Pilgrim Memories ... Second edition, with ... a preface on the new theory of history and the critics of 'Pilgrim-Memories.'

Part II

— HISTORICAL INDUCTIONS PILGRIM-MEMORIES LONDON : PRINTED BY SPOTTI8WOODB AMD CO., NEW-STREET SQUARE ASD PARLIAMENT STREET PILGBIM-MEMOBIES TRAVEL AND DISCUSSION IN EGYPT, SINAI, IDUMÆA, PALESTINE, AND SYRIA WITH THE LATE HENRY THOMAS BUCKLE B? J. S. STUAET-GLENNIE, M.A. BARRISTEU-AT-LAW "The handwriting is on the wall; the fiat has gone forth; the ancient empire shall be subverted ; the dominion of superstition, already decaying, shall break away and crumble into dust ; and it shall be clearly seen that, from the beginning, there has been no discrepancy, no incongruity, no disorder, no interruption, no interference " — Buckle, History of Civilisation THIRD EDITION WITH A

Preface

ON "THE LIFE AND WRITINGS OF BUCKLE' AND THE

PREFACE.

OF THE SECOND EDITION ON "THE NEW THEORY OF HISTORY" LONDON MOXON, SAUNDERS, AND CO. 22 HENRIETTA STEEET, COVENT GARDEN, W.C. 1880 All rig ht s reserved

PREFACE.

TO THE THIRD EDITION. PILGRIM-MEMORIES AND MR. ALFRED H. HUTH'S 'LIFE AND WRITINGS OF BUCKLEL INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. The lesser of the two little boys who were under the care of Mr. Buckle, in his and my Eastern Pilgrimage, grown now to man's estate, has lately published two volumes devoted, at once, to the glorification of Mr. Buckle and to the vilification of myself. Against neither the one nor the other have I a word of pro test : not against the former, because of admiration ; and not against the latter, because of contempt. Even the atrocious charge made by Mr. Alfred H. Huth of my having left Damascus because ' unwilling to waste my time in attendance on my dying companion,' will, I believe, be generally considered so much more dis creditable to himself than to me, that I shall notice it only by giving, in an Appendb^^he letters I found myself obliged to address to \)ÆfKhenœum with re- A

PREFACE.

TO spect to this libel. The inveterate personal attack with which Mr. Alfred H. Huth, in his Life and Writings of Mr. Buckle, has gratified himself, amused some, and annoyed other readers, will not in either case, I trust, hurt me any more socially than personally. For I am utterly unable even to imagine the cause of this bitterness. Unfriendly deed, word, or even thought, I was never guilty of towards him or his. And hence, a personal animosity cherished for so many years, and thus, at length, inveterately expressed, strikes me as having something of the character of causeless excitement. But enough of these ' amenities of literature.' It is other and worthier subjects on which I propose to offer some remarks in this Preface to the Third Edition of Pilgrim-Memories. Though careless of misrepresentations of myself, I should exceedingly regret misrepresentations by myself of Mr. Buckle.

The publication of this Third Edition was, indeed, delayed till after the publication of Mr. Alfred H. Huth's long-announced work, expressly in order that, profiting by it, I might correct any errors into which I might have fallen in the representation either of Mr. Buckle's character or opinions. Notwithstand ing, however, the charges of misrepresentation per petually shot at me, both in the open of Mr. Huth's text, and from the ambush of his notes, I find that this fusillade of his has as little weight of justification as of metal. I am peppered with but sparrow-shot. And, so far as regards alleged misrepresentations of Mr. Buckle, there appears to be no necessity for the altera tion of a single page of my Second Edition. But, though the representation of Mr. Buckle's opinions and character is quite a secondary aim in Pilgrim- Memories, I would desire to represent both with the utmost possible truthfulness.

Hence, though I do not think that Mr. Alfred H. Huth's book renders necessary any alteration in my text, a somewhat more complete and truthful view of Mr. Buckle may be given if I briefly notice, in this Preface, the misrepre sentations alleged against me. To this I will add a statement of those Principles of a History of Civilisation to the germs of which my discussions with Mr. Buckle tended so much to give rooting vigour and definite form. For this will not only make the reader's way more clear through these discussions ; but will also show the special conditions out of which grew my portrait of Mr. Buckle. And this will, I trust, lead the reader to be not altogether of the opinion of Mr. Huth, who with, perhaps, an overweening partiality for the portrait painted by himself, declares that here presented ' worthless.' I. ALLEGED MISREPRESENTATIONS OF OPINIONS.

