said; that is, variability, and consequently progressiveness. There
is more life in mixed nations. France, for instance, is justly said
to be the mean term between the Latin and the German races. A
Norman, as you may see by looking at him, is of the north; a
Provencal is of the south, of all that there is most southern. You
have in France Latin, Celtic, German, compounded in an infinite
number of proportions: one as she is in feeling, she is various not
only in the past history of her various provinces, but in their
present temperaments. Like the Irish element and the Scotch element
in the English House of Commons, the variety of French races
contributes to the play of the polity; it gives a chance for fitting
new things which otherwise there would not be. And early races must
have wanted mixing more than modern races. It is said, in answer to
the Jewish boast that 'their race still prospers, though it is
scattered and breeds in-and-in,' 'You prosper BECAUSE you are so
scattered; by acclimatisation in various regions your nation has
acquired singular elements of variety; it contains within itself the
principle of variability which other nations must seek by
intermarriage.' In the beginning of things there was certainly no
cosmopolitan race like the Jews; each race was a sort of 'parish
race,' narrow in thought and bounded in range, and it wanted mixing
accordingly.

But the mixture of races has a singular danger as well as a singular
advantage in the early world. We know now the Anglo-Indian suspicion
or contempt for 'half-castes.' The union of the Englishman and the
Hindoo produces something not only between races, but BETWEEN
MORALITIES. They have no inherited creed or plain place in the
world; they have none of the fixed traditional sentiments which are
the stays of human nature. In the early world many mixtures must