THE '' NATION "as AN ELEMENT IN ANTHROPOLOGY. 595 



exist, wliere one tribe had deliberately forced another to change its 

 language as the condition oteniering into an alliance. 



The so-called ''Empire of Anahuac," ill Mexico, tlie organization of 

 which had not wholly emerged from the consanguine condition, held as 

 conquered and tributary many tribes of different s])eech, but had made 

 no eftbrt to impose upon any of them its own sonorous and beautiful 

 language. On the other hand, Peru, which had reached a condition of 

 national existence, exerted constant and strong iDressure, as its histo- 

 rian, Garcilaso de la Yega, assures us, to crush and extirpate all other 

 tongues throughout its domains than the Kechiia, that spoken by the 

 Incas and their congeners. It Avas declared to be the official language, 

 and there was no hope for promotion for one not familiar with it. In 

 this respect, those enlightened rulers of the Peruvian state displayed 

 an insight into what constitutes the very strongest bond of national 

 unity, which we here in the United States appreciate yet but imper- 

 fectly. It is within my own memory that the acts of assembly of my 

 own State were issued in two languages, thus encouraging a long- 

 existing linguistic discrepancy between the citizens of that common- 

 wealth. Linguistic unity is the indispensable basis of national unity. 

 When, as is the case with one of the i^resent Eiiro})eaii empires, we 

 hear of thirty-six different languages being current under one rule, we 

 may be sure there is no real coherence in the nation. 



The recognition of this fact, and the steady efibrts directed toward 

 the extermination of subordinate tongues and the substitution of a 

 general or national one in their i^lace, has led to the phenomenon of 

 peoples of the same descent speaking different idioms, and those of 

 alien origin expressing themselves through one and the same medium. 



It remains true nevertheless — and this is an important point too 

 often lost sight of in the discussion — that this substitution of one lan- 

 guage for another never takes place witliout an extensive admixture of 

 blood; for there is no more potent and prompt method of attacking the 

 integrity of a language than by inter-marriage. Indeed, except in 

 cases of slavery, we may almost establish the formula that the admix- 

 ture of blood under such circumstances bears the fixed relation of one- 

 half to one; that is, that when a language has superseded another, 

 one-half of the marriages in the latter have been with members of the 

 former. Of course, by marriages in this relation we mean continued 

 sexual unions, not necessarily legal ceremonies. 



Whatever the national form of government adopted, the principal 

 maxims of jurisprudence and the ethical principles upon which they 

 repose are profoundly modified by the substitution of the national in 

 jjlace of the tribal idea. 



I will illustrate this contrast by an example familiar to the students 

 of the early history of this country. 



The European settlers in the colonies of Pennsylvania and New York 

 could not understand why, when in time of peace an Indian murdered 



