按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
spots in Greece； as well as by the negative instance of the
undisturbed state in primitive time of Attica； which was always
remarkable for the dryness and poverty of its soil。
Now； while undoubtedly in these passages we may recognise the first
anticipation of many of the most modern principles of research； we
must remember how essentially limited is the range of the
ARCHAEOLOGIA； and how no theory at all is offered on the wider
questions of the general conditions of the rise and progress of
humanity； a problem which is first scientifically discussed in the
REPUBLIC of Plato。
And at the outset it must be premised that； while the study of
primitive man is an essentially inductive science； resting rather
on the accumulation of evidence than on speculation； among the
Greeks it was prosecuted rather on deductive principles。
Thucydides did； indeed； avail himself of the opportunities afforded
by the unequal development of civilisation in his own day in
Greece； and in the places I have pointed out seems to have
anticipated the comparative method。 But we do not find later
writers availing themselves of the wonderfully accurate and
picturesque accounts given by Herodotus of the customs of savage
tribes。 To take one instance； which bears a good deal on modern
questions； we find in the works of this great traveller the gradual
and progressive steps in the development of the family life clearly
manifested in the mere gregarious herding together of the
Agathyrsi； their primitive kinsmanship through women in common； and
the rise of a feeling of paternity from a state of polyandry。 This
tribe stood at that time on that borderland between umbilical
relationship and the family which has been such a difficult point
for modern anthropologists to find。
The ancient authors； however； are unanimous in insisting that the
family is the ultimate unit of society； though； as I have said； an
inductive study of primitive races； or even the accounts given of
them by Herodotus； would have shown them that the ＇Greek text which
cannot be reproduced＇ of a personal household； to use Plato's
expression； is really a most complex notion appearing always in a
late stage of civilisation； along with recognition of private
property and the rights of individualism。
Philology also； which in the hands of modern investigators has
proved such a splendid instrument of research； was in ancient days
studied on principles too unscientific to be of much use。
Herodotus points out that the word ERIDANOS is essentially Greek in
character； that consequently the river supposed to run round the
world is probably a mere Greek invention。 His remarks； however； on
language generally； as in the case of PIROMIS and the ending of the
Persian names； show on what unsound basis his knowledge of language
rested。
In the BACCHAE of Euripides there is an extremely interesting
passage in which the immoral stories of the Greek mythology are
accounted for on the principle of that misunderstanding of words
and metaphors to which modern science has given the name of a
disease of language。 In answer to the impious rationalism of
Pentheus … a sort of modern Philistine … Teiresias； who may be
termed the Max Muller of the Theban cycle； points out that the
story of Dionysus being inclosed in Zeus' thigh really arose from
the linguistic confusion between ＇Greek text which cannot be
reproduced＇ and ＇Greek text which cannot be reproduced＇。
On the whole； however … for I have quoted these two instances only
to show the unscientific character of early philology … we may say
that this important instrument in recreating the history of the
past was not really used by the ancients as a means of historical
criticism。 Nor did the ancients employ that other method； used to
such advantage in our own day； by which in the symbolism and
formulas of an advanced civilisation we can detect the unconscious
survival of ancient customs： for； whereas in the sham capture of
the bride at a marriage feast； which was common in Wales till a
recent time； we can discern the lingering reminiscence of the
barbarous habit of exogamy； the ancient writers saw only the
deliberate commemoration of an historical event。
Aristotle does not tell us by what method he discovered that the
Greeks used to buy their wives in primitive times； but； judging by
his general principles； it was probably through some legend or myth
on the subject which lasted to his own day； and not； as we would
do； by arguing back from the marriage presents given to the bride
and her relatives。 （4）
The origin of the common proverb 'worth so many beeves；' in which
we discern the unconscious survival of a purely pastoral state of
society before the use of metals was known； is ascribed by Plutarch
to the fact of Theseus having coined money bearing a bull's head。
Similarly； the Amathusian festival； in which a young man imitated
the labours of a woman in travail； is regarded by him as a rite
instituted in Ariadne's honour； and the Carian adoration of
asparagus as a simple commemoration of the adventure of the nymph
Perigune。 In the first of these WE discern the beginning of
agnation and kinsmanship through the father； which still lingers in
the 'couvee' of New Zealand tribes： while the second is a relic of
the totem and fetish worship of plants。
Now； in entire opposition to this modern inductive principle of
research stands the philosophic Plato； whose account of primitive
man is entirely speculative and deductive。
The origin of society he ascribes to necessity； the mother of all
inventions； and imagines that individual man began deliberately to
herd together on account of the advantages of the principle of
division of labour and the rendering of mutual need。
It must； however； be borne in mind that Plato's object in this
whole passage in the REPUBLIC was； perhaps； not so much to analyse
the conditions of early society as to illustrate the importance of
the division of labour； the shibboleth of his political economy； by
showing what a powerful factor it must have been in the most
primitive as well as in the most complex states of society； just as
in the LAWS he almost rewrites entirely the history of the
Peloponnesus in order to prove the necessity of a balance of power。
He surely； I mean； must have recognised himself how essentially
incomplete his theory was in taking no account of the origin of
family life； the position and influence of women； and other social
questions； as well as in disregarding those deeper motives of
religion； which are such important factors in early civilisation；
and whose influence Aristotle seems to have clearly apprehended；
when he says that the aim of primitive society was not merely life
but the higher life； and that in the origin of society utility is
not the sole motive； but that there is something spiritual in it
if； at least； 'spiritual' will bring out the meaning of that
complex expression ＇Greek text which cannot be reproduced＇。
Otherwise； the whole account in the REPUBLIC of primitive man will
always remain as a warning against the intrusion of A PRIORI
speculations in the domain appropriate to induction。
Now； Aristotle's theory of the origin of society； like his
philosophy of ethics； rests ultimately on the principle of final
causes； not in the theological meaning of an aim or tendency
imposed from without； but in the scientific sense of function
corresponding to organ。 'Nature maketh no thing in vain' is the
text of Aristotle in this as in other inquiries。 Man being the
only animal possessed of the power of rational speech is； he
asserts； by nature intended to be social； more so than the bee or
any other gregarious animal。
He is ＇Greek text which cannot be reproduced＇； and the national
tendency towards higher forms of perfection brings the 'armed
savage who used to sell his wife' to the free independence of a
free sta