« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »
ness, with átlús; caur, gigantic, with yaūpos ; heddwch with nouxía; pedol with medilov; porth with topOuós. When it is seen that the Welsh numerals resemble the Greek far more closely than the Greek resemble the Latin, and that the Welsh dedd (law or order) answers to tò detov, and still more nearly approaches the Sanskrit dadhami, some stress may fairly be laid on such an agreement as that of the Welsh ymafael, wrestling, with the Greek ouumalaiw, not merely because the words are etymologically the same, but because we find the same word used to denote a practice common to both Welshmen and Englishmen with Greeks, but not shared by Teutonic tribesbecause, in short, they lead us away from the philological argument to the consideration of psychical characteristics.
In tracing these characteristics, Mr. Pike may perhaps have treated as ancient some features of comparatively modern date; but the tone of the argument is not weakened if we confine ourselves to those instances in which no one will be disposed to raise objections on the score of time. It will not be denied that the Greeks were noted for their boxing-ring (Truyun) and their wrestling (máln), that these practices are not found among Teutonic nations, and that they are to be found in especial favour with Englishmen. The wrestlers of Cornwall and Cumbund are well known, and the Cornish hug has passed into a prover.. The English prize-ring, Mr. Pike states, is fed chiefly, or wholly, from men of confessedly Celtic districts, or from the westerly counties of England. The love of Englishmen and Greeks for the sea may be attributed to local circumstances; but it may
be remarked that the Romans and Teutons have never exhibited the same natural aptitude as oarsmen and sailors.
It is unnecessary to follow Mr. Pike through the rest of his examination of the common characteristics or the salient differences of Greeks, Celts, and Teutons. Some of the instances may be overdrawn, some may be worthless; but those which cannot be set down as exaggerated or unwarranted must be duly considered along with the physical characteristics which Mr. Pike has examined with great care, and on which he has brought together a large amount of valuable information. The popular notion that the English are a fair-haired people, he meets by statements which seem to prove that the dark shades are nearly ten times as common as those which are regarded as purely Teutonic; and he adduces the evidence of M. Worsaae, who, while pleading for the resemblance of the northern Englishmen to the Danes, admits that the English of the South—the representatives of the whole nation—are of a wholly different type, with dark hair and oval faces. Thus the Scandinavian archæologist bears out Mr. Pike's inferences from the forms of Teutonic and Celtic skulls found in this country. These forms lead him to the conclusion that no one type existed even in Celtic ages to the exclusion of all others,
and that from the earliest times dolicocephalic skulls and brachycephalic skulls are found side by side, the former, however, exceeding the latter by the proportion of perhaps three to one.
But the prevailing type at the present day is the dolicocephalic; and therefore, if there were any extirpation of one race by another, it would seem to be the extirpation of the short-headed by the long-headed race. But the Germans, as a whole, are brachycephalic. For the evidence on which these conclusions are based the reader must be referred to Mr. Pike's pages; but it may be worth while to remark (in connection with the coincidences of Greek and Welsh words), that both these types of skull are found also among the ancient Greeks; that while the short head marks the Farnese Hercules, the latter, which was the prevailing form and furnished the ideal of beauty, is seen in the Apollo Belvidere. This type, Mr. Pike asserts, is not to be found commonly in Berlin and other German cities, while it may be seen more frequently in Paris, and is common even in the lowest haunts of the lowest neighbourhoods of London.
On the whole, the conclusion is that history furnishes no direct or explicit testimony as to the numbers of the Teutonic invaders of the fifth century, while it does furnish distinct assertions as to the populousness of the country five hundred years earlier ; that it gives no warrant for the notion that the country was less populous at the end of the Roman occupation than at the beginning, while it shows that the brunt of Danish invasions fell chiefly or wholly on the more Teutonised portions of this island, and that the numbers of the Roman legionaries, as well as of those who followed the Norman William, were wholly inadequate to make any great impression on the native population, even if they themselves had been of pure or of a single race, whereas, in matter of fact, a large proportion of both belonged to the same stock with the British population of this island. It would follow, apparently, that the great bulk of Englishmen are the genuine descendants of the ancient Britons, or in other words, that they are not Anglo-Saxons or Germans, or Teutons.
