{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_72288/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_72288","id":"gutenberg_72288","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/72288","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - Other","Category: Science - Biology","History -- Philosophy"],"text":"THE ROMANES LECTURE\n  1910\n\n\n  BIOLOGICAL ANALOGIES\n  IN HISTORY\n\n  BY\n  THEODORE ROOSEVELT\n\n\n  DELIVERED\n  BEFORE THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD\n  JUNE 7TH, 1910\n\n\n  OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS\n  AMERICAN BRANCH\n  35 WEST 32D STREET, NEW YORK\n\n  LONDON: HENRY FROWDE\n  1910\n\n\n\n\n  Copyright, 1910, by\n  OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS\n  AMERICAN BRANCH\n\n\n\n\nRomanes Lecture\n\n\n\n\nBIOLOGICAL ANALOGIES IN HISTORY\n\n\nAn American who, in response to such an invitation as I have received,\nspeaks in this university of ancient renown, cannot but feel with\npeculiar vividness the interest and charm of his surroundings, fraught\nas they are with a thousand associations. Your great universities, and\nall the memories that make them great, are living realities in the\nminds of scores of thousands of men who have never seen them and who\ndwell across the seas in other lands. Moreover, these associations\nare no stronger in the men of English stock than in those who are\nnot. My people have been for eight generations in America; but in one\nthing I am like the Americans of to-morrow, rather than like many of\nthe Americans of to-day; for I have in my veins the blood of men who\ncame from many different European races. The ethnic make-up of our\npeople is slowly changing so that constantly the race tends to become\nmore and more akin to that of those Americans who like myself are\nof the old stock but not mainly of English stock. Yet I think that,\nas time goes by, mutual respect, understanding, and sympathy among\nthe English-speaking peoples grow greater and not less. Any of my\nancestors, Holland or Huguenot, Scotchman or Irishman, who had come to\nOxford in \u2018the spacious days of great Elizabeth,\u2019 would have felt far\nmore alien than I, their descendant, now feel. Common heirship in the\nthings of the spirit makes a closer bond than common heirship in the\nthings of the body.\n\nMore than ever before in the world\u2019s history we of to-day seek to\npenetrate the causes of the mysteries that surround not only mankind\nbut all life, both in the present and the past. We search, we peer, we\nsee things dimly; here and there we get a ray of clear vision, as we\nlook before and after. We study the tremendous procession of the ages,\nfrom the immemorial past when in \u2018cramp elf and saurian forms\u2019 the\ncreative forces \u2018swathed their too-much power,\u2019 down to the yesterday,\na few score thousand years distant only, when the history of man\nbecame the overwhelming fact in the history of life on this planet;\nand studying, we see strange analogies in the phenomena of life and\ndeath, of birth, growth, and change, between those physical groups of\nanimal life which we designate as species, forms, races, and the highly\ncomplex and composite entities which rise before our minds when we\nspeak of nations and civilizations.\n\nIt is this study which has given science its present-day prominence.\nIn the world of intellect, doubtless, the most marked features in\nthe history of the past century have been the extraordinary advances\nin scientific knowledge and investigation, and in the position held\nby the men of science with reference to those engaged in other\npursuits. I am not now speaking of applied science; of the science,\nfor instance, which, having revolutionized transportation on the\nearth and the water, is now on the brink of carrying it into the\nair; of the science that finds its expression in such extraordinary\nachievements as the telephone and the telegraph; of the sciences which\nhave so accelerated the velocity of movement in social and industrial\nconditions\u2014for the changes in the mechanical appliances of ordinary\nlife during the last three generations have been greater than in all\nthe preceding generations since history dawned. I speak of the science\nwhich has no more direct bearing upon the affairs of our everyday life\nthan literature or music, painting or sculpture, poetry or history.\nA hundred years ago the ordinary man of cultivation had to know\nsomething of these last subjects; but the probabilities were rather\nagainst his having any but the most superficial scientific knowledge.\nAt present all this has changed, thanks to the interest taken in\nscientific discoveries, the large circulation of scientific books, and\nthe rapidity with which ideas originating among students of the most\nadvanced and abstruse sciences become, at least partially, domiciled in\nthe popular mind.\n\nAnother feature of the change, of the growth in the position of\nscience in the eyes of every one, and of the greatly increased respect\nnaturally resulting for scientific methods, has been a certain\ntendency for scientific students to encroach on other fields. This\nis particularly true of the field of historical study. Not only have\nscientific men insisted upon the necessity of considering the history\nof man, especially in its early stages, in connexion with what biology\nshows to be the history of life, but furthermore there has arisen\na demand that history shall itself be treated as a science. Both\npositions are in their essence right; but as regards each position the\nmore arrogant among the invaders of the new realm of knowledge take an\nattitude to which it is not necessary to assent. As regards the latter\nof the two positions, that which would treat history henceforth merely\nas one branch of scientific study, we must of course cordially agree\nthat accuracy in recording facts and appreciation of their relative\nworth and interrelationship are just as necessary in historical\nstudy as in any other kind of study. The fact that a book, though\ninteresting, is untrue, of course removes it at once from the category\nof history, however much it may still deserve to retain a place in the\nalways desirable group of volumes which deal with entertaining fiction.\nBut the converse also holds, at least to the extent of permitting us to\ninsist upon what would seem to be the elementary fact that a book which\nis written to be read should be readable. This rather obvious truth\nseems to have been forgotten by some of the more zealous scientific\nhistorians, who apparently hold that the worth of a historical book\nis directly in proportion to the impossibility of reading it, save as\na painful duty. Now I am willing that history shall be treated as a\nbranch of science, but only on condition that it also remains a branch\nof literature; and, furthermore, I believe that as the field of science\nencroaches on the field of literature there should be a corresponding\nencroachment of literature upon science; and I hold that one of the\ngreat needs, which can only be met by very able men whose culture is\nbroad enough to include literature as well as science, is the need of\nbooks for scientific laymen. We need a literature of science which\nshall be readable. So far from doing away with the school of great\nhistorians, the school of Polybius and Tacitus, Gibbon and Macaulay,\nwe need merely that the future writers of history, without losing the\nqualities which have made these men great, shall also utilize the\nnew facts and new methods which science has put at their disposal.\nDryness is not in itself a measure of value. No \u2018scientific\u2019 treatise\nabout St. Louis will displace Joinville, for the very reason that\nJoinville\u2019s place is in both history and literature; no minute study\nof the Napoleonic wars will teach us more than Marbot\u2014and Marbot is\nas interesting as Walter Scott. Moreover, certain at least of the\nbranches of science should likewise be treated by masters in the art of\npresentment, so that the layman interested in science, no less than the\nlayman interested in history, shall have on his shelves classics which\ncan be read. Whether this wish be or be not capable of realization,\nit assuredly remains true that the great historian of the future must\nessentially represent the ideal striven after by the great historians\nof the past. The industrious collector of facts occupies an honourable,\nbut not an exalted, position, and the scientific historian who produces\nbooks which are not literature must rest content with the honour,\nsubstantial, but not of the highest type, that belongs to him who\ngathers material which some time some great master shall arise to use.\n\nYet, while freely conceding all that can be said of the masters of\nliterature, we must insist upon the historian of mankind working in the\nscientific spirit, and using the treasure-houses of science. He who\nwould fully treat of man must know at least something of biology, of\nthe science that treats of living, breathing things; and especially of\nthat science of evolution which is inseparably connected with the great\nname of Darwin. Of course there is no exact parallelism between the\nbirth, growth, and death of species in the animal world, and the birth,\ngrowth, and death of societies in the world of man. Yet there is a\ncertain parallelism. There are strange analogies; it may be that there\nare homologies.