in the present work. During the neolithic period, Europe was inhabited
by four distinct races, all of which are represented among the present
Aryan-speaking peoples of the continent. If the primitive Aryans are to
be identified with one of those races it must have imposed its speech
on the other three. Moreover, of those four races, two are decidedly
dolichocephalic, or long-headed, the other two being as decidedly
brachycephalic, or broad-headed. The latter are now represented by the
Slavo-Celtic, and the Ligurian, or Swiss and Savoyard, peoples; while
the present representatives of one primitive long-headed race are the
Swedes, the North Germans and the Friesians, and of the other, the
Corsicans, the Spanish Basques, and some of the Welsh and Irish. There
are grounds for believing, however, that the two dolichocephalic races
were derived from a single root, and that the two brachycephalic races
will ultimately be identified as one. There would thus be left only
two primitive stocks, one long-headed and the other short-headed, and
Dr. Taylor concludes, not only that the primitive Aryans belonged to
the latter, but that they were racially connected with the Finno-Ugric
tribes of Eastern Europe and Central Asia. He shows that the culture
of the Slavo-Celtic race, as exhibited in the round barrows of Britain
and the pile-dwellings of Central Europe, comes nearest to that of the
primitive Aryans, as disclosed by linguistic palæontology. Further,
that anthropologically this belongs to the same type as that of the
tall, fair, broad-headed Finno-Ugrian tribes; agreeably to which, the
grammatical resemblances between the Aryan languages and those of the
Ural-Altaic stock point to a primitive unity of speech.
There would seem to be no doubt that the greater part of Europe was
originally occupied by peoples of the long-headed type, and Dr. Taylor
conjectures "that at the close of the reindeer age a Finnic people
appeared in Western Europe, whose speech remaining stationary, is
represented by the agglutinative Basque, and that much later, at the
beginning of the pastoral age, when the ox had been tamed, a taller
and more powerful Finno-Ugrian people developed in Central Europe the
inflective Aryan speech." This theory requires that the non-Aryan
long-headed race should have acquired in some way the Aryan speech,
and it is not surprising that the North Germans reject the "Turanian"
theory accepted by the French and espoused by our author, and maintain
that the physical type of the primitive Aryans was that of their own
tall, fair, dolichocephalous race. On this view, the ancestors of
the brachycephalic Lithuanians, whose language best represents among
those of Europe the primitive Aryan speech, must have been Aryanised
by the ancestors of the Teutons, whose language approaches nearest to
the Lithuanian. Dr. Taylor points out, however, that this would leave
unexplained "how the speech of the brachycephalic Celts and Umbrians,
to say nothing of the Greeks, the Armenians, and the Indo-Iranians,
was obtained from that of the dolichocephalic Teutons; how a people
which in neolithic times was few in numbers, and in a low state of
culture, succeeded in Aryanising so many tribes more numerous and more
civilised."
The question arises as to how far this "Aryanising" process extended.
Was it limited to language or did it include certain physical
characters as well? As a fact the superficial characters of the tall
dolichocephalic type which, according to Nilsson and Von Düben, has
prevailed in Sweden continuously from the earliest times to the present
day, make an approach to the florid complexion, light eyes, and reddish
hair of the tall brachycephalic race. The former have lighter hair, a
whiter skin, and eyes of blue instead of gray, but these are just the
differences that might be expected, as the result of the admixture
of the Slavo-Celtic stock with that to which the famous Neanderthal
skull belongs, and which is now known as the Canstadt type. At the
same time it is possible that the difference in color as well as in
stature which distinguishes the tall from the short races belonging
to both the long-headed and the broad-headed stocks may be the result
of external influences, such as climate, food, and clothing, and the
general conditions of life in a mountainous or northern region. This
would apply at all events to the Teutonic or Scandinavian type, and
also to the Celto-Slavic which represents the primitive Aryan type, or
rather their Ugro-Finnic predecessors, if it is true, as Dr. Schrader
concludes, that the undivided Aryans had only two seasons, winter and
spring, or at most three. This fact does not necessarily imply that
they lived in a northern region; for the same climatic conditions could
be met with in a mountainous district. Dr. Schrader thinks, however,
that the precise region can be approximately indicated by reference
to the beech tree. We are told that this tree does not now grow east
of a line drawn from Königsberg to the Crimea, and its northern limit
must formerly have been still more restricted. Hence the cradle of
the Latin, Hellenic, and Teutonic races, which have the same name
for this tree, must have been to the west of the ancient beech-line.
