Сус зод SEP 6 1902 LIBRARY Pierce fund. THE EDITORS D. H. SCOTT, M.A., PH.D., F.R.S., Hon. Keeper, Jodrell Laboratory, Kew. THE DEPARTMENTAL EDITORS FOR GEOGRAPHY AND STATIS TICS: J. SCOTT KELTIE, F.S.S., F.S.A.SCOT., LL.D., Sec. Roy. Geog. Soc. FOR ASTRONOMY: SIMON NEWCOMB, PH.D., LL.D. FOR MATHEMATICS: JOSEPH LARMOR, M.A., D.SC., SEC.R.S., University Lecturer in Mathematics, Cambridge. FOR ELECTRICITY: J. A. FLEMING, M.A., D.SC., F.R.S., Prof. of Electrical Engineering, Univ. Coll., London. FOR ART: FOR ZOOLOGY: G. HERBERT FOWLER, PH.D. FOR NAVAL AFFAIRS: JAS. RICHARD THURSFIELD, M.A. FOR BIOGRAPHY: RICHARD GARNETT, C.B., LL.D. FOR LITERATURE: EDMUND GOSSE, LL.D. FOR ECONOMICS: WYNNARD HOOPER, M.A. FOR RAILWAYS: MAJOR HENRY G. PROUT, Editor of Railroad Gazette, N.Y. FOR MUSIC: J. A. FULLER MAITLAND, M.A., F.S.A. FOR GAMES AND SPORTS: M, H. SPIELMANN, Editor of the Maga- ALFRED WATSON, Editor of the Badmin- ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA. VOLUME XXVII (CHICAGO-ELDUAYEN). PRINCIPAL CONTENTS. CHICAGO. HARRY PRATT JUDSON, LL.D., Professor of Political Science, University of Chicago. GEORGE JAMIESON, C.M.G., and V. CHIROL, Foreign Editor of "The Times"; China-Japan War, CHOLERA. ARTHUR SHADWELL, M.D. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. The Right Rev. W. BOYD CLEMENT, EPISTLE OF. The Rev. J. ARMITAGE COAL. H. BAUERMAN, F.G.S., Lecturer in Metallurgy, COALING STATIONS. Sir GEORGE SYDENHAM CLARKE, K.C.M.G., F.R.S., Governor of Victoria. COCHIN CHINA. M. DE LANESSAN, formerly Governor- COCKBURN. E. A. ARMSTRONG, Barrister-at-Law. CELENTERA. G. HERBERT FOWLER, Ph.D. COLERIDGE, LORD. Sir MOUNTSTUART E. GRANT COLOMBIA. The Hon. W. W. ROCKHILL, Head of the COLORADO. WILLIAM F. SLOCUM, LL.D., President of COLOURS OF ANIMALS. E. B. POULTON, F.R.S., COMBINATORIAL ANALYSIS. Major P. A. MAC- COMETS. EDWARD S. HOLDEN, Sc.D., LL.D., formerly COMMERCIAL TREATIES. Sir C. M. KENNEDY, K.C.M.G., C.B., formerly Head of Commercial Depart- COMMONS. Sir ROBERT HUNTER, Solicitor to the COMPANIES. E. MANSON, Author of "Practical Guide COMPASS. Captain ETTRICK W. CREAK, R N., F.R.S. COMPENSATION. A. WOOD RENTON, Puisne Judge of CONDENSATION OF GASES. J. D. VAN DER WAALS, Professor of Physics, Amsterdam University. CONDUCTION OF HEAT. H. L. CALLENDAR, F.R.S., Professor of Physics, Royal College of Science, CONFESSION, CONFIRMATION. The Rev. W. O. BURROWS, M.A., formerly Principal of Leeds Clergy CONFIRMATION OF BISHOPS. The Rev. W. E. COLLINS, M.A., Professor of Ecclesiastical History, CONGO FREE STATE. J. SCOTT KELTIE, LL.D., Secretary of the Royal Geographical Society, London. CONGO RIVER. E. HEAWOOD, M.A., Librarian of the CONGREGATIONALISM. The Rev. GEORGE PARK FISHER, D.D., LL.D., Professor of Ecclesiastical His- tory, Yale University; and the Rev. W. E. COLLINS, CONNECTICUT. CHARLES HOPKINS CLARK, Editor of MILLINGEN, Author of "Byzantine Constantinople." CONTRACT. SIR FREDERICK POLLOCK, LL.D., Corpus Professor of Jurisprudence, Oxford University. CTENOPHORA. G. HERBERT FOWLER, Ph.D. CUBA. C. E. AKERS; HENRY GANNET, Chief Geographer, U.S. Geological Survey; and ROBERT T. HILL, Author CURTIS, G. W. CHARLES ELIOT NORTON, LL.D., Har- vard University. Editor of the "Letters of Carlyle," Writings of George William Curtis," &c. CUTTLEFISH. The Rev. J. F. BLAKE, F.R.S. CYPRUS. C. D. COBHAM, M.A., District Commissioner, Larnaca, Cyprus; Archæology, J. L. MYRES. CYTOLOGY, VEGETABLE. HAROLD W. T. WAGER, F.L.S., Inspector of Science Schools. DAIRY. W. FREAM, LL.D., F.G.S., Lecturer on Agri- cultural Entomology, Edinburgh University. DAMASCUS. Maj. Gen. Sir C. W. WILSON, K.C.B., DANCING. A. B. F. YOUNG. DANUBE. Lieut.