events\nhave been sufficiently described, and partly, at least, set forth with\nincomparable talent, by the great classical historians of antiquity; by\na multitude of writers that have borrowed from that source, or have\nworked upon those lofty models; it would be idle to repeat what is\nuniversally known, and to recount, in long historical detail, how, after\ncontests and struggles of less importance, the glory of Greece burst\nforth in all its lustre in her resistance to Persian might; how, soon\nafter, she exhausted her best strength in the great Peloponnesian civil\nwar betwixt Sparta and Athens, and how both those states ruined\nthemselves in the idle ambition of maintaining the {~GREEK SMALL LETTER ETA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER GAMMA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER EPSILON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER MU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA~} as\nthey called it, or the superiority and preponderance in the political\nsystem of Greece;--how, after the short dominion of the Thebans under\ntheir single great man, Epaminondas, the Macedonians became lords of the\nascendant, and ruled for a longer time with despotic sway;--and finally\nhow Greece obtained an apparent freedom under the generous protection of\nRome, and was soon after reduced to a state of permanent vassalage under\nher prefects and her legions. This instructive and, we may well say,\neternal history may be read, studied, and meditated on in all its ample\ndetails and living clearness in the pages of the great classical\nhistorians of antiquity. The knowledge of all these historical facts\nmust be here pre-supposed, and I must confine myself to a rapid and\nlively sketch of the intellectual character and moral life of the\nGreeks, in their relation to the rest of mankind, and according to the\nplace which they occupy in universal history.\n\nIn this point of view, all that is universally interesting in the\ncharacter, life, and intellect of the Greeks will be best and most\neasily classed under three categories. The first is the _divine_ in\ntheir system of art, or the mythology that was so closely interwoven\nwith their traditions and their fictions, their whole arrangement of\nlife, their customs, and political institutions; and which so much\nexcites our astonishment and admiration. The second is their science of\nNature--a science so natural to them, and which embraced all the objects\nof Nature and the world, as well as of history, and even man himself,\nwith the utmost clearness of perception, sagacity of intellect, and\nbeauty and animation of expression--a science that, from its earliest\ninfancy down to its complete perfection in the writings of Plato and\nAristotle, has established the lasting glory of the Greeks, and has had\na deep and abiding influence on the human mind, through all succeeding\nages. The third and last category, in this portrait of the Greek\nintellect and character, is the political rationalism in Greece's latter\ndays, founded on those maxims and principles which had finally triumphed\nafter the most violent contest of parties, and under which the state was\nentirely swayed by the arts of eloquence and the power of rhetoric, now\nbecome a real political authority in society. All that can be said truly\nto the honour of the ancient Greek states, and their Republican virtues,\nhas been briefly noticed above. Their decay and general anarchy, and\nfinal subjugation by Rome, may be well accounted for by the decline of\nthe Greek philosophy, and the consequent corruption of morals and\ndoctrine--by that dominion of sophists, unparalleled at least in ancient\nhistory, and whose pernicious art of a false rhetoric was the bane of\npublic life, government, and all national greatness.\n\nThe marvellous and living mythology in the glorious old poetry of Greece\njustly occupies here the first place, for all arts, even the plastic\narts, had their origin in this first Homeric source. And this fresh\nliving stream of mythic fictions and heroic traditions which has flowed,\nand continues to flow, through all ages and nations in the West, proves\nto us, by a mighty historical experience, which determines even the most\ndifficult problems (and this has been universally acknowledged in\nChristian Europe), that all classical education--all high intellectual\nrefinement, is and should be grounded on poetry--that is to say, on a\npoetry which, like the Homeric, springs out of natural feelings, and\nembraces the world with a clear, intuitive glance. For there can be no\ncomprehensive culture of the human mind,--no high and harmonious\ndevelopment of its powers, and the various faculties of the soul; unless\nall those deep feelings of life--that mighty, productive energy of human\nnature, the marvellous imagination, be awakened and excited, and by that\nexcitement and exertion, attain an expansive, noble and beautiful form.\nThis the experience of all ages has proved, and hence the glory of the\nHomeric poems, and of the whole intellectual refinement of the Greeks,\nwhich has thence sprung, has remained imperishable. Were the mental\nculture of any people founded solely on a dead, cold, abstract science,\nto the exclusion of all poetry; such a mere mathematical people--with\nminds thus sharpened and pointed by mathematical discipline, would and\ncould never possess a rich and various intellectual existence; nor even\nprobably ever attain to a living science, or a true science of life. The\ncharacteristic excellence of this Homeric poetry, and in general of all\nthe Greek poetry, is that it observes a wise medium between the gigantic\nfictions of oriental imagination, even as the purer creations of Indian\nfancy display; and that distinctness of view, that broad knowledge and\nobservation of the world, which distinguish the ages of prosaic\nnarrative, when the relations of society become at once more refined and\nmore complicated. In this poetry, these two opposite, and almost\nincompatible, qualities are blended and united--the fresh enthusiasm of\nthe most living feelings of nature--a blooming, fertile, and captivating\nfancy, and a clear intuitive perception of life, are joined with a\ndelicacy of tact, a purity and harmony of taste, excluding all\nexaggeration--all false ornament--and which few nations since the\nGreeks, none perhaps in an equal degree, certainly none before them,\nhave ever possessed to a like extent.\n\nThis poetry was most intimately interwoven with the whole public life of\nthe Greeks--the public spectacles, games, and popular festivals were so\nmany theatres for poetry: nay music and the gymnastic exercises were the\nground-work, and formed almost the whole scope, of a high, polite, and\nliberal education among the Greeks. Both were so in a very wide,\ncomprehensive and significant sense of the term. The gymnastic\nstruggles, the peculiar object of the public games, and where the human\nframe attained a beautiful form and expansion by every species of\nexercise--the gymnastic struggles had a very close connection with, and\nmay be said to have formed the basis for, the imitative arts, especially\nsculpture, which, without that habitual contemplation of the most\nexquisite forms afforded by these games, could never have acquired so\nbold, free, and animated a representation of the human body. Music, or\nthe art of the Muses, included not only the art of melody, but the\npoetry of song. Still the plan of Grecian education and refinement was\never of too narrow and too exclusive a character; and when, at a later\nperiod, rhetoric came to form one of its elements, the Greeks considered\nit (what indeed it never should be considered) as a sort of gymnastic\nexercise for the intellect, a species of public spectacle, where\neloquence, little solicitous about the truth, only sought to display its\nart or address in the combat. And in the same way philosophy, when the\nGreeks attained a knowledge of it, came to be regarded, according to the\nnarrow and exclusive principles of their system of education, as nothing\nmore than a species of intellectual melody, the internal harmony of\nthought and mind--the music of the soul; till later, by means of the\nsophists and popular sycophants that deluded their age, it sunk into the\nall-destructive abyss of false rhetoric, which was the death of true\nscience and genuine art, and which, in the shape of logic and\nmetaphysics, had as injurious an influence on the schools as a false\npolitical eloquence had on the state and on public life. That principle\nof harmony which formed the leading tenet of the primitive philosophy of\nGreece before the introduction of sophistry, was not an ignoble,--it was\neven a beautiful, idea, although it might be far from solving the high\nproblems and questions of philosophy, or satisfying the deeper enquiries\nof the human mind.\n\nIt was from these public games, popular festivals, and great poetical\nexhibitions, which had such a mighty and important influence on the\nwhole public life of the Greeks, and which served to knit so strongly\nthe bonds of the Hellenic confederacy, that, by means of the odes,\nspecifically designed for such occasions, the theatre, and the whole\ndramatic art of the Greeks, derived their origin. This poetry, which is\nless generally intelligible to other nations and times than the Homeric\npoems, because it enters more deeply into the individual life of the\nGreeks, does not display less invention, sublimity, and depth of art,\nfrom that ideal beauty which pervades its whole character, and from its\nlofty tone of feeling. Even the Doric odes of Pindar, amid their milder\nbeauties, rise often to the tragic grandeur of the succeeding poets, or\nto the comprehensive and epic fulness of the old Maeonian bard.\n\nNo nation has as yet been able to equal the charm and amenity of Homer,\nthe elevation of AEschylus, and the noble beauty of Sophocles; and\nperhaps it is wrong even to aspire to their excellence, for true beauty\nand true sublimity can never be acquired in the path of imitation.\nEuripides, who lived in the times when rhetoric was predominant, is\nranked with the great poets we have named by such critics only, as are\nunable to comprehend and appreciate the whole elevation of Grecian\nintellect, and to discern its peculiar and characteristic depth. It is\nworthy of remark, as it serves to show the general propensity of Grecian\nintellect for the boldest contrasts, that these loftiest productions of\ntragedy, and which have retained that character of unrivalled excellence\nthrough all succeeding ages, were accompanied by the old popular comedy\nwhich, while its inventive fancy dealt in the boldest fictions of\nmythology, and in the humorous exhibitions of the Gods, made it its\npeculiar business to fasten on all the follies of ordinary life, and to\nexhibit them to public ridicule without the least reserve.\n\nThat the sensual worship of Nature, the basis of all Heathenism, and\nmore particularly so of the Greek idolatry, must have had a very\nprejudicial influence on Greek morals; that the want of a solid system\nof Ethics, founded on God and divine truth, must have given rise to\ngreat corruption even in a more simple period of society; and that this\nalready prevalent corruption must have increased to a frightful extent\nin the general degradation of the state--is a matter evident of itself;\nand it would be no difficult task to draw from the pages of the popular\ncomedy we have just spoken of, and from other sources, a terrific\npicture of the moral habits of the Greeks. Yet I know not whether such a\ndescription would be necessary, or even advantageous, for the purpose of\nthis Philosophy of History--the more so, as it would not be difficult to\ndraw from similar sources of immorality, and from the now usual\nstatistics of vice and crime, a sketch of the moral condition of one or\nmore Christian nations, that would by no means accord with the\npre-conceived notion of the great moral superiority of modern times. We\nmay thus the more willingly rest contented with a general acknowledgment\nof the great moral depravity of mankind, which exists wherever mighty\npowers and strong motives of a superior order do not counteract it, and\nwhich must have broken out more conspicuously there, where, as among the\nGreeks, the prevailing religion was a Paganism that promoted and\nsanctioned sensuality. In regard to the poetry and plastic arts of the\nGreeks, it must even strike us as a matter of astonishment that it is in\ncomparatively but few passages, and few works, this Pagan sensuality\nappears in a manner hurtful to dignity of style and harmony of\nexpression. It would not at least have surprised us, had this defect\nbeen oftener apparent, when we consider the doctrines and views of life\ngenerally prevalent in antiquity; for it was in most cases, less the\nsterner dictates of morality that prevented the recurrence of this\ndefect than an exquisite sense of propriety, which even in art is the\noutward drapery that girds and sets off beauty. Besides, a mere\nconventional concealment cannot be imposed as a law on the art of\nsculpture; our moral feelings are much less offended by the\nrepresentation of nudity in the pure noble style of the best antiques,\nthan by the disguised sensuality which marks many spurious productions\nof modern art. In poetry and in art, at least in the elder and\nflourishing period, the Greeks have, for the most part, attained to\ninternal harmony--in philosophy they were much less fortunate--and least\nof all in public life, which was almost always distracted, and at last\nutterly jarring, dissonant, and ruinous.