Chapter IV: Introduction

DEFINITION OF HISTORY.--The subject of history is man. History has for its object to record his doings and experiences. It may then be concisely defined as a narrative of past events in which men have been concerned. To describe the earth, the abode of man, to delineate the different kingdoms of nature, and to inquire into the origin of them, or to explain the physical or mental constitution of human beings, is no part of the office of history. All this belongs to the departments of natural and intellectual science.

But history, as we now understand the term, is more than a bare record of what men have done and suffered. It aims to point out the connection of events with one another. It seeks to explain the causes and the consequences of things that occur. It would trace the steps that mark the progress of the race, and of the different portions of it, through extended periods. It brings to light the thread which unites each particular stage in the career of a people, or of mankind as a whole, with what went before, and with what came after.

NATIONS.--History has been called "the biography of a society." Biography has to do with the career of an individual. History is concerned with the successive actions and fortunes of a community; in its broadest extent, with the experiences of the human family. It is only when men are connected by the social bond, and remain so united for a greater or less period, that there is room for history. It is, therefore, with nations, in their internal progress and in their mutual relations, that history especially deals. Of mere clans, or loosely organized tribes, it can have little to say. History can go no farther than to explore their genealogy, and state what were their journeyings and habits. The nation is a form of society that rests on the same basis--a basis at once natural and part of a divine system--as the family. By a nation is meant a people dwelling in a definite territory, living under the same government, and bound together by such ties as a common language, a common religion, the same institutions and customs. The elements that enter into that national spirit which is the bond of unity, are multiple. They vary to a degree in different peoples. As individuals are not alike, and as the history of any particular community is modified and molded by these individual differences, so the course of the history of mankind is shaped by the peculiar characteristics of the various nations, and by their interaction upon one another. In like manner, groups of nations, each characterized by distinctive traits derived from affinities of race or of religion, or from other sources, act on each other, and thus help to determine the course of the historic stream.

SCOPE OF HISTORY.--The rise and progress of _culture_ and _civilization_ in their various constituents is the theme of history. It does not limit its attention to a particular fraction of a people, to the exclusion of the rest. Governments and rulers, and the public doings of states,--such as foreign wars, and the struggles of rival dynasties,--naturally form a prominent topic in historical writings. But this is only one department in the records of the past. More and more history interests itself in the character of society at large, and in the phases through which it has passed. How men lived from day to day, what their occupations were, their comforts and discomforts, their ideas, sentiments, and modes of intercourse, their state as regards art, letters, invention, religious enlightenment,--these are points on which history, as at present studied and written, undertakes to shed light.

POINTS OF VIEW.--An eminent German philosopher of our day, _Hermann Lotze_, intimates that there are five phases of human development, and hence five points of view from which the course of history is to be surveyed. These are the _intellectual_ (embracing the progress of truth and knowledge), the _industrial_, the _aesthetic_ (including art in all its higher ramifications), the _religious_, and the political. An able English scholar, _Goldwin Smith_, resolves the elements of human progress, and thus the most general topics of history, into three, "the moral, the intellectual, and the productive; or, _virtue_, _knowledge_, and _industry_." "But these three elements," he adds, "though distinct, are not separate, but closely connected with each other."

THE PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY.--That there is, in some sense, a "reign of law" in the succession of human events, is a conviction warranted by observed facts, as well as inspired by religion. Events do not spring into being, disjoined from antecedents leading to them. Even turning-points in history, which seem, at the first glance, abrupt, are found to be dependent on previous conditions. They are perceived to be the natural issue of the times that have gone before. Preceding events have foreshadowed them. There are laws of historical progress which have their root in the characteristics of human nature. Ends are wrought out, which bear on them evident marks of design. History, as a whole, is the carrying out of a plan:

"... through the ages one increasing purpose runs."

_Augustine_ long ago argued, that he who has not left "even the
entrails of the smallest and most insignificant animal, or the
feather of a bird, or the little flower of a plant, or the leaf of a
tree, without a harmony, and, as it were, a mutual peace among all
its parts,--that God can never be believed to have left the kingdoms
of men, their dominations and servitudes, outside of the laws of his
providence."

To discern the plan of history, and the causes or laws through which it is accomplished, as far as our limited capacity will allow, is the object of what is called the philosophy of history.

FREEDOM AND LAW.--It must not be forgotten, however, that man is a free agent. History, although it is not an aimless process, is, nevertheless, not subject to the forces and laws which govern in the realm of matter. Physical analogies are not a literal image of what takes place in the sphere of intelligence and freedom. Moral evil, wherever it is a factor in history, has its origin in the will of man. In respect to it, the agency of God is permissive and overruling. Through his providence, order is made to emerge, a worthy goal is at last reached, despite the elements of disorder introduced by human perversity.

Nor is progress continuous and unbroken. It is often, as one has said, a spiral rather than a straight line. It is not an unceasing advance: there are backward movements, or what appear to be such. Of particular nations it is frequently evident, that, intellectually and morally, as well as in power and thrift, they have sunk below a level once attained.

Of the inscrutable blending of human freedom with a pre-ordained
design, GUIZOT says: "Man advances in the execution of a plan which
he has not conceived, and of which he is not even aware. He is the
free and intelligent artificer of a work which is not his own."
"Conceive a great machine, the design of which is centered in a
single mind, though its various parts are intrusted to different
workmen, separated from, and strangers to, each other. No one of
them understands the work as a whole, nor the general result which
he concurs in producing; but every one executes with intelligence
and freedom, by rational and voluntary acts, the particular task
assigned to him." (_Lectures on the History of Civilization_,
Lect. xi.)

