y L.L.D. F.R.S Reduced fac-simile after an anonymous engraving from the original painting by Wilson. History of Civilization A COURSE OF LECTURES THE ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT MAIN INSTITUTIONS OF MANKIND. EMIL REICH, Doctor Juris. WITH ILLUSTRATIONS. AUTHOR'S PUBLICATION. CINCINNATI, O. 1887. Entered according to Act of Congress in the year i?S7, By Dr. E.MIL REICH, in the Office of the Librarian of Congress at ^Vashington. ANNEX /8?7 MEMORL-E DILECTISSIMI PATRIS, LUDOVICI REICH, NOBILISSIM.-E CARISSIM.E MATRI, AMALLE REICH. PREFACE. By permission of the Board of Trustees, and- of the Faculty of the University of Cincinnati, the author of the present book commenced to deliver a public course of lec- tures on the History of Civilization at the lecture-hall of said University. The first lecture was given on the 13th of November, 1886, and, with a few interruptions, the course was continued on every Saturday. The interest of the general public in the course increased so rapidly that it became a mere matter of necessity to rent a larger hall, and thus, after the fourteenth lecture, the course was con- tinued at the spacious hall of the Scottish Rite Church. As a further manifestation of the unabating interest of the public, the author was most urgently requested by the most competent people of the city to publish his lectures in book form. A list of subscriptions more than sufficient to cover the considerable expenses of the publication was filled in very short time, and the present book is a faithful copy of the lectures as delivered in the course. In the circular, submitted to subscribers, the book was announced to extend to 400 pages ; the book, however, numbers over 550 pages^ and the author cherishes the belief that the additional 150 pages will not prove unwelcome to the reader. The highly finished cuts have been selected and furnished by Mr. Otto Reich, of Cincinnati. The course itself did not comprise an elaborate investi- gation into the institutions of modern times, and the book, therefore, does not devote special chapters to the discus- sion of the social and political development of the' last three centuries. In every single lecture of the book, how- ever, constant, and, occasionally, very exhaustive refer- ence is taken to institutions of modern countries, more es- pecially to those of the United States of America. Thus a comparison is being introduced by means of which many points in modern institutions will receive even a fuller light than if treated of separately, without contrasting them with other times. To every lecture a catalogue of "references"' is pre- fixed. By drawing up a list of such books the author did not intend to imply that the works named in the list are his "authorities." The word "authority'' in the science of Institutional History is entirely misleading No writer commands such an " authority " that a passage of his book, simply because it is a part of /lis book, has to pass for an ultimatum. The " references '" are given as a list of those books that the author, in the course of his studies, had found to be most useful, either on account of their " original " supply of facts, or on the strength of their suggestiveness. It is, therefore, not inconsistent to re- mark that the author frequently differs with the opinions of some of the works adduced among his "references.'" The two "Controversial Lectures" were occasioned by a gendeman of the clergy of Cincinnati, Rev. George P. Hays, D. D., of the Second Presbyterian Church, who, in a sermon delivered in the church just named, had taken exceptions to statements supposed to have been made by me in my lectures on the Origin of Christianity. The statements I did make the Reverend Doctor failed to un- derstand; but I have to acknowledge his great skill in re- futing statements I did not make. I have to express my profound gratitude to both Mr. Chester W. Merrill, late Librarian, and Mr. Albert W. Whelpley, present Librarian, of the Public Library of Cincinnati, by whose kindness I have enjoyed the full ben- efit of the precious book collection of this library. Dr. Emil Reich. CiNCi.vNATi, iSSS, February. INDEX. PAGE Preliminary Lecture, I. ..... i Preliminary Lecture, IL . . 21 China and India ....... 41 Egypt 69 Lsrael, Bible, Monotheism, Theocracy . • 9^ Social Life in Greece . . . . 118 Political and Religious Institutions of Greece 142 Scientific Development of Ancient Greece . .170 Philosophy in Ancient Greece . . . 198 Greek Art . . . . . .221 Rome — Political and Social Institutions . . 244 Rome— Legislature — Senate — Slavery . . .272 Roman Magistracies — The Emperors and Their Alleged Profligacy ..... 297 Roman Law ....... 323 Social Lite of the Romans .... 345 Origin and Development of Christianity, I. . . 376 Origin and Development of Christianity, II. 407 First Controversial Lecture . . . . -437 Second Controversial Lecture .... 467 Middle Ages ....... 495 Continuation —Modern Times , . . . 525 ERRATA. On page 4, line ig, read Scienza. " 13, line 8, cancel the word that. " 36, line I, read thirty millions. " S3, line 33, read and instead of end. '• 67, line 29, read develop instead oi evelop. " 71, line 29, leave out the three words, and not dictation. " 77, line 33, read eating instead of etching. " 78, line I, read omnipotent. " 79, line I, rc^A people instead oi peple. " 79, line 18, read workmanship instead of tvormanship. " III, line 8, read cult \\\%\.^?lA oi culture. '' 160, line 8, read Bacchus instead of Backus. " 171, line 2, read look instead of 00k. " 17S, lines I and 2, read Hipparchus. " 181, line 29, read theorem instead ot thorem. '• 205, lines 7 and 8, read Parmenides. " 224, line 19, read Aegina instead of Aegma. " 227, line 2, read Parthenon instead of Pantheon. " 236, line 10, read chronologically . " 24S, line 6, read Xenophanea. " 245, line 24, leave out the word or. " 245, line 33, insert a between is TinA great. " 246, line 33, read heathens. "■ 251, line 35, read Latin instead of latin. " 252, line 2), read Latin instead of latin. " 252, line 24, read Tullius instead of Tallius, " 253, line 20, read monarchical. " 253, line 23, read monarchical. " 253, line 26, read Sa instead oi La. " 256, line 22, read Caracalla instead of Nero. " 257, line I, leave out the word on. " 35S, line I, leave out the word or. " 25S, line 35, read election instead oi selection. " 260, line 9, read Hostilius instead of Hortilus. " 261, line ig, read Latin instead oi latin. " 263, lines 4 and 5, read Etruscans. " 265, line 3, read Sicyon. " 266, line 4, read several instead oifive. "• 304, line 35, read ya5c« instead oi fasus. " 314, line 17, read Hadrianus instead of Tryanus. " 314, line iS, read next year \n%X.e.2.d.oi past year. " 3SSi -^^ ^"'^ °f ''"^ ^^ ^'^'^ ^• " 490, line 35, read '■^by far'''' instead oi Jar. PRELIMINARY LECTURES. References : — A. Comte, Cours de Phil. pos. Btickle, Hist. Civ, Eng-1. Henier, Ideen. Droysen, Historik. Lewis Morgan. H. Spe}icer,S,OQ\o\o%y. I. Vico, La ^uova Scienza. Spinoza., 'Iraciatus theolugico politicus. Ladies and Gentlemen : — Should any of you happen to pick up the works of those historians who wrote until very recently you would be struck by a curious feature, by a peculiar strain of thoughts and conceptions in almost every single writer of history. You would invariably find a most elaborate description of all kinds of battles and sieges and truces. The promi- nent actors in the play are, with very few exceptions, none but warriors, soldiers, majors, colonels and generals. We hear of the destinies of nations being determined by happy stratagems, by gallant braves, by plucky adventurers of the sword. The most celebrated historians of past ages are inexhaustible in communicating the most trifling, the pettiest occurrences of the life of their worshipped mili- tary heroes. We possess exact knowledge of the elegant folds in Caesar's toga, and we know where he purchased his wig, and what were his witty sayings and scathing re- marks in Gaul, in Britain, in Parthia, in Egypt. We are very well informed about more than 580 battles of the Greeks and over 1,460 battles of the Romans. We know precisely the history of every legio (regiment) of the Ro- man army and almost the very names of every centurio, of every officer in the different regiments. Put if, on the other hand, we should like to know some- thing about non-military things, if we should ask the great historians of Rome e. g. about constitutional matters, we would be most frequently left in utter ignorance. It seems to be almost incredible that we know but very little, 2 PrelimiiNary Lectures. I. indeed next to nothing, about that all-important question of Roman history, the right of voting in the legislature, in the comitia centuriata and tributa. In other words, we have no rehable information as to who had the right of voting in these comitia. We do not know whether the son of a Roman citizen who was not yet freed from the paternal power could or could not vote in the comitia centuriata. The Romans had a very peculiar system of eluding the right of suffrage which was granted in princi- ple at least to every single citizen of Rome. Without go- ing into unnecessary details, let me only state the fact that our knowledge of the right of suffrage in Rome is more than scanty, it is absolutely insufficient. And now imag- ine an inquirer of American institutions who would pile up all sorts of- facts apparently bearing on the history of the United States, but who would be utterly ignorant of the American system of voting in county, state and na- tional conventions. Is is not a mere matter of course that all his facts can avail him but very little, that he must needs be incapable of grasping the real purport of events in America? The same difficulty besets our study of history on every side. If we turn to the mediaeval times we meet an end- less series of annalists, chroniclers and historians. In order to give a faint illustration of the riches of chronicles in several countries, let me mention the precious collec- tion of Buchon, which comprises the chroniclers of the 13th, 14th and 15th centuries written in French, exclud- ing the still greater number of Latin chroniclers, and con- sists of forty-seven thick volumes. You all remember the many societies in England for historical inquiries, and the amazing number of volumes they publish. The Camden Society has given us over 140 volumes of original mediae- val writers on history. The collections of Italian scholars, especially of Muratori and Tiraboschi, cover almost the Preliminary Lectures. I. 3 history of every single hamlet in mediaeval Italy. In Ger- many the Prussian Academy took the lead in publishing, under the superintendence of Pertz, a series of all annal- ists and historians of the mediaeval German Empire, to- gether with the laws and customs of every county, or as it was called, Mark, Dorf, Gau, Hof. It seems to be rather a hazardous assertion that in the face of so many and variegated sources of historical events there should be a grievous lack of proper information. We should rather expect to behold everything in the full daylight of truth. But the sober fact is this, that when- ever we ask for information about matters not connected with military institutions or wars and battles we generally get very unsatisfactory answers. The historians of these countries seem to be perfectly bewildered by the glaring splendor of Romantic chivalry, by the daring and gallant noblemen and their private affairs and by the graceful charm of their ladies. Their attention is never, or very sparingly, fixed on the plodding, down trodden peasants who forms, however, the bulk of the population, and who, together with the industrious burgesses of the few towns, brings forth the wealth of the country. Some years ago an able Frenchman, Monsieur Eugene Bonnemaire, pub- lished a history of the peasantry of France. In the very beginning of this work he makes the following remark : "Je ne crois pas, qu 'il existe a cette heure en France un homme, qui sache, au vrai, quelle fut, depuis le temps des Gaulois jusqu's nos jours la situation du grand nourricier de la patrie." That is to say: "I do not believe that there is anybody in France at the present time, who really knows something about the situation of the great supporter of the country ever since the time of the Gauls." When Laveley wanted to inquire into that curious institution of the Swiss people which goes by the name of Allmende, an institution which determines the welfare and well being of 4 Preliminary Lectures. I. more than half the Swiss pupulation, he expected to find a whole literature on this subject. But since the Allmende referred not to the pageantry of military spectacles but to the peaceful and as it were sullen distribution of soil and labor, he was unable to hunt up one single satisfactory treatise on the matter. On the other hand, it would be scarcely possible to master half the immense array of books on the legend of William Tell. Since the last 50 — 60 years these and similar defects of the historians have been frequently held up to the reproach of the philosopher. They have been denounced a crying evil. Still further back we find a few great men who were fully aware of the deplorable state of history and who de- voted a life's study to the reform of this the most interesting and, according to August Comte the highest branch of Science. As in all other Sciences, so likewise here also, an Italian takes the lead, the venerable Giovanni Battista Vico having been the first who tried to delineate the real course of history. His book. La Science Nuova, had a very poor success. Generations after the time of its first appearance it began to be appreciated and only at present do we look at Vico as the founder of scientific history. Vico was the first man of science who expressed his utter dissatisfaction with the state of historiography. He did not hesitate to state that our insight into the growth and decay of nations, into the causes which work at the grandeur or at the decline of a people is absolutely unsatisfactory. Amongst others he was the first historian who doubted the trustworthiness of Livy and Dionysius as far as the early history of Rome is concerned. He said that the stories about Romulus and Numa Pompilius, Tullus Hostilius and Ancus Mar- cius are more or less fabulous. He expressed it in clear terms, that the course of historical events does not depend on mighty over-towering individuals, but that on the contrary historical events are produced by general causes Preliminary Lectures. I. 5 and that the part played by those celebrated persons, whose names we are taught to admire and to adore, is a rather insignificant one. You remember that Tho- mas Carlyle held exactly the opposite doctrine. In his view we owe everything to a few gifted persons who by dint of their genius prepared our way and led to the goal. The hero worship of Carlyle and the doctrine of Vico form the two extremes of historical conceptions. The one is poetical, interesting, reads like a novel and fills the heart of the reader with images of glory and love. The other is sober and dry, but scientific and true. A further step in the right direction was taken by Her- der, one of the German classics. The German classics have one singular feature in common. Poets and dreamy nature though they be, they at the same time were all great scholars. Lessing had unbounded resources of learning, Wieland was deeply read in ancient and mediaeval literature, Schiller was a searching historian, Goethe a first class natur- alist, Rueckert, a celebrated Orientalist, and Herder had read and reread the choicest books of the literature of all nations. As all German classics he knew over six languages and it is this wide range of studies which gave to his views that peculiar broadness and comprehensiveness which still forms our chief admirations whenever we delight in. a chapter of his work, on 'Tdeen zur Geschichte der Mensch- heit"; " Ideas concerning the history of mankind." It would be simply impossible to mention and character- ize all or even part of those modern historians who dis- carded the old method of writing military annals and be- gan to re-write all history from the point of view of Vico and Herder. T must restrict myself to a few leading names. Foremost in this splendid array of lofty spirits stands the name of Auguste Comte. He was a French- man and of noble descent. His parents who lived in the North of France, were faithful adherents to the Catholic 6 Preliminary Lectures. I. religion, did their very best to educate their beloved son in the same spirit and make him one of the bulwarks of their church. But Auguste had too much of that spirit of apostasy, which seems to be the common heritage of genius. Genius always remonstrates. The social institu- tions, the geological strata of society as it were, have not been arranged with regard to the extraordinary, to the un- wonted, to the unexpected, but with regard to what hap)- pens in the usual course of life, every forenoon and afternoon, indoors and outdoors. Auguste Comte, therefore, left his paternal home and went to the center of France, or to France itself, as the saying is, to Paris. Paris then (in the years 1820-30) was the spiritual center not only of France but of all Europe. Scientists and poets, artists and musicians, authors and business men — all rushed to Paris, all tried to find their Mecca in the many different associations of congenial people in which at that time Paris abounded. Amongst others there was one highly-gifted person by the name of St. Simon, whose won- derful sway over the human soul made him the founder of a new school. His imposing personal appearance, his rich voice, his transporting oratorical power allured the masses; his profound thoughts on the constitution of our social life won him the admiration and the partisanship of many of the strongest minds of France. St. Simon's object was to remodel mankind. Such gigantic schemes were perfectly adapted to the vainglorious, ambitious mind of the French- men. It is no wonder that a young man, in whom fancy pre- vailed over cool judgment, should fall victim to the fasci- nating magic power of a man like St. Simon. August Comte, hence became one of St. Simon's most ardent ad- herents. He adopted his views, he embraced his tenets with the power of a disciple, and with the argumentative force of a thinker. Besides being his disciple, Auguste Preliminary Lectures. I. 7 accepted also a position as private secretary to St. Simon, and thus their mutual relations were strengthened by both theoretical and practical bonds. But this connection did not last very long. A genius like Comte wants to assert his own views, his own conceptions. The views and con- ceptions of others, be they ever so profound, ever so sage and vast, have one serious fault, they are the thought of others, they do not bear the stamp of one's own cherished ideas. And Auguste's mind was fierce and impetuous. He broke off his relation to St. Simon and became profes- sor of Mathematics at the I'Ecole Polytechnique. There is a general belief that the study of mathematics dries up all the tenderer emotions of the soul and that it has a ten- dency to give to the mind a jejune, unpoetical, prosaic turn of thinking. This assumption, however, does not hold good with regard to mathematicians of the higher order. They all display an unusual power of fancy, and some of the greatest mathematicians have been noted for their fine poetry. Even Leonhard Euler, a man who spent all his life with figures and numbers, was extremely fond of poe- try, and not a bad poet himself. Comte was a very ex- cellent mathemiatician and he left us some extremely interesting works on this noble science. His lectures enjoyed a very great reputation for being lucid, perspicu- ous and comprehensive. He had scarcely commenced his lectures when he did what only few philosophers ever dared to do— he married. It is difficult to avoid misap- prehension in such a delicate subject, but we have to state the fact, that a great many of the most celebrated thinkers never married. Hobbes, Pascal, Giordano Bruno, Car- tesius, Spinoza, Leibnitz, Kant, Schopenhauer — all died unmarried. On the other hand, we must concede that those few women who devoted themselves to the study of philosophy or science remained single as well. Maria Agnesi and Sophie Germain were both excellent mathe- 8 Preliminary Lectures. I. maticians and both unmarried. Auguste Comte deviated from the common routine of philosophers and married a lady of great attainments. It is very sad to be compelled to say that this marriage served only to prove how very wise Hobbes, Pascal, Kant and Leibnitz have been. Comte had a very unhappy matrimonial life. He loved his wife, and, no doubt, she loved him. But love alone is not sufftcient. Something more than love is requisite, and that is mutual indulgence. But this rare flower never bloomed in the heart of Comte. His was that implacable, unbending sort of temper which is perfectly appropriate for the founder of a new creed, for the organizer of a new land — but absolutely inadequate for a husband. This unfortunate, gloomy temper made his position at the Ecole more and more untenable. At last he was discharged, and so he had to look out for some new means of exist- ence. He announced a series of lectures on his new phil- osophy, and so wide spread had his reputation become meanwhile, that men of the highest standing in science, men like Biot, Boulainville and A. Humboldt, flocked to his lectures. But his domestic troubles, together with an over-excitement of unremitting study and profound think- ing, engendered a dismal state of his brain, and in one of his terrific fits the great thinker, outraged by care, mal- treatment and despair, drowned himself in the Seine. Happily he was saved, and a better treatment restored the equilibrium of his magnificent spirit. He continued his lectures and began to publish them in six volumes under the title of "Cours de philosophic positive." The fine term, "philosophie positive," (positive philosophy) is Comte's own invention. He was extremely happy in inventing new terms, and the correct choice of terms does in no small degree contribute to the promotion of a new philosophy. Comte called his philosophy the positive philosophy. Positivism, and his adherents are known by Preliminary Lectures. I. 9 the name of Positivists. The most celebrated of his ad- herents is the lamented E. Littrt;. Let me now try to give you an outline of that part of Comte's philosophy which bears on our present subject, on history. If you take up the six stout volumes of Comte's principal work you will scarcely find a heading named history. Comte seldom speaks of history, his term is physique sociale. That is another of his happily suggested terms. He, and not Quetelet, the Belgian statistician, was the first author to use the word physique sociale to •denote the new science of history. What is the meaning •of physique sociale ? Comte started with the undoubted fact that our positive knowledge of physics, chemistry and physiology, in other words, that our knowledge of exter- nal nature is by far superior to our knowledge of human affairs. His various arguments he compresses into this •one main proposition, "Savoir c'est predire." To know means to predict. Where our capability of predicting •events is small, there our positive knowledge must needs be very small too. For instance, we are able to predict many •events on the skies, and hence we may safely infer that our knowledge of the movements of the heavenly bodies is a pretty fair one. But we are scarcely able to predict anything as to the movements of political parties, and hence our knowledge of politics and political affairs is no ■scientific one. If we should go still lower and try to pre- dict anything as to what any single man might or might not do in the next hour, we would have to confess our per- fect ignorance, and hence we may justly say that our scientific knowledge of individuals or individual life is next to nothing. But history does not treat of the movements of single persons. On the contrary, its main and princi- pal object is the movement of masses, of large aggregates ■of people, of nations. Since the movement of larger bodies must necessarily be simpler and less whimsical or lO Preliminary Lectures. I. vagrant, being less subject to the influence of every imagi- nable cause, this movement must also be easier amenable to a scientific treatment. Regarding now whole groups of people, joined together under several names, as e. g. peo- ple, nation, race, tribe, as one enormous body, or as Th. Hobbes puts it, as one gigantic Leviathan, we may ask for the physical qualities, for the laws of this body, for its physiology, very much in the same way as we ask for the laws and for the physiology of any other physical body. Thus we begin to look at a nation and its movements ex- actly from the same point of view which generally serves as the commanding standpoint of the naturalist. He studies the geological strata and their mutual relations, and his main object is to discover the general law of these rela- tions. He wants to know in what succession and order the different layers follow each other; why and how the upper Silurian Era succeeded to the lower Silurian Era; why, again, in the upper Silurian Era the Niagara group succeeded to the Clinton group, etc. Nations are likewise built up by different strata, by different layers, and their movements are governed and controlled by the mutual corelation of these strata. The divergence and discrepancy of these strata, when compared with the strata of other nations, constitutes the differences among nations. Take e. g. England's population in the time of Queen Elizabeth and compare it with the population of Germany in the same time. In England the different strata of the population were the following ones: villeins, yeomanry, burgesses, squires, clergy, noblemen. Scarcely any of these strata will be found in the cotemporary German Empire. The German Empire of Maximilian and Rudolf had some kind of dependent people (or as the Germans say Hoerige), but they had a totally different position from that of the English villains. Again, the German bur- gess, the buerger was absolutely different from the Eng- Preliminary Lectures. I. 1 1 lish townsman. His political rights, his social standing, his independence are as many essential points of discrep- ancy. England, therefore, had altogether different strata, and it is no wonder that her course of development, that the whole character of her civilization deviated from the course of civilization in Germany. It is scarcely necessary to remind you that these sketches are the bare outlines, in fact, very faint contours of those leading principles which at present constitute the ground- work and foundation of history. I mention them simply for the sake of illustrating Comte's term, physique sociale. The great work of Auguste Comte treats apparently of the whole range of science, but its principal object is the es- tablishment and elaboration of what Comte conceived to be the real science of history, to-wit, physique sociale. It is a well known fact that Comte, though he frequently states the mere preliminary nature of his book, propounded one general law of history which in his opinion covers all ages and nations, and which, therefore, ought to be taken as the first and most important principle of history. I shall not call your attention to this fundamental law. It is to the present day an unsettled question whether this supposed law is really a law of history or only a law of Comte's. And in this whole course of lectures I shall try to give you mostly well ascertained facts, and I shall avoid to the best of my ability to burden your memories with fanciful theories. The immortal merit of Auguste Comte, as far as history is concerned, consists in the clear and precise conception of that physique sociale, the dis- cussion of which forms the fourth, fifth and sixth volumes of his Cours de philosophie positive. Next to this illustrious Frenchman stands an English- man. I allude to H. Th. Buckle. Twenty-four years have elapsed since the death of this most indefatigable scholar, and the judgment of his cuevals has not yet come 12 Preliminary Lectures. I. to a fair conclusion. You may frequently hear of Buckle as of one of those mental giants who surpassed all his pre- decessors, by whose labors more real knowledge did ac- crue to the stock of what we know than by the labor of any other single man. What he himself said of the cele- brated book of Adam Smith, namely, that it is the most useful book which has ever been written by a single man — such and similar adulatory praises have been frequently bestowed on the author of a "History of Civilization in Eng- land."' His fame is perhaps still greater in non-English speaking countries. I can state it as an absolute fact of my personal experience, that in Germany, Austria and Hungary it is in cultivated circles considered a perfect shame not to have read Buckle. He is constantly quoted in all kinds of books and newspapers, and his book has been translated into all languages of Eastern Europe, into Russian, Polish, Hungarian, Servian, Roumanian, Bul- garian, and part of it into Turkish. Any man who is able to rouse the entire interest of so many different people must have certainly hit the right keynote, and no doubt Buckle's book is one of the gems of English literature. Written in a style of unparalled beauty, a style which is both flowry and precise, blooming and vigorous, profound and clear, Buckle's book is the outcome of a rich, perhaps excessively rich mind, which, setting out with a view to embrace the whole universe, landed on the isle of premature death. He was only 40 years of age when he died. He was the son of a rich London mer- chant, and when still a boy he inherited by the death of his father a considerable fortune. Endowed with great ora- torical faculties and with an unusually acute mind of vari- ous talents (amongst others he was a famous chessplayer), he could have speedily reached a prominent place in Eng- lish public life. But instead of yielding to the allurements of public life, he locked himself up in his study, and with the Preliminary Lectures. I. 13 exception of occasional trips to the Continent of Europe, he continued the Ufe of a soHtary scholar during 20 con- secutive years. He acquired a sufficient knowledge of over nine languages, he devoured whole libraries, he amassed an amazing amount of facts and theories — nothing seemed to be alien from his course of studies — and Ave see him study heraldry and the art of blazonry with almost the same care as Aristotle's Metaphysics that, pathology and therapeutics, together with Chinese institutions and the customs of Polyne- sian savage tribes. And all these studies he pursued with one single object steadily kept in his mind. They all were like as many rays converging toward one common focus. This focus was the history of the civilization of mankind. A gigantic scheme — a scheme which does not enter the mind of an ordinary scholar, a scheme which seems and in real- ity does surpass the capacity of a whole academy of schol- ars. To construe the history of civilization in a scientific way, to build up the whole fabric of human progress by pointing out those innumerable inventions and contriv- ances, both mental and mechanical, by which the human mind succeeded in evolving a higher state of culture out of the barren state of savagery or barbarism — that was the dream of Buckle's life. His preparations were careful, his meditations profound, and the temporary success of his book perfectly immense. When he offered his manuscript to Longman & Co., in London, the shrewd publishers of so many celebrated books refused to accept it. They did not consider it a profitable job at all. Buckle, hence, had his book published at his own expense. The first volume of the book was scarcely out when Buckle became the center of admiration and flattery of the London society. Invitations to dinners and parties poured in by the hun- dred, ladies of the very highest rank left their cards at his home — in one word, he was wellnigh the victim to one of the usual lionizing crazes of London society. But the 14 Preliminary Lectures. I. author of a History of Civilization in England calmly and coolly obviated the sad fate of those unfortunate celebri- ties who, like Mrs. Beecher Stowe, believe in the genuine and lasting character of London enthusiasm. Buckle simply refused all invitations and went on in his usual course of hard study. A second volume appeared. But this second volume fell short of the brilliancy and sugges- tiveness of the first volume. It was the usual display of unbounded learning and reading, occasionally enlivened by sparkling flashes of an exuberant mind; but the auda- cious, grasping spirit of the first volume is missing. No more promises of carrying the torch of truth into the dark caverns of human ignorance, none of those sweeping as- sertions and world-embracing suggestions of the first volume. Sullen, crest-fallen, cramped — that is the appear- ance of the author in his second volume. He was com- pelled to confess that the task surpassed his force — and he did not hesitate to do penance and declare solemnly that he can not redeem his pledge. It is one of the most inter- esting passages of his work, and I will give it in his own words : " Once, when I first caught sight of the whole field of knowledge, and seemed, however dimly, to discern its various parts and the relation they bore to each other, I was so entranced with its surpassing beauty, that the judgment was beguiled, and I deemed myself able, not only to cover the surface, but also to master the details. Little did I know how the horizon enlarges as well as re- cedes, and how vainly we grasp at the fleeting forms, which melt away and elude us in the distance. Of all that I had hoped to do, I now find but too surely how small a part I shall accomplish. In those early aspirations there was much that was fanciful; perhaps there was much that was foolish. Perhaps, too, they contained a moral defect, and savoured of an arrogance which belongs Preliminary Lectures. I. 15 to a strength that refuses to recognize its own weakness. Still, even now that they are defeated and brought to nought, I cannot repent having indulged in them, but, on the contrary, I would willingly recall them, if I could. For, such hopes belong to that joyous and sanguine period of life, when alone we are really happy; when the emo- tions are more active than the judgment; when experience has not yet hardened our nature; when the affections are not yet blighted and nipped to the core ; and when the bitterness of disappointment not having yet been felt, difficulties are unheeded, obstacles are unseen, ambition is a pleasure instead of a pang, and the blood coursing swiftly through the veins, the pulse beats high, while the heart throbs at the prospect of the future. Those are glorious days; but they go from us, and nothing can com- pensate their absence. To me they now seem more like the visions of a disordered fancy, than the sober realities of things that were, and are not. It is painful to make this confession ; but I owe it the reader, because I would not have him to suppose that either in this, or in the future volumes of my History, I shall be able to redeem my pledge, and to perform all that I promised. Some- thing, I hope to achieve, which will interest the thinkers of this age ; and something perhaps, on which jjosterity may build. It will, however, only be a fragment of my original design." Buckle did not live to finish his work, and thus the two volumes he left us are but the introduction to his plan, a val- uable torso. It is a peculiar fate that seems to be the com- mon lot of great authors, that they but very seldom can carry out their original design. There is not very much ex- aggeration in saying that the most splendid Hbrary could be arranged by selecting the most celebrated of unfinished books. Until very recently it was almost generally believed that 1 6 Preliminary Lectures. I. Buckle succeeded in laying the foundation of scientific history, and that we may safely consider him the model historian, the great and successful reformer of that branch of science. Buckle's book is one of the most fascinating books that have ever been written. Its literary merit stands very high. He speaks of so many and different topics, of almost every science and art, of poetry, of in- ventions and travels, that the most fastidious reader is likely to find something which will interest him. But as to the mere scientific value of the books our judgment must be a very different one. We are forced to say, with his own words, that Buckle's book contains something which will interest the thinkers 6f this age, but nothing more. If you read the first five chapters of the first volume, you have read all Buckle; the rest consists of very interesting sug- gestive notes, scholarly excursions into all departments of science, but they do not enrich the main principles laid down in the first five chapters. But perhaps some of you have no time to go over these chapters, and therefore I shall give you the summary of them in Buckle's own words : "In the preceding volumes, I have endeavored to es- tablish four leading propositions, which, according to my view, are to be deened the basis of the history of civiliz- ation. They are : ist. That the progress of mankind de- pends on the success with which the laws of phenomena are investigated, and on the extent to which a knowledge of those laws is diffused. 2nd, That before such inve.sti- gation can begin, a spirit of scepticism must arise, which, at first aiding the investigation, is afterwards aided by it. 3rd, That the discoveries thus made increase the influence of intellectual truths, and diminish — relatively, not abso- lutely — the influence of moral truths; moral truths being more stationary than intellectual truths, and receiving fewer additions. 4th. That the great enemy of this move- Preliminary Lfxtures. I. 17 ment, and therefore the great enemy of civiHzation, is the protective spirit ; by which I mean the notion that society cannot prosper unless the affairs of life are watched over and protected at nearly every turn by the state and the church; the state teaching men what they are to do, and the church teaching them what they are to believe. Such are the propositions which I hold to be the most essential for a right understanding of history, and which I have defended in the only two ways any proposition can be defended; namely, inductively and deductively." You will ask me now whether these four propositions are still considered the basis of the history of civilization. If we should go by the judgment of the most competent authorities, both in Europe and America, we have to say that at present these propositions are not considered the basis of the history of civilization. H. Spencer and Stan- ley Jevons, in England; E. Littre, in France; Sybel, Peschel, in Germany, are among the many great au- thorities who refused to accept Buckle's four proposi- tions as leading principles. Accordingly, I advise you to read Buckle, you will most certainly enjoy his book very much, but please don't look at it as you would at a scien- tific book, as you would at Sir I. Newton's "Principles," or at J. St. Mills' Logic. Read it as you would read the Essays of Montague or Charles Lamb, but don't let your historical conceptions be biased by those brilliant sallies of the first volume, which, though suggestive of some truth, are very far from containing truth itself. More real service has been done by the quiet and un- ostentatious labors of an American scholar, Mr. Lewis Morgan. Mr. Morgan took a fancy to the aboriginal In- dians of this country, and made for many years a special study of their habits and customs. Although paying at- tention to the institutions of all the known tribes of the United States, as well as to the different Pueblos of Mex- 1 8 Preliminary Lectures. I. ico and the numberless tribes of Central and South America, his studies were chiefly concerned with the highly-interesting community of the Iroquois. He ac- quired a thorough knowledge of their language, he pene- trated into all the mysteries of their usages, both military and civil, and summed up his studies in a most valuable work on this Indian tribe. He noticed that the Iroquois are still in tlie same state of beginning civilization in which the civilized part of the world has been 2,000 or 3,000 years ago. He consequently assumed that a study of the institutions of the Iroquois and similar tribes will help us to a great extent in the study of ancient society, of society as it most probably has been some 2,000 or 3,000 years ago. Continuing this line of argument and comparison, he extended his studies to almost every known savage and half-savage tribe. Aided by the United States Government, he sent circulars to every Consul of the United States and to all the different missionaries all over the world, asking them, under several headings, a series of questions as to the system of kingship, tribal gov- ernment and civil rights of those savage tribes. The cir- culars were faithfully answered and sent back to Wash- ington. Mr. Morgan thus collected an inestimable mass of well-arranged facts covering the whole globe. The systematic elaboration of these facts he published under the title of "Systems of Consanguinity and Affinity of the Human Family." This great work made him tne first ethnologist of the country. It was highly praised in Eng- land and France, and the celebrated Sir J- Lubbock did not hesitate to declare that Mr. Morgan's book is one of the most valuable contributions to the science of sociology which has of late appeared. Morgan continued his studies, gathering facts from all quarters, and at last came out with his principal work, the title of which is, "An- cient Society, or. Researches in the Lines of Human Preliminary Lectures. I, 19 Progress From Savagery Through Barbarism Into Civili- zation." In accordance with his view of evolution, Mr. Morgan has treated the history of mankind as a growth, and his book is divided into four pa^ts, headed respec- tively : (i) Growth of Intelligence Through Inventions and Discoveries; (2) Growth of the Idea of Government ; (3) Growth of the Idea of Family; (4) Growth of the Idea of Property. He acknowledges three classes succeeding each other, viz.: Society based upon difference of sex, society based upon kin and political society, and upon territory and property. The theories of Mr. Morgan have been vehemently assailed, especially in England. The late McClennan was one of his most resolute opponents. The strife is still going on, and many of the issues involved in it have not yet been settled by an unanimous vote of science. But there is one part at least of Mr. Morgan's studies which has almost universally been accepted as a reliable doctrine borne out by all kinds of well ascertained facts. I am referring to Mr. Morgan's inquiries into the origin of the family. Up to the time of Mr. Morgan's book, it was generally believed that the family, consisting ot husband and wife, has been the original social unit, out of which every other aggregate of people developed. The general doctrine was, that a tribe or a clan originated from a family. Whereas, in reality the family makes its appearance much later than the tribe, and in fact almost every people had a tribal system long before it ever thought to found a family. This one proposition is of the very highest importance. Many of the most essential doctrines of politics and law start with the assumption that the family was the original unit of society. It is therefore, more or less of primary importance to understand this prmcipal result of Mr. Morgan's labors. He has not given us a history of the whole course of human civiliza- 20 Preliminary Lectures. I. tion ; but at any rate, we are indebted to him more than to any one else for an insight into one of the foundations of our society. Ladies and Gentlemen : — By what I had to say of Vico and Herder, Comte, Buckle and Morgan, you will easily see that the scientific history of civilization has not yet reached the state of maturity enjoyed by other sciences. In the course of my lectures, I will be frequently com- pelled to confess the insufficiency of my authorities. Great and lasting results have, however, been achieved, and I trust that with your kind assistance, we shall be able to traverse the ocean of our science in a safe and pleasant way. PRELIMIiSrARY LECTURES. II. References: -^(jc/zo/ivz, Mutterrecht. McLennan, Primit. Marr. L.Mor- gan, Anc. f?oc. Salverte, Hist, of Names. Lalor. Pol. Cycl Latcteye, Prim. Property. Sullivan, Hrehon Laws. Sir 1, P/iear, Aryan household. Marquardt, Roam. Staatsrecht. In my first lecture, I tried to give you the outlines of the modern conception of historiography. We came to the conclusion, that a right understanding of historical events does not depend on a minute and painful study of military annals, nor does history, and especially the history of civilization pay much attention to single per- sons of alleged great influence. Whoever has a real and serious desire to understand the course of development of humanity, must simply discard the old and obsolete way of looking at events, and endeavor to grasp those ideas and conceptions which have of late been recog- nized as the true principles of historical science. Within the e.xtremely narrow limits of this course of lectures, I have, very much against my will, to restrict myself to a few salient points, and although expressing my deep regret that I can not here discuss these questions at full length, I shall nevertheless, aspire to throw the brightest possible light on those main points and leading principles which alone can be tha subject of this synoptical, course. Assuming now the question as little removed from its outset as possible, I begin with asking, what is the real, the proper, the scientific subject of a history of civiliza- tion ? My answer to this paramount question is ex- tremely brief, in fact, it consists only of one single word, but this word is big with meaning, abundant with ideas, and far reaching in its purport. The real, proper subject- matter of a scientific history of civilization consists of 22 Preliminary Lectures. 1 1. Institutions. The word "Institution" is a very usual word, a hackney expression used and applied in the wear and tear of every day's talk. If you hear that some nations greet each other by mutually rubbing their noses, or that in many countries a person who sneezes is being congratulated by his present friends on account of that memorable event in the function of his nose, or that on the continent of Europe the gentleman has invariably to extend his right arm to the lady and never his left arm, — such and a score of similar manners are frequently called social institutions. Now I am far from belittling the study of such national habits. I heartily agree with the fervor of those painstaking and diligent scholars and travellers who collect all they can about those usages of daily life with different nations. But on the other hand, those usages can not be called institutions in the strict scientific sense of the term. For — and that is my chief object at present, — for the term institutions is a scientific term with a strict, limited sense of its own. You remem- ber that all scientific terms have that peculiarity of being limited, strictly limited in their sense. The term in- crement in the calculus does not mean any increment of whatever size, and of a discrete or a continuous quantity, but it means strictly, the infinitesimal increase of a variable quantity. The same way in all other sciences. That is the very blessing of real and genuine science that it always uses words in one and the same strict sense. The meanings of these words never shift, they have a clear, candid look about them, they never eye you a-slant, they never squint. This, then, being the first condition we must first circumscribe the precise meaning of our term "Institution;" the more so because this whole course of lectures shall treat of nothing else but institutions. Preliminary Lectures. 1 1. 23 In order to get at a precise, exact definition of this our chief and most substantial term in the shortest and most efficacious way, I shall analyze it and at the same time compare it with an almost absolutely identical term in anatomy. We heard in our first lecture that in treating history as a science we have to look at a people, or a na- tion as forming one huge common body, or as Th. Hobbes put it, as a Leviathan, and that we may safely ask for the laws, the physical and physiological qualities of this body. In the science of organic bodies, our progress being by far the greater one, we may feel assured that much, very much, may be learned from an attentive observation of those methods which have proved successful in anatomy and physiology. Anatomy teaches us that the solid parts of our body consist of tissues. All solid parts are composed of tissues. It was the celebrated Bichat, a Frenchman, who founded this remarkable doctrine. He established the highly important fact that the solid parts of our body are composed of twenty one tissues, not more nor less. These twenty-one tissues, though similar to each other in some way or another, have at the same time marked differences in structure and chemical quality. None of them are absolutely alike, and, on the other hand, all tissues of the human body belong to one of the twenty-one classes, or, as it were, species of tissues. This doctrine of Bichat's has so far not been overruled, though more than eighty-four years have elapsed since Bichat's death. But Schwann and Schleiden and Virchow have shown that every simple tissue, vegetable as well as animal, con- sists in ultimate analysis of organic cells. But this new doctrine served only to specify the statements of Bichat. To the present day it is taught that all solid organs of the human body are composed of tissues, and that there are twenty-one different classes of these tissues in existence. 24 Preliminary Lectures. 1 1. Returning now to our Leviathan, could we not suppose that such an organic body is similarly composed of such elements as the tissues of the human body? Take, for the sake of closer explanation of the matter, the human hand. From the standpoint of the anatomist, the hand is an organ composed of so and so many tissues of differ- ent kinds, fitted to work as levers, and thereby perform all sorts of manual labor. For the anatomist the shape of the hand, the number and varying size of the fingers, the tenderness of the skin, does not make the slightest differ- ence. In fact, the hands are for him nothing but a more refined repetition of the foot. He simply looks at the constitutive elements of the hand, viz., at the tissues. He does the same thing v>-ith regard to all the solid organs of the human body ; he tries to find out their different tissues and the way they influence each other. Can we now really hope to find such tissues, as it were, which in their aggregate form the elements of our body politic, of our leviathan ? To be sure we can. And these tissues of our Leviathan are the institutions of a nation. We may accordingly define this leading term of our science in a rather descriptive way, that institutions are the tissues of a people. You will remark that I am using a term of anatomy in order to define a conception of history. But let us beware of all kinds of childish, misplaced applica- tion of other sciences. The enormous progress of the sci- ence of organic nature has misled a good many of the most gifted inquirers to use, or rather to abuse, the terminology of natural science. It seems to be the special fate of Charles Darwin's remarkable works to serve as labels to all kinds of mixed drinks. We frequently hear of Darwin- ism in history, Darwinism in aesthetics, Darwinism in ethics, Darwinism in politics, and Darwinism everywhere. These vain and puerile aspirations must be utterly and absolutely disregarded. Let me venture to give you an ad- Preliminary Lectures. 1 1. 25 vice : Try to be as diligent, as conscientious, as cautious as Charles Darwin, but don't try to apply his words to matters not directly connected with his subject. While I therefore use the word tissues in defining our term, "institutions," I am far from thinking that this ana- tomical term will be of any immediate use for me ; I am far from doing what a good many German writers on so- ciology, especially Prof. Schaeffle, do, that is to say, of blending my historical subject with all kinds of far-fetched analogies from natural science. The word tissue I use simply to illustrate the proper definition of institutions. For the proper and direct definition of this term is ihis : Institutions are the elements of the body politic. A few moments ago I spoke of Schwann and Schleiden and their discovery of those ultimate constituents of an organic body, of the cells. There is an analogous thing in the body politic. The cells of the body politic are the individual persons. But there is this great difference. If one-half of the population of the State of Ohio would suddenly emigrate, the State of Ohio would nevertheless remain unaltered ; the existence of this State does not de- pend on Mr. Smith and Mr. Jones ; the State of Ohio has an existence of its own. But if the legislative power of the State of Ohio; if the Legislature in Ohio would, by any power whatsoever, be annihilated, the State of Ohio would not only be altered, but it would finally cease to exist. Consequently, the Legislature of Ohio is one of its institutions, one of its elements. To recur once more to our previous example : When the textile tissues in the human body, or its fibrous tissues, would of a sudden be annihilated, the human body would cease to exist as such. The human body can exist without a head, or without an eye, but it can not exist in the form of a human body without the textile or fibrous tissues. For these tissues are the institutions of the body, whereas a 26 ■ Preliminary Lectures. 1 1. hand or an eye is only ah organ, an implement of the body. I must beg your pardon for dwelling, perhaps, too much on this one term. But my apology lies in the cir- cumstance, that this one term rules our whole science. There is no fair, or even approximative understanding of our science, unless we have found a clear and precise idea of Institutions, ^et me cite a few illustrations. You all enjoy or suffer /rom the general habit of treating in this country. Now, we are perfectly entitled to ask, as a matter of our science, whether treating is an institution of the United States? In scarcely any other country will you find the same custom. Without discussing all the beery and winy details of this question, I feel confident in stating that treating is not an institution of the United States, but an outcome of an institution. Another exam- ple. It is a very general custom of the United States, to write your name in three*di^'isions. I mean that in Amer- ica the custom prevails to write one's name that way : John E. Smith, the first name John in full, then one letter E. , and then the family name in full, John E. Smith. It seems to be very easy to account for that. One would think, that this way of giving your name is due to the necessity of making your name easily distinguishable from any other name. But if this reason would account for it, it would be incomprehensible why persons in other countries do not use the same contrivance. Take Berlin, there are some 4,000 Schmidt and some 10,000 Mueller in the city of Berlin. Every single bearer of this name has two or three Christian names; but, when it comes to signing his name he invariably signs it E. Schultze, F. Mueller, G. Schmidt, never using the Amer- ican pattern of Henry F. Schultze. Periiaps, you might think that these are very trifling things and not worth the attention of the scientist. But a moment's consideration Preliminary Lectures. 1 1. 27 will make you hesitate. The manner of naming persons is a faithful mirror of the institutions of a people. Look at the ancient Greeks. In ancient Greece every person had only one name. We hear of Aristotle, of Thucydides, of Cimon, of Sokrates, but we never hear of another name annexed to this one. The father of Cimon was named Miltiades, the father of Thucydides was named Oloros, the father of Aristotle was named Nikomacho. At present it would seem to be ludicrous beyond any limit to ask for the family name of the father, after having learned the family name of the son. But in ancient Greece it was utterly impossible to guess at the name of the father by the name of the son. The Roman system differed en- tirely. Every Roman, as a rule, had three names ; the nomen, praenomen and cognomen. It is a surprising coin- cidence that the ancient Romans followed almost to an iota, the American way of signing names. They signed, Marcus T. Cicero or M. TuUius Cicero, M. Antistius Labeo, C. Sempronius Grachus ; in other words, they wrote one first name in full, one with the initial letter, and one again in full. Christianity introduced an entirely new way of signing. To the present day, Em- perors and Kings in Europe have no family names. The full name of the Queen of England is Victoria, noth- ing else ; the full name of the German Emperor is William, nothing else. This most interesting topic, by the way, is most elaborately and profusely discussed in a work of an excellent French philosopher, by the name of Salverte in his excellent work: History of names. Returning now to our question, is the American habit of signing names an institution of America, of the United States ? Can'it be called an institution ? I again answer : This custom is an outcome ofan institution, but not an in- stitution itself. 28 Preliminary Lectures. II. By these (cw illu.strations, you will see that it is not an easy task to denote the institutions of a country. In fact, it is one' of the most difficult investigations. Bichat succeeded in an enumeration of the institutions of the human body ; he fixed the very number of these in- stitutions, you remember his statement of the twenty-one tissues of our body. Our science has not yet come to a similar successful enumeration of the institutions of the body politic. I can not specify in number or quality all the different institutions of society, civil and politic. So far we are only able to establish a few of the undoubted institutions of our Leviathan, and par excellence the insti- tutions of Family, Tribe and State. It is these three insti- tutions that I am going to discuss now at some length. First, the general institution of faniily. I say general, for we have to distinguish between general and special insti- tutions. Some institutions will be met with almost every people, some other institutions are the specific product of a single country. You will be astonished, perhaps, to understand that the city governments of the United States are in politics as novel an invention as is the telephone in physics. Never before did a people possess a similar in- stitution. The Supreme Court of the United States has in a good many of its decisions declared that the meaning of the word city, when conveying the American institu- tion, is absolutely different from both Continental or Eng- lish cities, and that an analogy can scarcely be found. You may look for an excellent article in Lalor's Political Cyclopedia, article city, where you will find the said de- cisions. I shall have the pleasure of enlarging on the special institutions of this great republic in the last lectures of this course. At pre-ent we are concerned with general institutions, comiiion to all nations, or almost to all, and in the first place with the institution of Family. In our first lecture I mentioned that our view of the Preliminary Lectures. II. 29 history of family has of late been entirely altered. We owe our better insight into this most important question to the extensive labors of a distinguished American scholar, Mr. Lewis Morgan, of Rochester, N. Y. Up to his time the general theory of the origin of society was to the ef- fect that society originally started from the family. The family was the social unit, the protoplasm of society. And accordingly it was believed that originally the father was the absolute master of his wife, of his children, and the goods of the little community. In other words, it was taught that society began with the family, and that the family was ruled by paternal power, by the power of the father. But this disparagement of the power of women is neither gallant nor consistent with truth. On the con- trary, it is now a well established fact that society started with the absolute governing and domineering power of women. Four or five thousand years ago, as well as at present, women were bossing and running society. Fa- thers were not heeded; in fact, nobody knew his father. For there was no monogamic family, no family at all. It was the rude state of natural freedom. The only fact that everybody was really aware of was the personality of his mother. And consequently the mother alone owned the child, the mother alone protected the child. All kindred went through women, the kin of the father was totally ignored. The father was no relative to his son, nor was the father's brother, or the father's father ; the father would not be heir to his son, nor the son to his father, he was not named after his father, but after his mother. And this seemingly very curious state of things is not only a feature of archaic antiquity; we find it still among numberless nations at the present time. Kindred through women is recognized in Australia, in the Marianne Islands, in Fiji, Tonga, and in the Caroline Islands. The natives of the Chinese province Keangse, 30 Preliminary Lectures. II, the Nairs of Malabar, the Zaporogue Cossacks, and the red men of the United States maintain this odd custom. Besides very many African tribes, with the Basques (that quaint people in the southwest corner of France), women inherited property to the exclusion of males as late as the eighteenth century. In some of the bilingual inscriptions of Etruria, written in Etruscan and Latin, the Etruscan text gives only the name of the mother of the dead, while the Latin text gives that of the father. Herodotus teaches us that daughters in Egypt were compelled by law to maintain their parents, while sons were' free to do as they pleased. This has been curiously confirmed by the legal documents of certain private Egyptian families, lately de- ciphered by Mr. Revillout. The custom of marrying one or several women is of a comparatively recent origin. AU peoples have a peculiar tradition as to the origin of this solemnity, and it is an astounding fact that in all these traditions snakes and serpents play the leading part. Greek mythology attributes the origin of marriage to the serpent, so do the sacred books of the Hebrews, and tribes of Australia ascribe it to the lizard, Hindoos, on the other hand, to Svetakatu, a divine being, Egyptians to Menes, Chinese to Fohi. This very irregular state of female rules, which lasted for many, many centuries, until it was supplanted by the establishment of male power, has been first elucidated by Mr. Bachofen and Mr. McLennan. Bachofen introduced the term Mutterrecht (mother-right). He said in the beginning, there was nothing but Mutterrecht. McLen- nan, who had never learned of the existence of Bachofen's book, wrote an exquisite treatise on "Primitive Marriage," in which he propounded the same doctrine with Bachofen, adducing, however, a more satisfactory apparatus of evidence and proof. Bachofen's book is the most un- wieldy piece of literary performance that you can possi- Preliminary Lectures. II. 31 bly come across. The gernian writers have a peculiar talent of making simple things intricate, and intricate things perfect enigmas. McLennan's book "Primitive Marriage" is, though slovenly in style, one of the most attractive books of recent english literature. I stated just now, that in very, very ancient times, there was no family at all, neither polygamous, nor polyandrous, nor monogamous. What, then, took the place of it? How did men at that remote time contrive. to find a common interest which was strong enough to. unite them together, to keep up a union between them ? The answer is very simple : Men at that time were kept together by the bonds of their tribe. We shall now oc-' cupy ourselves with that primary institution. In order to come rapidly to a comprehensive and exhaustive view of our subject, I shall contrast the old'and the new theory of the tribe. The old, and still more or less prevalent theory of the origin of the tribe goes as follows : The beginning of the tribe is the family. After the death of the father, who is considered the absolute ruler of the family, his oldest son succeeds him', and in course of time this association of kindred, by natural increase and by adoption develops into the clan, or as the Romans called it, gens, or as the Greeks named it genos. As gen- erations multiply, the more distinct relations split off into other classes, relieving, however, the sense of primitive kinshij). They unite into tribes. These, again, as civiliza- tion advances, acknowledge themselves to be subjects of a King, in whose veins the blood of the original family runs purest. Before entering the converse theory, let me apologize for using some terms, the explanation of which I shall give below. The converse theory, then, runs thus : The totem kindred of savages grow up through exogamy and female kinship ; this diange is effected by the superinducement of male kinship, by the substitution 32 Preliminary Lectures. II. of the name of a fictitious ancestor for that of the sacred plant, animal or natural object. In accordance with the principle laid down in the beginning of this lecture, I shall try now to attain a precise definition of the terms of these two theories contrasted. We heard the terms tribe and totem. Very few terms of ethnology have been subject to such a careless treatment on the part of travel- lers and scientists as the term tribe. They call tribe, what in reality is a clan, or a common household, or a military division, or a religious corporation. And thus, we have to be extremely careful in accepting their relations of tribal systems. More than one-half of the immense lit- erature on Indian tribes in the United States, on the pueblos in Mexico, on the numberless tribes in Central and South Ameiica, and still in a higher degree the literature on the races of Africa is stained with that ugly blot. We must draw clear and broad lines of demarcation between a common household, as the one we find in India, or the gens of the ancient Romans, the genos of the ancient Greeks, the tribes of the ancient Hebrews, the mark of the Germans, the clans of the Scotch, the village com- munities of the Hindoo, Irish, and the Bosnian, Bul- garian, Russian (mir) and many other people, and the totem kindred of the red Indians. All these different and self-existent institutions have been promiscuously called tribe, or gens, or clan. The meaning attached to these words continually overlaps their proper sense, and thus a cheerless confusion has arisen, the disentanglement of which is one of the heaviest burdens on our science. A tribe is not a gens. I use the word gens because Mr. Morgan's introduction of this Roman term has met with the approval of great authorities. Once more, a tribe is not a gens. A tribe is a coalition of gentes, a union of several gentes. We have now to inquire, what is a gens? Here we may abide by the brief and precise defi- Preliminary Lectures. II. 33 nition of Mr. Morgan. The gens is a body of con- saguinei descended from the same common ancestor, dis- tinguished by a gentile name, and bound together by affinities of blood. It includes, however, a moiety only .of such descendants. In the earliest times this ancestor was supposed to be a female; therefore, descent was in the female line, later it changed to the male line. When the primitive ancestor was supposed to have been a woman, all the kin through the father and his natural relatives were excluded; and vice versa, when the original ancestor was supposed to have been a male person, all kin through women was excluded. This system was the case with the Romans. In Rome, and not only in ancient times, but down to the times of the Emperors, the mother of a Roman was in law only his sister and her husband's daughter. .This was a matter of absolute necessity, be- cause^ kin through women being precluded, a Roman's wife, after the death of her husband, would have been divested of every legal claim on the heritage of her husband. The different rights and privileges of the member of a gens are of course far too numerous to admit of a satisfactory statement. But to illustrate this institution with an example, let me give you the rights of the Iroquois gentiles as communicated by Mr. Morgan. These rights are ten in number, i. — The right ol elect- ing its sachem and chiefs. 2. — The right of deposing its sachem and chiefs. 3. — Tne obligation not to marry into the gens. 4. — Mutual rights of inheritance to the prop- erty of deceased members. 5. — Reciprocal obligations of help, defense and redress of injuries. 6. — The right of bestowing names upon its members. 7. — The right of adopting strangers into the gens. 8. — Common relig- ious rites. 9. — A common burial place. 10. — A council of the gens. That is the gens. We can state it now as an undoubted 34 Preliminary Lectures. II. fact of science that the original unit of ancient society was not the family, but the gens. Before leaving this most at- tractive institution, we have yet to treat of our other term, of totem. This odd institution is founded on a most general belief among uncivilized people that they descend from animals, plants, or stones. Surprising as this may seem to you, it is nevertheless a usage of almost universal acceptance. A gens in Australia, e. g, has a firm be- lief in Its descent from the kangaroo, and consequently no member of this gens will ever dare to slay or eat this animal. The tribe of the Senecas is composed df sets of persons, called by the names of Wolf, Bear, Turtle, Beaver, Deer, Snipe, Heron, Hawk. They all firmly be- lieve to descend respectively from a wolf, a deer, a turtle, etc. Accordingly a wolf, a deer, a turtle, a beaver, is their totem. No member of the wolf association will ever dare to slay or eat a wolf, and no male member of the same association will ever marry a woman of another as- sociation," another gens, if this other gens happen to bear the same name of Wolf, Turtle, Hawk, etc. There is a curious coincidence of this half-savage custom and the heraldic systems of European nobility. The coats of arms of a European Count generally display an animal— a lion, a deer, a lamb, a dog. This animal is, as it were, the totem of the Count's family, and to remove it would be equiva- lent of depriving him of his nobility. I must regret that I can not follow up this very interest- ing topic into all its details. It will be sufficient at pres- ent to remark that totem kindred preceded family kindred. Savages were first united by totem kindred, /'. e., by a be- lief that they all descend from a common animal, or plant, or stone. Then this changed, and they began to believe in a descent from a common female person, and lastly in a descent from a common male person, always retaining, meanwhile, a good many of the features of totem kin- dred. Preliminary Lectures. II. 35 When men first began to think of marrying women, they had in the majority of the known gentes or tribes a general rule forbidding a man to take his wife from among the daughters of his own tribe. The reason of this sin- gular rule it is rather difficult to make out. This rule goes by the scientific name of exogamy. Exogamy means a prohibition to marry in one's own tribe. Consequently our ancestors had to look out for their fiancees in other and foreign tribes. But these foreign tribes, again, were generally hostile towards them, and so the bride had to be simply kidnapped. She had to be captured. This custom of capturing the bride (a subject which you will find com- pletely handled in Mr. McLennan's book. Primitive Mar- riage,) has been observed with the Tunguzians, Khonds, FuegianS; the Welsh, the Arabs, the Irish, and others. It is highly curious to remark the survivals of this queer custom in some usages of very civilized people. It is customary in some parts of England that the parents of the bride should stay at home while the marriage ceremony is being performed in the church. This vestige of an aboriginal custom connects the present age with extremely remote ages of the past. For in the past the parents of the bride were most certainly not present at the marriage ceremony of their kidnapped daughters. You all remember the in- teresting story about the rape of the Sabine women. The question of marriage brings us back to the institu- tion of family. When the family did arise was it mono- gamous or polygamous? The best ascertained results of the combined labors of Bachofen, McLennan and Morgan tend to prove that the monogamous family is of a very late date. Originally, all nations, or rather tribes, lived in polygamy or polyandry. By polyandry we mean the institution of several husbands married to one wife. We must carefully beware of disdaining or absolutely abhor- ring people with whom this institution obtained. At the 36 Preliminary Lectures. 