\n\nI called the science of the Greeks a _natural_ science, and in this\nquality, which it possessed in so eminent a degree, it affords us the\nhighest instruction, and is of itself extremely interesting; for in its\norigin, this science proceeded chiefly, almost exclusively, from\nnature--pursued a sequestered and solitary path--a stranger to poetry\nand to the mythology which was there predominant, far removed from\npublic and political life--and often even in an attitude of hostility\ntowards the state. The physical sciences, and particularly natural\nhistory, were created by the Greeks--so was the science of medicine, in\nwhich Hippocrates is still honoured as the greatest master; and geometry\nand the ancient system of astronomy were handed down to posterity,\nconsiderably enlarged and improved by the labours of the Greeks. In the\nsecond place, Grecian science may be denominated a _natural_ science,\nbecause, as it directed its attention successively to the various\nobjects of the world, of life, and to man himself, it ever took a\nthoroughly natural view of all things, and even in self-knowledge, in\npractical life, and in history, sought to seize and comprehend the\nnature of man, and to unfold the character of his Being, with the utmost\nprecision of language, and according to conceptions derived exclusively\nfrom life. Thus when Plato and his followers direct their philosophical\nenquiries to objects lying beyond, and far exalted above, the sphere of\nNature and real life, we must regard these inquiries as exceptions from\nthe ordinary practice of Grecian intellect, and from the ruling spirit\nof its speculations; in the same way as the expeditions of Alexander the\nGreat form an exception from the usual routine of Grecian politics.\nLastly, Grecian science may be denominated a _natural_ science, because\nphilosophy, founded on the old basis of poetry and classical culture,\nallied to history, and the language and symbols of tradition, assumed in\ngeneral a form clear, beautiful, animated, and eminently conformable to\nNature and the mind of man; and however much this philosophy may at\ntimes have been lost and bewildered in the void of a false dialectic, it\nstill never perished in the petrifying chill of abstract speculations.\nAnd even Plato, though his philosophy so far transcended the ordinary\nsphere of Grecian intellect, had been well nurtured in Hellenic\neloquence, art, and culture--and, in all these, was himself the greatest\nmaster.\n\nWith this profound and lofty feeling for Nature, did the early\nphilosophers of Greece, who were chiefly Ionians, like Thales,\nAnaximenes, and Heraclitus, consider respectively water, air, and fire,\nas the primary powers of Nature and of all things; and it was only\nAnaxagoras, the master of Socrates, who first clearly expounded the\nnature of that supreme and divine Intelligence which created nature and\nregulates the world. Prior to this philosopher, Heraclitus had asserted\nthis doctrine, perhaps with greater purity--certainly with more depth\nand penetration; but in his obscure writings it is less intelligibly\nexpressed. With his supreme Intelligence in Nature, Anaxagoras conjoined\nthe {~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER MU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER MU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER EPSILON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER RHO~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER SIGMA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA~}, that is to say, not the real atoms of a\nlifeless matter, but rather the animated substance of material life.\nThus his doctrine was a simple system of dualism, quite in harmony, it\nwould seem, with the feelings of those early ages, as we have noticed a\nsimilar system in the history of Indian philosophy. These old Ionian\nphilosophers in general regarded only the internal life in Nature and\nall existence--the constant change and endless vicissitude in the world\nand in all things; and hence many of them began to doubt, and at last\nfinally denied, the existence of anything steadfast and enduring.\nAccording to that law and march of contrast, which Grecian intellect,\nwhether consciously or unconsciously, invariably pursued, these Ionian\nphilosophers were now opposed by the school of Parmenides, which\ninculcated the doctrine of an all-pervading unity--and taught that this\nprinciple was the first and last, the sole, true, permanent, and eternal\nBeing. Although this system was at first propounded in verse, it was by\nno means, in its essential and ruling spirit, a poetical Pantheism, like\nthat of the Indians--but more congenial with the intellectual habits of\nthe Greeks, it was a Pantheism thoroughly dialectic, which at first\nregarded all change as an illusion and idle phenomenon, and at last\npositively denied the possibility of change. Between these two extreme\nschools appeared the great disciple of Socrates, who sought, by a path\nof inquiry completely new, completely foreign to the Greeks--by a range\nof speculation which soared far above the world of sense, and outward\nexperience, as well as above mere logic, to return to the supreme\nGod-head, infinitely exalted above all nature--deriving the notion of\nthe Deity from immediate intuition, primeval revelation, or profound\ninternal reminiscence. By this doctrine of reminiscence, which is the\nfundamental tenet of the Platonic system, this philosophy has a strong\ncoincidence or affinity with the Indian doctrine of the Metempsychosis,\nby the supposition it involves of the prior existence of the human soul.\nTo such a notion of the pre-existence of the soul, in the literal sense\nof the term, no system of Christian philosophy could easily subscribe.\nBut if, as there is no reason to prevent us, we should understand this\nPlatonic notion of reminiscence in a more spiritual sense--as the\nawakening or resuscitation of the consciousness of the divine image\nimplanted in our souls--as the soul's perception of that image; this\ntheory would then perfectly coincide with the Christian doctrine of the\ndivine image originally stamped on the human soul, and of the internal\nillumination of the soul by the renovation of that image--and hence we\nought in no way to be astonished that this Platonic mode of thinking,\nfor such it is rather than any exclusive system,--as it is the first\ngreat philosophy of revelation clothed and propounded in an European\nform--should have ever appeared so captivating to the profound thinkers\nof Christianity. In Plato's time, that host of Sophists who had sprung\nout of the dialectic contests of the earlier philosophy, out of its\nrejection and disbelief of every thing permanent, immutable and eternal\nin Nature, in life, and in knowledge, as well as out of the democratic\nspirit of the age, and the ever prevailing immorality--in Plato's time,\nthat host of Sophists completely bewildered and confused the public\nmind, poisoned all principle and morality in their very source, and\naccomplished the ruin of society in Greece in general, and in Athens in\nparticular. And the masterly portrait which Plato has given us of these\nSophists exhibits well this race, and the pernicious influence they\nexerted over Grecian intellect, and the whole circle of Grecian states;\nand this political influence of the Sophists forms the third epoch in\nthe history of Greece, which, by means of these popular sycophants,\nbecame daily more and more democratic, till at last it perished in\nanarchy.\n\nThe more ancient philosophers of Greece lived almost all in a state of\nretirement from public life, taking no part in political affairs, or\nevincing very evident sentiments of hostility to the governments and\nrepublics of their native country. They were almost all unfriendly to\nthe prevailing principles of democracy; and the ideal governments, which\nthey, as well as Plato, have sketched, were all in the spirit of a very\nrigid aristocracy of virtue and law--evincing a very marked predilection\nfor that form of government as it existed, though in a state of great\ndegeneracy, among the Doric Greeks. Long before Plato, the Pythagoreans\nhad inculcated doctrines perfectly similar, or at least of a very\nkindred nature; and with the view and purpose of introducing their\nprinciples into public life, by which undoubtedly the governments and\nthe whole frame of society in Greece, as well as the whole system of\nGrecian thought, would have assumed a totally new and different shape.\nBut before the Pythagorean confederacy, which was so widely diffused\nthrough the Greek states of Southern Italy, was able to accomplish its\ndesign, the violent re-action of an opposite party of thinkers destroyed\nit, or at least deprived it of all ascendancy and political influence.\n\nThe age of Aristotle concurred with that of the Macedonian sway to\nterminate anarchy of every kind. To the old evil of a false dialectic,\nwhich had become an inveterate habit, and, as it were, a second nature\nto Grecian intellect, he endeavoured to oppose his ample and substantial\nlogic--and this must be regarded not so much as a wonderful _organum_, a\nliving and never-failing source of scientific truth, but rather as a\nremedy for that disease of a false, sophistical rhetoric, so prevalent\nin his own age, and the one immediately preceding--and which had brought\nabout the ruin of all truths, and an universal anarchy of doctrines,\neven in practical life. With a perspicacious, penetrative, and\ncomprehensive intellect, he has reduced all the philosophic, and all the\nhistorical science of preceding ages and of his own time, to a clear,\nwell-ordered system, for the ample instruction of posterity:--in both\nthese sciences, as well as in natural history, he has remained, down to\nthe latest time, the master-guide. In those parts of his philosophy\nwhich lie between this natural science and the old dialectic contests,\nin its primary and fundamental principles, the system of Aristotle, when\nrightly understood, contains much that leads to the most dangerous\nerrors, especially in his notion of God; though we cannot with justice\nimpute to him the abuse which has been made of his philosophy in\nsubsequent ages. Notwithstanding the many excellent things which are to\nbe found in the Ethics of Aristotle, considered merely as an effort of\nunassisted reason; yet in all the enquiries after a higher truth--after\nthe first notion of the divine which, in the elder philosophy of nature,\nwas so imperfectly understood, and which in the consummate rationalism\nof Aristotle was completely misapprehended--in all these important\nenquiries, the Stagyrite is far from being such a guide as Plato; and\nhis philosophy is not like the Platonic, a scientific introduction to\nthe Christian revelation, and to the knowledge of divine truths. The\nlater systems of philosophy among the Greeks were, with some slight\nvariations of form, mere repetitions, often only mere combinations and\ncompilations, of the ancient philosophy; or they exhibited a thorough\ndegeneracy of science and intellect, as in the atomical system of\nEpicurus, which even on life and morals had an atomical influence.\n\nThe Greek states have long since disappeared from the face of the\nearth--the republics, as well as the Macedonian kingdoms founded by\nAlexander, have long since ceased to exist. Many centuries--near two\nthousand years, have elapsed, since not a vestige remains of all that\nancient greatness and transitory power. If the celebrated battles and\nother mighty events of those ages are still known to us; if they still\nexcite in us a lively interest, it is principally because they have been\ndelineated with such incomparable beauty, such instructive interest, by\nthe great classical writers. It is not the republican governments of\nGreece, nor the brief and fleeting period of Grecian liberty, which was\nso soon succeeded by civil war and anarchy--it is not the universal\nempire of Macedon, which was but of short duration, and was soon\nswallowed up in the Roman or Parthian domination--it is not these that\nmark out the place which Greece occupies in the great whole of universal\nhistory, nor the mighty and important part she has had in the\ncivilization of mankind. The share allotted to her was the light of\nscience in its most ample extent, and in all the clear brilliance of\nexposition which it could derive from art. It is in this intellectual\nsphere only that the Greeks have been gifted with extraordinary power,\nand have exerted a mighty influence on after-ages. Plato and Aristotle,\nfar more than Leonidas and Alexander the Great, contain nearly the sum\nand essence of all truly permanent and influential, which the Greeks\nhave bequeathed to posterity. It is evident that I include under these\ngreat names the whole classical culture which formed the basis of this\nGreek science--the general refinement of minds--the fine arts, and above\nall, the glorious old poetry of Greece. We have to mention another\ndepartment of Greek science, wherein from its natural clearness and\nliveliness, its profound observation of man, the most eminent success\nwas attained. And the pre-eminence consists in this--that historical\nart, as well as historical research were originated by the Greeks, and\nthat both have attained a degree of perfection which has been almost\never unknown to the Asiatic nations, and which even the moderns have\nonly imitated by degrees upon the great models of antiquity. The father\nof history, Herodotus, has not been without reason compared to Homer, on\naccount of his manifold charms, and the clearness and fulness of his\nnarrative. We remain in utter astonishment, when we reflect on the depth\nand extent of his knowledge, researches, enquiries, and remarks on the\nhistory and antiquities of the various nations of the earth, and of\nmankind in general. The deeper and more comprehensive the researches of\nthe moderns have been on ancient history, the more have their regard and\nesteem for Herodotus increased. The later classical historians display\nmuch rhetoric; but this was natural, when we consider what a mighty\ninfluence rhetoric exerted on public life, and that it had become an\nall-ruling power in the state. This false rhetoric, that idle pomp of\nwords, the death of all genuine poetry and higher art--as the endless\nstrifes of a false dialectic, are the ruin of all sane and legitimate\nscience, of all precision of intellect, and soundness of judgment--this\nfalse rhetoric, by the exclusively sophistical turn which it gave to the\npublic mind and public opinion, accelerated the downfall of government,\nand of all public virtues in Greece.