PERSONAL POWER.--The progress of society has been inseparably connected with the agency of eminent persons. Signal changes, whether wholesome or mischievous, are linked to the names of individuals who have specially contributed to bring them to pass. The achievements of heroes stand out in as bold relief in authentic history as in the obscure era of myth and fable. Fruitful inventions, after the earlier steps in civilization are taken, are traceable to particular authors, exalted by their genius above the common level. So it is with the literary works which have exerted the deepest and most lasting influence. Nations have their pilots in war and in peace. Epochs in the progress of the fine arts are ushered in by individuals of surpassing mental power. Reforms and revolutions, which alter the direction of the historic stream, emanate from individuals in whose minds they are conceived, and by whose energy they are effected. The force thus exerted by the leaders in history is not accounted for by reference to general laws. Great men are not puppets moved by the spirit of the time. To be sure, there must be a preparation for them, and a groundwork of sympathy among their contemporaries: otherwise their activity would call forth no response. Independently of the age that gives them birth, their power would lose its distinctive form and hue: they would be incapable of influence.

_Cromwell_ would not have been Cromwell had he been born in any other period of English history. Nor could he have played his part, being what he was, had not the religious and political struggles of England for generations framed a theater adapted to his talents and character. _Michael Angelo_ could not have arisen in a half-civilized tribe. His creative power would have found no field in a society rude, and blind to the attractions of art. Nevertheless, his power _was_ creative. Cromwell and Michael Angelo, and such as they, are not the passive organs, the mere outcome, of the communities in which they appear. Without the original thought and personal energy of leaders, momentous changes in the life of nations could never have taken place. A great man may be obliged to wait long for the answering sympathy which is required to give effect to his thoughts and purposes. Such a mind is said to be in advance of the age. Another generation may have to appear before the harvest springs from the seed that he has sown. Moreover, it is not true that great men, efficient leaders, come forward whenever there is an exigency calling for them, or an urgent need. Rather is it true that terrible disasters sometimes occur, at critical points in history, just for the lack of leaders fit for the emergency.

THE MEANING OF HISTORY.--A thoughtful student can hardly fail to
propose to himself the question, "What is the meaning of history?
Why is this long drama with all that is noble and joyous in it, and
with its abysses of sin and misery, enacted at all?" It is only a
partial answer that one can hope to give to this grave inquiry, for
the designs of Providence can not be fully fathomed. But, among the
ends in view, the moral training of mankind stands forth with a
marked prominence. The deliverance of the race from moral evil and
error, and the building-up of a purified society, enriched with all
the good that belongs to the ideal of humanity, and exalted by
fellowship with God, is not only an end worthy in itself, but it is
the end towards which the onward movement of history is seen to be
directed. Hence, a central place in the course of history belongs to
the life and work of Jesus Christ.

No more satisfactory solution of this problem of the significance of
history has ever been offered than that brought forward by the
Apostle Paul in Acts xvii. 27, where he says that the nations of men
were assigned to their places on the earth, and their duration as
well as boundaries determined, "that they should seek the Lord, if
haply they might feel after him, and find him."

WORKS ON THE PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY.-(Professor C. K. ADAMS'S
_Manual of Historical Literature_ (1882) is an excellent guide
in historical reading. Briefer lists of works in _Methods of
Teaching and Studying History_, edited by G. Stanley Hall.)
_Books on the Philosophy of History_: R. FLINT, _The
Philosophy of History_, vol. i.,--Writers on the subject in
France and Germany. Vol. ii. will treat of England and Italy. The
work is a critical review of the literature on the
subject. Schlegel, _The Philosophy of History_; Shedd's
_Lectures on the Philosophy of History_; Bunsen's _God in
History_ (3 vols., 1870); LOTZE, _Mikrokosmus_, vol. iii,
book vii.; Montesquieu's _Spirit of the Laws_; Buckle,
_History of Civilization in England_ (2 vols.). This work is
based on the denial of free-will, and the doctrine that physical
influences,--climate, soil, food, etc.,--are the main causes of
intellectual progress. Draper's _History of the Intellectual
Development of Europe_(2 vols., 2d edition, 1876) is in the same
vein. Opposed to this philosophy are GOLDWIN SMITH'S _Lectures on
the Study of History_; C. Kingsley, in his _Miscellanies, The
Limits of Exact Science as applied to History_; Froude, in
_Short Studies_, vol. i., _The Science of History_; Lotze,
as above; also, Flint, and Droysen, _Grundriss der
Historik_. Hegel's _Philosophy of History_ has profound
observations, but connected with an _a priori_ theory.

HISTORICAL WRITING.--The beginning of historical writing was in the
form of lists of kings, or bare records of battles, or the simple
registration of other occurrences of remarkable interest. The
Egyptians, Babylonians, Assyrians, Chinese, and other nations,
furnish examples of this rudimental type of historical writing. More
continuous annals followed; but these are meager in contents, and
make no attempt to find links of connection between events. The
ancient Hebrew historians are on a much higher plane, and, apart
from their religious value, far surpass all other Asiatic
histories. It was in _Greece_, the fountain-head of science,
that history, as an art, first appeared. _Herodotus_, born
early in the fifth century B.C., first undertook to satisfy
curiosity respecting the past by a more elaborate and entertaining
narrative. He begins his work thus: "These are the researches of
Herodotus of Halicarnassus, which he publishes, in the hope of
thereby preserving from decay the remembrance of what men have done,
and of preventing the great and marvelous actions of the Greeks and
the barbarians from losing their due meed of glory, and withal to
put on record what were the grounds of their hostility." In
Herodotus, history, owing to the inquiry made into the causes of
events, begins to rise above the level of a mere chronicle, its
primitive type. _Thucydides_, who died about 400 B.C.,
followed. He is far more accurate in his investigations, having a
deep insight into the origin of the events which he relates, and is
a model of candor. He, too, writes to minister to the inquisitive
spirit of his countrymen, and of the generations that were to
follow. He began to write his history of the war between the
Athenians and the Peloponnesians while it was still going on, in the
belief, he says, "that it would turn out great, and worthier of
being recorded than any that had preceded it." The attention of
historical writers was still confined to a particular country, or to
insulated groups of events. Before there could spring up the idea of
universal history, it was necessary that there should be a broader
view of mankind as a whole. The ancient _Stoics_ had a glimpse
of the race as a family, and of the nations as forming one complex
unity. The conquests and extended dominion of Rome first suggested
the idea of universal history. _Polybius_, a Greek in the
second century B.C., had watched the progress of Rome, in its career
of conquest, until "the affairs of Italy and Africa," as he says,
"joined with those of Asia and Greece, and all moved together
towards one fixed and single point." He tells us that particular
histories can not give us a knowledge of the whole, more than the
survey of the divided members of a body once endowed with life and
beauty can yield a just conception of all the comeliness and vigor
which it has received from Nature. To Polybius belongs the
distinction of being the first to undertake a universal
history. Christianity, with its doctrine of the unity of mankind,
and with all the moral and religious teaching characteristic of the
gospel, contributed effectively to the widening of the view of the
office and scope of history. It is only in quite recent times that
history has directed its attention predominantly to _social
progress_, and to its causes and conditions.

