Page 38 [38]
OCR
Icon Animorum by John Barclay and the Origins of the Characterization of European Nations difference in Barclay’s thoughts about the operations of the states. Of course, he refers to wars and soldiers, too, even in terms of the peoples’ attitude toward horses, weapons, battles, etc. Thus, although politics appears as a distinctive feature in Barclay’s work, it still is not elaborated into a full comparison of European countries and their institutions. Some topics become recurrent motifs, in Barclay’s chapters. To the modern reader, it is surprising that he describes so often attitudes toward foreigners, visitors, immigrants, peregrini, etc., in the different countries. Another preoccupation is the “attitude to freedom” of the citizens as an important theme in every chapter. Barclay is not biased in this respect. He rejects Russian or Turkish despotism, but does not hail e.g. Polish or Hungarian individualism either. Some topics, such as the importance of arts, sciences, and philosophy are mentioned only in some chapters. It is interesting to notice that drinking habits are more often described than eating habits. From his statements, we may suppose Barclay might have been a friend of wine rather than of beer or strong liquors. Diseases or epidemics are mentioned only in a few cases. The level and effectiveness of medical and law services is also outside the author’s concern. Those topics are without doubt over-distinctive features in describing European cultures. It would be easy to make a matrix about the different cultures, just by putting together the remarks by Barclay. But he was not thinking of such a systematization or characterization of the Europeans. In Icon Animorum, the major term for the “mind” of Europeans is expressed as “indoles et mores.” It often occurs both in the chapters and in their titles. But it is not simple to decipher the correct meanings of these words. Both Latin nouns have complicated semantics. /ndoles means “nature, characteristic feature, capacity, ability, tendency,” and mores can be translated as “habit, custom, tradition, behaviour, way of life,” etc. It would be easy to say that Barclay thus contrasts the general indoles with individual mores. In fact he is using both words in a looser way, and not always in opposition. In Chapter II, the term genius “spirit” occurs, and the title of Chapter VII is “De Hispanorum genio ac moribus,” but in Chapter XII animus is the term used. In the title of the entire book, we find another combination of two nouns: icon and animus. “Icon” in this case means “description” or “general description”; “animus” can be rendered as “mind”—another vague term indeed. Why did Barclay not formalize his descriptions of the Europeans? Why did he not make a matrix, showing comparisons of individual/common characteristics? It is easy to give a quick answer to those questions: Barclay did not want to make a system of European features of culture, for his aim was to show the countries of the continent in their complexity. He was a forerunner in the field of political science; only today do we see him also as a forerunner in ethnic characterization and cultural semiotics. As far as I know there appeared only one polemic publication against Barclay’s characterization. The Polish magnate and political writer, Lukasz Opaliniski (161235
