ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE INTELLECTUAL AND MORAL FACULTIES DURING
PRIMEVAL AND CIVILISED TIMES.
The advancement of the intellectual powers through natural
selection--Importance of imitation--Social and moral
faculties--Their development within the limits of the same
tribe--Natural selection as affecting civilised
nations--Evidence that civilised nations were once barbarous.
The subjects to be discussed in this chapter are of the highest
interest, but are treated by me in a most imperfect and fragmentary
manner. Mr. Wallace, in an admirable paper before referred to,[221]
argues that man after he had partially acquired those intellectual and
moral faculties which distinguish him from the lower animals, would have
been but little liable to have had his bodily structure modified through
natural selection or any other means. For man is enabled through his
mental faculties "to keep with an unchanged body in harmony with the
changing universe." He has great power of adapting his habits to new
conditions of life. He invents weapons, tools and various stratagems, by
which he procures food and defends himself. When he migrates into a
colder climate he uses clothes, builds sheds, and makes fires; and, by
the aid of fire, cooks food otherwise indigestible. He aids his
fellow-men in many ways, and anticipates future events. Even at a remote
period he practised some subdivision of labour.
The lower animals, on the other hand, must have their bodily structure
modified in order to survive under greatly changed conditions. They must
be rendered stronger, or acquire more effective teeth or claws, in order
to defend themselves from new enemies; or they must be reduced in size
so as to escape detection and danger. When they migrate into a colder
climate they must become clothed with thicker fur, or have their
constitutions altered. If they fail to be thus modified, they will cease
to exist.
The case, however, is widely different, as Mr. Wallace has with justice
insisted, in relation to the intellectual and moral faculties of man.
These faculties are variable; and we have every reason to believe that
the variations tend to be inherited. Therefore, if they were formerly of
high importance to primeval man and to his ape-like progenitors, they
would have been perfected or advanced through natural selection. Of the
high importance of the intellectual faculties there can be no doubt, for
man mainly owes to them his preeminent position in the world. We can
see that, in the rudest state of society, the individuals who were the
most sagacious, who invented and used the best weapons or traps, and who
were best able to defend themselves, would rear the greatest number of
offspring. The tribes which included the largest number of men thus
endowed would increase in number and supplant other tribes. Numbers
depend primarily on the means of subsistence, and this, partly on the
physical nature of the country, but in a much higher degree on the arts
which are there practised. As a tribe increases and is victorious, it is
often still further increased by the absorption of other tribes.[222]
The stature and strength of the men of a tribe are likewise of some
importance for its success, and these depend in part on the nature and
amount of the food which can be obtained. In Europe the men of the
Bronze period were supplanted by a more powerful and, judging from their
sword-handles, larger-handed race;[223] but their success was probably
due in a much higher degree to their superiority in the arts.
All that we know about savages, or may infer from their traditions and
from old monuments, the history of which is quite forgotten by the
present inhabitants, shew that from the remotest times successful tribes
have supplanted other tribes. Relics of extinct or forgotten tribes have
been discovered throughout the civilised regions of the earth, on the
wild plains of America, and on the isolated islands in the Pacific
Ocean. At the present day civilised nations are everywhere supplanting
barbarous nations, excepting where the climate opposes a deadly barrier;
and they succeed mainly, though not exclusively, through their arts,
which are the products of the intellect. It is, therefore, highly
probable that with mankind the intellectual faculties have been
gradually perfected through natural selection; and this conclusion is
sufficient for our purpose. Undoubtedly it would have been very
interesting to have traced the development of each separate faculty from
the state in which it exists in the lower animals to that in which it
exists in man; but neither my ability nor knowledge permit the attempt.
It deserves notice that as soon as the progenitors of man became social
(and this probably occurred at a very early period), the advancement of
the intellectual faculties will have been aided and modified in an
important manner, of which we see only traces in the lower animals,
namely, through the principle of imitation, together with reason and
experience. Apes are much given to imitation, as are the lowest savages;
and the simple fact previously referred to, that after a time no animal
can be caught in the same place by the same sort of trap, shews that
animals learn by experience, and imitate each others' caution. Now, if
some one man in a tribe, more sagacious than the others, invented a new
snare or weapon, or other means of attack or defence, the plainest
self-interest, without the assistance of much reasoning power, would
prompt the other members to imitate him; and all would thus profit. The
habitual practice of each new art must likewise in some slight degree
strengthen the intellect. If the new invention were an important one,
the tribe would increase in number, spread, and supplant other tribes.