History, in its etymological sense (from the Greek, historia), meant
the ascertaining of facts by inquiry; then, the results of this
inquiry, the knowledge thus obtained. The work of Herodotus was
"history" in the strictest sense: he acquired his information by
travel and personal interrogation.

The German philosopher, _Hegel_, has divided histories into
three classes: 1. _Original histories_; i.e., works written by
contemporaries of the events described, who share in the spirit of
the times, and may have personally taken part in the
transactions. Such are the works of Herodotus, Thucydides,
Xenophon's Anabasis, Clarendon's History of the Great Rebellion in
England, Caesar's Commentaries. 2. _Reflective histories_,
where the author writes at a later point of time, on the basis of
materials which he gathers up, but is not himself a partaker in the
spirit of the age of which he treats. 3. _Philosophical
histories_, which set forth the rational development of history
in its inmost idea.

Another classification is the following: 1. _Genealogies_, like
the records of Manetho, the Egyptian priest. 2. _The
chronicle_, following the chronological order, and telling the
story in a simple, popular way. 3. _The "pragmatic"_ form of
writing, which aims to explain by reference to the past some
particular characteristic or phase of the present, and uses history
to point a special moral lesson. 4. The form of history which traces
the rise and progress of "_ideas_," tendencies, or ruling
forces,--such as the idea of civil equality in early Rome or in
modern France, the religious ideas of Mohammedanism, the idea of
representative government, the idea of German unity, etc.

A broad line of distinction has been drawn between "the old or
_artistic_ type of history," and the new or _sociological_
type which belongs to the present century. The ancient historians
represented the former type. They prized literary form. They aimed
to interweave moral and political reflections. Polybius often
interrupts his narrative to introduce remarks of this sort. But they
were not, as a rule, diligent and accurate in their researches. And,
above all, they had no just conception of society as a whole, and of
the complex forces out of which the visible scene springs. The
Greeks were the masters in this first or artistic form of
history. The French Revolution was one stimulus to a profounder and
more comprehensive method of studying history. The methods and
investigations of natural science have had a decided influence in
the same direction.

THE SOURCES OF HISTORY.--History must depend for credence on credible evidence. In order to justify belief, one must either himself have seen or heard the facts related, or have the testimony, direct or indirect, of witnesses or of well-informed contemporaries. The sources of historic knowledge are mainly comprised in _oral tradition_, or in some form of _written records_.

_Tradition_ is exposed to the infirmities of memory, and to the unconscious invention and distortion which grow out of imagination and feeling. Ordinarily, bare tradition, not verified by corroborative proofs, can not be trusted later than the second generation from the circumstances narrated. It ceases to be reliable when it has been transmitted through more than two hands. In the case of a great and startling event, like a destructive convulsion of nature or a protracted war, the authentic story, though unwritten, of the central facts, at least, is of much longer duration. There may be visible monuments that serve to perpetuate the recollection of the occurrences which they commemorate. _Institutions_ may exist--popular festivals and the like--which keep alive the memory of past events, and, in certain circumstances, are sufficient to verify them to generations far removed in time. Events of a stirring character, when they are embodied in _songs_ of an early date, may be transmitted orally, though in a poetic dress. Songs and legends, it may be added, even when they do not suffice to verify the incidents to which they refer, are valuable as disclosing the sentiments and habits of the times when they originated, or were cherished. The central fact, the nucleus of the tradition, may be historical when all the details belonging with it have been effaced, or have been superseded by other details, the product of imagination. The historical student is to distinguish between traditionary tales which are _untrustworthy throughout_, and traditions which have _their roots in fact_. Apart from oral tradition, the sources of historical knowledge are the following:--

1. Contemporary registers, chronicles, and other documents, either now, or known to have been originally, in a manuscript form.

2. Inscriptions on monuments and coins. Such, for example, are the inscriptions on the monuments of Egypt and on the buried ruins of Nineveh and Babylon. Such are the ancient epitaphs, heathen and Christian, in the Roman catacombs. The study of ancient inscriptions of various sorts has thrown much light of late upon Grecian and Roman antiquity.

3. The entire literature of a people, in which its intellectual, moral, and social condition, at any particular era, is mirrored.

4. Material structures of every kind, as altars, tombs, private dwellings,--as those uncovered at Pompeii,--public edifices, civil and religious, paintings, weapons, household utensils. These all tell a story relative to the knowledge and taste, the occupations and domestic habits, and the religion, of a past generation or of an extinct people.

5 Language is a memorial of the past, of the more value since it is not the product of deliberate contrivance. _Comparative philology_, following languages back to their earlier stages and to the parent stocks, unveils the condition of society at remote epochs. It not only describes the origin of nations, but teaches something respecting their primitive state.

6. Histories written at former periods, but subsequently to the events described in them, are a secondary but valuable source of historical knowledge. This is especially true when their authors had access to traditions that were nearer their fountain, or to literary monuments which have perished.

HISTORICAL CRITICISM.--Historical scholars are much more exacting as
regards evidence than was formerly the case. The criticism of what
purports to be proof is more searching. At the same time, what is
called "historical divination" can not be altogether
excluded. Learned and sagacious scholars have conjectured the
existence of facts, where a gap in recorded history--"the logic of
events"--seemed to presuppose them; and later discoveries have
verified the guess. This is analogous to the success of Leverrier
and Adams in inferring the existence of an unknown planet, which the
telescope afterwards discovered. An example of historical divination
on a large scale is furnished by the theories of the great German
historian, _Niebuhr_, in respect to early Roman history. He
propounded opinions, however, which in many particulars fail to
obtain general assent at present.

