_An Outline of the History of the Idea of Milieu, and its Present
Status_
BY
ARMIN HAJMAN KOLLER, PH.D.
Instructor in German
The University of Illinois
“.............................
_He fixed thee ’mid this dance
Of plastic circumstance_.”
Robert Browning, “_Rabbi Ben Ezra_.”
The Collegiate Press
GEORGE BANTA PUBLISHING COMPANY
MENASHA, WISCONSIN
1918
_Copyright, 1918
By Armin H. Koller_
TO
MY PARENTS
CONTENTS
PAGE
Introductory Remark. Meanings of the Word _Milieu_ 1
I. A Sketch of the History of the Idea of Milieu Down to the
Nineteenth Century 7
II. A Sketch of the History of the Idea of Milieu Since the
Beginning of the Nineteenth Century 27
Anthropo-geography, Geography and History 27
Geography and History 42
More Recent Anthropo-geographical Treatises 65
Primitive Peoples and Environment 69
Society and Physical Milieu 74
Government, War, Progress, and Climate 76
Climate and Man’s Characteristics 80
Man’s Intellect and Physical Environment 81
Religion and Physical Milieu 83
Climate and Conduct 84
Climatic Control of Food and Drink 91
Summary 93
Appendix 97
PREFACE
In 1912 (see _Publications of the Modern Language Association of
America_, Vol. 28, N. S., Vol. 21, 1913, Proceedings for 1912, p.
xxxix), I called attention to the Herder-Taine problem on milieu. The
paper discussing that problem awaits the completion of another paper
entitled “Herder’s Conception of Milieu.” The latter was my starting
point. Setting about to inform myself on the history of the theory, I
determined to obtain for myself, if possible, a tolerably complete idea,
at least in its essentials, of the theory of milieu, to see where the
theory led to, where it started from, what changes it has undergone, and
what were its ramifications. My plan was to state briefly my findings in
a chapter preparatory to stating Herder’s idea of milieu. As guide-posts
were lacking, at least I knew of none, I was bound to seek by accident
and for a number of years. In stumbling along, I first chanced upon the
Herder-Taine problem. When my material swelled to proportions that could
not be controlled in part of a chapter or in a chapter, I had to
separate it, by its main divisions, into parts. The question arose,
should it be a _concrete_ treatise on environment. I soon found that to
be, at least for the time being, beyond my province and also beyond my
present purpose; besides, it would have swerved me too far afield;
moreover, it would have had to be limited to a small portion of the
subject. My present concern in this theory being genetic and historical,
it seemed best to assemble all the sources one could find bearing on the
history of the theory and to indicate the trend of its development in a
rough preliminary sketch. Such a sketch is a requisite first step and
perhaps a modest contribution to a history of the theory under
consideration. The first part of this sketch is herein given. The
original plan, mentioned above, of a prefatory chapter to Herder
accounts for the retention of untranslated passages in the text of this
part, a practice to be eschewed in the subsequent parts of this study
which are to appear shortly.
Nearly all the material was collected by October, 1915, and this
manuscript was finished early in January, 1917.
I gratefully acknowledge my indebtedness to Professor Martin Schütze of
the University of Chicago for the suggestion, made in 1907, to find out
what Herder’s idea of milieu is; to my friend and former colleague at
the University of Illinois, Dr. Charles C. Adams (now Assistant
Professor of Ecology at Syracuse University) for references given me at
my request (but he is in no wise to be held responsible for the bringing
in of these references); and to my good friend and colleague, Professor
John Driscoll Fitz-Gerald of the University of Illinois for a number of
helpful suggestions given when reading the manuscript and for assisting
with the reading of the galley proof.
ARMIN H. KOLLER.
_Champaign, Illinois,
April, 1918._
INTRODUCTORY REMARK
MEANINGS OF THE WORD “MILIEU”
Before entering upon the discussion of the principal theme of this
study,[1] it is necessary to cast a brief glance over the origin and
development of the meaning and use of the word milieu.
“Milieu” (_mi-lieu=medius locus_), originally signifying middle point or
part, central place or portion, mid-point, center, had been employed in
France as a term in physics at least as early as the seventeenth century
(Pascal). The fourth edition of the dictionary of the French Academy[2]
defines it as follows: “En termes de Physique, on appelle _Milieu_, Tout
corps, soit solide, soit fluide, traversé par la lumière ou par un autre
corps.” [In the fifth edition—1813—the following illustration in italics
is added to the foregoing: “La lumière se rompt différemment en
traversant différens milieux.”]
“On appelle aussi _milieu_, Le fluide qui environne les corps. _L’air
est le milieu dans lequel nous vivons. L’eau est le milieu qu’habitent
les poissons._”
Diderot’s Encyclopedia[3] testifies to this same sense of “medium”:
“_Milieu_, dans la Philosophie mêchanique, signifie un espace matériel à
travers lequel passe un corps dans son mouvement, ou en général, un
espace matériel dans lequel un corps est placé, soit qu’il se meuve ou
non.
“Ainsi on imagine l’éther comme un _milieu_ dans lequel les corps
célestes se meuvent.—L’air est un _milieu_ dans lequel les corps se
meuvent près de la surface de la terre.—L’eau est le _milieu_ dans
lequel les poissons vivent & se meuvent.—Le verre enfin est un _milieu_,
en égard à la lumière, parce qu’il lui permet un passage à travers ses
pores.”
Auguste Comte[4] extended its signification as a term in biology to
include “the totality of external conditions of any kind whatsoever”:
“_Milieu_ ..., non-seulement le fluide où l’organisme est plongé, mais,
en général, _l’ensemble total des circonstances extérieurs d’un genre
quelconque_ [the italics are ours], nécessaires à l’existence de chaque
organisme déterminé. Ceux qui auront suffisamment médité sur le rôle
capital que doit remplir, dans toute biologie positive, l’idée
correspondante, ne me reprocheront pas, sans doute, l’introduction de
cette expression nouvelle.”
Hippolyte Taine who generalized it still further, broadened its
connotation to comprehend the whole social surroundings.[5] Milieu as a
_terminus technicus_ is ordinarily considered as having been coined by
Taine, but whether that be so or not, one may safely say that its wide
acceptance is due, primarily, to him and to his renowned disciple
Zola.[6]
In the course of the last century, the designation milieu became not
only more generalized and more frequent in use, but also more extensive,
and more specific and distinctive in meaning: “Depuis BALZAC [who in
1841 in his _Comédie humaine, La maison du chat-qui-pelote_, préface, p.
2, used the term loosely, in the “vulgar” sense], le sens vulgaire du
milieu social n’a fait que s’affirmer davantage par un emploi toujours
plus généralisé: c’est devenu un cliché de la conversation de parler
aujourd’hui d’un ‘bon milieu,’ d’un ‘milieu intéressant,’ etc.”[7]
Littré[8] registers eighteen different definitions for the word milieu.
Friedrich Düsel[9] renders milieu by eighteen (18) German words.
In _Unsere Umgangssprache_,[10] milieu is translated into German by
forty-six (46) words and phrases.
Claude Bernard, the celebrated French physiologist, differentiates
between inner and outer milieu:[11] “Je crois ..., avoir le premier
insisté sur cette idée qu’il y a pour l’animal réellement deux milieux:
un milieu extérieur dans lequel est placé l’organisme et un milieu
intérieur dans lequel vivent les éléments des tissus....” Probably as a
result, we have today “micro-milieu” in micro-biology.
According to Jean Finot,[12] milieu “includes the sum total of the
conditions which accompany the conception and earthly existence of a
being, and which end only with its death.”
The term milieu was introduced by Herbert Spencer into English
literature as “environment,” says Martin Schütze.[13] Although Carlyle
employed the term “environment” as early as 1827,[14] nevertheless, the
fact that the term is generally current, is undoubtedly attributable in
the first place to Spencer.
The word “Umwelt” is quoted by J. H. Campe,[15] who believed himself to
have been the coiner of the term; five years later (1816) Goethe used it
at the beginning of his “Italienische Reise.”[16]
The painstaking and scholarly German lexicographer, Daniel Sanders, who
seldom fails to give his reader some reliable suggestion, refers in his
_Wörterbuch der Deutschen Sprache_[17] (which despite the contributions
of recent scholarship still remains a great work) to a passage in the
poetical works of the Danish writer Baggesen (2, 102) in which the word
“Umwelt” is employed. This passage occurs in the elegy entitled
“Napoleon” addressed to Voß and written in 1800.[18] Baggesen, then,
made use of “Umwelt” a decade before Campe.
Its Italian equivalent is “ambiente,” which is noted here only because
of the French “l’ambiance” and the English “ambient” and
“circumambiency.”
-----
Footnote 1:
For brief but valuable sketches of one phase or another of the
history of the theory of milieu, cf. Friedrich Ratzel,
_Anthropogeographie_. 1. _Teil: Grundzüge der Anwendung der Erdkunde
auf die Geschichte_ (2. Aufl., Stuttgart, 1899, 604 pp.), pp. 13–23,
25–30, 31–40; Gustav Schmoller, _Grundriß der Allgemeinen
Volkswirtschaftslehre_. Erster Teil (Vierte bis sechste Aufl.,
Leipzig, 1901), p. 127, pp. 137 f., 144 ff., Zweiter Teil (Erste bis
sechste Aufl., Leipzig, 1904), pp. 656 ff.; _Ferdinand v.
Richthofen’s Vorlesungen über Allgemeine Siedlungs- und
Verkehrsgeographie_, bearb. und herausgegeben von O. Schlüter
(Berlin, 1908, 351 pp.—A course of lectures delivered in the summer
semester of 1891 in Berlin, repeated in the winter semester in
1897/8), pp. 6–13; Jean Brunhes, _La Géographie Humaine_ (Deuxième
édition, Paris: Alcan, 1912, 801 pp.), pp. 36 ff.; A. C. Haddon and
A. H. Quiggin, _History of Anthropology_ (London, 1910, 158 pp.),
pp. 131 f., 150–52; William Z. Ripley, “Geography and Sociology,”
_Political Science Quarterly_, X (1895), pp. 636–54; also the same
author’s _The Races of Europe_ (New York: D. Appleton & Co., 1899),
pp. 2–5. Cf. also O. Schlüter, “Die leitenden Gesichtspunkte der
Anthropogeographie, insbesondere der Lehre Friedrich Ratzels,”
_Arch. f. Sozialwissenschaft_, Bd. IV (1906), S. 581–630, and Rudolf
Goldscheid, _Höherentwicklung und Menschenökonomie_, I
[Philosophisch-soziologische Bücherei, Band VIII], (Leipzig: W.
Klinkhardt, 1911, 664 pp.), p. 52. For bibliographies, in addition
to those yet to be mentioned, see also Ratzel, _l.c._, pp. 579–85;
Brunhes, _l.c._, nn.; Ellen C. Semple, _Influences of Geographic
Environment, On the Basis of Ratzel’s System of Anthropo-geography_
(New York: H. Holt & Co., 1911, 637 pp.), to each chapter of which
an extensive bibliography is added; William J. Thomas, _Source Book
for Social Origins_ (Chicago and London, 1909) pp. 134–39:
Bibliography to Part I: The Relation of Society to Geographic and
Economic Environment (pp. 29–129, Comment on Part I, pp. 130–33);
Ripley, “Geography and Sociology,” _Pol. Sc. Quar._, X (1895), pp.
654–5.
Footnote 2:
_Dictionnaire de l’Académie Françoise._ Quatrième Édition. Tome Second
(Paris, 1762), p. 143.
Footnote 3:
_Encyclopédie, ou Dictionnaire Raisonné des Sciences_, etc. Nouvelle
Éd. 1778, ed. by Diderot and D’Alembert, 21st vol., p. 853.
Footnote 4:
_Cours de Philosophie Positive_ (6 vols., 1830–42, 5^e édition, Paris,
1892–94), see vol. 3, p. 235 n.
