The Project Gutenberg EBook of History of Human Society, by Frank W. Blackmar This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.net Title: History of Human Society Author: Frank W. Blackmar Release Date: December 6, 2009 [EBook #30610] Language: English Character set encoding: ISO-8859-1 *** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK HISTORY OF HUMAN SOCIETY *** Produced by Al Haines
[Transcriber's note: Extensive research found no evidence that the U.S. copyright on this publication was renewed.]
This book tells what we know of man, how he first lived, how he worked with other men, what kinds of houses he built, what tools he made, and how he formed a government under which to live. So we learn of the activities of men in the past and what they have passed on to us. In this way we may become acquainted with the different stages in the process which we call civilization.
The present trend of specialization in study and research has brought about widely differentiated courses of study in schools and a large number of books devoted to special subjects. Each course of study and each book must necessarily represent but a fragment of the subject. This method of intensified study is to be commended; indeed, it is essential to the development of scientific truth. Those persons who can read only a limited number of books and those students who can take only a limited number of courses of study need books which present a connected survey of the movement of social progress as a whole, and which blaze a trail through the accumulation of learning, and give an adequate perspective of human achievement.
It is hoped, then, that this book will form the basis of a course of reading or study that will give the picture in small compass of this most fascinating subject. If it serves its purpose well, it will be the introduction to more special study in particular fields or periods.
That the story of this book may be always related more closely with the knowledge and experience of the individual reader, questions and problems have been added at the conclusion of each chapter, which may be used as subjects for {vi} discussion or topics for themes. For those who wish to pursue some particular phase of the subject a brief list of books has been selected which may profitably be read more intensively.
F. W. B.
CHAPTER
PAGE
3
The human trail. Civilization may be defined. The material evidences of civilization are all around us. Primitive man faced an unknown world. Civilization is expressed in a variety of ways. Modern civilization includes some fundamentals. Progress an essential characteristic of civilization. Diversity is necessary to progress. What is the goal of civilized man? Possibilities of civilization. Civilization can be estimated.
II. THE ESSENTIALS OF PROGRESS
18
How mankind goes forward on the trail. Change is not necessarily progress. Progress expresses itself in a variety of ideals and aims. Progress of the part and progress of the whole. Social progress involves individual development. Progress is enhanced by the interaction of groups and races. The study of uncultured races of to-day. The study of prehistoric types. Progress is indicated by early cultures. Industrial and social life of primitive man. Cultures indicate the mental development of the race. Men of genius cause mutations which permit progress. The data of progress.
III. METHODS OF RECOUNTING HUMAN PROGRESS
35
Difficulty of measuring progress. Progress may be measured by the implements used. The development of art. Progress is estimated by economic stages. Progress is through the food-supply. Progress estimated by the different forms of social order. Development of family life. The growth of political life. Religion important in civilization. Progress through moral evolution. Intellectual development of man. Change from savagery to barbarism. Civilization includes all kinds of human progress. Table showing methods of recounting human progress.
IV. PREHISTORIC MAN
57
The origin of man has not yet been determined. Methods of recounting prehistoric time: (1) geologic method, (2) paleontology, (3) anatomy, (4) cultures. Prehistoric types of the human race. The unity of the human race. The primitive home of man may be determined in a general way. The antiquity of man is shown in racial differentiation. The evidences of man's ancient life in different localities: (1) caves, (2) shell mounds, (3) river and glacial drifts, (4) burial-mounds, (5) battle-fields and village sites, (6) lake-dwellings. Knowledge of man's antiquity influences reflective thinking.
V. THE ECONOMIC FACTORS OF PROGRESS
82
The efforts of man to satisfy physical needs. The attempt to satisfy hunger and protect from cold. The methods of procuring food in primitive times. The variety of food was constantly increased. The food-supply was increased by inventions. The discovery and use of fire. Cooking added to the economy of the food-supply. The domestication of animals. The beginnings of agriculture were very meagre. The manufacture of clothing. Primitive shelters and houses. Discovery and use of metals. Transportation as a means of economic development. Trade, or exchange of goods. The struggle for existence develops the individual and the race.
108
The character of primitive social life. The family is the most persistent of social origins. Kinship is a strong factor in social organization. The earliest form of social order. The reign of custom. The Greek and Roman family was strongly organized. In primitive society religion occupied a prominent place. Spirit worship. Moral conditions. Warfare and social progress. Mutual aid developed slowly.
VII. LANGUAGE AND ART AS A MEANS OF CULTURE AND SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT
121
The origin of language has been a subject of controversy. Language is an important social function. Written language followed speech in order of development. Phonetic writing was a step in advance of the ideograph. The use of manuscripts and books made permanent records. Language is an instrument of culture. Art as a language of aesthetic ideas. Music is a form of language. The dance as a means of dramatic expression. The fine arts follow the development of language. The love of the beautiful slowly develops.
VIII. THE INFLUENCE OF PHYSICAL NATURE ON HUMAN PROGRESS
141
Man is a part of universal nature. Favorable location is necessary for permanent civilization. The nature of the soil an essential condition of progress. The use of land the foundation of social order. Climate has much to do with the possibilities of progress. The general aspects of nature determine the type of civilization. Physical nature influences social order.
IX. CIVILIZATION OF THE ORIENT
152
The first nations with historical records in Asia and Africa. Civilization in Mesopotamia. Influences coming from the Far East. Egypt becomes a centre of civilization. The coming of the Semites. The Phoenicians became the great navigators. A comparison of the Egyptian and Babylonian empires. The Hebrews made a permanent contribution to world civilization. The civilization of India and China. The coming of the Aryans.
X. THE ORIENTAL TYPE OF CIVILIZATION
170
The governments of the early Oriental civilizations. War existed for conquest and plunder. Religious belief was an important factor in despotic {ix} government. Social organization was incomplete. Economic influences. Records, writing, and paper. The beginnings of science were strong in Egypt, weak in Babylon. The contribution to civilization.
XI. BEGINNINGS OF CIVILIZATION IN AMERICA
186
America was peopled from the Old World. The Incas of Peru. Aztec civilization in Mexico. The earliest centres of civilization in Mexico. The Pueblo Indians of the Southwest. The Mound-Builders of the Mississippi Valley. Other types of Indian life. Why did the civilization of America fail?
XII. THE OLD GREEK LIFE
205
The old Greek life was the starting-point of Western civilization. The Aegean culture preceded the coming of the Greeks. The Greeks were of Aryan stock. The coming of the Greeks. Character of the primitive Greeks. Influence of old Greek life.
XIII. GREEK PHILOSOPHY
215
The transition from theology to inquiry. Explanation of the universe by observation and inquiry. The Ionian philosophy turned the mind toward nature. The weakness of Ionian philosophy. The Eleatic philosophers. The Sophists. Socrates the first moral philosopher (b. 469 B. C.). Platonic philosophy develops the ideal. Aristotle the master mind of the Greeks. Other schools. Results obtained in Greek philosophy.
229
The struggle for Greek equality and liberty. The Greek government an expanded family. Athenian government a type of Grecian democracy. Constitution of Solon seeks a remedy. Cleisthenes continues the reforms of Solon. Athenian democracy failed in obtaining its best and highest development. The Spartan state differs from all others. Greek colonization spreads knowledge. The conquests of Alexander. Contributions of Greece to civilization.
250
The Romans differed in nature from the Greeks. The social structure of early Rome and that of early Greece. Civil organization of Rome. The struggle for liberty. The development of government. The development of law is the most remarkable phase of the Roman civilization. Influence of the Greek life on Rome. Latin literature and language. Development of Roman art. Decline of the Roman Empire. Summary of Roman civilization.
268
Important factors in the foundation of Western civilization. The social contacts of the Christian religion. Social conditions at the beginning of the Christian era. The contact of Christianity with social life. Christianity influenced the legislation of the times. Christians come into conflict with civil authority. The wealth of the church accumulates. Development of the hierarchy. Attempt to dominate the temporal powers. Dogmatism. The church becomes the conservator of knowledge. Service of Christianity.
XVII. TEUTONIC INFLUENCE ON CIVILIZATION
281
The coming of the barbarians. Importance of Teutonic influence. Teutonic liberty. Tribal life. Classes of society. The home and the home life. Political assemblies. General social customs. The economic life. Contributions to law.
XVIII. FEUDAL SOCIETY
294
Feudalism a transition of social order. There are two elementary sources of feudalism. The feudal system in its developed state based on land-holding. Other elements of feudalism. The rights of sovereignty. The classification of feudal society. Progress of feudalism. State of society under feudalism. Lack of central authority in feudal society. Individual development in the dominant group.
XIX. ARABIAN CONQUEST AND CULTURE
304
The rise and expansion of the Arabian Empire. The religious zeal of the Arab-Moors. The foundations of science and art. The beginnings of chemistry and medicine. Metaphysics and exact science. Geography and history. Discoveries, inventions, and achievements. Language and literature. Art and architecture. The government of the Arab-Moors was peculiarly centralized. Arabian civilization soon reached its limits.
XX. THE CRUSADES STIR THE EUROPEAN MIND
319
What brought about the crusades. Specific causes of the crusades. Unification of ideals and the breaking of feudalism. The development of monarchy. The crusades quickened intellectual development. The commercial effects of the crusades. General influence of the crusades on civilization.
XXI. ATTEMPTS AT POPULAR GOVERNMENT
328
The cost of popular government. The feudal lord and the towns. The rise of free cities. The struggle for independence. The affranchisement of cities developed municipal organization. The Italian cities. Government of Venice. Government of Florence. The Lombard League. The rise of popular assemblies in France. Rural communes arose in France. The municipalities of France. The States-General was the first central organization. Failure of attempts at popular government in Spain. Democracy in the Swiss cantons. The ascendancy of monarchy. Beginning of constitutional liberty in England.
XXII. THE INTELLECTUAL AWAKENING OF EUROPE
347
Social evolution is dependent upon variation. The revival of progress throughout Europe. The revival of learning a central idea of progress. Influence of Charlemagne. The attitude of the church was retrogressive. Scholastic philosophy marks a step in progress. Cathedral and monastic schools. The rise of universities. Failure to grasp scientific methods. Inventions and discoveries. The extension of commerce hastened progress.
XXIII. HUMANISM AND THE REVIVAL OF LEARNING
364
The discovery of manuscripts. Who were the humanists? Relation of humanism to language and literature. Art and architecture. The effect of humanism on social manners. Relation of humanism to science and philosophy. The study of the classics became fundamental in education. General influence of humanism.
XXIV. THE REFORMATION
375
The character of the Reformation. Signs of the rising storm. Attempts at reform within the church. Immediate causes of the Reformation. Luther was the hero of the Reformation in Germany. Zwingli was the hero of the Reformation in Switzerland. Calvin establishes the Genevan system. The Reformation in England differed from the German. Many phases of reformation in other countries. Results of the Reformation were far-reaching.
XXV. CONSTITUTIONAL LIBERTY AND THE FRENCH REVOLUTION
392
Progress of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. The struggle of monarchy with democracy. Struggle for constitutional liberty in England. The place of France in modern civilization. The divine right of kings. The power of the nobility. The misery of the people. The church. Influence of the philosophers. The failure of government. France on the eve of the revolution. The revolution. Results of the revolution.
XXVI. PROGRESS OF POLITICAL LIBERTY
413
Political liberty in the eighteenth century. The progress of popular government found outside of great nations. Reform measures in England. The final triumph of the French republic. Democracy in America. Modern political reforms. Republicanism in other countries. Influence of democracy on monarchy.
XXVII. INDUSTRIAL PROGRESS
429
Industries radiate from the land as a centre. The early medieval methods of industry. The beginnings of trade. Expansion of trade and transportation. Invention and discoveries. The change from handcraft to power manufacture. The industrial revolution. Modern industrial development. Scientific agriculture. The building of the city. Industry and civilization.
XXVIII. SOCIAL EVOLUTION
443
The evolutionary processes of society. The social individual. The ethnic form of society. The territorial group. The national group founded on race expansion. The functions of new groups. Great society and the social order. Great society protects voluntary organizations. The widening influence of the church. Growth of religious toleration. Altruism and democracy. Modern society a machine of great complexity. Interrelation of different parts of society. The progress of the race based on social opportunities. The central idea of modern civilization.
XXIX. THE EVOLUTION OF SCIENCE
458
Science is an attitude of mind toward life. Scientific methods. Measurement in scientific research. Science develops from centres. Science and democracy. The study of the biological and physical sciences. The evolutionary theory. Science and war. Scientific progress is cumulative. The trend of scientific investigation. Research foundations.
XXX. UNIVERSAL EDUCATION AND DEMOCRACY
475
Universal public education is a modern institution. The mediaeval university permitted some freedom of choice. The English and German universities. Early education in the United States. The common, or public, schools. Knowledge, intelligence, and training necessary in a democracy. Education has been universalized. Research an educational process. The diffusion of knowledge necessary in a democracy. Educational progress. Importance of state education. The printing-press and its products. Public opinion.
XXXI. WORLD ECONOMICS AND POLITICS
486
Commerce and communication. Exchange of ideas modifies political organization. Spread of political ideas. The World War breaks down the barriers of thought. Attempt to form a league for permanent peace. International agreement and progress. The mutual aid of nations. Reorganization of international law. The outlook for a world state.
XXXII. THE TREND OF CIVILIZATION IN THE UNITED STATES
495
The economic outlook. Economics of labor. Public and corporate industries. The political outlook. Equalization of opportunity. The influence of scientific thought on progress. The relation of material comfort to spiritual progress. The balance of social forces. Restlessness vs. happiness. Summary of progress.
504
509
The Human Trail.—The trail of human life beginning in the mists of the past, winding through the ages and stretching away toward an unknown future, is a subject of perennial interest and worthy of profound thought. No other great subject so invites the attention of the mind of man. It is a very long trail, rough and unblazed, wandering over the continents of the earth. Those who have travelled it came in contact with the mysteries of an unknown world. They faced the terrors of the shifting forms of the earth, of volcanoes, earthquakes, floods, storms, and ice fields. They witnessed the extinction of forests and animal groups, and the changing forms of lakes, rivers, and mountains, and, indeed, the boundaries of oceans.
It is the trail of human events and human endeavor on which man developed his physical powers, enlarged his brain capacity, developed and enriched his mind, and became efficient through art and industry. Through inventions and discovery he turned the forces of nature to his use, making them serve his will. In association with his fellows, man learned that mutual aid and co-operation were necessary to the survival of the race. To learn this caused him more trouble than all the terrors and mysteries of the natural world around him. Connected with the trail is a long chain of causes and effects, trial and error, success and failure, out of which has come the advancement of the race. The accumulated results of life on the trail are called civilization.
Civilization May Be Defined.—To know what civilization is by study and observation is better than to rely upon a formal {4} definition. For, indeed, the word is used in so many different ways that it admits of a loose interpretation. For instance, it may be used in a narrow sense to indicate the character and quality of the civil relations. Those tribes or nations having a well-developed social order, with government, laws, and other fixed social customs, are said to be civilized, while those peoples without these characters are assumed to be uncivilized. It may also be considered in a somewhat different sense, when the arts, industries, sciences, and habits of life are stimulated—civilization being determined by the degree in which these are developed. Whichever view is accepted, it involves a contrast of present ideals with past ideals, of an undeveloped with a developed state of human progress.
But whatever notion we have of civilization, it is difficult to draw a fixed line between civilized and uncivilized peoples. Mr. Lewis H. Morgan, in his Ancient Society, asserts that civilization began with the phonetic alphabet, and that all human activity prior to this could be classified as savagery or barbarism. But there is a broader conception of civilization which recognizes all phases of human achievement, from the making of a stone axe to the construction of the airplane; from the rude hut to the magnificent palace; from crude moral and religious conditions to the more refined conditions of human association. If we consider that civilization involves the whole process of human achievement, it must admit of a great variety of qualities and degrees of development, hence it appears to be a relative term applied to the variation of human life. Thus, the Japanese are highly civilized along special lines of hand work, hand industry, and hand art, as well as being superior in some phases of family relationships. So we might say of the Chinese, the East Indians, and the American Indians, that they each have well-established customs, habits of thought, and standards of life, differing from other nations, expressing different types of civilization.
When a member of a primitive tribe invented the bow-and-arrow, or began to chip a flint nodule in order to make a stone {5} axe, civilization began. As soon as people began to co-operate with one another in obtaining food, building houses, or for protection against wild animals and wild men, that is, when they began to treat each other civilly, they were becoming civilized. We may say then in reality that civilization has been a continuous process from the first beginning of man's conquest of himself and nature to the modern complexities of social life with its multitude of products of industry and cultural arts.
It is very common for one group or race to assume to be highly civilized and call the others barbarians or savages. Thus the Hebrews assumed superiority when they called other people Gentiles, and the Greeks when they called others barbarians. Indeed, it is only within recent years that we are beginning to recognize that the civilizations of China, Japan, and India have qualities worth studying and that they may have something worth while in life that the Western civilization has not. Also there has been a tendency to confuse the terms Christian and heathen with civilized and uncivilized. This idea arose in England, where, in the early history of Christianity, the people of the towns were more cultured than the people of the country.
It happened, too, that the townspeople received Christianity before the people of the country, hence heathens were the people who dwelt out on the heath, away from town. This local idea became a world idea when all non-Christian peoples were called uncivilized. It is a fatal error for an individual, neighborhood, tribe, or nation to assume superiority to the extent that it fails to recognize good qualities in others. One should not look with disdain upon a tribe of American Indians, calling them uncivilized because their material life is simple, when in reality in point of honor, faithfulness, and courage they excel a large proportion of the races assuming a higher civilization.
The Material Evidences of Civilization Are All Around Us.—Behold this beautiful valley of the West, with its broad, {6} fertile fields, yielding rich harvests of corn and wheat, and brightened by varied forms of fruit and flower. Farmhouses and schoolhouses dot the landscape, while towns and cities, with their marts of trade and busy industries, rise at intervals. Here are churches, colleges, and libraries, indicative of the education of the community; courthouses, prisons, and jails, which speak of government, law, order, and protection. Here are homes for the aged and weak, hospitals and schools for the defective, almshouses for the indigent, and reformatories for the wayward. Railroads bind together all parts of the nation, making exchange possible, and bringing to our doors the products of every clime. The telephone and the radio unite distant people with common knowledge, thought, and sentiment. Factories and mills line the streams or cluster in village and city, marking the busy industrial life. These and more mark the visible products of civilization.
But civilization is something more than form, it is spirit; and its evidence may be more clearly discerned in the co-operation of men in political organization and industrial life, by their united action in religious worship and charitable service, in social order and educational advancement. Observe, too, the happy homes, with all of their sweet and hallowed influences, and the social mingling of the people searching for pleasure or profit in their peaceful, harmonious association. Witness the evidences of accumulated knowledge in newspapers, periodicals, and books, and the culture of painting, poetry, and music. Behold, too, the achievements of the mind in the invention and discovery of the age; steam and electrical appliances that cause the whirl of bright machinery, that turn night into day, and make thought travel swift as the wings of the wind! Consider the influence of chemistry, biology, and medicine on material welfare, and the discoveries of the products of the earth that subserve man's purpose! And the central idea of all this is man, who walks upright in the dignity and grace of his own manhood, surrounded by the evidence of his own achievements. His knowledge, his power of thought, {7} his moral character, and his capacity for living a large life, are evidences of the real civilization. For individual culture is, after all, the flower and fruit, the beauty and strength of civilization.
One hundred years ago neither dwelling, church, nor city greeted the eye that gazed over the broad expanse of the unfilled prairies. Here were no accumulations of wealth, no signs of human habitation, except a few Indians wandering in groups or assembled in their wigwam villages. The evidences of art and industry were meagre, and of accumulated knowledge small, because the natives were still the children of nature and had gone but a little way in the mastery of physical forces or in the accumulation of knowledge. The relative difference in their condition and that of those that followed them is the contrast between barbarism and civilization.
Yet how rapid was the change that replaced the latter with the former. Behold great commonwealths built in half a century! What is the secret of this great and marvellous change? It is a transplanted civilization, not an indigenous one. Men came to this fertile valley with the spiritual and material products of modern life, the outcome of centuries of progress. They brought the results of man's struggle, with himself and with nature, for thousands of years. This made it possible to build a commonwealth in half a century. The first settlers brought with them a knowledge of the industrial arts; the theory and practice of social order; individual capacity, and a thirst for education. It was necessary only to set up the machinery already created, and civilization went forward. When they began the life of labor, the accumulated wealth of the whole world was to be had in exchange for the products of the soil.
Primitive Man Faced an Unknown World.—But how different is the picture of primitive man suddenly brought face to face with an unknown world. With no knowledge of nature or art, with no theory or practice of social order, he began to dig and to delve for the preservation of life. Suffering the pangs of hunger, he obtained food; naked, he clothed himself; {8} buffeted by storm and wind and scorched by the penetrating rays of the sun, he built himself a shelter. As he gradually became skilled in the industrial arts, his knowledge increased. He formed a clearer estimate of how nature might serve him, and obtained more implements with which to work
The social order of the family and the state slowly appeared. Man became a co-operating creature, working with his fellows in the satisfaction of material wants and in protecting the rights of individuals. Slow and painful was this process of development, but as he worked his capacity enlarged, his power increased, until he mastered the forces of nature and turned them to serve him; he accumulated knowledge and brought forth culture and learning; he marshalled the social forces in orderly process. Each new mastery of nature or self was a power for the future, for civilization is cumulative in its nature; it works in a geometrical progression. An idea once formed, others follow; one invention leads to another, and each material form of progress furnishes a basis for a more rapid progress and for a larger life. The discovery and use of a new food product increased the power of civilization a hundredfold. One step in social order leads to another, and thus is furnished a means of utilizing without waste all of the individual and social forces.
Yet how irregular and faltering are the first steps of human progress. A step forward, followed by a long period of readjustment of the conditions of life; a movement forward here and a retarding force there. Within this irregular movement we discover the true course of human progress. One tribe, on account of peculiar advantages, makes a special discovery, which places it in the ascendancy and gives it power over others. It has obtained a favorable location for protection against oppressors or a fertile soil, a good hunting ground or a superior climate. It survives all opposing factors for a time, and, obtaining some idea of progress, it goes on adding strength unto strength, or is crowded from its favorable position by its warlike neighbors to perish from the earth, or to live a {9} stationary or even a deteriorating life. A strong tribe, through internal development and the domination of other groups, finally becomes a great nation in an advanced state of civilization. It passes through the course of infancy, youth, maturity, old age, and death. But the products of its civilization are handed on to other nations. Another rises and, when about to enter an advanced state of progress, perishes on account of internal maladies. It is overshadowed with despotism, oppressed by priestcraft, or lacking industrial vitality to such a degree that it is forced to surrender the beginnings of civilization to other nations and other lives.
The dominance of a group is dependent in part on the natural or inherent qualities of mind and body of its members, which give it power to achieve by adapting itself to conditions of nature and in mastering and utilizing natural resources. Thus the tribe that makes new devices for procuring food or new weapons for defense, or learns how to sow seeds and till the soil, adds to its means of survival and progress and thus forges ahead of those tribes lacking in these means. Also the social heritage or the inheritance of all of the products of industry and arts of life which are passed on from generation to generation, is essential to the rapid development of civilization.
Civilization Is Expressed in a Variety of Ways.—Different ideals and the adaptation to different environment cause different types of life. The ideals of the Persian, the Greek, the Roman, and the Teuton varied. Still greater is the contrast between these and the Chinese and the Egyptian ideals. China boasts of an ancient civilization that had its origin long before the faint beginnings of Western nations, and the Chinese are firm believers in their own culture and superior advancement. The silent grandeur of the pyramids and temples of the Nile valley bespeak a civilization of great maturity, that did much for the world in general, but little for the Egyptian people. Yet these types of civilization are far different from that of Western nations. Their ideas of culture are in great contrast to our own. But even the Western nations are not uniform in {10} ideals of civil life nor in their practice of social order. They are not identical in religious life, and their ideals of art and social progress vary.
Moreover, the racial type varies somewhat and with it the national life and thought. Compare England, Germany, France, and Spain as to the variability in characteristics of literature and art, in moral ideals, in ethical practice, in religious motive, and in social order. Their differences are evident, but they tend to disappear under the influence of rapid transit and close intercommunication, which draw all modern nations nearer together. Yet, granting the variability of ideals and of practice, there is a general consensus of opinion as to what constitutes civilization and what are the elements of progress. Modern writers differ somewhat in opinion as to elements of civilization, but these differences are more apparent than real, as all true civilization must rest upon a solid foundation of common human traits. The fundamental principles and chief characteristics are quite uniform for all nations and for all times, and writers who disagree as to general characteristics may not be classified by national boundaries; they represent the differences of philosophers.
Modern Civilization Includes Some Fundamentals.—As applied at different periods of the world's progress and as a representation of different phases of life, civilization means more to-day than ever before; its ideal is higher, its conception broader. In the modern, accepted sense it includes (1) a definite knowledge of man and nature. The classified knowledge of science and philosophy and all phases of the history of man socially and individually are important in estimating his true progress. All forms of thought and life are to be estimated in considering the full meaning of the term. It also includes (2) progress in art. While science deals with principles, art deals with rules of action. Science gives classified knowledge, while art directs to a practical end. Art provides definite plans how to operate. If these plans are carried out, the field of practice is entered. In its broadest conception art includes the making {11} and the doing, as well as the plan. The fine arts and the industrial or practical arts, in all of their varied interests, are included in art as a factor in civilization. This category should include the highest forms of painting, poetry, sculpture, and music, as well as the lowest forms of industrial implements.
Civilization includes (3) a well-developed ethical code quite universally observed by a community or nation. The rule of conduct of man toward himself and toward his fellows is one of the essential points of discrimination between barbarism and civilization. While ethical practice began at a very early period in the progress of man, it was a long time before any distinct ethical code became established. But the completed civilization does not exist until a high order of moral practice obtains; no civilization can long prevail without it. Of less importance, but of no less binding force, is (4) the social code, which represents the forms and conventionalities of society, built, it is true, largely upon the caprices of fashion, and varying greatly in different communities, yet more arbitrary, if possible, than the moral code. It considers fitness and consistency in conduct, and as such is an important consideration in social usage and social progress. In Europe it has its extreme in the court etiquette; in America, in the punctiliousness of the higher social classes of our large cities. But it affects all communities, and its observance may be noted in rural districts as well as in the city population.
The mores, or customs, of man began at a very early time and have been a persistent ruling power in human conduct. Through tradition they are handed down from generation to generation, to be observed with more or less fidelity as a guide to the art of living. Every community, whether primitive or developed, is controlled to a great extent by the prevailing custom. It is common for individuals and families to do as their ancestors did. This habit is frequently carried to such an extent that the deeds of the fathers are held sacred from which no one dare to depart. Isolated communities continue year after year to do things because they had always done so, {12} holding strictly to the ruling custom founded on tradition, even when some better way was at hand. A rare example of this human trait is given by Captain Donald MacMillan, who recently returned from Arctic Greenland. He said: "We took two ultra-modern developments, motion pictures and radio, direct to a people who live and think as their ancestors did two thousand years ago." He was asked: "What did they think?" He replied: "I do not know." Probably it was a case of wonder without thought. While this is a dominant force which makes for the unity and perpetuity of the group, it is only by departure from established tradition that progress is made possible.
Civilization involves (5) government and law. The tribes and nations in a state of barbarism lived under the binding influence of custom. In this period people were born under status, or condition, not under law. Gradually the old family life expanded into the state, and government became more formal. Law appeared as the expression of the will of the people directly or indirectly through their representatives. True, it may have been the arbitrary ruling of a king, but he represented the unity of the race and spoke with the authority of the nation. Law found no expression until there was formed an organic community capable of having a will respecting the control of those who composed it. It implies a governing body and a body governed; it implies an orderly movement of society according to a rule of action called law. While social order is generally obtained through law and government, such is the practice in modern life that the orderly association of men in trade and commerce and in daily contact appears to stand alone and to rise above the control of the law. Indeed, in a true civilization, the civil code, though an essential factor, seems to be outclassed by the higher social instincts based on the practice of social order.
(6) Religion must take a large place as a factor in the development of civilization. The character of the religious belief of man is, to a certain extent, the true test of his progressive {13} nature. His faith may prove a source of inspiration to reason and progressive life; it may prove the opposite, and lead to stagnation and retrogression. Upon the whole, it must be insisted that religious belief has subserved a large purpose in the economy of human progress. It has been universal to all tribes, for even the lowest have some form of religious belief—at least, a belief in spiritual beings. Religious belief thus became the primary source of abstract ideas, and it has always been conducive to social order. It has, in modern times especially, furnished the foundation of morality. By surrounding marriage with ceremonies it has purified the home life, upheld the authority of the family, and thus strengthened social order. It has developed the individual by furnishing an ideal before science and positive knowledge made it possible. It strengthened patriotic feeling on account of service rendered in supporting local government, and subjectively religion improved man by teaching him to obey a superior. Again, by its tradition it frequently stifled thought and retarded progress.
Among other elements of civilization must be mentioned (7) social well-being. The preceding conditions would be almost certain to insure social well-being and prosperity. Yet it might be possible, through lack of harmony of these forces, on account of their improper distribution in a community, that the group might lack in general social prosperity. Unless there is general contentment and happiness there cannot be said to be an ideal state of civilization. And this social well-being is closely allied to (8) material prosperity, the most apparent element to be mentioned in the present analysis. The amount of the accumulation of the wealth of a nation, its distribution among the people, and the manner in which it is obtained and expended, determine the state of civilization. This material prosperity makes the better phases of civilization possible. It is essential to modern progress, and our civilization should seek to render it possible for all classes to earn their bread and to have leisure and opportunity for self-culture.
The mastery of the forces of nature is the basis for man's {14} material prosperity. Touching nature here and there, by discovery, invention, and toil, causing her to yield her treasures for his service, is the key to all progress. In this, it is not so much conflict with nature as co-operation with her, that yields utility and eventually mastery. The discovery and use of new food products, the coal and other minerals of the earth, the forests, the water power and electric power, coupled with invention and adaptability to continually greater use, are the qualifying opportunity for advancement. Without these the fine theories of the philosopher, exalted religious belief, and high ideals of life are of no avail.
From the foregoing it may be said that civilization in its fulness means all of the acquired capabilities of man as evidenced by his conduct and the material products arising from his physical and mental exertion. It is evident that at first the structure called civilization began to develop very slowly and very feebly; just when it began it is difficult to state. The creation of the first utility, the first substantial movement to increase the food supply, the first home for protection, the first religious ceremony, or the first organized household, represents the beginnings of civilization, and these are the landmarks along the trail of man's ascendency.
Progress Is an Essential Characteristic of Civilization.—The goal is never reached, the victory is never finally achieved. Man must move on, ever on. Intellect must develop, morals improve, liberty increase, social order be perfected, and social growth continue. There must be no halting on the road; the nation that hesitates is lost. Progress in general is marked by the development of the individual, on the one hand, and that of society, on the other. In well-ordered society these two ideas are balanced; they seek an equilibrium. Excessive individualism leads to anarchy and destruction; excessive socialism blights and stagnates individual activity and independence and retards progress. It must be admitted here as elsewhere that the individual culture and the individual life are, after all, the highest aims. But how can these be obtained in {15} modern life without social progress? How can there be freedom of action for the development of the individual powers without social expansion? Truly, the social and the individual life are complementary elements of progress.
Diversity Is Necessary to Progress.—If progress is an essential characteristic of modern civilization, it may be said that diversity is essential to progress. There is much said about equality and fraternity. It depends on what is meant by the terms as to whether these are good sayings or not. If equality means uniformity, by it man is easily reduced to a state of stagnation. Diversity of life exists everywhere in progressive nature, where plants or animals move forward in the scale of existence. Man is not an exception to the rule, notwithstanding his strong will force. Men differ in strength, in moral and intellectual capacity, and in co-operating ability. Hence they must occupy different stations in life. And the quality and quantity of progress are to be estimated in different nations according to the diversity of life to be observed among individuals and groups.
What Is the Goal of Civilized Man?—And it may be well to ask, as civilization is progressive: What is our aim in life from our own standpoint? For what do men strive? What is the ultimate of life? What is the best for which humanity can live? If it were merely to obtain food and clothes and nothing more, the question could be easily answered. If it were merely to train a man to be a monk, that he might spend his time in prayer and supplication for a better future life, the question would be simple enough. If to pore over books to find out the knowledge of the past and to spend the life in investigation of truth were the chief aims, it would be easy to determine the object of life. But frequently that which we call success in life is merely a means to an end.
And viewed in the complex activity of society, it is difficult to say what is the true end of life; it is difficult to determine the true end of civilization. Some have said it is found in administering the "greatest good to the greatest number," {16} and if we consider in this the generations yet unborn, it reveals the actual tendency of modern civilization. If the perfection of the individual is the highest ideal of civilization, it stops not with one individual, but includes all. And this asserts that social well-being must be included in the final aim, for full and free individual development cannot appear without it. The enlarged capacity for living correctly, enjoying the best of this life righteously, and for associating harmoniously and justly with his fellows, is the highest aim of the individual. Happiness of the greatest number through utility is the formula for modern civilization.
Possibilities of Civilization.—The possibilities of reaching a still higher state of civilization are indeed great. The future is not full of foreboding, but bright and happy with promise of individual culture and social progress. If opportunities are but wisely used, the twentieth century will witness an advancement beyond our highest dreams. Yet the whole problem hinges on the right use of knowledge. If the knowledge of chemistry is to be used to destroy nations and races with gases and high explosives, such knowledge turns civilization to destruction. If all of the powers of nature under man's control should be turned against him, civilization would be turned back upon itself. Let us have "the will to believe" that we have entered an era of vital progress, of social improvement, of political reforms, which will lead to the protection of those who need protection and the elevation of those who desire it. The rapid progress in art and architecture, in invention and industry, the building of libraries and the diffusion of knowledge, the improvement of our educational system, all being entered upon, will force the world forward at a rapid pace, and on such a rational basis that the delight of living will be greatly enhanced for all classes.
Civilization Can Be Estimated.—This brief presentation of the meaning of civilization reveals the fact that civilization can be recounted; that it is a question of fact and philosophy that can be measured. It is the story of human progress and {17} the causes which made it. It presents the generalizations of all that is valuable in the life of the race. It is the epitome of the history of humanity in its onward sweep. In its critical sense it cannot be called history, for it neglects details for general statements. Nor is it the philosophy of history, for it covers a broader field. It is not speculation, for it deals with fact. It is the philosophy of man's life as to the results of his activity. It shows alike the unfolding of the individual and of society, and it represents these in every phase embraced in the word "progress." To recount this progress and to measure civilization is the purpose of the following pages, so far as it may be done in the limited space assigned.
1. Are people of civilized races happier now than are the uncivilized races?
2. Would the American Indians in time have developed a high state of civilization?
3. Why do we not find a high state of civilization among the African negroes?
4. What are the material evidences of civilization in the neighborhood in which you live?
5. Does increased knowledge alone insure an advanced civilization?
6. Choose an important public building in your neighborhood and trace the sources of architecture of the different parts.
How Mankind Goes Forward on the Trail.—Although civilization cannot exist without it, progress is something different from the sum-total of the products of civilization. It may be said to be the process through which civilization is obtained, or, perhaps more fittingly, it is the log of the course that marks civilization. There can be no conception of progress without ideals, which are standards set up toward which humanity travels. And as humanity never rises above its ideals, the possibilities of progress are limited by them. If ideals are high, there are possibilities of a high state of culture; if they are low, the possibilities are lessened, and, indeed, frequently are barren of results. But having established ideals as beacon lights for humanity to follow, the final test is whether there is sufficient knowledge, sufficient ability, and sufficient will-power to approximate them. In other words, shall humanity complete the trail of life, go on higher and higher grounds where are set the standards or goals to be reached; or will humanity rest easily and contentedly on a low level with no attempt to reach a higher level, or, indeed, will humanity, failing in desires for betterment, initiative, and will-power, drift to lower levels?
Groups, either tribes, races, or nations, may advance along given lines and be stationary or even retarded along other lines of development. If the accumulation of wealth is the dominant ideal, it may be so strenuously followed as to destroy opportunity for other phases of life. If the flow of energy is all toward a religious belief that absorbs the time and energy of people in the building of pyramids, mausoleums, cathedrals, and mosques, and taboos the inquiry into nature {19} which might yield a large improvement in the race, religion would be developed at the expense of race improvement.
Change Is Not Necessarily Progress.—It is quite common in a popular sense for people to identify change with progress, or indeed to accept the wonderful changes which take place as causes of progress, when in reality they should have taken more care to search out the elements of progress of the great moving panorama of changing life. Changes are frequently violent, sudden, tremendous in their immediate effect. They move rapidly and involve many complexes, but progress is a slow-going old tortoise that plods along irrespective of storm or sunshine, life or death, of the cataclysms of war or the catastrophes of earthquakes or volcanoes. Progress moves slowly along through political and social revolutions, gaining a little here and a little there, and registering the things that are really worth while out of the ceaseless, changing humanity.
Achievement may take place without betterment, but all progress must make a record of betterment with achievement. A man may write a book or invent a machine at great labor. So far as he is concerned it is an achievement, but unless it is a good book, a good invention, better than others, so that they may be used for the advancement of the race, they will not form a betterment. Many of the changes of life represent the results of trial and error. "There is a way that seemeth right" to a nation which may end in destruction. The evil aroused is sometimes greater than the good. The prosperity of the Roman Empire was destroyed because of luxury and corrupt administration. The German Empire developed great powers in government, education, in the arts and sciences, but her military purpose nearly destroyed her. The Spanish Empire that once controlled a good part of the American continent failed because laborers were driven out of Spain and the wealth gained by exploitation was used to support the nobility and royalty in luxury. Whether the United States will continue to carry out her high purposes will depend upon the right use of her immense wealth and power. Likewise the {20} radio, the movie, and the automobile are making tremendous changes. Will the opportunities they furnish improve the moral and intellectual character of the people—a necessary condition to real progress?
In considering modern progress, too frequently it is estimated by the greatness of things, by the stupendous changes, or by the marvellous achievements of the age, and we pause and wonder at what has been accomplished; but if we think long enough and clearly enough, we may get a vision of real progress, and we may find it difficult to determine the outcome of it all, so far as the real betterment of the race is concerned. Is the millionaire of to-day any happier, necessarily, and any more moral or of a higher religious standard than the primitive man or the savage of the plains or forest of to-day? True, he has power to achieve in many directions, but is he any happier or better? It may be said that his millions may accomplish great good. This is true if they are properly applied. It is also true that they are capable of great harm if improperly used.
As we stand and gaze at the movements of the airplane, or contemplate its rapid flight from ocean to ocean and from land to land around the world, we are impressed with this great wonder of the age, the great achievement of the inventive power of man. But what of the gain to humanity? If it is possible to transport the mails from New York to San Francisco in sixteen hours instead of in five days, is there advantage in that except the quickening process of transportation and life? Is it not worth while to inquire what the man at the other end of the line is going to do by having his mail four days ahead? He will hurry up somebody else and somebody else will hurry the next one, and we only increase the rapidity of motion. Does it really give us more time for leisure, and if so, are we using that leisure time in the development of our reflective intellectual powers or our spiritual life? It is easier to see improvement in the case of the radio, whereby songs and lectures can be broadcast all over the earth, and the {21} community of life and the community of interest are developed thereby, and, also, the leisure hours are devoted to a contemplation of high ideals, of beautiful music, of noble thoughts. We do recognize a modicum of progress out of the great whirring, rapid changes in transportation and creative industry; but let us not be deceived by substituting change for progress, or making the two identical.
Thus human progress is something more than achievement, and it is something more than the exhibition of tools. It is determined by the use of the tools and involves betterment of the human race. Hence, all the products of social heredity, of language, of science, of religion, of art, and of government are progressive in proportion as they are successfully used for individual and social betterment. For if government is used to enslave people, or science to destroy them, or religion to stifle them, there can be no progress.
Progress Expresses Itself in a Variety of Ideals and Aims.—Progress involves many lines of development. It may include biological development of the human race, the development of man, especially his growth of brain power. It may consider man's adaptation to environment under different phases of life. It may consider the efficiency of bodily structure. In a cultural sense, progress may refer to the products of the industrial arts, or to the development of fine arts, or the advancement of religious life and belief—in fact, to the mastery of the resources of nature and their service to mankind in whatever form they may appear or in whatever phase of life they may be expressed. Progress may also be indicated in the improvement in social order and in government, and also the increased opportunity of the individual to receive culture through the process of mutual aid. In fact, progress must be sought for in all phases of human activity. Whatever phase of progress is considered, its line of demarcation is carefully drawn in the process of change from the old to the new, but the results of these changes will be the indices of either progress or retardation.
{22}Progress of the Part and Progress of the Whole.—An individual might through hereditary qualities have superior mental traits or physical powers. These also may receive specific development under favorable educational environment, but the inertia of the group or the race might render ineffective a salutary use of his powers. A man is sometimes elected mayor of a town and devotes his energies to municipal betterment. But he may be surrounded by corrupt politicians and promoters of enterprises who hedge his way at every turn. Also, in a similar way, a group or tribe may go forward, and yet the products of its endeavor be lost to the world. Thus a productiveness of the part may be exhibited without the progress of the race. The former moves with concrete limitations, the latter in sweeping, cycling changes; but the latter cannot exist without the former, because it is from the parts that the whole is created, and it is the generalization of the accumulated knowledge or activities of the parts that makes it possible for the whole to develop.
The evolution of the human race includes the idea of differentiation of parts and a generalization that makes the whole of progress. So it is not easy to determine the result of a local activity as progressive until its relation to other parts is determined, nor until other activities and the whole of life are determined. Local colorings of life may be so provincial in their view-point as to be practically valueless in the estimation of the degree and quality of progress. Certain towns, especially in rural districts not acquainted with better things, boast that they have the best school, the best court-house, the best climate—in fact, everything best. When they finally awaken from their local dream, they discover their own deficiencies.
The great development of art, literature, philosophy, and politics among the ancient Greeks was inefficient in raising the great masses of the people to a higher plane of living, but the fruits of the lives of these superiors were handed on to other groups to utilize, and they are not without influence {23} over the whole human group of to-day. So, too, the religious mystic philosophy and literature of India represented a high state of mental development, but the products of its existence left the races of India in darkness because the mystic philosophy was not adaptable to the practical affairs of life. The Indian philosophers may have handed on ideas which caused admiration and wonder, but they have had very little influence of a practical nature on Western civilization. So society may make progress in either art, religion, or government for a time, and then, for the want of adaptation to the conditions imposed by progress, the effects may disappear. Yet not all is lost, for some achievements in the form of tools are passed on through social heredity and utilized by other races. In the long run it is the total of the progress of the race, the progress of the whole, that is the final test.
Social Progress Involves Individual Development.—If we trace progress backward over the trail which it has followed, there are two lines of development more or less clearly defined. One is the improvement of the racial stock through the hereditary traits of individuals. The brain is enlarged, the body developed in character and efficiency, and the entire physical system has changed through variation in accordance with the laws of heredity. What we observe is development in the individual, which is its primary function. Progress in this line must furnish individuals of a higher type in the procession of the generations. The other line is through social heredity, that is the accumulated products of civilization handed down from generation to generation. This gives each succeeding generation a new, improved kit of tools, it brings each new generation into a better environment and surrounds it with ready-made means to carry on the improvement and add something for the use of the next generation. Knowledge of the arts and industries, language and books, are thus products of social heredity. Also buildings, machinery, roads, educational systems, and school buildings are inherited.
Connected with these two methods of development must {24} be the discovery of the use of the human mind evidenced by the beginning of reflective thought. It is said by some writers that we are still largely in the age of instincts and emotions and have just recently entered the age of reason. Such positive statements should be considered with a wider vision of life, for one cannot conceive of civilization at all without the beginning of reflective mental processes. Simple inventions, like the use of fire, the bow-and-arrow, or the flint knife, may have come about primarily through the desire to accomplish something by subjecting means to an end, but in the perfection of the use of these things, which occurred very early in primitive life, there must have been reflective thinking in order to shape the knife for its purpose, make the bow-and-arrow more effective, and utilize fire for cooking, heating, and smelting. All of these must have come primarily through the individual initiative.
Frequent advocates of social achievement would lead one to suppose that the tribe in need of some method of cutting should assemble and pass the resolution that a flint knife be made, when any one knows it was the reflective process of the individual mind which sought adaptation to environment or means to accomplish a purpose. Of course the philosopher may read many generalizations into this which may confuse one in trying to observe the simple fact, for it is to be deplored that much of the philosophy of to-day is a smoke screen which obscures the simple truth.
The difference of races in achievement and in culture is traced primarily to hereditary traits developed through variation, through intrinsic stimuli, or those originating through so-called inborn traits. These traits enable some races to achieve and adapt themselves to their environment, and cause others to fail. Thus, some groups or races have perished because of living near a swamp infested with malaria-carrying mosquitoes or in countries where the food supply was insufficient. They lacked initiative to move to a more healthful region or one more bountiful in food products, or else they {25} lacked knowledge and skill to protect themselves against mosquitoes or to increase the food supply. Moreover, they had no power within them to seek the better environment or to change the environment for their own advancement. This does not ignore the tremendous influence of environment in the production of race culture. Its influence is tremendous, especially because environmental conditions are more under the direction of intelligence than is the development of hereditary traits.
Some writers have maintained that there is no difference in the dynamic, mental, or physical power of races, and that the difference of races which we observe to-day is based upon the fact that some have been retarded by poor environment, and others have advanced because of fortunate environment. This argument is good as far as it goes, but it does not tell the whole story. It does not show why some races under good environment have not succeeded, while others under poor environment have succeeded well. It does not show why some races have the wit to change to a better environment or transform the old environment.
There seems to be a great persistency of individual traits, of family traits, and, in a still larger generalization, of racial traits which culture fails to obliterate. As these differences of traits seem to be universal, it appears that the particular combination which gives motor power may also be a differentiation. At least, as all races have had the same earth, why, if they are so equal in the beginning, would they not achieve? Had they no inventive power? Also, when these so-called retarded races came in contact with the more advanced races who were superior in arts and industries, why did they not borrow, adapt, and utilize these productions? There must have been something vitally lacking which neither the qualities of the individual nor the stimulus of his surroundings could overcome. Some have deteriorated, others have perished; some have reached a stationary existence, while others have advanced. Through hereditary changes, nature played the {26} game in her own way with the leading cards in her own hand, and some races lost. Hence so with races, so with individuals.
Progress Is Enhanced by the Interaction of Groups and Races.—The accumulation of civilization and the state of progress may be much determined by the interaction of races and groups. Just as individual personality is developed by contact with others, so the actions and reactions of tribes and races in contact bring into play the utility of discoveries and inventions. Thus, knowledge of any kind may by diffusion become a heritage of all races. If one tribe should acquire the art of making implements by chipping flint in a certain way, other tribes with which it comes in contact might borrow the idea and extend it, and thus it becomes spread over a wide area. However, if the original discoverer used the chipped flint for skinning animals, the one who would borrow the idea might use it to make implements of warfare.
Thus, through borrowing, progress may be a co-operative process. The reference to people in any community reveals the fact that there are few that lead and many that follow; that there is but one Edison, but there are millions that follow Edison. Even in the educational world there are few inventors and many followers. This is evidence of the large power of imitation and adaptation and of the universal habit of borrowing. On the other hand, if one chemical laboratory should discover a high explosive which may be used in blasting rock for making the foundations for buildings, a nation might borrow the idea and use it in warfare for the destruction of man.
Mr. Clark Wissler has shown in his book on Man and Culture that there are culture areas originating from culture centres. From these culture centres the bow-and-arrow is used over a wide area. The domestication of the horse, which occurred in central Asia, has spread over the whole world. So stone implements of culture centres have been borrowed and exchanged more or less throughout the world. The theory is that one tribe or race invented one thing because of the {27} adaptability to good environment. The dominant necessity of a race stimulated man's inventive power, while another tribe would invent or discover some other new thing for similar reasons. But once created, not only could the products be swapped or traded, but, where this was impossible, ideas could be borrowed and adapted through imitation.
However, one should be careful not to make too hasty generalizations regarding the similar products in different parts of the world, for there is such universality of the traits of the human mind that, with similar stages of advancement and similar environments, man's adaptive power would cause him to do the same thing in very much the same way. Thus, it is possible for two races that have had no contact for a hundred thousand years to develop indigenous products of art which are very similar. To illustrate from a point of contact nearer home, it is possible for a person living in Wisconsin and one in Massachusetts, having the same general environment—physical, educational, ethnic, religious—and having the same general traits of mind, through disconnected lines of differentiation, to write two books very much alike or two magazine articles very much alike. In the question of fundamental human traits subject to the same environmental stimuli, in a general way we expect similar results.
With all this differentiation, progress as a whole represents a continuous change from primitive conditions to the present complex life, even though its line of travel leads it through the byways of differentiation. Just as the development of races has been through the process of differentiation from an early parent stock, cultural changes have followed the same law of progressive change. Just as there is a unity of the human race, there is a unity of progress that involves all mankind.
The Study of the Uncultured Races of To-Day.—It is difficult to determine the beginnings of culture and to trace its slow development. In accomplishing this, there are two main methods of procedure; the first, to find the products or {28} remains of culture left by races now extinct, that is, of nations and peoples that have lived and flourished and passed away, leaving evidence of what they brought to the world; also, by considering what they did with the tools with which they worked, and by determining the conditions under which they lived, a general idea of their state of progress may be obtained. The second method is to determine the state of culture of living races of to-day who have been retarded or whose progress shows a case of arrested development and compare their civilization statistically observed with that of the prehistoric peoples whose state of progress exhibits in a measure similar characteristics to those of the living races.
With these two methods working together, more light is continually being thrown upon man's ancient culture. To illustrate this, if a certain kind of tool or implement is found in the culture areas of the extinct Neanderthal race and a similar tool is used by a living Australian tribe, it may be conjectured with considerable accuracy that the use of this tool was for similar purposes, and the thoughts and beliefs that clustered around its use were the same in each tribe. Thus may be estimated the degree of progress of the primitive race. Or if an inscription on a cave of an extinct race showed a similarity to an inscription used by a living race, it would seem that they had the same background for such expression, and that similar instincts, emotions, and reflections were directed to a common end. The recent study of anthropologists and archaeologists has brought to light much knowledge of primitive man which may be judged on its own evidence and own merits. The verification of these early cultures by the living races who have reached a similar degree of progress is of great importance.
The Study of Prehistoric Types.[1]—The brain capacity of modern man has changed little since the time of the Crô-Magnon race, which is the earliest ancestral type of present European races and whose existence dates back many {29} thousand years. Possibly the weight of the brain has increased during this period because of its development, and undoubtedly its power is much greater in modern man than in this ancient type. Prior to that there are some evidences of extinct species, such as Pithecanthropus Erectus, the Grimaldi man, the Heidelberg man, and the Neanderthal. Judging from the skeletal remains that have been found of these races, there has been a general progress of cranial capacity. It is not necessary here to attempt to determine whether this has occurred from hereditary combinations or through changing environment. Undoubtedly both of these factors have been potential in increasing the brain power of man, and if we were to go farther back by way of analogy, at least, and consider the Anthropoid ape, the animal most resembling man, we find a vast contrast in his cranial capacity as compared with the lowest of the prehistoric types, or, indeed, of the lowest types of the uncultured living races.
Starting with the Anthropoid ape, who has a register of about 350 c.c., the Pithecanthropus about 900 c.c., and Neanderthal types registering as high as 1,620 c.c. of brain capacity, the best measures of the highest types of modern man show the brain capacity of 1,650 c.c. Specimens of the Crô-Magnon skulls show a brain capacity equal to that of modern man. There is a great variation in the brain capacity of the Neanderthal race as exhibited in specimens found in different centres of culture, ranging all the way from 1,296 c.c. to 1,620 c.c. Size is only one of several traits that determine brain power. Among others are the weight, convolutions, texture, and education. A small, compact brain may have more power than a larger brain relatively lighter. Also much depends upon the centres of development. The development of the frontal area, shown by the full forehead in connection with the distance above the ear (auditory meatus), in contrast with the development of the anterior lobes is indicative of power.
It is interesting to note also that the progress of man as shown in the remnants of arts and industry corresponds in {30} development to the development of brain capacity, showing that the physical power of man kept pace with the mental development as exhibited in his mental power displayed in the arts and industries. The discoveries in recent times of the skeletons of prehistoric man in Europe, Africa, and America, and the increased collection of implements showing cultures are throwing new light on the science of man and indicating a continuous development from very primitive beginnings.
Progress Is Indicated by the Early Cultures.—It is convenient to divide the early culture of man, based upon his development in art into the Paleolithic, or unpolished, and the Neolithic, or polished, Stone Ages.[2] The former is again divided into the Eolithic, Lower Paleolithic, and the Upper Paleolithic. In considering these divisions of relative time cultures, it must be remembered that the only way we have of measuring prehistoric time is through the geological method, based upon the Ice Ages and changes in the physical contour of the earth.
In the strata of the earth, either in the late second inter-glacial period or at the beginning of the third, chipped rocks, or eoliths, are found used by races of which the Piltdown and Heidelberg species are representatives.[3] Originally man used weapons to hammer and to cut already prepared by nature. Sharp-edged flints formed by the crushing of rocks in the descent of the glaciers or by upheavals of earth or by powerful torrents were picked up as needed for the purpose of cutting. Wherever a sharp edge was needed, these natural implements were useful. Gradually man learned to carry the best specimens with him. These he improved by chipping the edges, making them more serviceable, or chipping the eolith, so as to grasp it more easily. This represents the earliest relic of the beginning of civilization through art. Eoliths of this kind are found in Egypt in the hills bordering the Nile Valley, in Asia and America, as well as in southern Europe. Perhaps at the same period of development man selected stones suitable for crushing bones or for other purposes when hammering {31} was necessary. These were gradually fashioned into more serviceable hammers. In the latter part of this period, known as the pre-Chellean, flint implements were considerably improved.
In the Lower Paleolithic in the pre-Neanderthal period, including what is known as the Chellean, new forms of implements are added to the earlier beginnings. Almond-shaped flint implements, followed later by long, pointed implements, indicate the future development of the stone spear, arrowhead, knife, and axe. Also smaller articles of use, such as borers, scrapers, and ploughs, appeared. The edges of all implements were rough and uneven, and the forms very imperfect.
Industrial and Social Life of Primitive Man.—In the industry of the early Neanderthal races (Acheulean) implements were increased in number and variety, being also more perfectly formed, showing the expansive art of man. At this period man was a hunter, having temporary homes in caves and shelters, which gradually became more or less permanent, and used well-fashioned implements of stone. At the close of the third interglacial period the climate was mild and moist, and mankind found the open glades suitable places for assemblages in family groups about the open fires; apparently the cooking of food and the making of implements and clothing on a small scale were the domestic occupations at this time. Hunting was the chief occupation in procuring food. The bison, the horse, the reindeer, the bear, the beaver, the wild boar had taken the place of the rhinoceros, the sabre-tooth tiger, and the elephant.
Judging from the stage of life existing at this time, and comparing this with that of the lowest living races, we may safely infer that the family associations existed at this time, even though the habitations in caves and shelters were temporary.[4]
"Yet, when at length rude huts they first devised,
And fires and garments; and in union sweet
Man wedded woman, the pure joys indulged
{32}
Of chaste connubial love, and children rose,
The rough barbarians softened. The warm hearth
Their frames so melted they no more could bear,
As erst, th' uncovered skies. The nuptial bed
Broke their wild vigor, and the fond caress
Of prattling children from the bosom chased
Their stern, ferocious manners."
—LUCRETIUS, "ON THE NATURE OF THINGS."
AFTER OSBORN.
Thus the Lower Paleolithic merged into the Upper; with the appearance of the Mousterian, Augrignacian, Solutrian, Magdalenian, and Azilian cultures followed the most advanced stage of the Neanderthal race before its final disappearance. The list of tools and implements indicates a widening scope of civilization. For war and chase and fishing, for industry and domestic life, for art, sculpture, and engraving, and for ceremonial use, a great variety of implements of stone and bone survived the life of the races.
Spears, daggers, knives, arrowheads, fish-hooks, and harpoons; hand-axes, drills, hammers, scrapers, planes, needles, pins, chisels, wedges, gravers, etchers, mortars, and pilasters; ceremonial staffs and wands—all are expressions of a fulness of industrial and social life not recognized in earlier races. Indications of religious ceremonies represent the changing mind, and the expression of mind in art suggests increased mental power.
Cultures Indicate the Mental Development of the Race.—As the art and industry to-day represent the mental processes of man, so did these primitive cultures show the inventive skill and adaptive power in the beginnings of progress. Perhaps instinct, emotion, and necessity figured more conspicuously in the early period than reflective thought, while in modern times we have more design and more planning, both in invention and construction. Also the primitive social order was more an unconscious development, and lacked purpose and directing power in comparison with present life.
{33}But there must have been inventors and leaders in primitive times, some brains more fertile than others, that made change and progress possible. Who these unknown geniuses were human records do not indicate. In modern times we single out the superiors and call them great. The inventor, the statesman, the warrior, the king, have their achievements heralded and recorded in history. The records of achievement of the great barbarous cultures, of the Assyrians, the Egyptians, and the Hebrews, centre around some king whose tomb preserves the only records, while in reality some man unknown to us was the real author of such progress as was made. The reason is that progress was so slow that the changes passed unnoticed, being the products of many minds, each adding its increment of change. Only the king or ruler who could control the mass mind and the mass labor could make sufficient spectacular demonstration worth recording, and could direct others to build a tomb or record inscriptions to perpetuate his name.
Men of Genius Cause the Mutations Which Permit Progress.—The toiling multitudes always use the products of some inventive genius. Some individual with specialized mental traits plans something different from social usages or industrial life which changes tradition and modifies the customs and habits of the mass. Whether he be statesman, inventor, philosopher, scientist, discoverer, or military leader, he usually receives credit for the great progressive mutation which he has originated. There can be little progress without these few fertile brains, just as there could be little progress unless they were supported by the laborers who carry out the plans of the genius. While the "unknown man" is less conspicuous in the progress of the race in modern complex society, he is still a factor in all progress.
The Data of Progress.—Evolution is not necessarily progress; neither is development progress; yet the factors that enter into evolution and development are essential to progress. The laws of differentiation apply to progress as well as to evolution. In the plant and animal life everywhere this law {34} obtains. In man it is subservient to the domination of intelligent direction, yet it is in operation all of the time. Some races are superior in certain lines, other races show superiority in other lines. Likewise, individuals exhibit differences in a similar way. Perhaps the dynamic physical or mental power of the individual or the race will not improve in itself, having reached its maximum. There is little hope that the brain of man will ever be larger or stronger, but it may become more effective through training and increased knowledge. Hence in the future we must look for achievement along co-operative and social lines. It is to social expansion and social perfection that we must look for progress in the future. For here the accumulated power of all may be utilized in providing for the welfare of the individual, who, in turn, will by his inventive power cause humanity to progress.
The industrial, institutional, humanitarian, and educational machinery represents progress in action, but increased knowledge, higher ideals of life, broader concepts of truth, liberty of individual action which is interested in human life in its entirety, are the real indices of progress.
1. Why do some races progress and others deteriorate?
2. Compare different communities to show to what extent environment determines progress.
3. Show how the airplane is an evidence of progress. The radio. The gasoline-engine.
4. Discuss the effects of religious belief on progress.
5. Is the mental capacity of the average American greater than the average of the Greeks at the time of their highest culture?
6. What are the evidences that man will not advance in physical and mental capacity?
7. Show that the improvement of the race will be through social activity.
[1] See Chapter IV.
[2] See Chapter III.
[3] See Chapter IV.
[4] See Chapter VI.
Difficulty of Measuring Progress.—In its larger generalization, progress may move in a straight line, but it has such a variety of expression and so many tributary causes that it is difficult to reduce it to any classification. Owing to the difficulties that attend an attempt to recite all of the details of human progress, philosophers and historians have approached the subject from various sides, each seeking to make, by means of higher generalizations, a clear course of reasoning through the labyrinth of materials. By adopting certain methods of marking off periods of existence and pointing out the landmarks of civilization, they have been able to estimate more truly the development of the race. Civilization cannot be readily measured by time; indeed, the time interval in history is of little value save to mark order and continuity. It has in itself no real significance; it is merely an arbitrary division whose importance is greatly exaggerated. But while civilization is a continuous quantity, and cannot be readily marked off into periods without destroying its movement, it is necessary to make the attempt, especially in the study of ancient or prehistoric society; for any method which groups and classifies facts in logical order is helpful to the study of human progress.
Progress May Be Measured by the Implements Used.—A very common method, based largely upon the researches of archaeologists, is to divide human society into four great periods, or ages, marked by the progress of man in the use of implements. The first of these periods is called the Stone Age, and embraces the time when man used stone for all {36} purposes in the industrial arts so far as they had been developed. For convenience this period has been further divided into the age of ancient or unpolished implements and the age of modern or polished implements. The former includes the period when rude implements were chipped out of flint or other hard stone, without much idea of symmetry and beauty, and with no attempt to perfect or beautify them by smoothing and polishing their rough surface.
In the second period man learned to fashion more perfectly the implements, and in some instances to polish them to a high degree. Although the divisions are very general and very imperfect, they map out the great prehistoric era of man; but they must be considered as irregular, on account of the fact that the Stone Era of man occurred at different times in different tribes. Thus the inhabitants of North America were in the Stone Age less than two centuries ago, while some of the inhabitants of the South Sea Islands are in the Stone Age during the present century. It is quite remarkable that the use of stone implements was universal to all tribes and nations at some period of their existence.
After the long use of stone, man gradually became acquainted with some of the metals, and subsequently discovered the method of combining copper with tin and other alloys to form bronze, which material, to a large extent, added to the implements already in use. The Bronze Age is the most hypothetical of all these divisions, as it does not appear to have been as universal as the Stone, on account of the difficulty of obtaining metals. The use of copper by the Indians of the Lake Superior region was a very marked epoch in their development, and corresponds to the Bronze Age of other nations, although their advancement in other particulars appears to be less than that of other tribes of European origin which used bronze freely. Bronze implements have been found in great plenty in Scandinavia and Peru, and to a limited extent in North America. They certainly mark a stage of progress in advance of that of the inhabitants of the Stone Age. Bronze {37} was the chief metal for implements throughout the early civilization of Europe.
Following the age of bronze is the Iron Age, in which the advancement of man is especially marked. The bronze implements were at first supplemented in their use by those of iron. But gradually iron implements superseded the bronze. The Iron Age still is with us. Possibly it has not yet reached its highest point. Considering the great structures built of iron, and the excessive use of iron in machinery, implements, and furniture, it is easy to realize that we are yet in this great period. Though we continue to use stone more than the ancients and more bronze for decoration and ornament than they, yet both are subordinate to the use of iron. General as the above classification is, it helps in an indefinite way to give us a central idea of progress and to mark off, somewhat indefinitely, periods of development.
The Development of Art.—Utility was the great purpose underlying the foundation of the industrial arts. The stone axe, or celt, was first made for a distinct service, but, in order to perfect its usefulness, its lines became more perfect and its surface more highly polished. So we might say for the spear-head, the knife, or the olla. Artistic lines and decorative beauty always followed the purpose of use. This could be applied to all of the products of man's invention to transform parts of nature to his use. On account of the durability of form, the attempt to trace the course of civilization by means of the development of the fine arts has met with much success. Though the idea of beauty is not essential to the preservation of man or to the making of the state, it has exerted a great influence in individual-building and in society-building. In our higher emotional natures aesthetic ideas have ruled with imperial sway.
But primitive ideas of beauty appear to us very crude, and even repulsive. The adornment of person with bright though rudely colored garments, the free use of paint on the person, and the promiscuous use of jewelry, as {38} practised by the primitive peoples, present a great contrast to modern usage. Yet it is easy to trace the changes in custom and, moreover, to determine the origin of present customs. So also in representative art, the rude sketch of an elephant or a buffalo on ivory or stone and the finished picture by a Raphael are widely separated in genius and execution, but there is a logical connection between the two found in the slowly evolving human activities. The rude figure of a god moulded roughly from clay and the lifelike model by an Angelo have the same relations to man in his different states. The same comparison may be made between the low, monotonous moaning of the savage and the rapturous music of a Patti, or between the beating of the tom-tom and the lofty strains of a Mozart.
Progress Is Estimated by Economic Stages.—The progress of man is more clearly represented by the successive economic stages of his life. Thus we have first the primal nomadic period, in which man was a wanderer, subsisting on roots and berries, and with no definite social organization. This period, like all primary periods, is largely hypothetical. Having learned to capture game and fish, he entered what might be called the fisher-hunter stage, although he was still a nomad, and rapidly spread over a large part of the earth's surface, wandering from forest to forest and from stream to stream, searching for the means of subsistence and clothing.
When man learned to domesticate animals he made a great step forward and entered what is known as the pastoral period, in which his chief occupation was the care of flocks and herds. This contributed much to his material support and quickened his social and intellectual movement. After a time, when he remained in one place a sufficient time to harvest a short crop, he began agriculture in a tentative way, while his chief concern was yet with flocks and herds. He soon became permanently settled, and learned more fully the art of agriculture, and then entered the permanent agricultural stage. It was during this period that he made the most rapid advances in {39} the industrial arts and in social order. This led to more densely populated communities, with permanent homes and the necessary development of law and government.
As the products of industry increased men began to exchange "the relatively superfluous for the relatively necessary," and trade in the form of barter became a permanent custom. This led to the use of money and a more extended system of exchange, and man entered the commercial era. This gave him a wider intercourse with surrounding tribes and nations, and brought about a greater diversity of ideas. The excessive demand for exchangeable goods, the accumulation of wealth, and the enlarged capacity for enjoyment centred the activities of life in industry, and man entered the industrial stage. At first he employed hand power for manufacturing goods, but soon he changed to power manufacture, brought about by discovery and invention. Water and steam were now applied to turn machinery, and the new conditions of production changed the whole industrial life. A revolution in industrial society caused an immediate shifting of social life. Classes of laborers in the great industrial army became prominent, and production was carried on in a gigantic way. We are still in this industrial world, and as electricity comes to the aid of steam we may be prepared for even greater changes in the future than we have witnessed in the past.[1]
In thus presenting the course of civilization by the different periods of economic life, we must keep the mind free from conventional ideas. For, while the general course of economic progress is well indicated, there was a slow blending of each period into the succeeding one. There is no formal procedure in the progress of man. Yet we might infer from the way in which some writers present this matter that society moved forward in regular order, column after column. From the formal and forcible way in which they have presented the history of early society, one might imagine that a certain tribe, having become weary of tending cattle and goats, resolved one {40} fine morning to change from the pastoral life to agriculture, and that all of the tribes on earth immediately concluded to do the same, when, in truth, the change was slow and gradual, while the centuries passed away.
It is well to consider that in the expanded industrial life of man the old was not replaced, but supplemented, by the new, and that after the pastoral stage was entered, man continued to hunt and fish, and that after formal agriculture was begun the tending of flocks and herds continued, and fishing was practised at intervals. But each succeeding occupation became for the time the predominant one, while others were relatively subordinate. Even to-day, while we have been rushing forward in recent years at a rapid rate, under the power of steam and electricity, agriculture and commerce have made marvellous improvement. Though we gain the new, nothing of the old is lost. The use of flocks and herds, as well as fish and game, increases each year, although not relatively.
Progress Is Through the Food Supply.—This is only another view of the economic life. The first period is called the natural subsistence period, when man used such food as he found prepared for him by nature. It corresponds to the primal nomadic period of the last classification. From this state he advanced to the use of fish for food, and then entered the third period, when native grains were obtained through a limited cultivation of the soil. After this followed a period in which meat and milk were the chief articles of food. Finally the period of extended and permanent agriculture was reached, and farinaceous food by cultivation became the main support of life. The significance of this classification is observed in the fact that the amount, variety, and quality of the food available determine the possibility of man's material and spiritual advancement. As the food supply lies at the foundation of human existence, prosperity is measured to a large extent by the food products. The character of the food affects to a great extent the mental and moral capabilities of man; that is, it {41} limits the possibilities of civilization. Even in modern civilization the effect of poor food on intellect, morals, and social order is easily observed.
Progress Is Estimated by Different Forms of Social Order.—It is only a more general way of estimating political life, and perhaps a broader way, for it includes the entire social development. By this classification man is first represented as wandering in a solitary state with the smallest amount of association with his fellows necessary to his existence and perpetuation, and with no social organization. This status of man is hypothetical, and gives only a starting point for the philosophy of higher development. No savage tribes have yet been discovered in which there was not at least association of individuals in groups, although organization might not yet have appeared. It is true that some of the lower tribes, like the Fuegians of South America, have very tentative forms of social and political association. They wander in loosely constructed groups, which constantly shift in association, being without permanent organization. Yet the purely solitary man is merely conjectural.
It is common for writers to make a classification of social groups into primary and secondary.[2] The primary social groups are: first, the family based upon biological relations, supported by the habit of association; second, the play group of children, in which primitive characters of social order appear, and a third group is the association of adults in a neighborhood meeting. In the formation of these groups, the process of social selection is always in evidence. Impulse, feeling, and emotion play the greater parts in the formation of these primitive groups, while choice based on rational selection seldom appears.
The secondary groups are those which originate through the differentiation of social functions in which the contact of individuals is less intimate than in the primary group. Such voluntary associations as a church, labor organization, or {42} scientific society may be classified as secondary in time and in importance.
Next above the human horde is represented the forced association of men in groups, each group struggling for its own existence. Within the group there was little protection and little social order, although there was more or less authority of leadership manifested. This state finally led to the establishment of rudimentary forms of government, based upon blood relationship. These groups enlarged to full national life. This third stage finally passed to the larger idea of international usage, and is prospective of a world state. These four stages of human society, so sweeping in their generalization, still point to the idea of the slow evolution of social order.
The Development of Family Life.—Starting with the hypothesis that man at one time associated in a state of promiscuity, he passed through the separate stages of polyandry and polygamy, and finally reached a state of monogamy and the pure home life of to-day. Those who have advocated this doctrine have failed to substantiate it clearly so as to receive from scholars the recognition of authority. All these forms of family life except the first have been observed among the savage tribes of modern life, but there are not sufficient data to prove that the human race, in the order of its development, must have passed through these four stages. However, it is true that the modern form of marriage and pure home life did not always exist, but are among the achievements of modern civilization. There certainly has been a gradual improvement in the relations of the members of the household, and notwithstanding the defects of faithlessness and ignorance, the modern family is the social unit and the hope of modern social progress.
The Growth of Political Life.—Many have seen in this the only true measure of progress, for it is affirmed that advancement in civil life is the essential element of civilization. Its importance in determining social order makes it a central factor in all progress. The primitive family represents the germ {43} of early political foundation. It was the first organized unit of society, and contained all of the rudimentary forms of government. The executive, the judicial, the legislative, and the administrative functions of government were all combined in one simple family organization. The head of the family was king, lord, judge, priest, and military commander all in one. As the family expanded it formed the gens or clan, with an enlarged family life and more systematic family government. The religious life expanded also, and a common altar and a common worship were instituted.
A slight progress toward social order and the tendency to distribute the powers of government are to be observed. Certain property was held in common and certain laws regulated the family life. The family groups continued to enlarge by natural increase and by adoption, all those coming into the gens submitting to its laws, customs, and social usage. Finally several gentes united into a brotherhood association called by the Greeks a phratry, by the Romans a curia. This brotherhood was organized on a common religious basis, with a common deity and a central place of worship. It also was used partially as the basis of military organization. This group represents the first unit based upon locality. From it spring the ward idea and the idea of local self-government.
The tribe represented a number of gentes united for religious and military purposes. Although its principal power was military, there were a common altar and a common worship for all members of the tribe. The chief, or head of the tribe, was the military leader, and usually performed an important part in all the affairs of the tribe. As the tribe became the seat of power for military operations, the gens remained as the foundation of political government, for it was the various heads of the gentes who formed the council of the chief or king and later laid the foundation of the senate, wherever instituted. It was common for the tribe in most instances to pass into a village community before developing full national life. There were exceptions to this, where tribes have passed directly into {44} well-organized groups without the formation of the village or the city.
The village community, next in logical order, represents a group of closely related people located on a given territory, with a half-communal system of government. There were the little group of houses forming the village proper and representing the different homes of the family group. There were the common pasture-land, the common woodland, and the fertile fields for cultivation. These were all owned, except perhaps the house lot, by the entire community, and every year the tillable land was parcelled out by the elders of the community to the heads of families for tillage. Usually the tiller of the soil had a right to the crop, although among the early Greeks the custom seems to be reversed, and the individual owned the land, but was compelled to place its proceeds into a common granary. The village community represents the transition from a nomadic to a permanent form of government, and was common to all of the Aryan tribes. The federation of the village communities or the expansion of the tribes formed the Greek city-state, common to all of the Greek communities. It represents the real beginning of civic life among the nations.
The old family organization continued to exist, although from this time on there was a gradual separation of the functions of government. The executive, legislative, and judicial processes became more clearly defined, and special duties were assigned to officers chosen for a particular purpose. Formal law, too, appeared as the expression of the will of a definitely organized community. Government grew more systematic, and expanded into a well-organized municipality. There was less separation of the duties of officers than now, but there was a constant tendency for government to unfold and for each officer to have his specific powers and duties defined. A deity watched over the city, and a common shrine for worship was set up for all members of the municipality.
The next attempt to enlarge government was by federation {45} and by conquest and domination.[3] The city of Rome represents, first, a federation of tribal city groups, and, finally, the dominant city ruling over many other cities and much territory. From this it was only a step to the empire and imperial sway. Athens in her most prosperous period attempted to do the same, but was not entirely successful. After the decline of the Roman power there arose from the ruins of the fallen empire the modern nationalities, which used all forms of government hitherto known. They partook of democracy, aristocracy, or imperialism, and even attempted, in some instances, to combine the principles of all three in one government. While the modern state developed some new characteristics, it included the elements of the Greek and Roman governments. The relations of these new states developed a new code of law, based upon international relations. Though treaties were made between the Greeks and the Romans in their first international relations, and much earlier between the Hebrews and the Phoenicians, international law is of practically modern origin. At present modern nations have an extended and intricate code of laws governing their relations. It is an extension of government beyond the boundaries of nationality.
Through commerce, trade, and political intercourse the nations of the Western World are drawn more closely together, and men talk of a world citizenship. A wide philanthropy, rapid and cheap transportation, the accompanying influences of travel, and a world market for the products of the earth, all tend to level the barriers of nationality and to develop universal citizenship. The prophets of our day talk of the coming world state, which is not likely to appear so long as the barriers of sea and mountain remain; yet each year witnesses a closer blending of the commercial, industrial, and political interests of all nations. Thus we see how governments have been evolved and national life expanded in accordance {46} with slowly developing civilization. Although good government and a high state of civilization are not wholly in the relation of cause and effect, they always accompany each other, and the progress of man may be readily estimated from the standpoint of the development of political institutions and political life.
Religion Important in Civilization.—It is not easy to trace the development of man by a consideration of the various religious beliefs entertained at different periods of his existence. Yet there is unmistakably a line of constant development to be observed in religion, and as a rule its progress is an index of the improvement of the race. No one can contrast the religion of the ancient nations with the modern Christian religion without being impressed with the vast difference in conception and in practice existing between them. In the early period of barbarism, and even of savagery, religious belief was an important factor in the development of human society.
It is no less important to-day, and he who recounts civilization without giving it a prominent place has failed to obtain a comprehensive view of the philosophy of human development. From the family altar of the Greeks to the state religion; from the rude altar of Abraham in the wilderness to the magnificent temple of Solomon at Jerusalem; from the harsh and cruel tenets of the Oriental religions to the spiritual conception and ethical practice of the Christian religion, one observes a marked progress. We need only go to the crude unorganized superstition of the savage or to the church of the Middle Ages to learn that the power and influence of religion is great in human society building.
The Progress Through Moral Evolution.—The moral development of the race, although more difficult to determine than the intellectual, may prove an index to the progress of man. The first formal expression of moral practice is the so-called race morality or group morality, based upon mutual aid for common defense. This is found to-day in all organized groups, such as the boy gang, the Christian church, the political party, {47} the social set, the educational institution, and, indeed, the state itself; but wherever found it has its source in a very primitive group action. In the primitive struggle for existence man had little sympathy for his fellows, the altruistic sentiment being very feeble. But gradually through the influence of the family life sympathy widened and deepened in its onward flow until, joining with the group morality, it entered the larger world of ethical practice.
This phase of moral culture had its foundation in the sympathy felt by the mother for her offspring, a sympathy that gradually extended to the immediate members of the household. As the family expanded into the state, human sympathy expanded likewise, until it became national in its significance. Through this process there finally came a world-wide philanthropy which recognizes the sufferings of all human beings. This sympathy has been rapidly increased by the culture of the intellect, the higher development of the sensibilities, and the refinement of the emotions; thus along the track of altruism or ethical development, which had its foundation in primitive life, with its ever widening and enlarging circles, the advancement of humanity may be traced. The old egoism, the savage warfare for existence, has been constantly tempered by altruism, which has been a saving quality in the human race.
Intellectual Development of Man.—Some philosophers have succeeded in recounting human progress by tracing the intellectual development of the race. This is possible, for everything of value that has been done, and which has left a record, bears the mark of man's intellect. In the early period of his existence, man had sufficient intellect to direct his efforts to satisfy the common wants of life. This exercise of the intellectual faculty has accompanied man's every movement, but it is best observed in the products of his industry and the practice of social order. By doing and making, the intellect grows, and it is only by observing the phenomena of active life that we get a hint or trace of the powers and capacities of the mind. {48} But after man begins the process of reflective thinking, his intellectual activities become stronger, and it is much easier to trace his development by considering the condition of religion, law, philosophy, literature, sculpture, art, and architecture. These represent the best products of the mind, and it is along this intellectual highway that the best results of civilization are found. During the modern period of progressive life systematic education has forced the intellectual faculties through a more rapid course, giving predominance to intellectual life everywhere. The intellectual development of nations or the intellectual development of man in general is a theme of never-tiring interest, as it represents his noblest achievements.
Man from the very beginning has had a desire for knowledge, to satisfy curiosity. Gradually, however, he had a desire to know in order to increase utility, and finally he reaches the highest state of progress in desiring to know for the sake of knowing. Thus he proceeds from mere animal curiosity to the idealistic state of discovering "truth for truth's sake." These are qualities not only of the individual in his development but of the racial group and, indeed, in a larger way of all mankind; intelligence developed in the attempt of man to discover the nature of the results of his instinctive, impulsive, or emotional actions. Later he sought causes of these results. Here we have involved increased knowledge as a basis of human action and the use of that knowledge through discriminating intelligence. The intellect thus represents the selective and directive process in the use of knowledge. Hence, intelligent behavior of the individual or of the group comes only after accumulated knowledge based on experience. The process of trial and error thus gives rise to reflective thinking. It is a superior use of the intellect that more than anything else distinguishes the adult from the child or modern man from the primitive.
Change from Savagery to Barbarism.—Perhaps one of the broadest classifications of ancient society, based upon general characteristics of progress, makes the two general divisions of {49} savagery and barbarism, and subdivides each of these into three groups. The lowest status of savagery represents man as little above the brute creation, subsisting upon roots and berries, and with no knowledge of art or of social order. The second period, called the middle status of savagery, represents man using fire, and using fish for food, and having corresponding advancement in other ways. The upper status of savagery begins with the use of the bow-and-arrow and extends to the period of the manufacture and use of pottery.
At this point the period of barbarism begins. Its lower status, beginning with the manufacture of pottery, extends to the time of the domestication of animals. The middle status includes not only the domestication of animals in the East but the practice of irrigation in the West and the building of walls from stone and adobe brick. The upper status is marked by the use of iron and extends to the introduction of the phonetic alphabet and literary composition. At this juncture civilization is said to dawn.
"Commencing," says Mr. Morgan, the author of this classification, in his Ancient Society, "with the Australians and the Polynesians, following with the American Indian tribes, and concluding with the Roman and Grecian, which afford the best exemplification of the six great stages of human progress, the sum of their united experiences may be supposed to fairly represent that of the human family from the middle status of savagery to the end of the ancient civilization." By this classification the Australians would be placed in the middle status of savagery, and the early Greeks and Romans in the upper status of barbarism, while the Pueblo Indians of New Mexico would be placed in the middle status of barbarism. This is an excellent system for estimating the progress of ancient society, for around these initial periods may be clustered all of the elements of civilization. It is of especial value in the comparative study of different races and tribes.
Civilization Includes All Kinds of Human Progress.—The above representation of the principal methods of recounting {50} civilization shows the various phases of human progress. Although each one is helpful in determining the progress of man from a particular point of view, none is sufficient to marshal all of the qualities of civilization in a completed order. For the entire field of civilization should include all the elements of progress, and this great subject must be viewed from every side before it can be fairly represented to the mind of the student. The true nature of civilization has been more clearly presented in thus briefly enumerating the different methods of estimating human progress. But we must remember that civilization, though continuous, is not uniform. The qualities of progress which are strong in one tribe or nation are weak in others. It is the total of the characteristics of man and the products of his activity that represents his true progress. Nations have arisen, developed, and passed away; tribes have been swept from the face of the earth before a complete development was possible; and races have been obliterated by the onward march of civilization. But the best products of all nations have been preserved for the service of others. Ancient Chaldea received help from central Asia; Egypt and Judea from Babylon; Greece from Egypt; Rome from Greece; and all Europe and America have profited from the culture of Greece and Rome and the religion of Judea. There may be a natural growth, maturity, and decay of nations, but civilization moves ever on toward a higher and more diversified life. The products of human endeavor arrange themselves on the side of man in his attempt to master himself and nature.
I. Method of the Kind of Implements Used.
1. Paleolithic, or Old Stone, Age.
2. Neolithic, or New Stone, Age.
3. Incidental use of copper, tin, and other metals.
4. The making of pottery.
5. The age of bronze.
6. The iron age.
{51}
II. Method by Art Development.
1. Primitive drawings in caves and engraving on ivory and
wood.
2. The use of color in decoration of objects, especially in
decoration of the body.
3. Beginnings of sculpture and carving figures, animals,
gods, and men.
4. Pictorial representations--the pictograph.
5. Representative art in landscapes.
6. Perspective drawing.
7. Idealistic art.
8. Industrial arts.
III. Method of Economic Stages.
1. The Nomadic Stage.
2. The Hunter-Fisher Stage.
3. The Pastoral Period.
4. The Agricultural Period.
5. The Commercial Period.
6. The Period of Industrial Organization.
IV. Progress Estimated by the Food Supply.
1. Natural subsistence Period.
2. Fish and shell fish.
3. Cultivation of native grains.
4. Meat and milk.
5. Farinaceous foods by systematic agriculture.
V. Method of Social Order.
1. Solitary state of man (hypothetical).
2. The human horde.
3. Small groups for purposes of association.
4. The secret society.
5. The religious cult.
6. Closely integrated groups for defense.
7. Amalgamated or federated groups.
8. The Race.
VI. The Family Development.
1. State of promiscuity (hypothetical).
2. Polyandry.
3. Polygamy.
4. Patriarchal family with polygamy.
5. The Monogamic family.
VII. Progress Measured by Political Organization.
1. The organized horde about religious ideas.
{52}
2. The completed family organization.
a. Family.
b. Gens.
c. The Phratry.
d. Patriarchal family.
e. Tribe.
3. The Ethnic state.
4. State formed by conflict and amalgamation.
5. International relations.
6. The World State (Idealistic).
VIII. Religious Development.
1. Belief in spiritual beings.
2. Recognition of the spirit of man and other spirits.
3. Animism.
4. Anthropomorphic religion.
5. Spiritual concept of religion.
6. Ethnical religions.
7. Forms of religious worship and religious practice.
IX. Moral Evolution.
1. Race morality (gang morality).
2. Sympathy for fellow beings.
3. Sympathy through blood relationship.
4. Patriotism: love of race and country.
5. World Ethics.
X. Progress Through Intellectual Development.
1. Sensation and reflex action.
2. Instinct and emotion.
3. Impulse and adaptability.
4. Reflective thought.
5. Invention and discovery.
6. Rational direction of human life.
7. Philosophy.
8. Science.
XI. Progress Through Savagery and Barbarism.
1. Lower status of savagery.
2. Middle status of savagery.
3. Upper status of savagery.
4. Lower status of barbarism.
5. Middle status of barbarism.
6. Upper status of barbarism.
7. Civilization (?).
1. In what other ways than those named in this chapter may we estimate the progress of man?
2. Discuss the evidences of man's mental and spiritual progress.
3. The relation of wealth to progress.
4. The relation of the size of population to the prosperity of a nation.
5. Enumerate the arguments that the next destructive war will destroy civilization.
6. In what ways do you think man is better off than he was one hundred years ago? One thousand years ago?
7. In what ways did the suffering caused by the Great War indicate an increase in world ethics?
[1] See Chapter XXVII.
[2] See Cooley, Social Organization, chap. III.
[3] The transition from the ethnic state to the modern civic state was through conflict, conquest, and race amalgamation.
The Origin of Man Has not Yet Been Determined.—Man's origin is still shrouded in mystery, notwithstanding the accumulated knowledge of the results of scientific investigation in the field and in the laboratory. The earliest historical records and relics of the seats of ancient civilization all point backward to an earlier period of human life. Looking back from the earliest civilizations along the Euphrates and the Nile that have recorded the deeds of man so that their evidences could be handed down from generation to generation, the earlier prehistoric records of man stretch away in the dim past for more than a hundred thousand years. The time that has elapsed from the earliest historical records to the present is only a few minutes compared to the centuries that preceded it.
Wherever we go in the field of knowledge, we shall find evidences of man's great antiquity. We know at least that he has been on earth a long, long period. As to the method of his appearance, there is no absolutely determining evidence. Yet science has run back into the field of conjecture with such strong lines that we may assume with practical certainty something of his early life. He stands at the head of the zoological division of the animal kingdom. The Anthropoid Ape is the animal that most nearly resembles man. It might be said to stand next to man in the procession of species. So far as our knowledge can ascertain, it appears that man was developed in the same manner as the higher types in the animal and vegetable world, namely, by the process of evolution, and by evolution we mean continuous progressive change according to law, from external and internal stimuli. The process of evolution is not a process of creation, nor does evolution move in {58} a straight line, but through the process of differentiation. In no other way can one account for the multitudes of the types and races of the human being, except by this process of differentiation which is one of the main factors of evolution. Accompanying the process of differentiation is that of specialization and integration. When types become highly specialized they fail to adapt themselves to new environments, and other types not so highly specialized prevail. So far as the human race is concerned, it seems to be evolved according to the law of sympodial development—that is, a certain specialized part of the human race develops certain traits and is limited in its adaptability to a specific environment. Closely allied with this are some individuals or groups possessing human traits that are less highly specialized, and hence are adaptable to new conditions. Under new conditions the main stem of development perishes and the budded branch survives.
We have abundant pictures of this in prehistoric times, and records show that this also has been the common lot of man. Modern man thus could not have been developed from any of the living species of the Anthropoid Apes, but he might have had a common origin in the physical, chemical, and vital forces that produced the apes. One line of specialization made the ape, another line made man. Subsequently the separation of man into the various races and species came about by the survival of some races for a time, and then to be superseded by a branch of the same race which differentiated in a period of development before high specialization had taken place.
Methods of Recounting Prehistoric Time.[1]—Present time is measured in terms of centuries, years, months, weeks, days, hours, minutes, and seconds, but the second is the determining power of mechanical measurement, though it is derived mainly by the movement of the earth around the sun and the turning of the earth on its axis. Mechanically we have derived the second as the unit. It is easy for us to think in hours or days or weeks, though it may be the seconds tick off unnoticed {59} and the years glide by unnoticed; but it is difficult to think in centuries—more difficult in millions of years. The little time that man has been on earth compared with the creation of the earth makes it difficult for us to estimate the time of creation. The much less time in the historical period makes it seem but a flash in the movement of the creation.
Age of modern man 10,000 years = less than half an hour. Age of Crô-Magnon type 25,000 years = one hour. Age of Neanderthal type 50,000 years = two hours. Age of Piltdown type 150,000 years = six hours. Age of Heidelberg type 375,000 years = fifteen hours. Age of Pithecanthropus 500,000 years = twenty hours. Beginning of Christian era 2,000 years = 4.8 minutes. Discovery of America 431 years = about 1 minute. Declaration of Independence 137 years = about 21 seconds.
There are four main methods of determining prehistoric {60} time.[3] One is called the (1) geologic method, which is based upon the fact that, in a slowly cooling earth and the action of water and frost, cold and heat, storm and glacier and volcanic eruption, the rocks on the earth are of different ages. If they had never been disturbed from where they were first laid down, it would be very easy to reckon time by geological processes. If you had a stone column twenty feet high built by a machine in ten hours' time, and granting that it worked uniformly, it would be easy to see just at what hour of the period a layer of stone four feet from the bottom, or ten feet from the top, was laid. If, however, in the building of the wall, it should have toppled over several times and had to be rebuilt, it would require considerable study to see just at what hour a certain stone was put in the wall. Studying the geology of the earth in a large way, it is easy to determine what strata of the earth are oldest, and this may be verified by a consideration of the process in which these rocks were being made. Chemistry and physics are thus brought to the aid of geology. It is easy to determine whether a rock has been fused by a fire or whether it has been constructed by the slow action of water and pressure of other rocks. If to-day we should find in an old river bed which had been left high and dry on a little mesa or plateau above the present river bottom, layers of earth that had been put down by water, and we could find how much of each layer was made in a single year, it would be easy to estimate the number of years it took to make the whole deposit. Also if we could find in the lowest layer certain relics of the human race, we could know that the race lived at that time. If we should find relics later on of a different nature, we should be able to estimate the progress of civilization.
The second method is of (2) paleontology, which is developed along with geology. In this we have both the vertebrate and invertebrate paleontology, which are divisions of the science which treats of ancient forms of animal and vegetable life. There are many other divisions of paleontology, some {61} devoting themselves entirely to animal life and others to vegetable, as, for instance, paleobotany. As plants and animals have gradually developed from lower to higher forms and the earth has been built gradually by formations at different periods of existence, by a comparison of the former development with the latter, that is, comparison with the earth, or inorganic, development to the life, or organic, development, we are enabled to get a comparative view of duration. Thus, if in a layer of earth, geological time is established and there should be found bones of an animal, the bones of a man, and fossilized forms of ancient plants, it would be easy to determine their relative ages.
The third method is that of (3) anatomy, which is a study of the comparative size and shape of the bones of man and other animals as a method of showing relative periods of existence. Also, just as the structure of the bones of a child, as compared with that of a man, would determine their relative ages, so the bones of the species that have been preserved through fossilization may show the relative ages of different types of animals. The study of the skeletons of animals, including those of man, has led to the science of anthropometry.
The fourth method is to study the procession of man by (4) cultures, or the industrial and ornamental implements that have been preserved in the river drift, rocks, and caves of the earth from the time that man used them until they were discovered. Just as we have to-day models of the improvement of the sewing-machine, the reaper, or the flying-machine, each one a little more perfect, so we shall find in the relics of prehistoric times this same gradual development—first a stone in its natural state used for cutting, then chipped to make it more perfect, and finally beautified in form and perfected by polishing.
Thus we shall find progress from the natural stone boulder used for throwing and hammering, the developed product made by chipping and polishing the natural boulder, making it more useful and more beautiful, and so for all the {62} multitude of implements used in the hunt and in domestic affairs. Not only do we have here an illustration of continuous progress in invention and use, but also an adaptation of new material, for we pass from the use of stone to that of metals, probably in the prehistoric period, although the beginnings of the use of bronze and iron come mainly within the periods of historical records.
It is not possible here to follow the interesting history of the glacial movement, but a few words of explanation seem necessary. The Ice Age, or the glacial period, refers to a span of time ranging from 500,000 years ago, at the beginning of the first glaciation, to the close of the post-glacial period, about 25,000 years ago. During this period great ice caps, ranging in the valleys and spreading out on the plains over a broad area, proceeded from the north of Europe to the south, covering at the extreme stages nearly the entire surface of the continent. This great movement consists of four distinct forward movements and their return movements. There is evidence to show that before the south movement of the first great ice cap, a temperate climate extended very far toward the pole and gave opportunity for vegetation now extinct in that region.
But as the river of ice proceeded south, plants and animals retreated before it, some of them changing their nature to endure the excessive cold. Then came a climatic change which melted the ice and gradually drove the margin of the glacier farther north. Immediately under the influence of the warm winds the vegetation and animals followed slowly at a distance the movement of the glacier. Then followed a long inter-glacial period before the southerly movement of the returning ice cap. This in turn retreated to the north, and thus four separate times this great movement, one of the greatest geological phenomena of the earth, occurred, leaving an opportunity to study four different glacial periods with three warmer interglacial and one warm post-glacial.