CREDIBILITY OF HISTORY.--At the opposite pole from credulity is an
unwarrantable historical skepticism. The story is told of Sir Walter
Raleigh, that when he was a prisoner in the Tower, and was engaged
in writing his _History of the World_, he heard the sounds of a
fracas in the prison-yard. On inquiry of those who were concerned in
it, and were on the spot, he found so many contradictions in their
statements that he could not get at the truth. Whereupon, it
occurred to him as a vain thing to undertake to describe what had
occurred on the vast theater of the world, when he could not
ascertain the truth about an event occurring within a bow-shot. The
anecdote simply illustrates, however, the difficulty of getting at
the exact truth respecting details,--a difficulty constantly
exemplified in courts of justice. The fact of the conflict in the
court of the Tower, the general cause, the parties engaged, the
consequences,--as, for example, what punishment was inflicted,--were
undisputed. The great facts which influence the course of history,
it is not difficult to ascertain. Moreover, as against an
extravagant skepticism, it may be said that history provides us with
a vast amount of authentic information which contemporaries, and
even individual actors, were not possessed of. This is through the
bringing to light of documents from a great variety of sources, many
of which were secret, or not open to the view of all the leaders in
the transactions to which they refer. The private correspondence of
the Protestant leaders,--Luther, Melanchthon, Cranmer, etc.,--the
letters of Erasmus, the official reports of the Venetian
ambassadors, the letters of William the Silent and of Philip II.,
put us in possession of much information, which at the time was a
secret to most of the prominent participants in the events of the
sixteenth century. The correspondence of Washington, Hamilton,
Jefferson, John Adams, Wolcott, Pickering, etc., introduces us into
the secret counsels of the American political leaders of that
day. Numerous facts conveyed from one to another under the seal of
privacy, and not known to the others, are thus revealed to us.

On the nature and value of tradition, a very valuable discussion is
that of EWALD, _History of Israel_, vol. i. pp. 13-38; Sir
G. C. LEWIS, _ Essays on the Credibility of Early Roman
History_, in which Niebuhr's conclusions are criticised;
A. Bisset, _Essays on Historical Truth_. On the sources of
history, Art. by GAIRDNER in _The Contemporary Review_,
vol. xxxviii.

HISTORY AND GEOGRAPHY.--Political Geography, which describes the earth as inhabited, and as parceled out among nations, has a close relation to history. Without a distinct idea of the position of places and the boundaries of countries, historical narrations are enveloped in a sort of haze. _France_, for example, is a name with very different meanings at different dates in the past. Unless the varying uses of the word _Burgundy_ are understood, important parts of European history are left in confusion.

PHYSICAL GEOGRAPHY.--Even more helpful is _Physical Geography_, which surveys the earth in its three great divisions,--land, sea, and air,--without reference to lines of political demarkation. The configuration of the different portions of the globe, with the varieties of climate, the relations of mountain and plain, of land and water, have strongly affected the character of nations and the currents of history. In regions extremely hot or extremely cold man can not thrive, or build up a rich and enduring civilization. The occupations of a people are largely dependent on its situation,--whether it be maritime or away from the sea,--and on peculiarities of soil and temperature. The character of the Nile valley, and its periodical inundation, is a striking illustration of the possible extent of geographical influences. The peninsular and mountainous character of Greece went far to shape the form of Greek political society. The high plateau which forms the greater portion of Spain, with the fertile belts of valley on the Atlantic and Mediterranean border, have helped to determine the employments and the character of the Spanish people. Had the physical characteristics of the Spanish peninsula been essentially different, the success of Wellington in expelling the French, with the forces at his disposal, would not have been possible. Were there a chain of mountains along our Atlantic coast as near as are the Andes to the Pacific, what different results would have arisen from the English settlements in North America! The Alpine barrier in the north of Italy was indispensable to the building-up and maintenance of the dominion of ancient Rome. Of the great basin or plain between the Alps and the Apennines, open to the sea only on the east, through which flows one great river, fed by streams from the mountains on either side, Dr. Arnold says: "Who can wonder that this large and richly watered plain should be filled with flourishing cities, or that it should have been contended for so often by successful invaders?" While the agency of climate, soil, and other physical circumstances may easily be exaggerated, that agency must be duly considered in accounting for historical phenomena.

The best historical Atlas is the copious German work of VON
SPRUNER. FREEMAN'S _Historical Geography of Europe_ is a work
of great value. DROVSEN'S _Allg. Hist. Atlas._ Smaller atlases
are those of PUTZGER, Rhode, Appleton's _Hist. Atlas_, the
_International_, and the _Collegiate_. Smaller still,
Keith Johnston's Crown Atlases and Half-Crown Atlases. On Mediæval
History, Labberton's Atlas; also, Koeppen: in Ancient Geography,
SMITH'S work, KIEPERT'S, Long's. On Physical Geography, GUYOT'S
text-books; Vaughan's _Connection between History and Physical
Geography_, in _Contemp. Review_, vol. v.; Hall's _Methods
of Studying History_, etc., p. 201 _seq._,
_Encycl. Brit._, Art. _Geography_.

CHRONOLOGY.--An exact method of establishing dates was slowly reached. The invention of eras was indispensable to this end. The earliest definite time for the dating of events was established at Babylon,--the era of Nabonassar, 747 B.C. The Greeks, from about 300 B.C., dated events from the first recorded victory at the Olympic games, 776 B.C. These games occurred every fourth year. Each Olympiad was thus a period of four years. The Romans, though not until some centuries after the founding of Rome, dated from that event; i.e., from 753 B.C. The Mohammedan era begins at the Hegira, or flight of Mohammed from Mecca, 622 A.D. The method of dating from the birth of Jesus was introduced by Dionysius Exiguus, a Roman abbot, about the middle of the sixth century. This epoch was placed by him about four years too late. This requires us to fix the date of the birth of Christ at 4 B.C.