\n\nHow far the resemblances between the two sets of phenomena are\nmore than accidental, how far biology can be used as an aid in the\ninterpretation of human history, we cannot at present say. The\nhistorian should never forget, what the highest type of scientific man\nis always teaching us to remember, that willingness to admit ignorance\nis a prime factor in developing wisdom out of knowledge. Wisdom is\nadvanced by research which enables us to add to knowledge; and,\nmoreover, the way for wisdom is made ready when men who record facts of\nvast but unknown import, if asked to explain their full significance,\nare willing frankly to answer that they do not know. The research\nwhich enables us to add to the sum of complete knowledge stands first;\nbut second only stands the research which, while enabling us clearly\nto pose the problem, also requires us to say that with our present\nknowledge we can offer no complete solution.\n\nLet me illustrate what I mean by an instance or two taken from one of\nthe most fascinating branches of world-history, the history of the\nhigher forms of life, of mammalian life, on this globe.\n\nGeologists and astronomers are not agreed as to the length of time\nnecessary for the changes that have taken place. At any rate, many\nhundreds of thousands of years, some millions of years, have passed\nby since in the eocene, at the beginning of the tertiary period, we\nfind the traces of an abundant, varied, and highly developed mammalian\nlife on the land masses out of which have grown the continents as\nwe see them to-day. The ages swept by, until, with the advent of\nman substantially in the physical shape in which we now know him,\nwe also find a mammalian fauna not essentially different in kind,\nthough widely differing in distribution, from that of the present day.\nThroughout this immense period form succeeds form, type succeeds type,\nin obedience to laws of evolution, of progress and retrogression, of\ndevelopment and death, which we as yet understand only in the most\nimperfect manner. As knowledge increases our wisdom is often turned\ninto foolishness, and many of the phenomena of evolution, which seemed\nclearly explicable to the learned master of science who founded these\nlectures, to us nowadays seem far less satisfactorily explained. The\nscientific men of most note now differ widely in their estimates of the\nrelative parts played in evolution by natural selection, by mutation,\nby the inheritance of acquired characteristics; and we study their\nwritings with a growing impression that there are forces at work which\nour blinded eyes wholly fail to apprehend; and where this is the case\nthe part of wisdom is to say that we believe we have such and such\npartial explanations, but that we are not warranted in saying that we\nhave the whole explanation. In tracing the history of the development\nof faunal life during this period, the age of mammals, there are some\nfacts which are clearly established, some great and sweeping changes\nfor which we can with certainty ascribe reasons. There are other facts\nas to which we grope in the dark, and vast changes, vast catastrophes,\nof which we can give no adequate explanation.\n\nBefore illustrating these types, let us settle one or two matters of\nterminology. In the changes, the development and extinction, of species\nwe must remember that such expressions as \u2018a new species,\u2019 or as \u2018a\nspecies becoming extinct,\u2019 are each commonly and indiscriminately\nused to express totally different and opposite meanings. Of course\nthe \u2018new\u2019 species is not new in the sense that its ancestors appeared\nlater on the globe\u2019s surface than those of any old species tottering to\nextinction. Phylogenetically, each animal now living must necessarily\ntrace its ancestral descent back through countless generations,\nthrough aeons of time, to the early stages of the appearance of life on\nthe globe. All that we mean by a \u2018new\u2019 species is that from some cause,\nor set of causes, one of these ancestral stems slowly or suddenly\ndevelops into a form unlike any that has preceded it; so that while\nin one form of life the ancestral type is continuously repeated and\nthe old species continues to exist, in another form of life there is a\ndeviation from the ancestral type and a new species appears.\n\nSimilarly, \u2018extinction of species\u2019 is a term which has two entirely\ndifferent meanings. The type may become extinct by dying out and\nleaving no descendants. Or it may die out because, as the generations\ngo by, there is change, slow or swift, until a new form is produced.\nThus in one case the line of life comes to an end. In the other case it\nchanges into something different. The huge titanothere, and the small\nthree-toed horse, both existed at what may roughly be called the same\nperiod of the world\u2019s history, back in the middle of the mammalian age.\nBoth are extinct in the sense that each has completely disappeared\nand that nothing like either is to be found in the world to-day. But\nwhereas all the individual titanotheres finally died out, leaving no\ndescendants, a number of the three-toed horses did leave descendants,\nand these descendants, constantly changing as the ages went by, finally\ndeveloped into the highly specialized one-toed horses, asses, and\nzebras of to-day.\n\nThe analogy between the facts thus indicated and certain facts in\nthe development of human societies is striking. A further analogy\nis supplied by a very curious tendency often visible in cases of\nintense and extreme specialization. When an animal form becomes\nhighly specialized, the type at first, because of its specialization,\ntriumphs over its allied rivals and its enemies, and attains a great\ndevelopment; until in many cases the specialization becomes so extreme\nthat from some cause unknown to us, or at which we merely guess, it\ndisappears. The new species which mark a new era commonly come from the\nless specialized types, the less distinctive, dominant, and striking\ntypes, of the preceding era.\n\nWhen dealing with the changes, cataclysmic or gradual, which divide\none period of palaeontological history from another, we can sometimes\nassign causes, and again we cannot even guess at them. In the case\nof single species, or of faunas of very restricted localities, the\nexplanation is often self-evident. A comparatively slight change in\nthe amount of moisture in the climate, with the attendant change in\nvegetation, might readily mean the destruction of a group of huge\nherbivores with a bodily size such that they needed a vast quantity\nof food, and with teeth so weak or so peculiar that but one or two\nkinds of plants could furnish this food. Again, we now know that the\nmost deadly foes of the higher forms of life are various lower forms\nof life, such as insects, or microscopic creatures conveyed into the\nblood by insects. There are districts in South America where many\nlarge animals, wild and domestic, cannot live because of the presence\neither of certain ticks or of certain baleful flies. In Africa there\nis a terrible genus of poison fly, each species acting as the host\nof microscopic creatures which are deadly to certain of the higher\nvertebrates. One of these species, though harmless to man, is fatal to\nall domestic animals, and this although harmless to the closely-related\nwild kinsfolk of these animals. Another is fatal to man himself, being\nthe cause of the \u2018sleeping sickness,\u2019 which in many large districts\nhas killed out the entire population. Of course the development or the\nextension of the range of any such insects, and any one of many other\ncauses which we see actually at work around us, would readily account\nfor the destruction of some given species or even for the destruction\nof several species in a limited area of country.\n\nWhen whole faunal groups die out, over large areas, the question is\ndifferent, and may or may not be susceptible of explanation with the\nknowledge we actually possess. In the old arctogaeal continent, for\ninstance, in what is now Europe, Asia, and North America, the glacial\nperiod made a complete, but of course explicable, change in the faunal\nlife of the region. At one time the continent held a rich and varied\nfauna. Then a period of great cold supervened, and a different fauna\nsucceeded the first. The explanation of the change is obvious.\n\nBut in many other cases we cannot so much as hazard a guess at why a\ngiven change occurred. One of the most striking instances of these\ninexplicable changes is that afforded by the history of South America\ntoward the close of the tertiary period. For ages South America had\nbeen an island by itself, cut off from North America at the very\ntime that the latter was at least occasionally in land communication\nwith Asia. During this time a very peculiar fauna grew up in South\nAmerica, some of the types resembling nothing now existing, while\nothers are recognizable as ancestral forms of the ant-eaters, sloths,\nand armadillos of to-day. It was a peculiar and diversified mammalian\nfauna, of, on the whole, rather small species, and without any\nrepresentatives of the animals with which man has been most familiar\nduring his career on this earth.