To this negative conclusion Mr. Pike adds reasons for thinking that the ancient Britons were a people more closely akin to the Greeks than is generally imagined, and that the high Celtic civilisation of the Hellenic States, as described in the funeral oration of Pericles, finds its counterpart in the high Celtic civilisation of England,—the caution being repeated that this conclusion is not to be taken as a statement that Englishmen and Welshmen are one and the same people.
The foregoing remarks may serve to show the aspect which the question assumes in Mr. Pike's hands. It would be superfluous, and therefore invidious, to point out flaws where so much work has been honestly done, and where so much evidence has been brought forward, which must be weighed and examined coolly, thoroughly, and
impartially before any really satisfactory conclusions can be reached. It might be easy to show that Mr. Pike has been led astray by Casar and Diodorus into an exaggerated faith in Druidic philosophy, or that his criticism of the characteristics of German poetry, music, and architecture is not always in harmony with facts. But he has written, not only with learning and after full consideration of the subject in its various bearings, but with candour and caution. His conclusions rest on certain alleged proofs, and they can be rebutted only by the production of stronger evidence on the other side, as well as by a direct refutation of his own premisses; and the latter condition is perhaps even more necessary than the former. Nor must it be forgotten that, if his constructive theories should turn out to be worthless, his negative conclusions are not thereby invalidated. We are not proved to be, as a whole, a Teutonic people because it may be shown that we have nothing whatever to do with the ancient Greeks. It is time that the whole question should be thoroughly sifted, and Mr. Pike will have earned a title to our gratitude if his able book should lead to such a result.
GEORGE W. Cox. (1) The question is certainly not settled by a writer in the Saturday Review (August 11, 1866), who seems to think that he has really untied the knot, when he upsets some fallacies of an adversary. It matters nothing whether Mr. Pike draws a sufficiently clear line between High Germans and Low Germans, or whether he does not. The point to be determined is, whether the English are in the main a German people at all; and if the Reviewer could show that the chief characteristics of Englishmen are shared by Low Germans, it was his business to do so. Instead of doing this, he has charged Mr. Pike with saying that Englishmen are Welshmen (a position which the latter has explicitly disclaimed), and contents himself with asserting that, “ as far as we can go back, our nation has always borne the English name;" that in such inquiries physiology is of very little consequence, and language of the highest; that the colour of hair and the form of the skull go for nothing, and that the fact of living in the same island will account for almost any amount of assimilation among different races. This is really not the way in which such questions can be settled. Professor Max Müller, whose bias we might suppose would be all the other way, has protested against confusing the science of language with that of ethnology; and the Saturday Reviewer's belief that “extermination or expulsion of the male inhabitants” was the rule, will scarcely establish the fact in the absence of all contemporary evidence, especially when he adds in the next sentence that in a considerable part of England extermination was not the rule. The truth seems to be that historical documents do not furnish us with conclusive evidence on either side; and the assumption of endless massacres is the last which an impartial historical writer will admit. The adoption of the English name for the nation proves nothing more than the political supremacy of the conquerors; and the stubborn fact remains that the island contained in the days of Cæsar a large population, and that we have no warrant for stating that this population ever disappeared. On one point I must enter a serious protest against the arguments of the Reviewer, who asserts that “light hair and blue eyes were at least not uncommon among the Homeric Achaians.” The beings to whom such hair and eyes are given in the Iliad are Phoebus Apollo, Athênê, Achilleus, Sarpedon, Odysseus, &c.; and to adduce such instances is about as much to the point as to bring forward the hair and complexion of Balos and Sigundo in a question of Scandinavian ethnology. There is no evidence that any of the human inhabitants of Hellas, in the days of the Homeric poets (whoever these were and whenever they may have lived) had light hair or blue eyes.
A NEW THEORY OF SUPPLY AND DEMAND.
