By Author [ A  B  C  D  E  F  G  H  I  J  K  L  M  N  O  P  Q  R  S  T  U  V  W  X  Y  Z |  Other Symbols ]
  By Title [ A  B  C  D  E  F  G  H  I  J  K  L  M  N  O  P  Q  R  S  T  U  V  W  X  Y  Z |  Other Symbols ]
  By Language
all Classics books content using ISYS

Download this book: [ ASCII | HTML | PDF ]

Look for this book on Amazon

We have new books nearly every day.
If you would like a news letter once a week or once a month
fill out this form and we will give you a summary of the books for that week or month by email.

Title: History of Human Society
Author: Blackmar, Frank W. (Frank Wilson), 1854-1931
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.
Copyright Status: Not copyrighted in the United States. If you live elsewhere check the laws of your country before downloading this ebook. See comments about copyright issues at end of book.

*** Start of this Doctrine Publishing Corporation Digital Book "History of Human Society" ***

This book is indexed by ISYS Web Indexing system to allow the reader find any word or number within the document.

  [Transcriber's note: Extensive research found no evidence
  that the U.S. copyright on this publication was renewed.]









Copyright, 1926, by


Printed in the United States of America



This book tells what we know of man, how he first lived, how he worked
with other men, what kinds of houses he built, what tools he made, and
how he formed a government under which to live.  So we learn of the
activities of men in the past and what they have passed on to us.  In
this way we may become acquainted with the different stages in the
process which we call civilization.

The present trend of specialization in study and research has brought
about widely differentiated courses of study in schools and a large
number of books devoted to special subjects.  Each course of study and
each book must necessarily represent but a fragment of the subject.
This method of intensified study is to be commended; indeed, it is
essential to the development of scientific truth.  Those persons who
can read only a limited number of books and those students who can take
only a limited number of courses of study need books which present a
connected survey of the movement of social progress as a whole, and
which blaze a trail through the accumulation of learning, and give an
adequate perspective of human achievement.

It is hoped, then, that this book will form the basis of a course of
reading or study that will give the picture in small compass of this
most fascinating subject.  If it serves its purpose well, it will be
the introduction to more special study in particular fields or periods.

That the story of this book may be always related more closely with the
knowledge and experience of the individual reader, questions and
problems have been added at the conclusion of each chapter, which may
be used as subjects for {vi} discussion or topics for themes. For those
who wish to pursue some particular phase of the subject a brief list of
books has been selected which may profitably be read more intensively.

F. W. B.





CHAPTER                                                          PAGE

I.  WHAT IS CIVILIZATION?  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .      3

The human trail.  Civilization may be defined.  The material evidences
of civilization are all around us.  Primitive man faced an unknown
world.  Civilization is expressed in a variety of ways.  Modern
civilization includes some fundamentals.  Progress an essential
characteristic of civilization.  Diversity is necessary to progress.
What is the goal of civilized man? Possibilities of civilization.
Civilization can be estimated.

II.  THE ESSENTIALS OF PROGRESS  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .     18

How mankind goes forward on the trail.  Change is not necessarily
progress.  Progress expresses itself in a variety of ideals and aims.
Progress of the part and progress of the whole.  Social progress
involves individual development.  Progress is enhanced by the
interaction of groups and races.  The study of uncultured races of
to-day.  The study of prehistoric types.  Progress is indicated by
early cultures.  Industrial and social life of primitive man.  Cultures
indicate the mental development of the race.  Men of genius cause
mutations which permit progress.  The data of progress.


Difficulty of measuring progress.  Progress may be measured by the
implements used.  The development of art.  Progress is estimated by
economic stages.  Progress is through the food-supply.  Progress
estimated by the different forms of social order.  Development of
family life.  The growth of political life.  Religion important in
civilization.  Progress through moral evolution.  Intellectual
development of man.  Change from savagery to barbarism.  Civilization
includes all kinds of human progress.  Table showing methods of
recounting human progress.



IV.  PREHISTORIC MAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .     57

The origin of man has not yet been determined.  Methods of recounting
prehistoric time: (1) geologic method, (2) paleontology, (3) anatomy,
(4) cultures.  Prehistoric types of the human race.  The unity of the
human race.  The primitive home of man may be determined in a general
way.  The antiquity of man is shown in racial differentiation.  The
evidences of man's ancient life in different localities: (1) caves, (2)
shell mounds, (3) river and glacial drifts, (4) burial-mounds, (5)
battle-fields and village sites, (6) lake-dwellings.  Knowledge of
man's antiquity influences reflective thinking.


V.  THE ECONOMIC FACTORS OF PROGRESS . . . . . . . . . . . . .     82

The efforts of man to satisfy physical needs.  The attempt to satisfy
hunger and protect from cold.  The methods of procuring food in
primitive times.  The variety of food was constantly increased.  The
food-supply was increased by inventions.  The discovery and use of
fire.  Cooking added to the economy of the food-supply.  The
domestication of animals.  The beginnings of agriculture were very
meagre.  The manufacture of clothing.  Primitive shelters and houses.
Discovery and use of metals.  Transportation as a means of economic
development.  Trade, or exchange of goods.  The struggle for existence
develops the individual and the race.

VI.  PRIMITIVE SOCIAL LIFE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    108

The character of primitive social life.  The family is the most
persistent of social origins.  Kinship is a strong factor in social
organization.  The earliest form of social order.  The reign of custom.
The Greek and Roman family was strongly organized.  In primitive
society religion occupied a prominent place.  Spirit worship.  Moral
conditions.  Warfare and social progress.  Mutual aid developed slowly.



      SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    121

The origin of language has been a subject of controversy.  Language is
an important social function.  Written language followed speech in
order of development.  Phonetic writing was a step in advance of the
ideograph.  The use of manuscripts and books made permanent records.
Language is an instrument of culture.  Art as a language of aesthetic
ideas.  Music is a form of language.  The dance as a means of dramatic
expression.  The fine arts follow the development of language.  The
love of the beautiful slowly develops.


Man is a part of universal nature.  Favorable location is necessary for
permanent civilization.  The nature of the soil an essential condition
of progress.  The use of land the foundation of social order.  Climate
has much to do with the possibilities of progress.  The general aspects
of nature determine the type of civilization.  Physical nature
influences social order.

IX.  CIVILIZATION OF THE ORIENT  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    152

The first nations with historical records in Asia and Africa.
Civilization in Mesopotamia.  Influences coming from the Far East.
Egypt becomes a centre of civilization.  The coming of the Semites.
The Phoenicians became the great navigators.  A comparison of the
Egyptian and Babylonian empires.  The Hebrews made a permanent
contribution to world civilization.  The civilization of India and
China.  The coming of the Aryans.

X.  THE ORIENTAL TYPE OF CIVILIZATION  . . . . . . . . . . . .    170

The governments of the early Oriental civilizations.  War existed for
conquest and plunder.  Religious belief was an important factor in
despotic {ix} government.  Social organization was incomplete.
Economic influences.  Records, writing, and paper.  The beginnings of
science were strong in Egypt, weak in Babylon.  The contribution to


America was peopled from the Old World.  The Incas of Peru.  Aztec
civilization in Mexico.  The earliest centres of civilization in
Mexico.  The Pueblo Indians of the Southwest.  The Mound-Builders of
the Mississippi Valley.  Other types of Indian life.  Why did the
civilization of America fail?



XII.  THE OLD GREEK LIFE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    205

The old Greek life was the starting-point of Western civilization.  The
Aegean culture preceded the coming of the Greeks.  The Greeks were of
Aryan stock.  The coming of the Greeks.  Character of the primitive
Greeks.  Influence of old Greek life.

XIII.  GREEK PHILOSOPHY  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    215

The transition from theology to inquiry.  Explanation of the universe
by observation and inquiry.  The Ionian philosophy turned the mind
toward nature.  The weakness of Ionian philosophy.  The Eleatic
philosophers.  The Sophists.  Socrates the first moral philosopher (b.
469 B.C.).  Platonic philosophy develops the ideal.  Aristotle the
master mind of the Greeks.  Other schools.  Results obtained in Greek

XIV.  THE GREEK SOCIAL POLITY  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    229

The struggle for Greek equality and liberty.  The Greek government an
expanded family.  Athenian government a type of Grecian democracy.
Constitution of Solon seeks a remedy.  Cleisthenes continues the
reforms of Solon.  Athenian democracy failed in obtaining its best and
highest development.  The Spartan state differs from all others.  Greek
colonization spreads knowledge.  The conquests of Alexander.
Contributions of Greece to civilization.

XV.  ROMAN CIVILIZATION  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    250

The Romans differed in nature from the Greeks.  The social structure of
early Rome and that of early Greece.  Civil organization of Rome.  The
struggle for liberty.  The development of government.  The development
of law is the most remarkable phase of the Roman civilization.
Influence of the Greek life on Rome.  Latin literature and language.
Development of Roman art.  Decline of the Roman Empire.  Summary of
Roman civilization.

XVI.  THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    268

Important factors in the foundation of Western civilization.  The
social contacts of the Christian religion.  Social conditions at the
beginning of the Christian era.  The contact of Christianity with
social life.  Christianity influenced the legislation of the times.
Christians come into conflict with civil authority.  The wealth of the
church accumulates.  Development of the hierarchy.  Attempt to dominate
the temporal powers.  Dogmatism.  The church becomes the conservator of
knowledge.  Service of Christianity.



The coming of the barbarians.  Importance of Teutonic influence.
Teutonic liberty.  Tribal life.  Classes of society.  The home and the
home life.  Political assemblies.  General social customs.  The
economic life.  Contributions to law.

XVIII.  FEUDAL SOCIETY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    294

Feudalism a transition of social order.  There are two elementary
sources of feudalism.  The feudal system in its developed state based
on land-holding.  Other elements of feudalism.  The rights of
sovereignty.  The classification of feudal society.  Progress of
feudalism.  State of society under feudalism.  Lack of central
authority in feudal society.  Individual development in the dominant

XIX.  ARABIAN CONQUEST AND CULTURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    304

The rise and expansion of the Arabian Empire.  The religious zeal of
the Arab-Moors.  The foundations of science and art.  The beginnings of
chemistry and medicine.  Metaphysics and exact science.  Geography and
history.  Discoveries, inventions, and achievements.  Language and
literature.  Art and architecture.  The government of the Arab-Moors
was peculiarly centralized.  Arabian civilization soon reached its

XX.  THE CRUSADES STIR THE EUROPEAN MIND . . . . . . . . . . .    319

What brought about the crusades.  Specific causes of the crusades.
Unification of ideals and the breaking of feudalism.  The development
of monarchy.  The crusades quickened intellectual development.  The
commercial effects of the crusades.  General influence of the crusades
on civilization.

XXI.  ATTEMPTS AT POPULAR GOVERNMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . .    328

The cost of popular government.  The feudal lord and the towns.  The
rise of free cities.  The struggle for independence.  The
affranchisement of cities developed municipal organization.  The
Italian cities.  Government of Venice.  Government of Florence.  The
Lombard League.  The rise of popular assemblies in France.  Rural
communes arose in France.  The municipalities of France.  The
States-General was the first central organization.  Failure of attempts
at popular government in Spain.  Democracy in the Swiss cantons.  The
ascendancy of monarchy.  Beginning of constitutional liberty in England.


Social evolution is dependent upon variation.  The revival of progress
throughout Europe.  The revival of learning a central idea of progress.
Influence of Charlemagne.  The attitude of the church was
retrogressive.  Scholastic philosophy marks a step in progress.
Cathedral and monastic schools.  The rise of universities.  Failure to
grasp scientific methods.  Inventions and discoveries.  The extension
of commerce hastened progress.


The discovery of manuscripts.  Who were the humanists?  Relation of
humanism to language and literature.  Art and architecture.  The effect
of humanism on social manners.  Relation of humanism to science and
philosophy.  The study of the classics became fundamental in education.
General influence of humanism.


XXIV.  THE REFORMATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    375

The character of the Reformation.  Signs of the rising storm.  Attempts
at reform within the church.  Immediate causes of the Reformation.
Luther was the hero of the Reformation in Germany.  Zwingli was the
hero of the Reformation in Switzerland.  Calvin establishes the Genevan
system.  The Reformation in England differed from the German.  Many
phases of reformation in other countries.  Results of the Reformation
were far-reaching.


Progress of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.  The struggle of
monarchy with democracy.  Struggle for constitutional liberty in
England.  The place of France in modern civilization.  The divine right
of kings.  The power of the nobility.  The misery of the people.  The
church.  Influence of the philosophers.  The failure of government.
France on the eve of the revolution.  The revolution.  Results of the



XXVI.  PROGRESS OF POLITICAL LIBERTY . . . . . . . . . . . . .    413

Political liberty in the eighteenth century.  The progress of popular
government found outside of great nations.  Reform measures in England.
The final triumph of the French republic.  Democracy in America.
Modern political reforms.  Republicanism in other countries.  Influence
of democracy on monarchy.

XXVII.  INDUSTRIAL PROGRESS  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    429

Industries radiate from the land as a centre.  The early medieval
methods of industry.  The beginnings of trade.  Expansion of trade and
transportation.  Invention and discoveries.  The change from handcraft
to power manufacture.  The industrial revolution.  Modern industrial
development.  Scientific agriculture.  The building of the city.
Industry and civilization.

XXVIII.  SOCIAL EVOLUTION  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    443

The evolutionary processes of society.  The social individual.  The
ethnic form of society.  The territorial group.  The national group
founded on race expansion.  The functions of new groups.  Great society
and the social order.  Great society protects voluntary organizations.
The widening influence of the church.  Growth of religious toleration.
Altruism and democracy.  Modern society a machine of great complexity.
Interrelation of different parts of society.  The progress of the race
based on social opportunities.  The central idea of modern civilization.

XXIX.  THE EVOLUTION OF SCIENCE  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    458

Science is an attitude of mind toward life.  Scientific methods.
Measurement in scientific research.  Science develops from centres.
Science and democracy.  The study of the biological and physical
sciences.  The evolutionary theory.  Science and war.  Scientific
progress is cumulative.  The trend of scientific investigation.
Research foundations.


XXX.  UNIVERSAL EDUCATION AND DEMOCRACY  . . . . . . . . . . .    475

Universal public education is a modern institution.  The mediaeval
university permitted some freedom of choice.  The English and German
universities.  Early education in the United States.  The common, or
public, schools.  Knowledge, intelligence, and training necessary in a
democracy.  Education has been universalized.  Research an educational
process.  The diffusion of knowledge necessary in a democracy.
Educational progress.  Importance of state education.  The
printing-press and its products.  Public opinion.

XXXI.  WORLD ECONOMICS AND POLITICS  . . . . . . . . . . . . .    486

Commerce and communication.  Exchange of ideas modifies political
organization.  Spread of political ideas.  The World War breaks down
the barriers of thought.  Attempt to form a league for permanent peace.
International agreement and progress.  The mutual aid of nations.
Reorganization of international law.  The outlook for a world state.


The economic outlook.  Economics of labor.  Public and corporate
industries.  The political outlook.  Equalization of opportunity.  The
influence of scientific thought on progress.  The relation of material
comfort to spiritual progress.  The balance of social forces.
Restlessness vs. happiness.  Summary of progress.

BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    504

INDEX  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    509







_The Human Trail_.--The trail of human life beginning in the mists of
the past, winding through the ages and stretching away toward an
unknown future, is a subject of perennial interest and worthy of
profound thought.  No other great subject so invites the attention of
the mind of man.  It is a very long trail, rough and unblazed,
wandering over the continents of the earth.  Those who have travelled
it came in contact with the mysteries of an unknown world.  They faced
the terrors of the shifting forms of the earth, of volcanoes,
earthquakes, floods, storms, and ice fields.  They witnessed the
extinction of forests and animal groups, and the changing forms of
lakes, rivers, and mountains, and, indeed, the boundaries of oceans.

It is the trail of human events and human endeavor on which man
developed his physical powers, enlarged his brain capacity, developed
and enriched his mind, and became efficient through art and industry.
Through inventions and discovery he turned the forces of nature to his
use, making them serve his will.  In association with his fellows, man
learned that mutual aid and co-operation were necessary to the survival
of the race.  To learn this caused him more trouble than all the
terrors and mysteries of the natural world around him.  Connected with
the trail is a long chain of causes and effects, trial and error,
success and failure, out of which has come the advancement of the race.
The accumulated results of life on the trail are called _civilization_.

_Civilization May Be Defined_.--To know what civilization is by study
and observation is better than to rely upon a formal {4} definition.
For, indeed, the word is used in so many different ways that it admits
of a loose interpretation.  For instance, it may be used in a narrow
sense to indicate the character and quality of the civil relations.
Those tribes or nations having a well-developed social order, with
government, laws, and other fixed social customs, are said to be
civilized, while those peoples without these characters are assumed to
be uncivilized.  It may also be considered in a somewhat different
sense, when the arts, industries, sciences, and habits of life are
stimulated--civilization being determined by the degree in which these
are developed.  Whichever view is accepted, it involves a contrast of
present ideals with past ideals, of an undeveloped with a developed
state of human progress.

But whatever notion we have of civilization, it is difficult to draw a
fixed line between civilized and uncivilized peoples.  Mr. Lewis H.
Morgan, in his _Ancient Society_, asserts that civilization began with
the phonetic alphabet, and that all human activity prior to this could
be classified as savagery or barbarism.  But there is a broader
conception of civilization which recognizes all phases of human
achievement, from the making of a stone axe to the construction of the
airplane; from the rude hut to the magnificent palace; from crude moral
and religious conditions to the more refined conditions of human
association.  If we consider that civilization involves the whole
process of human achievement, it must admit of a great variety of
qualities and degrees of development, hence it appears to be a relative
term applied to the variation of human life.  Thus, the Japanese are
highly civilized along special lines of hand work, hand industry, and
hand art, as well as being superior in some phases of family
relationships.  So we might say of the Chinese, the East Indians, and
the American Indians, that they each have well-established customs,
habits of thought, and standards of life, differing from other nations,
expressing different types of civilization.

When a member of a primitive tribe invented the bow-and-arrow, or began
to chip a flint nodule in order to make a stone {5} axe, civilization
began.  As soon as people began to co-operate with one another in
obtaining food, building houses, or for protection against wild animals
and wild men, that is, when they began to treat each other civilly,
they were becoming civilized.  We may say then in reality that
civilization has been a continuous process from the first beginning of
man's conquest of himself and nature to the modern complexities of
social life with its multitude of products of industry and cultural

It is very common for one group or race to assume to be highly
civilized and call the others barbarians or savages.  Thus the Hebrews
assumed superiority when they called other people Gentiles, and the
Greeks when they called others barbarians.  Indeed, it is only within
recent years that we are beginning to recognize that the civilizations
of China, Japan, and India have qualities worth studying and that they
may have something worth while in life that the Western civilization
has not.  Also there has been a tendency to confuse the terms Christian
and heathen with civilized and uncivilized.  This idea arose in
England, where, in the early history of Christianity, the people of the
towns were more cultured than the people of the country.

It happened, too, that the townspeople received Christianity before the
people of the country, hence heathens were the people who dwelt out on
the heath, away from town.  This local idea became a world idea when
all non-Christian peoples were called uncivilized.  It is a fatal error
for an individual, neighborhood, tribe, or nation to assume superiority
to the extent that it fails to recognize good qualities in others.  One
should not look with disdain upon a tribe of American Indians, calling
them uncivilized because their material life is simple, when in reality
in point of honor, faithfulness, and courage they excel a large
proportion of the races assuming a higher civilization.

_The Material Evidences of Civilization Are All Around Us_.--Behold
this beautiful valley of the West, with its broad, {6} fertile fields,
yielding rich harvests of corn and wheat, and brightened by varied
forms of fruit and flower.  Farmhouses and schoolhouses dot the
landscape, while towns and cities, with their marts of trade and busy
industries, rise at intervals.  Here are churches, colleges, and
libraries, indicative of the education of the community; courthouses,
prisons, and jails, which speak of government, law, order, and
protection.  Here are homes for the aged and weak, hospitals and
schools for the defective, almshouses for the indigent, and
reformatories for the wayward.  Railroads bind together all parts of
the nation, making exchange possible, and bringing to our doors the
products of every clime.  The telephone and the radio unite distant
people with common knowledge, thought, and sentiment.  Factories and
mills line the streams or cluster in village and city, marking the busy
industrial life.  These and more mark the visible products of

But civilization is something more than form, it is spirit; and its
evidence may be more clearly discerned in the co-operation of men in
political organization and industrial life, by their united action in
religious worship and charitable service, in social order and
educational advancement.  Observe, too, the happy homes, with all of
their sweet and hallowed influences, and the social mingling of the
people searching for pleasure or profit in their peaceful, harmonious
association.  Witness the evidences of accumulated knowledge in
newspapers, periodicals, and books, and the culture of painting,
poetry, and music.  Behold, too, the achievements of the mind in the
invention and discovery of the age; steam and electrical appliances
that cause the whirl of bright machinery, that turn night into day, and
make thought travel swift as the wings of the wind!  Consider the
influence of chemistry, biology, and medicine on material welfare, and
the discoveries of the products of the earth that subserve man's
purpose!  And the central idea of all this is man, who walks upright in
the dignity and grace of his own manhood, surrounded by the evidence of
his own achievements.  His knowledge, his power of thought, {7} his
moral character, and his capacity for living a large life, are
evidences of the real civilization.  For individual culture is, after
all, the flower and fruit, the beauty and strength of civilization.

One hundred years ago neither dwelling, church, nor city greeted the
eye that gazed over the broad expanse of the unfilled prairies.  Here
were no accumulations of wealth, no signs of human habitation, except a
few Indians wandering in groups or assembled in their wigwam villages.
The evidences of art and industry were meagre, and of accumulated
knowledge small, because the natives were still the children of nature
and had gone but a little way in the mastery of physical forces or in
the accumulation of knowledge.  The relative difference in their
condition and that of those that followed them is the contrast between
barbarism and civilization.

Yet how rapid was the change that replaced the latter with the former.
Behold great commonwealths built in half a century!  What is the secret
of this great and marvellous change?  It is a transplanted
civilization, not an indigenous one.  Men came to this fertile valley
with the spiritual and material products of modern life, the outcome of
centuries of progress.  They brought the results of man's struggle,
with himself and with nature, for thousands of years.  This made it
possible to build a commonwealth in half a century.  The first settlers
brought with them a knowledge of the industrial arts; the theory and
practice of social order; individual capacity, and a thirst for
education.  It was necessary only to set up the machinery already
created, and civilization went forward.  When they began the life of
labor, the accumulated wealth of the whole world was to be had in
exchange for the products of the soil.

_Primitive Man Faced an Unknown World_.--But how different is the
picture of primitive man suddenly brought face to face with an unknown
world.  With no knowledge of nature or art, with no theory or practice
of social order, he began to dig and to delve for the preservation of
life.  Suffering the pangs of hunger, he obtained food; naked, he
clothed himself; {8} buffeted by storm and wind and scorched by the
penetrating rays of the sun, he built himself a shelter.  As he
gradually became skilled in the industrial arts, his knowledge
increased.  He formed a clearer estimate of how nature might serve him,
and obtained more implements with which to work

The social order of the family and the state slowly appeared.  Man
became a co-operating creature, working with his fellows in the
satisfaction of material wants and in protecting the rights of
individuals.  Slow and painful was this process of development, but as
he worked his capacity enlarged, his power increased, until he mastered
the forces of nature and turned them to serve him; he accumulated
knowledge and brought forth culture and learning; he marshalled the
social forces in orderly process.  Each new mastery of nature or self
was a power for the future, for civilization is cumulative in its
nature; it works in a geometrical progression.  An idea once formed,
others follow; one invention leads to another, and each material form
of progress furnishes a basis for a more rapid progress and for a
larger life.  The discovery and use of a new food product increased the
power of civilization a hundredfold.  One step in social order leads to
another, and thus is furnished a means of utilizing without waste all
of the individual and social forces.

Yet how irregular and faltering are the first steps of human progress.
A step forward, followed by a long period of readjustment of the
conditions of life; a movement forward here and a retarding force
there.  Within this irregular movement we discover the true course of
human progress.  One tribe, on account of peculiar advantages, makes a
special discovery, which places it in the ascendancy and gives it power
over others.  It has obtained a favorable location for protection
against oppressors or a fertile soil, a good hunting ground or a
superior climate.  It survives all opposing factors for a time, and,
obtaining some idea of progress, it goes on adding strength unto
strength, or is crowded from its favorable position by its warlike
neighbors to perish from the earth, or to live a {9} stationary or even
a deteriorating life.  A strong tribe, through internal development and
the domination of other groups, finally becomes a great nation in an
advanced state of civilization.  It passes through the course of
infancy, youth, maturity, old age, and death.  But the products of its
civilization are handed on to other nations.  Another rises and, when
about to enter an advanced state of progress, perishes on account of
internal maladies.  It is overshadowed with despotism, oppressed by
priestcraft, or lacking industrial vitality to such a degree that it is
forced to surrender the beginnings of civilization to other nations and
other lives.

The dominance of a group is dependent in part on the natural or
inherent qualities of mind and body of its members, which give it power
to achieve by adapting itself to conditions of nature and in mastering
and utilizing natural resources.  Thus the tribe that makes new devices
for procuring food or new weapons for defense, or learns how to sow
seeds and till the soil, adds to its means of survival and progress and
thus forges ahead of those tribes lacking in these means.  Also the
social heritage or the inheritance of all of the products of industry
and arts of life which are passed on from generation to generation, is
essential to the rapid development of civilization.

_Civilization Is Expressed in a Variety of Ways_.--Different ideals and
the adaptation to different environment cause different types of life.
The ideals of the Persian, the Greek, the Roman, and the Teuton varied.
Still greater is the contrast between these and the Chinese and the
Egyptian ideals.  China boasts of an ancient civilization that had its
origin long before the faint beginnings of Western nations, and the
Chinese are firm believers in their own culture and superior
advancement.  The silent grandeur of the pyramids and temples of the
Nile valley bespeak a civilization of great maturity, that did much for
the world in general, but little for the Egyptian people.  Yet these
types of civilization are far different from that of Western nations.
Their ideas of culture are in great contrast to our own.  But even the
Western nations are not uniform in {10} ideals of civil life nor in
their practice of social order.  They are not identical in religious
life, and their ideals of art and social progress vary.

Moreover, the racial type varies somewhat and with it the national life
and thought.  Compare England, Germany, France, and Spain as to the
variability in characteristics of literature and art, in moral ideals,
in ethical practice, in religious motive, and in social order.  Their
differences are evident, but they tend to disappear under the influence
of rapid transit and close intercommunication, which draw all modern
nations nearer together.  Yet, granting the variability of ideals and
of practice, there is a general consensus of opinion as to what
constitutes civilization and what are the elements of progress.  Modern
writers differ somewhat in opinion as to elements of civilization, but
these differences are more apparent than real, as all true civilization
must rest upon a solid foundation of common human traits.  The
fundamental principles and chief characteristics are quite uniform for
all nations and for all times, and writers who disagree as to general
characteristics may not be classified by national boundaries; they
represent the differences of philosophers.

_Modern Civilization Includes Some Fundamentals_.--As applied at
different periods of the world's progress and as a representation of
different phases of life, civilization means more to-day than ever
before; its ideal is higher, its conception broader.  In the modern,
accepted sense it includes (1) _a definite knowledge of man and
nature_.  The classified knowledge of science and philosophy and all
phases of the history of man socially and individually are important in
estimating his true progress.  All forms of thought and life are to be
estimated in considering the full meaning of the term.  It also
includes (2) _progress in art_.  While science deals with principles,
art deals with rules of action.  Science gives classified knowledge,
while art directs to a practical end.  Art provides definite plans how
to operate.  If these plans are carried out, the field of practice is
entered.  In its broadest conception art includes the making {11} and
the doing, as well as the plan.  The fine arts and the industrial or
practical arts, in all of their varied interests, are included in art
as a factor in civilization.  This category should include the highest
forms of painting, poetry, sculpture, and music, as well as the lowest
forms of industrial implements.

Civilization includes (3) _a well-developed ethical code_ quite
universally observed by a community or nation.  The rule of conduct of
man toward himself and toward his fellows is one of the essential
points of discrimination between barbarism and civilization.  While
ethical practice began at a very early period in the progress of man,
it was a long time before any distinct ethical code became established.
But the completed civilization does not exist until a high order of
moral practice obtains; no civilization can long prevail without it.
Of less importance, but of no less binding force, is (4) the _social
code_, which represents the forms and conventionalities of society,
built, it is true, largely upon the caprices of fashion, and varying
greatly in different communities, yet more arbitrary, if possible, than
the moral code.  It considers fitness and consistency in conduct, and
as such is an important consideration in social usage and social
progress.  In Europe it has its extreme in the court etiquette; in
America, in the punctiliousness of the higher social classes of our
large cities.  But it affects all communities, and its observance may
be noted in rural districts as well as in the city population.

The mores, or customs, of man began at a very early time and have been
a persistent ruling power in human conduct.  Through tradition they are
handed down from generation to generation, to be observed with more or
less fidelity as a guide to the art of living.  Every community,
whether primitive or developed, is controlled to a great extent by the
prevailing custom.  It is common for individuals and families to do as
their ancestors did.  This habit is frequently carried to such an
extent that the deeds of the fathers are held sacred from which no one
dare to depart.  Isolated communities continue year after year to do
things because they had always done so, {12} holding strictly to the
ruling custom founded on tradition, even when some better way was at
hand.  A rare example of this human trait is given by Captain Donald
MacMillan, who recently returned from Arctic Greenland.  He said: "We
took two ultra-modern developments, motion pictures and radio, direct
to a people who live and think as their ancestors did two thousand
years ago."  He was asked: "What did they think?"  He replied: "I do
not know."  Probably it was a case of wonder without thought.  While
this is a dominant force which makes for the unity and perpetuity of
the group, it is only by departure from established tradition that
progress is made possible.

Civilization involves (5) _government and law_.  The tribes and nations
in a state of barbarism lived under the binding influence of custom.
In this period people were born under _status_, or condition, not under
law.  Gradually the old family life expanded into the state, and
government became more formal.  Law appeared as the expression of the
will of the people directly or indirectly through their
representatives.  True, it may have been the arbitrary ruling of a
king, but he represented the unity of the race and spoke with the
authority of the nation.  Law found no expression until there was
formed an organic community capable of having a will respecting the
control of those who composed it.  It implies a governing body and a
body governed; it implies an orderly movement of society according to a
rule of action called law.  While social order is generally obtained
through law and government, such is the practice in modern life that
the orderly association of men in trade and commerce and in daily
contact appears to stand alone and to rise above the control of the
law.  Indeed, in a true civilization, the civil code, though an
essential factor, seems to be outclassed by the higher social instincts
based on the practice of social order.

(6) _Religion_ must take a large place as a factor in the development
of civilization.  The character of the religious belief of man is, to a
certain extent, the true test of his progressive {13} nature.  His
faith may prove a source of inspiration to reason and progressive life;
it may prove the opposite, and lead to stagnation and retrogression.
Upon the whole, it must be insisted that religious belief has subserved
a large purpose in the economy of human progress.  It has been
universal to all tribes, for even the lowest have some form of
religious belief--at least, a belief in spiritual beings.  Religious
belief thus became the primary source of abstract ideas, and it has
always been conducive to social order.  It has, in modern times
especially, furnished the foundation of morality.  By surrounding
marriage with ceremonies it has purified the home life, upheld the
authority of the family, and thus strengthened social order.  It has
developed the individual by furnishing an ideal before science and
positive knowledge made it possible.  It strengthened patriotic feeling
on account of service rendered in supporting local government, and
subjectively religion improved man by teaching him to obey a superior.
Again, by its tradition it frequently stifled thought and retarded

Among other elements of civilization must be mentioned (7) _social
well-being_.  The preceding conditions would be almost certain to
insure social well-being and prosperity.  Yet it might be possible,
through lack of harmony of these forces, on account of their improper
distribution in a community, that the group might lack in general
social prosperity.  Unless there is general contentment and happiness
there cannot be said to be an ideal state of civilization.  And this
social well-being is closely allied to (8) _material prosperity_, the
most apparent element to be mentioned in the present analysis.  The
amount of the accumulation of the wealth of a nation, its distribution
among the people, and the manner in which it is obtained and expended,
determine the state of civilization.  This material prosperity makes
the better phases of civilization possible.  It is essential to modern
progress, and our civilization should seek to render it possible for
all classes to earn their bread and to have leisure and opportunity for

The mastery of the forces of nature is the basis for man's {14}
material prosperity.  Touching nature here and there, by discovery,
invention, and toil, causing her to yield her treasures for his
service, is the key to all progress.  In this, it is not so much
conflict with nature as co-operation with her, that yields utility and
eventually mastery.  The discovery and use of new food products, the
coal and other minerals of the earth, the forests, the water power and
electric power, coupled with invention and adaptability to continually
greater use, are the qualifying opportunity for advancement.  Without
these the fine theories of the philosopher, exalted religious belief,
and high ideals of life are of no avail.

From the foregoing it may be said that civilization in its fulness
means all of the acquired capabilities of man as evidenced by his
conduct and the material products arising from his physical and mental
exertion.  It is evident that at first the structure called
civilization began to develop very slowly and very feebly; just when it
began it is difficult to state.  The creation of the first utility, the
first substantial movement to increase the food supply, the first home
for protection, the first religious ceremony, or the first organized
household, represents the beginnings of civilization, and these are the
landmarks along the trail of man's ascendency.

_Progress Is an Essential Characteristic of Civilization_.--The goal is
never reached, the victory is never finally achieved.  Man must move
on, ever on.  Intellect must develop, morals improve, liberty increase,
social order be perfected, and social growth continue.  There must be
no halting on the road; the nation that hesitates is lost.  Progress in
general is marked by the development of the individual, on the one
hand, and that of society, on the other.  In well-ordered society these
two ideas are balanced; they seek an equilibrium.  Excessive
individualism leads to anarchy and destruction; excessive socialism
blights and stagnates individual activity and independence and retards
progress.  It must be admitted here as elsewhere that the individual
culture and the individual life are, after all, the highest aims.  But
how can these be obtained in {15} modern life without social progress?
How can there be freedom of action for the development of the
individual powers without social expansion?  Truly, the social and the
individual life are complementary elements of progress.

_Diversity Is Necessary to Progress_.--If progress is an essential
characteristic of modern civilization, it may be said that diversity is
essential to progress.  There is much said about equality and
fraternity.  It depends on what is meant by the terms as to whether
these are good sayings or not.  If equality means uniformity, by it man
is easily reduced to a state of stagnation.  Diversity of life exists
everywhere in progressive nature, where plants or animals move forward
in the scale of existence.  Man is not an exception to the rule,
notwithstanding his strong will force.  Men differ in strength, in
moral and intellectual capacity, and in co-operating ability.  Hence
they must occupy different stations in life.  And the quality and
quantity of progress are to be estimated in different nations according
to the diversity of life to be observed among individuals and groups.

_What Is the Goal of Civilized Man?_--And it may be well to ask, as
civilization is progressive: What is our aim in life from our own
standpoint?  For what do men strive?  What is the ultimate of life?
What is the best for which humanity can live?  If it were merely to
obtain food and clothes and nothing more, the question could be easily
answered.  If it were merely to train a man to be a monk, that he might
spend his time in prayer and supplication for a better future life, the
question would be simple enough.  If to pore over books to find out the
knowledge of the past and to spend the life in investigation of truth
were the chief aims, it would be easy to determine the object of life.
But frequently that which we call success in life is merely a means to
an end.

And viewed in the complex activity of society, it is difficult to say
what is the true end of life; it is difficult to determine the true end
of civilization.  Some have said it is found in administering the
"greatest good to the greatest number," {16} and if we consider in this
the generations yet unborn, it reveals the actual tendency of modern
civilization.  If the perfection of the individual is the highest ideal
of civilization, it stops not with one individual, but includes all.
And this asserts that social well-being must be included in the final
aim, for full and free individual development cannot appear without it.
The enlarged capacity for living correctly, enjoying the best of this
life righteously, and for associating harmoniously and justly with his
fellows, is the highest aim of the individual.  Happiness of the
greatest number through utility is the formula for modern civilization.

_Possibilities of Civilization_.--The possibilities of reaching a still
higher state of civilization are indeed great.  The future is not full
of foreboding, but bright and happy with promise of individual culture
and social progress.  If opportunities are but wisely used, the
twentieth century will witness an advancement beyond our highest
dreams.  Yet the whole problem hinges on the right use of knowledge.
If the knowledge of chemistry is to be used to destroy nations and
races with gases and high explosives, such knowledge turns civilization
to destruction.  If all of the powers of nature under man's control
should be turned against him, civilization would be turned back upon
itself.  Let us have "the will to believe" that we have entered an era
of vital progress, of social improvement, of political reforms, which
will lead to the protection of those who need protection and the
elevation of those who desire it.  The rapid progress in art and
architecture, in invention and industry, the building of libraries and
the diffusion of knowledge, the improvement of our educational system,
all being entered upon, will force the world forward at a rapid pace,
and on such a rational basis that the delight of living will be greatly
enhanced for all classes.

_Civilization Can Be Estimated_.--This brief presentation of the
meaning of civilization reveals the fact that civilization can be
recounted; that it is a question of fact and philosophy that can be
measured.  It is the story of human progress and {17} the causes which
made it.  It presents the generalizations of all that is valuable in
the life of the race.  It is the epitome of the history of humanity in
its onward sweep.  In its critical sense it cannot be called history,
for it neglects details for general statements.  Nor is it the
philosophy of history, for it covers a broader field.  It is not
speculation, for it deals with fact.  It is the philosophy of man's
life as to the results of his activity.  It shows alike the unfolding
of the individual and of society, and it represents these in every
phase embraced in the word "progress."  To recount this progress and to
measure civilization is the purpose of the following pages, so far as
it may be done in the limited space assigned.


1.  Are people of civilized races happier now than are the uncivilized

2.  Would the American Indians in time have developed a high state of

3.  Why do we not find a high state of civilization among the African

4.  What are the material evidences of civilization in the neighborhood
in which you live?

5.  Does increased knowledge alone insure an advanced civilization?

6.  Choose an important public building in your neighborhood and trace
the sources of architecture of the different parts.




_How Mankind Goes Forward on the Trail_.--Although civilization cannot
exist without it, progress is something different from the sum-total of
the products of civilization.  It may be said to be the process through
which civilization is obtained, or, perhaps more fittingly, it is the
log of the course that marks civilization.  There can be no conception
of progress without ideals, which are standards set up toward which
humanity travels.  And as humanity never rises above its ideals, the
possibilities of progress are limited by them.  If ideals are high,
there are possibilities of a high state of culture; if they are low,
the possibilities are lessened, and, indeed, frequently are barren of
results.  But having established ideals as beacon lights for humanity
to follow, the final test is whether there is sufficient knowledge,
sufficient ability, and sufficient will-power to approximate them.  In
other words, shall humanity complete the trail of life, go on higher
and higher grounds where are set the standards or goals to be reached;
or will humanity rest easily and contentedly on a low level with no
attempt to reach a higher level, or, indeed, will humanity, failing in
desires for betterment, initiative, and will-power, drift to lower

Groups, either tribes, races, or nations, may advance along given lines
and be stationary or even retarded along other lines of development.
If the accumulation of wealth is the dominant ideal, it may be so
strenuously followed as to destroy opportunity for other phases of
life.  If the flow of energy is all toward a religious belief that
absorbs the time and energy of people in the building of pyramids,
mausoleums, cathedrals, and mosques, and taboos the inquiry into nature
{19} which might yield a large improvement in the race, religion would
be developed at the expense of race improvement.

_Change Is Not Necessarily Progress_.--It is quite common in a popular
sense for people to identify change with progress, or indeed to accept
the wonderful changes which take place as causes of progress, when in
reality they should have taken more care to search out the elements of
progress of the great moving panorama of changing life.  Changes are
frequently violent, sudden, tremendous in their immediate effect.  They
move rapidly and involve many complexes, but progress is a slow-going
old tortoise that plods along irrespective of storm or sunshine, life
or death, of the cataclysms of war or the catastrophes of earthquakes
or volcanoes.  Progress moves slowly along through political and social
revolutions, gaining a little here and a little there, and registering
the things that are really worth while out of the ceaseless, changing

Achievement may take place without betterment, but all progress must
make a record of betterment with achievement.  A man may write a book
or invent a machine at great labor.  So far as he is concerned it is an
achievement, but unless it is a good book, a good invention, better
than others, so that they may be used for the advancement of the race,
they will not form a betterment.  Many of the changes of life represent
the results of trial and error.  "There is a way that seemeth right" to
a nation which may end in destruction.  The evil aroused is sometimes
greater than the good.  The prosperity of the Roman Empire was
destroyed because of luxury and corrupt administration.  The German
Empire developed great powers in government, education, in the arts and
sciences, but her military purpose nearly destroyed her.  The Spanish
Empire that once controlled a good part of the American continent
failed because laborers were driven out of Spain and the wealth gained
by exploitation was used to support the nobility and royalty in luxury.
Whether the United States will continue to carry out her high purposes
will depend upon the right use of her immense wealth and power.
Likewise the {20} radio, the movie, and the automobile are making
tremendous changes.  Will the opportunities they furnish improve the
moral and intellectual character of the people--a necessary condition
to real progress?

In considering modern progress, too frequently it is estimated by the
greatness of things, by the stupendous changes, or by the marvellous
achievements of the age, and we pause and wonder at what has been
accomplished; but if we think long enough and clearly enough, we may
get a vision of real progress, and we may find it difficult to
determine the outcome of it all, so far as the real betterment of the
race is concerned.  Is the millionaire of to-day any happier,
necessarily, and any more moral or of a higher religious standard than
the primitive man or the savage of the plains or forest of to-day?
True, he has power to achieve in many directions, but is he any happier
or better?  It may be said that his millions may accomplish great good.
This is true if they are properly applied.  It is also true that they
are capable of great harm if improperly used.

As we stand and gaze at the movements of the airplane, or contemplate
its rapid flight from ocean to ocean and from land to land around the
world, we are impressed with this great wonder of the age, the great
achievement of the inventive power of man.  But what of the gain to
humanity?  If it is possible to transport the mails from New York to
San Francisco in sixteen hours instead of in five days, is there
advantage in that except the quickening process of transportation and
life?  Is it not worth while to inquire what the man at the other end
of the line is going to do by having his mail four days ahead?  He will
hurry up somebody else and somebody else will hurry the next one, and
we only increase the rapidity of motion.  Does it really give us more
time for leisure, and if so, are we using that leisure time in the
development of our reflective intellectual powers or our spiritual
life?  It is easier to see improvement in the case of the radio,
whereby songs and lectures can be broadcast all over the earth, and the
{21} community of life and the community of interest are developed
thereby, and, also, the leisure hours are devoted to a contemplation of
high ideals, of beautiful music, of noble thoughts.  We do recognize a
modicum of progress out of the great whirring, rapid changes in
transportation and creative industry; but let us not be deceived by
substituting change for progress, or making the two identical.

Thus human progress is something more than achievement, and it is
something more than the exhibition of tools.  It is determined by the
use of the tools and involves betterment of the human race.  Hence, all
the products of social heredity, of language, of science, of religion,
of art, and of government are progressive in proportion as they are
successfully used for individual and social betterment.  For if
government is used to enslave people, or science to destroy them, or
religion to stifle them, there can be no progress.

_Progress Expresses Itself in a Variety of Ideals and Aims_.--Progress
involves many lines of development.  It may include biological
development of the human race, the development of man, especially his
growth of brain power.  It may consider man's adaptation to environment
under different phases of life.  It may consider the efficiency of
bodily structure.  In a cultural sense, progress may refer to the
products of the industrial arts, or to the development of fine arts, or
the advancement of religious life and belief--in fact, to the mastery
of the resources of nature and their service to mankind in whatever
form they may appear or in whatever phase of life they may be
expressed.  Progress may also be indicated in the improvement in social
order and in government, and also the increased opportunity of the
individual to receive culture through the process of mutual aid.  In
fact, progress must be sought for in all phases of human activity.
Whatever phase of progress is considered, its line of demarcation is
carefully drawn in the process of change from the old to the new, but
the results of these changes will be the indices of either progress or


_Progress of the Part and Progress of the Whole_.--An individual might
through hereditary qualities have superior mental traits or physical
powers.  These also may receive specific development under favorable
educational environment, but the inertia of the group or the race might
render ineffective a salutary use of his powers.  A man is sometimes
elected mayor of a town and devotes his energies to municipal
betterment.  But he may be surrounded by corrupt politicians and
promoters of enterprises who hedge his way at every turn.  Also, in a
similar way, a group or tribe may go forward, and yet the products of
its endeavor be lost to the world.  Thus a productiveness of the part
may be exhibited without the progress of the race.  The former moves
with concrete limitations, the latter in sweeping, cycling changes; but
the latter cannot exist without the former, because it is from the
parts that the whole is created, and it is the generalization of the
accumulated knowledge or activities of the parts that makes it possible
for the whole to develop.

The evolution of the human race includes the idea of differentiation of
parts and a generalization that makes the whole of progress.  So it is
not easy to determine the result of a local activity as progressive
until its relation to other parts is determined, nor until other
activities and the whole of life are determined.  Local colorings of
life may be so provincial in their view-point as to be practically
valueless in the estimation of the degree and quality of progress.
Certain towns, especially in rural districts not acquainted with better
things, boast that they have the best school, the best court-house, the
best climate--in fact, everything best.  When they finally awaken from
their local dream, they discover their own deficiencies.

The great development of art, literature, philosophy, and politics
among the ancient Greeks was inefficient in raising the great masses of
the people to a higher plane of living, but the fruits of the lives of
these superiors were handed on to other groups to utilize, and they are
not without influence {23} over the whole human group of to-day.  So,
too, the religious mystic philosophy and literature of India
represented a high state of mental development, but the products of its
existence left the races of India in darkness because the mystic
philosophy was not adaptable to the practical affairs of life.  The
Indian philosophers may have handed on ideas which caused admiration
and wonder, but they have had very little influence of a practical
nature on Western civilization.  So society may make progress in either
art, religion, or government for a time, and then, for the want of
adaptation to the conditions imposed by progress, the effects may
disappear.  Yet not all is lost, for some achievements in the form of
tools are passed on through social heredity and utilized by other
races.  In the long run it is the total of the progress of the race,
the progress of the whole, that is the final test.

_Social Progress Involves Individual Development_.--If we trace
progress backward over the trail which it has followed, there are two
lines of development more or less clearly defined.  One is the
improvement of the racial stock through the hereditary traits of
individuals.  The brain is enlarged, the body developed in character
and efficiency, and the entire physical system has changed through
variation in accordance with the laws of heredity.  What we observe is
development in the individual, which is its primary function.  Progress
in this line must furnish individuals of a higher type in the
procession of the generations.  The other line is through social
heredity, that is the accumulated products of civilization handed down
from generation to generation.  This gives each succeeding generation a
new, improved kit of tools, it brings each new generation into a better
environment and surrounds it with ready-made means to carry on the
improvement and add something for the use of the next generation.
Knowledge of the arts and industries, language and books, are thus
products of social heredity.  Also buildings, machinery, roads,
educational systems, and school buildings are inherited.

Connected with these two methods of development must {24} be the
discovery of the use of the human mind evidenced by the beginning of
reflective thought.  It is said by some writers that we are still
largely in the age of instincts and emotions and have just recently
entered the age of reason.  Such positive statements should be
considered with a wider vision of life, for one cannot conceive of
civilization at all without the beginning of reflective mental
processes.  Simple inventions, like the use of fire, the bow-and-arrow,
or the flint knife, may have come about primarily through the desire to
accomplish something by subjecting means to an end, but in the
perfection of the use of these things, which occurred very early in
primitive life, there must have been reflective thinking in order to
shape the knife for its purpose, make the bow-and-arrow more effective,
and utilize fire for cooking, heating, and smelting.  All of these must
have come primarily through the individual initiative.

Frequent advocates of social achievement would lead one to suppose that
the tribe in need of some method of cutting should assemble and pass
the resolution that a flint knife be made, when any one knows it was
the reflective process of the individual mind which sought adaptation
to environment or means to accomplish a purpose.  Of course the
philosopher may read many generalizations into this which may confuse
one in trying to observe the simple fact, for it is to be deplored that
much of the philosophy of to-day is a smoke screen which obscures the
simple truth.

The difference of races in achievement and in culture is traced
primarily to hereditary traits developed through variation, through
intrinsic stimuli, or those originating through so-called inborn
traits.  These traits enable some races to achieve and adapt themselves
to their environment, and cause others to fail.  Thus, some groups or
races have perished because of living near a swamp infested with
malaria-carrying mosquitoes or in countries where the food supply was
insufficient.  They lacked initiative to move to a more healthful
region or one more bountiful in food products, or else they {25} lacked
knowledge and skill to protect themselves against mosquitoes or to
increase the food supply.  Moreover, they had no power within them to
seek the better environment or to change the environment for their own
advancement.  This does not ignore the tremendous influence of
environment in the production of race culture.  Its influence is
tremendous, especially because environmental conditions are more under
the direction of intelligence than is the development of hereditary

Some writers have maintained that there is no difference in the
dynamic, mental, or physical power of races, and that the difference of
races which we observe to-day is based upon the fact that some have
been retarded by poor environment, and others have advanced because of
fortunate environment.  This argument is good as far as it goes, but it
does not tell the whole story.  It does not show why some races under
good environment have not succeeded, while others under poor
environment have succeeded well.  It does not show why some races have
the wit to change to a better environment or transform the old

There seems to be a great persistency of individual traits, of family
traits, and, in a still larger generalization, of racial traits which
culture fails to obliterate.  As these differences of traits seem to be
universal, it appears that the particular combination which gives motor
power may also be a differentiation.  At least, as all races have had
the same earth, why, if they are so equal in the beginning, would they
not achieve?  Had they no inventive power?  Also, when these so-called
retarded races came in contact with the more advanced races who were
superior in arts and industries, why did they not borrow, adapt, and
utilize these productions?  There must have been something vitally
lacking which neither the qualities of the individual nor the stimulus
of his surroundings could overcome.  Some have deteriorated, others
have perished; some have reached a stationary existence, while others
have advanced.  Through hereditary changes, nature played the {26} game
in her own way with the leading cards in her own hand, and some races
lost.  Hence so with races, so with individuals.

_Progress Is Enhanced by the Interaction of Groups and Races_.--The
accumulation of civilization and the state of progress may be much
determined by the interaction of races and groups.  Just as individual
personality is developed by contact with others, so the actions and
reactions of tribes and races in contact bring into play the utility of
discoveries and inventions.  Thus, knowledge of any kind may by
diffusion become a heritage of all races.  If one tribe should acquire
the art of making implements by chipping flint in a certain way, other
tribes with which it comes in contact might borrow the idea and extend
it, and thus it becomes spread over a wide area.  However, if the
original discoverer used the chipped flint for skinning animals, the
one who would borrow the idea might use it to make implements of

Thus, through borrowing, progress may be a co-operative process.  The
reference to people in any community reveals the fact that there are
few that lead and many that follow; that there is but one Edison, but
there are millions that follow Edison.  Even in the educational world
there are few inventors and many followers.  This is evidence of the
large power of imitation and adaptation and of the universal habit of
borrowing.  On the other hand, if one chemical laboratory should
discover a high explosive which may be used in blasting rock for making
the foundations for buildings, a nation might borrow the idea and use
it in warfare for the destruction of man.

Mr. Clark Wissler has shown in his book on _Man and Culture_ that there
are culture areas originating from culture centres.  From these culture
centres the bow-and-arrow is used over a wide area.  The domestication
of the horse, which occurred in central Asia, has spread over the whole
world.  So stone implements of culture centres have been borrowed and
exchanged more or less throughout the world.  The theory is that one
tribe or race invented one thing because of the {27} adaptability to
good environment.  The dominant necessity of a race stimulated man's
inventive power, while another tribe would invent or discover some
other new thing for similar reasons.  But once created, not only could
the products be swapped or traded, but, where this was impossible,
ideas could be borrowed and adapted through imitation.

However, one should be careful not to make too hasty generalizations
regarding the similar products in different parts of the world, for
there is such universality of the traits of the human mind that, with
similar stages of advancement and similar environments, man's adaptive
power would cause him to do the same thing in very much the same way.
Thus, it is possible for two races that have had no contact for a
hundred thousand years to develop indigenous products of art which are
very similar.  To illustrate from a point of contact nearer home, it is
possible for a person living in Wisconsin and one in Massachusetts,
having the same general environment--physical, educational, ethnic,
religious--and having the same general traits of mind, through
disconnected lines of differentiation, to write two books very much
alike or two magazine articles very much alike.  In the question of
fundamental human traits subject to the same environmental stimuli, in
a general way we expect similar results.

With all this differentiation, progress as a whole represents a
continuous change from primitive conditions to the present complex
life, even though its line of travel leads it through the byways of
differentiation.  Just as the development of races has been through the
process of differentiation from an early parent stock, cultural changes
have followed the same law of progressive change.  Just as there is a
unity of the human race, there is a unity of progress that involves all

_The Study of the Uncultured Races of To-Day_.--It is difficult to
determine the beginnings of culture and to trace its slow development.
In accomplishing this, there are two main methods of procedure; the
first, to find the products or {28} remains of culture left by races
now extinct, that is, of nations and peoples that have lived and
flourished and passed away, leaving evidence of what they brought to
the world; also, by considering what they did with the tools with which
they worked, and by determining the conditions under which they lived,
a general idea of their state of progress may be obtained.  The second
method is to determine the state of culture of living races of to-day
who have been retarded or whose progress shows a case of arrested
development and compare their civilization statistically observed with
that of the prehistoric peoples whose state of progress exhibits in a
measure similar characteristics to those of the living races.

With these two methods working together, more light is continually
being thrown upon man's ancient culture.  To illustrate this, if a
certain kind of tool or implement is found in the culture areas of the
extinct Neanderthal race and a similar tool is used by a living
Australian tribe, it may be conjectured with considerable accuracy that
the use of this tool was for similar purposes, and the thoughts and
beliefs that clustered around its use were the same in each tribe.
Thus may be estimated the degree of progress of the primitive race.  Or
if an inscription on a cave of an extinct race showed a similarity to
an inscription used by a living race, it would seem that they had the
same background for such expression, and that similar instincts,
emotions, and reflections were directed to a common end.  The recent
study of anthropologists and archaeologists has brought to light much
knowledge of primitive man which may be judged on its own evidence and
own merits.  The verification of these early cultures by the living
races who have reached a similar degree of progress is of great

_The Study of Prehistoric Types_.[1]--The brain capacity of modern man
has changed little since the time of the Crô-Magnon race, which is the
earliest ancestral type of present European races and whose existence
dates back many {29} thousand years.  Possibly the weight of the brain
has increased during this period because of its development, and
undoubtedly its power is much greater in modern man than in this
ancient type.  Prior to that there are some evidences of extinct
species, such as Pithecanthropus Erectus, the Grimaldi man, the
Heidelberg man, and the Neanderthal.  Judging from the skeletal remains
that have been found of these races, there has been a general progress
of cranial capacity.  It is not necessary here to attempt to determine
whether this has occurred from hereditary combinations or through
changing environment.  Undoubtedly both of these factors have been
potential in increasing the brain power of man, and if we were to go
farther back by way of analogy, at least, and consider the Anthropoid
ape, the animal most resembling man, we find a vast contrast in his
cranial capacity as compared with the lowest of the prehistoric types,
or, indeed, of the lowest types of the uncultured living races.

Starting with the Anthropoid ape, who has a register of about 350 c.c.,
the Pithecanthropus about 900 c.c., and Neanderthal types registering
as high as 1,620 c.c. of brain capacity, the best measures of the
highest types of modern man show the brain capacity of 1,650 c.c.
Specimens of the Crô-Magnon skulls show a brain capacity equal to that
of modern man.  There is a great variation in the brain capacity of the
Neanderthal race as exhibited in specimens found in different centres
of culture, ranging all the way from 1,296 c.c. to 1,620 c.c.  Size is
only one of several traits that determine brain power.  Among others
are the weight, convolutions, texture, and education.  A small, compact
brain may have more power than a larger brain relatively lighter.  Also
much depends upon the centres of development.  The development of the
frontal area, shown by the full forehead in connection with the
distance above the ear (auditory meatus), in contrast with the
development of the anterior lobes is indicative of power.

It is interesting to note also that the progress of man as shown in the
remnants of arts and industry corresponds in {30} development to the
development of brain capacity, showing that the physical power of man
kept pace with the mental development as exhibited in his mental power
displayed in the arts and industries.  The discoveries in recent times
of the skeletons of prehistoric man in Europe, Africa, and America, and
the increased collection of implements showing cultures are throwing
new light on the science of man and indicating a continuous development
from very primitive beginnings.

_Progress Is Indicated by the Early Cultures_.--It is convenient to
divide the early culture of man, based upon his development in art into
the Paleolithic, or unpolished, and the Neolithic, or polished, Stone
Ages.[2]  The former is again divided into the Eolithic, Lower
Paleolithic, and the Upper Paleolithic.  In considering these divisions
of relative time cultures, it must be remembered that the only way we
have of measuring prehistoric time is through the geological method,
based upon the Ice Ages and changes in the physical contour of the

In the strata of the earth, either in the late second inter-glacial
period or at the beginning of the third, chipped rocks, or eoliths, are
found used by races of which the Piltdown and Heidelberg species are
representatives.[3]  Originally man used weapons to hammer and to cut
already prepared by nature.  Sharp-edged flints formed by the crushing
of rocks in the descent of the glaciers or by upheavals of earth or by
powerful torrents were picked up as needed for the purpose of cutting.
Wherever a sharp edge was needed, these natural implements were useful.
Gradually man learned to carry the best specimens with him.  These he
improved by chipping the edges, making them more serviceable, or
chipping the eolith, so as to grasp it more easily.  This represents
the earliest relic of the beginning of civilization through art.
Eoliths of this kind are found in Egypt in the hills bordering the Nile
Valley, in Asia and America, as well as in southern Europe.  Perhaps at
the same period of development man selected stones suitable for
crushing bones or for other purposes when hammering {31} was necessary.
These were gradually fashioned into more serviceable hammers.  In the
latter part of this period, known as the pre-Chellean, flint implements
were considerably improved.

In the Lower Paleolithic in the pre-Neanderthal period, including what
is known as the Chellean, new forms of implements are added to the
earlier beginnings.  Almond-shaped flint implements, followed later by
long, pointed implements, indicate the future development of the stone
spear, arrowhead, knife, and axe.  Also smaller articles of use, such
as borers, scrapers, and ploughs, appeared.  The edges of all
implements were rough and uneven, and the forms very imperfect.

_Industrial and Social Life of Primitive Man_.--In the industry of the
early Neanderthal races (Acheulean) implements were increased in number
and variety, being also more perfectly formed, showing the expansive
art of man.  At this period man was a hunter, having temporary homes in
caves and shelters, which gradually became more or less permanent, and
used well-fashioned implements of stone.  At the close of the third
interglacial period the climate was mild and moist, and mankind found
the open glades suitable places for assemblages in family groups about
the open fires; apparently the cooking of food and the making of
implements and clothing on a small scale were the domestic occupations
at this time.  Hunting was the chief occupation in procuring food.  The
bison, the horse, the reindeer, the bear, the beaver, the wild boar had
taken the place of the rhinoceros, the sabre-tooth tiger, and the

Judging from the stage of life existing at this time, and comparing
this with that of the lowest living races, we may safely infer that the
family associations existed at this time, even though the habitations
in caves and shelters were temporary.[4]

  "Yet, when at length rude huts they first devised,
  And fires and garments; and in union sweet
  Man wedded woman, the pure joys indulged


  Of chaste connubial love, and children rose,
  The rough barbarians softened.  The warm hearth
  Their frames so melted they no more could bear,
  As erst, th' uncovered skies.  The nuptial bed
  Broke their wild vigor, and the fond caress
  Of prattling children from the bosom chased
  Their stern, ferocious manners."
                  AFTER OSBORN.

Thus the Lower Paleolithic merged into the Upper; with the appearance
of the Mousterian, Augrignacian, Solutrian, Magdalenian, and Azilian
cultures followed the most advanced stage of the Neanderthal race
before its final disappearance.  The list of tools and implements
indicates a widening scope of civilization.  For war and chase and
fishing, for industry and domestic life, for art, sculpture, and
engraving, and for ceremonial use, a great variety of implements of
stone and bone survived the life of the races.

Spears, daggers, knives, arrowheads, fish-hooks, and harpoons;
hand-axes, drills, hammers, scrapers, planes, needles, pins, chisels,
wedges, gravers, etchers, mortars, and pilasters; ceremonial staffs and
wands--all are expressions of a fulness of industrial and social life
not recognized in earlier races.  Indications of religious ceremonies
represent the changing mind, and the expression of mind in art suggests
increased mental power.

_Cultures Indicate the Mental Development of the Race_.--As the art and
industry to-day represent the mental processes of man, so did these
primitive cultures show the inventive skill and adaptive power in the
beginnings of progress.  Perhaps instinct, emotion, and necessity
figured more conspicuously in the early period than reflective thought,
while in modern times we have more design and more planning, both in
invention and construction.  Also the primitive social order was more
an unconscious development, and lacked purpose and directing power in
comparison with present life.


But there must have been inventors and leaders in primitive times, some
brains more fertile than others, that made change and progress
possible.  Who these unknown geniuses were human records do not
indicate.  In modern times we single out the superiors and call them
great.  The inventor, the statesman, the warrior, the king, have their
achievements heralded and recorded in history.  The records of
achievement of the great barbarous cultures, of the Assyrians, the
Egyptians, and the Hebrews, centre around some king whose tomb
preserves the only records, while in reality some man unknown to us was
the real author of such progress as was made.  The reason is that
progress was so slow that the changes passed unnoticed, being the
products of many minds, each adding its increment of change.  Only the
king or ruler who could control the mass mind and the mass labor could
make sufficient spectacular demonstration worth recording, and could
direct others to build a tomb or record inscriptions to perpetuate his

_Men of Genius Cause the Mutations Which Permit Progress_.--The toiling
multitudes always use the products of some inventive genius.  Some
individual with specialized mental traits plans something different
from social usages or industrial life which changes tradition and
modifies the customs and habits of the mass.  Whether he be statesman,
inventor, philosopher, scientist, discoverer, or military leader, he
usually receives credit for the great progressive mutation which he has
originated.  There can be little progress without these few fertile
brains, just as there could be little progress unless they were
supported by the laborers who carry out the plans of the genius.  While
the "unknown man" is less conspicuous in the progress of the race in
modern complex society, he is still a factor in all progress.

_The Data of Progress_.--Evolution is not necessarily progress; neither
is development progress; yet the factors that enter into evolution and
development are essential to progress.  The laws of differentiation
apply to progress as well as to evolution.  In the plant and animal
life everywhere this law {34} obtains.  In man it is subservient to the
domination of intelligent direction, yet it is in operation all of the
time.  Some races are superior in certain lines, other races show
superiority in other lines.  Likewise, individuals exhibit differences
in a similar way.  Perhaps the dynamic physical or mental power of the
individual or the race will not improve in itself, having reached its
maximum.  There is little hope that the brain of man will ever be
larger or stronger, but it may become more effective through training
and increased knowledge.  Hence in the future we must look for
achievement along co-operative and social lines.  It is to social
expansion and social perfection that we must look for progress in the
future.  For here the accumulated power of all may be utilized in
providing for the welfare of the individual, who, in turn, will by his
inventive power cause humanity to progress.

The industrial, institutional, humanitarian, and educational machinery
represents progress in action, but increased knowledge, higher ideals
of life, broader concepts of truth, liberty of individual action which
is interested in human life in its entirety, are the real indices of


1.  Why do some races progress and others deteriorate?

2.  Compare different communities to show to what extent environment
determines progress.

3.  Show how the airplane is an evidence of progress.  The radio.  The

4.  Discuss the effects of religious belief on progress.

5.  Is the mental capacity of the average American greater than the
average of the Greeks at the time of their highest culture?

6.  What are the evidences that man will not advance in physical and
mental capacity?

7.  Show that the improvement of the race will be through social

[1] See Chapter IV.

[2] See Chapter III.

[3] See Chapter IV.

[4] See Chapter VI.




_Difficulty of Measuring Progress_.--In its larger generalization,
progress may move in a straight line, but it has such a variety of
expression and so many tributary causes that it is difficult to reduce
it to any classification.  Owing to the difficulties that attend an
attempt to recite all of the details of human progress, philosophers
and historians have approached the subject from various sides, each
seeking to make, by means of higher generalizations, a clear course of
reasoning through the labyrinth of materials.  By adopting certain
methods of marking off periods of existence and pointing out the
landmarks of civilization, they have been able to estimate more truly
the development of the race.  Civilization cannot be readily measured
by time; indeed, the time interval in history is of little value save
to mark order and continuity.  It has in itself no real significance;
it is merely an arbitrary division whose importance is greatly
exaggerated.  But while civilization is a continuous quantity, and
cannot be readily marked off into periods without destroying its
movement, it is necessary to make the attempt, especially in the study
of ancient or prehistoric society; for any method which groups and
classifies facts in logical order is helpful to the study of human

_Progress May Be Measured by the Implements Used_.--A very common
method, based largely upon the researches of archaeologists, is to
divide human society into four great periods, or ages, marked by the
progress of man in the use of implements.  The first of these periods
is called the Stone Age, and embraces the time when man used stone for
all {36} purposes in the industrial arts so far as they had been
developed.  For convenience this period has been further divided into
the age of ancient or unpolished implements and the age of modern or
polished implements.  The former includes the period when rude
implements were chipped out of flint or other hard stone, without much
idea of symmetry and beauty, and with no attempt to perfect or beautify
them by smoothing and polishing their rough surface.

In the second period man learned to fashion more perfectly the
implements, and in some instances to polish them to a high degree.
Although the divisions are very general and very imperfect, they map
out the great prehistoric era of man; but they must be considered as
irregular, on account of the fact that the Stone Era of man occurred at
different times in different tribes.  Thus the inhabitants of North
America were in the Stone Age less than two centuries ago, while some
of the inhabitants of the South Sea Islands are in the Stone Age during
the present century.  It is quite remarkable that the use of stone
implements was universal to all tribes and nations at some period of
their existence.

After the long use of stone, man gradually became acquainted with some
of the metals, and subsequently discovered the method of combining
copper with tin and other alloys to form bronze, which material, to a
large extent, added to the implements already in use.  The Bronze Age
is the most hypothetical of all these divisions, as it does not appear
to have been as universal as the Stone, on account of the difficulty of
obtaining metals.  The use of copper by the Indians of the Lake
Superior region was a very marked epoch in their development, and
corresponds to the Bronze Age of other nations, although their
advancement in other particulars appears to be less than that of other
tribes of European origin which used bronze freely.  Bronze implements
have been found in great plenty in Scandinavia and Peru, and to a
limited extent in North America.  They certainly mark a stage of
progress in advance of that of the inhabitants of the Stone Age.
Bronze {37} was the chief metal for implements throughout the early
civilization of Europe.

Following the age of bronze is the Iron Age, in which the advancement
of man is especially marked.  The bronze implements were at first
supplemented in their use by those of iron.  But gradually iron
implements superseded the bronze.  The Iron Age still is with us.
Possibly it has not yet reached its highest point.  Considering the
great structures built of iron, and the excessive use of iron in
machinery, implements, and furniture, it is easy to realize that we are
yet in this great period.  Though we continue to use stone more than
the ancients and more bronze for decoration and ornament than they, yet
both are subordinate to the use of iron.  General as the above
classification is, it helps in an indefinite way to give us a central
idea of progress and to mark off, somewhat indefinitely, periods of

_The Development of Art_.--Utility was the great purpose underlying the
foundation of the industrial arts.  The stone axe, or celt, was first
made for a distinct service, but, in order to perfect its usefulness,
its lines became more perfect and its surface more highly polished.  So
we might say for the spear-head, the knife, or the olla.  Artistic
lines and decorative beauty always followed the purpose of use.  This
could be applied to all of the products of man's invention to transform
parts of nature to his use.  On account of the durability of form, the
attempt to trace the course of civilization by means of the development
of the fine arts has met with much success.  Though the idea of beauty
is not essential to the preservation of man or to the making of the
state, it has exerted a great influence in individual-building and in
society-building.  In our higher emotional natures aesthetic ideas have
ruled with imperial sway.

But primitive ideas of beauty appear to us very crude, and even
repulsive.  The adornment of person with bright though rudely colored
garments, the free use of paint on the person, and the promiscuous use
of jewelry, as {38} practised by the primitive peoples, present a great
contrast to modern usage.  Yet it is easy to trace the changes in
custom and, moreover, to determine the origin of present customs.  So
also in representative art, the rude sketch of an elephant or a buffalo
on ivory or stone and the finished picture by a Raphael are widely
separated in genius and execution, but there is a logical connection
between the two found in the slowly evolving human activities.  The
rude figure of a god moulded roughly from clay and the lifelike model
by an Angelo have the same relations to man in his different states.
The same comparison may be made between the low, monotonous moaning of
the savage and the rapturous music of a Patti, or between the beating
of the tom-tom and the lofty strains of a Mozart.

_Progress Is Estimated by Economic Stages_.--The progress of man is
more clearly represented by the successive economic stages of his life.
Thus we have first the _primal nomadic_ period, in which man was a
wanderer, subsisting on roots and berries, and with no definite social
organization.  This period, like all primary periods, is largely
hypothetical.  Having learned to capture game and fish, he entered what
might be called the _fisher-hunter_ stage, although he was still a
nomad, and rapidly spread over a large part of the earth's surface,
wandering from forest to forest and from stream to stream, searching
for the means of subsistence and clothing.

When man learned to domesticate animals he made a great step forward
and entered what is known as the _pastoral_ period, in which his chief
occupation was the care of flocks and herds.  This contributed much to
his material support and quickened his social and intellectual
movement.  After a time, when he remained in one place a sufficient
time to harvest a short crop, he began agriculture in a tentative way,
while his chief concern was yet with flocks and herds.  He soon became
permanently settled, and learned more fully the art of agriculture, and
then entered the permanent _agricultural_ stage.  It was during this
period that he made the most rapid advances in {39} the industrial arts
and in social order.  This led to more densely populated communities,
with permanent homes and the necessary development of law and

As the products of industry increased men began to exchange "the
relatively superfluous for the relatively necessary," and trade in the
form of barter became a permanent custom.  This led to the use of money
and a more extended system of exchange, and man entered the
_commercial_ era.  This gave him a wider intercourse with surrounding
tribes and nations, and brought about a greater diversity of ideas.
The excessive demand for exchangeable goods, the accumulation of
wealth, and the enlarged capacity for enjoyment centred the activities
of life in industry, and man entered the _industrial_ stage.  At first
he employed hand power for manufacturing goods, but soon he changed to
power manufacture, brought about by discovery and invention.  Water and
steam were now applied to turn machinery, and the new conditions of
production changed the whole industrial life.  A revolution in
industrial society caused an immediate shifting of social life.
Classes of laborers in the great industrial army became prominent, and
production was carried on in a gigantic way.  We are still in this
industrial world, and as electricity comes to the aid of steam we may
be prepared for even greater changes in the future than we have
witnessed in the past.[1]

In thus presenting the course of civilization by the different periods
of economic life, we must keep the mind free from conventional ideas.
For, while the general course of economic progress is well indicated,
there was a slow blending of each period into the succeeding one.
There is no formal procedure in the progress of man.  Yet we might
infer from the way in which some writers present this matter that
society moved forward in regular order, column after column.  From the
formal and forcible way in which they have presented the history of
early society, one might imagine that a certain tribe, having become
weary of tending cattle and goats, resolved one {40} fine morning to
change from the pastoral life to agriculture, and that all of the
tribes on earth immediately concluded to do the same, when, in truth,
the change was slow and gradual, while the centuries passed away.

It is well to consider that in the expanded industrial life of man the
old was not replaced, but supplemented, by the new, and that after the
pastoral stage was entered, man continued to hunt and fish, and that
after formal agriculture was begun the tending of flocks and herds
continued, and fishing was practised at intervals.  But each succeeding
occupation became for the time the predominant one, while others were
relatively subordinate.  Even to-day, while we have been rushing
forward in recent years at a rapid rate, under the power of steam and
electricity, agriculture and commerce have made marvellous improvement.
Though we gain the new, nothing of the old is lost.  The use of flocks
and herds, as well as fish and game, increases each year, although not

_Progress Is Through the Food Supply_.--This is only another view of
the economic life.  The first period is called the natural subsistence
period, when man used such food as he found prepared for him by nature.
It corresponds to the primal nomadic period of the last classification.
From this state he advanced to the use of fish for food, and then
entered the third period, when native grains were obtained through a
limited cultivation of the soil.  After this followed a period in which
meat and milk were the chief articles of food.  Finally the period of
extended and permanent agriculture was reached, and farinaceous food by
cultivation became the main support of life.  The significance of this
classification is observed in the fact that the amount, variety, and
quality of the food available determine the possibility of man's
material and spiritual advancement.  As the food supply lies at the
foundation of human existence, prosperity is measured to a large extent
by the food products.  The character of the food affects to a great
extent the mental and moral capabilities of man; that is, it {41}
limits the possibilities of civilization.  Even in modern civilization
the effect of poor food on intellect, morals, and social order is
easily observed.

_Progress Is Estimated by Different Forms of Social Order_.--It is only
a more general way of estimating political life, and perhaps a broader
way, for it includes the entire social development.  By this
classification man is first represented as wandering in a solitary
state with the smallest amount of association with his fellows
necessary to his existence and perpetuation, and with no social
organization.  This status of man is hypothetical, and gives only a
starting point for the philosophy of higher development.  No savage
tribes have yet been discovered in which there was not at least
association of individuals in groups, although organization might not
yet have appeared.  It is true that some of the lower tribes, like the
Fuegians of South America, have very tentative forms of social and
political association.  They wander in loosely constructed groups,
which constantly shift in association, being without permanent
organization.  Yet the purely solitary man is merely conjectural.

It is common for writers to make a classification of social groups into
primary and secondary.[2]  The primary social groups are: first, the
family based upon biological relations, supported by the habit of
association; second, the play group of children, in which primitive
characters of social order appear, and a third group is the association
of adults in a neighborhood meeting.  In the formation of these groups,
the process of social selection is always in evidence.  Impulse,
feeling, and emotion play the greater parts in the formation of these
primitive groups, while choice based on rational selection seldom

The secondary groups are those which originate through the
differentiation of social functions in which the contact of individuals
is less intimate than in the primary group.  Such voluntary
associations as a church, labor organization, or {42} scientific
society may be classified as secondary in time and in importance.

Next above the human horde is represented the forced association of men
in groups, each group struggling for its own existence.  Within the
group there was little protection and little social order, although
there was more or less authority of leadership manifested.  This state
finally led to the establishment of rudimentary forms of government,
based upon blood relationship.  These groups enlarged to full national
life.  This third stage finally passed to the larger idea of
international usage, and is prospective of a world state.  These four
stages of human society, so sweeping in their generalization, still
point to the idea of the slow evolution of social order.

_The Development of Family Life_.--Starting with the hypothesis that
man at one time associated in a state of promiscuity, he passed through
the separate stages of polyandry and polygamy, and finally reached a
state of monogamy and the pure home life of to-day.  Those who have
advocated this doctrine have failed to substantiate it clearly so as to
receive from scholars the recognition of authority.  All these forms of
family life except the first have been observed among the savage tribes
of modern life, but there are not sufficient data to prove that the
human race, in the order of its development, must have passed through
these four stages.  However, it is true that the modern form of
marriage and pure home life did not always exist, but are among the
achievements of modern civilization.  There certainly has been a
gradual improvement in the relations of the members of the household,
and notwithstanding the defects of faithlessness and ignorance, the
modern family is the social unit and the hope of modern social progress.

_The Growth of Political Life_.--Many have seen in this the only true
measure of progress, for it is affirmed that advancement in civil life
is the essential element of civilization.  Its importance in
determining social order makes it a central factor in all progress.
The _primitive family_ represents the germ {43} of early political
foundation.  It was the first organized unit of society, and contained
all of the rudimentary forms of government.  The executive, the
judicial, the legislative, and the administrative functions of
government were all combined in one simple family organization.  The
head of the family was king, lord, judge, priest, and military
commander all in one.  As the family expanded it formed the _gens_ or
_clan_, with an enlarged family life and more systematic family
government.  The religious life expanded also, and a common altar and a
common worship were instituted.

A slight progress toward social order and the tendency to distribute
the powers of government are to be observed.  Certain property was held
in common and certain laws regulated the family life.  The family
groups continued to enlarge by natural increase and by adoption, all
those coming into the gens submitting to its laws, customs, and social
usage.  Finally several gentes united into a brotherhood association
called by the Greeks a _phratry_, by the Romans a _curia_.  This
brotherhood was organized on a common religious basis, with a common
deity and a central place of worship.  It also was used partially as
the basis of military organization.  This group represents the first
unit based upon locality.  From it spring the ward idea and the idea of
local self-government.

The _tribe_ represented a number of gentes united for religious and
military purposes.  Although its principal power was military, there
were a common altar and a common worship for all members of the tribe.
The chief, or head of the tribe, was the military leader, and usually
performed an important part in all the affairs of the tribe.  As the
tribe became the seat of power for military operations, the gens
remained as the foundation of political government, for it was the
various heads of the gentes who formed the council of the chief or king
and later laid the foundation of the senate, wherever instituted.  It
was common for the tribe in most instances to pass into a village
community before developing full national life.  There were exceptions
to this, where tribes have passed directly into {44} well-organized
groups without the formation of the village or the city.

The _village community_, next in logical order, represents a group of
closely related people located on a given territory, with a
half-communal system of government.  There were the little group of
houses forming the village proper and representing the different homes
of the family group.  There were the common pasture-land, the common
woodland, and the fertile fields for cultivation.  These were all
owned, except perhaps the house lot, by the entire community, and every
year the tillable land was parcelled out by the elders of the community
to the heads of families for tillage.  Usually the tiller of the soil
had a right to the crop, although among the early Greeks the custom
seems to be reversed, and the individual owned the land, but was
compelled to place its proceeds into a common granary.  The village
community represents the transition from a nomadic to a permanent form
of government, and was common to all of the Aryan tribes.  The
federation of the village communities or the expansion of the tribes
formed the Greek city-state, common to all of the Greek communities.
It represents the real beginning of civic life among the nations.

The old family organization continued to exist, although from this time
on there was a gradual separation of the functions of government.  The
executive, legislative, and judicial processes became more clearly
defined, and special duties were assigned to officers chosen for a
particular purpose.  Formal law, too, appeared as the expression of the
will of a definitely organized community.  Government grew more
systematic, and expanded into a well-organized municipality.  There was
less separation of the duties of officers than now, but there was a
constant tendency for government to unfold and for each officer to have
his specific powers and duties defined.  A deity watched over the city,
and a common shrine for worship was set up for all members of the

The next attempt to enlarge government was by federation {45} and by
conquest and domination.[3]  The city of Rome represents, first, a
federation of tribal city groups, and, finally, the dominant city
ruling over many other cities and much territory.  From this it was
only a step to the empire and imperial sway.  Athens in her most
prosperous period attempted to do the same, but was not entirely
successful.  After the decline of the Roman power there arose from the
ruins of the fallen empire the modern nationalities, which used all
forms of government hitherto known.  They partook of democracy,
aristocracy, or imperialism, and even attempted, in some instances, to
combine the principles of all three in one government.  While the
modern state developed some new characteristics, it included the
elements of the Greek and Roman governments.  The relations of these
new states developed a new code of law, based upon international
relations.  Though treaties were made between the Greeks and the Romans
in their first international relations, and much earlier between the
Hebrews and the Phoenicians, international law is of practically modern
origin.  At present modern nations have an extended and intricate code
of laws governing their relations.  It is an extension of government
beyond the boundaries of nationality.

Through commerce, trade, and political intercourse the nations of the
Western World are drawn more closely together, and men talk of a world
citizenship.  A wide philanthropy, rapid and cheap transportation, the
accompanying influences of travel, and a world market for the products
of the earth, all tend to level the barriers of nationality and to
develop universal citizenship.  The prophets of our day talk of the
coming world state, which is not likely to appear so long as the
barriers of sea and mountain remain; yet each year witnesses a closer
blending of the commercial, industrial, and political interests of all
nations.  Thus we see how governments have been evolved and national
life expanded in accordance {46} with slowly developing civilization.
Although good government and a high state of civilization are not
wholly in the relation of cause and effect, they always accompany each
other, and the progress of man may be readily estimated from the
standpoint of the development of political institutions and political

_Religion Important in Civilization_.--It is not easy to trace the
development of man by a consideration of the various religious beliefs
entertained at different periods of his existence.  Yet there is
unmistakably a line of constant development to be observed in religion,
and as a rule its progress is an index of the improvement of the race.
No one can contrast the religion of the ancient nations with the modern
Christian religion without being impressed with the vast difference in
conception and in practice existing between them.  In the early period
of barbarism, and even of savagery, religious belief was an important
factor in the development of human society.

It is no less important to-day, and he who recounts civilization
without giving it a prominent place has failed to obtain a
comprehensive view of the philosophy of human development.  From the
family altar of the Greeks to the state religion; from the rude altar
of Abraham in the wilderness to the magnificent temple of Solomon at
Jerusalem; from the harsh and cruel tenets of the Oriental religions to
the spiritual conception and ethical practice of the Christian
religion, one observes a marked progress.  We need only go to the crude
unorganized superstition of the savage or to the church of the Middle
Ages to learn that the power and influence of religion is great in
human society building.

_The Progress Through Moral Evolution_.--The moral development of the
race, although more difficult to determine than the intellectual, may
prove an index to the progress of man.  The first formal expression of
moral practice is the so-called race morality or group morality, based
upon mutual aid for common defense.  This is found to-day in all
organized groups, such as the boy gang, the Christian church, the
political party, {47} the social set, the educational institution, and,
indeed, the state itself; but wherever found it has its source in a
very primitive group action.  In the primitive struggle for existence
man had little sympathy for his fellows, the altruistic sentiment being
very feeble.  But gradually through the influence of the family life
sympathy widened and deepened in its onward flow until, joining with
the group morality, it entered the larger world of ethical practice.

This phase of moral culture had its foundation in the sympathy felt by
the mother for her offspring, a sympathy that gradually extended to the
immediate members of the household.  As the family expanded into the
state, human sympathy expanded likewise, until it became national in
its significance.  Through this process there finally came a world-wide
philanthropy which recognizes the sufferings of all human beings.  This
sympathy has been rapidly increased by the culture of the intellect,
the higher development of the sensibilities, and the refinement of the
emotions; thus along the track of altruism or ethical development,
which had its foundation in primitive life, with its ever widening and
enlarging circles, the advancement of humanity may be traced.  The old
egoism, the savage warfare for existence, has been constantly tempered
by altruism, which has been a saving quality in the human race.

_Intellectual Development of Man_.--Some philosophers have succeeded in
recounting human progress by tracing the intellectual development of
the race.  This is possible, for everything of value that has been
done, and which has left a record, bears the mark of man's intellect.
In the early period of his existence, man had sufficient intellect to
direct his efforts to satisfy the common wants of life.  This exercise
of the intellectual faculty has accompanied man's every movement, but
it is best observed in the products of his industry and the practice of
social order.  By doing and making, the intellect grows, and it is only
by observing the phenomena of active life that we get a hint or trace
of the powers and capacities of the mind.  {48} But after man begins
the process of reflective thinking, his intellectual activities become
stronger, and it is much easier to trace his development by considering
the condition of religion, law, philosophy, literature, sculpture, art,
and architecture.  These represent the best products of the mind, and
it is along this intellectual highway that the best results of
civilization are found.  During the modern period of progressive life
systematic education has forced the intellectual faculties through a
more rapid course, giving predominance to intellectual life everywhere.
The intellectual development of nations or the intellectual development
of man in general is a theme of never-tiring interest, as it represents
his noblest achievements.

Man from the very beginning has had a desire for knowledge, to satisfy
curiosity.  Gradually, however, he had a desire to know in order to
increase utility, and finally he reaches the highest state of progress
in desiring to know for the sake of knowing.  Thus he proceeds from
mere animal curiosity to the idealistic state of discovering "truth for
truth's sake."  These are qualities not only of the individual in his
development but of the racial group and, indeed, in a larger way of all
mankind; intelligence developed in the attempt of man to discover the
nature of the results of his instinctive, impulsive, or emotional
actions.  Later he sought causes of these results.  Here we have
involved increased knowledge as a basis of human action and the use of
that knowledge through discriminating intelligence.  The intellect thus
represents the selective and directive process in the use of knowledge.
Hence, intelligent behavior of the individual or of the group comes
only after accumulated knowledge based on experience.  The process of
trial and error thus gives rise to reflective thinking.  It is a
superior use of the intellect that more than anything else
distinguishes the adult from the child or modern man from the primitive.

_Change from Savagery to Barbarism_.--Perhaps one of the broadest
classifications of ancient society, based upon general characteristics
of progress, makes the two general divisions of {49} savagery and
barbarism, and subdivides each of these into three groups.  The lowest
status of savagery represents man as little above the brute creation,
subsisting upon roots and berries, and with no knowledge of art or of
social order.  The second period, called the middle status of savagery,
represents man using fire, and using fish for food, and having
corresponding advancement in other ways.  The upper status of savagery
begins with the use of the bow-and-arrow and extends to the period of
the manufacture and use of pottery.

At this point the period of barbarism begins.  Its lower status,
beginning with the manufacture of pottery, extends to the time of the
domestication of animals.  The middle status includes not only the
domestication of animals in the East but the practice of irrigation in
the West and the building of walls from stone and adobe brick.  The
upper status is marked by the use of iron and extends to the
introduction of the phonetic alphabet and literary composition.  At
this juncture civilization is said to dawn.

"Commencing," says Mr. Morgan, the author of this classification, in
his _Ancient Society_, "with the Australians and the Polynesians,
following with the American Indian tribes, and concluding with the
Roman and Grecian, which afford the best exemplification of the six
great stages of human progress, the sum of their united experiences may
be supposed to fairly represent that of the human family from the
middle status of savagery to the end of the ancient civilization."  By
this classification the Australians would be placed in the middle
status of savagery, and the early Greeks and Romans in the upper status
of barbarism, while the Pueblo Indians of New Mexico would be placed in
the middle status of barbarism.  This is an excellent system for
estimating the progress of ancient society, for around these initial
periods may be clustered all of the elements of civilization.  It is of
especial value in the comparative study of different races and tribes.

_Civilization Includes All Kinds of Human Progress_.--The above
representation of the principal methods of recounting {50} civilization
shows the various phases of human progress.  Although each one is
helpful in determining the progress of man from a particular point of
view, none is sufficient to marshal all of the qualities of
civilization in a completed order.  For the entire field of
civilization should include all the elements of progress, and this
great subject must be viewed from every side before it can be fairly
represented to the mind of the student.  The true nature of
civilization has been more clearly presented in thus briefly
enumerating the different methods of estimating human progress.  But we
must remember that civilization, though continuous, is not uniform.
The qualities of progress which are strong in one tribe or nation are
weak in others.  It is the total of the characteristics of man and the
products of his activity that represents his true progress.  Nations
have arisen, developed, and passed away; tribes have been swept from
the face of the earth before a complete development was possible; and
races have been obliterated by the onward march of civilization.  But
the best products of all nations have been preserved for the service of
others.  Ancient Chaldea received help from central Asia; Egypt and
Judea from Babylon; Greece from Egypt; Rome from Greece; and all Europe
and America have profited from the culture of Greece and Rome and the
religion of Judea.  There may be a natural growth, maturity, and decay
of nations, but civilization moves ever on toward a higher and more
diversified life.  The products of human endeavor arrange themselves on
the side of man in his attempt to master himself and nature.


I.  Method of the Kind of Implements Used.

         1.  Paleolithic, or Old Stone, Age.
         2.  Neolithic, or New Stone, Age.
         3.  Incidental use of copper, tin, and other metals.
         4.  The making of pottery.
         5.  The age of bronze.
         6.  The iron age.


II.  Method by Art Development.

         1.  Primitive drawings in caves and engraving on ivory and
         2.  The use of color in decoration of objects, especially in
             decoration of the body.
         3.  Beginnings of sculpture and carving figures, animals,
             gods, and men.
         4.  Pictorial representations--the pictograph.
         5.  Representative art in landscapes.
         6.  Perspective drawing.
         7.  Idealistic art.
         8.  Industrial arts.

III.  Method of Economic Stages.

         1.  The Nomadic Stage.
         2.  The Hunter-Fisher Stage.
         3.  The Pastoral Period.
         4.  The Agricultural Period.
         5.  The Commercial Period.
         6.  The Period of Industrial Organization.

IV.  Progress Estimated by the Food Supply.

         1.  Natural subsistence Period.
         2.  Fish and shell fish.
         3.  Cultivation of native grains.
         4.  Meat and milk.
         5.  Farinaceous foods by systematic agriculture.

V.  Method of Social Order.

         1.  Solitary state of man (hypothetical).
         2.  The human horde.
         3.  Small groups for purposes of association.
         4.  The secret society.
         5.  The religious cult.
         6.  Closely integrated groups for defense.
         7.  Amalgamated or federated groups.
         8.  The Race.

VI.  The Family Development.

         1.  State of promiscuity (hypothetical).
         2.  Polyandry.
         3.  Polygamy.
         4.  Patriarchal family with polygamy.
         5.  The Monogamic family.

VII.  Progress Measured by Political Organization.

         1.  The organized horde about religious ideas.


         2.  The completed family organization.
               _a_.  Family.
               _b_.  Gens.
               _c_.  The Phratry.
               _d_.  Patriarchal family.
               _e_.  Tribe.
         3.  The Ethnic state.
         4.  State formed by conflict and amalgamation.
         5.  International relations.
         6.  The World State (Idealistic).

VIII.  Religious Development.

         1.  Belief in spiritual beings.
         2.  Recognition of the spirit of man and other spirits.
         3.  Animism.
         4.  Anthropomorphic religion.
         5.  Spiritual concept of religion.
         6.  Ethnical religions.
         7.  Forms of religious worship and religious practice.

IX.  Moral Evolution.

         1.  Race morality (gang morality).
         2.  Sympathy for fellow beings.
         3.  Sympathy through blood relationship.
         4.  Patriotism: love of race and country.
         5.  World Ethics.

X.  Progress Through Intellectual Development.

         1.  Sensation and reflex action.
         2.  Instinct and emotion.
         3.  Impulse and adaptability.
         4.  Reflective thought.
         5.  Invention and discovery.
         6.  Rational direction of human life.
         7.  Philosophy.
         8.  Science.

XI.  Progress Through Savagery and Barbarism.

         1.  Lower status of savagery.
         2.  Middle status of savagery.
         3.  Upper status of savagery.
         4.  Lower status of barbarism.
         5.  Middle status of barbarism.
         6.  Upper status of barbarism.
         7.  Civilization (?).



1.  In what other ways than those named in this chapter may we estimate
the progress of man?

2.  Discuss the evidences of man's mental and spiritual progress.

3.  The relation of wealth to progress.

4.  The relation of the size of population to the prosperity of a

5.  Enumerate the arguments that the next destructive war will destroy

6.  In what ways do you think man is better off than he was one hundred
years ago?  One thousand years ago?

7.  In what ways did the suffering caused by the Great War indicate an
increase in world ethics?

[1] See Chapter XXVII.

[2] See Cooley, _Social Organization_, chap. III.

[3] The transition from the ethnic state to the modern civic state was
through conflict, conquest, and race amalgamation.






_The Origin of Man Has not Yet Been Determined_.--Man's origin is still
shrouded in mystery, notwithstanding the accumulated knowledge of the
results of scientific investigation in the field and in the laboratory.
The earliest historical records and relics of the seats of ancient
civilization all point backward to an earlier period of human life.
Looking back from the earliest civilizations along the Euphrates and
the Nile that have recorded the deeds of man so that their evidences
could be handed down from generation to generation, the earlier
prehistoric records of man stretch away in the dim past for more than a
hundred thousand years.  The time that has elapsed from the earliest
historical records to the present is only a few minutes compared to the
centuries that preceded it.

Wherever we go in the field of knowledge, we shall find evidences of
man's great antiquity.  We know at least that he has been on earth a
long, long period.  As to the method of his appearance, there is no
absolutely determining evidence.  Yet science has run back into the
field of conjecture with such strong lines that we may assume with
practical certainty something of his early life.  He stands at the head
of the zoological division of the animal kingdom.  The Anthropoid Ape
is the animal that most nearly resembles man.  It might be said to
stand next to man in the procession of species.  So far as our
knowledge can ascertain, it appears that man was developed in the same
manner as the higher types in the animal and vegetable world, namely,
by the process of evolution, and by evolution we mean continuous
progressive change according to law, from external and internal
stimuli.  The process of evolution is not a process of creation, nor
does evolution move in {58} a straight line, but through the process of
differentiation.  In no other way can one account for the multitudes of
the types and races of the human being, except by this process of
differentiation which is one of the main factors of evolution.
Accompanying the process of differentiation is that of specialization
and integration.  When types become highly specialized they fail to
adapt themselves to new environments, and other types not so highly
specialized prevail.  So far as the human race is concerned, it seems
to be evolved according to the law of sympodial development--that is, a
certain specialized part of the human race develops certain traits and
is limited in its adaptability to a specific environment.  Closely
allied with this are some individuals or groups possessing human traits
that are less highly specialized, and hence are adaptable to new
conditions.  Under new conditions the main stem of development perishes
and the budded branch survives.

We have abundant pictures of this in prehistoric times, and records
show that this also has been the common lot of man.  Modern man thus
could not have been developed from any of the living species of the
Anthropoid Apes, but he might have had a common origin in the physical,
chemical, and vital forces that produced the apes.  One line of
specialization made the ape, another line made man.  Subsequently the
separation of man into the various races and species came about by the
survival of some races for a time, and then to be superseded by a
branch of the same race which differentiated in a period of development
before high specialization had taken place.

_Methods of Recounting Prehistoric Time_.[1]--Present time is measured
in terms of centuries, years, months, weeks, days, hours, minutes, and
seconds, but the second is the determining power of mechanical
measurement, though it is derived mainly by the movement of the earth
around the sun and the turning of the earth on its axis.  Mechanically
we have derived the second as the unit.  It is easy for us to think in
hours or days or weeks, though it may be the seconds tick off unnoticed
{59} and the years glide by unnoticed; but it is difficult to think in
centuries--more difficult in millions of years.  The little time that
man has been on earth compared with the creation of the earth makes it
difficult for us to estimate the time of creation.  The much less time
in the historical period makes it seem but a flash in the movement of
the creation.



Twenty-five thousand years equals one hour

[Illustration: Twenty-four hour dial]

  Age of modern man           10,000 years = less than half an hour.
  Age of Crô-Magnon type      25,000 years = one hour.
  Age of Neanderthal type     50,000 years = two hours.
  Age of Piltdown type       150,000 years = six hours.
  Age of Heidelberg type     375,000 years = fifteen hours.
  Age of Pithecanthropus     500,000 years = twenty hours.

  Beginning of Christian era   2,000 years = 4.8 minutes.
  Discovery of America           431 years = about 1 minute.
  Declaration of Independence    137 years = about 21 seconds.