\n\nTowards the end of the tertiary period there was an upheaval of land\nbetween this old South American island and North America, near what\nis now the Isthmus of Panama, thereby making a bridge across which\nthe teeming animal life of the northern continent had access to this\nqueer southern continent. There followed an inrush of huge, or swift,\nor formidable creatures which had attained their development in the\nfierce competition of the arctogaeal realm. Elephants, camels, horses,\ntapirs, swine, sabre-toothed tigers, big cats, wolves, bears, deer,\ncrowded into South America, warring each against the other incomers\nand against the old long-existing forms. A riot of life followed. Not\nonly was the character of the South American fauna totally changed by\nthe invasion of these creatures from the north, which soon swarmed\nover the continent, but it was also changed through the development\nwrought in the old inhabitants by the severe competition to which they\nwere exposed. Many of the smaller or less capable types died out.\nOthers developed enormous bulk or complete armour protection, and\nthereby saved themselves from the new beasts. In consequence, South\nAmerica soon became populated with various new species of mastodons,\nsabre-toothed tigers, camels, horses, deer, cats, wolves, hooved\ncreatures of strange shapes and some of them of giant size, all of\nthese being descended from the immigrant types; and side by side\nwith them there grew up large autochthonous ungulates, giant ground\nsloths wellnigh as large as elephants, and armoured creatures as\nbulky as an ox but structurally of the armadillo or ant-eater type;\nand some of these latter not only held their own, but actually in\ntheir turn wandered north over the isthmus and invaded North America.\nA fauna as varied as that of Africa to-day, as abundant in species\nand individuals, even more noteworthy, because of its huge size or\nodd type, and because of the terrific prowess of the more formidable\nflesh-eaters, was thus developed in South America, and flourished for\na period which human history would call very long indeed, but which\ngeologically was short.\n\nThen, for no reason that we can assign, destruction fell on this fauna.\nAll the great and terrible creatures died out, the same fate befalling\nthe changed representatives of the old autochthonous fauna and the\ndescendants of the migrants that had come down from the north. Ground\nsloth and glyptodon, sabre-tooth, horse and mastodon, and all the\nassociated animals of large size, vanished, and South America, though\nstill retaining its connexion with North America, once again became a\nland with a mammalian life small and weak compared to that of North\nAmerica and the Old World. Its fauna is now marked, for instance, by\nthe presence of medium-sized deer and cats, fox-like wolves, and small\ncamel-like creatures, as well as by the presence of small armadillos,\nsloths, and ant-eaters. In other words, it includes diminutive\nrepresentatives of the giants of the preceding era, both of the giants\namong the older forms of mammalia, and of the giants among the new\nand intrusive kinds. The change was widespread and extraordinary,\nand with our present means of information it is wholly inexplicable.\nThere was no ice age, and it is hard to imagine any cause which would\naccount for the extinction of so many species of huge or moderate\nsize, while smaller representatives, and here and there medium-sized\nrepresentatives, of many of them were left.\n\nNow as to all of these phenomena in the evolution of species, there\nare, if not homologies, at least certain analogies, in the history\nof human societies, in the history of the rise to prominence, of\nthe development and change, of the temporary dominance, and death or\ntransformation, of the groups of varying kind which form races or\nnations. Here, as in biology, it is necessary to keep in mind that we\nuse each of the words \u2018birth\u2019 and \u2018death,\u2019 \u2018youth\u2019 and \u2018age,\u2019 often\nvery loosely, and sometimes as denoting either one of two totally\ndifferent conceptions. Of course, in one sense there is no such thing\nas an \u2018old\u2019 or a \u2018young\u2019 nation, any more than there is an \u2018old\u2019 or\n\u2018young\u2019 family. Phylogenetically, the line of ancestral descent must be\nof exactly the same length for every existing individual, and for every\ngroup of individuals, whether forming a family or a nation. All that\ncan properly be meant by the terms \u2018new\u2019 and \u2018young\u2019 is that in a given\nline of descent there has suddenly come a period of rapid change. This\nchange may arise either from a new development or transformation of the\nold elements, or else from a new grouping of these elements with other\nand varied elements; so that the words \u2018new\u2019 nation or \u2018young\u2019 nation\nmay have a real difference of significance in one case from what they\nhave in another.\n\nAs in biology, so in human history, a new form may result from the\nspecialization of a long-existing, and hitherto very slowly changing,\ngeneralized or non-specialized form; as, for instance, occurs when\na barbaric race from a variety of causes suddenly develops a more\ncomplex cultivation and civilization. This is what occurred, for\ninstance, in Western Europe during the centuries of the Teutonic\nand, later, the Scandinavian ethnic overflows from the north. All\nthe modern countries of Western Europe are descended from the states\ncreated by these northern invaders. When first created they would be\ncalled \u2018new\u2019 or \u2018young\u2019 states in the sense that part or all of the\npeople composing them were descended from races that hitherto had not\nbeen civilized, and that therefore, for the first time, entered on\nthe career of civilized communities. In the southern part of Western\nEurope the new states thus formed consisted in bulk of the inhabitants\nalready in the land under the Roman Empire; and it was here that the\nnew kingdoms first took shape. Through a reflex action their influence\nthen extended back into the cold forests from which the invaders had\ncome, and Germany and Scandinavia witnessed the rise of communities\nwith essentially the same civilization as their southern neighbours;\nthough in those communities, unlike the southern communities, there\nwas no infusion of new blood, so that the new civilized nations which\ngradually developed were composed entirely of members of the same races\nwhich in the same regions had for ages lived the life of a slowly\nchanging barbarism. The same was true of the Slavs and the slavonized\nFinns of Eastern Europe, when an infiltration of Scandinavian leaders\nfrom the north, and an infiltration of Byzantine culture from the\nsouth, joined to produce the changes which have gradually, out of the\nlittle Slav communities of the forest and the steppe, formed the mighty\nRussian Empire of to-day.\n\nAgain, the new form may represent merely a splitting off from a long\nestablished, highly developed and specialized nation. In this case the\nnation is usually spoken of as a \u2018young,\u2019 and is correctly spoken of\nas a \u2018new,\u2019 nation; but the term should always be used with a clear\nsense of the difference between what is described in such case, and\nwhat is described by the same term in speaking of a civilized nation\njust developed from barbarism. Carthage and Syracuse were new cities\ncompared to Tyre and Corinth; but the Greek or Phoenician race was in\nevery sense of the word as old in the new city as in the old city.\nSo, nowadays, Victoria or Manitoba is a new community compared with\nEngland or Scotland; but the ancestral type of civilization and culture\nis as old in one case as in the other. I of course do not mean for a\nmoment that great changes are not produced by the mere fact that the\nold civilized race is suddenly placed in surroundings where it has\nagain to go through the work of taming the wilderness, a work finished\nmany centuries before in the original home of the race; I merely mean\nthat the ancestral history is the same in each case. We can rightly use\nthe phrase \u2018a new people,\u2019 in speaking of Canadians or Australians,\nAmericans or Afrikanders. But we use it in an entirely different sense\nfrom that in which we use it when speaking of such communities as those\nfounded by the Northmen and their descendants during that period of\nastonishing growth which saw the descendants of the Norse sea-thieves\nconquer and transform Normandy, Sicily and the British Islands; we use\nit in an entirely different sense from that in which we use it when\nspeaking of the new states that grew up around Warsaw, Kief, Novgorod,\nand Moscow, as the wild savages of the steppes and the marshy forests\nstruggled haltingly and stumblingly upward to become builders of cities\nand to form stable governments. The kingdoms of Charlemagne and Alfred\nwere \u2018new,\u2019 compared to the empire on the Bosphorus; they were also\nin every way different; their lines of ancestral descent had nothing\nin common with that of the polyglot realm which paid tribute to the\nCaesars of Byzantium; their social problems and aftertime history were\ntotally different. This is not true of those \u2018new\u2019 nations which spring\ndirect from old nations. Brazil, the Argentine, the United States,\nare all \u2018new\u2019 nations, compared with the nations of Europe; but, with\nwhatever changes in detail, their civilization is nevertheless of\nthe general European type, as shown in Portugal, Spain, and England.\nThe differences between these \u2018new\u2019 American and these \u2018old\u2019 European\nnations are not as great as those which separate the \u2018new\u2019 nations one\nfrom another, and the \u2018old\u2019 nations one from another. There are in\neach case very real differences between the new and the old nation;\ndifferences both for good and for evil; but in each case there is the\nsame ancestral history to reckon with, the same type of civilization,\nwith its attendant benefits and shortcomings; and, after the pioneer\nstages are passed, the problems to be solved, in spite of superficial\ndifferences, are in their essence the same; they are those that\nconfront all civilized peoples, not those that confront only peoples\nstruggling from barbarism into civilization.