I have ended what I had to say in the matter of a tentative systematization of civilisations, and shall not advance beyond that question. I have been concerned only with their differences, wishing to bring out their multiplicity and systematize it. I have not described any of them. A description of any given civilisation requires a separate volume — a large work entering into details. A description of the seven civilisations I have worked with here would need seven volumes.660
The results of this book can be expressed in the small table below:
Non-sacral with supremacy for:
Public life based on:
In this plan Latin civilisation immediately stands out; but does so only at the end if we make a table by the opposite method, progressing from features of less weight to the greatest:
From whatever, angle we have attempted a systematization, Latin civilisation always holds a place apart, never in line with any other.
I repeat that I regard these tables as “provisional with reservations”. To complete the problem there is need of a more exact study of the variations occurring in the relation of man to time, as well as more detailed information about the clan systems (of which in Chapter III I enumerated five, for I only have data for five, but we cannot exclude the possibility that there are more). It may be that absolutely all higher and highest forms up to the supremacy of spiritual forces are inherent in nuce in a certain system of clan organisation; it may be that the halting of development somewhere below the highest level depends on the kind of clan organisation from which a society came; it may be that in the same way as certain peoples are victims of a language unsuited to development beyond a certain level, there may enter into the matter a kind of predestination depending on the clan element; but it may also be that none of these suppositions is correct; and equally it may be that some are correct and others not; we must wait until the science of civilisation develops — that science to which the present treatise is intended as an initial contribution.
As a conclusion to this tentative systematization, let us take the features which link or divide the chief civilisations. (Jewish civilisation, which is variable, will be discussed in the next section.)
Turanian civilisation has the clan organisation, is polygamous, measures time up to the cycle, is composed of communities which have not become differentiated into societies, organises public life on camp lines with anthropolatry of the leader-ruler, is without ethics in public life.
Chinese civilisation with its clan organisation loosening up in the towns, knowns the cycle, is polygamous, autonomous in social matters, anthropolatrous and without ethics in those of the State.
Arabic civilisation with its clan organisation achieving emancipation of the family in the Cordovan culture, knowns the era but has no historical awareness, is polygamous, despotic in public life, but subjects the ruler to the supreme authority of the Koran.
Byzantine civilisation with its emancipation of the family is monogamous, knows the era but is not historically conscious, subjects society to bureaucracy, creates étatisme, is anthropolatrous, worshipping the person of the ruler in the name of the omnipotence of the State although — unlike all the civilisations already mentioned — it possesses a separate public law; in public life without ethics. It does not produce nationality (resembling in this all the preceding civilisations).
Latin civilisation has family emancipation and monogamy, historical and national consciousness, rests the State on society, demands ethics in public life and recognises the supremacy of spiritual forces.