Microfilmed by Univ. of Wis. Department of Photography 70-22,047

DKEHER, Robert Edward, 1939- ARTHUR DE GOBINEAU: AN INTELLECTUAL PORTRAIT

The University of Wisconsin, Ph.D., 1970 History, modem

University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan

© Robert Edward Drphpr, 1Q7fi______

All Rights Reserved (This title card prepared by The University of Wisconsin)

PLEASE NOTE:

The negative microfilm copy of this dissertation was prepared and inspected by the school granting the degree. We are using this film without further inspection or change. If there are any questions about the film content, please write directly to the school.

UNIVERSITY MICROFILMS ARTHUR DE GOBINEAU: AN INTELLECTUAL PORTRAIT

A thesis submitted to the Graduate School of the University of Wisconsin in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.

by

Robert Edward Dreher

Degree to be awarded January 19—

June 19—

August 19— To Professors: Mosse

Gargan

Skidmore

This thesis having been approved in respect to form and mechanical execution is referred to you for judgment upon its substantial merit.

Dean

Approved as satisfying in substance the doctoral thesis requirement of the University of

Wisconsin

'IL-.'/QeJL

Date of Examination 7%. Ajl-J-L- 19-Z-l ARTHUR DE GOBINEAU: AN INTELLECTUAL PORTRAIT

BY ROBERT EDWARD DREHER

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (History) at the UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN

1970 TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER Page I The Legacy of Gobineau...... 1

II The Formation of a Pessimist...... 19

III The Essai...... 59

IV The Anatomy of Degeneracy: Gobineau and theNear E a s t ...... 170

V Depression and a Return to Art .... 215 (1869-77)

VI Collapse and Death: The End of Civilized Society (1878-1 8 8 2)...... 253

VII The Misuse of the Prophet...... 299

Appendix Biographical Summary ...... 325

Bibliography Section 1...... 335 Section I I ...... 3^4 Section III...... 356

ii CHAPTER I THE LEGACY OF GOBINEAU

When Joseph-Arthur, Comte de Gobineau died in 1882, few would have recognized his name or what he had done in a long life of accomplishment and frustration and practi­ cally no one would have recognized any of the more than thirty volumes of history, linguistics, poetry, and novels which he had written. Yet, this man and his thought would be the center of a whole series of controversies between 1900 and the present. The story of that revival is as much a part of the problem of Gobineau as the man himself. It is a story of misuse and misinterpretation which has created a legend difficult to unravel and even more diffi­ cult to piece together, a story which must be understood if one is to see the problem of Gobineau correctly. When Gobineau died, he was a man alone, rejected by his family and unclaimed by any intellectual group or coun­ try. After numerous legal difficulties, Gobineau1s manuscripts and correspondence was willed to his old friend and confident, Mathilde de la Tour. The exact relationship of this woman to the departed Count remains far from certain but her full dedication to protecting and reviving the memory of her departed friend is beyond doubt. In 1894 she consulted an attorney in regard to establishing the publishing rights to Gobineau's works only to find that no one held much interest in republishing or commenting on any of his books.1 Gobineau was a complete unknown. Madame de la Tour, herself, decided to publish Gobineau's last work, Amadis as a final testament to the world. Before doing so, however, she consulted Gobineau's sister, Caroline, a very pious nun and Arthur's only truly close relative. Both agreed that Gobineau's text was far too religiously unorthodox to be published in the form in which it had been left. They, therefore, deleted certain passages and published it as an "unfinished" work.2 In an introduction to Amadis^Madame de la Tour created a legend of the man she had known. He was a man persecuted by the world for his pessimistic views, a sensitive artist misused by a materialistic society which had no understanding of his aristocratic virtues. Caroline accentuated this in an unpublished biography of her brother. He had been the last of a long line of aristocrats, a man of great virtue, neglected and persecuted by a hard world. In addition, he had been a consummate scholar who had demonstrated the impending collapse of western civilization through his •a expert knowledge of history and orientalism. It was implied, if rarely stated, that the failure of Gobineau to 3 gain prominence was some how accountable for by the jealousy and suspicion of intellectuals in high academic positions. Gobineau was, thus, the sensitive aristocrat in the nineteenth century: artist and scholar, spiritual and inward, aloof and desdainful, the last of an old breed per­ secuted and destroyed by the irreligion, materialism, and lack of true virtue which the revolution had ushered in. A legend had been created, a legend which would be accepted by all scholars until after World War II but one which brought no immediate popularity. At this point Ludwig Schemann entered on the scene. Gobineau in his later years had been befriended by Richard Wagner and Schemann was the "master's" personal choice to popularize the forgotten Count. Schemann's qualifications seemed acceptable. He was young, a painstaking scholar, and devoted to both Wagner and his task. Wagner, himself, in "an overwhelmingly excited tone",** had asked Schemann to introduce Gobineau's works into Germany. His transla­ tion of 1 'Essal sur 1 1Inegallte des Races Humalnes began to appear in Germany in the l890's but his real work could not begin until he persuaded Madame de la Tour to give Gobineau's papers to the university library in Strasbourg and the publishing rights to Schemann, himself. Around these papers Schemann attempted to build a shrine of Franco- German intellectual cooperation; a collection of manuscripts, sculpture, and mementos of the departed Count. The symbol of this cooperation was to be the Gobineau Society ( Gobineau Verein ) , the accomplishments of the society were prodigious and Schemann's dedication to his appointed task unquestionable. Working under considerable personal pain and privation,5 Schemann published a detailed study of the influence of Gobineau's work, two volumes of source material taken from Gobineau's unpublished works and letters, four volumes of unpublished essays, and finally a two volume biography. In addition, Schemann republished a number of Gobineau's unknown works in France, translated a large number of his works into German, and created a general interest in a person who until then had remained largely unknown. Madame de la Tour had given Schemann the sources to use but had restricted them from general scholarly use. They were only for him to analyze. The result was a veil of secrecy and suspicion thrown over the whole question of Gobinism. The study of Gobineau appeared to be a cult, whose inner meaning was hidden except to a chosen few. The result for those who were already predisposed towards rejecting the Count's influence was incalculable. We now know Schemann's presentation of Gobineau's work to have been reasonably accurate. If he held back on numerous points, it was more out of deferance for Gobineau's relatives and friends rather than for any ideological reasons, but it is also understandable why many doubted the fundamental honesty of his work. Gobinism was from its beginning a movement which raised great suspicion outside of the Gobineau Society. Schemann attempted to present an "objective scientific" picture of Gobineau, not as a propagandist, bpt as a serious fk ' historical scholar. In doing this he accepted the legend of Madame de la Tour, extended it, "demonstrated" it with abundant documentation. There seems to have been little doubt by French Gobineau students of Schemann's honesty in his presentation. Even scholars who disagreed with him were generally convinced of his dedication to the revival which he directed and his desire to keep Gobineau from becoming the object of political propaganda.^ Yet, it is obvious that there was serious dissension both within the Gobineau Society and without before 191^. Schemann was never able to attract the large French member­ ship which had been originally planned although he did manage to interest a few literary critics. He, therefore, turned increasingly to his German membership for support. While the Wagnerians maintained a certain understanding for the diversity of Gobineau's thought, many of the Pan Germans, who increasingly dominated the group, began to misuse Gobineau as a predecessor of Wilhelmian nationalism. Schemann was caught In a highly ambivalent position by his personal tendency towards this form of nationalism and his desire to sustain an objective picture of Gobineau. Until the beginning of the first World War he maintained his basic assumptions that German could not be substituted for Germanic, that Gobineau's sense of Race was above nationality and that the Gobineau Society was not related to any particular political perspective. By the end of the War, however, Schemann's work was totally destroyed; the society split, lost its membership, and rapidly dissipated; the return of Strasbourg to France left the crucial unpublished source material in "foreign" hands; and Ludwig Schemann, shaken by the experience of the war and the collapse of the Second Empire turned to the political right. His course led him from a biography of Paul de Lagardi, through support for the Kapp Putsch and Ludendorff, to the Instltut fuer Reichsgeschichte, his reputation for objectivity being destroyed in the process by his support for the half Aryan parentage of Christ in 1932.8 The question of Gobineau's intent in the process became somewhat confused. While assuming that Gobineau’s organism did not apply to modern Germany, Schemann assumed that only the modern Germans could fully understand its inner worth. Thus, the society distributed Gobineau's works to both French and German soldiers during the War to demonstrate their common Germanic heritage.9 But during the war . . . the previously formed union between Gobineau and the German right had its baptism under fire. In the process it received a deeper dedication and was reaffirmed by the superior worth of German blood which once again demonstrated to which people Gobineau in the last analysis belonged. This process was reinforced by Schemann's choice of Clement Serphille de Gobineau, a grandson of the Count, to carry on his work. Assuming that the sources were now lost to him as a German, Schemann gave the publishing rights to him as a final gesture of loyalty to Franco-German friendship.11 The choice could not have been worse. Clement Serphille de Gobineau was neither a scholar nor an honest critic. He quickly identified Gobineau with the new order of Italian Fascism and the French rights12 while republishing Gobineau's essays on French history liberally interspersed with anti-semetic, anti-Marxist, and anti-

Masonic references non-existent in the original.1^ By 19^0 Gobineau was being directly Identified with the third Reich and French collaborationist.1^ In Germany no further fundamental work was done on Gobineau after 1920,surprisingly, considering the large amount of propaganda emitted by the Gobineau society. Gobineau's works never sold more than a few thousand copies and only La Renaissance sparked any real popular Interest. When Julius Schwab attempted to publish Gobineau's La Ethnologle de la France in 1925> Schemann informed the publisher that the question was of no real interest.Despite the numerous claims made by supporters and detractors, no work was done after 1930. The "Nordic Movement" treated him highly ambivalently while the few non-Nazi critics, who commented on the Essoi, succeeded in almost totally ignoring the fundamental question. Schemann had no German successor. Perhaps, the issue of Gobineau's acceptance in France was prejudiced from the start due to the imposition of his work on French intellectual life by a nation which in 1900 was assumed to be France's mortal enemy, but there can be little doubt that the book published by Eugen Kretzer in 1902 augmented this resistance considerably. Kretzer pub­ lished his biography before Schemann's works began to appear, at a time when little was known about Gobineau beyond a number of small sketches.1^ He based himself on Elizabeth Foster-Nietzsche's biography of her brother in which Nietzsche's intellectual heiress asserted, without any real foundation, that the French count had been a major influence on Nietzsche's doctrine.^ Elizabeth, who was married to the leading anti-semite and fervent nationalist, Bernard Foster,thus added Gobineau to her own Panthion of Nietzsche as a predecessor of the most militant forms of German right wing nationalism. Kretzer canonized this in his work which

■1 Q probably was the first work to interest the French. Ernest Seilliere, one of France's leading critics of German culture, took up the imagined challenge and made Gobineau along with Rousseau and Nietzsche a part of a Triumvirat of intellectuals who had formed the Credo of Imperialistic nationalism. Gobineau's thought, thus, became an aspect of those forces which were attempting to undermine the French critical tradition and rational politics.19 while recognizing much in Kretzer's interpretation of Gobineau to have been false, he, never­ theless, succeeded in giving a statement of the theory which emphasized its connection with Pan Germanism and Houston Stuart Chamberlain. Seilliere's studies though cautious and philosophically conceived are the reaction of on a Voltairian to modern political nationalism. ^ His study was the first deep analysis of Gobineau's theory, since i860 was the first to see some of the sources and internal complications within his work, and the first to see it as a unified historical theory. He recognized Gobineau's aristocratic anti-democratic framework and that his sense of will was non-imperialistic.21 Yet, he still felt that- Gobineau had given a theoretical framework for the combina­ tion of these forces in the German right. A myth was 10 consummated on both sides of the Rhine, a myth which became vastly oversimplified in its propagation: Gobineau was the enemy within, the German fifth column in Prance. In 1909 Robert Dreyfus was the first v.uc attempted to understand Gobineau in and for himself. As a Jew and a friend of Charles Peguy he was beyond criticism of either an anti-semetic or an anti-nationalistic bias.22 Dreyfus stressed the differences between the modern Germans and I he ancient Germanic tribes in Gobineau's work, his lack of anti-semiticism and the aristocratic basis of his thought; all of which separated him from Pan Germanism.23 The Essal was to be seen as a historical analysis and a prediction of degeneracy but not as a piece of political propaganda for anyone.2** In addition, Dreyfus was the first to stress Gobineau's literary works as of independent merit both for their social criticism and their general style. The myth, however, did not die. During the first world war it became the center of a whole range of criticism claiming that he was at the heart of a German conspiracy against France.2^ The return of Strasbourg to France allowed Maurice Lange to write the first French biography with full source material. Published in 1925/ Lange's book was an incomplete manuscript upon its author's death. Its major fault apparently stems from the embittered prejudices of its author. Lange's family had been a part of the Alsacian Bourgeoisie which had left Strasbourg in 1871 out of loyalty for French ideas and institutions, and he, still full of hatred for the oppressors, had only returned in 1918. 26 Although he recognized the fundamental differences between Gobineau's conception of Germanic tribes and his view of modern Germany, he stressed Gobineau's friendship with Germans, his sympathy for Germany's political prob­ lems in the l8M0's, and his love for German culture as evidence of a traitor to French ideals and a danger to French political thought.2? Thus, by 1930 Gobineau was either accepted or rejected on fundamentally erroneous grounds. Whether treated posi­ tively or negatively, the actual contents of the Essal were totally ignored. Such critics as Camielle Spiess and Oscar Levy even succeeded in creating a Gobineau for whom the racial theory of history was only symbolic for a general hodge-podge of Ideas without reason or direction. 28 While others such as Elie Faure-Briget created a romanticized Gobineau, a poet in historical guise.29 Yet, a genuine interest in the departed Count was never fully destroyed. Gobineau reappeared as novelist and orientalist. In the course of thirty years of debate Schemann and numerous literary critics discovered a number of unpublished or long forgotten literary works. These were republished 12 throughout the period from 1900 to 1935 while the critical acclaim of Edouard Schure, Alain and Jean Cocteau produced a certain sustained interest in the author of these works. Between the two world wars there was an increasing interest in Gobineau's novels, short stories, and literary criticism. In addition, Gobineau's friendship with Renan, Tocqueville, Dorn Pedro II, Merimee, and other important men of the nineteenth century produced a certain interest in Gobineau beyond his own theories. The result was a sizable literary boom unconnected with the question of Racism but very much interested in understanding Gobineau. This interest was given added emphasis by Gobineau's works on the Middle East. While after 1920 the Count's works on Iran remained basic French texts on post-Islamic religious and social institutions^ such diverse people as Lord Curzon and E. G. Browne found Gobineau's work in this area to be essentially accurate and extremely enlightening. Browne's own studies of the Ba'Hai used many of Gobineau's manuscripts and the endorsements of Curzon, while far from being above suspicious on Imperialistic grounds, are essentially correct.3* Gobineau is one of the few French authors in the nineteenth century to have had a genuine knowledge of Iran and not to have aided the creation of the estranged exoticism which so dominated French litera­ ture on the Middle East before 1914.^2 Thus, between the wars there ware a number of people who maintained an interest in Gobineau's literary works and orientalism without relating them to Gobineau's other writings. In almost all of this, however, the legend created by Mathilde de la Tour and enshrined by Schemann remained unquestioned. Since the end of the second World War a great deal of new material has become availableja whole legend has been destroyed] the distortions of Madame de la Tour and the myths of Caroline have been exploded; the legitimacy of Gobineau's family, their financial solvency, and the . - . . fidelity of his mother have been called into question; and the scholarly background of his education shown to be a complete distortion. Yet, this work, far from decreasing

Gobineau's popularity^ has augmented it immensely. Since 1966 there has been a journal, Etudes Goblniennes^ dedicated to the Count, numerous popular editions of his novels and short stories have been published, and the studies of his work and personality move on space. Jean Mistier began it with integral editions of Les Pleiades and Ia_ Renaissance. Since then A. B. Duff in Jerusalem and Jean Gaulmler in Strasbourg have led a group of scholars in the task of resurrecting Gobineau from the misuse of friends and enemies alike. Through their work there now exists a fund of know­ ledge far beyond that of Schemann, Lange or any of Gobineau's biographers of a previous age. Yet, a definitive biography in of the much maligned Gobineau is still far from realization. There is much primary research and specific textual work necessary before this will be possible. This work will not attempt to accomplish that which is manifestly Impossible. This work will attempt to analyze a claim, the keystone of Ludwig Schemann's work and the Gobinist movement, a claim forgotten in the anti-Racist polemics which followed the Nazi seizure of power and recent scholarship. While attempting to present a well-rounded analysis of the Count, Schemann stressed that Gobineau's fundamental importance arose from his position as the founder of modern racial theory. Whether positively or negatively, almost all work on this subject since 1900 has accepted this assertion. Gobineau might be assumed to be the benefactor of race studies as a malicious enemy of humanity but, all have accepted the truth of this assertion. It will be the attempt of this work to analyze this claim. We shall attempt to show the originality and the continuity of Gobineau's work within the context of

intellectual thought around 18 5 0, the relationship of this racial theory to Gobineau's other works with reference to modifications which appeared in his later works, and, finally, the applicability of this theory to the racists' theories developed in i860. In this regard we shall emphasize the study of race as a "scientific" study, not because of its essential truth but because of its importance. The attempt to polenize on Gobineau has led into an oblivion of charges and recriminations without analyzing the fundamental question. It is hoped that the attempt to understand will bear better fruit. Before this is possible, however, we must know some­ thing of the man with whom we are dealing, for whatever else Gobineau's Racism is, it is certainly a testament of personal faith. FOOTNOTES INTRODUCTION

Alain Geyer, "Etat de/.a Succession Litteraire Arthur de Gobineau dresse en 1 8 9 6," Ed. Lily Greiner. Etudes gobiniennes, III (1 9 6 8-9), pp. 207-20. 2Rachel Thenan, "L'Amadis de Gobineau/1 (Diss. Montpellier, i9 6 0), pp. 25-36. ^Caroline de Gobineau,N"Enfance et premiere jeunesse d 1 Arthur de Gobineau par Mere Benedicte de Gobineau," Etudes goblniennes, II (1 9 6 7), pp. 117-29. ^Ludwig Schemann, Lebensfahrten eines Deutschen, (Leipzig, 1925), P. 125. ^Schemann, Lebensfahrten, pp. 281-290. Ludwig Schemann, 25 Jahre Gobineau Vereinlngung (Berlin, 1919/ pp. 39-^2. ^Schemann, 25 Jahre, pp. 3-7. Ludwig Schemann, Gobineau's Rassenwerk, (Stuttgart, 1910), pp. 136-9* ^Schemann, Lebensfahrten, p. 310. Robert Dreyfus, 'Le Cas Gobineau/^ Revue de Paris, V, (1933), pp. 591-93. Ernst Seillerie, 'Revue de Schemann,' Revue Critique LXXXI, (1916), pp. 329-31. Q Schemann, Lebensfahrten, pp. 361-70. Ludwig Schemann, Von Deutscher Zukunft, (Leipzig, 1920). Ludwig Schemann, Die Rasse in den Geisteswissenschaften, (Muenchen, 3 vols. T928-31L 17 p p T 374-407. ^Ludwig Schemann, Gobineau und die deutsche Kultur, (Leipzig, 1934), PP. 6-^ ■^Schemann, Lebensfahrten, p. 3 6 0 . ^Schemann, Lebensfahrten, pp. 386-7. Ludwig Schemann, Berichte ueber die Gobineau Vereinigung, (Freiburg/B, 1895-1918), 17th report, p. 16 17

„ 12 Clement < Serpeille ^ de Gobineau, 'Le Gobinisme et la pensee moderne,' Europe, Oct. 1, 1923> pp. 35-40. Clement Serpeille de Gobineau, 'Le Gobinisme et la politique moderne,* Nouvelle Revue Frangaise, Feb. 1, 1934, pp. 250-6. ■^Clement Serpeille de Gobineau, Racisme, Marxisme, et le Probleme Juif, (Bielefeld, 1936). 14 s Joseph-Marie Roualt, La_ Troisieme Republique vue par le comte de Gobineau, (Parish 19^3T* -^Michael Lemonon, '% propos de la diffusion du Gobinisme en Allemagne," Etudes Gobiniennes, II, (1 9 6 7), pp. 2 6 2-8. 1^Eugen Kretzer, Graf von Gobineau: seln Leben und sein Werk, (Leipzig, 19O2 ), pp. 1-3*

17 ^ Robert Dreyfus, La vie et Les Propheties du Comte de Gobineau, (Paris, 1905)> pp. 27-31 and 296-9. Walter Kaufmann, Nietzsche, (Cleveland, 1950), Intro. 18 Rudolf Streidt, Gobineau in der Fraenzoeslschen Kritlk, (Diss. Wuerzburg, 1935)> pp. 31-4. ■'•^Rene" Gillouin, Une Nouvelle philosophle de L'histoire moderne et franpaise, (Paris, I92Y). 20Gillouin, 123-34. 21 Seillerie, 'Revue,' pp. 445-7. Ernst Seillerie, Le comte de Gobineau et l'aryanisme historique, (Paris, 190TJ7"PP. 230^47 22 Dreyfus, vie, Intro. 23 Dreyfus, Cas. ?4 Dreyfus, vie, pp. 52-77. 2^streidt, Gobineau, pp. 48-52. 26 Maurice Lange, Le comte Arthur de Gobineau, (Strasbourg, 1924), intro. 27 Lange, Gobineau, pp. 7 1 -6 and 181-7. 18

oft s Camille Spiess, Imperialisme: La Conception gobinienne de la race, (Paris, 1917). Oscar Levy, Intro­ duction to Arthur Gobineau, The Renaissance trans. Paul Cohn (New York, 1913), pp. III-LXVI. 29 J. N. Faure-Biquet, Gobineau, (Paris, 1930). 3°Jean Cocteau, "Eloge des Pleiades," Nouvelle Revue Francaise, Feb. 1, 1934, pp. 19^-7. Edouard Schurd, Prgcurseurs et Revoltes, (Paris, 1930). Alain, Gobineau Romanesque," Nouvelle Revue Francaise, Feb. 1, 193^, PP. 198-209. 4 •?1 ^ Arnold H. Rowbothom, The Literary Works of the Count de Gobineau, (Paris, 1929), p. 62. Vladimir MinorsEy, "Gobineau et la Perse, 1 Europe, Oct. 1, 1923, pp. 116-26. Jean R. Bloch, "Les Itineraires parallels: Gobineau et Loti en Perse, Europe, Oct. 1, 1923, PP. 99-115. 32 f Nayereh D. Samsonei, L !Iran dans la lltterature Frangaise, (Paris, 1936), pp.^14b-7. Hassan el-Nouty, La proche-orient dans la litterature francaise de Nerval aT~Barres, (Paris, 1956). ^published annually in Strasbourg under the editor­ ship of Jean Gaulmier and A. B. Duff. 34 Both editions were published (Monaco, 1946). They represent the first time that two of Gobineau's most basic works were published in their entirety. CHAPTER II THE FORMATION OF A PESSIMIST

(1835-51)

Joseph-Arthur de Gobineau arrived in Paris with fifty francs, a great deal of ambition, and no one to give him either financial or moral support. It was 1835 and, despite his later claims to nobility, few would have recognized any difference between him and thousands of other young men who entered the capital in that era. We know little of the young Gobineau’s background. When the mist of Caroline and Madame de la Tour has cleared, perhaps more will be known. At present one can only say that he was probably born near Paris on July 14, 1816, and was registered as the son of Louis de Gobineau and Anne-Louise Gercy.^ The father, a member of the robe nobility from Bordeaux, was an artillery officer who supported the Bourbon Restauration and served with distinc­ tion in the Spanish campaign. His severe military bearing

> and intransigent Bourbanism belied a personality without force or personal pride. He was separated from his wife shortly after the birth of Arthur's sister, Caroline, and took little Interest in the children while he remained 19 20

2 an officer. The mother, who was of West Indian Creole descent and, perhaps, an illegitimate granddaughter of Louis XV, sought consolement after his estrangement from the father with

\ Arthur 's tutor, Charles de la Coindiere, for whom she bore an illegitimate daughter. In 1830 she left Prance for Switzerland and Baden where her son learned German and studied at the College de Bienne. After a few years Arthur and his sister were sent to their father while their mother continued to disgrace the family name by her exploits in the interests of various Polish emigrees and her financial mismanagement.3 The latter problem finally sent her to prison for embezzlement and inability to pay her bills.^ Needless to say neither Arthur nor Caroline had much respect for their mother.

In 1831 Louis de Gobineau was discharged because of his strong Bourbonism. He retired in poverty to Brittany where his children Joined him in 1833. Here, Arthur's education continued at L 1orient and Redon in preparation for a military career, something for which the young

Gobineau had little interest. He promptly failed.5 The father, who directed these studies, gained little respect from his children as he had done nothing to hinder his wife's exploits, had even thanked M. de la Coindiere for taking such good care of the children, and gave Arthur and Caroline neither financial nor moral support.^ For the rest of his life Gobineau would search for every clue of the legitimacy of his name and position which his parent's conduct had made so tenuous. If Gobineau searched for the nature of nobility throughout his life, it is perhaps because he felt so insecure in that given him by his family. The young man could expect little help from his parents. Upon arriving in Paris he turned to his uncle, Thibault-Joseph, a staunch Royalist and somewhat of an eccentric. This friend of Talleyrand, officier in Spain, and strong disciplinarian recommended Arthur for an office job with the Paris Gas Company, but was quick to add that his young nephew was ,ra young man whom one must hold tight punish severely, and dismiss with the first sign of dis­ contentment.^ Arthur held this and another job at the Paris Post and Telegraph office for only a short period of time. He then turned to journalism to make his career. He could expect no aid from his relatives. The success which Arthur de Gobineau achieved in his later life was earned by his own merits and luck. He was, in fact, that which he would have denied with the greatest fervor, a self-made man. The character of the young Gobineau was from its very beginnings highly sensitive and critical. Perhaps, this 22 was natural for someone who had experienced his early rejection. If the education which he received was far less formal than is generally supposed, even Gobineau's earliest works show a man who was widely read and know- ledgable in a large number of areas. Although we know little about his studies as a boy, it is clear that the young Gobineau had a genuine interest in Near Eastern and Medieval French literature at an early age. By the time he reached Paris, he was filled with the symbolism of Djinn and oriental mystery as well as with the tales of knights, battles, and romances of France's past. Delifica (1836-7)9 demonstrates these interests as well as the frustrations of youth. Upon leaving for Paris, the nineteen year old Gobineau had been deeply in love with a daughter of a good family, Arnelie Langeau. The marriage, which Arthur desired, had been frustrated by his lack of financial resources and, perhaps, because of the low posi­ tion of his family. The young hopeful, therefore, left Brittany in semi-despair for his love. "I must succeed or die."10 These hopes, however, were quickly dashed as the romance was broken off by the girl's family.11 In his personal agony Gobineau turned for the first time to litera­ ture. The result is a demonstration of Gobineau's personal amour propre; his frustration with his family and his first love; and a statement of a number of basic themes which will persist throughout his life. Deliflea is set in the Near East and, if sometimes rough in character, fits into the genre of mystery and magic of much Arabo-Persian 1 P literature. It is a flight from reality, a search for romance thwarted by the machinations of people and spirits against full virtue. In this work Gobineau expresses for the first time his essential credo: People are false and decitful, few care for much beyond material comfort, and true virtue often goes unrewarded.^ It is the belief of a frustrated, embittered man, one who can state only a limited ideal in response; love, honor, and liberty, a tentative ideal but one which will persist through all of Gobineau's work. In addition Delifica orients this search around a woman, a noble person who by her virtue creates in men the love of higher ideals. Haide, gentle and demure, is this ideal. Through her self sacrifice and high ideals, she leads men to a higher, chivalrous sense of themselves beyond the sensuous beauty of Delifica. If Gobineau main­ tains a belief in love, it is a chivalrous, Platonic love. The credo is that of a romantic, one with an idealism which he will not compromise with a materialistic age. The realistic, even brutal, aspect of Gobineau*s thought can be seen in an early poem, Les Adeux du Don Juan. 24 Gobineau's treatment of the subject, itself is not unique. Don Juan, through guile and force, seduces his brother's wife not out of sensual pleasure but to escape boredom. The creation of Don Juan's disposition, however, is of much interest. As a boy Don Juan witnessed the cruel abduction of a young girl from her fiance by a heartless tyrant. His tutor, Don Perez, attempts to preach charity and a rejec­ tion of the ways of an evil world but Don Juan disagrees; "on the contrary, Perez, the world is amusing. it is the statement of a realist, a brutal realist; one who has seen the evil nature of man and can only react with scorn­ ful laughter. If the young Gobineau's idealism is in part a romantic flight, his sense of reality is brutal and direct. Gobineau is, thus, by nature a pessimist; one who has seen the hard reality of life the most, but, also, that of an idealist; one who asserts that he cannot compromise. There is a higher ideal which must be followed. This ideal must be his guiding star. Even in his early life the basic paradox of all his thought has developed^ Gobineau's back­ ground has made him too realistic to ignore the world in which he lives and too idealistic to accept that which is. Gobineau began his literary career in an atmosphere of great fervor and change. The canons of classicism had been destroyed by Saint Beuve and new forms of literature began to emerge. This development was augmented by the emergence 25 of the Feulleton press. Basing itself on a rapidly in­ creasing reading public, the new journalism competed not merely with news and political commentaries but also with reviews and short stories. The type of story desired was almost the exact opposite of classical dictum. It must -| fZ be fast moving, suspenseful, and sustaining in interest. If it often produced the great work of Balzac, the genre more often produced literature of little worth or depth. The young Gobineau's first published works were in this genre and, they fully fitted the desired pattern: they make exciting, if not inspired, reading. Their plots are all of a historical nature, showing Gobineau's interest in a heroic, pre-revolutionary era.1^ All take place during the Renaissance and the French religious wars. The form is piccoresque as the hero travels through numerous ad­ ventures in search of romance and fortune. Heros and villains, love-struck people and buffoons abound. Gobineau treats his characters lightly. Above all adventure and a certain Joie de vivre are stressed. Although Gobineau gives a genuine feeling for the age, he does not identify with any of the beliefs held by his characters, the atrocities and duplicity of both sides during the French religious wars were portrayed with accuracy but uninvolvement. The plots of these novels are filled with mistaken identities, reversal of position and a general 26 buffoonery which sustains the reader's interest in what will happen next. As such they perform their author's purpose: they entertain. 18 During this period the young Gobineau also acted as a literary critic for numerous journals. As such he was a supporter of Saint Beuve. While recognizing a certain loss in classical purity, he continually stressed that the audience of the l840's required new forms to meet the needs of an age in which traditional forms had lost their relevance.1^ He, therefore, praised Balzac, Stendhal, and E. T. A, Hoffmann for writing relevant literature despite their rejection of classical forms. Gobineau saw the cause of this destruction of classicism in the revolution and the rise of a new Bourgeois reading public. If the new readers lack the appreciation for forms of previous generations, the events of the last seventy-five years allow them to see human decisions and social move­ ments with a clarity and impact unknown to the age of Louis XIV. Thus, Gobineau assures us, the purpose of literature in the modern age should be to find a nobility of actions 21 in new forms. If our author will reject the modern age in totpjhe will not see its solution in a sterile imitation of the past. In general, however, the young Gobineau's literary efforts during this era are highly conventional. Despite 27 the efforts of three generations of Gobineau schol to demonstrate their novelity, 22 they remain the efforts of a man in need of a job rather than a platform to express unique ideas. As such they were only a partial success, for Gobineau remained a poor aspirant throughout this period. If Gobineau was to become a notable, it was due less to the ideas which he expressed than the friends that he made. Gobineau used his small amount of leisure to make numerous friends, people who would help him break into Parisian society, the most impotft'ant of these were the painter, Ary Scheffer, whose family acted as a protector for the young aspirant, the Serre family, whose sons Gaston, and Hercule became close friends with Gobineau, and the German emigree painter Guermann Bohn. In addition, Arthur became acquainted in this manner with two men who would aid his later diplomatic career greatly, Charles de Remusat and Alexis de Tocqueville. We know little of how Gobineau met these people or exactly how they affected the young man/ but that all of these men aided Gobineau's later success and helped him to find a place in Parisian society is un­ questionable .23 Most of these friends could point to a heritage of artistic success and aristocratic nobility from which Gobineau could not help but feel estranged. If modern 28 criticism has not always agreed, Ary Scheffer was considered to be a great painter under Louis Philllpe; the nobility and the influence of the Serre family was considerable; and both Remusat and Tocqueville were as honored for their families’ nobility as their latest sons were for their oh political analysis of contemporary society. Gobineau was, naturally, led to search for the nobility of his own family beyond that which he could see in his parents. It is in this period that he began the lifelong study of the origins of his family, broke all relationships with his father and mother, and created a "myth" of his own origins. Gobineau would learn to become the polished gentleman whom all later friends described, a master player of the art of conversation and the polite gesture.jt is this search for the nature of nobility which will unify his later work. In this search he will attempt to combine his realistic sense of the society around him and his romantic desire for something different. Gobineau's early political development is difficult to trace. While there can be little question of his essential conservation, his place in the political right is difficult to determine. If the young Gobineau is in fact a legitimist, he is certainly not an ultra. The ideology of Ultramontaine Catholicism and an absolute monarchy which De Maistre has preached and Charles X had 29 accepted was too uncritical to be accepted by a man who could neither believe in the mysteries of the church or the virtues of a hereditary aristocracy. The Bonapartists, however, could not hope to offer a meaningful alternative to a man for whom the revolution represented those qualities most hated in the modern world. Gobineau's rejection of Bonapartism is unrestrained. Framed in the context of Napoleon's foreign policy the young editorialist states objections which will be basic to all his later political thought. Such imperialistic ventures have weakened France and gained her little lasting benefit. These policies have alienated Germany and cost her dearly in her continuing rivalry with Great Britain. The self righteousness of France's attempt to export her culture and social system has created a decidedly negative reaction in central Europe. The French have failed to see the integral nature of German culture as the desire of the German people to realize their own traditions. This attempt has only created a hatred of France and her most legitimate interests. It has now made France unpopular and without allies on her Rhine frontier. Napoleonic aggression has done even more irrevocable harm in France's relationship with Britain. While France was attempting to export her glory, Britain was developing the commercial and naval resources to dominate Europe. After twenty years Europe's former dominant power has been left with nothing except a legacy of mistrust while Britain has become the most powerful nation in the world.This rejection of military imperialism will remain a constant in both Gobineau's diplomatic and intellectual work. In all aspects of his work Gobineau maintained a deep distrust for politics based on abstract idealism and national hatreds. Gobineau's rejection of the Orleans Monarchy is at least as direct. For the intellectuals of the l840's the regime of Louis Phillipe was the Bourgeois Monarchy, the representatives of that part of the Bourgeoisie which had succeeded in establishing a limited parliamentary suffrage in 1830 and now wished to promote an Ideology of economic prosperity for all with limited social mobility for the few. For its opposition, both socialist and royalists, it was materialistic, egotistical, and lacking in s u b s t a n c e . Gobineau was fully susceptible to these tendencies. The Bourgeoisie was the very heart of that which he hated. As a youth frustrated by his own very limited success and with a chivalrous sense of true mobility "the corruption of Paris," the political manipulations of Guizot, and a regime based on material progress seemed to be the very essence of degeneracy. 31 In Mademoiselle Irnols2^ Gobineau pictured this Bourgeoisie with brutal sarcasm. The story of the lame daughter of a Bourgeois merchant who gained his wealth in the revolution and increases it dally through sharp prac­ tices, Mile. Irnols pictures both father and daughter as narrow, dull, and petty. The characters, drawn by the notation of small details, are shown both to be pretentious and ludicrous. The young woman, confined to her room by her ailment, creating a romantic love for a house painter on a nearby roof; her Bourgeois father attempting to marry his daughter to wary suitors, and the ignorant house painter, all are pictured in detail, hilarious detail^ as our pity for the poor daughter is almost entirely lost in the ludicrous situation and our disgust for the materialistic Bourgeoisie. This is, indeed, Gobineau's purpose and he succeeds admirably. He is here very Balzacian both in social analysis and artistic Intent. The Bourgeoisie and their regime are shown to be petty, dull, and materialistic. Wealth requires neither nobility nor skill. It necessitates only luck and pettiness. The father, with his narrow understanding of liberty and progress, a love for culture which is dull and superficial, and constantly attempting to justify greed by philanthropy, is the model of all that Gobineau despised throughout his life. 32

Due to the current censureship Gobineau's direct comments about the regime of Louis Phillipe are limited but their general implications are clear. His opposition to the increasing bureaucratic centralism, the growth of Paris and the materialism of the age was at least partly directed at the regime which sponsored these f o r c e s . Above all else the rule of gold was condemned. "Gold has become the principle of power and honor. Gold is the master of all, gold is the law of politics; gold rules, pays consciences, and is the measure of esteem which a man d e s e r v e s . For the young journalist of aristocratic pretensions the Bourgeoisie was that which he hated most. This, however, did not make Gobineau the firm Royalist which has often been assumed. Despite the legend of > Caroline and Schemann's attempt to entomb it, the young Gobineau seems to have maintained a highly critical attitude towards Le Comte de Chambord and his cause.31 Indeed, this is natural. As a son of poverty attempting to make a living, Gobineau could not help but have doubts about the pretentions of people for whom nobility was used to justify privileges often undeserved and who Insisted on assuming an ideology unrelated to the reality of contemporary France. ^ Gobineau's correspondence during this era is that of a man continually striving for success, being frustrated and returning to the fray. It is difficult to 33 see why he should not have been caustic with those who frustrated his success as well as the Bourgeoisie whose definition of success he could not accept.^ Gobineau's reflections in this area are shown in an artistically unsuccessful, but highly revealing novel,

T e r n o v e .34 Written in 1847 when Gobineau, poor and recently married, still relied heavily on his friends; Ternove con­ tains much of its author’s personal anguish and frustration. Octave de Ternove, a young penniless noble, is driven into exile with the Royalists during the Hundred Days.± His uncle, Gerard de Ternove, entirely unable to manage his own affairs, entrusts the family estate to a scheming Bourgeois, Nicholus BahuratyWho has no respect for the family's past and pretentions. Indeed, Bahurat becomes the dominant influrence in the whole family trying to keep Marguerette, his daughter and Gerard's granddaughter, from marrying Octave. Thus, the young orphan is in search of both true nobility and fortune in joining the Royalists. In exile Octave is befriended by a young emigree, Henri Marcel, awaits a commission as an army officer, and is almost adopted by the Baron and Baroness de rtervejols. These latter, strongly Royalist and extremely religious, have a genuine affection for Octave, but firmly oppose his desire to marry Marguerette due to their own firm belief in the hereditary character of nobility. They are the model 34 ultras. "M. de Marvejols considered himself and all members of the nobility as a distinct race of a superior essence and, believed it criminal to spoil it by mixing it with 35 plebian blood." They, therefore, inform Octave that, if he marries Marguerette, they will not further his career. Octave, still young with a romantic sense of love, marries Marguerette above the objections of both the Marvejols and his former friend, Henri Marcel, neither of whom rise above attempting to conjole his rejection of Marguerette by dis­ honest plays. True nobility is shown, not by the repre­ sentative of the hereditary nobility but, rather, by Marguerette, who out of a genuine sense of self sacrifice, wishes to give up the man she loves to further his career. Ternove, however, is in no way a melodrama, for in marrying Marguerette, Ocatve's career is indeed destroyed. He returns to his small estate depressed and without a future. We are told that he became increasingly useless, losing even the virtues which Marguerette had admired. Turnove is a tragedy, the work of a highly frustrated man. If the Bourgeoisie as represented by Nicholus Bahurat are crafty and petty, the aristocracy is both intransigent and bigoted. Indeed, the nobility's own prejudices allow It to be used by the Bourgeoisie. The Baron and Baroness de Marvejols are victimized by their prejudices just as Gerard de Ternove was victimized by Bahurat. Others play 35 on their prejudices to abstract money and prestige. Henri Marcel is little better; unable to control his own affairs and aloof from work, he can only try to harm his unfortunate friend. Indeed, the only truly noble character is Marguerette,and her virtues, we are expressly informed, stem from her bourgeois father. If Gobineau hates the Bourgeoisie, he has no pretentions as to the worth of the hereditary aristocracy. Both from his personal background and years of frustration in Paris, Gobineau was far too realistic to place much virtue in people who sub­ stituted outer forms for pn inner sense of nobility. The political expression of this pessimism as to the nature of the Bourbon cause was naturally quite limited. As a correspondent for a number of Royalist papers Gobineau simply could not afford to be too critical.^ His acceptance of the aristocracy, however, is highly qualified even in these writings. If he supports the Royalist party, this is because its social position allows it to act in the interests of the nation as a whole, rather, than the parti­ cular merits of ultra politics. The aristocracy by their social position tend to protect liberal freedoms from governmental and administrative centralization. "The Royalists are disposed by principle, by tradition, and by custom to act as conservators of the nation's rights and interests. In a philosophic sense one can say that they 36 are even the nation i t s e l f . "37 aristocarcy is, therefore, the guardian of the nation but it is far from invincible, for Gobineau is quick to note that the aristocracy has lost much of its traditional role, is filled with internal bickering, and fails to adopt new methods to new realities.3& While never stated directly, the implication is clear; the modern Bourbonists with their acceptance of an absolute monarchy have failed to maintain their traditional role. They have also become supporters of a centralized regime. Thus, from the beginning Gobineau's thought is linked closer to the liberal opposition than to the Bourbons. Indeed, he has accepted the fundamental thought which links such diverse personalities as Benjamin Constant, Le comte de Montlosier, and Alexis de Tocqueville: the revolution and increased centralism has been caused by the absolutism of Louis XIV. All of these men accept the need for an aristocracy to protect liberty but all assume that this aristocracy can neither accept ultramontone Catholicism nor Bourbon absolution. As a group they are difficult to define because with the victory of the ultras under Charles X they were without a solid political base. Like them Gobineau's political thought will be a search for permanency, the inner nature of freedom. If his answer will be dif­ ferent, the origins of his thought are clearly to be found in the liberal opposition to the Arbonists and the Bourbons. ■37

This political perspective is reflected in the young Gobineau's joint editorship of the journal La Revue Provenclale with the conservative, Louis de Kergorley. While both men were Royalist in background, the journal itself stressed decentralism beyond loyalty to any parti­ cular political movement. The appeal is to the whole nation outside of Paris. "It is about time that the true creators of Prance's wealth . . . retake their natural position as the directors of power.These freedoms, however, are not merely the property of the aristocracy but of each small commune and village. Only when the provincial French have regained their pride and esteem will it be 4l possible for them to regain their freedom. The enemy is not a particular regime but the process of centraliza­ tion itself. "It is administrative centralism itself which must be fundamentally modified if you want to stop the h p corruption at its source." The symbol of this corruption is Paris, the blood sucker and degenerate city which destroys local initiative. The young Gobineau, however, is unwilling to accept the complete pessimism which would dominate his later thought. This relative optimism led Gobineau to evaluate the revolutionary period of 1848-49 ambivalently. Although he was obviously distressed by the emergence of mass democracy, some Republicans supported the decentralization ■38 which he so much desired. Thus, in November 1848 he could write to his sister: "That which is to be desired is the creation of communal and departmental liberties which have been destroyed by the ancient bureaucratic despotism". For these reasons he advised her to votefbr an 'honest republican" who would 44 support these policies. On the verge of Louis Napoleon's coup d'etat, despite his hatred for the masses, Gobineau like Tocqueville saw the right as the major danger to individual liberty. "Legitimists accepting the name of Bonaparte I One must live in the nineteenth century to see scandals of equal magnitude . . . as for myself I can say loudly that I am resigned tothe Republic in good faith and, if it could function without Bonaparte, I could not imagine anything against it."^^ jf Gobineau is a Conserva­ tive, it is due less to any fundamental belief in the merits of the Royalists but, rather, because of his desire to find adequate safeguards for freedom and against violent social change. Gobineau's relationship with Alexis de Tocqueville, was crucial to the development of the younger man, for Tocqueville assumed most of the same presuppositions as the young Gobineau. Tocqueville also believed that freedom was a product of historical development rather than a universal principle and, like Gobineau, he assumed that 39 this freedom was now endangered by bureaucratic government and the rise of mass democracy. Both saw this freedom as a highly brittle factor caught between monarchical absolu- 46 tion and mass despotism. Gobineau, thus, met on common ideological grounds with his friend but their evaluation of both the nature of progress and its possibilities in the present varied greatly. In 1843 Tocqueville was asked to prepare a work on the state of moral doctrines in the nineteenth century. Unable to read German and out of personal friendship, he asked Gobineau to aid him in the project. The result was an exchange of letters in which both men expressed them- selves with extreme condor. 47 1 As a framework for the discussion Tocqueville asserted his own belief that Christianity had introduced a fundamentally new moral order into western civilization and that, however secularized, this moral order still formed the basis of progress in the nineteenth century. 48 Behind this assertion lay a hope; Christianity and its assumption of charity and the social brotherhood of man could act as an alternative to "socialist" doctrine. Christianity was to be Tocqueville's cement for a society badly in need of unity. By placing the brotherhood of man on a stronger, immaterial basis Tocqueville felt Christianity formed the basis of a social reconstruction beyond mere political expediency. 40 Gobineau's response, clearly directed at Tocqueville's political purpose, is that of a sceptic who doubts both his friend's religious analysis and his judgment of historical causation. The young Gobineau framed his reply in the critical tradition of the Enlightenment. Christianity's moral propositions are the product of its heritage in Graco-Roman philosophy; the intolerance and rigid dogmatism of the medieval church produced the exact converse of these ideals; and, only with Enlightenment did man succeed in reestablishing the fundamentals of human morality.5° A true moral system must be based on self interest rather than religious dogma. "I have said at all times that the base of the structure appears to me to be still self interest. I should add that philosophic motives extend and enable these ideas."51 it is the assertion of a sceptic, one who doubts that spiritual motivation, however well intendedy can change men or the society in which they live. Gobineau, however, does not wish to follow the Enlightenment critique to an acceptance of the revolutionary tradition. If the post Napoleonic era has seen itself more realistically, both its goals and methods are false. The attempt to create a new social order and ameliorate the conditions of the poor is a social panacea. Most men are materialistic and in need of strong discipline.^2 Gobineau's 41 experiences require him to question the value of any social action. We see here for the first time the fundamental supposition of all Gobineau's social thought, his deep pessimism. If he uses the criticism ofthe Enlightenment to show the weakness of idealism, it is to demonstrate that most men are Hobbesian beasts guided only by base material desires. This evaluation of men and society is firmly developed in a short story, Les Conseils de Rabelais, written in 1847.53 A friend of the monk asks the Humanist for his evaluation of men and society. Rabelais, who obviously reflects the views of the author, declares: The Idiots: It is everyone. Some of them control the kingdom of heaven, and what is more important, the kingdom of earth. The Ideots form the mob, fill the streets, great houses, convents, parliaments, and the royal household. Sometimes they even occupy the throne. It is for their pleasure that one is Judged queen or rascal. You are wrong to destain them. They are important people. As for myself, I never insult them and I only injure them from a distance. Gobineau also took issue with Tocqueville's analysis of historical causation. While his mentor stressed the influence of ideas as a motive factor in social evolution, Gobineau emphasized the material basis of change. Ideas reflect the state of a society rather than cause c h a n g e . 5 5 Gobineau, thus, links himself to those aspects of nineteenth century thought which sought the mechanism of social growth 42 and decay in material, rather than ideological, causation. Unlike Auguste Comte or Karl Marx, however, this mechanism demonstrates neither progress nor the dominance of man's conquest of his material environment. "The chariots of the barbarians have brought most of the conceptions into the western world which form the basis of our political life."5^ Christianity, whose ideals Gobineau recognized as progressive, could accomplish nothing in the degenerate environment of the later Roman Empire. Only the Germanic tribes could make these ideas the basis of a new, free social o r d e r . 57

Thus, Gobineau introduces the Germanist hypothesis into his thought. In this early period it is neither exclusive nor fully racial. It will, however, become the basis of all his later theory. Gobineau's work will be an attempt to prove that the ancient Germans renewed a degenerate empire, that this historical epoch was a repeti­ tion of that which took place in all higher cultures, and that racial conquest is the basic material structure upon which all social change is built. In addition, Gobineau's discussion with Tocqueville demonstrates a marked difference in cultural attitudes. Paced with his young friend's denial of the singular nature of Christianity as the basis of social morality, Tocqueville asserted that Christianity is a religious faith whose values 43 cannot be judged on utilitarian grounds. If Christianity has produced intolerance, its faith has made moral brother­ hood an absolute beyond mere political expediency. "I tell you that the evil which these ideas have done to morality is much less than that which it will suffer when 58 the sanctions given to it by faith are removed.' Gobineau's reply emphasized that Christianity, far from being a unique religious faith, has a moral code in no way superior to that of Buddhism and Islam. Indeed, Gobineau goes so far as to intimate that Christianity is at times markedly inferior to that of other r e l i g i o n s . 59 The difference is significant. Tocqueville, like most theoreticians of the nineteenth century, firmly supports the superiority of western civilization while Gobineau tends towards cultural relativism. The young Gobineau's Orientalism, if never very precise, has allowed him to escape from the Eurocentrism which marres the world histori- fin cal analysis of Leopold von Ranke and Jules Michelet. If Gobineau will attempt to show race to be the dominant factor in historical development, this will be done not to prove the superiority of western culture but, rather, to show the impermanence of all cultural growth. in all of this work, however, there is very little of the comprehensive racial thought which we shall see developed after 1848. Indeed, it is difficult to determine 44 when Gobineau arrived at his racial analysis of history. If we have seen certain aspects of this thought which will remain constant throughout Gobineau's work, a systematic racial analysis is no where to be seen. Two literary works begun before 1848 but only completed during that period of turmoil give Gobineau's first genuine interest in the question of historical analysis and ethnology. L'abbaye h\ 1 de Typhaines (1848-9) is the young Gobineau's first treatment of the Germanist-Romanist controversy while Manfredine (1849?) is its author's first attempt to praise fip the Norse invaders. Both works take place in periods of rapid transition; Monfredine deals with the Neopolitan uprisings of the thirteenth century while L'abbaye de Typhaines deals with the communal uprisings in twelfth century Prance. Both were issues of fundamental interest for nineteenth century historiography. The debate over the nature of the popular revolts in southern Italy was the basis of much debate due to its connection with the Carbonnari. While communal movement was the crucial period of transition for both the Germanist noble, Le comte de Montlosier, and the Gallo Roman Plebian, Augustin Thierry as such Gobineau's novel focuses upon a contemporary political issue as much as a historical question, for both Montlasier and Thierry agreed that the struggle between the two traditions of freedom 45 was closely related to the development of modern Prance. ^ Despite their historical orientation, therefore; Gobineau's two works are highly contemporary. Manfredine, a long poem which never reached its author's intended epic proportions is the story of the Spanish conquest of lower Italy with plebian support and their attempt to legitimize themselves by the marriage of their leader, Salvador Rosa, to the last descendant of the Normand conquerors. They are, however, thwarted by the young but proud Manfredine who recognizes herself to be of different stuff than the plebian supported Spaniards. She is the daughter of Norse and as such she will not marry the powerful but crude duke. "For in nations, the soul and the face, the principle elements of human in­ heritance are transmitted every where with fidelity from the parents of the race."^ Her stubborn refusal to submit to the ruler of the rabble bears witness to the superiority of her race, for in this denial she has maintained the honor and liberty of her ancestors. Here Gobineau develops the theme of the Germanist conquest. Liberty and chivalrous ideals are the product of the ancient Germans, "That which is not Teutonic is created to serve."^5 if the young Manfredine has superior ideals, these are firmly linked to the heritage of her ancestors. The fundamentals of Gobineau's Germanism are 46

established.

The Abbaye de Typhaines, however, is the work of a man who refuses to identify the Teutons with a specific class.

The story revolves around the attempt of the commune of

Typhaines to sever its allegiance to the monastery of the

same name. The hero, Phillipe de Cornehaut, returning

from the crusades to defend the abbot is of unquestionable

nobility and high ideals. His hatred for the Bourgeoisie

is great but his love for liberty and truth is far greater.

His Bourgeois counterpart, Simon, is, however treacherous

and cunning, of unquestionable worth and dedication. "This man appeared to be dominated with activity and a super­

human force. He was noticeably a member of the race of

the strong who is born to dominate that which is around 66 them." The ideals of both are established clearly and with relative impartiality. If Simon must use treacherous means, his desire for liberty is unquestionable and his

courage unflagging. He is unquestionably a leader as he

attempts to inspire the communards. "If you love this commune

for which we have taken up arms and have murdered to the

assaultJ Don't lose courage, nor hope. I will march

before youjEven in death his defiance is sustained and

his love for the commune without repense.

Phillipe remains throughout the model of aristocratic

virtue. His love for freedom is balanced only by his strong Christian sense of duty; but, it is this very honor which leads to his downfall. When taken prisoner in the first assault of the communards, Phillipe has been rescued by the daughter of Simon, Damerones. Out of a genuine desire for reconciliation and a platonic love for the valorous knight, she has betrayed her father to gain his release.

The fiancee of Phillipe, filled with jealousy and hatred, attempts to have Damerones treacherously murdered. Philllpe/ in fulfillment of his knightly vows/ rescues the girl, breaks with his fiancee, and finds himself defending a monastery without any personal involvement. If the

Bourgeoisie is brutal, the members of the aristocracy demonstrate the same brutality, superstition, and narrow minded intolerance. Thus, in the beginning of the novel

Phillipe can exclaim, "The commune . . . this is the most abominable invention that the devil has allowed into the world . . . But, as the story develops, the true basis of liberty and honor becomes less and less simplified into the class categories established by the conflict itself.

While numerous members of the aristocracy scheme to gain personal rewards from the defeat of the commune and

Louis IX attempts to use both of the parties, the church and a few noble souls begin to emerge as entities separated from their respective parties. If the abbot, Amseln, finally permits an assault on the commune, it is with the express 48 wish that as little violence as possible be done while the simple monk, Nobert, attempts to act as a compromiser between the two parties. It is he who convinces Demerones to enter a nunnery. Both show a nobility of intention and ideal as Nobert affirms the self sacrifice of the girl. "I know her to have a large soul. She has a worth for a young girl far above her rank. Only the cloister can offer her that which is needed to fill that s o u l . "^9 indeed, Damerones is the closest model in this novel to Gobineau's conception of true womanhood. She is closer in charac­ terization to Manfredine than any of the women of the aristocracy. Gobineau frames these judgments within the specific conditions of the twelfth century. The Bourgeoisie of this era is in no way to be identified with the materialistic money makers of 1830. "A commune of the middle ages in no way resembled a contemporary city. It was a small aristo­ cratic republic governed by the wealthiest and most respected, a republic which considered its country as only being within its own walls, the general interest only as the interests of Its members, and which saw that which took place a few miles away with the same Indifference as that which took place in the German forests."7° The Bourgeoisie is itself aristocratic and maintains the Germanic values of liberty and honor. The point is important; for 49

Gobineau, while decidedly a Germanist, sees the influence

of these values in both the aristocracy and the medieval

Bourgeoisie. Our author, thereby, established a tendency to redirect the Germanist-Romanist controversy from a conflict of social classes to a difference of biologically transmitted racial groups.

Gobineau's hatred is, therefore, not primarily directed at the Bourgeois leadership but, rather, it is the mob instincts of the populace which he despises. In the end the commune is destroyed because the mob without the

leadership of Simon loses direction. Paced with disaster the superstition and brutality of the mob controls their actions. They turn to an excessive praise of the victors.

"The Bourgeoisie fell into excesses in praising the honesty, merits, and virtues of the Abbot and his monks; and from that time on they could never understand how they had been stupid enough to allow themselves to be led into rebellion against such excellent masters."^1

The reaction of the mob was both violent and super­ stitious. They attempted to drown the wife of Simon as a witch and proceeded to destroy the houses of the rebellion's leadership. Finally, they come to the house of the Payan,

Simon's assistant and a character whose nobility the author constantly emphasizes. His reaction is clearly that of

Gobineau. "I quit this town . . . you the nobility could 50 have been worse but these wretched people of Typhalnes have been too weak as the vanquished. They could have done better."?2 The enemy Is revealed. It Is the mob.

Payan and Phillipe will die side by side fighting the infidel, a symbolic union of all that which is noble beyond material baseness.

