INFLUENCE OF CHRISTIANITY UPON MORAL AND INTELLECTUAL DIVERSITY OF
RACES.
The term Christian civilization examined--Reasons for rejecting
it--Intellectual diversity no hindrance to the universal diffusion
of Christianity--Civilizing influence of Christian religion by
elevating and purifying the morals, etc.; but does not remove
intellectual disparities--Various instances--Cherokees--Difference
between imitation and comprehension of civilized life.
By the foregoing observations, two facts seem to me clearly established:
first, that there are branches of the human family incapable of
spontaneous civilization, so long as they remain unmixed; and, secondly,
that this innate incapacity cannot be overcome by external agencies,
however powerful in their nature. It now remains to speak of the
civilizing influence of Christianity, a subject which, on account of its
extensive bearing, I have reserved for the last, in my consideration of
the instruments of civilization.
The first question that suggests itself to the thinking mind, is a
startling one. If some races are so vastly inferior in all respects, can
they comprehend the truths of the gospel, or are they forever to be
debarred from the blessing of salvation?
In answer, I unhesitatingly declare my firm conviction, that the pale of
salvation is open to them all, and that all are endowed with equal
capacity to enter it. Writers are not wanting who have asserted a
contrary opinion. They dare to contradict the sacred promise of the
Gospel, and deny the peculiar characteristic of our faith, which
consists in its accessibility to all men. According to them, religions
are confined within geographical limits which they cannot transgress.
But the Christian religion knows no degrees of latitude or longitude.
There is scarcely a nation, or a tribe, among whom it has not made
converts. Statistics--imperfect, no doubt, but, as far as they go,
reliable--show them in great numbers in the remotest parts of the globe:
nomad Mongols, in the steppes of Asia, savage hunters in the table-lands
of the Andes; dark-hued natives of an African clime; persecuted in
China;[82] tortured in Madagascar; perishing under the lash in Japan.
But this universal capacity of receiving the light of the gospel must
not be confounded, as is so often done, with a faculty of entirely
different character, that of social improvement. This latter consists in
being able to conceive new wants, which, being supplied, give rise to
others, and gradually produce that perfection of the social and
political system which we call civilization. While the former belongs
equally to all races, whatever may be their disparity in other respects,
the latter is of a purely intellectual character, and the prerogative of
certain privileged groups, to the partial or even total exclusion of
others.
With regard to Christianity, intellectual deficiencies cannot be a
hindrance to a race. Our religion addresses itself to the lowly and
simple, even in preference to the great and wise of this earth.
Intellect and learning are not necessary to salvation. The most
brilliant lights of our church were not always found among the body of
the learned. The glorious martyrs, whom we venerate even above the
skilful and erudite defender of the dogma, or the eloquent panegyrist of
the faith, were men who sprang from the masses of the people; men,
distinguished neither for worldly learning, nor brilliant talents, but
for the simple virtues of their lives, their unwavering faith, their
self-devotion. It is exactly in this that consists one great superiority
of our religion over the most elaborate and ingenious systems devised by
philosophers, that it is intelligible to the humblest capacity as well
as to the highest. The poor Esquimaux of Labrador may be as good and as
pure a Christian as the most learned prelate in Europe.
But we now come to an error which, in its various phases, has led to
serious consequences. The utilitarian tendency of our age renders us
prone to seek, even in things sacred, a character of material
usefulness. We ascribe to the influence of Christianity a certain order
of things, which we call _Christian civilization_.
To what political or social condition this term can be fitly applied, I
confess myself unable to conceive. There certainly is a Pagan, a
Brahmin, and Buddhistic, a Judaic civilization. There have been, and
still are, societies so intimately connected with a more or less
exclusive theological formula, that the civilizations peculiar to them,
can only be designated by the name of their creed. In such societies,
religion is the sole source of all political forms, all civil and social
legislation; the groundwork of the whole civilization. This union of
religious and temporal institutions, we find in the history of every
nation of antiquity. Each country had its own peculiar divinity, which
exercised a more or less direct influence in the government,[83] and
from which laws and civilization were said to be immediately derived.
It was only when paganism began to wane, that the politicians of Rome
imagined a separation of temporal and religious power, by attempting a
fusion of the different forms of worship, and proclaiming the dogma of
legal toleration. When paganism was in its youth and vigor, each city
had its Jupiter, Mercury, or Venus, and the local deity recognized
neither in this world nor the next any but compatriots.