1 1. present time more than 30,000 millions of respectable and civilized people (I mean the population of Thibet) consider polyandry as the rule of their life. Some of the keenest observers, as Mr. V/ilson, in his book, "Abode of Snow," can not but express his respect for the uprightness, sober- ness and peaceful industry of the polyandrous Thibetans. As to polygamy, it is a well known fact, thaf by far the majority of human beings live in polygamy. Poly- gamy obtained with the Chinese, Indian, Burmese, Java- nese, Arabs, Persians, etc., all of them civilized peo- ple, with an elaborate literature and great achievements in science and art. It is not our business to judge the ethical or moral value of these institutions. We have simply and exclusively to state facts. The fact is, that the polygamous and poly androus family preceded the monogamous family, that our monogamous family is of very recent origin. As to the different stages of this development, we have not yet come to a definite result, and hence, I shall not quote what Morgan called his five successive forms of the family. The only reliable result of science at present is this, that polygamy and polyandry are not wilful de- partures from the supposed rule of monogamy, on the contrary, the reverse appears now to answer the real history of the family. We have so far, come to a fair definition of the gens and of the tribe, and we cleared the way to a proper un- derstanding of the institution of the family. It is now incumbent on us to examine the third great Institution, that of the State. It is very easy to ask, what is a State ? — but it is more than difficult to give a correct answer. Not that we would complain of a lack of ready-made definitions. More than 200 different definitions of a State have been launched from the time of Aristotle, who Preliminary Lectures. II. 37 first wrote on politics, down to the present year. You can find this dazzling array of words in Bluntschli's history of political science. But I am sorry to say, that the authors of these longwinded definitions, who all pretend to be on the best of terms with the spirit and philosophy of politics, although they may do justice to themselves, fail entirely to do justice to the State. I think this a very convenient opportunity to mention the renowned book of Sir Henry Sumner Maine. You all know his book, the title of which is "Ancient Law." The book was, at the time of its first apparition, quite a sensation. It was considered a real revelation, and people began to look with pity on those unfortunate writers whose lamentable misfortune it has been to die before the publication of Sir Henry's book. The waves of admiration, however, began to subside, and at present "Ancient Law,'" viz: Sir Henry's book is on a level with 100 other books of ordinary merit. With all requisite deference to this worthy gentleman, I am obliged to state, that especially those portions of his book which treat of the Roman State (and they form the moiety of the work) — are void of all scientific value. He reminds you of that exquisite passage in Goethe's Faust, where the immortal German speaks of the writers of history. This passage may serve as a motto to the historians, who, instead of giving you the spirit and tendency of events, give only the spirit of their own poor mind. I shall read the passage both in German and English. The English translation of Faust, the best of all translations of this gem of gems, has been written by the celebrated American poet. Bayard Taylor. The i)assage I refer to is part of the scene between Faust and Wagner, his assistant, Faust representing the pure, ideal genius, craving for genuine truth, and Wagner the pedantic scholar, who de- lights in heaps of withered manuscripts. 38 Preliminary Lectures. 1 1. Verzeiht! es ist ein gross Ergetzen, Sich in den Geist der Zeiten zu versetzen Zu schauen, wie vor uns ein weiser Mann gedacht, Und wie wir's dann zuletzt so herrlich weit gebracht. O ja, bis an die Sterne weit ! Mein Freund die Zeiten der Vergangenheit. Sind uns ein Buch mit sieben Siegeln ; Was ihr den Geist der Zeiten heisst Das ist im Grund der Herren eigener Geist, In dem die Zeiten sich bespiegeln. Da ist's denn wahriich oft ein Jammer Man laeuft euch bei dem ersten Blick davon Ein Kerichtfass und eine Rumpelkammer, Und hoechstens eine Haupt-und Staats action, Mit trefflichen pragmatischen Maximen Wie sie den Puppen wol im Munde ziemen ! Pardon ! a great delight is granted When, in the spirit of the ages planted, We mark how, ere our time, a sage has thought. And then, how far his work, and grandly, we have brought. O, yes, up to the stars at last ! Listen, my friend, the ages that are past Are now a book with seven seals protected, What you the spirit of the Ages call Is nothing but the spirit of you all Wherein the ages are reflected. So, oftentimes, you miserably mar it ! At the first glance who sees it, runs away. An offal-barrel and a lumber garret. Or, at the best, a Punch-and-Judy play. With maxims most pragmatical and hitting, As in the mouths of puppets are befitting. Perhaps, some of you are astonished that neither in my first nor in my scond lecture have I availed myself of the works of Herbert Spencer. H. Spencer's work, that is, taking some of the products of his prolific pen, cover the very ground that I am speaking of. But, neither in this nor in any of my future lectures, shall I devote much time Preliminary Lectures. II. 39 to Spencer's writings. It is a well known tenet of his philos- ophy that all knowledge refers either to the knowable or to the unknowable. But this apparently very modest classification of knowledge applies only to other persons. For H, Spencer himself seems or pretends, at least, to know everything, and thus the unknowable does not exist for him. Reading his book on social institutions, you will easily find his long declamation on the State, on the nature, and on the origin of the State. If I were to follow him, I could, with the greatest complacency, give you the solution of the many, many riddles connected with the State. But I do not believe in his doctrines, and I am not going to deceive you with a show of false learning. If you should ask me : Can you tell me how the idea of State did arise, how it developed, and how it decays ? — I would not hesitate for a moment to express my ig- norance. In fact, I am proud of this confession. I know most positively, that we have no scientific knowl- edge of the development of the State. I don't feel ashamed of this rather poor state of my science, for sciences very much older than mine have to confess their insufficiency with regard to the most ordinary occurances of every day's life. Let me cite a very striking example. The science of mechanics is now 200, and some 40 to 50 years old; it dates from the time of Galilei. Do you think that the science of mechanics is able to give a full explanation of that very common phenomenon, the kite ? No, it is not able. Sir W. Thompson, the greatest living physicist, said but a year ago, that he can not account in a physico- mathematical way for the movements of a kite. But, at the same time, I have to remind you that such a confes- sion of ignorance is, with regard to our present subject, with regard to the development of the State, the exception 40 China and India. and not the rule. For as I remarked a few minutes ago, the majority of writers on the State assume the attitude of perfect knowledge. But after a careful study of their works, I came to the conclusion that their results do not stand the test of scientific arguments. All we know about the development of the State comes to this: The State is one of the elements, one of the in- stitutions, or, to use Bichat's word — one of the tissues of the body politic. It assumes various forms, and its functions are of a diversified character. It is, somtimes, vested in a plurality of persons, sometimes in no person at all, as in the case of the old Hebrews, sometimes again in a few individuals. Ladies and Gentlemen : These are the leading prin- ciples as to the institutions of the family, the tribe and the State. Castes will more conveniently be discussed in our next lecture on China and India. COLLOSSAL STATUE OF BLDDHA. (From a Photograph.) I CHINA AND INDIA. References: — Sir y . Staunton, Laws of China. Guetzlaff, Gesch. China's. Medhurst. Div. Treatises ; "Chinese Repository,'''' 20 vols. Jfuc, Travels in China. Legge, Sacred Books of China, ytdien. Works. Davis, Hist, of C hina. Jiassen, Ind. Altherthumskde. Elpliinstone, Hist, of Tndia. M. Aljieller, Works, and '-Sacred Books," Jolly, Naradyja Dharinasastra. Jiliode, Kel. Colebrooke, Translations of philosophical and mathematical works; I'ublications of the Royal Asiatic, and Bombay bocieties; Abhandlg. der morgenl. Ges. E. BurnouJ, Works. Ladies and Gentlemen : In our first two lectures we came to a definite and pre- cise result as to the real and proper subject-matter of a sci- entific History of Civilization. We circumscribed it as a discussion of the Institutions of different ages. Institutions are the very soul of our society, and accordingly, I shall treat of China and India, and exclusively with a view to the institutions of these countries. You can not, therefore, expect a list of all the emperors of China, or an enumera- tion of all the numberless Indian rajahs and Mohammedan kings and mogul despots who in succession have ruled the gorgeous island of India. Kings and their courts, battles, wars, although of unequivocal influence on the destinies of a nation, are by principle excluded from our course of studies. Any one may easily satisfy his curiosity with re- gard to these topics by reading the numerous books on the political history of either China or India. The most rec- ommendable of these books are Mills' History of India and Guetzlaff's History of China. I shall treat first of China. It is scarcely possible to exaggerate the vast importance of China for a student of sociology. You know that the Chinese people form exactly the third part of all humanity. Now, how can we expect to get at a right understanding of the development of the human race if we .should neglect the study of an entire third part of humanity ? Humanity is one gigantic, transcendental unity, and to neglect the third part of it would amount, and in fact does amount, to a dreary garbling of our knowledge. 42 China and India. I had abundant opportunity in my first and second lect- ures to illustrate the great advancement of knowledge and increase of light that accrued from the study of half-savage people. Our better insight into the origin and develop- ment of the Family is due to a careful investigation into the manners and customs of half-savage people. Is it, then, not a mere matter of trivial truth that our obligations to China, provided we study her institutions in the proper way, would be, as they partially are, still greater and more momentous ? Undoubtedly. It is perfectly hopeless and puerile to speak of China in a smiling, half-pitying way, as of a quaint set of semi-profligate heathens. The Chinese are a great people, Avith a wonderful civilization, with perfectly marvellous achievements in science and art, with a rich- ness of domestic happiness and peaceful enjoyment of in- nocent pleasures which frequently roused the envy of the most enlightened European and American travelers. They have, in some arts at least, outstripped the most advanced minds in Europe, and at a time when the rest of the world was plunged in the most abject slavery, the Chinese had already succeeded in evolving a high stage of civilization and refinement. We must, therefore, approach China with the devout earnestness of a pupil, and not with the haughty, condescending sneer of a superior being. You know that in all scientific investigations the very first duty incumbent on us is to inquire into the reliability and truthfulness of our sources. It is not sufficient to take up any book with a title like "Travels in China," or "Domestic Life in China," or "The Chinese People," and read it. Ninety per cent, of the itinerant scholars who traveled in China and inflicted their relations on humanity are of no value whatever. You must be first satisfied as to (i) whether the man could speak Chinese, (2) how long he stayed in China, (3) where he sojourned, whether only in China and Indja. 43 the treaty-ports, with their half-European finish, or in the genuine cities of the interior; (4) was the man really pre- pared for his task, had he acquired that rare quality of ob- serving things ? It is a truism that more than eyes are required to see anything. The eyes don't see any more than the foot. It is the mind that sees, and the mind has to be carefully prepared and disciplined. If you now put the bulk of writers on China to the fourfold test of the questions just mentioned, you will be astonished at the fearful shortcomings of these authors. Exceedingly few ever grasped the elements of the Chinese language, and consequently their works are absolutely of no account whatever. Just think of a man who would undertake to write a book on America after a sojourn of ten months in this country and without the least knowledge of English. Is that not absurd ? More than 8,000 books have been written on China, but only one per cent, of this huge mass may be safely taken as a real guide. Among these very few genuine sources we have to count those relations that have been published by Catholic missionaries from the thirteenth century up- wards. The Catholic Church sent her missionaries, chiefly Franciscan monks, as early as the beginning of the thir- teenth century. At a time when no European power ever dreamed of the existence of China, the Pontiff in Rome not only knew of this great empire, but also took very ener- getic measures to conquer it in a spiritual way by converting it to Christianity. The venerable name of Plan Carpini looms up in the far distance of the fifteenth century as the great missionary and teacher of China. Next to him stands the celebrated Venetian, Marco Polo. The travels of Polo are of the most fascinating and most trustworthy books on foreign countries that has ever been written. For Plan Carpini and Marco Polo the name China does not yet exist; they speak of Katay, and in medineval times no other 44 China and India. name was known. The third great authorities on China are the Jesuit missionaries. It is a well known fact that the works of this Catholic order on the different tribes in America and Asia are now considered as the greatest treas- ury of information. You are aware of the fact, that one of the best books on the red Indians of America has been written by the Jesuit Lafiteau in the beginning of the eighteenth century. The most prominent of the Jesuit missionaries in China towards the end of the sixteenth century was Peter Ricci, or as the Chinese call him, Lee-ma-tu. Numerous English, Dutcli, French and Portuguese travellers have since visited the heavenly Kingdom, and left us at least some remarkable books on China. From personal study, I must express my great admiration for the works of Staun- ton. Guetzlaff, Julien, Legge, Hue, and Sir J. F. Davis. Of late, the study of the Chinese language and litera- ture has in Europe been taken up wiih considerable in- terest, and Remusat, Julien, Legge, are among the most efficient scholars of this miraculous language. They have published a long series of translations from Chinese literature, and very important contributions have been thus made to our knowledge of China. Let me try now to characterize the general value of these our sources. Do we so far, really possess satisfac- tory sources as to the institutions of China? My answer to this is, that we do possess satisfactory sources of inform- ation with regard to a few of the leading institutions of China, but only with regard to a few. Hence, we can pass no definite and final judgment on China, we have still to bide our time and suspend our criticism. Before reviewing the institutions of China, I shall first cast a glance at the Empire itself, at its size and popula- tion. China consists of China proper and her dependen- cies, Mandshuria, Mongolia, and Thibet. China is one- China and India. - 45 third larger than the United States, and her population is certainly above 400,000,000. China proper is divided into nineteen provinces. Each of the provinces collects its own taxes, pays its own expenses, and has its own army and navy. Every province is divided into districts, and every district into sub-districts, and these again com- prise other sub-divisions. I don't mention the titles of the different officers, mandarins as they are. called, who stand at the head of these provinces, districts and sub- districts, because I am more than likely to pronounce those Chinese titles in an altogether wrong way, and I don't want to burden your memories with false terms. It is so extremely difficult to find the right pronunciation of a Chinese word. I shall speak of that later on when treating of the Chinese language. In English books on China, you will, nevertheless, find the English term for Chinese officials. They continually speak of sheriffs, and coroners, and auditors, and probate judges in China., as though the English common law would have of time immemorial been the law of the Chinese. But that is sheer nonsense. I defy anybody to translate the word sheriff into German or French. There is no such word in German or French, for neither the Germans nor the Frenchmen ever had the English institution of a sheriff, nor had the Chinese either. And consequently, we know very little, next to nothing, of the internal regime of the provinces. It is true, all travellers relate us that mandarins are of nine grades, with different but- tons on the top of their caps. But this interesting state- ment does not help us any to a better understanding of a Chinese administration. More to the point is the statement, that a mandarin keeps office only for three years. But I must confess, that my authorities do not agree with respect 'to this most important point. To the present day there is no nobility 46 China and India. of birth in China, and tlie tenure of office supplies the only distinguishing rank in the Empire. China is the great country of civil service reform and examination. No matter how old an official is, how many offices he might have been in, whenever he wants to as- cend still higher, he must first pass a scholarly examina- tion. These numberless examinations are the chief topic of conversation in Chinese private life. Everybody is interested in the result of the examination, the hap- hazard of which plays the part of exciting elections in other countries. But great is also the number of victori- ous candidates without an office, and that accounts for the amazing number of literary proletarians in China. The government of China is, at present, a patriarchal despotism. But this was not always the case. For over 1,500 years (from 1,700 — 200 B. C.) China was divided into many realms of the feudal pattern, and only the Emperors of the then dynasty succeeded in subjecting all the feudal States into one large Empire. Twenty-two different dynasties have reigned in China, and the present dynasty is of jMandshu origin, and Mandshus take a prominent part in the government of the country. Sub- missive as they are, the Chinese maintain, nevertheless, the doctrine of Confucius and his disciple Mencius, that a wicked ruler has forfeited his right, that he may be dethroned and put to death. The same doctrine obtained with the Arabs with regard to their seemingly omnip- otent chalifs, as is expressly stated in Maverdi's great system of Arabian constitutional law. That may show you that the Chinese system can not be called a despotism pur et simple. It has a fair sprinkling of democratic ideas, fully borne out by the frequent rebellions and revolutions of the Chinese people. The whole theory of Chinese government is the embodiment of parental and filial piety. As the people are the children of the 1 China and India. 47 Emperor, so he is the Teen-tse, or the son of Heaven. He performs the national sacrifice, or State observances, the greatest of which is the sacrifice at the winter solstice, before sunrise, on the morning of the twenty-first of December, at the altar of Heaven. His nominally boundless power is circumscribed by ceremonial laws and hampered by precedents, so that his whole life is one continual round of ceremonial observa- tions. His privy council consists of nine Mandshu and seven Chinamen, besides there are six administrative boards for the whole empire. In China polygamy is an admitted institution. It will be interesting to hear the marriage and divorce laws of the Chinese in the authentic translation of Sir Staunton. "When a marriage is intended to be contracted, it shall be, in the first instance, reciprocally explained to, and clearly understood by, the families interested, whether the parties, who design to marry, are or are not diseased, infirm, aged, or under age, and whether they are the children of their parents by blood, or only by adoption. If either of the contracting families then object, the proceed ings shall be carried no further; if they still approve, they shall then in conjunction with the negotiators of the mar- riage, if such there be, draw up the marriage articles, and determine the amount of the marriage-presents. If, after the woman is thus regularly aflianced by the recognition of the marriage articles, or by a personal interview and agree- ment between the families, the family of the intended bride should repent having entered into the contract, and refuse to execute it, the person amongst them who had authority to give her away shall be punished with fifty blows, and the marriage shall be completed agreeably to the original contract; although the marriage-articles should not have been drawn up in writing, the acceptance of the marriage-presents shall be sufficient evidence of the agreement between the parties." 48 China and India. The remaining clauses of this section provide, in every possibly way, against the infraction of a marriage-contract, whether on the part of the man or woman affianced, or of their respective relations. Lending a wife on hire is pun- ishable with eighty blows ; lending a daughter with sixty; those who receive the wives or daughters on hire for a lim- ited time, are to participate equally in the aforesaid pun- ishment, and the parties are to be separated ; the pecuniary consideration for such loan to be forfeited to government. "Moreover, although one of the seven justifying causes of divorce should be chargeable upon the wife, namely : I. Barrenness; 2. Lasciviousness; 3. Disregard of her husband's parents ; 4. Talkativeness, 5. Thievish pro- pensities; 6. Envious and suspicious temper ; 7. Inveter- ate infirmity ; yet, if any of the three reasons against a divorce should exist, namely: i. The wife's having mourned three years for her husband's parents; 2. the family's having become rich after having been poor pre- vious to, and at the time of marriage; 3. The wife's hav- ing no parents living to receive her back again. In these cases none of the seven aforementioned causes will jus- tify a divorce, and the husband who puts away his wife upon such grounds, shall suffer punishment two degrees less than that last stated, and be obliged to receive her again." The bamboo plays a prominent part in this tender affair of loving hearts, but that is more a theoretical rule than a practical contrivance. For all travelersagree that the bam- boo is used very sparingly. Some of the laws of China have been translated into English, but so far our knowledge, especially of the civil law of the Chinese, is very insignifi- cant. We know very little about their jurisdiction, or courts of law, or attachments, or law of inheritance, etc. There is, amongst others, a professor in Munich, Prof. Plath, who writes year in and year out big treatises on China China and India. 49 and her laws. But I suppose a person is more likely to make out some sense by looking at the mysterious hyero- glyphs of original Chinese books than by studying the un- couth German products of Prof. Plath. At least I never succeeded. By far greater are our attainments as to another of the institutions of China, I mean the language of that coun- ■ try. You will be surprised, perhaps, to hear of the lan- guage of a country as of one of its institutions. But a language is one of the most powerful institutions of a coun- try, acting and reacting on every single individual, shap- ing the thoughts, coloring the sentiments, directing the feelings. It is true, a language, in many respects, is but a symptom, a result of institutions, but in course of time it becomes an institution itself, and the language of a j^eople is so intimately connected with the institutions of that peo- ple as is the family, the mode of government and the re- ligion. Together with the decline of the institutions of Rome, we notice a similar decay of the language of Rome, and new institutions elicited a new language, the modern idiom of Italy. The rise of the Italian language coincides with the decay of Roman institutions. The rise of the English language, some 300 years before Shakspearc, coincides with the decay of Norman, and the rise of specific Eng- lish institutions. A closer study of a language always and unmistakably reveals the connection between language and other institu- tions. Take, e. g., the English word thou. Since two centuries the custom of thouing persons has disappeared from usual English conversation, and accordingly all af- fixes and sufiixes of nouns and verbs governed by "thou" have been dropped. In the beginning of the eighteenth century a good many persons were .still clinging to the old custom of thouing persons of an inferior standing. Rich- 50 China and India. ard Bentley, the great English critic, kept up this way of address till his death. But his contemporaries considered it as an obsolete, effete custom. And why did the Eng- lish drop this innocent word, "thou" ? Because it com- menced to clash with the spreading democratic spirit of the English society, by dint of which nobody liked to be con- sidered inferior, and everybody wanted to be addressed by "you." ' In German, in Hungarian, in Russian, on the other hand, there are three to four ways of addressing different people, but since 30 to 40 years one of them (the address by "er") has given way to the pressure of more demo- cratic institutions. The Chinese language is one of the great institutions of China. It is a marvelous language. It consists exclusively of monosyllabic words. No Chi- nese word has more than one syllable; several of the let- ters of our alphabet are entirely unknown to the Chinese, o, f, C, r, z ; no word begins with an a. The most mar- vellous thing, however, is that the whole Chinese language has only 500 sounds, viz. : all the words of their language are represented to the ear by only 500 sounds, and con- sequently one sound often conveys as many as 100 differ- ent meanings. The art of writing the Chinese language is, beyond any doubt, one of the most curious inventions of mankind. In the majority of languages ideas are expressed by a combi- nation ol letters, representing, not the ideas themselves, but certain particular sounds with which those ideas, either by accident or by convention, have become identi- fied. It is exclusively in the Chinese language that the seemingly visionary scheme of a i:)hilosophical character, immediately expressive of ideas and conceptions themselves, under an entire disregard of the sounds employed to give them utterance, has ever been generally adopted, a plan c-f which it may justly be said that the practice is no less China AND India. 51 inconvenient and perplexing than the theory is beautiful and ingenious. (Compare Leibnitz's Characteristics). The signs of the Chinese language being entirely inde- pendent of the sounds of the words they suggest, the Japa- nese have until recently used Chinese characters, Chinese word pictures to express the totally different Japanese word, so that the same line of words could at the same time be read by A in Chinese and by B in Japanese. The 60,000 characters, or rather word pictures, of the Chinese are compounds of exactly 214 elementary signs. The great dictionary of the Chinese language consists of 200 volumes, each as large as our Webster. This miraculous language is the vehicle of an extremely sober, unphantastic, jejune people, who believe in earthly wellbeing, and don't care very much for spiritual, transcendental objects. This lan- guage stifled all idealistic tendencies, all abstract philo- sophic aspirations in their very germ, for a language which never abandons the root of a word, never forms derivi- tives, must necessarily predispose to very clear but prosaic thinking. It is accordingly in the abstract sciences that we find the Chinese most deficient. They know how to figure out the length of one side of the rightangled triangle by means of the two. other sides, but they never generalized this rule, and never expressed the well-known rule of the hypothenuse in the abstract terms of Pythagoras. They have built magnifi- cent bridges and wonderful buildings with all hidden intrica- cies of the arch and pillar, but they never abstracted the theoretical rule of vaulting an edifice or of curbing a bridge. The character of their language occasioned that peculiar tone of Chinese learning, which sticks to the word and sacrifices the sense. This incapacity of soaring into the region of the abstract prevented them from ever inventing a satisfactory system of arithmetic. They have never quit the threshold of the system of numbers; as this is little 52 China and India. known, and at the same time of the ver\- greatest interest, I shall devote a few minutes to Chinese arithmetic. For centuries the " Livre de Mutations" as the French missionaries used to call it was a perfect enigma to Chinese scholars. This celebrated table consisted of sixty-four groups of six lines each, some of these lines being unbroken dashes, some of them broken into two parts. It was indicated in the table that one group denoted the number 20, another group 31, a third group 54 ; but nobody could account for the reason of this peculiar, mysterious way of writing numbers. The most renowned Chinese scholars failed in their efforts to solve the riddle. At last a copy of the table came into the possession of the celebrated German philosopher, Leibnitz, and he at once solved it. He said that in this table the first place is occupied by the unit, as in our decimal sys- tem; the next place, however, is occupied not by 10, but by 2 ; the third place by the square of 2 ; the fourth place by the cube of 2, etc. In other words, in that mysterious table the number two was the fundamental number, and not the number 10, it was not our decimal system, but the binarian system. This then was the remotest boundary of Chinese theoretical arithmetic. But although more than deficient in abstract sciences, the Chinese have amassed an astounding amount of empirical knowledge concerning arts and industries and technical handicrafts. The most competent judges agree in unbounded admiration of the usefulness of Chinese books on empirical sciences. There is a general cyclope- dia written by one Mr. Twan Lin on which book Remusat and Wells Williams have bestowed a perfect shower of praise. They simply say that it is worth while to learn Chinese in order to enjoy this most wonderful book of Mr. Twan Lin's. Similar admiration has been expressed with regard to that gigantic Chinese encyclopedia of 6.109 vol- China and India. 53 limes, in comparison with which our most extensive ency- clopedias are dwarfed into insignificance. Of late the Chinese have established a scientific bureau in the Kiangnan arsenal, under the superintendence of Mr. John Fryar, and several 100 of the best scientific books of Europe and America have been translated into Chin- ese. Our judgment on the literature of China rests chiefly on a restricted number of translated novels, lyrical poems and dramas. The most celebrated of these novels goes by the name "The Two Fairy Cousins." You will find a very amusing translation of this renowned Chinese novel in Fraser's Magazine for 1874. Two girls fall in love with the hero of the novel, and the good natured fellow is perfectly at a loss what to do. At last he disposes of the supernu- merary heroine by marrying both. The Chinese have no epos and their drama is very poorly developed. They are, however, passionate lovers of stage performances, and have, curious enough, the same rule with the Cireeks, that no more than two persons can be on the stage at one and the same time. Women don't play on the stage. A ftiw moments ago I mentioned the sober, jejune mind of the average Chinese. The bulk of the nation never in- dulge in spirits, in fact they have no wine, no beer, no whiskey ; opium is their only intoxicating drug. In ac- cordance with this prosaic turn of mind is an almost entire absence of religious fervor. In fact the Chinese have no national religion. You will generally read of Confucianism, Taoism and Buddhism as being the chief religions of China. But this is incorrect, Confucianism and Taoism are no religions whatever. Taoism is an abstract philoso- phy, founded by Laotse, end Confucianism refers almost exclusively to the art of political government and private morals. 54 China and India. Confuicius, or rather Kung (for fa tse simply means the wise, the sage) was a contemporary of Pythagoras, 550 B. C. , and descended from noble ancestors. He held great offices and spent the greater part of his life in evolving a system of government which was mainly taken from old usage and a wise consideration of the most characteristic features of the Chinese. Society, Confucius said, is an ordinance of Heaven, and is made up of five relations: viz.: ruler and subject, hus- band and wife, father and son, elder brother and younger brother and friends. When these five relations are appro- priately established, nothing remains to be desired for. The celebrated five books of Kings are ascribed to Confu- cius, but more recent inquiries have proved that these sacred books, containing hymns, lyrical poems and mythological stories are of a different origin. The doctrine of Confu- cius, taught by his disciple Mencius, reads very much like the moralist treatises of Benjamin Franklin. They never sought to be evangiles of a religion, and Confucius him- self never wanted to pass for a seer or prophet, or inspired writer. He hated to speak of spiritual things, and never gave an answer to transcendental questions. Consequently we cannot speak of Confucianism as a religion. The only religious system widely spread among the Chinese is the Buddhism, or as it is called in China the Foism. I shall treat of this religion in connection with India. Confucius is considered the greatest sage of the Chinese people, his living lineal descendants in the 75th generation still hold large imperial estates. I have not yet mentioned one of the most momentous in- stitutions of China, an institution which has been frequently neglected by writers who pretend to treat their subject in a thoroughly scientific way. I allude to the Chinese cue. The cue in China is an institution of the very greatest importance, and it shows only how very few people are China and India. 55 able to trace things up to their real source, that this remark- able institution has not yet met with an apt treatment. It is easy to make fun of the cue, to ridicule it. But science does not intend to deride or pity. Science wants sim- ply to understand things. The Chinese have no national religion, no common Sabbath, no common prayer in tem- ples ; everyone prays for himself at home, and thus the bonds and ties of internal common interests are more or less missing. In lieu of internal bonds people always con- trive to settle on some external badge or sign, as tattooing, or the rite of the Semitic races, or a peculiar costume. The cue of the Chinese is his badge, his tattoo his nationality typified, and you all know how impossible it is to persuade Sam Lee in America to clip his cue. And in fact by clip- ping his cue he would clip his very nationality. I can not conclude this synoptical view of the heavenly empire without saying a few Vvords of the alleged perpe- tuity and unchangeableness of Chinese civilization. Num- berless articles have been written on the supposedly im- movable, petrified stage of China, and ingenious writers have essayed to account for that. I am sorry to say these writers have undertaken a very barren and hopeless task. In the first place it is far from positive whether China has really not gone through a whole series of changes and reforms. Our knowledge of China is too unsatisfactory as to ad- mit of such a peremptory statement. We have still to bide our time and wait for fuller information. Our present knowledge of them does not entitle us to give a definite and fixed judgment on this great country. India. India, or Hindoostan, is as large as all Europe less Russia, and has at present a population of 240,000,000. In a physical way India represents all climates, all zones, all kinds of soil, from affluent tropic scenery down to bar- 56 China and India. ren, sterile deserts, swamps and jungles. The snow-cov- ered peaks of the Himalaya in the north, the sea in the east, south and west. At the very outset of our study of India we have to be extremely careful not to see a unity where in reality there is a most complicated diversity and plurality. The one word India covers looo different things. India is a common name to loo different nations, loo different sets and castes, to ICO stages of civilization. There is no such thing as one uniform Hindoo people, and there never has been such a uniform Hindoo people. Germany, e. g., is inhab- ited by the Germans, France by the French, Italy by the Italians. But India is not inhabited by a uniform Hindoo population; not at present, and not 2000, 3000 or 4000 years ago. When we speak of Hindoo religion, Hindoo law, Hindoo science, we mean the science of only one single, limited class of the people of India, Ave speak of the Brahmans. All religion, all science, all law, all codi- fied law, at least, has originated with the Brahmans, viz. : with one of the many castes and classes in India. For there are many castes in India. You will frequently hear of the/(>i/r I'astcs of India. You could just as well speak of only four cities of America, of Boston, New York, Philadel- phia, and Chicago. The so-called four castes in India — I shall treat of them later on — are only one of the many divisions of people in India. There are over 300 castes in India. India displays all stages of civilization. We find, espe- cially in the central provinces of India and in the Ana- malai hills in Southern Madras, aboriginal colored tribes who have lived there ever since the arrival of the fair- skinned Aryans, viz.: ever since 4000 years. They still use agate knives and rough flint instruments. They have no knowledge of bronze or iron. Such are the Puliars, the Mundavars, who possess no dwellings, and continually China and India. 57 wander over the hills; the Nairs, of whose polyandrous institutions I was speaking in my second lecture. The wild tribe of the Mari fly on the approach of a stranger. Once ayear a messenger comes to them from the local rajah to take their tribute of jungle products. He does not enter their hamlets, but beats a drum outside, and then hides himself. The sly Mari creep forth, place what they have to give in an appointed spot, and run back again into their retreats. So have the Juangs only flint weapons, and thus form a remnant to our own day of the stone age. On the other hand, we have the highly developed, beautiful Ary- ans and the descendants of the Arabians. Roughly speaking, we have three different sets of peo- ple in India. (I) The descendants of the aboriginal tribes, displaying the Negro and Malayan tribe. The number of these tribes is quite bewildering. Their lan- guages are divided into three great classes, (i) the Tiheto Burmese class, with twenty-one principal and some more or less distinct dialects ; (2) the Kolarian languages (nine principal dialects), and (3) the Dravidian languages, spoken by 46 millions of people (twelve principal dialects). These are the non- Aryan people. Then comes the sec- ond (II) great division or the descendants of the Aryan people, with a score of diflerent languages, and (III) the Arabian, Persian, Afghan and Chinese population. The Mohammedan people of India exceed 40,000,000. We know now that India is a compound of a great many ele- ments, and we have accordingly to restrict ourselves to its most prominent element, the Aryan descendants, dis- regarding all the non-Aryan tribes. In speaking, there- fore, of India, I shall speak exclusively of the Aryans of India. Our knowledge of the non- Aryan people of In- dia, who live mostly under their own rajahs, although tributary to the British, is such a scanty one, that it is scarcely v,-orth while to dwell on them any longer. All that 58 China and India. we really do know about India refers to the Aryan tribes, and f specially to the Brahmans. When speaking of China I called your attention to the paramount necessity of first sifting our sources before we proceed any further. The sources of our knowledge of India (of course I mean of Aryan India) are by far more ample and richer than our sources for China. You all know that the Aryan Indians are our next kin ; Americans as well as Europeans, with but few exceptions, belong to one large class of fair- skinned people, known under the name of Jndo-Germans. In other words, Indians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, (Italians), Spaniards, Frenchmen, Germans, Russians, Danes, Swedes and Norwegians, Icelanders, Poles, Eng- lishmen, Irishmen and Scotchmen and all emigrant Ameri- cans, with the exception of the Chinese, were originally one and the same tribe of Aryans, who lived in Central Asia, speaking the same language, having the same insti- tutions, and adoring the same deity. Four or five thou- sand years ago this original Indo-German tribe split off into many classes and divisions, some going west, estab- lishing the ever memorable empires of Greece and Rome and Gaul and Britain ; some going east, establishing the kingdoms of India. To the present day there is a palpa- ble similarity between all the languages of these nations, so that whole Persian sentences read perfectly German, or some propositions of three to four English words read per- fectly Slavonian or Russian. The fact that there is an affinity of blood between ourselves and the Aryan In- dians contributed very much to a closer study of Indian civilization. In studying their ancient books we studied, as it were, the history of our own ancestors. We owe the discovery of our relation to the Aryan Indians and Persians to the powerful, suggestive mind of W. Schle- gel, one of the German classics. It is more than as- tonishing that the English, who govern India since China and India. 59 1765, and who had great Sanskrit scholars long before the Germans ever thought of studying this sacred lan- guage, I say it is highly astonishing that no Englishman ever noticed this wonderful correlation between Aryan Indians and Europeans. Sir W. Jones, the cele- brated Orientalist, himself a great Sanskrit scholar and translator of many Sanskrit books, and the indefatigable Colebrooke, who spent all his life with Sanskrit writings, both failed to see what the German poet distinctly per- ceived. Shortly after the publication of this discovery a host of scholars took to the study of Sansl^rit, hunting manuscripts, publishing, translating works, dictionaries, grammars. At present the literature of the Aryan In- dians, in other words, the Sanskrit literature, covers an immense field. We have most elaborate treatises on the history, archaeology, antiquity, religion, science and law of the Indians. Let me mention a few of these cele- brated scholars. Eugen Burnouf, Lassen, Benfey, Max Mueller, Jolly, Baillie, Boethlingk, and Prof. Whitney, in Yale College. Our statements, consequently, admit of great precision. We have now to inquire into the institutions of the Aryan Indians. Among their institutions there are chiefly two which form the groundwork of Indian society. I mean their castes and their religion. I shall speak first of their religion, for their castes are of a later date. Origi- nally, and even down to the eighth century B. C, the Indians had no caste. There is no mention of the castes in that marvelous poem Rigveda, which forms the great- est literary memorial of the early Aryan settlements in the Punjab. But their religion dates back to a very re- mote antiquity. In the course of 5,000 years the Indians evolved four different religions. The first is the old Vedic religion, the 6o China and India. second is Brahmanism, the third is Buddhism, the fourth is modern Hindooism. The old Vedic religion is laid down chiefly in the Rig- veda, but also in the other Vedas, in the Samaveda, in the Yayurveda and in the Atharvaveda. These Vedas have all been translated. Of late they appeared in the precious series of volumes edited by Mr. Mueller, of Oxford, under the title "Sacred Books of the East." The Rigveda consists of 1017 short lyrical poems written by a family of inspired psalmists, some 1000 years B. C. It teaches to adore Dyaushpitar (the Diespiter, Jupiter of the Romans and Greeks), the Varuna (Uranos of the Greek), Agni (Ignis), Ushas (Eos of the Greek, the dawn), in all about thirty-three gods, who are eleven in heaven, eleven on earth and eleven dwelling in mid-air. The terrible blood-drinking deities of later Brahmanism are scarcely knoAvn in the Vedas. The Aryans of that age were a noble people, who held women in high esteem ; the widow was under no obligation to burn herself. The dead were buried on funeral piles, similar to the Greek and Roman custom. You noticed the identity of the old Vedic gods with some of the Greek and Roman deities, and to this day the Deity is adored by names derived from the same old Aryan root by Brahmans in Calcutta, by Protestant clergymen at Westminister, and by Catholic priests in Peru. But this pure and poetic rehgion of the old Vedas which was merely an adoration of the forces and elements of Nature gave way to Brahmanism. The word Brahma has different meanings. It denotes a prayer to the Deity, but it denotes also the Deity himself. Brahma is the Deity as a creator, Vishnu as a conservator, and Siwa as a destroyer, these three together forming the Brahma Trimurti, or sacred Trinity. But the excessive fancy of the Indians was not satisfied with these three per- China and India. 6i sonifications of Brahma, and there are roo of such j^erson- ifications, the most celebrated of which are Krishna, and the terrible Durga or Kali. "Siva is represented to the Indian mind as a hideous being, encircled by a girdle of snakes, with a human skull in his hand, and wearing a necklace composed of human bones. He has three eyes ; the ferocity of his temper is marked by his being clothed in a tiger's skin; he is repre- sented as wandering about like a madman, and over his left shoulder the deadly cobra di capella rears its head. This monstrous creation of an awe-struck fancy has a wife, Doorga, called sometimes Kali, and sometimes by other names. She has a body of dark blue, while the palms of her hands are red, to indicate her insatiate appetite for blood. She has four arms, with which she carries the skull of a giant; her tongue protrudes, and hangs lollingly from her mouth ; round her waist are the hands of her vic- tims ; and her neck is adorned with human heads strung together in a ghastly row." A civilized people as the Indians, 500-600 years B. C. un- doubtedly were, could not endure such blasphemous poly- theism, and in the sixth century previous to the beginning of our era a reaction began, initiated by Gautama Buddha. Buddha, for that is the familiar name of this great man, although Buddha is no surname, but an attribute meaning the sage, the wise, Buddha was the son of a king, and spent the first thirty years of his life in all the luxury of oriental princes. But a mysterious craving for an unknown something, fur a higher, superior world overtook him, and leaving the palace of his father and his own beautiful young wife, he withdrew to a thick forest and lived for many years the gloomy life of a recluse, meditating on the courses of Life and Death, of joy and sorrow, of pain and bliss. At last he thought himself purified and freed from all earthly desire and he came forth as the reformer of man- 62 China and India. kind, preaching his evangile in all cities, villages and ham- lets of his country. I must abstain from telling you all the details of the life of this extraordinary man, but I can not help asking you to read his biography which in itself is of the greatest interest. It is the common fate of some of the very greatest men that modern critics have tried to doubt the very existence of these men. You know that the personal existence of Homer has been doubted and actually denied. You know that the authorship of Shakespeare has been exposed to a very severe criticism. And as to our Buddha, so late as 1854, Prof. Wilson of Oxford, England, has published an elab- orate treatise to the effect, that Gautama Buddha never existed. But this conjecture has proved altogether futile and we have at present the most irrefragable evidence of the personal existence of Gautama. Of course the many miraculous stories connected with his biography are mere legends, but he undoubtedly existed. His religion can scarcely be called a religion, because it does not acknowl- edge a Deity, nor does it teach to believe in a creator ; it is an atheistical religion. Nevertheless, the creed has gained more disciples than any other, being professed by 500,000,000 of people, or more than one-third of the human race. Our scientific in- sight into Buddhism, we owe chiefly to the labors of one Hungarian and two French scholars, to Korosi Csoma Sandor, and to E. Burnoufand Barthelemy St. Hilaire. It is of course next to imposssble to give you a satisfactory outline of Buddha's system within the narrow compass of a few minutes, but we shall try to delineate the salient point at least of this well-nigh universal institution. Buddha taught that all truth may be reduced to four main tenets : I. That misery always accompanies existence. China and India. 63 2. That all modes of existence of men or animals re- sult from j)assion or desire. 3. That there is no escape from existence except by de- struction of desire. 4. That this may be accomplished by following the way to Nirvana. Nirvana is that pefectly happy state of bliss when we have grown indifferent to all earthly desires, when abso- lute composure of mind and soul prevails in our whole being, when we have finally abandoned the relations of society and are totally wrapped up in the contemplation of eternity. The point, however, above purity, above justice, above even faith is, according to Buddha, uni- versal charity. You can not fail to remark the close identity between this scheme of intellectual transcendentalism and the superiiuman efforts of some of the Christian monastic orders. And it is but a matter of natural consequence? that this doctrine of Buddha's led to the institution of monasteries, a thing which was entirely alien to Brahman- ' ism. It seems to be utterly incomprehensible how such a gloomy, austere and unsocial doctrine could ever gain the ascendency over the ])ompous, bright and imposing Brahman creed. But, some 300 years after Buddha's death, the Emperor Asoka forced the Buddhistic religion on all Indin; he may be justly considered ihe Constantin of Buddhism. The two systems co-existed as popular religions during more than 1,000 years (244 B. C. — 800 A. D.) But at last, Sankara-acharya overthrew Buddhism in the eighth century of our era, and since that time Buddhism was on the wane, so that at present there is no Buddhism in India; Buddhism being the religion of Thibet, China, Burma, Java, Celebes, Borneo, etc. The impression. 64 China and India. however, that Buddhism made on the profound mind of the people of India was too deep and never disappeared. The fourth, the present religion of the Hindoos is a mixture of Brahmanism and Buddhism, they maintain the doctrine of the Trimurti, but in the same time believe in Nirvana. Let me mention in passing, that Buddhism is a favorite topic with modern philosophers, and that es- pecially the German philosopher Schopenhauer extolled it to the skies. We have now to treat of the second great institution of the Aryan-Hindoos, of the Caste-system. I said, that there are over 300 castes in India; but this applies to all India and to all the tribes, Aryan and non- Aryan of India. The four castes, familiarly known as the four castes ot India, refer only to Brahman-Hindooism. The shortest and most efficacious way to understand an institution is to follow up its development. I shall give you now what may be considered the acknowledged theory of the origin of the caste. This theory has been propounded and affirmed by Lassen, Bohlen, Rhode and M. Mueller. They say, that the families who learned the all-important prayers, the brahmas, by heart, won great influence over the balance of the population. By degree.*:, a vast array of ministrants grew up around each of the greater sacrifices, and the families who understood all the requisite ceremonies and were well versed in the interpre- tion of the Vedas, began to be considered as teachers and mental guardians of the nation. That will account for the origin of the first caste, the Braiimans. The second caste, the Ksatriya, the soldiers recruited from among the more fortunate and richer warriors, who were freed from the labor of husbandry and defended the country against its enemies. The modern Rajput is the representation of this old caste. China and India. 65 The third caste, the Vaisyas, are the husbandmen, the farmers, as we call them. The fourth caste, Sudras or Pariahs, are remnants of some aboriginal tribes kept in abject bondage. They were not permitted to be present at the national sacrifice. You will easily see that the theory just mentioned, does in no way; whatever, account for the origin of a caste. For, and that is my principal point — a caste is not a class. All people had and have classes, all nations brought forth priests and warriors and farmers. But the distinguishing mark of a caste is this, that the members of the different castes are unequal, not only as to political rights, but as to social intercourse. The main characteristic feature of Hindoo-castes is the prohibition ot intermarriage and social intercourse. No Brahman is allowed to marry a Ksatrya girl, and no Ksatrya is allowed to marry a Vaisya girl, and nobody but a Sudra is allowed to marry a Sudra girl. At present, this sacred law has frecpiently been infringed upon — but in older times it was considered almost a law of nature. That being then the peculiar character of a caste, we can not subscribe to the theory of Bohlen and Rhode, for this theory does not account for the prohibition of in- termarriage and social intercourse. The nobility in Europe has for many centuries, been a real caste and to the present day it is, if not legally at least socially, a perfect caste. The great reformer of the history of German law, Prof. Eichhorn, tried to account for the origin of the German nobility as a caste, but he did not succeed in that, and frankly confessed, that we can give no satisfactory reason for the rise of this set of prerogatives. It is, as yet, impossible to account for the curious fact, that some nations have only classes and some have castes. The Greeks, the Romans had distinct classes, and so have the Chinese, but none of them ever 66 China and India. had a caste. Neither Brahmanism nor Buddhism, in spite of its levelling tendencies, could do away with the caste system. There can be no doubt that Hindoos do not feel, and perhaps, never felt their caste restriction as being in any way burdensome, or still less a disgrace to them. To wind up this part of our inquiry : We know that the Hindoos and the Egyptian possessed the institution, not of classes and ranks, but of castes; but we do not know what circumstances have necessitated this institu- tion. The Hindoos belonging to the first three castes are a no- ble people. They have the firm belief, that they, are twice born beings, their second birth dating from the initiation into the doctrines of the sacred Vedas and the in- vestiture with the sacred cord ordinarily worn over the left shoulder and under the right arm. Veda means knowledge ; the German, wissen. The Sudras are only once born people; compare the German "wohlgeboren", the Slavonic "panyi urozena". The Brahman, that is to say, the members of the first class, are splendid specimens of our species. Mr. Sherring, in his book, Hindoo Tribes and Castes, (a very instructive and amusing book) says of the Brahmans : " The Brahman occupies the highest rank among Hindus for at least three reasons : The first is his assumed sanc- tity. By the people generally he is regarded as a pure, stainless, twice-born being, divine as well as human, worthy of unbounded admiration and worship. He is the priest of the Hindu religion, directing the ceremonies performed at the temples, sacred wells, sacred tanks, sacred rivers, and at all hallowed places throughout the land. He is present to sanction, and give effect to the great social festi- vals of his countrymen held at marriages, at births of sons and at deaths. He casts the horoscope, tells the lucky China and India. ^j days, gives spiritual counsel whispers mantras or mysteri- ous words, executes magical incantations and charms, and is at once household god, family priest, and general pre- ceptor and guide in behalf of the many millions of Hindus residing in the vast country lying between the Himalayas and Cape Comorin. "The second reason of the Brnhman's superiority is that for many ages, perhaps from the outset of his career, when with other Ayrans he first entered the plains of India, he has been intellectually in advance of the rest of the Hindu race. "The third reason is a consequent of the second. The Brahmin is not only a thinking man, but also a reading man. He possesses and, and perhaps, reads the holy canon ~ Vedas, vShastras and Puranus. He has been the author of Hindu literature. "Light of complexion, his forehead ample, his counte- nance of striking significance, his lips thin and mouth ex- pressive, his eyes quick and sharp, his fingers long, his carriage noble and almost sublime, the true Brahmin, un- contaminated by European influence and manners, with his intense self-consciousness, with the proud conviction of superiority depicted in every muscle of his face, and mani- fest in every movement of his body, is a wonderful speci- men of humanity walking on God's earth. Yet the Brah- man has lived his day. His prestige is rapidly on the decline, and is only maintained at its ancient pitch in remote villages and in the fastnesses of superstition in great cities. Here, as of old, it evelops him like a glory. But the further he moves from such places, the more dim becomes the glory, until it fades away altogether. Educa- tion and other influences are treating the Brahman roughly. Yet the fault is his own. He has had a better start by reason of his great natural endowments than any Hindu of the other castes below him, but he has neglected his op- 68 China and India. portiinities. I fear he has been too proud, too self-satisfied to avail himself of them." All Indian literature, all science, and all law originated with and is possessed by the Brahmans. This literature has since tue last seventy years, formed a never ceasing sub- ject of admiration and study. It displays the most wonder- ful epic poems, as the Mahabharata and Ramejana, the daintiest, sweetest lyrical drama Sakuntala, etc., the grav- est works on mathematics, philosophy, astronomy and other sciences. In fact, we need, not be ashamed of our an- cestors. CHAPTER ON THE VIRTUE OF OBEDIENCE. Fac-simile of the oldest literary produclicn, composed during the times of the old empire, written in hieratic characters; the authors of which name themselves : For one part Prince Ptahhotep, city governor and strategyst under King Asa (5 Dyn., 4 Thousand B. C.) and for the other part Kakemna, who, according to the last lines of page 2 of the Papyrus occupied the same honors under King Snofru, who succeeded Huni (3 Dyn.) EGYPT AND ISRAEL. References: — Bunsen, Kgypt'sjilace. Maspero, Histoire anc. DeRotige^ Six prein. dyn. C7/oS«.<;, Melaiijj-es. Sir G. JviV^iV/jrow, Manners. Lepaius^ Koenigsbuc'li. il/nr/V^/^r, Musee Boulaq ; "Records of the past." Brugsch^ History of Egypt. Champollion, Oeuvres. Ladies and Gentlemen : Our next great topic is Egypt. In fact, I would have taken Egypt as the very first of all my topics, for our knowledge of ancient and even archaic Egypt is by far the greatest when compared with our information on the antiquities of other countries of the same time. Since the beginning of this century and even previous to it, numberless monuments, inscriptions, tombs, documents, and in fact, remains of all sorts have been collected, which, in their aggregate form a perfectly bewildering mass of reference. The study of China or India or Per- sia has been left to private industry, and to the efforts and means of private scholars. With Egypt it is entirely dif- ferent. Three great empires of Europe have spontane- ously offered their most efficacious help and almog: un- limited financial means in order to collect a satisfactory apparatus for the study of this marvelous country. The French government, under the personal superin- tendence of Napoleon I, the German government under the guidance of the celebrated Lepsius, and the Italian government under Rosellini have sent whole commissions to Egypt with strict injunction to do everything in their power toward an effectual collection of facts. Accordingly we now have three great publications, edited by the gov ernments of these three countries respectively, which cover the whole ground of Egyptian antiquity. These ofificial explorers assisted by the most celebrated scholars extended their inquiries to the most imposing as 70 Egypt and Israel. well as the most trifling feature of Egyptian' life. They deciphiered the enigmatic hieroglyphic inscriptions on the tombs of kings and princes, they copied faithfully the garments, houses, utensils and animals. They investi- gated the daily customs and usages and occupations of the laborer, of the peasant, of the farmer, of the soldier, of the priest, of the official, of the king, of women of all classes. At last a body of such comprehensive information has been gathered that we can fairly state the fact, that at present we really know more about every detail of old Egyptian life, 5000 years ago, than about similar details of old Roman life, 2000 years ago. Say e. g., we read in the Latin classics about the differ- ent carriages, cabs, etc. of the Romans; we read the word cisium, or essedum, or esseda, but in spite of all the efforts of the most learned scholars, in spite of Gruter and Gr^evius and Maffei and Marquardsen and a score of other savants, we do not know what kind of carriage was meant by cisium, and what kind by esseda. Or, to give another example, everybody heard of the wonderful pottery works of tlie Romans made of murrha, but nobody can tell what particular mineral is meant by murrha. Such a curious lack of information is a rare thing with Egyptian archaeology. We can by a careful study of the many works and sources on Egypt, form a most adequate idea of the life in ancient Egypt. If you have no time to go over the erudite books, some of which I shall presently mention, you may get a very fair and pos- itive knowledge of ancient Egyptian life by reading the novels of Ebers. Ebers is a scholar who made Egyptian antiquities his specialty, but in the same time he com- mands a great power of poetic fancy, and that enabled him to write novels which are, as it were, the poetic em- bodiment of his scientific studies. Based on a very com- prehensive study of facts they are a more satisfactory Egypt and Israel. 71 picture of ancient Egypt than e. g. Buhver's "Last Days of Pompei" are of ancient Rome. There are of course excellent English translations of these novels. As to the scientific books on Egypt, it is chiefly in French and Ger- man books where we can find the most trustworthy infor- mation. Englishmen have, with few exceptions, so far not published. any other but second hand books, and this applies especially to the well-known book of Rawlinson on Ancient Egypt. This book, as all his books, has been widely read, and is perhaps better known than any other book on Egypt. But is only a second hand book, a compilation, and not a faithful compilation after all. Ladies and Gentlemen, let me risk an advice. People, I mean intelligent people, are very apt to form what is usually called strong opinions. They read something in a paper, in a book which was accidentally slipped into their hands, and without any further consideration, they imme- diately form an opinion, a strong, a firm opinion, a stub- born opinion, the more stubborn, the less real foundation it rests upon. It is an undoubted fact that profound thinkers were rather timid in expressing a strong opinion. You remember the very modest title used by David Hume. The unrivalled book of this profound thinker bears the simple title, "An Essay on Human Understanding." Only an essay, only an attempt to know something, not a peremptory decision. Adam Smith said, "An Inquiry into the Wealth of Nations," only an inquiry. Darwin said, " On the Origin of Species — as it were meditation on the Origin of Species and not dictation. But that is not the way of talking with the ordinary intelligent lady or gentleman. They are never timid, they never essay, they never attempt, they are far beyond that. And why are they courageous, wh'en David Hume and Adam Smith were timid Because they generally read second hand books, I mean books, the authors of which got their in- 72 Egypt and Israel. formation at second hand. You remember, in our lecture on China we excluded all writers who lacked a thorough knowledge of the Chinese language. We have now to exclude all writers that lack a thorough knowledge of the language of ancient Egypt, and consequently, Mr. Raw- linson's book on Egypt has to be excluded. Be extremely careful in selecting your books, and if you should not be able to read sources at first hand, please suspend your judgment; be aware of the fact that your knowledge is only of a dilettantic nature. Perhaps you will think, that only a selected few have the requisite time and patience to read the original sources. I am glad to say, that this rather true remark does not apply to history. Take Egypt, the greatest authorities on ancient Egypt, after having published works of an ex- clusively scientific character adapted to the scholarly taste of the professional student, were very anxious to propa- gate their results in a more popular way, by editing books of a less scientific and severe turn. Thus, among others, we have the interesting work of Brugsch-Bey, a first-class authority, written in an amiable, and still highly reliable style. Then the scientific and poetic works of Ebers, and the fascinating volumes of Mariette. The works of the Count de Rouge at present, together with the late Lepsius, the chief authority on Egypt, of Chabas, of Sharpe, of Bunsen and Maspero, are scientific investigators. In my statement of facts and partially, at least, in my judgments, I shall follow de Rouge and Chabas in pref- erence to the rest of the scholars just mentioned, because a careful study of their works convinced me of .their superiority. These, then, are our sources on Egypt. Ancient Egypt was divided into Upper and Lower Egypt. Upper Egypt was divided into twenty two nomes, Lower Egypt into twenty nomes. You know that Egypt is mai nly the fertile land along the river Nile, this deified Egypt and Israel. 73 river being not only the fertilizer but simply the creator of the country. The history of Egypt goes back to a very remote antiquity. We have proper and undoubted inform- ation about Egyptian pharaos living 4,000 B. C. In that remote age, Egypt displayed already the culture, and abundance of a highly civilized people. They had, at that time, numerous large cities, populous districts, a great army, numberlesss temples, a refined literature and a considerable science. Our authorities as to these facts are perfectly irreproach- ble, they are still existent, they are not handed down by spurious traditions, they do not require an implicit belief, they may be tested every day anew — and they will stand all cross examinations. These pure and unadulterated authorities are the pyramids and their contents. Some of those original architectural wonders have been erected 3,800 or 4,000 years B. C, and their inscriptions, the documents found in them, tell the story of their origina- tors. At present there are only some 20 or 30 pyramids in Egypt, but orignally there were over 70. Destruction by natural forces or by the still ruder treatment of human bar- barity was the common lot of the majority of the pyramids. They were gazed upon as weird, uncouth remnants of a dark, benighted and superstitious age. So early as the fifth century B. C. , the Egyptians themselves looked with horror and awe at the huge, ghastly buildings, the purport and meaning of which they scarcely understood. Only recent discoveries have pulled off the mysterious veil, and we know now what the pyramids were meant for. I must abstain from giving you a minute description of the pyramids, my time being too limited, but you will find the details in Wilson's Egypt, or in the first volume of Brugsch's book. The pyramids were enormous granite- stone buildings in the shape of pyramids, from 200-450 74 Egypt and Israel. English feet high, the breadth at the base being 380-746 English feet, respectively. Each of them was perfectly adjusted to the cardinal points of the horizon, to north, east, south and west, and with the exception of a few corridors and galleries, the whole gigantic work was all solid. If we take into consideration that the ancient Egyptians never used iron tools in their masonry, iron being con- sidered as of an evil omen, in other words, that the an- cient Egyptian had no other tools but bronze tools— ^it is to the present day perfectly unintelligible how they ever succeeded in erectmg those fearful blocks of granite and granite marble to such an enormous height. Modern architecture despairs of an explanation of this enigma. No bronze tool of modern .nake can be used as a hammer or chisel in granite work. Of course the labor consumed on these mammoth buidings is beyond all comprehension. Hundred thousands of workmen had for 30 or 40 years to devote all their physical strength and all their skill to the erection of one of those pyramids. The great pyra- mid of Khufu necessitated such an immense array of labor- ers, that the mere value of the requisite eatables, chiefly radishes, onions and garlic amounted to $1,000,000. Interesting as these details are, there is still a more in- teresting and more substantial question to be answered. You know that in the whole course of these lectures our chief and principal attention is directed to a fair under- standing of institutions. The pyramids, undoubtedly the expression, or rather the representative of one of the broadest institutions of ancient Egypt — I say the pyra- mids may serve as a perfectly adequate clue to a better insight into the institutions of Egypt Facts, although the very first condition, facts are only the material of science, not science itself. It is not enough to accumulate facts — the meaning of these facts, Egypt and Israel. 