The fundamental elements of Gobineau's ideology has been established; the superior elements in western society were introduced by the Germanic conquest but these elements are not directly tied to any class. Thus, neither the aristocratic Boulainvilliers nor the plebian Mably have described the process of historical growth. "One has dis­ figured history either with Mably where one prepared the facts for democratic logic or with the haughty Boulainvilliers one has divided irrevocably the French into two nations of which one has inherited the sovereign sword and the other the chains of eternal slavery.True nobility Is neither tied to class nor to a particular ethos. Gobineau will, therefore, seek for new methods to prove that which he believes; for if the influence of the Germanic conquests is not to be seen directly in one class, he will need to find a new basis of proof that the biological descendants of the Teutons have established the fundamentals of western culture. 51

To what extent is this new formulation a reaction to the events of 1848? While L'abbaye de Typhaines maintains a separation between the struggles of the twelfth century and contemporary events, Manfredine, written as Gobineau tells us directly in reaction to 1848,?^ is more candid: the process of degeneracy is directly linked to rise of mass democracy and Bonapartisan. "Since Rome and Florence, Sienna and Milan, and finally Paris, all riots end with a tyrant. In one place it will be Phillip, in another Caesar or some wolf playing a sanctimoneous gnome. A Sforza or a Visconti, even a Maletesta or a Robespierre, the tyrant always imposes himself. One is only too happy when liberty departs and is destroyed in the arms of a Bonaparte. If I serve as the slave to the conquests of the mob, I see that the world honors my halter. These sentiments, however, would not be expressed until the fall of the second Empire. Manfredine has only been published recently and Gobineau's other works express­ ing hatred not merely for the mob but for the tyrants would remain unpublished throughout his lifetime. The reason for this is not difficult to find. In June of 1849 Tocqueville, the new foreign minister in the cabinet of Odion Barrot, appointed Gobineau as his Chef du CabinetIt was to make the young Gobineau's career. Recently married and still without large financial resources, Gobineau had seen 52 his literary career largely destroyed by the events of March. This gesture by a friend and its subsequent con­ firmation by General d'Hanoult realized that which the young Gobineau most desired, a career which gave him financial security and a position of distinction.?? Thus, after Louis Napoleon’s seizure of power in 1851, Gobineau was in no position to go into opposition like Victor Hugo or to retire like his mentor, Tocqueville. It is one of the paradoxes of his life that the fulfillment of Gobineau's dream of legitimacy was furthered by that which he hated most, social revolution and the Renaissance of Bonapartism. Gobineau's reactions to the events of 1848 have, therefore, built'-in ambiguities and unexpressed correlaries. Like many intellectuals of a liberal or a classical con­ servative background, the events of this year represented a shock for Gobineau and, like many others, he sought the nature of these events in the past collapse of an older elite. Flaubert would find this in a rejection of revolu­ tionary messiahism and in a retreat to art for its own sake; Renan would seek a new elite in a small group of educated intellectuals; and Tocqueville would return to French history to understand the debacle and search for new safeguards for liberty.?® Like these other men Gobineau's reaction would be predicated on the assumptions that 53 liberty, rather than an innate right, was a condition of

certain specific, historical epochs; that a group standing between the tyranny of centralism, whether popular or monarchical, was needed to protect freedom; and that recent events in French history endangered the fundamental nature of freedom. Unlike these other reactions, however,

Gobineau's would attempt to demonstrate that these events were not unique to western Europe, that they were only a repetition of that which had taken place in all human

societies, and that the process of degeneracy is irre­ vocable. He would, therefore, attempt to demonstrate this process not merely in France, but in a general analysis of human history. FOOTNOTES CHAPTER II

Jean Gaulmier, Spectre de Gobineau, (Paris, 1§65), pp. 89-93. Janine Buenzod, La formation de la pensee de Gobineau, (Paris, 1967)* PP. 23-30. 2 ^Gaulmier, Spectre, pp. 92-7. Louis de Gobineau, Les Memoires du Louis de Gobineau, (Brussels, 1955). ■^Gaulmier, Spectre, pp. 95-107. Alain d' Anglaide, "Jacques-Phillipe de Gercy, dernier directeur des firmes du roi a Bordeaux (1753-96)," Revue historlque de Bordeaux et du d^partement de la Gironde, III, (TP54), pp. 201-25’. ^Marie-Loqise Concasty, "Quand Maxime du Camp ne mentait pas," Etudes Goblnlennes, III, (196 8-9 ), pp. 137-68. The basis of the original charge can be seen in Auriant, "Trois lettres inedites de Gobineau," La^ Nef, May, 1946, pp. 58-64. ^Maurice Lange, Le comte Arthur de Gobineau, (Strasbourg, 1924), pp. 18-19. GauTmler, Spectre, pp. 1O9-1 2 . ^Gaulmier, Spectre, pp. 102-14. ^Ludwig Schemann, Q,uellen und Untersuchungen zum Leben Gobineau5, (Strasbourg/Berlin, 2 vols. 1914-26), I, PTTT7: 8 ' * Lange, Gobineau, pp. 21-^3. Rene Guise, "Le Poete m^lchanceux ou les debuts litteraires d 1 Arthur de Gobineau, "Etudes gobiniennes, I, (1 9 6 6), pp. 164-7. ^Arthur de Gobineau, Poeml inediti dl Arthur de Gobineau, ed, Paola Berselle Ambri, (Florence, I965T. The texts in this work are in French and present these works for the first time. 10Gaulmier, Spectre, p. 112. 55

■^Gaulmier, Spectre, pp. 109-17. Lange, Gobineau, pp. 24-6. Gobineau, Poemi, pp. 87-126. "^Gobineau, Poemi, Introduction pp. 33-46. Buenzod, Formation, pp. 69-75• l4(Paris, 1842). 1C. ^Gobineau, Don Juan, prologue. ■^Pierre Moreau, Le Romantisme, (Paris, 1932), pp. 451-76. ^Arthur de Gobineau, "Le Mariage d'un Prince," Nouvelle Revue Fran^alse, August, 1966, pp. 357-84. Arthur de Gobineau, Le Mouchoir Rouge et Autres Nouvelles, (Paris, 1 9 6 8,) pp. 5-<37~ Arthur de GoETneau, Le Prisonnier chanceux ou les aventures de Jean de la Tour-Miracle, (Paris,1543). Arthur de Gobineau, Nicholus Beauvoir, (Paris, 2 vols. 1927). i^Guipe, Poete, pp. 206-9. Gustave Char Her, De Montaigne a^ Verlaine, (Brussels, 1 9 5 6), pp. 175-96. IQ ^ ^Arthur de Gobineau, Etudes critiques, (1844-8), (Paris, 1927), Chapters 6 and 7. 20 ^ Gobineau, Etudes, (Paris, 1 9 2 7), Chapters 1 and 2. Arthur de Gobineau^ "Hoffman," Revue de Lltterature comparee, July-September, 1966, pp. 4 T 6 ’-36'. Arthur de Gobineau, "Oeuvres de M. Beyle," Editions de la Stendhal Club, IX, (1929), pp. 1-19. 21Schemann, Quellen, I, pp. 264-64. 22Guise, "Poete," pp. 209-14. Buenzod, Formation, pp. 142-196. 2^Guise, "Poete," pp.179-183. Gaulmier, Spectre, pp. 89-117. 24 \ Guise, "Poete," p. 186. Leon Deffoux, Trois aspects de Gobineau, (Paris, 1929), pp. 84-89. Edward T. Gargan, Tocqueville; The Critical Years (1848-1851). Marthe Kolb, Ary SchefTer et sofT~Temps (1795-1858), (Paris, 1937). 56 ^Gaulmier, Spectre, pp. 19-46 and 119-181.

2 ^Buenzod, Formation, pp. 207-223. 2^Moreau, Romantlsme, pp. 217-42.

nO ^ Gobineau, I. Mouchoir Rouge, pp. 91-155.

2 ^Guise, "Poeme," pp. 190-3. 30 Buenzod, Formation, p. 212. ^Caroline de Gobineau, "Enfance et premiere jeunesse d'Arthur de Gobineau," ftudes gobiniennes, (1 9 6 7), pp. 109-130. Ludwig Schemann, Gobineau, eine Biographie > (Strasbourg, 2 vols., 1913--lhb) I, pp. 39h-4l4.

32Gaulmier, Spectre, pp. 183-197. ^•^Buenzod, Formation, pp. 197-246. 34 ^ Paris, 1919. ^Gobineau, Ternove, p. 146. ^Gaulmier, Spectre, pp. 109-117. Guise, "Poeme," pp. 190-197.

Buenzod, Formation, p. 216. ^^Buenzod, Formation, pp. 217-219. •^Buenzod, Formation, pp. 214-246. Maurice-Pierre Boye and Marie-Louise Concasty, "Autour de La Revue grovinciale: Gobineau et Gabriel Richard Lesclide," Etudes Gobiniennes, II, (1 9 6 7), pp. 221-260. ^°Schemann, Quellen, I. p. 224. 41 Schemann, Quellen, I, pp. 203-206 - 221-223. 42 Schemann, Quellen, I, p. 174.1 43 -'Schemann, Quellen, I, pp. 212-219. Arthur de Gobineau, La_ Chronique rim£e de Jean Chouan et ses compagnons, (Paris, 184b). 57

44Schemann, Quellen, I, p. 30b. Arthur de Gobineau, "Du Cote de Montalembert et de la MarquiSEde Forbln," Etudes gobiniennes, III, (1968-9), p. 128. ^Gobineau, "Montalembert", pp. 128-29, note 4. ^Gargan, Tocqueville, Martin Mayer, Per Begriff der Freihelt 1m Denken Alexis de Tocquevilles, (Diss. Zurich, 1955). 47 'Alexis de Tocqueville and Arthur de Gobineau, Correspondence, (1843-59), Intro: J. J. Chevailler, in Oeuvres completes, of Tocqueville. Ed. J, P. Mayer, IX, (Paris, 1959)* Introduction. l i f t Tocqueville, Correspondence, pp. 45-48.

^Tocqueville, Correspondence, pp. 156-16 2. ^Tocqueville, Correspondence, pp. 49-53. SiTocqueville, Correspondence, p. 49.

-^Tocqueville, Correspondence, pp. 55-56 and 6 3 -6 7. -^Arthur de Gobineau, Les Consells de Rabelais, (Paris, 1 9 6 3). ^Gobineau, Rabelais, p. 21. ^Tocqueville, Correspondence, pp. 309-312. -^Tocqueville, Correspondence, p. 312. -^Tocqueville, Correspondence, pp. 311-314. ^Tocqueville, Correspondence, p. 68. ^Tocqueville, Correspondence, pp. 51-52. fin Ernst Schulln, Die Weltgeschichtliche Erfassung des Orients bei Hegel und Ranked (Goettingen, 195^7^ Raymond Schwab, La Renaissance orlentaliste, (Paris, 1950.) ^Paris, 1849. ^2In Gobineau, Poemi. 58

For an introduction to the controversy see Augustin Thierry, Recits des temps merovingiens, (Paris, 2 vols. 1842), I, pp. iii-lxxvii. DHGobineau, Poemi, p. 152. 65Gobineau, Poemi, p. 152. ^Gobineau, Typhaines,' p. 71.

^Gobineau, Typha ines, p. 93. ^Gobineau, Typhaines, pp. 13-14. 69 .' Gobineau, Typhaines, pp. 334-337. ^Gobineau, Typha ines, p. 326. "^Gobineau, Typhaines, pp. 394-95. 72Gobineau, Typhaines, p. 397. ^^Schemann, Quellen, I, p. 207. 71 4 Gobineau, Poemi, p. 125, note 1. "^Gobineau, poemi, p. 126.

^Lange, Gobineau, pp. 49-60. Schemann, Gobineau, pp. 170-190.

77Gaulmier, Spectre, pp. 119-1 6 3 . "Diane de Guldencrone," Un Fragment inedit^des souvenirs de Diane de Guldencrone, ed. A. B. Duff, Etudes Gobiniennes, (1966. 1968-6 9). 7®Garean, Tocqueville, Chapters 5 and 6. Gustave Flaubert, Oeuvres Completes, fParis, 2 Vols. 1964). Ernst Renan, Oeuvres completes, (Paris, 10 vols., 1955). CHAPTER III

THE STATEMENT OF A THEORY:

THE ESSAI

(1851-1855)

Despite its over hundred years of existence, L'Essai v* /■ sur 11inegalite des Races humaines remaIns a very ill- understood work.^ Largely ignored during the life of its author it became the center of a lively, but unfruitful, discussion before the first World War. Unfortunately, the presuppositions of all antagonists in this debate have, until recently, destroyed any basis for analyzing what Gobineau in fact wished to say, what were the justifica­ tions for his assertions, and what was the purpose of this work. It will be the intent of this chapter to do just that. The fundamental problems of analyzing the Essai arise both from its manner of composition and the new knowledge affecting its presentation since 1 8 5 0. Gobineau was, despite his obviously extensive reading, a specialist in none of the areas which he discussed in the Essai. In addition, while his correspondence is voluminous, there is practically no Indication of what he studied, when he .59 came to his conclusions, or his objections to the comments p of his critics. One is, therefore, left with very few indications from the author, himself, as to his manner of research or his defense of those aspects of history which were considered questionable when he wrote it. The second difficulty arises from the scholarly problems of Gobineau's own era. To the modern informed reader Gobineau's scientific apparatus is simply inadequate his sources largely outdated, and his method haphazard, a fact which has led a number of his critics to dismiss the Essai as a complete fabrication.3 An analysis of the sources available to its author is by no means so conclu­ sive,* the Essai, if a highly tentative hypothesis, was well grounded in the "facts" as understood by his contemporaries It will be, therefore, the purpose of this study to analyze Gobineau's work from the perspective of 1850, not to determine its truth, but, rather, to ascertain what its author was trying to say and why it failed to create any genuine Interest when it was written.

Gobineau begins his treatise with a delineation of those factors which others have considered to cause the rise and fall of civilizations; briefly, he noted that luxury, the corruption of morals, or the "failure of religious Ideas" were all results rather than causal factors in decay while the political constitution of a 61 nation reflected its social structure rather than created ii it. In particular, he attacked the view most readily associated with Bossuet which assumed that cultures which had not adopted Christianity were naturally depraved while cultures that had were governed by inner laws ununderstand- able to the profane eye. All these perspectives, Gobineau assures us, are of little worth. By confusing causes with effects, they fail to grapple with real problems while the Christian world's view has significantly hindered the advancement of knowledge by removing such questions from the realm of empirical inquiry. Gobineau expanded on these views in an essay entitled, Vues sur 1'histoire generale.5 in this work he attacked traditional historiography for finding the causes of events in preconceived patterns, "hidden relationships", and uncritical analysis. Both classical and medieval historiography are condemned for having imposed such un­ governable factors as destiny, fate, and "God's hidden hand" in events. By doing so they have been irrevocably hindered from viewing events from an empirical basis. Gobineau, therefore, pays a partial compliment to Voltaire, Augustin Thierry, and others for having insisted on an empirical analysis of facts which does not ignore that causation like other factors must be understood through the actions of £ men, both as individuals and in their social environment. 62

History is, thus, a science and like other sciences must be based on facts which are available to all and weighed

on the basis of their merits.

Gobineau, however, proceeds with a highly critical examination of numerous modern historians. If such men have viewed the facts, they have, due to their own pre­ judice, failed to be impartial in their analysis. Thus,

Voltaire was berated for his belief in despotism and

Thierry for praising the third estate but, Gobineau is quick to remind us, the same applies to Goulainvilliers1

"panagyric" in favor of the nobility. What is needed, therefore, is an objective analysis to find the general laws of historical causation:

History can no longer return to becoming only a chronological organization of facts. Even erroneous, fragile, and easily destructible systems to which it has been submitted testify to the certainty of an order . . . It is a question of finding this order and it is certain that until it is discovered work will continue.'

Gobineau felt that the basis for his work was in fact the newest "scientific" studies of language and ethnology.

With these tools he felt that he could unravel, objectively and impartially, that which his contemporaries found so perplexing.® If the Essai belies the prejudices of its author, we should, nevertheless, recognize that Gobineau felt himself to be only a sincere searcher for the unadulterated truth: 63

It is, however not with contemporary passions, sympathies, or repugnances that one can under­ take such a study . . . one must know . . . how to subordinate these feelings of the heart to more noble and august purpose of discovering the truth . . . to arrive at such serenity one must restrict one's feelings in speaking of our ancestors to the same degree that we do when judging civilizations to which we are less directly related.9 Indeed, Gobineau's own evaluation of his work was on these grounds. "That which I have tried to do is to find a scientific basis which one can no longer ignore and upon which one can build with assurance, Gobineau will attempt to demonstrate that race is the dominant factor which his predecessors have not noted but, before doing this he must attack a fundamental alter­ native to his conception: environmentalism. From its broad beginnings in the thought of Bodin and Montesquieu, environmentalism had grown into a major tenant of European intellectual thought giving birth to the science of geography and presenting the scholarly world with a whole new body of facts to digest. While the theory of Montesquieu had been relatively simplistic assuming only a contrast between warm-despotic and cold-anarchic climates,"^ under Karl Ritter and Alexander von Humboldt environmentalism emerged as a full fledged study of man's social, economic, and cultural manner of existence. In the hands of these men, geography became precise and 64 truly scientific. Behind this work rested the assumption that the social organizations that men developed, were made in direct response to his environment, that men were essentially equal in potentialities, and that their apparent inequalities were caused by the different environ- ments against which they struggled. 12 Although it was a perspective which Gobineau disliked, it is one which he could hardly ignore. Gobineau took one element of this synthesis for his own purposes, its definition of civilization. Civilization is not to be defined as the development of a particular level of material prosperity, the adoption of a sophisticated political organization or adherence to a single national state; rather, a civilization must be defined as a "nation, group of nations, or geographical area" in which the popu­ lace shares the same social system, religious ideals, moral pattern, and traditional beliefs.^ Gobineau, therefore, sets himself at odds with that tradition of thought represented by Guizot in France and Schlosser in Germany which defined a nation as "civilized" only at that point when it assumed a "higher political and social order".l u As such Gobineau's acceptance of Herder allows him to escape the major pitfall of previous universal history, the attempt to evaluate all civilization from the per­ spective of European mores. As is to be expected, however, Gobineau rejected the fundamental assumptions of environmentalism. How, he asks, has it been possible that similar cultures have not developed in similar physical environments? Why have cul­ tures risen and fallen in the same regions? And why have different people reacted in such variant ways to the same environmental stimuli? Thus, he assures us, environment is not the crucial factor for which we are searching.-*-5 This analysis demonstrates two basic weaknesses in Gobineau’s work: The failure to recognize the possible multiple causes which can determine the course of civiliza­ tion and his failure to see the malleability of environ­ mentalism. The former, which should be termed causational Monism, will become obvious later but the latter demon­ strates a failure to establish fundamentals. As proposed by Herder and accepted by both Ritter and Humboldt the concept of "Klima" entailed far more than a particular physical environment. It recognized thought, community action, and individual will as inde- pendent variables in the historic process. ° Indeed, it even recognized the influence of "post-historical" races.^ The failure to recognize this multiplicity of factors;and the malleability which it might have given his analysis, often makes his work appear restricted and inflexible. Having negated the influence of other factors Gobineau 66 states his own basic assertion:

I end this chapter in observing that the basic organizing character of all civiliza­ tions is equal to the traits and spirit of the dominant race; that civilizations alter, change, and transform themselves to tiie extent that this race suffers no ill effects, and that a civilization will continue for a longer or shorter length of time until thefl force given by this race has disappeared. °

Thus, race and only race is the dominant causal factor in

the rise and fall of civilizations.

This, however, presented significant problems for

Gobine;au and ourselves as modern readers of the Essai.

In 1850 the term "Race,” itself had various meanings which had never been and are even today not fully differentiated.

Derived from Arabic the word had been used since the

Renaissance to denote family traits, the characteristics

of a nation, and even that of horses. In addition, it had had wide usage to define groups which were not even related by inheritance.1^ Although the term had been given a more precise meaning by eighteenth century anthropology, it had not supplanted the older usage by even generally precise analysts. Thus, even Gobineau often used such terms as a "Merovingian race", a "Greek race", and even a "victorious race", all of which are clearly

contradictory to his primary definition.10

In essence, however, Gobineau is clearly attempting to

show that race is the primary ante-historical force, the amorphous but persistent cause of all future historical development. Gobineau's theoretical framework, therefore, is vastly different from that of Taine and Buckle who thought of race in post-historical terms, as that quality in a nation formed by the historical process itself.21

Gobineau's attempt will, therefore, fail or succeed to the extent that he can delineate and this force from its biological origins to historical periods.

To fulfill this goal he had to unite three highly diverse traditions of racial thought: the tradition of anthropological classification, the conclusions of the newly emerged science of linguistics, and the traditional pattern of Prench racial thought. We, therefore, turn to the first of these: Anthropological Classifications of Race. 68 I THE ANTHROPOLOGICAL USE OF RACE

The biological definition of race finds its origins in the binomial nomenclature of Carl Linnaeus (1707-1708) which assumed that man constituted one species whose sub- 22 species should be termed races. The grounds for this assertion were given by Buffon: If two animals could mate and produce fertile offspring, they were of the same species. Thus, all races of men were of one species but the horse and donkey clearly weren't. The argument became the basis for all future Monogenism.23 This assumption found support in both Genesis and eighteenth century medicine. While Christian theology insisted that a literal interpretation of the story of Adam and Eve sustained the singular origin of all mankind^ medical doctors assumed that such traits as skin color, hair texture, and skull shapes were the direct result of environmental factors which could be changed within a oil single generation. Its antithesis, Polygenism, the belief in the multiple origins of the human species, was, therefore, assumed by only a few religious iconoclasts such as La Peyrere and Voltaire, not to attack equalltarian- ism but, rather, as an aspect of the general assault on Biblical literalism while many of the leading disseminators of prejudice such as Pieter Camper and Theodor Sommering 69 25 remained Monogenists. ^ The debate over the single or

multiple origins of man would, therefore, remain somewhat

ambiguous since neither side was exclusively composed of

equalitarians or anti-equalitarians. While Voltaire

became a Polygenist to attack the church, the revolutionary

Gustave Flourens became a Monogenist to defend human 26 equality. It is this aspect of the debate which would

lead Gobineau, among others, to question what in fact

numerous authors were attempting to say.

By the middle of the nineteenth century the debate

became considerably more sophisticated as new factors were

brought to bear on the question. The most important of

these factors was the recognition that skin color and

other characteristics did not change within the life of

an individual despite his movement from one place to another.

The new Monogenism found its theoretical justification

in the work of three men: Immanuel Kant, William Lawrence,

and James Cowles Prichard. While remaining a Monogenist,

Lawrence aggressively attacked the assertion that the physiological differences between African Negros and

Europeans could be explained as the effect of climate,

that racial differences remained constant over a number of

generations, and that there was a need to explain both how

these differences came into existence and how they were 27 transferred hereditarily. The answer was given by the Quaker physician, James 28 Cowles Prichard. Basing his analysis on an idea originally developed by Kant,2^ Prichard asserted that the "seeds" of biological transference were the same in all men, that environment acting through natural selection emphasized the continuance of certain of these traits, that these characteristics were then transferred hereditarily, and that these differences were then maintained through geographical isolation. Thus, racial differences were semi-permanent but the Monogenist origins of man were assured.

The Polygenist response was given by a group of Americans who, if they were partially influenced by their desire to defend slavery, nevertheless, had a strong scientific basis for their assumptions.3^ Commencing with the belief which all scientists assumed that man had existed for only six to nine thousand years, they asserted that such fundamental differences in basic physiology could not have taken place in such a short period of time. They, therefore, assumed the independent creation of man in the New World, that different species could Indeed produce fertile offspring and that racial differences were in fact permanent disabilities of the "inferior" r a c e . 3 2 While George Morton and Louis Agassiz remained strictly scientific in their analysis, George Gliddon and Josiah Nott 71 proceeded to attack the whole story of creation as presented in Genesis, asserted that their conclusions justified slavery, and that equality had now been demonstrated to be a scientific m y t h . 33 Neither the Monogenists nor Polygenists, however, agreed as to the purpose of their work. While both Kant and Prichard were supporters of equalitarianism,

Lawrence's work is strongly anti-Negro.3^ Gobineau's use of this controversy is crucial to his whole analysis, for it is from these studies that he will derive his definition of fundamental races. Yet, he remains in doubt as to his response to the controversy itself. After considerable discussion of the various arguments for Monogenism and Polygenism^,Gobineau asserted that, while neither view was fully sustainable, he accepted 35 Monogenism on the basis of Christian doctrine. While the Polygenists were quite correct to maintain the manifest inequality of various races, they were unable to overcome the singular objection that all races of men can fruitfully mate. Thus, after some vacillation Gobineau asserted his belief in Monogenism: "In the face of the difficulties derived from the most respectable interpretations of the Bible and the objections which arise from the law regarding the fertility of hybrids, it is impossible to affirm the multiple origins of the species."3^ 72 This assumption is somewhat perplexing. Gobineau is clearly not inclined to accept an argument on the basis of its"Biblical truth". His assertion, however, that the immutability of the species represented a major stumbling block to all Polygenists is correct. It is clear that Gobineau wished to avoid involving himself in an issue in which scientists were far from united and in whose dis­ cussion he was essentially untutored. Rather, Gobineau wishes to place the question on a level of the "secondary inequality" of races: "It is necessary to content ourselves to assigning secondary causes to varieties of men so different that permanence is unquestionably their principle characteristic, a permanence which is not destroyed by their intermarriage."37 The crucial question for Gobineau, therefore, is not the origins of man but the permanency of racial characteristics since historical times. "Thus, regardless of the position which one wants to take as to the unity or multiplicity of the species, the different families of man are today separated from one another since no external influence can make them resemble one another."3® Gobineau, thereby, extracted himself from an issue with which he was unprepared to grapple. If he could do so, it is less a result of the biological theories of his age than its sociology, for western society, infused with its own superiority complex, was essentially unprepared to analyze the far more crucial question which lay beyond this debate: the ability of Europeans to impartially evaluate cultures which were vastly different from their own.

Given the suppositions that man was six to nine thousand years old, that physical differences had remained permanent for that length of time, and that these differences remained constant regardless of one's physical environment, racial difference was an assumed "fact".39 The problem arose from the generally accepted hidden corollary that these physi­ cal differences were only the outer form of varying cultural conditions and that Europeans could evaluate other societies from the height of their own advanced social superiority. If Gobineau is guilty of this, he found many

"objective scholars" to support his view.

Gobineau, thereupon, proceeded to classify funda­ mental biological races. The examples from which he could draw his system of classification were extensive: Morton and Kant assumed four, Johann Blumenbach found five, while

Prichard theorized the existence of seven and Bory St.

Vincent of twenty-two races. Depending on one's physiologi­ cal and cultural assumptions scientists found almost as many systems of classifications as people who attempted to make one.^ The reason is simple to discover: There were no agreed upon methods to differentiate one group from another. The result was a series of judgments which h n were always debatable and often contradictory. Gobineau's adoption of three races is, therefore, no more or less valid than that of his contemporaries. The characteristics which he gives to the "yellow", "black" and "white" races, however, show the use of cultural criteria to define what should have remained a matter of purely physiological differentiation. The "yellow" race, he assures us, is materialistic to the point of pedantry. Originating in the western hemis­ phere it has spread throughout Eastern Asia, the Near East, lip and even Europe. Its chief characteristic is a steady, but uncreative, drive towards material prosperity." "With an absolute lack of imagination, a desire to satisfy only natural needs, much tenacity, and a matter-of-factness which borders on the ridiculous . . . All that which takes place beyond their own narrow circle of what they know appears to them insane, inept, and only worth their pity."^3 They are, therefore, able to fulfill the material functions of commerce, industry, and mining but are unable to see beyond these limited perspective. When stripped of its scholarly veneer 1 this is a stereotype of the Bourgeoisie which Gobineau had learned so thoroughly to detest. If the "yellow" race represents the Bourgeoisie, the 75

"black" race is seen as a parody of the European sans - culotte superimposed on the prejudices of Europe's pro slavery faction:

The animal character imprinted on the form of his bowls imposes its destiny on him. He never rises above a very retarded intel­ ligence. It is, however, not only pure and simple brutality that he possesses . . . for he carries in his brain indications of a certain crude power. If his ability to think is mediocre or non-existent, he possesses in desire, and as a consequence, will, an often terrifying power. Several of his senses are developed with a vigor unknown in the other two races: princlply taste and smell.^

Thus, the "black" race is inherently animalistic and in need of vigorous control.

Gobineau in this part of his analysis reflects the prejudices of the European slave trade, the opium war, and depraved conditions created by Europe's own inequities.

If the stereotype of the "black" race is clearly a response to the conditions created by Europeans on the west coast of Africa and in the New World, his use of the

"yellow" race no less rigorously reflects the prejudices of Europeans towards East Asian nations who would not voluntarily accept the virtues of laissez-faire capitalism.^

If Gobineau is to be condemned, it should be done with the full recognition that he was expressing the views of a majority of his contemporaries and that numerous

"scientists" gave him ample pseudo-scientific justification

t 76 for his views. Indeed, as we shall see, what disturbed

men in 1850 about the Essai was not these prejudices but

the application of their consequences to Europe as well

as the non*western world.

As is to be expected the "white" race bears all

those qualities which the author admires and considers to

lift man above his animal nature:

With reflective energy or better expressed energetic intelligence, a sense of utility in its widest sense more elevated, more courageous, and more ideal than the yellow race . . . the whites distinguish themselves by their extraordinary love of life . . . at the same time their love for life is so precious that they discover reasons to leave it without complaint. The first of these forces is honor.

The white race, therefore, embodies that which represents

Gobineaufs fundamental definition of nobility: a higher

spirituality, a love for freedom, and a personal code built

on honor. What Gobineau cannot find in a nation or class he will find in the amorphous quality of race.^ If the

Essai is a scholarly study of history, the tormented youth

of Gobineau is clearly perceptible in the subject for research which has been chosen.

Civilization is the product of the mixture of these 4. . three races and the various proportions of mixture give

each society its distinctive nature. If only the "white"

race can create a higher social organization, all three are necessary to create civilization: The "yellow1 race 77 produces the material structure of life necessary for leisure; the "black" race produces the force and sensuality necessary for artistic expression while the "white" race creates the spirituality and higher ideals necessary for greatness.^® The result is a definition of civilization which is both positive and negative, for while civilization develops art and literature, it is a product of racial mixture and, hence the commencement of degeneracy. Since civilization is the product of mixture, no race is to be found in its full purity and history is only documentable after the process of mixture commences: It is this which we name history. It demon­ strates that all civilization derives from the white race, that none can exist without participation of this race and that it main­ tains its greatness and brilliance only to the proportion that it conserves this group in its purity . . . to espouse these truths which will one day be evident. It suffices to enunciate and then examine the civiliza­ tions that have ruled the world. . . ° There is within this conception a fundamental problem which Gobineau has created and then sidetracked. While the three biologically determined races are the essential structural element in his system^they are nowhere to be found in a pure state, their essential characteristics are nowhere to be empirically observed, and no culture can be defined as representing the traits of any particular race. 7 8

Gobineau's most fundamental assumption, therefore, reduces

itself to assertion, a proposition whose essential validity

can be tested only through the historical process itself:

It is, therefore, established that the racial question is essential, that history is created, developed, and sustained only when several groups come into contact, that such cultures regenerate their positive character to the extent that these elements are white. All of which goes to show that whites are the only historians and the remembrance of their actions the only events of value to humanity. It follows from this that history in different epochs takes account of a nation to the extent that this race predominates in it or in other words that its white element is purer.

Gobineau's primary biological races, remain the

essential, but amorphous, fundamentals of his analysis.

He will, therefore, be able to move them almost at will

to explain the historical conditions which he wishes to

denote. This weakness is clearly visible in his treatment

of areas in which even his contemporaries recognized no appreciable "white" element to be present.

If Gobineau's negation of all African culture, much of

South East Asia, and the Pacific islands as areas unworthy

of study bothers us, one must recognize that these are

less personal judgments than a reflection of his age.

Despite the vogue created by the voyages of Captains Cook

and Bougainvilliers/the cultures of the Pacific Islanders

remained unanalyzed before the twentieth century. The

cultures of central Java, Ceylon, and Cambodia were rarely 7 9 studied until the end of the century. If considered at all, emphasis was placed on minuscule groups of Indian missionaries and statesmen as the founders of these cultures.51 Much the same was true for Korea, Vietnam, and Japan which were seen as extensions of Chinese c u l t u r e . ^ The position of African studies was, if possible, worse. On specious linguistic grounds and even more limited cultural ones, nineteenth century scholars assumed that the cultures of this area were the result of Egyptian and Arab influences, that their educated classes were "white", and that all that was of worth had been imported with these immigrants from the North.Thus, the objec­ tions of a Prichard and the scholarly work of Johann Barth would be largely ignored to the greater glory of European superiority. Gobineau was, however, required to take some account of Chinese and pre Spanish-American culture since both were areas of intensive study during his lifetime. In both areas his major problem was to find a "white" element and in both he would manipulate his sources to demonstrate his thesis by a priori reasoning from effects to causes. In the 1850's American archeology was non-existent. All scholars, therefore, assumed that that period of Mexican and Peruvian culture prior to the fourteenth century was too shrouded in mystery to be accurately analyzed. ^ 80

Men such as William Prescott, Albert Gallatin, and Alexander von Humboldt, therefore, attempted to weigh two Spanish views of this culture: While the policies of the pro­ prietors and the ecclesiastical hierarchy had stressed the savage nature of these Indians, their lack of higher spiritual values, and their practice of human sacrifice, the Franciscans attempted to demonstrate that these people were natural children of God only in need of tolerant understanding before they adopted the true faith.^5 While the three scholars listed above as Deists or protestants gave a very sympathetic analysis stressing the nobility of the Indians in the face of the Encomienda and Jesuit intolerance,56 Gobineau considered this culture as the very height of degeneracy, the product of a large "yellow" majority, a minute "white" element, and "black" tribes. While the "yellow" race's predominance in the "New World" was supportable on linguistic and physiological grounds, the assumption of a large contingent of negros In pre-Columbian America clearly is not. From Gobineau's own previous analysis the "black" race originates in sub- Sahara Africa. It is apparent that Gobineau has in this instance used a_ priori reasoning; in need of a people who could give the barbaric, but vitalistic, element of will which he feels the "yellow" race lacks^he has simply placed "black" elements in this area to fulfill the needs of his 81 theoretical framework. It is a fault which we shall see throughout the Essai: Gobineau's three biological races are so undocumentable in their pure state that he feels justified in moving them almost at will to meet the needs of his preconceived analysis of historical causation. The a^ priori nature of this analysis is even more clearly demonstrated in the introduction of the "white" race into America. Indeed, Gobineau partially admits the non-empirical nature of his analysis: "Fir it is only the 'white' race that can fulfill this supreme quality. It is, therefore, a priori necessary that infiltrations of this element have to some degree affected the American people when civilization is to be f o u n d . "57 In need of such an element, Gobineau introduces a small but significant amount of Scandinavians as the founders of this civilization. In support of his assertion he noted that none of these cultures had begun before 1,000 A.D., and the existence of the Mexican "white god". Even within the knowledge of his period, Gobineau found little support for his claim from contemporary scholars, for while Gallatin, Prescott, and Humboldt recognized the nature e g of this claim from the Spanish, they reject its validity.-' Gobineau's source references predictably vanish and his analysis reduces itself to pure assertion. It is a fault that we shall see often in the Essai: If Gobineau uses his 82 sources well when they support his thesis, he simply ignores them when they do not document his a priori assumptions.

This juggling of facts as well as Gobineau's pre­

judices against utilitarian materialism are clearly visible

in his treatment of Chinese culture. Beginning with the

Jesuit controversy and furthered by Voltaire, European thinkers had been presented with a distorted, but forceful, picture of China which was either praised or condemned but rarely criticized on a factual basis.^ Drawing from traditional Chinese historiography, they created an image of the "Middle Kingdom" which pictured China as a bureaucratic central regime governed by an enlightened despot and an ethical code which was based on practical fin morality rather than religious principles.

If, for the Jesuits,this state of affairs was a demon­ stration of the "natural inclination" of the Chinese to accept Christianity, Voltaire used the same analysis as an alternative to the chaotic ineptness of European monarchies and the superstitious intolerance of Christianity.

Both agreed, however, that China was the model of a stable, well-governed state. The critics of Chinese culture simply reversed the perspective.01 From the theory of "Oriental

Despotism" first developed by Montesquieu, to the condem­ nation of China's oversophistication by Rousseau,the critics, while never doubting the existence of such a state 83 of affairs, assumed that such a culture bought its prosperity at the price of freedom and higher spirituality.^2 Few, however, doubted that this picture, appropriated from traditional Chinese scholars, was in fact true. Gobineau's disdain for this culture, if not its virulence, was to be expected. If his own hatred for materialism were not enough, by the middle of the nineteenth century the rise of Romanticism had led to a new emphasis on spiritual India rather than utilitarian China; the t rejection of "Atheism" as a source of "moral degeneracy" had been fostered by the religious revival of the 1920's; and what had remained of the former feeling had been destroyed by the opium war. In European eyes the "Great Celestial Monarchy" now became a degenerate bureaucratic state.^3 Gobineau would not have had any particular difficulty in convincing his contemporaries of the sterility of Chinese thought: Philosophy is above all moral philosophy. It has as its object of analysis only prac­ tical maxims, a true discussion of which would be of use but which in the obscure and dialectically dry manner in which they are in fact analyzed do not constitute a branch of philosophy dignified of much admiration In its political and social system, China represents all that Gobineau detests, its bureaucratic centralism and materialism being the clear signs of its degeneracy. 84 Above all, tradition destroys any possibility for innovation to such an extent that even the Emperor cannot propcse changes. All members of Chinese society are, therefore, held in the grip of a tyranny exercised by a bureaucratic government, the desire for material gain, and traditional moral restraints.°5 Gobineau's disdain for such a culture is clearly very large. Indeed, his model for China is clearly the despised European Bourgeoisie and like the new industrialists, "The Chinese are too prudent and too able calculators to employ more capital than they need. Their most formidable works are, therefore, all of practical use."^° It is this materialism and utilitarianism which he hates above all else. Its political degeneracy, Gobineau assures us, follows from these traits. "The population of the Celestial Empire is utilitarian to such an extent that the government is able to accept without danger institutions which are unsustainable with all regular government: Popular assemblies which spontaneously meet to approve or Condemn the conduct of officials . . . From this analysis Gobineau draws a fundamental tenet of his whole analysis; despotism and equalitarian democracy, rather than being in opposition to each other, are in fact complimentary. If the Emperor is absolute in theory, he Is impotent in fact, while his subjects are all equal because 85 no one recognizes any natural superiority as the basis of society.They are, Gobineau informs us, that which Rousseau, Fourier, and Proudhon want, a mediocre mass of passive people who desire only material prosperity, 69 tranquility, and order. China is, therefore, a model for all that Gobineau hates: Bourgeois utilitarianism, equalitarian mediocrity, and bureaucratic despotism. Gobineau, however, had significant difficulties in attempting to interject a "white" element into Chinese society. As in his analysis of Pre-Columbian American culture, he overcame this difficulty by pure assertion. While his assumption that traditional Chinese chronologies were untenable, his attempt to demonstrate that higher culture was Introduced into China by Aryan Indians is clearly false. In his need to find such an element he took the studies of Abel de Remusat (176 3-1 8 2 9) on Chinese Buddhism in Central Asia in the eighth and ninth century A.D. and placed these contacts in 700 B.C. Remusat, through a detailed study of Chinese and Indian sources, came to recognize that "outer barbarians" were of a different linguistic and cultural background, that they had affected Chinese culture significantly over a long period of time, and that these people had aided the introduction of numerous Indian elements into Chinese life.7° Gobineau’s use of this work, however, is clearly based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the facts as given. The period in question is chronologically a full millennium later than the Zhou,the "immigrants from India" were in fact a small number of Buddhist monks, and the "outer barbarians", far from being "white", were Turkish speaking people who Gobineau has previously told us are "yellow".^ In his attempt to force all historical causation into the ubiquitous mold of race, he has produced a rigid system which only maintains credulity to the extent that he mani­ pulates empirical facts at will. That which has produced the Essai is also its essential weakness: By assuming race to be the sole causal element in history, Gobineau can claim to be unique but because of this Monism he lost all flexibility in the treatment of empirical data.

Within this framework it is possible to evaluate the claim, first expressed by Ludwig Schemann, in 1895 that

Gobineau was the founder of theoretical racism.When much hyperbole has been removed, only two alternate claims would seem possible: The director of the Dresden Museum,

Gustav Klemm whose claim was first advanced by Ludwig

Wilzer73 and the leading anatomist, Carl Gustav Carus.^

While both wrote in the same period as the Essai and both used elements Gobineau would further develop, neither claim, however, is of equal worth to that registered on behalf of Gobineau by Schemann. Klemm's, Allgemeine Culturgeschichte der Menschhelt a massive work written between 18^7 -1853# ^ was based on a differentiation between an "active" and "passive" race. While the former are masculine, creative, and adventurous, the latter Is feminine, passive, and static. Although he gives these "races" biological characteristics, they remain essentially post-historical. Thus, the Greeks, Arabs, and even the Moral are accepted as pure "races" but linguistics and physiology were rejected as methods for determining racial classifications. Indeed, Klemm's two "races" reduce themselves to metaphoric generalizations for two types of historical culture. If Gobineau is in any way original, it is exactly because he rose above such usage by attempting to place racial differentiations on a firmer, biological basis. The claim for Carl Gustav Carus is somewhat more sub­ stantial. A comparative anatomist of some competence, Carus produced a fundamental classification of four races: The people of the sunrise ("yellow"), the day time ("white"), the sunset ("red") and the night ("black"). All of these races have radiated from separate points of origins, developed distinctive cultures, and continue to show these different tendencies. While Carus' prejudices are at least as obvious as Govineau's, he is clearly dealing with biological racial classifications.77 88

Gobineau had read, assimilated, and used Carus' major treatise, Ueber die Ungleichheit der Befaehigungen der verschiedenen Menschheitsstaemme.(1849). Although he could not accept the existence of an independent "red" race and, as we shall see, Europe's purity, there was much in Carus' system which Gobineau could accept. His general evaluation is, nevertheless, primarily negative; Carus has created a symbolic form of racial classification. By comparing races to parts of the day his system of classi­ fication of races and the characteristics which he gives them tend to become metaphoric, rather than concretely demonstrable Gobineau's assertion is essentially correct. Having established these four races, Carus is unable to extend his analysis to account for the rise and fall of civiliza­ tion, the process of racial mixture, or the specific nature of any culture. Carus' book, therefore, reduces itself to a few propositions and generalization to justify "white" superiority but accomplishes little else. These limits not only demonstrate the justice of Schemann's claim but indicate the range of Gobineau's own work. While Carus was not able to form an adequate bridge between biological races and historical peoples, Gobineau will do just that by the use of linguistics. "The hierarchy of languages accurately reflects the inequality of races.'79 Thus, Gobineau will be 89

able to draw a subsidiary system of racial mixture on linguistic grounds between the "white"race and historical

peoples, something which no theorist before the Essai was

able to do. We must, therefore, turn to the "discoveries"

of linguistic science in the first half of the nineteenth

century to evaluate Gobineau’s use of this analytical

bridge.

LINGUISTICS AND RACE

In the middle of the nineteenth century historical

linguistics was a new, but rapidly developing, science.

Since the discovery of the Indo-European languages by Sir

William Jones (1 7 8 6) and the unity of Semitic languages by Gervenius (1779)* both the methods and range of compara- 80 tive linguistics had broadened considerably. By 1850

linguistics had become the basis for tracing the movement

of peoples, their social structure, and their religious

ideals before the advent of historical documentation.®^

It was the propositions of this science which Gobineau would use to trace the movements of pre-historical peoples.

Gobineau, however, would have considerable diffi­

culties in his attempt to fit the conclusions of this area of study into his racial analysis. While the genera­

tion of scholars from 1800 to 1830 equated linguistic

classification with biological race^ the more precise work of Wilhelm von Humboldt, Franz Bopp, and August F. Pott denied that such corollaries could be made.®^ This "strict" school, which found its distinctive statement in Bopp’s Vergleichende GrammatIk der Indogermanischen Sprachstaemme (1935), thought racial speculation on the basis of linguistic designations to be superficial. Gobineau would, therefore, while using the designations of Indo-European linguistics, be required to place great emphasis on the work of men such as Baron Bunsen and Fredrik de Eckstein who, while by no means unlettered, overextended these "discoveries" greatly.

All Indo European linguists began with the assumption

that a true comparison of languages could only be made

through their phonetic structure, that such studies showed the development of these languages from a highly synthetic form to an increasingly analytic nature and that this highly synthetic proto language had developed somewhere

in Central Asia. While the proto Indo'European language was no longer spoken or even to be found in a literary form, all scholars assumed that it could be recreated by a comparison of its modern derivatives.^® The major problem was one of value judgments: Was the development of an increasing analytical language to be considered "progress" or "degeneracy". It is at this stage that Gobineau would come into conflict with his contemporaries. 91

By means of comparative analysis,linguists attempted

to establish the culture of the people who spoke this

Proto Indo-European language. They came to the conclusion

that the original Indo-Europeans had been pastoral farmers who had never been without a solid attachment to the soil, that they had a strongly developed family life, and that, although they developed hierarchy when in contact with

other peoples, they were essentially equalitarian among

themselves.

The ethical and religious views of the Indo-Europeans were developed by the emerging study of Indo-European mythology. Having rejected the superficial theories of

Goerres and Creuzer, Adalbert Kuhn and Max Mueller sought to find a new method of mythological analysis.gy re_

constructing the religious vocabulary of all Indo-Europeans,

they attempted to ascertain the common religious faith of

these people. By particular stress on the theme of fire,

the horse, and other natural phenomena they created a "myth11

of their own: The Indo-Europeans were more spiritual than

other prehistoric groups; they rejected all materialism; and, although they were polytheistic, their emphasis on natural­

ism led them to see the virtues of Monotheism.®® Indeed,

It was this naturalism that prepared them for higher philosophic speculation and less ritualistic religious

thought. Thus, the "myths" of the Indo-Europeans were, 92 supposedly, a demonstration that the people who spoke these languages had raised themselves above the animalistic "Turanians" and the materialistic Semites. Gobineau's own linguistic theories reflect his use of multiple factors. In an essay entitled Dlverses Manifestations sur la vie individuelle (1868) he sketched a theory, which if far from beyond criticism, demonstrates a considerable knowledge of the questions involved.8? ^he end result is to be foreseen: The Indo-Europeans are the purest branch of the "white" race and their ideas of the purest nobility. Gobineau began his analysis with the assumption that all men have a basic animal nature in common. Thus, all men share a common desire to nourish, protect, and propagate themselves. Thus, man is a product of his own material nature and the environment around him. "Life is assuredly in material substance but it is not only that material."88 Thus, only certain individuals can overcome their material limitations and become free, those indivi­ duals who can become free are all of the "white" race, and the key to this development is to be found in language. In order to prove this he used, and misused, the dis­ coveries of linguistics. The ability of certain races to raise themselves to a higher social organization and spirituality, Gobineau assures us, is to be seen in the structure of their language While the languages of the Chinese, American Indians, and most African tribes are either monosyllabic or based on a repetition of a single sound and the "Turanian" languages are agglutinate In nature, the Indo-European languages show a distinct pattern of vocalization, and a precise grammatical structure.9° in addition, their multisyllabic structure and the synthetic nature of the Proto Indo - European language allows the people who spoke it to use words and phrases with an exactness of form and a clarity of content lacking in other languages. This purity of language allowed the Aryans to develop and communicate ideas of greater spirituality than other groups. Gobineau then proceeds to "prove" that the process of development from the synthetic Indo-European Proto language to the analytic form of modern European languages is the result of racial mixture between the "white" race with "black" and "yellow" elements. Thus, linguistic "degeneracy accurately reflects racial degeneracy.^2 "Only as long as races remain pure will language not change . . ."^3 As examples of this process Gobineau noted that Greece during its period of greatest degeneracy had lost most of its synthetic elements and that modern European languages have become almost entirely a n a l y t i c . ^ 94 In support of his theory Gobineau cites the works of Jacob Grimm and Wilhelm von Humboldt.^5 The references to these men are correct but the Count has vastly mis­ appropriated their theories. While both noted the impor­ tance of the process which Gobineau had analyzed, neither were willing to draw the same consequences as Gobineau from its existence. While both noted this process of "structural decomposition" and often referred to it as "degeneracy", they were far from willing to assume that it reflected social degeneracy. Both preferred the highly analytical structure of Greek and Latin to the synthetic form of Sanskrit because, it was felt that, the malleability of these languages allowed these people to develop philosophical conceptions and tragic expression unavailable to the Indo-Iranlans.96 jn addition, Humboldt in particular was clear to note that biological racial classification could not be applied to linguistics. If linguistics used the term "race", this was, according to Humboldt, to be taken metaphorically rather than as an ethnological designation.^

The relevance of Gobineau's analysis, in 1850, however, is not so easily negated. If he has falsely used Humboldt and Grimm, it is a mistake made often during the nineteenth century. If grammatical degeneracy was not to be confused with a degeneracy of thought, there can be little doubt 95 that a number of scholars such as Baron Bunsen, Emile

Burnouf, and Max Mueller assumed it to be exactly that.9^

The problems of this type of analysis are those of

Gobineau, personally, only to the extent that he attempted to extend this method from the Indo-Europeans to other groups. Gobineau, like numerous scholars in the nineteenth century, based his analysis on Genesis. While in Central Asis the "white" race was composed of three groups: The Hamites, (sons of Ham), the Semites (sons of Sem), and the Aryans (sons of Japhet) through migrations these three branches of the "white" race had entered India, Mesopotamia, and Egypt; they had then proceeded to mix with the indigenous, "non white" population and had formed the higher civilizations of this a r e a . 99 This, he believes, can be proved linguistically. The assertion is to be found often in studies pub­ lished before 1835. In Gobineau's conception these views are restated: the Hamitic languages are little removed from monosyllabic statements of primitive men. They reflect the early migration of a small band of "whites" into this part of the world, their rapid mixture with "blacks", and their subsequent loss of identity among these "blacks".

They rapidly developed a rigid despotism and disappeared among their "non white" slaves.100 Thus, the few elements 96 of synthetic grammar which remain represent the last vestiges of the past of the now fully degenerate Hamites: The Hamites degenerated . . . however because they still possessed some of the blood of their fathers, they became neither savage nor barbaric. He maintained a social organiza­ tion which many years after its disappearance falls on the imagination of the world as something monsterous but none the less grandoise. j_qi The next migration was that of the Semites who entered 1 np this area through the Caucasus. They proceeded to assume control of those societies previously founded by the Hamites, infused these nations with a less despotic poli­ tical organization, and developed cultural forms of great worth. "In this manner the Semites penetrated every where the sons of Ham had been . . . the whites of the second generation in a word had no other mission than to preserve as long as possible by the addition of their still pure blood, the ancient order of the first white invaders in the Southwest."103 The Semites would, however, also degenerate and again linguistics form the basis of "proof". Although the Semitic languages have not lost all of their higher gram­ matical elements to the extent of Hamitic languages, their lack of vowels, set rules for syntax, and other aspects of syntheticness demonstrate racial mixture. Thus, the failure of Semitic languages to meet the test of Indo European excellence clearly showed the degeneracy of the 97 people who spoke them. Gobineau's assertion would be recognized by all modern linguists as being essentially false. The situation in 1850, however., was by no means so clear. If the "strict school" of Indo-European and Semitic linguistics immediately rejected his assertion, he would find support in the "wider perspective" of Christian Freiherr von Bunsen, Max Mueller and Richard Lepsius. 105 Beginning with the assumption that Chinese formed the basic, ante-diluvian language, this group asserted that the "progress" of man to higher religion was reflected by an increase in grammatical complexity from the' Hamito-

1 A f T Semitic to the Indo-European languages. Thus, the Hamites and Semites had originally inhabited a common home with the Aryans in Central Asia while the process of Hamito- Semitic mixture with non-white elements was demonstrated by the "linguistic degeneracy" of their languages. Mueller and Baron d'Eckstein added a mythological corollary to this theory by attempting to demonstrate that the non- naturalistic and shamanistic elements in Hamito-Semitic religions were a result of the contact of these people with "darker races''.^® This system was, however, only partially a throwback to the simplistic theories developed prior to 1830, for although elements of the universal language were assumed 98 to be found in all modern languages, these inter-relation­ ships were by no means treated haphazardly or without sufficient rigor. Lepsius and Mueller, if not Bunsen and some of his pious colleagues, were competent linguists who understood the work of Bopp, Ewald and others.109 If they, like Gobineau, would meet considerable opposition from Pott and Renan, Lepsius in 1884 could still state with seeming confidence:

. . . of all of the people of this earth only these three Hamitic, Semitic, and Indo- European branches of humanity have been able to create a truly human history and to further the progressive development of man in the past and, probably, his whole future. All that which lives around this tripartite division of people In the way of tribes and races belongs to prehistorical humus pile.i10 If Gobineau's linguistic theory was far from "provable", it represented a hypothesis which was quite tenable in 1 8 5 0.

According to Gobineau, the Hamites and Semites would be followed by the Aryans, the one part of the "white" race which had not been previously contaminated by "non­ white" elements. Again his "proof" is linguistics as he presents the findings of Indo-European linguistics to support his case: Their language was of a higher spiri­ tuality than that of other people; they were not barbarians but, rather, innately civilized; and their myth attest to a people who loved freedom above all else. Unlike their animalistic neighbors, they were of the noble race: 99 "They were to be seen as the gods, not the barbarians which these other people were,"^-*- Gobineau, however, adds his own particular touch to this formulation and it is one in which we can recognize the tortured Gobineau of the period prior to 1848:

The name of Aryan possesses the advantage of having been chosen by the same tribes to which it applies . . . It is the most beauti­ ful name which a race can adopt, for it signifies honorable; thus, the Aryan nations were nations of honorable men, men worthy of esteem and respect and probably by extension men, who when one didn't give them their due, knew how to take it. If this interpretation is not strictly accurate, we shall see that it is in accord with the facts.

It is clear both that Gobineau could gain significant support for his views from a whole generation of scholars but that much here is the creation of Gobineau's desire to equate the Indo-Europeans with the nobility no longer to be seen in the modern world. If almost all scholars at mid*century would have agreed with his general view, the designation of honor as the primary characteristic of the

Indo-Europeans represents Gobineau's own twist to the argu­ ment. Aryan does not mean honor or honorable m e n . -*--*-3

Indeed, our author has given the noble race exactly those characteristics which his family and the society around him lacked. If Gobineau uses the science of his time to aid his work, in essence he is searching, as he has from his youth, for the nature of nobility itself and he feels that 100 he has found it in that amorphous quality, race. If the

Essai is a scholarly work, we should not forget that it is also a personal testament on the part of its author, a belief in heredity as that which is permanent.

Gobineau assumes that the socio-political development of this area also reflects this progressive accumulation of "white" elements. While the Hamites become God-Kings of a despotic state and the Semites patrician leaders of somewhat lesser forcefulness, only the Aryan possessed enough strength in numbers to develop a truly aristocratic government.While all were gratefully accepted by their

"non-white" neighbors because of their innate superiority, only their last branch, the Aryans, had sufficiently strong elements of their nobility still intact to form a free, decentralized society. Thus, the form of government which these people adopted directly reflected the degree

i 1 7 of racial mixture which they had undergone.

This analysis is far from unique. It had been used by Bunsen, Ewald, and Pictet to mention only a few. Its major proponent in Prance, however, was Baron d'Eckstein, the last of the German romantic school and a leading propagator of orientalism: Eckstein theorized that the material foundations of culture from India to Greece had been developed in "non-white" elements; that higher poli­ tical organizations, however, had only been developed by 101 "whites"; and the form of organization developed directly- reflected the proportion of "white elements in this mixture.^

Unlike Gobineau, however, he did not assume that the "white" race had been accepted without conflict.

This latter point is, however, crucial to Gobineau's argument, for it is his contention that for an aristocracy to be superior it must be voluntarily accepted by the lower classes which it will rule. The Aryans were, therefore, gratefully received by their mixed neighbors and, far from acting only out of a desire to conquer, attempted to give the whole society a more just organization:

. . . I do not believe in the predominance of egotistical calculations in the politics of an entire class or that great consequences can be produced by minor causes. If a long term revolution is produced in a society, it is because the sentiments of the conquerors built upon soil which were firmer than that of personal self interest . . . -^g

We must realize, therefore, that although Gobineau firmly believes in nobility, this noble group can become a hereditary aristocracy to the extent that it maintains its noble qualities. If Gobineau accepts nobility as an absolute, his belief in an aristocracy is far more restricted.

The different possibilities for social organization are evident in the manner in which Gobineau compares and contrasts Egyptian to Indian culture.

The rediscovery of ancient Egypt was an event of epic 102 proportions to men of the nineteenth century. Lost even to

Herodotus and rediscovered only through painstaking efforts,

Egyptology was a study which left Europeans with respectful awe for the monuments of the Pharaohs but little under­ standing for the men who had created them.11^ Despite the decipherment of Hieroglyphics by Champillion in 1824 and considerable work by Lepsius, H. Marinette, and Heinrich

Bruegsch, Egypt presented as many perplexing problems as insight into its monumental past.120

In 1850 the civilization of the Pharaohs appeared to spring full blown onto the stage of history with no ante­ cedents. Without any knowledge of the first two dynasties, a very impartial ability to read hieroglyphic tests, and no knowledge of civilized nations which had co-existed with the Egyptians, the civilization of the Nile appeared to stand alone as an impressive, but silent monument to 1 pi man's past. The Egyptians were, therefore, presented as a wealthy but static society ruled by a King with absolute power and a priesthood which kept the "masses" in their place by the use of magic and tyrannical punishment.

Egypt had been, therefore, a monolith, powerful but unable 122 to adapt to new social stimuli.

This was the picture that Gobineau adopted to fit his own needs. Egyptian society had taken shape and maintained its static form from its inception until the Assyrian 103 invasions through a rigid caste system by which a despotic God-King ruled over a servile population, a priesthood gave religious sanctions for this domination, and a limited aristocracy maintained the Pharaoh's military pre­ dominance .123 All, including the God-King himself, however, were encased in a rigid system which allowed for little freedom and no individuality. While being very prosperous and, due to its large "black" element, creating artistic works of worth, Egypt remained too despotic to change in 124 the face of new conditions. Gobineau finds the cause of this development in the assumption that Egypt was populated by a small Hamitic minority and a large "black" majority. Although the pre- Hamitic population accepted the "whites" as "gods", the latter were not numerous enough to establish anything except a rigidly despotic and highly bureaucratic state, a situation which prevented the aristocracy from developing into an independent force between the Pharaoh and the 129 populace. This social structure found its ideological compliment in the religious dogma of the Egyptians. Although, as we have noted, the primitive Aryans believed in a primitive naturalism, in order to maintain their dominance over their "non white" fellow Egyptians they had adopted the rigid ceremonies and "ritualistic sensualism" of these 104 people. The result was that the "whites" maintained their

dominance but lost the purity of their own beliefs in the

process. Thus, racial mixture produced not only political,

but also ideologic, degeneracy.12®

Gobineau finds an alternative to this mode of organi­

zation in the development of Indian society. Here "white"

elements;while never in a majority^are numerically suf­

ficient to form a social base viable enough to permit

the growth of an independent aristocracy. In addition,

Gobineau's treatment of India allows him to demonstrate

why the process of racial degeneracy could not be resisted.

Pounded by Jones, Wilson, and Colebroke to fulfill

the needs of the East India Company, Indianology quickly

took on a more theoretical orientation in the hands of

August Wilhelm Schlegel and Christian Lassen.12® Without

any archeological knowledge of pre*Aryan culture the rise

of Indian civilization appeared to these men to be a direct

result of the Aryan invasions. Thus, the process of

invasion could only be documented from religious texts written over a long period of time whose interpretation is

still far from c l e a r .

The institution of casts, therefore, became a major area of contention for Indiologlsts. While the analysis

of contemporary caste, showed this insitituion to be nothing more than an endogamous kinship group without any 105 established national pattern, certain references in the Vedas and the Book of Manu (app. 200 A.D.) led to the recognition that, at least theoretically, caste had been based on color (varna), that it had been a fundamental aspect of the ancient brahmatic code, and that it had been estab­ lished as a result of the conflict between the Aryan invaders and the Dravidian whom they encountered.1®0 While Burnouf and Lassen as political liberals both dis­ liked caste, they recognized it as the essential social institution of ancient India. If Gobineau's evaluation of these events is not in accord with Lassen, his treatment is just: The ancient Aryans invaded India from the Pamirs through the Indus valley; they formed small groups which remained separated from the more numerous Dravidians; and, if not entirely successful, attempted to develop a system which would maintain their distinctiveness. That system was caste and our author, like his sources, stressed its origins in the color difference between the Aryans and "the darker people", the Importance of religion in giving moral sanctions to caste, and the highly structuralized social order which this imposed on Indian culture.1®1 Gobineau quickly' adds, however, that caste bore the seeds of its own destruction within itself. Human nature simply could not maintain a rigid separation between two 106 such groups as they began to adopt the same religion, social customs, and language. The rules that governed this

separation broke down as numerous intermediate groups emerged from marriages between two members of different

castes.1®2 As this process continued^the innate superiority

of the two highest castes began to wane and they could only maintain their control by despotic means:

Political organizations such as this system . . . cannot be imposed. They can only exist as long as the good faith of those who employ i t.^

This process of mixture and loss of purity by the

Aryans, Gobineau assures us, is to be seen in the develop­ ment of religious and political degeneracy. The religious beliefs of the Indians, which had originally reflected the naturalism of the pre-historical Aryans, became highly anthropohorphic, creating a pantheon of gods and sacrifices whose brutality was only equaled by their absurdity; the

Brahmans, who administered these cults, began to exercise a despotic control over social mores and free thought; and the aristocracy lost all control over the bigoted and

"narrow-minded" caste. 1®i*' Thus, the kings became more despotic at the same time that the Brahmans lost their original purity.

By assuming this position Gobineau reflects the generally held view of contemporary scholarship. Prom 107

Theodor Benfey to Lassen and Burnouf all assumed that caste had produced the "degeneracy" of contemporary Indian

society.1®^ In doing this Gobineau has denoted a funda­ mental aspect of his theory which has often been misunder­

stood: racial degeneracy affects all classes in society.

The superior social position of an aristocracy is justified only as long as it reflects a natural superiority. If the

"masses" rise up, it is less due to their natural baseness, but, rather, the classes who lead them are unworthy of such posts and are able to maintain their positions only by the use of coercion.1® Indeed, understood in this manner the

Essai represents as rigorous a condemnation of aristo­ cracies who have lost their own nobility and attempt to maintain their dominance through pseudo political arguments as a rejection of the "masses" who have remained constant throughout the ages. If 1848 has taught Gobineau to hate the lower classes, his years of turmoil in Paris have pro­ duced no great love for a hereditary aristocracy without any innate nobility.