This movement gave great opportunity for the study of {63} geology, paleontology, and the archeology of man. That is, the story of the relationship of the earth to plant, animal, and man was revealed. The regularity of these movements and the amount of material evidence found furnish a great opportunity for measuring geological time movements and hence the life of plants and animals, including man.
The table on page 64 will contribute to the clearness of this brief statement about the glacial periods.
THE ICE AGE IN EUROPE[5]
Geological time-unit 25,000 years
RELA-
TIVE TOTAL
TIME TIME HUMAN ANIMAL AND
GLACIERS UNIT YRS. YRS. LIFE PLANT LIFE
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post-Glacial 1 25,000 25,000 Crô-Magnon Horse, Stag, Rein-
Daum Azilian deer, Musk-Ox,
Geschintz Magdalenian Arctic Fox, Pine,
Bühl Solutrian Birch, Oak
Aurignacian
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
4th Glacial 1 25,000 50,000 Mousterian Reindeer, period of
Wurm Ice Neanderthal Tundra, Alpine,
Steppe, Meadow
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q 3d Inter- 4 100,000 150,000 Pre-Neander- Last warm Asiatic
U glacial thal and African ani-
A Piltdown mals
R ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
T 3d Glacial 1 25,000 175,000 Woolly Mammoth,
E Riss Rhinoceros,
R Reindeer
N ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A 2d Inter- 8 200,000 375,000 Heidelberg African and Asiatic
R glacial Race Animals, Ele-
Y Mindel-Riss phant, Hippo-
potamus
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
2d Glacial 1 25,000 400,000 Cold weather
Mindel animals
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1st Inter- 3 75,000 475,000 Pithecan- Hippopotamus,
glacial thropus Elephant, Afri-
Erectus can and Asiatic
plants
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1st Glacial 1 25,000 500,000
=============================================================================
T
E
R
T
I
A
R
Y
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prehistoric Types of the Human Race.—The earliest record of human life yet discovered is the Pithecanthropus Erectus (Trinil), the apelike man who walked upright, found in Java by Du Bois, about the year 1892. Enough of the skeletal remains of human beings were found at this time to indicate a man of rather crude form and low brain capacity (about 885 c.c.), with possible powers of speech but with no probably developed language or no assumption of the acquaintance with the arts of life.[4]
The remains of this man associated with the remains of one other skeleton, probably a woman, and with the bones of extinct animals, were found in a geological stratum which indicates his age at about 500,000 years. Professor McGregor, after a careful anatomical study, has reproduced the head and bust of Pithecanthropus, which helps us to visualize this primitive species as of rather low cultural type. The low forehead, massive jaw, and receding chin give us a vision of an undeveloped species of the human race, in some respects not much above the anthropoid apes, yet in other characters distinctly human.
There follows a long interval of human development which is only conjectural until the discovery of the bones of the Heidelberg man, found at the south of the River Neckar. These are the first records of the human race found in southern Europe. The type of man is still apelike in some respects, but far in advance of the Pithecanthropus in structure and general appearance. The restoration by the Belgian artist Mascré {65} under the direction of Professor A. Rotot, of Brussels, is indicative of larger brain capacity than the Trinil race. It had a massive jaw, distinctive nose, heavy arched brows, and still the receding chin. Not many cultural remains were found in strata of the second interglacial period along with the remains of extinct animals, such as the ancient elephant, Etruscan rhinoceros, primitive bison, primitive ox, Auvergne bear, and lion. A fauna and a flora as well as a geological structure were found which would indicate that this race existed at this place about 375,000 years ago. From these evidences very little may be determined of the Heidelberg man's cultural development, but much may be inferred. Undoubtedly, like the Pithecanthropus, he was a man without the tools of civilization, or at least had not developed far in this way.
About 150,000 years ago there appeared in Europe races of mankind that left more relics of their civilization.[6] These were the Neanderthaloid races. There is no evidence of the connection of these races with the Java man or the Heidelberg man. Here, as elsewhere in the evolution of races and species, nature does not work in a straight line of descent, but by differentiation and variation.
In 1856 the first discovery of a specimen of the Neanderthal man was found at the entrance of a small ravine on the right bank of the River Dussel, in Rhenish Prussia. This was the first discovery of the Paleolithic man to cause serious reflection on the possibility of a prehistoric race in Europe. Its age is estimated at 50,000 years. This was followed by other discoveries of the Mid-Pleistocene period, until there were a number of discoveries of similar specimens of the Neanderthal race, varying in some respects from each other. The first had a brain capacity of 1230 c.c., while that of the average European is about 1500 c.c. Some of the specimens showed a skull capacity larger than the first specimen, but the average is lower than that of any living race, unless it be that of the Australians.
{66}Later were discovered human remains of a somewhat higher type, known as the Aurignacian, of the Crô-Magnon race. These are probably ancestors of the living races of Europe existing 25,000 to 50,000 years ago. They represent the first races to which may be accorded definite relationship with the recent races.
Thus we have evidences of the great antiquity of man and a series of remains showing continual advancement over a period of nearly 500,000 years—the Pithecanthropus, Heidelberg, Piltdown, and Neanderthal, though expressing gradations of development in the order named, appear to be unrelated in their origin and descent, and are classed as separate species long since extinct. The Crô-Magnon people seem more directly related to modern man. Perhaps in the Neolithic Age they may have been the forebears of present races, either through direct or indirect lines.
The Unity of the Human Race.—Though there are evidences, as shown above, that there were many branches of the human race, or species, some of which became extinct without leaving any records of the passing on of their cultures to others, there is a pretty generally concerted opinion that all branches of the human race are related and have sprung from the same ancestors. There have been differences of opinion regarding this view, some holding that there are several centres of development in which the precursor of man assumed a human form (polygenesis), and others holding that according to the law of differentiation and zoological development there must have been at some time one origin of the species (monogenesis). So far as the scientific investigation of mankind is concerned, it is rather immaterial which theory is accepted. We know that multitudes of tribes and races differ in minor parts of structure, differ in mental capacity, and hence in qualities of civilization, and yet in general form, brain structure, and mental processes, it is the same human being wherever found. So we may assume that there is a unity of the race.
If we consider the human race to have sprung from a single {67} pair, or even the development of man from a single species, it must have taken a long time to have developed the great marks of racial differences that now exist. The question of unity or plurality of race origins has been much discussed, and is still somewhat in controversy, although the predominance of evidence is much in favor of the descent of man from a single species and from a single place. The elder Agassiz held that there were several separate species of the race, which accounts for the wide divergence of characteristics and conditions. But it is generally admitted from a zoological standpoint that man originated from a single species, although it does not necessarily follow that he came from a single pair. It is the diversity or the unity of the race from a single pair which gives rise to the greatest controversy.
There is a wide diversity of opinion among ethnologists on this question. Agassiz was followed by French writers, among whom were Topinard and Hervé, who held firmly to the plurality of centres of origin and distribution. Agassiz thought there were at least nine centres in which man appeared, each independent of the others. Morton thought he could point out twenty-two such centres, and Nott and Gliddon advanced the idea that there were distinct races of people. But Darwin, basing his arguments upon the uniformity of physical structure and similarity of mental characteristics, held that man came from a single progenitor. This theory is the most acceptable, and it is easily explained, if we admit time enough for the necessary changes in the structure and appearance of man. It is the simplest hypothesis that is given, and explains the facts relative to the existence of man much more easily than does the theory in reference to diversity of origins. The majority of ethnologists of America and Europe appear to favor the idea that man came from a single pair, arose from one place, and spread thence over the earth's surface.
The Primitive Home of Man May Be Determined in a General Way.—The location of the cradle of the race has not {68} yet been satisfactorily established. The inference drawn from the Bible story of the creation places it in or near the valley of the Euphrates River. Others hold that the place was in Europe, and others still in America. A theory has also been advanced that a continent or group of large islands called Lemuria, occupying the place where the Indian Ocean now lies, and extending from Ceylon to Madagascar, was the locality in which the human race originated. The advocates of this theory hold to it chiefly on the ground that it is necessary to account for the peopling of Australia and other large islands and continents, and that it is the country best fitted by climate and other physical conditions for the primitive race. This submerged continent would enable the races to migrate readily to different parts of the world, still going by dry land.
There is little more than conjecture upon this subject, and the continent called Lemuria is as mythical as the Ethiopia of Ptolemy and the Atlantis of Plato. It is a convenient theory, as it places the cradle of the race near the five great rivers, the Tigris, Euphrates, Indus, Ganges, and the Nile. The supposed home also lies in a zone in which the animals most resembling man are found, which is an important consideration; as, in the development of the earth, animals appeared according to the conditions of climate and food supply, so the portion of the earth best prepared for man's early life is most likely to be his first home.
Although it is impossible to determine the first home of man, either from a scientific or an historical standpoint, there are a few well-acknowledged theories to be observed: First, as the islands of the ocean were not peopled when first discovered by modern navigators, it is reasonable to suppose that the primitive home of man was on one of the continents. As man is the highest and last development of organic nature, it is advocated, with considerable force of argument, that his first home was in a region suitable to the life of the anthropoid apes. As none of these, either living or fossil, are found in Australia or America, these continents are practically excluded from the probable list of places for the early home of man.
{69}In considering the great changes which have taken place in the earth's surface, southern India and southern Africa were large islands at the time of man's appearance; hence, there is little probability of either of these being the primitive home. None of the oldest remains of man have been found in the high northern latitudes of Europe or America. We have then left a strip of country on the southern slope of the great mountain chain which begins in western Europe and extends to the Himalaya Mountains, in Asia, which appears to be the territory in which was situated the early home of man. The geological relics and the distribution of the race both point to the fact that in this belt man's life began; but it is not determined whether it was in Europe or in Asia, there being adherents to both theories.
The Antiquity of Man Is Shown in Racial Differentiation.—Granted that the life of the human race has originated from a common biological origin and from a common geographical centre, it has taken a very long time for the races to be differentiated into the physical traits they possess to-day, as it has taken a long time for man to spread over the earth. The generalized man wandering along the streams and through the forests in search of food, seeking for shelter under rocks and in caves and trees, was turned aside by the impassable barriers of mountains, or the forbidding glacier, the roaring torrent, or the limits of the ocean itself, and spread over the accessible parts of the earth's surface until he had covered the selected districts on the main portions of the globe. Then came race specialization, where a group remained a long time in the same environment and inbred in the same stock, developing specialized racial characters. These changes were very slow, and the wide difference to-day between the Asiatic, the African, and the European is indicative of the long period of years which brought them about. Certainly, six thousand years would not suffice to make such changes.
Of course one must realize that just as, in the period of childhood, the plastic state of life, changes of structure and appearance are more rapid than in the mature man, after {70} traits and characters have become more fixed, so by analogy we may assume that this was the way of the human race and that in the earlier period changes were more rapid than they are to-day. Thus in the cross-fertilizations and amalgamation of races we would expect a slower development than under these earlier conditions, yet when we realize the persistence of the types of Irish and German, of Italian and Greek, of Japanese and Chinese, even though the races become amalgamated, we must infer that the racial types were very slow in developing.
If we consider the variations in the structure and appearance of the several tribes and races with which we come in contact in every-day life, we are impressed with the amount of time necessary to make these changes. Thus the Anglo-American, whom we sometimes call Caucasian, taken as one type of the perfection of physical structure and mental habit, with his brown hair, having a slight tendency to curl, his fair skin, high, prominent, and broad forehead, his great brain capacity, his long head and delicately moulded features, contrasts very strongly with the negro, with his black skin, long head, with flat, narrow forehead, thick lips, projecting jaw, broad nose, and black and woolly hair. The Chinese, with his yellow skin, flat nose, black, coarse hair, and oblique, almond-shaped eyes, and round skull, marks another distinct racial type. Other great races have different characteristics, and among our own race we find a further separation into two great types, the blonds and the brunettes.
What a long period of time must have elapsed to have changed the racial characteristics! From pictures made three thousand years ago in Egypt the differences of racial characteristics were very clearly depicted in the hair, the features of the face, and, indeed, the color of the skin. If at this period the racial differences were clearly marked, at what an early date must they have been wanting! So, also, the antiquity of man is evinced in the fact that the oldest skeletons found show him at that early period to be in possession of an average {71} brain capacity and a well-developed frame. If changes in structure have taken place, they have gradually appeared only during a long period of years. Yet, when it is considered that man is a migratory creature, who can adapt himself to any condition of climate or other environment, and it is realized that in the early stage of his existence his time was occupied for a long period in hunting and fishing, and that from this practice he entered the pastoral life to continue, to a certain extent, his wanderings, it is evident that there is sufficient opportunity for the development of independent characteristics. Also the effects of sun and storm, of climate and other environments have a great influence in the slow changes of the race which have taken place. The change in racial traits is dependent largely upon biological selection, but environment and social selection probably had at least indirect influence in the evolution of racial characters.
The Evidences of Man's Ancient Life in Different Localities.—The sources of the remains of the life of primitive man are (1) Caves, (2) Shell Mounds, (3) River and Glacial Drift, (4) Burial Mounds, (5) Battlefields and Village Sites, and (6) Lake Dwellings. It is from these sources that most of the evidence of man's early life has come.
Caves (1).—It has been customary to allude to the cave man as if he were a distinct species or group of the human race, when in reality men at all times through many thousands of years dwelt in caves according to their convenience. However, there was a period in European life when groups of the human race used caves for permanent habitations and thus developed certain racial types and habits. Doubtless these were established long enough in permanent seats to develop a specialized type which might be known as the cave man, just as racial types have been developed in other conditions of habitation and life. What concerns us most here is that the protection which the cave afforded this primitive man has been a means of protecting the records of his life, and thus added to the evidence of human progress. Many of these {72} caves were of limestone with rough walls and floor, and in most instances rifts in the roof allowed water to percolate and drop to the floor.
Frequently the water was impregnated with limestone solution, which became solidified as each drop left a deposit at the point of departure. This formed rough stalactites, which might be called stone icicles, because their formation was similar to the formation of an icicle of the water dropping from the roof. So likewise on the floor of the cave where the limestone solution dropped was built up from the bottom a covering of limestone with inverted stone icicles called stalagmites. Underneath the latter were found layer after layer of relics from the habitation of man, encased in stone to be preserved forever or until broken into by some outside pressure. Of course, comparatively few of all the relics around these habitations were preserved, because those outside of the stone encasement perished, as did undoubtedly large masses of remains around the mouth of the cave.
In these caves of Europe are found the bones of man, flint implements, ornaments of bone with carvings, and the necklaces of animals' teeth, along with the bones of extinct animals. In general the evidence shows the habits of the life of man and also the kind of animals with which he associated whose period of life was determined by other evidence. Besides this general evidence, there was a special determination of the progress of man, because the relics were in layers extending over a long period of years, giving evidence that from time to time implements of higher order were used, either showing progress or that different races may have occupied the cave at different times and left evidences of their industrial, economic, and social life. In some of the caves skulls have been discovered showing a brain case of an average capacity, along with others of inferior size. Probably the greater part of this cave life was in the upper part of the Paleolithic Stone Age.
In some of these caves at the time of the Magdalenian {73} culture, which was a branch of the Crô-Magnon culture, there are to be found drawings and paintings of the horse, the cave bear, the mammoth, the bison, and many other animals, showing strong beginnings of representative art. Also, in these caves were found bones and stone implements of a more highly finished product than those of the earlier primitive types of Europe.
Shell Mounds (2).—Shell mounds of Europe and America furnish definite records of man's life. The shell mounds of greatest historic importance are found along the shores of the Baltic in Denmark. Here are remains of a primitive people whose diet seems to be principally shell-fish obtained from the shores of the sea. Around their kitchens the shells of mussels, scallops, and oysters were piled in heaps, and in these shell mounds, or Kitchenmiddens, as they are called (Kjokkenmoddings), are found implements, the bones of birds and mammals, as well as the remains of plants. Also, by digging to the bottom of these mounds specimens of pottery are found, showing that the civilization belonged largely to the Neolithic period of man.
There are evidences also of the succession of the varieties of trees corresponding to the evidences found in the peat bogs, the oak following the fir, which in turn gave way to the beech. These refuse heaps are usually in ridgelike mounds, sometimes hundreds of yards in length. The weight of the millions of shells and other refuse undoubtedly pressed the shells down into the soft earth and still the mound enlarged, the habitation being changed or raised higher, rather than to take the trouble to clear away the shells from the habitation. The variety of implements and the degrees of culture which they exhibit give evidence that men lived a long time in this particular locality. Undoubtedly it was the food quest that caused people to assemble here. The evidences of the coarse, dark pottery, the stone axes, clubs, and arrow-heads, and the bones of dogs show a state of civilization in which differentiation of life existed. Shell mounds are also found along the {74} Pacific coast, showing the life of Indians from the time when they first began to use shell-fish for food. In these mounds implements showing the relative stages of development have been found.
River and Glacial Drift (3).—The action of glaciers and glacial rivers and lakes has through erosion changed the surface of the soil, tearing out some parts of the earth's surface and depositing the soil elsewhere. These river floods carried out bones of man and the implements in use, and deposited them, together with the bones of animals with which he lived. Many of these relics have been preserved through thousands of years and frequently are brought to light. The geological records are thus very important in throwing light upon the antiquity of man. It is in the different layers or strata of the earth caused by these changes that we find the relics of ancient life. The earth thus reveals in its rocks and gravel drift the permanent records of man's early life. Historical geology shows us that the crust of the earth has been made by a series of layers, one above the other, and that the geologist determining the order of their creation has a means of ascertaining their relative age, and thus can measure approximately the life of the plants and animals connected with each separate layer.[7] The relative ages of fishes, reptiles, and mammals, including man, are thus readily determined.
It is necessary to refer to the method of classification adopted by geologists, who have divided the time of earth-making into three great periods, representing the growth of animal life, determined by the remains found in the strata or drift. These periods mark general portions of time. Below the first is the period of earliest rock formation (Archaean), in which there is no life, and which is called Azoic for that reason. There is a short period above this, usually reckoned as outside the ancient life, on account of the few forms of animals found there; but the first great period (Paleozoic) represents non-vertebrate life, as well as the life of fishes and reptiles, and includes {75} also the coal measures, which represent a period of heavy vegetation. The middle period (Mesozoic) includes the more completely developed lizards and crocodiles, and the appearance of mammals and birds. The animal life of the third period (Cenozoic) resembles somewhat the modern species. This period includes the Tertiary and the Quaternary and the recent sub-periods. Man, the highest being in the order of creation, appears in the Quaternary period. Of the immense ages of time represented by the geological periods the life of man represents but a small portion, just as the existence of man as recorded in history is but a modern period of his great life. The changes, then, which have taken place in the animals and plants and the climate in the different geological periods have been instrumental in determining the age of man; that is, if in a given stratum human remains are found, and the relative age of that stratum is known, it is easy to estimate the relative age of man.
Whether man existed prior to the glacial epoch is still in doubt. Some anthropologists hold that he appeared at the latter part of the Tertiary, that is, in the Pliocene. Reasons for assumption exist, though there is not sufficient evidence to make it conclusive. The question is still in controversy, and doubtless will be until new discoveries bring new evidence. If there is doubt about the finding of human relics in the Tertiary, there is no doubt about the evidence of man during the Quaternary, including the whole period of the glacial epoch, extending 500,000 years into the past.
The relics of man which are found in the drift and elsewhere are the stone implements and the flakes chipped from the flint as he fashioned it into an axe, knife, or hatchet. The implements commonly found are arrow-heads, knives, lance-heads, pestles, etc. Human bones have been found imbedded in the rock or the sand. Articles made of horn, bones of animals, especially the reindeer, notched or cut pieces of wood have been found. Also there are evidences of rude drawings on stone, bone, or ivory; fragments of charcoal, which give {76} evidence of the use of fire in cooking or creating artificial heat, are found, and long bones split longitudinally to obtain marrow for food, and, finally, the remnants of pottery. These represent the principal relics found in the Stone Age; to these may be added the implements in bronze and iron of later periods.
A good example of the use of these relics to determine chronology is shown in the peat bogs of Denmark. At the bottom are found trees of pine which grew on the edges of the bog and have fallen in. Nearer the top are found oak and white birch-trees, and in the upper layer are found beech-trees closely allied to the species now covering the country. The pines, oaks, and birches are not to be seen in that part of the country at present. Here, then, is evidence of the successive replacement of different species of trees. It is evident that it must have taken a long time for one species thus to replace another, but how long it is impossible to say. In some of these bogs is found a gradation of implements, unpolished stone at the bottom, polished stone above, followed by bronze, and finally iron. These are associated with the different forms of vegetable remains.
In Europe stone implements occur in association with fossil remains of the cave lion, the cave hyena, the old elephant and rhinoceros—all extinct species. Also the bones and horns of the reindeer are prominent in these remains, for at that time the reindeer came farther south than at present. In southern France similar implements are associated with ivory and bones, with rude markings, and the bones of man—even a complete skeleton being found at one place. These are all found in connection with the bones of the elk, ibex, aurochs, and reindeer.
Burial Mounds (4).—It is difficult to determine at just what period human beings began to bury their dead. Primarily the bodies were disposed of the same as any other carrion that might occur—namely, they were left to decay wherever they dropped, or were subject to the disposal by wild {77} animals. After the development of the idea of the perpetuation of life in another world, even though it were temporary or permanent, thoughts of preparing the body for its journey into the unknown land and for its residence thereafter caused people to place food and implements and clothing in the grave. This practice probably occurred about the beginning of the Neolithic period of man's existence, and has continued on to the present date.
Hence it is that in the graves of primitive man we find deposited the articles of daily use at the period in which he lived. These have been preserved many centuries, showing something of the life of the people whose remains were deposited in the mounds. Also in connection with this in furtherance of a religious idea were great dolmens and stone temples, where undoubtedly the ancients met to worship. They give some evidence at least of the development of the religious and ceremonial life among these primitive people and to that extent they are of great importance. It is evidence also, in another way, that the religious idea took strong hold of man at an early period of his existence. Evidences of man in Britain from the tumuli, or burial mounds, from rude stone temples like the famous Stonehenge place his existence on the island at a very early date. Judging from skulls and skeletons there were several distinct groups of prehistoric man in Britain, varying from the extreme broad skulls to those of excessive length. They carry us back to the period of the Early Stone Age. Relics, too, of the implements and mounds show something of the primitive conditions of the inhabitants in Britain of which we have any permanent record.
Battlefields and Village Sites (5).—In the later Neolithic period of man the tribes had been fully developed over a great part of the earth's surface, and fought for their existence, principally over territories having a food supply. Other reasons for tribal conflict, such as real or imagined race differences and the ambition for race survival, caused constant warfare. {78} Upon these battlefields were left the implements of war. Those of stone, and, it may be said secondarily, of iron and bronze, were preserved. It is not uncommon now in almost any part of the United States where the rains fall upon a ploughed field over which a battle had been fought, to find exposed a large number of arrow-heads and stone axes, all other perishable implements having long since decayed. Or in some instances the wind blowing the sand exposes the implements which were long ago deposited during a battle. Also, wherever the Indian villages were located for a period of years, the accumulations of utensils and implements occurred which were buried by the action of wind or water. This represents a source of evidence of man's early life.
Lake Dwellings (6).—The idea of protection is evidenced everywhere in the history of primitive man; protection against the physical elements, protection against wild beasts and wilder men. We find along the lakes and bays in both Europe and America the tendency to build the dwelling out in the water and approach it from the land with a narrow walk which could be taken up when not used, or to approach it by means of a rude boat. In this way the dwellers could defend themselves against the onslaughts of tribal enemies. These dwellings have been most numerous along the Swiss lakes, although some are found in Scotland, in the northern coast of South America, and elsewhere. Their importance rests in the fact that, like the shell mounds (Kitchenmiddens), the refuse from these cabins shows large deposits of the implements and utensils that were in use during the period of tribal residence. Here we find not only stone implements, running from the crude form of the Unpolished Stone Age to the highly polished, but also records of implements of bronze and small implements for domestic use of bone and polished stone. Also there are evidences that different tribes or specialized races occupied these dwellings at different times, because of the variation of civilization implied by the implements in use. The British Museum has a very large classified collection of {79} the implements procured from lake dwellings of Switzerland. Other museums also have large collections. A part of them run back into the prehistoric period of man and part extend even down to the historic.
Knowledge of Man's Antiquity Influences Reflective Thinking.—The importance of studying the antiquity of man is the light which it throws upon the causes of later civilization. In considering any phase of man's development it is necessary to realize he has been a long time on earth and that, while the law of the individual life is development, that of the human race is slowly evolutionary; hence, while we may look for immediate and rapid change, we can only be assured of a very slow progressive movement at all periods of man's existence. The knowledge of his antiquity will give us a historical view which is of tremendous importance in considering the purpose and probable result of man's life on earth. When we realize that we have evidence of the struggle of man for five hundred thousand years to get started as far as we have in civilization, and that more changes affecting man's progress may occur in a single year now than in a former thousand years, we realize something of the background of struggle before our present civilization could appear. We realize, also, that his progress in the arts has been very slow and that, while there are many changes in art formation of to-day, we still have the evidences of the primitive in every completed picture, or plastic form, or structural work. But the slow progress of all this shows, too, that the landmarks of civilization of the past are few and far between—distant mile-posts appearing at intervals of thousands of years. Such a contemplation gives us food for thought and should invite patience when we wish in modern times for social transformations to become instantaneous, like the flash of the scimitar or the burst of an electric light.
The evidence that man has been a long time on earth explodes the long-accepted theory of six thousand years as the age of man. It also explodes the theory of instantaneous {80} creation which was expressed by some of the mediaeval philosophers. Indeed, it explodes the theory of a special creation of man without connection with the creation of other living beings. No doubt, there was a specialized creation of man, otherwise he never would have been greater than the anthropoids nor, indeed, than other mammals, but his specialization came about as an evolutionary process which gave him a tremendous brain-power whereby he was enabled to dominate all the rest of the world. So far as philosophy is concerned as to man's life, purpose, and destiny, the influence of the study of anthropology would change the philosopher's vision of life to a certain extent. The recognition that man is "part and parcel" of the universe, subject to cosmic law, as well as a specialized type, subject to the laws of evolution, and, indeed, that he is of a spiritual nature through which he is subjected to spiritual law, causes the philosopher to pause somewhat before he determines the purpose, the life, or the destiny of man.
If we are to inquire how man came into the world, when he came, what he has been doing, how he developed, and whither the human trail leads, we shall encounter many unsolved theories. Indeed, the facts of his life are suggestive of the mystery of being. If it be suggested that he is "part and parcel" of nature and has slowly arisen out of lower forms, it should not be a humiliating thought, for his daily life is dependent upon the lower elements of nature. The life of every day is dependent upon the dust of the earth. The food he eats comes from the earth just the same as that of the hog, the rabbit, or the fish. If, upon this foundation, he has by slow evolution built a more perfect form, developed a brain and a mind which give him the greatest flights of philosophy, art, and religion, is it not a thing to excite pride of being? Could there be any greater miracle than evolving nature and developing life? Indeed, is there any greater than the development of the individual man from a small germ not visible to the naked eye, through the egg, the embryo, infant, youth, to full-grown man? Why not the working of the same law to {81} the development of man from the beginning. Does it lessen the dignity of creation if this is done according to law? On the other hand, does it not give credit to the greatness and power of the Creator if we recognize his wisdom in making the universe, including man, the most important factor, according to a universal plan worked out by far-reacting laws?
1. Evidences of the great antiquity of man.
2. Physical and mental traits of the anthropoid apes.
3. The life and culture of the Neanderthal Race.
4. What are the evidences in favor of the descent of man from a single progenitor?
5. Explain the law of differentiation as applied to plants and animals.
6. Compare in general the arts of man in the Old Stone Age with those of the New Stone Age.
7. What has been the effect of the study of prehistoric man on modern thought as shown in the interpretation of History? Philosophy? Religion?
[2] See Haeckel, Schmidt, Ward, Robinson, Osborn, Todd.
[3] See Osborn, Men of the Old Stone Age.
[4] See Chapter II.
[5] After Osborn. Read from bottom up.
[6] Estimates of Neanderthal vary from 150,000 to 50,000 years ago.
The Efforts of Man to Satisfy Physical Needs.—All knowledge of primitive man, whether derived from the records of cultures he has left or assumed from analogy of living tribes of a low order of civilization, discovers him wandering along the streams in the valleys or by the shores of lakes and oceans, searching for food and incidentally seeking protection in caves and trees. The whole earth was his so far as he could appropriate it. He cared nothing for ownership; he only wanted room to search for the food nature had provided. When he failed to find sufficient food as nature left it, he starved. So in his wandering life he adapted himself to nature as he found it. In the different environments he acquired different customs and habits of life. If he came in contact with other tribes, an exchange of knowledge and customs took place, and both tribes were richer thereby. However, the universality of the human mind made it possible for two detached tribes, under similar environment and similar stimuli, to develop the same customs and habits of life, provided they had the same degree of development. Hence, we have independent group development and group borrowing.
When nature failed to provide him with sufficient food, he learned to force her to yield a larger supply. When natural objects were insufficient for his purposes, he made artificial tools to supplement them. Slowly he became an inventor. Slowly he mastered the art of living. Thus physical needs were gradually satisfied, and the foundation for the superstructure of civilization was laid.
The Attempt to Satisfy Hunger and to Protect from Cold.—To this statement must be added the fact that struggle with {83} his fellows arose from the attempt to obtain food, and we have practically the whole occupation of man in a state of savagery. At least, the simple activities represent the essential forces at the foundation of human social life. The attempt to preserve life either through instinct, impulse, emotion, or rational selection is fundamental in all animal existence. The other great factor at the foundation of human effort is the desire to perpetuate the species. This, in fact, is the mere projection of the individual life into the next generation, and is fundamentally important to the individual and to the race alike. All modern efforts can be traced to these three fundamental activities. But in seeking to satisfy the cravings of hunger and to avoid the pain of cold, man has developed a varied and active life. About these two centres cluster all the simple forces of human progress. Indeed, invention and discovery and the advancement of the industrial arts receive their initial impulses from these economic relations.
We have only to turn our attention to the social life around us to observe evidences of the great importance of economic factors. Even now it will be observed that the greater part of economic activities proceeds from the effort to procure food, clothing, and shelter, while a relatively smaller part is engaged in the pursuit of education, culture, and pleasure. The excellence of educational systems, the highest flights of philosophy, the greatest achievement of art, and the best inspiration of religion cannot exist without a wholesome economic life at the foundation. It should not be humiliating to man that this is so, for in the constitution of things, labor of body and mind, the struggle for existence and the accumulations of the products of industry yield a large return in themselves in discipline and culture; and while we use these economic means to reach higher ideal states, they represent the ladder on which man makes the first rounds of his ascent.
The Methods of Procuring Food in Primitive Times.—Judging from the races and tribes that are more nearly in a state of nature than any other, it may be reasonably assumed that {84} in his first stage of existence, man subsisted almost wholly upon a vegetable diet, and that gradually he gave more and more attention to animal food. His structure and physiology make it possible for him to use both animal and vegetable food. Primarily, with equal satisfaction the procuring of food must have been rather an individual than a social function. Each individual sought his own breakfast wherever he might find it. It was true then, as now, that people proceeded to the breakfast table in an aggregation, and flocked around the centres of food supply; so we may assume the picture of man stealing away alone, picking fruits, nuts, berries, gathering clams or fish, was no more common than the fact of present-day man getting his own breakfast alone. The main difference is that in the former condition individuals obtained the food as nature left it, and passed it directly from the bush or tree to the mouth, while in modern times thousands of people have been working indirectly to make it possible for a man to wait on himself.
Jack London, in his Before Adam, gives a very interesting picture of the tribe going out to the carrot field for its breakfast, each individual helping himself. However, such an aggregation around a common food supply must eventually lead to co-operative economic methods. But we do find even among modern living tribes of low degree of culture the group following the food quest, whether it be to the carrot patch, the nut-bearing trees, the sedgy seashore for mussels and clams, the lakes for wild rice, or to the forest and plains where abound wild game.
We find it difficult to think otherwise than that the place of man's first appearance was one abounding in edible fruits. This fact arises from the study of man's nature and evidences of the location of his first appearance, together with the study of climate and vegetation. There are a good many suggestions also that man in his primitive condition was prepared for a vegetable diet, and indications are that later he acquired use of meat as food. Indeed, the berries and edible roots of {85} certain regions are in sufficient quantity to sustain life throughout a greater part of the year. The weaker tribes of California at the time of the first European invaders, and for many centuries previous, found a greater part of their sustenance in edible roots extracted from the soil, in nuts, seeds of wild grains, and grasses. It is true they captured a little wild game, and in certain seasons many of them made excursions to the ocean or frequented the streams for fish or shell-fish, but their chief diet was vegetable. It must be remembered, also, that all of the cultivated fruits to-day formerly existed, in one variety or another, in the wild species. Thus the citrous fruits, the date, the banana, breadfruit, papaw, persimmon, apple, cherry, plum, pear, all grew in a wild state, providing food for man if he were ready to take it as provided. Rational selection has assisted nature in improving the quality of grains and fruits and in developing new varieties.
In the tropical regions was found the greatest supply of edible fruits. Thus the Malays and the Papuans find sufficient food on trees to supply their wants. Many people in some of the groups in the South Sea Islands live on cocoanuts. In South America several species of trees are cultivated by the natives for the food they furnish. The palm family contributes much food to the natives, and also furnishes a large supply of food to the markets of the world. The well-known breadfruit tree bears during eight successive months in the year, and by burying the fruit in the ground it may be preserved for food for the remaining four months. Thus a single plant may be made to provide a continuous food supply for the inhabitants of the Moluccas and Philippines. Many other instances of fruits in abundance, such as the nuts from the araucarias of South America, and beans from the mesquite of Mexico, might be given to show that it is possible for man to subsist without the use of animal food.
The Variety of Food Was Constantly Increased.—Undoubtedly, one of the chief causes of the wandering of primitive man over the earth, in the valleys, along stream, lake, and ocean, {86} over the plains and through the hills, was the quest for food to preserve life; and even after tribes became permanent residents in a certain territory, there was a constant shifting from one source of food supply to another throughout the seasons. However, after tribes became more settled, the increase of population encroached upon the native food supply, and man began to use his invention for the purpose of its increase. He learned how to plant seeds which were ordinarily believed to be sown by the gods, and to till the soil and raise fruits and vegetables for his own consumption. This was a period of accidental agriculture, or hoe culture, whereby the ground was tilled by women with hoes of stone, or bone, or wood. In the meantime, the increase of animal food became a necessity. Man learned how to snare and trap animals, to fish and to gather shell-fish, learning by degrees to use new foods as discovered as nature left them. Life become a veritable struggle for existence as the population increased and the lands upon which man dwelt yielded insufficient supply of food. The increased variety of food allowed man to adapt himself to the different climates. Thus in the colder climates animal food became desirable to enable him to resist more readily the rigors of climate. It was not necessary, it is supposed, to give him physical courage or intellectual development, for there appear to be evidences of tribes like the Maoris of New Zealand, who on the diet of fish and roots became a most powerful and sagacious people. But the change from a vegetable diet to a meat-and-fish diet in the early period brought forth renewed energy of body and mind, not only on account of the necessary physical exertion but on account of the invention of devices for the capture of fish and game.
The Food Supply Was Increased by Inventions.—Probably the first meat food supply was in the form of shell-fish which could be gathered near the shores of lakes and streams. Probably small game was secured by the use of stones and sticks and by running the animal down until he was exhausted or until he hid in a place inaccessible to the pursuer. The {87} boomerang, as used by the Australians in killing game, may have been an early product of the people of Neolithic Europe. In the latter part of the Paleolithic Age, fish-hooks of bone were used, and probably snares invented for small game. The large game could not be secured without the use of the spear and the co-operation of a number of hunters. In all probability this occurred in the New Stone Age.
The invention of the bow-and-arrow was of tremendous importance in securing food. It is not known what led to its invention, although the discovery of the flexible power of the shrub, or the small sapling, must have occurred to man as he struggled through the brush. It is thought by some that the use of the bow fire-drill, which was for the purpose of striking fire by friction, might have displayed driving power when the drill wound up in the string of the bow flew from its confinement. However, this is conjectural; but, judging from the inventions of known tribes, it is evident that necessity has always been the moving power in invention. The bow-and-arrow was developed in certain centres and probably through trade and exchange extended to other tribes and groups until it was universally used. It is interesting to note how many thousands of years this must have been the chief weapon for destroying animals or crippling game at a distance. Even as late as the Norman conquest, the bow-and-arrow was the chief means of defense of the Anglo-Saxon yeoman, and for many previous centuries in the historic period had been the chief implement in warfare and in the chase. The use of the spear in fishing supplemented that of the hook, and is found among all low-cultured tribes of the present day. The American Indian will stand on a rock in the middle of a stream, silently, for an hour if necessary, watching for a chance to spear a salmon. These small devices were of tremendous importance in increasing the food supply, and the making of them became a permanent industry.
Along with the bow and arrow were developed many kinds of spears, axes, and hammers, invented chiefly to be used in {88} war, but also used for economic reasons. In the preparation of animal food, in the tanning of skins, in the making of clothing, another set of stone implements was developed. So, likewise, in the grinding of seeds, the mortar and pestle were used, and the small hand-mill or grinder was devised. The sign of the mortar and pestle at the front of drug-stores brings to mind the fact that its first use was not for preparing medicines, but for grinding grains and seeds.
The Discovery and Use of Fire.—The use of fire was practised in the early history of man. Among the earliest records in caves are found evidences of the use of fire. Charcoal is practically indestructible, and, although it may be crushed, the small particles maintain their shape in the clays and sands. In nearly all of the relics of man discovered in caves, the evidences of fire are to be found, and no living tribe has yet been discovered so low in the scale of life as to be without the knowledge of fire and probably its simple uses, although a few tribes have been for the time being without fire when first discovered. This might seem to indicate that at a very early period man did not know how to create fire artificially, but carried it and preserved it in his wanderings. There are indications that a certain individual was custodian of the fire, and later it was carried by the priest or cacique. Here, as in other instances in the development of the human race, an economic factor soon assumes a religious significance, and fire becomes sacred.
There are many conjectures respecting the discovery of fire. Probably the two real sources are of lightning that struck forest trees and set them on fire and the action of volcanoes in throwing out burning lava, which ignited combustible material. Either one or the other, and perhaps both, of these methods may have furnished man with fire. Others have suggested that the rubbing together of dead limbs of trees in the forests after they were moved by the winds, may have created fire by friction. It is possible, also, that the sun's rays may have, when concentrated on combustible {89} material, caused spontaneous ignition. The idea has been advanced that some of the forest fires of recent times have been ignited in this way. However, it is evident that there are enough natural sources in the creation of fire to enable tribes to use it for the purposes of artificial heat, cooking, and later, in the age of metals, of smelting ores.
There has always been a mystery connected with the origin and use of fire, which has led to many myths. Thus, the Greeks insisted that Prometheus, in order to perform a great service to humanity, stole fire from heaven and gave it to man. For this crime against the authority of the gods, he was chained to a rock to suffer the torture of the vulture who pecked at his vitals. Aeschylus has made the most of this old legend in his great drama of Prometheus Bound. Nearly every tribe or nation has some tradition regarding the origin of fire. Because of its mystery and its economic value, it was early connected with religion and made sacred in many instances. It was thus preserved at the altar, never being allowed to become extinct without the fear of dire calamity. Perhaps the economic and religious ideas combined, because tribes in travelling from place to place exercised great care to preserve it. The use of fire in worship became almost universal among tribes and ancient nations. Thus the Hebrews and the Aryans, including Greeks, Romans, and Persians, as well as the Chinese and Japanese, used fire in worship. Among other tribes it was worshipped as a symbol or even as a real deity. Even in the Christian religion, the use of the burning incense may have some psychological connection with the idea of purification through fire. Whether its mysterious nature led to its connection with worship, and the superstition connected with its continued burning, or whether from economic reasons it became a sacred matter, has never been determined. The custom that a fire should never go out upon the altar, and that it should be carried in migrations from place to place, would seem to indicate that these two motives were closely allied, if not related in cause and effect.
{90}Evidently, fire was used for centuries before man invented methods of reproducing it. Simple as the process involved, it was a great invention; or it may be stated that many devices were resorted to for the creation of artificial fire. Perhaps the earliest was that of rubbing two pieces of dry wood together, producing fire by friction. This could be accomplished by persistent friction of two ordinary pieces of dry wood, or by drilling a hole in a dry piece of wood with a pointed stick until heat was developed and a spark produced to ignite pieces of dry bark or grass. Another way was to make a groove in a block of wood and run the end of a stick rapidly back and forth through the groove. An invention called the fire-drill was simply a method of twirling rapidly in the hand a wooden drill which was in contact with dry wood, or by winding a string of the bow several times around the drill and moving the bow back and forth horizontally, giving rapid motion to the drill.
As tribes became more advanced, they used two pieces of flint with which to strike fire, and after the discovery of iron, the flint and iron were used. How many centuries these simple devices were essential to the progress and even to the life of tribes, is not known; but when we realize that but a few short years ago our fathers lighted the fire with flint and steel, and that before the percussion cap was invented, the powder in the musket was ignited by flint and hammer, we see how important to civilization were these simple devices of producing fire artificially. So simple an invention as the discovery of the friction match saved hours of labor and permitted hours of leisure to be used in other ways. It is one of the vagaries of human progress that a simple device remains in use for thousands of years before its clumsy method gives way to a new invention only one step in advance of the old.
Cooking Added to the Economy of the Food Supply.—Primitive man doubtless consumed his food raw. The transition of the custom of uncooked food to cooked food must have been gradual. We only know that many of the backward tribes of {91} to-day are using primitive methods of cooking, and the man of the Stone Ages had methods of cooking the meat of animals. In all probability, the suggestion came as people were grouped around the fire for artificial heat, and then, either by intention or desire, the experiment of cooking began. After man had learned to make water-tight baskets, a common device of cooking was to put water in the basket and, after heating stones on a fire, put them in the basket to heat the water and then place the food in the basket to be cooked. This method is carried on by the Indians in some parts of Alaska to this day, where they use a water-tight basket for this purpose. Probably this method of cooking food was a later development than the roasting of food on coals or in the ashes, or in the use of the wooden spit. Catlin, in his North American Indians, relates that certain tribes of Indians dig a hole in the ground and line it with hide filled with water, then place hot stones in the water, in which they place their fish, game, or meat for cooking. This is interesting, because it carries out a more or less universal idea of adaptation to environment. Probably the plains Indians had no baskets or other vessels to use for this purpose, but they are found to have used similar methods of cooking grasshoppers. They dig a hole in the ground, build a fire in the hole, and take the fire out and put in the grasshoppers. Thus, they have an exhibition of the first fireless cooker.
It is thought by some that the need of vessels which would endure the heat was the cause of the invention of pottery. While there seems to be little evidence of this, it is easy to conjecture that when water was needed to be heated in a basket, a mass of clay would be put on the bottom of the basket before it was put over the coals of fire. After the cooking was done, the basket could easily be detached from the clay, leaving a hard-baked bowl. This led to the suggestion of making bowls of clay and baking them for common use. Others suggest that the fact of making holes in the ground for cooking purposes gave the suggestion that by the use of clay a portable vessel might be made for similar purposes.
{92}The economic value of cooking rests in the fact that a larger utility comes from the cooked than from the raw food. Though the phenomena of physical development of tribes and nations cannot be explained by the chemical constituents of food, although they are not without a positive influence. Evidently the preparation of food has much to do with man's progress, and the art of cooking was a great step in advance. The better utilization of food was a time-saving process—and, indeed, in many instances may have been a life-saving affair.
The Domestication of Animals.—The time and place of the domestication of animals are not satisfactorily determined. We know that Paleolithic man had domesticated the dog, and probably for centuries this was the only animal domesticated; but it is known that low forest tribes have tamed monkeys and parrots for pets, and savage tribes frequently have a band of dogs for hunting game or guarding the hut. While it may be supposed that domestication of animals may have occurred in the prehistoric period, the use of such animals has been in the historic period. There are many evidences of the domesticated dog at the beginning of the Neolithic period. However, these animals may have still been nearly half wild. It is not until the period of the Lake Dwellings of Switzerland that we can discriminate between the wild animals and those that have been tamed. In the Lake Dwelling débris are found the bones of the wild bull, or urus, of Europe. Probably this large, long-horned animal was then in a wild state, and had been hunted for food. Alongside of these remains are those of a small, short-horned animal, supposed to have been domesticated. Later, though still in the Neolithic period, remains of short-horned tame cattle appear in the refuse of the Lake Dwellings. It is thought by some that these two varieties—the long-horned urus and the short-horned domesticated animal brought from the south—were crossed, which gave rise to the origin of the present stock of modern cattle in central Europe. Pigs and sheep were probably domesticated in Asia {93} and brought into Europe during the later Neolithic or early Bronze period.
The horse was domesticated in Asia, and Clark Wissler[1] shows that to be one great centre of cultural distribution for this animal. It spread from Asia into Europe, and from Europe into America. The llama was early domesticated in South America. The American turkey had its native home in Mexico, the hen in Asia. The dog, though domesticated very early in Asia, has gone wherever the human race has migrated, as the constant companion of man. The horse, while domesticated in Asia, depends upon the culture of Europe for his large and extended use, and has spread over the world. We find that in the historic period the Aryan people everywhere made use of the domesticated goat, horse, and dog. In the northern part of Europe, the reindeer early became of great service to the inhabitants for milk, meat, and clothing. The great supply of milk and meat from domesticated animals added tremendously to the food supply of the race, and made it possible for it to develop in other lines. Along with the food supply has been the use of these animals for increasing the clothing supply through hides, furs, skins, and wool. The domestication of animals laid the foundation for great economic advancement.
The Beginnings of Agriculture Were Very Meagre.—Man had gathered seeds and fruit and berries for many years before he conceived the notion of planting seeds and cultivating crops. It appears to be a long time before he knew enough to gather seeds and plant them for a harvest. Having discovered this, it was only necessary to have the will and energy to prepare the soil, sow the seed, and harvest a crop in order to enter upon agriculture. But to learn this simple act must have required many crude experiments. In the migrations of mankind they adopted a little intermittent agriculture, planting the grains while the tribe paused for pasture of flocks and herds, and resting long enough for a crop to be harvested. {94} They gradually began to supplement the work of the pastoral with temporary agriculture, which was used as a means of supplementing the food supply. It was not until people settled in permanent habitations and ceased their pastoral wanderings that real agriculture became established. Even then it was a crude process, and, like every other economic industry of ancient times, its development was excessively slow.
The wandering tribes of North America at the time of the discovery had reached the state of raising an occasional crop of corn. Indeed, some tribes were quite constant in limited agriculture. The sedentary Indians of New Mexico, old Mexico, and Peru also cultivated corn and other plants, as did those of Central America. The first tillage of the soil was meagre, and the invention of agricultural implements proceeded slowly. At first wandering savages carried a pointed stick to dig up the roots and tubers used for food. The first agriculturists used sticks for stirring the soil, which finally became flattened in the form of a paddle or rude spade. The hoe was evolved from the stone pick or hatchet. It is said that the women of the North American tribes used a hoe made of an elk's shoulder-blade and a handle of wood. In Sweden the earliest records of tillage represent a huge hoe made from a stout limb of spruce with the sharpened root. This was finally made heavier, and men dragged it through the soil in the manner of ploughing. Subsequently the plough was made in two pieces, a handle having been added. Finally a pair of cows yoked together were compelled to drag the plough. Probably this is a fair illustration of the manner of the evolution of the plough in other countries. It is also typical of the evolution of all modern agricultural implements.
We need only refer to our own day to see how changes take place. The writer has cut grain with the old-fashioned sickle, the scythe, the cradle, and the reaper, and has lived to see the harvester cut and thresh the grain in the field. The Egyptians use until this day wooden ploughs of an ancient type formed from limbs of trees, having a share pointed with metal. {95} The old Spanish colonists used a similar plough in California and Mexico as late as the nineteenth century. From these ploughs, which merely stirred the soil imperfectly, there has been a slow evolution to the complete steel plough and disk of modern times. A glance at the collection of perfected farm machinery at any modern agricultural fair reveals what man has accomplished since the beginning of the agricultural art. In forest countries the beginning of agriculture was in the open places, or else the natives cut and burned the brush and timber, and frequently, after one or two crops, moved on to other places. The early settlers of new territories pursue the same method with their first fields, while the turning of the prairie sod of the Western plains was frequently preceded by the burning of the prairie grass and brush.
The method of attachment to the soil determined economic progress. Man in his early wanderings had no notion of ownership of the land. All he wished was to have room to go wherever the food quest directed him, and apparently he had no reflections on the subject. The matters of fact regarding mountain, sea, river, ocean, and glacier which influenced his movements were practically no different from the fact of other tribes that barred his progress or interfered with his methods of life. In the hunter-fisher stage of existence, human contacts became frequent, and led to contention and warfare over customary hunting grounds. Even in the pastoral period the land was occupied by moving upon it, and held as long as the tribe could maintain itself against other tribes that wished the land for pasture. Gradually, however, even in temporary locations, a more permanent attachment to the soil came through clusters of dwellings and villages, and the habit of using territory from year to year for pastorage led to a claim of the tribe for that territory. So the idea of possession grew into the idea of permanent ownership and the idea of rights to certain parts of the territory became continually stronger. This method of settlement had much to do with not only the economic life of people, but in determining the nature of their {96} social organizations and consequently the efficiency of their social activity. Evidently, the occupation of a certain territory as a dwelling-place was the source of the idea of ownership in land.
Nearly all of Europe, at least, came into permanent cultivation through the village community.[2] A tribe settled in a given valley and held the soil in common. There was at a central place an irregular collection of rude huts, called the village. Each head of the family owned and permanently occupied one of these. The fertile or tillable land was laid out in lots, each family being allowed the use of a lot for one or more years, but the whole land was the common property of the tribe, and was under the direction of the village elders. The regulation of the affairs of the agricultural community developed government, law, and social cohesion. The social advancement after the introduction of permanent agriculture was great in every way. The increased food supply was an untold blessing; the closer association necessary for the new kind of life, the building of distinct homes, and the necessity of a more general citizenship and a code of public law brought forth the social or community idea of progress. Side by side with the village community system there was a separate development of individual ownership and tillage, which developed into the manorial system. It is not necessary to discuss this method here except to say that this, together with the permanent occupation of the house-lot in the village, gave rise to the private ownership of property in land. As to how private ownership of personal property began, it is easy to suppose that, having made an implement or tool, the person claimed the right of perpetual possession or ownership; also, that in the chase the captured game belonged to the one who made the capture; the clothing to the maker. In some instances where game was captured by the group, each was given a share in proportion to his station in life, or again in proportion to the service each performed in the capture. Yet, in this {97} early period possessory right was frequently determined on the basis that might makes right.
The Manufacture of Clothing.—The motive of clothing has been that of ornament and protection from the pain of cold. The ornamentation of the body was earlier in its appearance in human progress than the making of clothing for the protection of the body; and after the latter came into use, ornamentation continued, thus making clothing more and more artistic. As to how man protected his body before he began to kill wild animals for food, is conjectural. Probably he dwelt in a warm climate, where very little clothing was needed, but, undoubtedly, the cave man and, in fact, all of the groups of the race occurring in Europe and Asia in the latter part of the Old Stone Age and during the New Stone Age used the skins of animals for clothing. Later, after weaving had begun, grasses and fibres taken from plants in a rude way were plaited for making clothing. Subsequently these fibres were prepared, twisted into thread, and woven regularly into garments. The main source of supply came from reeds, rushes, wild flax, cotton, fibres of the century plant, the inner bark of trees, and other sources according to the environment.
Nothing can be more interesting than the progress made in clothing, combining as it does the objects of protection from cold, the adornment of the person, and the preservation of modesty. Indians of the forests of the tropical regions and on the Pacific coast, when first discovered, have been found entirely naked. These were usually without modesty. That is, they felt no need of clothing on account of the presence of others. There are many evidences to show that the first clothing was for ornament and for personal attraction rather than for protection. The painting of the body, the dressing of the hair, the wearing of rings in the nose, ears, and lips, the tattooing of the body, all are to be associated with the first clothing, which may be merely a narrow belt or an ornamental piece of cloth—all merely for show, for adornment and attraction.
{98}There are relics of ornaments found in caves of early man, and, as before mentioned, relics of paints. The clothing of early man can be conjectured by the implements with which he was accustomed to dress the skins of animals. Among living tribes the bark of trees represents the lowest form of clothing. In Brazil there is found what is known as the "shirt tree," which provides covering for the body. When a man wants a new garment he pulls the bark from a tree of a suitable size, making a complete girdle. This he soaks and beats until it is soft, and, cutting holes for the arms, dons his tailor-made garment. In some countries, particularly India, aprons are made of leaves. But the garment made of the skins of animals is the most universal among living savage and barbarous tribes, even after the latter have learned to spin and weave fabrics. The tanning of skins is carried on with a great deal of skill, and rich and expensive garments are worn by the wealthier members of savage tribes.
The making of garments from threads, strings, or fibres was an art discovered a little later. At first rude aprons were woven from long strips of bark. The South Sea Islanders made short gowns of plaited rushes, and the New Zealanders wore rude garments from strings made of native flax. These early products were made by the process of working the fibres by hand into a string or thread. The use of a simple spindle, composed of a stone like a large button, with a stick run through a hole in the centre, facilitated the making of thread and the construction of rude looms. It was but a step from these to the spinning-wheels and looms of the Middle Ages. When the Spaniards discovered the Pueblo Indians, they were wearing garments of their own weaving from cotton and wood fibres. Strong cords attached to the limbs of trees and to a piece of wood on the ground formed the framework of the loom, and the native sat down to weave the garment. With slight improvements on this old style, the Navajos continue to weave their celebrated blankets. What an effort it must have cost, what a necessity must have crowded man to have compelled him to resort to this method of procuring clothing!
{99}The artistic taste in dress has always accompanied the development of the useful, although dress has always been used more or less for ornament, and taste has changed by slow degrees. The primitive races everywhere delighted in bright colors, and in most instances these border on the grotesque in arrangement and combination. But many people not far advanced in barbarism have colors artistically arranged and dress with considerable skill. Ornaments change in the progress of civilization from coarse, ungainly shells, pieces of wood, or bits of metal, to more finely wrought articles of gold and silver.
Primitive Shelters and Houses.—The shelters of primitive man were more or less temporary, for wherever he happened to be in his migrations he sought shelter from storm or cold in the way most adaptable to his circumstances. There was in this connection, also, the precaution taken to protect against predatory animals and wild men. As his stay in a given territory became more permanent, the home or shelter gradually grew more permanent. So far as we can ascertain, man has always been known to build some sort of shelter. As apes build their shelters in trees, birds build their nests, and beavers dam water to make their homes, it is impossible to suppose that man, with superior intelligence, was ever simple enough to continue long without some sort of shelter constructed with his own hands. At first the shelter of trees, rocks, and caves served his purpose wherever available. Subsequently, when he had learned to build houses, their structure was usually dependent more upon environment than upon his inventive genius. Whether he built a platform house or nest in a tree, or provided a temporary brush shelter, or bark hut, or stone or adobe building, depended a good deal upon the material at hand and the necessity of protection. The main thing was to protect against cold or storm, wild animals, and, eventually, wild men.
The progress in architecture among the nations of ancient civilization was quite rapid. Massive structures were built for capacity and strength, which the natives soon learned to {100} decorate within and without. The buildings were made of large blocks of hewn stone, fitted together mechanically by the means of cement, which made secure foundations for ages. When in the course of time the arch was discovered, it alone became a power to advance the progress of architecture. We have seen pass before our eyes a sudden transition in dwelling houses.
The first inhabitants of some parts of the Western prairies dwelt in tents. These were next exchanged for the "dugout," and this for a rude hut. Subsequently the rude hut was made into a barn or pig-pen, and a respectable farmhouse was built; and finally this, too, has been replaced by a house of modern style and conveniences. If we could consider this change to have extended over thousands of years, from the first shelter of man to the finished modern building, it would be a picture of the progress of man in the art of building. In this slow process man struggled without means and with crude notions of life in every form. The aim, first, was for protection, then comfort and durability, and finally for beauty. The artistic in building has kept pace with other forms of civilization evinced in other ways.
One of the most interesting exhibits of house-building for protection is found in the cliff dwellings, whose ruins are to be seen in Arizona and New Mexico. Tradition and other evidences point to the conclusion that certain tribes had developed a state of civilization as high as a middle period of barbarism, on the plains, where they had made a beginning of systematic agriculture, and that they were afterward driven out by wilder tribes and withdrew, seeking the cliffs for protection. There they built under the projecting cliffs the large communal houses, where they dwelt for a long period of time. Subsequently their descendants went into the valleys and developed the Pueblo villages, with their large communal houses of adobe.
Discovery and Use of Metals.—It is not known just when the human race first discovered and used any one of the metals {101} now known to commerce and industry, but it can be assumed that their discovery occurred at a very early period and their use followed quickly. Reasoning back from the nature and condition of the wild tribes of to-day, who are curiously attracted by bright colors, whether in metals or beads or clothing, and realizing how universally they used the minerals and plants for coloring, it would be safe to assume that the satisfaction of the curiosity of primitive man led to the discovery of bright metals at a very early time. Pieces of copper, gold, and iron would easily have been found in a free state in metal-bearing soil, and treasured as articles of value. Copper undoubtedly was used by the American Indians, and probably by the inhabitants of Europe during the Neolithic Age—it being found in a native state in sufficient quantities to be hammered into implements.
Thus copper has been found in large pieces in its native state, not only in Europe but in Mexico and other parts of North America, particularly in the Lake Superior region; but as the soft hematite iron was found in larger quantities in a free state, it would seem that the use of iron in a small degree must have occurred at about the same time, or perhaps a little later. The process of smelting must have been suggested by the action of fire built on or near ore beds, where a crude process of accidental smelting took place. Combined with tin ore, the copper was made into bronze in Peru and Mexico at the time of the discovery. In Europe there are abundant remains to show the early use of metals. Probably copper and tin were in use before iron, although iron may have been discovered first. There are numerous tin mines in Asia and copper mines in Cyprus. At first, metals were probably worked while cold through hammering, the softest metals doubtless being used before others.
It is difficult to tell how smelting was discovered, although the making and use of bronze implements is an indication of the first process of smelting ores and combining metals. When tin was first discovered is not known, but we know that bronze {102} implements made from an alloy of copper, tin, and usually other metals were used by the Greeks and other Aryan peoples in the early historic period, about six thousand years ago. In Egypt and Babylon many of the inscriptions make mention of the use of iron as well as bronze, although the extended use of the former must have come about some time after the latter. At first all war instruments were stone and wood and later bronze, which were largely replaced by iron at a still later period. The making of spears, swords, pikes, battle-axes, and other implements of war had much to do with the development of ingenious work in metals. The final perfection of metal work could only be attained by the manufacture of finely treated steel. Probably the tempering of steel began at the time iron came prominently into use.
Other metals, such as silver, quicksilver, gold, and lead, came into common use in the early stages of civilization, all of which added greatly to the arts and industries. Nearly all of the metals were used for money at various times. The aids to trade and commerce which these metals gave on account of their universal use and constant measure of value cannot be overestimated.
Transportation as a Means of Economic Development.—Early methods of carrying goods from one place to another were on the backs of human beings. Many devices were made for economy of service and strength in carrying. Bands over the shoulders and over the head were devised for the purpose of securing the pack on the back. An Indian woman of the Southwest would carry a large basket, or keiho, on her back, secured by a band around her head for the support of the load. A Pueblo woman will carry a large bowl filled with water or other material, on the top of her head, balancing it by walking erect. Indeed, in more recent times washerwomen in Europe, and of the colored race in America, carry baskets of clothes and pails of water on their heads. The whole process of the development of transportation came about through invention to be relieved from this bodily service.
{103}As the dog was the first animal domesticated, he was early used to help in transportation by harnessing him to a rude sled, or drag, by means of which he pulled articles from one place to another. The Eskimos have used dogs and the sled to a greater extent than any other race. The use of the camel, the llama, the horse, and the ass for packing became very common after their domestication. Huge packs were strapped upon the backs of these animals, and goods thus transported from one place to another. To such an extent was the camel used, even in the historic period, for transportation in the Orient that he has been called the "ship of the desert." The plains Indians had a method of attaching two poles, one at each side of an Indian pony, which extended backward, dragging on the ground. Upon these poles was built a little platform, on which goods were deposited and thus transported from one camp to another.
It must have been a long time before water transportation performed any considerable economic service. It is thought by some that primitive man conceived the idea of the use of water for transportation through his experience of floating logs, or drifts, or his own process of swimming and floating. Jack London pictures two primitives playing on the logs near the shore of a stream. Subsequently the logs cast loose, and the primitives were floated away from the shore. They learned by putting their hands in the water and paddling that they could make the logs move in the direction which they wished to go. Perhaps this explanation is as good as any, inasmuch as the beginnings of modern transportation still dwell in the mist of the past. However, in support of the log theory is the fact that modern races use primitive boats made of long reeds tied together, forming a loglike structure. The balsa of the Indians of the north coasts of South America is a very good representation of this kind of boat.
Evidently, the first canoes were made by hollowing logs and sharpening the ends at bow and stern. This form of boat-making has been carried to a high degree of skill by the {104} Indians of the northwest coast of America and by the natives of the Hawaiian Islands. The birch-bark canoe, made for lighter work and overland transportation, is more suggestive of the light reed boat than of the log canoe. Also, the boats made of a framework covered with the skins of animals were prominent at certain periods of the development of races who lived on animal food. But later the development of boats with frames covered with strips of board and coated with pitch became the great vehicle of commerce through hundreds of years. It certainly is a long journey from the floating log to the modern floating passenger palace, freight leviathan, or armed dreadnought, but the journey was accomplished by thousands of steps, some short and some long, through thousands of years of progress.
Trade, or Exchange of Goods.—In Mr. Clark Wissler's book on Man and Culture, he has shown quite conclusively that there are certain culture areas whereby certain inventions, discoveries, or customs have originated and spread over a given territory. This recognition of a centre of origin of custom or invention is in accordance with the whole process of social development. For instance, in a given area occupied by modern civilized people, there are a very few who invent or originate things, and others follow through imitation or suggestion. So it was with the discoveries and inventions of primitive man. For example, we know that in Oklahoma and Arkansas, as well as in other places in the United States, certain stone quarries or mines are found that produce a certain kind of flint or chert used in making arrow-heads or spearheads and axes. Tribes that developed these traded with other tribes that did not have them, so that from these centres implements were scattered all over the West. A person may pick up on a single village site or battle-ground different implements coming from a dozen or more different quarries or centres and made by different tribes hundreds of miles apart in residence.
This diffusion of knowledge and things of material {105} workmanship, or of methods of life, is through a system of borrowing, trading, or swapping—or perhaps sometimes through conquest and robbery; but as soon as an article of any kind could be made which could be subjected to general use of different tribes in different localities, it began to travel from a centre and to be used over a wide area. Certain tribes became special workers in specialized lines. Thus some were bead-makers, others expert tanners of hides, others makers of bows and arrows of peculiar quality, and others makers of stone implements. The incidental swapping of goods by tribes finally led to a systematic method of a travelling trader who brought goods from one tribe to another, exchanging as he went. This early trade had an effect in more rapid extension of culture, because in that case one tribe could have the invention, discovery, and art of all tribes. In connection with this is to be noted the slow change of custom regarding religious belief and ceremony or tribal consciousness. The pride of family and race development, the assumption of superiority leading to race aversion, interfered with intelligence and the spread of ideas and customs; but most economic processes that were not bound up with religious ceremonies or tribal customs were easily exchanged and readily accepted between the tribes.
Exchange of goods and transportation went hand in hand in their development, very slowly and surely. After trade had become pretty well established, it became necessary to have a medium of exchange. Some well-known article whose value was very well recognized among the people who were trading became the standard for fixing prices in exchange. Thus, in early Anglo-Saxon times the cow was the unit of the measure of value. Sometimes a shell, as a cowrie of India or the wampum of the American Indian, was used for this purpose. Wheat has been at one time in America, and tobacco in another, a measure of exchange because of the scarcity of money.
Gradually, as the discovery and use of precious metals became common and desirable because of their brightness {106} and service in implement and ornament, they became the medium of exchange. Thus, copper and gold, iron and bronze have been used as metallic means of exchange—that is, as money. So from the beginning of trade and swapping article for article, it came to be common eventually to swap an article for something called money and then use the money for the purchase of other desirable articles. This made it possible for the individual to carry about in a small compass the means of obtaining any article in the market within the range of the purchasing power of his money. Trade, transportation, and exchange not only had a vast deal to do with economic progress but were of tremendous importance in social development. They were powerful in diffusion, extension, and promotion of culture.
The Struggle for Existence Develops the Individual and the Race.—The remnants and relics of the arts and industries of man give us a fair estimate of the process of man's mind and the accomplishment of his physical labor. It is through the effort involved in the struggle for existence that he has made his various steps forward. Truly the actual life of primitive man tends to verify the adage that "necessity is the mother of invention." It was this tremendous demand on him for the means of existence that caused him to create the things that protected and improved his life. It was the insistent struggle which forced him to devise means of taking advantage of nature and thus led to invention and discovery. Every new invention and every new discovery showed the expansion of his mind, as well as gave him the means of material improvement. It also added to his bodily vigor and added much to the development of his physical powers. Upon this economic foundation has been built a superstructure of intellectual power, of moral worth and social improvement, for these in their highest phases of existence may be traced back to the early beginnings of life, where man was put to his utmost effort to supply the simplest of human wants.
1. The change in social life caused by the cultivation of the soil.
2. The effect of the discovery and use of fire on civilization.
3. What was the social effect of the exchange of economic products?
4. What influence had systematic labor on individual development?
5. Show how the discovery and use of a new food advances civilization.
6. Compare primitive man's food supply with that of a modern city dweller.
7. Trace a cup of coffee to its original source and show the different classes of people engaged in its production.
[1] Man and Culture.
[2] See Chapter III.
The Character of Primitive Social Life.—Judging from the cultures of prehistoric man in Europe and from analogies of living races that appear to have the same state of culture, strong inferences may be drawn as to the nature of the beginnings of human association. The hypothesis that man started as an individual and developed social life through mutual aid as he came in contact with his fellows does not cover the whole subject. It is not easy to conceive man in a state of isolation at any period of his life, but it appears true that his early associations were simple and limited to a few functions. The evidence of assemblage in caves, the kind of implements used, and the drawings on the walls of caves would appear to indicate that an early group life existed from the time of the first human cultures. The search for food caused men to locate at the same place. The number that could be supplied with food from natural subsistence in a given territory must have been small. Hence, it would appear that the early groups consisted of small bands. They moved on if the population encroached upon the food supply.
Also, the blood-related individuals formed the nucleus of the group. The dependency of the child on the mother led to the first permanent location as the seat of the home and the foundation of the family. As the family continued to develop and became the most permanent of all social institutions, it is easy to believe as a necessity that it had a very early existence. It came out of savagery into barbarism and became one of the principal bulwarks of civilization.
It may be accepted as a hypothesis that there was a time in the history of every branch of the human race when social order was indefinite and that out of this incoherence came by {109} degrees a complex organized society. It was in such a rude state that the relations of individuals to each other were not clearly defined by custom, but were temporary and incidental. Family ties were loose and irregular, custom had not become fixed, law was unheard of, government was unknown unless it was a case of temporary leadership, and unity of purpose and reciprocal social life were wanting. Indeed, it is a picture of a human horde but little above the animal herd in its nature and composition. Living tribes such as the Fuegians and Australians, and the extinct Tasmanians, represent very nearly the status of the horde—a sort of social protoplasm. They wander in groups, incidentally through the influence of temporary advantage or on account of a fitful social instinct. Co-operation, mutual aid, and reciprocal mental action were so faint that in many cases life was practically non-social. Nevertheless, even these groups had aggregated, communicated, and had language and other evidences of social heredity.
The Family Is the Most Persistent of Social Origins.—The relation of parent and child was the most potent influence in establishing coherency of the group, and next to it, though of later development, was the relation of man and woman—that is, the sex relation. While the family is a universal social unit, it appears in many different forms in different tribes and, indeed, exhibits many changes in its development in the same tribe. There is no probability that mankind existed in a complete state of promiscuity in sex relations, yet these relations varied in different tribes. Mating was always a habit of the race and early became regulated by custom. The variety of forms of mating leads us to think the early sex life of man was not of a degraded nature. Granted that matrimony had not reached the high state of spiritual life contemplated in modern ideals, there are instances of monogamic marriage and pure, dignified rites in primitive peoples. Polygamy and polyandry were of later development.
A study of family life within the historic period, especially of Greeks, Romans, and Teutons, and possibly the Hebrews, {110} compared with the family life of the Australian and some of the North American Indian tribes, reveals great contrasts in the prevailing customs of matrimony. All forms of marriage conceivable may be observed from rank animalism to high spiritual union; of numerous ideals, customs, and usages and ceremonies, as well as great confusion of purpose. It may be assumed, therefore, that there was a time in the history of every branch of the human race when family customs were indefinite and family coherence was lacking. Also that society was in a rude state in which the relations of individuals to each other and to the general social group were not clearly defined. There are found to-day among the lower races, in the Pacific islands, Africa, and South America, evidences of lack of cohesive life. They represent groups of people without permanent organization, held together by temporary advantage, with crude, purposeless customs, with the exercise of fitful social instinct.
However, it is out of such conditions that the tribes, races, and nations of the early historic period have evolved into barbaric organization. Reasoning backward by the comparative method, one may trace the survivals of ancient customs. Following the social heredity of the oldest civilized tribes, such as the Egyptians, Babylonians, Greeks, Romans, and Teutonic peoples, there is evidence of the rise from a rude state of savagery to a higher social life. Historical records indicate the passage from the middle state of barbarism to advanced civil life, even though the earlier phases of social life of primitive man remain obscure. The study of tradition and a comparison of customs and language of races yield a definite knowledge of the evolution of society.
Kinship Is a Strong Factor in Social Organization.—Of all causes that held people in coherent union, perhaps kinship, natural and artificial, was the most potent. All of the direct and indirect offspring of a single pair settled in the same family group. This enlarged family took its place as the only organ of social order. Not only did all the relatives settle and {111} become members of one body, but also strangers who needed protection were admitted to the family by subscribing to their customs and religion. Thus the father of the family had a numerous following, composed of relatives by birth and by adoption. He was the ruler of this enlarged household, declaring the customs of his fathers, leading the armed men in war, directing the control of property, for he alone was the owner of all their possessions, acting as priest in the administration of religious ceremonies—a service performed only by him—and acting as judge in matters of dispute or discipline. Thus the family was a compact organization with a central authority, in which both chief and people were bound by custom.
Individuals were born under status and must submit to whatever was customary in the rule of the family or tribe. There was no law other than custom to determine the relation of individuals to one another. Each must abide in the sphere of activity into which he was born. He could not rise above it, but must submit to the arbitrary rule of traditional usage. The only position an individual had was in the family, and he must observe what custom had taught. This made family life arbitrary and conventional.
The Earliest Form of Social Order.—The family is sometimes called the unit of society. The best historical records of the family are found in the Aryan people, such as the Greeks, the Romans, and the Teutons. Outside of this there are many historical references to the Aryans in their primitive home in Asia, and the story of the Hebrew people, a branch of the Semitic race, shows many phases of tribal and family life. The ancient family differed from the modern in organization and composition. The first historical family was the patriarchal, by which we mean a family group in which descent was traced in the male line, and in which authority was vested in the eldest living male inhabitant. It is held by some that this is the original family type, and that the forms which we find among savage races are degenerate forms of the above. Some have {112} advocated that the patriarchal family was the developed form of the family, and only occurred after a long evolution through states of promiscuity, polygamy, and polyandry. There is much evidence that the latter assumption is true. But there is evidence that the patriarchal family was the first political unit of all the Aryan races, and also of the Semitic as well, and that monogamic marriage was developed in these ancient societies so far as historical evidence can determine. The ancient Aryans in their old home, those who came into India, Greece, Rome, and the northern countries of Europe, whether Celt or Teuton, all give evidence of the permanency of early family organization.
The Reign of Custom.—For a long period custom reigned supreme, and arbitrary social life became conventionalized, and the change from precedent became more and more difficult. The family was despotic, exacting, unyielding in its nature, and individual activity was absorbed in it. So powerful was this early sway of customary law that many tribes never freed themselves from its bondage. Others by degrees slowly evolved from its crystallizing influences. Changes in custom came about largely through the migration of tribes, which brought new scenes and new conditions, the intercourse of one tribe with another in trade and war, and the gradual shifting of the internal life of the social unit. Those tribes that were isolated were left behind in the progress of the race, and to many of them still clung the customs practised thousands of years before. Those that went forward from this first status grew by practice rather than by change of ideals. It is the law of all progress that ideals are conservative, and that they can be broken away from only by the procedure of actual practice. Gradually the reign of customary law gave way to the laws framed by the people. The family government gave way to the political; the individual eventually became the political unit, and freedom of action prevailed in the entire social body.
The Greek and Roman Family Was Strongly Organized.—In Greece and Rome the family enlarged and formed the gens, {113} the gentes united into a tribe, and the tribe passed into the nation. In all of this formulated government the individual was represented by his family and received no recognition except as a member of such. The tribal chief became the king, or, as he is sometimes called, the patriarchal president, because he presided over a band of equals in power, namely, the assembled elders of the tribe. The heads of noble families were called together to consider the affairs of government, and at a common meal the affairs of the nation were discussed over viands and wine. The king thus gathered the elders about him for the purpose of considering measures to be laid before the people. The popular assembly, composed of all the citizens, was called to sanction what the king and the elders had decreed. Slowly the binding forms of traditional usage were broken down, and the king and his people were permitted to enact those laws which best served the immediate ends of government. True, the old formal life of the family continued to exist. There were the gentes, tribes, and phratries, or brotherhoods, that still existed, and the individual entered the state in civil capacity through his family. But by degrees the old family régime gave way to the new political life, and sovereign power was vested in monarchy, democracy, or aristocracy, according to the nature of the sovereignty.
The functions or activities and powers of governments, which were formerly vested in the patriarchal chief, or king, and later in king, people, and council, gradually became separated and were delegated to different authorities, though the sharp division of legislative, judicial, and executive functions which characterizes our modern governments did not exist. These forms of government were more or less blended, and it required centuries to distribute the various powers of government into special departments and develop modern forms.
In Primitive Society Religion Occupied a Prominent Place.—While kinship was first in order in the foundation of units of social organization, religion was second to it in importance. {114} Indeed, it is considered by able writers as the foundation of the family and, as the ethnic state is but the expanded family, the vital power in the formation of the state. Among the Aryan tribes religion was a prominent feature of association. In the Greek household stood the family altar, resting upon the first soil in possession of the family. Only members of the household could worship at this shrine, and only the eldest male members of the family in good standing could conduct religious service. When the family grew into the gens it also had a separate altar and a separate worship. Likewise, the tribe had its own worship, and when the city was formed it had its own temple and a particular deity, whom the citizens worshipped. In the ancient family the worship of the house spirit or a deified ancestor was the common practice. This practice of the worship of departed heroes and ancestors, which prevailed in all of the various departments of old Greek society, tended to develop unity and purity of family and tribe. As family forms passed into political, the religion changed from a family to a national religion.
Among the lower tribes the religious life is still most powerful in influencing their early life. Mr. Tylor, in his valuable work on Primitive Culture, has devoted a good part of two large volumes to the treatment of early religious belief. While recognizing that there is no complete definition of religion, he holds that "belief in spiritual beings" is a minimum definition which will apply to all religions, and, indeed, about the only one that will. The lower races each had simple notions of the spiritual world. They believed in a soul and its existence after death. Nearly all believed in both good and evil spirits, and in one or more greater gods or spirits who ruled and managed the universe. In this early stage of religious belief philosophy and religion were one. The belief in the after life of the spirit is evidenced by implements which were placed in the grave for the use of the departed, and by food which was placed at the grave for his subsistence on the journey. Indeed, some even set aside food at each meal for the departed; others, as {115} instanced by the Greeks, placed tables in the burying ground for the dead. Many views were entertained by the early people concerning the origin of the soul and its course after death. But in all of the rude conditions of life religion was indefinite and uncultured. From lower simple forms it arose to more complex systems and to higher generalizations.
Religious influence on progress has been very great. There are those who have neglected the subject of religion in the discussion of the history of civilization. Other writers have considered it of little importance, and still others believe it to have been a positive hindrance to the development of the race. Religion, in general, as practised by savage and barbarous races, based, as it is largely, on superstition, must of a necessity be conservative and non-progressive. Yet the service which it performs in making the tribe or family cohesive and in giving an impetus to the development of the mind before the introduction of science and art as special studies is, indeed, great. The early forms of culture are found almost wholly in religious belief and practice.
The religious ceremonies at the grave of a departed companion, around the family altar or in the congregation, whether in the temple or in the open air, tended to social cohesion and social activity. The exercise of religious belief in a superior being and a recognition of his authority, had a tendency to bring the actions of individuals into orderly arrangement and to develop unity of life. It also had a strong tendency to prepare the simple mind of the primitive man for later intellectual development. It gave the mind something to contemplate, something to reason about, before it reached a stage of scientific investigation. Its moral influence is unquestioned. While some of the early religions are barbarous in the extreme in their degenerate state, as a whole they teach man to consider himself and his fellows, and develop an ethical relationship. And while altruism as a great factor in religious and in social progress appeared at a comparatively recent period, it has been in existence from the earliest associations of men to {116} the present time, and usually makes its strongest appeal through religious belief. Religion thus becomes a great society-builder, as well as a means of individual culture.
Spirit Worship.—The recognition of the continued journey of the spirit after death was in itself an altruistic practice. Much of the worship of the controlling spirit was conducted to secure especial favor to the departed soul. The burial service in early religious practice became a central idea in permanent religious rites. Perhaps the earliest phase of religious belief arises out of the idea that the spirit or soul of man has control over the body. It gives rise to the notion of spirit and the idea of continued existence. Considering the universe as material existence, according to primitive belief, it is the working of the superior spirit over the physical elements that gives rise to natural phenomena.
One of the early stages of religious progress is to attempt to form a meeting-place with the spirit. This desire is seen in the lowest tribes and in the highest civilization of to-day. When Cabrillo came to the coast of southern California he found natives that had never before come in contact with civilized people. He describes a rude temple made by driving stakes in the ground in a circular form, and partitioning the enclosure by similar rows of stakes. At the centre was a rude platform, on which were placed the feathers of certain birds pleasing to the spirit. The natives came to this temple occasionally, and, circling around it, went through many antics of worship. This represents the primitive idea of location in worship. Not different in its fundamental conception from the rude altar of stones built by Abraham at Bethel, the Greek altar, or the mighty columns of St. Peter's, it was the simple meeting-place of man and the spirit. For all of these represent location in worship, and just as the modern worshipper enters the church or cathedral to meet God, so did the primitive savage fix locations for the meeting of the spirit.
Man finally attempted to control the spirit for his own advantage. A rude form of religion was reached, found in {117} certain stages of the development of all religions, in which man sought to manipulate or exorcise the spirits who existed in the air or were located in trees, stones, and other material forms. Out of this came a genuine worship of the powerful, and supplication for help and support. Seeking aid and favor became the fundamental ideas in religious worship. Simple in the beginning, it sought to appease the wrath of the evil spirit and gain the favor of the good. But finally it sought to worship on account of the sublimity and power possessed by the object of worship. With the advancement of religious practice, religious beliefs and religious ceremonies became more complex. Great systems of mythology sprang up among nations about to enter the precincts of civilization, and polytheism predominated. Purely ethical religions were of a later development, for the notion of the will of the gods concerning the treatment of man by his fellows belongs to an advanced stage of religious belief. The ethical importance of religion reaches its culmination in the religion of Jesus Christ.
Moral Conditions.—The slow development of altruistic notions presages a deficiency of moral action in the early stages of human progress. True it is that moral conditions seem never to be entirely wanting in this early period. There are many conflicting accounts of the moral practice of different savage and barbarous tribes when first discovered by civilized man. Tribes differ much in this respect, and travellers have seen them from different standpoints. Wherever a definite moral practice cannot be observed, it may be assumed that the standard is very low. Moral progress seems to consist in the constantly shifting standards of right and wrong, of justice and injustice. Perhaps the moral action of the savage should be viewed from two standpoints—namely, the position of the average savage of the tribe, and from the vantage of modern ethical standards. It is only by considering it from these two views that we have the true estimation of his moral status. There must be a difference between conventionality and morality, and many who have judged the moral status of {118} the savage have done so more from a conventional than from a moral standard. True that morality must be judged from the individual motive and from social effects of individual action. Hence it is that the observance of conventional rules must be a phase of morality; yet it is not all of morality. Where conventionality does not exist, the motive of action must be the true moral test.
The actions of some savages and of barbarous people are revolting in the extreme, and so devoid of sympathy for the sufferings of their fellow-beings as to lead us to assume that they are entirely without moral sentiment. The repulsive spectacle of human sacrifice is frequently brought about by religious fervor, while the people have more or less altruistic practice in other ways. This practice was common to very many tribes, and indeed to some nations entering the pale of civilization. Cannibalism, revolting as it may seem, may be practised by a group of people which, in every other respect, shows moral qualities. It is composed of kind husbands, mothers, brothers, and sisters, who look after each other's welfare. The treatment of infants, not only by savage tribes but by the Greek and Roman nations after their entrance into civilized life, represents a low status of morality, for it was the common custom to expose infants, even in these proud nations. The degraded condition of woman, as slave and tool of man in the savage state, and indeed in the ancient civilization, does not speak well for the high standard of morality of the past. More than this, the disregard of the rights of property and person and the common practice of revolting brutality, are conclusive evidence of the low moral status of early mankind.
Speaking of the Sioux Indians, a writer says: "They regard most of the vices as virtues. Theft, arson, rape, and murder are among them regarded with distinction, and the young Indian from childhood is taught to regard killing as the highest of virtues." And a writer who had spent many years among the natives of the Pacific coast said that "whatever is {119} falsehood in the European is truth in the Indian, and vice versa." Whether we consider the savages or barbarians of modern times, or the ancient nations that laid claim to civilization, we find a gradual evolution of the moral practice and a gradual change of the standard of right. This standard has constantly advanced until it rests to-day on the Golden Rule and other altruistic principles of Christian teaching.
Warfare and Social Progress.—The constant warfare of savages and barbarians was not without its effects in developing the individual and social life. Cruel and objectionable as it is, the study and practice of war was an element of strength. It developed physical courage, and taught man to endure suffering and hardships. It developed intellectual power in the struggle to circumvent and overcome enemies. It led to the device and construction of arms, machines, engines, guns, and bridges, for facilitating the carrying on of successful warfare; all of this was instrumental in developing the inventive genius and engineering skill of man.
In a political way warfare developed tribal or national unity, and bound more closely together the different groups in sympathy and common interest. It thus became useful in the preparation for successful civil government. It prepared some to rule and others to obey, and divided the governing from the governed, an essential characteristic of all forms of government. Military organization frequently accompanied or preceded the formation of the modern state. Sparta and Rome, and in more modern times Prussia, were built upon military foundations.
The effect of war in depopulating countries has proved a detriment to civilization by disturbing economic and social development and by destroying thousands of lives. Looking back over the track which the human race has made in its persistent advance, it is easy to see that the ravages of war are terrible. While ethical considerations have entered into warfare and made its effects less terrible, it still is deplorable. It is not a necessity to modern civilization for the {120} development of intellectual or physical strength, nor for the development of either patriotism or courage. Modern warfare is a relic of barbarism, and the sooner we can avoid it the better. Social progress means the checking of war in every way and the development of the arts of peace. It is high time that the ethical process between nations should take the place of the art of war.
Mutual Aid Developed Slowly.—Owing to ignorance and to the instinct for self-preservation, man starts on his journey toward progress on an individualistic and selfish basis. Gradually he learns to associate with his fellows on a co-operative basis. The elements which enter into this formal association are the exercise of a general blood relationship, religion, economic life, social and political organization. With the development of each of these, social order progresses. Yet, in the clashing interests of individuals and tribes, in the clumsy methods adopted in the mastery of nature, what a waste of human energy; what a loss of human life! How long it has taken mankind to associate on rational principles, to develop a pure home life, to bring about toleration in religion, to develop economic co-operation, to establish liberality in government, and to promote equality and justice! By the rude master, experience, has man been taught all this at an immense cost. Yet there was no other way possible.
1. Study your community to determine that society is formed by the interactions of individuals.
2. Discuss the earliest forms of mutual aid.
3. Why is the family called the unit of social organization?
4. Why did religion occupy such an important place in primitive society?
5. To what extent and in what manner did the patriarchal family take the place of the state?
6. What is the relation of morals to religion?
7. What are the primary social groups? What the secondary?
The Origin of Language Has Been a Subject of Controversy.—Since man began to philosophize on the causes of things, tribes and races and, indeed, philosophers of all times have attempted to determine the origin of language and to define its nature. In early times language was a mystery, and for lack of better explanation it was frequently attributed to the direct gift of the Deity. The ancient Aryans deified language, and represented it by a goddess "which rushes onward like the wind, which bursts through heaven and earth, and, awe-inspiring to each one that it loves, makes him a Brahmin, a poet, and a sage." Men used language many centuries before they seriously began to inquire into its origin and structure. The ancient Hindu philosophers, the Greeks, and all early nations that had begun a speculative philosophy, wonderingly tried to ascertain whence language came. Modern philologists have carried their researches so far as to ascertain with tolerable accuracy the history and life of language and to determine with the help of other scientists the facts and phenomena of its origin.
Language, in its broadest sense, includes any form of expression by which thoughts and feelings are communicated from one individual to another. Words may be spoken, gestures made, cries uttered, pictures or characters drawn, or letters made as means of expression. The deaf-mute converses with his fingers and his lips; the savage communicates by means of gesticulation. It is easy to conceive of a community in which all communication is carried on in sign language. It is said that the Grebos of Africa carry this mode of expression {122} to such an extent that the persons and tenses of the mood are indicated with the hands alone.
It has been advocated by some that man first learned to talk by imitating the sounds of nature. It is sometimes called the "bow-wow" theory of the origin of language. Words are used to express the meaning of nature. Thus the purling of the brook, the lowing of the cow, the barking of the dog, the moaning of the wind, the rushing of water, the cry of animals, and other expressions of nature were imitated, and thus formed the root words of language. This theory was very commonly upheld by the philosophers of the eighteenth century, but is now regarded as an entirely inadequate explanation of the process of the development of language. It is true that every language has words formed by the imitation of sound, but these are comparatively few, and as languages are traced toward their origin, such words seem to have continually less importance. Nothing conclusive has been proved concerning the origin of any language by adopting this theory.
Another theory is that the exclamations and interjections suddenly made have been the formation of root words, which in turn give rise to the complex forms of language. This can scarcely be considered of much force, for the difference between sudden explosive utterance and words expressing full ideas is so great as to be of little value in determining the real formation of language. These sudden interjections are more of the nature of gesture than of real speech.
The theologians insisted for many years that language was a gift of God, but failed to show how man could learn the language after it was given him. They tried to show that man was created with his full powers of speech, thought, and action, and that a vocabulary was given him to use on the supposition that he would know how to use it. But, in fact, nothing yet has been proved concerning the first beginnings of language. There is no reason why man should be fully equipped in language any more than in intellect, moral quality, or economic condition, and it is shown conclusively that in all these {123} characteristics he has made a slow evolution. Likewise the further back towards its origin we trace any language or any group of languages the simpler we find it, coming nearer and yet nearer to the root speech. If we could have the whole record of man, back through that period into which historical records cannot go, and into which comparative philology throws but a few rays of light, doubtless we should find that at one time man used gesture, facial expression, and signs, interspersed with sounds at intervals, as his chief means of expression. Upon this foundation mankind has built the superstructure of language.
Some philosophers hold that the first words used were names applied to familiar objects. Around these first names clustered ideas, and gradually new words appeared. With the names and gestures it was easy to convey thought. Others, refuting this idea, have held that the first words represented general notions and not names. From these general notions there were gradually instituted the specific words representing separate ideas. Others have held that language is a gift, and springs spontaneously in the nature of man, arising from his own inherent qualities. Possibly from different standpoints there is a grain of truth in each one of these theories, although all combined are insufficient to explain the whole truth.
No theory yet devised answers all the questions concerning the origin of language. It may be truly asserted that language is an acquisition, starting with the original capacity for imperfect speech found in the physiological structure of man. This is accompanied by certain tendencies of thought and life which furnish the psychical notion of language-formation. These represent the foundations of language, and upon this, through action and experience, the superstructure of language has been built. There has been a continuous evolution from simple to complex forms.
Language Is an Important Social Function.—Whatever conjectures may be made by philosophers or definite knowledge determined by philologists, it is certain that language has been {124} built up by human association. Granted that the physiological function of speech was a characteristic of the first beings to bear the human form, it is true that its development has come about by the mental interactions of individuals. No matter to what extent language was used by a given generation, it was handed on through social heredity to the next generation. Thus, language represents a continuous stream of word-bearing thought, moving from the beginning of human association to the present time. It is through it that we have a knowledge of the past and frame the thoughts of the present. While it is easy to concede that language was built up in the attempt of man to communicate his feelings, emotions, and thoughts to others, it in turn has been a powerful coercive influence and a direct social creation. Only those people who could understand one another could be brought into close relationships, and for this purpose some generally accepted system of communicating ideas became essential. Moreover, the tribes and assimilated nations found the force of common language in the coherency of group life. Thus it became a powerful instrument in developing tribal, racial, or national independence. If the primal force of early family or tribal organization was that of sex and blood relationship, language became a most powerful ally in forcing the group into formal social action, and in furnishing a means of defense against the social encroachments of other tribes and nations.
It must be observed, however, that the social boundaries of races are not coincident with the divisions of language. In general the tendency is for a race to develop an independent language, for racial development was dependent upon isolation from other groups. But from the very earliest associations to the present time there has been a tendency for assimilation of groups even to the extent of direct amalgamation of those occupying contiguous territory, or through conquest. In the latter event, the conquered group usually took the language of the conquerors, although this has not always followed, as eventually the stronger language becomes the more important {125} through use. For instance, for a time after the Norman Conquest, Norman French became, in the centres of government and culture at least, the dominant language, but eventually was thrown aside by a more useful language as English institutions came to the front. As race and language may not represent identical groups, it is evident that a classification of language cannot be taken as conclusive evidence in the classification of races. However, in the main it is true. A classification of all of the languages of the Indians of North America would be a classification of all the tribes that have been differentiated in physical structure and other racial traits, as well as of habits and customs. Yet a tribe using a common language may be composed of a number of racial elements.
When it comes to the modern state, language does not coincide with natural boundaries. Thus, in Switzerland German is spoken in the north and northeast, French in the southwest, and Italian in the southeast. However, in this case, German is the dominant language taught in schools and used largely in literature. Also, in Belgium, where one part of the people speak Flemish and the other French, they are living under the same national unity so far as government is concerned, although there have always remained distinctive racial types. In Mexico there are a number of tribes that, though using the dominant Spanish language, called Mexican, are in their closer associations speaking the primitive languages of their race or tribe which have come down to them through long ages of development. Sometimes, however, a tribe shows to be a mosaic of racial traits and languages, brought about by the complete amalgamation of tribes. A very good example of this complete amalgamation would be that of the Hopi Indians of New Mexico, where distinctive group words and racial traits may be traced to three different tribes. But to refer to a more complete civilization, where the Spanish language is spoken in Spain, we find the elements of Latin, Teutonic, Arabic, and Old Iberian speech, which are suggestive of different racial traits pointing to different racial origins.
{126}Regardless of origin and tradition, language gradually conforms to the type of civilization in existence. A strong, vigorous industrial nation would through a period of years develop a tendency for a vigorous language which would express the spirit and life of the people, while a dreamy, conservative nation would find little change in the language. Likewise, periods of romance or of war have a tendency to make changes in the form of speech in conformity to ideals of life. On the other hand, social and intellectual progress is frequently dependent upon the character of the language used to the extent that it may be said that language is an indication of the progress of a people in the arts of civilized life. It is evident in comparing the Chinese language with the French, great contrasts are shown in the ease in which ideas are represented and the stream of thought borne on its way. The Chinese language is a clumsy machine as compared with the flexible and smooth-gliding French. It appears that if it were possible for the Chinese to change their language for a more flexible, smooth-running instrument, it would greatly facilitate their progress in art, science, and social life.
