ON GENTLENESS OF MANNERS IN GENERAL.
A certain general gentleness of manners, which in war prevents great
atrocities, and in peace renders life more quiet and agreeable:--such
is one of the valuable qualities which I have pointed out as forming
the distinguishing characteristics of European civilization. This is a
fact which does not require proof; we see and feel it everywhere when
we look around; it is evident to all who open the pages of history,
and compare our times with any others. Wherein does this gentleness
of manners in modern times consist? what is the cause of it? what has
favoured it? what has opposed it? These interesting questions directly
apply to our present subject; for they lead straight to the examination
of other questions, such as the following: has Catholicity contributed
in any way to this gentleness of manners; or, on the other hand, has
it opposed or retarded it? in fine, what part has Protestantism played
in the work, for good or evil? First of all, we must determine wherein
gentleness of manners consists. Although we have here to deal with an
idea which every one sees, or rather feels, we must still endeavor
to explain and analyze it by a definition as complete and exact as
possible. Gentleness of manners consists _in the absence of force_; so
that manners will be more or less gentle according as force is less
or more employed. Thus, we must not confound gentle with charitable
manners; the latter work good, the former only exclude the idea of
force. We must also distinguish gentle manners from those that are
pure, and conformable to reason and justice. Immorality is often
gentle, when, instead of resorting to force, it makes use of seduction
and stratagem. This gentleness of manners consists in directing the
human mind, not by violence which constrains the body, but by reasons
which address themselves to the intellect, or by appeals to the
passions. Thus it is that gentle manners are not always under the
influence of reason; but their rule is always intellectual, although
they are often made the slaves of the passions by golden chains of
their own formation.
If gentleness of manners consists in not making use, in human
transactions, of other means than those of conviction, persuasion,
or seduction, it is clear that the most advanced society--that is,
that in which intelligence has been most developed--should always
participate more or less in this social advantage. There the mind
rules, because it is strong; while material force disappears, because
the body has less strength. Moreover, in societies very much advanced,
where relations and interests are necessarily much multiplied, there
is an indispensable want of means capable of acting in a universal and
lasting manner, and applicable to all the details of life. These means
are, unquestionably, moral and intellectual: the mind operates without
destruction, while force dashes violently against obstacles, and breaks
itself to pieces, if it cannot overturn them. Thus it is the cause
of continual commotions, which cannot subsist in a society which has
numerous and complicated relations, without throwing into confusion and
destroying society itself.
We always observe in young nations a lamentable abuse of force. Nothing
is more natural: the passions ally themselves with force, because they
resemble it; they are energetical as violence, and rude as its shocks.
When society has reached a great degree of development, the passions
are divorced from force, and become allied with the intelligence; they
cease to be violent, in order to become artful. In the first case, if
it is the people who struggle, they make war on, they contend with, and
destroy each other; in the second case, they contend with the arms of
industry, commerce, and contraband. Governments attack, in the first
case, by arms and invasions; and in the second by diplomacy. In the
first epoch, warriors are every thing; in the second, they are nothing;
they have not a very important part to play when negotiation, and not
fighting, is required. When we look at ancient civilization, we observe
a remarkable difference between the character of its manners and the
gentleness of ours. Neither the Greeks nor Romans ever regarded this
precious quality in the light in which we regard it, for the honor of
European civilization. Those nations became enervated, but they did
not become gentle; we may say that their manners were made effeminate,
but they were not softened; for we see them make use of force on all
occasions, when neither vigor of body nor energy of mind was required.
There is nothing more worthy of observation than this peculiarity of
ancient civilization, especially of that of Rome. Now this phenomenon,
which at first sight appears to us to be very strange, has very deep
causes. Besides the principal of these causes, which is, the want of
an element of civilization such as that which modern nations have had
in Christian charity, we shall find among the ancients, if we descend
to the details of their social organization, certain causes which
necessarily hindered this gentleness of manners being established among
them.
In the first case, slavery, one of the constituent elements of their
social and domestic organization, was an eternal obstacle to the
introduction of this precious quality. The man who has the power of
throwing another to the fishes, and of punishing with death the crime
of breaking a glass; he who during a feast, to gratify his caprice,
can take away the life of one of his brethren; he who can rest upon
a voluptuous couch, surrounded by the most sumptuous magnificence,
while he knows that hundreds of men, crowded together in dark vaults,
work incessantly for his cupidity and his pleasures; he who can hear
without emotion the lamentations of a crowd of unhappy beings imploring
a morsel of bread to pass through the night's misery which is to unite
their labors and fatigues of the evening with those of the morning,
such a man may have effeminate, but he cannot have gentle manners; his
heart may become enervated, but it will not cease to be cruel. This
was precisely the situation of the free man in ancient society: the
organization of which we have just stated the results was regarded as
indispensable; they could not even conceive the possibility of any
other order of things. What removed this obstacle? was it not the
Catholic Church, by abolishing slavery, after having ameliorated the
cruel lot of slaves? Those who revert to the 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th,
and 19th chapters of this work, with the notes appended to them, will
find the truth of this demonstrated by incontestable reasons and
documents.