\n\nSo, when we speak of the \u2018death\u2019 of a tribe, a nation, or a\ncivilization, the term may be used for either one of two totally\ndifferent processes, the analogy with what occurs in biological\nhistory being complete. Certain tribes of savages, the Tasmanians, for\ninstance, and various little clans of American Indians, have within\nthe last century or two completely died out; all of the individuals\nhave perished, leaving no descendants, and the blood has disappeared.\nCertain other tribes of Indians have as tribes disappeared or are\nnow disappearing; but their blood remains, being absorbed into the\nveins of the white intruders, or of the black men introduced by those\nwhite intruders; so that in reality they are merely being transformed\ninto something absolutely different from what they were. In the\nUnited States, in the new State of Oklahoma, the Creeks, Cherokees,\nChickasaws, Delawares, and other tribes, are in process of absorption\ninto the mass of the white population; when the state was admitted a\ncouple of years ago, one of the two senators, and three of the five\nrepresentatives in Congress, were partly of Indian blood. In but a\nfew years these Indian tribes will have disappeared as completely as\nthose that have actually died out; but the disappearance will be by\nabsorption and transformation into the mass of the American population.\n\nA like wide diversity in fact may be covered in the statement that\na civilization has \u2018died out.\u2019 The nationality and culture of the\nwonderful city-builders of the lower Mesopotamian Plain have completely\ndisappeared, and, though doubtless certain influences dating therefrom\nare still at work, they are in such changed and hidden form as to be\nunrecognizable. But the disappearance of the Roman Empire was of no\nsuch character. There was complete change, far-reaching transformation,\nand at one period a violent dislocation; but it would not be correct\nto speak either of the blood or the culture of old Rome as extinct.\nWe are not yet in a position to dogmatize as to the permanence or\nevanescence of the various strains of blood that go to make up\nevery civilized nationality; but it is reasonably certain that the\nblood of the old Roman still flows through the veins of the modern\nItalian; and though there has been much intermixture, from many\ndifferent foreign sources\u2014from foreign conquerors and from foreign\nslaves\u2014yet it is probable that the Italian type of to-day finds its\ndominant ancestral type in the ancient Latin. As for the culture,\nthe civilization of Rome, this is even more true. It has suffered a\ncomplete transformation, partly by natural growth, partly by absorption\nof totally alien elements, such as a Semitic religion, and certain\nTeutonic governmental and social customs; but the process was not\none of extinction, but one of growth and transformation, both from\nwithin and by the accretion of outside elements. In France and Spain\nthe inheritance of Latin blood is small; but the Roman culture which\nwas forced on those countries has been tenaciously retained by them,\nthroughout all their subsequent ethnical and political changes, as\nthe basis on which their civilizations have been built. Moreover, the\npermanent spreading of Roman influence was not limited to Europe. It\nhas extended to and over half of that new world which was not even\ndreamed of during the thousand years of brilliant life between the\nbirth and the death of Pagan Rome. This new world was discovered by\none Italian, and its mainland first reached and named by another; and\nin it, over a territory many times the size of Trajan\u2019s empire, the\nSpanish, French and Portuguese adventurers founded, beside the St.\nLawrence and the Amazon, along the flanks of the Andes and in the\nshadow of the snow-capped volcanoes of Mexico, from the Rio Grande\nto the Straits of Magellan, communities, now flourishing and growing\napace, which in speech and culture, and even as regards one strain in\ntheir blood, are the lineal heirs of the ancient Latin civilization.\nWhen we speak of the disappearance, the passing away, of ancient\nBabylon or Nineveh, and of ancient Rome, we are using the same terms to\ndescribe totally different phenomena.\n\nThe anthropologist and historian of to-day realize much more clearly\nthan their predecessors of a couple of generations back how artificial\nmost great nationalities are, and how loose is the terminology usually\nemployed to describe them. There is an element of unconscious and\nrather pathetic humour in the simplicity of half a century ago which\nspoke of the Aryan and the Teuton with reverential admiration, as\nif the words denoted, not merely something definite, but something\nethnologically sacred; the writers having much the same pride and\nfaith in their own and their fellow countryman\u2019s purity of descent\nfrom these imaginary Aryan or Teutonic ancestors that was felt a\nfew generations earlier by the various noble families who traced\ntheir lineage direct to Odin, Aeneas, or Noah. Nowadays, of course,\nall students recognize that there may not be, and often is not, the\nslightest connexion between kinship in blood and kinship in tongue. In\nAmerica we find three races, white, red, and black, and three tongues,\nEnglish, French, and Spanish, mingled in such a way that the lines\nof cleavage of race continually run at right angles to the lines of\ncleavage of speech; there being communities practically of pure blood\nof each race found speaking each language. Aryan and Teutonic are\nterms having very distinct linguistic meanings; but whether they have\nany such ethnical meanings as were formerly attributed to them, is so\ndoubtful that we cannot even be sure whether the ancestors of most of\nthose we call Teutons originally spoke an Aryan tongue at all. The\nterm Celtic, again, is perfectly clear when used linguistically; but\nwhen used to describe a race it means almost nothing until we find out\nwhich one of several totally different terminologies the writer or\nspeaker is adopting. If, for instance, the term is used to designate\nthe short-headed, medium-sized type common throughout middle Europe,\nfrom east to west, it denotes something entirely different from what is\nmeant when the name is applied to the tall, yellow-haired opponents of\nthe Romans and the later Greeks; while if used to designate any modern\nnationality, it becomes about as loose and meaningless as the term\nAnglo-Saxon itself.\n\nMost of the great societies which have developed a high civilization\nand have played a dominant part in the world have been\u2014and\nare\u2014artificial; not merely in social structure, but in the sense\nof including totally different race types. A great nation rarely\nbelongs to any one race, though its citizens generally have one\nessentially national speech. Yet the curious fact remains that these\ngreat artificial societies acquire such unity that in each one all the\nparts feel a subtle sympathy, and move or cease to move, go forward\nor go back, all together, in response to some stir or throbbing, very\npowerful, and yet not to be discerned by our senses. National unity is\nfar more apt than race unity to be a fact to reckon with; until indeed\nwe come to race differences as fundamental as those which divide from\none another the half-dozen great ethnic divisions of mankind, when they\nbecome so important that differences of nationality, speech, and creed\nsink into littleness.\n\nAn ethnological map of Europe in which the peoples were divided\naccording to their physical and racial characteristics, such as\nstature, coloration, and shape of head, would bear no resemblance\nwhatever to a map giving the political divisions, the nationalities,\nof Europe; while on the contrary a linguistic map would show a general\ncorrespondence between speech and nationality. The northern Frenchman\nis in blood and physical type more nearly allied to his German-speaking\nneighbour than to the Frenchman of the Mediterranean seaboard; and\nthe latter, in his turn, is nearer to the Catalan than to the man who\ndwells beside the Channel or along the tributaries of the Rhine. But in\nessential characteristics, in the qualities that tell in the make-up of\na nationality, all these kinds of Frenchmen feel keenly that they are\none, and are different from all outsiders, their differences dwindling\ninto insignificance, compared with the extraordinary, artificially\nproduced, resemblances which bring them together and wall them off from\nthe outside world. The same is true when we compare the German who\ndwells where the Alpine springs of the Danube and the Rhine interlace,\nwith the physically different German of the Baltic lands. The same is\ntrue of Kentishman, Cornishman, and Yorkshireman in England.\n\nIn dealing, not with groups of human beings in simple and primitive\nrelations, but with highly complex, highly specialized, civilized, or\nsemi-civilized societies, there is need of great caution in drawing\nanalogies with what has occurred in the development of the animal\nworld. Yet even in these cases it is curious to see how some of the\nphenomena in the growth and disappearance of these complex, artificial\ngroups of human beings resemble what has happened in myriads of\ninstances in the history of life on this planet.