\n\nThe third category or sphere of Grecian intellect and Grecian life which\nI designated after that of divine art, and natural science, and the\nvaried knowledge of man, was _political rationalism_.[63] I have used\nthat expression, chiefly in reference to the later ages of the Greek\nRepublics, as it is the quality which eminently distinguished them from\nthe Asiatic states, and those of modern Europe.\n\nIn the later ages of Athens, and of the other democratic states, the\nrationalist principles of freedom and equality were the sole prevailing\nand recognized maxims of government. Considered in this historical point\nof view, the chief difference between the two principal forms of\ngovernment consists in this--that the republic is, or at least tends to\nbe, the government of Reason; while monarchy is founded on the higher\nprinciples of faith and love. But the distinction lies rather in the\nruling spirit--the moral principle which animates these two governments,\nthan in their mere outward form. Republics which are founded on ancient\nlaws and customs, on hereditary rights and usages, on faith in the\nsanctity of hereditary right, on attachment to ancestral manners (as was\nundoubtedly the case with the Greek republics in the early ages of their\nhistory), such states, so far from being opposed to the true spirit of\nmonarchy, are, to all essential purposes, of a kindred nature with it.\nSuch, too, are those happy republics which, content with the narrow\nlimits of their power and existence, at peace with other states, devoid\nof ambition, firmly wedded to their ancient rights and customs, figure\nbut little on the arena of history, and occupy but small space in the\ncolumns of the gazetteer. In a monarchy, attachment to the hereditary\nsovereign and to the royal dynasty is the corner-stone and the firmest\npillar of the state--whole provinces may be conquered, and important\nbattles may be lost; but while this foundation of love remains\nunshaken--while this principle is in active operation, the edifice of\nthe state will stand unmoved.\n\nThe next foundation of monarchy is faith in ancient rights--in the\nheritage of ancestral customs and privileges, according to the several\nrelations of the different classes of the state; and we should beware,\nin a monarchial government, not to touch or violate with an incautious\nhand, or change without necessity, hereditary rights and usages which\ntime has consecrated, for such heedless changes shake the very\nfoundations of the social edifice. When a monarchy is founded on a\nwritten contract (whether it be intended as a sort of treaty of peace,\nwith some party aspiring to dominion in the state, or be only the\nsuccessful experiment of some scientific theory of political\nrationalism), such a government, though it may preserve the outward\nform, has ceased in all essential points, to be a monarchy according to\nthe old acceptation of the term. An absolute government, whatever shape\nit may assume, whether it take the form of republicanism, and adopt the\nrationalist principles of freedom and equality--principles which in the\nnature of things, and according to the very constitution of human\nreason, are almost ever inseparable from a spirit of progressive\nencroachment in foreign policy, (as is sufficiently proved by the\ninordinate ambition, the insatiable thirst of power which distinguished\nthe great republics of antiquity, in proportion as they became more\ndemocratic, and more a prey to anarchy,) or whether the absolute\ngovernment assume the lawless and illegitimate sway of a military\ndespotism--such a government may indeed be established in a sort of\nequipoise, circumscribed within tolerably reasonable limits, and\npreserved at least in its physical existence by means of such a written\ncompact as we have spoken of above. But the old Christian state--the\nstate which is founded in faith and love--can be renovated and\nre-established; not by the mere dead letter of any theory, though it\nshould contain nothing but the pure dogmatic truth--but by faith--by\nlove--by the religious energy of all the great fundamental principles of\nmoral life.\n\n\nEND OF LECTURE VIII.\n\n\n\n\nLECTURE IX.\n\n     Character of the Romans.--Sketch of their conquests.--On strict\n     law, and the law of equity in its application to History, and\n     according to the idea of divine justice.--Commencement of the\n     Christian dispensation.\n\n\nInstead of that astonishing variety in the states, the races, the\npolitical constitutions, the manners, styles of art and modes of\nintellectual cultivation, which divided from its very origin the social\nexistence of Greece--a division which gave a more rich and diversified\naspect to Greek civilization--the ancient history of Italy shews us, on\nthe contrary, how every thing merged more and more in the one, eternal,\nimperishable, ever-prosperous, ever-progressive, and at last\nall-devouring, city--Rome. The first ages, indeed, of Italy--the\nprimitive nations that settled that country--such as the Pelasgi, whose\nearly historical existence is attested by those Cyclopean, or more\nproperly, Pelasgic walls and constructions still extant there--the\nEtruscans, (according to some authors, descended from the more northern\nrace of Rhoetians) from whom the Romans borrowed so many of their\nidolatrous rites and customs--the Sabines and Samnites, the Latins and\nthe Trojans--lastly the Celts in Northern, and the Greeks in Southern,\nItaly--all in their several relations to one another, and in the various\ncommixture of their origin and progress, open a wide field of intricate\ninvestigation and perplexing research to the historical enquirer. But\nfrom the general point of view taken in universal history, all this\nantiquarian learning soon falls into the back-ground, in the presence of\nthat great central city which quickly absorbs into itself all the\nancient states of Italy, and Italy itself, and which, though originally\ncomposed of many heterogeneous elements--Latin, Sabine and\nEtruscan--still was very early moulded into an unity of character--and\nwhose ulterior growth and progress, slow indeed at first, but soon as\nfearfully rapid as it was immeasurably great, principally attracts the\nnotice of the historical observer. In the later, and still more in the\nearly, ages of Rome, the national idolatry was less poetically wrought\nand adorned than that of the Greeks--it was altogether much simpler,\nruder and more serious than the latter. Even the word _religio_, to take\nit in its first signification as a second tie, corresponds to a far more\ndefinite and serious object than can be found in the gay mythology of\nthe popular religion of the Greeks. Idolatrous rites were closely\ninterwoven into the whole life of the ancient Romans. As the twins of\nMars, Romulus and Remus, who were suckled by the she-wolf, were called\nthe founders of the city; so Mars himself was honoured by the Romans as\ntheir real progenitor, and principal national divinity--particularly\nunder the name of Gradivus, that is to say the swift for battle, or the\nstrider of the earth. The sacred shields of brass which, on certain\nappointed festivals, were borne in the military dances, the Palladium,\nthe sceptre of the venerable Priam, formed, together with similar relics\nof antiquity, the seven holy pledges of the eternal duration and ever\nflourishing increase of the seven-hilled city, which was honoured under\nthree different names; one whereof was ever kept secret--while the other\ntwo referred to its blooming strength and ever enduring power. The\nancient cities of the Greeks, those of the Italian nations, whether akin\nto them, or otherwise, possessed indeed their tutelary deities, their\nparticular sanctuaries, their highly revered Palladium, some ancient\noracles, and certain religious rites and festivals consecrated to their\nhonour. But it would not be easy to find another example where the\ntraditionary reverence, we might almost say, the old hereditary\ndeification of the city, had from the earliest period, taken such deep\nroot in the minds of men; and where such a formal worship was so\nintimately interwoven with manners, customs, and even maxims of state,\nas among the Romans. And when an universal monarchy had sprung out from\nthis single city, it was still that city--it was still eternal Rome that\nwas ever regarded, not merely as the centre, but as the essence of the\nwhole--the personified conception of the state--the grand idea of the\nempire. The early traditions of the Romans which, though from the\ncommencement of the city they assume the garb of authentic history, (as\nin the pages of Livy for instance,) yet are for a long time to be\nregarded mostly as mere traditions,--evince a fact well entitled to our\nconsideration,--as it serves to show how that strong, inflexible, but\nharsh, Roman character, such as the later records of history display,\nmanifested itself even in the earliest infancy of this people;--it is\nthis, that among no other nation, did historical recollections even of\nthe remotest antiquity exert such a powerful influence on life, or\nstrike so deep a root in the minds of men. Nearly five hundred years had\nelapsed since the time of the elder Brutus, when, in the Roman world now\nso mightily changed, a citizen appealed to the second Brutus in these\nwords--\"Brutus, thou sleepest\"--as if to urge him to that deed which the\nfirst had perpetrated on the proud Tarquin, and by which that celebrated\nname had become identified with the idea of a bold deliverer. An ardent\nhatred towards all kings, and towards royalty itself, which from that\nperiod remained ever deeply fixed in the Roman mind, characterised this\npeople even in the most ancient period of their history. Not only in the\nremarks and reflections of the later Roman historians on the first ages\nof Rome, but in facts themselves, as in the case of Spurius Cassius, we\nmay trace the natural concomitant of this hatred--a passionate jealousy\nof all powerful party-chiefs, and democratic leaders, who were, perhaps\nsuspected, or probably convicted of aspiring to supreme power in the\nstate, and aiming at the establishment of tyranny--as if the Romans had\neven then a clear presentiment of the inevitable fate that awaited an\nempire like theirs, and of the quarter whence their ruin would proceed.\nEven in the first ages, the Patricians and Plebeians appear on the\nhistorical arena, not only as separate classes, such as existed in\nalmost all ancient states, and between whom no matrimonial ties could be\nformed originally at Rome; but as political parties, in a state of\nmutual hostility, each of which strove to obtain the ascendancy in the\nforum and in the state.\n\nThe old Romans of these early times were strangers to those various\nsystems of legislation, those rhetorical treatises of jurisprudence,\nconceived mostly on democratic principles, or to those opposite\npolitical theories composed in an aristocratic spirit, which the Greeks\nthen possessed in such abundance. On the contrary, the Romans manifested\neven then, in the primitive period of their existence, a deep,\nperspicacious, practical sense, and a mighty political instinct, which\nshowed itself in their first institutions of state. Even in the first\nidea of the Tribunate--as a regular mode of popular representation--an\nelement of opposition introduced into the very constitution of the\nstate--there was contained the germ of that mighty political power and\naction, which afterwards a man of energetic character, like Tiberius\nGracchus, knew how to exert. This power, had it been kept within due\nlimits, might have proved most beneficial to the community; and a single\nman, endowed with such a character, and animated by the same spirit of a\ntrue patriotic opposition, has often accomplished more at Rome, than\nwhole parliaments in modern free states. The authority of the Censor,\nnegative and restrictive in itself, but still not merely judicial--and\nwhich over the conduct of persons was very extensive--the exceptional\ninstitution of the Dictatorship, in the early ages of Rome by no means\nso dangerous--were so many just, and practical political discoveries of\nthe Romans, which evince their statesman-like genius, and which even in\nlater times, among other nations, and under various forms, have served\nas real and effectual elements in the constitution of states.\n\nThe interest of those two parties--the Plebeians and the\nPatricians--concurred fully but in one point--the desire which both had\nof constantly invading the neighbouring nations, and obtaining landed\npossessions for themselves, in the conquests they made for the state.