But, with Christianity, it is otherwise. It chooses no particular
people, prescribes no form of government, no social system. It
interferes not in temporal matters, has naught to do with the material
world, "its kingdom is of another." Provided it succeeds in changing the
interior man, external circumstances are of no import. If the convert
fervently embraces the faith, and in all his actions tries to observe
its prescriptions, it inquires not about the built of his dwelling, the
cut of his garments, or the materials of which they are composed, his
daily occupations, the regulations of his government, the degree of
despotism, or of freedom, which pervades his political institutions. It
leaves the Chinese in his robes, the Esquimaux in his seal-skins; the
former to his rice, the latter to his fish-oil; and who would dare to
assert that the prayers of both may not breathe as pure a faith as those
of the _civilized_ European? No mode of existence can attract its
preference, none, however humble, its disdain. It attacks no form of
government, no social institution; prescribes none, because it has
adopted none. It teaches not the art of promoting worldly comforts, it
teaches to despise them. What, then, can we call a Christian
civilization? Had Christ, or his disciples, prescribed, or even
recommended any particular political or social forms,[84] the term would
then be applicable. But his law may be observed under all--of whatever
nature--and is therefore superior to them all. It is justly and truly
called the _Catholic_, or Universal.
And has Christianity, then, no civilizing influence? I shall be asked.
Undoubtedly; and a very great one. Its precepts elevate and purify the
soul, and, by their purely spiritual nature, disengage the mind from
worldly things, and expand its powers. In a merely human point of view,
the material benefits it confers on its followers are inestimable. It
softens the manners, and facilitates the intercourse between man and his
fellow-man; it mitigates violence, and weans him from corrosive vices.
It is, therefore, a powerful promoter of his worldly interests. But it
only expands the mind in proportion to the susceptibility of the mind
for being expanded. It does not give intellect, or confer talents,
though it may exalt both, and render them more useful. It does not
create new capacities, though it fosters and develops those it finds.
Where the capacities of an individual, or a race, are such as to admit
an improvement in the mode of existence, it tends to produce it; where
such capacities are not already, it does not give them. As it belongs to
no particular civilization, it does not compel a nation to change its
own. In fine, as it does not level all individuals to the same
intellectual standard, so it does not raise all races to the same rank
in the political assemblage of the nations of the earth. It is wrong,
therefore, to consider the equal aptitude of all races for the true
religion, as a proof of their intellectual equality. Though having
embraced it, they will still display the same characteristic
differences, and divergent or even opposite tendencies. A few examples
will suffice to set my idea in a clearer light.
The major portion of the Indian tribes of South America have, for
centuries, been received within the pale of the church, yet the European
civilization, with which they are in constant contact, has never become
their own.[85] The Cherokees, in the northern part of the same
continent, have nearly all been converted by the Methodist
missionaries. At this I am not surprised, but I should be greatly so, if
these tribes, without mixing with the whites, were ever to form one of
the States, and exercise any influence in Congress. The Moravians and
Danish Lutheran missionaries in Labrador and Greenland, have opened the
eyes of the Esquimaux to the light of religion; but their neophytes have
remained in the same social condition in which they vegetated before. A
still more forcible illustration is afforded by the Laplanders of
Sweden, who have not emerged from the state of barbarism of their
ancestors, though the doctrine of salvation was preached to them, and
believed by them, centuries ago.
I sincerely believe that all these peoples may produce, and, perhaps,
already have produced, persons remarkable for piety and pure morals; but
I do not expect ever to see among them learned theologians, great
statesmen, able military leaders, profound mathematicians, or
distinguished artists;--any of those superior minds, whose number and
perpetual succession are the cause of power in a preponderating race;
much less those rare geniuses whose meteor-like appearance is productive
of permanent good only when their countrymen are so constituted as to be
able to understand them, and to advance under their direction. We
cannot, therefore, call Christianity a promoter of civilization in the
narrow and purely material sense of some writers.
Many of my readers, while admitting my observations in the main to be
correct, will object that the modifying influence of religion upon the
manners must produce a corresponding modification of the institutions,
and finally in the whole social system. The propagators of the gospel,
they will say, are almost always--though not necessarily--from a nation
superior in civilization to the one they visit. In their personal
intercourse, therefore, with their neophytes, the latter cannot but
acquire new notions of material well-being. Even the political system
may be greatly influenced by the relations between instructor and pupil.
The missionary, while he provides for the spiritual welfare of his
flock, will not either neglect their material wants. By his teaching and
example, the savage will learn how to provide against famine, by tilling
the soil. This improvement in his condition once effected, he will soon
be led to build himself a better dwelling, and to practise some of the
simpler useful arts. Gradually, and by careful training, he may acquire
sufficient taste for things purely intellectual, to learn the alphabet,
or even, as in the case of the Cherokees, to invent one himself. In
course of time, if the missionaries' labors are crowned with success,
they may, perhaps, so firmly implant their manners and mode of living
among this formerly savage tribe, that the traveller will find among
them well-cultivated fields, numerous flocks, and, like these same
Cherokees, and the Creeks on the southern banks of the Arkansas, black
slaves to work on their plantations.