There are four main methods of determining prehistoric {60} time.[3]
One is called the (1) _geologic method_, which is based upon the fact
that, in a slowly cooling earth and the action of water and frost, cold
and heat, storm and glacier and volcanic eruption, the rocks on the
earth are of different ages.  If they had never been disturbed from
where they were first laid down, it would be very easy to reckon time
by geological processes.  If you had a stone column twenty feet high
built by a machine in ten hours' time, and granting that it worked
uniformly, it would be easy to see just at what hour of the period a
layer of stone four feet from the bottom, or ten feet from the top, was
laid.  If, however, in the building of the wall, it should have toppled
over several times and had to be rebuilt, it would require considerable
study to see just at what hour a certain stone was put in the wall.
Studying the geology of the earth in a large way, it is easy to
determine what strata of the earth are oldest, and this may be verified
by a consideration of the process in which these rocks were being made.
Chemistry and physics are thus brought to the aid of geology.  It is
easy to determine whether a rock has been fused by a fire or whether it
has been constructed by the slow action of water and pressure of other
rocks.  If to-day we should find in an old river bed which had been
left high and dry on a little mesa or plateau above the present river
bottom, layers of earth that had been put down by water, and we could
find how much of each layer was made in a single year, it would be easy
to estimate the number of years it took to make the whole deposit.
Also if we could find in the lowest layer certain relics of the human
race, we could know that the race lived at that time.  If we should
find relics later on of a different nature, we should be able to
estimate the progress of civilization.

The second method is of (2) _paleontology_, which is developed along
with geology.  In this we have both the vertebrate and invertebrate
paleontology, which are divisions of the science which treats of
ancient forms of animal and vegetable life.  There are many other
divisions of paleontology, some {61} devoting themselves entirely to
animal life and others to vegetable, as, for instance, paleobotany.  As
plants and animals have gradually developed from lower to higher forms
and the earth has been built gradually by formations at different
periods of existence, by a comparison of the former development with
the latter, that is, comparison with the earth, or inorganic,
development to the life, or organic, development, we are enabled to get
a comparative view of duration.  Thus, if in a layer of earth,
geological time is established and there should be found bones of an
animal, the bones of a man, and fossilized forms of ancient plants, it
would be easy to determine their relative ages.

The third method is that of (3) _anatomy_, which is a study of the
comparative size and shape of the bones of man and other animals as a
method of showing relative periods of existence.  Also, just as the
structure of the bones of a child, as compared with that of a man,
would determine their relative ages, so the bones of the species that
have been preserved through fossilization may show the relative ages of
different types of animals.  The study of the skeletons of animals,
including those of man, has led to the science of anthropometry.

The fourth method is to study the procession of man by (4) _cultures_,
or the industrial and ornamental implements that have been preserved in
the river drift, rocks, and caves of the earth from the time that man
used them until they were discovered.  Just as we have to-day models of
the improvement of the sewing-machine, the reaper, or the
flying-machine, each one a little more perfect, so we shall find in the
relics of prehistoric times this same gradual development--first a
stone in its natural state used for cutting, then chipped to make it
more perfect, and finally beautified in form and perfected by polishing.

Thus we shall find progress from the natural stone boulder used for
throwing and hammering, the developed product made by chipping and
polishing the natural boulder, making it more useful and more
beautiful, and so for all the {62} multitude of implements used in the
hunt and in domestic affairs.  Not only do we have here an illustration
of continuous progress in invention and use, but also an adaptation of
new material, for we pass from the use of stone to that of metals,
probably in the prehistoric period, although the beginnings of the use
of bronze and iron come mainly within the periods of historical records.

It is not possible here to follow the interesting history of the
glacial movement, but a few words of explanation seem necessary.  The
Ice Age, or the glacial period, refers to a span of time ranging from
500,000 years ago, at the beginning of the first glaciation, to the
close of the post-glacial period, about 25,000 years ago.  During this
period great ice caps, ranging in the valleys and spreading out on the
plains over a broad area, proceeded from the north of Europe to the
south, covering at the extreme stages nearly the entire surface of the
continent.  This great movement consists of four distinct forward
movements and their return movements.  There is evidence to show that
before the south movement of the first great ice cap, a temperate
climate extended very far toward the pole and gave opportunity for
vegetation now extinct in that region.

But as the river of ice proceeded south, plants and animals retreated
before it, some of them changing their nature to endure the excessive
cold.  Then came a climatic change which melted the ice and gradually
drove the margin of the glacier farther north.  Immediately under the
influence of the warm winds the vegetation and animals followed slowly
at a distance the movement of the glacier.  Then followed a long
inter-glacial period before the southerly movement of the returning ice
cap.  This in turn retreated to the north, and thus four separate times
this great movement, one of the greatest geological phenomena of the
earth, occurred, leaving an opportunity to study four different glacial
periods with three warmer interglacial and one warm post-glacial.

This movement gave great opportunity for the study of {63} geology,
paleontology, and the archeology of man.  That is, the story of the
relationship of the earth to plant, animal, and man was revealed.  The
regularity of these movements and the amount of material evidence found
furnish a great opportunity for measuring geological time movements and
hence the life of plants and animals, including man.

The table on page 64 will contribute to the clearness of this brief
statement about the glacial periods.




Geological time-unit 25,000 years

                            TIVE     TOTAL
                            TIME     TIME      HUMAN         ANIMAL AND
      GLACIERS       UNIT   YRS.     YRS.      LIFE          PLANT LIFE
      Post-Glacial     1    25,000   25,000    Crô-Magnon    Horse, Stag, Rein-
        Daum                                   Azilian         deer, Musk-Ox,
        Geschintz                              Magdalenian     Arctic Fox, Pine,
        Bühl                                   Solutrian       Birch, Oak
      4th Glacial      1    25,000   50,000    Mousterian    Reindeer, period of
        Wurm Ice                               Neanderthal     Tundra, Alpine,
                                                               Steppe, Meadow
  Q   3d Inter-        4   100,000  150,000    Pre-Neander-  Last warm Asiatic
  U     glacial                                  thal          and African ani-
  A                                            Piltdown        mals
  R ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  T   3d Glacial       1    25,000  175,000                  Woolly Mammoth,
  E     Riss                                                   Rhinoceros,
  R                                                            Reindeer
  N ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  A   2d Inter-        8   200,000  375,000    Heidelberg    African and Asiatic
  R     glacial                                  Race          Animals, Ele-
  Y     Mindel-Riss                                            phant, Hippo-
      2d Glacial       1    25,000  400,000                  Cold weather
        Mindel                                                 animals
      1st Inter-       3    75,000  475,000    Pithecan-     Hippopotamus,
        glacial                                  thropus       Elephant, Afri-
                                                 Erectus       can and Asiatic
      1st Glacial      1    25,000   500,000


_Prehistoric Types of the Human Race_.--The earliest record of human
life yet discovered is the _Pithecanthropus Erectus_ (Trinil), the
apelike man who walked upright, found in Java by Du Bois, about the
year 1892.  Enough of the skeletal remains of human beings were found
at this time to indicate a man of rather crude form and low brain
capacity (about 885 c.c.), with possible powers of speech but with no
probably developed language or no assumption of the acquaintance with
the arts of life.[4]

The remains of this man associated with the remains of one other
skeleton, probably a woman, and with the bones of extinct animals, were
found in a geological stratum which indicates his age at about 500,000
years.  Professor McGregor, after a careful anatomical study, has
reproduced the head and bust of Pithecanthropus, which helps us to
visualize this primitive species as of rather low cultural type.  The
low forehead, massive jaw, and receding chin give us a vision of an
undeveloped species of the human race, in some respects not much above
the anthropoid apes, yet in other characters distinctly human.

There follows a long interval of human development which is only
conjectural until the discovery of the bones of the Heidelberg man,
found at the south of the River Neckar.  These are the first records of
the human race found in southern Europe.  The type of man is still
apelike in some respects, but far in advance of the Pithecanthropus in
structure and general appearance.  The restoration by the Belgian
artist Mascré {65} under the direction of Professor A. Rotot, of
Brussels, is indicative of larger brain capacity than the Trinil race.
It had a massive jaw, distinctive nose, heavy arched brows, and still
the receding chin.  Not many cultural remains were found in strata of
the second interglacial period along with the remains of extinct
animals, such as the ancient elephant, Etruscan rhinoceros, primitive
bison, primitive ox, Auvergne bear, and lion.  A fauna and a flora as
well as a geological structure were found which would indicate that
this race existed at this place about 375,000 years ago.  From these
evidences very little may be determined of the Heidelberg man's
cultural development, but much may be inferred.  Undoubtedly, like the
Pithecanthropus, he was a man without the tools of civilization, or at
least had not developed far in this way.

About 150,000 years ago there appeared in Europe races of mankind that
left more relics of their civilization.[6] These were the
Neanderthaloid races.  There is no evidence of the connection of these
races with the Java man or the Heidelberg man.  Here, as elsewhere in
the evolution of races and species, nature does not work in a straight
line of descent, but by differentiation and variation.

In 1856 the first discovery of a specimen of the Neanderthal man was
found at the entrance of a small ravine on the right bank of the River
Dussel, in Rhenish Prussia.  This was the first discovery of the
Paleolithic man to cause serious reflection on the possibility of a
prehistoric race in Europe.  Its age is estimated at 50,000 years.
This was followed by other discoveries of the Mid-Pleistocene period,
until there were a number of discoveries of similar specimens of the
Neanderthal race, varying in some respects from each other.  The first
had a brain capacity of 1230 c.c., while that of the average European
is about 1500 c.c.  Some of the specimens showed a skull capacity
larger than the first specimen, but the average is lower than that of
any living race, unless it be that of the Australians.


Later were discovered human remains of a somewhat higher type, known as
the Aurignacian, of the Crô-Magnon race.  These are probably ancestors
of the living races of Europe existing 25,000 to 50,000 years ago.
They represent the first races to which may be accorded definite
relationship with the recent races.

Thus we have evidences of the great antiquity of man and a series of
remains showing continual advancement over a period of nearly 500,000
years--the Pithecanthropus, Heidelberg, Piltdown, and Neanderthal,
though expressing gradations of development in the order named, appear
to be unrelated in their origin and descent, and are classed as
separate species long since extinct.  The Crô-Magnon people seem more
directly related to modern man.  Perhaps in the Neolithic Age they may
have been the forebears of present races, either through direct or
indirect lines.

_The Unity of the Human Race_.--Though there are evidences, as shown
above, that there were many branches of the human race, or species,
some of which became extinct without leaving any records of the passing
on of their cultures to others, there is a pretty generally concerted
opinion that all branches of the human race are related and have sprung
from the same ancestors.  There have been differences of opinion
regarding this view, some holding that there are several centres of
development in which the precursor of man assumed a human form
(polygenesis), and others holding that according to the law of
differentiation and zoological development there must have been at some
time one origin of the species (monogenesis).  So far as the scientific
investigation of mankind is concerned, it is rather immaterial which
theory is accepted.  We know that multitudes of tribes and races differ
in minor parts of structure, differ in mental capacity, and hence in
qualities of civilization, and yet in general form, brain structure,
and mental processes, it is the same human being wherever found.  So we
may assume that there is a unity of the race.

If we consider the human race to have sprung from a single {67} pair,
or even the development of man from a single species, it must have
taken a long time to have developed the great marks of racial
differences that now exist.  The question of unity or plurality of race
origins has been much discussed, and is still somewhat in controversy,
although the predominance of evidence is much in favor of the descent
of man from a single species and from a single place.  The elder
Agassiz held that there were several separate species of the race,
which accounts for the wide divergence of characteristics and
conditions.  But it is generally admitted from a zoological standpoint
that man originated from a single species, although it does not
necessarily follow that he came from a single pair.  It is the
diversity or the unity of the race from a single pair which gives rise
to the greatest controversy.

There is a wide diversity of opinion among ethnologists on this
question.  Agassiz was followed by French writers, among whom were
Topinard and Hervé, who held firmly to the plurality of centres of
origin and distribution.  Agassiz thought there were at least nine
centres in which man appeared, each independent of the others.  Morton
thought he could point out twenty-two such centres, and Nott and
Gliddon advanced the idea that there were distinct races of people.
But Darwin, basing his arguments upon the uniformity of physical
structure and similarity of mental characteristics, held that man came
from a single progenitor.  This theory is the most acceptable, and it
is easily explained, if we admit time enough for the necessary changes
in the structure and appearance of man.  It is the simplest hypothesis
that is given, and explains the facts relative to the existence of man
much more easily than does the theory in reference to diversity of
origins.  The majority of ethnologists of America and Europe appear to
favor the idea that man came from a single pair, arose from one place,
and spread thence over the earth's surface.

_The Primitive Home of Man May Be Determined in a General Way_.--The
location of the cradle of the race has not {68} yet been satisfactorily
established.  The inference drawn from the Bible story of the creation
places it in or near the valley of the Euphrates River.  Others hold
that the place was in Europe, and others still in America.  A theory
has also been advanced that a continent or group of large islands
called Lemuria, occupying the place where the Indian Ocean now lies,
and extending from Ceylon to Madagascar, was the locality in which the
human race originated.  The advocates of this theory hold to it chiefly
on the ground that it is necessary to account for the peopling of
Australia and other large islands and continents, and that it is the
country best fitted by climate and other physical conditions for the
primitive race.  This submerged continent would enable the races to
migrate readily to different parts of the world, still going by dry

There is little more than conjecture upon this subject, and the
continent called Lemuria is as mythical as the Ethiopia of Ptolemy and
the Atlantis of Plato.  It is a convenient theory, as it places the
cradle of the race near the five great rivers, the Tigris, Euphrates,
Indus, Ganges, and the Nile.  The supposed home also lies in a zone in
which the animals most resembling man are found, which is an important
consideration; as, in the development of the earth, animals appeared
according to the conditions of climate and food supply, so the portion
of the earth best prepared for man's early life is most likely to be
his first home.

Although it is impossible to determine the first home of man, either
from a scientific or an historical standpoint, there are a few
well-acknowledged theories to be observed: First, as the islands of the
ocean were not peopled when first discovered by modern navigators, it
is reasonable to suppose that the primitive home of man was on one of
the continents.  As man is the highest and last development of organic
nature, it is advocated, with considerable force of argument, that his
first home was in a region suitable to the life of the anthropoid apes.
As none of these, either living or fossil, are found in Australia or
America, these continents are practically excluded from the probable
list of places for the early home of man.


In considering the great changes which have taken place in the earth's
surface, southern India and southern Africa were large islands at the
time of man's appearance; hence, there is little probability of either
of these being the primitive home.  None of the oldest remains of man
have been found in the high northern latitudes of Europe or America.
We have then left a strip of country on the southern slope of the great
mountain chain which begins in western Europe and extends to the
Himalaya Mountains, in Asia, which appears to be the territory in which
was situated the early home of man.  The geological relics and the
distribution of the race both point to the fact that in this belt man's
life began; but it is not determined whether it was in Europe or in
Asia, there being adherents to both theories.

_The Antiquity of Man Is Shown in Racial Differentiation_.--Granted
that the life of the human race has originated from a common biological
origin and from a common geographical centre, it has taken a very long
time for the races to be differentiated into the physical traits they
possess to-day, as it has taken a long time for man to spread over the
earth.  The generalized man wandering along the streams and through the
forests in search of food, seeking for shelter under rocks and in caves
and trees, was turned aside by the impassable barriers of mountains, or
the forbidding glacier, the roaring torrent, or the limits of the ocean
itself, and spread over the accessible parts of the earth's surface
until he had covered the selected districts on the main portions of the
globe.  Then came race specialization, where a group remained a long
time in the same environment and inbred in the same stock, developing
specialized racial characters.  These changes were very slow, and the
wide difference to-day between the Asiatic, the African, and the
European is indicative of the long period of years which brought them
about.  Certainly, six thousand years would not suffice to make such

Of course one must realize that just as, in the period of childhood,
the plastic state of life, changes of structure and appearance are more
rapid than in the mature man, after {70} traits and characters have
become more fixed, so by analogy we may assume that this was the way of
the human race and that in the earlier period changes were more rapid
than they are to-day.  Thus in the cross-fertilizations and
amalgamation of races we would expect a slower development than under
these earlier conditions, yet when we realize the persistence of the
types of Irish and German, of Italian and Greek, of Japanese and
Chinese, even though the races become amalgamated, we must infer that
the racial types were very slow in developing.

If we consider the variations in the structure and appearance of the
several tribes and races with which we come in contact in every-day
life, we are impressed with the amount of time necessary to make these
changes.  Thus the Anglo-American, whom we sometimes call Caucasian,
taken as one type of the perfection of physical structure and mental
habit, with his brown hair, having a slight tendency to curl, his fair
skin, high, prominent, and broad forehead, his great brain capacity,
his long head and delicately moulded features, contrasts very strongly
with the negro, with his black skin, long head, with flat, narrow
forehead, thick lips, projecting jaw, broad nose, and black and woolly
hair.  The Chinese, with his yellow skin, flat nose, black, coarse
hair, and oblique, almond-shaped eyes, and round skull, marks another
distinct racial type.  Other great races have different
characteristics, and among our own race we find a further separation
into two great types, the blonds and the brunettes.

What a long period of time must have elapsed to have changed the racial
characteristics!  From pictures made three thousand years ago in Egypt
the differences of racial characteristics were very clearly depicted in
the hair, the features of the face, and, indeed, the color of the skin.
If at this period the racial differences were clearly marked, at what
an early date must they have been wanting!  So, also, the antiquity of
man is evinced in the fact that the oldest skeletons found show him at
that early period to be in possession of an average {71} brain capacity
and a well-developed frame.  If changes in structure have taken place,
they have gradually appeared only during a long period of years.  Yet,
when it is considered that man is a migratory creature, who can adapt
himself to any condition of climate or other environment, and it is
realized that in the early stage of his existence his time was occupied
for a long period in hunting and fishing, and that from this practice
he entered the pastoral life to continue, to a certain extent, his
wanderings, it is evident that there is sufficient opportunity for the
development of independent characteristics.  Also the effects of sun
and storm, of climate and other environments have a great influence in
the slow changes of the race which have taken place.  The change in
racial traits is dependent largely upon biological selection, but
environment and social selection probably had at least indirect
influence in the evolution of racial characters.

_The Evidences of Man's Ancient Life in Different Localities_.--The
sources of the remains of the life of primitive man are (1) Caves, (2)
Shell Mounds, (3) River and Glacial Drift, (4) Burial Mounds, (5)
Battlefields and Village Sites, and (6) Lake Dwellings.  It is from
these sources that most of the evidence of man's early life has come.

_Caves_ (1).--It has been customary to allude to the cave man as if he
were a distinct species or group of the human race, when in reality men
at all times through many thousands of years dwelt in caves according
to their convenience.  However, there was a period in European life
when groups of the human race used caves for permanent habitations and
thus developed certain racial types and habits.  Doubtless these were
established long enough in permanent seats to develop a specialized
type which might be known as the cave man, just as racial types have
been developed in other conditions of habitation and life.  What
concerns us most here is that the protection which the cave afforded
this primitive man has been a means of protecting the records of his
life, and thus added to the evidence of human progress.  Many of these
{72} caves were of limestone with rough walls and floor, and in most
instances rifts in the roof allowed water to percolate and drop to the

Frequently the water was impregnated with limestone solution, which
became solidified as each drop left a deposit at the point of
departure.  This formed rough stalactites, which might be called stone
icicles, because their formation was similar to the formation of an
icicle of the water dropping from the roof.  So likewise on the floor
of the cave where the limestone solution dropped was built up from the
bottom a covering of limestone with inverted stone icicles called
stalagmites.  Underneath the latter were found layer after layer of
relics from the habitation of man, encased in stone to be preserved
forever or until broken into by some outside pressure.  Of course,
comparatively few of all the relics around these habitations were
preserved, because those outside of the stone encasement perished, as
did undoubtedly large masses of remains around the mouth of the cave.

In these caves of Europe are found the bones of man, flint implements,
ornaments of bone with carvings, and the necklaces of animals' teeth,
along with the bones of extinct animals.  In general the evidence shows
the habits of the life of man and also the kind of animals with which
he associated whose period of life was determined by other evidence.
Besides this general evidence, there was a special determination of the
progress of man, because the relics were in layers extending over a
long period of years, giving evidence that from time to time implements
of higher order were used, either showing progress or that different
races may have occupied the cave at different times and left evidences
of their industrial, economic, and social life.  In some of the caves
skulls have been discovered showing a brain case of an average
capacity, along with others of inferior size.  Probably the greater
part of this cave life was in the upper part of the Paleolithic Stone

In some of these caves at the time of the Magdalenian {73} culture,
which was a branch of the Crô-Magnon culture, there are to be found
drawings and paintings of the horse, the cave bear, the mammoth, the
bison, and many other animals, showing strong beginnings of
representative art.  Also, in these caves were found bones and stone
implements of a more highly finished product than those of the earlier
primitive types of Europe.

_Shell Mounds_ (2).--Shell mounds of Europe and America furnish
definite records of man's life.  The shell mounds of greatest historic
importance are found along the shores of the Baltic in Denmark.  Here
are remains of a primitive people whose diet seems to be principally
shell-fish obtained from the shores of the sea.  Around their kitchens
the shells of mussels, scallops, and oysters were piled in heaps, and
in these shell mounds, or Kitchenmiddens, as they are called
(Kjokkenmoddings), are found implements, the bones of birds and
mammals, as well as the remains of plants.  Also, by digging to the
bottom of these mounds specimens of pottery are found, showing that the
civilization belonged largely to the Neolithic period of man.

There are evidences also of the succession of the varieties of trees
corresponding to the evidences found in the peat bogs, the oak
following the fir, which in turn gave way to the beech.  These refuse
heaps are usually in ridgelike mounds, sometimes hundreds of yards in
length.  The weight of the millions of shells and other refuse
undoubtedly pressed the shells down into the soft earth and still the
mound enlarged, the habitation being changed or raised higher, rather
than to take the trouble to clear away the shells from the habitation.
The variety of implements and the degrees of culture which they exhibit
give evidence that men lived a long time in this particular locality.
Undoubtedly it was the food quest that caused people to assemble here.
The evidences of the coarse, dark pottery, the stone axes, clubs, and
arrow-heads, and the bones of dogs show a state of civilization in
which differentiation of life existed.  Shell mounds are also found
along the {74} Pacific coast, showing the life of Indians from the time
when they first began to use shell-fish for food.  In these mounds
implements showing the relative stages of development have been found.

_River and Glacial Drift_ (3).--The action of glaciers and glacial
rivers and lakes has through erosion changed the surface of the soil,
tearing out some parts of the earth's surface and depositing the soil
elsewhere.  These river floods carried out bones of man and the
implements in use, and deposited them, together with the bones of
animals with which he lived.  Many of these relics have been preserved
through thousands of years and frequently are brought to light.  The
geological records are thus very important in throwing light upon the
antiquity of man.  It is in the different layers or strata of the earth
caused by these changes that we find the relics of ancient life.  The
earth thus reveals in its rocks and gravel drift the permanent records
of man's early life.  Historical geology shows us that the crust of the
earth has been made by a series of layers, one above the other, and
that the geologist determining the order of their creation has a means
of ascertaining their relative age, and thus can measure approximately
the life of the plants and animals connected with each separate
layer.[7]  The relative ages of fishes, reptiles, and mammals,
including man, are thus readily determined.

It is necessary to refer to the method of classification adopted by
geologists, who have divided the time of earth-making into three great
periods, representing the growth of animal life, determined by the
remains found in the strata or drift.  These periods mark general
portions of time.  Below the first is the period of earliest rock
formation (Archaean), in which there is no life, and which is called
Azoic for that reason.  There is a short period above this, usually
reckoned as outside the ancient life, on account of the few forms of
animals found there; but the first great period (Paleozoic) represents
non-vertebrate life, as well as the life of fishes and reptiles, and
includes {75} also the coal measures, which represent a period of heavy
vegetation.  The middle period (Mesozoic) includes the more completely
developed lizards and crocodiles, and the appearance of mammals and
birds.  The animal life of the third period (Cenozoic) resembles
somewhat the modern species.  This period includes the Tertiary and the
Quaternary and the recent sub-periods.  Man, the highest being in the
order of creation, appears in the Quaternary period.  Of the immense
ages of time represented by the geological periods the life of man
represents but a small portion, just as the existence of man as
recorded in history is but a modern period of his great life.  The
changes, then, which have taken place in the animals and plants and the
climate in the different geological periods have been instrumental in
determining the age of man; that is, if in a given stratum human
remains are found, and the relative age of that stratum is known, it is
easy to estimate the relative age of man.

Whether man existed prior to the glacial epoch is still in doubt.  Some
anthropologists hold that he appeared at the latter part of the
Tertiary, that is, in the Pliocene.  Reasons for assumption exist,
though there is not sufficient evidence to make it conclusive.  The
question is still in controversy, and doubtless will be until new
discoveries bring new evidence.  If there is doubt about the finding of
human relics in the Tertiary, there is no doubt about the evidence of
man during the Quaternary, including the whole period of the glacial
epoch, extending 500,000 years into the past.

The relics of man which are found in the drift and elsewhere are the
stone implements and the flakes chipped from the flint as he fashioned
it into an axe, knife, or hatchet.  The implements commonly found are
arrow-heads, knives, lance-heads, pestles, etc.  Human bones have been
found imbedded in the rock or the sand.  Articles made of horn, bones
of animals, especially the reindeer, notched or cut pieces of wood have
been found.  Also there are evidences of rude drawings on stone, bone,
or ivory; fragments of charcoal, which give {76} evidence of the use of
fire in cooking or creating artificial heat, are found, and long bones
split longitudinally to obtain marrow for food, and, finally, the
remnants of pottery.  These represent the principal relics found in the
Stone Age; to these may be added the implements in bronze and iron of
later periods.

A good example of the use of these relics to determine chronology is
shown in the peat bogs of Denmark.  At the bottom are found trees of
pine which grew on the edges of the bog and have fallen in.  Nearer the
top are found oak and white birch-trees, and in the upper layer are
found beech-trees closely allied to the species now covering the
country.  The pines, oaks, and birches are not to be seen in that part
of the country at present.  Here, then, is evidence of the successive
replacement of different species of trees.  It is evident that it must
have taken a long time for one species thus to replace another, but how
long it is impossible to say.  In some of these bogs is found a
gradation of implements, unpolished stone at the bottom, polished stone
above, followed by bronze, and finally iron.  These are associated with
the different forms of vegetable remains.

In Europe stone implements occur in association with fossil remains of
the cave lion, the cave hyena, the old elephant and rhinoceros--all
extinct species.  Also the bones and horns of the reindeer are
prominent in these remains, for at that time the reindeer came farther
south than at present.  In southern France similar implements are
associated with ivory and bones, with rude markings, and the bones of
man--even a complete skeleton being found at one place.  These are all
found in connection with the bones of the elk, ibex, aurochs, and

_Burial Mounds_ (4).--It is difficult to determine at just what period
human beings began to bury their dead.  Primarily the bodies were
disposed of the same as any other carrion that might occur--namely,
they were left to decay wherever they dropped, or were subject to the
disposal by wild {77} animals.  After the development of the idea of
the perpetuation of life in another world, even though it were
temporary or permanent, thoughts of preparing the body for its journey
into the unknown land and for its residence thereafter caused people to
place food and implements and clothing in the grave.  This practice
probably occurred about the beginning of the Neolithic period of man's
existence, and has continued on to the present date.

Hence it is that in the graves of primitive man we find deposited the
articles of daily use at the period in which he lived.  These have been
preserved many centuries, showing something of the life of the people
whose remains were deposited in the mounds.  Also in connection with
this in furtherance of a religious idea were great dolmens and stone
temples, where undoubtedly the ancients met to worship.  They give some
evidence at least of the development of the religious and ceremonial
life among these primitive people and to that extent they are of great
importance.  It is evidence also, in another way, that the religious
idea took strong hold of man at an early period of his existence.
Evidences of man in Britain from the tumuli, or burial mounds, from
rude stone temples like the famous Stonehenge place his existence on
the island at a very early date.  Judging from skulls and skeletons
there were several distinct groups of prehistoric man in Britain,
varying from the extreme broad skulls to those of excessive length.
They carry us back to the period of the Early Stone Age.  Relics, too,
of the implements and mounds show something of the primitive conditions
of the inhabitants in Britain of which we have any permanent record.

_Battlefields and Village Sites_ (5).--In the later Neolithic period of
man the tribes had been fully developed over a great part of the
earth's surface, and fought for their existence, principally over
territories having a food supply.  Other reasons for tribal conflict,
such as real or imagined race differences and the ambition for race
survival, caused constant warfare.  {78} Upon these battlefields were
left the implements of war.  Those of stone, and, it may be said
secondarily, of iron and bronze, were preserved.  It is not uncommon
now in almost any part of the United States where the rains fall upon a
ploughed field over which a battle had been fought, to find exposed a
large number of arrow-heads and stone axes, all other perishable
implements having long since decayed.  Or in some instances the wind
blowing the sand exposes the implements which were long ago deposited
during a battle.  Also, wherever the Indian villages were located for a
period of years, the accumulations of utensils and implements occurred
which were buried by the action of wind or water.  This represents a
source of evidence of man's early life.

_Lake Dwellings_ (6).--The idea of protection is evidenced everywhere
in the history of primitive man; protection against the physical
elements, protection against wild beasts and wilder men.  We find along
the lakes and bays in both Europe and America the tendency to build the
dwelling out in the water and approach it from the land with a narrow
walk which could be taken up when not used, or to approach it by means
of a rude boat.  In this way the dwellers could defend themselves
against the onslaughts of tribal enemies.  These dwellings have been
most numerous along the Swiss lakes, although some are found in
Scotland, in the northern coast of South America, and elsewhere.  Their
importance rests in the fact that, like the shell mounds
(Kitchenmiddens), the refuse from these cabins shows large deposits of
the implements and utensils that were in use during the period of
tribal residence.  Here we find not only stone implements, running from
the crude form of the Unpolished Stone Age to the highly polished, but
also records of implements of bronze and small implements for domestic
use of bone and polished stone.  Also there are evidences that
different tribes or specialized races occupied these dwellings at
different times, because of the variation of civilization implied by
the implements in use.  The British Museum has a very large classified
collection of {79} the implements procured from lake dwellings of
Switzerland.  Other museums also have large collections.  A part of
them run back into the prehistoric period of man and part extend even
down to the historic.

_Knowledge of Man's Antiquity Influences Reflective Thinking_.--The
importance of studying the antiquity of man is the light which it
throws upon the causes of later civilization.  In considering any phase
of man's development it is necessary to realize he has been a long time
on earth and that, while the law of the individual life is development,
that of the human race is slowly evolutionary; hence, while we may look
for immediate and rapid change, we can only be assured of a very slow
progressive movement at all periods of man's existence.  The knowledge
of his antiquity will give us a historical view which is of tremendous
importance in considering the purpose and probable result of man's life
on earth.  When we realize that we have evidence of the struggle of man
for five hundred thousand years to get started as far as we have in
civilization, and that more changes affecting man's progress may occur
in a single year now than in a former thousand years, we realize
something of the background of struggle before our present civilization
could appear.  We realize, also, that his progress in the arts has been
very slow and that, while there are many changes in art formation of
to-day, we still have the evidences of the primitive in every completed
picture, or plastic form, or structural work.  But the slow progress of
all this shows, too, that the landmarks of civilization of the past are
few and far between--distant mile-posts appearing at intervals of
thousands of years.  Such a contemplation gives us food for thought and
should invite patience when we wish in modern times for social
transformations to become instantaneous, like the flash of the scimitar
or the burst of an electric light.

The evidence that man has been a long time on earth explodes the
long-accepted theory of six thousand years as the age of man.  It also
explodes the theory of instantaneous {80} creation which was expressed
by some of the mediaeval philosophers.  Indeed, it explodes the theory
of a special creation of man without connection with the creation of
other living beings.  No doubt, there was a specialized creation of
man, otherwise he never would have been greater than the anthropoids
nor, indeed, than other mammals, but his specialization came about as
an evolutionary process which gave him a tremendous brain-power whereby
he was enabled to dominate all the rest of the world.  So far as
philosophy is concerned as to man's life, purpose, and destiny, the
influence of the study of anthropology would change the philosopher's
vision of life to a certain extent.  The recognition that man is "part
and parcel" of the universe, subject to cosmic law, as well as a
specialized type, subject to the laws of evolution, and, indeed, that
he is of a spiritual nature through which he is subjected to spiritual
law, causes the philosopher to pause somewhat before he determines the
purpose, the life, or the destiny of man.

If we are to inquire how man came into the world, when he came, what he
has been doing, how he developed, and whither the human trail leads, we
shall encounter many unsolved theories.  Indeed, the facts of his life
are suggestive of the mystery of being.  If it be suggested that he is
"part and parcel" of nature and has slowly arisen out of lower forms,
it should not be a humiliating thought, for his daily life is dependent
upon the lower elements of nature.  The life of every day is dependent
upon the dust of the earth.  The food he eats comes from the earth just
the same as that of the hog, the rabbit, or the fish.  If, upon this
foundation, he has by slow evolution built a more perfect form,
developed a brain and a mind which give him the greatest flights of
philosophy, art, and religion, is it not a thing to excite pride of
being?  Could there be any greater miracle than evolving nature and
developing life?  Indeed, is there any greater than the development of
the individual man from a small germ not visible to the naked eye,
through the egg, the embryo, infant, youth, to full-grown man?  Why not
the working of the same law to {81} the development of man from the
beginning.  Does it lessen the dignity of creation if this is done
according to law?  On the other hand, does it not give credit to the
greatness and power of the Creator if we recognize his wisdom in making
the universe, including man, the most important factor, according to a
universal plan worked out by far-reacting laws?


1.  Evidences of the great antiquity of man.

2.  Physical and mental traits of the anthropoid apes.

3.  The life and culture of the Neanderthal Race.

4.  What are the evidences in favor of the descent of man from a single

5.  Explain the law of differentiation as applied to plants and animals.

6.  Compare in general the arts of man in the Old Stone Age with those
of the New Stone Age.

7.  What has been the effect of the study of prehistoric man on modern
thought as shown in the interpretation of History?  Philosophy?

[1] See Diagram, p. 59.

[2] See Haeckel, Schmidt, Ward, Robinson, Osborn, Todd.

[3] See Osborn, _Men of the Old Stone Age_.

[4] See Chapter II.

[5] After Osborn.  Read from bottom up.

[6] Estimates of Neanderthal vary from 150,000 to 50,000 years ago.

[7] See p. 64.




_The Efforts of Man to Satisfy Physical Needs_.--All knowledge of
primitive man, whether derived from the records of cultures he has left
or assumed from analogy of living tribes of a low order of
civilization, discovers him wandering along the streams in the valleys
or by the shores of lakes and oceans, searching for food and
incidentally seeking protection in caves and trees.  The whole earth
was his so far as he could appropriate it.  He cared nothing for
ownership; he only wanted room to search for the food nature had
provided.  When he failed to find sufficient food as nature left it, he
starved.  So in his wandering life he adapted himself to nature as he
found it.  In the different environments he acquired different customs
and habits of life.  If he came in contact with other tribes, an
exchange of knowledge and customs took place, and both tribes were
richer thereby.  However, the universality of the human mind made it
possible for two detached tribes, under similar environment and similar
stimuli, to develop the same customs and habits of life, provided they
had the same degree of development.  Hence, we have independent group
development and group borrowing.

When nature failed to provide him with sufficient food, he learned to
force her to yield a larger supply.  When natural objects were
insufficient for his purposes, he made artificial tools to supplement
them.  Slowly he became an inventor.  Slowly he mastered the art of
living.  Thus physical needs were gradually satisfied, and the
foundation for the superstructure of civilization was laid.

_The Attempt to Satisfy Hunger and to Protect from Cold_.--To this
statement must be added the fact that struggle with {83} his fellows
arose from the attempt to obtain food, and we have practically the
whole occupation of man in a state of savagery.  At least, the simple
activities represent the essential forces at the foundation of human
social life.  The attempt to preserve life either through instinct,
impulse, emotion, or rational selection is fundamental in all animal
existence.  The other great factor at the foundation of human effort is
the desire to perpetuate the species.  This, in fact, is the mere
projection of the individual life into the next generation, and is
fundamentally important to the individual and to the race alike.  All
modern efforts can be traced to these three fundamental activities.
But in seeking to satisfy the cravings of hunger and to avoid the pain
of cold, man has developed a varied and active life.  About these two
centres cluster all the simple forces of human progress.  Indeed,
invention and discovery and the advancement of the industrial arts
receive their initial impulses from these economic relations.

We have only to turn our attention to the social life around us to
observe evidences of the great importance of economic factors.  Even
now it will be observed that the greater part of economic activities
proceeds from the effort to procure food, clothing, and shelter, while
a relatively smaller part is engaged in the pursuit of education,
culture, and pleasure.  The excellence of educational systems, the
highest flights of philosophy, the greatest achievement of art, and the
best inspiration of religion cannot exist without a wholesome economic
life at the foundation.  It should not be humiliating to man that this
is so, for in the constitution of things, labor of body and mind, the
struggle for existence and the accumulations of the products of
industry yield a large return in themselves in discipline and culture;
and while we use these economic means to reach higher ideal states,
they represent the ladder on which man makes the first rounds of his

_The Methods of Procuring Food in Primitive Times_.--Judging from the
races and tribes that are more nearly in a state of nature than any
other, it may be reasonably assumed that {84} in his first stage of
existence, man subsisted almost wholly upon a vegetable diet, and that
gradually he gave more and more attention to animal food.  His
structure and physiology make it possible for him to use both animal
and vegetable food.  Primarily, with equal satisfaction the procuring
of food must have been rather an individual than a social function.
Each individual sought his own breakfast wherever he might find it.  It
was true then, as now, that people proceeded to the breakfast table in
an aggregation, and flocked around the centres of food supply; so we
may assume the picture of man stealing away alone, picking fruits,
nuts, berries, gathering clams or fish, was no more common than the
fact of present-day man getting his own breakfast alone.  The main
difference is that in the former condition individuals obtained the
food as nature left it, and passed it directly from the bush or tree to
the mouth, while in modern times thousands of people have been working
indirectly to make it possible for a man to wait on himself.

Jack London, in his _Before Adam_, gives a very interesting picture of
the tribe going out to the carrot field for its breakfast, each
individual helping himself.  However, such an aggregation around a
common food supply must eventually lead to co-operative economic
methods.  But we do find even among modern living tribes of low degree
of culture the group following the food quest, whether it be to the
carrot patch, the nut-bearing trees, the sedgy seashore for mussels and
clams, the lakes for wild rice, or to the forest and plains where
abound wild game.

We find it difficult to think otherwise than that the place of man's
first appearance was one abounding in edible fruits.  This fact arises
from the study of man's nature and evidences of the location of his
first appearance, together with the study of climate and vegetation.
There are a good many suggestions also that man in his primitive
condition was prepared for a vegetable diet, and indications are that
later he acquired use of meat as food.  Indeed, the berries and edible
roots of {85} certain regions are in sufficient quantity to sustain
life throughout a greater part of the year.  The weaker tribes of
California at the time of the first European invaders, and for many
centuries previous, found a greater part of their sustenance in edible
roots extracted from the soil, in nuts, seeds of wild grains, and
grasses.  It is true they captured a little wild game, and in certain
seasons many of them made excursions to the ocean or frequented the
streams for fish or shell-fish, but their chief diet was vegetable.  It
must be remembered, also, that all of the cultivated fruits to-day
formerly existed, in one variety or another, in the wild species.  Thus
the citrous fruits, the date, the banana, breadfruit, papaw, persimmon,
apple, cherry, plum, pear, all grew in a wild state, providing food for
man if he were ready to take it as provided.  Rational selection has
assisted nature in improving the quality of grains and fruits and in
developing new varieties.

In the tropical regions was found the greatest supply of edible fruits.
Thus the Malays and the Papuans find sufficient food on trees to supply
their wants.  Many people in some of the groups in the South Sea
Islands live on cocoanuts.  In South America several species of trees
are cultivated by the natives for the food they furnish.  The palm
family contributes much food to the natives, and also furnishes a large
supply of food to the markets of the world.  The well-known breadfruit
tree bears during eight successive months in the year, and by burying
the fruit in the ground it may be preserved for food for the remaining
four months.  Thus a single plant may be made to provide a continuous
food supply for the inhabitants of the Moluccas and Philippines.  Many
other instances of fruits in abundance, such as the nuts from the
araucarias of South America, and beans from the mesquite of Mexico,
might be given to show that it is possible for man to subsist without
the use of animal food.

_The Variety of Food Was Constantly Increased_.--Undoubtedly, one of
the chief causes of the wandering of primitive man over the earth, in
the valleys, along stream, lake, and ocean, {86} over the plains and
through the hills, was the quest for food to preserve life; and even
after tribes became permanent residents in a certain territory, there
was a constant shifting from one source of food supply to another
throughout the seasons.  However, after tribes became more settled, the
increase of population encroached upon the native food supply, and man
began to use his invention for the purpose of its increase.  He learned
how to plant seeds which were ordinarily believed to be sown by the
gods, and to till the soil and raise fruits and vegetables for his own
consumption.  This was a period of accidental agriculture, or hoe
culture, whereby the ground was tilled by women with hoes of stone, or
bone, or wood.  In the meantime, the increase of animal food became a
necessity.  Man learned how to snare and trap animals, to fish and to
gather shell-fish, learning by degrees to use new foods as discovered
as nature left them.  Life become a veritable struggle for existence as
the population increased and the lands upon which man dwelt yielded
insufficient supply of food.  The increased variety of food allowed man
to adapt himself to the different climates.  Thus in the colder
climates animal food became desirable to enable him to resist more
readily the rigors of climate.  It was not necessary, it is supposed,
to give him physical courage or intellectual development, for there
appear to be evidences of tribes like the Maoris of New Zealand, who on
the diet of fish and roots became a most powerful and sagacious people.
But the change from a vegetable diet to a meat-and-fish diet in the
early period brought forth renewed energy of body and mind, not only on
account of the necessary physical exertion but on account of the
invention of devices for the capture of fish and game.

_The Food Supply Was Increased by Inventions_.--Probably the first meat
food supply was in the form of shell-fish which could be gathered near
the shores of lakes and streams.  Probably small game was secured by
the use of stones and sticks and by running the animal down until he
was exhausted or until he hid in a place inaccessible to the pursuer.
The {87} boomerang, as used by the Australians in killing game, may
have been an early product of the people of Neolithic Europe.  In the
latter part of the Paleolithic Age, fish-hooks of bone were used, and
probably snares invented for small game.  The large game could not be
secured without the use of the spear and the co-operation of a number
of hunters.  In all probability this occurred in the New Stone Age.

The invention of the bow-and-arrow was of tremendous importance in
securing food.  It is not known what led to its invention, although the
discovery of the flexible power of the shrub, or the small sapling,
must have occurred to man as he struggled through the brush.  It is
thought by some that the use of the bow fire-drill, which was for the
purpose of striking fire by friction, might have displayed driving
power when the drill wound up in the string of the bow flew from its
confinement.  However, this is conjectural; but, judging from the
inventions of known tribes, it is evident that necessity has always
been the moving power in invention.  The bow-and-arrow was developed in
certain centres and probably through trade and exchange extended to
other tribes and groups until it was universally used.  It is
interesting to note how many thousands of years this must have been the
chief weapon for destroying animals or crippling game at a distance.
Even as late as the Norman conquest, the bow-and-arrow was the chief
means of defense of the Anglo-Saxon yeoman, and for many previous
centuries in the historic period had been the chief implement in
warfare and in the chase.  The use of the spear in fishing supplemented
that of the hook, and is found among all low-cultured tribes of the
present day.  The American Indian will stand on a rock in the middle of
a stream, silently, for an hour if necessary, watching for a chance to
spear a salmon.  These small devices were of tremendous importance in
increasing the food supply, and the making of them became a permanent

Along with the bow and arrow were developed many kinds of spears, axes,
and hammers, invented chiefly to be used in {88} war, but also used for
economic reasons.  In the preparation of animal food, in the tanning of
skins, in the making of clothing, another set of stone implements was
developed.  So, likewise, in the grinding of seeds, the mortar and
pestle were used, and the small hand-mill or grinder was devised.  The
sign of the mortar and pestle at the front of drug-stores brings to
mind the fact that its first use was not for preparing medicines, but
for grinding grains and seeds.

_The Discovery and Use of Fire_.--The use of fire was practised in the
early history of man.  Among the earliest records in caves are found
evidences of the use of fire.  Charcoal is practically indestructible,
and, although it may be crushed, the small particles maintain their
shape in the clays and sands.  In nearly all of the relics of man
discovered in caves, the evidences of fire are to be found, and no
living tribe has yet been discovered so low in the scale of life as to
be without the knowledge of fire and probably its simple uses, although
a few tribes have been for the time being without fire when first
discovered.  This might seem to indicate that at a very early period
man did not know how to create fire artificially, but carried it and
preserved it in his wanderings.  There are indications that a certain
individual was custodian of the fire, and later it was carried by the
priest or _cacique_.  Here, as in other instances in the development of
the human race, an economic factor soon assumes a religious
significance, and fire becomes sacred.

There are many conjectures respecting the discovery of fire.  Probably
the two real sources are of lightning that struck forest trees and set
them on fire and the action of volcanoes in throwing out burning lava,
which ignited combustible material.  Either one or the other, and
perhaps both, of these methods may have furnished man with fire.
Others have suggested that the rubbing together of dead limbs of trees
in the forests after they were moved by the winds, may have created
fire by friction.  It is possible, also, that the sun's rays may have,
when concentrated on combustible {89} material, caused spontaneous
ignition.  The idea has been advanced that some of the forest fires of
recent times have been ignited in this way.  However, it is evident
that there are enough natural sources in the creation of fire to enable
tribes to use it for the purposes of artificial heat, cooking, and
later, in the age of metals, of smelting ores.

There has always been a mystery connected with the origin and use of
fire, which has led to many myths.  Thus, the Greeks insisted that
Prometheus, in order to perform a great service to humanity, stole fire
from heaven and gave it to man.  For this crime against the authority
of the gods, he was chained to a rock to suffer the torture of the
vulture who pecked at his vitals.  Aeschylus has made the most of this
old legend in his great drama of _Prometheus Bound_.  Nearly every
tribe or nation has some tradition regarding the origin of fire.
Because of its mystery and its economic value, it was early connected
with religion and made sacred in many instances.  It was thus preserved
at the altar, never being allowed to become extinct without the fear of
dire calamity.  Perhaps the economic and religious ideas combined,
because tribes in travelling from place to place exercised great care
to preserve it.  The use of fire in worship became almost universal
among tribes and ancient nations.  Thus the Hebrews and the Aryans,
including Greeks, Romans, and Persians, as well as the Chinese and
Japanese, used fire in worship.  Among other tribes it was worshipped
as a symbol or even as a real deity.  Even in the Christian religion,
the use of the burning incense may have some psychological connection
with the idea of purification through fire.  Whether its mysterious
nature led to its connection with worship, and the superstition
connected with its continued burning, or whether from economic reasons
it became a sacred matter, has never been determined.  The custom that
a fire should never go out upon the altar, and that it should be
carried in migrations from place to place, would seem to indicate that
these two motives were closely allied, if not related in cause and


Evidently, fire was used for centuries before man invented methods of
reproducing it.  Simple as the process involved, it was a great
invention; or it may be stated that many devices were resorted to for
the creation of artificial fire.  Perhaps the earliest was that of
rubbing two pieces of dry wood together, producing fire by friction.
This could be accomplished by persistent friction of two ordinary
pieces of dry wood, or by drilling a hole in a dry piece of wood with a
pointed stick until heat was developed and a spark produced to ignite
pieces of dry bark or grass.  Another way was to make a groove in a
block of wood and run the end of a stick rapidly back and forth through
the groove.  An invention called the fire-drill was simply a method of
twirling rapidly in the hand a wooden drill which was in contact with
dry wood, or by winding a string of the bow several times around the
drill and moving the bow back and forth horizontally, giving rapid
motion to the drill.

As tribes became more advanced, they used two pieces of flint with
which to strike fire, and after the discovery of iron, the flint and
iron were used.  How many centuries these simple devices were essential
to the progress and even to the life of tribes, is not known; but when
we realize that but a few short years ago our fathers lighted the fire
with flint and steel, and that before the percussion cap was invented,
the powder in the musket was ignited by flint and hammer, we see how
important to civilization were these simple devices of producing fire
artificially.  So simple an invention as the discovery of the friction
match saved hours of labor and permitted hours of leisure to be used in
other ways.  It is one of the vagaries of human progress that a simple
device remains in use for thousands of years before its clumsy method
gives way to a new invention only one step in advance of the old.

_Cooking Added to the Economy of the Food Supply_.--Primitive man
doubtless consumed his food raw.  The transition of the custom of
uncooked food to cooked food must have been gradual.  We only know that
many of the backward tribes of {91} to-day are using primitive methods
of cooking, and the man of the Stone Ages had methods of cooking the
meat of animals.  In all probability, the suggestion came as people
were grouped around the fire for artificial heat, and then, either by
intention or desire, the experiment of cooking began.  After man had
learned to make water-tight baskets, a common device of cooking was to
put water in the basket and, after heating stones on a fire, put them
in the basket to heat the water and then place the food in the basket
to be cooked.  This method is carried on by the Indians in some parts
of Alaska to this day, where they use a water-tight basket for this
purpose.  Probably this method of cooking food was a later development
than the roasting of food on coals or in the ashes, or in the use of
the wooden spit.  Catlin, in his _North American Indians_, relates that
certain tribes of Indians dig a hole in the ground and line it with
hide filled with water, then place hot stones in the water, in which
they place their fish, game, or meat for cooking.  This is interesting,
because it carries out a more or less universal idea of adaptation to
environment.  Probably the plains Indians had no baskets or other
vessels to use for this purpose, but they are found to have used
similar methods of cooking grasshoppers.  They dig a hole in the
ground, build a fire in the hole, and take the fire out and put in the
grasshoppers.  Thus, they have an exhibition of the first fireless

It is thought by some that the need of vessels which would endure the
heat was the cause of the invention of pottery.  While there seems to
be little evidence of this, it is easy to conjecture that when water
was needed to be heated in a basket, a mass of clay would be put on the
bottom of the basket before it was put over the coals of fire.  After
the cooking was done, the basket could easily be detached from the
clay, leaving a hard-baked bowl.  This led to the suggestion of making
bowls of clay and baking them for common use.  Others suggest that the
fact of making holes in the ground for cooking purposes gave the
suggestion that by the use of clay a portable vessel might be made for
similar purposes.


The economic value of cooking rests in the fact that a larger utility
comes from the cooked than from the raw food.  Though the phenomena of
physical development of tribes and nations cannot be explained by the
chemical constituents of food, although they are not without a positive
influence.  Evidently the preparation of food has much to do with man's
progress, and the art of cooking was a great step in advance.  The
better utilization of food was a time-saving process--and, indeed, in
many instances may have been a life-saving affair.

_The Domestication of Animals_.--The time and place of the
domestication of animals are not satisfactorily determined.  We know
that Paleolithic man had domesticated the dog, and probably for
centuries this was the only animal domesticated; but it is known that
low forest tribes have tamed monkeys and parrots for pets, and savage
tribes frequently have a band of dogs for hunting game or guarding the
hut.  While it may be supposed that domestication of animals may have
occurred in the prehistoric period, the use of such animals has been in
the historic period.  There are many evidences of the domesticated dog
at the beginning of the Neolithic period.  However, these animals may
have still been nearly half wild.  It is not until the period of the
Lake Dwellings of Switzerland that we can discriminate between the wild
animals and those that have been tamed.  In the Lake Dwelling débris
are found the bones of the wild bull, or _urus_, of Europe.  Probably
this large, long-horned animal was then in a wild state, and had been
hunted for food.  Alongside of these remains are those of a small,
short-horned animal, supposed to have been domesticated.  Later, though
still in the Neolithic period, remains of short-horned tame cattle
appear in the refuse of the Lake Dwellings.  It is thought by some that
these two varieties--the long-horned _urus_ and the short-horned
domesticated animal brought from the south--were crossed, which gave
rise to the origin of the present stock of modern cattle in central
Europe.  Pigs and sheep were probably domesticated in Asia {93} and
brought into Europe during the later Neolithic or early Bronze period.

The horse was domesticated in Asia, and Clark Wissler[1] shows that to
be one great centre of cultural distribution for this animal.  It
spread from Asia into Europe, and from Europe into America.  The llama
was early domesticated in South America.  The American turkey had its
native home in Mexico, the hen in Asia.  The dog, though domesticated
very early in Asia, has gone wherever the human race has migrated, as
the constant companion of man.  The horse, while domesticated in Asia,
depends upon the culture of Europe for his large and extended use, and
has spread over the world.  We find that in the historic period the
Aryan people everywhere made use of the domesticated goat, horse, and
dog.  In the northern part of Europe, the reindeer early became of
great service to the inhabitants for milk, meat, and clothing.  The
great supply of milk and meat from domesticated animals added
tremendously to the food supply of the race, and made it possible for
it to develop in other lines.  Along with the food supply has been the
use of these animals for increasing the clothing supply through hides,
furs, skins, and wool.  The domestication of animals laid the
foundation for great economic advancement.

_The Beginnings of Agriculture Were Very Meagre_.--Man had gathered
seeds and fruit and berries for many years before he conceived the
notion of planting seeds and cultivating crops.  It appears to be a
long time before he knew enough to gather seeds and plant them for a
harvest.  Having discovered this, it was only necessary to have the
will and energy to prepare the soil, sow the seed, and harvest a crop
in order to enter upon agriculture.  But to learn this simple act must
have required many crude experiments.  In the migrations of mankind
they adopted a little intermittent agriculture, planting the grains
while the tribe paused for pasture of flocks and herds, and resting
long enough for a crop to be harvested.  {94} They gradually began to
supplement the work of the pastoral with temporary agriculture, which
was used as a means of supplementing the food supply.  It was not until
people settled in permanent habitations and ceased their pastoral
wanderings that real agriculture became established.  Even then it was
a crude process, and, like every other economic industry of ancient
times, its development was excessively slow.

The wandering tribes of North America at the time of the discovery had
reached the state of raising an occasional crop of corn.  Indeed, some
tribes were quite constant in limited agriculture.  The sedentary
Indians of New Mexico, old Mexico, and Peru also cultivated corn and
other plants, as did those of Central America.  The first tillage of
the soil was meagre, and the invention of agricultural implements
proceeded slowly.  At first wandering savages carried a pointed stick
to dig up the roots and tubers used for food.  The first agriculturists
used sticks for stirring the soil, which finally became flattened in
the form of a paddle or rude spade.  The hoe was evolved from the stone
pick or hatchet.  It is said that the women of the North American
tribes used a hoe made of an elk's shoulder-blade and a handle of wood.
In Sweden the earliest records of tillage represent a huge hoe made
from a stout limb of spruce with the sharpened root.  This was finally
made heavier, and men dragged it through the soil in the manner of
ploughing.  Subsequently the plough was made in two pieces, a handle
having been added.  Finally a pair of cows yoked together were
compelled to drag the plough.  Probably this is a fair illustration of
the manner of the evolution of the plough in other countries.  It is
also typical of the evolution of all modern agricultural implements.

We need only refer to our own day to see how changes take place.  The
writer has cut grain with the old-fashioned sickle, the scythe, the
cradle, and the reaper, and has lived to see the harvester cut and
thresh the grain in the field.  The Egyptians use until this day wooden
ploughs of an ancient type formed from limbs of trees, having a share
pointed with metal.  {95} The old Spanish colonists used a similar
plough in California and Mexico as late as the nineteenth century.
From these ploughs, which merely stirred the soil imperfectly, there
has been a slow evolution to the complete steel plough and disk of
modern times.  A glance at the collection of perfected farm machinery
at any modern agricultural fair reveals what man has accomplished since
the beginning of the agricultural art.  In forest countries the
beginning of agriculture was in the open places, or else the natives
cut and burned the brush and timber, and frequently, after one or two
crops, moved on to other places.  The early settlers of new territories
pursue the same method with their first fields, while the turning of
the prairie sod of the Western plains was frequently preceded by the
burning of the prairie grass and brush.

The method of attachment to the soil determined economic progress.  Man
in his early wanderings had no notion of ownership of the land.  All he
wished was to have room to go wherever the food quest directed him, and
apparently he had no reflections on the subject.  The matters of fact
regarding mountain, sea, river, ocean, and glacier which influenced his
movements were practically no different from the fact of other tribes
that barred his progress or interfered with his methods of life.  In
the hunter-fisher stage of existence, human contacts became frequent,
and led to contention and warfare over customary hunting grounds.  Even
in the pastoral period the land was occupied by moving upon it, and
held as long as the tribe could maintain itself against other tribes
that wished the land for pasture.  Gradually, however, even in
temporary locations, a more permanent attachment to the soil came
through clusters of dwellings and villages, and the habit of using
territory from year to year for pastorage led to a claim of the tribe
for that territory.  So the idea of possession grew into the idea of
permanent ownership and the idea of rights to certain parts of the
territory became continually stronger.  This method of settlement had
much to do with not only the economic life of people, but in
determining the nature of their {96} social organizations and
consequently the efficiency of their social activity.  Evidently, the
occupation of a certain territory as a dwelling-place was the source of
the idea of ownership in land.

Nearly all of Europe, at least, came into permanent cultivation through
the village community.[2]  A tribe settled in a given valley and held
the soil in common.  There was at a central place an irregular
collection of rude huts, called the village.  Each head of the family
owned and permanently occupied one of these.  The fertile or tillable
land was laid out in lots, each family being allowed the use of a lot
for one or more years, but the whole land was the common property of
the tribe, and was under the direction of the village elders.  The
regulation of the affairs of the agricultural community developed
government, law, and social cohesion.  The social advancement after the
introduction of permanent agriculture was great in every way.  The
increased food supply was an untold blessing; the closer association
necessary for the new kind of life, the building of distinct homes, and
the necessity of a more general citizenship and a code of public law
brought forth the social or community idea of progress.  Side by side
with the village community system there was a separate development of
individual ownership and tillage, which developed into the manorial
system.  It is not necessary to discuss this method here except to say
that this, together with the permanent occupation of the house-lot in
the village, gave rise to the private ownership of property in land.
As to how private ownership of personal property began, it is easy to
suppose that, having made an implement or tool, the person claimed the
right of perpetual possession or ownership; also, that in the chase the
captured game belonged to the one who made the capture; the clothing to
the maker.  In some instances where game was captured by the group,
each was given a share in proportion to his station in life, or again
in proportion to the service each performed in the capture.  Yet, in
this {97} early period possessory right was frequently determined on
the basis that might makes right.

_The Manufacture of Clothing_.--The motive of clothing has been that of
ornament and protection from the pain of cold.  The ornamentation of
the body was earlier in its appearance in human progress than the
making of clothing for the protection of the body; and after the latter
came into use, ornamentation continued, thus making clothing more and
more artistic.  As to how man protected his body before he began to
kill wild animals for food, is conjectural.  Probably he dwelt in a
warm climate, where very little clothing was needed, but, undoubtedly,
the cave man and, in fact, all of the groups of the race occurring in
Europe and Asia in the latter part of the Old Stone Age and during the
New Stone Age used the skins of animals for clothing.  Later, after
weaving had begun, grasses and fibres taken from plants in a rude way
were plaited for making clothing.  Subsequently these fibres were
prepared, twisted into thread, and woven regularly into garments.  The
main source of supply came from reeds, rushes, wild flax, cotton,
fibres of the century plant, the inner bark of trees, and other sources
according to the environment.

Nothing can be more interesting than the progress made in clothing,
combining as it does the objects of protection from cold, the adornment
of the person, and the preservation of modesty.  Indians of the forests
of the tropical regions and on the Pacific coast, when first
discovered, have been found entirely naked.  These were usually without
modesty.  That is, they felt no need of clothing on account of the
presence of others.  There are many evidences to show that the first
clothing was for ornament and for personal attraction rather than for
protection.  The painting of the body, the dressing of the hair, the
wearing of rings in the nose, ears, and lips, the tattooing of the
body, all are to be associated with the first clothing, which may be
merely a narrow belt or an ornamental piece of cloth--all merely for
show, for adornment and attraction.


There are relics of ornaments found in caves of early man, and, as
before mentioned, relics of paints.  The clothing of early man can be
conjectured by the implements with which he was accustomed to dress the
skins of animals.  Among living tribes the bark of trees represents the
lowest form of clothing.  In Brazil there is found what is known as the
"shirt tree," which provides covering for the body.  When a man wants a
new garment he pulls the bark from a tree of a suitable size, making a
complete girdle.  This he soaks and beats until it is soft, and,
cutting holes for the arms, dons his tailor-made garment.  In some
countries, particularly India, aprons are made of leaves.  But the
garment made of the skins of animals is the most universal among living
savage and barbarous tribes, even after the latter have learned to spin
and weave fabrics.  The tanning of skins is carried on with a great
deal of skill, and rich and expensive garments are worn by the
wealthier members of savage tribes.

The making of garments from threads, strings, or fibres was an art
discovered a little later.  At first rude aprons were woven from long
strips of bark.  The South Sea Islanders made short gowns of plaited
rushes, and the New Zealanders wore rude garments from strings made of
native flax.  These early products were made by the process of working
the fibres by hand into a string or thread.  The use of a simple
spindle, composed of a stone like a large button, with a stick run
through a hole in the centre, facilitated the making of thread and the
construction of rude looms.  It was but a step from these to the
spinning-wheels and looms of the Middle Ages.  When the Spaniards
discovered the Pueblo Indians, they were wearing garments of their own
weaving from cotton and wood fibres.  Strong cords attached to the
limbs of trees and to a piece of wood on the ground formed the
framework of the loom, and the native sat down to weave the garment.
With slight improvements on this old style, the Navajos continue to
weave their celebrated blankets.  What an effort it must have cost,
what a necessity must have crowded man to have compelled him to resort
to this method of procuring clothing!


The artistic taste in dress has always accompanied the development of
the useful, although dress has always been used more or less for
ornament, and taste has changed by slow degrees.  The primitive races
everywhere delighted in bright colors, and in most instances these
border on the grotesque in arrangement and combination.  But many
people not far advanced in barbarism have colors artistically arranged
and dress with considerable skill.  Ornaments change in the progress of
civilization from coarse, ungainly shells, pieces of wood, or bits of
metal, to more finely wrought articles of gold and silver.

_Primitive Shelters and Houses_.--The shelters of primitive man were
more or less temporary, for wherever he happened to be in his
migrations he sought shelter from storm or cold in the way most
adaptable to his circumstances.  There was in this connection, also,
the precaution taken to protect against predatory animals and wild men.
As his stay in a given territory became more permanent, the home or
shelter gradually grew more permanent.  So far as we can ascertain, man
has always been known to build some sort of shelter.  As apes build
their shelters in trees, birds build their nests, and beavers dam water
to make their homes, it is impossible to suppose that man, with
superior intelligence, was ever simple enough to continue long without
some sort of shelter constructed with his own hands.  At first the
shelter of trees, rocks, and caves served his purpose wherever
available.  Subsequently, when he had learned to build houses, their
structure was usually dependent more upon environment than upon his
inventive genius.  Whether he built a platform house or nest in a tree,
or provided a temporary brush shelter, or bark hut, or stone or adobe
building, depended a good deal upon the material at hand and the
necessity of protection.  The main thing was to protect against cold or
storm, wild animals, and, eventually, wild men.

The progress in architecture among the nations of ancient civilization
was quite rapid.  Massive structures were built for capacity and
strength, which the natives soon learned to {100} decorate within and
without.  The buildings were made of large blocks of hewn stone, fitted
together mechanically by the means of cement, which made secure
foundations for ages.  When in the course of time the arch was
discovered, it alone became a power to advance the progress of
architecture.  We have seen pass before our eyes a sudden transition in
dwelling houses.

The first inhabitants of some parts of the Western prairies dwelt in
tents.  These were next exchanged for the "dugout," and this for a rude
hut.  Subsequently the rude hut was made into a barn or pig-pen, and a
respectable farmhouse was built; and finally this, too, has been
replaced by a house of modern style and conveniences.  If we could
consider this change to have extended over thousands of years, from the
first shelter of man to the finished modern building, it would be a
picture of the progress of man in the art of building.  In this slow
process man struggled without means and with crude notions of life in
every form.  The aim, first, was for protection, then comfort and
durability, and finally for beauty.  The artistic in building has kept
pace with other forms of civilization evinced in other ways.

One of the most interesting exhibits of house-building for protection
is found in the cliff dwellings, whose ruins are to be seen in Arizona
and New Mexico.  Tradition and other evidences point to the conclusion
that certain tribes had developed a state of civilization as high as a
middle period of barbarism, on the plains, where they had made a
beginning of systematic agriculture, and that they were afterward
driven out by wilder tribes and withdrew, seeking the cliffs for
protection.  There they built under the projecting cliffs the large
communal houses, where they dwelt for a long period of time.
Subsequently their descendants went into the valleys and developed the
Pueblo villages, with their large communal houses of _adobe_.

_Discovery and Use of Metals_.--It is not known just when the human
race first discovered and used any one of the metals {101} now known to
commerce and industry, but it can be assumed that their discovery
occurred at a very early period and their use followed quickly.
Reasoning back from the nature and condition of the wild tribes of
to-day, who are curiously attracted by bright colors, whether in metals
or beads or clothing, and realizing how universally they used the
minerals and plants for coloring, it would be safe to assume that the
satisfaction of the curiosity of primitive man led to the discovery of
bright metals at a very early time.  Pieces of copper, gold, and iron
would easily have been found in a free state in metal-bearing soil, and
treasured as articles of value.  Copper undoubtedly was used by the
American Indians, and probably by the inhabitants of Europe during the
Neolithic Age--it being found in a native state in sufficient
quantities to be hammered into implements.

Thus copper has been found in large pieces in its native state, not
only in Europe but in Mexico and other parts of North America,
particularly in the Lake Superior region; but as the soft hematite iron
was found in larger quantities in a free state, it would seem that the
use of iron in a small degree must have occurred at about the same
time, or perhaps a little later.  The process of smelting must have
been suggested by the action of fire built on or near ore beds, where a
crude process of accidental smelting took place.  Combined with tin
ore, the copper was made into bronze in Peru and Mexico at the time of
the discovery.  In Europe there are abundant remains to show the early
use of metals.  Probably copper and tin were in use before iron,
although iron may have been discovered first.  There are numerous tin
mines in Asia and copper mines in Cyprus.  At first, metals were
probably worked while cold through hammering, the softest metals
doubtless being used before others.

It is difficult to tell how smelting was discovered, although the
making and use of bronze implements is an indication of the first
process of smelting ores and combining metals.  When tin was first
discovered is not known, but we know that bronze {102} implements made
from an alloy of copper, tin, and usually other metals were used by the
Greeks and other Aryan peoples in the early historic period, about six
thousand years ago.  In Egypt and Babylon many of the inscriptions make
mention of the use of iron as well as bronze, although the extended use
of the former must have come about some time after the latter.  At
first all war instruments were stone and wood and later bronze, which
were largely replaced by iron at a still later period.  The making of
spears, swords, pikes, battle-axes, and other implements of war had
much to do with the development of ingenious work in metals.  The final
perfection of metal work could only be attained by the manufacture of
finely treated steel.  Probably the tempering of steel began at the
time iron came prominently into use.

Other metals, such as silver, quicksilver, gold, and lead, came into
common use in the early stages of civilization, all of which added
greatly to the arts and industries.  Nearly all of the metals were used
for money at various times.  The aids to trade and commerce which these
metals gave on account of their universal use and constant measure of
value cannot be overestimated.

_Transportation as a Means of Economic Development_.--Early methods of
carrying goods from one place to another were on the backs of human
beings.  Many devices were made for economy of service and strength in
carrying.  Bands over the shoulders and over the head were devised for
the purpose of securing the pack on the back.  An Indian woman of the
Southwest would carry a large basket, or _keiho_, on her back, secured
by a band around her head for the support of the load.  A Pueblo woman
will carry a large bowl filled with water or other material, on the top
of her head, balancing it by walking erect.  Indeed, in more recent
times washerwomen in Europe, and of the colored race in America, carry
baskets of clothes and pails of water on their heads.  The whole
process of the development of transportation came about through
invention to be relieved from this bodily service.


As the dog was the first animal domesticated, he was early used to help
in transportation by harnessing him to a rude sled, or drag, by means
of which he pulled articles from one place to another.  The Eskimos
have used dogs and the sled to a greater extent than any other race.
The use of the camel, the llama, the horse, and the ass for packing
became very common after their domestication.  Huge packs were strapped
upon the backs of these animals, and goods thus transported from one
place to another.  To such an extent was the camel used, even in the
historic period, for transportation in the Orient that he has been
called the "ship of the desert."  The plains Indians had a method of
attaching two poles, one at each side of an Indian pony, which extended
backward, dragging on the ground.  Upon these poles was built a little
platform, on which goods were deposited and thus transported from one
camp to another.

It must have been a long time before water transportation performed any
considerable economic service.  It is thought by some that primitive
man conceived the idea of the use of water for transportation through
his experience of floating logs, or drifts, or his own process of
swimming and floating.  Jack London pictures two primitives playing on
the logs near the shore of a stream.  Subsequently the logs cast loose,
and the primitives were floated away from the shore.  They learned by
putting their hands in the water and paddling that they could make the
logs move in the direction which they wished to go.  Perhaps this
explanation is as good as any, inasmuch as the beginnings of modern
transportation still dwell in the mist of the past.  However, in
support of the log theory is the fact that modern races use primitive
boats made of long reeds tied together, forming a loglike structure.
The _balsa_ of the Indians of the north coasts of South America is a
very good representation of this kind of boat.

Evidently, the first canoes were made by hollowing logs and sharpening
the ends at bow and stern.  This form of boat-making has been carried
to a high degree of skill by the {104} Indians of the northwest coast
of America and by the natives of the Hawaiian Islands.  The birch-bark
canoe, made for lighter work and overland transportation, is more
suggestive of the light reed boat than of the log canoe.  Also, the
boats made of a framework covered with the skins of animals were
prominent at certain periods of the development of races who lived on
animal food.  But later the development of boats with frames covered
with strips of board and coated with pitch became the great vehicle of
commerce through hundreds of years.  It certainly is a long journey
from the floating log to the modern floating passenger palace, freight
leviathan, or armed dreadnought, but the journey was accomplished by
thousands of steps, some short and some long, through thousands of
years of progress.

_Trade, or Exchange of Goods_.--In Mr. Clark Wissler's book on _Man and
Culture_, he has shown quite conclusively that there are certain
culture areas whereby certain inventions, discoveries, or customs have
originated and spread over a given territory.  This recognition of a
centre of origin of custom or invention is in accordance with the whole
process of social development.  For instance, in a given area occupied
by modern civilized people, there are a very few who invent or
originate things, and others follow through imitation or suggestion.
So it was with the discoveries and inventions of primitive man.  For
example, we know that in Oklahoma and Arkansas, as well as in other
places in the United States, certain stone quarries or mines are found
that produce a certain kind of flint or chert used in making
arrow-heads or spearheads and axes.  Tribes that developed these traded
with other tribes that did not have them, so that from these centres
implements were scattered all over the West.  A person may pick up on a
single village site or battle-ground different implements coming from a
dozen or more different quarries or centres and made by different
tribes hundreds of miles apart in residence.

This diffusion of knowledge and things of material {105} workmanship,
or of methods of life, is through a system of borrowing, trading, or
swapping--or perhaps sometimes through conquest and robbery; but as
soon as an article of any kind could be made which could be subjected
to general use of different tribes in different localities, it began to
travel from a centre and to be used over a wide area.  Certain tribes
became special workers in specialized lines.  Thus some were
bead-makers, others expert tanners of hides, others makers of bows and
arrows of peculiar quality, and others makers of stone implements.  The
incidental swapping of goods by tribes finally led to a systematic
method of a travelling trader who brought goods from one tribe to
another, exchanging as he went.  This early trade had an effect in more
rapid extension of culture, because in that case one tribe could have
the invention, discovery, and art of all tribes.  In connection with
this is to be noted the slow change of custom regarding religious
belief and ceremony or tribal consciousness.  The pride of family and
race development, the assumption of superiority leading to race
aversion, interfered with intelligence and the spread of ideas and
customs; but most economic processes that were not bound up with
religious ceremonies or tribal customs were easily exchanged and
readily accepted between the tribes.

Exchange of goods and transportation went hand in hand in their
development, very slowly and surely.  After trade had become pretty
well established, it became necessary to have a medium of exchange.
Some well-known article whose value was very well recognized among the
people who were trading became the standard for fixing prices in
exchange.  Thus, in early Anglo-Saxon times the cow was the unit of the
measure of value.  Sometimes a shell, as a _cowrie_ of India or the
wampum of the American Indian, was used for this purpose.  Wheat has
been at one time in America, and tobacco in another, a measure of
exchange because of the scarcity of money.

Gradually, as the discovery and use of precious metals became common
and desirable because of their brightness {106} and service in
implement and ornament, they became the medium of exchange.  Thus,
copper and gold, iron and bronze have been used as metallic means of
exchange--that is, as money.  So from the beginning of trade and
swapping article for article, it came to be common eventually to swap
an article for something called money and then use the money for the
purchase of other desirable articles.  This made it possible for the
individual to carry about in a small compass the means of obtaining any
article in the market within the range of the purchasing power of his
money.  Trade, transportation, and exchange not only had a vast deal to
do with economic progress but were of tremendous importance in social
development.  They were powerful in diffusion, extension, and promotion
of culture.

_The Struggle for Existence Develops the Individual and the Race_.--The
remnants and relics of the arts and industries of man give us a fair
estimate of the process of man's mind and the accomplishment of his
physical labor.  It is through the effort involved in the struggle for
existence that he has made his various steps forward.  Truly the actual
life of primitive man tends to verify the adage that "necessity is the
mother of invention."  It was this tremendous demand on him for the
means of existence that caused him to create the things that protected
and improved his life.  It was the insistent struggle which forced him
to devise means of taking advantage of nature and thus led to invention
and discovery.  Every new invention and every new discovery showed the
expansion of his mind, as well as gave him the means of material
improvement.  It also added to his bodily vigor and added much to the
development of his physical powers.  Upon this economic foundation has
been built a superstructure of intellectual power, of moral worth and
social improvement, for these in their highest phases of existence may
be traced back to the early beginnings of life, where man was put to
his utmost effort to supply the simplest of human wants.



1.  The change in social life caused by the cultivation of the soil.

2.  The effect of the discovery and use of fire on civilization.

3.  What was the social effect of the exchange of economic products?

4.  What influence had systematic labor on individual development?

5.  Show how the discovery and use of a new food advances civilization.

6.  Compare primitive man's food supply with that of a modern city

7.  Trace a cup of coffee to its original source and show the different
classes of people engaged in its production.

[1] _Man and Culture_.

[2] See Chapter III.




_The Character of Primitive Social Life_.--Judging from the cultures of
prehistoric man in Europe and from analogies of living races that
appear to have the same state of culture, strong inferences may be
drawn as to the nature of the beginnings of human association.  The
hypothesis that man started as an individual and developed social life
through mutual aid as he came in contact with his fellows does not
cover the whole subject.  It is not easy to conceive man in a state of
isolation at any period of his life, but it appears true that his early
associations were simple and limited to a few functions.  The evidence
of assemblage in caves, the kind of implements used, and the drawings
on the walls of caves would appear to indicate that an early group life
existed from the time of the first human cultures.  The search for food
caused men to locate at the same place.  The number that could be
supplied with food from natural subsistence in a given territory must
have been small.  Hence, it would appear that the early groups
consisted of small bands.  They moved on if the population encroached
upon the food supply.

Also, the blood-related individuals formed the nucleus of the group.
The dependency of the child on the mother led to the first permanent
location as the seat of the home and the foundation of the family.  As
the family continued to develop and became the most permanent of all
social institutions, it is easy to believe as a necessity that it had a
very early existence.  It came out of savagery into barbarism and
became one of the principal bulwarks of civilization.

It may be accepted as a hypothesis that there was a time in the history
of every branch of the human race when social order was indefinite and
that out of this incoherence came by {109} degrees a complex organized
society.  It was in such a rude state that the relations of individuals
to each other were not clearly defined by custom, but were temporary
and incidental.  Family ties were loose and irregular, custom had not
become fixed, law was unheard of, government was unknown unless it was
a case of temporary leadership, and unity of purpose and reciprocal
social life were wanting.  Indeed, it is a picture of a human horde but
little above the animal herd in its nature and composition.  Living
tribes such as the Fuegians and Australians, and the extinct
Tasmanians, represent very nearly the status of the horde--a sort of
social protoplasm.  They wander in groups, incidentally through the
influence of temporary advantage or on account of a fitful social
instinct.  Co-operation, mutual aid, and reciprocal mental action were
so faint that in many cases life was practically non-social.
Nevertheless, even these groups had aggregated, communicated, and had
language and other evidences of social heredity.

_The Family Is the Most Persistent of Social Origins_.--The relation of
parent and child was the most potent influence in establishing
coherency of the group, and next to it, though of later development,
was the relation of man and woman--that is, the sex relation.  While
the family is a universal social unit, it appears in many different
forms in different tribes and, indeed, exhibits many changes in its
development in the same tribe.  There is no probability that mankind
existed in a complete state of promiscuity in sex relations, yet these
relations varied in different tribes.  Mating was always a habit of the
race and early became regulated by custom.  The variety of forms of
mating leads us to think the early sex life of man was not of a
degraded nature.  Granted that matrimony had not reached the high state
of spiritual life contemplated in modern ideals, there are instances of
monogamic marriage and pure, dignified rites in primitive peoples.
Polygamy and polyandry were of later development.

A study of family life within the historic period, especially of
Greeks, Romans, and Teutons, and possibly the Hebrews, {110} compared
with the family life of the Australian and some of the North American
Indian tribes, reveals great contrasts in the prevailing customs of
matrimony.  All forms of marriage conceivable may be observed from rank
animalism to high spiritual union; of numerous ideals, customs, and
usages and ceremonies, as well as great confusion of purpose.  It may
be assumed, therefore, that there was a time in the history of every
branch of the human race when family customs were indefinite and family
coherence was lacking.  Also that society was in a rude state in which
the relations of individuals to each other and to the general social
group were not clearly defined.  There are found to-day among the lower
races, in the Pacific islands, Africa, and South America, evidences of
lack of cohesive life.  They represent groups of people without
permanent organization, held together by temporary advantage, with
crude, purposeless customs, with the exercise of fitful social instinct.

However, it is out of such conditions that the tribes, races, and
nations of the early historic period have evolved into barbaric
organization.  Reasoning backward by the comparative method, one may
trace the survivals of ancient customs.  Following the social heredity
of the oldest civilized tribes, such as the Egyptians, Babylonians,
Greeks, Romans, and Teutonic peoples, there is evidence of the rise
from a rude state of savagery to a higher social life.  Historical
records indicate the passage from the middle state of barbarism to
advanced civil life, even though the earlier phases of social life of
primitive man remain obscure.  The study of tradition and a comparison
of customs and language of races yield a definite knowledge of the
evolution of society.

_Kinship Is a Strong Factor in Social Organization_.--Of all causes
that held people in coherent union, perhaps kinship, natural and
artificial, was the most potent.  All of the direct and indirect
offspring of a single pair settled in the same family group.  This
enlarged family took its place as the only organ of social order.  Not
only did all the relatives settle and {111} become members of one body,
but also strangers who needed protection were admitted to the family by
subscribing to their customs and religion.  Thus the father of the
family had a numerous following, composed of relatives by birth and by
adoption.  He was the ruler of this enlarged household, declaring the
customs of his fathers, leading the armed men in war, directing the
control of property, for he alone was the owner of all their
possessions, acting as priest in the administration of religious
ceremonies--a service performed only by him--and acting as judge in
matters of dispute or discipline.  Thus the family was a compact
organization with a central authority, in which both chief and people
were bound by custom.

Individuals were born under status and must submit to whatever was
customary in the rule of the family or tribe.  There was no law other
than custom to determine the relation of individuals to one another.
Each must abide in the sphere of activity into which he was born.  He
could not rise above it, but must submit to the arbitrary rule of
traditional usage.  The only position an individual had was in the
family, and he must observe what custom had taught.  This made family
life arbitrary and conventional.

_The Earliest Form of Social Order_.--The family is sometimes called
the unit of society.  The best historical records of the family are
found in the Aryan people, such as the Greeks, the Romans, and the
Teutons.  Outside of this there are many historical references to the
Aryans in their primitive home in Asia, and the story of the Hebrew
people, a branch of the Semitic race, shows many phases of tribal and
family life.  The ancient family differed from the modern in
organization and composition.  The first historical family was the
patriarchal, by which we mean a family group in which descent was
traced in the male line, and in which authority was vested in the
eldest living male inhabitant.  It is held by some that this is the
original family type, and that the forms which we find among savage
races are degenerate forms of the above.  Some have {112} advocated
that the patriarchal family was the developed form of the family, and
only occurred after a long evolution through states of promiscuity,
polygamy, and polyandry.  There is much evidence that the latter
assumption is true.  But there is evidence that the patriarchal family
was the first political unit of all the Aryan races, and also of the
Semitic as well, and that monogamic marriage was developed in these
ancient societies so far as historical evidence can determine.  The
ancient Aryans in their old home, those who came into India, Greece,
Rome, and the northern countries of Europe, whether Celt or Teuton, all
give evidence of the permanency of early family organization.

_The Reign of Custom_.--For a long period custom reigned supreme, and
arbitrary social life became conventionalized, and the change from
precedent became more and more difficult.  The family was despotic,
exacting, unyielding in its nature, and individual activity was
absorbed in it.  So powerful was this early sway of customary law that
many tribes never freed themselves from its bondage.  Others by degrees
slowly evolved from its crystallizing influences.  Changes in custom
came about largely through the migration of tribes, which brought new
scenes and new conditions, the intercourse of one tribe with another in
trade and war, and the gradual shifting of the internal life of the
social unit.  Those tribes that were isolated were left behind in the
progress of the race, and to many of them still clung the customs
practised thousands of years before.  Those that went forward from this
first status grew by practice rather than by change of ideals.  It is
the law of all progress that ideals are conservative, and that they can
be broken away from only by the procedure of actual practice.
Gradually the reign of customary law gave way to the laws framed by the
people.  The family government gave way to the political; the
individual eventually became the political unit, and freedom of action
prevailed in the entire social body.

_The Greek and Roman Family Was Strongly Organized_.--In Greece and
Rome the family enlarged and formed the gens, {113} the gentes united
into a tribe, and the tribe passed into the nation.  In all of this
formulated government the individual was represented by his family and
received no recognition except as a member of such.  The tribal chief
became the king, or, as he is sometimes called, the patriarchal
president, because he presided over a band of equals in power, namely,
the assembled elders of the tribe.  The heads of noble families were
called together to consider the affairs of government, and at a common
meal the affairs of the nation were discussed over viands and wine.
The king thus gathered the elders about him for the purpose of
considering measures to be laid before the people.  The popular
assembly, composed of all the citizens, was called to sanction what the
king and the elders had decreed.  Slowly the binding forms of
traditional usage were broken down, and the king and his people were
permitted to enact those laws which best served the immediate ends of
government.  True, the old formal life of the family continued to
exist.  There were the gentes, tribes, and phratries, or brotherhoods,
that still existed, and the individual entered the state in civil
capacity through his family.  But by degrees the old family régime gave
way to the new political life, and sovereign power was vested in
monarchy, democracy, or aristocracy, according to the nature of the

The functions or activities and powers of governments, which were
formerly vested in the patriarchal chief, or king, and later in king,
people, and council, gradually became separated and were delegated to
different authorities, though the sharp division of legislative,
judicial, and executive functions which characterizes our modern
governments did not exist.  These forms of government were more or less
blended, and it required centuries to distribute the various powers of
government into special departments and develop modern forms.

_In Primitive Society Religion Occupied a Prominent Place_.--While
kinship was first in order in the foundation of units of social
organization, religion was second to it in importance.  {114} Indeed,
it is considered by able writers as the foundation of the family and,
as the ethnic state is but the expanded family, the vital power in the
formation of the state.  Among the Aryan tribes religion was a
prominent feature of association.  In the Greek household stood the
family altar, resting upon the first soil in possession of the family.
Only members of the household could worship at this shrine, and only
the eldest male members of the family in good standing could conduct
religious service.  When the family grew into the gens it also had a
separate altar and a separate worship.  Likewise, the tribe had its own
worship, and when the city was formed it had its own temple and a
particular deity, whom the citizens worshipped.  In the ancient family
the worship of the house spirit or a deified ancestor was the common
practice.  This practice of the worship of departed heroes and
ancestors, which prevailed in all of the various departments of old
Greek society, tended to develop unity and purity of family and tribe.
As family forms passed into political, the religion changed from a
family to a national religion.

Among the lower tribes the religious life is still most powerful in
influencing their early life.  Mr. Tylor, in his valuable work on
_Primitive Culture_, has devoted a good part of two large volumes to
the treatment of early religious belief.  While recognizing that there
is no complete definition of religion, he holds that "belief in
spiritual beings" is a minimum definition which will apply to all
religions, and, indeed, about the only one that will.  The lower races
each had simple notions of the spiritual world.  They believed in a
soul and its existence after death.  Nearly all believed in both good
and evil spirits, and in one or more greater gods or spirits who ruled
and managed the universe.  In this early stage of religious belief
philosophy and religion were one.  The belief in the after life of the
spirit is evidenced by implements which were placed in the grave for
the use of the departed, and by food which was placed at the grave for
his subsistence on the journey.  Indeed, some even set aside food at
each meal for the departed; others, as {115} instanced by the Greeks,
placed tables in the burying ground for the dead.  Many views were
entertained by the early people concerning the origin of the soul and
its course after death.  But in all of the rude conditions of life
religion was indefinite and uncultured.  From lower simple forms it
arose to more complex systems and to higher generalizations.

Religious influence on progress has been very great.  There are those
who have neglected the subject of religion in the discussion of the
history of civilization.  Other writers have considered it of little
importance, and still others believe it to have been a positive
hindrance to the development of the race.  Religion, in general, as
practised by savage and barbarous races, based, as it is largely, on
superstition, must of a necessity be conservative and non-progressive.
Yet the service which it performs in making the tribe or family
cohesive and in giving an impetus to the development of the mind before
the introduction of science and art as special studies is, indeed,
great.  The early forms of culture are found almost wholly in religious
belief and practice.

The religious ceremonies at the grave of a departed companion, around
the family altar or in the congregation, whether in the temple or in
the open air, tended to social cohesion and social activity.  The
exercise of religious belief in a superior being and a recognition of
his authority, had a tendency to bring the actions of individuals into
orderly arrangement and to develop unity of life.  It also had a strong
tendency to prepare the simple mind of the primitive man for later
intellectual development.  It gave the mind something to contemplate,
something to reason about, before it reached a stage of scientific
investigation.  Its moral influence is unquestioned.  While some of the
early religions are barbarous in the extreme in their degenerate state,
as a whole they teach man to consider himself and his fellows, and
develop an ethical relationship.  And while altruism as a great factor
in religious and in social progress appeared at a comparatively recent
period, it has been in existence from the earliest associations of men
to {116} the present time, and usually makes its strongest appeal
through religious belief.  Religion thus becomes a great
society-builder, as well as a means of individual culture.

_Spirit Worship_.--The recognition of the continued journey of the
spirit after death was in itself an altruistic practice.  Much of the
worship of the controlling spirit was conducted to secure especial
favor to the departed soul.  The burial service in early religious
practice became a central idea in permanent religious rites.  Perhaps
the earliest phase of religious belief arises out of the idea that the
spirit or soul of man has control over the body.  It gives rise to the
notion of spirit and the idea of continued existence.  Considering the
universe as material existence, according to primitive belief, it is
the working of the superior spirit over the physical elements that
gives rise to natural phenomena.

One of the early stages of religious progress is to attempt to form a
meeting-place with the spirit.  This desire is seen in the lowest
tribes and in the highest civilization of to-day.  When Cabrillo came
to the coast of southern California he found natives that had never
before come in contact with civilized people.  He describes a rude
temple made by driving stakes in the ground in a circular form, and
partitioning the enclosure by similar rows of stakes.  At the centre
was a rude platform, on which were placed the feathers of certain birds
pleasing to the spirit.  The natives came to this temple occasionally,
and, circling around it, went through many antics of worship.  This
represents the primitive idea of location in worship.  Not different in
its fundamental conception from the rude altar of stones built by
Abraham at Bethel, the Greek altar, or the mighty columns of St.
Peter's, it was the simple meeting-place of man and the spirit.  For
all of these represent location in worship, and just as the modern
worshipper enters the church or cathedral to meet God, so did the
primitive savage fix locations for the meeting of the spirit.

Man finally attempted to control the spirit for his own advantage.  A
rude form of religion was reached, found in {117} certain stages of the
development of all religions, in which man sought to manipulate or
exorcise the spirits who existed in the air or were located in trees,
stones, and other material forms.  Out of this came a genuine worship
of the powerful, and supplication for help and support.  Seeking aid
and favor became the fundamental ideas in religious worship.  Simple in
the beginning, it sought to appease the wrath of the evil spirit and
gain the favor of the good.  But finally it sought to worship on
account of the sublimity and power possessed by the object of worship.
With the advancement of religious practice, religious beliefs and
religious ceremonies became more complex.  Great systems of mythology
sprang up among nations about to enter the precincts of civilization,
and polytheism predominated.  Purely ethical religions were of a later
development, for the notion of the will of the gods concerning the
treatment of man by his fellows belongs to an advanced stage of
religious belief.  The ethical importance of religion reaches its
culmination in the religion of Jesus Christ.

_Moral Conditions_.--The slow development of altruistic notions
presages a deficiency of moral action in the early stages of human
progress.  True it is that moral conditions seem never to be entirely
wanting in this early period.  There are many conflicting accounts of
the moral practice of different savage and barbarous tribes when first
discovered by civilized man.  Tribes differ much in this respect, and
travellers have seen them from different standpoints.  Wherever a
definite moral practice cannot be observed, it may be assumed that the
standard is very low.  Moral progress seems to consist in the
constantly shifting standards of right and wrong, of justice and
injustice.  Perhaps the moral action of the savage should be viewed
from two standpoints--namely, the position of the average savage of the
tribe, and from the vantage of modern ethical standards.  It is only by
considering it from these two views that we have the true estimation of
his moral status.  There must be a difference between conventionality
and morality, and many who have judged the moral status of {118} the
savage have done so more from a conventional than from a moral
standard.  True that morality must be judged from the individual motive
and from social effects of individual action.  Hence it is that the
observance of conventional rules must be a phase of morality; yet it is
not all of morality.  Where conventionality does not exist, the motive
of action must be the true moral test.

The actions of some savages and of barbarous people are revolting in
the extreme, and so devoid of sympathy for the sufferings of their
fellow-beings as to lead us to assume that they are entirely without
moral sentiment.  The repulsive spectacle of human sacrifice is
frequently brought about by religious fervor, while the people have
more or less altruistic practice in other ways.  This practice was
common to very many tribes, and indeed to some nations entering the
pale of civilization.  Cannibalism, revolting as it may seem, may be
practised by a group of people which, in every other respect, shows
moral qualities.  It is composed of kind husbands, mothers, brothers,
and sisters, who look after each other's welfare.  The treatment of
infants, not only by savage tribes but by the Greek and Roman nations
after their entrance into civilized life, represents a low status of
morality, for it was the common custom to expose infants, even in these
proud nations.  The degraded condition of woman, as slave and tool of
man in the savage state, and indeed in the ancient civilization, does
not speak well for the high standard of morality of the past.  More
than this, the disregard of the rights of property and person and the
common practice of revolting brutality, are conclusive evidence of the
low moral status of early mankind.

Speaking of the Sioux Indians, a writer says: "They regard most of the
vices as virtues.  Theft, arson, rape, and murder are among them
regarded with distinction, and the young Indian from childhood is
taught to regard killing as the highest of virtues."  And a writer who
had spent many years among the natives of the Pacific coast said that
"whatever is {119} falsehood in the European is truth in the Indian,
and vice versa."  Whether we consider the savages or barbarians of
modern times, or the ancient nations that laid claim to civilization,
we find a gradual evolution of the moral practice and a gradual change
of the standard of right.  This standard has constantly advanced until
it rests to-day on the Golden Rule and other altruistic principles of
Christian teaching.

_Warfare and Social Progress_.--The constant warfare of savages and
barbarians was not without its effects in developing the individual and
social life.  Cruel and objectionable as it is, the study and practice
of war was an element of strength.  It developed physical courage, and
taught man to endure suffering and hardships.  It developed
intellectual power in the struggle to circumvent and overcome enemies.
It led to the device and construction of arms, machines, engines, guns,
and bridges, for facilitating the carrying on of successful warfare;
all of this was instrumental in developing the inventive genius and
engineering skill of man.

In a political way warfare developed tribal or national unity, and
bound more closely together the different groups in sympathy and common
interest.  It thus became useful in the preparation for successful
civil government.  It prepared some to rule and others to obey, and
divided the governing from the governed, an essential characteristic of
all forms of government.  Military organization frequently accompanied
or preceded the formation of the modern state.  Sparta and Rome, and in
more modern times Prussia, were built upon military foundations.

The effect of war in depopulating countries has proved a detriment to
civilization by disturbing economic and social development and by
destroying thousands of lives.  Looking back over the track which the
human race has made in its persistent advance, it is easy to see that
the ravages of war are terrible.  While ethical considerations have
entered into warfare and made its effects less terrible, it still is
deplorable.  It is not a necessity to modern civilization for the {120}
development of intellectual or physical strength, nor for the
development of either patriotism or courage.  Modern warfare is a relic
of barbarism, and the sooner we can avoid it the better.  Social
progress means the checking of war in every way and the development of
the arts of peace.  It is high time that the ethical process between
nations should take the place of the art of war.

_Mutual Aid Developed Slowly_.--Owing to ignorance and to the instinct
for self-preservation, man starts on his journey toward progress on an
individualistic and selfish basis.  Gradually he learns to associate
with his fellows on a co-operative basis.  The elements which enter
into this formal association are the exercise of a general blood
relationship, religion, economic life, social and political
organization.  With the development of each of these, social order
progresses.  Yet, in the clashing interests of individuals and tribes,
in the clumsy methods adopted in the mastery of nature, what a waste of
human energy; what a loss of human life!  How long it has taken mankind
to associate on rational principles, to develop a pure home life, to
bring about toleration in religion, to develop economic co-operation,
to establish liberality in government, and to promote equality and
justice!  By the rude master, experience, has man been taught all this
at an immense cost.  Yet there was no other way possible.


1.  Study your community to determine that society is formed by the
interactions of individuals.

2.  Discuss the earliest forms of mutual aid.

3.  Why is the family called the unit of social organization?

4.  Why did religion occupy such an important place in primitive

5.  To what extent and in what manner did the patriarchal family take
the place of the state?

6.  What is the relation of morals to religion?

7.  What are the primary social groups?  What the secondary?




_The Origin of Language Has Been a Subject of Controversy_.--Since man
began to philosophize on the causes of things, tribes and races and,
indeed, philosophers of all times have attempted to determine the
origin of language and to define its nature.  In early times language
was a mystery, and for lack of better explanation it was frequently
attributed to the direct gift of the Deity.  The ancient Aryans deified
language, and represented it by a goddess "which rushes onward like the
wind, which bursts through heaven and earth, and, awe-inspiring to each
one that it loves, makes him a Brahmin, a poet, and a sage."  Men used
language many centuries before they seriously began to inquire into its
origin and structure.  The ancient Hindu philosophers, the Greeks, and
all early nations that had begun a speculative philosophy, wonderingly
tried to ascertain whence language came.  Modern philologists have
carried their researches so far as to ascertain with tolerable accuracy
the history and life of language and to determine with the help of
other scientists the facts and phenomena of its origin.

