CLASSIFICATION OF RACES.
Primary varieties--Test for recognizing them; not always
reliable--Effects of intermixture--Secondary varieties--Tertiary
varieties--Amalgamation of races in large cities--Relative scale of
beauty in various branches of the human family--Their inequality in
muscular strength and powers of endurance.
[In supervising the publication of this work, I have thought
proper to omit, in this place, a portion of the translation,
because containing ideas and suggestions which--though they might
be novel to a French public--have often been laid before English
readers, and as often proven untenable. This omission, however,
embraces no essential feature of the book, no link of the chain
of argumentation. It extends no further than a digressional
attempt of the author to account for the diversities observable
in the various branches of the human family, by imagining the
existence of cosmogonal causes, long since effete, but operating
for a time soon after the creation of man, when the globe was
still in a nascent and chaotic state. It must be obvious that all
such speculations can never bridge over the wide abyss which
separates _hypotheses_ from _facts_. They afford a boundless
field for play to a fertile imagination, but will never stand the
test of criticism. Even if we were to suppose that such causes
had effected diversities in the human family in primeval times,
the types thus produced must all have perished in the flood, save
that to which Noah and his family belonged. If these writers,
however, should be disposed to deny the universality of the
deluge, they would evidently do greater violence to the language
of Holy Writ, than by at once supposing a plurality of origins
for mankind.
The legitimate field of human science is the investigation of the
laws _now_ governing the material world. Beyond this it may not
go. Whatever is recognized as not coming within the scope of
action of these laws, belongs not to its province. We have proved,
and I think it is generally admitted, that the actual varieties of
the human family are _permanent_; that there are no causes _now in
operation_, which can transform them. The investigation of those
causes, therefore, cannot properly be said to belong to the
province of human science. In regard to their various systems of
classification, naturalists may be permitted to dispute about
unity or plurality of species, because the use of the word species
is more or less arbitrary; it is an expedient to secure a
convenient arrangement. But none, I hope, presume ever to be able
to fathom the mysteries of Creative Power--to challenge the fiat
of the Almighty, and inquire into his _means_.--H.]
In the investigation of the moral and intellectual diversities of races,
there is no difficulty so great as an accurate classification. I am
disposed to think a separation into three great groups sufficient for
all practical purposes. These groups I shall call primary varieties, not
in the sense of distinct creations, but as offering obvious and
well-defined distinguishing characteristics. I would designate them
respectively by the terms white, yellow, and black. I am aware of the
inaccuracy of these appellations, because the complexion is not always
the distinctive feature of these groups: other and more important
physiological traits must be taken into consideration. But as I have not
the right to invent new names, and am, therefore, compelled to select
among those already in use, I have chosen these because, though by no
means correct, they seemed preferable to others borrowed from geography
or history, and not so apt as the latter to add to the confusion which
already sufficiently perplexes the investigator of this subject. To
obviate any misconception here and hereafter, I wish it to be distinctly
understood that by "white" races I mean those usually comprised under
the name of Caucasian, Shemitic, Japhetic; by "black," the Hamitic,
African, etc.; by "yellow," the Altaic, Mongolian, Finnic, and Tartar.
These I consider to be the three categories under which all races of the
human family can be placed. I shall hereafter explain my reasons for
not recognizing the American Indians as a separate variety, and for
classing them among the yellow races.[167]
It is obvious that each of these groups comprises races very dissimilar
among themselves, each of which, besides the general characteristics
belonging to the whole group, possesses others peculiar to itself. Thus,
in the group of black races we find marked distinctions: the tribes
with prognathous skull and woolly hair, the low-caste Hindoos of
Kamaoun and of Dekhan, the Pelagian negroes of Polynesia, etc. In the
yellow group, the Tungusians, Mongols, Chinese, etc. There is every
reason to believe that these sub-varieties are coeval; that is, the same
causes which produced one, produced at the same time all the others.