\n\nWhy do great artificial empires, whose citizens are knit by a bond of\nspeech and culture much more than by a bond of blood, show periods of\nextraordinary growth, and again of sudden or lingering decay? In some\ncases we can answer readily enough; in other cases we cannot as yet\neven guess what the proper answer should be. If in any such case the\ncentrifugal forces overcome the centripetal, the nation will of course\nfly to pieces, and the reason for its failure to become a dominant\nforce is patent to every one. The minute that the spirit which finds\nits healthy development in local self-government, and is the antidote\nto the dangers of an extreme centralization, develops into mere\nparticularism, into inability to combine effectively for achievement of\na common end, then it is hopeless to expect great results. Poland and\ncertain Republics of the western hemisphere are the standard examples\nof failure of this kind; and the United States would have ranked with\nthem, and her name would have become a byword of derision, if the\nforces of union had not triumphed in the Civil War. So, the growth of\nsoft luxury after it has reached a certain point becomes a national\ndanger patent to all. Again, it needs but little of the vision of a\nseer to foretell what must happen in any community if the average woman\nceases to become the mother of a family of healthy children, if the\naverage man loses the will and the power to work up to old age and to\nfight whenever the need arises. If the homely, commonplace virtues die\nout, if strength of character vanishes in graceful self-indulgence, if\nthe virile qualities atrophy, then the nation has lost what no material\nprosperity can offset.\n\nBut there are plenty of other phenomena wholly or partially\ninexplicable. It is easy to see why Rome trended downward when great\nslave-tilled farms spread over what had once been a country-side of\npeasant proprietors, when greed and luxury and sensuality ate like\nacids into the fibre of the upper classes, while the mass of the\ncitizens grew to depend not upon their own exertions, but upon the\nstate, for their pleasures and their very livelihood. But this does not\nexplain why the forward movement stopped at different times, so far as\ndifferent matters were concerned; at one time as regards literature,\nat another time as regards architecture, at another time as regards\ncity-building. There is nothing mysterious about Rome\u2019s dissolution\nat the time of the barbarian invasions; apart from the impoverishment\nand depopulation of the Empire, its fall would be quite sufficiently\nexplained by the mere fact that the average citizen had lost the\nfighting edge, an essential even under a despotism, and therefore far\nmore essential in free, self-governing communities such as those of the\nEnglish-speaking peoples of to-day. The mystery is rather that out of\nthe chaos and corruption of Roman society during the last days of the\noligarchic republic, there should have sprung an Empire able to hold\nthings with reasonable steadiness for three or four centuries. But\nwhy, for instance, should the higher kinds of literary productiveness\nhave ceased about the beginning of the second century, whereas the\nfollowing centuries witnessed a great outbreak of energy in the shape\nof city-building in the provinces, not only in Western Europe, but in\nAfrica? We cannot even guess why the springs of one kind of energy\ndried up, while there was yet no cessation of another kind.\n\nTake another and smaller instance, that of Holland. For a period\ncovering a little more than the seventeenth century, Holland, like some\nof the Italian city states at an earlier period, stood on the dangerous\nheights of greatness, beside nations so vastly her superior in\nterritory and population as to make it inevitable that sooner or later\nshe must fall from the glorious and perilous eminence to which she\nhad been raised by her own indomitable soul. Her fall came; it could\nnot have been indefinitely postponed; but it came far quicker than it\nneeded to come, because of shortcomings on her part to which both Great\nBritain and the United States would be wise to pay heed. Her government\nwas singularly ineffective, the decentralization being such as often to\npermit the separatist, the particularist, spirit of the provinces to\nrob the central authority of all efficiency. This was bad enough. But\nthe fatal weakness was that so common in rich, peace-loving societies,\nwhere men hate to think of war as possible, and try to justify their\nown reluctance to face it either by high-sounding moral platitudes,\nor else by a philosophy of short-sighted materialism. The Dutch were\nvery wealthy. They grew to believe that they could hire others to do\ntheir fighting for them on land; and on sea, where they did their own\nfighting, and fought very well, they refused in time of peace to make\nready fleets so efficient, as either to insure them against the peace\nbeing broken, or else to give them the victory when war came. To be\nopulent and unarmed is to secure ease in the present at the almost\ncertain cost of disaster in the future.\n\nIt is therefore easy to see why Holland lost when she did her position\namong the powers; but it is far more difficult to explain why at the\nsame time there should have come at least a partial loss of position in\nthe world of art and letters. Some spark of divine fire burned itself\nout in the national soul. As the line of great statesmen, of great\nwarriors, by land and sea, came to an end, so the line of the great\nDutch painters ended. The loss of pre-eminence in the schools followed\nthe loss of pre-eminence in camp and in council chamber.\n\nIn the little republic of Holland, as in the great empire of Rome, it\nwas not death which came, but transformation. Both Holland and Italy\nteach us that races that fall may rise again. In Holland, as in the\nScandinavian kingdoms of Norway and Sweden, there was in a sense no\ndecadence at all. There was nothing analogous to what has befallen so\nmany countries; no lowering of the general standard of well-being, no\ngeneral loss of vitality, no depopulation. What happened was, first\na flowering time, in which the country\u2019s men of action and men of\nthought gave it a commanding position among the nations of the day;\nthen this period of command passed, and the State revolved in an eddy,\naside from the sweep of the mighty current of world life; and yet the\npeople themselves in their internal relations remained substantially\nunchanged, and in many fields of endeavour have now recovered\nthemselves, and play again a leading part.\n\nIn Italy, where history is recorded for a far longer time, the course\nof affairs was different. When the Roman Empire that was really\nRoman went down in ruin, there followed an interval of centuries\nwhen the gloom was almost unrelieved. Every form of luxury and\nfrivolity, of contemptuous repugnance for serious work, of enervating\nself-indulgence, every form of vice and weakness which we regard as\nmost ominous in the civilization of to-day, had been at work throughout\nItaly for generations. The Nation had lost all patriotism. It had\nceased to bring forth fighters or workers, had ceased to bring forth\nmen of mark of any kind; and the remnant of the Italian people cowered\nin helpless misery among the horse-hoofs of the barbarians, as the wild\nnorthern bands rode in to take the land for a prey and the cities for\na spoil. It was one of the great cataclysms of history; but in the end\nit was seen that what came had been in part change and growth. It was\nnot all mere destruction. Not only did Rome leave a vast heritage of\nlanguage, culture, law, ideas, to all the modern world; but the people\nof Italy kept the old blood as the chief strain in their veins. In a\nfew centuries came a wonderful new birth for Italy. Then for four or\nfive hundred years there was a growth of many little city states which,\nin their energy both in peace and war, in their fierce, fervent life,\nin the high quality of their men of arts and letters, and in their\nutter inability to combine so as to preserve order among themselves or\nto repel outside invasion, can not unfairly be compared with classic\nGreece. Again Italy fell, and the land was ruled by Spaniard or\nFrenchman or Austrian; and again, in the nineteenth century, there came\nfor the third time a wonderful new birth.\n\nContrast this persistence of the old type in its old home, and in\ncertain lands which it had conquered, with its utter disappearance\nin certain other lands where it was intrusive, but where it at one\ntime seemed as firmly established as in Italy\u2014certainly as in Spain\nor Gaul. No more curious example of the growth and disappearance of\na national type can be found than in the case of the Graeco-Roman\ndominion in Western Asia and North Africa. All told it extended over\nnearly a thousand years, from the days of Alexander till after the\ntime of Heraclius. Throughout these lands there yet remain the ruins\nof innumerable cities which tell how firmly rooted that dominion must\nonce have been. The overshadowing and far-reaching importance of what\noccurred is sufficiently shown by the familiar fact that the New\nTestament was written in Greek; while to the early Christians, North\nAfrica seemed as much a Latin land as Sicily or the Valley of the Po.