Language, in its broadest sense, includes any form of expression by
which thoughts and feelings are communicated from one individual to
another.  Words may be spoken, gestures made, cries uttered, pictures
or characters drawn, or letters made as means of expression.  The
deaf-mute converses with his fingers and his lips; the savage
communicates by means of gesticulation.  It is easy to conceive of a
community in which all communication is carried on in sign language.
It is said that the Grebos of Africa carry this mode of expression
{122} to such an extent that the persons and tenses of the mood are
indicated with the hands alone.

It has been advocated by some that man first learned to talk by
imitating the sounds of nature.  It is sometimes called the "bow-wow"
theory of the origin of language.  Words are used to express the
meaning of nature.  Thus the purling of the brook, the lowing of the
cow, the barking of the dog, the moaning of the wind, the rushing of
water, the cry of animals, and other expressions of nature were
imitated, and thus formed the root words of language.  This theory was
very commonly upheld by the philosophers of the eighteenth century, but
is now regarded as an entirely inadequate explanation of the process of
the development of language.  It is true that every language has words
formed by the imitation of sound, but these are comparatively few, and
as languages are traced toward their origin, such words seem to have
continually less importance.  Nothing conclusive has been proved
concerning the origin of any language by adopting this theory.

Another theory is that the exclamations and interjections suddenly made
have been the formation of root words, which in turn give rise to the
complex forms of language.  This can scarcely be considered of much
force, for the difference between sudden explosive utterance and words
expressing full ideas is so great as to be of little value in
determining the real formation of language.  These sudden interjections
are more of the nature of gesture than of real speech.

The theologians insisted for many years that language was a gift of
God, but failed to show how man could learn the language after it was
given him.  They tried to show that man was created with his full
powers of speech, thought, and action, and that a vocabulary was given
him to use on the supposition that he would know how to use it.  But,
in fact, nothing yet has been proved concerning the first beginnings of
language.  There is no reason why man should be fully equipped in
language any more than in intellect, moral quality, or economic
condition, and it is shown conclusively that in all these {123}
characteristics he has made a slow evolution.  Likewise the further
back towards its origin we trace any language or any group of languages
the simpler we find it, coming nearer and yet nearer to the root
speech.  If we could have the whole record of man, back through that
period into which historical records cannot go, and into which
comparative philology throws but a few rays of light, doubtless we
should find that at one time man used gesture, facial expression, and
signs, interspersed with sounds at intervals, as his chief means of
expression.  Upon this foundation mankind has built the superstructure
of language.

Some philosophers hold that the first words used were names applied to
familiar objects.  Around these first names clustered ideas, and
gradually new words appeared.  With the names and gestures it was easy
to convey thought.  Others, refuting this idea, have held that the
first words represented general notions and not names.  From these
general notions there were gradually instituted the specific words
representing separate ideas.  Others have held that language is a gift,
and springs spontaneously in the nature of man, arising from his own
inherent qualities.  Possibly from different standpoints there is a
grain of truth in each one of these theories, although all combined are
insufficient to explain the whole truth.

No theory yet devised answers all the questions concerning the origin
of language.  It may be truly asserted that language is an acquisition,
starting with the original capacity for imperfect speech found in the
physiological structure of man.  This is accompanied by certain
tendencies of thought and life which furnish the psychical notion of
language-formation.  These represent the foundations of language, and
upon this, through action and experience, the superstructure of
language has been built.  There has been a continuous evolution from
simple to complex forms.

_Language Is an Important Social Function_.--Whatever conjectures may
be made by philosophers or definite knowledge determined by
philologists, it is certain that language has been {124} built up by
human association.  Granted that the physiological function of speech
was a characteristic of the first beings to bear the human form, it is
true that its development has come about by the mental interactions of
individuals.  No matter to what extent language was used by a given
generation, it was handed on through social heredity to the next
generation.  Thus, language represents a continuous stream of
word-bearing thought, moving from the beginning of human association to
the present time.  It is through it that we have a knowledge of the
past and frame the thoughts of the present.  While it is easy to
concede that language was built up in the attempt of man to communicate
his feelings, emotions, and thoughts to others, it in turn has been a
powerful coercive influence and a direct social creation.  Only those
people who could understand one another could be brought into close
relationships, and for this purpose some generally accepted system of
communicating ideas became essential.  Moreover, the tribes and
assimilated nations found the force of common language in the coherency
of group life.  Thus it became a powerful instrument in developing
tribal, racial, or national independence.  If the primal force of early
family or tribal organization was that of sex and blood relationship,
language became a most powerful ally in forcing the group into formal
social action, and in furnishing a means of defense against the social
encroachments of other tribes and nations.

It must be observed, however, that the social boundaries of races are
not coincident with the divisions of language.  In general the tendency
is for a race to develop an independent language, for racial
development was dependent upon isolation from other groups.  But from
the very earliest associations to the present time there has been a
tendency for assimilation of groups even to the extent of direct
amalgamation of those occupying contiguous territory, or through
conquest.  In the latter event, the conquered group usually took the
language of the conquerors, although this has not always followed, as
eventually the stronger language becomes the more important {125}
through use.  For instance, for a time after the Norman Conquest,
Norman French became, in the centres of government and culture at
least, the dominant language, but eventually was thrown aside by a more
useful language as English institutions came to the front.  As race and
language may not represent identical groups, it is evident that a
classification of language cannot be taken as conclusive evidence in
the classification of races.  However, in the main it is true.  A
classification of all of the languages of the Indians of North America
would be a classification of all the tribes that have been
differentiated in physical structure and other racial traits, as well
as of habits and customs.  Yet a tribe using a common language may be
composed of a number of racial elements.

When it comes to the modern state, language does not coincide with
natural boundaries.  Thus, in Switzerland German is spoken in the north
and northeast, French in the southwest, and Italian in the southeast.
However, in this case, German is the dominant language taught in
schools and used largely in literature.  Also, in Belgium, where one
part of the people speak Flemish and the other French, they are living
under the same national unity so far as government is concerned,
although there have always remained distinctive racial types.  In
Mexico there are a number of tribes that, though using the dominant
Spanish language, called Mexican, are in their closer associations
speaking the primitive languages of their race or tribe which have come
down to them through long ages of development.  Sometimes, however, a
tribe shows to be a mosaic of racial traits and languages, brought
about by the complete amalgamation of tribes.  A very good example of
this complete amalgamation would be that of the Hopi Indians of New
Mexico, where distinctive group words and racial traits may be traced
to three different tribes.  But to refer to a more complete
civilization, where the Spanish language is spoken in Spain, we find
the elements of Latin, Teutonic, Arabic, and Old Iberian speech, which
are suggestive of different racial traits pointing to different racial


Regardless of origin and tradition, language gradually conforms to the
type of civilization in existence.  A strong, vigorous industrial
nation would through a period of years develop a tendency for a
vigorous language which would express the spirit and life of the
people, while a dreamy, conservative nation would find little change in
the language.  Likewise, periods of romance or of war have a tendency
to make changes in the form of speech in conformity to ideals of life.
On the other hand, social and intellectual progress is frequently
dependent upon the character of the language used to the extent that it
may be said that language is an indication of the progress of a people
in the arts of civilized life.  It is evident in comparing the Chinese
language with the French, great contrasts are shown in the ease in
which ideas are represented and the stream of thought borne on its way.
The Chinese language is a clumsy machine as compared with the flexible
and smooth-gliding French.  It appears that if it were possible for the
Chinese to change their language for a more flexible, smooth-running
instrument, it would greatly facilitate their progress in art, science,
and social life.

_Written Language Followed Speech in Order of Development_.--Many
centuries elapsed before any systematic writing or engraving recorded
human events.  The deeds of the past were handed on through tradition,
in the cave, around the campfire, and in the primitive family.  Stories
of the past, being rehearsed over and over, became a permanent
heritage, passing on from generation to generation.  But this method of
descent of knowledge was very indefinite, because story-tellers,
influenced by their environment, continually built the present into the
past, and so the truth was not clearly expressed.

Slowly man began to make a permanent record of deeds and events, the
first beginnings of which were very feeble, and were included in
drawings on the walls of caves, inscriptions on bone, stone, and ivory,
and symbols woven in garments.  All represented the first beginnings of
the representative art of language.


Gradually picture-writing became so systematized that an expression of
continuous thought might be recorded and transferred from one to
another through the observation of the symbols universally recognized.
But these pictures on rocks and ivory, and later on tablets, have been
preserved, and are expressive of the first steps of man in the art of
written language.  The picture-writing so common to savages and
barbarians finally passes from a simple _rebus_ to a very complex
written language, as in the case of the Egyptian or Mexican.  The North
American Indians used picture-writing in describing battles, or an
expedition across a lake, or an army on a march, or a buffalo hunt.  A
simple picture shows that fifty-one warriors, led by a chief and his
assistant, in five canoes, took three days to cross a lake and land
their forces on the other side.

The use of pictographs is the next step in the process of written
language.  It represents a generalized form of symbols which may be put
together in such a way as to express complete thoughts.  Originally
they were merely symbols or signs of ideas, which by being slightly
changed in form or position led to the expression of a complete thought.

Following the pictograph is the ideograph, which is but one more step
in the progress of systematic writing.  Here the symbol has become so
generalized that it has a significance quite independent of its origin.
In other words, it becomes idealized and conventionalized, so that a
specific symbol stood for a universal idea.  It could be made specific
by changing its form or position.  All that was necessary now was to
have a sufficient number of general symbols representing ideas, to
build up a constructive language.  The American Indian and the Chinese
have apparently passed through all stages of the picture-writing, the
use of the pictograph and of the ideograph.  In fact, the Chinese
language is but an extension of these three methods of expression.  The
objects were originally designated by a rude drawing, and then, to
modify the meaning, different characters were attached to the picture.
Thus a monosyllabic {128} language was built up, and the root word had
many meanings by the modification of its form and sometimes by the
change of its position.  The hieroglyphic writings of the Egyptians,
Moabites, Persians, and Assyrians went through these methods of
language development, as their records show to this day.

_Phonetic Writing Was a Step in Advance of the Ideograph_.--The
difference between the phonetic writing and the picture-writing rests
in the fact that the symbol representing the object is expressive of an
idea or a complete thought, while in phonetic writing the symbol
represents a sound which combined with other sounds expresses an idea
called a word and complete thoughts through combination of words.  The
discovery and use of a phonetic alphabet represent the key to modern
civilization.  The invention of writing elevated man from a state of
barbarism to a state of civilization.  About the tenth century before
Christ the Phoenicians, Hebrews, and other allied Semitic races began
to use the alphabet.  Each letter was named from a word beginning with
it.  The Greeks learned the alphabet from the Phoenicians, and the
Greeks, in turn, passed it to the Romans.  The alphabet continually
changed from time to time.  The old Phoenician was weak in vowel
sounds, but the defect was remedied in the Greek and Roman alphabets
and in the alphabets of the Teutonic nations.  Fully equipped with
written and spoken speech, the nations of the world were prepared for
the interchange of thought and ideas and for the preservation of
knowledge in an accurate manner.  History could be recorded, laws
written and preserved, and the beginnings of science elaborated.

_The Use of Manuscripts and Books Made Permanent Records_.--At first
all records were made by pen, pencil, or stylus, and manuscripts were
represented on papyrus paper or parchment, and could only be duplicated
by copying.  In Alexandria before the Christian era one could buy a
copy of the manuscript of a great author, but it was at a high price.
It finally became customary for monks, in their secluded retreats, to
spend a good part of their lives in copying and preserving {129} the
manuscript writings of great authors.  But it was not until printing
was invented that the world of letters rapidly moved forward.  Probably
about the sixth century A.D. the Chinese began to print a group of
characters from blocks, and by the tenth century they were engaged in
keeping their records in this way.  Gutenberg, Faust, and others
improved upon the Chinese method by a system of movable type.  But what
a wonderful change since the fourteenth century printing!  Now, with
modern type-machines, fine grades of paper made by improved machinery,
and the use of immense steam presses, the making of an ordinary book is
very little trouble.  Looking back over the course of events incident
to the development of the modern complex and flexible language we
observe, first, the rude picture scrawled on horn or rock.  This was
followed by the representation of the sound of the name of the picture,
which passed into the mere sound sign.  Finally, the relation between
the figure and the sound becomes so arbitrary that the child learns the
a, b, c as pure signs representing sounds which, in combination, make
words which stand for ideas.

_Language Is an Instrument of Culture_.--Culture areas always spread
beyond the territory of language groups.  Culture depends upon the
discovery and utilization of the forces of nature through invention and
adaptation.  It may spread through imitation over very large human
territory.  Man has universal mental traits, with certain powers and
capacities that are developed in a relative order and in a degree of
efficiency; but there are many languages and many civilizations of high
and low degree.  Through human speech the life of the past may be
handed on to others and the life of the present communicated to one
another.  The physiological power of speech which exists in all permits
every human group to develop a language in accordance with its needs
and as influenced by its environment.  Thus language advanced very
rapidly as an instrument of communication even at a very early period
of cultural development.  A recent study of the {130} languages of the
American Indians has shown the high degree of the art of expression
among people of the Neolithic culture.  This would seem to indicate
that primitive peoples are more definite in thought and more observant
in the relation of cause and effect than is usually supposed.  Thus,
definite language permits more precise thought, and definite thought,
in turn, insists on more exact expression in language.  The two aid
each other in development of cultural ideas, and invention and language
move along together in the development of the human race.  It becomes a
great human invention, and as such it not only preserves the thoughts
of the past but unlocks the knowledge of the present.

Not only is language the means of communication, and the great racial
as well as social bond of union, but it represents knowledge, culture,
and refinement.  The strength and beauty of genuine artistic expression
have an elevating influence on human life and become a means of social
progress.  The drama and the choicest forms of prose and poetry in
their literary aspects furnish means of presenting great thoughts and
high ideals, and, thus combined with the beauty of expression, not only
furnish the best evidence of moral and intellectual progress but make a
perennial source of information in modern social life.  Hence it is
that language and culture in all of their forms go hand in hand so
closely that a high degree of culture is not attained without a
dignified and expressive language.

_Art as a Language of Aesthetic Ideas_.--The development of aesthetic
ideas and aesthetic representations has kept pace with progress in
other phases of civilization.  The notion of beauty as entertained by
the savage is crude, and its representation is grotesque.  Its first
expression is observed in the adornment of the body, either by paint,
tattooing, or by ornaments.  The coarse, glaring colors placed upon the
face or body, with no regard for the harmony of color, may attract
attention, but has little expression of beauty from a modern standard.
The first adornment in many savage tribes consisted in tattooing the
body, an art which was finally rendered {131} useless after clothing
was fully adopted, except as a totemic design representing the unity of
the tribe.  This custom was followed by the use of rude jewelry for
arms, neck, ears, nose, or lips.  Other objects of clothing and
ornament were added from time to time, the bright colors nearly always
prevailing.  There must have been in all tribes a certain standard of
artistic taste, yet so low in many instances as to suggest only the
grotesque.  The taste displayed in the costumes of savages within the
range of our own observation is remarkable for its variety.  It ranges
all the way from a small piece of cloth to the elaborate robes made of
highly colored cotton and woollen goods.  The Celts were noted for
their highly colored garments and the artistic arrangement of the same.
The Greeks displayed a grace and simplicity in dress never yet
surpassed by any other nation.  Yet the dress of early Greeks, Romans,
and Teutons was meagre in comparison with modern elaborate costumes.
All of this is a method of expression of the emotions and ideas and, in
one sense, is a language of the aesthetic.

Representative art, even among primitive peoples, carries with it a
distinctive language.  It is a representation of ideas, as well as an
attempt at beauty of expression.  The figures on pottery and basketry
frequently carry with them religious ideas for the expression and
perpetuation of religious emotion and belief.  Even rude drawings
attempt to record the history of the deeds of the race.  Progress is
shown in better lines, in better form, and a more exquisite blending of
colors.  That many primitive people display a high degree of art and a
low degree of general culture is one of the insoluble problems of the
race.  Perhaps it may be attributed primarily to the fact that all
artistic expression originally sprang from the emotional side of life,
and, in addition, may be in part attributed to the early training in
the acute observation of the forms of nature by primitive people upon
which depended their existence.

_Music Is a Form of Language_.--Early poetry was a recital of deeds,
and a monotonous chant, which finally became recorded as language
developed.  The sagas and the war songs {132} were the earliest
expressions which later were combined with dramatic action.  The poetry
of primitive races has no distinguishing characteristics except metre
or rhythm.  It is usually an oft-recurring expression of the same idea.
Yet there are many fragmentary examples of lyric poetry, though it is
mostly egoistic, the individual reciting his deeds or his desires.
From the natives of Greenland we have the following about the hovering
of the clouds about the mountain:

  "The great Koonak mountain, over there--
  I see it;
  The great Koonak mountain, over there--
  I am looking at it;
  The bright shining in the South, over there--
  I admire it;
  The other side of Koonak--
  It stretches out--
  That which Koonak--
  Seaward encloses.
  See how they in the South
  Move and change--
  See how in the South
  They beautify one another;
  While it toward the sea
  Is veiled--by changing clouds
  Veiled toward the sea
  Beautifying one another."

The emotional nature of savages varies greatly in different tribes.
The lives of some seem to be moved wholly through the emotions, while
others are stolid or dull.  The variations in musical ability and
practice of savage and barbarous races are good evidence of this.  Many
of the tribes in Africa have their rude musical instruments, and chant
their simple, monotonous music.  The South Sea Islanders beat hollow
logs with clubs, marking time and creating melody by these notes.  The
Dahomans use a reed fife, on which they play music of several notes.
In all primitive music, time is the chief element, and this is not
always kept with any degree of accuracy.  The {133} chanting of war
songs, the moaning of the funeral dirge, or the sprightly singing with
the dance, shows the varied expression of the emotional nature.

No better illustration of the arts of pleasure may be observed than the
practices of the Zuñi Indians and other Pueblo Indians of New Mexico.
The Zuñi melodies are sung on various festival occasions.  Some are
sacred melodies, used in worship; others are on the occasion of the
celebration of the rabbit hunt, the rain dances, and the corn dances.
Among the Pueblo Indians the cachina dance is for the purpose of
invoking bountiful rains and good harvests.  In all of their feasts,
games, plays, and dances there are connected ceremonies of a religious
nature.  Religion occupies a very strong position in the minds of the
people.  Possessed of a superstitious nature, it was inevitable that
all the arts of pleasure should partake somewhat of the religious
ceremony.  The song and the dance and the beating of the drums always
accompanied every festival.

_The Dance as a Means of Dramatic Expression_.--Among primitive peoples
the dance, poetry, and music were generally introduced together, and
were parts of one drama.  As such it was a social institution, with the
religious, war, or play element fully represented.  Most primitive
dances were conducted by men only.  In the celebrated _Corroboree_ of
the Australians, men danced and the women formed the orchestra.[1]
This gymnastic dance was common to many tribes.  The dances of the
Moros and Igorrotes at the St. Louis Exposition partook, in a similar
way, of the nature of the gymnastic dance.  The war dances of the
plains Indians of America are celebrated for their grotesqueness.  The
green-corn dance and the cachina of the Pueblos and the snake dance of
the Moqui all have an economic foundation.  In all, however, the play
element in man and the desire for dramatic expression and the art of
mimicry are evident.  The chief feature of the dance of the primitive
people is the regular time beat.  This is more prominent than the grace
of movement.  Yet this agrees with {134} the nature of their music, for
in this the time element is more prominent than the tune.  Rhythm is
the strong element in the primitive art of poetry, music, or the dance,
but all have an immense socializing influence.  The modern dance has
added to rhythm the grace of expression and developed the social
tendencies.  In it love is a more prominent feature than war or

Catlin, in his _North American Indians_, describes the buffalo dance of
the Mandan Indians, which appears to be more of a service toward an
economic end than an art of pleasure.  After an unsuccessful hunt the
returned warriors bring out their buffalo masks, made of the head and
horns and tail of the buffalo.  These they don, and continue to dance
until worn out.  Ten or fifteen dancers form a ring and, accompanied by
drumming, yelling, and rattling, dance until the first exhausted one
goes through the pantomime of being shot with the bow and arrow,
skinned, and cut up; but the dance does not lag, for another masked
dancer takes the place of the fallen one.  The dance continues day and
night, without cessation, sometimes for two or three weeks, or until a
herd of buffaloes appears in sight; then the warriors change the dance
for the hunt.

The dancing of people of lower culture was carried on in many instances
to express feelings and wishes.  Many of the dances of Egypt, Greece,
and other early civilizations were of this nature.  Sacred hymns to the
gods were chanted in connection with the dancing; but the sacred dance
has become obsolete, in Western civilization its place being taken by
modern church music.

_The Fine Arts Follow the Development of Language_.--While art varied
in different tribes, we may assume in general that there was a
continuity of culture development from the rude clay idol of primitive
folk to the Venus de Milo or the Winged Victory; from the pictures on
rocks and in caves to the Sistine Madonna; from the uncouth cooking
bowl of clay to the highest form of earthenware vase; and from the
monotonous {135} strain of African music to the lofty conception of
Mozart.  But this is a continuity of ideas covering the whole human
race as a unit, rather than the progressive development of a single
branch of the race.

Consider for a moment the mental and physical environment of the
ancient cave or forest dweller.  The skies to him were marked only as
they affected his bodily comfort in sunshine or storm; the trees
invited his attention as they furnished him food or shelter; the
roaring torrent was nothing to him except as it obstructed his journey;
the sun and the moon and the stars in the heavens filled him with
portentous awe, and the spirits in the invisible world worked for his
good or for his evil.  Beyond his utilitarian senses no art emotion
stirred in these signs of creation.  Perhaps the first art emotion was
aroused in contemplation of the human body.  Through vanity, fear, or
love he began to decorate it.  He scarifies or tattoos his naked body
with figures upon his back, arms, legs, and face to represent an idea
of beauty.  While the tribal or totemic design may have originated the
custom, he wishes to be attractive to others, and his first emotions of
beauty are thus expressed.  The second step is to paint his face and
body to express love, fear, hate, war, or religious emotions.  This
leads on to the art of decorating the body with ornaments, and
subsequently to the ornamentation of clothing.

The art of representation at first possessed little artistic beauty,
though the decorations on walls of caves show skill in lines and color.
The first representations sought only intelligence in communicating
thought.  The bas-reliefs of the ancients showed skill in
representation.  The ideal was finally developed until the aesthetic
taste was improved, and the Greek sculpture shows a high development of
artistic taste.  In it beauty and truth were harmoniously combined.
The arts of sculpture and painting are based upon the imagination.
Through its perfect development, and the improvement in the art of
execution, have been secured the aesthetic products of man.  Yet there
is always a mingling of the emotional nature {136} in the development
of fine arts.  The growth of the fine arts consists in intensifying the
pleasurable sensations of eye and ear.  This is done by enlarging the
capacity for pleasure and increasing the opportunity for its
satisfaction.  The beginnings of the fine arts were small, and the
capacity to enjoy must have been slowly developed.  Of the arts that
appeal to the eye there may be enumerated sculpture, painting, drawing,
landscape-gardening, and architecture.  The pleasure from all except
the last comes from an attempt to represent nature.  Architecture is
founded upon the useful, and combines the industrial and the fine arts
in one.  The attempt to imitate nature is to satisfy the emotions
aroused in its contemplation.

_The Love of the Beautiful Slowly Develops_.--There must have developed
in man the desire to make a more perfect arrow-head, axe, or celt for
the efficiency of service, and later for beauty of expression.  There
must early have developed an idea of good form and bright colors in
clothing.  So, too, in the mixing of colors for the purpose of
expressing the emotions there gradually came about a refinement in
blending.  Nor could man's attention be called constantly to the
beautiful plants and flowers, to the bright-colored stones, metals, and
gems found in the earth without developing something more than mere
curiosity concerning them.  He must early have discovered the
difference between objects which aroused desire for possession and
those that did not.  Ultimately he preferred a more beautifully
finished stone implement than one crudely constructed--a more beautiful
and showy flower than one that was imperfect, and likewise more
beautiful human beings than those that were crude and ugly.

The pleasure of sound manifested itself at an earlier stage than the
pleasure of form, although the degree of advancement in music varies in
different tribes.  Thus the inhabitants of Africa have a much larger
capacity for recognizing and enjoying the effect of harmonious sounds
than the aborigines of America.  While all nations have the faculty of
obtaining pleasure from harmonious sounds, it varies greatly, yet not
more {137} widely than between separate individuals.  It may be
considered quite a universal faculty.  The love of the beautiful in
form, color, and in harmonious sound, is a permanent social force, and
has much to do in the progress of civilization.  Yet it is not an
essential force, for the beginnings of civilization could have been
made without it.  However, it gives relief to the cold business world;
the formal association of men is softened and embellished by painting,
poetry, and music.  Thus considered, it represents an important part of
the modern social development.  Art culture, which represents the
highest expression of our civilization, has its softening influences on
human life.


1.  The importance of language in the development of culture.

2.  Does language always originate the same way in different localities?

3.  Does language develop from a common centre or from many centres?

4.  What bearing has the development of language upon the culture of
religion, music, poetry, and art?

5.  Which were the more important impulses, clothing for protection or
for adornment?

6.  Show that play is an important factor in society-building.

7.  Compare pictograph, ideograph, and phonetic writing.

[1] Keane, _The World's Peoples_, p. 49.






_Man Is a Part of Universal Nature_.--He is an integral part of the
universe, and as such he must ever be subject to the physical laws
which control it.  Yet, as an active, thinking being, conscious of his
existence, it is necessary to consider him in regard to the relations
which he sustains to the laws and forces of physical nature external to
himself.  He is but a particle when compared to a planet or a sun, but
he is greater than a planet because he is conscious of his own
existence, and the planet is not.  Yet his whole life and being, so far
as it can be reasoned about, is dependent upon his contact with
external nature.  By adaptation to physical environment he may live;
without adaptation he cannot live.

As a part of evolved nature, man comes into the world ignorant of his
surroundings.  He is ever subject to laws which tend to sweep him
onward with the remaining portions of the system of which he is a part,
but his slowly awakening senses cause him to examine his surroundings.
First, he has a curiosity to know what the world about him is like, and
he begins a simple inquiry which leads to investigation.  The knowledge
he acquires is adapted to his use day by day as his vision extends.
Through these two processes he harmonizes his life with the world about
him.  By degrees he endeavors to bring the materials and the forces of
nature into subjection to his will.  Thus he progresses from the
student to the master.  External nature is unconscious, submitting
passively to the laws that control it, but man, ever conscious of
himself and his effort, attempts to dominate the forces surrounding him
and this struggle to overcome environment has characterized his {142}
progress.  But in this struggle, nature has reciprocated its influence
on man in modifying his development and leaving her impress on him.
Limited he has ever been and ever will be by his environment.  Yet
within the limits set by nature he is master of his own destiny and
develops by his own persistent endeavor.

Indeed, the epitome of civilization is a struggle of nature and
thought, the triumph of the psychical over the physical; and while he
slowly but surely overcomes the external physical forces and makes them
subordinate to his own will and genius, civilization must run along
natural courses even though its products are artificial.  In many
instances nature appears bountiful and kind to man, but again she
appears mean and niggardly.  It is man's province to take advantage of
her bounty and by toil and invention force her to yield her coveted
treasures.  Yet the final outcome of it all is determined by the extent
to which man masters himself.

_Favorable Location Is Necessary for Permanent Civilization_.--In the
beginning only those races have made progress that have sought and
obtained favorable location.  Reflect upon the early civilizations of
the world and notice that every one was begun in a favorable location.
Observe the geographical position of Egypt, in a narrow, fertile valley
bounded by the desert and the sea, cut off from contact with other
races.  There was an opportunity for the Egyptians to develop
continuity of life sufficient to permit the beginnings of civilization.
Later, when wealth and art had developed, Egypt became the prey of
covetous invading nations.  So ancient Chaldea, for a time far removed
from contact with other tribes, and protected by desert, mountain, and
sea, was able to begin a civilization.

But far more favorable, not only for a beginning of civilization but
for a high state of development, was the territory occupied by the
Grecian tribes.  Shut in from the north by a mountain range, surrounded
on every other side by the sea, a fertile and well-watered land, of
mild climate, it was protected {143} from the encroachments of
"barbarians."  The influence of geographical contour is strongly marked
in the development of the separate states of Greece.  The small groups
that settled down on a family basis were separated from each other by
ranges of hills, causing each community to develop its own
characteristic life.  These communities had a common language,
differing somewhat in dialect, and the foundation of a common religion,
but there never could exist sufficient similarity of character or unity
of sentiment to permit them to unite into a strong central nation.  A
variety of life is evinced everywhere.  Those who came in contact with
the ocean differed from those who dwelt in the interior, shut in by the
mountains.  The contact with the sea gives breadth of thought,
largeness of life, while those who are enclosed by mountains lead a
narrow life, intense in thought and feeling.  Without the protection of
nature, the Grecian states probably would never have developed the high
state of civilization which they reached.

Rome presents a similar example.  It is true that the Italian tribes
that entered the peninsula had considerable force of character and
thorough development as they were about to enter upon a period of
civilization.  Like the Greeks, the discipline of their early Aryan
ancestors had given them much of strength and character.  Yet the
favorable location of Italy, bounded on the north by a high mountain
range and enclosed by the sea, gave abundant opportunity for the
national germs to thrive and grow.  Left thus to themselves, dwelling
under the protection of the snow-capped Alps, and surrounded by the
beneficent sea, national life expanded, government and law developed
and thrived, and the arts of civilized life were practised.  The
national greatness of the Romans may in part be attributed to the
period of repose in which they pursued unmolested the arts of peace
before their era of conquest began.

Among the mountains of Switzerland are people who claim never to have
been conquered.  In the wild rush of the {144} barbarian hordes into
the Roman Empire they were not overrun.  They retain to this day their
early sentiments of liberty; their greatness is in freedom and
equality.  The mountains alone protected them from the assaults of the
enemy and the crush of moving tribes.

Other nations might be mentioned that owe much to geographical
position.  More than once in the early part of her history it protected
Spain from destruction.  The United States, in a large measure, owes
her independent existence to the fact that the ocean rolls between her
and the mother country.  On the other hand, Ireland has been hampered
in her struggle for independent government on account of her proximity
to England.  The natural defense against enemies, the protection of
mountains and forests, the proximity to the ocean, all have had their
influence in the origin and development of nations.  Yet races, tribes,
and nations, once having opportunity to develop and become strong, may
flourish without the protecting conditions of nature.  They may defy
the mountains, seas, and the streams, and the onslaughts of the wild

_The Nature of the Soil an Essential Condition of Progress_.--But
geography alone, although a great factor in progress, is powerless
without a fertile soil to yield a food supply for a large population.
The first great impetus of all early civilizations occurred through
agriculture.  Not until this had developed so as to give a steady food
supply were people able to have sufficient leisure to develop the other
arts of life.  The abundant food supply furnished by the fertility of
the Nile valley was the key to the Egyptian civilization.  The valley
was overflowed annually by the river, which left a fertilizing sediment
upon the land already prepared for cultivation.  Thus annually without
excessive labor the soil was watered, fertilized, and prepared for the
seed.  Even when irrigation was introduced, in order to obtain a larger
supply of food, the cultivation of the soil was a very easy matter.
Agriculture consisted primarily in sowing seed on ready prepared ground
and {145} reaping the harvest.  The certainty of the crop assured a
living.  The result of cheap food was to rapidly multiply the race,
which existed on a low plane.  It created a mass of inferior people
ruled by a few despots.

What is true of Egypt is true of all of the early civilizations, as
they each started where a fertile soil could easily be tilled.  The
inhabitants of ancient Chaldea developed their civilization on a
fertile soil.  The great cities of Nineveh and Babylon were surrounded
by rich valleys, and the yield of agricultural products made
civilization possible.  The earliest signs of progress in India were
along the valleys of the Ganges and the Indus.  Likewise, in the New
World, the tribes that approached the nearest to civilization were
situated in fertile districts in Peru, Central America, Mexico, and New

_The Use of Land the Foundation of Social Order_.--The manner in which
tribes and nations have attached themselves to the soil has determined
the type of social organization.  Before the land was treated as
property of individuals or regarded as a permanent possession by
tribes, the method in which the land was held and its use determined
the quality of civilization, and the land factor became more important
as a determiner of social order as civilization progressed.  It was
exceedingly important in determining the quality of the Greek life, and
the entire structure of Roman civilization was based on the land
question.  Master the land tenure of Rome and you have laid the
foundation of Roman history.  The desire for more land and for more
room was the chief cause of the barbarian invasion of the empire.  All
feudal society, including lords and vassals, government and courts, was
based upon the plan of feudal land-holding.

In modern times in England the land question has been at times the
burning political and economic question of the nation, and is a
disturbing factor in recent times.  In the United States, rapid
progress is due more to the bounteous supply of free, fertile lands
than to any other single cause.  Broad, fertile valleys are more
pertinent as the foundation {146} of nation-building than men are
accustomed to believe; and now that nearly all the public domain has
been apportioned among the citizens, intense desire for land remains
unabated, and its method of treatment through landlord and tenant is
rapidly becoming a troublesome question.  The relation of the soil to
the population presents new problems, and the easy-going civilization
will be put to a new test.

_Climate Has Much to Do with the Possibilities of Progress_.--The early
seats of civilization mentioned above were all located in warm
climates.  Leisure is essential to all progress.  Where it takes man
all of his time to earn a bare subsistence there is not much room for
improvement.  A warm climate is conducive to leisure, because its
requirements of food and clothing are less imperative than in cold
countries.  The same quantity of food will support more people in warm
than in cold climates.  This, coupled with the fact that nature is more
spontaneous in furnishing a bountiful supply in warm climates than in
cold, renders the first steps in progress much more possible.  The food
in warm climates is of a light vegetable character, which is easily
prepared for use; indeed, in many instances it is already prepared.  In
cold countries, where it is necessary to consume large amounts of fatty
food to sustain life, the food supply is meagre, because this can only
be obtained from wild animals.  In this region it costs immense labor
to obtain sufficient food for the support of life; likewise, in a cold
climate it takes much time to tame animals for use and to build huts to
protect from the storm and the cold.  The result is that the
propagation of the race is slow, and progress in social and individual
life is retarded.

We should expect, therefore, all of the earliest civilization to be in
warm regions.  In this we are not disappointed, in noting Egypt,
Babylon, Mexico, and Peru.  Soil and climate co-operate in furnishing
man a suitable place for his first permanent development.  There is,
however, in this connection, one danger to be pointed out, arising from
the conditions of cheap food--namely, a rapid propagation of the race,
which {147} entails misery through generations.  In these early
populous nations, great want and misery frequently prevailed among the
masses of the people.  Thousands of laborers, competing for sustenance,
reduce the earning capacity to a very small amount, and this reduces
the standard of life.  Yet because food and shelter cost little, they
are able to live at a low standard and to multiply rapidly.  Human life
becomes cheap, is valued little by despotic rulers, who enslave their
fellows.  Another danger in warm climates which counteracts the
tendency of nations to progress, is the fact that warm climates
enervate man and make him less active; hence it occurs that in colder
climates with unfavorable surroundings great progress is made on
account of the excessive energy and strong will-force of the

In temperate climates man has reached the highest state of progress.
In this zone the combination of a moderately cheap food supply and the
necessity of excessive energy to supply food, clothing, and protection
has been most conducive to the highest forms of progress.  While,
therefore, the civilization of warm climates has led to despotism,
inertia, and the degradation of the masses, the civilization of
temperate climates has led to freedom, elevation of humanity, and
progress in the arts.  This illustrates how essential is individual
energy in taking advantage of what nature has provided.

_The General Aspects of Nature Determine the Type of
Civilization_.--While the general characteristics of nature have much
to do with the development of the races of the earth, it is only a
single factor in the great complex of influences.  People living in the
mountain fastnesses, those living at the ocean side, and those living
on great interior plains vary considerably as to mental characteristics
and views of life in general.  Buckle has expanded this idea at some
length in his comparison of India and Greece.  He has endeavored to
show that "the history of the human mind can only be understood by
connecting with it the history and aspects of the material universe."
He holds that everything in India tended to depress the {148} dignity
of man, while everything in Greece tended to exalt it.  After comparing
these two countries of ancient civilization in respect to the
development of the imagination, he says: "To sum up the whole, it may
be said that the Greeks had more respect for human powers; the Hindus
for superhuman.  The first dealt with the known and available, the
second with the unknown and mysterious."  He attributes this difference
largely to the fact that the imagination was excessively developed in
India, while the reason predominated in Greece.  The cause attributed
to the development of the imagination in India is the aspect of nature.

Everything in India is overshadowed with the immensity of nature.  Vast
plains, lofty mountains, mighty, turbulent rivers, terrible storms, and
demonstrations of natural forces abound to awe and terrify.  The causes
of all are so far beyond the conception of man that his imagination is
brought into play to furnish images for his excited and terrified mind.
Hence religion is extravagant, abstract, terrible.  Literature is full
of extravagant poetic images.  The individual is lost in the system of
religion, figures but little in literature, and is swallowed up in the
immensity of the universe.  While, on the other hand, the fact that
Greece had no lofty mountains, no great plains; had small rivulets in
the place of rivers, and few destructive storms, was conducive to the
development of calm reflection and reason.  Hence, in Greece man
predominated over nature; in India, nature overpowered man.[1]

There is much of truth in this line of argument, but it must not be
carried too far.  For individual and racial characteristics have much
to do with the development of imagination, reason, and religion.  The
difference, too, in the time of development, must also be considered,
for Greece was a later product, and had the advantage of much that had
preceded in human progress.  And so far as can be determined, the
characteristics of the Greek colonists were quite well established
{149} before they left Asia.  The supposition, also, that man is
subject entirely to the influence of physical nature for his entire
progress, must be taken with modification.  His mind-force, his
individual will-force, must be accounted for, and these occupy a large
place in the history of his progress.  No doubt the thunders of Niagara
and the spectacle of the volume of water inspire poetic admiration in
the minds of the thousands who have gazed on this striking physical
phenomenon of nature.  It is awe-inspiring; it arouses the emotions; it
creates poetic imagination.  But the final result of contact with the
will of man is to turn part of that force from its channels, to move
the bright machinery engaged in creating things useful and beautiful
which contribute to the larger well-being of man.

Granting that climate, soil, geographical position, and the aspects of
nature have a vast influence in limiting the possibilities of man's
progress, and in directing his mental as well as physical
characteristics, it must not be forgotten that in the contact with
these it is his mastery over them which constitutes progress, and this
involves the activity of his will-power.  Man is not a slave to his
environment.  He is not a passive creature acted upon by sun and storm
and subjected to the powers of the elements.  True, that there are set
about him limitations within which he must ever act.  Yet from
generation to generation he forces back these limits, enlarges the
boundary of his activities, increases the scope of his knowledge, and
brings a larger number of the forces of nature in subjection to his

_Physical Nature Influences Social Order_.--Not only is civilization
primarily based upon the physical powers and resources of nature, but
the quality of social order is determined thereby.  Thus, people
following the streams, plains, and forests would develop a different
type of social order from those who would settle down to permanent
seats of agriculture.  The Bedouin Arabs of the desert, although among
the oldest of organized groups, have changed very little through the
passing centuries, because their mode of life permits only a {150}
simple organization.  Likewise, it is greatly in contrast with the
modern nations, built upon industrial and commercial life, with all of
the machinery run by the powers of nature.  When Rome developed her
aristocratic proprietors to whom the land was apportioned in great
estates, the old free farming population disappeared and slavery became
a useful adjunct in the methods adopted for cultivating the soil.  On
the other hand, the old village community where land was held in common
developed a small co-operative group closely united on the basis of
mutual aid.  The great landed estates of England and Germany must, so
long as they continue, influence the type of social order and of
government that will exist in those countries.

As the individual is in a measure subservient to the external laws
about him, so must the social group of which he forms a part be so
controlled.  The flexibility and variability of human nature, with its
power of adaptation, make it possible to develop different forms of
social order.  The subjective side of social development, wherein the
individual seeks to supply his own wants and follow the directions of
his own will, must ever be a modifying power acting upon the social
organization.  Thus society becomes a great complex of variabilities
which cannot be reduced to exact laws similar to those found in
physical nature.  Nevertheless, if society in its development is not
dependent upon immutable laws similar to those discovered in the forces
of nature, yet as part of the great scheme of nature it is directly
dependent upon the physical forces that permit it to exist the same as
the individual.  This would give rise to laws of human association
which are modified by the laws of external nature.  Thus, while society
is psychical in its nature, it is ever dependent upon the material and
the physical for its existence.  However, through co-operation, man is
able to more completely master his environment than by working
individually.  It is only by mutual aid and social organization that he
is able to survive and conquer.



1.  Give examples coming within your own observation of the influence
of soil and climate on the character of society.

2.  Does the character of the people in Central America depend more on
climate than on race?

3.  In what ways does the use of land determine the character of social

4.  Are the ideals and habits of thought of the people living along the
Atlantic Coast different from those of the Middle West?  If so, in what

5.  Is the attitude toward life of the people of the Dakota wheat belt
different from those of New York City?

6.  Compare a mining community with an agricultural community and
record the differences in social order and attitude toward life.

[1] Henry Thomas Buckle, _History of Civilization in England_.  General




_The First Nations with Historical Records in Asia and Africa_.--The
seats of the most ancient civilizations are found in the fertile
valleys of the Euphrates and the Nile.  These centres of civilization
were founded on the fertility of the river valleys and the fact of
their easy cultivation.  Just when the people began to develop these
civilizations and whence they came are not determined.  It is out of
the kaleidoscopic picture of wandering humanity seeking food and
shelter, the stronger tribes pushing and crowding the weaker, that
these permanent seats of culture became established.  Ceasing to wander
after food, they settled down to make the soil yield its products for
the sustenance of life.  Doubtless they found other tribes and races
had been there before them, though not for permanent habitation.  But
the culture of any one group of people fades away toward its origins,
mingling its customs and life with those who preceded them.  Sometimes,
indeed, when a tribe settled down to permanent achievement, its whole
civilization is swept away by more savage conquerors.  Sometimes,
however, the blood of the invaders mingled with the conquered, and the
elements of art, religion, and language of both groups have built up a
new type of civilization.

The geography of the section comprising the nations where the earliest
achievements have left permanent records, indicates a land extending
from a territory east of the Tigris and Euphrates westward to the
eastern shore of the Mediterranean and southward into Egypt.
Doubtless, this region was one much traversed by tribes of various
languages and cultures.  Emerging from the Stone Age, we find the
civilization ranging from northern Africa and skirting Arabia through
Palestine {153} and Assyria down into the valley of the Tigris and the
Euphrates.  Doubtless, the civilization that existed in this region was
more or less closely related in general type, but had derived its
character from many primitive sources.  As history dawns on the
achievements of these early nations, it is interesting to note that
there was a varied rainfall within this territory.  Some parts were
well watered, others having long seasonal periods of drought followed
by periodical rains.  It would appear, too, the uncertainty of rainfall
seemed to increase rather than diminish, for in the valley of the
Euphrates, as well as in the valley of the Nile, the inhabitants were
forced to resort to artificial irrigation for the cultivation of their

It is not known at what time the Chaldeans began to build their
artificial systems of irrigation, but it must have been brought about
by the gain of the population on the food supply, or perhaps an
increased uncertainty of rainfall.  At any rate, the irrigation works
became a systematic part of their industry, and were of great size and
variety.  It took a great deal of engineering skill to construct
immense ditches necessary to control the violent floods of the
Euphrates and the Tigris.  So far as evidence goes, the irrigation was
carried on by the gravity system, by which canals were built from
intakes from the river and extended throughout the cultivated district.
In Egypt for a long time the periodical overflow of the Nile brought in
the silt for fertilizer and water for moisture.  When the flood
subsided, seed was planted and the crop raised and harvested.  As the
population spread, the use of water for irrigation became more general,
and attempts were made to distribute its use not only over a wider
range of territory but more regularly throughout the seasons, thus
making it possible to harvest more than one crop a year, or to develop
diversified agriculture.  The Egyptians used nearly all the modern
methods of procuring, storing, and distributing water.  Hence, in these
centres of warm climate, fertile land, and plenty of moisture, the
earth was made to yield an immense harvest, which made it possible to
support a large population.  {154} The food supply having been
established, the inhabitants could devote themselves to other things,
and slowly developed the arts and industries.

_Civilization in Mesopotamia_.--The Tigris and Euphrates, two great
rivers having their sources in mountain regions, pouring their floods
for centuries into the Persian Gulf, made a broad, fertile valley along
their lower courses.  The soil was of inexhaustible fertility and easy
of cultivation.  The climate was almost rainless, and agriculture was
dependent upon artificial irrigation.  The upper portion of this great
river valley was formed of undulating plains stretching away to the
north, where, almost treeless, they furnished great pasture ranges for
flocks and herds, which also added to the permanency of the food supply
and helped to develop the wealth and prosperity of the country.  It was
in this climate, so favorable for the development of early man, and
with this fertile soil yielding such bountiful productions, that the
ancient Chaldean civilization started, which was followed by the
Babylonian and Assyrian civilizations, each of which developed a great
empire.  These empires, ruling in turn, not only represented centres of
civilization and wealth, but they acquired the overlordship of
territories far and wide, their monarchs ruling eastward toward India
and westward toward Phoenicia.  In early times ancient Chaldea, located
on the lower Euphrates, was divided into two parts, the lower portion
known as Sumer, and the other, the upper, known as Akkad.  While in the
full development of these civilizations the Semitic race was dominant,
there is every appearance that much of the culture of these primitive
peoples came from farther east.

_Influences Coming from the Far East_.--The early inhabitants of this
country have sometimes been called Turanian to distinguish them from
Aryans, Semites, and other races sometimes called Hamitic.  They seem
to have been closely allied to the Mongolian type of people who
developed centres of culture in the Far East and early learned the use
of metals and developed a high degree of skill in handicraft.  The
Akkadians, {155} or Sumer-Akkadians, appear to have come from the
mountain districts north and east, and entered this fertile valley to
begin the work of civilization at a very early period.  Their rude
villages and primitive systems of life were to be superseded by
civilizations of other races that, utilizing the arts and industries of
the Akkadians, carried their culture to a much higher standard.  The
Akkadians are credited with bringing into this country the methods of
making various articles from gold and iron which have been found in
their oldest tombs.  They are credited with having laid the foundation
of the industrial arts which were manifested at an early time in
ancient Chaldea, Egypt, and later in Babylonia and Phoenicia.  Whatever
foundation there may be for this theory, the subsequent history of the
civilizations which have developed from Thibet as a centre would seem
to attribute the early skill in handiwork in the metals and in
porcelain and glass to these people.  They also early learned to make
inscriptions for permanent record in a crude way and to construct
buildings made of brick.

The Akkadians brought with them a religious system which is shown in a
collection of prayers and sacred texts found recorded in the ruins at
the great library at Nineveh.  Their religion seemed to be a complex of
animism and nature-worship.  To them the universe was peopled with
spirits who occupied different spheres and performed different
services.  Scores of evil spirits working in groups of seven controlled
the earth and man.  Besides these there were numberless demons which
assailed man in countless forms, which worked daily and hourly to do
him harm, to control his spirit, to bring confusion to his work, to
steal the child from the father's knee, to drive the son from the
father's house, or to withhold from the wife the blessings of children.
They brought evil days.  They brought ill-luck and misfortune.  Nothing
could prevent their destructiveness.  These spirits, falling like rain
from the skies to the earth, could leap from house to house,
penetrating the doors like serpents.  Their dwelling-places were
scattered in {156} the marshes by the sea, where sickly pestilence
arose, and in the deserts, where the hot winds drifted the sands.
Sickness and disease were represented by the demons of pestilence and
of fever, which bring destruction upon man.  It was a religion of
fatalism, which held that man was ever attacked by unseen enemies
against whom there was no means of defense.  There was little hope in
life and none after death.  There was no immortality and no eternal
life.  These spirits were supposed to be under the control of sorcerers
and magicians or priests, resembling somewhat the medicine men of the
wild tribes of North America, who had power to compel them, and to
inflict death or disaster upon the objects of their censure and wrath.
Thus, these primitive peoples of early Chaldea were terrorized by the
spirits of the earth and by the wickedness of those who manipulated the

The only bright side of this picture was the creation of other spirits
conceived to be essentially good and beneficial, and to whom prayers
were directed for protection and help.  Such beings were superior to
all evil spirits, provided their support could be invoked.  So the
spirit of heaven and the spirit of earth both appealed to the
imagination of these primitive people, who thought that these unseen
creatures called gods possessed all knowledge and wisdom, which was
used to befriend and protect.  Especially would they look to the spirit
of earth as their particular protector, who had power to break the
spell of the spirits, compel obedience, and bring terror into the
hearts of the wicked ones.  Such, in brief, was the religious system
which these people created for themselves.  Later, after the Semitic
invasion, a system of religion developed more colossal in its
imagination and yet not less cruel in its final decrees regarding human
life and destiny.  It passed into the purely imaginative religion, and
the worship of the sun and moon and the stars gave man's imagination a
broader vision, even if it did not lift him to a higher standard of
moral conduct.

It is not known at what date these early civilizations began, {157} but
there is some evidence that the Akkadians appeared in the valley not
less than four thousand years before Christ, and that subsequently they
were conquered by the Elamites in the east, who obtained the supremacy
for a season, and then were reinforced by the Semitic peoples, who
ranged northeast, and, from northern Africa through Arabia, eastward to
the Euphrates.[1]

_Egypt Becomes a Centre of Civilization_.--The men of Egypt are
supposed to be related racially to the Caucasian people who dwelt in
the northern part of Africa, from whom they separated at a very early
period, and went into the Nile valley to settle.  Their present racial
connection makes them related to the well-known Berber type, which has
a wide range in northern Africa.  Some time after the departure of the
Hamitic branch of the Caucasian race into Egypt, it is supposed that
another people passed on beyond, entering Arabia, later spreading over
Assyria, Babylon, Palestine, and Phoenicia.  These were called the
Semites.  Doubtless, this passage was long continued and irregular, and
there are many intermixtures of the races now distinctly Berber and
Arabic, so that in some parts of Egypt, and north of Egypt, we find an
Arab-Berber mongrel type.  Doubtless, when the Egyptian stock of the
Berber type came into Egypt they found other races whose life dates
back to the early Paleolithic, as the stone implements found in the
hills and caves and graves showed not only Neolithic but Paleolithic
culture.  Also, the wavering line of Sudan negro types extended across
Africa from east to west and came in contact with the Caucasian stock
of northern Africa, and we find many negroid intermixtures.

The Egyptians, however, left to themselves for a number of centuries,
began rapid ascendency.  First, as before stated, their food supply was
permanent and abundant.  Second, there were inducements also for the
development of the art of measurement of land which later led to the
development of general principles of measurement.  There was
observation of {158} the sun and moon and the stars, and a development
of the art of building of stone and brick, out of which the vast
pyramid tombs of kings were built.  The artificers, too, had learned to
work in precious stones and metals and weave garments, also to write
inscriptions on tombs and also on the papyrus.  It would seem as if the
civilization once started through so many centuries had become
sufficiently substantial to remain permanent or to become progressive,
but Egypt was subject to a great many drawbacks.  The nation that has
the food supply of the world is sooner or later bound to come into
trouble.  So it appears in the case of Egypt, with her vast food
resources and accumulation of wealth; she was eventually doomed to the
attacks of jealous and envious nations.

The history of Egypt is represented by dynasties of kings and changes
of government through a long period interrupted by the invasion of
tribes from the west and the north, which interfered with the
uniformity of development.  It is divided into two great centres of
development, Lower Egypt, or the Delta, and Upper Egypt, frequently
differing widely in the character of civilization.  Yet, in the latter
part of her supremacy Egypt went to war with the Semitic peoples of
Babylon and Assyria for a thousand years.  It was the great granary of
the world and a centre of wealth and culture.

The kings of Egypt were despots who were regarded by the people as
gods.  They were the head not only of the state but of the religious
system, and consequently through this double headship were enabled to
rule with absolute sway.  The priesthood, together with a few nobles,
represented the intellectual and social aristocracy of the country.
Next to them were the warriors, who were an exclusive class.  Below
these came the shepherds and farmers, and finally the slaves.  While
the caste system did not prevail with as much rigidity here as in
India, all groups of people were bound by the influence of class
environment, from which they were unable to extricate themselves.
Poorer classes became so degraded that in times of famine they were
obliged to sell their liberty, their lives, or {159} their labor to
kings for food.  They became merely toiling animals, forced for the
want of bread to build the monuments of kings.  The records of Egyptian
civilization through art, writing, painting, sculpture, architecture,
and the great pyramids, obelisks, and sphinxes were but the records of
the glory of kings, built upon the shame of humanity.  True, indeed,
there was some advance in the art of writing, in the science of
astronomy and geometry, and the manufacture of glass, pottery, linens,
and silk in the industrial arts.  The revelations brought forth in
recent years from the tombs of these kings, where were stored the art
treasures representing the civilization of the time, exhibit something
of the splendors of royalty and give some idea of the luxuries of the
civilization of the higher classes.  Here were stored the finest
products of the art of the times.

The wonders of Egypt were manifested in the structure of the pyramids,
which were merely tombs of kings, which millions of laborers spent
their lives in building.  They represent the most stupendous structures
of ancient civilization whose records remain.  Old as they appear, as
we look backward to the beginning of history, they represent a
culminating period of Egyptian art.  Sixty-seven of these great
structures extended for about sixty miles above the city of Cairo,
along the edge of the Libyan Desert.  They are placed along the great
Egyptian natural burying place in the western side of the Nile valley,
as a sort of boulevard of the tombs of kings and nobles.  Most of them
are constructed of stone, although several are of adobe or sun-dried
brick.  The latter have crumbled into great conical mountains, like
those of the pyramid temples of Babylon.

The largest pyramid, Cheops, rises to a height of 480 feet, having a
base covering 13 acres.  The historian Herodotus relates that 120,000
men were employed for 20 years in the erection of this great structure.
It has never been explained how these people, not yet well developed in
practical mechanics, and not having discovered the use of steam and
with no {160} use of iron, could have reared these vast structures.
Besides the pyramids, great palaces and temples of the kings of Thebes
in Upper Egypt rivalled in grandeur the lonely pyramids of Memphis.
Age after age, century after century, witnessed the building of these
temples, palaces, and tombs.  It is said that the palace of Karnak, the
most wonderful structure of ancient or modern times, was more than five
hundred years in the process of building, and it is unknown how many
hundreds of thousands of men spent their lives for this purpose.

So, too, the mighty sphinxes and colossal statues excite the wonder and
admiration of the world.  Especially to be mentioned in this connection
are the colossi of Thebes, which are forty-seven feet high, each hewn
from a single block of granite.  Upon the solitary plain these mute
figures sat, serene and vigilant, keeping their untiring watch through
the passage of the centuries.

_The Coming of the Semites_.--While the ancient civilization at the
mouth of the Euphrates had its origin in primitive peoples from the
mountains eastward beyond the Euphrates, and the ancient Egyptian
civilization received its impetus from a Caucasian tribe of northern
Africa, the great civilization from the Mediterranean Sea to the Indus
River was developed by the Semites.  Westward from the Euphrates, over
Arabia, and through Syria to the Mediterranean coast were wandering
tribes of Arabs.  Perhaps the most typical ancient type of the Semitic
race is found in Arabia.  In these desert lands swarms of people have
passed from time to time over the known world.  Their early life was
pastoral and nomadic; hence they necessarily occupied a large territory
and were continually on the move.  The country appears to have been,
from the earliest historic records, gradually growing drier--having
less regular rainfall.

So these people were forced at times to the mountain valleys and the
grasslands of the north, and as far as the agricultural lands in the
river valleys, hovering around the settled districts for food supplies
for themselves and their herds.  After {161} the early settlement of
Sumer and Akkad, these Semitic tribes moved into the valley of the
Euphrates, and under Sargon I conquered ancient Babylonia at Akkad and
afterward extended the conquest south over Sumer.  They found two main
cities to the west of the Euphrates, Ur and Eridu.  Having invaded this
territory, they adopted the arts and industries already established,
but brought in the dominant power and language of the conquerors.  Four
successive invasions of these people into this territory eventually
changed the whole life into Semitic civilization.

Later a branch moved north and settled higher up on the Tigris,
founding the city of Nineveh.  The Elamites, another Semitic tribe on
the east of the Euphrates, founded the great cities of Susa and
Ecbatana.  Far to the northwest were the Armenian group of Semites, and
directly east on the shores of the Mediterranean were the Phoenicians.
This whole territory eventually became Semitic in type of civilization.
Also, the Hixos, or shepherd kings, invaded Egypt and dominated that
territory for two hundred years.  Later the Phoenicians became the
great sea-going people of the world and extended their colonies along
the coasts through Greece, Italy, northern Africa, and Spain.  So there
was the Semitic influence from the Pillars of Hercules far east to the
River Indus, in India.

Strange to say, the mighty empires of Babylon and Nineveh and Phoenicia
and Elam failed, while a little territory including the valley of the
Jordan, called Palestine, containing a small and insignificant branch
of the Semitic race, called Hebrews, developed a literature, language,
and religion which exercised a most powerful influence in all
civilizations even to the present time.

_The Phoenicians Became the Great Navigators_.--While the Phoenicians
are given credit for establishing the first great sea power, they were
not the first navigators.  Long before they developed, boats plied up
and down the Euphrates River, and in the island of Crete and elsewhere
the ancient Aegeans carried on their trade in ships with Egypt and the
eastern {162} Mediterranean.  The Aegean civilization preceded the
Greeks and existed at a time when Egypt and Babylon were young.  The
principal city of Cnossus exhibited also a high state of civilization,
as shown in the ruins discovered by recent explorers in the island of
Crete.  It is known that they had trade with early Egypt, but whether
their city was destroyed by an earthquake or by the savage Greek
pirates of a later day is undetermined.  The Phoenicians, however,
developed a strip of territory along the east shore of the
Mediterranean, and built the great cities of Tyre and Sidon.  From
these parent cities they extended their trade down through the
Mediterranean and out through the Pillars of Hercules, and founded
their colonies in Africa, Greece, Italy, and Spain.  Long after Tyre
and Sidon, the parent states, had declined, Carthage developed one of
the most powerful cities and governments of ancient times.  No doubt,
the Phoenicians deserve great credit for advancing shipbuilding, trade,
and commerce, and in extending their explorations over a wide range of
the known earth.  To them, also, we give credit for the perfection of
the alphabet and the manufacture of glass, precious stones, and dyes;
but their prominence in history appears in the long struggle between
the Carthaginians and the Romans.

_A Comparison of the Egyptian and Babylonian Civilizations_.--Taken as
a whole, there is a similarity in some respects between the Egyptian
and the Babylonian civilizations.  Coming from different racial groups,
from different centres, there must necessarily be contrasts in many of
the arts of life.  Egypt was an isolated country with a long river
flowing through its entire length, which brought from the mountains the
detritus which kept its valleys fertile.  Communication was established
through the whole length by boats, which had a tendency to promote
social intercourse and establish national life.  With the Mediterranean
on the north, the Red Sea on the east, and the Libyan Desert to the
west, it was tolerably well protected even though not shut in by high
mountain ranges.  Yet it was open at all times for the hardy invaders
who sought food for {163} flocks and herds and people.  There was
always "corn in Egypt" to those people suffering from drought in the
semi-arid districts of Africa and Arabia.

Nevertheless, while Egypt suffered many invasions, she maintained with
considerable constancy the ancient racial traits, and had a continuity
of development through the passing centuries which retained many of the
primitive characteristics.  The valley of the Euphrates was kept
fertile by the flow of the great rivers, the Tigris and Euphrates,
which, having a large watershed in the mountains, brought floods down
through the valleys bearing the silt which made the land fertile.  But
in both countries at an early period the population encroached upon the
natural supply of food, and methods of irrigation were introduced to
increase the food supply.  The attempts to build palaces, monuments,
and tombs were characteristic of both peoples.  On account of the
dryness of the climate, these great monuments have been preserved with
a freshness through thousands of years.  In the valley of the Euphrates
many of the cities that were reduced to ruin were covered with the
drifting sands and floods until they are buried beneath the surface.

In sculpture, painting, and in art, as well as in permanency of her
mighty pyramids, sphinxes, and tombs, Egypt stands far ahead of
Babylonia.  The difference is mainly expressed in action, for in Egypt
there is an expression of calm, solemnity, and peace in the largest
portions of the architectural works, while in Babylonia there is less
skill and more action.  The evidences of the type of civilization are
similar in one respect, namely, that during the thousand years of
development the great monuments were left to show the grandeur of
kings, monarchs, and priests, built by thousands of slaves suffering
from the neglect of their superiors through ages of toil.  Undoubtedly,
this failure to recognize the rights of suffering humanity gradually
brought destruction upon these great nations.  If the strength of a
great nation was spent in building up the mighty representations of the
glory and power of kings {164} to the neglect of the improvement of the
race as a whole, it could mean nothing else but final destruction.

While we contemplate with wonder the greatness of the monuments of the
pyramids and the sphinxes of Egypt and the winged bulls of Assyria, it
is a sad reflection on the cost of material and life which it took to
build them.  No wonder, then, that to-day, where once people lived and
thought and toiled, where nations grew and flourished, where fields
were tilled and harvests were abundant, and where the whole earth was
filled with national life, there is nothing remaining but a barren
waste and drifting sands, all because men failed to fully estimate real
human values and worth.  Marvellous as many of the products of these
ancient civilizations appear, there is comparatively little to show
when it is considered that four thousand years elapsed to bring them
about.  Mighty as the accomplishments were, the slow process of
development shows a lack of vital progress.  We cannot escape the idea
that the despotism existing in Oriental nations must have crushed out
the best life and vigor of a people.  It is mournful to contemplate the
destruction of these mighty civilizations, yet we may thoughtfully
question what excuse could be advanced for their continuance.

It is true that Egypt had an influence on Greece, which later became so
powerful in her influences on Western civilizations; and doubtless
Babylon contributed much to the Hebrews, who in turn have left a
lasting impression upon the world.  The method of dispersion of
cultures of a given centre shows that all races have been great
borrowers, and usually when one art, industry, or custom has been
thoroughly established, it may continue to influence other races after
the race that gave the product has passed away, or other nations, while
the original nation has perished.

_The Hebrews Made a Permanent Contribution to World
Civilization_.--Tradition, pretty well supported by history, shows that
Abraham came out of Ur of Chaldea about 1,900 years before Christ, and
with his family moved northward into {165} Haran for larger pasture for
his flocks on the grassy plains of Mesopotamia.  Thence he proceeded
westward to Palestine, made a trip to Egypt, and returned to the upper
reaches of the Jordan.  Here his tribe grew and flourished, and
finally, after the manner of pastoral peoples, moved into Egypt for
corn in time of drought.  There his people lived for several hundred
years, attached to the Egyptian nation, and adopting many phases of the
Egyptian civilization.  When he turned his back upon his people in
Babylon, he left polytheism behind.  He obtained conception of one
supreme being, ruler and creator of the universe, who could not be
shown in the form of an image made by man.

This was not the first time in the history of the human race when
nations had approximated the idea of one supreme God above all gods and
men, but it was the first time the conception that He was the only God
and pure monotheism obtained the supremacy.  No doubt, in the history
of the Hebrew development this idea came as a gradual growth rather
than as an instantaneous inspiration.  In fact, all nations who have
reached any advanced degree of religious development have approached
the idea of monotheism, but it remained for the Hebrews to put it in
practice in their social life and civil polity.  It became the great
central controlling thought of national life.

Compared with the great empires of Babylon and Nineveh and Egypt, the
Hebrew nation was small, crude, barbarous, insignificant, but the idea
of one god controlling all, who passed in conception from a god of
authority, imminence, and revenge, to a god of justice and
righteousness, who controlled the affairs of men, developed the Hebrew
concept of human relations.  It led them to develop a legal-ethical
system which became the foundation of the Hebrew commonwealth and
established a code of laws for the government of the nation, which has
been used by all subsequent nations as the foundation of the moral
element in their civil code.  Moses was not the first lawgiver of the
world of nations.  Indeed, before {166} Abraham left his ancient home
in Chaldea there was ruling in Babylon King Hammurabi, who formulated a
wise code of laws, said to be the first of which we have any record in
the history of the human race.  The Hebrew nation was always
subordinate to other nations, but after its tribes developed into a
kingdom and their king, Saul, was succeeded by David and Solomon, it
reached a high state of civilization in certain lines.  Yet, at its
best, under the reign of David and Solomon, it was upon the whole a
barbarous nation.  When the Hebrews were finally conquered and led into
captivity in Babylon, they reflected upon their ancient life, their
laws, their literature, and there was compiled a greater part of the
Bible.  This instrument has been greater than the palaces of Babylon or
the pyramids of Egypt, or great conquests of military hosts in the
perpetuation of the life of a nation.  Its history, its religion, its
literature in proverbs and songs, its laws, its moral code, all have
been enduring monuments that have lasted and will last as long as the
human race continues its attempt to establish justice among men.

_The Civilizations of India and China_.--Before leaving the subject of
the Oriental civilizations, at least brief mention must be made of the
development of the Hindu philosophy and religion.  In the valleys of
the great rivers of India, in the shadow of the largest mountains
rising to the skies, there developed a great people of great learning
and wonderful philosophy.  In their abstract conceptions they built up
the most wonderful and complex theogony and theology ever invented by
men.  This system, represented by elements of law, theology, philosophy
and language, literature and learning, is found in the Vedas and the
great literary remnants of the poets.  They reveal to us the intensity
of learning at the time of the highest development of the Indian
philosophy.  However, its influence, wrapped up in the Brahminical
religion of fatalism, was largely non-progressive.

Later, about 500 years before Christ, when Gautama Buddha developed his
ethical philosophy of life, new hope came {167} into the world.  But
this did not stay for the regeneration of India, but, rather, declined
and passed on into China and Japan.  The influence of Indian
civilization on Western civilization has been very slight, owing to the
great separation between the two, and largely because their objectives
have been different.  The former devoted itself to the reflection of
life, the latter resolved itself into action.  Nevertheless, we shall
find in the Greek philosophy and Greek religion shadows of the learning
of the Orient.  But the Hindu civilization, while developing much that
is grand and noble, like many Oriental civilizations, left the great
masses of the people unaided and unhelped.  When it is considered what
might have been accomplished in India, it is well characterized as a
"land of regrets."

In the dispersion of the human race over the earth, one of the first
great centres of culture was found in Thibet, in Asia.  Here is
supposed to be the origin of the Mongolian peoples, and the Chinese
represent one of the chief branches of the Mongolian race.  At a very
early period they developed an advanced stage of civilization with many
commendable features.  Their art, the form of pottery and porcelain,
their traditional codes of law, were influential in the Far East.
Their philosophy culminated in Confucius, who lived about 500 years
before Christ, and their religion was founded by Tao Tse, who existed
many centuries before.  He was the founder of the Taoan religion of
China.  But the civilization of China extended throughout the Far East,
spread into Korea, and then into Japan.  It has had very little contact
with the Western civilization, and its history is still obscure, but
there are many marvellous things done in China which are now in more
recent years being faithfully studied and recorded.  Their art in
porcelain and metals had its influence on other nations and has been of
a lasting nature.

_The Coming of the Aryans_.--The third great branch of the Caucasian
people, whose primitive home seems to have been in central Asia, is the
Aryan.  Somewhere north of the great {168} territory of the Semites,
there came gradually down into Nineveh and Babylon and through Armenia
a people of different type from the Semites and from the Egyptians.
They lived on the great grassy plains of central Asia, wandering with
their flocks and herds, and settling down long enough to raise a crop,
and then move on.  They lived a simple life, but were a vigorous,
thrifty, and family-loving people; and while the great civilization of
Babylon, Assyria, and Egypt was developing, they were pushing down from
the north.  They finally developed in Persia a great national life.

Subsequently, under Darius I, a great Aryan empire was established in
the seats of the old civilization which he had conquered, whose extent
was greater than the world had hitherto known.  It extended over the
old Assyrian and Babylonian empires, Egypt, Asia Minor, and Syria, in
Caucasian and Caspian regions; covered Media and Persia, and extended
into India as far as the Indus.  The old Semitic civilizations were
passing away, and the control of the Aryan race was appearing.  Later
these Persians found themselves at war with the Greeks, who were of the
same racial stock.  The Persian Empire was no great improvement over
the later Babylonian and Assyrian Empires.  It had become more
specifically a world empire, which set out to conquer and plunder other
nations.  It might have been enlightened to a certain extent, but it
had received the idea of militarism and conquest.  It was the first
great empire of the Orient to come in contact with a rising Western
civilization, then centering in Greece.

This Aryan stock, when considered in Europe or Western civilization, is
known as the Nordic race.  In the consideration of Western civilization
further discussion will be given of the origin and dispersion of this


1.  Study the economic foundation of Egypt.  Babylon.  Arabia.

2.  Why did Oriental nations go to war?  Show by example.

3.  What did Egypt and Babylon contribute of lasting value to


4.  What was the Hebrew contribution?

5.  Why did these ancient empires decline and disappear?

6.  Study the points of difference between the civilization of Babylon
and Egypt and Western civilization.

7.  Contrast the civilization of India and China with Western

[1] L. W. King, _History of Sumer and Akkad_.  _History of Babylon_.




_The Governments of the Early Oriental Civilizations_.--In comparing
the Oriental civilizations which sprang up almost independently in
different parts of Asia and Africa with European civilizations, we
shall be impressed with the despotism of these ancient governments.  It
is not easy to determine why this feature should have been so
universal, unless it could be attributed to human traits inherent in
man at this particular stage of his development.  Perhaps, also, in
emerging from a patriarchal state of society, where small, independent
groups were closely united with the oldest male member as leader and
governor of all, absolute authority under these conditions was
necessary for the preservation of the tribe or group, and it became a
fixed custom which no one questioned.

Subsequently, when the population increased around a common centre and
various tribes and groups were subjected to a central organization, the
custom of absolute rule was transferred from the small group to the
king, who ruled over all.  Also, the nature of most of these
governments may have been influenced by the type of religion which
prevailed.  It became systematized under the direction of priests, who
stood between the people and the great unknown, holding absolute sway
but working on the emotion of fear.  Perhaps, also, a large group of
people with a limited food supply were easily reduced to a state of
slavery and dwelt in a territory as a mass of unorganized humanity,
subservient only to the superior directing power.  It appears to be a
lack of organized popular will.  The religions, too, looked intensely
to the authority of the past, developing fixity of customs, habits,
laws, {171} and social usages.  These conditions were conducive to the
exercise of the despotism of those in power.

_War Existed for Conquest and Plunder_.--The kings of these Oriental
despotisms seemed to be possessed with inordinate vanity, and when once
raised to power used not only all the resources of the nation and of
the people for magnifying that power, but also used the masses of the
people at home at labor, and abroad in war, for the glory of the
rulers.  Hence, wars of conquest were frequent, always accompanied with
the desire for plunder of territory, the wealth of temples, and the
coffers of the rulers.  Many times wars were based upon whims of kings
and rulers and trivial matters, which can only be explained through
excessive egoism and vanity; yet in nearly every instance the idea of
conquest was to increase the wealth of the nation and power of the king
by going to war.  There was, of course, jealousy of nations and rivalry
for supremacy, as the thousand years of war between Egypt and Babylonia
illustrates, or as the conquest of Babylon by Assyria, or, indeed, the
later conquest of the whole East by the Persian monarchs, testifies.
These great wars were characterized by the crude struggle and slaughter
of hordes of people.  Not until the horse and chariot came into use was
there any great improvement in methods of warfare.  Bronze weapons and,
later, iron were used in most of these wars.  It was merely barbarism
going to war with barbarism in order to increase barbaric splendor.

_Religious Belief Was an Important Factor in Despotic Government_.--In
the beginning we shall find that animism, or the belief in spirits, was
common to all nations and tribes.  There was in the early religious
life of people a wild, unorganized superstition, which brought them in
subjection to the control of the spirits of the world.  In the slow
development of the masses, these ideas always remained prominent, and
however highly developed religious life became, however pure the system
of religious philosophy and religious worship, as represented by the
most intelligent and farthest advanced of the {172} people, it yet
remains true that the masses of the people were mastered and ruled by a
gross superstition; and possibly this answers the question to a large
extent as to why the religion of the Orient could, on the one hand,
reach such heights of purity of spirit and worship and, on the other,
such a degradation in thought, conception, and practice.  It could
reach to the skies with one arm and into the grossest phases of
nature-worship with the other.

It appears the time came when, as a matter of self-defense, man must
manipulate and control spirits to save himself from destruction, and
there were persons particularly adapted to this process, who formed the
germs of the great system of priesthood.  They stood between the masses
and the spirits, and as the system developed and the number of priests
increased, they became the ones who ruled the masses in place of the
spirits.  The priesthood, then, wherever it has developed a great
system, has exercised an almost superhuman power over the ignorant, the
debased, and the superstitious.  It was the policy of kings to
cultivate and protect this priesthood, and it was largely this which
enabled them to have power over the masses.  Having once obtained this
power, and the military spirit having arisen in opposition to foreign
tribes, the priests were at the head of the military, religious, and
civil systems of the nation.  Indeed, the early king was the high
priest of the tribe, and he inherited through long generations the
particular function of leader of religious worship.

It will be easy to conceive that where the art of embalming was carried
on, people believed in the future life of the soul.  The religious
system of the Egyptians was, indeed, of very remarkable character.  The
central idea in their doctrine was the unity of God, whom they
recognized as the one Supreme Being, who was given the name of Creator,
Eternal Father, to indicate the various characters in which he
appeared.  This pure monotheism was seldom grasped by the great masses
of the people; indeed, it is to be supposed that many of the priestly
order scarcely rose to its pure conceptions.  But there {173} were
other groups or dynasties of gods which were worshipped throughout
Egypt.  These were mostly mythical beings, who were supposed to perform
especial functions in the creation and control of the universe.  Among
these Osiris and Isis, his wife and sister, were important, and their
worship common throughout all Egypt.  Osiris came upon the earth in the
interests of mankind, to manifest the true and the good in life.  He
was put to death by the machinations of the evil spirit, was buried and
rose, and became afterward the judge of the dead.  In this we find the
greatest mystery in the Egyptian religion.  Typhon was the god of the
evil spirits, a wicked, rebellious devil, who held in his grasp all the
terrors of disease and of the desert.  Sometimes he was in the form of
a frightful serpent, again in the form of a crocodile or hippopotamus.

Seeking through the light of religious mystery to explain all the
natural phenomena observed in physical nature, the Egyptians fell into
the habit of coarse animal worship.  The cat, the snake, the crocodile,
and the bull became sacred animals, to kill which was the vilest
sacrilege.  Even if one was so unfortunate as to kill one of these
sacred animals by accident, he was in danger of his life at the hands
of the infuriated mob.  It is related that a Roman soldier, having
killed a sacred cat, was saved from destruction by the multitude only
by the intercession of the great ruler Ptolemy.  The taking of the life
of one of these sacred creatures caused the deepest mourning, and
frequently the wildest terror, while every member of the family shaved
his head at the death of a dog.

There was symbolism, too, in all this worship.  Thus the scarabeus, or
beetle, which was held to be especially sacred, was considered as the
emblem of the sun.  Thousands of these relics may be found in the
different museums, having been preserved to the present time.  The
bull, Apis, not only was a sacred creature, but was held to be a real
god.  It was thought that the soul of Osiris pervaded the spirit of the
bull, and at the bull's death it passed on into that of his successor.
The worship of the lower forms of life led to a coarseness in religious
{174} belief and practice.  How it came about is difficult to
ascertain.  It is supposed by some scholars that the animal worship had
its origin in the low form of worship belonging to the indigenous
tribes of Egypt, and that the higher order was introduced by the
Hamites, or perhaps by the Semites who mingled with and overcame the
original inhabitants of the Nile valley.  In all probability, the
advanced ideas of religious belief and thought were the essential
outcome of the learning and speculative philosophy of the Egyptians,
while the old animal worship became the most convenient for the great
masses of low and degraded beings who spent their lives in building
tombs for the great.

The religious life of the Egyptians was protected and guarded by an
elaborate priesthood.  It formed a perfect hierarchy of priest, high
priest, scribes, keepers of the sacred robes and animals, sculptors,
embalmers, besides all the attendants upon the services of worship and
religion.  Not only was this class privileged among all the castes of
Egypt as representing the highest class of individuals, but it enjoyed
immunity from taxation and had the privilege of administering the
products of one-third of the land to carry on the expenses of the
temple and religious worship.  The ceremonial life of the priests was
almost perfect.  Scrupulous in the care of their person, they bathed
twice each day and frequently at night, and every third day shaved the
entire body.  Their linen was painfully neat, and they lived on plain,
simple food, as conducive to the service of religion.  They exerted a
great power not only over the religious life of the Egyptians but, on
account of the peculiar relation of religion to government, over the
entire development of Egypt.

The religion of Oriental nations was non-progressive in its nature.  It
had a tendency to repress freedom of thought and freedom of action.
Connected as it was with the binding influence of caste, man could not
free himself from the dictates of religion.  The awful sublimity of
nature found its counterpart in the terrors of religion; and that
religion attempted to {175} answer all the questions that might arise
concerning external nature.  It rested upon the basis of authority
built through ages of tradition, and through a continuous domineering
priest-craft.  The human mind struggling within its own narrow bounds
could not overcome the stultifying and sterilizing influence of such a
religion.  The lower forms of religion were "of the earth, earthy."
The higher forms consisted of such abstract conceptions concerning the
creation of the earth, and the manipulation of all the forces of nature
and the control of all the powers of man, as to be entirely
non-progressive.  There could be no independent scientific
investigation.  There could be no rational development of the mind.
The religion of the Orient brought gloom to the masses and cut off hope
forever.  The people became subject to the grinding forces of fate.
How, then, could there be intellectual development based upon freedom
of action?  How could there be any higher life of the soul, any moral
culture, any great advancement in the arts and sciences, or any popular
expression regarding war and government?

_Social Organization Was Incomplete_.--All social organization tended
toward the common centre, the king, and there was very little local
organization except as it was necessary to bring the people under
control of official rule.  There were apparently very few voluntary
associations.  Among the nobility, the priests, and ladies of rank, we
find frequently elaborate costumes of dress, manifold ornaments,
necklaces, rings, and earrings; but whatever went to the rich seemed to
be a deprivation of the poor.  Indeed, when we consider that it cost
only a few shillings at most to rear a child to the age of twenty-one
years in Egypt, we can imagine how meagre and stinted that life must
have been.  The poorer classes of people dressed in a very simple
style, wearing a single linen shirt and over it a woollen mantle; while
among the very poor much less was worn.

However, it seems that there was time for some of the population to
engage in sports such as laying snares for birds, {176} angling for
fish, popular hunts, wrestling, playing checkers, chess, and ball, and
it appears that many of these people were gifted in these sports.  Just
what classes of people engaged in this leisure is difficult to
determine.  Especially in the case of Egypt, most of the people were
condemned to hard and toilsome labor.  Probably the nobility and people
of wealth were the only classes who had time for sports.  The great
temples and palaces were built with solid masonry of stone and brick,
but the dwelling-houses were constructed in a light, graceful style,
surrounded with long galleries and terraces common at this period of
development in Oriental civilization.  The gardening was symmetrical
and accurate, the walks led in well-defined lines and were carefully
conventional.  The rooms of the houses, too, were well arranged and
tastefully decorated, and members of the household distributed in its
generous apartments, each individual finding his special place for
position and service.

For the comparatively small number of prosperous and influential
people, life was refined and luxurious so far as the inventions and
conveniences for comfort would permit.  They had well-constructed and
well-appointed houses, and, judging from the relics discovered in tombs
and from the records and inscriptions, people wore richly decorated
clothing and lovely jewels.  They had numerous feasts with music and
dancing and servants to wait upon them in every phase of life.  It is
related, too, that excursions were common in summer on the great
rivers.  But even though there was a life of ease among the wealthy,
they were without many comforts known to modern times.  They had cotton
and woollen fabrics for clothing, but no silk.  They had dentists and
doctors in those days, and teeth were filled with gold as in modern
times.  Their articles of food consisted of meat and vegetables, but
there were no hens and no eggs.  They used the camel in Mesopotamia and
walked mostly in Egypt, or went by boat on the river.  However, when we
consider the change of ancient Babylon to Nineveh, and the Egyptian
civilization of old Thebes to that {177} which developed later, there
is evidence of progress.  The religious life lost a good many of its
crudities, abolished human sacrifice, and developed a refined mysticism
which was more elevating than the crude nature-worship.

The rule of caste which settled down over the community in this early
period relegated every individual to his particular place.  From this
place there could be no escape.  The common laborers moving the great
blocks of stone to build the mighty pyramids of the valley of the Nile
could be nothing but common laborers.  And their sons and their
daughters for generation after generation must keep the same sphere of
life.  And though the warriors fared much better, they, too, were
confined to their own group.  The shepherd class must remain a shepherd
class forever; they could never rise superior to their own
surroundings.  So, too, in Babylon and India.  There was, indeed, a
slight variation from the caste system in Egypt and in Babylon, but in
India it settled down from the earliest times, and the people and their
customs were crystallized; they were bound by the chain of fate in the
caste system forever.  We shall see, then, that the relation of the
population to the soil and the binding influences of early custom
tended to develop despotism in Oriental civilization.

The result of all this was that there was no freedom or liberty of the
individual anywhere.  With caste and despotism and degradation men
moved forward in political and religious life as on a plane which
inclined so slightly that, except as we look over its surface through
the passing centuries, little change can be observed.  The king was a
god; the government possessed supernatural power; its authority was not
to be questioned.  The rule of the army was final.  The cruelty of
kings and the oppression of government were customary, and thus crushed
and oppressed, the ordinary individual had no opportunity to arise and
walk in the dignity of his manhood.  The government, if traced to its
source at all, was of divine origin, and though those who ruled might
stop to consider for an instant their own despotic actions, and in
special cases yield {178} in clemency to their subjects, from the
subject's standpoint there could be nothing but to yield to the
despotism of kings and the unrelenting rule of government.

We shall find, then, that with all of the efforts put forth the greater
part was wasted.  Millions of people were born, lived, and died,
leaving scarcely a mark of their existence.  No wonder that, as the
great kings of Egypt saw the wasting elements of time, the waste of
labor in its dreary rounds, having employed the millions in building
the mighty temples dedicated to the worship of the gods; or having
built great canals and aqueducts to develop irrigation that greater
food supply might be assured, thus observing the majesty of their
condition in relation to other human beings, they should have employed
these millions of serfs in building their own tombs and monuments to
remain the only lasting vestige of the civilization long since passed
away.  Everywhere in the Oriental civilization, then, are lack of
freedom and the appearance of despotism.  Everywhere is evidence of
waste of individual life.  No deep conception can be found in either
the philosophy or the practice of the Egyptians or the Babylonians of
the real object of human life.  And yet the few meagre products of art
and of learning handed down to European civilization from these
Oriental countries must have had a vast influence in laying the
foundations of modern civilized life.

_Economic Influences_.--In the first place, the warm climate of these
countries required but little clothing; for a few cents a year a person
could be clothed sufficiently to protect himself from the climate and
to observe the rules of modesty so far as they existed in those times.
In the second place, in hot climates less food is required than in
cold.  In cold countries people need a large quantity of heavy, oily
foods, while in hot climates they need a lighter food and, indeed, less
of it.  Thus we have in these fertile valleys of the Orient the
conditions which supply sustenance for millions at a very small amount
of exertion or labor.  Now, it is a well-established fact that cheap
food among classes of people who have not developed {179} a high state
of civilization favors a rapid increase of population.  The records
show in Babylon and Egypt, as well as in Palestine, that the population
multiplied at a very rapid rate.  And this principle is enhanced by the
fact that in tropical climates, where less pressure of want and cold is
brought to bear, the conditions for successful propagation of the human
race are present.  And this is one reason why the earliest
civilizations have always been found in tropical climates, and it was
not until man had more vigor of constitution and higher development of
physical and mental powers that he could undertake the mastery of
himself and nature under less favorable circumstances.

The result was that human life became cheap.  The great mass of men
became so abundant as to press upon the food supply to its utmost
limit.  And they who had the control of this food supply controlled the
bodies and souls of the great poverty-stricken mass who toiled for
daily bread.  Here we find the picture of abject slavery of the masses.
The rulers, through the government, strengthened by the priests, who
held over the masses of the lower people in superstitious awe the
tenets of their faith, forced them into subjection.  There was no value
placed upon a human life; why, then, should there be upon the masses of

We shall find, too, as the result of all this, that the civilization
became more or less stationary.  True, there must have been a slow
development of religious ideas, a slow development of art, a slow
development of government, and yet when the type was once set there was
but little change from century to century in the relation of human
beings to one another, and their relation to the products of nature.
When we consider the accomplishments of these people we must not forget
the length of time it took to produce them.  Reckon back from the
present time 6,000 years, and then consider what has been accomplished
in America in the last century.  Think back 2,000 years, and see what
had been accomplished in Rome from the year of the founding of the
imperial city until the Caesars lived {180} in their mighty palaces, a
period of seven and a half centuries.  Observe, too, what was
accomplished in Greece from the time of Homer until the time of
Aristotle, a period of about six and a half centuries; then observe the
length of time it took to develop the Egyptian civilization, and we
shall see its slow progress.  It is also to be observed that the
Egyptian civilization had reached its culmination when Greece began,
and had begun its slow decline.  After considering this we shall
understand that the civilization of Egypt finally became stationary,
conventionalized, non-progressive; that it was only a question of time
when other nations should rule the land of the Pharaohs, and that sands
should drift where once were populous cities, covering the relics of
this ancient civilization far beneath the surface.

The progress in industrial arts and the use of implements was, of
necessity, very slow.  Where the laboring man was considered of little
value, treated as a mere physical machine, to be fed and used for
mechanical purposes alone, it mattered little with what tools he
worked.  In the building of the pyramids we find no mighty engines for
the movement of the great stones, we find no evidence of mechanical
genius to provide labor-saving machines.  The inclined plane and
rollers, the simplest of all contrivances, were about the only
inventions.  Also, in the buildings of Babylon, the tools with which
men worked must of necessity have been very poor.  It is remarkable to
what extent modern invention depends upon the elevation of the standard
of life of labor, and how man through intelligence continually makes
certain contrivances for the perfection of human industry.  However, if
we consider the ornaments used to adorn the person, or for the service
of the rich, or the elaborate clothing of the wealthy, we shall find
quite a high state of development in these lines, showing the greatest
contrast between the condition of the laboring multitudes on the one
hand and the luxurious few on the other.  Along this line of the rapid
development of ornaments we find evidence of luxury and ease, and, in
the slow development of {181} industrial arts, the sacrifice of labor.
And all of the advancement in the mighty works of art and industry was
made at the sacrifice of human labor.

To sum this up, we find, then, that the influence of despotic
government, of the binding power of caste, of the prevalence of custom,
of the influence of priestcraft, the retarding power of a
non-progressive religion, concentration of intelligence in a privileged
class that seeks its own ease, the slow development of industrial
implements, and the rapid development of ornaments, brought decay.  We
see in all of this a retarding of improvement, a stagnation of
organizing effort, and the crystallization of ancient civilization
about old forms, to be handed down from generation to generation
without progress.

_Records, Writing, and Paper_.--At an early period papyrus, a paper
made of a reed that grows along the Nile valley, was among the first
inventions.  It was the earliest artificial writing material discovered
by any nation of which we have a record; and we are likely to remember
it from its two names, _biblos_ and _papyrus_, for from these come two
of our most common words, bible and paper.  Frequently, however,
leather, pottery, tiles, and stone, and even wooden tablets, were used
as substitutes for the papyrus.  In the early period the Egyptians used
the hieroglyphic form of writing, which consisted of rude pictures of
objects which had a peculiar significance.  Finally the hieratic
simplified this form by symbolizing and conventionalizing to a large
extent the hieroglyphic characters.  Later came the demotic, which was
a further departure from the old concrete form of representation, and
had the advantage of being more readily written than either of the
others.[1]  These characters were used to inscribe the deeds of kings
on monuments and tablets, and when in 1798 the key to the Egyptian
writing was obtained through means of the Rosetta stone, the
opportunity for a large addition to the history of Egypt was made.
Strange as it may seem, these ancient people had written romances and
fairy tales; one especially to be mentioned {182} is the common
_Cinderella and the Glass Slipper_, written more than thirteen
centuries B.C.  But in addition to these were published documents,
private letters, fables, epics, and autobiographies, and treatises on
astronomy, medicine, history, and scientific subjects.

The Babylonians and Assyrians developed the cuneiform method of
writing.  They had no paper, but made their inscriptions on clay
tablets and cylinders.  These were set away in rooms called libraries.
The discovery of the great library of Ashur-bani-pal, of Nineveh,
revealed the highest perfection of this ancient method of recording

The art of Egypt was manifested in the dressing of precious stones, the
weaving of fine fabrics, and fine work in gold ornaments.  Sculpture
and painting were practically unknown as arts, although the use of
colors was practised to a considerable extent.  Artistic energy was
worked out in the making of the tombs of kings, the obelisks, the
monuments, the sphinxes, and the pyramids.  It was a conception of the
massive in artistic expression.  In Babylon and Nineveh, especially the
latter, the work of sculpture in carving the celebrated winged bulls
gives evidence of the attempt to picture power and strength rather than
beauty.  Doubtless the Babylonians developed artistic taste in the
manufacture of jewelry out of precious stones and gold.

_The Beginnings of Science Were Strong in Egypt, Weak in Babylon_.--The
greatest expression of the Egyptian learning was found in science.  The
work in astronomy began at a very early date from a practical
standpoint.  The rising of the Nile occurred at a certain time
annually, coinciding with the time of the rise of the Dog-star, which
led these people to imagine that they stood in the relation of effect
and cause, and from these simple data began the study of astronomy.
The Egyptians, by the study of the movement of the stars, were enabled
to determine the length of the sidereal year, which they divided into
twelve months, of thirty days each, adding five days to complete the
year.  This is the calendar which was {183} introduced from Egypt into
the Roman Empire by Julius Caesar.  It was revised by Pope Gregory XIII
in 1582, and has since been the universal system for the Western
civilized world.  Having reached their limit of fact in regard to the
movement of the heavenly bodies, their imagination related the stars to
human conduct, and astrology became an essential outcome.  It was easy
to believe that the heavenly bodies, which, apparently, had such great
influence in the rise of the river and in the movement of the tides,
would have either a good influence or a baneful influence, not only
over the vegetable world but upon human life and human destiny as well.
Hence, astrology, in Egypt as in Babylonia, became one of the important

From the measurement of the Nile and the calculation of the lands,
which must be redistributed after each annual overflow, came the system
of concrete measurement which later developed into the science of
geometry.  Proceeding from the simple measurement of land, step by step
were developed the universal abstract problems of geometry, and the
foundation for this great branch of mathematics was laid.  The use of
arithmetic in furnishing numerical expressions in the solution of
geometrical and arithmetical problems became common.

The Egyptians had considerable knowledge of many drugs and medicines,
and the physicians of Egypt had a great reputation among the ancients;
for every doctor was a specialist and pursued his subject and his
practice to the utmost limit of fact and theory.  But the physician
must treat cases according to customs already established in the past.
There was but little opportunity for the advancement of his art.  Yet
it became very much systematized and conventionalized.  The study of
anatomy developed also the art of embalming, one of the most
distinctive features of Egyptian civilization.  This art was carried on
by the regular physicians, who made use of resins, oils, bitumens, and
various gums.  It was customary to embalm the bodies of wealthy persons
by filling them with resinous substances and wrapping them closely in
linen {184} bandages.  The poorer classes were cured very much as beef
is cured before drying, and then wrapped in coarse garments preparatory
to burial.  The number of individuals who were thus disposed of after
death is estimated at not less than 420,000,000 between 2000 B.C. and
700 A.D.

_The Contribution to Civilization_.--The building of the great empires
on the Tigris and Euphrates had a tendency to collect the products of
civilization so far as they existed, and to distribute them over a
large area.  Thus, the industries that began in early Sumer and Akkad,
coming from farther east, were passed on to Egypt and Phoenicia and
were further distributed over the world.  Especially is this true in
the work of metals, the manufacture of glass, and the development of
the alphabet, which probably originated in Babylon and was improved by
the Phoenicians, and, through them as traders, had a wide dispersion.
Perhaps one ought to consider that the study of the stars and the
heavenly bodies, although it led no farther than astrology and the
development of magic, was at least a beginning, although in a crude
way, of an inquiry into nature.

In Egypt, however, we find that there was more or less scientific study
and invention and development of reflective thinking.  Moreover, the
advancement in the arts of life, especially industrial, had great
influence over the Greeks, whose early philosophers were students of
the Egyptian system.  Also, the contact of the Hebrews and Phoenicians
with Egypt gave a strong coloring to their civilization.  Especially is
this true of the Hebrews, who dwelt so long in the shadow of the
Egyptian civilization.  The Hebrews, after their captivity in Babylon,
contributed the Bible, with its sacred literature, to the world, which
with its influence through the legal-ethicalism, or moral code, its
monotheistic doctrines, and its attempted development of a commonwealth
based on justice, had a lasting influence on civilization.  But in the
life of the Hebrew people in Palestine its influence on surrounding
nations was not so great as in the later times when the Jews were
scattered over the {185} world.  The Bible has been a tremendous
civilizer of the world.  Hebrewism became a universal state of mind,
which influenced all nations that came in contact with it.

But what did this civilization leave to the world?  The influence of
Egypt on Greece and Greek philosophy must indeed have been great, for
the greatest of the Greeks looked upon the Egyptian philosophy as the
expression of the highest wisdom.  Nor can we hesitate in claiming that
the influence of the Egyptians upon the Hebrews was considerable.
There is a similarity in many respects between the Egyptian and the
Hebrew code of learning; but the art and the architecture, the learning
and the philosophy, had their influence likewise on all surrounding
nations as soon as Egypt was opened up to communication with other
parts of the world.  A careful study of the Greek philosophy brings
clearly before us the influence of the Egyptian learning.  Thus Thales,
the first of the philosophers to break away from the Grecian religion
and mythology to inquire into the natural cause of the universe, was a
student of Egyptian life and philosophy.


1.  What are the evidences of civilization discovered in
Tut-Ankh-Amen's tomb?

2.  Give an outline of the chief characteristics of Egyptian

3.  What caused the decline of Egyptian civilization?

4.  What did Oriental civilization contribute to the subsequent welfare
of the world?

5.  The influence of climate on industry in Egypt and Babylon.

6.  Why did the Egyptian religion fail to improve the lot of the common

7.  Retarding influence of the caste system in India and Egypt.

[1] See Chapter VII.




_America Was Peopled from the Old World_.--The origin of the people of
America has been the subject of perennial controversy.  Gradually,
however, as the studies of the human race and their migrations have
increased, it is pretty well established that the one stream of
migration came from Asia across a land connection along the Aleutian
Islands, which extended to Alaska.  At an early period, probably from
15,000 to 20,000 years age, people of the Mongoloid type crossed into
America and gradually passed southward, some along the coast line,
others through the interior of Alaska and thence south.  This stream of
migration continued down through Mexico, Central America, South
America, and even to Patagonia.  It also had a reflex movement eastward
toward the great plains and the Mississippi valley.  There is a
reasonable conjecture, however, that another stream of migration passed
from Europe at a time when the British Islands were joined to the
mainland, and the great ice cap made a solid bridge to Iceland,
Greenland, and possibly to Labrador.  It would have been possible for
these people to have come during the third glacial period, at the close
of the Old Stone Age, or soon after in the Neolithic period.  The
traditions of the people on the west coast all state their geographical
origin in the northwest.  The traditions of the Indians of the Atlantic
coast trace their origins to the northeast.

