Providence.
When I remember all my days,
And note what blessings each displays,
What words can speak my grateful praise?
What varied beauty thrills my sight!
What sounds my listening soul delight!
What joys of touch and appetite!
And, more than any joy of sense,
The happiness serene, intense,
That comes to me, I know not whence,
Unless it be that He is near,
And speaks some words I cannot hear,
But which unto my soul are clear.
For there are times—ah! who can tell
The gladness inexpressible
With which my soul doth overswell!
Ev'n sorrows that once seemed to press
My soul to brinks of wretchedness,
I know were but his means to bless.
Out of the deeps of pain and fear,
He led me to a higher sphere,
Where all his purpose is made clear.
Had not such sorrow struck my ways,
I had lived out my earthly days,
Barren of either prayer or praise.
Wherefore each day, when I recall
The blessings which his hands let fall,
For this I thank him most of all;
And would not, if I could, forego
The sorrow which he made me know,
For unto it so much I owe.
This happy life, this lovely earth,
These joys which every day brings forth,
Are now to me of tenfold worth.
Such wondrous love all things disclose,
Such joy through all my being glows,
That in my soul a longing grows
That I might see this One All-Good,
And tell him all my gratitude,
In words however weak and rude.
But ah! I fear it cannot be
That I this loving God can see,
For he fills out infinity;
And out of him there is no place
Where I can stand to see his face:
Enough, I lie in his embrace,
And sometimes, albeit dimly, feel
That he is near, and doth reveal
Himself in joy unspeakable.
I said, indeed, 'I shall not see
Him face to face;' yet it may be
That joy of joys awaiteth me.
For when this grossness, that doth fence
My being in the bonds of sense,
Falls off when I am taken hence,
New powers of which I do not know
May be revealed in me, and show
The One to whom myself I owe,
And I may see him face to face.
Lord, grant it of thy boundless grace,
The crown of all my happiness!
From The Etudes Religieuses,
Historiques Et Litteraires,
Par Des Peres De La Compagnie De Jesus.
The Pre-historical Congress Of Paris.
An "International Congress of Anthropology and Pre-historical Archaeology" assembled in the amphitheatre of the Ecole de Médecine, at Paris, on the 17th of last August, and held sessions until the 30th. The meaning of the terms anthropology and archaeology is familiar; but the word pre-historical, being of recent origin, requires an explanation. It is used to designate either material objects, or events and epochs, or even men, anterior not only to written history, but also to all oral tradition and to every monument having a certain date and an origin historically determined.
In the lowest strata of the earth which we tread, in caverns unknown for centuries, under the tumuli or heaps of shells and fossils; in the bottom of lakes where formerly dwellings and villages were built on piles; and in cromlechs and raths, are found, with the bones of animals now extinct, arms, instruments, and utensils of stone, evidently fashioned by the hand of man. In the next stratum above, the same stone objects are found; but this time the stone is polished and accompanied with bones of a different character—most frequently the bones and horns of the reindeer. Human remains, skulls, jaw-bones, and teeth, begin to appear in greater quantity. But in these two first layers of the earth no metal is discovered. It is only in the third stratum that brass, then iron, often all the other metals, are met. These singular fossils, and the invariable order of their existence, in France as well as in other countries, are the facts of which the present essay treats.
The epoch in which iron begins to appear in the layers of the earth is one the date of which is known to us either by the relations of historians, or by traditional recollections, or by inscriptions and medals found in the soil. These strata, therefore, and their antiquities, belong to the historical epoch. But the lower strata, of more ancient formation, all the fossils found in them, curious specimens of primitive industry, monuments of the social state and manners of the first men; human remains also which bear testimony to man's physical conformation; all these, anterior to history, belong to pre-historical archaeology and anthropology. These sciences are very young in years and manners, but very old by their object and the age to which they carry back our thoughts.