Written Language Followed Speech in Order of Development.—Many centuries elapsed before any systematic writing or engraving recorded human events. The deeds of the past were handed on through tradition, in the cave, around the campfire, and in the primitive family. Stories of the past, being rehearsed over and over, became a permanent heritage, passing on from generation to generation. But this method of descent of knowledge was very indefinite, because story-tellers, influenced by their environment, continually built the present into the past, and so the truth was not clearly expressed.
Slowly man began to make a permanent record of deeds and events, the first beginnings of which were very feeble, and were included in drawings on the walls of caves, inscriptions on bone, stone, and ivory, and symbols woven in garments. All represented the first beginnings of the representative art of language.
{127}Gradually picture-writing became so systematized that an expression of continuous thought might be recorded and transferred from one to another through the observation of the symbols universally recognized. But these pictures on rocks and ivory, and later on tablets, have been preserved, and are expressive of the first steps of man in the art of written language. The picture-writing so common to savages and barbarians finally passes from a simple rebus to a very complex written language, as in the case of the Egyptian or Mexican. The North American Indians used picture-writing in describing battles, or an expedition across a lake, or an army on a march, or a buffalo hunt. A simple picture shows that fifty-one warriors, led by a chief and his assistant, in five canoes, took three days to cross a lake and land their forces on the other side.
The use of pictographs is the next step in the process of written language. It represents a generalized form of symbols which may be put together in such a way as to express complete thoughts. Originally they were merely symbols or signs of ideas, which by being slightly changed in form or position led to the expression of a complete thought.
Following the pictograph is the ideograph, which is but one more step in the progress of systematic writing. Here the symbol has become so generalized that it has a significance quite independent of its origin. In other words, it becomes idealized and conventionalized, so that a specific symbol stood for a universal idea. It could be made specific by changing its form or position. All that was necessary now was to have a sufficient number of general symbols representing ideas, to build up a constructive language. The American Indian and the Chinese have apparently passed through all stages of the picture-writing, the use of the pictograph and of the ideograph. In fact, the Chinese language is but an extension of these three methods of expression. The objects were originally designated by a rude drawing, and then, to modify the meaning, different characters were attached to the picture. Thus a monosyllabic {128} language was built up, and the root word had many meanings by the modification of its form and sometimes by the change of its position. The hieroglyphic writings of the Egyptians, Moabites, Persians, and Assyrians went through these methods of language development, as their records show to this day.
Phonetic Writing Was a Step in Advance of the Ideograph.—The difference between the phonetic writing and the picture-writing rests in the fact that the symbol representing the object is expressive of an idea or a complete thought, while in phonetic writing the symbol represents a sound which combined with other sounds expresses an idea called a word and complete thoughts through combination of words. The discovery and use of a phonetic alphabet represent the key to modern civilization. The invention of writing elevated man from a state of barbarism to a state of civilization. About the tenth century before Christ the Phoenicians, Hebrews, and other allied Semitic races began to use the alphabet. Each letter was named from a word beginning with it. The Greeks learned the alphabet from the Phoenicians, and the Greeks, in turn, passed it to the Romans. The alphabet continually changed from time to time. The old Phoenician was weak in vowel sounds, but the defect was remedied in the Greek and Roman alphabets and in the alphabets of the Teutonic nations. Fully equipped with written and spoken speech, the nations of the world were prepared for the interchange of thought and ideas and for the preservation of knowledge in an accurate manner. History could be recorded, laws written and preserved, and the beginnings of science elaborated.
The Use of Manuscripts and Books Made Permanent Records.—At first all records were made by pen, pencil, or stylus, and manuscripts were represented on papyrus paper or parchment, and could only be duplicated by copying. In Alexandria before the Christian era one could buy a copy of the manuscript of a great author, but it was at a high price. It finally became customary for monks, in their secluded retreats, to spend a good part of their lives in copying and preserving {129} the manuscript writings of great authors. But it was not until printing was invented that the world of letters rapidly moved forward. Probably about the sixth century A.D. the Chinese began to print a group of characters from blocks, and by the tenth century they were engaged in keeping their records in this way. Gutenberg, Faust, and others improved upon the Chinese method by a system of movable type. But what a wonderful change since the fourteenth century printing! Now, with modern type-machines, fine grades of paper made by improved machinery, and the use of immense steam presses, the making of an ordinary book is very little trouble. Looking back over the course of events incident to the development of the modern complex and flexible language we observe, first, the rude picture scrawled on horn or rock. This was followed by the representation of the sound of the name of the picture, which passed into the mere sound sign. Finally, the relation between the figure and the sound becomes so arbitrary that the child learns the a, b, c as pure signs representing sounds which, in combination, make words which stand for ideas.
Language Is an Instrument of Culture.—Culture areas always spread beyond the territory of language groups. Culture depends upon the discovery and utilization of the forces of nature through invention and adaptation. It may spread through imitation over very large human territory. Man has universal mental traits, with certain powers and capacities that are developed in a relative order and in a degree of efficiency; but there are many languages and many civilizations of high and low degree. Through human speech the life of the past may be handed on to others and the life of the present communicated to one another. The physiological power of speech which exists in all permits every human group to develop a language in accordance with its needs and as influenced by its environment. Thus language advanced very rapidly as an instrument of communication even at a very early period of cultural development. A recent study of the {130} languages of the American Indians has shown the high degree of the art of expression among people of the Neolithic culture. This would seem to indicate that primitive peoples are more definite in thought and more observant in the relation of cause and effect than is usually supposed. Thus, definite language permits more precise thought, and definite thought, in turn, insists on more exact expression in language. The two aid each other in development of cultural ideas, and invention and language move along together in the development of the human race. It becomes a great human invention, and as such it not only preserves the thoughts of the past but unlocks the knowledge of the present.
Not only is language the means of communication, and the great racial as well as social bond of union, but it represents knowledge, culture, and refinement. The strength and beauty of genuine artistic expression have an elevating influence on human life and become a means of social progress. The drama and the choicest forms of prose and poetry in their literary aspects furnish means of presenting great thoughts and high ideals, and, thus combined with the beauty of expression, not only furnish the best evidence of moral and intellectual progress but make a perennial source of information in modern social life. Hence it is that language and culture in all of their forms go hand in hand so closely that a high degree of culture is not attained without a dignified and expressive language.
Art as a Language of Aesthetic Ideas.—The development of aesthetic ideas and aesthetic representations has kept pace with progress in other phases of civilization. The notion of beauty as entertained by the savage is crude, and its representation is grotesque. Its first expression is observed in the adornment of the body, either by paint, tattooing, or by ornaments. The coarse, glaring colors placed upon the face or body, with no regard for the harmony of color, may attract attention, but has little expression of beauty from a modern standard. The first adornment in many savage tribes consisted in tattooing the body, an art which was finally rendered {131} useless after clothing was fully adopted, except as a totemic design representing the unity of the tribe. This custom was followed by the use of rude jewelry for arms, neck, ears, nose, or lips. Other objects of clothing and ornament were added from time to time, the bright colors nearly always prevailing. There must have been in all tribes a certain standard of artistic taste, yet so low in many instances as to suggest only the grotesque. The taste displayed in the costumes of savages within the range of our own observation is remarkable for its variety. It ranges all the way from a small piece of cloth to the elaborate robes made of highly colored cotton and woollen goods. The Celts were noted for their highly colored garments and the artistic arrangement of the same. The Greeks displayed a grace and simplicity in dress never yet surpassed by any other nation. Yet the dress of early Greeks, Romans, and Teutons was meagre in comparison with modern elaborate costumes. All of this is a method of expression of the emotions and ideas and, in one sense, is a language of the aesthetic.
Representative art, even among primitive peoples, carries with it a distinctive language. It is a representation of ideas, as well as an attempt at beauty of expression. The figures on pottery and basketry frequently carry with them religious ideas for the expression and perpetuation of religious emotion and belief. Even rude drawings attempt to record the history of the deeds of the race. Progress is shown in better lines, in better form, and a more exquisite blending of colors. That many primitive people display a high degree of art and a low degree of general culture is one of the insoluble problems of the race. Perhaps it may be attributed primarily to the fact that all artistic expression originally sprang from the emotional side of life, and, in addition, may be in part attributed to the early training in the acute observation of the forms of nature by primitive people upon which depended their existence.
Music Is a Form of Language.—Early poetry was a recital of deeds, and a monotonous chant, which finally became recorded as language developed. The sagas and the war songs {132} were the earliest expressions which later were combined with dramatic action. The poetry of primitive races has no distinguishing characteristics except metre or rhythm. It is usually an oft-recurring expression of the same idea. Yet there are many fragmentary examples of lyric poetry, though it is mostly egoistic, the individual reciting his deeds or his desires. From the natives of Greenland we have the following about the hovering of the clouds about the mountain:
"The great Koonak mountain, over there—
I see it;
The great Koonak mountain, over there—
I am looking at it;
The bright shining in the South, over there—
I admire it;
The other side of Koonak—
It stretches out—
That which Koonak—
Seaward encloses.
See how they in the South
Move and change—
See how in the South
They beautify one another;
While it toward the sea
Is veiled—by changing clouds
Veiled toward the sea
Beautifying one another."
The emotional nature of savages varies greatly in different tribes. The lives of some seem to be moved wholly through the emotions, while others are stolid or dull. The variations in musical ability and practice of savage and barbarous races are good evidence of this. Many of the tribes in Africa have their rude musical instruments, and chant their simple, monotonous music. The South Sea Islanders beat hollow logs with clubs, marking time and creating melody by these notes. The Dahomans use a reed fife, on which they play music of several notes. In all primitive music, time is the chief element, and this is not always kept with any degree of accuracy. The {133} chanting of war songs, the moaning of the funeral dirge, or the sprightly singing with the dance, shows the varied expression of the emotional nature.
No better illustration of the arts of pleasure may be observed than the practices of the Zuñi Indians and other Pueblo Indians of New Mexico. The Zuñi melodies are sung on various festival occasions. Some are sacred melodies, used in worship; others are on the occasion of the celebration of the rabbit hunt, the rain dances, and the corn dances. Among the Pueblo Indians the cachina dance is for the purpose of invoking bountiful rains and good harvests. In all of their feasts, games, plays, and dances there are connected ceremonies of a religious nature. Religion occupies a very strong position in the minds of the people. Possessed of a superstitious nature, it was inevitable that all the arts of pleasure should partake somewhat of the religious ceremony. The song and the dance and the beating of the drums always accompanied every festival.
The Dance as a Means of Dramatic Expression.—Among primitive peoples the dance, poetry, and music were generally introduced together, and were parts of one drama. As such it was a social institution, with the religious, war, or play element fully represented. Most primitive dances were conducted by men only. In the celebrated Corroboree of the Australians, men danced and the women formed the orchestra.[1] This gymnastic dance was common to many tribes. The dances of the Moros and Igorrotes at the St. Louis Exposition partook, in a similar way, of the nature of the gymnastic dance. The war dances of the plains Indians of America are celebrated for their grotesqueness. The green-corn dance and the cachina of the Pueblos and the snake dance of the Moqui all have an economic foundation. In all, however, the play element in man and the desire for dramatic expression and the art of mimicry are evident. The chief feature of the dance of the primitive people is the regular time beat. This is more prominent than the grace of movement. Yet this agrees with {134} the nature of their music, for in this the time element is more prominent than the tune. Rhythm is the strong element in the primitive art of poetry, music, or the dance, but all have an immense socializing influence. The modern dance has added to rhythm the grace of expression and developed the social tendencies. In it love is a more prominent feature than war or religion.
Catlin, in his North American Indians, describes the buffalo dance of the Mandan Indians, which appears to be more of a service toward an economic end than an art of pleasure. After an unsuccessful hunt the returned warriors bring out their buffalo masks, made of the head and horns and tail of the buffalo. These they don, and continue to dance until worn out. Ten or fifteen dancers form a ring and, accompanied by drumming, yelling, and rattling, dance until the first exhausted one goes through the pantomime of being shot with the bow and arrow, skinned, and cut up; but the dance does not lag, for another masked dancer takes the place of the fallen one. The dance continues day and night, without cessation, sometimes for two or three weeks, or until a herd of buffaloes appears in sight; then the warriors change the dance for the hunt.
The dancing of people of lower culture was carried on in many instances to express feelings and wishes. Many of the dances of Egypt, Greece, and other early civilizations were of this nature. Sacred hymns to the gods were chanted in connection with the dancing; but the sacred dance has become obsolete, in Western civilization its place being taken by modern church music.
The Fine Arts Follow the Development of Language.—While art varied in different tribes, we may assume in general that there was a continuity of culture development from the rude clay idol of primitive folk to the Venus de Milo or the Winged Victory; from the pictures on rocks and in caves to the Sistine Madonna; from the uncouth cooking bowl of clay to the highest form of earthenware vase; and from the monotonous {135} strain of African music to the lofty conception of Mozart. But this is a continuity of ideas covering the whole human race as a unit, rather than the progressive development of a single branch of the race.
Consider for a moment the mental and physical environment of the ancient cave or forest dweller. The skies to him were marked only as they affected his bodily comfort in sunshine or storm; the trees invited his attention as they furnished him food or shelter; the roaring torrent was nothing to him except as it obstructed his journey; the sun and the moon and the stars in the heavens filled him with portentous awe, and the spirits in the invisible world worked for his good or for his evil. Beyond his utilitarian senses no art emotion stirred in these signs of creation. Perhaps the first art emotion was aroused in contemplation of the human body. Through vanity, fear, or love he began to decorate it. He scarifies or tattoos his naked body with figures upon his back, arms, legs, and face to represent an idea of beauty. While the tribal or totemic design may have originated the custom, he wishes to be attractive to others, and his first emotions of beauty are thus expressed. The second step is to paint his face and body to express love, fear, hate, war, or religious emotions. This leads on to the art of decorating the body with ornaments, and subsequently to the ornamentation of clothing.
The art of representation at first possessed little artistic beauty, though the decorations on walls of caves show skill in lines and color. The first representations sought only intelligence in communicating thought. The bas-reliefs of the ancients showed skill in representation. The ideal was finally developed until the aesthetic taste was improved, and the Greek sculpture shows a high development of artistic taste. In it beauty and truth were harmoniously combined. The arts of sculpture and painting are based upon the imagination. Through its perfect development, and the improvement in the art of execution, have been secured the aesthetic products of man. Yet there is always a mingling of the emotional nature {136} in the development of fine arts. The growth of the fine arts consists in intensifying the pleasurable sensations of eye and ear. This is done by enlarging the capacity for pleasure and increasing the opportunity for its satisfaction. The beginnings of the fine arts were small, and the capacity to enjoy must have been slowly developed. Of the arts that appeal to the eye there may be enumerated sculpture, painting, drawing, landscape-gardening, and architecture. The pleasure from all except the last comes from an attempt to represent nature. Architecture is founded upon the useful, and combines the industrial and the fine arts in one. The attempt to imitate nature is to satisfy the emotions aroused in its contemplation.
The Love of the Beautiful Slowly Develops.—There must have developed in man the desire to make a more perfect arrow-head, axe, or celt for the efficiency of service, and later for beauty of expression. There must early have developed an idea of good form and bright colors in clothing. So, too, in the mixing of colors for the purpose of expressing the emotions there gradually came about a refinement in blending. Nor could man's attention be called constantly to the beautiful plants and flowers, to the bright-colored stones, metals, and gems found in the earth without developing something more than mere curiosity concerning them. He must early have discovered the difference between objects which aroused desire for possession and those that did not. Ultimately he preferred a more beautifully finished stone implement than one crudely constructed—a more beautiful and showy flower than one that was imperfect, and likewise more beautiful human beings than those that were crude and ugly.
The pleasure of sound manifested itself at an earlier stage than the pleasure of form, although the degree of advancement in music varies in different tribes. Thus the inhabitants of Africa have a much larger capacity for recognizing and enjoying the effect of harmonious sounds than the aborigines of America. While all nations have the faculty of obtaining pleasure from harmonious sounds, it varies greatly, yet not more {137} widely than between separate individuals. It may be considered quite a universal faculty. The love of the beautiful in form, color, and in harmonious sound, is a permanent social force, and has much to do in the progress of civilization. Yet it is not an essential force, for the beginnings of civilization could have been made without it. However, it gives relief to the cold business world; the formal association of men is softened and embellished by painting, poetry, and music. Thus considered, it represents an important part of the modern social development. Art culture, which represents the highest expression of our civilization, has its softening influences on human life.
1. The importance of language in the development of culture.
2. Does language always originate the same way in different localities?
3. Does language develop from a common centre or from many centres?
4. What bearing has the development of language upon the culture of religion, music, poetry, and art?
5. Which were the more important impulses, clothing for protection or for adornment?
6. Show that play is an important factor in society-building.
7. Compare pictograph, ideograph, and phonetic writing.
[1] Keane, The World's Peoples, p. 49.
Man Is a Part of Universal Nature.—He is an integral part of the universe, and as such he must ever be subject to the physical laws which control it. Yet, as an active, thinking being, conscious of his existence, it is necessary to consider him in regard to the relations which he sustains to the laws and forces of physical nature external to himself. He is but a particle when compared to a planet or a sun, but he is greater than a planet because he is conscious of his own existence, and the planet is not. Yet his whole life and being, so far as it can be reasoned about, is dependent upon his contact with external nature. By adaptation to physical environment he may live; without adaptation he cannot live.
As a part of evolved nature, man comes into the world ignorant of his surroundings. He is ever subject to laws which tend to sweep him onward with the remaining portions of the system of which he is a part, but his slowly awakening senses cause him to examine his surroundings. First, he has a curiosity to know what the world about him is like, and he begins a simple inquiry which leads to investigation. The knowledge he acquires is adapted to his use day by day as his vision extends. Through these two processes he harmonizes his life with the world about him. By degrees he endeavors to bring the materials and the forces of nature into subjection to his will. Thus he progresses from the student to the master. External nature is unconscious, submitting passively to the laws that control it, but man, ever conscious of himself and his effort, attempts to dominate the forces surrounding him and this struggle to overcome environment has characterized his {142} progress. But in this struggle, nature has reciprocated its influence on man in modifying his development and leaving her impress on him. Limited he has ever been and ever will be by his environment. Yet within the limits set by nature he is master of his own destiny and develops by his own persistent endeavor.
Indeed, the epitome of civilization is a struggle of nature and thought, the triumph of the psychical over the physical; and while he slowly but surely overcomes the external physical forces and makes them subordinate to his own will and genius, civilization must run along natural courses even though its products are artificial. In many instances nature appears bountiful and kind to man, but again she appears mean and niggardly. It is man's province to take advantage of her bounty and by toil and invention force her to yield her coveted treasures. Yet the final outcome of it all is determined by the extent to which man masters himself.
Favorable Location Is Necessary for Permanent Civilization.—In the beginning only those races have made progress that have sought and obtained favorable location. Reflect upon the early civilizations of the world and notice that every one was begun in a favorable location. Observe the geographical position of Egypt, in a narrow, fertile valley bounded by the desert and the sea, cut off from contact with other races. There was an opportunity for the Egyptians to develop continuity of life sufficient to permit the beginnings of civilization. Later, when wealth and art had developed, Egypt became the prey of covetous invading nations. So ancient Chaldea, for a time far removed from contact with other tribes, and protected by desert, mountain, and sea, was able to begin a civilization.
But far more favorable, not only for a beginning of civilization but for a high state of development, was the territory occupied by the Grecian tribes. Shut in from the north by a mountain range, surrounded on every other side by the sea, a fertile and well-watered land, of mild climate, it was protected {143} from the encroachments of "barbarians." The influence of geographical contour is strongly marked in the development of the separate states of Greece. The small groups that settled down on a family basis were separated from each other by ranges of hills, causing each community to develop its own characteristic life. These communities had a common language, differing somewhat in dialect, and the foundation of a common religion, but there never could exist sufficient similarity of character or unity of sentiment to permit them to unite into a strong central nation. A variety of life is evinced everywhere. Those who came in contact with the ocean differed from those who dwelt in the interior, shut in by the mountains. The contact with the sea gives breadth of thought, largeness of life, while those who are enclosed by mountains lead a narrow life, intense in thought and feeling. Without the protection of nature, the Grecian states probably would never have developed the high state of civilization which they reached.
Rome presents a similar example. It is true that the Italian tribes that entered the peninsula had considerable force of character and thorough development as they were about to enter upon a period of civilization. Like the Greeks, the discipline of their early Aryan ancestors had given them much of strength and character. Yet the favorable location of Italy, bounded on the north by a high mountain range and enclosed by the sea, gave abundant opportunity for the national germs to thrive and grow. Left thus to themselves, dwelling under the protection of the snow-capped Alps, and surrounded by the beneficent sea, national life expanded, government and law developed and thrived, and the arts of civilized life were practised. The national greatness of the Romans may in part be attributed to the period of repose in which they pursued unmolested the arts of peace before their era of conquest began.
Among the mountains of Switzerland are people who claim never to have been conquered. In the wild rush of the {144} barbarian hordes into the Roman Empire they were not overrun. They retain to this day their early sentiments of liberty; their greatness is in freedom and equality. The mountains alone protected them from the assaults of the enemy and the crush of moving tribes.
Other nations might be mentioned that owe much to geographical position. More than once in the early part of her history it protected Spain from destruction. The United States, in a large measure, owes her independent existence to the fact that the ocean rolls between her and the mother country. On the other hand, Ireland has been hampered in her struggle for independent government on account of her proximity to England. The natural defense against enemies, the protection of mountains and forests, the proximity to the ocean, all have had their influence in the origin and development of nations. Yet races, tribes, and nations, once having opportunity to develop and become strong, may flourish without the protecting conditions of nature. They may defy the mountains, seas, and the streams, and the onslaughts of the wild tribes.
The Nature of the Soil an Essential Condition of Progress.—But geography alone, although a great factor in progress, is powerless without a fertile soil to yield a food supply for a large population. The first great impetus of all early civilizations occurred through agriculture. Not until this had developed so as to give a steady food supply were people able to have sufficient leisure to develop the other arts of life. The abundant food supply furnished by the fertility of the Nile valley was the key to the Egyptian civilization. The valley was overflowed annually by the river, which left a fertilizing sediment upon the land already prepared for cultivation. Thus annually without excessive labor the soil was watered, fertilized, and prepared for the seed. Even when irrigation was introduced, in order to obtain a larger supply of food, the cultivation of the soil was a very easy matter. Agriculture consisted primarily in sowing seed on ready prepared ground and {145} reaping the harvest. The certainty of the crop assured a living. The result of cheap food was to rapidly multiply the race, which existed on a low plane. It created a mass of inferior people ruled by a few despots.
What is true of Egypt is true of all of the early civilizations, as they each started where a fertile soil could easily be tilled. The inhabitants of ancient Chaldea developed their civilization on a fertile soil. The great cities of Nineveh and Babylon were surrounded by rich valleys, and the yield of agricultural products made civilization possible. The earliest signs of progress in India were along the valleys of the Ganges and the Indus. Likewise, in the New World, the tribes that approached the nearest to civilization were situated in fertile districts in Peru, Central America, Mexico, and New Mexico.
The Use of Land the Foundation of Social Order.—The manner in which tribes and nations have attached themselves to the soil has determined the type of social organization. Before the land was treated as property of individuals or regarded as a permanent possession by tribes, the method in which the land was held and its use determined the quality of civilization, and the land factor became more important as a determiner of social order as civilization progressed. It was exceedingly important in determining the quality of the Greek life, and the entire structure of Roman civilization was based on the land question. Master the land tenure of Rome and you have laid the foundation of Roman history. The desire for more land and for more room was the chief cause of the barbarian invasion of the empire. All feudal society, including lords and vassals, government and courts, was based upon the plan of feudal land-holding.
In modern times in England the land question has been at times the burning political and economic question of the nation, and is a disturbing factor in recent times. In the United States, rapid progress is due more to the bounteous supply of free, fertile lands than to any other single cause. Broad, fertile valleys are more pertinent as the foundation {146} of nation-building than men are accustomed to believe; and now that nearly all the public domain has been apportioned among the citizens, intense desire for land remains unabated, and its method of treatment through landlord and tenant is rapidly becoming a troublesome question. The relation of the soil to the population presents new problems, and the easy-going civilization will be put to a new test.
Climate Has Much to Do with the Possibilities of Progress.—The early seats of civilization mentioned above were all located in warm climates. Leisure is essential to all progress. Where it takes man all of his time to earn a bare subsistence there is not much room for improvement. A warm climate is conducive to leisure, because its requirements of food and clothing are less imperative than in cold countries. The same quantity of food will support more people in warm than in cold climates. This, coupled with the fact that nature is more spontaneous in furnishing a bountiful supply in warm climates than in cold, renders the first steps in progress much more possible. The food in warm climates is of a light vegetable character, which is easily prepared for use; indeed, in many instances it is already prepared. In cold countries, where it is necessary to consume large amounts of fatty food to sustain life, the food supply is meagre, because this can only be obtained from wild animals. In this region it costs immense labor to obtain sufficient food for the support of life; likewise, in a cold climate it takes much time to tame animals for use and to build huts to protect from the storm and the cold. The result is that the propagation of the race is slow, and progress in social and individual life is retarded.
We should expect, therefore, all of the earliest civilization to be in warm regions. In this we are not disappointed, in noting Egypt, Babylon, Mexico, and Peru. Soil and climate co-operate in furnishing man a suitable place for his first permanent development. There is, however, in this connection, one danger to be pointed out, arising from the conditions of cheap food—namely, a rapid propagation of the race, which {147} entails misery through generations. In these early populous nations, great want and misery frequently prevailed among the masses of the people. Thousands of laborers, competing for sustenance, reduce the earning capacity to a very small amount, and this reduces the standard of life. Yet because food and shelter cost little, they are able to live at a low standard and to multiply rapidly. Human life becomes cheap, is valued little by despotic rulers, who enslave their fellows. Another danger in warm climates which counteracts the tendency of nations to progress, is the fact that warm climates enervate man and make him less active; hence it occurs that in colder climates with unfavorable surroundings great progress is made on account of the excessive energy and strong will-force of the inhabitants.
In temperate climates man has reached the highest state of progress. In this zone the combination of a moderately cheap food supply and the necessity of excessive energy to supply food, clothing, and protection has been most conducive to the highest forms of progress. While, therefore, the civilization of warm climates has led to despotism, inertia, and the degradation of the masses, the civilization of temperate climates has led to freedom, elevation of humanity, and progress in the arts. This illustrates how essential is individual energy in taking advantage of what nature has provided.
The General Aspects of Nature Determine the Type of Civilization.—While the general characteristics of nature have much to do with the development of the races of the earth, it is only a single factor in the great complex of influences. People living in the mountain fastnesses, those living at the ocean side, and those living on great interior plains vary considerably as to mental characteristics and views of life in general. Buckle has expanded this idea at some length in his comparison of India and Greece. He has endeavored to show that "the history of the human mind can only be understood by connecting with it the history and aspects of the material universe." He holds that everything in India tended to depress the {148} dignity of man, while everything in Greece tended to exalt it. After comparing these two countries of ancient civilization in respect to the development of the imagination, he says: "To sum up the whole, it may be said that the Greeks had more respect for human powers; the Hindus for superhuman. The first dealt with the known and available, the second with the unknown and mysterious." He attributes this difference largely to the fact that the imagination was excessively developed in India, while the reason predominated in Greece. The cause attributed to the development of the imagination in India is the aspect of nature.
Everything in India is overshadowed with the immensity of nature. Vast plains, lofty mountains, mighty, turbulent rivers, terrible storms, and demonstrations of natural forces abound to awe and terrify. The causes of all are so far beyond the conception of man that his imagination is brought into play to furnish images for his excited and terrified mind. Hence religion is extravagant, abstract, terrible. Literature is full of extravagant poetic images. The individual is lost in the system of religion, figures but little in literature, and is swallowed up in the immensity of the universe. While, on the other hand, the fact that Greece had no lofty mountains, no great plains; had small rivulets in the place of rivers, and few destructive storms, was conducive to the development of calm reflection and reason. Hence, in Greece man predominated over nature; in India, nature overpowered man.[1]
There is much of truth in this line of argument, but it must not be carried too far. For individual and racial characteristics have much to do with the development of imagination, reason, and religion. The difference, too, in the time of development, must also be considered, for Greece was a later product, and had the advantage of much that had preceded in human progress. And so far as can be determined, the characteristics of the Greek colonists were quite well established {149} before they left Asia. The supposition, also, that man is subject entirely to the influence of physical nature for his entire progress, must be taken with modification. His mind-force, his individual will-force, must be accounted for, and these occupy a large place in the history of his progress. No doubt the thunders of Niagara and the spectacle of the volume of water inspire poetic admiration in the minds of the thousands who have gazed on this striking physical phenomenon of nature. It is awe-inspiring; it arouses the emotions; it creates poetic imagination. But the final result of contact with the will of man is to turn part of that force from its channels, to move the bright machinery engaged in creating things useful and beautiful which contribute to the larger well-being of man.
Granting that climate, soil, geographical position, and the aspects of nature have a vast influence in limiting the possibilities of man's progress, and in directing his mental as well as physical characteristics, it must not be forgotten that in the contact with these it is his mastery over them which constitutes progress, and this involves the activity of his will-power. Man is not a slave to his environment. He is not a passive creature acted upon by sun and storm and subjected to the powers of the elements. True, that there are set about him limitations within which he must ever act. Yet from generation to generation he forces back these limits, enlarges the boundary of his activities, increases the scope of his knowledge, and brings a larger number of the forces of nature in subjection to his will.
Physical Nature Influences Social Order.—Not only is civilization primarily based upon the physical powers and resources of nature, but the quality of social order is determined thereby. Thus, people following the streams, plains, and forests would develop a different type of social order from those who would settle down to permanent seats of agriculture. The Bedouin Arabs of the desert, although among the oldest of organized groups, have changed very little through the passing centuries, because their mode of life permits only a {150} simple organization. Likewise, it is greatly in contrast with the modern nations, built upon industrial and commercial life, with all of the machinery run by the powers of nature. When Rome developed her aristocratic proprietors to whom the land was apportioned in great estates, the old free farming population disappeared and slavery became a useful adjunct in the methods adopted for cultivating the soil. On the other hand, the old village community where land was held in common developed a small co-operative group closely united on the basis of mutual aid. The great landed estates of England and Germany must, so long as they continue, influence the type of social order and of government that will exist in those countries.
As the individual is in a measure subservient to the external laws about him, so must the social group of which he forms a part be so controlled. The flexibility and variability of human nature, with its power of adaptation, make it possible to develop different forms of social order. The subjective side of social development, wherein the individual seeks to supply his own wants and follow the directions of his own will, must ever be a modifying power acting upon the social organization. Thus society becomes a great complex of variabilities which cannot be reduced to exact laws similar to those found in physical nature. Nevertheless, if society in its development is not dependent upon immutable laws similar to those discovered in the forces of nature, yet as part of the great scheme of nature it is directly dependent upon the physical forces that permit it to exist the same as the individual. This would give rise to laws of human association which are modified by the laws of external nature. Thus, while society is psychical in its nature, it is ever dependent upon the material and the physical for its existence. However, through co-operation, man is able to more completely master his environment than by working individually. It is only by mutual aid and social organization that he is able to survive and conquer.
1. Give examples coming within your own observation of the influence of soil and climate on the character of society.
2. Does the character of the people in Central America depend more on climate than on race?
3. In what ways does the use of land determine the character of social order?
4. Are the ideals and habits of thought of the people living along the Atlantic Coast different from those of the Middle West? If so, in what respect?
5. Is the attitude toward life of the people of the Dakota wheat belt different from those of New York City?
6. Compare a mining community with an agricultural community and record the differences in social order and attitude toward life.
[1] Henry Thomas Buckle, History of Civilization in England. General Introduction.
The First Nations with Historical Records in Asia and Africa.—The seats of the most ancient civilizations are found in the fertile valleys of the Euphrates and the Nile. These centres of civilization were founded on the fertility of the river valleys and the fact of their easy cultivation. Just when the people began to develop these civilizations and whence they came are not determined. It is out of the kaleidoscopic picture of wandering humanity seeking food and shelter, the stronger tribes pushing and crowding the weaker, that these permanent seats of culture became established. Ceasing to wander after food, they settled down to make the soil yield its products for the sustenance of life. Doubtless they found other tribes and races had been there before them, though not for permanent habitation. But the culture of any one group of people fades away toward its origins, mingling its customs and life with those who preceded them. Sometimes, indeed, when a tribe settled down to permanent achievement, its whole civilization is swept away by more savage conquerors. Sometimes, however, the blood of the invaders mingled with the conquered, and the elements of art, religion, and language of both groups have built up a new type of civilization.
The geography of the section comprising the nations where the earliest achievements have left permanent records, indicates a land extending from a territory east of the Tigris and Euphrates westward to the eastern shore of the Mediterranean and southward into Egypt. Doubtless, this region was one much traversed by tribes of various languages and cultures. Emerging from the Stone Age, we find the civilization ranging from northern Africa and skirting Arabia through Palestine {153} and Assyria down into the valley of the Tigris and the Euphrates. Doubtless, the civilization that existed in this region was more or less closely related in general type, but had derived its character from many primitive sources. As history dawns on the achievements of these early nations, it is interesting to note that there was a varied rainfall within this territory. Some parts were well watered, others having long seasonal periods of drought followed by periodical rains. It would appear, too, the uncertainty of rainfall seemed to increase rather than diminish, for in the valley of the Euphrates, as well as in the valley of the Nile, the inhabitants were forced to resort to artificial irrigation for the cultivation of their crops.
It is not known at what time the Chaldeans began to build their artificial systems of irrigation, but it must have been brought about by the gain of the population on the food supply, or perhaps an increased uncertainty of rainfall. At any rate, the irrigation works became a systematic part of their industry, and were of great size and variety. It took a great deal of engineering skill to construct immense ditches necessary to control the violent floods of the Euphrates and the Tigris. So far as evidence goes, the irrigation was carried on by the gravity system, by which canals were built from intakes from the river and extended throughout the cultivated district. In Egypt for a long time the periodical overflow of the Nile brought in the silt for fertilizer and water for moisture. When the flood subsided, seed was planted and the crop raised and harvested. As the population spread, the use of water for irrigation became more general, and attempts were made to distribute its use not only over a wider range of territory but more regularly throughout the seasons, thus making it possible to harvest more than one crop a year, or to develop diversified agriculture. The Egyptians used nearly all the modern methods of procuring, storing, and distributing water. Hence, in these centres of warm climate, fertile land, and plenty of moisture, the earth was made to yield an immense harvest, which made it possible to support a large population. {154} The food supply having been established, the inhabitants could devote themselves to other things, and slowly developed the arts and industries.
Civilization in Mesopotamia.—The Tigris and Euphrates, two great rivers having their sources in mountain regions, pouring their floods for centuries into the Persian Gulf, made a broad, fertile valley along their lower courses. The soil was of inexhaustible fertility and easy of cultivation. The climate was almost rainless, and agriculture was dependent upon artificial irrigation. The upper portion of this great river valley was formed of undulating plains stretching away to the north, where, almost treeless, they furnished great pasture ranges for flocks and herds, which also added to the permanency of the food supply and helped to develop the wealth and prosperity of the country. It was in this climate, so favorable for the development of early man, and with this fertile soil yielding such bountiful productions, that the ancient Chaldean civilization started, which was followed by the Babylonian and Assyrian civilizations, each of which developed a great empire. These empires, ruling in turn, not only represented centres of civilization and wealth, but they acquired the overlordship of territories far and wide, their monarchs ruling eastward toward India and westward toward Phoenicia. In early times ancient Chaldea, located on the lower Euphrates, was divided into two parts, the lower portion known as Sumer, and the other, the upper, known as Akkad. While in the full development of these civilizations the Semitic race was dominant, there is every appearance that much of the culture of these primitive peoples came from farther east.
Influences Coming from the Far East.—The early inhabitants of this country have sometimes been called Turanian to distinguish them from Aryans, Semites, and other races sometimes called Hamitic. They seem to have been closely allied to the Mongolian type of people who developed centres of culture in the Far East and early learned the use of metals and developed a high degree of skill in handicraft. The Akkadians, {155} or Sumer-Akkadians, appear to have come from the mountain districts north and east, and entered this fertile valley to begin the work of civilization at a very early period. Their rude villages and primitive systems of life were to be superseded by civilizations of other races that, utilizing the arts and industries of the Akkadians, carried their culture to a much higher standard. The Akkadians are credited with bringing into this country the methods of making various articles from gold and iron which have been found in their oldest tombs. They are credited with having laid the foundation of the industrial arts which were manifested at an early time in ancient Chaldea, Egypt, and later in Babylonia and Phoenicia. Whatever foundation there may be for this theory, the subsequent history of the civilizations which have developed from Thibet as a centre would seem to attribute the early skill in handiwork in the metals and in porcelain and glass to these people. They also early learned to make inscriptions for permanent record in a crude way and to construct buildings made of brick.
The Akkadians brought with them a religious system which is shown in a collection of prayers and sacred texts found recorded in the ruins at the great library at Nineveh. Their religion seemed to be a complex of animism and nature-worship. To them the universe was peopled with spirits who occupied different spheres and performed different services. Scores of evil spirits working in groups of seven controlled the earth and man. Besides these there were numberless demons which assailed man in countless forms, which worked daily and hourly to do him harm, to control his spirit, to bring confusion to his work, to steal the child from the father's knee, to drive the son from the father's house, or to withhold from the wife the blessings of children. They brought evil days. They brought ill-luck and misfortune. Nothing could prevent their destructiveness. These spirits, falling like rain from the skies to the earth, could leap from house to house, penetrating the doors like serpents. Their dwelling-places were scattered in {156} the marshes by the sea, where sickly pestilence arose, and in the deserts, where the hot winds drifted the sands. Sickness and disease were represented by the demons of pestilence and of fever, which bring destruction upon man. It was a religion of fatalism, which held that man was ever attacked by unseen enemies against whom there was no means of defense. There was little hope in life and none after death. There was no immortality and no eternal life. These spirits were supposed to be under the control of sorcerers and magicians or priests, resembling somewhat the medicine men of the wild tribes of North America, who had power to compel them, and to inflict death or disaster upon the objects of their censure and wrath. Thus, these primitive peoples of early Chaldea were terrorized by the spirits of the earth and by the wickedness of those who manipulated the spirits.
The only bright side of this picture was the creation of other spirits conceived to be essentially good and beneficial, and to whom prayers were directed for protection and help. Such beings were superior to all evil spirits, provided their support could be invoked. So the spirit of heaven and the spirit of earth both appealed to the imagination of these primitive people, who thought that these unseen creatures called gods possessed all knowledge and wisdom, which was used to befriend and protect. Especially would they look to the spirit of earth as their particular protector, who had power to break the spell of the spirits, compel obedience, and bring terror into the hearts of the wicked ones. Such, in brief, was the religious system which these people created for themselves. Later, after the Semitic invasion, a system of religion developed more colossal in its imagination and yet not less cruel in its final decrees regarding human life and destiny. It passed into the purely imaginative religion, and the worship of the sun and moon and the stars gave man's imagination a broader vision, even if it did not lift him to a higher standard of moral conduct.
It is not known at what date these early civilizations began, {157} but there is some evidence that the Akkadians appeared in the valley not less than four thousand years before Christ, and that subsequently they were conquered by the Elamites in the east, who obtained the supremacy for a season, and then were reinforced by the Semitic peoples, who ranged northeast, and, from northern Africa through Arabia, eastward to the Euphrates.[1]
Egypt Becomes a Centre of Civilization.—The men of Egypt are supposed to be related racially to the Caucasian people who dwelt in the northern part of Africa, from whom they separated at a very early period, and went into the Nile valley to settle. Their present racial connection makes them related to the well-known Berber type, which has a wide range in northern Africa. Some time after the departure of the Hamitic branch of the Caucasian race into Egypt, it is supposed that another people passed on beyond, entering Arabia, later spreading over Assyria, Babylon, Palestine, and Phoenicia. These were called the Semites. Doubtless, this passage was long continued and irregular, and there are many intermixtures of the races now distinctly Berber and Arabic, so that in some parts of Egypt, and north of Egypt, we find an Arab-Berber mongrel type. Doubtless, when the Egyptian stock of the Berber type came into Egypt they found other races whose life dates back to the early Paleolithic, as the stone implements found in the hills and caves and graves showed not only Neolithic but Paleolithic culture. Also, the wavering line of Sudan negro types extended across Africa from east to west and came in contact with the Caucasian stock of northern Africa, and we find many negroid intermixtures.
The Egyptians, however, left to themselves for a number of centuries, began rapid ascendency. First, as before stated, their food supply was permanent and abundant. Second, there were inducements also for the development of the art of measurement of land which later led to the development of general principles of measurement. There was observation of {158} the sun and moon and the stars, and a development of the art of building of stone and brick, out of which the vast pyramid tombs of kings were built. The artificers, too, had learned to work in precious stones and metals and weave garments, also to write inscriptions on tombs and also on the papyrus. It would seem as if the civilization once started through so many centuries had become sufficiently substantial to remain permanent or to become progressive, but Egypt was subject to a great many drawbacks. The nation that has the food supply of the world is sooner or later bound to come into trouble. So it appears in the case of Egypt, with her vast food resources and accumulation of wealth; she was eventually doomed to the attacks of jealous and envious nations.
The history of Egypt is represented by dynasties of kings and changes of government through a long period interrupted by the invasion of tribes from the west and the north, which interfered with the uniformity of development. It is divided into two great centres of development, Lower Egypt, or the Delta, and Upper Egypt, frequently differing widely in the character of civilization. Yet, in the latter part of her supremacy Egypt went to war with the Semitic peoples of Babylon and Assyria for a thousand years. It was the great granary of the world and a centre of wealth and culture.
The kings of Egypt were despots who were regarded by the people as gods. They were the head not only of the state but of the religious system, and consequently through this double headship were enabled to rule with absolute sway. The priesthood, together with a few nobles, represented the intellectual and social aristocracy of the country. Next to them were the warriors, who were an exclusive class. Below these came the shepherds and farmers, and finally the slaves. While the caste system did not prevail with as much rigidity here as in India, all groups of people were bound by the influence of class environment, from which they were unable to extricate themselves. Poorer classes became so degraded that in times of famine they were obliged to sell their liberty, their lives, or {159} their labor to kings for food. They became merely toiling animals, forced for the want of bread to build the monuments of kings. The records of Egyptian civilization through art, writing, painting, sculpture, architecture, and the great pyramids, obelisks, and sphinxes were but the records of the glory of kings, built upon the shame of humanity. True, indeed, there was some advance in the art of writing, in the science of astronomy and geometry, and the manufacture of glass, pottery, linens, and silk in the industrial arts. The revelations brought forth in recent years from the tombs of these kings, where were stored the art treasures representing the civilization of the time, exhibit something of the splendors of royalty and give some idea of the luxuries of the civilization of the higher classes. Here were stored the finest products of the art of the times.
The wonders of Egypt were manifested in the structure of the pyramids, which were merely tombs of kings, which millions of laborers spent their lives in building. They represent the most stupendous structures of ancient civilization whose records remain. Old as they appear, as we look backward to the beginning of history, they represent a culminating period of Egyptian art. Sixty-seven of these great structures extended for about sixty miles above the city of Cairo, along the edge of the Libyan Desert. They are placed along the great Egyptian natural burying place in the western side of the Nile valley, as a sort of boulevard of the tombs of kings and nobles. Most of them are constructed of stone, although several are of adobe or sun-dried brick. The latter have crumbled into great conical mountains, like those of the pyramid temples of Babylon.
The largest pyramid, Cheops, rises to a height of 480 feet, having a base covering 13 acres. The historian Herodotus relates that 120,000 men were employed for 20 years in the erection of this great structure. It has never been explained how these people, not yet well developed in practical mechanics, and not having discovered the use of steam and with no {160} use of iron, could have reared these vast structures. Besides the pyramids, great palaces and temples of the kings of Thebes in Upper Egypt rivalled in grandeur the lonely pyramids of Memphis. Age after age, century after century, witnessed the building of these temples, palaces, and tombs. It is said that the palace of Karnak, the most wonderful structure of ancient or modern times, was more than five hundred years in the process of building, and it is unknown how many hundreds of thousands of men spent their lives for this purpose.
So, too, the mighty sphinxes and colossal statues excite the wonder and admiration of the world. Especially to be mentioned in this connection are the colossi of Thebes, which are forty-seven feet high, each hewn from a single block of granite. Upon the solitary plain these mute figures sat, serene and vigilant, keeping their untiring watch through the passage of the centuries.
The Coming of the Semites.—While the ancient civilization at the mouth of the Euphrates had its origin in primitive peoples from the mountains eastward beyond the Euphrates, and the ancient Egyptian civilization received its impetus from a Caucasian tribe of northern Africa, the great civilization from the Mediterranean Sea to the Indus River was developed by the Semites. Westward from the Euphrates, over Arabia, and through Syria to the Mediterranean coast were wandering tribes of Arabs. Perhaps the most typical ancient type of the Semitic race is found in Arabia. In these desert lands swarms of people have passed from time to time over the known world. Their early life was pastoral and nomadic; hence they necessarily occupied a large territory and were continually on the move. The country appears to have been, from the earliest historic records, gradually growing drier—having less regular rainfall.
So these people were forced at times to the mountain valleys and the grasslands of the north, and as far as the agricultural lands in the river valleys, hovering around the settled districts for food supplies for themselves and their herds. After {161} the early settlement of Sumer and Akkad, these Semitic tribes moved into the valley of the Euphrates, and under Sargon I conquered ancient Babylonia at Akkad and afterward extended the conquest south over Sumer. They found two main cities to the west of the Euphrates, Ur and Eridu. Having invaded this territory, they adopted the arts and industries already established, but brought in the dominant power and language of the conquerors. Four successive invasions of these people into this territory eventually changed the whole life into Semitic civilization.
Later a branch moved north and settled higher up on the Tigris, founding the city of Nineveh. The Elamites, another Semitic tribe on the east of the Euphrates, founded the great cities of Susa and Ecbatana. Far to the northwest were the Armenian group of Semites, and directly east on the shores of the Mediterranean were the Phoenicians. This whole territory eventually became Semitic in type of civilization. Also, the Hixos, or shepherd kings, invaded Egypt and dominated that territory for two hundred years. Later the Phoenicians became the great sea-going people of the world and extended their colonies along the coasts through Greece, Italy, northern Africa, and Spain. So there was the Semitic influence from the Pillars of Hercules far east to the River Indus, in India.
Strange to say, the mighty empires of Babylon and Nineveh and Phoenicia and Elam failed, while a little territory including the valley of the Jordan, called Palestine, containing a small and insignificant branch of the Semitic race, called Hebrews, developed a literature, language, and religion which exercised a most powerful influence in all civilizations even to the present time.
The Phoenicians Became the Great Navigators.—While the Phoenicians are given credit for establishing the first great sea power, they were not the first navigators. Long before they developed, boats plied up and down the Euphrates River, and in the island of Crete and elsewhere the ancient Aegeans carried on their trade in ships with Egypt and the eastern {162} Mediterranean. The Aegean civilization preceded the Greeks and existed at a time when Egypt and Babylon were young. The principal city of Cnossus exhibited also a high state of civilization, as shown in the ruins discovered by recent explorers in the island of Crete. It is known that they had trade with early Egypt, but whether their city was destroyed by an earthquake or by the savage Greek pirates of a later day is undetermined. The Phoenicians, however, developed a strip of territory along the east shore of the Mediterranean, and built the great cities of Tyre and Sidon. From these parent cities they extended their trade down through the Mediterranean and out through the Pillars of Hercules, and founded their colonies in Africa, Greece, Italy, and Spain. Long after Tyre and Sidon, the parent states, had declined, Carthage developed one of the most powerful cities and governments of ancient times. No doubt, the Phoenicians deserve great credit for advancing shipbuilding, trade, and commerce, and in extending their explorations over a wide range of the known earth. To them, also, we give credit for the perfection of the alphabet and the manufacture of glass, precious stones, and dyes; but their prominence in history appears in the long struggle between the Carthaginians and the Romans.
A Comparison of the Egyptian and Babylonian Civilizations.—Taken as a whole, there is a similarity in some respects between the Egyptian and the Babylonian civilizations. Coming from different racial groups, from different centres, there must necessarily be contrasts in many of the arts of life. Egypt was an isolated country with a long river flowing through its entire length, which brought from the mountains the detritus which kept its valleys fertile. Communication was established through the whole length by boats, which had a tendency to promote social intercourse and establish national life. With the Mediterranean on the north, the Red Sea on the east, and the Libyan Desert to the west, it was tolerably well protected even though not shut in by high mountain ranges. Yet it was open at all times for the hardy invaders who sought food for {163} flocks and herds and people. There was always "corn in Egypt" to those people suffering from drought in the semi-arid districts of Africa and Arabia.
Nevertheless, while Egypt suffered many invasions, she maintained with considerable constancy the ancient racial traits, and had a continuity of development through the passing centuries which retained many of the primitive characteristics. The valley of the Euphrates was kept fertile by the flow of the great rivers, the Tigris and Euphrates, which, having a large watershed in the mountains, brought floods down through the valleys bearing the silt which made the land fertile. But in both countries at an early period the population encroached upon the natural supply of food, and methods of irrigation were introduced to increase the food supply. The attempts to build palaces, monuments, and tombs were characteristic of both peoples. On account of the dryness of the climate, these great monuments have been preserved with a freshness through thousands of years. In the valley of the Euphrates many of the cities that were reduced to ruin were covered with the drifting sands and floods until they are buried beneath the surface.
In sculpture, painting, and in art, as well as in permanency of her mighty pyramids, sphinxes, and tombs, Egypt stands far ahead of Babylonia. The difference is mainly expressed in action, for in Egypt there is an expression of calm, solemnity, and peace in the largest portions of the architectural works, while in Babylonia there is less skill and more action. The evidences of the type of civilization are similar in one respect, namely, that during the thousand years of development the great monuments were left to show the grandeur of kings, monarchs, and priests, built by thousands of slaves suffering from the neglect of their superiors through ages of toil. Undoubtedly, this failure to recognize the rights of suffering humanity gradually brought destruction upon these great nations. If the strength of a great nation was spent in building up the mighty representations of the glory and power of kings {164} to the neglect of the improvement of the race as a whole, it could mean nothing else but final destruction.
While we contemplate with wonder the greatness of the monuments of the pyramids and the sphinxes of Egypt and the winged bulls of Assyria, it is a sad reflection on the cost of material and life which it took to build them. No wonder, then, that to-day, where once people lived and thought and toiled, where nations grew and flourished, where fields were tilled and harvests were abundant, and where the whole earth was filled with national life, there is nothing remaining but a barren waste and drifting sands, all because men failed to fully estimate real human values and worth. Marvellous as many of the products of these ancient civilizations appear, there is comparatively little to show when it is considered that four thousand years elapsed to bring them about. Mighty as the accomplishments were, the slow process of development shows a lack of vital progress. We cannot escape the idea that the despotism existing in Oriental nations must have crushed out the best life and vigor of a people. It is mournful to contemplate the destruction of these mighty civilizations, yet we may thoughtfully question what excuse could be advanced for their continuance.
It is true that Egypt had an influence on Greece, which later became so powerful in her influences on Western civilizations; and doubtless Babylon contributed much to the Hebrews, who in turn have left a lasting impression upon the world. The method of dispersion of cultures of a given centre shows that all races have been great borrowers, and usually when one art, industry, or custom has been thoroughly established, it may continue to influence other races after the race that gave the product has passed away, or other nations, while the original nation has perished.
The Hebrews Made a Permanent Contribution to World Civilization.—Tradition, pretty well supported by history, shows that Abraham came out of Ur of Chaldea about 1,900 years before Christ, and with his family moved northward into {165} Haran for larger pasture for his flocks on the grassy plains of Mesopotamia. Thence he proceeded westward to Palestine, made a trip to Egypt, and returned to the upper reaches of the Jordan. Here his tribe grew and flourished, and finally, after the manner of pastoral peoples, moved into Egypt for corn in time of drought. There his people lived for several hundred years, attached to the Egyptian nation, and adopting many phases of the Egyptian civilization. When he turned his back upon his people in Babylon, he left polytheism behind. He obtained conception of one supreme being, ruler and creator of the universe, who could not be shown in the form of an image made by man.
This was not the first time in the history of the human race when nations had approximated the idea of one supreme God above all gods and men, but it was the first time the conception that He was the only God and pure monotheism obtained the supremacy. No doubt, in the history of the Hebrew development this idea came as a gradual growth rather than as an instantaneous inspiration. In fact, all nations who have reached any advanced degree of religious development have approached the idea of monotheism, but it remained for the Hebrews to put it in practice in their social life and civil polity. It became the great central controlling thought of national life.
Compared with the great empires of Babylon and Nineveh and Egypt, the Hebrew nation was small, crude, barbarous, insignificant, but the idea of one god controlling all, who passed in conception from a god of authority, imminence, and revenge, to a god of justice and righteousness, who controlled the affairs of men, developed the Hebrew concept of human relations. It led them to develop a legal-ethical system which became the foundation of the Hebrew commonwealth and established a code of laws for the government of the nation, which has been used by all subsequent nations as the foundation of the moral element in their civil code. Moses was not the first lawgiver of the world of nations. Indeed, before {166} Abraham left his ancient home in Chaldea there was ruling in Babylon King Hammurabi, who formulated a wise code of laws, said to be the first of which we have any record in the history of the human race. The Hebrew nation was always subordinate to other nations, but after its tribes developed into a kingdom and their king, Saul, was succeeded by David and Solomon, it reached a high state of civilization in certain lines. Yet, at its best, under the reign of David and Solomon, it was upon the whole a barbarous nation. When the Hebrews were finally conquered and led into captivity in Babylon, they reflected upon their ancient life, their laws, their literature, and there was compiled a greater part of the Bible. This instrument has been greater than the palaces of Babylon or the pyramids of Egypt, or great conquests of military hosts in the perpetuation of the life of a nation. Its history, its religion, its literature in proverbs and songs, its laws, its moral code, all have been enduring monuments that have lasted and will last as long as the human race continues its attempt to establish justice among men.
The Civilizations of India and China.—Before leaving the subject of the Oriental civilizations, at least brief mention must be made of the development of the Hindu philosophy and religion. In the valleys of the great rivers of India, in the shadow of the largest mountains rising to the skies, there developed a great people of great learning and wonderful philosophy. In their abstract conceptions they built up the most wonderful and complex theogony and theology ever invented by men. This system, represented by elements of law, theology, philosophy and language, literature and learning, is found in the Vedas and the great literary remnants of the poets. They reveal to us the intensity of learning at the time of the highest development of the Indian philosophy. However, its influence, wrapped up in the Brahminical religion of fatalism, was largely non-progressive.
Later, about 500 years before Christ, when Gautama Buddha developed his ethical philosophy of life, new hope came {167} into the world. But this did not stay for the regeneration of India, but, rather, declined and passed on into China and Japan. The influence of Indian civilization on Western civilization has been very slight, owing to the great separation between the two, and largely because their objectives have been different. The former devoted itself to the reflection of life, the latter resolved itself into action. Nevertheless, we shall find in the Greek philosophy and Greek religion shadows of the learning of the Orient. But the Hindu civilization, while developing much that is grand and noble, like many Oriental civilizations, left the great masses of the people unaided and unhelped. When it is considered what might have been accomplished in India, it is well characterized as a "land of regrets."
In the dispersion of the human race over the earth, one of the first great centres of culture was found in Thibet, in Asia. Here is supposed to be the origin of the Mongolian peoples, and the Chinese represent one of the chief branches of the Mongolian race. At a very early period they developed an advanced stage of civilization with many commendable features. Their art, the form of pottery and porcelain, their traditional codes of law, were influential in the Far East. Their philosophy culminated in Confucius, who lived about 500 years before Christ, and their religion was founded by Tao Tse, who existed many centuries before. He was the founder of the Taoan religion of China. But the civilization of China extended throughout the Far East, spread into Korea, and then into Japan. It has had very little contact with the Western civilization, and its history is still obscure, but there are many marvellous things done in China which are now in more recent years being faithfully studied and recorded. Their art in porcelain and metals had its influence on other nations and has been of a lasting nature.
The Coming of the Aryans.—The third great branch of the Caucasian people, whose primitive home seems to have been in central Asia, is the Aryan. Somewhere north of the great {168} territory of the Semites, there came gradually down into Nineveh and Babylon and through Armenia a people of different type from the Semites and from the Egyptians. They lived on the great grassy plains of central Asia, wandering with their flocks and herds, and settling down long enough to raise a crop, and then move on. They lived a simple life, but were a vigorous, thrifty, and family-loving people; and while the great civilization of Babylon, Assyria, and Egypt was developing, they were pushing down from the north. They finally developed in Persia a great national life.
Subsequently, under Darius I, a great Aryan empire was established in the seats of the old civilization which he had conquered, whose extent was greater than the world had hitherto known. It extended over the old Assyrian and Babylonian empires, Egypt, Asia Minor, and Syria, in Caucasian and Caspian regions; covered Media and Persia, and extended into India as far as the Indus. The old Semitic civilizations were passing away, and the control of the Aryan race was appearing. Later these Persians found themselves at war with the Greeks, who were of the same racial stock. The Persian Empire was no great improvement over the later Babylonian and Assyrian Empires. It had become more specifically a world empire, which set out to conquer and plunder other nations. It might have been enlightened to a certain extent, but it had received the idea of militarism and conquest. It was the first great empire of the Orient to come in contact with a rising Western civilization, then centering in Greece.
This Aryan stock, when considered in Europe or Western civilization, is known as the Nordic race. In the consideration of Western civilization further discussion will be given of the origin and dispersion of this race.
1. Study the economic foundation of Egypt. Babylon. Arabia.
2. Why did Oriental nations go to war? Show by example.
3. What did Egypt and Babylon contribute of lasting value to civilization?
{169}4. What was the Hebrew contribution?
5. Why did these ancient empires decline and disappear?
6. Study the points of difference between the civilization of Babylon and Egypt and Western civilization.
7. Contrast the civilization of India and China with Western civilization.
[1] L. W. King, History of Sumer and Akkad. History of Babylon.
The Governments of the Early Oriental Civilizations.—In comparing the Oriental civilizations which sprang up almost independently in different parts of Asia and Africa with European civilizations, we shall be impressed with the despotism of these ancient governments. It is not easy to determine why this feature should have been so universal, unless it could be attributed to human traits inherent in man at this particular stage of his development. Perhaps, also, in emerging from a patriarchal state of society, where small, independent groups were closely united with the oldest male member as leader and governor of all, absolute authority under these conditions was necessary for the preservation of the tribe or group, and it became a fixed custom which no one questioned.
Subsequently, when the population increased around a common centre and various tribes and groups were subjected to a central organization, the custom of absolute rule was transferred from the small group to the king, who ruled over all. Also, the nature of most of these governments may have been influenced by the type of religion which prevailed. It became systematized under the direction of priests, who stood between the people and the great unknown, holding absolute sway but working on the emotion of fear. Perhaps, also, a large group of people with a limited food supply were easily reduced to a state of slavery and dwelt in a territory as a mass of unorganized humanity, subservient only to the superior directing power. It appears to be a lack of organized popular will. The religions, too, looked intensely to the authority of the past, developing fixity of customs, habits, laws, {171} and social usages. These conditions were conducive to the exercise of the despotism of those in power.
War Existed for Conquest and Plunder.—The kings of these Oriental despotisms seemed to be possessed with inordinate vanity, and when once raised to power used not only all the resources of the nation and of the people for magnifying that power, but also used the masses of the people at home at labor, and abroad in war, for the glory of the rulers. Hence, wars of conquest were frequent, always accompanied with the desire for plunder of territory, the wealth of temples, and the coffers of the rulers. Many times wars were based upon whims of kings and rulers and trivial matters, which can only be explained through excessive egoism and vanity; yet in nearly every instance the idea of conquest was to increase the wealth of the nation and power of the king by going to war. There was, of course, jealousy of nations and rivalry for supremacy, as the thousand years of war between Egypt and Babylonia illustrates, or as the conquest of Babylon by Assyria, or, indeed, the later conquest of the whole East by the Persian monarchs, testifies. These great wars were characterized by the crude struggle and slaughter of hordes of people. Not until the horse and chariot came into use was there any great improvement in methods of warfare. Bronze weapons and, later, iron were used in most of these wars. It was merely barbarism going to war with barbarism in order to increase barbaric splendor.
Religious Belief Was an Important Factor in Despotic Government.—In the beginning we shall find that animism, or the belief in spirits, was common to all nations and tribes. There was in the early religious life of people a wild, unorganized superstition, which brought them in subjection to the control of the spirits of the world. In the slow development of the masses, these ideas always remained prominent, and however highly developed religious life became, however pure the system of religious philosophy and religious worship, as represented by the most intelligent and farthest advanced of the {172} people, it yet remains true that the masses of the people were mastered and ruled by a gross superstition; and possibly this answers the question to a large extent as to why the religion of the Orient could, on the one hand, reach such heights of purity of spirit and worship and, on the other, such a degradation in thought, conception, and practice. It could reach to the skies with one arm and into the grossest phases of nature-worship with the other.
It appears the time came when, as a matter of self-defense, man must manipulate and control spirits to save himself from destruction, and there were persons particularly adapted to this process, who formed the germs of the great system of priesthood. They stood between the masses and the spirits, and as the system developed and the number of priests increased, they became the ones who ruled the masses in place of the spirits. The priesthood, then, wherever it has developed a great system, has exercised an almost superhuman power over the ignorant, the debased, and the superstitious. It was the policy of kings to cultivate and protect this priesthood, and it was largely this which enabled them to have power over the masses. Having once obtained this power, and the military spirit having arisen in opposition to foreign tribes, the priests were at the head of the military, religious, and civil systems of the nation. Indeed, the early king was the high priest of the tribe, and he inherited through long generations the particular function of leader of religious worship.
It will be easy to conceive that where the art of embalming was carried on, people believed in the future life of the soul. The religious system of the Egyptians was, indeed, of very remarkable character. The central idea in their doctrine was the unity of God, whom they recognized as the one Supreme Being, who was given the name of Creator, Eternal Father, to indicate the various characters in which he appeared. This pure monotheism was seldom grasped by the great masses of the people; indeed, it is to be supposed that many of the priestly order scarcely rose to its pure conceptions. But there {173} were other groups or dynasties of gods which were worshipped throughout Egypt. These were mostly mythical beings, who were supposed to perform especial functions in the creation and control of the universe. Among these Osiris and Isis, his wife and sister, were important, and their worship common throughout all Egypt. Osiris came upon the earth in the interests of mankind, to manifest the true and the good in life. He was put to death by the machinations of the evil spirit, was buried and rose, and became afterward the judge of the dead. In this we find the greatest mystery in the Egyptian religion. Typhon was the god of the evil spirits, a wicked, rebellious devil, who held in his grasp all the terrors of disease and of the desert. Sometimes he was in the form of a frightful serpent, again in the form of a crocodile or hippopotamus.
Seeking through the light of religious mystery to explain all the natural phenomena observed in physical nature, the Egyptians fell into the habit of coarse animal worship. The cat, the snake, the crocodile, and the bull became sacred animals, to kill which was the vilest sacrilege. Even if one was so unfortunate as to kill one of these sacred animals by accident, he was in danger of his life at the hands of the infuriated mob. It is related that a Roman soldier, having killed a sacred cat, was saved from destruction by the multitude only by the intercession of the great ruler Ptolemy. The taking of the life of one of these sacred creatures caused the deepest mourning, and frequently the wildest terror, while every member of the family shaved his head at the death of a dog.
There was symbolism, too, in all this worship. Thus the scarabeus, or beetle, which was held to be especially sacred, was considered as the emblem of the sun. Thousands of these relics may be found in the different museums, having been preserved to the present time. The bull, Apis, not only was a sacred creature, but was held to be a real god. It was thought that the soul of Osiris pervaded the spirit of the bull, and at the bull's death it passed on into that of his successor. The worship of the lower forms of life led to a coarseness in religious {174} belief and practice. How it came about is difficult to ascertain. It is supposed by some scholars that the animal worship had its origin in the low form of worship belonging to the indigenous tribes of Egypt, and that the higher order was introduced by the Hamites, or perhaps by the Semites who mingled with and overcame the original inhabitants of the Nile valley. In all probability, the advanced ideas of religious belief and thought were the essential outcome of the learning and speculative philosophy of the Egyptians, while the old animal worship became the most convenient for the great masses of low and degraded beings who spent their lives in building tombs for the great.
The religious life of the Egyptians was protected and guarded by an elaborate priesthood. It formed a perfect hierarchy of priest, high priest, scribes, keepers of the sacred robes and animals, sculptors, embalmers, besides all the attendants upon the services of worship and religion. Not only was this class privileged among all the castes of Egypt as representing the highest class of individuals, but it enjoyed immunity from taxation and had the privilege of administering the products of one-third of the land to carry on the expenses of the temple and religious worship. The ceremonial life of the priests was almost perfect. Scrupulous in the care of their person, they bathed twice each day and frequently at night, and every third day shaved the entire body. Their linen was painfully neat, and they lived on plain, simple food, as conducive to the service of religion. They exerted a great power not only over the religious life of the Egyptians but, on account of the peculiar relation of religion to government, over the entire development of Egypt.
The religion of Oriental nations was non-progressive in its nature. It had a tendency to repress freedom of thought and freedom of action. Connected as it was with the binding influence of caste, man could not free himself from the dictates of religion. The awful sublimity of nature found its counterpart in the terrors of religion; and that religion attempted to {175} answer all the questions that might arise concerning external nature. It rested upon the basis of authority built through ages of tradition, and through a continuous domineering priest-craft. The human mind struggling within its own narrow bounds could not overcome the stultifying and sterilizing influence of such a religion. The lower forms of religion were "of the earth, earthy." The higher forms consisted of such abstract conceptions concerning the creation of the earth, and the manipulation of all the forces of nature and the control of all the powers of man, as to be entirely non-progressive. There could be no independent scientific investigation. There could be no rational development of the mind. The religion of the Orient brought gloom to the masses and cut off hope forever. The people became subject to the grinding forces of fate. How, then, could there be intellectual development based upon freedom of action? How could there be any higher life of the soul, any moral culture, any great advancement in the arts and sciences, or any popular expression regarding war and government?
Social Organization Was Incomplete.—All social organization tended toward the common centre, the king, and there was very little local organization except as it was necessary to bring the people under control of official rule. There were apparently very few voluntary associations. Among the nobility, the priests, and ladies of rank, we find frequently elaborate costumes of dress, manifold ornaments, necklaces, rings, and earrings; but whatever went to the rich seemed to be a deprivation of the poor. Indeed, when we consider that it cost only a few shillings at most to rear a child to the age of twenty-one years in Egypt, we can imagine how meagre and stinted that life must have been. The poorer classes of people dressed in a very simple style, wearing a single linen shirt and over it a woollen mantle; while among the very poor much less was worn.
However, it seems that there was time for some of the population to engage in sports such as laying snares for birds, {176} angling for fish, popular hunts, wrestling, playing checkers, chess, and ball, and it appears that many of these people were gifted in these sports. Just what classes of people engaged in this leisure is difficult to determine. Especially in the case of Egypt, most of the people were condemned to hard and toilsome labor. Probably the nobility and people of wealth were the only classes who had time for sports. The great temples and palaces were built with solid masonry of stone and brick, but the dwelling-houses were constructed in a light, graceful style, surrounded with long galleries and terraces common at this period of development in Oriental civilization. The gardening was symmetrical and accurate, the walks led in well-defined lines and were carefully conventional. The rooms of the houses, too, were well arranged and tastefully decorated, and members of the household distributed in its generous apartments, each individual finding his special place for position and service.
For the comparatively small number of prosperous and influential people, life was refined and luxurious so far as the inventions and conveniences for comfort would permit. They had well-constructed and well-appointed houses, and, judging from the relics discovered in tombs and from the records and inscriptions, people wore richly decorated clothing and lovely jewels. They had numerous feasts with music and dancing and servants to wait upon them in every phase of life. It is related, too, that excursions were common in summer on the great rivers. But even though there was a life of ease among the wealthy, they were without many comforts known to modern times. They had cotton and woollen fabrics for clothing, but no silk. They had dentists and doctors in those days, and teeth were filled with gold as in modern times. Their articles of food consisted of meat and vegetables, but there were no hens and no eggs. They used the camel in Mesopotamia and walked mostly in Egypt, or went by boat on the river. However, when we consider the change of ancient Babylon to Nineveh, and the Egyptian civilization of old Thebes to that {177} which developed later, there is evidence of progress. The religious life lost a good many of its crudities, abolished human sacrifice, and developed a refined mysticism which was more elevating than the crude nature-worship.
The rule of caste which settled down over the community in this early period relegated every individual to his particular place. From this place there could be no escape. The common laborers moving the great blocks of stone to build the mighty pyramids of the valley of the Nile could be nothing but common laborers. And their sons and their daughters for generation after generation must keep the same sphere of life. And though the warriors fared much better, they, too, were confined to their own group. The shepherd class must remain a shepherd class forever; they could never rise superior to their own surroundings. So, too, in Babylon and India. There was, indeed, a slight variation from the caste system in Egypt and in Babylon, but in India it settled down from the earliest times, and the people and their customs were crystallized; they were bound by the chain of fate in the caste system forever. We shall see, then, that the relation of the population to the soil and the binding influences of early custom tended to develop despotism in Oriental civilization.
The result of all this was that there was no freedom or liberty of the individual anywhere. With caste and despotism and degradation men moved forward in political and religious life as on a plane which inclined so slightly that, except as we look over its surface through the passing centuries, little change can be observed. The king was a god; the government possessed supernatural power; its authority was not to be questioned. The rule of the army was final. The cruelty of kings and the oppression of government were customary, and thus crushed and oppressed, the ordinary individual had no opportunity to arise and walk in the dignity of his manhood. The government, if traced to its source at all, was of divine origin, and though those who ruled might stop to consider for an instant their own despotic actions, and in special cases yield {178} in clemency to their subjects, from the subject's standpoint there could be nothing but to yield to the despotism of kings and the unrelenting rule of government.
We shall find, then, that with all of the efforts put forth the greater part was wasted. Millions of people were born, lived, and died, leaving scarcely a mark of their existence. No wonder that, as the great kings of Egypt saw the wasting elements of time, the waste of labor in its dreary rounds, having employed the millions in building the mighty temples dedicated to the worship of the gods; or having built great canals and aqueducts to develop irrigation that greater food supply might be assured, thus observing the majesty of their condition in relation to other human beings, they should have employed these millions of serfs in building their own tombs and monuments to remain the only lasting vestige of the civilization long since passed away. Everywhere in the Oriental civilization, then, are lack of freedom and the appearance of despotism. Everywhere is evidence of waste of individual life. No deep conception can be found in either the philosophy or the practice of the Egyptians or the Babylonians of the real object of human life. And yet the few meagre products of art and of learning handed down to European civilization from these Oriental countries must have had a vast influence in laying the foundations of modern civilized life.
Economic Influences.—In the first place, the warm climate of these countries required but little clothing; for a few cents a year a person could be clothed sufficiently to protect himself from the climate and to observe the rules of modesty so far as they existed in those times. In the second place, in hot climates less food is required than in cold. In cold countries people need a large quantity of heavy, oily foods, while in hot climates they need a lighter food and, indeed, less of it. Thus we have in these fertile valleys of the Orient the conditions which supply sustenance for millions at a very small amount of exertion or labor. Now, it is a well-established fact that cheap food among classes of people who have not developed {179} a high state of civilization favors a rapid increase of population. The records show in Babylon and Egypt, as well as in Palestine, that the population multiplied at a very rapid rate. And this principle is enhanced by the fact that in tropical climates, where less pressure of want and cold is brought to bear, the conditions for successful propagation of the human race are present. And this is one reason why the earliest civilizations have always been found in tropical climates, and it was not until man had more vigor of constitution and higher development of physical and mental powers that he could undertake the mastery of himself and nature under less favorable circumstances.
The result was that human life became cheap. The great mass of men became so abundant as to press upon the food supply to its utmost limit. And they who had the control of this food supply controlled the bodies and souls of the great poverty-stricken mass who toiled for daily bread. Here we find the picture of abject slavery of the masses. The rulers, through the government, strengthened by the priests, who held over the masses of the lower people in superstitious awe the tenets of their faith, forced them into subjection. There was no value placed upon a human life; why, then, should there be upon the masses of individuals?
We shall find, too, as the result of all this, that the civilization became more or less stationary. True, there must have been a slow development of religious ideas, a slow development of art, a slow development of government, and yet when the type was once set there was but little change from century to century in the relation of human beings to one another, and their relation to the products of nature. When we consider the accomplishments of these people we must not forget the length of time it took to produce them. Reckon back from the present time 6,000 years, and then consider what has been accomplished in America in the last century. Think back 2,000 years, and see what had been accomplished in Rome from the year of the founding of the imperial city until the Caesars lived {180} in their mighty palaces, a period of seven and a half centuries. Observe, too, what was accomplished in Greece from the time of Homer until the time of Aristotle, a period of about six and a half centuries; then observe the length of time it took to develop the Egyptian civilization, and we shall see its slow progress. It is also to be observed that the Egyptian civilization had reached its culmination when Greece began, and had begun its slow decline. After considering this we shall understand that the civilization of Egypt finally became stationary, conventionalized, non-progressive; that it was only a question of time when other nations should rule the land of the Pharaohs, and that sands should drift where once were populous cities, covering the relics of this ancient civilization far beneath the surface.
The progress in industrial arts and the use of implements was, of necessity, very slow. Where the laboring man was considered of little value, treated as a mere physical machine, to be fed and used for mechanical purposes alone, it mattered little with what tools he worked. In the building of the pyramids we find no mighty engines for the movement of the great stones, we find no evidence of mechanical genius to provide labor-saving machines. The inclined plane and rollers, the simplest of all contrivances, were about the only inventions. Also, in the buildings of Babylon, the tools with which men worked must of necessity have been very poor. It is remarkable to what extent modern invention depends upon the elevation of the standard of life of labor, and how man through intelligence continually makes certain contrivances for the perfection of human industry. However, if we consider the ornaments used to adorn the person, or for the service of the rich, or the elaborate clothing of the wealthy, we shall find quite a high state of development in these lines, showing the greatest contrast between the condition of the laboring multitudes on the one hand and the luxurious few on the other. Along this line of the rapid development of ornaments we find evidence of luxury and ease, and, in the slow development of {181} industrial arts, the sacrifice of labor. And all of the advancement in the mighty works of art and industry was made at the sacrifice of human labor.
To sum this up, we find, then, that the influence of despotic government, of the binding power of caste, of the prevalence of custom, of the influence of priestcraft, the retarding power of a non-progressive religion, concentration of intelligence in a privileged class that seeks its own ease, the slow development of industrial implements, and the rapid development of ornaments, brought decay. We see in all of this a retarding of improvement, a stagnation of organizing effort, and the crystallization of ancient civilization about old forms, to be handed down from generation to generation without progress.
Records, Writing, and Paper.—At an early period papyrus, a paper made of a reed that grows along the Nile valley, was among the first inventions. It was the earliest artificial writing material discovered by any nation of which we have a record; and we are likely to remember it from its two names, biblos and papyrus, for from these come two of our most common words, bible and paper. Frequently, however, leather, pottery, tiles, and stone, and even wooden tablets, were used as substitutes for the papyrus. In the early period the Egyptians used the hieroglyphic form of writing, which consisted of rude pictures of objects which had a peculiar significance. Finally the hieratic simplified this form by symbolizing and conventionalizing to a large extent the hieroglyphic characters. Later came the demotic, which was a further departure from the old concrete form of representation, and had the advantage of being more readily written than either of the others.[1] These characters were used to inscribe the deeds of kings on monuments and tablets, and when in 1798 the key to the Egyptian writing was obtained through means of the Rosetta stone, the opportunity for a large addition to the history of Egypt was made. Strange as it may seem, these ancient people had written romances and fairy tales; one especially to be mentioned {182} is the common Cinderella and the Glass Slipper, written more than thirteen centuries B.C. But in addition to these were published documents, private letters, fables, epics, and autobiographies, and treatises on astronomy, medicine, history, and scientific subjects.
The Babylonians and Assyrians developed the cuneiform method of writing. They had no paper, but made their inscriptions on clay tablets and cylinders. These were set away in rooms called libraries. The discovery of the great library of Ashur-bani-pal, of Nineveh, revealed the highest perfection of this ancient method of recording events.
The art of Egypt was manifested in the dressing of precious stones, the weaving of fine fabrics, and fine work in gold ornaments. Sculpture and painting were practically unknown as arts, although the use of colors was practised to a considerable extent. Artistic energy was worked out in the making of the tombs of kings, the obelisks, the monuments, the sphinxes, and the pyramids. It was a conception of the massive in artistic expression. In Babylon and Nineveh, especially the latter, the work of sculpture in carving the celebrated winged bulls gives evidence of the attempt to picture power and strength rather than beauty. Doubtless the Babylonians developed artistic taste in the manufacture of jewelry out of precious stones and gold.
The Beginnings of Science Were Strong in Egypt, Weak in Babylon.—The greatest expression of the Egyptian learning was found in science. The work in astronomy began at a very early date from a practical standpoint. The rising of the Nile occurred at a certain time annually, coinciding with the time of the rise of the Dog-star, which led these people to imagine that they stood in the relation of effect and cause, and from these simple data began the study of astronomy. The Egyptians, by the study of the movement of the stars, were enabled to determine the length of the sidereal year, which they divided into twelve months, of thirty days each, adding five days to complete the year. This is the calendar which was {183} introduced from Egypt into the Roman Empire by Julius Caesar. It was revised by Pope Gregory XIII in 1582, and has since been the universal system for the Western civilized world. Having reached their limit of fact in regard to the movement of the heavenly bodies, their imagination related the stars to human conduct, and astrology became an essential outcome. It was easy to believe that the heavenly bodies, which, apparently, had such great influence in the rise of the river and in the movement of the tides, would have either a good influence or a baneful influence, not only over the vegetable world but upon human life and human destiny as well. Hence, astrology, in Egypt as in Babylonia, became one of the important arts.
From the measurement of the Nile and the calculation of the lands, which must be redistributed after each annual overflow, came the system of concrete measurement which later developed into the science of geometry. Proceeding from the simple measurement of land, step by step were developed the universal abstract problems of geometry, and the foundation for this great branch of mathematics was laid. The use of arithmetic in furnishing numerical expressions in the solution of geometrical and arithmetical problems became common.
The Egyptians had considerable knowledge of many drugs and medicines, and the physicians of Egypt had a great reputation among the ancients; for every doctor was a specialist and pursued his subject and his practice to the utmost limit of fact and theory. But the physician must treat cases according to customs already established in the past. There was but little opportunity for the advancement of his art. Yet it became very much systematized and conventionalized. The study of anatomy developed also the art of embalming, one of the most distinctive features of Egyptian civilization. This art was carried on by the regular physicians, who made use of resins, oils, bitumens, and various gums. It was customary to embalm the bodies of wealthy persons by filling them with resinous substances and wrapping them closely in linen {184} bandages. The poorer classes were cured very much as beef is cured before drying, and then wrapped in coarse garments preparatory to burial. The number of individuals who were thus disposed of after death is estimated at not less than 420,000,000 between 2000 B.C. and 700 A.D.
The Contribution to Civilization.—The building of the great empires on the Tigris and Euphrates had a tendency to collect the products of civilization so far as they existed, and to distribute them over a large area. Thus, the industries that began in early Sumer and Akkad, coming from farther east, were passed on to Egypt and Phoenicia and were further distributed over the world. Especially is this true in the work of metals, the manufacture of glass, and the development of the alphabet, which probably originated in Babylon and was improved by the Phoenicians, and, through them as traders, had a wide dispersion. Perhaps one ought to consider that the study of the stars and the heavenly bodies, although it led no farther than astrology and the development of magic, was at least a beginning, although in a crude way, of an inquiry into nature.
In Egypt, however, we find that there was more or less scientific study and invention and development of reflective thinking. Moreover, the advancement in the arts of life, especially industrial, had great influence over the Greeks, whose early philosophers were students of the Egyptian system. Also, the contact of the Hebrews and Phoenicians with Egypt gave a strong coloring to their civilization. Especially is this true of the Hebrews, who dwelt so long in the shadow of the Egyptian civilization. The Hebrews, after their captivity in Babylon, contributed the Bible, with its sacred literature, to the world, which with its influence through the legal-ethicalism, or moral code, its monotheistic doctrines, and its attempted development of a commonwealth based on justice, had a lasting influence on civilization. But in the life of the Hebrew people in Palestine its influence on surrounding nations was not so great as in the later times when the Jews were scattered over the {185} world. The Bible has been a tremendous civilizer of the world. Hebrewism became a universal state of mind, which influenced all nations that came in contact with it.
But what did this civilization leave to the world? The influence of Egypt on Greece and Greek philosophy must indeed have been great, for the greatest of the Greeks looked upon the Egyptian philosophy as the expression of the highest wisdom. Nor can we hesitate in claiming that the influence of the Egyptians upon the Hebrews was considerable. There is a similarity in many respects between the Egyptian and the Hebrew code of learning; but the art and the architecture, the learning and the philosophy, had their influence likewise on all surrounding nations as soon as Egypt was opened up to communication with other parts of the world. A careful study of the Greek philosophy brings clearly before us the influence of the Egyptian learning. Thus Thales, the first of the philosophers to break away from the Grecian religion and mythology to inquire into the natural cause of the universe, was a student of Egyptian life and philosophy.
1. What are the evidences of civilization discovered in Tut-Ankh-Amen's tomb?
2. Give an outline of the chief characteristics of Egyptian civilization?
3. What caused the decline of Egyptian civilization?
4. What did Oriental civilization contribute to the subsequent welfare of the world?
5. The influence of climate on industry in Egypt and Babylon.
6. Why did the Egyptian religion fail to improve the lot of the common man?
7. Retarding influence of the caste system in India and Egypt.
[1] See Chapter VII.
America Was Peopled from the Old World.—The origin of the people of America has been the subject of perennial controversy. Gradually, however, as the studies of the human race and their migrations have increased, it is pretty well established that the one stream of migration came from Asia across a land connection along the Aleutian Islands, which extended to Alaska. At an early period, probably from 15,000 to 20,000 years age, people of the Mongoloid type crossed into America and gradually passed southward, some along the coast line, others through the interior of Alaska and thence south. This stream of migration continued down through Mexico, Central America, South America, and even to Patagonia. It also had a reflex movement eastward toward the great plains and the Mississippi valley. There is a reasonable conjecture, however, that another stream of migration passed from Europe at a time when the British Islands were joined to the mainland, and the great ice cap made a solid bridge to Iceland, Greenland, and possibly to Labrador. It would have been possible for these people to have come during the third glacial period, at the close of the Old Stone Age, or soon after in the Neolithic period. The traditions of the people on the west coast all state their geographical origin in the northwest. The traditions of the Indians of the Atlantic coast trace their origins to the northeast.
The people of the west coast are mostly of the round-headed type (brachycephalic), while those of the east coast have been of the long-headed type (dolichocephalic). The two types have mingled in their migration southward until we have the long heads and the round or broad heads extending the whole {187} length of the two continents. Intermingled with these are those of the middle derivative type, or mesocephalic. From these sources there have developed on the soil of America, the so-called American Indians of numerous tribes, each with its own language and with specialized physical and mental types. While the color of the skin has various shades, the coarse, straight black hair and brown eyes are almost general features of the whole Indian race.
At different centres in both North and South America, tribes have become more or less settled and developed permanent phases of early civilization, strongly marked by the later Neolithic cultures. In some exceptional cases, the uses of copper, bronze, and gold are to be noted. Perhaps the most important centres are those of the Incas in Peru, the Mayas, Aztecs, and Terra-humares of Mexico, the cliff-dwellers and Pueblos of southwestern United States, the mound-builders of the Mississippi valley, and the Iroquois nation of northeastern United States and Canada. At the time of the coming of the Europeans to America, the Indian population in general was nomadic, in the hunter-fisher stage of progress; but many of the tribes had tentatively engaged in agriculture, cultivating maize, squashes, and in some cases fruits. Probably the larger supply of food was from animals, birds, fish, and shell-fish, edible roots and grains, such as the wild rice, and fruits from the native trees in the temperate and tropical countries. The social organization was based upon the family and the tribe, and, in a few instances, a federation of tribes like that of the Iroquois nation.
The Incas of Peru.—When the Spaniards under Pizarro undertook the conquest of the Peruvians, they found the Inca civilization at its highest state of development. However, subsequent investigations discovered other and older seats of civilization of a race in some ways more highly developed than those with whom they came in contact. Among the evidences of this ancient civilization were great temples built of stone, used as public buildings for the administration of religious {188} rights [Transcriber's note: rites?], private buildings of substantial order, and paved roads with numerous bridges. There were likewise ruins of edifices apparently unfinished, and traditions of an ascendent race which had passed away before the development of the Incas of Pizarro's time. In the massive architecture of their buildings there was an attempt to use sculpture on an elaborate scale. They showed some skill in the arts and industries, such as ornamental work in gold, copper, and tin, and the construction of pottery on a large scale. They had learned to weave and spin, and their clothing showed some advancement in artistic design.
In agriculture they raised corn and other grains, and developed a state of pastoral life, although the llama was the only domesticated animal of service. Great aqueducts were built and fertilizers were used to increase the productive value of the soil. The dry climate of this territory necessitated the use of water by irrigation, and the limited amount of tillable soil had forced them to use fertilizers to get the largest possible return per acre.
The Peruvians, or Incas, were called the children of the sun. They had a sacred feeling for the heavenly bodies, and worshipped the sun as the creator and ruler of the universe. They had made some progress in astronomy, by a characterization of the sun and moon and chief planets, mostly for a religious purpose. However, they had used a calendar to represent the months, the year, and the changing seasons. Here, as elsewhere in primitive civilization, religion becomes an important factor in social control. The priest comes in as the interpreter and controller of mysteries, and hence an important member of the community. Religious sacrifices among the Peruvians were commonly of an immaculate nature, being mostly of fruits and flowers. This relieved them of the terrors of human sacrifices so prevalent in early beginnings of civilization where religion became the dominant factor of life. Hence their religious life was more moderate than that of many nations where religious control was more powerful. Yet in governmental {189} affairs and in social life, here as in other places, religion was made the means of enslaving the masses of the people.
The government of the Incas was despotic. It was developed through the old family and tribal life to a status of hereditary aristocracy. Individuals of the oldest families became permanent in government, and these were aided and supported by the priestly order. Caste prevailed to a large extent, making a great difference between the situation of the nobility and the peasants and slaves. Individuals born into a certain group must live and die within that group. Hence the people were essentially peaceable, quiet, and not actively progressive. But we find that the social life, in spite of the prominence of the priest and the nobility, was not necessarily burdensome. Docile and passive in nature, they were ready to accept what appeared to them a well-ordered fate. If food, clothing, and shelter be furnished, and other desires remain undeveloped, and life made easy, what occasion was there for them to be moved by nobler aspirations? Without higher ideals, awakened ambition, and the multiplication of new desires, there was no hope of progress. The people seemed to possess considerable nobility of character, and were happy, peaceful, and well disposed toward one another, even though non-progressive conditions gave evidence that they had probably reached the terminal bud of progress of their branch of the human race.
As to what would have been the outcome of this civilization had not the ruthless hand of the Spaniard destroyed it, is a matter of conjecture. How interesting it would have been if these people could have remained unmolested for 400 years as an example of progress or retardation of a race. Students then could, through observation, have learned a great lesson concerning the development of the human race. Is it possible when a branch of the human race has only so much potential power based upon hereditary development, upon attitude toward life, and upon influence of environmental conditions, that after working out its normal existence it grows old and decays and dies, just as even the sturdy oak has its normal life {190} and decay? At any rate, it seems that the history of the human race repeats itself over and over again with thousands of examples of this kind. When races become highly specialized along certain lines and are unadaptable along other lines, changes in climate, soil, food supply, or conflict with other races cause them to perish.
If we admit this to be the universal fate of tribes and races, there is one condition in which the normal life of the race can be prolonged, and that is by contact with other races which bring in new elements, and make new accommodations, not only through biological heredity, but through social heredity which causes a new lease of life to the tribe. Of course the deteriorating effects of a race of less culture would have a tendency to shorten the spiritual if not the physical life of the race. Whatever conjecture we may have as to the past and the probable future of such a race, it is evident that the Peruvians had made a strong and vigorous attempt at civilization. Their limited environment and simple life were not conducive to progressive ideas, and gave little inducement for inventive genius to lead the race forward. But even as we find them, the sum-total of their civilization compares very favorably with the sum-total of the civilization of the Spaniards, who engaged to complete their destruction. Different were these Spaniards in culture and learning, it is true, but their great difference is in the fact that the Spaniards had the tools and equipment for war and perhaps a higher state of military organization than the peace-loving Peruvians.
Aztec Civilization in Mexico.—When Cortez in 1525 began his conquest of Mexico, he found a strong political organization under the Emperor Montezuma, who had through conquest, diplomacy, and assumption of power united all of the tribes in and around Mexico City in a strong federation. These people were made up of many different tribes. At this period they did not show marked development in any particular line, except that of social organization. The people that occupied this great empire ruled by Montezuma, with the seat of power {191} at Mexico City, were called Aztecs. The empire extended over all of lower Mexico and Yucatan. As rapidly as possible Montezuma brought adjacent tribes into subjection, and at the time of the Spanish conquest he exercised lordship over a wide country. So far as can be ascertained, arts and industries practised by most of these tribes were handed down from extinct races that had a greater inventive genius and a higher state of progress. The conquering tribes absorbed and used the arts of the conquered, as the Greeks did those of the conquered Aegeans.
The practice of agriculture, of the industrial arts, such as clothing, pottery, and implements of use and ornaments for adornment, showed advancement in industrial life. They built large temples and erected great buildings for the worship of their gods. There was something in their worship bordering on sun-worship, although not as distinctive as the sun-worship of the Peruvians. They were highly developed in the use of gold and copper, and produced a good quality of pottery. They had learned the art of decorating the pottery, and their temples also were done in colors and in bas-relief. They had developed a language of merit and had a hieroglyphic expression of the same. They had a distinct mythology, comprising myths of the sun and of the origin of various tribes, the origin of the earth and of man. They had developed the idea of charity, and had a system of caring for the poor, with hospitals for the sick. Notwithstanding this altruistic expression, they offered human sacrifices of maidens to their most terrible god.
As before stated, there were many tribes, consequently many languages, although some of them were near enough alike that members of different tribes could be readily understood. Also the characteristic traits varied in different tribes. It is not known whence they came, although their tradition points to the origin of the northwest. Undoubtedly, each tribe had a myth of its own origin, but, generally speaking, they all came from the northwest. Without doubt, at the time of the coming of the Spaniards, the tribes were non-progressive except in {192} government. The coming of the Spaniards was a rude shock to their civilization, and with a disintegration of the empire, the spirit of thrift and endeavor was quenched. They became, as it were, slaves to a people with so-called higher civilization, who at least had the tools with which to conquer if they had not higher qualities of human character than those of the conquered.
The Earliest Centres of Civilization in Mexico.—Prior to the formation of the empire of the Aztecs, conquered by the Spaniards, there existed in Mexico centres of development of much greater antiquity. The more important among these were Yucatan and Mitla. A large number of the ruins of these ancient villages have been discovered and recorded. The groups of people who developed these contemporary civilizations were generally known as Toltecs. The Maya race, the important branch of the Toltecs, which had its highest development in Yucatan, was supposed to have come from a territory northeast of Mexico City, and traces of its migrations are discovered leading south and east into Yucatan. It is not known at what period these developments began, but probably their beginnings might have been traced back to 15,000 years, although the oldest known tablet found gives a record of 202 years B.C. Other information places their coming much later, at about 387 A.D.
All through Central America and southern Mexico ruins of these ancient villages have been discovered. While the civilizations of all were contemporaneous, different centres show different lines of development. There is nothing certain concerning the origin of the Toltecs, and they seemed to have practically disappeared so far as independent tribal life existed after their conquest by the Aztecs, although the products of their civilization were used by many other tribes that were living under the Aztec rule, and, indeed, traces of their civilization exist to-day in the living races of southern and central Mexico. Tradition states that the Toltecs reached their highest state of power between the seventh and the twelfth {193} centuries, but progress in the interpretation of their hieroglyphics gives us but few permanent records. The development of their art was along the line of heavy buildings with bas-reliefs and walls covered with inscriptions recording history and religious symbols. One bas-relief represents the human head, with the facial angle shown at forty-five degrees. It was carved in stone of the hardest composition and was left unpainted.