Footnote 5:
Cp. esp. the Introduction to his _Histoire de la Littérature
Anglaise_, 5 Tomes (8^e Édition, Paris: Hachette, 1892); the first
edition appeared in 1863, after Taine had been at work on it for
well-nigh a decade.
Footnote 6:
For Zola as the disciple of Taine, cf. H. Wiegler, _Geschichte und
Kritik der Theorie des Milieus bei Émile Zola_ (Diss., Rostock, 1905),
esp. pp. 19–36.
Footnote 7:
_Vide_ Émile Waxweiler, _Esquisse d’une Sociologie_ (Bruxelles, 1906),
p. 65.
Footnote 8:
_Dictionnaire de la Langue Française_, vol. 3 (1885), pp. 559 f.
Footnote 9:
_Verdeutschungen, Wörterbuch fürs tägliche Leben_ (Braunschweig,
Verlag von George Westermann, 1915, 176 pp.), p. 93.
Footnote 10:
_Verdeutschungsbücher des Allgemeinen Deutschen Sprachvereins, III_
(Zweite Aufl., neu bearb. v. Edward Lohmeyer, Berlin, Verlag des
Allgemeinen Deutschen Sprachvereins, 1915, 182 pp.), pp. 91 f.
Footnote 11:
_Phénomènes de la vie_ (2^e éd., Paris, 1885), t. I, p. 112. See
Waxweiler, _l.c._, p. 36.
Footnote 12:
_Race Prejudice_, transl. by Florence Wade-Evans (London, 1906), p.
130.
Footnote 13:
“The Services of Naturalism to Life and Literature. Reprinted, with
Additions, from _The Sewanee Review_, October, 1903,” p. 2.
Footnote 14:
See Murray’s NED., vol. III, Part II, (1897), p. 231.
Footnote 15:
_Wörterbuch d. d. Sprache_ (1811), Bd. 5, S. 113.
Footnote 16:
See the article by I. Stosch on “Umwelt-_milieu_,” _Zeitschrift für
Deutsche Wortforschung_, g. v. Fr. Kluge, 7. Bd. (1905), pp. 58–9.
Footnote 17:
2. Bd., 2. Hälfte (Leipzig: Otto Wigand, 1865), p. 1556^b.
Footnote 18:
A. Gombert cites the passage in question in his article “Umwelt,” _Z.
f. D. Wf._, 7. Bd. (1905), pp. 150–52.
I
A SKETCH OF THE HISTORY OF THE IDEA OF MILIEU DOWN TO THE NINETEENTH
CENTURY
Recorded mesologic[19] thinking begins with the ancient Jewish Prophets
whose striking _aperçus_ concerning the providential correspondence
between the configuration of the surface of the earth and the destiny of
nations, concerning the connection between “Landesnatur” and
“Volkscharakter,” etc., anticipated[20] a number of great thoughts of
later anthropo-geographers.
Hippocrates (if he really is the author of the essay commonly ascribed
to him and entitled περὶ αέρων ὑδάτων τόπων) investigates the effect of
climate on man’s nature, character, temperament, and life, with the
emphasis on the regularity of the effect.[21] Owing to the imperfection
of knowledge in his day, his observations are necessarily vague.[22] He
limited himself to the problem of the relation between land and
people.[23] He is said to be the founder of anthropo-geography.[24] His
treatise is admirable and unequalled in the eyes of Auguste Comte.[25]
Hippocrates, “in his work, _About Air, Water, and Places_, first
discusses the influence of environment on man, physical, moral, and
pathological. He divided mankind into groups, impressed with homogeneous
characters by homogeneous surroundings, demonstrating that mountains,
plains, damp, aridity, and so on, produced definite and varying
types.”[26]
Aristotle, in his _Politics_, enquires into the influence especially of
geographical position on laws and the form of government,[27] while in
his _Problems_ he shows the far-reaching dependence of national
character on the physical environment: “Zeigt ja doch Aristoteles selbst
in einem andern Werke das entschiedenste Bestreben, eine sehr
weitgehende Abhängigkeit des Volkscharakters von geographischen
Verhältnissen zu erweisen. Während die Politik [especially parts of the
seventh book] nicht über Andeutungen [on the effect of the milieu]
hinausgeht [discussed by Poehlmann, _l.c._, on pp. 64–8], läßt der
vierzehnte Abschnitt der ‘Probleme,’ welcher sich mit den Einwirkungen
der Landesnatur auf Physik und Ethik des Menschen beschäftigt, deutlich
einen Standpunkt erkennen, welcher auf das Lebhafteste an die
physiologische Betrachtungsweise der neueren französisch-englischen
Geschichtsphilosophie erinnert ...”[28]
Eratosthenes, in a work cited by Varro, sought to prove, in the opinion
of the Italian scholar Matteuzzi prematurely, that man’s character and
the form of his government are subordinated to proximity or remoteness
from the sun.[29] The greatest geographer of antiquity, Strabo, in his
Geography, connected man with nature in a causal relation.[30]
John M. Robertson, noting that “theories of the influence of climate on
character were common in antiquity,” refers[31] to Vitruvius (VI, 1),
Vegetius (“De re militari,” 1, 2), and Servius (on Vergil, _Aeneid_, VI,
724). Ritter does not mention the effort of the ancients in this line of
ideas.[32]
Giovanni Villani, the noted Florentine historian of the fourteenth
century, observes with a deal of finesse that Arezzo by reason of its
air and position produces men of great subtilty of mind.[33]
The Arabic statesman and philosopher of history, Ibn Khaldūn, little
mentioned, yet known by his great work, the _Universal History_,
attempted in the _Muqaddama_[34] (the preface, comprising the first
volume of his _History_), which he composed between 1374 and 1378,[35]
to explain the history and civilization of man, more especially of
some of the Arabic peoples, by the encompassing physical and social
conditions. The “First Section of the ‘Prolegomena’ treats of society
in general, and of the varieties of the human race, and of the regions
of the earth which they inhabit, as related thereto. It starts from
the position that man is by nature a social being. His body and mind,
wants and affections, for their exercise, satisfaction, and
development, all imply and demand co-operation and communion with his
fellows,—participation in a collective and common life....
“There follows a lengthened description of the physical basis and
conditions of history and civilisation. The chief features of the
inhabited portions of the earth, its regions, principal seas, great
rivers, climates, &c., are made the subjects of exposition. The seven
climatic zones, and the ten sections of each, are delineated, and their
inhabitants specified. The three climatic zones of moderate temperature
are described in detail, and the distinctive features of the social
condition and civilisation of their inhabitants dwelt upon. The
influence of the atmosphere, heat, &c., on the physical and even mental
and moral peculiarities of peoples is maintained to be great. Not only
the darkness of skin of the negroes, but their characteristics of
disposition and of mode of life, are traced to the influence of climate.
A careful attempt is also made to show how differences of fertility of
soil—how dearth and abundance—modify the bodily constitution and affect
the minds of men, and so operate on society....
“The Second Section of the ‘Prolegomena’ treats of the civilisation of
nomadic and half-savage peoples.
“In it Ibn Khaldūn appears at his best, ... He begins by indicating how
the different usages and institutions of peoples depend to a large
extent on the ways in which they provide for their subsistence. He
describes how peoples have at first contented themselves with simple
necessities, and then gradually risen to refinement and luxury through a
series of states or stages all of which are alike conformed to nature,
in the sense of being adapted to its circumstances or environment.”[36]
Ibn Khaldūn seems also to have had a clear idea of some aspects of the
principle of relativity,[37] an integral part and inevitable concomitant
of the theory of milieu, since “As causes of historians erring as they
have done, there are mentioned [by Khaldūn in the introduction] the
overlooking of the differences of times and epochs, ...”[38]
About the middle of the sixteenth century we find Michelangelo avowing
to Vasari (who hailed from Arezzo): “Any mental excellence I may
possess, I have because I was born in the fine air of your Aretine
district.”[39]
In “Measure for Measure” (Act III, Sc. I, v. 8–11), a play first
produced in 1604, Shakespeare affirms of man:
“... a breath thou art,
Servile to all the skyey influences
That do this habitation where thou keep’st,
Hourly afflict.”
During the Renaissance, Greek thought on milieu is resurrected in
France. Thence it spreads later, particularly in the eighteenth century,
to England and Germany. Jean Bodin bridges the gap existent since the
close of classical antiquity. He is the first among modern writers not
only to revive the idea in Western Europe,[40] but also to make it a
subject for detailed investigation. Bodin thus first in French letters
introduces and firmly establishes a line of study destined to be
followed by a long list of authors among whom are to be found many
illustrious French names.
Bodin “treats of physical causes with considerable fulness in the fifth
chapter of the ‘Method,’[41] and in a still more detailed and developed
form in the first chapter of the fifth book of the ‘Republic.’”[42] He
traces the relation between climate and the ever changing fate of
States, and elaborates the manifold effects of climate on States, laws,
religion, language, and temperament.[43] In Bodin’s view, man’s physical
constitution is closely and directly connected with climate and
surrounding nature; it is in harmony with the behavior of the earth in
the respective zones of his abode.[44] From this assumption of
dependence of the human body on climate, there follow a number of
inferences concerning the physical properties of man’s constitution.[45]
Temperament varies according to climate. Language, the generative power,
diseases likewise depend indirectly on climate.[46] Man’s talents and
capacities do so no less.[47] The climate in each region always favors
the development of some special aptitude; on this basis he groups the
peoples of the earth.[48] Although the nexus between human abilities and
the physical milieu is thus intimate, yet reason, common to all men and
invariable, is _per se_ independent of physical environment.[49] He
postulates, then, reason as the absolute part of the mind, not subject
to surrounding influences, whereas the unfolding of the human faculties
is relative to the environment. By taking this middle course concerning
the effect of nature on man, Bodin escapes the extreme views of nature’s
compelling influence over man, on the one hand, and of man’s total
independence of nature, on the other.[50]
Bodin also investigates the influence upon national character of
geographical situation, of elevation, of the quality of the native soil,
and of an east-west position.[51] Nations and their civilizations differ
according to the particular conditions of a given national
existence.[52]
He holds fast to the doctrine of the freedom of the will. Man is morally
free from environmental control. The circumambient medium determines
only the _development_ of man’s capabilities.[53] Man can counteract,
and may, even though with difficulty, overcome the injurious action of
climate and nature.[54]
“... It is altogether unfair,” concludes Flint,[55] “to put their
general enunciations [_i.e._, those made by Hippocrates, Plato,
Aristotle, Polybius, and Galen] of the principle that physical
circumstances originate and modify national characteristics, on a level
with Bodin’s serious, sustained, and elaborate attempt to apply it over
a wide area and to a vast number of cases. Dividing nations into
northern, middle, and southern,[56] he investigates with wonderful
fulness of knowledge how climatic and geographical conditions have
affected the bodily strength, the courage, the intelligence, the
humanity, the chastity, and, in short, the mind, morals, and manners of
their inhabitants; what influence mountains, winds, diversities of soil,
&c., have exerted on individuals and societies; and he elicits a vast
number of general views....”
Bodin, “der größte theoretische Politiker Frankreichs im 16.
Jahrhundert,” declares Renz,[57] “besitzt ... das unbestreitbare
Verdienst, wenn nicht die Grundgedanken und nicht ausschließlich
originale Gedanken, so doch die erste weitgehende wissenschaftliche
Untersuchung über den Zusammenhang zwischen umgebender Natur und
Menschenwelt in neuerer Zeit auf dem Boden der Erfahrung und
Wissenschaft des 16. Jahrhunderts angestellt zu haben.”
Bodin, “writing in 1577 OF THE LAWES AND CUSTOMES OF A COMMON
WEALTH (English edition [translated by Richard Knowlles] 1605),
contains, as Professor J. L. Myres has pointed out (Rept. Brit.