The day was the simplest and earliest division of time. The week has
been in use for this purpose in the East from time immemorial. It
was not introduced among the Romans until after the spread of
Christianity in the Empire. The month was the earlier unit for
periods of greater length. To make the lunar and the solar years
correspond, and to determine the exact length of the solar year, was
a work of difficulty, and was only gradually effected. _Julius_
_Cæsar_ reformed the calendar in 46 B.C., the date of the
Julian era. This made the year eleven minutes too long. _Pope
Gregory XIII_. corrected the reckoning, in 1582, by ordering
Oct. 5th to be called the 15th, and instituted the "Gregorian
calendar." The change, or the "New Style," was subsequently adopted
by Great Britain (in 1752), and by the other Protestant nations. The
difference for the present century between the Old and the New Style
is twelve days: during the last century it was eleven. The Julian
civil year began with Jan. 1. It was not until the eighteenth
century that this became the uniform date for the commencement of
the legal year among the Latin Christian nations.

On the general subjects of chronology: _Encycl. Britt_.,
Arts. _Chronology_ and _Calendar_. Manuals of Reference:
ROSSE'S _Index of Dates_ (1858); Haydn's _Dictionary of
Dates_ (Vincent's edition, 1866); BLAIR'S _Chronological
Tables_; Woodward and Cates, _Encycl. of Chronology_ (1872).

ETHNOLOGY.

Ethnology is a new science. Its function is to ascertain the origin and filiation, the customs and institutions, of the various nations and tribes which make up, or have made up in the past, the human race. In tracing their relationship to one another, or their genealogy, the sources of information are mainly three,--_physical characteristics, language_, and _written memorials_ of every sort.

Ethnology is a branch of Anthropology, as this is a subdivision of Zoölogy, and this, again, of Biology. Ethnography differs from Ethnology in dealing more with details of description, and less with rational exposition.

RACES OF MANKIND.--Authorities differ widely from one another in their classification of races. _Prichard_ made seven, which were reduced by _Cuvier_ to three; viz., _Caucasian, Mongolian, Ethiopic. Blumenbach_ made five, and _Pickering_ eleven. It is the Caucasian variety which has been chiefly distinguished in history, and active in the building-up of civilization. None of the numerous schemes of division, from a zoölogical point of view, however, are satisfactory.

_Huxley_ has proposed a fourfold classification: 1. The
Australoid, represented by the Australians and the indigenous tribes
of Southern India. 2. The Negroid. 3. The Mongoloid. 4. The
Xanthochroi, or fair whites, among whom are comprised most of the
inhabitants of Northern Europe. To these are added a fifth variety,
the Melanochroi, to which belong a part of the Celts, the Spaniards,
Greeks, Arabs, etc.

Of the various methods of race-division, _A. van Humboldt_
says: "We fail to recognize any typical sharpness of definition, or
any general or well-established principle, in the division of these
groups. The extremes of form and color are certainly separated, but
without regard to the races which can not be included in any of
these classes." (_Cosmos_, i. 365.) For example, black skin,
woolly hair, and a negro-like cast of countenance, are not
necessarily connected together.

MONOGENISM.--Zoölogists, from the point of view of their own science, now more generally favor the _monogenist_ doctrine, which traces mankind to a single pair, than the polygenist, which assumed different centers of origin. The present tendencies of natural science, especially since Darwin, are favorable to the monogenist view.

"The opinion of modern Zoölogists, whose study of the species and
breeds of animals makes them the best judges, is against this view
of the several origins of man, for two principal reasons. First,
That all tribes of men, from the blackest to the whitest, the most
savage to the most cultured, have such general likeness in the
structure of their bodies and the working of their minds, as is
easiest and best accounted for by their being descended from a
common ancestry, however distant. Second, That all the human races,
notwithstanding their form and color, appear capable of freely
intermarrying, and forming crossed races of every combination, such
as the millions of mulattoes and mestizoes sprung in the New World
from the mixture of Europeans, Africans, and native Americans; this
again points to a common ancestry of all the races of man. We may
accept the theory of the unity of mankind as best agreeing with
ordinary experience and scientific research." (Tylor's
_Anthropology_, etc., pp. 5, 6.)

EVIDENCE OF LANGUAGE.--Languages, through marked affinities, are grouped together into several great families, i. The _Aryan_, or Indo-European, of which the oldest known branch is the Sanskrit, the language in which the ancient books of the Hindus, the Vedas, were written. With the Sanskrit belong the Iranian or Persian, the Greek, the Latin or Italic, the Celtic, the Germanic or Teutonic (under which are included the Scandinavian tongues), the Slavonian or Slavo-Lettic. 2. The _Semitic_, embracing the communities described in Genesis as the descendants of Shem. Under this head are embraced, first, the Assyrian and Babylonian; secondly, the Hebrew and Phoenician, with the Syrian or Aramaic; and thirdly, the Arabic. The Phoenician was spread among numerous colonies, of which Carthage was the chief. The Arabic followed the course of Mohammedan conquest. It is the language of the northern border of Africa, and has strongly affected various other languages,--the Persian, Turkish, etc. 3. The _Turanian or Scythian_. This is an extensive family of languages. The Finno-Hungarian, which includes two cultivated peoples, the Fins and Hungarians; the Samoyed, stretching from the North Sea far eastward to the boundary between Russia and China; and the Turkish or Tartar, spreading from European Turkey over a great part of Central Asia, are connected together by family ties. They spring from one parent stock. Whether the Mongolian and the Tungusic--the last is the language of the Manchus--are also thus affiliated, is a point not absolutely settled.

Besides these three great divisions, there are other languages, as the _Chinese_, and the monosyllabic tongues of south-eastern Asia, which possibly are connected lineally with it; the _Japanese_; the _Malay-Polynesian_, a well-developed family; the _Hamitic_ (of which the Egyptian or Coptic is the principal member); the _Dravidian_ or _South Indian_; the _South African_; the _Central African_; the _American Indian_ languages, etc.