But since the Slavo-Lithuanian name is a Teutonic loan-word, we must
place the cradle of the Lithuanians and the Slaves to the east of this
line. But since there are philological reasons for believing in the
unbroken geographical continuity of the European Aryans previous to the
linguistic separation, they must be placed in northern Europe astride
of the beech line; the Slavo-Lithuanian in European Russia; and the
Celts, Latins, Hellenes, and Teutons farther to the West. It may be
doubted, however, whether this necessarily indicates northern Europe
as the primitive Aryan home. Dr. Latham in his "Native Races of the
Russian Empire" insisted on Podolia being the region where Sanskrit
and Zend developed themselves, the Slavo-Lithuanic region lying to the
north and west of it. Curiously enough the beech-line passes directly
through Podolia, which might therefore claim to be the classic Aryan
abode. Too much stress should not be laid, however, on such an incident
as the occurrence of a particular name for a tree. It is quite possible
that the beech may not have been known to the brachycephalic Aryans
until after they came in contact with the dolichocephalic Teutons.
This would seem, indeed, to be required if the Ugro-Finnic origin of
the Aryans is well founded. At the same time it should be pointed out
that while, according to Keith Johnston's "Physical Atlas," the region
of deciduous trees extends as far east as the Aral Sea, Latham refers
the beech to the Caucasus as its special habitat; and the mountain
slopes of the Caucasus are shown by Peschel to be the best fitted
geographically for the original home of the Indo-European race.
After all the question of the _place_ of origin of the primitive
Aryans is not so important as that of their race affinities, on which,
indeed, the former question ultimately depends, and Dr. Taylor has
done well to follow up what he terms the "pregnant suggestion" of Dr.
Thurnam, the joint author with Dr. J. Barnard Davis of their great
work "Crania Britannica," as to the identification of the primitive
Aryans with the "Turanian" race of the British round barrows. That he
has conclusively established this point it would be rash to affirm,
but he has presented a very strong argument in its favor, which is not
weakened by Prof. Huxley's attempt to locate the fair dolichocephali
in Latham's Sarmatia, as the primitive Aryan race. It should not be
lost sight of, however, that the Ugro-Finnic relationship of the Aryans
would restore to them the Asiatic origin of which recent discussion
has tended to deprive them, for the Ugrians undoubtedly belong to the
Asiatic area. On the other hand, if Dr. Topinard, the distinguished
French anthropologist, is correct in his assertion that the Aryan blood
has disappeared, the question resolves itself into "a discussion of the
ethnical affinities of those numerous races which have acquired Aryan
speech." This is not our author's own opinion, although it is perhaps
countenanced by Cuno's maxim. We must leave here Dr. Taylor's work
which will be universally recognised as one of great merit, whatever
view may be taken as to the Aryans and their origin.
Ω.
INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF PHILOSOPHY. By _William T. Harris_. New
York: D. Appleton & Co., 1890.
The merits of Dr. William T. Harris in the awakening and the fostering
of philosophical interests in this country are extraordinary. As the
editor of the _Journal of Speculative Philosophy_ he has published
translations of the most effective and important chapters of the
European, mainly German, philosophers, and also original articles
by American thinkers. Among the latter we find contributions from
names of highest rank, as well as essays by the editor himself. Dr.
Harris was also one of the most brilliant lights of the Concord
School of Philosophy; indeed, he may be considered as its centre and
representative, for whatever divergence of thought may have appeared
in the Concord lectures, the general character of what goes by the
name of Concord Philosophy was determined by him. The present work
accordingly will command no common attention among those interested
in the historical growth of American thought and especially American
philosophy, it being a systematic arrangement of extracts made by
Marietta Kies from Professor Harris's essays, compiled for the purpose
of serving as a class-book at Mt. Holyoke Seminary and College.
However great may be the historical importance of Dr. Harris as the
Nestor of American philosophy, we cannot suppress our doubt as to
whether his philosophy can be recommended as a study for beginners.
Dr. Harris is too original a thinker, and his originality is not in
accord with the present time. His cast of mind may be characterised
as Hegelian; not that he should be called a follower of Hegel, but
his way of thinking follows in many respects the method of abstract
ratiocination pursued by that great German philosopher. Still, the
results of Dr. Harris are even in closer contact with the religious
ideas of Christianity than those of Hegel. We shall delineate here
a few characteristic traits of Dr. Harris's speculative thought:
"Philosophy attempts to find the necessary _a priori_ elements or
factors in experience, and arrange them into a system by deducing them
from a first principle." We should prefer according to the method of
positivism to derive the so-called _a priori_ or the "formal", and
with it the conditions of cognition, not from a first principle but
from the facts of experience. Dr. Harris calls Space, Time, Causality
"presuppositions of experience": they make experience possible. We
consider them as parts of experience as characteristic properties, and
our concepts of time, space, and causality have been abstracted from
experience. Dr. Harris says: "Space in limiting itself is infinite
... time is infinite, and yet it is the condition necessary to the
existence of events and changes.... The principle of causality implies
both time and space.... If we examine it, we shall see that it again
presupposes a ground deeper than itself. In order that a cause shall
send a stream of influence over to an effect, it must first separate
that portion of influence from itself. Self-separation is, then, the
fundamental presupposition of the action of causality.... Causa sui,
spontaneous origination of activity, is the ultimate presupposition
underlying all objects and each object of experience.... Causa
sui, or self-cause, is properly the principle _par excellence_ of
philosophy.... Here is the necessary ground of the idea of God."