Assoc., 1909 [1910], p. 593), ‘the whole pith and kernel of modern
anthropo-geography....’”[58] And Renz believes that “In der
Bodinschen Behandlung der Theorie des Klimas finden sich die
Anfänge der Anthropogeographie und der Ethnographie...”[59]
Writing in 1713, Lenglet du Fresnoy, toward the end of the sixth chapter
of the first volume of his _Méthode pour étudier l’histoire_, expresses,
decades before Montesquieu, the latter’s basic idea of the effect of
social and political milieu on laws.[60]
In any discussion of milieu, Montesquieu is the writer most frequently
mentioned, although not the most often read and quoted. He devotes the
well-known five “Books,” from the fourteenth to the eighteenth, of his
magnum opus, _L’Esprit des Lois_ (1748),[61] to a consideration of this
idea which, as has already been seen, was anything but original with
him.[62] In Books fourteen to seventeen he treats of the relation of
laws to climate, and in Book eighteen of their relation to soil. In the
fourteenth[63] he discusses the effect of climate on the body (and mind)
of individual man, in the fifteenth[64] on civil slavery, in the
sixteenth[65] on domestic slavery, in the seventeenth[66] on political
servitude, and lastly in the eighteenth[67] he delineates the influence
of the fertility and barrenness of the soil. By climate he means little
more than heat and cold. In the light of the continued high praise
bestowed on him for much longer than a century, the altogether too
general and dogmatic statements of these short seventy-odd pages would
seem somewhat meager, so that upon their perusal one is very likely to
suffer an outright disenchantment. Therefore, Flint’s judgment appears
overdrawn, when he says that Montesquieu “showed on a grand scale and in
the most effective way ... that, like all things properly historical,
they [laws, customs, institutions] must be estimated not according to an
abstract or absolute standard, but as concrete realities related to
given times and places, to their determining causes and condition, and
to the whole social organism to which they belong, and the whole social
medium in which they subsist. Plato and Aristotle, Machiavelli and
Bodin, had already, indeed, inculcated this historical and political
relativism; but it was Montesquieu who gained educated Europe over to
the acceptance of it.”[68]
Turgot’s sketch of a ‘Political Geography’ shows “that he had attained
to a broader view of the relationship of human development to the
features of the earth and to physical agencies in general than even
Montesquieu. And he saw with perfect clearness not only that many of
Montesquieu’s inductions were premature and inadequate, but that there
was a defect in the method by which he arrived at them.... The excellent
criticism of Comte, in the fifth volume of the ‘Philosophie Positive,’
and in the fourth volume of the ‘Politique Positive,’ on this portion of
Montesquieu’s speculations, is only a more elaborate reproduction of
that of Turgot, and is expressed in terms which show that it was
directly suggested by that of Turgot.”[69]
Cuvier “had not hesitated to trace the close relation borne by
philosophy and art to the underlying geological formations.”[70]
In the teaching of a number of great thinkers of the seventeenth and
eighteenth centuries, man is “the product of environment and education”
and, in their opinion, “all men were born equal and later became unequal
through unequal opportunities.”[71]
Goethe echoed Herder’s thought when he remarked to Eckermann on the
flora of a country and the disposition of its residents: “Sie haben
nicht Unrecht, sagte Goethe (d. 2. April 1829), und daher kommt es denn
auch, daß man der Pflanzenwelt eines Landes einen Einfluß auf die
Gemütsart seiner Bewohner zugestanden hat. Und gewiß! wer sein Leben
lang von hohen ernsten Eichen umgeben wäre, müßte ein anderer Mensch
werden, als wer täglich unter luftigen Birken sich erginge...”[72] And
again, when he said of environment and national character: “... so viel
ist gewiß, daß außer dem Angeborenen der Rasse, sowohl Boden und Klima
als Nahrung und Beschäftigung einwirkt, um den Charakter eines Volkes zu
vollenden ...”[73] And in the following, Goethe but reiterates Herder’s
oft uttered admiration for islanders and coast dwellers: “Auch von den
Kräften des _Meeres_ und der _Seeluft_ war die Rede gewesen (d. 12. März
1828), wo denn Goethe die Meinung äußerte, daß er alle Insulaner und
Meer-Anwohner des gemäßigten Klimas bei weitem für produktiver und
tatkräftiger halte als die Völker im Innern großer Kontinente.”[74] And:
“Es ist ein eigenes Ding, erwiederte Goethe (d. 12. März 1828),—liegt es
in der Abstammung, liegt es im Boden, liegt es in der freien Verfassung,
liegt es in der gesunden Erziehung,—genug! die Engländer überhaupt
scheinen vor vielen anderen etwas voraus zu haben ...”[75]
Wolf and Niebuhr began to examine historical _sources_ “nach neuen
Prinzipien des Eingetauchtseins in eine bestimmte seelische Umwelt, in
ein klargezeichnetes zeitgenössisches Milieu.”[76]
One of the principal offices of an historian, according to August
Wilhelm Schlegel, is “Die zeit- und kulturgeschichtliche Bedingtheit
aller Erscheinungen aufzuzeigen.”[77] But the effect of physical milieu
on history is not rated high in the philosophy of the romanticists.[78]
Ingeniously, albeit not with his wonted acuteness, Hegel penned the
concept “Volksgeist.”[79] The saying, which now seems trivial, that
every nation and every man in the nation is “ein Kind seiner Zeit,” is
said to be Hegel’s.[80] Hegel, however, distinctly rejected the idea of
explaining “die Geschichte und den Geist der verschiedenen Völker aus
dem Klima ihrer Länder.”[81] The implication would be that one single
factor might satisfactorily be held responsible for all progress in
human history. As climate can not explain everything to Hegel, it seems
not to explain anything at all to him. Hegel, then, is excessive in his
denial of the power of environment. This is markedly shown by his
thinking his position substantiated by the fact that the climate of
Greece, although the same since classical antiquity, has not changed the
Turks who now [_i.e._, early in the nineteenth century] dwell in Greece
into ancient Greeks.[82]
-----
Footnote 19:
The Belgian sociologist De Greef, in his _Introduction à la
Sociologie_ (1886–89), raised “Mésologie” (denoting “Erkenntnis der
milieux”) to a special introductory branch of sociology for the
purpose of discussing, according to Ratzel superficially, the external
factors of history; cf. Paul Barth, _Die Philosophie der Geschichte
als Soziologie_, I (Leipzig: Reisland, 1897), p. 70 and Ratzel, _l.c._
p. 29. The term “Mésologie” was in use in France at an earlier date
than that. See for example the title of an article written at the
close of the Franco-German war by Dr. Bertillon, “De l´Influence du
milieu ou Mésologie,” _La Philosophie Positive_, Revue dirigée par É.
Littré & G. Wyrouboff, Tome IX (Paris, 1872), pp. 309–20. Or see M. E.
Jourdy, “De l´Influence du milieu ou Mésologie,” _ibid._, Tome X
(1873), pp. 154–60.
Footnote 20:
Fr. de Rougemont, in his important work _Les deux cités; la
philosophie de l´histoire aux différents âges de l´humanité_ (1874)
treats this question exhaustively. See Robert Poehlmann, _Hellenische
Anschauungen über den Zusammenhang zwischen Natur und Geschichte_
(Leipzig: S. Hirzel, 1879, 93 pp.), pp. 8 f.
Footnote 21:
_Vide_ Eugénie Dutoit, _Die Theorie des Milieu_ (Diss., Bern, 1899,
136 pp.), pp. 52–5.
Footnote 22:
“Hippocrate fut le premier à observer quelques-uns des effets du
milieu sur l’individu. Ses observations sont nécessairement nébuleuses
et chaotiques, plutôt descriptives et qualitatives, étant donnée
l’imperfection des connaissances de son temps.”—Auguste Matteuzzi,
_Les Facteurs de l’Évolution des Peuples_ (Paris, 1900), p. 6
(Avant-Propos).
Footnote 23:
“Wir sahen, daß sich das Buch des Hippokrates durchaus darauf
beschränkte, die Wechselbeziehungen zwischen Landesnatur und
Volkscharakter zu erörtern.”—Poehlmann, _l.c._, p. 51.
Footnote 24:
“Hippokrates von Kos, ‘der Vater der Heilkunde’ (ca. 460 bis ca. 370),
ist der _Begründer der Anthropogeographie_. Er schrieb ein Buch über
Klima, Wasser und Bodenbeschaffenheit und ihren Einfluß auf die
Bewohner eines Landes in physischer und geistiger Beziehung. Der
philosophische Gedanke war damit angeregt, fand aber keine weitere
Entwicklung.”—_F. v. Richthofen’s Vorlesungen_, etc. (Berlin, 1908),
p. 7.
Footnote 25:
_System of Positive Polity_ (4 vols., London: Longmans, Green & Co.,
1875–77—the original was published in 1851–54), vol. II, p. 364: “...
a study [of the aggregate of material influences: Astronomical,
Physical, Chemical] which was commenced by the great Hippocrates in
his admirable and unequalled Treatise upon Climate.”
Footnote 26:
Haddon and Quiggin, _Hist. of Anthropology_ (1910), p. 150.—Poehlmann
discusses Hippocrates in _Hellenische Anschauungen_, etc., pp.
12–37.—Ludwig Stein, in his book _Die soziale Frage im Lichte der
Philosophie_ (2. verb. Aufl., Stuttgart, 1903), p. 403, n., says that
“Aless. Chiapelli, _Le promesse filosofiche del Socialismo_ (Napoli,
1897), p. 41, hebt die interessante Tatsache hervor, daß die Lehre vom
‘Milieu’ ihrem Keime nach auf Hippokrates zurückgeht.” But a little
over three decades earlier, Peschel in his _Geschichte der Erdkunde_
(1. Aufl., 1865) surveyed on two pages some important phases of
Hippocrates and Strabo on milieu. And earlier still, a half century
before Peschel, Ukert in his _Geographie der Griechen und Römer_
(1816), I, 1, 79, noted Hippocrates as carefully observing the effect
of climate on the body and mind of man. (_Vide_ Poehlmann, l.c., pp. 7
f.)—And to Herder, Hippocrates was the principal author on climate:
“... _Hippocrat. de aere, locis et aquis_, ... Für mich der
Hauptschriftsteller über das Klima.”—_Herders Sämmtliche Werke_, hg.
v. B. Suphan, 13, 269 n.
Footnote 27:
See Dutoit, _Die Theorie des Milieu_, pp. 55–8.
Footnote 28:
Poehlmann, _l.c._, p. 68.—Aristotle neglects to give credit to
Hippocrates in connection with his ideas on environment, although
indebted to Hippocrates whom he mentions elsewhere. See Dutoit,
_l.c._, p. 57.
Footnote 29:
“Varron, _De re rustica_, 1, cite une oeuvre d’Eratosthènes où
celui-ci cherchait à démontrer que le caractère de l’homme et la forme
du gouvernement sont subordonnés au voisinage ou à l’éloignement du
soleil. Tentative sublime mais prématurée, pour ramener les phénomènes
sociaux à des lois uniques et générales.”—Auguste Matteuzzi, _Les
Facteurs de l’Évolution des Peuples_ (Paris, 1900), p. 6.
Footnote 30:
“Die vollständigste Beschreibung [of the earth] gab erst Strabo in
seinem Werk γεογραφικά. Hier begegnen wir zum zweitenmal der
philosophischen Idee, _Mensch und Natur in Kausalzusammenhang_
miteinander zu bringen. Strabos Geographie ist als ‘Länder- und
Völkerkunde’ das größte Werk des Altertums. Die Anschauung eines
kausalen Zusammenhanges des Menschen mit der Natur ging darauf unter
[according to him, until the middle of the eighteenth century, until
Montesquieu].”—_Richthofen’s Vorlesungen_, etc. (1908), p. 8.
Footnote 31:
_Buckle and his Critics_ (London, 1895, 548 pp.), p. 7 n.