In a tribe thus rendered more numerous there would always be a rather
better chance of the birth of other superior and inventive members. If
such men left children to inherit their mental superiority, the chance
of the birth of still more ingenious members would be somewhat better,
and in a very small tribe decidedly better. Even if they left no
children, the tribe would still include their blood-relations; and it
has been ascertained by agriculturists[224] that by preserving and
breeding from the family of an animal, which when slaughtered was found
to be valuable, the desired character has been obtained.
Turning now to the social and moral faculties. In order that primeval
men, or the ape-like progenitors of man, should have become social, they
must have acquired the same instinctive feelings which impel other
animals to live in a body; and they no doubt exhibited the same general
disposition. They would have felt uneasy when separated from their
comrades, for whom they would have felt some degree of love; they would
have warned each other of danger, and have given mutual aid in attack or
defence. All this implies some degree of sympathy, fidelity, and
courage. Such social qualities, the paramount importance of which to the
lower animals is disputed by no one, were no doubt acquired by the
progenitors of man in a similar manner, namely, through natural
selection, aided by inherited habit. When two tribes of primeval man,
living in the same country, came into competition, if the one tribe
included (other circumstances being equal) a greater number of
courageous, sympathetic, and faithful members, who were always ready to
warn each other of danger, to aid and defend each other, this tribe
would without doubt succeed best and conquer the other. Let it be borne
in mind how all-important, in the never-ceasing wars of savages,
fidelity and courage must be. The advantage which disciplined soldiers
have over undisciplined hordes follows chiefly from the confidence which
each man feels in his comrades. Obedience, as Mr. Bagehot has well
shewn,[225] is of the highest value, for any form of government is
better than none. Selfish and contentious people will not cohere, and
without coherence nothing can be effected. A tribe possessing the above
qualities in a high degree would spread and be victorious over other
tribes; but in the course of time it would, judging from all past
history, be in its turn overcome by some other and still more highly
endowed tribe. Thus the social and moral qualities would tend slowly to
advance and be diffused throughout the world.
But it may be asked, how within the limits of the same tribe did a large
number of members first become endowed with these social and moral
qualities, and how was the standard of excellence raised? It is
extremely doubtful whether the offspring of the more sympathetic and
benevolent parents, or of those which were the most faithful to their
comrades, would be reared in greater number than the children of selfish
and treacherous parents of the same tribe. He who was ready to sacrifice
his life, as many a savage has been, rather than betray his comrades,
would often leave no offspring to inherit his noble nature. The bravest
men, who were always willing to come to the front in war, and who freely
risked their lives for others, would on an average perish in larger
number than other men. Therefore it seems scarcely possible (bearing in
mind that we are not here speaking of one tribe being victorious over
another) that the number of men gifted with such virtues, or that the
standard of their excellence, could be increased through natural
selection, that is, by the survival of the fittest.
Although the circumstances which lead to an increase in the number of
men thus endowed within the same tribe are too complex to be clearly
followed out, we can trace some of the probable steps. In the first
place, as the reasoning powers and foresight of the members became
improved, each man would soon learn from experience that if he aided his
fellow-men, he would commonly receive aid in return. From this low
motive he might acquire the habit of aiding his fellows; and the habit
of performing benevolent actions certainly strengthens the feeling of
sympathy, which gives the first impulse to benevolent actions. Habits,
moreover, followed during many generations probably tend to be
inherited.
But there is another and much more powerful stimulus to the development
of the social virtues, namely, the praise and the blame of our
fellow-men. The love of approbation and the dread of infamy, as well as
the bestowal of praise or blame, are primarily due, as we have seen in
the third chapter, to the instinct of sympathy; and this instinct no
doubt was originally acquired, like all the other social instincts,
through natural selection. At how early a period the progenitors of man,
in the course of their development, became capable of feeling and being
impelled by the praise or blame of their fellow-creatures, we cannot, of
course, say. But it appears that even dogs appreciate encouragement,
praise, and blame. The rudest savages feel the sentiment of glory, as
they clearly show by preserving the trophies of their prowess, by their
habit of excessive boasting, and even by the extreme care which they
take of their personal appearance and decorations; for unless they
regarded the opinion of their comrades, such habits would be senseless.
