第52章

FromMill’sconstantinsistenceuponthepowerofassociationandtheempiricalcharacterofallknowledge，itmightbeinferredthatevenscientificprogressisprecariousandunstable。ToBucklethedevelopmentofscientificknowledgeseemstobeinevitable，ifonlythemindisallowedtoworkfreely。Themostconspicuousfactsofthedaygaveforcetohisconviction。Theenormouschangesinthewholeconstitutionofsocietywereduetotheadvanceofmechanicaldiscoveriesandtothetriumphoffree-traders。WattandAdamSmith，notthereligiouspreachers，representtherealtransformingforce。Thesteam-enginehasalteredthewholepositionofthehumanrace。ThesermonsofMethodistsandCatholicshavelefttheaveragemanjustwherehewas。Napoleonwasagreatcriminal，andWilberforce，perhaps，agreatphilanthropist。Theirinfluencehasbeentransitory，whilethescientificinventorshavesetupchangeswhichwillcontinuetogatherforceastheagesroll。

Thetruthcontainedinthis，again，seemstobeUndeniable。

Modifythe’environment’andyourorganismismodifiedthroughout。Altertheclimate，thesoil，theamountoffertileland，andthewholestateofmankindwillbealtered。That，again，hasbeenvirtuallyachievedbymoderndiscoveries。Thoughthenaturalforcesmaybethesame，ourrelationtothemhasbeenaltered；and，ifmorefertilesoilhasnotbeenwroughtintoexistence，thefertilesoilhasbeenbrought，wemaysay，nearertoourdoors。Moreover，thechangehasbeenprimarilyduetoscientificdiscoveryandnottoanymoralchange；orthemoralchanges，whatevertheymaybe，havebeentheconsequence，notthecause。SofarasBuckleemphasisedthisaspect，hewasclearlyinsistinguponatruthwhichrequiresrecognition。Thequestioniswhatbearingthishasuponthephilosophyofhistory，andwhetheritjustifiesusindiscardingtheinfluenceofthe’moral’elementinbuildingupthesocialstructure。

Thegeneraldoctrineleadstotheconclusionthattheessentialdifferencebetweentwostagesofhistoryisthedifferencebetweenthequantityofknowledgepossessedanditsdiffusionthroughoutallclasses。ThatisreallyBuckle’scontention，fromwhichallhisconclusionsarededucible。The’totalityofhumanactions，’ashesays，is’governedbythetotalityofhumanknowledge；(44*)or，asheelsewhereputsit，(45*)thehistoryofevery’civilisedcountryisthehistoryofitsintellectualdevelopment。’Ifearlysocietiesaregovernedbythe’physicallaws，’latersocietiesaregovernedbytheactionofthoselawsuponourminds，andtheactionisthusprofoundlymodifiedasourknowledgeofthelawsextends。The’environment’hasadifferentrelationtous，butremainstheultimateandindependentdeterminant。Ifthisbethewholetruth，itwouldfollowthatwemightwritethehistoryofmankindbywritingthehistoryofscience。Allotherphenomenawouldbesimplydeducibleascorollariesfromthestateofknowledge。

Comtehadsuggestedthathistorymightbewrittenwithoutmentioningthenamesofindividuals。OnBuckle’sassumption，historymaydealsimplywiththegrowthofscientificideas；and，therefore，weneednottakeintoaccountthemoralideasorallthecomplexsystemofactionswhichcomeundertheheadofthewillandtheemotionsinpsychologicaltreatises。

Isitpossibletowriteahistoryuponsuchterms？Grantingthatknowledgedefinesthebaseuponwhichthewholestructuremustrepose，Canweabstractfromallthisconsiderationsofthewayinwhichmen’sbeliefsarebroughttobearupontheconstitutionofsociety？ThedifficultybecomesobviousassoonasBuckleturnsfromhisgeneralprincipletothehistoricalapplication。MarkPattison，(46*)inhisreviewoftheHistoryonitsfirstappearance，putsthepoint。Buckle，hesays，afterinsistingupontheutterinadequacyoftheoldhistoricalandmetaphysicalmethods，proceedsto’exemplifytheverymethodofwritinghistorywhichhehadcondemned。’HisaccountofFrenchsocietyis，asPattisonsays，a’masterlysketch，’unequalledinbreadthandcomprehensivenessofviewbyanyEnglishwriter。But，then，itbringsinpreciselytheelementsofindividualinfluence，andsoforth，whichBuckleexpresslyprofessedtoexclude。Iwilladdnothingtothecommendationpossessingahigherauthoritythanmyown。Buckle’ssurveys，notonlyofFrench，butofEnglish，Spanish，andScottish，Ibelieve，mayfullyjustifytheopinionthathisabilities，rightlydirected，mighthavepro