75 that is our chief interest. You may easily acquire an un- usual amount of detail in the pyramids ; nevertheless, you may be totally deficient in a right understanding of the pyramids. Are the pyramids the product of mere folly on the part of the Pharaohs who had them erected, and of mere submissive stupidity on the part of the people who silently assented to the fearful drudgery of such work ? Are they the outcome of haughtiness, of religious zeal, of philosophic doctrines? All these and a host of other questions have been raised with regard to the pyramids. The oddest explanation seemed to be the most natural. There are scholars (and I understand that there is one in this city) who consider a pyramid a kind of scientific ap- paratus, used for the perpetuation of measures. There are other scholars holding similar -far-fetched opinions. It is scarcely necessary to tell you that these theories do not account for the erection of pyramids. It is very easy to speak of the folly of others, but if \\*e represent to ourselves the great and early development of the Egyp- tians, it must appear absolutely ridiculous to suppose that the civilized Egyptians performed these architectural wonders out of mere silliness. They were always alike sensible and wise. Take 1000 persons of ancient Egypt and 1000 persons of modern Europe and America, and as to mere natural talent and ability there is, on the aver- age, no difference whatever. There must have been a plain cause why the Egyptians assented to spend such enormous labor to the erection of pyramids. This cause, being of a lasting and general nature, must be referable to a lasting and general feature in the human constitution. Extreme folly is only an occasional phenomenon of the human mind, but there never has been a time, and never will be a time, when folly, pure, unadulterated folly, formed a lasting and general feature of people's char- acter. I know one frequently refers to some apparently ^6 Egypt and Israel. very fooiish and nonsensical phenomena of history, say to the belief in witchcraft, to the superstitious horrors of the Spanish inquisition, and similar things, all of them of a lasting and general character. But there is less folly in that than you might imagine. In my lectures on the mid- dle ages I shall take particular care to combat some of the widespread prejudices on the supposed folly and benighted spirit of those times. At present I want only to warn you against a false view of ancient Egyptian in- stitutions. If we want to understand the pyramids, we have to gain, first, a clear view of the Egyptian people, their relation to their ruler, the state of their classes, of their priests, and the state of their religion. The rulers in Egypt, known by the name of Pharaohs, were abso- lute monarchs. They appointed every official, every judge, every provincial governor, according to their pleasure, and did likewise discharge him at will. All the taxes of the country were the Pharaoh's property, and he disposed of them absolutely. His title was "His Holi- ness,'' and people prostrated themselves at sight of him. There were, however, se^'eral checks to the power of the Pharaoh. Egypt, at least during the reign of some dynas- ties, possessed an hereditary nobility, the members of which held many offices as their hereditary stations, pos- sessing, at the same time, large landed estates and numer- ous vassals and husbandmen. The other great check of the Pharaoh's power were the priests. They were the depositories of all the secret wisdom and ancient lore of Egypt. At a time when the treasures of Egypt were not yet unearthed, when our knowledge of this marvellous country rested chiefly on the comparatively few scattered passages in Herodotus, Strabo and Diodorus, there was a general belief that the priests in Egypt possessed a pro- found knowledge of things divine and mundane, and that a rediscovery of this ancient lore would prove a mag- Egypt and Israel. "j"] nificent aggrandisement of our own knowledge. Since the discovery of all those books, inscriptions and docu- ments which now serve as the firm basis of our study of Egypt, this general belief and expectation has been al- most fully justified. The priests in ancient Egypt were really great thinkers, they had succeeded to utilize many of the most efficient sources of nature, they were well skilled in astronomy, in geometry ; they had deeply meditat- ed on metaphysics and the origin of the human mind. We have deciphered some of their scientific treatises on medi- cine, and we have to acknowledge their remarkable knowl- edge of the human frame as well as of curative herbs and liquids. These priests, however, were not the sole re- cipients of religious tenets. I shall speak of that later on, when treating of the religion of ancient Egypt. There was another class of people, the warriors. It is not quite manifest as yet whether this class had separate rights of their own or whether its members only recruited from among the other classes. In contrast to the opulent classes stood the bulk of the people — a large mass of simple, easy minded, poor' beings who were perfectly at a loss how to pass their time. It seems to be rather ridiculous, but it is borne out by all varieties of fact that the general people in Egypt had scarcely anything to do all day long. Their dress was extremely simple — common laborers wearing no dress at all. The food chiefly dates and durrha, was so cheap that to bring up a child to manhood cost only three dollars in American money. Consequently Egyptians were extremely prone to indulge in all kinds of amusements, and accord- ingly in the numberless wall-paintings and inscriptions we find an intermiable display of all sorts of merry-making. Dance, music, festivities, drinking and etching were the essential parts of their life. If you now try to imagine that peculiar state of things in Egypt : At the head 78 Egypt and Israel. an omnipitent monarch, and a iiiysterious priest- hood, at the bottom a careless, laz}' mob; what can be more natural than that the rulers were constantly searching some occupation for these masses of lazy people ? Rulers, especially absolute rulers dread nothing as intensely as quiet peaceful times. They know that the unoccupied minds of their downtrodden subjects if not kept busy with something or another, must necessarily awake to criticism and ultimately to revolution. The absolute czars of Russia, although already sover- eign of immense territories are continually looking out for some conquest. But the fact is that they don't want to conquer foreign territories, but the minds of their own subjects. The Pharaohs had to be on the alert, for the impressive minds of the Egyptian low classes was very much liable to any kind of seduction and uproarious ten- dencies. To keep them busy, to prevent an outbreak of their rebellious instincts, to turn their minds into more peaceful channels, the Pharaohs struck out an ingenious contrivance. Before I proceed any further, I must again call your attention to the peculiar state of the Egyptian lower classes. They were poor, and so were the low classes of all ages. But the poverty of the Egyptians had a characteristic feature of its own. A poor man in other countries has, just in consequence of his poverty to work hard for his daily bread. One idle day, and he had to face the hideous features of dreary hunger. Not so with the poor man in Egypt. Though poor, he was under no necessity to go to work. The little wants of his physique (Egypt being a very wajm country, and conse- quently needs much less nourishment) were easily satis- fied by the date-palm tree, two hundred of which could easily be raised on one single acre. The poor classes of Egypt were not only poor but lazy ; not only lazy but also without any urgency to give up their laziness. Can there Egypt and Israel. 79 be a more dangerous class of peple ? People who can lose nothing and gain everything? It is part of the A, B, C in ])olitics to turn the mind of the people into those channels where they will act in the least perilous way. The Pha- raohs, therefore, took advantage of a general, prevailing idea of Egyptians, and but I must first treat of this curious idea of the Egyptians. Of all peoples of antiquity the Egyptians dwelt most on the future life, and made the most earnest efforts to represent to themselves the anatomy ot the immortal part of men. When they were yet in the bloom of their life, they began to build their tombs, and even the poorest Egyptian enshrined all his petty treasures in his future abode. He decorated it with the utmost care and delicacy, we frequently find the most exquisite paintings and drawings on tombs of very ordinary people; and sometimes in the midst of his labors death cut him off, leaving his tomb in an unfinished state of artistic wormanship. At their festivities the image of death was present and all their best cherished desires were concentrated in the hope to attain beatitude, to be saved, to reach the kingdom of eternal life. The Pharaohs availed themselves of this universal idea, and from the time they mounted their throne they commenced to erect their tombs, but not within the moderate limit of a private person, but in measures grand and colossal as fitting a monarch of Egypt. The pyramids were all tombs of Pharaohs, and it was the erec- tion of these costly, gigantic buildings which served as a means to occupy the minds and the time of the lazy popu- lace of Egypt. The i)yramids of Egypt hence were in the first place a political measure of the grandest scale, they served as one of the firmest foundation of the emjiire of the Pharaohs. All the religious ceremonies and rituals connected with the pyramids were most momentous things, but they were only instrumental to the chief and leading idea underlying the whole institution. 8o Egypt and Israel. Every pyramid had its own priest, and of course the coffin containing the mummy of the dead Pharaoh was inclosed deep in the center of the huge building, pro- tected by immense rocks and locked up with all the arti- fices of ancient technics. Nowhere else do we find simi- lar things, and nowhere else do we meet with that peculiar state of the people which I have just been trying to de- lineate. In Rome the people of the republic had a prom- inent share in the administration of the state, they had to look after their daily earnings, and consequently there was no necessity to occupy them with the erection of use- less buildings, temple of Tarus. Besides, they were con- stantly engaged in wars. But when the power of Rome came to be united more or less in the hands of one single man, of the Ctesars, it became a measure of the highest political wisdom to entertain the large populace of Rome, and accordingly enormous amphitheaters began to be built up, and gorgeous games were established. The pyramids of Fvjiypt are symbolical representations of that eternal truth, that tae lazy man is the wicked man, and that labor is the only real permanent blessing of man- kind. Antiquity has a peculiar charm for everybody, and I hope to gratify a just curiosity by telling a few words on the details of ancient Egyptian life. The great authority for this part of our inquiry is tlie work of Sir Gardner Wilkinson on the manners and customs of the ancient Egyptians. The Egyptians called their country Kem, viz.: the black land. They were more related to the Caucassian than to the negro type. Most of the modern inhabitafits have preserved many of the characteristics of their ancient predecessors. Oval heads, long noses, with a slight bridge, chin small, hair long, full, crisp and black. Very few Egyptians were blondes. The men of all classes had shaven heads, with skull caps, or wore their own Egypt AND Israel, 8i hair, or wigs, very full, and in numerous plaits or curls, falling to the shoulders. Soldiers, however, did not shave their heads. Except kings and great persons, every one shaved the hair of the face. The Pharaoh was dis- tinguished from his subjects by the richness of his apparel, the figure of an as[), the emblem of royalty is often tied just above his forehead. The ordinary costume of men of the upper and middle classes was the same as that of the king, the short kilt, with sometimes the long shirt or skirt of fine linen above it, tied in various forms. They generally went barefoot, but sometimes used sandals. The priest was occasionally clad in a leopard skin, the fore legs fprming sleeves. The royal princes were distinguished by a side-lock apparently curiously plaited. The men of die lower classes wore the kilt and girdle alone, or especially when engaged in laborious work, went, as I said before, altogether naked. The dress of the queen consisted of a tight skirt, descending to the ankles, supported by shoul- der-straps and bound at the waist by a girdle with long ends falling in front. Over this was usually worn a full shirt of fine linen, with wide sleeves reaching below the elbows and having a broad skirt falling to the ground. It much resembles the upper dress of the king. The queen was distinguished by her head dress, which was in the form of a vulture with outspread wings, the bird's head projecting over the forehead and the wings falling on either side, while the tail extended behind. The queen also wore sandals. The dress of ladies was the same as that of the queen, without the distinguishing ornaments, but they frequently appeared in the under garment or skirt alone. I mentioned already the extreme care every Egyptian took with regard to the future state of his soul. The greatest ceremony of each man's life was his funeral. The period of mourning began at the time of death, and lasted seventy-two days or a shorter time. During this 82 Egypt and Israel. time the body was embalmed and swathed in many linen bandages, the outermost of which was covered with a kind of paste-board, which represented the deceased. It was the chief ambition of the very poorest Egyptian to be declared worthy of a blessed life in the world to come and consequently to be insured of a future resurrection in the shape of a human being. This declaration was given by priests after a careful investigation of the actions of the deceased. This extra investigation, however, cost money, and since the ancient Egyptians had no particular inkling towards wasting their money in vain, it was inva- riably understood on both sides that the deceased shall be declared an Osiris, viz.: a saved soul. Osiris, though ordinarily the name of one ot the chief gods, was also the name of every deceased person after having been de- clared saved. This brings us to a contemplation of the religion of the ancient Egyptians. When speaking of the manners and customs of daily life in ancient Egypt, I had to state the great affluence of our sources. With re- gard to the religion of this great people, I could not com- plain of a lack of sources either; the only considerable drawback, however, prevails that these sources are not pro- perly digested and systematized. We know very many little and great things of the Egyptian deities. We know the names and images of almost all the different deities of the different homes and towns, for every home as well as every town in ancient Egypt had its separate deity, its own god. We know quite an amount of interesting facts on the different cycles of deities, as they have been called, we know of Ra, the Sun-god, and his cycle of gods, and of Osiris and Isis and of Mentu, and Shu and Thot, or reason. I shall presently tell you more particulars about these deities. But before all I am very anxious to come to a point of very great importance with regard to Egyp- tian religion. All inquirers, whether absolutely unpreju- Egypt and Israel. 83 diced, as the Count de Rouge, or whether biased to a certain extent, as Brugsch or Rawlinson, all inquirers, I say, agree as to the remarkable fact that the ancient Egyptians, at least the priests, had a clear and pure idea of One God, self-existent, self-producing, the creator of heaven and earth. The Prisse papyrus (it has this name because a French gentleman, a Mr. Prisse, who had bought it from a poor fellah in Egypt, donated it to the National Library in Paris) this Papyrus is, undoubtedly, the oldest book in the world, written by Prince Ptah- hotep some 2500 years B. C. In it the Prince speaks con- stantly of One God. There is another extremely old papy- rus, known under the nameofthe "Ritual," 4000 yearsold, which contains the pure doctrine of monotheism, but is occasionally alloyed with gross superstition. You may see by that that monotheism was the original religious doctrine of the Egyptians, and permit me to remark again, that all inquirers without one single exception, agree on this one point. None of them denies that the ancient Egyptians propounded the belief in One God. Such a sublime belief, however, did not suit the less spir- itual minds of the people, and consequently a whole series of divinities were created, and the fancy of religious zeal indulged in numberless mythological stories. I men- tioned before that there were two cycles of divinities. Ra, the sun, is usually represented as a hawk-headed man, occa- sionally as a man, in both cases bearing on his head the solar disk, round which the uraeus, symbolic of royal power, is sometimes coiled. Ra had the most general worship of any Egyptian divinity except Osiris. Ra is purely solar, Osiris participates more of the human na- ture. Osiris is essentially the good principle, hence his name, Unnefer, the good being. Like Ra, he is the crea- tor, and, like him, in perpetual warfare with evil. His brother or son Typhon or Seth is his opponent. They 84 Egypt and Israel. represent respective!}' light and darkness, physical good and evil, the Nile and the desert. In the perpetual com- bat Osiris at last is vanquished. He is cut in pieces and submerged in the ivater. Watched by his sister Isis, his consort, he revives. Horus, his son, avenges him, and with the aid of Thoth, or reason, he destroys the power of Seth, but does not annihilate him. The myth is a picture of the daily life of the sun and of the strug- gles of men. Osiris is usually represented as a mummy wearing the royal cap of Upper Egypt. Mentu and Shu and a score of other deities are all so many variations of these principal forms. But I can not help remarking that so far we have not yet attained a perfectly satisfactory in- sight into Egyptian mythology. The most opposite doc- trines have been defended by renowned scholars, but it is merely a question of time, the materials being so abund- ant, that a clear result mu^t necessarily be expected. . A little over two years ago the Archduke Rainer of A ustria do- nated a colossal heap of papyri to the museum in Vienna, and on proper investigation these papyri, though none of them were very old, proved to be an inestimable contribu- tion to our knowledge of Egypt. Austrian scholars promised to publish the contents of this great collection in the course of the next ten years. In our second lecture I spoke of tnat curious institution of peoples, the animal worship. The ancient Eg)'ptians were great animal-wor- shipers. The three most famous of those sacred animals which Avere worshiped as individuals, not as a class, were the bulls Apis and Mnevis and the Mendesian goat ; but there were also many other sacred animals, as the ichneu- mon. The religious service took place in the small inner chambers, the outer courts, and still more the great inclosures containing the whole group of temple-build- ings. Egypt and Israel. 85 The ancient Egyptians as well as the modern Mussul- mans had no separate headquarters as it were for their business transactions. In every Christian town there is a market place, a forum, as the Romans called it, that is to say a place entirely severed and separated from all church- ceremonies, and devoted exclusively to business and eventually to law. But the mosque in oriental countries as well as the old Egyptian temple was the general gath- ering place of the people, their chief public resort for business and pleasure. This one remarkable circumstance may show you the vast difference between our religious conception and the conception of Oriental people. In fact, in ancient Egypt there were no other public buildings or market-places. They had no public theatres, or public city halls, or public bath halls, or public lecture halls. The temple was every- thing, and secular and religious affairs had one and the same centre. The Egyptian religion had 42 commandments, and the most important of these commandments run thus: — Pray to the Gods; to honor the dead ; to give bread to the hungry ; water to the thirsty ; clothing to the naked. I believe it will be highly interesting to read an extract of that oldest of existing books, that I mentioned before. In this most ancient relic of literature, Prince Ptah-Hotep writes among others as follows : "If thou art become great after thou hast been humble, and if thou hast amassed riches after poverty, being, be- cause of that the first in the town, if thou art known for thy wealth and art become a great lord, let not thy heart becorne. proud because of thy riches, for it is (iod who is the author of them for thee. Despise not another who is as thou wast ; be to him as toward thy equal. Let thy face be cheerful as long as thou livest: has any one come out of the coffin after having once entered it?'' 86 Egypt and Israel. When speaking of China, I enlarged to a considerable extent on the marvellous language of that people, I called it one of the institutions of China, inasmuch as the spirit of this nation manifests itself in clear and unmistakable traits in the character of their lan- guage. This holds good with the ancient language of the Egyptians also. And accordingly, I shall treat now of the language and of the hieroglyphics of the ancient Egyptians. In the first place I am going to call your at- tention to the wellnigh incredible amount of sagacity on the part of those men who first succeeded in reading the hieroglyphics. Just fancy yourself into their position. Imagine you stand in front of an inscription on one of the pyramids or tombs in Egypt. You notice all kinds of mysterious signs, dashes, pictures, dots, lines, etc. You have not the faintest idea whatever as to the meaning of any of these signs. No grammar, no book can guide you. In fact, you do not know even in what language these signs are written. More than that, after having guessed that the language of these signs is most probably the language of the ancient Egyptians, you have to face a still more unsurmountable obstacle. For you have not the slightest idea of the ancient Egyptian language. You don't know one single word of this language. And in the face of all these apparently unconquerable bars, a few, or to put it exactly, one English and one French scholar succeeded in desciphering and understanding the signs and language of the hieroglyphics, so that at present, we can read hieroglyphics just as easily as Latin or Ger- man type. Is that not a perfect marvel ? Marvellous as the hieroglyphics are, their deciphering is still more mar- vellous. The name of the Englishman is Thomas Young. You all know Thomas Young. If you study mathematics you meet his name : if you study optics, acustics, chemistry. Egypt and Israel. 87 medicine — you invariably meet his immortal name, for numberless inventions and discoveries in all these sciences are attached to his name. Thomas Young had a curious principle. He said, anybody can do anything. Nothing is impossible — everything must yield to the irdomitable force of human perseverance and toil. In his time (in the beginning of this century) the hieroglyphs were still an unsolved riddle and the solution had been given up as perfectly hopeless. The more infeasible it looked, the more attraction it had for Thomas Young — and he made up his mind to solve the riddle by any means — and he solved it, at least, he opened a new vein of successful inquiry. In his time a curious looking rock was found in the vicinity of Rosette, and therefore, usually called the Rosette stone. On that stone there were engraved two sets of inscriptions, one in hieroglphics and one in Greek. Several individual names occurred in both, and by a sagacious comparison of these names, or rather of the letters and signs of these names. Young succeeded in finding the meaning of several of the hieroglyphic signs. On the other hand, he proved that the modern Coptic, viz.: the language of the modern Copts in Abyssinia and Upper Egypt, is a more or less pure remnant of ancient Egyptian. Thus he pointed out a new track of investiga- tion. He did not live to finish his great work, which was completed by the celebrated Frenchman, ChampoUion. ChampoUion detected that the ancient Egyptians had three different ways of writing. He called them the hierogly- phic proper, the hieratic and the demotic respectively. The hieroglyphic proper, has exactly the same character as the Chinese word picture, e. g. Q iiieans the sea ; * means a star,njr a star under the vault of Heaven, means the night, etc., etc. Hieroglyphics are written either in horizontal lines or vertical columns, and are ordinarily read from the right to the left. 88 - Egypt and Israel. It is a curious fact, that some people write from the right to the left and some from the left to the right, as we do. I shall give the explanation of this fact in another lecture, when treating of oriental nations. The head of animals and the like show from which direction to begin reading. Hieroglyphics proper are only a lapidary system — we find it only on stone-inscriptions. The second way of writing was the hieratic. This system contained by far less pictures and approached to a certain degree to our system of alphabetical writing. The third system, the demotic, is almost a pure alpha- betic system, every sound has its sign. Now let us compare these systems of writing with the Chinese manner of fixing ideas. The Chinese never left their original manner of word-painting, they stopped at the hierglyphic stage, and never even essayed to come to the hieratic or demotic stage. Don't we see therein the clear, unmistakeable influence of institutions? The progressive spirit of the Egyptians wanted a more fluent, current way of representing ideas— the Chinese never thought of that. I do not venture to decide as I said in my lecture, whether the mind of the Chinese is in any way progressive or not, but their means of writing, of representing thoughts is un- doubtedly retrogressive and stationary. The civilization of the ancient Egyptians resembled ours very much, and it is only a natural consequence that their way of writing was at last exactly similar to our own system. They counted twenty-four hours in a day, thirty days in a month, and twelve months in a year. Our information about the thirty dynasties who have ruled Egypt from 4000 B. C. till 340 B, C. is very exten- sive. If you read e. g. the two thick volumes of Brugsch, you will find delightful details about a king or a Pharaoh, who reigned 4000, or of another who reigned 5000 years ago. Our chief sources are the Turin papyrus. Egypt and Israel. 89 which gives a list of all the Pharaohs, then Manetho and the monuments. There is much strife among scholars as to the date of the first dynasty of Egypt. Mariette goes back to 5004 B. C, Lepsius only to 3892 B. C. There is an abundance of monuments of the fourth dynasty some 3500 years B. C. Chabas proposes 4000 years before the first dynasty as sufficient for the development of the civil- izarion which had already attained maturity in the time of the fourth dynasty. So that according to Chabas the an- tiquity of Egypt counts 11 000 years. The historical founder of Egypt, and also the first Pha- raoh of the first dynasty was Menes. Let us cast a rapid glance over the history of Egypt, this wonderful history, from the great pyramid building fourth dynasty on through the unification of the country from the Delta to Elephan- tine under the kings of the southern sixth dynasty, the cul- mination of the civilization and its subsequent decline ; the disintegration of the monarchy which lasted till the eleventh dynasty, the rise of a new centre at Thebes, the prosper- ous twelfth dynasty which instead of pyramids produced beneficent works, like the artificial Lake Mueris and opened new avenues of commerce and new fields of industry ; then through the following decline of vigor and the mid- dle kingdom of the Hyksos or Shepherds, to the rise of the new empire under Aahmes, the founder of the 18th dynasty, when the pure solar religion was introduced ; the brilliant career of Thotmes III, who led his victorious armies as far as the Euphrates on the north, and to the further extremity of Nubia on the south, while his fleets com- manded the whole eastern shore of the Mediterranean ; the exploits of the Ramessides of the nineteenth dynasties, the great Sesostris, the greatest period of Egyptian history (about 1400-1280 B. C); the house of Rames is succeeded by a priest dynasty (the twenty-first); then a line of Ethiopian 90 Egypt and Israel. princes govern the country, the twenty-fifth dynasty and finally out of the disintegration comes the revival under Psametith and the twenty-sixth dynasty when the old heroic spirit flashes up for an instant to expire forever under the heels of Cambyses (527 B. C.) and the Persian dynasty. MOSES. Michael Angelo Buonarotti. The structure of which it occupies the center, was meant to form one of the sides of the four-fronted tomb, which Pope Julius II. promised himself in the middle of the nave of St. Peter's; the scattered materials of this vast design contribute to the adornment of the Pallazzo Vecchio at Florence, of San Lorenzo, and even of the Louvre. After the Medici, Paul III. reduced this work to a fourth, and sent this fragment to San Pietro in Vincoli. MOSES. Michael Angelo Blonarotti ISRAEL, BIBLE, MONOTHEISM, THEOCRACY. References : — Asiruc, Conjectures sur les Mfemoires originaux qui ont servi a Moise pour 6crire la Genese, Par. 1753. Vitiinga. Ob^ervationes sacrae. R. Simon, Histoire Critique du V. T.. Rotterdarri 16S5. Ilgen, Ur- kunden des Jerusalemischen Teinpelarchives, Halle 1789 y. G. Eichliorn, Einleitung in das Alte Testament (5 vols. Goettgr. 1S24-1827). W. M. L. De Wette, Biitraege zur Finlcitung in das Alle Testament (2 vols. 1S06-1S07). Ezuald, Studien und Kritiken, 1S31. //. Hvpfeld, Uic Qiiellcn der Genesis von neuem untersucht, 1853. Noeldeke, Untersuchun(»en zur Kritik des Alten Test., Kiel 1S69. A.//. GraJ, Die geschichtl. Buecher des A. T., Leipzic 1S66. A. Ktienen, Oe Godsdienst van Israel, Haarlem. 1S69-1870. licuss, L'historie sainte et la loi. 1879. / M'ellliaiiseti, I'rologemena zur Geschichte Israels, 1883. Bishop Colenso, Pentateuch and Book of Joshua critically examined (Lond. iS6z). Ladies and Gentlemen : Our next great topic is Israel, the Bible, Monotheism, and Theocracy. Before entering on our subject I shall take the utmost care as to a precise circumscription of my standpoint, of my point of view. I say the utmost care, for anything short of an absolute precision is likely to blight my prospects. You know what my prospects, my expec- tations are. I did not promise to preach sermons, nor did I ever say that I shall in any of my lectures discuss the metaphysical difficulties of first pripciples with regard to religio'n or philosophy. More than that, I do not feel under any obligation on my part to cater to the tastes of either the orthodox believer or the heterodox unbeliever. I am independent of both. My way leads to nothing, but to a scientific study of questions which at present are amenable to scientific investigation. For not every ques- tion is amenable to science, at least to science in its pres- ent state. It is the general fault of men to insist on an immediate answer. They want to be answered at once, on the spot, without any further delay. But did science ever pretend to answer every reasonable question? Did science ever boast of being a satisfactory solution ot all riddles and of every single enigma? Never; on the con- 92 Israel, Bible, Monotheism, Theocracy. trary, science, by its most advanced advocates and rep- resentatives perpetually insists on the premature nature of some questions. Where did man come from ? Why has the human shape developed that way and not in any other way ? W^hy do the eyebrows consist of little hair and the mus- tache of long ones ? How did language arise, how thinking, and how faith ? To all these little and great questions, science gives one and the same answer: Can yo not wait ; can you not wait for a few hundred years ? Are you in such a haste ? Do you think that truth, scientific truth can be turned over to you in " spot cash " money? Truth as a rule is drawn on long, very long notes, but when due it is invariably paid off. If, therefore, you should expect me to satisfy your religious as well as your scientific desires, if you should expect me to treat of our present subject, of the Bible, of monotheism, and of the theocracy of the ancient Hebrews in the way of a priestly scholar, or a scholarly priest, then, ladies and gen- tlemen, I am sorry to say we would thoroughly misunder- stand each other. I have nothing to do with the subjects so far as their religious, their confessional purport is con- cerned. Whether the Bible or any part ol it (of oourse, at present. I only speak of the Old Testament) well then, whether the Bible is to be considered a canon, a dogmatic sacred book or not, whether God Almighty, himself has revealed in it His infinite wisdom, and whether He has se- lected the people of Israel as His chosen people; these are questions entirely alien to my subject. You remem- ber how frequently I had to complain of the lack of suffi- cient sources regarding the actions and institutions of men, but our source.*; regarding the actions and institutions of God are infinitely more deficient. Revelation is divine, but the report of revelation is human, and it is perfectly congruous to our feeling as well Israel, Bible, Monotheism, Theocracy. 93 as to our understanding that we doubt human actions and human reports, although we never can think of doubt- ing divine influences. When I had to treat of China or India, or Egypt, I could discuss, and you most probably accepted my subject in perfectly calm composure of mind. China, although highly interesting, India, although im- mensely attractive, and Egypt, although profoundly fasci- nating, are still more or less foreign countries, none of their institutions, none of their sacred books forms part of our own sacred creed, their ideas and opinions don't come home to us as it were. It is altogether different with Is- rael. The moment you speak of the Old Testament, of monotheism, you instantly become to a certain extent personal. The Old Testament is part not only of the Jew- ish church, but of all Christian creeds too. Its study forms one of the occupations of our childhood, many of our dearest impressions are forever connected with the persons and tales of the Old Testament, and the most ob- jective discussion of this venerable document has a ten- "dency to stir up the feelings of the hearer. On the other hand there is no worse thing for science than feehng. Science is absolute indifference. Science does not sneer, nor does it laugh, nor does it despise ; it treats of human affairs, as one of the masters said, ' 'ac si questio essddc fundis lineis et planis," as if the question would be of geometrical points and lines and planes. One of the most excellent assertions of A. Comte, points to the great influence on the progress of astronomy exercised by our indifference to these remote bodies. No earthly interest, no feeling what- ever, comes into play whenever we try to study the move- ments of stars, and thus our thinking faculties can act un- trammelled and unbiased with their full force. In our study of the Old Testament, however, all kinds of feeling come into play, and it is, therefore, only a matter of course that our scientific know^ledge of astronomy is so much older then our scientific knowledge of ancient Israel 94 Israel. Biule, Monotheism, Theocracy. When in my third lecture I spoke of the five sacred Books of King of the Chinese, generally attributed to Confucius, stating that Confucius was not the author of these books, I do not suppose that any of you felt his in- terest roused in the question. You heard it, accepted it in a passive way, and turned your attention to something else. Suppose, however, just for the sake of argument, I would say that the five Books of Moses have not been written by Moses, a whole series of feelings would suddenly occupy your soul, and instead of passively listening to me, you would, within yourself at least very actively remonstrate. You would look upon the whole question as on a matter of a half-personal hue, as on an interest of your own mental household. This, then, being the case with our present subject, I shall circumscribe my proper region with all possible pre- cision. In the whole course of these lectures I shall al- ways lay, as I so far always laid, particular stress on the sources of our knowledge. I desire you to understand that I do not take anything at all at second hand. First* hand, original sources or no study at all, that has to be our motto. Accordingly, I shall now treat, first, of our original sources of the institutions of Israel, in other words, of the Bible, and a .few Egyptian and Assyrian inscriptions, these three together being our only positive and direct authorities. Next to this I shall treat of mono- theism and theocracy as an institution, disregarding en- tirely its religious ordogmatic aspect. Again and again I have to ask you not to expect any theological or re- ligious discussion. Exactly in the way I treated of the institutions of China, or India, or Egypt, in the very identical way shall I treat of the known institutions of the ancient Hebrews. First, then, the sources, the Bible, the Old Testament. We may fairly divide the Old Testa- ment into four parts: (i) The Pentateuch, (2) the his- Israel, Bible, Monotheism, Theocracy 95 torical writings (Joshua, Kings, Samuel, Chronicles, Judges) ; (3) Prophets (the three greater and the twelve lesser), and (4) diverse writings (Psalms, Proverbs, Eccle- siastes, Song of Solomon). It is almost unnecessary to say that our chief attention will be directed to the Pen- tateuch, this being considered the oldest and most sacred, and in fact the fullest authority of our knowledge of an- cient Israel. The Pentateuch consists of five books, the authorship of which is attributed to Moses. It is a very comprehensive work, divided into 187 chapters, and com- prises the theology, the law and the history of the ancient Hebrews. Since over two centuries many a learned and sagacious theologian has spent all his life in reconciling the numerous inconsistencies and contradictions of these five books when contrasted with each other. In spite of all religious piety, they could not help remarking that the Pentateuch is not a homogenous, uniform work of one man or of one age, that the discrepancies in language, law and religious tenets are so clashing, that we are forced to the assumption of a multifarious origin of the Pentateuch. Astruc, a zealous French Catholic physician and theologian in the beginning of the last century, was led by his studies to the statement that we have to recognize two main sources in Genesis, between which the whole materials of this first book of the Pentatench have to be divided. These sources he distinguished by the mark that the one used for God the name Elohim and the others the name Jehovah. Astruc's hypothesis, fortified by the observation of other linguistic difierences which regularly corresponded with the variations in the name of God was accepted by the great Eichhorn, one of the founders of modern scientific theology, and proved the fruitful and just point of departure for all further inquiry. It is at the present a scientific fact, placed beyond the reach of any reasonable doubt, that those passages in 96 Israel, Bible, Monotheism, Theocracy. Genesis that use the word Elohini for God must be traced back to a different time and a different author than the passages in which the word Jehovah is used for God. After the idea of a plurahty of authors of the Pentateuch had once taken a firm hold, it was a more natural conse- quence that the minutest and most laborious inquiries were instituted in order to find the different parts and layers of the work. It became mo^^e and more evident that the Pentateuch is a composite work, consisting of several layers, one older, one again of a more recent and even verj' recent origin. These inquiries were led on by theologians; each of them entertaining the highest possi- ble degree of piety and devotion for revealed religion. I must call your particular attention to this very remarkable fact, for it is of very great importance whether the stu- dents and critics of the Pentateuch have been hostile un- believers who start with a wish to detract from the value of the document as much as they can, or whether these inquirers have been pious theologians who could not help stating what pure, irrefragable evidence proved to be a clear fact. All my statements on the origin and consti- tution of the Pentateuch are taken from pious theologians, and chiefly from Eichhorn, De Wette, H. Graf, Reuss and Bishop Colenso. These scholars have nothing what- ever to do with rationalism, with that hyper-philosophical movement peculiar to Germany, where it originated. They are all faithful believers, and consequently the re. suits of their labors may be accepted, and in fact have been accepted by both sides, by the downright orthodox part on account of their having been propounded by orthodox theologians, and by the non-orthodox part on account of their dispassionate, forcible and ample evi- dence. I can scarcely refrain from showing you step by step the slow development of these results, from describ- ing the various, sometimes marvellous efforts that have Israel, Bible, Monotheism. Theockacv. 97 been taken by a host of the most indefatigable scholars in order to distinguish older layers of the Pentateuch from more recent ones. Thousands of manuscripts have been collected, and all the related languages (Syrian, Aramaic, Assyrian, old Arabian, Phoenician, etc.), have been brought to bear upon the question. But I can only state the mere final results of these studies as far as they have been ac- knowledged as achievements of a scientific character. These results, then, are as follows : (i) We can not speak of a Pentateuch, pente being the Greek word for five. We have to speak of a Hexateuch, hex being the Greek word for six. I say the denomina- tion Pentateuch conveys an altogether wrong idea. It suggests the assumption of one, uniform book, written by one author and forming a separate division of the Old Testament. But there is no such separate division with regard to the so-called five Books of Moses. The Book of Joshua has been written by the same authors that wrote part of the five Bt)oks of Moses, and consequently these fii'e books and Joshua are of one and the same stock and must be taken as one part of the Old Testament. Conse- quently, we have to speak of a Hexateuch and not of a Pentateuch. This has been universally accepted among scholars of all shades, and it is a great pity that the usual class of reference books and popular treatises do not show a trace of this incontestible and far-reaching fact. But the establishment of a Hexateuch is only the basis of the whole edifice. We have now to inquire into the different parts of this Hexateuch. You all know that we divide the Hexateuch into Gene- sis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy and Joshua. But this division is barely conventional. It does not show the real and original sequel of the parts. According to this division we would think, and the majority of the peo- ple still think, that Deuteronomy, or as it is usually called 98 Israel, Bible, Monotheism, Theocracy. the Fifth Book of Moses, is by far the latest of the five. There is, however, scarcely any fact better established than this, that Deuteronomy is one of the oldest parts of the whole Bible. I do not mean by that, that every single chapter or line in Deuteronomy is of an earlier origin than the chapters of Genesis, I only mean that those parts of this book that treat of laws are one of the oldest parts of the whole Bible ; they were originally, most probably only oral traditions. There is, however, a still older part of the He.xateuch. This part is not an element of the other books, but part of all the books, and has been termed the Jehovist part of the Hexateuch. In other words the ancient Hebrews originally possessed a book in which God was named Jehovah, and which has now to be considered the oldest layer of the whole Hexateuch. After this came the book which now is called Deuteronomy, and many centuries after this came the Priestly Code, or Leviticus, part of Numbers and the rest of the Hexateuch. There are henci three main layers of the Hexateuch. First the Jehovistic history book distinguished by the fact that it is essentially narative and not law, and by the plea- sure it takes in bringing out details of the historical tradi- tions, so that individual points of the story receive full justice and are not sacrificed to the interests of the general plan. , The patriarchal history belongs almost entirely to this document, and forms the most characteristic part of it ; here that history forms no mere epitomized introduction to more important matter as in the Priestly Code, but it is treated in all fullness as a subject of first rate importance. Legislative elements are incorporated in the Jehovistic narrative only at one point, Avhere they naturally fall into the historical context, viz.: in connection with the law given on Sinai (Exodus 20-23). Israel, Bible, Monotheism, Theocracy. 99 The second part is Deuteronomy, which embraces pre- cepts for civil life, and must be limited to chapters 1 2-26. The third part is the work of the Elohist, which we shall call the Priestly Code. This too, like Deuteronomy is a law-book, but it has an historical setting. Its main stock is Leviticus, with the cognate part of the adjacent books, Exodus 25-40, with a few exceptions, and Numbers i-io, 15-19, 25-36, with Some inconsiderable exceptions. This law book, however, does not embrace precepts for civil life, but is confined to affairs of worship, and mainly to the esoteric aspect of public worship, that is to such points as belonged to the functions of the priests as distinguished from the worshiping people. The legal contents of the Code are supported on a scaffolding of history, which, however, belongs to the literary form rather than to the sub- stance of the work. It is only where some point of legal interest is involved that the narrative acquires any fullness, as it does in the book of Genesis in connection with the three preparatory stages of the Mosaic covenant attached to the names of Adam, Noah and Abraham. Generally speaking, the historical thread is very thin, and often be- comes a mere genealogical line, on which is hung a con- tinuous chronology, carried on from the creation to the ex- odus. The Priestly Code is characterized by a marked predi- lection for numbers and measures, for arrangement and formality of scheme, by poverty and inflexibility of lan- guage. Thus its distinguishing marks are very pronounced and can always be recognized without difficulty. This Priestly Code is by no means a perfectly incomposite struc- ture. On the one hand some older elements have been incorporated on its main stock, while on the other hand there have been engrafted on it quite a number of later novelties. Thus we see that the Hexateuch consists prin- cipally of three layers, of three strata as it were, and that loo Israel, Bible, oNIonotheism, Theocracy. these strata are the products of different ages. In its pres- ent form we frequently meet all the three strata in one and the same chapter, and very frequently in two consecutive chapters of Genesis or Exodus. As to the dates of the formation of these strata it is almost universally accepted that the composition of the second part or Deuteronomy has taken place in the time of King Josiah (641 B. C. ) The similarity of language and the resemblance of ideas refer the first layer or the Jehovist part to the golden age of Hebrew literature, the same which has given us the Books of Judges, Samuel, Kings and the oldest extant prophetical writings — the age of the Kings and Prophets, before the dissolution of the sister states of Israel and Judah. The date of the Priestly Code is disputed. The great- est probability seems to point to the year 444 B. C, wnen the Babylonian priest and scribe Esra published this code. At any rate, nothing can outweigh the decisive arguments that support the view that the Priestly Code originated in or after the exile. That the Hexateuch in its known form is of a comparatively very recent origin, is fully borne out by the fact that the prophets of the eighth and seventh centuries B. C. know nothing of a Mosaic code. Jeremiah is the first prophet who has reference to a code, and his quotations are taken from Deuteronomy. These well ascertained facts may serve now as a firm basis for a fair valuation of the Bible as an historical source. The greatest part of the Hexateuch, that Js to say, the Pristly Code, is the work of ambitious priests, who shaped all law, all ceremonies, to their own purposes. A genuine and unadulterated source of legal commandments of the ancient Hebrews must and can be found' in the second part, that is to say, in chapters 12-26 of Deuteronomy, while the Jehovist part is mere naive tradition. Vou will easily see now the vast difference between one great layer Israel, Bible, Monothesim, Theocracv. ioi of the Hexateuch and another. While Deuteronomy may be looked upon as the genuine and original statement of the laws of ancient Israel, the Priestly Code is of very little value for times previous to the fifth or sixth cen- tury B. C. Therefore, whenever you have a quotation from the Hexateuch seemingly corroborating or refuting a • certain statement, it is not sufficient to know that such a quotation is really part of the text of the Hexateuch. It must moreover be stated whether the quotation is part of the first, or second or third layer of the Hexateuch. For else the quotation, although perhaps of great efficiency for the eighth, seventh or sixth century B. C, may be of no value whatever for the eighteenth, seventeenth or sixteenth century B. C. None of us ever thinks of mixing up the laws of Alfred with the laws of Queen Victoria, or the his- tory of Henry I. with that of George III. But the dif- ference between these two reigns is no more marked than the difference of the ancient Israelites i,6oo and 600 years B. C. This must never be lost sight of. It is really ridicu- lous to use Bible texts as so many passages of qne homeo- genous work, as if all parts of the Hexateuch \vould have been written at the same time and under and with refer- ence to the same circumstances and institutions. In the time of King Josiah a great and immense change took place and altered the whole system of the ancient He- brews. I shall speak of that later on. At present I want only to come to a clear and precise statement of our real and reliable sources. I have therefore to exclude all sources that have been composed or published centuries after the events recorded in them had taken place and with a palpable design to make these records subservient to a special purpose. And hence, to conclude all this, we have for our study of the ancient Hebrews to exclude the whole of the Priestly Code. So that our chief sources ?re chapters 12-26 of Deuteronomy and the little histon- 102 Israel. Bible, Monotheism, Theocracy. cal data in the Jehovist layer. When the treasures of Egypt were being excavated and collected, there was for a time a perfectly feverish curiosity to find some inscription or papyrus or any document with regard to the sojourn of the Israelites in Egypt. But in spite of all the efforts of Brugsch and others, not the faintest trace could be found so far. There is, however, a very ancient inscription on the pylones of the temple of Karnak, on which Thotmes IIT, in the beginning of the sixteenth century B. C, has handed down an account of his military expedition to Western Asia. In this account we find the names of many towns in Palestine dating from before the Hebrew immi- gration. There is also a historic papyrus of the fourteenth century B. C. , which contains a description of a carriage journey through Syria, made by an Egyptian officer, pos- sibly for the collection of tribute. In this papyrus we similarly find a list of some places in Palestine. But neither of these documents gives us any details about the state of affairs. We have thus come to a precise statement of our sources, and we can now commence to inquire into the institutions of the ancient Hebrews. By ancient He- brews I mean the population of Palestine from the four- teenth century down to the eighth century. The geograph- ical boundaries of their country are far from being definite. All our information in the Old Testament does not enable us to assign correctly the north, south and west boundaries of the Israelitic country. The eastern boundary consisted of the desert. The ancient Hebrews were entirely shut out from the .sea coast. Their country is mountainous and favors the growth of tropic and sub-tropic vegetation. It is needless to dwell on the details of the geography of Palestine. Of all historical subjects, this perhaps is the most familiar one, and the principal regions of the country are well-known to everybody. Still I must remark in pass- ing, that we are very far from identifying all places in the Israel, Bible, Monotheism, Theocracy. 103 Bible. Enormous money has been spent by the Palestine Exploration Fund raised iii England a few years ago, and a gigantic map has been published of the Holy Land with the pretension of a faithful picture of Palestine. But the greatest authorities of continental Europe have declared against the accuracy of this map, and in short, to the pres- ent day we have no authentic map of ancient Palestine The Hexateuch informs us of the twelve tribes of Israelites who successively occupied the Holy Land. But the report of the twelve tribes is scattered over the three layers of the Hexateuch, and consequently we have to use the utmost care in applying our texts to the present geographical de- nomination. It is impossible with the present material to determine the ancient tribal limits. These tribes settled down some 1500 years B. C. and established a government of the most curious character. I am going to enlarge on the govern- ment of the ancient Hebrews to a considerable extent, be- cause it is there where we find the root, the germ of all their institutions. To try to understand their religion, their ritualism, their theocracy, and even their oddities and crude ways, without a thorough understanding of their government is the most hopeless thing that we could do. You can read in the works of the celebrated Renan, e. g. that the monotheism of the ancient Hebrews is due to a racial cause, that it is a race quality of the Semitic people, or to use his own words: "A une disposition inn^e ii la race, . . . propre j\ la famille .semitique." It is scarcely possible to beat this specimen of scholarly uncouthness. In the first place we heard in our last lecture that we possess un- doubted evidence to the effect that a people like the ancient Egyptians, who were by nomeans'a Semitic people, had then propounded the clear idea of one God. You remember that oldest book of Prince Ptah-Hotep, an extract of which I read to you. The mummified prince speaks of the one God 104 Israel, BiBLt:, Monotheism, Theocracy. in express terms, long before any of the three layers of the Hexateuch were composed. We have the huge volumes of Cudworth, in which it is proved beyond any reasonable doubt, that many, great many of the thinkers and philoso- phers of the Hellenic times had a clear and pure idea of one God. But even if we were compelled to grant that none but the ancient Hebrews had the doctrine of one God, that none but the Israelites ever embraced monotheism, could we possibly ascribe such a fact to mere racial quali- ties? Could we really think that racial qualities are in such connection with religious doctrines? That blood and bones and flesh and certain propensities of the mind predispose to certain theological tenets or make averse to others? That is perfectly ludicrous. Race, racial quali- ties — these peculiar words are the conjurer's wand used by all, whenever they are at a loss how to explain institu- tions. Every thing is race. We speak of the quiet, cold- minded calmness of the Englishmen as of his race-quality ; we speak of the hot-blooded, rash temper of the Frenchman as of one of his racial qualities ; yea we speak of the abso- lute government of the Russians as the consequence of the slavish submissive national and race character of the Rus- sians. But this is all puerile. You could just as well say that my shoes are an outcome of the racial qualities of the calf, because my shoemaker has used calf-leather in manu- facturing m)' shoes. Renan is decried as an unbeliever. I am not con- cerned with this question. But 1 dare say that he has handled the subject of Hebrew monotheism in a highly unscientific way, that whether believer or unbeliever, his treatment of the matter is utterly useless. The monotlie- ism of the ancient Hebrews has nothing to do with their racial qualities. It is an outcome of their institutions, and happily we can trace its origin and development very clearly, but to achieve this I have first to return to my Israel. Bible, Monothe[sm. Theo:ka :v. 105 point of deparlure, lo the state and government of the ancient Hebrews. If I were to deliver my lectures in Germany or Austria, I would scarcely expect any of my hearers, the very learned ones excepted, to understand the statements that I am about to tell. But happily I am in a country where everybody is sufficiently acquainted wiih politics, with the ways of government, of administration, of legis- lature, or judicature. Hence, I hope that I will be readily understood, and so easily attain my object. In this country more than in any other everybody becomes daily aware of the elementary fact that cooperation, mutual help and assistance is the primary bond of society. Whenever a nation settles down in a foreign country they try to find out some arrangement which shall enable them to live to gether without troubling each other too much. They all agree on the necessity of some general measures which are instrumental to mutual safety, and, which, though curtail- ing as it were, the original natural right of the individual, bring out in the end a higher state of general well- being. It is doubtless that the squatters and huntsmen of the west- ern territories of this country were, individually taken, by far freer and less hampered in their doings when still in no connection with the other .States of the Union than after it. But they knew that a sacrifice of this aboriginal free- dom to more regulated customs and ways will ultimately be productive of a greater amount of wcllfare. And so they joined the Union, freely submitting to the regulations and ordinances of their self-created magistracies. But of course they, as well as the original thirteen States of the Union, were very much on their guard with resf^ect to the amount of power they were going to vest their magistra- cies with. It was, and to the present day it is, a general principle with the people of this republic that the less rul- io6 Israel, Bible. Moxotheism. Theocracy. ing power there is distributed among ofificials the better it is. Consequently very Uttle power is vested with any of the officials, one (the President) excepted. Take, e. g., the State legislature in America. To be sure, the State legislature in America has the power of passing laws, but is a iaw thus passed really a law, an unquestionable law ? By no means. It can be put to a test of constitutionality and repealed : we frequently see such cases. That, how- ever, is not the case with less republican States. Say, e. g. , in Germany, whatever the Reichstag together with the Emperor chance to pass as a law, that is an ultimate com- mandment, and no judge and no tribunal can change it. If, e. g. , the Reichstag in Germany would pass a law that only every fifth man is allowed to marry, none but the fifth man would be permitted to marry, and no other help would there be against such an absurd law but an application to the Reichstag itself Because the power of legislation is absolutely and without any restraint vested in the Reichstag and Emperor. The United States, on the other hand, have the general principle that all power is vested with the people, /. I'., in the constitution and amendments of constitu- tion, and hence no legislature of a single State can ever go beyond the boundaries of the constitution. But the American people, although averse to all great centers of power, have nevertheless admitted that there should be quite a considerable number of officials, a Governor, a Secretary, a Mayor, a Sheriff, an Auditor, a police, etc., etc. They still cling to the idea that some checks and re- straints there must be, some preventive power there must exist, else people would not live in perfect security. The ancient Hebrews, when they settled down in Pales- tine, were similarly aware of the great necessity of having some arrangements made as to the order and government of their community. They could not help seeing that Israel, Bible, Monotheism. Theocracy. 107 something had to be done in the Hne of niHng these many different tribes and famihes. But when it came to decid- ing on the particular means that should be taken, they felt an unconquerable aversion toward being interfered with too much by officials and rulers. They were afraid of changes. They thought, this country is overflowing with all that is necessary for us and our children. Not only we can com- fortably live here, but there is lio reason why even our latest descendants should not enjoy the same land, the same exuberant soil, the same prolific vegetation, and the same mild climate. Why should we not arrange affairs in such a way that nothing should be changed ? Why, e. g. , should a man's landed property ever be taken away from him? The few acres he needs for his vineyard, for his olive trees, for his wheat and rye, why should he be ^ver deprived of them? Perhaps because he had contracted debts ? Because he was once in financial embarrassment, and because his brother or his friend happened to dispose of the litde money he at that time lacked? What a trifling reason to deprive a man and all his numberless descendants of the invaluable benefit of possessing his own landed estate, of procuring his living by laboring on his own acres I No, that shall not be the case. Just as things were in the be- ginning, when each of us possessed his own land, and kept up his family with the fruits of his own acres just in the same way shall this prosperous state continue for all the time to come. There shall be no change. There shall never be a power vested with any individual of our people, or with any class of our people, and not even in the whole people assembled, mark the enormity of this principle — not even in the whole people assembled — that shall be entitled to pass new laws, or any laws whatever. We herewith transfer all rights and powers of legislation unto God ; and consequently, God being unchanging, God being unable to commit an error, (Jod being under no necessity to change io8 Israel, Bible, Momotheism, Theockacv. a commandment because of its insufificiency, God being the eternal wisdom, the One, the True, the Unflinching — consequently there is no further necessity of a human leg- islature, of a human administration, no necessity for a sheriff, or an auditor, or a treasurer, or a police force. God is our legislature, our administration, our sheriff, our auditor, our police, our protection. The ancient Hebrews had no legislature at all, no officials at all, no police, no separate army, nothing of the kind. They carried the re- publican feeling to the extreme, they desired to be abso- lutely independent, they did not want to be interfered with by any human being at all ; they wanted to assert and to maintain the aboriginal, natural freedom of the individual, and abhorred the idea of a beadle, of a tax collector, of a police, of a superior official. Accordingly, they vested all power in Him who never changes, whose laws can not be repealed, who is not subject to flattery, or liable to threat- enings, who is the One, the Eternal, the Almighty. Thus they were left in the possession of that freedom of the natural state, when men are not yet connected and pinioned together by the bonds of the State and its com- mandments. But the ancient Hebrews could not help no- ticing the great risk they ran by granting to everybody the full scQpe of his natural freedom. The beastly, fierce, unwieldy part of human nature is far too strong not to require some checks, some iron bonds of a palpable, con- crete, actual nature — bonds that will come home to the understanding and feeling of the silliest and poorest, as well as the wisest and richest. But where shall these bonds, checks and restraints be found? 'i'o empower a certain class of people, say e. g. , the priest with the right of superintending, watching or punishing the actions of men, that is the very thing that the ancient Hebrews ab- horred most. They detested the idea of having men — human beings — stand above them. To elect annually new Israel, Bible, Monotheism, Theocracv. 109 and new ofificials — that went against their grain as well. No person shall ever interfere with another i)erson. Hence there was only one way left, and it was a really ingenious way. Instead of having the jieople watched over and superintended by certain officials or certain classes, they contrived to concoct the most marvelous system of self- superintendence and self-watching ever invented. Every action, the meanest and the most sublime one, every hour almost of the day, every occupation, every amusement, was once forever regulated by divine precept. The hus- bandman could not go to the plough, he could not sow or reap, he could not trim the vines or pluck the olives, or do any kind of husbandry-work, when it pleased him. There was' a day prescribed for one kind of work, and another day for another kind of work. No reason what- ever could be an apology for doing the work on any other but the prescribed day. The baker, the carpenter, the tailor, the teacher — none of them could perform their handicrafts or professions according to their own taste. Every single part of the work was prescribed; nothing was omitted; nothing could be changed. A man could not take a bath at a time when he liked it; he had to take it at a time prescribed by divine regulation. A person could not eat or drink whatever he liked ; he had to eat and to drink those eatables that were i)ermitted by divine law, and had to abstain from those eatables that were pro- hibited by divine law. Even the things he was permitted to eat could not be eaten in any sequel or order what- ever. The tiling A., e. g., could be eaten before B., but not the thing B. before A. A person could ^^ot enjoy himself at the time it pleased him. He had to laugh and to dance and to sing at a stricdy set time ; and he had to weep and cry and mourn at another set time. A person could not marry the girl his heart longed for, but one of the girls that were among the permitted ones. If any no Israel. Bible, Monotheism, Theocracy. person trespassed upon any of those rules, he was handed over to the severest and most unrelenting ot all judges — to the stings of a frightened conscience, to the fear of hav- ing offended the most powerful Creator of heaven and earth. It was this grotesque, gigantic system of self- watching that the ancient Hebrews invented in order to make up for the total lack of any official power in the shape of a police, or army, or Church ; for the ancient Hebjews had no Church. It is the greatest possible mistake to speak of a Church, of a priest-class, of a priestl)' hierarchy, in ancient Israel. Nothing of the kind existed. I know you will easily point to numberless passages in the Hexateuch which seem to, and in fact do speak of a Church or a priestly hierarchy: but in which part of the Hexateuch do you find these passages? Are they part of the first layer, are they part of the second layer, or part of the third layer? They are invariably taken from the third part; that is to say, from the Priestly Code, composed and published long after the decline of the original ancient republic, and at a time when the priests tried to gain the ascendency and established a Hierarchy, a priest government, on the ruins of the ancient Theocracy, or God-government. In ancient times the priests were one of the tribes — not more. They had no greater rights than any other tribe.- They were neither the judges, nor the lawgivers, nor the preachers, nor the teachers of the people. They were not the judges, I say : for John Selden has proved it, to any amount of certainty, that the judges in ancient Israel could be se- lected from among the general class of people, just as well as we at present select our jurors, and the fact of being a Levite was not the least reason why to be a judge. They were not the lawgivers, because the ancient He- brews had no lawgiver, no legislature at all. They were not the teachers, because the study of the law was a gen- Israel, Hible, Monotheism, Theocracy, iii eral occupation of the people. They were not the preach- ers or chief depositaries of the sacred religion, because in ancient Israel every tribe, almost every family, had its own altar for the worship of their ruler, for the adoration of the One, the Eternal, the Almighty. The worship of God was not yet centralized in Jerusalem. It was only in the time of King Isaiah that the centralization of the culture in Jerusalem took place. Till then there were in Judah, as there had been before in Samaria, a multitude of local sanctuaries, the legitimacy of which no one dreamt of disputing. If Hezekiah made an attempt to abolish those local shrines, as we are told in the second book of Kings, it is yet plain that this attempt was not very serious, as it had been quite forgotten less than one hundred years later. Josiah's reforms were the first that went deep enough to leave a mark on history. Not, in- deed, that the high places fell at one blow ; they rose again after the King's death, and the attachment to them finally disappeared only when the Babylonian exile tore the nation from its ancestral soil and forcibly interrupted its traditional customs. The returning exiles were thor oughly imbued with the ideas of Josiah's reform; it cost them no sacrifice of their feelings to leave the ruined high places unbuilt. From this date all Hebrews under- stood, as a matter of course, that the One God had only one sanctuary. That was in the sixth century. Thus we have three distinct historical periods : 1. The period before Josiah. 2. The transition period introduced by Josiah's reform. 3. The period after the exile. But at present I do not treat of any other but of the first period, of the time before Josiah. This is the time of ancient Israel; this is the time when the Levites had no special and higher standing of their own, when the sacred gifts were not ])aid to the priests at all, but to Je- 112 Israel, Bible, Monothelsm, Theocracy. hovah, when they were not taxes, but public offerings to God, when the three great feasts of the. people, the Feast of the Tabernacles, the Easter Feast, and the Harvest Feast, or Pentecost, were only thanksgivings for the fruits of the ground, and when the significance of these feasts was not yet toned down to mere rituals by the expressions of the Priestly Code. At this time the vigorous republican spirit of the an- cient Hebrews was still in full force. They were firmly resolved not to give up the least particle of what they pos- sessed, and, as I said before, nothing could change the. original state of their property. They had no state, no county, no city officials, and their regulations with regard to the preservation of family property were perfectly unique. They did not permit that a man should lose his property; in fact, they precluded all possibility of selling property by the rule of the seventh year and the year of jubilee. As this is generally litde known, I shall read to you the original text of the Bible, (Lev. 25) : "8. And thou shalt number seven Sabbaths of years unto thee, seven times seven yearn; and the space of the seven Sabbaths of years shall be unto thee forty and nine years. " 9. Then shalt thou cause tlie trumpet of the jubilee to sound on the tenth day of the seventh month, in the daj- of atonement shall ye make the trumpet sound throughout all your land. " 10. And ye shall hallow the liftieth year, and proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof; it shall be a jubilee unto you, and ye shall return every man unto his pos- session, and ye shall return every man unto his family. "11. A jubilee shall that fiftieth year be unto you ; ye shall not sow, neither reap that which growetli ot itself in it, nor gather the grapes iia it of thy vine undressed. " 14. And if thou sell ought unto thy neighbour, or buyest ought of thy neighbour's hand, ye shall not oppress one another. "15. According to the number of years after the jubilee thou shalt buy of thy neighbour, and according unto the number of years of the fruits he shall sell unto thee. " 16. According to the multitude of years thou shalt increase the price thereof, and according to the fewness of years thou shalt diminish the price of it ; for according to the luimber of the years of the fruits doth he sell unto thee. " 17. Ye shall not therefore oppress one another ; but thou shalt fear thv God : for I am the Lord vour God. Israel, Bible, Monotheism, Theocracy. 