Gobineau's greatest spite, however, is reserved for those idealists who would preach equality of all men and his target is Buddhism. Unlike Burnouf and Lassen who had praised Buddhism for its metaphysical simplicity and 187 rejection of caste, ' Gobineau felt that, despite the ineffectiveness of the ancient Brahmans, Buddhism represented io8 the popular humanitarianism which has destroyed all social order. Created by a man of mixed race and gaining popular support by appealing to non Aryan elements of the popula­ tion, Buddhism is an example of the equalitarian, Pacifist ideologies which, however metaphysically oriented relate to modern European philanthropism. As ^ a sign of degeneracy as much as the increasing rigidity of

Brahmanism itself. Indeed, Gobineau's analysis of the new faith is almost an exact mirror of his views of modern socialism:

To what degree does such a rationalistic theory which emerges outside of all schools and attempts to guide the conduct of nations fall.' . . . one can say that the great multi­ tude whose conscience it directs is of the most vile classes of China and her neighbors. Such was its end result. Such is its present state.

It is clear that Gobineau's disgust for popular move­ ments and their ideological justifications has led him to detest a religion to which the term "socialist does not apply. It is important to note, however, that our author's hatred is not directed at the "masses" themselves to the extent that it is directed at their leaders. If the "masses" are base, It is these renegades who give them leadership.

Gobineau has now created the fundamental framework of racial analysis which he will apply to European society.

He has attempted to corollate biological racial classifications 109 with certain socio-psychological characteristics, to denote

civilization as the product of racial mixture, and to demon­

strate that the social structure of a culture is a direct

result of Its racial composition. In order to do this he

has needed to bring linguistics to the aid of his primary

classification, for only in this way can he bring his

biological races into historical epochs. Thus, his

evaluation of Egypt and India were tenable to his contem­ poraries while his treatment of China and Pre Columbian

American civilization was not. It was In the former two

civilizations that linguistics could be brought to the aid

of such an analysis and, thus, the terms "degeneracy", racial mixture, and innate characteristic could be used to effect.

If Gobineau's hypothesis was highly tentative, it was not beyond the "facts" as assumed by leading scholars in

1 8 5 0. His terminology, while admittedly speculative, was no less so than that of a number of his contemporaries whose intellectual competency was never called into question.

His universal theory, if tenuously maintained in his dis­

cussions of China and Pre Columbian America, agrees reason­ ably well with the views of his contemporaries when dealing with Egypt, India, and the Proto Indo-Europeans.

It is within this perspective that we must view the

contemporary criticism directed at the empirical basis of 1 10

Gobineau's work as a universal theory of historical causa­ tion. Much of it was purely superficial. Indo-European

linguistics was almost entirely a German academic dis­ cipline at mid century and the superficial handling of the

Essal by numerous French periodicals denotes this. In this regard the critic of the Journal des Debats, L.

Alloury, should be noted for a review which only demon- l i i Q strated the ignorance of its author.

The American polygenists found little to sympathize with in Gobineaub theory. Although they produced a trans­ lation of the Essal, in 1856 they pointedly failed to agree with two of its general propositions: its monogenism and its evaluation of the negro. An ideology which taught that the "black" race contributed something to civilization was entirely unacceptable while an attempt to prove inequality without insisting on polygenism was a misconception.1^1

Unfortunately for Nott and Gliddon the mistake was theirs and not Gobineau's, for if he is attempting to prove the inequality of human races, Gobineau is certainly not attempting to justify the."white man's burden" of the slavocracy.

The Essal created a slight, but distinct, reaction from a number of equalitarlans. In particular, Alexander von

Humboldt chided Gobineau from a lifetime of studies in this area: Race was not of primary importance at the Ill

inception, becomes increasingly less so as culture develops, and whatever differences are present result from social and educational inequalities rather than from any innate

inferiority.1^2 It is a position with which any modern sociologist can agree but which was all too often ignored in 1850. The French anthropologist, Arnould de Quatrefages undoubtedly expressed the more typical view: . . the inequality of human races is a fact. On this point no li|-p disagreement is possible. J If Gobineau is the founder

of historical racism, he is certainly not the founder of

the prejudices upon which such an analysis was built. One

needs only to read the work of such widely respected

scholars as Ernst Renan, Max Mueller, and Alfred Maury to

know that such assumptions were widely spread in the nine­

teenth century.

When we turn to the specifics of Gobineau's analysis,

the evaluation of the Essai was not positive. Two of

Germany's leading authorities in these questions went to

the crux of the matter. Upon an invitation from Gobineau, himself, the leading Indo-European linguist of the period,

August Friedrich Pott, wrote a sharply critical study in which he attacked not merely Gobineau but the whole attempt

to link language and race.1^ In the meantime the leading

Semitist, Georg Heinrich Ewald viewed the problem from his perspective. 112

Both were liberals. Pott was a member of the liberal opposition to Prussian absolutism while Ewald, one of the

"Goettinger Seven", had been dismissed from his post in "1 ii ^ 1832 for advocating a return to constitutional government.

Both, therefore, expressed their belief in fundamental human equality but noted that such a belief could neither be proved nor disproved from a linguistic standpoint.1^

Their major criticisms, however, were directed at the empirical data upon which Gobineau based his theory.

Ewald was particularly critical of Gobineau’s use of

Genesis: The separation of Ham, Sem, and Japhet simply could not be used in this manner. It was composed at a period too distant from that of the migrations themselves to be considered a primary source for such events. In addition the biblical reference was not primarily ethno­ logical but religious in intent while Gobineau's linguistic evidence to "prove" his point was clearly inadequate since it failed to recognize that Semitic language rather than being Incomplete was simply organized on different prin- ilift ciples than those of the Indo-Europeans. u

Pott's criticisms were even more pointed. With a know­ ledge of the new science which few in his generation could match, he proceeded to tear the fundamentals of Gobineau's theory to shreads. The attempt to find a common origin of the Hamito-Semitic and the Indo-Europeans represents a throw back to the speculation of a previous age which had

been made absolute by modern, critical methods.^ 9 while

language often reflects the state of society, certain people such as the Chinese have developed a degree of

social organization which belies the simplicity of their

language. In addition, the question of African, American

Indian, and Pacific languages has simply not been analyzed

sufficiently to permit any firm conclusions.1^ Pott then proceeded to note that biological race could not be equated with linguistic methods of classification and that

Gobineau had often reasoned in a cyclic manner to reach his conclusions, It is the same range of criticisms which

Pott heaped on Baron Bunsen and his friends in other works, a criticism not directed at Gobineau as much as it is a

condemnation of the "wide perspective" of linguistic analysis in the nineteenth century. By the end of the

century, Pott1 s method in' the hands of Otto Schraeder would remove the whole field of Indo-European linguistics from such attempts.1-*1 This, however, was not the situation in 1855* The methods of linguistic analysis used by Gobineau would be used in a similar manner by scholars whose reputations would never be called into question. Lepsius and Mueller would maintain their own variant until their respective deaths while the nephew of the great Burnouf, Emile, 114

developed a theory, which If It didn't base itself on the

Essal. certainly used similar sources.^52 Both Quatrefages

and the secretary of the French geographic society, Alfred

Maury, while sharply critical of Gobineau's work, developed

systems which scarcely differed from the Essal in their

treatment of the non-western w o r l d . ^ 3 Qne suspects that

what bothered such men about the Essai was, not its general

theory, but the implication that such an analysis could be

applied to Europe's internal affairs.

European historiography had recognized the principle

of race when dealing with non-western cultures since the beginning of the century. It was, however, not to be

applied to Europe. Michelet, here, is indicative: "Race,

an important element in barbaric times before the develop­ ment of nations is less applicable, weaker and almost

disappears as a force to the extent that each nation

develops its own personality."1-^ This charge, originally

leveled at the Germanist-Romanist controversy seemed justi­ fied by the discoveries of Indo-European linguistics. Did not almost all Europeans speak languages deriving from the noble race? Thus, the conclusions of Maury would probably have been accepted by most scholars in I85O:

In Europe where the conquest had at first separated into distinct categories races who were equally intelligent, caste divisions were strictly a political phenomenon which disappeared with the progress of democracy and equality. 115 Indeed, in 1850 the application of Indo-European linguistics to European history was generally used to demonstrate that European progress was a direct result of the continent's composition by only "white" elements, to denote the superiority of Europe to the non-western world, and to justify Western Imperialism. Here Gobineau's con­ servative pessimism would reverse this type of analysis, for he will attempt to show by a return to his fundamental, biological races that Europe also has a large "non-white" population and, rather than forming an exception to the laws of social decay, the western world is in the process of entering its own period of degeneracy.

RACE AND EUROPEAN SOCIETY

In 1850 the study of European prehistory was in its infancy. Until l8 0 0 's, scholars considered the original population of Europe to have been Indo-European. Although ruins of previous cultures were in abundance, most scholars ignored them as the work of giants or natural phenomena.

In their search for a method to deal with these artefacts,

Scandinavian archeologists developed a three-fold division of these findings: The stone age, the bronze age, and the iron age. It was the beginning of what is now universally recognized as the primary division of all prehistory.^56 Since there were no literary references to this pre Indo-European culture/scholars sought to discover who these people were. The supposed answer was forthcoming from three Scandinavian archeologists, J. J. Worsaae, Anders Retzius, and Sven Nilsson.^ 7 These people, it was assumed/were Lapps who were now only to he fbund in Scandinavia but who,• before the Indo-European invasions, had inhabited all of Western Europe. These Lapps, who are in fact small and dark, were assumed to have developed only a low level stone culture, to have been semlnomadi , and to have practiced s h a m a n i s m . Although not accepted by non-Scandinavian archeologists until after 1 8 70, this theory minus the "Finnic" hypothesis would become the basis for modern pre-historical schemes of classification. Gobineau combined this theory with certain linguistic propositions in an attempt to "prove" that all of Europe had originally been populated by members of the "yellow" race. These Finns, by which he means Lapps, populated all of Western Europe and still form its lower elements. The lowly status in which these Finns were kept by the con­ querors is to be seen in the continuing use of dwarfs and giants in European folklore. While the Finns thought of their foes as giants, the Indo-Europeans conceived of these dark, small, and ugly people as d w a r f s . 159 theory derives from Nilsson and by adopting it Gobineau can again demonstrate that the Indo-Europeans were 117 gratefully accepted as the leaders of the new, mixed society.1^° By the use of linguistics Gobineau extended this analysis to all of Western Europe. The language of these Lapps was agglutinate and, therefore, we need only find other elements of such languages to demonstrate the existence of this "yellow" element. Thus, the modern Finns, the Wends, the Etruscans and the Basques are remnants of this "yellow" population.1^1 As a whole, however, these Lapps have been fully assimilated into the general European population,having lost their languages and distinct physiology but not their influence on European social life. These aspects of the Essai were vehemently rejected by Gobineau's contemporaries. Quatrefages and Roget de Belloquet asserted that no such element had existed in European history, that the Basques were "white", and that whatever elements of such a people which might have existed had been entirely destroyed. 162 Here Gobineau would seem to have the better position. Given the rules of linguistic ethnology in 1 8 5 0, why should such rules not be applied to Europe? Wilhelm von Humboldt had demonstrated the agglutinate nature of Basque, Karl 0. Mueller had shown that Etruscan contained at least some non-Indo-European elements, and Quatrefages, himself, would accuse the 118

Prussians in 1871 of "non-European, Finnic" o r i g i n s . 1 ^ One is forced to conclude that such men were unwilling to accept a theory which, given their own presuppositions, would cause a complete revision of their own views of European progress. Whatever else Gobineau is doing, he is certainly bringing the imperialistic attitude of his contemporaries home to roost. Gobineau applied his analysis in the first instance to Italy in an attempt to describe the origins of Rome. While Gobineau's analysis of Roman history is original, his use of race is not . Both Georg Barthold Niebuhr and Karl 0. Mueller had used this concept in attempting to delineate the Etruscan problem. 164 With physical characteristics different from those of other Europeans, with a language unrelated to any known linguistic family, and conflicting traditions of their origins, the Etruscans were, and remain, the most perplexing problem of early Italian history. 166J Thus, Gobineau's view, while in no way more provable than that of his contemporaries was no less valid as a hypothesis. According to Gobineau, Italy was settled both by the mixed Etruscans and the Indo-European Latins. Although unable to create a climate conducive to political freedom, the Etruscans proceeded to dominate the peninsula by their economic endeavor and artistic sensitivity.1^ As they 119 became Increasingly mixed with Finnic elements, however, their social hierarchy began to decay, revolution emerged as an ever increasing possibility, and the Etruscan state began to vacillate between anarchy and despotism.1^ This desire to escape Etruscan tyranny, Gobineau assures us, was the cause of Rome's uprising to gain her independence. In need of a method to maintain their purity in the face of Etruscan miscegenation, the Aryan Romans took the only course open tc them: revolution. Gobineau, however, is quick to remind us that it was a conservative revolution. "In addition we shall see that the emancipated city rapidly returned to its liberal origins, the primary source of its young independence, and reestablished the aristocracy in full control.nl68 While this analysis of the first Roman revolution is not unquestionable, it was one propagated by Rome's own historians and Gobineau's contemporaries, Barthold Niebuhr and Theodor Mommsen, According to Gobineau, Rome maintained her racial purity throughout the period of her first conquests. Since her Latin neighbors were also Aryan in nature they were accepted as equals to the Romans in nobility, became citizens of the republic, and aided her in developing freedom.^he republic continued to expand, however, it came into contact with the Greek cities of the south,the 120 Carthaginian, and the Hellenistic monarchies of the Near East. All of these cultures brought large elements of the "black” and "yellow" race into Roman life, elements which could not help but "infect" Rome with their own luxurious, but degenerate social structure.1^0 Degeneracy entered into Roman society. Gobineau's picture of the Roman Civil Wars for the first time gives him an opportunity to draw a direct parallel between modern developments and the history of a previous society. A new class, the plebians, arose and our author finds them almost identical in character to the modern Bourgeoisie: The Roman plebian was a man who loved glory only for profit and liberty only for its advantages. He was the preparer of great conquests and additions to the population through the extension of Roman Civil law to foreign cities. The practical politics which the Imperial government later accepted as a matter of necessity and which by nature exchanged the honor of self government for what was considered the solid merit of a more efficient administration were his dos- covery. Writers with a larger perspective have never praised this egotistical plebian with his love for humanity and his mediocrity of Judgment We need not search far to realize who constituted Gobineau's model. The plebians found their social compliment in the "masses" created from the influx of non-Aryan elements into Rome. Their characteristics portend what Gobineau feels 121 will happen to modern European society: The mob flowed into the streets and abandoned themselves to their element. The age of liberal Institutions and legality was about to end. The following epoch would be one of violent coup d 1 etats, great massacres, large scale perversity, and massive debauchery. . . A conflict of such diverse races is unimagin­ able. They could not intermarry, conquer one another, or affect a compromise. Finally, they were left with a choice only between despotism and anarchy. The signs of degeneracy are to be seen throughout the whole society. While the Bourgeoisie and the "masses" emerged to challenge the traditional order, the aristocracy, itself, lost all respect for freedom, thought only in terms of its personal prosperity rather than its social respon­ sibilities, and ceased to give leadership either by action or example to the society. When Sulla attempted to find a class in which to entrust the republic's fate: "He rapidly perceived that the greatest difficulty was not to disperse rioters or even pleblan armies but to find an aristocracy worthy of the great task with which he wished to entrust it.nl73 such a state of decay no one desired the reforms of Sulla and the descendent of the "Bestial Marius", Julius Caesar, destroyed freedom to preserve order. It is the tormented Goblneau who steps out from between the pages of his scholarly work. In reality, he is condemning the post revolutionary era in which he lived rather than the Roman Empire. While Rome might militarily 122 and materially dominate the Mediterranean world ahe did so at the price of her own freedom and sense of honor. In much the same way that modern Europeans will conquer the world at the price of her own traditional order, bureaucracy and material prosperity will be fostered but all that makes man noble will be lost. Rome found its Caesar just as Europe will await its Napoleonic hero- soldiers; the process of degeneracy, however, is irreversible. Gobineau proceeded to vent his desdain on the end product of this strife: the empire. Roman society became a homogeneous mass of people who knew neither individual titles nor particular cultures: These nations became as mixed as possible in their interests, beliefs, conception of law, and repugnance to give obedience to someone who bore a foreign name. In short it appears that they lacked nothing in the way of negative principles.^ 7 5 Without such a sense of personal freedom and responsibility,, all sought to identify themselves with the centralized, bureaucratic state. Material luxury, thereupon, became a substitute for freedom as the whole population of the empire sought wealth and position3-^ rather than true nobility. Such Gobineau Informs us, is the end result of racial mixture and the development of a "mass" society. Western Europe, however, was to see a new rebirth 123 through the efforts of the last, unmixed group of Aryans: The Slavs, Celts, and Teutons, all of whom migrated into Europe during the period in which the Roman Republic was founded. Gobineau informs us that the Slavs were the first of these groups. Although originally pure Aryans, they rapidly mixed with "Finnic" elements and became passive peasants, an easily subjectible group for any conqueror. "Indissolvably wedded to the soil from which nothing could detach them, the Slavs exercised in Eastern Europe the same muted but irresistible Influence which the Sem tic 177 mass exercised in Asia." The Slavs were, therefore, prepared to docileyaccept both Germanic and Tartar, a situation which, Gobineau assures us, still exists in Eastern Europe. The Slavs were followed by the Celts who, through their use of chariots and superior political organization, rapidly succeeded in extending their dominance throughout Western Europe. Originally these new comers had possessed *j rr Q all the virtues of true Aryans. Through their rapid mixture with "Finns", however, they quickly began to take on the traits of passivity and materialism which are the dominant characteristics of the "yellow" race. Indeed, even before Caesar's conquests,Gaul was constituted by "farmers, merchants, and industrialists".1^ 124 This miscegenation, however, was considerably aug­ mented by Roman colonization; a process which particularly affected the south: The Roman state “’having solidly annexed these areas to the republic sent colonists . . . to create a mass as Roman as possible. . . by placing Semitized groups on Gallic soil through government action. In this way there arrived several classes which would change the Gallic race . . . merchants and speculators and those who traded slaves.1gQ Thus, the original purity of the Celts was almost totally destroyed before the establishment of the empire "... with the commencement of the Roman era we must consider the Celtic nations of Gaul, Germania, as having become estranged from the special nature of their special Inspiration."l81 This analysis led Gobineau into direct opposition to the "Celtomania" of Henri Martin, Amadee Thierry, and W. F. Edwards.182 An area of scholarly interest with obvious political appeal, "Celtism" attempted to demonstrate that the French national character had remained distinctively Gallic despite long periods of Roman and Teutonic dominance. Celtic scholars, therefore, stressed the permanency of race rather than the effects of racial mixture.1®8 The appeal to French nationalist feeling particularly under the Bonaparts was obvious. Thus, the Celtists preached both the virtues of nationalism and progress to support the 125 confidence in positivism to a public fully prepared to listen. Gobineau's "Finnic" theory, therefore, becomes crucial to his whole argument. Both Thierry and Roget de Bellcquet had been able to develop their theory on the basis that the Celts were "white", their language was Indo- European, and their culture was Aryan.l8i+ By assuming his "Finnic" hypothesis Gobineau was able to "prove" that the Celts were mixed by the time of Caesar's conquests, that their language showed the effects of this mixture, and that their religion had become priest-ridden and prone to anthropomorphism. Thus, where the Celtists found progress, he could find a confirmation of European degeneracy.1®8 It is obvious, therefore, that Gobineau's "Finnic" hypothesis represents a crucial aspect of the Essai. By introducing a 'hon white" element into European history, he is able to demonstrate that Europe, rather than forming an exception to the generally accepted laws of racial decay, represents its logical and empirical continuation. It is also obvious, however, that by adopting such a view Gobineau could not expect a sympathetic reading from men who, regardless of the tentativeness of their own theories, wished to demonstrate Celtic superiority and the progressive development of European society. Thus, Gobineau has formed a mechanism for viewing the present which reverses the assumptions of his contemporaries. 126 Europe, rather than being an exception to the rule of universal degeneracy, represents its logical continuation. The modern nations of Europe, he assures us, are not "white" but, rather, show the same problems of racial mexture as non-western countries. When the Teutons arrived in Europe, the source of degeneracy was already present. If Goblneau's analysis was far from "proven", it, nevertheless, had a genuine persuasiveness for the theoretical framework of 1850. The Teutons, therefore, represent the last branch of the "white" race to appear in historical light. They migrated into western Europe, took up homesteads in southern Scandinavia, and proceeded to mix with their Celtic neighbors.188 Although this mixture had proceeded to the stage of creating a class system, the Teutons were able to maintain the purity of their ideals and institutions in the face of the militarily strong, but spiritually decrepit, empire.l8? According to Gobineau these Teutons possessed all of the noble characteristics of their noble background. Their religion was naturalistic emphasizing man's self reliance in taming the forces of nature. Their father of the gods, Odin, emphasized this interrelationship of man's will with his natural environment while the lack of a priesthood left each man free to follow his own conscience in matters 127 of belief: Anthropomorphism was completely foreign to their basic conceptions . . . but Inter­ marriage with mixed populations would lead them to accept at a later date all or part of the material pantheon of the slaves and Celts.^88 Thus, the non-spiritual elements in later Germanic religions were presumed to be the result of racial mixture.l89 While originally equalitarian like all Aryans, the Germanic tribes had already developed the first elements of feudalism through their contact with "yellow" elements: "The Germanic Aryan seated at his hearth disposed of land, and all who inhabited it, completely at his own discretion."190 Their chief was elected by his peers only for a specific purpose, held his position only as long as he fulfilled the common good, and consulted his free warriers in all questions of substance. Trials, which Gobineau assures us were rare among a people of such "natural good sense," took place before the whole community and were resolved without pre­ judice to the interests of either party. "In short,in the original Germanic areas as in those which become theirs by conquest, the principle of dominance was always exercised with an extreme generosity for the conquered races.m191 Thus, Gobineau restates his fundamental proposition: The Teutonic conquests were only possible because the Gallo- Romans were prepared to accept them. The impact of this political conception was consider­ ably broadened by their introduction of honor and true morality into the degenerate Roman world. The Teutonic conception of honor is to be seen in the reciprocal relationship of lord and vassal. Both assumed responsi­ bilities which bound themselves to each other, asserted their need to maintain an inner, ethical worth in order to receive privileges, and dedicated themselves to serving society as a whole.While there is some historical documentation to support his claim, this is essentially his personal credo that true nobility is represented by the chivalrlc code, that this code was not merely theore­ tically formulated but practically enforced, and that the acceptance of this code is biologically transferred through inheritance. The higher moral standards of the Teutons, Gobineau informs us, are primarily a result of the exulted position cf women in Germanic society. "The influence of women in a society is one of the surest gauges of the persistence of Aryan elements."1^8 While the Romans had lowered the position of women to that of Chattet, the Teutons respected women as mothers of brave men, a position which allowed them to act as a restraining influence on the activities of their menfolk: She was, 129

"... a model of majesty and grace. As the center of her family she maintained decorum and the principles of domestic virtue. Having chosen her husband freely she demonstrated to the whole society that morality should not be based on outer compulsion but, rather, inner necessity." 1 9 4 In this manner Gobineau thought that the Aryans possessed those values of freedom, honor, and tone of which he had felt himself to be the guardian since his youth. Indeed Gobineau's analysis becomes almost lyrical as he romanticizes on the virtues of the typical Germanic household: It is here that the Teutonic Aryan received his guests, rendered justice, sacrificed to the gods, gave banquets, held counsel with his men, and distributed his presents. When night came, he retired into his inner apartments leaving his companions to protect the hearth . . . -^ 5 It is an idyllic picture of a free people destined to reorient all of western society. If aspects of Gobineau's analysis are correct, as a whole he has been guided by his own credo of what nobility ideally should be rather than any historical sources. The discussion of the Germanic invasions and their effects on Western Europe leads us to a third tradition of racial thought, the controversy between Germanists and Romanists in Prance. Begun in the sixteenth century as a dispute over monarchical absolutism, the Germanist - Romanist debate was a historical dispute with obvious 130 political implications. ^56 por Germanists, Prance was the product of the Teutonic invasions, the most Important of her classes was the aristocracy for the whole nation, while for the Gallo-Romanists the true French were the members of the third estate, suppressed by the Teutons who have only recently been able to regain their freedom through years of struggle. The former found its political expression in the "noble's reaction" of the eighteenth century while the victory of the latter was assured in the revolution which followed.1^ Thus, while the Germanist-Romanist dispute unquestionably centered on a genuine historical problem, the answers given were primarily, politically motivated. To the Germanists theorists Henry, comte de Boulainvilliers1^ an(j Louis, comte de Montlosier^!?

Teutons had introduced freedom and honor into the degenerate environment of the later Roman empire. By introducing Feudalism into Prance they had defended the populace against bureaucratic government, royal despotism, and moral depravity. The true nation had been the nobility and the growth of royal absolutism and the emergence of this third estate represented an usurpation of the "ancient constitution of France" Thus, Boulainvilliers advised the regency for Louis XV in 1721 and Montlosier attempted to convince

Louis XVIII in 1817 to reestablish the nobility with its 131 old prerogatives and allow them to lead the nation.201 The Gallo-Romanist hypothesis found its leading defender in Augustin Thierry.202 Although he accepted the basic Romanist theory that the Teutonic invasions had represented an usurpation of the rights of all Frenchmen until the third estate had broken their power,2°3 a detailed study of the documents involved led him to recognize that the question was one of great complexity. In his later work Thierry came to theorize that both the aristocracy and the third estate were of mixed origins. Thus, Germanic elements were to be found in both groups and their differences were essentially institutional in nature.20^ While the aristocracy found its ideals in Teutonic law and customs, the Bourgeoisie sought a return to Roman law because of its emphasis on municipal rights. The differences between the two groups, while sharp, were primarily social rather than racial in character.20^ Before Gobineau wrote the Essal, therefore, the racial aspects of this question had been larely laid to rest. One aspect of Thierry's work, however, obviously appealed to Gobineau, his emphasis on decentralism. According to Thierry both the feudal aristocracy and the medieval communes had maintained their Independence in opposition to the centralizing tendencies of the monarchy. "At the moment that any one violated the rights which they 132 practiced . . . society acquired the right to constrain and resist."20^ The epoch in which Thierry felt that such decentralism predominated was the twelfth century, and it was exactly during this period that Gobineau, as we have seen in L 1Abbaye de Typhalnes, felt that France had seen her greatest cultural flowering. Gobineau's use of Boulainvilliers, Montlosier, and Thierry is clearly perplexing. While he had undoubtedly read the major works of both the Germanists and the Romanists, the Essai contains few, if any, substantive references to this tradition. The reason for this is to be found t Gobineau's contention that he is writing a scientific study of the question involved. It is clear that Boulainvilliers was a thinker who was systematically biased in favor of the nobility, Augustin Thierry,for his part, could create pamphlets on the heroism of the Normand conquerors of England but then could produce only panagyrics in favor of the French third Estate. 208 If our author is far from being the objective and scientific analyst which he believed himself to be, it is also clear that he had a genuine desire to remove the aspects of class antagonism which the Germanist-Romanist controversy had traditionally had.20^ Gobineau is, therefore, able to draw upon the work of both Germanists and Romanists to form his analysis. He agreed with Boulainvilliers that the question was one of 133 biological inheritance but also agreed with Montlosier and Thierry that all classes in French society were formed of mixed elements.Thus, Gobineau would attempt to demonstrate that both the aristocracy and the Bourgeoisie were dominated by Teutonic elements and both degenerated simultaneously. For Gobineau, therefore, the process of total decay will take predominance over the fate of any particular class. In addition, Goblneau's analysis represents an attempt to broaden the whole controversy to include all of Western Europe and an attempt to bring the categories of anthropological and linguistic racial classifications to bear on the problem. He, thereupon came to a problem for which he could find no answer: There is no empirical method for defining or measuing the effect of race in European society beyond 1000 A.D. Goblneau's analysis of modern European development begins with the conquest. Due to "the naturally conserva­ tive instincts of the Teutons" it was slow and methodical. Above all they were not Barbaric but preservers of order in a chaotic era.2^ Indeed, the Teutons had only taken power after the empirical government had already proved Itself incompetent: . . . the Teutons invaded the empire on the day when they were already its arms, soul, and strength. The first position which they 13^ took was the crown and not by usurpation or violence. The indigenous populations them­ selves recognizing that they had no alterna­ tive had called them, payed them and, finally crowned them.2^2 Thus, Gobineau attempts to demonstrate that the period between Constantine and Charlesmagne was a period of slow transition in which Germanic dominance replaced a decrepit empire. In order to protect their own institutions, however, the Teutons resisted the temptations of Roman materialism. They, therefore, took up residence in the countryside, abolished the inhuman practice of slavery, and raised the position of women to one equal to that of men.2^ Their alternative to Roman degeneracy was serfdom and, Gobineau assures us, it represented an infinitely better condition for both lord and serf possessed mutual responsibilities towards each other, a situation which was infinitely prefereable to Roman despotism: "The work of the Germanic tribes residing in the empire . . . ameliorated the condi­ tion of the lower classes and raised the Intrinsic value of life. "2-^ The Teutons were, therefore, not only accepted enthusiastically by the Gallo-Romans but resurrected the dignity of man. The process of miscegenation, however, advanced rapidly and by 800 A.D. Charlesmagne declared himself a successor to the Caesars rather than a Teutonic chief; he appointed 135 officials to administer the provinces and reintroduced Roman law.21-^ In addition, the revival of commerce allowed the Gallo-Romans to return to their materialistic heritage, a process which Gobineau considers devastating to the whole society: As commerce and industry enriched the cities it was in these cities that scholarship became resident, that the most venerated sanctuaries engaged the attention of the superstitious male without mentioning the criminals who succeeded in profiting from the right of asylum . . *216 In this manner Gobineau combines his hatred for the rise of the new classes and bureaucratic centralism. If it represents an inaccurate picture of that which took place in Carolingian society, it meets Goblneau's personal need to vent his spite against modern urbanism. Western Europe, however, was to have another rebirth of culture as the Norse descended from Scandinavia to give the last impetus of "white" blood to the world.21^ Again Gobineau stressed their positive social contributions in the form of a heightened feudalism and on acceptance of Germanic values. In addition, he informs us, their conquests themselves, rather than being Barbaric, were those of people who brought civilization to Russia, kept Italy from falling to the Arabs, and saved western Europe from the "Finnic" Magyars.21® Thus, Europe in 1000 A.D. was a society in which a small Germanic elite ruled over a large non-Teutonlc 136 majority. Their fusion would produce the present state of degeneracy but not before, as Gobineau assures us, the culture of the high middle ages had been created. Throughout the five hundred years between the end of the Norse Invasions and the Reformation the aristocracy gradually, but irrevocably, lost its position as the leader of European society. At first primarily Germanic, it became gradually mixed through miscegenation and the king's creation of a new nobility to do his b i d d i n g . 219 In addition, the gradual development of bureaucratic centralism robbed that part of the nobility which remained Germanic of its vital function as a protector of freedom.22^ Indeed, Gobineau assures us, it was th„- "masses" themselves who "allowed themselves to be prepared for servility" in this manner.221 Gobineau, however, does not wish to disparage the whole third estate, for the medieval commune is considered to have been a compliment to the heroic values of the Germanic nobility.222 Rather than having been the co- villalns of royal absolutism which they represented for Boulainvilliers and Montlosler, the Communes here emerge as co-guarantors of freedom. Although the Gallo-Roman elements in these Communes desired only material wealth, the presence of an Aryan leadership allowed them to resist royal absolutism, popular democracy, and bureaucratic 137 centralism.223 in particular he noted that the Hanseatic League and the Italian city states, while making profits, emphasized political freedom and heroic values as their poll primary goal. Here Goblneau's debt Is not to the Germanists but, rather, to Augustin Thierry. By the beginning of the modern age all freedom in European society had been destroyed. The aristocracy had lost its position as the guardian of freedom and the communes had exchanged their heroic values for a position of servility in the new centralized monarchy. Gobineau clearly stands in direct opposition to his contemporaries. The very process which such diverse people as Ranke, Hegel, Michelet, Comte, and Marx considered progress, he has denoted as degeneracy. The growth of the modern state, the Industrial Revolution, the rise of the Bourgeoisie, and even the development of governmental centralism Itself are signs of degeneracy. If Goblneau's mechanism has been race, his Intent has been to prove that that which others have termed progress is in fact degeneracy. Gobineau does, however, attempt to "prove" that no part of Europe has been exempt from this process. Eastern Europe is dismissed easily. Austria, Russia, and Prussia all have large Slavic populations. As such they can only assume the despotic forms of government which they in fact had at mid century.Russia, according to Gobineau, is 138 "the meeting place of the 'yellow' and the Semitized 'white' race" while Prussia and Austria, despite their pretentions to nobility, are too Slavic to be of worth. If Gobineau hates the Bourgeoisie, the politics of the Holy Alliance are equally reprehensible to him. If Germanic elements are to be found in Germany, they are not to be found in the despotic states of the East but, rather, in the small nations between the Rhine and the Elbe. Here, Gobineau tells us, neither Slavic nor Celtic elements have entirely destroyed the Germanic foundations of society.22^ Basically there is in this Germanic race of lower Saxony . . . an instinctive desire for hierarchy and a native faculty to accommodate oneself to the consequences of this state of affairs. One loves liberty here but, I repeat, equality seduces no one, inspires no one, and is not even well understood.2gy Gobineau, however, is in no way attempting to demon­ strate the superiority of the modern Germans to other nationalities or to support a Prussian sponsored German unity, for it is exactly the localized and decentralized nature of these small states which allows them to maintain their freedom and noble ideals. Indeed, with the firm logic of his pessimism, Gobineau assures us, that these states will also fall to "the irresistible triumph of Roman con­ fusion."22® Thus, Western Germany remains a model of 139 Teutonic ideals precisely because it has most successfully resisted modernity. The methods of analysis are most clearly seen in Goblneau's discussion cf Great Britain. According to Gobineau, Britain is the most Aryan nation in Europe. Formed by the purest of the "non-Flnnized" Celts, the Anglo- Saxons, the Normans gave England a Teutonic heritage which lasted longer than anywhere else on the Continent. Despite numerous coup d'etats and Internal turmoil England maintained these ideals until the eighteenth century.22^ The seeds of degeneracy, however, were brought to England by non-Germanic elements: The outcome of the French religious wars brought a new French element to the United Kingdom. This time, however, they did not dare enter the aristocracy. Commercial relations threw a large proportion of them into the plebian masses and Anglo-Saxon blood was seriously contaminated. The rise of Industrialization accentuated this development by bringing the workers of many non Germanic races to England: the Irish, Italians, and slavlzed Germans en masse*030 Thus, England had degenerated into a Bourgeois, centralized regime due to the influence of foreign immigration rather than as the effect of Industrialization, itself. The inadequacy of Goblneau's hypothesis to explain modern English history is indicative of a crucial failing: his historical monism has prevented him from seeing the truly revolutionary process which is going on around him, 140

Industrialism. Without the possibility of manipulating indiscriminately the "black" and "yellow" elements which made his system plausible, if tenuous, when analyzing other cultures Gobineau is left only with a minutely small group of French Hugenots and the recently arrived Irish as his ethnic villains. Even within his own framework this explanation would seem inadequate.Gobineau has fallen prey to his own historical monism. In addition, by adopting this monism, Gobineau has prevented himself from being able to understand the process of Industrialism. If, as he assumes, material growth is a product of the "yellow" race, then China, and not western Europe, should have been the first society to develop Industrialism. Leaving aside such projected analysis, however, Gobineau's whole methodology is indicative of his failure to grasp the revolutionary nature of Industrialism itself. If the effects of this new mode of production could be denied when analyzing France or Germany in I85O, this certainly could not be done in any attempt to under­ stand modern English society. In a new form the environ­ mentalism of Ritter and Humboldt has returned to haunt Gobineau, for by insisting on race as the only factor which influences cultural growth^ Gobineau has denied all flexibility to his system. This, however, has been Goblneau's purpose from its inception. He has not been attempting to justify the claims of one nation or class but, rather, to demonstrate that total degeneracy Is the logical consequence of racial mixture and that since there are no longer any Aryans Europe too must succumb to the logic of cultural decay. "The white species, abstractly considered, has at this point disappeared from the face of the earth . . . Everywhere there are now only hybrids."232 Central Asis is now populated by only the "yellow" race; no society contains appreciable elements of the noble race; and Western Europe, slowly slipping into the mire of Bourgeois democracy, is now in the death grip of racial degeneracy. 233 The result will be the totally equalitarian society, vacillating between despotism and social anarchy: "They recognize with a secret horror that the grasping hand of destiny is already upon us."2^ Despite Goblneau's own confidence in the truth of his analysis, the concept of race Itself becomes highly amorphous In Goblneau's treatment of modern European development. Indeed, Gobineau rejects all ateempts to analyze the modern area. The reason is clear: It is impossible to measure or even denote the influence of biological racial characteristics of any group or individual In the post-reformation era. As all scholars had recognized even in 1 8 5 0, race, while being a much used concept in dealing with concrete historical e p o c h s . 2^5 The Essal, like the works of many of Goblneau's contemporaries confronts the modern reader with the fundamental paradox that the closer that we advance towards an era which is historically documentable the less precise become the "proofs" given for the influence of race on human develop­ ment. Having created a highly conjectural analysis of the origins of biological racial differences and an equally tenuous analysis of the nature and movements of linguistic groups, Gobineau formed these conjectures into dogmatic statements, moved groups to meet the needs of his a_ priori conception, and attempted to formulate laws for the process of racial mixture. Only when he comes to deal with an area where his conjectures are testable against concrete historical documentation is it possible to see that the concept of race, Itself, is so amorphous as to be almost useless in a question of concrete analysis. The Essai, despite Its wealth of scientific data, therefore, reduces itself to assertion. Drawn from a correct, if limited, analysis of nineteenth century forms of racial classification, it remains essentially an unproved system^for Gobineau is unable to positively demonstrate the influence of race in those areas which can be most readily documented; uses a priori reasoning to place his 143 fundamental races where they are necessary to fit the effects which he wished to note; and is unable to dismiss the influence of other causal factors. Goblneau’s analysis, therefore, represents at best a tenuous hypothesis which even in 1850 had to be recognized as being based on Insufficient "proofs". The purpose of Goblneau’s attempt, however, Is also clear. In search of an elite which is worthy of respect by the "masses", inherently superior to the rest of society, and not created by mere chance, he has had to base his analysis on assumptions which even in 1850 were tenuous scholarly constructions, the "white" race and the prehistorical Aryans. From such tenuous constructions he has attempted to demonstrate that these elements consti­ tuted the only elite which could give truly noble leader­ ship to any society and that their passing would result in the passing of all excellence in human society. Although phrased in scientific terms, Goblneau's analysis constitutes a highly conjectural hypothesis^for both his noble race and Its influence in modern society are never sufficiently demonstrated. Indeed, at the very stage of history where sufficient documentation exists Gobineau becomes least able to attempt an analysis. Even as a tenuous hypothesis, however, the Essal represents a fundamental condemnation of the leadership of nineteenth 144 century society, a demonstration that, if the "masses" have now demanded their "rights", it is at least partly due to the inability of the contemporary Bourgeoisie and aristocracy to truly lead society. Goblneau's work, therefore, represents not a panagyric for one class or nation but a condemnation of all of modern society. The reaction to the Essai by France's intellectual establishment was generally negative. While all agreed that he had "amassed an enormous amount of material which through its combination takes on a new importance, " 2 36 no one wished to accept Goblneau's conclusion. There was no "Finnic", pre~Indo-European population; civilization was a positive good; and European society, despite revolutionary upheavals, was progressing towards a more enlightened order. Thus, Maury, Quatrefages and Roget de Belloquet all condemned the Essai. All, however, used similar analysis when dealing with non-western culture. What disturbed them was the application of such categories 237 of biological and linguistic race to Europe. If Goblneau's analysis is tenuous, its rejection by French specialists seems to be predicated less on its scholarly faults than because of its denial of the basic presupposi­ tion behind the "white man's burden" and material progress. The era of Napoleon III was not prepared to accept such pessimism no matter how well it might be grounded in 145 empirical "fact". Gobineau could, however, expect a sympathetic reading by Tocqueville. Like his friend, Tocqueville was highly pessimistic as to the possibilities of freedom in the modern age, condemned the tyranny of Napoleon III, and sought a new elite which would give leadership to an increasingly materialistic society. 238 J In addition, in his own masterpiece, L'Anclen Regime et la Revolution

Francalse, published in 1856 Tocqueville had noted the rise of governmental absolutism as the source of modern social decay and that freedom had entered French society from the Germanic forest s. Thus, like Gobineau, Tocqueville was both very pessimistic as to the future of western society and saw the root of this degeneracy In similar causes. Tocqueville, however, was far from willing to accept the dire predictions which stemmed from the Essai. Projecting his friend as a doctor to European society, he fully rejected Goblneau's absolute pessimism; If my doctor told me one morning: 'Sir I have the honor to inform you that you are mortally ill and, since it is a matter of your very constitution there is absolutely nothing that can be done', I would at first be tempted to strike the doctor and secondly I would see nothing else to do except to put my head on my pillow and await the predicted end . . . I might add that doctors like philosophers often err in their predictions, and I have seen many who they have condemned and look quite well.g^Q 146 Despite recent events, therefore, Tocqueville was unwilling to give up his fundamental hope that freedom would find some position even in modern, "mass" society. Gobineau, however, is also correct to note that, given the intel­ lectual framework of nineteenth century thought, Tocqueville was unable to demonstrate why the predictions of the doctor were false: "I am right as I am wrong. If I am wrong in my four volumes of the Essal nothing remains. If I am right, the facts escape all attempts to be seen differently than the natural laws into which they form themselves. The point is relevant; for, if Gobineau's hypothesis is tenuous, it cannot be denied simply by counter assertions and Tocqueville is unequipped to analyze his friends' scientific apparatus. The same lack of professional knowledge was not, however, responsible for the reaction of Ernst Renan. The Semitist, who as Ary Scheffer's sonfc in law, maintained a friendship with Gobineau,^ 2 and was one of the few Frenchmen In 1850 who could have evaluated the scientific worth of the Essai. In addition Renan's perspective as to the origins of freedom in western Europe was quite similar to that of Gobineau. Since he denied that freedom was a universally valid scientific principle and assumed that it was a direct result of the Germanic invasions: 14.7 The Teutonic race, by breaking the cords of the Roman Empire produced the greatest revolution In the history. It was a victory of independence over the state . . . uniformity and despot ism. 2^ Indeed, Renan’s own contrast between the despotic monarchies of China and Egypt and the freedom loving Aryans is strikingly similar to that of Gobineau. Renan, however, was by no means willing to accept Gobineau's general conclusion. While historically freedom might have been created by the Indo-Europeans, the future saw other possibilities for its extension: The fact of race is immense at the origins of humanity but it begins to lose its importance and sometimes it is completely lost . . . In reality, however, it takes a very small quantity of noble blood Infused into a people to ennoble it. In leaving aside races which are entirely inferior whose intermixture with the great races would only poison the human species, I conceive of the future as that of a Bourgeois humanity where all remembrance of individual distinctions will be lost. While the civilization that corresponds to such a state of humanity will be without a doubt inferior in nobility and distinctiveness but will it be Inferior in an absolute sense? It is on that point that I hesitate to commit myself.244 The difference between the two men Is crucial. If the aristocratic basis of freedom has been destroyed, Renan believes, a new elite can be formed from a few intellectuals, sufficiently educated and in key administrative posts, who perform the function of preserving freedom. As such this belief represents the fundamental assumption of the Napoleonic 148 intelligentsia and its new ideology, Positivism.2^ Given the presupposition of men such as Comte, Renan, and Maury who theorized it, however, European progress rested on the assumption that western Europe possessed only a "white", Indo-European population base. If Europe had a "non-white" racial base, the rules of degeneracy would apply to it as well. Was Renan's refusal to review the Essai based on his desire not to offend a friend or, perhaps, because of its very persuasiveness as a rebuttal of an assumption - accepted to the Intellectuals of a positivlstic generation? Gobineau had,after ally called into question the most basic assumptions of such men; rather than using the categories of biological and linguistic race to demonstrate the imminent progress of western culture, Gobineau had used the same "facts" to demonstrate Europe's own impending degeneracy. The attempt here is not to claim any enduring truth for Gobineau's hypothesis. As we shall see, thirty years of additional scholarship would adequately destroy that. It is, however, to suggest that, if Gobineau's thesis was tenuous, it was no less so than the work of many of his contemporaries whose reputations for accuracy were never called into question. If the Essai failed to achieve significant recognition during the lifetime of Its authors, this is due less to its lack of scientific merit than the 149 fact that; by applying an analysis to Europe which his fellow nineteenth century Europeans applied only to the non- western world,Gobineau was contradicting the most funda­ mental beliefs of the age in which he lived. Gobineau could, therefore, expect support for his thesis from Individuals who were equally pessimistic as to Europe's future and, indeed, such acceptance was forth­ coming. Both the author, Prosper Merimee, and the diplomat, Georg Anton von Prokesch-Osten were men of some knowledge in dealing with the problems which Gobineau's work raised.Their reaction, however, was primarily dictated by political considerations. As an ex-Bohemia^ who desired to satirize the Bourgeois!^ Merimee found the Essai a wonderful means to that end. Prokesch-Osten, a student of Metternich at the Austrian foreign office,and highly pessimistic as to the fate of his own nation, and a despiser of "mass" democracy, saw Gobineau's work as a confirmation of his own theories of the approaching degeneracy of European civilization.2^ It was in answer to such praise that Gobineau stated the personal intent of his work and as Is to be expected it was filled with a hatred for all modern social classes: One discusses my book very badly but I have never thought that one could say to people 'You are already half in your grave' without them responding negatively . . . I have struck the sensitive nerve of liberal ideas, . . . equalitarian democrats, 150 and revolutionaries. In addition, I have shown the weakness of Maistre and BonaId, those counter revolutionaries full of impossible remedies for 'reemerging past that which will never be ...... Basically my personal situation is this: a hatred of democracy and its instru­ ment, the Revolution, that I satisfy by demonstrating from where it originates and where it will lead . . . one must have courage to look it in the face . . In this manner Gobineau expressed his hatred for all that others would term progress and his own belief in an amorphous nobility which had now entirely disappeared. It is the appeal of an idealist, one who has observed the society around him and rejected it but can only find a model for how society should be governed in an age beyond empirical observation. Unfortunately, the chivalric age of Gobineau's imagination never existed and our author's conception of that ideal constitutes a mirage which pre­ vented him from seeing that from the beginnings of human society power has been exercised by the strong not the virtuous. Gobineau has, however, demonstrated something essen­ tial for his own amour propre. True nobility is trans­ ferred biologically, regardless of one's success or legitimacy, and such a true noble can be recognized only through his inner merit he need only live by the practice of freedom, honor and love. It is on the basis of this 151 racial "myth" that Gobineau will base his claims to legi­ timacy which his background made so dubious. Thus, as a personal creation, the Essai is a work of confidence, if not in society around him, as a demonstration of the worth and nobility of its author.

Events between 1850 and 1855 were to aid his self- confidence greatly. Despite numerous frustrations in his early diplomatic career, Gobineau was able to realize his self-imposed goal of becoming a man of leisure and distinction removed from the "mass" society around him. In addition, the death of his uncle Thibault Joseph gave him both the economic independence and the title of Count to realize these goals. Joseph, Arthur de Gobineau was reborn as le comte de Gobineau and few during his life­ time would realize the tenuousness of this pretension. In his life and work Gobineau had realized a "myth" which, if it was tenuous, would sustain its author throughout his life. The Gobineau, who now voyaged to the Near East in search of the nature of degeneracy, was a person who had used historical pessimism to create personal optimism. It is but another paradox in the life of a man in search of his own worth in a society which denied all that he held dear. FOOTNOTES CHAPTER III

Originally published (Paris, 4 vols., 1853-1 8 5 5). Republished (Paris, 4 vols., 1884) with a new Introduc­ tion by Gobineau and a portrait of the author by Le comte de Basterol. For this study we shall use the recent edition (Paris, 1 9 6 7) with an introduction by Herbert Juin. ^Janine Buenzod, La formation de la pensee de Gobineau, (Paris, 1 9 6 7), PP. 21 9-26U7 Jean GaulmTer, Spectre ~de Gobineau, (Paris, ^1 9 6 5), pp. 19-46. Jean Boissel ’"JTevue de_buenzod," Etudes gobiniennes, III, (1968-1969), pp. 246-251. Oaulmier, Spectre, pp. 49-63. Gobineau, Essai, intro­ duction by Herbert Juin. J. N. Faure-Briget, Gobineau, (Paris, 1930). ^Gobineau, Essai, pp. 39-56.

5m s . B. N. U. - Strasbourg 3511. ^Gobineau, "Vues," pp. 29-35. ^Gobineau, "Vues," p. 149. ^Gobineau, Essai, pp. 27-30. ^Gobineau, Essai, p. 804. „ *°Michel Lemonon, "Debuts du gobinisme en Allemagne," Etudes gobiniennes, III, (1968-1 9 6 9), p. 186. ■^Charles de Montesquieu, L'esprit des lols, (Paris, 1963) Friedrich Melnecke die Entstehungdes Historismus (Munich, 2 vols., 1936), I, pp. 170-181. •L2Hanno Beck, Alexander von Humboldt, (Wiesbaden, 2 vols., 1959-19617^ Heinrich Schmitthenner, Studlen ueber Carl Ritter. (Frankfurt, 1951). Meinecke^ Hlstorlsmus,~Ti pp. 406-430.

152 153

^Gobineau, Essai, 99-108. 14 Buenzod, Formation, pp. 235-239. ■^Gobineau, Essai, pp. 81-86.

-^Beck, Humboldt, II, pp. 230-321. Schmitthenner, Ritter, pp. 81-99. ■^Alexander von Humboldt, Kosmos: Entwurf elner physischen We11beschrelbungl (Stuttgart, 4 vols., 1845J, I, PP. 386-394. Hermann Blome, Per Rassengedanke in der deutschen Romantik und seine Grundlagen in lb. jfhrhundert, (Munich, 1$43), pp. 179-196. SchmittFienner, Ritter, pp. 67-79. Wilhelm Lehmann, "Sociological and cultural anthropological elements In the writings of Johann Gottfried von Herder," in Earl W. Counts and Gordon Bowles, Facts and Theories in Social Science, (Syracuse, 1964), pp. 35-^9. ■^Gobineau, Essai, p. 121. ^^Earl W. Counts, "The Evolution of the Race Idea In modern western culture during the period of the pre Darwinian 19th century," Transactions of the New York Academy of Sciences, XXIVj (194b), pp.-139-165. Eric" VoegellnT~t)ie ftassenldee In der Geistesgeschichte von Ray bis Camls, (Berlin, l35i3). D. J. Cunningham, "Anthropology in the 18th century," Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute XXXVIII, (T90B7;

20Gaulmier, Spectre, pp. 6 3 -7 6. Gobineau, Essai, introduction by Herbert Juin.

21Blome, Rassengedanke, pp. 331-339. Wilhelm Muehlmann, Geschlchte der Xnthropologle, (Bonn, 1948), pp. 8 6-9 1. Egon von Eickstaedt, Die Forschung am Menschen, (Stuttgart, 3 vols., 1940), I, p p T T l ^ l t .'

22Eickstaedt, Forschungj I, pp. 196-209. John C. Greene. "Some Early Speculations on the Origins of Human Races," American Anthropologist, LVI, (1954,) pp. 31-41. For the Medieval vestiges In Linnaeus' work see: Margret T. Hodgen, Early Anthropology in the 16th and 17th Centuries, (Philadelphia, 19o 4 J T 154

2 3paul Topinard, Elements d 1 Anthropologie generale, (Paris, 1 8 8 5), Chapters 2 and 3. John C. ftreenel The Death of Adam, (New York, 1959)* pp. 221-226. Eickstaedt, Forschung, pp. 257-263. ^Hodgen, Anthropology, pp. 221-239. Eickstaedt, Forschung, pp. 249-200. Topinard, Elements, pp. 46-51.

25pieter Camper, Ueber den natuerlichen Unterschied der Gelsteszuege in Menschen Y ergchledner (Segenden und Verschiedenen Alters, trans, T. Soemmering, (Berlin, 1792). Theodor S. Soemmering, Ueber die koerperliche Verschiedenheit des Maehrenj von feuropaeer'i (Mainz, 1764). Voltaire, Esgal sur les moeurs, ed. R. Pomeau, (Paris, 2 vols., I9b3), I, PP. 3-5b. Hodgens, Anthropology, pp. 2 7 2-2 8 1. Gustave Flourens, "Eloge for Blumenbach," in Johann F. Blumenbach. The Anthropological Treatises of Johann Friedrich Blumenbach, trans. Thomas Bendysche,"TLondon, 1 8 6 5 ).------^Topinard, Elements, pp. 81-86. Eickstaedt, Forschung, pp. 144-149 and 126-129. Robert A. Richardson, "The Development of the Theory of Geographical Race Formation: Buffon to Darwin," (Diss. Madison, Wis., 1968), pp. 6 6-9 6. oftcuJames Cowles Prichard, The Physical History of Mankind, (London, 5 vols., 1836-1647). James Cowles Prichard, The Natural History of Man, (London, 1848).

2 ^Greene, "Speculation," pp. 37-40. Walter Scheldt, "Beitraege zur Geschlchte der Anthropologie," Archly fuer Rassenblologle, (1924), pp. 386-397. Muehlmann, Geschlchte, pp. 52-61. 3°Prichard, Mankind, I, pp. 1-19, 97-103 and 330-342 V, pp. 547-570. William Lawrence, Lectures on Physiology, Zoology, and the Natural History of Man, [XoruTon, lbl7). Eickstaedt, forschung, 1, pp. 301-?05. Richardson, "Geographical Race, pp. 7 2-8 1. •^William Stanton, The Leopard's Spots: Scientific Attitudes------Towards Race in“5merlca, Tlt5i5-l&59), (Chicago,

32F. C. Haber, The Age of the World: Moses to Darwin, (Ba11imore, 1959)• Stanton,~5pots, pp. 42-49 and~ToO-112. Samuel George Morton, Crania Americana, (Philadelphia, 1839). 155

33josiah Nott, Two Lectures on the Connection between the Biblical and Physical History of Man» (Hew York, lb4gj. Josiah Nott and George R. 61 idd on, Types of Mankind, (Philadelphia, 1854). Stanton, Spots, pp. 65-? 2 and 157-169.

^Lawrence, Lectures, pp. 109-142. Indeed, the leading defender of Monogen ism in theAmerican debate, John Bachmann, was also a starch defender of slavery. See Stanton, Spots, pp. 123-142. ^^Gobineau, Essai, pp. 133-149. ^Gobineau, Essai, p. 149. ^^Gobineau, Essai, p. 149. 38Qobineau, Essai, p. 147. 39Muehlmann, Geschlchte, pp. 61-66. Scheldt, "Beitraege," pp. 181-190. Faul Topinard, "De la Notion de race en Anthropologie," Revue d 1 Anthropologie, (1879) pp. 565-629. 4 oBlome, Rassengedanke, pp. 47-81. Eickstaedt, Forschung, I, pp. 275-293. ^Morton, Crania, pp. 7-19. Prichard, Man, pp. 3-9 and 421-434. M. fiory de Saint Vincent, L 1Homme; Essai zoologique sur le genre humain, (Paris, 1827).

^2Gobineau, Essai, pp. 389-395. ^Gobineau, Essai, p. 390.

44 Gobineau, Essai, p. 206. ^Philip D. Curtin, The Image of Africa: British Ideas and Action (1780-1850)* (Madison, Wis., l9t>4). Heinz CoTlwltzer, Die Gelbe Gefahr, (Goettingen, 1962). ^Gobineau, Essai, pp. 206-207.

47Gobineau, Essai, pp. 209-214, 325-334 and 445 and 452.

4 ®Gobineau, Essai, pp. 206-214,

^^Gobineau, Essai, p. 209. 156

^Gobineau, Essai, p. 451. ^Muehlmann, Geschlchte, pp. 55-61. Eickstaedt, Forschung, I, pp. 245-255 and 2 6 3 -2 6 5. Helmut von Glasenapp, PaB Indienblld Deutscher IDenker (Stuttgart, i9 6 0), intro. Paul Hoffmann, "Der Indlsche und deutsche Geist von Herder bis zur Romantik," (Diss. Tuebingen, 1915). 52Gollwltzer, Gefahr, pp. 6-18. Virgile Pinot, la Chine et la formatiorT de- 1 'esprit philosophique en France, T S ^ l T W T f Paris,' ’1:9327,""intro. ------

53curtin, Image, Chapters 6, 9-11, and 15-17. As an excellent example of this reasoning see Richard Lepsius, Nubische GrammatIk, (Berlin, 1880). 5^Leo Deuel.Conquistadors with Swords (New York, 1967). 55william Prescott, The History of the Conquest of Mexico and the History of tbe~"Conquestr~of Peru, (New York, 1932)• STexander von Humboldt, Essai- poTltTque de la Nouvelle-Espagne, (Paris, 4 vols., 1811). Albert” GaXlatin, Notes on the seml-civllized Nations of Mexico, the Yucatan, and SoutTh America, (New York, 1845). ^Hanno Beck, Alexander von Humboldt und Mexiko, (Bad Godesberg, i9 6 0). PavldTevin, History as Romantic Art, (Stanford, 1959)> pp. 94-112. Danla1 Boorstein, The Lost World of Thomas Jefferson, (Boston, i9 6 0), pp. 57-107.

^Gobineau, Essai, p. 8 3 8. ^Gobineau, Essai, pp. 839-844. Gallatin, Notes, pp. 196-199. Humboldt Essai, I, pp. 371-375. Levin, Romantic Art, pp. 149-155. ^^Pinot, la Chine, 367-417. Adolf Reichwein, China and Europe, Trans. V. C. Powell, (New York, 1925). T n particular, pp. 222-242. Henri Cordier, La^ Chine en France au XVirUslecle, (Paris, 1910). ^°Plnot, La Chine, pp. 189-279. Reichwein, China, pp. 73-81 and SS-llO. Helmut von Glasenapp, Kant und~die Rellglonen des Ostens, (Kitzigen M. 1954). 157

6lPinot, La Chine, pp. 2 7 0 -2 7 9 and 281-346. Walter Engemann, "Voltaire und China," (Diss. Leipzig, 1932),

^2Reichwein, China, 95-98. R. F. Merkel, "Herder und Hegel ueber China, 11 Sinlea, XVII, (1942) pp. 5-26. Ernst Schulln, Die Weltgeschlchtllche Erfassung des Orients bei Hegel und Ranke, (Goettingen, 1956).

^Reichwein, china, pp. 114-126. Schulln, Erfassung, p. 8 3 -9 2. Gollwltzer Gefahr, intro. ^Gobineau, Essai, p. 413. ^Gobineau, Essai, pp. 397-426. ^Gobineau, Essai, p. 420. ^Gobineau, Essai, p. 415. CQ 68Gobineau,( Essai, p. 408.