Let us see how far facts correspond with this plausible argument. I
shall select the two nations which are cited as being the furthest
advanced in European civilization, and their example will, it seems to
me, demonstrate beyond a doubt, how impossible it is for any race to
pursue a career in which their own nature has not placed them.
The Cherokees and Creeks are said to be the remnants or descendants of
the Alleghanian Race, the supposed builders of those great monuments of
which we still find traces in the Mississippi Valley. If this be the
case, these two nations may lay claim to a natural superiority over the
other tribes of North America.
Deprived of their hereditary dominions by the American government, they
were forced--under a treaty of transplantation--to emigrate to regions
selected for them by the latter. There they were placed under the
superintendence of the Minister of War, and of Protestant missionaries,
who finally succeeded in persuading them to embrace the mode of life
they now lead. Mr. Prichard,[86] my authority for these facts, and who
derives them himself from the great work of Mr. Gallatin,[87] asserts
that, while all the other Indian tribes are continually diminishing,
these are steadily increasing in numbers. As a proof of this, he alleges
that when Adair visited the Cherokee tribes, in 1762, the number of
their warriors was estimated at 2,300; at present, their total
population amounts to 15,000 souls, including about 1,200 negroes in
their possession. When we consider that their schools, as well as
churches, are directed by white missionaries; that the greater number of
these missionaries--being Protestants--are probably married and have
children and servants also white, besides, very likely, a sort of
retinue of clerks and other European employees;--the increase of the
aboriginal population becomes extremely doubtful,[88] while it is easy
to conceive the pressure of the white race upon its pupils. Surrounded
on all sides by the power of the United States, incommensurable to their
imagination; converted to the religion of their masters, which they
have, I think, sincerely embraced; treated kindly and judiciously by
their spiritual guides; and exposed to the alternation of working or of
starving in their contracted territory;--I can understand that it was
possible to make them tillers of the earth.
It would be underrating the intelligence of the humblest, meanest
specimen of our kind, to express surprise at such a result, when we see
that, by dexterously and patiently acting upon the passions and wants of
animals, we succeed in teaching them what their own instincts would
never have taught them. Every village fair is filled with animals which
are trained to perform the oddest tricks, and is it to be wondered at
that men submitted to a rigorous system of training, and deprived of the
means of escaping from it, should, in the end, be made to perform
certain mechanical functions of civilized life; functions which, even in
the savage state, they are capable of understanding, though they have
not the will to practise them? This were placing human beings lower in
the scale of creation than the learned pig, or Mr. Leonard's
domino-playing dogs.[89] Such exultation on the part of the believers in
the equality of races is little flattering to those who excite it.
I am aware that this exaggeration of the intellectual capacity of
certain races is in a great measure provoked by the notions of some very
learned and distinguished men, who pretend that between the lowest races
of men, and the highest of apes there was but a shade of distinction.
So gross an insult to the dignity of man, I indignantly reject.
Certainly, in my estimation, the different races are very unequally
endowed, both physically and mentally; but I should be loath to think
that in any, even in the most degraded, the unmistakable line of
demarcation between man and brute were effaced. I recognize no link of
gradation which would connect man mentally with the brute creation.
But does it follow, that because the lowest of the human species is
still unmistakably human, that all of that species are capable of the
same development? Take a Bushman, the most hideous and stupid of human
families, and by careful training you may teach him, or if he is already
adult, his son, to learn and practise a handicraft, even one that
requires a certain degree of intelligence. But are we warranted thence
to conclude that the nation to which this individual belongs, is
susceptible of adopting our civilization? There is a vast difference
between mechanically practising handicrafts and arts, the products of an
advanced civilization, and that civilization itself. Let us suppose that
the Cherokee tribes were suddenly cut off from all connection with the
American government, the traveller, a few years hence, would find among
them very unexpected and singular institutions, resulting from their
mixture with the whites, but partaking only feebly of the character of
European civilization.
We often hear of negroes proficient in music, negroes who are clerks in
counting-rooms, who can read, write, talk like the whites. We admire,
and conclude that the negroes are capable of everything that whites are.