113 " 18. Wherefore ye shall do my statute.?, and keep my judg- ments, and do them : and ye shall dwell in the land in safety. " 19. And the land shall yield her fruit, and ye shall eat your fill, and dwell therein in .safety. "23. The land shall not be sold forever; for the land is mine; for ye are strangers and sojourners with me. " 24. And in all the land of your possession ye shall grant a redemption for the land. "25. If thy brother be waxen poor, and hath sold away some of his possession, and if any of his kin come to redeem it, then shall he redeem that which his brother sold " 2G. And if the man have none to redeem it and himself be able to redeem it. '•27. Then let him count the years of the sale thereof, and re- store the overplus unto the man .to whom he sold it ; that he may return unto his possession. " 28. But if he be not able to restore it to him, then that which is sold shall remain in the hand of him that hath bought it until the year of jubilee; and in the jubilee it shall go out, and he shall return unto his possession. "29. And if a man gell a dwelling house in a walled city, then he may redeem it within a whole year after it is sold; within a full year may he redc-cm it. " 39. And if thy brother that dwelleth by thee be waxen poor, and be sold unto thee thou shalt not compel him to serve as a bond- servant. " 40. But as an hired servant, and as a sojourner, he shall be with thee, and .shall serve thee unto the year of jubilee. " 41. And then shall he depart from thee, both he and his chil- dren with him, and shall return unto his own family, and unto the possession of his fathers shall he return. "42. For they are my servants which I brought forth out of the land of Egy})t ; they shall not be sold as bondsmen. "47. And if a sojourner or stranger wa.\ rich by thee, and thy brother that dwelleth by him waxeth poor, and sell himself unto the stranger or sojourner by thee, or to the stock of the stranger's family. "48. After that he is sold he maybe redeemed again ; one of his brethren may redeem him : "49. Either his uncle or his uncle's son, may redeem him, or any that is nigh of kin unto him of his famih^ niay redeem him ; or if he be able, he may redeem himself. "50. And he siiall reckon with him that bought him from the year that he was sold to him unto the year of jubilee; and the price of his sale shall be according unto the number of years, according to the time of an hired servant shall it be with him. "51. If there be yet many years behind, according unto them he shall give again the price of his redemption out of the money that he was bought for. "52. And if there remain but few years unto the year of jubilee, then he shall count with him, and according unto his )'ears shall he give him again the price of his rcdem|)ti(in. 114 Israel, Bible, Monotheism, Theocracy. "53. And as a yearly hired servant shall he be with him; and the other shall not rule with rigour over hiui in thy sight. " 54. And if he be not redeemed in these years, then he shall go out in the year of jubilee, both he and his children with him. "55. For unto me the children of Israel are servants; they are my servants whom I brought forth out of the land of Egypt ; I am the Lord your God." This was in perfect accordance with their original prin- ciple of absolute non-interference. 'J'hey extended this principle not only to all departments of politics, they did not only prohibit, once forever, a pressure on or an alteration of the political right, of the political independence, of every individual. They went far beyond that. They prohibited any pressure on or any alteration of the civil, financial independence of the individual by declaring all contracts, sales, purchases to the contrary, viz.: to a transfer of property, void of effect. It is quite natural that, in reality, there were all kinds of business trans- actions, turning over property from one party to an other. But in point of law, such things were next to im- possible. This highly remarkable tendency to preclude the dele- terious influence of any kind of interference manifests itself very strikingly in two of the phenomena of ancient Hebrew institutions I mean in the prophets and in the parts played by wo.iien. When reading the writings of the prophets, we cannot help being astonished at the great liberty these men took in censuring and exhorting the King, the priests, the people — everybody. We know that the Romans had a magistrate, the censor, who was per- mitted to put his mark of blame, his censure, to the name of a Roman citizen, and thereby exclude him from the sen- ate. But these censors had been previously elected by the .people^ and thus the people had consented to these' censures and criticisms. We now hear preachers and clergymen address their audiences sometimes in a very reprobatory way. But these men have likewise been Israel, Bible, Monothesim, Theocracy. 115 elected; they have been, as it were, hired for blaming; they have been vested with the power of public con- science. But the prophets in ancient Israel were alto- gether private men — men without any official call or voca- tion — men of neither a higher nor a more dignified standing in life. And still they almost appointed and de- posed the nominal kings ; they threatened them ; they menaced them ; they issued their commandments to the people. But if you meditate over the curious nature of the ancient Hebrew state, of its utterly amorphous and disintegrated character, you will easily see that none but private men could exercise any such influence; for there were no public officers commanding a great, an imposing power. In Rome there was no need for the rise of pri- vate men, of private inspiration or genius; their officers, the Consul, the Praetor, the Dictator, the Censor, had been given power and influence enough. All the great Romans were official persons — I mean persons in some high office. You cannot mention one single Roman who spent his life in a private way, and in the meantime exer- cised great influence on the course of events. All of them invariably were Consuls, Censors, Prajtors, Pontifices, Imperatores ; all of them were in office, because there were such offices. But where the number of great and powerful offices is very limited, as e. g., in this great Re- public, it frequently happens that men of a comparatively private character, at least not the incumbents of a great office exercise great influence, as e. g. Daniel Webster, or those men who are only private persons and travelling round the country censure the behavior, and criticize the actions of men, as the Evangelists in America. In the ancient Hebrew republic there were no great public offices at all, and consequently the persons who were ambitious to exercise decisive influence over the course of events had to trust everything to their own per- ii6 Israel, Bible, Monotheism, Theocracy. sonal ability. And, as a matter of course, the greater orators they were, the more inspired they seemed to be, the more genuine interest for the wellfare of the people seemed to pervade their speeches, the more they took the people. And hence we find in some of their writings per- fect marvels of transporting oratory. Not being able to found their rights of addressing and supervising the peo- ple on some records of the past, or on the institutions of the present, they founded them on the events of the future, stating that they can see, they can prophesy the things to come, and hence, they felt obliged and entitled to warn the people, to guide the people, to lead the people. But, as I said before, the peculiar, most extraordinary consti- tution of the ancient Hebrew republic brought forth another phenomenon of rare interest : women in high political positions. There being no officers at all, and everything in the line of political influence being left entirely to the efforts of the private people, it was only a natural conse- quence that women who are certainly the equals of men as far as ability is concerned, I say that women tried to gain great influence, and sometimes even acted, as in the case of Deborah, as commander-in-chief. Where men have distributed all political offices among themselves, and among a few public offices, there is no room left for either a private man or a private woman, and thus we see that in the whole history of the Republic of Rome, we never meet with a woman in* a high imposing position. But this unique constitution belonged only and exclu- sively to the time of the ancient Republic of the Hebrews, a republic which sometimes, very much like England at the present day, had a king at the head, but which in re ality always was a republic. After the return from exile, in the sixth century, how- ever, the Hebrews were conquered by a series of ancient monarchs, and the i)riests succeeded in subjecting the Israel, Bible, Monotheism, Theocracy. 117 minds of the Hebrews to their doctrines and tenets. Ever since that time, with the exception of the Maccabees, the priestly hierarchy was the prevailing and domineer- ing element. This, ladies and gentlemen, is the true and objective picture of the state and of the institution of the ancient Hebrews. With this we have to leave the immense conti- nents of Asia and Africa, and repair to the peninsula of Asia, to Europe, and in the first place to Greece. SOCIAL LIFE IN GEEECE. References : — Horner^ Iliad. Odissey. Sophocles, Antigone, Electra. Aris- /o///a«4'5, L\ sistrala. Aristotle, Politics. Jsaetis, Cleonymus, Nicostraius, Ciron Jsocrates. Aeg-ineticus Plato, J^eg-es. Plutarch.'ViX^e Parall. Corn. A^epos, P. -van Limburg Brourver. Hist, de la civilis. morale et reli- gieusedfs Grecs (U part. ch. Vllf, IX, X). Gladstone, Homeric studies, vol. II. Lasaulx, Zur Geschichte »i. Phil, der H he bei den Griechen. We/c^^r, Kleine Schriften 'on Sapphoi. Van den Es, De jure Familiarum ap'.id Athenienses. MaeJi'y, I'ie Frauen des Griechischen Alterlhums. Seeker, Charikles. Corsini, Disseriatir.nes Agonisticae (on the 01}'mD. ^amesi. Meier, Olymp Spiele in ''Frsch and oruber." F. W. yacobs. Verm. Schrit'ten (on Greek Hetairai and Greek meals,. Smith, Dicty of Greek and Kom. Antiquities. Ladies and Gentlemex : Our next topic is : Social Life in Greece. I shall speak of the religion and "mythology of the ancient Greeks in connection with their political institutions in my next lecture. At present I shall inquire into the domestic, private, and, as it were, purely human features of Greek life, into the very features v.'hich in the majority of books on history are so sadly neglected. Of course, while treating of the private life of the ancient Greeks it is nevertheless im- possible to leave their political institutions entirely out of consideration. The Greeks as well as , the Latins were a pre-eminently political nation. The political frame, the political foundation of their State was in the same time the frame and the foundation of their private life, of their domestic customs too. At the present time, in spite of all the great, and even vast divergencies between the institutions of modern civilized people, there is a prevailing uniform cast of manners and forms, which in their aggregate constitute what we call a lady or gentleman. In fact, the manners of a lady or of a gentleman, and to a great extent their views and wa)-s are alike all over the civilized world. There is little difference, as far as manners, carriage, and habits of politeness and courtesy are concerned, between a gentleman of Russia, j^gjs BANyUET OF AGATHON. Social Life in Greece. 119 of France, of Ohio, or of Brazil. Still less difference will be found in the real ladies of those different countries. But that was not the case in ancient Greece or Rome. The divergencies of these countries were so marked, their po- litical institutions were so widely deviating from one an- other, that even their private customs and social doings showed scarcely any resemblance whatever. A Roman of the time of Cornelius Scipio Africanus, spent his day in an utterly different \vay from a Spartan of the time of King Agesilaos or an Athenian of the time of Cimon. A Ro- man lady had absolutely different views, different opin- ions, an altogether different turn of mind from a lady of Athens, or of Thebae, or of Corinth. What the one con- sidered a perfect shame, was taken simply as a matter of course by the other. What the one never dared to do the other never thought of avoiding. These profound dis- crepancies are amenable in the first place to a discrep- ancy, to a divergence in political institutions, and hence a few appropriate words about these political foundations of ancient Greek life can not be dispensed with. But be- fore entering on our present topic in such a direct and immediate way, let us pause a moment or two to ponder over the greatness, the grandeur, the imperishable splen- dor of our subject. Greece!! What an infinite disj^lay of things immortal and divine does this one word convey to us ! A matchless literature, a peerless science, a pro- found philosophy, a charming religion, and an intermin- able treasure of beauty! Beauty in all her aspects, in all her manifestations ! Beauty of style and beauty of thought, beauty of objects and beauty of heart, beauty represented by all implements of the workman and all products of the artist, model, pure, chaste beauty! And if we think that all these numberless treasures have been brought forth by a handful of men, by the inhabitants of a few towns, by a country which, even if we add to it all Greek cities of I20 Social Life in Greece. Sicily, Asia Minor and Egypt, is considerably smaller than Ohio, we must feel almost bewildered and mterly at a loss how to account for it. These few men have given us standard models of style, of sculpture, of elocution, of metaphysics, of geometry, of historiography and of dramas. Two thousand years have elapsed, and numberless efforts have been made by the most ingenious thinkers, poets and artists to rival, to equal the works of the Greeks. There has been a time when great scholars have tried to deny the merits of the Greeks. The spiritual exponent of the movement was Chas. Perrault, the celebrated French au- thor, in his book, "Parall^le des Anciens et des Mod- ernes." A whole literature arose on this question; the civilized world was divided into two hostile parties, the one desirous to supersede the acquirements of Greek think- ers and poets, the other upholding the glory of Greece. The modernists declared that our modern authors and artists have gone beyond the ancients, that the rhetoric and logic of Aristotle is inferior to the rhetoric and logic of Port Royal and Ramus, that the poetics of the Stagirite is of no use to our modern high-toned scholars; that Hero- dotus is a dotard and Thucydides a dry statesman, and even Scaliger asserted boldly that Homer is far inferior to Vergil, But when the waves of hot, personal strife began to sub- side, it became a perfect truism that the ancient Greeks have been model writers and poets and artists, not only for one time but for all times. Then it was declared by the greatest critic that ever lived (I use Macaulay's word), by Lessing, that every line in Aristotle's Poetics has to be con- sidered an immaculate evangile, and Grotefend, Layard, Rawlinson and Bunsen declared that Herodotus is next to absolutely reliable, and all historians agreed in award- ing the praise of historiography to Thucydides, and George Boole and Stanley Jevons, together with De Morgan, reinstated the logics of the great Greek thinker to its previous high place of honor. Social Life in Greece, 121 The more we study the scientific writings of the ancient Greeks the more we have to admire tiiem. It was no less a thinker than Leibnitz who said that by reading the an- cient Greek writers on science we begin to tone down our admiration for modern inventors. The great physicist Biot could not help stating that Archimedes is still a highly beneficial study for the most advanced mathematicians of the present day, and there can be no doubt that we have not yet attained the elegance and forcibleness of Euclid's master work. Homer is at jjresent by far the best known and the best loved of all poets; his heroes and heroines are now, over 3000 years after the composition of the Iliad and the Od- ysee as familiar to us as the names of our own sisters and brothers. The dramas of ^-Eschiles, Soj^hocles, Euripides, the comedies of Aristophanes are studied in our schools just as they have been studied 2000 years ago, and we can never cease to read them anew, to admire them, to love them. And all these marvels of sagacity, of wisdom, of loveliness — they are the i)roducts of a lew ages, of one nation, of one language. This striking phenomenon is the central and most important fact of all Greek history. We must try to account for it, we must endeavor to gain some knowledge of the causes, which were working at the rise and development of this unique civilization. These causes were very many in number, and it would be impossible to discuss them in one lecture. But, hap- pily, I can devote four lectures to Greece, and thus I hope to be able to discuss these causes at considerable length. At present, I am only concerned with the social life ot the ancient Greeks, this being one of the great motors of their grand civilization, one of the springs by which the unrivalled grandeur and beauty of Greek civil- ization was made possible. But as I said in the beginning of our ])resent lecture, we iiave tocast first a glance on the 122 Social Life in Greece. political constitution of Greece, thus laying the only proper foundation for a right understanding of their private and social life. Of course of all the political institutions of the ancient Geeks, I shall only select such as really bear on my present subject; and consequently, I shall have to omit a great many of their political institutions, the full discussion of which I shall, in connection Avith Greek re- ligion and mythology, undertake in my next lecture. The most momentous political institutioii of the ancient Greeks with regard to their social life is the Greek cit}T Ladies and Gentlemen, if I were to talk for one hundred consecutive hours, if I were to hoard all the facts of past ages, and a 1 the references of the best libraries of London and Paris, I would not exhaust the immense significance, the boundless importance of a city, in contradistinction to any other dwelling place. The mode of living together, the manner in which people happened to associate as neighbors, whether they live in the form of a German mark, or of a Scotch parish, or an Anglo-saxon ward, or a Mexican ■ common building, or an Indian village-community, or in a modern hamlet or village, or lastly, whether they live to- gether in a town, in a city, that makes all the difference imaginable, that leaves its mark on the most trifling, as on the most important institutions of such community. The very language of a people, I mean of a people the ma- jority of which lives in cities, is totally different from the language of people that lives in scattered villages. No- madic nations keep strictly to the root of the word, they add to it, they magnify it, but they never change it, say e. g. in Hungarian, Szeret, love; Szeret-ek, I love; Szeret- lek, I love you ; Szeret-telek, I have loved you ; Szeret- hetnelek, I would love you, etc., because they are afraid of losing the means of intercommunication with each other. City-living nations on the other hand, like to drop the root, to change if; their languages belong to the inflecting class Social Life in Greece. 123 of idioms, and consequently the languages of such nations are entirely different from the langunges of people who de- scend from nomidic tribes. But not only their language, their very mind, their soul takes an altogether different turn. It is to the present day a notorious experience, that city-life is more energetic, more suggestive of all kinds of thought, more abundant with all descriptions of character and events, more nervous than country-life. And it is one of the chief reasons of the astonishing amount of intel- ligence possessed by the population of this country, that cer a third part of the people of the United States spend their lives in cities, whereas not a tenth part of the population of Europe lives in cities. If we now keep this before our mind we will readily see that the Greeks who lived exclu- sively in cities, had to partake in a still greater degree in the benefit of city-life. I say exclusiz'ely, for the Greeks lived only in cities. A Greek state means a Greek city. When you speak of Attica, you mean the city of Athens with her dependencies in that territory which is called Attica. There was no other state. In modern times we call a state a large territory, which is considered one political being, the head of all the cities and towns in that territory. There was no such thing in ancient Greece, and none in ancient Rome as we shall see later on. In Geece tb.e boundaries of the cities were also the boundaries of the state. Every city was a state in itself or a dependency of another city. There were no villages or hamlets, or townships or counties, or any other division of the tenitory. Only a city. Every Greek spent his life in a city, consequently every single Greek was ex- posed to the working of all those highly civilizing powers and influences which at the present time, just as well as 3000 years ago make up the great intellectual agencies of a city. Men meet more frequently in a city than they do in the country; they hear more, they see more, they are 124 Social Life in Greece. forced to take interest in many things which would never rouse their sympathy when living in the country ; they are forced socially, as well as politically, to contribute some- thing to the stock of useful, amusing and instructive ar- rangements; they talk more and are being talked to to a greater extent — in short, city people are likely, and in fact are more intelligent, more supple, more inventive, more liberal than country people. The Ancient Greeks were all city people, they had no liv- ing unless they lived in a city; the city was their state, their home, their fatherland. Even now you call a member of a state a citizen, a man of the city. Being continually subject to the stirring agencies of city-life, their intellect grew at rapid strides, they advanced with great fastness, and achieved wonderful things in a short time. Compare with that the middle ages, counting their times from the fifth century A. D. to the end of the fourteenth century- nine centuries. In seven of the centuries there were scarcely any cities in all Germany, very few in the northern half of France, very few in England, and none or only five or six in Holland, Denmark, Hungary, Russia, re- spectively. Accordingly you find that the intellectual development of these countries is literally nothing when compared with Greek civilization. Thereby you will clearly see that this political institution, that is to say the institution of cities to the exclusion of all other territorial divisions of villages, of parishes, of counties, of townships, etc., wrought its influence deeply into the minds of the Greeks This circumstance is one of the most important; its working can be traced, as I said before, in the char- acter of the language, in the intellect of a people, and es- pecially in the rapidity with which this intellect develops. But that is not all. We would certainly overdo things by attributing everything to this one cause. Great though the influence of cities and city-life undoubtedly was, there were Social Life in Greece. 125 still other and eciually mighty powers at work. The Greek cities were not only cities, they were democratic cities, they were cities, in the government and administra- tion of which every single citizen took part. Every sin- gle citizen, I say, and there is again one of the marked differences of Greek cities. The people did not abide by merely exercising their right of suffrage two or three times a year, and thus leaving everything to a iaw officials and a few boards, as e. g. the Romans did and the Americans do, but almost every single citizen partook daily in the whole administration of the state, of the city. They had several 1000 judges, several 1000 other officials, but I shall treat of that in my next lecture. At present it will suffice to say that a Greek citizen was constantly engaged in the political work of his state; the Greek cities were strictly democratical — demos meaning the peo])le. The whole people was running thepolitical machine. If you now take those two things together, i. A Greek had no other place on earth but his city, no other city in Greece could be a home for him, unless this other city had a special treaty with his native city; he was bound to live and to die in this one city, occasional trips to other places excepted. 2. That the government of this city was carried on daily by almost every citizen. Taking these two things into consideration you may easily see how very important it was for every Greek to be perfectly sure of his citizenship. He must have had most authentic and incontestible evi- dence of his being a citizen of his city, or else he was excluded from the city; or in other words, since he was excluded from every other town in Greece as well, and since there was no other dwelling place but a town, the unfortunate man was a homeless pariah, a person outside the pale of safety. Take the modern conception : Suppose you are a citi- zen of the United States and .vant to sojourn in France. 126 Social Life in Greece. Does that interfere with your prolonged sojourn in France? No; you need not partake in the political life of the Frenchmen; thousands and thousands of born French- men don't either. And even in this country it is not nec- essary to be a citizen of the United States in order to spend comfortably a few years in any of the Slates. If anyone wants to become a citizen of the United States, he can do so by living here a couple of years. But does he enjoy any direct emoluments by becoming a citizen of the United States? Does he get an annual rent or i)ay, or any re- ward whatever? Scarcely any if we except the Homestead Law. But this was altogether different in Greece. In Greece the direct emoluments and benefits of a citizen were so many and so lucrative, that the Greeks had an actual aversion to augmenting the number of citizens. Eut leaving all this to my next lecture I hasten to my point, to the influence of this political institution on the social life of the Greeks. The Greeks being extremely anxious to have the most positive knowledge of the citizenship of the father and mother of every single citizen, for nobody was considered a citizen unless both his father and mother were citizens ; they consequently laid down very strict rules as to the private life of women. They did not trust women in general, they wanted to have the most authentic evidence of the fact of paternity ; they wanted to have the legitimacy of the mother and father placed beyond the faintest suspicion of doubt, and consequently they treated their women almost as prisoners. Greek women lived in upstairs rooms, so that the hus- band could vv^atch her when she left her house. She had to stay all day at home, with her servants. She never went to the theater, or only then when serious tragedies were played. She never went to the public meeting-places, she did not partake in the symposia, in the soirees and mus- icales of the gentlemen, and even at family suppers she had Social Life in Greece. 127 to sit apart. Wnen in the street she was constantly attended by slaves, and nobody ventured to address her or to ac- company her. When still very young they were married to a young man or an old man whom they had scarcely seen before, and there was precious little love in the whole affair. We have in one of the Greek dramatists a striking passage, where a young girl shortly describes her youth. She says: "When I was seven years old, I carried the mystic box in procession ; then when 1 was ten I ground the cakes for our patron goddess, and, then, clad in a saffron-colored robe' was the bearer at the Brauronian festival, and I carried the sacred basket when I became a beautiful girl." Such were the great external events in the lite of an Athenian maid. Adienian women were always -minors, subject to some male. Aristotle always classes women and children together. An unfaithful woman was practically expelled from society and excommunicated. If she appeared in a temple any one could tear her dress off and maltreat her to any extent with im[)unity, i)rovided he stopped short of killing her. It is in accordance with the spirit of this institution that Greek towns had no treaty as to a permission of intermarriage between their sons and daughters. At least we never read of such treaty be- tween Athens and Sparta or Argos or Corinth, or any other of the famous towns of Greece. This peculiar and very odd position of Greek ladies had one great exception — the Lakonian ladies, the ladies of Sparta. In Sparta the women were not held under simi- lar restrictions, they could move freely, in fact too freely, even for the emancipated woman of modern times. Spartan women were not only allowed, they were obliged to undergo all physical exercises of the gymnasium to- gether with the young men of the city. Tliey had to prove tlieir physical valor by wrestling and boxing- matches. The statuesque beauty of ^Spartan women was 128 Soci \L Life i.\ Greece. renowned all over Greece. When married they Avere ex- pected to have children, and this main and principal ob- ject had to be attained under any circumstances. An old husband had to be supplanted by a young lover, with the consent of public opinion and with the approval of the State. Hence we seldom hear of adultery in Sparta. The State, the preservation of the State, was the first and the last consideration. It is a well known fact, that in Sparta every new born baby had to be submitted to a jury of commissioners, who decided on the vitality of the child. In case of a negative decision the baby was simply flung into the abyss of the Taygetos. For what shall be the use of a weak girl or a weak boy ? The State did not want such useless children, and the State was everything. Before proceeding any further, we have to ask why Spartan women were allowed a freedom that was abso- lutely refused to the women of other Greek cities. The answer to this question leads us again to the political insti- tutions of Sparta. They had the same idea of citizenship as the Athenians or Corinthians; they were similarly anxious to retain the old number of citizens; they were similarly averse to any augmentation of the stock of citi- zens, of new citizens, and they were similarly afraid of being doubted as to the legitimacy of their paternity. But the seclusion of women which was thus necessitated in Athens was relatively superfluous in Sparta. For the Spartans had the most inhospitable principle of excluding all strangers from their city. To prevent any afflux of strangers by commerce or traffic, they, or rather Lycurgus, had introduced the clumsiest and most unmanageable money — huge iron bars or rods — so that no foreign people ever felt attracted by the treasures of Sparta. Conse- quently none but Spartans lived in Sparta, and hence there was no particular risk in granting perfect social free- dom to their women. But with the exception of Sparta Social Life in Greece. 129 and some cities on Cieta, the social state of women in Greece was very much alike to the present Mussulman women of the harem. This, however, applies to otu set of free Greek women only, to the married women. It is only a matter of course that the highly developed Greeks, who had such a keen sense of the beautiful and lovely, whose heart was unceasingly longing for manifestations of harmonious beauty, I say it is only a matter of course that the Greeks could not feel satisfied with the monoton- ous charms of their simple, not to say silly, undeveloped wives. They had to make up for this lack of social charms, they had to find a deeper, a . more passionate show of sympathy, of love. They could not dispense with those tender emotions of the heart that play such a prominent part in the development of our whole soul. And consequently we find in Greece two systems of love, if I may s?ty so, both of them unique, both of them ex- clusively classical and antique — I mean the love men cherished for men and the love of men for the emanci- pated women of Greece, for the Hetairai. In treating of these two subjects we must be extremely careful. If you should go by the descriptions and allusions of Aristophanes or other Greek comedians, you would utterly condemn both these systems. You would look upon them as the inapure outcome of low passions, as the vile product of heathenish bestiality. But let us beware of such uncriti- cal talk. The Greeks were unable to find the comfort of their soul in their homes, and consequently they looked for an outside gratification of their desires. This is as simple as the ABC. l^Ien always do the same. That is one of the reasons why club lite in England has taken such fearful dimensions. The ancient Greeks, therefore, became attached to male friends with a fervor of feeling, with a depth of passion, that nowadays is de- 130 Social Life IN Greece. voted only to women. In Krete, as well as in Sparta and Thebes, men were passionately attached to men. The famous invincible guard of the 300 Boeotian heroes were all pinioned together by an ideal and enthusiastic love for each other. The venerable Epaminondas never left his male love, and to merely look at him was perfect conso- lation, as he himself said. Accordingly, we read of the most exalted examples of friendship, of Aristogiton and Harmodius, of Achilles and Patroclos, of Pelopidas and Epaminondas, and of Damon and Phintias, the story of whom has been immortalized by Schiller in his poem, "Die BuergschafL*' The treatise on friendship in the Nikomachaean ethics of Aristotle is to the present day a model representation of that generous and rare attach- ment of hearts, of friendship. But men can not be satis- fied with the love of men only — they crave for the charm of female suggestiveness, of female tender tact, of inter- course with broad-viewed, refined women. As such women could never arise among the imprisoned class of married women, they had of needs to be sought for among the class of unmarried women — of free, unmarried women. And these women, who were the spiritual companions of the greatest of Greeks, these women, whose charming conversation and graceful manners conquered the most philosophical as well as the most trivial of Greeks, these women were the Hetairai. There is no other word for this peculiar class of women. No other term would ex- actly convey the proper meaning of Hetairai. They cul- tivated all the graces of life ; they dressed with exquisite taste. They were witty, and their witty sayings were chronicled and turned into verse. Some of them attained the highest social position. Almost every famous man had one of these lady com- panions with whom he discussed the pursuits and soothed the evils of his life. Plato had Archgenassa, Aristotle had Social Life in Greece. 131 Herpyllis, Epicurus had I.eontion, Socrates had Melaneira, Menander had Glycera. The beauty of some, especially of Phryne, the most beautiful woman that ever lived, attracted the eyes of all Greece ; and Appelles painted her, and Praxiteles made her the model for the Cnidian Aphrodite, the most lovely representation of woman that ever came from the sculptor's chisel. Some were renowned for their musical faculty, some were celebrated painters. Socrates the wisest of men, did not hesitate to say (you can read the passage in Xeno- phon's Memorabilia) that he considers Aspasia, the most famous of all the Hetairai, his teacher. You will readily see that the Hetairai were a direct outcome of the social state of Greek women. Some of the women in Greece were perfectly conscious of the unworthy state of their social standing, and a movement began with a view to a reformation, to an emancipation of women. The centre of this movement was the poetess Sappho. She of herself would deserve a passing notice in any account of ancient women, for she occu})ied a position altogether unique. She was the only woman in all antiquity whose produc- tions placed her on the same level as the greatest poets of the other sex. Solon, on hearing one of her songs sung at a banquet, got the singer to teach it to him immedi- ately, saying that he wished to learn it and die. Herodo- tus, Plato, Aristotle refer to her in terms of profound re- spect. Plato called her the tenth muse. This woman determined to do her utmost to elevate her sex. The one method of culture open to women at that time was poetry, and accordingly Sappho established a school of Greek poetesses ; the most celebrated of which is Erinna. But this whole emancipation movement was of no use whatever. The social state of Greek women being a con- sequence of the principal political institutions of Greece, it could never be altered unless a corresponding change 132 Social Life in Greece. in the political institutions would have taken place. But there was no likelihood of such a change unless brought upon by a foreign power. Political institutions, political life was the domineering, the most essential, arid to a cer- tain extent the only life in Greece. We can trace the working of this main current in every part of social life. Say e. .g the Greek house. Both the Homeric and the historic houses have in com- mon the important feature of a courtyard. In both it is surrounded by columns and forms, as it were, the centre around which the other parts of the house are grouped equally, and into which the single rooms open. The his- toric house, however, was much inferior in size and splen- dour to that described by Homer, as was natural, seeing that it was inhabited by simple citizens instead of kings and rulers of the people. Homer never even mentions private dwellings. More- over, it was, in consequence of the prominence of public, of political life, a natural peculiarity of the Greeks, in their best times to concentrate all their splendour and luxury in the adornment of temples and other public edi- fices, while their private dwellings were small and modest, not to say mean. The homes of tlie (Greeks were their pub- lic places, their Stoas andAgoras; only in the Macedonian period (end of the fourth cen.) when Greek freedom and greatness had vanished, luxurious private houses became the fashion, while at the same time begin the c nnplaints of bjth religious and civic buildings being more and more neglected. Only in the country were there large houses; in cities houses had generally only one yard. The Greek house agreed in its principal features with the Roman domes, and it will be more convenient to treat of it in our lecture on social life in Rome. Meanwhile, I cannot re- frain from remarking that the main idea of a Greek or a Roman dwelling house was a flight of down stair halls, Social Life in Greece. 133 with as little upstair room as possible; the iip-stair rooms being reserved for women, slaves and servants. When we think of the great, of the overwhelming in- fluence of political institutions in Greece, we must feel rather astonished at the lack of public schools. In ancient Greece very few people could do without a knowledge of reading and writing, and still they never had a system of public schools, nor had the Romans either. Nevertheless they had very strict laws as to compulsory instruction. Everybody was under a strict obligation to acquire the rudiments of knowledge, but he had to acquire it by the tuition of a private teacher, of the grammatistes. The education of the Greek male ].'erson was based on very ancient foundation. The most ancient of the teachers was Cheiron, the instructor of Jason and Achilles. The course of studies in the Homeric times embraced the art of hunting, and all the different sorts of weapon-exercises, a herb-lore (jatricke), a course of music, a course of prophe- sying (mantike) and a course of law. This course of studies together with a study of the i)oets and dramatists was the main stock of a Greeks knowledge. Every single boy had to learn the laws of the country by heart, and there were few Greeks without a thorough knowledge of Homer's epical poems, of Hesiod or of Pin- dar. At their public games the most celebrated authors read their works to the ])eople, as c. g. Herodotus, who read part of his unrivalled history to the people of Greece assembled in Olympia. The Spartans had no public schools either. Spartan boys were taught by thedramatists — but they never aimed at great learning. On the con- trary, they were inclined to think that ample knowledge has a tendency to effeminate brave soldiers, and only the war songs of Tyrtaeos were a favorite song and j^oem with the Spartans. 134 Social Life in Greece. This intellectual training made them extremely quick at sharp repartee, and at present we denote such epigram- atic short answers with the word Laconic answers. They hated all long-winded discussions, and when once the sophist Kephisophon wanted to enter their city, a man v/ho boasted to be able to discuss any topic whatever the whole day long, they simply turned him out of the pre- cincts of their city. Spartan boys, from their seventh year belonged to the State , they were divided into divis- ions and subdivisions, every division being headed by a boy of maturer age. They were constantly under the close superintendence ofthemore aged persons of the com- munity, and were trained to the endurance of any kind of physical hardship, of hunger, of thirst, of cold and heat, of moral anguish of all kinds, until they became perfectly obdurate and callous to any other sensation but the love and enthusiasm of their own country. No Spartan ever took his meals at home. They enjoyed their meals in common, in a public place, in the syssitia, or, as the Cretans called it, andreia, because no women were ad- mitted to the.n. Fifteen persons sat at one table, each of them having contributed his share of victuals and a little cash money to the common stock. The chief dish was the well-known Spartan black soup. But the Greeks of the other cities took their meals at home. Since the old- est times every Greek (I speak of the non-Spartan Greeks) took three hieals a day, (i) ariston (breakfast), (2) deip- non (dinner), and (3) dorpon (supper). The supper was the chief meal. In Homer's poems the Heroes sat up- right at the table as we do ; but later on it was the general custom to lie down at table, viz., the left arm was propped on a cushion and the body was stretched out on a sofa, the back of which leaned against the table. The Romans had the same custom. Boys were always sitting. The order of sittinsr at tlie table was identical with the Roman Social Life in Greece. 135 Triclinium, with this exception, that generally only two seats were on eacli side. The Greeks had no tablecloth, no napkins, no knife, no fork. They ate with their fingers, and children were taught very early to use their fingers in a decent way. They used spoons, however. Instead of a napkin they used the crumbs of bread or a specially prepared piece of dough, that every single guest usually brought with him. In Homeric times the Greeks ate nothing but meat (ox, goat, deer, hog and venison) and bread. But in later times they began to eat madza, a kind of polenta or maccaroni, the Greek national dish, besides many vegetables and sausages. But one of the most favorite dishes of the historic Greeks is fish, and especially sardines. The Greeks down to the time of the Macedonian invasion had no male cook, the cooking being done by the ladies of the house together with her maids. Greeks never drank be- tween meals, but when the supper was over — and it was a very poor supper, with very few courses, the Persians made very scornful remarks on the poverty of Greek meals — but after the supper was over, I say, the symposion began, in other words, the Greeks sat down to hard drinking. Drinking was the principal part of a supper. The first goblet was solemnly dedicated, that is to say, emptied, to tlie gods. Flute music accompanied this solemn act, and not a drop of water was mixed with the wine. But with the exce])tion of this first goblet n(5ne but watered wine was used. To mix it half and half was considered rude; the proportion generally was 3:1, 2:1, 3:2. Drunkenness was not considered a shame, and even Plato apologizes for it. The Spartans and the Cretans, however, were strictly temperance. Every Greek symposion had a president, who dictated the number of goblets to be drank by every guest. The Greeks had a peculiar custom of drinking tlie health of their friends. They drank as many goblets as there were letters in the name of trie friend. Thus, 136 Social Life in Greece. Alcibiades drank to the health of Socrates by emptying eight kotyle, and Socrates responded by a still greater number of kotyle, the name of Alcibiades having ten letters. When drinking, the Greeks used to eat all kinds of deserts and fruits. But these symposions were not only wassailing excesses. On the contrary, all that Athens, or Corinth, or Argos could display of refined, cultured, witty people — all these choice minds used to meet at these symposions, and the most charming discus- sions, the most attractive conversations, social games, enigmas and formal speeches were carried on. All the bloom of the subtle Grecian spirit budded out at these oc- casions, and in Plato's writings we still find the immortal report of these unique soir^es. Music was one of the most essential part of their entertainments, as it was, together with dancing, one of the most essential parts of their educa- tion. Every Greek was well trained in singing, playing the cythara, or one of the many different flutes and clarionets they had, and in dancing. They had the most elaborate systems of music, and we still possess a whole Greek liter- ature on this subject. Their instruments (by the wa)% they had no string instrument, I mean, no violin or vio- lincello), their instruments were tuned according to the single tones of the scale, but they had no idea of modern harmonics. They accompanied their melodies with the fifth or the octave, but there was no polyphonic harmoni- zation in it. The great music teachers of Greece enjoyed such a wide-spread reputation that their names are always care- fully mentioned in the biographies of prominent Greek persons. Even the Latin author Cornelius NejDO seldom forgets to mention the music teachers of his Greek heroes, and we know the name of the musical instructor of Epami- ondas, or Lysander or Alcibiades. It was the same case with dancing, orchesis, as the Greeks called it. The dance Social Life in Greece. 137 was considered as the mimics of the whole body, the highest expression of the Greek feeling for beauty. The dancer used to sing his own song. Men and women never danced together; it was considered far beneath tlie dignity of a man to do so; or rather to account for it in the correct way, Greek men did not want to elevate women to the right of enjoying free social intercourse ; they had a powerful reason why to down them, why to keep them severed from all social liberty. The Romans, these personified examples of skilled dignity had a very different view of dancing. Cicero said : nemo vero saltat sobrius, nisi forte insanit, neque in solitudine neque in convivio moderate atque honesto. But there were also religious dances especially in the Isle ot Delos, called respectively the dionysiac, bachantic and corybantic dances. The stern Spartans had only one kind of dances — war- dances; but all Greek writers agree in the praise of the wonderful military grace of these dances. The Greeks, at least the Athenians, had a kind of a ballet in the form of a chorus in the theatre. The theatres of the Greeks usually had three great di- visions : I. The place for the spectators; 2. The or- chestra; 3. The stage. These three places correspond to our modern theatre, with this exception, that the place of their orchestra was much larger, a perfect circle and was occupied by the chorus, this most essential part of ancient tragedies On the stage the actors were playing, all of them wearing characteristic masks. It seems to us rather inappropriate that an actor should have one and the same mask all the play through. But you must think of the immense dimensions of a Greek theatre when the more distant spectators were unlikely to see the features of the actors if not artificially enlarged. These masks were, tlierefore, a means to make up for our 138 Social Life in Greece. modern opera glasses. I say the Greek theatres were im- mense buildings, and that is very natural, because every single citizen could enjoy the pleasures of the stage, for instead of paying an entrance fee to the state, who owned the theatre, he was paid by the state to frequent the the- atres. That applies of course only to the poorer classes, and therefore to the majority of the people. It is almost certain that the seats of men and women were apart from each other. Any account of the social life of the ancient Greeks would be utterly deficient without a mention of their national athletic games, and in the first place, of the Olympian games in Elis. The three other games, the istmaean, the pythian, the nemean games are of consid- erable importance. In the beginning of every fifth year, the bloom of Greek youth flocked to the banks of the river Alpheus, near the sacred city of Olympia, suspending all warfare, all quar- rels, all jealousies, and trying with a holy fervor to win the inestimable prizes of the Olympian games. Exercises of a Spartan type, testing endurance and strength with an especial view to war, had almost exclusively formed the earlier programme. But as early as the twenty-fifth Olym- piad the four-horse chariot race was added. Horse-races were added later. Besides the foot-race in which the course was traversed once only, there were now the diaulos or double course, and the long foot-race (dolichos). Wrestling and boxing were combined in the Pancration. Leaping, quoit-throwing, javelin-throwing, running and wrestling were combined in the Pantatlon. While the de- tails of the scene and of the festivals were the subjects of endless modifications and change, Olympia remained a central expression of the Greek idea that the body of a man has a glory as well as his intellect and spirit ; that body and mind should alike be disciplined, and that it is Social Life in Greece. 139 by the harmonious discipline of both, that men best honour Zeus. The significance of Olympia was larger and higher than the political fortunes of the Greeks who met there, and it survived the overtlirow of Greek inde- pendence. In the Macedonian and Roman ages the temples and contents of Olympia still interpret the ideal at which free Greece had aimed. Philip of Macedon and Nero, are among those whose names have a record in the Aetis. The Olympian festival ceased to be held after 393 A. D., the first year of the 293d Olympiad. The list of Olympian victors which begins in 776 B. C. with Coroebos of Elis closes with the name of a Roman- ized Armenian Varestad, who is said to have belonged to the race of the Arsacidce. In the fifth century the deso- lation of Olympia had set in. The chryselephantine statue of the Olympian Zeus, by Phidias was carried to Constantinople and ])erished in a great fire 476 A. D. The Olympian temple is said to have been destroyed by the Goths in the reign of Theodorius 402-450 A. D. — German excavations began under Dr. Pren in 1875. We can form now a vivid idea of the location of Pindars' Odes, of the gymnasium, a large open place, inclosed on two sides by doric r:olonades, the Palestra for wrestlers, the bouleiterion (council-hall.) Let us now cast a general glance over the whole of Grecian life, and we have to bow before this astonishing display of mental activity and beauty. Beauty in all its ramifications was the prevailing char- acter of Greek life. Not every victor at the Olympian games could reach immortality by being portrayed in the hall of glory in Olympia, only a few were selected among the victors, and usually the most beautiful ones The very language of Greece is luxuriant with the most extra- ordinary refinements of style, and no other jjeojile have 140 Social Life in Greece. ever reached the divine grace and rythmical beaut)' of Greek classics. It may fairly be said that never a people enjoyed life more than the Greeks. There was more amusement, more entertainment, or, to use a famihar word, more fun in one day of a Greek's life than in one hundred days of a Roman's or an Englishman's existence. Numberless were the chances to hear great poets recite their poems in the street, to listen to great orators, as Isaius, Isocrates and Demosthenes, in the courts, to be present at the discussions of the finest and noblest ques- tions of politics, to enjoy the oral instructions of men like Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Xenokrates, Euclid of Me- gara, Parmanides, Zeno and Pythagoras. Sorrow, care, was more or less unknown, the State had to take charge of the necessities of the people, and the State was immensely rich. The Greeks had an excellent money; I mean their coins (the Spartan iron money excepted) were pure in metal and exact in weight, its real corresponding to its nominal value. The chief reason is that it was municipal money. Every city had its own mint, and the officers of this mint were under the close superintendence of every single citizen of the city. Then a free people never has bad money, for no despot can defraud them. Whtn the evil of false and depreciated money was rife throughout Europe in the middle ages, it was the merchant republics like Venice and Florence that had the surest guarantees against it. Athens, in whose public offices all the citizens took part, had excellent money. We can judge that by the numerous coins of Greek cities to be found in the numis- matical collections of London, Rome or Paris. But all these enviable achievements, this liberty, this beauty, this amus- ing life was purchased at a very heavy price. You know that everything has to be paid for. The ledgers and ac- count books of the divine power are accurate and precise Social Life in Greece. 141 to an iota — nothing can be had, no fortune can be enjo)'Ted, no amusement, no freedom, no satisfaction — nothing can be attained unless you pay for it. And the greater the boon the heavier you have to pay it. It is only just and fair — to admire the Greeks, to speak of their marvellous attainments, of their immortal works, of their grace and wisdom, but did you ever think of the price that had to be paid for all these enchanting things ? Did you ever think of the numberless slaves of Greece, of the nominal slaves, the men and women in bondage, and the real slaves, their so-called free men and women? Never would have the Greeks been able to perform a thousandth part of what they really did but for the institution of this two-fold slavery. Their slaves and their women freed them from all prosaic toil, from all the drudgery of human life, leaving them full scope to culture the more elevated part of the mind. POLITICAL AND EELIGIOUS IN- STITUTIONS OF GREECE. References: — Aristotle, Politics Plato, Respublica. Xettophon, Da Lacedaemoniorum republica, De Atheniensium repl. Harpo^ralion, Lexi- con, s. vv: boule, arcopagfos, thesmoihetae, ecclesia. etc., etc. Thticydidex, Bell. Pelop. Plutarc/i, in vita Solonis, Lycurg-i, Periclis, etc. Herodotos, Hist. lib. V. Isocrates. Panegryricus, Philippus, On the Peace. DemcstheneSy the three Olvnthiacs, the three Philippics, contra Leptinem, de corona. An- docides, Oe Reditis. De Mvsteriis, Ue Pice. Aeschines, in Ctes., De fals. ]-e(j. Corpus Inscript. Graecar. Boeckh, Staatshaush.altg. der Athener (T,'\ ed. by -M. Fraenkel, iS36). Schoemann. De Comiliis Atheniensium. Afiinso, Spirta. Claudia Jaymet, Les Institutions sociales et le Droit Civil & Sparte, iSSo. Hermann, Griech. Sta^tsalterth. Grote. Hist of Gr .chapt. XLVI. Curtius, Griech. Gesch Clintnn, Kasti Hellen. F. Haase, Die Athen Stammverf. P Kasiromenos, Die Demen von Attica. M. H E. Meier and G. F. Schoemann, Att. Process, ed Calvar)'. O. Mueller, Die Dorier, passim. Meursius, De Attic. Magistratibus. Ladies and Gentlemen : Our next topic is the political and religious institutions of Greece. Questions of politics are as a rule of very lit- tle interest to the general student. They are considered dry and monotonous, they occupy an inferior place in literature, they partake more of the character of a profes- sion then of a liberal art. The dislike of politics is to be met with even among scholars, whose duty it would be to pay the closest possible attention to all political matters. You know that numberless books have been written on the literature, art, science and history of ancient Greece. But comparatively speaking, very few books have been written on the political institutions of ancient Greece. There is no exaggeration in saying that a whole library has been writ- ten on the different grammatical character of any of the Greek particles, say e. g. an, kata, etc., and there is scarcely a line in all Greek literature, and we possess, ac- cording to F. A. Wolff's statement, 1200 Greek literary works, I say there is scarcely a line in all these numerous, sometimes very voluminous writings that has not been sub- jected to unceasing and unterminable comment and eluci- Political Institutions of Greece. 143 dation of a grammatical and literary character. The com- ments and lucubrations on the political purport of these writings, however, although one of the most essential parts of our study of antiquity, has so far been, if not neglected, yet at any rate poorly treated of. With regard to some leading questions on the political structure of Grecian cities we have still to refer to the labors of the savants of the sixteenth and seventeenth cen- turies ; to Sigonius, to Meursius, to Gruter and Reinesius. In modern times a few highly valuable books have ap- peared but they do not cover the whole ground. This scarcity of inquiries is the more astonishing the more we have to acknowledge that political institutions are among all institutions of a people, the most imi)ortant ones. I say of all the institutions of a people the political institutions are by far the most influential, ^le most essential ones. By influential I mean an influence which extends to the most ordinary affairs of everyday life just as well as to the loftiest state-affairs. Very few people, and especially very few women, are aware of the enormous influence of politi- cal institutions on the actions, on the manners, on the dwellings, on the mode of dressing, eating, drinking, danc- ing, etc. You remember in our last lecture I stated that no Grecian — the Spartans excepted — ever danced with a girl, and I hope you remember the explanation of this curious fact, an explanation that showed the intimate connection be- tween this fact and the political structure of a Grecian city. Of course no man, no woman ever feels the pressure of political institutions in a direct and immediate way. When you want to select a bonnet, or buy a sealskin, or rent a flat, you go apparently only by the dictations of your own taste. It never occurs to you that your taste has in turn been determined by something which is absolutely removed from your control. The purchase of a sealskin 144 Political Institutions of Greece. is not only a mere business transaction, it is not only a question of money on the part of the purchaser, for there are thousands and thousands of people in Europe who could very easily dispose of the requisite money, and who, nevertheless, will never buy a sealskin. It is against the character of their class to wear such costly garments ; and the character of the class is determined by the amount of political power vested in that class. Hence you will see that the selection of garments is not a matter of mere taste and fashion. In the times when wigs and pig-tails were the custom, and this time stretched over almost two centu- ries, these wigs and pigtails were not the mere funny out- come of whimsical fashion, they were not the product of quaint undeveloped civilization, but they stood, incredible as it may seem to you, in the closest connection with the peculiar political organization of those times. I shall trace this connection in another of my lectures, at present I want only to point to the vast influence of political institu- tions in general ; an influence which is not restricted to the making of laws and the administration of justice, but which reaches everybody in his own home, in his domestic doings, in the formation of friendships, and in the whole arrange- ment of his life. Take e. g. the way of greeting, the sal- utations of the different peoples. They are the clear and unmistakeable reflexes of the political organization of a people. In Austria friends greet each other by saying "servus." Servus means in Latin slave, and this is the humorous statement of what originally was a very serious acknowledgement of the inferiority of the person greeting. If you meet a person of higher standing you say : "I have the honor," and in fact, you have to feel honored by the salutation of your superior. Wherever political power is unequally distributed, there the salutations of people are expressive of those differences in rank and class; and accordingly where political power Political Institutions of Greeck. 145 is more equally distributed, there people greet each other by general remarks on the weather, or on the state of their health, anxiously avoiding all allusions to honor or superi- ority or the like. Hence, Americans, viz.: the members of a free people, meet you with : Hello, how do you du? The ancient Greeks said, chaire, as the Viennese say, "viel vergnuegen," and the Romans kissed each other. Even the cleanliness and personal appearance of individuals stands in the very closest connection with the political structure of a people. In democratic states where every- body is the equal of every other person, people watch each other more closely, and everybody is exposed to a greater number of persons watching him, taking notice of his do- ings, than in countries where, in consequence of an un- equal distribution of political power, the one class scarcely cares for the other at all. . No member of the higher class will feel annoyed, or can pay much attention to the neat appearance of some one of the lower class ; on the con- trary, perhaps he will be glad to see him degraded by un- cleanliness. But in democratic states, where my butcher of to-day may be my juror or my trustee of to-morrow, everybody has a distinct feeling of the necessity of dress- ing nicely and of cultivating his personal appearance, and hence, the more absolutistic a country, say Russia, the less clean will the people be, and the more democratic a coun- try, the more attention will people devote to the tidy and clean appearance of their own selves, as the ancient Greeks, the modern Greeks who are in spite of their king, a highly democratic people, and the Americans of the United States. Vast as the inlluence of political institutions on the leg- islature, on the administration, and on the social life of a people may be, it bears more i)OwerfulIy still on the religion of a people. The religion of a people invariably shows the marks of the political institutions of this people. In other words 146 Political Institutions of Greece. there is a fixed and intelligible relation between the politi- cal and religious institutions of a people. Two peoples of wholly different political structure cannot have the same religion. In the whole course of history there is no ex- ample of two peoples having the same religious institutions unless they had the same political structure. Look c. g. at Europe at the present time ; all Europe with the excep- tion of Turkey confesses Christian creeds, but what a di- versity of creeds, what a diversity of religious institutions ! Russia being altogether different in political structure, has also a different creed — the Greek church. Austria and Germany is divided between two churches only, the Cath- olic and the Protestant, the Lutheran. In England on the other hand, there are no less than 122 religious denomina- tions ; amongst others, twelve different kinds of Baptists, and thirteen different kinds of Wesleyan Methodists. But England differs wholly from the rest of Europe as far as political institutions are concerned. And this is not a mere casual coincidence. It is not a sheer chance, that a diverg- ence in political institutions tallies with a similar divergence in religious creeds and churches. There is a deeply rooted connection between these two main sources of our life, a connection which I am sorr}' to say is being ignored by some of the best students of the history of civilization. In this coadjustment of politics and religion there is nothing derogatory to religion, nothing to abate one parti- cle of the divine dignity of the subject. Both are the fountains of our life, and we could just as well think ot bereaving ourselves of our daily food as of abandoning our religious institutions. But when I speak of religion and religious institutions, I do not mean to treat of the dogma, of the creed, properly so called, of different na- tions. The dogma, the creed proper, is 'comparatively speaking a very modern thing. The classical Ancients and even the ancient Hebrews had no dogma. Political Institutions of Greece. 147 In Christian or Mohammedan countries you can be a convert to the Christian or Mohammedan rehgion without at the same time being a member of this or that country; e. g. you are a convert of the CathoHc reUgion, but that does not necessarily imply that you are a Frenchman, or a Spaniard. On the contrary, your being a convert of the Catholic church does not interfere in the least with a change of citizenship; you can become a naturalized Frenchman after having been a Spaniard without any fur- ther effect on your creed. But that was not the case in an- cient times. To be admitted to the worship of the Jupiter Capitolinus of Rome, or to the Athenian Minerva presup- posed a previous naturalization as a citizen of Rome or Athens. The ancient Hebrews had converts, but these converts were at the same time citizens of Judaea. The mere belief in one God without a corresponding admission into one of the tribes of Israel was a mere theoretical affair, and such a believer was as much of a pagan as any other heathen. It was the political part of the whole matter that was con- sidered the main part of it. Being a citizen of this com- munity, said the ancient Hebrews, you necessarily partici- pate of the pure belief in one God. When no citizen, you are, as it were, non-existent, and your belief does not help you any. It was only at or a little before the begin- ning of our present era that the belief, the mere belief in a certain dogma began to be considered the more import- ant of the two, until it lead to what recent historians, and especially Thiele, call the universal religion, as the Chris- tian, Mohammedan and the Buddhistic religion, that do not insist on a particular citizenship, but which inculcate the belief in certain dogmatical creeds. I must confess, ladies and gentlemen, there is scarcely another point of equal importance in the study of classical antiquity, and especially of Greece and Rome. If you 148 Political Institutions of Greece. approach Greece with a confused idea about the mutual relation of politics and religion, if you are inclined to mix up our modern idea of religion with what Grecians or Romans called religion, then all your endeavors, and be they ever so elaborate, ever so learned, ever so careful, will be in vain. You mark distinctly the point under dis- cussion: We have to know first what were the politics, what were the political institutions and then what was the religion of Greece. I say first, because I hope that even the short sketch with which I introduced my present lecture will have convinced you that in a study of ancient Greece, politics is the more important factor of the two. The re- ligion of the Greeks was subordinate to their political insti- tutions. In fact, there is no understanding of the polythe- ism of ancient Greece unless we deduce it from the political institutions. Polytheism is the assumption of many gods and god- desses—of Jupiter and Juno, Apollo and Venus, Vulcan and Minerva, Neptun and Ceres, and all the othernumer- ous deities, semi-deities, deified heroes, etc., etc. How will you account for such an assumption, for such a belief? Have you the courage to 'state that the Greeks, the most enlightened and most civilized of all peoples; that the Greeks, who are masters of all that is beautiful, and tem- perate, and wise, and profound, and lovely — that this bright and ingenuous warm-hearted people clung to a belief in non-existent deities out of mere silliness ? That they, so clear-sighted in all other departments of human thought, were so miserably deficient in this one respect as to believe in self-created phantasms, in creations of their own fancy ? Is that possible ? Can you really think that Polytheism, that the religion of the Grecians Avas nothing else than the creation of an undeveloped inferior mind ? I must confess I can not muster up so much courage; I can not blind myself to what undeniable facts force me to see. I Political Institutions of Greece. 149 can not say in one and the same breath: The wisest people was, at the same time, the most fooHsh people ; the noblest of men were, at the same time, wretched fetich- worshippers. Rather than say that I will begin to doubt my information about the matter ; I will try to occupy another, a new standpoint, a new way of looking at the question. I will say to myself: You are the fool; you are the worshipper of a fetich, viz: of a miserable prejudice, of a wretched and lame idea of superiority — and thus pre- pared I shall approach my subject in a more appropriate way and very probably find the real history of the religion of Greece. I can not leave this, the introductory part of my present lecture, without trying, at least, to circum- scribe my views of the whole subject as precisely as I possibly can. In order to do that in the most efficacious way I shall contrast my view with that of a celebrated Frenchman, whose book has been widely read in England as well as in the United States. I mean Fustel de Cou- langes and his book, " The Ancient City." In the passage which I am about to quote there are two propositions which contain the very germ of these jjrevailing ideas on (ireece and Rome — both those propositions I shall combat. I was an adherent of the one of those j^ropositions for over fifteen years, and I believed in the other until recently. But a more consummate study of institutions has convinced me to the exclusion of any reasonable doubt, that both those propositions, glaring and flattering though they be, are equally false. Before reading the first of these propo- sitions I shall read a few preceding lines. Coulanges says says in the introduction to his work. "Wliy are the conditions of human government no longer the same as in earlier times ? The great changes which appear from time to time in the constitution of so- ciety can be the effect ■ neither of chance nor of force alone. 