It is, moreover, extremely difficult to determine the typical character
of each variety. In the white, and also in the yellow group, the mixture
of the sub-varieties is so great, that it is impossible to fix upon the
type. In the black group, the type is perhaps discernible; at least, it
is preserved in its greatest purity.
To ascertain the relative purity or mixture of a race, a criterion has
been adopted by many, who consider it infallible: this is resemblance of
face, form, constitution, etc. It is supposed that the purer a race has
preserved itself, the greater must be the exterior resemblances of all
the individuals composing it. On the contrary, considerable and varied
intermixtures would produce an infinite diversity of appearance among
individuals. This fact is incontestable, and of great value in
ethnological science, but I do not think it quite so reliable as some
suppose.
Intermixture of races does, indeed, produce at first individual
dissemblances, for few individuals belong in precisely the same degree
to either of the races composing the mixture. But suppose that, in
course of time, the fusion has become complete--that every individual
member of the mixed race had precisely the same proportion of mixed
blood as every other--he could not then differ greatly from his
neighbor. The whole mass, in that case, must present the same general
homogeneity as a pure race. The perfect amalgamation of two races of the
same group would, therefore, produce a new type, presenting a fictitious
appearance of purity, and reproducing itself in succeeding generations.
I imagine it possible, therefore, that a "secondary" type may in time
assume all the characteristics of a "primary" one, viz: resemblance of
the individuals composing it. The lapse of time to produce this
complete fusion would necessarily be commensurate to the original
diversity of the constituent elements. Where two races belonging to
different groups combine, such a complete fusion would probably never be
possible. I can illustrate this by reference to individuals. Parents of
widely different nations generally have children but little resembling
each other--some apparently partaking more of the father's type, some
more of the mother's. But if the parents are both of the same, or at
least of homogeneous stocks, their offspring exhibits little or no
variety; and though the children might resemble neither of the parents,
they would be apt to resemble one another.
To distinguish the varieties produced by a fusion of proximate races
from those which are the effect of intermixture between races belonging
to different groups, I shall call the latter _tertiary_ varieties. Thus
the woolly-headed negro and the Pelagian are both "primary" varieties
belonging to the same group; their offspring I would call a "secondary"
variety; but the hymen of either of them with a race belonging to the
white or yellow groups, would produce a "tertiary" variety. To this
last, then, belong the mulatto, or cross between white and black, and
the Polynesian, who is a cross between the black and the yellow.[168]
Half-breeds of this kind display, in various proportions and degrees,
the special characteristics of both the ancestral races. But a complete
fusion, as in the case of branches of the same group, probably never
results from the union of two widely dissimilar races, or, at least,
would require an incommensurable lapse of time.
If a tertiary type is again modified by intermixture with another, as is
the case in a cross between a mulatto and a Mongolian, or between a
Polynesian and a European, the ethnical mixture is too great to permit
us, in the present state of the science, to arrive at any general
conclusions. It appears that every additional intermixture increases the
difficulty of complete fusion. In a population composed of a great
number of dissimilar ethnical elements, it would require countless ages
for a thorough amalgamation; that is to say, so complete a mixture that
each individual would have precisely the kind and relative proportion of
mixed blood as every other. It follows, therefore, that, in a
population so constituted, there is an infinite diversity of form and
features among individuals, some pertaining more to one type than
another. In other words, there being no equilibrium between the various
types, they crop out here and there without any apparent reason.
We find this spectacle among the great civilized nations of Europe,
especially in their capitals and seaports. In these great vortexes of
humanity, every possible variety of our species has been absorbed.
