History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v7.c96.s1.13

v7.c96.s1.13

During the last 6000 years of human history, several cultures and civilizations rose and fell Spengler, a militarist and anti-rationalistic author, who does not rely on religion, morality or politics but is a votary of force, examines about thirty civilizations and cultures and propounds the thesis that all of them (except seven or eight) follow a certain common pattern, viz. they are born, grow, decline and die and that once defunct they are not revived. Prof. Toynbee, a Christian (and not a militarist) in his ‘Study of History’ appears to arrive at conclusions not unlike those of Spengler, viz culture and societies have stages of childhood, maturity, senility and disintegration. On p. 758 of Volume IX of his ‘Study of History’ he gives a table for nineteen civilizations with the dates of their Epiphany (manifestation), of their breakdown and the span of growth phase in number of years. He puts down Indic civilization as starting in 1375 B C. and as breaking down in 725 B. C. and Hindu civilization as beginning in 775 A D. and its breakdown in 1175 A. D. This is, to say the least, most objectionable²⁶⁰³ The distinction between Indic and Hindu civilization is arbitrary and the dates also are so. Why the Hindu civilization is held by him as breaking down in 1175 A. D. is quite unconvincing and what was the nature or name of India’s civilization between 725 B. C. and 775 A. D. is not stated by him. On the other hand, the whole metaphor of being born, growing, maturing and disintegrating is held inapplicable to civilizations by other distinguished writers, such as J. G. De Beus in the ‘Future of the West’ (London, 1953), who remarks that civilizations are not born and they do not die (p 60), but are transformed or absorbed. Prof. Sorokin asserts (in ‘Social and Cultural Dynamics’) that his theory has little in common with the age-old theories of the life cycle of culture and societies with stages of childhood, maturity, senility and decay (p. 627). Leonard Woolf in ‘Quack, quack’ mercilessly criticizes Spengler’s theories (pp 139-160). A. L. Kroeber in ‘Style and Civilizations’ (New York, 1957) agrees with Prof. Sorokin and disagrees with Spengler and Toynbee and remarks that ‘the study of civilizations can hardly become truly scientific or scholarly until it divests itself of emotional concern about crisis, decay, collapse, extinction and doom’ (p. 160).