The Paris Congress met to compare the discoveries of different countries, and thus obtain a more perfect knowledge of the pre-historical period, and draw more general inferences from it.
A first congress assembled in 1866, at Neufchâtel, in Switzerland; the second is that of Paris, last August; the third will meet this year in England. The Congress of Paris was singularly favored by the Universal Exposition. The most eminent representatives of European science were there. Russia alone was not represented. Among the foreign members who spoke were Franks, Squier, Vorsaae, Nilsson, Desor, Clément, Virchow, and especially Carl Vogt, the learned naturalist. It was this outspoken and venturesome savant who at Neufchâtel declared himself a partisan of the man-monkey. France had there her Lartet, President, De Mortillet, Secretary, De Longperier, the learned antiquarian of the Louvre, and De Quatrefages, the eminent naturalist of the museum. These two last illustrious members of the French Institute had a preponderating influence in the congress, for the interest of science and the glory of their country. The Abbé Bourgeois, the Marquis de Vibraye, Alexander Bertrand, Alfred Maury, Henry Martin, and Doctor Broca, were also present and addressed the assembly.
If we are to believe certain reports, of which the positivist sheet La Pensée Nouvelle is the organ, it was proposed to prove satisfactorily that the appearance of man on the earth dates from one hundred to sixty, or at least from forty thousand years; that this appearance is not the result of a creation properly so called, but the term of a slow and necessary evolution, as would be, for instance, the progressive transformation of the monkey type into the human; imperceptibly taking place for thousands or rather millions of ages! In this way the authority of the Bible would be set at naught, as being old, and gradually falling to pieces; but more especially because it is revealed and undoubtedly true. We could then do without the hypothesis of a God, Creator of man, since our learned men would show that they could do without the hypothesis of a God, Creator of heaven and earth.
Was this the real aim of the Paris Congress? If so, it was the same as that which well-informed men allege to have been the object of the first hall of the history of labor in the French Exposition. It is certain that, for several years, many books, reviews, journals, and even so-called official discourses which every one may read, have openly tended in this direction.
But let us confine our remarks to the congress. We dislike to affirm that such was the fixed thought of the majority of the foreign and French members. The love of science, the praiseworthy desire of collecting information, or of giving it regarding facts very ancient in themselves, but very new in regard to us; these motives gathered in Paris important strangers, and Frenchmen of different classes and opinions. On the other hand, it seems impossible to deny that an ardent minority had the intention of overthrowing the biblical theory of creation both as to time and character; of this minority all except one were Frenchmen.
Yet—let us hasten to say it—the minority did not succeed. The scandal did not take place. The majority was not convinced of the falsity of the traditional teaching. The new doctrines were not found to be certain. A few affirmations and eccentric theories were expressed. But they were so justly, learnedly, and wittily answered, that the theorists had to doubt their ill-judged systems. This is a very important result, in such an affair.
A programme of all the excursions to be made in common to the Exposition, to the Museum, to the Palace of Saint Germain, to the megalithic monument at Argenteuil, to the environs of Amiens, to the Museum of Artillery, and to the Museum of the Anthropological Society, was traced in advance. Six principal questions occupied the six evening sessions at the Ecole de Médecine. The day after these sittings, the members met again in the same place, in free session, each to propose his difficulties, hear the written communications of absent members; examine packages arriving daily, containing new specimens of the primitive works of man, arms, utensils, different instruments in stone, in bone, in bronze, or in iron found in the bowels of the earth, in caverns, or lakes and in Druidical cromlechs, raths, or mounds, in France, Switzerland, Italy, Germany, Great Britain, Denmark—in short, everywhere.