Negro, Chinese, Tartar, Hottentot, Indian, Malay, and all the minor
varieties produced by their mixture, have contributed their contingent
to the population of our large cities. Since the Roman domination, this
amalgamation has continually increased, and is still increasing in
proportion as our inventions bring in closer proximity the various
portions of the globe. It affects all classes to some extent, but more
especially the lowest. Among them you may see every type of the human
family more or less represented. In London, Paris, Cadiz,
Constantinople, in any of the greater marts and thoroughfares of the
world, the lower strata of the _native_ population exhibit every
possible variety, from the prognathous skull to the pyramidal: you shall
find one man with hair as crisp as a negro's; another, with the eyes of
an ancient German, or the oblique ones of a Chinese; a third, with a
thoroughly Shemitic countenance; yet all three may be close relations,
and would be greatly surprised were they told that any but the purest
white blood flows in their veins. In these vast gathering places of
humanity, if you could take the first comer--a native of the place--and
ascend his genealogical tree to any height, you would probably be amazed
at the strange ancestry at the top.
It may now be asked whether, for all the various races of which I have
spoken, there is but one standard of beauty, or whether each has one of
its own. Helvetius, in his _De l'Esprit_, maintains that the idea of
beauty is purely conventional and variable. This assertion found many
advocates in its time, but it is at present superseded by the more
philosophical theory that the conception of the beautiful is an absolute
and invariable idea, and can never have a merely optional application.
Believing the latter view to be correct, I do not hesitate to compare
the various races of man in point of beauty, and to establish a regular
scale of gradation. Thus, if we compare the various races, from the
ungainly appearance of the Pelagian or Pecherai up to the noble
proportions of a Charlemagne, the expressive regularity of features of a
Napoleon, or the majestic countenance of a Louis XIV., we shall find in
the lowest on the scale a sort of rudimentary development of the beauty
which attracts us in the highest; and in proportion to the perfectness
of that development, the races rise in the scale of beauty.[169] Taking
the white race as the standard of beauty, we perceive all the others
more or less receding from that model. There is, then, an inequality in
point of beauty among the various races of men, and this inequality is
permanent and indelible.[170]
The next question to be decided is, whether there is also an inequality
in point of physical strength. It cannot be denied that the American
Indians and the Hindoos are greatly inferior to us in this respect. Of
the Australians, the same may safely be asserted. Even the negroes
possess less muscular vigor.[171] It is necessary, however, to
distinguish between purely muscular force--that which exerts itself
suddenly at a given moment--and the force of resistance or capacity for
endurance. The degree of the former is measured by its intensity, that
of the other by its duration. Of the two, the latter is the typical--the
standard by which to judge of the capabilities of races. Great muscular
strength is found among races notoriously weak. Among the lowest of the
negro tribes, for instance, it would not be difficult to find
individuals that could match an experienced European wrestler or English
boxer. This is equally true of the Lascars and Malays. But we must take
the masses, and judge according to the amount of long-continued,
persevering toil and fatigue they are capable of. In this respect, the
white races are undoubtedly entitled to pre-eminence.
But there are differences, again, among the white races, both in beauty
and in strength, which even the extensive ethnical mixture, that
European nations present, has not entirely obliterated. The Italians are
handsomer than the French and the Spaniards, and still more so than the
Swiss and Germans. The English also present a high degree of corporeal
beauty; the Sclavonian nations a comparatively humble one.
In muscular power, the English rank far above all other European
nations; but the French and Spaniards are greatly superior in power of
endurance: they suffer less from fatigue, from privations, and the
rigors and changes of climate. This question has been settled beyond
dispute by the fatal campaign in Russia. While the Germans, and other
troops from the North, who yet were accustomed to severe cold, were
almost totally annihilated, the French regiments, though paying
fearfully dear for their retreat, nevertheless saved the greatest number
of men. Some have attempted to explain this by a supposed superiority on
the part of the French in martial education and military spirit. But the
German officers had certainly as high a conception of a soldier's duty,
as elevated a sentiment of honor, as our soldiers; yet they perished in
incredibly greater numbers. I think it can hardly be disputed that the
masses of the population of France possess a superiority in certain
physical qualities, which enables them to defy with greater impunity
than most other nations the freezing snows of Russia and the burning
sands of Egypt.
FOOTNOTES:
[167] I have already alluded to the classification adopted by Mr.