Footnote 32:
See Poehlmann, _l.c._, p. 7.—For a brief statement of the theory of
milieu in Greek writers (Thucydides, Xenophon, Plato, Aristotle,
Theophrastus), cf. Curtius, _Boden und Clima von Athen_ (1877), p. 4
f. For Aristotle, compare also Dondorff, _Das hellenische Land als
Schauplatz der althellenischen Geschichte_ (Hamburg, 1899, 42 pp.),
pp. 11 f. Poehlmann, _l.c._, discusses the views on environment of
Herodotus (pp. 37–47), of Thucydides (pp. 52–4), of Xenophon (pp. 55
f.), of Ephoros [only fragments of his great work, A Universal
History, are extant; cited by Strabo] (pp. 56–9), of Plato (pp.
59–64), of Aristotle (pp. 64–74), of Polybios (pp. 75–7), of
Posidonios [in Strabo and in Galen] (pp. 78–80), of Strabo (pp.
80–90), of Galen (pp. 91 f.).
Footnote 33:
_Vide_ Élisàr v. Kupffer, _Klima und Dichtung, Ein Beitrag zur
Psychophysik_ [in _Grenzfragen der Literatur und Medizin_ in
Einzeldarstellungen hg. v. S. Rahmer, Berlin, 4. Heft] (München,
1907), p. 63.
Footnote 34:
Translated into French by Baron Meg. F. de Slane (3 vols., Paris,
1862–8).
Footnote 35:
See R. Flint, _History of the Philosophy of History, Historical
Philosophy in France and French Belgium and Switzerland_ (New York:
Scribner, 1894, 706 pp.), pp. 159 f.—“His [Mohammed Ibn Khaldūn’s]
fame rests securely ... on his _magnum opus_, the ‘Universal History,’
and especially on the first part of it, the ‘Prolegomena’ (p. 162)....
They [the Prolegomena] may fairly be regarded as forming a distinct
and complete work.... It consists of a preface, an introduction, and
six sections or divisions (p. 163).”
Footnote 36:
Flint, _l.c._, pp. 164 f.
Footnote 37:
_Vide infra_, p. 27.
Footnote 38:
Flint, _l.c._, p. 164.—Cf. also pp. 158–72, for Ibn Khaldūn in
general.
Footnote 39:
Cf. Kupffer, _Klima and Dichtung_, p. 63.
Footnote 40:
“Da Bodin hauptsächlich an die Anschauungen des Aristoteles anknüpft,
...—Auch an Strabo, der dem Einfluß des Klimas und der Landesnatur
schon die schöpferischen Kräfte des Volksgeistes gegenübergestellt
hat, lehnt sich Bodin an.”—Fritz Renz, _Jean Bodin, Ein Beitrag z.
Geschichte d. hist. Methode im 16. Jahrhundert_ [Geschichtliche
Untersuchungen hg. v. Karl Lamprecht, III. Bd., I. Heft], (Gotha,
1905, 84 pp.), p. 48 n.
Footnote 41:
_Methodus ad facilem historiarum cognitionem_, published in 1566.
Footnote 42:
Flint, _l.c._, 198.—The ‘Republic’ was first published in 1576 in
French under the title _De la République_. Eight years later (1584)
Bodin himself translated it into Latin as _De Republica Libri Sex_.
See Ludwig Stein, _Die soziale Frage im Lichte der Philosophie_ (2.
verb. Aufl., Stuttgart, 1902), p. 217 n.
Footnote 43:
Compare Dutoit, _Die Theorie des Milieu_, pp. 58–62.
Footnote 44:
“Die physische Konstitution des Menschen hängt nach Bodin eng mit den
klimatischen Verhältnissen seiner Heimat zusammen und entspricht dem
Verhalten der Erde, die er bewohnt ...”—Renz, _Jean Bodin_ (1905), p.
50.—“... Da der animalische Körper wie alle Körper aus einer Mischung
der Elemente besteht, so ergibt sich eine direkte Abhängigkeit der
physischen Konstitution von der umgebenden Natur, ja sogar eine
Übereinstimmung mit dem Verhalten der Erde in dem betreffenden
Himmelsstrich. Der menschliche Körper reagiert auf die klimatischen
Einflüsse genau so wie die Erde, die er bewohnt, ...”—_Ibidem_, p. 44.
Footnote 45:
Discussed by Renz, _l.c._, pp. 47–61, in the chapter “Die Theorie des
Klimas.”—“Behandelt wird die Theorie des Klimas nach dem 5. Kapitel
des ‘Methodus,’ in dem sich Bodin zum ersten Male mit dieser Doktrin
befaßte; zur Erläuterung wird auch das 1. Kapitel des V. Buches der
‘République’ herangezogen, in dem die Theorie des Klimas, aber in
gedrängterer Form, wiederholt wird.”—_Ibid._, p. 47 n. Cf. also p. 45.
Footnote 46:
“Sogar das Temperament variiert nach dem Klima ...
“Wie das Temperament wird die Sprache von dem inneren physischen Bau
abhängig gedacht ...
“Ebenso wird die Fortpflanzungsfähigkeit in direkte Abhängigkeit von
der physischen Konstitution gebracht ...”—_Ibid._, pp. 52 f.
Footnote 47:
“Wie das Äußere und die physische Konstitution hängen auch die Anlagen
und Fähigkeiten der Völker mit den klimatischen Verschiedenheiten
zusammen ...”—_Ibid._, p. 54.
Footnote 48:
“... Nach der Dreiteilung der seelischen Fähigkeiten bei dem
Einzelmenschen und den Bewohnern jedes Staates werden die Völker auf
der ganzen Erde gruppiert, indem durch das Klima immer eine Anlage
besonders zur Ausbildung kommt ...”—_Ibid._, p. 46.
Footnote 49:
“... Bodin nimmt zwei Teile des menschlichen Seelenlebens an, erstens
eine allen Menschen gemeinsame, unveränderliche geistige Befähigung,
die Vernunft, und zweitens Anlagen, die von dem Klima und der
physischen Natur des Menschen abhängen. In der ‘République’ wird
ausgeführt, daß diese abhängigen Anlagen nur verschiedene von dem
geographischen Milieu abhängige Entwicklungsstufen des Verstandes
sind, während dieser an sich von den einzelnen Gegenden unabhängig ist
...”—_Ibid._, p. 45.
Footnote 50:
“... Indem er [Bodin] als erster in der Neuzeit auf streng
wissenschaftlicher Grundlage versucht, die Wechselwirkung, die
zwischen dem historischen Verlauf und der Natur stattfindet,
festzustellen, gelangt er zu der Annahme von zwei Teilen des
geistig-seelischen Innenlebens, eines von den umgebenden Verhältnissen
abhängigen und eines absoluten, gegen äußere Einflüsse sich passiv
verhaltenden Teils. Willensfreiheit neben der durch das Milieu
bedingten Ausbildung bestimmter Anlagen und Fähigkeiten ist der
mittlere Weg, den er zwischen der Annahme des zwingenden Einflusses
der äußeren Natur und der gänzlichen Unabhängigkeit von ihr einschlägt
...”—_Ibid._, p. 77.
Footnote 51:
“Neben dem Horizontal- wendet Bodin den Vertikalmaßstab zur
Beurteilung der Völker an, indem er untersucht, wie die verschiedene
Erhebung des Bodens auf die Gestaltung des Volkscharakters einwirkt
...
“Ebenso wird die Natur der Völker von der Qualität des heimatlichen
Bodens beeinflußt, ...”—_Ibid._, p. 58.—“Der Einfluß, der sich aus der
östlicheren oder westlicheren Wohnlage auf den Volkscharakter geltend
macht, ist, wo nicht in der Richtung Süd-Nord sich erstreckende
Gebirge eine deutlichere Scheidelinie bilden, nach Bodin schwer zu
bestimmen ...”—_Ibid._ p. 57.
Footnote 52:
“Neben der Vorstellung von der geistig-sittlichen Einheit der Menschen
geht die Erkenntnis der Verschiedenartigkeit der Nationen und ihres
Bildungsgrades her, die aus den partikularen Bedingungen des
nationalen Einzeldaseins resultiert. Zur Erklärung des Volkscharakters
wird, wie schon dargelegt, die Theorie des Klimas herangezogen
...”—_Ibid._, p. 62.
Footnote 53:
“Bodin hat sich deswegen mit der Theorie des Klimas beschäftigt, weil
er in der Geschichte und im Völkerleben bestimmte regelmäßige
Erscheinungen wahrnahm, die er sich nur aus dem Einfluß des
geographischen Milieus erklären konnte. Bei dem strengen Festhalten an
der menschlichen Willensfreiheit konnte er sich diesen Einfluß nur
durch die Annahme einer von äußeren Verhältnissen abhängigen
Entwicklungsfähigkeit der geistigen Anlagen in bestimmter Richtung
erklären...”—_Ibid._, p. 60 f.—“Das unbedingte Festhalten an der
menschlichen Willensfreiheit mußte Bodin vor der Annahme bewahren, daß
der Einfluß des geographischen Milieus auf die Menschen ein zwingender
sei. Nur die Entwicklung der Anlagen wird von der Umwelt bestimmt,
nicht aber das sittliche Wollen ...”—_Ibid._, p. 59.
Footnote 54:
“Wo die äußere Natur zur Entwicklung schlechter Anlagen führt, besitzt
nach Bodin die Menschheit in der Erziehung ein Mittel, diesem
Übelstand zu begegnen.”—_Ibid._, p. 77.—“... den Menschen [wird] die
Fähigkeit zugesprochen ..., die schädlichen Einwirkungen des Klimas
wenn auch schwer, zu überwinden ...”—_Ibid._, p. 60.
Footnote 55:
_L.c._, p. 198.
Footnote 56:
“... Den Vergleich der drei Völkergruppen [südliche, mittlere,
nördliche] mit den menschlichen Lebensaltern hat Bodin von Aristoteles
entlehnt, was er Meth. V 140, 141 selbst zugibt.”—Renz, _l.c._, p. 57.
Footnote 57:
_L.c._, p. 48.
Footnote 58:
Haddon and Quiggin, _Hist. of Anthropology_ (London, 1910), p. 150.
Footnote 59:
_L.c._, p. 77.—For Bodin in general, cf. Renz, _Jean Bodin_; Flint,
_l.c._, pp. 190–200; Ludwig Stein, _Die soziale Frage im Lichte der
Philosophie_, pp. 217–19. H. Morf, _Französische Literatur im
Zeitalter der Renaissance_ (2. verb. Aufl., Straßburg: Trübner, 1914),
is brief on Bodin, _vide_ esp. pp. 131 f.; cf. also p. 125.
Footnote 60:
_Vide_ E. Bernheim, _Lehrbuch der historischen Methode_ (5. u. 6.
Aufl, Leipzig, 1908), p. 230.
Footnote 61:
Montesquieu, _The Spirit of Laws_ (translated from the French by Th.
Nugent, new ed., revised by J. V. Prichard, 2 vols., London: Geo. Bell
and Sons, 1906), I, 238–314.
Footnote 62:
“Seine [Montesquieu’s] Hervorkehrung des Einflusses, den Klima und
Bodenbeschaffenheit auf die Soziabilität der Menschennatur ausüben,
geht ebenfalls auf Locke, weiterhin auf Bodin zurück.”—L. Stein, _Die
soziale Frage_, etc., p. 364.—According to Dutoit (_Die Theorie des
Milieu_, p. 62), Montesquieu concealed his obligation to Bodin.
Footnote 63:
_L.c._, pp. 238–53.
Footnote 64:
_L.c._, pp. 253–69.
Footnote 65:
_L.c._, pp. 270–83.
Footnote 66:
_L.c._, pp. 284–91.
Footnote 67:
_L.c._, pp. 291–314.
Footnote 68:
Flint, _l.c._, pp. 279 f.
Footnote 69:
Flint, _l.c._, p. 286.—(Turgot died in 1781.)
Footnote 70:
Ripley, _The Races of Europe_ (1899), p. 4.—Cuvier was twenty years
younger than Goethe; both died in the same year.