69,'Gobineau, Essai, pp. 392-395 and 3 9 9 . ^°Abel de Remusat, Recherches sur les langues tartares, (Paris, 1823), Abel de Remunsat, Melanges posthumos, (Paris, 1843), pp. 7-13* 59-66 ancT Ii4 -il7 . ^Gobineau, Essai, pp. 419-425. 72 In the introduction to Schemann's translation of the Essai. 73"Gobineau und seine Rassenlehre," Politische Anthropologische Revue, I, (1902-1903) pp. 593-598. ^Blome, Rassengedanke, pp. 209-234. ^Published at Leipzig in ten volumes. For a short resume of his views see Gustav Klemm, "Die Verbreitung der activen Menschenrasse ueber den Erdball," Politische Anthropologische Revue, V, (1906-1907). 7^Klemm, Culturgeschichte, I, pp. 1-27 and 170-176, 201-209. IV, T-7 and 706-13"and on the Moral 26l-4l8. VII, on the Arabs as a "race," pp. 3-6, 356-9 and 518-9. VIII, on the Greeks as a "race, pp. 60-310. IX, on European progress. Much of Klemm*s theory finds its origins in the work of Christoph Meiners, see Alexander Ihle, "Christoph Meiners und die Voelkerkunde," (Diss. Goettingen, 1931). 158

^Gustav Carus, Ueber die Ungleiehe Befaehlgung der Verschiedenen Mdnsfchheltsstaemme"(Leipzig,—1849) - See also Blome, Rassengedanke> pp. 247-318, and the superficial article by Gerard Imhoff, "Charles Gustav Carus precurseur de Gobineau?" Etudes gobiniennes, III, (1968-1 9 6 9), pp. 195-205 which unfortunately does not have the Insight into the problem of Blome's book. ^Gobineau, Essai, pp. 129-130. ^^Gobineau, Essai, p. 203. Qq A. J. Arberry, Asiatic Jones: The Life and Influence of Sir William Jones, (London,'1946J. S. N. Mukher^ie, 5Tr~WTlllam Jones7 (Cambridge, 1 9 6 8). Hans Joachim Kraus, (Sfeschichte der historisch-kritischen Erforschung des Alten Testaments, ~ (ffeukirchen, 195b), pp. Il9-13b. Carl BrockeImann, Semitische Sprachwlssenschaft, (Leipzig, 1906).

0 - 1 ^Salomon, Reinach, L 1Origins de 1 1Aryans, (Paris, 1892), pp. 7-9> 15-17 and 3?-4b. HoTger Pederson, The Discovery of Language: Linguistic Science in the 19th Century, trans. John W. Spargo, (Bloomington, 1931) PP. 32-76. ®2Hans Arens, Sprachwlssenschaft, (Freiburg^B. 1955), pp. 195- 39. Antoine Meillet, Intro~ductlon a_ 1 'etude comparative des langues Indo-Europeenes, (Faris, 1934). pp. 456-469'.------g o ■^Published at Berlin. On Bopp see: Arens, Sprachwlssenschaft, pp. 197-203. Meillet, Introduction, pp. 456-457. B. Delbruck, Einleltung in das Studlum der Indogermanlsche Sprache, (Stuttgart,19T9). the Problems and Debates of Linguistics in 1850 are best seen in Theodor Benfey, Geschlchte der Sprachwlssenschaft und Orlentallsche Philologie, (Munich, 1869). 83 Reinach, Origines, pp. 14-21. Arens SprachwissenschaFt7 PP» 117-142. Benfey, Geschlchte, pp. 47-95. ®^Jan de Vries, Forschungsgeschlchte der Mythologie, (Freiburg/B, 1 9 6 1), pp. 19&-217. Alfred Baeumler, "Bachofen die Mythologie der Romantik," in J. J. Bachofen, Der Mythus von Orient und Occident, (Munich, 1926), 159 ^Adalbert Kuhn, Die Herabkunft des Feuers, (Berlin, 1859) Adalbert Kuhn, Ueber^ntwicklungsstufen der Mythenblldung, (Berlin, 187377 Max Mueller, Essays on Comparative Mythology, (Oxford, 1856). ^Arthur de Gobineau, Memoire sur diverses ManlfestatIons de la vie indlvlduelle, ed. A. B. Duff, (Paris, 1935). “This' edition contains Gobineau's original French text as well as his own bad German translation. References are to the French original.

88Gobineau, Manifestations, P. 52. ^Gobineau, Manifestations, PP. 37-69. ^°Gobineau, Manifestations, PP. 73-90. 91 Gobineau, Manifestations, PP. 91-103. ^2Gobineau, Manifestations, PP. 104-112 and 112-124, 149-169.

98Gobineau, Manifestations, P- 112. ^Gobineau, Manifestations, PP. 128-142 and 181-201. QC ^Gobineau, Manifestations, PP. 104-106 • ^ Jacob Grimm, "Ueber den Ursprung der Sprachen," Kleinere Schriften, (Berlin, 8 vols., 1864-1890), II, pp. 255-3*3(1. Wilhelm von Humboldt, Ue^ber die Verschiedenheit des menschlichen Sprachbaues, Gesammelte ScHrTTTenT (BerlTnT 36 vols. ), VT."i;'pp7'25'9-282 ihd 203. Wilhelm von Humboldt, Ueber die Verschiedenheit des menschlichen Sprachbaues und ihreh Elnriuss auf die geistige Entwicklung des Menschengeschlechts, Gesammelte Schriften (Berlin, 36 vols., 1903-1920), VII, I, pp. 181-242. ^Humboldt, Sprachbaues, pp. 279-281 and 303-304. Humboldt, Sprachbaues uncTEinfluss, pp. 21-42, 170-179 and 260-2697 Blome, Rassengedanke, pp. 221-242. 9®See Emile Burnouf, La Science des religions, (Paris, I8 7 6).

^Gobineau, Essai, pp. 185-203 and 227-242. 160

100Goblneau, Essai, pp. 215-275. 10*Gobineau, Essai, p. 224. 102Gobineau, Essai, pp. 227-234. 103QOkineau^ Essai, p. 239.

10^Gobineau, Essai, pp. 240-245. 105The major work of Bunsen is Gott In der Geschlchte; (Leipzig, 3 vols., 1857-1 8 5 8). Christian von Bunsen and others, Outlines of the Philosophy of Universal History, (London, 2 vols., 1854) contains portions of analysis by Mueller & Lepslus as well as a general summary by Bunsen. 10^Bunsen, Gott, 21-134 and III, pp. 17-49. Bunsen and others, Outlines, I, pp. 3-28 and 64 and Mueller, I, pp. 99-349. 108jjichoias Burtin, Le comte Fredrlc d'Eckstein, (Paris, 1931) for the bacKground-of this tKInker's work. Predric d'Eckstein, "De quelques Legends brahmanlques qui se rapportent au berceau de l'esp&ce humaine," Journal Aslatique, (1855)* II. Fredric d'Eckstein, "Recherches historiques sur l'humanite primitive," Revue independente, May 10, May 25* September 25 and October 10, 1847 and January 10, 1848. 109Ge org Ebers, Richard Lepsius, eln Lebensbild. (Leipzig, 1 8 8 5) Bunsen and others, Outlines, I, pp. 7-8l and 621-624. Ernst Windisch, Geschlchte der Sanskrlt- Philologie und IndischeA/Alterthumskunde, (Strasbourg/Berlin, 3 vols:,T9Tri521), 17 pp. 570-S95:--- 110Lepsius, Grammatlk, p. xxiv. l-^Gobineau, Essai, pp. 325-350. 112Gobineau, Essai, p. 327. 1-*-^Reinach, Orlglnes, pp. 3-7. Wilhelm Rau, Staat und Gesellschaft im alterT Indien, (Wiesbaden, 19577^ •I-^4Gauimierj Spectre, pp. 49-63.

^■^(jobineau, Essai, pp. 331-337. 161

■^Gobineau, Essai, pp. 339-350 and 445-452. •^Nicholas Burtin, Le comte Fredric d'Eckstein, (Paris, 1931). Raymond ScKWab, La Renaissance orientallste, (Paris, 1 9 5 0), pp. 35-9. Eckstein, "Legends," pp. 195-199, 217-221 and 331-334. Eckstein, "Recherches," pp. 33-49 and 201-214. 11®Gobineau, Essai, p. 339. ^ C . W. Ceram, Goetter, Graeber, und Gelehrte, (Hamburg, 1949)> Chapters 9-11" Jean-Marie Carr£, Voyageurs et ecrivalns frangais en Eygpte, (Cairo, 2 volsT, 193?T> I, 149-163^ Adolf"Michaelis, Ein Jahrhundert kunstarchaeologischer Entdeckungen, (Leipzig, I9O6j/ Chapter 1 and pp. 83-8 6. ion Hermlne Hartlebei/ Champolllon: sein Leben und sein Werk, (Berlin, 2 vols., 1905J. Adolf Erman, Mein Werden und mein Wirken, (Leipzig, 1929). Gladstone Bratton, A History of Egyptian Archeology, (London, 1 9 6 7), pp. 73-817 : 12^Bratton, Archeology, pp. 53-73. Erman, Werden, PP. 293-297. ^22See j# Gardner Wilkinson, A Popular Account of the Ancient Egyptians, (London, 2 vols. 1854] and Heinrich kruegsch, Die Aegyptologie, (Leipzig, 1 8 9 1). “^Gobineau, Essai, pp. 279-293. ^^Gobineau, Essai, pp. 299-310. ^^Qobineau, Essai, pp. 284-289. 12^Gobineau, Essai, pp. 301-306. ^2^Mukherjie, Jones, Chapters 6 and 7. Windlsch, Phllologle, I, pp. 3-73. 12®Windisch, Phllologle, I, pp. 166-174 and 226-227. Theodor Benfey, "Indlen,11 Allegemelne Encyklopaedie der Wissenschaft und Kuenste, ed. A. G. Hoffmann, (Leipzig, 1 8 4 0 T:------12^Rau, Staat, pp. 17-23. Arthur L. Basham, The Wonder that was India, (London, 1954), pp. 3-10 and 25-29. 162

13 °Benfey, "indien" pp. 213-225. Christian Lassen, Indische Alterthumskunde, (Leipzig, 4 vols., 1864), I, pp. 621-639, tl, PP. 6-T9 and 941-967. 131(3ot)lneau, Essai, 335-347. 132Gobineau, Essai, 352-363. ■^Gobineau, Essai, p. 357.

13 \}oblneau, Essai, pp. 363-373. ■^Benfey, "indien," pp. 239-248. Eugene Burnouf, Introduction a l'histolre du Buddhisme indien, (Paris, 2 vols., lti44J. Windlsch,“Phllologle”," T, pp. 130-142 and 170-176 ■^Gobineau, Essai, pp. 376-378.

137 Wlndlsch, Phllologle, I, pp. 139-142 and 172-173. *3®Gobineau, Essai, pp. 375-386.

■^^Gobineau, Essai, p. 3 8 0 .

lit0February 24, 1 8 5 0. For the newness of such studies in France see Alfred Maury, "La Phllologle comparee ses princlpes et ses applications nouvelles," Revue des Deux Mondes, April 15, 1 8 5 7. ■'■^Josiah C. Nott and George R. Gliddon, Indigenous Races of the Earth, (Philadelphia, 1 8 5 7)* pp. 444-445. Jos la h“C. “TJoo77 "Comment," in Arthur de Gobineau, The Moral and Intellectual Diversity of Races, trans. Henry tiolz (Philadelphia, 1856). Note aTso that Nott and Glidden also diinot see fit to translate Gobineau's conclusion to the Essai. ■'■^Humboldt's letter can be found in Ludwig Schemann Gobineau's Rassenwerk, (Stuttgart, 1910), pp. 113-114. l^3Arnould de Quatrefages, "Rapport sur l'ouvrage de M. de Gobineau intitul£ Essai, etc." Bulletin du Socletie de Geographie, XIII, (1 8 5 7), p. 207. ■^^August Friedrich Pott, Die Unglelchheit Menschlicher Rassen hauptsaechlTcK vom sprachwissenschaft- Tlchen Standpunkt, (Halle, 1056). ^Georg Heinrich Ewald, "Review of Gobineau," in 1 6 3 Goettinger Gelehrten Anzelge, May 1, 1854. ^^Lemonon, "Debuts," pp. 190-195. Kraus, Erforschung pp. 156-173. ■^Ewald, "Gobineau," pp. 6 8 7-6 8 8. Pott, Standpunkt, 81-109.

li|8Ewald, "Gobineau," pp. 6 8 3 -6 8 5 and 793-695. l2*9Pott, Standpunkt, 22-33, 42-47 223-231 and 242-245 ^Opott, Standpunkt, pp. 206-221 and 115-181, 249-261. ^lAugust F. Pott "Max Mueller und die Kennzeichen der Sprachverwandfschaft," Zeltschrlft der deutschen Morgenlandgesellschaft, (1855), pp. 405-464^ August F. Pott fithnologlsche Forschung auf dem Gebiete der Indogermanischen Sprachen, (Halle, 2 vols., 1859), pp. lli-lx. OfTTo Schraeder, Zur Geschlchte und Methode der llngulstisch-historlschen frorschung, (Tena, 1906). ^52BUrnoUf, Religion. Max Mueller, Biography of Words and the Home of the Aryans, (London, 1888). 153see Quatrefages, "Rapport," and Arnould de Quatrefages, "Du Croisement des races humaines," Revue des Deux Mondes, (March 1, 1857), pp. 159-188, but also Arnould de Quatrefages, Hommes fosslies et Hommes sauvages, (Paris, 1884). Alfred Maury, “"Review of the Sssal," L'Atheneum frangals, November 11 and 15, 1853 and January 15, 1855"."'" But also see Alfred Maury, La Terre et L 1Homme, (Paris, 1861). See also his comments in Nott & Gliddon, Indigenous Races, pp. 188-193 in which the major fault_which he finds in the Essai is that Gobineau has given Africans even limited potentialities for developing culture. ■^Quoted in E. J. Young, Gobineau und der Rassismus, (Meisenheim/G/ 1968), p. 75. 155waury i Terre, p. 512. 164

^^Hans Jurgen Egger, Einfuehrung in die Vorgeschlchte, (Munich, 1956), pp. 18-32. Glyn Daniel, A Hundred Years^f Archeology, (London, 1950), pp. 14-26. Ernst Wahle, "Geschlchte der Prehlstorlschen Forschung," Anthrop, XLV-XLVI, (1950-1951), PP. 509-517. "^Egger, Einfuehrung, pp. 32-51. Wahle, "Geschlchte," pp. 525-527. 1^®Wahle, "Geschlchte," pp. 531-537. J. J. Worsaae, The Primeval Antiquities of Denmark, trans. (London, l84§). Sven Nilsson,~Bas Stemailer Oder cfie Urelnwohner des Scandinavlschen Nordens, trans. J. Mestorf, (Hamburg, 1868). 159oobineau, Essai, pp. 523-535. 1 Sven Nilsson, Die Urelnwohner des Scandinavlschen Nordens, (Hamburg, 186377 ^Gobineau, Essai, pp. 549-560. ■^^Roget de Belloquet, Ethnogenie Gauloise, (Paris, 4 vols., 1 8 5 8-1 8 6 8), II, pp. 135-214. Quatrefages, "Rapport", pp. 219-224. Quatrefages, "Du Croisement", pp. 177-181. 1^Wilhelm von Humboldt, "Pruefung der Untersuchungen ueber die Urbewohner Hispaniens vermittelst der Vaskischen Sprache," Gesammelte Schriften, (Berlin, 36 vols., 1903-1920), IV, pp. 57-232. Karl 0. Mueller, Die Etrusker, (Berlin, 1 8 2 8). Arnould de Quatrefages, "La Race prussienne, " Revue des Deux Mondes, February 15, 1871.

■1 Mueller, Die Etrusker, Georg B. Niebuhr, Roemlsche Geschlchte, (Berlin, 6 vols. 1933)* I*PP. 96-l49. George P. Gooch, History and Historians of the 19th Century, (London, 1952), pp. ld-39. Hermann Bengtson, Einfuehrung in die Alte Geschlchte, (Munich, 1965).

1 6 5 pallottino, The Etruscans, trans. J. Cremona, (Hammond^worth, 1956), Chapter 1. Fericle Ducati, Le Probleme ^trusque, (Paris, 1938), pp. 21-37. M. I. FTniey, Aspects of Antiquity, (London, 1 9 6 8), Chapters 8 and 9. ■’■^Gobineau, Essai, pp. 599-614.

•^fQobineau, Essai, pp. 619-630. 165 !6®Gobineau, Essa > PP . 6 2 9-6 3 0 . l^^Gobineau, Essa * PP . 629-637. •^Gobineau, Essa > PP . 637-646. 171(jobineau, Essa > P. 641. 172Qobineau, Essa » P. 643. ^^Qobineau, Essa > P. 644. l^^Gobineau, Essa * P. 646. ^•75Q0bineau, Essa * P- 6 5 8. 176Q0t,ineau, Essa * P. 659-670. 177Qobineau, Essa * P. 6 9 8.

^^Gobineau, Essa * PP . 561-597. ^^QQtineau, Essa > P. 581.

^■^Gobineau, Essa > P. 651. 00 CO in !®^Gobineau, Essa * P. *

^®2Henri• Martin, — - — mm j Histoire mm — — - — — de — Fra -»_- — • ~ ^ _^_ J \ J — ' - — • / 1 8 7 8). Amedee Thierry, Histoire de la Saule sous , „ 1 'administration romalnel (Paris,“3" vols., 182b). Amedee Thierry, Hlstofre des Traulois, (Paris, 2 vols. 1844). W. F. Edwards, Des Caracteres physiologiques des races humaines consid^r^s dans leur rapports avec 1' histoire, T P a H i 7 ~ l B S 3 T; ------■^^Eickstaedt, Forschung, I, pp. 312-314 and 33-42. Peter Staeder, Geschlchtsschreibung und historisches Denken in Frankrelch, (1 7 8 9-1 8 7 1)* (Zurich, 1 9 5 9J, pp. 151-157. Edwards, Caracteres physiologiques, in particular PP. 9, 14-17 and 3 7 ' ^ 1^ 0 n the nationalistic impact of Celtism see, Louis Halpern, L 1Histoire en France depuls cent ans, (Paris, 1914), pp. 5-17. MaFFln, Histoire, I, pp. vii-xlx. Belloquet, Ethnogenie, II, pp. 91-114. Thierry, Gaulols, I, pp. iii-xix and xxvi-xxxv.

1®5Gobineau, Essai, p. 870. 166 l86Gobineau, Essai, P. 713.

l8?Gobineau, Essai, PP . 715-726.

l88Gobineau, Essai, P. 730.

l8^Gobineau, Essai, PP . 733-734.

19°Gobineau, Essai, P. 734.

■^iQobineau, Essai, P. 741.

•^2 Goblneau, Essai, PP . 731-747.

193Gobineau, Essai, P. 750.

194g 0ij ineau, Essai, P. 752.

^■^Gobineau, Essai, P. 745. 9 Jacques Barzun, The French Race, (New York, 1932). Martin Gohring, Weg und ^ie'g~5er~rnocrernen Staatsldee in Frankrelch, (Tuebingen, 1946), pp. 107-140. Gustave Prevost, ,TLes Invasions barbares en Gaule, " Revue des Questions historlques, (1879)t PP. 131-180. ^■^Gohring, Staatsldee, pp. 126-140. Meinecke, Historlsmus. I, pp. 125-133. Franklin Ford, The Robe and the Sword, (Cambridge, 1 9 6 2), pp. 222-252. 1^®Renee Simon, Henri de Boulalnvllllers (Paris, 1940). ^^Joseph Brugerette, Le_ comte de Montlosler et son temps (1755-1831)» (Aurillac, 1931). Jacques GodecHot, Le Contre-revolution: doctrine et action (1789-1804), TFaris, I9 6 1), pp. 39 200Henri de Boulainvilliers, Histoire de L'Anclen gouvernement de La France (Amsterdam, 3 vols., 172?). Louis de MontTosTer, De la Monarchle franpalse depuls son etablissement jusq^a^ST nos jours, (Paris, 3 vols., tbttt:------2°lsimon, Boulainvilliers, intro, and Chapters 3 and 6. Ford, Robe and Sword, pp. 227-229 and 239-242. Brugerette, Montlosler, pp. 159-176. Stanley Mellon, The Political Use of History (Stanford, 1958), pp. 156-214. 167

2 0 2 Straeder, Geschlchtsschrelbung, pp. 141-150. Halpern, Histoire, Chapters, 4 and 5. P. Laret, Lea Historlens du XlXe siecle, (Paris, 2 vols., 1951 )7T, pp. 11-17

2 °3Thierry's early views can be seen in Augustin Thierry, Dix Ans d 1 etudes hlstorlques, (Paris, 1842). His general usage can be”seen in Augustin Thierry, Histoire de la conquete de I 1 Angleterre par les Normands, (Paris, 4 voTi"., 1626). 204 Thierry's later reflections can be seen in Augustin Thierry, Recits des temps me'rovenglens, (Paris, 2 vols., 1842), particularly the 1 'ong""genera 1' introduction to the controversy.

2 0 ^Thierry, Recits, I, pp. 26-73. 206Thierry, Recits, I, pp. 268-277, 299-309, 325-342. 207Thierry, Dix Ans, p. 279.

208^Arthur/ de Gobineau, L* Histoire des Perses, (Paris, 2 vols., 1869), I, P* 2l*^* 209,Gobineau, Essa pp. 8 0 3 -8 0 6. 210<}obineau, Essa pp. 807-814.

2^Gobineau, Essa PP. 757-763. 212Gobineau, Essa p. 7 8 0.

213oobineau, Essa pp. 733-735 and 7 6 3-7 8 6. 2l^Gobineau, Essa P. 783. 2 15(}oblneau, Essa PP. 783-786. 2^Gobineau, Essa P. 781.

2 l^Gobineau, Essa pp. 787-789. 2 l8Gobineau, Essa PP. 795-801.

2 19Gobineau, Essa pp. 8 0 6-8 0 9. 22°Gobineau, Essa pp. 809-814. 168

2 2 ^Gobineau, Essai, pp. 817-819.

222Gobineau, Essai, pp. 807-810. 223 Gobineau, Essai, pp. 8 0 9.

22^Gobineau, Essai, pp. 8 1 8 -8 1 9and 855-861.

225Gobineau, Essai, pp. 6 9 7 -7 0 0 and 8 7 1.

228Gobineau, Essai, p. 8 7 1. Arthur de Gobineau, "Coup d' Oeil sur 1* Allemagne du hord," ed. Jean Mistier, Revue d' Allemagne, June 1929, pp. 481-494.

22^Gobineau, "Coup d' Oeil," p. 485.

228Gobineau, Essai, p. 518.

22^Gobineau, Essai, pp. 792-801.

28°Gobineau, Essai, p. 800.

281Gobineau, Essai, pp. 799-801.

282Gobineau, Essai, p. 8 7 0.

288Gobineau, Essai, pp. 869-873. 23£i Gobineau, Essai, p. 873.

235«phierry, Recits, pp. 42-69. Eickstaedt, Forschung, I, pp. 309-321. Muehlmann, Geschlchte. pp. 59-66. Wilhelm Schmidt, Rasse und Volk, (Munich, 1927).

288Quatrefages, "Rapport," p. 240. See also the unpublished comment by Alfred Maury in Gaulmier, Spectre, p. 32.

2 3?Quatrefages, "Rapport >" pp. 233-249. Belloquet, Ethngenie, n, pp. 195-19 5 and 231-234.

238oargan, Tocqueville, Chapter 7 and pp. 240-246. Edward T. Gargan7De Tocqueville (New York, 1965), pp. 60-70. 169

^^Alexis de Tocqueville, L'Anclen Regime et la revolution francaise, In Oeuvres" completes^ ed.T.~F. Mayer, (Paris, 1932), IT, 1 , pp. s)l-94, 2 0 9 -2 1 7 and 127-129. But Tocqueville's analysis Is essentially instutional rather than racial. See Jack Lively, The. Social and Political Thought of Alexis de Tocquevllie (Oxford, 1962), pp. 23-70. olio Alexis de Tocqueville and Arthur de Gobineau, Correspondence (1843-1859), ed. M. Degros In Oeuvres completes, ed. J. P. Mayer (Paris, 1959), IX, pp. 2 6 5-2 6 6. ^•'‘Tocqueville, Correspondence, p. 260. 2i*2See Gobineau's correspondence with Mme. Renan. Cornelie Renan, "Les Lettres de Cornelie Renan a Gobineau," Archives des lettres m o d e m e , LXXV, (1 9 6 7). 2^Ernst Renan, Oeuvres completes, (Paris, 10 vols., 1955), IV, p. 34. 2 ^Renan, Oeuvres, X, p. 204. ^^Ernest seilllere, "L'Imperiallsme germaniste dans 1 'oeuvre de Renan," Revue des Deux Mondes, November 15, 1906. Henri Trouchon, Ernst ftenan et l'etranger, (Paris, 1928). 2^Robert Baschet Merimeef l803-l870. (Paris, 1959). Prank Bowman, Prosper Merimee (Berkely, 1 9 6 2). Ludwig Schemann, Quellen und Untersuchungen zum Leben Gobineaus, (Strasbourg 2 vols., 1913-191&), I, pp. 276-334. 2^Arthur de Gobineau, "Merimee, Gobineau et les/ Bohemiens," ed. Jean Gaulmier, Revue d 1 Histoire litteraire de la France, 0ctober-December,'T95F, pp. 573-691.. Prosper Merimee, "Un Correspondence inedite de Merimee, 11 ed. Ludwig Schemann, Revue des Deux Mondes, October 15 and November 1, 1902. Arthur de Gobineau and Georg Anton von Prokesch-Osten, Correspondence, (Paris, 1933)* pp. 81-90.

2 ^Prokesch-0sten, Correspondence, pp. 92, 95 and 9 7.

2^Gaulmier, Spectre, pp. 119-145. Maurice Lange, Le comte Arthur de Gobineau, (Strasbourg, 1924), pp. 76-79. CHAPTER IV THE ANATOMY OP DEGENERACY: GOBINEAU AND THE NEAR EAST (1856-68)

When Gobineau arrived in Teheran in the spring of 1855 it was the beginning of the most successful fifteen years of his life.^ If his diplomatic posts in Iran and Greece were not to bring the recognition which he so much desired, his personal friendships with leading statesmen in both countries undoubtedly fulfilled the Count's desire to become a man of influence without compromising his noble ancestry. In addition, the marriage of his daughter, Diane, to the Danish nobleman, Ove de Guldencrone, and his acceptance into the salon of the Princess Mathilde were events that flattered Gobineau's Amour Propre greatly. 2 He could with some semblance of truth believe that he was living the role which he had created for himself. When Gobineau took his job seriously, he was both temperamentally and intellectually predisposed to be a good diplomat. In such a position he could combine cynical insights into the nature of society with the detachment from all parties which such work requires. All of those

170 171 observers who met him during these years felt the Count to be a polished conversationalist, a penetrating observer of the nations in which he lived, and a man who maintained the proper decorum for his position.3 His reports to the foreign office are invariably concise and judicious, the remarks of a man who saw the primary function of diplomacy as the cautious exercise rather than the unlimited use of power. 4 His posts in Iran and Greece allowed him to use these skills to great effect, for both were areas in which Napoleonic Prance wished to maintain its interests without any increased involvement in domestic affairs. Iran had been an area of Anglo-Russian involvement since the turn of the century. The mission under Prosper Bournee, of which

Gobineau was Charge d'affaires from 1855 to 1858, was in­ structed to maintain French economic and cultural interests without involving the Imperial government in the continual Afghanistan problem. Gobineau would return as minister between 1862 and 1864 with the same general instructions.'* Greece in the l860's had assumed much the same position in French diplomacy. After her deep involvement in support of Greek independence during the 1820's French public opinion had been largely disappointed by the results; rather than become a model of parliamentary government, the new monarchy proved politically unstable and prone to involve 172 the great powers In all her quarrels. In addition, the most radical of the Gracophiles continually attempted to involve France in their exploits to liberate further areas from "Turkish despotism". France, which in the l860's was deeply involved in the Mexican debacle and her impending conflict with Prussia, wished to stay aloof from such treacherous waters. Gobineau as Minister from 1864 to 1868 was, therefore, instructed to maintain France's neutrality in all such disputes, a goal which he succeeded in accomplishing by befriending the King, George II, and sending the leading Gracophile, Gustave Flourens back to France Gobineau's ability to fulfill these functions was undoubtedly enhanced by his background knowledge of these nations. While it is impossible to sustain the Count's own claims of expertise in these areas, Gobineau*s knowledge of the history, customs, and languages of both countries was obviously far superior to the average European diplomat of his day. In pursuing the dreams of his childhood, the young Gobineau had studied with the leading Arabist, Etienne Quatremere during the l830's and had learned some­ thing of Semitic linguistics.^ In Iran he studied Persian and gained some mastery of it while during his stay in Greece he learned the modern and classical form of that language.® If this knowledge was never as profound as 173

Gobineau thought it to be, it obviously gave the Count the ability to view these societies from within and observe their nature with a degree of penetration lacking in most 9 of his contemporaries. Whether one accepts or rejects Gobineau's analysis of these nations, it is obvious that his observations are based on knowledge rare to Europeans of the mid nineteen hundreds. The most striking characteristic of Gobineau's work in this area is his general detachment from the assumptions of most European literature of the period. If he considers this area as one of social degeneracy, his understanding of its culture, mores, and institutions is without the bias of most of his contemporaries. Greece is not portrayed from classical sources superimposed on a very different reality nor is the nation castigated for not living up to such a superimposed model, Persian society is seen with the same sharp eyes: if this nation is far from a European state, its causes are not to be found in its commonly assumed fault of not having adopted Christianity and Victorian morality. If Gobineau finds these societies to be degenerate, it is not to boast the ego of his con­ temporaries but, rather, to show that they too must suffer the same fate. This ability to penetrate beyond the prejudices of his contemporaries led Gobineau to maintain a genuine sympathy 174 for both Greece and Iran. Thus, "I have attempted to place myself, as much as possible, in their different point of view before attempting to judge their manner of living and have, therefore, attempted to prevent myself from entertaining brilliantly hollow conclusions that are so very popular today . . . "1]- While Gobineau did not always fulfill his own goal, his detachment from the belief in progress so predominant in the nineteenth century gives him an empathetlc tone lacking in most of the works of his time and an objectivity which is still relevant at a time when the works of his contemporaries are of little worth. The Count notes the lack of public security as a primary characteristic of both countries. While in Greece this results partly from the inability of the new monarchy to suppress these erstwhile guerillas, Gobineau recognized far deeper social causes for this phenomenon. Such people were of value in the Civil War, had gained a certain popularity, and, due to the corrupt nature of the govern- ment, failed to be assimilated. 12 Much the same was true in Iran where Turkish ^peaking nomads failed to identify with a Persian speaking government. Again, Gobineau stressed the legitimate background of such protest. Nomads, he assures us, are neither violent by nature nor destructive by design.^3 indeed, Gobineau maintains a certain sympathy for such groups for maintaining a negative form of freedom 175 and condemns European meddling for attempting to exploit such groups for their own purposes. In addition Gobineau was sharply critical of Europeans who attempted to evaluate these societies by their own pre­ conceived value systems. In discussing Persian society he was particularly critical of Christian missionaries and Indigenous minorities for attempted to pressure European governments to force domestic advantages for their co­ religionists.1^ While in Greece the attempt of Orthodox Christianity to represent itself as the exclusive guardian of civilization did irrevocable harm to the area's stability.^ Such attempts only demonstrate the inability of Europeans to overcome their own myopic view of social change. Gobineau proceeded to a wholesale assault on European involvement in the area. In central Asia both Russia and Great Britain were accused of tampering with a destitute area without any firm goals, neither nation having recog­ nized the fundamental fact that the area is largely a desert unable to support more than small groups of nomads.1^ Gobineau analyzed the Greek question in much the same fashion. Infused with the Byronian dream of recreating Periclean Athens and the desire to defend Christians from Islamic persecution, the European powers destroyed the integrity of the Ottoman Empire, encouraged what was 176 essentially a civil war between two very similar people, and established a state too small to be economically viable.^ Indeed, Gobineau was one of the few during the century to see that the faults in the Greek state were largely the result of the manner in which it had been created. The Count, thus, maintained a real empathy for both nations. If Iran has internal instability, this is at least partly caused by Europeans who insist on dictating policies which no independent state could be expected to fulfill while dismembering its territory.1® European policy towards Greece is, if possible, worse. After having insisted on a constitution unsuited for this nation, the great powers formed a state with an exceedingly small political base, rampant corruption, and no national leader­ ship. 1^ if Gobineau is highly critical of the social struc­ ture of these nations, he certainly lends no support to the superiority complex of western Europeans in regard to these countries. This disbelief in the foibles of his contemporaries led Gobineau to an absolute rejection of Imperialism. Europe, already in the process of full degeneration, will only hasten this process by involving herself in such problems. Thus, the British in India, the French in Algeria, and all powers in the near East will either rule 177 as petty despots or fully lose their own identities. If they attempt to rule as a small group of military officers, they will become as despotic as the princes that they replace while a large group of colonists would be lost in the general havoc which these societies demonstrate. In addition, Gobineau proceeds to attack the fundamental justification of such policies, the supposed ideals which the Europeans give to these countries: . . .One can observe already Europeans living in Asia and Asiatics living in Europe. The former have generally taken upon themselves the vices or at least the loginess, fatalism, and lack of stability of the Asiatics while the latter have remained as they always were with, perhaps, few more vices but I have never known one of them who has taken on the virtues of the Europeans.2 0 If Gobineau's racial analysis assumes the degeneracy of the non-western world, this system has not been created to justify European Imperialism but, rather, to demonstrate western Europe's own incipit demise. In this regard Gobineau's analysis represents the exact converse of the assumptions of his contemporaries. Gobineau, however, by no means wishes his empathy for Iran and Greece to obscure their supposed degeneracy. If European meddling has aggravated the situations, these societies are by nature degenerate. Without an Aryan ruling class, they vacillate between bureaucratic despotism and democratic anarchy without any social stability and a 178 complete lack of freedom. The Count does not see this degenerate state as arising from their lack of material prosperity. Both the Greeks and Persians are hard working people attempting to make a living in an inhospitable environment; they possess skills which few Europeans can match; and, when properly paid they will produce goods of high quality. They are ambitious and certainly not lazy. They are, he assures us, happy and contented with their work and, if neither country has the economic prosperity of Prance or Britain, all are adequately fed and none are left without care.21 Material prosperity or the lack of it is, therefore, not a standard by which to judge the viability of a culture. Such prosperity is meaningless unless freedom is to be found with it. Degeneracy is rather to be seen in the lack of a hierarchical social structure which these societies demon­ strate. The symptoms of this disease are to be seen in the nature of society itself. In Iran this is to be seen in the inability of the Shah to gain positive loyality from his subjects. "The Persians will accept any govern­ ment but they will never like one or interest themselves in one."22 If theoretically the Shah is "the permanent and omnipresent benefactor who spreads his shadow over 179 the whole empire."23 in practice his authority extends only to that which he can demand through direct physical force while the population reacts with lethargy to whatever good he may desire. The government's power, therefore, extends only as far as its direct police control; the only escape from such compulsion is flight; and those under such control may obey but will never accept the justice of such oil rule. Thus, the population is kept in constant turmoil as peasants flee to resist taxation and military service while those directly controlled by the government feign obedience which borders on obsequiousness. Officials impose tax demands at an unpayable rate, allow themselves to be bribed, and then forward small amounts to the central regime which has expected the corruption that took place. During this process the populace feigned complete poverty, paid a small amount, and failed to notice the embezzlement of the tax collector. This results in an impermanent and arbitrary government without constitutional principles and a general attitude of fatalism in the face of forces beyond their control: "It is with this faculty, patience, and continual gaiety . . . that the Persians circulate in this country not knowing where they are or where they are going."2^ Thus, everything is despotic and chaotic at the same time. Power is absolute, arbitrary, and at the same time ineffectual. 180

The reverse side of the ledger is the complete democracy of the social order. If power is arbitrary, then nothing is secure; "that which goes to show that the omniscient is in the control of no one and since the fragility of important men is great, there is no more definite poverty than there is definite prosperity."2^ Thus, Iranian society, according to Gobineau, lacks the necessary ingre­ dient for a balanced society. "As in all countries one hears Persian poets espouse the merits of a hereditary nobility through tales which demonstrate the merits of personal rights but, in practice these rights reduce them­ selves to rights of favor supported by services which aren't honorable or can be raised to the dignified level of l u c k . "28 All classes reflect this impermanency of position: The nobility, while in theory of great age, is in fact made up of a few families who through bribery and political manipulation have managed to maintain their position over a number of generations;2^ the Bourgeoisie can neither create wealth nor overcome their desire to treat commercial ques­ tions as potential leverage to extract bribes. With such leadership, Gobineau assures us, it is natural that the populace should inwardly despise their "superiors", feign outward obedience, and hope that the next change in fortune 30 will allow them to reap the same ill-deserved rewards. The result is a society in which class has no meaning, the 181 titles which all so arduously seek have no demonstrable value, and all affairs are conducted in bad faith. In such a society not only political freedom but personal dignity cannot exist. While Gobineau's picture of Iranian society is not exact, his conception clearly demonstrates that which he felt would be entailed in the future degeneracy of Europe. Bureaucratic despotism and social democracy are the dual effects of a social structure without a genuine elite. Such a society must be alternately arbitrary and anarchical for no constitutional principles can exist in such a state. It must be recognized, however, that Gobineau is not supporting either a hereditary aristocracy simply because of its ability to stay in power or because of its ability to suppress "the masses". Such an elite must be intrin­ sically recognized as a superior group of people and, if its status is hereditarily transmitted, this is because their superior traits are also transmitted hereditarily. The "masses", therefore, are to be condemned less than their rulers who because of their own mediocrity are unable to gain the natural respect of those whom they rule. If a ruling elite must maintain their position through despotic means, it is less a question of the belligerent "masses" than of their own inadequacy. The point is of great importance: Gobineau is in search of the noble characteristics 182 which naturally bring respect rather than a hereditary caste who can maintain control only through compulsion. Despite its attempt to create a western oriented government Greece remains "Asiatic" by nature. Indeed, the attempt to formulate a western parliamentary structure for this nation is a firm demonstration that a change in governmental forms can do nothing if the social composition of an area is already degenerate. The monarchy created after constitutional principles foreign to the Greeks can accomplish nothing since it does not have arbitrary power; the aristocracy, formed by royal writ rather than innate superiority, Imitates the forms of nobility without its c o n t e n t . The Bourgeoisie and the small political lotteries which they form are as corrupt as they are inef­ fectual. The result is an impermanent social order and a government which attempts to "ape" European ways: "Not only have I never seen but I could not imagine that a government such as this could exist. Not only can they administer nothing and let the little which King Ottar created fall into ruin, they only desire money and every­ thing is calculated from that point of view. If one cannot fully accept Gobineau's view of these countries, one should recognize that, while his analysis of causes was false, his view of both nations was largely accurate. Both Greece and Iran were going through the 183 first stages of modernization and their social systems suffered greatly. Gobineau*s failure in this regard lies not in the symptoms which he observed but, rather, in his inability to see that the effects which he noted were caused by the same process which had destroyed the equilibrium of European society; industrialization. )■ Prom his own perspective, however, this area repre­ sented a confirmation of his predictions, a "proof" that a society without an Aryan elite, voluntarily accepted by the "masses" and fully aware of its own responsibilities must experience political despotism and social democracy. Indeed, the Count reversed the normal attitude of his con­ temporaries, for this degeneracy is not a justification of Europe*s own superiority but a demonstration that western nations will suffer the same degeneracy. Such an analysis by its very nature made bad political theory for a culture which felt that it, and it alone, represented the possi­ bility for freedom. Gobineau attempted to extend this analysis in order to show that the thought patterns in such nations were complimentary to social structure. In order to do this he developed the major faux pas of his intellectual career, a highly unorthodox attempt to translate the Behistin Stone. Between 522 and 485 B.C., Darius I erected a trilingual in western Iran. Its three languages, old Persian, Elamite, 184 and Akkadian, were at the time the most important languages of his empire but the passage of time would leave them totally f o r g o t ten.33 Although noted by numerous travelers, their decipherment was impossible until the Englishman, Henry Rawlinson^produced an accurate copy. Through the use of Eugene Burnouf's work with the Avesta Zend, Hawlinson was able to produce an accurate translation of the old Persian text in 1835. Twenty years of additional scholar­ ship were to produce an equally accurate decipherment of the Akkadian, a process whose validity was established in

1856 when Rawlinson, Edwin Norris, Edward Hincks, and Jules Oppert succeeded in producing similar translations of a text without consulting each other.34 a new field of study, assyriology, was born and with it a new series of problems. Doubts as to the validity of the system were registered by Ewald and Renan. Neither could accept that a Semitic language could be written in such a form or the rule of polyphony, which by assuming various signs to have multiple values, formed the basis of the decipherment.35 in addition, even the proponents of the system were perplexed by the Elanule text. Some termed it Sythian, others "Turanian", and still others Huzewesch but no one knew how to identify a people of whom there were no records and whose language fit no known pattern.3^ These problems would be solved In the twentieth century 185 when the discovery of the Sumerians demonstrated the causes of polyphony and excavations in western Iran produced Elamite cities. In the middle of the nineteenth century, however, the conclusions of Assyriology were tentative at best and the scholars who assumed them very sensitive to criticism. Where wise men feared to tread, fools rushed in and that's exactly what Gobineau did. He produced a system which could be read, "from right to left and from left to right, from the bottom of the page to the top and from the top to the bottom, diagonally from the right to the left and diagonally from the left to the right, and, finally, symbolically."37 The problems that had baffled others, Gobineau assured his colleagues, were easily explained by the supposition that one language was Indo-European, the second Semitic, and the third a product of their mixture. Polyphony was rejected as "too complicated to be of any use."3® While the Count added insult to injury by question­ ing the intellectual integrity of his opponents: "filled with a just fervor for the discoveries born and yet to be born from comparative linguistics, they have been seduced by the apparent occasion to reestablish a lost language . . . but the facts do not bear out such a triumph. In reality, the languages of these texts were not necessary to discover; they were not unknown."39 186

The reaction of the established scholars was bound to be negative. While Gobineau's friends such as Jules Mohl stated his objections politely by noting that "his system forms a unified whole which one must accept or reject in its entirety . . . as for myself I don't believe that it has been demonstrated with sufficient rigorAll critics were not so polite. Twenty years later Jules Mohl was still filled with spite: There was a time when cuneiform inscriptions were in a state of unrevealed mystery . . . theyj uneducated amateurs , could exploit their contradictions for their own purposes . . . they produced essays of interpretation which are now justly forgotten but which in their time only contributed to hinder the hour of justice we need cite only the works of M. de Gobineau. . . ^ Gobineau's argument in these works is, however, crucial to his whole treatment of near Eastern thought. Starting with the assumption that only Aryan society can develop pure speculation on philosophical principles, he asserts that mixed cultures produce only conceptions which conceal reality in a symbolic repetition of simple themes. In such circumstances languages, rather than attempt to convey exact meaning, become a vehicle of artistic expression: "The mind of orientals is created differently from ours. That which they formulate is often representative of a different part of them than we are Inclined to see . . ."^2 The trilingual is, therefore, to be seen as an example of l87 a form of thought which, if as Gobineau assures us, is a sign of degeneracy, represents, nevertheless, a manner of thinking which must be understood if we are to understand the people who created it. "it is not necessary to believe in the reality of these magical principles and formulations to be convinced that it is a very serious study, practiced by serious men, and whose determinants and deduction drawn from these principles are made in good faith."^3 Gobineau, thereupon, proceeds to analyze these texts as magical talismans which through words themselves, an established numerical value given to each syllable, and varied reading of the same basic statement demonstrate the fundamental principles of all Monotheism: The existence of an omnipresent, omnipotent deity and his absolute control of man's fate.^ The analysis is far from original, as Gobineau himself recognized, this manner of thinking being a common aspect of the Jewish Cabbalic tradition, Christian gnosticism, and Islamic Sufism. It is, however, the Count's unique contention that this manner of thought is a direct result of facial mixture. ^ In order to "prove" this Gobineau reasserts his basic principle that Semitic languages both in their grammatical structure and vocabulary show signs of incompleteness which is a direct result of racial mixture. Their lack of vowels, 188 organization and root patterns, and varying alphabets are explicit demonstrations of this inner lack of coherency while cuneiform was adopted to hide the true meaning of these texts from profane eyes. ° The assumptions are clearly false and would have not been accepted by any Semitist even in i860. Gobineau, however, compounds his error in attempting to impose his own racial presuppositions on this con­ glomeration of simplistic theories. Thus, the first section of the trilingual was considered old Persian, the third Semitic, and the second "a product of their mixture", the inability to express higher conceptions is a direct result of their linguistic degeneracy, and the simplicity of this thought itself a result of racial degeneracy.^ As he has previously developed in the Essai with less exten­ sive demonstrations, the process of linguistic degeneracy exactly reflects racial mixture while the lack of precision in thought is a sign of approaching social decay. This conclusion is an absurdity. Even within Gobineau's own assumptions, it is difficult to see how old Persian, supposedly a product of pure Indo-Europeans,^® should have degenerated in this manner while the Count's general "proofs" are clearly inadequate even for those such as Baron Bunsen who assumed such "linguistic degeneracy". If anything, these studies demonstrate the tentativeness of the 189

Count's whole usage of linguistics. When given an opportunity to demonstrate "linguistic degeneracy", he shows both his own incompetency in such matters and his ability to Ignore problems in order to "prove" his a priori assumptions. It would be, perhaps, better to forget this aspect of the Count's career but, unfortunately this is not possible, for this theory represented the major "proof"of Gobineau's contention that "linguistic degeneracy" reflected racial mixture. In this manner he had attempted to show that grammatical "weaknesses" In non Indo-European languages reflected racial mixture, that this "linguistic degeneracy" was demonstrated in the inability to engage in higher philosophical speculation, and that this process had been going on in the near East for more than two thousand years."^9 Gobineau extended his analysis to demonstrate that such thought patterns were still to be found in modern Persian culture. Prom the national variant of Islam, Sh'iaism to the mystical philosophy of Sufism and "free thought" of the imitators of European thought all Persian philosophy lacks the essential elements of logical develop­ ment, the clear distinction of questions and a firm weighing of alternatives necessary for true rationality. Regardless of Its origins in any particular religious or philosophical system all thought evolves in such a manner; or are such ways of thinking only a product of the "masses" for all 190 groups in society use the same phrases and symbolic re­ ferences: "if only certain classes in the society were disposed in this manner, it would be of no great conse­ quence but, I repeat, the important thing is that all classes are educated In the same way and feel their con­ sequences from the lowest mule driver to the highest of Mullahs."5° In particular Gobineau has a deep disdain for the particular form of Islamic mysticism known as Sufism for its use of mind stimulants and its denial of logic. According to Gobineau, such attempts produce sensations which lead men away from a rational analysis of problems into an "other worldly" contemplation of pseudo reality. "That which above all else persuades them of their divinity is the immortality of their sensations . . . quietism, hashish, and opium produce the most degrading form of drunkenness. That is all which they can produce."^1 Their community of believers and religious doctrine are, Gobineau assures us, only a manner of justifying these animalistic tendencies of men.^2 The origin of this thought in non­ white populations is, therefore, assured. The political results of such a process are devastating. Its emphasis on "other worldliness" and a rejection of the concrete produce a total fatalism in regard to the problems of society and a ddsdain for the political process in order 191 to maintain one's own Inner tranquility. Thus, Gobineau assures us, the Mongols encouraged the thought of A1 Ghazzali as the Safreids fostered Din al-Rumi as a method of creating the docile population necessary for their despotism.53 Sufism, therefore, represents an intellectual compliment to the degenerate state of the Persian social order. Gobineau also sees the same disastrous effects at work in the modern world through the Ba'hai.5^ This sect which flourished and was brutally suppressed while Gobineau was in Iran, preached the universal brotherhood of man on religious principles, the continuing nature of revelation, and a form of primitive communism. Its founder, the Bab, felt himself to be the direct descendant of the founders of the three great monotheistic religions who by a symbolic interpretation of texts created a syncretistlc faith based on the common traits of the whole prophetic tradition. Thus, texts were interpreted through their sound artistic value, and numerical component to produce the effects which Gobineau detested.55 After the death of the Bab in 1853 at the hands of the central regime, the Ba'hai took on a revolutionary and apocalyptic aspect as the devoted were assumed to prepare themselves for the next appearance of revelation which would shatter the present political o r d e r . 5^ As social doctrine the Ba'hai assumed a community of goods among the faithful. 192

This primitive communism, Gobineau assures us, is a Persian compliment to the socialist thought which was so pronounced in Europe: The Ba'hai reason like European economists concerning political organization that is to say in a manner to give man the greatest amount of tranquility, security, and well-being. With them its guise is oriental but this thought does not differ essentially from that of many groups in our country. The role which the intervention of god plays for the loyal Ba'hai is the same principle which M. de Proudhon prepares for us under the name of justice. And at his satiric best the Count proceeds to offer this philosophy to the European left: Prom this I conclude that in terms of meaningful ideas the Ba'hai can serve as a proof that orientals are in no way behind us. If the Ba'hai is a Utopia, similar Utopias exist in the philantropical sects of England, Germany, and France.^. Gobineau's strange argument has come full circle, for he is now in the process of using the similarities of European democratic thought to "oriental" thought to demonstrate, not the superiority of the West, but its own impending doom. Such logic was of the type which few Europeans in the middle of the nineteenth century wished to hear: The "degeneracy of the Orient" is not a demonstration of western Europe's superiority but, rather, a "proof" of its impending doom. Gobineau's argument is far from conclusive. His use of Sufism fails to account for its theology and, even his 193 social analysis cannot sufficiently account for the real political pressures which these groups suffered while his treatment of the Ba'hai fails to place sufficient weight on its non political aspects. Gobineau's basic failure, however, is his failure to account for Industrialism. While the Count is quite correct to note the similarities of the Ba'hai to Anabaptism, the parallels with Proudhon or other Utopian socialism are difficult to sustain. He has failed to see that these theorists like the process which they reflect are essentially unique, a response to revolutionary changes in man's relation to nature and to society. Indeed, it is only by ignoring these factors that Gobineau can make such parallels. If the Count's perspective has shortcomings, prejudice is not one of them. While Gobineau clearly despises the Ba'hai, it was he who along with his friend Prokesch-Osten attempted to mobilize European opinion against their per- s*ecution.58 if he hates such groups, Gobineau is in no way a bigot. Persecution of such groups is at least as much a sign of degeneracy as "socialist" theory, itself. Race is a matter of analysis but not politics; for Race , according to Gobineau, demonstrates that all modern political per­ spectives are equally degenerate. Absolute pessimism pro­ duced non-belligerent solutions In the Count's life for the

uses which Theoriticlans after 1890 would attempt to make 194 racial thought. The fruit of Gobineau's research in this era is seen in a full length study, L'Histoire des Perses, published

in 1 8 6 9. ^ Although of little scholarly value, Gobineau considered it a major addition to the Essai, the demonstra­ tion of the influence of race in one particular culture. The major problem in this era extends far beyond the strengths and weakness of Gobineau's own work. There is almost a total dearth of sources to write a history of Pre Islamic Iran and those sources which do exist are highly ambivalent in meaning and significance.^0 This dearth allowed Gobineau to write and speculate freely with the few facts which can be gleaned from clas­ sical sources, numismatics and the Avesta Zend. In particular, Gobineau uses the far better documented history of medieval Europe to fill in gaps in source material. Thus, the formation of satrapies, the administration of the Sassinads, and the conquests of Cyrus are analyzed on a basis of parallels with French society. 61 Indeed, we are often left in doubt which country the Count is, in fact^ analyzing. Gobineau justified this use of sources by a reference to the works of the medieval Islamic poets whom he used extensively. By the use of Firdewasi and the Koush-Nameh, which he had, himself, discovered the Count felt that he 195 had filled in the gaps of traditional chronologies and shown the "heroic" model of the original Iranian branch ftp of the Aryans. c Once, again, his argument is by analogy to medieval French history; One must conclude that if the French have succeeded during three centuries of Roman scorn and four centuries of Frankish, Burgundian, Gothic and other domination to save the principle vestiges of their Celtic origins and their development in a manner more complete and detailed than even they suspected, one cannot doubt for an instant that forces at least as happy have maintained the longevity and the authenticity of the Persian Annah."^ Unfortunately, Gobineau's analogy is not justified by the facts. The Arab invaders in fact destroyed both the texts and traditions of the Pre-Islamic Sassinads, a point which Renan and the leading Russian Iranist, Nicholus Khanikoff had already recognized. f\h Gobineau is, thus, again guilty of his principle fault, reasoning from a priori assumptions. L'Histoire des Perses is, therefore, bad history but exactly because it is unhindered by facts it allows us to see Gobineau's theoretical assumptions in their purest form. The Aryan Iranians appeared on the stage of history from central Asia after having separated from their neigh­ bors who invaded India. Like the Indo-European people as a whole, the Iranians possessed a high spiritual belief which required no priesthood to maintain its purity, a political organization based on independent chiefs, and a 196 social system which valued honor and the position of women as equals to men.^5 in addition, they were not Nomads but, rather, farmers who valued land for its permanency: "it is the earth itself which he so loved, respected, and adored. Advancing towards the west they came into contact with the materially wealthy but spiritually destitute cities of Mesopotamia. Here, as is to be expected, Gobineau drew his first contrast between the freedom loving Aryans and the despotic Assyrians. The original Semites, were already heavily mixed with black elements before the arrival of the Iranians. With their large cities, despotic government, and "barbaric religious" practices they attempted to infuse the Aryans with their love for luxury, the degradation of women, and bureaucratic government The revolt was religious in character as the Aryans returned to the naturalism of their ancestors while the unrepentlng Assyrians sank into the "mire of destruction."®® A new degree of mixture was needed and this was supplied by the leader of the Persians, Cyrus. This leader, Gobineau assures us, was of mixed blood and, therefore, able to establish a regime fitted to the needs of both parts of his empire.®9 While he adopted the material prosperity and cultural forms of the Babylonians, he demonstrated the freedom and honor of the Iranians. This is to be seen, 197

Gobineau informs us, by the different position of the Satrapies in the Eastern and Western portions of the empire. While in the West, Cyrus rapidly found, that provinces had to be organized to maintain "the obedience of a naturally servile population" by use of a large bureaucracy and a royal governor, and the Iranian plateau feudal institutions were maintained by appointing the leading local baron as the royal governor, thus, "If Cyrus had enriched himself beyond measure, he remained in this area the first among equals and nothing more."7° The analysis is indicative of Gobineau's whole approach to government. If Cyrus, still infused with the Aryan love of freedom, has imposed a rigid despotism in Mesopotamia and Egypt, it has not been due to a desire to exercise absolute power but, rather, because such a degenerate population could be governed in no other way.^1 The ability to know when to grant freedom and when to uphold a rigid despotism is the sign of a wise ruler and exactly why Gobineau terms Cyrus a genuinely great ruler. The process of degeneracy and racial mixture advanced at a rapid rate. Darius I began appointing bureaucratic governors and during the reign of Cambyses the whole empire was converted into one unified state.The reaction of the Iranians, Gobineau tells us, was to be seen in the rise of Zoroastrianism. This prophet wished to combine 198 the pure naturalism of the Aryans with the barbaric prac­ tices of the Semites in a manner to show the dominance of the former. Thus, light represented the principles of spirituality while darkness represented the beastiality of non-Aryan practices.7® This "pure faith", however, was destroyed by the rise of a Semito-Armenian priesthood which distorted these principles to their own e n d s . it is a typically Gobienne analysis, while the whole question of Zoroastrianism remains almost as obscure as when Anquetil Duperron first posed it, this would not seem to be one of the most cogent answers which could be given. A new synthesis was needed and it was, according to Gobineau, supplied by Alexander the Great, a product of that part of Greek society which had not been fully semitized; Macedonia. Alexander's conquests were made in the interests of a new cultural amalgam on heroic prin­ ciples. Through his exploits he created a cultural transfer of great magnitude since "The empire found itself in a highly favorable environment for the propagation of ideas."7® This situation, however, was to last only a short time as the jealousy of his general split Alexander's "great dream" and began to imitate the worst aspects of Assyrian rule: "The territories . . . were broken apart and with the ravages of wars which followed . . . nothing more of necessity or creativity emerged except barbarism, the 199 successors of civilizations pushed to their extreme, the worst form of barbarism that of old age."7? If the accomplishments of Cyrus are an example of the genius of race, Alexander is a demonstration of the limitations of such great men. Though he embodied the highest principles of the noble race, his "great dream" was rapidly destroyed in a society which had lost all understanding for the ideals of freedom and honor. Thus, Alexander is, indeed, the tragic figure of Gobineau1s early play, a demonstration that an individual can accomplish nothing in a period of racial degeneracy. Under the pressure of Hellenistic degeneracy the purest of the Iranians reestablished a free society in eastern Iran under the name of the Parthians. In discussing them Gobineau could develop his ideal of what a free state should be, for the Count, and even contemporary scholars, know iyQ practically nothing about this period of Iranian history. Given the rules of Gobineau's a priori methodology he could, therefore, develop his theoretical conception unhindered by empirical data simply by imposing his own theoretical model on a factual void. In Gobineau's view the Parthians, therefore, repre­ sented the perfect feudal kingdom: The king was the first among equals, could be removed from power if he refused to abide by the will of his vassels, and governed only within 2 0 0 the unwritten constitutional guarantees of all free men; major decisions such as those affecting war and peace were always submitted to a vote before the general council. ^ Thus, all Aryan men were free because the ruler would not dare exercise unrestricted power: He (the king} had the quality of master conferred upon himself by his confederates, the feudal lords of the empire. He remained their president and not the master of united provinces. Above all he never succeeded in rendering his throne inviable enough so that he could become lax . . . to enclose himself in his palace and only manifest himself behind a purple mask.g0 This love for freedom led the Parthes to reject the degeneracy of urban life. The regime was decentralized as each lord maintained the right to command his own army and administer justice on his own lands. The cities, "while rebuilt", were never Inhabited by the Parthes and Gobineau leaves no doubt as to why this occurred: The Parthes were, therefore, in principle distateful of urban population. Their mili­ tary government, firmly feudal, and jealous of maintaining its rights and the personal prerogative of tribal nobility, strongly re- ^ sisted the instincts of the democratic masses. Qp The Parthes fell to the Sassinads, c and with the disappearance of this last Aryan element into Afghanistan, to be found by Gobineau, himself, we are informed, freedom disappeared from this area of the w o r l d . Material prosperity but despotism returned while noble principle was permanently lost. It is, Gobineau repeats, the same fate 20 1 which awaits us. Both Gobineau's analysis and his lack of source materials show the problems in his whole method. The Count is, indeed, a feudalist but even his feudal model is shrouded in mystery, for the medieval society which he so much admired never realized the ideals which he has established for it. In the last analysis it is a product of his imagination, a chivalrous code which was never and could never be realized by any empirically observed historical society. In order to sustain this model Gobineau has had to attack the most fundamentally accepted tenet of nineteenth century intellectual life, the value of the ancient Greeks. Beginning with the assumption that Pre-Dorian Greece was populated by Hamito-Semitic colonists from the eastern Medlterranian, Gobineau postulates that Greek society was fully mixed by the fifth century B.C. "The colonists who came from the South and the East were, therefore, exclusively composed of black Hamltes and various degrees of Semitic mixture. The degree of mixture of each of these was dif­ ferent but the varieties of blood created by the invasion Oh of Greece was infinite." Thus, the Titans were the Aryan Greeks while the rise of the Olympian gods represented the new, mixed social order. By the fifth century B.C. the process of social 202 degeneracy was already far advanced. The kings, signs of Aryan domination and even the tyrants had been replaced by urban democracy; citizenship in the Polls, at one time restricted to the descendants of the Aryan conquerors had been broadened to include the commercial Bourgeoisie while the distinction between Helots and free men had long since fit; lost its racial connotations. The Ideals of Periclean Athens, therefore, were largely foreign to that of true Aryans. . . . the idea was powerful among the Aryan Greeks that the social order of citizens was only created according to the value of each descendant. Individual virtues only being recognized afterwards. I repeat: equality was outlawed. Each person linked himself to his extraction and did not want to be a part of the crowd.gg The cause of Gobineau's hatred is clearly visible: the detested disease was present in the Athens which his con­ temporaries loved. It was in this environment that the culture of Periclean Athens developed. If the Greeks received their vices in pro­ portion to the amount of Semitic elements in their blood, they also received Impression­ ability, their pronounced desire to depict physical nature and their need for intellectual enjoyment from the same source.gy The very culture of Athens was, therefore, a sign of de­ generacy. If It developed art, it also reflected material luxury and social equalitarianism. Thus, the Socratic 203 method was only a manner of teaching social insolence, the plastic arts a demonstration of "black" traits, and the development of lyric poetry a sign of degeneracy from the epic form. Indeed, according to Gobineau this process commenced just after the Homeric age and his preference for that period is clear: Such <(Homer)> was the literature of the past, the most ancient of the Greeks: It remained didactic and narrative, positive and rational, to the extent that it was Aryan. The powerful infusion of mixed blood directed later towards lyricism and rendered it incapable of con­ tinuing in its first and most admirable direction.gg This view of Greek culture placed Gobineau in direct contrast to a major tenet of nineteenth century European intellectual life. Prom the extreme left to the most dire conservatives most Europeans accepted the model of Johann Winkelmann that Greece represented "purity and simplicity", that Periclean Athens represented the environment such a culture could flourish, and that the civilization created represented the permanent legacy of all Europeans. ^ Historically it found its compliment in the works of George Grote and Karl 0. Mueller both of which stressed that classical Greece was formed by the Ionian, Dorian, and, hence, Indo-European invaders. Leading scholars as diverse as Bunsen, Wilhelm von Humboldt, and Morton had, therefore, assumed that Greek philosophy and culture represented the 20M epitomy of Aryan g r e a t n e s s . While the German Byzantine scholar, Fallmeyer, had attempted to demonstrate that medieval Greece was no longer inhabited by these heroic elements,91 Gobineau is unique in having questioned the "genius" of Periclean Athens and its formation from pure Indo-European stock. Not until the end of the century would a voice be heard to condemn the "golden age". The Count’s hatred for all social equalitarianism has led him to question one of the most basically accepted assumptions of his age. This value system led Gobineau to draw the confronta­ tion between the Greeks and the Persians all to the glory of the latter. While the Greeks continually attempted to involve the Persians in their internal conflicts, the Archimedian empire wished only to maintain peace within their own realm and desired no conquest on the Greek main­ land. The supposed victories of the Greeks, we are assured, were only possible because the Persians were not fully Intent on their subjugation. The relative worth of both parties is seen by the attempts of Greek mercenaries to subvert the empire after Platia, the increased civil strife within the Greek polls after Persian pressure, and their corruption in their acceptance of bribes to remain tranquil.92 The Count proceeds to lavish scorn on the Greeks to an extent not to be seen elsewhere in his work: 20 5 . . . A monstrous miscegenation above that of other racial mixture forms the chief charac­ teristic of Greek history which in itself was nothing else than a produce of miscegenation.^ It is impossible to hide the lack of merit in Hellenic blood. Between the heroic age . . . and the historical epoch one notes a large gap in geneologies which their tables don't fill. The observation of the physiology of the historical Hellenes tended towards the ancient type but nothing leads us to suspect that mix­ ture had not destroyed the purity of their blood. Some of the ancient white institutions were still to be seen but highly degenerated. Feudalism, the essential characteristic of the Aryan family, had certainly existed during the heroic period but it is doubtful that the Athenian plain had ever known its presence among the Spartans. gi| Indeed, in his hatred for the equalitarianism of the Greeks, Gobineau almost destroys his own theoretical structure, for we are informed that, even though the Greeks may have physiologically and linguistically resembled the Indo- Europeans, they most certainly did not accept their prin­ ciples for social organization. Gobineau extended this spite to the culture of Periclean Athens. Indeed he almost begrudges them that which they have developed: . . . the Greeks triumphed only in the realm of imagination. They could only make an illusion of the whole universe and then make themselves believe that they had more. Their historians and philosophers . . . were artists and only artists, their public and private morality were always a matter of scorn, always bought or pre­ pared to be sold, always paid and never serving except for the money that they received, betraying their benefactors with the same bad faith that 206

they put at the service of tyrants . . . It is impossible to imagine a viler nation. It has amply earned the bad reputation which the Romans gave It. 95 This analysis is significant for both Gobineau's intellectual and personal view of the world. In his spite against his own age he attacked the Greeks for the crimes of the present: A culture which was produced for the market, a social order which knew not the meaning of family, and a society which did not value honor above all else. To do this he had to malign that which his century con­ sidered the keynote of human ideals, the values of the Greek polls. In his attempt to establish the absolute truth of a pre-historic ideal state of humanity he has had to deny that freedom is in fact realized in different ways in various societies. If, however, Gobineau's work has serious intellectual shortcomings, its possible political uses to justify the oppression of one group by another are no where to be seen. If its lack of nationalist bias and condemnation of Imperialism are clearly self-evident, its use to justify the present aristocracy is also not present. If Gobineau clearly hates the modern Bourgeoisie and the "masses", he has no great amount of sympathy for the modern aristocracy. Indeed, in some ways his view of the latter is more des- dainful than that of the former. If the "new classes" 207 are only doing what is their natural lot, the aristocracy demonstrates characteristics which are in no way superior, yet, hold itself hauntingly above the "masses". Gobineau is essentially an idealist, one who holds to principles which are no where to be found in practice. If his thought received little recognition, it was exactly because that which he considered degeneracy was exactly what his contemporaries considered progress while his ideal of a genuine free society had to be created In a realm which bordered on myth. The tragedy of Gobineau's Intellectual career was that the scientific background of his assumptions would be stripped from his ideas turning his confident assertion of i860 into a cry of despair before his death. FOOTNOTES CHAPTER IV

Maurice Lange, Le_ comte Arthur de Gobineau, (Strasbourg, 1924;, pp. 124-1617 Ludwig Schemann, Gobineau, eine Biographie, (Strasbourg, 2 vols., 1 9 13 -1 6), 17"pp'._4'57z5l5'/"It, PP. S-34. p ^ Diane de Guldencrone, "Un fragment inedit des souvenirs de Diane de Guldencrone," Ed. A. B. Duff, Etudes Gobiniennes, I and III (1966 and 1968-6 9). Dallegio E. de Ale'ssio, ^Quelques aspects nouveaux du Sljour d 1 Arthur de Gobineau a Athens," Etudes 6obiniennes, II (1 9 6 8), pp. 16 5-1 8 3 .