Latham, the great ethnographer, which, though different in the
designations, is precisely similar to that of Mr. Gobineau. Hamilton
Smith also comes to the conclusion that, "as there are only three
varieties who attain the typical standard, we have in them the
foundation of that number being exclusively aboriginal." He therefore
divides the races of men into three classes, which he calls "typical
forms," and which nearly correspond to Mr. Gobineau's and Mr. Latham's
"primary varieties." But, notwithstanding this weight of authorities
against me, I cannot entirely agree as to the correctness of this
classification. Fewer objections seem to me to lie against that proposed
by Van Amringe, which I recommend to the consideration of the reader,
and, though perhaps out of place in a mere foot-note, subjoin at full
length. It must be remembered that the author of this system, though he
uses the word species to distinguish the various groups, is one of the
advocates for _unity of origin_. (The words _Japhetic_ and _Shemitic_
are also employed in a sense somewhat different from that which common
usage has assigned them.)
THE SHEMITIC SPECIES.
_Psychical or Spiritual Character_, viz:--
All the Physical Attributes developed harmoniously.--Warlike, but
not cruel, or destructive.
_Temperament._--Strenuous.
_Physical Character_, viz:--
A high degree of sensibility; fair complexion; copious, soft,
flowing hair, often curled, or waving; ample beard; small, oval,
perpendicular face, with features very distinct; expanded forehead;
large and elevated cranium; narrow elevated nose, distinct from the
other features; small mouth, and thin lips; chin, round, full, and
somewhat prominent, generally equal with the lips.
VARIETIES.
The Israelites, Greeks, Romans, Teutones, Sclavons, Celts, &c., and
many sub-varieties.
THE JAPHETIC SPECIES.
_Psychical or Spiritual Character_, viz:
Attributes unequally developed. Moderately mental--originative,
inventive, but not speculative. Not warlike, but destructive.
_Temperament._--Passive.
_Physical Character_, viz:--
Medium sensibility; olive yellow complexion; hair thin, coarse, and
black; little or no beard; broad, flattened, and triangular face;
high, pyramidal, and square-shaped skull; forehead small and low;
wide and small nose, particularly broad at the root; linear and
highly arched eyebrows; very oblique eyes, broad, irregular, and
half-closed, the upper eyelid extending a little beyond the lower;
thick lips.
VARIETIES.
The Chinese, Mongolians, Japanese, Chin Indians, &c., and probably
the Esquimaux, Toltecs, Aztecs, Peruvians.
THE ISHMAELITIC SPECIES.
_Psychical or Spiritual Character_, viz:--
Attributes generally equally developed. Moderately mental; not
originative, or inventive, but speculative; roving, predatory,
revengeful, and sensual. Warlike and highly destructive.
_Temperament._--Callous.
_Physical Character._--Sub-medium sensibility; dark skin, more or less
red, or of a copper-color tinge; hair black, straight, and strong;
face broad, immediately under the eyes; high cheek-bones; nose
prominent and distinct, particularly in profile; mouth and chin,
European.
VARIETIES.
Most of the Tartar and Arabian tribes, and the whole of the American
Indians, unless those mentioned in the second species should be
excepted.
THE CANAANITIC SPECIES.
_Psychical or Spiritual Character_, viz:--
Attributes equally undeveloped. Inferiorly mental; not originative,
inventive, or speculative; roving, revengeful, predatory, and highly
sensual; warlike and destructive.
_Temperament._--Sluggish.
_Physical Character._--Sluggish sensibility, approaching to torpor;
dark or black skin; hair black, generally woolly; skull compressed
on the sides, narrow at the forehead, which slants backwards;
cheek-bones very prominent; jaws projecting; teeth oblique, and chin
retreating, forming a muzzle-shaped profile; nose broad, flat, and
confused with the face; eyes prominent; lips thick.
VARIETIES.
The Negroes of Central Africa, Hottentots, Cafirs, Australasian
Negroes, &c.; and probably the Malays, &c.
_Nat. Hist. of Man_, p. 73 _et passim_.