-Colonel H. TROTTER, C.B., British DAVIS, JEFFERSON. WILLIAM WERT HENRY, M.A. DAUBIGNY. D. CROAL THOMSON, Editor of "The Art DEACON AND DEACONESS. The Rev. W. E. COLLINS, DEAD SEA. Maj.-Gen. Sir C. W. WILSON, K.C.B. DELOS, DELPHI. ERNEST ARTHUR GARDNER, Pro- fessor of Archæology, University College, London. DENMARK. Geography, C. A. GoscH; Literature, EDMUND DENTISTRY. EDWARD C. KIRK, D.D.S., Dean of the DERBY, LORD. Sir MOUNTSTUART E. GRANt Duff. DESTRUCTORS. W. H. MAXWELL, M. Inst.C.E. DICTIONARY. BENJAMIN E. SMITH, M.A., Managing Editor of "The Century Dictionary." DIETETICS. W. O. ATWATER, Ph.D., Professor of Chemistry, Wesleyan University, Middletown, Conn. DIFFERENTIAL EQUATIONS. H. F. BAKER, F.R.S., Lecturer in Mathematics, Cambridge University. DIFFRACTION GRATINGS. H. A. ROWLAND, Ph.D., LL.D. (the late), Professor of Physics, Johns Hopkins DIFFUSION OF GASES. G. H. BRYAN, D.Sc., F.R.S., DIMENSIONS OF UNITS. J. LARMOR, D.Sc., Sec. DIVORCE. The Right Hon. Sir FRANCIS JEUNE, K.C.B., DOCKS. WHATELY ELIOT, M.Inst.C.E. DOCKYARDS. British, H. FIDLER, Civil Engineer to the Admiralty; Administration, Admiral Sir R. VESEY HAMILTON, G.C.B.; American, Rear-Admiral W. T. SAMPSON, LL.D., U.S.N. (the late); Foreign, JOHN DÖLLINGER. The Rev. J. J. LIAS, M.A., Chancellor DOUKHOBORS. V. TCHERTKOFF, Author of "Christian DOSTOIEVSKY. THOMAS SECCOMBE, M.A., Assistant Editor of the "Dictionary of National Biography.” DRAMA. WILLIAM ARCHER; French, AUGUSTIN FILON. DRAUGHTS. J. M. M. DALLAS, late Secretary of the Edinburgh Draughts Club, and RICHARD JORDAN, Draughts Champion of the World. DREDGING. WALTER HUNTER, M. Inst. C.E. DU BOIS-REYMOND. Sir MICHAEL FOSTER, LL.D., Sec. R. S., Professor of Physiology, Cambridge Uni- DUELLING. PHILIP A. ASHWORTH, Dr. Jur. DYEING. J. J. HUMMEL, F.I.C., Professor of Dyeing, DYNAMO. C. C. HAWKINS, M.Inst.C.E. Professor of Mathematics, Owens College, Manchester. EARTHQUAKES. J. MILNE, F.R.S., F.G.S. EAST AFRICA (BRITISH). E. HEAWOOD, M.A., Librarian of the Royal Geographical Society. ECCLESIASTICUS. The Rev. W. E. BARNES, D.D., Hulsean Professor of Divinity, Cambridge University. Morphology of Invertebrates, Cambridge University. ECLIPSE. Professor SIMON NEWCOMв, Ph.D., D.Sc., LL.D., Supt. U.S. "Nautical Almanac," and Editor of the "American Journal of Mathematics." ECONOMIC ENTOMOLOGY. F. V. THEOBALD, M.A. ECONOMICS. W. A. S. HEWINS, M.A., Director of the London School of Economics and Political Science, and Tooke Professor at King's College, London. EDUCATION. Sir JOSHUA FITCH, LL.D., formerly Chief Inspector of Training Colleges; United States, NICHOLAS MURRAY BUTLER, Ph.D., President of Columbia Uni- EEL. J. T. CUNNINGHAM, M.A., late Assistant Professor EGYPTOLOGY. W. M. FLINDERS PETRIE, D.C.L., Litt.D., Professor of Egyptology, University College, London; and F. L. GRIFFITH, M.A., Reader in Egypt- ELASTIC SYSTEMS. A. E. H. LOVE, F.R.S., Sedleian PREFATORY ESSAY. THE INFLUENCE OF MODERN RESEARCH ON THE SCOPE OF WORLD-HISTORY. WHEN By Henry Smith Williams, M.D., B.Sc. HEN Queen Victoria came to the throne, the year 4004 B.C. was accepted, in all sobriety, as the date of the creation of the world. Perhaps no single statement could more vividly emphasize the change in the point of view. from which scholars regard the chronology of ancient history than the citation of this indisputable fact. To-day, though Bibles are still printed with the year 4004 B.C. in the margin