Ethnologists have tried repeatedly and in vain to show there was a resemblance of this American life to the Egyptian civilization. In art, architecture, and industry, in worship and the elements of knowledge, there may be some resemblance to Egyptian models, but there is no direct evidence sufficient to connect these art products with those of Egypt or to assume that they must have come from the same centre. The construction of pyramids and terraces on a large scale does remind us of the tendency of the Oriental type of civilization. In all of their art, however, there was a symmetrical or conventional system which demonstrated that the indigenous development must have been from a common centre. Out of the fifty-two cities that have been explored which exhibit the habitations of the Toltec civilization, many exhibit ruins of art and architecture worthy of study.
In the construction of articles for use and ornament, copper and gold constituted the chief materials, and there was also a great deal of pottery. The art of weaving was practised, and the soil cultivated to a considerable extent. The family life was well developed, though polygamy appears to have been practised as a universal custom. The form of government was the developed family of the patriarchal type, and, where union of tribes had taken place, an absolute monarchy prevailed. War and conquest here, as in all other places where contact of tribes appeared, led to slavery. The higher classes had a large number of slaves, probably taken as prisoners of war. This indicates a degree of social progress in which enemies were preserved for slavery rather than exterminated in war. Their laws and regulations indicate a high sense of {194} justice in establishing the relationship of individuals within the tribe or nation. These people were still in the later Neolithic Age, but with signs of departure from this degree of civilization in the larger use of the metals. There were some indications that bronze might have been used in making ornaments. Perhaps they should be classified in the later Neolithic Age of the upper status of barbarism. Recent excavations in Central America, Yucatan, and more recently in the valley near Mexico City, have brought to light many new discoveries. Representations of early and later cultures show a gradual progress in the use of the arts, some of the oldest of which show a great resemblance to the early Mongolian culture of Asia.
The Pueblo Indians of the Southwest.—In northern Mexico and Arizona there are remains of ancient buildings which seem to indicate that at one time a civilization existed here that has long since become extinct. Long before the arrival of the Spaniards, irrigation was practised in this dry territory. Indeed, in the Salt River valley of Arizona, old irrigation ditches were discovered on the lines of which now flow the waters that irrigate the modern orchards and vineyards. The discoveries in recent years in the southwest territory indicate that this ancient civilization had been destroyed by the warlike tribes that were ever ready to take possession of centres of culture and possess or destroy the accumulation of wealth of the people who toiled. If one could fill in the missing links of history with his imagination, it would be easy to conjecture that the descendants of these people fled to the mountains, and became the Cliff-Dwellers of the Southwest. These people built their homes high on the cliffs, in caves or on projecting prominences. Here they constructed great communal dwellings, where they could defend themselves against all enemies. They were obliged to procure their food and water from the valley, and to range over the surrounding mesas in the hunt. Gradually they stole down out of the cliffs to live in the valleys and built large communal houses, many of which now are in existence in this territory.
{195}These people have several centres of civilization which are similar in general, but differ in many particulars. They are classed as Pueblo Indians. Among these centres are the Hopi Indians, the Zuñian, Taoan, Shoshonean, and many others.[1] The pre-history of these widely extended groups of Indians is not known, but in all probability they have been crowded into this southwest arid region by warlike tribes, and for the shelter and protection of the whole tribe have built large houses of stone or adobe. The idea of protection seems to have been the dominant one in building the cliff houses and the adobe houses of the plain. The latter were entered by means of ladders placed upon the wall, so that they could ascend from one story to another. The first story had no doors or windows, but could be entered by means of a trap-door.
The Pueblos were, as a rule, people of low stature, but of an intelligent and pleasing appearance. They dressed in cotton goods or garments woven from the fibre of the yucca plant, or from coarse bark, and later, under Spanish rule, from specially prepared wool. Their feet were protected by sandals made from the yucca, or moccasins from deer or rabbit skins. Leggings coming above the knee were formed by wrapping long strips of buckskin around the leg. The women and men dressed very much alike. The women banged their hair to the eyebrows, allowing it to hang loosely behind, although in some instances maidens dressed their hair with two large whirls above the ears. The Zuñi Indians practised this custom after the coming of the Spaniards.
The Pueblos were well organized into clans, and descent in the female line was recognized. The clans were divided usually into the north, south, east, and west clans by way of designation, showing that the communal idea had been established with recognition of government by locality. Here, as elsewhere among the American aborigines, the clans were named after the animals chosen as their totem, but there were in addition {196} to these ordinary clans, the Sun clan, the Live Oak, the Turquoise, or others named from objects of nature. Each group of clans was governed by a priest chief, who had authority in all religious matters and, consequently, through religious influences, had large control in affairs pertaining to household government, and to social and political life in general. The duties and powers of these chiefs were carefully defined. The communal houses in which the people lived were divided into apartments for different clans and families. In some instances there was a common dining-hall for the members of the tribe. The men usually resided outside of the communal house, but came to the common dining-hall for their meals.
There were many secret societies among these people which seemed to mingle religious and political sentiments. The members of these societies dwelt to a large extent in the Estufa, or Kiva, a large half-subterranean club-house where they could meet in secret. In every large tribe there were four to seven of these secret orders, and they were recognized as representing the various organizations. These "cult societies," so called by Mr. Powell, had charge of the mythical rites, the spirit lore, the mysteries, and the medicines of the part of the tribe which they represented. They conducted the ceremonies at all festivals and celebrations. It is difficult to determine the exact nature of their religion. It was a worship full of superstition, recognizing totemism and direct connection with the spirits of nature. Their religion was of a joyous nature, and always was associated with their games and feasts. The games were usually given in the celebration of some great event, or for some economic purpose, and were accompanied with dancing, music, pantomime, and symbolism. Perhaps of all of the North American Indians, the Pueblos showed the greatest fondness for music and had made some advancement in the arts of poetry and song. The noted snake dance, the green-corn dance, and the cachina all had at foundation an economic purpose. They were done ostensibly to gain the favor of the gods of nature.
{197}When discovered by the Spaniards, the Pueblos had made good beginnings in agriculture and the industrial arts, were living in a state of peace and apparently contented, there seeming to be little war between the tribes. Their political organization in connection with the secret societies and their shamanistic religion gave them a good development of social order. After nearly 400 years of Spanish and American rule, they appear to have retained many of their original traits and characteristics, and cherish their ancient customs. Apparently the Spanish and the American civilization is merely a gloss over their ancient life which they seek every opportunity to express. They are to-day practically non-assimilative and live to a large extent their own life in their own way, although they have adopted a few of the American customs. While quite a large number of these villages are now to be seen very much in their primitive style of architecture and life, more than 3,000 architectural ruins in the Southwest, chiefly in Arizona and New Mexico, have been discovered. Many of them are partially obscured in the drifting sands, but they show attempts at different periods by different people to build homes. The devastation of flood and famine and the destruction of warlike tribes retarded their progress and caused their extinction. The Pueblo Indians were in the middle status of barbarism when the Spaniards arrived, and there they would have remained forever or become extinct had not the Spanish and American civilizations overtaken them. Even now self-determined progress seems not to possess them. However, through education the younger generations are being slowly assimilated into American life. But it appears that many generations will pass before their tribal life is entirely absorbed into a common democracy.
The Mound-Builders of the Mississippi Valley.—At the coming of the Europeans this ancient people had nearly all disappeared. Only a few descendants in the southern part of the great valley of the Mississippi represented living traces of the Mound-Builders. They had left in their burial mounds {198} and monuments many relics of a high type of the Neolithic civilization which they possessed. As to their origin, history has no direct evidence. However, they undoubtedly were part of that great stream of early European migration to America which gradually spread down the Ohio valley and the upper Mississippi. At what time they flourished is not known, although their civilization was prehistoric when compared with that of the Algonquins, Athabascans, and Iroquois tribes that were in existence at the time of the coming of the Europeans. Although the tradition of these Indians traces them to the Southwest, and that they became extinct by being driven out by more savage and more warlike people, whence they came and whither they went are both alike open to conjecture.
Their civilization was not very different from that of many other tribes of North American Indians. Their chief characteristic consisted in the building of extensive earth mounds as symbolical of their religious and tribal life. They also built immense enclosures for the purpose of fortification. Undoubtedly on the large mounds were originally built public houses or dwellings or temples for worship or burial. Those in the form of a truncated pyramid were used for the purposes of building sites for temples and dwellings, and those having circular bases and a conical shape were used as burial places.
Besides these two kinds was another, called effigy mounds, which represented the form of some animal or bird, which undoubtedly was the totem of the tribe. These latter mounds were seldom more than three or four feet high, but were of great extent. They indicated the unity of the gens, either by representing it through the totem or a mythical ancestry. Other mounds of less importance were used in religious worship, namely, for the location of the altar to be used for sacrificial purposes. All were used to some extent as burial mounds. Large numbers of their implements made of quartz, chert, bone, and slate for the household and for the hunt have been found. They used copper to some extent, which was obtained in a free or native state and hammered into implements and ornaments.
{199}Undoubtedly, the centre of the distribution of copper was the Lake Superior region, which showed that there was a diffusion of cultures from this centre at this early period. They made some progress in agriculture, cultivating maize and tobacco. Apparently their commerce with surrounding tribes was great, which no doubt gave them a variety of means of life. The pottery, judging from specimens that have been preserved, was inferior to that of the Mexicans or the Arizona Indians, but, nevertheless, in the lower Mississippi fine collections of pottery showing beautiful lines and a large number of designs were found. It fills one with wonder that a tribe of such power should have begun the arts of civilization and developed a powerful organization, and then have been so suddenly destroyed—why or how is not known. In all probability it is the old story of a sedentary group being destroyed by the more hardy, savage, and warlike conquerors.
Other Types of Indian Life.—While the great centres of culture were found in Peru, Central America, Mexico, southwest United States, and the Mississippi valley, there were other cultures of a less pronounced nature worthy of mention. On the Pacific coast, in the region around Santa Barbara, are the relics of a very ancient tribe of Indians who had developed some skill in the making of pottery and exhibit other forms of industrial life. Recently an ancient skeleton has been discovered which seems to indicate a life of great antiquity. Nevertheless, it is a lower state of civilization than those of the larger centres already mentioned. Yet it is worthy of note that there was here started a people who had adopted village habits and attained a considerable degree of progress. Probably they were contemporary with other people of the most ancient civilizations of America.
So far as the advancement of government is concerned, the Iroquois Indians of Canada and New York showed considerable advancement. As represented by Mr. Lewis H. Morgan, who made a careful study of the Iroquois, their tribal divisions and their federation of tribes show an advancement along {200} governmental lines extending beyond the mere family or tribal life. Their social order showed civil progress, and their industrial arts, in agriculture especially, were notable.
Why Did the Civilization of America Fail?—There is a popular theory that the normal advancement of the Indian races of America was arrested or destroyed by the coming of the Europeans. Undoubtedly the contact of the higher civilization with the latter had much to do with the hastening of the decay of the former. The civilizations were so widely apart that it was not easy for the primitive or retarded race to adopt the civilization of the more advanced. But when it is assumed that if the Europeans had never come to the American continent, native tribes and races would eventually, of their own initiative, develop a high state of civilization, such an assumption is not well founded, because at the time of the coming of the Europeans there was no great show of progress. It seems as if no branch of the race could go forward very far without being destroyed by more warlike tribes. Or, if let alone, they seemed to develop a stationary civilization, reaching their limit, beyond which they could not go. As the races of Europe by specialization along certain lines became inadaptable to new conditions and passed away to give place to others, so it appears that this was characteristic of the civilization of America. Evidently the prehistoric Peruvians, Mexicans, Pueblos, and Mound-Builders had elements of civilization greater than the living warring Indian tribes which came in contact with the early European settlers in America.
It may not be wise to enter a plea that all tribes and races have their infancy, youth, age, and decay, with extinction as their final lot, but it has been repeated so often in the history of the human race that one may assume it to be almost, if not quite, universal. The momentum of racial power gained by biological heredity and social achievement, reaches its limit when it can no longer adapt itself to new conditions, with the final end and inevitable result of extinction.
The Nordic race, with all of its vigor and persistency, has {201} had a long and continuous life on account of its roving disposition and its perpetual contact with new conditions of its own choice. It has always had power to overcome, and its vigor has kept it exploiting and inventing and borrowing of others the elements of civilization, which have continually forced it forward. When it, too, reaches a state when it cannot adapt itself to new conditions, perhaps it will give way to some other branch of the human race, which, gathering new strength or new vigor from sources not available to the Nordic, will be able to overpower it; but the development of science and art with the power over nature, is greater in this race than in any other, and the maladies which destroy racial life are less marked than in other races. It would seem, then, that it still has great power of continuance and through science can adapt itself to nature and live on.
But what would the American Indian have contributed to civilization? Would modern civilization have been as far advanced as now, had the Europeans found no human life at all on the American continent? True, the Europeans learned many things of the Indians regarding cultivation of maize and tobacco, and thus increased their food supply, but would they not have learned this by their own investigations, had there been no Indians to teach? The arts of pottery have been more highly developed by the Etruscans, the Aegeans, and the Greeks than by the American Indians. The Europeans had long since passed the Stone Age and entered the Iron Age, which they brought to the American Indians. But the studies of ethnology have been greatly enlarged by the fact of these peculiar and wonderful people, who exhibited so many traits of nobility of character in life. Perhaps it would not be liberal to say the world would have been just as well off had they never existed. At any rate, we are glad of the opportunity to study what their life was and what it was worth to them, and also its influence on the life and character of the Europeans.
The most marked phases of this civilization are found in the development of basketry and pottery, and the exquisite work {202} in stone implements. Every conceivable shape of the arrow-head, the spear, the stone axe and hammer, the grinding board for grains, the bow-and-arrow, is evidence of the skill in handiwork of these primitive peoples. Also, the skill in curing and tanning hides for clothing, and the methods of hunting and trapping game are evidences of great skill. Perhaps, also, there is something in the primitive music of these people which not only is worthy of study but has added something to the music culture of more advanced peoples. At least, if pressed to learn the real character of man, we must go to primitive peoples and primitive life and customs.
1. What contributions did the American Indians make to European civilization?
2. What are the chief physical and mental traits of the Indian?
3. What is the result of education of the Indian?
4. How many Indians are there in the United States? (a) Where are they located? (b) How many children in school? Where?
5. If the Europeans made a better use of the territory than did the Indians, had the Europeans the right to dispossess them? Did they use the right means to gain possession?
6. Study an Indian tribe of your own selection regarding customs, habits, government, religion, art, etc.
[1] Recent discoveries in Nevada and Utah indicate a wide territorial extension of the Pueblo type.
The Old Greek Life Was the Starting Point of Western Civilization.—Civilization is a continuous movement—hence there is a gradual transition from the Oriental civilization to the Western. The former finally merges into the latter. Although the line of demarcation is not clearly drawn, some striking differences are apparent when the two are placed in juxtaposition. Perhaps the most evident contrast is observed in the gradual freedom of the mind from the influences of tradition and religious superstition. Connected with this, also, is the struggle for freedom from despotism in government. It has been observed how the ancient civilizations were characterized by the despotism of priests and kings. It was the early privilege of European life to gradually break away from this form of human degradation and establish individual rights and individual development. Kings and princes, indeed, ruled in the Western world, but they learned to do so with a fuller recognition of the rights of the governed. There came to be recognized, also, free discussion as the right of people in the processes of government. It is admitted that the despotic governments of the Old World existed for the few and neglected the many. While despotism was not wanting in European civilization, the struggle to be free from it was the ruling spirit of the age. The history of Europe centres around this struggle to be free from despotism and traditional learning, and to develop freedom of thought and action.
Among Oriental people the idea of progress was wanting in their philosophy. True, they had some notion of changes that take place in the conditions of political and social life, and in individual accomplishments, yet there was nothing hopeful in their presentation of the theory of life or in their practices {206} of religion; and the few philosophers who recognized changes that were taking place saw not in them a persistent progress and growth. Their eyes were turned toward the past. Their thoughts centred on traditions and things that were fixed. Life was reduced to a dull, monotonous round by the great masses of the people. If at any time a ray of light penetrated the gloom, it was turned to illuminate the accumulated philosophies of the past. On the other hand, in European civilization we find the idea of progress becoming more and more predominant. The early Greeks and Romans were bound to a certain extent by the authority of tradition on one side and the fixity of purpose on the other. At times there was little that was hopeful in their philosophy, for they, too, recognized the decline in the affairs of men. But through trial and error, new discoveries of truth were made which persisted until the revival of learning in the Middle Ages, at the time of the formation of new nations, when the ideas of progress became fully recognized in the minds of the thoughtful, and subsequently in the full triumph of Western civilization came the recognition of the possibility of continuous progress.
Another great distinction in the development of European civilization was the recognition of humanity. In ancient times humanitarian spirit appeared not in the heart of man nor in the philosophy of government. Even the old tribal government was for the few. The national government was for selected citizens only. Specific gods, a special religion, the privilege of rights and duties were available to a few, while all others were deprived of them. This invoked a selfishness in practical life and developed a selfish system even among the leaders of ancient culture. The broad principle of the rights of an individual because he was human was not taken into serious consideration even among the more thoughtful. If he was friendly to the recognized god he was permitted to exist. If he was an enemy, he was to be crushed. On the other hand, the triumph of Western civilization is the recognition of the value of a human being and his right to engage in all human associations {207} for which he is fitted. While the Greeks came into contact with the older civilizations of Egypt and Asia, and were influenced by their thought and custom, they brought a vigorous new life which gradually dominated and mastered the Oriental influences. They had sufficient vigor and independence to break with tradition, wherever it seemed necessary to accomplish their purpose of life.
The Aegean Culture Preceded the Coming of the Greeks.—Spreading over the islands of the Aegean Sea was a pre-Greek civilization known as Minoan. Its highest centre of development was in the Island of Crete, whose principal city was Cnossos. Whence these people came and what their ethnological classification are still unsettled.[1] They had a number of centres of development, which varied somewhat in type of culture. They were a dark-haired people, who probably came from Africa or Asia Minor, settling in Crete about 5,000 years B.C. It is thought by some that the Etruscans of Italy were of Aegean origin. Prior to the Minoans there existed a Neolithic culture throughout the islands of Greece.
In the great city of Cnossos, which was sacked and burned about the fourteenth century B.C., were found ruins which show a culture of relatively high degree. By the excavations in Crete at this point a stratum of earth twenty feet thick was discovered, in which were found evidences of all grades of civilization, from the Neolithic implements to the highest Minoan culture. Palaces with frescoes and carvings, ornaments formed of metal and skilfully wrought vases with significant colorings, all evinced a civilization worthy of intensive study. These people had developed commerce and trade with Egypt, and their boats passed along the shores of the Mediterranean, carrying their civilization to Italy, northern Africa, and everywhere among the islands of Greece, as well as on the mainland. The cause of the decline of their civilization is {208} not known, unless it could be attributed to the Greek pirates who invaded their territory, and possibly, like all nations that decline, they were beset by internal maladies which marked their future destiny. Possibly, high specialization along certain lines of life rendered them unadaptable to new conditions, and they passed away because of this lack.
The Greeks Were of Aryan Stock.—Many thousand years ago there appeared along the shores of the Baltic, at the beginning of the Neolithic period of culture, a group of people who seem to have come from central Asia. It is thought by some that these were at least the forerunners of the great Nordic race. Whatever conjectures there may be as to their origin, it is known that about 2,000 years before Christ, wandering tribes extended from the Baltic region far eastward to the Caspian Sea, to the north of Persia, down to the borderland of India. These people were of Caucasian features, with fair hair and blue eyes—a type of the Nordic race. They were known as the Aryan branch of the Caucasian race. Whether this was their primitive abode, or whether their ancestors had come at a much earlier time from a central home in northern Africa, which is considered by ethnologists as the centre from which developed the Caucasian race, is not known.
They were not a highly cultured people, but were living a nomadic life, engaged in hunting, fishing, piratical exploits, and carrying on agriculture intermittently. They had also become acquainted with the use of metals, having passed during this period from the Neolithic into the Bronze Age. About the year 1500 B.C. they had become acquainted with iron, and about the same time had come into possession of the horse, probably through their contact with central Asia.
The social life of these people was very simple. While they undoubtedly met and mingled with many tribes, they had a language sufficiently common for ordinary intercourse. They had no writing or means of records at all, but depended upon the recital of deeds of warriors and nations and tribes. Wherever the Aryan people have been found, whether in Greece, {209} Italy, Germany, along the Danube, central Asia, or India, they have been noted for their epics, sagas, and vedas, which told the tales of historic deeds and exploits of the tribal or national life. It is thought that this was the reason they developed such a strong and beautiful language.
They came in contact with Semitic civilization in northern Persia, with the primitive tribes in Italy, with the Dravidian peoples of India, and represented the vigorous fighting power of the Scythians, Medes, and Persians. They or their kindred later moved up the Danube into Spain and France, with branches into Germany and Russia, and others finally into the British Islands. It was a branch of these people that came into the Grecian peninsula and overthrew and supplanted the Aegean civilization—where they were known as the Greeks.
The Coming of the Greeks.—It is not known when they came down through Asia Minor. Not earlier than 2000 B.C. nor later than 1500 B.C. the invasion began. In successive waves came the Phrygians, Aeolians, the Ionians, and the Dorians—different divisions of the same race. Soon they spread over the mainland of Greece and all the surrounding islands, and established their trading cities along the borders of the Mediterranean Sea. These people, though uncultured, seemed to absorb culture wherever they went. They learned the methods of the civilization that had been established in the Orient wherever they came in contact with other peoples, and also in the Aegean country. In fact, though they conquered and occupied the Aegean country, they took on the best of the Minoan civilization.[2] As marauders, pirates, and conquerors, they were masterful, but they came in conflict with the ideas developed among the Semitic people of Asia and the Hamitic of Egypt. Undoubtedly, this conquest of the Minoan civilization furnished the origin of many of the tales or folklore that afterward were woven into the Iliad and the Odyssey by {210} Homer. It is not known how early in Greek life these songs originated, but it is a known fact that in the eighth century the Greeks were in possession of their epics, and at this period not only had conquered the Minoan civilization but had absorbed it so far as they had use for it.
They came into this territory in the form of the old tribal government, with their primitive social customs, and as they settled in different parts of the territory in tribes, they developed independent communities of a primitive sort. They had what was known in modern historical literature as the village community, which was always found in the primitive life of the Aryans. Their mode of life tended to develop individualism, and when the group life was established, it became independent and was lacking in co-operation—that is, it became a self-sufficient social order. Later in the development of the Greek life the individual, so far as political organization goes, was absorbed in the larger state, after it had developed from the old Greek family life. These primitive Greeks soon had a well-developed language. They began systematic agriculture, became skilled in the industrial arts, domesticated animals, and had a pure home life with religious sentiments of a high order. Wherever they went they carried with them the characteristics of nation-building and progressive life. They mastered the earth and its contents by living it down with force and vigor.
The Greek peninsula was favorably situated for development. Protected on the north by a mountain range from the rigors of a northern climate and from the predatory tribes, with a range of mountains through the centre, with its short spurs cutting the entire country into valleys, in which were developed independent community states, circumstances were favorable to local self-government of the several tribes. This independent social life was of great importance in the development of Greek thought. In the north the grains and cereals were grown, and in the south the citrus and the orange. This wide range from a temperate to a semi-tropical climate {211} furnished a variety of fruits and diversity of life which gave great opportunity for development. The variety of scenery caused by mountain and valley and proximity to the sea, the thousand islands washed by the Aegean Sea, brought a new life which tended to impress the sensitive mind of the Greek and to develop his imagination and to advance culture in art.
Character of the Primitive Greeks.—The magnificent development of the Greeks in art, literature, philosophy, and learning, together with the fortunate circumstance of having powerful writers, gives us rather an exaggerated notion of the Greeks, if we attempt to apply a lofty manner and a magnificent culture to the Homeric period. They had a good deal of piratical boldness, and, after the formation of their small states, gave examples of spurts of courage such as that at Marathon and Thermopylae. Yet these evidences were rare exceptions rather than the rule, for even the Spartan, trained on a military basis, seldom evinced any great degree of bravery. Perhaps the gloomy forebodings of the future, characteristic of the Greeks, made them fear death, and consequently caused them to lack in courage. However, this is a disputed point. Pages of the earlier records are full of the sanction of deception of enemies, friends, and strangers. Evidently, there was a low moral sense regarding truth. While the Greek might be loyal to his family and possibly to his tribe, there are many examples of disloyalty to one another, and, in the later development, a disloyalty of one state toward another. Excessive egoism seems to have prevailed, and this principle was extended to the family and local government group. Each group appeared to look out for its own interests, irrespective of the welfare of others. How much a united Greece might have done to have continued the splendors and the service of a magnificent civilization is open to conjecture.
The Greeks were not sympathetic with children nor with the aged. Far from being anxious to preserve the life of the aged, their greatest trouble was in disposing of them. The honor and rights of women were not observed. In war women {212} were the property of their captors. Yet the home life of the Greeks seems to have been in its purity and loyalty an advance on the Oriental home life. In their treatment of servants and slaves, in the care of the aged and helpless, the Greeks were cold and without compassion. While the poets, historians, and philosophers have been portraying with such efficiency the character of the higher classes; while they have presented such a beautiful exterior of the old Greek life; the Greeks, in common with other primitive peoples, were not lacking in coarseness, injustice, and cruelty in their internal life. Here, as elsewhere in the beginnings of civilization, only the best of the real and the ideal of life was represented, while the lower classes were suffering a degraded life.
The family was closely organized in Greece. Monogamic marriage and the exclusive home life prevailed at an early time. The patriarchal family, in which the oldest male member was chief and ruler, was the unit of society. Within this group were the house families, formed whenever a separate marriage took place and a separate altar was erected. The house religion was one of the characteristic features of Greek life. Each family had its own household gods, its own worship, its private shrine. This tended to unify the family and promote a sacred family life. A special form of ancestral worship, from the early Aryan house-spirit worship, prevailed to a certain extent. The worship of the family expanded with the expansion of social life. Thus the gens, and the tribe, and the city when founded, had each its separate worship. Religion formed a strong cement to bind the different social units of a tribe together. The worship of the Greeks was associated with the common meal and the pouring of libations to the gods.
As religion became more general, it united to make a more common social practice, and in the later period of Greek life was made the basis of the games and general social gatherings. Religion brought the Greeks together in a social way, and finally led to the mutual advantage of members of society. {213} Later, mutual advantage superseded religion in its practice. The Greeks, at an early period, attempted to explain the origin of the earth and unknown phenomena by referring it to the supernatural powers. Every island had its myth, every phenomenon its god, and every mountain was the residence of some deity. They sought to find out the causes of the creation of the universe, and developed a theogony. There was the origin of the Greeks to be accounted for, and then the origin of the earth, and the relation of man to the deities. Everything must be explained, but as the imagination was especially strong, it was easier to create a god as a first cause than to ascertain the development of the earth by scientific study.
Influence of Old Greek Life.—In all of the traditions and writings descriptive of the old Greek social life, with the exception of the Works and Days of Hesiod, the aristocratic class appears uppermost. Hesiod "pictures a hopeless and miserable existence, in which care and the despair of better things tended to make men hard and selfish and to blot out those fairer features which cannot be denied to the courts and palaces of the Iliad and Odyssey." It appears that the foundation of aristocracy—living in comparative luxury, in devotion to art and the culture of life—was early laid by the side of the foundation of poverty and wretchedness of the great mass of the people. While, then, the Greeks derived from their ancestry the beautiful pictures of heroic Greece, they inherited the evils of imperfect social conditions. As we pass to the historical period of Greece, these different phases of life appear and reappear in changeable forms. If to the nobleman life was full of inspiration; if poetry, religion, art, and politics gave him lofty thoughts and noble aspirations; to the peasant and the slave, life was full of misery and degradation. If one picture is to be drawn in glowing colors, let not the other be omitted.
The freedom from great centralized government, the development of the individual life, the influences of the early ideas of art and life, and the religious conceptions, were of great importance in shaping the Greek philosophy and the Greek {214} national character. They had a tendency to develop men who could think and act. It is not surprising, therefore, that the first real historical period was characterized by struggles of citizens within the town for supremacy. Fierce quarrels between the upper and the lower classes prevailed everywhere, and resulted in developing an intense hatred of the former for the latter. This hatred and selfishness became the uppermost causes of action in the development of Greek social polity. Strife led to compromise, and this in turn to the recognition of the rights and privileges of different classes.
1. The Aegean culture.
2. The relation of Greek to Egyptian culture.
3. What were the great Greek masterpieces of (a) Literature, (b) Sculpture, (c) Architecture, (d) Art, (e) Philosophy?
4. Compare Greek democracy with American democracy.
5. What historical significance have Thermopylae, Marathon, Alexandria, Crete, and Delphi?
[1] Sergi, in his Mediterranean Race, says that they came from N. E. Africa. Beginning about 5000 years B.C., they gradually infiltrated the whole Mediterranean region. This is becoming the general belief among ethnologists, archaeologists, and historians.
[2] Recent studies indicate that some of the Cretan inscriptions are prototypes of the Greece-Phoenician alphabet. The Phoenicians evidently derived the original characters of their alphabet from a number of sources. The Greeks adopted the Phoenician alphabet about 800-1000 B.C.
The Transition from Theology to Inquiry.—The Greek theology prepared the way for the Ionian philosophy. The religious opinions led directly up to the philosophy of the early inquirers. The Greeks passed slowly from accepting everything with a blind faith to the rational inquiry into the development of nature. The beginnings of knowing the scientific causes were very small, and sometimes ridiculous, yet they were of immense importance. To take a single step from the "age of credulity" toward the "age of reason" was of great importance to Greek progress. To cease to accept on faith the statements that the world was created by the gods, and ordered by the gods, and that all mysteries were in their hands, and to endeavor to find out by observation of natural phenomena something of the elements of nature, was to gradually break from the mythology of the past as explanatory of the creation. The first feeble attempt at this was to seek in a crude way the material structure and source of the universe.
Explanation of the Universe by Observation and Inquiry.—The Greek mind had settled down to the fact that there was absolute knowledge of truth, and that cosmogony had established the method of creation; that theogony had accounted for the creation of gods, heroes, and men, and that theology had foretold their relations. A blind faith had accepted what the imagination had pictured. But as geographical study began to increase, doubts arose as to the preconceived constitution of the earth. As travel increased and it was found that none of the terrible creatures that tradition had created inhabited the islands of the sea or coasts of the mainland, earth lost its terrors and disbelief in the system of established {216} knowledge prevailed. Free inquiry was slowly substituted for blind credulity.
This freedom of inquiry had great influence on the intellectual development of man. It was the discovery of truth through the relation of cause and effect, which he might observe by opening his eyes and using his reason. The development of theories of the universe through tradition and the imagination gave exercise to the emotions and beliefs; but change from faith in the fixity of the past to the future by observation led to intellectual development. The exercise of faith and the imagination even in unproductive ways prepared the way for broader service of investigation. But these standing alone could permit nothing more than a childish conception of the universe. They could not discover the reign of law. They could not advance the observing and reflecting powers of man; they could not develop the stronger qualities of his intellect. Individual action would be continually stultified by the process of accepting through credulity the trite sayings of the ancients. The attempt to find out how things were made was an acknowledgment of the powers of the individual mind. It was a recognition that man has a mind to use, and that there is truth around him to be discovered. This was no small beginning in intellectual development.
The Ionian Philosophy Turned the Mind Toward Nature.—Greek philosophy began in the seventh century before Christ. The first philosopher of note was Thales, born at Miletus, in Asia Minor, about 640 B.C. Thales sought to establish the idea that water is the first principle and cause of the universe. He held that water is filled with life and soul, the essential element in the foundation of all nature. Thales had great learning for his time, being well versed in geometry, arithmetic, and astronomy. He travelled in Egypt and the Orient, and became acquainted with ancient lore. It is said that being impressed with the importance of water in Egypt, where the Nile is the source of all life, he was led to assert the importance of water in animate nature. In his attempts to break away from the {217} old cosmogony, he still exhibits traces of the old superstitions, for he regarded the sun and stars as living beings, who received their warmth and life from the ocean, in which they bathed at the time of setting. He held that the whole world was full of soul, manifested in individual daemons, or spirits. Puerile as his philosophy appears in comparison with the later development of Greek philosophy, it created violent antagonism with mythical theology and led the way to further investigation and speculation.
Anaximander, born at Miletus 611 B.C., an astronomer and geographer, following Thales chronologically, wrote a book on "Nature," the first written on the subject in the philosophy of Greece. He held that all things arose from the "infinite," a primordial chaos in which was an internal energy. From a universal mixture things arose by separation, the parts once formed remaining unchanged. The earth was cylindrical in shape, suspended in the air in the centre of the universe, and the stars and planets revolved around it, each fastened in a crystalline ring; the moon and sun revolved in the same manner, only at a farther distance. The generation of the universe was by the action of contraries, by heat and cold, the moist and the dry. From the moisture all things were originally generated by heat. Animals and men came from fishes by a process of evolution. There is evidence in his philosophy of a belief in the development of the universe by the action of heat and cold on matter. It is also evident that the principles of biology and the theory of evolution are hinted at by this philosopher. Also, he was the first to observe the obliquity of the ecliptic; he taught that the moon received its light from the sun and that the earth is round.
Anaximenes, born at Miletus 588 B.C., asserted that air was the first principle of the universe; indeed, he held that on it "the very earth floats like a broad leaf." He held that air was infinite in extent; that it touched all things, and was the source of life of all. The human soul was nothing but air, since life consists in inhaling and exhaling, and when this is no longer {218} continued death ensues. Warmth and cold arose from rarefaction and condensation, and probably the origin of the sun and planets was caused by the rarefaction of air; but when air underwent great condensation, snow, water, and hail appeared, and, indeed, with sufficient condensation, the earth itself was formed. It was only a step further to suppose that the infinite air was the source of life, the god of the universe.
Somewhat later Diogenes of Apollonia asserted that all things originated from one essence, and that air was the soul of the world, eternal and endowed with consciousness. This was an attempt to explain the development of the universe by a conscious power. It led to the suggestion of psychology, as the mind of man was conscious air. "But that which has knowledge is what men call air; it is it that regulates all and governs all, and hence it is the use of air to pervade all, and to dispose all, and to be in all, for there is nothing that has not part in it."
Other philosophers of this school reasoned or speculated upon the probable first causes in the creation. In a similar manner Heraclitus asserted that fire was the first principle, and states as the fundamental maxim of his philosophy that "all is convertible into fire, and fire into all." There was so much confusion in his doctrines as to give him the name of "The Obscure." "The moral system of Heraclitus was based on the physical. He held that heat developed morality, moisture immorality. He accounted for the wickedness of the drunkard by his having a moist soul, and inferred that a warm, dry soul was noblest and best."
Anaxagoras taught the mechanical processes of the universe, and advanced many theories of the origin of animal life and of material objects. Anaxagoras was a man of wealth, who devoted all of his time and means to philosophy. He recognized two principles, one material and the other spiritual, but failed to connect the two, and in determining causes he came into open conflict with the religion of the times, and asserted that the "divine miracles" were nothing more than natural {219} causes. He was condemned for his atheism and thrown into prison, but, escaping, he was obliged to end his days in exile.
Another notable example of the early Greek philosophy is found in Pythagoras, who asserted that number was the first principle. He and his followers found that the "whole heaven was a harmony of number." The Pythagoreans taught that all comes from one, but that the odd number is finite, the even infinite; that ten was a perfect number. They sought for a criterion of truth in the relation of numbers. Nothing could exist or be formed without harmony, and this harmony depended upon number, that is, upon the union of contrary elements. The musical octave was their best example to illustrate their meaning. The union of the atoms in modern chemistry illustrates in full the principle of number after which they were striving. It emphasized the importance of measurements in investigation. Much more might be said about the elaborate system of the Pythagoreans; but the main principle herein stated must suffice.
The Weakness of Ionian Philosophy.—Viewed from the modern standpoint of scientific research, the early philosophers of Greece appear puerile and insignificant. They directed their thoughts largely toward nature, but instead of systematic observation and comparison they used the speculative and hypothetical methods to ascertain truth. They had turned from the credulity of ancient tradition to simple faith in the mind to determine the nature and cause of the universe. But this was followed by a scepticism as to the sense perception, a scepticism which could only be overcome by a larger observation of facts. Simple as it appears, this process was an essential transition from the theology of the Greeks to the perfected philosophy built upon reason. The attitude of the mind was of great value, and the attention directed to external nature was sure to turn again to man, and the supernatural. While there is a mixture of the physical, metaphysical, and mystical, the final lesson to be learned is the recognition of reality of nature as external to mind.
{220}The Eleatic Philosophers.—About 500 B.C., and nearly contemporary with the Pythagoreans, flourished the Eleatic philosophers, among whom Xenophanes, Parmenides, Zeno, and Melissus were the principal leaders. They speculated about the nature of the mind, or soul, and departed from the speculations respecting the origin of the earth. The nature of the infinite and the philosophy of being suggested by the Ionian philosophers were themes that occupied the attention of this new school. Parmenides believed in the knowledge of an absolute being, and affirmed the unity of thought and being. He won the distinction of being the first logical philosopher among the Greeks, and was called the father of idealism.
Zeno is said to have been the most remarkable of this school. He held that if there was a distinction between being and not being, only being existed. This led him to the final assumption that the laws of nature are unchangeable and God remains permanent. His method of reasoning was to reduce the opposite to absurdity.
Upon the whole, the Eleatic philosophy is one relating to knowledge and being, which considered thought primarily as dependent upon being. It holds closely to monism, that is, that nature and mind are of the same substance; yet there is a slight distinction, for there is really a dualism expressed in knowledge and being. Many other philosophers followed, who discoursed upon nature, mind, and being, but they arrived at no definite conclusions. The central idea in the early philosophy up to this time was to account for the existence and substance of nature. It gave little consideration to man in himself, and said little of the supernatural. Everything was speculative in nature, hypothetical in proposition, and deductive in argument. The Greek mind, departing from its dependence upon mythology, began boldly to assert its ability to find out nature, but ended in a scepticism as to its power to ascertain certainty. There was a final determination as to the distinction of reality as external to mind, and this represents the best product of the early philosophers.
{221}The Sophists.—Following the Eleatics was a group of philosophers whose principle characteristic was scepticism. Man, not nature, was the central idea in their philosophy, and they changed the point of view from objective to subjective contemplation. They accomplished very little in their speculation except to shift the entire attitude of philosophy from external nature to man. They were interested in the culture of the individual, yet, in their psychological treatment of man, they relied entirely upon sense perception. In the consideration of man's ethical nature they were individualistic, considering private right and private judgment the standards of truth. They led the way to greater speculation in this subject and to a higher philosophy.
Socrates the First Moral Philosopher (b. 469 B.C.).—Following the sophists in the progressive development of philosophy, Socrates turned his attention almost exclusively to human nature. He questioned all things, political, ethical, and theological, and insisted upon the moral worth of the individual man. While he cast aside the nature studies of the early philosophy and repudiated the pseudo-wisdom of the sophists, he was not without his own interpretation of nature. He was interested in questions pertaining to the order of nature and the wise adaptation of means to an end. Nature is animated by a soul, yet it is considered as a wise contrivance for man's benefit rather than a living, self-determining organism. In the subordination of all nature to the good, Socrates lays the foundation of natural theology.
But the ethical philosophy of Socrates is more prominent and positive. He asserted that scientific knowledge is the sole condition to virtue; that vice is ignorance. Hence virtue will always follow knowledge because they are a unity. His ethical principles are founded on utility, the good of which he speaks is useful, and is the end of individual acts and aims. Wisdom is the foundation of all virtues; indeed, every virtue is wisdom.
Socrates made much of friendship and love, and thought temperance to be the fundamental virtue. Without {222} temperance, men were not useful to themselves or to others, and temperance meant the complete mastery of self. Friendship and love were cardinal points in the doctrine of ethical life. The proper conduct of life, justice in the treatment of man by his fellow-man, and the observance of the duties of citizenship, were part of the ethical philosophy of Socrates.
Beauty is only another name for goodness, but it is only a harmony or adaptation of means to an end. The Socratic method of ascertaining truth by the art of suggestive questioning was a logical mode of procedure. The meeting of individuals in conversation was a method of arriving at the truth of ethical conduct and ethical relations. It was made up of induction and definition. No doubt the spirit of his teaching was sceptical in the extreme. While having a deeper sense of the reality of life than others, he realized that he did not know much. He criticized freely the prevailing beliefs, customs, and religious practice. For this he was accused of impiety, and forced to drink the hemlock. With an irony in manner and thought, Socrates introduced the problem of self-knowledge; he hastened the study of man and reason; he instituted the doctrine of true manhood as an essential part in the philosophy of life. Conscience was enthroned, and the moral life of man began with Socrates.
Platonic Philosophy Develops the Ideal.—Plato was the pupil of Socrates and the teacher of Aristotle. These three represent the culmination of Greek philosophy. In its fundamental principles the Platonic philosophy represents the highest flight of the mind in its conception of being and of the nature of mind and matter, entertained by the philosophers. The doctrine of Plato consisted of three primary principles: matter, ideas, and God. While matter is co-eternal with God, he created all animate and inanimate things from matter. Plato maintained that there was a unity in design. And as God was an independent and individual creator of the world, who fashioned the universe, and is father to all creatures, there was unity in God. Plato advanced the doctrine of reminiscences, {223} in which he accounted for what had otherwise been termed innate ideas. Plato also taught, to a certain extent, the transmigration of souls. He was evidently influenced in many ways by the Indian philosophy; but the special doctrine of Plato made ideas the most permanent of all things. Visible things are only fleeting shadows, which soon pass away; only ideas remain. The universal concept, or notion, is the only real thing. Thus the perfect globe is the concept held in the mind; the marble, ball, or sphere of material is only an imperfect representation of the same. The horse is a type to which all individual horses tend to conform; they pass away, but the type remains. His work was purely deductive. His major premise was accepted on faith rather than determined by his reason. Yet in philosophical speculations the immortality of the soul, future rewards and punishments, the unity of the creation and the unity of the creator, and an all-wise ruler of the universe, were among the most important points of doctrine.
Aristotle the Master Mind of the Greeks.—While Aristotle and Plato sought to prove the same things, and agreed with each other on many principles of philosophy, the method employed by the former was exactly the reverse of that of the latter. Plato founded his doctrine on the unity of all being, and observed the particular only through the universal. For proof he relied on the intuitive and the synthetic. Aristotle, on the contrary, found it necessary to consider the particular in order that the universal might be established. He therefore gathered facts, analyzed material, and discoursed upon the results. He was patient and persistent in his investigations, and not only gave the world a great lesson by his example, but he obtained better results than any other philosopher of antiquity. It is generally conceded that he showed the greatest strength of intellect, the deepest insight, the greatest breadth of speculative thought, and the clearest judgment of all philosophers, either ancient or modern.
Perhaps his doctrine of the necessity of a final cause, or sufficient reason, which gives a rational explanation of individual {224} things, is Aristotle's greatest contribution to pure philosophy. The doctrine of empiricism has been ascribed to Aristotle, but he fully recognized the universal, and thought it connected with the individual, and not separated from it, as represented by Plato. The universal is self-determining in its individualization, and is, therefore, a process of identification rather than of differentiation. The attention which Aristotle gave to fact as opposed to theory, to investigation as opposed to speculation, and to final cause, led men from a condition of necessity to that of freedom, and taught philosophers to substantiate their theories by reason and by fact. There is no better illustration of his painstaking investigation than his writing 250 constitutional histories as the foundation of his work on "Politics." In this masterly work will be found an exposition of political theories and practice worthy the attention of all modern political philosophers. The service given by Aristotle to the learning of the Middle Ages, and, in fact, to modern philosophy, was very great.
Aristotle was of a more practical turn of mind than Plato. While he introduced the formal syllogism in logic, he also introduced the inductive method. Perhaps Aristotle represented the wisest and most learned of the Greeks, because he advanced beyond the speculative philosophy to a point where he attempted to substantiate theory by facts, and thus laid the foundation for comparative study.
Other Schools.—The Epicureans taught a philosophy based upon pleasure-seeking—or, as it may be stated, making happiness the highest aim of life. They said that to seek happiness was to seek the highest good. This philosophy in its pure state had no evil ethical tendency, but under the bad influences of remote followers of Epicurus it led to the degeneration of ethical practice. "Beware of excesses," says Epicurus, "for they will lead to unhappiness." Beware of folly and sin, for they lead to wretchedness. Nothing could have been better than this, until people began to follow sensuality as the immediate return of efforts to secure happiness. Then it led to {225} corruption, and was one of the causes of the downfall of Greek as well as the Roman civilization.
The Stoics were a group of philosophers who placed great emphasis upon ethics in comparison with logic and physics. They looked on the world from the pessimistic side and made themselves happy by becoming martyrs. They taught that suffering, the endurance of pain without complaint, was the highest virtue. To them logic was the science of thought and of expression, physics was the science of nature, and ethics the science of the good. All ideas originated from sensation, and perception was the only criterion of truth. "We know only what we perceive (by sense); only those ideas contain certain knowledge for us which are ideas of real objects." The soul of man was corporeal and material, hence physics and metaphysics were almost identical. There is much incoherency in their philosophy; it abounds in paradoxes. For instance, it recognizes sense as the criterion and source of knowledge, and asserts that reason is universal and knowable. Yet it asserts that there is no rational element in sense that is universal. It confuses individual human nature and universal nature, though its final result was to unite both in one concept. The result of their entire philosophy was to create confusion, although they had much influence on the practical life.
The Sceptics doubted all knowledge obtained by the senses. There was no criterion of truth in the intellect, consequently no knowledge. If truth existed it was in conduct, and thus the judgment must be suspended. They held that there was nothing that could be determined of specific nature, nothing that could be of certainty. Eventually the whole Greek philosophy went out in scepticism. The three schools, the sceptic, the Epicurean, and the stoic, though widely differing in many ways, agreed upon one thing, in basing their philosophy on subjectivity, on mind rather than on objective nature.
Results Obtained in Greek Philosophy.—The philosophical conclusions aimed at by the Greeks related to the origin and destiny of the world. The world is an emanation from God, {226} and in due time it will return to Him. It may be considered as a part of the substance of God, or it may be considered as something objective proceeding from him. The visible world around us becomes thus but an expression of the God mind. But as it came forth a thing of beauty, so it will return again to Him after its mission is fulfilled. On the existence and attributes of God the Greeks dwelt with great force. There is established first a unity of God, and this unity is the first cause in the creation. To what extent this unity is independent and separate in existence from nature, is left in great doubt. It was held that God is present everywhere in nature, though His being is not limited by time or space. Much of the philosophy bordered upon, if it did not openly avow, a belief in pantheism. The highest conception recognizes design in creation, which would give an individual existence to the Creator. Yet the most acute mind did not depart from the assumption of the idea of an all-pervading being of God extending throughout the universe, mingling with nature and to a certain extent inseparable from it. In their highest conception the most favored of the Greeks were not free from pantheistic notions.
The nature of the soul occupied much of the attention of the Greeks. They began by giving material characteristics to the mind. They soon separated it in concept from material nature and placed it as a part of God himself, who existed apart from material form. The soul has a past life, a present, and a future, as a final outcome of philosophical speculations. The attributes of the soul were confused with the attributes of the Supreme Being. These conceptions of the Divine Being and of the soul border on the Hindu philosophy.
Perhaps the subject which caused the most discussion was the attempt to determine a criterion of truth. Soon after the time when they broke away from the ancient religious faith, the thinkers of Greece began to doubt the ability of the mind to ascertain absolute truth. This arose out of the imperfections of knowledge obtained through the senses. Sense perception {227} was held in much doubt. The world is full of delusions. Man thinks he sees when he does not. The rainbow is but an illusion when we attempt to analyze it. The eye deceives, the ear hears what does not exist; even touch and taste frequently deceive us. What, then, can be relied upon as accurate in determining knowledge? To this the Greek mind answers, "Nothing"; it reaches no definite conclusion, and this is the cardinal weakness of the philosophy. Indeed, the great weakness of the entire age of philosophy was want of data. It was a time of intense activity of the mind, but the lack of data led to much worthless speculation. The systematic method of scientific observation had not yet been discovered.
But how could this philosophical speculation affect civilization? It determined the views of life entertained by the Greeks, and human progress depended upon this. The progress of the world depends upon the attitude of the human mind toward nature, toward man and his life. The study of philosophy developed the mental capacity of man, gave him power to cope with nature, and enhanced his possibility of right living. More than this, it taught man to rely upon himself in explaining the origin and growth of the universe and the development of human life. Though these points were gained only by the few and soon lost sight of by all, yet they were revived in after years, and placed man upon the right basis for improvement.
The quickening impulse of philosophy had its influence on art and language. The language of the Greeks stands as their most powerful creation. The development of philosophy enlarged the scope of language and increased its already rich vocabulary. Art was a representation of nature. The predominance given to man in life, the study of heroes and gods, gave ideal creations and led to the expression of beauty. Philosophy, literature, language, and art, including architecture, represent the products of Greek civilization, and as such have been the lasting heritage of the nations that have followed. The philosophy and practice of social life and government {228} received a high development in Greece. They will be treated in a separate chapter.
1. What was the importance of Socrates' teaching? Why was he put to death?
2. What has been the influence of Plato's teaching on modern life?
3. Why is Aristotle considered the greatest of the Greeks?
4. What was the influence of the library at Alexandria?
5. What caused the decline in Greek philosophy?
6. What was the influence on civilization of the Greek attitudes of mind toward nature?
7. Compare the use of Greek philosophy with modern science as to their value in education.
The Struggle for Greek Equality and Liberty.—The greater part of the activity of Western nations has been a struggle for social equality and for political and religious liberty. These phases of European social life are clearly discerned in the development of the Greek states. The Greeks were recognized as having the highest intellectual culture and the largest mental endowments of all the ancients, characteristics which gave them great prestige in the development of political life and social philosophy. The problem of how communities of people should live together, their relations to one another, and their rights, privileges, and duties, early concerned the philosophers of Greece; but more potent than all the philosophies that have been uttered, than all of the theories concerning man's social relation, is the vivid portrayal of the actual struggle of men to live together in community life, pictured in the course of Grecian history.
In the presentation of this life, writers have differed much in many ways. Some have eulogized the Greeks as a liberty-loving people, who sought to grant rights and duties to every one on an altruistic basis; others have pictured them as entirely egoistic, with a morality of a narrow nature, and with no sublime conception of the relation of the rights of humanity as such. Without entering into a discussion of the various views entertained by philosophers concerning the characteristics of the Greeks, it may be said that, with all their noble characteristics, the ideal pictures which are presented to us by the poet, the philosopher, and the historian are too frequently of the few, while the great mass of the people remained in a state of ignorance, superstition, and slavery. With a due recognition of the existence of the germs of democracy, {230} we find that Greece, after all, was in spirit an aristocracy. There was an aristocracy of birth, of wealth, of learning, and of hereditary power. While we must recognize the greatness of the Greek life in comparison with that of Oriental nations, it must still be evident to us that the best phases of this life and the magnificent features of Greek learning have been emphasized much by writers, while the wretched and debasing conditions of the people of Greece have seldom been recounted.
The Greek Government an Expanded Family.—The original family was ruled by the father, who acted as king, priest, and lawgiver. As long as life lasted he had supreme control over all members of his family, whether they were so by birth or adoption. All that they owned, all of the products of their hands, all the wealth of the family, belonged to him; even their lives were at his disposal.
As the family becomes stronger and is known as a gens, it represents a close, compact organization, looking after its own interests, and with definite customs concerning its own government. As the gentes are multiplied they form tribes, and the oldest male member of the tribal group acts as its leader and king, while the heads of the various gentes thus united become his counsellors and advisers in later development, and the senate after democratic government organization takes place. As time passes the head of this family is called a king or chief, and rules on the ground that he has descended from the gods, is under the divine protection, and represents the oldest aristocratic family in the tribe.
In the beginning this tribal chief holds unlimited sway over all of his subjects. But to maintain his power well he must be a soldier who is able to command the forces in war; he must be able to lead in the councils with the chiefs and, when occasion requires, discuss matters with the people. Gradually passing from the ancient hereditary power, he reaches a stage when it becomes a custom to consult with all the chiefs of the tribe in the management of the affairs. The earliest picture of Greek government represents a king who is equal in birth with {231} other heads of the gentes, presiding over a group of elders deliberating upon the affairs of the state. The influence of the nobles over whom he presided must have been great. It appears that the king or chief must convince his associates in council before any decision could be considered a success.
The second phase of Greek government represents this same king as appearing in the assembly of all the people and presenting for their consideration the affairs of the state. It is evident from this that, although he was a hereditary monarch, deriving his power from aristocratic lineage traced even to the gods themselves, he was responsible to the people for his government, and this principle extends all the way through the development of Greek social and political life.
The right to free discussion of affairs in open council, the right to object to methods of procedure, were cardinal principles in Greek politics; but while the great mass of people were not taken into account in the affairs of the government, there was an equality among all those called citizens which had much to do with the establishment of the civil polity of all nations. The whole Greek political life, then, represents the slow evolution from aristocratic government of hereditary chiefs toward a complete democracy, which unfortunately it failed to reach before the decline of the Greek state.
As before related, the Greeks had established a large number of independent communities which developed into small states. These small states were mostly isolated from one another, hence they developed an independent social and political existence. This was of great consequence in the establishing of the character of the Greek government. In the first place, the kings, chiefs, and rulers were brought closely in contact with the people. Everybody knew them, understood the character of the men, realizing that they had passions and prejudices similar to other men, and that, notwithstanding they were elevated to positions of power, they nevertheless were human beings like the people themselves. This led to a democratic feeling.
{232}Again, the development of these separate small states led to great diversity of government. All kinds of government were exercised in Greece, from the democracy to the hereditary monarchy. Many of these governments passed in their history through all stages of government to be conceived of—the monarchy, absolute and constitutional, the aristocracy, the oligarchy, the tyranny, the democracy, and the polity. All phases of politics had their representation in the development of the Greek life.
In a far larger way the development of these isolated communities made local self-government the primary basis of the state. When the Greek had developed his own small state he had done his duty so far as government was concerned. He might be on friendly terms with the neighboring states, especially as they might use the same language as his own and belonged to the same race, but he could in no way be responsible for the success or the failure of men outside of his community. This was many times a detriment to the development of the Greek race, as the time arrived when it should stand as a unit against the encroachments of foreign nations. No unity of national life found expression in the repulsion of the Persians, no unity in the Peloponnesian war, no unity in the defense against the Romans; indeed, the Macedonians found a divided people, which made conquering easy.
There was another phase of this Greek life worthy of notice: the fact that it developed extreme selfishness and egoism respecting government. We shall find in this development, in spite of the pretensions for the interests of the many, that government existed for the few; notwithstanding the professions of an enlarged social life, we shall find a narrowness almost beyond belief in the treatment of Greeks by one another in the social life. It is true that the recognition of citizenship was much wider than in the Orient, and that the individual life of man received more marked attention than in any ancient despotism; yet, after all, when we recognize the multitudes of slaves, who were considered not worthy to take part in {233} government affairs, the numbers of the freedmen and non-citizens, and realize that the few who had power or privilege of government looked with disdain upon all others, it gives us no great enthusiasm for Greek democracy when compared with the modern conception of that term.
As Mr. Freeman says in his Federal Government, the citizen "looked down upon the vulgar herd of slaves, the freedmen and unqualified residents, as his own plebeian fathers had been looked down upon by the old Eupatrides in the days of Cleisthenes and Solon." Whatever phase of this Greek society we discuss, we must not forget that there was a large class excluded from rights of government, and that the few sought always to maintain their own rights and privileges supported by the many, and the pretensions of an enlarged privilege of citizenship had little effect in changing the actual conditions of the aristocratic government.
The Athenian Government a Type of Grecian Democracy.—Indeed, it was the only completed government in Greece. The civilization of Athens shows the character of the Greek race in its richest and most beautiful development. Here art, learning, culture, and government reached their highest development. It was a small territory that surrounded the city of Athens, containing a little over 850 English square miles, possibly less, as some authorities say. The soil was poor, but the climate was superb. It was impossible for the Athenian to support a high civilization from the soil of Attica, hence trade sprang up and Athens grew wealthy on account of its great maritime commerce.
The population of all Attica in the most flourishing times was about 500,000 people, 150,000 of whom were slaves, 45,000 settlers, or unqualified people, while the free citizens did not exceed 90,000—so that the equality so much spoken of in Grecian democracies belonged to only 90,000 out of 500,000, leaving 410,000 disfranchised. The district was thickly populous for Greece, and the stock of the Athenian had little mixture of foreign blood in it. The city itself was formed of {234} villages or cantons, united into one central government. These appear to be survivals of the old village communities united under the title of city-state. It was the perfection of this city-state that occupied the chief thought of the Athenian political philosophers.
The ancient kingship of Athens passed, on deposition of the last of the Medoutidae, about 712 B.C., into the hands of the nobles. This was the first step in the passage from monarchy toward democracy; it was the beginning of the foundation of the republican constitution. In 682 B.C. the government passed into the hands of nine archons, chosen from all the rest of the nobles. It was a movement on the part of the nobles to obtain a partition of the government, while the common people were not improved at all by the process. The kings, indeed, in the ancient time made a better government for the people than did the nobles. The people at this period were in great trouble. The nobles had loaned money to their wretched neighbors and, as the law was very strict, the creditor might take possession of the property and even of the person of the debtor, making of him a slave.
In this way the small proprietors had become serfs, and the masters took from them five-sixths of the products of the soil, and would, no doubt, have taken their lands had these not been inalienable. Sometimes the debtors were sold into foreign countries as slaves, and at other times their children were taken as slaves according to the law. On account of the oppression of the poor by the nobility, there sprang up a hatred between these two classes.
A few changes were made by the laws of Draco and others, but nothing gave decided relief to the people. The nine archons, representing the power of the state, managed nearly all of its affairs, and retained likewise their seats in the council of nobles. The old national council formed by the aristocratic members of the community still retained its hold, and the council of archons, though it divided the country into administrative districts and sought to secure more specific {235} management of the several districts, failed to keep down internal disorders or to satisfy the people. The people were formed into three classes: the wealthy nobility, or land-owners of the plain, the peasants of the mountains districts, and the people of the coast country, the so-called middle classes. The hatred of the nobility by the peasants of the mountains was intense. The nobles demanded their complete suppression and subordination to the rule of their own class. The people of the coast would have been contented with moderate concessions from the nobility, which would give them a part in the government and leave them unmolested.
Constitution of Solon Seeks a Remedy.—Such was the condition of affairs when Solon proposed his reforms. He sought to remove the burdens of the people, first, by remitting all fines which had been imposed; second, by preventing the people from offering their persons as security against debt; and third, by depreciating the coin so as to make payment of debt easy. He replaced the Pheidonian talent by that of the Euboic coinage, thus increasing the debt-paying capacity of money twenty-seven per cent, or, in other words, reduced the debt about that amount. It was further provided that all debts could be paid in three annual instalments, thus allowing poor farmers with mortgages upon their farms an opportunity to pay their debts. There was also granted an amnesty to all persons who had been condemned to payment of money penalties. By further measures the exclusive privileges of the old nobility were broken down, and a new government established on the basis of wealth. People were divided into classes according to their property, and their privileges in government, as well as their taxes, were based upon these classes.
Revising the old council of 401, Solon established a council (Boule) of 400, 100 from each district. These were probably elected at first, but later were chosen by lot. The duties of this council were to prepare all business for passage in the popular assembly. No business could come before the assembly of the people except by decree of the council, and in nearly {236} every case the council could decide what measures should be brought before the assembly. While in some instances the law made it obligatory for certain cases to be brought before the assembly, there were some measures which could be disposed of by the council without reference to the assembly.
The administration of justice was distributed among the nine archons, each one of whom administered some particular department. The archon as judge could dispose of matters or refer them to an arbitrator for decision. In every case the dissatisfied party had a right to appeal to the court made up of a collective body of 6,000 citizens, called the Heliaea. This body was annually chosen from the whole body of citizens, and acted as jurors and judges. In civil matters the services of the Heliaea were slight. They consisted in holding open court on certain matters appealed to them from the archons. In criminal matters the Heliaea frequently acted immediately as a sole tribunal, whose decision was final.
It is one of the remarkable things in the Greek polity that the supreme court or court of appeals should be elected from the common people, while in other courts judges should hold their offices on account of position. Solon also recognized what is known as the Council of the Areopagus. The functions of this body had formerly belonged to the old council included in the Draconian code. The Council of the Areopagus was formed from the ex-archons who had held the office without blame. It became a sort of supreme advisory council, watching over the whole collective administration. It took account of the behavior of the magistrates in office and of the proceedings of the public assembly, and could interpose in other cases when, in its judgment, it thought it necessary. It could advise as to the proper conducting of affairs and criticise the process of administration. It could also administer private discipline and call citizens to account for their individual acts. In this respect it somewhat resembled the Ephors of Sparta.
{237}The popular assembly would meet and consider the questions put before it by the council, voting yes or no, but the subject was not open for discussion. However, it was possible for the assembly to bring other subjects up for discussion and, through motion, refer them to the consideration of the council. It was also possible to attach to the proposition of the council a motion, called in modern terms "a rider," and thus enlarge upon the work of the council; but it was so arranged that the preponderance of all the offices went to the nobility and that the council be made up of this class, and hence there was no danger that the government would fall into the hands of the people. Solon claimed to have put into the hands of the people all the power that they deserved, and to have established numerous checks on government which made it possible for each group of people to be well represented.
Thus the council limited the power of the assembly, the Areopagus supervised the council, while the courts of the people had the final decision in cases of appeal. As is well known, Solon could not carry out his own reforms, but was forced to leave the country. Had he been of a different nature and at once seized the government, or appealed to the people, as did his successor, Pisistratus, he might have made his measures of reform more effective. As it was, he was obliged to leave their execution to others.
Cleisthenes Continues the Reforms of Solon.—Some years later (509 B.C.) Cleisthenes instituted other reforms, increasing the council to 500, the members of which might be drawn from the first three classes rather than the first, limiting the archonship to the first class, and breaking up the four ancient tribes formed from the nobility. He formed ten new tribes of religious and political unions, thus intending to break down the influence of the nobility. Although the popular assembly was composed of all citizens of the four classes, the functions of this body in the early period were very meagre. It gave them the privilege of voting on the principal affairs of the nation when the council desired them to assume the responsibility. The {238} time for holding it was in the beginning indefinite, it being only occasionally convened, but in later times there were ten[1] assemblies in each year, when business was regularly placed before it. Meetings were held in the market-place at first; later a special building was erected for this purpose. Sometimes, however, special assemblies were held elsewhere.
The assembly was convoked by the prytanes, while the right of convoking extraordinary assemblies fell to the lot of the strategi. There were various means for the compulsion of the attendance of the crowd. There was a fine for non-attendance, and police kept out people who ought not to appear. Each assembly opened with religious service. Usually sucking pigs were sacrificed, which were carried around to purify the place, and their blood was sprinkled over the floor. This ceremony was followed by the offering of incense. This having been done, the president stated the question to be considered and summoned the people to vote.
As the assembly developed in the advanced stage of Athenian life, every member in good standing had a right to speak. The old men were called upon first and then the younger men. This discussion was generally upon open questions, and not upon resolutions prepared by the council, though amendments to these resolutions were sometimes allowed. No speaker could be interrupted except by the presiding officer, and no member could speak more than once. As each speaker arose, he mounted the rostrum and placed a wreath of myrtle upon his head, which signified that he was performing a duty to the state. The Greeks appear to have developed considerable parliamentary usage and to have practised a system of voting similar to our ballot reform. Each individual entered an enclosure and voted by means of pebbles. Subsequently the functions of the assembly grew quite large. The demagogues found it to their interests to extend its powers. They tried to establish the principle in Athens that the people were the rulers of everything by right.
{239}The powers of the assembly were generally divided into four groups, the first including the confirmation of appointments, the accusation of offenders against the state, the confiscation of goods, and claims to succession of property. The second group considered petitions of the people, the third acted upon motions for the remission of sentences, and the fourth had charge of dealings with foreign states and religious matters in general.
It is observed that the Athenians represented the highest class of the Greeks and that government received its highest development among them. But the only real political liberty in Greece may be summed up in the principle of hearing both sides of a question and of obtaining a decision on the merits of the case presented. Far different is this from the old methods of despotic rule, under which kings were looked upon as authority in themselves, whose will must be carried out without question. The democracy of Athens, too, was the first instance of the substitution of law for force.
It is true that in the beginning all of the Greek communities rested upon a military basis. Their foundations were laid in military exploits, and they maintained their position by the force of arms for a long period. But this is true of nearly all states and nations when they make their first attempt at permanent civilization. But after they were once established they sought to rule their subjects by the introduction of well-regulated laws and not by the force of arms. The military discipline, no doubt, was the best foundation for a state of primitive people, but as this passed away the newer life was regulated best by law and civil power. Under this the military became subordinate.
To Greece must be given the credit of founding the city, and, indeed, this is one of the chief characteristics of the Greek people. They established the city-state, or polis. It represented a full and complete sovereignty in itself. When they had accomplished this idea of sovereignty the political organization had reached its highest aim.
{240}Athenian Democracy Failed in Obtaining Its Best and Highest Development.—It is a disappointment to the reader that Athens, when in the height of power, when the possibilities for extending and promoting the best interests of humanity in social capacity were greatest, should end in decline and failure. In the first place, extreme democracy in that early period was more open than now to excessive dangers. It was in danger of control by mobs, who were ignorant of their own real interests and the interests of popular government; it was in danger of falling into the hands of tyrants, who would rule for their own private interests; it was in danger of falling into the hands of a few, which frequently happened. And this democracy in the ancient time was a rule of class—class subordination was the essence of its constitution. There was no universal rule by the majority. The franchise was an exclusive privilege extended to a minority, hence it differed little from aristocracy, being a government of class with a rather wider extension.
The ancient democracies were pure in form, in which the people governed immediately. For every citizen had a right to appear in the assembly and vote, and he could sit in the assembly, which acted as an open court. Indeed, the elective officers of the democracy were not considered as representatives of the people. They were the state and not subject to impeachment, though they should break over all law. After they returned among the citizens and were no longer the state they could be tried for their misdemeanors in office.
Now, a state of this nature and form must of necessity be small, and as government expanded and its functions increased, the representative principle should have been introduced as a mainstay to the public system. The individual in the ancient democracy lived for the state, being subordinate to its existence as the highest form of life. We find this entirely different from the modern democracy, in which slavery and class subordination are both excluded, as opposed to its theory and antagonistic to its very being. Its citizenship is wide, extending to its native population, and its suffrage is universal to all who qualify as citizens. The citizens, too, in {241} modern democracies, live for themselves, and believe that the state is made by them for themselves.
The decline of the Athenian democracy was hastened, also, by the Peloponnesian war, caused first by the domineering attitude of Athens, which posed as an empire, and the jealousy of Sparta. This struggle between Athens and Sparta amounted almost to civil war. And although it brought Sparta to the front as the most powerful state in all Greece, she was unable to advance the higher civilization, but really exercised a depressing influence upon it. It might be mentioned briefly, too, that the overthrow of Athens somewhat later, and the establishment of the 400 as rulers, soon led to political disintegration. It was the beginning of the founding of Athenian clubs, or political factions, which attempted to control the elections by fear or force. These, by their power, forced the decrees of the assembly to suit themselves, and thus gave the death-blow to liberty. There was the reaction from this to the establishment of 5,000 citizens as a controlling body, and restricting the constitution, which attempted to unite all classes into one body and approximated the modern democracy, or that which is represented in the "polity" of Aristotle.
After the domination of Sparta, Lysander and the thirty tyrants rose to oppress the citizens, and deposed a previous council of ten made for the ruling of the city. But once more after this domination democracy was restored, and under the Theban and Macedonian supremacies the old spirit of "equality of equals" was once more established. But Athens could no longer maintain her ancient position; her warlike ambitions had passed away, her national intelligence had declined; the dangers of the populace, too, threatened her at every turn, and the selfishness of the nobility in respect to the other classes, as well as the selfishness of the Spartan state outside, soon led to her downfall. At first, too, all the officers were not paid, it being considered a misdemeanor to take pay for office; but finally regular salaries were paid, and this forced the leaders to establish free theatres for the people.
And finally, it may be said, that the power for good or evil {242} in the democracy lacking in permanent foundations is so great that it can never lead on to perfect success. It will prosper to-day and decline to-morrow. So the attempt of the Athenians to found a democracy led not to permanent success; nevertheless, it gave to the world for the first time the principles of government founded upon equality and justice, and these principles have remained unchanged in the practice of the more perfect republics of modern times.
The Spartan State Differs from All Others.—If we turn our attention to Sparta we shall find an entirely different state—a state which may be represented by calling it an aristocratic republic. Not only was it founded on a military basis, but its very existence was perpetuated by military form. The Dorian conquest brought these people in from the north to settle in the Peloponnesus, and by degrees they obtained a foothold and conquered their surrounding neighbors. Having established themselves on a small portion of the land, the Dorians, or Spartans, possessed themselves of superior military skill in order to obtain the overlordship of the surrounding territory. Soon they had control of nearly all of the Peloponnesus. Although Argos was at first the ruling city of the conquerors, Sparta soon obtained the supremacy, and the Spartan state became noted as the great military state of the Greeks.
The population of Sparta was composed of the Dorians, or citizens, who were the conquerors, and the independent subjects, who had been conquered but who had no part in the government, and the serfs or helots, who were the lower class of the conquered ones. The total population is estimated at about 380,000 to 400,000, while the serfs numbered at least 175,000 to 224,000. These serfs were always a cause of fear and anxiety to the conquerors, and they were watched over by night and day by spies who kept them from rising. The helots were employed in peace as well as in war, and in all occupations where excessive toil was needed. The middle class (Perioeci) were subjects dependent upon the citizens. They had no share in the Spartan state except to obey its {243} administration. They were obliged to accept the obligations of military service, to pay taxes and dues when required. Their occupations were largely the promotion of agriculture and the various trades and industries. Their proportion to the citizens was about thirty to nine, or, as is commonly given, there was one citizen to four of the middle class and twelve of the helots, making the ratio of citizens to the entire population about one-seventeenth, or every seventeenth man was a citizen.
Attempts were made to divide the lands of the rich among the poor, and this redistribution of lands occurred from time to time. There were other semblances of pure democracy of communistic nature. It was a pure military state, and all were treated as soldiers. There was a common table, or "mess," for a group, called the social union. There all the men were obliged to assemble at meal-time, the women remaining at home. The male children were taken at the age of seven years and trained as soldiers. These were then in charge of the state, and the home was relieved of its responsibility concerning them.
The state also adopted many sumptuary laws regulating what should be eaten and what should be used, and what not. All male persons were subjected to severe physical training, for Sparta, in her education, always dwelt upon physical development and military training. The development of language and literature, art and sculpture, was not observed here as it was in Athens. The ideal of aristocracy was the rule of the nobler elements of the nation and the subordination of the mass. This was supposed to be the best that could be done for the state and hence the best for the people. There was no opportunity for subjects to rise to citizenship—nor, indeed, was this true in Athens, except by the gradual widening force of legal privilege. Individual life in Sparta was completely subordinate to the state life, and here the citizen existed more fully for the state than in Athens in her worst days.
Finally abuses grew. It was the old story of the few rich {244} dominating and oppressing the many poor. The minority had grown insolent and overbearing, and attempted to rule a hopeless and discontented majority. The reforms of Lycurgus led to some improvements, by the institution of new divisions of citizens and territory and the division of the land, not only among citizens but the half-citizens and dependents. Nevertheless, it appears that in spite of these attempted reforms, in spite of the establishment of the council, the public assembly, and the judicial process, Sparta still remained an arbitrary military power. Yet the government continued to expand in form and function until it had obtained a complex existence. But there was a non-progressive element in it all. The denial of rights of marriage between citizens and other groups limited the increase of the number of citizens, and while powers were gradually extended to those outside of the pale of citizenship, they were given so niggardly, and in such a manner, as to fail to establish the great principle of civil government on the basis of a free democracy.
The military régime was non-progressive in its nature. It could lead to conquest of enemies, but could not lead to the perpetuation of the rights and privileges of citizens; it could lead to domination of others, but could not bring about the subordination of universal citizenship to law and order, nor permit the expansion and growth of individual life under benevolent institutions of government.
So the Greek government, the democracy with all of its great promises and glorious prospects, declined certainly from the height which was great in contrast to the Oriental despotisms. It declined at a time when, as we look back from the present, it ought apparently to have gone on to the completion of the modern representative government. Probably, had the Greeks adopted the representative principle and enlarged their citizenship, their government would have been more lasting. It is quite evident, also, that had they adopted the principle of federation and, instead of allowing the operation of government to cease when one small state had been perfected, united {245} these small states into a great nation throbbing with patriotism for the entire country, Greece might have withstood the warlike shocks of foreign nations. But, thus unprepared alike to resist internal dissension and foreign oppression, the Greek states, notwithstanding all of their valuable contributions to government and society, were forced to yield their position of establishing a permanent government for the people.
Some attempts were made to unify and organize Greek national life, not entirely without good results. The first instance of this arose out of temple worship, where members of different states met about a common shrine erected to a special deity. This led to temporary organization and mutual aid. Important among these centres was the shrine of Apollo at Delphi. This assemblage was governed by a council of general representation. Important customs were established, such as the keeping of roads in repair which led to the shrine, and providing that pilgrims should have safe conduct and be free from tolls and taxes on their way to and from the shrine. The members of the league were sworn not to destroy a city member or to cut off running water from the city. This latter rule was the foundation of the law of riparian rights—one of the oldest and most continuous in Western civilization. The inspiration for the great national Olympic Games came from these early assemblages about shrines.[2]
Also the Aetolian and Achaean leagues, which occurred in the later development of Greece, after the Macedonian conquest, were serious attempts for federal unity. Although they were meritorious and partially successful, they came too late to make a unified nation of Greece. In form and purpose these federal leagues are suggestive of the early federation of the colonies of America.
Greek Colonization Spreads Knowledge.—The colonies of Greece, established on the different islands and along the shores of the Mediterranean, were among the important {246} civilizers of this early period. Its colonies were established for the purpose of relieving the population of congested districts, on the one hand, and for the purpose of increasing trade, on the other. They were always independent in government of the mother country, but were in sympathy with her in language, in customs, and in laws and religion. As the ships plied their trade between the central government and these distant colonies, they carried with them the fundamentals of civilization—the language, the laws, the customs, the art, the architecture, the philosophy and thought of the Greeks.
There was a tendency, then, to spread abroad over a large territory the Grecian philosophy and life. More potent, indeed, than war is the civilizing influence of maritime trade. It brings with it exchange of ideas, inspiration, and new life; it enables the planting of new countries with the best products. No better evidence of this can be seen than in the planting of modern English colonies, which has spread the civilization of England around the world. This was begun by the Greeks in that early period, and in the dissemination of knowledge it represents a wide influence.
The Conquests of Alexander.—Another means of the dissemination of Greek thought, philosophy, and learning was the Alexandrian conquest and domination. The ambitious Alexander, extending the plan of Philip of Macedon, who attempted to conquer the Greeks and the surrounding countries, desired to master the whole known world. And so into Egypt and Asia Minor, into Central Asia, and even to the banks of the Ganges, he carried his conquests, and with them the products of Greek learning and literature. And most potent of all these influences was the founding of Alexandria in Egypt, which he hoped to make the central city of the world. Into this place flowed the products of learning, not only of Greece but of the Orient, and developed a mighty city with its schools and libraries, with its philosophy and doctrines and strange religious influences. And for many years the learning of the world centred about Alexandria, forming a great rival to Athens, which, {247} though never losing its prominence in certain lines of culture, was dominated by the greater Alexandria.
The Age of Pericles.—In considering all phases of life the splendors of Greece culminated in a period of 50 years immediately following the close of the Persian wars. This period is known as the Age of Pericles. Although the rule of Pericles was about thirty years (466-429), his influence extended long after. The important part Athens performed in the Persian wars gave her the political ascendancy in Greece and enabled her to assume the beginning of the states; in fact, enabled her to establish an empire. Pericles rebuilt Athens after the destructive work of the Persians. The public buildings, the Parthenon and the Acropolis, were among the noted structures of the world. A symmetrical city was planned on a magnificent scale hitherto unknown. Pericles gathered about him architects, sculptors, poets, dramatists, teachers, and philosophers.
The age represents a galaxy of great men: Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides, Herodotus, Socrates, Thucydides, Phidias, Ictinus, and others. Greek government reached its culmination and society had its fullest life in this age. The glory of the period extended on through the Peloponnesian war, and after the Macedonian conquest it gradually waned and the splendor gradually passed from Athens to Alexandria.
Contributions of Greece to Civilization.—It is difficult to enumerate all of the influences of Greece on modern civilization. First of all, we might mention the language of Greece, which became so powerful in the development of the Roman literature and Roman civilization and, in the later Renaissance, a powerful engine of progress. Associated with the language is the literature of the Greeks. The epic poems of Homer, the later lyrics, the drama, the history, and the polemic, all had their highest types presented in the Greek literature. Latin and modern German, English and French owe to these great originators a debt of gratitude for every form of modern literature. The architecture of Greece was broad enough to lay the foundation of the future, and so we find, even in our {248} modern life, the Grecian elements combined in all of our great buildings.
Painting and frescoing were well established in principle, though not carried to a high state until the mediaeval period; but in sculpture nothing yet has exceeded the perfection of the Greek art. It stands a monument of the love of the beauty of the human form and the power to represent it in marble.
The Greek philosophy finds its best results not only in developing the human mind to a high state but in giving to us the freedom of thought which belongs by right to every individual. An attempt to find out things as they are, to rest all philosophy upon observation, and to determine by the human reason the real essence of truth, is of such stupendous magnitude in the development of the human mind that it has entered into the philosophy of every educational system presented since by any people or any individual. The philosophers of modern times, while they may not adopt the principles of the ancient philosophy, still recognize their power, their forms of thought, and their activities, and their great influence on the intellectual development of the world.
Last, but not least, are the great lessons recounted of the foundations of civil liberty. Incomplete as the ancient democracies were, they pointed to the world the great lessons of the duties of man to man and the relations of mankind in social life. When we consider the greatness of the social function and the prominence of social organization in modern life, we shall see how essential it is that, though the development of the individual may be the highest aim of civilization, the social organization must be established upon a right basis to promote individual interests. Freedom, liberty, righteousness, justice, free discussion, all these were given to us by the Greeks, and more—the forms of government, the assembly, the senate, the judiciary, the constitutional government, although in their imperfect forms, are represented in the Greek government. These represent the chief contributions of the Greeks to civilization.
1. What were the achievements of the Age of Pericles?
2. Which are more important to civilization, Greek ideals or Greek practice?
3. The ownership of land in Greece.
4. The characteristics of the city-state of Athens.
5. Alexandria as an educational centre.
6. Why did the Greeks fail to make a strong central nation?
7. The causes of the decline of Greek civilization.
8. Give a summary of the most important contributions of Greece to modern civilization.
[1] Some authorities state forty assemblies were held each year.
[2] The Confederation of Delos, the Athenian Empire, and the Peloponnesian League were attempts to federalize Greece. They were successful only in part.
The Romans Differed in Nature from the Greeks.—Instead of being of a philosophic, speculative nature, the Romans were a practical, even a stoical, people of great achievement. They turned their ideas always toward the concrete, and when they desired to use the abstract they borrowed the principles and theories established by other nations. They were poor theorizers, both in philosophy and in religion, but were intensely interested in that which they could turn to immediate and practical benefit. They were great borrowers of the products of other people's imagination. In the very early period they borrowed the gods of the Greeks and somewhat of their forms of religion!
Later they borrowed forms of art from other nations and developed them to suit their own, and, still later, they used the literary language of the Greeks to enrich their own. This method of borrowing the best products of others and putting them to practical service led to immense consequences in the development of civilization. The Romans lacked not in originality, for practical application leads to original creation, but their best efforts in civilization were wrought out from this practical standpoint. Thus, in the improvement of agriculture, in the perfection of the art of war, in the development of law and of government, their work was masterly in the extreme; and to this extent it was worked out rather than thought out. Indeed, their whole civilization was evolved from the practical standpoint.
The Social Structure of Early Rome and That of Early Greece.—Rome started, like Greece, with the early patriarchal kings, who ruled over the expanded family, but with this difference, that these kings, from the earliest historical records, were {251} elected by the people. Nevertheless there is no evidence that the democratic spirit was greater in early Rome than in early Greece, except in form. In the early period all Italy was filled with tribes, mostly of Aryan descent, and in the regal period the small territory of Latium was filled with independent city communities; but all these cities were federated on a religious basis and met at Alba Longa as a centre, where they conducted their worship and duly instituted certain regulations concerning the government of all. Later, after the decline of Alba Longa, the seat of this federal government was removed to Rome, which was another of the federated cities. Subsequently this territory was invaded by the Sabines, who settled at Rome, and, as an independent community, allied themselves with the Romans.
And, finally, the invasion of the Etruscans gave the last of three separate communities, which were federated into one state and laid the foundation of the imperial city. But if some leader founded Rome in the early period, it is quite natural that he should be called Romulus, after the name of Rome. Considering the nature of the Romans and the tendency to the old ancestral worship among them, it does not seem strange that they should deify this founder and worship him. Subsequently, we find that this priestly monarchy was changed to a military monarchy, in which everything was based upon property and military service. Whatever may be the stories of early Rome, so much may be mentioned as historical fact.
The foundation was laid in three great tribes, composed of the ancient families, or patricians, who formed the body of the league. Those who settled at Rome at an early period became the aristocracy; they were members of the tribes of immemorial foundation. At first the old tribal exclusiveness prevailed, and people who came later into Rome were treated as unequal to those who long had a right to the soil. This led to a division among the people based on hereditary right, which lasted in its effect as long as Rome endured. It became the {252} custom to call those persons belonging to the first families patricians, and all who were not patricians plebeians, representing that class who did not belong to the first families. The plebeians were composed of foreigners, who had only commercial rights, of the clients who attached themselves to these ancient families, but who gradually passed into the plebeian rank, and of land-holders, craftsmen, and laborers. The plebeians were free inhabitants, without political rights. As there was no great opportunity for the patricians to increase in number, the plebeians, in the regal period, soon grew to outnumber them. They were increased by those conquered ones who were permitted to come to Rome and dwell. Also the tradesmen and immigrants who dwelt at Rome increased rapidly, for they could have the protection of the Roman state without having the responsibility of Roman soldiers. It was of great significance in the development of the Roman government that these two great classes existed.
Civil Organization of Rome.—The organization of the government of early Rome rested in a peculiar sense upon the family group. The first tribes that settled in the territory were governed upon a family basis, and their land was held by family holdings. No other nation appears to have perpetuated such a power of the family in the affairs of the state. The father, as the head of the family, had absolute power over all; the son never became of age so far as the rights of property are considered as long as the father lived. The father was priest, king, and legislator for all in the family group. Parental authority was arbitrary, and when the head of the family passed away the oldest male member of the family took his place, and ruled as his father had ruled.
A group of these families constituted a clan, and a group of clans made a tribe, and three tribes, according to the formula for the formation of Rome, made a state. Whether this formal process was carried out exactly remains to be proved, but the families related to one another by ties of blood were united in distinct groups, which were again reorganized into larger {253} groups, and the formula at the time of the organization of the state was that there were 30 cantons formed by 300 clans, and these clans averaged about 10 families each. This is based upon the number of representatives which afterward formed the senate, and upon the number of soldiers furnished by the various families. The state became then an enlarged family, with a king at the head, whose prerogatives were somewhat limited by his position. There were also a popular assembly, consisting of all the freeholders of the state, and the senate, formed by the heads of all the most influential families, for the government of Rome. These ancient hereditary forms of government extended with various changes in the progress of Rome.
The Struggle for Liberty.—The members of the Roman senate were chosen from the noble families of Rome, and were elected for life, which made the senate of Rome a perpetual body. Having no legal declaration of legislative, judicial, executive, or administrative authority, it was, nevertheless, the most powerful body of its kind ever in existence. Representing the power of intellect, and having within its ranks men of the foremost character and ability of the city, this aristocracy overpowered and ruled the affairs of Rome until the close of the republic, and afterward became a service to the imperial government of the Caesars.
From a very early period in the history of the Roman nation the people struggled for their rights and privileges against this aristocracy of wealth and hereditary power. At the expulsion of the kings, in 500 B.C., the senate lived on, as did the old popular assembly of the people, the former gaining strength, the latter becoming weakened. Realizing what they had lost in political power, having lost their farms by borrowing money of the rich patricians, and suffered imprisonment and distress on that account, the plebeians, resolved to endure no longer, marched out upon the hill, Mons Sacer, and demanded redress by way of tribunes and other officers.
This was the beginning of an earnest struggle for 50 years {254} for mere protection, to be followed by a struggle of 150 years for equality of power and rights. The result of this was that a compromise was made with the senate, which allowed the people to have tribunes chosen from the plebeians, and a law was passed giving them the right of protection against the oppression of any official, and subsequently the right of intercession against any administrative or judicial act, except in the case when a dictator was appointed. This gave the plebeians some representation in the government of Rome. They worked at first for protection, and also for the privilege of intermarriage among the patricians. After this they began to struggle for equal rights and privileges.
A few years after the revolt in 486 B.C. Spurius Cassius brought forward the first agrarian law. The lands of the original Roman territory belonged at first to the great families, and were divided and subdivided among the various family groups. But a large part of the land obtained by conquest of the Italians became the public domain, the property of the entire people of Rome. It became necessary for these lands to be leased by the Roman patricians, and as these same Roman patricians were members of the senate, they became careless about collecting rent of themselves, and so the lands were occupied year after year, and, indeed, century after century, by the Roman families, who were led to claim them as their own without rental. Cassius proposed to divide a part of these lands among the needy plebeians and the Latins as well, and to lease the rest for the profit of the public treasury. The patricians fought against Cassius because he was to take away their lands, and the plebeians were discontented with him because he had favored the Latins. The result was that at the close of his office he was sentenced and executed for the mere attempt to do justice to humanity.
The tribunes of the people finally gained more power, and a resolution was introduced in the senate providing that a body of ten men should be selected to reduce the laws of the state to a written code. In 451 B.C. the ten men were chosen {255} from the patricians, who formed ten tables of laws, had them engraved on copper plates, and placed them where everybody could read them. The following year ten men were again appointed, three of whom were plebeians, who added two more tables; the whole body became known as the Laws of the Twelve Tables. It was a great step in advance when the laws of a community could be thus published. Soon after this the laws of Valerius and Horatius made the acts of the assembly of the tribunes of equal force with those of the assembly of the centuries, and established that every magistrate, including the dictator, was obliged in the future to allow appeals from his decision. They also recognized the inviolability of the tribunes of the people and of the aediles who represented them. But in order to circumvent the plebeians, two quaestors were appointed in charge of the military treasury.
Indeed, at every step forward which the people made for equality and justice, the senate, representing the aristocracy, passed laws to circumvent the plebeians. In 445 B.C. the tribune Canuleius introduced a law legalizing marriage between the patricians and plebeians. The children were to inherit the rank of their father. This tribune further attempted to pass a law allowing consuls to be chosen from the plebeians. To this a fierce opposition sprang up, and a compromise measure was adopted which allowed military tribunes to be elected from the plebeians, who had consular power. But again the senate sought to circumvent the plebeians, and created the new patrician office of censor, to take the census, make lists of citizens and taxes, appoint senators, prepare the publication of the budget, manage the state property, farm out the taxes, and superintend public buildings; also he might supervise the public morality.
With the year 587 B.C. came the invasion of the Gauls from the north and the famous battle of the Allia, in which the Romans suffered defeat and were forced to the right bank of the Tiber, leaving the city of Rome defenseless. Abandoned by the citizens, the city was taken, plundered, and burned by {256} the Gauls. Senators were slaughtered, though the capitol was not taken. Finally, surprised and overcome by a contingent of the Roman army, the enemy was forced to retire and the inhabitants again returned. But no sooner had they returned than the peaceful struggle of the plebeians against the patricians began again.
First, there were the poor, indebted plebeians, who sought the reform of the laws relating to debtor and creditor and desired a share in the public lands. Second, the whole body of the plebeians were engaged in an attempt to open the consulate to their ranks. In 367 B.C. the Licinian laws were passed, which gave relief to the debtors by deducting the interest already accrued from the principal, and allowing the rest to be paid in three annual instalments; and a second law forbade that any one should possess more than 500 jugera of the public lands. This was to prevent the wealthy patricians from holding lands in large tracts and keeping them from the plebeians. This law also abolished the military tribuneship and insisted that one at least of the two consuls should be chosen from the plebeians—giving a possibility of two. The patricians, in order to counteract undue influence in this respect, established the praetorship, the praetor having jurisdiction and vicegerence of the consuls during their absence.
There also sprang up about this time the new nobility (optimates), composed of the plebeians and patricians who had held office for a long time, and representing the aristocracy of the community. From this time on all the Roman citizens tended to go into two classes, the optimates and, exclusive of these, the great Roman populace. In the former all the wealth and power were combined; in the latter the poverty, wretchedness, and dependence. Various other changes in the constitution succeeded, until the great wars of the Samnites and those of the Carthaginians directed the attention of the people to foreign conquest. After the close of these great wars and the firm establishment of the universal power of Rome abroad, there sprang up a great civil war, induced largely by the disturbance {257} of the Gracchi, who sought to carry out the will of the people in regard to popular democracy and the division of the public lands.
Thus, step by step, the plebeians, by a peaceful civil struggle, had obtained the consulship, and, indeed, the right to all other civil offices. They had obtained a right to sit in the senate, had obtained the declaration of social equality, had settled the great land question; and yet the will of the people never prevailed. The great Roman senate, made up of the aristocracy of Rome, an aristocracy of both plebeians and patricians, ruled with unyielding sway, and the common people never obtained full possession of their rights and privileges. Civil strife continued; the gulf between the rich and the poor, the nobility and the proletariat representing a few rich political manipulators, on the one side, and the half-fed, half-mad populace, on the other, grew wider and wider, finally ending in civil war. In the midst of the strife the republic passed away, and only the coming of the imperial power of the Caesars perpetuated Roman institutions.
Rome Becomes a Dominant City.—In all of this struggle at home and abroad, foreign conquest led to the establishment of Rome as the central city. The constitution of Rome was the typical constitution for all provincial cities, and from this one centre all provinces were ruled. No example heretofore had existed of the centralization of government similar to this. The overlordship of the Persians was only for the purpose of collecting tribute; there was little attempt to carry abroad the Persian institutions or to amalgamate the conquered provinces in one great homogeneous nation.
The empire of Athens was but a temporary hegemony over tributary states. But the Roman government conquered and absorbed. Wherever went the Roman arms, there the Roman laws and the Roman government followed; there followed the Roman language, architecture, art, institutions, and civilization. Great highways passed from the Eternal City to all parts of the territory, binding together the separate elements of {258} national life, and levelling down the barriers between all nations. Every colony planted by Rome in the new provinces was a type of the old Roman life, and the provincial government everywhere became the type of this central city. Here was reached a state in the development of government which no nation had hitherto attained—the dominant city and the rule of a mighty empire from central authority.
The Development of Government.—The remarkable development of Rome in government from the old hereditary nobility, in which priest-kings ruled the people, to a military king who was leader, subsequently into a republic which stood the test for several centuries of a fierce struggle for the rights of the people, finally into an imperial government to last for 450 years, represents the growth of one of the most remarkable governments in the world's history. The fundamental idea in government was the ruling of an entire state from the central city, and out of this idea grew imperialism as a later development, vesting all authority in a single monarch. The governments of conquered provinces were gradually made over into the Roman system. The Roman municipal government was found in all the cities of the provinces, and the provincial government became an integral part of the Roman system. The provinces were under the supervision of imperial officers appointed by the emperor. Thus the tendency was to bind the whole government into one unified system, with its power and authority at Rome. So long as this central authority remained and had its full sway there was little danger of the decline of Roman power, but when disintegration began in the central government the whole structure was doomed.
One of the remarkable characteristics of the Roman government was a system of checks of one part by every other part. Thus, in the republic, the consuls were checked by the senate, the senate by the consular power, the various assemblies, such as the Curiata, Tributa, and Centuriata, each having its own particular powers, were checks upon each other and upon other departments of the government. The whole system of {259} magistrates was subject to the same checks or limits in authority. And while impeachment was not introduced, each officer, at the close of his term, was accountable for his actions while in office. But under imperialism the tendency was to break down the power of each separate form of government and to absorb it in the imperial power. Thus Augustus soon attributed to himself the power of the chief magistrates and obtained a dominating power in the senate until the functions of government were all centralized in the emperor. While this made a strong government, in many phases it was open to great dangers, and in due time it failed, as a result of the corruption that clustered around the despotism of a single ruler unchecked by constitutional power.