On language and the divisions of language, W. D. WHITNEY,
_Language, and the Study of Language_ (1867), _Oriental and
Linguistic Studies_ (two series, 1872-74), _Life and Growth of
Language_ (1875); Art. _Philology_, in _Encycl. Brit_.,
vol. xviii.; Max Müller's _Lectures on the Science of Language_
(two series), and other writings by the same author.

ETHNOLOGY AND HISTORY.--History is generally written from the political point of view. It is the history of nations considered separately and in relation to one another. There are, also, histories of culture. History, from a cultural point of view, without paying regard to national boundaries, seeks to unfold the rise and progress of arts and industry, of inventions, of customs, manners, and institutions. It is the history of culture and civilization. History, from the ethnological point of view, would describe the migrations and experiences of the different races of men, and the formation of the various nationalities by these races, through conquest and intermixture. Following the divisions of linguistic science, we should have, first, the _Egyptian_ race and their history. Then we should have the _Semitic_ race, in the three eras of their pre-eminence, and in their various branches. Then would come the _Aryan_, or Indo-European family, whose power, except when interrupted and partially broken by the Mohammedan conquests, has continued to dominate in history since the rise of the ancient Persian Empire.

There have been three periods of Semitic ascendency,--the era of the
Assyrian and Babylonian empires; that of the Phoenician cities and
of Carthage (a Tyrian settlement), with their colonies; and that of
the Arabic-Mohammedan Conquests. This last epoch falls within the
Christian era. In this course of Semitic history would be embraced
the narrative of the Israelites, and of their dispersion in ancient
and in modern times. The Indo-European, or Aryan family, follows
next in order. In recording its history, we should consider, first,
its oldest representative of which we have knowledge,--the Indian
race, with its literature, its social organization, and its
religions, Brahmanism and Buddhism. Then come the Persians, with
their religion founded by _Zoroaster_, and the Armenians. With
the fall of the Ancient Persian Empire, the center of power was
transferred from Asia to Europe, where it has since continued,
though still in the hands of the same Aryan race. The history of the
Greeks and of the Romans succeeds; then the history of the three
races,--the Celtic, Teutonic, and Slavonian,--as they present
themselves at the threshold of authentic history. The forming of the
several nationalities of Europe would have to be traced: the
Slavonian, including Russia and Poland; the Teutonic, comprising
England, Holland, Germany, and the Scandinavian peoples (viz.,
Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and Iceland); the Romanic or Italic nations
(viz., Portugal, Spain, Provence, Italy, Wallachia, the Grisons of
Switzerland), which are the nations the basis of whose languages is
the rustic or people's Latin of the middle ages. Such, in brief
outline, is the method which history, from the point of view of race
affinities, as these are indicated by language, would adopt.

UNITY OF DESCENT.--Whether mankind are all descended from one pair--the _Monogenist_ view, or spring from more than one center of origin--the _Polygenist_ view, is a question which philological science can not answer. The facts of language are reconcilable with either doctrine. While cautious philologists are slow in admitting distinct affinities between the generic families of speech,--as the Semitic and Indo-European,--which would be indicative of a common origin, they agree in the judgment, that, on account of the mutability of language, especially when unwritten, and while in its earlier stages, no conclusion adverse to the monogenist doctrine can be drawn from the diversities of speech now existing, or that are known to have existed at any past time. As far as science is concerned, the decision of the question must be left to zoölogy. The tendencies of natural science at present, as we have said above, are strongly toward the monogenist view. The variety of physical characteristics not only affords no warrant for assuming diversity of species among men; they do not even imply diversity of parentage at the beginning.

"Nothing," says Max Müller, "necessitates the admission of different
independent beginnings for the _material_ elements" [the
vocabulary] "of the Turanian, Semitic, and Aryan branches of
speech." The same thing Müller affirms of "the formal elements"
[the grammatical structure] "of these groups of languages." "We can
perfectly understand how, either through individual influences or by
the wear and tear of speech in its continuous working, the different
systems of grammar of Asia and Europe may have been produced."
(_Lectures on Language_, 1st series, p. 340.) The same
conclusions are reached by Professor W. D. Whitney, who, while
disclaiming for linguistic science the power to prove that the human
race in the beginning formed one society, says, that it is "even far
more demonstrable" that it can "never prove the variety of human
races and origins." (_Life and Growth of Language_, p. 269.)

We know that nations can learn and unlearn a language. The Irish,
adopting the language of their English conquerors, is one of many
examples of the same sort in history. What effects upon language
took place, prior to recorded history, from the mingling of tribes
and peoples, it is impossible to ascertain. The consequences to
language, of mixture among different forms of speech, were like
those which must have been produced upon the physical man from the
mingling of diverse physical types in remote ages. Science, if it
has no decided verdict to render, does not stand in conflict with
the monogenist doctrine, which has generally been understood to be
the teaching of the Scriptures.

MYTHOLOGY.

The polytheistic religions are in themselves a highly interesting part of the history of mankind. In the multiform character that belongs to them we find reflected the peculiar traits of the several peoples among whom they have arisen. The history of religion stands in a close connection with the development of the fine arts,--architecture and sculpture, painting, music, and also poetry. The earliest rhythmical utterance was in hymns to the gods. To worship, all the arts are largely indebted for their birth and growth. This, however, is only one of the ways in which religion is interwoven with the rise and progress of civilization.