of the first chapter of Genesis, no scholar would pretend to regard this reference seriously. On the contrary, the scholarship of to-day regards the fifth millennium B.C. as well within the historical period for such nations as the Egyptians and the Babylonians. It has come to be fully accepted, that when we use such a phrase as "the age of the world" we are dealing with a period that must be measured not in thousands but in millions of years; and that to the age of man must be allotted a period some hundreds of times as great as the five thousand and odd years allowed by the old chronologists. This changed point of view, needless to say, has not been reached without ardent and even bitter controversy. Yet the transformation is unequivocal; and the revised conception no longer seems to connote the theological implications that were at first ascribed to it. It has now become obvious that the data afforded by the Hebrew writings should never have been regarded as sufficiently accurate for the purpose of exact historical computations: that, in short, no historian working along modern scientific lines could well have made the mistake of supposing that the genealogical lists of the Pentateuch afforded an adequate chronology of world-history. But it should not be forgotten that to many generations of close scholarship these genealogical lists seemed to convey such knowledge in the most precise terms, and that at so recent a date as, for example, the year in which Queen Victoria came to the throne, it was nothing less than a rank heresy to question the historical accuracy and finality of chronologies which had no other source or foundation. This changed point of view regarding the chronology of history may without hesitation be ascribed to the influence of evidence obtained in a single field of inquiry, the field, namely, of Archæology. No doubt the evidence as to the age of the earth and as to the antiquity of man was gathered by a class of workers not formally included in the ranks of the archaeologist: workers commonly spoken of as palæontologists, anthropologists, ethnologists, and the like. But the distinction scarcely covers a real difference. The scope of the archæologist's studies must include every department of the ancient history of man as preserved in antiquities of whatever character, be they tumuli along the Baltic, fossil skulls and graven vii bones from the caves of France, the flint implements, pottery, and mummies of Egypt, tablets and basreliefs from Mesopotamia, coins and sculptures of Greece and Rome, or inscriptions, waxen tablets, parchment rolls, and papyri of a relatively late period of classical antiquity. If at one time the monuments of Greece and Rome claimed the almost undisputed attention of the archæologist, that time has long since passed. For the most important historical records that have come to us in recent decades we have to thank the Orientalist, though the classical explorer has been by no means idle. It is the purpose of the present essay to point out in general terms the import of the message of archæological discovery in the Victorian Era in its bearings upon the great problems of worldhistory. Perhaps this purpose may be best attained if we take up these problems one after another, contrasting in each case the old point of view with the new, and briefly outlining the evidence on which the present decision rests. This, of course, is not the place for details as to the archæological discoveries involved. Here we have to do with only such discoveries as have led to broad