Notwithstanding this admiration and these hasty conclusions, we express
surprise at the contrast of Sclavonian civilization with ours. We aver
that the Russian, Polish, Servish nations, are civilized only at the
surface, that none but the higher classes are in possession of our
ideas, and this, thanks to their intermixture with the English, French,
and German stock; that the masses, on the contrary, evince a hopeless
inaptitude for participating in the forward movement of Western Europe,
although these masses have been Christians for centuries, many of them
while our ancestors were heathens. Are the negroes, then, more closely
allied to our race than the Sclavonic nations? On the one hand, we
assert the intellectual equality of the white and black races; on the
other, a disparity among subdivisions of our own race.
There is a vast difference between imitation and comprehension. The
imitation of a civilization does not necessarily imply an eradication
of the hereditary instincts. A _nation_ can be said to have adopted a
civilization, only when it has the power to progress in it unprompted,
and without guidance. Instead of extolling the intelligence of savages
in handling a plough, after being shown; in spelling and reading, after
they have been taught; let a single example be alleged of a tribe in any
of the numerous countries in contact with Europeans, which, with our
religion, has also made the ideas, institutions, and manners of a
European nation so completely its own, that the whole social and
political machinery moves forward as easily and naturally as in our
States. Let an example be alleged of an extra-European nation, among
whom the art of printing produces effects analogous to those it produces
among us; where new applications of our discoveries are attempted; where
our systems of philosophy give birth to new systems; where our arts and
sciences flourish.
But, no; I will be more moderate in my demands. I shall not ask of that
nation to adopt, together with our faith, all in which consists our
individuality. I shall suppose that it rejects it totally, and chooses
one entirely different, adapted to its peculiar genius and
circumstances. When the eyes of that nation open to the truths of the
Gospel, it perceives that its earthly course is as encumbered and
wretched as its spiritual life had hitherto been. It now begins the work
of improvement, collects its ideas, which had hitherto remained
fruitless, examines the notions of others, transforms them, and adapts
them to its peculiar circumstances; in fact, erects, by its own power, a
social and political system, a civilization, however humble. Where is
there such a nation? The entire records of all history may be searched
in vain for a single instance of a nation which, together with
Christianity, adopted European civilization, or which--by the same grand
change in its religious ideas--was led to form a civilization of its
own, if it did not possess one already before.
On the contrary, I will show, in every part of the world, ethnical
characteristics not in the least effaced by the adoption of
Christianity. The Christian Mongol and Tartar tribes lead the same
erratic life as their unconverted brethren, and are as distinct from the
Russian of the same religion, who tills the soil, or plies his trade in
their midst, as they were centuries ago. Nay, the very hostilities of
race survive the adoption of a common religion, as we have already
pointed out in a preceding chapter. The Christian religion, then, does
not equalize the intellectual disparities of races.
FOOTNOTES:
[82] Although the success of the Chinese missions has not been
proportionate to the self-devoting zeal of its laborers, there yet are,
in China, a vast number of believers in the true faith. M. Huc tells us,
in the relation of his journey, that, in almost every place where he and
his fellow-traveller stopped, they could perceive, among the crowds that
came to stare at the two "Western devils" (as the celestials courteously
call us Europeans), men making furtively, and sometimes quite openly,
the sign of the cross. Among the nomadic hordes of the table-lands of
Central Asia, the number of Christians is much greater than among the
Chinese, and much greater than is generally supposed. (See _Annals of
the Propagation of the Faith_, No. 135, et seq.)--H.
[83] The tutelary divinity was generally a typification of the national
character. A commercial or maritime nation, would worship Mercury or
Neptune; an aggressive and warlike one, Hercules or Mars; a pastoral
one, Pan; an agricultural one, Ceres or Triptolemus; one sunk in luxury,
as Corinth, would render almost exclusive homage to Venus.
As the author observes, all ancient governments were more or less
theocratical. The regulations of castes among the Hindoos and Egyptians
were ascribed to the gods, and even the most absolute monarch dared not,
and could not, transgress the limits which the immortals had set to his
power. This so-called divine legislation often answered the same purpose
as the charters of modern constitutional monarchies. The authority of
the Persian kings was confined by religious regulations, and this has
always been the case with the sultans of Turkey. Even in Rome, whose
population had a greater tendency for the positive and practical, than
for the things of another world, we find the traces of theocratical
government. The sibylline books, the augurs, etc., were something more
than a vulgar superstition; and the latter, who could stop or postpone
the most important proceedings, by declaring the omens unpropitious,
must have possessed very considerable political influence, especially in
the earlier periods. The rude, liberty-loving tribes of Scandinavia,
Germany, Gaul, and Britain, were likewise subjected to their druids, or
other priests, without whose permission they never undertook any
important enterprise, whether public or private. Truly does our author
observe, that Christianity came to deliver mankind from such trammels,
though the mistaken or interested zeal of some of its servants, has so
often attempted, and successfully, to fasten them again. How ill adapted
Christianity would be, even in a political point of view, for a
theocratical formula, is well shown by Mr. Guizot, in his _Hist. of
Civilization_, vol. i. p. 213.--H.