The six fundamental questions formed six theses, comprising the entire domain of pre-historical knowledge. "What are the most ancient vestiges of man's existence? In what geological conditions, among what fauna and flora have they been found in the different parts of the globe; and what changes have taken place since then, in divisions of land and water?" This was the first question. Next question: "Has the dwelling of the primitive man in caverns been general? Is it true of one race alone, referable to one and the same epoch?" Third question: "What relations are there between the men to whom we owe the megalithic monuments, and those who formed the lake dwellings?" The fourth was: "Is brass the product of indigenous industry, the result of a violent conquest, or the effect of new commercial relations?" This had reference to the use of brass in the west. Fifth question: "What are, in the different countries of Europe, the chief characteristics of the first epoch of iron? Is this epoch anterior to the historical period?" The sixth and last was the most important question: "What are the notions acquired regarding the anatomical characteristics of man in the pre-historical times, from the most remote times to the appearance of iron? Can the succession of several races, and their traits, be discovered, especially in Western Europe?"
It is easy to see that the five first questions are delicate, difficult, and important, though they all centre in a point of chronology. But chronology in this case is the history of man. It is the Bible and revelation. It is tradition. It is faith. We must assign a reasonable date for those ancient débris of labor, or of the human beings whom we certainly meet in all the strata called quaternary; and probably also in the last layers of the tertiary strata, much more ancient than the quaternary. This date must in no wise change the sacred text. This date once found and demonstrated, would settle the dispute which still exists regarding the chronology of the Bible. We know that the Catholic Church gives us full liberty on this point. But the moment has not yet come for pre-historical archaeology to define the limits of the ages or years which it calls the age of cut stone; the age of polished stone, or of the reindeer; the age of brass, and the age of iron. The congress understood this well. Only two or three orators were bold enough to speak of thousands of years or of millions of years. Some savans have wonderful imaginations! But in general, no one ventured to determine or define the time. Almost always the gentlemen used the words epoch, age, period, without wishing to be more precise. They were afraid to compromise their reputations.
Without doubt, for the same reason, no savant or person of consequence wished in the beginning to sign his name to the catalogues of the Exposition, relating to the pre-historical antiquities, or hold himself personally responsible for them. But behold! after five months, when the Exposition was near its close, on Thursday, August 29th, M. de Mortillet offered timidly to the congress a little volume of his composition, entitled, Pre-historical Promenades in the Universal Exposition. M. de Mortillet is also the author of an other book, The Sign of the Cross before Christianity. He is also collecting materials for the positive, or rather positivist and philosophical history of man. For M. de Mortillet imagines that it is necessary for men of genius to astonish others, if not by discoveries in truth, at least by their eccentricities. M. de Mortillet is a man of genius. The world may deny it. But M. de Mortillet is a better authority on the subject than any one else. This learned gentleman concludes his Promenades with these beautiful phrases: "The chronology taught in all our schools is terribly distanced. It hardly comprises the historical period. The law of the progress of humanity, the law of the development of races, and the great antiquity of man, are three consequences which follow clearly, distinctly, precisely, and irrefragably from the work which we have made on the Exposition." In these three phrases we perceive the wonderful wit, profundity, brilliancy, and genius of the author. It is astonishing how a gentleman of his extraordinary science, although he was secretary of its deliberations, could not exercise the smallest influence on the congress, either by his speeches or his books!
Pre-historical archaeology was enriched by many new discoveries at the congress. The Abbé Bourgeois, among other important facts, observed that traces of man were found in the tertiary stratum.
The anthropological question came last. Eight days before the close of the congress, M. de Quagrefages proposed that question, in presenting to it the first copy of his fine work, Rapport sur les Progrès de l'Anthropologie. With great science, clearness, and modesty, the illustrious naturalist, in rendering an account of his investigations, held the whole assembly attentive. The applause which he received showed the esteem in which the author was held, and the value of his book.