They certainly feel shame at the breach of some of their lesser rules;
but how far they experience remorse is doubtful. I was at first
surprised that I could not recollect any recorded instances of this
feeling in savages; and Sir J. Lubbock[226] states that he knows of
none. But if we banish from our minds all cases given in novels and
plays and in death-bed confessions made to priests, I doubt whether many
of us have actually witnessed remorse; though we may have often seen
shame and contrition for smaller offences. Remorse is a deeply hidden
feeling. It is incredible that a savage, who will sacrifice his life
rather than betray his tribe, or one who will deliver himself up as a
prisoner rather than break his parole,[227] would not feel remorse in
his inmost soul, though he might conceal it, if he had failed in a duty
which he held sacred.
We may therefore conclude that primeval man, at a very remote period,
would have been influenced by the praise and blame of his fellows. It is
obvious, that the members of the same tribe would approve of conduct
which appeared to them to be for the general good, and would reprobate
that which appeared evil. To do good unto others--to do unto others as
ye would they should do unto you,--is the foundation-stone of morality.
It is, therefore, hardly possible to exaggerate the importance during
rude times of the love of praise and the dread of blame. A man who was
not impelled by any deep, instinctive feeling, to sacrifice his life for
the good of others, yet was roused to such actions by a sense of glory,
would by his example excite the same wish for glory in other men, and
would strengthen by exercise the noble feeling of admiration. He might
thus do far more good to his tribe than by begetting offspring with a
tendency to inherit his own high character.
With increased experience and reason, man perceives the more remote
consequences of his actions, and the self-regarding virtues, such as
temperance, chastity, &c., which during early times are, as we have
before seen, utterly disregarded, come to be highly esteemed or even
held sacred. I need not, however, repeat what I have said on this head
in the third chapter. Ultimately a highly complex sentiment, having its
first origin in the social instincts, largely guided by the approbation
of our fellow-men, ruled by reason, self-interest, and in later times by
deep religious feelings, confirmed by instruction and habit, all
combined, constitute our moral sense or conscience.
It must not be forgotten that although a high standard of morality gives
but a slight or no advantage to each individual man and his children
over the other men of the same tribe, yet that an advancement in the
standard of morality and an increase in the number of well-endowed men
will certainly give an immense advantage to one tribe over another.
There can be no doubt that a tribe including many members who, from
possessing in a high degree the spirit of patriotism, fidelity,
obedience, courage, and sympathy, were always ready to give aid to each
other and to sacrifice themselves for the common good, would be
victorious over most other tribes; and this would be natural selection.
At all times throughout the world tribes have supplanted other tribes;
and as morality is one element in their success, the standard of
morality and the number of well-endowed men will thus everywhere tend to
rise and increase.
It is, however, very difficult to form any judgment why one particular
tribe and not another has been successful and has risen in the scale of
civilisation. Many savages are in the same condition as when first
discovered several centuries ago. As Mr. Bagehot has remarked, we are
apt to look at progress as the normal rule in human society; but history
refutes this. The ancients did not even entertain the idea; nor do the
oriental nations at the present day. According to another high
authority, Mr. Maine,[228] "the greatest part of mankind has never
shewn a particle of desire that its civil institutions should be
improved." Progress seems to depend on many concurrent favourable
conditions, far too complex to be followed out. But it has often been
remarked, that a cool climate from leading to industry and the various
arts has been highly favourable, or even indispensable for this end. The
Esquimaux, pressed by hard necessity, have succeeded in many ingenious
inventions, but their climate has been too severe for continued
progress. Nomadic habits, whether over wide plains, or through the dense
forests of the tropics, or along the shores of the sea, have in every
case been highly detrimental. Whilst observing the barbarous inhabitants
of Tierra del Fuego, it struck me that the possession of some property,
a fixed abode, and the union of many families under a chief, were the
indispensable requisites for civilisation. Such habits almost
necessitate the cultivation of the ground; and the first steps in
cultivation would probably result, as I have elsewhere shewn,[229] from
some such accident as the seeds of a fruit-tree falling on a heap of
refuse and producing an unusually fine variety. The problem, however, of
the first advance of savages towards civilisation is at present much too
difficult to be solved.