By _mythology_; we mean the collective beliefs of any tribe or
nation respecting deities or semi-divine personages. Recent studies
in language, or the science of _comparative philology_, have
thrown light on the origin of mythology, and upon the affinities of
different polytheistic religions with one another. Among various
nations belonging to the same family (as, for example, the peoples
of the _Aryan_ race), names of gods, and, to some extent,
qualities and deeds attributed to them, have been identified. Myths
are found to have traveled in different guises from land to land. At
the same time, these discoveries have given rise to much unverified
theory and conjecture. Too much stress has been laid, by certain
writers, on _mistakes in language_ as a source of mythology. In
the primitive stage of language, all nouns had a _gender_,
either male or female; and verbs, even auxiliary verbs, it is
alleged, expressed _activity_ of some sort. On the basis of
these facts it has been inferred, that, at a later day, figurative
expressions, descriptive of natural changes, were taken as literal;
as if one should interpret the saying, "the sun follows the dawn,"
as meaning that one person pursues another. By this kind of
misunderstanding, it has been thought, a throng of mythological
tales arose. By some it is held that the names of animals, which had
been given to ancestors, were interpreted literally by their savage
descendants, or that traditions of having come from a certain
_mountain_ or _river_ caused these natural objects to be
mistakenly regarded as actual progenitors. These suggestions are of
very limited value in solving the problem of the origin of the
ethnic religions. Much, however, has been learned from observing the
rites and beliefs of existing savage nations. Not a few religious
notions and ceremonies, once in vogue among cultivated heathen
peoples, may be plausibly considered a survival from a more remote
and barbarous condition of society.

That mythology is the product of a mere exaggeration of actual
events, or is an allegorical picture, either of the operations of
nature or of human traits, is an untenable and obsolete view.

We shall not err in defining the main sources of the religions to
be, _first_, the sense of dependence, and the yearning for the
fellowship and favor of powers "not ourselves," by which the lot of
men is felt to be determined; _secondly_, the effort to explain
the world of nature above and beneath, and the occurrences of life;
and _thirdly_, the personifying instinct which belongs to the
childhood of nations as of individuals. This tendency leads to the
attributing of conscious life to things inanimate. A like tendency
may impel the savage and the child to ascribe mind to the lower
animals. The fact that language, in its earlier stage, was charged
with personal life and activity, is itself the work of the
personifying instinct. When nature is thus personified, where there
is no sense of its unity and no capacity to rise in faith to a
living God above nature, the result is a multitude of divinities of
higher and lower rank. _Myths_ respecting them are the
spontaneous invention of unreflecting and uncritical, but
imaginative, peoples. Thus they serve to indicate the range of
ideas, and the moral spirit of those who originate and give credence
to them.

This is not the place to consider the question, What was the
primitive religion of man? The earliest deities that history brings
to our notice were not fetiches, but heavenly beings of lofty
attributes. Whether the religions of savage tribes, in common with
their low grade of intelligence, are, or are not, the result of
_degeneracy_, is a question which secular history affords no
means of deciding with confidence,

It may be added, that, in historic eras, the mythopoeic fancy is not
inactive. Stories of marvelous adventure clustered about the old
Celtic King Arthur of England and the "knights of the Round-Table,"
and fill up the chronicles relating to Charlemagne. Wherever there
is a person who kindles popular enthusiasm, myths accumulate. This
is eminently true in an atmosphere like that which prevailed in the
mediaeval period, when imagination and emotion were dominant.

PREHISTORIC TIMES.

PREHISTORIC RELICS.--Within the last half century, in various countries of Europe, and in other countries, also, which have been, earlier or later, seats of civilization, there have been found numerous relics of uncivilized races, which, at periods far remote, must have inhabited the same ground. Many of these antiquities are met with in connection with remains of fossil elephants, hyenas, bears, etc.,--with animals which no longer live in the regions referred to, and some of which have become wholly extinct. Dwelling-places of these far-distant peoples--such as caves and rock-shelters, and the remains of the lake-habitations that were built on piles, in Switzerland and elsewhere--sepulchers, camps, and forts, and an immense number of implements and ornaments of stone and metal, have been examined. The most ancient of these monuments carry us as far back as the era called by geologists the _Quaternary_ or _Drift_ period.

THE THREE STAGES.--But there are marked distinctions in the relative age of the various relics referred to. They indicate different degrees of knowledge and skill; and this proof of a succession of peoples, or of stages of development, is confirmed by geological evidence. The prehistoric time is divided into _the Stone Age_, _the Age of Bronze_, and _the Age of Iron_, according as the implements in use were of one or another of these materials. But the Stone Age includes an _earlier_ and a _later_ sub-division. In the first and most ancient section, the weapons and utensils, mostly of flint, were very rude in their manufacture. This was the _Paleolithic Age_, where there are no signs of habitations constructed by the hand, or of domesticated plants and animals. Men lived in caves, and their vestments were the skins of beasts. Yet, among their implements are found fragments of bone, horn, ivory, and stone, on which are carved in outline, often with much skill, representations of the reindeer, the bear, the ox, and of other animals. In the _Neolithic_ period, there was a decided advance. Implements are better made and polished. There were domestic animals and cultivated plants. The lake-dwellings in Switzerland were well contrived for shelter and defense. Every hut had its hearth. It is probable that most of them were furnished with a loom for weaving. Fragments of pottery are found, and flax was grown and made into cord, nettings, etc. Stalls were constructed near the huts for the ox, the goat, the horse, sheep, and pigs. The lake-dwellers cultivated wheat and barley. The _Bronze Age_, when implements were made of copper or of a mixture of copper and tin, exhibits proof of decided improvement in various directions; and the _Age of Iron_, a still more marked advance. In the Swiss remains referred to are distinct traces of a transition from the Stone Age to the Age of Bronze, and then to the Age of Iron. The kitchen-middens, or shell-mounds, of Denmark belong exclusively to the Neolithic period. Where the transition was made from the Stone Age to the Age of Bronze, it apparently occurred in some cases by degrees, and peacefully; but sometimes by the incoming of an invading people more advanced. It should be observed that the lines of division between these periods are not sharply drawn: implements of stone continued to be used after the Bronze and even the Iron periods had been introduced. Nor were these several ages in one region contemporaneous with like conditions in every other. Moreover, it is not possible to find in all countries once civilized proofs of a passage through these successive eras. In Egypt, the evidences of a Stone Age are scanty. The most ancient human remains show that man in his physical characteristics was on a level with man at present.