Footnote 71:
E. G. Conklin, _Heredity and Environment in the Development of Men_
(Princeton Univ. Press, 1915, 533 pp.), p. 303.
Footnote 72:
_Eckermanns Gespräche mit Goethe_, neu herausgegeben v. H. H. Houben
(Leipzig: Brockhaus, 1909), p. 264.
Footnote 73:
_Ibid._, p. 265.—These two passages are also cited by Kupffer, _Klima
and Dichtung_, p. 64.
Footnote 74:
_Eckermanns Gespräche mit Goethe_, p. 542.
Footnote 75:
_Ibid._, p. 546.
Footnote 76:
Karl Lamprecht, “Neue Kulturgeschichte” (pp. 449–64 in Das Jahr 1913,
_Ein Gesamtbild der Kulturentwicklung_, hg. v. D. Sarason,
Leipzig-Berlin: B. G. Teubner, 1913), p. 453.
Footnote 77:
Albert Poetzsch, _Studien zur frühromantischen Politik und
Geschichtsauffassung_ (Leipzig: Voigtländer, 1907, 111 pp.), p. 89.
Footnote 78:
“Die Einwirkung der äußeren Natur auf die Geschichte tritt zurück [in
der romantischen Geschichtsphilosophie]”; and in a note is added:
“Wenn auch der Zusammenhang von Boden und Geschichte, namentlich von
natürl. Grenzen u. Staat, der Betrachtung nicht verloren geht. Vgl. A.
W. Schlegel, Enz. 216. 697.”—_Ibid._, p. 94.
Footnote 79:
Bernheim, _Lehrb. d. hist. Methode_, p. 650.
Footnote 80:
_Ibid._, p. 515.
Footnote 81:
See Ludwig Gumplowicz, _Der Rassenkampf_ (2.... Aufl., Innsbruck,
1909), p. 9 n.
Footnote 82:
_Vide_ the quotation from Hegel by Gumplowicz, _l.c._, p. 13 n.
II
A SKETCH OF THE HISTORY OF THE IDEA OF MILIEU SINCE THE BEGINNING OF THE
NINETEENTH CENTURY
_Anthropo-geography, Geography and History_
The theory of social environment, as we have seen, gradually rises,
especially since the renaissance, parallel with the theory of physical
milieu. The stream of thought commences to broaden on both sides as we
approach the eighteenth century, and broadens still further, and
deepens, in the nineteenth, when specialization occurs or continues in
anthropo-geography, biology, jurisprudence and economics, anthropology,
sociology, and literature, and latterly in physics. These furnish us the
divisions for subsequent discussions.[83]
All antecedent thought on the subject converges in Herder and from this
focal point, as a collecting and fructifying center, it emerges,
branches out and radiates in a definite number of directions. This can
only be indicated here.[84] One main ramification leads us to
anthropo-geography. Consequently, we must now turn to a detailed
consideration of the idea of milieu in anthropo-geography.[85]
Karl Ritter first in anthropo-geography elucidated Herder’s ideas on
environment. “... KARL RITTER steht auf HERDERS Schultern, wenn er in
seiner ‘Allgemeinen Erdkunde’ den Gedanken der tiefgehenden
Beeinflussung der Völkergeschichte durch die äußeren Umgebungen
entwickelt ...”[86] Ritter is said to be given too much credit for
connecting scientifically geography and history: “C. Ritter führte, ...
die Herder’schen Anschauungen deutlicher aus. Die wissenschaftliche,
nicht bloß äußerliche Verbindung von Geographie und Geschichte kettet
sich an seinen Namen. Nicht ganz mit Recht; ...”[87] Richthofen thinks
that Ritter’s basic idea was almost without influence on geography; only
the historians profited by it.[88] Alexander von Humboldt, on the other
hand, declares in the first volume of his _Cosmos_ that “The views of
comparative geography have been specially enlarged by that admirable
work, Erdkunde im Verhältnis zur Natur und zur Geschichte, in which Carl
Ritter so ably delineates the physiognomy of our globe and shows the
influence of its external configuration on the physical phenomena on its
surface, on the migrations, laws, and manners of nations, and on all the
principal historical events enacted upon the face of the earth.”[89]
In the _Erdkunde_,[90] Ritter propounds a program for
anthropo-geographical investigation, i.e., for the investigation of the
mutual relation between man and his environment. As every moral man
should, so should also “jeder menschliche Verein, jedes Volk seiner
eigenen inneren und äußeren Kräfte, wie derjenigen der Nachbarn und
seiner Stellung zu allen von außen herein wirkenden Verhältnissen inne
werden.”[91] Nature exercises greater influence over peoples than over
individual men: “Die Eigentümlichkeit des Volkes kann nur aus seinem
Wesen erkannt werden, aus seinem Verhältnis zu sich selbst, zu seinen
Gliedern, zu seinen Umgebungen, und weil kein Volk ohne Staat und
Vaterland gedacht werden kann, aus seinem Verhältnis zu beiden und aus
dem Verhältnis von beiden zu Nachbarländern und Nachbarstaaten. Hier
zeigt sich der Einfluß, den die Natur auf die Völker, und zwar in einem
noch weit höheren Grade, als auf den einzelnen Menschen ausüben muß ...
“Denn durch eine höhere Ordnung bestimmt, treten die Völker wie die
Menschen zugleich unter dem Einfluß einer Tätigkeit der Natur und der
Vernunft hervor aus dem geistigen wie aus dem physischen Elemente in den
Alles verschlingenden Kreis des Weltlebens. Gestaltet sich doch jeder
Organismus dem inneren Zusammenhange und dem äußeren Umfange nach ...
Sie (Völker und Staaten) stehen alle unter demselben Einflusse der Natur
...”[92] To the problem of the reciprocal relation between external and
internal factors, Ritter devoted a special essay, entitled “Über das
historische Element in der geographischen Wissenschaft,” which he read
before the Academy of Sciences at Berlin in 1833.[93]
In Alexander von Humboldt’s _Ansichten der Natur_,[94] “Everywhere the
reader’s attention is directed to the perpetual influence which physical
nature exercises on the moral condition and on the destiny of man.”[95]
In passing, Humboldt also touches on environment in the first volume of
his chef-d’oeuvre, _Kosmos_, assigning it, however, but a modest rôle:
“Es würde das allgemeine Naturbild, das ich zu entwerfen strebe,
unvollständig bleiben, wenn ich hier nicht auch den Mut hätte, das
Menschengeschlecht in seinen physischen Abstufungen, in der
geographischen Verbreitung seiner gleichzeitig vorhandenen Typen, in dem
Einfluß, welchen es von den Kräften der Erde empfangen und
wechselseitig, wenn auch schwächer, auf sie ausgeübt hat, mit wenigen
Zügen zu schildern. Abhängig, wenn gleich in minderem Grade als Pflanzen
und Tiere, von dem Boden und den meteorologischen Prozessen des
Luftkreises, den Naturgewalten durch Geistestätigkeit und stufenweise
erhöhte Intelligenz, wie durch eine wunderbare sich allen Klimaten
aneignende Biegsamkeit des Organismus leichter entgehend, nimmt das
Geschlecht wesentlich Teil an dem ganzen Erdenleben.”[96]
J. G. Kohl’s book, _Der Verkehr und die Ansiedlungen der Menschheit in
ihrer Abhängigkeit von der Gestaltung der Erdoberfläche_,[97] occupies
itself with the question of the dependence of human progress in general,
and of density and concentration of population in particular, upon
natural conditions. The causes of these phenomena are, to Kohl, partly
moral or political, and partly physical. The physical causes of
concentration are twofold: “Teils sind es solche, die von dem mehr oder
minder großen Produktenreichtum des Bodens, teils solche, die von der
Gestaltung der Erdoberfläche abhängen ... so zeigt sich dann, daß von
allen verschiedenen Ursachen der Kondensierung der Bevölkerung die
Bodengestaltung die allerwichtigste ist.”[98] Opposed to these natural
conditions is a series of what Kohl styles political influences, such as
national character, institutions created by the State, laws, etc.—“Die
moralischen oder politischen Ursachen der verschiedenen Dichtigkeit der
Bevölkerung sind in dem Kulturzustande und besonders in der politischen
Verfassung der Bewohner der verschiedenen Erdstriche begründet ... Auch
sind viele verschiedene Sitten der Völker als einflußreiche Ursachen der
mehr oder minder großen Dichtigkeit der Bevölkerung zu betrachten.”[99]
Not only national character, but also education is to be counted among
the political influences: “Unter politischen und moralischen Einflüssen,
die nicht von der Natur bedingt werden, verstehen wir solche Kräfte,
solche Volkstalente und Eigentümlichkeiten des Charakters, die nicht der
Boden, die Luft und das Klima dem Volke geben. So groß nämlich auch die
Gewalt des Bodens, des Klimas und der Natur ist, so sehr die Zonen, die
Gebirge, die Sümpfe, die Wälder, die Wüsten u.s.w. alle Bevölkerung, die
in ihre Gebiete fällt, auf einerlei Weise zu bilden und zu modeln
streben, so sehr behauptet doch immer noch nebenher der ursprüngliche
Charakter des Stammes und die Erziehung, welche das Volk sich gibt, ihre
eigenen Rechte. Es existieren beide Einflüsse neben einander,
beschränken sich gegenseitig, aber sie heben sich nicht auf ... Das, was
nun nicht vom Boden abhängt und was ein Volk auf jeden Boden, den es
bezieht, mit hin bringt, ist wiederum Zweierlei, entweder etwas
Angeborenes oder etwas Angenommenes.”[100] It is difficult to
differentiate between what is due to original endowment and what to the
milieu, yet natural influences can not be ignored: “Welcher Geist ...
möchte den Versuch wagen, zu entscheiden, was im Charakter des Volkes
... Angenommenes und was Selbstgegebenes sei, was endlich in ihren
Handlungen und Bewegungen von Klima und Landesbeschaffenheit bedingt
werde. Die Charaktergepräge der Nationen, wie wir sie jetzt in diesen
neuesten Momenten der weltgeschichtlichen Entwicklung sehen, sind
Gebilde, welche unter der Einwirkung unerforschbar vielfacher Einflüsse
entstanden sind.... Und doch stehen sie (die Natureinflüsse, die von den
Historikern gewöhnlich unberücksichtigt geblieben sind) vielleicht auch
bei allen jenen Dingen, die wir im Vordergrunde agieren sehen, im
Hintergrunde und wirken als die Quellen der Erscheinungen mittelbar
selbst da, wo wir dieselben anderen Ursachen zuschreiben. So mag jede
Art der Staatsverfassung, der Gewerbzweige geschöpft und hervorgeblüht
sein aus der Tiefe des Nationalgeistes, des Boden- und des Luftgeistes,
während wir sie als Willkürliches und Selbstgegebenes auffassen.”[101]
The naturalist Karl Ernst von Baer discusses the influence of external
nature upon the social relations of individual nations and upon the
history of mankind in general,[102] while the geologist Bernhard Cotta
attempts to show the effect of soil and geological structure on German
life.[103] Accepting, in the main, Cotta as a basis, J. Kutzen, in _Das
deutsche Land, Seine Natur in ihren charakteristischen Zügen und sein
Einfluß auf Geschichte und Leben der Menschen, Skizzen und Bilder_,[104]
the bulk of which book is physical geography, intersperses therewith
anthropo-geographical statements that are in some cases interwoven in,
and in others added to, the descriptive parts, pointing out the relation
of environment to the life and history of the Germans.[105] Kutzen
claims his work to be the first that treats the _whole_ of Germany in
the way just indicated.