_Natural Selection as affecting Civilised Nations._--In the last and
present chapters I have considered the advancement of man from a former
semi-human condition to his present state as a barbarian. But some
remarks on the agency of natural selection on civilised nations may be
here worth adding. This subject has been ably discussed by Mr. W. R.
Greg,[230] and previously by Mr. Wallace and Mr. Galton.[231] Most of
my remarks are taken from these three authors. With savages, the weak in
body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly
exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand,
do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for
the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our
medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to
the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has
preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have
succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies
propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of
domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the
race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly
directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in
the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his
worst animals to breed.
The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an
incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally
acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in
the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused.
Nor could we check our sympathy, if so urged by hard reason, without
deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden
himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting
for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the
weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with a
certain and great present evil. Hence we must bear without complaining
the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their
kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action,
namely the weaker and inferior members of society not marrying so freely
as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased, though
this is more to be hoped for than expected, by the weak in body or mind
refraining from marriage.
In all civilised countries man accumulates property and bequeaths it to
his children. So that the children in the same country do not by any
means start fair in the race for success. But this is far from an
unmixed evil; for without the accumulation of capital the arts could not
progress; and it is chiefly through their power that the civilised races
have extended, and are now everywhere extending, their range, so as to
take the place of the lower races. Nor does the moderate accumulation of
wealth interfere with the process of selection. When a poor man becomes
rich, his children enter trades or professions in which there is
struggle enough, so that the able in body and mind succeed best. The
presence of a body of well-instructed men, who have not to labour for
their daily bread, is important to a degree which cannot be
over-estimated; as all high intellectual work is carried on by them, and
on such work material progress of all kinds mainly depends, not to
mention other and higher advantages. No doubt wealth when very great
tends to convert men into useless drones, but their number is never
large; and some degree of elimination here occurs, as we daily see rich
men, who happen to be fools or profligate, squandering away all their
wealth.
Primogeniture with entailed estates is a more direct evil, though it may
formerly have been a great advantage by the creation of a dominant
class, and any government is better than anarchy. The eldest sons,
though they may be weak in body or mind, generally marry, whilst the
younger sons, however superior in these respects, do not so generally
marry. Nor can worthless eldest sons with entailed estates squander
their wealth. But here, as elsewhere, the relations of civilised life
are so complex that some compensatory checks intervene. The men who are
rich through primogeniture are able to select generation after
generation the more beautiful and charming women; and these must
generally be healthy in body and active in mind. The evil consequences,
such as they may be, of the continued preservation of the same line of
descent, without any selection, are checked by men of rank always
wishing to increase their wealth and power; and this they effect by
marrying heiresses. But the daughters of parents who have produced
single children, are themselves, as Mr. Galton has shewn,[232] apt to be
sterile; and thus noble families are continually cut off in the direct
line, and their wealth flows into some side channel; but unfortunately
this channel is not determined by superiority of any kind.
Although civilisation thus checks in many ways the action of natural
selection, it apparently favours, by means of improved food and the
freedom from occasional hardships, the better development of the body.
This may be inferred from civilised men having been found, wherever
compared, to be physically stronger than savages. They appear also to
have equal powers of endurance, as has been proved in many adventurous
expeditions. Even the great luxury of the rich can be but little
detrimental; for the expectation of life of our aristocracy, at all ages
and of both sexes, is very little inferior to that of healthy English
lives in the lower classes.[233]
We will now look to the intellectual faculties alone. If in each grade
of society the members were divided into two equal bodies, the one
including the intellectually superior and the other the inferior, there
can be little doubt that the former would succeed best in all
occupations and rear a greater number of children. Even in the lowest
walks of life, skill and ability must be of some advantage, though in
many occupations, owing to the great division of labour, a very small
one. Hence in civilised nations there will be some tendency to an
increase both in the number and in the standard of the intellectually
able. But I do not wish to assert that this tendency may not be more
than counterbalanced in other ways, as by the multiplication of the
reckless and improvident; but even to such as these, ability must be
some advantage.