The people of the west coast are mostly of the round-headed type
(brachycephalic), while those of the east coast have been of the
long-headed type (dolichocephalic).  The two types have mingled in
their migration southward until we have the long heads and the round or
broad heads extending the whole {187} length of the two continents.
Intermingled with these are those of the middle derivative type, or
mesocephalic.  From these sources there have developed on the soil of
America, the so-called American Indians of numerous tribes, each with
its own language and with specialized physical and mental types.  While
the color of the skin has various shades, the coarse, straight black
hair and brown eyes are almost general features of the whole Indian

At different centres in both North and South America, tribes have
become more or less settled and developed permanent phases of early
civilization, strongly marked by the later Neolithic cultures.  In some
exceptional cases, the uses of copper, bronze, and gold are to be
noted.  Perhaps the most important centres are those of the Incas in
Peru, the Mayas, Aztecs, and Terra-humares of Mexico, the
cliff-dwellers and Pueblos of southwestern United States, the
mound-builders of the Mississippi valley, and the Iroquois nation of
northeastern United States and Canada.  At the time of the coming of
the Europeans to America, the Indian population in general was nomadic,
in the hunter-fisher stage of progress; but many of the tribes had
tentatively engaged in agriculture, cultivating maize, squashes, and in
some cases fruits.  Probably the larger supply of food was from
animals, birds, fish, and shell-fish, edible roots and grains, such as
the wild rice, and fruits from the native trees in the temperate and
tropical countries.  The social organization was based upon the family
and the tribe, and, in a few instances, a federation of tribes like
that of the Iroquois nation.

_The Incas of Peru_.--When the Spaniards under Pizarro undertook the
conquest of the Peruvians, they found the Inca civilization at its
highest state of development.  However, subsequent investigations
discovered other and older seats of civilization of a race in some ways
more highly developed than those with whom they came in contact.  Among
the evidences of this ancient civilization were great temples built of
stone, used as public buildings for the administration of religious
{188} rights [Transcriber's note: rites?], private buildings of
substantial order, and paved roads with numerous bridges.  There were
likewise ruins of edifices apparently unfinished, and traditions of an
ascendent race which had passed away before the development of the
Incas of Pizarro's time.  In the massive architecture of their
buildings there was an attempt to use sculpture on an elaborate scale.
They showed some skill in the arts and industries, such as ornamental
work in gold, copper, and tin, and the construction of pottery on a
large scale.  They had learned to weave and spin, and their clothing
showed some advancement in artistic design.

In agriculture they raised corn and other grains, and developed a state
of pastoral life, although the llama was the only domesticated animal
of service.  Great aqueducts were built and fertilizers were used to
increase the productive value of the soil.  The dry climate of this
territory necessitated the use of water by irrigation, and the limited
amount of tillable soil had forced them to use fertilizers to get the
largest possible return per acre.

The Peruvians, or Incas, were called the children of the sun.  They had
a sacred feeling for the heavenly bodies, and worshipped the sun as the
creator and ruler of the universe.  They had made some progress in
astronomy, by a characterization of the sun and moon and chief planets,
mostly for a religious purpose.  However, they had used a calendar to
represent the months, the year, and the changing seasons.  Here, as
elsewhere in primitive civilization, religion becomes an important
factor in social control.  The priest comes in as the interpreter and
controller of mysteries, and hence an important member of the
community.  Religious sacrifices among the Peruvians were commonly of
an immaculate nature, being mostly of fruits and flowers.  This
relieved them of the terrors of human sacrifices so prevalent in early
beginnings of civilization where religion became the dominant factor of
life.  Hence their religious life was more moderate than that of many
nations where religious control was more powerful.  Yet in governmental
{189} affairs and in social life, here as in other places, religion was
made the means of enslaving the masses of the people.

The government of the Incas was despotic.  It was developed through the
old family and tribal life to a status of hereditary aristocracy.
Individuals of the oldest families became permanent in government, and
these were aided and supported by the priestly order.  Caste prevailed
to a large extent, making a great difference between the situation of
the nobility and the peasants and slaves.  Individuals born into a
certain group must live and die within that group.  Hence the people
were essentially peaceable, quiet, and not actively progressive.  But
we find that the social life, in spite of the prominence of the priest
and the nobility, was not necessarily burdensome.  Docile and passive
in nature, they were ready to accept what appeared to them a
well-ordered fate.  If food, clothing, and shelter be furnished, and
other desires remain undeveloped, and life made easy, what occasion was
there for them to be moved by nobler aspirations?  Without higher
ideals, awakened ambition, and the multiplication of new desires, there
was no hope of progress.  The people seemed to possess considerable
nobility of character, and were happy, peaceful, and well disposed
toward one another, even though non-progressive conditions gave
evidence that they had probably reached the terminal bud of progress of
their branch of the human race.

As to what would have been the outcome of this civilization had not the
ruthless hand of the Spaniard destroyed it, is a matter of conjecture.
How interesting it would have been if these people could have remained
unmolested for 400 years as an example of progress or retardation of a
race.  Students then could, through observation, have learned a great
lesson concerning the development of the human race.  Is it possible
when a branch of the human race has only so much potential power based
upon hereditary development, upon attitude toward life, and upon
influence of environmental conditions, that after working out its
normal existence it grows old and decays and dies, just as even the
sturdy oak has its normal life {190} and decay?  At any rate, it seems
that the history of the human race repeats itself over and over again
with thousands of examples of this kind.  When races become highly
specialized along certain lines and are unadaptable along other lines,
changes in climate, soil, food supply, or conflict with other races
cause them to perish.

If we admit this to be the universal fate of tribes and races, there is
one condition in which the normal life of the race can be prolonged,
and that is by contact with other races which bring in new elements,
and make new accommodations, not only through biological heredity, but
through social heredity which causes a new lease of life to the tribe.
Of course the deteriorating effects of a race of less culture would
have a tendency to shorten the spiritual if not the physical life of
the race.  Whatever conjecture we may have as to the past and the
probable future of such a race, it is evident that the Peruvians had
made a strong and vigorous attempt at civilization.  Their limited
environment and simple life were not conducive to progressive ideas,
and gave little inducement for inventive genius to lead the race
forward.  But even as we find them, the sum-total of their civilization
compares very favorably with the sum-total of the civilization of the
Spaniards, who engaged to complete their destruction.  Different were
these Spaniards in culture and learning, it is true, but their great
difference is in the fact that the Spaniards had the tools and
equipment for war and perhaps a higher state of military organization
than the peace-loving Peruvians.

_Aztec Civilization in Mexico_.--When Cortez in 1525 began his conquest
of Mexico, he found a strong political organization under the Emperor
Montezuma, who had through conquest, diplomacy, and assumption of power
united all of the tribes in and around Mexico City in a strong
federation.  These people were made up of many different tribes.  At
this period they did not show marked development in any particular
line, except that of social organization.  The people that occupied
this great empire ruled by Montezuma, with the seat of power {191} at
Mexico City, were called Aztecs.  The empire extended over all of lower
Mexico and Yucatan.  As rapidly as possible Montezuma brought adjacent
tribes into subjection, and at the time of the Spanish conquest he
exercised lordship over a wide country.  So far as can be ascertained,
arts and industries practised by most of these tribes were handed down
from extinct races that had a greater inventive genius and a higher
state of progress.  The conquering tribes absorbed and used the arts of
the conquered, as the Greeks did those of the conquered Aegeans.

The practice of agriculture, of the industrial arts, such as clothing,
pottery, and implements of use and ornaments for adornment, showed
advancement in industrial life.  They built large temples and erected
great buildings for the worship of their gods.  There was something in
their worship bordering on sun-worship, although not as distinctive as
the sun-worship of the Peruvians.  They were highly developed in the
use of gold and copper, and produced a good quality of pottery.  They
had learned the art of decorating the pottery, and their temples also
were done in colors and in bas-relief.  They had developed a language
of merit and had a hieroglyphic expression of the same.  They had a
distinct mythology, comprising myths of the sun and of the origin of
various tribes, the origin of the earth and of man.  They had developed
the idea of charity, and had a system of caring for the poor, with
hospitals for the sick.  Notwithstanding this altruistic expression,
they offered human sacrifices of maidens to their most terrible god.

As before stated, there were many tribes, consequently many languages,
although some of them were near enough alike that members of different
tribes could be readily understood.  Also the characteristic traits
varied in different tribes.  It is not known whence they came, although
their tradition points to the origin of the northwest.  Undoubtedly,
each tribe had a myth of its own origin, but, generally speaking, they
all came from the northwest.  Without doubt, at the time of the coming
of the Spaniards, the tribes were non-progressive except in {192}
government.  The coming of the Spaniards was a rude shock to their
civilization, and with a disintegration of the empire, the spirit of
thrift and endeavor was quenched.  They became, as it were, slaves to a
people with so-called higher civilization, who at least had the tools
with which to conquer if they had not higher qualities of human
character than those of the conquered.

_The Earliest Centres of Civilization in Mexico_.--Prior to the
formation of the empire of the Aztecs, conquered by the Spaniards,
there existed in Mexico centres of development of much greater
antiquity.  The more important among these were Yucatan and Mitla.  A
large number of the ruins of these ancient villages have been
discovered and recorded.  The groups of people who developed these
contemporary civilizations were generally known as Toltecs.  The Maya
race, the important branch of the Toltecs, which had its highest
development in Yucatan, was supposed to have come from a territory
northeast of Mexico City, and traces of its migrations are discovered
leading south and east into Yucatan.  It is not known at what period
these developments began, but probably their beginnings might have been
traced back to 15,000 years, although the oldest known tablet found
gives a record of 202 years B.C.  Other information places their coming
much later, at about 387 A.D.

All through Central America and southern Mexico ruins of these ancient
villages have been discovered.  While the civilizations of all were
contemporaneous, different centres show different lines of development.
There is nothing certain concerning the origin of the Toltecs, and they
seemed to have practically disappeared so far as independent tribal
life existed after their conquest by the Aztecs, although the products
of their civilization were used by many other tribes that were living
under the Aztec rule, and, indeed, traces of their civilization exist
to-day in the living races of southern and central Mexico.  Tradition
states that the Toltecs reached their highest state of power between
the seventh and the twelfth {193} centuries, but progress in the
interpretation of their hieroglyphics gives us but few permanent
records.  The development of their art was along the line of heavy
buildings with bas-reliefs and walls covered with inscriptions
recording history and religious symbols.  One bas-relief represents the
human head, with the facial angle shown at forty-five degrees.  It was
carved in stone of the hardest composition and was left unpainted.

Ethnologists have tried repeatedly and in vain to show there was a
resemblance of this American life to the Egyptian civilization.  In
art, architecture, and industry, in worship and the elements of
knowledge, there may be some resemblance to Egyptian models, but there
is no direct evidence sufficient to connect these art products with
those of Egypt or to assume that they must have come from the same
centre.  The construction of pyramids and terraces on a large scale
does remind us of the tendency of the Oriental type of civilization.
In all of their art, however, there was a symmetrical or conventional
system which demonstrated that the indigenous development must have
been from a common centre.  Out of the fifty-two cities that have been
explored which exhibit the habitations of the Toltec civilization, many
exhibit ruins of art and architecture worthy of study.

In the construction of articles for use and ornament, copper and gold
constituted the chief materials, and there was also a great deal of
pottery.  The art of weaving was practised, and the soil cultivated to
a considerable extent.  The family life was well developed, though
polygamy appears to have been practised as a universal custom.  The
form of government was the developed family of the patriarchal type,
and, where union of tribes had taken place, an absolute monarchy
prevailed.  War and conquest here, as in all other places where contact
of tribes appeared, led to slavery.  The higher classes had a large
number of slaves, probably taken as prisoners of war.  This indicates a
degree of social progress in which enemies were preserved for slavery
rather than exterminated in war.  Their laws and regulations indicate a
high sense of {194} justice in establishing the relationship of
individuals within the tribe or nation.  These people were still in the
later Neolithic Age, but with signs of departure from this degree of
civilization in the larger use of the metals.  There were some
indications that bronze might have been used in making ornaments.
Perhaps they should be classified in the later Neolithic Age of the
upper status of barbarism.  Recent excavations in Central America,
Yucatan, and more recently in the valley near Mexico City, have brought
to light many new discoveries.  Representations of early and later
cultures show a gradual progress in the use of the arts, some of the
oldest of which show a great resemblance to the early Mongolian culture
of Asia.

_The Pueblo Indians of the Southwest_.--In northern Mexico and Arizona
there are remains of ancient buildings which seem to indicate that at
one time a civilization existed here that has long since become
extinct.  Long before the arrival of the Spaniards, irrigation was
practised in this dry territory.  Indeed, in the Salt River valley of
Arizona, old irrigation ditches were discovered on the lines of which
now flow the waters that irrigate the modern orchards and vineyards.
The discoveries in recent years in the southwest territory indicate
that this ancient civilization had been destroyed by the warlike tribes
that were ever ready to take possession of centres of culture and
possess or destroy the accumulation of wealth of the people who toiled.
If one could fill in the missing links of history with his imagination,
it would be easy to conjecture that the descendants of these people
fled to the mountains, and became the Cliff-Dwellers of the Southwest.
These people built their homes high on the cliffs, in caves or on
projecting prominences.  Here they constructed great communal
dwellings, where they could defend themselves against all enemies.
They were obliged to procure their food and water from the valley, and
to range over the surrounding _mesas_ in the hunt.  Gradually they
stole down out of the cliffs to live in the valleys and built large
communal houses, many of which now are in existence in this territory.


These people have several centres of civilization which are similar in
general, but differ in many particulars.  They are classed as Pueblo
Indians.  Among these centres are the Hopi Indians, the Zuñian, Taoan,
Shoshonean, and many others.[1]  The pre-history of these widely
extended groups of Indians is not known, but in all probability they
have been crowded into this southwest arid region by warlike tribes,
and for the shelter and protection of the whole tribe have built large
houses of stone or adobe.  The idea of protection seems to have been
the dominant one in building the cliff houses and the adobe houses of
the plain.  The latter were entered by means of ladders placed upon the
wall, so that they could ascend from one story to another.  The first
story had no doors or windows, but could be entered by means of a

The Pueblos were, as a rule, people of low stature, but of an
intelligent and pleasing appearance.  They dressed in cotton goods or
garments woven from the fibre of the yucca plant, or from coarse bark,
and later, under Spanish rule, from specially prepared wool.  Their
feet were protected by sandals made from the yucca, or moccasins from
deer or rabbit skins.  Leggings coming above the knee were formed by
wrapping long strips of buckskin around the leg.  The women and men
dressed very much alike.  The women banged their hair to the eyebrows,
allowing it to hang loosely behind, although in some instances maidens
dressed their hair with two large whirls above the ears.  The Zuñi
Indians practised this custom after the coming of the Spaniards.

The Pueblos were well organized into clans, and descent in the female
line was recognized.  The clans were divided usually into the north,
south, east, and west clans by way of designation, showing that the
communal idea had been established with recognition of government by
locality.  Here, as elsewhere among the American aborigines, the clans
were named after the animals chosen as their totem, but there were in
addition {196} to these ordinary clans, the Sun clan, the Live Oak, the
Turquoise, or others named from objects of nature.  Each group of clans
was governed by a priest chief, who had authority in all religious
matters and, consequently, through religious influences, had large
control in affairs pertaining to household government, and to social
and political life in general.  The duties and powers of these chiefs
were carefully defined.  The communal houses in which the people lived
were divided into apartments for different clans and families.  In some
instances there was a common dining-hall for the members of the tribe.
The men usually resided outside of the communal house, but came to the
common dining-hall for their meals.

There were many secret societies among these people which seemed to
mingle religious and political sentiments.  The members of these
societies dwelt to a large extent in the Estufa, or Kiva, a large
half-subterranean club-house where they could meet in secret.  In every
large tribe there were four to seven of these secret orders, and they
were recognized as representing the various organizations.  These "cult
societies," so called by Mr. Powell, had charge of the mythical rites,
the spirit lore, the mysteries, and the medicines of the part of the
tribe which they represented.  They conducted the ceremonies at all
festivals and celebrations.  It is difficult to determine the exact
nature of their religion.  It was a worship full of superstition,
recognizing totemism and direct connection with the spirits of nature.
Their religion was of a joyous nature, and always was associated with
their games and feasts.  The games were usually given in the
celebration of some great event, or for some economic purpose, and were
accompanied with dancing, music, pantomime, and symbolism.  Perhaps of
all of the North American Indians, the Pueblos showed the greatest
fondness for music and had made some advancement in the arts of poetry
and song.  The noted snake dance, the green-corn dance, and the cachina
all had at foundation an economic purpose.  They were done ostensibly
to gain the favor of the gods of nature.


When discovered by the Spaniards, the Pueblos had made good beginnings
in agriculture and the industrial arts, were living in a state of peace
and apparently contented, there seeming to be little war between the
tribes.  Their political organization in connection with the secret
societies and their shamanistic religion gave them a good development
of social order.  After nearly 400 years of Spanish and American rule,
they appear to have retained many of their original traits and
characteristics, and cherish their ancient customs.  Apparently the
Spanish and the American civilization is merely a gloss over their
ancient life which they seek every opportunity to express.  They are
to-day practically non-assimilative and live to a large extent their
own life in their own way, although they have adopted a few of the
American customs.  While quite a large number of these villages are now
to be seen very much in their primitive style of architecture and life,
more than 3,000 architectural ruins in the Southwest, chiefly in
Arizona and New Mexico, have been discovered.  Many of them are
partially obscured in the drifting sands, but they show attempts at
different periods by different people to build homes.  The devastation
of flood and famine and the destruction of warlike tribes retarded
their progress and caused their extinction.  The Pueblo Indians were in
the middle status of barbarism when the Spaniards arrived, and there
they would have remained forever or become extinct had not the Spanish
and American civilizations overtaken them.  Even now self-determined
progress seems not to possess them.  However, through education the
younger generations are being slowly assimilated into American life.
But it appears that many generations will pass before their tribal life
is entirely absorbed into a common democracy.

_The Mound-Builders of the Mississippi Valley_.--At the coming of the
Europeans this ancient people had nearly all disappeared.  Only a few
descendants in the southern part of the great valley of the Mississippi
represented living traces of the Mound-Builders.  They had left in
their burial mounds {198} and monuments many relics of a high type of
the Neolithic civilization which they possessed.  As to their origin,
history has no direct evidence.  However, they undoubtedly were part of
that great stream of early European migration to America which
gradually spread down the Ohio valley and the upper Mississippi.  At
what time they flourished is not known, although their civilization was
prehistoric when compared with that of the Algonquins, Athabascans, and
Iroquois tribes that were in existence at the time of the coming of the
Europeans.  Although the tradition of these Indians traces them to the
Southwest, and that they became extinct by being driven out by more
savage and more warlike people, whence they came and whither they went
are both alike open to conjecture.

Their civilization was not very different from that of many other
tribes of North American Indians.  Their chief characteristic consisted
in the building of extensive earth mounds as symbolical of their
religious and tribal life.  They also built immense enclosures for the
purpose of fortification.  Undoubtedly on the large mounds were
originally built public houses or dwellings or temples for worship or
burial.  Those in the form of a truncated pyramid were used for the
purposes of building sites for temples and dwellings, and those having
circular bases and a conical shape were used as burial places.

Besides these two kinds was another, called effigy mounds, which
represented the form of some animal or bird, which undoubtedly was the
totem of the tribe.  These latter mounds were seldom more than three or
four feet high, but were of great extent.  They indicated the unity of
the gens, either by representing it through the totem or a mythical
ancestry.  Other mounds of less importance were used in religious
worship, namely, for the location of the altar to be used for
sacrificial purposes.  All were used to some extent as burial mounds.
Large numbers of their implements made of quartz, chert, bone, and
slate for the household and for the hunt have been found.  They used
copper to some extent, which was obtained in a free or native state and
hammered into implements and ornaments.


Undoubtedly, the centre of the distribution of copper was the Lake
Superior region, which showed that there was a diffusion of cultures
from this centre at this early period.  They made some progress in
agriculture, cultivating maize and tobacco.  Apparently their commerce
with surrounding tribes was great, which no doubt gave them a variety
of means of life.  The pottery, judging from specimens that have been
preserved, was inferior to that of the Mexicans or the Arizona Indians,
but, nevertheless, in the lower Mississippi fine collections of pottery
showing beautiful lines and a large number of designs were found.  It
fills one with wonder that a tribe of such power should have begun the
arts of civilization and developed a powerful organization, and then
have been so suddenly destroyed--why or how is not known.  In all
probability it is the old story of a sedentary group being destroyed by
the more hardy, savage, and warlike conquerors.

_Other Types of Indian Life_.--While the great centres of culture were
found in Peru, Central America, Mexico, southwest United States, and
the Mississippi valley, there were other cultures of a less pronounced
nature worthy of mention.  On the Pacific coast, in the region around
Santa Barbara, are the relics of a very ancient tribe of Indians who
had developed some skill in the making of pottery and exhibit other
forms of industrial life.  Recently an ancient skeleton has been
discovered which seems to indicate a life of great antiquity.
Nevertheless, it is a lower state of civilization than those of the
larger centres already mentioned.  Yet it is worthy of note that there
was here started a people who had adopted village habits and attained a
considerable degree of progress.  Probably they were contemporary with
other people of the most ancient civilizations of America.

So far as the advancement of government is concerned, the Iroquois
Indians of Canada and New York showed considerable advancement.  As
represented by Mr. Lewis H. Morgan, who made a careful study of the
Iroquois, their tribal divisions and their federation of tribes show an
advancement along {200} governmental lines extending beyond the mere
family or tribal life.  Their social order showed civil progress, and
their industrial arts, in agriculture especially, were notable.

_Why Did the Civilization of America Fail?_--There is a popular theory
that the normal advancement of the Indian races of America was arrested
or destroyed by the coming of the Europeans.  Undoubtedly the contact
of the higher civilization with the latter had much to do with the
hastening of the decay of the former.  The civilizations were so widely
apart that it was not easy for the primitive or retarded race to adopt
the civilization of the more advanced.  But when it is assumed that if
the Europeans had never come to the American continent, native tribes
and races would eventually, of their own initiative, develop a high
state of civilization, such an assumption is not well founded, because
at the time of the coming of the Europeans there was no great show of
progress.  It seems as if no branch of the race could go forward very
far without being destroyed by more warlike tribes.  Or, if let alone,
they seemed to develop a stationary civilization, reaching their limit,
beyond which they could not go.  As the races of Europe by
specialization along certain lines became inadaptable to new conditions
and passed away to give place to others, so it appears that this was
characteristic of the civilization of America.  Evidently the
prehistoric Peruvians, Mexicans, Pueblos, and Mound-Builders had
elements of civilization greater than the living warring Indian tribes
which came in contact with the early European settlers in America.

It may not be wise to enter a plea that all tribes and races have their
infancy, youth, age, and decay, with extinction as their final lot, but
it has been repeated so often in the history of the human race that one
may assume it to be almost, if not quite, universal.  The momentum of
racial power gained by biological heredity and social achievement,
reaches its limit when it can no longer adapt itself to new conditions,
with the final end and inevitable result of extinction.

The Nordic race, with all of its vigor and persistency, has {201} had a
long and continuous life on account of its roving disposition and its
perpetual contact with new conditions of its own choice.  It has always
had power to overcome, and its vigor has kept it exploiting and
inventing and borrowing of others the elements of civilization, which
have continually forced it forward.  When it, too, reaches a state when
it cannot adapt itself to new conditions, perhaps it will give way to
some other branch of the human race, which, gathering new strength or
new vigor from sources not available to the Nordic, will be able to
overpower it; but the development of science and art with the power
over nature, is greater in this race than in any other, and the
maladies which destroy racial life are less marked than in other races.
It would seem, then, that it still has great power of continuance and
through science can adapt itself to nature and live on.

But what would the American Indian have contributed to civilization?
Would modern civilization have been as far advanced as now, had the
Europeans found no human life at all on the American continent?  True,
the Europeans learned many things of the Indians regarding cultivation
of maize and tobacco, and thus increased their food supply, but would
they not have learned this by their own investigations, had there been
no Indians to teach?  The arts of pottery have been more highly
developed by the Etruscans, the Aegeans, and the Greeks than by the
American Indians.  The Europeans had long since passed the Stone Age
and entered the Iron Age, which they brought to the American Indians.
But the studies of ethnology have been greatly enlarged by the fact of
these peculiar and wonderful people, who exhibited so many traits of
nobility of character in life.  Perhaps it would not be liberal to say
the world would have been just as well off had they never existed.  At
any rate, we are glad of the opportunity to study what their life was
and what it was worth to them, and also its influence on the life and
character of the Europeans.

The most marked phases of this civilization are found in the
development of basketry and pottery, and the exquisite work {202} in
stone implements.  Every conceivable shape of the arrow-head, the
spear, the stone axe and hammer, the grinding board for grains, the
bow-and-arrow, is evidence of the skill in handiwork of these primitive
peoples.  Also, the skill in curing and tanning hides for clothing, and
the methods of hunting and trapping game are evidences of great skill.
Perhaps, also, there is something in the primitive music of these
people which not only is worthy of study but has added something to the
music culture of more advanced peoples.  At least, if pressed to learn
the real character of man, we must go to primitive peoples and
primitive life and customs.


1.  What contributions did the American Indians make to European

2.  What are the chief physical and mental traits of the Indian?

3.  What is the result of education of the Indian?

4.  How many Indians are there in the United States?  (_a_) Where are
they located?  (_b_) How many children in school?  Where?

5.  If the Europeans made a better use of the territory than did the
Indians, had the Europeans the right to dispossess them?  Did they use
the right means to gain possession?

6.  Study an Indian tribe of your own selection regarding customs,
habits, government, religion, art, etc.

[1] Recent discoveries in Nevada and Utah indicate a wide territorial
extension of the Pueblo type.






_The Old Greek Life Was the Starting Point of Western
Civilization_.--Civilization is a continuous movement--hence there is a
gradual transition from the Oriental civilization to the Western.  The
former finally merges into the latter.  Although the line of
demarcation is not clearly drawn, some striking differences are
apparent when the two are placed in juxtaposition.  Perhaps the most
evident contrast is observed in the gradual freedom of the mind from
the influences of tradition and religious superstition.  Connected with
this, also, is the struggle for freedom from despotism in government.
It has been observed how the ancient civilizations were characterized
by the despotism of priests and kings.  It was the early privilege of
European life to gradually break away from this form of human
degradation and establish individual rights and individual development.
Kings and princes, indeed, ruled in the Western world, but they learned
to do so with a fuller recognition of the rights of the governed.
There came to be recognized, also, free discussion as the right of
people in the processes of government.  It is admitted that the
despotic governments of the Old World existed for the few and neglected
the many.  While despotism was not wanting in European civilization,
the struggle to be free from it was the ruling spirit of the age.  The
history of Europe centres around this struggle to be free from
despotism and traditional learning, and to develop freedom of thought
and action.

Among Oriental people the idea of progress was wanting in their
philosophy.  True, they had some notion of changes that take place in
the conditions of political and social life, and in individual
accomplishments, yet there was nothing hopeful in their presentation of
the theory of life or in their practices {206} of religion; and the few
philosophers who recognized changes that were taking place saw not in
them a persistent progress and growth.  Their eyes were turned toward
the past.  Their thoughts centred on traditions and things that were
fixed.  Life was reduced to a dull, monotonous round by the great
masses of the people.  If at any time a ray of light penetrated the
gloom, it was turned to illuminate the accumulated philosophies of the
past.  On the other hand, in European civilization we find the idea of
progress becoming more and more predominant.  The early Greeks and
Romans were bound to a certain extent by the authority of tradition on
one side and the fixity of purpose on the other.  At times there was
little that was hopeful in their philosophy, for they, too, recognized
the decline in the affairs of men.  But through trial and error, new
discoveries of truth were made which persisted until the revival of
learning in the Middle Ages, at the time of the formation of new
nations, when the ideas of progress became fully recognized in the
minds of the thoughtful, and subsequently in the full triumph of
Western civilization came the recognition of the possibility of
continuous progress.

Another great distinction in the development of European civilization
was the recognition of humanity.  In ancient times humanitarian spirit
appeared not in the heart of man nor in the philosophy of government.
Even the old tribal government was for the few.  The national
government was for selected citizens only.  Specific gods, a special
religion, the privilege of rights and duties were available to a few,
while all others were deprived of them.  This invoked a selfishness in
practical life and developed a selfish system even among the leaders of
ancient culture.  The broad principle of the rights of an individual
because he was human was not taken into serious consideration even
among the more thoughtful.  If he was friendly to the recognized god he
was permitted to exist.  If he was an enemy, he was to be crushed.  On
the other hand, the triumph of Western civilization is the recognition
of the value of a human being and his right to engage in all human
associations {207} for which he is fitted.  While the Greeks came into
contact with the older civilizations of Egypt and Asia, and were
influenced by their thought and custom, they brought a vigorous new
life which gradually dominated and mastered the Oriental influences.
They had sufficient vigor and independence to break with tradition,
wherever it seemed necessary to accomplish their purpose of life.

_The Aegean Culture Preceded the Coming of the Greeks_.--Spreading over
the islands of the Aegean Sea was a pre-Greek civilization known as
Minoan.  Its highest centre of development was in the Island of Crete,
whose principal city was Cnossos.  Whence these people came and what
their ethnological classification are still unsettled.[1]  They had a
number of centres of development, which varied somewhat in type of
culture.  They were a dark-haired people, who probably came from Africa
or Asia Minor, settling in Crete about 5,000 years B.C.  It is thought
by some that the Etruscans of Italy were of Aegean origin.  Prior to
the Minoans there existed a Neolithic culture throughout the islands of

In the great city of Cnossos, which was sacked and burned about the
fourteenth century B.C., were found ruins which show a culture of
relatively high degree.  By the excavations in Crete at this point a
stratum of earth twenty feet thick was discovered, in which were found
evidences of all grades of civilization, from the Neolithic implements
to the highest Minoan culture.  Palaces with frescoes and carvings,
ornaments formed of metal and skilfully wrought vases with significant
colorings, all evinced a civilization worthy of intensive study.  These
people had developed commerce and trade with Egypt, and their boats
passed along the shores of the Mediterranean, carrying their
civilization to Italy, northern Africa, and everywhere among the
islands of Greece, as well as on the mainland.  The cause of the
decline of their civilization is {208} not known, unless it could be
attributed to the Greek pirates who invaded their territory, and
possibly, like all nations that decline, they were beset by internal
maladies which marked their future destiny.  Possibly, high
specialization along certain lines of life rendered them unadaptable to
new conditions, and they passed away because of this lack.

_The Greeks Were of Aryan Stock_.--Many thousand years ago there
appeared along the shores of the Baltic, at the beginning of the
Neolithic period of culture, a group of people who seem to have come
from central Asia.  It is thought by some that these were at least the
forerunners of the great Nordic race.  Whatever conjectures there may
be as to their origin, it is known that about 2,000 years before
Christ, wandering tribes extended from the Baltic region far eastward
to the Caspian Sea, to the north of Persia, down to the borderland of
India.  These people were of Caucasian features, with fair hair and
blue eyes--a type of the Nordic race.  They were known as the Aryan
branch of the Caucasian race.  Whether this was their primitive abode,
or whether their ancestors had come at a much earlier time from a
central home in northern Africa, which is considered by ethnologists as
the centre from which developed the Caucasian race, is not known.

They were not a highly cultured people, but were living a nomadic life,
engaged in hunting, fishing, piratical exploits, and carrying on
agriculture intermittently.  They had also become acquainted with the
use of metals, having passed during this period from the Neolithic into
the Bronze Age.  About the year 1500 B.C. they had become acquainted
with iron, and about the same time had come into possession of the
horse, probably through their contact with central Asia.

The social life of these people was very simple.  While they
undoubtedly met and mingled with many tribes, they had a language
sufficiently common for ordinary intercourse.  They had no writing or
means of records at all, but depended upon the recital of deeds of
warriors and nations and tribes.  Wherever the Aryan people have been
found, whether in Greece, {209} Italy, Germany, along the Danube,
central Asia, or India, they have been noted for their epics, sagas,
and vedas, which told the tales of historic deeds and exploits of the
tribal or national life.  It is thought that this was the reason they
developed such a strong and beautiful language.

They came in contact with Semitic civilization in northern Persia, with
the primitive tribes in Italy, with the Dravidian peoples of India, and
represented the vigorous fighting power of the Scythians, Medes, and
Persians.  They or their kindred later moved up the Danube into Spain
and France, with branches into Germany and Russia, and others finally
into the British Islands.  It was a branch of these people that came
into the Grecian peninsula and overthrew and supplanted the Aegean
civilization--where they were known as the Greeks.

_The Coming of the Greeks_.--It is not known when they came down
through Asia Minor.  Not earlier than 2000 B.C. nor later than 1500
B.C. the invasion began.  In successive waves came the Phrygians,
Aeolians, the Ionians, and the Dorians--different divisions of the same
race.  Soon they spread over the mainland of Greece and all the
surrounding islands, and established their trading cities along the
borders of the Mediterranean Sea.  These people, though uncultured,
seemed to absorb culture wherever they went.  They learned the methods
of the civilization that had been established in the Orient wherever
they came in contact with other peoples, and also in the Aegean
country.  In fact, though they conquered and occupied the Aegean
country, they took on the best of the Minoan civilization.[2]  As
marauders, pirates, and conquerors, they were masterful, but they came
in conflict with the ideas developed among the Semitic people of Asia
and the Hamitic of Egypt.  Undoubtedly, this conquest of the Minoan
civilization furnished the origin of many of the tales or folklore that
afterward were woven into the _Iliad_ and the _Odyssey_ by {210} Homer.
It is not known how early in Greek life these songs originated, but it
is a known fact that in the eighth century the Greeks were in
possession of their epics, and at this period not only had conquered
the Minoan civilization but had absorbed it so far as they had use for

They came into this territory in the form of the old tribal government,
with their primitive social customs, and as they settled in different
parts of the territory in tribes, they developed independent
communities of a primitive sort.  They had what was known in modern
historical literature as the village community, which was always found
in the primitive life of the Aryans.  Their mode of life tended to
develop individualism, and when the group life was established, it
became independent and was lacking in co-operation--that is, it became
a self-sufficient social order.  Later in the development of the Greek
life the individual, so far as political organization goes, was
absorbed in the larger state, after it had developed from the old Greek
family life.  These primitive Greeks soon had a well-developed
language.  They began systematic agriculture, became skilled in the
industrial arts, domesticated animals, and had a pure home life with
religious sentiments of a high order.  Wherever they went they carried
with them the characteristics of nation-building and progressive life.
They mastered the earth and its contents by living it down with force
and vigor.

The Greek peninsula was favorably situated for development.  Protected
on the north by a mountain range from the rigors of a northern climate
and from the predatory tribes, with a range of mountains through the
centre, with its short spurs cutting the entire country into valleys,
in which were developed independent community states, circumstances
were favorable to local self-government of the several tribes.  This
independent social life was of great importance in the development of
Greek thought.  In the north the grains and cereals were grown, and in
the south the citrus and the orange.  This wide range from a temperate
to a semi-tropical climate {211} furnished a variety of fruits and
diversity of life which gave great opportunity for development.  The
variety of scenery caused by mountain and valley and proximity to the
sea, the thousand islands washed by the Aegean Sea, brought a new life
which tended to impress the sensitive mind of the Greek and to develop
his imagination and to advance culture in art.

_Character of the Primitive Greeks_.--The magnificent development of
the Greeks in art, literature, philosophy, and learning, together with
the fortunate circumstance of having powerful writers, gives us rather
an exaggerated notion of the Greeks, if we attempt to apply a lofty
manner and a magnificent culture to the Homeric period.  They had a
good deal of piratical boldness, and, after the formation of their
small states, gave examples of spurts of courage such as that at
Marathon and Thermopylae.  Yet these evidences were rare exceptions
rather than the rule, for even the Spartan, trained on a military
basis, seldom evinced any great degree of bravery.  Perhaps the gloomy
forebodings of the future, characteristic of the Greeks, made them fear
death, and consequently caused them to lack in courage.  However, this
is a disputed point.  Pages of the earlier records are full of the
sanction of deception of enemies, friends, and strangers.  Evidently,
there was a low moral sense regarding truth.  While the Greek might be
loyal to his family and possibly to his tribe, there are many examples
of disloyalty to one another, and, in the later development, a
disloyalty of one state toward another.  Excessive egoism seems to have
prevailed, and this principle was extended to the family and local
government group.  Each group appeared to look out for its own
interests, irrespective of the welfare of others.  How much a united
Greece might have done to have continued the splendors and the service
of a magnificent civilization is open to conjecture.

The Greeks were not sympathetic with children nor with the aged.  Far
from being anxious to preserve the life of the aged, their greatest
trouble was in disposing of them.  The honor and rights of women were
not observed.  In war women {212} were the property of their captors.
Yet the home life of the Greeks seems to have been in its purity and
loyalty an advance on the Oriental home life.  In their treatment of
servants and slaves, in the care of the aged and helpless, the Greeks
were cold and without compassion.  While the poets, historians, and
philosophers have been portraying with such efficiency the character of
the higher classes; while they have presented such a beautiful exterior
of the old Greek life; the Greeks, in common with other primitive
peoples, were not lacking in coarseness, injustice, and cruelty in
their internal life.  Here, as elsewhere in the beginnings of
civilization, only the best of the real and the ideal of life was
represented, while the lower classes were suffering a degraded life.

The family was closely organized in Greece.  Monogamic marriage and the
exclusive home life prevailed at an early time.  The patriarchal
family, in which the oldest male member was chief and ruler, was the
unit of society.  Within this group were the house families, formed
whenever a separate marriage took place and a separate altar was
erected.  The house religion was one of the characteristic features of
Greek life.  Each family had its own household gods, its own worship,
its private shrine.  This tended to unify the family and promote a
sacred family life.  A special form of ancestral worship, from the
early Aryan house-spirit worship, prevailed to a certain extent.  The
worship of the family expanded with the expansion of social life.  Thus
the gens, and the tribe, and the city when founded, had each its
separate worship.  Religion formed a strong cement to bind the
different social units of a tribe together.  The worship of the Greeks
was associated with the common meal and the pouring of libations to the

As religion became more general, it united to make a more common social
practice, and in the later period of Greek life was made the basis of
the games and general social gatherings.  Religion brought the Greeks
together in a social way, and finally led to the mutual advantage of
members of society.  {213} Later, mutual advantage superseded religion
in its practice.  The Greeks, at an early period, attempted to explain
the origin of the earth and unknown phenomena by referring it to the
supernatural powers.  Every island had its myth, every phenomenon its
god, and every mountain was the residence of some deity.  They sought
to find out the causes of the creation of the universe, and developed a
theogony.  There was the origin of the Greeks to be accounted for, and
then the origin of the earth, and the relation of man to the deities.
Everything must be explained, but as the imagination was especially
strong, it was easier to create a god as a first cause than to
ascertain the development of the earth by scientific study.

_Influence of Old Greek Life_.--In all of the traditions and writings
descriptive of the old Greek social life, with the exception of the
_Works and Days_ of Hesiod, the aristocratic class appears uppermost.
Hesiod "pictures a hopeless and miserable existence, in which care and
the despair of better things tended to make men hard and selfish and to
blot out those fairer features which cannot be denied to the courts and
palaces of the _Iliad_ and _Odyssey_."  It appears that the foundation
of aristocracy--living in comparative luxury, in devotion to art and
the culture of life--was early laid by the side of the foundation of
poverty and wretchedness of the great mass of the people.  While, then,
the Greeks derived from their ancestry the beautiful pictures of heroic
Greece, they inherited the evils of imperfect social conditions.  As we
pass to the historical period of Greece, these different phases of life
appear and reappear in changeable forms.  If to the nobleman life was
full of inspiration; if poetry, religion, art, and politics gave him
lofty thoughts and noble aspirations; to the peasant and the slave,
life was full of misery and degradation.  If one picture is to be drawn
in glowing colors, let not the other be omitted.

The freedom from great centralized government, the development of the
individual life, the influences of the early ideas of art and life, and
the religious conceptions, were of great importance in shaping the
Greek philosophy and the Greek {214} national character.  They had a
tendency to develop men who could think and act.  It is not surprising,
therefore, that the first real historical period was characterized by
struggles of citizens within the town for supremacy.  Fierce quarrels
between the upper and the lower classes prevailed everywhere, and
resulted in developing an intense hatred of the former for the latter.
This hatred and selfishness became the uppermost causes of action in
the development of Greek social polity.  Strife led to compromise, and
this in turn to the recognition of the rights and privileges of
different classes.


1.  The Aegean culture.

2.  The relation of Greek to Egyptian culture.

3.  What were the great Greek masterpieces of (_a_) Literature, (_b_)
Sculpture, (_c_) Architecture, (_d_) Art, (_e_) Philosophy?

4.  Compare Greek democracy with American democracy.

5.  What historical significance have Thermopylae, Marathon,
Alexandria, Crete, and Delphi?

[1] Sergi, in his _Mediterranean Race_, says that they came from N. E.
Africa.  Beginning about 5000 years B.C., they gradually infiltrated
the whole Mediterranean region.  This is becoming the general belief
among ethnologists, archaeologists, and historians.

[2] Recent studies indicate that some of the Cretan inscriptions are
prototypes of the Greece-Phoenician alphabet.  The Phoenicians
evidently derived the original characters of their alphabet from a
number of sources.  The Greeks adopted the Phoenician alphabet about
800-1000 B.C.




_The Transition from Theology to Inquiry_.--The Greek theology prepared
the way for the Ionian philosophy.  The religious opinions led directly
up to the philosophy of the early inquirers.  The Greeks passed slowly
from accepting everything with a blind faith to the rational inquiry
into the development of nature.  The beginnings of knowing the
scientific causes were very small, and sometimes ridiculous, yet they
were of immense importance.  To take a single step from the "age of
credulity" toward the "age of reason" was of great importance to Greek
progress.  To cease to accept on faith the statements that the world
was created by the gods, and ordered by the gods, and that all
mysteries were in their hands, and to endeavor to find out by
observation of natural phenomena something of the elements of nature,
was to gradually break from the mythology of the past as explanatory of
the creation.  The first feeble attempt at this was to seek in a crude
way the material structure and source of the universe.

_Explanation of the Universe by Observation and Inquiry_.--The Greek
mind had settled down to the fact that there was absolute knowledge of
truth, and that cosmogony had established the method of creation; that
theogony had accounted for the creation of gods, heroes, and men, and
that theology had foretold their relations.  A blind faith had accepted
what the imagination had pictured.  But as geographical study began to
increase, doubts arose as to the preconceived constitution of the
earth.  As travel increased and it was found that none of the terrible
creatures that tradition had created inhabited the islands of the sea
or coasts of the mainland, earth lost its terrors and disbelief in the
system of established {216} knowledge prevailed.  Free inquiry was
slowly substituted for blind credulity.

This freedom of inquiry had great influence on the intellectual
development of man.  It was the discovery of truth through the relation
of cause and effect, which he might observe by opening his eyes and
using his reason.  The development of theories of the universe through
tradition and the imagination gave exercise to the emotions and
beliefs; but change from faith in the fixity of the past to the future
by observation led to intellectual development.  The exercise of faith
and the imagination even in unproductive ways prepared the way for
broader service of investigation.  But these standing alone could
permit nothing more than a childish conception of the universe.  They
could not discover the reign of law.  They could not advance the
observing and reflecting powers of man; they could not develop the
stronger qualities of his intellect.  Individual action would be
continually stultified by the process of accepting through credulity
the trite sayings of the ancients.  The attempt to find out how things
were made was an acknowledgment of the powers of the individual mind.
It was a recognition that man has a mind to use, and that there is
truth around him to be discovered.  This was no small beginning in
intellectual development.

_The Ionian Philosophy Turned the Mind Toward Nature_.--Greek
philosophy began in the seventh century before Christ.  The first
philosopher of note was Thales, born at Miletus, in Asia Minor, about
640 B.C.  Thales sought to establish the idea that water is the first
principle and cause of the universe.  He held that water is filled with
life and soul, the essential element in the foundation of all nature.
Thales had great learning for his time, being well versed in geometry,
arithmetic, and astronomy.  He travelled in Egypt and the Orient, and
became acquainted with ancient lore.  It is said that being impressed
with the importance of water in Egypt, where the Nile is the source of
all life, he was led to assert the importance of water in animate
nature.  In his attempts to break away from the {217} old cosmogony, he
still exhibits traces of the old superstitions, for he regarded the sun
and stars as living beings, who received their warmth and life from the
ocean, in which they bathed at the time of setting.  He held that the
whole world was full of soul, manifested in individual daemons, or
spirits.  Puerile as his philosophy appears in comparison with the
later development of Greek philosophy, it created violent antagonism
with mythical theology and led the way to further investigation and

Anaximander, born at Miletus 611 B.C., an astronomer and geographer,
following Thales chronologically, wrote a book on "Nature," the first
written on the subject in the philosophy of Greece.  He held that all
things arose from the "infinite," a primordial chaos in which was an
internal energy.  From a universal mixture things arose by separation,
the parts once formed remaining unchanged.  The earth was cylindrical
in shape, suspended in the air in the centre of the universe, and the
stars and planets revolved around it, each fastened in a crystalline
ring; the moon and sun revolved in the same manner, only at a farther
distance.  The generation of the universe was by the action of
contraries, by heat and cold, the moist and the dry.  From the moisture
all things were originally generated by heat.  Animals and men came
from fishes by a process of evolution.  There is evidence in his
philosophy of a belief in the development of the universe by the action
of heat and cold on matter.  It is also evident that the principles of
biology and the theory of evolution are hinted at by this philosopher.
Also, he was the first to observe the obliquity of the ecliptic; he
taught that the moon received its light from the sun and that the earth
is round.

Anaximenes, born at Miletus 588 B.C., asserted that air was the first
principle of the universe; indeed, he held that on it "the very earth
floats like a broad leaf."  He held that air was infinite in extent;
that it touched all things, and was the source of life of all.  The
human soul was nothing but air, since life consists in inhaling and
exhaling, and when this is no longer {218} continued death ensues.
Warmth and cold arose from rarefaction and condensation, and probably
the origin of the sun and planets was caused by the rarefaction of air;
but when air underwent great condensation, snow, water, and hail
appeared, and, indeed, with sufficient condensation, the earth itself
was formed.  It was only a step further to suppose that the infinite
air was the source of life, the god of the universe.

Somewhat later Diogenes of Apollonia asserted that all things
originated from one essence, and that air was the soul of the world,
eternal and endowed with consciousness.  This was an attempt to explain
the development of the universe by a conscious power.  It led to the
suggestion of psychology, as the mind of man was conscious air.  "But
that which has knowledge is what men call air; it is it that regulates
all and governs all, and hence it is the use of air to pervade all, and
to dispose all, and to be in all, for there is nothing that has not
part in it."

Other philosophers of this school reasoned or speculated upon the
probable first causes in the creation.  In a similar manner Heraclitus
asserted that fire was the first principle, and states as the
fundamental maxim of his philosophy that "all is convertible into fire,
and fire into all."  There was so much confusion in his doctrines as to
give him the name of "The Obscure."  "The moral system of Heraclitus
was based on the physical.  He held that heat developed morality,
moisture immorality.  He accounted for the wickedness of the drunkard
by his having a moist soul, and inferred that a warm, dry soul was
noblest and best."

Anaxagoras taught the mechanical processes of the universe, and
advanced many theories of the origin of animal life and of material
objects.  Anaxagoras was a man of wealth, who devoted all of his time
and means to philosophy.  He recognized two principles, one material
and the other spiritual, but failed to connect the two, and in
determining causes he came into open conflict with the religion of the
times, and asserted that the "divine miracles" were nothing more than
natural {219} causes.  He was condemned for his atheism and thrown into
prison, but, escaping, he was obliged to end his days in exile.

Another notable example of the early Greek philosophy is found in
Pythagoras, who asserted that number was the first principle.  He and
his followers found that the "whole heaven was a harmony of number."
The Pythagoreans taught that all comes from one, but that the odd
number is finite, the even infinite; that ten was a perfect number.
They sought for a criterion of truth in the relation of numbers.
Nothing could exist or be formed without harmony, and this harmony
depended upon number, that is, upon the union of contrary elements.
The musical octave was their best example to illustrate their meaning.
The union of the atoms in modern chemistry illustrates in full the
principle of number after which they were striving.  It emphasized the
importance of measurements in investigation.  Much more might be said
about the elaborate system of the Pythagoreans; but the main principle
herein stated must suffice.

_The Weakness of Ionian Philosophy_.--Viewed from the modern standpoint
of scientific research, the early philosophers of Greece appear puerile
and insignificant.  They directed their thoughts largely toward nature,
but instead of systematic observation and comparison they used the
speculative and hypothetical methods to ascertain truth.  They had
turned from the credulity of ancient tradition to simple faith in the
mind to determine the nature and cause of the universe.  But this was
followed by a scepticism as to the sense perception, a scepticism which
could only be overcome by a larger observation of facts.  Simple as it
appears, this process was an essential transition from the theology of
the Greeks to the perfected philosophy built upon reason.  The attitude
of the mind was of great value, and the attention directed to external
nature was sure to turn again to man, and the supernatural.  While
there is a mixture of the physical, metaphysical, and mystical, the
final lesson to be learned is the recognition of reality of nature as
external to mind.


_The Eleatic Philosophers_.--About 500 B.C., and nearly contemporary
with the Pythagoreans, flourished the Eleatic philosophers, among whom
Xenophanes, Parmenides, Zeno, and Melissus were the principal leaders.
They speculated about the nature of the mind, or soul, and departed
from the speculations respecting the origin of the earth.  The nature
of the infinite and the philosophy of being suggested by the Ionian
philosophers were themes that occupied the attention of this new
school.  Parmenides believed in the knowledge of an absolute being, and
affirmed the unity of thought and being.  He won the distinction of
being the first logical philosopher among the Greeks, and was called
the father of idealism.

Zeno is said to have been the most remarkable of this school.  He held
that if there was a distinction between _being_ and _not being_, only
_being_ existed.  This led him to the final assumption that the laws of
nature are unchangeable and God remains permanent.  His method of
reasoning was to reduce the opposite to absurdity.

Upon the whole, the Eleatic philosophy is one relating to knowledge and
being, which considered thought primarily as dependent upon being.  It
holds closely to monism, that is, that nature and mind are of the same
substance; yet there is a slight distinction, for there is really a
dualism expressed in knowledge and being.  Many other philosophers
followed, who discoursed upon nature, mind, and being, but they arrived
at no definite conclusions.  The central idea in the early philosophy
up to this time was to account for the existence and substance of
nature.  It gave little consideration to man in himself, and said
little of the supernatural.  Everything was speculative in nature,
hypothetical in proposition, and deductive in argument.  The Greek
mind, departing from its dependence upon mythology, began boldly to
assert its ability to find out nature, but ended in a scepticism as to
its power to ascertain certainty.  There was a final determination as
to the distinction of reality as external to mind, and this represents
the best product of the early philosophers.


_The Sophists_.--Following the Eleatics was a group of philosophers
whose principle characteristic was scepticism.  Man, not nature, was
the central idea in their philosophy, and they changed the point of
view from objective to subjective contemplation.  They accomplished
very little in their speculation except to shift the entire attitude of
philosophy from external nature to man.  They were interested in the
culture of the individual, yet, in their psychological treatment of
man, they relied entirely upon sense perception.  In the consideration
of man's ethical nature they were individualistic, considering private
right and private judgment the standards of truth.  They led the way to
greater speculation in this subject and to a higher philosophy.

_Socrates the First Moral Philosopher (b. 469 B.C.)_.--Following the
sophists in the progressive development of philosophy, Socrates turned
his attention almost exclusively to human nature.  He questioned all
things, political, ethical, and theological, and insisted upon the
moral worth of the individual man.  While he cast aside the nature
studies of the early philosophy and repudiated the pseudo-wisdom of the
sophists, he was not without his own interpretation of nature.  He was
interested in questions pertaining to the order of nature and the wise
adaptation of means to an end.  Nature is animated by a soul, yet it is
considered as a wise contrivance for man's benefit rather than a
living, self-determining organism.  In the subordination of all nature
to the good, Socrates lays the foundation of natural theology.

But the ethical philosophy of Socrates is more prominent and positive.
He asserted that scientific knowledge is the sole condition to virtue;
that vice is ignorance.  Hence virtue will always follow knowledge
because they are a unity.  His ethical principles are founded on
utility, the good of which he speaks is useful, and is the end of
individual acts and aims.  Wisdom is the foundation of all virtues;
indeed, every virtue is wisdom.

Socrates made much of friendship and love, and thought temperance to be
the fundamental virtue.  Without {222} temperance, men were not useful
to themselves or to others, and temperance meant the complete mastery
of self.  Friendship and love were cardinal points in the doctrine of
ethical life.  The proper conduct of life, justice in the treatment of
man by his fellow-man, and the observance of the duties of citizenship,
were part of the ethical philosophy of Socrates.

Beauty is only another name for goodness, but it is only a harmony or
adaptation of means to an end.  The Socratic method of ascertaining
truth by the art of suggestive questioning was a logical mode of
procedure.  The meeting of individuals in conversation was a method of
arriving at the truth of ethical conduct and ethical relations.  It was
made up of induction and definition.  No doubt the spirit of his
teaching was sceptical in the extreme.  While having a deeper sense of
the reality of life than others, he realized that he did not know much.
He criticized freely the prevailing beliefs, customs, and religious
practice.  For this he was accused of impiety, and forced to drink the
hemlock.  With an irony in manner and thought, Socrates introduced the
problem of self-knowledge; he hastened the study of man and reason; he
instituted the doctrine of true manhood as an essential part in the
philosophy of life.  Conscience was enthroned, and the moral life of
man began with Socrates.

_Platonic Philosophy Develops the Ideal_.--Plato was the pupil of
Socrates and the teacher of Aristotle.  These three represent the
culmination of Greek philosophy.  In its fundamental principles the
Platonic philosophy represents the highest flight of the mind in its
conception of being and of the nature of mind and matter, entertained
by the philosophers.  The doctrine of Plato consisted of three primary
principles: matter, ideas, and God.  While matter is co-eternal with
God, he created all animate and inanimate things from matter.  Plato
maintained that there was a unity in design.  And as God was an
independent and individual creator of the world, who fashioned the
universe, and is father to all creatures, there was unity in God.
Plato advanced the doctrine of reminiscences, {223} in which he
accounted for what had otherwise been termed innate ideas.  Plato also
taught, to a certain extent, the transmigration of souls.  He was
evidently influenced in many ways by the Indian philosophy; but the
special doctrine of Plato made ideas the most permanent of all things.
Visible things are only fleeting shadows, which soon pass away; only
ideas remain.  The universal concept, or notion, is the only real
thing.  Thus the perfect globe is the concept held in the mind; the
marble, ball, or sphere of material is only an imperfect representation
of the same.  The horse is a type to which all individual horses tend
to conform; they pass away, but the type remains.  His work was purely
deductive.  His major premise was accepted on faith rather than
determined by his reason.  Yet in philosophical speculations the
immortality of the soul, future rewards and punishments, the unity of
the creation and the unity of the creator, and an all-wise ruler of the
universe, were among the most important points of doctrine.

_Aristotle the Master Mind of the Greeks_.--While Aristotle and Plato
sought to prove the same things, and agreed with each other on many
principles of philosophy, the method employed by the former was exactly
the reverse of that of the latter.  Plato founded his doctrine on the
unity of all being, and observed the particular only through the
universal.  For proof he relied on the intuitive and the synthetic.
Aristotle, on the contrary, found it necessary to consider the
particular in order that the universal might be established.  He
therefore gathered facts, analyzed material, and discoursed upon the
results.  He was patient and persistent in his investigations, and not
only gave the world a great lesson by his example, but he obtained
better results than any other philosopher of antiquity.  It is
generally conceded that he showed the greatest strength of intellect,
the deepest insight, the greatest breadth of speculative thought, and
the clearest judgment of all philosophers, either ancient or modern.

Perhaps his doctrine of the necessity of a final cause, or sufficient
reason, which gives a rational explanation of individual {224} things,
is Aristotle's greatest contribution to pure philosophy.  The doctrine
of empiricism has been ascribed to Aristotle, but he fully recognized
the universal, and thought it connected with the individual, and not
separated from it, as represented by Plato.  The universal is
self-determining in its individualization, and is, therefore, a process
of identification rather than of differentiation.  The attention which
Aristotle gave to fact as opposed to theory, to investigation as
opposed to speculation, and to final cause, led men from a condition of
necessity to that of freedom, and taught philosophers to substantiate
their theories by reason and by fact.  There is no better illustration
of his painstaking investigation than his writing 250 constitutional
histories as the foundation of his work on "Politics."  In this
masterly work will be found an exposition of political theories and
practice worthy the attention of all modern political philosophers.
The service given by Aristotle to the learning of the Middle Ages, and,
in fact, to modern philosophy, was very great.

Aristotle was of a more practical turn of mind than Plato.  While he
introduced the formal syllogism in logic, he also introduced the
inductive method.  Perhaps Aristotle represented the wisest and most
learned of the Greeks, because he advanced beyond the speculative
philosophy to a point where he attempted to substantiate theory by
facts, and thus laid the foundation for comparative study.

_Other Schools_.--The Epicureans taught a philosophy based upon
pleasure-seeking--or, as it may be stated, making happiness the highest
aim of life.  They said that to seek happiness was to seek the highest
good.  This philosophy in its pure state had no evil ethical tendency,
but under the bad influences of remote followers of Epicurus it led to
the degeneration of ethical practice.  "Beware of excesses," says
Epicurus, "for they will lead to unhappiness."  Beware of folly and
sin, for they lead to wretchedness.  Nothing could have been better
than this, until people began to follow sensuality as the immediate
return of efforts to secure happiness.  Then it led to {225}
corruption, and was one of the causes of the downfall of Greek as well
as the Roman civilization.

The Stoics were a group of philosophers who placed great emphasis upon
ethics in comparison with logic and physics.  They looked on the world
from the pessimistic side and made themselves happy by becoming
martyrs.  They taught that suffering, the endurance of pain without
complaint, was the highest virtue.  To them logic was the science of
thought and of expression, physics was the science of nature, and
ethics the science of the good.  All ideas originated from sensation,
and perception was the only criterion of truth.  "We know only what we
perceive (by sense); only those ideas contain certain knowledge for us
which are ideas of real objects."  The soul of man was corporeal and
material, hence physics and metaphysics were almost identical.  There
is much incoherency in their philosophy; it abounds in paradoxes.  For
instance, it recognizes sense as the criterion and source of knowledge,
and asserts that reason is universal and knowable.  Yet it asserts that
there is no rational element in sense that is universal.  It confuses
individual human nature and universal nature, though its final result
was to unite both in one concept.  The result of their entire
philosophy was to create confusion, although they had much influence on
the practical life.

The Sceptics doubted all knowledge obtained by the senses.  There was
no criterion of truth in the intellect, consequently no knowledge.  If
truth existed it was in conduct, and thus the judgment must be
suspended.  They held that there was nothing that could be determined
of specific nature, nothing that could be of certainty.  Eventually the
whole Greek philosophy went out in scepticism.  The three schools, the
sceptic, the Epicurean, and the stoic, though widely differing in many
ways, agreed upon one thing, in basing their philosophy on
subjectivity, on mind rather than on objective nature.

_Results Obtained in Greek Philosophy_.--The philosophical conclusions
aimed at by the Greeks related to the origin and destiny of the world.
The world is an emanation from God, {226} and in due time it will
return to Him.  It may be considered as a part of the substance of God,
or it may be considered as something objective proceeding from him.
The visible world around us becomes thus but an expression of the God
mind.  But as it came forth a thing of beauty, so it will return again
to Him after its mission is fulfilled.  On the existence and attributes
of God the Greeks dwelt with great force.  There is established first a
unity of God, and this unity is the first cause in the creation.  To
what extent this unity is independent and separate in existence from
nature, is left in great doubt.  It was held that God is present
everywhere in nature, though His being is not limited by time or space.
Much of the philosophy bordered upon, if it did not openly avow, a
belief in pantheism.  The highest conception recognizes design in
creation, which would give an individual existence to the Creator.  Yet
the most acute mind did not depart from the assumption of the idea of
an all-pervading being of God extending throughout the universe,
mingling with nature and to a certain extent inseparable from it.  In
their highest conception the most favored of the Greeks were not free
from pantheistic notions.

The nature of the soul occupied much of the attention of the Greeks.
They began by giving material characteristics to the mind.  They soon
separated it in concept from material nature and placed it as a part of
God himself, who existed apart from material form.  The soul has a past
life, a present, and a future, as a final outcome of philosophical
speculations.  The attributes of the soul were confused with the
attributes of the Supreme Being.  These conceptions of the Divine Being
and of the soul border on the Hindu philosophy.

Perhaps the subject which caused the most discussion was the attempt to
determine a criterion of truth.  Soon after the time when they broke
away from the ancient religious faith, the thinkers of Greece began to
doubt the ability of the mind to ascertain absolute truth.  This arose
out of the imperfections of knowledge obtained through the senses.
Sense perception {227} was held in much doubt.  The world is full of
delusions.  Man thinks he sees when he does not.  The rainbow is but an
illusion when we attempt to analyze it.  The eye deceives, the ear
hears what does not exist; even touch and taste frequently deceive us.
What, then, can be relied upon as accurate in determining knowledge?
To this the Greek mind answers, "Nothing"; it reaches no definite
conclusion, and this is the cardinal weakness of the philosophy.
Indeed, the great weakness of the entire age of philosophy was want of
data.  It was a time of intense activity of the mind, but the lack of
data led to much worthless speculation.  The systematic method of
scientific observation had not yet been discovered.

But how could this philosophical speculation affect civilization?  It
determined the views of life entertained by the Greeks, and human
progress depended upon this.  The progress of the world depends upon
the attitude of the human mind toward nature, toward man and his life.
The study of philosophy developed the mental capacity of man, gave him
power to cope with nature, and enhanced his possibility of right
living.  More than this, it taught man to rely upon himself in
explaining the origin and growth of the universe and the development of
human life.  Though these points were gained only by the few and soon
lost sight of by all, yet they were revived in after years, and placed
man upon the right basis for improvement.

The quickening impulse of philosophy had its influence on art and
language.  The language of the Greeks stands as their most powerful
creation.  The development of philosophy enlarged the scope of language
and increased its already rich vocabulary.  Art was a representation of
nature.  The predominance given to man in life, the study of heroes and
gods, gave ideal creations and led to the expression of beauty.
Philosophy, literature, language, and art, including architecture,
represent the products of Greek civilization, and as such have been the
lasting heritage of the nations that have followed.  The philosophy and
practice of social life and government {228} received a high
development in Greece.  They will be treated in a separate chapter.


1.  What was the importance of Socrates' teaching?  Why was he put to

2.  What has been the influence of Plato's teaching on modern life?

3.  Why is Aristotle considered the greatest of the Greeks?

4.  What was the influence of the library at Alexandria?

5.  What caused the decline in Greek philosophy?

6.  What was the influence on civilization of the Greek attitudes of
mind toward nature?

7.  Compare the use of Greek philosophy with modern science as to their
value in education.




_The Struggle for Greek Equality and Liberty_.--The greater part of the
activity of Western nations has been a struggle for social equality and
for political and religious liberty.  These phases of European social
life are clearly discerned in the development of the Greek states.  The
Greeks were recognized as having the highest intellectual culture and
the largest mental endowments of all the ancients, characteristics
which gave them great prestige in the development of political life and
social philosophy.  The problem of how communities of people should
live together, their relations to one another, and their rights,
privileges, and duties, early concerned the philosophers of Greece; but
more potent than all the philosophies that have been uttered, than all
of the theories concerning man's social relation, is the vivid
portrayal of the actual struggle of men to live together in community
life, pictured in the course of Grecian history.

In the presentation of this life, writers have differed much in many
ways.  Some have eulogized the Greeks as a liberty-loving people, who
sought to grant rights and duties to every one on an altruistic basis;
others have pictured them as entirely egoistic, with a morality of a
narrow nature, and with no sublime conception of the relation of the
rights of humanity as such.  Without entering into a discussion of the
various views entertained by philosophers concerning the
characteristics of the Greeks, it may be said that, with all their
noble characteristics, the ideal pictures which are presented to us by
the poet, the philosopher, and the historian are too frequently of the
few, while the great mass of the people remained in a state of
ignorance, superstition, and slavery.  With a due recognition of the
existence of the germs of democracy, {230} we find that Greece, after
all, was in spirit an aristocracy.  There was an aristocracy of birth,
of wealth, of learning, and of hereditary power.  While we must
recognize the greatness of the Greek life in comparison with that of
Oriental nations, it must still be evident to us that the best phases
of this life and the magnificent features of Greek learning have been
emphasized much by writers, while the wretched and debasing conditions
of the people of Greece have seldom been recounted.

_The Greek Government an Expanded Family_.--The original family was
ruled by the father, who acted as king, priest, and lawgiver.  As long
as life lasted he had supreme control over all members of his family,
whether they were so by birth or adoption.  All that they owned, all of
the products of their hands, all the wealth of the family, belonged to
him; even their lives were at his disposal.

As the family becomes stronger and is known as a gens, it represents a
close, compact organization, looking after its own interests, and with
definite customs concerning its own government.  As the gentes are
multiplied they form tribes, and the oldest male member of the tribal
group acts as its leader and king, while the heads of the various
gentes thus united become his counsellors and advisers in later
development, and the senate after democratic government organization
takes place.  As time passes the head of this family is called a king
or chief, and rules on the ground that he has descended from the gods,
is under the divine protection, and represents the oldest aristocratic
family in the tribe.

In the beginning this tribal chief holds unlimited sway over all of his
subjects.  But to maintain his power well he must be a soldier who is
able to command the forces in war; he must be able to lead in the
councils with the chiefs and, when occasion requires, discuss matters
with the people.  Gradually passing from the ancient hereditary power,
he reaches a stage when it becomes a custom to consult with all the
chiefs of the tribe in the management of the affairs.  The earliest
picture of Greek government represents a king who is equal in birth
with {231} other heads of the gentes, presiding over a group of elders
deliberating upon the affairs of the state.  The influence of the
nobles over whom he presided must have been great.  It appears that the
king or chief must convince his associates in council before any
decision could be considered a success.

The second phase of Greek government represents this same king as
appearing in the assembly of all the people and presenting for their
consideration the affairs of the state.  It is evident from this that,
although he was a hereditary monarch, deriving his power from
aristocratic lineage traced even to the gods themselves, he was
responsible to the people for his government, and this principle
extends all the way through the development of Greek social and
political life.

The right to free discussion of affairs in open council, the right to
object to methods of procedure, were cardinal principles in Greek
politics; but while the great mass of people were not taken into
account in the affairs of the government, there was an equality among
all those called citizens which had much to do with the establishment
of the civil polity of all nations.  The whole Greek political life,
then, represents the slow evolution from aristocratic government of
hereditary chiefs toward a complete democracy, which unfortunately it
failed to reach before the decline of the Greek state.

As before related, the Greeks had established a large number of
independent communities which developed into small states.  These small
states were mostly isolated from one another, hence they developed an
independent social and political existence.  This was of great
consequence in the establishing of the character of the Greek
government.  In the first place, the kings, chiefs, and rulers were
brought closely in contact with the people.  Everybody knew them,
understood the character of the men, realizing that they had passions
and prejudices similar to other men, and that, notwithstanding they
were elevated to positions of power, they nevertheless were human
beings like the people themselves.  This led to a democratic feeling.


Again, the development of these separate small states led to great
diversity of government.  All kinds of government were exercised in
Greece, from the democracy to the hereditary monarchy.  Many of these
governments passed in their history through all stages of government to
be conceived of--the monarchy, absolute and constitutional, the
aristocracy, the oligarchy, the tyranny, the democracy, and the polity.
All phases of politics had their representation in the development of
the Greek life.

In a far larger way the development of these isolated communities made
local self-government the primary basis of the state.  When the Greek
had developed his own small state he had done his duty so far as
government was concerned.  He might be on friendly terms with the
neighboring states, especially as they might use the same language as
his own and belonged to the same race, but he could in no way be
responsible for the success or the failure of men outside of his
community.  This was many times a detriment to the development of the
Greek race, as the time arrived when it should stand as a unit against
the encroachments of foreign nations.  No unity of national life found
expression in the repulsion of the Persians, no unity in the
Peloponnesian war, no unity in the defense against the Romans; indeed,
the Macedonians found a divided people, which made conquering easy.

There was another phase of this Greek life worthy of notice: the fact
that it developed extreme selfishness and egoism respecting government.
We shall find in this development, in spite of the pretensions for the
interests of the many, that government existed for the few;
notwithstanding the professions of an enlarged social life, we shall
find a narrowness almost beyond belief in the treatment of Greeks by
one another in the social life.  It is true that the recognition of
citizenship was much wider than in the Orient, and that the individual
life of man received more marked attention than in any ancient
despotism; yet, after all, when we recognize the multitudes of slaves,
who were considered not worthy to take part in {233} government
affairs, the numbers of the freedmen and non-citizens, and realize that
the few who had power or privilege of government looked with disdain
upon all others, it gives us no great enthusiasm for Greek democracy
when compared with the modern conception of that term.

As Mr. Freeman says in his _Federal Government_, the citizen "looked
down upon the vulgar herd of slaves, the freedmen and unqualified
residents, as his own plebeian fathers had been looked down upon by the
old Eupatrides in the days of Cleisthenes and Solon."  Whatever phase
of this Greek society we discuss, we must not forget that there was a
large class excluded from rights of government, and that the few sought
always to maintain their own rights and privileges supported by the
many, and the pretensions of an enlarged privilege of citizenship had
little effect in changing the actual conditions of the aristocratic

_The Athenian Government a Type of Grecian Democracy_.--Indeed, it was
the only completed government in Greece.  The civilization of Athens
shows the character of the Greek race in its richest and most beautiful
development.  Here art, learning, culture, and government reached their
highest development.  It was a small territory that surrounded the city
of Athens, containing a little over 850 English square miles, possibly
less, as some authorities say.  The soil was poor, but the climate was
superb.  It was impossible for the Athenian to support a high
civilization from the soil of Attica, hence trade sprang up and Athens
grew wealthy on account of its great maritime commerce.

The population of all Attica in the most flourishing times was about
500,000 people, 150,000 of whom were slaves, 45,000 settlers, or
unqualified people, while the free citizens did not exceed 90,000--so
that the equality so much spoken of in Grecian democracies belonged to
only 90,000 out of 500,000, leaving 410,000 disfranchised.  The
district was thickly populous for Greece, and the stock of the Athenian
had little mixture of foreign blood in it.  The city itself was formed
of {234} villages or cantons, united into one central government.
These appear to be survivals of the old village communities united
under the title of city-state.  It was the perfection of this
city-state that occupied the chief thought of the Athenian political

The ancient kingship of Athens passed, on deposition of the last of the
Medoutidae, about 712 B.C., into the hands of the nobles.  This was the
first step in the passage from monarchy toward democracy; it was the
beginning of the foundation of the republican constitution.  In 682
B.C. the government passed into the hands of nine archons, chosen from
all the rest of the nobles.  It was a movement on the part of the
nobles to obtain a partition of the government, while the common people
were not improved at all by the process.  The kings, indeed, in the
ancient time made a better government for the people than did the
nobles.  The people at this period were in great trouble.  The nobles
had loaned money to their wretched neighbors and, as the law was very
strict, the creditor might take possession of the property and even of
the person of the debtor, making of him a slave.

In this way the small proprietors had become serfs, and the masters
took from them five-sixths of the products of the soil, and would, no
doubt, have taken their lands had these not been inalienable.
Sometimes the debtors were sold into foreign countries as slaves, and
at other times their children were taken as slaves according to the
law.  On account of the oppression of the poor by the nobility, there
sprang up a hatred between these two classes.

A few changes were made by the laws of Draco and others, but nothing
gave decided relief to the people.  The nine archons, representing the
power of the state, managed nearly all of its affairs, and retained
likewise their seats in the council of nobles.  The old national
council formed by the aristocratic members of the community still
retained its hold, and the council of archons, though it divided the
country into administrative districts and sought to secure more
specific {235} management of the several districts, failed to keep down
internal disorders or to satisfy the people.  The people were formed
into three classes: the wealthy nobility, or land-owners of the plain,
the peasants of the mountains districts, and the people of the coast
country, the so-called middle classes.  The hatred of the nobility by
the peasants of the mountains was intense.  The nobles demanded their
complete suppression and subordination to the rule of their own class.
The people of the coast would have been contented with moderate
concessions from the nobility, which would give them a part in the
government and leave them unmolested.

_Constitution of Solon Seeks a Remedy_.--Such was the condition of
affairs when Solon proposed his reforms.  He sought to remove the
burdens of the people, first, by remitting all fines which had been
imposed; second, by preventing the people from offering their persons
as security against debt; and third, by depreciating the coin so as to
make payment of debt easy.  He replaced the Pheidonian talent by that
of the Euboic coinage, thus increasing the debt-paying capacity of
money twenty-seven per cent, or, in other words, reduced the debt about
that amount.  It was further provided that all debts could be paid in
three annual instalments, thus allowing poor farmers with mortgages
upon their farms an opportunity to pay their debts.  There was also
granted an amnesty to all persons who had been condemned to payment of
money penalties.  By further measures the exclusive privileges of the
old nobility were broken down, and a new government established on the
basis of wealth.  People were divided into classes according to their
property, and their privileges in government, as well as their taxes,
were based upon these classes.

Revising the old council of 401, Solon established a council (Boule) of
400, 100 from each district.  These were probably elected at first, but
later were chosen by lot.  The duties of this council were to prepare
all business for passage in the popular assembly.  No business could
come before the assembly of the people except by decree of the council,
and in nearly {236} every case the council could decide what measures
should be brought before the assembly.  While in some instances the law
made it obligatory for certain cases to be brought before the assembly,
there were some measures which could be disposed of by the council
without reference to the assembly.

The administration of justice was distributed among the nine archons,
each one of whom administered some particular department.  The archon
as judge could dispose of matters or refer them to an arbitrator for
decision.  In every case the dissatisfied party had a right to appeal
to the court made up of a collective body of 6,000 citizens, called the
Heliaea.  This body was annually chosen from the whole body of
citizens, and acted as jurors and judges.  In civil matters the
services of the Heliaea were slight.  They consisted in holding open
court on certain matters appealed to them from the archons.  In
criminal matters the Heliaea frequently acted immediately as a sole
tribunal, whose decision was final.

It is one of the remarkable things in the Greek polity that the supreme
court or court of appeals should be elected from the common people,
while in other courts judges should hold their offices on account of
position.  Solon also recognized what is known as the Council of the
Areopagus.  The functions of this body had formerly belonged to the old
council included in the Draconian code.  The Council of the Areopagus
was formed from the ex-archons who had held the office without blame.
It became a sort of supreme advisory council, watching over the whole
collective administration.  It took account of the behavior of the
magistrates in office and of the proceedings of the public assembly,
and could interpose in other cases when, in its judgment, it thought it
necessary.  It could advise as to the proper conducting of affairs and
criticise the process of administration.  It could also administer
private discipline and call citizens to account for their individual
acts.  In this respect it somewhat resembled the Ephors of Sparta.


The popular assembly would meet and consider the questions put before
it by the council, voting yes or no, but the subject was not open for
discussion.  However, it was possible for the assembly to bring other
subjects up for discussion and, through motion, refer them to the
consideration of the council.  It was also possible to attach to the
proposition of the council a motion, called in modern terms "a rider,"
and thus enlarge upon the work of the council; but it was so arranged
that the preponderance of all the offices went to the nobility and that
the council be made up of this class, and hence there was no danger
that the government would fall into the hands of the people.  Solon
claimed to have put into the hands of the people all the power that
they deserved, and to have established numerous checks on government
which made it possible for each group of people to be well represented.

Thus the council limited the power of the assembly, the Areopagus
supervised the council, while the courts of the people had the final
decision in cases of appeal.  As is well known, Solon could not carry
out his own reforms, but was forced to leave the country.  Had he been
of a different nature and at once seized the government, or appealed to
the people, as did his successor, Pisistratus, he might have made his
measures of reform more effective.  As it was, he was obliged to leave
their execution to others.

_Cleisthenes Continues the Reforms of Solon_.--Some years later (509
B.C.) Cleisthenes instituted other reforms, increasing the council to
500, the members of which might be drawn from the first three classes
rather than the first, limiting the archonship to the first class, and
breaking up the four ancient tribes formed from the nobility.  He
formed ten new tribes of religious and political unions, thus intending
to break down the influence of the nobility.  Although the popular
assembly was composed of all citizens of the four classes, the
functions of this body in the early period were very meagre.  It gave
them the privilege of voting on the principal affairs of the nation
when the council desired them to assume the responsibility.  The {238}
time for holding it was in the beginning indefinite, it being only
occasionally convened, but in later times there were ten[1] assemblies
in each year, when business was regularly placed before it.  Meetings
were held in the market-place at first; later a special building was
erected for this purpose.  Sometimes, however, special assemblies were
held elsewhere.

The assembly was convoked by the prytanes, while the right of convoking
extraordinary assemblies fell to the lot of the strategi.  There were
various means for the compulsion of the attendance of the crowd.  There
was a fine for non-attendance, and police kept out people who ought not
to appear.  Each assembly opened with religious service.  Usually
sucking pigs were sacrificed, which were carried around to purify the
place, and their blood was sprinkled over the floor.  This ceremony was
followed by the offering of incense.  This having been done, the
president stated the question to be considered and summoned the people
to vote.

As the assembly developed in the advanced stage of Athenian life, every
member in good standing had a right to speak.  The old men were called
upon first and then the younger men.  This discussion was generally
upon open questions, and not upon resolutions prepared by the council,
though amendments to these resolutions were sometimes allowed.  No
speaker could be interrupted except by the presiding officer, and no
member could speak more than once.  As each speaker arose, he mounted
the rostrum and placed a wreath of myrtle upon his head, which
signified that he was performing a duty to the state.  The Greeks
appear to have developed considerable parliamentary usage and to have
practised a system of voting similar to our ballot reform.  Each
individual entered an enclosure and voted by means of pebbles.
Subsequently the functions of the assembly grew quite large.  The
demagogues found it to their interests to extend its powers.  They
tried to establish the principle in Athens that the people were the
rulers of everything by right.


The powers of the assembly were generally divided into four groups, the
first including the confirmation of appointments, the accusation of
offenders against the state, the confiscation of goods, and claims to
succession of property.  The second group considered petitions of the
people, the third acted upon motions for the remission of sentences,
and the fourth had charge of dealings with foreign states and religious
matters in general.

It is observed that the Athenians represented the highest class of the
Greeks and that government received its highest development among them.
But the only real political liberty in Greece may be summed up in the
principle of hearing both sides of a question and of obtaining a
decision on the merits of the case presented.  Far different is this
from the old methods of despotic rule, under which kings were looked
upon as authority in themselves, whose will must be carried out without
question.  The democracy of Athens, too, was the first instance of the
substitution of law for force.

It is true that in the beginning all of the Greek communities rested
upon a military basis.  Their foundations were laid in military
exploits, and they maintained their position by the force of arms for a
long period.  But this is true of nearly all states and nations when
they make their first attempt at permanent civilization.  But after
they were once established they sought to rule their subjects by the
introduction of well-regulated laws and not by the force of arms.  The
military discipline, no doubt, was the best foundation for a state of
primitive people, but as this passed away the newer life was regulated
best by law and civil power.  Under this the military became

To Greece must be given the credit of founding the city, and, indeed,
this is one of the chief characteristics of the Greek people.  They
established the city-state, or polis.  It represented a full and
complete sovereignty in itself.  When they had accomplished this idea
of sovereignty the political organization had reached its highest aim.


_Athenian Democracy Failed in Obtaining Its Best and Highest
Development_.--It is a disappointment to the reader that Athens, when
in the height of power, when the possibilities for extending and
promoting the best interests of humanity in social capacity were
greatest, should end in decline and failure.  In the first place,
extreme democracy in that early period was more open than now to
excessive dangers.  It was in danger of control by mobs, who were
ignorant of their own real interests and the interests of popular
government; it was in danger of falling into the hands of tyrants, who
would rule for their own private interests; it was in danger of falling
into the hands of a few, which frequently happened.  And this democracy
in the ancient time was a rule of class--class subordination was the
essence of its constitution.  There was no universal rule by the
majority.  The franchise was an exclusive privilege extended to a
minority, hence it differed little from aristocracy, being a government
of class with a rather wider extension.

The ancient democracies were pure in form, in which the people governed
immediately.  For every citizen had a right to appear in the assembly
and vote, and he could sit in the assembly, which acted as an open
court.  Indeed, the elective officers of the democracy were not
considered as representatives of the people.  They were the state and
not subject to impeachment, though they should break over all law.
After they returned among the citizens and were no longer the state
they could be tried for their misdemeanors in office.

Now, a state of this nature and form must of necessity be small, and as
government expanded and its functions increased, the representative
principle should have been introduced as a mainstay to the public
system.  The individual in the ancient democracy lived for the state,
being subordinate to its existence as the highest form of life.  We
find this entirely different from the modern democracy, in which
slavery and class subordination are both excluded, as opposed to its
theory and antagonistic to its very being.  Its citizenship is wide,
extending to its native population, and its suffrage is universal to
all who qualify as citizens.  The citizens, too, in {241} modern
democracies, live for themselves, and believe that the state is made by
them for themselves.

The decline of the Athenian democracy was hastened, also, by the
Peloponnesian war, caused first by the domineering attitude of Athens,
which posed as an empire, and the jealousy of Sparta.  This struggle
between Athens and Sparta amounted almost to civil war.  And although
it brought Sparta to the front as the most powerful state in all
Greece, she was unable to advance the higher civilization, but really
exercised a depressing influence upon it.  It might be mentioned
briefly, too, that the overthrow of Athens somewhat later, and the
establishment of the 400 as rulers, soon led to political
disintegration.  It was the beginning of the founding of Athenian
clubs, or political factions, which attempted to control the elections
by fear or force.  These, by their power, forced the decrees of the
assembly to suit themselves, and thus gave the death-blow to liberty.
There was the reaction from this to the establishment of 5,000 citizens
as a controlling body, and restricting the constitution, which
attempted to unite all classes into one body and approximated the
modern democracy, or that which is represented in the "polity" of

After the domination of Sparta, Lysander and the thirty tyrants rose to
oppress the citizens, and deposed a previous council of ten made for
the ruling of the city.  But once more after this domination democracy
was restored, and under the Theban and Macedonian supremacies the old
spirit of "equality of equals" was once more established.  But Athens
could no longer maintain her ancient position; her warlike ambitions
had passed away, her national intelligence had declined; the dangers of
the populace, too, threatened her at every turn, and the selfishness of
the nobility in respect to the other classes, as well as the
selfishness of the Spartan state outside, soon led to her downfall.  At
first, too, all the officers were not paid, it being considered a
misdemeanor to take pay for office; but finally regular salaries were
paid, and this forced the leaders to establish free theatres for the

And finally, it may be said, that the power for good or evil {242} in
the democracy lacking in permanent foundations is so great that it can
never lead on to perfect success.  It will prosper to-day and decline
to-morrow.  So the attempt of the Athenians to found a democracy led
not to permanent success; nevertheless, it gave to the world for the
first time the principles of government founded upon equality and
justice, and these principles have remained unchanged in the practice
of the more perfect republics of modern times.

_The Spartan State Differs from All Others_.--If we turn our attention
to Sparta we shall find an entirely different state--a state which may
be represented by calling it an aristocratic republic.  Not only was it
founded on a military basis, but its very existence was perpetuated by
military form.  The Dorian conquest brought these people in from the
north to settle in the Peloponnesus, and by degrees they obtained a
foothold and conquered their surrounding neighbors.  Having established
themselves on a small portion of the land, the Dorians, or Spartans,
possessed themselves of superior military skill in order to obtain the
overlordship of the surrounding territory.  Soon they had control of
nearly all of the Peloponnesus.  Although Argos was at first the ruling
city of the conquerors, Sparta soon obtained the supremacy, and the
Spartan state became noted as the great military state of the Greeks.

The population of Sparta was composed of the Dorians, or citizens, who
were the conquerors, and the independent subjects, who had been
conquered but who had no part in the government, and the serfs or
helots, who were the lower class of the conquered ones.  The total
population is estimated at about 380,000 to 400,000, while the serfs
numbered at least 175,000 to 224,000.  These serfs were always a cause
of fear and anxiety to the conquerors, and they were watched over by
night and day by spies who kept them from rising.  The helots were
employed in peace as well as in war, and in all occupations where
excessive toil was needed.  The middle class (Perioeci) were subjects
dependent upon the citizens.  They had no share in the Spartan state
except to obey its {243} administration.  They were obliged to accept
the obligations of military service, to pay taxes and dues when
required.  Their occupations were largely the promotion of agriculture
and the various trades and industries.  Their proportion to the
citizens was about thirty to nine, or, as is commonly given, there was
one citizen to four of the middle class and twelve of the helots,
making the ratio of citizens to the entire population about
one-seventeenth, or every seventeenth man was a citizen.

Attempts were made to divide the lands of the rich among the poor, and
this redistribution of lands occurred from time to time.  There were
other semblances of pure democracy of communistic nature.  It was a
pure military state, and all were treated as soldiers.  There was a
common table, or "mess," for a group, called the social union.  There
all the men were obliged to assemble at meal-time, the women remaining
at home.  The male children were taken at the age of seven years and
trained as soldiers.  These were then in charge of the state, and the
home was relieved of its responsibility concerning them.

The state also adopted many sumptuary laws regulating what should be
eaten and what should be used, and what not.  All male persons were
subjected to severe physical training, for Sparta, in her education,
always dwelt upon physical development and military training.  The
development of language and literature, art and sculpture, was not
observed here as it was in Athens.  The ideal of aristocracy was the
rule of the nobler elements of the nation and the subordination of the
mass.  This was supposed to be the best that could be done for the
state and hence the best for the people.  There was no opportunity for
subjects to rise to citizenship--nor, indeed, was this true in Athens,
except by the gradual widening force of legal privilege.  Individual
life in Sparta was completely subordinate to the state life, and here
the citizen existed more fully for the state than in Athens in her
worst days.

Finally abuses grew.  It was the old story of the few rich {244}
dominating and oppressing the many poor.  The minority had grown
insolent and overbearing, and attempted to rule a hopeless and
discontented majority.  The reforms of Lycurgus led to some
improvements, by the institution of new divisions of citizens and
territory and the division of the land, not only among citizens but the
half-citizens and dependents.  Nevertheless, it appears that in spite
of these attempted reforms, in spite of the establishment of the
council, the public assembly, and the judicial process, Sparta still
remained an arbitrary military power.  Yet the government continued to
expand in form and function until it had obtained a complex existence.
But there was a non-progressive element in it all.  The denial of
rights of marriage between citizens and other groups limited the
increase of the number of citizens, and while powers were gradually
extended to those outside of the pale of citizenship, they were given
so niggardly, and in such a manner, as to fail to establish the great
principle of civil government on the basis of a free democracy.

The military régime was non-progressive in its nature.  It could lead
to conquest of enemies, but could not lead to the perpetuation of the
rights and privileges of citizens; it could lead to domination of
others, but could not bring about the subordination of universal
citizenship to law and order, nor permit the expansion and growth of
individual life under benevolent institutions of government.

So the Greek government, the democracy with all of its great promises
and glorious prospects, declined certainly from the height which was
great in contrast to the Oriental despotisms.  It declined at a time
when, as we look back from the present, it ought apparently to have
gone on to the completion of the modern representative government.
Probably, had the Greeks adopted the representative principle and
enlarged their citizenship, their government would have been more
lasting.  It is quite evident, also, that had they adopted the
principle of federation and, instead of allowing the operation of
government to cease when one small state had been perfected, united
{245} these small states into a great nation throbbing with patriotism
for the entire country, Greece might have withstood the warlike shocks
of foreign nations.  But, thus unprepared alike to resist internal
dissension and foreign oppression, the Greek states, notwithstanding
all of their valuable contributions to government and society, were
forced to yield their position of establishing a permanent government
for the people.

Some attempts were made to unify and organize Greek national life, not
entirely without good results.  The first instance of this arose out of
temple worship, where members of different states met about a common
shrine erected to a special deity.  This led to temporary organization
and mutual aid.  Important among these centres was the shrine of Apollo
at Delphi.  This assemblage was governed by a council of general
representation.  Important customs were established, such as the
keeping of roads in repair which led to the shrine, and providing that
pilgrims should have safe conduct and be free from tolls and taxes on
their way to and from the shrine.  The members of the league were sworn
not to destroy a city member or to cut off running water from the city.
This latter rule was the foundation of the law of riparian rights--one
of the oldest and most continuous in Western civilization.  The
inspiration for the great national Olympic Games came from these early
assemblages about shrines.[2]

Also the Aetolian and Achaean leagues, which occurred in the later
development of Greece, after the Macedonian conquest, were serious
attempts for federal unity.  Although they were meritorious and
partially successful, they came too late to make a unified nation of
Greece.  In form and purpose these federal leagues are suggestive of
the early federation of the colonies of America.

_Greek Colonization Spreads Knowledge_.--The colonies of Greece,
established on the different islands and along the shores of the
Mediterranean, were among the important {246} civilizers of this early
period.  Its colonies were established for the purpose of relieving the
population of congested districts, on the one hand, and for the purpose
of increasing trade, on the other.  They were always independent in
government of the mother country, but were in sympathy with her in
language, in customs, and in laws and religion.  As the ships plied
their trade between the central government and these distant colonies,
they carried with them the fundamentals of civilization--the language,
the laws, the customs, the art, the architecture, the philosophy and
thought of the Greeks.

There was a tendency, then, to spread abroad over a large territory the
Grecian philosophy and life.  More potent, indeed, than war is the
civilizing influence of maritime trade.  It brings with it exchange of
ideas, inspiration, and new life; it enables the planting of new
countries with the best products.  No better evidence of this can be
seen than in the planting of modern English colonies, which has spread
the civilization of England around the world.  This was begun by the
Greeks in that early period, and in the dissemination of knowledge it
represents a wide influence.

_The Conquests of Alexander_.--Another means of the dissemination of
Greek thought, philosophy, and learning was the Alexandrian conquest
and domination.  The ambitious Alexander, extending the plan of Philip
of Macedon, who attempted to conquer the Greeks and the surrounding
countries, desired to master the whole known world.  And so into Egypt
and Asia Minor, into Central Asia, and even to the banks of the Ganges,
he carried his conquests, and with them the products of Greek learning
and literature.  And most potent of all these influences was the
founding of Alexandria in Egypt, which he hoped to make the central
city of the world.  Into this place flowed the products of learning,
not only of Greece but of the Orient, and developed a mighty city with
its schools and libraries, with its philosophy and doctrines and
strange religious influences.  And for many years the learning of the
world centred about Alexandria, forming a great rival to Athens, which,
{247} though never losing its prominence in certain lines of culture,
was dominated by the greater Alexandria.

_The Age of Pericles_.--In considering all phases of life the splendors
of Greece culminated in a period of 50 years immediately following the
close of the Persian wars.  This period is known as the Age of
Pericles.  Although the rule of Pericles was about thirty years
(466-429), his influence extended long after.  The important part
Athens performed in the Persian wars gave her the political ascendancy
in Greece and enabled her to assume the beginning of the states; in
fact, enabled her to establish an empire.  Pericles rebuilt Athens
after the destructive work of the Persians.  The public buildings, the
Parthenon and the Acropolis, were among the noted structures of the
world.  A symmetrical city was planned on a magnificent scale hitherto
unknown.  Pericles gathered about him architects, sculptors, poets,
dramatists, teachers, and philosophers.

The age represents a galaxy of great men: Aeschylus, Sophocles,
Euripides, Herodotus, Socrates, Thucydides, Phidias, Ictinus, and
others.  Greek government reached its culmination and society had its
fullest life in this age.  The glory of the period extended on through
the Peloponnesian war, and after the Macedonian conquest it gradually
waned and the splendor gradually passed from Athens to Alexandria.

_Contributions of Greece to Civilization_.--It is difficult to
enumerate all of the influences of Greece on modern civilization.
First of all, we might mention the language of Greece, which became so
powerful in the development of the Roman literature and Roman
civilization and, in the later Renaissance, a powerful engine of
progress.  Associated with the language is the literature of the
Greeks.  The epic poems of Homer, the later lyrics, the drama, the
history, and the polemic, all had their highest types presented in the
Greek literature.  Latin and modern German, English and French owe to
these great originators a debt of gratitude for every form of modern
literature.  The architecture of Greece was broad enough to lay the
foundation of the future, and so we find, even in our {248} modern
life, the Grecian elements combined in all of our great buildings.

Painting and frescoing were well established in principle, though not
carried to a high state until the mediaeval period; but in sculpture
nothing yet has exceeded the perfection of the Greek art.  It stands a
monument of the love of the beauty of the human form and the power to
represent it in marble.

The Greek philosophy finds its best results not only in developing the
human mind to a high state but in giving to us the freedom of thought
which belongs by right to every individual.  An attempt to find out
things as they are, to rest all philosophy upon observation, and to
determine by the human reason the real essence of truth, is of such
stupendous magnitude in the development of the human mind that it has
entered into the philosophy of every educational system presented since
by any people or any individual.  The philosophers of modern times,
while they may not adopt the principles of the ancient philosophy,
still recognize their power, their forms of thought, and their
activities, and their great influence on the intellectual development
of the world.

Last, but not least, are the great lessons recounted of the foundations
of civil liberty.  Incomplete as the ancient democracies were, they
pointed to the world the great lessons of the duties of man to man and
the relations of mankind in social life.  When we consider the
greatness of the social function and the prominence of social
organization in modern life, we shall see how essential it is that,
though the development of the individual may be the highest aim of
civilization, the social organization must be established upon a right
basis to promote individual interests.  Freedom, liberty,
righteousness, justice, free discussion, all these were given to us by
the Greeks, and more--the forms of government, the assembly, the
senate, the judiciary, the constitutional government, although in their
imperfect forms, are represented in the Greek government.  These
represent the chief contributions of the Greeks to civilization.



1.  What were the achievements of the Age of Pericles?

2.  Which are more important to civilization, Greek ideals or Greek

3.  The ownership of land in Greece.

4.  The characteristics of the city-state of Athens.

5.  Alexandria as an educational centre.

6.  Why did the Greeks fail to make a strong central nation?

7.  The causes of the decline of Greek civilization.

8.  Give a summary of the most important contributions of Greece to
modern civilization.

[1] Some authorities state forty assemblies were held each year.

[2] The Confederation of Delos, the Athenian Empire, and the
Peloponnesian League were attempts to federalize Greece.  They were
successful only in part.