\nThe Plebeians ever and again cherished the hope of being able to obtain\nfor their profit, and that of the poorer citizens, a sort of\ndistribution of the state-lands won in war. But as the Patricians were\nmostly invested with all the high offices and dignities in war as well\nas peace, they knew how to turn all the opportunities of conquest to\ntheir best advantage, however much they might on particular occasions\npostpone their private interests as individuals to the general interests\nof the state. Although, so long as their ancient principles\nremained unchanged, the Romans were distinguished for the utmost\ndisinterestedness in regard to their country, and for great simplicity\nof manners, and even frugality in private life, they were in all their\nforeign enterprises, even in the earliest times, exceedingly covetous of\ngain, or rather of land; for it was in land, and the produce of the\nsoil, that their principal, and almost only wealth consisted. The old\nRomans were a thoroughly agricultural people; and it was only at a later\nperiod that commerce, trades and arts were introduced among them; and\neven then they occupied but a subordinate place. Agriculture was even\nhighly honoured by the Romans; and while almost all the celebrated, and\nin general, most of the proper, names among the Greeks were derived from\ngods and heroes, and had a poetical lustre, and glorious significancy,\nit is a circumstance characteristic of the Romans, that the names of\nmany of their most distinguished families, such as Fabius, Lentulus,\nPiso, Cicero and many others were taken from agriculture, and from\nvegetables; while others again, as Secundus, Quintus, Septimus, and\nOctavius, are tolerably prosaic, and are derived from the numbers of the\nold popular reckoning. The science of agriculture forms one of the few\nsubjects on which the Romans produced writers truly original. That of\njurisprudence, in which they were most at home, which they cultivated\nwith peculiar care, and which they very considerably enlarged, had its\nfoundation in the written laws of the primitive period of their history;\nand in their elder jurisprudence, the Agrarian system very evidently\nprevails. As a robust, agricultural people, they were eminently fitted\nfor military service; and in practised vigour and constancy under every\nprivation, the Roman infantry with the vigorous masses of its legion,\nsurpassed all military bodies that have ever been organized.\n\nThe Roman state from its origin, and according to its first\nconstitution, was nothing else than a well organized school of war, a\npermanent establishment for conquest. Among other nations, as among the\nPersians and Greeks, the desire of military glory and the lust of\nconquest was only a temporary enthusiasm, called forth by some special\ncause, or some mighty motive--a sudden sally--the thought of a moment.\nAmong the Romans it is precisely the systematically slow and progressive\nmarch of their first conquests, their inflexible perseverance, their\nunremitting activity, the vigilant use of every advantageous\nopportunity, which strike the observer, and explain the cause of their\nmighty success in after-times. That unshaken constancy under misfortune,\nwhich ever characterised the Romans, they displayed even at this early\nperiod during the conquest of their city by the Gauls; though this\nmisfortune, like that people itself, was but a transient calamity. In\ngeneral, the Romans never evinced greater energy than when they were\novercome, or when they met with an unexpected resistance. Sometimes in a\nmoment of extreme urgency, their generals, like the Consul Decius Mus,\ntaking a chosen body of troops, invoked the national Gods, devoted\nthemselves to death, and rushed on the superior forces of the enemy,\nwhereby though they fell the victims of their zeal, they saved the army\nfrom the menaced ignominy of defeat, and achieved a signal victory. With\nsuch a character, such unshaken fortitude and perseverance under\nmisfortune, we can well conceive that in a state so constituted like\ntheirs, the Romans, by their indefatigable activity in war, should in no\nvery great space of time have conquered and subdued all the surrounding\nnations and states of Italy. It was thus they successively overcame the\nkindred and confederated tribes of Latium, and the rude Sabines; that,\nafter a long and obstinate siege of the Tuscan city of Veii, they became\nmasters of the Etrurian League, lords of the beautiful Campania, and\nvanquished the warlike Samnites on the Apennine range, and on the coast\nof the Adriatic. They now cast their eyes on the rich provinces of Magna\nGraecia. In the war against Tarentum, which was in alliance with Pyrrhus,\nKing of Epirus, they came for the first time in contact with the great\nextra-Italic Greek powers, and had to encounter, in the ranks of the\nenemy, the unwonted spectacle of war-elephants, which were there\nemployed according to the Asiatic custom. After the loss of the first\nbattles, they were victorious; and they now added Apulia and Calabria to\ntheir conquests. Each step in the career at victory drew after it new\nembarrassments, new occasions, and new matter for future wars. The\ninhabitants of Syracuse, who had been for some time governed by tyrants,\nformed on the retreat of Pyrrhus, an alliance with the Carthaginians,\nthen masters of half of Sicily, and sought their protection against the\nRomans, who were confederated with their enemies, another party in the\nisland. This brought on the first Punic war with that Republic, then\nmistress of the sea. In this warfare against Pyrrhus and the\nCarthaginians, the Romans, who had been hitherto confined within the\nsecluded circle of the petty states of Italy, appeared for the first\ntime on the great historical theatre of the then political world. In\nthat age which was immediately subsequent to the time of Alexander the\nGreat, the different Macedonian and other Greek powers of importance\nformed, together with Egypt and Carthage, a variously connected system\nof states, in one respect, not unlike the political system of modern\nEurope, at the end of the 17th and during the greater part of the 18th\ncentury. For, according to a principle of the balance of power, each\nstate sought to strengthen itself by alliances, and to repress an\noverwhelming ascendancy, without on that account at all relaxing its\nefforts for its own aggrandizement. That on one hand, the fluctuating\ncondition and internal troubles of those countries, and on the other,\nthe fresh youthful vigour, the steady perseverance and constancy of the\nRoman people, would soon put an end to this system of equilibrium--to\nthese political oscillations between the different states, and bring\nabout the complete triumph and decided ascendancy of the Romans, might\nindeed have been easily foreseen, and was in the very nature of things.\nAfter the first Punic war, the Romans to the conquest of Sicily added\nthat of Corsica and Sardinia; and they next subdued the Cisalpine Gauls\nin the North of Italy. When even Hannibal, the most formidable enemy the\nRoman Republic ever had to encounter, and the one who had the most\ndeeply studied its true character, and the danger threatening the world\nfrom that quarter; when even he, after the many great victories which,\nin a long series of years, he had obtained over the Romans, in the\nsecond Punic war; though he shook the power, was unable to break the\nspirit of this people;--when this was the case, one might regard the\ngreat political question of the then civilized world as settled; and it\ncould no longer be a matter of doubt that that city justly denominated\nStrength, and which even from of old had been the idol of her sons, (who\naccounted every thing as nought in comparison with her interests); that\nthat city, I say, was destined to conquer the world, and establish an\nempire, the like whereof had never yet been founded by preceding\nconquerors. The second Punic war terminated under the elder Scipio\nbefore the walls of Carthage, and it completed the destruction of that\nrival of Rome, at least as a political power. The Princes and states\nthat while it was yet time, should have formed a firm and steadfast\nleague against the common foe, fell now separately under the sword of\nthe victors, and the yoke of conquest. In the further progress of their\ntriumphs, the conquerors knew how to assume a certain character of\ngenerosity, and give a certain colour of magnanimity to their acts, in\nthe eyes of a gazing and terrified world. Thus, for instance, after the\ndefeat of Philip, King of Macedon, they declared to deluded Greece that\nshe was free; and again, Antiochus the Great, whose arrogance had given\noffence to many, and whose overthrow was in consequence the subject of\nvery general joy, was compelled to cede the Lesser Asia as far as Mount\nTaurus; and the victors gave away the conquered provinces and kingdoms\nto the Princes in their alliance, and affected not to have the intention\nof subduing and keeping all for themselves. For it was yet much too soon\nto let the unconquered states and nations perceive that all, without\ndistinction, were destined, one after the other, to become the provinces\nof the all-absorbing empire of Rome. Thus now overpassing the limits of\nGreece, the Romans had obtained a firm footing in Asia; and this first\nstep was soon enough to be succeeded by other and still further\nadvances. Historians have often remarked the decisive moment when Caesar,\nafter an instant's reflection and delay, crossed the Rubicon; but we may\nask now, when Rome herself had passed her Rubicon, where was that\nhistorical limit--that last boundary-line of ambition, after passing\nwhich no return, no halt were possible; if now, when all right, all\njustice, every human term and limit to ambition were lost sight of, if\nnow idolized Rome in the fulness of her Pagan pride, and in her rapid\ncareer of destruction, marching from one crime against the world to\nanother, descending deeper and deeper into the abyss of interminable,\nforeign and domestic bloodshed, was, from the summit of her triumphs, to\nsink beyond redemption, down to Caligula and Nero?--We might point out,\nas an instance of this ever growing and reckless arrogance, the moment\nwhen the last king of Macedon,[64] not more than a century and a half\nfrom the death of Alexander the Great, was led in triumph into the city\nof the conquerors, a captive and in chains, to sate the eyes of the\nRoman populace. It entered into the high designs of Providence in the\ngovernment of the world, during this middle and second period of\nuniversal history, that each of the conquering nations should receive\nits full measure of justice from another worse than itself, emerging\nsuddenly from obscurity, and chosen as the instrument of its\nannihilation or subjection. But a still more decisive example of the\nspirit of Roman conquests was the cruel destruction of Carthage in the\nthird Punic war, begun without any assignable motive and from pure\ncaprice. In this case no other resistance could be expected than the\nresistance of despair, which here indeed showed itself in all its\nenergy. For seventeen days the city was in flames, and the numbers that\nwere exterminated amounted to seven hundred thousand souls, including\nthe women and children sold into slavery; so that this scene of horror\nserved as an early prelude to the later destruction of Jerusalem. The\nwiser and more lenient Scipios had been against this war of\nextermination, and had had to contend with the self-willed rancour of\nthe elder Cato; yet a Scipio conducted this war, and was the last\nconqueror over the ashes of Carthage. And this was a man universally\naccounted to be of a mild character and generous nature; and such he\nreally was in other respects and in private life. But this reputation\nmust be apparently estimated by the Roman standard, for whenever Rome\nand her interests were at stake, all mankind and the lives of nations\nwere considered as of no importance. Besides, it is really not in the\npower of a General to do away with the cruelty of any received system of\nwarfare.\n\nThe example of the first great re-action of nations, too late aroused,\nwas set by Greece in the war of the Achaian league. It terminated like\nall the preceding wars;--Corinth was consumed, and its destruction\ninvolved that of an infinite number of noble and beautiful works of art,\nbelonging to the better ages of Greece. Among the nations of the North\nand West that lived under a yet free and natural form of government, the\nSpaniards distinguished themselves by a peculiar obstinacy of\nresistance. Scipio was unable to conquer Numantia; the people who\ndefended their liberty behind this rampart, set fire to the city, and\nthe remaining defenders devoted themselves to a voluntary death. In the\npublic triumph which the Romans celebrated on this occasion, they were\nable to exhibit only a few brave Lusitanians of a gigantic size. Now\ncommenced the civil wars:--the first was occasioned by Tiberius\nGracchus, then leader of the popular party at Rome. To undertake the\ncomplete justification of any one of the leading men in the Roman\nparties, would be an arduous, not to say impracticable task; yet we may\npositively assert of the elder Gracchus, that he was the best man of his\nparty; as the same observation will apply to the Scipios in the opposite\nparty of the Patricians. The proposal of Gracchus was this--that the\nrights of Roman citizens should be extended to the rest of Italy. It was\nin the very nature of things that such a change, or at least one very\nsimilar, should now take place, as in fact it did somewhat later; for\nafter the conquest of so many provinces, the disproportion between the\none all-ruling city and the vast regions which it had subdued, was much\ntoo great to continue long. The armed insurrection of all the Italian\nnations that occurred soon after, sufficiently proves of what vital\nimportance this measure was considered. But the pride of the ruling\nPatricians was extremely offended at this claim--they regarded it as an\nattempt to subvert the ancient constitution of the country--and, in the\nrevolt that ensued, Tiberius Gracchus lost his life. From that time\nforward the principles apparently contended for on both sides were mere\npretexts--whether it were the maintenance of the law, and of the ancient\nconstitution, as asserted by the Patricians--or the just claims of the\npeople, and the necessary changes which the altered circumstances of the\ntimes demanded, as alleged by the opposite party. It was now an open\nstruggle for ascendancy between a few factious leaders and their\npartisans--a civil war carried on between fierce and formidable\nOligarchs.