\nThe intrusive peoples and their culture flourished in the lands for a\nperiod twice as long as that which has elapsed since, with the voyage\nof Columbus, modern history may fairly be said to have begun; and then\nthey withered like dry grass before the flame of the Arab invasion,\nand their place knew them no more. They overshadowed the ground; they\nvanished; and the old types reappeared in their old homes, with beside\nthem a new type, the Arab.\n\nNow, as to all these changes we can at least be sure of the main facts.\nWe know that the Hollander remains in Holland, though the greatness\nof Holland has passed; we know that the Latin blood remains in Italy,\nwhether to a greater or less extent; and that the Latin culture has\ndied out in the African realm it once won, while it has lasted in Spain\nand France, and thence has extended itself to continents beyond the\nocean. We may not know the causes of the facts, save partially; but\nthe facts themselves we do know. But there are other cases in which\nwe are at present ignorant even of the facts; we do not know what the\nchanges really were, still less the hidden causes and meaning of these\nchanges. Much remains to be found out before we can speak with any\ncertainty as to whether some changes mean the actual dying out or the\nmere transformation of types. It is, for instance, astonishing how\nlittle permanent change in the physical make-up of the people seems to\nhave been worked in Europe by the migrations of the races in historic\ntimes. A tall, fair-haired, long-skulled race penetrates to some\nsouthern country and establishes a commonwealth. The generations pass.\nThere is no violent revolution, no break in continuity of history,\nnothing in the written records to indicate an epoch-making change at\nany given moment; and yet after a time we find that the old type has\nreappeared and that the people of the locality do not substantially\ndiffer in physical form from the people of other localities that did\nnot suffer such an invasion. Does this mean that gradually the children\nof the invaders have dwindled and died out; or, as the blood is mixed\nwith the ancient blood, has there been a change, part reversion and\npart assimilation, to the ancient type in its old surroundings? Do tint\nof skin, eyes and hair, shape of skull, and stature, change in the\nnew environment, so as to be like those of the older people who dwelt\nin this environment? Do the intrusive races, without change of blood,\ntend under the pressure of their new surroundings to change in type\nso as to resemble the ancient people of the land? Or, as the strains\nmingled, has the new strain dwindled and vanished, from causes as yet\nobscure? Has the blood of the Lombard practically disappeared from\nItaly, and of the Visigoth from Spain, or does it still flow in large\npopulations where the old physical type has once more become dominant?\nHere in England, the long-skulled men of the long barrows, the\nshort-skulled men of the round barrows, have they blended, or has one\nor the other type actually died out; or are they merged in some older\nrace which they seemingly supplanted, or have they adopted the tongue\nand civilization of some later race which seemingly destroyed them?\nWe cannot say. We do not know which of the widely different stocks\nnow speaking Aryan tongues represents in physical characteristics the\nancient Aryan type, nor where the type originated, nor how or why it\nimposed its language on other types, nor how much or how little mixture\nof blood accompanied the change of tongue.\n\nThe phenomena of national growth and decay, both those which can and\nthose which cannot be explained, have been peculiarly in evidence\nduring the four centuries that have gone by since the discovery of\nAmerica and the rounding of the Cape of Good Hope. These have been the\nfour centuries of by far the most intense and constantly accelerating\nrapidity of movement and development that the world has yet seen. The\nmovement has covered all the fields of human activity. It has witnessed\nan altogether unexampled spread of civilized mankind over the world, as\nwell as an altogether unexampled advance in man\u2019s dominion over nature;\nand this together with a literary and artistic activity to be matched\nin but one previous epoch. This period of extension and development\nhas been that of one race, the so-called white race, or, to speak more\naccurately, the group of peoples living in Europe, who undoubtedly have\na certain kinship of blood, who profess the Christian religion, and\ntrace back their culture to Greece and Rome.\n\nThe memories of men are short, and it is easy to forget how brief is\nthis period of unquestioned supremacy of the so-called white race.\nIt is but a thing of yesterday. During the thousand years which went\nbefore the opening of this era of European supremacy, the attitude of\nAsia and Africa, of Hun and Mongol, Turk and Tartar, Arab and Moor,\nhad on the whole been that of successful aggression against Europe.\nMore than a century went by after the voyages of Columbus before\nthe mastery in war began to pass from the Asiatic to the European.\nDuring that time Europe produced no generals or conquerors able to\nstand comparison with Selim and Solyman, Baber and Akbar. Then the\nEuropean advance gathered momentum; until at the present time peoples\nof European blood hold dominion over all America and Australia and the\nislands of the sea, over most of Africa, and the major half of Asia.\nMuch of this world conquest is merely political, and such a conquest is\nalways likely in the long run to vanish. But very much of it represents\nnot a merely political, but an ethnic conquest; the intrusive people\nhaving either exterminated or driven out the conquered peoples, or\nelse having imposed upon them its tongue, law, culture, and religion,\ntogether with a strain of its blood. During this period substantially\nall of the world achievements worth remembering are to be credited to\nthe people of European descent. The first exception of any consequence\nis the wonderful rise of Japan within the last generation\u2014a phenomenon\nunexampled in history; for both in blood and in culture the Japanese\nline of ancestral descent is as remote as possible from ours, and yet\nJapan, while hitherto keeping most of what was strongest in her ancient\ncharacter and traditions, has assimilated with curious completeness\nmost of the characteristics that have given power and leadership to the\nWest.\n\nDuring this period of intense and feverish activity among the peoples\nof European stock, first one and then another has taken the lead.\nThe movement began with Spain and Portugal. Their flowering time was\nas brief as it was wonderful. The gorgeous pages of their annals are\nillumined by the figures of warriors, explorers, statesmen, poets,\nand painters. Then their days of greatness ceased. Many partial\nexplanations can be given, but something remains behind, some hidden\nforce for evil, some hidden source of weakness upon which we cannot\nlay our hands. Yet there are many signs that in the New World, after\ncenturies of arrested growth, the peoples of Spanish and Portuguese\nstock are entering upon another era of development, and there are other\nsigns that this is true also in the Iberian peninsula itself.\n\nAbout the time that the first brilliant period of the leadership of the\nIberian peoples was drawing to a close, at the other end of Europe, in\nthe land of melancholy steppe and melancholy forest, the Slav turned in\nhis troubled sleep and stretched out his hand to grasp leadership and\ndominion. Since then almost every nation of Europe has at one time or\nanother sought a place in the movement of expansion; but for the last\nthree centuries the great phenomenon of mankind has been the growth of\nthe English-speaking peoples and their spread over the world\u2019s waste\nspaces.\n\nComparison is often made between the Empire of Britain and the\nEmpire of Rome. When judged relatively to the effect on all modern\ncivilization, the Empire of Rome is of course the more important,\nsimply because all the nations of Europe and their offshoots in other\ncontinents trace back their culture either to the earlier Rome by the\nTiber, or the later Rome by the Bosphorus. The Empire of Rome is the\nmost stupendous fact in lay history; no empire later in time can be\ncompared with it. But this is merely another way of saying that the\nnearer the source the more important becomes any deflection of the\nstream\u2019s current. Absolutely, comparing the two empires one with the\nother in point of actual achievement, and disregarding the immensely\nincreased effect on other civilizations which inhered in the older\nempire because it antedated the younger by a couple of thousand\nyears, there is little to choose between them as regards the wide and\nabounding interest and importance of their careers.\n\nIn the world of antiquity each great empire rose when its predecessor\nhad already crumbled. By the time that Rome loomed large over the\nhorizon of history, there were left for her to contend with only\ndecaying civilizations and raw barbarisms. When she conquered Pyrrhus\nshe strove against the strength of but one of the many fragments into\nwhich Alexander\u2019s kingdom had fallen. When she conquered Carthage\nshe overthrew a foe against whom for two centuries the single Greek\ncity of Syracuse had contended on equal terms; it was not the Sepoy\narmies of the Carthaginian plutocracy, but the towering genius of the\nHouse of Barca, which rendered the struggle forever memorable. It was\nthe distance and the desert, rather than the Parthian horse-bowmen,\nthat set bounds to Rome in the east; and on the north her advance was\ncurbed by the vast reaches of marshy woodland, rather than by the\ntall barbarians who dwelt therein. During the long generations of her\ngreatness, and until the sword dropped from her withered hand, the\nParthian was never a menace of aggression, and the German threatened\nher but to die.