The Development of Law Is the Most Remarkable Phase of the Roman Civilization.—Perhaps the most lasting effect of the Roman civilization is observed in the contribution of law to the nations which arose at the time of the decline of the imperial sway. From the time of the posting of the Twelve Tables in a public place, where they could be read by all the citizens of Rome, there was a steady growth of the Roman law. The decrees of the senate, as well as the influence of judicial decisions, gradually developed a system of jurisprudence. There sprang up, also, interpreters of the law, who had much influence in shaping its course. Also, in the early period of the republic, the acts of the popular assemblies became laws. This was before the senate became the supreme lawmaking body of the state.
During the imperial period the emperor acted somewhat through the senate, but the latter body was more or less under his control, for he frequently dictated its actions. Having assumed the powers of a magistrate, he could issue an edict; as a judge he could give decrees and issue commands to his own officials, all of which tended to increase the body of Roman law. In the selection of jurists for the interpretation of the law the emperor also had great control over its character. The great accomplishment of the lawmaking methods of {260} the Romans was, in the first place, to allow laws to be made by popular assemblies and the senate, according to the needs of a developing social organization. This having once been established, the foundation of lawmaking was laid for all nations to follow. The Roman law soon passed into a complex system of jurisprudence which has formed a large element in the structure, principles, and practice of all modern legal systems. The character of the law in itself was superior and masterly, and its universality was accomplished through the universal rule of the empire.
The later emperors performed a great service to the world by collecting and codifying Roman laws. The Theodosian code (Theodosius II, 408-450 A.D.) was a very important one on account of the influence it exercised over the various Teutonic systems of law practised by the different barbarian tribes that came within the borders of the Roman Empire. The jurists who gave the law a great development had by the close of the fourth century placed on record all the principal legal acts of the empire. They had collected and edited all the sources of law and made extensive commentaries of great importance upon them, but it remained for Theodosius to arrange the digests of these jurists and to codify the later imperial decrees. But the Theodosian code went but a little way in the process of digesting the laws.
The Justinian code, however, gave a complete codification of the law in four distinct parts, known as (1) "the Pandects, or digest of the scientific law literature; (2) the Codex, or summary of imperial legislation; (3) the Institutes, a general review or text-book, founded upon the digest and code, an introductory restatement of the law; and (4) the Novels, or new imperial legislation issued after the codification, to fill the gaps and cure the inconsistencies discovered in the course of the work of codification and manifest in its published results."[1] Thus the whole body of the civil law was incorporated.
Here, then, is seen the progress of the Roman law from the {261} semireligious rules governing the patricians in the early patriarchal period, whose practice was generally a form of arbitration, to the formal writing of the Twelve Tables, the development of the great body of the law through interpretation, the decrees of magistrates, acts of legislative assemblies, and finally the codification of the laws under the later emperors. This accumulation of legal enactments and precedents formed the basis of legislation under the declining empire and in the new nationalities. It also occupied an important place in the curriculum of the university.
Influence of the Greek Life on Rome.—The principal influence of the Greeks on Roman civilization was found first in the early religion and its development in the Latin race at Rome. The religion of the Romans was polytheistic, but far different from that of the Greeks. The deification of nature was not so analytic, and their deities were not so human as those of the Greek religion. There was no poetry in the Roman religion; it all had a practical tendency. Their gods were for use, and, while they were honored and worshipped, they were clothed with few fancies. The Romans seldom speculated on the origin of the gods and very little as to their personal character, and failed to develop an independent theogony. They were behind the Greeks in their mental effort in this respect, and hence we find all the early religion was influenced by the ideas of the Latins, the Etruscans, and the Greeks, the last largely through the colonies which were established in Italy. Archaeology points conclusively to the fact of early Greek influence.
In later development the conquest of the Greeks brought to Rome the religion, art, paintings, and philosophy of the conquered. The Romans were shrewd and acute in the appreciation of all which they had found that was good in the Greeks. From the time of this contact there was a constant and continued adoption of Grecian models in Rome. The first Roman writers, Fabius Pictor and Quintus Ennius, both wrote in Greek. All the early Roman writers considered Greek the {262} finished style. The influence of the Greek language was felt at Rome on the first acquaintance of the Italians with it, through trade and commerce and through the introduction of Greek forms of religion.
The early influence of language was less than the influence of art. While the Phoenicians and Etruscans furnished some of the models, they were usually unproductive and barren types, and not to be compared with those furnished by Greece. The young Romans who devoted themselves to the state and its service were from the fifth century B.C. well versed in the Greek language. No education was considered complete in the latter days of the republic, and under the imperial power, until it had been finished at Athens or Alexandria. The effect on literature, particularly poetry and the drama, was great in the first period of Roman literature, and even Horace, the most original of all Latin poets, began his career by writing Greek verse, and no doubt his beautiful style was acquired by his ardent study of the Greek language. The plays of Plautus and Terence deal also with the products of Athens, and, indeed, every Roman comedy was to a certain extent a copy, either in form or spirit, of the Greek. In tragedy, the spirit of Euripides, the master, came into Rome.
The influence of the Greek philosophy was more marked than that of language. Its first contact with Rome was antagonistic. The philosophers and rhetoricians, because of the disturbance they created, were expelled from Rome in the second century. As early as 161 A.D. those who pursued the study of philosophy always read and disputed in Greek. Many Greek schools of philosophy of an elementary nature were established temporarily at Rome, while the large number of students of philosophy went to Athens, and those of rhetoric to Rhodes, for the completion of their education. The philosophy of Greece that came into Rome was something of a degenerate Epicureanism, fragments of a broken-down system, which created an unwholesome atmosphere.
The only science which Rome developed was that of {263} jurisprudence, and the scientific writings of the Greeks had comparatively little influence upon Roman culture. Mr. Duruy, in speaking of the influence of the Greeks on Rome, particularly in the days of its decline, says: "In conclusion, we find in certain sciences, for which Rome cared nothing, great splendor, but in art and poetry no mighty inspiration; in eloquence, vain chatter of words and images (the rhetoricians), habits but no faith; in philosophy, the materialism which came from the school of Aristotle, the doubt born of Plato, the atheism of Theodorus, the sensualism of Epicurus vainly combated by the moral protests of Zeno; and lastly, in the public life, the enfeeblement or the total loss of all of those virtues which make the man and the citizen; such were the Greeks at the time. And now we say, with Cato, Polybius, Livy, Pliny, Justinian, and Plutarch, that all this passed into the Eternal City. The conquest of Greece by Rome was followed by the conquest of Rome by Greece. Graecia capta ferum victorem cepit."
Latin Literature and Language.—The importance of the Latin language and literature in the later history of the Romans and throughout the Middle Ages is a matter of common knowledge. The language of the Latin tribes congregating at Rome finally predominated over all Italy and followed the Roman arms through all the provinces. It became to a great extent the language of the common people and subsequently the literary language of the empire. It became finally the great vehicle of thought in all civil and ecclesiastical proceedings in the Middle Ages and at the beginning of the modern era. As such it has performed a great service to the world. Cato wrote in Latin, and so did the annalists of the early period of Latin literature. Livy became a master of his own language, and Cicero presents the improved and elevated speech. The study of these masterpieces, full of thought and beauty of expression, has had a mighty influence in the education of the youth of modern times. It must be conceded, however, that in Rome the productions of the great masters were not as universally {264} known or as widely celebrated as one would suppose. But, like all great works of art, they have lived on to bear their influence through succeeding ages.
Development of Roman Art.—The elements of art and architecture were largely borrowed from the Greeks. We find, however, a distinctive style of architecture called Roman, which varies from that of the Greek, although the influence of Greek form is seen not only in the decorations but in the massive structure of the buildings. Without doubt, in architecture the Romans perfected the arch as their chief characteristic and contribution to art progress. But this in itself was a great step in advance and laid the foundation of a new style. As might be expected from the Romans, it became a great economic advantage in building. In artistic decoration they made but little advancement until the time of the Greek influence.
Decline of the Roman Empire.—The evolution of the Roman nation from a few federated tribes with archaic forms of government to a fully developed republic with a complex system of government, and the passage of the republic into an imperialism, magnificent and powerful in its sway, are subjects worthy of our most profound contemplation; and the gradual decline and decay of this great superstructure is a subject of great interest and wonder. In the contemplation of the progress of human civilization, it is indeed a mournful subject. It seems to be the common lot of man to build and destroy in order to build again. But the Roman government declined on account of causes which were apparent to every one. It was an impossibility to build up such a great system without its accompanying evils, and it was impossible for such a system to remain when such glaring evils were allowed to continue.
If it should be asked what caused the decline of this great civilization, it may be said that the causes were many. In the first place, the laws of labor were despised and capital was consumed without any adequate return. There was consequently nothing left of an economic nature to withstand the rude {265} shocks of pestilence and war. The few home industries, when Rome ceased to obtain support from the plunder of war, were not sufficient to supply the needs of a great nation. The industrial condition of Rome had become deplorable. In all the large cities there were a few wealthy and luxurious families, a small number of foreigners and freedmen who were superintending a large number of slaves, and a large number of free citizens who were too proud to work and yet willing to be fed by the government. The industrial conditions of the rural districts and small cities were no better.
There were a few non-residents who cultivated the soil by means of slaves, or by coloni, or serfs who were bound to the soil. These classes were recruited from the conquered provinces. Farming had fallen into disrepute. The small farmers, through the introduction of slavery, were crowded from their holdings and were compelled to join the great unfed populace of the city. Taxation fell heavily and unjustly upon the people. The method of raising taxes by farming them out was a pernicious system that led to gross abuse. All enterprise and all investments were discouraged. There was no inducement for men to enter business, as labor had been dishonored and industry crippled. The great body of Roman people were divided into two classes, those who formed the lower classes of laborers and those who had concentrated the wealth of the country in their own hands and held the power of the nation in their own control. The mainstay of the nation had fallen with the disappearance of the sterling middle class. The lower classes were reduced to a mob by the unjust and unsympathetic treatment received at the hands of the governing class.
In the civil administration there was a division of citizens into two classes: those who had influence in the local affairs of their towns or neighborhood, and those who were simply interested in the central organization. During the days of the republic these people were closely related, because all citizens were forced to come to Rome in order to have a voice in the political interests of the government. But during the empire {266} there came about a change, and the citizens of a distant province were interested only in the management of their own local affairs and lost their interest in the general government, so that when the central government weakened there was a tendency for the local interests to destroy the central.
After the close of Constantine's reign very great evils threatened the Roman administration. First of these was the barbarians; second, the populace; and third, the soldiers. The barbarians continually made inroads upon the territory, broke down the governmental system, and established their own, not so much for the sake of destruction and plunder, as is usually supposed, but to seek the betterment of their condition as immigrants into a new territory. That they were in some instances detrimental to the Roman institutions is true, but in others they gave new life to the declining empire. The populace was a rude, clamorous mass of people, seeking to satisfy their hunger in the easiest possible way. These were fed by the politicians for the sake of their influence. The soldiery of Rome had changed. Formerly made up of patriots who marched out to defend their own country or to conquer surrounding provinces in the name of the Eternal City, the ranks were filled with mercenary soldiers taken from the barbarians, who had little interest in the perpetuation of the Roman institutions. They had finally obtained so much power that they set up an emperor, or dethroned him, at their will.
And finally it may be said that of all these internal maladies and external dangers, the decline in moral worth of the Roman nation is the most appalling. Influenced by a broken-down philosophy, degenerated in morals, corrupt in family and social life, the whole system decayed, and could not withstand the shock of external influence.
Summary of Roman Civilization.—The Roman contribution, then, to civilization is largely embraced in the development of a system of government with forms and functions which have been perpetuated to this day; the development of a system of law which has found its place in all modern legal {267} codes; a beautiful and rich language and literature; a few elements of art and architecture; the development of agriculture on a systematic basis; the tendency to unify separate races in one national life; the practice of the art of war on a humane basis, and the development of the municipal system of government which has had its influence on every town of modern life. These are among the chief contributions of the Roman system to the progress of humanity.
While it is common to talk of the fall of the Roman Empire, Rome is greater to-day in the perpetuity of her institutions than during the glorious days of the republic or of the magnificent rule of the Caesars. Rome also left a questionable inheritance to the posterity of nations. The idea of imperialism revived in the empire of Charlemagne, and later in the Holy Roman Empire, and, cropping out again and again in the monarchies of new nations, has not become extinct to this day. The recent World War gave a great shock to the idea of czarism. The imperial crowns of the Hohenzollerns, the Hapsburgs, the Romanoffs, and the royal crowns of minor nations fell from the heads of great rulers, because the Emperor of Germany overworked the idea of czarism after the type of imperial Rome. But the idea is not dead. In shattered Europe, the authority and infallibility of the state divorced from the participation of the people, though put in question, is yet a smouldering power to be reckoned with. It is difficult to erase Rome's impress upon the world.
1. How were the Greeks and Romans related racially?
2. Difference between the Greek and the Roman attitude toward life.
3. What were the land reforms of the Gracchi?
4. What advancement did the Romans make in architecture?
5. What were the internal causes of the decline of Rome?
6. Why did the Celts and the Germans invade Rome?
7. Enumerate the permanent contributions of Rome to subsequent civilization.
[1] Hadley, Introduction to Roman Law.
Important Factors in the Foundation of Western Civilization.—When the European world entered the period of the Middle Ages, there were a few factors more important than others that influenced civilization.[1] (1) The Oriental cultures, not inspiring as a whole, left by-products from Mesopotamia, Palestine, and Egypt. These were widely spread through the influence of world wars and world empires. (2) The Greek cultures in the form of art, architecture, philosophy, and literature, and newer forms of political and social organization were widely diffused. (3) The Romans had established agriculture, universal centralized government and citizenship, and developed a magnificent body of law; moreover, they had formed a standing army which was used in the support of monarchy, added some new features to architecture and industrial structures, and developed the Latin language, which was to be the carrier of thought for many centuries. (4) The Christian religion with a new philosophy of life was to penetrate and modify all society, all thought, government, law, art, and, in fact, all phases of human conduct. (5) The barbarian invasion carried with it the Teutonic idea of individual liberty and established a new practice of human relationships. It was vigor of life against tradition and convention. With these contributions, the European world was to start out with the venture of mediaeval civilization, after the decline of the Roman Empire.
The Social Contacts of the Christian Religion.—Of the factors enumerated above, none was more powerful than the teaching of the Christians. For it came in direct contrast and opposition to established opinions and old systems. It was also constructive, for it furnished a definite plan of social order different from all existing ones, which it opposed. The {269} religions of the Orient centred society around the temple. Among all the Semitic races, Babylonian, Assyrian, and Hebrew, temple worship was an expression of religious and national unity. National gods, national worship, and a priesthood were the rule. Egypt was similar in many respects, and the Greeks used the temple worship in a limited degree, though no less real in its influences.
The Romans, though they had national gods, yet during the empire had liberalized the right of nations to worship whom they pleased, provided nothing was done to militate against the Roman government, which was committed to the worship of certain gods, in which the worship of the emperor became a more or less distinctive feature. The Christian teaching recognized no national gods, no national religion, but a world god who was a father of all men. Furthermore, it recognized that all men, of whatsoever race and country, were brethren. So this doctrine of love crossed boundaries of all nations and races, penetrated systems of religion and philosophy, and established the idea of international and universal brotherhood.
Social Conditions at the Beginning of the Christian Era.—The philosophy of the Greeks and Romans had reached a state of degeneracy at the time of the coming of Christ. Thought had become weak and illogical. Trusting to the influence of the senses, which were at first believed to be infallible, scepticism of the worst nature influenced all classes of the people. Epicureanism, not very bad in the beginning, had come to a stage of decrepitude. To seek immediate pleasure regardless of consequences was far different from avoiding extravagance and intemperance, in order to make a higher happiness. Licentiousness, debauchery, the demoralized condition of the home and family ties, made all society corrupt. Stoicism had been taken up by the Romans; it agreed with their nature, and, coupled with Epicureanism, led to the extinction of faith. There was no clear vision of life; no hope, no high and worthy aspirations, no inspiration for a noble life.
{270}The character of worship of the Romans of their various gods led to a non-religious attitude of mind. Religion, like everything else, had become a commercial matter, to be used temporarily for the benefit of all parties who indulged. While each separate nationality had its own shrine in the temple, and while the emperor was deified, all worship was carried on in a selfish manner. There was no reverence, no devout attitude of worship, and consequently no real benefit derived from the religious life. The Roman merchant went to the temple to offer petitions for the safety of his ship on the seas, laden with merchandise. After its safe entrance, the affair troubled him no more; his religious emotion was satisfied. Moral degeneration could be the only outcome of following a broken-down philosophy and an empty religion. Men had no faith in one another, and consequently felt no obligation to moral actions. Dishonesty in all business transactions was the rule. Injustice in the administration of the law was worked by the influence of factions and cliques. The Roman world was politically corrupt. Men were struggling for office regardless of the effect of their methods on the social welfare. The marriage relation became indefinite and unholy. The home life lost its hallowed influence as a support to general, social, and political life.
The result of a superficial religion, an empty philosophy, and a low grade of morality, was to drive men to scepticism, to a doubt in all things, or to a stoic indifference to all things, or perhaps in a minority of cases to a search for light. To nearly all there was nothing in the world to give permanent satisfaction to the sensual nature, or nothing to call out the higher qualities of the soul. Men turned with loathing from their own revels and immoral practices and recognized nothing worthy of their thoughts in life. Those who held to a moral plane at all found no inspiration in living, had no enthusiasm for anything or any person. It were as well that man did not exist; that there was no earth, no starry firmament, no heaven, no hell, no present, no future. The few who sought for the {271} light did so from their inner consciousness or through reflection. Desiring a better life, they advocated higher aspirations of the soul and an elevated, moral life, and sought consolation in the wisdom of the sages. Their life bordered on the monastic.
The Contact of Christianity with Social Life.—The most striking contrast to be observed in comparing the state of the world with Christianity is the novelty of its teachings. No doctrine like the fatherhood of God had hitherto been taught in the European world. Plato reached, in his philosophy, a conception of a universal creator and father of all, but his doctrine was influenced by dualism. There was no conception of the fatherly care which Christians supposed God to exercise over all of his creatures. It also taught the brotherhood of man, that all people of every nation are brethren, with a common father, a doctrine that had never been forcibly advanced before. The Jehovah of the Jews watched over their especial affairs and was considered in no sense the God of the Gentiles. For how could Jehovah favor Jews and also their enemies at the same time? So, too, for the Greek and the barbarian, the Roman and the Teuton, the jurisdiction of deities was limited by national boundaries, or, in case of family worship, by the tribe, for the household god belonged only to a limited number of worshippers. A common brotherhood of all men on a basis of religious equality of right and privilege was decidedly new.
Christianity taught of the nature and punishment of sin. This, too, was unknown to the degenerate days of the Roman life. To sin against the Creator and Father was new in their conception, and to consider such as worthy of punishment was also beyond their philosophy. Christianity clearly pointed out what sin is, and asserted boldly that there is a just retribution to all lawbreakers. It taught of righteousness and justice, and that acts were to be performed because they were right. Individuals were to be treated justly by their fellows, regardless of birth or position. And finally, making marriage a {272} divine institution, Christianity introduced a pure moral code in the home.
While a few philosophers, following after Plato, conjectured respecting the immortality of the soul, Christianity was the first religious system to teach eternal life as a fundamental doctrine. Coupled with this was the doctrine of the future judgment, at which man should give an account of his actions on this side of the grave. This was a new doctrine to the people of the world.
The Christians introduced a new phase of social life by making their practice agree with their profession. It had been the fault of the moral sentiments of the ancient sages that they were never carried out in practice. Many fine precepts respecting right conduct had been uttered, but these were not realized by the great mass of humanity, and were put in practice by very few people. They had seldom been vitalized by humanizing use. Hence Christianity appeared in strong relief in the presence of the artificial system with which it came in contact. It had a faith and genuineness which were vigorous and refreshing.
The Christians practised true benevolence, which was a great point in these latter days of selfishness and indifference. They systematically looked after their own poor and cared for the stranger at the gates. Later the church built hospitals and refuges and prepared for the care of all the oppressed. Thousands who were careworn, oppressed, or disgusted with the ways of the world turned instinctively to Christianity for relief, and were not disappointed. The Greeks and the Romans had never practised systematic charity until taught by the Christians. The Romans gave away large sums for political reasons, to appease the populace, but with no spirit of charity.
But one of the most important of the teachings of the early church was to dignify labor. There was a new dignity lent to service. Prior to the dominion of the church, labor had become degrading, for slavery had supplanted free labor to such an extent that all labor appeared dishonorable. Another {273} potent cause of the demoralization of labor was the entrance of a large amount of products from the conquered nations. The introduction of these supplies, won by conquest, paralyzed home industries and developed a spirit of pauperism. The actions of the nobility intensified the evils. They spent their time in politics, and purchased the favor of the populace for the right of manipulating the wealth and power of the community. The Christians taught that labor was honorable, and they labored with their own hands, built monasteries, developed agriculture, and in many other ways taught that it is noble to labor.
Christianity Influenced the Legislation of the Times.—At first Christians were a weak and despised group of individuals. Later they obtained sufficient force to become partners with the empire and in a measure dictate some of the laws of the community. The most significant of these were to abolish the inhuman treatment of criminals, who were considered not so well as the beasts of the field. Organized Christianity secured human treatment of prisoners while they were in confinement, and the abolition of punishment by crucifixion. Gladiatorial shows were suppressed, and laws permitting the freer manumission of slaves were passed. The exposure of children, common to both Greeks and Romans, was finally forbidden by law. The laws of marriage were modified so that the sanctity of the home was secured; and, finally, a law was passed securing Sunday as a day of rest to be observed by the whole nation. This all came about gradually as the church came into power. This early influence of the Christian religion on the legislation of the Roman government presaged a time when, in the decline of the empire, the church would exercise the greatest power of any organization, political or religious, in western Europe.
Christians Come Into Conflict with Civil Authority.—It was impossible that a movement so antagonistic to the usual condition of affairs as Christianity should not come into conflict with the civil authority. Its insignificant beginning, although {274} it excited the hatred and the contempt of the jealous and the discontented, gave no promise of a formidable power sufficient to contend with the imperial authority. But as it gained power it excited the alarm of rulers, as they beheld it opposing cherished institutions. Nearly all of the persecutions came about through the attitude of the church toward the temporal rulers. The Roman religion was a part of the civil system, and he who would not subscribe to it was in opposition to the state.
The Christians would not worship the emperor, nor indeed would they, in common with other nations, set up an image or shrine in the temple at Rome and worship according to the privilege granted. They recognized One higher in power than the emperor. The Romans in their practical view of life could not discriminate between spiritual and temporal affairs, and a recognition of a higher spiritual being as giving authority was in their sight the acknowledgment of allegiance to a foreign power. The fact that the Christians met in secret excited the suspicions of many, and it became customary to accuse them on account of any mishap or evil that came upon the people. Thus it happened at the burning of Rome that the Christians were accused of setting it on fire, and many suffered persecution on account of these suspicions.
Christians also despised civic virtues, or made light of their importance. In this they were greatly mistaken in their practical service, for they could have wielded more power had they given more attention to civic life. Like many good people of modern times, they observed the corruption of government, and held themselves aloof from it rather than to enter in and attempt to make it better. The result of this indifference of the Christians was to make the Romans believe that they were antagonistic to the best interests of the community.
The persecution of the Christians continued at intervals with greater or less intensity for more than two centuries; the Christians were early persecuted by the Jews, later by the Romans. In the first century they were persecuted under Nero and Domitian, through personal spite or selfish interests. After {275} this their persecution was political; there was a desire to suppress a religion that was held to be contrary to law. The persecution under Hadrian arose on account of the supposition that the Christians were the cause of plagues and troubles on account of their impiety. Among later emperors it became customary to attribute to them any unusual occurrence or strange phenomenon which was destructive of life or property.
Organized Christianity grew so strong that it came in direct contact with the empire, and the latter had need of real apprehension, for the conflict brought about by the divergence of belief suddenly precipitated a great struggle within the empire. The strong and growing power of the Christians was observed everywhere. It was no insignificant opponent, and it attacked the imperial system at all points.
Finally Constantine, who was a wise ruler as well as an astute politician, saw that it would be good policy to recognize the church as an important body in the empire and to turn this growing social force to his own account. From this time on the church may be said to have become a part of the imperial system, which greatly influenced its subsequent history. While in a measure it brought an element of strength into the social and political world, it rapidly undermined the system of government, and was a potent force in the decline of the empire by rendering obsolete many phases of the Roman government.
The Wealth of the Church Accumulates.—As Rome declined and new governments arose, the church grew rapidly in the accumulation of wealth, particularly in church edifices and lands. It is always a sign of growing power when large ownership of property is obtained. The favors of Constantine, the gifts of Pepin and Charlemagne, and the large number of private gifts of property brought the church into the Middle Ages with large feudal possessions. This gave it prestige and power, which it could not otherwise have held, and hastened the development of a system of government which was powerful in many ways.
{276}Development of the Hierarchy.—The clergy finally assumed powers of control of the church separate from the laity. Consequently there was a gradual decline in the power of lay members to have a voice in the affairs of the church. While the early church appeared as a simple democratic association, the organization had developed into a formal system or hierarchy, which extended from pope to simple lay members. The power of control falling into the hands of high officials, there soon became a distinction between the ordinary membership and the machinery of government. Moreover, the clergy were exempt from taxation and any control or discipline similar to that imposed on ordinary lay members.
These conditions soon led to the exercise of undue authority of the hierarchy over the lay membership. This dominating principle became dogmatic, until the members of the church became slaves to an arbitrary government. The only saving quality in this was the fact that the members of the clergy were chosen from the laity, which kept up the connection between the higher and lower members of the church. The separation of the governors from the governed proceeded slowly but surely until the higher officers were appointed from the central authority of the church, and all, even to the clergy, were directly under the imperial control of the papacy. Moreover, the clergy assumed legal powers and attempted to regulate the conduct of the laymen. There finally grew up a great body of canon law, according to which the clergy ruled the entire church and, to a certain extent, civil life.
But the church, under the canon law, must add a penalty to its enforcement and must assume the punishment of offenders within its own jurisdiction. This led to the assumption that all crime is sin, and as its particular function was to punish sin, the church claimed jurisdiction over all sinners and the right to apprehend and sentence criminals; but the actual punishment of the more grievous offenses was usually given over to the civil authority.
{277}Attempt to Dominate the Temporal Powers.—Having developed a strong hierarchy which completely dominated the laity, from which it had separated, having amassed wealth and gained power, and having invaded the temporal power in the apprehension and punishment of crime, the church was prepared to go a step farther and set its authority above kings and princes in the management of all temporal affairs. In this it almost succeeded, for its power of excommunication was so great as to make the civil authorities tremble and bow down before it. The struggle of church and empire in the Middle Ages, and, indeed, into the so-called modern era, represents one of the important phases of history. The idea of a world empire had long dominated the minds of the people, who looked to the Roman imperialism as the final solution of all government. But as this gradually declined and was replaced by the Christian church, the idea of a world religion finally became prevalent. Hence the ideas of a world religion and a world empire were joined in the Holy Roman Empire, begun by Charlemagne and established by Otto the Great. In this combination the church assumed first place as representing the eternal God, as the head of all things temporal and spiritual.
In this respect the church easily overreached itself in the employment of force to carry out its plans. Assuming to control by love, it had entered the lists to contend with force and intrigue, and it became subject to all forms of degradation arising from political corruption. In this respect its high object became degraded to the mere attempt to dominate. The greed for power and force was very great, and this again and again led the church into error and lessened its influence in the actual regeneration of man and society.
Dogmatism.—The progress of the imperial power of the church finally settled into the condition of absolute authority over the thoughts and minds of the people. The church assumed to be absolutely correct in its theory of authority, and assumed to be infallible in regard to matters of right and wrong. It went farther, and prescribed what men should {278} believe, and insisted that they should accept that dictum without question, on the authority of the church. This monopoly of religious belief assumed by the church had a tendency to stifle free inquiry and to retard progress. It more than once led to irregularities of practice on the part of the church in order to maintain its position, and on the part of the members to avoid the harsh treatment of the church. Religious progress, except in government-building, was not rapid, spirituality declined, and the fervent zeal for the right and for justice passed into fanaticism for purity.
This caused the church to fail to utilize the means of progress. It might have advanced its own interest more rapidly by encouraging free inquiry and developing a struggle for the truth. By exercising liberality it could have ingratiated itself into the government of all nations as a helpful adviser, and thus have conserved morality and justice; but by its illiberality it retarded the progress of the mind and the development of spirituality. While it lowered the conception of religion, on the one hand, it lowered the estimate of knowledge, on the other, and in all suppressed truth through dogmatic belief. This course not only affected the character and quality of the clergy, and created discontent in the laymen, but finally lessened respect for the church, and consequently for the gospel, in the minds of men.
The Church Becomes the Conservator of Knowledge.—Very early in the days of the decline of the Roman Empire, when the inroads of the barbarian had destroyed reverence for knowledge, and, indeed, when within the tottering empire all philosophy and learning had fallen into contempt, the church possessed the learning of the times. Through its monasteries and its schools all the learning of the period was found. It sought in a measure to preserve, by copying, the manuscripts of many of the ancient and those of later times. Thus the church preserved the knowledge which otherwise must have passed away through Roman degeneration and barbarian influences.
{279}Service of Christianity.[2]—The service of Christianity to European civilization consists chiefly in: (1) the respect paid to woman; (2) the establishment of the home and the enthronement of the home relation; (3) the advancement of the idea of humanity; (4) the development of morality; (5) the conservation of spiritual power; (6) the conservation of knowledge during the Dark Ages; (7) the development of faith; (8) the introduction of a new social order founded on brotherhood, which manifested itself in many ways in the development of community life.
If the church fell into evil habits it was on account of the conditions under which it existed. Its struggle with Oriental despotism, as well as with Oriental mysticism, a degenerate philosophy, corrupt social and political conditions, could not leave it unscathed. If evil at times, it was better than the temporal government. If its rulers were dogmatic, arbitrary, and inconsistent, they were better, nevertheless, than the ruling temporal princes. The church represented the only light there was in the Dark Ages. It was far superior in morality and justice to all other institutions. If it assumed too much power it must be remembered that it came naturally to this assumption by attending specifically to its apparent duty in exercising the power that the civil authority failed to exercise. The development of faith in itself is a great factor in civilization. It must not be ignored, although it is in great danger of passing into dogmatism. A world burdened with dogmatism is a dead world; a world without faith is a corrupt world leading on to death.
The Christian religion taught the value of the individual, but also taught of the Kingdom of God, which involved a community spirit—the universal citizenship of the Romans prepared the way, and the individual liberty of the Germans strengthened it. Whenever the church adhered to the teachings of the four gospels, it made for liberty of thought, freedom of life, progress in knowledge and in the arts of right living. {280} Whenever it ceased to follow these and put institutionalism first, it retarded progress, in learning, science, and philosophy, and likewise in justice and righteousness.
To the church organization as an institution are due the preservation, perpetuation, and propagation of the teachings of Jesus, which otherwise might have been lost or passed into legend. All the way through the development of the Christian doctrine in Europe, under the direction of the church there are two conflicting forces—the rule by dogma and the freedom of individual belief. The former comes from the Greeks and Latins, the latter from the Nordic idea of personal liberty. Both have been essential to the development of the Christian religion and the political life alike. The dominant force in the religious dogma of the church was necessary to a people untutored in spiritual development. Its error was to insist that the individual had no right to personal belief. Yet the former established rules of faith and prevented the dissipation of the treasured teachings of Jesus.
1. In what ways was the Christian religion antagonistic to other religions?
2. What new elements did it add to human progress?
3. How did the fall of Rome contribute to the power of the church?
4. What particular service did the church contribute to social order during the decline of the Roman Empire?
5. How did the church conserve learning and at the same time suppress freedom of thought?
6. How do you discriminate between Christianity as a religious culture and the church as an institution?
[1] Adams, Civilization During the Middle Ages.
[2] Adams, Civilization During the Middle Ages, chap. I.
The Coming of the Barbarians.—The picture usually presented by the historical story-tellers of the barbarian hordes that invaded the Roman Empire is that of bold pirates, plunderers of civilization, and destroyers of property. No doubt, as compared with the Roman system of warfare and plunder, their conduct was somewhat irregular. They were wandering groups or tribes, who lived rudely, seeking new territory for exploitation after the manner of their lives. They were largely a pastoral people with cattle as the chief source of industry with intermittent agriculture. Doubtless, they were attracted by the splendor of Rome, its wealth and its luxury, but primarily they were seeking a chance to live. It was the old luring food quest, which is the foundation of most migrations, that was the impelling force of their invasion. In accordance with their methods of life, the northern territory was over-crowded, and tribe pressed upon tribe in the struggle for existence. Moreover, the pressure of the Asiatic populations drove one tribe upon another and forced those of northern Europe south and east.
All of the invaders, except the Huns who settled in Pannonia, were of the Aryan branch of the Caucasian race. They were nearly all of the Nordic branch of the Aryan stock and were similar in racial characteristics and social life to the Greeks, who conquered the ancient Aegean races of Greece, and to those others who conquered the primitive inhabitants of Italy prior to the founding of the Roman nation. The Celts were of Aryan stock but not of Nordic race. They appeared at an early time along the Danube, moved westward into France, Spain, and Britain, and took side excursions into Italy, the most notable of which was the invasion of Rome {282} 390 B.C. Wherever the Nordic people have gone, they have brought vigor of life and achieved much after they had acquired the tools of civilization. If they were pirates of property, they also were appropriators of the civilization of other nations, into which they projected the vigor of their own life.
Importance of Teutonic Influence.—Various estimates have been made as to the actual influence of the Teutonic races in shaping the civilization of western Europe. Mr. Guizot insists that this influence is entirely overestimated, and also, to a certain extent, misrepresented: that much has been done in their name which does not rightfully belong to them. He freely admits that the idea of law came from the Romans, morality from the Christian church, and the principle of liberty from the Germans. Yet he fails to emphasize the result of the union of liberty with the law, with morality, and with the church. It is just this leaven of liberty introduced into the various elements of civilization that gave it a new life and brought about progress, the primary element of civilization.
France, in the early period of European history, had an immense prestige in the advancement of civilization. There was a large population in a compact territory, with a closely organized government, both civil and ecclesiastical, and a large use of the Roman products of language, government, law, and other institutions. Consequently, France took the lead in progress, and Mr. Guizot is quite right in assuming that every element of progress passed through France to give it form, before it became recognized. Yet, in the later development of political liberty, law, and education, the Teutonic element becomes more prominent, until it would seem that the native and acquired qualities of the Teutonic life have the stronger representation in modern civilization. In stating this, due acknowledgment must be made to the Roman influence through law and government. But the spirit of progress is Teutonic, although the form, in many instances, may be Roman. It must be observed, too, that the foundation of local government in Germany, England, and the United States was of Teutonic {283} origin; that the road from imperialism to democracy is lined with Teutonic institutions and lighted with Teutonic liberty, and that the whole system of individual rights and popular government has been influenced by the attitude of the Teutonic spirit toward government and law.
Teutonic Liberty.—All writers recognize that the Germanic tribes contributed the quality of personal liberty to the civilization of the West. The Roman writers, in setting forth their own institutions, have left a fair record of the customs and habits of the so-called barbarians. Titus said of them: "Their bodies are, indeed, great, but their souls are greater." Caesar had a remarkable method of eulogizing his own generalship by praising the valor and strength of the vanquished foes. "Liberty," wrote Lucanus, "is the German's birthright." And Florus, speaking of liberty, said: "It is a privilege which nature has granted to the Germans, and which the Greeks, with all of their arts, knew not how to obtain." At a later period Montesquieu was led to exclaim: "Liberty, that lovely thing, was discovered in the wild forests of Germany." While Hume, viewing the results of this discovery, said: "If our part of the world maintains sentiments of liberty, honor, equity, and valor superior to the rest of mankind, it owes these advantages to the seeds implanted by the generous barbarians."
More forcible than all these expressions of sentiment are the results of the study of modern historians of the laws and customs of the early Teutons, and the tracing of these laws in the later civilization. This shows facts of the vitalizing process of the Teutonic element. The various nations to-day which speak the Teutonic languages, of which the English is the most important, are carrying the burden of civilization. These, rather than those overcome by a preponderance of Roman influences, are forwarding the progress of the world.
Tribal Life.—Referring to the period of Germanic history prior to the influence of the Romans on the customs, laws, and institutions of the people, which transformed them from {284} wandering tribes into settled nationalities, it is easy to observe, even at this time, the Teutonic character. The tribes had come in contact with Roman civilization, and many of them were already being influenced by the contact. Their social life and habits were becoming somewhat fixed, and the elements of feudalism were already prominent as the foundation of the great institution of the Middle Ages. This period also embraces the time when the tribes were about to take on the influence of the Christian religion, and when there was a constant mingling of the Christian spirit with the spirit of heathenism. In fact, the subject should cover all that is known of the Germanic tribes prior to the Roman contact and after it, down to the full entrance of the Middle Ages and the rise of new nationalities. In this period we shall miss the full interest of the society of the Middle Ages after the feudal system had transformed Europe or, rather, after Europe had entered into a great period of transformation from the indefinite, broken-down tribal life into the new life of modern nations.
Tribal society has its limitations and types distinctive from every other. The very name "tribe" suggests to us something different from the conditions of a modern nation. Caesar and Tacitus were accustomed to speak of the Germanic tribes as nationes, although with no such fulness of meaning as we attach to our modern nations. The Germanic, like the Grecian, tribe is founded upon two cardinal principles, and is a natural and not an artificial assemblage of people. These two principles are religion and kinship, or consanguinity. In addition to this there is a growth of the tribe by adoption, largely through the means of matrimony and the desire for protection.
These principles in the formation of the tribe are universal with the Aryan people, and, probably, with all other races. There is a clustering of the relatives around the eldest parent, who becomes the natural leader of the tribe and who has great power over the members of the expanded family. There is no state, there are no citizens, consequently the social life must be far different from that which we are accustomed to see. At {285} the time of our first knowledge of the Germans, the family had departed a step from the conditions which bound the old families of Greece and Rome into such compact and firmly organized bodies. There was a tendency toward individualism, freedom, and the private ownership of land. All of these points, and more, must be taken into consideration, as we take a brief survey of the characteristics of the early Teutonic society. What has been said in reference to the tribe, points at once to the fact that there must have been different ranks of society, according to the manner in which a person became a member of the tribe.
Classes of Society.—The classes of people were the freemen of noble blood, or the nobility, the common freemen, the freedmen, or half-free, and the slaves.
The class of the nobility was based largely upon ancient lineage, some of whom could trace their ancestry to such a distance that they made tenable the claim that they were descended from the gods. The position of a noble was so important in the community that he found no difficulty in making good his claim to pure blood and a title of reverence, but this in no way gave him any especial political privilege. It assured a consideration which put him in the way of winning offices of preferment by his wealth and influence, but he must submit to the decision of the people for his power rather than depend upon the virtues of his ancestry. This is why, in a later period, the formation of the new kingship left out the idea of nobility and placed the right of government upon personal service. The second class represented the rank and file of the German freemen, the long-haired and free-necked men, who had never felt the yoke of bondage. Those were the churls of society, but upon them fell the burden of service and the power of leadership. Out of this rank came the honest yeomen of England.
The third class represented those who held lands of the freemen as serfs, and in the later period of feudal society they became attached to the soil and were bought with the land and {286} sold with the land, though not slaves in the common acceptation of the term. The fourth class were those who were reduced to the personal service of others. They were either captives taken in war or those who had lost their freedom by gambling. This body was not large in the early society, although it tended to increase as society developed.
It will be seen at once that in the primitive life of a people like the one we are studying, there is a mingling of the political, religious, and social elements of society. There are no careful lines of distinction to be drawn as in present society, and more than this—there was a tendency to consolidate and simplify all of the forms of political and social life. There was a simplicity of forms and a lack of conventional usage, with a complexity of functions.
The Home and the Home Life.—The family of the Germans, like the family of all other Aryan races, was the social, political, and religious unit of the larger organization. As compared with the Oriental nations, the family was monogamic and noted for purity and virtue. Add to this the idea of reverence for women that characterized the early German people, and we may infer that the home life, though of a somewhat rude nature, was genuine, and that the home circle was not without a salutary influence in those times of wandering and war. The mother, as we may well surmise, was the ruler of the home, had the care of the household, deliberated with the husband in the affairs of the tribe, and even took her place by his side in the field of battle when it seemed necessary. In truth, if we may believe the chroniclers, woman was supposed to be the equal of man.
But returning to the tribal life, we find that the houses were of the rudest kind, made of undressed lumber or logs, with a hole in the roof for the smoke to pass out, with but one door and sometimes no window. There were no cities among the Germans until they were taught by contact with Rome to build them. The villages were, as a rule, an irregular collection of houses, more or less scattered, as is customary where land is {287} plentiful and of no particular value. There were no regularly laid out streets, the villagers being a group of kinsmen of the same tribe, grouped together for convenience. Around the village was constructed a ditch and a hedge as a rampart for protection. This was called a "tun" (German Zoun), from which word we derive our name "town." The house generally had but one room, which was used for all purposes.
There was another class of houses, belonging to the nobility and the chiefs, called halls. They consisted of one long room, which sometimes had transepts or alcoves for the women, partitioned off by curtains from the main hall. This large room was the place where the lord and his companions were accustomed to sit at the great feasts after their return from a successful expedition. This is the "beer hall" that we read so much about in song, epic, and legend. Here the beer and the mead were passed; here arose the songs and the mirth of the warriors. On the walls of the hall might be seen the rude arms of the warrior, the shield and the spear, or decorations composed of the heads and the skins of wild beasts—all of which bring us to the early type of the hall of the great baron of the feudal age.
Until the age of chivalry, women were not present at these rude feasts. The religious life of the early Germans was tribal rather than personal or of the simple family. There were certain times at which members of the same tribe were wont to assemble and sacrifice to the gods. There was a common meeting-place from year to year. As it has been related, this had a tendency to cement the tribe together and enhance political unity. This custom must have had its influence on social order and must have, in a measure, arrested the tendency of the people to an unsocial and selfish life.
Political Assemblies.—The political assemblies, where all of the freemen met to discuss the affairs of the community, must have been powerful factors in the establishment of social customs and usage. The kinsmen or fellow tribesmen were grouped in villages, and each village maintained its privilege {288} of self-government, and consequently the freemen met in the village assembly to consider the affairs of the community. We find combined in the political representation the ideas of tribal unity and individuality, or at least family independence. As the tribes federated, there was a tendency to make the assemblies more general, and thus the family exclusiveness tended to give way in favor of the development of the individual as a member of the tribal state. It was a slow transition from an ethnic to a democratic type of society.
This association created a feeling of common interest akin to patriotism. Mr. Freeman has given us a graphic representation of the survival of the early assembly in the Swiss cantons.[1] In the forest cantons the freemen met in the open field on stated occasions to enact the laws and transact the duties of legislators and judges. But although there was a tendency to sectional and clannish relations in society, this became much improved by the communal associations for political and economic life. But society, as such, could not advance very far when the larger part of the occupation of the freemen was that of war. The youth were educated in the field, and the warriors spent much of their time fighting with neighboring tribes.
The entire social structure, resting as it did upon kinship, found its changes in developing economic, political, and religious life. Especially is this seen in the pursuit of the common industries. As soon as the tribes obtained permanent seats and had given themselves mostly to agriculture, the state of society became more settled, and new customs were gradually introduced. At the same time society became better organized, and each man had his proper place, not only in the social scale but also in the industrial and political life of the tribe.
General Social Customs.—In the summer-time the clothing was very light. The men came frequently to the Roman camp clad in a short jacket and a mantle; the more wealthy ones {289} wore a woollen or linen undergarment. But in the cold weather sheepskins and the pelts of wild animals, as well as hose for the legs and shoes made of leather for the feet, were worn. The mantle was fastened with a buckle, or with a thorn and a belt. In the belt were carried shears and knives for daily use. The women were not as a general thing dressed differently from the men. After the contact with the Romans the methods of dress changed, and there was a greater difference in the garments worn by men and women.
Marriage was a prominent social institution among the tribes, as it always is where the monogamic family prevails. There were doubtless traces of the old custom, common to most races, of wife capture, a custom which long continued as a mere fiction to some extent among the peasantry of certain localities in Germany. In this survival the bride makes feint to escape, and is chased and captured by the bridegroom. Some modern authorities have tried to show that there is a survival of this old custom of courtship, whereby the advances are supposed to be made by the men. The engagement to be married meant a great deal more in those days than at present. It was more than half of the marriage ceremony. Just as among the Hebrews, the engagement was the real marriage contract, and the latter ceremony only a form, so among the Germans the same custom prevailed. After engagement, until marriage they were called the Bräut and Bräutigam, but when wedded they ceased to be thus entitled. The betrothal contained the essential bonds of matrimony, and was far more important before the law than the later ceremony. In modern usage the opposite custom prevails.
The woman was always under wardship; her father was her natural guardian and made the marriage contract or the engagement. When a woman married, she brought with her a dower, furnished by her parents. This consisted of all house furnishings, clothes, and jewelry, and a more substantial dower in lands, money, or live stock. On the morning of the day after marriage the husband gave to the wife the "Morgengabe," {290} which thereafter was her own property. It was the wedding-present of the groom. This is but a survival of the time when marriage among the Germans meant a simple purchase of a wife. It is said that "ein Weib zu kaufen" (to buy a wife) was the common term for getting engaged, and that this phrase was so used as late as the eleventh century. The wardship was called the mundium, and when the maid left her father's house for another home, her mundium was transferred from her father to her husband. This dower began, indeed, with the engagement, and the price of the mundium was paid over to the guardian at the time of the contract. From this time suit for breach of promise could be brought. These are the primitive customs of the marriage ceremony, but they were changed from time to time. Through the influence of Christianity, the woman finally attained prominence in the matter of choosing a husband, and learned, much to her satisfaction, to make her own contracts in matrimony.
The Economic Life.—The economic life was of the most meagre kind in the earlier stages of society. We find that Tacitus, writing 150 years after Caesar, shows that there had been some changes in the people. In the time of Caesar, the tribes were just making their transition from the pastoral-nomadic to the pastoral-agricultural state, and by the time of Tacitus this transition was so general that most of the tribes had settled to a more or less permanent agricultural life. It must be observed that the development of the tribes was not symmetrical, and that which reads very pleasantly on paper represents a very confused state of society. However much the tribes practised agriculture, they had but little peace, for warfare continued to be one of their chief occupations. It was in the battle that a youth received his chief education, and in the chase that he occupied much of his spare time.
But the ground was tilled, and barley, wheat, oats, and rye were raised. Flax was cultivated, and the good housewife did the spinning and weaving—all that was done—for the household. Greens, or herbage, were also cultivated, but {291} fruit-trees seldom were cultivated. With the products of the soil, of the chase, and of the herds, the Teutons lived well. They had bread and meat, milk, butter and cheese, beer and mead, as well as fish and wild game. The superintending of the fields frequently fell to the lot of the hausfrau, and the labor was done by serfs. The tending of the fields, the pursuit of wild animals or the catching of fish, the care of the cattle or herds, and the making of butter and cheese, the building of houses, the bringing of salt from the sea, the making of garments, and the construction of weapons of war and utensils of convenience—these represent the chief industries of the people. Later, the beginnings of commerce sprang up between the separate tribes, and gradually extended to other nationalities.
Contributions to Law.—The principle of the trial by jury, which was developed in the English common law, was undoubtedly of Teutonic origin. That a man should be tried by his peers for any misdemeanor was considered to be a natural right. The idea of personal liberty made a personal law, which gradually gave way to civil law, although the personal element was never entirely obliterated. The Teutonic tribes had no written law, yet they had a distinct legal system. The comparison of this legal system with the Roman or with our modern system brings to light the individual character of the early Germanic laws. The Teuton claimed rights on account of his own personality and his relation to a family, not because he was a member of a state.
When the Teutons came in contact with the Romans they mingled their principles of law with those of the latter, and thus made law more formal. Nearly all of the tribes, after this contact, had their laws codified and written in Latin, by Roman scholars, chiefly of the clergy, who incorporated not only many elements of Roman law but also more or less of the elements of Christian usage. Those tribes which had been the longer time in contact with the Romans had a greater body of laws, more systematized and of more Roman {292} characteristics. Finally, as modern nationality arose, the laws were codified, combining the Roman and the Teutonic practice.
The forms of judicial procedure remained much the same on account of the character of Teutonic social organization. The personal element was so strong in the Teutonic system as to yield a wide influence in the development of judicial affairs. The trial by combat and the early ordeals, the latter having been instituted largely through the church discipline, and the idea of local courts based upon a trial of peers, had much to do with shaping the course of judicial practice. The time came, however, when nearly every barbarian judicial process was modified by the influence of the Roman law, until the predominance of the state, in judicial usage, was recognized in place of the personal element which so long prevailed in the early Teutonic customs.
But in the evolution of the judicial systems of the various countries the Teutonic element of individual liberty and individual offenses never lost its influences. These simple elements of life indicate the origin of popular government, individual and social liberty, and the foundation of local self-government. Wherever the generous barbarians have gone they have carried the torch of liberty. In Italy, Greece, England, Germany, Spain, and the northern nations, wherever the lurid flames of revolt against arbitrary and conventional government have burst forth, it can be traced to the Teutonic spirit of freedom. This was the greatest contribution of the Teutonic people to civilization.[2]
1. The vital elements of modern civilization contributed by the Germans.
2. Teutonic influence on Roman civilization.
3. Compare the social order of the Teutons with that of the early Greeks.
4. Causes of the invasion of Rome by the Teutonic tribes.
5. What were the racial relations of Romans, Greeks, Germans, Celts, and English?
6. Modern contributions to civilization by Germany.
[1] See Chapter XXI.
[2] The modern Prussian military state was a departure from the main trend of Teutonic life. It represented a combination of later feudalism and the Roman imperialism. It was a perversion of normal development, a fungous growth upon institutions of freedom and justice.
Feudalism a Transition of Social Order.—Feudalism represents a change from the ancient form of imperialism to the newer forms of European government. It arose out of the ruins of the Roman system as an essential form of social order. It appears to be the only system fitted to bring order out of the chaotic conditions of society, but by the very nature of affairs it could not long continue as an established system. It is rather surprising, indeed, that it became so universal, for every territory in Europe was subjected to its control in a greater or less degree. Frequently those who were forced to adopt its form condemned its principle, and those who sought to maintain the doctrine of Roman imperialism were subjected to its sway. The church itself, seeking to maintain its autocracy, came into direct contact with feudal theory and opposed it bitterly. The people who submitted to the yoke of personal bondage which it entailed hated the system. Yet the whole European world passed under feudalism. But notwithstanding its universality, feudalism could offer nothing permanent, for in the development of social order it was forced to yield to monarchy, although it made a lasting influence on social life and political and economic usage.
There Are Two Elementary Sources of Feudalism.—The spirit of feudalism arises out of the early form of Teutonic social life. It sprang from the personal obligation of the comitatus, which was composed of a military leader and his followers or companions. The self-constituted assembly elected the leader who was most noted for courage and prowess in battle. To him was consigned the task of leading in battle the host, which was composed of all the freemen in arms. Usually {295} these chiefs were chosen for a single campaign, but it not infrequently happened that their leadership was continuous, with all the force of hereditary selection.
Another phase of the comitatus is represented by the leader's setting forth in time of peace with his companions to engage in fighting, exploiting, and plunder on his own account. The courageous young men of the tribe, thirsting for adventure in arms, gathered about their leader, whom they sought to excel in valor. He who was bravest and strongest in battle was considered most honorable. The principal feature to be noted is the personal allegiance of the companions to their leader, for they were bound to him with the closest ties. For the service which they rendered, the leader gave them sustenance and also reward for personal valor. They sat at his table and became his companions, and thus continually increased his power in the community.
This custom represents the germ of the feudal system. The leader became the lord, the companions his vassals. When the lord became a tribal chief or king, the royal vassals became the king's thegns, or represented the nobility of the realm. The whole system was based upon service and personal allegiance. As conquest of territory was made, the land was parcelled out among the followers, who received it from the leader as allodial grants and, later, as feudal grants. The allodial grant resembled the title in fee simple, the feudal grant was made on condition of future service.
The Roman element of feudalism finds its representation in clientage. This was a well-known institution at the time of the contact of the Romans with their invaders. The client was attached to the lord, on whom he depended for support and for representation in the community. Two of the well-known feudal aids, namely, the ransom of the lord from captivity and the gift of dowry money on the marriage of his eldest daughter, are similar to the services rendered by the Roman client to his lord.
The personal tie of clientage resembled the personal {296} allegiance in the comitatus, with the difference that the client stood at a great distance from the patron, while in the comitatus the companions were nearly equal to their chief. The Roman influence tended finally to make the wide difference which existed between the lord and vassal in feudal relations. Other forms of Roman usage, such as the institution of the coloni, or half-slaves of the soil, and the custom of granting land for use without actual ownership, seem to have influenced the development of feudalism. Without doubt the Roman institutions here gave form and system to feudalism, as they did in other forms of government.
The Feudal System in Its Developed State Based on Land-Holding.—In the early period in France, where feudalism received its most perfect development, several methods of granting land were in vogue. First, the lands in the immediate possession of the conquered were retained by them on condition that they pay tribute to the conquerors; the wealthy Romans were allowed to hold all or part of their large estates. Second, many lands were granted in fee simple to the followers of the chiefs. Third was the beneficiary grant, most common to feudal tenure in its developed state. By this method land was granted as a reward for services past or prospective. The last method to be named is that of commendation, by which the small holder of land needing protection gave his land to a powerful lord, who in turn regranted it to the original owner on condition that the latter became his vassal. Thus the lands conquered by a chief or lord were parcelled out to his principal supporters, who in turn regranted them to those under them, so that all society was formed in a gradation of classes based on the ownership of land. Each lord had his vassal, every vassal his lord. Each man swore allegiance to the one next above him, and this one to his superior, until the king was reached, who himself was but a powerful feudal lord.
As the other forms and functions of state life developed, feudalism became the ruling principle, from which many strove in vain to free themselves. There were in France, in the time {297} of Hugh Capet, according to Kitchen, "about a million of souls living on and taking their names from about 70,000 separate fiefs or properties; of these about 3,000 carried titles with them. Of these again, no less than a hundred were sovereign states, greater or smaller, whose lords could coin money, levy taxes, make laws, and administer their own justice."[1] Thus the effect of feudal tenure was to arrange society into these small, compact social groups, each of which must really retain its power by force of arms. The method gave color to monarchy, which later became universal.
Other Elements of Feudalism.—Prominent among the characteristics of feudalism was the existence of a close personal bond between the grantor and the receiver of an estate. The receiver did homage to the grantor in the form of oath, and also took the oath of fealty. In the former he knelt before the lord and promised to become his man on account of the land which he held, and to be faithful to him in defense of life and limb against all people. The oath of fealty was only a stronger oath of the same tenor, in which the vassal, standing before the lord, appealed to God as a witness. These two oaths, at first entirely separate, became merged into one, which passed by the name of the oath of fealty. When the lord desired to raise an army he had only to call his leading vassals, and they in turn called those under them. When he needed help to harvest his grain the vassals were called upon for service.
Besides the service rendered, there were feudal aids to be paid on certain occasions. The chief of these were the ransom of the lord when captured, the amount paid when the eldest son was knighted, and the dowry on the marriage of the eldest daughter. There were lesser feudal taxes called reliefs. Of these the more important were the payment of a tax by the heir of a deceased vassal upon succession to property, one-half year's profit paid when a ward became of age, and the right to escheated lands of the vassal. The lord also had the right to land forfeited on account of certain heinous crimes. {298} Wardship entitled the lord to the use of lands during the minority of the ward. The lord also had a right to choose a husband for the female ward at the age of fourteen; if she refused to accept the one chosen, the lord had the use of her services and property until she was twenty-one. Then he could dispose of her lands as he chose and refuse consent for her to marry. These aids and reliefs made a system of slavery for serfs and vassals.
The Rights of Sovereignty.—The feudal lord had the right of sovereignty over all of his own vassal domain. Not only did he have military sovereignty on account of allegiance of vassals, but political sovereignty also, as he ruled the assemblies in his own way. He had legal jurisdiction, for all the courts were conducted by him or else under his jurisdiction, and this brought his own territory completely under his control as proprietor, and subordinated everything to his will. In this is found the spirit of modern absolute monarchy.
The Classification of Feudal Society.—In France, according to Duruy, under the perfection of feudalism, the people were grouped in the following classes: First, there was a group of Gallic or Frankish freemen, who were obliged to give military service to the king and give aids when called upon. Second, the vassals, who rendered service to those from whom they held their lands. Third, the royal vassals, from whom the king usually chose his dukes and counts to lead the army or to rule over provinces and cities. Fourth, the liti, who, like the Roman coloni, were bound to the soil, which they cultivated as farmers, and for which they paid a small rent. Finally, there were the ordinary slaves. The character of the liti, or glebe, serfs varied according to the degree of liberty with which they were privileged. They might have emancipation by charter or by the grant of the king or the church, but they were never free. The feudal custom was binding on all, and no one escaped from its control. Even the clergy became feudal, there being lords and vassals within the church. Yet the ministry, in their preaching, recognized the opportunity of {299} advancement, for they claimed that even a serf might become a bishop, although there was no great probability of this.
Progress of Feudalism.—The development of feudalism was slow in all countries, and it varied in character in accordance with the condition of the country. In England the Normans in the eleventh century found feudalism in an elementary state, and gave formality to the system. In Germany feudalism was less homogeneous than in France. It lacked the symmetrical finish of the Roman institutions, although it was introduced from French soil through overlordship and proceeded from the sovereign to the serf, rather than springing from the serf to the sovereign. It varied somewhat in characteristics from French feudalism, although the essentials of the system were not wanting. In the Scandinavian provinces the Teutonic element was too strong, and in Spain and Italy the Romanic, to develop in these countries perfect feudalism. But in France there was a regular, progressive development. The formative period began in Caesar's time and ended with the ninth century.
This was followed by the period of complete domination and full power, extending to the end of the thirteenth century, at the close of which offices and benefices were in the hands of the great vassals of Charles the Bald. Then followed a period of transformation of feudalism, which extended to the close of the sixteenth century. Finally came the period of the decay of feudalism, beginning with the seventeenth century and extending to the present time. There are found now, both in Europe and America, laws and usages which are vestiges of the ancient forms of feudalism, which the formal organization of the state has failed to eradicate.
The autocratic practice of the feudal lord survived in the new monarch, and, except in the few cases of constitutional limitation, became imperialistic. The Prussian state, built upon a military basis, exercised the rights of feudal conquest over neighboring states. After the war with Austria, Prussia exercised an overlordship over part of the smaller German {300} states, with a show of constitutional liberty. After the Franco-Prussian War of 1870, the German Empire was formed, still with a show of constitutional liberty, but with the feudal idea of overlordship dominant. Having feudalized the other states of Germany, Prussia sought to extend the feudal idea to the whole world, but was checked by the World War of 1914.
State of Society Under Feudalism.—In searching for the effects of feudalism on human progress, the family deserves our first consideration. The wife of the feudal lord and her equal associates were placed on a higher plane. The family in no wise represented the ancient patriarchal family nor the modern family. The head of the family stood alone, independent of every form of government. He was absolute proprietor of himself and of all positions under him. He was neither magistrate, priest, nor king, nor subordinate to any system except as he permitted. His position developed arbitrary power and made him proud and aristocratic. With a few members of his family, he lived in his castle, far removed from serfs and vassals. He spent his life alternately in feats of arms or in systematic idleness. Away from home much of the time, fighting to defend his castle or obtain new territory, or engaging in hunting, while the wife and mother cared for the home, he developed strength and power.
It was in the feudal family that woman obtained her position of honor and power in the home. It was this position that developed the chivalry of the Middle Ages. The improvement of domestic manners and the preponderance of home society among the few produced the moral qualities of the home. Coupled with this was the idea of nobility on one side, and the idea of inheritance on the other, which had a tendency to unify the family under one defender and to perpetuate the right and title to property of future generations. It was that benign spirit which comes from the household in more modern life, giving strength and permanence to character.
While there was a relation of common interest between the {301} villagers clustered around the feudal castle, the union was not sufficient to make a compact organization. Their rights were not common, as there was a recognized superiority on one hand and a recognized inferiority on the other. This grew into a common hatred of the lower classes for the upper, which has been a thousand times detrimental to human progress. The little group of people had their own church, their own society. Those who had a fellow-feeling for them had much influence directly, but not in bridging over the chasm between them and the feudal lord. Feudalism gave every man a place, but developed the inequalities of humanity to such an extent that it could not be lasting as a system. Society became irregular, in which extreme aristocracy was divorced from extreme democracy. Relief came slowly, through the development of monarchy and the citizenship of the modern state. It was a rude attempt to find the secret of social organization. The spirit of revolt of the oppressed lived on suppressed by a galling tyranny.
To maintain his position as proprietor of the soil and ruler over a class of people treated as serfs required careful diplomacy on the part of the lord, or else intolerant despotism. He usually chose the latter, and sought to secure his power by force of arms. He cared little for the wants or needs of his people. He did not associate with them on terms of equality, and only came in contact with them as a master meets a servant. Consulting his own selfish interest, he made his rule despotic, and all opposition was suppressed with a high hand. The only check upon this despotism was the warlike attitude of other similar despotic lords, who always sought to advance their own interests by the force of arms. Feudalism in form of government was the antithesis of imperialism, yet in effect something the same. It substituted a horde of petty despots for one and it developed a petty local tyranny in the place of a general despotism.
Lack of Central Authority in Feudal Society.—So many feudal lords, each master of his own domain, contending with one {302} another for the mastery, each resting his course on the hereditary gift of his ancestors, or, more probably, on his force of armed men and the strength of his castle, made it impossible that there should be any recognized authority in government, or any legal determination of the rights of the ruler and his subjects. Feudal law was the law of force; feudal justice the right of might. Among all of these feudal lords there was not one to force by will all others into submission, and thus create a central authority. There was no permanent legislative body, no permanent judicial machinery, no standing army, no uniform and regular system of taxation. There could be no guaranty to permanent political power under such circumstances.
There was little progress in social order under the rule of feudalism. Although we recognize that it was an essential form of government necessary to control the excesses of individualism; although we realize that a monarchy was impossible until it was created by an evolutionary process, that a republic could not exist under the irregularity of political forces, yet it must be maintained that social progress did not exist under the feudal régime. There was no unity of social action, no co-operation of classes in government. The line between the governed and the governing, though clearly marked at times, was an irregular, wavering line. Outside of the family life—which was limited in scope—and of the power of the church—which failed to unify society—there was no vital social growth.
Individual Development in the Dominant Group.—Feudalism established a strong individualism among leaders, a strong personality based on sterling intellectual qualities. It is evident that this excessive individual development became very prominent in the later evolution of social order, and is recognized as a gain in social advancement. Individual culture is essential to social advancement. To develop strong, independent, self-reliant individuals might tend to produce anarchy rather than social order, yet it must eventually lead to the latter; and so it proved in the case of feudalism, for its very {303} chaotic state brought about, as a necessity, social order. But it came about through survival of the fittest, in conquest and defense. Nor did the most worthy always succeed, but rather those who had the greatest power in ruthless conquest. Unity came about through the unbridled exercise of the predatory spirit, accompanied by power to take and to hold.
This chaotic state of individualistic people was the means of bringing about an improvement in intellectual development. The strong individual character with position and leisure becomes strong intellectually in planning defense and in meditating upon the philosophy of life. The notes of song and of literature came from the feudal times. The determination of the mind to intellectual pursuits appeared in the feudal régime, and individual culture and independent intellectual life, though of the few and at the expense of the majority, were among the important contributions to civilization.
1. What was the basis of feudal society?
2. What elements of feudalism were Roman and what Teutonic?
3. What service did feudalism render civilization?
4. Show that feudalism was transition from empire to modern nationality.
5. How did feudal lords obtain titles to their land? Give examples.
6. What survivals of feudalism may be observed in modern governments?
7. When King John of England wrote after his signature "King of England," what was its significance?
8. How did feudalism determine the character of monarchy in modern nations?
[1] History of France.
The dissemination of knowledge, customs, habits, and laws from common centres of culture has been greatly augmented by population movements or migrations, by great empires established, by wars of conquest, and systems of intercommunication and transportation. The Babylonian, Assyrian, Persian, Alexandrian, and Roman empires are striking examples of the diffusion of knowledge and the spread of ideas over different geographical boundaries and through tribal and national organizations; and, indeed, the contact of the barbarian hordes with improved systems of culture was but a process of interchange and intermingling of qualities of strength and vigor with the conventionalized forms of human society.
One of the most remarkable movements was that of the rise and expansion of the Arabian Empire, which was centred about religious ideals of Mohammed and the Koran. Having accepted the idea of one God universal, which had been so strongly emphasized by the Hebrews, and having accepted in part the doctrine of the teachings of Jesus regarding the brotherhood of man, Mohammed was able through the mysticism of his teaching, in the Koran, to excite his followers to a wild fanaticism. Nor did his successors hesitate to use force, for most of their conquests were accomplished by the power of the sword. At any rate, nation after nation was forced to bow to Mohammedanism and the Koran, in a spectacular whirlwind of conquest such as the world had not previously known.
It is remarkable that after the decline of the old Semitic civilization, as exhibited in the Babylonian and Assyrian empires, the practical extinction of the Phoenicians, the conquest of Jerusalem, and the spread of the Jews over the whole world, there should have risen a new Semitic movement to disrupt {305} and disorganize the world. It is interesting to note in this connection, also, that wherever the Arabs went they came in contact with learned Jews of high mentality, who co-operated with them in advancing learning.
The Rise and Expansion of the Arabian Empire.—Mohammedanism, which arose in the beginning of the seventh century, spread rapidly over the East and through northern Africa, and extended into Spain. All Arabia was converted to the Koran, and Persia and Egypt soon after came under its influence. In the period 623-640, Syria was conquered by the Mohammedans, upper Asia in 707, and Spain in 711. They established a great caliphate, extending from beyond the Euphrates through Egypt and northern Africa to the Pyrenees in Spain. They burned the great library at Alexandria, founded by Ptolemy, destroying the manuscripts and books in a relentless zeal to blot out all vestiges of Christian learning. In their passage westward they mingled with the Moors of northern Africa, whom they had subdued after various struggles, the last one ending in 709. In this year they crossed the Strait of Gibraltar and encountered the barbarians of the north.
The Visigothic monarchy was in a ruined condition. Frequent internal quarrels had led to the dismemberment of the government and the decay of all fortifications, hence there was little organized resistance to the incoming of the Arabs. All Spain, except in the far north in the mountains of the Asturias, was quickly reduced to the sway of the Arabs. They crossed the Pyrenees, and the broad territory of Gaul opened before them, awaiting their conquest. But on the plains between Tours and Poitiers they met Charles Martel with a strong army, who turned the tide of invasion back upon itself and set the limits of Mohammedan dominion in Europe.
In the tenth century the great Arabian Empire began to disintegrate. One after another of the great caliphates declined. The caliphate of Bagdad, which had existed so long in Oriental splendor, was first dismembered by the loss of Africa. The fatimate caliphate of northern Africa next lost its power, {306} and the caliphate of Cordova, in Spain, brilliant in its ascendancy, followed the course of the other two. The Arabian conquest of Spain left the country in a state of tolerable freedom, but Cordova, like the others, was doomed to be destroyed by anarchy and confusion. All the principal cities became in the early part of the eleventh century independent principalities.
Thus the Mohammedan conquest, which built an extensive Arabian Empire, ruling first in Asia, then Africa, and finally Europe, spreading abroad with sudden and irresistible expansion, suddenly declined through internal dissensions and decay, having lasted but a few centuries. The peculiar tribal nature of the Arabian social order had not developed a strong central organization, nor permitted the practice of organized political effort on a large scale, so that the sudden transition from the small tribe, with its peculiar government, to that of the organization and management of a great empire was sufficient to cause the disintegration and downfall of the empire. So far as political power was concerned, the passion for conquest was the great impelling motive of the Mohammedans.
The Religious Zeal of the Arab-Moors.—The central idea of the Mohammedan conquest seems to have been a sort of religious zeal or fanaticism. The whole history of their conquest shows a continual strife to propagate their religious doctrine. The Arabians were a sober people, of vivid imagination and excessive idealism, with religious natures of a lofty and peculiar character. Their religious life in itself was awe-inspiring. Originally dwelling on the plains of Arabia, where nature manifested itself in strong characteristics, living in one sense a narrow life, the imagination had its full play, and the mystery of life had centred in a sort of wisdom and lore, which had accumulated through long generations of reflection. There always dwelt in the minds of this branch of the Semitic people a conception of the unity of God, and when the revelation of God came to them through Mohammed, when they realized "Allah is Allah, and Mohammed is his prophet," they were swept entirely away by this religious conception. When once {307} this idea took firm hold upon the Arabian mind, it remained there a permanent part of life. Under military organization the conquest was rapidly extended over surrounding disintegrated tribes, and the strong unity of government built on the basis of religious zeal.
So strong was this religious zeal that it dominated their entire life. It turned a reflective and imaginative people, who had sought out the hidden mysteries of life by the acuteness of their own perception, to base their entire operations upon faith. Faith dominated the reason to such an extent that the deep and permanent foundations of progress could not be laid, and the vast opportunities granted to them by position and conquest gradually declined for the lack of vital principles of social order.
Not only had the Arabians laid the foundations of culture and learning through their own evolution, but they had borrowed much from other Oriental countries. Their contact with learning of the Far East, of Palestine, of Egypt, of the Greeks, and of the Italians, had given them an opportunity to absorb most of the elements of ancient culture. Having borrowed these products, they were able to combine them and use them in building an empire of learning in Spain. If their own subtle genius was not wanting in the combination of the knowledge of the ancients, and in its use in building up a system, neither lacked they in original conception, and on the early foundation they built up a superstructure of original knowledge. They advanced learning in various forms, and furnished means for the advancement of civilization in the west.
The Foundations of Science and Art.—In the old caliphates of Bagdad and Damascus there had developed great interest in learning. The foundation of this knowledge, as has been related, was derived from the Greeks and the Orientals. It is true that the Koran, which had been accepted by them as gospel and law, had aroused and inspired the Arabian mind to greater desires for knowledge. Their knowledge, however, could not be set by the limitations of the Koran, and the desire {308} for achievement in learning was so great that scarcely a century had passed after the burning of the libraries of Alexandria before all branches of knowledge were eagerly cultivated by the Arabians. They ran a rapid course from the predominance of physical strength and courage, through blind adherence to faith, to the position of superior learning. The time soon came when the scholar was as much revered as the warrior.
In every conquered country the first duty of the conquerors was to build a mosque in which Allah might be worshipped and his prophet honored. Attached to this mosque was a school, where people were first taught to read and write and study the Koran. From this initial point they enlarged the study of science, literature, and art, which they pursued with great eagerness. Through the appreciation of these things they collected the treasures of art and learning wherever they could be found, and, dwelling upon these, they obtained the results of the culture of other nations and other generations. From imitation they passed to the field of creation, and advances were made in the contributions to the sum of human knowledge. In Spain schools were founded, great universities established, and libraries built which laid the permanent foundation of knowledge and art and enabled the Arab-Moors to advance in science, art, invention, and discovery.
The Beginnings of Chemistry and Medicine.—In chemistry the careful study of the elements of substances and the agents in composition was pursued by the Arab-Moors in Spain, but it must be remembered that the chemistry of their day is now known as alchemy. Chemistry then was in its formative period and not a science as viewed in the modern sense. Yet when we consider that the science of modern chemistry is but a little over a century old, we find the achievements of the Arabians in their own time, as compared with the changes which took place in the following seven centuries, to be worthy of note.
In the eleventh century a philosopher named Geber knew the chemical affinities of quicksilver, tin, lead, copper, iron, {309} gold, and silver, and to each one was given a name of the planet which was supposed to have special influence over it. Thus silver was named for the moon, gold for the sun, copper for Venus, tin for Jupiter, iron for Vulcan, quicksilver for Mercury, and lead for Saturn. The influences of the elements were supposed to be similar to the influence of the heavenly bodies over men. This same chemist was acquainted with oxidizing and calcining processes, and knew methods of obtaining soda and potash salts, and the properties of saltpetre. Also nitric acid was obtained from the nitrate of potassium. These and other similar examples represent something of the achievements of the Arabians in chemical knowledge. Still, their lack of knowledge is shown in their continued search for the philosopher's stone and the attempt to create the precious metals.
The art of medicine was practised to a large extent in the Orient, and this knowledge was transferred to Spain. The entire knowledge of these early physicians, however, was limited to the superficial diagnosis of cases and to a knowledge of medicinal plants. By the very law of their religion, anatomy was forbidden to them, and, indeed, the Arabians had a superstitious horror of dissection. By ignorance of anatomy their practice of surgery was very imperfect. But their physicians, nevertheless, became renowned throughout the world by their use of medicines and by their wonderful cures. They plainly led the world in the art of healing. It is true their superstition and their astrology constantly interfered with their better judgment in many things, but notwithstanding these drawbacks they were enabled to develop great interest in the study of medicine and to accomplish a great work in the advancement of the science. In Al Makkari it is stated "that disease could be more effectively checked by diet than by medicine, and that when medicine became necessary, simples were far preferable to compound medicaments, and when these latter were required, as few drugs as possible ought to enter into their composition." This exhibits the thoughtful reflection that was {310} given to the administration of drugs in this early period, and might prove a lesson to many a modern physician.
Toward the close of their career, the Arabian doctors began the practice of dissecting and the closer study of anatomy and physiology, which added much to the power of the science. Yet they still believed in the "elixir of life," and tried to work miracle cures, which in many respects may have been successful. It is a question whether they went any farther into the practice of miracle cures than the quacks and charlatans and faith doctors of modern times have gone. The influence of their study of medicine was seen in the great universities, and especially in the foundation of the University at Salerno at a later time, which was largely under the Arabian influence.
Metaphysics and Exact Science.—It would seem that the Arab-Moors were well calculated to develop psychological science. Their minds seemed to be in a special measure metaphysical. They laid the foundation of their metaphysical speculations on the philosophy of the Greeks, particularly that of Aristotle, but later they attempted to develop originality, although they succeeded in doing little more, as a rule, than borrowing from others. In the early period of Arabian development the Koran stood in the way of any advancement in philosophy. It was only at intervals that philosophy could gain any advancement. Indeed, the philosophers were driven away from their homes, but they carried with them many followers into a larger field. The long list of philosophers who, after the manner of the Greeks, each attempted to develop his own separate system, might be mentioned, showing the zeal with which they carried on inquiry into metaphysical science. As may be supposed, they added little to the sum of human knowledge, but developed a degree of culture by their philosophical speculations.
But it is in the exact sciences that the Arabs seem to have met with the greatest success. The Arabic numerals, probably brought from India to Bagdad, led to a new and larger use of arithmetic. The decimal system and the art of figures were {311} introduced into Spain in the ninth century, and gave great advancement in learning. But, strange to relate, these numerals, though used so early by the Arabs in Spain, were not common in Germany until the fifteenth century. The importance of their use cannot be overestimated, for by means of them the Arabians easily led the world in astronomy, mechanics, and mathematics.
The science of algebra is generally attributed to the Arabians. Its name is derived from gabara, to bind parts together, and yet the origin of this science is not certain. It is thought that the Arabs derived their knowledge from the Greeks, but in all probability algebra had its first origin among the philosophers of India.
The Arabians used geometry, although they added little to its advancement. Geometry had reached at this period an advanced stage of progress in the problems of Euclid. It was to the honor of the Arabians that they were the first of any of the Western peoples to translate Euclid and use it, for it was not until the sixteenth century that it was freely translated into the modern languages.
But in trigonometry the Arabians, by the introduction of the use of the sine, or half-chord, of the double arc in the place of the arc itself, made great advancement, especially in the calculations of surveying and astronomy. In the universities and colleges of Spain under Arabian dominion we find, then, that students had an opportunity of mastering nearly all of the useful elementary mathematics. Great attention was paid to the study of astronomy. Here, as before, they used the Greek knowledge, but they advanced the study of the science greatly by the introduction of instruments, such as those for measuring time by the movement of the pendulum and the measurement of the heavenly bodies by the astrolabe.
Likewise they employed the word "azimuth" and many other terms which show a more definite knowledge of the relation of the heavenly bodies. They were enabled, also, to {312} measure approximately a degree of latitude. They knew that the earth was of spheroid form. But we find astrology accompanying all this knowledge of astronomy. While the exact knowledge of the heavenly bodies had been developed to a certain degree, the science of star influence, or astrology, was cultivated to a still greater extent. Thus they sought to show the control of mind forces on earth, and, indeed, of all natural forces by the heavenly bodies. This placed mystical lore in the front rank of their philosophical speculations.
Geography and History.—In the study of the earth the Arabians showed themselves to be practical and accurate geographers. They applied their mathematical and astronomical knowledge to the study of the earth, and thus gave an impulse to exploration. While their theories of the origin of the earth were crude and untenable, their practical writings on the subject derived from real knowledge, and the practical instruction in schools by the use of globes and maps, were of immense practical value.
Their history was made up chiefly of the histories of cities and the lives of prominent men. There was no national history of the rise and development of the Arabian kingdom, for historical writing and study were in an undeveloped state.
Discoveries, Inventions, and Achievements.—It cannot be successfully claimed that the Arabians exhibited very much originality in the advancement of the civilized arts, yet they had the ability to take what they found elsewhere developed by other scholars, improve upon it, and apply it to the practical affairs of life. Thus, although the Chinese discovered gunpowder over 3,000 years ago, it remained for the Arabs to bring it into use in the siege of Mecca in the year 690, and introduce it into Spain some years later. The Persians called it Chinese salt, the Arabians Indian snow, indicating that it might have originated in different countries. The Arab-Moors used it in their wars with the Christians as early as the middle of the thirteenth century. They excelled also in making paper from flax, or cotton, which was probably an imitation {313} of the paper made by the Chinese from silk. We find also that the Arabs had learned to print from movable type, and the introduction of paper made the printing-press possible. Linen paper made from old clothes was said to be in use as early as 1106.
Without doubt the Arab-Moors introduced into Spain the use of the magnet in connection with the mariner's compass. But owing to the fact that it was not needed in the short voyages along the coast of the Mediterranean, it did not come into a large use until the great voyages on the ocean, in the beginning of the fourteenth century. Yet the invention of the mariner's compass, so frequently attributed to Flavio Giorgio, may be as well attributed to the Arab-Moors.
Knives and swords of superior make, leather, silk, and glass, as well as large collections of delicate jewelry, show marked advancement in Arabian industrial art and mechanical skill.
One of the achievements of the Arab-Moors in Spain was the introduction of agriculture, and its advancement to an important position among the industries by means of irrigation. The great, fertile valleys of Spain were thus, through agricultural skill, made "to blossom as the rose." Seeds were imported from different parts of the world, and much attention was given to the culture of all plants which could be readily raised in this country. Rice and cotton and sugar-cane were cultivated through the process of irrigation. Thus Spain was indebted to the Arab-Moors not only for the introduction of industrial arts and skilled mechanics, but the establishment of agriculture on a firm foundation.
Language and Literature.—The language of the Arabians is said to be peculiarly rich in synonyms. For instance, it is said there are 1,000 expressions for the word "camel," and the same number for the word "sword," while there are 4,000 for the word "misfortune." Very few remnants of the Arabic remain in the modern European languages. Quite a number of words in the Spanish language, fewer in English and in {314} other modern languages, are the only remnants of the use of this highly developed Arabian speech. It represents the southern branch of the Semitic language, and is closely related to the Hebrew and the Aramaic. The unity and compactness of the language are very much in evidence. Coming little in contact with other languages, it remained somewhat exclusive, and retained its original form.
When it came into Spain the Arabic language reigned almost supreme, on account of the special domination of Arabic influences. Far in the north of Spain, however, among the Christians who had adopted the Low Latin, was the formation of the Spanish language. The hatred of the Spaniards for the Arabs led these people to refuse to use the language of the conquerors. Nevertheless, the Arabic had some influence in the formation of the Spanish language. The isolated geographic terms, and especial names of things, as well as idioms of speech, show still that the Arabian influence may be traced in the Spanish language.
In literature the Arabians had a marked development. The Arabian poetry, though light in its character, became prominent. There were among these Arabians in Spain ardent and ready writers, with fertile fancy and lively perception, who recited their songs to eager listeners. The poet became a universal teacher. He went about from place to place singing his songs, and the troubadours of the south of France received in later years much of their impulse indirectly from the Arabic poets. While the poetry was not of a high order, it was wide-reaching in its influence, and extended in later days to Italy, Sicily, and southern France, and had a quickening influence in the development of the light songs of the troubadours. The influence of this lighter literature through Italy, Sicily, and southern France on the literature of Europe and of England in later periods is well marked by the historians. In the great schools rhetoric and grammar were also taught to a considerable extent. In the universities these formed one of the great branches of special culture. We find, then, on the linguistic {315} side that the Arabians accomplished a great deal in the advancement of the language and literature of Europe.
Art and Architecture.—Perhaps the Arabians in Spain are known more by their architecture than any other phase of their culture. Not that there was anything especially original in it, except in the combination which they made of the architecture of other nations. In the building of their great mosques, like that of Cordova and of the Alhambra, they perpetuated the magnificence and splendor of the East. Even the actual materials with which they constructed these magnificent buildings were obtained from Greece and the Orient, and placed in their positions in a new combination. The great original feature of the Mooresque architecture is found in the famous horseshoe arch, which was used so extensively in their mosques and palaces. It represented the Roman arch, slightly bent into the form of a horseshoe. Yet from architectural strength it must be considered that the real support resting on the pillar was merely the half-circle of the Roman arch, while the horseshoe was a continuation for ornamental purposes.
The Arab-Moors were forbidden the use of sculpture, which they never practised, and hence the artistic features were limited to architectural and art decorations. Many of the interior decorations of the walls of these great buildings show advanced skill. Upon the whole, their buildings are remarkable mainly in the perpetuation of Oriental architecture rather than in the development of any originality except in skill of decoration and combination.
The Government of the Arab-Moors Was Peculiarly Centralized.—The caliph was at the head as an absolute monarch. He appointed viceroys in the different provinces for their control. The only thing that limited the actual power of the caliph was the fact that he was a theocratic governor. Otherwise he was supreme in power. There was no constitutional government, and, indeed, but little precedent in law. The government depended somewhat upon the whims and caprices {316} of a single individual. It was said that in the beginning the caliph was elected by the people, but in a later period the office became hereditary. It is true the caliph, who was called the "vicar of God," or "the shadow of God," had his various ministers appointed from the wise men to carry out his will. Yet, such was the power of the people what when in Spain they were displeased with the rulings of the judges, they would pelt the officers or storm the palace, thus in a way limiting the power of these absolute rulers.
The government, however, was in a precarious condition. There could be nothing permanent under such a régime, for permanency of government is necessary to the advancement of civilization. The government was non-progressive. It allowed no freedom of the people and gave no incentive to advancement, and it was a detriment many times to the progressive spirit. Closely connected with a religion which in itself was non-progressive, we find limitations set upon the advancement of the civilization of the Arab-Moors in Spain.
Arabian Civilization Soon Reached Its Limits.—One views with wonder and astonishment the brilliant achievements of the Arabian civilization, extending from the Tagus to the Indus. But brilliant as it was, one is impressed at every turn with the instability of the civilization and with its peculiar limitations. It reached its culmination long before the Christian conquest. What the Arabians have given to the European world was formulated rapidly and given quickly, and the results were left to be used by a more slowly developing people, who rested their civilization upon a permanent basis. Much stress has been laid by Mr. Draper and others upon the great civilization of the Arabians, comparing it favorably with the civilization of Christian Europe. But it must be remembered that the Arab-Moors, especially in Spain, had come so directly in contact with Oriental nations that they were enabled to borrow and utilize for a time the elements of civilization advanced by these more mature peoples. However, built as it was upon borrowed materials, the structure once completed, {317} there was no opportunity for growth or original development. It reached its culmination, and would have progressed no further in Spain, even had not the Christians under Ferdinand and Isabella conquered the Arab-Moors and eventually overcome and destroyed their civilization. In this conquest, in which the two leading faiths of the Western world were fighting for supremacy, doubtless the Christian world could not fully appreciate what the Arab-Moors accomplished, nor estimate their value to the economic system of Spain.
Subsequent facts of history show that, the Christian religion once having a dominant power in Spain, the church became less liberal in its views and its rule than that exhibited by the government of the Arab-Moors. Admitting that the spirit of liberty had burst forth in old Asturias, a seat of Nordic culture, it soon became obscure in the arbitrary domination of monarchy, and of the church through the instrumentality of Torquemada and the Inquisition. Nevertheless, the civilization of the Arab-Moors cannot be pictured as an ideal one, because it was lacking in the fundamentals of continuous progress. Knowledge had not yet become widely disseminated, nor truth free enough to arouse vigorous qualities of life which make for permanency in civilization. With all of its borrowed art and learning and its adaptation to new conditions, still the civilization was sufficiently non-progressive to be unsuited to carry the burden of the development of the human race. Nevertheless, in the contemplation of human progress, the Arab-Moors of Spain are deserving of attention because of their universities and their studies, which influenced other parts of mediaeval Europe at a time when they were breaking away from scholastic philosophy and assuming a scientific attitude of mind.
1. What contributions to art and architecture did the Arab-Moors make in Spain?
2. The nature of their government.
{318}3. How did their religion differ from the Christian religion in principle and in practice?
4. The educational contribution of the universities of the Arab-Moors.
5. What contributions to science and learning came from the Arabian civilization?
6. Why and by whom were the Arab-Moors driven from Spain? What were the economic and political results?
7. What was the influence of the Arabs on European civilization?
What Brought About the Crusades.—We have learned from the former chapters that the Arabs had spread their empire from the Euphrates to the Strait of Gibraltar, and that the Christian and Mohammedan religions had compassed and absorbed the entire religious life over this whole territory. As Christianity had become the great reforming religion of the western part of Europe, so Mohammedanism had become the reforming religion of Asia. The latter was more exacting in its demands and more absolute in its sway than the former, spreading its doctrines mainly by force, while the former sought more to extend its doctrine by a leavening process. Nevertheless, when the two came in contact, a fierce struggle for supremacy ensued. The meteorlike rise of Mohammedanism had created consternation and alarm in the Christian world as early as the eighth century. There sprang up not only fear of Islamism, but a hatred of its followers.
After the Arabian Empire had become fully established, there arose to the northeast of Bagdad, the Moslem capital, a number of Turkish tribes that were among the more recent converts to Mohammedanism. Apparently they took the Mohammedan religion as embodied in the Koran literally and fanatically, and, considering nothing beyond these, sought to propagate the doctrine through conquest by sword. They are frequently known as Seljuks. It is to the credit of the Arabs, whether in Mesopotamia, Africa, or Spain, that their minds reached beyond the Koran into the wider ranges of knowledge, a fact which tempered their fanatical zeal, but the Seljuk Turks swept forward with their armies until they conquered the Byzantine Empire of the East, the last branch of the great Roman Empire. They had also conquered Jerusalem and {320} taken possession of the holy sepulchre, to which pilgrimages of Christians were made annually, and aroused the righteous indignation of the Christians of the Western world. The ostensible purpose of the crusades was to free Palestine, the oppressed Christians, and the holy sepulchre from the domination of the Turks.
It must be remembered that the period of the Middle Ages was represented by fancies and theories and an evanescent idealism which controlled the movements of the people to a large extent. Born of religious sentiment, there dwelt in the minds of Christian people a reverence for the land of the birth of Christ, to which pilgrims passed every year to show their adoration for the Saviour and patriotism for the land of his birth. These pilgrims were interfered with by the Mohammedans and especially by the Seljuk Turks.
The Turks in their blind zeal for Mohammedanism could see nothing in the Christian belief worthy of respect or even civil treatment. The persecution of Christians awakened the sympathy of all Europe and filled the minds of people with resentment against the occupation of Jerusalem by the Turks. This is one of the earliest indications of the development of religious toleration, which heralded the development of a feeling that people should worship whom they pleased unmolested, though it was like a voice crying in the wilderness, for many centuries passed before religious toleration could be acknowledged.
There were other considerations which made occasion for the crusades. Gregory VII preached a crusade to protect Constantinople and unify the church under one head. But trouble with Henry IV of Germany caused him to abandon the enterprise. There still dwelt in the minds of the people an ideal monarchy, as represented by the Roman Empire. It was considered the type of all good government, the one expression of the unity of all people. Many dreamed of the return of this empire to its full temporal sway. It was a species of idealism which lived on through the Middle Ages long after the {321} Western Empire had passed into virtual decay. In connection with this idea of a universal empire controlling the whole world was the idea of a universal religion which should unite all religious bodies under one common organization. The centre of this organization was to be the papal authority at Rome.
There dwelt then in the minds of all ecclesiastics this common desire for the unity of all religious people in one body regardless of national boundaries. And it must be said that these two ideas had much to do with giving Europe unity of thought and sentiment. Disintegrated as it was, deflected and disturbed by a hundred forces, thoughts of a common religion and of universal empire nevertheless had much to do to harmonize and unify the people of Europe. Hence, it was when Urban II, who had inherited all of the great religious improvements instituted by Gregory VII, preached a crusade to protect Constantinople, on the one hand, and to deliver Jerusalem, on the other, and made enthusiastic inflammatory speeches, that Europe awoke like an electric flash. Peter the Hermit, on the occasion of the first crusade, was employed to travel throughout Europe to arouse enthusiasm in the minds of the people.
The crusades so suddenly inaugurated extended over a period of nearly two hundred years, in which all Europe was in a restless condition. The feudal life which had settled down and crystallized all forms of human society throughout Europe had failed to give that variety and excitement which it entertained in former days. Thousands of knights in every nation were longing for the battle-field. Many who thought life at home not worth living, and other thousands of people seeking opportunities for change, sought diversion abroad. All Europe was ready to exclaim "God wills it!" and "On to Jerusalem!" to defend the Holy City against the Turk.
Specific Causes of the Crusades.—If we examine more specifically into the real causes of the crusades we shall find, as Mr. Guizot has said, that there were two causes, the one moral, the other social. The moral cause is represented in the {322} desire to relieve suffering humanity and fight against the injustice of the Turks. Both the Mohammedan and the Christian, the two most modern of all great religions, were placed upon a moral basis. Morality was one of the chief phases of both religions; yet they had different conceptions of morality, and no toleration for each other. Although prior to the Turkish invasion the Mohammedans, through policy, had tolerated the visitations of the Christians, the two classes of believers had never gained much respect for each other, and after the Turkish invasion the enmity between them became intense. It was the struggle of these two systems of moral order that was the great occasion and one of the causes of the crusades.
The social cause, however, was that already referred to—the desire of individuals for a change from the monotony which had settled down over Europe under the feudal régime. It was the mind of man, the enthusiasm of the individual, over-leaping the narrow bounds of his surroundings, and looking for fields of exploitation and new opportunities for action. The social cause represents, then, the spontaneous outburst of long-pent-up desires, a return to the freedom of earlier years, when wandering and plundering were among the chief occupations of the Teutonic tribes. To state the causes more specifically, perhaps it may be said that the ambition of temporal and spiritual princes and the feudal aristocracy for power, the general poverty of the community on account of overpopulation leading the multitudes to seek relief through change, and a distinct passion for pilgrimages were influential in precipitating this movement.
Unification of Ideals and the Breaking of Feudalism.—It is to be observed that the herald of the crusades thrilled all Europe, and that, on the basis of ideals of empire and church, there were a common sentiment or feeling and a common ground for action. All Europe soon placed itself on a common plane in the interest of a common cause. At first it would seem that this universal movement would have tended to {323} develop a unity of Western nations. To the extent of breaking down formal custom, destroying the sterner aspects of feudalism, and levelling the barriers of classes, it was a unifier of European thought and life.
But a more careful consideration reveals the fact that although all groups and classes of people ranged themselves on one side of the great and common cause, the effect was not merely to break down feudalism but, in addition, to build up nationality. There was a tendency toward national unity. The crusades in the latter part of the period became national affairs, rather than universal or European affairs, even though the old spirit of feudalism, whereby each individual followed by his own group of retainers sought his own power and prestige, still remained. The expansion of this spirit to larger groups invoked the national spirit and national life. While, in the beginning, the papacy and the church were all-powerful in their controlling influence on the crusades, in the later period we find different nationalities, especially England, France, and Germany, struggling for predominance, the French nation being more strongly represented than any other.
