Book Vii.; Montesquieu's _spirit of the Laws_; Buckle,

History of Civilization in England (2 vols.). This work is based on the denial of free-will, and the doctrine that physical influences,--climate, soil, food, etc.,--are the main causes of intellectual progress. Draper's History of the Intellectual Development of Europe(2 vols., 2d edition, 1876) is in the same vein. Opposed to this philosophy are GOLDWIN SMITH'S Lectures on the Study of History; C. Kingsley, in his Miscellanies, The Limits of Exact Science as applied to History; Froude, in Short Studies, vol. i., The Science of History; Lotze, as above; also, Flint, and Droysen, Grundriss der Historik. Hegel's Philosophy of History has profound observations, but connected with an a priori theory.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On the nature and value of tradition, a very valuable discussion is that of EWALD, History of Israel, vol. i. pp. 13-38; Sir G. C. LEWIS, Essays on the Credibility of Early Roman History, in which Niebuhr's conclusions are criticised; A. Bisset, Essays on Historical Truth. On the sources of history, Art. by GAIRDNER in The Contemporary Review, vol. xxxviii.

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

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

The best historical Atlas is the copious German work of VON SPRUNER. FREEMAN'S Historical Geography of Europe is a work of great value. DROVSEN'S Allg. Hist. Atlas. Smaller atlases are those of PUTZGER, Rhode, Appleton's Hist. Atlas, the International, and the Collegiate. Smaller still, Keith Johnston's Crown Atlases and Half-Crown Atlases. On Mediæval History, Labberton's Atlas; also, Koeppen: in Ancient Geography, SMITH'S work, KIEPERT'S, Long's. On Physical Geography, GUYOT'S text-books; Vaughan's Connection between History and Physical Geography, in Contemp. Review, vol. v.; Hall's Methods of Studying History, etc., p. 201 seq., Encycl. Brit., Art. Geography.

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

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

On the general subjects of chronology: Encycl. Britt., Arts. Chronology and Calendar. Manuals of Reference: ROSSE'S Index of Dates (1858); Haydn's Dictionary of Dates (Vincent's edition, 1866); BLAIR'S Chronological Tables; Woodward and Cates, Encycl. of Chronology (1872).

ETHNOLOGY.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Besides these three great divisions, there are other languages, as the Chinese, and the monosyllabic tongues of south-eastern Asia, which possibly are connected lineally with it; the Japanese; the Malay-Polynesian, a well-developed family; the Hamitic (of which the Egyptian or Coptic is the principal member); the Dravidian or South Indian; the South African; the Central African; the American Indian languages, etc.

On language and the divisions of language, W. D. WHITNEY, Language, and the Study of Language (1867), Oriental and Linguistic Studies (two series, 1872-74), Life and Growth of Language (1875); Art. Philology, in Encycl. Brit., vol. xviii.; Max Müller's Lectures on the Science of Language (two series), and other writings by the same author.

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

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

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

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

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

MYTHOLOGY.

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

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

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

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

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

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

PREHISTORIC TIMES.

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

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

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

Literature.--Wilson, Prehistoric Man, etc. (2 vols., 1876); Joly, Man before the Metals (1883); Keary, The Dawn of History. The writings of E. B. Tylor, Primitive Culture (2 vols.), Anthropology, Early History of Mankind; his Art. Anthropology, Encycl. Britt.; Lubbock's Prehistoric Times, and his Origin of Civilization; Argyll, The Unity of Nature (1884); J. Geikie, Prehistoric Europe (1881); Lyell, The Antiquity of Man; W. E. Hearn, The Aryan Household; L. H. Morgan, Ancient Society.

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

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

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

ANCIENT AND MODERN HISTORY.

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

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

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

MEDIAEVAL AND LATER MODERN HISTORY.

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

History thus divides itself into three parts:--