[84] I have already pointed out, in my introduction (p. 41-43), some of
the fatal consequences that spring from that doctrine. It may not,
however, be out of place here to mention another. The communists,
socialists, Fourrierites, or whatever names such enemies to our social
system assume, have often seduced the unwary and weak-minded, by the
plausible assertion that they wished to restore the social system of the
first Christians, who held all goods in common, etc. Many religious
sectaries have created serious disturbances under the same pretence. It
seems, indeed, reasonable to suppose, that if Christianity had given its
exclusive sanction to any particular social and political system, it
must have been that which the first Christian communities adopted.--H.
[85] See note on page 188.--H.
[86] _Natural History of Man_, p. 390. London, 1843.
[87] _Synopsis of the Indian Tribes of North America._
[88] Had I desired to contest the accuracy of the assertions upon which
Mr. Prichard bases his arguments in this case, I should have had in my
favor the weighty authority of Mr. De Tocqueville, who, in speaking of
the Cherokees, says: "What has greatly promoted the introduction of
European habits among these Indians, is the presence of so great a
number of half-breeds. The man of mixed race--participating as he does,
to a certain extent, in the enlightenment of the father, without,
however, entirely abandoning the savage manner of the mother--forms the
natural link between civilization and barbarism. As the half-breeds
increase among them, we find savages modify their social condition, and
change their manners." (_Dem. in Am._, vol. i. p. 412.) Mr. De
Tocqueville ends by predicting that the Cherokees and Creeks, albeit
they are half-breeds, and not, as Mr. Prichard affirms, pure aborigines,
will, nevertheless, disappear before the encroachments of the whites.
[89] "When four pieces of cards were laid before them, each having a
number pronounced _once_ in connection with it, they will, after a
re-arrangement of the pieces, select any one named by its number. They
also play at domino, and with so much skill as to triumph over biped
opponents, whining if the adversary plays a wrong piece, or if they
themselves are deficient in the right one."--_Vest. of Cr._, p. 236.--H.
INTRODUCTORY NOTE TO CHAPTERS VIII. AND IX.
Rapid survey of the populations comprised under the appellation
"Teutonic"--Their present ethnological area, and leading
characteristics--Fondness for the sea displayed by the Teutonic
tribes of Northwestern Europe, and perceptible in their
descendants.
Several of the ideas expressed by the author in the course of the two
next following chapters, seemed to the annotator of this volume to call
for a few remarks on his part, which could not conveniently be condensed
within the limited space of foot-notes. Besides, the text is already
sufficiently encumbered with them, and any increase in their length or
number could not but be displeasing to the eye, while it would divert
attention from the main subject. He has, therefore, taken the
liberty--an unwarranted one, perhaps--of introducing his remarks in this
form and place.
* * * * *
The leading proposition in this volume is, that the civilization
originated and developed by a race, is the clearest index of its
character--the mirror in which its principal features are truthfully
reflected. In other words, that every race, capable of developing a
civilization, will develop one peculiar to itself, and impossible to
every other. This the author illustrates by the actual state of our
civilization, which he asserts to be originated by the Teutonic race,
but modified in proportion to the admixture of that race with a
different blood. To clearly comprehend his idea, and to appreciate the
value of his arguments, it is, therefore, necessary for the reader to
take a rapid survey of the populations comprised under the appellation
_Teutonic_, and to examine into the present geographical extension of
that race. This I shall endeavor to do, not, indeed, by entering into an
elaborate ethnological disquisition--a task greatly beyond my powers,
and the due performance of which would require a space much larger than
the whole of this volume--but by merely grouping together well-known
facts, in such a manner as to set the author's idea in a clearer light.
The words _Teutonic_ and _Germanic_ are generally used synonymously, and
we shall not depart from this custom. Strict accuracy, however, would
probably require that the term Teutonic should be used as the general
appellation of all those swarms of northern warriors, who, under various
names, harassed and finally subverted the overgrown dominion of ancient
Rome, while the term Germanic would apply to a portion of them only. The
Northern Barbarians, as the Romans contemptuously styled them, all
claimed to belong to the "_Thiudu_," or the nation _par excellence_, and
from that word the term Teutonic is supposed to be derived. Many of
their descendants still retain the name: _Teutsch_ or _Deutsch_
(German). The Romans called them _Germanes_, from the boastful title of
"the warlike," or "the men of war," which the first invading tribes had
given themselves. These _Germanes_ of the Romans were again divided into
two classes, the Saxon tribes, and the Suevic; terms expressive of their
mode of life, the former having fixed habitations and inclosed farms,
the latter cultivating the fields by turn, and being prone to change
their abodes. The first class comprised many other tribes besides those
who figure in history, under the name of Saxons, as the invaders and
conquerors of Britain. But as I desire to avoid all not well-authorized
distinctions, I shall use the terms Teutonic and Germanic
indiscriminately.