3philipp, Fuerst zu Eulenburg-Hertefeld, "Eine Erinnerung an Graf Arthur Gobineau,11 Bayreuther Blaetter, IX, May 5, 1886. Guldencrone, "sourvenirs," III ("1968-69), pp. 3 8 -7 8. Robert Dreyfus, La_ vie et les prophetles du comte de Gobineau, (Paris, 1905), Intro. ^Arthur de Gobineau, Les Depeches diplomatique du comte du Gobineau, en Perse, (Paris, 1959;. Introduction by J. Hytier. vHenri Mannevile§, "La Mission de M. de Gobineau en Grece (1864-68)" Revue d 1 Histolre diplomatique, April-June, 1927* pp. 111-147. Jean Hytier, L'Iran de Gobineau, (Algers, 1939). ''Gobineau, Depeches, pp. xxxvli-lxiii. ^Jean-Herve Donnard, "Pour les Centenaires de L 1 insurrection^cretoise: Arthur de Gobineau et Gustave Flourens. "Etudes Gobiniennes,"II, (1 9 6 7), pp. 1 8 5-220.

^Jean Gaulmier, Spectre de Gobineau, (Paris, 1 9 6 5), pp. 49-53. Jean Gaulmier, "Un Mythe: la science orientaliste de Gobineau," Australian Journal of French Studies, January-April, ^1964, pp. 5 6-707 JarTine Buenzod, La formation de la pensee de Gobineau, (Paris, 1967), pp. 30-31. 8 Gaulmier, Spectre, pp. 37-39. Arthur de Gobineau, I^ttres a deux Atheniennes, (1868-1881), ed. N. Mela, "(Athens", 193b), Intro. 208 ^Hytier, Iran, pp. 19-23. Hassan el Nouty, "Gobineau §t L'asie," Cahiers de L'association internationale des Etudes Francaise, XIII, June 19bl, pp. 19-23. ------5----- l°Gobinqau, Depeches, pp. 113-114. Arthur de Gobineau, "Ecrit de Perse," Mercure de France, November, 1957 .> 393-399. Arthur de Gobineau, Lett res Persians, ed. A. B. Duff (Paris, 1957)* PP. 29 and”35-37.

11Arthur de Gobineau, Trois ans en Asie, (Paris, 1 8 5 9) p. 2 8 2. 10 "* ^Arthur de Gobineau, Deux etudes sur la Grece moderne, (Paris, 1905), pp. 23-37, 153-177> 234-42. ^Gobineau, Depeches, pp. 45-45 and 173-177. •^Gobineau, Depeches, pp. 29-36, 228, and 256-259. •^Gobineau, Deux etudes, pp. 42-46, and 139-152.

•^Gobineau, Depeches, j?p. 29-34 and 1 9 6. Arthur de Gobineau, "Memoire sur L'etat social da la Perse actuelle, Seances et travaux de L 1 Academie des sciences moral et politique, 4 trimes^re 1 8 5 6, pp. 256-259. ^Gobineau, Deux etudes, pp. 18-21 and 126-133. -^Gobineau. Depeches, pp. 196-201 and 91. Gobineau, Trois ans, pp. 475-81. Srthur de Gobineau and Charles de Remusat, "Correspondences,11 ed. Jean Gaulmier Travaux de linguistlque et de litterature (Strasbourg) II, 2 (196477 pp. 8 0-1 . -^Gobineau, Deux etudes, pp. 181-190 and 201-259. 20Gobineau, Trois ans, 477-478. 21Gobineau, Deux Etudes, pp. 263^309 Gobineau, Trois ans, pp. 391-40b. Gobineau, "Memoire," pp. 2 6 1 0 2 6 3. 22Gobineau, Trois ans, p. 291.

^Gobineau, Trois ans, p. 3 8 6. 2^Gobineau, Trois ans, pp. 383-389. ^Gobineau, Trois ans, pp. 395-409. 210

2oGobineau, Trois ans, pp. 423-424. ^Gobineau, Trois ans, pp. 436-437. 2®Gobineau, Trois ans, pp. 410-411. ^Gobineau, Lettres Persians, pp. 53-60. Gobineau, Trois ans, pp. 409-421 and 425-437. 30 Gobineau^ Trois ans, pp. 390-7. Arthur de Gobineau, Les religions et les philosophies dans L'asie centrale, (Paris, 190o), pp. 331-330. ^Gobineau, Deux etudes, pp. 9-14 and 193-199 and 221-229. 32Arthur de Gobineau et le ministre de Baroche, "Correspondence," ed. Jean Gaulmier, Travaux de linguistlque et de litterature (Strasbourg, III, 2,) (1965)* pp. 50-61 •^Ernst Doblhofer, Zeichen und Wunder, (Munich, 1964), pp. 81-99. Wallis Budge, The Rise and Progress of Assyriology, (London, 1923)* pp. 1-30. Svend Pallis, The______Antiquityilty___ of ___ Iraq:_ A Handbook of Assyriology, (Copenhage, 1956"), pp. 4F-4b. 3^Budge, Assyriology, pp. 30-97. Pallis, Iraq, pp. 105 -1 21 and 130 -1 6 1. 35paiiis, Iraq, pp. 130-131. Georg Heinrich Ewald, "Review of Oppert," Goettinger Gelehrte Anzeige, (1 8 5 8), pp. 170-200. Ernst Renan, "Expeditions scLentTfique en Mesopotamie par M. Oppert," Journal des Savants, March- June 1859. ■^Pallis, Iraq, pp. 125-126. Doblhofer, Zeichen, pp. 117-119. Henry C. Rawlinson, A Commentary of the Cuneiform Inscriptions of Babylonia and Assyria, (London, I8 5 6). Jules Oppert, Les Medes, (Faris, ld76j. 37 Arthur de Gobineau, Tralte' des ecritures ' cuneiformes, ' (Paris, 2 vols., 1864), I, p. 123. 3®Gobineau, Traite, I, p. 44. Arthur de Gobineau, Lecture des textesT cuneiformes, (Paris, 1 8 5 8), pp. 5-6.

39Gobineau, Traite, I, pp. 2 6 6 -2 6 7 . 211

iin * Jules Mohl, Vlngt sept ans d'Histoire des etudes orientalistes, (Paris, 2 voIs.” TBBiDT^ II, 567*: ^Jules Oppert, "Cuneiformes, " La grande Encylopedie, XIII, p. 624. ^Gobineau, Traite, II, p. 348.

^^Gobineau, Traite, II, p. 3 6 5. ^Gobineau, Traite', II, pp. 30-39, 133-34, and 152-163. ^Gobineau, Traite, I, 3-14 and303-304. ^Gobineau, Traite'”, I, 119-121 and 139-143, II, PP. 35-37, 68-69, and 137-142. ^Gobineau, Traite, I, pp. 330-342. 48 Gobineau, Traite', I, pp. 271-281, II, pp. 309-314. ^Gobineau, Lecture, pp. 21-34. ^°Gobineau, Religions, p. 6. ^Gobineau, Religions, p. 72. ^Gobineau, Religions, pp. 74-81. •^Gobineau, Religions, pp. 81-99. ^4 See Edward G. Browne, A History of Persian Literature, (Cambridge, 4 vols., 1902-192*T). Edward G. Browne, Materials for the Study of the Babi Religion (Cambridge, 1961) IV, Jan Rypka, Irarische Literatur Geschichte (Leipzig, 1959), pp. 621- 678": "^Gobineau, Religions, pp. 314-337.

^Gobineau, Religions, pp. 342-356 and in general Chapters IX-XI. ^Gobineau, Religions, p. 355. 5®Schemann, Gobineau, II, pp. 542-553.Ludwig Schemann, Q,uellen und Untersuchungen Zum LebenGobineaus, (Strasbourg/ Berlln7 2~vols., 1914-I9 2 0), I, pp. 439-442. 212 59 v v L'Hlstoire des Perses d ‘apres les auteurs orlentaux, grecs, et latlns, (Paris, 2 vols., X8 6 9). George G. Cameron, ’’Ancient Persia", in Julian Obermann ed. The Idea of History in the Ancient Near East, (New Haven, i9 6 0), Jan Rypka, Literaturgeschichte, pp. 3-o0. ^Gobineau, Perses, I, pp. 467-490 and 609-621. Ernst Renan, "Revue de Gobineau L'Hlstoire des Perses, Jpurnal asiatique, (i860), pp. 26-28. Ernes Seilliere, Le comte' de Gobineau et L'aryanisme historique, (Paris, lW3T» pp. 200-269. ^2Remusat, Correspondence, pp. 77-81. Arthur de Gobineau, "Lettres inldites de Gobineau a Johann^Albert Dorn, ed. Jean Boissel, Revue d *Histoire de litterature de la France, October-December, 19bb, pp.“ET93-b9b. Co Gobineau, Perses, I, p. 271. ^Renan, "Revue," pp. 27-28. Nicolas de Khanikoff, Memoire sur L'Ethnographle de la Perse, (Paris, 1866). On Khanikoff's worth as an Iranist see V. V. Barthold, La Decouverte de L'asie, Trans. B. Nikitine. (Paris pp. 27-29. ^Gobineau, Perses, I, pp. 21-54.

66Gobineau, Perses, I, p. 2 6. Cry 'Gobineau, Perses, I, pp. 102-279. 68-, . . Gobineau, Perses, I, p. 237. ^^Gobineau, Perses, I, pp. 331-335 and 3^7-366. ^Gobineau, Perses, I, p. 470. ^■^Gobineau, Perses, I, pp. 421-437. ^2Gobineau, Perses, 1, pp. 51^-559. 73 1^Gobineau, Perses, I, pp. 51-70 and 6 2 8-6 3 2 . 74 Gobineau, Perses, II* PP. 67-70. 213

^ R a y m o n d Schwab, Anquetil-Duperron, (Paris, 193*0. J. Duchesme-Guellemin, The Western Response to Zoroaster, (Oxford, 1958), pp. 3-3?. "^Gobineau, Perses, II, p. 468.

^Gobineau, Perses, II, p. 469. ^Duchesme-Guellemin, Zoroaster, pp. 26-37. Rypka, Llteraturgeschlchte, pp. 27-60. Cameron, "Persia."

^^Gobineau, Perses, II, pp. 481-499. ^Gobineau, Perses, II, p. 488. ^Gobineau, Perses, II, p. 484. 82 Gobineau, Perses, II, pp. 627-635.

^Gobineau, Perses, II, pp. 6 3 4 -6 3 7. Arthur de Gobineau, "Extract d'une lettre de M. le cte. de Gobineau," Journal asiatique, (1 8 5 6), pp. 524-533.

Oh s , DHArthur de Gobineau, L'Essai sur L*inegalite des races humalnes, (Paris, 1 9 6 7p".""476. ^Gobineau, Essai, pp. 491-497. Gobineau, Perses, II, pp. 130-134.

®^Gobineau, Essai, p. 483. ^Gobineau, Essai, p. 499. OO Gobineau, Essai, p. 502. ^Gobineau, Essai, pp. 412-418. Gobineau, Perses, II, 274-282.

9°J. R. Sandys, A^ History of Classical Scholarship, (Cambridge, 3 vols., 1958), III. M. I. Finley, Aspects of Antiquity, (London, 1968), Chapter 2.

9!a . A. Vasilev, Histoire de L 1empire byzantlne, (Paris 2 vols., 1932), I, pp. 20-21. J. P. Fallmeyer, Geslchte der Halbinsel* Moria waehrend des Mittelalters, (Stuttgart, 2 vols., 1835-3bJ,pp. iii-xiv. Gobineau, Perses, II, pp. 1 7 5-2 9 6.

^^Gobineau, Perses, II, p. 2 3 7 .

^Gobineau, Perses, II, p. 2 3 9 . 95 Gobineau, Perses, II, p. 240. CHAPTER V

DEPRESSION AND A RETURN TO ART (1869-77)

In 1869 Gobineau was appointed minister to the

Brazilian monarchy. It was the beginning of a decade which would see the personal and intellectual life of the Count

collapse under a number of severe shocks. Gobineau's last

two diplomatic postB in Rio de Janeiro and Stockholm were

considered undistinguished by their holder; the expected rank of ambassador was never to be obtained; and the Count,

increasingly deficient to his responsibilities, was

unceremoniously released in 1878 due to political and personal differences with the Foreign Ministry.1 Gobineau was never to obtain the recognition which he felt was his

due. Both his correspondence and many of his actions are

those of a man highly depressed by this failure.2

In 1870 the Count campaigned for membership in the

French academy. For two years he politiced with members of

the academy, conjoled his friends for their aid, and

attempted to establish his reputation as a renowned scholar.

All was to be of no avail; despite his extreme optimism, he •a was never elected to that august body. While Schemann is

quite correct to note that far greater intellects than he 215 216 have been denied admission into the academy, Gobineau was obviously highly disappointed, blaming a small coterie of scholars for first frustrating and then destroying, the recognition which he deserved.** He began to damn all scholars for being unreceptive to his work and certain individuals for stealing his ideas.5 This frustration was complimented by a third complica­ tion, the collapse of his personal life. In 1846 Gobineau had married Clemence Monnerot, an impoverished daughter of a Creole family.^ For the first twenty years the marriage appears to have been happy enough; Clemence shared some of Gobineau's intellectual interests, aided his diplomatic career, and bore him two daughters. She traveled to Iran on Arthur's first trip and seemed to have inspired a sincere love and respect in her husband.1 Through the years, however, they became increasingly estranged. Her love for luxury and position waB considerably thwarted by Gobineau's failure to obtain the rank of ambassador while the boredom resulting from their increasingly long periods Q of separation left her much time to indulge in her fancies. In 1872 she refused to take up residence with Arthur in Stockholm, began to demand money from the impoverished Count, and apparently began spreading derogatory rumors about her h u s b a n d . 9 The shock would have been severe for any more of Gobineau's pretentions but for the sensitive 217

Count, the product of a broken and scandal-ridden family himself, the psychological results were apparently devastating.10 While traveling from Stockholm to Oslo in 187^> he fell into the arms of the Italian ambassador's wife, Mathilde de la Tour, "confessed all," and swore a compact of eternal friendship.11 It was she who would give him the solace of a platonic love, help him to pay his debts, and reorient him towards his work. Gobineau would, however, never overcome his psychological depression. The Count's self created myth was beginning to destroy its author. It is within this background of frustration and de­ pression that Gobineau analyzed the possibilities of progress In the nineteenth century. If his basic critique had been stated in the Essai, his trips to the New World and Prance's development between 1870 and 1878 gave him additional cause for alarm. Both were areas in which many Europeans found hope and alternatives to a traditional order In decay; and, both were areas in which Gobineau found additional demonstrations of Impending degeneracy. Gobineau's knowledge of the New World was quite

limited. His mission to Newfoundland in 1859 was only to take him to those areas of lower Canada far distant from Montreal or Boston. Sent there to examine the perennial question of French fishing rights in the Saint Lawrence, 218 Gobineau returned with little except contempt for the scheming Yankees, brawling Irish, and indolent Indians of this part of the world.12 As a diplomat he saw little hope for a revival of French influence and as a scholar this area was a clear demonstration of social decomposi­ tion.1^ In a chronicle of his trip to this part of the world, Voyage A Terre-Neuve, (l86l) he vented his spite on the people, life, and even the climate of lower Canada in an attempt to demonstrate that nothing was to be expected from the New World.1^ If the Anglo Americans are outwardly successful, this only belies their inner sterility. Petty, materialistic, and boring,their wealth Is used only to Increase their self-satisfaction.1^ Their narrow and intolerant re­ ligiosity creates an educational system divorced from all higher cultural endeavor. Indeed, the only goal of educa­ tion is to train merchants: "finally, the true science, the art of arts, the end of ends, the great moment arrives; 1 fi one begins to add." Their romantic instincts, artistic endeavors, and higher sentiments are completely warped by this mentality.1^ Here, Gobineau expresses an aristocratic hatred both for the Bourgeoisie and a French cosmopolitan's hatred for provincial Anglo-American culture, a reaction to both the ingrown nature of this society and a remembrance 2 1 9 of Mile. Irnois. Gobineau viewed the Irish with the same distorted glasses. If the Yankees are petty, the Irish are brawling, disrespectful men. They are also religiously intolerant priest ridden, and only Interested in the struggles of a bygone age.1^ Even from the perspective of the English themselves, they are dangerous. "I now come to the most Important point: this is the unreconeliable hatred of these Irish immigrants for Great Britain".1^ Thus, the degeneracy which the Irish have furthered In England Is now being imported with them into North America. In 'this mass degeneracy Gobineau finds sympathy only for the French, descendants of the Normands, and the local Indians. If the former have not been able to develop the Empire which they began, it is because the centralizing policies of Colbert did not leave them enough local initia­ tive.20 While the Indians, still assumed to be yellow degenerates, are pitied as the victims of Yankee merchants and Irish priests.21 Gobineau's view is highly derogatory. If both the Yankees and the Irish are despised, the process of their interaction makes the degeneracy cumulative. Gobineau extended this analysis to the United States with the same desdain. He found the Civil War to be the product of a false political structure within which neither the hypocritical planters nor the money-hungry Bourgeoisie formed a genuine elite. Both show the inherent weakness of a society based on equality. After 1870 he noted the 220 corrupt urban politics of that era, linked this to the increase in Irish immigration and assumed this to forebode the approach of a new crisis. Neither Federalism nor a strict moral order could hinder this impending doom. 22 The cause of this pessimism is clear. Unlike most Europeans, Gobineau saw nothing essentially new in Canada or the United States. For the Count,the major fault of both European and American observers is to have seen this area as if it was a new opportunity for man. It Is merely a repetition of the conditions which are producing European degeneracy in another continent.^3 if the social structure and level of culture is a product of its racial mixture rather than its physical environment, then America,formed by European immigrants and undergoing the same process of racial miscegenation, must of necessity suffer the same degeneracy. But who are these new Immigrants? They are representative of the most varied species of Europe from which nothing Is to be expected. They are the debris from many eras: the Irish, fully mixed Germans, French who are no less so, and Italians who are the most mixed of all. The meeting of all of these degenerate types necessarily creates and will continue to create new ethnic disorders. These disorders will produce nothing original. They will not produce anything which has not been realized already or will not be realized in our continent. 2 4 Gobineau's mission to Brazil was equally frustrating. Enraptured by the physical beauty of Bahia and Rio de Janeiro, 221 the Count became rapidly bored with Brazilian society and performed his duties lethargically.25 The Count's only solace in this period of depression was his personal friend­ ship with the Constitutional Emperor of Brazil, Dorn Pedro II. An amateur orientalist himself, interested in furthering knowledge in his newly Independent country, Dorn Pedro quickly befriended the new French minister.^ If Gobineau did not express his distain for Brazilian society publically it was only because of his respect for the emperor and, hence, his desire not to criticize his friend's belief in the virtues of posltivlstlc science and slave emancipation as a solution for the new monarchy's problems.2® Gobineau's criticism of Brazilian society In his private letters, however, was even more stringent than that which he expressed towards European society. The Paraguan War was both brutal and useless, the attempt of a decadent people to exterminate an even more degenerate neighbor. The upper class society of Rio de Janeiro was a stunted imitator of European mores without its substance^while politics were carried on by an extremely narrow coterie of families whose Ineffectiveness was only matched by their pretentions. The life of the population was filled with superstition and misery only relieved by the yearly carnival while the church did nothing to upgrade educational or cul­ tural standards. Brazil was, therefore, the epitomy of 222 degeneracy.^0 The cause of this seemed obvious to the Count. Despite all attempts to improve the material well-being of the monarchy, Brazil remained a racially mixed society. Everything is explained when I tell you that aside from the royal family, everyone is more or less mixed and finds life a toothpick in their hair or a cigarette behind their ears.3l When observing Bahia, he added; "It is like a school in revolution . . . they the inhabitants in truth approach apes."^2 Brazil, therefore, was the confirmation of all that Gobineau believed, a demonstration that large amounts of Negro and Indian blood necessarily produce a degenerate society. Thus, Gobineau far from assuming the New World to be an area of hope, saw the Americas as the confirmation of his own theories of racial degeneracy. A higher culture could simply not be created from the degenerate racial mixtures which resided in these areas. Gobineau, however, was unwilling to accept the imperialistic, colonial mission which generally was a corollary of these assumptions for nineteenth century Europeans. "We had Haiti and we have lost it; the future of Spain in Havana is uncertain. I repeat once more, all is not assured with large and beautiful overseas possessions. "33 Western culture is doomed to collapse and the establishment of new colonies represents 223

■5il no alternative. Thus, Gobineau voyaged to America, where others found hope, only to confirm his despair. If, however, the Count affirmed his pessimism, it would be of no benefit to the ideology of Imperialism. If the Count feels that European society is In full decay, foreign adventurism will in no way reverse the process. The outbreak of the Pranco-Prussian War and the Paris Commune,which followed France's defeat undoubtedly increased Gobineau's sense of depression markedly. Although personal problems dominated his thoughts during this period, events placed him at the center of both developments. In 1863 Gobineau was elected Mayor of his Commune at Tyre. Although he refused to actively campaign, he was elected overwhelm­ ingly, worked diligently in the interests of the population, and was apparently respected by his constituents.35 in this manner he could be both a seignior and the guardian of local liberties without entering into political debates, a role which he cherished greatly. He enjoyed the work and the local citizens appear to have accepted him as a Patrician leader for in 1870 he was elected Conseiller- General of the Con ton of Chaumont-eSn-Vexin.^ This position left the Count at the center of war developments. Tyre Is located north of Paris near Beauvais. As the Germans advanced on Paris and the central government collapsed^Gobineau, like many other provincial officials, 2 2 4 was caught between the patriotic, but unorganized, guerrilas and the unwanted, but all-powerful, Germans. After attempting to organize a firm resistance he finally chose the latter; surrendered peacefully to the onrushing Germans, befriended the local commander, and succeeded in lowering the levy placed on his commune.37 This course was not heroic, but undoubtedly wise. It shows neither a sympathy for the German cause which Schemann claimed nor the "betrayal" of France which Lange asserted.3® j-t Is the action of a skilled diplomat under great stress. After seven months Gobineau resigned, perhaps under pressure, and left for Paris in search of a new diplomatic assignment. He arrived in time to witness the uprising of the Paris C o m m u n e . 39 Although under no threat or com- t pulsion, he left for Versailles to obtain a new post from the embattled Thiers. Gobineau's comments on the commune are of interest. Despite his hatred of "mass" movements and his remorse for the destruction of artistic monuments, he discounted the radical nature of the commune and stressed its Justified, if Incompetent, attempt to redress grievances.^0 If brutal in nature, its repression by the defenders of order was at least equally barbaric. Upon the entrance of the communard prisoners into Versailles his critique is primarily directed at the brutality of the reaction. "I saw a soldier 225 strike the head of a man who didn't walk fast enough. He screamed and cried as he was covered with blood. The mob of spectators applauded, laughed, and were charmed. Among these spectators were numerous ladies and gentlemen" . Gobineau proceeded to recount the conversation of a soldier with a spectator: "'I have killed a woman1, one soldier said, "I have finished off a child arsonist with a bayonet." •truly, my friend', replied a respectable woman, her missal 42 in her hand. She then gave him money. If Gobineau hates the communards, he has little respect for suppressive politics, rather, his is the reaction of an extreme pessimist. If Gobineau is a conservative, he finds the brutality of the Thiers government as despicable as that of the communards themselves; the barbarism of the age has left no class or nation unscathed. This pessimism was expressed in an unpublished essay Ce qui est arrive en France en 1870, written as a direct 43 reaction to France's collapse. Unlike most commentators of the period, Gobineau found the cause of France's collapse neither in the irreligion of the age nor the failure of Frenchmen to recognize the nature of the German threat; rather, he sought its source in the nature of French foreign policy itself.^ Since Louis XIV France had become obsessed with its own glory and strength. Feeling herself to be the dominant 226 military power on the continent, la Grande Nation failed to respect the integral nature of other countries, desdalned a genuine balance of power, and took little account of the genuine aspirations of other nations. The result has been her total isolation in the face of German initiative, the failure of either Denmark or Austria to come to her aid, and the universal acceptance of Bismark's Diktat by the other European powers. The hysterically condemned bombard­ ments were merely a reaction to France's own barbarism in the Palitinate while the proclamation of the German Empire in Versailles was merely a response to Napoleon's creation of European states without consideration for the people involved. One must, therefore, analyze the causes of this disaster in the nature and function of this foreign policy.^5 Gobineau finds the fatal flow of this perspective in the concept of nationalism and the cause of this disease in centralism. Since Philip the Fair the process of bureaucratization has increasingly destroyed provincial patriotism, nationalism has been a distorted substitute. Both the crown and the bureaucracy have become aggressively belligerent in the face of other nations while the popula­ tion has been increasingly filled with the slogans of mystical principles and unrealizable goals.^ Above alljthe propagandists who have preached such ideas are to be condemned: 227

The science of political analysis is assuredly a futile occupation. Often this science is not sure of what it means and often it is not able to account for all relevant facts. This century is predisposed to a dangerous degree to become infatuated with its own theoretical conceptions in political matters. In the name of geography it has professed the doctrine of natural frontiers, that which entails for Prance funda­ mental misconception as to the course of the Rhine and led the first Empire by reasoning of this type to discover that its natural frontier should be the Elbe, a position that was not indefinitely maintainable. In defense of these boundaries the science of politics has worked to demonstrate their truth, the lack of it, and other things; and, finally, substituted military frontiers. This is a system which proclaims that the nation which is most powerful should put a loaded pistol to the chest of those nations which it believes might combine against it some­ thing which makes this type of boundary arrange­ ment difficult to accept and always of a temporary nature. Finally, not to exhaust the subject, there is in addition the doctrine of racial alliances which has always played the role.of vlllainlzing the weak race who accepts it. ' Gobineau, thus, returns to the analysis of centralism after twenty years. Again he stressed that this process has been furthered by both the Monarchy of Louis XIV and the revolution, that it has created the growth of Paris and the collapse of provincial autonomy, and that this bureaucratization has removed spontaneity from local life.^® Indeed, the failure of the Government of National Defense is a clear demonstration of this. The proposed guerilla war failed because the local communes felt no identification with the central regime and were unable to identify with 4q the struggles of the Bordeaux parliament. ^ The process of 228 centralization has, therefore, destroyed local freedom to such an extent as to jeopardize its own existence. Gobineau, thus, moves on to analyze Prance's domestic situation to denote the effects of this bureaucratization. The aristocracy has lost its place as the leaders of the nation. They have accepted nationalism, an ultramontane church, and a centralized monarchy. They have, therefore, lost their function to guard local freedom. There is nothing to resist the materialistic Bourgeoisie and de­ generate proletariat. Both, infused with revolutionary abstractions which they don't understand, further the growth of Paris, divorce themselves from the provinces, and have created a materialistic mentality which destroys all genuine values.50 in addition, the "masses’1, misled by "socialist fanatics" and educated on false principles, threaten the stability of all organized government. The result is a cumulative corruption which became rampant under Napoleon III but Is endemic to the whole social system.^ In 1871 Gobineau still found some cause for optimism. The aristocracy, now with the possibility of returning to power, might reverse its foolish policies and again give the nation the leadership which it needed. The peasantry represented the backbone of French life but lacked leader­ ship. If the aristocracy would only reestablish its 2 2 9 traditional function as the protector of local freedom, it might create some form of stability by leading the peasantry in an attempt to reassert historic, provincial rights. Thus, such a coalition might still reverse the process of centralization.^2

Events were, however, to disappoint Gobineau. By 1878 the Royalists had again proved themselves unable to govern. Deeply divided by Internal strife and unable to form a unified policy, they first delayed, and finally made the return of Le comte de Chambord impossible. The establish­ ment of the republic was an accomplished fact and the Royalists had again proved themselves unable to meet the challenge of the new political and social forces in French society. For Gobineau the lesson was clear; "The Republic in France is something unique which no one wanted but all have accepted. Unlike Great Britain or Iran the monarchy was no longer a traditional form of government for Frenchmen.5^ if the indecision of the Royalists had aided the process, the lesson was incontrovertible: the great majority of Frenchmen had accepted the revolution. The end of the traditional order was at hand. Gobineau's sense of depression and recrimination knew no bounds. The revolution had become France's established order. The corruption of politics and morals was not to 230 be stopped; the "masses" will become more belligerent; and the Bourgeoisie will dominate the social order. Above all government will lose its proper function and simply offer the "masses" programs which can't be fulfilled, material goods to replace spiritual poverty, and ideological pro­ positions to mask its own sterility.55 indeed, Gobineau's deepest scorn is reserved for those people who think they can reverse this process through political manipulation. . . that which strikes me to a great degree is the child­ like senility, the foolishness, with which Parisian states­ men allow themselves to believe that when the nation is disintegrating . . . the formation of parliamentary cliques and majority rule has some value. Briefly, I am not scandalized by the men of the left but, as for the poli­ ticians of the right Including the moderate republicans, I only see too many big mouths the same that one sees in Berlin, Vienna, Petersburg, and everywhere else. "56 If Gobineau hates the "masses", he certainly does not support the political reaction or place much stock in conservative politics. This Increased governmental instability will eventually lead to the complete collapse of social order. In the ensuing havoc a new Caesar, basing himself on popular appeal, but desdainful of the people whom he rules, will emerge as the savior of the nation. He will then govern 231 by the sheer use of power. "The future tyrant has only one program to fulfill. This is to dominate . . . He will need neither doctrine nor theoretical Justification. This is the crucial fact.57 He will promise all but give nothing as his only real function will be to maintain a rigid despotism. Gobineau, thus, links himself to those forms of social conservatism represented by such men as Jacob Burckhardt and Oswald Spengler which saw the collapse of the traditional social order as a repetition of the history of the later Roman Republic and predicted a return of monarchical despotism and social manipulation, as the end product of this de­ generacy. Thus, the savior general will find himself the absolute master and sovereign of the state aloof even to private conscience."5® The "masses" and the despot will destroy all. The death of freedom is at hand. There can be no hope for a reversal of the process but Gobineau does suggest a temporary form of stability, the return of Bonapartism. The Count here recognizes the appeal of the Bonaparts to the peasantry. If we must accept such a leader, Gobineau assures us, let It be a Bonapart who maintains some form of constitutional government. Only in this way can some temporary stability be established. This is the statement of an extreme, but realistic pessimist. Gobineau fully recognizes that Bonapartism does not represent 232 his ideal of governmental or social stability but it is, even if in a very limited manner, the only safeguard against the far more devastating tyranny of the generals. There is, however, no long term stability to be established; the process of social decomposition Is irre­ vocable. Twenty-five years of reflection have only con­ firmed Gobineau's pessimism: French society is doomed to degeneracy. The incompetency and racial mixture of all social classes is too overwhelming: "The fools who from now on are the leaders of society don't understand this any more than anything else."59 Goblneau's personal de­ pression was complicated by a series of political experiences in the New World and the Third French Republic which only confirmed his own theoretically justified assumption that the end of free, civilized society was at hand. In his personal and intellectual depression Gobineau found solace in a return to the artistic endeavor of his youth. If he often considered these novels of secondary importance to his historical and linguistic studies, there can be little doubt that this work aided the Count to main­ tain some degree of psychological stability during a period of personal stress. Goblneau's work allowed him to pre­ sent a lasting contribution to nineteenth century literature, and allowed him to express his conception of nobility in a 233 theoretically less restricted manner. In doing this Gobineau returned to a mode of expression which he had relinquished fifteen years before. If certain constants from the earlier period remain, there is also a subtle, but distinctive new emphasis on cultural resiljence which is not to be found in the Essai. The major impetus for Goblneau's return to art appears to have been the influence of Platonic love affairs. While in Athens the Count had been befriended by the Dragoumis, a distinguished family In Athen's political and social elite. Their two, young daughters/Zoe and Marika/seem to have exercised a considerable influence on the normally reserved Count. He began to take a considerable interest In music, commenced a lifelong Interest In sculpture which would see him complete a large number of busts, and reawakened his love for literature.^0 During this period he wrote a collection of poems, L'aphroessa, (1 8 6 9) and collected a number of themes which would form the basis of his later short stories.61 in addition, his experience in Greece seems to have excited a new interest in literature as a positive act of social consciousness; "Without Greece I would not have done many things which I have done and that is to say a great deal."^2 If Gobineau always maintained a preferance for medieval, rather than classical Greece, this new consciousness would aid him to see a continuity of 234 cultural growth not entirely linked to racial degeneracy. As Goblneau's intellectual pessimism and personal depression increased after 1870, literature came to dominate his work. Mathilde de la Tour apparently produced the decisive impetus in this decision.^ Gobineau, at the time of his psychological breakdown had been prepared to give up all his work. It was she who persuaded him to finish his novels and published the works which earned little more recognition than the Essai or L'Hlstoire des Perses during the Count's lifetime, but, which in the twentieth century would become the basis of contemporary interest in their author.^4 Like all questions related to Goblneau's personal life, the nature of the Count's love affairs is difficult to chronicle much less to understand. Were these Platonic love affairs or something more scandalizing?" They appear to have been highly idealistic, the expression of a sensi­ tive man's search for something beyond the drudgery of a career without advancement and a personal life filled with frustration.^5 it is clear, however, that these re­ lationships reawakened Goblneau's interest in the romantic idealism which dominates his early literary works. He would now try to express his ideal of nobility artistically. In doing so, he would give a new dimension to his previously expressed relationship between culture and social decomposition. 235 After seventeen years of non-literary production Goblneau's sense of social sarcasm and human folly remains constant. In such stories as la Chasse du C a r i b o u ^ and Adelaide the Count again demonstrated his mastery of ironic wit. Both stories show the ability of people to become entangled in their own self-perpetuating myths. While the provincial yankee, Lucy, infused with longings for romantic Paris and a hatred of Canada,creates a love for Charles Carbet as the man of her dreams, that Frenchman wishes only to escape his own uselessness. The result is a misunderstood proposal, a minor personal tragedy by which the author shares the folly of all concerned. Adelaide is perhaps Goblneau's best story in this vein. Fredrlc Rothbanner, a military officer of no great worth, has for many years been the close companion and lover of Elizabeth de Hermannsburg. Now he desires to marry Elizabeth's daughter, Adelaide, out of a deeper romantic love or is it, perhaps, only a desire for renewed youth. He is, however, thwarted as mother and daughter conspire to change his will. He finally marries Elizabeth and we laugh with the foibles of such men. Fredric, the great conspirator, has been caught in the trap which he, himself, set. Goblneau's ability as a satirist and his ability to note the irony of such situations still dominates his work. The Count also maintained his interest in medieval and 236 oriental themes. Again the ideals of love, honor, and 6Q freedom emerge. The first part of Amadis, ^ composed at Rio de Janeiro, demonstrates this interest as Gobineau weaves the saga of medieval chivalry around the central theme;while in 1 1Aphroessa Gobineau sees this idealism in different societies. Many of these lyric poems deal with Hebrew and Greek myths but all attempt to find elements 70 of true nobility in bygone ages.' Gobineau, thus, used literature, as he had previously used linguistics and history, to discover the nature of nobility. If his literary work has had a greater ability to be relevant, it is, perhaps, because here he has not tied this search so firmly to racial science. There is, however, a subtle modification in Goblneau's conception of the place of culture in social decomposition. While in the Essai he had negated the great epochs of cultural creativity such as Periclean Athens, Augustin Rome, and the Italian Renaissance as ages of racial mixture and, hence, degeneracy, Goblneau's writing after 1865 stressed the continuity of heroic ideals by a few Individuals of superior worth even in periods of social decay. This shift is first evident in a short essay, Notes sur le Promlthee Enchaine,?1 written in 1 8 7 0. Commenting on the Athenian theatre and Aeschylus in particular,Gobineau noted that, if Greek society in general was in decay, the tragedy written during this era maintained heroic ideals of 237 the utmost purity. He linked this quality to the continuing predominance of ancient religious traditions during this era. "That which explains clearly all of this is that during the era in which Aeschylus wrote his trilogy the pure Aryan traditions of Athens were both maintained and vibrant."72 Greek tragedy was, thus, a remembrance of previously developed heroic values which remained intact despite social decay. If Gobineau is unwilling to revise his historical analysis, he now recognizes the persistence of higher values in artistic form during such periods. This view is developed on a large scale in I*a Renaissance, a dramatic play which is neither performable nor very readable but which expands this conception significantly.^^ Written as a series of scenes focusing on historical personalities, this work remains fictitious as both its chronology and the development of plot are only partially historical. Yet, there can be little doubt that Gobineau has captured much of the age's spirit. Prom the religious patriotism of Savonarola to the power politics of Julius II, the cynicism of Caesare Borgia and the historical pessimism of Machiavelli ,the Count presents different aspects of the questions of the age with equal realism. Indeed, this is Goblneau's purpose.' He is interested in finding the essence of the age itself rather than to justify the actions of any particular historical character. 238

Gobineau finds the origins of this movement in the Germanic structure of the Italian City republic and the re­ vival of classical culture. There is nothing new in the 25 first proposition. It is, indeed, a restatement of the Count's general theory; the teutons introduced the concept of freedom into western Europe, its growth is to be seen in both the aristocracy and the medieval Bourgeoisie, and it was destroyed by the rise of the modern centralized monarchy. The force of this love for freedom is to be seen in the turbulent individuality of Italian politics since the twelfth century while the renewed despotism is to 7 be seen in the rise of a new "Caesar", Charles V. Gobineau, however, adds a new, independent element, the revival of learning. The rediscovery of the classical heritage gave a distinctive style to the Italian Renaissance not present in northern Europe. The learning of the Greeks and Romans, long misunderstood, became the basis of cultural expression in a new era. If classical society has died, its cultural ideals have inspired new ideals in a different age. If societies must die, their culture remains eternal.77 The Count describes this age as a "Golden Flower," one of those few periods in which man has expressed his highest ideals through the will of a few, heroic personalities. If the condittoratti created a shifting political environment, 2 3 9 they were men who prized freedom and honor. Here the Count returns to a theme of his youth. In L 1Alviane that Venetian leader of the early sixteenth century is pictured as a pro­ ponent of virulent will, Venice's savior but really only guided by personal pride.7^ jn Renaissance Gobineau denotes much the same characteristics in such diverse per­ sonalities as Savonarola, Machiavelli, Julius II and Caesare Borgia. All express their will in different ways, conflict with one another and express their individuality differently but all are united in their desire to create greatness above materialistic pettiness. As Julius II expresses it: "So long as I exist, the world is mine."79 All ddsdain the servility of the "masses" and place con­ fidence only in their own ideals. Machiavelli declares after the betrayal of Savonarola by the mob: "Poor Girolamo . . . He couldn't understand that the largest part of his fellow citizens if not all . . . oh my God: We could well say all with few exceptions are cut like the idols of the Moabites with blind eyes and deaf ears. They will never 80 understand and will end by laughing like fools." All are pessimistic as to the nature of man and society and see their own will as the only basis for rising above bestiality. Thus, the Renaissance bore the seeds of its own collapse within its own greatness, for such men were attempting to resist a society in decomposition. It is, however, this 240 very tension which produces their greatness. Gobineau sees the signs of change in the succession of Leo X to the papal throne. While Julius II had been possessed by a will and a desire for power, "Leo X ... . announced the modern age. One saw in him elegance and no longer passion. He never preoccupied himself with grand deeds and loved only to a small degree even the luxury of good actions."®1 There only remains art and Michelangelo becomes Goblneau’s model. Titian desired only wealth while Raphael, interested in love and affairs, was not fully devoted to his art, Michaelangelo remains the last of the great men. "I neither serve the Borgia or the Sforza nor anyone else . . . I am an artist."®2 Like all the other chosen few, Michaelangelo is filled with anguish for the collapse of his beloved Italy but, unlike the others, he will have something permanent for humanity. You live and you will live forever as that part of human intelligence which is the most ethereal, active, and influential will remain to serve as a sure and unfailing guide to the world."®3 Michaelangelo replies: "We are leaving important things and great examples behind us . . . the world is richer than before we came . . . that which will disappear will not disappear entirely . . . who knows what will be re­ newed?®** 241

As classical culture became a model for the men of the Renaissance, this movement, itself, will have worth for men of sensitivity long after the causes of this flowering are no longer to be seen. While Gobineau was unprepared to revise his view of western society, he was now prepared to accept that culture plays a positive role in human development; it remains a permanent legacy for a few to grasp in forthcoming epochs of degeneracy. It, therefore, confesses an aspect of Immortality on its creators, an eternal monument to man's ability to rise above bestiality. Indeed, Gobineau stresses aspects of this conception in dealing with the much longer disintegration of near Eastern society. While describing the Persian theatre, the Count stressed that these shi'iti plays on the martyrdom of the prophet's family maintained essential elements of depth and tragic confrontation a thousand years after the event which they depict, even for the racially mixed population of nineteenth century Iran. In these plays Persians can see a depth of emotion lacking in their daily lives. "It is the spirit of antiquity, the eternal spirit of humanity."®5 In this way all are lifted above their mundane lives to participate In fundamental human dilemmas. Gobineau finds such cultural resilience even in near 86 Eastern society. In LeB Nouvelles Aslatlques and Souvenirs du V o y a g e ® ? he gives a picture of "oriental" society which 242 shows that some individuals possess heroic virtues even in a society in full decay. If Gamber aly, La Guerre des Turcomans, and Le Moucholr Rouge stress the decadence of both Greek and Persian society, other stories show the continuation of honor and spirituality even In the midst of general decay. In L_|_ Amants de Kandahar the last descendants of the ancient Aryons maintain their nobility despite poverty and foreign domination while in Ia_ Danseuse de Shamakha the heroine, Omm-Djehane shows the racial pride and honor of his Azerbaidjani background. The conception, however, is most fully developed In Akrivle Phrangopoulo in which a Greek woman of a materially poor but culturally wealthy society humbles the proud Bourgeois Henry Norton and teaches him that nobility is to be found in many forms. Such people are certainly not a nameless mass of "fools". If social decay is irrevocable a few individuals can maintain some trace of nobility even in "oriental" society. Gobineau recognizes that such nobility can also exist in contemporary society through the action of a small group of people dedicated to higher Ideals. In Les Pleiades, his best novel, Gobineau developed in panoramic view the stories of numerous people, "the happy few" who in the present age of modern degeneracy succeed in maintaining the heroic values of the past.88 This central theme in the conversation of three travelers, all of whom state their personal philosophies and storlds although of different nationalities and back­ grounds, all share a fundamental belief In their own worth and the need for something beyond mundane materialism. As the Frenchman, Louis Laudon, exclaims; "There is at the present time in the world a certain number of men, women, and children from all nations who In the individuality which the seed of their ancestors have given them during previous generations remain, regardless of their social position, the true, surviving sons of Roland.They are, as the German, Conrad Lanze, reminds us the remains of an old elite;" I am the song of kings since the quality of royalty has, above all, the effect of placing he who possesses it above the bestial subordination of subjects and slaves."9° Thus, the characters of Les Pleiades are united neither by class nor goals but, rather, by their common descent. We need not ask from whom. They are, in fact, the last descendants of the ancient Germanic con­ querors . These sons of kings share a common desire to overcome the servile and materialistic age in which they live. They search for meaning which is not to be found In people around them and have voluntarily withdrawn from society to 244 maintain their inner worth. If for some, such as Wilfred Nore, this will require additional inner reflection to overcome the coarseness of their Bourgeois background, all have within themselves an inner nobility regardless of their social background, personal philosophies, or success in the meaningless world of affairs. They are united only by their common, inner desire to maintain the purity of love, honor, and liberty. That which they all find undesirable is the Bourgeois, materialistic, and mundane modern world. If they all do not have the social consciousness of Wilfred Nore, they are all consciously or unconsciously reacting in the same way to the new, "mass" society. "The imbeciles have been released. The fools show their numbers . . .;" and now we shall see the brutes: "They can decide nothing . . . I assure you that they are not the salt of the earth but, rather, Its pickle brine.If one is to remain faithful to the values of love and honor, one must remain aloof from the dominant elements in contemporary society. Gobineau, therefore, introduces a new element into his pantheon of eternal values: Balance. This is best developed in the character of Prince Jean-Theodore. Infused with a passionate love for the beautiful and virtuous Aurore, the Prince Is also the ruler of a small German principality and, hence, a man of affairs. Indeed, he Is a model ruler; a man who recognizes the limits of power and attempts to maintain stability with Justice while aiding improvements without social turbulence. Jean-Theodore is a man who recognizes the nature of society and the reaction of the "fools" to his passion. Hence, he abdicates, hands the reigns of power over to someone who will further his pro­ grams, and retires Into blissful serenity with Aurore. Goblneau's moral is clear; only by a balanced retreat from the false ideas of contemporary society can one maintain the purity of inner nobility.92 it is impossible to do justice to Les Pleiades In this short sketch. It is un­ doubtedly Goblneau's greatest novel and, with a number of his other works, make him a major nineteenth century literary figure. By establishing an ideal of nobility beyond class or philosophical presupposition, it established a model which maintained validity long after Goblneau's racial theories have become irrelevant. Here Gobineau was able to define nobility in a manner which combines his satiric rationalism with his social pessimism: True worth is to be maintained only by those who, by a retreat to the eternal values found in a few, great cultural epochs, maintain their individual worth in the face of the increasingly materialistic society. Gobineau, thus, links himself with those few, individuals such as Gustave Flaubert and Jacob Burckhardt who saw the 246 post-revolutionary era as a period of degeneracy and saw the only safeguard against "mass" values as being the maintenance of basic cultural and ethical values. It is the reaction of a sensitive man to the deterioration of traditional values in the nineteenth century and, if we cannot accept its authors' racial analysis, such a defini­ tion of the function of nobility and culture has a distinctly positive import far beyond the stresses and frustrations of the man who created it. FOOTNOTES CHAPTER V

Jean Gaulmier, Spectre de Gobineau, (Paris, 1 9 6 5), pp. 121-123. Ludwig Schemann, Gobineau, eine Biographie, (Strasbourg, 2 vols., 1913-1916), II, pp. 341-354. 2 Arthur de Gobineau and Mathilde de la Tour, "Correspondence in£dite", Le Table Ronde April-May 1950, PP* >159-164. Arthur de GoBTneau, "Lettres a deux Atheniennes, (1868) ed. N. Mela, (Athens, 1936), pp. 81-90. ^Gaulmier, Spectre, pp. 139-145. Schemann, Gobineau, II, pp. 271-277. ^Schemann, Gobineau, II, pp. 279-281, Mathilde de la Tour, "Les dernieres annees du Comte de Gobineau", In Arthur de Gobineau and Mere Benedicte de Gobineau, Correspondence (1872-1882), ed. A. B. Duff, (Paris, 2 vols., 1958), II, pp.~585-319. ^Gobineau, Correspondence, I, pp. 37-46. Gaulmier, Spectre, pp. 144-145. ^Gaulmier, Spectre, pp. 159-162. Schemann, Gobineau, I, pp. 125-129. ^Gaulmier, Spectre, pp. 162-167. Diane de Guldencrone, "Un fragment ine^it des Souvenirs de Diane de Guldencrone", ed. A. B. Duff, Etudes gobiniennes, II and III (1 9 6 6-1 9 6 7). 8 Gaulmier, Spectre, pp.^ 167-170.r Clemence ' de Gobineau, "Mme. de Gobineau ecrit a son frere", ed. A. B. Duff, Etudes Gobiniennes, (1 9 6 6) pp, 81-102, ^Mathilde de la Tour, "annees", II, pp. 290-299. Gaulmier, Spectre, pp. 173-175. •^Gaulmier, Spectre, pp. 172-174. Gobineau, Correspondence, I, pp. 37-60. 11Schemann, Gobineau, II, pp. 325-334. Mathilde de la Tour, "annees", pp. 235-237.

247 2 4 8

12 Arthur de Gobineau, "Gobineau et les colonies anglaises de L 1 Amerique du Nord", Etudes Gobiniennes, ed. Michael Biddiss, II (1 9 6 7), pp. 11-26. ■'■^Gobineau, "Colonies", pp. 21-26.

^Paris, 1 8 6 1. •^^Gobineau, Voyage, pp. 141-146.

-^Gobineau, Voyage, pp. 1 5 2.

^Gobineau, Voyage, pp. 15 9-1 6 5.

•^Gobineau, Voyage, pp. 2 5 1-2 5 6. 1^Gobineau, Voyage, pp. 249-250. 20Gobineau, Voyage, pp. 266-270.

21Gobineau, Voyage, pp. 6 1-6 3 . o p ,, *" Arthur de Gobineau, Immigration Europlenne dans les deux Ameriques", Le Correspondent, October 25, 1872, pp. 242. 2^Gobineau, Voyage, pp. 42-49. 2^Arthur de Gobineau, "L'Essai sur L 1 lnegallte des races humaines, (Paris, 19677, p. 8527 ^Gaulmier, Spectre, pp. 127-129. Arthur de Gobineau, "Lettres de Gobineau a Jules Mohl et a Madame Mohl," Revue de Litterature comparee, July-September, 196 6, PpT337r337: 2^Arthur de Gobineau, "Au Bresil, Il-y-a un siecle," ed. Jean Gaulmier, Bulletin de la faculte des lettres de Strasbourg, May-June, 1 9 6 4 pp. 466-497. Georges Raeders, Le comte de Gobineau au Bresil, (Paris, 1934), pp. 24-26. ^Mary W. Williams, Dorn Pedro the Magnifiscent, (Chapel Hill, N.C, 1937), Chapter 13. C. H. Haring, Empire in Brazil, (Cambridge, Mass., 1958), Chapter 3. oft ^ cuGobineau's public utterances are contained in Arthur de Gobineau, "L1 emigration au Bresil", Le Correspondent, July-September, 1874, pp. 352-3757 For his reasons in not expressing his true views, see Arthur £e Gobineau, "Sept. lettres, du comte Arthur de Gobineau a sa Soeur," Revue de Litterature comparee, October- December, 1949* pp.~634— 639^. 29oobineau, Deux Atheniennes, pp. 101-107. Gobineau, "Sept lettres", pp. 5^5-547. 3°Raeder, Bresil, pp. 7*1-77. Arthur de Gobineau et Le Ministre de Baroche, Lettres, edv Jean Gaulmier, Travaux de Linguistiques et de litterature (Strasbourg) rii7“2-(I^65T, pp. 67-71.------3-*Gobineau, "Sept Lettres", p. 518. 32Gobineau, Deux Atheniennes, pp. 55-56. •^Gobineau, Voyage, p. 47. ^Gobineau, Voyage, pp. 42-49. Gobineau, Essai, pp. 849-854. ^^Leon Deffoux, Trols aspects de Gobineau, (Paris, 1929), pp. 3-36. Arthur de Gobineau, "Lettres d' ^rthur de Gobineau au comte de Circourt", ed. Jean Gaulmier, Etudes Goblennes, (1966-1 9 6 7), pp. 69-74. 3^Deffoux, Trols, pp. 33-36. Schemann, Gobineau, II, pp. 211-214. Marie-Ijouise Concasty, "Gobineau Conseiller general de L'Oise," Etudes gobiniennes, III, (196 8-1 9 6 9)* pp. 223-234. ^Gobineau, Deux Atheniennes, pp. 149-160. Arthur de gobineau, "Gobineau pendant la Guerre de ^870 - lettres a Christine," ed. Marie-Louise Concasty, Etudes Gobiniennes, II (1967)* PP. 27-67. Deffoux, Trois, pp. 2b-27. ^Schemann, Gobineau, II, pp. 214-221. Maurice Lange, Le comte Arthur de Gobineau, (Strasbourg, 1924), pp. 177-1 8 2.

^Gobineau, Deux Atheniennes, pp. 95-99. Gobineau, "Guerre de 1 8 7 0", pp. 49-55.

^°Goblneau, Deux Atheniennes, pp. 1 6 0-1 6 9. Arthur de Gobineau, "Lettres-Inedltes de Gobineau a Johann Albert Dorn", ed. J. Broissel, Revue d_' Histolre de litterature de la Prance, October-DecemBer, 19bb, p. 657”. 250 4l ' Gobineau, Deux Atheniennes, p. 1 7 3 . i42 x Gobineau, Deux Atheniennes, p. 174. ho ti ^ n ^Arthur de Gobineau, Ce qui est arrive a la France en 1 8 7 0", Nachgelassene Schriften, (Strasbourg, 4 vols. 1908-1911), prosa 2, II. ^Claude Digeon, La crlse allemande de la pensee frangalse, (Paris, 19557* PP. 53-bl.

^Gobineau, "1 8 7 0", pp. 181-196.

46Gobineau, "L8 7 0", pp. 91-100 and 106-109. ^'ArthurlV 7 de Gobineau, Deux Etudes ' ' sur la Grece N moderne, (Paris, 1905)* PP. 199-200.

48Gobineau, "1870", pp. 82-85 and 120-123.

^Gobineau, "1 8 7 0", pp. 123-124 and 144-147.

5°Gobineau, "1 8 7 0", pp. 86-90, 118 and 125-126,

51Gobineau, "1 8 7 0", pp. 120-123, 133-136 and 1 6 1-1 6 2.

52Gobineau, "1 8 7 0", pp. 99-101, 115-117 and 145. ^Arthur de Gobineau, "La Troisieme republique Francaise et ce qu'elle vaut", in Nachgelassene Schriften, (Strasbourg, 4 vols., 1 9 07-1 9 1 1), prosai, I, p. TI -^Gobineau, "Republique", pp. 60-61.

^Gobineau, "Republique", pp. 6 9 -8 1 and 103-109. ^Arthur de Gobineau, "Du cote de Montalembert et de la Marquese de Forbin", Etudes gobiniennes, III (196 8-1 9 6 9)* p. 131. Gobineau, "l870'n, pp'. 0 5-8 9. ^Arthur de Gobineau, Ce_ qui se passe en Asie sulvant de L'instinct revolutions ire en France, (Paris', 1928Tj p p . " Y ^ p 7 5 :------■^Gobineau, "Republique", p. 8 9. Sie also pp.92-99 and 111-117.

^Gobineau, Deux Atheniennes, p. 10. 251 fin „ DUGaulmier, Spectre, pp. 146-147. Gobineau, Deux Atheniennes, introduction.

6lParis, 1 8 6 9.