historical generalizations regarding such subjects as the Antiquity of Man, the Antiquity of Culture, the Chronology of Ancient History, the Status of Bible History, the Credibility of Early Classical History, the Origin and Development of the Art of Writing, and the Evolution of the Fine Arts. The Antiquity of Man, the Antiquity of Civilization, and the Chronology of Ancient History. With regard to the changed conception as to the age of the earth, it is necessary to recall that this came about through the efforts of the paleontologists and geologists, with only indirect or incidental aid from the archeologists. The reform movement began actively with James Hutton in the later years of the 18th century, and was forwarded by the studies of William Smith in England and of Cuvier in France; but the really efficient champion of the conception that the earth is very old was Sir Charles Lyell, who published the first edition of his epoch-making Principles of Geology only a few years before Queen Victoria came to the throne. Lyell demonstrated to the satisfaction, or—perhaps it should rather be said to the dissatisfaction, of his contemporaries that the story of the geological ages as recorded in the strata of the earth becomes intelligible only when vast stretches of time are presupposed. Of course the demonstration was not accepted at once. On the contrary, the champions of the tradition that the earth was less than six thousand years old held their ground most tenaciously, and the earlier years of the Victorian Era were years of bitter controversy. The result of the contest was never in doubt, however, for the geological evidence, once it had been gathered, was unequivocal; and by about the middle of the century it was pretty generally admitted that the age of the earth must be measured by an utterly different standard from that hitherto in vogue. This concession, however, by no means implied a like change of view regarding the age of man. A fresh volume of evidence required to be gathered, and a new controversy to be waged, before the old data for the creation of man could be abandoned. Lyell again was in the forefront of the progressive movement, and his work on The Antiquity of Man, published in 1863, gave currency for the first time to the new opinions. The evidence upon which these opinions were based had been gathered by such anthropologists as Schmerling, Boucher de Perthes, and others, and it had to do chiefly with the finding of implements of human construction associated with the remains of extinct animals in the beds of caves, and with the recovery of similar antiquities from alluvial deposits the great age of which was demonstrated by their depth. Every item of the evidence was naturally subjected to the closest scrutiny, but at last the conservatives were forced reluctantly to confess themselves beaten. Their traditional arguments were powerless before the array of data marshalled by the new science of prehistoric archæology. Looking back even at the short remove of a single generation, it is difficult to appreciate how revolutionary was the conception of the antiquity of man thus inculcated. It rudely shocked the traditional attitude of scholarship towards the history of our race. It disturbed the most cherished traditions and the most sacred themes. It seemed to threaten the very foundations of religion itself. Yet the present generation accepts the antiquity of man as a mere matter of fact. Here, as so often elsewhere, the heresy of an elder day has come to seem almost an axiomatic truth. |