2. The words “Asiatic” and “Oriental” are often used as if they denoted a definite and homogeneous type, but Russians resemble Asiatics in many ways, and Turks, Hindus, Chinese, &c., differ in so many important points that Asiatic characteristics. the common substratum is small. It amounts to this, that Asiatics stand on a higher level than the natives of Africa or America, but do not possess the special material civilization of western Europe. As far as any common mental characteristic can be assigned it is also somewhat negative, namely, that Asiatics have not the same sentiment of independence and freedom as Europeans. Individuals are thought of as members of a family, state or religion, rather than as entities with a destiny and rights of their own. This leads to autocracy in politics, fatalism in religion and conservatism in both. Hence, too, Asiatic history has large and simple outlines. Though longer chronologically than the annals of Europe, it is less eventful, less diversified and offers fewer personalities of interest. But the same conditions which render individual eminence difficult procure for it when once attained a more ready recognition, and the conquerors and prophets of Asia have had more power and authority than their parallels in Europe. Jenghiz Khan and Timur covered more ground than Napoleon, and no European has had such an effect on the world as Mahomet.
3. Attention has often been called to the religious character of Asia. Not only the great religions of the world—Buddhism, Christianity, Islam—but those of secondary importance, such as Judaism, Parseeism, Taoism, are all Religion and civilisation. Asiatic. No European race left to itself has developed any thing more than an unsystematic paganism. It is true that Greek philosophy advanced far beyond this stage, but it produced nothing sufficiently popular to be called a religion. On the other hand Christianity, though Asiatic in its origin and essential ideas, has to a large extent taken its present form on European soil, and some of its most important manifestations— notably the Roman Church—are European reconstructions in which little of the Asiatic element remains. Christianity has made little way farther east then Asia Minor. Modern missions have made no great conquests there, and in earlier times the Nestorians and Jacobites who penetrated to central Asia, China and India, received respectful hearing, but never had anything like the success which attended Buddhism and Islam. Yet Buddhism has never made much impression west of India; and Islam is clearly repugnant to Europeans, for even when under Moslem rule (as in Turkey) they refuse to accept it in a far larger proportion than did the Hindus in similar circumstances. Hence there is clearly a deep-seated difference between the religious feelings of the two continents.
Since Asiatic records go back much farther than those of Europe, it is natural that Asia should be thought the birthplace of civilization. But this originality cannot be absolute, for, whatever may have been the relations of Babylonia and the Aryans, the latter brought civilization to India from the west, and it is not always clear whether similarity of government and institutions is the result of borrowing or of parallel development. Both in Europe and in Asia small feudal or aristocratic states tended to consolidate themselves into monarchies, but whereas in Europe from the early days of Rome onwards royalty has often been driven out and replaced temporarily or permanently by popular government, this change seems not to occur in Asia, where revolution means only a change of dynasty. The few cases where the government is not monarchical, as Arabia, seem to represent the persistence of very ancient conditions.
The contemplation of Asia suggests that progress is most rapid when accompanied by the migration of races or the transplantation of ideas and institutions. Thus Greece excelled the Eastern countries from whom she may have derived her civilization, and Buddhism had a far more brilliant career outside India than in it.
4. In many parts of southern Asia are found semi-barbarous races representing the earliest known stratum of population, such as the Veddahs of Ceylon, and various tribes in China and the Malay Archipelago. Some of them offer General historical outlines. analogies to the Australians. This connexion, if true, must be very ancient, since it apparently goes back to a time when the distribution of land and water was other than at present. In northern Asia are found other aborigines, such as the Ainus of Japan and the so-called hyperborean races (Chukchis, &c.), but no materials are at present forthcoming for their history. There is some record of the migrations of the later races superimposed on these aborigines. The Chinese came from the west, though how far west is unknown: the Hindus and Persians from the north-west: the Burmese and Siamese from the north. We do not know if the Mongols, Turks, &c., had any earlier home than central Asia, but their extensive movements from that region are historical.
The antiquity of Asiatic history is often exaggerated. With the exception of Babylonia and Assyria, we can hardly even conjecture what was the condition of this continent much before 1500 B.C. At that period the Chinese were advancing along the Hwang-ho, and the Aryans were entering India from the north-west. Both were in conflict with earlier races. The influence of Babylonian civilization was probably widespread. Some connexion between Babylonia and China is generally admitted, and all Indian alphabets seem traceable to a Semitic original borrowed in the course of commerce from the Persian Gulf.
Apart from European conquests, the internal history of Asia in the last 2000 years is the result of the interaction of four main influences: (a) Chinese, (b) Indian, (c) Mahommedan, (d) Central Asian. Of these the first three represent different types of civilization: the fourth has little originality, but has been of great importance in affecting the distribution of races and political power.
(a) China has moulded the civilization of the eastern mainland and Japan, without much affecting the Malay Archipelago. In the sphere of direct influence fall Korea, Japan and Annam; in the outer sphere are Mongolia, Tibet, Siam, Cambodia and Burma, where Indian and Chinese influence are combined, the Indian being often the stronger. These countries, except Japan, have all been at some time at least nominal tributaries of China. Where Chinese influence had full play it introduced Confucianism, a special style in art and the Chinese system of writing. After the Christian era it was accompanied by Chinese Buddhism. The cumbrous Chinese script maintains itself in the Far East, but has not advanced west of China proper and Annam.
(b) Indian influence may be defined as Buddhism, if it is understood that Buddhism is not at all periods clearly distinguishable from Hinduism. Its sphere includes Indo-China, much of the Malay Archipelago, Tibet and Mongolia, Moreover, China and Japan themselves may be said to fall within this sphere, in view of the part which Buddhism has played in their development. The Buddhist influence is not merely religious, for it is always accompanied by Indian art and literature, and often by an Indian alphabet. Much of this art is Greek in origin, being derived from the Perso-Greek states on the north-west frontiers of India. Indian alphabets have spread to Tibet, Cambodia, Java and Korea. The history of Indian civilization in Indo-China and the Archipelago is still obscure, in spite of the existence of gigantic ruins, but it would appear that in some parts at least two periods must be distinguished, first the introduction of Hinduism (or mixed Hinduism and Buddhism), perhaps under Indian princes, and secondly a later and more purely ecclesiastical introduction of Sinhalese Buddhism, with its literature and art.
(c) Mahommedanism or Islam is perhaps the greatest transforming force which the world has seen. It has profoundly affected and to a large extent subjugated all western Asia including India, all eastern and northern Africa as well as Spain, and all eastern Europe. Its open advocacy of force attracts warlike races, and the intensity of its influence is increased by the fusion of secular and religious power, so that the Moslem Church is a Moslem state characterized by slavery, polygamy, and, subject to the autocracy of the ruler, by the theoretical equality of Moslems, who in political status are superior to non-Moslems. Thus, whenever the population of a Moslem country is of mixed belief, a ruling caste of Moslems is formed, as in Turkey at the present day and India under the Moguls. Islam is paramount in Turkey, Persia, Arabia and Afghanistan. India is the dividing line: Islam is strong in northern and central India, weaker in the south. But only one-fifth of the whole population is Moslem. Beyond India it has spread to Malacca and the Malay Archipelago, where it overwhelmed Hindu civilization, and reached the southern Philippines. But it made no progress in Indo-China or Japan; and though there is a large Moslem population in China the Chinese influence has been stronger, for alone of all Asiatics the Chinese have succeeded in forcing Islam to accept the ordinary limitations of a religion and to take its place as a creed parallel to Buddhism or any other.