Among the important results of the crusades, then, were the breaking down of feudalism and the building up of national life. The causes of this result are evident. Many of the nobility were slain in battle or perished through famine and suffering, or else had taken up their abode under the new government that had been established at Jerusalem. This left a larger sway to those who were at home in the management of the affairs of the territory. Moreover, in the later period, the stronger national lines had been developed, which caused the subordination of the weaker feudal lords to the more powerful. Many, too, of the strong feudal lords had lost their wealth, as well as their position, in carrying on the expenses of the crusades. There was, consequently, the beginning of the remaking of all Europe upon a national basis. First, the enlarged ideas of life broke the bounds of feudalism; second, the failure to unite the nations in the common sentiment of a Western {324} Empire had left the political forces to cluster around new nationalities which sprang up in different sections of Europe.
The Development of Monarchy.—The result of this centralization was to develop monarchy, an institution which became universal in the process of the development of government in Europe. It became the essential form of government and the type of national unity. Through no other known process of the time could the chaotic state of the feudal régime be reduced to a system. Constitutional liberty could not have survived under these conditions. The monarchy was not only a permanent form of government, but it was possessed of great flexibility, and could adapt itself to almost any conditions of the social life. While it may, primarily, have rested on force and the predominance of power of certain individuals, in a secondary sense it represented not only the unity of the race from which it had gained great strength, but also the moral power of the tribe, as the expression of their will and sentiments of justice and righteousness. It is true that it drew a sharp line between the governing and the governed; it made the one all-powerful and the other all-subordinate; yet in many instances the one man represented the collective will of the people, and through him and his administration centred the wisdom of a nation.
Among the Teutonic peoples, too, there was something more than sentiment in this form of government. It was an old custom that the barbarian monarch was elected by the people and represented them; and whether he came through hereditary rank, from choice of nobles, or from the election of the people, this idea of monarchy was never lost sight of in Europe in the earliest stages of existence, and it was perverted to a great extent only by the Louis's of France and the Stuarts of England, in the modern era. Monarchy, then, as an institution, was advanced by the crusades; for a national life was developed and centralization took place, the king expressed the unity of it all, and so everywhere throughout Europe it became the universal type.
{325}The Crusades Quickened Intellectual Development.—The intense activity of Europe in a common cause could not do otherwise than stimulate intellectual life. In a measure, it was an emancipation of mind, the establishment of large and liberal ideas. This freedom of the mind arose, not so much from any product of thought contributed by the Orientals to the Christians, although in truth the former were in many ways far more cultured than the latter, but rather from the development which comes from observation and travel. A habit of observing the manners and customs, the government, the laws, the life of different nations, and the action and reaction of the different elements of human life, tended to develop intellectual activity. Both Greek and Mohammedan had their influence on the minds of those with whom they came in contact, and Christians returned to their former homes possessed of new information and new ideas, and quickened with new impulses.
The crusades also furnished material for poetic imagination and for literary products. It was the development of the old saga hero under new conditions, those of Christianity and humanity, and this led to greater and more profound sentiments concerning life. The crusades also took men out from their narrow surroundings and the belief that the Christian religion, supported by the monasteries, or cloisters, embodied all that was worth living in this life and a preparation for a passage into a newer, happier future life beyond. Humanity, according to the doctrine of the church, had not been worth the attention of the thoughtful. Life, as life, was not worth living. But the mingling of humanity on a broader basis and under new circumstances quickened the thoughts and sentiments of man in favor of his fellows. It gave an enlarged view of the life of man as a human creature. There was a thought engendered, feeble though it was at first, that the life on earth was really important and that it could be enlarged and broadened in many ways, and hence it was worth saving here for its own sake. The culmination of this idea appeared in the period of the Renaissance, a century later.
{326}The Commercial Effects of the Crusades.—A new opportunity for trade was offered, luxuries were imported from the East in exchange for money or for minerals and fish of the West. Cotton, wine, dyestuffs, glassware, grain, spice, fruits, silk, and jewelry, as well as weapons and horses, came pouring in from the Orient to enlarge and enrich the life of the Europeans. For, with all the noble spirit manifested in government and in social life, western Europe was semibarbaric in the meagreness of the articles of material wealth there represented. The Italian cities, seizing the opportunity of the contact of the West with the East, developed a surprising trade with the Oriental cities and with the northwest of Europe, and thus enhanced their power.[1] From this impulse of trade that carried on commerce with the Orient largely through the Italian cities, there sprang up a group of Hanse towns in the north of Europe. From a financial standpoint we find that money was brought into use and became from this time on a necessity. Money-lending became a business, and those who had treasure instead of keeping it lying idle and unfruitful were now able to develop wealth, not only for the borrower but also for the lender. This tended to increase the rapid movement of wealth and to stimulate productive industry and trade in every direction.
General Influence of the Crusades on Civilization.—We see, then, that it mattered little whether Jerusalem was taken by the Turks or the Christians, or whether thousands of Christians lost their lives in a great and holy cause, or whether the Mohammedans triumphed or were defeated at Jerusalem—the great result of the crusades was one of education of the people of Europe. The boundaries of life were enlarged, the power of thought increased, the opportunities for doing and living multiplied. It was the breaking away from the narrow shell of its own existence to the newly discovered life of the Orient that gave Europe its first impulse toward a larger life. And to this extent the crusades may be said to have been a {327} great civilizer. Many regard them as merely accidental phenomena difficult to explain, and yet, by tracing the various unobserved influences at work in their preparation, we shall see it was merely one phase of a great transitional movement in the progress of human life, just as we have seen that the feudal system was transitional between one form of government and another. The influence of the crusades on civilization was immense in giving it an impulse forward.
Under the general intellectual awakening, commercial enterprise was quickened, industry developed, and new ideas of government and art obtained. The boundaries of Christian influences were extended and new nationalities were strengthened. Feudalism was undermined by means of the consolidation of fiefs, the association of lord and vassal, the introduction of a new military system, the transfer of estates, and the promotion of the study and use of Roman jurisprudence. Ecclesiasticism was greatly strengthened at Rome, through the power of the pope and the authority of his legates, the development of monastic orders, by the introduction of force and the use of the engine of excommunication. But something was gained for the common people, for serfs could be readily emancipated and there was a freer movement among all people. Ideas of equality began to be disseminated, which had their effect on the relation of affairs. Upon the whole it may be stated in conclusion that the emancipation of the mind had begun.
1. Show how the crusades helped to break down feudalism and prepare for monarchy.
2. What intellectual benefit were the crusades to Europe?
3. Were there humanitarian and democratic elements of progress in the crusades?
4. What was the effect of the crusades on the power of the church?
5. What was the general influence of the crusades on civilization?
6. How did the crusades stimulate commerce?
[1] See Chapter XXI.
The Cost of Popular Government.—The early forms of government were for the most part based upon hereditary authority or upon force. The theories of government first advanced seldom had reference to the rule of the popular will. The practice of civil affairs, enforcing theories of hereditary government or the rule of force, interfered with the rights of self-government of the people. Hence every attempt to assume popular government was a struggle against old systems and old ideas. Freedom has been purchased by money or blood. Men point with interest to the early assemblies of the Teutonic people to show the germs of democratic government, afterward to be overshadowed by imperialism, but a careful consideration would show that even this early stage of pure democracy was only a developed state from the earlier hereditary nobility. The Goddess of Liberty is ideally a creature of beautiful form, but really her face is scarred and worn, her figure gnarled and warped with time, and her garments besprinkled with blood. The selfishness of man, the struggle for survival, and the momentum of governmental machinery, have prevented the exercise of justice and of political equality.
The liberty that has been gained is an expensive luxury. It has cost those who have tried to gain it the treasures of accumulated wealth and the flower of youth. When it has once been gained, the social forces have rendered the popular will non-expressive of the best government. Popular government, although ideally correct, is difficult to approximate, and frequently when obtained in name is far from real attainment. After long oppression and subservience to monarchy or aristocracy, when the people, suddenly gaining power through great expense of treasure and blood, assume self-government, they find to their distress that they are incapable of it when {329} struggling against unfavorable conditions. The result is a mismanaged government and an extra expense to the people. There has been through many centuries a continual struggle for popular government. The end of each conflict has seen something gained, yet the final solution of the problem has not been reached. Nevertheless, imperfect as government by the people may be, it is, in the long run, the safest and best, and it undoubtedly will triumph in the end. The democratic government of great nations is the most difficult of all forms to maintain, and it is only through the increased wisdom of the people that its final success may be achieved. The great problem now confronting it arises from purely economic considerations.
The Feudal Lord and the Towns.—Feudalism made its stronghold in country life. The baronial castle was built away from cities and towns—in a locality favorable for defense. This increased the importance of country life to a great extent, and placed the feudal lord in command of large tracts of territory. Many of the cities and towns were for a time accorded the municipal privileges that had been granted them under Roman rule; but in time these wore away, and the towns, with a few exceptions, became included in large feudal tracts, and were held, with other territory, as feudatories. In Italy, where feudalism was less powerful, the greater barons were obliged to build their castles in the towns, or, indeed, to unite with the towns in government. But in France and Germany, and even to a certain extent in England, the feudal lord kept aloof from the town.
There was, consequently, no sympathy existing between the feudal lord and the people of the cities. It was his privilege to collect feudal dues and aids from the cities, and beyond this he cared nothing for their welfare. It became his duty and privilege to hold the baronial court in the towns at intervals and to regulate their internal affairs, but he did this through a subordinate, and troubled himself little about any regulation or administration except to further his own ends.
{330}The Rise of Free Cities.—Many of the towns were practically run by the surviving machinery of the old Roman municipal system, while many were practically without government except the overlordship of the feudal chief by his representative officer. The Romans had established a complete system of municipal government in all their provinces. Each town or city of any importance had a complete municipal machinery copied after the government of the imperial city. When the Roman system began to decay, the central government failed first, and the towns found themselves severed from any central imperial government, yet in possession of machinery for local self-government. When the barbarians invaded the Roman territory, and, avoiding the towns, settled in the country, the towns fell into the habit of managing their own affairs as far as feudal régime would permit.
It appears, therefore, that the first attempts at local self-government were made in the cities and towns. In fact, liberty of government was preserved in the towns, through the old Roman municipal life, which lived on, and, being shorn of the imperial idea, took on the spirit of Roman republicanism. It was thus that the principles of Roman municipal government were kept through the Middle Ages and became useful in the modern period, not only in developing independent nationality but in perpetuating the rights of a people to govern themselves.
The people of the towns organized themselves into municipal guilds to withstand the encroachments of the barons on their rights and privileges. This gave a continued coherence to the city population, which it would not otherwise have had or perpetuated. In thus perpetuating the idea of self-government, this cohesive organization, infused with a common sentiment of defense, made it possible to wrest liberty from the feudal baron. When he desired to obtain money or supplies in order to carry on a war, or to meet other expenditures, he found it convenient to levy on the cities for this purpose. His exactions, coming frequently and irregularly, aroused the {331} citizens to opposition. A bloody struggle ensued, which usually ended in compromise and the purchase of liberty by the citizens by the payment of an annual tax to the feudal lord for permission to govern themselves in regard to all internal affairs. It was thus that many of the cities gained their independence of feudal authority, and that some, in the rise of national life, gained their independence as separate states, such, for instance, as Hamburg, Venice, Lübeck, and Bremen.
The Struggle for Independence.—In this struggle for independent life the cities first strove for just treatment. In many instances this was accorded the citizens, and their friendly relations with the feudal lord continued. When monarchy arose through the overpowering influence of some feudal lord, the city remained in subjection to the king, but in most instances the free burgesses of the towns were accorded due representation in the public assembly wherever one existed. Many cities, failing to get justice, struggled with more or less success for independence. The result of the whole contest was to develop the right of self-government and finally to preserve the principle of representation. It was under these conditions that the theory of "taxation without representation is tyranny" was developed. A practical outcome of this struggle for freedom has been the converse of this principle—namely, that representation without taxation is impossible. Taxation, therefore, is the badge of liberty—of a liberty obtained through blood and treasure.
The Affranchisement of Cities Developed Municipal Organization.—The effect of the affranchisement of cities was to develop an internal organization, usually on the representative plan. There was not, as a rule, a pure democracy, for the influences of the Roman system and the feudal surroundings, rapidly tending toward monarchy, rendered it impossible that the citizens of the so-called free cities should have the privileges of a pure democracy, hence the representative plan prevailed. There was not sufficient unity of purpose, nor common sentiment of the ideal government, sufficient to maintain {332} permanently the principles and practice of popular government. Yet there was a popular assembly, in which the voice of the people was manifested in the election of magistrates, the voting of taxes, and the declaration of war. In the mediaeval period, however, the municipal government was, in its real character, a business corporation, and the business affairs of the town were uppermost after defense against external forces was secured, hence it occurred that the wealthy merchants and the nobles who dwelt within the town became the most influential citizens in the management of municipal affairs.
There sprang up, as an essential outcome of these conditions, an aristocracy within the city. In many instances this aristocracy was reduced to an oligarchy, and the town was controlled by a few men; and in extreme cases the control fell into the hands of a tyrant, who for a time dominated the affairs of the town. Whatever the form of the municipal government, the liberties of the people were little more than a mere name, recognized as a right not to be denied. Having obtained their independence of foreign powers, the towns fell victims to internal tyranny, yet they were the means of preserving to the world the principles of local self-government, even though they were not permitted to enjoy to a great extent the privileges of exercising them. It remained for more favorable circumstances to make this possible.
The Italian Cities.—The first cities to become prominent after the perpetuation of the Roman system by the introduction of barbarian blood were those of northern Italy. These cities were less influenced by the barbarian invasion than others, on account of, first, their substantial city organization; second, the comparatively small number of invaders that surrounded them; and, third, the opportunity for trade presented by the crusades, which they eagerly seized. Their power was increased because, as stated above, the feudal nobility, unable to maintain their position in the country, were forced to live in the cities. The Italian cities were, therefore, less interfered with by barbarian and feudal influences, and continued to {333} develop strength. The opportunity for immense trade and commerce opened up through the crusades made them wealthy. Another potent cause of the rapid advancement of the Italian cities was their early contact with the Greeks and the Saracens, for they imbibed the culture of these peoples, which stimulated their own culture and learning. Also, the invasions of the Saracens on the south and of the Hungarians on the north caused them to strengthen their fortifications. They enclosed their towns with walls, and thus made opportunity for the formation of small, independent states within the walls.
Comparatively little is known of the practice of popular government, although most of these cities were in the beginning republican and had popular elections. In the twelfth century freedom was granted, in most instances, to the peasantry. There were a parliament, a republican constitution, and a secret council (credenza) that assisted the consuls. There was also a great council called a senate, consisting of about a hundred representatives of the people. The chief duty of the senate was to discuss important public measures and refer them to the parliament for their approval. In this respect it resembled the Greek senate (boule). The secret council superintended the public works and administered the public finance. These forms of government were not in universal use, but are as nearly typical as can be found, as the cities varied much in governmental practice. It is easy to see that the framework of the government is Roman, while the spirit of the institutions, especially in the earlier part of their history, is affected by Teutonic influence. There was a large number of these free towns in Italy from the close of the twelfth to the beginning of the fourteenth century. At the close of this period, the republican phase of their government declined, and each was ruled by a succession of tyrants, or despots (podestas).
In vain did the people attempt to regain their former privileges; they succeeded only in introducing a new kind of despotism in the captains of the people. The cities had fallen {334} into the control of the wealthy families, and it mattered not what was the form of government, despotism prevailed. In many of the cities the excessive power of the despots made their reign a prolonged terror. As long as enlightened absolutism prevailed, government was administered by upright rulers and judges in the interests of the people; but when the power fell into the hands of unscrupulous men, the privileges and rights of the people were lost. It is said that absolutism, descending from father to son, never improves in the descent; in the case of some of the Italian cities it produced monsters. As the historian says: "The last Visconti, the last La Scalas, the last Sforzas, the last Farnesi, the last Medici—magnificent promoters of the humanities as their ancestors had been—were the worst specimens of the human race." The situation of government was partially relieved by the introduction at a later period of the trade guilds. All the industrial elements were organized into guilds, each one of which had its representation in the government. This was of service to the people, but nothing could erase the blot of despotism.
The despots were of different classes, according to the method by which they obtained power. First, there were nobles, who were representatives of the emperor, and governed parts of Lombardy while it was under the federated government, a position which enabled them to obtain power as captains of the people. Again, there were some who held feudal rights over towns and by this means became rulers or captains. There were others who, having been raised to office by the popular vote, had in turn used the office as a means to enslave the people and defeat the popular will. The popes, also, appointed their nephews and friends to office and by this means obtained supremacy. Merchant princes, who had become wealthy, used their money to obtain and hold power. Finally, there were the famous condottieri, who captured towns and made them principalities. Into the hands of such classes as these the rights and privileges of the people were continually falling, and the result was disastrous to free government.
{335}Government of Venice.—Florence and Venice represent the two typical towns of the group of Italian cities. Wealthy, populous, and aggressive, they represent the greatest power, the highest intellectual development, becoming cities of culture and learning. In 1494 the inhabitants of Florence numbered 90,000, of whom only 3,200 were burghers, or full citizens, while Venice had 100,000 inhabitants and only 5,000 burghers. This shows what a low state popular government had reached—only one inhabitant in twenty was allowed the rights of citizens.
Venice was established on the islands and morasses of the Adriatic Coast by a few remnants of the Beneti, who sought refuge upon them from the ravages of the Huns. These people were early engaged in fishing, and later began a coast trade which, in time, enlarged into an extensive commerce. In early times it had a municipal constitution, and the little villages had their own assemblies, discussed their own affairs, and elected their own magistrates. Occasionally the representatives of the several tribal villages met to discuss the affairs of the whole city. This led to a central government, which, in 697 A.D., elected a doge for life. The doges possessed most of the attributes of kings, became despotic and arbitrary, and finally ruled with absolute sway, so that the destinies of the republic were subjected to the rule of one man. Aristocracy established itself, and the first families struggled for supremacy.
Venice was the oldest republic of modern times, and continued the longest. "It was older by 700 years than the Lombard republics, and it survived them for three centuries. It witnessed the fall of the Roman Empire; it saw Italy occupied by Odoacer, by Charlemagne, and by Napoleon." Its material prosperity was very great, and great buildings remain to this day as monuments of an art and architecture the foundations of which were mostly laid before the despots were at the height of their power.
Government of Florence.—There was a resemblance between Florence and Athens. Indeed, the former has been called the {336} Athens of the West, for in it the old Greek idea was first revived; in it the love for the artistic survived. Both cities were devoted to the accumulating of wealth, and both were interested in the struggles over freedom and general politics. Situated in the valley of the Arno, under the shadow of the Apennines, Florence lacked the charm of Venice, situated on the sea. It was early conquered by Sulla and made into a military city of the Romans, and by a truce the Roman government and the Roman spirit prevailed in the city. It was destroyed by the Goths and rebuilt by the Franks, but still retained the Roman spirit. It was then a city of considerable importance, surrounded by a wall six miles in circumference, having seventy towers.
After it was rebuilt, the city was governed by a senate, but finally the first families predominated. Then there arose, in 1215, the great struggle between the papal and the imperial parties, the Ghibellines and the Guelphs—internal dissensions which were not quieted until these two opposing factions were driven out and a popular government established, with twelve seignors, or rulers, as the chief officers. Soon after this the art guilds obtained considerable power. They elected priors of trades every two months. At first there were seven guilds that held control in Florence; they were the lawyers, who were excluded from all offices, the physicians, the bankers, the mercers, the woollen-drapers, the dealers in foreign cloths, and the dealers in pelts from the north. Subsequently, men following the baser arts—butchers, retailers of cloth, blacksmiths, bakers, shoemakers, builders—were admitted to the circle of arts, until there were twenty-one.
After having a general representative council, it was finally (1266) determined that each of the seven greater arts should have a council of its own. The next step in government was the appointment of a gonfalconier of justice by the companies of arts that had especial command of citizens. But soon a struggle began between the commons and the nobility, in which for a long time the former were successful. Under the {337} leadership of Giano della Bella they enacted ordinances of justice destroying the power of the nobles, making them ineligible to the office of prior, and fining each noble 13,000 pounds for any offense against the law. The testimony of two credible persons was sufficient to convict a person if their testimony agreed; hence it became easy to convict persons of noble blood. Yet the commons were in the end obliged to succumb to the power of the nobility and aristocracy, and the light of popular government went out.
The Lombard League.—The Lombard cities of the north of Italy were established subsequent to the invasion of the Lombards, chiefly through the peculiar settlement of the Lombard dukes over different territories in a loose confederation. But the Lombards found cities already existing, and became the feudal proprietors of these and the territory. There were many attempts to unite these cities into a strong confederation, but owing to the nature of the feudal system and the general independence and selfishness of each separate city, they proved futile. We find here the same desire for local self-government that existed in the Greek cities, the indulgence of which was highly detrimental to their interests in time of invasion or pressure from external power. There were selfishness and rivalry between all these cities, not only in the attempt to outdo each other in political power, but by reason of commercial jealousy. "Venice first, Christians next, and Italy afterward" was the celebrated maxim of Venice.
To the distressing causes which kept the towns apart, the strife between the Guelphs and the Ghibellines increased the trouble. Nor had the pope any desire to see a strong, unified government so near him. In those days popes were usually not honored in their own country, and, moreover, had enough to do to control their refractory subjects to the north of the Alps. Unity was impossible among cities so blindly and selfishly opposed to one another, and it was, besides, especially prevented by jealous sovereigns from without, who wished rather to see these cities acting independently and separately {338} than effectively, in a strong, united government. Under these circumstances it was impossible there should be a strong and unified government; yet, could they have been properly utilized, all the materials were at hand for developing a national life which would have withstood the shock of opposing nationalities through centuries. The attempt to make a great confederation, a representative republic, failed, however, and with it failed the real hopes of republicanism in Italy.
The Rise of Popular Assemblies in France.—In the early history of France, while feudalism yet prevailed, it became customary for the provinces to have their popular assemblies. These assemblies usually were composed of all classes of the people, and probably had their origin in the calls made by feudal lords to unite all those persons within their feudatories who might have something to say respecting the administration of the government and the law. In them the three estates were assembled—the clergy, the nobility, and the commons. Many of these old provincial assemblies continued for a long time, for instance, in Brittany and Languedoc, where they remained until the period of the revolution.
It appears that every one of these provinces had its own provincial assembly, and a few of these assemblies survived until modern times, so that we know somewhat of their nature. Although their powers were very much curtailed on the rise of monarchy, especially in the time of the Louis's, yet the provinces in which they continued had advantages over those provinces which had lost the provincial assemblies. They had purchased of the crown the privilege of collecting all taxes demanded by the central government, and they retained the right to tax themselves for the expenses of their local administration and to carry on improvements, such as roads and water-courses, without any administration of the central government. Notwithstanding much restriction upon their power within their own domain, they moved with a certain freedom which other provinces did not possess.
Rural Communes Arose in France.—Although feudalism had prevailed over the entire country, there was a continual growth {339} of local self-government at the time when feudalism was gradually passing into monarchial power. It was to the interest of the kings to favor somewhat the development of local self-government, especially the development of the cities while the struggle for dominion over feudalism was going on; but when the kings had once obtained power they found themselves confronted with the uprising spirit of local government. The struggle between king and people went on for some centuries, until the time when everything ran to monarchy and all the rights of the people were wrested from them; indeed, the perfection of the centralized government of the French monarch left no opportunity for the voice of the people to be heard.
The rural communes existed by rights obtained from feudal lords who had granted them charters and given them self-government over a certain territory. These charters allowed the inhabitants of a commune to regulate citizenship and the administration of property, and to define feudal rights and duties. Their organ of government was a general assembly of all the inhabitants, which either regulated the affairs of a commune directly or else delegated especial functions to communal officers who had power to execute laws already passed or to convoke the general assembly of the people on new affairs. The collection of taxes for both the central and the local government, the management of the property of the commune, and the direction of the police system represented the chief powers of the commune. The exercise of these privileges led into insistence upon the right of every man, whether peasant, freeman, or noble, to be tried by his peers.
The Municipalities of France.—As elsewhere related, the barbarians found the cities and towns of France well advanced in their own municipal system. This system they modified but little, only giving somewhat of the spirit of political freedom. In the struggle waged later against the feudal nobility these towns gradually obtained their rights, by purchase or agreement, and became self-governing. In this struggle we find the Christian church, represented by the bishop, always arraying itself on the side of the commons against the nobility, {340} and thus establishing democracy. Among the municipal privileges which were wrested from the nobility was included the right to make all laws that might concern the people; to raise their own taxes, both local and for the central government; to administer justice in their own way, and to manage their own police system. The relations of the municipality to the central government or the feudal lord forced them to pay a certain tribute, which gave them a legal right to manage themselves.
Their pathway was not always smooth, however, but, on the contrary, full of contention and struggle against overbearing lords who sought to usurp authority. Their internal management generally consisted of two assemblies—one a general assembly of citizens, in which they were all well represented, the other an assembly of notables. The former elected the magistrates, and performed all legislative actions; the latter acted as a sort of advisory council to assist the magistrates. Sometimes the cities had but one assembly of citizens, which merely elected magistrates and exercised supervision over them. The magistracy generally consisted of aldermen, presided over by a mayor, and acted as a general executive council for the city.
Municipal freedom gradually declined through adverse circumstances. Within the city limits tyranny, aristocracy, or oligarchy sometimes prevailed, wresting from the people the rights which they had purchased or fought for. Without was the pressure of the feudal lord, which gradually passed into the general fight of the king for royal supremacy. The king, it is true, found the towns very strong allies in his struggle against the nobility. They too had commenced a struggle against the feudal lords, and there was a common bond of sympathy between them. But when the feudal lords were once mastered, the king must turn his attention to reducing the liberties of the people, and gradually, through the influence of monarchy and centralization of government, the rights and privileges of the people of the towns of France passed away.
{341}The States-General Was the First Central Organization.—It ought to be mentioned here that after the monarchy was moderately well established, Philip the Fair (1285-1314) called the representatives of the nation together. He called in the burghers of the towns, the nobility, and the clergy and formed a parliament for the discussion of the affairs of the realm. It appeared that the constitutional development which began so early in England was about to obtain in France. But it was not to be realized, for in the three centuries that followed—namely, the fourteenth, fifteenth, and sixteenth—the monarchs of France managed to keep this body barely in existence, without giving it any real power. When the king was secure upon his throne and imperialism had received its full power, the nobility, the clergy, and the commons were no longer needed to support the throne of France, and, consequently, the will of the people was not consulted. It is true that each estate of nobility, clergy, and commons met separately from time to time and made out its own particular grievances to the king, but the representative power of the people passed away and was not revived again until, on the eve of the revolution, Louis XVI, shaken with terror, once more called together the three estates in the last representative body held before the political deluge burst upon the French nation.
Failure of Attempts at Popular Government in Spain.—There are signs of popular representation in Spain at a very early date, through the independent towns. This representation was never universal or regular. Many of the early towns had charter rights which they claimed as ancient privileges granted by the Roman government. These cities were represented for a time in the popular assembly, or Cortes, but under the reign of Ferdinand and Isabella the Cortes were seldom called, and when they were, it was for the advantage of the sovereign rather than of the people. Many attempts were made in Spain, from time to time, to fan into flame this enthusiasm for popular representation, but the predominance of monarchy and the dogmatic centralized power of the church tended to {342} repress all real liberty. Even in these later days sudden bursts of enthusiasm for constitutional liberty and constitutional privilege are heard from the southern peninsula; but the transition into monarchy was so sudden that the rights of the people were forever curtailed. The frequent outbursts for liberty and popular government came from the centres where persisted the ideas of freedom planted by the northern barbarians.
Democracy in the Swiss Cantons.—It is the boast of some of the rural districts of Switzerland, that they never submitted to the feudal régime, that they have never worn the yoke of bondage, and, indeed, that they were never conquered. It is probable that several of the rural communes of Switzerland have never known anything other than a free peasantry. They have continually practised the pure democracy exemplified by the entire body of citizens meeting in the open field to make the laws and to elect their officers. Although it is true that in these rural communities of Switzerland freedom has been a continuous quantity, yet during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries Switzerland, as a whole, was dominated by feudalism. This feudalism differed somewhat from the French feudalism, for it represented a sort of overlordship of absentee feudal chiefs, which, leaving the people more to themselves, made vassalage less irksome.
At the beginning of the fourteenth century, in the year 1309, the cantons, Schwyz, Uri, and Unterwalden, lying near Lake Lucerne, gained, through the emperor, Henry VII, the recognition of their independence in all things except allegiance to the empire. Each of these small states had its own government, varying somewhat from that of its neighbors. Yet the rural cantons evinced a strong spirit of pure democracy, for they had already, about half a century previous, formed themselves into a league which proved the germ of confederacy, which perpetuated republican institutions in the Middle Ages. The spirit of freedom prevailing throughout diverse communities brought the remainder of the Swiss cantons into the confederation.
{343}The first liberties possessed by the various cantons were indigenous to the soil. From time immemorial they had clung to the ancient right of self-government, and had developed in their midst a local system which feudalism never succeeded in eradicating. It mattered not how diverse their systems of local government, they had a common cause against feudal domination, and this brought them into a close union in the attempt to throw off such domination. It is one of the remarkable phenomena of political history, that proud, aristocratic cities with monarchial tendencies could be united with humble and rude communes which held expressly to pure democracy. It is but another illustration of the truth that a particular form of government is not necessary to the development of liberty, but it is the spirit, bravery, independence, and unity of the people that make democracy possible. Another important truth, also, is illustrated here—that Italian, German, and French people who respect each other's liberty and have a common cause may dwell together on a basis of unity and mutual support.
Switzerland stands, then, for the perpetuation of the early local liberties of the people. It has always been the synonym of freedom and the haven of refuge for the politically oppressed of all nations, and its freedom has always had a tendency to advance civilization, not only within the boundaries of the Swiss government, but throughout all Europe. Progressive ideas of religion and education have ever accompanied liberty in political affairs. The long struggle with the feudal lords and the monarchs of European governments, and with the Emperor of Germany, united the Swiss people on a basis of common interests and developed a spirit of independence. At the same time, it had a tendency to warp their judgments respecting the religious rights and liberties of a people, and more than once the Swiss have shown how narrow in conception of government a republic can be. Yet, upon the whole, it must be conceded that the watch-fires of liberty have never been extinguished in Switzerland, and that the light they {344} have shed has illumined many dark places in Europe and America.
The Ascendancy of Monarchy.—Outside of Switzerland the faint beginning of popular representation was gradually overcome by the ascendancy of monarchy. Feudalism, after its decline, was rapidly followed by the development of monarchy throughout Europe. The centralization of power became a universal principle, uniting in one individual the government of an entire nation. It was an expression of unity, and was essential to the redemption of Europe from the chaotic state in which it had been left by declining feudalism.
Monarchy is not necessarily the rule of a single individual. It may be merely the proclamation of the will of the people through one man, the expression of the voice of the people from a single point. Of all forms of government a monarchy is best adapted to a nation or people needing a strong central government able to act with precision and power. As illustrative of this, it is a noteworthy fact that the old Lombard league of confederated states could get along very well until threatened with foreign invasion; then they needed a king. The Roman republic, with consuls and senate, moved on very well in times of peace, but in times of war it was necessary to have a dictator, whose voice should have the authority of law. The President of the United States is commander-in-chief of the army, which position in time of war gives him a power almost resembling imperialism. Could Greece have presented against her invaders a strong monarchy which could unite all her heroes in one common command, her enemies would not so easily have prevailed against her.
Monarchy, then, in the development of European life seemed merely a stage of progress not unlike that of feudalism itself—a stage of progressive government; and it was only when it was carried to a ridiculous extreme in France and in England—in France under the Louis's and in England under the Stuarts—that it finally appeared detrimental to the highest interests of the people. On the other hand, the weak {345} republicanism of the Middle Ages had not sufficient unity or sufficient aggressiveness to maintain itself, and gave way to what was then a form of government better adapted to conditions and surroundings. But the fires of liberty, having been once lighted, were to burst forth again in a later period and burn with sufficient heat to purify the governments of the world.
Beginning of Constitutional Liberty in England.—When the Normans entered England, feudalism was in its infancy and wanted yet the form of the Roman system. The kings of the English people soon became the kings of England, and the feudal system spread over the entire island. But this feudalism was already in the grasp of monarchy which prevailed much more easily in England than in France. There came a time in England, as elsewhere, when the people, seeking their liberties, were to be united with the king to suppress the feudal nobility, and there sprang up at this time some elements of popular representative government, most plainly visible in the parliament of Simon de Montfort (1265) and the "perfect parliament" of 1295, the first under the reign of Henry III, and the second under Edward I. In one or two instances prior to this, county representation was summoned in parliament in order to facilitate the method of assessing and collecting taxes, but these two parliaments marked the real beginnings of constitutional liberty in England, so far as local representation is concerned.
Prior to this, in 1215, the nobles and the commons, working together, had wrested the concession of the great Magna Charta from King John, and thus had established a precedent of the right of each class of individuals to have its share in the government of the realm; under its declaration king, nobility, and commons, each a check upon the other, each struggling for power, and all developing through the succeeding generations the liberty of the people under the constitution. This long, slow process of development, reminding one somewhat of the struggle of the plebeians of Rome against the patricians, {346} finally made the lower house of parliament, which represents the people of the realm, the most prominent factor in the government of the English people—and at last, without a cataclysm like the French Revolution, established liberty of speech, popular representation, and religious liberty.
We find, then, that in England and in other parts of Europe a liberalizing tendency set in after monarchy had been established and become predominant, which limited the actions of kings and declared for the liberties of the people. Imperialism in monarchy was limited by the constitution of the people. England laid the foundations of democracy in recognizing the rights of representation of all classes.
1. What phases of popular government are to be noted in the Italian cities?
2. What is the relation of "enlightened absolutism" to social progress?
3. The characteristics of mediaeval guilds.
4. Why were the guilds discontinued?
5. The rise and decline of popular assemblies and rural communes of France.
6. The nature of the government of the Swiss cantons.
7. The transition from feudalism to monarchy.
8. In what ways was the idea of popular government perpetuated in Europe?
Social Evolution Is Dependent Upon Variation.—The process by which ideas are born and propagated in human society is strangely analogous to the methods of biological evolution. The laws of survival, of adaptation, of variation and mutation prevail, and the evidence of conspicuous waste is ever present. The grinding and shifting of human nature under social law is similar to the grinding and shifting of physical nature under organic law. When we consider the length of time it takes physical nature to accomplish the ultimate of fixed values, seventy millions of years or more to produce an oak-tree, millions of years to produce a horse or a man, we should not be impatient with the slow processes of human society nor the waste of energy in the process. For human society arises out of the confusion of ideas and progresses according to the law of survival.
New ideas must be accepted, diffused, used, and adapted to new conditions. It would seem that Europe had sufficient knowledge of life contributed by the Orient, by Greek, Roman, and barbarian to go forward; but first must come a period of readjustment of old truth to new environment and the discovery of new truth. For several centuries, in the Dark Ages, the intellectual life of man lay dormant. Then must come a quickening of the spirit before the world could advance. However, in considering human progress, the day of small things must "not be despised." For in the days of confusion and low tide of regression there are being established new modes of life and thought which through right adaptation will flow on into the full tide of progress. Revivals come which gather up and utilize the scattered and confused ideas of life, adapting and utilizing them by setting new standards and imparting new impulses of progress.
{348}The Revival of Progress Throughout Europe.—Human society, as a world of ideas, is a continuous quantity, and therefore it is difficult to mark off any definite period of time to show social causation. Roughly speaking, the period from the beginning of the eighth century to the close of the fifteenth is a period of intellectual ferment, the climax of which extended from the eleventh to the close of the fifteenth century. It was in this period that the forces were gathering in preparation for the achievements of the modern era of progress. There was one general movement, an awakening along the whole line of human endeavor in the process of transition from the old world to the new. It was a revival of art, language, literature, philosophy, theology, politics, law, trade, commerce, and the additions of invention and discovery. It was the period of establishing schools and laying the foundation of universities. In this there was a more or less continuous progress of the freedom of the mind, which permitted reflective thought, which subsequently led on to the religious reformation that permitted freedom of belief, and the French Revolution, which permitted freedom of political action. It was the rediscovery of the human mind, a quickening of intellectual liberty, a desire of alert minds for something new. It was a call for humanity to move forward.
The Revival of Learning a Central Idea of Progress.—As previously stated, the church had taken to itself by force of circumstances the power in the Western world relinquished by the fallen Roman Empire. In fighting the battles against unbelief, ignorance, and political corruption, it had become a powerful hierarchy. As the conservator of learning, it eventually began to settle the limits of knowledge and belief on its own interpretation and to force this upon the world. It saved the elements of knowledge from the destruction of the barbarians, but in turn sought to lock up within its own precincts of belief the thoughts of the ages, presuming to do the thinking for the world. It became dogmatic, arbitrary, conservative, and conventional. Moreover, this had become the {349} attitude of all inert Europe. The several movements that sought to overcome this stifling condition of the mind are called the "revival of learning."
A more specific use of the term renaissance, or revival of learning, refers especially to the restoration of the intellectual continuity of Europe, or the rebirth of the human mind. It is generally applied to what is known as humanism, or the revival of classical learning. Important as this phase of general progress is, it can be considered only as a part of the great revival of progress. Humanism, or the revival of classical learning, having its origin and first great impulse in Italy, it has become customary to use humanism and the Italian renaissance interchangeably, yet without careful consideration; for although the Italian renaissance is made up largely of humanism, it had such wide-reaching consequences on the progress of all Europe as not to be limited by the single influence of the revival of the classical learning.
Influence of Charlemagne.—Clovis founded the Frankish kingdom, which included the territory now occupied by France and the Netherlands. Subsequently this kingdom was enlarged under the rule of Charles Martel, who turned back the Moslem invasion at Poitiers in 732, and became ruler of Europe north of the Alps. His son Pepin enlarged and strengthened the kingdom, so that when his successor Charlemagne came into power in 768 he found himself in control of a vast inland empire. He conquered Rome and all north Italy and assumed the title of Roman emperor. The movement of Charlemagne was a slight and even a doubtful beginning of the revival. Possibly his reform was a faint flickering of the watch-fires of intellectual and civil activity, but they went out and darkness obscured the horizon until the breaking of the morn of liberty. Yet in the darkness of the ages that followed new forces were forming unobserved by the contemporary historian—forces which should give a new awakening to the mind of all Europe.
Charlemagne re-established the unity of government which {350} had been lost in the decline of the old Roman government; he enlarged the boundary of the empire, established an extensive system of administration, and promoted law and order. He did more than this: he promoted religion by favoring the church in the advancement of its work throughout the realm. But unfortunately, in the attempt to break down feudalism, he increased it by giving large donations to the church, and so helped to develop ecclesiastical feudalism, and laid the foundation of subsequent evils. He was a strong warrior, a great king, and a master of civil government.
Charlemagne believed in education, and insisted that the clergy should be educated, and he established schools for the education of his subjects. He promoted learning among his civil officers by establishing a school all the graduates of which were to receive civil appointments. It was the beginning of the civil service method in Europe. Charlemagne was desirous, too, of promoting learning of all kinds, and gathered together the scattered fragments of the German language, and tried to advance the educational interests of his subjects in every direction. But the attempts to make learning possible, apparently, passed for naught in later days when the iron rule of Charlemagne had passed away, and the weaker monarchs who came after him were unable to sustain his system. Darkness again spread over Europe, to be dispelled finally by other agencies.
The Attitude of the Church Was Retrogressive.—The attitude of the Christian church toward learning in the Middle Ages was entirely arbitrary. It had become thoroughly institutionalized and was not in sympathy with the changes that were taking place outside of its own policy. It assumed an attitude of hostility to everything that tended toward the development of free and independent thought outside the dictates of the authorities of the church. It found itself, therefore, in an attitude of bitter opposition to the revival of learning which had spread through Europe. It was unfortunate that the church appeared so diametrically opposed to freedom of {351} thought and independent activity of mind. Even in England, when the new learning was first introduced, although Henry VIII favored it, the church in its blind policy opposed it, and when the renaissance in Germany had passed continuously into the Reformation, Luther opposed the new learning with as much vigor as did the papalists themselves.
But from the fact of the church's assuming this attitude toward the new learning, it must not be inferred that there was no learning within the church, for there were scholars in theology, logic, and law, astute and learned. Yet the church assumed that it had a sort of proprietorship or monopoly of learning, and that only what it might see fit to designate was to receive attention, and then only in the church's own way; all other knowledge was to be opposed. The ecclesiastical discussions gave evidence of intense mental activity within the church, but, having little knowledge of the outside world to invigorate it or to give it something tangible upon which to operate, the mind passed into speculative fields that were productive of little permanent culture. Dwelling only upon a few fundamental conceptions at first, it soon tired itself out with its own weary round.
The church recognized in all secular advocates of literature and learning its own enemies, and consequently began to expunge from the literary world as far as possible the remains of the declining Roman and Greek culture. It became hostile to Greek and Latin literature and art and sought to repress them. In the rise of new languages and literature in new nationalities every attempt was made by the church to destroy the effects of the pagan life. The poems and sagas treating of the religion and mythologies of these young, rising nationalities were destroyed. The monuments of the first beginnings of literature, the products of a period so hard to compass by the historian, were served in the same way as were the Greek and Latin masterpieces.
The church said, if men will persist in study, let them ponder the precepts of the gospels as interpreted by the church. {352} For those who inquired about the problems of life, the churchmen pointed to the creeds and the dogmas of the church, which had settled all things. If men were too persistent in inquiring about the nature of this world, they were told that it is of little importance, only a prelude to the world to come; that they should spend their time in preparation for the future. Even as great a man as Gregory of Tours said: "Let us shun the lying fables of the poets and forego the wisdom of the sages at enmity with God, lest we incur the condemnation of endless death by the sentence of our Lord." Saint Augustine deplored the waste of time spent in reading Virgil, while Alcuin regretted that in his boyhood he had preferred Virgil to the legends of the saints. With the monks such considerations gave excuse for laziness and disregard of rhetoric.
But in this movement of hostility to the new learning, the church went too far, and soon found the entire ecclesiastical system face to face with a gross ignorance, which must be eradicated or the superstructure would fall. As Latin was the only vehicle of thought in those days, it became a necessity that the priests should study Virgil and the other Latin authors, consequently the churches passed from their opposition to pagan authors to a careful utilization of them, until the whole papal court fell under the influence of the revival of learning, and popes and prelates became zealous in the promotion and, indeed, in the display of learning. When the son of Lorenzo the Magnificent became Pope Leo X, the splendor of the ducal court of Florence passed to the papal throne, and no one was more zealous in the patronage of learning than he. He encouraged learning and art of every kind, and built a magnificent library. It was merely the transferrence of the pomp of the secular court to the papacy.
Such was the attitude of the church toward the new learning—first, a bitter opposition; second, a forced toleration; and third, the absorption of its best products. Yet in all this the spirit of the church was not for the freedom of mind nor independence of thought. It could not recognize this freedom nor {353} the freedom of religious belief until it had been humiliated by the spirit of the Reformation.
Scholastic Philosophy Marks a Step in Progress.—There arose in the ninth century a speculative philosophy which sought to harmonize the doctrine of the church with the philosophy of Neo-Platonism and the logic of Aristotle. The scholastic philosophy may be said to have had its origin with John Scotus Erigena, who has been called "the morning star of scholasticism." He was the first bold thinker to assert the supremacy of reason and openly to rebel against the dogma of the church. In laying the foundation of his doctrine, he starts with a philosophical explanation of the universe. His writings and translations were forerunners of mysticism and set forth a peculiar pantheistic conception. His doctrine appears to ignore the pretentious authority of the church of his time and to refer to the earlier church for authority. In so doing he incorporated the doctrine of emanation advanced by the Neo-Platonists, which held that out of God, the supreme unity, evolve the particular forms of goodness, and that eventually all things will return to God. In like manner, in the creation of the universe the species comes from the genera by a process of unfolding.
The complete development and extension of scholastic philosophy did not come until the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. The term "scholastics" was first applied to those who taught in the cloister schools founded by Charlemagne. It was at a later period applied to the teachers of the seven liberal arts—grammar, rhetoric, and dialectic, in the Trivium, and arithmetic, geometry, music, and astronomy, in the Quadrivium. Finally it was applied to all persons who occupied themselves with science or philosophy. Scholastic philosophy in its completed state represents an attempt to harmonize the doctrines of the church with Aristotelian philosophy.
There were three especial doctrines developed in the scholastic philosophy, called respectively nominalism, realism, and conceptualism. The first asserted that there are no generic {354} types, and consequently no abstract concepts. The formula used to express the vital point in nominalism is "Universalia post rem." Its advocates asserted that universals are but names. Roscellinus was the most important advocate of this doctrine. In the fourteenth century William of Occam revived the subject of nominalism, and this had much to do with the downfall of scholasticism, for its inductive method suggested the acquiring of knowledge through observation.
Realism was a revival of the Platonic doctrine that ideas are the only real things. The formula for it was "Universalia ante rem." By it the general name preceded that of the species. Universal concepts represent the real; all else is merely illustrative of the real. The only real sphere is the one held in the mind, mathematically correct in every way. Balls and globes and other actual things are but the illustrations of the genus. Perhaps Anselm was the strongest advocate of this method of reasoning.
It remained for Abelard to unite these two theories of philosophical reasoning into one, called conceptualism. He held that universals are not ideals, but that they exist in the things themselves. The formula given was "Universalia in re." This was a step in advance, and laid something of a foundation for the philosophy of classification in modern science.
The scholastic philosophers did much to sharpen reason and to develop the mind, but they failed for want of data. Indeed, this has been the common failure of man, for in the height of civilization men speculate without sufficient knowledge. Even in the beginning of scientific thought, for lack of facts, men spent much of their time in speculation. The scholastic philosophers were led to consider many unimportant questions which could not be well settled. They asked the church authorities why the sacramental wine and bread turned into blood and flesh, and what was the necessity of the atonement? And in considering the nature of pure being they asked: "How many angels can dance at once on the point of a needle?" and "In moving from point to point, do angels pass through {355} intervening space?" They asked seriously whether "angels had stomachs," and "if a starving ass were placed exactly midway between two stacks of hay would he ever move?" But it must not be inferred that these people were as ridiculous as they appear, for each question had its serious side. Having no assistance from science, they fell single-handed upon dogmatism; yet many times they busied themselves with unprofitable discussions, and some of them became the advocates of numerous doctrines and dogmas which had a tendency to confuse knowledge, although in defense of which wits were sharpened.
Lord Bacon, in a remarkable passage, has characterized the scholastic philosophers as follows:
"This kind of degenerate learning did chiefly reign among the schoolmen, who—having sharp and strong wits and abundance of leisure and small variety of reading, but their wits being shut up in the cells of a few authors (chiefly Aristotle, their dictator) as their persons were shut up in the cells of monasteries and colleges, and having little history, either of nature or of time—did, out of no great quantity of matter and infinite agitation of wit, spin out unto us those laborious webs of learning which are extant in their books. For the wit and mind of man, if it work upon matter which is the contemplation of the creatures of God, worketh according to the stuff and is limited thereby; but if it work upon itself, as the spider worketh its web, then it is endless, and brings forth indeed cobwebs of learning, admirable for the fineness of thread and work, but of no substance or profit."[1]
Scholasticism, as the first phase of the revival of learning, though overshadowed by tradition and mediaeval dogmatism, showed great earnestness of purpose in ascertaining the truth by working "the wit and mind of man"; but it worked not "according to the stuff," and, having little to feed upon, it produced only speculations of truth and indications of future possibilities. There were many bright men among the scholastic {356} philosophers, especially in the thirteenth century, who left their impress upon the age; yet scholasticism itself was affected by dogmatism and short-sightedness, and failed to utilize the means at its hand for the improvement of learning. It exercised a tyranny over all mental endeavor, for the reason that it was obliged in all of its efforts to carry through all of its reasoning the heavy weight of dogmatic theology. Whatever else it attempted, it could not shake itself free from this incubus of learning, through a great system of organized knowledge, which hung upon the thoughts and lives of men and attempted to explain all things in every conceivable way.
But to show that independent thinking was a crime one has only to refer to the results of the knowledge of Roger Bacon, who advanced his own methods of observation and criticism. Had the scholastics been able to accept what he clearly pointed out to them, namely, that reason can advance only by finding, through observation, new material upon which to work, science might have been active a full century in advance of what it was. He laid the foundation of experimental science, and pointed out the only way in which the revival of learning could be made permanent, but his voice was unheeded by those around him, and it remained for the philosophers of succeeding generations to estimate his real worth.
Cathedral and Monastic Schools.—There were two groups of schools under the management of the church, known as the cathedral and monastic schools. The first represented the schools that had developed in the cathedrals for the sons of lay members of the church; the second, those in the monasteries that were devoted largely to the education of the ministry. To understand fully the position of these schools it is necessary to go back a little and refer to the educational forces of Europe. For a long period after Alexandria had become established as a great centre of learning, Athens was really the centre of education in the East, and this city held her sway in educational affairs down to the second century. The influence of the traditions of great teachers and the encouragement and {357} endowments given by emperors kept up a school at Athens, to which flocked the youth of the land who desired a superior education.
Finally, when the great Roman Empire joined to itself the Greek culture, there sprang up what was known as the Greek and Roman schools, or Graeco-Roman schools, although Rome was not without its centre of education at the famous Athenaeum. In these Graeco-Roman schools were taught grammar, rhetoric, and dialectic, music, arithmetic, geometry, and astronomy. The grammar of that day frequently included language, criticism, history, literature, metre; the dialectic considered logic, metaphysics, and ethics; while rhetoric contemplated the fitting of the youth for public life and for the law.
But these schools, though dealing in real knowledge for a time, gradually declined, chiefly on account of the declining moral powers of the empire and the relaxation of intellectual activity, people thinking more of ease and luxury and the power of wealth than of actual accomplishment. The internal disorganization, unjust taxation, and unjust rule of the empire had also a tendency to undermine education. The coming of the barbarians, with their honest, illiterate natures, had its influence, likewise, in overthrowing the few schools that remained.
The rise of Christianity, which supposed that all pagan literature and pagan knowledge were of the devil, and hence to be suppressed, opposed secular teaching, and tended to dethrone these schools. Constantine's effort to unite the church and state tended for a while to perpetuate secular institutions. But the pagan schools passed away; the philosophy of the age had run its course until it had become a hollow assumption, a desert of words, a weary round of speculation without vitality of expression; and the activity of the sophists in these later times narrowed all literary courses until they dwindled into mere matters of form. Perhaps, owing to its force, power, and dignity, the Roman law retained a vital {358} position in the educational curriculum. The school at Athens was suppressed in 529 by Justinian, because, as it had been claimed, it was tainted with Oriental philosophy and allied with Egyptian magic, and hence could not develop ethical standards.
It is easy to observe how the ideas of Christian learning came into direct competition with the arrogant self-assumption and the hollowness of the selfish teachings of the old Graeco-Roman schools. The Christian doctrine, advocating the development of the individual life, intimate relations with God, the widening of social functions, with its teachings of humility, and humanity, could not tolerate the instruction given in these schools. Moreover, the Christian doctrine of education consisted, on the one hand, in preparing for the future life, and on the other, in the preparation of Christian ministers to teach this future life. As might be expected, when narrowed to this limit, Christian education had its dwarfing influence. If salvation were an important thing and salvation were to be obtained only by the denial of the life of this world, then there would be no object in perpetuating learning, no attempt to cultivate the mind, no tendency to develop the whole man on account of his moral and intellectual worth. The use of secular books was everywhere discouraged. As a result the instruction of the religious schools was of a very meagre nature.
Within the monasteries devotional exercises and the study of the Scriptures represented the chief intellectual development of the monks. The Western monks required a daily service and a systematic training, but the practice of the Eastern monks was not educational in its nature at all. After a while persons who were not studying for religious vows were admitted to the schools that they might understand the Bible and the services of the church. They were taught to write, that they might copy the manuscripts of the church fathers, the sacred books, and the psalter; they were taught arithmetic, that they might be able to calculate the return of Easter and the other festivals; they were taught music, that they might {359} be able to chant well. But the education in any line was in itself superficial and narrow.
The Benedictine order was exceptional in the establishment of better schools and in promoting better educational influences. Their curriculum consisted of the Old and New Testaments, the exposition of the Scriptures by learned theologians, and the discourses, or conversations, of Cassianus; yet, as a rule, the monks cared little for knowledge as such, not even for theological knowledge. The monasteries, however, constituted the great clerical societies, where many prepared for secular pursuits. The monasteries of Ireland furnished many learned scholars to England, Scotland, and Germany, as well as to Ireland; yet it was only a monastic education which they exported.
Finally it became customary to found schools within the monasteries, and this was the beginning of the church schools of the Middle Ages. Formal and meagre as the instruction of these schools was, it represents a beginning in church education. But in the seventh and eighth centuries they again declined, and learning retrograded very much; literature was forgotten; the monks and friars boasted of their ignorance. The reforms of Charlemagne restored somewhat the educational status of the new empire, and not only developed the church schools and cathedral schools but also founded some secular schools. The cathedral schools became in many instances centres of learning apart from monasticism. The textbooks, however, of the Middle Ages were chiefly those of Boethius, Isidor, and Capella, and were of the most meagre content and character. That of Capella, as an illustration, was merely an allegory, which showed the seven liberal arts in a peculiar representation. The logic taught in the schools was that given by Alcuin; the arithmetic was limited to the reckoning of holidays and festivals; astronomy was limited to a knowledge of the names and courses of the stars; geometry was composed of the first four books of Euclid, and supplemented with a large amount of geography.
{360}But all this learning was valued merely as a support to the church and the church authorities, and for little else. Yet there had been schools of importance founded at Paris, Bologna, and Padua, and at other places which, although they were not the historical foundations of the universities, no doubt became the means, the traditional means, of the establishment of universities at these places. Also, many of the scholars, such as Theodore of Tarsus, Adalbert, Bede, and Alcuin, who studied Latin and Greek and also became learned in other subjects, were not without their influence.
The Rise of Universities.[2]—An important phase of this period of mediaeval development was the rise of universities. Many causes led to their establishment. In the eleventh century the development of independent municipal power brought the noble and the burgher upon the same level, and developed a common sentiment for education. The activity of the crusades, already referred to, developed a thirst for knowledge. There was also a gradual growth of traditional learning, an accumulation of knowledge of a certain kind, which needed classification, arrangement, and development. By degrees the schools of Arabia, which had been prominent in their development, not only of Oriental learning but of original investigation, had given a quickening impulse to learning throughout southern Europe. The great division of the church between the governed and governing had led to the development of a strong lay feeling as opposed to monasticism or ecclesiasticism. Perhaps the growth of local representative government had something to do with this.
But the time came when great institutions were chartered at these centres of learning. Students flocked to Bologna, where law was taught; to Salerno, where medicine was the chief subject; and to Paris, where philosophy and theology predominated. At first these schools were open to all, without special rules. Subsequently they were organized, and finally were chartered. In those days students elected their own {361} instructors and built up their own organization. The schools were usually called universitas magistrorum et scholarium. They were merely assemblages of students and instructors, a sort of scholastic guild or combination of teachers and scholars, formed first for the protection of their members, and later allowed by pope and emperor the privilege of teaching, and finally given the power by these same authorities to grant degrees. The result of these schools was the widening of the influence of education.
The universities proposed to teach what was found in a new and revived literature and to adopt a new method of presenting truth. Yet, with all these widening foundations, there was a tendency to be bound by traditional learning. The scholastic philosophy itself invaded the universities and had its influence in breaking down the scientific spirit. Not only was this true of the universities of the continent, but of those of England as well. The German universities, however, were less affected by this tendency of scholasticism. Founded at a later period, when the Renaissance was about to be merged into the Reformation, there was a wider foundation of knowledge, a more earnest zeal in its pursuit, and also a tendency for the freedom and activity of the mind which was not observed elsewhere.
The universities may be said to mark an era in the development of intellectual life. They became centres where scholars congregated, centres for the collection of knowledge; and when the humanistic idea fully prevailed, in many instances they encouraged the revival of classical literature and the study of those things pertaining to human life. The universities entertained and practised free discussion of all subjects, which made an important landmark of progress. They encouraged people to give a reason for philosophy and faith, and prepared the way for scientific investigation and experiment.
Failure to Grasp Scientific Methods.—Perhaps the greatest wonder in all this accumulation of knowledge, quickening of the mind, philosophy, and speculation, is that men of so much {362} learning failed to grasp scientific methods. Could they but have turned their attention to systematic methods of investigation based upon facts logically stated, the vast intellectual energy of the Middle Ages might have been turned to more permanent account. It is idle, however, to deplore their ignorance of these conditions or to ridicule their want of learning. When we consider the ignorance that overshadowed the land, the breaking down of the old established systems of Greece and Rome, the struggle of the church, which grew naturally into its power and made conservatism an essential part of its life; indeed, when we consider that the whole medieval system was so impregnated with dogmatism and guided by tradition, it is a marvel that so many men of intellect and power raised their voices in the defense of truth, and that so much advancement was made in the earnest desire for truth.
Inventions and Discoveries.—The quickening influence of discovery was of great moment in giving enlarged views of life. The widening of the geographical horizon tended to take men out of their narrow boundaries and their limited conceptions of the world, into a larger sphere of mental activity, and to teach them that there was much beyond their narrow conceptions to be learned. The use of gunpowder changed the method of warfare and revolutionized the financial system of nations. The perfection of the mariner's compass reformed navigation and made great sea voyages possible; the introduction of printing increased the dissemination of knowledge; the building of great cathedrals had a tendency to develop architecture, and the contact with Oriental learning developed art. These phases tended to assist the mind in the attempt to free itself from bondage.
The Extension of Commerce Hastened Progress.—But more especially were men's ideas enlarged and their needs supplied by the widening reach of commerce. Through its exchanges it distributed the food-supply, and thus not only preserved thousands from want but furnished leisure for others to study. It had a tendency to distribute the luxuries of manufactured {363} articles, and to quicken the activity of the mind by giving exchange of ideas. Little by little the mariners, plying their trade, pushed farther and farther into unknown seas, and at last brought the products of every clime in exchange for those of Europe.
The manner in which commerce developed the cities of Italy and of the north has already been referred to. Through this development the foundations of local government were laid. The manner in which it broke down the feudal system after receiving the quickening impulse of the crusades has also been dealt with. In addition to its influence in these changes, it brought about an increased circulation of money—which also struck at the root of feudalism, in destroying the mediaeval manor and serfdom, for men could buy their freedom from serfdom with money—which also made taxation possible; and the possibility of taxation had a vast deal to do with the building up of new nations and stimulating national life. Moreover, as a distributer of habits and customs, commerce developed uniformity of political and social life and made for national solidarity.
1. What is meant by Renaissance, Revival of Learning, Revival of Progress and Humanism, as applied to the mediaeval period?
2. The causes of the Revival of Progress.
3. The direct influence of humanism.
4. The attitude of the church toward freedom of thought.
5. The scholastic philosophy, its merits and its defects.
6. What did the following persons stand for in human progress: Dante, Savonarola, Charlemagne, John Scotus Erigena, Thomas Aquinas, Abelard, William of Occam, Roger Bacon?
7. Rise of universities. How did they differ from modern universities?
[1] Advancement of Learning, iv, 5.
[2] See Chapter XXIX.
Perhaps the most important branch of the revival of learning is that which is called humanism, or the revival of the study of the masterpieces of Greek and Latin literature. The promoters of this movement are called humanists, because they held that the study of the classics, or litterae humaniores, is the best humanizing agent. It has already been shown how scholasticism developed as one of the important phases of the renaissance, and how, close upon its track, the universities rose as powerful aids to the revival of learning, and that the cathedral and monastic schools were the traditional forerunners of the great universities.
Primarily, then, were taught in the universities scholastic philosophy, theology, the Roman and the canon law, with slight attention to Greek and Hebrew, the real value of the treasures of antiquity being unknown to the Western world. The Arabic or Saracen schools of Spain had taken high rank in learning, and through their efforts the scientific works of Aristotle were presented to the mediaeval world. There were many men of importance, such as Roger Bacon, Albertus Magnus, who were leaders in universities and who lent their influence to the development of learning in Europe. The translation of the scientific works of Aristotle into Latin at the beginning of the thirteenth century by Thomas Aquinas had its influence. But, after all, scholasticism had settled down to speculative ideas within the universities and without, and little attention was paid to the old classical authors.
The Discovery of Manuscripts.—The real return to the study of Greek literature and art finally came through the fortunate discoveries of ancient sculpture and ancient manuscripts on the occasion of the turning of the mind of Europe {365} toward the Eastern learning. The fall of the Eastern Empire accelerated the transfer of learning and culture to the West. The discovery and use of old manuscripts brought a survival of classical literature and of the learning of antiquity. The bringing of this literature to light gave food for thought and means of study, and turned the mind from its weary round of speculative philosophy to a large body of literature containing the views of the ancients respecting the progress and development of man. As has been heretofore shown, the Greeks, seeking to explain things by the human reason, although not advanced far in experimental science, had accomplished much by way of logical thought based upon actual facts. They had turned from credulity to inquiry.
Who Were the Humanists?—Dante was not a humanist, but he may be said to have been the forerunner of the Italian humanists, for he furnished inspiration to Petrarch, the so-called founder of humanism. His magnificent creation of The Divine Comedy, his service in the foundation of the Italian language, and his presentation of the religious influence of the church in a liberal manner made him a great factor in the humanizing of Europe. Dante was neither modern nor ancient. He stood at the parting of the ways controlling the learning of the past and looking toward the open door of the future, and directed thought everywhere to the Latin. His masterpiece was well received through all Italy, and gave an impulse to learning in many ways.
Petrarch was the natural successor of Dante. The latter immortalized the past; the former invoked the spirit of the future. He showed great enthusiasm in the discovery of old manuscripts, and brought into power more fully the Latin language. He also attempted to introduce Greek into the Western world, but in this he was only partially successful. But in his wide search for manuscripts, monasteries and cathedrals were ransacked and the literary treasures which the monks had copied and preserved through centuries, the products of the classical writers of the early times, were brought to {366} light. Petrarch was an enthusiast, even a sentimentalist. But he was bold in his expression of the full and free play of the intellect, in his denunciation of formalism and slavery to tradition. The whole outcome of his life, too, was a tendency toward moral and aesthetic aggrandizement. Inconsistent in many things, his life may be summed up as a bold remonstrance against the binding influences of tradition and an enthusiasm for something new.
"We are, therefore," says Symonds,[1] "justified in hailing Petrarch as the Columbus of a new spiritual hemisphere, the discoverer of modern culture. That he knew no Greek, that his Latin verse was lifeless and his prose style far from pure, that his contributions to history and ethics have been superseded, and that his epistles are now read only by antiquaries, cannot impair his claim to this title. From him the inspiration needed to quicken curiosity and stimulate zeal for knowledge proceeded. But for his intervention in the fourteenth century it is possible that the revival of learning, and all that it implies, might have been delayed until too late."
His influence was especially felt by those who followed him, and his enthusiasm made him a successful promoter of the new learning.
But it remained for Boccaccio, who was of a more practical turn of mind than Petrarch, to systematize the classical knowledge of antiquity. If Petrarch was an enthusiastic collector, Boccaccio was a practical worker. With the aid of Petrarch, he was the first to introduce a professor of Greek language and literature into Italy, and through this influence he secured a partial translation of Homer. Boccaccio began at an early age to read the classical authors and to repent the years he had spent in the study of law and in commercial pursuits. It was Petrarch's example, more than anything else, which caused Boccaccio to turn his attention to literature. By persistence and vigor in study, he was enabled to accomplish much by his own hand in the translation of the authors, and in middle life {367} he began a persistent and successful study of Greek. His contributions to learning were great, and his turn toward naturalism was of immense value in the foundation of modern literature. He infused a new spirit in the common literature of the times. He turned away from asceticism, and frankly and openly sought to justify the pleasures of life. Although his teaching may not be of the most wholesome kind, it was far-reaching in its influence in turning the mind toward the importance and desirability of the things of this life. Stories of "beautiful gardens and sunny skies, fair women and luxurious lovers" may not have been the most healthful diet for universal consumption; they introduced a new element into the literature of the period and turned the thoughts of men from the speculative to the natural.
A long line of Italian writers followed these three great master spirits and continued to develop the desire for classical literature. For such power and force did these men have that they turned the whole tide of thought toward the masterpieces of the Greeks and Romans.
Relation of Humanism to Language and Literature.—When the zeal for the classical learning declined somewhat, there sprang up in Italy a group of Italian poets who were the founders of an Italian literature. They received their impulse from the classical learning, and, turning their attention to the affairs which surrounded them, developed a new literature. The inspiration which humanism had given to scholars of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries had a tendency to develop a literary spirit among all classes of students. The products of the Italian literature, however, brought out through the inspiration of humanistic studies, were not great masterpieces. While the number and variety were considerable, the quality was inferior when the intellectual power of the times is considered. The great force of Italian intellect had been directed toward classical manuscripts, and hence failed to develop a literature that had real originality.
Perhaps among the few great Italian writers of these times {368} may be mentioned Guicciardini and Machiavelli. The former wrote a history of Italy, and the latter is rendered immortal by his Prince. Guicciardini was a native of Florence, who had an important position in the service of Leo X. As professor of jurisprudence, ambassador to Spain, and subsequently minister of Leo X, governor of Modena, lieutenant-general of the pope in the campaign against the French, president of the Romagna and governor of Bologna, he had abundant opportunity for the study of the political conditions of Italy. He is memorable for his admirable history of Italy, as a talented Florentine and as a member of the Medicean party.
Machiavelli, in his Prince, desired to picture the type of rulers needed to meet the demands of Italy at the time he wrote. It is a picture of imperialism and, indeed, of despotism. The prince or ruler was in no way obliged to consider the feelings and rights of individuals. Machiavelli said it was not necessary that a prince should be moral, humane, religious, or just; indeed, that if he had these qualities and displayed them they would harm him, but if he were new to his place in the principality he might seem to have them. It would be as useful to him to keep the path of rectitude when this was not too inconvenient as to know how to deviate from it when circumstances dictate. In other words, a prudent prince cannot and ought not really to keep his word except when he can do it without injury to himself.
Among other Italian writers may be mentioned Boiardo, on account of his Orlando Innamorato, and Ariosto, who wrote Orlando Furioso. Upon the whole, the writings of the period were not worthy of its intellectual development, although Torquato Tasso, in his Jerusalem Delivered, presents the first crusade as Homer presented the Trojan War. The small amount of really worthy literature of this age has been attributed to the lack of moral worth.
Art and Architecture.—Perhaps the renaissance art exceeded that which it replaced in beauty, variety, and naturalness, as well as in exuberance. There was an attempt to make {369} all things beautiful, and no attempt to follow the spirit of asceticism in degrading the human body, but rather to try to delineate every feature as noble in itself. The movement, life, and grace of the human form, the beauty of landscape, all were enjoyed and presented by the artists of the renaissance. The beauty of this life is magnified, and the artists represented in joyous mood the best qualities that are important in the world. They turned the attention from asceticism to the importance of the present life.
Perhaps the Italians reached the highest point of development in painting, for the Madonnas of Italy have given her celebrity in art through all succeeding generations. Cimabue was the first to paint the Madonna as a beautiful woman. Giotto followed next, and a multitude of succeeding Madonnas have given Italy renown. Raphael excelled all others in the representation of the Madonna, and was not only the greatest painter of all Italy, but a master artist of all ages.
Architecture, however, appears to be the first branch of art that defied the arbitrary power of tradition. It could break away more readily than any other form of art, because of the great variety which existed in different parts of the Roman Empire—the Byzantine in the south of Italy, the Gothic in the north, and Romanesque in Rome and the provinces. There was no conventional law for architectural style, hence innovations could be made with very little opposition. In the search for classical remains, a large number of buildings had already become known, and many more were uncovered as the searching continued. These gave types of architecture which had great influence in building the renaissance art. The changes, beginning with Brunelleschi, were continued until nearly all buildings were completely Romanized. Then came Michael Angelo, who excelled in both architecture and sculpture at Rome, and Palladio, who worked at Venice and Verona. In the larger buildings the Basilica of Rome became the model, or at least the principles of its construction became the prevailing element in architectural design.
{370}Florence became the centre of art and letters in the Italian renaissance.[2] Though resembling Athens in many respects, and bearing the same relations to surrounding cities that Athens did to cities in the classic times, her scholars were more modern than those of Greece or Rome, and, indeed, more modern than the scholars who followed after the Florentines, two centuries later. It was an important city, on the Arno, surrounded by hills, a city of flowers, interesting to-day to the modern scholar and student of history. Surrounded by walls, having magnificent gates, with all the modern improvements of paved streets, of sewers, gardens, and spacious parks, it represented in this early period the ideal city life. Even to-day the traveller finds the Palazzo Vecchio, or ancient official residence of the city fathers, and very near this the Loggia dei Lanzi, now filled with the works of precious art, and the Palazzo del Podesta, now used as a national museum, the great cathedral, planned in 1294 by Arnolfo, ready for consecration in 1498, and not yet completed, and many other remarkable relics of this wonderful era.
The typical idea in building the cathedral was to make it so beautiful that no other in the world could ever surpass it. Opposite the main door were the gates of Ghiberti, which Michael Angelo, for their great beauty, thought worthy to be the gates of paradise. They close the entrance of the temple of Saint John the Baptist, the city's patron saint. More than a hundred other churches, among them the Santa Croce and the Santa Maria Novella, the latter the resting-place of the Medici, were built in this magnificent city. The churches were not only used for religious worship, but were important for meeting-places of the Florentines. The Arno was crossed by four bridges, of which the Ponte Vecchio, built in the middle of the fourteenth century, alone remains in its original form. Upon it rest two rows of houses, each three stories high, and over this is the passageway from the Palazzo Pitti to the Palazzo Vecchio. In addition to the public buildings of {371} Florence, there were many private residences and palaces of magnificence and splendor.
The Effect of Humanism on Social Manners.—By the intellectual development of Italy, fresh ideas of culture were infused into common society. To be a gentleman meant to be conversant with poetry, painting, and art, intelligent in conversation and refined in manners. The gentleman must be acquainted with antiquity sufficiently to admire the great men of the past and to reverence the saints of the church. He must understand archaeology in order to speak intelligently of the ancient achievements of the classical people. But this refinement was to a large extent conventional, for there was a lack of genuine moral culture throughout the entire renaissance.
These moral defects of Italy in this period have often been the occasion of dissertations by philosophers, and there is a question as to whether this moral condition was caused by the revival of classical learning or the decline of morality in the church. It ought to be considered, without doubt, as an excessive development of certain lines of intellectual supremacy without the accustomed moral guide. The church had for years assumed to be the only moral conservator, indeed the only one morally responsible for the conduct of the world. Yet its teachings at this time led to no self-developed morality; helped no one to walk alone, independent, in the dignity of manhood, for all of its instructions were superimposed and not vital. At last the church fell into flagrant discord under the rule of worldly popes, and this gave a great blow to Italy through the loss of the one great moral control.
But the renaissance had in its day a wide-spread influence throughout Europe, and gave us as its result a vitalizing influence to the whole world for centuries to come, although Italy suffered a decline largely on account of its lack of the stable moral character of society. The awakening of the mind from lethargy, the turning away from dogmatism to broader views of life, enlarged duties, and new surroundings causing {372} the most Intense activity of thought, needed some moral stay to make the achievements permanent and enduring.
Relation of Humanism to Science and Philosophy.—The revival of the freedom of thought of the Greeks brought an antagonism to the logic and the materialistic views of the times. It set itself firmly against tradition of whatsoever sort. The body of man had not been considered with care until anatomy began to be studied in the period of the Italian renaissance. The visionary notions of the world which the people had accepted for a long time began gradually to give way to careful consideration of the exact facts. Patience and loving admiration in the study of man and nature yielded immense returns to the scholars of Italy. It changed the attitude of the thoughtful mind toward life, and prepared the way for new lines of thought and new accomplishments in the world of philosophy and science. Through the scientific discoveries of Galileo and Copernicus and exploration of Columbus, brought about largely by the influence of humanistic studies, were wrought far-reaching consequences in the thought of the age. And finally the scholars of Italy not only threw off scholasticism but also disengaged themselves from the domineering influence of the classical studies and laid the foundation of modern freedom of inquiry.
The Study of the Classics Became Fundamental in Education.—The modern classical education received its first impulse from the Italian renaissance. As before stated, it was customary for the universities to teach, with some vigor,[3] physics, medicine, law, and philosophy, largely after the manner of the medieval period, though somewhat modified and broadened in the process of thought. But in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, those who taught the ancient languages and literature were much celebrated. Under the title of rhetoric we find progress not only in the study of the Greek and Roman masterpieces, but in a large number of subjects which had a tendency to widen the views of students and to change {373} the trend of the education in universities. It became customary for the towns and cities to have each a public place, an academy, a university, or a hall, for the means of studying the humanistic branches. The professors of the classics passed from town to town, giving instruction where the highest pay was offered. The direct influence of the renaissance on the Italian education, and, indeed, on the English classical education, introduced somewhat later, has continued until this day.
Closely connected with the educational influences of the renaissance was the introduction of literary criticism. There was a tendency among the early humanists to be uncritical, but as intelligence advanced and scholarship developed, we find the critical spirit introduced. Form, substance, and character of art and letters were carefully examined. This was the essential outcome of the previous sharp criticism of dogmatic theology and philosophy.
General Influence of Humanism.—The development of new intellectual ideals was the most important result of this phase of the renaissance. Nor did this extend in any particular direction. A better thought came to be held of God and man's relation to him. Instead of being an arbitrary, domineering creature, he had become in the minds of the people rational and law-loving; instead of being vindictive and fickle, as he was wont to be pictured, he had been endowed with benevolence toward his creatures. The result of all this was that religion itself became more spiritual and the conscience more operative. There was less of formality and conventionality in religion and more of real, devout feeling and consciousness of worthy motive in life, but the church must have more strenuous lessons before spiritual freedom could be fulfilled.
Life, too, came to be viewed as something more than merely a temporary expedient, a thing to be viewed as a necessary evil. It had come to be regarded as a noble expression worthy of the thought and the best attention of every individual. This world, too, was meant to be of use and to make people happy. It was to be enjoyed and used as best it might be. {374} The old guild classes finally broke down, and where formerly men thought in groups, a strong individuality developed and man became an independent, thinking being in himself, bound by neither religion nor philosophy. He was larger than either philosophy or religion made him. He was a being of capacity and strength, and enabled to take the best of this life in order to enhance the delight of living. There came, also, with this a large belief in the law and order of the universe. Old beliefs had become obsolete because the people could no longer depend on them. And when these dogmatic formulas ceased to give satisfaction to the human mind, it sought for order in the universe and the laws which controlled it, and the intellectual world then entered the field of research for truth—the field of experiment.
1. How did the Revival of Learning prepare the way for modern science?
2. What contributions to progress were made by Petrarch, Boccaccio, Michael Angelo, Justinian, Galileo, Copernicus, Columbus?
3. The nature of Machiavelli's political philosophy.
4. Compare Gothic, Romanesque, and Arabian architecture.
5. The status of morals during the period of the intellectual development of Europe.
6. The great weakness of the philosophy of this period.
7. What was the state of organized society and what was the "common man" doing?
[1] Revival of Learning.
[2] See Chapter XXI.
[3] See preceding chapter.
The Character of the Reformation.—The Reformation, or Protestant Revolution, as it is sometimes called, was a movement of such extended relations as to be difficult to define. In general, it was the liberalizing movement of the revival of learning applied to the church. As the church had attempted to be all things to all men, the movement was necessarily far-reaching in its results, affecting not only the religious but the social, educational, and political affairs of Europe. In its religious aspect it shows an attempt to reform the church. This failing, the revolution followed, resulting in the independence of certain parts of the church, which were then organized under separate constitutions and governments. Then followed a partial reform within the Catholic Church. The whole movement may be characterized as a revolt against papal authority and ecclesiastical usurpation of power. It was an assertion of independence of the mind respecting religious beliefs and a cry for a consistent life of righteousness and purity.
The church had assumed an attitude which made either a speedy reformation or else a revolution necessary. The "reforming councils" of Pisa, Constance, and Basel failed to adopt adequate reform measures. The result of these councils was merely to confirm the absolutism of papal authority. At the same time there were a very large number of adherents to the church who were anxiously seeking a reform in church government, as well as a reform in the conduct of the papacy, the clergy, and the lay membership. The papal party succeeded in suppressing all attempts of this nature, the voice of the people being silenced by a denial of constitutional government; nor was assurance given that the intrigues of the papacy, and of the church in general, would be removed.
{376}The people had lost faith in the assumptions of infallibility of the papacy. The great schism in the church, in which three popes, each claiming to be the rightful successor of Saint Peter, each one having the "keys," each one calling the others impostors, and seeking by all possible means to dethrone them, was a great shock to the claims of infallible authority. For many years, to maintain their position as a ruling power, the popes had engaged in political squabbles with the princes of Europe. While the popes at times were victorious, the result of their course was to cause a feeling of contempt for their conduct, as well as of fear of their power.
The quarrel of Henry IV and Gregory VII, of Innocent III and John of England, of Boniface and Philip the Fair, the Babylonian captivity, and many lesser difficulties, had placed the papacy in a disreputable light. Distrust, fear, and contempt for the infallible assumptions were growing. The papacy had been turned into a political engine to maintain the temporal possessions of the church and to increase its temporal power. The selfishness of the ruling prince became uppermost in all papal affairs, which was so different from the teachings of the Christ who founded his kingdom on love that the contrast became observable, and even painful, to many devout people. Added to this, the corruption of the members of religious orders, who had departed from their vows of chastity, was so evident to the people with whom they came in daily contact as to bring shame and disgrace upon the cause of religion. Consequently, from these and other irregularities there developed a strong belief that the church needed reforming from the lowest to the highest offices.
Signs of the Rising Storm.—For several centuries before the religious revolution broke out there were signs of its coming. In the first place, the rise of the laical spirit was to be observed, especially after the establishment of local self-government in the free cities. The desire for representative government had extended to the lay members of the church. There was a growing feeling that the clergy, headed by the papacy, had {377} no right to usurp all the governing power of the church. Many bold laymen asserted that the lay members of the church should have a voice in its government, but every such plea was silenced, every aspiration for democratic government suppressed, by a jealous papacy.
There arose a number of religious sects which opposed the subordination to dogma, and returned to the teachings of the Bible for authority. Prominent among these were the Albigenses, who became the victims of the cruel crusade instigated by the pope and led by Simon de Montfort. They were a peaceable, religious people who dwelt far and wide in the south of France, who refused to obey implicitly the harsh and arbitrary mandates of the pope.
The Waldenses were another society, composed of the followers of Peter Waldo, known at first as the "Poor Man of Lyons," believing in a return to the Scriptures, which they persistently read. Like the Albigenses, they were zealous for purity of life, and bitterly opposed to the usurpation and profligacy of the clergy. They, too, suffered bitter persecution, which indicated to many that a day of retribution was coming. There were also praying societies, formed in the church to read the Scriptures and to promote a holy life. All these had their influence in preparing for a general reformation.
The revival of learning had specific influences in bringing about the Reformation. The two movements were blended in one in several countries, but the revival of learning in Germany was overtaken by the Reformation. The former sought freedom of the mind respecting philosophy and learning, the latter sought liberty of conscience respecting religious belief. The revival of learning broke down scholasticism, and thus freed the mind from dogmatic philosophy. Seeking for the truth, the works of the church fathers were brought forth and read, and the texts of the Old and the New Testament were also used, as a criterion of authority. They showed to what extent the papacy had gone in its assumption of power, and making more prominent the fact that the church, particularly {378} the clergy, had departed from a life of purity. The result of the quickening thought of the revival was to develop independent characteristics of mind, placing it in the attitude of revolt against ecclesiastical dogmatism.
Attempts at Reform Within the Church.—Many attempts were made, chiefly on the part of individuals, to work a reform of abuses within the church. Many devout men, scholars engaged in theological research and living lives of purity, sought by precept and example to bring about better spiritual and moral conditions. Others sought to bring about changes in ecclesiastical government, not only in the "reforming councils" but through efforts at the papal court and in the strong bishoprics. Had the church listened to these cries of the laity and zealously availed itself of the many opportunities presented, possibly the religious revolution would not have come. Although it is difficult to say what would have been the result had the church listened to the voice of reform, yet it is certain that the revolution would at least have taken a different course, and the position of the church before the world would have been greatly changed.
Powerful individual reformers exercised great influence in bringing on the religious revolution. The voices of John Wyclif, John Huss, John Tauler, and John Wessel, like the voice of John the Baptist, cried out for repentance and a return to God. These reformers desired among other things a change in the constitutional government of the church. They sought a representation of the laity and the re-establishment of the authority of the general councils. Through influence such as theirs the revolution was precipitated. Others in a different way, like Savonarola, hastened the coming of the revolution by preaching liberty of thought and attacking the abuses of the church and its methods of government.
Wyclif in England advocated a simple form of church worship, rebelled against the arbitrary power of popes and priests, preached against transubstantiation, and advocated the practice of morality. He was greatly influenced by William of {379} Occam, who asserted that the pope, or even a general council, might err in declaring the truth, and that the hierarchy might be given up if the good of the church demanded it. Wyclif, in England, started a movement for freedom and purity which never died out. His translation of the Bible was the most valuable of all his work. Though he preceded the religious revolution by nearly two centuries, his influence was of such great importance that his enemies, who failed to burn him at the stake in life, ordered his grave to be desecrated.
At first Wyclif had the support of the king and of the university, as well as the protection of the Prince of Wales. But when, in 1381, he lectured at Oxford against transubstantiation, he lost the royal protection, and by a senate of twelve doctors was forbidden longer to lecture at the university, although he continued preaching until his death. As his opinions agreed very nearly with those of Calvin and Luther, he has been called "the morning star of the Reformation." The Council of Constance, before burning John Huss and Jerome of Prague at the stake, condemned the doctrines of Wyclif in forty-five articles, declared him a heretic, and ordered his body to be removed from consecrated ground and thrown upon a dunghill. Thirteen years later Clement VIII, hyena-like, ordered his bones to be burned and the ashes thrown into the Swift. Thus his short-sighted enemies thought to stay the tide of a great reformation.
John Huss, a Bohemian reformer, followed closely after the doctrine of Wyclif, although he disagreed with him in his opposition to transubstantiation. He preached for constitutional reform of the church, reformative administration, and morality. He urged a return to the Bible as a criterion for belief and a guide to action. Finally he was summoned to the Council of Constance to answer for his heresy, and guaranteed safe-conduct by the Emperor Sigismund, who presided; but, notwithstanding this promise, the council declared him a heretic and burned him at the stake with Jerome of Prague. This was one of the results of the so-called reforming Council of {380} Constance—its reform consisted in silencing the opponents of papal authority and corruption.
John Tauler belonged to a group of people called mystic philosophers, who, though remaining within the church, opposed dogmatism and formalism and advocated spiritual religion. Their doctrine was to leave formality and return to God. Many other societies, calling themselves "Friends of God," sprang up in the Netherlands and in the south and west of Germany. John Tauler was the most prominent of all their preachers. He held that man is justified by faith alone, and Luther, who republished Tauler's book on German theology,[1] asserted that it had more influence over him than any other books, except the Bible and the works of Saint Augustine.
Savonarola, a most powerful orator and great scholar of Italy, lifted his voice in favor of reform in the church administration and in favor of the correction of abuses. He transcended the teachings of the schools of philosophy, departed from the dogma of the church, and preached in the name of God and His Son. He was shocked at the signs of immorality which he saw in common society. As a preacher of righteousness, he prophesied a judgment speedily to come unless men turned from the error of their ways. But in the ways of the world he paid for his boldness and his enthusiasm, for the pope excommunicated him, and his enemies created distrust of him in the hearts of the people. He was put in prison, afterward brought to trial and condemned to death, and finally hanged and burned and his ashes thrown into the Arno—all because the pope hoped to stay the tide of religious and social reform.
Immediate Causes of the Reformation.—Mr. Bryce, in his Holy Roman Empire,[2] says:
"There is perhaps no event in history which has been represented in so great a variety of lights as the Reformation. {381} It has been called a revolt of the laity against the clergy, or of the Teutonic races against the Italians, or of the kingdoms of Europe against the universal monarchy of the popes. Some have seen in it only a burst of long-repressed anger at the luxury of the prelates and the manifold abuses of the ecclesiastical system; others a renewal of the youth of the church by a return to primitive forms of doctrine. All these, indeed, to some extent it was; but it was also something more profound, and fraught with mightier consequences than any of them. It was in its essence the assertion of the principle of individuality—that is to say, of true spiritual freedom."
The primary nature of the Reformation was, first, a return to primitive belief and purity of worship. This was accompanied by a protest against the vices and the abuses of the church and of formalism in practice. It was also an open revolt against the authority of the church, authority not only in constitution and administration but in spiritual affairs. According to Bryce, "true spiritual freedom" was the prime motive in the religious revolution. And Guizot, in his chapter on the Reformation, clusters all statements around a single idea, the idea that it was freedom of the mind in religious belief and practice which was the chief purpose of the Reformation.[3] But the immediate causes of the precipitation of the Reformation may be stated as follows:
First.—The great and continued attack on the unreasonableness of the Roman Catholic Church, caused by the great mental awakening which had taken place everywhere in Europe, the persistent and shameless profligacy of the clergy and the various monastic orders and sects, the dissolute and rapacious character of many of the popes, and the imperial attitude of the entire papacy.
Second.—We may consider as another cause the influence of the art of printing, which scattered the Bible over the land, so that it could be read by a large number of people, who were thus incited to independent belief.
{382}Finally.—It may be said that the sale of indulgences, and particularly the pretensions of many of the agents of the pope as to their power to release from the bondage of sin, created intense disgust and hatred of the church, and caused the outbreak of the Reformation.[4]
Luther Was the Hero of the Reformation in Germany.—He was not the cause of the Reformation, only its most powerful and efficient agency, for the Reformation would have taken place in time had Luther never appeared. Somebody would have led the phalanx, and, indeed, Luther, led steadily on in his thought and researches, became a reformer and revolutionist almost before he was aware.
He began (1517) by preaching against the sale of indulgences. He claimed that works had been made a substitute for faith, while man is justified by faith alone. His attack on indulgences brought him in direct conflict with one Tetzel, who stirred up the jealousy of other monks, who reported Luther to Pope Leo X.[5] Luther, in a letter to the pope, proclaimed his innocence, saying that he is misrepresented and called heretic "and a thousand ignominious names; these things shock and amaze me; one thing only sustains me—the sense of my innocence." He had pinned his ninety-five theses on the door of the church at Wittenberg. In writing to the pope he claimed that these were set forth for their own local interest at the university, and that he knows not why they "should go forth into all the earth." Then he says: "But what shall I do? Recall them I cannot, and yet I see their notoriety bringeth upon me great odium."
But Luther, in spite of the censure of the pope and his friends, was still an ardent adherent to the papal power and the authority of the church. He says to the pope: "Save or slay, kill or recall, approve or disapprove, as it shall please you, I will acknowledge you even as the voice of Christ {383} presiding and speaking in you." In writing to Spalatine, he says that he may err in disputation, but that he is never to be a heretic, that he wishes to decide no doctrine, "only I am not willing to be the slave of the opinions of men."
Luther persisted in his course of criticism. To Staupitz he wrote: "I see that attempts are made at Rome that the kingdom of truth, i.e., of Christ, be no longer the kingdom of truth." After the pope had issued his first brief condemning him, Luther exclaimed: "It is incredible that a thing so monstrous should come from the chief pontiff, especially Leo X. If in truth it be come forth from the Roman court, then I will show them their most licentious temerity and their ungodly ignorance." These were bold words from a man who did not wish to become a reformer, a revolutionist, or a heretic.
Now the pope regarded this whole affair as a quarrel of monks, and allowed Luther to give his side of the story. He was induced to send a certain cardinal legate, Cajetan, to Augsburg to bring this heretic into submission, but the legate failed to bring Luther into subjection. Luther then appealed to the pope, and when the pope issued a bull approving of the sale of indulgences, Luther appealed to the council.
Thus far Luther had only protested against the perversion of the rules of the church and of the papal doctrine, but there followed the public disputations with Doctor John Eck, the vice-chancellor of the University of Ingolstadt, in which the great subject under discussion was the primacy of the pope. Luther held that the pope was not infallible that he might err in matters of doctrine, and that the general council, which represented the universal church, should decide the case. Now Luther had already asserted that certain doctrines of Huss were true, but the Council of Constance had condemned these and burned Huss at the stake. Luther was compelled by his shrewd opponent to acknowledge that a council also might err, and he had then to maintain his position that the pope and the council both might err and to commit himself to the proposition that there is no absolute authority on the {384} face of the earth to interpret the will of God. But now Luther was forced to go yet a step farther. When the papal bull condemning him and excommunicating him was issued, he took the bull and burned it in the presence of a concourse of people, and then wrote his address to the German nobles. He thus set at defiance the whole church government and authority. He had become an open revolutionist.
The Catholic Church, to defend itself from the position it had taken against Luther, reasoned in this way: "Where there is difference of opinion, there is doubt; where there is doubt, there is no certainty; where there is no certainty, there is no knowledge. Therefore, if Luther is right, that there is room for difference of opinion about divine revelation, then we have no knowledge of that revelation." In this way did the Roman Church attempt to suppress all freedom of religious belief.
For the opposition which Luther made, he was summoned to appear before the Diet of Augsburg, which condemned him as a heretic. Had it not been that Charles V, who presided, had promised him a safe-conduct to and from the diet, Luther would have suffered the same fate as John Huss. Indeed, it is said that Charles V, when near his death, regretted that he had not burned Luther at the stake. It shows how little the emperor knew of the real spiritual scope of the Reformation, that he hoped to stay its tide by the burning of one man.
The safe-conduct of Luther by Charles V was decided on account of the existing state of European politics. The policy followed by the emperor at the diet was not based upon the arguments which Luther so powerfully presented before the diet, but upon a preconceived policy. Had the Emperor of Germany been only King of Spain in seeking to keep the pretentious power of the pope within bounds he might have gained a great advantage by uniting with Luther in the Reformation. But as emperor he needed the support of the pope, on account of the danger of invasion of Italy by Francis I of France. He finally concluded it would be best to declare Luther a heretic, but he was impotent to enforce {385} punishment by death. In this way he would set himself directly in opposition to the Reformation and save his crown. Apparently Charles cared less for the Reformation than he did for his own political preservation.[6]
From this time on the Reformation in Germany became wholly political. Its advantages and disadvantages hung largely upon the political intrigues and manipulations of the European powers. It furnished the means of an economic revolt, which Luther, having little sympathy with the common people in their political and social bondage, was called to suppress from the castle of Wartburg.
The Reformation spread rapidly over Germany until the time of the organization of the Jesuits, in 1542, when fully two-thirds of all Germany had revolted from papal authority and had become Protestant. After the organization of the Jesuits, the Reformation declined, on account of the zeal of that organization and the dissensions which arose among the Protestants.
Zwingli Was the Hero of the Reformation in Switzerland.—The Reformation which was begun by Zwingli at first took on a social and a political aspect and, being soon taken up by the state, resulted in a decision by the Council of Zurich that no preacher could advance any arguments not found in the Old or New Testament. This position, with some variations, was maintained through the entire Reformation. The moral and religious condition of the people of Switzerland was at a very low ebb, and the course of the Reformation was to preach against abuses. Zwingli drew his knowledge and faith from the Bible, holding that for authority one ought to return to it or to the primitive church. He advocated the abolition of image-worship, and, in addition, the abolition of enforced celibacy, nunneries, and the celebration of the mass. He held, too, that there ought to be a return to local church government, and {386} that all of the cloisters should be converted into schools. He objected to so many days being devoted to the festivals of the saints, because it lessened the productive power of the people. The whole tenor of his preaching was that the Bible should be used as the basis of doctrine, and that there is no mediation except through Jesus Christ. As to the doctrine of the sacrament, he believed that the bread and wine are merely symbols, thus approximating the belief as established by the Protestants of the present day. On the other hand, Luther persistently held to the doctrine of transubstantiation, though the organized Protestant churches held to "consubstantiation."
The Reformation in Switzerland tended to develop more strongly an independent political existence, to make for freedom and righteousness, to work practical reforms in the abuses of both church and state, and to promote a deeper spiritual religion among the people.
Calvin Establishes the Genevan System.—John Calvin was driven out of France on account of his preaching. He went to Geneva and there perfected a unique system of religious organization. Perhaps it is the most complete system of applied theology developed by any of the reformers. While it did not strongly unite the church and the state on the same foundation of government, it placed them in such a close unity that the religious power would be felt in every department of state life. The Genevan system was well received in France, became the foundation of the reform party there, and subsequently extended its influence to Scotland, and, finally, to England. It became the foundation of Presbyterianism throughout the world. While Calvinism was severe and arbitrary in its doctrine, on account of its system of administration, it greatly advanced civil liberty and gave a strong impulse toward democracy. It was the central force in the Commonwealth of England, and upheld the representative system of government, which led to the establishment of constitutional liberty.
