第135章 Chapter V(20)

23.Buckle's Life,by Alfred Henry Huth,appeared in 1880.I have also to call attention to the very able and learned work,Buckle and his Critics,by John Mackinnon Robertson (1895).Mr Robertson passes a severe judgment upon a criticism of Buckle which Icontributed to the Fortnightly Review for May 1880,and takes the opportunity of pointing out some of my manifold shortcomings.

Though his tone is not such as to make an apology easy,I must state my position frankly.Mr Robertson points out the measureless inferiority of a book of mine upon the eighteenth century to Buckle's great performance.He thinks,too,that my attack was 'unchivalrous'considering the pathetic circumstances of Buckle's death,and the fact that his work 'seemed to be sufficiently discredited already.'Now I can quite agree upon one point.It never entered by head to compare my own abilities with Buckle's.I could not more have rivalled his history than have encountered him at chess.It is impossible to speak more strongly.Why,then,did I presume to criticise?Because I was not giving my own unaided opinion.I had been interested by a problem.Like all young men of my time I had been impressed by the controversial storm which followed the publication of Buckle's book,and by that which soon afterwards was roused by the publication of Darwin's Origin of Species.Many years later,when Buckle's Life appeared,I was struck by a contrast.Darwin's speculations had affected every department of thought,and his influence was still spreading.Buckle's,on the other hand,had lost much of their interest --what was the reason?Briefly,as Ithought,and as I still think,that Darwin had supplied a fruitful suggestion suited to the general movement of thought;and that Buckle,for want of it,had struck into a wrong path.Itried in my article to point out the nature of his error.Mr Robertson's book confirms the truth of my impression as to facts.

Had Buckle continued to interest the leaders of thought,Mr Robertson would not have given so prominent a position to an old review article never republished,and which,so far as I know,had never attracted any particular attention.Mr Robertson's elaborate survey of recent sociology shows that while some distinguished writers more or less coincide with Buckle,they scarcely recognise any indebtedness.That is,I think,because there was little to recognise.Buckle,in short,as it appeared to me,had not produced an effect at all comparable to those produced by Darwin or by Mr Herbert Spencer;and I cannot think that Mr Robertson accounts for the fact.My own explanation may of course have been wrong;but I do not see that there was anything 'unchivalrous'in trying to explain why a man of genius has not produced an effect proportionate to his powers.Nor can Isee that Buckle's pathetic death made it necessary for me to modify my language in discussing his philosophy.Upon re-reading my article I recognise faults which may partly justify Mr Robertson's resentment.I should certainly have avoided anything savouring of contempt.I did recognise Buckle's extraordinary powers,but I forgot clearly to distinguish condemnation of his opinions from depreciation of the power displayed.Substantially my view is not changed.

24.Civilisation,i.49.Note the 'wage fund'in the next page.

25.Ibid.i.58.

26.Civilisation,p.69.

27.Mr Robertson holds that Buckle's 'generalisation'is not,as I 'strangely'represent it,an 'arbitrary application of the Ricardian law of rent to the society of Ancient India,but constitutes an elevation of Ricardo's other law of the subsistence of labour into a broad historic principle.'He points out,too,that Buckle supposed a previous stage of development,and thinks that he had appreciated Jones's correction of Ricardo,in regard to Indian rent.(Buckle and his Critics,pp 49,59and see p.138)I can only say that I adhere to my statement.Buckle expressly quotes Ricardo,and makes the origin of civilisations depend upon the threefold division.That I hold to be unjustifiable,and to be false in fact.the 'broad historical principle'seems to be simply the fact that great empires rose where physical condition,including,of course,fertility,were favourable.Buckle may deserve credit for dwelling upon the fact.

I only say that his explanation does not explain,and that it is impossible to lay down as unconditionally true that cheap food involves cheap wages.If one is to have a theory,why should we not say that empires were made by conquerers instead of by capitalists?

28.Civilisation,i.73.

29.Ibid.i.222.