62 / Arthur de Gobineau, "Nouvelles lettres Atheniennes", ed. J. Mistier, Revue des Deux Mondes, October 1, 1954, p. 427. ^Gaulmier, Spectre, pp. 147-151. Schemann, Gobineau, II, pp. 315-317. OHMathilde de la Tour, "annees", Correspondence, II, pp. 290-297. ^Gaulmier, Spectre, pp. 149-156. 66 Part of Souvenirs du Voyage, published in Arthur de Gobineau, Scaramouche et autres Nouvelles, ed. Jean Gaulmier (Paris", 1 9 6 8), pp. 247-290. ^Gobineau, Scaramouche, pp. 291-318. 88Adelaide is also of interest in understanding Gobineau's method of composition since it was written in one night and deals with a situation in which he was involved. Raeders, Bresil, pp. 134-139. 8%tahel Thenan, L'Amadis de Gobineau, (Thesis, Montpellier, i9 6 0), pp. 26-37.

^Gobineau, L 1 Aphroesea, poems 5* 6, 7 and 9. ^published in Raeders, Bresil, pp. 155-164. ^2Raeders, Bresil, p. 164. ^Arthur de Gobineau, La Renaissance, (Paris, 1877) which is the poem. One must also consult Arthur de Gobineau, La Fleur d 'or, Paris, 1923) to understand Gobineau1 sTntent. 'The latter forms the count's own commentary on his work. f^Gobineau, Fleur, pp. 3-9. ^Gobineau, Fleur, pp. 13-21.

78Gobineau, Fleur, pp. 121-127. 252

^Gobineau, Fleur, pp. 107-114. ^Arthur ^de Gobineau, "L'alviane", ed. Rene Guise, Revue de litterature comparee, July-September, 1 9 6 6, pp. 375-401. ^Gobineau, La Renaissance, p. 203. 8oGobineau, La Renaissance, pp. 145 -146. 8lGobineau, Fleur, p. 104.

82Gobineau, La Renaissance, pp. 297 -299. ^Gobineau, La Renaissance, p. 557. 8^Gobineau, La Renaissance, pp. 564 -564. ^Arthur de Gobineau, Les Relig ;ions et les Philosophies

L 1 asie centrale, (Paris, 1900) , P. ■353. " 86Arthur de Gobineau, Les Nouvelles Asiatiques, ed. Jean Gaulmier (Paris, 1965). Gaulmier1s introduction is particularly worthwhile. 0 ^ 7 In Gobineau, Nouvelles. 88Arthur de Gobineau, Les Plaiades, ed. J. Mistier (Monaco, 1946). See also Michael Riffaterre, Le Style des Pleiades, (Paris, 1957). Pierre Moreau, "Ees Pleiades, ou le poeme du Mol," Etudes gobiniennes, III (1968-1969), pp. 169-182. ^Gobineau, Les Pleiades, p. 21. 9°Gobineau, Les Pleiades, p.21. ^Gobineau, Les Pleiades, p.23.

92Gobineau, Les Pl^lades, pp. 2 9 6-3 2 1 . CHAPTER VI COLLAPSE AND DEATH: THE END OP CIVILIZED SOCIETY (1878-1882)

The last five years of Gobineau's life were a period of personal tragedy for the Count. With his Amour Propre shattered by the disintegration of his married life, his poverty and his bad health, he was clearly a physically and psychologically sick man. His health disintegrated rapidly as work had to be delayed during long periods of inaction, the "fever" which he had contacted in Brazil continued to occur, and his last letters were dictated due to severe eye trouble. His frequent trips to Carlsbad and Italy, while only partly for medical reasons, were undoubtedly an attempt to revive his ailing health.1 These problems, however, were only secondary to the Count's deep psychological distress. Separated from his wife and daughters, Gobineau found it inopportune to live in Paris where he was apparently the main victim of Clemence's scandal mongering and he increasingly withdrew p from social engagements into his own thought. As a person who had placed much worth in inheritance he was particularly

253 254 distressed that he had no heirs to his family name.3 His financial position continued to deteriorate to the extent that by the time of his death he was probably being dis­ creetly supported by Madame de la Tour and Cosima Wagner. His correspondence during this period demonstrated an in­ creasing dependence on others to maintain a respectable manner of existence. There can be little doubt that such dependence, difficult for any man to accept, had a devastating effect on Gobineau's Amour Propre. For a man who had convinced himself of his own noble worth the loss of self pride was shattering. In his inner turmoil Gobineau found solace in three women: Mathilde de la Tour, Cosima Wagner and his sister Caroline. Caroline, who had become a nun with the religious name of Mere Benedict, was the only member of his family with whom Gobineau maintained a firm relationship. If her pedantic war against Jonsenism and Arthur's failure to adopt disturbed her brother, her devotion to him and his work is without question. It was to her that he poured out his depression over the breakdown of his marital life and his lack of heirs.** Madame de la Tour maintained her affection for the Count until the bitter end; she welcomed him to her estate, Chameance, encouraged him to continue his work, and kept his personal affairs in order until his death. It was she who fostered his relationship with 255

Caroline, Dom Pedro and the Wagners.^ Gobineau first met the Wagners through the Princess

Wittgenstein in 1876 but their close relationship was not cemented until the Count made the pilgrimage to Bayreuth C in 1881. He would return the next spring as well. While in intellectual matters the "master" was undoubtedly the high priest, the personal relationship was carried on by his second wife, Cosima. As the illegitimate daughter of Liszt striving to overcome the scandals of her own youth she brough a new religiosity into Wagner's life. If Bayreuth was a testament to Wagner’s art, her house, Wahnfried, was a model to the new order which she had fostered in the former revolutionary and iconclast's life. Propriety now became the order of the day and Cosima its high priestess.7 It was in this very different Milieu from that which Gobineau felt himself to belong that the Count would find the first genuine, if misunderstood, apprecia­ tion of his work. The Wagners maintained a sincere sympathy for Gobineau. Both commented favorably on his works, encouraged him to republish the Essal, and took a genuine interest in his physical and psychological well-being. If the close relation­ ship with the "master" arises in part from misunderstood ideological similarities, the more genuine, personal re- Q lationship between the two was maintained by Cosima. 256

Perhaps we should not be too critical of people who, if they were often to manipulate the thought of Gobineau after his death, succeeded in preventing a total mental breakdown while he still lived. This deep psychological distress can be seen in Gobineau's family biography, 1 'Histolre d' Ottar Jarl.^ Written as a "history" of his family from their background as Norwegian pirates until their last, true descendants, Arthur and Caroline de Gobineau, Ottar Jarl is a work which can be considered neither history or fiction. The sources had been gathered for many years; "I have worked my whole life on this book . . . I was fifteen years old when I first began to search for its elements.10 Since his arrival in Paris as a young man, Gobineau had sought sources for his family's past in historical annals, provincial archives, and family records. Indeed, the origins of this interest were probably the young Gobineau's doubts about the legitimacy of his own background.11 If one is tempted to discount the results of this research, one should recog­ nize that this is a work of long consideration. Despite the amount of research involved, however, the major quality of Ottar Jarl is the over-developed imagina­ tion of its author. While in Sweden, the Count had visited a rugged area near Stockholm with the German Ambassador, Phillip von Eulenburg, Upon sighting a choice spot 257

Gobineau exclaimed; "This is the Castle of Ottar Jarl. I come from here. I feel it."12 Unfortunately, there is too much of this element in this work to consider it history. Yet, Gobineau considered it to be lineal descendant to the Essal and 1 'Histolre des Perses. If the former was a universal treatise on the effects of race and the latter a demonstration of its effects on one nation, Ottar Jarl is the chronicle of one family from its period of true noble greatness to its demise in modern society.1^ Here Gobineau*s personal and Intellectual struggle meet in a search for his own noble character linked to the biologically trans­ mitted heritage of the ancient Aryans. Unfortunately, for the Count this synthesis was neither tenable as history or family biography. In the first part of his work Gobineau traces the descendants of Ottar Jarl from their arrival in France until the Hundred Years War. Using primarily historical chronicles Gobineau traces the course of their conquests, settlement in Normandy, and introduction of heroic values into late Carolingian society. As he had noted in his other works, Gobineau stressed their superior sense of honor, respect for womanhood, and love for personal liberty, Gobineau's own family represents all aspects of this dominance; some were violent warriors or statesmen of renown, while others became church leaders and still others artists. If they 258 expressed this superiority in different ways, they all maintained principles which separated them from their Gallo-Roman neighbors: "The Slavic and Gallo-Roman popula­ tion have never known what it was and only understood the decorative value of a coat of arms without understanding that for the noble races this was only an outer sign of «il4 their inner invention: honor. As the progress of centralization began to take shape, some maintained their inner worth by becoming mystics and retiring from active society while others, still in search of freedom, participated in the conquest of England and southern Italy but the major part remained to build Tyre under the name of Gournay.1^ The picture is not new; it is in fact a restatement of Gobineau*s whole analysis of medieval society. In the second part of his work the Count traces the development of a Noblesse de la Robe family in the Gironde who are in fact named Gobineau. Here, his major sources are actual family records and materials which he found in Bordeaux.^ They present the record of a family emerging from the Hundred Years War with neither money nor influence. These people, Gobineau assures us, were also Aryans, main­ taining freedom against the Bourgeoisie and bureaucratic centralism in the early modern period.1? We do not have to ask what has produced their present demise; here, Gobineau 259 lists again the crimes of the centralized monarchy, the collapse of an independent aristocracy, and the loss of local freedom. His own family, we are assured, withdrew from active society to maintain their independence. It is in the countryside, therefore, that they will suffer through two centuries of absolute rule, the turmoil of the revolu­ tion, and the approach of modern degeneracy.1® Like all the heirs of the true heroes they are impotent to reverse the impending disaster but they will remain true to their ideals until the bitter end. Their last two descendants, Caroline and Arthur, will die without heirs. Degeneracy is at hand as the fate of the Gobineaus parallels that of western Europe.1^ As the Gobineau name will have no successors so there is no hope for the heroic order of the past. Ottar Jarl is, indeed a strange book. If analyzed historically, its failure is easily denotable. While Gobineau's characterization of the ancient Vikings and modern centralism is, perhaps, debatable, the Count's analysis of his family's past and their development cer­ tainly is not. The whole work rests on the ability of its author to take the Gournay family of the high middle ages and link them to the Gobineaus of early modern times. This continuity requires that one takes a Noblesse de 1 'Epee family of Normandy and converts them into Bordeaux 260 Noblesse du Robe not to mention the unsustainable shift in names hardly defensible on the basis of any historical evidence. 20 It is clear that Gobineau has combined, and failed to truly unite, two very different forms of documentation. While the history of the Gournay is drawn from annals, the development of the Gobineaus is based on actual, communal records. The Count has, thus, come face to face with a problem delineated in its modern form by Montesquieu and Saint Simon; while attempting to prove titles during the eighteeenth century, both come to recognize that there were no sufficient documents or family trees before the Hundred Years War.21 While Gobineau could argue that the noble families created after 133 ^ were not essentially different from their predecessors, his own evidence certainly does not demonstrate any continuity of biological inheritance for his own family or a method which could be valid for op other groups. c It would, however, be naive to regard Ottar Jarl as simply a historical work. It Is an attempt to produce a synthesis between his historical conception and his own, personally created, myth of nobility. Are we to believe that In buying Tyre, he was returning to the home of his ancestors? Are we to take seriously the Count's assertion that he had demonstrated the nobility of his own family when he, himself, despised his own father and uncle? 261

It would appear doubtful that he fully believed it. The

synthesis which Gobineau had created between his personal drive for legitimacy and the fortunes of race has, through his increasing personal frustration, distorted its author's ability to view the reality around him. Indeed, only Caroline could see its real importance for her brother. "It has been all said; a noble race is finished . . . the Gobineaus are finished and we are the last but loyal to the spirit of our ancestors to the end."2® Ottar Jarl is the work of a man in deep despair, a man whose synthesis between his personally developed con­ ception of nobility and the historical basis on which he has attempted to found this interrelationship has failed. That which twenty five years before had been a tenable, If not provable, hypothesis could now only be asserted blindly against things which were going on around him. In this way he was still living up to his "mythical" family motto, "Inspite of all."2^ This search for new methods to demonstrate his racial analysis of history reflects a fundamental shift in the scientific basis of his hypothesis which had taken place since the l850's. The propositions upon which Gobineau had based his work had to be reevaluated, due to no failure of his own, but because of new developments in physical anthropology, Indo-European linguistics, and French 262 historiography which had undermined his essential conception. Indeed, the basic use of race in all three areas had changed beyond recognition in the thirty years since Gobineau had published the Essai. French historiography had been dealt a severe shock by the Franco-Prussian War. Fustel de Coulanges, upset with German claims to Alsace Lorraine on cultural-nationalist grounds and with the lack of proper patriotism by French historians, attacked the historical methods of the previous fifty years.2® In particular he blamed the proponents of the Germanic theory for dividing the nation in the face of German aggression. 26 While this was largely polemic, seventy five years of Franco-German rivalry was to make this asser­ tion a permanent "myth" for French historians; the use of the Germanic hypothesis denoted, not an aristocratic critique of French history, but a fifth column of German traitors. Coulanges, however, was not so easily enclosed in his own propaganda. As an excellent textural critic he, like Augustin Thierry fifty years before, began a detailed analysis of the late classical and early medieval sources of the controversy. He concluded that contemporary records noted no marked difference between the Teutons and the Gallo-Romans, that the transfer of power had been essentially a legal question, and that the political organization of Gaul had remained remarkably stable2^ throughout the whole 263 period of transition. If this did not fully exclude Gobineau's theory of biological inheritance from the Germanic tribes, the lack of institutional demonstrations for this transference and the "unpatriotic" nature of such theories left Gobineau*s work without successors. This is clearly to be seen in the one historian who claimed Gobineau as his mentor, Jacques de Boisjolin.2® Boisjolin like Gobineau, asserted the existence of a historical separation between the Gallo-Romans and the Germanic invaders, that these groups were biologically races, and that this conflict persisted into modern times. Yet, the different uses of this theory are even more marked, for Boisjolin dismissed Gobineau's Finnic-Bosques hypothesis as untenable and stressed the evolution of races on the basis of natural selection rather than as the effect of migrations.29 Their fundamental difference, however, emerges from their different reasons for this contrast. While Gobineau was primarily interested in demonstrating the impending demise of civilized society, Boisjolin is primarily interested In showing France's inability to compete with racially unified societies. "The number of different ethnic elements in France places this nation in the situation of isolation in regard to other European state systems.A people of as many mixed races as ours finds itself incapable to be as strong as political 264 societies which are based on the same blood. It must, therefore, substitute a mechanical organization of power for the abstract rights of man."®1 Nothing could be further from Gobineau*s purpose. While Boisjolin wishes to show France's national weakness in relationship to Germany, the Count wishes to show general social degeneracy of all European nations. Gobineau is the last of an older tradition of French social analysts: the anti-monarchical conservatives who saw free­ dom as a historical result of the Germanic invasions rather than a universally demonstrable principle. If one cannot accept the full implication of this theory, it certainly deserved a better fate than to be considered "unpatriotic." The anthropological basis of Gobineau's theory was also no longer tenable after thirty years. The cause is

clear: in 1859 Darwin published The Origin of the Species. While in his first work the English naturalist did not apply his revolutionary discovery to man, in The Descent

of Man (1 8 7 1) he completed the circle.®2 While Darwin's propositions had significance far beyond the fledgling science of anthropology, its implications for racial analysis of Gobineau were clearly devastating. The mechanism of evolution clearly precluded the ability to trace the origins of man from historical data. This 265 fundamental axiom of Darwinism, confirmed by the discovery of "Neanderthal" man (1 8 5 6) and the researches of Boucher de Perthes {185 6-7 ) clearly outdated the speculation of Prichard, Morton, or Gobineau. The dispute between the Monagenists and Polygenists became irrelevant and, with it Gobineau's whole apparatus for tracing a link between the "white" race and the semetic or Indo-European linguistic groups.3^ Gobineau speculations, like those of all theoreticians of a previous era became scientifically untenable and irrelevant to the discussion. Gobineau's reaction to Darwinism was, at first, ambivalent and, then clearly hostile. In Sur diverses

Manifestations de la Vie individuelle (1 8 6 7) he asserted that his work was an extention of Darwin's system to in­ clude an explanation of the different potentialities of individual races to rise above their animal nature. Linguistic evolution, he believed, complimented natural selection in a manner to demonstrate the superiority of the Aryans to other varieties of human beings.35

After 187 0, however, this attitude changed sharply as Gobineau began to understand the implications of Darwinism for his previously developed theory of man. Gobineau's comments, directed to Caroline, emphasized that, while the lower races might have derived from the primates, the Aryans can in no way be equated with such lowly origins. "I am convinced that Darwin's theory . . . that man is 266 descended from the apes Is partly true to the extent that some contemporary mixed races descend from certain beings between men and the apes". Further, Gobineau explained exactly who he meant; "I see nothing false in the proposi­ tion that the Jacobins and their comrades derive from apes. They advertise it. It is the voice of blood. If this was satirically meant in part, there can be little doubt that Gobineau believed that natural selection applied only to certain non-white races while the heroic Aryans were assumed to have a separate origin. The analysis is essentially untenable; despite his attempt to claim Darwin as a supporter of his views in the second edition of the Essal, Gobineau remains essentially anti- Darwinian. 37

Thirty years of archeological work had also destroyed much of Gobineau's empirical data. In part this was due to the length of time now involved in the prehistoric period but certain specific discoveries extended this decisively. In 1871 Arnould de Quatrefages, depressed by France's defeat and the bombardment of the Louvre, wrote an article in which he claimed that the Prussians were not Germans but, rather, the last remnants of the Finns, Wends, and Slavs who had lived in this area before the twelfth century A.D.^® This charge drew an immediate response from Germany's leading Pathologist, Rudolf 267 V i r c h o w . 39 a number of expeditions to Scandinavia and work with Finnish anthropological specimens were enough to con­ vince him of that which should have been obvious fifty years before. The Finns had a large proportion of tall blonds, their relationship to the Lapps was far from distinct, and there was no genuine evidence to link them with the Basques or to assume them to have been the 40 primenal European population. Indeed, Virchow came to doubt that it was possible to trace any existing ethnic group back to the origins of man in Europe. The funda­ mental postulate upon which Gobineau had attempted to prove racial degeneracy in Europe had been exploded. The new theory of European prehistory after 1870 stressed the three period system of a stone, bronze and iron age. While as much confusion was created as dissipated by this development, the new method completely outmoded Gobineau*s work. Now the permanency of cultural types rather than migration was emphasized, the process of cultural assimilation was recognized to have taken a far longer period of time than anyone had previously assumed, and linguistics became a secondary tool to archeologically discovered artifacts.^1 This development was augmented by numerous other, independent discoveries by archeologists. In 1872 Heinrich Schliemann began excavations in Greece and Asia Minor, While the exact nature of his discoveries and his methodology were to be the subject of much debate, his fundamental discovery was an established fact: Greek civilization, far from being a product of the Dorian invasions, was in reality older than previously understood. The world of Homer was an integral part of Greek civiliza- iip tion. The work of Ernst de Sarzec in lower Mesopotamia had much the same effect. Sarzec discovered that which had baffled all Assyriologists, a pre-semitic civilization in the basin of the Tigris-Euphrates. The discovery of the Sumerians demonstrated that the Semites, rather than being the creators of this culture, were heir to a tradi­ tion of over a thousand years of undefinable ethnic stock.^3 While these and other new developments in Egyptology, 44 Indianology, and Sinology did not lead to the demise of historical racism, it was clear even in the late l870's that Gobineau1s theory would need significant revisions if it were to remain relevant to the empirical knowledge from which he drew his conclusions. Despite this need, Gobineau's own attitude toward these changes was entirely negative. Although he attempted to ignore the implications of the new prehistory, it is diffi­ cult to believe that he understand that these developments had seriously undermined the structure of the Essal. While touring the Aegfean with Dorn Pedro II in 1 8 7 6, Gobineau 26 9 met Schliemann. Their relationship, although outwardly cordial, was apparently strained. Writing to Madame de la Tour he could react only by claiming that these dis­ covering were essentially lies of the Bourgeois professors. Such a pre-Dorian culture simply could not have existed. ^ His reaction to the new theories of European prehistory was even more biased. I am in the process of finishing the first part of my work on the origins of the primeval Europeans and their Ideas. The three important questions are these. To show that the so called geological history of man with its old and new stone ages followed by a bronze and iron age - pushed back to incalculable years, something which is very popular now is an absurdity. ^ The book would never be completed and the reason for this is obvious; Gobineau's analysis of thirty years before was now completely outdated and he had no basis for giving a tenable alternative to the new anthropology. This need for change was complemented in linguistic philosophy during the same period of time. During this period Indo-European linguistics had continued to become more specialized. While much general speculation continued to take place, the methodological thoroughness of August F. Pott and August Schleicher began to take its toll of simplistic theories. Established linguists began to stress that the rules of degeneracy in Indo-European languages could not be transferred to other language groups. ^ In 270 addition, Schleicher, by his minute studies of Lithuanian, produced a problem for which none of the previous systems could give an adequate explanation: Lithuanian, a language not written until the eighteenth century, has a gram­ matical structure as complicated and archaic as Sanskrit, itself. If the movement of the prehistoric Indo Europeans were to be traced strictly by linguistic methods, the central Asian hypothesis could not explain the existence JiO of such a language in eastern Europe. By the l880's these developments had produced a new generation of linguists who stressed that, even within the Indo-European linguistic family, rules must be drawn with far greater caution, that grammatical decomposition could only be confidently demonstrated within an individual language, and that, regardless of the system developed, any attempt to assume the existence of, or trace the movement of, a unified Indo-European racial group was highly tenuous. ^ This development was complimented by the more subtle, but equally devastating, new trends In comparative mythology. It became gradually recognized that most themes developed in Indo-European mythology have equivalents in other mythological systems, that Indo-European myths also demonstrated brutal and "barbaric11 aspects, and that myths in various societies reflect the social structure of that society rather than a set of racially distinguishable 271 beliefs.^0 Partly this resulted from more detailed studies of new Indo-European mythological systems, but it was undoubtedly fostered by the sociological study of myths developed by Adolf Bastian^1 and J. G. Fraser.^2 By 1880 the simplistic contrast between Indo-European and non Indo- European myths developed by Max Mueller and Adalbert Kuhn were rapidly being replaced with more balanced systems which stressed the relative nature of all mythological expression. The result is a singular paradox: The people who had originally created the problem of Indo-European origins were now the most skeptical that it could, in fact, be answered. The attempt to trace racial movements, therefore, called for a new method and found it in Groniology. This "science" originated in the work of Andreas Retzius as refined by Paul Broca. Retzius had originally developed the contrast between dolichocephalic and brachycephalic skull shapes to supplement the "Finnic" theory of Worsaae and N i l s s o n ^ but by 1870 this simplistic linkage between skull shape and culture had been discarded primarily through Broca's efforts. This leading anthropologist, by nature a highly skeptical man, refined Retzius* method to remove its former crudities, aggressively attacked attempts to use such measurements for phreneological purposes and produced a scientific method which was as exact as it was difficult to 272 a p p l y . 5^ After painstaking examinations he concluded that France's population had remained remarkably stable through the centuries and that the various migrations which had taken place on European soil had not changed its essential ethnological composition. The conclusion for the Indo ~ European controversy was crucial: What in fact was the concrete evidence for large scale migrations from central Asia? This question was finally aired openly before la Societee d'Ethnologie by the Belgium linguistic Botanist, Omalius d'Hallory in 1864. The discussion, while never conclusively decided, clearly demonstrated the tentative nature of all previously developed hypothesis in this area. While those who supported the central Asian thesis could still find some linguistic grounds for their belief, almost all non-linguistic evidence made such an assertion dubious. Yet, those who doubted the central Asian hypothesis could only maintain a skeptical attitude towards the old hypothesis without offering a clear alternative.^

In the twenty years after 1870,a whole new set of hypothesis was to be developed. Karl Poesche developed a theory which assumed that the Indo-Europeans were the brachycephalic blonds who had radiated from the Prlpetj^^ Karl Penka assumed them to have been the doliocelphalic 57 blonds who had migrated south from Scandinavia-^' and Isaac 273

Taylor asserted that the language group originated as described by Poesche while the Aryan "race" was formed by the adoption of this language by Penka's doliocelphalic r O blonds. Meanwhile on strict linguistic grounds Otto Schraeder placed the origins of the Indo-Europeans north of the Black Sea. While these theories did more than their predecessors to answer the riddle of the linguistic sphinx, they all assumed new standards of knowledge unknown in

1 8 5 0. The analysis of the question which Goblneau had given in 185 3-55 was, therefore, completely outmoded by the late l870's. If he had wished to keep his theory an empirically tenable hypothesis, it would have been necessary to fundamentally revise his "method" of proving it. Although Gobineau seriously considered revising his major work and studied new developments in the racial question, his second edition of the Essal (1884) contained

none of these essential c h a n g e s . 59 while giving bent to his complex that others had denied him his just recognition, he asserted that the ethnological studies of the past thirty years had shown him nothing of worth: The present edition has changed nothing not because in this period of time meaningful work has not given progress in details but, rather, because none of the truths which I expoused have been negated and I have found it necessary to maintain the truth as I found it . . . I have, thus, republished my book as I wrote it and have changed nothing. It is the expression of 274

a system and a truth which is as uncontestable today as it was at the time I professed it for the progress of historical knowledge has not made me change my opinions in any manner or degree. 60 While Gobineau might maintain that nothing had changed his political analysis in the intervening thirty years, his assumption that empirical studies had not changed the fundamentals of his work is clearly absurd. The Count was clearly maintaining an analysis outmoded by the develop­ ment of knowledge itself. The claim that "these dreams, I feel, will pass of themselves. They are disappearing already,"k1 is not only a bad prognostication but one of a man who is unable to analyze the question objectively. In an incomplete essay, 1 'Ethnologle de France

*1 8 7 9? ) ^ he went even further assuming the absolute truth of the central Asiatic hypothesis, that the "Finns" re­ presented the European lower classes, and that migrations had produced the cultural changes to be found in western

E u r o p e ^ 3 while in his correspondence he still notes his belief in the unified character of all Indo-European myths: ". . . t o show the true geographical place and close date of the principle Greek myths that are not only Greek but Greek, Celtic, Teutonic, Persian and Hindu - that is to say older than the separation of these people." Gobineau has clearly rejected all new developments in racial analysis. If Schemann would have great difficulty 275 in proving Gobineau1s worth to scholars, the cause rests at least partly in the Count’s own assertions, for in refusing to revise the Essai he was, during his own life­ time, making himself irrelevant for the discussions which would take place after his death. Gobineau succeeded in confusing this failure by a blandly false assertion: Taine, Buckle and Darwin had misappropriated his ideas without acknowledging their debt. The assertion is clearly false; Gobineau's use of Darwinism is unacceptable while the "racial" terminology of Buckle and Taine Is past-historical, basing itself on the historically formed characteristics of a nation, rather than the Count’s theory of biologically formed, 6r causal racial entities. ^ To claim that such men were part of a liberal conspiracy to prevent the spread of his ideas, as Gobineau did, was to lose all understanding for the question at hand. It is the claim of a man who has become almost paranoid over his academic failure and the collapse of the traditional order. If all of this is understandable within the framework of the Count’s personal frustration, It is also clear that what Gobineau had presented as a highly tenable hypothesis in 1853-55 could only be taken as blind assertion in the l880's. While history might, as he assumed, have justified his prediction of social collapse, scientific knowledge, regardless of its racial 276 or non-racial intent, had completely undermined his proofs as the causal element which had produced that degeneracy. The republication of the Essai, thus, represents a repudiation of that which Gobineau had most sought thirty years before: scientific recognition. Thus, Gobineau's synthesis has collapsed. The care­ fully built relationship between a personally formed definition of nobility expressed in his own self-image and a historically proved analysis of nobility has broken in both of its elements. By 1882 Gobineau1s Amour Propre was completely shattered, the victim of his own myth. It is within this framework of intellectual and personal pessimism that we must understand Gobineau's relationship with Richard Wagner. The creator of the "new musical drama" was fast approaching death himself. Increasingly depressed by the failure of his early dreams and totally involved in his last opera, Parzival, Wagner had long since left behind his revolutionary dreams of 1848, his flirtation with Schopenhauer, and his former, close relationship with Friedrich Nietzsche.66 Although he was able to present musical dramas in the showcase of Bayreuth, the "master" still found the state of society to be degenerate and himself as the bearer of excessive tribulation.Under the influence of Cosima he had become increasingly oriented towards the image of Christ, 277 the redeemer as a model for the Renaissance of pre- Indus trial cultural values. Wagner, therefore, formed a circle around himself at Bayreuth dedicated to fighting Jewish internationalism and reviving heroic German v a l u e s . ^8 Among those in attendance were such leading "fighters" as Paul de Lagarde, Eugen Duhring, and Bernard Forster. The heir apparent, however, was the editor of the Bayreuther Blatter, Hans von Wolzogen and the bright young star of literary criticism was Ludwig Schemann.^9 On first consideration Gobineau and Wagner would seem to have much in common. Both lauded the virtues of the ancient Teutons, shared many views on the relationship of culture to society and had a genuine interest in non western cultures. Despite these similarities, however, there were basically irreconcilable differences. While Gobineau was at Bayreuth, Wagner received the news that Garibaldi had died. The whole circle was grieved; as nationalists and deformed, but genuinely democratic, liberals they felt the death of the Italian revolutionary to be a personal loss. Gobineau, however, was in no way perturbed; what after all was the loss of another "fool".?^ Theirs is the confrontation between a cosmopolitan con­ servative and a Bourgeois nationalist. While much of their thought was similar Gobineau and Wagner remained divided 278 by their basic social orientation. This was accentuated by Wagner's relative optimism in comparison to Gobineau's absolute pessimism. While Gobineau was at Bayreuth both the "master" and Walzagen studied the Essal intensively. Walzagen produced the first genuine analysis of the work in twenty-five years. While only analyzing superficially Gobineau's fundamental hypothesis, he proceeded to chronicalize Gobineau's analysis of various ages, noted the influence of race in human development, and cited the Count's dire predictions of the end to come. Neither he nor Wagner, however, were prepared to accept these prognostications of doom. While race was a basic factor in human history the "blood" of Christ could overcome the "blood" of racial degeneracy.^2 The truly heroic soul, filled with compassion for humanity, could reverse this process by his action in defense of the true Germanic faith. Thus, Gobineau's work should only be accepted as a challenge, a prediction of what will happen if we don't reorient ourselves to the rebirth of German society.Here, despite the common vocabulary, there is no genuine unity. Although depressed with the state of con­ temporary society, Wagner is unwilling to accept Gobineau's fundamental assumption. Indeed, it is doubtful that Wagner fundamentally understood Gobineau's relationship with the Wagnerians was based on fundamentally conflicting assumptions, differences which Schemann would try, but never fully, obscure. Gobineau answered this belief in progress with an ever increasing pessimism. In addition to his long developed hatred for the European "masses" he now added a new element: the Yellow Peril.7^ The Count, who like many western Europeans, had had an exaggerated dread of "Tsard.om" since the 1840's, found his fear distorted out of all proportion to reality by his trip to eastern Europe (l876),75 and the Russo-Turkish War" (1 8 7 8).. Like his friend Prokesch-Qsten,Gobineau had been a supporter of the Austro-British proposition that the Ottoman empire, despite its nationalistic and religious strife, must be maintained at all costs as a bulkwork against Russian aggression. The Russo-Turkish war shook this pattern to the breaking point. Gobineau's reaction was to be expected he condemned the policies of all nations involved. The English who seized Cyprus, the Austrians who had proclaimed a protectorate over Bosnia-Herzogowina, and the French who stood idly by were all producing a situation which could only aid the Russian coloss us.7^ The Count looked to the Greeks to establish a temporary stability but he clearly felt that all such solutions could not be p e r m a n e n t . 77 The Russians through their Pan Slavism and their Armenian henchman would undermine any resistance to their advance: 280 'bnce again I cannot remember a period aside from the Byzantine where one has shown more incapacity, insufficiency and self complacency.78 Gobineau extended this perspective in an unpublished

essay on Russia.79 Based on his trip to that country with Dorn Pedro II the Count's observations are those of one who had only a superficial knowledge of the country which he wished to analyze. Gobineau stressed the ability of the Russian Empire to assimilate other nationalities and to maintain its military position in Europe. "There is no doubt that among modern nations the Russian Empire admits most openly in its direction and affairs the principle of fin diverse races."ou If the Baltic Germans form a small caste which gives the Empire its leaders, the Slavic population neither prize nor respect freedom and are naturally sus- Q-I ceptible to bureaucratic centralism by Czar or dictator. Vacillating and naturally servile they are degraded by centuries of mixture with Finnic and tartar blood and will allow any strong ruler to impose a despatic rule over them. At present a Germanic ruling class dominates but it will be easily swept away in the near future. The Count finds this danger in the rise of a tartar despot as the new ruler. Russia, he assures us, is on the 82 verge of being conquered by a new Attila. While it is difficult to determine the exact nature of Gobineau's 28l thought on this point, it is probably that he was here assuming the very unlikely possibility that Russian imperialism in Kazakstan by improved irrigation and renewed demographic growth would recreate the Turko-Mongol border which had sprung from this area before the sixteenth c e n t u r y . ^3 Gobineau then assumed that the general who rules these hordes and his Slavic slaves would march on western Europe. We are on the verge of becoming a doomed RU society. Gobineau brought these new elements of Impending disaster into unison with his portents of European degeneracy in Eln Urtheil ueber die Jetzlge Weltlage als ethnologlsches Resume published in the Bayreuther Blatter (l88l).®^ After restating his theory of the apporaching collapse of European society, the rise of the racially mixed masses, and the Caesars to come Gobineau moved on to the new danger: The hordes that are preparing to descend on the western world. The British are destroying themselves in India by mixing with the fully degenerate Hindus; the Chinese are disembarking on the shores of California and the Russians are resurrecting the Tartar or hordes.00 Indeed, all of Asia and Africa are preparing to march on western Europe. "There are already masses in motion. One can only shake to think of what awaits us."^ There is nothing left of the Count's rational analysis, for the "yellow peril" was a myth. Gobineau's pessimism 282 has come to threaten his very society; warped by his own conceptions he has become almost paranoid as to the danger which threatens European society. "The European War will begin in a year or so. We are at the end of European society to which we have the weariness of seeing the end and its last gasps, the present situation is simple GO agony. ° In such a mood he could have little in common with anyone else. As he wrote Cosima; "There is only one thing to do in the world and that is to leave it."®9 it was in this mood of absolute despair that Gobineau died alone in Turin, October 13, 1882. Gobineau left a literary statement of his frustration in the artistically worthless, but intellectually signi- 90 ficant, epic poem, Amadis published posthumously by Madame de la Tour. Based on the Spanish theme of the later middle ages,Gobineau has changed its theme to make it barely recognizable as a part of the traditional Genre.91 if Amadis is a literary failure, however, it still represents in succinct form all of its author's thought during the latter period of his life. Gobineau began the composition of his work in Rio de Janeiro in a mood of relative optimism.92 Thus, the first part of his work emphasizes the heroic ideals of the past; the ancient Teutons were here pictured in the full glory of medieval society. It was only after 1870 In his 283 increasing pessimism that Gobineau completed the last two parts of his work. Here, Gobineau's increasing personal frustration and political pessimism combined to create an artistic expression of the end to come.93 Despite many commentaries on this work, however, aspects of Amadis remain perplexing,for Gobineau will end his work with the assertion that the Aryans are the "gods" and only they can obtain immortality. Did he actually believe this? Had Gobineau's own equilibrium disinte­ grated to such an extent or are we to assume this to be a metaphorical construction to express Gobineau's belief in the eternality of Aryan values. Such an evaluation requires some knowledge of Gobineau's personal religious beliefs. The Count always maintained to his friends that he was devoutly Catholic. When asked by Tocquevllle in 1856 he stressed that; "I am very sincerely, completely, and profoundly a Catholic."94 And when asked the same question by Caroline in 1874 he emphasized the same perspective; "I have never been counted among the free thinkers. On the contrary I shall always be counted among the Catholics."95 Yet, it Is clear that Gobineau has accepted the church primarily on account of its utilitarian value in resisting social revolution rather,.than because of any fundamental belief in Its doctrines. Indeed, his acceptance of Catholicism is almost cynical since he frequently mixes 284 his assertions of faith with demonstrations that rationalism and even Darwinism have made revealed religion an ana­ chronism for modern men. Mere Benedict, however, was unwilling to accept such attempts to dodge the essential question. Sincerely worried about his soul, she pressed her brother for a declaration of faith in Christ and his church as the only 96 means for salvation. Gobineau, while remaining sym­ pathetic to his sister's profession of faith, could only maintain that; "The existence of bad and the immortality of souls excepted,all the rest is a matter for dis­ cussion."^ while Christianity might make rational sense, he simply could not believe in it as a means of personal salvation. "The great difficulty is, fundamentally, all of this is meaningless for me. All of the accepted or rejected theological truths do not have the least effect on my heart."9® Thus, Gobineau was certainly not an orthodox Christian, Perhaps, his frustration and sense of rejection were too strong for him to believe in a compassionate God? What, however, did he believe in? Since 1870 Gobineau had begun to stress a new theme: The "immortality" of the "gods". In la Paradise du Beowulf and Olaf Tryggvason100 the Aryans of all nations and cultures are the "gods"; by their ideals and their deeds they are on a level above mere 285 men. They have not effaced themselves before a life negating ideal but, rather, have earned "immortality" by their actions.101 Whether believers in Zeus, Odin, or Brahma all were equal to their "gods" by their own deeds. Yet, even this is meant half cynically. If Gobineau accepts it, one must recognize that it ;is primarily poetic: I find the religion of the primitive Aryans more straight forward, more reasonable and at the same time simpler than any other. All the Aryans were saved and became gods on the basis of the purity of their blood while all the rest, Negros, Finns ceased to exist for the same reason, ... I have adopted this way of thinking. Perhaps it Is cumbersome but it allows me to consider the appearance of Imbeciles, fools, and bums as a transitory phenomena. Besides, I recognize that all which one can say and do here appears excellent more or less probable and respectful of God . . . I talk, write, and discuss it but that doesn't assure anything other than to hold my spirit in an area which I consider elevated. Do you finally understand my thought? I negate nothing, refuse nothing, and nothing surprises me but I won't let myself be judged by anyone and because I believe in justice I cannot believe in judgment." 1 0 2 Thus, Gobineau remains essentially an agnostic, one who assumes the existence of God but that his characteristics are undefinable. If he has accepted "the religion of our Aryan ancestors," it is due to the social idea which these myths upheld rather than its theological justification. If bad does not reveal himself to mortals, this ideal of assertion appeals more to the Count than the negation of will assumed by Christianity. In the last analysis, however, 286

Gobineau's critical rationalism does not allow him to accept any revealed religion. Amadis will be a testament to this faith as well, a metaphorical synthesis between Gobineau's conception of the eternal nature of Aryan cultural values and the religion of the "gods". The first part of Amadis is, indeed, a testament to the glory of the ancient Aryans. Here, Amadis holds court with the heroes over a world filled with adventurous deeds and justice. All maintained the higher ideals of love, honor, and liberty. As masters they are loved and respected as natural leaders. "And the people, welcomed these heroic judgments in repeating everywhere the magni­ ficent refrains of these l a w s . " 1 0 ^ Thus, the rule of the heroes was Idyllic for all; the people received justice and the heroes maintained the Ideals of higher worth. This ideal society, however, cannot last: The danger is to be seen within the ranks of the heroes themselves. Ayglain challenges his leige for the hand of Oriene, the symbol of truth. His claim is something beyond the ideals of the heroes a new form of nobility; "against tyranny and your vanity in the name of our lady and the trinity. I fight for honor and humanity.ul°4 it is the refrain of the humanitarians and philosophs, Aryan like Amadis himself, but misguided in his view of the "masses" and the racial nature of society. 2 87 This challenge is augmented by that of Merlin, the personification of scientific endeavor. Originally dedicated to propagating the values of the heroes, he now turns against them, causing doubt and cynicism in the truth of the old ideals. The wizard is aided by the hatred and jealousy of the Gallo-Romans for the Aryans. Now he will justify the ideals of liberty, equality, and fraternity. The reaction of Amadis is that of Gobineau; "He had been able to grasp the essence of the new science and it was this: the sons of apes in opposition to the sons of Odin."10^ Gobineau, however, is also clear; knowledge is on the side of the Gallo-Romans. It Is a fundamental assertion of the failure of the Count's own scientific studies of race. If the heroes resist the new knowledge, they do so with the full recognition that they are resisting that which is demonstrably true. It is the recognition of failure by the author of the Essal; that which he had thought demon­ strable in 1 8 5 0, he can only assert now in poetic form. "When I wrote my book on the inequality of races in 52, few people saw the truth. Today I saw someone buy here at Rome a copy that someone found by accident of a book that one can no longer find."10^ If Amadis is an assertion of artistic belief, it is, nevertheless, also a recognition of intellectual failure. Both of these men, however, will be destroyed in the 288 general collapse to come. Ayglain, victorious in his first battles, will be destroyed by Amadis but only after he has come to understand that humanity Is In fact made up of "fools" and "Imbeciles" who are unable to rise above their base, material nature while Merlin will be destroyed by the forces of havoc which he has released. Thus, they have demonstrated nothing except their own "foolishness" and failure to grasp the true nature of the "masses".10? They have, however, established the basis of the collapse to come. The heroes sure of their superior worth, ride into battle knowing that they will lose but that their values are eternal; "We will be the victors.1 The happy ones and the masters] For you will disappear before us."10® The leader of the popular forces is the revolutionary Barrabas, an obvious personification of Gambretta. Although still a man of principle, he is unable to control the forces which he seeks to guide. His ideology is that of the revolutionary Gallo-Romans: "The rule of the seigniors established by the Franks or the rule of God in the hands of France. ,,109 It is the assertion of the revolutionary triumvirate of ideals to which Amadis can only reply; "I am the Middle Ages and I will die."110 The contrast is complete; two ideals will fight for supremacy but the victor, Gobineau assures us, will not be judged by events, for Barrabas is destroyed 2 8 9 by the "masses" whom he leads. Destruction and tyranny is what will follow. The battle and the ensuing collapse of western culture gives Gobineau the opportunity to vent his spite on modern society and racial degeneracy to the fullest. The "masses" are shown in their most lowly form. "In their insolence they will prepare the way for the Caesars to come; between the wolves and vampires who will, thereby, aspire to main­ tain equality. Thus, western society will incapacitate itself through its own degeneracy. The Coup de grace, however, will be administered by the Huns. The vacillating slavs will set the scene and then the "Yellow Peril" will emerge; "they have opened the gates and shown the way."^2 Now the Mongols, Finns, and Tartars will march on western Europe. "Misery is their way for nothing is precious to them. The end is their work and it is already in preparation. 1,1 ^ They will be aided by the African "indolents." "... without true blood, iiji origins or even the name of honor." The doom of western society is established. There is nothing left to do except die with honor. Gobineau, however, adds a new dimension to his work. If all will collapse, the heroes will be granted immortality. "Love is eternal and honor has come in all its superiority from heaven, and liberty bears the same immortality. All 2 9 0 three compose the joy of divinity. ,,115 They shall become the "gods," for their values maintain their eternal worth when those of the "fools" and "imbeciles" have long since passed. In this way Gobineau has added a new, cultural dimension to his prediction of doom, an element shown only in his literary work. While nothing can prevent the approach of doom, now the positive cultural ideas of the Aryans are presumed to persist beyond this collapse; however, Gobineau's increasing psychological despair has taken its toll here as well, for the Count is unable to keep himself from turning his cultural ideal into pseudo religious symbolism. Thus, he has been unable to maintain the crucial element which he himself had established; balance. Amadis is, therefore, the work of a man in full intellectual and psychological decomposition^all that he had espoused for thirty years was now in full disarray A theory created on good empirical grounds was no longer tenable; a life built on an individual belief in his nobility lay shattered at his feet; and even his cultural ideal could only be asserted in a distorted form. Amadis is not the work of a man to hate; it is the work of a small*time loser. FOOTNOTES CHAPTER VI

Jean Gaulmier, Spectre de Gobineau, (Paris, 1 9 6 5), pp. 172-175. Gobineau, Comte-cTe-and M6re Benedicte de Gobineau, Correspondence, (1872-1882), (Paris, 2 vols., 1958), II, 299-309• Arthur de Gobineau, Briefwechsel mit Adelbert von Keller, in Nachgelassene Schrlften, (Strasbourg, 4 vols., 1907-1911) Briefe I, pp. 178-179. ^Gaulmier, Spectre, pp. 174-178, Gobineau, Correspondence, II, pp. 299-300.

^Gaulmier, Spectre, pp. 1 9 0-1 9 5. Gobineau, Correspondence, II, pp. 182-1 9 6.

^Gobineau, Correspondence, II, pp. 2 8 6-2 8 7.

^Gaulmier, Spectre, pp. 1 6 5-1 7 0. Ludwig Schemann, Gobineau, eine Biographie, (Strasbourg, 2 vols., 1913-1916)7"rr, p p ? 560-563. £ Carl Friedrich von Glasenapp, Das Leben Richard Wagners, (Leipzig, 6 vols., 1910) VI, pp. 407-411. Ernest Newman The Life of Richard Wagner, (New York, 4 vols., 1946), IV, pp.”533-635. ^Newman, Wagner, IV, Chapters 30-36. Guenter Lanczkowski, Die Bedeutung Indischen Denkens fuer Richard Wagner und seinen Freundeskreis, (Diss., Marburg/L. 1948). Q Arthur de Gobineau and Cosima Wagner, "Lettres de Cosima Wagner a Gobineau," Revue Hebdomadaire, July 16, 1938. ^Arthur de Gobineau, L*Histolre d 1 Ottar Jarl, pirate norvegien, conqueront du pays He Bray en Normandie, et de sa descencTancF^ (Paris,-1879). 10Gobineau, Keller, p. 117.

11Gaulmier, Spectre, pp. 8 2-8 7.

291 29 2

12 Philipp, Fuerst zu Eulenburg-Hertefeld, ”Eine Erihnerung an Graf Arthur Gobineau," Bayreuther Blaetter, IX, May 5, 1886, p. 159. ■^Gobineau, Jarl, pp. 291-300. -^Gobineau, Jarl, p. 143. •'■^Gobineau, Jarl, p. 139. ^Gobineau, Jarl, pp. 245-247. Ludwig Schemann, Quellen und Untersuchungen zum Leben Gobineaus, (Strasbourg Berlin, 2 vols., 1914-1920), pp7 1-168T ^Gobineau, Jarl, pp. 367-381. ■^Gobineau, Jarl, pp. 402-430. ■^^Gobineau, Jarl, pp. 431-433.

2 0 Gaulraier, Spectre, pp. 75-84. Schemann, Quellen, I, pp. 1-68. 21 ^ Ernest Seilliere, Le Comte de Gobineau et L 1 aryanisme historique, (Parish 150377 pp. 395-35B” and IT0 9 - 4 1 T : ------

2 2 Goblneau, Jarl, pp. 304-309. 23 Gobineau, Correspondence, II, p. 92. 2^Leon Deffoux, Trois Aspects de Gobineau, (Paris, 1929), PP. 3-32. 2*-> x -'Claude Dlgeon, La Crise allemande de la Pensee Francaise, (Paris, 195777 pp. 263-291. Peter S¥aedler, Sescnichtsschreibung und historisches Denken in Frankreich, I 7 8 9 -I871 CZuFich7~~l'95^Tj pp. 333-339.------Fustel de Cculanges, "La Maniere d' ecrlre L ’Histoire en France et en Allemagne,", Revue des Deux Mondes, September 1, 1872. 27Fustel de Coulanges, Histolre des Instltulons olltiques de la France, (Paris, 2 vol's., 18?7). Fustel §e Coulanges, ’7TL'Invasions germaniques au Vieme siecle, son caracter et ses effects," Revue des Deux Mondes, May 15, 1872. 293

28Jacques de Boisjolin, Les peuples de la France, (Paris, 1 8 7 8). See also Daniel Halevy, "Jacques de Boisjolin," Nouvelle Revue Frangalse, February 1, 1934, pp. 185-193. ^^Bolsjolln, peuples, Chapters 1 & VI. 3°Boisjolin, peuples, p. 355.

^Boisjolin, peuples, p. 9 . ^^walter Scheldt, "Beitraege zur Geschichte der Anthropologie," Archly fuer Rassenbiologie, (1923-1924), pp. 381-386. Loren Eiseley, Darwin's Century, (London, 1959) PP. 3-23 and 57-61. Gerhard Wlchler, Charles Darwin: Der Forscher und der Mensch, (Munich^ 19b3). ^Glyn Daniel, A Hundred Yearsof Archeology, (London, 1950), pp. 57-67. 3^Egon von Eickstaedt, Die Forschung an Menschen, (Stuttgart, 3 vols., 1940), I, pp. 126-129 and 144-149. Salomon Reinach, L 1 Origine des Aryans, (Paris, 1 8 9 2), pp. 6 2-6 7. -^Arthur de Gobineau, Memoire sur les diverses Manifestations de la Vie Individuelle, ed7 A. B. Duff, TFarIS-,-1935), pp.^Y^ftT.------^Gobineau, Correspondence, I, pp. 126-127. ^Arthur de Gobineau, L' Essai sur L' Inegalltd des Races humalnes, (Paris, 1967), PP. 33-34. This was originally published in the introduction to the second edition of the Essai in 1884. ^^Reinach, Aryans, pp. 53-57. Arnould de Quatrefages," Hlstoire naturelle de 1' Homme, La Race prussienne," Revue des Deux Mondes, February 15, 1 8 71. 39Erwin H. Ackerknecht, Rudolf Virchow, (Madison, Wls., 1953), pp. 209-212. ^Rudolf Virchow, "Ueber die Methode der Wissenschaftlichen Anthropologie, eine Antwort an Herrn de Quatrefages," Zeitschlft fug** Ethnologie, IV, 1872, pp. 300-320. Rudolf Virchow, Die Urbevoelkerung Europas, (Berlin, 1874). 294 41 , Reinach, Aryans, pp. 104-107. Eickstaedt, Forschung, I, pp. 126-127.

^2Daniel, Archeology, pp. 136-145 and 167-1 6 8. C. W. Ceram, Goetter, Graeber und Gelehrte, (Hamburg, 19^9)j pp. 6 7-7 1. M. I. Finley, Aspects of Antiquity, (London, 1 9 6 8), Chapter 2. ^Daniel, Archeology, pp. 199-207. Svend Pallis, The Antiquity of Iraq: A" Handbook of Assyrlology, (Copenhagen, 195’6), pp. T90-399. AHolf Mlchaelis, Eln Jahrhundert kunstarchaeologischer Entdeckungen, (Leipzig, 1908); pp7"2?5T-SlT.------^Daniel, Archeology, Chapter 5 Mlchaelis, Entdeckungen, pp. 67-697 120-129* and 211-217. ^Arthur de Gobineau, "Lettres de Gobineau a la Comtesse de la Tour", ed. J. Mistier, Le_ Table Ronde, April 28 and May 29* 1950, p. 186. Gobineau, Correspondence, II, p. 194. Gobineau, Correspondence, I, p. 51. 47'Antoine Meillet, Introduction sa L 1etude' comparative des LanguesIndo Europeenes," (Paris, T9J4), pp. 464-469. Hans Arens, Sprachwissenschaft, (Prelburg/B. 1955) pp. 224-229. ^Holdar Pederson, The Discovery of Language: Linguistic Science in the Nineteenth Century, Trans. J. W. Spargo^ (Bloomington, Ind., 1931)* PP. 64-76. ^^Arens, Sprachwissenschaft, pp. 230-234. Reinach, Aryans, pp. 6 2-6 7. ^°Reinach, Aryans, pp. 52-57. Jan de Vries, ForschungsgeschichIe"3er Mythologie, (Freiburg/B. 1 9 6 1), pp. 230-239. ^James G. Frazer, The Golden Bough (New York, 1947). 52Adolf Bastian, Der Voelkergedanke im Aufbau Einer Wissenschaft von Menschen (Berlin, 1881J. 53 Paul Broca, Memolres ^ d' Anthropologie, (Paris,/ 5 vols., 1871-1888), I, pp. 12F-15T; A. C. Haddon, A History of Anthropology, (London, 1910), pp. 57-63. 295 £~ U ^ ✓ X > -^paul Topinard, Elements^ d' Anthropologie Generale, (Paris, 1885), pp. 65-93^ 55Reinach, Aryans, pp. 37-46. e;6 ^ Karl Poesche, Die Arier: Ein Beitrag zur historlschen Anthropologie; [7ena7 1676).

5?Karl Penka, Origines Arlacae, (Vienna. 1 8 8 3) Karl Penka, Die Herkunf t~~3er Arier; (Vienna, 1886).

r- O ^ Isaac Taylor, The Origins of the Aryans, (London, 1890). ■^Gobineau, Essai, pp. 31-36.

o0Gobineau, Essai, pp. 31-32. /T-i Gobineau, Essai, p. 34. 6 p Arthur de Gobineau, Die Bedeutung der Rasse 1m Leben der Voelker, trans. Julius Schwab, (Munich, T925T. ^Gobineau, Bedeutung, pp. 14-21. fill D Gobineau, Correspondence, I, p. 52.

^victor Giraud, Essai sur Taine, (Paris, 1 9 0 9). Henry T. Buckle, The History ot Civilization in England, (London, 3 vols., T872). fifiNewman, Wagner, IV, Chapters 32-34. Maurice Boucher, The Political Concepts of Richard Wagner, trans. M. Honere; (New York, 1950). ^Newman, Wagner, IV, Chapters 35-36. Glasenapp, Leben, VI, 621-5WI ^Boucher, Concepts, pp. 149-179. Lanczkowski, Denken, pp. 124-169. ^Glasenapp, Leben, VI. Chapters 1 and 2 and pp. 191-370. Maurice Lamartine, "Gobineau et Cosima Wagner, " Nouvelles Litteralres, July 5* 1930. • i. ^Glasenapp, Leben, VI, pp. 581-584 and 6 0 5-6 0 6. Newman, Wagner, IV, pp. 681-683. 296

^ Hans Von Wolzogen, "Die Religion des Mitleidens", Bayreuther Blaetter, VI, (1882-1883). Hans Von Wolzogen, Aus Richard Wagner’s Geisteswelt, (Berlin, 1 9 0 8).

72Wolzogen, "Mitleidens", pp. 115-117 and 141-142. Richard Wagner, "Heldenthum und Christenthum", Bayreuther Blaetter, V, (1881), pp. 249-255. ^Wagner, Heldenthum, pp. 252-258. Wolzogen, "Mitleiden", pp. 42 and 141-142. ?^Heinz Gollwitzer, Die Gelbe Gefahr, (Goettingen, 1 9 6 2). ^^Gobineau, Correspondence, I, pp. 165-194. Gobineau, "Comtesse de la Tour", pp. 160-197• ^^Dom Pedro II and Arthur de Gobineau, Correspondencias Inediteos, (San Paulo, 1938), pp. 535-542. Gobineau, Correspondence, II, pp. 53-81. ^ D o m Pedro II, Correspondencias, pp. 540-541. Arthur de Gobineau, Deux^Etudes sur^la Grece moderne, Q Dom Pedro II, Correspondencias, pp. 545. ^^Arthur de Gobineau, "L’Europe et la Russe," ms. B. N. U. - Strasbourg, 3514. Rn Dom Pedro II, Correspondencias, p. 297. Rl Gobineau, "Russe", pp. 12-42. Gobineau, Correspondence, II, pp. 5 9-6 0.

®2Gobineau, "Russe", pp. 54-61. ^Arthur de Gobineau and Georg Von Prokesch-Osten, Correspondence, (Paris, 1930), pp. 349-353. ®^Wagner, "Lettres", pp. 417-421. Gobineau, Correspondence, II, p. 254. 297

^Bayreuther Blaetter, V, (1881). This translation, apparently made by Cosima Wagner, is clearly inadequate. It is preferable to use the French original in Arthur de Gobineau, Ce_ Qul se passa en Asie suivant de L' instinct revolutionaire en France, "(Paris, 1928). See Manfred Stelnkuehler,"^oblneau et ses amis du Outre-Rhin" (Diss. Paris, 1962), pp. 3 2 6 -3 4 9 . ®^GobIneau, Asie, pp. 9-12. ^Gobineau, Asie, pp. 14-17. ^^Gobineau, Correspondence, II, p. 254, ®^Wagner, "Lettres", p. 14. ^Arthur de Gobineau, Amadis: Poeme posthumee, (Paris, 1 8 8 7). Although completed by Gobineau, the last part of this edition was considerably falsified by M. de la Tour. The last part of this poem is, therefore, to be found in Rahel Thenan, "L1 Amadis de Gobineau", (Diss. Montpelier, i9 6 0). The latter work is essential to understand Gobineau's intent. References to the last three chapters of Amadis are, therefore, taken from Thenan. „ 9lRahel Thenan, "Le Testament spirituel de Gobineau", Etudes gobiniennes, I (1 9 6 6), pp. 217-221. 92Thenan, Amadis, pp. 12-19 and 21-26. ^Thenan, "Testament", pp. 235-237. Schemann, Gobineau, II, pp. 524-539. 9^Arthur de Gobineau and Alexis de Tocqueville, La Correspondence cP Alexis de Tocqueville et d 1 Arthur cTe" Gobineau, ed. M. Degros, "(Paris, l959)> p. 572. 95Qobineau, Correspondence, I, p. 105.

^Gobineau, Correspondence, I, pp. 8 9 -9 3 and 106-111. 97aobineau, Correspondence, I, p. 99. ^Gobineau, Correspondence, I, p. 113. 99schemann, Quellen, II, pp. 12-36. 10^Arthur de Gobineau, L 1 Aphroesea, (Paris, 1868), pp.35-^9. 298

10 ^Thenan, Amadis, pp. 107-109 and 111-114.

102Goblneau, Correspondence, I, p. 124.

103Gobineau, Amadis, p. 146.

-L0^Gobineau, Amadis, p. 305.

10^Gobineau, Amadis, p. 2 7 8. 10^Gobineau, Correspondence, II, p. 254.

10^Gobineau, Amadis, p. 260. See also: pp. 331-337, 367-391 and 467-4771 10®Gobineau, Amadis, p. 200. 10^Gobineau, Amadis, pp. 486-487.

110Gobineau, Amadis, p. 490.

111Gobineau, Amadis, pp. 452-453.

112Thenan, Amadis, p. 1 7 2.

■^^^Thenan, Amadis, p. 1 5 8.