In The Natural History of the German People,[106] W. H. Riehl studies
the action of natural conditions on man. He is concerned with the
connections between land and people: “Will man die naturgeschichtliche
Methode der Wissenschaft vom Volke in ihrer ganzen Breite und Tiefe
nachweisen, dann muß man auch in das Wesen dieser örtlichen
Besonderungen des Volkstumes eindringen. In der Lehre von der
bürgerlichen Gesellschaft ist das Verhältnis der großen natürlichen
Volksgruppen zueinander nachgewiesen: hier sollen diese Gruppen nach den
örtlichen Bedingungen des Landes, in welchem das Volksleben wurzelt,
dargestellt werden. Erst aus den individuellen Bezügen von LAND UND
LEUTEN entwickelt sich die kulturgeschichtliche Abstraktion der
bürgerlichen Gesellschaft.”[107] And “Das vorliegende Buch hat sich das
bescheidenere Ziel gesteckt, zusammenhängende Skizzen zu liefern zur
Naturgeschichte des Volkes _in seinem Zusammenhang mit dem Lande_.”[108]
His chief aim is to prove that the connection between land and people is
the basis of all social development and of all social research: “Ich
hatte mir von Anbeginn das Ziel gesteckt, den Zusammenhang von Land und
Volk als Fundament aller sozialen und politischen Entwicklung, als
Ausgangspunkt aller sozialen Forschung nachzuweisen, und dieses
Hauptziel, die eigentliche Tendenz des Buches, hat heute noch denselben
Wert, dieselbe fördernde Kraft wie vor einem Menschenalter.”[109] He
wants to show how “Volksart” and “Landesart” hang together, how
nationality grows organically out of the soil: “Ich nenne dieses
Wanderbuch einen zweiten Band zu ‘Land und Leuten.’ In jener Schrift
verarbeite ich zahlreiche Wanderskizzen, um den Zusammenhang von
Volksart und Landesart, das organische Erwachsen des Volkstumes aus dem
Boden nachzuweisen.”[110] Everywhere Riehl finds “an organic relation
between nature and man,” according to Gooch.[111] Riehl recognizes “that
man could only develop within the limits imposed by nature.”[112] The
problem of how locality affects social groups has, of course, not
originated with Riehl, but it received a reformulation at his hands. It
must be added, however, that his bombastic assertions far outrun his
data. His claims are disproportionate to his facts.[113]
Alfred Kirchhoff brilliantly sketches the reciprocal relations between
land and people in Germany, in an essay entitled _Die deutschen
Landschaften und Stämme_.[114]
Achelis[115] refers to Bastian’s doctrine of geographical provinces, “wo
eine Reihe rein physikalischer Agentien: Temperatur, Boden, Flora,
Fauna, etc. sich mit entsprechenden psychischen kombinieren, so daß man
in konzentrischer Reihenfolge von botanischen, zoologischen und
anthropologischen Kreisen reden könnte. Der leitende Grundsatz, sagt
Bastian, für geographisch-typische Provinzen fällt in die Abhängigkeit
des Organismus von seiner geographischen Umgebung (_le Milieu_ oder
_Monde ambiant_), in eine gegenseitig festgeschlossene Wechselwirkung
und also in Naturgesetze, mit denen sich rechnen läßt (_Zur Lehre von
den geographischen Provinzen_ [Berlin, 1886], S. 6).”
The reciprocal influences of man and his environment are illustrated by
Alfred Kirchhoff in _Mensch und Erde, Skizzen von den Wechselbeziehungen
zwischen beiden_.[116]
Ferdinand von Richthofen[117] traces the gradual evolution of “Siedlung
und Verkehr,” under which two concepts he subsumes all relations of man
to the soil.[118]
It was Friedrich Ratzel, however, who “performed the great service of
placing anthropo-geography on a secure scientific basis. He had his
forerunners in Montesquieu,[119] Alexander von Humboldt, Buckle,
Ritter, Kohl, Peschel and others; but he first investigated the
subject from the modern scientific point of view, ... and based his
conclusions on world-wide inductions, for which his predecessors did
not command the data.”[120] He “has written the standard work on
_Anthropogeographie_.”[121] Employing the analytical method, Ratzel
was the first to divide the subject-matter into categories: “Ratzel
hat das Verdienst, daß er zuerst den Stoff in Kategorien teilte. Er
wendet die analytische Methode der allgemeinen Geographie an und
betrachtet den Einfluß einzelner Naturgegebenheiten auf den Menschen,
z.B. der Inseln, Halbinseln, Gebirge, Ebenen, Steppen, Wüsten, Küsten,
Flußmündungen[122] usw. Die analytische Methode allein kann zum Ziele
führen.”[123] The great and permanent merit of Ratzel’s _Politische
Geographie_[124] is its setting forth how closely the State is bound
to the physical milieu.[125] It treats partly of the effect of nature
and soil on the formation of the State and on political
boundaries.[126] Ratzel expounds environmental action also in his
books _Die Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika_,[127] _The History of
Mankind_,[128] and in his article on “The Principles of
Anthropo-geography.”[129] Among his followers is to be counted Andrew
R. Cowan, whose _Master-Clues in World-History_[130] is “deeply
impregnated with Ratzel’s teachings.”[131] Camille Vallaux devotes the
fifth chapter (pp. 145–73) of his _Géographie Sociale, Le Sol et
L’État_,[132] to a criticism of the theories of _Raum_ (space) and of
Lage (situation) as developed by Ratzel in his _Politische
Geographie_. And, in general, Ratzel’s “published work had been open
to the just criticism of inadequate citation of authorities.”[133] O.
Schlüter in “Die leitenden Gesichtspunkte der Anthropogeographie,
insbesondere der Lehre Friedrich Ratzels”[134] gives us the best
single estimate of Ratzel, the best orientation—within the compass of
an article well written, well poised, and illuminating—on Ratzel’s
work, thought, method, and application.[135]
_Geography and History_
We shall now see, first, the stand taken by some French writers, and
then that taken by German and English writers, on the question of how
physical environment affects history.
One of the “three most philosophical writers on climate,”[136] Charles
Comte, not related by birth to the founder of Positivism, is, likewise,
one of the earliest disciples of Herder in France. Herder “seems to have
helped to inspire”[137] Charles Comte’s _Traité de Législation_.[138]
Charles Comte’s “discussion of the questions which relate to the
influence of physical nature on human development must have been the
fruit of long and careful study. It was as great an advance on
Montesquieu’s treatment of the subject as Montesquieu’s had been on that
of Bodin. It disproved, corrected, or confirmed a host of Montesquieu’s
observations and conclusions. It showed that he had ascribed too much to
climate, and too little to the configuration of the earth’s surface, the
distribution of mountains and rivers, &c.; and that he had conceived
vaguely, and even to a large extent erroneously, of the modes in which
climate and the fertility or sterility of soil affect human development.
But while Comte thus justly criticised Montesquieu, he himself
exaggerated the efficiency of physical agencies. Indeed, he virtually
traced to their operation the whole development of history ... he has
assumed that physical agencies ultimately account for historical change
and movement, for public institutions and laws....
“Charles Comte fully recognises that the same physical medium has a very
different influence on different generations; and that institutions and
laws, education and manners, and, in a word, all the constituents of the
social medium, have as real an influence on the development of history
as those of the physical medium. Yet he assumes the latter to be the
first, although to a large extent only indirect, causes of the whole
amount of change effected.”[139]
Victor Cousin, another Frenchman, reconnects with Herder. Cousin had
direct acquaintance with at least the principal work of Herder, for the
rendering of whose “Ideen” into French by Quinet he seems
responsible.[140] In the eighth lecture of his “admired”[141] _Cours de
1828 sur la Philosophie de l’Histoire_, he discourses on the rôle that
geography plays in history.
F. Guizot, in the fifth lecture of _The History of Civilization_,[142]
comments briefly on the influence of external circumstances upon
liberty.
The romantic French historiographer, Jules Michelet, in his _Histoire de
France_ (second volume, 1833), and in his _Histoire Romaine_ (1839),
interlinks geography with history, and brilliantly describes the
countries whose histories he is writing. Like some before him (such as
Montesquieu), and many after him (such as Riehl, Curtius, and
Gothein),[143] who traveled in the respective countries before
describing them or composing their history, Michelet, as one preliminary
measure toward equipping himself for such a task, visited Italy[144] and
various parts of France, the latter repeatedly, in order to gain a first
hand impression of the physical milieu and the people of those lands. He
is said to be the first [_sic!_] in France who, under the influence of
Herder, had the idea that geography was the foundation of history: “Sous
l’influence de Herder, il [Michelet] eut, le premier en France, l’idée
que la géographie était le fondement de l’histoire: ‘Le matériel, la
race, le peuple qui la continue me paraissaient avoir besoin qu’on mît
dessous une bonne et forte base, la terre, qui les portât et qui les
nourrît. Et notez que ce sol n’est pas seulement le théâtre de l’action.
Par la nourriture, le climat, etc., il y influe de cent manières. Tel le
nid, tel l’oiseau. Telle la patrie, tel l’homme.’”[145] Without this
basis, the actor in history, the people, would be treading on air like
figures in some Chinese paintings. Says Jules Simon of the celebrated
tableau in the second volume of the _Histoire de France_: “Son héros
[Michelet’s] ... c’est la France. Il en fait une description qui remplit
tout le troisième livre et qui est un chef-d’oeuvre. Chose nouvelle,
cette géographie a autant de mouvement que l’histoire. Elle est animée,
vivante, agissante. Il en montre à merveille l’utilité, la nécessité.
Sans cette base géographique, le peuple, l’acteur historique, semblerait
marcher en l’air, comme dans les peintures chinoises, où le sol
manque.”[146] In the _Introduction to Universal History_ (1831),
Michelet says, “In Germany and Italy, fatality is still strong; moral
freedom is still borne down by powerful influences of race, locality,
and climate.”[147]
Ernst Kapp, in the _Philosophische Erdkunde_,[148] criticizes writers on
the philosophy of history for their failure to give due attention to the
geographical existence of the nations. Nor are geographical intermezzos
alone sufficient: “Man [these writers] hat zwar eine Ahnung von dem
geographischen Element in der Geschichte, nicht aber das deutliche
Bewußtsein, daß die Menschheit an dem Planeten ihre physische
Individualität besitzt, daß sie zu ihm sich verhält, wie die Seele zum
Leib. Anstatt die geographische Betrachtung durch und durch mit der
historischen verwachsen zu lassen [which he proposes to do], hat man
teils geographische Intermezzos nach subjektivem Gutdünken ...
eingestreut, teils auch sich mit einer dem Ganzen voraufgeschickten
geographischen Grundlage ein für allemal begnügt. Man hat hierbei nicht
bedacht, daß man die Geschichte, wenn man ihr den planetarischen Grund
und Boden, auf den man sie von vornherein stellt, wegrückt, zwischen
Himmel und Erde schweben läßt und ihre Behandlung dem veränderlichen
Luftzuge des subjektiven Beliebens mehr oder minder preisgibt ... Darin
ruht die Selbständigkeit der geographischen Wissenschaft, ..., daß ihr
Objekt die Erde ist, ... die Erde, wie sie bestimmend auf die
Entwicklung des Geistes einwirkt und hinwiederum vom Geist bestimmt und
verändert wird. Dies Verhältnis des Planeten zum Geist ist ein
wesentliches.”[149]
Arnold H. Guyot, “ce Suisse transplanté en Amérique,”[150] treats the
same topic in the _Géographie physique comparée, considérée dans ses
rapports avec l’histoire de l’humanité_.[151]
The frequently misquoted Henry Thomas Buckle, in the celebrated second
chapter of the _History of Civilization in England_,[152] shows the
largely indirect effects of climate, food, and soil, chiefly upon the
civilizations—of India, Egypt, Mexico, Peru, etc.—anterior to those of
Europe, and of a fourth class of physical agents, namely, of what he
terms the general aspect of nature upon the imagination—religion,
literature, art—of those peoples. Buckle does not maintain that these
four classes of the Environment were the _sole_ factors in producing
civilization; in fact he makes it quite clear that they were _not_ the
only factors, that they affected the civilizations mentioned in an
indirect way and he indicates how this has taken place. Buckle’s
statements of his ideas had been misrepresented, twisted, and distorted
to such a degree that John M. Robertson felt impelled to write a whole
book[153] in rebuttal, in order to set Buckle’s detractors and
controversial critics right and to refute their unfair imputations to
Buckle’s intended meaning.