\n\nThe effusion of blood was still greater in the troubles which the\nyounger Caius Gracchus occasioned, and which had the same motive and the\nsame object as the preceding commotions, though conducted with more\nanimosity, and stained by greater crimes; and in the Patrician party,\nthe noble Scipio, the hero of the third Punic war, fell a victim of\nassassination. Murders and poisoning were now every day more common; and\nit became the practice to carry daggers under the mantle. On this\noccasion we may cite an observation, made not by any father of the\nchurch, or any Christian moralist; but by a celebrated German historian,\nwho was in other respects an enthusiastic admirer of the Republican\nheroism of the ancients: \"Rome, the mistress of the world,\" says he,\n\"drunk with the blood of nations, began now to rage in her entrails.\" Of\nMarius and Sylla, on whom next devolved the conduct of the Patrician and\nPlebeian parties in the civil war, now conducted on a more extended\nscale, it is difficult to decide which of the two surpassed the other in\ncruelty and blood-thirstiness. Marius was indeed of a ruder, and more\nsavage character--but Sylla evinced perhaps a more systematic and\nrelentless ferocity. Both were great generals; and it was only after\nobtaining splendid victories over foreign nations that they could think\nof turning their fury against their native city, after having spent\ntheir rage on the rest of mankind. The victories of Marius had delivered\nRome from the mighty danger with which she had been menaced, by the\nirruption of the powerful tribes of the Cimbri and Teutones--the first\nfore-runner of the Great Northern migration. Danger served but to arouse\nthe Roman people to more triumphant exertions; and every effort of\nhostile resistance, when once overcome, tended only to confirm their\nuniversal dominion. The greatest and most formidable of these efforts of\nresistance was made by Mithridates, King of Pontus--it began by the\nmurder of eighty thousand Romans in his dominions, and the simultaneous\nrevolt of all the Italian nations against the Roman sway. No enemy of\nthe Romans, since Hannibal, had formed such a deep-laid plan as\nMithridates, whose intention it was to unite in one armed confederacy\nagainst Rome all the nations of the North, from the regions of Mount\nCaucasus, as far as Gaul and the Alps. By his victories over this enemy,\nSylla prepared to return to Rome, torn and convulsed by civil war; and\non his entry into the city, he treated it with all the infuriated\nvengeance of a conqueror, proscribed, gave full loose to slaughter, and\nperpetrated the most execrable atrocities. We may cite as a strange\ninstance of the still surviving greatness of the Roman character, the\nfact, that Sylla, immediately after all this immense bloodshed, as if\nevery thing had passed in perfect conformity to law and order, laid down\nthe Dictatorship, retired peacefully to his estate, and there prepared\nto write his own history. In one respect, however, he was a flatterer of\nthe multitude--he seems to have thoroughly understood the Roman people,\nfor he was the first to introduce the games of the circus, those bloody\ncombats of animals, those cruel Gladiatorial fights, which afterwards,\nunder the Emperors, became like bread, one of the most indispensable\nnecessaries to the Roman people, and one of the most important objects\nof concern to its rulers. For these games, where the Roman eye delighted\nto contemplate men devoted to certain death contend and wrestle with the\nmost savage animals, Pompey on one occasion introduced six hundred lions\non the arena, and Augustus, four hundred panthers. Thus did a thirst for\nblood, after having been long the predominant passion of the\nparty-leaders of this all-ruling people, become an actual craving--a\nfestive entertainment for the multitude. And yet the Romans of this age,\nwhen we consider their conduct in war--in the battles and victories they\nwon, or the strength of character they evinced, whether on the tented\nfield, or on the arena of political contests, displayed an admirable, we\nmight sometimes say a super-human, energy; so that we are often at a\nloss how to reconcile our admiration with the detestation which their\nactions unavoidably inspire. It was as if the iron-footed God of war,\nGradivus, so highly revered from of old by the people of Romulus,\nactually bestrode the globe, and at every step struck out new torrents\nof blood; or as if the dark Pluto had emerged from the abyss of eternal\nnight, escorted by all the vengeful spirits of the lower world, by all\nthe Furies of passion and insatiable cupidity, by the blood-thirsty\ndemons of murder, to establish his visible empire, and erect his throne\nfor ever on the earth. There can be no doubt that if the Roman history\nwere divested of its accustomed rhetoric, of all the patriotic maxims\nand trite sayings of politicians, and were presented with strict and\nminute accuracy in all its living reality, every humane mind would be\ndeeply shocked at such a picture of tragic truth, and penetrated with\nthe profoundest detestation and horror. The licentiousness of Roman\nmanners, too, was really gigantic; so that the moral corruption of the\nGreeks appears in comparison a mere infant essay in the school of vice.\n\nThe civil wars that next followed had in all essential points the same\ncharacter with the first, though the fearful recollection, which still\ndwelt in men's minds, of the times of Marius and Sylla, tended to\nintroduce at first a certain caution in all external proceedings; but in\nthe course of their progress, these wars resumed the sanguinary\ncharacter of the earlier civil contests. The proper circle of the Roman\nconquests, whose natural circumference was now marked out by all the\ncountries bordering on the Mediterranean, was, in the second period of\nthe civil wars, pretty well filled up by Caesar and Pompey--by Pompey on\nthe side of Asia, and by Caesar on the side of the incomparably more\nformidable and more warlike nations of the North-western frontier. The\nconquest of Gaul was achieved by an uncommon effusion of human blood,\neven according to a Roman estimation; and in the fifty battles related\nby Caesar to have been fought in the Gallic war, in the complete\nsubjugation of Spain, in the first wars on the Germanic frontiers and in\nBritain, as well as in the North of Africa against Juba, and against the\nson of Mithridates, the number of men left on the field is computed at\ntwelve hundred thousand; and it is to be observed that as Caesar is his\nown historian, these estimates have in part been given by himself. Yet\nwas he praised for his goodness and the mildness of his character; but\nthis praise must be measured by the Roman standard, and it is so far\ntrue that Caesar was by no means vindictive, nor in general subject to\npassion, nor cruel without a motive. But, whenever his interest required\nit, he was careless what blood he spilled. The war between Caesar and\nPompey extended over all the provinces and regions of the Roman world;\nbut, when conqueror, Caesar formed and followed up the plan of completing\nand consolidating his victory by a system of lenity and conciliation.\nWith all his indefatigable activity and consummate wisdom, with all the\nequanimity, prudence and energy of his character, he appears to have\nbeen still weak enough to imagine that the laurels he had acquired, in a\nway unequalled by any, were insufficient without the diadem--at least he\ngave occasion for such a suspicion. And so the second Brutus perpetrated\non his person the act, for which the elder had been so highly commended\nby all Roman historians. To relate the subsequent civil war of Brutus\nand Cassius, the reconciliation between Antony and Octavius, which\ninvolved the death of Cicero, the new rupture and war between the latter\nrivals, would serve only to swell this account of Rome and her\ndestinies. These contests terminated in the establishment of monarchy,\nwhen the bloody proscriptions and civil wars of preceding times were\nforgotten, and Octavius, under the name of Augustus, appeared as the\nrestorer of general peace, and the first absolute monarch of the Roman\nworld;--a monarch whose long reign was on the whole very happy, when\ncompared with previous times, and who during his life was half-deified\nby his subjects. Unlimited power was still clothed and half veiled in\nthe old republican forms and expressions; and the recollection of\nCaesar's fate was too present to the mind of the cautious Augustus, for\nhim ever to neglect those forms and usages. It would really appear as if\nthe world were destined to breathe for a time in peace, and to repose\nawhile from those earlier wars, before another and a higher peace\ndescended, and became visible on the earth--and along with that other,\nhigher and divine peace, a new and spiritual combat, waged not with the\nwarlike parties of old, nor even with external and earthly power, but\nwith the secret and internal cause of all those agitations, and all that\ninjustice in the world.\n\nA golden age of literature and poetry served now to adorn the general\npeace, which the mighty Augustus had conferred on the conquered world.\nThis poetry was however but a late harvest which flourished towards the\nautumn of declining Paganism. Plautus and Terence we can regard merely\nas tolerably successful imitators of the Greeks. The beautiful diction\nand poetry of Virgil and Horace are in a general survey of literature\nchiefly valuable, inasmuch as they gave a noble refinement to a language\nwhich, in modern ages, and even still among ourselves, has been\nuniversally current; but all this poetry, including that, which the\nricher, more copious, and more inventive fancy of Ovid produced, can be\nconsidered by posterity as only a very thin gleaning after the full\nbloom and rich harvest of Grecian poetry and art. The real poetry of the\nRoman people lay elsewhere than in those artificial compositions of\nGreek scholars. It must be sought for in the festive games of the\ncircus, which the prudent Augustus never neglected--in those theatrical\ncombats, where the Gladiator, wrestling with death, knew how to fall and\ndie with dignity, when he wished to obtain the plaudits of the\nmultitude--in that circus, in fine, which so often afterwards resounded\nwith the cry of an infuriated populace;--\"Christianos ad leones,\" \"the\nChristians to the lions, the Christians to the lions.\"\n\nIn the department of history, the case was very different from what it\nwas in poetry. There the strong practical sense of the Romans, their\nprofound political sagacity, the far wider circle of their political\nrelations, gave them a decided advantage over the Greeks, who can shew\nno historian, possessed of the simple grandeur of Caesar;--a style as\nrapid, and as straight-forward, as the exploits of Caesar himself; or\ndistinguished, like Tacitus, by that deep insight into the abyss of\nhuman corruption; while to Livy must be assigned a place by the side at\nleast of the most illustrious Greeks. Among the Romans, political\neloquence and philosophy, by that union of the two, such as prevails in\nCicero's writings, as well as by the greater magnitude and practical\nimportance of the subjects which both found for discussion, possess a\npeculiar charm and value. At this period the study of Greek philosophy\nwas regarded and prosecuted by the Romans merely as an useful auxiliary\nto eloquence; and in the general depravity of morals, and amid the utter\nindifference for public misery and universal bloodshed, the philosophy\nof Epicurus naturally found the most admirers. It was only at a later\nperiod, when, under the better emperors, some men had undertaken the\ntask of the moral regeneration of the Roman people and the Roman state,\nthat those who entertained this great design sought for the last plank\nof national safety in the stoical philosophy, which harmonized so well\nwith the austere gravity of the Roman character. Then this philosophy\nobtained numerous followers among the Romans, as in earlier times it had\nfound favour with many of them, especially among the Jurists.\n\nIn the whole circle of human sciences, jurisprudence is that department\nof intellect, in which the Romans have thought with the most\noriginality, and have exerted the greatest influence; and which, by\nmeans of their writers, has obtained at once a very great degree of\nrefinement, and a very wide diffusion. Caesar had formed the project of a\ngeneral digest of Roman laws; but this great design, like so many others\nhe had entertained, was left unexecuted; and the age of Augustus at\nleast was distinguished by two great lawyers of opposite schools. It is\nby the scientific jurisprudence which they have bequeathed to posterity,\nmore than by any thing else, that the Romans have exerted a mighty\ninfluence on after-ages. It must strike us at first sight as singular,\nthat a nation which, in its external relations, had risen to greatness,\nand indeed had founded its greatness, on so fearful an excess of\ninjustice, should have risen to such eminence in the science of\njurisprudence, as the Romans undoubtedly have. But the injustice of\ntheir conduct towards other states and nations this people well knew how\nto conceal under legal forms, and establish on legal titles; and it\noften happened that, by the inconsistent conduct of other nations, they\nwere able to give a colouring of equity to their acts, and shew on their\nside the strict letter of law.\n\nIn the next place, the Roman jurisprudence regarded more immediately the\nrelations of private life, and all the artificial forms of civil law;\nand we can well conceive that a people like the Romans, distinguished\nfor so sound a judgment and such strong practical sense, and whose minds\nwere so exclusively bent on civil life, and its various relations,\nshould have attained such distinction in the science of civil\njurisprudence, notwithstanding the enormous iniquity of their conduct in\nthe wider historical department of international law; and here we may\nfind an explanation of that apparent contradiction between law and\ninjustice, such as we find frequent examples of in human nature and in\nthe records of history.