150 Political iNSXixuiifOxs of Greece. "The cause which produces them must be powerful, and must be found in man himself. If the laws of human association are no longer the same as in antiquity, it is be- cause there has been a change in man. There is, in fact, a part of our being which is modified from age to age ; this is our intelligence. It is always in movement ; almost always progressing; and on this account, our mstitutions and our laws are subject to change. Man has not in our day the way of thinking that he had twenty-five centuries ago ; and this is why he is no longer governed as he was governed then.'' "Man has not in our day the way of thinking that he had twenty-five centuries ago; and this is why he is no longer gov- erned as he was governed then." This is what I called the first proposition ; this is the germ, the motto, the credo of almost all modern writers on ancient history. They say, and pre-eminently Buckle says, men 2000, 3000 years ago were not as advanced, not as intelligent, not as enlight- ened as they are now, and consequently they were gov- erned in a different way, and consequently they had different beliefs, and consequently they had different opinions, different ways of thinking. This is the first proposition — and this is the great falsehood, the great lie, the great — oh, excuse me — the great humbug of our age. We constantly speak of our enormous progress, of our incredible advancements, of the marvellous change in our intelligence, in our way of thinking and feeling. Ladies and gentlemen, I have at present no time to dis- cuss this great question at any length whatever. I can barely touch it, but although I have no time to dis- cuss this proposition, I shall take time to deny, peremp- torily deny the truth of this proposition, and I ask you, I entreat you, I beseech you not to believe it. I do not hesitate to say that the one proposition that underlies all that I have said, and all that I am still going to say is the direct reverse Political Institutions of Greece. i 5 i of this first proposition of Coulanges. I most profoundly do believe that the ways of thinking and feeling of men 2000-3000 years ago were exactly the same as they are at present, that there is not the slightest imaginable trace of an advancement in om- way of thinking and feeling, al- though innumerable new products may enrich the store- houses of our mental and physical activity. You see the difference : I do not deny a change in the products, but I do deny a change in the faculty, in the originator of the products. Of course it is very easy, and in fact it reduces all the task of the historian to a mere toy, when we assume that the way of thinking was different with men 2000 or 3000 years ago from what it is now. For whenever we cannot really explain an institution of a people, we simply refer to their inferior development of intelligence. Then we say, oh ! the ancient Spartans had those crude in- stitutions, because they were still inferior, you know ; they were not as civilized as we are, you know, they had not yet reached the sublime heighth of our present civilization you know. For as Coulanges says : Man has not the way of thinking that he had twenty centuries ago. That much with regard to the first proposition. Coulanges proceeds to his second proposition. He says : " Examine the institutions of the ancients without thinking of their religious notions, and you will find them them obscure, whimsical and inexplicable. Why were there patricians and plebeians, patrons and. clients, e upa- trids and thetes; and whence came the native and inef- faceable differences which we find between these classes ? What was the meaning of those Lacedaemonian institu- tions which appear to us so contrary to nature? How are we to explain those unjust caprices of ancient private law; at Corinth and at Thebes the sale of land prohibited ; at Athens and at Rome an inequality in the succession be- tween brother and sister? What did the jurists understand 152 Political Institutions of Greece. by agnation and by gensl Why those revoluiions in the laws, those political revolutions? What was that singu- lar patriotism which sometimes effaced every natural sen- timent? What did they understand by tl\at liberty of which they were always talking? How did it happen that institutions so very different from anything of which we have an idea to-day, could become established and reign for so long a time? What is the superior principle which gave them authority over the minds of men ?" " But by the side of these institutions and laws place the religious ideas of those times, and the facts at once become cleat, and their explanation is no longer doubtful. If, on going back to the first ages of this race —that is to say, to the time when its institutions were founded — we observe the idea which it had of human existence, of life, of death, of a second life, of the divine principle, we perceive a close relation between these opinions and ancient rules of private law ; between the rights which spring from these opinions and their political institutions." Coulanges hence, does not satisfy himself with the state- ment of a relation, a close relation between the religious opinions of the Grecians and their political institutions. He goes beyond that. He asserts that in this relation the religion plays the part of the superior principle, or to put it in plain language, that the relation between religion and political institutions in Greece was a relation of cause and effect, and that the religion was the cause and that the polit- ical institutions were the effect. That is the second propo- sition of Coulanges, his main vehicle for an explanation of Grecian civilization. From this I deviate absolutely, in fact I do assert the very reverse of it. A very careful study of Grecian civilization has led me to the positive convic- tion, that the relation between religion and political insti- tutions in Greece was a relation between effect and cause ; in other words, that the political institutions were the supe- Political Institutions of Greece. 153 rior principle, that they were the cause of Grecian religion and not vice versa. No more opposed views could possibly be embraced, and by advising you to read the book of Coulanges, a very interesting book after all, and by asking you to honor me with a very close attention I leave the decision as to the correctness of either view to your own judgment. It will now be sufficiently clear that in treating of the political and religious institutions of Greece I shall treat first of the political institutions of this classical coun- try, and I shall do so intentionally, prompted by the best of reasons, by mere logical necessity, for we must treat first of the cause and then of the effect. The connection between cause and effect in this case, I mean the relation between p«jlitics and religion in Greece is not a palpable one, it is indeed frequently very far from manifest, else everybody would have noticed it. But while it is not always manifest and tangible, it can always be proved, and with very satisfactory proofs too. But in or- der to effectuate these proofs we must abandon all ludi- crous ideas about an assumed inferiority of men in ancient times. We must steadily keep to the sober view, that men always were, in the main, what they are at present. The chief characteristic sign of our species is the love of plea- sure, the dislike ol" work, the greediness for wealth and power, and a faculty of thinking and combining individual strength into gregarious units of force. These character- istic signs are common to the types of the most ancient Chinese or Indian literature as well as to the heroes of Homer. Does Odysseus not talk to us in tones of a very familiar ring? Could Nausikaa, the sweet daughter of Alkinoos, not serve as a type of a modern girl of sweet sixteen ? Is Penelope less of a worthy, prudent matron than any of our own mothers? Has any of us surpassed Aristotle in sagacity, Plato in dignity and profoundness, Demosthenes in grace and power of speech. Thucydides in political wisdom, Soc- 154 Political Institutions of Greece. rates in human feeling, Euclid and Hipparchos in scientific method, or Alexander in military genius? All of us will heartily give a negative answer. And thus we will accost Grecian civilization with the sympathy of brothers, with the congenial feeling of fellow-workmen at the dome of hu- manity, and not with the supercilious air of superior beings. I shall proceed now to a delineation of the political insti- tutions of Greece. You remember from our last lecture that Greece was not a uniform country, one homogeneous territory like France or England. It consisted of very many self-governed cities, each of which formed a state of its own. The city of Korinth was a state, the city of Argos was a state, and so was the city of Thebes, the city of Athens, Sycion, Plataea, Megara, etc., etc. Each of these city-states had its own government, its own income, its own army and navy, its own games and religious festivals, and of course its own constitution. Unhappily, the work of Aristotle which described over 150 constitutions of Greek and other city-states, is lost, and thus our information about the different constitu- tions of the Greek cities is not as full as desirable. But on the other hand it would be next to impossible for me to give you a satisfactory statement of all these manifold con- stitutions, and consequently I have to restrict myself to the two prominent types of all Grecian cities, to the Ionian city-state of Athens, and to the Dorian city-state of Sparta, or to Attica and Laconia respectively. These two city-states may serve as fair specimens of all the other Grecian states, each of which being more or less after the pattern of either Athens or Sparta. , This is at least the view of German scholars. O. Mueller in his elab- orate work on the Dorians puts forth the state of Sparta as the model type of all Dorian cities, whether in Greece proper or in Asia Minor or Crete or Italy. This view has Political Institutions of Greece. 155 been vehemently combated by the celebrated English historian Grote, who is ot the opinion that Sparta was not the model type of a Dorian city-state, and that Athens was the general pattern of Grecian cities. This vexed question has not as yet been settled, but it will be advisable to study both Athens and Sparta on ac- count of the overwhelming importance of these two cities for all Greece and all classical antiquity. Athens was the head of Attica, of the territory of At- tica. The institutions which are found existing in Attica in the seventh century B. C, may be regarded as dating from the age which tradition called that of Theseus, the age in which the loose canton system of Attica was bound to- gether into a single state. The inhabitants of Attica at that time formed three classes, the eupatridse or nobles, the geomori or free husbandmen, and the demiurgi or handicraftsmen. The government was wholly in the hands of the eupatridte, who alone were citizens in the j)r()per sense. 'Ihe Eupatrid order was divided into four tril)es, called after the son of Jon — Geleon, Hoples, Aegicoreus, Argadeus. Each tribe possessed three phra- triai or clans, and each clan thirty gene or houses. The members of each clan were united by the worship of an heroic ancestor and all the clans were bound together by the common worship of Zeus Herkeios and Appollo Pa- trous. When Attica first comes into the view of. history, it already forms a single state of which Athens is the capi- tal. The kingly period is over. Tbe transition from monarchy to oligarchy was, however, more gradual at Athens than it seems to have been elsewhere in Greece. First, the ])riestly office of the king was taken away, and as the old name basileus implied religious as well as civil authority, he was henceforth called simply the ruler, archon. But the office of archon was still held for life, and was hereditarv. 156 Political Institutions of Greece. The second step was to appoint the archon for ten years. The tliird and last step was to divide the old regal power among nine archons appointed annually, 683 B. C. The first archon called Eponymos, because his name marked the date of official documents, had a general su- pervision of affairs, and in particular was the guardian of orphans and minors; the second archon was high-priest (basileus); tlie third was comrnander-in-chief (polemarch) ; the remaining six were the custodians of law (thesmotetge). After this Solon and Cleisthenes laid the foundation of the Athenian state. Solon abolished the distinctions of eupa- tridte (nobles by birth), geomori (agriculturists) and demiurgi (artizans) of which I spoke before, and intro- duced his property qualifications of which I shall speak presently. Cleisthenes, the leader of the democratic re- torm, whose institutions continued to be in force, with some few exceptions until the overthovv of Athenian in- dependence, created ten new tribes; first dividing the whole territory of Attica into one hundred parts, which he called demoi, or tovvnships, at least the word township or as they say in New England, town, is the nearest word for it in English institutional terms, and assigning ten of them to each tribe ; not, however, ten continuous ones, but so that each tribe might be composed of tovvnships locally separate. The oVjject of this arrangement was, that by the breaking up of the old associations a perfect revolution might be effected in the habits and feelings, as well as in the political organization of the people. But we must beware of looking at these corporations as at political creations similar, e. g. to the American town- ships. The demoi (townstiips) of Attica rendered mostly one political service, namely, the preservation by means of their register, of a genuine list of Attic citizens. For every Athenian was obliged to be a member of some Political Institutions of Greece. 157 township; and no man could be admitted to exercise any- civic rights, until his name was entered npon the roll. Our knowledge on this subject is derived mostly from the oration of Demosthenes against Eubilides, but we can see from the exj^ressions of Demosthenes, that the Athenian demos was by no means anything identical with a modern county or township ; for as I said in my last lecture the Grecians had no other political centre but a city. Even the demoi of Athens, the country cantons or townships, or whatever you might call them, held their most import- ant meetings in Athens. In this city, filled with the most gorgeous public build- ings, all citizens of Attica convened, Athens was the center, the soul of the state, the state itself. But the ancient Grecians could not help seeing, that when every citizen has the same and equal right of determining the course of government, interminable trouble will be the necessary result. Everybody in this country is aware of the precarious state of city government in the United States. The founders of this great Republic and the originators of state institutions in America tried their ut- most to save cities from the dangerous general right of suffrage and to shift the governing power of cities from the population of the city itself to the legislature of the state. You all know how little responsible power, how little legislative or executive power is being vested in any of the officials of the city of Cincinnati ! How insignificant is the power of the mayor of Cincinnati when compared to the power of any of the archons of Atliens! How very small is the power of the councilmen or aldermen of an American town — I mean, of course, their legitimate pow- er — when comi)ared to the power of the Athenian or Roman Senate! And that has been done so for very sound reasons. If cities in America would be vested 158 Political Institutions of Greece. with a great power, say e. g., if the city of Cincinnati would possess the power of abolishing, by means of an election, any of the boards, the board of public affairs, or the board of education, or any other city office — the worst class of the voters in Cincinnati Avould soon be in the ascendancy. Go a step further and suppose that the city of Cincinnati should be empowered to pass laws, and that every citizen in Cincinnati would be entitled to a vote. What would be the next consequence^ ? The poorer class of voters, forming, of course, the majority, would pass a law abolishing all debts, or releasing them from any other kind of obligations. To preclude such monstrous consequences different na- tions have devised different schemes. In America, where no one dared to abolish the general right of suffrage, the state legislature alone has the right of abolishsing city boards or passing laws, and the state legislature again is subject to the supreme court, that serves as a check on the illegitimate encroachments of the state legislature. In Athens and Rome they applied a different contrivance. They declared, once for ever, that although no one shall be deprived of his civic right of voting, still only the wealthy, and consequently more reliable part of the citi- zens, shall enjoy the privilege of being eligible to the offices of the state. Accordingly Solon divided and classed the citizens by their rated property, as first Penta- kosio medimnoi, that is to say, those citizens who had an income of at least 500 drachmae ($100); second Hipp- eis, or the equestrian order, with an income of at least 300 drachmae ($60) ; third the Zeugitae, with an income of 150 drachmae ($30); and fourth the Thetae,or those people whose annual income was less than $30. These sums seem to be very small, but the value of money at different times differs quite enormously; $100 in classical Athens was very much money, perhaps several times as much as in America. Political Institutions of Greece. 159 Kritobulos was worth $10,000, and he was considered a rich man. The father of the orator Demosthenes left his son $17,000. Konoii was worth $50,000. The cele- brated banker Pasion amassed a fortnne of 80 talents, about $100,000. The wife of Alcibiades got a dowry of $12,000, and that was supposed the amplest dowry ever bestowed on an Athenian husband. Alcibiades himself was worth $120,000. The property of all Athenian citi- zens amounted to 20,000 talents according to Boeckh's esti- mation, that is to say, all Athens was worth $23,000,000 in rough estimation. But as I said, we can never go by the mere number of dollars, for the market value, the purchasing-pov/er of money varies enormously. The point is, that Solon, although granting the right of suffrage to every citizen of Athens, whether he was classed among the thetce or among the Pentakosimedimnoi, did not admit any but the wealthier ones to the offices of the State. His reforms hence consisted in doing away with the clannish, aristo- cratic classes of the older regime, where no wealth what- ever could enable a citizen to be appointed archon or councilman unless he was born into one of the higher classes, and in keeping the poorer and less reliable part of the population outside the possibility of ruling. The first of Solon's classes alone could hold the archonship ; the fourth had no political privilege except that of voting in the Assembly. But Solon made the Assembly (ekklesia) what it had never been before, a real power. The will of the sovereign people of Athens was expressed in the Ecclesia. Here were brought before them all matters which, as the supreme ])0wer of the State, they had to order or dispose of — questions of war and peace, treaties and alliances, levying of troops, raising of supplies, religi- ous ordinances, bestowing of citizenship; likewise the election of a great variety of magistrates, aml)assadors, i6o Political Institutions of Greece. commissioners, etc. Anciently the people used to assem- ble once only in each Pritany, or ten times a year. Afier the democracy had grown stronger they met every week. These were called the ordinary or regular assemblies. On what days they were held is not kncnvn ; the Athenians avoided meeting on holidays or unlucky days. The As- sembly used anciently to be held in the market-place. Afterward it was transferred to the theatre of Bachus. But it might be held anywhere, either in the city or the Piraeus, or elsewhere. The assemblies were usually convened by the presidents of the council (I shall speak of the council later on) who published r.otice four days before, specifying the day of meeting and the business to be transacted.' All citizens of the age of twenty, who had been duly registered, were entitled to attend and vote. Before the business of the day commenced, a sacrifice of purification was offered. The lustral victims were young pigs, whose blood was car- ried around and sprinkled on the seats, while at the same time incense was burned in a censer. The crier then pro- nounced a form of prayer and commination, imploring the gods to bless and prosper the consultations of the people, and imprecating a curse on all enemies and trai- tors. The chairman then opened the business of the day. If any bill had been prepared by the council, it was read by the crier or usher, and the people were asked if it met their approbation. If there was no opposition, it passed. Any citizen, however, might oppose it, or move an amend- ment. Every member of the Assembly was at liberty to speak, but only once in a debate. According to the insti- tution of Solon, those who were above fifty years old were first called upon, and afterward the younger men. But this custom fell into disuse. Although all citizens had the right of speaking, the privilege was, of course, exercised by a few only, who felt themselves competent to the ta-k ; it was not very easy to get up after a speech of Lysias, Political Institutions of Greece. i6i Isaeos, Isocrates, or Demosthenes and address the Assem- bly in a befitting way. Whoever rose to speak, put on a wreath of myrtle, as a token that he was performing a public duty, and entitled, on that account, to respect. It was a breach of decorum to interrupt the speaker. When the debate was ended the chairman j)ut the ques- tion to the vote. The method of voting was either by show of hands (cheirotonia) or by ballot. Show of hands was the most common. When all the business was con- cluded, the crier, by command of the president, dismissed the assembly. A decree having been carried by the votes of the people, was copied on a tablet, and deposited by the secretary among other public records in the temple of Cybele. The great power of the Assembly and of the people was held in control by the Areopagos. This council, so called from the Hill of Mars (Ares), where it held its sit- tings near the Acropolis, was a judicial and deliberative body greatly esteemed at Athens. It was from time immemorial established as a court of criminal jurisdiction, to try cases of murder, maiming and arson. It sat in the open air, to esca])e the pollution of being under the same roof with the guilty. In its proceedings the utmost solemnity was observed. Both parties were sworn to speak the truth, and the facts alone were inquired into, without regard to the feelings or oratorial display. The Areopagos used to be taken from the noble families of Attica. But Solon introduced a new law, that the Arch- ons, whose official conduct had been approved, should be members of this council for life. At the same time he enlarged the power of the council, attaching to it political and censorial duties, in order that with the council of 500, the senate, it might act as a check upon the demo- cracy. In their censorial character the Areopagos kept watch over the religion and morals of the city, maintained 1 62 Political Institutions of Greece. order and decency, looked to the education of the young, enquired how the people got their living, and checked riotous excesses and debauchery. We read of their enter- ing houses on feast days to see that the guests were not too numerous. A party in Athens consisted of three per- sons, ^according to the number of the graces, or of nine, according the number of the nine muses. Anything above that was considered excessive. Had not the Areo- pagos maintained a high character for justice, prudence and moderation it would have been imposbible for such inquisitorial and summary powers to have been tolerated in a free state like Athens. In later times the power of the Areopagos, however, was considerably curtailed. The second check on the power of the democratical assembly was the senate, Boule, or as it was called, the coun- cil of the 500. This was an executive and deliberative body, appointed to manage various departments of the public business, more especially that vi^hich related to the popular assembly. They were annually chosen by lot, in • Solon's time, from the three first classes only, but after- wards from the body of the whole people — with no other re- striction than that they must be genuine citizens on both the father's and the mother's side, and of the age of thirty. At the expiration of their year of office they had, like all other functionaries, to render an account of their official conduct to the auditor. For the more convenient de- spatch of business, the tribes apportioned the year among them and took the duties in rotation. The council was thus divided into ten bodies of fifty men, who were called Prytanes, or Presidents, and who for the time represented the whole council. Their term of office was called a Prytany. As the lunar year consisted of 354 days, it was so arranged that there were six Prytanies of 35 days each, and four of 36. The turns w'ere determined by lot. The council was to be according to Solon's design, a sort of Political Institutions of Greece. 163 directorial committee, to assist the people in their delibera- tions and to guide and control their acts in assembly. It was their duty to discuss beforehand and also to prepare, and in proper form, the measures that were to be sub- mitted to the people. Besides preparing questions for the assembly, the council had a right to issue ordinances of their own, which, if not set aside by the people, re- mained in force for the year. The executive duties of the council were very numer- ous. The whole financial department of the admistration was under their control. The income of the Athenian state was between 1,200-1,500 talents ($2,000,000), out- side the tribute of dependent states. Taxes were paid, but not regularly. Neither the Athenians nor the Romans had an idea that the first duty of a law-abiding citizen is to pay taxes. On the contrary, taxes were very irregular and in case of a successful war, as e.g., after the great Macedonian war of the Romans, where an enorm- ous booty had been made, no taxes were paid at all for 150 years. The census in Athens (where it was called Timema), or in Rome was instituted not with a direct ob- ject of levying so and so many drachmae, or Roman asses annually on the property of the citizens. For. in some years no taxes whatever were levied. It was instituted simply to know who "was the wealthy and who was the poor citizen; for the wealthy citizen had more power, more privileges than the poor. These are the contours of the Athenian state. We see an assembly of all citizens, which meets almost twice every week, and apparently determines and rules everything by a majority of votes. But there were mighty checks on the activity of the assembly. On the one hand the Ar- eopagos, on the other hand the senate — the council of the 500 — they both controlled the actions of the ecclesia, of the assembly. In fact the ultimate law-giver in Athens 164 Political Institutions of Greece. was not to be found in theecclesia. For any law, or as it was called, any psephisma, passed in the assembly could be rejected by a board of six law-revisors, called nomothetJB, in this respect similar to the supreme courts of a state in the Union. A bill, a psephisma acquired the full vigor of law, became a nomos, a real law, only after having been approved of by the nomothetae. Even this short sketch of Athenian politics will enable you to see that the Athenian conmonwealih consisted of a most re- fined and intricate system of checks and balancing powers. Even an ordinary lawsuit required quite an ap- paratus of officials. No less than several hundred jurors were acting as judges of both fact and law in an Athenian lawsuit. The Athenian would have been afraid of such a small number of jurors, namely, twelve, as are impaneled in this country. They thought the more jurors, that is to say the more judges, for the judge proper was of little ac- count in an Athenian lawsuit, and there was no cross-ex- amination, the less chance there was for bribery. And con- sequently there were 6000 judges in Athens elected annual- ly to serve as jurors in civic and criminal cases they were called Heliastae. Now represent to yourself the immense amount of labor and attention which every single citizen in Athens was expected to do for public affairs. He had to go twice a week at least to the ecclesia; he could not absent himself ; in the beginning heavy fines, later on considerable re- wards — up to three obols were paid to every voter on entering the assembly hall. Birt entering the hall was nothing, he had to stay there, and listen patiently to all the orations, else he could not vote. On days when there was no meeting of the assembly, he had most probably to be one of the many hundred jurors in a civil or criminal case ; or he had to attend to the business of Political Institutions of Greece. 165 phratria or his demos, or he was engaged in one of the numberless wars, continental and naval, of his state. What was the next and most immediate consequence of all this? The average Athenian never came to be con- scious of his own self, of his private individuality, he was nothing but a member of the state; he was as Aristotle said, a zoon politikon, a political animal, a mere tool in the hands of the state. This was still more the case with Sparta. Sparta, or rather Laconia was, to describe it shortly, an aristocracy. There were three classes of peo- ple : 1. The Spartans proper, who were all soldiers, and considered themselves pure nobles. 2. The pericekoi, or commons, that is to say, free- holders, with very little or no right in the administration of the state, although they had to take part in the military expeditions of the Spartans very frequently. 3. The helotae, or what English jurists would call vil- lains, people in bondage, without any. political right what- ez'er. A Spartan, from his very childhood was constantly en- gaged in state affairs, he was absolutely imbued with the idea of being a mere representative of the state, a person whose duty, whose delight, whose only honor it is to live and to die for his state. In fact to die for the state was the more ordinary lot of a Spartan, for very few died at home. They were fierce, cold, taciturn warriors, engaged in constant warfares. Accordingly their national assem- blies were comparatively rare, their kings and ephors had very little to do, their laws were few in number, lawsuits were seldom, and criminal proceedings were settled with rough abruptness. A Spartan down to the time of the Pelo- ponesian war was no son.nofather, no brother, almost no hu- man being, he was a citizen, nothing else. Is such acurious creature likely to possess a strong individuality of its own? 1 66 Political Institutions of Greece. All Sparta had a marked individuality in contradistinction to Corinth, Argos or Athens. But an individual Spartan was nothing but an exact copy of the general type. To this prevailing tendency of mere types there was an ex- ception — those Greek cities that were governed by Greek tyrants. The Greek tyrants had all possible reasons to engage their citizens as little as possible in political affairs, they gave them festivals of all kinds, but they tried to keep them indifferent to all state affairs, and consequently, the citizens of such cities do not show that t) pical uniformity of other Greek cities. Some of these tyrants were real benefactors, such as Pittacus, of Mythilene, Periander, of Corinth, and Pisistratus, of Athens. But after all, tyranny in ancient Greece was an exceptional thing. The rule was the case of the Athenian citizen, in other words the rule was that a Grecian was the creation of his state, the copy, the abstract, of his state? his state reduced to minimum dimensions. Now then, what kind of religion will possibly suit such people ? Mark tne chief point : We treat now of a people, where private individuality as apart of political individuality does scarcely exist. The private man or woman seeks consolation, assistance in religion. He prays to God for help, for comfort, for benign grace, he prays for his brother, his father, his friend. Tlie private man is afraid of trespassing, he dreads his sin, the sin of his family; the private man wants to be saved, he wants to be assured that after this life another life will commence, a better life, a higher life; the private man feels the need of atonement, of purifica tion, of bliss. The private man, therefore, craves for a merciful God, for a God full of divine sympathy for the sufferings of man, for the little and great stings and pangs of private life. But where there is no private man, where there is only a state? What does a state care for sins? Political Institutions of Greece. 167 A state as such is no sinner. A state never dieu — hence it does not care for the life after death. A state is not ten- der, not affectionate, not impulsive — and so it does not care for a tender or affectionate Deity. In fact, a state of the Grecian type needs many gods, not one God. A state, whose every single citizen meddles with every de- tail of the whole administration, needs many Gods of different character, of different shape, of different attrac- tion. The people in a Grecian city had to be kept in con- trol by superhuman agencies because the human powers, just on account of their democratical institutions, were not sufficient. In Athens they had a public religious festival almost every fifth day. Now in honor of Bacchus, and now in honor of Neptune, and now in honor of Athene, and now again in honor of Apollo. And at these festivals every single citizen had a very good time too. They were defrayed out of the pub- lic treasury. But, besides having a good time, these citi- zens got accustomed to unite in worship, and this union is by far the strongest in existence. Either of the one — if there are no saints, a whole variety of saints, as one of the creeds does grant it — there must be polysectism on earth as in England, where as I said before there are at present 122 religious denominations or polytheism in hea- ven. The Gods and Goddesses of ancient Greece were in the first place magistracies, heavenly magistracies, elected in every city, heavenly boards of public work, idealized by all the artistic refinements of poets, ])ainters and sculptors. They are the complementary part of what was lacking and missing on earth. When the democratic, and consequently jealous and envious citizens of a Greek city could not agree as to a certain measure, they went to Delphi or Dodona, to the oracle, asking Apollo for advice, that is to say, they were too jealous of their right ot mu- tual equality as to grant a power of decision to any of their i68 Political Institutions of Greece. fellow citizens, and so they rather left the decision with Apollo — in the same way as they elected many of their magistrates by lot so as to obviate the influence of the more gifted persons. It is altogether a question of power. The less power you grant on the one side, the more power you have to grant to the other side. The father in Athens had little power, the mother still less; the guardian almost none; the church was not yet existent; the state consisted of ever fluctuating mag" istracies. By what then shall the people be kept in con- trol? By the mere abstract idea of the Deity? Does or did ever a people consist only of philosophers, of men who are deeply impressed by mere abstract ideas? Never. Hence there was a need, an inextinguishable need for a variety of divine beings, of deities of sur- passing beauty, of glorious appearance, of bewildering majesty, one for the first of January, and one for the fifth, and one for the eleventh, and one for the seventeenth, and so forth. There was a need of numberless divine beings because of the dedication of those matchless temples of Greece; for a temple in Greece was not des- tined for the pious soul to go therein and pray to his God. They prayed at home — they never went to church as we do — they prayed at home — they had only festivities in their churches — the church was the exclusive home of the God — it was his abode — his place of office as it were — the private man had nothing to do with it. For the God was not the God of man, of an individual, of a private person. He was the God of a state — a bright, sunny, jo- vial God, loving and beloved, averse to sorrow, enjoying his eternal life as thoroughly as possible. There was po gloom, no suUenness about those Gods — for the state as such is never gloomy — they were all beauty, happiness and splendour. The state needed liappy, cheerful citi- zens, and so he gave them happy, cheerful Gods. The Political Institutions of Grefxe. 169 state created, admitted Gods, or cancelled them, abolished them — just as it was creating or abolishing any other ofifice. In Athens as in Rome the admission of a new deity was formally put to the vote of the people, and was acted upon m the form of a bill. There was no priest- hood. One of the archons, a civilian, superintended the religious ceremonies. There was no priesthood, I say, because the state itself was the priest, because the Gods were state officials. The merciful God of the private man, the God ot Christianity had not yet been revealed to hiimanity, and until the peculiar frame of the antique city-state had not given way to new political structures, this revelation could not have taken place. With the downfall of the antique city-governments, with the rise of pure human personality above mere citizenship, with the greater development of the inner man and the less ex- uberant growth of the political being — there came a pro- found craving for another divinity, for another heaven, for a father in heaven ; in other words, for the God whom we a'l adore. Ladies and Gentlemen : This is, so far as my knowl- edge goes, the true character of the Greek religion and mythology. SCIENTIFIC DEVELOPMENT OF ANCIENT GREECE. References: — Wheivell, History of the induct, scienc. Vol. T. Delambre, Histoire de 1' Astronomic (Paris, 1S17 21;. Bailly, Hist, do rAstrono -ie ancic-nne. WeiJler, Historia Astronomiae iextolli;^ by De Morgan). Scliia- parelli, G.V., i precursori di Copernico nell'aniichit4, Milano :S73 'on Archylas. Pythagoras, .Nicetas.etc. Mazuclielli^ Notizie istor. crit. s. Ar- chimedc. le invenz.oni ec. Brescia 1737. Montucla, histoire des in'ilhema- tiques. Vol. I. Par. 175S. BrftachneiJer, Griech. iJeora. Cantor, M., Gesch. d. Math Vol.1. AriatotU's Metaphysica. Transl. w. notes on the maih. doe-mas of Plato etc and a dissert, on Nullities and Diverjf Series, by Th. Taylor, Loud. iSoi. Biering, Ch. H., Hist, problemaiis cubi duplican- di, Hannu 1844. Chasles, ii. Apercu, hist. s. Torig . . . dcs rrfithodes en ggometrie. C/ias/es, S. Les Porismes d'h.uclide. Par. 1S60. Lezves, G.H., Aristotle !on the scient. works of the Stigiritei. Cantor, M. Kuclid und sein /ahrhdt., Leips. 1S67. Matliematicorum zeterum opera, ed. Thevenot. Par. 1693. Pappus, ed F. Hult^ch. Rothlauf, B., Die Math, zu Plato's Zeit u. in seinen Werken. Jena 1S7S. Berger. Exposition de la Philosophic de Proclus. Par. 1841. Ptolemy, Works, ed. Didot. Humboldt's Kosmos, Vol. II. F. Hoefer, Hist des .Matheraatiques Par. JS74 (on Pythagoras^. Grant, Rob., History of Physical Astronomy. Ladies and Gentlemen : In our first two lectures on ancient Greece I treated of the social, the political and the religious institutions of ancient Greece. I tried to show the intimate connection between these three factors of a nation's life, and pre- eminently I endeavored to prove that the political insti- tutions of Greece were the first and richest fountains of all other institutions of this classical country. I proceed now to a discussion of another aspect of Greek life — of the scientific life of the Grecians, of the nature and pro- gress of Grecian science in classical times. For the Gre- cians were not only the greatest artists the world has ever seen, they have not only developed the most beautiful type of the human physique, they have not onh'' given us the most marvellous example of great statesmanship, of heroic self-sacrifice, of political wisdom and liberty, they have besides given us the first as well as the real pattern of genuine science; they are the first people in point of time as well as in point of quality, who possessed in the highest degree what has to be considered as the most nee- Scientific Development of Greece. 171 essary ingredient of scientific treatment ; I mean the power of abstraction. To 00k at things in an abstract \yay. to part from the immediate and as it were gross impression furnished by the senses, this is the first and most primi- tive of all requisites for a scientific investigation. Science deals with abstracts, with things that are not really exist- ent in external nature, but with things that have a mental existence only. Take e. g. geometry. A geometrical line is a mere mental being, it does not exist, for a geo- metrical line is supposed to possess no breadth at all, it is supposed to consist of nothing but i)ure length. But such a line does not exist in reality, it is only in the mind, in tha abstraction of the thinker that such a thing exists, and still you know that there is no more practical and useful science than geometry. This power of abstraction is the originating source of science. The Greeks had this power to an extraordinary degree. In fact, although the most realistic people in one sense, they were also the most idealistic na- tion that ever existed. They created numberless visible objects, as cities, harbors, public buildings, temples, stat- ues, monuments of all sorts, but at the same time, they created also numberless invisible ideas, and to the present times all our terms are, and the whole cast of our s{)eech is saturated with Greek. We speak of energy, but this word is the original term of Aristotle, likewise the word quintessence, which, too, originated with the teacher of Alexander, and one of his erroneous opinions. The very word idea is pure Greek in its purpori, and the terms sub- stance, form, matter, theorem, thema, glossn, are either pure Greek or literal translations from the Greek. It is this power of abstraction, of generalization, or as it were of idealization \vhich forms the chief characteristic part of the Grecian mind. This character' manifests itself also in the great terseness of Greek works. All the works of Aristotle, the extant ones at least do not exceed a conve- 172 Scientific Development of Greece. nient quarto-volume, and some of the most valuable of their writings, as the works of Archimedes or Euclid, are still less extensive. Compare with that the huge prolixity of Chinese writers. You remember when I spoke of Chinese literature I mentioned one of their encyclopedias that con- sists of 6109 volumes. All their writings are similarly profuse. Not so the Greeks. They use very few words, and it is the abundance of ideas that makes their writings appear so rich. In treating, however, of science in Greece, I shall speak not of general literature but of science proper, to the exclusion of belletristical literature or of philosophy. For as to the first, as to belletristics, I mean the epical, lyrical poets and the drama, they are already being treated of by members of the faculty of this univer- sity; and as to philosophy, this will form the subject of my next lecture. So that at present, I shall speak only of the scientific progress par excellence, of mathematics and astronomy, of physics and physiology of the ancient Grecians. But we can not approach our problem without some further preparation. You all know that our principal ob- ject is history, in other words, that we try to get a fair in- sight into the causes of those manifold events which in their aggregate form the civilization of mankind. Treat- ing, therefore, of the scientific development of the Gre- cians, I do not intend to give you all the dogmatical de- tails of their science, I do not intend to recite the thirteen books of Euclid, or the books of Archimedes on tke lever, or of Hipparchos on the theory of the moon. That is not part of my duty. All that 1 am going to do will consist in a characterization of these great men and their works chiefly in connection with the scientific development of Greek civilization, of which they form one of the most valuable and important products. And thus I shall approach that question, which for the historian is the most Scientific Development of Greece. 173 interesting one, to-wit : why did tlie Greeks take so pro- foundly to the cultivation of abstract science ? This ques- tion lies at the very threshold of our present subject, and we must try to answer it. And it is not an idle question, for there have been numberless other nations, more pow- erful, more numerous, richer and older than the Grecians, but they all failed to attain that transcendant elevation of thought which seemed to be the very natural abode of all Grecians, for Greek civilization was not restricted to the peninsula that bears their name in modern times. The city of Marseilles, in South France, founded by Greeks, although at a very remote distance from the motherland, was no less a purely Greek city, than Athens or Corinth. Wherever Grecians carried their forms of city-government and their institutions, there science and art budded forth as an invariable result. The great names of Greek science came from all quarters, they are not restricted to Athens. Aristotle was a Macedonian; Thales, a Milesian; Hero- dot a Halicarnassean of Asia Minor, Archimedes a Syra- cusan, Sicily; Hip[)archus from Nicaea in Bythinia, etc. The genius for science is, therefore, an attribute of all Grecian cities and colonies. It stands in marvellous con- trast to the Romans. The greatness of the Roman people, the almost incredible influence they had on the course of all civilization is too well-known as to stand in need of any further explanation. To the present almost every single individual has to feel the gigantic power of this people, and the traces of this influence may be noticed in half the languages and institutions of all modern jjcople. In all North and South America the ruling peoples use idioms of a more or less Roman cast, and numberless cities, as e. g. the city of Cincinnati, have been named after Roman generals and colonels. But if we ask, what this great and i)owerful people has ever done for the promotion of Science, we have to draw 1/4 Scientific Development of Greece. an entirely different picture. The influence of Roman scientists or philosophers is next to nothing; it certainly dwindles into absolute insignificance when compared to the influence of Greek scientists and philosophers. With the exception of one science — I mean, of course, the Sci- ence of Law — the Romans have never achieved great or very valuable results in Science. Their mind, otherwise so penetrating and keen, so subtle and shrewd, seemed to become obtuse and blunt as soon as questions of Science had to be handled. Their system of Politics was one of the most sagacious and profound elaborations of the human mind, as we shall see later on. But with all this sagacity they could not, down to the time of the second Punic war, compute the area of a triangle, and their knowledge of astronomy was the most primitive one. At the very same time the Greeks had already the most elaborate system of Geometry and Kinematics, of Astronomy and Physics. Could we not explain this difference ? Is there no possi- bility to account for this remarkable fact ? But of course, when I say account for it, I mean account for it not by merely putting one word in the place of another word, but by really explaining it. M^st historians will simply say that the Grecians excelled in sientific work, because their race had a special gift for it. But this special race-gift is only a special absurdity. You remember, from earlier lectures, how very much opposed I am to slipping in th.e race-hobby whenever you don't know how to account for a thing in a really appropriate way. Everything is race. You remember when I had to speak of the monotheism of the ancient Hebrews, I expressed my utmost aversion to Renan's view of this important question. Renan ascribes the monotheism of the ancient Hebrews to a quality of race; to an inward character of all Semitic tribes. Like wise many, yea, the majority of historians ascribe the great achievements of the Greeks in Science to a genius. Scientific Development of Greece. 175 to a quality of race. If we should go on in the same way; if we should use this one poor term for an explanation of the chief events in history, then our scientific study of his- tory has come to an end. Then there is no need of any further study ; then everything can be settled off-hand by a plain reference to one or another race quality. Then we v/ill know why the Germans are so musical— it is a race quality with them ; and why the Romans were such great lawyers — it is, of course, one of their race qualities; or why the Americans are such great inventors — it is, of course, a race quality again. Such explanations, however, have to be absolutely abandoned. They do not explain anything at all ; they give a mere word for another word. In fact, there are very satisfactory and clear reasons why the Romans did not achieve any other great scientific works but legal ones, and why the Germans, and not the Englishmen, have produced the greatest musicians ; and why the Americans abound in inventions, or to return to our starting-point, why the Greeks made such enor- mous progress in abstract Science. I say there are satisfactory and clear reasons for this latter fact, and I am about to state these reasons: In my first lecture on Greece I dilated on the exclusive city-life of the Grecians. I tried to describe, as vividly as I could, the great influence of city-life on the rapid development of the intelligence of men. I said that Greeks, whether in southern France or in Asia Minor or in the Crimea (for they had settlements and colonies all over the civilized ancient world), lived exclusively in cities, and I made the inference that this one circumstance was the most powerful agent in the de- velopment of their intellectual faculties. The difference between a college-life and a farmer's life, so far as the cul- tivation of mental faculties is concerned, is perhaps not as vast as is the difference between the life in a village and the one led by the majority of people in India or ancient Ger- 1/6 Scientific Development of Greece. many and city-life as it was carried on in Greece or Rome or in the American Union. The mental resources of people in the city are not only doubled but quadrupled. Hence a greater number of gifted and ambitious persons will arise in cities than in villages. But these gifted persons look for a chance to vent their talents, to be in possession of commanding positions or of riches^ of great social influence, etc., etc. Now the question is: Does the community offer these chances ? Is there a possibility for such a satisfaction of ambitious talents ? Are there suflScient offices in the State or in the church or in the trade or somewhere, where those higher-endowed persons may exert their ability and thus satisfy themselves ? This being then the question, let us try to apply it to what we heard of the State and society of Greece in our former lectures. We learned that in Greek cities everybody was almost constantly, daily engaged in the government and administration of the State. Every single citizen was almost daily active as either a juror or a voter in the As- sembly, or a commissioner in his clan, in his phratria — in one word, every citizen was active in one way or an- other in a political hne. But where so many citizens had to be employed at one and the same time none could be vested with a prominent share of power ; every single citi- zen had a share in the government or administration of the State, but few or none had a large share. In none of the Greek cities do we find as powerful offices, as imposing political centres, as those of Rome, The power and influence of a Roman consul, or of a Roman dictator, censor, praetor, pontifex maximus, aedilis, tnbunus, and even quaestor and the power and influence of the senate was perfectly enormous. There is nothing analogous to it in all Greek history. In Athens the right to move an amendment to a law was granted to every citi- zen; in Rome it was restricted to the consul, praetors, tri- Scientific Development of Greece. 177 bune and dictators , that is to say to four or five persons. In Athens the judges were so many that none of them could leave a mark on civil procedure. In Rome the judge was appointed by the prsetor, but he was clothed with almost unlimited power. It would carry me too far if I were to trace the difference into all its ramifications. It will suffice to remark that Rome abounded in single powerful offices, the possession of which could justly form the subject of many a profound ambition. In addition to that came the large conquests of the Romans, which gave rise to che coveted position of a provincial governor. In short all talent and ambition of Rome and Italy found its natural and satisfactory vent in political channels. There is scarcely any Roman of some prominence in literature or law that has not, at the same time, been the incum- bent of some great office of the state. Julius Caesar, the model historian, was the general and imperator of the Romans. Cicero was sedilis, quaestor, praetor, consul and propraetor. The historian Sallustius, was praetor and provincial governor; the elder Pliny, the Humboldt of the Romans, as Miss Somersville has characterized him, was general and propraetor; the younger Pliny, the graceful au- thor of classical letters, was in turn the incumbent of almost all offices; the great jurists as Salvias Julianus, Ulpian, Pap- inian and a host of others were all the incumbents of power- ful offices. They were either praefectus praetorio, or pro- praetor, or in similar great office. But if we compare that to the state of things in Greece — what do we find? The very opposite thing. In Grecian states there was scarcely a place for genius, except the case of a war. In peace- ful times the offices were filled with masses of people ; there was no room and no need for great men; the part played by the individual man in office was far too insigni- cant as to be coveted by a man of genius. Aristotle never craved, never ran for an office; nor did Plato; nor Hera- 178 Scientific Development of Greece. klit, nor Parmenides, nor Archimedes, Euclid or Hippar- tus. Occasionally it occurred that one city would offer the government of their community to one man of high attain- ments, as was the case with the people of Mythilene, who asked the philosopher Pittakus to be their ruler. But this was the exception. As a rule a man of genius, if he had no leaning towards military glories, could not find a worthy po- litical place of activity. Nor was there much or any chance in the ecclesiastical line, for the church and its hierachy was not yet existent. All the abundant surplus of genius, therefore, unable to find an outlet in politics or in any other external way, was thrown back on its own resources, on its inner world, and hence gave himself to a devoted cultivation of ideas, of science. Almost all scientific thinkers of Greece were private men in no great office whatever; men of whose lives, as a rule, we know very little. We know very little about the lives of Aristotle, of Theophrastus, of Conon, of Euclid, of Archimedes, of Eratosthenes. They were more or less secluded scholars, in whose lives little or nothing remarkable happened. All the events of tjieir lives were marked by a few scientific terms, by a diagram, as e. g. , with Archimedes. This most extraordinary genius wanted to have the form of a cylinder, containing a pyramid and a sphere, to be en- graved on his tombstone, for he considered his formula, by which we determine the ratio of these geometrical bodies, as the greatest and most telling event of his life. He and all other Greek thinkers spent their lives amidst their problems and their scholars. In ancient Greece tuition in science was more or less gratuitous. They had no colleges or universities or any other high-schools, ex- cept for oratory and elocution. In Rhodes, in Athens, and in some other cities of Greece, great collegiate schools for oratory were founded early in the second century. Scientific Development of Greece. 179 B. C, where tuition was given in the art of addressing an assembly, of persuading masses of people, winning the favor of the voters, and carrying on an elegant conversa- tion. To these schools not only Grecians but even Romans flocked, as among others Cicero, who received his training in the isle of Rhodes. The whole chraracter of the antique civilization tended to a careful cultivation of oratory, and a good talker was considered a person of great significance. As to the art of talking there are no greater masters than the Greeks, and narrators like Homer the poet, or Hcrodotos the historian, have not lost a par- ticle of their charm in the course of 2,000-3,000 years. This prediliction for refined talk and elocution as a national trait of character, is, amon^ all modern nations, to be found only in the United States of America. It will be astonishing perhaps, for some of you, that such things as schools of elocution do not exist in Europe. Nobody thinks of establising such a school that was so frequent in ancient Greece and Rome, and is so frequent in the modern United States. Nobody would attend it, nobody would care for it. It is very important to notice such things, because they are indicative of the divergen- cies in national institutions and discrepancies in the whole structure of a people's organism. The politcal and social stuctiire of the United States being essentially similar to the political structure of Greek and Roman states— of course making allowance for difi'"erences in religion and some customs — it is but very natural that we should very frequently meet with the same phenomena both in Greece and America. But to return to Greek science. At pres- ent we are so used to the fact that science has nothing to do with poetry or religion, that it would seem to us per- fectly ridiculous were anyone to publish a treatise on geo- metry, e. g., in metrical and rhymed verse. i8o Scientific DeX^elopiMent of Greece. Similarly would it appear absolutely inappropriate to treat of good deeds and pure conscience together with a theory of the lever or the circulation of the blood. But utterly incompatible as those things may seem to us, they did not appear so to other nations or at other times. The Brahman Hindoos e. g. did not feel any incompatibility between mathematics and poetry. In fact, if you should happen to read Sir H. Cole- brooke's work on the arithmetic and algebra of the Hin- doos, you would be quite astonished at that peculiar com- bination of the tenderest poetry with the severest mathe- matics. Say e. g. Bramagupta or Bhaskara Acharya, or any other of the Brahman mathematicians will begin his problem by first giving you a charming description of a young, beautiful girl who stands before a pond of smooth and unruffled surface. There she stands musing and gaz- ing at a lotos flower whose root is in the bottom of the pond, and whose head sticks out from the surface of the pond waving to and fro in thoughtful meditation, as Lilivathi, the Hindoo book I am referring to says. After a while a soft westwind rises and bends the head of the lotus .flower slowly, slowly into the water, until the lotus flower dis- appears from sight. When you arrive at this point of the poem, written in most sonorus Sanskrit verse, the quaint mathematician will sud- denly in the midst of all poetical verses start the question : Can you tell the beautiful girl gazing at the pond how many feet deep the pond is ? And in fact, as we all know the data given in the poetical description, if translated into numbers are perfectly sufficient to compute the depth of the pond. To our modern taste, the beautiful young girl, the description of the pond and of the thought- ful lotos flower in a treatise on geometry is quite super- fluous. We treat of young girls in poetry, or we impro- vise on them in music, and of the lotos flower we treat in Scientific Development of Greece. i8i botany. But to the Hindoo mind these things did not jar — their mind was too naive to discern the incongruity. Similarly other nations treated of mathematics or jjhy- sics in connection with religion or ethical subjects, e. g. the Hebrews tried to find the ratio between the circum- ference of a circle and its diameter by means of a passage in the First Book of Kings, in the 7th chapter, where it is said Solomon built a molten sea ten cubits from the one brim to the other, and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about. That would give the well-known number of Ludolf, or the ratio between the circumference and the di- ameter as 3 to I, a very incorrect ratio. But no Hebrew thinker would have dared to doubt the correctness of the sacred book, and so Ludolf's number had to give in. Compare with that the way a Grecian treated the mat- ter. He did not recur to a book ot religious character, he did not ask for any authority, he simply relied on the strength of his own subtle mind, inquiring into the ques- tion irrespective of all other but scientific considerations. Of course I speak of Archimedes, who by his method of exhaustion, as he called it, arrived at the immeasurably more correct result, that the number in question is equal to a number lying between 3 10-71 and 3 10-70. This truly scientific method of divesting a problem of all irrelevant, incompatible elements and pursuing the course of the real constituent parts of a conception will be still more manifest when we compare the results of the scientific labors of other coeval nations with the labors of the Oreeks. You all heard of the great thorem of Py- thagoras, the foundation of all mathematics, or as it has been called the magister matheseos. Without this one theorem nothing can be done in mathematics, not in lower and not in higher mathematics. It is the groundwork of the whole edifice. It is said that Pythagoras after having discovered his celebrated theorem, felt such profound 1 82 Scientific Deoelopment of Greece. gratitude for this boon bestowed upon him by the gods that he made to them a holocaust of loo oxen. To this, by the way, one of the German writers made the classical remark, that ever since that time all oxen are afraid of the theorem of Pythagoras. This theorem teaches us how to compute the length of one side of a right-angled triangle, when the two other sides are given. The Egyptians had to encounter the same difficulty. In their monumental buildings they had frequently to face the question, how to figure out the length of one side of a triangle when the two others are given. But all they ever were able to arrive at was this: They knew that when a log is three feet long, and another four feet long, in that case a log of exactly five feet long will complete a right-angled tri- angle; that is to say these three logs together will form such a triangle. But what shall be done, if two of the logs were six and seven feet long respectively — they never succeeded in finding out. The formula of Pythagoras on the other hand enables us to meet all possibilities, whether the vary- ing length of the logs is 6, 7, 8, 9, xo or whatever it may be. In short, the formula of Pythagoras is general, it is not a mere empirical observation, it is a generalized law, that covers the whole ground. It is in this particular quality wherein we must find the chief glory of Grecian science. By dint of that extraordinary power of abstract- ion that I mentioned before the'y usually struck out not only a narrow, crafty contrivance for a few practical tricks, but the very principle of the thing. You all remember the interesting story of Archimedes and the golden crown of King Hiero of Syracuse. Hiero, it is said, had set Archimedes to discover whether or not the gold which he had given to an artist to work into a crown for him had been mixed with baser metal. Archimedes was puzzled till one day as he was stepping into a bath Scientific Development of Greece. 183 and observed the water running over it occurred to him that the excess of bulk occasioned by the introduction of alloy could be measured by putting the crown and an equal weight of gold separately into a vessel filled with water, and observing the difference of overflow. He was so over" joyed when this happy thought struck him, that he ran home without his clothes, shouting, "eureka, eureka — I have found it, I have found it." But instead of merely discovering the fraud of the gold- smith, Archimedes penetrated far beyond the immediate problem, and established the fundamental principle still known by his name that a body immersed in a liquid sus- tains an upward pressure equal to the weight of the liq- uid displaced. So that a mere practical problem led him to the discovery of the fundamental principle of Hydro- statics. It was the same case with another celebrated pro- blem. The oracle in Delphi was not averse to donations and gifts. In fact the Grecian gods were fond of jewelry and gold, and those who wanted to consult the Pythian god, had more chance to get a favorable answer when they presented their applications together with some parapher- nalia. During the plague at Athens, which made a dreadful havoc in that city, some persons being sent to Delphos to consult Apollo, the deity promised to put an end to the destructive scourge, when an altar, double to that which had been erected to him, should be constructed. The artists who were immediately dispatched to double the altar, thought they had nothing to do in order to comply with the demand of the orcacle, but to double its dimen sions. But here they met with almost insurmountable diffi- culties. It is very easy to double the length of a line, but it is very difficult to double the size of a cube equally 184 Scientific Development of Greece. on all sides. Occasioned by this question of priestly of- ferings, the Grecian mathematicians, especially Conon, set to work and invented a whole series of curves and theorems by means of which the duplication of a cube can be effected. Those theorems are to the present day extremely valuable, and we learn them in all schools of higher education. But as I said before, I mentioned these problems merely to illustrate the general character, the spirit of Grecian thought that had a constant tendency to soar from the narrow range of the practical, of the imme- diate into the lofty atmosphere of the abstract principle, thereby viewing a problem from its most comprehensive standpoint. None of the Greek thinkers have left us more perfect specimens of this truly scientific treatment of problems, then the immortal Stagirite: Aristotle. With the exception of those sacred names to which the founda- tion of religion has been attached, there is no name in the whole history of the human mind that has commanded a similar influence over the thoughts and opinions of men, as Aristotle. His correct and true opinions as well as his most fallacious and erroneous tenets have exercised an incredible sway on the science of twenty-two centuries. He has been extolled to the skies, and it was considered sheer sacrilege to doubt one word of any of his writings ; again his works were banished from several universities, and sometimes the Popes threatened him with excommu- nication, who should dare to lecture on Aristotle publicly, or even read his books. Until recently, his writings were considered the foun- tain head of all wisdom by the one, and as absolute over- ridden antiquities by the other. To write the history of the Aristotelian philosophy, of the fate of his scientific works in different ages is next to impossible, for that would imply a history of the mental development of all civilized nations of Europe, Arabia and Scientific Development of Greece. 185 Persia, and other countries. Whether Aristotle really was a great scientific thinker or not — this question has not yet been settled unanimously. It is not many years since that G. H. Lewes, the celebrated author of Goethe's life, pub- lished a book on Aristotle's Merits in Science. 'i'he book shows all the multifarious learning of the friend of George Eliot's, all the solid knowledge of natural science, that is but natural with the author of the " Seaside Studies," and the well-known "Physiology of Common Life." But although in the conclusion of his book, Lewes is more inclined to do justice to the incomparable great- ness of Aristotle; in the course of his book he censures him very severely. He finds fault with almost every part of the scientific writings of Aris- totle, he refuses him all titles to anticipated discov- eries. Lewes would not advise anybody to devote his his time to a study of Aristotle ; on the contrary, he would advise everybody to leave it be, to rather take up the moderns, the Lavoisiers, Bichats, Cullens, Hunters, Virchows and Lewes himself. From this I differ abso- lutely. I do not mean to say that a study of the Zoology of Aristotle, of the " De Partibus Animalium," e. g., will benefit you more than a study of Milnes Edward's or Wal- lace's works on zoology. But I would advise every student to read Aristotle anyhow, under all circumstances, by all means. If I had to make my choice under the limitation, that my whole library should consist of only one hundred books, I would not hesitate for a moment to let Aristo- tle's scientific works be one of the one hundred books; and if the limitation would be still more narrowed, if it would be cut down to fifty books, Aristotle would still hold his place: and if I should be allowed to possess no more than ten volumes, Aristotle would continue to be one of the ten. Any real student of Aristotle will readily 1 86 Scientific Development of Greece. understand this high estimation. The suggestiveness, the comprehensiveness of Aristotle is unparallelled. His very errors are of the greatest moment. There is a vast differ- ence between the error of an ordinary mind, and the error of genius. An error of an ordinary spirit is indicative of nothing but the weak mind of the poor person erring. It is shallow, limited ; it is not the fertile source of corrective thought, it is barren, shortlived, stale. But the error of genius is full of force, of negative force, it is indicative not only of a short-coming, of an ill-directed activity in the mind of the thinker but of a lack of har- mony in the subject-matter itself; it is the fruitful source of progressive ideas, it is like the outburst of lava that dis- plays the inner constitution of the deep strata. Certainly, Aristotle errs frequently. The experience of twenty-two centuries has taught us a good many things that he could not have known. But his errors are the stray thoughts of genius, and it can be easily proved that some of the most valuable results of modern science have been directly and immediately suggested by the error of the Stageirite It is especially by the works of Lord Bacon that a ten- dency to depreciate, to slight the writings of Aristotle has been inaugurated. The celebrated Chancellor did every- thing in his power (and his power was very considerable) to impress his age and all coming ages with the idea that Aristotle was a mere child in Science ; that he and all the Greeks were no better than mere beginners in the study of Science. Not only that ; they were, he said, not only beginners but mistaken beginners ; they were men who had gone amiss ; who did not pursue the right track of thought ; who failed to apply the" right method to their studies, and who, consequendy, were unable to obtain any really valuable and lasting results. This one sentence of condemnation the Lord Chancellor expressed in different Scientific Development of Greece. 187 forms ; in the shape of jokes, of sarcasms, of ironical remarks, of erudite refutations. It recurs on ahnost every page of his numerous writings; it lurks under the most innocent or indifferent note. He was thoroughly imbued with the idea that we must overcome the Greek way of treating Science ; that the methods of Aristotle are barren and useless; that new, entirely new methods have to be invented; that all Science has to be directed into new channels of thought, and that our whole mental fabric has to be renewed and repaired and remodeled. Up to his time, he said, people were duped by fallacious guides, by the insane methods of Aristotle, and he (Lord Bacon) has undertaken to rid mankind of that shameful yoke ; to clear the way to a real, to a genuine insight into Nature, into Science ; and that his means toward this object consist in the inductive method. Inductive method I That is the great word; that is the parole of Bacon and of the followers of Bacon, and of the domineering majority of English scientists. The inductive method is the way to salvation ; the only way, the only vehicle by means of which we can ever hope to get at precious knowledge. In opposition'to this method, it is said, stands the method of Aristotle — the deductive method, a method that has never led and will never lead to any but phantastical results. The alleged worthlessness of Aristotle's method in Science has so often and by such able writers been asserted, that it is almost a hopeless task to combat this assertion. Among other writers, who will prove to you that Bacon, alone, is the sanctuary of Science and that Aristotle is an author of mere ideal cobwebs, of dreamy gossamers, etc., etc., is also our mutual friend Lord Macaulay. When Thomas Babington was alive it was perfectly useless to try to stop his gushing torrent of talk. He would talk down a whole Parliament ; and the wonder of the thing was that in nine cases out of ten he was an amusing talker, too, so that his 1 88 Scientific Development of Greece. hearers, instead of being bored, listened to him with ever- increasing curiosity, with unceasing pleasure. But after all it was a mental steeple-chase, burling and hustling over houses, meadows, spires, ditches; more bewildering than satisfactory. Now Macaulay, in his Essay on Bacon, be- gins to talk, or rather never ceases to talk, of the superi- ority of the Baconian method in contradistinction to the methods of the ancients, and, of course, Aristotle's meth- ods. I feel confident in saying that ninety persons out of one hundred have formed their ideas about both Bacon and Aristotle by the opinions of Lord Macaulay on these two men of Science, enunciated in this essay, and, of course, all the ninety have sided with the persuasive Lord, who invariably carried his point, whose talk was invincible, and whose arguments were always so specious and always clothed in such admirable language, that instead of calmly examining them, we simply yield to their charm. But the great historian was too little of a scientist to be able to judge of the value of scientific methods. When Walter Bagehot was once asked to write the history of the Bank of England he refused to do so, saying : " It is nonsense to try to improve on what has. been already done by Ma- caulay." And that was perfectly correct. In matters of this kind Macaulay's judgment was supreme. But when it came to Science, to the methods of Mathematics or Physi- ology, then Macaulay's judgment was of very little account. ■ Though an indefatigable and insatiable reader, he never read anything else but literary and historical books. Works on Science were foreign to his studies. And con- sequently his mind was fed by literary and not by scientific arguments. Read his essays as often as you may, especi- ally the gem of all of them (the Essay on Milton), but don't let your judgment in matters of Science be ruled by his opinions, for he was no judge of these things. In fact, in speaking of ancient Science, or what is equivalent to Scientific Development of Greece. 