The romanticist Ernst Curtius is sometimes referred to as one of those
historians who give adequate expression to the action of the physical
milieu upon the course of history. But Vallaux declares that Curtius,
like Michelet, has made of human geography and of political geography
_merely_ a preliminary and introductory science to history: “une science
auxiliaire ou plutôt liminaire, sorte de _portique d’entrée_ [the
italics are ours] pour leurs brillantes constructions,”[154] lending
thus support to Kapp’s contention.[155] Nor would Ratzel be content with
a portrayal of the land as an introduction to the history of a country,
even though it be as richly colored as that drawn by Curtius.[156] A
description, in itself, fails to penetrate to the core of the relation.
If we now turn to Curtius’ _The History of Greece_,[157] we find that
the first chapter in the first book[158] considers Land and People, a
part of which (pp. 9–18) gives a geographical description of Hellas, and
another part of which (pp. 19–25, seven pages scant) points out the
connection between the land and the people. Elsewhere,[159] Curtius
shows the interaction between the physical environment of Athens and the
Athenians.[160]
George Grote, whose account of the relation between the Greek land and
the Greek people is held by some[161] to be excellent, in _A History of
Greece_,[162] devotes four pages (227–30) of the chapter on General
Geography and Limits of Greece to show the effects of the configuration
of Greece upon the political relation of the inhabitants[163] and the
effects upon their intellectual development,[164] the rest of the
chapter being given over to a description of the geography of Greece.
Alfred E. Zimmern, in _The Greek Commonwealth, Politics and Economics in
Fifth-Century Athens_,[165] deals very cleverly with the main features
of the material environment of Greek civilization: The Mediterranean
Area; The Sea; The Climate; The Soil; Fellowship, or the Rule of Public
Opinion, under which headings he discusses the influence of environment
upon Greek institutions.[166]
As early as 1864, G. P. Marsh investigates the subject of man’s reaction
on his milieu in _Man and Nature, or Physical Geography as Modified by
Human Action_ (London).
John William Draper, in his _History of the Intellectual Development of
Europe_,[167] in the composition of which Herderian ideas were the
guides,[168] first attempts to show (vol. I, pp. 6–17) that individual
man, as well as communities, nations, and universal humanity, are under
the control of physical conditions; then (pp. 23–35) he points out how
the topography, meteorology, and secular geological movements of Europe
affected its inhabitants. On the whole, he overstates the force of
environment and neglects the human factor; nevertheless his
uncompromising affirmations bring out strikingly some of the
environmental effects on man.
The uncritical Max Duncker, in the nine volume _Geschichte des
Altertums_,[169] not only has chapters on _Land und Volk_, or _Land und
Stämme_ at the beginning of the history of a given nation, but he also
dwells elsewhere in his text on the sway of geography in history.
Élisée Réclus, in the magistral _Nouvelle Géographie Universelle_ (1879
ff.), speaking of the difficulties encountered by research, queries:
“... Was verdanken die Nationen dem Einfluß der Natur, die sie umgibt?
Was verdanken sie dem Milieu, das ihre Vorfahren bewohnten, ihren
Rasseinstinkten, ihren verschiedenartigen Mischungen, den von Außen
eingeführten Überlieferungen? Man weiß es nicht, kaum daß einige
Lichtstrahlen in jene Finsternis dringen.”[170] The preponderance of
European nations is by no means attributable, as some arrogantly and
self-conceitedly fancied, to any racial endowment; on the contrary, it
is due to the favoring conditions of the physical environment prevailing
in Europe: “Man weiß, wie mächtig der Einfluß des geographischen Milieu
auf die Fortschritte der europäischen Nationen gewesen ist. Ihre
Überlegenheit ist keineswegs, wie einige sich dünkelhafter Weise
eingebildet haben, der eigentümlichen Anlage der Rassen zuzuschreiben,
denn in anderen Gegenden der alten Welt haben sich eben dieselben Rassen
weniger schöpferisch erwiesen. Es sind die glücklichen Bedingungen der
Wärme, des Klimas, der Gestalt und Lage des Festlandes, welche den
Europäern die Ehre verschafft haben, die ersten gewesen zu sein in der
Kenntnis der Erde in ihrem ganzen Umfange und lange Zeit an der Spitze
der Zivilisation geblieben zu sein.”[171] These conditions help to
explain, in part, the character of the nations: “Mit vollem Recht lieben
es also die historischen Geographen bei der Gestalt der verschiedenen
Erdteile und bei den Folgen zu verweilen, welche sich daraus für die
Bestimmung der Völker ergeben. Die Gestalt der Hochebenen, die Höhe der
Berge, der Lauf und der Reichtum der Flüsse, die Nachbarschaft des
Ozeans, die Gliederung der Küsten, die Temperatur der Atmosphäre, die
Häufigkeit oder Seltenheit des Regens, die unzähligen wechselseitigen
Einflüsse der Sonne, der Luft und der Gewässer, alle Erscheinungen des
Pflanzenlebens habe eine Bedeutung in ihren Augen und dienen ihnen
(wenigstens zum Teil), den Charakter und das erste Leben der Nationen zu
erklären ...”[172] Continental and oceanic forms and other features of
the globe vary in their value for man in accordance with the stage of
civilization to which he attained.[173] Notwithstanding this separation,
in principle, of natural and national influences upon social evolution,
its application to concrete cases Réclus finds arduous: “Durch das
Studium der Sonne und durch die unablässige Beobachtung der klimatischen
Erscheinungen können wir ganz allgemein verstehen, welches der Einfluß
der Natur auf die Entwicklung der Völker gewesen ist; aber es ist
schwieriger, das auf jede Rasse, auf jede Nation zu verteilen....”[174]
P. Mougeoulle’s theory in _Les problèmes de l’histoire_,[175] is an
altogether one-sided geographical theory of history.[176] The sole cause
of the external as well as the internal history of peoples, is, in his
opinion, the geographical Milieu.[177] To Mougeoulle, the Milieu is the
author, whereas man is the actor of the Drama of history.[178]
Léon Metchnikoff, in _La Civilisation et Les Grands Fleuves
Historiques_,[179] pays some attention to the influences (astronomic,
physical—the geosphere, the hydrosphere, and the atmosphere—, vegetal,
animal, anthropological) of the milieu on man and society; yet his main
care is with the action of parts of the hydrosphere on human progress.
Following C. Böttiger (_Das Mittelmeer_, Leipzig, 1859), Metchnikoff
distinguishes the three milieus: fluvial or potamic, mediterranean or
thalassic, and oceanic or universal.[180] On this basis he divides
universal history into three periods: 1) the period of the fluvial
civilizations (temps anciens), furnishing the principal theme of his
argument (discussed in the last four chapters of his book); 2) that of
the mediterranean civilizations (temps moyens); 3) and that of the
oceanic civilizations. The fluvial or ancient period, from the
beginnings to _circa_ 800 B.C., comprises the history of the four great
civilizations of antiquity, in Egypt, Mesopotamia, India, China, “qui
ont eu pour milieu géographique des régions arrosées par certains
fleuves ou couples de fleuves célèbres.” The mediterranean or middle
period extends from the seventh century B.C.—the foundation of
Carthage—to Charles the Fifth. The modern or oceanic period has two
epochs: a) the _atlantic_ epoch, from the discovery of America to about
the middle of the nineteenth century; and b) the _universal_ epoch, just
beginning.[181] In the main, Metchnikoff limits the scope of his work to
the compass of fluvial civilizations. He studies in detail the four
great historical rivers or pairs of rivers (the Nile, the Tigris and the
Euphrates, the Indus and the Ganges, and the Hoangho and the
Yangtze-Kiang, those great educators of mankind) in their bearing upon
the four grand civilizations—Chinese, Hindu, Assyro-Babylonian, and
Egyptian—of remote antiquity, all of which expanded in fluvial
regions.[182] The River, in all countries, presents itself to
Metchnikoff as the living synthesis of all the complex conditions of the
climate, of the soil, of the configuration of the earth, and of the
geologic formation. In Egypt and in China, in India and in Mesopotamia,
the River has been “comme une synthèse vivante des conditions
géographiques les plus multiples.”[183] He finds that each of the four
great monarchies of antiquity had been a natural consequence or result
of the hydrological system of the country that served as its cradle, and
that history, in the entire ancient world, had been a toil, a forced
labor (“une corvée”), imposed on a part of mankind by certain orographic
peculiarities of the Milieu. Metchnikoff concludes that in these empires
“le Milieu s’est trouvé être invariablement le vrai créateur de
l’histoire.” The eloquent example of these four grand ancient
civilizations sufficiently proves to him that no important historical
expansion could ever occur in any country of the world, unless the
milieu condemned its inhabitants to that excessive solidarity which he
shows to have been brutally imposed everywhere at the shores of these
great historical rivers; a milieu is conceivable, however, where this
condition, rigorously required by history, may be fulfilled by an
environmental factor other than a river or a system of rivers.[184]
Metchnikoff protests that he is far from advocating potamic[185] or
geographical[186] fatalism.[187]
Babington’s study of the power of environment over history points out
the fallacy of the race theory in the history of the Roman empire, of
Germany, and of China.[188]
N. S. Shaler, in _Nature and Man in America_,[189] traces, on the one
hand, the action of environment on organic life, and, on the other, the
effect of geographic conditions on the development of peoples, more
especially on that of man in North America.[190]
Since about the middle of the eighties, under the leadership of the late
historian E. A. Freeman and of the illustrious statesman and scholar,
Lord James Bryce, “a marked revival of interest” has been exhibited in
England in studying the physical milieu as it relates to man and human
society, institutions and history.[191]
The leading point of view in H. F. Helmolt’s _The History of the World,
a Survey of Man’s Record_,[192] is the treatment of man’s relation to
his physical environment, the relation of geography to history, the
dependence of man on his geographical surroundings. “It [Helmolt’s
_History_] deals with history in the light of physical environment....