\n\nThere is also another element of contradiction in the Roman law,\nconsidered both in itself, and in its relation to other codes--a\ncontradiction which strongly pervaded the whole theory of that\nlegislation, and may furnish us with a clue to a right judgment on the\nRoman jurisprudence, and on the influence it has exercised on posterity.\nThis is the distinction between strict or absolute law, and the law of\nequity, that is to say, the law qualified by historical circumstances.\nIn the Germanic law, as it is a law of custom and ancient usage, a law\nqualified by times and circumstances, the principle of equity is more\npredominant; and we have, indeed, reason to regret that this native and\noriginal legislation of the modern European nations should, by the\nprevailing influence of the more scientific jurisprudence of ancient\nRome, have been cast into the back-ground, in proportion as those\nnations began to mistake the true character of their historical\nantiquity. The Roman jurisprudence, as it deals in rigid formulas, and\nadheres to the strict letter, inclines more towards rigid and absolute\nlaw; and its spirit has something akin to the stern international policy\nof the ancient Romans. But is this strict and absolute law a fit\ncriterion to apply to earthly concerns, can it be a true standard of\nhuman justice, in its more large and general applications to the great\ntransactions of universal history, and in its relations to divine\njustice? Every thing absolute (and such undoubtedly is _strict law_, in\nthe relations of private, and still more in those of public life),\neverything absolute is sure to provoke its contrary, and if continued,\nwill occasion successive reactions, that can terminate only in the\nmutual destruction of conflicting parties--the inevitable result of all\ncontests carried to extreme lengths--unless some higher principle of\npeace intervene to compose and determine them by a divine law of equity.\n\nBut if this conciliating principle do not pronounce its sentence, or if\nit be not attended to, extreme injustice only can spring from this rigid\nand inflexible application of extreme law; and this is quite in the\nspirit of the old saying of the Jurists, which we must here apply in a\nmore general sense, in order to estimate with truth and accuracy the\nnature of the contests which divide the world. \"Let justice be done,\"\nthey say (and the word is here used in the juridical sense of strict and\nabsolute law), \"let justice be done, though the world should be ruined.\"\nAnd we may well say in reply:--Woe to mankind, woe to every individual,\nwoe to the world, were they doomed to be finally judged according to\nthis rigid justice, and this rigid justice only, by _Him_ who alone has\nthe power and the right to dispense such severe justice unto men, and\njudge them by its rules. But since such full and inexorable justice\nbelongs to God only, who is incapable of error; and since all human\njustice is but the temporary delegate of the divine; it should\nnecessarily be mild, indulgent, qualified by circumstances; and should\non the principle of equity be as lenient as possible, and be ever\nmindful of its due limits. And this principle is applicable to the most\nimportant as well as the most insignificant relations of life, and is so\nthoroughly connected with them all that, according as we adopt the one\nor the other principle of strict and absolute law, or of mild equity,\nthe whole of our conduct, opinions, and views of the world must differ.\nThe power of the state is only a temporary, and delegated, power,\ndestined to accomplish the ends of divine justice; and this dignity,\nindeed, is sufficiently exalted, and the responsibility attached to it\nsufficiently great; but this supreme human justice, unless it disregard\nits own limits, as well as those of mankind, is not divine justice, nor\nthe immediate authority of God, nor God himself.\n\nThe old hereditary vice and fundamental error of the Roman government,\nand indeed of the Roman people, was that political idolatry of the\nstate, to which the false theory of strict and absolute law was of\nitself calculated to lead. Although the absolute power of Augustus was\nstill somewhat veiled under the old forms of the Republic, yet even in\nhis reign commenced the formal deification of the person of the Prince,\nand, under the succeeding emperors, it exceeded all bounds, and\ndescended to the basest forms of adulation. And if even this idolatry\nhad been paid, not so exclusively to the person of an Augustus or a\nTiberius, as to the idea of the state identified with that person; and\nif thus the real object of that Pagan worship had been in the latest, as\nin the earliest, times, Rome, the eternally prosperous, the\neverlastingly powerful, the world-destroying, and people-devouring,\nRome, to which every thing must fall a sacrifice; still it was not the\nless a thorough political idolatry. And as a sensual worship of Nature\neminently characterized the poetical religion of the Greeks--as the\nabusive rites of magic were peculiar to the false mysteries of Egypt--so\nthis third and greatest aberration of Paganism,--political idolatry in\nits most frightful shape, formed the distinguishing character and\nleading principle of the Roman state, from the earliest to the latest\nperiod of its history.\n\nUnder Augustus the Roman empire was well nigh rounded off in extent,\nsince the geographical situation, as we before observed, of all the\ncountries bordering on the Mediterranean might be considered a\nsufficiently wide natural frontier. The counties on the coast of Africa\nwere protected by the contiguous deserts; on the Northern side of the\nempire, which was more menaced by invasion, the strongly fortified\nborders of the Rhine and the Danube formed a secure barrier. Towards the\neastern and Asiatic frontier, the Parthians were indeed a powerful and\nformidable enemy, but there was no probability they would ever seek, as\nthe Persians had once done, to penetrate so far beyond their boundaries;\nwhile, on the other hand, the Romans had no real interest in extending\ntheir conquests further into that region, or into the interior parts of\ncentral Asia, as such a policy would only lead them further from the\ncentre of their empire and their power, now unalterably fixed in Italy\nand the old, eternal city. The thoughts and feelings of all the better\nRomans were no longer turned on the aggrandizement of their empire, but\nsolely and exclusively on a great internal regeneration of public\nmorals, and as far as was practicable, of the state itself, according to\nthose ideal conceptions which they formed of old Rome in her better and\nmore prosperous days. These projects of social regeneration were nearly\nin the same spirit and of the same tendency as those which the better\nemperors of succeeding ages, a Trajan and a Marcus Aurelius actually\nattempted to accomplish. Others again were filled with apprehensions for\nthe future; and well indeed might they entertain the most alarming\npresentiments; for when the licentiousness of public morals was growing\nto a more and more fearful height, and a succession of indolent emperors\nwas hastening the downfall of the state, the strong fortifications of\nthe Northern frontier could afford little protection, and the nations of\nthe North must burst in without resistance upon the empire. This event\ndid really occur, though at a much later period; but all that was to\nprecede that event--the quarter whence the new principle would rise up\nin the world, that was to overcome Rome herself and regenerate\nmankind--all this was certainly not anticipated by any Roman of those\ntimes, however generous and exalted might be his sentiments, and\nprofound and penetrative his understanding. Nay, when this phenomenon\ndid actually appear, it was but too evident that they were at first\nunable to seize and comprehend its meaning and purport. And what was\nthen that new power, which was to conquer, and did really conquer, the\nearthly conquerors of the world? The old universal empire of Persia, and\nthe subsequent one of Macedon, had long since passed away, and\ndisappeared from the face of the earth. The oppressive military\ndespotism of Rome had to fear no rival that would at all equal her in\npower. The influence of the Greek Philosophy, which had previously sunk\ninto great degeneracy, was completely debased under the yoke of Roman\ndomination, and barely sufficed to adorn and dignify the Roman sway,\nstill less to work a fundamental change and reform in the Roman\ngovernment.\n\nIt was the divine power of Love, tried in sufferings, and sacrificing to\nhigh Love itself not only life, but every earthly desire; and from which\nproceeded the new words of a new life, a new light of moral and divine\nscience, that was to unfold new views of the world, introduce a new\norganization of society, and give a new form to human existence. And\nsuch was that primitive energy of Christian love, which displayed itself\nin the internal harmony, and close union of the Christian church; in the\nrapid diffusion of its doctrines through all the countries and among all\nthe nations of the then known world; in its courageous resistance to all\nthe assaults of persecution; in the careful preservation of its purity\nfrom all alloy and corruption; in its firmer consolidation and more\nmanifold development in words, and works and deeds; in writings and in\nlife; that not many generations, and but a few centuries had passed\naway, before Christianity became a ruling power in the world--an\nindirect and spiritual power indeed, but more than any other active and\ninfluential.\n\nA passage on Elias in the Old Testament, which we have already had\noccasion to cite, may be applied to the imperceptible beginnings of this\ngreat moral revolution, produced in the world by a new effort of God's\npower. When the prophet, from the bottom of his soul had sighed after\ndeath, and had journeyed for the space of forty days towards the holy\nmountain of Horeb, the splendour and omnipotence of the Deity were\nrevealed to him, and passed before his mortal eyes. There came a great\nand strong wind, which overthrew the mountains and split the rocks; but,\nas the scripture saith, God was not in the wind. There came afterwards a\nviolent earthquake with fire--but God was neither in the earthquake, nor\nin the fire. Now there arose the soft breath and gentle whistling of a\ntender air: in this, Elias recognized the immediate presence of his God,\nand in awe and reverence he veiled his face. Such was the origin of\nChristianity, as compared with the all-subduing and world-convulsing\nsway of the conquering nations of preceding ages.\n\nIn the last years of Augustus, the first deified Emperor--occurs the\nbirth of our Saviour in the time of Tiberius, the foundation of the\nChristian religion;--and in the reign of Nero, the first perfectly\nauthentic record of that great event in the Roman history. There is\nindeed an account which says that, previously, Tiberius, on the report\nof the Roman governor, Pontius Pilate, had received information of the\nnew religion, and had made a formal proposal to the Senate to place\nChrist among the Gods, according to the Roman custom, and to declare him\nworthy of divine honours. It is true indeed, that the single testimony\nof Tertullian, on which this account rests, is not of such weight and\nhistorical importance as not to be obnoxious to many serious doubts,\nwhich perhaps however, have been carried somewhat too far. It still\nremains a clear historical testimony on a matter of fact; and as long as\nthis is susceptible of a natural explanation, it argues a perverse\nspirit of historical criticism, or rather a total absence of all\ncriticism, to be ever suspecting fabrications, and supposititious\nwritings. That an account of this great event might, nay must almost\nnecessarily, have been transmitted to Rome by the Roman Procurator of\nthe province of Judea, is proved by the narrative of Tacitus, who\nconnects the name of this governor with the first mention of the\nChristians. Such an account may have been easily sent even by the Roman\ncaptains, who were in Palestine, and one of whom we know, as an\neye-witness, gave such a memorable testimony in favour of the Son of\nGod, who had died upon the cross; for, according to the general\ntradition of the church, this man afterwards became a Christian. There\nis again in the character of Tiberius nothing at all at variance with\nthis account; for however dark, and mistrustful, and cruel, and corrupt\nmight be the character of that Emperor, we cannot deny he was possessed\nof a powerful and profound understanding. He was by no means\nunsusceptible of religious impressions, nor indifferent on matters of\nreligion; but he followed therein his own peculiar views and opinions;\nand hence it is quite natural that his attention should be easily drawn\nto any extraordinary religious event. He detested, and even persecuted\nthe Egyptian idolatry, and the Jewish worship, and ordered that the\nsacerdotal robes and sacred vessels of their priests should be burned.\nHe had a strong faith in destiny, was somewhat addicted to astrology,\nand dreaded signs in the heavens. If his hostility towards the Jews and\nhis persecution of that nation, be alledged as an objection to the truth\nof this narrative, (as if it were absolutely necessary that he should\nhave confounded the Christians with the Jews); we may reply that this is\na purely arbitrary hypothesis, and that it is far more natural to\nconclude that, when Tiberius had received from Pilate, or other Roman\ncaptains, certain intelligence of the life and death of our Saviour, he\nwas no doubt informed by these eye-witnesses of the hatred and\npersecution which our Saviour had sustained from the Jews. The single\nfact indeed, that Christianity was so much opposed to the Pagan worship\nand the political idolatry of the Romans--as for instance to the\nsacrifice before the image of the Emperor--was in all probability not\nstated nor clearly explained in this first account, composed by persons\nvery little acquainted with the true nature of the new Revelation.