Philosophy.

DOES CIVILIZATION NECESSITATE

DEMORALIZATION?

AFFIRMATIVE ARTICLE.-II.

WHATELY and Trench, the late and present Archbishops of Dublin, have laid the world of letters under obligation: the former by his teaching of the mode or method of thought; and the latter, of the tools or instruments; for so we would define words, by which thought is educed. Probably, although the little works sent out by Dean Trench are by no means so pretentious as Whately's "Logic" and "Rhetoric," they may be more useful, because more immediately applicable to ordinary purposes and uses; and because, without a proper or accurate knowledge of words, the meaning they ought or were intended to convey,-any mere system of thinking, however admirable, is useless, just as much as the architect's theory is to the builder who has no knowledge of the tools by which the building is to be erected. The necessity of a definition, and the needful agreement of the terms used in the discussion, must be apparent to every reader of the two opening papers in this debate. Without definition and agreement of terms, one writer may write on subjects quite foreign to those which may occupy the thought of another writer. But not only is definition needed in this special instance, it is the most essential element of all discussion and conversation. Much of the wearisome wrangling of theological schoolmen would have been avoided had they at the outset agreed upon terms and the meaning of the words used. Even now, as we write, the newspapers contain, or we are much mistaken, in the letter of the Rev. F.D. Maurice, on "Eternal Punishments," the commencement of a controversy which will lose its value from the lack of this definition of terms. Dictionaries are aids, but not complete supports, because words are at times made to serve purposes, in consequence of local association and connection, which are foreign to the lexicographers' definition of their meaning; and then, in the course of time, as Dean Trench has shown, words come round to represent the opposite of their original meaning, No great loss is sustained, provided that the meaning of any word is accepted; but without general agreement it is impossible to secure exact thinking, or to avoid confusion and chaotic thought.

Now, in the matter under immediate discussion, it must be apparent that if the term "civilization" means progress, there is no matter or subject to discuss; because progress indicates coming

from the lower, while "demoralization" is the lower. Used in this sense, civilization may come from demoralization, but demoralization cannot come from civilization.

That, then, is not the meaning to be attached to the term. But even if it were, and for argument assuming that civilization is another word for progress, according to one authority-the writer of a book of 470 pages, entitled, " England the Civilizer,”-demoralization is a consequence of civilization. "England!" says the writer, "it is not I who will raise hymns to thy glory. Thy cross is bloodstained. The serpent's tooth is in the jaws of thy lion, and thy robe shows the spots of the leopard. The chariot wheels of thy triumph have passed o'er the neck of nations; and thy wealth is swelled with the amassed store of the plundered treasure of empires, and the tortured industry of peoples! But appointed wert thou by destiny to storm the old fortress of popular ignorance and inertia ; to quell the barbarian, disarm the right-divine despot, supplant antiquated religions, quicken, even while thou demoralizedst, populations, and prepare for the future by bouleversing the present." The same writer still more forcibly says, "Civilization being a conquest, all its earlier and more difficult progress is a course of violence, deception, and demoralization. And this intelligence will see and admit, since conquest is the result of war, and since war is the fullest expression-in the word and in the thing-of violence, deception, and demoralization."

But, as "Philomath" clearly maintains, the true meaning of civilization is not progress; although progress may result from, and be a result of, civilization. It is well defined as "the massing together of men in civil communities." That idea attached to the word we can understand, but the sense which writers on civilization usually attach to it is so vague and unmeaning as really to convey no clear thought or idea. Civilization, or progress, using either word now for illustration, is according to the thought or special idiosyncrasy of the thinker. It is quite certain that the notions of progress are somewhat different in the minds of Presidents Lincoln and Davis, Kossuth and the Emperor of Austria, Mazzini and the Pope. This being so, it must be admitted, that if progress is only another word for civilization, then it would be needful to define what is and what is not progress. For instance, it would be questionable if the progress made in the manufacture of war instruments is an improvement upon the ruder implements of a ruder age, because, by the improvements, war has been rendered more destructive, and a greater number of men in any modern war, within a given time, are slain. War is the great demoralizer. War, in its greatest horrors and most concentrated fury, is the result of modern improvements,-of civilization. Hence demoralization is the result of civilization. How are we to escape from that conclusion?

Understanding, then, the meaning of the word civilization to be "the massing together of men in civil communities," the way will be cleared for the discussion of the subject. With that expla

nation we can understand some of the best chapters of Emerson's thoughtful Essays; we can perceive how the law of compensation underlies and surrounds all things, so that what we gain we lose, or we cannot gain without losing. Everything has two sides, a good and an evil. Every advantage has its tax." Civilization has

its tax not less than its advantage. The advantage is admirably stated in Michael Angelo Garvey's eloquent, but not less philosophical, little book, "The Silent Revolution." The writer says, "The free concourse of individual minds is the origin and mainspring of all social improvements; and everything that promotes it tends so far to the increase of human happiness, and to the advancement of civilization." But the disadvantage of civilization is not, according to the negative writer M. H., to be found in effeminacy and luxury; the civilization, in conserving the conveniences of luxury in their wider sphere and extension, does not necessarily destroy the tone and power of the man. And yet, as Emerson says, you might drive an axe into the arm of an aboriginal, which would close as if struck into a barrel of pitch: the same blow would lay a modern effeminate-the result of civilization-lifeless. If that is so, then, unquestionably, civilization demoralizes man's physical structure. And that it does so, every man who has indulged, or who does indulge in modern effeminacy, only too well knows and feels. The man who desires to conquer in the race or in the fight, prepares himself by withdrawing, as far as possible, from civilization, or the things fostered and encouraged by civilization. He knows that his only chance of success is the adoption of almost Spartan life; however the Persians got on in their battles, as stated by M. H., he knows that any indulgence will be fatal to his success. Hence he sleeps upon a hard bed, eats the plainest food, drinks only water, and forces himself to laborious and constant exercise. What was the experience realized in the Crimea ? The absence of this training was the cause of a large proportion of the deaths which occurred without the intervention of steel or ball. Civilization certainly did not enable our soldiers to face the storms of an inclement season and an inclement country. It did the opposite; it unfitted them for that combat which resulted in the death of thousands. And the reason why the South, in the present American war, has been enabled to present so determined a front, is owing to the inhabitants being more inured to the toils and hardenings of open-air life. This will ever be found to come true; the more civilization, and the less hardy the soldiers. A knowledge of this fact frequently induces military authorities to order the encampment of regiments, so that the soldiers may become inured to the life under canvas, feather-bed soldiers being proverbially useless, as they are effeminate.