It has often been objected to views like the foregoing, that the most
eminent men who have ever lived have left no offspring to inherit their
great intellect. Mr. Galton says,[234] "I regret I am unable to solve
the simple question whether, and how far, men and women who are
prodigies of genius are infertile. I have, however, shewn that men of
eminence are by no means so."
Great lawgivers, the founders of beneficent religions, great
philosophers and discoverers in science, aid the progress of mankind in
a far higher degree by their works than by leaving a numerous progeny.
In the case of corporeal structures, it is the selection of the slightly
better-endowed and the elimination of the slightly less well-endowed
individuals, and not the preservation of strongly-marked and rare
anomalies, that leads to the advancement of a species.[235] So it will
be with the intellectual faculties, namely from the somewhat more able
men in each grade of society succeeding rather better than the less
able, and consequently increasing in number, if not otherwise prevented.
When in any nation the standard of intellect and the number of
intellectual men have increased, we may expect from the law of the
deviation from an average, as shewn by Mr. Galton, that prodigies of
genius will appear somewhat more frequently than before.
In regard to the moral qualities, some elimination of the worst
dispositions is always in progress even in the most civilised nations.
Malefactors are executed, or imprisoned for long periods, so that they
cannot freely transmit their bad qualities. Melancholic and insane
persons are confined, or commit suicide. Violent and quarrelsome men
often come to a bloody end. Restless men who will not follow any steady
occupation--and this relic of barbarism is a great check to
civilisation[236]--emigrate to newly-settled countries, where they prove
useful pioneers. Intemperance is so highly destructive, that the
expectation of life of the intemperate, at the age, for instance, of
thirty, is only 13.8 years; whilst for the rural labourers of England at
the same age it is 40.59 years.[237] Profligate women bear few children,
and profligate men rarely marry; both suffer from disease. In the
breeding of domestic animals, the elimination of those individuals,
though few in number, which are in any marked manner inferior, is by no
means an unimportant element towards success. This especially holds good
with injurious characters which tend to reappear through reversion, such
as blackness in sheep; and with mankind some of the worst dispositions,
which occasionally without any assignable cause make their appearance in
families, may perhaps be reversions to a savage state, from which we are
not removed by very many generations. This view seems indeed recognised
in the common expression that such men are the black sheep of the
family.
With civilised nations, as far as an advanced standard of morality, and
an increased number of fairly well-endowed men are concerned, natural
selection apparently effects but little; though the fundamental social
instincts were originally thus gained. But I have already said enough,
whilst treating of the lower races, on the causes which lead to the
advance of morality, namely, the approbation of our fellow-men--the
strengthening of our sympathies by habit--example and imitation--
reason--experience and even self-interest--instruction during
youth, and religious feelings.
A most important obstacle in civilised countries to an increase in the
number of men of a superior class has been strongly urged by Mr. Greg
and Mr. Galton,[238] namely, the fact that the very poor and reckless,
who are often degraded by vice, almost invariably marry early, whilst
the careful and frugal, who are generally otherwise virtuous, marry late
in life, so that they may be able to support themselves and their
children in comfort. Those who marry early produce within a given period
not only a greater number of generations, but, as shewn by Dr.
Duncan,[239] they produce many more children. The children, moreover,
that are born by mothers during the prime of life are heavier and
larger, and therefore probably more vigorous, than those born at other
periods. Thus the reckless, degraded, and often vicious members of
society, tend to increase at a quicker rate than the provident and
generally virtuous members. Or as Mr. Greg puts the case: "The careless,
squalid, unaspiring Irishman multiplies like rabbits: the frugal,
foreseeing, self-respecting, ambitious Scot, stern in his morality,
spiritual in his faith, sagacious and disciplined in his intelligence,
passes his best years in struggle and in celibacy, marries late, and
leaves few behind him. Given a land originally peopled by a thousand
Saxons and a thousand Celts--and in a dozen generations five-sixths of
the population would be Celts, but five-sixths of the property, of the
power, of the intellect, would belong to the one-sixth of Saxons that
remained. In the eternal 'struggle for existence,' it would be the
inferior and _less_ favoured race that had prevailed--and prevailed by
virtue not of its good qualities but of its faults."
