Open main menu
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.

burden of conscription and the oppressions of provincial governors were important incentives to revolt. The Batavians were immediately joined by several neighbouring German tribes, the most important of whom were the Frisians. The Roman garrisons near the Rhine were driven out, and twenty-four ships captured. Two legions under Mummius Lupercus were defeated at Castra Vetera (near the modern Xanten) and surrounded. Eight cohorts of Batavian veterans joined their countrymen, and the troops sent by Vespasian to the relief of Vetera threw in their lot with them. The result of these accessions to the forces of Civilis was a rising in Gaul. Hordeonius Flaccus was murdered by his troops (70), and the whole of the Roman forces were induced by two commanders of the Gallic auxiliaries—Julius Classicus and Julius Tutor—to revolt from Rome and join Civilis. The whole of Gaul thus practically declared itself independent, and the foundation of a new kingdom of Gaul was contemplated. The prophetess Velleda predicted the complete success of Civilis and the fall of the Roman Empire. But disputes broke out amongst the different tribes and rendered co-operation impossible; Vespasian, having successfully ended the civil war, called upon Civilis to lay down his arms, and on his refusal resolved to take strong measures for the suppression of the revolt. The arrival of Petillius Cerialis with a strong force awed the Gauls and mutinous troops into submission; Civilis was defeated at Augusta Treverorum (Trier, Trèves) and Vetera, and forced to withdraw to the island of the Batavians. He finally came to an agreement with Cerialis whereby his countrymen obtained certain advantages, and resumed amicable relations with Rome. From this time Civilis disappears from history.

The chief authority for the history of the insurrection is Tacitus, Historiae, iv., v., whose account breaks off at the beginning of Civilis’s speech to Cerialis; see also Josephus, Bellum Judaicum, vii. 4. There is a monograph by E. Meyer, Der Freiheitskrieg der Bataver unter Civilis (1856); see also Merivale, Hist. of the Romans under the Empire, ch. 58; H. Schiller, Geschichte der römischen Kaiserzeit, bk. ii. ch. 2, § 54 (1883).

CIVILIZATION. The word “civilization” is an obvious derivative of the Lat. civis, a citizen, and civilis, pertaining to a citizen. Etymologically speaking, then, it would be putting no undue strain upon the word to interpret it as having to do with the entire period of human progress since mankind attained sufficient intelligence and social unity to develop a system of government. But in practice “civilization” is usually interpreted in a somewhat narrower sense, as having application solely to the most recent and comparatively brief period of time that has elapsed since the most highly developed races of men have used systems of writing. This restricted usage is probably explicable, in part at least, by the fact that the word, though distinctly modern in origin, is nevertheless older than the interpretation of social evolution that now finds universal acceptance. Only very recently has it come to be understood that primitive societies vastly antedating the historical period had attained relatively high stages of development and fixity, socially and politically. Now that this is understood, however, nothing but an arbitrary and highly inconvenient restriction of meanings can prevent us from speaking of the citizens of these early societies as having attained certain stages of civilization. It will be convenient, then, in outlining the successive stages of human progress here, to include under the comprehensive term “civilization” those long earlier periods of “savagery” and “barbarism” as well as the more recent period of higher development to which the word “civilization” is sometimes restricted.

Adequate proof that civilization as we now know it is the result of a long, slow process of evolution was put forward not long after the middle of the 19th century by the students of palaeontology and of prehistoric archaeology. A recognition of the fact that primitive manSavagery and barbarism. used implements of chipped flint, of polished stone, and of the softer metals for successive ages, before he attained a degree of technical skill and knowledge that would enable him to smelt iron, led the Danish archaeologists to classify the stages of human progress under these captions: the Rough Stone Age; the Age of Polished Stone; the Age of Bronze; and the Age of Iron. These terms acquired almost universal recognition, and they retain popularity as affording a very broad outline of the story of human progress. It is obviously desirable, however, to fill in the outlines of the story more in detail. To some extent it has been possible to do so, largely through the efforts of ethnologists who have studied the social conditions of existing races of savages. A recognition of the principle that, broadly speaking, progress has everywhere been achieved along the same lines and through the same sequence of changes, makes it possible to interpret the past history of the civilized races of to-day in the light of the present-day conditions of other races that are still existing under social and political conditions of a more primitive type. Such races as the Maoris and the American Indians have furnished invaluable information to the student of social evolution; and the knowledge thus gained has been extended and fortified by the ever-expanding researches of the palaeontologist and archaeologist.

Thus it has become possible to present with some confidence a picture showing the successive stages of human development during the long dark period when our prehistoric ancestor was advancing along the toilsome and tortuous but on the whole always uprising path from lowest savagery to the stage of relative enlightenment at which we find him at the so-called “dawnings of history.” That he was for long ages a savage before he attained sufficient culture to be termed, in modern phraseology, a barbarian, admits of no question. Equally little in doubt is it that other long ages of barbarism preceded the final ascent to civilization. The precise period of time covered by these successive “Ages” is of course only conjectural; but something like one hundred thousand years may perhaps be taken as a safe minimal estimate. At the beginning of this long period, the most advanced race of men must be thought of as a promiscuous company of pre-troglodytic mammals, at least partially arboreal in habit, living on uncooked fruits and vegetables, and possessed of no arts and crafts whatever—nor even of the knowledge of the rudest implement. At the end of the period, there emerges into the more or less clear light of history a large-brained being, living in houses of elaborate construction, supplying himself with divers luxuries through the aid of a multitude of elaborate handicrafts, associated with his fellows under the sway of highly organized governments, and satisfying aesthetic needs through the practice of pictorial and literary arts of a high order. How was this amazing transformation brought about?

If an answer can be found to that query, we shall have a clue to all human progress, not only during the prehistoric but also during the historic periods; for we may well believe that recent progress has not departed from the scheme of development impressed on humanity during thatCrucial develop-
long apprenticeship. Ethnologists believe that an answer can be found. They believe that the metamorphosis from beast-like savage to cultured civilian may be proximally explained (certain potentialities and attributes of the species being taken for granted) as the result of accumulated changes that found their initial impulses in a half-dozen or so of practical inventions. Stated thus, the explanation seems absurdly simple. Confessedly it supplies only a proximal, not a final, analysis of the forces impelling mankind along the pathway of progress. But it has the merit of tangibility; it presents certain highly important facts of human history vividly: and it furnishes a definite and fairly satisfactory basis for marking successive stages of incipient civilization.

In outlining the story of primitive man’s advancement, upon such a basis, we may follow the scheme of one of the most philosophical of ethnologists, Lewis H. Morgan, who made a provisional analysis of the prehistoric period that still remains among the most satisfactory attempts in this direction. Morgan divides the entire epoch of man’s progress from bestiality to civilization into six successive periods, which he names respectively the Older, Middle and Later periods of Savagery, and the Older, Middle and Later periods of Barbarism.