The Reformation in England Differed from the German.—The work of John Wyclif and his followers was so remote from {387} the period of the Reformation as to have very little immediate influence. Yet, in a general way, the influence of the teachings of Wyclif continued throughout the Reformation. The religious change came about slowly in England and was modified by political affairs. People gradually became liberal on the subject of religion, and began to exercise independent thought as to church government. Yet, outwardly, at the beginning of the sixteenth century, the followers of John Wyclif made no impression upon religious affairs. The new learning, advocated by such men as Erasmus, Colet, and More, was gaining ground rapidly in England. Its quickening influence was observed everywhere. It was confined to no particular field, but touched all departments, religious, social, political. It invaded the territory of art, of education, of literature. Henry VIII favored the new learning and gave it great impulse by his patronage. But the new learning in England was antagonistic to the Reformation of Luther. The circumstances were different, and Luther attacked the attitude of the English reformers, who desired a slow change in church administration and a gradual purification of the ecclesiastical atmosphere. The difference of opinion called out a fierce attack by Henry VIII on Luther, which gave the king the title of "Defender of the Faith."
The real beginning of the Reformation in England was a revolt from the papacy by the English king for political reasons. England established a national church, with the king at its head, and made changes in the church government and reformed abuses. The national, or Anglican, Church once formed, the struggle began, on the one hand, between it and the Catholic Church, and on the other, at a later date, against Puritanism. The Anglican Church was not fully established until the reign of Elizabeth.
The real spirit of the Reformation in England is best exhibited in the rise of Puritanism, which received its impulse largely from the Calvinistic branch of the Reformation. The whole course of the Reformation outside of the influence of the new learning, or humanism, was of a political nature. The {388} revolt from Rome was prompted by political motives; the Puritan movement was accompanied with political democracy. The result was to give great impetus to constitutional liberty, stimulate intellectual activity, and to declare for freedom of conscience in religious matters. Yet it was a long way from complete religious toleration and the full establishment of the rights and liberties of the people.
Many Phases of Reformation in Other Countries.—The Reformation in Spain was crushed by the power of the church, which used the weapon of the Inquisition so effectively. In Italy the papal power prevailed almost exclusively. In the Netherlands we find almost complete conversion to Protestantism, and in the other northern countries we find Protestantism prevailing to a great extent. Indeed, we shall find between the north and the south an irregular line dividing Protestantism from Catholicism, in the north the former predominating, in the south the latter. In France a long, severe struggle between Catholicism and Protestantism took place. It was combined with the struggle of political factions, and led to bitter, hard oppression. In fact, the Reformation varied in different countries according to the political, social, and intellectual state of each. Interesting as the history of these countries is, it is not necessary to follow it to determine the spirit and results of the Reformation.
Results of the Reformation Were Far-Reaching.—The results of the Reformation interest us in this discussion far more than its historical progress. In the first place, we shall find, as the primary result, that the northern nations were separated from the power of Rome and the great ecclesiastical power that the papacy possessed was broken. It could no longer maintain its position of supremacy throughout the world. Although it still was powerful, especially in Italy and Austria, it could no longer rest its assumption on absolute authority, but must demonstrate that power by intrigue and political prowess in order to cope with the nations of Europe. In the second place, there was a development of political liberty. The nations had freed {389} themselves from the domination and imperial power of the church, and were left alone to carry on their own affairs and develop their national freedom. But there was something more in the development of the Reformation than those things which made for religious liberty. To the desire of freedom of the mind in religious belief the desire for freedom in political life had joined itself, and we shall find that the Reformation everywhere stirred up a desire for political liberty. The fires of freedom, thus lighted, never went out, but slowly burned on until they burst out in the great conflagration of the French Revolution. Political liberty, then, was engendered and developed in the hearts of men and nations.
Again, the foundation of religious toleration was laid by the Reformation, although it was not yet secured, for it must be maintained that even Luther was as persistent and dogmatic in his own position, as intolerant of the beliefs of other people, as was the papal authority itself. Convinced that he was right, he recognized no one's right to differ from his opinion, even though he himself had revolted from the authority of the church. He showed his bigotry and lack of tolerance in his treatment of Zwingli, of Calvin, and of Erasmus. Most of the early reformers, indeed, were intolerant of the opinions of others; the development of religious toleration has been a very slow process, not only in Europe but in America. The many and various phases of the Reformation nevertheless made as a whole for religious toleration.
When in the Reformation in Germany it was decided at the religious peace of Augsburg that Catholics and Protestants should have the same privileges, only one division of Protestants was recognized, and that was the Lutheran division. Calvinists were entirely excluded. It was not until the peace of Westphalia in 1648, which closed the great struggle known as the Thirty Years' War, that all denominations were recognized upon the same basis. The struggle for religious toleration in England is a history in itself, and it was not until the last century that it might be said that toleration really existed {390} in the United Kingdom, for during two centuries or more there was a state religion supported by revenues raised by taxing the people, although other churches were tolerated.
Another great result of the Reformation was the advancement of intellectual progress. All progress rests primarily upon freedom of the mind, and whatever enhances that freedom has a tendency to promote intellectual progress. The advancement of language and letters, of philosophy and science, and of all forms of knowledge, became rapid on account of this intense activity of the mind. The revival of learning received a new impulse in the development of man's spiritual nature—an impulse which was felt throughout the entire world. In this respect the Reformation was far-reaching in its consequences. The church no longer assumed the sole power to think for the people.
Again, it may be said that the Reformation improved man's material progress. The development of the independent individual life brought about strength of character, industry, and will force, which, in turn, built up material affairs and made great improvements in the economic conditions of man. Everywhere that Protestantism prevailed there was a rapid increase of wealth and better economic conditions. Trade and commerce improved rapidly, and the industrial life went through a process of revolution. Freedom upon a rational basis always brings about this vital prosperity, while despotism suppresses the desires of man for a better economic life. So we shall find that intellectual and material progress followed everywhere in the course of the Reformation, while those states and nations over which the papal authority retained its strongest hold began to decline in intellectual power and material welfare. Such was the force of the Reformation to renovate and rejuvenate all which it touched. It made possible the slow evolution of the independence of the common man and established the dignity of labor.
Finally, let it be said that the Reformation caused a counter-reformation within the Catholic Church. For many years {391} there was an earnest reform going on within the Romanist Church. Abuses were corrected, vices eradicated, the religious tone of church administration improved, and the general character of church polity changed in very many ways. But once having reformed itself, the church became more arbitrary than before. In the Council of Trent, in clearly defining its position, it declared its infallibility and absolute authority, thus relapsing into the old imperial régime. But the Reformation, after all, was the salvation of the Roman Church, for through it that church was enabled to correct a sufficient number of abuses to regain its power and re-establish confidence in itself among the people.
The Reformation, like the Renaissance, has been going on ever since it started, and we may say to-day that, so far as most of the results are concerned, we are yet in the midst of both.
1. Needed reforms in the church and why they failed.
2. Enumerate the causes that led to the Reformation prior to Luther.
3. Compare the main characteristics in the Reformation in the following countries: Germany, England, Switzerland, and France.
4. What were the characteristics of the Genevan system instituted by John Calvin?
5. The results of the Reformation on intellectual development, political freedom, scientific thought, and, in general, on human progress.
6. The effect of the Reformation on the character and policy of the Romanist Church (Catholic).
7. What was the nature of the quarrels of Henry IV and Gregory VII, of Innocent III and John of England, of Boniface and Philip the Fair?
[1] Theologia Germania, generally accredited to Tauler, but written by one of his followers.
[2] The Holy Roman Empire, p. 327.
[3] History of Civilization, vol. I, pp. 255-257.
[4] Recent writers emphasize the economic and national causes, which should be added to this list.
[5] Luther sent his ninety-five theses to Archbishop Albert of Mainz.
[6] Luther had many friends In the diet. Also he was in his own country before a German national assembly. Huss was in a foreign country before a church assembly.
Progress in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries.—It is not easy to mark in brief space the steps of progress in the complex activities of the great movements of society of the first centuries of the period of modern history. It is not possible to relate the details of the great historical movements, with their many phases of life moving on toward great achievements. Only a few of the salient and vital features may be presented, but these will be sufficient to show the resultant general achievements coming from the interaction of a multitude of forces of an expanding civilization. The great determiners of this period are found in the national life of England, France, Germany, and America. Out of many complex movements and causes the dominant factor is the struggle of monarchy and democracy. The revival of learning, the Protestant revolution, and the attempts at popular government heralded the coming of political liberty and the recognition of the rights of man. The whole complex is a vivid example of the processes of social evolution through the interaction of groups, each moving about a central idea. Again and again when freedom of mind and liberty of action seem to be successful, they have been obscured by new social maladies or retarded by adverse environmental conditions.
The Struggle of Monarchy with Democracy.—In a previous chapter, in which were recounted the early attempts at popular representation, it was shown that in nearly every instance the rise of popular power was suppressed by the rapid and universal growth of monarchy. Having obtained power by combining with the people in their struggle against the nobility, monarchy finally denied the people the right to {393} participate in the government. It was recognized nearly everywhere in Europe as the dominant type of government through which all nations must pass. Through it the will of the people was to find expression, or, to use a more exact statement, monarchy proposed to express the will of the people without asking their permission.
The intellectual revival which spread over Europe tended to free the mind from the binding power of tradition, prestige, and dogmatism, and to give it freedom in religious belief. But while these great movements were taking place, monarchy was being established in Europe, and wherever monarchy was established without proper checks of constitutional government, it became powerful and arbitrary to such a degree as to force the people into a mighty cry for political liberty. In France royalty ran rapidly into imperialism; in Spain it became oppressive; but in England there was a decided check upon its absolute assumptions by way of slowly developing constitutional liberty.
Struggle for Constitutional Liberty in England.—For a long period monarchy had to struggle fiercely with the feudal nobility of England, but finally came off conqueror, and then assumed such arbitrary powers as appeared necessary for the government of the realm of England. It was inevitable, however, that in a people whose minds had been emancipated from absolute spiritual power and given freedom of thought, a conflict would eventually occur with monarchy which had suppressed municipal liberty, feudal nobility, and popular representation. Pure monarchy sought at all times the suppression of political liberty. Hence, in England, there began a struggle against the assumptions of absolute monarchy and in favor of the liberty of the people.
There grew up in England under the Tudors an advocacy of the inherited rights of kings. There was a systematic development of arbitrary power until monarchy in England declared itself superior to all laws and to all constitutional rights and duties. In another place it has been told how the English {394} Reformation was carried on by the kings as a political institution, how the authority of Rome was overthrown and the kings of England seized the opportunity to enhance their power and advance their own interests. When the people realized that they had exchanged an arbitrary power in Rome for an arbitrary power in England, centred in the king, they cried out again at this latter tyranny, and sought for religious reform against the authority of the church.
This movement was accompanied by a desire for political reform, also. Indeed, all civil and religious authority centred in one person, the king, and a reform of religious administration could not take place without a reform of the political. The activity of English commerce and the wide-spread influence of the revival of learning, which developed a new and independent literary culture, made life intense and progress rapid. When this spirit of political liberty sought expression in England, it found it in the ancient privileges and rights of the English people, to which they sought to return. It was unfortunate that the desires for political liberty on the continent found no such means to which they could attach their ideas of a liberal government. In England we find these old rights and privileges a ready support for the principles of constitutional liberty. There were many precedents and examples of liberty which might be recalled for the purpose of quickening the zeal of the people—many, indeed, had been continued in local communities.
Nor were the English government and law wanting in the principles of liberty which had been handed down from former generations. Moreover, it became necessary, as a practical measure, for the kings of England, if they desired to maintain their position, to call a parliament of the people for the sake of their co-operation and help in the support of the government. It is seen, therefore, that in England the spirit of constitutional liberty, though perhaps suppressed at times, never perished, though the assumption of royal power was very great, and when the party which was seeking to carry forward {395} religious reform joined itself to the party seeking political liberty, there was aroused a force in England which would be sure to prove a check on royalty and insure the rights and privileges of a free people.
Though the sentiment for religious reform was general throughout England, this principle was viewed in many different ways by different parties. Thus the pure-monarchy party saw many evils in the laws of England and in the administration of affairs, and sought reform, but without yielding anything of the high conception of the absolute power of the king. They believed that the ancient laws and precedents of England were a check upon monarchy sufficient to reform all abuses of power that might arise. They acknowledged the divine right of kings and thought that royalty possessed a superior power, but they held that it was obliged, for its own preservation and the proper government of the realm, to confine its activity within certain limits. Two other parties, the one political and the other religious, went hand in hand, both for revolution. The former denied the absolute sovereignty of the king and sought a great change in the form, the spirit, and the structure of government. They held that the ultimate power of control should rest in the House of Commons as the representative of the people. The latter party sought the same process within the church. They held that it should be controlled by assemblages of the people, maintained that decentralization should take place and the constitution of the church be changed as well as its form of administration. It is easy to see that the leaders of either of these parties were also leaders of the other. A fourth party sought to repudiate the constitution, as radically wrong, and to build up an entirely new political system. It disregarded the past life of England and repudiated all precedents, desiring to build up a new government founded upon abstract theories of right and justice.
The course of history under these four parties is plain. Each one, struggling for power, tried to manage the government {396} upon its particular theory, and signally failed. The struggle in the House of Commons, had it not finally brought about such great consequences, would be disgusting and discouraging in the extreme. The struggle in England for liberty of conscience and for government of the people through Parliament went on through turmoil and disgrace for two centuries. It was king against the people, Catholic against Protestant, and, within the latter group, Anglican, Presbyterian, and independent, each against one another. All sorts of unjust and inhuman practices were indulged in. It would seem that the spirit of Magna Charta and of the Christian religion was constantly outraged.
When Henry VIII, in 1521, wrote his attack on Luther embodied in the Assertion of the Seven Sacraments, Pope Leo X gave him the title of "Defender of the Faith." Subsequently, when he appealed to the pope to help him settle his marital difficulties, the pope refused to support him, and finally excommunicated him for divorcing his wife Catherine. This led to a break with Rome, and the Supremacy Act, which made the king protector and only supreme head of the church and clergy of England. This inaugurated the long struggle between Catholic and Protestant, with varying fortunes to each side. The Tudor period closed with the death of Elizabeth, in 1603, with a fairly well-established conformity to the Anglican Church; but Puritanism was growing slowly but surely, which meant a final disruption. From this time on there was confusion of political and religious affairs for another century.
In 1621 Parliament rebuked King James I for his high-handed proceedings with protestation: "That the liberties, franchises, privileges, and jurisdictions of Parliament are the ancient and undoubted birthright and inheritance of the subjects of England, and that the arduous and urgent affairs of the king, state, and defense of the realm ... are proper subjects and matters of council and debate in Parliament." The king tore the page containing the resolution from the journal of Parliament; but this did not retard the struggle for the {397} recognition of ancient rights. The strife went on throughout the reign of the Stuarts, until Charles I lost his head and the nation was plunged into a great civil war.
There finally appeared on the scene of action a man of destiny. Cromwell, seizing the opportunity, turned everything toward democracy, and ruled republicans, Puritans, and royalists with such an iron hand that his painful democracy came to a sudden close through reaction under the rule of his successor. The Stuarts again came into power, and, believing in the divine right of kings—a principle which seems to have been imbibed from the imperialism of France—sought to bring everything into subordination to royalty. The people, weary of the irregular government caused by the attempts of the different parties to rule, and tired of the abuses and irregularities of the administration, welcomed the restoration of royalty as an advantage to the realm. But the Stuarts sought not only to rule with high hand, regardless of the wants, desires, and will of the people, but also to bring back the absolute authority of the papacy. By their arbitrary, high-handed proceedings, they brought the English government to a crisis which was ended only by the coming of William of Orange to rule upon the throne with constitutional right; for the people seized their opportunity to demand a guaranty of the rights of freemen which would thoroughly establish the principle of constitutional liberty in England.
But the declaration of Parliament at the accession of William and Mary, which subsequently was enacted as a famous Bill of Rights, showed a great permanent gain in constitutional liberty. It centred the power in Parliament, whose authority was in the Commons. It was true the arbitrary power of kings came to the front during the rule of the four Georges, but it was without avail, and reform measures followed their reign. Constitutional government had won. It is true that the revolution failed to establish religious toleration, but it led the way with rapid strides.
In the progress of civil liberty and freedom of conscience in {398} England, the literature of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries had a powerful influence. In the world of ideas, freedom of thought found expression through the great writers. While few attacked the evils of government, they were not wanting in setting forth high ideals of life, liberty, and justice. Such men as John Milton, John Locke, John Bunyan, and Shakespeare turned the thinking world toward better things in government and life.
Thus England had a check on the growth of monarchy, while freedom of investigation led to an inquiry about the rights of the people; hence, the seeds of popular liberty were growing at the time monarchy was making its greatest assumption. The people never yielded, in theory at least, their ancient rights to the absolute control of royalty. Kingship in England was developed through service, and while the English were strong for monarchy because it expressed a unity of the nation, they expected the king to consider the rights of the people, which gave rise to a complex movement in England, making for religious and political liberty, in which all classes were engaged in some degree at different times.
In France, however, it was different. At first the feudal nobility ruled with absolute sway. It continued in power long enough to direct the thoughts of the people toward it and to establish itself as a complete system. It had little opposition in the height of its power. When monarchy arose it, too, had the field all to itself. People recognized this as the only legitimate form of government. Again, when monarchy failed, people rushed enthusiastically to democracy, and in their wild enthusiasm made of it a government of terror. How different were the results. In England there was a slow evolution of constitutional government in which the rights of the people, the king, the nobility, and the clergy were respected, and each class fell into its proper place in the government. In France, each separate power made its attempt to govern, and failed. Its history points to a truth, namely, that no kind of government is safe without a system of checks.
{399}The Place of France in Modern Civilization.—Guizot tries to show that in the seventeenth century France led the civilization of the world; that while Louis XIV was carrying absolute government to its greatest height, philosophy, art, and letters flourished; that France, by furnishing unique and completed systems, has led the European world in civilization. To a great extent this is true, for France had better opportunities to develop an advanced civilization than any other European nation. It must be remembered that France, at an early period, was completely Romanized, and never lost the force and example of the Roman civilization; and, also, that in the invasion of the Norman, the northern spirit gave France vigor, while its crude forms were overcome by the more cultured forms of French life.
While other nations were still in turmoil France developed a distinct and separate nationality. At an early period she cast off the power of Rome and maintained a separate ecclesiastical system which tended to develop an independent spirit and further increase nationality. Her population was far greater than that of any other nation, and her wealth and national resources were vastly superior to those of others. These elements gave France great prestige and great power, and fitted her to lead in civil progress. They permitted her to develop a high state of civilization. If the genius of the French people gave them adaptability in communicating their culture to others, it certainly was of service to Europe. Yet the service of France must not be too highly estimated. If, working in the dark, other nations, not so far advanced as France on account of material causes, were laying a foundation of the elements of civilization, which were to be of vast importance in the development of the race, it would appear that as great credit should be given them as to the French manners, genius, and culture which gave so little permanent benefit to the world. Guizot wisely refrains from elaborating the vices of the French monarchy, and fails to point out the failure of the French system of government.
{400}The Divine Right of Kings.—From the advent of the Capetian dynasty of French kings royalty continually increased its power until it culminated under Louis XIV. The court, the clergy, and, in fact, the greater number of the preachers of France, advocated the divine origin and right of kings. If God be above all and over all, his temporal rulers as well as his spiritual rulers receive their power from him; hence the king receives his right to rule from God. Who, then, has the right to oppose the king? Upon this theory the court preachers adored him and in some instances deified him. People sought to touch the hem of his garment, or receive from his divine majesty even a touch of the hand, that they might be healed of their infirmities. In literature Louis was praised and deified. The "Grand Monarch" was lauded and worshipped by the courtiers and nobles who circled around him. He maintained an extravagant court and an elaborate etiquette, so extravagant that it depleted the rural districts of money, and drew the most powerful families to revolve around the king.
The extravagant life paralyzed the energies of kings and ministers, who built a government for the advantage of the governing and not the governed. "I am the state!" said the Grand Monarch. Although showing in many ways an enlightened absolutism, his rule plunged French royalty into despotism. Louis XV held strongly to absolutism, but lacked the power to render it attractive and magnificent. Louis XVI attempted to stem the rising tide, but it was too late. The evils were too deeply seated; they could not be changed by any temporary expedient. French royalty reached a logical outcome from all power to no power. Louis XIV had built a strong, compact administration under the direction of able men, but it was wanting in liberty, it was wanting in justice, and it is only a matter of time when these deficiencies in a nation lead to destruction.
The Power of the Nobility.—The French nobility had been mastered by the king, but to keep them subservient, to make them circle around royalty and chant its praises, they were {401} given a large extension of rights and privileges. They were exempt from the responsibilities for crime; they occupied all of the important places in church and state; they were exempt from taxation; many who dwelt at the court with the king lived off the government; many were pensioned by the government, their chief recommendation apparently being idleness and worthlessness. There was a great gulf between the peasantry and the nobility. The latter had control of all the game of the forests and the fish in the rivers; one-sixth of all the grain grown in the realm went to the nobility, as did also one-sixth of all the land sold, and all confiscated property fell to them. The peasants had no rights which the nobility were bound to respect. The nobility, with all of the emoluments of office, owned, with the clergy, two-thirds of all the land. Yet this unproductive class numbered only about 83,000 families.
The Misery of the People.—If the nobility despised the lower classes and ignored their rights, they in turn were hated intensely by those whom they sought to degrade. The third estate in France was divided into the bourgeoisie and the peasantry and small artisans. The former gradually deteriorated in character and tended toward the condition of the lowest classes. By the revocation of the Edict of Nantes, a large number of the bourgeoisie, or middle class, was driven from France. This deprived France of the class that would have stood by the nation when it needed support, and would have stood for moderate constitutional government against the radical democrats like Robespierre and Marat.
The lowest class, composed of small peasant farmers, laborers, and artisans, were improved a little under the reign of Louis XIV, but this made them feel more keenly the degradation in succeeding years, from which there was no relief. The condition of the people indicated that a revolution was on its way. In the evolution of European society the common man was crowded down toward the condition of serfdom. The extravagances and luxuries of life, the power of kings, bishops, and nobles bore like a burden of heavy weight upon his {402} shoulders. He was the common fodder that fed civilization, and because of this more than anything else, artificial systems of society were always running for a fall, for the time must come when the burdens destroy the foundation and the superstructure comes tumbling down.
The Church.—The church earned an important position in France soon after the conquest by the Romans; seizing opportunities, it came into power by right of service. It brought the softening influences of religion; it established government where there was no government; it furnished a home for the vanquished and the oppressed; it preserved learning from the barbarians; it conquered and controlled the warlike spirit of the Germans; it provided the hungry with food, and by teaching agriculture added to the economic wealth of the community; and finally, it became learned, and thus brought order out of chaos. Surely the church earned its great position, and reaped its reward. Taine says:
"Its popes for two hundred years were the dictators of Europe. It organized crusades, dethroned monarchs, and distributed kingdoms. Its bishops and abbots became here sovereign princes and there veritable founders of dynasties. It held in its grasp a third of the territory, one-half the revenue, and two-thirds of the capital of Europe."
The church was especially strong in France. It was closely allied to the state, and opposed everything that opposed the state. When the king became the state, the church upheld the king. The church of France, prior to the revolution, was rich and aristocratic. In 1789 its property was valued at 4,000,000,000 francs, and its income at 200,000,000 francs; to obtain a correct estimate according to our modern measure of value, these amounts should be doubled. In some territories the clergy owned one-half the soil, in others three-fourths, and in one, at least, fourteen-seventeenths of the land. The Abbey of St.-Germain-des-Prés possessed 900,000 acres. Yet within the church were found both the wealthy and the poverty-stricken. In one community was a bishop rolling in luxury {403} and ease, in another a wretched, half-starved country curate trying to carry the gospel to half-starved people. Such extremes were shocking commentaries upon a church founded on democracy.
The church persecuted the literary men who expressed freedom of thought and opinion. It ignored facts and the people distrusted it. The religious reformation in France became identified with political factions, which brought the church into a prominent place in the government and made it take an important place in the revolution. It had succeeded in suppressing all who sought liberty, either political or religious, and because of its prominence in affairs, it was the first institution to feel the storm of the revolution. The church in France was attacked fully forty years before the king and the nobility were arraigned by the enraged populace.
Influence of the Philosophers.—There appeared in France in the reign of Louis XV what was known as "the new literature," in contrast with the classic literature of the previous reign. The king and the church combined fought this new literature, because it had a tendency to endanger absolutism. It was made by such brilliant men as Helvetius, Montesquieu, Voltaire, Condillac, and Rousseau. Perhaps the writings of these men had more to do with the precipitation of the revolution than the arbitrary assumptions of royalty, the wretchedness of the people, the supercilious abuses of the nobility, and the corruption of the church.
Without presenting the various philosophies of these writers, it may be said that they attacked the systems of government, religion, and philosophy prevailing in France, and each succeeding writer more boldly proclaimed the evils of the day. Condillac finally convinced the people that they owed their evil conditions to the institutions of church and state under which they lived, and showed that, if they desired a change, all it was necessary to do was to sweep those institutions away. Other philosophers speculated on the best means of improving the government. Presenting ideal forms of {404} government and advocating principles not altogether certain in practice, they made it seem, through these speculative theories, that a perfect government is possible.
Of the great writers of France prior to the revolution who had a tremendous power in hastening the downfall of the royal régime, three stand out more prominently than others, namely, Voltaire, Montesquieu, and Rousseau. Voltaire, keen critic and satirist, attacked the evils of society, the maladministration of courts and government, the dogmatism of the church, and aided and defended the victims of the system. He was a student of Shakespeare, Locke, and Newton, and of English government. He was highly critical but not constructive. Montesquieu, more philosophical, in his Spirit of the Laws pointed out the cause of evils, expounded the nature of governments, and upheld English liberty as worthy the consideration of France. Rousseau, although he attacked civilization, depicting its miseries and inconsistencies, was more constructive, for in his Social Contract he advocated universal suffrage and government by the people through the principles of natural rights and mutual aid. These writers aroused a spirit of liberty among the thoughtful which could not do otherwise than prove destructive to existing institutions.
The Failure of Government.—It soon became evident to all that a failure of the government from a practical standpoint was certain. The burdens of unequal taxation could no longer be borne; the treasury was empty; there was no means of raising revenue to support the government as it was run; there was no one who could manage the finances of the nation; the administration of justice had fallen into disrepute; even if there had been an earnest desire to help the various classes of people in distress, there were no opportunities to do so. Louis XVI, in his weakness, called the States-General for counsel and advice. It was the first time the people had been called in council for more than 200 years; monarchy had said it could run the government without the people, and now, on the verge of destruction, called upon the people to save it from the {405} wreck. The well-intended king invoked a storm; his predecessors had sown the wind, he reaped the whirlwind.
France on the Eve of the Revolution.—The causes of the revolution were dependent, in part, upon the peculiarity of the character of the French people, for in no other way can the sudden outburst or the course of the revolution be accounted for. Yet a glimpse at the condition of France before the storm burst will cause one to wonder, not that it came, but that it was so long delayed.
A careful examination of the facts removes all mystery respecting the greatest political phenomenon of all history, and makes of it an essential outcome of previous conditions. The French people were grossly ignorant of government. The long period of misrule had distorted every form of legitimate government. One school of political philosophers gave their attention to pointing out the evils of the system; another to presenting bright pictures of ideal systems of government which had never been put in practice. The people found no difficulty in realizing the abuses of government, for they were intense sufferers from them, and, having no expression in the management of affairs, they readily adopted ideal theories for the improvement of social conditions. Moreover, there was no national unity, no coherence of classes such as in former days brought strength to the government. Monarchy was divided against itself; the lay nobility had no loyalty, but were disintegrated by internal feuds; the people were divided into opposing classes; the clergy were rent asunder.
Monarchy, though harsh, arbitrary, and unjust, did not have sufficient coercive force to give a strong rule. The church had lost its moral influence—indeed, morality was lacking within its organization. It could persecute heretics and burn books which it declared to be obnoxious to its doctrines, but it could not work a moral reform, much less stem the tide that was carrying away its ancient prerogatives. The nobility had no power in the government, and the dissension between the crown, the nobility, and the church was continuous and {406} destructive of all authority. Continuous and disreputable quarrels, profligacy, extravagance, and idleness characterized each group.
Worst of all was the condition of the peasantry. The commons of France, numbering twenty-five millions of people, had, let it be said in their favor, no part in the iniquitous and oppressive government. They were never given a thought by the rulers except as a means of revenue. There had grown up another, a middle class, especially in towns, who had grown wealthy by honest toil, and were living in ease and luxury, possessed of some degree of culture. They disliked the nobles, on the one hand, and the peasants, on the other; hated and opposed the nobility and ignored the common people. This class did not represent the sterling middle class of England or of modern life, but were the product of feudalism.
The condition of the rural peasantry is almost beyond description. Suffering from rack-rents, excessive taxation, and the abuses of the nobility, they presented a squalor and wretchedness worse than that of the lowest vassals of the feudal regime. In the large cities collected the dangerous classes who hated the rich. Ignorant, superstitious, half-starved, they were ready at a moment's notice to attack the wealthy and to destroy property.
The economic and financial conditions of the nation were deplorable, for the yield of wealth decreased under the poorly organized state. The laborers received such wages as left them at the verge of starvation and prepared them for open revolution. The revenues reserved for the support of the government were insufficient for the common needs, and an empty treasury was the result. The extravagance of king, court, and nobility had led to excessive expenditures and gross waste. There were no able ministers to manage the affairs of the realm on an economic basis. Add to these evils lack of faith, raillery at decency and virtue, and the poisonous effects of a weak and irresponsible philosophy, and there are represented sufficient evils to make a revolution whenever there is sufficient vigor to start it.
{407}The Revolution.—The revolution comes with all of its horrors. The church is humbled and crushed, the government razed to the ground, monarchy is beheaded, and the flower of nobility cut off. The wild mob at first seeks only to destroy; later it seeks to build a new structure on the ruins. The weak monarch, attempting to stem the tide, is swept away by its force. He summons the States-General, and the commons declare themselves the national assembly. Stupendous events follow in rapid succession—the revolt in Paris, the insubordination of the army, the commune of Paris, and the storming of the Bastile. The legislative assembly brings about the constitutional assembly, and laws are enacted for the relief of the people.
Intoxicated with increasing liberty, the populace goes mad, and the legislators pass weak and harmful laws. The law-making and constitutional bodies cannot make laws fast enough to regulate the affairs of the state. Lawlessness and violence increase until the "reign of terror" appears with all its indescribable horrors. The rest is plain. Having levelled all government to the ground, having destroyed all authority, having shown themselves incapable of self-government, the French people are ready for Napoleon. Under his command and pretense they march forth to liberate humanity from oppression in other nations, but in reality to a world conquest.
Results of the Revolution.—The French Revolution was by far the most stupendous event of modern history. It settled forever in the Western world the relation of man to government. It taught that absolutism of any class, if unchecked, must lead sooner or later to the destruction of all authority. It taught that men, to be capable of self-government, must be educated in its principles through a long period, yet proclaimed to the Western world the freedom of man, and asserted his right to participate in government. While France temporarily failed to bring about this participation, it awoke the cry for independence, equality, and fraternity around the world.
The results of the revolution became the common property {408} of all nations, and a universal sentiment arising from it pervaded every country, shaping its destiny. The severe blow given to absolutism and exclusive privilege in church and state settled forever the theory of the divine right of kings and prelates to govern. The revolution asserted that the precedent in religious and political affairs must yield to the necessities of the people; that there is no fixed principle in government except the right of man to govern himself.
The establishment of the theory of the natural right of man to participate in government had great influence on succeeding legislation and modified the policy of surrounding nations. The social-contract theory was little understood and gave an incorrect notion of the nature of government. In its historical creation, government was a growth, continually suiting itself to the changing needs of a people. Its practice rested upon convenience and precedent, but the real test for participation in government was capability. But the French Revolution startled the monarchs of Europe with the assumption of the natural right of people to self-government. Possibly it is incorrect when carried to extremes, for the doctrine of natural right must be merged into the practice of social rights, duties, and privileges. But it was a check on despotism.
The revolution had an influence on economic life also. It was only a step from freedom of intellectual opinion to freedom of religious belief, and only a step from religious freedom to political liberty. Carried to its legitimate outcome, the growing sentiment of freedom asserted industrial liberty and economic equality. Its influence in the emancipation of labor was far-reaching. Many of the theories advanced in the French Revolution were impracticable; sentiments engendered were untrue, which in the long run would lead to injustice. Many of its promises remain unfulfilled, yet its lessons are still before us, its influence for good or evil continues unabated.
1. The progress in constitutional government was made in England during the Commonwealth.
2. Changes in the social and economic condition of England from 1603 to 1760.
3. When did the Industrial Revolution begin? What were its causes? What its results?
4. The rise of British commerce.
5. Effect of commerce on English economic and social life.
6. Of what use to England were her American colonies?
7. The effect of the American Revolution on the French Revolution.
8. The effect of the French Revolution on American liberty.
Political Liberty in the Eighteenth Century.—Looking backward from the standpoint of the close of the eighteenth century and following the chain of events in the previous century, the real achievement in social order is highly disappointing. The French Revolution, which had levelled the monarchy, the church, and the nobility, and brought the proletariat in power for a brief season and lifted the hopes of the people toward a government of equality, was hurrying on from the directorate to the consulate to the empire, and finally returning to the old monarchy somewhat worn and dilapidated, indeed, but sufficient in power to smother the hopes of the people for the time being. Numerous French writers, advocating anarchy, communism, and socialism, set up ideals of liberty, equality, and fraternity which were not to be realized as the immediate result of the revolution. Babeuf, Saint-Simon, Cabet, and Louis Blanc set forth new ideals of government, which were diametrically opposed to the practices of the French government in preceding centuries. Though some of their ideals were lofty, the writers were critical and destructive rather than constructive.
England, after the coming of William and Mary and the passing of the Bill of Rights in 1689, witnessed very little progress in political rights and liberty until the reform measures of the nineteenth century. On the continent, Prussia had risen to a tremendous power as a military state and developed an autocratic government with some pretenses to political liberty. But the dominant force of Prussia working on the basis of the ancient feudalism was finally to crush out the liberties of the German people and establish autocratic government. {414} The Holy Roman Empire, which had continued so long under the union of Austria and Italy, backed by the papacy, had reached its height of arbitrary power, and was destroyed by the Napoleonic wars. In the whole period there were political struggles and intrigues within the various states, and political struggles and intrigues and wars between the nations. It was a period of the expression of national selfishness which sought enlarged territory and the control of commerce and trade. Taken as a whole, there is little that is inspiring in the movement of nations in this period. Indeed, it is highly disappointing when we consider the materials at their hand for political advancement.
The political game at home played by cliques and factions and politicians struggling for power frequently led to disgraces abroad, such as the war against the American colonies and the extension of power and domination in India. There is scarcely a war, if any, in this whole period that should not have been settled without difficulty, provided nations were honest with each other and could exercise, if not reason, common sense. The early great movements, such as the revival of learning and progress centring in Italy and extending to other nations, the religious revolution which brought freedom of belief, the revolution of England and the Commonwealth, the French Revolution with its projections of new ideals of liberty on the horizon of political life, promised better things. Also, during this period the development of literature and the arts and sciences should have been an enlightened aid to political liberty.
Nevertheless, the higher ideals of life and liberty which were set forth during these lucid intervals of the warring nations of the world were never lost. The seeds of liberty, once having been sown, were to spring up in future years and develop through a normal growth.
The Progress of Popular Government Found Outside of the Great Nations.—The rise of democracy in Switzerland and the Netherlands and its development in America, although {415} moving indirectly and by reaction, had a lasting influence on the powerful nations like Germany, England, France, and Austria. In these smaller countries the warfare against tyranny, despotism, and ignorance was waged with success. Great gain was made in the overthrow of the accumulated power of traditional usage and the political monopoly of groups of people who had seized and held the power. Through trial and error, success and failure, these people, not noted for their brilliant warfare but for their love of peace, succeeded in establishing within their boundaries a clear definition of human rights and recognizing the right of the people to have a better government.
Reform Measures in England.—The famous Bill of Rights of 1689 in England has always been intact in theory. It laid the foundation for popular government in which privileges and rights of the people were guaranteed. It may have been a good expedient to have declared that no papist should sit upon the throne of England, thus declaring for Protestantism, but it was far from an expression of religious toleration. The prestige of the House of Lords, an old and well-established aristocratic body, built upon ancient privilege and the power of the monarchy which too frequently acknowledged constitutional rights and then proceeded to trample upon them, made the progress in popular government very slow.
One great gain had been made when the nation agreed to fight its political battles in Parliament and at elections. The freedom of the press and the freedom of speech gradually became established facts. Among the more noted acts for the benefit of popular government was the Reform Bill of 1832, which enlarged the elective franchise. This was bitterly opposed by the Lords, but the persistency of the Commons won the day and the king signed the bill. Again in 1867 the second Reform Bill enlarged the franchise, and more modern acts of Parliament have given greater liberties to the English people.
England opposed independent local government of Scotland and Ireland and of her colonies. Ireland had been oppressed {416} by the malady of English landlordism, which had always been a bone of contention in the way of any amicable adjustment of the relations between England and Ireland. Throughout the whole century had waged this struggle. England at times had sought through a series of acts to relieve the country, but the conservative element in Parliament had usually thwarted any rational system like that proposed by Mr. Gladstone. On the other hand, the Irish people themselves desired absolute freedom and independence and were restive under any form of restraint.
Nothing short of entire independence from the English nation or the establishment of home rule on some practical basis could insure peace and contentment in Ireland. Nor in the past could one be assured at any time that Ireland would have been contented for any length of time had she been given or acquired what she asked for. Being forced to support a large population on an infertile soil where landlordism dominated was a cause of a continual source of discontent, and the lack of practice of the Irish people in the art of local government always gave rise to doubts in the minds of her friends as to whether she could succeed as an independent nation or not. But the final triumph of Ireland in establishing a free state with the nominal control of the British Empire shows that Ireland has power to govern herself under fair treatment.
What a great gain it would have been if many years ago England had yielded to the desire of Ireland for an independent constitutional government similar to that of Canada! Tremendous changes have taken place in recent years in the liberalizing movement in England. The state church still exists, but religious toleration is complete. Women have been allowed the right to vote and are taking deep interest in political affairs, three women already having seats in Parliament. The labor movement, which has always been strong and independent in England, by the exercise of its right at the polls finally gained control of the government and, for the first time {417} in the history of England, a leading labor-union man and a socialist became premier of England.
The Final Triumph of the French Republic.—On account of ignorance of the true theories of government, as well as on account of lack of practical exercise in administration, for several decades the government which the French people established after the destruction of the monarchy of Louis XVI failed. The democracy of the French Revolution was iconoclastic, not creative. It could tear down, but could not rebuild. There were required an increased intelligence and the slow process of thought, a meditation upon the principles for which the people had fought and bled, and an enlarged view of the principles of government, before a republic could be established in France. Napoleon, catching the spirit of the times, gratified his ambition by obtaining the mastery of national affairs and leading the French people against foreign nations under the pretext of overthrowing despotism in Europe. In so doing he established absolutism once more in France. He became the imperial monarch of the old type, with the exceptions that intelligence took the place of bigotry and the welfare of the people took the place of the laudation of kings. But in attempting to become the dictator of all Europe, he caused other nations to combine against him, and finally he closed his great career with a Waterloo.
The monarchy, on its restoration, became constitutional; the government was composed of two chambers—the peers, nominated by the king, and the lower house, elected by the people. A system of responsible ministers was established, and of judges, who were not removable. Much had been gained in religious and civil liberty and the freedom of the press. But monarchy began to grow again, urged by the middle class of France, until in July, 1830, another revolution broke out on account of election troubles. The charter was violated in the prohibition of the publication of newspapers and pamphlets, and the elective system arbitrarily changed so as to restrict the suffrage to the landowners. The reaction {418} from this was to gain something more for democratic government. In the meantime there had been a growth of socialism, the direct product of the revolution.
The king finally abdicated in favor of his grandson, and then a provisional government was established, and finally a republic, the second republic of France. Louis Napoleon, who became president of the republic under the constitution, gradually absorbed all powers to himself and proclaimed himself emperor. After the close of the Franco-German War, in 1871, France became a republic for the third time. A constitution was formed, under which the legislative power was exercised by two chambers—the Chamber of Deputies, elected by direct vote and manhood suffrage for four years, and the Senate, consisting of 300 senators, 75 of whom were elected for life by the national assembly, the rest for nine years, by electoral colleges. These latter were composed of deputies, councils of the departments, and delegates of communes. The executive power was vested in a president, who was assisted by a responsible ministry. Republicanism was at last secured to France. Many changes have taken place in the application of the constitution to popular government since then, and much progress has been made in the practice of free government. The whole composition of the government reminds one of constitutional monarchy, with the exception that the monarch is chosen by the people for a short period of time.
Democracy in America.—The progress of democracy in America has been rapid. The first colonists were oppressed by the authority of European nations and bound by unyielding precedent. While the principle of local self-government obtained to a large extent in many of them, they partook more of aristocracies, or of governments based on class legislation, than of pure democracies. When independence from foreign countries was won by the united efforts of all the colonies, the real struggle for universal liberty began. A government was founded, so far as it was possible, on the principles of the Declaration of Independence, which asserted "that all men {419} are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights"; and that "for securing these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." The creation of a federal constitution and the formation of a perfect union guaranteed these rights to every citizen.
Yet in the various states forming a part of the Union, and, indeed, in the national government itself, it took a long time to approximate, in practice, the liberty and justice which were set forth in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Still, in the past century, the people have become more and more closely connected with the state, and a "government of the people, for the people, and by the people" is a certainty. The laws which have been made under the Constitution increase in specific declarations of the rights of the people. Justice is more nearly meted out to all classes at present than in any decade for a century. The political powers of citizens have constantly enlarged. The elective franchise has been extended to all citizens of both sexes. The requirements as to naturalization of foreigners are exceedingly lenient, and thus free government is offered to all people.
Of necessity the central government has been strengthened on account of the enlargement of territory and the great extension of national governmental powers. It has been necessary that the central forces which bind the separate parts of the nation together in a common union should be strengthened. The result has been a decline in the importance and power of the state governments. On the other hand, the large increase of population in the great cities has tended to enhance the power and importance of local government. The government of a single large city now becomes more difficult and of greater vital importance to the people than that of a state.
The enlarged territory and increased population, and the enormous amount of legislative machinery, have tended to extend to its utmost limit the principle of representative government. Congress represents the people of the whole nation, {420} but committees represent Congress and subcommittees represent committees. There is a constant tendency to delegate powers to others. Pure democracy has no place in the great American republic, except as it is seen in the local government unit. Here the people always have a part in the caucus, in the primary or the town meeting, in the election of local officers and representatives for higher offices, in the opportunity to exercise their will and raise their voice in the affairs of the nation. To some extent the supposed greater importance of the national government has led the people to underestimate the opportunities granted them for exercising their influence as citizens within the precinct in which they live. But there is to-day a tendency to estimate justly the importance of local government as the source of all reforms and the means of the preservation of civil liberty.
It has been pointed out frequently by the enemies of democracy that the practice of the people in self-government has not always been of the highest type. In many instances this criticism is true, for experience is always a dear teacher. The principles of democracy have come to people through conviction and determination, but the practices of self-government come through rough experiences, sometimes marked by a long series of blunders. The cost of a republican form of government to the people has frequently been very expensive on account of their ignorance, their apathy, and their unwillingness to take upon themselves the responsibilities of government. Consider, for instance, the thousands of laws that are made and placed upon the statute-books which have been of no value, possibly of detriment, to the community—laws made through the impulse of half-informed, ill-prepared legislators. Consider also the constitutions, constitutional amendments, and other important acts upon which the people express their opinion.
The smallness of the vote of a people who are jealous of their own rights and privileges is frequently surprising. Notice, too, how frequently popular power has voted against its {421} own rights and interests. See the clumsy manner by which people have voted away their birthrights or, failing to vote at all, have enslaved themselves to political or financial monopoly. Observe, too, the expenses of the management of democratic governments, the waste on account of imperfect administration, and the failure of the laws to operate.
Consideration of these points brings us to the conclusion that the perfection of democracy or republican government has not been reached, and that while liberty may be an expensive affair, it is so on account of the negligence of the people in qualifying for self-government. If a democratic form of government is to prevail, if popular government is to succeed, if the freedom of the people is to be guaranteed, there must be persistent effort on the part of the people to prepare themselves for their own government; a willingness to sacrifice for liberty, for liberty will endure only so long as people are willing to pay the price it costs. They must govern themselves, or government will pass from them to others. Eternal vigilance is the price of good government.
Modern Political Reforms.—Political reform has been proceeding recently in many particular ways. Perhaps the most noticeable in America is that of civil service reform. Strong partisanship has been a ruling factor in American politics, often to the detriment of the financial and political interests of the country. Jealous of their prerogative, the people have insisted that changes in government shall occur often, and that the ruling party shall have the privilege of appointing the officers of the government. This has made it the almost universal practice for the incoming party to remove the officers of the old administration and replace them with its own appointments. To such an extent has this prevailed that it has come to be known as the "spoils system."
But there is now a general tendency for the principles of civil service to prevail in all parts of the national government, and a growing feeling that they should be instituted in the various states and municipalities of the Union. The {422} federal government has made rapid progress in this line in recent years, and it is to be hoped that before long the large proportion of appointive offices will be put upon a merit basis and the persons who are best qualified to fill these places retained from administration to administration. Attempts are being made in nearly all of our cities for business efficiency in government, though there is much room for improvement.
The government of the United States is especially weak in administration, and is far behind many of the governments of the Old World in this respect. With a thoroughly established civil service system, the effectiveness of the administration would be increased fully fifty per cent. Under the present party system the waste is enormous, and as the people must ultimately pay for this waste, the burden thrown upon them is great. In the first place, the partisan system necessarily introduces large numbers of inexperienced, inefficient officers who must spend some years in actual practice before they are really fitted for the positions which they occupy. In the second place, the time spent by congressmen and other high officials in attention to applicants for office and in urging of appointments, prevents them from improving their best opportunity for real service to the people.
The practice of civil service reform is being rapidly adopted in the nations of the world which have undertaken the practice of self-government, and in those nations where monarchy or imperialism still prevails, persons in high authority feel more and more impelled to appoint efficient officers to carry out the plans of administrative government. It is likely that the time will soon come when all offices requiring peculiar skill or especial training will be filled on the basis of efficiency, determined by competitive examination or other tests of ability.
Another important reform, which has already been begun in the United States, and which, in its latest movement, originated in Australia, is ballot reform. There has been everywhere in democratic government a tendency for fraud to increase on election days. The manipulation of the votes of {423} individuals through improper methods has been the cause of fraud and a means of thwarting the will of the people. It is well that the various states and cities have observed this and set themselves to the task of making laws to guard properly the ballot-box and give free, untrammelled expression to the will of the people. Though nearly all the states in the Union have adopted some system of balloting (based largely upon the Australian system), many of them are far from perfection in their systems. Yet the progress in this line is encouraging when the gains in recent years are observed.
Since the decline of the old feudal times, in which our modern tax system had its origin, there has been a constant improvement in the system of taxation. Yet this has been very slow and apparently has been carried on in a bungling way. The tendency has been to tax every form of property that could be observed or described. And so our own nation, like many others, has gone on, step by step, adding one tax after another, without carefully considering the fundamental principles of taxation or the burdens laid upon particular classes. To-day we have a complex system, full of irregularities and imperfections. Our taxes are poorly and unjustly assessed, and the burdens fall heavily upon some, while others have an opportunity of escaping. We have just entered an era of careful study of our tax systems, and the various reports from the different states and the writings of economists are arousing great interest on these points. When once the imperfections are clearly understood and defined, there may be some hope of a remedy of present abuses. To be more specific, it may be said that the assessments of the property in counties of the same state vary between seventeen and sixty per cent of the market valuation. Sometimes this discrepancy is between the assessments of adjacent counties, and so great is the variation that seldom two counties have the same standard for assessing valuation.
The personal-property tax shows greater irregularity than this, especially in our large cities. The tax on imports, though {424} apparently meeting the approval of a majority of the American people, makes, upon the whole, a rather expensive system of taxation, and it is questionable whether sufficient revenue can be raised from this source properly to support the government without seriously interfering with our foreign commerce. The internal revenue has many unsatisfactory phases. The income tax has been added to an imperfect system of taxation, instead of being substituted for the antiquated personal-property tax. Taxes on franchises, corporations, and inheritances are among those more recently introduced in attempts to reform the tax system.
The various attempts to obtain sufficient revenue to support the government or to reform an unjust and unequal tax have led to double taxation, and hence have laid the burden upon persons holding a specific class of property. There are to-day no less than five methods in which double taxation occurs in the present system of taxation of corporations. The taxation of mortgages, because it may be shifted to the borrower, is virtually a double tax. The great question of the incidence of taxation, or the determination upon whom the tax ultimately falls, has not received sufficient care in the consideration of improved systems of taxation. Until it has, and until statesmen use more care in tax legislation and the regulation of the system, and officers are more conscientious in carrying it out, we need not hope for any rapid movement in tax reform. The tendency here, as in all other reforms, especially where needed, is for some person to suggest a certain political nostrum—like the single tax—for the immediate and complete reform of the system and the entire renovation and purification of society. But scientific knowledge, clear insight, and wisdom are especially necessary for any improvement, and even then improvement will come through a long period of practice, more or less painful on account of the shifting of methods of procedure.
The most appalling example of the results of modern government is to be found in the municipal management of our {425} large cities. It has become proverbial that the American cities are the worst ruled of any in the world. In European countries the evils of city government were discovered many years ago, and in most of the nations there have been begun and carried out wisely considered reforms, until many of the cities of the Old World present examples of tolerably correct municipal government.
In America there is now a general awakening in every city, but to such an extent have people, by their indifference or their wickedness, sold their birthrights to politicians and demagogues and the power of wealth, that it seems almost impossible to work any speedy radical reform. Yet many changes are being instituted in our best cities, and the persistent effort to manage the city as a business corporation rather than as a political engine is producing many good results. The large and growing urban population has thrown the burden of government upon the city—a burden which it was entirely unprepared for—and there have sprung up sudden evils which are difficult to eradicate. Only persistent effort, loyalty, sacrifice, and service, all combined with wisdom, can finally accomplish the reforms needed in cities. There is a tendency everywhere for people to get closer to the government, and to become more and more a part of it.[1] Our representative system has enabled us to delegate authority to such an extent that people have felt themselves irresponsible for all government, except one day in the year, when they vote at the polls; we need, instead, a determination to govern 365 days in the year, and nothing short of this perpetual interest of the people will secure to them the rights of self-government. Even then it is necessary that every citizen shall vote at every election.
Republicanism in Other Countries.—The remarkable spread of forms of republican government in the different nations of the world within the present century has been unprecedented. {426} Every independent nation in South America to-day has a republican form of government. The Republic of Mexico has made some progress in the government of the people, and the dependencies of Great Britain all over the world have made rapid progress in local self-government. In Australia, New Zealand, and Canada, we find many of the most advanced principles and practices of free government.
It is true that many of these nations calling themselves republics have not yet guaranteed the rights and privileges of a people to any greater extent than they would have done had they been only constitutional monarchies; for it must be maintained at all times that it depends more upon the characteristics of the people—upon their intelligence, their social conditions and classes, their ideas of government, and their character—what the nature of their government shall be, than upon the mere form of government, whether that be aristocracy, monarchy, or democracy.
Many of the evils which have been attributed to monarchy ought more truly to have been attributed to the vital conditions of society. Vital social and political conditions are far more important to the welfare of the people than any mere form of government. Among the remarkable expressions of liberal government in modern times has been the development of the Philippine Islands under the protecting care of the United States, the establishment of republicanism in Porto Rico and Hawaii, now parts of the territory of the United States, and the development of an independent and democratic government in Cuba through the assistance of the United States. These expressions of an extended democracy have had far-reaching consequences on the democratic idealism of the world.
Influence of Democracy on Monarchy.—But the evidences of the progress of popular government are not all to be observed in republics. It would be difficult to estimate the influence of the rise of popular government in some countries upon the monarchial institutions of others. This can never be {427} properly determined, because we know not what would have taken place in these monarchies had republicanism never prevailed anywhere. When republicanism arose in France and America, monarchy was alarmed everywhere; and again, when the revolutionary wave swept over Europe in 1848, monarchy trembled. Wherever, indeed, the waves of democracy have swept onward they have found monarchy raising breakwaters against them. Yet with all this opposition there has been a liberalizing tendency in these same monarchial governments. Monarchy has been less absolute and less despotic; the people have had more constitutional rights granted them, greater privileges to enjoy; and monarchies have been more careful as to their acts, believing that the people hold in their hands the means of retribution. The reforming influence of democratic ideas has been universal and uninterrupted.
The World War has been iconoclastic in breaking up old forms of government and has given freedom to the democratic spirit and in many cases has developed practical democracy. Along with this, forces of radicalism have come to the front as an expression of long-pent feelings of injustice, now for the first time given opportunity to assert and express themselves. The ideal of democracy historically prevalent in Europe has been the rule of the "lower classes" at the expense of the "upper classes." This theory has been enhanced by the spread of Marxian socialism, which advocates the dominance and rule of the wage-earning class. The most serious attempt to put this idea in practice occurred in Russia with disastrous results.
1. Why did the French Revolution fail to establish liberty?
2. What were the lasting effects of the English Commonwealth?
3. What were the causes of liberal government in the Netherlands?
4. The reform acts in 1832 and in 1867 in England.
5. The chief causes of trouble between England and Ireland.
6. The growth of democracy in the United States.
{428}7. Enumerate the most important modern political reforms. What are some needed political reforms?
8. England's influence on American law and government.
9. Investigate the population in your community to determine the extent of human equality.
10. City government under the municipal manager plan; also commission plan.
[1] Consider the commission form of city government and the municipal manager plan.
Industries Radiate from the Land as a Centre.—In primitive civilizations industry was more or less incidental to life. The food quest, protection of the body from storm and sun by improvised habitation and the use of skins, furs, bark, and rushes for clothing, together with the idea of human association for the perpetuation of the species, are the fundamental notions regarding life. Under such conditions industry was fitful and uncertain. Hunting for vegetable products and for animals to sustain life, the protection of the life of individuals from the elements and, incidentally, from the predatory activities of human beings, were the objectives of primitive man.
As the land is the primary source of all economic life, systematic industry has always begun in its control and cultivation. Not until man settled more or less permanently with the idea of getting his sustenance from the soil did industrial activities become prominent. In the development of civilization one must recognize the ever-present fact that the method of treatment of the land is a determining factor in its fundamental characteristics, for it must needs be always that the products that we utilize come from the action of man on nature and its reaction on him. While the land is the primary source of wealth, and its cultivation a primal industry, it does not include the whole category of industrial enterprises, for tools must be made, art developed, implements provided, and machinery constructed. Likewise, clothing and ornaments were manufactured, and habitations constructed, and eventually transportation begun to carry people and goods from one place to another. These all together make an enlarged group of activities, all radiating from the soil as a common centre.
{430}We have already referred to the cultivation of the valleys of the Euphrates and the Nile by systems of irrigation and the tilling of the soil in the valleys of Greece in the crude and semibarbarous methods introduced by the barbarians from the north. We have referred to the fact that the Romans were the first to develop systematic agriculture, and even the Teutonic people, the invaders of Rome, were rude cultivators of the soil.
Social organization is dependent to a large extent upon the method of attachment to the soil—whether people wander over a large area in the hunter-fisher and the nomadic stages, or whether they become attached to the soil permanently. Thus, the village community developed a united, neighborly community, built on the basis of mutual aid. The feudal system was built upon predatory tribal warfare, where possession was determined by might to have and to hold. In the mediaeval period the manorial system of landholding developed, whereby the lord and his retainers claimed the land by their right of occupation and the power to hold, whether this came through conquest, force of arms, or agreement.
This manorial system prevailed to a large extent in England, France, and parts of Germany. These early methods of landholding were brought about by people attempting to make their social adjustments, primarily in relation to survival, and subsequently in relation to the justice among individuals within the group, or in relation to the reactions between the groups themselves. After the breaking down of the Roman Empire, the well-established systems of landholding in the empire and the older nations of the Orient in the Middle Ages developed into the feudal system, which forced all society into groups or classes, from the lord to the serf. Subsequently there sprang up the individual system of landholding, which again readjusted the relation of society to the land system and changed the social structure.
The Early Mediaeval Methods of Industry.—Outside of the tilling of the soil, the early industries were centred in the home, which gave rise to the well-known house system of {431} culture. "Housework" has primary relation to goods which are created for the needs of the household. Much of the early manufacturing industry was carried on within the household. Gradually this has disappeared to a large extent through the multiplication of industries outside the home, power manufacture, and the organization of labor and capital.
In many instances house culture preceded that of systematic agriculture. The natural order was the house culture rising out of the pursuits of fishing, hunting, and tending flocks and herds, and the incidental hoe culture which represented the first tilling of the soil about the tent or hut. The Indians of North America are good examples of the development of the house culture in the making of garments from the skins of animals or from weeds and rushes, the weaving of baskets, the making of pottery and of boats, and the tanning of hides. During all this period, agriculture was of slow growth, it being the incidental and tentative process of life, while the house culture represented the permanent industry.
Industries varied in different tribes, one being skilled in basket-making, another in stone implements for warfare and domestic use, another in pottery, another in boats, and still another in certain kinds of clothing—especially the ornaments made from precious stones or bone. This made it possible to spread the culture of one group to other groups, and later there developed the wandering peddler who went from tribe to tribe trading and swapping goods. This is somewhat analogous to the first wage-work system of England, where the individual went from house to house to perform services for which he received pay in goods, or, as we say, in kind. Subsequently the wage-earner had his own shop, where raw material was sent to him for finishing.
All through Europe these customs prevailed and, indeed, in some parts of America exist to the present day. We see survivals of these customs which formerly were permanent, in the people who go from house to house performing certain types of work or bringing certain kinds of goods for sale, and, {432} indeed, in the small shop of modern times where goods are repaired or manufactured. They represent customs which now are irregular, but which formerly were permanent methods. It was a simple system, requiring no capital, no undertaker or manager, no middleman. Gradually these customs were replaced by many varied methods, such as the establishment of the laborer in his individual shop, who at first only made the raw material, which people brought him, into the finished product; later he was required to provide his own raw material, taking orders for certain classes of goods.
After the handcraft system was well established, there was a division between the manufacturer of goods and those who produced the raw material, a marked distinction in the division of labor. The expansion of systems of industry developed the towns and town life, and as the manor had been self-sufficient in the manufacture of goods, so now the town becomes the unit of production, and independent town economy springs up. Later we find the towns beginning to trade with each other, and with this expanded industry the division of labor came about and the separation of laborers into classes. First, the merchant and the manufacturer were united. It was common for the manufacturer of goods to have his shop in his own home and, after he had made the goods, to put them on the shelf until called for by customers. Later he had systems of distribution and trade with people in the immediate locality. Soon weavers, spinners, bricklayers, packers, tanners, and other classes became distinctive. It was some time before manufacturers and traders, however, became separate groups, and a longer time before the manufacturer was separated from the merchant, because the manufacturer must market his own goods. Industries by degrees thus became specialized, and trades became clearly defined in their scope. This led, of course, to a distinct division of occupation, and later to a division of labor within the occupation. The introduction of money after the development of town economy brought about the wage system, whereby people were paid in money rather than {433} kind. This was a great step forward in facilitating trade and industry.
One of the earliest methods of developing organized industrial society was through the various guilds of the Middle Ages. They represented the organization of the industries of a given town, with the purpose of establishing a monopoly in trade of certain kinds of goods, and secondarily to develop fraternal organization, association, and co-operation among groups of people engaged in the same industry. Perhaps it should be mentioned that the first in order of development of the guilds was known as the "guild-merchant," which was an organization of all of the inhabitants of the town engaged in trading or selling. This was a town monopoly of certain forms of industry controlled by the members of that industry. It partook of the nature of monopoly of trade, and had a vast deal to do with the social organization of the town. Its power was exercised in the place of more systematic political town government. However, after the political town government became more thoroughly established, the guild-merchant declined, but following the decline of the guild-merchant, the craft guild developed, which was an organization of all of the manufacturers and traders in a given craft. This seemed to herald the coming of the trade-union after the industrial machinery of society had made a number of changes. English industrial society became finally completely dominated, as did societies in countries on the Continent, by the craft guilds.
All the payments in the handcraft system were at first in kind. When the laborer had finished his piece of goods, his pay consisted in taking a certain part of what he had created in the day or the week. Also, when he worked by the day he received his pay in kind. This system prevailed until money became sufficiently plentiful to enable the payment of wages for piecework and by the day. The payment in kind, of course, was a very clumsy and wasteful method of carrying on industry. Many methods of payment in kind prevailed for centuries, even down to recent times in America. Before the great {434} flour-mills were developed, the farmer took his wheat to the mill, out of which the miller took a certain percentage for toll in payment for grinding. The farmer took the remainder home with him in the form of flour. So, too, we have in agriculture the working of land on shares, a certain percentage of the crops going to the owner and the remainder to the tiller of the soil. Fruit is frequently picked on shares, which is nothing more than payment for services in kind.
The Beginnings of Trade.—While these simple changes were slowly taking place in the towns and villages of Europe, there were larger movements of trade being developed, not only between local towns, but between the towns of one country and those of another, which led later to international trade and commerce. Formerly trade had become of world importance in the early Byzantine trade with the Orient and Phoenicia. After the crusades, the trade of the Italian cities with the Orient and northwest Europe was of tremendous importance.[1] In connection with this, the establishment of the Hanseatic League, of which Hamburg was a centre, developed trade between the east and the west and the south. These three great mediaeval trade movements represent powerful agencies in the development of Europe. They carried with them an exchange of goods and an exchange of ideas as well. This interchange stimulated thought and industrial activity throughout Europe.
Expansion of Trade and Transportation.—The great discoveries in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries had a vast deal to do with the expansion of trade. The discovery of America, the establishment of routes to the Philippines around South America and to India around South Africa opened up wide vistas, not only for exploration but for the exchange of goods. Also, this brought about national trade, and with it national competition. From this time on the struggle for the supremacy of the sea was as important as the struggle of the various nations for extended territory. Portugal, the {435} Netherlands, England, and Spain were competing especially for the trade routes of the world. France and England were drawn into sharp competition because of the expansion of English trade and commerce. Portugal became a great emporium for the distribution of Oriental goods after she became a maritime power, with a commercial supremacy in India and China. Subsequently she declined and was forced to unite with Spain, and even after she obtained her freedom, in the seventeenth century, her war with the Netherlands caused her to lose commercial supremacy.
The rise of the Dutch put the Netherlands to the front and Antwerp and Amsterdam became the centres of trade for the Orient. Dutch trade continued to lead the world until the formation of the English East and West India companies, which, with their powerful monopoly on trade, brought England to the front. Under the monopolies of these great companies and other private monopolies, England forged ahead in trade and commerce. But the private monopolies became so powerful that Cromwell, by the celebrated Navigation Acts of 1651, made a gigantic trade monopoly of the English nation. The development of agricultural products and manufactures in England, together with her immense carrying trade, made her mistress of the seas. The results of this trade development were to bring the products of every clime in exchange for the manufactured goods of Europe, and to bring about a change of ideas which stimulated thought and life, not only in material lines but along educational and spiritual lines as well.
Invention and Discoveries.—One of the most remarkable eras of progress in the whole range of modern civilization appeared at the close of the eighteenth century and the beginning of the nineteenth, especially in England. The expanded trade and commerce of England had made such a demand for economic goods that it stimulated invention of new processes of production. The spinning of yarn became an important industry. It was a slow process, and could not supply the {436} weavers so that they could keep their looms in operation. Moreover, Kay introduced what is known as the drop-box and flying shuttle in 1738, which favored weaving to the detriment of spinning, making the trouble worse.
In the extremity of trade the Royal Society offered a prize to any person who would invent a machine to spin a number of threads at the same time. As a result of this demand, James Hargreaves in 1764 invented the spinning-jenny, which was followed by Arkwright's invention of spinning by rollers, which was patented in 1769. Combining Arkwright's and Hargreaves's inventions, Crompton in 1779 invented the spinning-"mule." This quickened the process of spinning and greatly increased the production of the weavers. But one necessity satisfied leads to another in invention, and Cartwright's powerloom, which was introduced in 1784, came into general use at the beginning of the nineteenth century.
During this period America had become a producer of cotton, and Eli Whitney's cotton-gin, invented in 1792, which separated the seeds from the cotton fibre in the boll, greatly stimulated the production of cotton in the United States. In the meanwhile the steam-engine, which had been perfected in 1769, was applied to power manufacture in 1785 by James Watt. This was the final stroke that completed the power manufacture of cotton and woollen goods.
Other changes were brought about by the new method of smelting ore by means of coal, charcoal having been hitherto used for the process, and the invention of the blast-furnace in 1760 by Roebuck, which brought the larger use of metals into the manufactures of the world. To aid in the carrying trade, the building of canals between the large manufacturing towns in England to the ocean, and the building of highways over England, facilitated transportation and otherwise quickened industry. Thus we have in a period of less than forty years the most remarkable and unprecedented change in industry, which has never been exceeded in importance even by the introduction of the gasoline-engine and electrical power.
{437}The Change of Handcraft to Power Manufacture.—Prior to the development of the mechanical contrivances for spinning and weaving and the application of steam-power to manufacturing, nearly everything in Europe was made by hand. All clothing, carpets, draperies, tools, implements, furniture—everything was hand-made. In this process no large capital was needed, no great factories, no great assemblage of laborers, no great organization of industry. The work was done in homes and small shops by individual enterprise, mainly, or in combinations of laborers and masters. Power manufacture and the inventions named above changed the whole structure of industrial society.
The Industrial Revolution.—The period from 1760 to about 1830 is generally given as that of the industrial revolution, because this period is marked by tremendous changes in the industrial order. It might be well to remark, however, that if the industrial revolution began about 1760, it has really never ended, for new inventions and new discoveries have continually come—a larger use of steam-power, the introduction of transportation by railroads and steamship-lines, the modern processes of agriculture, the large use of electricity, with many inventions, have constantly increased power manufacture and drawn the line more clearly between the laborers on one side and the capitalists or managers on the other.
In the first place, because the home and the small shop could not contain the necessary machinery, large factories equipped with great power-machines became necessary, and into the factories flocked the laborers, who formerly were independent handcraft manufacturers or merchants. It was necessary to have people to organize this labor and to oversee its work—that is, "bosses" were necessary. Under these circumstances the capitalistic managers were using labor with as little consideration or, indeed, less than they used raw material in the manufacture of goods. The laborers must seek employment in the great factories. The managers forced them down to the lowest rate of wage, caused them to live in {438} ill-ventilated factories in danger of life and health from the machinery, and to work long hours. They employed women and children, who suffered untold miseries. The production of goods demanded more and more coal, and women went into the coal-mines and worked fourteen to sixteen hours a day.
Society was not ready for the great and sudden change and could not easily adjust itself to new conditions. Capital was necessary, and must have its reward. Factories were necessary to give the laborers a chance to labor. Labor was necessary, but it did not seem necessary to give any consideration to the justice of the laborer nor to his suffering. The wage system and the capitalistic system developed—systems that the socialists have been fighting against for more than a century. Labor, pressed down and suffering, arose in its own defense and organized. It was successively denied the right to assemble, to organize, to strike, but in each separate case the law prevailed in its favor.
All through the development of European history the ordinary laborer never received full consideration regarding his value and his rights. It is true at times that he was happy and contented without improvement, but upon the whole the history of Europe has been the history of kings, queens, princes, and nobility, and wars for national aggrandizement, increased territory, or the gratification of the whims of the dominant classes. The laborer has endured the toil, fought the battles, and paid the taxes. Here we find the introduction of machinery, which in the long run will make the world more prosperous, happier, and advance it in civilization, yet the poor laborer must be the burden-bearer.
Gradually, however, partly by his own demands, partly by the growing humanity of capitalistic employers, and partly because of the interest of outside philanthropic statesmen, labor has been protected by laws. In the first place, all trades are organized, and nearly all organizations are co-operating sympathetically with one another. Labor has been able thus to demand things and to obtain them, not only by the persistency {439} of demand, but by the force of the strike which compels people to yield. To-day the laborer has eight hours a day of work in a factory well ventilated and well lighted, protected from danger and accident, insured by law, better wages than he has ever had, better opportunities for life and the pursuit of happiness, better fed, better clothed, and better housed than ever before in the history of the world.
Yet the whole problem is far from being settled, because it is not easy to define the rights, privileges, and duties of organized labor. Some things we know, and one is that the right to strike does not carry with it the right to destroy, or the right to organize the right to oppress others. But let us make the lesson universal and apply the same to capitalistic organizations and the employers' associations. And while we make the latter responsible for their deeds, let us make the organization of the former also responsible, and let the larger community called the state determine justice between groups and insure freedom and protection to all.
Modern Industrial Development.—It was stated above that the industrial revolution is still going on. One need only to glance at the transformation caused by the introduction of railway transportation and steam navigation in the nineteenth century, to the uses of the telegraph, the telephone, the gasoline-engine, and later the radio and the airplane, to see that the introduction of these great factors in civilization must continue to make changes in the social order. They have brought about quantity transportation, rapidity of manufacture, and rapidity of trade, and stimulated the activities of life everywhere. This stimulation, which has brought more things for material improvement, has caused people to want paved streets, electric lights, and modern buildings, which have added to the cost of living through increased taxation. The whole movement has been characterized by the accumulated stress of life, which demands greater activity, more goods consumed, new desires awakened, and greater efforts to satisfy them. The quickening process goes on unabated.
{440}In order to carry out these great enterprises, the industrial organization is complex in the extreme and tremendous in its magnitude. Great corporations capitalized by millions, great masses of laborers assembled which are organized from the highest to the lowest in the great industrial army, represent the spectacular display. And to be mentioned above all is the great steam-press that sends the daily paper to every home and the great public-school system that puts the book in every hand.
Scientific Agriculture.—It has often been repeated that man's wealth comes originally from the soil, and that therefore the condition of agriculture is an index of the opportunity offered for progress. What has been done in recent years, especially in England and America, in the development of a higher grade stock, so different from the old scrub stock of the Colonial period; in the introduction of new grains, new fertilizers, improved soils, and the adaptability of the crop to the soil in accordance with the nature of both; the development of new fruits and flowers by scientific culture—all have brought to the door of man an increased food-supply of great variety and of improved quality. This is conducive to the health and longevity of the race, as well as to the happiness and comfort of everybody. Moreover, the introduction of agricultural machinery has changed the slow, plodding life of the farmer to that of the master of the steam-tractor, thresher, and automobile, changed the demand from a slow, inactive mind to the keenest, most alert, best-educated man of the nation, who must study the highest arts of production, the greatest economy, and the best methods of marketing. Truly, the industrial revolution applies not to factories alone.
The Building of the City.—The modern industrial development has forced upon the landscape the great city. No one particularly wanted it. No one called it into being—it just came at the behest of the conditions of rapid transportation, necessity of centralization of factories where cheap distribution could be had, not only for the raw material but for the {441} finished product, and where labor could be furnished with little trouble—all of these things have developed a city into which rush the great products of raw material, and out of which pour the millions of manufactured articles and machinery; into which pours the great food-supply to keep the laborers from starving. Into the city flows much of the best blood of the country, which seeks opportunity for achievement. The great city is inevitable so long as great society insists on gigantic production and as great consumption, but the city idea is overwrought beyond its natural condition. If some power could equalize the transportation question, so that a factory might be built in a smaller town, where raw material could be furnished as cheaply as in the large city, and the distribution of goods be as convenient, there is no reason why the population might not be more evenly distributed, to its own great improvement.
Industry and Civilization.—But what does this mean so far as human progress is concerned? We have increased the material production of wealth and added to the material comfort of the inhabitants of the world. We have extended the area of wealth to the dark places of the world, giving means of improvement and enlightenment. We have quickened the intellect of man until all he needs to do is to direct the machinery of his own invention. Steam, electricity, and water-power have worked for him. It has given people leisure to study, investigate, and develop scientific discoveries for the improvement of the race, protecting them from danger and disease and adding to their comfort. It has given opportunity for the development of the higher spiritual power in art, music, architecture, religion, and science.
Industrial progress is something more than the means of heaping up wealth. It has to do with the well-being of humanity. It is true we have not yet been able to carry out our ideals in this matter, but slowly and surely industrial liberty and justice are following in the wake of the freedom of the mind to think, the freedom of religious belief, and the {442} political freedom of self-government. We are to-day in the fourth great period of modern development, the development of justice in industrial relations.
Moreover, all of this quickening of industry has brought people together from all over the world. London is nearer New York than was Philadelphia in revolutionary times. Not only has it brought people closer together in industry, but in thought and sympathy. There have been developed a world ethics, a world trade, and a world interchange of science and improved ideas of life. It has given an increased opportunity for material comforts and an increased opportunity for the achievement of the ordinary man who seeks to develop all the capacities and powers granted him by nature.
1. Show that land is the foundation of all industry.
2. Compare condition of laborers now with conditions before the industrial revolution.
3. Are great organizations of business necessary to progress?
4. Do railroads create wealth?
5. Does the introduction of machinery benefit the wage-earner?
6. How does rapid ocean-steamship transportation help the United States?
7. If England should decline in wealth and commerce, would the United States be benefited thereby?
8. How does the use of electricity benefit industry?
9. To what extent do you think the government should control or manage industry?
10. Is Industrial Democracy possible?
11. Cutting and hammering two processes of primitive civilization. What mechanical inventions take the place of the stone hammer and the stone knife?
[1] See Chapter XXI.
The Evolutionary Processes of Society.—Social activity is primarily group activity. Consequently the kind and nature of the group, the methods which brought its members together, its organization and purpose, indicate the type of civilization and the possibility of achievement. As group activity means mutual aid of members, and involves processes of co-operation in achievement, the type of society is symbolic of the status of progress. The function of the group is to establish social order of its members, protect them from external foes, as well as internal maladies, and to bring into existence a new force by which greater achievement is possible than when individuals are working separately.
The Social Individual.—While society is made of physio-psychic individuals, as a matter of fact the social individual is made by interactions and reactions arising from human association. Society on one hand and the social individual on the other are both developed at the same time through the process of living together in co-operation and mutual aid. Society once created, no matter how imperfect, begins its work for the good of all its members. It begins to provide against cold and hunger and to protect from wild animals and wild men. It becomes a feeling, thinking, willing group seeking the best for all. It is in the fully developed society that the social process appears of providing a water-supply, sanitation through sewer systems, preventative medicine and health measures, public education, means of establishing its members in rights, duties, and privileges, and protecting them in the pursuit of industry.
The Ethnic Society.—Just at what period society became well established is not known, but there are indications that some forms of primitive family life and social activities were {444} in existence among the men of the Old Stone Age, and certainly in the Neolithic period. After races had reached a stage of permanent historical records, or had even handed down traditions from generation to generation, there are evidences of family life and tribal or national achievements. Though there are evidences of religious group activities prior to formal tribal life, it may be stated in general that the first permanent organization was on a family or ethnic basis. Blood relationship was the central idea of cohesion, which was early aided by religious superstition and belief. Following this idea, all of the ancient monarchies and empires were based on the ethnic group or race. All of this indicates that society was based on natural law, and from that were gradually evolved the general and political elements which foreshadowed the enlarged functions of the more complex society of modern times.
The Territorial Group.—Before the early tribal groups had settled down to permanent habitations, they had developed many social activities, but when they became permanently settled they passed from the ethnic to the demographic form of social order—that is, they developed a territorial group that performed all of its functions within a given boundary which they called their own. From this time on population increased and occupied territory expanded, and the group became self-sufficient and independent in character. Then it could co-operate with other groups and differentiate functions within. Industrial, religious, and political groups, sacred orders, and voluntary associations became prominent, all under the protection of the general social order.
The National Group Founded on Race Expansion.—Through conquest, amalgamation, and assimilation, various independent groups were united in national life. All of the interior forces united in the perpetuation of the nation, which became strong and domineering in its attitude toward others. This led to warfare, conquest, or plunder, the union of the conquered with the conquerors, and imperialism came into being. Growth of wealth and population led to the demand for more territory {445} and the continuation of strife and warfare. The rise and fall of nations, the formation and dissolving of empires under the constant shadow of war continued through the ages. While some progress was made, it was in the face of conspicuous waste of life and energy, and the process of national protection of humanity has been of doubtful utility. Yet the development of hereditary leadership, the dominance of privileged classes, and the formation of traditions, laws, and forms of government went on unabated, during which the division of industrial and social functions within, causing numerous classes to continually differentiate, took place.
The Functions of New Groups.—In all social groupings the function always precedes the form or structure of the social order. Society follows the method of organic evolution in growing by differentiation. New organs or parts are formed, which in time become strengthened and developed. The organs or parts become more closely articulated with each other and with the whole social body, and finally over all is the great society, which defends, shields, protects, and fights for all. The individual may report for life service in many departments, through which his relation to great society must be manifested. He no longer can go alone in his relation to the whole mass. He may co-operate in a general way, it is true, with all, but must have a particularly active co-operation in the smaller groups on which his life service and life sustenance depend. The multiplication of functions leads to increased division of service and to increased co-operation. In the industrial life the division of labor and formation of special groups are more clearly manifested.
Great Society and the Social Order.—This is manifested chiefly in the modern state and the powerful expression of public opinion. No matter how traditional, autocratic, and arbitrary the centralized government becomes, there is continually arising modifying power from local conditions. There are things that the czar or the king does not do if he wishes to continue in permanent authority. From the masses of the {446} people there arises opposition to arbitrary power, through expressed discontent, public opinion, or revolution. The whole social field of Europe has been a seething turmoil of action and reaction, of autocracy and the demand for human rights. Thirst for national aggrandizement and power and the lust of the privileged classes have been modified by the distressing cry of the suffering people. What a slow process is social evolution and what a long struggle has been waged for human rights!
Great Society Protects Voluntary Organizations.—Freedom of assembly, debate, and organization is one of the important traits of social organization. With the ideal of democracy comes also freedom of speech and the press. Voluntary organizations for the good of the members or for a distinctive agency for general good may be made and receive protection in society at large through law, the courts, and public opinion; but the right to organize does not carry with it the right to destroy, and all such organizations must conform to the general good as expressed in the laws of the land. Sometimes organizations interested in their own institutions have been detrimental to the general good. Even though they have law and public opinion with them, in their zeal for propaganda they have overstepped the rules of progress. But such conditions cannot last; progress will cause them to change their attitude or they meet a social death.
The Widening Service of the Church.—The importance of the religious life in the progress of humanity is acknowledged by all careful scholars. Sometimes, it is true, this religious belief has been detrimental to the highest interests of social welfare. Religion itself is necessarily conservative, and when overcome by superstition, tradition, and dogmatism, it may stifle the intellect and retard progress. The history of the world records many instances of this.
The modern religious life, however, has taken upon it, as a part of its legitimate function, the ethical relations of mankind. Ethics has been prominent in the doctrine and service of the church. When the church turned its attention to the {447} future life, with undue neglect of the present, it became non-progressive and worked against the best interests of social progress. When it based its operation entirely upon faith, at the expense of reason and judgment, it tended to enslave the intellect and to rob mankind of much of its best service. But when it turned its attention to sweetening and purifying the present, holding to the future by faith, that man might have a larger and better life, it opened the way for social progress. Its motto has been, in recent years, the salvation of this life that the future may be assured. Its aim is to seize the best that this life furnishes and to utilize it for the elevation of man, individually and socially. Its endeavor is to save this life as the best and holiest reality yet offered to man. Faith properly exercised leads to invention, discovery, social activity, and general culture. It gives an impulse not only to religious life, but to all forms of social activity. But it must work with the full sanction of intelligence and allow a continual widening activity of reason and judgment.
The church has shown a determination to take hold of all classes of human society and all means of reform and regeneration. It has evinced a tendency to seize all the products of culture, all the improvements of science, all the revelations of truth, and turn them to account in the upbuilding of mankind on earth, in perfecting character and relieving mankind, in developing the individual and improving social conditions. The church has thus entered the educational world, the missionary field, the substratum of society, the political life, and the field of social order, everywhere becoming a true servant of the people.
Growth of Religious Toleration.—There is no greater evidence of the progress of human society than the growth of religious toleration. In the first hundred years of the Reformation, religious toleration was practically unknown. Indeed, the last fifty years has seen a more rapid growth in this respect than in the previous three hundred. Luther and his followers could not tolerate Calvinists any more than they could {448} Catholics, and Calvinists, on the other hand, could tolerate no other religious opinion.
The slow evolution of religious toleration in England is one of the most remarkable things in history. Henry VIII, "Defender of the Faith," was opposed to religious liberty. Queen Mary persecuted all except Catholics. Elizabeth completed the establishment of the Anglican Church, though, forced by political reasons, she gave more or less toleration to all parties. But Cromwell advocated unrelenting Puritanism by legislation and by the sword. James I, though a Protestant wedded to imperialism in government, permitted oppression. The Bill of Rights, which secured to the English people the privileges of constitutional government, insisted that no person who should profess the "popish" religion or marry a "papist" should be qualified to wear the crown of England.
At the close of the sixteenth century it was a common principle of belief that any person who adhered to heterodox opinions in religion should be burned alive or otherwise put to death. Each church adhered to this sentiment, though, it is true, many persons believed differently, and at the close of the seventeenth century Bossuet, the great French ecclesiastic, maintained with close argument that the right of the civil magistrate to punish religious errors was a point on which nearly all churches agreed, and asserted that only two bodies of Christians, the Socinians and the Anabaptists, denied it.
In 1673 all persons holding office under the government of England were compelled to take the oath of supremacy and of allegiance, to declare against transubstantiation, and to take the sacrament according to the ritual of the established church. In 1689 the Toleration Act was passed, exempting dissenters from the Church of England from the penalties of non-attendance on the service of the established church. This was followed by a bill abolishing episcopacy in Scotland. In 1703 severe laws were passed in Ireland against those who professed the Roman Catholic religion. The Test Act was not repealed until 1828, when the oath was taken "on the true {449} faith of a Christian," which was substituted for the sacrament test.
From this time on Protestant dissenters might hold office. In the year following, the Catholic Relief Act extended toleration to the Catholics, permitting them to hold any offices except those of regent, lord chancellor of England or Ireland, and of viceroy of Ireland. In 1858, by act of Parliament, Jews were for the first time admitted to that body. In 1868 the Irish church was disestablished and disendowed, and a portion of its funds devoted to education. But it was not until 1871 that persons could lecture in the universities of Oxford and Cambridge without taking the sacrament of the established church and adhering to its principles.
The growth of toleration in America has been evinced in the struggle of the different denominations for power. The church and the state, though more or less closely connected in the colonies of America, have been entirely separated under the Constitution, and therefore the struggle for liberal views has been between the different denominations themselves. In Europe and in America one of the few great events of the century has been the entire separation of church and state. It has gone so far in America that most of the states have ceased to aid any private or denominational institutions.
There is a tendency, also, not to support Indian schools carried on by religious denominations, or else to have them under the especial control of the United States government. There has been, too, a liberalizing tendency among the different denominations themselves. In some rural districts, and among ignorant classes, bigotry and intolerance, of course, break out occasionally, but upon the whole there is a closer union of the various denominations upon a co-operative basis of redeeming men from error, and a growing tendency to tolerate differing beliefs.
Altruism and Democracy.—The law of evolution that involves the survival of the fittest of organic life when applied to humanity was modified by social action. But as man must {450} always figure as an individual and his development is caused by intrinsic and extrinsic stimuli, he has never been free from the exercise of the individual struggle for existence, no matter how highly society is developed nor to what extent group activity prevails. The same law continues in relation to the survival of the group along with other groups, and as individual self-interest, the normal function of the individual, may pass into selfishness, so group interest may pass into group selfishness, and the dominant idea of the group may be its own survival. This develops institutionalism, which has been evidenced in every changing phase of social organization.
Along with this have grown altruistic principles based on the law of love, which in its essentials is antagonistic to the law of the survival of the fittest. It has been developed from two sources—one which originally was founded on race morality, that is, the protection of individuals for the good of the order, and the other that of sympathy with suffering of the weak and unprotected. In the progress of modern society the application of Christian principles to life has kept pace with the application of democratic principles in establishing the rights of man.
Gradually the duty of society to protect and care for the weak has become generally recognized. This idea has been entirely overemphasized in many cases, on the misapplication of the theory that one individual is as good as another and entitled to equality of treatment by all. At least it is possible for the normal progress of society to be retarded if the strong become weakened by excessive care of the weak. The law of love must be so exercised that it will not increase weakness on the part of those being helped, nor lessen the opportunities of the strong to survive and manifest their strength. The history of the English Poor Law is an account of the systematic care of pauperism to the extent that paupers were multiplied so that those who were bearing the burden of taxation for their support found it easier and, indeed, sometimes necessary to join the pauper ranks in order to live at all.
{451}Many are alarmed to-day at the multiplication of the number of insane, weak-minded, imbeciles, and paupers who must be supported by the taxation of the people and helped in a thousand ways by the altruism of individuals and groups. Unless along with this excessive altruistic care, scientific principles of breeding, of prevention, and of care can be introduced, the dependent, defective, and delinquent classes of the world will eventually become a burden to civilization. Society cannot shirk its duty to care for these groups, but it would be a misfortune if they reach a status where they can demand support and protection of society. It is a question whether we have not already approached in a measure this condition. Fortunately there is enough knowledge in the world of science regarding man and society to prevent any such catastrophe, if it could only be applied.
Hence, since one of the great ideals of life is to develop a perfect society built upon rational principles, the study of social pathology has become important. The care of the weak and the broken-down classes of humanity has something more than altruism as a foundation. Upon it rest the preservation of the individual and the perpetuation of a healthy social organism. The care of the insane, of imbeciles, of criminals, and of paupers is exercised more nearly on a scientific basis each succeeding year. Prevention and reform are the fundamental ideas in connection with the management of these classes. Altruism may be an initial motive power, prompting people to care for the needy and the suffering, but necessity for the preservation of society is more powerful in its final influences.
To care for paupers without increasing pauperism is a great question, and is rapidly putting all charity upon a scientific basis. To care for imbeciles without increasing imbecility, and to care for criminals on the basis of the prevention and decrease of crime, are among the most vital questions of modern social life. As the conditions of human misery become more clearly revealed to humanity, and their evil effects on the social system become more apparent, greater efforts will be {452} put forward—greater than ever before—in the care of dependents, defectives, and delinquents. Not only must the pathology of the individual be studied, for the preservation of his physical system, but the pathology of human society must receive scientific investigation in order to perpetuate the social organism.
Modern Society a Machine of Great Complexity.—While the family remains as the most persistent primary unit of social organization out of which differentiated the great social functions of to-day, it now expresses but a very small part of the social complex. It is true it is still a conserving, co-operating, propagating group of individuals, in which appear many of the elemental functions of society. While it represents a group based on blood relationship, as in the old dominant family drawn together by psychical influences and preserved on account of the protection of the different members of the group and the various complex relations between them, still within its precincts are found the elementary practices of economic life, the rights of property, and the beginnings of education and religion. Outside of this family nucleus there have been influences of common nationality and common ancestry or race, which are natural foundations of an expanded society.
Along with this are the secondary influences, the memories and associations of a common birthplace or a common territorial community, and by local habitation of village, town, city, or country. But the differentiation of industrial functions or activities has been most potent in developing social complexity. The multiplication of activities, the choice of occupation, and the division of labor have multiplied the economic groups by the thousand. Following this, natural voluntary social groups spring up on every hand.
Again, partly by choice and partly by environment, we find society drawn together in other groups, more or less influenced by those just enumerated. From the earliest forms of social existence we find men are grouped together on the basis of wealth. The interests of the rich are common, as are also the {453} interests of the poor and those of the well-to-do. Nor is it alone a matter of interest, but in part of choice, that these groupings occur. This community of interests brings about social coherence.
Again, the trades, professions, and occupations of men draw them together in associated groups. It is not infrequent that men engaged in the same profession are thrown together in daily contact, have the same interests, sentiments, and thought, and form in this way a group which stands almost aloof from other groups in social life; tradesmen dealing in a certain line of goods are thrown together in the same way. But the lines in these groupings must not be too firmly drawn, for groups formed on the basis of friendship may cover a field partaking in part of all these different groups. Again, we shall find that the school lays the foundation of early associations, and continues to have an influence in creating social aggregates. Fraternal societies and political parties in the same way form associated groups.
The church at large forms a great organizing centre, the influence of which in political and social life enlarges every day. The church body arranges itself in different groups on the basis of the different sects and denominations, and within the individual church organization there are small groups or societies, which again segregate religious social life. But over and above all these various social groups and classes is the state, binding and making all cohere in a common unity.
The tendency of this social life is to differentiate into more and more groups, positive in character, which renders our social existence complex and difficult to analyze. The social groups overlap one another, and are interdependent in all their relations. In one way the individual becomes more and more self-constituted and independent in his activity; in another way he is dependent on all his fellows for room or opportunity for action.
This complexity of social life renders it difficult to estimate the real progress of society; yet, taking any one of these {454} individual groups, it will be found to be improving continually. School life and school associations show a marked improvement; family life, notwithstanding the various evidences of the divorce courts, shows likewise an improved state as intelligence increases; the social life of the church becomes larger and broader. The spread of literature and learning, the increase of education, renders each social group more self-sustaining and brings about a higher life, with a better code of morals. Even political groups have their reactions, in which, notwithstanding the great room for improvement, they stand for morality and justice. The relations of man to man are becoming better understood every day. His fickleness and selfishness are more readily observed in recent than in former times, and as a result the evils of the present are magnified, because they are better understood; in reality, social conditions are improving, and the fact that social conditions are understood and evils clearly observed promises a great improvement for the future.
Interrelation of Different Parts of Society.—The various social aggregates are closely interrelated and mutually dependent upon one another. The state itself, though expressing the unity of society, is a highly complex organization, consisting of forms of local and central government. These parts, having independent functions, are co-ordinated to the general whole. Voluntary organizations have their specific relation to the state, which fosters and protects them on an independent basis. The school, likewise, has its relation to the social life, having an independent function, yet touching all parts of the social life.
We find the closest interdependence of individuals in the economic life. Each man performs a certain service which he exchanges for the services of others. The wealth which he creates with his own hand, limited in kind, must be exchanged for all the other commodities which he would have. More than this, all people are ranged in economic groups, each group dependent upon all the others—the farmers dependent upon {455} the manufacturers of implements and goods, upon bankers, lawyers, ministers, and teachers; the manufacturers dependent upon the farmers and all the other classes; and so with every class.
This interdependent relation renders it impossible to improve one group without improving the others, or to work a great detriment to one group without injuring the others. If civilization is to be perpetuated and improved, the banker must be interested in the welfare of the farmer, the farmer in the welfare of the banker, both in the prosperity of manufacturers, and all in the welfare of the common laborer. The tendency for this mutual interest to increase is evinced in all human social relations, and speaks well for the future of civilization.
The Progress of the Race Based on Social Opportunities.—Anthropologists tell us that no great change in the physical capacity of man has taken place for many centuries. The maximum brain capacity has probably not exceeded that of the Crô-Magnon race in the Paleolithic period of European culture. Undoubtedly, however, there has been some change in the quality of the brain, increasing its storage batteries of power and through education the utilization of that power. We would scarcely expect, however, with all of our education and scientific development, to increase the stature of man or to enlarge his brain. Much is being done, however, in getting the effective service of the brain not only through natural selective processes, but through education. The improvement of human society has been brought about largely by training and the increased knowledge which it has brought to us through invention and discovery, and their application to the practical and theoretical arts.
All these would have been buried had it not been for the protection of co-operative society and the increased power derived therefrom. Even though we exercise the selective power of humanity under the direction of our best intelligence, the individual must find his future opportunity in the better {456} conditions furnished by society. Granted that individual and racial powers are essential through hereditary development, progress can only be obtained by the expression of these powers through social activity. For it is only through social co-operation that a new power is brought into existence, namely, achievement by mutual aid. This assertion does not ignore the fact that the mutations of progress arise from the brain centres of geniuses, and that by following up these mutations by social action they may become productive and furnish opportunity for progress.