There are, however, some checks to this downward tendency. We have seen
that the intemperate suffer from a high rate of mortality, and the
extremely profligate leave few offspring. The poorest classes crowd into
towns, and it has been proved by Dr. Stark from the statistics of ten
years in Scotland,[240] that at all ages the death-rate is higher in
towns than in rural districts, "and during the first five years of life
the town death-rate is almost exactly double that of the rural
districts." As these returns include both the rich and the poor, no
doubt more than double the number of births would be requisite to keep
up the number of the very poor inhabitants in the towns, relatively to
those in the country. With women, marriage at too early an age is highly
injurious; for it has been found in France that, "twice as many wives
under twenty die in the year, as died out of the same number of the
unmarried." The mortality, also, of husbands under twenty is
"excessively high,"[241] but what the cause of this may be seems
doubtful. Lastly, if the men who prudently delay marrying until they can
bring up their families in comfort, were to select, as they often do,
women in the prime of life, the rate of increase in the better class
would be only slightly lessened.
It was established from an enormous body of statistics, taken during
1853, that the unmarried men throughout France, between the ages of
twenty and eighty, die in a much larger proportion than the married: for
instance, out of every 1000 unmarried men, between the ages of twenty
and thirty, 11.3 annually died, whilst of the married only 6.5
died.[242] A similar law was proved to hold good, during the years 1863
and 1864, with the entire population above the age of twenty in
Scotland: for instance, out of every 1000 unmarried men, between the
ages of twenty and thirty, 14.97 annually died, whilst of the married
only 7.24 died, that is less than half.[243] Dr. Stark remarks on this,
"Bachelorhood is more destructive to life than the most unwholesome
trades, or than residence in an unwholesome house or district where
there has never been the most distant attempt at sanitary improvement."
He considers that the lessened mortality is the direct result of
"marriage, and the more regular domestic habits which attend that
state." He admits, however, that the intemperate, profligate, and
criminal classes, whose duration of life is low, do not commonly marry;
and it must likewise be admitted that men with a weak constitution,
ill health, or any great infirmity in body or mind, will often not wish
to marry, or will be rejected. Dr. Stark seems to have come to the
conclusion that marriage in itself is a main cause of prolonged life,
from finding that aged married men still have a considerable advantage
in this respect over the unmarried of the same advanced age; but every
one must have known instances of men, who with weak health during youth
did not marry, and yet have survived to old age, though remaining weak
and therefore always with a lessened chance of life. There is another
remarkable circumstance which seems to support Dr. Stark's conclusion,
namely, that widows and widowers in France suffer in comparison with the
married a very heavy rate of mortality; but Dr. Farr attributes this to
the poverty and evil habits consequent on the disruption of the family,
and to grief. On the whole we may conclude with Dr. Farr that the lesser
mortality of married than of unmarried men, which seems to be a general
law, "is mainly due to the constant elimination of imperfect types, and
to the skilful selection of the finest individuals out of each
successive generation;" the selection relating only to the marriage
state, and acting on all corporeal, intellectual, and moral qualities.
We may, therefore, infer that sound and good men who out of prudence
remain for a time unmarried do not suffer a high rate of mortality.
If the various checks specified in the two last paragraphs, and perhaps
others as yet unknown, do not prevent the reckless, the vicious and
otherwise inferior members of society from increasing at a quicker rate
than the better class of men, the nation will retrograde, as has
occurred too often in the history of the world. We must remember that
progress is no invariable rule. It is most difficult to say why one
civilised nation rises, becomes more powerful, and spreads more widely,
than another; or why the same nation progresses more at one time than at
another. We can only say that it depends on an increase in the actual
number of the population, on the number of the men endowed with high
intellectual and moral faculties, as well as on their standard of
excellence. Corporeal structure, except so far as vigour of body leads
to vigour of mind, appears to have little influence.