And then, again, or we are much mistaken, the man, as in the case of the dweller far from cities or civilization, who does all things for himself, is stronger and more self-sustained than he who, from the bringing of his hot water in the morning, to the airing of his nightcap

on his retiring to rest, has all things done for him. The one feels himself to be a man, helping himself and sustaining himself; the other a spindle whirling round in a machine, a calculating machine it may be, the aimed-at resultant being the accumulation of a heap of glittering earth, and not the development and expansion of the man. Civilization may make very admirable ribbon-folders, testers, and schemers, but the price paid is too high when it involves the life, the hardihood, the courage of the man.

66

That is what civilization does; it cares for the thing, but forgets the man. But, as Ruskin says, no changing of place at a hundred miles an hour, nor making of stuffs a thousand yards a minute, will make us one whit stronger, happier, or wiser. There was always more in the world than men could see, walked they ever so slowly: they will see it no better for going fast. And they will at last, and soon too, find out that their grand inventions for conquering (as they think) space and time do in reality, conquer nothing; for space and time are, in their own essence, unconquerable, and besides, did not want any sort of conquering ; they wanted using. A fool always wants to shorten space and time; a wise man wants to lengthen both. A fool wants to kill space and kill time; a wise man, first to gain them, then to animate them. Your railroad, when you come to understand it, is only a device for making the world smaller; and as for being able to talk from place to place, that is, indeed, well and convenient; but suppose you have originally nothing to say! We shall be obliged to confess, what we should long ago have known, that the really precious things are thought and sight, not pace. It does a bullet no good to go fast; and a man, if he be truly a man, no harm to go slow; for his glory is not at all in going, but in being."

in

That, surely, is the practical question of this debate; not only "does civilization necessitate demoralization?" but does civilization prevent the development of true and manly life? which it does if there is any truth in Ruskin; and if it does, then the affirmative of the debate is maintained. Puting men and women into heated rooms, as the gardener puts exotics into the hothouse, may result gay fabrics, the production of which is a marvel; but the price paid, indicated by the shrunken limb and pale face of the worker, is more than its value. But it is the thing which is cared for, and not the human being producing the thing. Civilization conserves things, not men. It sets up its artificial life, which it denominates fashion, lives in the night and sleeps in the day, and demands that tender lives shall be worn away in its adornment; while its own life, in accordance with the inevitable law, is sapped and undermined in the process. It herds men together, destroys their individuality, counts them in crowds, and denominates them hands,-their heads being unconsidered-trifles not worth considering. It is true, as Guizot puts it, that civilization tends to the increase of riches; but it is for the few,-not for the many. The hands by which the riches are piled up receive a dolement scarcely sufficient to do more

than "keep life in," so that the gathering may be continued and the consumers continue their consuming. It is sufficient to note this demoralization of the man, this lowering, reducing, and dwarfing of the man, without further reference to the gross vices which can only be maintained in the aggregation of large numbers of human beings, to be convinced that “civilization necessitates demoralization."

NEGATIVE ARTICLE.-II.

J. J.

In a disputed question, if we desire to form a correct judgment, it is necessary to define exactly and fully the terms of the question. In some debates this important rule must be more strictly observed than in others. For words and propositions occasionally admit but of one signification, in which cases definition is superfluous; while others admit and require many. The present cannot rank among questions of the first class, for on the various and extended meanings of its terms much of the argument we shall employ will depend. We will, therefore, state briefly, yet fully, we hope, what we understand to be implied in the terms of the question that stands at the head of this article.

Civilization is a state of social refinement. It includes the proeess of educating and improving both the moral and intellectual nature of man.

At first we intended to define civilization in a limited sense, and not to assign it the power which we have given it in the previous sentence. For we thought the decision of the question would then be immediately manifest, so it would be unfair in us to give the term all the meanings it would bear, and to claim for it the direct tendency to produce and cultivate those very elements, the destruction of which demoralization implies and necessitates. But this charitable intention of ours is impracticable, since one meaning includes more or less of the other." Hence we obtain an increase of power, without which we honestly think we could prove the superiority of the negative side. Demoralization admits and requires in this instance three meanings. In its consideration neither can be omitted, for without it the definition would be incomplete, and the proof would be but partial. This term implies the destruction or lessening of the moral, intellectual, and physical nature of man. We trust we shall show that civilization not only does not necessitate demoralization, but also that it contributes in a material way towards those virtues and improvements in the absence of which demoralization consists. To do this, we must draw a comparison between two ages. An age in which we may for the sake of comparison be allowed to affirm of civilization, that though it existed and exercised its refining influence on all those that came under its power, yet, on looking back from this many times more highly civilized age, it comparatively did not then exist. Those ages are the present, and that when James the Second reigned; for these times are well known to ordinary readers. We