189 that, in speaking of the Aristotelean method, both Macau- lay and Lewes missed the right point. They seemed to beUeve that there must be one, uniform, all-impor- tant method of Science ; that all really-scientific results can be achieved only by means of this one method, and that the originators of this method have been modern thinkers, especially Lord Bacon. This whole conception I deny most peremptorily. There is no such method ; no such one, uniform method, whether inductive or de- ductive ; whether idealistic or materialistic, or whatever you may call it. There is no such thing; there never has been such a thing. Of course, in all ages people pined for such a thing ; for such a general clue to all mysteries of the universe. For such a uniform method would practically be nothing else but a key to everything. If we had to solve a problem, any problem whatever, we would simply apply our method, and there it is; here we have the solution. Such a method, such a general receipt and prescription for all mental ailments was the ideal of thousands of philosophers — of Albertus Magnus, of Ray- mundus Lullus, of Campanella, Telesius, Cartesius, Spinoza, and of Bacon. Each of these men asserted that he possessed the method, and especially Bacon boasted of having pointed out the only, the unique method, the method of all methods. And inasmuch as Aristotle and Theophrastus and Dioscorides and all the other Greek scien- tists were yet ignorant of this Baconian method ; and since they were only in possession of Aristotle's method, they, consequently, all failed, and ignominiously, too. This, I say, I most peremptorily deny. If in reality there would exist such a method, and if Bacon, himself, would have been the inventor, the pos- sessor, the propagator of this one method, of this, as the Germans inimitably say, uUeinseligmachend — method, why did not Bacon, himself, come forth with a lot of new in- 190 Scientific Development of Greece. ventions? Why did not he enrich the storehouses of science with one single new tenet or rule or contrivance? Why- was it that Bacon, in spite of all his experiments, obser- vations and verifications, in spite of all his glorious induc- tive method, could not add one particle to the existing stock of knowledge ? That he who belittled all the pro- ducts of the ancients could not enlarge the science of the moderns ? That he always talked science, but never en- riched science? And on the other hand, how did it come to pass that Aristotle, although ignorant of Bacon's meth- od, although destitute of all the help of the inductive method, still succeeded in furnishing scores of undoubted valuable additions to science, so that even Lewes who is extremely hard on him, says of his treatise on Generation and Develop- ment: ' 'And the man who did all these marvellous things in science, could do it in the teeth of his bad method, of his useless, wretched method, as Bacon says." The immortal contemporary of Bacon, William Harvey, who discovered the circulation of the blood, has never cared much for the method of Bacon. The glory of Eng- lish science. Sir Isaac Newton, came to his theorems by an absolutely opposite method. Instead of following Bacon's method, he discarded it altogether, and whoever has read one chapter in his "Principia Philosophise Naturalis Math- ematica" will notice the utter divergence from all Baconian precepts. And so we are forced to the conclusion, that 1. There does not exist such a general, unitorm and unique method of science, which when obeyed brings about all luck, and which when disobeyed engenders all misfortune. 2. That there does not exist any contrast at all between Aristotle and the moderns. He failed in many of his investigations just as well as the moderns do, as e. g. Lewes, himself did very frequently, who had to revoke in his book, " Problems of Life and Scientific Development of Greece. 191 Mind," what he had strenuously asserted in his book, " Biographical History of Philosophy." But these failures of Aristotle were not owing to a radical fault, to a fault in his method, it was simply the fault of all of us, to-wit : to be human beings. Tlie Grecians were doing in science exactly what we are doing. They raised a question and tried to answer it. Now the trouble is that we frequently ask questions which are either entirely out of place, or immature, or in some other way inappropriate. To ask the right question — why that is the greatest difficulty. It is not the answer that is difficult — the answer is the easiest thing in the world. It takes sometimes a few years, say 50-100-150 years to give the ansA^er, but after all it' will be answered. But if the question is wrong, no correct, no scientific answer can be given. Whewell, in his renowned book on the "Inductive Sciences," made the following remarks as to the scientific questions of the Grecians. He said the Grecians p.iinted the handle of a pitcher on the wall, and wanted to liang a real pitcher unto it. Witty as this remark may be it is altogether false. The ancients failed frequently, because they did not put the right question, and so do we. AVhat does our mod- ern medical science think of the great physicians of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, of Boerhave or Stahl, or Digby? Very little. What do we think now of many of the most celebrated works of Cuvier? Ask the Darwinians and they will smile. But none of us dares to think that Cuvier's methods were altogether wrong, that his way of thinking was radically false. Similarly, the ancients failed not because of a radical fault in their scientific method, but simply because they wanted to solve problems that were not then or as yet not ripe for solution. They would ask e. g. why is the little 192 Scientific Development of Greece. finger smaller than the middle finger ? Or, Avhy have women no beards ? Or, why do the stars glitter ? Or, what governs the changing forms of the clouds ? Or, by what is the sex determined ? Or, why can we not fly? You will find these and a score of similar questions in Aristotle or Dioskorides, and of course their answers to these questions are not satisfactory. But read the answers of the moderns. Could Arago ex- plain why the stars do glitter ? No; he could not. Could Pettigrew explain why we can't fly ? No ; he could not. In one word — these questions were not yet fit for a scien- tific treatment in the times of the ancients, and they are not fit to-day ; we have still to bide our time and wait. But when questions were really fit for a scientific inquiry then the Grecians invariably succeeded. Thus e. g., in geometry, in the elementary part of Dioptrics, in me- chanics. The book of Euclid on Arithmetic and Geom- etry has to the present day not been superseded, in spite of the most energetic efforts of modern scholars. In all England it is still used as a text-book just as well as 2000 years ago in the schools of Alexandria, in Egypt. The treatise of Apollonius on the conic sections bafiied all efforts to improve on it, and it serves as a handbook now as it did 2000 years ago. The work of Pappus reads as scientific as any work of Pascal or Laplace or Gauss. The same is the case with the work of Diophantus. The Grecians had the most consummate astronomers. Pytha- goras as well as Philolaiis and Nicetas of Syracuse, taught that the earth is a planet revolving round the sun. Copernicus, himself, to whom the honor of this great doctrine is usually ascribed. I say, Copernicus, himself, in the preface of his work, confesses that his doctrine is noth- ing but th^ revived doctrine of the Grecian philosophers. Aristarchos of Samos, who left us a very valuable treatise on the masrnitude and distances of the sun, measured the Scientific Developmilnt of Greece. 193 diameter of the sun, and his result does not differ very much from modern result. Eratosthenes determined the magnitude of the earth by a most ingenious method, and Hipparchus added the most essential discovery of the pre- cession of the equinoxes, one of the fundamental elements in Astromony. He discovered the eccentricity of the solar orbit. He accounted for the apparent inequality of the sun's motion by supposing that the earth is not placed ex- actly at the centre of tlie circular orbit of the sun, and, that consequently, his distance from the earth is subject to vari- ation. When the sun is at his greatest distance, he appears to move more slowly, and when he approaches nearer, his motion becomes more rapid. The attention of Hippar- chos was also directed to the motion of the moon, and on this subject his researches were attended with equal suc- cess. From the comparison of a great number of the most circumstantial and accurate, observations of eclipses re- corded by the Chaldeans, he was enabled to determine the period of the moon's revolution, relatively to the stars, to the sun, to her nodes and to her apogee. These determina- tions are among the most valuable results of ancient astron- omy, inasmuch as they corroborate one of the finest theo- retical deductions — the acceleration of the mean lunar motion —and thus furnishes one of the most delicate tests of the truth of Newton's law of gravitation. He likewise approximated to the parallax of the moon. Besides, he drew up a catalogue of stars containing 1080 stars. In the year 130, of our era, Ptolemy (the Prince of Astron- omers, as he was called) flourished in Alexandria, a man who did inestimable service to astronomy. Although his system of the universe has been supplanted by the system of Copernicus, his merits nevertheless entitle him to the esteem and admiration of all mankind. His works are a perfect treasury of astronomical dates and theories, and all 194 Scientific Development of Greece. civilized nations took their first information on astronomy from the Almagest of Ptolemy. If we regard the high development of Grecian mathematics and astronomy, we feel very much astonished at the fact that the Grecians had the clumsiest and most awkward system of figures imaginable. They did not use our present way of denoting numbers, the Arabic numerals, but they used letters, the letters of their alphabet, so that A means i, B 2, C 3, D 4, and so on; I means 10, K 20, L 30, U 90, etc., and accordingly 300, 400, 500, 600 were all expressed by one letter of the alphabet. In one word we use only nine digits and the cipher, and are able to express any number, whereas the Greeks had over forty different letters and signs. To multiply or divide with Greek numerals is extremely awkward. In this respect the Brahman Indians were far ahead of the Grecians. What we usually call Arabic numerals are in reality Indian numerals; the Brahman philosophers, especially Arhia-Batta, used them long before the Arabians. And accordingly the Brahmans surpassed the Grecians in the science of numbers, or as it is now called, the theory of numbers and in the theory of equations. In fact, the Brahmans surpassed in this one respect not only the ancient mathmaticians, but even the most advanced modern thinkers. This astonishing fact has been revealed only a few years ago, and it is again one of the many arguments against the alleged superiority of modern Science. By what I said so far, I tried to give you a genuine characterization of Grecian Science, of that ideal, purely objective and philosophical Science that cared only for the relation of ideas to each other, and did not query con- stantly what is the practical use of all these ideas. Of course, in many departments of Science — not in all — we know at present much more than the Grecians ever did know, and so will our great-grandsons know more Scientific Development of Greece. 195 than we do. But there is still one thing left which we, espe- cially we, the children of this age, can never cease to learn from Aristode, Archimedes, Euclid and Hipparchus and all the rest of Grecian thinkers and scientists — I mean the love, the ardent love for truth, irrespective of any imme- diate use, of any prjictical application of the truth. In our so-called practical age we constantly ask for the i)rac- tical availability of an idea. We are, more or less, prone to deride, to pity a man who spends all his life with what the ordinary run of people will call useless theory, mere ideal speculation. But a little consideration will show us how very narrow and shallow such a judgment is. We all enjoy now the intense benefits of electricity, but when Swamerdam, Lichtenberg and Volta first studied elec- tricity; when they devoted all their lives to numberless experiments and observations on electricity, did these men do all that with a view to invent the telegraph or the tele- phone ? Did they ever think of benefiting, materially benefiting, either themselves or anybody else ? Did they think, did they expect to enrich themselves by their exper- iments and observations? By no rieeans. We still have the private correspondence and diaries of Swamerdam, of Lichtenberg, and Baron Volta — and we can see clearly, that these men never thought of turning their studies into material use. They just pursued their inquiries because they were filled with that fervent love for truth, that is the only mark of the thinker, ot the genuine thinker, the only mark that distinguishes him from the science-monger, from the sham-scholar, who first asks if there is any money in it? Had Volta and Lichtenberg cared more for money' than for science — none of us would ever enjoy the blessings of electricity. And is electricity the only unknown force of Nature? Can there not be hun- dreds, thousands, millions of similar forces, which, when first properly studied, will lead to similar beneficent results? 196 Scientific Development of Greece. Most undoubtedly. But if you want to be repaid immedi- ately, if you want to be salaried in cash money, if you want to avoid all the preliminary drudgery of the solitary scholar — then you never were a lover of truth, then you are a mere beau, a mere coquettish dude — and you had better leave all science. The Grecians were true, pro- found, devoted, fervent lovers of truth and no dudes. They never asked how much money is in it. When Conon got emaciated to a mere skeleton by the unremitting meditation on that curved line, which to the present day bears his noble name, one of his fellow citizens askeil him, half-sneeringly, why he wasted so much precious time on a thing so abstract, and so useless? The philoso- pher looked at the querist with a divine disdain and an- swered : "I live only while meditating." Such fellow citizens were very frequent in Greece. They haunted poor Apollonius and Archimedes with their constant qliestions about the use of their lines and planes and figures. It cannot be denied that in Archimedes' time the ma- jority of his geometrical theorems proved utterly useless, I mean, nobody was able to turn them to some practical end. But when thirteen centuries later science in Europe began to revive, it became more and more evident, that the most important problems in Science and Art can not be solved without a thorough knowledge of the theorems of Archimedes and Apollonius. Then it became evident that these theorems, instead of being barren, abstract truth, are the great fountains of some of the most useful arts, as the art of manufacturing telescopes, all kinds of chirurgi- cal and scientific instruments and ruimberless other manufactures, but especially the great art of Navigation. What would this grand art be without those theorems that Apollonius of Perga, or Archimedes of Syracuse 2,200 years ago gave all the devotion of his genius to? These uninterested Grecian thinkers laid the foundation of this SciEN'TiFic Development of Greece. 197 art, and if we feel surer now at sea than 500 years ago, if we dare to cross the widest oceans, if we are able to tell many events on the skies in advance — all this we owe in the first place to those unpractical thinkers — the scientists of ancient Greece. ,vA\\\lillflf//////,//(-. PHILOSOPHY 11^ AISTCIENT GEEECE. References: y. Bruckcr. Historia Critica Philosophioc (1741). ZelUr, Gtiech. Philos. 'Brandts. Griech. Phil. Ritter. Griech. Philos. A. Sclnveff- ler, Griech. Phil. /. A. Fabrict'tis, Bibl. Graeca (ed. Harl). Mullaclt, 'Fragint. Phil. Graec. Dioge7ies Laertius, Vit. Philos. C Alexi. Anaxa- g-oras u. seine Phil (1867). F. Miclielis, De Anaxim. Infinite (1S74); Bitter, Gesch. d. Pvthag-. Phil. A. Bocckh, Philolaos des Pythagoreers Lehren. H. Stein Die Fragmente des Parrneiiides, etc., (in'->ymbola Philol. Bonnens. in honorem F. Kitschelii coll.), 1S67. F. Biauw Hssai sur Parmenides d'Eige (1S401. Hegel, Gesch. der Phil, (on the hleatic school); E. Duehi ing, Krit. Gesch. d. Phil, (on Zeno's problems); A Gladiscli, Empedocles (1858) j Afullaeli,Q^\^e.s\\oncs Democriteae; Franck, fragments qui siibsistent de Deniocrite," (in the Mem. de la Soc. Rov. de Nancy, 1S26V, Ferd. Lassalle, D. Phil. Ilerakleitop d. Dunkl.; J. Bernays, D Herakl.' Briefe; Schuster, Herakl. v. Hphes; ZiiNiiierjnann, Darst. d. Pyrrhonisch. Philos.; Norman MacColl, Greek Skeptics from Pyrrho to Sextus (1869); Grote, Hist, of Greece, chap. Ixvii (on the Sophists); //. Sidgzvick, T he hophisis (in Jour, of Phil. 1S72 and 1S74); Sclileiermaclier. Ueb. d. Werlh d. Socrates als Philo- soph. lin Abhdig. Horl. Ak. d. W. iSiS); Groie, Hist of Gr. ch. Ixviii (on Socrates); U'i/dauer, D. Psych des Willens bei Socrates (1S77), ^flurn. of Philol., vols. X.. xi., xiii., xiv (on Socrates); Blato. opera (ed. Stallbaum, editio major); Van Heusde, Initia Phil. Plat ; K. F. Hermann, Gesch. u. Syst. d. Plat. Phil.: Susemihl, D. genet. Kntw. der Plat. Philos ; Grote, Plato (ed. 1871;); Martin, Ktudes sur le Timge. A. Chiapelli, della Interpre- tazione panteistica di Piatone (18S1); 5 Ribbing, Gen. Darst. d. plat. Ideenl.; Aristotle , opera (ed. J. Bekker); Biese, D . Philos. des Aristoteles; 7. Bar- thelemy-Saint-Hi'aire, Metaph. (Introduct. to the Metaph. of Arist., translated by E. P. Georgens); Boiiitz, Aristot. Studien; A. Grant, Aris- totle; Teichinueller. Arist. Forschungen; L. Spengel, Essays (in Transact. Bavar- Acad.); E. Poste. 1 he Logic of Science, a Iranslat of the Posterior Analytics of Aristotle, w. Notes and Introduction. Ladies and Gentlemen: Our next topic is Philosophy in ancient Greece. It is difificult to refrain from exaggeration when speaking of the philosophers ot ancient Greece. There is scarcely a prob- lem which they have not broached, scarcely one aspect of the numberless questions of Philosophy which has not been made a subject of close scrutiny by one or another of the Greek philosophers. Take the most modern problems, those philosophical questions which are being agitated at the present day, the question of evolution versus creation, the question of agnosticism versus belief, of Monism versus Dualism — all these queries have been the subjct-matters of Grecian philosophy. In ordinary books on the his- Philosophy in Ancient Greece. 199 tory of philosophy you will notice the endeavor to treat of Grecian philosophy as the first part, as the overture only of the grand opera of philosophical development. You will be told that Descartes, Spinoza, Leibnitz, Locke, Hume, Kant, Hegel, Schelling, Schopenhauer, and so forth have immeasurably improved on the ideas and pros- pects of Pythagoras, Heraklit, Parmenides, Plato and Aristotle. 1 am sorry to say I don't think so. I am unable to see any essential, fundamental improvement, with the exception of one department of philosophy, of Logic (I shall speak of that later on). Of course you must not abide by my opinion. You can form an opinion of your own. All that I can say consists in the honest statement that I have studied the philosophers just men- tioned with the utmost care, in their original works, and repeatedly so, and that I came to the conclusion that even the one modern philosopher who in my opinion is per- sonally superior to all of them, did not go beyond the reach of the ancient Grecians. For as Goethe says, " Alles gescheidte ist schon einmal gedacht worden, man muss nur versuchen es noch einmal zu denken." "All clever thoughts have been said already, biit it is advisable to think them over again." For the historian Grecian philosophy has two main features : Grecian philosophy previous to Socrates, that is to say prior to 400 B. C. and Grecian philosophy after this time. But taking philosophy in a strict sense we have to omit the philosophical poets like Orpheus, Museus, Hesiod, Homer, Simonides, etc., and also the gnomic wisdom of the so-called seven sages of Greece, Thales, Solon, Chilon, Pittacus, Bias, Cleobule, Poriander, with the exception of Thales, whose tenets were mere practical resum^es of a life's experience and no systematic explanation of the Universe or the human soul. I say we have to omit these men and restrict ourselves to those thinkers wlio attempted to solve the enigma of the 200 Philosophy ix Ancient Greece. external world, of the macrosmos or those of the inner world, of the microcosmos, in a more abstract, philo- sophical wa)^ And thus we have to treat first of the time of 600 B. C. to 400 B. C. , for it was in the course of these . two centuries when the first real philosophers of Greece made their apparition. All of them tried to sift down to the last elements of this world, all of them wanted to know, how this world was called into existence, how ani- mals and men were developed, and how everything is being kept existing. In one word, they wanted to know the origin of things, the arche as they said. (By the way, it is a most striking fact, that almost all peoples of this globe denote the idea of the origin of something, the first, the beginning of something with a word in which " o " and "r," or "a" and "r," "u"' and " r " or "i" and "r" form the first syllable. Thus Ur-sprung in German, origo in latin, arche in Greek, eredet in Hungarian, similarly in Turkish, Hebrew, etc.) For the explanation of the arche, the origin of the world, these philosophers offered three different explanations, and accordingly we speak of three differentschoolsof philosophy previous to Socrates: i. the Physiologists, that is to say those philosophers who tried to account for the origin of the world by assuming either a material origin as the Ionic school, or a formal cause as the Pythagorean school. We have, therefore, (2.) those philosophers who explained the universe by pointing to the minor opposition between experience and intelligence, the eleatic school, and (3.) the Atomist school. We have to treat now of these three schools. In doing so I have to repeat what I have said in my last lecture. I do not treat of the philosophy of ancient Greece in the capacity of a teacher of philosophy, but in the capacity of an historian, and consequently I view my bubject from an altogether different stand-point. Although I shall give you the leading propositions of each of the philosophers Philosophy in Ancient Greece. 201 mentioned, and with absolutely reliable precision too, my main object as an historian will be to point out the connec- tion between the labors of the Grecians with those of the moderns, proving hereby my chief proposition, to-wit: that civilization is not a direct function of time — in other words that a young country may be as civilized as an old one, or vice versa, that countries in the most ancient times may have been as civilized as any of the modern countries. In accordance with this formula I have to treat first of the Ionic school. The four great names of the Ionic school of physiologists are Thales, Anaximander, Anaximenes and Diogenes of ApoUonia. Thales declared that the arche, the origin of all things, is to be found in the water, — water is the primary sub- stance, the prima materia of the universe. Anaximander taught, that the first principle was an endless, unlimited mass, subject neither to old age nor decay and perpetually yielding fresh materials for the series of beings which issued from it. Out of the vague and limitless body there sprung a central mass — this earth of ours, cylindrical in shape. Man himself and the animals had come into being by transmutations. Man- kind was supposed by Anaximander to have sprung from other species of animals, probably aquatic. To Anexi- menes again it seemed that the air, with all its variety of contents, its universal presence, was Avhat maintained the universe, even as breath which is our life and soul, sus- tains us. Everything is air at a different degree of density. By a process of condensation, brought forth under the influence of heat and cold, the broad disk of earth was formed, floating like a leaf on the circumambient air. Similar condensations produced the moon and stars. The fourth of these philosophers, Diogenes of Apollonia, adopted tlie tenet of Aneximenes respecting air as the ori- gin of things. But he declared that air was not only 202 Philosophy in Ancient Greece. Force, Substance, but also Intelligence, that it is endowed with Consciousness and Reason, for without reason he said it would be impossible for all to be arranged duly and proportionately. Perhaps ninety-nine out of a hundred persons who read or hear of these speculations of the Ionic school of Grecian philosophers will smile in a self- complacent way at the immature guess-work of thes^e great men. But the fact is that the very ideas of these men have served as starting points to modern investigations, more than that, that some of the ablest naturalists of our age have accepted tenets of the Ionic school without any re- straint. Thus a Chemist like Dumas said that plants and animals are only condensed air, and the celebrated Liebig in one of his chemical letters expresses the same idea. But in what does that differ from the idea of Anaximenes ? In nothing. Or in what does Darwinism differ from the doctrine of transmutation held by Anaximander? Essen- tially in nothing. Or in what does the celebrated nebular theory of Kant and Laplace differ from the conception of Anaximenes as to condensation being the originating pro- cess of stars ? Essentially in nothing. Neither Anaximenes nor Laplace could prove his assumption by irrefragable mathematical evidence. Thus you will see that the Ionic school of Greek phil- osophers were not only beginners in philosophy ; that the majority of their ideas have stood the test of twenty-four centuries. This much as to the first division of the Phy- siologists. I shall treat now of the second division of the Pytha- goreans. The central thought of Pythagorean philosophy is the number. Instead of alleging that this or that material substance was the original foundation, the arche of the world, Pythagoras taught that number is Philosophy in Ancient Greece. 203 the essence of everything. Thus he accounted for the origin of the universe by placing a formal cause, an ideal conception, the number in the centre of his specula- tions. Number, said Philolaos, a Pythagorean, is great and perfect and omnipotent, and the principle and guide of divine and human life. Immediately connected with their central doctrine is the theory of opposites held by the Pythagoreans. Numbers are divided into odd and even, and from the comljination of odd and even, all numl^ers, and therefore, all things seem to result. The odd number was identified with the limited, the even with the unlimited. Following out the same thought they developed a list of ten fundamental opposites, which roughly resembles the tables of categories framed by later philosophers : I. Limited and unlimited. 2. The odd and the even. 3. One and the many. 4. Right and the left. 5. Mas- culine and feminine. 6. Rest and motion. 7. Straight and crooked. 8. Light and darkness. 9. Good and evil. 10. Square and oblong. The union of opposites in which consists the existence of things is harmony. ' Hence the whole universe is har- mony, and the regular movements of the heavenly bodies produce the famous harmony of the spheres; the seven planets being considered as the seven golden chords of the heavenly heptachord. The holy number of the Pythagoreans was four, because it is the first square number. The number five signifies marriage because it is the union of the first masculine and the first feminine number, namely, 3 plus 2 ; one is iden- tified with reason, because it is unchangeable ; 2 with opinion, because it is indeterminate. The most renowned doctrine of Pythagoras, however, is the transmigration of souls — Metempsychosis. The 204 Philosophy in Ancient Greece. bodily life of the soul, according to this doctrine, is an imprisonment suffered for sins committed in a former state of existence. At death the soul reaps what it has sown in the present life. The reward of the best is to enter the cosmos, or the higher and purer regions of the universe, while the direst crimes receive their punishment in Tartarus. But the general lot is to live afresh in a series of human or animal forms. The P3'thagorean societies had in them from the be- ginning a germ of ascetism and contemplative mysticism. For five years the novice was condemned to silence, vari- ous humiliations had to be endured, serious experiments were made of their powers of self-denial, among others they were forbidden to eat beans. Having purged their souls of the baser particles by purifications, sacrifices and initiations, they were admitted to the sanctuary of true knowledge. Shall we wonder that Pythagoras was venerated by his disciples as a God ? The firmest corroboration of an opin- ion was a simple reference to " he said it," meaning Py- thagoras said it. But queer as this doctrine of the num- bers, of opposites, of the metempsychosis may partly seem to be — are they not the doctrines of many of our most celebrated modern thinkers? This tendency to en- large the realm of the number, has it not been manifested by such a sober thinker asW. S. Jevons, when he tried to re- duce all political economy to a mathematical formula ? Are not books being published almost daily whose authors con- sider numbers and numerical laws as the height of wisdom ? Or, to approach the problem from a different standpoint, has it not been proved that by the aid of this one mathematical formula — (g=-^) Newton's formula, all celestial and many terrestial phenomena can be explained satisfacto- rily ? Why then shall we call Pythagoras" philosophy the 1 Philosophy in Ancient Greece. 205 infancy of philosophy? It is just as mature as our own, the only difference being this, that ours covers a larger ground, but although a gigantic oak is considerably taller than a blooming rose, it is by no means more mature. I shall treat now of the second great school of philoso- phy previous to Socrates, of the Eleatics. Elea was a town in South Italy, and the school of Xenophanes, Par- manides and Zeno had its headquarters in this town. Xenophanes recognized no distinction between truth for the many and truth for the initiated few, as Pythago- ras did, whose esoteric doctrines were only for the few advanced disciples, and who divulged only his exoteric doctrines to the public. Xenophanes thought and acted likewise, that truth was for all men, and for three-quarters of a century he wandered into many lands uttering the thoughts which were working in him. He combated the prevailing polytheism chiefly on account of the personifi- cation of the gods, and his doctrine was that the One was the all ; or in other words, his doctrine was pantheism ; his God was not a personal God distinct from the universe. His doctrine was expanded by Parmenides, the most notable of the philosophers of the Eleatic succession. He embodied his tenets in a short poem called Nature, which consists chiefly of two parts — of part i, named Truth, and part 2nd, named Opinion. His doctrine is that the entity, the being, "to on" is one, invariable and immutable, and all plurality, variety and mutation belong to the nonent. Whence it follows that all the states and processes which we commonly recognize as generation and destruction, change of place, alteration of color and the like, are no more than empty words. In "Opinion." he describes the plurality of things, not as they are, for they are not ; but as they seem to be. In the phenomenal world then there are two primary ele- 2o6 Philosophy in Ancient Greece. ments, namely: fire, which is gentle, thin, homogeneous, and night (or earth), which is dark, thick, heavy. Of these elements all things consist. The difference between Parmenides and his predeces- sors, Thales, Anaximander, Anaximenes, etc., is this: that these latter assumed a corporeal substance as the arche, the primary matter of the universe, e. g., the water, or the air. Parmenides, on the other hand, excluded all corporeal substances as mere phantasms, teaching that, in reality, there is only one Being, one Ent, and all plurality, all single objects are merely passing modes of the one Being. You will easily represent to yourself this ab- stract idea by the following simile : The city of Rome is a distinct conception from every single Roman, or from a couple of two, or three, or one hundred or one thousand Romans, and even if ail the Romans now living in Rome should die, the city of Rome would continue to exist as it has existed to the present, although millions of Romans lived and died in Rome. The city of Rome, therefore, is entirely independent from all single Romans, or all single houses in Rome ; it has an existence of its own. Now Parmenides looked upon the numberless objects (stones, plants, animals,) of the world as upon so many inhabi- tants of the universe, and consequently he declared that the Ent, viz., the Being, is entirely independent of all single objects or persons ; it has an existence ot its own. This Ent, this universal Being, he studied, and his propo- sitions with regard to the nature of this Ent, he called Truth. Turning then to the semblance of plurality, viz., to Nature, he gave his opinions on the variety and muta- tion of things, insisting however on the necessary untrust- worthiness of these opinions, for it is, with regard to the Ent alone, that we are able to know something. These profound speculations of Parmenides are the foundations of two of the grandest systems of modern philosophy — of Philosophy in Ancient Greece. 207 the system of Giordano Bruno and of Spinozism. The third great leader of the Eleats is Zeno. Zeno, born in the beginning of the fifth century B. C., the fellow- townsman, disciple and adopted son of Parmenides, is famous for his attempts to prove that the notions of time, space, motion, multiplicity, sight, sound, etc., are self- contradictory and unthinkable. His so-called paradoxes were stated with a subtlety which has forced distinguished thinkers, who were opposed to his main position, e. g.. Sir W. Hamilton, to admit some of them to be unanswerable. Against motion Zeno directed several arguments, the most celebrated being that of Achilles and the tortoise. The argument is : let Achilles run ten times as fast as a tortoise, yet, if the tortoise has the start Achilles will never over- take him ; for, suppose thetn to be at first separated by an interval of 1000 feet, when Achilles has run these 1000 feet, the tortoise will have run 100, and when Achilles has run those 100 the tortoise will have got on 10, and so on forever ; therefore Achilles may run forever without over- taking the tortoise. Or Zeno argued : there is no motion ; for any body apparently moving is, in each individual point of space, at rest ; the sum total of a number of these states of rest is called motion. Against sound he argued that, as you can not hear a single grain of corn fall, you can not hear the sound of a number of grains falling ; the sounds of the falling of the number of grains being made up of the sounds of the falling of each grain. Thus Zeno sought to prove that thought And sense are opposed and that the latter, contradicting itself, proves itself un- worthy of the consideration of the philosopher. These speculations of Zeno strike at the very root of our funda- mental ideas. They are not fallacies; they are not mere mental tricks. They consequently can not be refuted, and what J, St. Mill adduces in the way of a refutation is only indicative of his narrow view of the question at issue. 2o8 Philosophy in Ancient Greece. Zeno's so-called fallacies and dilemmas help us to prove one of the leading conceptions of real philosophy, to-wit : That the vast majority of our ideas are mere assumptions. Our ideas of motion and space are assumptions, legitimate assumptions, but nevertheless assumptions ; they are not absolutely true, their truth has only a relative character, a partial character. When we say, e. g., that the shortest line between two points is the straight line, that is no truism, that is only an assumption — a legitimate assump- tion from our conception of space, but our conception of space is also an assumption. There are other conceptions of another space, such a one, e. g., as has been described by Sir W. R. Hamilton, by H. Grassman, by Bolyai, by Rieraan, all celebrated mathmaticians. Now Zeno touched on all these wonderful speculafcions. He proved that our common notions of space, time, velocity, sound, etc., which are generally considered as unshaken rocks of abso- lute truth, are mere assumptions. You will see now how inexpressibly ludicrous it is to speak of Zeno in that half- pitiful way in which some historians deign to talk of the Eleats. Zeno was one of the most profound thinkers that ever lived, and his investigations are as precious to-day as they were 2000 years ago. The third division of preso- cratic Grecian philosophers begins with the great name of Heraclitus, surnamed the obscure, one^ of the most subtle metaphysicians that ever lived. It is a strange coincidence that we owe our best information on this profound philoso- pher to the labors of the celebrated German socialist, Lassalle, his book on Heraclitus being by far the most com- prehensive collection and discussion of the writings of Heraclitus. It is one of the many shortcomings in Lewes' History of Philosophy that he evidently did not know of Lassalle's precious book. Heraclitus used to clothe his ideas in extremely obscure language, and this quality oc- casioned his surname. Socrates used to say : "By what I Philosophy in Ancient Greece. 209 do understand of the writings of Heraclitus I infer that those parts which I do not understand must be equally- good." His cast of mind was so intensely aristocratic that, filled with contempt for the counsels and capacities of his fellow-citizens, he made over the hereditary office of basi- leus in favor of his younger brother, and betook himself to a life of solitude and meditation. Heraclitus tried to get rid of the difficulty so prominent in the Eleatic philosophy, of overcoming the contradiction between the one and the phenomenal many by enunciating, as the principle of the universe, the process of Becoming ; implying that every- thing is, and at the same time, and in the same relation is not. His favorite way of expressing this abstruse idea was the tenet: "Everything is flowing, or nobody ever steps twice into the same river," meaning by that that all objects in Nature consist of ever-fluctuating parts, so that every particle is constantly on the verge of non-existence, and that the whole universe is nothing but an eternal pro- gression from non-existence into existence, and from exist- ence into non-existence. Accordingly he selects the fire as the arche, as the most appropriate embodiment of the principle of Becoming, for fire is, as it were, a representa- tion of this curious idea of simultaneous existence and non- existence. Fire is a constant process, a constant progres- sion ; no part of it has a settled existence, every spark or flame consists by consuming itself in the same time. But Heraclitus did not mean to say that Fire in the ma- terial sense of the word is the principle of the world. Fire was only an allegorical representation of the idea of becom- ing. Hence we have these three statements: Parmeni- des said: ' Only the Ent, the one is really existing; Zeno proved, that the many, the plurality, is not existing and Heraclitus asserted that nothing is existing, but that there is only a general process of becoming, of eternal stepping into existence. This bold speculation has been resusci- 2IO Philosophy in Ancient Greece. tated in Modern Germany at the hands of the celebrated Hegel. In fact, Hegel is nothing but an expanded Hera- clitus. The doctrine of both Heraclitus and Hegel is of the utmost importance in some departments of religion and law, and in one of the leading divisions of history. All these doctrines will seem utterly phantastical and use- less, but they lie at the very bottom of the most useful and practical institutions. You remember what I had to say about the seemingly useless value of Grecian scientific researches, especially of their geometrical inquiries. I showed that those investigations seemed to afford no prac- tical advantage whatever; but later on they proved the only foundations of some of the most necessary wants of modern civilization. In the same way the ancient Gre- cian philosophic doctrines bear powerfully on our modern conceptions. It would be out of place to trace this influ- ence in its details; my chief obligation as an historian is only to point out the' connection between these ancient modes of thought and modern notions. Such a connec- tion exists preeminently between the system of Heraclitus on the one and Hegel and even Schopenhauer on the other hand. It is an irreparable loss for philosophy that none of the works of Heraclitus have reached us in a complete form. The next great presocratic philosopher is Empedocles. He was a native of Agrigentum in Sicily. The details of his life are full of fable and contradictions. The most probable accounts represent him as belonging to an honor- able family. To his contemporaries, as to himself, he seemed more than a mere man. The Sicilians honored his august aspect as he moved amongst them with purple robes and golden girdle, with long hair bound by a Del- phic garland, and brazen sandals on his feet, and with a retinue of slaves behind him. Extravagant stories were told of his unlimited generosity, and of the almost miracu- Philosophy in Ancient Greece. 21 1 lous restoration to life of a woman who had long lain in a death-like trance. Legends stranger still told of his dis- appearance from among men. Empedocles, according to one story, was one midnight, after a feast held in his honor, called away in a blaze of glory to the gods; accord- ing to another he had only thrown himself into the crater of Etna, in the hope that men finding no traces of his end, would suppose him translated to heaven. He propounded a new doctrine. There are, according to Empedocles, four ultimate kinds of things, four principal divinities, four elements, of which are made all structures in the world, — fire, air, water, earth. These four elements are eternally brought into union, and eternally pass from each other, by two divine powers, love and hatred — an attractive and a repulsive force which the ordinary eye can see working amongst men, but which really pervades the whole world. Flesh an^ blood are made of equal parts of all four ele- ments, whereas bones are one-half fire, one-fourth earth and one-fourth water. Nothing new comes or can come into being, the only change that can occur is a change in the juxtaposition of element with element. But the most interesting and most matured part of his views dealt with the first origin of plants and animals and with the physi- ology of men. As the elements entered into combina- tions, there appeared quaint results, heads without necks, arms without shoulders. Then as these fragmentary struc- tures met, there were seen horned heads on human bodies, bodies of oxen with men's heads, and figures of double sex. But most of these products of natural forces disappeared as they arose; only in those rare cases where the several parts were found adapted to each other, and casual member fitted into casual member, did the com- plex structures thus formed last. Thus did the organic universe originally spring. Soon various influences re- duced the structures of double sex to a male and a female. 212 Philosophy in Ancient Greece. Plants as well as animals have sense and understand- ing; in men, however, and especially in the blood at his heart, mind has its peculiar seat. Knowledge is explained by the principle that the several elements in the things outside us are perceived by the corresponding elements in ourselves. Like is known by like, simile similibus. These are the outlines of the doctrine of Empedocles. Comparing the same to modern philosophy we are struck by the similarity of the two. Though we do not speak any more of four elements, we do speak yet of the three funda- mental states of aggregation, namely, the solid, the liquid, and the gaseous state — these three states corresponding to the earth, the Avater and the air of Empedocles. As to the Empedoclean doctrine of the origin of animals it is very far from being a mere freak of fancy. It is still the question whether animals developed in full form, or in installments as it were. I mean it has not beon settled yet, whether all the organs of an animal were developed from one other animal, or from 2, 3, 6, 8 different animals or plants. I mention all this mainly to carry my point, to-wit : that the ancient Grecian philosophers handled their problems just as thoroughly as we do, and there is no essential dif- ference between our philosophical inquiries and those of the Greek thinkers. This similarity or rather identity between modern and ancient thought is still more evident when we approach the two other schools of Greek philosophy, the Atomists and the Skeptics. The chief of the former was Demokritos. He was 'born at Abdera, a Thracian colony, the inhabi- tants of which were notorious for their stupidity. His in- tensity of thinking was figured by the ancients in the story that he put out his eyes in order that he might not be diverted from his meditations. His theory of the universe is to the present day the prevailing theory among scien- tists. Philosophy in Ancient Greece. 213 He thaught that all that exists is vacuum and atoms. The atoms are the ultimate material of all things, includ- ing spirit. They are uncaused, and have existed from eternity, and are in motion. The atomic theory of per- ception was as follows. From every object eidola or images of the object are continually being given off in all directions, these enter the organs of sense and give rise to sensation. He reduced all sensation to touch, and all qualities of bodies to two main qualities : to extension and resistance. But don't we meet these very same propositions in those celebrated works of the Brothers Weber, in Gottingen ; of Bain, in England, and of Claude Bernard, in France? *To reduce all sensation to touch is a favorite theory of some of the best known physiologists and psychologists of the age ; and the atomic theory of Demokritos, is the foundation of all modern physics. The other great school of Greek philosophers, the Skep- tics, or Pyrrhonists, bear a still greater resemblance to mod- ern thought. They came a little after Socrates but it will be advisable to treat of them at present. Pyrrho asked what is the criterion of our opinion? Reason. But what is the criterion of reason, he asked again. And as he could get no answer to that, he simply inferred that all science, all philosophy is groundless, because there is no general criterion of truth. The questions of Pyrrho have been reiterated number- less times, and the profound works of the German philos- opher Kant are chiefly a discussion of this one question. What makes us believe that one sentence is truer tlian an- other? Skepticism is a legitimate tendency, and in its way unanswerable, and its foundations have been laid by the Greeks. Thus we see that Grecian philosophy, very far from being the childish attempt at great things, is in itself an im- posing system of thoughts, the discussion of which occu- 214 Philosophy in Ancient Greece. pies our present age just as intensely as the age of Perik- cles. We have arrived now at the second great division of Grecian philosophy — at Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. At the time when the idle sophists were reaping money and renown by protesting against philosophy and teaching the word-jugglery which they called disputation and oratory, there appeared a homely-looking poor man, who wan- dered about the streets of Athens, and disputed with all who were willing. In appearance he resembled a Silenus. Yet when this Silenus spoke there was a witchery in his tongue which fascinated those whom his appearance had disgusted; and Alcibiades declared that he was forced to stop his ears and flee away that he might not sit down beside this wise man and grow old in listening to his talk. This man was Socrates, a man whose death was as glo- rious as his life, who taught morals without pretending any honor, any reward, without desiring to be considered a higher being, with the humble confession, that he knows nothing at all. When accused of Atheism and conse- quently condemned to death, he did not evade his lot, but he took the cup of poison, and cheerfully left this world with blessings for all, even for his enemies. There is in modern times only one similar case of a philosopher, who kept his profound composure of mind in the face of death — I mean of course Giordano Bruno. When sentenced to be burned on the stake, he said to his judges, the inquisitorial tribunal in Rome, "I suspect you pronounce this sentence with more fear than I receive it " Socrates left no written work, and all his philosophical teachings are embodied in the works of Plato and Xeno- phon, largely altered of course by the individual opinions of Plato. Hence, we must assign to Socrates a place of the most dignified position in the social and ethical devel-. Philosophy in Ancient Greece. 215 opment of Greece, discussing his philosophical doctrines together with those of his immediate and mediate pupils, Plato and Aristotle. The speculations of these two men have served as the most universal foundation of all mod- ern philosophers. They comprise every department of philosophy — logic as well as philosophy ; metaphysics as well as the philosophy of law. In the systems of these two thinkers, a radical diverg- ence can be noticed, a divergence which corresponds to the two general preponderant tendencies of the human mind: the one idealistic, the other realistic. It has justly been remarked that every single individual is born either a Platonist or an Aristotelian ; in other words with a ten- dency to view the vvgrld and its affairs from an idealistic standpoint, or with a leaning toward a realistic criticism. Plato is more profound, but Aristotle is more comprehen- sive. Plato's writings exhibit the utmost finish of Greek style. Aristotle uses very precise but graceless language. Plato with a strong artistic bent applies the form of a dia- logue, thereby gaining the chance of adding dramatic life to his metaphysical inquiries. The persons introduced in these dialogues have distinct characters of their own; they laugh, they smile, they cry, they despise, they wonder, they query, it is all life and agitation. It is like one of the im- mortal Britain's plays — we see the impetuous Chserephon, the true-hearted old Crito, the beloved disciple Phoedo, the incorrigible Alcibiades, Glaucon the irrepressible in politics, in quarrel and in love, the accomplished Agathon, the gay Aristophanes, etc. Nothing of the kind is to be met with in Aristotle. No dialogues, no dramatic life, no scenery, no picturesque adjustment, nothing but cool and sober disquisition of the questions of philosophy. Plato has immense resources of his own, his own mind furnishes him interminable subject-matter to meditate upon. 2i6 Philosophy in Ancient Greece. Aristotle dwells with preference on subjects of external nature, on generation and destruction, on life and death, on animals and plants. Plato is dissatisfied with the real state of things, he cre- ates an ideal commonwealth and writes a large treatise on how such an ideal republic should be instituted. Aristotle abides by the real, by the then existing forms of government, and deduces his theories from them. Plato ignores whole departments of Science and Philos- ophy, and lays extraordinary stress on abstract mathe- matics, particularly Geometry, excluding every one who has not previously gone through a course of Geometry. Aris- totle ignores nothing ; he studies everything — Rhetoric as well as Zoology, Ethics as well as the art of breeding cattle ; but he does not consider mathematics the entrance gate to knowledge. Plato is full of reverence toward the older philosophers, especially toward Parmenides and Socrates. Aristotle is inclined to slight his predecessors, especially Plato himself. Plato is dignified, like a high- priest ; Aristotle is simple, like a modest youth. Both are complementary to each other. As Schiller and Goethe have been the two representative types ot German civiliza- tion, so Plato and Aristotle are the representative types of Greek thought. Their influence extended not only to Greece itself, but to the whole civilized world, and down to the present time we can observe ages in which Platonic ideas are prevalent, and other ages again in which Aris- totelian ideas are in the ascendency. We can study them, we can comment on them, we can enlarge them, we can (partly, at least) improve on them, but we can never supersede them. Permit me to call your attention again to my principal point : We dare not look on Plato and Aris- totle as obsolete antiquities, as on things that we can easily dispense with. He who thinks so has never acquired the least smattering in the history of philosophy. These Philosophy in Ancient Greece. 217 venerable names, the works of those men are to-day as precious, as inestimable as they were 2000 years ago. Let me give you one striking example : For over 300 years it was a kind of mania to speak of the logic of Aristotle, of his "Analytica Prior and Posterior," (this is the title of the book) in the most depreciative way. They were made the butts of scholarly jokes, and it was considered part of the scientific decorum to slight the logical theories of Aristotle. This curious fashion can be traced back to Ramus and Lord Bacon. These otherwise eminent men really thought that, according to Aristotle, men can in- quire into Nature without any experiments or observation at all, using only his own intellect. In other words Aristotle was supposed to teach that we can solve all problems by a mere discussion of terms, by a mere elabo- ration of syllogisms, just as we do in logic itself, or in some parts of mathematics. As a matter of course all modern thinkers who went by the opinion of Lord Bacon joined in the universal condemnation of the Stagirite, and, in fact, there would be nothing as wretched, as absolutely inadequate as the idea that we get at an understanding of Nature by mere speculation alone, discarding all experi- ments and observations. Accordingly a verdict of guilty was pronounced on the logical works of Aristotle, and the study of those gems became entirely neglected. And do you really think that Aristotle ever asserted such nonsense? That he ever claimed to be able to interpret Nature with- out instituting all kinds of experiments, and without pre- paring a whole array of observations? Alexander the Great, his grateful pupil, sent him not only enormous sums of money for the pursuit of his scientific studies, but also collections of plants and animals found in Meso- potamia, Persia, Babylon, Bactria and India. Alexander Humboldt has proved it in the second volume of his Cosmos, that some of the propositions of Aristotle pre- 2i8 Philosophy in Ancient Greece. suppose minute experiments. And thus you will easily see that Aristotle was just as anxious to experiment and observe as either Lord Bacon or J. St. Mill. And consequently he could not have ignored the ne- cessity to frame his logic in accordance with this first requisite of all investigations. The truth is that Aris- totle expresses it explicitly in the second book of his Logic, that all premises must be tested by experience. It was in the Middle Ages that the scholastical philosophers, by a wrong use of Aristotelian terms, spread the belief that knowledge may be attained by mere syllogistic reasoning. (I shall speak of these thinkers in another lecture.) And this scholastic tenet was taken for a tenet of the Stagirite, and naturally enough it was disapproved of. But now, since we know the real meaning of Aristotle, do we still reject it? Do we now join the old verdict? By no means ! The great logicians of the age, especially the Englishmen among them, as George Boole, DeMorgan, Stanley Jevons; and among the Germans, H. Riehl, con- firm the ancient praise of the logical works of Aristotle ; confirm the value of the syllogism within its proper limits; confirm the very terms of the Greek philosopher. It is very easy to scoff at misunderstood propositions of an ancient philosopher; nothing easier than this, especially if you read translations. These works have to be studied in the original or not studied at all. Or if you can not do that, take your instruction from a person who has studied the original, for it is next to impossible to translate these unique specimens of philosophical diction. How, for instance, will you translate the central thought of the Platonic philosophy, the term idea ? We use the self-same word in English, we say idea. But how remote is "idea" in English from "idea" in Plato's Greek ! Plato wanted to designate by that the archetypes of all things, the model, the universal pattern according to which all things have Philosophy in Ancient Greece. 219 been called into existence, and according to which all things have to be understood. Unless you know the "idea" of a thing you can not understand it. This peculiar- term is partly identical with the notion of generality, of univer- sality. But to cover the whole meaning of the term by one or two English or German words is absolutely impos- sible. It is only by a thorough study of Plato's dialogues that we can get at the true sense of this term. Then we shall be able also to understand his conception of God. The God of Plato is the primary idea of ideas, the One, the Infinite, the Almighty. For Plato as well as all the rest of the Greek philosophers believed in one God. More than that. No sensible Greek ever doubted that this world is being ruled by God. It is utterly incongruous with the best ascertained facts of history to presume that the Greeks were not up to the sublime idea of one God. They looked upon their Polytheism as people in Catholic countries look upon their saints, or as people in Protest- ant countries look upon the different sects and religious denominations. Likewise Aristotle believed in one God, he taught it in all his writings, and he never pretended to say anything else, anything that the majority of people did not know. The novelty of his philosophy consisted chiefly in the rejection of Plato's "ideas". He taught that the archetype of things must be gained by experience ; by close observation ; that we can not form any correct notion about the nature of our own mind, or about the soul, or about feeling, etc., unless we start from real facts. By such a process of analysis he established, among others, the famous theory of the categories. By categories, it has been said, Aristotle meant to give an exhaustive division of all possible kinds or descriptions of thought. They are ten in number, and in mediaeval as well as in modern times it has been taught that these ten categories are to be considered the ten divisions into which the whole universe was classified by Aristotle. And here again you may see 220 Phillosophy in Ancient Greece. the working of an absolute error. To divide the whole universe with all its numberless contents into ten classes, and to assert that these ten classes comprise all and every- thing is really absurd. Accordingly all philosophers who accepted these ten categories as the genuine opinion of Aristotle, expressed their disapproval of these categories in a very severe manner. But Aristotle never asserted such nonsense. In one place he speaks of .six categories, in another of four, in another of three only, showing thereby that these catego- ries are only provisional contrivances but no lasting princi- ples. It sounds very easy, and the general public is very fond of such reductions of a whole system to a few points. But in Aristotle there is no one central idea — he was like Nature himself, a development of many forces, a growth of many principles. For the historian he as well as Plato are the two of those heroes of thought that can never die. In numberless decisions of the supreme court of Ohio or of any State in the Union have the political ideas of Aris- totle been taken as the undoubted foundation of reason- ing. In countless criticisms on Shakespere or any other dramatist have Aristotle's ideas on the drama been applied as the standard rule of dramatic effect. We still use his terms, his conceptions, his ways of thinking, we all are his disciples, although it is long since he ceased to walk up and down in the shady avenues of the academia. Such is the power of great men. They are constantly with us, they direct our thoughts, they shape our ideas, they never leave us. There are a few more philosophical schools of ancient Greece, especially the Stoics and the Epicureans. But since the Stoics influenced the Romans still more than the Grecians, and since the Epicureans are the direct con- trast of the Stoics. I shall treat of both in connection with the Romans. In passing I may mention still that the Cynics and the Cyrenaeics were also two considerable schools of Greek philosophy. LAOCOOX. Rhodos, 2nd Cent'y, B. C. Marble group in the Belvedere of the Vatican, Rome. GREEK ART. Vitntvius, Dc Architectura lihri x. Plinius, Nat. liist. libb. Xxxiii- xxxvii. Pausaaia.'!, Descripiio Gr^ec. Lucian, passim. Phtlostratos Im- agines. O. liennJnrf, Oe Antholog^ia; Greix Epigfram. qiix ad artes spec- tant. //. Britnn, (iesch. d. f^riech. Kuenstler. Sf'on, Recherches curieuses d'Antiqnit6, 1-von i6S,^. Afoul fancoti. Antiquity expliqnee, 5 vols. I0I. 1734. Publications of the Society of Dilettanti (1769, 1797, 1S17). U'incielmann, Werke (8 vols.). Count Caylus, Kecueil d'Antiqnite ( 1767-7 vols.). Les- sinff Werke, ed. I.,achmann. Herder* Plastik, and passim. Goethe, I'ropy- laeeri; Kunst und Alterlhueni. Zo(?^a, Works. I'j.trow//, Works. S. An- gell. aud Th. Harris, Sculptured Metopes of .... h^elinus. Cockerell,'\'\\a Temples of Jnpiter at Ae>;iiia. etc. Nevjtoii, History of Discoveries, etc (on the Mausoleum). K. O Mueller Ilandbnch d. Arcliaeologie G Sem- per, Dcr Stvl etc. C. Boetticher, l>ie Tektonik der Hellenen. Hirl, Gesth. d. griech. Rank. Schnaase, Gcsch. d. bildend. Kuenste (vol. ii). Luebke, Gesch, d. Kunst. Ladies and Gentlemen : Our next topic is an historical survey and appreciation of Greek Art. By art I mean especially architecture, sculpture and painting, for it is particularly in these three departments of art that the (jreeks have attained the high- est degree of perfection. With regard to music our obli- gation to the Greeks is a, comparatively speaking, small one. Music is the favorite child of Christianity. Inci- dentally I shall speak also of those nobler handicrafts which, like gem-engraving, approach more or less the atmosphere of pure art; but mosaic, pottery or metal works will be left out of consideration. For it is Art in the noblest sense of the word which was the historical vocation of Greece. Art is nothing but the language of inspiration. By that divine state of elevated feelings the common gait changes to rythmical dance, tiie common talk to spell-bound verse, the common abode to a gor- geous temple, the common indifference of features to the divine beauty of deities. This inspiration pervaded all Greece, the very meanest of her citizens, everybody. Art and philosophy was their daily food, the interest of their soul, the ambition of their state, the cheering consolation of their gloomy days. It is an absolute misapprehension of 222 Greek Art. the real course of events when we attribute the works of Phidias to his own genius exclusively. We should rather reverse the statement, and say that not Phidias was the author of the Olympic temple, that it was Athens that enlivened the Parian marble through the instrumentality of Phidias. Thus it is but a matter of course that the highest development of Art in Greece coincided exactly with the highest development of all other institutions of Greece, of .philosophy, of science and of politics. Archi- tecture as well as sculpture and painting reached their pinnacle at the time of Pericles and his immediate suc- cessors. The very time when Socrates, Plato and Aris- totle were teaching philosophy, when Aischylos, Sophocles and Euripides were filling the stage with personifications of unrivalled dramatic force, when the victorious armies of Athens were carrying their banners to the far west as well as to the far east. For it is the nation that makes the genius; a little nation will never produce a great genius^ Plato, Pnidias and Apelles were great men, but Greece was still greater and they owe everything to their country, and not vice versa. Our ideas on Greek art are thoroughly German. It is in Germany Avhere the best books on Grecian art have been written, and amongst these books the very best ones have been written by the German classics, by Lessing, Her- der, and Goethe. Lessing's works refer to Greek sculpture and painting, Herder's to Greek sculpture, and Goethe's to Greek art in general. It is the same case with the his- tory of Greek art. A German, the well-known Winckel- man, is the author of the first as well as the best history of Greek art. In my historical appreciation of Greek art those four authors are together with Schnaase, Semper, Hirt and Luebke my chief authorities. The history of Greek art may fairly be divided into five periods. The first period comes down to the seventh cen- Greek Art. 223 tury; the second occupies the sixth century; the third the fifth century, the fourth the fourth century, the fifth the fol- lowing centuries. The oldest remains of workmanship in Greece, if we except the series of stone implements discov ered within the last few years in various localities, are the ruined walls of Tirynth and several other ancient citadels, the stupendous masonry of which, together with the primi- tive manner of construction, by means of unhewn poly- gonal blocks of immense size, led the later Greeks to believe that they had been the work of a mythical race of giants, Cyclopes, and to designate such masonry as Cyclo- pic. Instead of the unsatisfactory Cyclopes, the Pelasgians, who succeeded the Greeks in the occupancy of the soil, are now accredited the authors of the primitive plan. The walls of Mycenae furnish an example of the fine skill which the Greeks afterwards employed in the Pelasgic construction, the blocks of stone being carefully jointed and hewn on the outer surface while the interior of the walls is filled up with mortar and small stones. Mycenae claimed to be one of the very oldest towns of Greece, and its walls may be considered as the oldest known monuments of Greek workmanship A consid- erable advance of skill is noticeable in the masonry of the so-called treasure houses (thesauri), or dome-shaped and partly subteraneous buildings, which occur in several districts of Greece, and of which the treasury of Atreus, at Mycenae is a typical example. With the emigration of the Dorian race commenced the development of an independent style of architecture in Greece, the first step apparently being the invention of a a house supported by columns as the designs for a temple. With the new movement in architecture a fresh impetus was given to the art of sculpture. A school of sculpture in marble existed in Chius as early as 660 B. C, and there 224 ' Greek Art. also Glaucus is said to have discovered the art of welding iron, the substitute of which had previously been nails. The new phase of art thus entered upon by the lonians ws in the second period taken up vigorously by the Doric sculptors, among whom the first to obtain distinc- tion were Dipoenus and Scyllis, natives of Crete, and members of the ancient guild of sculptors there. Leaving Crete, they settled in Sicyon probably on the invitation of the tyrant Clisthenes, and were there commissioned to execute at the public cost a group of statues of deities. As to the remains of Greek sculpture, Avhich may with more or less certainty be assigned to the period in whi^h these and other noted sculptors were at work, there cue the three metopes from the oldest of the temples of the Acropolis of Selinus in Sicily, which up to now have been regarded as furnishing the first authentic, and as yet the clearest glimpse of that early stage of Greek art. There are also some other authentic remains, especially the sculp- tures from the temple of Athene, at Aegma, now in Munich, and several marble statues. The general characteristic features of this period of Greek art were the following ones. First, it is to be ob- served that the earliest important schools of sculpture arose in the islands, particularly the islands of Chius, Crete and Aegina. To what circumstances this was due — whether, e. g., to a more active intercourse with orien- tal nations, remains unexplained. Next to the islands, the coast of Asia Minor, Magna Greece, Southern Italy and Sicily were productive of artists. From Crete the new impetus spread to the Peloponnesus, Sicyon, Argus and Corinth. Secondly, for some reason the sculptors then worked in pairs like lawyers do nowadays. Thirdly, the various materials, bronze, marble, wood and ivory, and gold and ivory (chryselephantine) were al- ready in use as in later times. Greek Art. 225 Fourthly, the subjects were: i. ReUgious and mytho- logical — the epos of Homer being the main source. 