Its ground plan, so to speak, is primarily geographical....”[193] It was
conceived in the spirit of Ratzel;[194] it is said to have brought for
the first time “die Länder- und Völkerkunde in den Dienst der
Weltgeschichtsdarstellung.”[195] Helmolt’s “great co-operative _History
of Mankind_ ... emphasizes the sovereign influences of nature and
geography,” says Gooch.[196]
Rev. H. B. George, in _The Relations of Geography and History_,[197]
attempts to “point out systematically how these [geographical] causes
work [all history through], first in general, and then in reference to
the various countries of Europe,”[198] although “This work does not
pretend to attempt the impossible task of describing all the influence
exerted by geographical conditions on human history. All that it
professes to do is to indicate the modes in which that influence works,
with sufficient illustrations from actual history.”[199]
Professor Geddes, of Edinburgh, is the most energetic expounder of this
idea—the anthropo-geographical conception of history—in the
English-speaking world, says Small.[200]
Throughout the entire treatment of Guglielmo Ferrero’s[201] _History of
Rome_ (one of the most original and important historical works of recent
years), geography thoroughly permeates history.[202]
Robert Sieger[203] attempts to explain the history and policies of the
Austro-Hungarian monarchy “aus ihren geographischen Grundlagen.”[204]
Ellsworth Huntington, in _The Pulse of Asia_,[205] illustrates the
geographic basis of history.[206]
The Columbia School of sociological historians, and others, interpret
history partly in terms of the milieu: physical (economic and
geographic) and social.[207]
Human geography, and political geography, have long been divided into
fragmentary parts, contended for by economics, history, and
sociology.[208] Yet the discipline of anthropo-geography has now become
“eine mächtige Hilfswissenschaft der geschichtlichen Auffassung.”[209]
So that, today, it has become a custom to include in textbooks of
history one or more chapters on the relation of geography to history, to
show the dependence of history on environment.[210] The study of the
latter is a part of Kulturgeschichte or History of Civilization which is
defined as embracing the non-political aspects of civilization such as
the influence of nature, the pressure of economic factors, the origin
and transformation of ideas, the contribution of science and art,
religion and philosophy, literature and law, the material conditions of
life, the fortunes of the masses.[211] Likewise, only on a broader
scale, the milieu is being examined in a new branch of study, which is
one resultant of anthropo-geographical research. This new branch of
study is economic geography, which, according to John McFarlane,[212]
“may be defined as the study of the influence exerted upon the economic
activities of man by his physical environment, and more especially by
the form and structure of the surface of the land, the climatic
conditions which prevail upon it, and the place relations in which its
different regions stand to one another.” Seligman says that the modern
study of economic geography is but an expansion of the study of the
influence of milieu.[213]
Indeed, geography itself, _i.e._, the new geography, is conceived of as
the science or study of the responses of organisms to inorganic, and to
a certain extent organic, environmental control.[214] Professor William
Morris Davis, of Harvard University, is one of the chief exponents of
this theory in the United States. Very recently, Rollin D. Salisbury
said:[215] “By common consent, Geography (as distinct from physical
geography) is the science which deals with the relations of physical
environment to life and its activities. In this sense, geography is a
connecting link between geology, physiography, and climatology, on the
one hand, and zoölogy, botany, sociology, economics, and history on the
other. Its subject-matter is in process of formulation....”[216]
_More Recent Anthropo-geographical Treatises_
James Bryce offers the most excellent general survey of man’s relation
to his physical environment.[217]
Herbertson’s very useful and readable introductory book gives “concrete
pictures of human life under these very different conditions [typical
environments]. They show, in the first place, how the occupation of
different groups of mankind depends on their geographical surroundings,
and how these occupations in turn affect not only the material life, the
houses, food, clothing, etc., but also family life, notions of property,
progress in trade and manufactures, power of expansion, and ideals of
government. All these are classified, not according to race, which is
often an accident, but according to those permanent influences by which
all races are affected.”[218]
Robert DeCourcy Ward, in his standard work on _Climate Considered
Especially in Relation to Man_,[219] presents “typical illustrations” of
environmental action on the life of man in the tropics (Ch. 8, pp.
220–71), in the temperate zones (Ch. 9 pp. 272–321), and in the polar
zones (Ch. 10, pp. 322–37).[220] In a chapter on the hygiene of the
zones (Ch. 7, pp. 178–219), Ward also surveys “some of the relations
between weather and climate and a few of the more important
diseases.”[221]
R. R. Marett’s chapter on “Environment” in his _Anthropology_[222]
presents, beside a number of valuable general and critical remarks,
chiefly a regional survey of the world showing the general effect of
geographical environment on man.
Camille Vallaux, in _Géographie Sociale, Le Sol et L’État_,[223]
beginning with the sixth chapter, also discusses some phases of what
would in E. C. Hayes’ classification[224] be called the technical
milieu.
The most recent German essay, Willy Hellpach’s[225] _Die
Geopsychischen Erscheinungen: Wetter, Klima und Landschaft in ihrem
Einfluß auf das Seelenleben_,[226] deals with the _direct_ effects of
the surrounding _atmosphere_ and soil on the human psyche.[227]
Hellpach seems primarily interested in “Psycho-Pathologie”;[228] he
lays most stress on _das Pathologische_, particularly in the
main—first two—parts of his essay: “Wetter und Seelenleben,” and
“Klima und Seelenleben,” where the pathological effect is strongly
emphasized. Hellpach’s valuable summary of what we know today of this
phase of the milieu,[229] revealing as it does by the meager number of
the facts assembled the crying need for many more such facts, may be,
in its results, somewhat disappointing[230] for the present day, but
it augurs well for future investigation.
The latest extensive presentation of general anthropo-geography,[231]
Jean Brunhes’ _La géographie humaine_,[232] pays more attention to
present than to historical conditions,[233] and thus fittingly
complements Ellen C. Semple’s _Influences of Geographic
Environment_,[234] which “may be regarded as superseding Ratzel’s great
work on Anthropo-geography.”[235]
_Primitive Peoples and Environment_
Karl Ritter, in the essay “Über das historische Element in der
geographischen Wissenschaft” (1833), declares that the forces of nature
which at the commencement of human history exerted a very decisive
influence were bound to recede more and more, and their action had to
diminish, in proportion to man’s progress. Civilized mankind extricates
itself gradually, like single man, from the immediately conditioning
fetters of nature and of its place of abode.[236] This opinion of
Ritter’s was adopted by many.[237]
Theodor Waitz regards primitive man both as purely a product of, and as
being completely at the mercy of, circumambient nature: “Denken wir uns
vom Menschen Alles hinweg, was an ihm Wirkung der Kultur ist, so steht
er da als bloßes Produkt der Macht, die ihn in’s Leben rief, ... Das
Erste, was an ihm charakteristisch für uns hervorträte, würde die sehr
vollständige Abhängigkeit sein, in der er sich von seiner Naturumgebung
befände: der gesammte Inhalt, den sein inneres Leben zunächst gewönne,
würde ein ziemlich reines Produkt dieser letzteren sein. Der Naturmensch
wird zunächst nur das, wozu die Naturverhältnisse ihn machen, unter die
er sich gestellt findet; wovon er sich nährt, das werden diese ihm
darbieten, auf welche Weise und durch welche Mittel er seine Nahrung
gewinnt, dazu werden diese ihm Anleitung geben müssen; ob er Kleidung
und sonstigen Schutz gegen äußere Schädlichkeiten bedarf, und wie er
diesem Bedürfnis abzuhelfen strebt, werden sie ihn lehren und die
Erfindungen, die hierzu nötig sind, ihm an die Hand geben müssen; sie
werden mit einem Wort seine ganze Lebenseinrichtung bestimmen ...”[238]
G. Gerland holds that man developed from and upon nature, on which he is
very closely dependent and of which he is a small part, and that the
higher he rises the more he frees himself from the compelling influence
of the earth, which, however, he can never wholly escape.[239]
In the opinion of Herbert Spencer, the earlier stages of social
evolution are far more dependent on local conditions than the later
stages. They are more at the mercy of their surroundings.[240] Both
Spencer and Benjamin Kidd believe that primitive man is at the mercy of
the milieu.[241] The “remotely ancient representatives of the human
species ... were in their then wild state much more plastic than now to
external nature,” according to Wallace.[242] Historical and statistical
geography show us “die Menschen, wie sie in ihre aktive Rolle
eingetreten sind und durch Arbeit die Überlegenheit über das Milieu
gewinnen, das sie umgibt ... Nachdem der Mensch ganz den Einfluß des
Milieu über sich ergehen ließ, hat er denselben zu seinem Nutzen
umgestaltet ...”[243] The intimate connection of first civilizations
with physical environment slackens with subsequent advance.[244] This
apparently deep-rooted view is controverted by Ratzel who flatly
contradicts it. Distinguishing between the direct and the indirect
effects of milieu, he argues in straight opposition that with
progressing civilization we are increasingly dependent on environment,
that the degree of such dependence has not lessened with advancement in
civilization, and that only the manner of the relation has changed.[245]
Environment affects even the highest civilization, says Ripley.[246] G.
Elliot Smith maintains that “Environment, however it may act, whether
directly or indirectly, is still helping to shape the human form, and is
affecting the development of Man’s customs and achievements at least as
powerfully as, if not more so than, ever before.”[247]
_Society and Physical Milieu_
The social evolution proceeds amidst the entire system of exterior
conditions (chemical, physical, astronomical), by which its rate of
progress is determined. Social phenomena can no more be understood apart
from their environment than those of individual life.[248] The study of
social evolution presupposes a relation to the physical milieu: “Das
Studium der sozialen Entwicklung setzt eine Beziehung zwischen der
Menschheit, welche den Vorgang vollführt, und der Gesamtheit der äußeren
Einflüsse voraus, welche letztere man auch die sogenannte Umgebung
heißen könnte.”[249]
John Stuart Mill asserts that “All phenomena of society are phenomena of
human nature, generated by the action of outward circumstances upon
masses of human beings.”[250]
To Schäffle, in the analysis of the structure and functions of human
society there exist as influential factors the external surroundings, on
the one hand, and the active elements of the social body (the individual
and the population), on the other; for, as Schäffle emphasizes, not only
economics, but all social science must take into consideration not only
Society, but also Nature, _i.e._, the natural fund or stock, designated
by soil and climate, of the immediate world-surroundings of the social
body as the external sphere embracing societary life, and that, not only
as a sum total of free possessions, but also as a multiplicity of free,
_i.e._, unsubjugated resistances.[251]
As “the result of a survey of social organizations, considered as
machinery in motion, [Hermann] Post[252] points out very justly that it
is useless to attempt to explain social phenomena on the basis of the
psychological activities of individuals, as is too commonly assumed,
because all individuals whose conduct we can possibly observe have
themselves been educated in some society or other, and presume in all
their social acts the assumptions on which that society itself
proceeds.... It [Post’s method] is the same method, of course, which had
already yielded such remarkable results to Montesquieu, and even to
Locke. The point of view is no longer that of a Maine or a McLennan....
It is that of a spectator of human society as a whole.... And its
immediate outcome has been to throw into the strongest possible relief
the dependence of the form and, still more, of the actual content of all
human societies on something which is not in the human mind at all, but
is the infinite variety of that external Nature which Society exists to
fend off from Man, and also to let Man dominate if he can.”[253]
_Government, War, Progress, and Climate_
James Bryce “has recently clearly set forth the climatic control of
government in an essay on ‘British Experience in the Government of
Colonies’ (_Century_, March, 1899, 718–729).”[254] Vallaux, however, is
sceptical as to the influence of physical environment upon the
State.[255] William Ridgeway avers that political and legal institutions
are the result of environment.[256]
Far-reaching and weighty historical consequences “have followed from
special conditions of climate or weather. Maguire’s ‘Outlines of
Military Geography’ (Cambridge, 1899) contains a chapter on the
influence of climate on military operations, but this subject has
hitherto received little attention. More recently, Bentley, in a
presidential address before the Royal Meteorological Society, London,
considered the matter.”[257] Still more recently, the relation of
climate or weather to war has been scrutinized, among others, by F.
Lampe in “Der erdkundliche Unterricht,”[258] by Otto Baschin in “Der
Krieg und das Wetter,”[259] and by E. Alt in “Krieg und Witterung.”[260]
Hellwald, “the well-known traveller and geographer,” compiled his
“History of Civilization in its Natural Development” in 1874, according
to the findings of which, cultural development is “a natural process,
conditioned by race, geography, and climate. Civilisation means the
mastering of nature and the taming of man.... Hellwald’s standpoint is
shared, though less aggressively displayed by Henne-am-Rhyn.”[261]
To the late meteorologist Cleveland Abbe, “Everything seems to combine
to prove that the existing order of events both material and
intellectual has been brought about by a slow process of change, due to
the interaction of the atoms and masses that constitute the material
world around us.”[262]
The great diversity of existent civilizations, declares Auguste
Matteuzzi, is due to the diversity of the milieus where they developed.
In order to discover why any civilization becomes more heterogeneous and
more perfect, one must study the geographic milieu where it evolved. The
organic and inorganic milieu of evolving ethnic groups constrains human
societies to an incessant process of adaptation, and these societies in
their turn react upon the milieu and modify it.[263]
In short, says Auguste Comte, “all human progress, political, moral, or
intellectual, is inseparable from material progression, in virtue of the
close interconnection which, as we have seen, characterizes the natural
course of social phenomena.”[264]
That civilization is a result of adaptation to environment, physical as
well as political, is the view entertained by Bryce, Strachey, and
Geikie.[265]
_Climate and Man’s Characteristics_