In the second place, the right of life and death, given by the laws to
the paternal power, introduced into families an element of severity
which could not but produce injurious effects. Happily, the hearts of
fathers were continually contending against the power thus granted
by law: but if this feeling did not prevent some deeds the perusal
of which makes us shudder, must we not suppose that, in the ordinary
course of life, cruel scenes constantly reminded the members of
families of this atrocious right with which the chief was invested?
Will not he who is possessed of the power of killing with impunity, be
frequently hurried into acts of cruel despotism? Now this tyrannical
extension of the rights of paternal authority, carried far beyond the
limits pointed out by nature, was taken away by the force of laws and
manners which were much aided by the influence of Catholicity (see the
24th chap. of this work). To the two causes which I have just pointed
out, may be added another perfectly analogous, viz. the despotism which
the husband exercised over his wife, and the little respect which was
paid to her. Public spectacles were, among the Romans, another element
of severity and cruelty. What could be expected of a people whose
principal amusement is to look coolly upon homicide--who took pleasure
in witnessing the slaughter in the arena of hundreds of men fighting
against each other, or against wild beasts?
As a Spaniard, I feel called upon here to insert a paragraph, in
reply to the observations which will be made against me on this
point: I allude to the Spanish bull-fights. I shall naturally be
asked, Is it not in a Christian and Catholic country that the custom
of making men fight against animals is preserved? The objection,
however plausible it may seem, can be answered. In the first place,
to avoid any misunderstanding, I declare that this popular amusement
is, in my opinion, barbarous, and ought, if possible, to be completely
extirpated. But after this full and explicit avowal, let me be
permitted to make a few observations, to screen the honor of my
country. In the first place, it must be remarked, that there is in the
human heart a secret taste for risks and dangers; in order to make
an adventure interesting, it is necessary that the hero should be
encompassed with great and multiplied perils; if a history is to excite
curiosity to a high degree, it must not be an uninterrupted chain of
peaceful and happy events. We wish to find ourselves frequently in the
presence of extraordinary and surprising facts; and, however unpleasant
may be the avowal, our hearts, while they feel the tenderest compassion
for the unfortunate, seem to require the contemplation of scenes of a
more violent and exciting character. Hence the taste for tragedies:
hence the love of scenes in which the actors incur great risks, in
appearance or in reality. It is not my duty here to explain the
origin of this phenomenon; it is enough for me here to point out its
existence to show foreigners who accuse us of being barbarians, that
the taste of the Spanish people for bull-fights is only the application
to a particular case, of an inclination inherent everywhere in the
heart of man. Those who, with respect to this custom of the Spanish
people, affect so much humanity, would do well to answer the following
questions: To what is owing the pleasure taken by the multitude in
every exhibition, when the actors run any risk in one way or another?
Whence comes it that all would willingly be present at the bloodiest
battle, if they could do so without danger? Whence comes it that
everywhere an immense multitude assembles to witness the agonies and
the last convulsions of a criminal on the gibbet? Whence comes it, in
fine, that foreigners, when at Madrid, render themselves accomplices
in the barbarity of Spaniards by assisting at these bull-fights? I
say this, not in any degree to excuse a custom which appears to me to
be unworthy of a civilized people, but to show that in this point, as
well as in almost all that relates to the Spanish people, there are
exaggerations which ought to be reduced within reasonable limits. Let
us add an important observation, which is the best excuse that can be
made for this reprehensible exhibition: instead of fixing our attention
on the spectacle itself, let us consider the evils that flow from
it. Now, I ask, how many men die in Spain in bull-fights? The number
is extremely small, and altogether insignificant in proportion to
the frequency of these spectacles; so that if a comparison were made
between the accidents which occur in consequence of this amusement
and those that happen in other sports, such as horse-races and others
of the same kind, we should perhaps find that bull-fights, however
barbarous they may be in themselves, still do not deserve all the
anathemas with which foreigners have loaded them. To return to our
principal object, how, we ask, is it possible to compare an amusement
which, perhaps, may not cost the life of one man during many years,
to those terrible shows in which death was a necessary condition for
the pleasure of the spectators? After the triumph of Trajan over the
Dacians, the public games lasted twenty-three days, and the fearful
number of six thousand gladiators was slain. Such were the amusements
at Rome, not only of the populace, but of the highest classes;
such were the horrible spectacles required by a people who added
voluptuousness to the most atrocious cruelty. This is a most convincing
proof of what I have said, viz. that manners may be effeminate without
being gentle, and that the brutality of unbounded luxury is not
inconsistent with the instinct of blood-thirsty ferocity.
It is impossible that such spectacles should be tolerated among modern
nations, however corrupt their manners may be. The principle of charity
has extended its empire too universally for such excesses to be
renewed. This charity, it is true, does not induce men to do all the
good to each other that they ought; but, at least, it prevents their
coldly perpetrating evil, and assisting quietly at the slaughter of
their brethren to gratify the pleasure of the moment. Christianity, at
its birth, cast into society the seed of this aversion to homicide.
Who is not aware of the repugnance of Christians for the shows of the
Gentiles--a repugnance prescribed and kept alive by the admonitions
of the early pastors of the Church? It was an acknowledged fact, that
Christian charity prohibited the being present at games where homicide
formed part of the spectacle. "As for us," said one of the apologists
of the early ages, "we make little difference between committing murder
and seeing it committed."[21]