It has been urged by several writers that as high intellectual powers
are advantageous to a nation, the old Greeks, who stood some grades
higher in intellect than any race that has ever existed,[244] ought to
have risen, if the power of natural selection were real, still higher
in the scale, increased in number, and stocked the whole of Europe. Here
we have the tacit assumption, so often made with respect to corporeal
structures, that there is some innate tendency towards continued
development in mind and body. But development of all kinds depends on
many concurrent favourable circumstances. Natural selection acts only in
a tentative manner. Individuals and races may have acquired certain
indisputable advantages, and yet have perished from failing in other
characters. The Greeks may have retrograded from a want of coherence
between the many small states, from the small size of their whole
country, from the practice of slavery, or from extreme sensuality; for
they did not succumb until "they were enervated and corrupt to the very
core."[245] The western nations of Europe, who now so immeasurably
surpass their former savage progenitors and stand at the summit of
civilisation, owe little or none of their superiority to direct
inheritance from the old Greeks; though they owe much to the written
works of this wonderful people.
Who can positively say why the Spanish nation, so dominant at one time,
has been distanced in the race. The awakening of the nations of Europe
from the dark ages is a still more perplexing problem. At this early
period, as Mr. Galton[246] has remarked, almost all the men of a gentle
nature, those given to meditation or culture of the mind, had no refuge
except in the bosom of the Church which demanded celibacy; and this
could hardly fail to have had a deteriorating influence on each
successive generation. During this same period the Holy Inquisition
selected with extreme care the freest and boldest men in order to burn
or imprison them. In Spain alone some of the best men--those who doubted
and questioned, and without doubting there can be no progress--were
eliminated during three centuries at the rate of a thousand a year. The
evil which the Catholic Church has thus effected, though no doubt
counterbalanced to a certain, perhaps large extent in other ways, is
incalculable; nevertheless, Europe has progressed at an unparalleled
rate.
The remarkable success of the English as colonists over other European
nations, which is well illustrated by comparing the progress of the
Canadians of English and French extraction, has been ascribed to their
"daring and persistent energy;" but who can say how the English gained
their energy. There is apparently much truth in the belief that the
wonderful progress of the United States, as well as the character of the
people, are the results of natural selection; the more energetic,
restless, and courageous men from all parts of Europe having emigrated
during the last ten or twelve generations to that great country, and
having there succeeded best.[247] Looking to the distant future, I do
not think that the Rev. Mr. Zincke takes an exaggerated view when he
says:[248] "All other series of events--as that which resulted in the
culture of mind in Greece, and that which resulted in the empire of
Rome--only appear to have purpose and value when viewed in connection
with, or rather as subsidiary to ... the great stream of Anglo-Saxon
emigration to the west."
Obscure as is the problem of the advance of civilisation, we can at
least see that a nation which produced during a lengthened period the
greatest number of highly intellectual, energetic, brave, patriotic, and
benevolent men, would generally prevail over less favoured nations.
Natural selection follows from the struggle for existence; and this from
a rapid rate of increase. It is impossible not bitterly to regret, but
whether wisely is another question, the rate at which man tends to
increase; for this leads in barbarous tribes to infanticide and many
other evils, and in civilised nations to abject poverty, celibacy, and
to the late marriages of the prudent. But as man suffers from the same
physical evils with the lower animals, he has no right to expect an
immunity from the evils consequent on the struggle for existence. Had he
not been subjected to natural selection, assuredly he would never have
attained to the rank of manhood. When we see in many parts of the world
enormous areas of the most fertile land peopled by a few wandering
savages, but which are capable of supporting numerous happy homes, it
might be argued that the struggle for existence had not been
sufficiently severe to force man upwards to his highest standard.
Judging from all that we know of man and the lower animals, there has
always been sufficient variability in the intellectual and moral
faculties, for their steady advancement through natural selection. No
doubt such advancement demands many favourable concurrent circumstances;
but it may well be doubted whether the most favourable would have
sufficed, had not the rate of increase been rapid, and the consequent
struggle for existence severe to an extreme degree.
_On the evidence that all civilised nations were once barbarous._--As we
have had to consider the steps by which some semi-human creature has
been gradually raised to the rank of man in his most perfect state, the
present subject cannot be quite passed over. But it has been treated in
so full and admirable a manner by Sir J. Lubbock,[249] Mr. Tylor, Mr.