In the last chapter Dr. Harris discusses "the immortality of man,"
denoting thereby the immortality of the individual and the continuance
of consciousness after death. He expresses his argument in admirable
terseness in the following sentence: "How is it possible that in
this world of perishable beings there can exist an immortal and
ever progressive being? Without the personality of God it would be
impossible, because an unconscious first principle would be incapable
of producing conscious being, or if they were produced, it would
overcome them as incongruous and inharmonious elements in the world.
It would finally draw all back into its image and reduce conscious
individuality to unconsciousness." This is a different solution of the
problem from that presented in the article "The Origin of Mind" in the
first number of this magazine.
Κ.
THE EVOLUTION OF SEX. By Prof. _Patrick Geddes_ and _J. Arthur
Thomson_. New York: Scribner & Welford.
The present work is in some sense a reproduction of the articles
"Reproduction," "Sex," and "Variation and Selection," contributed
by Professor Geddes to the most recent edition of the "Encyclopædia
Britannica." It goes further, however, and not only contains much
additional information, but the views of the authors on the factors
of organic evolution and on biology in general are more precisely
formulated and developed. The central thesis of the work, as stated
in the preface, is "in the first place, to present an outline of the
main processes for the continuance of organic life with such unity as
our present knowledge renders possible; and in the second, to point
the way toward the interpretation of these processes in those ultimate
biological terms which physiologists are already reaching as regards
the functions of individual life,—those of the constructive and
destructive changes (anabolism and katabolism) of living matter or
protoplasm." The authors seek to prepare the way for the restatement
of the theory of organic evolution, that of "definite variation,
with progress and survival essentially through the subordination of
individual struggle and development of species-maintaining ends."
Among the subjects treated of are Sexual characters and the
determination of Sex, the analysis of Sex-organs, tissues, and
cells—the nature and origin of Sex, and the processes and theory of
reproduction. This is a sufficiently broad field, and it embraces
various biological questions recently discussed, especially that of
sexual selection and the theories of Professor Weismann. The authors
claim that their view of the processes concerned with the maintenance
of the species leads necessarily to a profound alteration of the
conclusions usually held as to its origin. What is meant by this
statement appears from the last chapter, in which the reproductive
function as a factor in evolution is considered. Here it is stated that
the usual perspective which places the theory of natural selection in
the foreground, sexual selection being a mere harmonious corollary,
has to be reversed. Recent investigations on heredity "forbid that
attention should any longer be concentrated on the individual type,
or reproduction regarded as a mere repetition process; the living
continuity of the species is seen to be of more importance than the
individualities of the separate links.... The species is a continuous
undying chain of unicellular reproductive units, which indeed build
out of and around themselves transient multicellular bodies, but
the processes of nutritive differentiation and other individual
developments are secondary, not primary" (p. 308).
The study of the reproductive process is thus of supreme importance
for the understanding of organic evolution. What then is the authors'
theory of reproduction? It may be stated in the terms of their own
summary. The essential fact in reproduction is the separation of part
of the parent organism to start a fresh life. Hence, it begins with
rupture, a katabolic crisis, at which occurs cell-division, this
being always associated with the act of reproduction. This is favored
by katabolic conditions of the environment. The opposition between
nutrition and reproduction is the most obvious antithesis in nature
after that of life and death—with the latter of which, indeed, as has
been shown by Goette, reproduction is intimately associated—and it
may be stated in the terms that "as a continued surplus of anabolism
involves growth, so a relative preponderance of katabolism necessitates
reproduction" (p. 237).
The organic relation between nutrition and reproduction is thus
shown to be one of great importance, but its significance becomes
more apparent when it is seen, as pointed out by the authors, that
"throughout organic life there is a contrast or rhythm between growth
and multiplication, between nutrition and reproduction, corresponding
to the fundamental organic seesaw between anabolism and katabolism.
This contrast may be read in the distribution of organs, in the periods
of life, and in the different grades of reproduction; and the contrasts
between continuous growth and discontinuous multiplication, between
asexual and sexual reproduction, between parthenogenesis and sexuality,
between alternating generations, are all different expressions of the
fundamental antithesis" (p. 231). Elsewhere, the essential importance
is referred to of "the continual correlation, yet antithesis—the
action and reaction—of vegetative and reproductive processes in
alternate preponderance," to which the general rhythm of individual
and social life runs parallel. And yet this life is essentially
a unity, of which the specific characters are but the symptoms,
whatever may be "their subsequent measure of importance and utility in
adaptation, their modification by environment, their enhancement or
diminution by natural selection" (p. 314).
