lus. Thus Cicero (Philipp. viii. 8) asks, “An ego ab eo mandata acciperem, qui senatus mandata contemneret?" In conclusion, we may be allowed to express a hope, that we have not said any thing personally disrespectful to the Reviewer. Such has not been our intention: and if any word has escaped us, which the Reviewer may consider as personally offensive, we shall be sorry. Our only object has been to vindicate the veracity of one of the most truth-loving men that ever lived, and this we could not do without pointing out the strange misapprehension, to use the mildest word, of his accuser. WILLIAM SMITH. XXX. ON THE MEANING OF "CIVILIZATION." THE last number of the Quarterly Review (No. 144) contains an interesting article on the Life and Works of Sismondi, in which the reviewer mentions Sismondi's History of the Fall of the Roman Empire, and the Decline of Civilization, published in 1837; and upon this work he makes the following remarks: "When we have read it, we obtain no clear idea whatever corresponding with the promises of the title-any more than we do by the more celebrated work of M. Guizot, which promises to develope the progress of civilization in Europe;' nor shall we, until a definite answer be given to the four following questions, which we can assure our readers we have propounded in vain to several of the excellent individuals who are most zealously and conscientiously engaged in the popular associations of the present age, intended for the moral and religious improvement of the whole human race 1st, What are the specific characteristics and elements of civilization? 2nd, What are the benefits secured to the people, and particularly the masses,' by civilization? 3rd, What are the causes opposing civilization? and 4th, Is there ever any practical opposition between civilization, and Christianity and the Holy Scripture? Nowhere do we find any satisfactory reply: possibly it may not be thought unworthy of the attention of those who employ the term 'civilization,' if they were to attempt to define their own meaning, as well as the end they propose to attain." (Q. R. Vol. LXXII. p. 353). It is to be presumed that the writer of the above remarks was acquainted with the explanation of the ideas comprised under the term civilization which is given by M. Guizot in the first chapter of his lectures on Civilisation en Europe; of which explanation a full and distinct analysis has been given in an English review 1. The Quarterly Reviewer has apparently considered this explanation unsatisfactory, on the ground of its too great generality; inasmuch as M. Guizot uses the word to denote all kinds of improvement';' so that a history of civilization would, according to his usage of the word, be equivalent to a history of the progress of civil society, in whatever that progress might consist. Without attempting to enter into the wide field of discussion, historical and philosophical, which is opened by the explanation of M. Guizot, and the queries of the Reviewer, I propose to offer some remarks upon the meaning of the term in question, which will be suitable to a philological journal, but which may, at the same time, tend to remove some of the obscurity which the Quarterly Reviewer seems to have found in its signification. The Latin civilis corresponds pretty closely to the Greek ToмTIKós; as the one signifies that which belongs to the mous, so the other signifies that which belongs to the civitas, or state. Thus civilis scientia is equivalent to modítɩký étlσtýμn (Quintil. 11. 15); jus civile meant the peculiar law of the Roman state, as opposed to jus gentium, the common law of the nations which it had subdued. So bellum civile is a war between citizens of the same state, as distinguished from a war against an external enemy. Vir civilis is a statesman, a politician; thus Quintilian: "quum vir ille vere civilis et publicarum privatarumque rerum administrationi accommodatus, qui regere consiliis urbes, fundare legibus, emendare judiciis possit, non alius sit profecto quam orator." Proem. §. 10. 1 London Review, Vol. 11. p. 313, sqq. 2 London Review, ib. p. 334. A nearly similar view of the import of the term had been taken by the author of the article on the first volume of Drumann's Roman History, in a previous number of the Quarterly Review. "It is difficult (says the Reviewer) to define that term, which is at present so constantly used in historical discussion, civilization; but if civilization be the height of moral perfection and greatness, we can by no means assign a pre-eminent place in the comparative estimate of the different races of mankind to the old republican of Rome. He was a noble, a splendid savage, but still he was a savage." &c. Q. R. Vol. LVI. p. 350. Some remarks will be made presently as to the extent to which moral qualities are involved in the idea of civilization. A meaning of civilis, easily derived from its etymological significations, but not identical with them, is thus described in the dictionary of Facciolati: "eleganter civilis dicitur, qui moderatus est, et eadem cum aliis civibus ratione vivendi et agendi utens, atque adeo humanus, comis, facilis, cortese, affabile, civile, degnevole; et dicitur sæpe de viris principibus, qui civiliter et comiter cum inferioribus se gerunt, tamquam si æquo jure cum iis sint." Thus Suetonius says of Vespasian that he was 'civilis et clemens,' Vesp. c. 11, and Tacitus states that the youthful Germanicus had 'civile ingenium, mira comitas,' and manners different from the insolence and gloom of Tiberius, Ann. 1. 33. In the latter sense, it is equivalent to dŋuorikos, or popularis. The substantive civilitas follows the meanings of civilis. Quintilian uses it to denote the science or art of government, Toλrký, II. 15. § 33. 