2. Portraits and statues of successful athletes. Individual artists had at last begun to assert their pecu,- liarities in the conception of the human form. They had begun to give up those general types which bear the same resemblance as does his shadow cast by the sun. In the infancy of art as in the early morning, the shadows are gjotesque. As it advances they improve till at noon the aliadovv is lost in the living figure. If we are to credit the Greeks with having been introduced by the Assyrians to one branch of art more than another, we should say it was the art of gem engraving. Not that we possess Greek gems which compare in style and antiquity with those of Assyria, but if for no other reason, because we find a technical process of so great difficulty existing at all in Greece at an early period. The only glyptic artist mentioned in this early period is Mnesarchus, of Samos, the father of Pythagoras. In contrast with the paucity of early gems from Creek soil is the immense number of scarabs yielded by the tombs of Etruria, which at least reflect the style of this period. The material consists principally of rock-crystal, carne- lian, banded agate, and the subject, it is worthy of remark, are mostly taken from the heroic legends of Greece. Painting, or rather coloring, as it would be more prop- erly described in its earliest phase, in which it was entirely subservient to architecture and ceramography, is said to have been first elevated to an art by Cleanthus, of Corinth, who introduced the drawing of figures in outHne, by Tele- phanes, of Sicyon, who improved on this by indicating the principal details of Anatomy; and Eumarus, of Athens, who is said to have distinguished, in his paintings, men from women, probably by the means adopted in the early 226 Greek Art. vases, that is, by painting the flesh white in the case of woman. Like their followers down to the time of Apelles these old painters used only the simple colors: white, yellow, red, and bluish-black, in the mixing of which to obtain other shades they seem to have advanced very little, greater attention being directed to the drawing than to the coloring. At present the only examples of early Greek painting which we can adduce are furnished by the vases, a branch of art which the ancients themselves regarded, it appears, with sufficient disrespect. In simple architecture the principles of both the Doric and Ionic orders were already fully established, the latter in Asia Minor and the former m Greece proper. Among the remains of Doric architecture assignable to this period are, amongst others, the two temples of Paestum. Of the Ionic order during this period the principal example was the temple of Diana at Ephesus, the construction of which, begun by Theo- dorus, of Samos, was carried on by Chersipron, of Crete, and his son Metagenes, and completed by Demetrius and Paeonius about the time of Croesus, one hundred and twenty years having, it is said, from first to last, been con- sumed on the work. This temple having been burned by Herostratus, was restored under the direction of Alexan- der's architect, Dinocrates. We have reached the time of Phidias, and have now done with imperfections in sculpture, so far at least as they originated in want of knowledge, either of the human form or of technical means. Phidias, the son ot Charmides,was an Athenian, and must have been born about 500 B. C, or a little before. He began his career as a painter, but then turned to sculpture. When Pericles succeeded to the administration of affairs, and it was determined to erect new temples and other public buildings worthy of the new glory which Athens had acquired in the Persian wars, it was to Phidias that the supervision of all these works was Greek Art. 227 intrusted, with an army of artists and skilled workmen under him. By 438 the Pantheon was completed, with its colossal statue, Athena, in gold and ivory, by Phidias himself, and with its vast extent of sculpture in marble, executed at least under his direction and reflecting in most parts his genius. Meantime, the enormous expense of these undertakings had involved Phidias in the public dis- content which was growing up around Pericles. The story related by Plutarch is that Menon, a former assistant of Phidias, had brought a charge again.st him of having appropriated part of the gold and ivory allowed him for the statue of Athena, and that being acquitted of this charge, he was next denounced for introducing portraits of himself and of Pericles on the shield of Athena, and in consequence of this charge died in prison, either a natural death or by poison. But these statements can not be reconciled with other well-ascertained facts. As to the charge of theft, it could never have reached a public trial, because every one acquainted with the management of the public treasures knew that the gold of the Athena was so sculptured that it could be removed annually and weighed by the officials of the treasuries. The other charge is simply incredible. The two works with which his fame was chiefly associ- ated were in gold and ivory — the colossal statues of Athena for the Parthenon at Athens and of Zeus for the tem])le of Olympia. After the completion of the former statue, Phidias accepted the invitation of the people of Elis to exert his highest power in fashioning^for their tem- ple of Zeus at Olympia a statue worthy of the majesty and grandeur of the supreme god of Greece. His workshop was near the Altis, or sacred grove, where through suc- cessive centuries down to the second century of our era it was preserved and pointed out with feelings of rever- ence. The finished work was over forty feet high, and 228 Greek Art. represented the god seated on his throne, his right hand holding forward a figure of victory, and his left resting on a sceptre on which the eagle was perched. On his head was a wreath of olive. The drapery was of gold, richly worked with flowers and figures in enamel, in the execu- tion of which he was assisted by his brother or cousin Panaenus. On the footstool was inscribed the verse : "Phidias, the son of Charmides, an Athenian, has made me." The throne was mostly of ebony and ivory, inlaid with precious stones, and richly sculptured with reliefs and in parts painted. Of this, the greatest work of Phidias, nothing but the description of Pausanias now remains. Among the existing examples of Greek sculpture there is only one which claims to be a direct work of Phidias, and that is one of the two colossal marble statues on the Monte Cavallo at Rome, inscribed respectively "opus Phidiae" and " ojjus Praxitelis." Grand as both are the marking of the pupils of the eyes and the treatment of the armor prove them to have been executed in Roman times, probably as copies of celebrated statues. On the other hand we possess in the sculptures of the Parthenon a large series of works in marble at least designed or modelled by Phidias and executed under his immediate care, if not in many cases finished by his own hands. These sculptures consist of figures in the round form, the pediments, the metopes in high relief, and the friese in low flat relief. The statues of the pediments have suft'"ered most ^and that mainly from two causes — the antipathies or necessities of the early Christians, who converted the tem- ple into a church ; and the fatal explosion produced by the falling of a shell among the powder stored in it during the Venetian bombardment under Morosini, 16S7. The extent of the mischief on this occasion is known from the drawings previously made of the temple as it stood, 1674, by Carrey, an artist in the employment of the French Greek Art. 229 ambassador at the Porte. In 1805 Lord Elgin, the British ambassador at the Porte, removed all the sculptures that could be removed with safety, shipped them to London, where they found a permanent resting-place in the British Museum. The subject of the eastern pediment was the birth of Athene, of the western, her contest with Poseidon for su- premacy over Attica; those of the north side, which sur- vived the explosion, remain in Athens in bad condition; those of the south are now in the Louvre. The subject — a favorite one in the decorations of Greek architecture — was a combat between Centaurs and Lapithse. Traces of red color were found on the ground of the relief and of green on the draperies. The subject of the friese is a long festal procession, in which, trough every variety of movement of horse and foot, of young and old, of men and women, perhaps of gods and goddesses, is intro- duced, the calm dignity of national pride and the knowl- edge of national worth reign supreme. Its entire length is 524 feet, its height from the ground forty feet, its relief very low and flat. About two-thirds of it is preserved, nearly the half being in the British Museum. The mantle of Phidias fell on his pupil Alcamenes, an Athenian; the lofty conception in his figures of deities was highly praised, while in point of gracefulness in womanly forms he ap- pears to have excelled his master. His most celebrated work was a statue of Aphrodite for her temple, of which, however, the merit of the last touch was ascribed to Phi- dias. Her cheeks, hands and fingers were specially ad- mired; but as to the- attitude and general effect we have no information and are not justified in accepting the Aphrodite of Milo in the Louvre as a copy of it, much less as the original work. Scarcely less famous was another pupil of Phidias, Agoracritus of Parus, who so far identi- 230 Greek Art. fied himself with the master's style that two marble statues of deities by him Avere sometimes ascribed to Phidias. Next we have Colotes andThrasymedes and finally Ther- cosmus of Megara. The difference of temperament be- tween the Athenians and Peloponnesians was strongly marked in the schools of sculpture peculiar to each. Po- litical rivalry had its exact counterpart in artistic rivalry; in which Phidias represented Athens, and Polycletus the Peloponnesus. The works of the latter appear to have been always chastened with an hereditary serenity, to have been attractive by the purity of their style and the finish of execution, but not commanding in respect. In the records of painting during the previous period it was noticeable that painters even then, in what appeared to be one of the earliest stages of the art, were accustomed to execute large compositions, such as battle-scenes. To heighten the interest of the spectator it was usual to write the name beside each of the persons that appeared in a picture, as we see it done on the early vases. It is not to be supposed that in the early stages of Greek painting individual forms were studied with any other view than that of rendering the characters more intelligi- ble. At this stage appeared Polygnotus, a native of Thasus. Attracted to Athens by the opportunity presented by the new buildings which were then being erected, Polygnotus found favor with Cimon, to whose zeal and taste the new impulse for the improvement of the city was due. He was employed to execute wall-paintings for the Stoa Poecile, the Theseum, and the Anaceum or temple of the Dioscuri. For his services, and especially for his disin- terestedness of his character, Polygnotus received what was then regarded as the highest distinction — the freedom of the city of Athens. From Athens he was called to Delphi to execute a series of paintings for the two long Greek Art. 231 walls of the Lesche, a building erected there by the peo- ple of Cnidus. On the wall to the right after entering the Lesche were painted scenes illustrative of the old epos of the taking of Troy. On the left was the visit of Ulysses to the lower world, as described in the eleventh book of the Odysee. As regards the style of Polygnotus, we have the distinc- tion drawn by Aristotle between this and that of Zeuxis — a distinction which he expressed by the words ethos and pathos. By ethos as applied to the paintings of Polygno- tus, we understand a dignified bearing in his figures, and a measured movement throughout his compositions, such as the Parthenon frieze presents compared with the pa- thetic rendering of scenes in the frieze from the temple of Appollo at Phigalia, or in the frieze of the Mausoleum at Halicarnassus. It was also said that in place of the old severity and rigidity of features, he introduced a great variety of ex- pression, and was the first to paint figures with the lips open, and further he was accredited with great improve- ments in the rendering of drapery, so as to show the forms underneath. He painted in monochrome on a white ground, so that, in fact, the principal charm of his work must have been in the drawing. Among the younger contemporaries of Polygnotus were Dionysius of Colophon and Pauson, the Cutt of Aristophanes, remarkable for his talent of caricature and animal painting. The works of these painters have entirely perished. The history of architecture during this period is an un- exampled record of great undertakings throughout Greece, but more especially in Athens, which, if it had suffered most from the Persian invasion, had also in the end ac- quired the most ample means of repairing its ruins and adding fresh lustre to its aspect. Tne city walls on the 232 Greek Art. south side of the AcropoHs were rebuilt, and a tower erected to command the entrance, which, however, being afterwards rendered useless by the erection of the Propy- laea was removed to make way for the temple of Athene Nike. Among the new temples is the Theseum, which is not only well-preserved still, but is also the oldest existing ex- ample of the Attic-Doric order. Under Pericles, as I said before, Phidias had the supervision over all the pub- lic works then going on. Apparently at this time was erected the Odeon, a building intended for musical per- formances, circular in form and brilliantly decorated with a tent-shaped roof of wood. It was the Acropolis, however, that was reserved for the crowning effect of architecture in this period. Within the space of probably not more than 5-6 years there rose on the site of an old temple of Athene, which had been destroyed by the Persians, the Parthenon, a model for all time of the Doric order, pure and perfect in its architec- tural forms and proportions. The architect was Ictinus, who was assisted by Callicratidas. The next undertaking was the so-called Propylaea, a building which though practically serving as an entrance to the Acropolis, aspired to a highly decorative character. Contemporary with the building of the Propylaea, it appears was thatof the small temple of Athene Nike, on the Acropolis, which, on the removal of a Turkish structure in 1875, was recovered in almost all its parts, except some slabs of the frieze ; it is now in the British Museum. The great temples at Olympia and Delphi, though begun earlier may also be reckoned among the works of the period, to which also belongs a large series of Doric temples in the Greek towns of Sicily and Magna Grecia, particularly those of Syracuse, Agrigentum, Selinus, Egesta and Met- apontum. Greek Art. 233 Since the beginning of the fourth period the political and social circumstances of Greece, suffered a marked change. The nation had lost its unity, and the Pelopon- nesian war had made havoc of its resources. Aeschylos had given away to Sophocles and Euripides, Phidias to Scopas and Praxiteles. Poets and Sculptors of the new generation have chosen as their theme, the representation of pathos. Of works di- rectly from the hand of any of the masters of this school there is no example in existence, so far as we know at present. On the other hand there are many copies of their works from which some idea may be formed of their style. The first of the artists of this school was Scopas, a native of Parus, the son and pupil of Aristandrus. About 380 B. C he settled m Athens where for nearly thirty years lie maintained a reputation for an unparallelled power of ren- dering the human or divine figure, especially in a state of excited feeling. When considerably advanced in life, Scopas was invited by Artemisia, the queen of Caria, to assist or direct the sculptures for a monument which she was erecting at Halicarnassus in memory of her husband Mausolus. The site of the Mausoleum, one of the seven wonders of antiquity, was discovered and excavated by C. T. Newton in 1856-7, the result being the recovery of an important part of these celebrated sculptures. That Praxiteles was directly a pupil of Scopas is not proved even by the fact that he worked in the same ar- tistic vein and spirit, with a result which rendered his style undistinguishable from that of the older master. The scene of his labors was usually Athens and the neighboring towns. His model was Phryne. Like Scopas he had little taste for bronze in comparison with marble, with its surface finely sensitive to the most delicate modulation. Unsatisfied with even this, he endeavored to soften the 234 Greek Art. asperity of the marble in the crude parts by a process of encaustic, in which, or perhaps rather in the coloring of the draperies, he employed in difficult cases the contem- porary painter Nicias. That he was peculiar in thus tinting the marble and an exception among other Gi:eek sculptors can not be meant in the face of so many instances of coloring in the remains of Greek sculpture and architecture. The fact, however, of his being men- tioned in connection with it may be taken as a proof that the process was an exceedingly refined one, since his favorite subjects were those of youthful or feminine beauty, in which it is to be supposed that the tints corre- sponding to those in Nature would appear almost evanes- cent in their delicacy. Of his works, the number of which was unusually large the most celebrated were the following ones: The marble statue of Aphrodite at Cnidus, of which the more or less modified copies, as the Venus of the Cap- itoline Museum and the Venus de Medici, together with the ancient records, show that the goddess was represented standing nude at the moment when she has left her bath, and being sensitive to the air, presses her left leg against her right and looks toward the drapery which she has already laid hold of with her left hand. Then a statue of Aphrodite at Thespice, beside which was placed a statue of Phryne and a statue of Enos in Parian marble. The de- velopment of the art of sculpture in the Argive-Sicyonian school, corresponding to that just described in the second Attic school, was begun by the Corinthian Euphranor whose principal study was to suit the changed tastes with which he had probably become impregnated during his long stay in Athens. To this end he introduced a smaller head, and a thinness of the arms and legs, which gave a greater lightness to the figure, and which, under the hand of his follower, Lysippus, became the favorite type of ideal athletic statues. About 1,500 statues and groups in Greek Art. 235 bronze were counted as having been produced in his workshop, and among them two at least of colossal size — the statue of Jupiter at Tarentum, sixty feet high, and that of Hercules in the same place. There were also some very celebrated silversmiths. Of these we know Mys, who executed the designs on the shield of the bronze Pallas, of Phidias, on the Acropolis of Athens, and more cele- brated, Mentor, who worked chiefly on silver bowls and cups, for which fabulous sums were afterward paid by the Roman collectors. In gem engraving during this period the fame of Pyrgoteles is known, but of all the existing gems which bear his name it may be questioned whether one reflects adequately his style. It may be taken as cer- tain that some of them are from his hand. He was the court-engraver of Alexander the Great, whose portrait he made on an emerald. In painting, the transition from the style of Polygnostus to that of the new school was again, as has been said, a transition from ethos to pathos, from char- acter and noble bearing to beauty and effect. The change as elsewhere was in harmony with the spirit of the times, but of the steps by which it was brought about two deserve attention; the first is the exigencies of scene-painting, on which Sophocles, and after his example his older contem- porary, ^schylos, laid great value. In this direction the artist of the day was Agatharchus, of Samos. The second step was gradation of light and shade, and of colors, intro- duced by Apollodorus, who, for this service, is regarded as the founder of the new school. At the door opened by Apollodorus entered Zeuxis. The story of his having constantly before his eyes five of the most beautiful maidens of the town of Croton while he was painting his figure of Helena, suggests that he must have been a close student of form and perhaps also of color. His figures were of a large mould, as in the earlier school, and for this reason his heads and limbs ap- 236 Greek Art. peared a little coarse to Roman connoisseurs accustomed to the elegance of a later time. In this direction a great step in advance was made by his contemporary Parrhasius of Ephesus, who like Zeuxis, also lived some time in Athens, enjoying the society of Socrates. vSeneca relates a tale that Parrhasius bought one of the Olynthians whomPhiHp of Macedonia sold into slavery, and tortured him in order to have a model for his picture of Prometheus, but the story, which is similar to one told of Michael Angelo is chonologically impossible. Another tale recorded of him describes his contest with Zeuxis. The latter painted some grapes so perfectly that birds came to peckatthem. He then called on Parrhasius to draw aside the curtain and show his picture, but finding that his rival's picture was the curtain itself, he acknowl- edged himself to be surpassed, for Zeuxis had deceived birds, but Parrhasius had deceived Zeuxis. The arrogance and vanity of Parrhasius are the subject of many other anecdotes. He dressed himself in the pur- ple robe, golden crown, and staff of a king, and boasted his descent from Apollo. A picture of the Demos, the per- sonified People of Athens is famous ; according to the story the twelve prominent characteristics of the people, though apparently quite inconsistent with each other were dis- tinctly expressed in this figure. The way in which this was accomplished is an insoluble riddle. The next great painter was Timanthes. One of his great pictures was the tragic scene of the sacrifice of Iphigenia, in which the expression of sorrow was rendered with a mas- terly gradation, from the bystanders (Calchas, Ulysses, Ajax and Menelaus) up to Agamemon, in whom the deep grief of a father was expressed by his covering his face and turning it away from the spectator. There was a celebrated school of painters in Sicyon at that time. Butitis Apelles, in whose person were combined, if we Greek Art. 237 may judge from his reputation, all the best qualities of the hitherto existing schools of painting. It should, however, be remembered that what we know of him comes entirely from Roman and late Greek sources, and represents rather the tastes of these times, than a critical judgment on his works. The execution of subjects for which thoughtful re- flection are mainly required as oppo$ed to the poetic and spontaneous ex(icutive faculty of a true artist has been urged as detracting from the greatness of Apelles, and to this extent, he was subject to the weakness of his times. Like Correggio W'ith whom he has been compared, he lived at a time when the great creative spirit had passed away. To refine the harmony of his light and tones as well as to pro- tect his paintings from dirt, he employed a peculiar black glass, which broke the sharp contrasts of colors required for such powerful effects as the appearance of Zeus hurling lightning. With regard to his colors little is known. The statement that he used only four, may or may not be cor- rect'. Of his mere skill we have an example in the figure of Hercules, afterward in Rome, of which it was said that the face though turned away from the spectator, was sug- gested almost as vividly as if it had been actually painted. In technical skill Apelles confessed himself equalled by his contemporary Protogenes, the Rhodian, claiming, how- ever, as his own special sujieriority, that he knew when to stop. The fault of Protogenes was over-elaboration. On one painting he is said to have worked seven or eleven years, finishing it with four separate glazes to protect it from injury. Though the works of the masters of this period have wholly .perished, there remain two sources from which some idea may be gathered of their manner : First, a num- ber of Pompeian paintings, which, though executed in a later age, are still copies of the spirit and manner of the works of this time, and secondly, a large series of painted 238 Greek Art. vases, which, though the production of inferior workmen, display a wonderful facility of execution, a splendor of glare and an application of colors which show that the example of the great painters had not been neglected. The figures stand out in red from the black ground of the vase ; for the accessories, red, yellow, violet, black, blue, green and gilding are employed. With the close of the Periclean period in Athens the public desire for more temples seems to have ceased, so that the architecture of the period now before us is to be traced rather in works of utility, whether public or private. The two principal schools of sculpture of the last period are represented by the sons of the two great masters of each, by the Athenian school, the sons of Praxiteles — Cephisodotus and Timar- chus, and by the Sicyonian school, of the sons of Lysippus, of whom the ablest was Euthycrates. A sculptor of the Rhodian school, by the name of Chares, is known mainly as the author of the bronze colossus of Helios, at Rhodes, a statue 105 feet high, which, after standing a marvel to all for fifty-six years, was broken across the knees and thrown to the ground by an earthquake. To this school belonged Apollonius and Tauriscus, the author of a colos- sal marble group, which has been identified with that in the museum of Naples, known as the Farnese Bull, and representing Amphios and Zethus in the act of binding Dirce to the horns of a bull in presence of their mother. From the instances of subjects in which cruelty and deep emotion were combined, it has been argued that the group of Laocoon, which was the work of three Rhodian artists, Agesander, Athenodorus and Polydorus, may properly be assigned to the Rhodian school of this period. To the famous school of Pergamus belongs the Dying Gaul, in the Capitoline Museum, known as the Dying Gladiator. In this period we find most exquisite examples of cameos, as the large cameo, now in Vienna, representing the sup>- Greek Art. 239 pression of the Pannonian revolt by Tiberius and Germa- nicus. When stones were too costly, glass was used, as in the famous Portland vase in the British Museum. This is, in short, a historical survey of the chief periods and leading persons in Greek art. As to the question whether Greek art is of a spontaneous growth, or whether it has been initiated by the genius of other nations, especi- ally by the Egyptians, Phoenicians and Assyrians — it has been now almost universally accepted, that Greek art is thor- oughly Greek, that very few or none of the great features of this incomparable product of the human mind has been borrowed from some other nation. So certainly as the Greeks have independently developed the genius of their language from the common basis of the principal stock, so certainly as in their religious ideas, the ideas prevalent in the East, have been transferred to pure actions, just so certainly in their forms of art each characteristic trait is generically Hellenic. Only in certain forms, belonging to Greek antiquity, do we trace the influence of Oriental art, transmitted by the trading Phoenicians. This is the case in the capitals of the columns and in certain ornamental details of the Ionic style, which seem to come from Babylonic-Assyrian models. In our last lecture, when I had to treat of the philosophers of ancient Greece, I com- pared their speculations with those of the modern in order to prove what, as a rule, has not yet met with a general approval, namely, that the ancient Grecian philosophers were just as thorough, profound thinkers as any of the modern heroes of thought. Such a comparison with regard to Grecian and modern art is entirely superfluous. In this respect there is no plurality of opinion, there is no difference of criticism. As to Greek art there is only one judgment, one unlimited praise, one acknowledg- ment. As to these pure, chaste, perfect representations of beauty and of proportion everybody agrees in awarding 240 Greek. Art. the first prize to the classical Greek art. Greek Art, and more especially their architecture and sculpture is the absolute expression of model beauty. Beauty was the supreme law of Greek Art. It is not very easy to realize the far-reaching influence of this one principle. The Gre- cian sense of beauty was so sensitive that even our most refined artists sometimes fail to appreciate all its delicacy. This sense was the more sensitive because it was shared by every citizen in Greece, even in Sparta. In Thebae they passed a general law forbidding painters to select ugly subjects for their paintings. They did not want to fill their halls and public buildings with distorted or ugly figures. They wanted to surround everybody with repre- sentations of beauty, for the sense of beauty was so strong even in the meanest of their citizens that they felt shocked by ugly, disproportioned figures or scenes. And then they passed laws on the beauty of paintings just as we pass laws on the cleanliness of our streets. The whole city was filled with statues and paintings and they considered it their chief duty that these statues and paintings shall be pure representations of ideal beauty. It is not improba- ble to suppose that the great personal beauty of the Gre- cian was in some degree due to the exquisite beauty of all their surroundings. This keen sense of beauty may account for it that none of the Greek artists did ever form or paint a fury. None of the existing statues, reliefs or paintings represent a fury. In the catalogue of Grecian Avorksof art of Pliny or of Pausanias there is no mention of a fury. In compliance with this rule fierce anger was toned down to stern seriousness. The poet spoke of the angry Jupiter who hurled the lightning; the artist represented only the grave Jupiter. Extreme grief was changed into sorrow. And where such a change was not to be effected, where it would have been impossible to lower the expres- sion without lowering the artistic value of the work — Greek Art. 241 what did Thimanthes do in such a case ? I spoke of his celebrated picture of the sacrifice of Iphigenia, in which he rendered the gradation of sorrow up to the inexpressi- ble grief of the father. To render this grief in a direct way, by representing the disturbed features of a father writhing with the agony of his feelings, would amount to depicting the pathological ugliness of feelings. Desperate grief is no subject for a beautiful picture. Timanthes, therefore, simply covered the head of the father, not in despair at painting the features of extreme grief, but in obeying the first principle of his art — beauty. It is the same case with the renowned statue of Laocoon. The father and his two sons are represented in the mortal struggle with the serpents, the coils of these dreadful animals being already twined round the bodies of the victims. But the expression in the faces of father and sons, although it might be expected to be perfectly horrifying, is, compara- tively, calm. For the supreme law of Art, Beauty, did not admit of a photographic, realistic representation of all the horrors of Laocoon. In one of the delightful epigrams of the Greek anthologia there is the following line on an ugly person : "Who will ever think of painting your por- trait since everybody hates to see you." In modern times many artists would think this way : you are ugly, that is true, but nevertheless I shall paint your portrait — for if people will not admire your face, they certainly will admire my dexterity in rendering such an ugly face so faithfully. But that was not the way the Grecians thought. They would hav-e despised that whole Dutch school of genre-painters. They would have called them Rhyparo- graphi, the dirt-painters, a name given to one Pyreicus, a Greek painter, who delighted in painting barber shops, kitchen scenes and the lik^. Pauson, whom I mentioned before, who had a special talent for caricaturing, lived in abject poverty. 242 Greek Art. The Greeks did not care for his uglj' figures, for the low scenes of his pictures. Even when the subject to be painted or sculptured did scarcely admit of any change in the expression the Greeks contrived to avoid the full, re- lentless representation of horror, and mitigated it down to the lines of beauty. For instance, the image of death. Death is the acme of horror, and it seems to be a very natural thing, that all nations represented death by fright- ful images, and so we do at present. Our usual image of death is the absence of all beauty, in fact, the mere skeleton of it. Not so the ancient Greeks. Their representation of Death had to obey the general law of beauty just as well as any other of their allegorical figures, and consequently, they represented the dire end of this lovely life by the figure of a blooming youth, lean- ing on an upset torch, and looking sadly at the disappear- ing butterfly. The butterfly is the symbol of the soul, of the Psyche. But this keen sense of beauty was coupled with the most positive consciousness of the limits of their art. To what Goethe says : In der Beschreibung zeigt sich der Meister — in this very quality the Greek artists were far superior to the artists of all ages. A Grecian painter never strove to represent sculptural beauty, nor did a sculptor aspire to fashion picturesque beauty. The perfection of their works manifests itself not only in the masterly execution of an artistic idea, but in the very selection of their subjects. Nothing is more instructive in this respect than the cel- ebrated picture of Helen, by Zeuxis. The beauty of Helen was proverbial; the whole Iliad is, as it were, founded on the beauty of Helena, for it is because of the eyes of this one woman that the war with Troy was begun. But Homer nowhere describes that beauty ; he simply says, Helen was of a divine beauty. Greek Art. 243 No minute description of her eyes, of her nose, of her ears, of her figure — nothing at all. For the great poet was conscious of the impossibility to depict beauty in words. But he had other means to suggest the extraordinary beauty of Helena. He relates that when Helen entered i the assembly of the Trojan senate, the very oldest sena- tors were struck with the beauty of the woman, and al- though Helen was the cause of more calamity in Troy than any other person then living, the gray-haired senators could not help forgiving her everything. Zeuxis wanted to paint this scene. Do you think he painted all the senators, with the expression of long for- gotten passions on their wrinkled faces? Nothing of the kind. His picture had only one single female figure of bewitching charms, Helen herself, in her full natural beauty, unaided by any other apparel, and under this picture he wrote the corresponding lines of Homer. The scene in Homer, Zeuxis felt, was a scene for a poet — to render it verbally as it were would not be congruous with the limits, with the character of the art of painting. And then he did, what but very few artists would have done, he left out all but the one person, and let this one person of transcendental beauty stand for the whole scene in Homer. And in fact, in looking at a picture of such exquisite beauty Ave can more readily understand the feelings of the Trojan senators, than by a picture of one hundred portraits of old legislators. If, according to the ancient division of all our accom- plishments, I mean the two — the Beautiful, the Good, we should award different prizes to different nations, we can- not hesitate for a moment to tender the prize of beauty to the ancient Greeks ; and as to the brave and good, they were, as I tried to show in my previous lectures in the van of those civilized nations who honored truth and adored God. EOME— POLITICAL AND SOCIAL ' INSTITUTIONS. References: Livy, ed. Drakenborch. Polj/ln'us, ed. Didot. Varro. De Ling. Lat. Antiqu. Ci'rero, De Rep., De Legtr- Gellius, Noctes Atticae. Pliny, Nat. Hist. Dionj'siiis //a/irnrnasseus. Hist. Plutarch, in vit Roman. Sigonius, De Rep. Koin. lYro, Scienza nuova. Beaufort, Hist. Romaine. Niebulir, Koem. Geschichte. Sclnvegler, Roem. Gesch. C. Lewis, On the Credibilit}', etc. Ihve, Roem. Gesch. Peter, Roem. Gesch. Mommsen, Roem. Gesch. Hxischke, Vertassg d. Servius TuUius. Mommseiiy Tribus. Ladies and Gentlemen: Our next topic is Rome. This one word comprises the history not of one city, of one state, of one common- wealth, but of all the cities, all the states, all the com- monwealths ever since the beginning of our era. Rome is the father, the originator of nearly every political and ecclesiastical institution of the civilized Christian world. Rome is the fountainhead of more than a majority of our domestic and social institutions. Rome is the lawgiver to over 400,000,000 of people of our age. Rome is the source of two-thirds of all languages spoken in modern Christian countries. Rome after having been the military and political centre of all Europe and Asia and Africa, became the spiritual centre of all these vast countries, and to the present day her sway over the minds and destinies of people is enormous. Such an influence, such an historical position stands un- paralleled. There have been large cities, powerful cities, great centers of government, science and art, as Babylon, Nineveh, Peking, Paris, but their influence lasted only for a while, for a {^■vf hundred years, and after that time other cities assumed their part. But the city of Rome never had a rival. k Temple of the Djoskuni. Tempk oi Jupitei C^pitoliuus. Temple ot Jupiter Toodo^ F^tiuiaiiuui Temple o( Saturn, Temple of Vsspas Aicb of Tiberius. FORUM ROMANUM. .\is ood Temple cpf Juoo Mooeta. MS of DomitiAD. Rostra ot the Temple of Caesar. Rome — Political and Social Institutions. 245 All Roman greatness is attached, as it were, riveted upon this one city. In Greece several cities were alter- nately the great leaders of the current of civilization. There were great philosophers in Athens, but there were also great philosophers in South Italy. Pyth- agoras taught in Crotona, Zeno and Xenophane in Elea, Archimedes in Syracuse in Sicily, Heraclitus in Ephesus, in Asia Minor, Zeuxis in Croton, Euclid and Eratosthenes in Egypt, Democritos in Abdera, and so forth. But none of the great Roman writers, phil- osophers, jurists or statesmen ever thrived elsewhere than in Rome. There is not one single Roman name of any importance but he was a child of the city of Rome. He might have been born in some other part of the vast empire; he might have been a hispanus, a Spaniard, like the philosopher Seneca, or the epigrammatist Martial, or the poet Lucanus, or the rhetor Quintilian — they were all Spaniards, at least born in Spain, but they had to come to Rome, they had to breathe the classical air of the immortal city, they had to be fos- tered and nourished by the spiritual elements of the Urbs, before they were enabled to produce some work of literary art, or penetrating thought. Some of the great jurists of Rome were Phoenicians , or e. g. Ulpianus, some of them Africans, as Africanus, some Greeks, as c. g., Gajus — but it was in Rome where they acquired that inimitable skill of construing a jural relation. Accordingly, we find that in Roman literature there is no divergency of dialect — these writers radiated forth from one and the same centre, consequently they used one and the same idiom — unlike the Grecian authors who used several dialects, the Ionic, Attic and Doric dialects. There certainly is great difference between the language of Plautus, Cicero, and Gellius, but it is no difference of dia- 246 Rome — Political and Social Institutions. lect, it is merely a difference in style, a differencQin work- manship, not in material. Thus we see that the city of Rome is the absolute cen- tre of politics, literature, language, of the entire life of the vast empire — everything depended on this one city, she was the soul, the brain and heart of all cities, of all petty and large states, of all nations and peoples. This, ladies and gentlemen, is the cardinal point in all Roman history ; this is the chief, the main, the leading fact in the whole course of Roman history down to the present day. That one single city should obtain such an infinite influence over the destinies of millions of people, that the language of this one city, the laws of this city, the very errors and mistakes of this city should continue to be the languages, the laws, the errors and mistakes of hundreds and thousands of other cities and states — this is the historical miracle, this is the wonder and at the same time the spell of Rome. For this spell is imperish- able. There have been great men in every country. There have been great poets and statesmen in every nation, but the charm of Rome reigns supreme. The civilized Christian nations have spent more labor, have given more attention to the minute details of Rome and Roman in- stitutions than to the institutions or great individuals of their own country. In all schools in England ten times as much time is being spent on Cicero as on Shakespeare, and in (jerman public schools twenty times as much care is devoted to Virgil as to Schiller. This charm, this spell never failed. The most stal- wart champions of the Catholic church, the Jesuits, yielded to the charm of the great Roman heathen, and in their schools the best of Latinity was taught. Th& popes themselves were ardent propaga tors of the Rome — Political and Social Institutions. 247 study of ancient pagan Rome. In all Protestant coun. tries the study of Rome is the foundation of all educa- tion. But our intense interest in Rome is of a still more personal cast. The leading fact of Roman history, namely, that the city of Rome has been the unique centre of an unlimited power and influence ; this miraculous fact is sufficient tor the historian, for the investigator In addition to this the individual meets a more personal feature in Rome. If there is one event in universal history which surpasses both Greece and Rome as to its immense bearing on the destinies of peoples, it is Christianity. I do not hesitate to state that Christianity, the origin and development of Christianity is the event of European history. Nothing can compare with it in point of profound influence on our mind, on our hearts, on our public and private life. The influence of Mohammedanism on Asiatic nations was by far less significant. Christianity left its mark on sciences, on all arts, on manners, habits, laws, on every- thing. But we shall never understand the rise and pro- gress of Christianity, unless we previously prepared our way by a thorough, by a precise understanding of Roman institutions. I want you to understand that this is the most important of all historical events. I mean the origin of Christianity can not be understood ; nay, it must of needs be misunderstood, unless we first know the institu- tions of the Roman empire. My lectures on Rome, there- fore, are preparatory to my lectures on the origin of Christianity, and this is one of the reasons why I devote so much time to the discussion of Rome. I have so far laid down two main principles — the one is the unification of all Roman history in the city of Rome ; the other is the paramount importance of Rome for an understanding of the greatest event of all European and 248 Rome — Political and Social Institutions. American history, for the history of Christianity. I shall now proceed to a discussion of Roman institutions. But such a discussion would be utterly useless unless we first come to a fair agreement as to the relative value of our sources. Take up three or four different books on Rome, e.g., Niebuhr, Sir Cornwall Lewis, Mommsen, and Ludwig Lange. Consult these books on, say the Roman Senate or any other Roman institution. You will be astonished to see that these great scholars differ from each other in almost every detail. All of them quote Latin writers ; all of them seem to command a satisfactory knowledge of their subject, all of them give you very plausible arguments, and then you are generally left in a real predicament as to the choice of your guide. Shall you follow Niebuhr, or Mommsen, or Lange ? But you might think, perhaps, it wijl be more advisable to study the Roman writers them- selves and not the German, English or French comments on those writers. Very well. You will be told that the ancient writers on the regal period, and on the three first centuries of the Republic are chiefly Livy and Dionysius of Halicarnassus. You take Livy and begin to read, but you will have scarcely proceeded as far as the second page when you will commence to see that, in spite of all your Latin, you fail to understand the elegant historian. You will see, e.g., the very simple word "patres," — the fa- thers. Why, of course, you never doubted that patres means the fathers. But unfortunately Livy seems to de- note with patres, not the fathers in general, but the patricians, the patrician, order ; again, in other passages it is evident that patres can not mean the whole patri- cian order, that it must mean something else, probably the Senators. But very frequently it makes all the difference in the world whether patres shall be the whole patri- cian order or the Senators. What will you do now ? Per- haps Dionysius will be of some use. But Dionysius wrote Rome — Political and Social Institutions. 249 in Greek, and he renders Latin words with Greek terms ; his text can not always be taken as a decisive proof for one or another opinion. You will find, perhaps, some allusion in Cicero or Tacitus or Polybius. And very fre- quently you do find — but unhappily Cicero contradicts Tacitus, and Tacitus deviates from Polybius. And so you are forced to take refuge to an hypothesis. An hypothesis is by no means opposed to a fact ; I mean hypothesis and facts are not opposites. There is no such thing as noticing a fact without at the same time using an hypothesis. I know in common life we say : that is a fact, in contradis- tinction to : that is a mere hypothesis. But that is only a habit of talking. In reality, all our thinking goes by hypothesis, and he is the great thinker who strikes the right hypothesis — but none of us can do without a hypothesis. And thus, applying this to our question at issue : In trying to explain a Roman institution I shall frequently, nay, continually use an hypothesis ; that is to say, an assumption. Sometimes this assumption will be taken from Niebuhr, at other tunes from Mommsen, or Huschke, or Rubino; I shall always carefully state my source. Sometimes I shall use an hypothesis of my own. And therefore, you need not wonder that I frequently differ from what is usually being taught in Roman history. For, to say nothing of some other points, one of my most fundamental principles is this : The ancient Romans were neither savages nor barbarians nor a quaint, weird, or odd peoi)le. They were just as we are ; they felt, they thought, they suffered ju.st as we feel and think and suffer. This very simple remark has been lost sight Of by the overwhelming ma- jority of historians. It is incredible what amount of learning is wasted in consequence of the neglect of this simple remark. A man of such extraordinary power of mind as Thomas Buckle spoke of the Romans as a rude, half-barbarian people, because, he said, they were grossly 250 Rome — Political and Soclal Lnstitutions. unjust to women, because they held them under constant tutelage ; because women were no more than the slaves of their haughty husbands or fathers. Well, I can not deny that women in Rome, as far as law is concerned, were treated like children, and like naughty children, too. The Roman jurists have very nnkind words for the im- becillitas sexus, for the frailty of women as they call it, they place women in the position of wards, of minors. But does that prove that the Romans were barbarians? I know that many persons, more especially many lady his- torians boldly assert, that the degree of civilization may be measured by the kind treatment and high social posi- tion of women. The more women are being respected the higher civilization has developed. But if that would in reality be the case then we must award the prize to the ancient Germans, clad in bear-skins and living in the for- est of Thuringia or Hesse, for their people held its women in the very highest esteem. A woman was con- sidered a half-divine being and instead of giving a dowery to her future husband she was the recipient of an ample marriage present. At least such is the record of their virtues in the well-known book of Tacitus de Moribus Ger- manite. On the other hand, American law is extremely severe, if not more, on women. American law seems to follow the exclamation of Hamlet: "Frailty, thy name is wo- man ! " the very word of the Roman jurists. It will be interesting to hear the statements of one of the great jurists of this country. "But, when a woman marries, we call her condition coverture, and speak of her as a feme covert. The old writers call the husband baron, and sometimes, in plain English, lord. In fact, the scene is now entirely changed. The merging of her name in that of her husband is em- blematic of the fate of all her legal rights. The theory is Rome — Political and Social Institutions. 251 that marriage makes the husband and wife one person, and that person is the husband. He is the substantive and she the adjective. In a word, there is scarcely a legal act of any description which she is competent to perform. The common reason assigned for this legal disfranchise- ment of the wife is, that there may be an indisoluble union of interests between the parties. In other words, lest the wife might be sometimes tempted to assert rights in opposition to her husband, the law humanely divests her of rights. For the arguments by whicli this doctrine is vindicated, I must refer you to the books. It is my province to state what the law is, and not to justify it." Can anything be more degrading, more severe than those legal expressions? Can anything detract more of the dignity and high position of women than these scathing words of the common law of America? Well, then, but do these legal forms interfere any with the real position of women in America? Do not women enjoy al| social and domestic privileges, are they not respected and esteemed by everybody ? Most assuredly. Here the in- ference from legal statements to social privileges is imbe- cile and worthless. The Roman jurists maj'- have clothed their legal theo- rems in language ever so repulsive to the ear of a woman — these theorems referred only to law; they had scarcely any bearing on social life. The Roman matrons enjoyed the same social privileges as the American lady. And thus it is simply ludicrous to term the Romans as barljarians because their lawyers use harsh words as to the mere legal standing of women, the very harsh words that you will find in American and English law books. But to recur to my point. Our sources about Rome are of a very precarious character and the chief reason of this is, that they have all been written many centuries after the foundation of Rome. The oldest extant latin 252 Rome — Political and Social Institutions. inscriptions date from the third century before our era, whereas the foundation of Rome goes back to the eighth century before our era. The great historian of ancient Rome, Livy wrote in the time of Augustus, that is to say 800 years after the foundation of Rome, and Diogenes about the same time. But in spite of this lack of direct sources of coeval writers, we can fairly judge of the first centuries of Rome by what we see and observe in later centuries. For that is one of the most remarkable fea- tures of Roman history. It is throughout the whole of its development of one and the same cast, it barely alters its external appearance. In usual books you will find that the history of Rome comprises three great periods : the times of the kings (from 757 — 510 B. C), the times of the Republic (510 till August) and the times of the Em- perors till the fall of Roman empire. But this division of Roman history is extremely superficial. The so-called kings of Rome were not kings, nor was the so-called Re- public a Republic, nor were the emperors anything like modern emperors. It is absolutely wrong to translate rex, the latin word for the dignity of Romulus or Tullus Hos- tilius, Avith our En2;lish king. Romulus was no king, nor was Tullus Hostilius, nor Servius Tallius either; they were one of the chief magis- tracies of the Roman commonwealth. I say one, for there were other magistracies and the only difference was this, that they were elected for life-time. In 510 B. C, when the so-called Republic was founded, there was no visible change being introduced — everything remained as it had been before. This can be proved very easily by the decisive fact that the very soul of the Roman consti- tution, I mean their comitia centuriata and tributa, their legislature, was not a product of republican, but of regal Rome, it was established by rex Servius TuUius and was kept up for eight or nine centuries. You will find in Rome — Political and Social Institutions. 253 Livy very elaborate speeches on the difference between regal and republican institutions — but these speeches do not reflect the spirit of the first three or four centuries of Rome, they are the meditations of a Roman of the time of Augustus. In modern times we have the very same thing with France. France is universally called a Repub- lic. But France is no more of a republic than the United States are of a monarchy. In France everything is being disposed of at top head-quarters. The people of France does not elect its judges, nor does it elect its sheriffs or auditors, or county-commisioners, or school-boards, or provincial governors. All these officials have to be ap- pointed and for life-time by the ministers in Paris. The clergy in France gets its pay from the state treasury — there are no private school congregations, there is no democratic influence whatever. The only right of the people at large is the right of electing the members of the Legislature. So that in reality there is no essential difference whatever between republican France and monarchial Germany, except the name of the head of the country, the head in France being called a Presi- dent, and in Germany an Emperor. If ever France should reinstate one of the many monarchial pretenders, no great change would have to take place. Only instead of Monsieur le President the head of the old mach-inery would be addressed La Majest6 I'Empereur. That may account, by the way, for the remarkable fact that in France changes of government can be so easily effected — in the course of less than 100 years France has been four times a republic, twice an empire, and twice a kingdom. The ancient Roman Republic had a democratical basis; that is perfectly true, but in point of law, of theory only. In reality it was very far from a democracy, and hence the difference from the regal period was very slight. I shall discuss all the points later on in my other lectures on 254 Rome — Political and Social Institutions. Rome. At present I want only to state the historical fact, that there are only two great periods in the development of Roman civilization: (i.) The time previous to the Emperors, and (2), the times of the Emperors. Both of these periods are essentially of the same character, the foundation of all that is great in imperial Rome, having been laid down in the first five or six centuries B. C. I say they are of essentially the same character, and that refers more especially to the morals of the periods. It is one of the best cherished propositions of almost all his- torians to extol the virtue of Republican Rome, and to decry the vices of Imperial Rome. At the time of the Republic, it is constantly said, everything was glorious; women were chaste, men were gallant, modest, virtuous, self-sacrificing. In the times of the Emperors women were degraded by all descriptions of base debauchery, and men were rakes, profligate sinners, addicted to the mean- est vices — to falsehood, to abject greediness — in one word the world at that time was plunged in the pool of heathen immorality. Such is the general opinion ; such are the declarations that you will meet in hundreds of celebrated books on the history of Rome ; in books of scholars as well as in books of theologians, romancers, politicians and philosophers. Now, ladies and gentlemen, I beg you most fervently, do me this one favor and don't believe their statement. There is no more real basis for these horrible statements than the breadth of a hair. For take, e. g., the well known book of Professor Friedlander, of Konigsberg, Darstellungen aus der Siitengeschichte Rom's. This book has been translated into ten different languages, and it is considered one of the leading authorities on the his- tory of Roman civilization. There you will find the most shocking stories about the vicious private life of the Roman ladies and gentlemen of the time of Tiberius, or Nero, orDo- mitianus. Stories there are that will make vour blood curdle. Rome — Political and Social Institutions. 255 You never believed that such things were possible. You never believed, and perhaps you never will prevail on yourself to believe, that a whole people (please mark the point — a whole people, not a few outlawed individuals), that a whole people was stained with the ineffaceable blots of such abominable vices. But the Professor quotes his authorities ; he seems to proffer adecjuate evidence for his statements. Under the line there swarm a couple of names of Latin authors. Very well, but who are these authors? Who are these trustworthy authorities ? Martial, a professional epigrammatist ; Juvenal, a professional satirist; Propertius, a moody, sickly poet; Tacitus, a baffled statesman. Are these the jurors whose verdict shall be sufficient to condemn a whole nation ? Can these writers be considered as entirely free from prejudice, as unbiased, as unprepossessed ? To write a funny line ; to make his reputation as epigrammatist, a humorist will sacrifice his own sister. To give the requisite finish to his powerful satire, a satirist will use colors of the darkest black, and the most stirring sombre. Shall we judge England of the Eighteenth Century |3y the satires of Alexander Pope or Johnson? Shall we judge Science by humoristic pictures of Mark Twain or by Peck's bad boy ? Shall we judge the characters of Republicans by the slander of Democrats, and vice versa ? Shall an epigram of Martial be sufficient to charge the noble ladies of Rome with all kinds of unutterable aberrations ? Nonsense ! Martial and Juvenal and Propertius wrote very good poetry, but very bad history. Or to examine another of the professors' arguments : The Romans had no newspapers. Tliat is to say, newspapers at that time were so poorly developed, that we may fairly say that they scarcely had any at all. Hence the walls of public bridges, tombs, columns and the like were used as a means to give publicity to things that could 256 Rome — Political and Social Institutions. not reach the general public in any other way. Conse- quently the tombs of a city in Italy were covered all over with all kinds of inscriptions. The houses in Pompeii, a majority of which is still extant, show numberless inscrip- tions of all kinds, grafitti, as they have been called by Italian scholars. These grafitti and similar inscriptions touch upon every subject of Roman life. They disclose the most intimate record of private life, they speak of love and hatred, of jealousy, of adventures, of noted events, of everything. In short, those mscriptions made up for our newspapers. But this being their real charac- ter, will any sensible man build a solid edifice of thought on mere newspaper reports? Is one of those grafitti wan- tonly scrawled by some jubilant lad a sober argument for an historian ? Can such sources be used as a foundation for those crushing charges of immorality that have been so lavishly heaped on the classical heads of the imperial Romans ? Nonsense. I say again, the imperial Roman, the Roman of the time of Trajan, Titus and even of Domitian was just as good and as bad as the Roman of the time of Camillus or Regulus. Those exceptional monsters like Nero or Heliogabalus are so exceptional that they only serve to corroborate the rule. I shall enlarge on this main ques- tion to a very considerable extent in another of my lec- tures, for it has a most powerful bearing on a third great question. At present, these observations serve only to illustrate those fundamental principles of Roman history witnout which there is no real knowledge of this history. You must first take a right view of the whole subject, you must first place yourself in the adequate angle, on the appropriate stand-point, and then you may read Livy or Dionysius or Polybius, or any of the modern scholars. Some of these principles I have so far mentioned. I spoke of the unification of all Roman civilization in one single Rome — Political and Social Institutions. 257 city, further on of the general character of the Roman people as to morals and of the uniform cast of all Roman history. But there is still another fundamental principle, or rather one general fact, which has to be carefully de- fined and discussed before approaching the details of Roman civilization. And a powerful fact it is; a most powerful fact, pervading the whole frame of Rome, its political as well as its social institutions, its military as well as its religious organization. I spoke of this general fact when treating of Greece. I tried to give a graphic description of its far-reaching influence — but such is the enormous weight of this one fact that I must again and again recur to a close discussion of it' and delineate the working of it as plastically as possible. I mean the gerv eral fact that Rome was a city, and not a land, a country, a far-spread territory. In fact even in those times, when the Roman Empire comprised immense stretches of land, when it consisted of Lusitania and Hispania, Gallia, Brit- tannia, Belgica, Rhetia, Noricum, Italia, Illyria, Achaia, Macedonia, Thracia, Asia Minor, Syria, Assyria, Egypt, Lybia and Mauritania, even at that time there was prac- tically nothing else but the city of Rome. Take e. g. the enormous Union of North America. There are large, rich and powerful cities in the United States. But they cannot confer a special citizenship of their own. You cannot be the recipient of the freedom of New York, or Chicago, or Cincinnati. There is only one citizenship in this country, a citizenship that has nothing to do with a city, the citizen in this country being a citizen of the United States, and not a citizen of a city. There is no such thing as state-citizenship in America, much less is there a citizenship. There is only one national citizen- ship. In Europe, on the other hand, there is a national citizenship and a city-citizenship. In ancient Rome, how- ever, there was only a city-citizenship and no national or 258 Rome — Political and Social Institutions. state or citizenship. When a man from Bythinia or Pales- tine, say e. g. when Josephus, the well known historian, was made a citizen of Rome, he was not made a citizen of the Roman Empire, as we speak of a citizen of the United States, but he was made a citizen of Rome, of the city of Rome, a civis Romanus, as it were a citizen of New York city, instead of a citjzen of the United States. This is a most momentous point. In fact it is the point in a!l classical antiquity. If I should be called upon to point out the difference between Greek and Roman civilization and mediaeval or modern civilization within the compass of a few words, I would simply say : The civilization of the Greeks and Romans was the civilization of a people living in cities exclusively; mediaeval and modern Europe again is chiefly a civilization of a people living both in cities and in the country, in villages, hamlets, castles, in marks, in septs, etc., etc. The United States of America display the civilization of a city-people. The number of farmers living in the country does not alter this statement. They are city people, they dress like city people, they live like city people, more than that they think like city people, they are not, like the country population of Europe, essentially different from the population of the cities. And therefore it is that the civilization of the United States has so many features simi- lar to and identical with the classical antiquity of the Greeks and Romans. That is one of the many reasons why a study of these classical peoples ofTers such intense interest to every citizen of this Republic. A considera- ble part of those questions that are being agitated in our daily papers have been also the subject-matter of dis- cussion in Rome. They had before them the vexed ques- tion of the board system, of responsibility to the people or subordination under a higher official, the selection or Rome — Political and Social Institutions. 259 appointment of judges, the question of sumptuary laws, of homestead laws, and so forth. I shall carefully discuss all these points, constantly com- paring them to modern institutions, for it is only by such comparisons that one can be really enabled to understand those institutions. There would be one more point, one more general fact in Roman history that ought to be consid- ered and discussed before entering into the details of our subject. But I am sorry to say-that I don't know any- thing valuable on this remarkable point. This, my igno- rance, is due not to my laziness, for I took very great trouble to gather some information on this point. It is due to the ignorance of my authorities. I mean that g,eneral fact, the unrivalled superiority of the Roman army. Why it was that the army of this one city was, on the whole, next to invincible, I know not. It could not have been a greater share of personal bravery, because the Samnites or the Marsi or Umbri or Piceni were equally brave. There must be some other reason for this fact, a military ground — but I am sorry to say that nobody, so far, has investigated this very important question, and thus I can only state the startling fact that the Romans, although they have been defeated number of times, have, on the whole, proved invincible. But I can not explain this fact. In my dis- cussions of the institutions of Rome I shall, more or less, proceed chronologically ; that is to say, I shall treat first of the more ancient times and then of the more recent times of Roman history. But such a chronological treat- ment of institutions is by no means a necessity. It is incumbent upon the annalist, or the chronicler to arrange his tales according to the sequel of years. The real liisto- rian cares only for the causes of events, and those causes sometimes originate in very different ages. First — The most ancient history of Rome. We read of it in the beau- 26o Rome — Political and Social Institutions. tiful poem of Vergil, in the charming description of Livy and in Dionysius. There we hear of ^Eneas, who, on his escape from Troja and from the love of Dido, reached the shores of Latium and became king of the country. We read the stories about Romulus and Remus, their miracu- lous nurse, the foundation of Rome, the murder of Remus, the sole reign of Romulus, the rape of the Sabinian women and the sudden death of Romulus. We read of the wise and pious Numa, of the ferocious Tullus Hortilus, of the prudent Ancus Martins. We read of petty feuds with the peoples of the neighboring towns, Avith the Caeninians, with the Fidenates, with the Albans. All these beautiful, sometimes touching stories, have been handed down cen- tury after century to the eager ear of innocent believers, and it was a perfect sensation when some scholars first began to doubt the credibility of those stories. It was Giovanno Battista Vico, an Italian, and Beaufort, a French- man, who first expressed some doubts about the trustwor- thiness of these tales, but it is the immortal merit of Niebuhr, a German scholar, to have furnished irrefutable proof of the purely mythical character of these ancient records. He has proved, and to the present day it has been universally accepted, that the tales about ^neas and his Trojan followers, about Evander and his Arcadians deserve no place in real history. Nor are the first four kings of Rome, that is to say, Romulus, Numa P. , Tullus Hostilius and Ancus Martins real historical persons. They may have lived, but for all that -we know about them we are not entitled to say that they did live. We have far better information about the three last kings, about Tar- quinius Pr., Servius Tullius, and Tarquinius Superbus. They undoubtedly did live; they were reges, or, as we say, kings of Rome, and most probably either Etruscans or of Etruscan origin, for the very name, Tarquin, is pure Etruscan. But although the main pillars of Niebuhr's Rome — Political and Social Institutions. 261 structure have outlived all later attacks, there is still one point of considerable importance where he was mistaken. Niebuhr taught that those stories about ^neas, Numitor, Acca Lirentia, Romulus and Remus, etc., were derived from popular ballads, orally delivered from one generation to the other. But Sir Cornwall Lewis succeeded in com- pletely refuting that theory. He showed that even in the ninth and tenth centuries B. C. the people in Italy pos- sessed more of a judicial and critical spirit than was surmised by Niebuhr, and the modern discoveries in Italy as well as in Greece have shown it beyond the shadow of a doubt, that the civilization of the different people in Italy is of a very old date. In the times of the mythical Romulus, Latium or the central part of Italy was in- habited by a homogeneous people. The stones about Rome having been an asylum for out- laws, a refuge for the scum of other cities is devoid of all credibility. This story is on a par with the idea that the latin language is a mongrel language, a compound idiom of Oscan, Sabellian, Etruscan and other languages. But this theory has been absolutely discarded ; w^e know now the language of Latium as well as the people itself were of a uniform cast, of a separate origin. The origin of the city of Rome, or as Ennius called it, Roma quadrata, must have taken place in the ninth cen- tury B. C. There are still preserved few remains of the colossal walls of that ancient city and they show their venerable age by the whole character of their workman- ship. Livy and Dionysius talk very much of three tribes which are supposed to have been the chief constituent elements of the Roman people. The names of the tribes are: Ramnes, Titles and Luceres. Our inlormation on these tribes is very scanty, but in the works of German scholars you will find interminable discussions on the char- acter, constitution and influence of the three tribes. 262 Rome — Political and Social Institutions. Puchta, one of the great luminaries of German book lore, will tell you that the Ramnes were the originators of the jus civile, of the common law of Rome, and that the Tities being of Sabine origin, were the originators of what an English jurist would call the law of Equity. An- other great scholar, Goettling, will closely follow up the influence of Etruscan, Sabinian or Albanian race-quali- ties. Some of the institutions of Rome, say e. g., the arval fratres, he will deduce from the Sabinian race-quality ; others again say the jus fetiale, what at present would be called, the international law, he will promptly deduce from Etruscan race-qualities. But by which authority, by which original inscription, or authentic document he was induced to launch such daring statements, I know not. It suits his taste, and that's all. Very naturally then, Mommsen who happens to differ in taste from Goettling or Puchta, will ascribe to Etruscan race-qualities what Goet- tling chose to attribute to Sabinian influences. You will find a similar thing in this country. The fathers of this republic and more especially those great and good men who worded the Constitution of the United States were undoubtedly under the influence of those rev- olutionary ideas that had been propogated by the French encyclopaedists, by Helvetius, Diderot, Voltaire, Rous- seau and so forth. The truth of this fact can not be doubted. But does this alone suffice to prove that the constitution of this country is mainly French ? By no means. The constitution of this country was a growth of this country, its concordance with some idea of French philosophy serves only to prove that both the Americans as well as the Frenchmen had the same ideas. No more. And that is the very same case with the Romans. No doubt the Romans had some institutions that resem- bled Etruscan or Sabinian institutions. It is very proba- Rome — Political and Social Institutions. 263 ble e. g. that the whole mysterious art of the Haruspices, was identical with the corresponding art of Etruscan state wiz- ards. But this fact alone does not prove that the Roman augurs and haruspices borrowed their lore from the Etrus- can. The act of accepting customs of another people is not a mere mechanical act; it is not like the taking of a piece of wood or money. It is an internal taking, an organic ac- ceptance, and if the thing to be taken is not perfectly fit and adapted to the state of the recipient nation, the whole act falls flat, the nation will never assimilate the boon. On the other hand a nation always knows how to provide for its wants ; it is under no necessity of asking the advice of another nation. Supposing Jefferson or Madison had never heard of the French encyclopaedists, do you think that the constitution of the United States would have turned out the less wise for it ? By no means. The wants of a nation always elicit the fitting vehicles. And thus we must accustom ourselves to look upon Rome as a uniform, original community. The Romans worked out their civilization aided by none, attacked by every- body. There was no race-difference among them. And this applies chiefly to the well-knowMi contrast between the patrician and the plebeji. On this one question : wlio and what were the plebeji — whole libraries have been written. Ever since the time of Servius Tullius we con- stantly read of the contests between the patricii and plebeji — the whole inner history of Rome is made up by the record of these contests — contests that have never been bloody, although sometimes the fiercest passions were roused on both sides. But in vain do we look in Livy, or Dionysius, or Polybius for an explicit statement of the nature of these plebeji. Were they foreign imigrants? or peasants in bondage? or freeholders? or commons? or clients? It is incredible how many different theories 264 Rome — Political and Social Institutions. have been started to answer these questions. I shall men- tion the theory of Niebuhr, because it has wide accep- tance among historians, and because it will serve best to prove my point. Niebuhr says that the Plebeians were altogether a different race from the patricians and there- fore the patricians looked down upon them, refusing them the rights of full citizenship. Here we have it again. How frequently in the course of my lectures had I to complain of that childish endeavor to settle everything by a mere reference to race-qualities. Here is again one o^ those examples. Being at a loss how to account for the undeniable difference between patrician and plebeians Niebuhr takes recourse to that deus ex machina to race-qualities. The Patrician being of a different race must needs be hostile towards the Plebeian. At least this is the theory of Niebuhr. But where is the cogency of this argument? Does one race invariably hate another race ? Is there no such thing as amicable intercourse between races ? Or, to reverse the argument, have not people been subjected by members of their own race ? Is the nobility in Germany different in race from the peas- antry in Germany ? Or did the lords in England differ in race from the villains of mediaeval England? Not in the least. It is, therefore, entirely unnecessary to suppose that enmities between two sets of people require a differ- ence in race. Most certainly there was an enmity between the patricii and plebeji in Rome, and, no doubt, the patricians considered themselves the nobler ones, the bet- ter ones — to the present day the word plebeian has a by- taste of something inferior, something mean. But such word-meanings are ot no value whatever for the historian. They are only the expression of hatred, and hatred is injudicious. The fact is that in almost all cities of Europe do we find these two sets of people, the commoners, as it were, and the nobles, the Buerger and the Herrenleute Rome — Political and Social Institutions. 