Russia and Europe

Chapter 8: The Difference in Mental Framework

 8  The Difference in Mental Framework     The   Merciful   Lord   has   provided   our   kind   with   such   gentleness   and   good-­‐‑heartedness   as   other   peoples   can   only   envy,   and   which   other   peoples   could  only  attain,  with  great  effort,  through  a  long   process  of  civilization.   —Galician  satirical  journal  Scarecrow  (Strakhopud)     Oh  Rus’—like  the  man  of  wisdom,   Whom  conscience  keeps  from  falling,   With  a  noble  soul  untroubled—     We  follow  a  divine  calling!   —Khomiakov1     The  differences  among  peoples  of  separate  cultural-­‐‑historical  types  form  the   basis  for  the  difference  in  the  very  civilizations  that  are  the  essential  contents   and   fruit   of   their   vital   activity.   They   fall   under   the   following   categories:   1)   ethnographic  differences,  or  the  tribal  qualities  that  express  themselves  in  the   peculiarities   of   the   mental   framework   of   peoples;   2)   differences   of   guiding   moral  principles,  the  only  possible  basis  for  the  fruitful  development  of  civili-­‐‑ zation,  in  scientific  and  artistic  as  well  as  social  and  political  terms;  3)  differ-­‐‑ ences   of   the   course   and   conditions   of   the   historical   upbringing   of   peoples.   From  these  three  points  of  view  we  also  will  examine  the  peculiarities  of  the   Slavic,  especially  the  Russian,  character,  since  only  the  Russian  people  has  at-­‐‑ tained  and  preserved  its  political  autonomy—the  condition  without  which,  as   history  shows,  civilization  never  begins  or  exists,  because  it  cannot  do  so.  The   goal   of   this   examination   is   to   evaluate   whether   these   differences   are   great   enough  to  enable  and  require  the  Slavic  peoples  to  produce  their  own  original   culture,  from  fear  of  losing  their  significance  as  a  historical  tribe  in  the  highest   sense  of  the  word.   In   defining   essential   ethnographic   differences   between   the   Slavic   and   Germanic   peoples,   we   find   first   of   all   the   physiological   difference,   which   some  anthropologists  consider  a  stark  contrast  between  the  Slavic  and  Ger-­‐‑ manic-­‐‑Roman  tribes,  which  to  our  mind  ought  to  serve  our  purpose.  But  in-­‐‑ stead,  this  physiological  difference  relegates  us  to  the  lower  order  of  human                                                                                                                             1  From  the  1854  poem  “Raskaiavsheisia  Rossii”  (To  a  Repentant  Russia).     8. MENTAL FRAMEWORK 145 tribes,  thus  eliminating  our  claim  to  a  high  degree  of  cultural  development,  as   if  condemning  us  to  serve  as  ethnographic  material.  I  have  in  mind  here  Retz-­‐‑ ius’s2  division  of  the  human  tribes  into  the  long-­‐‑headed  and  short-­‐‑headed,  or   dolichocephalic   and   brachycephalic.   It   goes   without   saying   that   our   many   “well-­‐‑wishers”  strongly  emphasize  this  allegedly  degrading  difference  for  the   Slavs.  As  if  in  lockstep,  the  German  historian  Weber3  applied  his  rhymed  di-­‐‑ vision  of  classes,  states,  and  societies  in  general  into  Lehr-­‐‑,  Wehr-­‐‑,  and  Nähr-­‐‑ stand  [scholarly,  military,  and  agriculturalist  classes]  also  to  the  very  peoples   populating  Europe4  (in  the  commonly  understood  sense  of  this  word)  and  of   course  put  the  Slavs  among  the  agriculturalists  and  the  Germans  among  the   scholars:  that  is,  consigning  the  Slavs  to  material  labor  in  service  to  the  higher   tribes.  Let  us  examine  the  famous  division  of  Retzius.  Where  does  it  lead  us?   Besides  long-­‐‑headedness,  in  which  the  head’s  diameter  from  the  forehead   to  the  back  exceeds  the  transverse  by  a  ratio  of  at  least  9:7,  and  short-­‐‑headed-­‐‑ ness,  in  which  this  ratio  is  8:7,  Retzius  takes  one  other  sign  as  the  basis  of  his   division:  the  direction  of  the  front  teeth  and  dental  protrusions  at  the  front   parts   of   the   jaws.   The   teeth   and   dental   protrusions   can   stand   vertically   in   straight-­‐‑jawed   fashion   (orthognathy);   or   they   can   slant   in   a   forward,   pro-­‐‑ truding   direction   (prognathy).   These   two   directions   of   teeth   and   jaws   com-­‐‑ bined  with  long-­‐‑headedness  and  short-­‐‑headedness,  create  four  categories  into   which  the  tribes  of  humanity  can  be  placed  in  the  following  way:     Long-­‐‑headed   straight-­‐‑jawed.   Indians   (of   Aryan   descent),   Iranians,   Germans,  Celts,  Greeks,  Romans,  Jews,  Arabs,  Nubians,  Abyssinians,   Berbers,  Finns,  the  eastern  American  Indian  tribes  settling  the  plains   of   North   and   South   America   (called   “American   Semites”   by   Latham).5     Long-­‐‑headed   slant-­‐‑jawed.   Negroes,   Kaffirs,   Hottentots,   Copts,   New   Zealanders,  Eskimos,  and  Greenlanders.     Short-­‐‑headed   straight-­‐‑jawed.   Slavs,   Latvians,   Turks,   Laplanders,   Basques,  Raetians,  Albanians,  ancient  Etruscans.                                                                                                                               2  Anders   Retzius   (1796–1860):   Swedish   comparative   anatomist   and   anthropologist   who  defined  the  cephalic  index,  or  ratio  of  the  head’s  length  to  width,  the  variations  of   which  among  different  populations  supported  his  belief  in  polygenism,  that  different   races  had  separate  origins.   3  Georg  Weber  (1808–88):  Historian  and  director  of  the  high  school  in  Heidelberg,  pro-­‐‑ lific  textbook  author.   4  Weber  associated  the  three  castes  with  Germans,  Romans,  and  Slavs;  see  Allgemeine   Weltgeschichte  für  die  gebildeten  Stände,  4:  861.   5  Robert...