If the reader will carefully examine the psychical characteristics of
these groups, as given in the above extract, he will find them to accord
better with the whole of Mr. Gobineau's theories, than Mr. Gobineau's
own classification.--H.
[168] It is probably a typographical error, that makes Mr. Flourens
(_Eloge de Blumenbach_, p. 11) say that the Polynesian race was "a
mixture of two others, the _Caucasian_ and the Mongolian." The Black and
the Mongolian is undoubtedly what the learned Academician wished to say.
[169] This may be so in our eyes. It is natural for us to think those
the most pleasing in appearance, that closest resemble our own type. But
were an African to institute a comparative scale of beauty, would he not
place his own race highest, and declare that "all races rose in the
scale of beauty in proportion to the perfectness of the development" of
African features? I think it extremely probable--nay, positively
certain.
Mr. Hamilton Smith takes the same side as the author. "It is a mistaken
notion," says he, "to believe that the standard contour of beauty and
form differs materially in any country. Fashion may have the influence
of setting up certain deformities for perfections, both at Pekin and at
Paris, but they are invariably apologies which national pride offers for
its own defects. The youthful beauty of Canton would be handsome (?) in
London," etc.
Mr. Van Amringe, on the contrary, after a careful examination of the
facts brought to light by travellers and other investigators, comes to
the conclusion that "the standard of beauty in the different species
(see p. 371, _note_) of man is wholly different, physically, morally,
and intellectually. Consequently, that taste for personal beauty in each
species is incompatible with the perception of sexual beauty out of the
species." (_Op. cit._, p. 656.) "A difference of taste for sexual beauty
in the several races of men is the great natural law which has been
instrumental in separating them, and keeping them distinct, more
effectually than mountains, deserts, or oceans. This separation has been
perfect for the whole historic period, and continues to be now as wide
as it is or has been in any distinct species of animals. Why has this
been so? Did prejudice operate four thousand years ago exactly as it
does now? If it did not, how came the races to separate into distinct
masses at the very earliest known period, and, either voluntarily or by
force, take up distinct geographical abodes?" (_Ibid._, pp. 41 and
42.)--H.
[170] This inequality is not the less great, nor the less permanent, if
we suppose each type to have its own standard. Nay, if the latter be
true, it is a sign of a more _radical_ difference among races.--H.
[171] Upon the aborigines of America, consult Martius and Spix, _Reise
in Brasilien_, vol. i. p. 259; upon the negroes, Pruner, _Der Neger,
eine aphoristische Skizze aus der medicinischen Topographie von Cairo_.
In regard to the superiority in muscular vigor over all other races, see
Carus, _Ueber ungl. Bef._, p. 84.
NOTE TO THE PRECEDING CHAPTER.
The position and treatment of woman among the various races of men a
proof of their moral and intellectual diversity.
The reader will pardon me if to Mr. Gobineau's scale of gradation in
point of beauty and physical strength, I add another as accurate, I
think, if not more so, and certainly as interesting. I allude to the
manner in which the weaker sex is regarded and treated among the various
races of men.
In the words of Van Amringe, "from the brutal New Hollander, who secures
his wife by knocking her down with a club and dragging the prize to his
cave, to the polished European, who, fearfully, but respectfully and
assiduously, spends a probation of months or years for his better half,
the ascent may be traced with unfailing precision and accuracy." The
same writer correctly argues that if any principle could be inferred
from analogy to animals, it would certainly be a uniform treatment of
the female sex among all races of man; for animals are remarkably
uniform in the relations of the male and female in the same species. Yet
among some races of men _polygamy has always prevailed, among others
never_. Would not any naturalist consider as distinct species any
animals of the same genus so distinguished? This subject has not yet met
with due attention at the hands of ethnologists. "When we hear of a race
of men," says the same author, "being subjected to the tyranny of
another race, either by personal bondage or the more easy condition of
tribute, our sympathies are enlisted in their favor, and our constant
good wishes, if not our efforts, accompany them. But when we hear of
hundreds of millions of the truest and most tender-hearted of human
creatures being trodden down and trampled upon in everything that is
dear to the human heart, our sympathies, which are so freely expended on
slighter occasions or imaginary evils, are scarcely awakened to their
crushing woes."