The Germans appear to have been at all times an eminently warlike and
courageous race. History first speaks of them as warriors alarming, nay,
terrifying, the arrogant Romans, and that not in the infancy of Rome's
power, when the Samnites and Volscians were formidable antagonists, but
in the very fulness of its strength, in the first vigor of youthful
manhood, when Italy, Spain, part of Gaul, the northern coasts of Africa,
Greece, Syria, and Asia Minor, were subdued to the republican yoke. Then
it was that the Cimbri and Teutones invaded and harassed Italy, chilling
the mistress of the world with fear.
The Germans next meet us in Cæsar's Commentaries. The principal
resistance which the future usurper experienced in subduing Gaul,
appears to have been offered, not by the Gallic population, but either
by German tribes, settled in that country, or German armies from the
right banks of the Rhine, who longed to dispute the tempting prize with
the Romans. The great general twice crossed the Rhine, but probably more
for the _éclat_ of such an exploit, than with the hope of making
permanent conquests. The temporary successes gained by his imperial
successors were amply counterbalanced by the massacre of the flower of
the Roman armies.
At the end of the first five centuries after Christ, nothing was left of
the great Roman empire but ruins. Every country in Northern, Western,
and Southern Europe acknowledged German masters. The tribes of the
extreme north had entered Russia, and there established a powerful
republic; the tribes of the northwest (the Angles and Saxons) had
conquered Britain; a confederation of the southern tribes, under the
name of Franks, had conquered Gaul; the various Gothic tribes of the
east, the Heruli, the Longobardi, Ostrogoths, etc., had subjected Italy
to their arms, and disputed its possession among themselves. Other
Gothic tribes (the Visigoths, Burgundians, and Vandals) had shared with
the Franks the beautiful tracts of Gaul, or had carried their victorious
arms to Spain, and the northern coasts of Africa. The three most
beautiful and most fertile countries of Europe, to this day, retain the
name of their conquerors--England, France, Lombardy.
It is impossible now to determine with accuracy the amount of German
blood in the populations of the various states founded by the Teutonic
tribes. Yet certain general results are easily arrived at in this
interesting investigation.
Thus, we know that Germany, notwithstanding its name, contains by no
means a pure Germanic population. The fierce Scythian hordes, whom
Attila led on to the work of devastation, after the death of their
leader, incorporated themselves with various of the Teutonic tribes.
They form one of the ethnical elements of the population of Italy, but
especially of the south and southeast of Germany. While, therefore, the
population of Northern Germany is comparatively pure Teutonic, that of
the southern and eastern portion is a mixture of Teutonic and Sclavonian
elements.
The Danes, Swedes, and Norwegians, are probably the most Germanic
nations of continental Europe.
In Spain, the Visigoths were, in a great measure, absorbed by the native
population, consisting of the aboriginal Celtiberians and the numerous
Roman colonists. In the tenth century, an amalgamation began with the
eastern blood brought by the Arab conquerors.
Italy, already at the time of the downfall of Rome, contained an
extremely mixed population, drawn thither by the all-absorbing vortex of
the Eternal City. In the north, the Germanic element had time to engraft
itself in some measure; but the south, passing into the hands of the
Byzantine emperors, received an addition of the already mixed Greek
blood of the east.
Gaul, at the time of the Frankish conquest, was an extremely populous
country. Beside the aboriginal Gauls, the population consisted of
numerous Roman colonists. The Mediterranean coast of Gaul had, from the
earliest times, received Phenician, Carthaginian, and Greek settlers,
who founded there large and prosperous cities. The original differences
in the population of Gaul are to this day perceptible. The Germanic
element preponderates in the north, where already, in Cæsar's time, the
Germans had succeeded in making permanent settlements, and in the
northeast, where the Burgundians had well-nigh extirpated and
completely supplanted the Gallic natives.[90] But everywhere else,[91]
the Germanic element forms but a small portion of the population, and
this is well illustrated by the striking resemblance of the character of
the modern French to that of the ancient Gauls. But though vastly
inferior in numbers, the descendants of the German conquerors, for one
thousand years, were the dominant race in France. Until the fifteenth
century, all the higher nobility were of Frankish or Burgundian origin.