17. § 14; and in Suetonius it signifies the mildness and moderation of a beneficent ruler thus this writer says of Augustus, "Clementiæ civilitatisque ejus multa et magna documenta sunt," c. 51. Civile, in Italian, nearly retained its Latin significations. Dante uses it to denote the excellence of statesmanship; Atene e Lacedemona, che fenno Le antiche leggi, e furon sì civili, Verso di te. Purg. vi. 139-42. Its more common sense made it nearly equivalent to urbanus or ȧσTéîos: "Dicesi a uomo di costumi nobili, e dotato di civiltà. Cortese, gentile, urbano, culto, onesto, galante;" is the explanation in Alberti's dictionary. Civiltà is there explained to be "costume e maniera di viver civile, urbanità, gentilezza, costumatezza, creanza." Civilizzare is not an old Italian verb: the only example of it cited by Alberti, is from the letters of Count Magalotti, who died in 1712. It may be remarked that civile in Italian is equivalent to the French bourgeois: "talvolta vale (says Alberti) di condizione tra 'l nobile e 'l plebeo." In Italian la classe civile is the bourgeoisie, the middle class; in Spanish, it signified a low or mean condition. The following meanings are (amongst others) attributed by Johnson to the word civil: "1. Relating to the community, political, relating to the city or government. 3. Not in anarchy, not wild, not without rule or government. 9. Civilized, not barbarous. 10. Complaisant, civilized, gentle, well-bred, elegant of manners, not rude, not brutal, not coarse," (compare civilly). He defines civility to be "1. Freedom from barbarity, the state of being civilized. 2. Politeness, complaisance, elegance of behaviour." To civilize, according to Johnson, is "to reclaim from savageness and brutality; to instruct in the arts of regular life:" a civilizer, is “he that reclaims others from a wild and savage life; he that teaches the rules and customs of civility." When Johnson published his dictionary, civilization had not become an established word in its modern acceptation. Johnson inserts it, but assigns to it only the legal sense of converting a criminal into a civil proceeding. It occurs in Robertson and Warton; and is used by Burke in his Reflections on the French Revolution. In the Dictionnaire de l'Académie, ed. 1835, 'civiliser' is defined rendre civil et sociable, polir les mœurs;' and 'civilisation' is 'action de civiliser, ou état de ce qui est civilisé.' The preceding definitions from dictionaries are naturally too concise to explain fully the signification of the word; and I will therefore attempt to develope more at large the import of civilization, as it is now commonly understood. A civilized being opposed to a savage or barbarous state of society, it is necessary that the characteristics of both states should be attended to. 1. The idea of civilization (as we have already seen in the history of the word) is closely connected with the idea of civil government. A community cannot be civilized, unless it possesses a settled form of government, with a regular administration of justice; and unless the powers of government are exercised in a tolerably mild, humane, and enlightened manner. A society in a state of nature could not be civilized. In like manner, if a civilized society relapsed into a state of anarchy, it would cease to be civilized. An illustration of the intimate connexion between civilization and the existence of civil government is afforded by the well-known anecdote of the man shipwrecked upon an unknown shore, who, on seeing a dead body hanging upon a gibbet, thanked heaven that he was in a civilized country. This sight, however little pleasing it might be under ordinary circumstances, was on this occasion consolatory, inasmuch as it implied an administration of criminal justice, and the punishment of malefactors. If a government is conducted in a violent and ferocious spirit, and its measures are characterized by short-sighted rapacity and gross indifference to the lives and welfare of the people, it would be called barbarian, and it would be contrasted unfavourably with the governments of civilized countries. Hence, as a country becomes more civilized, its government becomes more enlightened and humane; and possesses more of the characteristic excellencies of a government. On the other hand, a community which retrogrades in civilization (as the Roman empire after the age of the Antonines) deteriorates in respect of its government; it is governed with less wisdom, energy, and equity. A civilized man may be contrasted with a savage; but civilization is in general predicated of a community, or of a body of men, and not of a single individual. 2. Another important element in civilization is a proficiency in the arts and sciences, and in literature. A savage state of society is particularly characterized by an ignorance of the useful arts; such as writing, weaving, architecture, navigation, agriculture, medicine, war. All historians and travellers who describe savage communities, and contrast their state with civilization, dwell upon their ignorance of the useful arts. Thus Gibbon, in his description of the ancient Germans, after having stated that in the age of Tacitus they were unacquainted with the art of writing, proceeds to remark that "the use of letters is the principal circumstance that distinguishes a civilized people from a herd of savages incapable of knowledge or reflection3." Afterwards he adds, that "the ancient Germans were wretchedly ignorant of the useful and agreeable arts of life. They passed their lives in a state of ignorance and poverty, which it has pleased some declaimers to dignify with the appellation of virtuous simplicity." In like manner, the change from the savage to the civilized state is in general made to consist chiefly in the acquisition of the useful arts. Thus Prometheus in Æschylus describes himself as having found mankind in a condition scarcely superior to that of the brute animals, and having taught them the risings and settings of the stars, arithmetic and letters, the taming of horses, navigation, medicine, divination, and metallurgy: he sums up his enumeration as follows: βραχεῖ δὲ μύθῳ πάντα συλλήβδην μάθε, v. 514-5. So again Lucretius describing, in his 5th book, the progress of mankind from barbarism to civilization, makes that progress 3 Decline and Fall, c. ix. (Vol. 1. p. 282.) 4 Ib. p. 283. |