With the writer from whom I have already made copious extracts, I
believe that the _moral and intellectual diversity_ of the races of men
cannot be thoroughly and accurately investigated without taking into
consideration the relations which most influence individual as well as
national progress and development, and which result from the position
occupied by woman towards man. This truth has not escaped former
investigators--it would be singular if it had--but they have contented
themselves with asserting that the condition of the female sex was
indicative of the degree of civilization. Had they said, of the
intrinsic worth of various races, I should cheerfully assent. But the
elevation or degradation of woman in the social scale is generally
regarded as a _result_, not a _cause_. It is said that all barbarians
treat their women as slaves; but, as they progress in civilization,
woman gradually rises to her legitimate rank.
For the sake of the argument, I shall assume that all now civilized
nations at first treated their women as the actual barbarians treat
theirs. That this is not so, I hope to place beyond doubt; but, assuming
it to be the case, might not the fact that some left off that
treatment, while others did not, be adduced as a proof of the inequality
of races? "The law of the relation of the sexes," says Van Amringe, "is
more deeply engraven upon human nature than any other; because, whatever
theories may be adopted in regard to the origin of society, languages,
etc., no doubt can be entertained that the _influence of woman must have
been anterior to any improvements of the original condition of man_.
Consequently it was antecedent and superior to education and government.
That these relations were powerfully instrumental in the origin of
development, to give it a direction and character according to the
natures operating and operated upon, cannot be doubted by any one who
has paid the slightest attention to domestic influences, from and under
which education, customs, and government commenced."
But I totally deny that all races, in their first state of development,
treated their women equally. There is not only no historical testimony
to prove that _any_ of the white races were ever in such a state of
barbarity and in such moral debasement as most of the dark races are to
this day, and have always been, but there is positive evidence to show
that our barbarous ancestors assigned to woman the same position we
assign her now: she was the companion, and not the slave, of man. I have
already alluded to this in a previous note on the Teutonic races; I
cannot, however, but revert to it again.
As I have not space for a lengthy discussion, I shall mention but one
fact, which I think conclusive, and which rests upon incontrovertible
historical testimony. "To a German mind," says Tacitus (Murphy's
transl., vol. vii. 8), "the idea of a woman led into captivity is
insupportable. In consequence of this prevailing sentiment, the states
which deliver as hostages the daughters of illustrious families are
bound by the most effectual obligations." Did this assertion rest on the
authority of Tacitus only, it might perhaps be called in question. It
might be said that the illustrious Roman had drawn an ideal picture,
etc. But Cæsar dealt with realities, not idealities; he was a shrewd,
practical statesman, and an able general; yet Cæsar _did_ take females
as hostages from the German tribes, in preference to men. Suppose Cæsar
had made war against the King of Ashantee, and taken away some of his
three thousand three hundred and thirty-three wives, the mystical number
being thus forcibly disturbed, might have alarmed the nation, whose
welfare is supposed to depend on it; but the misfortune would soon have
been remedied.
But it is possible to demonstrate not only that all races did not treat
their women equally in their first stage of development, but also that
no race which assigned to woman in the beginning an inferior position
ever raised her from it in any subsequent stage of development. I select
the Chinese for illustration, because they furnish us with an example of
a long-continued and regular intellectual progress,[172] which yet never
resulted in an alteration of woman's position in the social structure.
The decadent Chinese of our day look upon the female half of their
nation as did the rapidly advancing Chinese of the seventh and eighth
centuries; and the latter in precisely the same manner as their
barbarous ancestors, the subjects of the Emperor _Fou_, more than twenty
centuries before.
I repeat it, the relations of the sexes, in various races, are equally
dissimilar in every stage of development. The state of society may
change, the tendency of a race never. Faculties may be developed, but
never lost.