EVERYONE is in the habit of saying, and no doubt everyone
thinks he knows, that price depends on supply and demand. No doubt, therefore, everyone also thinks he knows what supply and demand really are, and in what manner it is that they determine price. The object of this paper is to show that the knowledge which everyone thus supposes himself to possess is really possessed by no one, for that, firstly, no definitions of supply and demand have ever been given which do not require more or less of correction or amplification, and secondly, no definitions of them can be given, consistently with which it is possible for them to determine price. Towards proving this, one of the earliest steps must be the substitution of improved definitions for those hitherto in vogue. Let us then, without further preface, proceed to inquire of what improvement these latter stand in need.
First, what is the proper meaning of “supply?” What is to be understood by the supply of a commodity ? One thing which may at once be affirmed with regard to it is that it is neither more nor less than the quantity of the commodity actually offered for sale. Supply does not comprise any portion of a dealer's stock which its owner refuses to part with. It would not, for instance, comprise the sacks of wheat which corn-factors, in expectation of a season of dearth, might reserve for the consumption of their own families. Neither would it include the contents of corn ships, merely conjectured to be on their way to the market, and which, perhaps, might exist only in imagination; though it might include cargoes of corn known positively to be on their way, and which, though not yet arrived, might at once be sold. It comprehends everything actually offered for sale; and anything, wherever situated, may be so offered, provided its ownership can be immediately transferred. What is meant then by the supply of a commodity, is precisely the quantity, and neither more nor less than the quantity, that is offered for sale, whether the whole of that quantity be or be not actually present in the market. This definition will be presently perceived to be defective; something must be supplied to render it a complete description of supply; but so far as it goes it is correct, and for the moment may be permitted to suffice us.
Next, what is “demand ?” Evidently not simply desire to possess. There is no demand in the longing with which a penniless school-boy eyes the jam tarts in a pastrycook's window. His mere eagerness
to get at them cannot in the least affect their price. Ability to purchase must also be present. The boy must have some halfpence in his pocket. So much is clear, and demand accordingly is not uncommonly described as consisting of desire to possess combined with power to purchase. But, irrespectively of other objections to this definition,if it were correct, there would, as Mr. Mill has pointed out, be no possibility of comparing demand with supply. For supply is a quantity,—the quantity offered for sale,—and obviously there can be no ratio between a quantity and a desire ; still more obviously can there be none between a quantity and a desire combined with a power. The phrase is intelligible only if by the desire and the
power be meant the quantity desired and the quantity over which the power extends. And this is what is really meant. When we speak of ratio between supply and demand, we are thinking of a ratio between the quantity supplied and the quantity demanded ; and accordingly these last two words constitute the definition of demand adopted by Mr. Mill.
So far, so good; but this definition also is imperfect. If demand admitted of no more precise limitation, the ratio between it and supply would be, not indeed invariable, but one varying only in one direction. Demand might easily exceed supply, but supply could never be in excess of demand. Of any merchantable commodity, of anything at once useful and difficult of attainment, the supply can scarcely be so great but that some customer will be willing to give something in exchange for it, even if not more than half a farthing. Only let the price be low enough, and soine one or other will be pretty sure to consent to take the whole stock at that price. If goods be offered for sale unreservedly, if the salesman be content that they should go for what they will fetch, the quantity demanded will be pretty sure to be at least equal to the quantity supplied. This consideration may suggest to us a needful emendation of our late definition of supply, which is not simply the quantity offered for sale, but the quantity offered at some specified price, some price or other being in practice always named either by dealer or customer for goods exposed for sale. To correspond with this amended definition of supply, the definition of demand must be similarly amended. The demand for a commodity is not simply the quantity of that commodity which customers are ready to buy at some price or other, but the quantity they are ready to buy at some specified price. As supply is the quantity of a commodity offered for immediate sale at a particular price, so demand is the quantity demanded at the price at which the commodity is offered for sale. The necessity for one of these emendations has been pointed out by Mr. Mill, or at least is recognised by him when he says that “the quantity demanded is not a fixed quantity, but varies according to the value.” The other is