265 we had the same case in Greece, in Athens the nol)lemen were called the eupatridae ; in Sparta the plebeians were called the periokoi, likeursi in Sicyn, in Argos. It is very difficult for an American to represent to himself such an artificial difference among citizens of the same state, of the same city. But such a difference is the rule in all history. In all countries, in all states there have been two or three different classes of people — one nobler, more powerful, richer — the other poorer and less influential. The American order of things, I mean the fact that all ■citizens enjoy the same amount of privileges, the same number of rights, is altogether an exce|)tion. The word "republic" need not deceive us. The ancient republics were thoroughly aristocratic, and so are all European republics. In Switzerland, e.g., there is a powerful clan of patrician burghers, and no trace of the American right of equality. In Rome the patricians were the real representatives of the State, they possessed all power, all influence, and, as we will see later on, the patricians were the real law-givers of the State. There is only one explanation for these two elements of the Roman State. The patricians were the original inhabitants of the city of Rome ; a city at that time, as I have proved in my previous lectures, was the only place of refuge. A man had to live in a city, or else he was exposed to the ran- sacking raids of all neighboring townsmen. But when new-comers wanted to be received into the protecting precincts of the city of Rome they had to be content with a smallejr share of political rights. The older inhabitants of Rome were unwilling to divide their rights with strangers, and these strangers again had no other chance for living in peace or under an efficient protection. If the older inhabitants of an American city should claim similar prerogatives, the younger inhabitants would simply leave the city and repair to another place — there is free 266 Rome — Political and Social Institutions. elbow-room in this country for millions of people. But that was not the case in ancient Italy. As far as our records reach v.e always hear of numberless cities and towns. There must have been at least five hundred dif- ferent towns in Italy as early as the Twelfth Century B. C. This being the state of things, the rise of two or three orders of people in one and the same town, one the superior, the other the inferior, is nothing but a mere matter of course. I know very well that in Germany such an hypothesis will be received with great reluctance. For in Germany there is an established custom to prove everything by explicit statements of Roman or Greek writers. I mean to say, when somebody tries to explain an his- torical fact by means of a conjecture or an assumption, German scholars will demand clear and unequivocal pas- sages of Latin or Greek authors, by which the said assumption shall be fully borne out. But such a demand is utterly unjust; more than that, it is absolutely wrong. For the Latin authors did not even think of many a ques- tion as to their own history, which will arouse our most intense curiosity. A people seldom meditates on its own institutions ; and even if that should be the case, the members of this people will seldom inquire into the causes of habitual events. Say, e. g., I dare say that no American ever made it a point of his meditations to inquire into the causes of that general habit of Americans — of chewing tobacco. An American will settle the whole question by saying : ' ' That is a habit," perhaps he will add, " a nasty habit," or he will retort by asking, " Why do people smoke?" On the other hand, a foreigner will be perfectly amazed at the habit ; he will try to find the causes of this habit ; to account for it in some satisfactory way, but the ordinary explanation of this fact, namely, that it is a mere habit, he Rome — Political and Social Institutions. 267 will discard entirely. Now this is exactly the case with a great many questions of Roman institutions. The Romans themselves never inquired into the ultimate causes of their institutions, or if they did so they ascribed them to their own wisdom ; to their own genius. That is, of course, the pleasantest way to account for institutions. Livy continualy speaks of the plebeians and patricians, but it never occurs to him to inquire into the causes of these two orders. He takes it for granted that two such things exist ; that they form the elements of the Roman State, and that their contests are the main part of the development of the State. He never accounts for the existence of these two orders ; he never thought of ac- counting for it. Nor did Dionysius, Polybius or Tacitus. It is only the foreigner, I mean the modern investigator, who feels reluctant to take all these things for granted ; who feels highly astonished at them. It was Plato who said, that to be astonished is the begin- ning of knowledge. It will be, therefore, self-evident that no direct and explicit passages of Roman authors can be adduced in support of my hypothesis. But does this detract any from the value of the hypothesis? Not in the least. With respect to such direct and explicit passages a great American author, Mr. Lewis Morgan, holds the same position. I spoke of the late Mr. Morgan in the very first of my lectures. I said that he did very consid- erable service to real history, that he succeeded in laying down the foundation of the history of our institution of the family. In connection with this one institution he made very extensive inquiries into the origin of the gens. Gens is a Roman, a Latin word, and originally means a Roman in- stitution. The Roman patrician families were grouped in several gentes, so that one gens comprised 10 to 15, some- times fifty different families. All the families had a com- 268 Rome — Political and Social Institutions. mon name, the nomen gcntilicium, thus e. g. the nomen gentihcium of Cicero wasTuUius; the nomen gentilicium of Cassar was Julius. The .nembers of a gens were held together by bonds of law as well as of blood. They had to pay ransom for each other, they had to join in common worship, they had to give contributions to the dowry of their daughters, they were entitled to some hereditary rights, and to the right of guardians, and to be buried in a common burial-place. The whole gens consisted of agnates only. This word means kin by male only. No kin by female, say e. g., the maternal uncle, or maternal grandfather or his sons and daughters would be members of the gens. The gens, the origin, the purport and decay of the gens is one of the most difficult questions of Roman history. In the Roman writers we find little information on this point. It never occurred to them to investigate the causes of this institution, they took it simply for granted that a patrician, and later also, a plebeian besides be- longing to his natural family, I mean to his father and to his mother, belonged also to an artificial family, to the gens. Cicero speaks of it and so does Gellius and some of the Jurists. But they never think of giving an histo- rical statement of the origin of this institution. To mod- ern inquirers, however, a gens is a very miraculous thing. In fact we can scarcely understand why my maternal grandfather should be less of a relative than my paternal grandfather. We fail to Understand why I, instead of using the family name of my father, should bear the name of distant relatives ; why a remote cousin should possess more rights and privileges than the brother of my own mother. • Accordingly, modern inquirers attempted to solve the riddle and account for this institution. But these modern inquirers looked for explanatory passages in Roman and Rome — Political and Social Institutions. 269 Greek authors ; they changed the text, they twisted and distorted the meaning of the words, all in vain. At last, Mr. Morgan found some clue to the riddle. He did not attack this problem in a direct way, he first studied the tribal relations of the American red Indians, and he came to the conclusion that the gens was not a peculiar institu- tion of the Roman or Italian tribes, but that it was in every part of the globe one of the original institutions of man- kind. Hence, he said that a study of the Iroquois gens e. g. may help us to a better understanding of the Roman gens. Mr. Morgan enlarged our knowledge of the Roman gens with one remarkable feature : he proved by conclu- sion and analogies with the gentes of other nations, that the members of the Roman gens were prohibited to intermarry with females of the same gens. In conclusion I am going to give you the opinion of Mr. Morgan on the origin of this institution. "Whether the gens originates spontaneously in a given condition of society, and would thus repeat itself in discon- nected areas j or whether it -had a single origin, and was propagated from an original center, through successive mi- grations, over the earth's surface, are fair questions for speculative consideration. The latter hypothesis, with a simple modification, seems to be the better one, for the fol- lowing reasons : We find that two forms of marriage, and two forms of the family preceded the institution of the gens. It required a peculiar experience to attain to the second form, of marriage and of the family, and to supple- ment this experience by the invention of the gens. This second form of the family was the final result, through natural selection, of the reduction within narrower limits of a stupendous conjugal system which enfolded savage man and held him with a powerful grasp. His final deliverance was {oo remarkable and too improbable, 2/0 Rome — Political and Social Institutions. as it would seem, to be repeated many different times, and in widely separated areas. Groups of consanguinei, united for protection and sub- sistence, doubtless, existed from the infancy of the human family ; but the gens is a very different body of kindred. It takes a part and excludes the remainder; it organized this part on the bond of kin, under a common name, and with common rights ond privileges. Intermarriage in the gens was prohibited to secure the benefits of marrying out with unrelated persons. This was a vital principle of the organism as well as one most difficult of establishment. Instead of a natural and obvious conception, the gens was essentially abstruse ; and, as such, a product of high intel- ligence for the times in which it originated. It required long periods of time, after the idea was developed into life, to bring it to maturity with its uses evolved. The Polynesians had this punaluan family, but failed of invent- ing the gens; the Australians had the same form of the family and possessed the gens. It originates in the puna- luan family, and whatever tribes had attained to it possessed the elements out of which the gens was formed. This is the modification of the hypothesis suggested. In the prior or- ganization, on the basis of sex, the germ of the gens existed. When the gens had become fully developed in its archaic form it would propagate itself over immense areas through the superior powers of an improved stock thus created. Its propagation is more easily explained than its institution. These considerations tend to show the impropability of its repeated reproduction in disconnected areas. On the other hand, its beneficial effects in producing a stock of savages superior to any then existing upon the earth must be admitted. When migrations were flights under the law of savage life, or movements in quest of better areas, such a stock would spread in wave after wave until it covered the larger part of the earth's surface. A consideration of the Rome — Political and Social Institutions. 271 principal facts now ascertained bearing upon this question seems to favor the hypothesis of a single origin of the organization into gentes, unless we go back of this to the Australian classes, which gave the punaluan family out of which the gens originated, and regard these classes as the original basis of ancient society. In this event Avherever the classes were established, the gens existed potentially." ROME-LEGISLATURE-SEKATE- SLAVERY. Mommsen,' a.nd Afarguardl, Jioem. Alterth. Z.. Zaw^*, Roem. Alterth. Madvig, Verfassung- und Verwaltg- b. R. St. Duricy, Hist, des Rom. Genz, Patric. Horn. Grotejend, [mperium Rom. trihutim descriptum. Mommse7i, Forschungen. H'lliems, Le J-enat de la Hep. Rom. Lons[^ Decl. and Fall of the Rom. Rep Bureau, de la Malle, Kconom. politique des Rom. Caqueray^ L'esslavage chez les Rom. Walton. Histoire de Tesclav- asre dans I'Antiquitg Pignorius.^ De Servis [*Ul^]20ttpTlOA^UlTelULiaMl.^U5fpw culselJIlu5^UeMlu5u^eM^lp|2ue-Mal ii-K ia>usu> pp Licxu,iu> ui^uos t cuMC»on*rpua^*:oxii^ixvixpii.n uelxuneo p ut"i"»ocv»M lUrt^ppAeC^ lopua-*! uiie- U^xiipv^te^lcofisiiruiususppuctusm ^ puu(>uci^lecxtx|iiUineuo^Lie|^^TixTU|2UTt rpuifc^t U>*U.l>4iJtpUli;eTm ii-^emisceitpisquepe^u^NeiXii^e-MiMum Llep5UcW^4UTlle-J^t-:f^*e^^TppOpplxe^TXTe^•tV■^ pepxlv^^«rKJteu^•u):puctupLxcultceptn o^o ^l »: e;»c tim^ uiui'ua^ppuc rucne-xppoppifd?- IxT^fcl^pc^»^p.XlC)UlPu5XUTei^-»a^o^l5uMi;tlnreIpl>4lTupl5^evr♦lT»o^^5 Mipi- FRAGMENT FROM THE PANDECTS OF JUSTINIAN. (Facsimile. 5-7 of original size.) Manuscript from the VII Century. In the library of the Medici (Laurenliana) at Florence. The tinted letters are written in red ink in the Original. ROMAN LAW. Brunx, Pontes Juris Rtimani. Hiischke. Jurisprudentia Antejnsliruana, (Gajiis, l-'aulus | Sc tentiae 'fecepta:!, Ulpiin's Kragrneiits, "I'Vagmenta Valicana", etc.) Ediclum perpetuum. ed. Lend. Tlieodnsianus Codex, ed H^enel. •'■ In-^tilutioite^.'' ^ Di^esta,^'' Codex repeti'nc li-ctionis. '■' Nov- ella'''', ud Moinm«en. Saxidciz, ed Heimhach. Cujaciw:, < >per:», ed. Neapol. 12 vols. Donellux, Commentarii de jure civili. Saxngny . Sy-tem des heutiaen roemischen Kerhts, lo vols. Pitchta. In-itiluti'men, ed. Krne- ger Purlila, Pandek'.en. Savignv. Be-.?^/^r, Theatergebaucde etc bei iS^n Grie'hund Roemern. Becq de Fotiqnieres, Les jeux des Ancicns. Becker. Gallus. Marquardt and Mommsen, vols, iv, v, vi. Dezobry, Rome au biecle d'Augustu, 4 vols. Martha, Les Moralistes sous I'Empire Remain. Ladies and Gentlemen : T am going to give you a faithful, and as much as possi- ble, a complete description of the social life of the ancient Romans. While I shall be extremely anxious to state well-ascertained facts, I shall at the same time also en- deavor to place these facts in their proper light. Facts alone are not sufficient. There is no exaggeration in say- ing that a person may know ever so many facts about the social life of the Romans, yet he may be utterly destitute of a real insight into the nature and character of the pecu- liar civilization of the Romans. There have been scholars, say e. g. Graevius, or Montfaucon, who have collected numberless details about Roman life. The collection of Graevius forms twelve huge folio volumes, closely printed, with innumerable quotations and annotations. But these vast repositories of isolated facts can avail us but very little Facts alone do not constitute science; it is by the cor- rect connection and construction of facts that real science arises. And thus I regard it to be my chief duty, not only to enumerate but mainly to characterize the facts of Roman life. These facts are, comparatively speaking, very few in number. for the social life of the Romans, 348 Social Life of the Romans. taken as a whole, was rather poorly developed. Private life in the times of the Roman RepubHc or the Roman Empire was very far from being what private life has been during the Middle Ages, or in modern times. In the Middle Ages as well as in modern times the pri- vate life of a people is almost entirely apart from their public, from their political or commercial life. Society is a world for itself. Society has its own laws, its own standards of dignity, its own rewards, its own pleasures, entertainments, rules and customs. Society has classes and distinctions of its own, distinctions of the most subtle nature. Society cares very little for the dic- tations of the political law-giver, it will rehabilitate where public law did condemn, and will relentlessly condemn where the law proves lenient and mild. In Europe there are not only several societies, there are countless degrees of society, each of them having their separate universe of rules, customs, entertainments, and diversions. Consequently the private life of modern na- tions is a growth of many forces, it assumes forms of an imposing grandeur, it displays a variety, a multifarious development of social institutions that is perfectly bewil- dering. Side by side with the political, with the commercial, with the scientific life of nations, the social life asserts its own character, its distinct tenor, its individual tendencies. In the times of the Romans, however, social life was alto- gether different. It differed from modern life in quantity as well as in quality. It was less diversified, less independ- ent of all other factors of their civilization, and it aimed at altogether different objects. I say it was less diversified and this circumstance was chiefly due to the insignificant part played by women in the social life of the Romans. Before entering upon this very interesting part of our subject, I have to call your attention to the great diver- Social Life of the Romans. 349 gence between the social standing of Greek and that of Roman women. As I have shown in my lecture on the social Ufe of the Greeks, Grecian women, with the excep- tion of the Spartans, were kept in a stale of sweetened captivity: they were not permitted to join the symposia, the social gatherings of men, they were excluded from all public places, even from the theaters, and their life was very similar to the monotonous series of days enjoyed by the female inmates of modern Turkish harems. Women in Rome, on the other hand, enjoyed all possi- ble freedom. They partook of the decent entertainments of men, they could visit the theaters, the amphitheater, they could call on each other, they were socially almost on a par with women ot modern times. Still they played but a very insignificant part in society. The fervent, de- votion to women in the middle ages, the romantic splen- dor that hovered round the form of a lady of these times were unknown to the Romans. Nor did they ever think of cultivating the graceful gallantry of modern times. Leaving the explanation of this remarkable fact for an- other part of our lecture, we will, at present, draw the in- ference from the fact. In a society where women play but a very insignificant part — where women are not the ob- jects of eager and. romantic competition — in a society where poets took their subjects from mythical deities rather than from real ladies — for there are very few Roman poems of that passionate lyrical admiration of women which glows in the works of our poets, of By- ron, of Heine, of Longfellow, of Beranger, the poet Catullus being, perhaps, the only Roman example, in a society where there are no calls, no picnics, no general receptions, where women could not join the associations, the clubs of men — such a society must needs be in a lower stage of development. And, accordingly, 350 Social Liee of the Romans. we hear but little of those social contrivances which tend to fill the leisure time of society. So, amongst others, the Romans knew very few private games and plays. True, we read of a kind of chess (they called it ludus latrunculorum) that they practiced, and of a few other games, e. g. par impar (even and odd), caput and navis (head or tail), and of dice — but these are prim- itive plays when compared with our elaborate system of cards, billiards, chess, — games, with the numberless sports of angling, skating, yachting, piano playing, etc., etc., each of which implies a world of entertainment, an inex- haustible source of privately enjoying life with your part- ners. The Romans would have invented these or similar gaijies — but they could not use them. A nation always invents what it needs. But the Romans had no use for such thing ; for their lives were given to publicity, to the state, to the forum, to the comitia, that is to say, to the court and assemblies, and to the public entertainments. The social life of a people is complementary to its public life. If the public life encroaches on all powers and abil- ities of citizens, if it charges them with all kind of duties, and allures them with all kinds of reward, these indi- viduals will feel induced to devote the greater part of their lives to the state, and the lesser part to private society. This general rule holds good with regard to all nations. The more frequently the people of a country will be called upon to take part in the actions and functions of the State, the less intensely will they think of evolving the social relations of life. This one fact throws very much light on the civilization of nations, and more espe- cially of the Romans. Take, e.g., two countries of mod- ern Europe — England and Russia. England, being a politically free country, the people of England, every single individual Englishman, has to respond to the duties Social Life of the Romans. 35 i and obligations of a free citizen, he has to elect and to serve as a juror, as a trustee, as a commissioner, as a guardian, as a councilman, etc. The habitual exercise of these weighty offices, the keen feeling of responsibility, and the constant control of his fellow citizens fills his heart with an earnestness more or less solemn, makes him more or less unfit for easy, bantering jokes, for the lighter, for the smiling aspects of life, and gives him a leaning toward a stern and cold view of the world. The Rus- sians, on the other hand, have none of the political bur- dens of democratical States. In Russia every thing is being arranged from above by the high dignitaries of the country and by their deputies. The people scarcely ever awaken to the responsibility of their life, they never think of the State, of law, of administration, and thus all their feeling and thinking goes to an intense enjoyment of pri- vate life. And no doubt there is ten times more fun in Russian than in English private life. In Russia they have the most exquisite national music, charming national dances, private entertainments, balls, masquerades, of the most enviable character. This gaudy and fascinating nature of the social life of monarchical and despotical States is one of the reasons why those people never think of upsetting the government. The Viennese valse was one of the firmest bulwarks of the Austrian emperors. People enjoy their private life so intensely that they never think of causing a change in their political life. If we now apply these observations to the civilization of the Romans, we will at once strike at the very root of their social life. In Rome the private being, as distin- guished from the political being, from the citizen, did barely exist; the former was perfectly submerged in the latter. There were so many public acts and functions, in which every citizen had to take part, that he had scarcely any leisure time at all for his private entertainments. 352 Social Life of the Romans. You remember that the Roman State consisted of the city of Rome. The inhabitants of this one city were con- stantly engaged in public affairs. In our times games and entertainments are not given by the State, but by private men. Our base-ball games, for instance, are private en- terprises, and so are our theaters and concerts. But the games in Rome, or, as the Romans called them, the ludi, were public enterprises, given at the expense of the State. There were the ludi Apollinares, ludi compitalicii, ludi florales, ludi liberales, ludi Piscatorii, etc. And more especially the games and contests of the circus and the amphitheatre, of which I shall speak later on. Besides there were some fifty-two festival days, as many as our Sundays, for public sacrifices, and games of all sorts. Thus the time and the attention of the citizen was taken up almost exclusively by the State and the stately, fre- quently stilted entertainments given by the State. And hence the mitigating influence of private society was missing. This accounts for the stern, unflinching tone of the Roman character, whose resorts were public squares of his city or the seats of camp life. The Roman had no talent for that inestimable gift of softer minds, for humor. Their jocose writings are rather scathing satires, and in the comedies of Plautus and Terentius the funny parts are represented by slaves, not by free Romans. Their language is pompous, senatorial, full of the pageantry of public life; their music — they possessed trumpets, tubas, and a kind of clarionettes — was rough, grating, uncouth. Music needs the warmth of domestic tenderness; more refined music hates publicity, but in Rome there was little privacy. The State was the regulator and administrator of nearly the whole life of every citizen. A citizen could not dress as he desired to. He had to dress according to the law of Rome. The chief apparel of a Roman citizen was the Social Life of the Romans. 353 toga and the tunica. The toga was a nearly elliptical piece of cloth, its greatest length being three times the height of the person who wore it, and its greatest breadth equal to at least twice the height of the wearer. The toga was put on this way : The first step was to double back a seg- ment of the elliptical cloth, so that it may nearly resem- ble a semicircle. With the long straight edge so obtained, and with the smaller segment on the outside, the toga is thrown over the left shoulder, one end hanging down in front and over the left arm to the ground. The long end is then gathered round the back with the right hand, brought under the right arm and across the body, and finally thrown again over the left shoulder so that it may hang down the back some distance. The segment which was doubled back may be drawn over the back of the head like a veil. The Romans used no hats, only work- men and slaves wore hats, pileus, petasus. The toga was a thin woolen stuff, and as to color was always white for the ordinary citizens. A white toga with a purple border (toga prcetexta) was worn as a distinction by those holding public offices, entitling them to the curule chair and fasces, by the great college of priests (Flamen Dialis, Pontifices, Augurs and Arvales), but in this case only during the act of performing their offices, and, curious enough, by boys up to their 15th or i6th year, when they assumed the toga virilis, the toga witliout the purple border. The tribunes and aediles of .the plebs and the qucestors were denied the right to the praetexta. A purple toga was always the mark of high office, and as such was worn by the magistrates of republican times and by the emperors. The Romans had no shirts ; shirts were first generally worn in the eighth century, A. D. The tunica, generally worn under the toga, was usually of linen, just as the toga was of wool, and white. The tunic of the senatorial order had a broad purple stripe 354 Social Life of the Romans. woven into it down the front; that of the knightly order had two narrow purple stripes. The legs were protected by fiat bands (fasciae) laced round them up to the knees. The Romans despised trowsers, they looked down upon them as being used only by barbarians. Senators wore shoes of red leather, ornamented with knots of ivory or brass, and with the letter C. The patrician order wore shoes of black leather ornamented with an ivory crescent, for unofficial occasions and for persons not belonging to these orders, there were the sandals. Till 290 B. C. is was the custom of men to let the hair and beard grow long. From that time shaving and short hair were the fashion until under Hadrian. But all these minute regulations as to color, the shape and material of the dress of different orders had reference to male persons only. There were no such regulations with regard to the stola of women. Stola was the name of the female dress corresponding to the male toga. They would dress as they pleased — for women had little significance in the state of Rome. Women in Rome never were the wives of their hus- bands. They occupied a very odd position. A married woman in Rome was either an uxor in manu, that is to say, a woman in the power of her husband, or simply an uxor, a wife. The uxor in manu was considered as being totally divested of all power to dispose of herself or of her money, or of her aquisitions. She was in the manus, in the power of her husband. In fact she and her children had the same relation to the parent father. The children were the absolute property of the father, and, as I have stated iu my preceding lectures, the children were inca- pacitated for an independent life. All they earned be- longed to the father, they were minors, wards, as long as their fathers were alive. And likewise the husband's wife. In fact she was nothing but one of the husband's children, Sgbial Life of the Romans. 355 and the Romans do not hesitate to declare that the mother is only the sister of her own sons and daughters. By her husband's judgment or caprice her behavior was approved or censured or chastised ; he exercised the juris- diction of life and death, and it was allowed, that in the cases of adultery or drunkenness — (but it was enough to have tasted wine, or to have stolen the key of the cellar), the sentence might be properly inflicted. So clearly was woman defined, not as a person, but as a thing, that if the original title were deficient, she might be claimed like other movables, by the use and possession of an entire year. But after the Punic triumphs, the matrons of Rome aspired to the common benefits of a free and opulent repub- lic, and their wishes were gratified by the indulgence of fath- ers and lovers in the senate and in the assemblies. They de- clined the solemnities of the old nuptials, and without losing their name or independence (not even their name — so that the wife of Mr. Cyrus Fulvius was not Mrs. Cyrus Fulvius) — subscribed the liberal and definite terms of a marriage contract. Of their private fortunes they communicated the use and secured the -property, the estates of a wife could neither be alienated nor mortgaged by a prodigal husband ; the misconduct of either party might afford, under another name, a future subject for an action of theft. To tiiis loose and voluntary compact, religious and civil rites were no longer essential; and between persons of a similar rank, the apparent community of life was allowed as sufficient evidence of their nuptials. This, by the way, is also the law of the State of New York; apparent com- munity of life being considered sufficient evidence of legal matrimony. Such matrimonial contracts led, of course, to pernicious abuse. A contract so loose and of such extravagant lati- tude of condition was easily set aside. Passion, interest or caprice, suggested daily notices for the dissolution of 356 Social Life of the Romans. marriage ; a word, a sign, a message, a letter, the mandate of a freedman, declared the separation; the most tender of numan connections was degraded to a transient society of profit or pleasure. St. Jerome saw at Rome a triumphant husband burying his twenty-first wife who had interred twen- ty-two of his less sturdy predecessors. All these undoubted facts go to prove that Roman women never occupied the position of a modern wife. When a woman in manu, in the absolute power of her husband, she was but a child' a helpless infant. When not in manu. she was absolutely free, she did not even ac- cept her husband's name, she was more of an intimate ac- quaintance of his, one of his guests. Neither of these po- sitions could add much to her social influence, she could not be the reliable perpetuator of rank, of social standing, of class-pride. Our esteem for women rests chiefly on our belief in their conservatism, in their being the trustworthy conser- vators of social morals, of family ethics, and in Europe, of purity of class. But the Romans could not nourish such a belief, the experience of every single day went to discredit it, and, therefore, women were of little signifi- cance, and the social influence, of course, a small one. This one circumstance is almost sufficient to account for the fact that the social lit'e of the Romans was rather a life of outdoor entertainments. For the charming centre of private social life, /. e. , woman, had little or no general influence at all. Hence the people rushed to the theaters, to the circus, and the amphitheater, and it is there where we must look for the social gatherings of the Romans. But it will be convenient to treat first of their meals, which, as a rule, were done and enjoyed very elaborately. The evening-meal, the supper, was the principal meal of the Romans. The meal with which they sometimes began the day was the jentaculum. Though by no means uncom- Social Lifk of the Romans. 357 mon, it does not appear to have been usual, except in the case of children, of sick persons or of laboring men. Bread formed the substantial part of this early breakfast, to which cheese or dried fruit, as dates and raisins was sometimes added. Next followed the prandium or lunch- eon, with persons of simple habits a frugal meal. The supper or dinner usually consisted of three courses: first, the promulsis or antecoena, called, also, gustatio (appetizer), made up of all sorts of stimulants to the ap- petite. Eggs, also, w^ere indispensible to the first course. Macrobius has left an authentic record of a coena pontifi- cum, given by Lentulus on his election to the office of flamen, in which the first course alone was made up of some twenty-two different dishes. It would far exceed the limits of my time even to men- tion all the dishes which formed the second course of a Roman dinner. There were birds from Africa, and Asia, fish dressed in the most various fashions, pork was the favorite dish, especially sucking pig. Boar's flesh and venison were also in high repute. Condiments were added to most of these dishes, and truffles and mushrooms of al} kinds. It must not be supposed that the artiste (the cooks) of Rome were at all behind ourselves in the preparation and arrangement of the table. In a large household, the functionaries to whom this im. port-ant i)art of domestic economy was entrusted, were four: the butler (promus), the cook (archimagirus), the ar- ranger of the dishes (structor), and the carver (carptor). Carving was taught as an art and frequently performed to the sound of music, with appropriate gesticulations. The bellaria or dessert consisted of fruits (which the Romans usually ate uncooked), such as almonds, dried grapes, dates, of sweetmeats and confections. We will now suppose the table [spread and the guests assembled, each with his mappa or napkin, and in his 358 Social Life of the Romans. dinnerdress, usually of a bright color and variegated with flowers. First they took off their shoes for fear of soiling the couch. Next they lay down to eat, the head resting on the left elbow, and supported by cushions. There were usually, but not always, three on the same couch, the middle place being esteemed the most honorable. Around the table stood the servants, clothed in a tunic, and girt with nap- kins, some removed the dishes, others gave the guests water for their hands, or cooled the room with fans. The coena in Cicero's day was an evening meal. It was usual to bathe about 2 o'clock and dine at 3. Dinner was set out in a room called coenatio or diaeta, which two words conveyed to a Roman ear nearly the same distinc- tion as our dining.room and parlor. The coenatio, in rich men's houses was fitted up with great magnificence. Suetonius mentions a supper-room in the Golden Palace of Nero, constructed like a theater, with shifting scenes to change with every course. The Greeks and Romans were accustomed, in later times, to recline at their meals, though this practice could not have been of great antiquity in Greece, since Homer never describes persons as reclining, but always as sitting at their meals. Roman and Greek ladies continued the practice of sitting at table even after the recumbent posi- tion had become common with the other sex. The Romans knew how to churn butter, but they never used it in the preparation of their food; butyrum (butter) was used a as medicine. Nor did they ever indulge in beer, although they knew it. The national beverage was wine. The ancients considered old wine not only more grateful to the palate, but also more wholesome and invigorating. Many of the Italian varieties, however, required to be kept for twenty or twenty-five years before they were drinkable. Hence it became a matter of importance 10 hasten, if pos- sible, the natural process. Tnis was attempted in various Social Life of the Romans. 359 ways, sometimes by elaborate condiments, sometimes by sinking vessels containing the must in the sea, by which an artificial mellowness was induced, but more usually by the application of heat. Thus it was customary to expose the jugs (amphorje) for some years to the full fervor of the sun's rays. The lowest market price for wine was 10 cents a gallon. The most celebrated wines in classical Rome were the Setinuin, the Falernum, and the Albanum. The wine was almost invariably mixed with water, and to drink it unmixed, was considered a characteristic of barbarism. The proportion in which the wine and water were mixed naturally differed on different occasions. To make a mix- ture of even half and half was considered injurious, and generally there was a much greater quantity of water than of wine. The most common proportion was 3 to i or 2 to I. The master of the revels was usually chosen to conduct the symposium, the wassail, whose commands the whole company had to obey. The proportion in which the wine and the water were mixed was fixed by him, and also how much each of the company was to drink. The cups were always carried from right to left, and the same order was observed in the conversation, and in everything that took place in the entertainment. Dancing with women was entirely unknown. No Roman ever thought of dancing except in connection with religion. Such is the enormous changeability of opinion, tiiat the very thing which seems to us to be absolutely averse to religion, was performed by the Romans as a proper jjart of religious devotion! I have mentioned already that the chief social resorts ot the Romans were the theater, the circus, and the amphi- theater. The Roman theaters were originally erected up- on the sides of hills. This is still clear from the ruins of 360 Social Life of the Romans. very ancient theaters at Tusculum and Faesulas. They did not possess a regular stone theater until a very late period, and, although dramatic representations were very popU'ar in earlier times, it appears that a wooden stage was erected when necessary, and was afterwards pulled down again, and the plays of Piautus and Terentius (which we still possess) were performed on such temporary scaffoldings The first attempt to build a stone theater was made a short time before the consulship of P. Cornelius Scipio Nasica. In 55 B. C. Cn. Pompey built the first stone thea- ter at Rome. It was of great beauty, it contained 40,000 spectators, The Roman theater consisted of three parts, the amphitheater and the seats for the spectators, the or- chestra, which was a circular level space extending in front of the spectators, and somewhat below the lowest row of benches, and the stage. Seats could not be pur- chased at pleasure. The first rows belonged to the senators, then came the magistrates, then fourteen rows for the equites, the knights, and the general public. Soldiers were separated from the people, the same was the case with women and boys. This stage Arrangement was in perfect harmony with the whole character of these public enter- tainments. For these entertainments were given by the state, and the state had to honor its own dignitaries. In nearly all dramatic performances masks were worn by Greek and Roman actors. It may at first seem strange to us that the ancients, with their refined perception of the beautiful in form and expression, should, by the use of masks, have deprived the spectators in their theatres of the possibility of observing the various expressions of which the human face is capable, and which, with us, contribute so much to theatrical illusion. But it must be remembered that in the large theatres of the Romans it would have been impossible for the greater part of the Social Life of the Romans. 361 audience to distinguish the natural features of an actor. In our modern gigantic circuses the clowns have to imitate their Roman colleagues and appear in typical masks. The features of the mask in Roman theatres were, for the same reason, very strong and marked. Again, the per- sons represented in most of the ancient tragedies were heroes or gods, and their characters were so well known to the spectators that they were perfectly typical. Every one, therefore, knew immediately, on the appearance of such a character on the stage, who it was, and it would have been difficult to a Roman audience to imagine that a god or hero should have had a face like that of an ordin- ary actor. The use of the cothurnus, or high-soled shoes, also rendered a proportionate enlargement of the counte- nance absolutely necessary, or else the figure of an actor , would have been ridiculously disproportionate. Lastly, the solemn character of ancient tragedy did not admit of such a variety of expressions of the countenance as mod- ern tragedies, the object of which seems to be to exhibit the whole range of human passions in all their wild and self-devouring play. How widely different are the char- acters of ancient tragedy! It is perfectly possible to imagine, e. g., the Orestes of ^schylos, the Ajax of Sophocles, or the Meda of Euripides, throughout the whole tragedy with the same countenence, though it would be difficult to assert the same of Romeo or Ophelia or Hamlet. But there is no necessity for supposing that the actors appeared throughout a whole piece with the same countenance; for if circumstances required it they might surely change masks during the intervals between the acts of a piece. The masks used in ancient tragedies were thus, for the most part, typical of certain characters, and consequently differed according to the age, sex, rank, and other peculiarities of the beings who were represented. Pollux, one of the ancient writers, enumerates twenty-five 362 Social Life of The Romans. typical or standing masks of tragedy : 6 for old men, 7 for young men, 10 for females, 3 for slaves, and some 45 standing masks of comical pieces. When actors in Romfi displeased their audience and were hissed, they were obliged to take off their masks. The next great social resort of the Romans was the amphitheatre. The amphitheatre was a place for the ex- hibition of public shows of combatants and wild beasts, entirely surrounded by seats for the spectators, whereas, in ordinary theatres for dramatic performances, the seats were in a semicircle facing the stage, as in our modern theatres. It is, therefore, frequently described as a double theatre, consisting of two such semicircles or halves joined together, the spaces allotted to their orchestras becoming the circus inclosure or area, termed the arena. The form however, of the ancient amphitheatres was not a circle, but invariably an ellipse, although the circular form appears best adapted for the convenience of the spectators. Most of the early amphitheatres were merely temporary and made of wood. By far the most celebrated of all was the Flavian amphitheater, afterward called the Colosseum, which was begun by Vespasian and finished by his son, Titus, who dedicated it 80, A. D., on which occasion some 8,000 beasts were destroyed. The immense edifice, which is even yet comparatively entire, was capable of containing 87,000 spectators, and originally stood nearly in the center of the city. It covers altogether about five acres of ground, and the transverse or longer diameter of the external ellipse is 615 feet, and the shorter one 510, while those of the interior ellipse, or arena, are 281 and 176 feet respect- ively; where it is perfect the exterior is 160 feet high, and consists of four orders, viz : Doric, Ionic and Corinthian, in attached three-quarter columns (that is, columns one- fourth of whose circumference appears to be buried in the Social Life of the Romans. 363 wall behind them), and an upper order of Corinthian pilasters. With the exception of the last, each of these tiers consists of eighty columns, and as many arches be- tween them, forming open galleries throughout the whole circumference of the building. The whole building was covered in with a temporary roofing or awning. It is not quite clear whether the arena w^as no more than the solid ground or whether it had an actual flooring of any kind. That there must have been some substruction beneath the arena is evident, because the whole arena was on particular occasions filled with water and converted into a naumachia, where vessels engaged in mimic sea-fights, or else croco- diles and other amphibious animals were made to attack each other. Nero is said to have frequently entertained the Romans with spectacles and diversioms of this kind, which took place immediately after the customary game, and were again succeeded by them, consequently there must have been not only an abundant supply of water, but mechanical apparatus capable of pouring it in and draining it off again very expeditiously. There were in the ampitheaters concealed tubes, from which scented liquids were scattered over the audience, which sometimes issued from statues placed in different parts of the building. In the amphitheatre the celebrated gladiatorial plays were exhibited. They were a form of spectacle which is peculiar to Rome and Roman prov- inces. The Grecians never indulged in such gamts. For the games and plays of a nation are intimately connected with the pec^iliar character and with the institutions of a people, as the constitution or the law-s of a people. It has been several times tried to transplant the American baseball game to England or Germany, but neither the people of England nor the Germans did accept it. It is a thoroughly American game, and will never take root in any other country. It was the same case with the Roman 364 Social Life of the Romans. gladiators; they were a thoroughly Roman institution. The national passion for these games, or r.ither slaughters, was steadily increasing. The Emperor Trajan, in cele- bration of his victory over Decebalus, exhibited 5,000 pairs of gladiators. Domitian instituted hunting fights by torchlight, and at the Saturnalia of 90 A. D., arranged a battle between dwarfs and women. From Britain to Syria there was not a town of any size that could not boast its arena and public games. These gladiators consisted either of captives, slaves and condemned malefactors, or of freeborn citizens who fought voluntarily. Of those who were condemned, some were said to be condemned ad gladium, in which case they were obliged to be killed at least within a year. When the day came the gladi;itors were led along the arena in procession, and matched by pairs, and their swords were examined to see whether they were sufficiently sharp. At first there was a kind of sham battle, in which they fought with wooden swords or the like, and afterwards, at the sound of the trumpet, the real battle began. When a gladiator was wounded, the people called out "habet!" and the one who was vanquished lowered his arms in token of submission. His fate, however, depended upon the peo- ple, who pressed down their thumbs if they wished him to be saved, but turned them up if they wished him to be killed, and ordered him to receive the sword, which glad- iators usually did with the greatest firmness. Gladiators were divided into different classes according to their arms and different mode of fighting. The Samnil^s fought with the national weapon — a large oblong shield, a vizard, a plumed helmet, and a short sword. The Thraces had a small round buckler and a dagger, curved like a scythe ; they were generally pitted against the Mirmilloiies, so-called from the fish (myrmilos) which served as the crest of their helmet. In like manner the Retiarius was matched with Social Life of the Romans. 365 the Secutor. The Retiarius had nothing on but a short tunic or apron, and sought to entangle his pursuer, who was fully armed, with the cast-net which he carried in his right hand, and if successful he dispatched him with the trident (a spear with three tines), that he carried in his left. But far more important than all these single facts is the question which presents itself with regard to the moral and historical significance of these gladiatorial games. Num- berless writers, I dare say almost all historians, have pointed to these bloody games as a sure proof of the heathenish, cruel and callous character of the Romans. They have built up a whole edifice of accusations against the low and primitive stage of morals in those times; they have adduced these games as triumphant evidence for the defective symyathies, for the inferior civilization of the Romans. I do not deny that there is some truth in these remarks; it cannot be denied that to us, at least to some people of our century, such games would be utterly repul- sive ; it cannot be denied that a people who indulged in such shows must have lacked some of those tender senti- ments which form the pride of our age. But granting all this, I do by no means grant also that these games are full evidence of the low state of Roman morals, or of Roman civilization in general. By no means. I have been in- duced, not by one or two or three, but by numberless cases of general history, to let my judgment of foreign institutions proceed unbiassed by any feeling whatever, purposely disregard my feeling ; . I ignore it I would not listen to it for one single moment. For my feeling is a product of my surroundings, of my friends, my acquaint- ances, my time, my age. And the past events of history are the products of different surroundings, of different friends, of different acquaintances, of different times and different ages. Hence my feelings and history stand ajar; 2,66 Social Life of the Romans. they cannot understand each other. Suppose a Roman, say Cicero, or PUny, or Marcus Aurelius, would leave his eternal resting-place and visit our present world. He would see our institutions, and no doubt some he would greatly admire; but only some. Others, probably the majority, he would deride, others again he would simply despise. That a freeman should be in a store all day long and smilingly wait on every servant-maid — that would be a perfect insult to a Roman ; that men should dance with ladies in a public place, and ostentatiously, too — that would be the height of degradation. And that a culprit should be detained in a prison for five, ten or fifteen years — that would appear to him the most infernal cruelty that men ever invented. In Rome the condemned were branded, mutilated, exiled, killed, but to detain a freeman in cold blood for a series of years in a dungeon, that would have been more revolting to the feelings of a Roman than all the horrors of the arena, of the gladiatorial games. And what would this Roman say of bear-baiting in England, prohibited only less than half a century ago? What about the shameful bull-fights in Spain ? What about cock-fights? What about our prize-boxers ? Would any of us possess the effrontery to parade our Christian civilization in the face of these outrages, as they are justly called? Ladies and gendemen, it is perfectly useless, more than that, it is decidedly injurious, to study history with your heart. We have to study history as the naturalist is study- ing plants or animals. A naturalist would be a laughing- stock to all his colleagues were he to classify the pink as a moral, and the strawberry as an immoral plant. The standard of morality can be applied to individuals only. We can justly speak of this person as a moral, an ethical person, and of another person as being an immoral person. But a nation, an entire people can never be judged by such a narrow standard. There is little or no difference Social Life of the Romans. 367 between the morality of one and the morahty of another nation. And if we still do find some shocking traits, some features which are adverse to our own feelings, why not rather doubt the legitimacy of our feeling than unhes- itatingly condemn the customs of other peoples ? Why not perhaps think : perhaps I do not know all about it ; perhaps there are some reasons for these shocking traits, for these strange features in the character of a people. And 1 take the liberty to assure you that a more elaborate study will invariably convince you that these shocking things were an inevitable outcome of forces, the control of which are in the hands of Him who controls everything, and cannot be attributed to the nation itself. If you will pursue your his- torical studies in this manner, you will not be in such a rush with despising and loathing the institutions of other nations. Your feelings, of course, will be put to a severe test ; say, e. g. , you read that some peoples eat their slain enemies, or that they .sacrifice their children to some one god or goddess. But the principle holds good even in such an extreme case. I must confess I do not know why those so-called savages indulge in human flesh, and what makes them think that their gods have a predilection for human blood. But even in this fearful case I would post- pone my judgment, although I cannot postpone my horror. Such doctrines are not intended for children ; but history is not meant for children. History, like astronomy, chemistry, or any other science, is meant for mature minds, for strong minds, who can endure the stern glance of truth, who do not shiver at the least little blizzard of truth. And it is in this, in the scientific spirit of history, that I ask you to look upon the gladiatorial games of Rome. The Romans, as I have tried to show in all my lectures on Rome, had scarcely any domestic life whatever. They had a street life, a camp life, a court life, a life by masses, by aggregates of people. 368 Social Life of the Romans. But masses of people have no tender feelings; an indi- vidual man standing in a mass of people has lost all those delicate sentiments which he would otherwise cultivate. He may privately be ever so nice and refined — as part of the mass he will soon notice the ascendancy of the rougher elements of his nature. The mere presence of so many peo- ple is exciting, it blunts the calmer feelings, and it creates a disposition to enjoy rude, loud, thrilling sights. And if such masses of people occur and reoccur almost every week, and twice in every week, the desire for those sights grows wilder and wilder, until it stops short of blood, or does not stop at all, but puts out the lolling tongue and cries for blood. The desire for the games of the arena, therefore, was virtually but the necessary product of the lack of domestic life. But who could have averted this evil, who could have changed the whole civilization who could have altered the course of all the channels of Roman life, who else but He whose infinite wisdom did not choose to do so ? You will ask me, perhaps, why did the Grecians dislike the bloody games of the arena? Have they not lacked the mitigating charms of domestic life? Undoubtedly. The Greeks did not possess our modern domestic life either. Women, I mean legitimate women, were most insignificant creatures in Greece. But you will remember the great; the vast influence of the Hetairai, of those semi- legal women, who occupied such a prominent place in Greek society. The charms of their houses took, to a great extent, the place of domestic life, as I have, shown in my lecture on Greek life. Hence, no power, or virtue, and no reasoning could obviate the existence of the bloody Roman games. We shall not then be greatly surprised if hardly one of the Roman moralists is found to raise his voice against this amusement, except on the score of extravagance. Social Life of the Romans. 369 Cicero commends the gladiatorial games as the best discipline against the fear of death and suffering that can be presented to the eye. The younger Pliny, who, ])erhaps, of all Romans, approaches nearest to our ideal of a cultivated gentleman, speaks approvingly ot them. Marcus Aurelius though he did much to mitigate their horrors, yet in his writings con- demns the monotony rather than the cruelty. Seneca is, indeed, a splendid exception, butheis without a parallel till we come to the writings of the Christian fathers, of Tertul- lian, Lactantius, Cyprian, and Augustine. In the confes- sions of the last mentioned there occurs a narrative which is worth quoting as a proof of the strange fascination which the games exercised even on a religious man and a Christ- ian. He tells us how his friend Alippius was dragged against his will to the amphitheater, how he strove to quiet his conscience by closing his eyes, how at some exciting crisis the shouts of the whole assembly aroused his curios- ity, how he looked and was lost, grew drunk with the sight of blood, and cheered again and again, knowing his guilt yet unable to abstain. We have arrived at the concluding part of our review and discussion of Roman civilization. We tried to con- strue their political life, their chief magistracies, their leg- islature, their law, and the leading features of what might be called their social life. We have thus learned the characterististic contents of the biography of this nation and we have now to face the last and, perhaps, the most important and most difficult question. The qCiestion I mean as to the causes ot the downfall of Rome. Why did this mighty Empire decay ? Wh]^ was it, that a few hords of Germany and Sarmatia were able to shatter the whole magnificent edifice to pieces? Why did the Persian realm survive the storms of 3,000 years, why did the Chinese empire defy the hurricanes of 6,000 years, and 370 Social Life of the Romans. why did Rome succumb under the burden of a little over 1,200 years? This is the question. In order to get a real insight into this momentous ques- tion we must first clear the field of all irrelevant factors. So amongst others : You will frequently hear that the down- fall of the Roman Empire must be ascribed to their fre- quent military failures in the fourth and fifth centuries, A. D., to the many battles in which they were defeated by the sturdy and vigorous barbarians of the north. But such an explanation is perfectly childish. The Romans, in their palmiest days, suffered the most terrific defeats at the hands of the Gallians, of Hannibal, of P3Trhus, of the Cimbri — defeats which were next to an absolute annihilation. Nor can their internal contests be regarded the real cause of their decay. For exactly at the time when they were at the summit of their power, they aljo underwent the dreary havoc of intestine wars. But least of all can we ascribe their downfall to the alleged - rotten state of their morals. I know very well, that this is the general opinion. I know that generally we are taught to think, that the Romans of the first, second, third, and fourth centuries after Christ were in such a hopeless state of moral decadence, that the whole fabric of their institutions was thoroughly diseased, foul, venomous, un- fit to live and unworthy to die. These are the teachings of our school-books, of our ref- erence-books, of our scholars, of our writers. From this I do deviate absolutely. Despite my most careful studies of the sources, despite all arguments of my opponents, or rather in consequence of this. I am deeply convinced of tht utter worthlessness of this opinion. I do not deny the fact of the downfall of Rome ; surely, this is an historical fact. But I do most strenuously deny that the downfall of Rome was due to the moral decadence of the Romans. The Romans of the fourth and fifth centuries after Social Life of the Romans. 371 Christ were, on the whole, just as moral or immoral as the Romans of the fourth and fifth centuries before Christ. It would be the easiest thing in the world to accumulate ex- amples of the most tender charity j^racticed by these im- moral Romans; for instance the charitable institutions of the emperors Nerva, Trajan and Hadrian, which embraced all the orphans and the minor children of the vast empire. Numberless are the cases of the most magnanimous individ- als; justice in imperial Rome, in this rotten and diseased Rome was adininistered in the most perfect way. We sel- dom or never hear a complaint over the injustice of jud^'es, or the injustice of the imperial chamber. The liberty of citizens, even the personal safety of slaves, were protected by powerful laws ; the taxes were small, and were, comparatively speaking, a rare event. The average Roman gentleman was a firm believer in the pure doctrine of the Stoa, and this system of philosophy is of such a refined morality that one of the great theolo- gians of Germany, Bruno Bauer, considered it to be one of the secoiadary sources of Christianity. Stoicism teaches self-control, self-respect, mild judgment of others, the im- mortality of the soul, the transient and cphemereal charac- ter of pleasure, and the contemplation of the infinite wis- dom of God. These teachings were the confessed belief of these rotten Romans. These rotten Romans of the first three centuries of our era, instead of dozing away in idle profligacy, were the founders of thousands of flourish- ing cjties in France, Britain, Germany, Austria, etc., with so many acquaducts for fresh water, with countless pikes and roads in almost all Europe, in Asia Minor, in Africa. These rotten Romans protected every body and persecuted nobody. It would be a simple waste of time to defend their religious tolerance, for this is now-a-days a settled question. They respected the religion of their subjects ; Augustus humbly asked the Hebrews to pray for him in 3/2 Social Life of the Romans the synagogue at Jerusalem. They cultivated literature and science, and a host of the greatest writers, thinkers and scientists the world has ever seen, like Strabo, Ptolomy, Galenus, Pappus, etc., lived under their mild rule. Com- merce was protected and extended to the land of the Chinese and to the bays of Sweden. There was a most admirable postal system all over the vast extent of the em- pire, connecting the city of London with Alexandria in Egypt, and furnishing the greatest facilities for private correspondence. The innumerable nations under the scepter of these diseased Romans felt so happy that they never, or very rarely, thought of revolting against a ruler at once so mild and profitable. This is the real picture of the Roman Empire. Where can you detect the morbid sign of disease ? Where are those frightful ulcers indica- tive of internal rottenness? Where are they? Or will you perhaps argue the isolated stories of some profligate emperor? I do not think of denying some of them, but I dare say that the majority of those stories are miserable lies. They lack all reasonable evidence ; you will find them in Suetonius, in Vopiscus, in Dio Cassius, in those anecdote-writers of Rome, in a few wretched pamphleteers, in the books of men who refused the re- sponsibility of the real historian, who delighted in scan- dalous rumors and indecent narratives. But suppose all these stories are downright truth, pure, evangelical truth, what do they prove? Can these 200 or 300 scandalous stories outweigh the testimony of some 100,000 inscrip- tions exhibiting the happy, safe, pure life of the bulk of the nation? Can they outweigh the silent but effective traditions of those innumerable ruins of temples, bridges, asylums, roads and postal stations which display the peacable, in- dustrious, civilized minds of the Romans? They cannot. And thus we are forced to conclude that the deca- dence of the Roman Empire, as such, was not due to the SociAi, Life of the Romans. 373 moral decadence of the people. Finally, it has been asserted that the Romans decayed because of their heath- enish religion, of their polytheism, because of their belief in many gods and goddesses. But this question stands in inseparable connection with the topic of my next lecture on the origin of Christianity. At present I shall state what I conceive to be the real cause of the downfall of the Roman Empire. It was not their immorality, nor their imbecility. The Romans erected their civilization on one foundation only ; the whole of their civilization rested on it. I cannot repeat here what I have abundantly illustrated in my former lectures on Rome. I can only say that this sole founda- tion was the City. But with the enormous growth of the pop- ulation this one foundation proved too narrow and insuf- ficient, and thus it degenerated and had to give way. Hence the downfall of the Roman Empire was a death by starvation, not by disease. The organs of the Roman State were denied a proper nourishment, the country pop- ulation of Italy as well as of the provinces neglected the old city institutions ; these institutions were no longer adapted to the wants and desires of a rural population, and thus they decayed. We notice the same process in the language of the Romans. The old Latin language was a city idiom, a language for city life, for the peculiar city life of the Romans. No sooner had this life ceased to fit the tastes of the country populations than they began to drop the ancient Latin and began to speak modern Italian. For modern Italian dates back to the 5th century after Christ. The downfall of the Roman Empire, therefore, was a down- fall of institutions. The institutions of a people continue to exist while they really continue to fit the number, the quality and the occupation of the people. But the insti- tutions both of Rome and Greece were, from their very 374 Social Life of the Romans. origin, intended for a select minority only. Women did not count, the majority of men Avere kept in bondage, and only a few, very few, individuals, comparatively speaking, were permitted to develop their souls, their mind, their character up to the highest type of perfect humanity. But this was not done through wickedness. That this was not the product of benighted, uncivilized or heathen- ish means, I have tried to prove. It was simply the inev- itable outcome of inevitable circumstances. We may congratulate ourselves that we are no longer under the necessity of keeping two-thirds of our fellow- beings, women and men, in bondage; we may be grateful to the Infinite Power who has freed us from such fearful responsibility. But we are not allowed or entitled to pride ourselves on this score ; we have no claim whatever to a superiorty over those great peoples of classical Greece and Rome. We are more fortunate than they ; we enjoy some blessings that they had to forego; but, intrinsically, we are in the best case their equals, and not their superiors. They have bequeathed us some inestimable boons ; they have left us a marvelous philosophy, an unrivaled art, a perfect law, immortal systems of science, and lastly, they have established a few doctrines which may safely be taken as the groundwork of the dearest hopes of this country. For the doctrines implied in the history of Rome are at the same time the greatest assurance of the stability and future greatness of this Republic of the United States of America. This Republic has avoided the enormous short- comings of the Roman Empire. Instead of founding the whole Commonwealth on one single institution, on the in- stitution of cities, it has construed a threefold foundation ; it has built up in addition to its cities — the strong struc- ture of the State and the still stronger structure of the Union. Thus there are three powerful forces instead of one; there is a system of checks and balances which will Social Life of the Romans. 375 prove firm and reliable under all vicissitudes of fate, and there is almost a certainty that this great Republic will flourish not only for twelve centuries, as did the Roman Empire, but for hundreds of centuries, and let us hope forever. ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF CHRISTIANITY. I. REFERENCES. (A). CRITICISM OF THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. H. Simon, (Catholic theoloe'ian), Histoire Critique du Texte du Nou- veau 'lestament, 16S9. J^. A. Betigel, (Protestant theologrian), Greek Tes- tament, ed. i73-(, 4oin Tuebingen. Same, Prodromus Xovi Testamenti Graeci recte cauteqae adornandi. y.L.//u^[Ca.tho\ic theologian), Kinleitung in die Schriftcn des Neuen 'I estaments, iS 8. y. y. G riesebac/i, (Prolesmnt iheoloffiani. Symbolae criticae ad supplendas et corrigendas variarum Novi Testamenti lectionum collectiones; accedit mnltorum N. T. codicum Grat- coinim descriptio et examen, 2 vols., Halle. 17S5, 1793. Same, Commentariiis criticus in textum Graecum Novi Testamenti, lena, 179S-1S11. A'. I^ach- mann, (German philoloarist). Novum Testamentum Graece et Latine, 2 vols, 1842,-1850. Tischendorf, (Protestant;. Monumenta sacra inedita. 1S46-1S56. Same, Notitia Codicis binaitici, i860. Same, Edition of the New Testament, ed. 1855-9. Tregelles. edition of the New Testament, 1S57. (jB.) internal CRITICISM OF TIIK FIRST THRKK SYNOPTICAI, 'gOSPELS, (MATTHEW, MARK, .\ND LUKE.) J. G. Etch/torn, Kinleit'ing- in das Neue Testament, 5 vols. Goettingen, 1S24-27. W. M . Z>e Wette, Einleitungr in das Neue Testament, 1836. J. K. Gieseler, Historisch-Kriiischer Versuch ueber die Entstehung- und die frue- hesten Schicksale der schrifdichen Evangelien, Cleve 1818. F. Bleek, Ein- leitung- in das Neue Testament. D. F. Sirauss, Leben Jesu, 1S35. F. C. jpaj/r, (the leader of the '"Tuebingen School"), Kritische Untersuchungen ueber die Kanonischen Evangelien, Tuebg. 1S47. -Bruno Bauer, Kritik der evangelischen Geschichle der Synoptiker. 2 vols, Leipsic, 1S41. A. Hilgen- feld. Die Evangelien. Same, Der Kanon und die Kritik des Neuen Testa- mentes. SchenkeVs "Hibel-Lexicon," article '"Evangelien" (by Holtz- mann). WestcotTs Introduction to the Gospels. Encvclopeedia Britannica (9th eciition), article "Gospels" (by Rev. Edw. A. Abbott.) (C.) INTERNAL CRITICISM OF THE GOPPKL OF ST. JOHN. K. G. Bretschneider (Protestant clergyman). Probabilia de Evangelii et Epistolarum Joannis Apostoli indole et origine eruditorum judiciis modeste EubjecitK. G. B., 1S20. A. Hilgeiifeld, Das Evangelium und die Briefe Jo- hannis. B. Bauer, Kritik der evangelischen Geschichte des Johannis. F. Bleek, Beitraege ziir Evangelien-Kritik, pt. i., (containing his defence of St. John's gospel). F, Weizsaecker Untersuchungen ueber die evangelische Geschichte (1S64). Dr. SoMrfy, Authorship and historical character of the Fourth Gospel, 1872. (Z*.) FATHERS OF THE CHURCH OF THE FIRST TWO CENTURIES, A. D. Patrum Apostolicoriim Opera.e.A. Dressel and Tischendorf, 1863. Corpus Apologelarum Christianorum saeculi secundi, ed /. C. de Otto, Jena 1851-S1 (containing Justinus, Tatianus Assyr., Athenagoras. Theophilus Antec, Hermias ) 5. fustinus Martyr, Opera, ed. /. C. Otto, 5 vols, Jena 1847-50. .*>. //'t?«ai?7/.«, quae supersunt omnia, ed. A.Stieren, 6 vols., Leips. 1853. and as to the Fragments discovered among the Syriac Manuscripts in the Brit- ish Museum, see the edition of Wigan Harvey, Cambridge 1857. 5. Origenes, Opera, ed. Car. and \. Delarue. 4 vols, fol., Paris 1733-59- Cleinens Alex- andriitus. Opera, ed. G. Dindorf, 4 vol. Oxford 1S69. Terlullianus, Opera, ed. Fr. Oehler, 3 vols., Leips. 1S53-54. (jE.) the first CHURCH-HISTORIANS. (a) Greek vjr iters. Eusebius Pamphili, Ecclesiasticae hislorije libri x, ed. Valesius, Mainz 1672. Same, Chronicon. bipartitum, armenice. graece et latine ed. B. Aucher 2 vols., Venice 1S18. Sozomon, Ecclesiastica historia. ed. R, Hussey, 3 vols., Oxford 1853. Socrates, Ecclesiastica historia, ed R. //us- Origin AND Development OF Christianity. I. 377 ■sO'i 3 vols. 1S60. Yar T/ieoiiori'tus, Evagrinx and a few other Greek histo- rians of the church, see: Scrif'lores histori