As the mothers and wives of our Teutonic ancestors were near the
battle-field, to administer refreshments to the wearied combatants, to
stanch the bleeding of their wounds, and to inspire with renewed courage
the despairing, so, in modern times, matrons and maidens of the highest
rank--worthy daughters of a heroic ancestry--have been found by
thousands ready to sacrifice the comforts and quiet of home for the
horrors of a hospital.[173] As the rude warrior of a former age won his
beloved by deeds of valor, so, to his civilized descendant, the hand of
his mistress is the prize and reward of exertion. The wives and mothers
of the ancient Germans and Celts were the counsellors of their sons and
husbands in the most important affairs; our wives and mothers are our
advisers in our more peaceful pursuits.
But the Arab, when he had arrived at the culminating point of his
civilization, and when he had become the teacher of our forefathers of
the Middle Ages in science and the arts, looked upon his many wives in
the same light as his roaming brother in the desert had done before, and
does now. I do not ask of all these races that they should assign to
their women the same rank that we do. If intellectual progress and
social development among them showed the slightest tendency to produce
ultimately an alteration in woman's position towards her lord, I might
be content to submit to the opinion of those who regard that position
as the effect of such a progress and such a development. But I cannot,
in the history of those races, perceive the slightest indication of such
a result, and all my observations lead me to the conclusion that the
relations between the sexes are a cause, and not an effect.
The character of the women of different races differs in essential
points. What a vast difference, for instance, between the females of the
rude crusaders who took possession of Constantinople, and the more
civilized Byzantine Greeks whom they so easily conquered; between the
heroic matron of barbarous Germany and the highly civilized Chinese
lady! These differences cannot be entirely the effect of education, else
we are forced to consider the female sex as mere automatons. They must
be the result of diversity of character. And why not, in the
investigation of the moral and intellectual diversity of races and the
natural history of man, take into consideration the peculiarities that
characterize the female portion of each race, a portion--I am forced to
make this trite observation, because so many investigators seem to
forget it--which comprises at least one-half of the individuals to be
described?--H.
FOOTNOTES:
[172] Because we now find the Chinese apparently stationary, many
persons unreflectingly conclude that they were always so; which would
presuppose that the Chinese were placed upon earth with the faculty of
making porcelain, gunpowder, paper, etc., somewhat after the manner in
which bees make their cells. But in the annals of the Chinese empire,
the date of many of their principal inventions is distinctly recorded.
There was a long period of vigorous intellectual activity among that
singular people, a period during which good books were written, and
ingenious inventions made in rapid succession. This period has ceased,
but the Chinese are not therefore stationary. They are _retrograding_.
No Chinese workman can now make porcelain equal to that of former ages,
which consequently bears an exorbitant price as an object of _virtû_.
The secret of many of their arts has been lost, the practice of all is
gradually deteriorating. No book of any note has been written these
hundreds of years in that great empire. Hence their passionate
attachment to everything old, which is not, as is so generally presumed,
the _cause_ of their stagnation: it is the _sign_ of intellectual
decadence, and the brake which prevents a still more rapid descent.
Whenever a nation begins to extravagantly prize the productions of
preceding ages, it is a confession that it can no longer equal them: it
has begun to retrograde. But the very retrogression is a proof that
there once was an opposite movement.
[173] The fearful scenes of blood which the beginning of our century
witnessed, had crowded the hospitals with wounded and dying.
Professional nurses could afford little help after battles like those of
Jena, of Eylau, of Feldbach, or of Leipsic. It was then that, in
Northern Germany, thousands of ladies of the first families sacrificed
their health, and, in too many instances, their lives, to the Christian
duty of charity. Many of the noble houses still mourn the loss of some
fair matron or maiden, who fell a victim to her self-devotion. In the
late war between Denmark and Prussia, the Danish ladies displayed an
equal zeal. Scutari also will be remembered in after ages as a monument
of what the women of our race can do. But why revert to the past, and to
distant scenes? Have we not daily proofs around us that the heroic
virtues of by-gone ages still live in ours?