But, after the Celtic and Celto-Roman provinces south of the Loire had
rallied around a youthful king, to reconquer their capital and best
territories from the English foe, the Frankish blood ruled with less
exclusive sway in all the higher offices of the state; and the
distinction was almost entirely lost by the accession of the first
southern dynasty, that of the Bourbons, towards the end of the sixteenth
century. The corresponding variations in the national policy and the
exterior manifestations of the national character, Mr. Gobineau has
rapidly pointed out elsewhere.[92]
While the population of France presents so great a mixture of various
different races, and but a slight infusion of German blood, that of
England, on the contrary, is almost purely Teutonic. The original
inhabitants of the country were, for the most part, driven into the
mountain fastnesses of Wales by the German invaders, where they
preserve, to this day, their original language. Every subsequent great
addition to the population of England was by the German race. The Danes,
and, after them, the Normans, were tribes of the same stock as the
Saxons, and all came from very nearly the same portion of Europe. It is
obvious, therefore, that England, even after the Norman conquest, when,
for a time, the upper and the lower classes spoke different languages,
contained a more homogeneous population than France did at the same, or
any subsequent epoch. In England, from the Saxon yeoman up to the
proudest Norman lord, all belonged to the great German race; in France,
only the nobility, while the peasants were Gauls. The wars between the
two countries afford a striking proof of the difference of these two
races. The battles of Cressy, of Poitiers, and of Agincourt, which will
never be forgotten so long as English poetry can find an echo in an
English breast, were won by the English against greatly superior
numbers. "Victories, indeed, they were," says Macaulay, "of which a
nation may justly be proud; for they are to be attributed to the moral
superiority of the victors, _a superiority which was most striking in
the lowest ranks_. The knights of England found worthy rivals in the
knights of France. Chandos encountered an equal foe in Du Guesclin. But
France had no infantry that dared to face the English bows and bills."
The Celt has probably, at no time, been inferior to the Teuton in valor;
in martial enthusiasm, he exceeds him. But, at a time when bodily
strength decided the combat, the difference between the sturdy Saxon and
the small, slight--though active--Gaul, must have been great.
In this rapid and necessarily imperfect sketch, I have endeavored to
show the relative proportion of the Teutonic blood in the population of
the various countries of Europe. I have endeavored to direct the
reader's attention to the fact, that though it forms an element in the
population of all, it exists in perfect purity in but few, and that
England presents a happy fusion of some of the most distinguished
branches of the German family. If we now glance at the United States, we
shall there find--at least in the first years of her national
existence--a pendant to what has been asserted of England. The elements
of the population of the original thirteen States, were almost
exclusively of English, Lowland Scotch, Dutch, and Swedish blood; that
is to say, decidedly Germanic. Ireland was as yet slightly represented.
France had made but inconsiderable contributions to the population.
Since we have assumed a rank among the great powers of the earth, every
portion of the inhabited globe has sent us its contingent of blood, yet
even now, the great body of the nation belongs to the Teutonic race.
Much has been said of the effects of ethnical mixture. Many consider it
as decidedly beneficial, others as decidedly deleterious. It seems to me
susceptible of mathematical demonstration, that when a very inferior
race amalgamates with one of higher order, the compound--though superior
to the one, must be inferior to the other. In that case, therefore,
mixture is injurious. But when various branches of the same race, or
nearly cognate races mix, as in the case of the Saxons, Angles, Danes,
and Normans, the mixture cannot but be beneficial. For, while none of
the higher qualities are lost, the compound presents a felicitous
combination of some of the virtues peculiar to each.
If our civilization received its tone and character from the Teutonic
race, as Mr. Gobineau asserts, this character must be most strikingly
displayed wherever that race forms the preponderating element of the
population.
Before investigating this question, we must cast a glance on the manners
and modes of thinking that characterized this race in the earliest
times. Unfortunately, but few records are left to assist us in forming a
judgment. Tacitus's celebrated treatise was, probably, more an imaginary
sketch, which he wished to hold up to a people sunk in luxury and vice,
as were his countrymen. In our times, the North American Indian has
often been held up as a model of uncorrupted simplicity, and many
touching romances have been written on the theme, now rather hackneyed
and out of fashion. But though the noble Roman may have highly colored
the picture, the incorruptible love of truth, which shines so
brilliantly in all his works, assures us of the truth of its outlines.
