462

GENERAL CONCLUSION.

plaint to apply to the law for redress, rather than to avenge themselves; which of course would not be the case if the penalty allotted by the law was much less than that which custom would allow them to inflict for themselves.

Subsequently, when punishment was substituted for pecuniary compensation, the same 'rule was at first applied, and the distinction of intention was overlooked. Nay, so long had the importance of intention been disregarded, that although it is now recognised in our criminal courts, yet, as Mr. Bain points out, a moral stigma is still attached to intellectual error by many people, and even by men of cultivation.'

16

In this, as in so many of our other ideas and tastes, we are still influenced by the condition of our ancestors in bygone ages. What that condition was I have in this work attempted to indicate, believing as I do that the earlier mental stages through which the human race has passed are illustrated by the condition of existing, or recent, savages. The history of the human race has, I feel satisfied, on the whole been one of progress. I do not of course mean to say that every race is necessarily advancing: on the contrary, most of the lower ones are almost stationary; and there are, no doubt, cases in which nations have fallen back; but it seems an almost invariable rule that such races are dying out, while those which are stationary in condition are sta tionary in numbers also; on the other hand, improving nations increase in numbers, so that they always encroach on less progressive races.

In conclusion, then, while I do not mean for a mo1 Mental and Moral Science, p. 718.

GENERAL CONCLUSION.

463

ment to deny that there are cases in which nations have retrograded, I regard these as exceptional instances. The facts and arguments mentioned in this work afford, I think, strong grounds for the following conclusions, namely:

That existing savages are not the descendants of civilised ancestors.

That the primitive condition of man was one of utter barbarism.

That from this condition several races have independently raised themselves.

These views follow, I think, from strictly scientific considerations. We shall not be the less inclined to adopt them on account of the cheering prospects which they hold out for the future.

In the closing chapter of Prehistoric Times,' while fully admitting the charms of savage life, I have en deavoured to point out the immense advantages which we enjoy. Here I will only add that if the past history of man has been one of deterioration, we have but a groundless expectation of future improvement: on the other hand, if the past has been one of progress, we may fairly hope that the future will be so too; that the blessings of civilisation will not only be extended to other countries and to other nations, but that even in our own land they will be rendered more general and more equable; so that we shall not see before us always, as now, countrymen of our own living, in our very midst, a life worse than that of a savage; neither enjoying the rough advantages and real, though rude, pleasures of savage life, nor yet availing themselves of the far higher and more noble opportunities which lie within the reach of civilised Man.

APPENDIX.

ON THE PRIMITIVE CONDITION OF MAN.

PART I.

BEING THE SUBSTANCE OF A PAPER READ BEFORE THE BRITISH ASSOCIATION AT DUNDEE.

IDE by side with the different opinions as to the origin of

SIDE

man, there are two opposite views with reference to the primitive condition of the first men, or first beings worthy to be so called. Many writers have considered that man was at first a mere savage, and that the course of history has on the whole been a progress towards civilisation; though at timesand at some times for centuries-some races have been stationary, or even have retrograded. Other authors, of no less eminence, have taken a diametrically opposite view. According to them, man was, from the commencement, pretty much what he is at present; if possible, even more ignorant of the arts and sciences than now, but with mental qualities not inferior to our own. Savages they consider to be the degenerate descendants of far superior ancestors. Of the recent supporters of this theory, the late Archbishop of Dublin was amongst the most eminent.

Dr. Whately enunciates his opinions in the following

words:

'We have no reason to believe that any community ever 'did or ever can emerge, unassisted by external helps, from a 'state of utter barbarism unto anything that can be called

Whately's Political Economy, p. 68.

HH

466

'civilisation.'

DIFFICULTY OF OBTAINING

Man has not emerged from the savage state; 'the progress of any community in civilisation, by its own in'ternal means, must always have begun from a condition re'moved from that of complete barbarism, out of which it does. 'not appear that men ever did or can raise themselves.'

Thus, he adds, the ancient Germans, who cultivated corn - though their agriculture was probably in a very rude 'state-who not only had numerous herds of cattle, but 'employed the labour of brutes, and even made use of cavalry ‘in their wars . . . these cannot with propriety be reckoned savages; or if they are to be so called (for it is not worth 'while to dispute about a word), then I would admit that, in 'this sense, men may advance, and in fact have advanced, by 'their own unassisted efforts, from the savage to the civilised 'state.' This limitation of the term 'savage' to the very lowest representatives of the human race no doubt renders Dr. Whately's theory more tenable by increasing the difficulty of bringing forward conclusive evidence against it. The Archbishop, indeed, expresses himself throughout his argument as if it would be easy to produce the required evidence in opposi tion to his theory, supposing that any race of savages ever had raised themselves to a state of civilisation. The manner, however, in which he has treated the case of the Mandans-a tribe of North American Indians-effectually disposes of this hypothesis. This unfortunate people is described as having been decidedly more civilised than those by which they were surrounded. Having, then, no neighbours more advanced than themselves, they were quoted as furnishing an instance of savages who had civilised themselves without external aid. In answer to this, Archbishop Whately asks

1st. How do we know that these Mandans were of the same race as their neighbours?'

2ndly. How do we know that theirs is not the original level

from which the other tribes have fallen?'

3rdly and lastly. Supposing that the Mandans did emerge 'from the savage state, how do we know that this may not have been through the aid of some strangers coming among them-like the Manco-Capac of Peru-from some more civi lised country, perhaps long before the days of Columbus?'