_The Romans Differed in Nature from the Greeks_.--Instead of being of a
philosophic, speculative nature, the Romans were a practical, even a
stoical, people of great achievement.  They turned their ideas always
toward the concrete, and when they desired to use the abstract they
borrowed the principles and theories established by other nations.
They were poor theorizers, both in philosophy and in religion, but were
intensely interested in that which they could turn to immediate and
practical benefit.  They were great borrowers of the products of other
people's imagination.  In the very early period they borrowed the gods
of the Greeks and somewhat of their forms of religion!

Later they borrowed forms of art from other nations and developed them
to suit their own, and, still later, they used the literary language of
the Greeks to enrich their own.  This method of borrowing the best
products of others and putting them to practical service led to immense
consequences in the development of civilization.  The Romans lacked not
in originality, for practical application leads to original creation,
but their best efforts in civilization were wrought out from this
practical standpoint.  Thus, in the improvement of agriculture, in the
perfection of the art of war, in the development of law and of
government, their work was masterly in the extreme; and to this extent
it was worked out rather than thought out.  Indeed, their whole
civilization was evolved from the practical standpoint.

_The Social Structure of Early Rome and That of Early Greece_.--Rome
started, like Greece, with the early patriarchal kings, who ruled over
the expanded family, but with this difference, that these kings, from
the earliest historical records, were {251} elected by the people.
Nevertheless there is no evidence that the democratic spirit was
greater in early Rome than in early Greece, except in form.  In the
early period all Italy was filled with tribes, mostly of Aryan descent,
and in the regal period the small territory of Latium was filled with
independent city communities; but all these cities were federated on a
religious basis and met at Alba Longa as a centre, where they conducted
their worship and duly instituted certain regulations concerning the
government of all.  Later, after the decline of Alba Longa, the seat of
this federal government was removed to Rome, which was another of the
federated cities.  Subsequently this territory was invaded by the
Sabines, who settled at Rome, and, as an independent community, allied
themselves with the Romans.

And, finally, the invasion of the Etruscans gave the last of three
separate communities, which were federated into one state and laid the
foundation of the imperial city.  But if some leader founded Rome in
the early period, it is quite natural that he should be called Romulus,
after the name of Rome.  Considering the nature of the Romans and the
tendency to the old ancestral worship among them, it does not seem
strange that they should deify this founder and worship him.
Subsequently, we find that this priestly monarchy was changed to a
military monarchy, in which everything was based upon property and
military service.  Whatever may be the stories of early Rome, so much
may be mentioned as historical fact.

The foundation was laid in three great tribes, composed of the ancient
families, or patricians, who formed the body of the league.  Those who
settled at Rome at an early period became the aristocracy; they were
members of the tribes of immemorial foundation.  At first the old
tribal exclusiveness prevailed, and people who came later into Rome
were treated as unequal to those who long had a right to the soil.
This led to a division among the people based on hereditary right,
which lasted in its effect as long as Rome endured.  It became the
{252} custom to call those persons belonging to the first families
patricians, and all who were not patricians plebeians, representing
that class who did not belong to the first families.  The plebeians
were composed of foreigners, who had only commercial rights, of the
clients who attached themselves to these ancient families, but who
gradually passed into the plebeian rank, and of land-holders,
craftsmen, and laborers.  The plebeians were free inhabitants, without
political rights.  As there was no great opportunity for the patricians
to increase in number, the plebeians, in the regal period, soon grew to
outnumber them.  They were increased by those conquered ones who were
permitted to come to Rome and dwell.  Also the tradesmen and immigrants
who dwelt at Rome increased rapidly, for they could have the protection
of the Roman state without having the responsibility of Roman soldiers.
It was of great significance in the development of the Roman government
that these two great classes existed.

_Civil Organization of Rome_.--The organization of the government of
early Rome rested in a peculiar sense upon the family group.  The first
tribes that settled in the territory were governed upon a family basis,
and their land was held by family holdings.  No other nation appears to
have perpetuated such a power of the family in the affairs of the
state.  The father, as the head of the family, had absolute power over
all; the son never became of age so far as the rights of property are
considered as long as the father lived.  The father was priest, king,
and legislator for all in the family group.  Parental authority was
arbitrary, and when the head of the family passed away the oldest male
member of the family took his place, and ruled as his father had ruled.

A group of these families constituted a clan, and a group of clans made
a tribe, and three tribes, according to the formula for the formation
of Rome, made a state.  Whether this formal process was carried out
exactly remains to be proved, but the families related to one another
by ties of blood were united in distinct groups, which were again
reorganized into larger {253} groups, and the formula at the time of
the organization of the state was that there were 30 cantons formed by
300 clans, and these clans averaged about 10 families each.  This is
based upon the number of representatives which afterward formed the
senate, and upon the number of soldiers furnished by the various
families.  The state became then an enlarged family, with a king at the
head, whose prerogatives were somewhat limited by his position.  There
were also a popular assembly, consisting of all the freeholders of the
state, and the senate, formed by the heads of all the most influential
families, for the government of Rome.  These ancient hereditary forms
of government extended with various changes in the progress of Rome.

_The Struggle for Liberty_.--The members of the Roman senate were
chosen from the noble families of Rome, and were elected for life,
which made the senate of Rome a perpetual body.  Having no legal
declaration of legislative, judicial, executive, or administrative
authority, it was, nevertheless, the most powerful body of its kind
ever in existence.  Representing the power of intellect, and having
within its ranks men of the foremost character and ability of the city,
this aristocracy overpowered and ruled the affairs of Rome until the
close of the republic, and afterward became a service to the imperial
government of the Caesars.

From a very early period in the history of the Roman nation the people
struggled for their rights and privileges against this aristocracy of
wealth and hereditary power.  At the expulsion of the kings, in 500
B.C., the senate lived on, as did the old popular assembly of the
people, the former gaining strength, the latter becoming weakened.
Realizing what they had lost in political power, having lost their
farms by borrowing money of the rich patricians, and suffered
imprisonment and distress on that account, the plebeians, resolved to
endure no longer, marched out upon the hill, Mons Sacer, and demanded
redress by way of tribunes and other officers.

This was the beginning of an earnest struggle for 50 years {254} for
mere protection, to be followed by a struggle of 150 years for equality
of power and rights.  The result of this was that a compromise was made
with the senate, which allowed the people to have tribunes chosen from
the plebeians, and a law was passed giving them the right of protection
against the oppression of any official, and subsequently the right of
intercession against any administrative or judicial act, except in the
case when a dictator was appointed.  This gave the plebeians some
representation in the government of Rome.  They worked at first for
protection, and also for the privilege of intermarriage among the
patricians.  After this they began to struggle for equal rights and

A few years after the revolt in 486 B.C. Spurius Cassius brought
forward the first agrarian law.  The lands of the original Roman
territory belonged at first to the great families, and were divided and
subdivided among the various family groups.  But a large part of the
land obtained by conquest of the Italians became the public domain, the
property of the entire people of Rome.  It became necessary for these
lands to be leased by the Roman patricians, and as these same Roman
patricians were members of the senate, they became careless about
collecting rent of themselves, and so the lands were occupied year
after year, and, indeed, century after century, by the Roman families,
who were led to claim them as their own without rental.  Cassius
proposed to divide a part of these lands among the needy plebeians and
the Latins as well, and to lease the rest for the profit of the public
treasury.  The patricians fought against Cassius because he was to take
away their lands, and the plebeians were discontented with him because
he had favored the Latins.  The result was that at the close of his
office he was sentenced and executed for the mere attempt to do justice
to humanity.

The tribunes of the people finally gained more power, and a resolution
was introduced in the senate providing that a body of ten men should be
selected to reduce the laws of the state to a written code.  In 451
B.C. the ten men were chosen {255} from the patricians, who formed ten
tables of laws, had them engraved on copper plates, and placed them
where everybody could read them.  The following year ten men were again
appointed, three of whom were plebeians, who added two more tables; the
whole body became known as the Laws of the Twelve Tables.  It was a
great step in advance when the laws of a community could be thus
published.  Soon after this the laws of Valerius and Horatius made the
acts of the assembly of the tribunes of equal force with those of the
assembly of the centuries, and established that every magistrate,
including the dictator, was obliged in the future to allow appeals from
his decision.  They also recognized the inviolability of the tribunes
of the people and of the aediles who represented them.  But in order to
circumvent the plebeians, two quaestors were appointed in charge of the
military treasury.

Indeed, at every step forward which the people made for equality and
justice, the senate, representing the aristocracy, passed laws to
circumvent the plebeians.  In 445 B.C. the tribune Canuleius introduced
a law legalizing marriage between the patricians and plebeians.  The
children were to inherit the rank of their father.  This tribune
further attempted to pass a law allowing consuls to be chosen from the
plebeians.  To this a fierce opposition sprang up, and a compromise
measure was adopted which allowed military tribunes to be elected from
the plebeians, who had consular power.  But again the senate sought to
circumvent the plebeians, and created the new patrician office of
censor, to take the census, make lists of citizens and taxes, appoint
senators, prepare the publication of the budget, manage the state
property, farm out the taxes, and superintend public buildings; also he
might supervise the public morality.

With the year 587 B.C. came the invasion of the Gauls from the north
and the famous battle of the Allia, in which the Romans suffered defeat
and were forced to the right bank of the Tiber, leaving the city of
Rome defenseless.  Abandoned by the citizens, the city was taken,
plundered, and burned by {256} the Gauls.  Senators were slaughtered,
though the capitol was not taken.  Finally, surprised and overcome by a
contingent of the Roman army, the enemy was forced to retire and the
inhabitants again returned.  But no sooner had they returned than the
peaceful struggle of the plebeians against the patricians began again.

First, there were the poor, indebted plebeians, who sought the reform
of the laws relating to debtor and creditor and desired a share in the
public lands.  Second, the whole body of the plebeians were engaged in
an attempt to open the consulate to their ranks.  In 367 B.C. the
Licinian laws were passed, which gave relief to the debtors by
deducting the interest already accrued from the principal, and allowing
the rest to be paid in three annual instalments; and a second law
forbade that any one should possess more than 500 jugera of the public
lands.  This was to prevent the wealthy patricians from holding lands
in large tracts and keeping them from the plebeians.  This law also
abolished the military tribuneship and insisted that one at least of
the two consuls should be chosen from the plebeians--giving a
possibility of two.  The patricians, in order to counteract undue
influence in this respect, established the praetorship, the praetor
having jurisdiction and vicegerence of the consuls during their absence.

There also sprang up about this time the new nobility (_optimates_),
composed of the plebeians and patricians who had held office for a long
time, and representing the aristocracy of the community.  From this
time on all the Roman citizens tended to go into two classes, the
_optimates_ and, exclusive of these, the great Roman populace.  In the
former all the wealth and power were combined; in the latter the
poverty, wretchedness, and dependence.  Various other changes in the
constitution succeeded, until the great wars of the Samnites and those
of the Carthaginians directed the attention of the people to foreign
conquest.  After the close of these great wars and the firm
establishment of the universal power of Rome abroad, there sprang up a
great civil war, induced largely by the disturbance {257} of the
Gracchi, who sought to carry out the will of the people in regard to
popular democracy and the division of the public lands.

Thus, step by step, the plebeians, by a peaceful civil struggle, had
obtained the consulship, and, indeed, the right to all other civil
offices.  They had obtained a right to sit in the senate, had obtained
the declaration of social equality, had settled the great land
question; and yet the will of the people never prevailed.  The great
Roman senate, made up of the aristocracy of Rome, an aristocracy of
both plebeians and patricians, ruled with unyielding sway, and the
common people never obtained full possession of their rights and
privileges.  Civil strife continued; the gulf between the rich and the
poor, the nobility and the proletariat representing a few rich
political manipulators, on the one side, and the half-fed, half-mad
populace, on the other, grew wider and wider, finally ending in civil
war.  In the midst of the strife the republic passed away, and only the
coming of the imperial power of the Caesars perpetuated Roman

_Rome Becomes a Dominant City_.--In all of this struggle at home and
abroad, foreign conquest led to the establishment of Rome as the
central city.  The constitution of Rome was the typical constitution
for all provincial cities, and from this one centre all provinces were
ruled.  No example heretofore had existed of the centralization of
government similar to this.  The overlordship of the Persians was only
for the purpose of collecting tribute; there was little attempt to
carry abroad the Persian institutions or to amalgamate the conquered
provinces in one great homogeneous nation.

The empire of Athens was but a temporary hegemony over tributary
states.  But the Roman government conquered and absorbed.  Wherever
went the Roman arms, there the Roman laws and the Roman government
followed; there followed the Roman language, architecture, art,
institutions, and civilization.  Great highways passed from the Eternal
City to all parts of the territory, binding together the separate
elements of {258} national life, and levelling down the barriers
between all nations.  Every colony planted by Rome in the new provinces
was a type of the old Roman life, and the provincial government
everywhere became the type of this central city.  Here was reached a
state in the development of government which no nation had hitherto
attained--the dominant city and the rule of a mighty empire from
central authority.

_The Development of Government_.--The remarkable development of Rome in
government from the old hereditary nobility, in which priest-kings
ruled the people, to a military king who was leader, subsequently into
a republic which stood the test for several centuries of a fierce
struggle for the rights of the people, finally into an imperial
government to last for 450 years, represents the growth of one of the
most remarkable governments in the world's history.  The fundamental
idea in government was the ruling of an entire state from the central
city, and out of this idea grew imperialism as a later development,
vesting all authority in a single monarch.  The governments of
conquered provinces were gradually made over into the Roman system.
The Roman municipal government was found in all the cities of the
provinces, and the provincial government became an integral part of the
Roman system.  The provinces were under the supervision of imperial
officers appointed by the emperor.  Thus the tendency was to bind the
whole government into one unified system, with its power and authority
at Rome.  So long as this central authority remained and had its full
sway there was little danger of the decline of Roman power, but when
disintegration began in the central government the whole structure was

One of the remarkable characteristics of the Roman government was a
system of checks of one part by every other part.  Thus, in the
republic, the consuls were checked by the senate, the senate by the
consular power, the various assemblies, such as the Curiata, Tributa,
and Centuriata, each having its own particular powers, were checks upon
each other and upon other departments of the government.  The whole
system of {259} magistrates was subject to the same checks or limits in
authority.  And while impeachment was not introduced, each officer, at
the close of his term, was accountable for his actions while in office.
But under imperialism the tendency was to break down the power of each
separate form of government and to absorb it in the imperial power.
Thus Augustus soon attributed to himself the power of the chief
magistrates and obtained a dominating power in the senate until the
functions of government were all centralized in the emperor.  While
this made a strong government, in many phases it was open to great
dangers, and in due time it failed, as a result of the corruption that
clustered around the despotism of a single ruler unchecked by
constitutional power.

_The Development of Law Is the Most Remarkable Phase of the Roman
Civilization_.--Perhaps the most lasting effect of the Roman
civilization is observed in the contribution of law to the nations
which arose at the time of the decline of the imperial sway.  From the
time of the posting of the Twelve Tables in a public place, where they
could be read by all the citizens of Rome, there was a steady growth of
the Roman law.  The decrees of the senate, as well as the influence of
judicial decisions, gradually developed a system of jurisprudence.
There sprang up, also, interpreters of the law, who had much influence
in shaping its course.  Also, in the early period of the republic, the
acts of the popular assemblies became laws.  This was before the senate
became the supreme lawmaking body of the state.

During the imperial period the emperor acted somewhat through the
senate, but the latter body was more or less under his control, for he
frequently dictated its actions.  Having assumed the powers of a
magistrate, he could issue an edict; as a judge he could give decrees
and issue commands to his own officials, all of which tended to
increase the body of Roman law.  In the selection of jurists for the
interpretation of the law the emperor also had great control over its
character.  The great accomplishment of the lawmaking methods of {260}
the Romans was, in the first place, to allow laws to be made by popular
assemblies and the senate, according to the needs of a developing
social organization.  This having once been established, the foundation
of lawmaking was laid for all nations to follow.  The Roman law soon
passed into a complex system of jurisprudence which has formed a large
element in the structure, principles, and practice of all modern legal
systems.  The character of the law in itself was superior and masterly,
and its universality was accomplished through the universal rule of the

The later emperors performed a great service to the world by collecting
and codifying Roman laws.  The Theodosian code (Theodosius II, 408-450
A.D.) was a very important one on account of the influence it exercised
over the various Teutonic systems of law practised by the different
barbarian tribes that came within the borders of the Roman Empire.  The
jurists who gave the law a great development had by the close of the
fourth century placed on record all the principal legal acts of the
empire.  They had collected and edited all the sources of law and made
extensive commentaries of great importance upon them, but it remained
for Theodosius to arrange the digests of these jurists and to codify
the later imperial decrees.  But the Theodosian code went but a little
way in the process of digesting the laws.

The Justinian code, however, gave a complete codification of the law in
four distinct parts, known as (1) "the Pandects, or digest of the
scientific law literature; (2) the Codex, or summary of imperial
legislation; (3) the Institutes, a general review or text-book, founded
upon the digest and code, an introductory restatement of the law; and
(4) the Novels, or new imperial legislation issued after the
codification, to fill the gaps and cure the inconsistencies discovered
in the course of the work of codification and manifest in its published
results."[1]  Thus the whole body of the civil law was incorporated.

Here, then, is seen the progress of the Roman law from the {261}
semireligious rules governing the patricians in the early patriarchal
period, whose practice was generally a form of arbitration, to the
formal writing of the Twelve Tables, the development of the great body
of the law through interpretation, the decrees of magistrates, acts of
legislative assemblies, and finally the codification of the laws under
the later emperors.  This accumulation of legal enactments and
precedents formed the basis of legislation under the declining empire
and in the new nationalities.  It also occupied an important place in
the curriculum of the university.

_Influence of the Greek Life on Rome_.--The principal influence of the
Greeks on Roman civilization was found first in the early religion and
its development in the Latin race at Rome.  The religion of the Romans
was polytheistic, but far different from that of the Greeks.  The
deification of nature was not so analytic, and their deities were not
so human as those of the Greek religion.  There was no poetry in the
Roman religion; it all had a practical tendency.  Their gods were for
use, and, while they were honored and worshipped, they were clothed
with few fancies.  The Romans seldom speculated on the origin of the
gods and very little as to their personal character, and failed to
develop an independent theogony.  They were behind the Greeks in their
mental effort in this respect, and hence we find all the early religion
was influenced by the ideas of the Latins, the Etruscans, and the
Greeks, the last largely through the colonies which were established in
Italy.  Archaeology points conclusively to the fact of early Greek

In later development the conquest of the Greeks brought to Rome the
religion, art, paintings, and philosophy of the conquered.  The Romans
were shrewd and acute in the appreciation of all which they had found
that was good in the Greeks.  From the time of this contact there was a
constant and continued adoption of Grecian models in Rome.  The first
Roman writers, Fabius Pictor and Quintus Ennius, both wrote in Greek.
All the early Roman writers considered Greek the {262} finished style.
The influence of the Greek language was felt at Rome on the first
acquaintance of the Italians with it, through trade and commerce and
through the introduction of Greek forms of religion.

The early influence of language was less than the influence of art.
While the Phoenicians and Etruscans furnished some of the models, they
were usually unproductive and barren types, and not to be compared with
those furnished by Greece.  The young Romans who devoted themselves to
the state and its service were from the fifth century B.C. well versed
in the Greek language.  No education was considered complete in the
latter days of the republic, and under the imperial power, until it had
been finished at Athens or Alexandria.  The effect on literature,
particularly poetry and the drama, was great in the first period of
Roman literature, and even Horace, the most original of all Latin
poets, began his career by writing Greek verse, and no doubt his
beautiful style was acquired by his ardent study of the Greek language.
The plays of Plautus and Terence deal also with the products of Athens,
and, indeed, every Roman comedy was to a certain extent a copy, either
in form or spirit, of the Greek.  In tragedy, the spirit of Euripides,
the master, came into Rome.

The influence of the Greek philosophy was more marked than that of
language.  Its first contact with Rome was antagonistic.  The
philosophers and rhetoricians, because of the disturbance they created,
were expelled from Rome in the second century.  As early as 161 A.D.
those who pursued the study of philosophy always read and disputed in
Greek.  Many Greek schools of philosophy of an elementary nature were
established temporarily at Rome, while the large number of students of
philosophy went to Athens, and those of rhetoric to Rhodes, for the
completion of their education.  The philosophy of Greece that came into
Rome was something of a degenerate Epicureanism, fragments of a
broken-down system, which created an unwholesome atmosphere.

The only science which Rome developed was that of {263} jurisprudence,
and the scientific writings of the Greeks had comparatively little
influence upon Roman culture.  Mr. Duruy, in speaking of the influence
of the Greeks on Rome, particularly in the days of its decline, says:
"In conclusion, we find in certain sciences, for which Rome cared
nothing, great splendor, but in art and poetry no mighty inspiration;
in eloquence, vain chatter of words and images (the rhetoricians),
habits but no faith; in philosophy, the materialism which came from the
school of Aristotle, the doubt born of Plato, the atheism of Theodorus,
the sensualism of Epicurus vainly combated by the moral protests of
Zeno; and lastly, in the public life, the enfeeblement or the total
loss of all of those virtues which make the man and the citizen; such
were the Greeks at the time.  And now we say, with Cato, Polybius,
Livy, Pliny, Justinian, and Plutarch, that all this passed into the
Eternal City.  The conquest of Greece by Rome was followed by the
conquest of Rome by Greece.  _Graecia capta ferum victorem cepit_."

_Latin Literature and Language_.--The importance of the Latin language
and literature in the later history of the Romans and throughout the
Middle Ages is a matter of common knowledge.  The language of the Latin
tribes congregating at Rome finally predominated over all Italy and
followed the Roman arms through all the provinces.  It became to a
great extent the language of the common people and subsequently the
literary language of the empire.  It became finally the great vehicle
of thought in all civil and ecclesiastical proceedings in the Middle
Ages and at the beginning of the modern era.  As such it has performed
a great service to the world.  Cato wrote in Latin, and so did the
annalists of the early period of Latin literature.  Livy became a
master of his own language, and Cicero presents the improved and
elevated speech.  The study of these masterpieces, full of thought and
beauty of expression, has had a mighty influence in the education of
the youth of modern times.  It must be conceded, however, that in Rome
the productions of the great masters were not as universally {264}
known or as widely celebrated as one would suppose.  But, like all
great works of art, they have lived on to bear their influence through
succeeding ages.

_Development of Roman Art_.--The elements of art and architecture were
largely borrowed from the Greeks.  We find, however, a distinctive
style of architecture called Roman, which varies from that of the
Greek, although the influence of Greek form is seen not only in the
decorations but in the massive structure of the buildings.  Without
doubt, in architecture the Romans perfected the arch as their chief
characteristic and contribution to art progress.  But this in itself
was a great step in advance and laid the foundation of a new style.  As
might be expected from the Romans, it became a great economic advantage
in building.  In artistic decoration they made but little advancement
until the time of the Greek influence.

_Decline of the Roman Empire_.--The evolution of the Roman nation from
a few federated tribes with archaic forms of government to a fully
developed republic with a complex system of government, and the passage
of the republic into an imperialism, magnificent and powerful in its
sway, are subjects worthy of our most profound contemplation; and the
gradual decline and decay of this great superstructure is a subject of
great interest and wonder.  In the contemplation of the progress of
human civilization, it is indeed a mournful subject.  It seems to be
the common lot of man to build and destroy in order to build again.
But the Roman government declined on account of causes which were
apparent to every one.  It was an impossibility to build up such a
great system without its accompanying evils, and it was impossible for
such a system to remain when such glaring evils were allowed to

If it should be asked what caused the decline of this great
civilization, it may be said that the causes were many.  In the first
place, the laws of labor were despised and capital was consumed without
any adequate return.  There was consequently nothing left of an
economic nature to withstand the rude {265} shocks of pestilence and
war.  The few home industries, when Rome ceased to obtain support from
the plunder of war, were not sufficient to supply the needs of a great
nation.  The industrial condition of Rome had become deplorable.  In
all the large cities there were a few wealthy and luxurious families, a
small number of foreigners and freedmen who were superintending a large
number of slaves, and a large number of free citizens who were too
proud to work and yet willing to be fed by the government.  The
industrial conditions of the rural districts and small cities were no

There were a few non-residents who cultivated the soil by means of
slaves, or by _coloni_, or serfs who were bound to the soil.  These
classes were recruited from the conquered provinces.  Farming had
fallen into disrepute.  The small farmers, through the introduction of
slavery, were crowded from their holdings and were compelled to join
the great unfed populace of the city.  Taxation fell heavily and
unjustly upon the people.  The method of raising taxes by farming them
out was a pernicious system that led to gross abuse.  All enterprise
and all investments were discouraged.  There was no inducement for men
to enter business, as labor had been dishonored and industry crippled.
The great body of Roman people were divided into two classes, those who
formed the lower classes of laborers and those who had concentrated the
wealth of the country in their own hands and held the power of the
nation in their own control.  The mainstay of the nation had fallen
with the disappearance of the sterling middle class.  The lower classes
were reduced to a mob by the unjust and unsympathetic treatment
received at the hands of the governing class.

In the civil administration there was a division of citizens into two
classes: those who had influence in the local affairs of their towns or
neighborhood, and those who were simply interested in the central
organization.  During the days of the republic these people were
closely related, because all citizens were forced to come to Rome in
order to have a voice in the political interests of the government.
But during the empire {266} there came about a change, and the citizens
of a distant province were interested only in the management of their
own local affairs and lost their interest in the general government, so
that when the central government weakened there was a tendency for the
local interests to destroy the central.

After the close of Constantine's reign very great evils threatened the
Roman administration.  First of these was the barbarians; second, the
populace; and third, the soldiers.  The barbarians continually made
inroads upon the territory, broke down the governmental system, and
established their own, not so much for the sake of destruction and
plunder, as is usually supposed, but to seek the betterment of their
condition as immigrants into a new territory.  That they were in some
instances detrimental to the Roman institutions is true, but in others
they gave new life to the declining empire.  The populace was a rude,
clamorous mass of people, seeking to satisfy their hunger in the
easiest possible way.  These were fed by the politicians for the sake
of their influence.  The soldiery of Rome had changed.  Formerly made
up of patriots who marched out to defend their own country or to
conquer surrounding provinces in the name of the Eternal City, the
ranks were filled with mercenary soldiers taken from the barbarians,
who had little interest in the perpetuation of the Roman institutions.
They had finally obtained so much power that they set up an emperor, or
dethroned him, at their will.

And finally it may be said that of all these internal maladies and
external dangers, the decline in moral worth of the Roman nation is the
most appalling.  Influenced by a broken-down philosophy, degenerated in
morals, corrupt in family and social life, the whole system decayed,
and could not withstand the shock of external influence.

_Summary of Roman Civilization_.--The Roman contribution, then, to
civilization is largely embraced in the development of a system of
government with forms and functions which have been perpetuated to this
day; the development of a system of law which has found its place in
all modern legal {267} codes; a beautiful and rich language and
literature; a few elements of art and architecture; the development of
agriculture on a systematic basis; the tendency to unify separate races
in one national life; the practice of the art of war on a humane basis,
and the development of the municipal system of government which has had
its influence on every town of modern life.  These are among the chief
contributions of the Roman system to the progress of humanity.

While it is common to talk of the fall of the Roman Empire, Rome is
greater to-day in the perpetuity of her institutions than during the
glorious days of the republic or of the magnificent rule of the
Caesars.  Rome also left a questionable inheritance to the posterity of
nations.  The idea of imperialism revived in the empire of Charlemagne,
and later in the Holy Roman Empire, and, cropping out again and again
in the monarchies of new nations, has not become extinct to this day.
The recent World War gave a great shock to the idea of czarism.  The
imperial crowns of the Hohenzollerns, the Hapsburgs, the Romanoffs, and
the royal crowns of minor nations fell from the heads of great rulers,
because the Emperor of Germany overworked the idea of czarism after the
type of imperial Rome.  But the idea is not dead.  In shattered Europe,
the authority and infallibility of the state divorced from the
participation of the people, though put in question, is yet a
smouldering power to be reckoned with.  It is difficult to erase Rome's
impress upon the world.


1.  How were the Greeks and Romans related racially?

2.  Difference between the Greek and the Roman attitude toward life.

3.  What were the land reforms of the Gracchi?

4.  What advancement did the Romans make in architecture?

5.  What were the internal causes of the decline of Rome?

6.  Why did the Celts and the Germans invade Rome?

7.  Enumerate the permanent contributions of Rome to subsequent

[1] Hadley, _Introduction to Roman Law_.




_Important Factors in the Foundation of Western Civilization_.--When
the European world entered the period of the Middle Ages, there were a
few factors more important than others that influenced civilization.[1]
(1) The Oriental cultures, not inspiring as a whole, left by-products
from Mesopotamia, Palestine, and Egypt.  These were widely spread
through the influence of world wars and world empires.  (2) The Greek
cultures in the form of art, architecture, philosophy, and literature,
and newer forms of political and social organization were widely
diffused.  (3) The Romans had established agriculture, universal
centralized government and citizenship, and developed a magnificent
body of law; moreover, they had formed a standing army which was used
in the support of monarchy, added some new features to architecture and
industrial structures, and developed the Latin language, which was to
be the carrier of thought for many centuries.  (4) The Christian
religion with a new philosophy of life was to penetrate and modify all
society, all thought, government, law, art, and, in fact, all phases of
human conduct.  (5) The barbarian invasion carried with it the Teutonic
idea of individual liberty and established a new practice of human
relationships.  It was vigor of life against tradition and convention.
With these contributions, the European world was to start out with the
venture of mediaeval civilization, after the decline of the Roman

_The Social Contacts of the Christian Religion_.--Of the factors
enumerated above, none was more powerful than the teaching of the
Christians.  For it came in direct contrast and opposition to
established opinions and old systems.  It was also constructive, for it
furnished a definite plan of social order different from all existing
ones, which it opposed.  The {269} religions of the Orient centred
society around the temple.  Among all the Semitic races, Babylonian,
Assyrian, and Hebrew, temple worship was an expression of religious and
national unity.  National gods, national worship, and a priesthood were
the rule.  Egypt was similar in many respects, and the Greeks used the
temple worship in a limited degree, though no less real in its

The Romans, though they had national gods, yet during the empire had
liberalized the right of nations to worship whom they pleased, provided
nothing was done to militate against the Roman government, which was
committed to the worship of certain gods, in which the worship of the
emperor became a more or less distinctive feature.  The Christian
teaching recognized no national gods, no national religion, but a world
god who was a father of all men.  Furthermore, it recognized that all
men, of whatsoever race and country, were brethren.  So this doctrine
of love crossed boundaries of all nations and races, penetrated systems
of religion and philosophy, and established the idea of international
and universal brotherhood.

_Social Conditions at the Beginning of the Christian Era_.--The
philosophy of the Greeks and Romans had reached a state of degeneracy
at the time of the coming of Christ.  Thought had become weak and
illogical.  Trusting to the influence of the senses, which were at
first believed to be infallible, scepticism of the worst nature
influenced all classes of the people.  Epicureanism, not very bad in
the beginning, had come to a stage of decrepitude.  To seek immediate
pleasure regardless of consequences was far different from avoiding
extravagance and intemperance, in order to make a higher happiness.
Licentiousness, debauchery, the demoralized condition of the home and
family ties, made all society corrupt.  Stoicism had been taken up by
the Romans; it agreed with their nature, and, coupled with
Epicureanism, led to the extinction of faith.  There was no clear
vision of life; no hope, no high and worthy aspirations, no inspiration
for a noble life.


The character of worship of the Romans of their various gods led to a
non-religious attitude of mind.  Religion, like everything else, had
become a commercial matter, to be used temporarily for the benefit of
all parties who indulged.  While each separate nationality had its own
shrine in the temple, and while the emperor was deified, all worship
was carried on in a selfish manner.  There was no reverence, no devout
attitude of worship, and consequently no real benefit derived from the
religious life.  The Roman merchant went to the temple to offer
petitions for the safety of his ship on the seas, laden with
merchandise.  After its safe entrance, the affair troubled him no more;
his religious emotion was satisfied.  Moral degeneration could be the
only outcome of following a broken-down philosophy and an empty
religion.  Men had no faith in one another, and consequently felt no
obligation to moral actions.  Dishonesty in all business transactions
was the rule.  Injustice in the administration of the law was worked by
the influence of factions and cliques.  The Roman world was politically
corrupt.  Men were struggling for office regardless of the effect of
their methods on the social welfare.  The marriage relation became
indefinite and unholy.  The home life lost its hallowed influence as a
support to general, social, and political life.

The result of a superficial religion, an empty philosophy, and a low
grade of morality, was to drive men to scepticism, to a doubt in all
things, or to a stoic indifference to all things, or perhaps in a
minority of cases to a search for light.  To nearly all there was
nothing in the world to give permanent satisfaction to the sensual
nature, or nothing to call out the higher qualities of the soul.  Men
turned with loathing from their own revels and immoral practices and
recognized nothing worthy of their thoughts in life.  Those who held to
a moral plane at all found no inspiration in living, had no enthusiasm
for anything or any person.  It were as well that man did not exist;
that there was no earth, no starry firmament, no heaven, no hell, no
present, no future.  The few who sought for the {271} light did so from
their inner consciousness or through reflection.  Desiring a better
life, they advocated higher aspirations of the soul and an elevated,
moral life, and sought consolation in the wisdom of the sages.  Their
life bordered on the monastic.

_The Contact of Christianity with Social Life_.--The most striking
contrast to be observed in comparing the state of the world with
Christianity is the novelty of its teachings.  No doctrine like the
fatherhood of God had hitherto been taught in the European world.
Plato reached, in his philosophy, a conception of a universal creator
and father of all, but his doctrine was influenced by dualism.  There
was no conception of the fatherly care which Christians supposed God to
exercise over all of his creatures.  It also taught the brotherhood of
man, that all people of every nation are brethren, with a common
father, a doctrine that had never been forcibly advanced before.  The
Jehovah of the Jews watched over their especial affairs and was
considered in no sense the God of the Gentiles.  For how could Jehovah
favor Jews and also their enemies at the same time?  So, too, for the
Greek and the barbarian, the Roman and the Teuton, the jurisdiction of
deities was limited by national boundaries, or, in case of family
worship, by the tribe, for the household god belonged only to a limited
number of worshippers.  A common brotherhood of all men on a basis of
religious equality of right and privilege was decidedly new.

Christianity taught of the nature and punishment of sin.  This, too,
was unknown to the degenerate days of the Roman life.  To sin against
the Creator and Father was new in their conception, and to consider
such as worthy of punishment was also beyond their philosophy.
Christianity clearly pointed out what sin is, and asserted boldly that
there is a just retribution to all lawbreakers.  It taught of
righteousness and justice, and that acts were to be performed because
they were right.  Individuals were to be treated justly by their
fellows, regardless of birth or position.  And finally, making marriage
a {272} divine institution, Christianity introduced a pure moral code
in the home.

While a few philosophers, following after Plato, conjectured respecting
the immortality of the soul, Christianity was the first religious
system to teach eternal life as a fundamental doctrine.  Coupled with
this was the doctrine of the future judgment, at which man should give
an account of his actions on this side of the grave.  This was a new
doctrine to the people of the world.

The Christians introduced a new phase of social life by making their
practice agree with their profession.  It had been the fault of the
moral sentiments of the ancient sages that they were never carried out
in practice.  Many fine precepts respecting right conduct had been
uttered, but these were not realized by the great mass of humanity, and
were put in practice by very few people.  They had seldom been
vitalized by humanizing use.  Hence Christianity appeared in strong
relief in the presence of the artificial system with which it came in
contact.  It had a faith and genuineness which were vigorous and

The Christians practised true benevolence, which was a great point in
these latter days of selfishness and indifference.  They systematically
looked after their own poor and cared for the stranger at the gates.
Later the church built hospitals and refuges and prepared for the care
of all the oppressed.  Thousands who were careworn, oppressed, or
disgusted with the ways of the world turned instinctively to
Christianity for relief, and were not disappointed.  The Greeks and the
Romans had never practised systematic charity until taught by the
Christians.  The Romans gave away large sums for political reasons, to
appease the populace, but with no spirit of charity.

But one of the most important of the teachings of the early church was
to dignify labor.  There was a new dignity lent to service.  Prior to
the dominion of the church, labor had become degrading, for slavery had
supplanted free labor to such an extent that all labor appeared
dishonorable.  Another {273} potent cause of the demoralization of
labor was the entrance of a large amount of products from the conquered
nations.  The introduction of these supplies, won by conquest,
paralyzed home industries and developed a spirit of pauperism.  The
actions of the nobility intensified the evils.  They spent their time
in politics, and purchased the favor of the populace for the right of
manipulating the wealth and power of the community.  The Christians
taught that labor was honorable, and they labored with their own hands,
built monasteries, developed agriculture, and in many other ways taught
that it is noble to labor.

_Christianity Influenced the Legislation of the Times_.--At first
Christians were a weak and despised group of individuals.  Later they
obtained sufficient force to become partners with the empire and in a
measure dictate some of the laws of the community.  The most
significant of these were to abolish the inhuman treatment of
criminals, who were considered not so well as the beasts of the field.
Organized Christianity secured human treatment of prisoners while they
were in confinement, and the abolition of punishment by crucifixion.
Gladiatorial shows were suppressed, and laws permitting the freer
manumission of slaves were passed.  The exposure of children, common to
both Greeks and Romans, was finally forbidden by law.  The laws of
marriage were modified so that the sanctity of the home was secured;
and, finally, a law was passed securing Sunday as a day of rest to be
observed by the whole nation.  This all came about gradually as the
church came into power.  This early influence of the Christian religion
on the legislation of the Roman government presaged a time when, in the
decline of the empire, the church would exercise the greatest power of
any organization, political or religious, in western Europe.

_Christians Come Into Conflict with Civil Authority_.--It was
impossible that a movement so antagonistic to the usual condition of
affairs as Christianity should not come into conflict with the civil
authority.  Its insignificant beginning, although {274} it excited the
hatred and the contempt of the jealous and the discontented, gave no
promise of a formidable power sufficient to contend with the imperial
authority.  But as it gained power it excited the alarm of rulers, as
they beheld it opposing cherished institutions.  Nearly all of the
persecutions came about through the attitude of the church toward the
temporal rulers.  The Roman religion was a part of the civil system,
and he who would not subscribe to it was in opposition to the state.

The Christians would not worship the emperor, nor indeed would they, in
common with other nations, set up an image or shrine in the temple at
Rome and worship according to the privilege granted.  They recognized
One higher in power than the emperor.  The Romans in their practical
view of life could not discriminate between spiritual and temporal
affairs, and a recognition of a higher spiritual being as giving
authority was in their sight the acknowledgment of allegiance to a
foreign power.  The fact that the Christians met in secret excited the
suspicions of many, and it became customary to accuse them on account
of any mishap or evil that came upon the people.  Thus it happened at
the burning of Rome that the Christians were accused of setting it on
fire, and many suffered persecution on account of these suspicions.

Christians also despised civic virtues, or made light of their
importance.  In this they were greatly mistaken in their practical
service, for they could have wielded more power had they given more
attention to civic life.  Like many good people of modern times, they
observed the corruption of government, and held themselves aloof from
it rather than to enter in and attempt to make it better.  The result
of this indifference of the Christians was to make the Romans believe
that they were antagonistic to the best interests of the community.

The persecution of the Christians continued at intervals with greater
or less intensity for more than two centuries; the Christians were
early persecuted by the Jews, later by the Romans.  In the first
century they were persecuted under Nero and Domitian, through personal
spite or selfish interests.  After {275} this their persecution was
political; there was a desire to suppress a religion that was held to
be contrary to law.  The persecution under Hadrian arose on account of
the supposition that the Christians were the cause of plagues and
troubles on account of their impiety.  Among later emperors it became
customary to attribute to them any unusual occurrence or strange
phenomenon which was destructive of life or property.

Organized Christianity grew so strong that it came in direct contact
with the empire, and the latter had need of real apprehension, for the
conflict brought about by the divergence of belief suddenly
precipitated a great struggle within the empire.  The strong and
growing power of the Christians was observed everywhere.  It was no
insignificant opponent, and it attacked the imperial system at all

Finally Constantine, who was a wise ruler as well as an astute
politician, saw that it would be good policy to recognize the church as
an important body in the empire and to turn this growing social force
to his own account.  From this time on the church may be said to have
become a part of the imperial system, which greatly influenced its
subsequent history.  While in a measure it brought an element of
strength into the social and political world, it rapidly undermined the
system of government, and was a potent force in the decline of the
empire by rendering obsolete many phases of the Roman government.

_The Wealth of the Church Accumulates_.--As Rome declined and new
governments arose, the church grew rapidly in the accumulation of
wealth, particularly in church edifices and lands.  It is always a sign
of growing power when large ownership of property is obtained.  The
favors of Constantine, the gifts of Pepin and Charlemagne, and the
large number of private gifts of property brought the church into the
Middle Ages with large feudal possessions.  This gave it prestige and
power, which it could not otherwise have held, and hastened the
development of a system of government which was powerful in many ways.


_Development of the Hierarchy_.--The clergy finally assumed powers of
control of the church separate from the laity.  Consequently there was
a gradual decline in the power of lay members to have a voice in the
affairs of the church.  While the early church appeared as a simple
democratic association, the organization had developed into a formal
system or hierarchy, which extended from pope to simple lay members.
The power of control falling into the hands of high officials, there
soon became a distinction between the ordinary membership and the
machinery of government.  Moreover, the clergy were exempt from
taxation and any control or discipline similar to that imposed on
ordinary lay members.

These conditions soon led to the exercise of undue authority of the
hierarchy over the lay membership.  This dominating principle became
dogmatic, until the members of the church became slaves to an arbitrary
government.  The only saving quality in this was the fact that the
members of the clergy were chosen from the laity, which kept up the
connection between the higher and lower members of the church.  The
separation of the governors from the governed proceeded slowly but
surely until the higher officers were appointed from the central
authority of the church, and all, even to the clergy, were directly
under the imperial control of the papacy.  Moreover, the clergy assumed
legal powers and attempted to regulate the conduct of the laymen.
There finally grew up a great body of canon law, according to which the
clergy ruled the entire church and, to a certain extent, civil life.

But the church, under the canon law, must add a penalty to its
enforcement and must assume the punishment of offenders within its own
jurisdiction.  This led to the assumption that all crime is sin, and as
its particular function was to punish sin, the church claimed
jurisdiction over all sinners and the right to apprehend and sentence
criminals; but the actual punishment of the more grievous offenses was
usually given over to the civil authority.


_Attempt to Dominate the Temporal Powers_.--Having developed a strong
hierarchy which completely dominated the laity, from which it had
separated, having amassed wealth and gained power, and having invaded
the temporal power in the apprehension and punishment of crime, the
church was prepared to go a step farther and set its authority above
kings and princes in the management of all temporal affairs.  In this
it almost succeeded, for its power of excommunication was so great as
to make the civil authorities tremble and bow down before it.  The
struggle of church and empire in the Middle Ages, and, indeed, into the
so-called modern era, represents one of the important phases of
history.  The idea of a world empire had long dominated the minds of
the people, who looked to the Roman imperialism as the final solution
of all government.  But as this gradually declined and was replaced by
the Christian church, the idea of a world religion finally became
prevalent.  Hence the ideas of a world religion and a world empire were
joined in the Holy Roman Empire, begun by Charlemagne and established
by Otto the Great.  In this combination the church assumed first place
as representing the eternal God, as the head of all things temporal and

In this respect the church easily overreached itself in the employment
of force to carry out its plans.  Assuming to control by love, it had
entered the lists to contend with force and intrigue, and it became
subject to all forms of degradation arising from political corruption.
In this respect its high object became degraded to the mere attempt to
dominate.  The greed for power and force was very great, and this again
and again led the church into error and lessened its influence in the
actual regeneration of man and society.

_Dogmatism_.--The progress of the imperial power of the church finally
settled into the condition of absolute authority over the thoughts and
minds of the people.  The church assumed to be absolutely correct in
its theory of authority, and assumed to be infallible in regard to
matters of right and wrong.  It went farther, and prescribed what men
should {278} believe, and insisted that they should accept that dictum
without question, on the authority of the church.  This monopoly of
religious belief assumed by the church had a tendency to stifle free
inquiry and to retard progress.  It more than once led to
irregularities of practice on the part of the church in order to
maintain its position, and on the part of the members to avoid the
harsh treatment of the church.  Religious progress, except in
government-building, was not rapid, spirituality declined, and the
fervent zeal for the right and for justice passed into fanaticism for

This caused the church to fail to utilize the means of progress.  It
might have advanced its own interest more rapidly by encouraging free
inquiry and developing a struggle for the truth.  By exercising
liberality it could have ingratiated itself into the government of all
nations as a helpful adviser, and thus have conserved morality and
justice; but by its illiberality it retarded the progress of the mind
and the development of spirituality.  While it lowered the conception
of religion, on the one hand, it lowered the estimate of knowledge, on
the other, and in all suppressed truth through dogmatic belief.  This
course not only affected the character and quality of the clergy, and
created discontent in the laymen, but finally lessened respect for the
church, and consequently for the gospel, in the minds of men.

_The Church Becomes the Conservator of Knowledge_.--Very early in the
days of the decline of the Roman Empire, when the inroads of the
barbarian had destroyed reverence for knowledge, and, indeed, when
within the tottering empire all philosophy and learning had fallen into
contempt, the church possessed the learning of the times.  Through its
monasteries and its schools all the learning of the period was found.
It sought in a measure to preserve, by copying, the manuscripts of many
of the ancient and those of later times.  Thus the church preserved the
knowledge which otherwise must have passed away through Roman
degeneration and barbarian influences.


_Service of Christianity_.[2]--The service of Christianity to European
civilization consists chiefly in: (1) the respect paid to woman; (2)
the establishment of the home and the enthronement of the home
relation; (3) the advancement of the idea of humanity; (4) the
development of morality; (5) the conservation of spiritual power; (6)
the conservation of knowledge during the Dark Ages; (7) the development
of faith; (8) the introduction of a new social order founded on
brotherhood, which manifested itself in many ways in the development of
community life.

If the church fell into evil habits it was on account of the conditions
under which it existed.  Its struggle with Oriental despotism, as well
as with Oriental mysticism, a degenerate philosophy, corrupt social and
political conditions, could not leave it unscathed.  If evil at times,
it was better than the temporal government.  If its rulers were
dogmatic, arbitrary, and inconsistent, they were better, nevertheless,
than the ruling temporal princes.  The church represented the only
light there was in the Dark Ages.  It was far superior in morality and
justice to all other institutions.  If it assumed too much power it
must be remembered that it came naturally to this assumption by
attending specifically to its apparent duty in exercising the power
that the civil authority failed to exercise.  The development of faith
in itself is a great factor in civilization.  It must not be ignored,
although it is in great danger of passing into dogmatism.  A world
burdened with dogmatism is a dead world; a world without faith is a
corrupt world leading on to death.

The Christian religion taught the value of the individual, but also
taught of the Kingdom of God, which involved a community spirit--the
universal citizenship of the Romans prepared the way, and the
individual liberty of the Germans strengthened it.  Whenever the church
adhered to the teachings of the four gospels, it made for liberty of
thought, freedom of life, progress in knowledge and in the arts of
right living.  {280} Whenever it ceased to follow these and put
institutionalism first, it retarded progress, in learning, science, and
philosophy, and likewise in justice and righteousness.

To the church organization as an institution are due the preservation,
perpetuation, and propagation of the teachings of Jesus, which
otherwise might have been lost or passed into legend.  All the way
through the development of the Christian doctrine in Europe, under the
direction of the church there are two conflicting forces--the rule by
dogma and the freedom of individual belief.  The former comes from the
Greeks and Latins, the latter from the Nordic idea of personal liberty.
Both have been essential to the development of the Christian religion
and the political life alike.  The dominant force in the religious
dogma of the church was necessary to a people untutored in spiritual
development.  Its error was to insist that the individual had no right
to personal belief.  Yet the former established rules of faith and
prevented the dissipation of the treasured teachings of Jesus.


1.  In what ways was the Christian religion antagonistic to other

2.  What new elements did it add to human progress?

3.  How did the fall of Rome contribute to the power of the church?

4.  What particular service did the church contribute to social order
during the decline of the Roman Empire?

5.  How did the church conserve learning and at the same time suppress
freedom of thought?

6.  How do you discriminate between Christianity as a religious culture
and the church as an institution?

[1] Adams, _Civilization During the Middle Ages_.

[2] Adams, _Civilization During the Middle Ages_, chap. I.




_The Coming of the Barbarians_.--The picture usually presented by the
historical story-tellers of the barbarian hordes that invaded the Roman
Empire is that of bold pirates, plunderers of civilization, and
destroyers of property.  No doubt, as compared with the Roman system of
warfare and plunder, their conduct was somewhat irregular.  They were
wandering groups or tribes, who lived rudely, seeking new territory for
exploitation after the manner of their lives.  They were largely a
pastoral people with cattle as the chief source of industry with
intermittent agriculture.  Doubtless, they were attracted by the
splendor of Rome, its wealth and its luxury, but primarily they were
seeking a chance to live.  It was the old luring food quest, which is
the foundation of most migrations, that was the impelling force of
their invasion.  In accordance with their methods of life, the northern
territory was over-crowded, and tribe pressed upon tribe in the
struggle for existence.  Moreover, the pressure of the Asiatic
populations drove one tribe upon another and forced those of northern
Europe south and east.

All of the invaders, except the Huns who settled in Pannonia, were of
the Aryan branch of the Caucasian race.  They were nearly all of the
Nordic branch of the Aryan stock and were similar in racial
characteristics and social life to the Greeks, who conquered the
ancient Aegean races of Greece, and to those others who conquered the
primitive inhabitants of Italy prior to the founding of the Roman
nation.  The Celts were of Aryan stock but not of Nordic race.  They
appeared at an early time along the Danube, moved westward into France,
Spain, and Britain, and took side excursions into Italy, the most
notable of which was the invasion of Rome {282} 390 B.C.  Wherever the
Nordic people have gone, they have brought vigor of life and achieved
much after they had acquired the tools of civilization.  If they were
pirates of property, they also were appropriators of the civilization
of other nations, into which they projected the vigor of their own life.

_Importance of Teutonic Influence_.--Various estimates have been made
as to the actual influence of the Teutonic races in shaping the
civilization of western Europe.  Mr. Guizot insists that this influence
is entirely overestimated, and also, to a certain extent,
misrepresented: that much has been done in their name which does not
rightfully belong to them.  He freely admits that the idea of law came
from the Romans, morality from the Christian church, and the principle
of liberty from the Germans.  Yet he fails to emphasize the result of
the union of liberty with the law, with morality, and with the church.
It is just this leaven of liberty introduced into the various elements
of civilization that gave it a new life and brought about progress, the
primary element of civilization.

France, in the early period of European history, had an immense
prestige in the advancement of civilization.  There was a large
population in a compact territory, with a closely organized government,
both civil and ecclesiastical, and a large use of the Roman products of
language, government, law, and other institutions.  Consequently,
France took the lead in progress, and Mr. Guizot is quite right in
assuming that every element of progress passed through France to give
it form, before it became recognized.  Yet, in the later development of
political liberty, law, and education, the Teutonic element becomes
more prominent, until it would seem that the native and acquired
qualities of the Teutonic life have the stronger representation in
modern civilization.  In stating this, due acknowledgment must be made
to the Roman influence through law and government.  But the spirit of
progress is Teutonic, although the form, in many instances, may be
Roman.  It must be observed, too, that the foundation of local
government in Germany, England, and the United States was of Teutonic
{283} origin; that the road from imperialism to democracy is lined with
Teutonic institutions and lighted with Teutonic liberty, and that the
whole system of individual rights and popular government has been
influenced by the attitude of the Teutonic spirit toward government and

_Teutonic Liberty_.--All writers recognize that the Germanic tribes
contributed the quality of personal liberty to the civilization of the
West.  The Roman writers, in setting forth their own institutions, have
left a fair record of the customs and habits of the so-called
barbarians.  Titus said of them: "Their bodies are, indeed, great, but
their souls are greater."  Caesar had a remarkable method of eulogizing
his own generalship by praising the valor and strength of the
vanquished foes.  "Liberty," wrote Lucanus, "is the German's
birthright."  And Florus, speaking of liberty, said: "It is a privilege
which nature has granted to the Germans, and which the Greeks, with all
of their arts, knew not how to obtain."  At a later period Montesquieu
was led to exclaim: "Liberty, that lovely thing, was discovered in the
wild forests of Germany."  While Hume, viewing the results of this
discovery, said: "If our part of the world maintains sentiments of
liberty, honor, equity, and valor superior to the rest of mankind, it
owes these advantages to the seeds implanted by the generous

More forcible than all these expressions of sentiment are the results
of the study of modern historians of the laws and customs of the early
Teutons, and the tracing of these laws in the later civilization.  This
shows facts of the vitalizing process of the Teutonic element.  The
various nations to-day which speak the Teutonic languages, of which the
English is the most important, are carrying the burden of civilization.
These, rather than those overcome by a preponderance of Roman
influences, are forwarding the progress of the world.

_Tribal Life_.--Referring to the period of Germanic history prior to
the influence of the Romans on the customs, laws, and institutions of
the people, which transformed them from {284} wandering tribes into
settled nationalities, it is easy to observe, even at this time, the
Teutonic character.  The tribes had come in contact with Roman
civilization, and many of them were already being influenced by the
contact.  Their social life and habits were becoming somewhat fixed,
and the elements of feudalism were already prominent as the foundation
of the great institution of the Middle Ages.  This period also embraces
the time when the tribes were about to take on the influence of the
Christian religion, and when there was a constant mingling of the
Christian spirit with the spirit of heathenism.  In fact, the subject
should cover all that is known of the Germanic tribes prior to the
Roman contact and after it, down to the full entrance of the Middle
Ages and the rise of new nationalities.  In this period we shall miss
the full interest of the society of the Middle Ages after the feudal
system had transformed Europe or, rather, after Europe had entered into
a great period of transformation from the indefinite, broken-down
tribal life into the new life of modern nations.

Tribal society has its limitations and types distinctive from every
other.  The very name "tribe" suggests to us something different from
the conditions of a modern nation.  Caesar and Tacitus were accustomed
to speak of the Germanic tribes as _nationes_, although with no such
fulness of meaning as we attach to our modern nations.  The Germanic,
like the Grecian, tribe is founded upon two cardinal principles, and is
a natural and not an artificial assemblage of people.  These two
principles are religion and kinship, or consanguinity.  In addition to
this there is a growth of the tribe by adoption, largely through the
means of matrimony and the desire for protection.

These principles in the formation of the tribe are universal with the
Aryan people, and, probably, with all other races.  There is a
clustering of the relatives around the eldest parent, who becomes the
natural leader of the tribe and who has great power over the members of
the expanded family.  There is no state, there are no citizens,
consequently the social life must be far different from that which we
are accustomed to see.  At {285} the time of our first knowledge of the
Germans, the family had departed a step from the conditions which bound
the old families of Greece and Rome into such compact and firmly
organized bodies.  There was a tendency toward individualism, freedom,
and the private ownership of land.  All of these points, and more, must
be taken into consideration, as we take a brief survey of the
characteristics of the early Teutonic society.  What has been said in
reference to the tribe, points at once to the fact that there must have
been different ranks of society, according to the manner in which a
person became a member of the tribe.

_Classes of Society_.--The classes of people were the freemen of noble
blood, or the nobility, the common freemen, the freedmen, or half-free,
and the slaves.

The class of the nobility was based largely upon ancient lineage, some
of whom could trace their ancestry to such a distance that they made
tenable the claim that they were descended from the gods.  The position
of a noble was so important in the community that he found no
difficulty in making good his claim to pure blood and a title of
reverence, but this in no way gave him any especial political
privilege.  It assured a consideration which put him in the way of
winning offices of preferment by his wealth and influence, but he must
submit to the decision of the people for his power rather than depend
upon the virtues of his ancestry.  This is why, in a later period, the
formation of the new kingship left out the idea of nobility and placed
the right of government upon personal service.  The second class
represented the rank and file of the German freemen, the long-haired
and free-necked men, who had never felt the yoke of bondage.  Those
were the churls of society, but upon them fell the burden of service
and the power of leadership.  Out of this rank came the honest yeomen
of England.

The third class represented those who held lands of the freemen as
serfs, and in the later period of feudal society they became attached
to the soil and were bought with the land and {286} sold with the land,
though not slaves in the common acceptation of the term.  The fourth
class were those who were reduced to the personal service of others.
They were either captives taken in war or those who had lost their
freedom by gambling.  This body was not large in the early society,
although it tended to increase as society developed.

It will be seen at once that in the primitive life of a people like the
one we are studying, there is a mingling of the political, religious,
and social elements of society.  There are no careful lines of
distinction to be drawn as in present society, and more than
this--there was a tendency to consolidate and simplify all of the forms
of political and social life.  There was a simplicity of forms and a
lack of conventional usage, with a complexity of functions.

_The Home and the Home Life_.--The family of the Germans, like the
family of all other Aryan races, was the social, political, and
religious unit of the larger organization.  As compared with the
Oriental nations, the family was monogamic and noted for purity and
virtue.  Add to this the idea of reverence for women that characterized
the early German people, and we may infer that the home life, though of
a somewhat rude nature, was genuine, and that the home circle was not
without a salutary influence in those times of wandering and war.  The
mother, as we may well surmise, was the ruler of the home, had the care
of the household, deliberated with the husband in the affairs of the
tribe, and even took her place by his side in the field of battle when
it seemed necessary.  In truth, if we may believe the chroniclers,
woman was supposed to be the equal of man.

But returning to the tribal life, we find that the houses were of the
rudest kind, made of undressed lumber or logs, with a hole in the roof
for the smoke to pass out, with but one door and sometimes no window.
There were no cities among the Germans until they were taught by
contact with Rome to build them.  The villages were, as a rule, an
irregular collection of houses, more or less scattered, as is customary
where land is {287} plentiful and of no particular value.  There were
no regularly laid out streets, the villagers being a group of kinsmen
of the same tribe, grouped together for convenience.  Around the
village was constructed a ditch and a hedge as a rampart for
protection.  This was called a "tun" (German _Zoun_), from which word
we derive our name "town."  The house generally had but one room, which
was used for all purposes.

There was another class of houses, belonging to the nobility and the
chiefs, called halls.  They consisted of one long room, which sometimes
had transepts or alcoves for the women, partitioned off by curtains
from the main hall.  This large room was the place where the lord and
his companions were accustomed to sit at the great feasts after their
return from a successful expedition.  This is the "beer hall" that we
read so much about in song, epic, and legend.  Here the beer and the
mead were passed; here arose the songs and the mirth of the warriors.
On the walls of the hall might be seen the rude arms of the warrior,
the shield and the spear, or decorations composed of the heads and the
skins of wild beasts--all of which bring us to the early type of the
hall of the great baron of the feudal age.

Until the age of chivalry, women were not present at these rude feasts.
The religious life of the early Germans was tribal rather than personal
or of the simple family.  There were certain times at which members of
the same tribe were wont to assemble and sacrifice to the gods.  There
was a common meeting-place from year to year.  As it has been related,
this had a tendency to cement the tribe together and enhance political
unity.  This custom must have had its influence on social order and
must have, in a measure, arrested the tendency of the people to an
unsocial and selfish life.

_Political Assemblies_.--The political assemblies, where all of the
freemen met to discuss the affairs of the community, must have been
powerful factors in the establishment of social customs and usage.  The
kinsmen or fellow tribesmen were grouped in villages, and each village
maintained its privilege {288} of self-government, and consequently the
freemen met in the village assembly to consider the affairs of the
community.  We find combined in the political representation the ideas
of tribal unity and individuality, or at least family independence.  As
the tribes federated, there was a tendency to make the assemblies more
general, and thus the family exclusiveness tended to give way in favor
of the development of the individual as a member of the tribal state.
It was a slow transition from an ethnic to a democratic type of society.

This association created a feeling of common interest akin to
patriotism.  Mr. Freeman has given us a graphic representation of the
survival of the early assembly in the Swiss cantons.[1]  In the forest
cantons the freemen met in the open field on stated occasions to enact
the laws and transact the duties of legislators and judges.  But
although there was a tendency to sectional and clannish relations in
society, this became much improved by the communal associations for
political and economic life.  But society, as such, could not advance
very far when the larger part of the occupation of the freemen was that
of war.  The youth were educated in the field, and the warriors spent
much of their time fighting with neighboring tribes.

The entire social structure, resting as it did upon kinship, found its
changes in developing economic, political, and religious life.
Especially is this seen in the pursuit of the common industries.  As
soon as the tribes obtained permanent seats and had given themselves
mostly to agriculture, the state of society became more settled, and
new customs were gradually introduced.  At the same time society became
better organized, and each man had his proper place, not only in the
social scale but also in the industrial and political life of the tribe.

_General Social Customs_.--In the summer-time the clothing was very
light.  The men came frequently to the Roman camp clad in a short
jacket and a mantle; the more wealthy ones {289} wore a woollen or
linen undergarment.  But in the cold weather sheepskins and the pelts
of wild animals, as well as hose for the legs and shoes made of leather
for the feet, were worn.  The mantle was fastened with a buckle, or
with a thorn and a belt.  In the belt were carried shears and knives
for daily use.  The women were not as a general thing dressed
differently from the men.  After the contact with the Romans the
methods of dress changed, and there was a greater difference in the
garments worn by men and women.

Marriage was a prominent social institution among the tribes, as it
always is where the monogamic family prevails.  There were doubtless
traces of the old custom, common to most races, of wife capture, a
custom which long continued as a mere fiction to some extent among the
peasantry of certain localities in Germany.  In this survival the bride
makes feint to escape, and is chased and captured by the bridegroom.
Some modern authorities have tried to show that there is a survival of
this old custom of courtship, whereby the advances are supposed to be
made by the men.  The engagement to be married meant a great deal more
in those days than at present.  It was more than half of the marriage
ceremony.  Just as among the Hebrews, the engagement was the real
marriage contract, and the latter ceremony only a form, so among the
Germans the same custom prevailed.  After engagement, until marriage
they were called the Bräut and Bräutigam, but when wedded they ceased
to be thus entitled.  The betrothal contained the essential bonds of
matrimony, and was far more important before the law than the later
ceremony.  In modern usage the opposite custom prevails.

The woman was always under wardship; her father was her natural
guardian and made the marriage contract or the engagement.  When a
woman married, she brought with her a dower, furnished by her parents.
This consisted of all house furnishings, clothes, and jewelry, and a
more substantial dower in lands, money, or live stock.  On the morning
of the day after marriage the husband gave to the wife the
"Morgengabe," {290} which thereafter was her own property.  It was the
wedding-present of the groom.  This is but a survival of the time when
marriage among the Germans meant a simple purchase of a wife.  It is
said that "ein Weib zu kaufen" (to buy a wife) was the common term for
getting engaged, and that this phrase was so used as late as the
eleventh century.  The wardship was called the _mundium_, and when the
maid left her father's house for another home, her _mundium_ was
transferred from her father to her husband.  This dower began, indeed,
with the engagement, and the price of the _mundium_ was paid over to
the guardian at the time of the contract.  From this time suit for
breach of promise could be brought.  These are the primitive customs of
the marriage ceremony, but they were changed from time to time.
Through the influence of Christianity, the woman finally attained
prominence in the matter of choosing a husband, and learned, much to
her satisfaction, to make her own contracts in matrimony.

_The Economic Life_.--The economic life was of the most meagre kind in
the earlier stages of society.  We find that Tacitus, writing 150 years
after Caesar, shows that there had been some changes in the people.  In
the time of Caesar, the tribes were just making their transition from
the pastoral-nomadic to the pastoral-agricultural state, and by the
time of Tacitus this transition was so general that most of the tribes
had settled to a more or less permanent agricultural life.  It must be
observed that the development of the tribes was not symmetrical, and
that which reads very pleasantly on paper represents a very confused
state of society.  However much the tribes practised agriculture, they
had but little peace, for warfare continued to be one of their chief
occupations.  It was in the battle that a youth received his chief
education, and in the chase that he occupied much of his spare time.

But the ground was tilled, and barley, wheat, oats, and rye were
raised.  Flax was cultivated, and the good housewife did the spinning
and weaving--all that was done--for the household.  Greens, or herbage,
were also cultivated, but {291} fruit-trees seldom were cultivated.
With the products of the soil, of the chase, and of the herds, the
Teutons lived well.  They had bread and meat, milk, butter and cheese,
beer and mead, as well as fish and wild game.  The superintending of
the fields frequently fell to the lot of the hausfrau, and the labor
was done by serfs.  The tending of the fields, the pursuit of wild
animals or the catching of fish, the care of the cattle or herds, and
the making of butter and cheese, the building of houses, the bringing
of salt from the sea, the making of garments, and the construction of
weapons of war and utensils of convenience--these represent the chief
industries of the people.  Later, the beginnings of commerce sprang up
between the separate tribes, and gradually extended to other

_Contributions to Law_.--The principle of the trial by jury, which was
developed in the English common law, was undoubtedly of Teutonic
origin.  That a man should be tried by his peers for any misdemeanor
was considered to be a natural right.  The idea of personal liberty
made a personal law, which gradually gave way to civil law, although
the personal element was never entirely obliterated.  The Teutonic
tribes had no written law, yet they had a distinct legal system.  The
comparison of this legal system with the Roman or with our modern
system brings to light the individual character of the early Germanic
laws.  The Teuton claimed rights on account of his own personality and
his relation to a family, not because he was a member of a state.

When the Teutons came in contact with the Romans they mingled their
principles of law with those of the latter, and thus made law more
formal.  Nearly all of the tribes, after this contact, had their laws
codified and written in Latin, by Roman scholars, chiefly of the
clergy, who incorporated not only many elements of Roman law but also
more or less of the elements of Christian usage.  Those tribes which
had been the longer time in contact with the Romans had a greater body
of laws, more systematized and of more Roman {292} characteristics.
Finally, as modern nationality arose, the laws were codified, combining
the Roman and the Teutonic practice.

The forms of judicial procedure remained much the same on account of
the character of Teutonic social organization.  The personal element
was so strong in the Teutonic system as to yield a wide influence in
the development of judicial affairs.  The trial by combat and the early
ordeals, the latter having been instituted largely through the church
discipline, and the idea of local courts based upon a trial of peers,
had much to do with shaping the course of judicial practice.  The time
came, however, when nearly every barbarian judicial process was
modified by the influence of the Roman law, until the predominance of
the state, in judicial usage, was recognized in place of the personal
element which so long prevailed in the early Teutonic customs.

But in the evolution of the judicial systems of the various countries
the Teutonic element of individual liberty and individual offenses
never lost its influences.  These simple elements of life indicate the
origin of popular government, individual and social liberty, and the
foundation of local self-government.  Wherever the generous barbarians
have gone they have carried the torch of liberty.  In Italy, Greece,
England, Germany, Spain, and the northern nations, wherever the lurid
flames of revolt against arbitrary and conventional government have
burst forth, it can be traced to the Teutonic spirit of freedom.  This
was the greatest contribution of the Teutonic people to civilization.[2]



1.  The vital elements of modern civilization contributed by the

2.  Teutonic influence on Roman civilization.

3.  Compare the social order of the Teutons with that of the early

4.  Causes of the invasion of Rome by the Teutonic tribes.

5.  What were the racial relations of Romans, Greeks, Germans, Celts,
and English?

6.  Modern contributions to civilization by Germany.

[1] See Chapter XXI.

[2] The modern Prussian military state was a departure from the main
trend of Teutonic life.  It represented a combination of later
feudalism and the Roman imperialism.  It was a perversion of normal
development, a fungous growth upon institutions of freedom and justice.




_Feudalism a Transition of Social Order_.--Feudalism represents a
change from the ancient form of imperialism to the newer forms of
European government.  It arose out of the ruins of the Roman system as
an essential form of social order.  It appears to be the only system
fitted to bring order out of the chaotic conditions of society, but by
the very nature of affairs it could not long continue as an established
system.  It is rather surprising, indeed, that it became so universal,
for every territory in Europe was subjected to its control in a greater
or less degree.  Frequently those who were forced to adopt its form
condemned its principle, and those who sought to maintain the doctrine
of Roman imperialism were subjected to its sway.  The church itself,
seeking to maintain its autocracy, came into direct contact with feudal
theory and opposed it bitterly.  The people who submitted to the yoke
of personal bondage which it entailed hated the system.  Yet the whole
European world passed under feudalism.  But notwithstanding its
universality, feudalism could offer nothing permanent, for in the
development of social order it was forced to yield to monarchy,
although it made a lasting influence on social life and political and
economic usage.

_There Are Two Elementary Sources of Feudalism_.--The spirit of
feudalism arises out of the early form of Teutonic social life.  It
sprang from the personal obligation of the comitatus, which was
composed of a military leader and his followers or companions.  The
self-constituted assembly elected the leader who was most noted for
courage and prowess in battle.  To him was consigned the task of
leading in battle the host, which was composed of all the freemen in
arms.  Usually {295} these chiefs were chosen for a single campaign,
but it not infrequently happened that their leadership was continuous,
with all the force of hereditary selection.

Another phase of the comitatus is represented by the leader's setting
forth in time of peace with his companions to engage in fighting,
exploiting, and plunder on his own account.  The courageous young men
of the tribe, thirsting for adventure in arms, gathered about their
leader, whom they sought to excel in valor.  He who was bravest and
strongest in battle was considered most honorable.  The principal
feature to be noted is the personal allegiance of the companions to
their leader, for they were bound to him with the closest ties.  For
the service which they rendered, the leader gave them sustenance and
also reward for personal valor.  They sat at his table and became his
companions, and thus continually increased his power in the community.

This custom represents the germ of the feudal system.  The leader
became the lord, the companions his vassals.  When the lord became a
tribal chief or king, the royal vassals became the king's thegns, or
represented the nobility of the realm.  The whole system was based upon
service and personal allegiance.  As conquest of territory was made,
the land was parcelled out among the followers, who received it from
the leader as allodial grants and, later, as feudal grants.  The
allodial grant resembled the title in fee simple, the feudal grant was
made on condition of future service.

The Roman element of feudalism finds its representation in clientage.
This was a well-known institution at the time of the contact of the
Romans with their invaders.  The client was attached to the lord, on
whom he depended for support and for representation in the community.
Two of the well-known feudal aids, namely, the ransom of the lord from
captivity and the gift of dowry money on the marriage of his eldest
daughter, are similar to the services rendered by the Roman client to
his lord.

The personal tie of clientage resembled the personal {296} allegiance
in the comitatus, with the difference that the client stood at a great
distance from the patron, while in the comitatus the companions were
nearly equal to their chief.  The Roman influence tended finally to
make the wide difference which existed between the lord and vassal in
feudal relations.  Other forms of Roman usage, such as the institution
of the _coloni_, or half-slaves of the soil, and the custom of granting
land for use without actual ownership, seem to have influenced the
development of feudalism.  Without doubt the Roman institutions here
gave form and system to feudalism, as they did in other forms of

_The Feudal System in Its Developed State Based on Land-Holding_.--In
the early period in France, where feudalism received its most perfect
development, several methods of granting land were in vogue.  First,
the lands in the immediate possession of the conquered were retained by
them on condition that they pay tribute to the conquerors; the wealthy
Romans were allowed to hold all or part of their large estates.
Second, many lands were granted in fee simple to the followers of the
chiefs.  Third was the beneficiary grant, most common to feudal tenure
in its developed state.  By this method land was granted as a reward
for services past or prospective.  The last method to be named is that
of commendation, by which the small holder of land needing protection
gave his land to a powerful lord, who in turn regranted it to the
original owner on condition that the latter became his vassal.  Thus
the lands conquered by a chief or lord were parcelled out to his
principal supporters, who in turn regranted them to those under them,
so that all society was formed in a gradation of classes based on the
ownership of land.  Each lord had his vassal, every vassal his lord.
Each man swore allegiance to the one next above him, and this one to
his superior, until the king was reached, who himself was but a
powerful feudal lord.

As the other forms and functions of state life developed, feudalism
became the ruling principle, from which many strove in vain to free
themselves.  There were in France, in the time {297} of Hugh Capet,
according to Kitchen, "about a million of souls living on and taking
their names from about 70,000 separate fiefs or properties; of these
about 3,000 carried titles with them.  Of these again, no less than a
hundred were sovereign states, greater or smaller, whose lords could
coin money, levy taxes, make laws, and administer their own
justice."[1]  Thus the effect of feudal tenure was to arrange society
into these small, compact social groups, each of which must really
retain its power by force of arms.  The method gave color to monarchy,
which later became universal.

_Other Elements of Feudalism_.--Prominent among the characteristics of
feudalism was the existence of a close personal bond between the
grantor and the receiver of an estate.  The receiver did homage to the
grantor in the form of oath, and also took the oath of fealty.  In the
former he knelt before the lord and promised to become his man on
account of the land which he held, and to be faithful to him in defense
of life and limb against all people.  The oath of fealty was only a
stronger oath of the same tenor, in which the vassal, standing before
the lord, appealed to God as a witness.  These two oaths, at first
entirely separate, became merged into one, which passed by the name of
the oath of fealty.  When the lord desired to raise an army he had only
to call his leading vassals, and they in turn called those under them.
When he needed help to harvest his grain the vassals were called upon
for service.

Besides the service rendered, there were feudal aids to be paid on
certain occasions.  The chief of these were the ransom of the lord when
captured, the amount paid when the eldest son was knighted, and the
dowry on the marriage of the eldest daughter.  There were lesser feudal
taxes called reliefs.  Of these the more important were the payment of
a tax by the heir of a deceased vassal upon succession to property,
one-half year's profit paid when a ward became of age, and the right to
escheated lands of the vassal.  The lord also had the right to land
forfeited on account of certain heinous crimes.  {298} Wardship
entitled the lord to the use of lands during the minority of the ward.
The lord also had a right to choose a husband for the female ward at
the age of fourteen; if she refused to accept the one chosen, the lord
had the use of her services and property until she was twenty-one.
Then he could dispose of her lands as he chose and refuse consent for
her to marry.  These aids and reliefs made a system of slavery for
serfs and vassals.

_The Rights of Sovereignty_.--The feudal lord had the right of
sovereignty over all of his own vassal domain.  Not only did he have
military sovereignty on account of allegiance of vassals, but political
sovereignty also, as he ruled the assemblies in his own way.  He had
legal jurisdiction, for all the courts were conducted by him or else
under his jurisdiction, and this brought his own territory completely
under his control as proprietor, and subordinated everything to his
will.  In this is found the spirit of modern absolute monarchy.

_The Classification of Feudal Society_.--In France, according to Duruy,
under the perfection of feudalism, the people were grouped in the
following classes: First, there was a group of Gallic or Frankish
freemen, who were obliged to give military service to the king and give
aids when called upon.  Second, the vassals, who rendered service to
those from whom they held their lands.  Third, the royal vassals, from
whom the king usually chose his dukes and counts to lead the army or to
rule over provinces and cities.  Fourth, the _liti_, who, like the
Roman _coloni_, were bound to the soil, which they cultivated as
farmers, and for which they paid a small rent.  Finally, there were the
ordinary slaves.  The character of the _liti_, or _glebe_, serfs varied
according to the degree of liberty with which they were privileged.
They might have emancipation by charter or by the grant of the king or
the church, but they were never free.  The feudal custom was binding on
all, and no one escaped from its control.  Even the clergy became
feudal, there being lords and vassals within the church.  Yet the
ministry, in their preaching, recognized the opportunity of {299}
advancement, for they claimed that even a serf might become a bishop,
although there was no great probability of this.

_Progress of Feudalism_.--The development of feudalism was slow in all
countries, and it varied in character in accordance with the condition
of the country.  In England the Normans in the eleventh century found
feudalism in an elementary state, and gave formality to the system.  In
Germany feudalism was less homogeneous than in France.  It lacked the
symmetrical finish of the Roman institutions, although it was
introduced from French soil through overlordship and proceeded from the
sovereign to the serf, rather than springing from the serf to the
sovereign.  It varied somewhat in characteristics from French
feudalism, although the essentials of the system were not wanting.  In
the Scandinavian provinces the Teutonic element was too strong, and in
Spain and Italy the Romanic, to develop in these countries perfect
feudalism.  But in France there was a regular, progressive development.
The formative period began in Caesar's time and ended with the ninth

This was followed by the period of complete domination and full power,
extending to the end of the thirteenth century, at the close of which
offices and benefices were in the hands of the great vassals of Charles
the Bald.  Then followed a period of transformation of feudalism, which
extended to the close of the sixteenth century.  Finally came the
period of the decay of feudalism, beginning with the seventeenth
century and extending to the present time.  There are found now, both
in Europe and America, laws and usages which are vestiges of the
ancient forms of feudalism, which the formal organization of the state
has failed to eradicate.

The autocratic practice of the feudal lord survived in the new monarch,
and, except in the few cases of constitutional limitation, became
imperialistic.  The Prussian state, built upon a military basis,
exercised the rights of feudal conquest over neighboring states.  After
the war with Austria, Prussia exercised an overlordship over part of
the smaller German {300} states, with a show of constitutional liberty.
After the Franco-Prussian War of 1870, the German Empire was formed,
still with a show of constitutional liberty, but with the feudal idea
of overlordship dominant.  Having feudalized the other states of
Germany, Prussia sought to extend the feudal idea to the whole world,
but was checked by the World War of 1914.

_State of Society Under Feudalism_.--In searching for the effects of
feudalism on human progress, the family deserves our first
consideration.  The wife of the feudal lord and her equal associates
were placed on a higher plane.  The family in no wise represented the
ancient patriarchal family nor the modern family.  The head of the
family stood alone, independent of every form of government.  He was
absolute proprietor of himself and of all positions under him.  He was
neither magistrate, priest, nor king, nor subordinate to any system
except as he permitted.  His position developed arbitrary power and
made him proud and aristocratic.  With a few members of his family, he
lived in his castle, far removed from serfs and vassals.  He spent his
life alternately in feats of arms or in systematic idleness.  Away from
home much of the time, fighting to defend his castle or obtain new
territory, or engaging in hunting, while the wife and mother cared for
the home, he developed strength and power.

It was in the feudal family that woman obtained her position of honor
and power in the home.  It was this position that developed the
chivalry of the Middle Ages.  The improvement of domestic manners and
the preponderance of home society among the few produced the moral
qualities of the home.  Coupled with this was the idea of nobility on
one side, and the idea of inheritance on the other, which had a
tendency to unify the family under one defender and to perpetuate the
right and title to property of future generations.  It was that benign
spirit which comes from the household in more modern life, giving
strength and permanence to character.

While there was a relation of common interest between the {301}
villagers clustered around the feudal castle, the union was not
sufficient to make a compact organization.  Their rights were not
common, as there was a recognized superiority on one hand and a
recognized inferiority on the other.  This grew into a common hatred of
the lower classes for the upper, which has been a thousand times
detrimental to human progress.  The little group of people had their
own church, their own society.  Those who had a fellow-feeling for them
had much influence directly, but not in bridging over the chasm between
them and the feudal lord.  Feudalism gave every man a place, but
developed the inequalities of humanity to such an extent that it could
not be lasting as a system.  Society became irregular, in which extreme
aristocracy was divorced from extreme democracy.  Relief came slowly,
through the development of monarchy and the citizenship of the modern
state.  It was a rude attempt to find the secret of social
organization.  The spirit of revolt of the oppressed lived on
suppressed by a galling tyranny.

To maintain his position as proprietor of the soil and ruler over a
class of people treated as serfs required careful diplomacy on the part
of the lord, or else intolerant despotism.  He usually chose the
latter, and sought to secure his power by force of arms.  He cared
little for the wants or needs of his people.  He did not associate with
them on terms of equality, and only came in contact with them as a
master meets a servant.  Consulting his own selfish interest, he made
his rule despotic, and all opposition was suppressed with a high hand.
The only check upon this despotism was the warlike attitude of other
similar despotic lords, who always sought to advance their own
interests by the force of arms.  Feudalism in form of government was
the antithesis of imperialism, yet in effect something the same.  It
substituted a horde of petty despots for one and it developed a petty
local tyranny in the place of a general despotism.

_Lack of Central Authority in Feudal Society_.--So many feudal lords,
each master of his own domain, contending with one {302} another for
the mastery, each resting his course on the hereditary gift of his
ancestors, or, more probably, on his force of armed men and the
strength of his castle, made it impossible that there should be any
recognized authority in government, or any legal determination of the
rights of the ruler and his subjects.  Feudal law was the law of force;
feudal justice the right of might.  Among all of these feudal lords
there was not one to force by will all others into submission, and thus
create a central authority.  There was no permanent legislative body,
no permanent judicial machinery, no standing army, no uniform and
regular system of taxation.  There could be no guaranty to permanent
political power under such circumstances.

There was little progress in social order under the rule of feudalism.
Although we recognize that it was an essential form of government
necessary to control the excesses of individualism; although we realize
that a monarchy was impossible until it was created by an evolutionary
process, that a republic could not exist under the irregularity of
political forces, yet it must be maintained that social progress did
not exist under the feudal régime.  There was no unity of social
action, no co-operation of classes in government.  The line between the
governed and the governing, though clearly marked at times, was an
irregular, wavering line.  Outside of the family life--which was
limited in scope--and of the power of the church--which failed to unify
society--there was no vital social growth.

_Individual Development in the Dominant Group_.--Feudalism established
a strong individualism among leaders, a strong personality based on
sterling intellectual qualities.  It is evident that this excessive
individual development became very prominent in the later evolution of
social order, and is recognized as a gain in social advancement.
Individual culture is essential to social advancement.  To develop
strong, independent, self-reliant individuals might tend to produce
anarchy rather than social order, yet it must eventually lead to the
latter; and so it proved in the case of feudalism, for its very {303}
chaotic state brought about, as a necessity, social order.  But it came
about through survival of the fittest, in conquest and defense.  Nor
did the most worthy always succeed, but rather those who had the
greatest power in ruthless conquest.  Unity came about through the
unbridled exercise of the predatory spirit, accompanied by power to
take and to hold.

This chaotic state of individualistic people was the means of bringing
about an improvement in intellectual development.  The strong
individual character with position and leisure becomes strong
intellectually in planning defense and in meditating upon the
philosophy of life.  The notes of song and of literature came from the
feudal times.  The determination of the mind to intellectual pursuits
appeared in the feudal régime, and individual culture and independent
intellectual life, though of the few and at the expense of the
majority, were among the important contributions to civilization.


1.  What was the basis of feudal society?

2.  What elements of feudalism were Roman and what Teutonic?

3.  What service did feudalism render civilization?

4.  Show that feudalism was transition from empire to modern

5.  How did feudal lords obtain titles to their land?  Give examples.

6.  What survivals of feudalism may be observed in modern governments?

7.  When King John of England wrote after his signature "King of
_England_," what was its significance?

8.  How did feudalism determine the character of monarchy in modern

[1] _History of France_.




The dissemination of knowledge, customs, habits, and laws from common
centres of culture has been greatly augmented by population movements
or migrations, by great empires established, by wars of conquest, and
systems of intercommunication and transportation.  The Babylonian,
Assyrian, Persian, Alexandrian, and Roman empires are striking examples
of the diffusion of knowledge and the spread of ideas over different
geographical boundaries and through tribal and national organizations;
and, indeed, the contact of the barbarian hordes with improved systems
of culture was but a process of interchange and intermingling of
qualities of strength and vigor with the conventionalized forms of
human society.

One of the most remarkable movements was that of the rise and expansion
of the Arabian Empire, which was centred about religious ideals of
Mohammed and the Koran.  Having accepted the idea of one God universal,
which had been so strongly emphasized by the Hebrews, and having
accepted in part the doctrine of the teachings of Jesus regarding the
brotherhood of man, Mohammed was able through the mysticism of his
teaching, in the Koran, to excite his followers to a wild fanaticism.
Nor did his successors hesitate to use force, for most of their
conquests were accomplished by the power of the sword.  At any rate,
nation after nation was forced to bow to Mohammedanism and the Koran,
in a spectacular whirlwind of conquest such as the world had not
previously known.

It is remarkable that after the decline of the old Semitic
civilization, as exhibited in the Babylonian and Assyrian empires, the
practical extinction of the Phoenicians, the conquest of Jerusalem, and
the spread of the Jews over the whole world, there should have risen a
new Semitic movement to disrupt {305} and disorganize the world.  It is
interesting to note in this connection, also, that wherever the Arabs
went they came in contact with learned Jews of high mentality, who
co-operated with them in advancing learning.

_The Rise and Expansion of the Arabian Empire_.--Mohammedanism, which
arose in the beginning of the seventh century, spread rapidly over the
East and through northern Africa, and extended into Spain.  All Arabia
was converted to the Koran, and Persia and Egypt soon after came under
its influence.  In the period 623-640, Syria was conquered by the
Mohammedans, upper Asia in 707, and Spain in 711.  They established a
great caliphate, extending from beyond the Euphrates through Egypt and
northern Africa to the Pyrenees in Spain.  They burned the great
library at Alexandria, founded by Ptolemy, destroying the manuscripts
and books in a relentless zeal to blot out all vestiges of Christian
learning.  In their passage westward they mingled with the Moors of
northern Africa, whom they had subdued after various struggles, the
last one ending in 709.  In this year they crossed the Strait of
Gibraltar and encountered the barbarians of the north.

The Visigothic monarchy was in a ruined condition.  Frequent internal
quarrels had led to the dismemberment of the government and the decay
of all fortifications, hence there was little organized resistance to
the incoming of the Arabs.  All Spain, except in the far north in the
mountains of the Asturias, was quickly reduced to the sway of the
Arabs.  They crossed the Pyrenees, and the broad territory of Gaul
opened before them, awaiting their conquest.  But on the plains between
Tours and Poitiers they met Charles Martel with a strong army, who
turned the tide of invasion back upon itself and set the limits of
Mohammedan dominion in Europe.

In the tenth century the great Arabian Empire began to disintegrate.
One after another of the great caliphates declined.  The caliphate of
Bagdad, which had existed so long in Oriental splendor, was first
dismembered by the loss of Africa.  The fatimate caliphate of northern
Africa next lost its power, {306} and the caliphate of Cordova, in
Spain, brilliant in its ascendancy, followed the course of the other
two.  The Arabian conquest of Spain left the country in a state of
tolerable freedom, but Cordova, like the others, was doomed to be
destroyed by anarchy and confusion.  All the principal cities became in
the early part of the eleventh century independent principalities.

Thus the Mohammedan conquest, which built an extensive Arabian Empire,
ruling first in Asia, then Africa, and finally Europe, spreading abroad
with sudden and irresistible expansion, suddenly declined through
internal dissensions and decay, having lasted but a few centuries.  The
peculiar tribal nature of the Arabian social order had not developed a
strong central organization, nor permitted the practice of organized
political effort on a large scale, so that the sudden transition from
the small tribe, with its peculiar government, to that of the
organization and management of a great empire was sufficient to cause
the disintegration and downfall of the empire.  So far as political
power was concerned, the passion for conquest was the great impelling
motive of the Mohammedans.

_The Religious Zeal of the Arab-Moors_.--The central idea of the
Mohammedan conquest seems to have been a sort of religious zeal or
fanaticism.  The whole history of their conquest shows a continual
strife to propagate their religious doctrine.  The Arabians were a
sober people, of vivid imagination and excessive idealism, with
religious natures of a lofty and peculiar character.  Their religious
life in itself was awe-inspiring.  Originally dwelling on the plains of
Arabia, where nature manifested itself in strong characteristics,
living in one sense a narrow life, the imagination had its full play,
and the mystery of life had centred in a sort of wisdom and lore, which
had accumulated through long generations of reflection.  There always
dwelt in the minds of this branch of the Semitic people a conception of
the unity of God, and when the revelation of God came to them through
Mohammed, when they realized "Allah is Allah, and Mohammed is his
prophet," they were swept entirely away by this religious conception.
When once {307} this idea took firm hold upon the Arabian mind, it
remained there a permanent part of life.  Under military organization
the conquest was rapidly extended over surrounding disintegrated
tribes, and the strong unity of government built on the basis of
religious zeal.

So strong was this religious zeal that it dominated their entire life.
It turned a reflective and imaginative people, who had sought out the
hidden mysteries of life by the acuteness of their own perception, to
base their entire operations upon faith.  Faith dominated the reason to
such an extent that the deep and permanent foundations of progress
could not be laid, and the vast opportunities granted to them by
position and conquest gradually declined for the lack of vital
principles of social order.

Not only had the Arabians laid the foundations of culture and learning
through their own evolution, but they had borrowed much from other
Oriental countries.  Their contact with learning of the Far East, of
Palestine, of Egypt, of the Greeks, and of the Italians, had given them
an opportunity to absorb most of the elements of ancient culture.
Having borrowed these products, they were able to combine them and use
them in building an empire of learning in Spain.  If their own subtle
genius was not wanting in the combination of the knowledge of the
ancients, and in its use in building up a system, neither lacked they
in original conception, and on the early foundation they built up a
superstructure of original knowledge.  They advanced learning in
various forms, and furnished means for the advancement of civilization
in the west.

_The Foundations of Science and Art_.--In the old caliphates of Bagdad
and Damascus there had developed great interest in learning.  The
foundation of this knowledge, as has been related, was derived from the
Greeks and the Orientals.  It is true that the Koran, which had been
accepted by them as gospel and law, had aroused and inspired the
Arabian mind to greater desires for knowledge.  Their knowledge,
however, could not be set by the limitations of the Koran, and the
desire {308} for achievement in learning was so great that scarcely a
century had passed after the burning of the libraries of Alexandria
before all branches of knowledge were eagerly cultivated by the
Arabians.  They ran a rapid course from the predominance of physical
strength and courage, through blind adherence to faith, to the position
of superior learning.  The time soon came when the scholar was as much
revered as the warrior.

In every conquered country the first duty of the conquerors was to
build a mosque in which Allah might be worshipped and his prophet
honored.  Attached to this mosque was a school, where people were first
taught to read and write and study the Koran.  From this initial point
they enlarged the study of science, literature, and art, which they
pursued with great eagerness.  Through the appreciation of these things
they collected the treasures of art and learning wherever they could be
found, and, dwelling upon these, they obtained the results of the
culture of other nations and other generations.  From imitation they
passed to the field of creation, and advances were made in the
contributions to the sum of human knowledge.  In Spain schools were
founded, great universities established, and libraries built which laid
the permanent foundation of knowledge and art and enabled the
Arab-Moors to advance in science, art, invention, and discovery.

_The Beginnings of Chemistry and Medicine_.--In chemistry the careful
study of the elements of substances and the agents in composition was
pursued by the Arab-Moors in Spain, but it must be remembered that the
chemistry of their day is now known as alchemy.  Chemistry then was in
its formative period and not a science as viewed in the modern sense.
Yet when we consider that the science of modern chemistry is but a
little over a century old, we find the achievements of the Arabians in
their own time, as compared with the changes which took place in the
following seven centuries, to be worthy of note.

In the eleventh century a philosopher named Geber knew the chemical
affinities of quicksilver, tin, lead, copper, iron, {309} gold, and
silver, and to each one was given a name of the planet which was
supposed to have special influence over it.  Thus silver was named for
the moon, gold for the sun, copper for Venus, tin for Jupiter, iron for
Vulcan, quicksilver for Mercury, and lead for Saturn.  The influences
of the elements were supposed to be similar to the influence of the
heavenly bodies over men.  This same chemist was acquainted with
oxidizing and calcining processes, and knew methods of obtaining soda
and potash salts, and the properties of saltpetre.  Also nitric acid
was obtained from the nitrate of potassium.  These and other similar
examples represent something of the achievements of the Arabians in
chemical knowledge.  Still, their lack of knowledge is shown in their
continued search for the philosopher's stone and the attempt to create
the precious metals.

The art of medicine was practised to a large extent in the Orient, and
this knowledge was transferred to Spain.  The entire knowledge of these
early physicians, however, was limited to the superficial diagnosis of
cases and to a knowledge of medicinal plants.  By the very law of their
religion, anatomy was forbidden to them, and, indeed, the Arabians had
a superstitious horror of dissection.  By ignorance of anatomy their
practice of surgery was very imperfect.  But their physicians,
nevertheless, became renowned throughout the world by their use of
medicines and by their wonderful cures.  They plainly led the world in
the art of healing.  It is true their superstition and their astrology
constantly interfered with their better judgment in many things, but
notwithstanding these drawbacks they were enabled to develop great
interest in the study of medicine and to accomplish a great work in the
advancement of the science.  In _Al Makkari_ it is stated "that disease
could be more effectively checked by diet than by medicine, and that
when medicine became necessary, simples were far preferable to compound
medicaments, and when these latter were required, as few drugs as
possible ought to enter into their composition."  This exhibits the
thoughtful reflection that was {310} given to the administration of
drugs in this early period, and might prove a lesson to many a modern

Toward the close of their career, the Arabian doctors began the
practice of dissecting and the closer study of anatomy and physiology,
which added much to the power of the science.  Yet they still believed
in the "elixir of life," and tried to work miracle cures, which in many
respects may have been successful.  It is a question whether they went
any farther into the practice of miracle cures than the quacks and
charlatans and faith doctors of modern times have gone.  The influence
of their study of medicine was seen in the great universities, and
especially in the foundation of the University at Salerno at a later
time, which was largely under the Arabian influence.

_Metaphysics and Exact Science_.--It would seem that the Arab-Moors
were well calculated to develop psychological science.  Their minds
seemed to be in a special measure metaphysical.  They laid the
foundation of their metaphysical speculations on the philosophy of the
Greeks, particularly that of Aristotle, but later they attempted to
develop originality, although they succeeded in doing little more, as a
rule, than borrowing from others.  In the early period of Arabian
development the Koran stood in the way of any advancement in
philosophy.  It was only at intervals that philosophy could gain any
advancement.  Indeed, the philosophers were driven away from their
homes, but they carried with them many followers into a larger field.
The long list of philosophers who, after the manner of the Greeks, each
attempted to develop his own separate system, might be mentioned,
showing the zeal with which they carried on inquiry into metaphysical
science.  As may be supposed, they added little to the sum of human
knowledge, but developed a degree of culture by their philosophical

But it is in the exact sciences that the Arabs seem to have met with
the greatest success.  The Arabic numerals, probably brought from India
to Bagdad, led to a new and larger use of arithmetic.  The decimal
system and the art of figures were {311} introduced into Spain in the
ninth century, and gave great advancement in learning.  But, strange to
relate, these numerals, though used so early by the Arabs in Spain,
were not common in Germany until the fifteenth century.  The importance
of their use cannot be overestimated, for by means of them the Arabians
easily led the world in astronomy, mechanics, and mathematics.

The science of algebra is generally attributed to the Arabians.  Its
name is derived from gabara, to bind parts together, and yet the origin
of this science is not certain.  It is thought that the Arabs derived
their knowledge from the Greeks, but in all probability algebra had its
first origin among the philosophers of India.

The Arabians used geometry, although they added little to its
advancement.  Geometry had reached at this period an advanced stage of
progress in the problems of Euclid.  It was to the honor of the
Arabians that they were the first of any of the Western peoples to
translate Euclid and use it, for it was not until the sixteenth century
that it was freely translated into the modern languages.

But in trigonometry the Arabians, by the introduction of the use of the
sine, or half-chord, of the double arc in the place of the arc itself,
made great advancement, especially in the calculations of surveying and
astronomy.  In the universities and colleges of Spain under Arabian
dominion we find, then, that students had an opportunity of mastering
nearly all of the useful elementary mathematics.  Great attention was
paid to the study of astronomy.  Here, as before, they used the Greek
knowledge, but they advanced the study of the science greatly by the
introduction of instruments, such as those for measuring time by the
movement of the pendulum and the measurement of the heavenly bodies by
the astrolabe.