The Central Idea of Modern Civilization.—The object of life is not to build a perfect social mechanism. It is only a means to a greater end, namely, that the individual shall have opportunity to develop and exercise the powers which nature has given him. This involves an opportunity for the expression of his whole nature, physical and mental, for the satisfaction of his normal desires for home, happiness, prosperity, and achievement. It involves, too, the question of individual rights, privileges, and duties.
The history of man reveals to us somewhat of his progress. There is ever before us the journey which he has taken in reaching his present status. The road has been very long, very rough, very crooked. What he has accomplished has been at fearful expense. Thousands have perished, millions have been swept away, that a single idea for the elevation and culture of the race might remain. Deplore it as we may, the end could be reached only thus. The suffering of humanity is gradually lessening, and destruction and waste being stayed, yet we must recognize, in looking to the future, that all means of improvement will be retarded by the imperfection of human life and human conditions.
The central principle, however, the great nucleus of civilization, becomes more clearly defined, in turn revealing that man's happiness on earth, based upon duty and service, is the end of progress. If the achievements of science, the vast accumulations of wealth, the perfection of social organization, {457} the increased power of individual life—if all these do not yield better social conditions, if they do not give to humanity at large greater contentment, greater happiness, a larger number of things to know and enjoy, they must fail in their service. But they will not fail. Man is now a larger creature in every way than ever before. He has better religion; a greater God in the heavens, ruling with beneficence and wisdom; a larger number of means for improvement everywhere; and the desire and determination to master these things and turn them to his own benefit. The pursuit of truth reveals man to himself and God to him. The promotion of justice and righteousness makes his social life more complete and happy. The investigations of science and the advances of invention and discovery increase his material resources, furnishing him means with which to work; and with increasing intelligence he will understand more clearly his destiny—the highest culture of mind and body and the keenest enjoyment of the soul.
1. What were the chief causes of aggregation of people?
2. Are there evidences of groups without the beginning of social organization?
3. What is the relation of the individual to society?
4. The basis of national groups.
5. Factors in the progress of the human race.
6. Growth of religious toleration in the world.
7. Name ten "American institutions" that should be perpetuated.
8. Race and democracy.
9. What per cent of the voters of your town take a vital interest in government?
10. The growth of democratic ideas in Europe. In Asia.
11. Study the welfare organizations in your town, comparing objects and results.
12. The trend of population from country to city and its influence on social organization.
13. Explain why people follow the fashions.
Science Is an Attitude of Mind Toward Life.—As usually defined, science represents a classified body of knowledge logically arranged with the purpose of arriving at definite principles or truths by processes of investigation and comparison. But the largest part of science is found in its method of approaching the truth as compared with religion, philosophy, or disconnected knowledge obtained by casual observation. In many ways it is in strong contrast with speculative philosophy and with dogmatic theology, both of which lack sufficient data for scientific development. The former has a tendency to interpret what is assumed to have already been established. With the latter the laboratory of investigation of truth has been closed. The laboratory of science is always open.
While scientists work with hypotheses, use the imagination, and even become dogmatic in their assertions, the degree of certainty is always tested in the laboratory. If a truth is discovered to-day, it must be verified in the laboratory or shown to be incorrect or only a partial truth. Science has been built up on the basis of the inquiry into nature's processes. It is all the time inquiring: "What do we find under the microscope, through the telescope, in the chemical and physical reactions, in the examination of the earth and its products, in the observation of the functions of animals and plants, or in the structure of the brain of man and the laws of his mental functioning?" If it establishes an hypothesis as a means of procedure, it must be determined true or abandoned. If the imagination ventures to be far-seeing, observation, experimentation, and the discovery of fact must all come to its support before it can be called scientific.
Scientific Methods.—We have already referred to the turning of the minds of the Greeks from the power of the gods to {459} a look into nature's processes. We have seen how they lacked a scientific method and also scientific data sufficient to verify their assumptions. We have observed how, while they took a great step forward, their conclusions were lost in the Dark Ages and in the early mediaeval period, and how they were brought to light in the later medieval period and helped to form the scholastic philosophy and to stimulate free inquiry, and how the weakness of all systems was manifested in all these periods of human life by failure to use the simple process of observing the facts of nature, getting them and classifying them so as to demonstrate truth. It will not be possible to recount in this chapter a full description of the development of science and scientific thought. Not more can be done than to mention the turning-points in its development and expansion.
Though other influences of minor importance might be mentioned, it is well to note that Roger Bacon (1214-1294) stands out prominently as the first philosopher of the mediaeval period who turned his attitude of mind earnestly toward nature. It is true that he was not free from the taint of dogmatic theology and scholastic philosophy which were so strongly prevailing at the time, but he advocated the discovery of truth by observation and experiment, which was a bold assumption at that time. He established as one of his main principles that experimental science "investigates the secrets of nature by its own competency and out of its own qualities, irrespective of any connection with the other sciences." Thus he did not universalize his method as applicable to all sciences.
Doubtless Roger Bacon received his inspiration from the Greek and Arabian scientists with whom he was familiar. It is interesting that, following the lines of observation and discovery in a very primitive way, he let his imagination run on into the future, predicting many things that have happened already. Thus he says: "Machines for navigation are possible without rowers, like great ships suited to river or ocean, going with greater velocity than if they were full of rowers; likewise {460} wagons may be moved cum impetu inaestimabili, as we deem the chariots of antiquity to have been. And there may be flying-machines, so made that a man may sit in the middle of the machine and direct it by some device; and again, machines for raising great weights."[1]
In continuity with the ideas of Roger Bacon, Francis Bacon (1561-1626) gave a classification of human learning and laid the real foundation on which the superstructure of science has been built. Between the two lives much had been done by Copernicus, who taught that the earth was not the centre of the universe, and that it revolved on its axis from west to east. This gave the traditions of fourteen centuries a severe jolt, and laid the foundation for the development of the heliocentric system of astronomy. Bacon's classification of all knowledge showed the relationship of the branches to a comprehensive whole. His fundamental theory was that nature was controlled and modified by man. He recognized the influence of natural philosophy, but insisted that the "history mechanical" was a strong support to it.
His usefulness seems to have been in the presentation of a wide range of knowledge distinctly connected, the demonstration of the utility of knowledge, and the suggestion of unsolved problems which should be investigated by observation and experiment. Without giving his complete classification of human learning, it may be well to state his most interesting classification of physical science to show the middle ground which he occupied between mediaeval thought and our modern conception of science. This classification is as follows:
1. Celestial phenomena.
2. Atmosphere.
3. Globe.
4. Substance of earth, air, fire, and water.
5. Genera, species, etc.[2]
Descartes, following Bacon, had much to do with the establishment of method, although he laid more stress upon deduction than upon induction. With Bacon he believed that there was need of a better method of finding out the truth than that of logic. He was strong in his refusal to recognize anything as true that he did not understand, and had no faith in the mere assumption of truth, insisting upon absolute proof derived through an intelligent order. Perhaps, too, his idea was to establish universal mathematics, for he recognized measurements and lines everywhere in the universe, and recognized the universality of all natural phenomena, laying great stress on the solution of problems by measurement. He was a fore runner of Newton and many other scientists, and as such represents an epoch-making period in scientific development.
The trend of thought by a few leaders having been directed to the observation of nature and the experimentation with natural phenomena, the way was open for the shifting of the centre of thought of the entire world. It only remained now for each scientist to work out in his own way his own experiments. The differentiation of knowledge brought about many phases of thought and built up separate divisions of science. While each one has had an evolution of its own, all together they have worked out a larger progress of the whole. Thus Gilbert (1540-1603) carried on practical experiments and observations with the lodestone, or magnet, and thus made a faint beginning of the study of electrical phenomena which in recent years has played such an important part in the progress of the world. Harvey (1578-1657) by his careful study of the blood determined its circulation through the heart by means of the arterial and venous systems. This was an important step in leading to anatomical studies and set the world far ahead of the medical studies of the Arabians.
Galileo (1564-1642), in his study of the heavenly bodies and the universe, carried out the suggestion of Copernicus a century before of the revolution of the earth on its axis, to {462} take the place of the old theory that the sun revolved around the earth. Indeed, this was such a disturbing factor among churchmen, theologians, and pseudo-philosophers that Galileo was forced to recant his statements. In 1632 he published at Florence his Dialogue on the Ptolemaic and Copernican Systems of the World. For this he was cited to Rome, his book ordered to be burned, and he was sentenced to be imprisoned, to make a recantation of his errors, and by way of penance to recite the seven penitential psalms once a week.
It seems very strange that a man who could make a telescope to study the heavenly bodies and carry on experiments with such skill that he has been called the founder of experimental science could be forced to recant the things which he was convinced by experiment and observation to be true. However, it must be remembered that the mediaeval doctrine of authority had taken possession of the minds of the world of thinkers to such an extent that to oppose it openly seemed not only sacrilege but the tearing down of the walls of faith and destroying the permanent structure of society. Moreover, the minds of all thinkers were trying to hold on to the old while they developed the new, and not one could think of destroying the faith of the church. But the church did not so view this, and took every opportunity to suppress everything new as being destructive of the church.
No one could contemplate the tremendous changes that might have been made in the history of the world if the church could have abandoned its theological dogmas far enough to welcome all new truth that was discovered in God's workshop. To us in the twentieth century who have such freedom of expressing both truth and untruth, it is difficult to realize to what extent the authorities of the Middle Ages tried to seal the fountains of truth. Picture a man kneeling before the authorities at Rome and stating: "With a sincere heart and unfeigned faith I abjure, curse, and detest the said errors and heresies. I swear that for the future I will never say nor assert anything verbally or in writing which may give rise to a {463} similar suspicion against me."[3] Thus he was compelled to recant and deny his theory that the earth moves around the sun.
Measurement in Scientific Research.—All scientific research involves the recounting of recurring phenomena within a given time and within a given space. In order, therefore, to carry on systematic research, methods of measuring are necessary. We can thus see how mathematics, although developed largely through the study of astronomy, has been necessary to all investigation. Ticho Brahe and Kepler may be said to have accentuated the phase of accurate measurement in investigation. They specialized in chemistry and astronomy, all measurements being applied to the heavenly bodies. Their main service was found in accurate records of data. Kepler maintained "that every planet moved in an ellipse of which the sun occupied one focus." He also held "that the square of the periodic time of any planet is proportional to the cube of its mean distance from the sun," and "that the area swept by the radius vector from the planet to the sun is proportional to the time."[4] He was much aided in his measurements by the use of a system of logarithms invented by John Napier (1614). Many measurements were established regarding heat, pressure of air, and the relation of solids and liquids.
Isaac Newton, by connecting up a single phenomenon of a body falling a distance of a few feet on the earth with all similar phenomena, through the law of gravitation discovered the unity of the universe. Though Newton carried on important investigations in astronomy, studied the refraction of light through optic glasses, was president of the Royal Society, his chief contribution to the sciences was the tying together of the sun, the planets, and the moons of the solar system by the attraction of gravitation. Newton was able to carry along with his scientific investigations a profound reverence for Christianity. That he was not attacked shows that there had {464} been considerable progress made in toleration of new ideas. With all of his greatness of vision, he had the humbleness of a true scientist. A short time before his death he said: "I know not what I may appear to the world; but to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the seashore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble, or a prettier shell, than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me."
Science Develops from Centres.—Bodies of truth in the world are all related one to another. Hence, when a scientist investigates and experiments along a particular line, he must come in contact more or less with other lines. And while there is a great differentiation in the discovery of knowledge by investigation, no single truth can ever be established without more or less relation to all other truths. Likewise, scientists, although working from different centres, are each contributing in his own way to the establishment of universal truth. Even in the sixteenth century scientists began to co-operate and interchange views, and as soon as their works were published, each fed upon the others as he needed in advancing his own particular branch of knowledge.
It is said that Bacon in his New Atlantis gave such a magnificent dream of an opportunity for the development of science and learning that it was the means of forming the Royal Society in England. That association was the means of disseminating scientific truth and encouraging investigation and publication of results. It was a tremendous advancement of the cause of science, and has been a type for the formation of hundreds of other organizations for the promotion of scientific truth.
Science and Democracy.—While seeking to extend knowledge to all classes of people, science paves the way for recognition of equal rights and privileges. Science is working all the time to be free from the slavery of nature, and the result of its operations is to cause mankind to be free from the slavery of man. Therefore, liberty and science go hand in hand in {465} their development. It is interesting to note in this connection that so many scientists have come from groups forming the ordinary occupations of life rather than, as we might expect, from the privileged classes who have had leisure and opportunity for development. Thus, "Pasteur was the son of a tanner, Priestley of a cloth-maker, Dalton of a weaver, Lambert of a tailor, Kant of a saddler, Watt of a ship-builder, Smith of a farmer, and John Ray was, like Faraday, the son of a blacksmith. Joule was a brewer. Davy, Scheele, Dumas, Balard, Liebig, Wöhler, and a number of other distinguished chemists were apothecaries' apprentices."[5]
Science also is a great leveller because all scientists are bowing down to the same truth discovered by experimentation or observation, and, moreover, scientists are at work in the laboratories and cannot be dogmatic for any length of time. But scientists arise from all classes of people, so far as religious or political belief is concerned. Many of the foremost scientists have been distributed among the Roman Catholics, Anglicans, Calvinists, Quakers, Unitarians, and Agnostics. The only test act that science knows is that of the recognition of truth.
Benjamin Franklin was a printer whose scientific investigations were closely intermingled with the problems of human rights. His experiments in science were subordinate to the experiments of human society. His great contribution to science was the identification of lightning and the spark from a Leyden jar. For the identification and control of lightning he received a medal from the Royal Society. The discussion of liberty and the part he took in the independence of the colonies of America represent his greatest contribution to the world. To us he is important, for he embodied in one mind the expression of scientific and political truth, showing that science makes for democracy and democracy for science. In each case it is the choice of the liberalized mind.
The Study of the Biological and Physical Sciences.—The last century is marked by scientific development along several {466} rather distinct lines as follows: the study of the earth, or geology; animal and vegetable life, or biology; atomic analysis, or chemistry; biochemistry; physics, especially that part relating to electricity and radioactivity; and more recently it might be stated that investigations are carried on in psychology and sociology, while mathematics and astronomy have made progress.
The main generalized point of research, if it could be so stated, is the discovery of law and order. This has been demonstrated in the development of chemistry under the atomic theory; physics in the molecular theory; the law of electrons in electricity, and the evolutionary theory in the study of biology. Great advance has been made in the medical sciences, including the knowledge of the nature and prevention of disease. Though a great many new discoveries and, out of new discoveries, new inventions have appeared along specific lines and various sciences have advanced with accuracy and precision, perhaps the evolutionary theory has changed the thought of the world more than any other. It has connected man with the rest of the universe and made him a definite part of it.
The Evolutionary Theory.—The geography of the earth as presented by Lyell, the theory of population of Malthus, and the Origin of the Species and the Descent of Man by Darwin changed the preconceived notions of the creation of man. Slowly and without ostentation science everywhere had been forcing all nature into unity controlled by universal laws. Traditional belief was not prepared for the bold statement of Darwin that man was part of the slow development of animal life through the ages.
For 2,000 years or more the philosophic world had been wedded to the idea of a special creation of man entirely independent of the creation of the rest of the universe. All conceptions of God, man, and his destiny rested upon the recognition of a separate creation. To deny this meant a reconstruction of much of the religious philosophy of the world. Persons {467} were needlessly alarmed and began to attack the doctrine on the assumption that anything interfering with the long-recognized interpretation of the relation of man to creation was wrong and was instituted for the purpose of tearing down the ancient landmarks.
Darwin accepted in general the Lamarckian doctrine that each succeeding generation would have new characters added to it by the modification of environmental factors and by the use and disuse of organs and functions. Thus gradually under such selection the species would be improved. But Darwin emphasized selection through hereditary traits.
Subsequently, Weismann and others reinterpreted Darwin's theory and strengthened its main propositions, abandoning the Lamarckian theory of use and disuse. Mendel, De Vries, and other biologists have added to the Darwinian theory by careful investigations into the heredity of plants and animals, but because Darwin was the first to give clear expression to the theory of evolution, "Darwinism" is used to express the general theory.
Cosmic evolution, or the development of the universe, has been generally acknowledged by the acceptance of the results of the studies of geology, astronomy, and physics. History of plant and animal life is permanently written in the rocks, and their evolutionary process so completely demonstrated in the laboratory that few dare to question it.
Modern controversy hinges upon the assumption that man as an animal is not subjected to the natural laws of other animals and of plants, but that he had a special creation. The maintenance of this belief has led to many crude and unscientific notions of the origin of man and the meaning of evolution.
Evolution is very simple in its general traits, but very complex in its details. It is a theory of process and not a theory of creation. It is continuous, progressive change, brought about by natural forces and in accordance with natural laws. The evolutionist studies these changes and records the results obtained thereby. The scientist thus discovers new truths, {468} establishes the relation of one truth to another, enlarges the boundary of knowledge, extends the horizon of the unknown, and leaves the mystery of the beginning of life unsolved. His laboratory is always open to retest and clarify his work and to add new knowledge as fast as it is acquired.
Evolution as a working theory for science has correlated truths, unified methods, and furnished a key to modern thought. As a co-operative science it has had a stimulating influence on all lines of research, not only in scientific study of physical nature, but also in the study of man, for there are natural laws as well as man-made laws to be observed in the development of human society.
Some evolutionary scientists will be dogmatic at times, but they return to their laboratories and proceed to reinterpret what they have assumed, so that their dogmatism is of short duration. Theological dogmatists are not so fortunate, because of persistence of religious tradition which has not yet been put fully to the laboratory test. Some of them are continuously and hopelessly dogmatic. They still adhere to belief founded on the emotions which they refuse to put to scientific test. Science makes no attempt to undermine religion, but is unconsciously laying a broader foundation on which religion may stand. Theologians who are beginning to realize this are forced to re-examine the Bible and reinterpret it according to the knowledge and enlightenment of the time. Thus science becomes a force to advance Christianity, not to destroy it.
On the other hand, science becomes less dogmatic as it applies its own methods to religion and humanity and recognizes that there is a great world of spiritual truth which cannot be determined by experiments in the physical laboratory. It can be estimated only in the laboratory of human action. Faith, love, virtue, and spiritual vision cannot be explained by physical and chemical reactions. If in the past science has rightly pursued its course of investigation regardless of spiritual truth, the future is full of promise that religion and human reactions and science will eventually work together in the pursuit of {469} truth in God's great workshop. The unity of truth will be thus realized. The area of knowledge will be enlarged while the horizon of the unknown will be extended. The mystery of life still remains unsolved.
Galton followed along in the study of the development of race and culture, and brought in a new study of human life. Pasteur and Lister worked out their great factors of preventive medicine and health. Madame Curie developed the radioactivity as a great contribution to the evolution of science. All of this represents the slow evolution of science, each new discovery quickening the thought of the age in which it occurred, changing the attitude of the mind toward nature and life, and contributing to human comfort and human welfare. But the greatest accomplishment always in the development of science is its effect on the mental processes of humanity, stimulating thought and changing the attitude of mind toward life.
Science and War.—It is a travesty on human progress, a social paradox, that war and science go hand in hand. On one side are all of the machines of destruction, the battleships, bombing-planes, huge guns, high explosives, and poisonous gases, products of scientific experiment and inventive genius, and on the other ambulances, hospitals, medical and surgical care, with the uses of all medical discoveries. The one seeks destruction, the other seeks to allay suffering; one force destroys life, the other saves it. And yet they march forth under the same flag to conquer the enemy. It is like the conquest of the American Indians by the Spaniards, in which the warrior bore in one hand a banner of the cross of Christ and in the other the drawn sword.
War has achieved much in forcing people into national unity, in giving freedom to the oppressed and protecting otherwise helpless people, but in the light of our ideals of peace it has never been more than a cruel necessity, and, more frequently, a grim, horrible monster. Chemistry and physics and their discoveries underlying the vast material prosperity of moderns have contributed much to the mechanical and {470} industrial arts and increased the welfare and happiness of mankind. But when war is let loose, these same beneficent sciences are worked day and night for the rapid destruction of man. All the wealth built up in the passing years is destroyed along with the lives of millions of people.
Out of the gloom of the picture proceeds one ray of beneficent light, that of the service rendered by the discoveries of medical science and surgical art. The discoveries arising from the study of anatomy, physiology, bacteriology, and neurology, with the use of anaesthetics and antiseptics in connection with surgery, have made war less horrible and suffering more endurable. Scientists like Pasteur, Lister, Koch, Morton, and many others brought forth from their laboratories the results of their study for the alleviation of suffering.
Yet it seems almost incredible that with all of the horrid experiences of war, an enterprise that no one desires, and which the great majority of the world deplore, should so long continue. Nothing but the discovery and rise of a serum that will destroy the germs of national selfishness and avarice will prevent war. Possibly it stimulates activity in invention, discovery, trade and commerce, but of what avail is it if the cycle returns again from peace to war and these products of increased activity are turned to the destruction of civilization? Does not the world need a baptism of common sense? Some gain is being made in the changing attitude of mind toward the warrior in favor of the great scientists of the world. But nothing will be assured until the hero-worship of the soldier gives way to the respect for the scholar, and ideals of truth and right become mightier than the sword.
Scientific Progress Is Cumulative.—One discovery leads to another, one invention to others. It is a law of science. Science benefits the common man more than does politics or religion. It is through science that he has means of use and enjoyment of nature's progress. It is true this is on the side of materialistic culture, and it does not provide all that is needed for the completed life. Even though the scientific {471} experiments and discoveries are fundamentally more essential, the common man cannot get along without social order, politics, or religion.
Perhaps we can get the largest expression of the value of science to man through a consideration of the inventions and discoveries which he may use in every-day life.[6] Prior to the nineteenth century we have to record the following important inventions: alphabetic writing, Arabic numbers, mariner's compass, printing, the telescope, the barometer and thermometer, and the steam-engine. In the nineteenth century we have to record: railroads, steam navigation, the telegraph, the telephone, friction matches, gas lighting, electrical lighting, photography, the phonograph, electrical transmission of power, Röntgen rays, spectrum analysis, anaesthetics, antiseptic surgery, the airplane, gasoline-engine, transmission of news by radio, and transportation by automobile. Also we shall find in the nineteenth century thirteen important theoretical discoveries as compared with seven in all previous centuries.
It is interesting to note what may have taken place also in the last generation. A man who was born in the middle of the last century might reflect on a good many things that have taken place. Scientifically he has lived to see the development of electricity from a mere academic pursuit to a tremendous force of civilization. Chemistry, although supposed to have been a completed science, was scarcely begun. Herbert Spencer's Synthetic Philosophy and Darwin's Origin of the Species had not yet been published. Huxley and Tyndall, the great experimental scientists, had not published their great works. Transportation with a few slow steam-propelled vessels crossing the ocean preceded the era of the great floating palaces. The era of railroad-building had only just started in America. Horseless carriages propelled by gas or electricity were in a state of conjecture. Politically in America the Civil War had not been fought or the Constitution really completed.
The great wealth and stupendous business organization of {472} to-day were unknown in 1850. In Europe there was no German Empire, only a German Federation. The Hapsburgs were still holding forth in Austria and the Hohenzollerns in Prussia and the Romanoffs in Russia. The monarchial power of the old régime was the rule of the day. These are institutions of the past. Civilization in America, although it had invaded the Mississippi valley, had not spread over the great Western plains nor to the Pacific coast. Tremendous changes in art and industries, in inventions and discoveries have been going on in this generation. The flying-machine, the radio, the automobile, the dirigible balloon, and, more than all, the tremendous business organization of the factories and industries of the age have given us altogether a complete revolution.
Research Foundations.—All modern universities carry on through instructors and advanced students many departments of scientific research. The lines of research extend through a wide range of subjects—Chemistry, Biology, Physics, Anatomy, Physiology, Medicine, Geology, Agriculture, History, Sociology, and other departments of learning. These investigations have led to the discovery of new knowledge and the extension of learning to mankind. Outside of colleges and universities there have been established many foundations of research and many industrial laboratories.
Prominent among those in the United States are The Carnegie Corporation and The Rockefeller Foundation, which are devoting hundreds of millions of dollars to the service of research, for the purpose of advancing science and directly benefiting humankind. The results play an important part in the protection and daily welfare of mankind. The Mellon Institute contributes much to the solution of problems of applied chemistry.[7] It is interesting to note how the investigation carried on by these and other foundations is contributing directly to human welfare by mastering disease. The elimination of the hookworm disease, the fight to control malaria, the {473} mastery of yellow fever, the promotion of public health, and the study of medicine, the courageous attack on tuberculosis, and the suppression of typhoid fever, all are for the benefit of the public. The war on disease and the promotion of public health by preventive measures have lowered the death-rate and lengthened the period of life.
The Trend of Scientific Investigations.—While research is carried on in many lines, with many different objectives, it may be stated that intense study is devoted to the nature of matter and the direct connection of it with elemental forces. The theories of the molecule and the atom are still working hypotheses, but the investigator has gone further and disintegrated the atom, showing it to be a complex of corpuscles or particles. Scientists talk of electrons and protons as the two elemental forces and of the mechanics of the atom. In chemistry, investigation follows the problems of applied chemistry, while organic chemistry or biochemistry opens continually new fields of research. It appears that biology and chemistry are becoming more closely allied as researches continue and likewise physics and chemistry. In the field of surgery the X-ray is in daily use, and radium and radioactivity may yet be great aids to medicine. In medical investigation much is dependent upon the discoveries in neurology. This also will throw light upon the studies in psychology, for the relation of nerve functions to mind functions may be more clearly defined.
Explorations of the earth and of the heavens continually add new knowledge of the extent and creation of the universe. The study of anthropology and archaeology throw new light upon the origin and early history of man. Experimental study of animals, food, soils, and crops adds increased means of sustenance for the race. Recent investigations of scientific education, along with psychology, are throwing much light on mental conditions and progress. And more recently serious inquiry into social life through the study of the social sciences is revealing the great problems of life. All of knowledge, all of science, and all of human invention which add to material {474} comforts will be of no avail unless men can learn to live together harmoniously and justly. But the truths discovered in each department of investigation are all closely related. Truly there is but one science with many divisions, one universe with many parts, and though man is a small particle of the great cosmos, it is his life and welfare that are at the centres of all achievements.
1. In what ways has science contributed to the growth of democracy?
2. How has the study of science changed the attitude of the mind toward life?
3. How is every-day life of the ordinary man affected by science?
4. Is science antagonistic to true Christianity?
5. What is the good influence of science on religious belief and practice?
6. What are the great discoveries of the last twenty-five years in Astronomy? Chemistry? Physics? Biology? Medicine? Electricity?
7. What recent inventions are dependent upon science?
8. Relation between investigation in the laboratory and the modern automobile.
9. How does scientific knowledge tend to banish fear?
10. Give a brief history of the development of the automobile. The flying-machine.
11. Would a law forbidding the teaching of science in schools advance the cause of Christianity?
[1] Taylor, The Mediaeval Mind, vol. II, p. 508.
[2] Libby, History of Science, p. 63.
[3] Copernicus's view was not published until thirty-six years after its discovery. A copy of his book was brought to him at his death-bed, but he refused to look at it.
[4] Libby, p. 91.
[5] Libby, History of Science, p. 280.
[6] Libby, Introduction to the History of Science.
[7] The newly created department at Johns Hopkins University for the study of international relations may assist in the abolition of war.
Universal Public Education Is a Modern Institution.—The Greeks valued education and encouraged it, but only those could avail themselves of its privileges who were able to pay for it. The training by the mother in the home was followed by a private tutor. This system conformed to the idea of leadership and was valuable in the establishment of an educated class. However, at the festivals and the theatres there were opportunities for the masses to learn much of oratory, music, and civic virtues. The education of Athens conformed to the class basis of society. Sparta as an exception trained all citizens for the service of state, making them subordinate to its welfare. The state took charge of children at the age of seven, put them in barracks, and subjected them to the most severe discipline. But there was no free education, no free development of the ordinary mind. It was in the nature of civic slavery for the preservation of the state in conflict with other states.
During the Middle Ages Charlemagne established the only public schools for civic training, the first being established at Paris, although he planned to extend them throughout the empire. The collapse of his great empire made the schools merely a tradition. But they were a faint sign of the needs of a strong empire and an enlightened community. The educational institutions of the Middle Ages were monasteries, and cathedral schools for the purpose of training men for the service of the church and for the propagating of religious doctrine. They were all institutional in nature and far from the idea of public instruction for the enlightenment of the people.
The Mediaeval University Permitted Some Freedom of Choice.—There was exhibited in some of them especially a desire to discover the truth through traditional knowledge. They were {476} composed of groups of students and masters who met for free discussion, which led to the verification of established traditions. But this was a step forward, and scholars arose who departed from dogma into new fields of learning. While the universities of the Middle Ages were a step in advance, full freedom of the mind had not yet manifested itself, nor had the idea of universal education appeared. Opportunity came to a comparatively small number; moreover, nearly all scientific and educational improvement came from impulses outside of the centres of tradition.
The English and German Universities.—The English universities, particularly Oxford and Cambridge, gave a broader culture in mathematics, philosophy, and literature, which was conducive to liberality in thought, but even they represented the education of a selected class. The German universities, especially in the nineteenth century, emphasized the practical or applied side of education. By establishing laboratories, they were prepared to apply all truths discovered, and by experimentation carry forward learning, especially in the chemical and other physical sciences. The spirit of research was strongly invoked for new scientific discoveries. While England was developing a few noted secondary schools, like Harrow and Eton, Germany was providing universal real schule, and gymnasia, as preparatory for university study and for the general education of the masses. As a final outcome the Prussian system was developed, which had great influence on education in the United States in the latter part of the nineteenth century.
Early Education in the United States.—The first colleges and universities in the United States were patterned after the English universities and the academies and high schools of England. These schools were of a selected class to prepare for the ministry, law, statesmanship, and letters. The growth of the American university was rapid, because it continually broadened its curriculum. From the study of philosophy, classical languages, mathematics, literature, it successively {477} embraced modern languages, physical sciences, natural science, history, and economics, psychology, law, medicine, engineering, and commerce.
In the present-day universities there is a wide differentiation of subjects. The subjects have been multiplied to meet the demand of scientific development and also to fit students for the ever-increasing number of occupations which the modern complex society demands. The result of all this expansion is democratic. The college class is no longer an exclusive selection. The plane of educational selection continually lowers until the college draws its students from all classes and prepares them for all occupations. In the traditional college certain classes were selected to prepare for positions of learning. There was developed a small educated class. In the modern way there is no distinctive educated class. University education has become democratic.
The Common, or Public, Schools.—In the Colonial and early national period of the United States, education was given by a method of tutors, or by a select pay school taught by a regularly employed teacher under private contract. Finally the sympathy for those who were not able to pay caused the establishing of "common schools." This was the real beginning of universal education, for the practice expanded and the idea finally prevailed of providing schools by taxation "common" to all, and free to all who wish to attend. Later, for civic purposes, primary education has become compulsory in most states. Following the development of the primary grades, a complete system of secondary schools has been provided. Beyond these are the state schools of higher education, universities, agricultural and mechanical schools, normal schools and industrial schools, so that a highway of learning is provided for the child, leading from the kindergarten through successive stages to the university.
Knowledge, Intelligence, and Training Necessary in a Democracy.—Washington, after experimenting with the new nation for eight years, having had opportunity to observe the defects {478} and virtues of the republic, said in his Farewell Address: "Promote, then, as an object of primary importance institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened."[1] Again and again have the leaders of the nation who have had at heart the present welfare and future destiny of their country urged public education as a necessity.
And right well have the people responded to these sentiments. They have poured out their hard-earned money in taxation to provide adequate education for the youth of the land. James Bryce, after studying in detail American institutions, declared that "the chief business of America is education." This observation was made nearly forty years ago. If it was true then, how much more evident is it now with wonderful advance of higher education in colleges and universities, and in the magnificent system of secondary education that has been built up in the interval. The swarming of students in high school and college is evidence that they appreciate the opportunities furnished by the millions of wealth, largely in the form of taxes, given for the support of schools.
Education Has Been Universalized.—Having made education universal, educators are devoting their energies to fit the education to the needs of the student and to assist the student in choosing the course of instruction which will best fit him for his chosen life-work. The victory has been won to give every boy and girl an educational chance. To give him what he actually needs and see that he uses it for a definite purpose is the present problem of the educator. This means a careful inquiry into mental capacity and mental traits, into temperament, taste, ambition, and choice of vocation. It means further provision of the special education that will best prepare him for his chosen work, and, indeed, it means sympathetic co-operation of the teacher and student in determining the course to be pursued.
{479}Research an Educational Process.—Increased knowledge comes from observation or systematic investigation in the laboratory. Every child has by nature the primary element of research, a curiosity to know things. Too often this is suppressed by conventional education instead of continued into systematic investigation. One of the great defects of the public school is the failure to keep alive, on the part of the student, the desire to know things. Undue emphasis on instruction, a mere imparting of knowledge, causes the student to shift the responsibility of his education upon the teacher, who, after all, can do no more than help the student to select the line of study, and direct him in methods of acquiring. Together teacher and student can select the trail, and the teacher, because he has been over it, can direct the student over its rough ways, saving him time and energy.
Perhaps the greatest weakness in popular government to-day is indifference of citizens to civic affairs. This leads to a shifting of responsibility of public affairs frequently to those least competent to conduct them. Perhaps a training in individual responsibility in the schools and more vital instruction in citizenship would prepare the coming generation to make democracy efficient and safe to the world. The results of research are of great practical benefit to the so-called common man in the ordinary pursuits of life. The scientist in the laboratory, spending days and nights in research, finally discovers a new process which becomes a life-saver or a time-saver to general mankind. Yet the people usually accept this as a matter of fact as something that just happened. They forget the man in the laboratory and exploit the results of his labor for their own personal gain.
How often the human mind is in error, and unobserving, not to see that the discovery of truth and its adaptation to ordinary life is one of the fundamental causes of the progress of the race. Man has advanced in proportion as he has become possessed of the secrets of nature and has adapted them to his service. The number of ways he touches nature and forces {480} her to yield her treasures, adapting them to his use, determines the possibility of progress.
The so-called "common man," the universal type of our democracy, is worthy of our admiration. He has his life of toil and his round of duties alternating with pleasure, bearing the burdens of life cheerfully, with human touch with his fellows; amid sorrow and joy, duty and pleasure, storm and sunshine, he lives a normal existence and passes on the torch of life to others. But the man who shuts himself in his laboratory, lives like a monk, losing for a time the human touch, spends long days of toil and "nights devoid of ease" until he discovers a truth or makes an invention that makes millions glad, is entitled to our highest reverence. The ordinary man and the investigator are complementary factors of progress and both essential to democracy.
The Diffusion of Knowledge Necessary to Democracy.—Always in progress is a deflecting tendency, separating the educated class from the uneducated. This is not on account of the aristocracy of learning, but because of group activity, the educated man following a pursuit different from the man of practical affairs. Hence the effort to broadcast knowledge through lectures, university extension, and the radio is essential to the progress of the whole community. One phase of enlightenment is much neglected, that of making clear that the object of the scholar and the object of the man of practical affairs should be the same—that of establishing higher ideals of life and providing means for approximating these ideals. It frequently occurs that the individual who has centred his life on the accumulation of wealth ignores the educator and has a contempt for the impractical scholar, as he terms him. Not infrequently state legislatures, when considering appropriations for education, have shown more interest in hogs and cattle than in the welfare of children.
It would be well if the psychology of the common mind would change so as to grasp the importance of education and scientific investigation to every-day life. Does it occur to the {481} man who seats himself in his car to whisk away across the country in the pursuit of ordinary business, to pause to inquire who discovered gasoline or who invented the gasoline-engine? Does he realize that some patient investigator in the laboratory has made it possible for even a child to thus utilize the forces of nature and thus shorten time and ignore space? Whence comes the improvement of live-stock in this country? Compare the cattle of early New England with those on modern farms. Was the little scrubby stock of our forefathers replaced by large, sleek, well-bred cattle through accident? No, it was by the discovery of investigators and its practical adaptation by breeders. Compare the vineyards and the orchards of the early history of the nation, the grains and the grasses, or the fruits and the flowers with those of present cultivation. What else but investigation, discovery, and adaptation wrought the change?
My common neighbor, when your child's poor body is racked with pain and likely to die, and the skilled surgeon places the child on the operating-table, administers the anaesthetic to make him insensible to pain, and with knowledge gained by investigation operates with such skill as to save the child's life and restore him to health, are you not ready to say that scientific investigation is a blessing to all mankind? Whence comes this power to restore health? Is it a dispensation from heaven? Yes, a dispensation brought about through the patient toil and sacrifice of those zealous for the discovery of truth. What of the knowledge that leads to the mastery of the yellow-fever bacillus, of the typhoid germ, to the fight against tuberculosis and other enemies of mankind? Again, it is the man in the laboratory who is the first great cause that makes it possible for humanity to protect itself from disease.
Could our methods of transportation by steamship, railroad, or air, our great manufacturing processes, our vast machinery, or our scientific agriculture exist without scientific research? Nothing touches ordinary life with such potent force as the results of the investigation in the laboratory. Clearly it is {482} understood by the thoughtful that education in all of its phases is a democratic process, and a democratic need, for its results are for everybody. Knowledge is thus humanized, and the educated and the non-educated must co-operate to keep the human touch.
Educational Progress.—One of the landmarks of the present century of progress will be the perfecting of educational systems. Education is no longer for the exclusive few, developing an aristocracy of learning for the elevation of a single class; it has become universal. The large number of universities throughout the world, well endowed and well equipped, the multitudes of secondary schools, and the universality of the primary schools, now render it possible for every individual to become intelligent and enlightened.
But these conditions are comparatively recent, so that millions of individuals to-day, even in the midst of great educational systems, remain entirely unlettered. Nevertheless, the persistent effort on the part of people everywhere to have good schools, with the best methods of instruction, certainly must have its effect in bringing the masses of unlearned into the realm of letters. The practical tendency of modern education, by which discipline and culture may be given while at the same time preparing the student for the active duties of life, makes education more necessary for all persons and classes. The great changes that have taken place in methods of instruction and in the materials of scientific investigation, and the tendency to develop the man as well as to furnish him with information, evince the masterly progress of educational systems, and demonstrate their great worth.
The Importance of State Education.—So necessary has education become to the perpetuation of free government that the states of the world have deemed it advisable to provide on their own account a sufficient means of education. Perpetuation of liberty can be secured only on the basis of intellectual progress. From the time of the foundation of the universities of Europe, kings and princes and state authorities have {483} encouraged and developed education, but it remained for America to begin a complete and universal free-school system. In the United States educators persistently urge upon the people the necessity of popular education and intelligence as the only means of securing to the people the benefits of a free government, and other statesmen from time to time have insisted upon the same principle. The private institutions of America did a vast work for the education of the youth, but proved entirely inadequate to meet the immediate demands of universal education, and the public-school system sprang up as a necessary means of preparation for citizenship. It found its earliest, largest, and best scope in the North and West, and has more recently been established in the South, and now is universal.
The grant by the United States government at the time of the formation of the Ohio territory of lands for the support of universities led to the provision in the act of formation of each state and territory in the Union for the establishment of a university. Each state, since the admission of Ohio, has provided for a state university, and the Act of 1862, which granted lands to each state in the Union for the establishment of agricultural and mechanical colleges, has also given a great impulse to state education. In the organizing acts of some of the newer states these two grants have been joined in one for the upbuilding of a university combining the ideas of the two kinds of schools. The support insured to these state institutions promises their perpetuity. The amount of work which they have done for the education of the masses in higher learning has been prodigious, and they stand to-day as the greatest and most perfect monument of the culture and learning of the Western states.
The tremendous growth of state education has increased the burden of taxation to the extent that the question has arisen as to whether there is not a limit to the amount people are willing to pay for public education. If it can be shown that they receive a direct benefit in the education of their children there {484} will be no limit within their means to the support of both secondary schools and universities. But there must be evidence that the expenditure is economically and wisely administered.
The princely endowments of magnificent universities like the Leland Stanford Junior University, the University of Chicago, Johns Hopkins University, Harvard, Yale, and others, have not interfered with the growth and development of state education, for it rests upon the permanent foundation of a popular demand for institutions supported by the contributions of the whole people for the benefit of the state at large. State institutions based upon permanent foundations have been zealous in obtaining the best quality of instruction, and the result is that a youth in the rural districts may receive as good undergraduate instruction as he can obtain in one of the older and more wealthy private institutions, and at very little expense.
The Printing-Press and Its Products.—Perhaps of all of the inventions that occurred prior to the eighteenth century, printing has the most power in modern civilization. No other one has so continued to expand its achievements. Becoming a necessary adjunct of modern education, it continually extends its influence in the direct aid of every other art, industry, or other form of human achievement. The dissemination of knowledge through books, periodicals, and the newspaper press has made it possible to keep alive the spirit of learning among the people and to assure that degree of intelligence necessary for a self-governed people.
The freedom of the press is one of the cardinal principles of progress, for it brings into fulness the fundamental fact of freedom of discussion advocated by the early Greeks, which was the line of demarcation between despotism and dogmatism and the freedom of the mind and will. In common with all human institutions, its power has sometimes been abused. But its defect cannot be remedied by repression or by force, but by the elevation of the thought, judgment, intelligence, and good-will of a people by an education which causes them to {485} demand better things. The press in recent years has been too susceptible to commercial dominance—a power, by the way, which has seriously affected all of our institutions. Here, as in all other phases of progress, wealth should be a means rather than an end of civilization.
Public Opinion.—Universal education in school and out, freedom of discussion, freedom of thought and will to do are necessary to social progress. Public opinion is an expression of the combined judgments of many minds working in conscious or unconscious co-operation. Laws, government, standards of right action, and the type of social order are dependent upon it. The attempt to form a League of Nations or a Court of International Justice depends upon the support of an intelligent public opinion. War cannot be ended by force of arms, for that makes more war, but by the force of mutually acquired opinion of all nations based on good-will. Every year in the United States there are examples of the failure of the attempt to enforce laws which are not well supported by public opinion. Such laws are made effective by a gradual education of those for whom they are made to the standard expressed in the laws, or they become obsolete.
1. Show from observations in your own neighborhood the influence of education on social progress.
2. Imperfections of public schools and the difficulties confronting educators.
3. Should all children in the United States be compelled to attend the public schools?
4. What part do newspapers and periodicals play in education?
5. Relation of education to public opinion.
6. Should people who cannot read and write be permitted to vote?
7. Study athletics in your school and town to determine their educational value.
8. Show by investigation the educational value of motion-pictures and their misuse.
9. In what ways may social inequality be diminished?
10. Would a law compelling the reading of the Bible in public schools make people more religious?
[1] Richardson, Messages and Papers of the Presidents, I, 220.
Commerce and Communication.—The nations of the world have been drawn together in thought and involuntary co-operation by the stimulating power of trade. The exchange of goods always leads to the exchange of ideas. By commerce each nation may profit by the products of all others, and thus all may enjoy the material comforts of the world. At times some countries are deficient in the food-supply, but there has been in recent years a sufficient world supply for all, when properly distributed through commerce. Some countries produce goods that cannot be produced by others, but by exchange all may receive the benefits of everything discovered, produced, or manufactured.
Rapid and complete transportation facilities are necessary to accomplish this. Both trade and transportation are dependent upon rapid communication, hence the telegraph, the cable, and the wireless have become prime necessities. The more voluminous reports of trade relations found in printed documents, papers, and books, though they represent a slower method of communication, are essential to world trade, but the results of trade are found in the unity of thought, the development of a world mind, and growing similarity of customs, habits, usages, and ideals. Slowly there is developing a world attitude toward life.
Exchange of Ideas Modifies Political Organization.—The desire for liberty of action is universal among all people who have been assembled in mass under co-operation. The arbitrary control by the self-constituted authority of kings and governments without the consent of the governed is opposed by all human associations, whether tribal, territorial, or national. Since the world settled down to the idea of monarchy as a necessary form of government, men have been trying to {487} substitute other forms of government. The spread of democratic ideas has been slowly winning the world to new methods of government. The American Revolution was the most epoch-making event of modern times. While the French Revolution was about to burst forth, the example of the American colonies was fuel to the flames.
In turn, after the United States had won their freedom and were well on their way in developing a republican government, the influence of the radical democracy was seen in the laws and constitutions of the states, particularly in the first half of the nineteenth century. The Spanish-American War led to the development of democracy, not only in Cuba and Porto Rico but in the Philippine Islands. But the planting of democracy in the Philippines had a world influence, manifested especially in southeastern Asia, China, Japan, and India.
Spread of Political Ideas.—The socialism of Karl Marx has been one of the most universal and powerful appeals to humanity for industrial freedom. His economic system is characterized by the enormous emphasis placed upon labor as a factor in production. Starting from the hypothesis that all wealth is created by labor, and limiting all labor to the wage-earner, there is no other conclusion, if the premise be admitted, than that the product of industry belongs to labor exclusively. His theories gained more or less credence in Germany and to a less extent in other countries, but they were never fully tested until the Russian revolution in connection with the Great War. After the downfall of Czarism, leaders of the revolution attacked and overthrew capitalism, and instituted the Soviet government. The proletariat came to the top, while the capitalists, nobility, and middle classes went to the bottom. This was brought about by sudden revolution through rapid and wild propaganda.
Strenuous efforts to propagate the Soviet doctrine and the war against capitalism in other countries have taken place, without working a revolution similar to that in Russia. But the International is slowly developing a world idea among {488} laborers, with the ultimate end of destroying the capitalistic system and making it possible for organized wage-earners to rule the world. It is not possible here to discuss the Marxian doctrine of socialism nor to recount what its practical application did to Russia. Suffice it to say that the doctrine has a fatal fallacy in supposing that wage-earners are the only class of laborers necessary to rational economic production.
The World War Breaks Down the Barriers of Thought.—The Great War brought to light many things that had been at least partially hidden to ordinary thinking people. It revealed the national selfishness which was manifested in the struggle for the control of trade, the extension of territory, and the possession of the natural resources of the world. This selfishness was even more clearly revealed when, in the Treaty of Versailles and the formation of the League of Nations, each nation was unwilling to make necessary sacrifice for the purpose of establishing universal peace. They all appeared to feel the need of some international agreement which should be permanent and each favored it, could it first get what it wanted. Such was the power of tradition regarding the sanctity of national life and the sacredness of national territory and, moreover, of national prerogatives!
Nevertheless, the interchange of ideas connecting with the gruelling of war caused change of ideas about government and developed, if not an international mind, new modes of national thinking. The war brought new visions of peace, and developed to a certain extent a recognition of the rights of nations and an interest in one another's welfare. There was an advance in the theory at least of international justice. Also the world was shocked with the terror of war as well as its futility and terrible waste. While national selfishness was not eradicated, it was in a measure subdued, and a feeling of co-operation started which eventually will result in unity of feeling, thought, and action. The war brought into being a sentiment among the national peoples that they will not in the future be forced into war without their consent.
{489}Attempt to Form a League for Permanent Peace.—Led by the United States, a League of Nations was proposed which should settle all disputes arising between nations without going to war. The United States having suggested the plan and having helped to form the League, finally refused to become a party to it, owing in part to the tradition of exclusiveness from European politics—a tradition that has existed since the foundation of the nation. Yet the United States was suggesting a plan that it had long believed in, and a policy which it had exercised for a hundred years with most nations. It took a prominent part in the first peace conference called by the Czar of Russia in 1899. The attempt to establish a permanent International Tribunal ended in forming a permanent Court of Arbitration, which was nothing more than an intelligence office with a body of arbitrators composed of not more than four men from each nation, from whom nations that had chosen to arbitrate a dispute might choose arbitrators. The conference adjourned with the understanding that another would be called within a few years.
The Boxer trouble in China and the war between Japan and Russia delayed the meeting. Through the initiation of Theodore Roosevelt, of the United States, a second Hague Conference met in 1907. Largely through the influence of Elihu Root a permanent court was established, with the exception that a plan for electing delegates could not be agreed upon. It was agreed to hold another conference in 1915 to finish the work. Thus it is seen that the League of Nations advocated by President Wilson was born of ideas already fructifying on American soil. McKinley, Roosevelt, John Hay, Elihu Root, Joseph H. Choate, James Brown Scott, and other statesmen had favored an International Tribunal.
The League of Nations provided in its constitution among other things for a World Court of Nations. In the first draft of the constitution of the League no mention was made of a World Court. But through a cablegram of Elihu Root to Colonel E. M. House, the latter was able to place articles 13 {490} and 14, which provided that the League should take measures for forming a Court of International Justice. Subsequently the court was formed by the League, but national selfishness came to the front and crippled the court. Article 34 originally read: "Between states which are members of the League of Nations, the court shall have jurisdiction, and this without any convention giving it jurisdiction to hear and determine cases of legal nature." It was changed to read; "The jurisdiction of the court comprises all cases which the parties refer to it and all matters specially provided for in treaties and conventions in force."
It is to be observed that in the original statement, either party to a dispute could bring a case into court without the consent of the other, thus making it a real court of justice, and in the modified law both parties must agree to bring the case in court, thus making it a mere tribunal of arbitration. The great powers—England, France, Italy, and Japan—were opposed to the original draft, evidently being unwilling to trust their disputes to a court, while the smaller nations favored the court as provided in the original resolution. However, it was provided that such nations who desired could sign an agreement to submit all cases of dispute to the court with all others who similarly signed. Nearly all of the smaller nations have so signed, and President Harding urged the United States, though not a member of the League, to sign.
The judges of the court, eleven in all, are nominated by the old Arbitration Court of the Hague Tribunal, and elected by the League of Nations, the Council and Assembly voting separately. Only one judge may be chosen from a nation, and of course every nation may not have a judge. In cases where a dispute involves a nation which has no member in the court, an extra judge may be appointed. The first court was chosen from the following nations: Great Britain, France, Italy, United States, Cuba, Switzerland, Netherlands, Denmark, Japan, and Brazil. So the Court of International Justice is functioning in an incomplete way, born of the spirit of {491} America, and the United States, though not a member of the League of Nations, has a member in the court sitting in judgment on the disputes of the nations of the world. So likewise the League of Nations, which the United States would not join, is functioning in an incomplete way.
International Agreement and Progress.—But who shall say that the spirit of international justice has not grown more rapidly than appears from the workings of the machinery that carries it out? Beneath the selfish interests of nations is the international consciousness that some way must be devised and held to for the settlement of disputes without war; that justice between nations may be established similar to that practised within the boundaries of a single nation.
No progress comes out of war itself, though it may force other lines of conduct. Progress comes from other sources than war. Besides, it brings its burdens of crime, cripples, and paupers, and its discontent and distrust. It may hasten production and stimulate invention of destruction, but it is not constructive and always it develops an army of plunderers who prey upon the suffering and toil of others. These home pirates are more destructive of civilization than poison gases or high explosives.
The Mutual Aid of Nations.—In a previous chapter it was shown that mutual aid of individuals was the beginning of society. It now is evident that the mutual aid of nations is their salvation. As the establishment of justice between individuals through their reactions does not destroy their freedom nor their personalities, so the establishment of justice among nations does not destroy their autonomy nor infringe upon their rights. It merely insists that brutal national selfishness shall give way to a friendly co-operation in the interest and welfare of all nations. "A nation, like an individual, will become greater as it cherishes a high ideal and does service and helpful acts to its neighbors, whether great or small, and as it co-operates with them in working toward a common end."[1] {492} Truly "righteousness exalteth a nation," and it will become strong and noble as it seeks to develop justice among all nations and to exercise toward them fair dealing and friendly relations that make for peace.
Reorganization of International Law.—The public opinion of the nations of the world is the only durable support of international law. The law represents a body of principles, usages, and rules of action regarding the rights of nations in peace and in war. As a rule nations have a wholesome respect for international law, because they do not wish to incur the unfriendliness and possible hatred of their fellow nations nor the contempt and criticism of the world. This fear of open censure has in a measure led to the baneful secret treaties, such an important factor in European diplomacy, whose results have been suspicion, distrust, and war. Germany is the only modern nation that felt strong enough to defy world opinion, the laws of nations, and to assume an entirely independent attitude. But not for long. This attitude ended in a disastrous war, in which she lost the friendship and respect of the world—lost treasure and trade, lives and property.
It is unfortunate that modern international law is built upon the basis of war rather than upon the basis of peace. In this respect there has not been much advance since the time of Grotius, the father of modern international law. However, there has been a remarkable advance among most nations in settling their difficulties by arbitration. This has been accompanied by a strong desire to avoid war when possible, and a longing for its entire abandonment. Slowly but surely public opinion realizes not only the desire but the necessity of abandoning great armaments and preparation for war.
But the nations cannot go to a peace basis without concerted action. This will be brought about by growth in national righteousness and a modification of crude patriotism and national selfishness. It is now time to codify and revise international law on a peace basis, and new measures adopted in accordance to the progress nations have made in recent {493} years toward permanent peace. Such a move would lead to a better understanding and furnish a ready guide to the Court of International Justice and all other means whereby nations seek to establish justice among themselves.
The Outlook for a World State.—If it be understood that a world state means the abandonment of all national governments and their absorption in a world government, then it may be asserted truly that such is an impossibility within the range of the vision of man. Nor would it be desirable. If by world state is meant a political league which unites all in a co-operative group for fair dealing in regard to trade, commerce, territory, and the command of national resources, and in addition a world court to decide disputes between nations, such a state is possible and desirable.
Great society is a community of groups, each with its own life to live, its own independence to maintain, and its own service to perform. To absorb these groups would be to disorganize society and leave the individual helpless before the mass. For it is only within group activity that the individual can function. So with nations, whose life and organization must be maintained or the individual would be left helpless before the world. But nations need each other and should co-operate for mutual advantage. They are drawn closer each year in finance, in trade and commerce, in principles of government and in life. A serious injury to one is an injury to all. The future progress of the world will not be assured until they cease their squabbles over territory, trade, and the natural resources of the world—not until they abandon corroding selfishness, jealousy, and suspicion, and covenant with each other openly to keep the peace.
To accomplish this, as Mr. Walter Hines Page said: "Was there ever a greater need than there is now for first-class minds unselfishly working on world problems? The ablest ruling minds are engaged on domestic tasks. There is no world-girdling intelligence at work on government. The present order must change. It holds the Old World still. It keeps all {494} parts of the world apart, in spite of the friendly cohesive forces of trade and travel. It keeps back self-government of men." These evils cannot be overcome by law, by formula, by resolution or rule of thumb, but rather by long, patient study, research, and work of many master-minds in co-operative leadership, who will create a sound international public opinion. The international mind needs entire regeneration, not dominance of the powers.
The recent war was but a stupendous breaking with the past. It furnished opportunity for human society to move forward in a new adjustment on a larger and broader plan of life. Whether it will or not depends upon the use made of the opportunity. The smashing process was stupendous, horrible in its moment. Whether society will adapt itself to the new conditions remains to be seen. Peace, a highly desirable objective, is not the only consideration. There are even more important phases of human adjustment.
1. What were the results of the first (1899) and the second (1907) Hague Conference?
2. What is meant by "freedom of the seas"?
3. Should a commission of nations attempt to equalize the ownership and distribution of the natural products and raw materials, such as oil, coal, copper, etc.?
4. How did the World War make opportunity for democracy?
5. Believing that war should be abolished, how may it be done?
6. What are the dangers of extreme radicalism regarding government and social order?
7. The status of the League of Nations and the Court of International Justice.
8. National selfishness and the League of Nations.
9. The consolidation or co-operation of churches in your town.
10. The union of social agencies to improve social welfare.
11. Freedom of the press; freedom of speech.
12. Public opinion.
[1] Cosmos, The Basis of Durable Peace.
The Economic Outlook.—The natural resources of forest, mines, and agriculture are gradually being depleted. The rapidity of movement in the economic world, the creation of wealth by vast machinery, and the organization of labor and industry are drawing more and more from the wealth stored by nature in her treasure-houses. There is a strong agitation for the conservation of these resources, but little has been accomplished. The great business organizations are exploiting the resources, for the making of the finished products, not with the prime motive of adding to the material comforts and welfare of mankind, but to make colossal fortunes under private control. While the progress of man is marked by mastery of nature, it should also be marked by co-operation with nature on a continued utility basis. Exploitation of natural resources leads to conspicuous waste which may lead to want and future deterioration.
The development of scientific agriculture largely through the influence of the Agricultural Department at Washington and the numerous agricultural colleges and experiment stations has done something to preserve and increase the productivity of the soil. Scientific study and practical experiment have given improved quality of seed, a better grade of stock, and better quality of fruits and vegetables. They have also given improved methods of cultivation and adaptability of crops to the land, and thus have increased the yield per acre. The increased use of selected fertilizers has worked to the same end. The use of a large variety of labor-saving machines has conduced to increase the amount of the product. But all of this improvement is small, considering the amount that needs to be done. The population is increasing rapidly from {496} the native stock and by immigration. There is need for wise conservation in the use of land to prevent economic waste and to provide for future generations. The greedy consumers, with increasing desire for more and better things, urge, indirectly to be sure, for larger production and greater variety of finished products.
The Economics of Labor.—In complex society there are many divisions or groups of laborers—laborers of body and laborers of mind. Every one who is performing a legitimate service, which is sought for and remunerative to the laborer and serviceable to the public, is a laborer. At the base of all industry and social activity are the industrial wage-earners, who by their toil work the mines, the factories, the great steel and iron industries, the railroads, the electric-power plants and other industries. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution in the latter part of the eighteenth century, labor has been working its way out of slavery into freedom.
As a result laborers have better wages, better conditions of life, more of material comforts, and a higher degree of intelligence than ever before. Yet there is much improvement needed. While the hours of labor have been reduced in general to eight per day, the irregularity of employment leads to unrest and frequently to great distress. There is a growing tendency to make laborers partners in the process of production. This does not mean that they shall take over the direction of industry, but co-operate with the managers regarding output, quality of goods, income, and wages, so as to give a solidarity to productive processes and eliminate waste of time, material, and loss by strikes.
The domestic peace in industry is as important as the world peace of nations in the economy of the world's progress. A direct interest of the wage-earner in the management of production and in the general income would have a tendency to equalize incomes and prevent laborers from believing that the product of industry as well as its management should be under their direct control. Public opinion usually favors the {497} laborer and, while it advocates the freedom and dignity of labor, does not favor the right of labor to exploit industry nor concede the right to destroy. But it believes that labor organizations should be put on the same basis as productive corporations, with equal degree of rights, privileges, duties, and responsibilities.
Public and Corporate Industries.—The independent system of organized industry so long dominant in America, known by the socialists as capitalistic production, has become so thoroughly established that there is no great tendency to communistic production and distribution. There is, however, a strong tendency to limit the power of exploitation and to control larger industries in the interest of the public. Especially is this true in regard to what are known as public utilities, such as transportation, lighting, telephone, and telegraph companies, and, in fact, all companies that provide necessaries common to the public, that must be carried on as monopolies. Public opinion demands that such corporations, conducting their operations as special privileges granted by the people, shall be amenable to the public so far as conduct and income are concerned. They must be public service companies and not public exploitation companies.
The great productive industries are supposed to conduct their business on a competitive basis, which will determine price and income. As a matter of fact, this is done only in a general way, and the incomes are frequently out of proportion to the power of the consuming public to purchase. Great industries have the power to determine the income which they think they ought to have, and, not receiving it, may cease to carry on their industry and may invest their capital in non-taxable securities. While under our present system there is no way of preventing this, it would be a great boon to the public, and a new factor in progress, if they were willing to be content with a smaller margin of profit and a slower accumulation of wealth. At least some change must take place or the people of small incomes will be obliged to give up many {498} of the comforts of life of which our boasted civilization is proud, and gradually be reduced to the most sparing economy, if not to poverty. The same principle might be applied to the great institutions of trade.
The Political Outlook.—In our earlier history the struggle for liberty of action was the vital phase of our democracy. To-day the struggle is to make our ideal democracy practical. In theory ours is a self-governed people; in practice this is not wholly true. We have the power and the opportunity for self-government, but we are not practising it as we might. There is a real danger that the people will fail to assume the responsibility of self-government, until the affairs of government are handed over to an official class of exploiters.
For instance, the free ballot is the vital factor in our government, but there are many evidences that it is not fully exercised for the political welfare of the country. It frequently occurs that men are sent to Congress on a small percentage of voters. Other elective offices meet the same fate. Certainly, more interest must be taken in selecting the right kind of men to rule over them or the people will barter away their liberties by indifference. Officials should be brought to realize that they are to serve the public and it is largely a missionary job they are seeking rather than an opportunity to exploit the office for personal gain.
The expansive process of political society makes a larger number of officers necessary. The people are demanding the right to do more things by themselves, which leads to increased expenses in the cost of administration, great bonded indebtedness, and higher taxation. It will be necessary to curb expansion and reduce overhead charges upon the government. This may call for the reorganization of the machinery of government on the basis of efficiency. At least it must be shown to the people that they have a full return for the money paid by taxation. It is possible only by study, care, civic responsibility, and interest in government affairs, as well as by increased intelligence, that our democratic idealism may be put {499} into practice. Laboratory methods in self-government are a prime necessity.
The Equalization of Opportunity.—Popular education is the greatest democratic factor in existence. It is the one great institution which recognizes that equal opportunities should be granted to everybody. Yet it has its limits in establishing equal opportunities in the accepted meaning of the term. There is a false idea of equality which asserts that one man is as good as another before he has proved himself to be so. True equality means justice to all. It does not guarantee that equality of power, of intellect, of wealth, and social standing shall obtain. It seeks to harmonize individual development with social development, and to insure the individual the right to achieve according to his capacity and industry. "The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is a household word, but the right to pursue does not insure success.
The excessive altruism of the times has led to the protecting care of all classes. In its extreme processes it has made the weak more helpless. What is needed is the cultivation of individual responsibility. Society is so great, so well organized, and does so much that there is a tendency of the individual to shift his responsibility to it. Society is composed of individuals, and its quality will be determined by the character and quality of the individual working especially for himself and generally for the good of all. A little more of the law of the survival of the fittest would temper our altruism to more effective service. The world is full of voluntary altruistic and social betterment societies, making drives for funds. They should re-examine their motives and processes and carefully estimate what they are really accomplishing. Is the institution they are supporting merely serving itself, or has it a working power and a margin of profit in actual service?
The Influence of Scientific Thought on Progress.—The effect of scientific discovery on material welfare has been referred to elsewhere. It remains to determine how scientific thought changes the attitude of the mind toward life. The laboratory {500} method continually tests everything, and what he finds to be true the scientist believes. He gradually ignores tradition and adheres to those things that are shown to be true by experimentation or recorded observation. It is true that he uses hypotheses and works the imagination. But his whole tendency is to depart from the realm of instinct and emotions and lay a foundation for reflective thinking. The scientific attitude of mind influences all philosophy and all religion. "Let us examine the facts in the case" is the attitude of scientific thought.
The study of anthropology and sociology has, on the one hand, discovered the natural history of man and, on the other, shown his normal social relations. Both of these studies have co-operated with biology to show that man has come out of the past through a process of evolution; that all that he is individually and socially has been attained through long ages of development. Even science, philosophy, and religion, as well as all forms of society, have had a slow, painful evolution. This fact causes people to re-examine their traditional belief to see how far it corresponds to new knowledge. It has helped men to realize on their philosophy of life and to test it out in the light of new truth and experience. This has led the church to a broader conception of the truth and to a more direct devotion to service. It is becoming an agency for visualizing truth rather than an institution of dogmatic belief. The religious traditionalists yield slowly to the new religious liberalism. But the influence of scientific thought has caused the church to realize on the investment which it has been preaching these many centuries.
The Relation of Material Comfort to Spiritual Progress.—The material comforts which have been multiplying in recent centuries do not insure the highest spiritual activity. The nations that have achieved have been forced into activity by distressing conditions. In following the history of any nation along any line of achievement, it will be noticed that in its darkest, most uncomfortable days, when progress seemed least {501} in evidence, forces were in action which prepared for great advancement. It has been so in literature, in science, in liberty, in social order; it is so in the sum-total of the world's achievements.
Granting that the increase of material comforts, in fact, of wealth, is a great achievement of the age, the whole story is not told until the use of the wealth is determined. If it leads to luxurious living, immorality, injustice, and loss of sense of duty, as in some of the ancient nations, it will prove the downfall of Western civilization. If the leisure and strength it offers are utilized in raising the standard of living, of establishing higher ideals, and creating a will to approximate them, then they will prove a blessing and an impulse to progress. Likewise, the freedom of the mind and freedom in governmental action furnish great opportunities for progress, but the final result will be determined by use of such opportunities in the creation of a higher type of mind characterized by a well-balanced social attitude.
The Balance of Social Forces.—There are two sources of the origin of social life, one arising out of the attitude of the individual toward society, and the other arising out of the attitude of society toward the individual. These two attitudes seem, at first view, paradoxical in many instances, for both individual and society must survive. But in the long run they are not antagonistic, for the good of one must be the good of the other. The perfect balancing of the two forces would make a perfect society. The modern social problem is to determine how much choice shall be left to individual initiative and how much shall be undertaken by the group.
In recent years the people have been doing more and more for themselves through group action. The result has been a multiplication of laws, many of them useless; the creation of a vast administrative force increasing overhead charges, community control or operation of industries, and the vast amount of public, especially municipal, improvements. All of these have been of advantage to the people in common, but have {502} greatly increased taxation until it is felt to be a burden. Were it not for the great war debts that hang heavily on the world, probably the increased taxation for legitimate expenses would not have been seriously felt. But it seems certain that a halt in excessive public expenditures will be called until a social stock-taking ensues. At any rate, people will demand that useless expenditures shall cease and that an ample return for the increased taxation shall be shown in a margin of profit for social betterment. A balance between social enterprise and individual effort must be secured.
Restlessness Versus Happiness.—Happiness is an active principle arising from the satisfaction of individual desires. It does not consist in the possession of an abundance of material things. It may consist in the harmony of desires with the means of satisfying them. Perhaps the "right to achieve" and the successful process of achievement are the essential factors in true happiness. Realizing how wealth will furnish opportunities for achievement, and how it will furnish the luxuries of life as well as furnish an outlet for restless activity, great energy is spent in acquiring it. Indeed, the attitude of mind has been centred so strongly on the possession of the dollar that this seems to be the end of pursuit rather than a means to higher states of life. It is this wrong attitude of life that brings about so much restlessness and so little real happiness. Only the utilization of material wealth to develop a higher spiritual life of man and society will insure continuous progress.
The vast accumulations of material wealth in the United States and the wonderful provisions for material comfort are apt to obscure the vision of real progress. Great as are the possible blessings of material progress, it is possible that eventually they may prove a menace. Other great civilizations have fallen because they stressed the importance of the material life and lost sight of the great adventure of the spirit. Will the spiritual wealth rise superior, strong, and dominant to overcome the downward drag of material prosperity and {503} thus be able to support the burdens of material civilization that must be borne?
Summary of Progress.—If one were to review the previous pages from the beginnings of human society to the present time, he would observe that mind is the ruling force of all human endeavor. Its freedom of action, its inventive power, and its will to achieve underlie every material and social product of civilization. Its evolution through action and reaction, from primitive instincts and emotions to the dominance of rational planning and reflective thinking, marks the trail of man's ascendancy over nature and the establishing of ideals of social order. Has man individual traits, physical and mental, sufficiently strong to stand the strain of a highly complex social order? It will depend upon the strength of his moral character, mental traits, and physical resistance, and whether justice among men shall prevail, manifested in humane and sound social action. Future progress will depend upon a clearness of vision, a unity of thought, the standardization of the objectives of social achievement, and, moreover, an elevation of human conduct. Truly, "without vision the people perish."
1. What measures are being taken to conserve the natural resources?
2. What plan would you suggest for settling the labor problem so as to avoid strikes?
3. How shall we determine what people shall do in group activity and what shall be left to private initiative?
4. How may our ideals of democracy be put to effective practice?
5. To what extent does future progress of the race depend upon science?
6. Is there any limit to the amount of money that may be wisely expended for education?
7. Public measures for the promotion of health.
8. What is meant by the statement that "Without vision the people perish"?
9. Equalization of opportunity.
Abbott, Frank Frost: History and Description of Roman Political
Institutions.
Adams, George Burton: Civilization During the Middle Ages.
Amicis, Edmondo de: Spain and the Spaniards.
Aristotle's Politics: Translation by Welldon.
Arnold, Matthew: Civilization in the United States.
Bakewell, Chas. M.: Source Book of Ancient Philosophy.
Blackmar, F. W., and Gillin, J. L.: Outlines of Sociology.
Blummer, Hugo: Home Life of the Ancient Greeks.
Boak, A. E. R.: Roman History.
Boas, Franz: The Mind of Primitive Man.
Botsford, George Willis: Ancient History for Beginners.
Hellenic History.
The Story of Rome.
Bowman, Isaiah: The New World.
Breasted, J. H.: Ancient Times: A History of the Early World.
Brinton, Daniel G.: The American Races.
Bryce, James: The American Commonwealth.
The Holy Roman Empire.
The Relations of the Advanced and the Backward
Nations of the World.
Modern Democracies.
Buckle, Henry Thomas: History of Civilization in England.
Burckhart, Jacob: Civilization of the Renaissance in Italy.
Burt, B. C.: A Brief History of Greek Philosophy.
Bury, J. B.: The Idea of Progress.
Carlyle, Thomas: History of the French Revolution.
Carpenter, Edward: Civilization, Its Causes and Cure.
Carter, Howard, and Mace, A. C.: The Tomb of Tut-Ankh-Amen.
Carver, Thos. N.: Sociology and Social Progress.
Chapin, F. Stuart: Introduction to Social Evolution.
Cheney, Edward P.: An Introduction to the Industrial and Social
History of England.
Church, R. W.: The Beginnings of the Middle Ages.
{505}
Commons, John R.: Industrial Democracy.
Trade Unionism and Labor Problems.
Conklin, Grant: The Direction of Human Evolution.
Cooley, Charles H.: Social Organization.
Coppee, Henry: History of the Conquest of Spain by the Arabs.
Cox, G. W.: The Crusades.
Croiset, Maurice: Hellenic Civilization.
(Translated by Paul B. Thomas.)
Deniker, J.: The Races of Men.
Dewey, John: Human Nature and Conduct.
Draper, John W.: History of the Intellectual Development of Europe.
Duncan, Robert K.: The Chemistry of Commerce.
The New Knowledge.
Duruy, Victor: History of France.
History of the Middle Ages.
History of Rome.
Edman, Erwin: Human Traits.
Elliot, G. F. Scott: Prehistoric Man and His Story.
Ely, Richard T.: Evolution of Industrial Society.
Emerton, Ephraim: Introduction to the Middle Ages.
Mediaeval Europe.
Fisher, George P.: History of the Christian Church.
Fowler, Ward: The City State of the Greeks and Romans.
Gardiner, Samuel R.: The Puritan Revolution.
Gibbon, Edward: Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.
Goldenweiser, Alexander A.: Early Civilization.
Gordon, Childe: The Dawn of European Civilization.
Green, John Richard: A Short History of the English People.
Green, William Chase: The Achievement of Greece.
Guizot, F.: History of Civilization.
Hadley, James: Introduction to Roman Law.
Hayes, Carlton J. H.: A Brief History of the Great War.
A Political and Social History of Modern Europe.
Henderson, Ernest F.: History of Germany in the Middle Ages.
Hobson, J. A.: The Problems of the New World.
Hodgkin, Thomas: Italy and Her Invaders.
Holm, Adolph: History of Greece.
Hudson, J. W.: The College and New America.
{506}
Ihne, W. H.: Early Rome.
Inge, W. R.: The Idea of Progress.
Irving, Washington: The Conquest of Granada.
James, E. O.: An Introduction to Anthropology.
Kelsey, Carl: The Physical Basis of Society.
Keynes, J. M.: The Economic Consequences of the Peace.
King, L. W.: A History of Babylon.
A History of Sumer and Akkad.
Kirkup, Thomas: The History of Socialism.
Kitchen, G. W.: History of France.
Kroeber, A. L.: Anthropology.
Lawrence, I. J.: The Society of Nations.
Libby, Walter: An Introduction to the History of Science.
Lipton, Walter: Drift and Mastery.
Liberty and the News.
Lowell, A. Lawrence: Public Opinion and Popular Government.
Lowie, Robert H.: Culture and Ethnology.
Primitive Society.
Mahaffy, J. P.: The Story of Alexander's Empire.
Mason, Otis Tufton: The Origins of Inventions.
Mason, Wm. A.: The History of the Art of Writing.
May, Thos. E.: Democracy in Europe.
McCarthy, Justin: The Epoch of Reform.
McGiffert, Arthur C.: The Rise of Modern Religious Ideas.
Meyers, J. L.: The Dawn of History.
Mills, John: Within the Atom.
Monroe, Dana Carlton: The Middle Ages.
Monroe, Paul: History of Education.
Morris, Charles: Civilization: An Historical Review of Its Elements.
Morris, William O'Connor: The French Revolution and the First Empire.
Murray, Gilbert: Ancient Greece.
O'Leary, De Lacy: Arabic Thought and Its Place in History.
Osborn, Henry Fairfield: Men of the Old Stone Age.
Peet, Stephen: The Cliff Dwellers.
Plato's Republic: Translation by Jowett.
Powell, I. W.: The Pueblo Indians.
Preston and Dodge: The Private Life of the Romans.
Ragozin, Z. A.: The Story of Chaldea.
Rawlinson, George: Ancient Monarchies.
The Story of Egypt.
{507}
Robinson, James Harvey: The Mind in the Making.
Sayre, Francis B.: Experiments in International Administration.
Scott, J. B. (editor): President Wilson's Foreign Policy: Messages,
Addresses, and Papers.
Sedgwick, W. J., and Tyler, H. W.: A Short History of Science.
Seebohm, Frederick: The Era of the Protestant Revolt.
Semple, Ellen C.: Influences of Geographic Environment.
Sloane, W. M.: The Powers and Aims of Western Democracy.
Slosson, Edwin E.: Creative Chemistry.
Smith, J. Russell: The World and Its Food Resources.
Smith, Walter R.: Educational Sociology.
Spinden, H. J.: Ancient Civilization of Mexico.
Stubbs, William: The Early Plantagenets.
Symonds, John Addington: The Renaissance in Italy.
Taylor, Edward B.: Researches Into the Early History of Mankind.
The Development of Civilization.
Thwing, Charles F. and Carrie F.: The Family.
Todd, Arthur James: Theories of Social Progress.
Turner, F. J.: The Rise of the New West.
Tyler, John M.: The New Stone Age of Northern Europe.
Van Hook, La Rue: Greek Life and Thought.
Walker, Francis A.: The Making of a Nation.
Wallas, Graham: Great Society.
Principles of Western Civilization.
Weber, Alfred, and R. B. Perry: History of Philosophy.
Weigall, Arthur: The Story of the Pharaohs.
White, Andrew D.: The French Revolution and the First Empire.
Whitney, Wm. Dwight: The Life and Growth of Language.
Wilder, H. H.: Man's Prehistoric Past.
Wissler, Clark: The American Indian.
Man and Culture.
Abelard, 354.
Aegean culture, 207.
Ages of culture, stone, bronze, 36.
Agriculture, beginning of, 93; modern, 440.
Akkadians, religion of, 155, 156.
Alexander, conquests of, 246.
Allia, battle of the, 387.
Altruism and democracy, 449-462.
America, peopling of, 185.
American Indians, culture of, 200; contributions to civilization, 201.
Anaxagoras, 218.
Anaximander, 217.
Anaximenes, 217.
Ancient society, Morgan, 4, 49,
Animals, domestication of, 92.
Anselm, 354.
Antiquity of man shown by race development, 69.
Arabian empire, 305; science and art, 307.
Arab-Moors in Spain, 305; cultures, 308-315; science and art, 307-310; discoveries, 312; language and literature, 313; architecture, 315; achievement, 316; decline, 317.
Arab-Moors, religious zeal of, 308.
Aristotle, 223.
Arkwright, Richard, spinning by rollers, 436.
Art, development of, 37; as a language of aesthetic ideas, 130; representative, 131; and architecture, 368.
Aryans, coming of the, 167.
Athens, Government of, 233; character of democracy, 240; decline of, 241.
Aztecs, culture of, 190.
Babylon, 146.
Bacon, Roger, 459.
Barbarians, 281.
Beautiful, the love of, develops slowly, 135-136; a permanent social force, 137.
Boccaccio, 366.
Books, 128.
Bow and arrow, 87.
Brahe, Ticho, 463.
Bryce, James, 380.
Bunyan, John, 398.
Burial mounds, 76.
Cabrillo, 116.
Calvin, John, and the Genevan system, 386.
Canuleius, 255.
Cassius, Spurius, agrarian laws, 254.
Catholic Church, the, 384.
Catlin, North American Indians, 134.
Caves, 71.
Chaldea, early civilization of, 153-156.
Charlemagne, 349.
Chemistry, 308.
China, 166.
Christian influence on Roman legislation, 273.
Christian religion, social contacts of, 268.
Christianity and the social life, 271; service of, 279; opposes pagan literature, 357; competition with Graeco-Roman schools, 357.
Christians come into conflict with civil authority, 273.
Church, the wealth of, 275; development of hierarchy, 270; control of temporal power, 277; service of, 278; retrogressive attitude, 350; in France, 402; widening influences of, 446; organizing centre, 453.
Cities, rise of free, 330-332; modern, 440.
Civilization, material evidences of, 4; fundamentals of, 10-14; possibilities of, 15; can be estimated, 16; modern, 456.
Cleisthenes, reforms of, 237.
Cliff Dwellers, 194.
Clothing, manufacture of, 97.
Cnossos, 207.
Colonization, Greek, 246; Phoenician, 161.
Commerce and communication, 486.
Commerce, hastens progress, 362.
Common schools, 477.
Constitutional liberty in England, 393.
Copernicus, 461.
Crete, island of, 207.
Crô-Magnon, earliest ancestral type, 28; cultures of, 72.
Crompton, Samuel, spinning "mule," 436.
Crusades, causes of, 319, 320, 321; results of, 322-323; effect on monarchy, 324; intellectual development, 325; impulse to commerce, 326; social effect, 327.
Cultures, evidence of primitive, 28; mental development and, 32; early European, 32.
Curie, Madame, 469.
Dance, the, as dramatic expression, 133; economic, religious, and social functions of, 134.
Darius I, founded Persian Empire, 168.
Darwin, Charles, 467.
Democracy in America, 418; characteristics of, 419-421; modern political reforms of, 421-425.
Descartes, René, 461.
Diogenes, 218.
Discovery and invention, 362.
Duruy, Victor, 363.
Economic life, 170-180, 290, 429.
Economic outlook, 495.
Education and democracy, 477-482.
Education, universal, 475, 478; in the United States, 476.
Educational progress, 482.
Egypt, 145, 146; centre of civilization, 157-160; compared with Babylon, 162; pyramids, 160; religion, 172; economic life, 178; science, 182.
England, beginnings of constitutional liberty in, 345.
Environment, physical, determines the character of civilization, 141; quality of soil, 144; climate and progress, 146; social order, 149.
Equalization of opportunities, 499.
Euphrates valley, seat of early civilization, 152.
Evidences of man's antiquity, 69; localities of, 71-78; knowledge of, develops reflective thinking, 77.
Evolution, 467-469.
Family, the early, 109-112; Greek and Roman, 212-213; German, 286.
Feudalism, nature of, 294-299; sources of, 294, based on land tenure, 296; social classification under, 298; conditions of society under, 300; individual development under, 302; influence on world progress, 303.
Fire and its economy, 88.
Florence, 336.
Food supply, determines progress, 83-85; increased by discovery and invention, 86.
France, free cities of, 330; rise of popular assemblies, 338; rural communes, 338; place in modern civilization, 399; philosophers of, 403; return to monarchy, 417; character of constitutional monarchy, 418.
France, in modern civilization, 399; philosophers of, 403.
Franklin, Benjamin, 465.
Freedom of the press, 484.
Freeman, E. A., 233.
French republic, triumph of, 417.
French Revolution, 405-407; results of, 407.
Galileo, 461.
Gabon, Francis, 469.
Geography, 312.
Germans, social life of, 283; classes of society, 285; home life, 286; political organization, 287; social customs, 288; contribution to law, 291; judicial system, 292.
Gilbert, William, 461.
Glacial epoch, 62.
Greece and Rome compared, 250.
Greek equality and liberty, 229.
Greek federation, 245.
Greek government, an expanded family, 229; diversity of, 231; admits free discussion, 231; local self-government, 232; independent community life, 231; group selfishness, 232; city state, 239.
Greek influence on Rome, 261.
Greek life, early, 205; influence of, 213.
Greek philosophy, observation and inquiry, 215; Ionian philosophy, 216; weakness of, 219; Eleatic philosophy, 220; Sophists, 221; Epicureans, 224; influence of, 225.
Greeks, origin of, 209; early social life of, 208; character of primitive, 209; family life of, 212; religion of, 212.
Guizot, 399.
Hargreaves, James, invents the spinning jenny, 436.
Harvey, William, 461.
Hebrew influence, 164.
Henry VIII and the papacy, 387; defender of the faith, 396.
Heraclitus, 218.
Hierarchy, development of, 276.
History, 312.
Holy Roman Empire, 414.
Human chronology, 59.
Humanism, 349, 364, 366; relation of language and literature to, 367; effect on social manners, 371; relation to science and philosophy, 372; advances the study of the classics, 373; general influence on life, 373.
Huxley, Thomas H., 471.
Incas, culture of, 187.
Individual culture and social order, 150.
Industrial development, 429-433, 439; revolution, 437.
Industries, radiate from land as a centre, 429; early mediaeval, 430; public, 497; corporate, 497.
Industry and civilization, 441.
International law, reorganization of, 492.
Iroquois, social organization of, 198.
Italian art and architecture, 368.
Italian cities, 332; popular government of, 333.
Jesuits, the, 385.
Justinian Code, 260.
Kepler, 463.
Knowledge, diffusion of, 480.
Koch, 470.
Labor, social economics of, 496.
Lake dwellings, 78.
Lamarck, J. P., 467.
Land, use of, determines social life, 145.
Language, origin of, 121; a social function, 123; development of, 126-129; an instrument of culture, 129.
Latin language and literature, 261.
League for permanent peace, 489-492
Licinian laws, 256.
Locke, John, 398.
Lombard League, 337.
Louis XIV, the divine right of kings, 400.
Luther, Martin, and the German Reformation, 382-385.
Lycurgus, reforms of, 244.
Lysander, 241.
Magdalenian cultures, 72.
Man, origin of, 57; primitive home of, 66, antiquity of, 73-70; and nature, 141; not a slave to environment, 149.
Manorial system, 430.
Manuscripts, discovery of, 364.
Marxian socialism in Russia, 427.
Maya race, 192.
Medicine, 308.
Medontidae, 234.
Men of genius, 33.
Mesopotamia, 154.
Metals, discovery and use of, 100.
Metaphysics, 310.
Mexico, 146.
Michael Angelo, 370.
Milton, John, 398.
Minoan civilization, 207.
Monarchy, a stage of progress in Europe, 344.
Monarchy versus democracy, 392.
Mongolian race, 167.
Montesquieu, 404.
Morgan, Lewis H., beginning of civilization, 4; classification of social development, 49.
Morton, William, T. G., 470.
Mound builders, 197.
Music, as language, 131; as a socializing factor, 133, 137.
Mutual aid, 120; of nations, 491.
Napier, John, 463.
Napoleon Bonaparte, 417.
Nationality and race, 444.
Nature, aspects of, determine types of social life, 147.
Newton, Sir Isaac, 463.
Nile, valley, seat of early civilization, 152.
Nobility, the French, 400.
Occam, William of, 379.
Oriental civilization, character of, 170; war for conquest and plunder, 171; religious belief, 171-174; social condition, 175; social organization, 176-178; economic life, 178-180; writing, 181; science, 182; contribution to world progress, 184.
Parliament, rebukes King James I, 396; declaration of, 397.
Peloponnesian War, 241.
People, the condition of, in France, 401.
Pericles, age of, 247.
Philosophy, Ionian, 216; Eleatic, 220; sophist, 221; stoic, 225; sceptic, 225; influence of Greek on civilization, 226, 228.
Phoenicians, the, become great navigators, 161; colonization by, 161.
Physical needs, efforts to satisfy, 82-85.
Picture writing, 126.
Pithecanthropus erectus, 29.
Plato, 222.
Political ideas, spread of, 486-488.
Political liberty in XVIII century. [Transcriber's note: no page number in source]
Polygenesis, monogenesis, 66.
Popular government, expense of, 328, 414.
Power manufacture, 437.
Pre-historic human types, 63, 65, 66.
Pre-historic man, types of, 28,
Pre-historic time, 60-61.
Primitive man, social life of, 31, 32; brain capacity of, 29.
Progress and individual development, 23; and race development, 22; influence of heredity on, 24; influence of environment on, 25; race interactions and, 26; early cultural evidence of, 32; mutations in, 33; data of, 34; increased by the implements used, 35; revival of, throughout Europe, 348; and revival of learning, 372-373.
Progress, evidence of, 456.
Public opinion, 485.
Pueblo Indians, culture of, 194; social life, 195; secret societies, 196.
Pythagoras, 219.
Race and language, 124.
Races, cause of decline, 201, 202.
Racial characters, 70.
Recounting human progress, methods of 37-52; economic development, 39-40.
Reform measures in England, 415.
Reformation, the, character of, 375; events leading to, 376-380; causes of, 380-382; far-reaching results of, 388-391.
Religion and social order, 113-116.
Religious toleration, growth of, 447.
Republicanism, spread of, 425.
Research, foundations of, 472; educational process of, 479.
Revival of learning, 364.
River and glacial drift, 74.
Roebuck, John, the blast furnace, 436.
Roman civil organization, 258.
Roman empire, and its decline, 264.
Roman government, 258; law, 259; imperialism, 267.
Roman social life, 264.
Rome a dominant city, 257; development of government, 258.
Rome, political organization, 252; struggle for liberty, 243; social conditions, 255; invasion of the Gauls, 255; Agrarian laws, 254, 256; plebeians and patricians, 256; optimates, 256; influence on world civilization, 266.
Rousseau, 404.
Savonarola, 380.
Scholastic philosophy, 353.
Schools, cathedral and monastic, 356; Graeco-Roman, 357.
Science, in Egypt, 182; in Spain, 306; nature of, 307, 458; and democracy, 464, 465.
Scientific classification, 460; men, 465; progress, 470; investigation, trend of, 473.
Scientific methods, 459.
Scientific research, 463.
Semites, 160.
Shakespeare, 398.
Shell mounds, 73.
Shelters, primitive, 99.
Social conditions at the beginning of the Christian era, 269.
Social contacts of the Christian religion, 268.
Social development, 13, 23, 49, 104, 114, 347, 443.
Social evolution, depends on variation, 347; character of, 443.
Social forces, balance of, 501.
Social groups, interrelation of, 454.
Social life, 31, 133, 145, 147, 171, 178-180, 208, 241, 243, 247, 255, 258, 283, 285, 289, 298, 300, 327, 371.
Social life of primitive man, 31, 32; development of social order, 41-45; intellectual character of, 47; religious and moral condition of, 46, 47; character of, 108; moral status of, 117.
Social opportunities, 455.
Social order, 8, 41, 122, 149, 150, 176-178, 193, 196, 444, 445.
Social organization, 145, 176-178, 210, 250-252, 432, 433, 444.
Social unrest, 502.
Society, 5, 175, 205, 255, 256, 268-273, 285, 301, 316, 443, 445, 446, 450, 451, 452.
Society, complexity of modern, 452.
Socrates, 221.
Solon, constitution of, 235.
Spain, attempts at popular government in, 341.
Sparta, domination of, 241; character of Spartan state, 242.
Spencer, Herbert, 471.
Spiritual progress and material comfort, 500.
State education, 482.
States-general, 341.
Struggle for existence develops the individual and the race, 106.
Summary of progress, 503.
Switzerland, democracy in cantons, 342.
Symonds, J. A., 366.
Teutonic liberty, 281; influence of, 282, 291, 292; laws, 291.
Theodosian Code, 260.
Toltecs, 192.
Towns, in the Middle Ages, 329.
Trade,434.
Trade and its social Influence, 104.
Transportation, 102.
Tylor, E. B., Primitive Culture, 114.
Tyndall, John, 471.
Unity of the human race, 66.
Universities, mediaeval, 475; English, 476; German, 476; American, 476; endowed, 484.
Universities, rise of, 360; nature of, 361; failure in scientific methods, 361.
Venice, 335.
Village community, 44.
Village sites, 77.
Voltaire, 404.
Waldenses, 378.
Warfare and social progress, 119.
Watt, James, power manufacture, 436.
Weissman, A., 467.
Western civilisation, important factors in its foundation, 268.
Whitney, Ely, the cotton gin, 436.
Wissler, Clark, culture areas, 26; trade, 104.
World state, 493.
World war, breaks the barriers of thought, 488.
World War, iconoclastic effects of, 427.
Writing, 181.
Wyclif, John, and the English reformation, 378, 386.
Zeno, 220.
Zenophanes, 220.
Zwingli and the reformation in Switzerland, 385.
Transcriber's notes:
In the Table of Contents, the "PART III" division precedes Chapter VII, but in the body of the book it precedes Chapter VIII.
Page numbers in this book are enclosed in curly braces. For its Index, a page number has been placed only at the start of that section. In the HTML version of this book, page numbers are placed in the left margin.
Footnote numbers are enclosed in square brackets. Each chapter's footnotes have been renumbered sequentially and moved to the end of that chapter.
End of Project Gutenberg's History of Human Society, by Frank W. Blackmar
*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK HISTORY OF HUMAN SOCIETY ***
***** This file should be named 30610-h.htm or 30610-h.zip *****
This and all associated files of various formats will be found in:
http://www.gutenberg.org/3/0/6/1/30610/
Produced by Al Haines
Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions
will be renamed.
Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no
one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation
(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without
permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules,
set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to
copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to
protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark. Project
Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you
charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission. If you
do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the
rules is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose
such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and
research. They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do
practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks. Redistribution is
subject to the trademark license, especially commercial
redistribution.
*** START: FULL LICENSE ***
THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free
distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project
Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project
Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at
http://gutenberg.net/license).
Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm
electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy
all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession.
If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project
Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the
terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or
entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be
used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few
things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works
even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See
paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project
Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement
and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation"
or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project
Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the
collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an
individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are
located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from
copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative
works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg
are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project
Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by
freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of
this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with
the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by
keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project
Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others.
1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in
a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check
the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement
before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or
creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project
Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning
the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United
States.
1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate
access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently
whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the
phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project
Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed,
copied or distributed:
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or
re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.net
1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived
from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is
posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied
and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees
or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work
with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the
work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1
through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the
Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or
1.E.9.
1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted
with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional
terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked
to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the
permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.
1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm
License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm.
1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
Gutenberg-tm License.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any
word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or
distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than
"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version
posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.net),
you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a
copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon
request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other
form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm
License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works
unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided
that
- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method
you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is
owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he
has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the
Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments
must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you
prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax
returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and
sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the
address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation."
- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm
License. You must require such a user to return or
destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium
and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of
Project Gutenberg-tm works.
- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any
money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days
of receipt of the work.
- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works.
1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm
electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set
forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from
both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael
Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the
Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.
1.F.
1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm
collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain
"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or
corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual
property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a
computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by
your equipment.
1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right
of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH F3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
DAMAGE.
1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you
received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with
your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with
the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a
refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity
providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to
receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy
is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further
opportunities to fix the problem.
1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER
WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages.
If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the
law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be
interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by
the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any
provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.
1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance
with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production,
promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works,
harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees,
that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do
or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm
work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any
Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause.
Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm
Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers
including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists
because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from
people in all walks of life.
Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's
goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will
remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations.
To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4
and the Foundation web page at http://www.pglaf.org.
Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit
501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification
number is 64-6221541. Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at
http://pglaf.org/fundraising. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent
permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws.
The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S.
Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered
throughout numerous locations. Its business office is located at
809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email
business@pglaf.org. Email contact links and up to date contact
information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official
page at http://pglaf.org
For additional contact information:
Dr. Gregory B. Newby
Chief Executive and Director
gbnewby@pglaf.org
Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation
Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide
spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of
increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest
array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations
($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
status with the IRS.
The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations
where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To
SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any
particular state visit http://pglaf.org
While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
approach us with offers to donate.
International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation
methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other
ways including including checks, online payments and credit card
donations. To donate, please visit: http://pglaf.org/donate
Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
works.
Professor Michael S. Hart is the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm
concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared
with anyone. For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project
Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.
Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed
editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S.
unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily
keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.
Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility:
http://www.gutenberg.net
This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm,
including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.