\n\nOn the contrary, the great expansion of England has occurred, the great\nempire of Britain has been achieved, during the centuries that have\nalso seen mighty military nations rise and flourish on the continent\nof Europe. It is as if Rome, while creating and keeping the empire she\nwon between the days of Scipio and the days of Trajan, had at the same\ntime held her own with the Nineveh of Sargon and Tiglath, the Egypt of\nThothmes and Rameses, and the kingdoms of Persia and Macedon in the\nred flush of their warrior-dawn. The empire of Britain is vaster in\nspace, in population, in wealth, in wide variety of possession, in a\nhistory of multiplied and manifold achievement of every kind, than even\nthe glorious empire of Rome. Yet, unlike Rome, Britain has won dominion\nin every clime, has carried her flag by conquest and settlement to the\nuttermost ends of the earth, at the very time that haughty and powerful\nrivals, in their abounding youth or strong maturity, were eager to\nset bounds to her greatness, and to tear from her what she had won\nafar. England has peopled continents with her children, has swayed\nthe destinies of teeming myriads of alien race, has ruled ancient\nmonarchies, and wrested from all comers the right to the world\u2019s waste\nspaces, while at home she has held her own before nations, each of\nmilitary power comparable to Rome\u2019s at her zenith.\n\nRome fell by attack from without only because the ills within her own\nborders had grown incurable. What is true of your country, my hearers,\nis true of my own; while we should be vigilant against foes from\nwithout, yet we need never really fear them so long as we safeguard\nourselves against the enemies within our own households; and these\nenemies are our own passions and follies. Free peoples can escape\nbeing mastered by others only by being able to master themselves. We\nAmericans and you people of the British Isles alike need ever to keep\nin mind that, among the many qualities indispensable to the success\nof a great democracy, and second only to a high and stern sense of\nduty, of moral obligation, are self-knowledge and self-mastery. You,\nmy hosts, and I, may not agree in all our views; some of you would\nthink me a very radical democrat\u2014as, for the matter of that, I am\u2014and\nmy theory of imperialism would probably suit the anti-imperialists as\nlittle as it would suit a certain type of forcible-feeble imperialist.\nBut there are some points on which we must all agree if we think\nsoundly. The precise form of government, democratic or otherwise, is\nthe instrument, the tool, with which we work. It is important to have\na good tool. But, even if it is the best possible, it is only a tool.\nNo implement can ever take the place of the guiding intelligence that\nwields it. A very bad tool will ruin the work of the best craftsman;\nbut a good tool in bad hands is no better. In the last analysis the\nall-important factor in national greatness is national character.\n\nThere are questions which we of the great civilized nations are ever\ntempted to ask of the future. Is our time of growth drawing to an\nend? Are we as nations soon to come under the rule of that great law\nof death which is itself but part of the great law of life? None can\ntell. Forces that we can see, and other forces that are hidden or that\ncan but dimly be apprehended, are at work all around us, both for good\nand for evil. The growth in luxury, in love of ease, in taste for\nvapid and frivolous excitement, is both evident and unhealthy. The\nmost ominous sign is the diminution in the birth-rate, in the rate of\nnatural increase, now to a larger or lesser degree shared by most of\nthe civilized nations of Central and Western Europe, of America and\nAustralia; a diminution so great that if it continues for the next\ncentury at the rate which has obtained for the last twenty-five years,\nall the more highly civilized peoples will be stationary or else have\nbegun to go backward in population, while many of them will have\nalready gone very far backward.\n\nThere is much that should give us concern for the future. But there\nis much also which should give us hope. No man is more apt to be\nmistaken than the prophet of evil. After the French Revolution in\n1830, Niebuhr hazarded the guess that all civilization was about to\ngo down with a crash, that we were all about to share the fall of\nthird and fourth-century Rome\u2014a respectable, but painfully overworked,\ncomparison. The fears once expressed by the followers of Malthus as to\nthe future of the world have proved groundless as regards the civilized\nportion of the world; it is strange indeed to look back at Carlyle\u2019s\nprophecies of some seventy years ago, and then think of the teeming\nlife of achievement, the life of conquest of every kind, and of noble\neffort crowned by success, which has been ours for the two generations\nsince he complained to High Heaven that all the tales had been told and\nall the songs sung, and that all the deeds really worth doing had been\ndone. I believe with all my heart that a great future remains for us;\nbut whether it does or does not, our duty is not altered. However the\nbattle may go, the soldier worthy of the name will with utmost vigour\ndo his allotted task, and bear himself as valiantly in defeat as in\nvictory. Come what will, we belong to peoples who have not yielded to\nthe craven fear of being great. In the ages that have gone by, the\ngreat nations, the nations that have expanded and that have played a\nmighty part in the world, have in the end grown old and weakened and\nvanished; but so have the nations whose only thought was to avoid all\ndanger, all effort, who would risk nothing, and who therefore gained\nnothing. In the end, the same fate may overwhelm all alike; but the\nmemory of the one type perishes with it, while the other leaves its\nmark deep on the history of all the future of mankind.\n\nA nation that seemingly dies may be born again; and even though in\nthe physical sense it die utterly, it may yet hand down a history of\nheroic achievement, and for all time to come may profoundly influence\nthe nations that arise in its place by the impress of what it has\ndone. Best of all is it to do our part well, and at the same time to\nsee our blood live young and vital in men and women fit to take up\nthe task as we lay it down; for so shall our seed inherit the earth.\nBut if this, which is best, is denied us, then at least it is ours to\nremember that if we choose we can be torch-bearers, as our fathers were\nbefore us. The torch has been handed on from nation to nation, from\ncivilization to civilization, throughout all recorded time, from the\ndim years before history dawned down to the blazing splendour of this\nteeming century of ours. It dropped from the hands of the coward and\nthe sluggard, of the man wrapped in luxury or love of ease, the man\nwhose soul was eaten away by self-indulgence; it has been kept alight\nonly by those who were mighty of heart and cunning of hand. What they\nworked at, provided it was worth doing at all, was of less matter than\nhow they worked, whether in the realm of the mind or the realm of the\nbody. If their work was good, if what they achieved was of substance,\nthen high success was really theirs.\n\nIn the first part of this lecture I drew certain analogies between what\nhas occurred to forms of animal life through the procession of the ages\non this planet, and what has occurred and is occurring to the great\nartificial civilizations which have gradually spread over the world\u2019s\nsurface, during the thousands of years that have elapsed since cities\nof temples and palaces first rose beside the Nile and the Euphrates,\nand the harbours of Minoan Crete bristled with the masts of the Aegean\ncraft. But of course the parallel is true only in the roughest and most\ngeneral way. Moreover, even between the civilizations of to-day and\nthe civilizations of ancient times, there are differences so profound\nthat we must be cautious in drawing any conclusions for the present\nbased on what has happened in the past. While freely admitting all of\nour follies and weaknesses of to-day, it is yet mere perversity to\nrefuse to realize the incredible advance that has been made in ethical\nstandards. I do not believe that there is the slightest necessary\nconnexion between any weakening of virile force and this advance in\nthe moral standard, this growth of the sense of obligation to one\u2019s\nneighbour and of reluctance to do that neighbour wrong. We need have\nscant patience with that silly cynicism which insists that kindliness\nof character only accompanies weakness of character. On the contrary,\njust as in private life many of the men of strongest character are\nthe very men of loftiest and most exalted morality, so I believe that\nin national life as the ages go by we shall find that the permanent\nnational types will more and more tend to become those in which,\nthough intellect stands high, character stands higher; in which rugged\nstrength and courage, rugged capacity to resist wrongful aggression\nby others will go hand in hand with a lofty scorn of doing wrong to\nothers. This is the type of Timoleon, of Hampden, of Washington and\nLincoln. These were as good men, as disinterested and unselfish men,\nas ever served a State; and they were also as strong men as ever\nfounded or saved a State. Surely such examples prove that there is\nnothing Utopian in our effort to combine justice and strength in the\nsame nation. The really high civilizations must themselves supply the\nantidote to the self-indulgence and love of ease which they tend to\nproduce.