trast between a fair Swede with flaxen hair and blue eyes, and a swarthy Spaniard with black hair and eyes, being almost as marked as between the latter and some of the higher black or brown races. Throughout a great part of Europe, including specially England, it is evident that the existing population is derived mainly from repeated crossings of these two races with one another and probably with earlier races." 1

BASIS OF THE INQUIRY

Anthropology is a new science, and it was natural, therefore, that the early anthropologists should first note the physical characteristics of man, with a view to proving his relationship to other organic creatures, and placing him in his proper place in nature; but, this theory of evolution having been generally accepted by thinking men and women, the time appears to have arrived when we may endeavour to carry this study a step farther and, as far as the available evidence will permit, compare man with man. It is at the present time impossible to take a comprehensive view of humanity at large and assign to each branch of the human family its proper place in relation to the whole family; but it is quite possible to take one branch and trace its rise from very small beginnings to the present time. It is in this way that our science has been hitherto built up. The zoologist, for instance, takes one specimen of a newly discovered species, examines it carefully and applies the knowledge thus gained to the whole species, to which he assigns its proper place in his collection. Being an Anglo-Saxon myself, and consequently knowing more of the characteristics of these people than of those of other races, I naturally select the Anglo-Saxon as the

1 "Modern Science and Modern Thought," S. Lang, ch. vi.

specimen to be examined; but so little has as yet been done in analysing racial differences and peculiarities, that I am compelled to trust very largely to my own observations, and, until these are shown to be reliable by the evidence of other observers, it seems necessary to warn the non-scientific not to accept what I advance here which is contrary to his own experience, until it has been confirmed by some reliable authority. Hitherto, whenever a new advance has been made in science, it has been received with a howl of indignation by the conservative section of the community. The author has been denounced as an atheist and so on, but a few years later the new theory has been generally accepted, and then people wondered what their fathers made all the fuss about. But this violent opposition to the propagation of new ideas is not altogether an evil. It prevents the public from taking too hasty action, and gives time for the adjustment of the public mind to the new order. That this opposition to the new may be carried to an absurd length goes without saying, but the public has been so repeatedly shocked, during the past century, with new discoveries that it is learning to take them philosophically. The Anglo-Saxon may therefore even take the analysis of his own character calmly. At least, I hope so. But if he has read his own history, defective as it is, he will perhaps be prepared to admit that he is not quite perfect as yet, whatever he may be, in his own estimation, at some future time.

THE SO-CALLED ARYAN RACE

It is not worth while to waste time in attempting to controvert the old belief that people differing so completely in physical as well as mental characteristics as the Teuton, the Latin, and the Hindoo, all belong to one and the same race. To those who still hold to

this belief I have nothing to say; but I may say at once that I accept the division of the Aryan subspecies into sections, or races, and I further believe that, at some future time when our knowledge of these people is better defined, religion will be found to be a fair basis for estimating difference in race. At present our knowledge is insufficient to warrant us in saying that this is the case. "Man," said Darwin, "has been studied more carefully than any other organic being, and yet there is the greatest possible diversity amongst capable judges whether he should be classed as a single species or race, or as two (Virey), as three (Jacquinot), as four (Kant), five (Blumenbach), six (Buffon), seven (Hunter), eight (Agassiz), eleven (Pickering), fifteen (Bory St. Vincent), sixteen (Desmoulins), twenty-two (Morton), sixty (Crawford), or as sixty-three according to Burke. Some naturalists have lately employed the term 'subspecies' to designate forms which possess many of the characteristics of true species, but which hardly deserve so high a rank. Now, if we reflect on the weighty arguments above given, for raising the races of man to the dignity of species, and the insuperable difficulties on the other side in defining them, the term subspecies' might be used here with much propriety. But from long habit the term 'race' will always be employed." Elsewhere Darwin asserted the necessity for the division of the so-called Aryan Race" into its natural component parts; and, later, Huxley suggested the division of the white races into the Xanthochroi, or fair-haired, and Melanochroi, or black-haired, races, and this division has generally been accepted by anthropologists. The unity of the human family has been so strengthened and assured by the evolution theory that it cannot be shaken by any arbitrary divisions into which the family may be divided for scientific

1 "Descent of Man," Part I., ch. vii.

purposes. Nay more, by that theory not merely the relationship of man to man, but the relationship of man to all other organic creatures, is demonstrated. For the purposes of this inquiry into the character of the Anglo-Saxon, Professor Huxley's classification is sufficient. But the Anglo-Saxon is a cross between the Xanthochroi and the Melanochroi; or, rather, between the two great branches of these races, the Teuton and the Latin; and therefore it will be necessary to trace out as clearly as possible the characteristics of these people and to show how they manifest themselves in the history of the AngloSaxon.

VALUE OF OUR PRESENT HISTORIES

Probably it will be said that scores of histories of the Anglo-Saxons have already been written, and this is true; but what is the value of our present histories? Ask the historians themselves. In 1869 J. R. Green wrote: "History, we are told by publishers, is the most unpopular of all branches of literature because it seems more and more to sever itself from all that can touch the heart of a people. In Medieval history, above all, the narrow ecclesiastical character of the annals which serve as its base, instead of being corrected by a wider research into the memorials which surround us, has been actually intensified by the partial inethod of their study till the story of a great people seems likely to be lost in the mere squabbles of priests. Now there is hardly a better corrective for all this to be found than to set a man frankly in the streets of a single English town, and to bid him to work out the history of the men who lived and died there." Since Green wrote this "the man in the street" has been cited

1888.

A Short History of the English People,' Introduction,

"2

as an authority on all questions, and it is in this character that I approach this subject. Green no doubt came nearer to a true estimate of the defects in our histories than any of the older historians, but he has not told us the real reason for the unpopularity of history; which is simply because history is not true. According to Dr. Johnson : "There is more thought in the novelist than in the historian." Boswell: "But surely, sir, an historian has reflection?" Johnson: "Why, yes, sir, and so has a cat when she catches a mouse.' The bluff doctor had a habit of blurting out truths which he apparently could not explain. As for instance when he said: "We may know historical facts to be true. Motives are generally unknown. We cannot trust to the characters we find in history unless when they are drawn by those who knew the persons. "We must consider how very little history there is-I mean real authentic history. That certain kings reigned and certain battles were fought we can depend upon as true; but all the colouring, all the philosophy of history, is conjecture." Boswell: "Then, sir, you would reduce all history to no better than an old almanack, a mere chronological series of remarkable events." Mr. Gibbon, who must at that time have been employed upon his history, of which he published the first volume in the following year, was present, but did not step forth in defence of that species of writing. He probably did not like to trust himself with Johnson." 3 But Gibbon himself said: "History, which is, indeed, little more than the register of the crimes, follies and misfortunes of mankind." Perhaps he agreed, practically at least, with the doctor. Lord Macaulay thought Johnson too severe, nevertheless he says: "A history in which every particular incident may be true, may

1 "Boswell's Life," p. 198. 2 Ibid., p. 162.

3 Ibid., p. 252.

4" Decline and Fall," ch. iii.