Likewise they employed the word "azimuth" and many other terms which
show a more definite knowledge of the relation of the heavenly bodies.
They were enabled, also, to {312} measure approximately a degree of
latitude.  They knew that the earth was of spheroid form.  But we find
astrology accompanying all this knowledge of astronomy.  While the
exact knowledge of the heavenly bodies had been developed to a certain
degree, the science of star influence, or astrology, was cultivated to
a still greater extent.  Thus they sought to show the control of mind
forces on earth, and, indeed, of all natural forces by the heavenly
bodies.  This placed mystical lore in the front rank of their
philosophical speculations.

_Geography and History_.--In the study of the earth the Arabians showed
themselves to be practical and accurate geographers.  They applied
their mathematical and astronomical knowledge to the study of the
earth, and thus gave an impulse to exploration.  While their theories
of the origin of the earth were crude and untenable, their practical
writings on the subject derived from real knowledge, and the practical
instruction in schools by the use of globes and maps, were of immense
practical value.

Their history was made up chiefly of the histories of cities and the
lives of prominent men.  There was no national history of the rise and
development of the Arabian kingdom, for historical writing and study
were in an undeveloped state.

_Discoveries, Inventions, and Achievements_.--It cannot be successfully
claimed that the Arabians exhibited very much originality in the
advancement of the civilized arts, yet they had the ability to take
what they found elsewhere developed by other scholars, improve upon it,
and apply it to the practical affairs of life.  Thus, although the
Chinese discovered gunpowder over 3,000 years ago, it remained for the
Arabs to bring it into use in the siege of Mecca in the year 690, and
introduce it into Spain some years later.  The Persians called it
Chinese salt, the Arabians Indian snow, indicating that it might have
originated in different countries.  The Arab-Moors used it in their
wars with the Christians as early as the middle of the thirteenth
century.  They excelled also in making paper from flax, or cotton,
which was probably an imitation {313} of the paper made by the Chinese
from silk.  We find also that the Arabs had learned to print from
movable type, and the introduction of paper made the printing-press
possible.  Linen paper made from old clothes was said to be in use as
early as 1106.

Without doubt the Arab-Moors introduced into Spain the use of the
magnet in connection with the mariner's compass.  But owing to the fact
that it was not needed in the short voyages along the coast of the
Mediterranean, it did not come into a large use until the great voyages
on the ocean, in the beginning of the fourteenth century.  Yet the
invention of the mariner's compass, so frequently attributed to Flavio
Giorgio, may be as well attributed to the Arab-Moors.

Knives and swords of superior make, leather, silk, and glass, as well
as large collections of delicate jewelry, show marked advancement in
Arabian industrial art and mechanical skill.

One of the achievements of the Arab-Moors in Spain was the introduction
of agriculture, and its advancement to an important position among the
industries by means of irrigation.  The great, fertile valleys of Spain
were thus, through agricultural skill, made "to blossom as the rose."
Seeds were imported from different parts of the world, and much
attention was given to the culture of all plants which could be readily
raised in this country.  Rice and cotton and sugar-cane were cultivated
through the process of irrigation.  Thus Spain was indebted to the
Arab-Moors not only for the introduction of industrial arts and skilled
mechanics, but the establishment of agriculture on a firm foundation.

_Language and Literature_.--The language of the Arabians is said to be
peculiarly rich in synonyms.  For instance, it is said there are 1,000
expressions for the word "camel," and the same number for the word
"sword," while there are 4,000 for the word "misfortune."  Very few
remnants of the Arabic remain in the modern European languages.  Quite
a number of words in the Spanish language, fewer in English and in
{314} other modern languages, are the only remnants of the use of this
highly developed Arabian speech.  It represents the southern branch of
the Semitic language, and is closely related to the Hebrew and the
Aramaic.  The unity and compactness of the language are very much in
evidence.  Coming little in contact with other languages, it remained
somewhat exclusive, and retained its original form.

When it came into Spain the Arabic language reigned almost supreme, on
account of the special domination of Arabic influences.  Far in the
north of Spain, however, among the Christians who had adopted the Low
Latin, was the formation of the Spanish language.  The hatred of the
Spaniards for the Arabs led these people to refuse to use the language
of the conquerors.  Nevertheless, the Arabic had some influence in the
formation of the Spanish language.  The isolated geographic terms, and
especial names of things, as well as idioms of speech, show still that
the Arabian influence may be traced in the Spanish language.

In literature the Arabians had a marked development.  The Arabian
poetry, though light in its character, became prominent.  There were
among these Arabians in Spain ardent and ready writers, with fertile
fancy and lively perception, who recited their songs to eager
listeners.  The poet became a universal teacher.  He went about from
place to place singing his songs, and the troubadours of the south of
France received in later years much of their impulse indirectly from
the Arabic poets.  While the poetry was not of a high order, it was
wide-reaching in its influence, and extended in later days to Italy,
Sicily, and southern France, and had a quickening influence in the
development of the light songs of the troubadours.  The influence of
this lighter literature through Italy, Sicily, and southern France on
the literature of Europe and of England in later periods is well marked
by the historians.  In the great schools rhetoric and grammar were also
taught to a considerable extent.  In the universities these formed one
of the great branches of special culture.  We find, then, on the
linguistic {315} side that the Arabians accomplished a great deal in
the advancement of the language and literature of Europe.

_Art and Architecture_.--Perhaps the Arabians in Spain are known more
by their architecture than any other phase of their culture.  Not that
there was anything especially original in it, except in the combination
which they made of the architecture of other nations.  In the building
of their great mosques, like that of Cordova and of the Alhambra, they
perpetuated the magnificence and splendor of the East.  Even the actual
materials with which they constructed these magnificent buildings were
obtained from Greece and the Orient, and placed in their positions in a
new combination.  The great original feature of the Mooresque
architecture is found in the famous horseshoe arch, which was used so
extensively in their mosques and palaces.  It represented the Roman
arch, slightly bent into the form of a horseshoe.  Yet from
architectural strength it must be considered that the real support
resting on the pillar was merely the half-circle of the Roman arch,
while the horseshoe was a continuation for ornamental purposes.

The Arab-Moors were forbidden the use of sculpture, which they never
practised, and hence the artistic features were limited to
architectural and art decorations.  Many of the interior decorations of
the walls of these great buildings show advanced skill.  Upon the
whole, their buildings are remarkable mainly in the perpetuation of
Oriental architecture rather than in the development of any originality
except in skill of decoration and combination.

_The Government of the Arab-Moors Was Peculiarly Centralized_.--The
caliph was at the head as an absolute monarch.  He appointed viceroys
in the different provinces for their control.  The only thing that
limited the actual power of the caliph was the fact that he was a
theocratic governor.  Otherwise he was supreme in power.  There was no
constitutional government, and, indeed, but little precedent in law.
The government depended somewhat upon the whims and caprices {316} of a
single individual.  It was said that in the beginning the caliph was
elected by the people, but in a later period the office became
hereditary.  It is true the caliph, who was called the "vicar of God,"
or "the shadow of God," had his various ministers appointed from the
wise men to carry out his will.  Yet, such was the power of the people
what when in Spain they were displeased with the rulings of the judges,
they would pelt the officers or storm the palace, thus in a way
limiting the power of these absolute rulers.

The government, however, was in a precarious condition.  There could be
nothing permanent under such a régime, for permanency of government is
necessary to the advancement of civilization.  The government was
non-progressive.  It allowed no freedom of the people and gave no
incentive to advancement, and it was a detriment many times to the
progressive spirit.  Closely connected with a religion which in itself
was non-progressive, we find limitations set upon the advancement of
the civilization of the Arab-Moors in Spain.

_Arabian Civilization Soon Reached Its Limits_.--One views with wonder
and astonishment the brilliant achievements of the Arabian
civilization, extending from the Tagus to the Indus.  But brilliant as
it was, one is impressed at every turn with the instability of the
civilization and with its peculiar limitations.  It reached its
culmination long before the Christian conquest.  What the Arabians have
given to the European world was formulated rapidly and given quickly,
and the results were left to be used by a more slowly developing
people, who rested their civilization upon a permanent basis.  Much
stress has been laid by Mr. Draper and others upon the great
civilization of the Arabians, comparing it favorably with the
civilization of Christian Europe.  But it must be remembered that the
Arab-Moors, especially in Spain, had come so directly in contact with
Oriental nations that they were enabled to borrow and utilize for a
time the elements of civilization advanced by these more mature
peoples.  However, built as it was upon borrowed materials, the
structure once completed, {317} there was no opportunity for growth or
original development.  It reached its culmination, and would have
progressed no further in Spain, even had not the Christians under
Ferdinand and Isabella conquered the Arab-Moors and eventually overcome
and destroyed their civilization.  In this conquest, in which the two
leading faiths of the Western world were fighting for supremacy,
doubtless the Christian world could not fully appreciate what the
Arab-Moors accomplished, nor estimate their value to the economic
system of Spain.

Subsequent facts of history show that, the Christian religion once
having a dominant power in Spain, the church became less liberal in its
views and its rule than that exhibited by the government of the
Arab-Moors.  Admitting that the spirit of liberty had burst forth in
old Asturias, a seat of Nordic culture, it soon became obscure in the
arbitrary domination of monarchy, and of the church through the
instrumentality of Torquemada and the Inquisition.  Nevertheless, the
civilization of the Arab-Moors cannot be pictured as an ideal one,
because it was lacking in the fundamentals of continuous progress.
Knowledge had not yet become widely disseminated, nor truth free enough
to arouse vigorous qualities of life which make for permanency in
civilization.  With all of its borrowed art and learning and its
adaptation to new conditions, still the civilization was sufficiently
non-progressive to be unsuited to carry the burden of the development
of the human race.  Nevertheless, in the contemplation of human
progress, the Arab-Moors of Spain are deserving of attention because of
their universities and their studies, which influenced other parts of
mediaeval Europe at a time when they were breaking away from scholastic
philosophy and assuming a scientific attitude of mind.


1.  What contributions to art and architecture did the Arab-Moors make
in Spain?

2.  The nature of their government.


3.  How did their religion differ from the Christian religion in
principle and in practice?

4.  The educational contribution of the universities of the Arab-Moors.

5.  What contributions to science and learning came from the Arabian

6.  Why and by whom were the Arab-Moors driven from Spain?  What were
the economic and political results?

7.  What was the influence of the Arabs on European civilization?




_What Brought About the Crusades_.--We have learned from the former
chapters that the Arabs had spread their empire from the Euphrates to
the Strait of Gibraltar, and that the Christian and Mohammedan
religions had compassed and absorbed the entire religious life over
this whole territory.  As Christianity had become the great reforming
religion of the western part of Europe, so Mohammedanism had become the
reforming religion of Asia.  The latter was more exacting in its
demands and more absolute in its sway than the former, spreading its
doctrines mainly by force, while the former sought more to extend its
doctrine by a leavening process.  Nevertheless, when the two came in
contact, a fierce struggle for supremacy ensued.  The meteorlike rise
of Mohammedanism had created consternation and alarm in the Christian
world as early as the eighth century.  There sprang up not only fear of
Islamism, but a hatred of its followers.

After the Arabian Empire had become fully established, there arose to
the northeast of Bagdad, the Moslem capital, a number of Turkish tribes
that were among the more recent converts to Mohammedanism.  Apparently
they took the Mohammedan religion as embodied in the Koran literally
and fanatically, and, considering nothing beyond these, sought to
propagate the doctrine through conquest by sword.  They are frequently
known as Seljuks.  It is to the credit of the Arabs, whether in
Mesopotamia, Africa, or Spain, that their minds reached beyond the
Koran into the wider ranges of knowledge, a fact which tempered their
fanatical zeal, but the Seljuk Turks swept forward with their armies
until they conquered the Byzantine Empire of the East, the last branch
of the great Roman Empire.  They had also conquered Jerusalem and {320}
taken possession of the holy sepulchre, to which pilgrimages of
Christians were made annually, and aroused the righteous indignation of
the Christians of the Western world.  The ostensible purpose of the
crusades was to free Palestine, the oppressed Christians, and the holy
sepulchre from the domination of the Turks.

It must be remembered that the period of the Middle Ages was
represented by fancies and theories and an evanescent idealism which
controlled the movements of the people to a large extent.  Born of
religious sentiment, there dwelt in the minds of Christian people a
reverence for the land of the birth of Christ, to which pilgrims passed
every year to show their adoration for the Saviour and patriotism for
the land of his birth.  These pilgrims were interfered with by the
Mohammedans and especially by the Seljuk Turks.

The Turks in their blind zeal for Mohammedanism could see nothing in
the Christian belief worthy of respect or even civil treatment.  The
persecution of Christians awakened the sympathy of all Europe and
filled the minds of people with resentment against the occupation of
Jerusalem by the Turks.  This is one of the earliest indications of the
development of religious toleration, which heralded the development of
a feeling that people should worship whom they pleased unmolested,
though it was like a voice crying in the wilderness, for many centuries
passed before religious toleration could be acknowledged.

There were other considerations which made occasion for the crusades.
Gregory VII preached a crusade to protect Constantinople and unify the
church under one head.  But trouble with Henry IV of Germany caused him
to abandon the enterprise.  There still dwelt in the minds of the
people an ideal monarchy, as represented by the Roman Empire.  It was
considered the type of all good government, the one expression of the
unity of all people.  Many dreamed of the return of this empire to its
full temporal sway.  It was a species of idealism which lived on
through the Middle Ages long after the {321} Western Empire had passed
into virtual decay.  In connection with this idea of a universal empire
controlling the whole world was the idea of a universal religion which
should unite all religious bodies under one common organization.  The
centre of this organization was to be the papal authority at Rome.

There dwelt then in the minds of all ecclesiastics this common desire
for the unity of all religious people in one body regardless of
national boundaries.  And it must be said that these two ideas had much
to do with giving Europe unity of thought and sentiment.  Disintegrated
as it was, deflected and disturbed by a hundred forces, thoughts of a
common religion and of universal empire nevertheless had much to do to
harmonize and unify the people of Europe.  Hence, it was when Urban II,
who had inherited all of the great religious improvements instituted by
Gregory VII, preached a crusade to protect Constantinople, on the one
hand, and to deliver Jerusalem, on the other, and made enthusiastic
inflammatory speeches, that Europe awoke like an electric flash.  Peter
the Hermit, on the occasion of the first crusade, was employed to
travel throughout Europe to arouse enthusiasm in the minds of the

The crusades so suddenly inaugurated extended over a period of nearly
two hundred years, in which all Europe was in a restless condition.
The feudal life which had settled down and crystallized all forms of
human society throughout Europe had failed to give that variety and
excitement which it entertained in former days.  Thousands of knights
in every nation were longing for the battle-field.  Many who thought
life at home not worth living, and other thousands of people seeking
opportunities for change, sought diversion abroad.  All Europe was
ready to exclaim "God wills it!" and "On to Jerusalem!" to defend the
Holy City against the Turk.

_Specific Causes of the Crusades_.--If we examine more specifically
into the real causes of the crusades we shall find, as Mr. Guizot has
said, that there were two causes, the one moral, the other social.  The
moral cause is represented in the {322} desire to relieve suffering
humanity and fight against the injustice of the Turks.  Both the
Mohammedan and the Christian, the two most modern of all great
religions, were placed upon a moral basis.  Morality was one of the
chief phases of both religions; yet they had different conceptions of
morality, and no toleration for each other.  Although prior to the
Turkish invasion the Mohammedans, through policy, had tolerated the
visitations of the Christians, the two classes of believers had never
gained much respect for each other, and after the Turkish invasion the
enmity between them became intense.  It was the struggle of these two
systems of moral order that was the great occasion and one of the
causes of the crusades.

The social cause, however, was that already referred to--the desire of
individuals for a change from the monotony which had settled down over
Europe under the feudal régime.  It was the mind of man, the enthusiasm
of the individual, over-leaping the narrow bounds of his surroundings,
and looking for fields of exploitation and new opportunities for
action.  The social cause represents, then, the spontaneous outburst of
long-pent-up desires, a return to the freedom of earlier years, when
wandering and plundering were among the chief occupations of the
Teutonic tribes.  To state the causes more specifically, perhaps it may
be said that the ambition of temporal and spiritual princes and the
feudal aristocracy for power, the general poverty of the community on
account of overpopulation leading the multitudes to seek relief through
change, and a distinct passion for pilgrimages were influential in
precipitating this movement.

_Unification of Ideals and the Breaking of Feudalism_.--It is to be
observed that the herald of the crusades thrilled all Europe, and that,
on the basis of ideals of empire and church, there were a common
sentiment or feeling and a common ground for action.  All Europe soon
placed itself on a common plane in the interest of a common cause.  At
first it would seem that this universal movement would have tended to
{323} develop a unity of Western nations.  To the extent of breaking
down formal custom, destroying the sterner aspects of feudalism, and
levelling the barriers of classes, it was a unifier of European thought
and life.

But a more careful consideration reveals the fact that although all
groups and classes of people ranged themselves on one side of the great
and common cause, the effect was not merely to break down feudalism
but, in addition, to build up nationality.  There was a tendency toward
national unity.  The crusades in the latter part of the period became
national affairs, rather than universal or European affairs, even
though the old spirit of feudalism, whereby each individual followed by
his own group of retainers sought his own power and prestige, still
remained.  The expansion of this spirit to larger groups invoked the
national spirit and national life.  While, in the beginning, the papacy
and the church were all-powerful in their controlling influence on the
crusades, in the later period we find different nationalities,
especially England, France, and Germany, struggling for predominance,
the French nation being more strongly represented than any other.

Among the important results of the crusades, then, were the breaking
down of feudalism and the building up of national life.  The causes of
this result are evident.  Many of the nobility were slain in battle or
perished through famine and suffering, or else had taken up their abode
under the new government that had been established at Jerusalem.  This
left a larger sway to those who were at home in the management of the
affairs of the territory.  Moreover, in the later period, the stronger
national lines had been developed, which caused the subordination of
the weaker feudal lords to the more powerful.  Many, too, of the strong
feudal lords had lost their wealth, as well as their position, in
carrying on the expenses of the crusades.  There was, consequently, the
beginning of the remaking of all Europe upon a national basis.  First,
the enlarged ideas of life broke the bounds of feudalism; second, the
failure to unite the nations in the common sentiment of a Western {324}
Empire had left the political forces to cluster around new
nationalities which sprang up in different sections of Europe.

_The Development of Monarchy_.--The result of this centralization was
to develop monarchy, an institution which became universal in the
process of the development of government in Europe.  It became the
essential form of government and the type of national unity.  Through
no other known process of the time could the chaotic state of the
feudal régime be reduced to a system.  Constitutional liberty could not
have survived under these conditions.  The monarchy was not only a
permanent form of government, but it was possessed of great
flexibility, and could adapt itself to almost any conditions of the
social life.  While it may, primarily, have rested on force and the
predominance of power of certain individuals, in a secondary sense it
represented not only the unity of the race from which it had gained
great strength, but also the moral power of the tribe, as the
expression of their will and sentiments of justice and righteousness.
It is true that it drew a sharp line between the governing and the
governed; it made the one all-powerful and the other all-subordinate;
yet in many instances the one man represented the collective will of
the people, and through him and his administration centred the wisdom
of a nation.

Among the Teutonic peoples, too, there was something more than
sentiment in this form of government.  It was an old custom that the
barbarian monarch was elected by the people and represented them; and
whether he came through hereditary rank, from choice of nobles, or from
the election of the people, this idea of monarchy was never lost sight
of in Europe in the earliest stages of existence, and it was perverted
to a great extent only by the Louis's of France and the Stuarts of
England, in the modern era.  Monarchy, then, as an institution, was
advanced by the crusades; for a national life was developed and
centralization took place, the king expressed the unity of it all, and
so everywhere throughout Europe it became the universal type.


_The Crusades Quickened Intellectual Development_.--The intense
activity of Europe in a common cause could not do otherwise than
stimulate intellectual life.  In a measure, it was an emancipation of
mind, the establishment of large and liberal ideas.  This freedom of
the mind arose, not so much from any product of thought contributed by
the Orientals to the Christians, although in truth the former were in
many ways far more cultured than the latter, but rather from the
development which comes from observation and travel.  A habit of
observing the manners and customs, the government, the laws, the life
of different nations, and the action and reaction of the different
elements of human life, tended to develop intellectual activity.  Both
Greek and Mohammedan had their influence on the minds of those with
whom they came in contact, and Christians returned to their former
homes possessed of new information and new ideas, and quickened with
new impulses.

The crusades also furnished material for poetic imagination and for
literary products.  It was the development of the old saga hero under
new conditions, those of Christianity and humanity, and this led to
greater and more profound sentiments concerning life.  The crusades
also took men out from their narrow surroundings and the belief that
the Christian religion, supported by the monasteries, or cloisters,
embodied all that was worth living in this life and a preparation for a
passage into a newer, happier future life beyond.  Humanity, according
to the doctrine of the church, had not been worth the attention of the
thoughtful.  Life, as life, was not worth living.  But the mingling of
humanity on a broader basis and under new circumstances quickened the
thoughts and sentiments of man in favor of his fellows.  It gave an
enlarged view of the life of man as a human creature.  There was a
thought engendered, feeble though it was at first, that the life on
earth was really important and that it could be enlarged and broadened
in many ways, and hence it was worth saving here for its own sake.  The
culmination of this idea appeared in the period of the Renaissance, a
century later.


_The Commercial Effects of the Crusades_.--A new opportunity for trade
was offered, luxuries were imported from the East in exchange for money
or for minerals and fish of the West.  Cotton, wine, dyestuffs,
glassware, grain, spice, fruits, silk, and jewelry, as well as weapons
and horses, came pouring in from the Orient to enlarge and enrich the
life of the Europeans.  For, with all the noble spirit manifested in
government and in social life, western Europe was semibarbaric in the
meagreness of the articles of material wealth there represented.  The
Italian cities, seizing the opportunity of the contact of the West with
the East, developed a surprising trade with the Oriental cities and
with the northwest of Europe, and thus enhanced their power.[1]  From
this impulse of trade that carried on commerce with the Orient largely
through the Italian cities, there sprang up a group of Hanse towns in
the north of Europe.  From a financial standpoint we find that money
was brought into use and became from this time on a necessity.
Money-lending became a business, and those who had treasure instead of
keeping it lying idle and unfruitful were now able to develop wealth,
not only for the borrower but also for the lender.  This tended to
increase the rapid movement of wealth and to stimulate productive
industry and trade in every direction.

_General Influence of the Crusades on Civilization_.--We see, then,
that it mattered little whether Jerusalem was taken by the Turks or the
Christians, or whether thousands of Christians lost their lives in a
great and holy cause, or whether the Mohammedans triumphed or were
defeated at Jerusalem--the great result of the crusades was one of
education of the people of Europe.  The boundaries of life were
enlarged, the power of thought increased, the opportunities for doing
and living multiplied.  It was the breaking away from the narrow shell
of its own existence to the newly discovered life of the Orient that
gave Europe its first impulse toward a larger life.  And to this extent
the crusades may be said to have been a {327} great civilizer.  Many
regard them as merely accidental phenomena difficult to explain, and
yet, by tracing the various unobserved influences at work in their
preparation, we shall see it was merely one phase of a great
transitional movement in the progress of human life, just as we have
seen that the feudal system was transitional between one form of
government and another.  The influence of the crusades on civilization
was immense in giving it an impulse forward.

Under the general intellectual awakening, commercial enterprise was
quickened, industry developed, and new ideas of government and art
obtained.  The boundaries of Christian influences were extended and new
nationalities were strengthened.  Feudalism was undermined by means of
the consolidation of fiefs, the association of lord and vassal, the
introduction of a new military system, the transfer of estates, and the
promotion of the study and use of Roman jurisprudence.  Ecclesiasticism
was greatly strengthened at Rome, through the power of the pope and the
authority of his legates, the development of monastic orders, by the
introduction of force and the use of the engine of excommunication.
But something was gained for the common people, for serfs could be
readily emancipated and there was a freer movement among all people.
Ideas of equality began to be disseminated, which had their effect on
the relation of affairs.  Upon the whole it may be stated in conclusion
that the emancipation of the mind had begun.


1.  Show how the crusades helped to break down feudalism and prepare
for monarchy.

2.  What intellectual benefit were the crusades to Europe?

3.  Were there humanitarian and democratic elements of progress in the

4.  What was the effect of the crusades on the power of the church?

5.  What was the general influence of the crusades on civilization?

6.  How did the crusades stimulate commerce?

[1] See Chapter XXI.




_The Cost of Popular Government_.--The early forms of government were
for the most part based upon hereditary authority or upon force.  The
theories of government first advanced seldom had reference to the rule
of the popular will.  The practice of civil affairs, enforcing theories
of hereditary government or the rule of force, interfered with the
rights of self-government of the people.  Hence every attempt to assume
popular government was a struggle against old systems and old ideas.
Freedom has been purchased by money or blood.  Men point with interest
to the early assemblies of the Teutonic people to show the germs of
democratic government, afterward to be overshadowed by imperialism, but
a careful consideration would show that even this early stage of pure
democracy was only a developed state from the earlier hereditary
nobility.  The Goddess of Liberty is ideally a creature of beautiful
form, but really her face is scarred and worn, her figure gnarled and
warped with time, and her garments besprinkled with blood.  The
selfishness of man, the struggle for survival, and the momentum of
governmental machinery, have prevented the exercise of justice and of
political equality.

The liberty that has been gained is an expensive luxury.  It has cost
those who have tried to gain it the treasures of accumulated wealth and
the flower of youth.  When it has once been gained, the social forces
have rendered the popular will non-expressive of the best government.
Popular government, although ideally correct, is difficult to
approximate, and frequently when obtained in name is far from real
attainment.  After long oppression and subservience to monarchy or
aristocracy, when the people, suddenly gaining power through great
expense of treasure and blood, assume self-government, they find to
their distress that they are incapable of it when {329} struggling
against unfavorable conditions.  The result is a mismanaged government
and an extra expense to the people.  There has been through many
centuries a continual struggle for popular government.  The end of each
conflict has seen something gained, yet the final solution of the
problem has not been reached.  Nevertheless, imperfect as government by
the people may be, it is, in the long run, the safest and best, and it
undoubtedly will triumph in the end.  The democratic government of
great nations is the most difficult of all forms to maintain, and it is
only through the increased wisdom of the people that its final success
may be achieved.  The great problem now confronting it arises from
purely economic considerations.

_The Feudal Lord and the Towns_.--Feudalism made its stronghold in
country life.  The baronial castle was built away from cities and
towns--in a locality favorable for defense.  This increased the
importance of country life to a great extent, and placed the feudal
lord in command of large tracts of territory.  Many of the cities and
towns were for a time accorded the municipal privileges that had been
granted them under Roman rule; but in time these wore away, and the
towns, with a few exceptions, became included in large feudal tracts,
and were held, with other territory, as feudatories.  In Italy, where
feudalism was less powerful, the greater barons were obliged to build
their castles in the towns, or, indeed, to unite with the towns in
government.  But in France and Germany, and even to a certain extent in
England, the feudal lord kept aloof from the town.

There was, consequently, no sympathy existing between the feudal lord
and the people of the cities.  It was his privilege to collect feudal
dues and aids from the cities, and beyond this he cared nothing for
their welfare.  It became his duty and privilege to hold the baronial
court in the towns at intervals and to regulate their internal affairs,
but he did this through a subordinate, and troubled himself little
about any regulation or administration except to further his own ends.


_The Rise of Free Cities_.--Many of the towns were practically run by
the surviving machinery of the old Roman municipal system, while many
were practically without government except the overlordship of the
feudal chief by his representative officer.  The Romans had established
a complete system of municipal government in all their provinces.  Each
town or city of any importance had a complete municipal machinery
copied after the government of the imperial city.  When the Roman
system began to decay, the central government failed first, and the
towns found themselves severed from any central imperial government,
yet in possession of machinery for local self-government.  When the
barbarians invaded the Roman territory, and, avoiding the towns,
settled in the country, the towns fell into the habit of managing their
own affairs as far as feudal régime would permit.

It appears, therefore, that the first attempts at local self-government
were made in the cities and towns.  In fact, liberty of government was
preserved in the towns, through the old Roman municipal life, which
lived on, and, being shorn of the imperial idea, took on the spirit of
Roman republicanism.  It was thus that the principles of Roman
municipal government were kept through the Middle Ages and became
useful in the modern period, not only in developing independent
nationality but in perpetuating the rights of a people to govern

The people of the towns organized themselves into municipal guilds to
withstand the encroachments of the barons on their rights and
privileges.  This gave a continued coherence to the city population,
which it would not otherwise have had or perpetuated.  In thus
perpetuating the idea of self-government, this cohesive organization,
infused with a common sentiment of defense, made it possible to wrest
liberty from the feudal baron.  When he desired to obtain money or
supplies in order to carry on a war, or to meet other expenditures, he
found it convenient to levy on the cities for this purpose.  His
exactions, coming frequently and irregularly, aroused the {331}
citizens to opposition.  A bloody struggle ensued, which usually ended
in compromise and the purchase of liberty by the citizens by the
payment of an annual tax to the feudal lord for permission to govern
themselves in regard to all internal affairs.  It was thus that many of
the cities gained their independence of feudal authority, and that
some, in the rise of national life, gained their independence as
separate states, such, for instance, as Hamburg, Venice, Lübeck, and

_The Struggle for Independence_.--In this struggle for independent life
the cities first strove for just treatment.  In many instances this was
accorded the citizens, and their friendly relations with the feudal
lord continued.  When monarchy arose through the overpowering influence
of some feudal lord, the city remained in subjection to the king, but
in most instances the free burgesses of the towns were accorded due
representation in the public assembly wherever one existed.  Many
cities, failing to get justice, struggled with more or less success for
independence.  The result of the whole contest was to develop the right
of self-government and finally to preserve the principle of
representation.  It was under these conditions that the theory of
"taxation without representation is tyranny" was developed.  A
practical outcome of this struggle for freedom has been the converse of
this principle--namely, that representation without taxation is
impossible.  Taxation, therefore, is the badge of liberty--of a liberty
obtained through blood and treasure.

_The Affranchisement of Cities Developed Municipal Organization_.--The
effect of the affranchisement of cities was to develop an internal
organization, usually on the representative plan.  There was not, as a
rule, a pure democracy, for the influences of the Roman system and the
feudal surroundings, rapidly tending toward monarchy, rendered it
impossible that the citizens of the so-called free cities should have
the privileges of a pure democracy, hence the representative plan
prevailed.  There was not sufficient unity of purpose, nor common
sentiment of the ideal government, sufficient to maintain {332}
permanently the principles and practice of popular government.  Yet
there was a popular assembly, in which the voice of the people was
manifested in the election of magistrates, the voting of taxes, and the
declaration of war.  In the mediaeval period, however, the municipal
government was, in its real character, a business corporation, and the
business affairs of the town were uppermost after defense against
external forces was secured, hence it occurred that the wealthy
merchants and the nobles who dwelt within the town became the most
influential citizens in the management of municipal affairs.

There sprang up, as an essential outcome of these conditions, an
aristocracy within the city.  In many instances this aristocracy was
reduced to an oligarchy, and the town was controlled by a few men; and
in extreme cases the control fell into the hands of a tyrant, who for a
time dominated the affairs of the town.  Whatever the form of the
municipal government, the liberties of the people were little more than
a mere name, recognized as a right not to be denied.  Having obtained
their independence of foreign powers, the towns fell victims to
internal tyranny, yet they were the means of preserving to the world
the principles of local self-government, even though they were not
permitted to enjoy to a great extent the privileges of exercising them.
It remained for more favorable circumstances to make this possible.

_The Italian Cities_.--The first cities to become prominent after the
perpetuation of the Roman system by the introduction of barbarian blood
were those of northern Italy.  These cities were less influenced by the
barbarian invasion than others, on account of, first, their substantial
city organization; second, the comparatively small number of invaders
that surrounded them; and, third, the opportunity for trade presented
by the crusades, which they eagerly seized.  Their power was increased
because, as stated above, the feudal nobility, unable to maintain their
position in the country, were forced to live in the cities.  The
Italian cities were, therefore, less interfered with by barbarian and
feudal influences, and continued to {333} develop strength.  The
opportunity for immense trade and commerce opened up through the
crusades made them wealthy.  Another potent cause of the rapid
advancement of the Italian cities was their early contact with the
Greeks and the Saracens, for they imbibed the culture of these peoples,
which stimulated their own culture and learning.  Also, the invasions
of the Saracens on the south and of the Hungarians on the north caused
them to strengthen their fortifications.  They enclosed their towns
with walls, and thus made opportunity for the formation of small,
independent states within the walls.

Comparatively little is known of the practice of popular government,
although most of these cities were in the beginning republican and had
popular elections.  In the twelfth century freedom was granted, in most
instances, to the peasantry.  There were a parliament, a republican
constitution, and a secret council (_credenza_) that assisted the
consuls.  There was also a great council called a senate, consisting of
about a hundred representatives of the people.  The chief duty of the
senate was to discuss important public measures and refer them to the
parliament for their approval.  In this respect it resembled the Greek
senate (_boule_).  The secret council superintended the public works
and administered the public finance.  These forms of government were
not in universal use, but are as nearly typical as can be found, as the
cities varied much in governmental practice.  It is easy to see that
the framework of the government is Roman, while the spirit of the
institutions, especially in the earlier part of their history, is
affected by Teutonic influence.  There was a large number of these free
towns in Italy from the close of the twelfth to the beginning of the
fourteenth century.  At the close of this period, the republican phase
of their government declined, and each was ruled by a succession of
tyrants, or despots (_podestas_).

In vain did the people attempt to regain their former privileges; they
succeeded only in introducing a new kind of despotism in the captains
of the people.  The cities had fallen {334} into the control of the
wealthy families, and it mattered not what was the form of government,
despotism prevailed.  In many of the cities the excessive power of the
despots made their reign a prolonged terror.  As long as enlightened
absolutism prevailed, government was administered by upright rulers and
judges in the interests of the people; but when the power fell into the
hands of unscrupulous men, the privileges and rights of the people were
lost.  It is said that absolutism, descending from father to son, never
improves in the descent; in the case of some of the Italian cities it
produced monsters.  As the historian says: "The last Visconti, the last
La Scalas, the last Sforzas, the last Farnesi, the last
Medici--magnificent promoters of the humanities as their ancestors had
been--were the worst specimens of the human race."  The situation of
government was partially relieved by the introduction at a later period
of the trade guilds.  All the industrial elements were organized into
guilds, each one of which had its representation in the government.
This was of service to the people, but nothing could erase the blot of

The despots were of different classes, according to the method by which
they obtained power.  First, there were nobles, who were
representatives of the emperor, and governed parts of Lombardy while it
was under the federated government, a position which enabled them to
obtain power as captains of the people.  Again, there were some who
held feudal rights over towns and by this means became rulers or
captains.  There were others who, having been raised to office by the
popular vote, had in turn used the office as a means to enslave the
people and defeat the popular will.  The popes, also, appointed their
nephews and friends to office and by this means obtained supremacy.
Merchant princes, who had become wealthy, used their money to obtain
and hold power.  Finally, there were the famous _condottieri_, who
captured towns and made them principalities.  Into the hands of such
classes as these the rights and privileges of the people were
continually falling, and the result was disastrous to free government.


_Government of Venice_.--Florence and Venice represent the two typical
towns of the group of Italian cities.  Wealthy, populous, and
aggressive, they represent the greatest power, the highest intellectual
development, becoming cities of culture and learning.  In 1494 the
inhabitants of Florence numbered 90,000, of whom only 3,200 were
burghers, or full citizens, while Venice had 100,000 inhabitants and
only 5,000 burghers.  This shows what a low state popular government
had reached--only one inhabitant in twenty was allowed the rights of

Venice was established on the islands and morasses of the Adriatic
Coast by a few remnants of the Beneti, who sought refuge upon them from
the ravages of the Huns.  These people were early engaged in fishing,
and later began a coast trade which, in time, enlarged into an
extensive commerce.  In early times it had a municipal constitution,
and the little villages had their own assemblies, discussed their own
affairs, and elected their own magistrates.  Occasionally the
representatives of the several tribal villages met to discuss the
affairs of the whole city.  This led to a central government, which, in
697 A.D., elected a doge for life.  The doges possessed most of the
attributes of kings, became despotic and arbitrary, and finally ruled
with absolute sway, so that the destinies of the republic were
subjected to the rule of one man.  Aristocracy established itself, and
the first families struggled for supremacy.

Venice was the oldest republic of modern times, and continued the
longest.  "It was older by 700 years than the Lombard republics, and it
survived them for three centuries.  It witnessed the fall of the Roman
Empire; it saw Italy occupied by Odoacer, by Charlemagne, and by
Napoleon."  Its material prosperity was very great, and great buildings
remain to this day as monuments of an art and architecture the
foundations of which were mostly laid before the despots were at the
height of their power.

_Government of Florence_.--There was a resemblance between Florence and
Athens.  Indeed, the former has been called the {336} Athens of the
West, for in it the old Greek idea was first revived; in it the love
for the artistic survived.  Both cities were devoted to the
accumulating of wealth, and both were interested in the struggles over
freedom and general politics.  Situated in the valley of the Arno,
under the shadow of the Apennines, Florence lacked the charm of Venice,
situated on the sea.  It was early conquered by Sulla and made into a
military city of the Romans, and by a truce the Roman government and
the Roman spirit prevailed in the city.  It was destroyed by the Goths
and rebuilt by the Franks, but still retained the Roman spirit.  It was
then a city of considerable importance, surrounded by a wall six miles
in circumference, having seventy towers.

After it was rebuilt, the city was governed by a senate, but finally
the first families predominated.  Then there arose, in 1215, the great
struggle between the papal and the imperial parties, the Ghibellines
and the Guelphs--internal dissensions which were not quieted until
these two opposing factions were driven out and a popular government
established, with twelve _seignors_, or rulers, as the chief officers.
Soon after this the art guilds obtained considerable power.  They
elected _priors_ of trades every two months.  At first there were seven
guilds that held control in Florence; they were the lawyers, who were
excluded from all offices, the physicians, the bankers, the mercers,
the woollen-drapers, the dealers in foreign cloths, and the dealers in
pelts from the north.  Subsequently, men following the baser
arts--butchers, retailers of cloth, blacksmiths, bakers, shoemakers,
builders--were admitted to the circle of arts, until there were

After having a general representative council, it was finally (1266)
determined that each of the seven greater arts should have a council of
its own.  The next step in government was the appointment of a
_gonfalconier_ of justice by the companies of arts that had especial
command of citizens.  But soon a struggle began between the commons and
the nobility, in which for a long time the former were successful.
Under the {337} leadership of Giano della Bella they enacted ordinances
of justice destroying the power of the nobles, making them ineligible
to the office of _prior_, and fining each noble 13,000 pounds for any
offense against the law.  The testimony of two credible persons was
sufficient to convict a person if their testimony agreed; hence it
became easy to convict persons of noble blood.  Yet the commons were in
the end obliged to succumb to the power of the nobility and
aristocracy, and the light of popular government went out.

_The Lombard League_.--The Lombard cities of the north of Italy were
established subsequent to the invasion of the Lombards, chiefly through
the peculiar settlement of the Lombard dukes over different territories
in a loose confederation.  But the Lombards found cities already
existing, and became the feudal proprietors of these and the territory.
There were many attempts to unite these cities into a strong
confederation, but owing to the nature of the feudal system and the
general independence and selfishness of each separate city, they proved
futile.  We find here the same desire for local self-government that
existed in the Greek cities, the indulgence of which was highly
detrimental to their interests in time of invasion or pressure from
external power.  There were selfishness and rivalry between all these
cities, not only in the attempt to outdo each other in political power,
but by reason of commercial jealousy.  "Venice first, Christians next,
and Italy afterward" was the celebrated maxim of Venice.

To the distressing causes which kept the towns apart, the strife
between the Guelphs and the Ghibellines increased the trouble.  Nor had
the pope any desire to see a strong, unified government so near him.
In those days popes were usually not honored in their own country, and,
moreover, had enough to do to control their refractory subjects to the
north of the Alps.  Unity was impossible among cities so blindly and
selfishly opposed to one another, and it was, besides, especially
prevented by jealous sovereigns from without, who wished rather to see
these cities acting independently and separately {338} than
effectively, in a strong, united government.  Under these circumstances
it was impossible there should be a strong and unified government; yet,
could they have been properly utilized, all the materials were at hand
for developing a national life which would have withstood the shock of
opposing nationalities through centuries.  The attempt to make a great
confederation, a representative republic, failed, however, and with it
failed the real hopes of republicanism in Italy.

_The Rise of Popular Assemblies in France_.--In the early history of
France, while feudalism yet prevailed, it became customary for the
provinces to have their popular assemblies.  These assemblies usually
were composed of all classes of the people, and probably had their
origin in the calls made by feudal lords to unite all those persons
within their feudatories who might have something to say respecting the
administration of the government and the law.  In them the three
estates were assembled--the clergy, the nobility, and the commons.
Many of these old provincial assemblies continued for a long time, for
instance, in Brittany and Languedoc, where they remained until the
period of the revolution.

It appears that every one of these provinces had its own provincial
assembly, and a few of these assemblies survived until modern times, so
that we know somewhat of their nature.  Although their powers were very
much curtailed on the rise of monarchy, especially in the time of the
Louis's, yet the provinces in which they continued had advantages over
those provinces which had lost the provincial assemblies.  They had
purchased of the crown the privilege of collecting all taxes demanded
by the central government, and they retained the right to tax
themselves for the expenses of their local administration and to carry
on improvements, such as roads and water-courses, without any
administration of the central government.  Notwithstanding much
restriction upon their power within their own domain, they moved with a
certain freedom which other provinces did not possess.

_Rural Communes Arose in France_.--Although feudalism had prevailed
over the entire country, there was a continual growth {339} of local
self-government at the time when feudalism was gradually passing into
monarchial power.  It was to the interest of the kings to favor
somewhat the development of local self-government, especially the
development of the cities while the struggle for dominion over
feudalism was going on; but when the kings had once obtained power they
found themselves confronted with the uprising spirit of local
government.  The struggle between king and people went on for some
centuries, until the time when everything ran to monarchy and all the
rights of the people were wrested from them; indeed, the perfection of
the centralized government of the French monarch left no opportunity
for the voice of the people to be heard.

The rural communes existed by rights obtained from feudal lords who had
granted them charters and given them self-government over a certain
territory.  These charters allowed the inhabitants of a commune to
regulate citizenship and the administration of property, and to define
feudal rights and duties.  Their organ of government was a general
assembly of all the inhabitants, which either regulated the affairs of
a commune directly or else delegated especial functions to communal
officers who had power to execute laws already passed or to convoke the
general assembly of the people on new affairs.  The collection of taxes
for both the central and the local government, the management of the
property of the commune, and the direction of the police system
represented the chief powers of the commune.  The exercise of these
privileges led into insistence upon the right of every man, whether
peasant, freeman, or noble, to be tried by his peers.

_The Municipalities of France_.--As elsewhere related, the barbarians
found the cities and towns of France well advanced in their own
municipal system.  This system they modified but little, only giving
somewhat of the spirit of political freedom.  In the struggle waged
later against the feudal nobility these towns gradually obtained their
rights, by purchase or agreement, and became self-governing.  In this
struggle we find the Christian church, represented by the bishop,
always arraying itself on the side of the commons against the nobility,
{340} and thus establishing democracy.  Among the municipal privileges
which were wrested from the nobility was included the right to make all
laws that might concern the people; to raise their own taxes, both
local and for the central government; to administer justice in their
own way, and to manage their own police system.  The relations of the
municipality to the central government or the feudal lord forced them
to pay a certain tribute, which gave them a legal right to manage

Their pathway was not always smooth, however, but, on the contrary,
full of contention and struggle against overbearing lords who sought to
usurp authority.  Their internal management generally consisted of two
assemblies--one a general assembly of citizens, in which they were all
well represented, the other an assembly of notables.  The former
elected the magistrates, and performed all legislative actions; the
latter acted as a sort of advisory council to assist the magistrates.
Sometimes the cities had but one assembly of citizens, which merely
elected magistrates and exercised supervision over them.  The
magistracy generally consisted of aldermen, presided over by a mayor,
and acted as a general executive council for the city.

Municipal freedom gradually declined through adverse circumstances.
Within the city limits tyranny, aristocracy, or oligarchy sometimes
prevailed, wresting from the people the rights which they had purchased
or fought for.  Without was the pressure of the feudal lord, which
gradually passed into the general fight of the king for royal
supremacy.  The king, it is true, found the towns very strong allies in
his struggle against the nobility.  They too had commenced a struggle
against the feudal lords, and there was a common bond of sympathy
between them.  But when the feudal lords were once mastered, the king
must turn his attention to reducing the liberties of the people, and
gradually, through the influence of monarchy and centralization of
government, the rights and privileges of the people of the towns of
France passed away.


_The States-General Was the First Central Organization_.--It ought to
be mentioned here that after the monarchy was moderately well
established, Philip the Fair (1285-1314) called the representatives of
the nation together.  He called in the burghers of the towns, the
nobility, and the clergy and formed a parliament for the discussion of
the affairs of the realm.  It appeared that the constitutional
development which began so early in England was about to obtain in
France.  But it was not to be realized, for in the three centuries that
followed--namely, the fourteenth, fifteenth, and sixteenth--the
monarchs of France managed to keep this body barely in existence,
without giving it any real power.  When the king was secure upon his
throne and imperialism had received its full power, the nobility, the
clergy, and the commons were no longer needed to support the throne of
France, and, consequently, the will of the people was not consulted.
It is true that each estate of nobility, clergy, and commons met
separately from time to time and made out its own particular grievances
to the king, but the representative power of the people passed away and
was not revived again until, on the eve of the revolution, Louis XVI,
shaken with terror, once more called together the three estates in the
last representative body held before the political deluge burst upon
the French nation.

_Failure of Attempts at Popular Government in Spain_.--There are signs
of popular representation in Spain at a very early date, through the
independent towns.  This representation was never universal or regular.
Many of the early towns had charter rights which they claimed as
ancient privileges granted by the Roman government.  These cities were
represented for a time in the popular assembly, or Cortes, but under
the reign of Ferdinand and Isabella the Cortes were seldom called, and
when they were, it was for the advantage of the sovereign rather than
of the people.  Many attempts were made in Spain, from time to time, to
fan into flame this enthusiasm for popular representation, but the
predominance of monarchy and the dogmatic centralized power of the
church tended to {342} repress all real liberty.  Even in these later
days sudden bursts of enthusiasm for constitutional liberty and
constitutional privilege are heard from the southern peninsula; but the
transition into monarchy was so sudden that the rights of the people
were forever curtailed.  The frequent outbursts for liberty and popular
government came from the centres where persisted the ideas of freedom
planted by the northern barbarians.

_Democracy in the Swiss Cantons_.--It is the boast of some of the rural
districts of Switzerland, that they never submitted to the feudal
régime, that they have never worn the yoke of bondage, and, indeed,
that they were never conquered.  It is probable that several of the
rural communes of Switzerland have never known anything other than a
free peasantry.  They have continually practised the pure democracy
exemplified by the entire body of citizens meeting in the open field to
make the laws and to elect their officers.  Although it is true that in
these rural communities of Switzerland freedom has been a continuous
quantity, yet during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries Switzerland,
as a whole, was dominated by feudalism.  This feudalism differed
somewhat from the French feudalism, for it represented a sort of
overlordship of absentee feudal chiefs, which, leaving the people more
to themselves, made vassalage less irksome.

At the beginning of the fourteenth century, in the year 1309, the
cantons, Schwyz, Uri, and Unterwalden, lying near Lake Lucerne, gained,
through the emperor, Henry VII, the recognition of their independence
in all things except allegiance to the empire.  Each of these small
states had its own government, varying somewhat from that of its
neighbors.  Yet the rural cantons evinced a strong spirit of pure
democracy, for they had already, about half a century previous, formed
themselves into a league which proved the germ of confederacy, which
perpetuated republican institutions in the Middle Ages.  The spirit of
freedom prevailing throughout diverse communities brought the remainder
of the Swiss cantons into the confederation.


The first liberties possessed by the various cantons were indigenous to
the soil.  From time immemorial they had clung to the ancient right of
self-government, and had developed in their midst a local system which
feudalism never succeeded in eradicating.  It mattered not how diverse
their systems of local government, they had a common cause against
feudal domination, and this brought them into a close union in the
attempt to throw off such domination.  It is one of the remarkable
phenomena of political history, that proud, aristocratic cities with
monarchial tendencies could be united with humble and rude communes
which held expressly to pure democracy.  It is but another illustration
of the truth that a particular form of government is not necessary to
the development of liberty, but it is the spirit, bravery,
independence, and unity of the people that make democracy possible.
Another important truth, also, is illustrated here--that Italian,
German, and French people who respect each other's liberty and have a
common cause may dwell together on a basis of unity and mutual support.

Switzerland stands, then, for the perpetuation of the early local
liberties of the people.  It has always been the synonym of freedom and
the haven of refuge for the politically oppressed of all nations, and
its freedom has always had a tendency to advance civilization, not only
within the boundaries of the Swiss government, but throughout all
Europe.  Progressive ideas of religion and education have ever
accompanied liberty in political affairs.  The long struggle with the
feudal lords and the monarchs of European governments, and with the
Emperor of Germany, united the Swiss people on a basis of common
interests and developed a spirit of independence.  At the same time, it
had a tendency to warp their judgments respecting the religious rights
and liberties of a people, and more than once the Swiss have shown how
narrow in conception of government a republic can be.  Yet, upon the
whole, it must be conceded that the watch-fires of liberty have never
been extinguished in Switzerland, and that the light they {344} have
shed has illumined many dark places in Europe and America.

_The Ascendancy of Monarchy_.--Outside of Switzerland the faint
beginning of popular representation was gradually overcome by the
ascendancy of monarchy.  Feudalism, after its decline, was rapidly
followed by the development of monarchy throughout Europe.  The
centralization of power became a universal principle, uniting in one
individual the government of an entire nation.  It was an expression of
unity, and was essential to the redemption of Europe from the chaotic
state in which it had been left by declining feudalism.

Monarchy is not necessarily the rule of a single individual.  It may be
merely the proclamation of the will of the people through one man, the
expression of the voice of the people from a single point.  Of all
forms of government a monarchy is best adapted to a nation or people
needing a strong central government able to act with precision and
power.  As illustrative of this, it is a noteworthy fact that the old
Lombard league of confederated states could get along very well until
threatened with foreign invasion; then they needed a king.  The Roman
republic, with consuls and senate, moved on very well in times of
peace, but in times of war it was necessary to have a dictator, whose
voice should have the authority of law.  The President of the United
States is commander-in-chief of the army, which position in time of war
gives him a power almost resembling imperialism.  Could Greece have
presented against her invaders a strong monarchy which could unite all
her heroes in one common command, her enemies would not so easily have
prevailed against her.

Monarchy, then, in the development of European life seemed merely a
stage of progress not unlike that of feudalism itself--a stage of
progressive government; and it was only when it was carried to a
ridiculous extreme in France and in England--in France under the
Louis's and in England under the Stuarts--that it finally appeared
detrimental to the highest interests of the people.  On the other hand,
the weak {345} republicanism of the Middle Ages had not sufficient
unity or sufficient aggressiveness to maintain itself, and gave way to
what was then a form of government better adapted to conditions and
surroundings.  But the fires of liberty, having been once lighted, were
to burst forth again in a later period and burn with sufficient heat to
purify the governments of the world.

_Beginning of Constitutional Liberty in England_.--When the Normans
entered England, feudalism was in its infancy and wanted yet the form
of the Roman system.  The kings of the English people soon became the
kings of England, and the feudal system spread over the entire island.
But this feudalism was already in the grasp of monarchy which prevailed
much more easily in England than in France.  There came a time in
England, as elsewhere, when the people, seeking their liberties, were
to be united with the king to suppress the feudal nobility, and there
sprang up at this time some elements of popular representative
government, most plainly visible in the parliament of Simon de Montfort
(1265) and the "perfect parliament" of 1295, the first under the reign
of Henry III, and the second under Edward I.  In one or two instances
prior to this, county representation was summoned in parliament in
order to facilitate the method of assessing and collecting taxes, but
these two parliaments marked the real beginnings of constitutional
liberty in England, so far as local representation is concerned.

Prior to this, in 1215, the nobles and the commons, working together,
had wrested the concession of the great _Magna Charta_ from King John,
and thus had established a precedent of the right of each class of
individuals to have its share in the government of the realm; under its
declaration king, nobility, and commons, each a check upon the other,
each struggling for power, and all developing through the succeeding
generations the liberty of the people under the constitution.  This
long, slow process of development, reminding one somewhat of the
struggle of the plebeians of Rome against the patricians, {346} finally
made the lower house of parliament, which represents the people of the
realm, the most prominent factor in the government of the English
people--and at last, without a cataclysm like the French Revolution,
established liberty of speech, popular representation, and religious

We find, then, that in England and in other parts of Europe a
liberalizing tendency set in after monarchy had been established and
become predominant, which limited the actions of kings and declared for
the liberties of the people.  Imperialism in monarchy was limited by
the constitution of the people.  England laid the foundations of
democracy in recognizing the rights of representation of all classes.


1.  What phases of popular government are to be noted in the Italian

2.  What is the relation of "enlightened absolutism" to social progress?

3.  The characteristics of mediaeval guilds.

4.  Why were the guilds discontinued?

5.  The rise and decline of popular assemblies and rural communes of

6.  The nature of the government of the Swiss cantons.

7.  The transition from feudalism to monarchy.

8.  In what ways was the idea of popular government perpetuated in




_Social Evolution Is Dependent Upon Variation_.--The process by which
ideas are born and propagated in human society is strangely analogous
to the methods of biological evolution.  The laws of survival, of
adaptation, of variation and mutation prevail, and the evidence of
conspicuous waste is ever present.  The grinding and shifting of human
nature under social law is similar to the grinding and shifting of
physical nature under organic law.  When we consider the length of time
it takes physical nature to accomplish the ultimate of fixed values,
seventy millions of years or more to produce an oak-tree, millions of
years to produce a horse or a man, we should not be impatient with the
slow processes of human society nor the waste of energy in the process.
For human society arises out of the confusion of ideas and progresses
according to the law of survival.

New ideas must be accepted, diffused, used, and adapted to new
conditions.  It would seem that Europe had sufficient knowledge of life
contributed by the Orient, by Greek, Roman, and barbarian to go
forward; but first must come a period of readjustment of old truth to
new environment and the discovery of new truth.  For several centuries,
in the Dark Ages, the intellectual life of man lay dormant.  Then must
come a quickening of the spirit before the world could advance.
However, in considering human progress, the day of small things must
"not be despised."  For in the days of confusion and low tide of
regression there are being established new modes of life and thought
which through right adaptation will flow on into the full tide of
progress.  Revivals come which gather up and utilize the scattered and
confused ideas of life, adapting and utilizing them by setting new
standards and imparting new impulses of progress.


_The Revival of Progress Throughout Europe_.--Human society, as a world
of ideas, is a continuous quantity, and therefore it is difficult to
mark off any definite period of time to show social causation.  Roughly
speaking, the period from the beginning of the eighth century to the
close of the fifteenth is a period of intellectual ferment, the climax
of which extended from the eleventh to the close of the fifteenth
century.  It was in this period that the forces were gathering in
preparation for the achievements of the modern era of progress.  There
was one general movement, an awakening along the whole line of human
endeavor in the process of transition from the old world to the new.
It was a revival of art, language, literature, philosophy, theology,
politics, law, trade, commerce, and the additions of invention and
discovery.  It was the period of establishing schools and laying the
foundation of universities.  In this there was a more or less
continuous progress of the freedom of the mind, which permitted
reflective thought, which subsequently led on to the religious
reformation that permitted freedom of belief, and the French
Revolution, which permitted freedom of political action.  It was the
rediscovery of the human mind, a quickening of intellectual liberty, a
desire of alert minds for something new.  It was a call for humanity to
move forward.

_The Revival of Learning a Central Idea of Progress_.--As previously
stated, the church had taken to itself by force of circumstances the
power in the Western world relinquished by the fallen Roman Empire.  In
fighting the battles against unbelief, ignorance, and political
corruption, it had become a powerful hierarchy.  As the conservator of
learning, it eventually began to settle the limits of knowledge and
belief on its own interpretation and to force this upon the world.  It
saved the elements of knowledge from the destruction of the barbarians,
but in turn sought to lock up within its own precincts of belief the
thoughts of the ages, presuming to do the thinking for the world.  It
became dogmatic, arbitrary, conservative, and conventional.  Moreover,
this had become the {349} attitude of all inert Europe.  The several
movements that sought to overcome this stifling condition of the mind
are called the "revival of learning."

A more specific use of the term renaissance, or revival of learning,
refers especially to the restoration of the intellectual continuity of
Europe, or the rebirth of the human mind.  It is generally applied to
what is known as humanism, or the revival of classical learning.
Important as this phase of general progress is, it can be considered
only as a part of the great revival of progress.  Humanism, or the
revival of classical learning, having its origin and first great
impulse in Italy, it has become customary to use humanism and the
Italian renaissance interchangeably, yet without careful consideration;
for although the Italian renaissance is made up largely of humanism, it
had such wide-reaching consequences on the progress of all Europe as
not to be limited by the single influence of the revival of the
classical learning.

_Influence of Charlemagne_.--Clovis founded the Frankish kingdom, which
included the territory now occupied by France and the Netherlands.
Subsequently this kingdom was enlarged under the rule of Charles
Martel, who turned back the Moslem invasion at Poitiers in 732, and
became ruler of Europe north of the Alps.  His son Pepin enlarged and
strengthened the kingdom, so that when his successor Charlemagne came
into power in 768 he found himself in control of a vast inland empire.
He conquered Rome and all north Italy and assumed the title of Roman
emperor.  The movement of Charlemagne was a slight and even a doubtful
beginning of the revival.  Possibly his reform was a faint flickering
of the watch-fires of intellectual and civil activity, but they went
out and darkness obscured the horizon until the breaking of the morn of
liberty.  Yet in the darkness of the ages that followed new forces were
forming unobserved by the contemporary historian--forces which should
give a new awakening to the mind of all Europe.

Charlemagne re-established the unity of government which {350} had been
lost in the decline of the old Roman government; he enlarged the
boundary of the empire, established an extensive system of
administration, and promoted law and order.  He did more than this: he
promoted religion by favoring the church in the advancement of its work
throughout the realm.  But unfortunately, in the attempt to break down
feudalism, he increased it by giving large donations to the church, and
so helped to develop ecclesiastical feudalism, and laid the foundation
of subsequent evils.  He was a strong warrior, a great king, and a
master of civil government.

Charlemagne believed in education, and insisted that the clergy should
be educated, and he established schools for the education of his
subjects.  He promoted learning among his civil officers by
establishing a school all the graduates of which were to receive civil
appointments.  It was the beginning of the civil service method in
Europe.  Charlemagne was desirous, too, of promoting learning of all
kinds, and gathered together the scattered fragments of the German
language, and tried to advance the educational interests of his
subjects in every direction.  But the attempts to make learning
possible, apparently, passed for naught in later days when the iron
rule of Charlemagne had passed away, and the weaker monarchs who came
after him were unable to sustain his system.  Darkness again spread
over Europe, to be dispelled finally by other agencies.

_The Attitude of the Church Was Retrogressive_.--The attitude of the
Christian church toward learning in the Middle Ages was entirely
arbitrary.  It had become thoroughly institutionalized and was not in
sympathy with the changes that were taking place outside of its own
policy.  It assumed an attitude of hostility to everything that tended
toward the development of free and independent thought outside the
dictates of the authorities of the church.  It found itself, therefore,
in an attitude of bitter opposition to the revival of learning which
had spread through Europe.  It was unfortunate that the church appeared
so diametrically opposed to freedom of {351} thought and independent
activity of mind.  Even in England, when the new learning was first
introduced, although Henry VIII favored it, the church in its blind
policy opposed it, and when the renaissance in Germany had passed
continuously into the Reformation, Luther opposed the new learning with
as much vigor as did the papalists themselves.

But from the fact of the church's assuming this attitude toward the new
learning, it must not be inferred that there was no learning within the
church, for there were scholars in theology, logic, and law, astute and
learned.  Yet the church assumed that it had a sort of proprietorship
or monopoly of learning, and that only what it might see fit to
designate was to receive attention, and then only in the church's own
way; all other knowledge was to be opposed.  The ecclesiastical
discussions gave evidence of intense mental activity within the church,
but, having little knowledge of the outside world to invigorate it or
to give it something tangible upon which to operate, the mind passed
into speculative fields that were productive of little permanent
culture.  Dwelling only upon a few fundamental conceptions at first, it
soon tired itself out with its own weary round.

The church recognized in all secular advocates of literature and
learning its own enemies, and consequently began to expunge from the
literary world as far as possible the remains of the declining Roman
and Greek culture.  It became hostile to Greek and Latin literature and
art and sought to repress them.  In the rise of new languages and
literature in new nationalities every attempt was made by the church to
destroy the effects of the pagan life.  The poems and sagas treating of
the religion and mythologies of these young, rising nationalities were
destroyed.  The monuments of the first beginnings of literature, the
products of a period so hard to compass by the historian, were served
in the same way as were the Greek and Latin masterpieces.

The church said, if men will persist in study, let them ponder the
precepts of the gospels as interpreted by the church.  {352} For those
who inquired about the problems of life, the churchmen pointed to the
creeds and the dogmas of the church, which had settled all things.  If
men were too persistent in inquiring about the nature of this world,
they were told that it is of little importance, only a prelude to the
world to come; that they should spend their time in preparation for the
future.  Even as great a man as Gregory of Tours said: "Let us shun the
lying fables of the poets and forego the wisdom of the sages at enmity
with God, lest we incur the condemnation of endless death by the
sentence of our Lord."  Saint Augustine deplored the waste of time
spent in reading Virgil, while Alcuin regretted that in his boyhood he
had preferred Virgil to the legends of the saints.  With the monks such
considerations gave excuse for laziness and disregard of rhetoric.

But in this movement of hostility to the new learning, the church went
too far, and soon found the entire ecclesiastical system face to face
with a gross ignorance, which must be eradicated or the superstructure
would fall.  As Latin was the only vehicle of thought in those days, it
became a necessity that the priests should study Virgil and the other
Latin authors, consequently the churches passed from their opposition
to pagan authors to a careful utilization of them, until the whole
papal court fell under the influence of the revival of learning, and
popes and prelates became zealous in the promotion and, indeed, in the
display of learning.  When the son of Lorenzo the Magnificent became
Pope Leo X, the splendor of the ducal court of Florence passed to the
papal throne, and no one was more zealous in the patronage of learning
than he.  He encouraged learning and art of every kind, and built a
magnificent library.  It was merely the transferrence of the pomp of
the secular court to the papacy.

Such was the attitude of the church toward the new learning--first, a
bitter opposition; second, a forced toleration; and third, the
absorption of its best products.  Yet in all this the spirit of the
church was not for the freedom of mind nor independence of thought.  It
could not recognize this freedom nor {353} the freedom of religious
belief until it had been humiliated by the spirit of the Reformation.

_Scholastic Philosophy Marks a Step in Progress_.--There arose in the
ninth century a speculative philosophy which sought to harmonize the
doctrine of the church with the philosophy of Neo-Platonism and the
logic of Aristotle.  The scholastic philosophy may be said to have had
its origin with John Scotus Erigena, who has been called "the morning
star of scholasticism."  He was the first bold thinker to assert the
supremacy of reason and openly to rebel against the dogma of the
church.  In laying the foundation of his doctrine, he starts with a
philosophical explanation of the universe.  His writings and
translations were forerunners of mysticism and set forth a peculiar
pantheistic conception.  His doctrine appears to ignore the pretentious
authority of the church of his time and to refer to the earlier church
for authority.  In so doing he incorporated the doctrine of emanation
advanced by the Neo-Platonists, which held that out of God, the supreme
unity, evolve the particular forms of goodness, and that eventually all
things will return to God.  In like manner, in the creation of the
universe the species comes from the genera by a process of unfolding.

The complete development and extension of scholastic philosophy did not
come until the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries.  The term
"scholastics" was first applied to those who taught in the cloister
schools founded by Charlemagne.  It was at a later period applied to
the teachers of the seven liberal arts--grammar, rhetoric, and
dialectic, in the _Trivium,_ and arithmetic, geometry, music, and
astronomy, in the _Quadrivium_.  Finally it was applied to all persons
who occupied themselves with science or philosophy.  Scholastic
philosophy in its completed state represents an attempt to harmonize
the doctrines of the church with Aristotelian philosophy.

There were three especial doctrines developed in the scholastic
philosophy, called respectively nominalism, realism, and conceptualism.
The first asserted that there are no generic {354} types, and
consequently no abstract concepts.  The formula used to express the
vital point in nominalism is "_Universalia post rem_."  Its advocates
asserted that universals are but names.  Roscellinus was the most
important advocate of this doctrine.  In the fourteenth century William
of Occam revived the subject of nominalism, and this had much to do
with the downfall of scholasticism, for its inductive method suggested
the acquiring of knowledge through observation.

Realism was a revival of the Platonic doctrine that ideas are the only
real things.  The formula for it was "_Universalia ante rem_."  By it
the general name preceded that of the species.  Universal concepts
represent the real; all else is merely illustrative of the real.  The
only real sphere is the one held in the mind, mathematically correct in
every way.  Balls and globes and other actual things are but the
illustrations of the genus.  Perhaps Anselm was the strongest advocate
of this method of reasoning.

It remained for Abelard to unite these two theories of philosophical
reasoning into one, called conceptualism.  He held that universals are
not ideals, but that they exist in the things themselves.  The formula
given was "_Universalia in re_." This was a step in advance, and laid
something of a foundation for the philosophy of classification in
modern science.

The scholastic philosophers did much to sharpen reason and to develop
the mind, but they failed for want of data.  Indeed, this has been the
common failure of man, for in the height of civilization men speculate
without sufficient knowledge.  Even in the beginning of scientific
thought, for lack of facts, men spent much of their time in
speculation.  The scholastic philosophers were led to consider many
unimportant questions which could not be well settled.  They asked the
church authorities why the sacramental wine and bread turned into blood
and flesh, and what was the necessity of the atonement?  And in
considering the nature of pure being they asked: "How many angels can
dance at once on the point of a needle?" and "In moving from point to
point, do angels pass through {355} intervening space?"  They asked
seriously whether "angels had stomachs," and "if a starving ass were
placed exactly midway between two stacks of hay would he ever move?"
But it must not be inferred that these people were as ridiculous as
they appear, for each question had its serious side.  Having no
assistance from science, they fell single-handed upon dogmatism; yet
many times they busied themselves with unprofitable discussions, and
some of them became the advocates of numerous doctrines and dogmas
which had a tendency to confuse knowledge, although in defense of which
wits were sharpened.

Lord Bacon, in a remarkable passage, has characterized the scholastic
philosophers as follows:

"This kind of degenerate learning did chiefly reign among the
schoolmen, who--having sharp and strong wits and abundance of leisure
and small variety of reading, but their wits being shut up in the cells
of a few authors (chiefly Aristotle, their dictator) as their persons
were shut up in the cells of monasteries and colleges, and having
little history, either of nature or of time--did, out of no great
quantity of matter and infinite agitation of wit, spin out unto us
those laborious webs of learning which are extant in their books.  For
the wit and mind of man, if it work upon matter which is the
contemplation of the creatures of God, worketh according to the stuff
and is limited thereby; but if it work upon itself, as the spider
worketh its web, then it is endless, and brings forth indeed cobwebs of
learning, admirable for the fineness of thread and work, but of no
substance or profit."[1]

Scholasticism, as the first phase of the revival of learning, though
overshadowed by tradition and mediaeval dogmatism, showed great
earnestness of purpose in ascertaining the truth by working "the wit
and mind of man"; but it worked not "according to the stuff," and,
having little to feed upon, it produced only speculations of truth and
indications of future possibilities.  There were many bright men among
the scholastic {356} philosophers, especially in the thirteenth
century, who left their impress upon the age; yet scholasticism itself
was affected by dogmatism and short-sightedness, and failed to utilize
the means at its hand for the improvement of learning.  It exercised a
tyranny over all mental endeavor, for the reason that it was obliged in
all of its efforts to carry through all of its reasoning the heavy
weight of dogmatic theology.  Whatever else it attempted, it could not
shake itself free from this incubus of learning, through a great system
of organized knowledge, which hung upon the thoughts and lives of men
and attempted to explain all things in every conceivable way.

But to show that independent thinking was a crime one has only to refer
to the results of the knowledge of Roger Bacon, who advanced his own
methods of observation and criticism.  Had the scholastics been able to
accept what he clearly pointed out to them, namely, that reason can
advance only by finding, through observation, new material upon which
to work, science might have been active a full century in advance of
what it was.  He laid the foundation of experimental science, and
pointed out the only way in which the revival of learning could be made
permanent, but his voice was unheeded by those around him, and it
remained for the philosophers of succeeding generations to estimate his
real worth.

_Cathedral and Monastic Schools_.--There were two groups of schools
under the management of the church, known as the cathedral and monastic
schools.  The first represented the schools that had developed in the
cathedrals for the sons of lay members of the church; the second, those
in the monasteries that were devoted largely to the education of the
ministry.  To understand fully the position of these schools it is
necessary to go back a little and refer to the educational forces of
Europe.  For a long period after Alexandria had become established as a
great centre of learning, Athens was really the centre of education in
the East, and this city held her sway in educational affairs down to
the second century.  The influence of the traditions of great teachers
and the encouragement and {357} endowments given by emperors kept up a
school at Athens, to which flocked the youth of the land who desired a
superior education.

Finally, when the great Roman Empire joined to itself the Greek
culture, there sprang up what was known as the Greek and Roman schools,
or Graeco-Roman schools, although Rome was not without its centre of
education at the famous Athenaeum.  In these Graeco-Roman schools were
taught grammar, rhetoric, and dialectic, music, arithmetic, geometry,
and astronomy.  The grammar of that day frequently included language,
criticism, history, literature, metre; the dialectic considered logic,
metaphysics, and ethics; while rhetoric contemplated the fitting of the
youth for public life and for the law.

But these schools, though dealing in real knowledge for a time,
gradually declined, chiefly on account of the declining moral powers of
the empire and the relaxation of intellectual activity, people thinking
more of ease and luxury and the power of wealth than of actual
accomplishment.  The internal disorganization, unjust taxation, and
unjust rule of the empire had also a tendency to undermine education.
The coming of the barbarians, with their honest, illiterate natures,
had its influence, likewise, in overthrowing the few schools that

The rise of Christianity, which supposed that all pagan literature and
pagan knowledge were of the devil, and hence to be suppressed, opposed
secular teaching, and tended to dethrone these schools.  Constantine's
effort to unite the church and state tended for a while to perpetuate
secular institutions.  But the pagan schools passed away; the
philosophy of the age had run its course until it had become a hollow
assumption, a desert of words, a weary round of speculation without
vitality of expression; and the activity of the sophists in these later
times narrowed all literary courses until they dwindled into mere
matters of form.  Perhaps, owing to its force, power, and dignity, the
Roman law retained a vital {358} position in the educational
curriculum.  The school at Athens was suppressed in 529 by Justinian,
because, as it had been claimed, it was tainted with Oriental
philosophy and allied with Egyptian magic, and hence could not develop
ethical standards.

It is easy to observe how the ideas of Christian learning came into
direct competition with the arrogant self-assumption and the hollowness
of the selfish teachings of the old Graeco-Roman schools.  The
Christian doctrine, advocating the development of the individual life,
intimate relations with God, the widening of social functions, with its
teachings of humility, and humanity, could not tolerate the instruction
given in these schools.  Moreover, the Christian doctrine of education
consisted, on the one hand, in preparing for the future life, and on
the other, in the preparation of Christian ministers to teach this
future life.  As might be expected, when narrowed to this limit,
Christian education had its dwarfing influence.  If salvation were an
important thing and salvation were to be obtained only by the denial of
the life of this world, then there would be no object in perpetuating
learning, no attempt to cultivate the mind, no tendency to develop the
whole man on account of his moral and intellectual worth.  The use of
secular books was everywhere discouraged.  As a result the instruction
of the religious schools was of a very meagre nature.

Within the monasteries devotional exercises and the study of the
Scriptures represented the chief intellectual development of the monks.
The Western monks required a daily service and a systematic training,
but the practice of the Eastern monks was not educational in its nature
at all.  After a while persons who were not studying for religious vows
were admitted to the schools that they might understand the Bible and
the services of the church.  They were taught to write, that they might
copy the manuscripts of the church fathers, the sacred books, and the
psalter; they were taught arithmetic, that they might be able to
calculate the return of Easter and the other festivals; they were
taught music, that they might {359} be able to chant well.  But the
education in any line was in itself superficial and narrow.

The Benedictine order was exceptional in the establishment of better
schools and in promoting better educational influences.  Their
curriculum consisted of the Old and New Testaments, the exposition of
the Scriptures by learned theologians, and the discourses, or
conversations, of Cassianus; yet, as a rule, the monks cared little for
knowledge as such, not even for theological knowledge.  The
monasteries, however, constituted the great clerical societies, where
many prepared for secular pursuits.  The monasteries of Ireland
furnished many learned scholars to England, Scotland, and Germany, as
well as to Ireland; yet it was only a monastic education which they

Finally it became customary to found schools within the monasteries,
and this was the beginning of the church schools of the Middle Ages.
Formal and meagre as the instruction of these schools was, it
represents a beginning in church education.  But in the seventh and
eighth centuries they again declined, and learning retrograded very
much; literature was forgotten; the monks and friars boasted of their
ignorance.  The reforms of Charlemagne restored somewhat the
educational status of the new empire, and not only developed the church
schools and cathedral schools but also founded some secular schools.
The cathedral schools became in many instances centres of learning
apart from monasticism.  The textbooks, however, of the Middle Ages
were chiefly those of Boethius, Isidor, and Capella, and were of the
most meagre content and character.  That of Capella, as an
illustration, was merely an allegory, which showed the seven liberal
arts in a peculiar representation.  The logic taught in the schools was
that given by Alcuin; the arithmetic was limited to the reckoning of
holidays and festivals; astronomy was limited to a knowledge of the
names and courses of the stars; geometry was composed of the first four
books of Euclid, and supplemented with a large amount of geography.


But all this learning was valued merely as a support to the church and
the church authorities, and for little else.  Yet there had been
schools of importance founded at Paris, Bologna, and Padua, and at
other places which, although they were not the historical foundations
of the universities, no doubt became the means, the traditional means,
of the establishment of universities at these places.  Also, many of
the scholars, such as Theodore of Tarsus, Adalbert, Bede, and Alcuin,
who studied Latin and Greek and also became learned in other subjects,
were not without their influence.

_The Rise of Universities_.[2]--An important phase of this period of
mediaeval development was the rise of universities.  Many causes led to
their establishment.  In the eleventh century the development of
independent municipal power brought the noble and the burgher upon the
same level, and developed a common sentiment for education.  The
activity of the crusades, already referred to, developed a thirst for
knowledge.  There was also a gradual growth of traditional learning, an
accumulation of knowledge of a certain kind, which needed
classification, arrangement, and development.  By degrees the schools
of Arabia, which had been prominent in their development, not only of
Oriental learning but of original investigation, had given a quickening
impulse to learning throughout southern Europe.  The great division of
the church between the governed and governing had led to the
development of a strong lay feeling as opposed to monasticism or
ecclesiasticism.  Perhaps the growth of local representative government
had something to do with this.

But the time came when great institutions were chartered at these
centres of learning.  Students flocked to Bologna, where law was
taught; to Salerno, where medicine was the chief subject; and to Paris,
where philosophy and theology predominated.  At first these schools
were open to all, without special rules.  Subsequently they were
organized, and finally were chartered.  In those days students elected
their own {361} instructors and built up their own organization.  The
schools were usually called _universitas magistrorum et scholarium_.
They were merely assemblages of students and instructors, a sort of
scholastic guild or combination of teachers and scholars, formed first
for the protection of their members, and later allowed by pope and
emperor the privilege of teaching, and finally given the power by these
same authorities to grant degrees.  The result of these schools was the
widening of the influence of education.

The universities proposed to teach what was found in a new and revived
literature and to adopt a new method of presenting truth.  Yet, with
all these widening foundations, there was a tendency to be bound by
traditional learning.  The scholastic philosophy itself invaded the
universities and had its influence in breaking down the scientific
spirit.  Not only was this true of the universities of the continent,
but of those of England as well.  The German universities, however,
were less affected by this tendency of scholasticism.  Founded at a
later period, when the Renaissance was about to be merged into the
Reformation, there was a wider foundation of knowledge, a more earnest
zeal in its pursuit, and also a tendency for the freedom and activity
of the mind which was not observed elsewhere.

The universities may be said to mark an era in the development of
intellectual life.  They became centres where scholars congregated,
centres for the collection of knowledge; and when the humanistic idea
fully prevailed, in many instances they encouraged the revival of
classical literature and the study of those things pertaining to human
life.  The universities entertained and practised free discussion of
all subjects, which made an important landmark of progress.  They
encouraged people to give a reason for philosophy and faith, and
prepared the way for scientific investigation and experiment.

_Failure to Grasp Scientific Methods_.--Perhaps the greatest wonder in
all this accumulation of knowledge, quickening of the mind, philosophy,
and speculation, is that men of so much {362} learning failed to grasp
scientific methods.  Could they but have turned their attention to
systematic methods of investigation based upon facts logically stated,
the vast intellectual energy of the Middle Ages might have been turned
to more permanent account.  It is idle, however, to deplore their
ignorance of these conditions or to ridicule their want of learning.
When we consider the ignorance that overshadowed the land, the breaking
down of the old established systems of Greece and Rome, the struggle of
the church, which grew naturally into its power and made conservatism
an essential part of its life; indeed, when we consider that the whole
medieval system was so impregnated with dogmatism and guided by
tradition, it is a marvel that so many men of intellect and power
raised their voices in the defense of truth, and that so much
advancement was made in the earnest desire for truth.

_Inventions and Discoveries_.--The quickening influence of discovery
was of great moment in giving enlarged views of life.  The widening of
the geographical horizon tended to take men out of their narrow
boundaries and their limited conceptions of the world, into a larger
sphere of mental activity, and to teach them that there was much beyond
their narrow conceptions to be learned.  The use of gunpowder changed
the method of warfare and revolutionized the financial system of
nations.  The perfection of the mariner's compass reformed navigation
and made great sea voyages possible; the introduction of printing
increased the dissemination of knowledge; the building of great
cathedrals had a tendency to develop architecture, and the contact with
Oriental learning developed art.  These phases tended to assist the
mind in the attempt to free itself from bondage.

_The Extension of Commerce Hastened Progress_.--But more especially
were men's ideas enlarged and their needs supplied by the widening
reach of commerce.  Through its exchanges it distributed the
food-supply, and thus not only preserved thousands from want but
furnished leisure for others to study.  It had a tendency to distribute
the luxuries of manufactured {363} articles, and to quicken the
activity of the mind by giving exchange of ideas.  Little by little the
mariners, plying their trade, pushed farther and farther into unknown
seas, and at last brought the products of every clime in exchange for
those of Europe.

The manner in which commerce developed the cities of Italy and of the
north has already been referred to.  Through this development the
foundations of local government were laid.  The manner in which it
broke down the feudal system after receiving the quickening impulse of
the crusades has also been dealt with.  In addition to its influence in
these changes, it brought about an increased circulation of
money--which also struck at the root of feudalism, in destroying the
mediaeval manor and serfdom, for men could buy their freedom from
serfdom with money--which also made taxation possible; and the
possibility of taxation had a vast deal to do with the building up of
new nations and stimulating national life.  Moreover, as a distributer
of habits and customs, commerce developed uniformity of political and
social life and made for national solidarity.


1.  What is meant by Renaissance, Revival of Learning, Revival of
Progress and Humanism, as applied to the mediaeval period?

2.  The causes of the Revival of Progress.

3.  The direct influence of humanism.

4.  The attitude of the church toward freedom of thought.

5.  The scholastic philosophy, its merits and its defects.

6.  What did the following persons stand for in human progress: Dante,
Savonarola, Charlemagne, John Scotus Erigena, Thomas Aquinas, Abelard,
William of Occam, Roger Bacon?

7.  Rise of universities.  How did they differ from modern universities?

[1] _Advancement of Learning_, iv, 5.

[2] See Chapter XXIX.




Perhaps the most important branch of the revival of learning is that
which is called humanism, or the revival of the study of the
masterpieces of Greek and Latin literature.  The promoters of this
movement are called humanists, because they held that the study of the
classics, or _litterae humaniores_, is the best humanizing agent.  It
has already been shown how scholasticism developed as one of the
important phases of the renaissance, and how, close upon its track, the
universities rose as powerful aids to the revival of learning, and that
the cathedral and monastic schools were the traditional forerunners of
the great universities.

Primarily, then, were taught in the universities scholastic philosophy,
theology, the Roman and the canon law, with slight attention to Greek
and Hebrew, the real value of the treasures of antiquity being unknown
to the Western world.  The Arabic or Saracen schools of Spain had taken
high rank in learning, and through their efforts the scientific works
of Aristotle were presented to the mediaeval world.  There were many
men of importance, such as Roger Bacon, Albertus Magnus, who were
leaders in universities and who lent their influence to the development
of learning in Europe.  The translation of the scientific works of
Aristotle into Latin at the beginning of the thirteenth century by
Thomas Aquinas had its influence.  But, after all, scholasticism had
settled down to speculative ideas within the universities and without,
and little attention was paid to the old classical authors.

_The Discovery of Manuscripts_.--The real return to the study of Greek
literature and art finally came through the fortunate discoveries of
ancient sculpture and ancient manuscripts on the occasion of the
turning of the mind of Europe {365} toward the Eastern learning.  The
fall of the Eastern Empire accelerated the transfer of learning and
culture to the West.  The discovery and use of old manuscripts brought
a survival of classical literature and of the learning of antiquity.
The bringing of this literature to light gave food for thought and
means of study, and turned the mind from its weary round of speculative
philosophy to a large body of literature containing the views of the
ancients respecting the progress and development of man.  As has been
heretofore shown, the Greeks, seeking to explain things by the human
reason, although not advanced far in experimental science, had
accomplished much by way of logical thought based upon actual facts.
They had turned from credulity to inquiry.

_Who Were the Humanists?_--Dante was not a humanist, but he may be said
to have been the forerunner of the Italian humanists, for he furnished
inspiration to Petrarch, the so-called founder of humanism.  His
magnificent creation of _The Divine Comedy_, his service in the
foundation of the Italian language, and his presentation of the
religious influence of the church in a liberal manner made him a great
factor in the humanizing of Europe.  Dante was neither modern nor
ancient.  He stood at the parting of the ways controlling the learning
of the past and looking toward the open door of the future, and
directed thought everywhere to the Latin.  His masterpiece was well
received through all Italy, and gave an impulse to learning in many

Petrarch was the natural successor of Dante.  The latter immortalized
the past; the former invoked the spirit of the future.  He showed great
enthusiasm in the discovery of old manuscripts, and brought into power
more fully the Latin language.  He also attempted to introduce Greek
into the Western world, but in this he was only partially successful.
But in his wide search for manuscripts, monasteries and cathedrals were
ransacked and the literary treasures which the monks had copied and
preserved through centuries, the products of the classical writers of
the early times, were brought to {366} light.  Petrarch was an
enthusiast, even a sentimentalist.  But he was bold in his expression
of the full and free play of the intellect, in his denunciation of
formalism and slavery to tradition.  The whole outcome of his life,
too, was a tendency toward moral and aesthetic aggrandizement.
Inconsistent in many things, his life may be summed up as a bold
remonstrance against the binding influences of tradition and an
enthusiasm for something new.

"We are, therefore," says Symonds,[1] "justified in hailing Petrarch as
the Columbus of a new spiritual hemisphere, the discoverer of modern
culture.  That he knew no Greek, that his Latin verse was lifeless and
his prose style far from pure, that his contributions to history and
ethics have been superseded, and that his epistles are now read only by
antiquaries, cannot impair his claim to this title.  From him the
inspiration needed to quicken curiosity and stimulate zeal for
knowledge proceeded.  But for his intervention in the fourteenth
century it is possible that the revival of learning, and all that it
implies, might have been delayed until too late."

His influence was especially felt by those who followed him, and his
enthusiasm made him a successful promoter of the new learning.

But it remained for Boccaccio, who was of a more practical turn of mind
than Petrarch, to systematize the classical knowledge of antiquity.  If
Petrarch was an enthusiastic collector, Boccaccio was a practical
worker.  With the aid of Petrarch, he was the first to introduce a
professor of Greek language and literature into Italy, and through this
influence he secured a partial translation of Homer.  Boccaccio began
at an early age to read the classical authors and to repent the years
he had spent in the study of law and in commercial pursuits.  It was
Petrarch's example, more than anything else, which caused Boccaccio to
turn his attention to literature.  By persistence and vigor in study,
he was enabled to accomplish much by his own hand in the translation of
the authors, and in middle life {367} he began a persistent and
successful study of Greek.  His contributions to learning were great,
and his turn toward naturalism was of immense value in the foundation
of modern literature.  He infused a new spirit in the common literature
of the times.  He turned away from asceticism, and frankly and openly
sought to justify the pleasures of life.  Although his teaching may not
be of the most wholesome kind, it was far-reaching in its influence in
turning the mind toward the importance and desirability of the things
of this life.  Stories of "beautiful gardens and sunny skies, fair
women and luxurious lovers" may not have been the most healthful diet
for universal consumption; they introduced a new element into the
literature of the period and turned the thoughts of men from the
speculative to the natural.

A long line of Italian writers followed these three great master
spirits and continued to develop the desire for classical literature.
For such power and force did these men have that they turned the whole
tide of thought toward the masterpieces of the Greeks and Romans.

_Relation of Humanism to Language and Literature_.--When the zeal for
the classical learning declined somewhat, there sprang up in Italy a
group of Italian poets who were the founders of an Italian literature.
They received their impulse from the classical learning, and, turning
their attention to the affairs which surrounded them, developed a new
literature.  The inspiration which humanism had given to scholars of
the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries had a tendency to develop a
literary spirit among all classes of students.  The products of the
Italian literature, however, brought out through the inspiration of
humanistic studies, were not great masterpieces.  While the number and
variety were considerable, the quality was inferior when the
intellectual power of the times is considered.  The great force of
Italian intellect had been directed toward classical manuscripts, and
hence failed to develop a literature that had real originality.

Perhaps among the few great Italian writers of these times {368} may be
mentioned Guicciardini and Machiavelli.  The former wrote a history of
Italy, and the latter is rendered immortal by his _Prince_.
Guicciardini was a native of Florence, who had an important position in
the service of Leo X.  As professor of jurisprudence, ambassador to
Spain, and subsequently minister of Leo X, governor of Modena,
lieutenant-general of the pope in the campaign against the French,
president of the Romagna and governor of Bologna, he had abundant
opportunity for the study of the political conditions of Italy.  He is
memorable for his admirable history of Italy, as a talented Florentine
and as a member of the Medicean party.

Machiavelli, in his _Prince_, desired to picture the type of rulers
needed to meet the demands of Italy at the time he wrote.  It is a
picture of imperialism and, indeed, of despotism.  The prince or ruler
was in no way obliged to consider the feelings and rights of
individuals.  Machiavelli said it was not necessary that a prince
should be moral, humane, religious, or just; indeed, that if he had
these qualities and displayed them they would harm him, but if he were
new to his place in the principality he might seem to have them.  It
would be as useful to him to keep the path of rectitude when this was
not too inconvenient as to know how to deviate from it when
circumstances dictate.  In other words, a prudent prince cannot and
ought not really to keep his word except when he can do it without
injury to himself.

Among other Italian writers may be mentioned Boiardo, on account of his
_Orlando Innamorato_, and Ariosto, who wrote _Orlando Furioso_.  Upon
the whole, the writings of the period were not worthy of its
intellectual development, although Torquato Tasso, in his _Jerusalem
Delivered_, presents the first crusade as Homer presented the Trojan
War.  The small amount of really worthy literature of this age has been
attributed to the lack of moral worth.

_Art and Architecture_.--Perhaps the renaissance art exceeded that
which it replaced in beauty, variety, and naturalness, as well as in
exuberance.  There was an attempt to make {369} all things beautiful,
and no attempt to follow the spirit of asceticism in degrading the
human body, but rather to try to delineate every feature as noble in
itself.  The movement, life, and grace of the human form, the beauty of
landscape, all were enjoyed and presented by the artists of the
renaissance.  The beauty of this life is magnified, and the artists
represented in joyous mood the best qualities that are important in the
world.  They turned the attention from asceticism to the importance of
the present life.

Perhaps the Italians reached the highest point of development in
painting, for the Madonnas of Italy have given her celebrity in art
through all succeeding generations.  Cimabue was the first to paint the
Madonna as a beautiful woman.  Giotto followed next, and a multitude of
succeeding Madonnas have given Italy renown.  Raphael excelled all
others in the representation of the Madonna, and was not only the
greatest painter of all Italy, but a master artist of all ages.

Architecture, however, appears to be the first branch of art that
defied the arbitrary power of tradition.  It could break away more
readily than any other form of art, because of the great variety which
existed in different parts of the Roman Empire--the Byzantine in the
south of Italy, the Gothic in the north, and Romanesque in Rome and the
provinces.  There was no conventional law for architectural style,
hence innovations could be made with very little opposition.  In the
search for classical remains, a large number of buildings had already
become known, and many more were uncovered as the searching continued.
These gave types of architecture which had great influence in building
the renaissance art.  The changes, beginning with Brunelleschi, were
continued until nearly all buildings were completely Romanized.  Then
came Michael Angelo, who excelled in both architecture and sculpture at
Rome, and Palladio, who worked at Venice and Verona.  In the larger
buildings the Basilica of Rome became the model, or at least the
principles of its construction became the prevailing element in
architectural design.


Florence became the centre of art and letters in the Italian
renaissance.[2]  Though resembling Athens in many respects, and bearing
the same relations to surrounding cities that Athens did to cities in
the classic times, her scholars were more modern than those of Greece
or Rome, and, indeed, more modern than the scholars who followed after
the Florentines, two centuries later.  It was an important city, on the
Arno, surrounded by hills, a city of flowers, interesting to-day to the
modern scholar and student of history.  Surrounded by walls, having
magnificent gates, with all the modern improvements of paved streets,
of sewers, gardens, and spacious parks, it represented in this early
period the ideal city life.  Even to-day the traveller finds the
Palazzo Vecchio, or ancient official residence of the city fathers, and
very near this the Loggia dei Lanzi, now filled with the works of
precious art, and the Palazzo del Podesta, now used as a national
museum, the great cathedral, planned in 1294 by Arnolfo, ready for
consecration in 1498, and not yet completed, and many other remarkable
relics of this wonderful era.

The typical idea in building the cathedral was to make it so beautiful
that no other in the world could ever surpass it.  Opposite the main
door were the gates of Ghiberti, which Michael Angelo, for their great
beauty, thought worthy to be the gates of paradise.  They close the
entrance of the temple of Saint John the Baptist, the city's patron
saint.  More than a hundred other churches, among them the Santa Croce
and the Santa Maria Novella, the latter the resting-place of the
Medici, were built in this magnificent city.  The churches were not
only used for religious worship, but were important for meeting-places
of the Florentines.  The Arno was crossed by four bridges, of which the
Ponte Vecchio, built in the middle of the fourteenth century, alone
remains in its original form.  Upon it rest two rows of houses, each
three stories high, and over this is the passageway from the Palazzo
Pitti to the Palazzo Vecchio.  In addition to the public buildings of
{371} Florence, there were many private residences and palaces of
magnificence and splendor.

_The Effect of Humanism on Social Manners_.--By the intellectual
development of Italy, fresh ideas of culture were infused into common
society.  To be a gentleman meant to be conversant with poetry,
painting, and art, intelligent in conversation and refined in manners.
The gentleman must be acquainted with antiquity sufficiently to admire
the great men of the past and to reverence the saints of the church.
He must understand archaeology in order to speak intelligently of the
ancient achievements of the classical people.  But this refinement was
to a large extent conventional, for there was a lack of genuine moral
culture throughout the entire renaissance.

These moral defects of Italy in this period have often been the
occasion of dissertations by philosophers, and there is a question as
to whether this moral condition was caused by the revival of classical
learning or the decline of morality in the church.  It ought to be
considered, without doubt, as an excessive development of certain lines
of intellectual supremacy without the accustomed moral guide.  The
church had for years assumed to be the only moral conservator, indeed
the only one morally responsible for the conduct of the world.  Yet its
teachings at this time led to no self-developed morality; helped no one
to walk alone, independent, in the dignity of manhood, for all of its
instructions were superimposed and not vital.  At last the church fell
into flagrant discord under the rule of worldly popes, and this gave a
great blow to Italy through the loss of the one great moral control.

But the renaissance had in its day a wide-spread influence throughout
Europe, and gave us as its result a vitalizing influence to the whole
world for centuries to come, although Italy suffered a decline largely
on account of its lack of the stable moral character of society.  The
awakening of the mind from lethargy, the turning away from dogmatism to
broader views of life, enlarged duties, and new surroundings causing
{372} the most Intense activity of thought, needed some moral stay to
make the achievements permanent and enduring.

_Relation of Humanism to Science and Philosophy_.--The revival of the
freedom of thought of the Greeks brought an antagonism to the logic and
the materialistic views of the times.  It set itself firmly against
tradition of whatsoever sort.  The body of man had not been considered
with care until anatomy began to be studied in the period of the
Italian renaissance.  The visionary notions of the world which the
people had accepted for a long time began gradually to give way to
careful consideration of the exact facts.  Patience and loving
admiration in the study of man and nature yielded immense returns to
the scholars of Italy.  It changed the attitude of the thoughtful mind
toward life, and prepared the way for new lines of thought and new
accomplishments in the world of philosophy and science.  Through the
scientific discoveries of Galileo and Copernicus and exploration of
Columbus, brought about largely by the influence of humanistic studies,
were wrought far-reaching consequences in the thought of the age.  And
finally the scholars of Italy not only threw off scholasticism but also
disengaged themselves from the domineering influence of the classical
studies and laid the foundation of modern freedom of inquiry.

_The Study of the Classics Became Fundamental in Education_.--The
modern classical education received its first impulse from the Italian
renaissance.  As before stated, it was customary for the universities
to teach, with some vigor,[3] physics, medicine, law, and philosophy,
largely after the manner of the medieval period, though somewhat
modified and broadened in the process of thought.  But in the fifteenth
and sixteenth centuries, those who taught the ancient languages and
literature were much celebrated.  Under the title of rhetoric we find
progress not only in the study of the Greek and Roman masterpieces, but
in a large number of subjects which had a tendency to widen the views
of students and to change {373} the trend of the education in
universities.  It became customary for the towns and cities to have
each a public place, an academy, a university, or a hall, for the means
of studying the humanistic branches.  The professors of the classics
passed from town to town, giving instruction where the highest pay was
offered.  The direct influence of the renaissance on the Italian
education, and, indeed, on the English classical education, introduced
somewhat later, has continued until this day.

Closely connected with the educational influences of the renaissance
was the introduction of literary criticism.  There was a tendency among
the early humanists to be uncritical, but as intelligence advanced and
scholarship developed, we find the critical spirit introduced.  Form,
substance, and character of art and letters were carefully examined.
This was the essential outcome of the previous sharp criticism of
dogmatic theology and philosophy.