\n\nEvery modern civilized nation has many and terrible problems to\nsolve within its own borders, problems that arise not merely from\njuxtaposition of poverty and riches, but especially from the\nself-consciousness of both poverty and riches. Each nation must deal\nwith these matters in its own fashion, and yet the spirit in which the\nproblem is approached must ever be fundamentally the same. It must\nbe a spirit of broad humanity; of brotherly kindness; of acceptance\nof responsibility, one for each and each for all; and at the same\ntime a spirit as remote as the poles from every form of weakness and\nsentimentality. As in war to pardon the coward is to do cruel wrong to\nthe brave man whose life his cowardice jeopardizes, so in civil affairs\nit is revolting to every principle of justice to give to the lazy, the\nvicious, or even the feeble or dull-witted, a reward which is really\nthe robbery of what braver, wiser, abler men have earned. The only\neffective way to help any man is to help him to help himself; and the\nworst lesson to teach him is that he can be permanently helped at the\nexpense of some one else. True liberty shows itself to best advantage\nin protecting the rights of others, and especially of minorities.\nPrivilege should not be tolerated because it is to the advantage of\na minority; nor yet because it is to the advantage of a majority. No\ndoctrinaire theories of vested rights or freedom of contract can stand\nin the way of our cutting out abuses from the body politic. Just as\nlittle can we afford to follow the doctrinaires of an impossible\u2014and\nincidentally of a highly undesirable\u2014social revolution, which in\ndestroying individual rights\u2014including property rights\u2014and the family,\nwould destroy the two chief agents in the advance of mankind, and the\ntwo chief reasons why either the advance or the preservation of mankind\nis worth while. It is an evil and a dreadful thing to be callous to\nsorrow and suffering and blind to our duty to do all things possible\nfor the betterment of social conditions. But it is an unspeakably\nfoolish thing to strive for this betterment by means so destructive\nthat they would leave no social conditions to better. In dealing with\nall these social problems, with the intimate relations of the family,\nwith wealth in private use and business use, with labour, with poverty,\nthe one prime necessity is to remember that though hardness of heart is\na great evil it is no greater an evil than softness of head.\n\nBut in addition to these problems, the most intimate and important of\nall, and which to a larger or less degree affect all the modern nations\nsomewhat alike, we of the great nations that have expanded, that are\nnow in complicated relations with one another and with alien races,\nhave special problems and special duties of our own. You belong to\na nation which possesses the greatest empire upon which the sun has\never shone. I belong to a nation which is trying on a scale hitherto\nunexampled to work out the problems of government for, of, and by the\npeople, while at the same time doing the international duty of a great\npower. But there are certain problems which both of us have to solve,\nand as to which our standards should be the same. The Englishman, the\nman of the British Isles, in his various homes across the seas, and\nthe American, both at home and abroad, are brought into contact with\nutterly alien peoples, some with a civilization more ancient than our\nown, others still in, or having but recently arisen from, the barbarism\nwhich our people left behind ages ago. The problems that arise are of\nwellnigh inconceivable difficulty. They cannot be solved by the foolish\nsentimentality of stay-at-home people, with little patent recipes, and\nthose cut-and-dried theories of the political nursery which have such\nlimited applicability amid the crash of elemental forces. Neither can\nthey be solved by the raw brutality of the men who, whether at home\nor on the rough frontier of civilization, adopt might as the only\nstandard of right in dealing with other men, and treat alien races only\nas subjects for exploitation.\n\nNo hard-and-fast rule can be drawn as applying to all alien races,\nbecause they differ from one another far more widely than some of\nthem differ from us. But there are one or two rules which must not\nbe forgotten. In the long run there can be no justification for\none race managing or controlling another unless the management and\ncontrol are exercised in the interest and for the benefit of that\nother race. This is what our peoples have in the main done, and must\ncontinue in the future in even greater degree to do, in India, Egypt,\nand the Philippines alike. In the next place, as regards every race,\neverywhere, at home or abroad, we cannot afford to deviate from the\ngreat rule of righteousness which bids us treat each man on his worth\nas a man. He must not be sentimentally favoured because he belongs to a\ngiven race; he must not be given immunity in wrongdoing or permitted to\ncumber the ground, or given other privileges which would be denied to\nthe vicious and unfit among ourselves. On the other hand, where he acts\nin a way which would entitle him to respect and reward if he was one\nof our own stock, he is justly as entitled to that respect and reward\nif he comes of another stock, even though that other stock produces a\nmuch smaller proportion of men of his type than does our own. This has\nnothing to do with social intermingling, with what is called social\nequality. It has to do merely with the question of doing to each man\nand each woman that elementary justice which will permit him or her\nto gain from life the reward which should always accompany thrift,\nsobriety, self-control, respect for the rights of others, and hard and\nintelligent work to a given end. To more than such just treatment\nno man is entitled, and less than such just treatment no man should\nreceive.\n\nThe other type of duty is the international duty, the duty owed by\none nation to another. I hold that the laws of morality which should\ngovern individuals in their dealings one with the other, are just\nas binding concerning nations in their dealings one with the other.\nThe application of the moral law must be different in the two cases,\nbecause in one case it has, and in the other it has not, the sanction\nof a civil law with force behind it. The individual can depend for his\nrights upon the courts, which themselves derive their force from the\npolice power of the State. The nation can depend upon nothing of the\nkind; and therefore, as things are now, it is the highest duty of the\nmost advanced and freest peoples to keep themselves in such a state\nof readiness as to forbid to any barbarism or despotism the hope of\narresting the progress of the world by striking down the nations that\nlead in that progress. It would be foolish indeed to pay heed to the\nunwise persons who desire disarmament to be begun by the very peoples\nwho, of all others, should not be left helpless before any possible\nfoe. But we must reprobate quite as strongly both the leaders and\nthe peoples who practise, or encourage, or condone, aggression and\niniquity by the strong at the expense of the weak. We should tolerate\nlawlessness and wickedness neither by the weak nor by the strong;\nand both weak and strong we should in return treat with scrupulous\nfairness. The foreign policy of a great and self-respecting country\nshould be conducted on exactly the same plane of honour, of insistence\nupon one\u2019s own rights and of respect for the rights of others, that\nmarks the conduct of a brave and honourable man when dealing with his\nfellows. Permit me to support this statement out of my own experience.\nFor nearly eight years I was the head of a great nation, and charged\nespecially with the conduct of its foreign policy; and during those\nyears I took no action with reference to any other people on the face\nof the earth that I would not have felt justified in taking as an\nindividual in dealing with other individuals.\n\nI believe that we of the great civilized nations of to-day have a\nright to feel that long careers of achievement lie before our several\ncountries. To each of us is vouchsafed the honourable privilege of\ndoing his part, however small, in that work. Let us strive hardily\nfor success even if by so doing we risk failure, spurning the poorer\nsouls of small endeavour who know neither failure nor success. Let us\nhope that our own blood shall continue in the land, that our children\nand children\u2019s children to endless generations shall arise to take our\nplaces and play a mighty and dominant part in the world. But whether\nthis be denied or granted by the years we shall not see, let at least\nthe satisfaction be ours that we have carried onward the lighted torch\nin our own day and generation. If we do this, then, as our eyes close,\nand we go out into the darkness, and others\u2019 hands grasp the torch, at\nleast we can say that our part has been borne well and valiantly.\n\n[Illustration: Seal of The De Vinne Press]","title":"Biological analogies in history","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":12922}