\nOtherwise such an account would have produced on a man imbued with Roman\nprejudices no other impression but that of aversion and disgust. The\nidea and proposal itself of regarding an extraordinary man endowed with\nwonderful and divine power, at God and as worthy of divine honours, has\nnothing at all improbable in itself, or at all inconsistent with Roman\nrites and usages, of with Roman opinions respecting Gods and deified\nmen. The only thing really improbable in the whole affair, is that the\nSenate of that time should have dared to oppose and contradict Tiberius\nin this matter. However, if the Senate, as we may easily imagine, were\nhostile to the proposal of Tiberius, it was easy for them to adopt some\nevasive form, and indirectly to impede and set aside this matter, which\nas it regarded old national rites, fell entirely within their\njurisdiction. But this circumstance, as we said before, is the only\nthing which appears at all exaggerated in this account. It is easy to\nunderstand from this how the proposition of Tiberius, which was never\ncarried into execution should have fallen into complete oblivion, and\nshould never have come to the knowledge of Tacitus; as we may conclude,\nfrom his account of the Christians, that he would not otherwise have\nsuffered this circumstance to pass unnoticed. Singular and remarkable as\nthis fact may be, it is of no importance in itself; it forms only a\nsingle incident in the strange and contradictory impressions which the\nnew religion produced on the minds of the Romans. A passage of\nSuetonius, in his history of Claudius, would show that the Christians\nwere confounded with the Jews, for, speaking of that Emperor, he says,\n\"he expelled the Jews from the Capital, for, at the instigation of\n_Chrestus_, they were ever exciting troubles in the state.\" _Chrestus_\nin the Greek pronunciation, has the same sound with Christus; and we may\neasily conceive that what the Christians said of their invisible Lord\nand Master, that he interdicted them such and such Pagan rites, may in a\nmatter so totally strange and unintelligible to the Romans, have been\neasily misunderstood, as applying to a chief and party-leader actually\nin existence. In the same way, by the troubles spoken of in the passage\nabove cited, may be understood the accustomed and just refusal of the\nChristians to comply with the illicit demands of the Pagans.\n\nA fuller light is thrown on this subject by the narrative of Tacitus in\nhis history of Nero; and, however much the Christian religion may be\nmisrepresented by the Roman historian, his account has still a character\nthoroughly historical, and amidst its very misrepresentations, is\nperfectly intelligible, if we take care to distinguish the chief\nhistorical traits. When Nero, at the height of his crimes and\npresumption had set Rome on fire, in order to have a lively and dramatic\nspectacle of the burning of Troy, he afterwards strove to screen himself\nfrom the odium of this misdeed, and to throw the blame entirely upon the\nChristians, who must have been then tolerably numerous in Rome. Tacitus\nthinks they were not the authors of the conflagration laid to their\ncharge; and his feelings revolt at the inhuman cruelties which Nero\ninflicted upon them; but, he adds, many horrible things were said of\nthem, and that it was known in particular they were animated by\nsentiments of hatred towards the whole human race. That we are to\nunderstand by this hatred towards the human race nothing more than that\nrigid rejection by the Christians of all the idolatrous rites, maxims\nand doctrines of the Heathen world, is perfectly evident of itself.\nAmong the horrible things, of which the Christians were accused, we are\nin all probability to understand _the repasts of Thyestes_, for their\nenemies make use of that very term in their accusations;--accusations\nwhich were received with eager credulity by a populace that held them in\nabhorrence. Although this charge was no doubt afterwards the effect of\nmalicious calumny, and deliberate falsehood, yet it is very possible\nthat a gross misconception may originally have given rise to it, and\nthat this accusation, egregiously false as it was, proceeded from an\nobscure and confused knowledge of the mystery of the holy sacrifice, and\nof the reception of the Sacrament in that divine feast of love\nsolemnized in the Christian assemblies.\n\nEven in the official report, which the better and well-meaning younger\nPliny transmitted to Trajan in the year 120, while he was governor of\nPontus and Bithynia, we can clearly discern the embarrassment of the\ngenerous Roman, who was at a loss how to consider the new religion, so\nperfectly mysterious and totally inexplicable did it appear to him; and\nwho in consequence was quite undetermined what he was to do, and how he\nwas to treat the matter. He writes that, according to the confessions\nwrung from the Christians by torture, after the Roman custom, they were\nfound to entertain an excessive, strange, heterogeneous, an very\nperverse, faith of superstition; but that in other respects they were\npeople of irreproachable morals, and who on a certain day of the week,\nSunday, assembled in the morning to sing the praises of their God\nChrist, and to engage themselves to the fulfilment of the most important\nprecepts of virtue, and that they met again in the evening to enjoy a\nsimple and blameless repast. He adds that their numbers had already\nincreased to such an extent that the altars of Paganism were nearly\nabandoned; and that a great number of women, boys and children belonged\nto their sect. He is at a loss to know, with respect to the latter,\nwhether he should make any difference in the degree of punishment which,\nit appears, they have inevitably incurred under the old Roman laws\nagainst all societies and fraternities not sanctioned by the state; and\non this subject he demands further instructions from the emperor, in\nthis memorable official letter, which is still extant, and contains the\nmost ancient portrait of the Christians drawn by a Roman hand.\n\nThus then, in this period of the world, in this decisive crisis between\nancient and modern times, in this great central point of history, stood\ntwo powers opposed to each other:--on one hand, we behold Tiberius,\nCaligula and Nero, the earthly gods, and absolute masters of the world,\nin all the pomp and splendor of ancient paganism--standing, as it were,\non the very summit and verge of the old world, now tottering to its\nruin:--and, on the other hand, we trace the obscure rise of an almost\nimperceptible point of Light, from which the whole modern world was to\nspring, and whose further progress and full development, through all\nsucceeding ages, constitutes the true purport of _modern history_.\n\n\nEND OF VOL. I.\n\n\n\n\nNEW WORKS PUBLISHED BY MESSRS. SAUNDERS AND OTLEY, CONDUIT STREET,\nHANOVER SQUARE.\n\n\n  I.\n\n  MR. BULWER'S NEW WORK.\n\n  In 2 vols. post 8vo.\n\n  THE STUDENT.\n\n  By the Author of \"EUGENE ARAM,\" \"ENGLAND AND THE ENGLISH,\" &c.\n\n    \"Great as is both the power and beauty of Mr. Bulwer's former\n    works, we know none that mark the creative thinker more than the\n    present production--its pages are full of new lights and happy\n    illustrations.\"--_Lit. Gaz._\n\n\n  II.\n\n  COWPER'S WORKS.\n\n  THE SIXTH VOLUME OF THE COMPLETE EDITION OF COWPER.\n\n  By the REV. MR. GRIMSHAWE.\n\n  WITH AN ESSAY ON THE GENIUS AND POETRY OF COWPER,\n\n  By the REV. J. W. CUNNINGHAM, A.M.\n\n  VICAR OF HARROW.\n\n  Beautifully Illustrated by THE FINDENS.\n\n\n  III.\n\n  M. DE TOCQUEVILLE'S AMERICA.\n\n  In 2 vols. Octavo, with Map.\n\n  DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA.\n\n  By M. A. DE TOCQUEVILLE.\n\n  Translated under the inspection of the Author.\n\n    \"We recommend M. De Tocqueville's work as the very best in plan\n    on the subject of America we have ever met with, and we think we\n    may claim the same praise for it with reference to its\n    execution.\"--_Blackwood._\n\n\n  IV.\n\n  DR. HOGG'S TRAVELS.\n\n  In 2 vols. Plates,\n\n  VISIT TO ALEXANDRIA, DAMASCUS, AND JERUSALEM, DURING THE SUCCESSFUL\n  CAMPAIGN OF IBRAHIM PASHA.\n\n  By EDWARD HOGG, M.D.\n\n\n  V.\n\n  MISS LANDON'S NEW WORK.\n\n  In one vol., with a Portrait of the Author,\n\n  THE VOW OF THE PEACOCK,\n\n  By L. E. L., Author of \"The Golden Violet,\" \"Venetian Bracelet,\" &c.\n\n\n  VI.\n\n  THE HON. MRS. NORTON'S NOVEL.\n\n  In 3 vols. post 8vo.\n\n  THE WIFE, AND WOMAN'S REWARD.\n\n  By the HON. MRS. NORTON.\n\n    \"'The Wife,' and 'Woman's Reward,' are full of brilliancy and\n    pathos. In knowledge of society, and of the feelings and\n    passions by which it is actuated, Mrs. Norton has no\n    rival.\"--_John Bull._\n\n\n  VII.\n\n  CAPTAIN MARRYAT'S NEW WORK.\n\n  In 3 vols. post 8vo.\n\n  THE PACHA OF MANY TALES.\n\n  By the Author of \"Peter Simple,\" \"Jacob Faithful,\" &c.\n\n    \"Captain Marryat seems to us to stand alone amongst the writers\n    of his century in the power of presenting life as it\n    is.\"--_Spectator._\n\n\n  VIII.\n\n  NEW WORK BY THE AUTHOR OF \"CECIL HYDE.\"\n\n  In 3 vols. post 8vo.\n\n  HARRY CALVERLEY.\n\n  By the Author of \"Cecil Hyde.\"\n\n    \"The scene of this work is laid among the upper ranks of London\n    life, and executed with the skill and spirit of one well\n    acquainted with its varying hues.\"--_Lit. Gaz._\n\n\n  IX.\n\n  NEW WORK, BY THE AUTHOR OF \"THE COLLEGIANS.\"\n\n  In 3 vols. post 8vo.\n\n  MY NEIGHBOURHOOD.\n\n  By the Author of \"The Collegians.\"\n\n    \"No writer has depicted Irish character and manners with greater\n    truth and effect than this author. His descriptions of scenery\n    are charmingly picturesque; his personal sketches vivid and\n    individual, and his tales well constructed, entertaining, and\n    interesting.\"--_Lit. Gaz._\n\n\n  X.\n\n  THE COUNTESS OF BLESSINGTON'S NEW WORK.\n\n  In 3 vols. post 8vo.\n\n  THE TWO FRIENDS.\n\n  By the COUNTESS OF BLESSINGTON.\n\n    \"The dignity and sweetness of the female character were never\n    portrayed with more force and truth than in this clever\n    production.\"--_Times._\n\n\n  XI.\n\n  NEW WORK BY THE AUTHOR OF \"GRANBY.\"\n\n  The Second Edition, Revised. In 3 vols. post 8vo.\n\n  ANNE GREY. A NOVEL.\n\n  Edited by the Author of \"Granby.\"\n\n    \"This work strongly reminds us of Miss Austen's admirable\n    novels.\"--_New Monthly Mag._\n\n    \"It is full of feminine loveliness, and that quickness of\n    observation which is the peculiar gift of the sex.\"--_Court\n    Journal._\n\n\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n\n[1] Saemmtliche werke, vorrede, p. 8. vol. 6.\n\n[2] Count Maistre.--See his Soirees de St. Petersbourg.\n\n[3] The aristocracy of French literature, and a very splendid\naristocracy it is, has been for the last twenty years decidedly\nCatholic. The enemies of the church are to be found almost\nexclusively in the bourgeoisie, and still more in the canaille, of\nthat literature.\n\n[4] The words which the King of Bavaria used at the moment of\nfounding this University, are remarkable. \"I do not wish,\" said he,\n\"that my subjects should be learned at the cost of religion, nor\nreligious at the cost of learning.\"--See Baader's opening speech in\n1826. _Philosophische Schriften_, page 366. These are golden words,\nwhich ought to be engraven on the hearts of all princes. In other\nwords, the monarch meant to say, I wish to consecrate science by\nreligion, and I wish to confirm and extend religion by science. This\nsovereign is the most enlightened, as well as munificent, patron of\nlearning in Europe; and whether we consider his zeal in the cause of\nreligion--his solicitude for the freedom and prosperity of his\nsubjects--his profound knowledge, as well as active patronage, of\nart and science--and his true-hearted German frankness and probity;\nhe is, in every respect, a worthy namesake of the illustrious\nEmperor Maximilian. He has assisted in making his capital a true\nGerman Athens; and, small as it is, it may at this moment compete in\nart, literature, and science, with the proudest cities in Europe.\n\n[5] Geschichte der Religion.--1804-11.\n\n[6] Essai sur l'indifference en matiere de religion: 4 vols. 8vo.\nParis, 1823;--a work where learning, eloquence, and philosophy have\nlaid their richest offerings at the shrine of Christianity.\n\n[7] In the beautiful critique inserted in the Concordia on M. de la\nMartine's \"Meditations poetiques,\" (1820) Schlegel observes that Lord\nByron was the representative of a by-gone poesy, and La Martine the\nherald of a new Christian poetry that was to come. Comparing the three\ngreatest contemporary poets out of his own country, Scott, Byron, and La\nMartine, Schlegel saw in the productions of the first, the poetry of a\nvague reminiscence--in those of the second, the poetry of despair; and\nin those of the last, the commencement of a poetry of hope.[8] Much as\nhe reprobated the anti-christian spirit and tendency of Lord Byron's\nmuse, and much as he rejoiced that its pernicious influence was in some\ndegree counteracted by the noble effusions of the French rhapsodist, he\nstill rendered full justice to the great genius of the British bard. He\ncalls him in one of his last works, \"the wonderful English poet--perhaps\nthe greatest--certainly the most remarkable poet of our times:\"[9]--an\nencomium which Byron's admirers may learn to appreciate, when they\nremember who his contemporaries were, and who the critic was, that\npronounced this judgment.