_Dr. Daniel Wilson_, speaking of the age of the Flint-folk,
says: "It is of no slight importance to perceive that the interval
which has wrought such revolutions in the earth" [involving great
geological changes and mutations of climate] "as are recorded in the
mammaliferous drift, shows man the same reasoning, tentative, and
inventive mechanician, as clearly distinguished then from the
highest orders of contemporary life of the Elephantine or Cave
periods, as he is now from the most intelligent of the brute
creation.... The oldest art-traces of the paleotechnic men of
central France not only surpass those of many savage races, but they
indicate an intellectual aptitude in no degree inferior to the
average Frenchman of the nineteenth century." (_Prehistoric
Man_, pp. 33, 34.)

Literature.--Wilson, _Prehistoric Man_, etc. (2 vols., 1876);
Joly, _Man before the Metals_ (1883); Keary, _The Dawn of
History_. The writings of E. B. Tylor, _Primitive Culture_
(2 vols.), _Anthropology, Early History of Mankind_; his
Art. _Anthropology, Encycl. Britt_.; Lubbock's _Prehistoric
Times_, and his _Origin of Civilization_; Argyll, _The
Unity of Nature _(1884); J. Geikie, _Prehistoric Europe_
(1881); Lyell, _The Antiquity of Man_; W. E. Hearn, _The
Aryan Household_; L. H. Morgan, _Ancient Society_.

THE ANTIQUITY OF MAN.--Science does not furnish us with the means of fixing the date of the first human inhabitants of the earth. But its various departments of investigation concur in pronouncing the interval between the creation of man and the present to be far longer than the traditional opinion has assumed. For the growth of language and its manifold ramifications; for the development of the different races of mankind, physically considered; for the geological changes since the beginning of the Stone Age in the regions where its relics are uncovered; for the rise of the most ancient civilization in Egypt as well as in Babylon and China,--it is thought that periods of very long duration are indispensable.

As to the date of the Neolithic man, or of the last section of the Stone Age, Professor J. Geikie writes: "Any term of years I might suggest would be a mere guess; but I have written to little purpose, however, if the phenomena described in the preceding chapters have failed to leave the impression upon the reader, that the advent of Neolithic man in Europe must date back far beyond fifty or seventy centuries." (_Prehistoric Europe_, p. 558.)

The chronology gathered from Genesis has been supposed to place the
date of man's creation at a point far less remote. Usher's
calculation, attached to the authorized English Version of the
Bible, sets this date at 4004 B.C. The discussion of these questions
of Scriptural chronology belongs to theology and biblical
criticism. It may be observed here, however, that of the three forms
in which Genesis is handed down to us,--the Hebrew text, the
Samaritan Pentateuch, and the Septuagint, or ancient Greek
translation,--no two agree in the numbers on which the estimate is
founded. Hence Hales and Jackson, following the larger numbers in
the genealogies of the Septuagint, place the date of the creation at
a point about fourteen hundred years prior to that fixed upon by
Usher.

ANCIENT AND MODERN HISTORY.

The periods of history are not divided from one another by merely chronological limits, according to intervals of time of a definite duration. Such a classification may be of use to the memory, but it is arbitrary in its character. The landmarks of history are properly placed at the turning-points where new eras take their start, whether the intervals between them are longer or shorter.

Of these natural divisions, the most general and the most marked is that between ancient and modern history. Ancient history not only precedes modern in time: it is distinguished from the latter as relating to a by-gone state of things. Modern history, on the contrary, deals with an order of things now existing. Between the two there is this line of demarkation.

History (with the exception of China and India, which require distinct consideration, as standing apart) begins with Egypt, and flows down in a continuous stream, until, in the fourth century A.D., the Roman Empire, into which the ancient civilized peoples were incorporated, was broken up. Then the new nations, especially the tribes of the Germanic race, took power into their hands; Christianity was established among them; out of the chaos of elements there emerged the European nations, with their offshoots,--the peoples at present on the stage of action. Ancient history had its center in the Mediterranean. It embraced the peoples who dwelt on the shores of that sea, in the three continents, and the nations that were brought into relations with them. The Roman Empire, the final outcome of ancient history, was "the monarchy of the Mediterranean." With the breaking-up of the Empire, new races, new centers of power, a universal religion in the room of national religions, and a new type of culture and civilization, were introduced. Invaluable legacies were handed over from the past, surviving the wreck of ancient civilization. There is, however, a unity in history: the transition from the ancient to the modern era was gradual.

MEDIAEVAL AND LATER MODERN HISTORY.

Since the fall of the Roman Empire, there has occurred no revolution to be compared with the circumstances and results of that event. An old world passed away, and a new world began to be. Yet the student, as he travels hitherward, arrives at another epoch of extraordinary change,--a period of ferment, when modern society in Europe takes on a form widely different from the character that had belonged to it previously. The long interval between _ancient_ history and _modern_ (in this more restricted sense of thes term) is styled the Middle Ages. Its termination may be found in the fifteenth century, and a convenient date to mark the boundary-line is the capture of Constantinople by the Turks (1453).

History thus divides itself into three parts:--

Part I. Ancient History, to the migrations of the Germanic Tribes (375 A.D).

Part II. Mediæval History, from A.D. 375 to the Fall of Constantinople (1453).

PART III. Modern History, from 1453 until the present.

Works on General History.--Ranke, _Universal History_; Ploetz,
_Epitome of Ancient, Mediæval, and Modern History_ (Boston,
1884); Weber, _Weitgeschichte_ (2 vols.); Assmann, _Handbuch
d. allgemeinen Geschichte_ (5 vols., 1853-1862); by the same,
_Abriss d. allgem. Gesch._ (in 3 parts); Oncken, _Allgem.
Geschichte in Einzeidarstellungen_ (a series of full monographs
of high merit). Copious works on Universal History, in German, by
Weber, Schlosser, Becker, Leo. Laurent, _Études sur l'Histoire de
l'Humanitè_ (this is an extended series of historical
dissertations),--_The Orient and Greece_ (2 vols.); _Rome_
(1 vol.); _Christianity_ (1 vol.), etc. Prévost-Paradol,
_Essai sur l'Histoire Universelle_ (2 vols.: a suggestive
critical survey of the course of history, with the omission of
details). S. Willard, _Synopsis of History_.