Other incidents formed a prelude to the final thesis; but some in an opposite direction. We cite a single example. It was asked whether the first men had been anthropophagi or not. It is well known that there is a school in France, as well as elsewhere, which deems it no dishonor to be descended from cannibals or monkeys. A member of the congress made a profession of faith on this point. The admitted head of this school (Doctor Broca) asked leave to speak on primitive anthropology. He began by saying that he had long hesitated before adopting the affirmative, and that the proofs so far given did not satisfy him; but a human bone, which he showed to the assembly, had finally convinced him. This bone had scratches at the end of it made by a flint. A man of the age of cut stone had tried to break the bone at this spot. He could not succeed. He had then tried to saw the bone in the middle with a flint, in order to obtain the marrow, with which he wished to regale himself. Some of the members laughed, especially when one, interrupting the orator, remarked that the pretended marks made by the stone saw seemed fresh, and produced by recent rubbing. When the demonstration was finished, the eminent archaeologist, M. de Longpérier showed, from the example of several historical races, and by specimens which are found in public museums, that objects of luxury, as well as utensils, were often made out of human bones. Instances were given of mallets, bodkins, and musical instruments. As to the bone in question, nothing showed that the cuts and scratches on it pointed out by Doctor Broca were not caused by some one trying to make a whistle! The reader may guess the impression left on the congress by this remark, and the expression of the doctor's physiognomy.
In anthropology as in archaeology the celebrities of the congress alleged well-proven facts; either real fossils of the human body, bones, skulls, jaw-bones, teeth; or signs naturally connected with the subject, as hilts of swords, or bracelets fitting hands or arms much smaller than ours. But it was first required to prove the authenticity of these antique objects. Theories could not be established until after the discussion of these facts. So the theorists were not at ease. They may have complained of having been troubled or gagged. By whom? By men too learned to be the slaves of a system. If such complaint were made—and such is the rumor—they are the highest eulogium of those eminent men.
"Si forte virum quem
Conspexere, silent."
[Footnote 66]
[Footnote 66: The vulgar herd in silence awestruck scan The face of him whom nature marks a man!]
At the closing session some human skulls, very ancient or supposed to be, were ranged on a table. Those heads were remarkable for the extraordinary length of the occiput, by their retreating foreheads, high cheek-bones, and prominent jaw-bones. The object of these skulls was to show the great similarity between the primitive man and the monkey. Doctor Broca, standing before the table, made a speech more than an hour long about those skulls, discussing the authenticity of some and reasoning on the others. He spoke also of a singular jaw-bone. He said a few words about the small hands. He should logically have concluded that the primitive man was a brother of the ape. Every one expected this. But at the decisive moment, he wheeled about, and confessed that there were not yet proofs enough to justify such a conclusion, and that it should not be urged. Was he afraid of ridicule or was he really convinced in making this concession? Let us say that it was conviction on his part. But the doctor's premises were not as inoffensive as his conclusion. M. de Quatrefages made short work of them. He so pulverized the arguments of Doctor Broca, that Carl Vogt, summoned against his will to help the doctor, admitted the conclusion of his colleague.
Vogt began by declaring himself a Darwinian. Although the theory of Darwin cannot satisfy the best naturalists, it knocks the man-monkey completely off his legs. Vogt admitted that it was impossible, in the actual condition of science, to hold the man-monkey opinion; so great is the distance between the lowest human type and the highest ape type. The Genevan Darwinian indeed added, that we might imagine, or might discover at some future day a common type of both races; but he was not very sanguine on this point. Only one thing, said he in conclusion, remains indisputable after all our discussions on the capacity of skulls and the shape of the head, namely, the progressive development of the brain and of the human skull, in proportion to the increasing development of intelligences.
We shall not dispute this double progress. It has the sanction of that most eminent naturalist and anthropologist M. de Quatrefages. We even admit a third progress with this savant; that made from Congress of Neufchâtel to the Congress of Paris. Even though we the should be accused of optimism, we shall even hope for greater progress in the future congresses. Yes, we expect it. Pre-historical studies will add to the facts already known others more significative still; and the learned will finally and unanimously adopt, in default of certitude, theories more probable and more convincing as they approach nearer to the truth.