1 -^Thenan, Amadis, p. 181. ^^Qobineau, Amadis, pp. 334-337. Thenan, Amadis, pp. 200-209. /

CHAPTER VII THE MISUSE OP THE PROPHET

When Gobineau died alone and without recognition, he could have had no knowledge of the dubious future which awaited his work. Within thirty years he would be the center of a large controversy which revolved around Ludwig Schemann's work and propaganda. The discussion Itself would be as frought with contradiction as Gobineau's own life. Throughout Schemann's claim remained clear; "I myself was the one who first showed the scientific basis of Gobineau's work".'1' The claim is Just but its author also informs us that he met with considerable opposition O in this attempt- from both academicians and racial theorists. Why should this have been so? In the nation of his birth/Gobineau's variety of French historical writing rapidly disappeared after 1871. Modern French historiography has generally accepted the claim of Fustel de Coulanges that this form of history was neither justified by the facts nor patriotic. The distinctive nature of the French was the creation of her social insti­ tutions, political development, and culture. From Marc Bloch to Jacques Bainville the spectrum of French medieval 299 300 historians has emphasized the growth of the nation around Paris, her development through numerous periods of transi­ tion to dominate all of ancient Gaul, and her creation of a set of unique institutions defined as French. The exact nature of this process has been much debated, but its essential truthfulness has been rarely doubted.3 The vast increase in documentation made either the Gallic or Germanic hypothesis seem highly tenuous in the face of the evidence. Thus, the assumptions of Michelet, Renan, and Maury were accepted by all historians: France was one and indivisible. The history of Montlosier, Thierry, or Gobineau were considered irrelevant to the general process. France was the product of her institutions, not the result of a pre-established set of racial characteristics connected with the conquering Gauls or Germanic tribes. This tendency was sustained by French anthropology and archeology. Past Darwinist studies in this area found their orientation in the work of Paul Broca and Broca '.s judgment on these questions was clear. Race was to be determined on the basis of Groniology, linguistic classifies tions were too imprecise for such purposes. Broca's views were primarily directed at Baron Bunsen and Max Mueller, but it is clear that Gobineau's works could also be implied.** 301 Paul Topinard and Gabriel Mortillet carried on this work with Broca's emphasis up until the first World War. Topinard stressed that Pre-Darwinian speculation was of little use to the modern anthropologist, that linguistics were irrelevant for-determining, biological races, and that France's composition from a number of prehistorlcal races f was of no great importance to her present situation. Indeed, race, regardless of its importance, was difficult to determine in a nation as homogeneous as France. Mortillet, France's leading archeologist, was even more direct. The archeological, anthropological, and literary evidence all showed that France had a very mixed population but, the one incontestible fact is that the sense of nationality insofar as it relates to patriotism demonstrates that only one and the same heart beats in the breast of all Frenchmen. In this atmosphere no one had much use for the historical studies of Gobinau. Neither French historiography nor anthropology were fruitful soil for any scientific dis­ cussion of Gobineau. Despite the large number of polemics which developed around the Gobineau Society, Gobineau's ideas never sparked any genuine political interest. The reaction of the French left was to be expected. Gobineau had, after all, attacked the most basic premises of all Republicans. Romaln Rolland f’ in Jean Christophe gave the typical view. A follower of 302 the Count is here pictured as the very model of an anti­ revolutionary nobility. Gobinism, thus became the satiric characterization of a degenerate nobility, gone but unlamented. This, however, did not lead to any success for Gobinism with the political right. The new right of the Action Francaise, baptized in the Dreyfus affair, oriented towards a unifying monarchy to direct an ultramontaine Catholic population, and filled with hatred for France's enemies domestic and abroad, found little place for Gobineau. As a movement based on "integral nationalism" it found its historical identify in Jacques Boinville's conception of Jean d'Arc, the glory of Louis XIV, and the protection of France's national frontiers. France was a single, unique nation which must overcome its class divi­ sions and regionalism by stressing its unified national character. Indeed, the action Francaise adopted Fustel de Coulanges as "its" historian precisely because he had defended France's national honor in 1871 and had shown decisive history to be an aspect of France's internal weak­ ness in the face of the threat of a unified Germany.? The reaction of Barres and Mourras was, therefore, to be expected. Maurice Barres attacked Gobineau for support­ ing a cosmopolitan nobility rather than national unity. Such a policy could only produce increased social tension 303 at home and disunion in the face of the enemy abroad.® Mourras was even more pointed. Gobineau represented a great danger to the right. By attempting to substitute race for nation the Gobinist movement endangered national unity by its emphasis on class division and decentraliza­ tion. In addition, Mourras, using his skill as a satirist to its fullest, informed Gobineau of the pitfalls of his own method: My dear sir this sublime subject which interests you is large and grandiose. You attempt to enter and you will enclose yourself twice-fold but you will never leave it again because this great object is full of traps. It only takes a few new Inductions from things which In them­ selves need to be proved. These will be the fundamental facts used to demonstrate new facts.9 It is clear that the Gobineau revival would find little sympathy here. The work of Le Comte de Leusse and Le Comte de Basterol, who had attempted to aid Madame de la Tour in popularizing Gobineau's historical conception in France, was doomed to failure. They like Gobineau, himself, were representatives of a form of conservatism without successors after 1890.10 Gobineau's work was too far removed from the intellectual and political environment into which Schemann attempted to Introduce It. The only exception to this was Georges Vacher de Lapouge. Vacher's work was grounded in the social selec- tionisra of Francis Galton In Great Britain and Otto Ammon 30 4 in Germany. It saw the development of superior human types on the basis of Darwinian natural selection was being undermined by false social selectionism. Society tended to support the weak, unintelligent, and passive varieties of man by its humanitarianism and sentimentality.11 On the basis of detailed studies In Groniology which often became so detailed as to lack real validity, Vacher and Ammon con­ cluded that social mismanagement was producing an unfit generation of materialistic Bourgeoisie and degenerate pro- litarians. Only a rapid reversal of these policies could arrest this trend. 12 Vacher de Lapouge combined this with the "Nordic" theory of Aryan origins as developed by Karl Penka. The Aryans were the Dolichocephalic blonds who had radiated from Scandinavia to southern Europe and India. In the process they had founded most of the higher civilizations of Euro-Asia. Throughout European history they had been opposed by a small, less active, Brachycephalic race. The former had, and still possess, the higher virtues of nobility, spirituality, and a non-materialistic sense of life while the latter are highly materialistic, common­ place and without a larger vision of themselves or society. Social selectionism has tended to encourage the growth of this Brachycephalic element to the detriment of higher

cultural v a l u e s . As the process of industrialism and 3 05 economic rationalization progresses under the pressure of these sedate elements^ the freedom, which the Bryans have introduced into western society, will rapidly disappear. Modern military selection emphasizes the destruction of the fit while leaving the decrepit, alcohol and bad marriage laws are reducing the nation's vital life force, and the new social selectionism which has emerged since the French Revolution has encouraged the growth of a plutocracy which undermines the values of France's great age.1^ The future is even bleaker: The plutocracy will increasingly under­ mine all higher sense of nationhood, western Europe will lose its power through disastrous wars, and the Slavs and Americans will destroy that which remains.*5 The end of the civilized world is approaching. Vacher de Lapouge's purpose and predictions are, at least in agreement with Gobineau's own writings but, there are significant differences. Vacher's assumption of Darwinism led him to evaluate man in a manner very different from Gobineau's "Never forget that man is not a being 16 apart but simply a primate." In addition, due to his support for Penka, Vacher attacked linguistics as a method for determining racial classification, the theory of the central Asiatic origins of the Aryans, and the word Aryan itself in the most violent terms. He preferred the term Homo Europeans as emphasizing the proper anthropological 306 and "Nordic" orientation of his work and considered the speculation of an earlier generation as manifestly un­ scientific. Vacher de Lapouge's attitude towards Gobineau, there­ fore, was highly ambivalent. When asked as to Gobineau's priority in the discovery of racial laws he asserted, "that which confirms most directly the force of Gobineau's ideas is the fact that Ammon and myself have arrived at lO the same conclusions without knowing his work . . . Gobineau's Essal although much outdated in scholarship, saw the fundamental conception of the inequality of races, the dominance of the Aryans, and the danger of racial mixture but Vacher increasingly emphasized selection as the mechanism of choice rather than conquest as the basis for the appearance of Homo Europeans and his present decline.Thus, Gobineau was praised in 1923 as the predecessor of the theory of degeneracy but, Vacher was clear to note, that Gobineau's scientific apparatus was completely outmoded by new scholarship and even as a founder he had seen little more than Gustav Klemm.^O Gobineau was a traveler and erudite but not a scholar well grounded in fact.^ The intellectual environment had changed to such an extent as to make the Intellectual basis of the Essal unrecognizable.

Vacher died in 1937 like Gobineau, himself, having 307 gained neither academic nor personal success, damming the French for failing to heed his dire warnings and the Germans for misappropriating his theories.22 jjQ testament to the failure of Gobineau to strike roots in France could be more eloquent. The nation of his birth was unprepared for a doctrine which assumed degeneracy on racial grounds and the man who accepted It could neither use Gobineau's structure as proof nor interest anyone in accepting the fundamental prophecies.of doom Gobineau, thus, left no legacy of "scientific" racism in France. A few men became genuinely Interested in his literary works but the soil of the Third Republic proved very unfruitful for someone who preached absolute de­ generacy and social conflict on the basis of racial dif­ ferences while the Count's scientific basis was too out­ dated to interest anyone In his apparatus to demonstrate his point. In the country of his adoption the Gobineau Society also had little success. Despite Schemann's immense effort to popularize and "Germanize" Gobineau, the Count's works never really attained the expected popularity.within the German left and liberal academic circle this was to be expected. An Ideology recommended by the Pan Germans and the Wagnerians was not conducive to ready acceptance by those elements in German society which saw the Germanic 308 myth, a rejection of parliamentary democracy, and prophe­ cies of degeneracy as excuses for not reforming an imperial government badly In need of change. Nor was much more to be expected from German anthropology, Rudolf Virchow became the founder of modern German studies in this area, oh and he was clearly sceptical of all racial speculation. n His massive craniological study of school children in the l880's and his archeological work in German prehistory foretold of the difficulties of grounding any form of "scientific" racism in fact. Germany was composed of a highly mixed population, it was difficult to determine which of many Neolithic cultures was produced by the ancient Germans, and the more modern methods developed after

1870 did little more to unravel the riddle of the racial sphinx than their predecessors. It was best not to attempt larger generalizations. Perhaps such questions were simply unanswerable from the given data.2^ This fully justified caution pervaded German academic circles before 1933* leading racist thinkers to continually condemn such men and to assert the existence of a conspiracy against the acceptance of their works. Even under the Third Reich it produced the muted, but distinct, resistance of Germany's leading anthropologist, Egon von Eckstedt and one of her leading archeologists, Ernst Wahle, to the highly unscien­ tific use of race adopted by Nazi canon.2^ Neither the 309 methods or the intent of Gobineau, vastly outmoded by forty years of scholarship even In 1 8 9 0, could be discussed "scientifically" by such people. Schemann was, thus, increasingly forced to turn towards the German right for support. Here, however, he also met resistance, for German racists also found Gobineau to be a rather dubious legacy. Despite the general assumption made of Gobineau's direct relationship to national socialism, the resistance of the German right to Gobinism was quite intense and was, indeed, justified within the intellectual framework and political perspective in which these people worked. At the turn of the century the leading German racist "scientist" was Ludwig Woltmann, a priest of historical Aryanism and Pan German imperialism. He had gained notoriety in 1903 by publishing a prize winning study in political anthropology. In this work he linked himself to Galton, Ammon, and Vacher de Lapouge as a defender of social class against the "false Messiahnism" of social democracy. Only by firm leadership and respect for authority could Germany reaffirm her Germanic past against the internation­ alist rabble.2? In pursuit of this goal Woltmann founded the Polltlsche Anthropologische Revue and gained consider­ able support in Pan German circles. Woltmann's reaction to Schemann's work was highly sympathetic and Schemann 310 reciprocated by terming Woltmann a "genteel scholar" who was the only person to take a genuine interest in the oft scientific study of Gobineau's work. ° Woltmann's studies of Die Germanen in Frankreich and Die Germanen und die Renaissance in Itallen demonstrate the "genteel scholar's" debt to Gobineau as well as the difficulties of attempting

to prove Gobineau's studies "scientifically" after 1 8 9 0. Woltmann asserted that he was searching for political and cultural geniuses, a small minority who had created the great western cultures. He found these in a small percentage of Dolichocephalic blonds in France, Italy, and Spain. This elite had produced the higher culture, art, and literature of all of these nations. These elements had been introduced by the Germanic conquests and had now largely dissipated, leading to the degeneracy of these nations in modern times. In their passing, however, they had created the dominant figures In the Renaissance, the age of French Classicism and the other great cultural moments since the fall of the Roman Empire.29 Yet, even within this attempted unity, Woltmann showed considerable differences from Gobineau. The "genteel scholar" was searching for genuises rather than the historical development of modern Europe. Thus, Mazzini, Garibaldi, Robespierre, and Rousseau, among others, were Aryans. The French Revolution, the Napoleonic Era, and Nineteenth 311

Century Nationalism were Germanic movements.3° While there are aspects in Gobineau’s thought which might have been in agreement, the general impetus was distinctly anti-Gobinien. The attempt to find geniuses rather than to analyze social structure led him to see resilience in an age in which Gobineau could see nothing except degeneracy.31 in addition, Woltmann’s failure to extend this analysis to include Germany allowed him to assume a conclusion contrary to Gobineau's of a relatively optimistic future for the Second Empire and its Imperialism.32 Thus, even with his acceptance of Gobinism, degeneracy was denied as a universal rule. The major attack on the Gobineau revival, however, came from Woltmann's co-worker, Ludwig Wilser in 1903. Wilser was an original proponent of the Penka hypothesis of the "Nordic" origins of the Indo-Europeans. As such, Gobineau's scientific apparatus represented contradiction to the major tenants of his theory, a throwback to an era of scholarship as repugnant as it was unjustified. He, therefore, reacted strongly against Schemann's claims, asserting that the, until then, unknown Gustav Klemm had formed the basis of racial thought rather than the foreign Count. Gobineau was neither original nor profound. His work was scientifically untenable and even his literary style was without worth.33 312

Wilser's charges were trumpeted through the pages of the Polltische Anthropologlsche Revue by another fervent nationalist, Theodor Bieder. Bleder commenced a history 34 of Germanic studies clearly directed at Schemann, in which he attempted to show that the true message of Germanic superiority had been developed by a series of unknown patriots, that the central Asiatic theory of Indo-European origin was developed by an international lottery of scholars who wished to rob the Germans of their heritage, and that only Penka and Wilser had brought the problem back to its proper perspective by emphasizing the ancient Germans as the basic Indo-European people.35 "jjot in Asia but in Europe is to be found the cradle of Aryan man and and as the purest representative of the Indo-Germanic people, the ancient Germans stand out. "36 The appeal was obviously more emotional than intel­ lectual and its political intent was difficult to ignore. "How far are we still separated from the practical center of our lives when every progressive step in the study of our Germanic heritage reminds us that we_ need not travel through the detour of southern cultures and religions to conceive of ourselves as a worthwhile root of humanity.1 "37 Throughout the controversy Woltmann, himself, remained impartial assuming both Klemm and Gobineau to have been joint founders of the glorious idea,^® and by 1913 Schemann's 313 over-emphasis on Gobineau's sympathies for the modern Germans had led to a compromise,39 but the basic fact remained: if the French right was uninterested in someone for whom Germanic might imply German, the German right was uninterested in someone for whom Indo-European didn't directly imply the ancient Germans. The modern "Nordic" theory found its first formulation in the works of the archeologist, Gustav Kossina. Kossina, who was a competent if somewhat unobjective scholar, took the theory of Penka and revised it extensively on the basis of the three-period system, significant shifts in linguistic philosophy, and the use of the newest archeological techniques. ^ He assumed that a basic cultural pattern which had existed throughout central Europe which had radiated south from Scandinavia during the Neolithic period was the Indo-Europeans. These people created the basic cultural elements of Indo-Iranian and Greco-Roman civiliza­ tion. In the Bronze Age a second move migrated into central Europe to become the saviors of the later Roman Empire. These were the ancient, heroic Germans of Tacitus.^1 The ancient Germans were, therefore, the closest historical people to the fundamental Indo-European racial group. Kossina's scientific apparatus to demonstrate this was far different from that of any Aryan theorist before

1890. Linguistics was now used to denote a close relationship 314 between the Indo-Europeans and the Altaic-Finnic linguistic groups to show their common migration south from Scandinavia. While the general was of Indo-European linguistics, where considered too haphazard to determine cultural charac­ teristics, natural selection was assumed to be the essential mechanism by which the Indo-Europeans had separated them­ selves from the anonymous mass of Paliollthic settlers in Scandinavia. In addition, the higher characteristics of the Indo-Europeans were to be seen In their material artifacts rather than a unique set of religious institu- tions or social structure. J Nothing could be further from Gobineau's attempt to demonstrate these concepts, Schemann would find little support for his claims here. Having created this system/Kossina had a difficult problem to demonstrate the superiority of the ancient Germans. Although he examined the archeological sites minutely, he had no literary sources beyond Tacitus and a 4 4 few other classical references. To show this, he was, therefore, forced to emphasize such dubious evidence as the point of a few ancient Germanic shields as an indication of the desire of the heroes to attack rather than retreat and the image of a sunset on numerous artefacts which he com­ pared to a painting on the same theme by Edward Munch as an indication of the continuing spirituality of the ancient 4r Germanic peoples. 315 Kossina overcame his Intellectual hesitations on the eve of World War I when he declared his work and that of his colleagues at Mannu3 to be at the service of a German revival. The Indo-Europeans here became almost entirely an adjunct to the ancient Germans and Kossina attempted to mobilize scholars as the Kaiser mobilized his armies. hfi At this point the term Aryan became almost interchangeable with Germanic and the Indo-European controversy became firmly linked with the ideology of the German right. ^ Despite considerable resistance this position con­ tinued to persist after the war primarily because of its appeal to the German right. It became the framework for Hans Guenther's work and the "Nordic Movement." Guenther augmented this theory in a way which would not have been acceptable even to Kossina, finding six basic races within Europe and giving these races cultural characteristics lift demonstrable only by their assertion. He looked to no meaningful predecessors before 1900, and both In intent and demonstration it was vastly removed from Gobineau. If the Count was accepted as a founder of "Scientific Racism", It was only with the implied assumption that he had nothing to say about the present state of the "science". Scientific Racism, however, was not the only variety of racial thought. The "Cultural Racism" of Huston Stuart Chamberlain remained a strong aspect of the ideology of the 316 right throughout its development. Chamberlain's racial thought is vastly different from that of Kossina or Gobineau. He denied the value of all "scientific" classification of race, feeling that such schemes whether developed on linguistic or anthropological grounds to be fundamentally false. This led to a type of obscurantism which could prove nothing. Race is something amorphous grasped through true cultural appreciation.^^ jt can be seen within historical moments and thought but cannot be measured in a precise manner. Indeed, the attempt to classify it on "scientific" grounds fails to see the non-materialistic 150 basis of all higher thought.-' Chamberlain attempted to demonstrate the force of race historically by contrasting the spiritual and political nobility of the ancient Germans with the materialistic equalitarianism of the Jew. Each of these groups, while related to prehistorical racial groups, are formed through the historical process Itself and include numerous chron­ ological types and linguistic divergenciesBoth, there­ fore, are closer to the past historical Racism thought of Gustav Le Bon and Ludwig Gumplowicz than to Gobineau's Essai. Both the Jewish and Germanic spirits are creations of the development of these people in modern times. The pre­ dicament of modern Germanic culture is stated in terms which no "scientific racist" could accept: the Germans must create their own racial identity as an act of will against the materialistic reality of "biological" racial m i x t u r e . 62 ^he Germanic people have formed the basis of European spirituality since the twelfth century but have only partially learned to appreciate their "racial" identity. The Jewish "race", isolated physically and culturally for hundreds of years, has a strength which the Germanic people lack. Thus, Europe is in danger of being submerged in egalitarianism and materialism. The only hope lays in the Germanic peoples' attempt to form them­ selves into a "race" on the basis of their spiritual unity.63 While often referring to "scientific" racial criterion Chamberlain is fundamentally using historically formed cultural groups rather than racial classifications based on biologically formed groups. Indeed, if It were not for his desire to make a world confrontation out of what was essentially a short termed cultural controversy, he would have recognized that the use of racial terminology was almost entirely irrelevent to describe a situation, which even within his framework was essentially a cultural rather than "racial" problem This, however, was something which neither he nor the German right after him was willing to accept. Politics required an opponent and a small minority, often hardly recognizable from the population 318 as a whole, was chosen. Thus, the permanency of biological classification had to be applied to that which in reality was a cultural contrast. Here "race" lost almost any relationship to its origins. Gobineau or most other "scientific" theorists were entirely irrelevent to the process. Chamberlain's reaction to Gobineau was highly nega­ tive. As a Wagnerian and a widely read person, he was well informed as to Gobineau's Intent. He rejected both the general implications of the Count's work and numerous, specific evaluations of historical epochs. As a believer In Greek ideals as the foundation of western philosophy, he was particularly incensed with Gobineau's deprivation of Greek culture as a sign of degeneracy and his praise for the original Indo-Europeans. "The other Gobineau left the firm ground of reality and allowed his fantasy to fly so high that he glanced at all with the distorted perspective of a bird's eye view and felt himself compelled to see Hellenic art as a symbol of degeneracy and to praise the robbery of the hypothetical primal, Aryans as the noblest accomplishments of humanity."6^ Chamberlain's main objection, however, was directed at Gobineau's prediction of absolute degeneracy. The process of cultural formation since the twelfth century, while now threatened by Jewish materialism, was still 3 1 9 considered to be an essentially progressive growth of Germanic culture. An acceptance of Gobineau's conception of an integral prehistorical Indo-European population threatened all possibility for progress. As long as race is treated as a biologically given phenomenon, it will necessarily lead to the assumption of absolute degeneracy. "A noble race does not fall from heaven; rather, they become little by little noble exactly like a fruit tree, and this turning point can begin at any moment either by geographical, historical accident or as a part of an established plan, . ."55 While his grounds were somewhat different, Chamberlain was In this way reasserting the objections of Wagner, himself, asserting that Gobineau's emphasis on racial determinism would destroy all possibilities for progress in the future. 56 schemann struck back to defend the integrity of the Count's work but the damage had been done. The close relationship which at least some of the Wagnerians had had with the Gobinist movement was broken, for while Schemann might show that Chamberlain's sense of race was "unscientific", Chamberlain was certainly correct that Gobineau's absolute pessimism formed no basis for the German revival which the "master" had preached and the later Wagnerians felt themselves to be fulfilling.67 320

Gobineau could, therefore, expect little more sympathy from "cultural" racism than from its "scientific" counter­ part. If, for the latter his sources for proof were unacceptable, for the former his intent was dangerous; Gobineau's thought was little more use for the German right in either its Pan German or Wagnerian forms than he was for the American pro-slavery party during his life. Absolute degeneracy, after all, makes very bad propaganda. Schemann's revival, therefore, was still-born. It was left to wither by scholars and strangled in its cradle by the very people whom it was thought should claim it. All that remained was a myth, a carcass left intact because no one felt called upon to disturb It. The world marched on and with it yet another paradox in the Count's intel­ lectual career developed, for Gobineau was used to support that which he hated most, a mass movement based on ignorance and terror which through imperialistic.policies brought Europe to the verge of chaos and the virtual collapse of rational thought. FOOTNOTES CONCLUSION

1Ludwig Schemann, Gobineau's Rassenwerk, (Stuttgart, 1910), p. 13^ 2 Ludwig Schemann, 25 Jahre Gobineau Vereinigung, (Berlin, 1919), pp. 42-4F. ^Marc Bloch, 'Les questions des invasions en France, ' Revue des syntheses LXXV, (1940-5), PP. 51-81

^Paul Broca, Memolres d 1 anthropologie (Paris, 5 vols., 1 8 71-1 8 8 8), I, pp. 250-253, 63-bb, 2 8 1-2 9 0.

^Paul Topinard, 'De la Notion de Race en Anthropologie,' Revue d 1 Anthropologie, (1879), pp. 6 2 8-6 3 4 . Gabriel Mortillet, Formation de la nation frangaise, (Paris, 1897), P. 3ZT. ^Romain Rolland, Jean Christophe, (Paris, 4 vols., 1909-1 0 ), IV, p. 1 2 9. ^Eugen Weber g 1Action Francalse, (Stanford, 1962) pp. 36-37. Ernst Nolte, The Three Faces of Fascism, Trans. Lila Vennewitz, (London, 1965) P. 47T Q Maurice Barres, "Un Nouveau Livre de Gobineau," Le Gaulois, June 3, 1907. ^Charles Maurras, 'Gobineau,1 Dictionnaire politique et critique (Paris, 5 vols., 1936), II, p. 136.' ■^Ludwig Schemann, Lebensfahrten elnes geutschen, (Leipzig, 1925), pp. 251-60.^ Paul Leusse, Etudes ^hlstoire ethnlque depuls les temps prehistoriques Jusqu'au commencement de~ la Renaissance, (Paris, 2 vols., 1899).

•^Francis Galton, Hereditary Genius, (London, 1 8 6 9), Otto, Ammon, Die GeselTschaftsordnung und ihre natuerlichen Grundlagen (Jena, 1 9 0 0). 321 322 12Ammon, Grundlagen, pp. 149-179 and 290-297. Frank Hankins, The Racial Basis of Civilization, (New York, 1926), Chapters 4-b, ^■3Jean Colombat, La Fin du Monde civilise: Les prophetles de Vacher de Lapouge, (Paris, 194b), pp. 9-14. Georges Vacher de lapouge, Les selections soclales, (Paris, 1 8 9 6, Chapters 1-3. 1 It Vacher de Lapouge, pp. 349-360 and 260-2 6 9. "^GeorgesVacher de Lapouge, L 1 Aryan: son r£le social, (Paris, 1899), pp. 463-481 and487-514. 16 Vacher de Lapouge, selections,r p. 1. ^Vacher de Lapouge, Aryan, pp. 6-37. -| Q Schemann, Rassenwerk, p. 8 3 . 19 * r Vacher de Lapouge, selections, pp. 6 6-6 9. Georges Vacher de Lapouge, Race et Milieu social, (Paris, 1909), PP. 293-296. 2<“V}eprges Vacher de Lapouge, 'Dies irae: la fin du monde civilise,1 Europe, Oct. 1, 1923, p. 34-42. 21Vacher de Lapouge, Race, p. 172. 22Colombat, pp. 9-10 and 133. 23]yiichael Lemonon, "A propos de la diffusion du Gobinisme en Allemagne," Etudes gobinlennes, II, (1 9 6 7), pp. 262-268. 2itHans Juergen Eggers, Elnfuehrung in die Vorgeschichte, (Munich, 1956), Chapter 3. 2^Erwin H. Ackerknecht, Rudolf Virchow, (Madison, Wls. 1953), Pt. 3. Rudolf Virchow, Die Urbevoelkerung Europas, (Berlin, 1874). 2^Wilhem Schmidt, The Cultural Method of Ethnology, Trans. S. A. Sieber, (New York, 19397, PP. 314-321. Ernst Wahle, Zur ethnlschen Deutung fruehgeschichf-llcher Kulturprovinzen, (Heidelberg, 1941). 2^Ludwig Woltmann, Polltische Anthropologie, (Eisenach, 1903), pp. 3-157 and 297-303. 323

nO Schemann, Rassenwerk, pp. 334-337. OQ ^Ludwig Woltmann, Die Germanen und die Renaissance In Italien, (Leipzig, 1905}, pp. 34-39. Ludwig Woltmann, Die Germanen in Frankrelch, (Leipzig, 1936), pp. 119-128. Wallace Fergueson, The Renaissance in Historical Thought, (Boston, 1948), pp. 324-325. ^°Woltmann, Italien, pp. 133-142. Woltmann, Frankreich, pp. 6 7-fc>9. 3-*-Woltmann, Italien, pp. 3-9. ^Woltmann, Anthropologie, pp. 297-299* 33Ludwig Wilser, "Gobineau und seine Rassenlehre," Polltische Anthropologlsche Revue, (1 90 2-1 9 0 3 ), II, pp. 593-596" Ludwig Wilser, *Bericht ueber Seillerie,1 Polltische Anthropologlsche Revue, (1903-1904), II, pp. 1616-iorr;— ------•34 J Theodor Bieder, 'Vorlaeufer Gobineaus, 1 Polltische Anthropologlsche Revue, (1907-1908), VI, pp. 625-63^7 35Theodor Bieder, 'Beitraege zur Geschichte der Rassenforschung und der Theorie der Germanen-Heimat,1 Polltische Anthropologlsche Revue, (1909-1910), VIII, pp. 17$-18l"and,-383-30b"------3^Bleder, Beitraege, p. 3 6 2 .

3^Bieder, Beitraege, p. 3 6 3 . Bieder*s emphasis. 3®Ludwig Woltmann, Die Anthropologlsche Geschichts- und Gesellschaftstheorie, Polltische Anthropologlsche Revue, (L903-1904), II, pp.“126-127' ana“ 132. ^^Ludwig Schemann, Neues aus der Welt Gobineaus, Polltische Anthropologlsche Revue, (1911-1912), X, pp. 603-6127 and o35-o50. (1912-1913), XI, pp. 31-46, 101-104. 40 Gustav Kossina, Die Indogermanische Frage, (Berlin, 1902) pp. 199-213. figgers, Chapter 57 ^Kossina, Frage, pp. 203-204. Gustav Kossina, Die Herkunft der Germanen, (Wuerzburg, 1911). 324 ho Egger, Einfuhruhg, pp. 236-237. Kossina, Frage, pp. 2 1 7-2 2 1 . Kossina, Herkunft, pp. 18-25. ^Kossina, Frage, pp. 175-177> 215-221. Gustav Kossina, Die Deutsche Vorgeschlchte: elne hervorrang- ende Nationale Wlssenschaft, (Wuerzburg^ TsVj ), p. 9. 44 Eggers, Elnfuhrung, pp. 236-237.

^Kossina, Vorgeschichte, pp. 73-81 and 185-189. ^^Kossina, Vorgeschichte, pp. 1-12. Rudolf Stampfuss, Gustav Kossina: Ein Leben fuer die Deutsche Vorgeschichte, iLeipzig, 1935), pp. 25-27 and 3«-39. ^Egger, 238-239. Ernst Wahle, "Geschichte der Prehistorischen Forschung, " Anthrop, (1950-1951)* XLV-XLVI, pp. 94-96. 48Hans Guenther, Klelne Rassenkunde des deutschen Volkes, (Munich, 1933). Hans Guenther, Per Nordlsche Gedanke unter den Deutschen, (Munich, 1927). ^Houston Stuart Chamberlain, Rasse und Persoen- llchkeit, (Munich, 1937), pp. 74-75. Houston Stuart Chamberlain, Die Grundlagen des Neunzehnten Jahrhundert, (Muenchen 2 voTiT., 1 9 0 7), general introduction, 50 Chamberlain, Rasse, pp. 112-125.

C *1 Chamberlain, Grundlagen, I, pp. 135-160. 52Ludwlg Schemann, Die Rasse in den Gelstesswlssen- schaften, (Munich, 3 vols., 1928-153L), I, pp. 35-39. 55 "^Paul Pretzsch ed. Cosima Wagner und Houston S. Chamberlain in Briefwechseln, 186&-l9U8j [Leipzig, T934), pp. 5^4-545. -^Chamberlain, Grundlagen, II, p. 843. ^Chamberlain, Grundlagen, I, p. 314. -^Chamberlain, Grundlagen, I, p. 309-314 and the introduction to the 4th edition of the Grundlagen. ^Schemann, Rassenwerk. pp. 325-327. Ludwig Schemann, Lebensfahrten eines Deutschen. (Leipzig, 1925) PP. 190-193. Schemann, Geistesswlssenschaften. II, pp. 407-434. APPENDIX Biographical Summary

1816 Joseph-Arthur de Gobineau was born on July l4th. He is the oldest son of Louis de Gobineau, an officer of a noblesse de Robe family from Bordeaux, and Anne-Louise Magdelaine de Gercy of a West Indian background,

1820 October 6th, Marie-Caroline de Gobineau was born. Throughout her life she will be the loyal con- fidente of her brother. 1824 Arthur is of such poor health that his parents do not wish him to attend public school. He, there­ fore, received a tutor, M. de la Coindiere, with whom he studied with little direction. 1830 Madame de Gobineau separated from her husband to settle in Switzerland and Baden. The two children accompanied her. NDuring this period Gobineau attended the College of Bienne. 1831 July 8th, Gobineau's father was dismissed from command of his regiment by Marshall Soult due to his legitimist tendencies. * 1832 In the late 1832 or early 1833 Louis de Gobineau returned to Lorient in Brittany in poverty. Arthur and Caroline joined him but not his wife.

I8 3 2 - Arthur continued his studies first at Lorient and then at Redon in preparation for a military career under the direction of his father. Attracted by historical and literary studies, however, he rebelled against the physical sciences, failed his exams for St. Cyr, and went to Paris in search of a career.

1835 October, Gobineau arrived in Paris with 50 Francs in his pocket. His uncle Thibault-Joseph, an intranigent and strict ex-officer, failed to help him.

325 326

1836 He occupied a modest position at the Paris Gas and Electric Works. ^During this period he attended ^ the lectures of Etienne de Quatremere at the College de France.

1837 He widened his circle of friends by frequenting the Salon or Mme.de Serre, widow of the former restauration statesman, and became friendly with her nephews, Hercule and Gaston de Serre. In addition, with the help of the painter Guermann Bohnyhe became a regular visitor of Ary Scheffer.

1839 He took a position with the Post and Telegraph Co., where he earned 150 Francs a month. 1840 He published his first short story, Le Marriage d'un Prince but is highly frustrated. With a number of other aspirants he founded the "Scelti", a secret society of comrads to aid each other with their careers. 1841 La Revue des Deux Mondes published an article on the Greek Civil War. During this period he studied the great figures of the Renaissance. 1842 He became a correspondent for a new journal, L ’Unite, earning 150 Francs a month and contributing articles to the Quotidlenne. July, he became acquainted with Adalbert von Keller and began a correspondence with which would last until his death. 1843 April, Tocqueville, to whom he was probably intro­ duced by Charles de Remusat,^requested Gobineau to help him write a work on "l'etat des doctrines morales au XlXgsiecle." May, the director of the royalist journal, Quotidlenne offered him the position of Correspondent for foreign policy. During this period he also published Scaramouche in L'Unitl. 1844 He worked for several journals among which L'Unite and the Commerce were the most Important and his subject being primarily literary criticism. During this period he also published Les Adleux de Don Juan# his first attempt as a playwright. 327

1845 He produced a study of Stendhal for the Commerce, commentaries on Germany for the Revue de Paris, and literary criticism for the Revue nouvelle. 1846 He wrote Les Aventures de Jean de la Tour Miracle for the Quotidlenne and an epic poem, La Chronique rimee de Jean Chouan.

September, 10th, He married Gabrielle-Clemence Monnerot who was from an impoverished Greek family from Martinique. 1847 January, he published Mademoiselle Irnols in the National. June, he published Nicolas Belavolr as a feuilleton in the Union monarchique. September, he founded the Revue provinciale with Louis de Kergorlay to expound administrative de­ centralization. During this period Ternove began appearing in the Journal des Debats. 1848 L'Abbaye de ■Typhalnes, his first serious novel, was published by the Union. His tragedy Alexandre de Macedonlen, was accepted by the Cornedie-Francaise But will not be presented due to the February Revolution. September 14th, his first daughter Diane was born during a period of severe financial stress. 1849 Filled with despair he considered leaving Paris for Bordeaux despite the publishing of Nicolas Belavolr as a feuilleton. June, he was nominated as Chef du Cabinet by the new foreign minister, Tocqueville. September, The Revue provinciale goes defunct. November, he was named secretary to the French lega­ tion in Bern. 1850 He began L'Essal sur l'inegalite des races humaines. On orders from the foreign office he studied the economic system in Switzerland by traveling throughout that country. December, he returned to Paris and applied for the Legion d'honneur. 328

1851 Gobineau came into severe disagreement with his boss, Reinhard, and is almost recalled. . * February, he was named to the Legion d'honneur. April, he completed the first volumes of the Essai. July, he was named Charge d 1Affaires in Hanover while the minister was on vacation. At the end of his assignment he returned reluctantly to Bern.

1852 He prepared to send volumes of the Essai to Paris. September, he traveled throughout Northern Italy.

1853 Didot publishes the first part of the Essai. With the support of Tocqueville and de Remusat he attempted to enter L'Academie des sciences morales but was refused. 185^ Gobineau was on bad terms again with the minister in Bern. He, therefore, demanded another post and was named secretary to the French legation to the German Diet at Frankfurt. March, he established himself in Frankfurt where he was befriended by Georg-Anton von Prokesch-Osten, President of the Diet and a leading Austrian diplomat. During this period he worked on the second portion of the Essai. December, he was to participate in a mission to Iran led by Prosper Bouree.

1855 January. In Paris Gobineau prepared to leave for Iran with his wife and daughter. March, his uncle Thibault-Joseph died leaving Arthur both his estate and title. July, he arrived in Teheran via Egypt, the Red Sea, the Persian Gulf and Isphan. December, he was named an officer in the legion of honor. While enroute Didot published the second two volumes of the Essai. 32 9

1856 On the advice of Tocqueville he submitted the Memoire sur l'etat social de la Perse to the Academie.

a October, while Bouree returned to Paris due to ill health, Gobineau became head of the French legation. 1857 He spent the whole year in Iran studying the history and mores of the country in attempting to translate the Behistin Stone. March 23rd, his second daughter, Christine was born to his wife who had returned to France. In addition Mme. de Gobineau purchased the Tyre castle north of Paris with the inheritance of Thibault-Joseph.

1858 January, Gobineau passed control of the French legation in Teheran to Baron Pichon and returned to France, via Triebezond and Istanbuhl. October, Gobineau made a brief trip to Redon where his father died. He published the Lecture des textes cunglformes with Didot. 1859 February, the Foreign Ministry was clearly disappointed that Gobineau refused his nomination of the French legation in Peiking. May-October, he participated in an Anglo-French commission to delineate fishing zones of Newfoundland. He released Trols ans en Asie through Hachette. 1860 February, he was received in an audience by Napoleon III. June, he participated in a mission dealing with the annexation of Savoy. * 1861 Voyage a Terre-Neuve was published by Hachette. June-July, he, his wife, and daughters stayed in Saint-Gratien with the Princess Mathilde. ✓ September, he was named Minlstre plenipotentiaire to the Persian Court and left for Teheran via Athens, Istanbuhl, and the Caucusus, 3 30

1862 He consulted numerous traditional scholars on his research.

1863 October, he returned to Prance via Baku, Moscow, and Berlin. November, he was elected Mayor of Tyre in absencia. 1864 He published Traite des ecritures cuneiformes through DidotT This work will put him into opposi- tion with all the specialists in the field. October, he was named Minister to Greece and under­ took his position with his wife and daughters accompanying him.

1865 The years in Athens were, perhaps, the happiest in his life. He became friends with Lord Lytton, the English author, and the Dragoumis family whose daughters1 tender attention inspired a new interest in art in him. He published Religions et Philosophies dans l*Asie centrale. October, he became Interested in sculpture which will become an increasingly important part of his life.

1866 August-September, after the marriage of Diane to the Dane, Ove de Guldencron^ all voyage to Corfu. 1867 September, he produced a study, Diverses manifesta­ tions de la vie individuelle for a flerman philosophi­ cal journal. In a mayor diplomatic affair Gobineau had Gustave Flourens sent back to Prance.

1868 He was named minister to Rio de Janeiro. August, he was named commander of the Legion d'honneur. 1869 He published a collection of poems in Athens through Maillet: L'Aphroessa. February, he left for Brazil via Bordeaux, Lisbon, and Dakar. March, he was introduced to the constitutional Emperor, Dom Pedro II, They will become close friends. He published L'Histolre des Perses through Plon, wrote the first part of Amadls and two short stories, Adelaide, and Akrlvie Phrangopoulo. 331 1870 January, he became bored with his post in Rio and requested to be relieved of his post. Without approval he returned to France in May. June, he was elected Consul General of his canton. August, with the commencement of the Franco-Prussian War he organized a unit of the National Guard to keep order in his canton. October, Tyre was occupied by German troops. During the winter he attempted to protect the population from the Germans. December, he resigned his post and left for Paris. 1871 In Paris he witnessed the uprising of the Commune without any danger to himself. April, he left for Versailles to obtain a new diplo­ matic post from the government of Thiers. June, he greeted Dorn Pedro as the official repre­ sentative of the government upon his entrance into France. July, he attempted to enter the French academy by active campaigning but recognized his failure in December.

1872 May, he was named minister to Sweden arriving at Stockholm in June. June-July, he began Les Nouvelles asiatlques and published his Souvenirs de voyage through Plon. He became acquainted with the wife of the Italian ambassador, Mathilde de la Tour. October, Mme. de Gobineau arrived to join him in Stockholm. 1873 He occupied himself^with sculpture, learned Swedish, and finished Les Pleiades. April, Mme. de Gobineau returned to France. They will never see each other again. July, Gobineau traveled to Christiana (Oslo) and Trondheim for the royal coronation. Deeply depressed 332

he concluded a friendship pact with Mme. de la Tour "to remain with me until my death". August, he begins working on La Renaissance. ✓ 1874 He published Les Pleiades through Plon and expressed a deep desire to republish the Essai. During this period Gobineau became fully estranged from his wife and came into severe financial difficulties.

1875 He began work on L !Histoire d'Ottar Jarl, a history of his family, the research for which he had begun in his youth. July, he sold Les Nouvelles asiatlques and the still uncompleted L'Histolre d'Ottar Jarl to Didier. August, he stayed in Carlsbad for his deteriorating health. 1876 Due to his increasing financial difficulties he began considering selling Tyre. June, he definitely broke with his wife and children. September-November, he accompanied Dorn Pedro II through Russia, and Turkey returning to Stockholm via Rome where he met Richard Wagner.

1877 January, in Paris he had bitter discussions with the Foreign Minister, Decazes, which led to him being unceremoniously retired in April. June, La Renaissance was published by Plon. He left for his sister’s monestary at Solesmes in hopes of finding an order for his sculpture. August-October, he stayed in Milan and finally settled in Rome hoping to make a career as a sculpturer.

1878 July, he met the literary critic Theodore de Banville and Barbey d'Aureville in Paris. Renan engaged him to translate the Kousch Nameh. He spent the summer at Tyre and Solesmes arter naving Bold the castle. His translation of the Kousch Nameh and a book on Les extensions asiatlques de la Russle had to be given up ror health reasons while the third part of Amadls was completed only with great difficulty. 3 3 3 1879 June-September, life was very difficult in Rome where he had only a few friends and suffered from blindness. November, L'Histolre d'Ottar Jarl was finally pub­ lished by Didier. 1880 July, he stayed in Paris for a short time, his last trip to his homeland. August, he returned to Carlsbad for a cure. October, he met Richard Wagner again in Venice.

1881 March, he completed Amadis which will not be pub­ lished until after his death. May-June, he stayed in Bayreuth with Richard Wagner and his circle. July-October, he visited Mme. de la Tour at her residence in Chameane (Puy-de-Dome). He desired to write a Histoire des Merovingiens and a series of Nouvelles fdodales, neither of which were to be completed due to ill health. 1882 May-June, he returned to Bayreuth and received encouragement from Wagner to publish the Essai. July-September, he spent the summer with Mme. de la Tour at Chameane and left for Italy. October 13th, he died alone of a stroke in Turin. 1884 The second edition of the Essai was published.

1887 Amadis was published with numerous falsifications. 1894 Ludwig Schemann founded the Gobineau Vereinigung.

1896 Mme. de la Tour is informed that no one is interested in the late Count's works.

1898 Mme. de la Tour gives Gobineau's papers to Schemann. 1903 Publishing his study of Gobineau Ernst Seillerie could find little biographical references. 1910 Schemann produces his first work from selected papers.

1918 The Gobineau Vereinlgung collapses from lack of interest and sources. BIBLIOGRAPHY

SECTION I BIBLIOGRAPHY SECTION I A WORKS AND CORRESPONDENCE OP GOBINEAU

Gobineau's works have been published so hap­ hazardly and, at times, with noticeable falsifications that it is suggested that the reader interested in pursuing the Count's works further be particularly careful in choosing which editions he uses. Preference should be placed on editions published by Gobineau, himself, or since 1945.

Gobineau, Arthur de, L'abbaye de Typhaines, Paris, 1 8 6 7. ______, Les Adieux de Don Juan, Paris, 1844. , Alexandre de Macedonien, in Nachgelassene Schriften, 4 vols., Strasbourg 19H- 1 9 1 7, Gedlchte I.

, J'L1 Alviane", ed. Rene^ Guise Revue de litterature comparee, (July-September, 1 9 6 6), 376-401.

, Amadis, poeme posthumus, Paris, 1 8 8 7.

, L'Aphroessa, Paris, 1 8 6 9. , Die Bedeutung der Rasse im Leben der Voelker, Trans'. J. Schwab, Munich,-l92b. , "Catalogues d'un collection d' intailles antiques" Revue Archeologlque, (1874).

, "Ce qui est arrive a la France en 1 8 7 0", in Nachgelassene Schriften, 4 vols. Strasbourg, 1911-1917. prosa II. , Ce qui se passe en asie sulvant de 1' instinct revolutionsire en France, Paris, 19^8. , La Chronlque rimee de Jean Chouan et ses compagnons7 Paris, 1846.

336 3 37

, Collection de manuscrlts persans et ouvcages recuellles en Perse jcrovenant de la biblioTJh^quede M. le comte~He Gobineau, Paris, 18K4. , Les Conseils de Rabelais, ed. A. B. Duff, Paris, i m : ------, "Coup d 1 oeil sur l'Allemagne du Nord," ed. Jean Mistier, Revue d' Allemagne, (June, 1929), 481-494. , La Cour amour, ed. R. Bezlau, Mercure de Prance, "(February* I9 6 3), 260-299. , Les Depeches Diplomatique du Comte de Gobineau en Perse, Paris, 1959.

- • X ______, Deux Etudes sur la Grece moderne, Paris, 1905. ✓ ✓ ______, "L'Emlgration au Bresil," Le Correspondent, (July-September, 1874), 352-376. ' / , "L'Emlgration europiee.nne dans les deux Ameriques," Le Correspondent, (October 25, 1 8 7 2), 208-242. , L'Essal sur l'lnegalite des races humaines, Paris, 1^677------______, Etudes critiques, 1844-1848, Paris, 1927. , "Extract d'une lettre de M, le cte.de Gobineau," Journal Asiatique* (June, 1 8 5 6), 524-533. ______, La Fleur d'or, Paris, 1923. , "Gobineau et les coloniqs anglais de 1' amerique du nord," ed. Michael Biddiss, Etudes gobinienne, II (1 9 6 7), 1 1 -2 6. , Histoire des Perses d' apres les auteurs orientaux, grecs, et la tins', 2 vols. Paris, I8 6 9. , Histoire d' Ottar Jarl, pirate norvegien, conqudrant du pays de Bray en Normandie, et de sa descendance, Paris, lb79. , "Hoffmann," Revue de litterature comparee, (July-September, 1 9 6 6), 415^430. "" 3 3 8

______, "L' Instruction primaire en Suede/' Le Correspondent, (February 25, 1 8 7 5), 6 5 9-6 8 3.

______, Lecture des textes cuneiformes, Paris, 1 8 5 8. , Memoire sur diverses manifestations de la vie lndlviduelle, ed. A. B. Duff, Paris, 1935. _, "Memoire sur l'etat social de la Perse actuelle," Seances et Travaux de I 1 academie dessciences morales et polftTques, (I85ST, 4th trisemes tire. , "Le Mariage d' un Prince," Nouvelle Revue Francaise, (August, 1 9 6 6), 357-384. ______, Nicholus Beauvoir, 2 vols., Paris, 1927. , Nouvelles Asiatlques, ed. Jean Gaulmler, Paris,

19557- , Poemi inediti di Arthur de Gobineau, Florence, 1985. ' , Les Pleiades, Monaco, 1946. , Le Prisonnier chanceux ou les aventures de Jean de l a four-miracle, Paris, 1943. / , Les Religions et les Philosophies dans l'asie centrale, Baris, 1 9 0 0.

, La Renaissance, Paris, 1 8 7 7. , La Russe et L'Europe, B. N. U. - Strasbourg, TUb .'”3514. - - - -

, Scaramouche et autres nouvelles, ed. Jean Gaulmier, Paris, 19687 ______, Stendhal, ed. Charles Simon, Paris, 1926. , Ternove, Paris, 1919.

✓ / / , Traite des ecritures cuneiformes, 2 vols. Parls7 1 8 6 4. ______, Trois ans en asie, Paris, 1859. 3 3 9 ' * , La Trolsieme Republique franpaise et ce quelle vaut," in Nachgelassene Schriften, 4 vols. Strasbourg, 1911-1917, prosa II. ______, Voyage a Terre-Neuve, Paris, 1861. , "Vues sur l'histolre universelle," B. N. U. - Strasbourg, Ms. 3511. BIBLIOGRAPHY SECTION I B CORRESPONDENCE

The following Is a list of Goblneau's published Correspondence. Those published by Beziau, Boissel, Concasty, Degros, Duff and Gaulmier are superior; those by Buenzod, Me'la, Mistier, Raeders and Schemann are adequate. All others should be used only with great caution.

Theodore de Balnvllle E d : Ferdinand Baldernsperger, "Deux lettres inedits de Theodore de Bainville a Gobineau," Revue de litterature comparee, III, (1923)> 465-468, Baron de Baroche ES": Jean Gaulmier, "Arthur de Gobineau et le Mlnistre de Baroche," Travaux de llngulstique et de litterature, III, 2 (T95* Count de Circourt S3-: Jean Gaulmier, "Lettres^d1 Arthur de Gobineau au le Comte de Circourt," Etudes gobiniennes, I, (1 9 6 6), 103-138, II, (1 9 6 7), 63^rn3^ Maxime du Camp ^ E3! JTuriant, "Trois lettres inedltes de Gobineau," Le Nef, (May, 1946) 58-64. Mathllde de la Tour Ed: Janine Buenzod, "Lettres d ’un voyage en Russe, en_ asie mineure et en Grece,"Bulletin d£ la^ faculte" des lettres de l'universlte de Lausanne, (October- December, 19&T), 157-99. Ed: Jean Mistier, Lettres de Gobineau a la comtesse de la Tour," Le Table Ronde, (April 28 and May 29, 1950). ' Johann Albert Dorn ^ x E3T Jean Boissel, "Lettres inedites de Gobinqau a Johann Albert Dorn," Revue d' histoire de litterature de la France, (October-Cecember, 1965'), 091-7 0 0.

340 341

Marika and Zoe Dragoumls ^ v fid: AT B. Dul\f, "Lettres lnedltes de Gobineau a la bien-aimee Athdniennes," Hommeset Mondes, (October 1, 1954), 334-34577 Ed: N. Mela, Lettres a deux Atheniennes, 1868-1881, Athens, 1936! ^ Ed: Jean Mistier, "Nouvelle lettres Athenlennes, " Revue des Deux Mondes, (October 1, 1954). Adolphe Franck ^ ^ Ed: Rene Worm, "Lettres lnedltes de Gobineau a M. Adolphe Franck et sa famille., " Revue Internationale de sociologie, (August-September, l$lb). Caroline de Gobineau % ^ , Ed : A. B. buff, Comte de Gobineau, Mere Benedicte de Gobineau: Correspondence, l872-lbb2, 2 vols. Baris, 195b. ^ Ed: A. B. Duff, "Ecrit de Perse (1862-1863), Mercure de France, (November, 1957). Ed: A. B. Duff, Lettres Persians, Paris, 1957. Ed: A. B. Duff, TSeptTTettres du comte de Gobineau a sa soeur," Revue de litterature comparee, x x m , (1949): Christine de Gobineau Ed! MarTe^Lourse—Concasty, "Gobineau et sa fille, Christine." Etudes gobiniennes, I, (1966), 12-57. II, (lWfTTl^5T. Clemence de Gobineau x N fid: B. Duff, "Mme. de Gobineau ecrit a son frere," Etudes gobiniennes, I, (1966), 81-102. v Ed: Jean Gaulmier, "Au Brdsil, II y a un siecle . . . quelques images d' Arthur de Gobineau," Bulletin de la faculti' des lettres de Strasbourg, (May-June, T364T, “483-TO:------

Diane de Guldencrone \ Ed": Jean Gaulmier, "Lettres a Diane," Revue de Paris, (July, 1950). Adalbert von Keller EcT! Ludwig Schemann, "Briefwechsel mit Adalbert von Kelletf" in Nachgelassene Schriften, 4 vols. Strasbourg, 1911-1917. Briefe I. 3 ^2

Prosper Merlmee , , ^ Ed:"" Jean Gaulmier, "Merimee,, Gobineau et les Bohemiens," Revue d' histoire litteraire de la France, (October-beeember, 1965), b'f5-&9T7 x Ed: Ludwig Schemann, "Un Correspondence inedite de Merimee," Revue des Deux Mondes, (October 15 and November 1, 1902), Jules Mohl x EH-: Jean Boissel, "Lettres de Gobineau a Jules Mohl e t a Mme Mohl," Revue de litterature comparee, (July-September, 1966), 337-366. Montalembert Ed: Jean Gaulmier, "Du Cote de Montalembert et la Marquise de Forbin," Etudes gobiniennes, III, (1968-1969), 103-130. Dorn Pedro II EcH Seorges Raeders, D. Pedro II e_ 0 Conde de Gobineau, Correspondencias-TnedlTos, 'San'Faulo, m ------Georg Anton von Prokesch-Osten Ed: Clemant Serpeille de Gobineau, Arthur de Gobineau et G..A. von Prokesch-Osten, Correspon3ence^ Paris,"T933. Charles de Remusat Ed: Jean Gaulmier, 'Arthur de Gobineau et Charles de Remusat: Correspondence," Travaux de linguistique et de litterature, II, 2, (I9b4). Cornelie de Renan x EH! M. R. Beziau, "Les Lettres de Cornelie Renan a Gobineau, " Archives des lettres modeme^ LXXV, (1967). Georges Sand fid: Jean Gaulmier, "Gobineau et Georges Sand," Zeitschrift fuer Franzoeische Sprache und llteratur, (September, 1966), 99-107. Hercule de Serre Ed: A. B. Duff, "En Marge de l'amite entre le comte de Gobineau et le vicomte, Hercule de Serre," Etudes gobiniennes, II, (1 9 6 7), 131-164. 343

Alexis de Tocquevllle Ed: ~W. begros, La' Correspondence d' Alexis de Tocquevllle et d 1 Arthur de Gobineau, l54’3-l859, Vol. IX of Alexis de Tocquevllle, Oeuvre completes, ed. J. P. Mayer, (Paris, 1959). Coslma Wagner Ed: ClementK Serpeille de Gobineau, "Lettres de Coslma Wagner a Gobineau", Revue Hebdomaire, (July 16 and 23, 1938). “ BIBLIOGRAPHY

SECTION II BIBLIOGRAPHY SECTION II BOOKS ABOUT GOBINEAU, HIS WORK, AND GOBINISM

This section contains only works on Gobineau which have been found to be of use in this work. There is no complete listing of secondary sources on Gobineau. The interested reader will fin4 a list of pertinent new books on Gobineau in Etudes goblennes which appears annually.

Alain, ''Gobineau Romanesque," Nouvelle Revue Francaise, (February 1, 193^)> 198-209. 5 Allessio, E. Dallegio di, "Quelques Aspects gouveaux du sejour d' Arthur de Gobineau a Athbnes," Etudes gobiniennes, II, (1967), 165-1 8 3 . Alloury, L. "Review of the Essai, Journal des Debats (February 2M, 185^). Anglaide, Alain di, Jacques-Phllllpe de Gercy, dernier directeur des firmes du roi a Bordeaux, 1753-1796, Revue historique de Bordeaux et du department de la GlrondeT I'il, 201-228. ' Aurevilly, Barby di, Les Oeuvres et les Hommes; les hlstorlens, Paris, 11368^ Bachelot, Jean, "Joseph Arthur de Gobineau ou le vrai, guide du voyageur en asie," Bulletin de la s o c l e W des bibllolatres de France, (December, 155YT, loBl-1092. Barres, Maurice, "Un nouveau Livre de Gobineau," Le Gaulois, (June 3, 1907). Basterot, comte de "Biographie de Gobineau, in Arthur de Gobineau, L 1 Essai sur 1 ’ lne"gallte des races humaines, 2 vols. Paris, 1884.

343 3^6

Bieder, Theodor, "Vorlaeufer Gobineaus, Politische Anthropologlsche Revue, VI (1907-1908), 6 2 5-630. Bezlau, Roger, "Une Etude inconnue de Gobineau sur Hoffmann," Revue de litterature comparee, (July- September, l9bb;,“402-41 5. Biddiss, Michael D. "Gobineau and the Origins of European Racism, Race, (January, 1 9 6 6). Billey, Robert de, "Le comte de Gobineau et Gustave Flourens," Revue d 1 histoire diplomatique, (January- March, 1932), 24-48. Glauchet, Andre, "Avez-Vous lu les Pleiades," Etudes, (September, 1953), 210-222. Bloch, Jean-Richard, "Les Itlnsraires paralleles, Gobineau et Loti en Perse," Europe (October 1, 1923), 99-115.

Boissel, Jean, Gobineau Polemlste, Paris, 1 9 6 7. „______, "Review of Buenzod La'Formation." Etudes gobiniennes III, (I9 6 8.-I9 6 9) 246-252. Bonnard, Abel, "Gobineau," Nouvelle Revue Frangaise, (February 1, 1934), 179-TB4"; Bossy, Raoul, "Gobineau et la politique des nationalites," Revue d* histoire diplomatique, (January-March, 1964), 3 5 ^ 0 .“ ------> Boye, Maurice-Pierre, and Marie-Louise Concasty, "Autour de la Revue^provinciale Gobineau et Gabriel Richard Lesellde," Etudes gobiniennes, II (1 9 6 7), 221-244. Brion, Marcel, Gobineau, Marseilles, 1927. ______^____ , "Gobineau voyageur et conteur, Nouvelles lltteralres (September 24, 1927). Buenzod, Janine, La Formation de la pensee de Gobineau, Paris, 1967. , "Gobiniana," Revue de l 1 Histoire lltteraire de la Prance, (0ctober-December, 196lT^ Charlier, Gustave, De Montaigne a Verlaine, Brussels, 1956. 347

Cocteau, Jean, "Eloge des Pleiades," Nouvelle Revue FrancaIse, (February 1, 193*0 194-X97. Colin, Paul, "L-ame de Gobineau," Europe, (October 1, 1923 b 27-3*1. Combris, Andree, "La Philosophie des races du comte de Gobineau et sa portee actuelle," Diss: Paris, 1937. Concasty, Marie-Loulse, "La Famille Monnerot," Etudes gobiniennes, I, 239-244. , "Gobineau Conseiller General de l 1Oise," ^udes gobiniennes, III, (1968-1969), 223-242. , "Quand Maxime du Camp ne mentait pas," Etudes gobiniennes, III, (1968-1969), 137-168. Deffoux, Leon, Trois Aspects de Gobineau, Paris, 1929. De la Tour, Mathilde, "Les Dernieres annees du Comte de Gobineau," in Comte, Arthur de Gobineau and Caroline de Gobineau, Correspondence, 1872-1882, ed. A. B. Duff, 2 vols., Paris, 1956. Deschamps, Gaston, "Nietzsche, Gobineau et la Gobinisme," Le Temps, (October 2 and November 24, 1 9 0 5). Dollot, Jean, "Gobineau et de Tocqueville," Revue d'histoire diplomatique, (January-March, 1 9 6 1). Dominique, Pierre, "Gobineau: L 1 artiste, le romancier, le conteur," Le Nouveau Mercure, (October, 1923). Donnard, Jean-Herve, "Pour le Centenaire de 1'insurrection cretoise: Arthu? de Gobineau et Gustave Flourens, freres ennemis, Etudes gobiniennes, II, (1 9 6 7), 185-220. Dreyfus, Robert, "Le Cas Gobineau," Revue de Paris, V, (1933 b 588-610. , "Gobineau, qui est-ce?" Nouvelle Revue Franpaise, (February 1, 1934), 161-168. ✓ , La Vie et les propheties du comte de Gobineau, Paris, 13^5. 348

Duerr, Emile, "Arthur de Gobineau und die Schweiz in den Jahren 1 8 5 0-1854," Baseler Zeitschrift fuer Geschichte und Altertumskunde, XXV, 0-920 J, 1 3 7 -27T7 Dufrechou, Albert, Gobineau, Paris, 1909. Duff, A. B. "En Marge d'une Nouvelle Asiatique, Mercure de France, (December, 1959), 648-702. Edschmid, Kasimir, "Gobineau et la Renaissance," Europe (October 1, 1923), 81-86. ----- Eulenburg-Hertefeld, Philipp Fuerst zu, "Eine Erinnerung an Graf Arthur Gobineau, Bayreuther Blaetter, IX, (May 5, 1886). Ewald, Georg Heinrich, "Review of the Essai," Goettinger Gelehrten"Anzelge, (May 11, 1854). Falk, Reinhold, "Die weltanschauliche Problematik bei Gobineau, Diss: Rostock, 1936. Faure-Biguet, J. N. Gobineau, Paris, 1930. Faure, Elie, "Destin de Gobineau," Nouvelle Revue Frantjaise, (February 1, 1934), 245-249. , "Gobineau et le probleme des races," Europe, (October 1, 1923), 41-58.------Fay, Bernard, "Jje comte de Gobineau critique lltteVaire, Revue europeenne, (April 1 9 2 8), 405-409. ______, "La Gloire du comte Arthur de Gobineau, Le Correspondent, (November 1932), 400-409. , "Les Legendes du comte de Gobineau," Nouvelle Revue frrangalse, (February 1, 1934), 169-1 7 8. Friedrich, Fritz, Stuidlen ueber Gobineau, Leipzig, 1906. Gaulmierj Jean, "Connaissance de Gobineau," Revue de litterature comparee, (October-December, I9b0). , "Un Mythe: la science orientaliste de Gobineau," Australian Journal of French Studies, (January-Aprli, 19^4), 5t>-7o.