_General Influence of Humanism_.--The development of new intellectual
ideals was the most important result of this phase of the renaissance.
Nor did this extend in any particular direction.  A better thought came
to be held of God and man's relation to him.  Instead of being an
arbitrary, domineering creature, he had become in the minds of the
people rational and law-loving; instead of being vindictive and fickle,
as he was wont to be pictured, he had been endowed with benevolence
toward his creatures.  The result of all this was that religion itself
became more spiritual and the conscience more operative.  There was
less of formality and conventionality in religion and more of real,
devout feeling and consciousness of worthy motive in life, but the
church must have more strenuous lessons before spiritual freedom could
be fulfilled.

Life, too, came to be viewed as something more than merely a temporary
expedient, a thing to be viewed as a necessary evil.  It had come to be
regarded as a noble expression worthy of the thought and the best
attention of every individual.  This world, too, was meant to be of use
and to make people happy.  It was to be enjoyed and used as best it
might be.  {374} The old guild classes finally broke down, and where
formerly men thought in groups, a strong individuality developed and
man became an independent, thinking being in himself, bound by neither
religion nor philosophy.  He was larger than either philosophy or
religion made him.  He was a being of capacity and strength, and
enabled to take the best of this life in order to enhance the delight
of living.  There came, also, with this a large belief in the law and
order of the universe.  Old beliefs had become obsolete because the
people could no longer depend on them.  And when these dogmatic
formulas ceased to give satisfaction to the human mind, it sought for
order in the universe and the laws which controlled it, and the
intellectual world then entered the field of research for truth--the
field of experiment.


1.  How did the Revival of Learning prepare the way for modern science?

2.  What contributions to progress were made by Petrarch, Boccaccio,
Michael Angelo, Justinian, Galileo, Copernicus, Columbus?

3.  The nature of Machiavelli's political philosophy.

4.  Compare Gothic, Romanesque, and Arabian architecture.

5.  The status of morals during the period of the intellectual
development of Europe.

6.  The great weakness of the philosophy of this period.

7.  What was the state of organized society and what was the "common
man" doing?

[1] _Revival of Learning_.

[2] See Chapter XXI.

[3] See preceding chapter.




_The Character of the Reformation_.--The Reformation, or Protestant
Revolution, as it is sometimes called, was a movement of such extended
relations as to be difficult to define.  In general, it was the
liberalizing movement of the revival of learning applied to the church.
As the church had attempted to be all things to all men, the movement
was necessarily far-reaching in its results, affecting not only the
religious but the social, educational, and political affairs of Europe.
In its religious aspect it shows an attempt to reform the church.  This
failing, the revolution followed, resulting in the independence of
certain parts of the church, which were then organized under separate
constitutions and governments.  Then followed a partial reform within
the Catholic Church.  The whole movement may be characterized as a
revolt against papal authority and ecclesiastical usurpation of power.
It was an assertion of independence of the mind respecting religious
beliefs and a cry for a consistent life of righteousness and purity.

The church had assumed an attitude which made either a speedy
reformation or else a revolution necessary.  The "reforming councils"
of Pisa, Constance, and Basel failed to adopt adequate reform measures.
The result of these councils was merely to confirm the absolutism of
papal authority.  At the same time there were a very large number of
adherents to the church who were anxiously seeking a reform in church
government, as well as a reform in the conduct of the papacy, the
clergy, and the lay membership.  The papal party succeeded in
suppressing all attempts of this nature, the voice of the people being
silenced by a denial of constitutional government; nor was assurance
given that the intrigues of the papacy, and of the church in general,
would be removed.


The people had lost faith in the assumptions of infallibility of the
papacy.  The great schism in the church, in which three popes, each
claiming to be the rightful successor of Saint Peter, each one having
the "keys," each one calling the others impostors, and seeking by all
possible means to dethrone them, was a great shock to the claims of
infallible authority.  For many years, to maintain their position as a
ruling power, the popes had engaged in political squabbles with the
princes of Europe.  While the popes at times were victorious, the
result of their course was to cause a feeling of contempt for their
conduct, as well as of fear of their power.

The quarrel of Henry IV and Gregory VII, of Innocent III and John of
England, of Boniface and Philip the Fair, the Babylonian captivity, and
many lesser difficulties, had placed the papacy in a disreputable
light.  Distrust, fear, and contempt for the infallible assumptions
were growing.  The papacy had been turned into a political engine to
maintain the temporal possessions of the church and to increase its
temporal power.  The selfishness of the ruling prince became uppermost
in all papal affairs, which was so different from the teachings of the
Christ who founded his kingdom on love that the contrast became
observable, and even painful, to many devout people.  Added to this,
the corruption of the members of religious orders, who had departed
from their vows of chastity, was so evident to the people with whom
they came in daily contact as to bring shame and disgrace upon the
cause of religion.  Consequently, from these and other irregularities
there developed a strong belief that the church needed reforming from
the lowest to the highest offices.

_Signs of the Rising Storm_.--For several centuries before the
religious revolution broke out there were signs of its coming.  In the
first place, the rise of the laical spirit was to be observed,
especially after the establishment of local self-government in the free
cities.  The desire for representative government had extended to the
lay members of the church.  There was a growing feeling that the
clergy, headed by the papacy, had {377} no right to usurp all the
governing power of the church.  Many bold laymen asserted that the lay
members of the church should have a voice in its government, but every
such plea was silenced, every aspiration for democratic government
suppressed, by a jealous papacy.

There arose a number of religious sects which opposed the subordination
to dogma, and returned to the teachings of the Bible for authority.
Prominent among these were the Albigenses, who became the victims of
the cruel crusade instigated by the pope and led by Simon de Montfort.
They were a peaceable, religious people who dwelt far and wide in the
south of France, who refused to obey implicitly the harsh and arbitrary
mandates of the pope.

The Waldenses were another society, composed of the followers of Peter
Waldo, known at first as the "Poor Man of Lyons," believing in a return
to the Scriptures, which they persistently read.  Like the Albigenses,
they were zealous for purity of life, and bitterly opposed to the
usurpation and profligacy of the clergy.  They, too, suffered bitter
persecution, which indicated to many that a day of retribution was
coming.  There were also praying societies, formed in the church to
read the Scriptures and to promote a holy life.  All these had their
influence in preparing for a general reformation.

The revival of learning had specific influences in bringing about the
Reformation.  The two movements were blended in one in several
countries, but the revival of learning in Germany was overtaken by the
Reformation.  The former sought freedom of the mind respecting
philosophy and learning, the latter sought liberty of conscience
respecting religious belief.  The revival of learning broke down
scholasticism, and thus freed the mind from dogmatic philosophy.
Seeking for the truth, the works of the church fathers were brought
forth and read, and the texts of the Old and the New Testament were
also used, as a criterion of authority.  They showed to what extent the
papacy had gone in its assumption of power, and making more prominent
the fact that the church, particularly {378} the clergy, had departed
from a life of purity.  The result of the quickening thought of the
revival was to develop independent characteristics of mind, placing it
in the attitude of revolt against ecclesiastical dogmatism.

_Attempts at Reform Within the Church_.--Many attempts were made,
chiefly on the part of individuals, to work a reform of abuses within
the church.  Many devout men, scholars engaged in theological research
and living lives of purity, sought by precept and example to bring
about better spiritual and moral conditions.  Others sought to bring
about changes in ecclesiastical government, not only in the "reforming
councils" but through efforts at the papal court and in the strong
bishoprics.  Had the church listened to these cries of the laity and
zealously availed itself of the many opportunities presented, possibly
the religious revolution would not have come.  Although it is difficult
to say what would have been the result had the church listened to the
voice of reform, yet it is certain that the revolution would at least
have taken a different course, and the position of the church before
the world would have been greatly changed.

Powerful individual reformers exercised great influence in bringing on
the religious revolution.  The voices of John Wyclif, John Huss, John
Tauler, and John Wessel, like the voice of John the Baptist, cried out
for repentance and a return to God.  These reformers desired among
other things a change in the constitutional government of the church.
They sought a representation of the laity and the re-establishment of
the authority of the general councils.  Through influence such as
theirs the revolution was precipitated.  Others in a different way,
like Savonarola, hastened the coming of the revolution by preaching
liberty of thought and attacking the abuses of the church and its
methods of government.

Wyclif in England advocated a simple form of church worship, rebelled
against the arbitrary power of popes and priests, preached against
transubstantiation, and advocated the practice of morality.  He was
greatly influenced by William of {379} Occam, who asserted that the
pope, or even a general council, might err in declaring the truth, and
that the hierarchy might be given up if the good of the church demanded
it.  Wyclif, in England, started a movement for freedom and purity
which never died out.  His translation of the Bible was the most
valuable of all his work.  Though he preceded the religious revolution
by nearly two centuries, his influence was of such great importance
that his enemies, who failed to burn him at the stake in life, ordered
his grave to be desecrated.

At first Wyclif had the support of the king and of the university, as
well as the protection of the Prince of Wales.  But when, in 1381, he
lectured at Oxford against transubstantiation, he lost the royal
protection, and by a senate of twelve doctors was forbidden longer to
lecture at the university, although he continued preaching until his
death.  As his opinions agreed very nearly with those of Calvin and
Luther, he has been called "the morning star of the Reformation."  The
Council of Constance, before burning John Huss and Jerome of Prague at
the stake, condemned the doctrines of Wyclif in forty-five articles,
declared him a heretic, and ordered his body to be removed from
consecrated ground and thrown upon a dunghill.  Thirteen years later
Clement VIII, hyena-like, ordered his bones to be burned and the ashes
thrown into the Swift.  Thus his short-sighted enemies thought to stay
the tide of a great reformation.

John Huss, a Bohemian reformer, followed closely after the doctrine of
Wyclif, although he disagreed with him in his opposition to
transubstantiation.  He preached for constitutional reform of the
church, reformative administration, and morality.  He urged a return to
the Bible as a criterion for belief and a guide to action.  Finally he
was summoned to the Council of Constance to answer for his heresy, and
guaranteed safe-conduct by the Emperor Sigismund, who presided; but,
notwithstanding this promise, the council declared him a heretic and
burned him at the stake with Jerome of Prague.  This was one of the
results of the so-called reforming Council of {380} Constance--its
reform consisted in silencing the opponents of papal authority and

John Tauler belonged to a group of people called mystic philosophers,
who, though remaining within the church, opposed dogmatism and
formalism and advocated spiritual religion.  Their doctrine was to
leave formality and return to God.  Many other societies, calling
themselves "Friends of God," sprang up in the Netherlands and in the
south and west of Germany.  John Tauler was the most prominent of all
their preachers.  He held that man is justified by faith alone, and
Luther, who republished Tauler's book on German theology,[1] asserted
that it had more influence over him than any other books, except the
Bible and the works of Saint Augustine.

Savonarola, a most powerful orator and great scholar of Italy, lifted
his voice in favor of reform in the church administration and in favor
of the correction of abuses.  He transcended the teachings of the
schools of philosophy, departed from the dogma of the church, and
preached in the name of God and His Son.  He was shocked at the signs
of immorality which he saw in common society.  As a preacher of
righteousness, he prophesied a judgment speedily to come unless men
turned from the error of their ways.  But in the ways of the world he
paid for his boldness and his enthusiasm, for the pope excommunicated
him, and his enemies created distrust of him in the hearts of the
people.  He was put in prison, afterward brought to trial and condemned
to death, and finally hanged and burned and his ashes thrown into the
Arno--all because the pope hoped to stay the tide of religious and
social reform.

_Immediate Causes of the Reformation_.--Mr. Bryce, in his _Holy Roman
Empire_,[2] says:

"There is perhaps no event in history which has been represented in so
great a variety of lights as the Reformation.  {381} It has been called
a revolt of the laity against the clergy, or of the Teutonic races
against the Italians, or of the kingdoms of Europe against the
universal monarchy of the popes.  Some have seen in it only a burst of
long-repressed anger at the luxury of the prelates and the manifold
abuses of the ecclesiastical system; others a renewal of the youth of
the church by a return to primitive forms of doctrine.  All these,
indeed, to some extent it was; but it was also something more profound,
and fraught with mightier consequences than any of them.  It was in its
essence the assertion of the principle of individuality--that is to
say, of true spiritual freedom."

The primary nature of the Reformation was, first, a return to primitive
belief and purity of worship.  This was accompanied by a protest
against the vices and the abuses of the church and of formalism in
practice.  It was also an open revolt against the authority of the
church, authority not only in constitution and administration but in
spiritual affairs.  According to Bryce, "true spiritual freedom" was
the prime motive in the religious revolution.  And Guizot, in his
chapter on the Reformation, clusters all statements around a single
idea, the idea that it was freedom of the mind in religious belief and
practice which was the chief purpose of the Reformation.[3]  But the
immediate causes of the precipitation of the Reformation may be stated
as follows:

_First_.--The great and continued attack on the unreasonableness of the
Roman Catholic Church, caused by the great mental awakening which had
taken place everywhere in Europe, the persistent and shameless
profligacy of the clergy and the various monastic orders and sects, the
dissolute and rapacious character of many of the popes, and the
imperial attitude of the entire papacy.

_Second_.--We may consider as another cause the influence of the art of
printing, which scattered the Bible over the land, so that it could be
read by a large number of people, who were thus incited to independent


_Finally_.--It may be said that the sale of indulgences, and
particularly the pretensions of many of the agents of the pope as to
their power to release from the bondage of sin, created intense disgust
and hatred of the church, and caused the outbreak of the Reformation.[4]

_Luther Was the Hero of the Reformation in Germany_.--He was not the
cause of the Reformation, only its most powerful and efficient agency,
for the Reformation would have taken place in time had Luther never
appeared.  Somebody would have led the phalanx, and, indeed, Luther,
led steadily on in his thought and researches, became a reformer and
revolutionist almost before he was aware.

He began (1517) by preaching against the sale of indulgences.  He
claimed that works had been made a substitute for faith, while man is
justified by faith alone.  His attack on indulgences brought him in
direct conflict with one Tetzel, who stirred up the jealousy of other
monks, who reported Luther to Pope Leo X.[5]  Luther, in a letter to
the pope, proclaimed his innocence, saying that he is misrepresented
and called heretic "and a thousand ignominious names; these things
shock and amaze me; one thing only sustains me--the sense of my
innocence."  He had pinned his ninety-five theses on the door of the
church at Wittenberg.  In writing to the pope he claimed that these
were set forth for their own local interest at the university, and that
he knows not why they "should go forth into all the earth."  Then he
says: "But what shall I do?  Recall them I cannot, and yet I see their
notoriety bringeth upon me great odium."

But Luther, in spite of the censure of the pope and his friends, was
still an ardent adherent to the papal power and the authority of the
church.  He says to the pope: "Save or slay, kill or recall, approve or
disapprove, as it shall please you, I will acknowledge you even as the
voice of Christ {383} presiding and speaking in you."  In writing to
Spalatine, he says that he may err in disputation, but that he is never
to be a heretic, that he wishes to decide no doctrine, "only I am not
willing to be the slave of the opinions of men."

Luther persisted in his course of criticism.  To Staupitz he wrote: "I
see that attempts are made at Rome that the kingdom of truth, _i.e._,
of Christ, be no longer the kingdom of truth."  After the pope had
issued his first brief condemning him, Luther exclaimed: "It is
incredible that a thing so monstrous should come from the chief
pontiff, especially Leo X.  If in truth it be come forth from the Roman
court, then I will show them their most licentious temerity and their
ungodly ignorance."  These were bold words from a man who did not wish
to become a reformer, a revolutionist, or a heretic.

Now the pope regarded this whole affair as a quarrel of monks, and
allowed Luther to give his side of the story.  He was induced to send a
certain cardinal legate, Cajetan, to Augsburg to bring this heretic
into submission, but the legate failed to bring Luther into subjection.
Luther then appealed to the pope, and when the pope issued a bull
approving of the sale of indulgences, Luther appealed to the council.

Thus far Luther had only protested against the perversion of the rules
of the church and of the papal doctrine, but there followed the public
disputations with Doctor John Eck, the vice-chancellor of the
University of Ingolstadt, in which the great subject under discussion
was the primacy of the pope.  Luther held that the pope was not
infallible that he might err in matters of doctrine, and that the
general council, which represented the universal church, should decide
the case.  Now Luther had already asserted that certain doctrines of
Huss were true, but the Council of Constance had condemned these and
burned Huss at the stake.  Luther was compelled by his shrewd opponent
to acknowledge that a council also might err, and he had then to
maintain his position that the pope and the council both might err and
to commit himself to the proposition that there is no absolute
authority on the {384} face of the earth to interpret the will of God.
But now Luther was forced to go yet a step farther.  When the papal
bull condemning him and excommunicating him was issued, he took the
bull and burned it in the presence of a concourse of people, and then
wrote his address to the German nobles.  He thus set at defiance the
whole church government and authority.  He had become an open

The Catholic Church, to defend itself from the position it had taken
against Luther, reasoned in this way: "Where there is difference of
opinion, there is doubt; where there is doubt, there is no certainty;
where there is no certainty, there is no knowledge.  Therefore, if
Luther is right, that there is room for difference of opinion about
divine revelation, then we have no knowledge of that revelation."  In
this way did the Roman Church attempt to suppress all freedom of
religious belief.

For the opposition which Luther made, he was summoned to appear before
the Diet of Augsburg, which condemned him as a heretic.  Had it not
been that Charles V, who presided, had promised him a safe-conduct to
and from the diet, Luther would have suffered the same fate as John
Huss.  Indeed, it is said that Charles V, when near his death,
regretted that he had not burned Luther at the stake.  It shows how
little the emperor knew of the real spiritual scope of the Reformation,
that he hoped to stay its tide by the burning of one man.

The safe-conduct of Luther by Charles V was decided on account of the
existing state of European politics.  The policy followed by the
emperor at the diet was not based upon the arguments which Luther so
powerfully presented before the diet, but upon a preconceived policy.
Had the Emperor of Germany been only King of Spain in seeking to keep
the pretentious power of the pope within bounds he might have gained a
great advantage by uniting with Luther in the Reformation.  But as
emperor he needed the support of the pope, on account of the danger of
invasion of Italy by Francis I of France.  He finally concluded it
would be best to declare Luther a heretic, but he was impotent to
enforce {385} punishment by death.  In this way he would set himself
directly in opposition to the Reformation and save his crown.
Apparently Charles cared less for the Reformation than he did for his
own political preservation.[6]

From this time on the Reformation in Germany became wholly political.
Its advantages and disadvantages hung largely upon the political
intrigues and manipulations of the European powers.  It furnished the
means of an economic revolt, which Luther, having little sympathy with
the common people in their political and social bondage, was called to
suppress from the castle of Wartburg.

The Reformation spread rapidly over Germany until the time of the
organization of the Jesuits, in 1542, when fully two-thirds of all
Germany had revolted from papal authority and had become Protestant.
After the organization of the Jesuits, the Reformation declined, on
account of the zeal of that organization and the dissensions which
arose among the Protestants.

_Zwingli Was the Hero of the Reformation in Switzerland_.--The
Reformation which was begun by Zwingli at first took on a social and a
political aspect and, being soon taken up by the state, resulted in a
decision by the Council of Zurich that no preacher could advance any
arguments not found in the Old or New Testament.  This position, with
some variations, was maintained through the entire Reformation.  The
moral and religious condition of the people of Switzerland was at a
very low ebb, and the course of the Reformation was to preach against
abuses.  Zwingli drew his knowledge and faith from the Bible, holding
that for authority one ought to return to it or to the primitive
church.  He advocated the abolition of image-worship, and, in addition,
the abolition of enforced celibacy, nunneries, and the celebration of
the mass.  He held, too, that there ought to be a return to local
church government, and {386} that all of the cloisters should be
converted into schools.  He objected to so many days being devoted to
the festivals of the saints, because it lessened the productive power
of the people.  The whole tenor of his preaching was that the Bible
should be used as the basis of doctrine, and that there is no mediation
except through Jesus Christ.  As to the doctrine of the sacrament, he
believed that the bread and wine are merely symbols, thus approximating
the belief as established by the Protestants of the present day.  On
the other hand, Luther persistently held to the doctrine of
transubstantiation, though the organized Protestant churches held to

The Reformation in Switzerland tended to develop more strongly an
independent political existence, to make for freedom and righteousness,
to work practical reforms in the abuses of both church and state, and
to promote a deeper spiritual religion among the people.

_Calvin Establishes the Genevan System_.--John Calvin was driven out of
France on account of his preaching.  He went to Geneva and there
perfected a unique system of religious organization.  Perhaps it is the
most complete system of applied theology developed by any of the
reformers.  While it did not strongly unite the church and the state on
the same foundation of government, it placed them in such a close unity
that the religious power would be felt in every department of state
life.  The Genevan system was well received in France, became the
foundation of the reform party there, and subsequently extended its
influence to Scotland, and, finally, to England.  It became the
foundation of Presbyterianism throughout the world.  While Calvinism
was severe and arbitrary in its doctrine, on account of its system of
administration, it greatly advanced civil liberty and gave a strong
impulse toward democracy.  It was the central force in the Commonwealth
of England, and upheld the representative system of government, which
led to the establishment of constitutional liberty.

_The Reformation in England Differed from the German_.--The work of
John Wyclif and his followers was so remote from {387} the period of
the Reformation as to have very little immediate influence.  Yet, in a
general way, the influence of the teachings of Wyclif continued
throughout the Reformation.  The religious change came about slowly in
England and was modified by political affairs.  People gradually became
liberal on the subject of religion, and began to exercise independent
thought as to church government.  Yet, outwardly, at the beginning of
the sixteenth century, the followers of John Wyclif made no impression
upon religious affairs.  The new learning, advocated by such men as
Erasmus, Colet, and More, was gaining ground rapidly in England.  Its
quickening influence was observed everywhere.  It was confined to no
particular field, but touched all departments, religious, social,
political.  It invaded the territory of art, of education, of
literature.  Henry VIII favored the new learning and gave it great
impulse by his patronage.  But the new learning in England was
antagonistic to the Reformation of Luther.  The circumstances were
different, and Luther attacked the attitude of the English reformers,
who desired a slow change in church administration and a gradual
purification of the ecclesiastical atmosphere.  The difference of
opinion called out a fierce attack by Henry VIII on Luther, which gave
the king the title of "Defender of the Faith."

The real beginning of the Reformation in England was a revolt from the
papacy by the English king for political reasons.  England established
a national church, with the king at its head, and made changes in the
church government and reformed abuses.  The national, or Anglican,
Church once formed, the struggle began, on the one hand, between it and
the Catholic Church, and on the other, at a later date, against
Puritanism.  The Anglican Church was not fully established until the
reign of Elizabeth.

The real spirit of the Reformation in England is best exhibited in the
rise of Puritanism, which received its impulse largely from the
Calvinistic branch of the Reformation.  The whole course of the
Reformation outside of the influence of the new learning, or humanism,
was of a political nature.  The {388} revolt from Rome was prompted by
political motives; the Puritan movement was accompanied with political
democracy.  The result was to give great impetus to constitutional
liberty, stimulate intellectual activity, and to declare for freedom of
conscience in religious matters.  Yet it was a long way from complete
religious toleration and the full establishment of the rights and
liberties of the people.

_Many Phases of Reformation in Other Countries_.--The Reformation in
Spain was crushed by the power of the church, which used the weapon of
the Inquisition so effectively.  In Italy the papal power prevailed
almost exclusively.  In the Netherlands we find almost complete
conversion to Protestantism, and in the other northern countries we
find Protestantism prevailing to a great extent.  Indeed, we shall find
between the north and the south an irregular line dividing
Protestantism from Catholicism, in the north the former predominating,
in the south the latter.  In France a long, severe struggle between
Catholicism and Protestantism took place.  It was combined with the
struggle of political factions, and led to bitter, hard oppression.  In
fact, the Reformation varied in different countries according to the
political, social, and intellectual state of each.  Interesting as the
history of these countries is, it is not necessary to follow it to
determine the spirit and results of the Reformation.

_Results of the Reformation Were Far-Reaching_.--The results of the
Reformation interest us in this discussion far more than its historical
progress.  In the first place, we shall find, as the primary result,
that the northern nations were separated from the power of Rome and the
great ecclesiastical power that the papacy possessed was broken.  It
could no longer maintain its position of supremacy throughout the
world.  Although it still was powerful, especially in Italy and
Austria, it could no longer rest its assumption on absolute authority,
but must demonstrate that power by intrigue and political prowess in
order to cope with the nations of Europe.  In the second place, there
was a development of political liberty.  The nations had freed {389}
themselves from the domination and imperial power of the church, and
were left alone to carry on their own affairs and develop their
national freedom.  But there was something more in the development of
the Reformation than those things which made for religious liberty.  To
the desire of freedom of the mind in religious belief the desire for
freedom in political life had joined itself, and we shall find that the
Reformation everywhere stirred up a desire for political liberty.  The
fires of freedom, thus lighted, never went out, but slowly burned on
until they burst out in the great conflagration of the French
Revolution.  Political liberty, then, was engendered and developed in
the hearts of men and nations.

Again, the foundation of religious toleration was laid by the
Reformation, although it was not yet secured, for it must be maintained
that even Luther was as persistent and dogmatic in his own position, as
intolerant of the beliefs of other people, as was the papal authority
itself.  Convinced that he was right, he recognized no one's right to
differ from his opinion, even though he himself had revolted from the
authority of the church.  He showed his bigotry and lack of tolerance
in his treatment of Zwingli, of Calvin, and of Erasmus.  Most of the
early reformers, indeed, were intolerant of the opinions of others; the
development of religious toleration has been a very slow process, not
only in Europe but in America.  The many and various phases of the
Reformation nevertheless made as a whole for religious toleration.

When in the Reformation in Germany it was decided at the religious
peace of Augsburg that Catholics and Protestants should have the same
privileges, only one division of Protestants was recognized, and that
was the Lutheran division.  Calvinists were entirely excluded.  It was
not until the peace of Westphalia in 1648, which closed the great
struggle known as the Thirty Years' War, that all denominations were
recognized upon the same basis.  The struggle for religious toleration
in England is a history in itself, and it was not until the last
century that it might be said that toleration really existed {390} in
the United Kingdom, for during two centuries or more there was a state
religion supported by revenues raised by taxing the people, although
other churches were tolerated.

Another great result of the Reformation was the advancement of
intellectual progress.  All progress rests primarily upon freedom of
the mind, and whatever enhances that freedom has a tendency to promote
intellectual progress.  The advancement of language and letters, of
philosophy and science, and of all forms of knowledge, became rapid on
account of this intense activity of the mind.  The revival of learning
received a new impulse in the development of man's spiritual nature--an
impulse which was felt throughout the entire world.  In this respect
the Reformation was far-reaching in its consequences.  The church no
longer assumed the sole power to think for the people.

Again, it may be said that the Reformation improved man's material
progress.  The development of the independent individual life brought
about strength of character, industry, and will force, which, in turn,
built up material affairs and made great improvements in the economic
conditions of man.  Everywhere that Protestantism prevailed there was a
rapid increase of wealth and better economic conditions.  Trade and
commerce improved rapidly, and the industrial life went through a
process of revolution.  Freedom upon a rational basis always brings
about this vital prosperity, while despotism suppresses the desires of
man for a better economic life.  So we shall find that intellectual and
material progress followed everywhere in the course of the Reformation,
while those states and nations over which the papal authority retained
its strongest hold began to decline in intellectual power and material
welfare.  Such was the force of the Reformation to renovate and
rejuvenate all which it touched.  It made possible the slow evolution
of the independence of the common man and established the dignity of

Finally, let it be said that the Reformation caused a
counter-reformation within the Catholic Church.  For many years {391}
there was an earnest reform going on within the Romanist Church.
Abuses were corrected, vices eradicated, the religious tone of church
administration improved, and the general character of church polity
changed in very many ways.  But once having reformed itself, the church
became more arbitrary than before.  In the Council of Trent, in clearly
defining its position, it declared its infallibility and absolute
authority, thus relapsing into the old imperial régime.  But the
Reformation, after all, was the salvation of the Roman Church, for
through it that church was enabled to correct a sufficient number of
abuses to regain its power and re-establish confidence in itself among
the people.

The Reformation, like the Renaissance, has been going on ever since it
started, and we may say to-day that, so far as most of the results are
concerned, we are yet in the midst of both.


1.  Needed reforms in the church and why they failed.

2.  Enumerate the causes that led to the Reformation prior to Luther.

3.  Compare the main characteristics in the Reformation in the
following countries: Germany, England, Switzerland, and France.

4.  What were the characteristics of the Genevan system instituted by
John Calvin?

5.  The results of the Reformation on intellectual development,
political freedom, scientific thought, and, in general, on human

6.  The effect of the Reformation on the character and policy of the
Romanist Church (Catholic).

7.  What was the nature of the quarrels of Henry IV and Gregory VII, of
Innocent III and John of England, of Boniface and Philip the Fair?

[1] _Theologia Germania_, generally accredited to Tauler, but written
by one of his followers.

[2] _The Holy Roman Empire_, p. 327.

[3] _History of Civilization_, vol. I, pp. 255-257.

[4] Recent writers emphasize the economic and national causes, which
should be added to this list.

[5] Luther sent his ninety-five theses to Archbishop Albert of Mainz.

[6] Luther had many friends In the diet.  Also he was in his own
country before a German national assembly.  Huss was in a foreign
country before a church assembly.




_Progress in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries_.--It is not easy
to mark in brief space the steps of progress in the complex activities
of the great movements of society of the first centuries of the period
of modern history.  It is not possible to relate the details of the
great historical movements, with their many phases of life moving on
toward great achievements.  Only a few of the salient and vital
features may be presented, but these will be sufficient to show the
resultant general achievements coming from the interaction of a
multitude of forces of an expanding civilization.  The great
determiners of this period are found in the national life of England,
France, Germany, and America.  Out of many complex movements and causes
the dominant factor is the struggle of monarchy and democracy.  The
revival of learning, the Protestant revolution, and the attempts at
popular government heralded the coming of political liberty and the
recognition of the rights of man.  The whole complex is a vivid example
of the processes of social evolution through the interaction of groups,
each moving about a central idea.  Again and again when freedom of mind
and liberty of action seem to be successful, they have been obscured by
new social maladies or retarded by adverse environmental conditions.

_The Struggle of Monarchy with Democracy_.--In a previous chapter, in
which were recounted the early attempts at popular representation, it
was shown that in nearly every instance the rise of popular power was
suppressed by the rapid and universal growth of monarchy.  Having
obtained power by combining with the people in their struggle against
the nobility, monarchy finally denied the people the right to {393}
participate in the government.  It was recognized nearly everywhere in
Europe as the dominant type of government through which all nations
must pass.  Through it the will of the people was to find expression,
or, to use a more exact statement, monarchy proposed to express the
will of the people without asking their permission.

The intellectual revival which spread over Europe tended to free the
mind from the binding power of tradition, prestige, and dogmatism, and
to give it freedom in religious belief.  But while these great
movements were taking place, monarchy was being established in Europe,
and wherever monarchy was established without proper checks of
constitutional government, it became powerful and arbitrary to such a
degree as to force the people into a mighty cry for political liberty.
In France royalty ran rapidly into imperialism; in Spain it became
oppressive; but in England there was a decided check upon its absolute
assumptions by way of slowly developing constitutional liberty.

_Struggle for Constitutional Liberty in England_.--For a long period
monarchy had to struggle fiercely with the feudal nobility of England,
but finally came off conqueror, and then assumed such arbitrary powers
as appeared necessary for the government of the realm of England.  It
was inevitable, however, that in a people whose minds had been
emancipated from absolute spiritual power and given freedom of thought,
a conflict would eventually occur with monarchy which had suppressed
municipal liberty, feudal nobility, and popular representation.  Pure
monarchy sought at all times the suppression of political liberty.
Hence, in England, there began a struggle against the assumptions of
absolute monarchy and in favor of the liberty of the people.

There grew up in England under the Tudors an advocacy of the inherited
rights of kings.  There was a systematic development of arbitrary power
until monarchy in England declared itself superior to all laws and to
all constitutional rights and duties.  In another place it has been
told how the English {394} Reformation was carried on by the kings as a
political institution, how the authority of Rome was overthrown and the
kings of England seized the opportunity to enhance their power and
advance their own interests.  When the people realized that they had
exchanged an arbitrary power in Rome for an arbitrary power in England,
centred in the king, they cried out again at this latter tyranny, and
sought for religious reform against the authority of the church.

This movement was accompanied by a desire for political reform, also.
Indeed, all civil and religious authority centred in one person, the
king, and a reform of religious administration could not take place
without a reform of the political.  The activity of English commerce
and the wide-spread influence of the revival of learning, which
developed a new and independent literary culture, made life intense and
progress rapid.  When this spirit of political liberty sought
expression in England, it found it in the ancient privileges and rights
of the English people, to which they sought to return.  It was
unfortunate that the desires for political liberty on the continent
found no such means to which they could attach their ideas of a liberal
government.  In England we find these old rights and privileges a ready
support for the principles of constitutional liberty.  There were many
precedents and examples of liberty which might be recalled for the
purpose of quickening the zeal of the people--many, indeed, had been
continued in local communities.

Nor were the English government and law wanting in the principles of
liberty which had been handed down from former generations.  Moreover,
it became necessary, as a practical measure, for the kings of England,
if they desired to maintain their position, to call a parliament of the
people for the sake of their co-operation and help in the support of
the government.  It is seen, therefore, that in England the spirit of
constitutional liberty, though perhaps suppressed at times, never
perished, though the assumption of royal power was very great, and when
the party which was seeking to carry forward {395} religious reform
joined itself to the party seeking political liberty, there was aroused
a force in England which would be sure to prove a check on royalty and
insure the rights and privileges of a free people.

Though the sentiment for religious reform was general throughout
England, this principle was viewed in many different ways by different
parties.  Thus the pure-monarchy party saw many evils in the laws of
England and in the administration of affairs, and sought reform, but
without yielding anything of the high conception of the absolute power
of the king.  They believed that the ancient laws and precedents of
England were a check upon monarchy sufficient to reform all abuses of
power that might arise.  They acknowledged the divine right of kings
and thought that royalty possessed a superior power, but they held that
it was obliged, for its own preservation and the proper government of
the realm, to confine its activity within certain limits.  Two other
parties, the one political and the other religious, went hand in hand,
both for revolution.  The former denied the absolute sovereignty of the
king and sought a great change in the form, the spirit, and the
structure of government.  They held that the ultimate power of control
should rest in the House of Commons as the representative of the
people.  The latter party sought the same process within the church.
They held that it should be controlled by assemblages of the people,
maintained that decentralization should take place and the constitution
of the church be changed as well as its form of administration.  It is
easy to see that the leaders of either of these parties were also
leaders of the other.  A fourth party sought to repudiate the
constitution, as radically wrong, and to build up an entirely new
political system.  It disregarded the past life of England and
repudiated all precedents, desiring to build up a new government
founded upon abstract theories of right and justice.

The course of history under these four parties is plain.  Each one,
struggling for power, tried to manage the government {396} upon its
particular theory, and signally failed.  The struggle in the House of
Commons, had it not finally brought about such great consequences,
would be disgusting and discouraging in the extreme.  The struggle in
England for liberty of conscience and for government of the people
through Parliament went on through turmoil and disgrace for two
centuries.  It was king against the people, Catholic against
Protestant, and, within the latter group, Anglican, Presbyterian, and
independent, each against one another.  All sorts of unjust and inhuman
practices were indulged in.  It would seem that the spirit of Magna
Charta and of the Christian religion was constantly outraged.

When Henry VIII, in 1521, wrote his attack on Luther embodied in the
_Assertion of the Seven Sacraments_, Pope Leo X gave him the title of
"Defender of the Faith."  Subsequently, when he appealed to the pope to
help him settle his marital difficulties, the pope refused to support
him, and finally excommunicated him for divorcing his wife Catherine.
This led to a break with Rome, and the Supremacy Act, which made the
king protector and only supreme head of the church and clergy of
England.  This inaugurated the long struggle between Catholic and
Protestant, with varying fortunes to each side.  The Tudor period
closed with the death of Elizabeth, in 1603, with a fairly
well-established conformity to the Anglican Church; but Puritanism was
growing slowly but surely, which meant a final disruption.  From this
time on there was confusion of political and religious affairs for
another century.

In 1621 Parliament rebuked King James I for his high-handed proceedings
with protestation: "That the liberties, franchises, privileges, and
jurisdictions of Parliament are the ancient and undoubted birthright
and inheritance of the subjects of England, and that the arduous and
urgent affairs of the king, state, and defense of the realm ... are
proper subjects and matters of council and debate in Parliament."  The
king tore the page containing the resolution from the journal of
Parliament; but this did not retard the struggle for the {397}
recognition of ancient rights.  The strife went on throughout the reign
of the Stuarts, until Charles I lost his head and the nation was
plunged into a great civil war.

There finally appeared on the scene of action a man of destiny.
Cromwell, seizing the opportunity, turned everything toward democracy,
and ruled republicans, Puritans, and royalists with such an iron hand
that his painful democracy came to a sudden close through reaction
under the rule of his successor.  The Stuarts again came into power,
and, believing in the divine right of kings--a principle which seems to
have been imbibed from the imperialism of France--sought to bring
everything into subordination to royalty.  The people, weary of the
irregular government caused by the attempts of the different parties to
rule, and tired of the abuses and irregularities of the administration,
welcomed the restoration of royalty as an advantage to the realm.  But
the Stuarts sought not only to rule with high hand, regardless of the
wants, desires, and will of the people, but also to bring back the
absolute authority of the papacy.  By their arbitrary, high-handed
proceedings, they brought the English government to a crisis which was
ended only by the coming of William of Orange to rule upon the throne
with constitutional right; for the people seized their opportunity to
demand a guaranty of the rights of freemen which would thoroughly
establish the principle of constitutional liberty in England.

But the declaration of Parliament at the accession of William and Mary,
which subsequently was enacted as a famous Bill of Rights, showed a
great permanent gain in constitutional liberty.  It centred the power
in Parliament, whose authority was in the Commons.  It was true the
arbitrary power of kings came to the front during the rule of the four
Georges, but it was without avail, and reform measures followed their
reign.  Constitutional government had won.  It is true that the
revolution failed to establish religious toleration, but it led the way
with rapid strides.

In the progress of civil liberty and freedom of conscience in {398}
England, the literature of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries had
a powerful influence.  In the world of ideas, freedom of thought found
expression through the great writers.  While few attacked the evils of
government, they were not wanting in setting forth high ideals of life,
liberty, and justice.  Such men as John Milton, John Locke, John
Bunyan, and Shakespeare turned the thinking world toward better things
in government and life.

Thus England had a check on the growth of monarchy, while freedom of
investigation led to an inquiry about the rights of the people; hence,
the seeds of popular liberty were growing at the time monarchy was
making its greatest assumption.  The people never yielded, in theory at
least, their ancient rights to the absolute control of royalty.
Kingship in England was developed through service, and while the
English were strong for monarchy because it expressed a unity of the
nation, they expected the king to consider the rights of the people,
which gave rise to a complex movement in England, making for religious
and political liberty, in which all classes were engaged in some degree
at different times.

In France, however, it was different.  At first the feudal nobility
ruled with absolute sway.  It continued in power long enough to direct
the thoughts of the people toward it and to establish itself as a
complete system.  It had little opposition in the height of its power.
When monarchy arose it, too, had the field all to itself.  People
recognized this as the only legitimate form of government.  Again, when
monarchy failed, people rushed enthusiastically to democracy, and in
their wild enthusiasm made of it a government of terror.  How different
were the results.  In England there was a slow evolution of
constitutional government in which the rights of the people, the king,
the nobility, and the clergy were respected, and each class fell into
its proper place in the government.  In France, each separate power
made its attempt to govern, and failed.  Its history points to a truth,
namely, that no kind of government is safe without a system of checks.


_The Place of France in Modern Civilization_.--Guizot tries to show
that in the seventeenth century France led the civilization of the
world; that while Louis XIV was carrying absolute government to its
greatest height, philosophy, art, and letters flourished; that France,
by furnishing unique and completed systems, has led the European world
in civilization.  To a great extent this is true, for France had better
opportunities to develop an advanced civilization than any other
European nation.  It must be remembered that France, at an early
period, was completely Romanized, and never lost the force and example
of the Roman civilization; and, also, that in the invasion of the
Norman, the northern spirit gave France vigor, while its crude forms
were overcome by the more cultured forms of French life.

While other nations were still in turmoil France developed a distinct
and separate nationality.  At an early period she cast off the power of
Rome and maintained a separate ecclesiastical system which tended to
develop an independent spirit and further increase nationality.  Her
population was far greater than that of any other nation, and her
wealth and national resources were vastly superior to those of others.
These elements gave France great prestige and great power, and fitted
her to lead in civil progress.  They permitted her to develop a high
state of civilization.  If the genius of the French people gave them
adaptability in communicating their culture to others, it certainly was
of service to Europe.  Yet the service of France must not be too highly
estimated.  If, working in the dark, other nations, not so far advanced
as France on account of material causes, were laying a foundation of
the elements of civilization, which were to be of vast importance in
the development of the race, it would appear that as great credit
should be given them as to the French manners, genius, and culture
which gave so little permanent benefit to the world.  Guizot wisely
refrains from elaborating the vices of the French monarchy, and fails
to point out the failure of the French system of government.


_The Divine Right of Kings_.--From the advent of the Capetian dynasty
of French kings royalty continually increased its power until it
culminated under Louis XIV.  The court, the clergy, and, in fact, the
greater number of the preachers of France, advocated the divine origin
and right of kings.  If God be above all and over all, his temporal
rulers as well as his spiritual rulers receive their power from him;
hence the king receives his right to rule from God.  Who, then, has the
right to oppose the king?  Upon this theory the court preachers adored
him and in some instances deified him.  People sought to touch the hem
of his garment, or receive from his divine majesty even a touch of the
hand, that they might be healed of their infirmities.  In literature
Louis was praised and deified.  The "Grand Monarch" was lauded and
worshipped by the courtiers and nobles who circled around him.  He
maintained an extravagant court and an elaborate etiquette, so
extravagant that it depleted the rural districts of money, and drew the
most powerful families to revolve around the king.

The extravagant life paralyzed the energies of kings and ministers, who
built a government for the advantage of the governing and not the
governed.  "I am the state!" said the Grand Monarch.  Although showing
in many ways an enlightened absolutism, his rule plunged French royalty
into despotism.  Louis XV held strongly to absolutism, but lacked the
power to render it attractive and magnificent.  Louis XVI attempted to
stem the rising tide, but it was too late.  The evils were too deeply
seated; they could not be changed by any temporary expedient.  French
royalty reached a logical outcome from all power to no power.  Louis
XIV had built a strong, compact administration under the direction of
able men, but it was wanting in liberty, it was wanting in justice, and
it is only a matter of time when these deficiencies in a nation lead to

_The Power of the Nobility_.--The French nobility had been mastered by
the king, but to keep them subservient, to make them circle around
royalty and chant its praises, they were {401} given a large extension
of rights and privileges.  They were exempt from the responsibilities
for crime; they occupied all of the important places in church and
state; they were exempt from taxation; many who dwelt at the court with
the king lived off the government; many were pensioned by the
government, their chief recommendation apparently being idleness and
worthlessness.  There was a great gulf between the peasantry and the
nobility.  The latter had control of all the game of the forests and
the fish in the rivers; one-sixth of all the grain grown in the realm
went to the nobility, as did also one-sixth of all the land sold, and
all confiscated property fell to them.  The peasants had no rights
which the nobility were bound to respect.  The nobility, with all of
the emoluments of office, owned, with the clergy, two-thirds of all the
land.  Yet this unproductive class numbered only about 83,000 families.

_The Misery of the People_.--If the nobility despised the lower classes
and ignored their rights, they in turn were hated intensely by those
whom they sought to degrade.  The third estate in France was divided
into the bourgeoisie and the peasantry and small artisans.  The former
gradually deteriorated in character and tended toward the condition of
the lowest classes.  By the revocation of the Edict of Nantes, a large
number of the bourgeoisie, or middle class, was driven from France.
This deprived France of the class that would have stood by the nation
when it needed support, and would have stood for moderate
constitutional government against the radical democrats like
Robespierre and Marat.

The lowest class, composed of small peasant farmers, laborers, and
artisans, were improved a little under the reign of Louis XIV, but this
made them feel more keenly the degradation in succeeding years, from
which there was no relief.  The condition of the people indicated that
a revolution was on its way.  In the evolution of European society the
common man was crowded down toward the condition of serfdom.  The
extravagances and luxuries of life, the power of kings, bishops, and
nobles bore like a burden of heavy weight upon his {402} shoulders.  He
was the common fodder that fed civilization, and because of this more
than anything else, artificial systems of society were always running
for a fall, for the time must come when the burdens destroy the
foundation and the superstructure comes tumbling down.

_The Church_.--The church earned an important position in France soon
after the conquest by the Romans; seizing opportunities, it came into
power by right of service.  It brought the softening influences of
religion; it established government where there was no government; it
furnished a home for the vanquished and the oppressed; it preserved
learning from the barbarians; it conquered and controlled the warlike
spirit of the Germans; it provided the hungry with food, and by
teaching agriculture added to the economic wealth of the community; and
finally, it became learned, and thus brought order out of chaos.
Surely the church earned its great position, and reaped its reward.
Taine says:

"Its popes for two hundred years were the dictators of Europe.  It
organized crusades, dethroned monarchs, and distributed kingdoms.  Its
bishops and abbots became here sovereign princes and there veritable
founders of dynasties.  It held in its grasp a third of the territory,
one-half the revenue, and two-thirds of the capital of Europe."

The church was especially strong in France.  It was closely allied to
the state, and opposed everything that opposed the state.  When the
king became the state, the church upheld the king.  The church of
France, prior to the revolution, was rich and aristocratic.  In 1789
its property was valued at 4,000,000,000 francs, and its income at
200,000,000 francs; to obtain a correct estimate according to our
modern measure of value, these amounts should be doubled.  In some
territories the clergy owned one-half the soil, in others
three-fourths, and in one, at least, fourteen-seventeenths of the land.
The Abbey of St.-Germain-des-Prés possessed 900,000 acres.  Yet within
the church were found both the wealthy and the poverty-stricken.  In
one community was a bishop rolling in luxury {403} and ease, in another
a wretched, half-starved country curate trying to carry the gospel to
half-starved people.  Such extremes were shocking commentaries upon a
church founded on democracy.

The church persecuted the literary men who expressed freedom of thought
and opinion.  It ignored facts and the people distrusted it.  The
religious reformation in France became identified with political
factions, which brought the church into a prominent place in the
government and made it take an important place in the revolution.  It
had succeeded in suppressing all who sought liberty, either political
or religious, and because of its prominence in affairs, it was the
first institution to feel the storm of the revolution.  The church in
France was attacked fully forty years before the king and the nobility
were arraigned by the enraged populace.

_Influence of the Philosophers_.--There appeared in France in the reign
of Louis XV what was known as "the new literature," in contrast with
the classic literature of the previous reign.  The king and the church
combined fought this new literature, because it had a tendency to
endanger absolutism.  It was made by such brilliant men as Helvetius,
Montesquieu, Voltaire, Condillac, and Rousseau.  Perhaps the writings
of these men had more to do with the precipitation of the revolution
than the arbitrary assumptions of royalty, the wretchedness of the
people, the supercilious abuses of the nobility, and the corruption of
the church.

Without presenting the various philosophies of these writers, it may be
said that they attacked the systems of government, religion, and
philosophy prevailing in France, and each succeeding writer more boldly
proclaimed the evils of the day.  Condillac finally convinced the
people that they owed their evil conditions to the institutions of
church and state under which they lived, and showed that, if they
desired a change, all it was necessary to do was to sweep those
institutions away.  Other philosophers speculated on the best means of
improving the government.  Presenting ideal forms of {404} government
and advocating principles not altogether certain in practice, they made
it seem, through these speculative theories, that a perfect government
is possible.

Of the great writers of France prior to the revolution who had a
tremendous power in hastening the downfall of the royal régime, three
stand out more prominently than others, namely, Voltaire, Montesquieu,
and Rousseau.  Voltaire, keen critic and satirist, attacked the evils
of society, the maladministration of courts and government, the
dogmatism of the church, and aided and defended the victims of the
system.  He was a student of Shakespeare, Locke, and Newton, and of
English government.  He was highly critical but not constructive.
Montesquieu, more philosophical, in his _Spirit of the Laws_ pointed
out the cause of evils, expounded the nature of governments, and upheld
English liberty as worthy the consideration of France.  Rousseau,
although he attacked civilization, depicting its miseries and
inconsistencies, was more constructive, for in his _Social Contract_ he
advocated universal suffrage and government by the people through the
principles of natural rights and mutual aid.  These writers aroused a
spirit of liberty among the thoughtful which could not do otherwise
than prove destructive to existing institutions.

_The Failure of Government_.--It soon became evident to all that a
failure of the government from a practical standpoint was certain.  The
burdens of unequal taxation could no longer be borne; the treasury was
empty; there was no means of raising revenue to support the government
as it was run; there was no one who could manage the finances of the
nation; the administration of justice had fallen into disrepute; even
if there had been an earnest desire to help the various classes of
people in distress, there were no opportunities to do so.  Louis XVI,
in his weakness, called the States-General for counsel and advice.  It
was the first time the people had been called in council for more than
200 years; monarchy had said it could run the government without the
people, and now, on the verge of destruction, called upon the people to
save it from the {405} wreck.  The well-intended king invoked a storm;
his predecessors had sown the wind, he reaped the whirlwind.

_France on the Eve of the Revolution_.--The causes of the revolution
were dependent, in part, upon the peculiarity of the character of the
French people, for in no other way can the sudden outburst or the
course of the revolution be accounted for.  Yet a glimpse at the
condition of France before the storm burst will cause one to wonder,
not that it came, but that it was so long delayed.

A careful examination of the facts removes all mystery respecting the
greatest political phenomenon of all history, and makes of it an
essential outcome of previous conditions.  The French people were
grossly ignorant of government.  The long period of misrule had
distorted every form of legitimate government.  One school of political
philosophers gave their attention to pointing out the evils of the
system; another to presenting bright pictures of ideal systems of
government which had never been put in practice.  The people found no
difficulty in realizing the abuses of government, for they were intense
sufferers from them, and, having no expression in the management of
affairs, they readily adopted ideal theories for the improvement of
social conditions.  Moreover, there was no national unity, no coherence
of classes such as in former days brought strength to the government.
Monarchy was divided against itself; the lay nobility had no loyalty,
but were disintegrated by internal feuds; the people were divided into
opposing classes; the clergy were rent asunder.

Monarchy, though harsh, arbitrary, and unjust, did not have sufficient
coercive force to give a strong rule.  The church had lost its moral
influence--indeed, morality was lacking within its organization.  It
could persecute heretics and burn books which it declared to be
obnoxious to its doctrines, but it could not work a moral reform, much
less stem the tide that was carrying away its ancient prerogatives.
The nobility had no power in the government, and the dissension between
the crown, the nobility, and the church was continuous and {406}
destructive of all authority.  Continuous and disreputable quarrels,
profligacy, extravagance, and idleness characterized each group.

Worst of all was the condition of the peasantry.  The commons of
France, numbering twenty-five millions of people, had, let it be said
in their favor, no part in the iniquitous and oppressive government.
They were never given a thought by the rulers except as a means of
revenue.  There had grown up another, a middle class, especially in
towns, who had grown wealthy by honest toil, and were living in ease
and luxury, possessed of some degree of culture.  They disliked the
nobles, on the one hand, and the peasants, on the other; hated and
opposed the nobility and ignored the common people.  This class did not
represent the sterling middle class of England or of modern life, but
were the product of feudalism.

The condition of the rural peasantry is almost beyond description.
Suffering from rack-rents, excessive taxation, and the abuses of the
nobility, they presented a squalor and wretchedness worse than that of
the lowest vassals of the feudal regime.  In the large cities collected
the dangerous classes who hated the rich.  Ignorant, superstitious,
half-starved, they were ready at a moment's notice to attack the
wealthy and to destroy property.

The economic and financial conditions of the nation were deplorable,
for the yield of wealth decreased under the poorly organized state.
The laborers received such wages as left them at the verge of
starvation and prepared them for open revolution.  The revenues
reserved for the support of the government were insufficient for the
common needs, and an empty treasury was the result.  The extravagance
of king, court, and nobility had led to excessive expenditures and
gross waste.  There were no able ministers to manage the affairs of the
realm on an economic basis.  Add to these evils lack of faith, raillery
at decency and virtue, and the poisonous effects of a weak and
irresponsible philosophy, and there are represented sufficient evils to
make a revolution whenever there is sufficient vigor to start it.


_The Revolution_.--The revolution comes with all of its horrors.  The
church is humbled and crushed, the government razed to the ground,
monarchy is beheaded, and the flower of nobility cut off.  The wild mob
at first seeks only to destroy; later it seeks to build a new structure
on the ruins.  The weak monarch, attempting to stem the tide, is swept
away by its force.  He summons the States-General, and the commons
declare themselves the national assembly.  Stupendous events follow in
rapid succession--the revolt in Paris, the insubordination of the army,
the commune of Paris, and the storming of the Bastile.  The legislative
assembly brings about the constitutional assembly, and laws are enacted
for the relief of the people.

Intoxicated with increasing liberty, the populace goes mad, and the
legislators pass weak and harmful laws.  The law-making and
constitutional bodies cannot make laws fast enough to regulate the
affairs of the state.  Lawlessness and violence increase until the
"reign of terror" appears with all its indescribable horrors.  The rest
is plain.  Having levelled all government to the ground, having
destroyed all authority, having shown themselves incapable of
self-government, the French people are ready for Napoleon.  Under his
command and pretense they march forth to liberate humanity from
oppression in other nations, but in reality to a world conquest.

_Results of the Revolution_.--The French Revolution was by far the most
stupendous event of modern history.  It settled forever in the Western
world the relation of man to government.  It taught that absolutism of
any class, if unchecked, must lead sooner or later to the destruction
of all authority.  It taught that men, to be capable of
self-government, must be educated in its principles through a long
period, yet proclaimed to the Western world the freedom of man, and
asserted his right to participate in government.  While France
temporarily failed to bring about this participation, it awoke the cry
for independence, equality, and fraternity around the world.

The results of the revolution became the common property {408} of all
nations, and a universal sentiment arising from it pervaded every
country, shaping its destiny.  The severe blow given to absolutism and
exclusive privilege in church and state settled forever the theory of
the divine right of kings and prelates to govern.  The revolution
asserted that the precedent in religious and political affairs must
yield to the necessities of the people; that there is no fixed
principle in government except the right of man to govern himself.

The establishment of the theory of the natural right of man to
participate in government had great influence on succeeding legislation
and modified the policy of surrounding nations.  The social-contract
theory was little understood and gave an incorrect notion of the nature
of government.  In its historical creation, government was a growth,
continually suiting itself to the changing needs of a people.  Its
practice rested upon convenience and precedent, but the real test for
participation in government was capability.  But the French Revolution
startled the monarchs of Europe with the assumption of the natural
right of people to self-government.  Possibly it is incorrect when
carried to extremes, for the doctrine of natural right must be merged
into the practice of social rights, duties, and privileges.  But it was
a check on despotism.

The revolution had an influence on economic life also.  It was only a
step from freedom of intellectual opinion to freedom of religious
belief, and only a step from religious freedom to political liberty.
Carried to its legitimate outcome, the growing sentiment of freedom
asserted industrial liberty and economic equality.  Its influence in
the emancipation of labor was far-reaching.  Many of the theories
advanced in the French Revolution were impracticable; sentiments
engendered were untrue, which in the long run would lead to injustice.
Many of its promises remain unfulfilled, yet its lessons are still
before us, its influence for good or evil continues unabated.



1.  The progress in constitutional government was made in England
during the Commonwealth.

2.  Changes in the social and economic condition of England from 1603
to 1760.

3.  When did the Industrial Revolution begin?  What were its causes?
What its results?

4.  The rise of British commerce.

5.  Effect of commerce on English economic and social life.

6.  Of what use to England were her American colonies?

7.  The effect of the American Revolution on the French Revolution.

8.  The effect of the French Revolution on American liberty.






_Political Liberty in the Eighteenth Century_.--Looking backward from
the standpoint of the close of the eighteenth century and following the
chain of events in the previous century, the real achievement in social
order is highly disappointing.  The French Revolution, which had
levelled the monarchy, the church, and the nobility, and brought the
proletariat in power for a brief season and lifted the hopes of the
people toward a government of equality, was hurrying on from the
directorate to the consulate to the empire, and finally returning to
the old monarchy somewhat worn and dilapidated, indeed, but sufficient
in power to smother the hopes of the people for the time being.
Numerous French writers, advocating anarchy, communism, and socialism,
set up ideals of liberty, equality, and fraternity which were not to be
realized as the immediate result of the revolution.  Babeuf,
Saint-Simon, Cabet, and Louis Blanc set forth new ideals of government,
which were diametrically opposed to the practices of the French
government in preceding centuries.  Though some of their ideals were
lofty, the writers were critical and destructive rather than

England, after the coming of William and Mary and the passing of the
Bill of Rights in 1689, witnessed very little progress in political
rights and liberty until the reform measures of the nineteenth century.
On the continent, Prussia had risen to a tremendous power as a military
state and developed an autocratic government with some pretenses to
political liberty.  But the dominant force of Prussia working on the
basis of the ancient feudalism was finally to crush out the liberties
of the German people and establish autocratic government.  {414} The
Holy Roman Empire, which had continued so long under the union of
Austria and Italy, backed by the papacy, had reached its height of
arbitrary power, and was destroyed by the Napoleonic wars.  In the
whole period there were political struggles and intrigues within the
various states, and political struggles and intrigues and wars between
the nations.  It was a period of the expression of national selfishness
which sought enlarged territory and the control of commerce and trade.
Taken as a whole, there is little that is inspiring in the movement of
nations in this period.  Indeed, it is highly disappointing when we
consider the materials at their hand for political advancement.

The political game at home played by cliques and factions and
politicians struggling for power frequently led to disgraces abroad,
such as the war against the American colonies and the extension of
power and domination in India.  There is scarcely a war, if any, in
this whole period that should not have been settled without difficulty,
provided nations were honest with each other and could exercise, if not
reason, common sense.  The early great movements, such as the revival
of learning and progress centring in Italy and extending to other
nations, the religious revolution which brought freedom of belief, the
revolution of England and the Commonwealth, the French Revolution with
its projections of new ideals of liberty on the horizon of political
life, promised better things.  Also, during this period the development
of literature and the arts and sciences should have been an enlightened
aid to political liberty.

Nevertheless, the higher ideals of life and liberty which were set
forth during these lucid intervals of the warring nations of the world
were never lost.  The seeds of liberty, once having been sown, were to
spring up in future years and develop through a normal growth.

_The Progress of Popular Government Found Outside of the Great
Nations_.--The rise of democracy in Switzerland and the Netherlands and
its development in America, although {415} moving indirectly and by
reaction, had a lasting influence on the powerful nations like Germany,
England, France, and Austria.  In these smaller countries the warfare
against tyranny, despotism, and ignorance was waged with success.
Great gain was made in the overthrow of the accumulated power of
traditional usage and the political monopoly of groups of people who
had seized and held the power.  Through trial and error, success and
failure, these people, not noted for their brilliant warfare but for
their love of peace, succeeded in establishing within their boundaries
a clear definition of human rights and recognizing the right of the
people to have a better government.

_Reform Measures in England_.--The famous Bill of Rights of 1689 in
England has always been intact in theory.  It laid the foundation for
popular government in which privileges and rights of the people were
guaranteed.  It may have been a good expedient to have declared that no
papist should sit upon the throne of England, thus declaring for
Protestantism, but it was far from an expression of religious
toleration.  The prestige of the House of Lords, an old and
well-established aristocratic body, built upon ancient privilege and
the power of the monarchy which too frequently acknowledged
constitutional rights and then proceeded to trample upon them, made the
progress in popular government very slow.

One great gain had been made when the nation agreed to fight its
political battles in Parliament and at elections.  The freedom of the
press and the freedom of speech gradually became established facts.
Among the more noted acts for the benefit of popular government was the
Reform Bill of 1832, which enlarged the elective franchise.  This was
bitterly opposed by the Lords, but the persistency of the Commons won
the day and the king signed the bill.  Again in 1867 the second Reform
Bill enlarged the franchise, and more modern acts of Parliament have
given greater liberties to the English people.

England opposed independent local government of Scotland and Ireland
and of her colonies.  Ireland had been oppressed {416} by the malady of
English landlordism, which had always been a bone of contention in the
way of any amicable adjustment of the relations between England and
Ireland.  Throughout the whole century had waged this struggle.
England at times had sought through a series of acts to relieve the
country, but the conservative element in Parliament had usually
thwarted any rational system like that proposed by Mr. Gladstone.  On
the other hand, the Irish people themselves desired absolute freedom
and independence and were restive under any form of restraint.

Nothing short of entire independence from the English nation or the
establishment of home rule on some practical basis could insure peace
and contentment in Ireland.  Nor in the past could one be assured at
any time that Ireland would have been contented for any length of time
had she been given or acquired what she asked for.  Being forced to
support a large population on an infertile soil where landlordism
dominated was a cause of a continual source of discontent, and the lack
of practice of the Irish people in the art of local government always
gave rise to doubts in the minds of her friends as to whether she could
succeed as an independent nation or not.  But the final triumph of
Ireland in establishing a free state with the nominal control of the
British Empire shows that Ireland has power to govern herself under
fair treatment.

What a great gain it would have been if many years ago England had
yielded to the desire of Ireland for an independent constitutional
government similar to that of Canada!  Tremendous changes have taken
place in recent years in the liberalizing movement in England.  The
state church still exists, but religious toleration is complete.  Women
have been allowed the right to vote and are taking deep interest in
political affairs, three women already having seats in Parliament.  The
labor movement, which has always been strong and independent in
England, by the exercise of its right at the polls finally gained
control of the government and, for the first time {417} in the history
of England, a leading labor-union man and a socialist became premier of

_The Final Triumph of the French Republic_.--On account of ignorance of
the true theories of government, as well as on account of lack of
practical exercise in administration, for several decades the
government which the French people established after the destruction of
the monarchy of Louis XVI failed.  The democracy of the French
Revolution was iconoclastic, not creative.  It could tear down, but
could not rebuild.  There were required an increased intelligence and
the slow process of thought, a meditation upon the principles for which
the people had fought and bled, and an enlarged view of the principles
of government, before a republic could be established in France.
Napoleon, catching the spirit of the times, gratified his ambition by
obtaining the mastery of national affairs and leading the French people
against foreign nations under the pretext of overthrowing despotism in
Europe.  In so doing he established absolutism once more in France.  He
became the imperial monarch of the old type, with the exceptions that
intelligence took the place of bigotry and the welfare of the people
took the place of the laudation of kings.  But in attempting to become
the dictator of all Europe, he caused other nations to combine against
him, and finally he closed his great career with a Waterloo.

The monarchy, on its restoration, became constitutional; the government
was composed of two chambers--the peers, nominated by the king, and the
lower house, elected by the people.  A system of responsible ministers
was established, and of judges, who were not removable.  Much had been
gained in religious and civil liberty and the freedom of the press.
But monarchy began to grow again, urged by the middle class of France,
until in July, 1830, another revolution broke out on account of
election troubles.  The charter was violated in the prohibition of the
publication of newspapers and pamphlets, and the elective system
arbitrarily changed so as to restrict the suffrage to the landowners.
The reaction {418} from this was to gain something more for democratic
government.  In the meantime there had been a growth of socialism, the
direct product of the revolution.

The king finally abdicated in favor of his grandson, and then a
provisional government was established, and finally a republic, the
second republic of France.  Louis Napoleon, who became president of the
republic under the constitution, gradually absorbed all powers to
himself and proclaimed himself emperor.  After the close of the
Franco-German War, in 1871, France became a republic for the third
time.  A constitution was formed, under which the legislative power was
exercised by two chambers--the Chamber of Deputies, elected by direct
vote and manhood suffrage for four years, and the Senate, consisting of
300 senators, 75 of whom were elected for life by the national
assembly, the rest for nine years, by electoral colleges.  These latter
were composed of deputies, councils of the departments, and delegates
of communes.  The executive power was vested in a president, who was
assisted by a responsible ministry.  Republicanism was at last secured
to France.  Many changes have taken place in the application of the
constitution to popular government since then, and much progress has
been made in the practice of free government.  The whole composition of
the government reminds one of constitutional monarchy, with the
exception that the monarch is chosen by the people for a short period
of time.

_Democracy in America_.--The progress of democracy in America has been
rapid.  The first colonists were oppressed by the authority of European
nations and bound by unyielding precedent.  While the principle of
local self-government obtained to a large extent in many of them, they
partook more of aristocracies, or of governments based on class
legislation, than of pure democracies.  When independence from foreign
countries was won by the united efforts of all the colonies, the real
struggle for universal liberty began.  A government was founded, so far
as it was possible, on the principles of the Declaration of
Independence, which asserted "that all men {419} are created equal;
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable
rights"; and that "for securing these rights, governments are
instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of
the governed."  The creation of a federal constitution and the
formation of a perfect union guaranteed these rights to every citizen.

Yet in the various states forming a part of the Union, and, indeed, in
the national government itself, it took a long time to approximate, in
practice, the liberty and justice which were set forth in the
Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.  Still, in the past
century, the people have become more and more closely connected with
the state, and a "government of the people, for the people, and by the
people" is a certainty.  The laws which have been made under the
Constitution increase in specific declarations of the rights of the
people.  Justice is more nearly meted out to all classes at present
than in any decade for a century.  The political powers of citizens
have constantly enlarged.  The elective franchise has been extended to
all citizens of both sexes.  The requirements as to naturalization of
foreigners are exceedingly lenient, and thus free government is offered
to all people.

Of necessity the central government has been strengthened on account of
the enlargement of territory and the great extension of national
governmental powers.  It has been necessary that the central forces
which bind the separate parts of the nation together in a common union
should be strengthened.  The result has been a decline in the
importance and power of the state governments.  On the other hand, the
large increase of population in the great cities has tended to enhance
the power and importance of local government.  The government of a
single large city now becomes more difficult and of greater vital
importance to the people than that of a state.

The enlarged territory and increased population, and the enormous
amount of legislative machinery, have tended to extend to its utmost
limit the principle of representative government.  Congress represents
the people of the whole nation, {420} but committees represent Congress
and subcommittees represent committees.  There is a constant tendency
to delegate powers to others.  Pure democracy has no place in the great
American republic, except as it is seen in the local government unit.
Here the people always have a part in the caucus, in the primary or the
town meeting, in the election of local officers and representatives for
higher offices, in the opportunity to exercise their will and raise
their voice in the affairs of the nation.  To some extent the supposed
greater importance of the national government has led the people to
underestimate the opportunities granted them for exercising their
influence as citizens within the precinct in which they live.  But
there is to-day a tendency to estimate justly the importance of local
government as the source of all reforms and the means of the
preservation of civil liberty.

It has been pointed out frequently by the enemies of democracy that the
practice of the people in self-government has not always been of the
highest type.  In many instances this criticism is true, for experience
is always a dear teacher.  The principles of democracy have come to
people through conviction and determination, but the practices of
self-government come through rough experiences, sometimes marked by a
long series of blunders.  The cost of a republican form of government
to the people has frequently been very expensive on account of their
ignorance, their apathy, and their unwillingness to take upon
themselves the responsibilities of government.  Consider, for instance,
the thousands of laws that are made and placed upon the statute-books
which have been of no value, possibly of detriment, to the
community--laws made through the impulse of half-informed, ill-prepared
legislators.  Consider also the constitutions, constitutional
amendments, and other important acts upon which the people express
their opinion.

The smallness of the vote of a people who are jealous of their own
rights and privileges is frequently surprising.  Notice, too, how
frequently popular power has voted against its {421} own rights and
interests.  See the clumsy manner by which people have voted away their
birthrights or, failing to vote at all, have enslaved themselves to
political or financial monopoly.  Observe, too, the expenses of the
management of democratic governments, the waste on account of imperfect
administration, and the failure of the laws to operate.

Consideration of these points brings us to the conclusion that the
perfection of democracy or republican government has not been reached,
and that while liberty may be an expensive affair, it is so on account
of the negligence of the people in qualifying for self-government.  If
a democratic form of government is to prevail, if popular government is
to succeed, if the freedom of the people is to be guaranteed, there
must be persistent effort on the part of the people to prepare
themselves for their own government; a willingness to sacrifice for
liberty, for liberty will endure only so long as people are willing to
pay the price it costs.  They must govern themselves, or government
will pass from them to others.  Eternal vigilance is the price of good

_Modern Political Reforms_.--Political reform has been proceeding
recently in many particular ways.  Perhaps the most noticeable in
America is that of civil service reform.  Strong partisanship has been
a ruling factor in American politics, often to the detriment of the
financial and political interests of the country.  Jealous of their
prerogative, the people have insisted that changes in government shall
occur often, and that the ruling party shall have the privilege of
appointing the officers of the government.  This has made it the almost
universal practice for the incoming party to remove the officers of the
old administration and replace them with its own appointments.  To such
an extent has this prevailed that it has come to be known as the
"spoils system."

But there is now a general tendency for the principles of civil service
to prevail in all parts of the national government, and a growing
feeling that they should be instituted in the various states and
municipalities of the Union.  The {422} federal government has made
rapid progress in this line in recent years, and it is to be hoped that
before long the large proportion of appointive offices will be put upon
a merit basis and the persons who are best qualified to fill these
places retained from administration to administration.  Attempts are
being made in nearly all of our cities for business efficiency in
government, though there is much room for improvement.

The government of the United States is especially weak in
administration, and is far behind many of the governments of the Old
World in this respect.  With a thoroughly established civil service
system, the effectiveness of the administration would be increased
fully fifty per cent.  Under the present party system the waste is
enormous, and as the people must ultimately pay for this waste, the
burden thrown upon them is great.  In the first place, the partisan
system necessarily introduces large numbers of inexperienced,
inefficient officers who must spend some years in actual practice
before they are really fitted for the positions which they occupy.  In
the second place, the time spent by congressmen and other high
officials in attention to applicants for office and in urging of
appointments, prevents them from improving their best opportunity for
real service to the people.

The practice of civil service reform is being rapidly adopted in the
nations of the world which have undertaken the practice of
self-government, and in those nations where monarchy or imperialism
still prevails, persons in high authority feel more and more impelled
to appoint efficient officers to carry out the plans of administrative
government.  It is likely that the time will soon come when all offices
requiring peculiar skill or especial training will be filled on the
basis of efficiency, determined by competitive examination or other
tests of ability.

Another important reform, which has already been begun in the United
States, and which, in its latest movement, originated in Australia, is
ballot reform.  There has been everywhere in democratic government a
tendency for fraud to increase on election days.  The manipulation of
the votes of {423} individuals through improper methods has been the
cause of fraud and a means of thwarting the will of the people.  It is
well that the various states and cities have observed this and set
themselves to the task of making laws to guard properly the ballot-box
and give free, untrammelled expression to the will of the people.
Though nearly all the states in the Union have adopted some system of
balloting (based largely upon the Australian system), many of them are
far from perfection in their systems.  Yet the progress in this line is
encouraging when the gains in recent years are observed.

Since the decline of the old feudal times, in which our modern tax
system had its origin, there has been a constant improvement in the
system of taxation.  Yet this has been very slow and apparently has
been carried on in a bungling way.  The tendency has been to tax every
form of property that could be observed or described.  And so our own
nation, like many others, has gone on, step by step, adding one tax
after another, without carefully considering the fundamental principles
of taxation or the burdens laid upon particular classes.  To-day we
have a complex system, full of irregularities and imperfections.  Our
taxes are poorly and unjustly assessed, and the burdens fall heavily
upon some, while others have an opportunity of escaping.  We have just
entered an era of careful study of our tax systems, and the various
reports from the different states and the writings of economists are
arousing great interest on these points.  When once the imperfections
are clearly understood and defined, there may be some hope of a remedy
of present abuses.  To be more specific, it may be said that the
assessments of the property in counties of the same state vary between
seventeen and sixty per cent of the market valuation.  Sometimes this
discrepancy is between the assessments of adjacent counties, and so
great is the variation that seldom two counties have the same standard
for assessing valuation.

The personal-property tax shows greater irregularity than this,
especially in our large cities.  The tax on imports, though {424}
apparently meeting the approval of a majority of the American people,
makes, upon the whole, a rather expensive system of taxation, and it is
questionable whether sufficient revenue can be raised from this source
properly to support the government without seriously interfering with
our foreign commerce.  The internal revenue has many unsatisfactory
phases.  The income tax has been added to an imperfect system of
taxation, instead of being substituted for the antiquated
personal-property tax.  Taxes on franchises, corporations, and
inheritances are among those more recently introduced in attempts to
reform the tax system.

The various attempts to obtain sufficient revenue to support the
government or to reform an unjust and unequal tax have led to double
taxation, and hence have laid the burden upon persons holding a
specific class of property.  There are to-day no less than five methods
in which double taxation occurs in the present system of taxation of
corporations.  The taxation of mortgages, because it may be shifted to
the borrower, is virtually a double tax.  The great question of the
incidence of taxation, or the determination upon whom the tax
ultimately falls, has not received sufficient care in the consideration
of improved systems of taxation.  Until it has, and until statesmen use
more care in tax legislation and the regulation of the system, and
officers are more conscientious in carrying it out, we need not hope
for any rapid movement in tax reform.  The tendency here, as in all
other reforms, especially where needed, is for some person to suggest a
certain political nostrum--like the single tax--for the immediate and
complete reform of the system and the entire renovation and
purification of society.  But scientific knowledge, clear insight, and
wisdom are especially necessary for any improvement, and even then
improvement will come through a long period of practice, more or less
painful on account of the shifting of methods of procedure.

The most appalling example of the results of modern government is to be
found in the municipal management of our {425} large cities.  It has
become proverbial that the American cities are the worst ruled of any
in the world.  In European countries the evils of city government were
discovered many years ago, and in most of the nations there have been
begun and carried out wisely considered reforms, until many of the
cities of the Old World present examples of tolerably correct municipal

In America there is now a general awakening in every city, but to such
an extent have people, by their indifference or their wickedness, sold
their birthrights to politicians and demagogues and the power of
wealth, that it seems almost impossible to work any speedy radical
reform.  Yet many changes are being instituted in our best cities, and
the persistent effort to manage the city as a business corporation
rather than as a political engine is producing many good results.  The
large and growing urban population has thrown the burden of government
upon the city--a burden which it was entirely unprepared for--and there
have sprung up sudden evils which are difficult to eradicate.  Only
persistent effort, loyalty, sacrifice, and service, all combined with
wisdom, can finally accomplish the reforms needed in cities.  There is
a tendency everywhere for people to get closer to the government, and
to become more and more a part of it.[1]  Our representative system has
enabled us to delegate authority to such an extent that people have
felt themselves irresponsible for all government, except one day in the
year, when they vote at the polls; we need, instead, a determination to
govern 365 days in the year, and nothing short of this perpetual
interest of the people will secure to them the rights of
self-government.  Even then it is necessary that every citizen shall
vote at every election.

_Republicanism in Other Countries_.--The remarkable spread of forms of
republican government in the different nations of the world within the
present century has been unprecedented.  {426} Every independent nation
in South America to-day has a republican form of government.  The
Republic of Mexico has made some progress in the government of the
people, and the dependencies of Great Britain all over the world have
made rapid progress in local self-government.  In Australia, New
Zealand, and Canada, we find many of the most advanced principles and
practices of free government.

It is true that many of these nations calling themselves republics have
not yet guaranteed the rights and privileges of a people to any greater
extent than they would have done had they been only constitutional
monarchies; for it must be maintained at all times that it depends more
upon the characteristics of the people--upon their intelligence, their
social conditions and classes, their ideas of government, and their
character--what the nature of their government shall be, than upon the
mere form of government, whether that be aristocracy, monarchy, or

Many of the evils which have been attributed to monarchy ought more
truly to have been attributed to the vital conditions of society.
Vital social and political conditions are far more important to the
welfare of the people than any mere form of government.  Among the
remarkable expressions of liberal government in modern times has been
the development of the Philippine Islands under the protecting care of
the United States, the establishment of republicanism in Porto Rico and
Hawaii, now parts of the territory of the United States, and the
development of an independent and democratic government in Cuba through
the assistance of the United States.  These expressions of an extended
democracy have had far-reaching consequences on the democratic idealism
of the world.

_Influence of Democracy on Monarchy_.--But the evidences of the
progress of popular government are not all to be observed in republics.
It would be difficult to estimate the influence of the rise of popular
government in some countries upon the monarchial institutions of
others.  This can never be {427} properly determined, because we know
not what would have taken place in these monarchies had republicanism
never prevailed anywhere.  When republicanism arose in France and
America, monarchy was alarmed everywhere; and again, when the
revolutionary wave swept over Europe in 1848, monarchy trembled.
Wherever, indeed, the waves of democracy have swept onward they have
found monarchy raising breakwaters against them.  Yet with all this
opposition there has been a liberalizing tendency in these same
monarchial governments.  Monarchy has been less absolute and less
despotic; the people have had more constitutional rights granted them,
greater privileges to enjoy; and monarchies have been more careful as
to their acts, believing that the people hold in their hands the means
of retribution.  The reforming influence of democratic ideas has been
universal and uninterrupted.

The World War has been iconoclastic in breaking up old forms of
government and has given freedom to the democratic spirit and in many
cases has developed practical democracy.  Along with this, forces of
radicalism have come to the front as an expression of long-pent
feelings of injustice, now for the first time given opportunity to
assert and express themselves.  The ideal of democracy historically
prevalent in Europe has been the rule of the "lower classes" at the
expense of the "upper classes."  This theory has been enhanced by the
spread of Marxian socialism, which advocates the dominance and rule of
the wage-earning class.  The most serious attempt to put this idea in
practice occurred in Russia with disastrous results.


1.  Why did the French Revolution fail to establish liberty?

2.  What were the lasting effects of the English Commonwealth?

3.  What were the causes of liberal government in the Netherlands?

4.  The reform acts in 1832 and in 1867 in England.

5.  The chief causes of trouble between England and Ireland.

6.  The growth of democracy in the United States.


7.  Enumerate the most important modern political reforms.  What are
some needed political reforms?

8.  England's influence on American law and government.

9.  Investigate the population in your community to determine the
extent of human equality.

10.  City government under the municipal manager plan; also commission

[1] Consider the commission form of city government and the municipal
manager plan.




_Industries Radiate from the Land as a Centre_.--In primitive
civilizations industry was more or less incidental to life.  The food
quest, protection of the body from storm and sun by improvised
habitation and the use of skins, furs, bark, and rushes for clothing,
together with the idea of human association for the perpetuation of the
species, are the fundamental notions regarding life.  Under such
conditions industry was fitful and uncertain.  Hunting for vegetable
products and for animals to sustain life, the protection of the life of
individuals from the elements and, incidentally, from the predatory
activities of human beings, were the objectives of primitive man.

As the land is the primary source of all economic life, systematic
industry has always begun in its control and cultivation.  Not until
man settled more or less permanently with the idea of getting his
sustenance from the soil did industrial activities become prominent.
In the development of civilization one must recognize the ever-present
fact that the method of treatment of the land is a determining factor
in its fundamental characteristics, for it must needs be always that
the products that we utilize come from the action of man on nature and
its reaction on him.  While the land is the primary source of wealth,
and its cultivation a primal industry, it does not include the whole
category of industrial enterprises, for tools must be made, art
developed, implements provided, and machinery constructed.  Likewise,
clothing and ornaments were manufactured, and habitations constructed,
and eventually transportation begun to carry people and goods from one
place to another.  These all together make an enlarged group of
activities, all radiating from the soil as a common centre.


We have already referred to the cultivation of the valleys of the
Euphrates and the Nile by systems of irrigation and the tilling of the
soil in the valleys of Greece in the crude and semibarbarous methods
introduced by the barbarians from the north.  We have referred to the
fact that the Romans were the first to develop systematic agriculture,
and even the Teutonic people, the invaders of Rome, were rude
cultivators of the soil.

Social organization is dependent to a large extent upon the method of
attachment to the soil--whether people wander over a large area in the
hunter-fisher and the nomadic stages, or whether they become attached
to the soil permanently.  Thus, the village community developed a
united, neighborly community, built on the basis of mutual aid.  The
feudal system was built upon predatory tribal warfare, where possession
was determined by might to have and to hold.  In the mediaeval period
the manorial system of landholding developed, whereby the lord and his
retainers claimed the land by their right of occupation and the power
to hold, whether this came through conquest, force of arms, or

This manorial system prevailed to a large extent in England, France,
and parts of Germany.  These early methods of landholding were brought
about by people attempting to make their social adjustments, primarily
in relation to survival, and subsequently in relation to the justice
among individuals within the group, or in relation to the reactions
between the groups themselves.  After the breaking down of the Roman
Empire, the well-established systems of landholding in the empire and
the older nations of the Orient in the Middle Ages developed into the
feudal system, which forced all society into groups or classes, from
the lord to the serf.  Subsequently there sprang up the individual
system of landholding, which again readjusted the relation of society
to the land system and changed the social structure.

_The Early Mediaeval Methods of Industry_.--Outside of the tilling of
the soil, the early industries were centred in the home, which gave
rise to the well-known house system of {431} culture.  "Housework" has
primary relation to goods which are created for the needs of the
household.  Much of the early manufacturing industry was carried on
within the household.  Gradually this has disappeared to a large extent
through the multiplication of industries outside the home, power
manufacture, and the organization of labor and capital.

In many instances house culture preceded that of systematic
agriculture.  The natural order was the house culture rising out of the
pursuits of fishing, hunting, and tending flocks and herds, and the
incidental hoe culture which represented the first tilling of the soil
about the tent or hut.  The Indians of North America are good examples
of the development of the house culture in the making of garments from
the skins of animals or from weeds and rushes, the weaving of baskets,
the making of pottery and of boats, and the tanning of hides.  During
all this period, agriculture was of slow growth, it being the
incidental and tentative process of life, while the house culture
represented the permanent industry.

Industries varied in different tribes, one being skilled in
basket-making, another in stone implements for warfare and domestic
use, another in pottery, another in boats, and still another in certain
kinds of clothing--especially the ornaments made from precious stones
or bone.  This made it possible to spread the culture of one group to
other groups, and later there developed the wandering peddler who went
from tribe to tribe trading and swapping goods.  This is somewhat
analogous to the first wage-work system of England, where the
individual went from house to house to perform services for which he
received pay in goods, or, as we say, in kind.  Subsequently the
wage-earner had his own shop, where raw material was sent to him for

All through Europe these customs prevailed and, indeed, in some parts
of America exist to the present day.  We see survivals of these customs
which formerly were permanent, in the people who go from house to house
performing certain types of work or bringing certain kinds of goods for
sale, and, {432} indeed, in the small shop of modern times where goods
are repaired or manufactured.  They represent customs which now are
irregular, but which formerly were permanent methods.  It was a simple
system, requiring no capital, no undertaker or manager, no middleman.
Gradually these customs were replaced by many varied methods, such as
the establishment of the laborer in his individual shop, who at first
only made the raw material, which people brought him, into the finished
product; later he was required to provide his own raw material, taking
orders for certain classes of goods.

After the handcraft system was well established, there was a division
between the manufacturer of goods and those who produced the raw
material, a marked distinction in the division of labor.  The expansion
of systems of industry developed the towns and town life, and as the
manor had been self-sufficient in the manufacture of goods, so now the
town becomes the unit of production, and independent town economy
springs up.  Later we find the towns beginning to trade with each
other, and with this expanded industry the division of labor came about
and the separation of laborers into classes.  First, the merchant and
the manufacturer were united.  It was common for the manufacturer of
goods to have his shop in his own home and, after he had made the
goods, to put them on the shelf until called for by customers.  Later
he had systems of distribution and trade with people in the immediate
locality.  Soon weavers, spinners, bricklayers, packers, tanners, and
other classes became distinctive.  It was some time before
manufacturers and traders, however, became separate groups, and a
longer time before the manufacturer was separated from the merchant,
because the manufacturer must market his own goods.  Industries by
degrees thus became specialized, and trades became clearly defined in
their scope.  This led, of course, to a distinct division of
occupation, and later to a division of labor within the occupation.
The introduction of money after the development of town economy brought
about the wage system, whereby people were paid in money rather than
{433} kind.  This was a great step forward in facilitating trade and

One of the earliest methods of developing organized industrial society
was through the various guilds of the Middle Ages.  They represented
the organization of the industries of a given town, with the purpose of
establishing a monopoly in trade of certain kinds of goods, and
secondarily to develop fraternal organization, association, and
co-operation among groups of people engaged in the same industry.
Perhaps it should be mentioned that the first in order of development
of the guilds was known as the "guild-merchant," which was an
organization of all of the inhabitants of the town engaged in trading
or selling.  This was a town monopoly of certain forms of industry
controlled by the members of that industry.  It partook of the nature
of monopoly of trade, and had a vast deal to do with the social
organization of the town.  Its power was exercised in the place of more
systematic political town government.  However, after the political
town government became more thoroughly established, the guild-merchant
declined, but following the decline of the guild-merchant, the craft
guild developed, which was an organization of all of the manufacturers
and traders in a given craft.  This seemed to herald the coming of the
trade-union after the industrial machinery of society had made a number
of changes.  English industrial society became finally completely
dominated, as did societies in countries on the Continent, by the craft

All the payments in the handcraft system were at first in kind.  When
the laborer had finished his piece of goods, his pay consisted in
taking a certain part of what he had created in the day or the week.
Also, when he worked by the day he received his pay in kind.  This
system prevailed until money became sufficiently plentiful to enable
the payment of wages for piecework and by the day.  The payment in
kind, of course, was a very clumsy and wasteful method of carrying on
industry.  Many methods of payment in kind prevailed for centuries,
even down to recent times in America.  Before the great {434}
flour-mills were developed, the farmer took his wheat to the mill, out
of which the miller took a certain percentage for toll in payment for
grinding.  The farmer took the remainder home with him in the form of
flour.  So, too, we have in agriculture the working of land on shares,
a certain percentage of the crops going to the owner and the remainder
to the tiller of the soil.  Fruit is frequently picked on shares, which
is nothing more than payment for services in kind.

_The Beginnings of Trade_.--While these simple changes were slowly
taking place in the towns and villages of Europe, there were larger
movements of trade being developed, not only between local towns, but
between the towns of one country and those of another, which led later
to international trade and commerce.  Formerly trade had become of
world importance in the early Byzantine trade with the Orient and
Phoenicia.  After the crusades, the trade of the Italian cities with
the Orient and northwest Europe was of tremendous importance.[1] In
connection with this, the establishment of the Hanseatic League, of
which Hamburg was a centre, developed trade between the east and the
west and the south.  These three great mediaeval trade movements
represent powerful agencies in the development of Europe.  They carried
with them an exchange of goods and an exchange of ideas as well.  This
interchange stimulated thought and industrial activity throughout

_Expansion of Trade and Transportation_.--The great discoveries in the
fifteenth and sixteenth centuries had a vast deal to do with the
expansion of trade.  The discovery of America, the establishment of
routes to the Philippines around South America and to India around
South Africa opened up wide vistas, not only for exploration but for
the exchange of goods.  Also, this brought about national trade, and
with it national competition.  From this time on the struggle for the
supremacy of the sea was as important as the struggle of the various
nations for extended territory.  Portugal, the {435} Netherlands,
England, and Spain were competing especially for the trade routes of
the world.  France and England were drawn into sharp competition
because of the expansion of English trade and commerce.  Portugal
became a great emporium for the distribution of Oriental goods after
she became a maritime power, with a commercial supremacy in India and
China.  Subsequently she declined and was forced to unite with Spain,
and even after she obtained her freedom, in the seventeenth century,
her war with the Netherlands caused her to lose commercial supremacy.

The rise of the Dutch put the Netherlands to the front and Antwerp and
Amsterdam became the centres of trade for the Orient.  Dutch trade
continued to lead the world until the formation of the English East and
West India companies, which, with their powerful monopoly on trade,
brought England to the front.  Under the monopolies of these great
companies and other private monopolies, England forged ahead in trade
and commerce.  But the private monopolies became so powerful that
Cromwell, by the celebrated Navigation Acts of 1651, made a gigantic
trade monopoly of the English nation.  The development of agricultural
products and manufactures in England, together with her immense
carrying trade, made her mistress of the seas.  The results of this
trade development were to bring the products of every clime in exchange
for the manufactured goods of Europe, and to bring about a change of
ideas which stimulated thought and life, not only in material lines but
along educational and spiritual lines as well.

_Invention and Discoveries_.--One of the most remarkable eras of
progress in the whole range of modern civilization appeared at the
close of the eighteenth century and the beginning of the nineteenth,
especially in England.  The expanded trade and commerce of England had
made such a demand for economic goods that it stimulated invention of
new processes of production.  The spinning of yarn became an important
industry.  It was a slow process, and could not supply the {436}
weavers so that they could keep their looms in operation.  Moreover,
Kay introduced what is known as the drop-box and flying shuttle in
1738, which favored weaving to the detriment of spinning, making the
trouble worse.

In the extremity of trade the Royal Society offered a prize to any
person who would invent a machine to spin a number of threads at the
same time.  As a result of this demand, James Hargreaves in 1764
invented the spinning-jenny, which was followed by Arkwright's
invention of spinning by rollers, which was patented in 1769.
Combining Arkwright's and Hargreaves's inventions, Crompton in 1779
invented the spinning-"mule."  This quickened the process of spinning
and greatly increased the production of the weavers.  But one necessity
satisfied leads to another in invention, and Cartwright's powerloom,
which was introduced in 1784, came into general use at the beginning of
the nineteenth century.

During this period America had become a producer of cotton, and Eli
Whitney's cotton-gin, invented in 1792, which separated the seeds from
the cotton fibre in the boll, greatly stimulated the production of
cotton in the United States.  In the meanwhile the steam-engine, which
had been perfected in 1769, was applied to power manufacture in 1785 by
James Watt.  This was the final stroke that completed the power
manufacture of cotton and woollen goods.

Other changes were brought about by the new method of smelting ore by
means of coal, charcoal having been hitherto used for the process, and
the invention of the blast-furnace in 1760 by Roebuck, which brought
the larger use of metals into the manufactures of the world.  To aid in
the carrying trade, the building of canals between the large
manufacturing towns in England to the ocean, and the building of
highways over England, facilitated transportation and otherwise
quickened industry.  Thus we have in a period of less than forty years
the most remarkable and unprecedented change in industry, which has
never been exceeded in importance even by the introduction of the
gasoline-engine and electrical power.


_The Change of Handcraft to Power Manufacture_.--Prior to the
development of the mechanical contrivances for spinning and weaving and
the application of steam-power to manufacturing, nearly everything in
Europe was made by hand.  All clothing, carpets, draperies, tools,
implements, furniture--everything was hand-made.  In this process no
large capital was needed, no great factories, no great assemblage of
laborers, no great organization of industry.  The work was done in
homes and small shops by individual enterprise, mainly, or in
combinations of laborers and masters.  Power manufacture and the
inventions named above changed the whole structure of industrial

_The Industrial Revolution_.--The period from 1760 to about 1830 is
generally given as that of the industrial revolution, because this
period is marked by tremendous changes in the industrial order.  It
might be well to remark, however, that if the industrial revolution
began about 1760, it has really never ended, for new inventions and new
discoveries have continually come--a larger use of steam-power, the
introduction of transportation by railroads and steamship-lines, the
modern processes of agriculture, the large use of electricity, with
many inventions, have constantly increased power manufacture and drawn
the line more clearly between the laborers on one side and the
capitalists or managers on the other.

In the first place, because the home and the small shop could not
contain the necessary machinery, large factories equipped with great
power-machines became necessary, and into the factories flocked the
laborers, who formerly were independent handcraft manufacturers or
merchants.  It was necessary to have people to organize this labor and
to oversee its work--that is, "bosses" were necessary.  Under these
circumstances the capitalistic managers were using labor with as little
consideration or, indeed, less than they used raw material in the
manufacture of goods.  The laborers must seek employment in the great
factories.  The managers forced them down to the lowest rate of wage,
caused them to live in {438} ill-ventilated factories in danger of life
and health from the machinery, and to work long hours.  They employed
women and children, who suffered untold miseries.  The production of
goods demanded more and more coal, and women went into the coal-mines
and worked fourteen to sixteen hours a day.

Society was not ready for the great and sudden change and could not
easily adjust itself to new conditions.  Capital was necessary, and
must have its reward.  Factories were necessary to give the laborers a
chance to labor.  Labor was necessary, but it did not seem necessary to
give any consideration to the justice of the laborer nor to his
suffering.  The wage system and the capitalistic system
developed--systems that the socialists have been fighting against for
more than a century.  Labor, pressed down and suffering, arose in its
own defense and organized.  It was successively denied the right to
assemble, to organize, to strike, but in each separate case the law
prevailed in its favor.

All through the development of European history the ordinary laborer
never received full consideration regarding his value and his rights.
It is true at times that he was happy and contented without
improvement, but upon the whole the history of Europe has been the
history of kings, queens, princes, and nobility, and wars for national
aggrandizement, increased territory, or the gratification of the whims
of the dominant classes.  The laborer has endured the toil, fought the
battles, and paid the taxes.  Here we find the introduction of
machinery, which in the long run will make the world more prosperous,
happier, and advance it in civilization, yet the poor laborer must be
the burden-bearer.

Gradually, however, partly by his own demands, partly by the growing
humanity of capitalistic employers, and partly because of the interest
of outside philanthropic statesmen, labor has been protected by laws.
In the first place, all trades are organized, and nearly all
organizations are co-operating sympathetically with one another.  Labor
has been able thus to demand things and to obtain them, not only by the
persistency {439} of demand, but by the force of the strike which
compels people to yield.  To-day the laborer has eight hours a day of
work in a factory well ventilated and well lighted, protected from
danger and accident, insured by law, better wages than he has ever had,
better opportunities for life and the pursuit of happiness, better fed,
better clothed, and better housed than ever before in the history of
the world.

Yet the whole problem is far from being settled, because it is not easy
to define the rights, privileges, and duties of organized labor.  Some
things we know, and one is that the right to strike does not carry with
it the right to destroy, or the right to organize the right to oppress
others.  But let us make the lesson universal and apply the same to
capitalistic organizations and the employers' associations.  And while
we make the latter responsible for their deeds, let us make the
organization of the former also responsible, and let the larger
community called the state determine justice between groups and insure
freedom and protection to all.

_Modern Industrial Development_.--It was stated above that the
industrial revolution is still going on.  One need only to glance at
the transformation caused by the introduction of railway transportation
and steam navigation in the nineteenth century, to the uses of the
telegraph, the telephone, the gasoline-engine, and later the radio and
the airplane, to see that the introduction of these great factors in
civilization must continue to make changes in the social order.  They
have brought about quantity transportation, rapidity of manufacture,
and rapidity of trade, and stimulated the activities of life
everywhere.  This stimulation, which has brought more things for
material improvement, has caused people to want paved streets, electric
lights, and modern buildings, which have added to the cost of living
through increased taxation.  The whole movement has been characterized
by the accumulated stress of life, which demands greater activity, more
goods consumed, new desires awakened, and greater efforts to satisfy
them.  The quickening process goes on unabated.


In order to carry out these great enterprises, the industrial
organization is complex in the extreme and tremendous in its magnitude.
Great corporations capitalized by millions, great masses of laborers
assembled which are organized from the highest to the lowest in the
great industrial army, represent the spectacular display.  And to be
mentioned above all is the great steam-press that sends the daily paper
to every home and the great public-school system that puts the book in
every hand.