\n\n[8] See his History of Literature, vol. 2. New edition in German.\n\n[9] Philosophie des ebens, page 21.\n\n[10] See the Preface to the Lectures on Dramatic Literature, in the\nFrench translation.\n\n[11] See Saemmtliche werke. vol. x. p. 267.\n\n[12] Concordia, page 59.\n\n[13] Concordia, page 363.\n\n[14] See Concordia.\n\n[15] In a number of the Concordia for 1820, Adam Mueller frankly\ndeclared his opinion, that all the friends of social order would\nsoon concur in the necessity of re-establishing the constitution of\nthe three estates. This is language which at Vienna is as bold as it\nis auspicious.\n\n[16] Those political changes which since Schlegel's death have\noccurred in the British constitution, while they have deprived\nproperty of much of its legitimate influence, have caused\nintelligence to be even less represented than heretofore in the\nlegislature.\n\n[17] Philosophische Schriften. vol. ii.\n\n[18] See Concordia, page 66.\n\n[19] According to the just remark of Burke, the states-constitution\nwas in latter ages, better preserved in the Republics than in the\nmonarchies of Europe.--See his letters on a regicide peace.\n\n[20] Among these great conservatives, M. de Bonald is the only one\nwho can be regarded as favourable to Absolutism. As long as this\ngreat writer deals in general propositions, he seldom errs; but when\nhe comes to apply his principles to practice, then the political\nprejudices in which he was bred, and which a too limited course of\nreading has failed to correct--lead him sometimes into exaggerations\nand errors. On the whole he is as inferior to Burke as a publicist,\nas he is superior to him as a metaphysician.\n\n[21] This view of the matter is confirmed by the high authority of\nthe great Catholic philosopher--Molitor. Speaking of Schelling and\nhis disciples, he says, (in the words of his recent French\ntranslator,) _Quoique leurs premier ouvrages ne respirent pas encore\nentierement l'esprit pur et veritable_, mais soient entaches plus ou\nmoins de pantheisme ou de naturalisme, comme cela etoit presque\nnecessaire a une epoque encore si profondement enfoncee dans\nl'incredulite et l'orgueil, cependant leurs principes ont eveille\nl'esprit religieux, et donne une base plus profonde aux verites de\ncet ordre. C'est dans ce sens qu'on a retravaille toutes les\nsciences, et l'on peut dire que ces hommes ont plus contribue a\nconduire vers la religion, que cette multitude de compendium\ndogmatiques du siecle dernier. He then adds, \"Ou peut se faire une\nidee de la direction religieuse de la physique par les ecrits de\nSteffens, Schubert, Pfaff, et Baader. Cet esprit conduira encore a\nde plus grands resultats; et bientot de nouvelles decouvertes faites\nau ciel etoile, sur la terre et dans son interieur, aussi bien que\ndans l'organisme, affermiront et mettront dans une nouvelle lumiere\nces hautes verites connues des anciens, mais que le sens stupide des\nmodernes rejetait comme des songes et des superstitions.\" p.p.\n165-6. Philosophie de la Tradition, traduite de l'Allemand. Paris.\n1834.\n\n[22] Philosophie der Sprache, p. 118-19.\n\n[23] Ibid. p. 121.\n\n[24] Philosophie des Lebens, p. 142. N.B. I have somewhat abridged\nthe author's words.\n\n[25] Philosophie des Lebens. pp. 86-7.\n\n[26] Ibid, p. 85.\n\n[27] See Philosophie de la Tradition, traduit de l'Allemand, p. 26.\nParis, 1834.\n\n[28] Philosophie des Lebens, p. 126.\n\n[29] Philosophie des Lebens, p. 129.\n\n[30] A complete edition of Frederick Schlegel's works in fifteen\nvolumes 8vo. was announced in 1822. Of this edition ten volumes\nonly, as I am informed, have appeared. To these fifteen volumes must\nbe added the four which were published in the last years of the\nauthor's life, making in all nineteen volumes.\n\n[31] This translation I have not read, nor would I be at all\ncompetent to pronounce any opinion on its merits; but a very able\njudge, the Baron d'Eckstein, has declared that in point of grace,\nenergy, and dignity, it surpasses, as far as it goes, the famous\ntranslation by Schleiermacher.\n\n[32] The Abbe Gerbet.\n\n[33] N. B. The authorities on which the several facts relative to\nSchlegel's personal history have been advanced are the following:\n1. The Biographic des Vivans. Paris. 2ndly. An article for July, 1829,\nin the French Globe (apparently an abridgment of the account of\nSchlegel in the German work, Conversations Lexicon). 3. A fuller and\nbetter account of the author in a French work published several\nyears ago at Paris, entitled, \"Memoirs of distinguished Converts.\"\nFor the knowledge of some facts, the writer is also indebted to the\ninteresting journal \"Le Catholique,\" which Schlegel's able friend\nand disciple, the Baron d'Eckstein, edited at Paris, from 1826 to\n1829.\n\n[34] The author is now known to be Professor MOLITOR. The second\npart of this work has just appeared in Germany. TRANS.\n\n[35] Schlegel's first great work was entitled \"the Greeks and the\nRomans,\" published in the year 1797.\n\n[36] The result of our author's researches on Hindoo literature and\nphilosophy was evidenced in his work entitled \"The Language and\nWisdom of the Indians,\" published in 1808.\n\n[37] Schlegel alludes to \"The Lectures on Modern History,\" which he\ndelivered at Vienna in the year 1810.\n\n[38] The History of Religion by Count Frederick Stolberg;--a noble\nmonument raised by genius and learning to the honour of\nReligion.--_Trans._\n\n[39] Schlegel alludes to Alexander Von Humboldt.--_Trans._\n\n[40] See Ritter's Geography, 1st part, page 548,--1st Edition in\nGerman.\n\n[41] We must not suppose that the impiety of the Cainites was of a\ndogmatic kind. How could those primitive men, living so near the\nFountain-head of revelation, conversing with those who had witnessed\nthe rise and first development of man's marvellous history, endowed\nwith that quick, intuitive science which, in the operations of\nexternal nature, revealed to them the agency of invisible spirits,\nwitnessing the wondrous manifestations of God's love and power, the\nactive ministry of his messengers of light; and, lastly, engaged\nthemselves in a close communication with the infernal powers; how\ncould they, I say, fall into atheism or any other species of\nspeculative unbelief? Their impiety was of a more practical nature,\ndisplaying itself in a daring violation of the precepts of Heaven,\nand in the practice of a dark, mysterious magic. By the allurements\nof sense, and the fascination of their false science, they by\ndegrees inveigled the great mass of mankind into their errors. Their\nvast powers, supported and strengthened by infernal agency, were\ncalculated to introduce disorder and confusion in the economy of the\nmoral and physical universe, and to let loose on this probationary\nworld the science of the abyss. What do I say? The barrier between\nthe visible and invisible world would have been broken down--Hell\nwould have ruled the earth, had not the Almighty by an awful\njudgment buried the guilty race of men and their infernal knowledge\nin the waters of the Deluge. In the race of Cham, however, which\nperpetuated so many traditions of the early Cainites, some fragments\nof this ante-diluvian science of evil were preserved; and traces of\nit may still be discerned among the worshippers of Siva in\nIndia.--_Trans._\n\n[42] Noah affords another striking example of a wonderful\nprolongation or delay of time. The first nine Patriarchs of the\nprimitive world propagated their race at the mean or average term of\nthe hundredth year of their lives:--some near that period--others\nconsiderably earlier--and others again much later. But in the case\nof Noah we find that, to the mean term of a hundred years, four\nhundred were yet added; and that the Patriarch was five hundred\nyears of age when he propagated his race. The high motive of this\nevidently supernatural delay may be traced to the fact that,\nalthough during this long prophetic period of preparation, the holy\nSeer well foresaw and felt firmly assured of the judgments impending\nover a degenerate and corrupt world, it was not equally clear to him\nthat he was destined by God to be the second progenitor of mankind,\nand the renovator of the human race. But that great doom of the\nworld, already foretold by Enoch, Noah probably expected to be its\nlast end; and hence perhaps might consider the propagation of his\nrace as not altogether conformable to the divine will, till the\nhidden decrees of the Eternal were more fully and more clearly\nrevealed to him.\n\n[43] Entitled Ju-Kiao-li, or the Cousins.\n\n[44] There are some exceptions to the truth of these remarks\nrespecting Chinese symbols. For instance, the idea of \"dispersion\"\nis expressed in the Chinese writing by the sign of _a tower_. What a\nbeautiful and profound allusion to the great events of primitive\nhistory!--_Trans._\n\n[45] The author alludes to Schelling's philosophy, which is called\nsometimes the \"Philosophy of Nature,\" and sometimes the \"Philosophy\nof Identity.\" M. Cuvier in his masterly introduction to his great\nwork on Fossile Remains, mentions some of the extravagant theories\nbroached in the department of geology alone by those German\nnaturalists, who some years ago attempted to apply to natural\nphilosophy, the metaphysical system of Schelling.--_Trans._\n\n[46] M. Abel Remusat.\n\n[47] No Gentile people preserved so long and in such purity the\nworship of the true God as the Chinese. This no doubt must be\nascribed to the secluded situation of the country--to the great\nreverence of the Chinese for their ancestors, as well as to the\npatriarchal mildness of their early governments; and, we must add,\nto the unpoetical character of the nation itself, which was a\nsafeguard against Idolatry. There is historical evidence that, up to\ntwo centuries before the Christian era, idolatry had made little\nprogress among this people. So vivid was their expectation of the\nMessiah--\"the Great Saint who, as Confucius says, was to appear in\nthe West\"--so fully sensible were they not only of the place of his\nbirth, but of the time of his coming, that, about 60 years after the\nbirth of our Saviour, they sent their envoys to hail the expected\nRedeemer. These envoys encountered on their way the Missionaries of\nBuddhism coming from India--the latter, announcing an incarnate God,\nwere taken to be the disciples of the true Christ, and were\npresented as such to their countrymen by the deluded ambassadors.\nThus was this religion introduced into China, and thus did this\nphantasmagoria of Hell intercept the light of the gospel. So, not in\nthe internal spirit only, but in the outward history of Buddhism, a\ndemoniacal intent is very visible.--_Trans._\n\n[48] Schlegel here alludes to the celebrated Lessing, who in his\nwork entitled \"The Education of the Human Race,\" had maintained the\ndoctrine of the Metempsychosis, a doctrine doubly absurd in a Deist,\nlike Lessing, for the metempsychosis was a philosophical, though\nfalse, explanation of the primitive and universal dogma of an\nintermediate or probationary state of souls.--_Trans._\n\n[49] The four secondary faculties of human consciousness are,\naccording to our author, the memory, the conscience, the impulses or\npassions, and the outward senses.--_Trans._\n\n[50] {~GREEK CAPITAL LETTER MU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMEGA~}ue{~GREEK SMALL LETTER SIGMA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ETA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER FINAL SIGMA~}.\n\n[51] Schlegel here alludes to that sort of intuitive mysticism in\nmatters of religion, which was the boast of the adherents of\nSchelling's philosophy.--_Trans._\n\n[52] The valuable articles by this great Sanscrit scholar on Hindoo\nphilosophy, have excited a greater sensation in France and Germany,\nthan in his own country. It would be well if the Asiatic Society\nwere to publish those articles in a separate form.--_Trans._\n\n[53] We have transcribed Sir William Jones's own words, as given in\nhis Translation of Sacontala.--_Trans._\n\n[54] See Colebrooke's article on the Vedas, in the 8th volume of\nAsiatic Researches.\n\n[55] These are usually termed the Indo-Germanic race of\nlanguages--_Trans._\n\n[56] Schlegel here supposes that the triplicity of roots in the\nSemitic languages contains a mystic allusion to the Tri-une\nGod-head, the root and principle of all existence.\n\n[57] The Aswameda.\n\n[58] The reader may derive both pleasure and instruction from the\nperusal of a most masterly Treatise on Sacrifices, by the late Count\nMaistre, inserted at the end of the 2nd volume of his _Soirees de\nSt. Petersbourg_. No where have the learning, the eloquence, the\nbold and profound philosophy of the noble author been more\nstrikingly displayed, than in that short but admirable\ntract.--_Trans._\n\n[59] \"And Lamech said to his wives, Adah and Zillah, Hear my voice,\n     ye wives of Lamech, hearken to my speech; for I have slain a\n     man to the wounding of myself, and a stripling to my own\n     bruising.\"--GEN. iv 23.\n\nThis obscure text has long perplexed the\nCommentators:--Schlegel, I think has furnished an explanation as\nsolid as it is ingenious. Thus Lamech to whom the introduction of\npolygamy is generally ascribed, was probably, also, the founder of\nhuman sacrifices. According to our great poet, lust sits enthroned\nhard by hate.--_Trans._\n\n[60] The author alludes to Condorcet.\n\n[61] This is an allusion to the Pantheistic Naturalism of\nSchelling.--_Trans._\n\n[62] In the German \"_Lichtsage_,\" or Tradition of light.--_Trans._\n\n[63] In the German _Vernunft-staat_, the government of reason.\n\n[64] Perseus.\n\n------\n\nTranscriber's note:\n\nHyphenation has been standardised.","title":"The Philosophy of History, Vol. 1 of 2","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":108052}