______, Spectre de Gobineau, Paris, 1965. 34 9

Geyer, Alain, "Etat de la succession litteraire

Koehne, Carl, "Untersuchungen ueber Vorlaeufer und Quellen der Rassentheorie des Grafen Gobineau, Archly fuer Rassenblologle, (1926), 369-398. Kretzer, Eugen, Joseph-Arthur, Graf von Gobineau: sein Leben und sein WerE~,HLelpz~ig, l902.

Lacretelle, Jacques de, "Gobineau romancier: Les Pleiades," Europe, (October 1, 1923)# 8 7-9 6. ______, "Quatre Etudes sur Gobineau,"Liege, 1927. Laloy, Louis, "Gobineau en 1870," Ere nouvelle, (November 2, 933).

, "Gobineau et le probleme religieux," Comoedi'a, (November 17, 1923). Lamartine, Maurice, La Chimie des races: etude sur Gobineau, Paris, 193T; ______, "Gobineau et Cosima Wagner," Nouvelles llttdraires, (July 5# 1930). Lange, Maurice, Le comte Arthur de Gobineau, Strasbourg, 1924. ! Leinhard, "Gobineau's Amadis und die Rassenfrage," in Wege nach Weimar, Stuttgart, 1 9 0 8.

\ Lemonon, Michel, "A Propos de la diffusion du gobinisme en Allemagne," Etudes gobiniennes, II, 262-268. ^ , "Les Debuts du gobinisme en Allemagne," Etudes “gobiniennes, III (1968-1 9 6 9)# 183-193. Levy, Oscar, introduction to Arthur de Gobineau, The Renaissance, trans. Paul Cohn, New York, 1931.-ITi-lxvl. Louverne, Jean, "Gobineau sinologue," Nouvelle Revue Francalse, (February 1, 1934), 233-239. 3 5 1

Mannevllle, Henri, "La Mission de M. de Gobineau en Grece, 1864-1868, Revue d' histoire diplomatique, (April- June, 1927 )TTTT-T47. Masson-Oursel, P. "Gobineau et la logique de 1' asie," Nouvelle Revue Francaise, (February 1, 1934), 229-232. Maurras, Charles, "Gobineau," in Dlctlonnaire politique et critique, 5 vols. Paris, 193 b. Maury, Alfred, "Review of the Essai, L 1 Atheneum Francaise, (November 11 and 19* 1853 and January"115, 1855JI Maury, Lucien, "Gobineau et la Sued$" Mercure de France, (April 1, 1949), 626-637. Minorsky, Vladimir, "Gobineau et la Perse," Europe, (October 1, 1923), 116-126. Mole, M. "Un Poeme Persien du comte de Gobineau," Le Nouvelle Clio, (March-April, 1952), 116-130. Moreau, Pierre, "Les Pleiades ou le poeme du Moi," Etudes gobiniennes, III, (1968-1 9 6 9), 169-182. Morland, Jacques, introduction to Arthur de Gobineau, Pages choisies du comte de Gobineau, Paris, 1905. Nott, Josiah "Commentary" in Arthue de Gobineau, The Moral and Intellectual Diversity of Races, Trans. Henry Holz7 pKTladelpfriaT IS5S:------Pfleger, Lucian, Gobineau und der Gobinlsmus, Munich, 1925. Pott, August Friedrich, Die Unglelchhelt menschllcher Rassen hauptsaechlich vom sprachwlssenschaftlichen Standpunkt, Halle,"1855: Prevost, Jean, "Gobineau et 1' amour," Nouvelle Revue Franqaise, (February 1, 1934), 210-214. Quatrefages, Arnould de, "Du Croisement des races humaines," Revue des Deux Mondes, (March 1, 1 8 5 7), 159-188. "Rapport sur l'ouvrage de M. de ^Gobineau intltulee Essai, etc.," Bulletin de societe de Geographle, XIII, (1857), 19 5 - 2 4T. 352

Raeders, Georges, Le comte de Gobineau au Bre^sil, Paris, 193*1. Renan, Ernst, "Review of L'Histoire des Perses," Journal Aslatlque, XVI, (1 8 6 9), 26-28. Riebe, Edda, "Gobineau im Lichte der Heutigen Rassenhygiene, Diss: Goettingen, 1 9 2 6. Riffaterre, Michael, "L'Importance de Gobineau," History of Ideas Newsletter, II, 2 (April, 1956). ______, Le Style des Pleiades, Paris, 1957. Rolland, Romain, "Le Conflict de deux generations: Tocqueville et Gobineau," Europe, (October 1, 1923)> 68-80. Romains, Jules, Saints de notre calendriers, Paris, 1952.

\ Roualt, Joseph-Marie, La^ Troisieme Republique vue par le comte de Gobineau, Paris, 1^43^ Rouvellon, Eugene, "Commentaire sur 'Le Instinct revolutionsire en France,'" Le Nouvelle Mercure, (October 1, 1923). Rowbotham, Arnold H. The Literary Works of Count de Gobineau, Paris, 1929. Schemann, Ludwig, Berichte ueber die Gobineau Vereinigung, 18 vols., Freiburg/B. 1895-1917. , Die Gobineau-Sammlung der Kaiserlichen UnlversrTaets-und Landesblbllothek zu~Strassburg, 1907. , Gobineau und die deutsche Kultur, Berlin, ------

______23 Jahre Gobineau Vereinigung, Berlin, 1919. ______, Gobineau, elne Biographie, 2 vols., Strasbourg, 1913-1916. ______, Gobineau's Rassenwerk, Stuttgart, 1910. , Lebensfahrten eines Deutschen, Leipzig, 1925. 353 _ , "Neues aus der Welt Gobineau?" Politische Anthropologische Revue, X, (1911-1912), XI, (1912-1913). , Quellen und Untersuchungen zum Leben Goblneaus, 5 vols. Strasbourg/Berlin, 1914-1920. ______, Von deutscher Zukunft, Leipzig, 1920. / / / Schure, Edouard, Precurseurs et Revoltes, Paris, 1930. See, Henri, "Philosophies racistes de 1 'histoire: Gobineau, Vacher de Lapouge et Chamberlain, Grande Revue, (October, 1933)# 6 3 9-6 5 8. Seillerie, Ernest, Le comte de Gobineau et 1 'aryanisme hlstorlque, Paris, I9 0 3 . ______, "Gobineau et Prokesch-Osten," Le Nouveau Mercure^ (October, 1923). , La Philosophie religieuse," Nouvelle Revue Francalse, (February 1, 1934), 223-258. ______, "Review of Schemann’s Work, Revue critique, LXXXI, (1916). * * Serpeille de Gobineau, Clement, Le Gobinisme et la pensee moderne, Europe, (October 1, 1923), 35-40. ______, ^Le Gobinisme et la politique moderne,^ Nouvelle Revue Franpaise, (February 1, 1934), 2 5 0-2 5 6. Sorel, Albert, "Gobineau," Le Temps, (March 22, 1904). Souday, Paul, Les Livres du temps, 2nd series, Pais, 1929. , "Renan et Gobineau," Le Temps, (July 21, 1 9 2 2 7 ” ------Spiess, Camille, Gobineau et sa philosophie, Paris, 1925. , Imperialisme, la conception gobinienne de la race, Paris," 1917. Spring, Gerald, The Vitalism of Count de Gobineau, New York, 1932. Stelnkuehler, Manfred, "Gobineau au Jugement de ses conteraporains d' outre-Rhin,"Diss: Paris, 1 9 6 1. Streidl, Rudolf, "Gobineau in der franzoeaischen Krltik," Diss: Wuerzburg, 1935. Thenan, Rachel, "L'Amadis de Gobineau, Diss: Montpellier, I960. , "Le testament spirituel de Gobineau," Etudes gobTniennes, I, (1 9 6 6), 217-237. Therioe, Andree, "Gobineau poete," La Revue universelle, (May 1, 1922). Thibaudet, Albert, '^Tocqueville et Gobineau," Nouvelle Revue Francalse, (February 1, 1934), 215-225^ Vacher de Lapouge, Georges, "Dies Irai: la fin du monde civilise"," Europe, (October 1, 1923), 59-67. Vernois, Paul, "Un Example de gobinisme inattendu: Le Royaume du Vert," Etudes gobiniennes, II, (1 9 6 7), 2 6 9-2 8 0. Vildrac, Charles, "Sur les 'Nouvelles Aslatiques1", Europe, (October 1, 1923). Visan, Tancrede de, "La Morale de Gobineau," Akademos, (March 15, 1909). Wagner, Cosima, "Graf Arthur Gobineau: ein Erinnerungsbild aus Wahnfried" Bayreuther Blaetter, IX, (1882). Wagner, Richard, "Heldenthum und Christenthum, Bayreuther Blaetter, VIII, (l88l) 249-258. Wilser, Ludwig, "Gobineau und seine Rassenlehre," Polltische Anthropo1og1sche Revue, I, (1902-1903)

_ , "Review of Seillerie," Polltische Ahthropoldglsche Revue, II, (1903-1904), I0lb-1017. Woltmann, Ludwig, "Vorlaeufer Goblneaus," Polltische Anthropologlsche Revue, III, (1905-19057, "2 2 -2b. Wolzogen, Hans von, "Die Religion des Mitleiden," Bayreuther Blaetter, IX, (1882-1883). , Aus Richard Wagner's Geisteswelt, Berlin 1908. Young, E. J., Gobineau und der Rassismus, Meisenheim/G 1968. BIBLIOGRAPHY

SECTION III BIBLIOGRAPHY SECTION III

Ackerknecht, Erwin, Franz Joseph Gall, Inventor of Phrenology and his Collection,"Madison, wis. ,T956. ______, Rudolf Virchow, Madison, Wis., 1953. Ammon, Otto, Anthropologische Untersuchungen der Wehrpflichten In kaden, Hamburg, I89i , Bedeutung des Bauernstandes fuer den Staat und dle~Gesellschaft, Berlin, 190b. , Die Gesellschaftsordnung und ihre natuerlichen Grundlagen, Jena, 1900. Arberry, A. J. Asiatic Jones: The Life and Influence of Sir William Jones, London, 194T5T , English Contributions to Persian Studies, London, 1942. , The Legacy of Persia, Oxford, 1953.

______, Oriental Essays, London, i9 6 0. Arens, Hans, Sprachwlssenschaft, Freiburg/B. 1955. Bablnger, Franz, "Orient und Deutsche Literatur," in Wolfgang Stammler, ed. Deutsche Philologie im Abriss, 5 vols., Berlin, 1962, ill, 56b-587T Baeumler, Alfred, "Bachofen, die Mythologie der Romantik," in J. J. Bachofen, Der Mythus von Orient und Occident, Munich, 1926. Baines, Athelstone, Ethnography: Castes and Tribes, Strasbourg, 1912. Barthold, V. V. La Decouverte de l'Asie, trans. B. Nikitine, Paris, 1947.

357 3 5 8

Barzun, Jacques, The French Race, New York, 1932. , Race: A Study In Superstition, New York,

Baschet, Robert, Merimee, 180 3-1 8 7 0, Paris, 1959. Baschem, Arthur L. The Wonder that was India, London, 1954. Bastian, Adolf. Der Voelkergedanke im Aufbau einer Wlssenschaft voni Mehschen J Berlin, 1881.

Baur, Ernst. Johann Gottfried Herder, Stuttgart, i9 6 0. Beasley, W. G. and E. G. Pulleyblank, Historians of China and Japan, London, 1961. Beck, Hanno, Alexander von Humboldt, 2 vols., Wiesbaden, 1959-1 9 6 1.

, Alexander von Humboldt und Mexiko, Bad Godesberg, i9 6 0. Beckmann, Franz, Geographle und Ethnographie in Caesars BeHum Gallicum, Portmund7 1930. Bieder, Theodor, "Beitrage zur Geschlchte der Rassenforschung und der Theorie der Germanen-Heimat," Polltische Anthropologische Revue, VII, (1909-1910)• , Geschlchte der Germanen-Forschung, l500-lfcS0b, Leipzig, 1939. Bellasort, Andre", Les Intellectuals et 1_' avenement de la trolsl^me repubTIque, Paris, l93l. Belloquet, Roget de. Ethnogenie gauloise, 4 vols., Paris, I8 5 8-I8 6 8. ------Bendysche, Thomas, "The History of Anthropology," Memoirs of the Anthropological society of London, (1863), 335-458. Benedict, Ruth, Science and Politics, New York, 1940. Benfey, Theodor, Geschlchte der Sprachwlssenschaft und orlentallscheftf Phllologle, Munich, l8b9. 359

______, "Indien," Allgemelne Encyklopaedie der Wissenschaften und Kuenste, ed. A. G. Hoffmann, Leipzig, 1840. Bengston, Hermann, Einfuehrung in die alte Geschichte, Munich, 1 9 6 5. Benz, Theodor, "Die Anthropologie in der Geschichtschreibung des 18. Jahrhunderts" Diss: Bonn, 1932. Bergmann, Fredric G. Les Scythes: Les Ancestres des peuples germanlques et slaves', Halle, 1050. Bertheau, Ernst, Die der Beschrelbung der Lage paradieses Genes 2, 10-14 zu Grunde Liegenden geographischen Anschauungen, Goetlingen, "”1848. , Zur Geschichte der Israeliten, Goettingen, — i m ? : — ------Bertrand, A, Archeologie celtique et gauloise, Paris, 1876. Blome, Hermann, Der Rassengedanke in der deutschen Romantik und seine Gruhdlagenlm lB^ JaHrEundert, Munich, 1943. Blumenbach, Johann Friedrich, The Anthropological Treatises of Johann Friedrich Blumenbach, ed. and trans. Bendy sc he, London, 1855*1 Boas, Franz, Kultur und Rassen, Berlin, 1922. Bohlen, Peter von, Das alte Indien mlt besonderer Ruecksicht auf Aegypten, 2 vols., Koenigsburg, 1 8 3 0 .

Boisjolin, Jacques de. Les Peuples de la France, Paris, 1 8 7 8. Boorstein, Daniel J. The Lost World of Thomas Jefferson, Boston, i9 6 0. Bory de Saint-Vincent, M. L' Homme: Essai zoologique sur le genre humain, Paris, 1827• Boucher, Maurice, The Political Concepts of Richard Wagner, trans. Marcel Honere, Wew York, 1950. 360 Botta, Paul Emile, The Burled Cities of the East, Ninevah, London, TB5"1. Boulainvilliers, Henri, De L'Histolre de 1' ancien gouvernement de la France, 3 vols. Amsterdam, 1727.

______, la Vie du Mohamed, London, 1730. Bowman, Frank, Prosper Merimee, Berkeley, 1962. Boyce, Mary, "Middle Persian Literature," in B. Spuler, Iranistik, Leiden, 1968. Boyd, William C., Genetics and the Races of Man, Boston, 1950. Bratton, Gladstone, A History of Egyptian Archeology, London, 1 9 6 7. Breal, Michel, Melanges de Mythologie et de linguistlque, Paris, 1877.

Brockelmann, Carl, Semltische Sprachwls3 enschaft, Leipzig, 1906. Broca, Paul, Memoires d'anthropologie, 5 vols., Paris, 1871-1888. Brown, Roger L. Wilhelm von Humboldt's Conception of linguistic relationship, frhe Hague, 19^7. Browne, Edward G. A History of Persian Literature, 4 vols. Cambridge, 1902-19247 , Materials for a Study of the Babi Religion, £amkricige t 196I7

______, A Year among the Persians, London, 1 8 9 3.

Bruegsch, Heinrich, Die Aegyptologie, Leipzig, 1 8 9 1. Brugerette, Joseph, Le Comte de Montlosier et son temps, 1755-1831, AurillacT 19317 Buckle, Henry, T. The History of Civilization in England, 3 vols., London, 1 8 7 2. 361

Budge, Wallis, The Rise and Progress of Assyrlology, London, 1923. Bunsen, Christian Carl, Aegyptens Stelle in der Wellgeschlchte, 4 vols. Ramburg, 1845-1 8 5 7. , Gott in der Geschichte: Der Portschritt des Cflaubensan eine slttliche Weltordnung, 3 vols., EeTpzig, ------, "On the Results of the Recent Egyptian Researches in Reference to Asiatic and African Ethnology and the Classification of Languages," Reports of the British Association, XVII, (1847), 254-209. ______, Outlines of the Philosophy of Universal History, 2 vols., London, 1 8 5 4.

Burnouf, Emile, La_ Science des religions, Paris, 1 8 7 6. Burnouf, Eugene, Commentaire sur le Yacna, 2 vols., Paris, 1833. ,Introduction a 1' histoire du Buddhisme Indien, 2 vols., Paris, 1844~. Burns, E. Bradford, Nationalism in Brazil: A_ Historical Survey, New York, l9b8.

Buttmann, Phillip, Mythologus, 2 vols., Berlin, 1 8 2 8. Camper, Peter, Ueber den natuerllchen Unterschied der Gesichtszuege in Menschen verschiedener Gegenden und verschiedenen filters, ed. T. Soemmering, Berlin, 1792. ✓ Cayre, Jean-Marie, Voyageurs et Ecrivains Francais en Egypte, 2 vols., Cairo, 19357 3 Carus, Gustav, Ueber die Unglelchhelt der Befaehigungen der verschiedenen Menschheit33 taemme7 Tlelpzig, 1S49. Ceram, C. W., Enge Schlucht und Schwarzer Berg, Hamburg, 1949. , Goetter, Graeber, und Gelehrte, Hamburg, 362

Chamberlain, Houston S., Die Grundlagen des XlXten Jahrhunderts, Munich, 1937". ______, Rasse und Persoenlichkeit, Munich, 1937. Chardin, Jean, Voyages du Chevalier Chardin en Perse, ed. Lanles, ParTsT- I8TT. Childe, V. Gordon, The Aryans: A Study of Indo-European Origins, London, 1926. Christensin, A., Le premier chapitre du Venidad et 1 ’Histoire primitive des Tribes iranTenne,Copenhagen, ;------, L'Iran sous les Sassinads, Copenhagen, “ ------Clemm, Carl, Die griechischen und lateinischen Nachrichten ueber die Perslsche Religion, Giessen, 1920. Coeuroy, Andre, Wagner et 1'esprit Romantique, Paris, 1965. Colombat, Jean, La Fin du monde civilise: les propheties de Vacher de Lapouge,~Parls, 194b. Comte, Auguste, Systeme de politique positive ou traite" de Sociologie, 3 vols, Paris, 1851-1653• Cordier, Henri, La Chine en France au XVIIIieme siecle, Paris, 1910. Count, Earl W., "The Evolution of the Race Idea in Modern Western Culture during the Period of pre Darwinian 19th Century," New York Academy of Sciences, XXIV, (1946), 139-165. ____ , This is Race: An Anthology selected from the InternatlonaT Llterature on-€he Races of-Man, New YorT?7"195^------Courtel de l^Isle, Victor, La Science politique de 1 'Homme, Paris, 1 8 3 8. , "Origines indo-europeenes, Etude historique sur les peuples de la Race Blonde," Revue Independante, (April 1847;, 456-468. “ 363

Creuzer, Georg Friedrich, Friedrich Creuzer's deutsche Schrlften, 13 vols., Leipzig arid Darmstadt, 1636-1 6 5 8. Crone, R. I., The History of India, its Study and Interpretation, Washington, D . 2.', 195BT Cunningham, D. J., Anthropology in the 18th century, Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, (1 9 0 8). Curtin, Philip, The Image of Africa: British Ideas and Action, 1780-l8 5 0 7^facTlson, wis. 1954. Curtius, Ernst, "Entstehung und Wandlung des Dekadenz- problems in Frankreich," Internationale Monatsschrift fuer Wissenschaft, Kunst und Technik, XV^ (1921), ST^iT'W-TSh. — ------, Griechische Geschichte, 3 vols., Berlin, I 5 7 B ------

Cuvier, Georges, Le_ Regne animal, 2 vols, Paris, 1 8 1 7. Daniel, Glyn, A Hundred Years of Archeology, London, 1950. Darmester, James, Essals Orlentaux, Paris, 1893. Dehevaise, N. C., A Political History of Parthla, London, 1938. Deherain, Henri, L'Exploration de la Haute Egypte par la Commission des Sciences et Arts de l'Armee D'Orient en 1799, Revue Historlque, (March-April, 1931). , L 1Oeuvre scientiflque francalse en Syrle et en Perse, in Gabriel Honotaux, and Alfred Martineau, Histoire des Colonies francaises, 3 vols., Paris, 1931, 52T=59CT.------4----- , Silvestre de Sacy: ses contemporains et ses Disciples, Part's, 1938. Delbruck, B. Elnleltung in das Studimn der Indoger- manlschen Sprache, Dusseldorf, 1919. Delitzsch, F. Studien ueber Indogermanisch-semititische Wurzelverwandtschaft, Leipzig, 1 8 7 3. 364

Desmoulin, Antoine de. Histoire Naturelie des Races Humaines, Paris, 18267

Deuel, Leo, Conquistadors with Swords, New York, 1 9 6 7. Dillion, M., Chadwick, N, K,, The Celfefce Realms, London, 1966. Diefenbach, Lorenz, Orlgines Europaeae, Die alten Voelker Europas, Fra nkf ur 17M7 T8b 1. Digeon, Claude, La Crise Allemande de la Pensee Francaise, Paris, 1959. ^ Doblhofer, Ernst, Zeichen und Wunder, Munich, 1964. Dresden, M. J., "Survey of the History of Iranian Studies" in B. Spuler, Iranlstik, Leiden, 1 9 6 8. Dubois, J. A., Moeurs, Institutions, et Ceremonials des peuples de 1 1Inde, 2 vols, Paris, T8257

Ducatl, Pericle, Le Probleme etru3 que, Paris, 1938. Duchesne-Geullemin, J., The Western Response to Zoroaster, Oxford, 1958. _ % Dumeziel, Georges, Les Dleux des Germains, Paris, 1959. ^ , L ’ldeologie Tripartee des indo europeens, UppsaTa, l95B.

Dussard, Rene, L 1 Oeuvre sclentiflque d'Ernst Renan, Paris, 1951. Ebers, Georg, Richard Lepsius, ein Lebensbild, Leipzig, 1885. Eckstein, Baron Fredrich, "De quelques Legendes brahmaniques qui se rapportent au Berceau de l'Espece Humaine," ed. Journal Asiatlque, III, (1955) 191-221, 297-391, 473-5247 ' , "Recherches historlques sur L'Humanite Primitive,Revue Independente, (May 10 and 25, September 25 and October 10, 1847 and January 1 0 , 1848). , "Sur les Sources de la Cosmogenie de Sonchiation," Journal Asiatique, (1959) 167-238, 362-432, 501-529, (1860); 210-263, 399-414. Edwards, W. P. Des^ Caracteres physiologiques des Races Humaines consideres dans lieur Rapports aved-PHistoire, Paris, I6 2 9. Eggus, Hans Juergen, Einfuehrung in die Vorgeschichte, Munich, 1956. Eickstaedt, Egon von, Die Porschung am Menschen, 3 vols., Stuttgart, 1940. Elseley, Loren, Darwin's Century, London, 1959. Engemann, Walter, "Voltaire und China," Diss: Leipzig, 1932.

Erman, Adolf, Mein Werden und mein Wirken, Leipzig, 1 9 2 9. Erwald, Georg H. Abhandlung ueber die geschlchtllche Folge der semitlschen Sprachen,"froettingen, 167!. , Einleitung in die Geschichte des Volkes Israel, 3 vols, Goettingen, 18b4. , "Review of Oppert", Goettinger Gelehrten rrizeTgeV TIH'5 8), 1 7 0-2 0 0 . Pallmeyer, J. P., Geschichte der Halbinsel Morea waehrend des Mlttelalters, 2 vol's, Stuttgart, Itt36-lb36. Ferguson, Wallace, The Renaissance in Historical Thought, Boston, 1948.

Finley, M. I. Aspects of Antiquity, London, 1 9 6 8. "The Trojan War," Journal of Hellenic Studies, (1964)', 1-24. ------Finot, Jean, Le_ Prejuge des races, Paris, 1905. Firth, Raymond, Human Types, London, 1956. Flaubert, Gustave, Oeuvres completes, 2 vols, Paris, 1964. Flink, Carl Otto, Schopenhauers Seelenwanderungslehre und ihre Quellen, Bern, 190b. 366

Ford, Franklin, The Robe and the Sword, Cambridge, 1 9 6 2. Fowler, W. Warde, Roman Essays and Interpretations, Oxford, 1920. Fossey, Charles, Manuel d' Assyriologie, 2 vols, Paris, 1904. Franke, Otto, "Leibnitz und China," Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenland-Gesellschaft7 13CXXII, {1925) Frazer, James G., The Golden Bough, New York, 1947. Friedrich, Johannes, Entzifferung verschollener Schriften und Sprachen, Heidelberg, 1954.

Frye, Richard N. The Heritage of Persia, London, 1 9 6 2. Fueck, Johann, Die Arablschen Studlen in Europa bis in den Anfang des 20. Jahrhunderts, Leipzig, 1955^ Fustel de Coulanges, La Guerre d' envahissement de Louvois et M. de Bismarck," Revue des Deux Mondes, (January 1, 1 8 7 1). ______, Histoire des institutions politlques de la FranceT 2 vols, Paris, 1877. ______, "L'Invaslon germaniques au V. Siecle," Revue des Deux Mondes, (May 15, 1872). ______, "Le Manlere d' ecrire 1' histoire en France et en Allemagne, Revue des Deux Mondes, (September 1, 1872). Gabriel, Alfons, Die Erforschung Perslens, Vienna, 1952. Gallatin, Albert, Notes on the Semi-Civilized Nations of Mexico, Yucatan7 and South America, New York, lb49.

Galton, Francis, Hereditary Genius, London, 1 8 6 9. Gargan, Edward T., Alexis de Tocqueville: The Critical Years 1848-1851,"Washington, 1 9 5 5.

______, De_ Tocqueville, New York, 1 9 6 5.

Gaulmier, Jean, L 1 Ideologue Volney (1757-1820), Paris, 1952. 367

Geldner, K. P. Awestaliteratur in W. Gieger and E. Kuhe Grunarlss der Iranlschen Philologle, 3 vols., Stuttgart, ”X89X-Y902. Gerland, Georg, Immanual Kant, Berlin, 1906. Gershevitch, Ilya, Old Persian Literature in B. Spuler Iranlatik, Leiden, 1 9 6 8. Gibbon, Edward, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, J. B . Bury, ed.” New York, X906. Gieger, W. and E. Kuhe, Grundriss der Iranlschen Philologie, 3 vols., Stuttgart, 189X-1904. Gillouln, Rene, Une nouvelle philosophie de l'histoire moderne et francaise, Paris, 1 9 2I.

Glraud, Victor, Essai sur Taine, Paris, 1 9 0 9. Glasinapp, Carl Friederich, Das Leben Richard Wagners, 6 vols., Leipzig, 1911. Glasinapp, Helmut von, Kant und die Rellglonen des Ostens, Kitzigen/M., 1954. , Das Indienbild Deutscher Denker, " Stuttgart, 196TH Godechot, Jacques, La Contre-revolu11 on: doctrine et action, 1789-l80?7 Paris, 19bl. Gohring, Martin, Weg und Sieg der modernen Staatsldee in Frankrelch, Tubingen, 1946.

Gollwitzer, Heinz, Die Gelbe Gefahr, Goettingen, 1 9 6 2.

Gooch, George P., History and Historians in the 19th Century, London7 1952* Gorres, Joseph von, Mythengeschichte der asiatischen Welt, Heidelberg, 1810. Grant, Madison, The Passing of the Great Race, New York, 1916. Greene, John C., The Death of Adam, New York, 1961. 368 ____ , "Some Early Speculations on the Origin of Human Races," American Anthropology, LVI (1954), 31-41. Grimm, Jacob, Deutsche Mythologie, 3 vols., Berlin, 1875-1878. , Deutsche Rechts-Alterthuemer, 2 vols., Leipzig, 1899. , "Ueber den Ursprung der Sprachen," Kleinere Schriften, 8 vols., Berlin, 1864-1890, II, 255-3007 ------Grimm, Wilhelm, Ueber deutsche Runen, Goettingen, 1821. Grote, George, Geschichte Grlechenlands, trans. N. Meissner, 6 vols., Leipzig, 1 6 5 0. Guldencrone, Diane de, Etude sur 1 'orlglne de la dlversite des races humaines, Versailles, I8 9 6. ______, L'Achale feodale 1205-1456, Paris, 1886. ______, L 1Italle byzantlne, Paris, 1914. Gumplowicz, Ludwig, Die Soziologische Staatsidee, Graz, 1892. ______, Der Rassenkampf, Inssbruck, 1 8 8 3. Guenther, Hans, Kleine Rassenkunde des deutschen Volkes Munich, 1933* ______, Rassenkunde Europas, Munich, 1926. Haber, F. C., The Age of the World: Moses to Darwin, Baltimore, 1959. Haddon, A. C., A History of Anthropology, London, 1910. ^ , Les Races humaines et leur repartition ge ographlque, trans. A. von Gennep, Paris, 1 9 2 7. Hale, J. R., ed., The Evolution of British Historiography, Cleveland, 1964. Halevy, Daniel, "Jacques de Boisjolin," Nouvelle Revue Francalse, (February 1, 1934), 185-193^ 3 6 9

Halpern. Louis. L'Histoire en France denuis cent ans, Paris, 1914. ------Hawkins, Frank H., The Racial Basis of Civilization, New York, 1 9 2 6. Hanotaux, Gabriel, Ed. Augustin Thierry d' apres sa correspondence et ses paplers de famlTle, Paris, 1922. Haring, C. H., Empire in Brazil, Cambridge, 1958. Hartleben, Hermine, Champolllon: Sein Leben und sein Werk, 2 vols., Berlin, 190b. Hassan el-Nouty, La Proche-Orient dans la lltterature frangalse de Nerval a l&arrls, Paris,T956. Hart, J. J., Histoire de la Gaule romalne, Paris, 1959. Herder, Johann, Mensch und Geschichte, Stuttgart, 1957. Hodgin, Margrit T., Early Anthropology in the 16th and 17th Century, Philadelphia, 19b4. Hoffman, Paul, "Der indische und der deutsche Geist von Herder bis zur Romantik," Diss: Tuebingen, 1915. Holzle, Erwin, Die altgermanische Frelheitsidee in der Historisch-poltischen Literatur bis Montesquieu Vornehmllch in England und Frankrelch, Berlin, 1925.

Holtzmann, Adolf, Kelten und Germanen, Stuttgart, 1 8 5 5. Huch, Ricarda, Die Romantik, Tuebingen, 1951. Humboldt, Alexander, Asle centrale: recherches sur les cha^nes des montagnes et climatologle compare*e, 3 vols77“Paris" 1843. , Essai politique de la nouvelle Espagne, 4 vols., Paris, ldlI7 , Kosmos: Entwurf einer physischen Weltbeschreibung, 4 vols., Stuttgart, 1845. 370

Humboldt, Wilhelm von, Pruefung der Untersuchungen ueber die Urbewohner Hispanians vermTFtelst der vaskischen Sprache (1820-1821) in Gesammlte Schriften, 3b vols., Berlin, 1 9 1 1-193 2 , vol. 4, 57-2327 , Ueber das Entstehen der grammatischen Formen und ihren Rinf'luss auf die Indeenentwicklung (1821J in Gesammlte Schriften, 3 b vols., 1902-1920, vol. 4, 285-313'.------, Ueber die Verschiedenheiten des menschllchen Sprachbaues (162 7-1 8 2 9) in Gesammlte Schriften, 36 vols., Berlin, 1903-1920, vol. VI, I, 111-303." , Ueber die Verschiedenheit des menschllchen Sprachbaues und ihren Einfluss auf die geistlge Entwlcklung der Wenschengeschichte (183O-I8 3 5) in Gesammlte Schriften, 3b vols., Berlin 1903-1920, vol. vii,'t; T-344.— Huxley, Julian and A. C. Haddon, The Europeans, London, 1935. Ihle, Alexander, Christoph Meiners und die Voelkerkunde, Goettingen, 1931. s. Julllan, Camille, 'Augustin Thierry, Journalist d'apres des documents inedits, " Revue d'histoire llttgraire en France, (October-December, T9O5) bl1-626. , "Augustin Thierry et le mouvement historique sous la Restauration," Revue de Synthe3e Hlstorlque, (1906), 129-142. Justi, F., Geschichte des alten Persiens, Berlin, 1879. Karnemann, Ernst, "Niebuhr und der Aufbau der altroemischen Geschichte, Historische Zeitschrift, (1931), 277-300. Kaufmann, Walter, Nietzsche, Cleveland, 1950. Kees, Hermann, "Geschichte der Aegyptologie" in B. Spuler, Handbuch der Orientalistik, vol. I, I, Leiden, 1958. Kellermann, Volkmar, Germanische Altertumskunde, Berlin, 1966. : 371 Kenyan, Fredric, The Bible and Archeology, London, 19^0. Khanikoff, Nicolas de Memolre sur 1 'ethnographle de la Perse, Paris, 1866. , Memolre sur la partie meridional^ cte l'Asle centrale, Paris, 1661. Klaproth, Julius, Asia Polyglotta, Paris, 1823. , Tableau historique ejt geographique, ethnographlque et politique du Caucase, Paris, 1827. Klemm, Gustav, Allgemeine Culturgeschlchte der Menschhelt, 10 vols., Leipzig, 1843-1652. , "Die Verbreitung der actlven Menschenrasse ueber den Erdball," Polltlsche Anthropologische Revue, V (1906-1907).

Knox, Robert, The Races of Man, London, 1 8 6 3. Koenig, F. W., Relief und Inschrift des Koenigs Darius I_ am Felsen von Bagfstan, Leiden, 1936. Kolb, Marthe, Ary Scheffer et son temps, 1795-1858, Paris, 1937. Kossina, Gustav, Die Deutsche Vorgeschichte: eine hervorragende nationale Wissenschaft, Wuerzburg, i m : ------, Die Herkunft der Germanen, Wuerzburg, l9ll. ______, Die Indogermanen, Leipzig, 1921. Die Indogermanische Frage, Berlin, 1902. ______, Hans Krahe, Die Indogermanen, Leipzig, 1935. Krahe, Hans, Indogerman1ache Sprachwissenschaft, 2 vols. Berlin, 1 9 8 6. Kraus, Hans Joachim, Die hlstorlsch-krltlsche Erfassung des alten Testaments, Neukirchen, l95b. 3 7 2

Kuhn, Adalbert, Ueber Entwicklungsstufen der Mythenbildung, Berlin, 1873.

______, Die Herabkunft des Feuers, Berlin, 1 8 5 9. Lach, Donald, "China and the Era of the Enlightenment, Journal of Modern History, XIV, (1942) 209-223. Lanczkowski, Guenter, Die Bedeutung des Indischen Denkens fuer Richard Wagner and seinen Freundeskrels, Diss: Marburg/Lahn, 1948 Lassch, Hans, "Einwirkung Indiens auf den Deutschen Gelst," in Wolfgang Stammler, Deutsche Phllologle im Abriss, 5 vols., Berlin 1962, TTT73W-598: Lassen, Christian, Indische Altertumskunde, 4 vols., Leipzig, 1864.

V Laret, P. Les Historians du XIXe siecle, Paris, 1951.

Lattimore, Owen, Studies in Frontier History, Paris, 1 9 6 2. Lawrence, William, Lectures on Physiology, Zoology, and Natural History of Man, London, 1817. Layard, Austin Henry, Ninevah and its Remains, London, 1849. , Popular Account of (the) discoveries at Ninevah, New~York, 1 8 5 5. Le Bon, Gustav, Lois psychologlque de 1 'evolution des peuples, Paris, ltJ9b. Lederbogen, Friedrich, "Friedrich von Schlegels Geschichtsphilosophie," Diss: Leipzig, 1908. Lehmann, William, Sociological and Cultural-Anthropological Elements in the Writing of Johann Gottfried von Herder, in Earl W. Count and Gordon T. Bowles, Fact and Theory in Social Science, Syracuse, 1964. Lenormant, Francois, La Divination et la science des presages chez les CHaldeens, parTs-, ld75» ______, Manuel d 1 Hlstoire de 1 1 Orient jusqu'aux Guerres me deques, b vols. ,_farls,_l85’9. 373

Lepsius, Richard, Briefe aua Aegypten, Aethioplen und der Halblnsel des Slnal, Berlin, 1B52. ______, Nublsche Grammatlk, Berlin, 1880. ✓ Leusse, Paul comte de, Etudes d'hlstolre ethnique depuls les temps prehlstoriques jusq'au commencement de la Renaissance, 2 vols,, Paris, 1899. Levin, David, History as Remantic Art, Stanford, 1959. Lewis, Bernard, and P. M. Holt eds. Historians of the Middle East, London, 1962. Lively, Jack, The Social and Political Thought of Alexis de Tocquevllle, Oxford, 1952.

Lochner-Huttenbach, Fritz, Die Pelasger, Vienna, i9 6 0. Loti, Pierre, Vers Isphahan, Paris, 1904. Loos, Paul Arthur, Richard Wagners Vollendung und Traglk der deutschen Romantlk, Munich, 1952. Loewith, Karl, Weltgeschlchte und Hellsgeschehen, Stuttgart, 1953. Ludwig, Emil, Schliemann of Troy, New York, 1931. Mac Donnell, Arthur and Arthur Keith, index of Vedlc Names and Subjects, 2 vols. Dehli, 1958.

Mannhardt, Wilhelm, Germanlsche Mythen, Berlin, 1 8 5 8.

Marcuse, A. Die Geschicht3 phllosophie Auguste Comtes, Stuttgart, 193^!

Martin, Henri, Hlstolre de France, 2 vols. Paris, 1 8 7 8. Masse, Henri, Anthologle Persane, Paris, 1950. ______, Croyances et coutumes Perslanes, Paris, 1938. ✓ Maury, Alfred, "Des Travaux modernes sur l'Egypt anclenne," Revue des deux Mondes, (July-August, 1855) , Hlstolre des religions de la Grece antique, Paris, 1 8 8 6. 374

, "La Philologie comparee, ses principes et sea applications nouvelles," Revue des Deux Mondes, (April 15, 1857). _ , l&_ Terre et 1 1 Homme, Paris, 1861. Mayer, Martin, Per Begriff der Freiheit im Denken Alexis de Tocquevllles, Zurich, 1955^ Melllet, Antoine, Introduction a_ 1 'etude comparative des langues indo europeenne3, Paris, 1934. Meinecke, Friedrich, Die Entstehung des Hlstorlsmus, 2 vols. Munich, 1936. , "Germanischer und Romanischer Geist im Wandel der deutschen Geschichtsauffassung, Historische Zeitschrift, CXV, (1916). Meiner, Christen, Grundrlss der Geschlchte der Menschhelt, Lemgo, 1785. Mellon, Stanley, The Political Use of History, Stanford, 1 8 5 8. Merkel, R. F. "Herder und Hegel ueber China, Sinica, XVII, (19^2), 5-26. Messerschmidt, Leopold, Die Entzifferung der Kellschrlften, Das Alte Orient, (190377 Michaelis, Adolf, Eln Jahrhundert kunstarchaeologischer Entdeckungenn, Leipzig, lyots. Mamegliono, Arnoldo, "An Intern Report on the Origins of Rome," Journal of Roman History, (1 9 6 3), 95-109. Mommsen, Theodor, Roemische Geschlchte, 5 vols. Leipzig, I8 5 4. -

Mohl, Jules, Vlngt sept ans d'hlstolre des etudes orlentalistes, 2 vols. Paris, 1880.

Montesquieu, Charles de, Les Esprit des Lois, Paris, 1 9 6 7. Montlosler, Louis de. De la Monarchie francaise au 1. Janvier, 1824, Paris, 1824. 4 375

, De la Monarchie depuls son etablissement Jusqu'a "no's Jours,~jj vols., Paris, TBT7. Moreau, Pierre, Le Romantlsme, Paris, 1932. Mortlllet, Gabriel, Formation de la Nation frangaise, Paris, 1897. f---- Mortino, Pierre, L'Orient dans la litterature frangaise au XVIIe et au~XVllIe si^cre7~~Paris, igoo. ^ Morton^, Samual George, Crania Aegyptlaca, Philadelphia,

______, Crania Americana, Philadelphia, 1839. Much, R. Die Germania des Tacitus, Heidelberg, 1937. Muehlmann, Wilhelm, Geschlchte der Anthropologie, Bonn, 1948. ______, Methodlk der Voelkerkunde, Stuttgart, 1938. ______, Rassen, Ethnien, Kulturen, Berlin, 1964.

Mukherjie, S. N., Sir William Jones, Cambridge, 1 9 6 8.

Mueller, Karl 0. Die Etrusker, Breslau, 1 8 2 8. , Geschlchten Hellenlscher Staemme und Staedte, 2 vols., Breslau, 1820. , Prolegamina zu einer wissenschaftlichen frfrythoiogle, Goettingen, 1B55. Mueller, Max, Biography of Words and the Home of the Aryans, London, 1888^

1 9 2 £_, , ------A History of Sanskrit Literature, Hadrebad,

, Chips from a German Workshop, 2 vols. London, 1868. , Essays on Comparative Mythology, Oxford,

______, The Heritage of India, Cambridge, 1882. 376

, Vorlesungen ueber die Wissenschaft der Sprachen, trans. Carl-BoetTTger, 2 vols, Leipzig, 1&3-1B65. Musset, Lucian, Les Invasions, Paris, 1 9 6 5. Nack, Emil, Germanen, Vienna, 1958. Newman, Ernest, The Life of Richard Wagner, 4 vols. New York, 1946, Niebuhr, Carsten, Reisebeschreibung nach Arabien und anderen umliegenden Laendern, 2 vols. Copenhagen, T r u ^ Y i w . ------Niebuhr, Georg B. Roemische Geschlchte, 5 vols. Berlin, 1933.

, Vortraege------ueber Roemische Geschlchte,

Nietzsche, Elizabeth Foester, Der einsame Nietzsche, 2 vols. Leipzig, 1914. Nilsson, Sven, Das Stelnalter oder die Urelnwohner des scandinavischen Nordens, trans. J. Mistorf, Hamburg, TEST. ------, Die Ureinwohner des scandinavischen Nordens Hamburg, 1 8 6 3. Noeldeke, Theodor, Geschlchte der Perser und Araber zur Zeit der Sasslnaden, Leiden, 1879. , "Das Iranische Nationalepos," in W. Gieger and w. Kune, Grundriss der Iranischen Phllologle, 3 vols. Stuttgart, 1891-1902. , Neue Beitraege zur Semitisehen Sprachwlssenschaft, Strasbourg, 1910.

______, Die Semitisehen Sprachen, Leipzig, 1 8 8 7. Nolte, Ernst, The Three Faces of Fascism, trans. Lila Vennewitz, London, T9&5. Nott, Josiah, Two Lectures on the Connection between the Biblical and the PhysicaT~History of Man, New York7'l849. 377

, and George R. Gliddon, Indigenous Races of the Earth, Philadelphia, 1857.

______, Types of Mankind, Philadelphia, 1 8 5 4. Nyburg, H, S. Die Religionen des alten Iran, Leipzig, 1938. Oppert, Jules, Considerations generales sur la philologie comparde des ' langue's" indoe uropeennes ,~TarTs~,ia5b. , "Cuneiformes," La Grande Encylopedie, XIII, g 1 8 .ggit#------

______, Les Medes, Paris, 1 8 7 6. Palgrave, Francis, History of the Anglo-Saxons, London, 1838. ------Pallis, Svend, The Antiquity of Iraq: A Handbook of Assyrlology, Copenhagen, 195*6. Pallottino, The Etrusqans, Hammondsworth, 1956. Parrot,’Andree, Archeologie Mesopotamienne, 2 vols., Paris, 1946-1953~. Pederson, Holdar, The Discovery of Language in the Nineteenth Century, trans. J. Spargb, '^loomrngtonV l^Tl. Penka, Karl, Die Herkunft der Arier, Vienna, 1886.

, Origines Ariacae, Vienna, 1 8 8 3. Penniman, Thomas, A Hundred Years of Anthropology, London, 1952.

Philips, C. H. ed. Historians of India, London, 1 9 6 1. Pictet, Adolphe, Les Origines Indo-Europeennes ou les aryas prlmltlfs, Paris, 1859. Pinot, Virgile, la Chine et la formation de 1 'esprit phllosophlque en France, T64o-l74o, ParTs, 19327 Pittard, Eugene, Race and History, trans. V. C. Collen, New York, 1926. Poesche, Karl, Die Arier: eln Beltrag zur historischen Anthropologle, Jena, I87H. 378 Pott, August Friedrich, Ethmologische Forschung auf dem Geblete der Indogermanisclien Sprachen, 2 volsTTfeTIe, 155^ ____ , "Indogermanischer Sprachstanun" in Allgemelne Encyklopaedle der Wlssenschaft und Kuenste, ed. A. G.Horrmann, Leipzig, 1640. ______, "Max Mueller und die Kennzeichen der Sprachverwands chaft," Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlandschaft, (1855)# 405-4&4. Prescott, William, The History of the Conquest of Mexico and The History of the Conquest of Peru, NevMfork, TS32. Pretzsch, Paul ed., Coslma Wagner und Huston S_. Chamberlain in Brlefwechseln, 1808-1890,Leipzig, 1934. Prevost, Gustave de, "Les Invasions barbares en Gaule," Revue des questions historlques, (1879)# 131-180. Prichard, James Cowles, The Natural History of Man, London, 1848. ______, The Physical History of Mankind, 5 vols. London # 1030-1847, Prokesch-Osten, Georg A. von, Denkwuerdlgkelten und Erlnnerungen aus dem Orient, 3 vols. Stuttgart, 1837. ______, Mehmed All, Vienna, 1877. Pruner-Bey, F. Aegypter Naturgeschichte und Anthropologle, Erlangen, 18477 Quatrefages, Arnould de. "Histoire naturelle de l'homme, la Race prussienne," Revue des Deux Mondes, (February 15, 1671). , Hommes fossiles et Hommes sauvages, Paris, 1884. Querner, Hans, Stammesgeschichte des Menschen, Stuttgart, 1968. Rochechouart, Comte de, Souvenirs d 1 un Voyage en Perse, Pari3, 1863. 3 7 9 Ranke, Leopold von, Weltgeschichte, ed. Paul Friedrich, Berlin, 1 9 28. Rask, Rasmus, Ueber das Alter und die Echthelt der Zend- sprache und das~Zend-5vesta, trans. F. von der Hagen, Leipzig, 182ET Rau, Wilhelm, Staat und Gesellschaft im alten Indien, Wiesbaden, 1957. Rawlinson, Henry C. A Commentary on the cuneiform Inscriptions of Babylonia arid Assyria', London, I85Q. Reichwein, Adolf, China and Europe, trans. J. C. Powell, New York, 1925.

Reinach, Salomon, L 1Origines des Aryans, Paris, 1 8 9 2. x Remusat, Abel de, Melanges Asiatiques, 2 vols, Paris, 1825. , Melanges posthumus, Paris, 1843. v ^ , Memolres sur plusieurs questions relatives a la geographie de 1'' asie centrale, Paris, 1627. , Recherches sur les langues tartares, Paris, 1823. Remusat, Charles de, 'L' ancien Re'gime et la revolution de M. de Tocqueville," Revue des Deux Mondes, (August 1, 1856), 652-670. , Memoires de ma vie, Paris, 1958. Remusat, Paul de. "Des Races humaines," Revue des Deux Mondes, (March 1, 1854). Renan, Ernst,"L'Ecole liberale, ses principes et ses tendences," Revue des Deux Mondes, (August 1, 1 8 5 8). _ 1 s' x" ______, Expeditions scientifiques en Mesopotamie par M. Oppert," Journal des Savants, (March-June, 1859). ______, Oeuvres completes, 10 vols. Paris, 1955. Retzius, Anders, On Formen Af Nordboernes, Cranler, Stockholm, 1843T Richardson, Robert, "The Development of the Theory of Geographical Race Formation: Buffon tc Darwin, Diss: Madison, Wis., 1 9 6 8. Ritter, Karl, Geschlchte der Erdkunde und der Entdeckungen, Berlin, 1861. Holland, Romaln, Jean Christophe, 4 vols, Paris, 1909-1910. Romband, Michel, L ' Art de la_ deformation hlstorlque dans les comment a ire s de~ Cesar, Paris, 19^6. Rosen, Richard, Perslen in Wort und Bild, Berlin, 1926. Rowbotham, Arnold, "The Impact of Confucianism in Seventeenth Century Europe," Far Eastern Quaterly, IV, (19^5), 224-242. Russel, E. G., Form and Function, London, 1916. Rypka, Jan, Iranische Llteraturgeschichte, Leipzig, 1959. Safarik, Pavel, Slawische Alterthuemer, 2 vols, Leipzig, 1843. Samsani, Nayereh, L 1Iran dans la lltterature francalse, Paris, 1936. Sandys, J. R. A History of Classical Scholarship, 3 vols. Cambridge, 195ET Savlgny, Friedrich Carl von, Geschlchte des roemlschen Rechts im Mlttelalter, 2 vcls, Heidelberg, Ibl5-l8l6. Sayce, A. C., Principles of Philology, 2 vols., London, 1874. Schaebel, C. "Examen critique du de’chiff remen t des inscriptions cung'lformes Assyrlennes, " Revue orientale et Amerlcalnes, V, (l86l), 174-220. Scheldt, Walter, Allgemeine Rassenkunde, 2 vols. Munich, 1925. , "Beitraege zur Geschlchte der Anthropologie, Archiv fuer Rassenblologle, (1923-1924). ______, Rassenkunde, Leipzig, 1930. 381

Schemann, Ludwig, Die Rasse in den Geisteswlssenschaften, 3 vols, Munich, 1928-1931. Schlegel, Friedrich von, Studlen zur Geschlchte und Polltlk, ed, Ernst Behler, Munich, 19bb, , Ueber die Sprache und die Weissheit der Inder, Vienna, 184b. Schlosser, Friedrich C, Unlversal-hlstorische Ueberslcht der Geschlchte der alten Welt und Ihrer Cultur, 9 vols. Frankfurt/M. IB2b-l8'3^ Schleicher, August, Die Darwinlsche Theorle und die Sprachwissenschaft, Weimar, I87T. , Ueber die Bedeutung der Sprache fuer die Naturgesch'lcHte des Menschen, Weimar, 18fc>5. Schliemann, Heinrich, Selbstbiographle, ed. E. Meyer, Wiesbaden, 1961. Schmidt, Heinrich, Geschlchte der Entwicklungslehre, Leipzig, 1918. Schmidt, Wilhelm, The Cultural Method of Ethnology, trans. S. A. Sieber, New York, 1939. , Die Sprachfamilien und Sprachrelse der Erde7 He'13eTBergT~192b. ______, Rasse und Volk, Munich, 1927. Schmitthenner, Heinrich, Studien ueber Carl Ritter, Frankfurter, 1951. Schraeder, Hans, Goethe's Erlebnis des Ostens, Leipzig, 1938. Schraeder, Otto, Zur Geschlchte und Methode der llnguistlsch-historisch Forschung, Jena, 19A6. Schulin, Ernst, Die Weltgeschlchtliche Erfassung des Orients bel Hegel~uhd Ranke, Goettingen, 195h. Schwab, Raymond, Anquetil-Duperron, Paris, 193^.

______, La Renaissance orientaliste, Paris, 1950. 382 Seilliere, Ernst, "Une Ecole d 1 imperialisme mystique," Revue des Deux Mondes, (March 1, 1909)* 196-228. , "L1Imperialisme germanique dans I 1oeuvre de Renan, Revue des Deux Mondes, (November 15* 1906). Serpeille de Gobineau, Clement, Racisme, Marxlsme, et le problems Julf, Bielefeld, 193t>. Simar, Theodore, Etude critique sur la formation de la doctrine des races, Brussels, 102^7 Simon, Rene, Henri de Boulalnvilllers, Paris, 1940. Snyder, Louis, Race: A History of Modern Ethnic Theories, New York, 19J97~ Soedjolmoko, Mohammad, G. J. Resinik, and George Me Kahin, An Introduction to Indonesian Historiography, Ithaca, T$6W.------Soemmering, Theodor, Ueber die Koerperllche Verschledenhelt des Maehrens vom Europaeer Mainz, iy64. Spuler, Berthold "Die historische und geographlsche Literatur in PerslscherfSprache," in B. Spuler, Iranlstik, Leiden, 1968.

I g 5 2 : , Iran in frueh -Islamischer Zeit, Weislar,

Staedler, Peter, Geschichtsschrelbung und hlstorlsches Denkens in Frankreich, I7d9-l8?l, Zurich, 1959. Stampfuss, Rudolf, Gustav Kosslna: eln Leben fuer die Deutsche Vorgeschichte, Leipzig, 1935. Stanton, William, The Leopard’s Spots: Scientific Attitudes toward Race In America, 1815-1859* Chicago, I 9 6 U-,------Stein, Leon, The Racial Thinking of Richard Wagner, New York, 1950. Stoddard, Lathrop, The Revolt against Civilization, New York, 1922. Swart, Koenraad, The Sense of Decadence in Nineteenth Century France, The Hague, 1964. 383

Tacitus, Cornilius, De Orlglne et Situ Germanorum, ed. J. Anderson, Oxf ord,~T961. Taine, Hlppolyte, Les Origines de la France contemporalne, 6 vols, Paris, 1873-1881. , Les Philosophes du XIXe Siecle, Paris, IB7F:

Taylor, Isaac, The Origines of the Aryans, London, 1880. Thierry, Amedee, Hlstolre de la Gaule sous 1 'administration romalne, 3 vols"; Paris,- ______, Hlstolre des Gaulols, 2 vols, Paris, 1844. Thierry, Augustin, Dix Ana d'etudes historlques, Paris, 1842. , Histcire de la conquete de l'Angleterre par les Normands, 4 vols, Paris, 152b. ✓ / , Recits des temps merovengiens, 2 vols., ParTs7"I84^7 Topinard, Paul, L 1Anthropologle, Paris, 1884.

, Elements------d ’Anthropologle generale, Paris,

, "De la Notion de race en Anthropologle," Revue d 1 Anthropologle, (1879)* 591-660. Tronchon, Henri, Ernst Renan et L ’etranger, Paris, 1928. Vacher de Lapouge, Georges, L ’Aryan: son r'&le social, Paris, 1899. ______, Race et Milieu social, Paris, 1909.

______, Les Selections soclales, Paris, 1 8 9 6. Vasilev, A. A. Hlstolre de 1 ’empire byzantln, 2 vols, Paris, 1932. Virchow, Rudolf, Menschen-und Affenschaedel, Berlin, 1870. , Ueber die Methode der wlssenschaftlichen Anthropologle, elne~Sntwort an Herrn de Quatrefages, Zeitschrfit fuer Ethnologle,~YV~, [IE75T, 360-320. , Die UrbevoeIkerung Europas, Berlin, 1874. Vogellein, Eric, "The Growth of the Race Idea, Review of Politics, (July, 1940), 283-317. ______, Die Rassenidee in der Geistesgeschlchte von Ray bTs~Carus, Berlin, 1933". Voltaire, Essai sur les Moeurs, ed. R. Pomeau, 2 vols. Paris, 1963T Vries, Jan de, Forschungsgeschlchte der Mythologle, Frleburg/B. 1961.

Waitz, Theodor, Anthropologle der Naturvoelker, 6 vols. 6 vols, Leipzig, I8 3 6-187I. Wahle, Ernst, "Geschlchte der Praehistorischen Forschung," Anthrop, XLV-XLVI, (1950-1951) , Tradition und Auftrag praehistorischer Forschung, Berlin, 190^. ______, Zur Ethnlschen Deutung fruehgeschlcht- llcher KulFurprovinzen, Heidelberg, T94l.

Weber, Eugen, L'Action Francaise, Stanford, 1 96 2. Welssbach, F. H. "Die altpersischen Inschriften," in W. Gieger and E. Kuhe, Grundrlss der Iranlschen Philologie, 3 vols, Stuttgart, 1891-1902.

r B 5 ? r : ------, Zur Loesung der Sumarischen Frage, Leipzig,

Wendt, Heinz F. Sprachen, Frankfurt/M. 1 9 6 1. West, E. W. "Pahlevi Literatur, W. Gieger and E. Kuhe, Grundriss der Iranischen Philogolie, 3 vols, Stuttgart, 1891-1902. Wichler, Gerhard, Charles Darwin: Der Forscher und der Mensch, Munich, 19t>3. 385 Wilkenson, J. Gardner, A Popular Account of the Ancient Egyptians, 2 vols. London, 185^ Williams, Mary, Dorn Pedro the Magnificent, Chapel Hill, 1937. Windisch, Ernst, Geschlchte der Sanskrit Philologie und Indischen Alterthumskunde, 3 vols. Strasbourg/Berlin, I 3 I 7 - T 9 S T . ------

Woltmann, Ludwig, Die Anthropologische Geschichts-und Gesellschaftstheorie, Politische Anthropologische Revue, II, (1903-1904__

i 9 3 5 - , Die------Germanen in Frankreich, Leipzig,

, Die Germanen und die Renaissance in Italien, Leipzig, 1$05. , Politische Anthropologle, Eisenach,

— m r . ------Worsaae, J. J., The Primeral Antiquities of Denmark, trans, London,-I849T Wucker, Albert, Theodor Mommsen: Geschichtschreibung und Politik, Goettingen, 1956. Wuttke, Adolf, Geschlchte des Heldenthums, 2 vols, Breslau, 1852-1B54.

Zimmer, Heinrich, Altlndisches Leben, Berlin, 1 8 7 9. TITLE OF THESIS E __ (jLz.$_h.L .ArLM®-^ r _ Q .bL__

......

Full Name -—jfjlJ-g& T. £ £ & - & £ &...... ^ J Z £ ± L & J &......

Place and Date of Birth-Q. J r Si - dl-Y-1^.-^ I^l_'__-^i.______3 -2 -J. _*_ _'?L3 _

Elementary and Secondary Education — <7 C. vioe t S J L.HS,y.JkA. fj'-t.-/ —r .^-?-Mi-V/0^4:

Colleges and Universities: Years attended and degrees------.Cnk4S.l:E._..Ur.tiLjl.^'Lt/.. ll5.2-AL.-6®-

f.ML.L.LLt.Lti...L.A.i.fE-thL±-^...... l-U-L -LL... —

Membership in Learned or Honorary Societies------J5.J31-.IL-

t l K — ......

Publications------2 Z Z L ______

Major Department______Ij-Li-5?.5j--J- ^ j / ------

Muior(s)...... l o M p P £ R ~ t~ il/H L l + ytfiluK T

29 A pril 1970 / A - Date______Signed Professor in charge of theaii