_Scientific Agriculture_.--It has often been repeated that man's wealth
comes originally from the soil, and that therefore the condition of
agriculture is an index of the opportunity offered for progress.  What
has been done in recent years, especially in England and America, in
the development of a higher grade stock, so different from the old
scrub stock of the Colonial period; in the introduction of new grains,
new fertilizers, improved soils, and the adaptability of the crop to
the soil in accordance with the nature of both; the development of new
fruits and flowers by scientific culture--all have brought to the door
of man an increased food-supply of great variety and of improved
quality.  This is conducive to the health and longevity of the race, as
well as to the happiness and comfort of everybody.  Moreover, the
introduction of agricultural machinery has changed the slow, plodding
life of the farmer to that of the master of the steam-tractor,
thresher, and automobile, changed the demand from a slow, inactive mind
to the keenest, most alert, best-educated man of the nation, who must
study the highest arts of production, the greatest economy, and the
best methods of marketing.  Truly, the industrial revolution applies
not to factories alone.

_The Building of the City_.--The modern industrial development has
forced upon the landscape the great city.  No one particularly wanted
it.  No one called it into being--it just came at the behest of the
conditions of rapid transportation, necessity of centralization of
factories where cheap distribution could be had, not only for the raw
material but for the {441} finished product, and where labor could be
furnished with little trouble--all of these things have developed a
city into which rush the great products of raw material, and out of
which pour the millions of manufactured articles and machinery; into
which pours the great food-supply to keep the laborers from starving.
Into the city flows much of the best blood of the country, which seeks
opportunity for achievement.  The great city is inevitable so long as
great society insists on gigantic production and as great consumption,
but the city idea is overwrought beyond its natural condition.  If some
power could equalize the transportation question, so that a factory
might be built in a smaller town, where raw material could be furnished
as cheaply as in the large city, and the distribution of goods be as
convenient, there is no reason why the population might not be more
evenly distributed, to its own great improvement.

_Industry and Civilization_.--But what does this mean so far as human
progress is concerned?  We have increased the material production of
wealth and added to the material comfort of the inhabitants of the
world.  We have extended the area of wealth to the dark places of the
world, giving means of improvement and enlightenment.  We have
quickened the intellect of man until all he needs to do is to direct
the machinery of his own invention.  Steam, electricity, and
water-power have worked for him.  It has given people leisure to study,
investigate, and develop scientific discoveries for the improvement of
the race, protecting them from danger and disease and adding to their
comfort.  It has given opportunity for the development of the higher
spiritual power in art, music, architecture, religion, and science.

Industrial progress is something more than the means of heaping up
wealth.  It has to do with the well-being of humanity.  It is true we
have not yet been able to carry out our ideals in this matter, but
slowly and surely industrial liberty and justice are following in the
wake of the freedom of the mind to think, the freedom of religious
belief, and the {442} political freedom of self-government.  We are
to-day in the fourth great period of modern development, the
development of justice in industrial relations.

Moreover, all of this quickening of industry has brought people
together from all over the world.  London is nearer New York than was
Philadelphia in revolutionary times.  Not only has it brought people
closer together in industry, but in thought and sympathy.  There have
been developed a world ethics, a world trade, and a world interchange
of science and improved ideas of life.  It has given an increased
opportunity for material comforts and an increased opportunity for the
achievement of the ordinary man who seeks to develop all the capacities
and powers granted him by nature.


1.  Show that land is the foundation of all industry.

2.  Compare condition of laborers now with conditions before the
industrial revolution.

3.  Are great organizations of business necessary to progress?

4.  Do railroads create wealth?

5.  Does the introduction of machinery benefit the wage-earner?

6.  How does rapid ocean-steamship transportation help the United

7.  If England should decline in wealth and commerce, would the United
States be benefited thereby?

8.  How does the use of electricity benefit industry?

9.  To what extent do you think the government should control or manage

10.  Is Industrial Democracy possible?

11.  Cutting and hammering two processes of primitive civilization.
What mechanical inventions take the place of the stone hammer and the
stone knife?

[1] See Chapter XXI.




_The Evolutionary Processes of Society_.--Social activity is primarily
group activity.  Consequently the kind and nature of the group, the
methods which brought its members together, its organization and
purpose, indicate the type of civilization and the possibility of
achievement.  As group activity means mutual aid of members, and
involves processes of co-operation in achievement, the type of society
is symbolic of the status of progress.  The function of the group is to
establish social order of its members, protect them from external foes,
as well as internal maladies, and to bring into existence a new force
by which greater achievement is possible than when individuals are
working separately.

_The Social Individual_.--While society is made of physio-psychic
individuals, as a matter of fact the social individual is made by
interactions and reactions arising from human association.  Society on
one hand and the social individual on the other are both developed at
the same time through the process of living together in co-operation
and mutual aid.  Society once created, no matter how imperfect, begins
its work for the good of all its members.  It begins to provide against
cold and hunger and to protect from wild animals and wild men.  It
becomes a feeling, thinking, willing group seeking the best for all.
It is in the fully developed society that the social process appears of
providing a water-supply, sanitation through sewer systems,
preventative medicine and health measures, public education, means of
establishing its members in rights, duties, and privileges, and
protecting them in the pursuit of industry.

_The Ethnic Society_.--Just at what period society became well
established is not known, but there are indications that some forms of
primitive family life and social activities were {444} in existence
among the men of the Old Stone Age, and certainly in the Neolithic
period.  After races had reached a stage of permanent historical
records, or had even handed down traditions from generation to
generation, there are evidences of family life and tribal or national
achievements.  Though there are evidences of religious group activities
prior to formal tribal life, it may be stated in general that the first
permanent organization was on a family or ethnic basis.  Blood
relationship was the central idea of cohesion, which was early aided by
religious superstition and belief.  Following this idea, all of the
ancient monarchies and empires were based on the ethnic group or race.
All of this indicates that society was based on natural law, and from
that were gradually evolved the general and political elements which
foreshadowed the enlarged functions of the more complex society of
modern times.

_The Territorial Group_.--Before the early tribal groups had settled
down to permanent habitations, they had developed many social
activities, but when they became permanently settled they passed from
the ethnic to the demographic form of social order--that is, they
developed a territorial group that performed all of its functions
within a given boundary which they called their own.  From this time on
population increased and occupied territory expanded, and the group
became self-sufficient and independent in character.  Then it could
co-operate with other groups and differentiate functions within.
Industrial, religious, and political groups, sacred orders, and
voluntary associations became prominent, all under the protection of
the general social order.

_The National Group Founded on Race Expansion_.--Through conquest,
amalgamation, and assimilation, various independent groups were united
in national life.  All of the interior forces united in the
perpetuation of the nation, which became strong and domineering in its
attitude toward others.  This led to warfare, conquest, or plunder, the
union of the conquered with the conquerors, and imperialism came into
being.  Growth of wealth and population led to the demand for more
territory {445} and the continuation of strife and warfare.  The rise
and fall of nations, the formation and dissolving of empires under the
constant shadow of war continued through the ages.  While some progress
was made, it was in the face of conspicuous waste of life and energy,
and the process of national protection of humanity has been of doubtful
utility.  Yet the development of hereditary leadership, the dominance
of privileged classes, and the formation of traditions, laws, and forms
of government went on unabated, during which the division of industrial
and social functions within, causing numerous classes to continually
differentiate, took place.

_The Functions of New Groups_.--In all social groupings the function
always precedes the form or structure of the social order.  Society
follows the method of organic evolution in growing by differentiation.
New organs or parts are formed, which in time become strengthened and
developed.  The organs or parts become more closely articulated with
each other and with the whole social body, and finally over all is the
great society, which defends, shields, protects, and fights for all.
The individual may report for life service in many departments, through
which his relation to great society must be manifested.  He no longer
can go alone in his relation to the whole mass.  He may co-operate in a
general way, it is true, with all, but must have a particularly active
co-operation in the smaller groups on which his life service and life
sustenance depend.  The multiplication of functions leads to increased
division of service and to increased co-operation.  In the industrial
life the division of labor and formation of special groups are more
clearly manifested.

_Great Society and the Social Order_.--This is manifested chiefly in
the modern state and the powerful expression of public opinion.  No
matter how traditional, autocratic, and arbitrary the centralized
government becomes, there is continually arising modifying power from
local conditions.  There are things that the czar or the king does not
do if he wishes to continue in permanent authority.  From the masses of
the {446} people there arises opposition to arbitrary power, through
expressed discontent, public opinion, or revolution.  The whole social
field of Europe has been a seething turmoil of action and reaction, of
autocracy and the demand for human rights.  Thirst for national
aggrandizement and power and the lust of the privileged classes have
been modified by the distressing cry of the suffering people.  What a
slow process is social evolution and what a long struggle has been
waged for human rights!

_Great Society Protects Voluntary Organizations_.--Freedom of assembly,
debate, and organization is one of the important traits of social
organization.  With the ideal of democracy comes also freedom of speech
and the press.  Voluntary organizations for the good of the members or
for a distinctive agency for general good may be made and receive
protection in society at large through law, the courts, and public
opinion; but the right to organize does not carry with it the right to
destroy, and all such organizations must conform to the general good as
expressed in the laws of the land.  Sometimes organizations interested
in their own institutions have been detrimental to the general good.
Even though they have law and public opinion with them, in their zeal
for propaganda they have overstepped the rules of progress.  But such
conditions cannot last; progress will cause them to change their
attitude or they meet a social death.

_The Widening Service of the Church_.--The importance of the religious
life in the progress of humanity is acknowledged by all careful
scholars.  Sometimes, it is true, this religious belief has been
detrimental to the highest interests of social welfare.  Religion
itself is necessarily conservative, and when overcome by superstition,
tradition, and dogmatism, it may stifle the intellect and retard
progress.  The history of the world records many instances of this.

The modern religious life, however, has taken upon it, as a part of its
legitimate function, the ethical relations of mankind.  Ethics has been
prominent in the doctrine and service of the church.  When the church
turned its attention to the {447} future life, with undue neglect of
the present, it became non-progressive and worked against the best
interests of social progress.  When it based its operation entirely
upon faith, at the expense of reason and judgment, it tended to enslave
the intellect and to rob mankind of much of its best service.  But when
it turned its attention to sweetening and purifying the present,
holding to the future by faith, that man might have a larger and better
life, it opened the way for social progress.  Its motto has been, in
recent years, the salvation of this life that the future may be
assured.  Its aim is to seize the best that this life furnishes and to
utilize it for the elevation of man, individually and socially.  Its
endeavor is to save this life as the best and holiest reality yet
offered to man.  Faith properly exercised leads to invention,
discovery, social activity, and general culture.  It gives an impulse
not only to religious life, but to all forms of social activity.  But
it must work with the full sanction of intelligence and allow a
continual widening activity of reason and judgment.

The church has shown a determination to take hold of all classes of
human society and all means of reform and regeneration.  It has evinced
a tendency to seize all the products of culture, all the improvements
of science, all the revelations of truth, and turn them to account in
the upbuilding of mankind on earth, in perfecting character and
relieving mankind, in developing the individual and improving social
conditions.  The church has thus entered the educational world, the
missionary field, the substratum of society, the political life, and
the field of social order, everywhere becoming a true servant of the

_Growth of Religious Toleration_.--There is no greater evidence of the
progress of human society than the growth of religious toleration.  In
the first hundred years of the Reformation, religious toleration was
practically unknown.  Indeed, the last fifty years has seen a more
rapid growth in this respect than in the previous three hundred.
Luther and his followers could not tolerate Calvinists any more than
they could {448} Catholics, and Calvinists, on the other hand, could
tolerate no other religious opinion.

The slow evolution of religious toleration in England is one of the
most remarkable things in history.  Henry VIII, "Defender of the
Faith," was opposed to religious liberty.  Queen Mary persecuted all
except Catholics.  Elizabeth completed the establishment of the
Anglican Church, though, forced by political reasons, she gave more or
less toleration to all parties.  But Cromwell advocated unrelenting
Puritanism by legislation and by the sword.  James I, though a
Protestant wedded to imperialism in government, permitted oppression.
The Bill of Rights, which secured to the English people the privileges
of constitutional government, insisted that no person who should
profess the "popish" religion or marry a "papist" should be qualified
to wear the crown of England.

At the close of the sixteenth century it was a common principle of
belief that any person who adhered to heterodox opinions in religion
should be burned alive or otherwise put to death.  Each church adhered
to this sentiment, though, it is true, many persons believed
differently, and at the close of the seventeenth century Bossuet, the
great French ecclesiastic, maintained with close argument that the
right of the civil magistrate to punish religious errors was a point on
which nearly all churches agreed, and asserted that only two bodies of
Christians, the Socinians and the Anabaptists, denied it.

In 1673 all persons holding office under the government of England were
compelled to take the oath of supremacy and of allegiance, to declare
against transubstantiation, and to take the sacrament according to the
ritual of the established church.  In 1689 the Toleration Act was
passed, exempting dissenters from the Church of England from the
penalties of non-attendance on the service of the established church.
This was followed by a bill abolishing episcopacy in Scotland.  In 1703
severe laws were passed in Ireland against those who professed the
Roman Catholic religion.  The Test Act was not repealed until 1828,
when the oath was taken "on the true {449} faith of a Christian," which
was substituted for the sacrament test.

From this time on Protestant dissenters might hold office.  In the year
following, the Catholic Relief Act extended toleration to the
Catholics, permitting them to hold any offices except those of regent,
lord chancellor of England or Ireland, and of viceroy of Ireland.  In
1858, by act of Parliament, Jews were for the first time admitted to
that body.  In 1868 the Irish church was disestablished and disendowed,
and a portion of its funds devoted to education.  But it was not until
1871 that persons could lecture in the universities of Oxford and
Cambridge without taking the sacrament of the established church and
adhering to its principles.

The growth of toleration in America has been evinced in the struggle of
the different denominations for power.  The church and the state,
though more or less closely connected in the colonies of America, have
been entirely separated under the Constitution, and therefore the
struggle for liberal views has been between the different denominations
themselves.  In Europe and in America one of the few great events of
the century has been the entire separation of church and state.  It has
gone so far in America that most of the states have ceased to aid any
private or denominational institutions.

There is a tendency, also, not to support Indian schools carried on by
religious denominations, or else to have them under the especial
control of the United States government.  There has been, too, a
liberalizing tendency among the different denominations themselves.  In
some rural districts, and among ignorant classes, bigotry and
intolerance, of course, break out occasionally, but upon the whole
there is a closer union of the various denominations upon a
co-operative basis of redeeming men from error, and a growing tendency
to tolerate differing beliefs.

_Altruism and Democracy_.--The law of evolution that involves the
survival of the fittest of organic life when applied to humanity was
modified by social action.  But as man must {450} always figure as an
individual and his development is caused by intrinsic and extrinsic
stimuli, he has never been free from the exercise of the individual
struggle for existence, no matter how highly society is developed nor
to what extent group activity prevails.  The same law continues in
relation to the survival of the group along with other groups, and as
individual self-interest, the normal function of the individual, may
pass into selfishness, so group interest may pass into group
selfishness, and the dominant idea of the group may be its own
survival.  This develops institutionalism, which has been evidenced in
every changing phase of social organization.

Along with this have grown altruistic principles based on the law of
love, which in its essentials is antagonistic to the law of the
survival of the fittest.  It has been developed from two sources--one
which originally was founded on race morality, that is, the protection
of individuals for the good of the order, and the other that of
sympathy with suffering of the weak and unprotected.  In the progress
of modern society the application of Christian principles to life has
kept pace with the application of democratic principles in establishing
the rights of man.

Gradually the duty of society to protect and care for the weak has
become generally recognized.  This idea has been entirely
overemphasized in many cases, on the misapplication of the theory that
one individual is as good as another and entitled to equality of
treatment by all.  At least it is possible for the normal progress of
society to be retarded if the strong become weakened by excessive care
of the weak.  The law of love must be so exercised that it will not
increase weakness on the part of those being helped, nor lessen the
opportunities of the strong to survive and manifest their strength.
The history of the English Poor Law is an account of the systematic
care of pauperism to the extent that paupers were multiplied so that
those who were bearing the burden of taxation for their support found
it easier and, indeed, sometimes necessary to join the pauper ranks in
order to live at all.


Many are alarmed to-day at the multiplication of the number of insane,
weak-minded, imbeciles, and paupers who must be supported by the
taxation of the people and helped in a thousand ways by the altruism of
individuals and groups.  Unless along with this excessive altruistic
care, scientific principles of breeding, of prevention, and of care can
be introduced, the dependent, defective, and delinquent classes of the
world will eventually become a burden to civilization.  Society cannot
shirk its duty to care for these groups, but it would be a misfortune
if they reach a status where they can demand support and protection of
society.  It is a question whether we have not already approached in a
measure this condition.  Fortunately there is enough knowledge in the
world of science regarding man and society to prevent any such
catastrophe, if it could only be applied.

Hence, since one of the great ideals of life is to develop a perfect
society built upon rational principles, the study of social pathology
has become important.  The care of the weak and the broken-down classes
of humanity has something more than altruism as a foundation.  Upon it
rest the preservation of the individual and the perpetuation of a
healthy social organism.  The care of the insane, of imbeciles, of
criminals, and of paupers is exercised more nearly on a scientific
basis each succeeding year.  Prevention and reform are the fundamental
ideas in connection with the management of these classes.  Altruism may
be an initial motive power, prompting people to care for the needy and
the suffering, but necessity for the preservation of society is more
powerful in its final influences.

To care for paupers without increasing pauperism is a great question,
and is rapidly putting all charity upon a scientific basis.  To care
for imbeciles without increasing imbecility, and to care for criminals
on the basis of the prevention and decrease of crime, are among the
most vital questions of modern social life.  As the conditions of human
misery become more clearly revealed to humanity, and their evil effects
on the social system become more apparent, greater efforts will be
{452} put forward--greater than ever before--in the care of dependents,
defectives, and delinquents.  Not only must the pathology of the
individual be studied, for the preservation of his physical system, but
the pathology of human society must receive scientific investigation in
order to perpetuate the social organism.

_Modern Society a Machine of Great Complexity_.--While the family
remains as the most persistent primary unit of social organization out
of which differentiated the great social functions of to-day, it now
expresses but a very small part of the social complex.  It is true it
is still a conserving, co-operating, propagating group of individuals,
in which appear many of the elemental functions of society.  While it
represents a group based on blood relationship, as in the old dominant
family drawn together by psychical influences and preserved on account
of the protection of the different members of the group and the various
complex relations between them, still within its precincts are found
the elementary practices of economic life, the rights of property, and
the beginnings of education and religion.  Outside of this family
nucleus there have been influences of common nationality and common
ancestry or race, which are natural foundations of an expanded society.

Along with this are the secondary influences, the memories and
associations of a common birthplace or a common territorial community,
and by local habitation of village, town, city, or country.  But the
differentiation of industrial functions or activities has been most
potent in developing social complexity.  The multiplication of
activities, the choice of occupation, and the division of labor have
multiplied the economic groups by the thousand.  Following this,
natural voluntary social groups spring up on every hand.

Again, partly by choice and partly by environment, we find society
drawn together in other groups, more or less influenced by those just
enumerated.  From the earliest forms of social existence we find men
are grouped together on the basis of wealth.  The interests of the rich
are common, as are also the {453} interests of the poor and those of
the well-to-do.  Nor is it alone a matter of interest, but in part of
choice, that these groupings occur.  This community of interests brings
about social coherence.

Again, the trades, professions, and occupations of men draw them
together in associated groups.  It is not infrequent that men engaged
in the same profession are thrown together in daily contact, have the
same interests, sentiments, and thought, and form in this way a group
which stands almost aloof from other groups in social life; tradesmen
dealing in a certain line of goods are thrown together in the same way.
But the lines in these groupings must not be too firmly drawn, for
groups formed on the basis of friendship may cover a field partaking in
part of all these different groups.  Again, we shall find that the
school lays the foundation of early associations, and continues to have
an influence in creating social aggregates.  Fraternal societies and
political parties in the same way form associated groups.

The church at large forms a great organizing centre, the influence of
which in political and social life enlarges every day.  The church body
arranges itself in different groups on the basis of the different sects
and denominations, and within the individual church organization there
are small groups or societies, which again segregate religious social
life.  But over and above all these various social groups and classes
is the state, binding and making all cohere in a common unity.

The tendency of this social life is to differentiate into more and more
groups, positive in character, which renders our social existence
complex and difficult to analyze.  The social groups overlap one
another, and are interdependent in all their relations.  In one way the
individual becomes more and more self-constituted and independent in
his activity; in another way he is dependent on all his fellows for
room or opportunity for action.

This complexity of social life renders it difficult to estimate the
real progress of society; yet, taking any one of these {454} individual
groups, it will be found to be improving continually.  School life and
school associations show a marked improvement; family life,
notwithstanding the various evidences of the divorce courts, shows
likewise an improved state as intelligence increases; the social life
of the church becomes larger and broader.  The spread of literature and
learning, the increase of education, renders each social group more
self-sustaining and brings about a higher life, with a better code of
morals.  Even political groups have their reactions, in which,
notwithstanding the great room for improvement, they stand for morality
and justice.  The relations of man to man are becoming better
understood every day.  His fickleness and selfishness are more readily
observed in recent than in former times, and as a result the evils of
the present are magnified, because they are better understood; in
reality, social conditions are improving, and the fact that social
conditions are understood and evils clearly observed promises a great
improvement for the future.

_Interrelation of Different Parts of Society_.--The various social
aggregates are closely interrelated and mutually dependent upon one
another.  The state itself, though expressing the unity of society, is
a highly complex organization, consisting of forms of local and central
government.  These parts, having independent functions, are
co-ordinated to the general whole.  Voluntary organizations have their
specific relation to the state, which fosters and protects them on an
independent basis.  The school, likewise, has its relation to the
social life, having an independent function, yet touching all parts of
the social life.

We find the closest interdependence of individuals in the economic
life.  Each man performs a certain service which he exchanges for the
services of others.  The wealth which he creates with his own hand,
limited in kind, must be exchanged for all the other commodities which
he would have.  More than this, all people are ranged in economic
groups, each group dependent upon all the others--the farmers dependent
upon {455} the manufacturers of implements and goods, upon bankers,
lawyers, ministers, and teachers; the manufacturers dependent upon the
farmers and all the other classes; and so with every class.

This interdependent relation renders it impossible to improve one group
without improving the others, or to work a great detriment to one group
without injuring the others.  If civilization is to be perpetuated and
improved, the banker must be interested in the welfare of the farmer,
the farmer in the welfare of the banker, both in the prosperity of
manufacturers, and all in the welfare of the common laborer.  The
tendency for this mutual interest to increase is evinced in all human
social relations, and speaks well for the future of civilization.

_The Progress of the Race Based on Social
Opportunities_.--Anthropologists tell us that no great change in the
physical capacity of man has taken place for many centuries.  The
maximum brain capacity has probably not exceeded that of the Crô-Magnon
race in the Paleolithic period of European culture.  Undoubtedly,
however, there has been some change in the quality of the brain,
increasing its storage batteries of power and through education the
utilization of that power.  We would scarcely expect, however, with all
of our education and scientific development, to increase the stature of
man or to enlarge his brain.  Much is being done, however, in getting
the effective service of the brain not only through natural selective
processes, but through education.  The improvement of human society has
been brought about largely by training and the increased knowledge
which it has brought to us through invention and discovery, and their
application to the practical and theoretical arts.

All these would have been buried had it not been for the protection of
co-operative society and the increased power derived therefrom.  Even
though we exercise the selective power of humanity under the direction
of our best intelligence, the individual must find his future
opportunity in the better {456} conditions furnished by society.
Granted that individual and racial powers are essential through
hereditary development, progress can only be obtained by the expression
of these powers through social activity.  For it is only through social
co-operation that a new power is brought into existence, namely,
achievement by mutual aid.  This assertion does not ignore the fact
that the mutations of progress arise from the brain centres of
geniuses, and that by following up these mutations by social action
they may become productive and furnish opportunity for progress.

_The Central Idea of Modern Civilization_.--The object of life is not
to build a perfect social mechanism.  It is only a means to a greater
end, namely, that the individual shall have opportunity to develop and
exercise the powers which nature has given him.  This involves an
opportunity for the expression of his whole nature, physical and
mental, for the satisfaction of his normal desires for home, happiness,
prosperity, and achievement.  It involves, too, the question of
individual rights, privileges, and duties.

The history of man reveals to us somewhat of his progress.  There is
ever before us the journey which he has taken in reaching his present
status.  The road has been very long, very rough, very crooked.  What
he has accomplished has been at fearful expense.  Thousands have
perished, millions have been swept away, that a single idea for the
elevation and culture of the race might remain.  Deplore it as we may,
the end could be reached only thus.  The suffering of humanity is
gradually lessening, and destruction and waste being stayed, yet we
must recognize, in looking to the future, that all means of improvement
will be retarded by the imperfection of human life and human conditions.

The central principle, however, the great nucleus of civilization,
becomes more clearly defined, in turn revealing that man's happiness on
earth, based upon duty and service, is the end of progress.  If the
achievements of science, the vast accumulations of wealth, the
perfection of social organization, {457} the increased power of
individual life--if all these do not yield better social conditions, if
they do not give to humanity at large greater contentment, greater
happiness, a larger number of things to know and enjoy, they must fail
in their service.  But they will not fail.  Man is now a larger
creature in every way than ever before.  He has better religion; a
greater God in the heavens, ruling with beneficence and wisdom; a
larger number of means for improvement everywhere; and the desire and
determination to master these things and turn them to his own benefit.
The pursuit of truth reveals man to himself and God to him.  The
promotion of justice and righteousness makes his social life more
complete and happy.  The investigations of science and the advances of
invention and discovery increase his material resources, furnishing him
means with which to work; and with increasing intelligence he will
understand more clearly his destiny--the highest culture of mind and
body and the keenest enjoyment of the soul.


1.  What were the chief causes of aggregation of people?

2.  Are there evidences of groups without the beginning of social

3.  What is the relation of the individual to society?

4.  The basis of national groups.

5.  Factors in the progress of the human race.

6.  Growth of religious toleration in the world.

7.  Name ten "American institutions" that should be perpetuated.

8.  Race and democracy.

9.  What per cent of the voters of your town take a vital interest in

10.  The growth of democratic ideas in Europe.  In Asia.

11.  Study the welfare organizations in your town, comparing objects
and results.

12.  The trend of population from country to city and its influence on
social organization.

13.  Explain why people follow the fashions.




_Science Is an Attitude of Mind Toward Life_.--As usually defined,
science represents a classified body of knowledge logically arranged
with the purpose of arriving at definite principles or truths by
processes of investigation and comparison.  But the largest part of
science is found in its method of approaching the truth as compared
with religion, philosophy, or disconnected knowledge obtained by casual
observation.  In many ways it is in strong contrast with speculative
philosophy and with dogmatic theology, both of which lack sufficient
data for scientific development.  The former has a tendency to
interpret what is assumed to have already been established.  With the
latter the laboratory of investigation of truth has been closed.  The
laboratory of science is always open.

While scientists work with hypotheses, use the imagination, and even
become dogmatic in their assertions, the degree of certainty is always
tested in the laboratory.  If a truth is discovered to-day, it must be
verified in the laboratory or shown to be incorrect or only a partial
truth.  Science has been built up on the basis of the inquiry into
nature's processes.  It is all the time inquiring: "What do we find
under the microscope, through the telescope, in the chemical and
physical reactions, in the examination of the earth and its products,
in the observation of the functions of animals and plants, or in the
structure of the brain of man and the laws of his mental functioning?"
If it establishes an hypothesis as a means of procedure, it must be
determined true or abandoned.  If the imagination ventures to be
far-seeing, observation, experimentation, and the discovery of fact
must all come to its support before it can be called scientific.

_Scientific Methods_.--We have already referred to the turning of the
minds of the Greeks from the power of the gods to {459} a look into
nature's processes.  We have seen how they lacked a scientific method
and also scientific data sufficient to verify their assumptions.  We
have observed how, while they took a great step forward, their
conclusions were lost in the Dark Ages and in the early mediaeval
period, and how they were brought to light in the later medieval period
and helped to form the scholastic philosophy and to stimulate free
inquiry, and how the weakness of all systems was manifested in all
these periods of human life by failure to use the simple process of
observing the facts of nature, getting them and classifying them so as
to demonstrate truth.  It will not be possible to recount in this
chapter a full description of the development of science and scientific
thought.  Not more can be done than to mention the turning-points in
its development and expansion.

Though other influences of minor importance might be mentioned, it is
well to note that Roger Bacon (1214-1294) stands out prominently as the
first philosopher of the mediaeval period who turned his attitude of
mind earnestly toward nature.  It is true that he was not free from the
taint of dogmatic theology and scholastic philosophy which were so
strongly prevailing at the time, but he advocated the discovery of
truth by observation and experiment, which was a bold assumption at
that time.  He established as one of his main principles that
experimental science "investigates the secrets of nature by its own
competency and out of its own qualities, irrespective of any connection
with the other sciences."  Thus he did not universalize his method as
applicable to all sciences.

Doubtless Roger Bacon received his inspiration from the Greek and
Arabian scientists with whom he was familiar.  It is interesting that,
following the lines of observation and discovery in a very primitive
way, he let his imagination run on into the future, predicting many
things that have happened already.  Thus he says: "Machines for
navigation are possible without rowers, like great ships suited to
river or ocean, going with greater velocity than if they were full of
rowers; likewise {460} wagons may be moved _cum impetu inaestimabili_,
as we deem the chariots of antiquity to have been.  And there may be
flying-machines, so made that a man may sit in the middle of the
machine and direct it by some device; and again, machines for raising
great weights."[1]

In continuity with the ideas of Roger Bacon, Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
gave a classification of human learning and laid the real foundation on
which the superstructure of science has been built.  Between the two
lives much had been done by Copernicus, who taught that the earth was
not the centre of the universe, and that it revolved on its axis from
west to east.  This gave the traditions of fourteen centuries a severe
jolt, and laid the foundation for the development of the heliocentric
system of astronomy.  Bacon's classification of all knowledge showed
the relationship of the branches to a comprehensive whole.  His
fundamental theory was that nature was controlled and modified by man.
He recognized the influence of natural philosophy, but insisted that
the "history mechanical" was a strong support to it.

His usefulness seems to have been in the presentation of a wide range
of knowledge distinctly connected, the demonstration of the utility of
knowledge, and the suggestion of unsolved problems which should be
investigated by observation and experiment.  Without giving his
complete classification of human learning, it may be well to state his
most interesting classification of physical science to show the middle
ground which he occupied between mediaeval thought and our modern
conception of science.  This classification is as follows:

  1.  Celestial phenomena.
  2.  Atmosphere.
  3.  Globe.
  4.  Substance of earth, air, fire, and water.
  5.  Genera, species, etc.[2]


Descartes, following Bacon, had much to do with the establishment of
method, although he laid more stress upon deduction than upon
induction.  With Bacon he believed that there was need of a better
method of finding out the truth than that of logic.  He was strong in
his refusal to recognize anything as true that he did not understand,
and had no faith in the mere assumption of truth, insisting upon
absolute proof derived through an intelligent order.  Perhaps, too, his
idea was to establish universal mathematics, for he recognized
measurements and lines everywhere in the universe, and recognized the
universality of all natural phenomena, laying great stress on the
solution of problems by measurement.  He was a fore runner of Newton
and many other scientists, and as such represents an epoch-making
period in scientific development.

The trend of thought by a few leaders having been directed to the
observation of nature and the experimentation with natural phenomena,
the way was open for the shifting of the centre of thought of the
entire world.  It only remained now for each scientist to work out in
his own way his own experiments.  The differentiation of knowledge
brought about many phases of thought and built up separate divisions of
science.  While each one has had an evolution of its own, all together
they have worked out a larger progress of the whole.  Thus Gilbert
(1540-1603) carried on practical experiments and observations with the
lodestone, or magnet, and thus made a faint beginning of the study of
electrical phenomena which in recent years has played such an important
part in the progress of the world.  Harvey (1578-1657) by his careful
study of the blood determined its circulation through the heart by
means of the arterial and venous systems.  This was an important step
in leading to anatomical studies and set the world far ahead of the
medical studies of the Arabians.

Galileo (1564-1642), in his study of the heavenly bodies and the
universe, carried out the suggestion of Copernicus a century before of
the revolution of the earth on its axis, to {462} take the place of the
old theory that the sun revolved around the earth.  Indeed, this was
such a disturbing factor among churchmen, theologians, and
pseudo-philosophers that Galileo was forced to recant his statements.
In 1632 he published at Florence his _Dialogue on the Ptolemaic and
Copernican Systems of the World_.  For this he was cited to Rome, his
book ordered to be burned, and he was sentenced to be imprisoned, to
make a recantation of his errors, and by way of penance to recite the
seven penitential psalms once a week.

It seems very strange that a man who could make a telescope to study
the heavenly bodies and carry on experiments with such skill that he
has been called the founder of experimental science could be forced to
recant the things which he was convinced by experiment and observation
to be true.  However, it must be remembered that the mediaeval doctrine
of authority had taken possession of the minds of the world of thinkers
to such an extent that to oppose it openly seemed not only sacrilege
but the tearing down of the walls of faith and destroying the permanent
structure of society.  Moreover, the minds of all thinkers were trying
to hold on to the old while they developed the new, and not one could
think of destroying the faith of the church.  But the church did not so
view this, and took every opportunity to suppress everything new as
being destructive of the church.

No one could contemplate the tremendous changes that might have been
made in the history of the world if the church could have abandoned its
theological dogmas far enough to welcome all new truth that was
discovered in God's workshop.  To us in the twentieth century who have
such freedom of expressing both truth and untruth, it is difficult to
realize to what extent the authorities of the Middle Ages tried to seal
the fountains of truth.  Picture a man kneeling before the authorities
at Rome and stating: "With a sincere heart and unfeigned faith I
abjure, curse, and detest the said errors and heresies.  I swear that
for the future I will never say nor assert anything verbally or in
writing which may give rise to a {463} similar suspicion against
me."[3]  Thus he was compelled to recant and deny his theory that the
earth moves around the sun.

_Measurement in Scientific Research_.--All scientific research involves
the recounting of recurring phenomena within a given time and within a
given space.  In order, therefore, to carry on systematic research,
methods of measuring are necessary.  We can thus see how mathematics,
although developed largely through the study of astronomy, has been
necessary to all investigation.  Ticho Brahe and Kepler may be said to
have accentuated the phase of accurate measurement in investigation.
They specialized in chemistry and astronomy, all measurements being
applied to the heavenly bodies.  Their main service was found in
accurate records of data.  Kepler maintained "that every planet moved
in an ellipse of which the sun occupied one focus."  He also held "that
the square of the periodic time of any planet is proportional to the
cube of its mean distance from the sun," and "that the area swept by
the radius vector from the planet to the sun is proportional to the
time."[4]  He was much aided in his measurements by the use of a system
of logarithms invented by John Napier (1614).  Many measurements were
established regarding heat, pressure of air, and the relation of solids
and liquids.

Isaac Newton, by connecting up a single phenomenon of a body falling a
distance of a few feet on the earth with all similar phenomena, through
the law of gravitation discovered the unity of the universe.  Though
Newton carried on important investigations in astronomy, studied the
refraction of light through optic glasses, was president of the Royal
Society, his chief contribution to the sciences was the tying together
of the sun, the planets, and the moons of the solar system by the
attraction of gravitation.  Newton was able to carry along with his
scientific investigations a profound reverence for Christianity.  That
he was not attacked shows that there had {464} been considerable
progress made in toleration of new ideas.  With all of his greatness of
vision, he had the humbleness of a true scientist.  A short time before
his death he said: "I know not what I may appear to the world; but to
myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the seashore, and
diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble, or a
prettier shell, than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all
undiscovered before me."

_Science Develops from Centres_.--Bodies of truth in the world are all
related one to another.  Hence, when a scientist investigates and
experiments along a particular line, he must come in contact more or
less with other lines.  And while there is a great differentiation in
the discovery of knowledge by investigation, no single truth can ever
be established without more or less relation to all other truths.
Likewise, scientists, although working from different centres, are each
contributing in his own way to the establishment of universal truth.
Even in the sixteenth century scientists began to co-operate and
interchange views, and as soon as their works were published, each fed
upon the others as he needed in advancing his own particular branch of

It is said that Bacon in his _New Atlantis_ gave such a magnificent
dream of an opportunity for the development of science and learning
that it was the means of forming the Royal Society in England.  That
association was the means of disseminating scientific truth and
encouraging investigation and publication of results.  It was a
tremendous advancement of the cause of science, and has been a type for
the formation of hundreds of other organizations for the promotion of
scientific truth.

_Science and Democracy_.--While seeking to extend knowledge to all
classes of people, science paves the way for recognition of equal
rights and privileges.  Science is working all the time to be free from
the slavery of nature, and the result of its operations is to cause
mankind to be free from the slavery of man.  Therefore, liberty and
science go hand in hand in {465} their development.  It is interesting
to note in this connection that so many scientists have come from
groups forming the ordinary occupations of life rather than, as we
might expect, from the privileged classes who have had leisure and
opportunity for development.  Thus, "Pasteur was the son of a tanner,
Priestley of a cloth-maker, Dalton of a weaver, Lambert of a tailor,
Kant of a saddler, Watt of a ship-builder, Smith of a farmer, and John
Ray was, like Faraday, the son of a blacksmith.  Joule was a brewer.
Davy, Scheele, Dumas, Balard, Liebig, Wöhler, and a number of other
distinguished chemists were apothecaries' apprentices."[5]

Science also is a great leveller because all scientists are bowing down
to the same truth discovered by experimentation or observation, and,
moreover, scientists are at work in the laboratories and cannot be
dogmatic for any length of time.  But scientists arise from all classes
of people, so far as religious or political belief is concerned.  Many
of the foremost scientists have been distributed among the Roman
Catholics, Anglicans, Calvinists, Quakers, Unitarians, and Agnostics.
The only test act that science knows is that of the recognition of

Benjamin Franklin was a printer whose scientific investigations were
closely intermingled with the problems of human rights.  His
experiments in science were subordinate to the experiments of human
society.  His great contribution to science was the identification of
lightning and the spark from a Leyden jar.  For the identification and
control of lightning he received a medal from the Royal Society.  The
discussion of liberty and the part he took in the independence of the
colonies of America represent his greatest contribution to the world.
To us he is important, for he embodied in one mind the expression of
scientific and political truth, showing that science makes for
democracy and democracy for science.  In each case it is the choice of
the liberalized mind.

_The Study of the Biological and Physical Sciences_.--The last century
is marked by scientific development along several {466} rather distinct
lines as follows: the study of the earth, or geology; animal and
vegetable life, or biology; atomic analysis, or chemistry;
biochemistry; physics, especially that part relating to electricity and
radioactivity; and more recently it might be stated that investigations
are carried on in psychology and sociology, while mathematics and
astronomy have made progress.

The main generalized point of research, if it could be so stated, is
the discovery of law and order.  This has been demonstrated in the
development of chemistry under the atomic theory; physics in the
molecular theory; the law of electrons in electricity, and the
evolutionary theory in the study of biology.  Great advance has been
made in the medical sciences, including the knowledge of the nature and
prevention of disease.  Though a great many new discoveries and, out of
new discoveries, new inventions have appeared along specific lines and
various sciences have advanced with accuracy and precision, perhaps the
evolutionary theory has changed the thought of the world more than any
other.  It has connected man with the rest of the universe and made him
a definite part of it.

_The Evolutionary Theory_.--The geography of the earth as presented by
Lyell, the theory of population of Malthus, and the _Origin of the
Species_ and the _Descent of Man_ by Darwin changed the preconceived
notions of the creation of man.  Slowly and without ostentation science
everywhere had been forcing all nature into unity controlled by
universal laws.  Traditional belief was not prepared for the bold
statement of Darwin that man was part of the slow development of animal
life through the ages.

For 2,000 years or more the philosophic world had been wedded to the
idea of a special creation of man entirely independent of the creation
of the rest of the universe.  All conceptions of God, man, and his
destiny rested upon the recognition of a separate creation.  To deny
this meant a reconstruction of much of the religious philosophy of the
world.  Persons {467} were needlessly alarmed and began to attack the
doctrine on the assumption that anything interfering with the
long-recognized interpretation of the relation of man to creation was
wrong and was instituted for the purpose of tearing down the ancient

Darwin accepted in general the Lamarckian doctrine that each succeeding
generation would have new characters added to it by the modification of
environmental factors and by the use and disuse of organs and
functions.  Thus gradually under such selection the species would be
improved.  But Darwin emphasized selection through hereditary traits.

Subsequently, Weismann and others reinterpreted Darwin's theory and
strengthened its main propositions, abandoning the Lamarckian theory of
use and disuse.  Mendel, De Vries, and other biologists have added to
the Darwinian theory by careful investigations into the heredity of
plants and animals, but because Darwin was the first to give clear
expression to the theory of evolution, "Darwinism" is used to express
the general theory.

Cosmic evolution, or the development of the universe, has been
generally acknowledged by the acceptance of the results of the studies
of geology, astronomy, and physics.  History of plant and animal life
is permanently written in the rocks, and their evolutionary process so
completely demonstrated in the laboratory that few dare to question it.

Modern controversy hinges upon the assumption that man as an animal is
not subjected to the natural laws of other animals and of plants, but
that he had a special creation.  The maintenance of this belief has led
to many crude and unscientific notions of the origin of man and the
meaning of evolution.

Evolution is very simple in its general traits, but very complex in its
details.  It is a theory of process and not a theory of creation.  It
is continuous, progressive change, brought about by natural forces and
in accordance with natural laws.  The evolutionist studies these
changes and records the results obtained thereby.  The scientist thus
discovers new truths, {468} establishes the relation of one truth to
another, enlarges the boundary of knowledge, extends the horizon of the
unknown, and leaves the mystery of the beginning of life unsolved.  His
laboratory is always open to retest and clarify his work and to add new
knowledge as fast as it is acquired.

Evolution as a working theory for science has correlated truths,
unified methods, and furnished a key to modern thought.  As a
co-operative science it has had a stimulating influence on all lines of
research, not only in scientific study of physical nature, but also in
the study of man, for there are natural laws as well as man-made laws
to be observed in the development of human society.

Some evolutionary scientists will be dogmatic at times, but they return
to their laboratories and proceed to reinterpret what they have
assumed, so that their dogmatism is of short duration.  Theological
dogmatists are not so fortunate, because of persistence of religious
tradition which has not yet been put fully to the laboratory test.
Some of them are continuously and hopelessly dogmatic.  They still
adhere to belief founded on the emotions which they refuse to put to
scientific test.  Science makes no attempt to undermine religion, but
is unconsciously laying a broader foundation on which religion may
stand.  Theologians who are beginning to realize this are forced to
re-examine the Bible and reinterpret it according to the knowledge and
enlightenment of the time.  Thus science becomes a force to advance
Christianity, not to destroy it.

On the other hand, science becomes less dogmatic as it applies its own
methods to religion and humanity and recognizes that there is a great
world of spiritual truth which cannot be determined by experiments in
the physical laboratory.  It can be estimated only in the laboratory of
human action.  Faith, love, virtue, and spiritual vision cannot be
explained by physical and chemical reactions.  If in the past science
has rightly pursued its course of investigation regardless of spiritual
truth, the future is full of promise that religion and human reactions
and science will eventually work together in the pursuit of {469} truth
in God's great workshop.  The unity of truth will be thus realized.
The area of knowledge will be enlarged while the horizon of the unknown
will be extended.  The mystery of life still remains unsolved.

Galton followed along in the study of the development of race and
culture, and brought in a new study of human life.  Pasteur and Lister
worked out their great factors of preventive medicine and health.
Madame Curie developed the radioactivity as a great contribution to the
evolution of science.  All of this represents the slow evolution of
science, each new discovery quickening the thought of the age in which
it occurred, changing the attitude of the mind toward nature and life,
and contributing to human comfort and human welfare.  But the greatest
accomplishment always in the development of science is its effect on
the mental processes of humanity, stimulating thought and changing the
attitude of mind toward life.

_Science and War_.--It is a travesty on human progress, a social
paradox, that war and science go hand in hand.  On one side are all of
the machines of destruction, the battleships, bombing-planes, huge
guns, high explosives, and poisonous gases, products of scientific
experiment and inventive genius, and on the other ambulances,
hospitals, medical and surgical care, with the uses of all medical
discoveries.  The one seeks destruction, the other seeks to allay
suffering; one force destroys life, the other saves it.  And yet they
march forth under the same flag to conquer the enemy.  It is like the
conquest of the American Indians by the Spaniards, in which the warrior
bore in one hand a banner of the cross of Christ and in the other the
drawn sword.

War has achieved much in forcing people into national unity, in giving
freedom to the oppressed and protecting otherwise helpless people, but
in the light of our ideals of peace it has never been more than a cruel
necessity, and, more frequently, a grim, horrible monster.  Chemistry
and physics and their discoveries underlying the vast material
prosperity of moderns have contributed much to the mechanical and {470}
industrial arts and increased the welfare and happiness of mankind.
But when war is let loose, these same beneficent sciences are worked
day and night for the rapid destruction of man.  All the wealth built
up in the passing years is destroyed along with the lives of millions
of people.

Out of the gloom of the picture proceeds one ray of beneficent light,
that of the service rendered by the discoveries of medical science and
surgical art.  The discoveries arising from the study of anatomy,
physiology, bacteriology, and neurology, with the use of anaesthetics
and antiseptics in connection with surgery, have made war less horrible
and suffering more endurable.  Scientists like Pasteur, Lister, Koch,
Morton, and many others brought forth from their laboratories the
results of their study for the alleviation of suffering.

Yet it seems almost incredible that with all of the horrid experiences
of war, an enterprise that no one desires, and which the great majority
of the world deplore, should so long continue.  Nothing but the
discovery and rise of a serum that will destroy the germs of national
selfishness and avarice will prevent war.  Possibly it stimulates
activity in invention, discovery, trade and commerce, but of what avail
is it if the cycle returns again from peace to war and these products
of increased activity are turned to the destruction of civilization?
Does not the world need a baptism of common sense?  Some gain is being
made in the changing attitude of mind toward the warrior in favor of
the great scientists of the world.  But nothing will be assured until
the hero-worship of the soldier gives way to the respect for the
scholar, and ideals of truth and right become mightier than the sword.

_Scientific Progress Is Cumulative_.--One discovery leads to another,
one invention to others.  It is a law of science.  Science benefits the
common man more than does politics or religion.  It is through science
that he has means of use and enjoyment of nature's progress.  It is
true this is on the side of materialistic culture, and it does not
provide all that is needed for the completed life.  Even though the
scientific {471} experiments and discoveries are fundamentally more
essential, the common man cannot get along without social order,
politics, or religion.

Perhaps we can get the largest expression of the value of science to
man through a consideration of the inventions and discoveries which he
may use in every-day life.[6]  Prior to the nineteenth century we have
to record the following important inventions: alphabetic writing,
Arabic numbers, mariner's compass, printing, the telescope, the
barometer and thermometer, and the steam-engine.  In the nineteenth
century we have to record: railroads, steam navigation, the telegraph,
the telephone, friction matches, gas lighting, electrical lighting,
photography, the phonograph, electrical transmission of power, Röntgen
rays, spectrum analysis, anaesthetics, antiseptic surgery, the
airplane, gasoline-engine, transmission of news by radio, and
transportation by automobile.  Also we shall find in the nineteenth
century thirteen important theoretical discoveries as compared with
seven in all previous centuries.

It is interesting to note what may have taken place also in the last
generation.  A man who was born in the middle of the last century might
reflect on a good many things that have taken place.  Scientifically he
has lived to see the development of electricity from a mere academic
pursuit to a tremendous force of civilization.  Chemistry, although
supposed to have been a completed science, was scarcely begun.  Herbert
Spencer's _Synthetic Philosophy_ and Darwin's _Origin of the Species_
had not yet been published.  Huxley and Tyndall, the great experimental
scientists, had not published their great works.  Transportation with a
few slow steam-propelled vessels crossing the ocean preceded the era of
the great floating palaces.  The era of railroad-building had only just
started in America.  Horseless carriages propelled by gas or
electricity were in a state of conjecture.  Politically in America the
Civil War had not been fought or the Constitution really completed.

The great wealth and stupendous business organization of {472} to-day
were unknown in 1850.  In Europe there was no German Empire, only a
German Federation.  The Hapsburgs were still holding forth in Austria
and the Hohenzollerns in Prussia and the Romanoffs in Russia.  The
monarchial power of the old régime was the rule of the day.  These are
institutions of the past.  Civilization in America, although it had
invaded the Mississippi valley, had not spread over the great Western
plains nor to the Pacific coast.  Tremendous changes in art and
industries, in inventions and discoveries have been going on in this
generation.  The flying-machine, the radio, the automobile, the
dirigible balloon, and, more than all, the tremendous business
organization of the factories and industries of the age have given us
altogether a complete revolution.

_Research Foundations_.--All modern universities carry on through
instructors and advanced students many departments of scientific
research.  The lines of research extend through a wide range of
subjects--Chemistry, Biology, Physics, Anatomy, Physiology, Medicine,
Geology, Agriculture, History, Sociology, and other departments of
learning.  These investigations have led to the discovery of new
knowledge and the extension of learning to mankind.  Outside of
colleges and universities there have been established many foundations
of research and many industrial laboratories.

Prominent among those in the United States are The Carnegie Corporation
and The Rockefeller Foundation, which are devoting hundreds of millions
of dollars to the service of research, for the purpose of advancing
science and directly benefiting humankind.  The results play an
important part in the protection and daily welfare of mankind.  The
Mellon Institute contributes much to the solution of problems of
applied chemistry.[7] It is interesting to note how the investigation
carried on by these and other foundations is contributing directly to
human welfare by mastering disease.  The elimination of the hookworm
disease, the fight to control malaria, the {473} mastery of yellow
fever, the promotion of public health, and the study of medicine, the
courageous attack on tuberculosis, and the suppression of typhoid
fever, all are for the benefit of the public.  The war on disease and
the promotion of public health by preventive measures have lowered the
death-rate and lengthened the period of life.

_The Trend of Scientific Investigations_.--While research is carried on
in many lines, with many different objectives, it may be stated that
intense study is devoted to the nature of matter and the direct
connection of it with elemental forces.  The theories of the molecule
and the atom are still working hypotheses, but the investigator has
gone further and disintegrated the atom, showing it to be a complex of
corpuscles or particles.  Scientists talk of electrons and protons as
the two elemental forces and of the mechanics of the atom.  In
chemistry, investigation follows the problems of applied chemistry,
while organic chemistry or biochemistry opens continually new fields of
research.  It appears that biology and chemistry are becoming more
closely allied as researches continue and likewise physics and
chemistry.  In the field of surgery the X-ray is in daily use, and
radium and radioactivity may yet be great aids to medicine.  In medical
investigation much is dependent upon the discoveries in neurology.
This also will throw light upon the studies in psychology, for the
relation of nerve functions to mind functions may be more clearly

Explorations of the earth and of the heavens continually add new
knowledge of the extent and creation of the universe.  The study of
anthropology and archaeology throw new light upon the origin and early
history of man.  Experimental study of animals, food, soils, and crops
adds increased means of sustenance for the race.  Recent investigations
of scientific education, along with psychology, are throwing much light
on mental conditions and progress.  And more recently serious inquiry
into social life through the study of the social sciences is revealing
the great problems of life.  All of knowledge, all of science, and all
of human invention which add to material {474} comforts will be of no
avail unless men can learn to live together harmoniously and justly.
But the truths discovered in each department of investigation are all
closely related.  Truly there is but one science with many divisions,
one universe with many parts, and though man is a small particle of the
great cosmos, it is his life and welfare that are at the centres of all


1.  In what ways has science contributed to the growth of democracy?

2.  How has the study of science changed the attitude of the mind
toward life?

3. How is every-day life of the ordinary man affected by science?

4.  Is science antagonistic to true Christianity?

5.  What is the good influence of science on religious belief and

6.  What are the great discoveries of the last twenty-five years in
Astronomy?  Chemistry?  Physics?  Biology?  Medicine?  Electricity?

7.  What recent inventions are dependent upon science?

8.  Relation between investigation in the laboratory and the modern

9.  How does scientific knowledge tend to banish fear?

10.  Give a brief history of the development of the automobile.  The

11.  Would a law forbidding the teaching of science in schools advance
the cause of Christianity?

[1] Taylor, _The Mediaeval Mind_, vol. II, p. 508.

[2] Libby, _History of Science_, p. 63.

[3] Copernicus's view was not published until thirty-six years after
its discovery.  A copy of his book was brought to him at his death-bed,
but he refused to look at it.

[4] Libby, p. 91.

[5] Libby, _History of Science_, p. 280.

[6] Libby, _Introduction to the History of Science_.

[7] The newly created department at Johns Hopkins University for the
study of international relations may assist in the abolition of war.




_Universal Public Education Is a Modern Institution_.--The Greeks
valued education and encouraged it, but only those could avail
themselves of its privileges who were able to pay for it.  The training
by the mother in the home was followed by a private tutor.  This system
conformed to the idea of leadership and was valuable in the
establishment of an educated class.  However, at the festivals and the
theatres there were opportunities for the masses to learn much of
oratory, music, and civic virtues.  The education of Athens conformed
to the class basis of society.  Sparta as an exception trained all
citizens for the service of state, making them subordinate to its
welfare.  The state took charge of children at the age of seven, put
them in barracks, and subjected them to the most severe discipline.
But there was no free education, no free development of the ordinary
mind.  It was in the nature of civic slavery for the preservation of
the state in conflict with other states.

During the Middle Ages Charlemagne established the only public schools
for civic training, the first being established at Paris, although he
planned to extend them throughout the empire.  The collapse of his
great empire made the schools merely a tradition.  But they were a
faint sign of the needs of a strong empire and an enlightened
community.  The educational institutions of the Middle Ages were
monasteries, and cathedral schools for the purpose of training men for
the service of the church and for the propagating of religious
doctrine.  They were all institutional in nature and far from the idea
of public instruction for the enlightenment of the people.

_The Mediaeval University Permitted Some Freedom of Choice_.--There was
exhibited in some of them especially a desire to discover the truth
through traditional knowledge.  They were {476} composed of groups of
students and masters who met for free discussion, which led to the
verification of established traditions.  But this was a step forward,
and scholars arose who departed from dogma into new fields of learning.
While the universities of the Middle Ages were a step in advance, full
freedom of the mind had not yet manifested itself, nor had the idea of
universal education appeared.  Opportunity came to a comparatively
small number; moreover, nearly all scientific and educational
improvement came from impulses outside of the centres of tradition.

_The English and German Universities_.--The English universities,
particularly Oxford and Cambridge, gave a broader culture in
mathematics, philosophy, and literature, which was conducive to
liberality in thought, but even they represented the education of a
selected class.  The German universities, especially in the nineteenth
century, emphasized the practical or applied side of education.  By
establishing laboratories, they were prepared to apply all truths
discovered, and by experimentation carry forward learning, especially
in the chemical and other physical sciences.  The spirit of research
was strongly invoked for new scientific discoveries.  While England was
developing a few noted secondary schools, like Harrow and Eton, Germany
was providing universal real _schule_, and _gymnasia_, as preparatory
for university study and for the general education of the masses.  As a
final outcome the Prussian system was developed, which had great
influence on education in the United States in the latter part of the
nineteenth century.

_Early Education in the United States_.--The first colleges and
universities in the United States were patterned after the English
universities and the academies and high schools of England.  These
schools were of a selected class to prepare for the ministry, law,
statesmanship, and letters.  The growth of the American university was
rapid, because it continually broadened its curriculum.  From the study
of philosophy, classical languages, mathematics, literature, it
successively {477} embraced modern languages, physical sciences,
natural science, history, and economics, psychology, law, medicine,
engineering, and commerce.

In the present-day universities there is a wide differentiation of
subjects.  The subjects have been multiplied to meet the demand of
scientific development and also to fit students for the ever-increasing
number of occupations which the modern complex society demands.  The
result of all this expansion is democratic.  The college class is no
longer an exclusive selection.  The plane of educational selection
continually lowers until the college draws its students from all
classes and prepares them for all occupations.  In the traditional
college certain classes were selected to prepare for positions of
learning.  There was developed a small educated class.  In the modern
way there is no distinctive educated class.  University education has
become democratic.

_The Common, or Public, Schools_.--In the Colonial and early national
period of the United States, education was given by a method of tutors,
or by a select pay school taught by a regularly employed teacher under
private contract.  Finally the sympathy for those who were not able to
pay caused the establishing of "common schools."  This was the real
beginning of universal education, for the practice expanded and the
idea finally prevailed of providing schools by taxation "common" to
all, and free to all who wish to attend.  Later, for civic purposes,
primary education has become compulsory in most states.  Following the
development of the primary grades, a complete system of secondary
schools has been provided.  Beyond these are the state schools of
higher education, universities, agricultural and mechanical schools,
normal schools and industrial schools, so that a highway of learning is
provided for the child, leading from the kindergarten through
successive stages to the university.

_Knowledge, Intelligence, and Training Necessary in a
Democracy_.--Washington, after experimenting with the new nation for
eight years, having had opportunity to observe the defects {478} and
virtues of the republic, said in his Farewell Address: "Promote, then,
as an object of primary importance institutions for the general
diffusion of knowledge.  In proportion as the structure of a government
gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion
should be enlightened."[1]  Again and again have the leaders of the
nation who have had at heart the present welfare and future destiny of
their country urged public education as a necessity.

And right well have the people responded to these sentiments.  They
have poured out their hard-earned money in taxation to provide adequate
education for the youth of the land.  James Bryce, after studying in
detail American institutions, declared that "the chief business of
America is education."  This observation was made nearly forty years
ago.  If it was true then, how much more evident is it now with
wonderful advance of higher education in colleges and universities, and
in the magnificent system of secondary education that has been built up
in the interval.  The swarming of students in high school and college
is evidence that they appreciate the opportunities furnished by the
millions of wealth, largely in the form of taxes, given for the support
of schools.

_Education Has Been Universalized_.--Having made education universal,
educators are devoting their energies to fit the education to the needs
of the student and to assist the student in choosing the course of
instruction which will best fit him for his chosen life-work.  The
victory has been won to give every boy and girl an educational chance.
To give him what he actually needs and see that he uses it for a
definite purpose is the present problem of the educator.  This means a
careful inquiry into mental capacity and mental traits, into
temperament, taste, ambition, and choice of vocation.  It means further
provision of the special education that will best prepare him for his
chosen work, and, indeed, it means sympathetic co-operation of the
teacher and student in determining the course to be pursued.


_Research an Educational Process_.--Increased knowledge comes from
observation or systematic investigation in the laboratory.  Every child
has by nature the primary element of research, a curiosity to know
things.  Too often this is suppressed by conventional education instead
of continued into systematic investigation.  One of the great defects
of the public school is the failure to keep alive, on the part of the
student, the desire to know things.  Undue emphasis on instruction, a
mere imparting of knowledge, causes the student to shift the
responsibility of his education upon the teacher, who, after all, can
do no more than help the student to select the line of study, and
direct him in methods of acquiring.  Together teacher and student can
select the trail, and the teacher, because he has been over it, can
direct the student over its rough ways, saving him time and energy.

Perhaps the greatest weakness in popular government to-day is
indifference of citizens to civic affairs.  This leads to a shifting of
responsibility of public affairs frequently to those least competent to
conduct them.  Perhaps a training in individual responsibility in the
schools and more vital instruction in citizenship would prepare the
coming generation to make democracy efficient and safe to the world.
The results of research are of great practical benefit to the so-called
common man in the ordinary pursuits of life.  The scientist in the
laboratory, spending days and nights in research, finally discovers a
new process which becomes a life-saver or a time-saver to general
mankind.  Yet the people usually accept this as a matter of fact as
something that just happened.  They forget the man in the laboratory
and exploit the results of his labor for their own personal gain.

How often the human mind is in error, and unobserving, not to see that
the discovery of truth and its adaptation to ordinary life is one of
the fundamental causes of the progress of the race.  Man has advanced
in proportion as he has become possessed of the secrets of nature and
has adapted them to his service.  The number of ways he touches nature
and forces {480} her to yield her treasures, adapting them to his use,
determines the possibility of progress.

The so-called "common man," the universal type of our democracy, is
worthy of our admiration.  He has his life of toil and his round of
duties alternating with pleasure, bearing the burdens of life
cheerfully, with human touch with his fellows; amid sorrow and joy,
duty and pleasure, storm and sunshine, he lives a normal existence and
passes on the torch of life to others.  But the man who shuts himself
in his laboratory, lives like a monk, losing for a time the human
touch, spends long days of toil and "nights devoid of ease" until he
discovers a truth or makes an invention that makes millions glad, is
entitled to our highest reverence.  The ordinary man and the
investigator are complementary factors of progress and both essential
to democracy.

_The Diffusion of Knowledge Necessary to Democracy_.--Always in
progress is a deflecting tendency, separating the educated class from
the uneducated.  This is not on account of the aristocracy of learning,
but because of group activity, the educated man following a pursuit
different from the man of practical affairs.  Hence the effort to
broadcast knowledge through lectures, university extension, and the
radio is essential to the progress of the whole community.  One phase
of enlightenment is much neglected, that of making clear that the
object of the scholar and the object of the man of practical affairs
should be the same--that of establishing higher ideals of life and
providing means for approximating these ideals.  It frequently occurs
that the individual who has centred his life on the accumulation of
wealth ignores the educator and has a contempt for the impractical
scholar, as he terms him.  Not infrequently state legislatures, when
considering appropriations for education, have shown more interest in
hogs and cattle than in the welfare of children.

It would be well if the psychology of the common mind would change so
as to grasp the importance of education and scientific investigation to
every-day life.  Does it occur to the {481} man who seats himself in
his car to whisk away across the country in the pursuit of ordinary
business, to pause to inquire who discovered gasoline or who invented
the gasoline-engine?  Does he realize that some patient investigator in
the laboratory has made it possible for even a child to thus utilize
the forces of nature and thus shorten time and ignore space?  Whence
comes the improvement of live-stock in this country?  Compare the
cattle of early New England with those on modern farms.  Was the little
scrubby stock of our forefathers replaced by large, sleek, well-bred
cattle through accident?  No, it was by the discovery of investigators
and its practical adaptation by breeders.  Compare the vineyards and
the orchards of the early history of the nation, the grains and the
grasses, or the fruits and the flowers with those of present
cultivation.  What else but investigation, discovery, and adaptation
wrought the change?

My common neighbor, when your child's poor body is racked with pain and
likely to die, and the skilled surgeon places the child on the
operating-table, administers the anaesthetic to make him insensible to
pain, and with knowledge gained by investigation operates with such
skill as to save the child's life and restore him to health, are you
not ready to say that scientific investigation is a blessing to all
mankind?  Whence comes this power to restore health?  Is it a
dispensation from heaven?  Yes, a dispensation brought about through
the patient toil and sacrifice of those zealous for the discovery of
truth.  What of the knowledge that leads to the mastery of the
yellow-fever bacillus, of the typhoid germ, to the fight against
tuberculosis and other enemies of mankind?  Again, it is the man in the
laboratory who is the first great cause that makes it possible for
humanity to protect itself from disease.

Could our methods of transportation by steamship, railroad, or air, our
great manufacturing processes, our vast machinery, or our scientific
agriculture exist without scientific research?  Nothing touches
ordinary life with such potent force as the results of the
investigation in the laboratory.  Clearly it is {482} understood by the
thoughtful that education in all of its phases is a democratic process,
and a democratic need, for its results are for everybody.  Knowledge is
thus humanized, and the educated and the non-educated must co-operate
to keep the human touch.

Educational Progress.--One of the landmarks of the present century of
progress will be the perfecting of educational systems.  Education is
no longer for the exclusive few, developing an aristocracy of learning
for the elevation of a single class; it has become universal.  The
large number of universities throughout the world, well endowed and
well equipped, the multitudes of secondary schools, and the
universality of the primary schools, now render it possible for every
individual to become intelligent and enlightened.

But these conditions are comparatively recent, so that millions of
individuals to-day, even in the midst of great educational systems,
remain entirely unlettered.  Nevertheless, the persistent effort on the
part of people everywhere to have good schools, with the best methods
of instruction, certainly must have its effect in bringing the masses
of unlearned into the realm of letters.  The practical tendency of
modern education, by which discipline and culture may be given while at
the same time preparing the student for the active duties of life,
makes education more necessary for all persons and classes.  The great
changes that have taken place in methods of instruction and in the
materials of scientific investigation, and the tendency to develop the
man as well as to furnish him with information, evince the masterly
progress of educational systems, and demonstrate their great worth.

_The Importance of State Education_.--So necessary has education become
to the perpetuation of free government that the states of the world
have deemed it advisable to provide on their own account a sufficient
means of education.  Perpetuation of liberty can be secured only on the
basis of intellectual progress.  From the time of the foundation of the
universities of Europe, kings and princes and state authorities have
{483} encouraged and developed education, but it remained for America
to begin a complete and universal free-school system.  In the United
States educators persistently urge upon the people the necessity of
popular education and intelligence as the only means of securing to the
people the benefits of a free government, and other statesmen from time
to time have insisted upon the same principle.  The private
institutions of America did a vast work for the education of the youth,
but proved entirely inadequate to meet the immediate demands of
universal education, and the public-school system sprang up as a
necessary means of preparation for citizenship.  It found its earliest,
largest, and best scope in the North and West, and has more recently
been established in the South, and now is universal.

The grant by the United States government at the time of the formation
of the Ohio territory of lands for the support of universities led to
the provision in the act of formation of each state and territory in
the Union for the establishment of a university.  Each state, since the
admission of Ohio, has provided for a state university, and the Act of
1862, which granted lands to each state in the Union for the
establishment of agricultural and mechanical colleges, has also given a
great impulse to state education.  In the organizing acts of some of
the newer states these two grants have been joined in one for the
upbuilding of a university combining the ideas of the two kinds of
schools.  The support insured to these state institutions promises
their perpetuity.  The amount of work which they have done for the
education of the masses in higher learning has been prodigious, and
they stand to-day as the greatest and most perfect monument of the
culture and learning of the Western states.

The tremendous growth of state education has increased the burden of
taxation to the extent that the question has arisen as to whether there
is not a limit to the amount people are willing to pay for public
education.  If it can be shown that they receive a direct benefit in
the education of their children there {484} will be no limit within
their means to the support of both secondary schools and universities.
But there must be evidence that the expenditure is economically and
wisely administered.

The princely endowments of magnificent universities like the Leland
Stanford Junior University, the University of Chicago, Johns Hopkins
University, Harvard, Yale, and others, have not interfered with the
growth and development of state education, for it rests upon the
permanent foundation of a popular demand for institutions supported by
the contributions of the whole people for the benefit of the state at
large.  State institutions based upon permanent foundations have been
zealous in obtaining the best quality of instruction, and the result is
that a youth in the rural districts may receive as good undergraduate
instruction as he can obtain in one of the older and more wealthy
private institutions, and at very little expense.

_The Printing-Press and Its Products_.--Perhaps of all of the
inventions that occurred prior to the eighteenth century, printing has
the most power in modern civilization.  No other one has so continued
to expand its achievements.  Becoming a necessary adjunct of modern
education, it continually extends its influence in the direct aid of
every other art, industry, or other form of human achievement.  The
dissemination of knowledge through books, periodicals, and the
newspaper press has made it possible to keep alive the spirit of
learning among the people and to assure that degree of intelligence
necessary for a self-governed people.

The freedom of the press is one of the cardinal principles of progress,
for it brings into fulness the fundamental fact of freedom of
discussion advocated by the early Greeks, which was the line of
demarcation between despotism and dogmatism and the freedom of the mind
and will.  In common with all human institutions, its power has
sometimes been abused.  But its defect cannot be remedied by repression
or by force, but by the elevation of the thought, judgment,
intelligence, and good-will of a people by an education which causes
them to {485} demand better things.  The press in recent years has been
too susceptible to commercial dominance--a power, by the way, which has
seriously affected all of our institutions.  Here, as in all other
phases of progress, wealth should be a means rather than an end of

_Public Opinion_.--Universal education in school and out, freedom of
discussion, freedom of thought and will to do are necessary to social
progress.  Public opinion is an expression of the combined judgments of
many minds working in conscious or unconscious co-operation.  Laws,
government, standards of right action, and the type of social order are
dependent upon it.  The attempt to form a League of Nations or a Court
of International Justice depends upon the support of an intelligent
public opinion.  War cannot be ended by force of arms, for that makes
more war, but by the force of mutually acquired opinion of all nations
based on good-will.  Every year in the United States there are examples
of the failure of the attempt to enforce laws which are not well
supported by public opinion.  Such laws are made effective by a gradual
education of those for whom they are made to the standard expressed in
the laws, or they become obsolete.


1.  Show from observations in your own neighborhood the influence of
education on social progress.

2.  Imperfections of public schools and the difficulties confronting

3.  Should all children in the United States be compelled to attend the
public schools?

4.  What part do newspapers and periodicals play in education?

5.  Relation of education to public opinion.

6.  Should people who cannot read and write be permitted to vote?

7.  Study athletics in your school and town to determine their
educational value.

8.  Show by investigation the educational value of motion-pictures and
their misuse.

9.  In what ways may social inequality be diminished?

10.  Would a law compelling the reading of the Bible in public schools
make people more religious?

[1] Richardson, _Messages and Papers of the Presidents_, I, 220.




_Commerce and Communication_.--The nations of the world have been drawn
together in thought and involuntary co-operation by the stimulating
power of trade.  The exchange of goods always leads to the exchange of
ideas.  By commerce each nation may profit by the products of all
others, and thus all may enjoy the material comforts of the world.  At
times some countries are deficient in the food-supply, but there has
been in recent years a sufficient world supply for all, when properly
distributed through commerce.  Some countries produce goods that cannot
be produced by others, but by exchange all may receive the benefits of
everything discovered, produced, or manufactured.

Rapid and complete transportation facilities are necessary to
accomplish this.  Both trade and transportation are dependent upon
rapid communication, hence the telegraph, the cable, and the wireless
have become prime necessities.  The more voluminous reports of trade
relations found in printed documents, papers, and books, though they
represent a slower method of communication, are essential to world
trade, but the results of trade are found in the unity of thought, the
development of a world mind, and growing similarity of customs, habits,
usages, and ideals.  Slowly there is developing a world attitude toward

_Exchange of Ideas Modifies Political Organization_.--The desire for
liberty of action is universal among all people who have been assembled
in mass under co-operation.  The arbitrary control by the
self-constituted authority of kings and governments without the consent
of the governed is opposed by all human associations, whether tribal,
territorial, or national.  Since the world settled down to the idea of
monarchy as a necessary form of government, men have been trying to
{487} substitute other forms of government.  The spread of democratic
ideas has been slowly winning the world to new methods of government.
The American Revolution was the most epoch-making event of modern
times.  While the French Revolution was about to burst forth, the
example of the American colonies was fuel to the flames.

In turn, after the United States had won their freedom and were well on
their way in developing a republican government, the influence of the
radical democracy was seen in the laws and constitutions of the states,
particularly in the first half of the nineteenth century.  The
Spanish-American War led to the development of democracy, not only in
Cuba and Porto Rico but in the Philippine Islands.  But the planting of
democracy in the Philippines had a world influence, manifested
especially in southeastern Asia, China, Japan, and India.

_Spread of Political Ideas_.--The socialism of Karl Marx has been one
of the most universal and powerful appeals to humanity for industrial
freedom.  His economic system is characterized by the enormous emphasis
placed upon labor as a factor in production.  Starting from the
hypothesis that all wealth is created by labor, and limiting all labor
to the wage-earner, there is no other conclusion, if the premise be
admitted, than that the product of industry belongs to labor
exclusively.  His theories gained more or less credence in Germany and
to a less extent in other countries, but they were never fully tested
until the Russian revolution in connection with the Great War.  After
the downfall of Czarism, leaders of the revolution attacked and
overthrew capitalism, and instituted the Soviet government.  The
proletariat came to the top, while the capitalists, nobility, and
middle classes went to the bottom.  This was brought about by sudden
revolution through rapid and wild propaganda.

Strenuous efforts to propagate the Soviet doctrine and the war against
capitalism in other countries have taken place, without working a
revolution similar to that in Russia.  But the International is slowly
developing a world idea among {488} laborers, with the ultimate end of
destroying the capitalistic system and making it possible for organized
wage-earners to rule the world.  It is not possible here to discuss the
Marxian doctrine of socialism nor to recount what its practical
application did to Russia.  Suffice it to say that the doctrine has a
fatal fallacy in supposing that wage-earners are the only class of
laborers necessary to rational economic production.

_The World War Breaks Down the Barriers of Thought_.--The Great War
brought to light many things that had been at least partially hidden to
ordinary thinking people.  It revealed the national selfishness which
was manifested in the struggle for the control of trade, the extension
of territory, and the possession of the natural resources of the world.
This selfishness was even more clearly revealed when, in the Treaty of
Versailles and the formation of the League of Nations, each nation was
unwilling to make necessary sacrifice for the purpose of establishing
universal peace.  They all appeared to feel the need of some
international agreement which should be permanent and each favored it,
could it first get what it wanted.  Such was the power of tradition
regarding the sanctity of national life and the sacredness of national
territory and, moreover, of national prerogatives!

Nevertheless, the interchange of ideas connecting with the gruelling of
war caused change of ideas about government and developed, if not an
international mind, new modes of national thinking.  The war brought
new visions of peace, and developed to a certain extent a recognition
of the rights of nations and an interest in one another's welfare.
There was an advance in the theory at least of international justice.
Also the world was shocked with the terror of war as well as its
futility and terrible waste.  While national selfishness was not
eradicated, it was in a measure subdued, and a feeling of co-operation
started which eventually will result in unity of feeling, thought, and
action.  The war brought into being a sentiment among the national
peoples that they will not in the future be forced into war without
their consent.


_Attempt to Form a League for Permanent Peace_.--Led by the United
States, a League of Nations was proposed which should settle all
disputes arising between nations without going to war.  The United
States having suggested the plan and having helped to form the League,
finally refused to become a party to it, owing in part to the tradition
of exclusiveness from European politics--a tradition that has existed
since the foundation of the nation.  Yet the United States was
suggesting a plan that it had long believed in, and a policy which it
had exercised for a hundred years with most nations.  It took a
prominent part in the first peace conference called by the Czar of
Russia in 1899.  The attempt to establish a permanent International
Tribunal ended in forming a permanent Court of Arbitration, which was
nothing more than an intelligence office with a body of arbitrators
composed of not more than four men from each nation, from whom nations
that had chosen to arbitrate a dispute might choose arbitrators.  The
conference adjourned with the understanding that another would be
called within a few years.

The Boxer trouble in China and the war between Japan and Russia delayed
the meeting.  Through the initiation of Theodore Roosevelt, of the
United States, a second Hague Conference met in 1907.  Largely through
the influence of Elihu Root a permanent court was established, with the
exception that a plan for electing delegates could not be agreed upon.
It was agreed to hold another conference in 1915 to finish the work.
Thus it is seen that the League of Nations advocated by President
Wilson was born of ideas already fructifying on American soil.
McKinley, Roosevelt, John Hay, Elihu Root, Joseph H. Choate, James
Brown Scott, and other statesmen had favored an International Tribunal.

The League of Nations provided in its constitution among other things
for a World Court of Nations.  In the first draft of the constitution
of the League no mention was made of a World Court.  But through a
cablegram of Elihu Root to Colonel E. M. House, the latter was able to
place articles 13 {490} and 14, which provided that the League should
take measures for forming a Court of International Justice.
Subsequently the court was formed by the League, but national
selfishness came to the front and crippled the court.  Article 34
originally read: "Between states which are members of the League of
Nations, the court shall have jurisdiction, and this without any
convention giving it jurisdiction to hear and determine cases of legal
nature."  It was changed to read; "The jurisdiction of the court
comprises all cases which the parties refer to it and all matters
specially provided for in treaties and conventions in force."

It is to be observed that in the original statement, either party to a
dispute could bring a case into court without the consent of the other,
thus making it a real court of justice, and in the modified law both
parties must agree to bring the case in court, thus making it a mere
tribunal of arbitration.  The great powers--England, France, Italy, and
Japan--were opposed to the original draft, evidently being unwilling to
trust their disputes to a court, while the smaller nations favored the
court as provided in the original resolution.  However, it was provided
that such nations who desired could sign an agreement to submit all
cases of dispute to the court with all others who similarly signed.
Nearly all of the smaller nations have so signed, and President Harding
urged the United States, though not a member of the League, to sign.

The judges of the court, eleven in all, are nominated by the old
Arbitration Court of the Hague Tribunal, and elected by the League of
Nations, the Council and Assembly voting separately.  Only one judge
may be chosen from a nation, and of course every nation may not have a
judge.  In cases where a dispute involves a nation which has no member
in the court, an extra judge may be appointed.  The first court was
chosen from the following nations: Great Britain, France, Italy, United
States, Cuba, Switzerland, Netherlands, Denmark, Japan, and Brazil.  So
the Court of International Justice is functioning in an incomplete way,
born of the spirit of {491} America, and the United States, though not
a member of the League of Nations, has a member in the court sitting in
judgment on the disputes of the nations of the world.  So likewise the
League of Nations, which the United States would not join, is
functioning in an incomplete way.

_International Agreement and Progress_.--But who shall say that the
spirit of international justice has not grown more rapidly than appears
from the workings of the machinery that carries it out?  Beneath the
selfish interests of nations is the international consciousness that
some way must be devised and held to for the settlement of disputes
without war; that justice between nations may be established similar to
that practised within the boundaries of a single nation.

No progress comes out of war itself, though it may force other lines of
conduct.  Progress comes from other sources than war.  Besides, it
brings its burdens of crime, cripples, and paupers, and its discontent
and distrust.  It may hasten production and stimulate invention of
destruction, but it is not constructive and always it develops an army
of plunderers who prey upon the suffering and toil of others.  These
home pirates are more destructive of civilization than poison gases or
high explosives.

_The Mutual Aid of Nations_.--In a previous chapter it was shown that
mutual aid of individuals was the beginning of society.  It now is
evident that the mutual aid of nations is their salvation.  As the
establishment of justice between individuals through their reactions
does not destroy their freedom nor their personalities, so the
establishment of justice among nations does not destroy their autonomy
nor infringe upon their rights.  It merely insists that brutal national
selfishness shall give way to a friendly co-operation in the interest
and welfare of all nations.  "A nation, like an individual, will become
greater as it cherishes a high ideal and does service and helpful acts
to its neighbors, whether great or small, and as it co-operates with
them in working toward a common end."[1] {492} Truly "righteousness
exalteth a nation," and it will become strong and noble as it seeks to
develop justice among all nations and to exercise toward them fair
dealing and friendly relations that make for peace.

_Reorganization of International Law_.--The public opinion of the
nations of the world is the only durable support of international law.
The law represents a body of principles, usages, and rules of action
regarding the rights of nations in peace and in war.  As a rule nations
have a wholesome respect for international law, because they do not
wish to incur the unfriendliness and possible hatred of their fellow
nations nor the contempt and criticism of the world.  This fear of open
censure has in a measure led to the baneful secret treaties, such an
important factor in European diplomacy, whose results have been
suspicion, distrust, and war.  Germany is the only modern nation that
felt strong enough to defy world opinion, the laws of nations, and to
assume an entirely independent attitude.  But not for long.  This
attitude ended in a disastrous war, in which she lost the friendship
and respect of the world--lost treasure and trade, lives and property.

It is unfortunate that modern international law is built upon the basis
of war rather than upon the basis of peace.  In this respect there has
not been much advance since the time of Grotius, the father of modern
international law.  However, there has been a remarkable advance among
most nations in settling their difficulties by arbitration.  This has
been accompanied by a strong desire to avoid war when possible, and a
longing for its entire abandonment.  Slowly but surely public opinion
realizes not only the desire but the necessity of abandoning great
armaments and preparation for war.

But the nations cannot go to a peace basis without concerted action.
This will be brought about by growth in national righteousness and a
modification of crude patriotism and national selfishness.  It is now
time to codify and revise international law on a peace basis, and new
measures adopted in accordance to the progress nations have made in
recent {493} years toward permanent peace.  Such a move would lead to a
better understanding and furnish a ready guide to the Court of
International Justice and all other means whereby nations seek to
establish justice among themselves.

_The Outlook for a World State_.--If it be understood that a world
state means the abandonment of all national governments and their
absorption in a world government, then it may be asserted truly that
such is an impossibility within the range of the vision of man.  Nor
would it be desirable.  If by world state is meant a political league
which unites all in a co-operative group for fair dealing in regard to
trade, commerce, territory, and the command of national resources, and
in addition a world court to decide disputes between nations, such a
state is possible and desirable.

Great society is a community of groups, each with its own life to live,
its own independence to maintain, and its own service to perform.  To
absorb these groups would be to disorganize society and leave the
individual helpless before the mass.  For it is only within group
activity that the individual can function.  So with nations, whose life
and organization must be maintained or the individual would be left
helpless before the world.  But nations need each other and should
co-operate for mutual advantage.  They are drawn closer each year in
finance, in trade and commerce, in principles of government and in
life.  A serious injury to one is an injury to all.  The future
progress of the world will not be assured until they cease their
squabbles over territory, trade, and the natural resources of the
world--not until they abandon corroding selfishness, jealousy, and
suspicion, and covenant with each other openly to keep the peace.

To accomplish this, as Mr. Walter Hines Page said: "Was there ever a
greater need than there is now for first-class minds unselfishly
working on world problems?  The ablest ruling minds are engaged on
domestic tasks.  There is no world-girdling intelligence at work on
government.  The present order must change.  It holds the Old World
still.  It keeps all {494} parts of the world apart, in spite of the
friendly cohesive forces of trade and travel.  It keeps back
self-government of men."  These evils cannot be overcome by law, by
formula, by resolution or rule of thumb, but rather by long, patient
study, research, and work of many master-minds in co-operative
leadership, who will create a sound international public opinion.  The
international mind needs entire regeneration, not dominance of the

The recent war was but a stupendous breaking with the past.  It
furnished opportunity for human society to move forward in a new
adjustment on a larger and broader plan of life.  Whether it will or
not depends upon the use made of the opportunity.  The smashing process
was stupendous, horrible in its moment.  Whether society will adapt
itself to the new conditions remains to be seen.  Peace, a highly
desirable objective, is not the only consideration.  There are even
more important phases of human adjustment.


1.  What were the results of the first (1899) and the second (1907)
Hague Conference?

2.  What is meant by "freedom of the seas"?

3.  Should a commission of nations attempt to equalize the ownership
and distribution of the natural products and raw materials, such as
oil, coal, copper, etc.?

4.  How did the World War make opportunity for democracy?

5.  Believing that war should be abolished, how may it be done?

6.  What are the dangers of extreme radicalism regarding government and
social order?

7.  The status of the League of Nations and the Court of International

8.  National selfishness and the League of Nations.

9.  The consolidation or co-operation of churches in your town.

10.  The union of social agencies to improve social welfare.

11.  Freedom of the press; freedom of speech.

12.  Public opinion.

[1] Cosmos, _The Basis of Durable Peace_.




_The Economic Outlook_.--The natural resources of forest, mines, and
agriculture are gradually being depleted.  The rapidity of movement in
the economic world, the creation of wealth by vast machinery, and the
organization of labor and industry are drawing more and more from the
wealth stored by nature in her treasure-houses.  There is a strong
agitation for the conservation of these resources, but little has been
accomplished.  The great business organizations are exploiting the
resources, for the making of the finished products, not with the prime
motive of adding to the material comforts and welfare of mankind, but
to make colossal fortunes under private control.  While the progress of
man is marked by mastery of nature, it should also be marked by
co-operation with nature on a continued utility basis.  Exploitation of
natural resources leads to conspicuous waste which may lead to want and
future deterioration.

The development of scientific agriculture largely through the influence
of the Agricultural Department at Washington and the numerous
agricultural colleges and experiment stations has done something to
preserve and increase the productivity of the soil.  Scientific study
and practical experiment have given improved quality of seed, a better
grade of stock, and better quality of fruits and vegetables.  They have
also given improved methods of cultivation and adaptability of crops to
the land, and thus have increased the yield per acre.  The increased
use of selected fertilizers has worked to the same end.  The use of a
large variety of labor-saving machines has conduced to increase the
amount of the product.  But all of this improvement is small,
considering the amount that needs to be done.  The population is
increasing rapidly from {496} the native stock and by immigration.
There is need for wise conservation in the use of land to prevent
economic waste and to provide for future generations.  The greedy
consumers, with increasing desire for more and better things, urge,
indirectly to be sure, for larger production and greater variety of
finished products.

_The Economics of Labor_.--In complex society there are many divisions
or groups of laborers--laborers of body and laborers of mind.  Every
one who is performing a legitimate service, which is sought for and
remunerative to the laborer and serviceable to the public, is a
laborer.  At the base of all industry and social activity are the
industrial wage-earners, who by their toil work the mines, the
factories, the great steel and iron industries, the railroads, the
electric-power plants and other industries.  Since the beginning of the
industrial revolution in the latter part of the eighteenth century,
labor has been working its way out of slavery into freedom.

As a result laborers have better wages, better conditions of life, more
of material comforts, and a higher degree of intelligence than ever
before.  Yet there is much improvement needed.  While the hours of
labor have been reduced in general to eight per day, the irregularity
of employment leads to unrest and frequently to great distress.  There
is a growing tendency to make laborers partners in the process of
production.  This does not mean that they shall take over the direction
of industry, but co-operate with the managers regarding output, quality
of goods, income, and wages, so as to give a solidarity to productive
processes and eliminate waste of time, material, and loss by strikes.

The domestic peace in industry is as important as the world peace of
nations in the economy of the world's progress.  A direct interest of
the wage-earner in the management of production and in the general
income would have a tendency to equalize incomes and prevent laborers
from believing that the product of industry as well as its management
should be under their direct control.  Public opinion usually favors
the {497} laborer and, while it advocates the freedom and dignity of
labor, does not favor the right of labor to exploit industry nor
concede the right to destroy.  But it believes that labor organizations
should be put on the same basis as productive corporations, with equal
degree of rights, privileges, duties, and responsibilities.

_Public and Corporate Industries_.--The independent system of organized
industry so long dominant in America, known by the socialists as
capitalistic production, has become so thoroughly established that
there is no great tendency to communistic production and distribution.
There is, however, a strong tendency to limit the power of exploitation
and to control larger industries in the interest of the public.
Especially is this true in regard to what are known as public
utilities, such as transportation, lighting, telephone, and telegraph
companies, and, in fact, all companies that provide necessaries common
to the public, that must be carried on as monopolies.  Public opinion
demands that such corporations, conducting their operations as special
privileges granted by the people, shall be amenable to the public so
far as conduct and income are concerned.  They must be public service
companies and not public exploitation companies.

The great productive industries are supposed to conduct their business
on a competitive basis, which will determine price and income.  As a
matter of fact, this is done only in a general way, and the incomes are
frequently out of proportion to the power of the consuming public to
purchase.  Great industries have the power to determine the income
which they think they ought to have, and, not receiving it, may cease
to carry on their industry and may invest their capital in non-taxable
securities.  While under our present system there is no way of
preventing this, it would be a great boon to the public, and a new
factor in progress, if they were willing to be content with a smaller
margin of profit and a slower accumulation of wealth.  At least some
change must take place or the people of small incomes will be obliged
to give up many {498} of the comforts of life of which our boasted
civilization is proud, and gradually be reduced to the most sparing
economy, if not to poverty.  The same principle might be applied to the
great institutions of trade.

_The Political Outlook_.--In our earlier history the struggle for
liberty of action was the vital phase of our democracy.  To-day the
struggle is to make our ideal democracy practical.  In theory ours is a
self-governed people; in practice this is not wholly true.  We have the
power and the opportunity for self-government, but we are not
practising it as we might.  There is a real danger that the people will
fail to assume the responsibility of self-government, until the affairs
of government are handed over to an official class of exploiters.

For instance, the free ballot is the vital factor in our government,
but there are many evidences that it is not fully exercised for the
political welfare of the country.  It frequently occurs that men are
sent to Congress on a small percentage of voters.  Other elective
offices meet the same fate.  Certainly, more interest must be taken in
selecting the right kind of men to rule over them or the people will
barter away their liberties by indifference.  Officials should be
brought to realize that they are to serve the public and it is largely
a missionary job they are seeking rather than an opportunity to exploit
the office for personal gain.

The expansive process of political society makes a larger number of
officers necessary.  The people are demanding the right to do more
things by themselves, which leads to increased expenses in the cost of
administration, great bonded indebtedness, and higher taxation.  It
will be necessary to curb expansion and reduce overhead charges upon
the government.  This may call for the reorganization of the machinery
of government on the basis of efficiency.  At least it must be shown to
the people that they have a full return for the money paid by taxation.
It is possible only by study, care, civic responsibility, and interest
in government affairs, as well as by increased intelligence, that our
democratic idealism may be put {499} into practice.  Laboratory methods
in self-government are a prime necessity.

_The Equalization of Opportunity_.--Popular education is the greatest
democratic factor in existence.  It is the one great institution which
recognizes that equal opportunities should be granted to everybody.
Yet it has its limits in establishing equal opportunities in the
accepted meaning of the term.  There is a false idea of equality which
asserts that one man is as good as another before he has proved himself
to be so.  True equality means justice to all.  It does not guarantee
that equality of power, of intellect, of wealth, and social standing
shall obtain.  It seeks to harmonize individual development with social
development, and to insure the individual the right to achieve
according to his capacity and industry.  "The right to life, liberty,
and the pursuit of happiness" is a household word, but the right to
_pursue_ does not insure success.

The excessive altruism of the times has led to the protecting care of
all classes.  In its extreme processes it has made the weak more
helpless.  What is needed is the cultivation of individual
responsibility.  Society is so great, so well organized, and does so
much that there is a tendency of the individual to shift his
responsibility to it.  Society is composed of individuals, and its
quality will be determined by the character and quality of the
individual working especially for himself and generally for the good of
all.  A little more of the law of the survival of the fittest would
temper our altruism to more effective service.  The world is full of
voluntary altruistic and social betterment societies, making drives for
funds.  They should re-examine their motives and processes and
carefully estimate what they are really accomplishing.  Is the
institution they are supporting merely serving itself, or has it a
working power and a margin of profit in actual service?

_The Influence of Scientific Thought on Progress_.--The effect of
scientific discovery on material welfare has been referred to
elsewhere.  It remains to determine how scientific thought changes the
attitude of the mind toward life.  The laboratory {500} method
continually tests everything, and what he finds to be true the
scientist believes.  He gradually ignores tradition and adheres to
those things that are shown to be true by experimentation or recorded
observation.  It is true that he uses hypotheses and works the
imagination.  But his whole tendency is to depart from the realm of
instinct and emotions and lay a foundation for reflective thinking.
The scientific attitude of mind influences all philosophy and all
religion.  "Let us examine the facts in the case" is the attitude of
scientific thought.

The study of anthropology and sociology has, on the one hand,
discovered the natural history of man and, on the other, shown his
normal social relations.  Both of these studies have co-operated with
biology to show that man has come out of the past through a process of
evolution; that all that he is individually and socially has been
attained through long ages of development.  Even science, philosophy,
and religion, as well as all forms of society, have had a slow, painful
evolution.  This fact causes people to re-examine their traditional
belief to see how far it corresponds to new knowledge.  It has helped
men to realize on their philosophy of life and to test it out in the
light of new truth and experience.  This has led the church to a
broader conception of the truth and to a more direct devotion to
service.  It is becoming an agency for visualizing truth rather than an
institution of dogmatic belief.  The religious traditionalists yield
slowly to the new religious liberalism.  But the influence of
scientific thought has caused the church to realize on the investment
which it has been preaching these many centuries.

_The Relation of Material Comfort to Spiritual Progress_.--The material
comforts which have been multiplying in recent centuries do not insure
the highest spiritual activity.  The nations that have achieved have
been forced into activity by distressing conditions.  In following the
history of any nation along any line of achievement, it will be noticed
that in its darkest, most uncomfortable days, when progress seemed
least {501} in evidence, forces were in action which prepared for great
advancement.  It has been so in literature, in science, in liberty, in
social order; it is so in the sum-total of the world's achievements.

Granting that the increase of material comforts, in fact, of wealth, is
a great achievement of the age, the whole story is not told until the
use of the wealth is determined.  If it leads to luxurious living,
immorality, injustice, and loss of sense of duty, as in some of the
ancient nations, it will prove the downfall of Western civilization.
If the leisure and strength it offers are utilized in raising the
standard of living, of establishing higher ideals, and creating a will
to approximate them, then they will prove a blessing and an impulse to
progress.  Likewise, the freedom of the mind and freedom in
governmental action furnish great opportunities for progress, but the
final result will be determined by use of such opportunities in the
creation of a higher type of mind characterized by a well-balanced
social attitude.

_The Balance of Social Forces_.--There are two sources of the origin of
social life, one arising out of the attitude of the individual toward
society, and the other arising out of the attitude of society toward
the individual.  These two attitudes seem, at first view, paradoxical
in many instances, for both individual and society must survive.  But
in the long run they are not antagonistic, for the good of one must be
the good of the other.  The perfect balancing of the two forces would
make a perfect society.  The modern social problem is to determine how
much choice shall be left to individual initiative and how much shall
be undertaken by the group.

In recent years the people have been doing more and more for themselves
through group action.  The result has been a multiplication of laws,
many of them useless; the creation of a vast administrative force
increasing overhead charges, community control or operation of
industries, and the vast amount of public, especially municipal,
improvements.  All of these have been of advantage to the people in
common, but have {502} greatly increased taxation until it is felt to
be a burden.  Were it not for the great war debts that hang heavily on
the world, probably the increased taxation for legitimate expenses
would not have been seriously felt.  But it seems certain that a halt
in excessive public expenditures will be called until a social
stock-taking ensues.  At any rate, people will demand that useless
expenditures shall cease and that an ample return for the increased
taxation shall be shown in a margin of profit for social betterment.  A
balance between social enterprise and individual effort must be secured.

_Restlessness Versus Happiness_.--Happiness is an active principle
arising from the satisfaction of individual desires.  It does not
consist in the possession of an abundance of material things.  It may
consist in the harmony of desires with the means of satisfying them.
Perhaps the "right to achieve" and the successful process of
achievement are the essential factors in true happiness.  Realizing how
wealth will furnish opportunities for achievement, and how it will
furnish the luxuries of life as well as furnish an outlet for restless
activity, great energy is spent in acquiring it.  Indeed, the attitude
of mind has been centred so strongly on the possession of the dollar
that this seems to be the end of pursuit rather than a means to higher
states of life.  It is this wrong attitude of life that brings about so
much restlessness and so little real happiness.  Only the utilization
of material wealth to develop a higher spiritual life of man and
society will insure continuous progress.

The vast accumulations of material wealth in the United States and the
wonderful provisions for material comfort are apt to obscure the vision
of real progress.  Great as are the possible blessings of material
progress, it is possible that eventually they may prove a menace.
Other great civilizations have fallen because they stressed the
importance of the material life and lost sight of the great adventure
of the spirit.  Will the spiritual wealth rise superior, strong, and
dominant to overcome the downward drag of material prosperity and {503}
thus be able to support the burdens of material civilization that must
be borne?

_Summary of Progress_.--If one were to review the previous pages from
the beginnings of human society to the present time, he would observe
that mind is the ruling force of all human en