M'Lennan, and others, that I need here give only the briefest summary of
their results. The arguments recently advanced by the Duke of
Argyll[250] and formerly by Archbishop Whately, in favour of the belief
that man came into the world as a civilised being and that all savages
have since undergone degradation, seem to me weak in comparison with
those advanced on the other side. Many nations, no doubt, have fallen
away in civilisation, and some may have lapsed into utter barbarism,
though on this latter head I have not met with any evidence. The
Fuegians were probably compelled by other conquering hordes to settle in
their inhospitable country, and they may have become in consequence
somewhat more degraded; but it would be difficult to prove that they
have fallen much below the Botocudos who inhabit the finest parts of
Brazil.
The evidence that all civilised nations are the descendants of
barbarians, consists, on the one side, of clear traces of their former
low condition in still-existing customs, beliefs, language, &c.; and on
the other side, of proofs that savages are independently able to raise
themselves a few steps in the scale of civilisation, and have actually
thus risen. The evidence on the first head is extremely curious, but
cannot be here given: I refer to such cases as that, for instance, of
the art of enumeration, which, as Mr. Tylor clearly shews by the words
still used in some places, originated in counting the fingers, first of
one hand and then of the other, and lastly of the toes. We have traces
of this in our own decimal system, and in the Roman numerals, which
after reaching to the number V., change into VI., &c., when the other
hand no doubt was used. So again, "when we speak of three-score and ten,
we are counting by the vigesimal system, each score thus ideally made,
standing for 20--for 'one man' as a Mexican or Carib would put it."[251]
According to a large and increasing school of philologists, every
language bears the marks of its slow and gradual evolution. So it is
with the art of writing, as letters are rudiments of pictorial
representations. It is hardly possible to read Mr. M'Lennan's work[252]
and not admit that almost all civilised nations still retain some traces
of such rude habits as the forcible capture of wives. What ancient
nation, as the same author asks, can be named that was originally
monogamous? The primitive idea of justice, as shewn by the law of battle
and other customs of which traces still remain, was likewise most rude.
Many existing superstitions are the remnants of former false religious
beliefs. The highest form of religion--the grand idea of God hating sin
and loving righteousness--was unknown during primeval times.
Turning to the other kind of evidence: Sir J. Lubbock has shewn that
some savages have recently improved a little in some of their simpler
arts. From the extremely curious account which he gives of the weapons,
tools, and arts, used or practised by savages in various parts of the
world, it cannot be doubted that these have nearly all been independent
discoveries, excepting perhaps the art of making fire.[253] The
Australian boomerang is a good instance of one such independent
discovery. The Tahitians when first visited had advanced in many
respects beyond the inhabitants of most of the other Polynesian islands.
There are no just grounds for the belief that the high culture of the
native Peruvians and Mexicans was derived from any foreign source;[254]
many native plants were there cultivated, and a few native animals
domesticated. We should bear in mind that a wandering crew from some
semi-civilised land, if washed to the shores of America, would not,
judging from the small influence of most missionaries, have produced any
marked effect on the natives, unless they had already become somewhat
advanced. Looking to a very remote period in the history of the world,
we find, to use Sir J. Lubbock's well-known terms, a paleolithic and
neolithic period; and no one will pretend that the art of grinding rough
flint tools was a borrowed one. In all parts of Europe, as far east as
Greece, in Palestine, India, Japan, New Zealand, and Africa, including
Egypt, flint tools have been discovered in abundance; and of their use
the existing inhabitants retain no tradition. There is also indirect
evidence of their former use by the Chinese and ancient Jews. Hence
there can hardly be a doubt that the inhabitants of these many
countries, which include nearly the whole civilised world, were once in
a barbarous condition. To believe that man was aboriginally civilised
and then suffered utter degradation in so many regions, is to take a
pitiably low view of human nature. It is apparently a truer and more
cheerful view that progress has been much more general than
retrogression; that man has risen, though by slow and interrupted steps,
from a lowly condition to the highest standard as yet attained by him in
knowledge, morals, and religion.