Of one thing we can entertain no doubt, viz: that history nowhere shows
us our Germanic forefathers in the same state of barbarism that we find
other races--many of the American Indians, the South-Sea Islanders, and
others. In the earliest times they practised agriculture, they
cultivated rye, barley, oats and wheat. Many of the tribes had regular
farms, which were inclosed. They knew how to work iron, an art which
even the most civilized of the American Indians had never learned. They
had extensive and complicated political relations, often forming
themselves in vast confederacies. But, above all, they were an
eminently chaste people; they respected woman,[93] and assigned to her
her legitimate place in the social circle. Marriage with them was a
sacred institution.
The greatest point of superiority of our civilization, over all
preceding and contemporaneous ones--a point which Mr. Gobineau has
omitted to mention--is the high rank which woman occupies in the modern
structure of society. The boasted civilizations of Greece and Rome, if
superior in others, are vastly inferior to us in this respect. And this
glorious superiority we owe to the pure and chaste manners of our
forefathers.
Representative government, trial by jury, and all the discoveries in
political science upon which we pride ourselves most, are the necessary
development of their simple institutions, to which, indeed, they can be
distinctly traced.
I have purposely selected these two characteristics of the German
races--respect for woman, and love of liberty, or, what is more, a
capacity for establishing and preserving liberal institutions. The
question now resolves itself into this: Does woman occupy the highest
rank, do liberal institutions best flourish where the Germanic race is
most pure? I will not answer the question, but beg the reader to compare
the more Germanic countries with those that are less so--England,
Holland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and Northern Germany, with France,
Spain, Italy, Greece, and Russia; the United States and Canada, with
Mexico and the South American republics.
Mr. Gobineau speaks of the utilitarian character of the Germanic races,
but furnishes no proofs of his assertion. I shall therefore endeavor to
supply the deficiency.
Those countries which ethnology tells us contain the most Germanic
populations, viz: England, the northern States of Europe, including
Holland, and the United States, have the entire commerce, and nearly all
the manufacture of the whole world in their hands. They have given to
mankind all the great inventions which shed an everlasting lustre over
our era. They, together, possess nine-tenths of all the railroads built
in the world, and the greater part of the remaining tenth was built by
_their_ enterprise and capital. Whatever perfection in the useful arts
one of these countries attains, is readily adopted by all; slowly only,
and sometimes never by any of the others.
On the other hand, we find that the polite arts do not meet, in these
countries, with a very congenial soil. Artists may flock thither, and,
perhaps, reap a harvest of gold; but they seldom stay. The admiration
which they receive is oftenest the mere dictate of fashion. It is true
that England, Denmark, Holland, Sweden, and the United States, have
produced some eminent artists, but the mass of the population do not
exhibit that innate taste, that passionate fondness for the arts, which
we find among all classes in Italy, Spain, and to some extent in France
and Southern Germany.
* * * * *
Before I conclude this hasty sketch, for which I crave the reader's
indulgence, I wish to draw attention to a striking instance of the
permanency of ethnical characteristics. The nations that most fondly and
most successfully plough the briny main, are the English, the
Americans, the Swedes, Danes, Dutch. Notwithstanding the littleness of
these latter, they have successfully competed in maritime discovery with
larger nations; and even now, own considerable and far distant colonial
possessions. The Dutch, for a time, were the greatest maritime power in
the world, and to this day carry on an extensive and profitable
commerce. History tells us that the forefathers of these nations were
distinguished by the same nautical genius.
The real Saxons--the invaders of England--are mentioned already in the
middle of the second century, by Ptolemy, as skilful sailors. In the
fourth and fifth century, they became dreaded from their piracies. They
and their confederates, the Angles, originally inhabited the present
Holstein, and the islands in the vicinity of the Baltic coast. Their
neighbors, the Danes, were equally famous for maritime exploits. Their
celebrated vykings still live in song and tale. Their piratical
incursions and settlements in England, are known to every schoolboy. How
familiar the Normans were with the watery element, is abundantly proved
by history. They ascended the Rhine, and other rivers, for hundreds of
miles, marking their landing-place by devastation.
Of the Angle, the Saxon, the Dane, and the Norman, the present
Englishman and his adventurous brother of Massachusetts, are lineal
descendants. The best sailors in our commercial navy, next to the native
sailors, are the Danes and the Swedes. Normandy, to this day, furnishes
the best for the French service.--H.
FOOTNOTES:
[90] In those portions of the present France, over one million and a
half of the inhabitants speak German. The pure Gauls in the Landes have
not yet learned the French language, and speak a peculiar--probably
their original--_patois_.
[91] With the exception of Normandy.
[92] See p. 183.
[93] I am not aware that any writer has ever presumed to doubt this fact
except Mr. Guizot, who dismisses it with a sneer. Fortunately, a sneer
is not an argument, though it often has more weight.