This conclusion as to the unity of the life of the individual
and that of the species, is based on the fact that nutrition and
reproduction are nearly akin. Hatschek goes so far, indeed, as to
affirm that nutrition is reproduction, an apparent paradox which is
justified by the statement that "not only do hunger and love become
indistinguishable in that equal-sided conjugation which has been
curiously called 'isophagy,' but nutrition in turn is nothing more than
continual reproduction of the protoplasm." The real unity is found
in the fact that anabolism and katabolism, which are the determining
factors of growth and reproduction, are the two sides of protoplasmic
life. This conclusion has an important bearing on the question of the
origin of sex. In his theory of _genoblasts_, or sexual elements, Minot
treats male and female as derivatives of primitive hermaphroditism
in two opposite directions, the differentiation taking place "by
the extrusion or separation of the contradictory elements, the ovum
getting rid of male polar globules, the sperm leaving behind a female
mother-cell remnant." The authors of the present work accept this
view, which however has become extremely improbable since Weismann
has called attention to the fact that the same process takes place
in the parthenogenetic summer-eggs of Daphnidae—a fact which has
been overlooked by our authors. They also adopt Rolph's view that
the less nutritive, and therefore smaller, hungrier, and more mobile
cells are what we call male; the more nutritive and usually more
quiescent cell being the female, as consistent with the conclusion
already inferred from other facts that "the female is the outcome and
expression of preponderant anabolism, and in contrast the male of
predominant katabolism" (p. 132). This conclusion is elsewhere stated
as that "the males live at a loss, are more _katabolic_,—disruptive
changes tending to preponderate in the sum of changes in their living
matter or protoplasm. The females, on the other hand, live at a
profit, are more _anabolic_,—constructive processes predominating in
their life, whence indeed the capacity of bearing offspring" (p. 26).
Here is the same contrast as that seen in the alternating phases of
cell-life, of activity and repose, and in the great antithesis between
growth and reproduction. The argument is put into diagrammatic form,
where the sum-total of the functions are divided into nutritive and
reproductive, the former into anabolic and katabolic processes, and
the latter into male and female activities. This theory of Rolph, if
it contains a grain of truth, needs a thorough revision; and the same
may be said about the authors' special theory, which is, that there is
a parallelism in the two sets of processes, "the male reproduction is
associated with preponderating katabolism, and the female with relative
anabolism, according to which view both primary and secondary sexual
characters express the fundamental physiological bias characteristic
of either sex" (p. 27). This has a special bearing on the question
of sexual selection, the true relation of which to natural selection,
according to the authors of the present work, must be expressed in
their own words. It is embodied in the conclusion that sexual selection
is a minor accelerant, natural selection a retarding 'brake,' "on
the differentiation of sexual characters, which essentially find a
constitutional or organismal origin in the katabolic or anabolic
diathesis which preponderates in males and females respectively" (p.
31).
Before concluding this notice, it may be pointed out what are the
particular conditions on which the determination of sex depends, in
regard to any given organism. The various suggestions proposed as to
the influence of parents, according to age or otherwise, the time
of fertilisation, Starkweather's law that sex is determined by the
superior parent, and that the superior parent produces the opposite
sex, and Düsing's theory as to the regulation of the proportions of the
sexes, are referred to by the authors and either rejected or considered
as insufficient. The conclusion they arrive at after considering
the influence of nutrition, temperature, and other conditions, is,
that adverse circumstances affecting the parents, especially of
nutrition, but also age and the like, tend to the production of males,
the reverse conditions favoring females; a highly nourished ovum
and fertilisation when the ovum is fresh and vigorous, tend to the
development of a female rather than of a male. Further, the longer the
period of sexual indifference continues, the more important become the
outside factors, and here again "favorable conditions of nutrition,
temperature, and the like, tend toward the production of females; the
reverse increase the probability of male preponderance." This agrees
with the conclusion independently arrived at that the male germs are
"of smaller size, more active habit, higher temperature, shorter life,
and the females the larger, more passive, vegetative, and conservative
forms" (pp. 50, 51). Thus the authors' proposition that the male is
the outcome of predominant katabolism, and the female of equally
emphatic anabolism, might seem to be justified, and it is confirmed
by the curious phenomenon of alternation of generations, and by
various facts connected with growth and reproduction. However, it does
not definitively exclude the theory (see Dr. Heinrich Janke's work.
Stuttgart, 1889) that the male is the outcome of katabolism of the male
element coincident with _anabolism_ of the female element, and the
female of the opposite state.