First, then, as to my alleged misrepresentations of Mr. Buckle's opinions. I represent 1 Mr. Buckle as saying that he had ' not yet studied the history of Buddhism,' and hence leave it to be inferred that he did not cherish a high opinion of its importance. This Mr. Alfred H. Huth characterizes ' as a grave mis- 1 Below, p. 115. a

PREFACE.

TO take,' and thinks he proves it so by giving a long list of the books and articles on Buddhism in Mr. Buckle's library, and by referring to Mr. Buckle's notes on Buddhism in his Commonplace-Book. To have read, however, a good deal about Buddhism, and to have made half a dozen notes on the subject, is not what any one but a mere dilettante, is not, certainly, what such a student as Mr. Buckle would call ' studying the history of Buddhism.' ' And Mr. Glermie,' continues Mr. Huth * with indignation, ' must teach Buckle, forsooth, that Buddhism is the Eastern correlate of Christianity.' Well, I can only say that my idea of Buddhism as the Eastern correlate of Christianity, and of the special importance of the study of its origin and history, was new to Mr. Buckle. For this idea of mine involved that of Christianity being, in its origin, but a new Western development of a general Moral Eevolution dating back to the Sixth Century B.C., the century of Buddha, as of Confucius, of Isaiah, of Xenophanes, and so many more Prophets of a New Age — involved an idea diametrically opposed to Mr. Buckle's fundamental principle of the separation of the Histories of Europe and Asia, the idea, namely, of the unity of the histories of Europe and Asia ; and involved further the tracing-out of the most remarkable similarities and synchronisms in the histories of the two great moral religions of the East and of the West, Buddhism and Christianism.

To say, as Mr. Huth does,2 that this remark of mine ' was made long ago by Southey,' when he thought he had 'discovered (!) that one of 1 Vol. ii. p. 2G4. Vol. ii. p. 2G5. V the great Oriental Mythologies was borrowed from Christianity — that of Buddhism,' is mere childishness. Another misrepresentation of Mr. Buckle's opinions is alleged to be found in my saying that he was once ' provoked into a denunciation of the influence of the Poets except the two or three greatest, and particularly Shakespeare and Moliere ; ' 1 and again, in my saying that I once 'maintained, and he at length partially admitted that, for the truly great historian, there was requisite, not only the analytic power of the philo sopher, but the sympathetic insight of the poet.' 2 In indignant protest against this, Mr. Huth quotes whole pages 3 from Mr. Buckle in praise of poetry, and of the aid given by the imagination in scientific discovery, and historical presentation.

But may not both what I say and what Mr. Huth says be true ? The passages Mr. Huth quotes represent of course truly Mr. Buckle's views on poetry and the imagination. But surely there is no impossible inconsistence in a man's attaching the highest value to poetry of the highest class, and yet being occasionally provoked to use such phrases as ' pernicious fancies ' when speaking of poetry not of the highest class. And so, as to Mr. Buckle's having, on a certain occasion, only partially admitted what Mr. Huth would have expected him, not to admit only, but to insist on. May not this apparent dis crepancy also vanish on candidly considering the cir cumstances of the case ? The occasion on which I maintained the necessity, to the great historian, of the 1 Below, p. 169. 5 Below, p. 314. ' Vol. ii. pp. 269-271, and pp. 273-276. VI

PREFACE.

TO sympathetic insight of the poet, and the occasion on which Mr. Buckle only partially admitted this, ad mitted it, that is, while contending (and as I now think rightly) that the analytic power of the philosopher is still more necessary ; the occasion on which this dis cussion occurred was in brief intervals of partial retreat from the frightful heat and uproar of the wildest religious orgie in the world, that around the supposed Sepulchre of Christ on Easter Eve ; and I spoke, no doubt, with an exaggeration rightly corrected by Mr. Buckle's only partial concurrence. For I had to de fend my own conduct in having, the previous evening, not as myself a believer, but merely as a student, endeavouring to gain sympathetic insight into, and hence historic understanding of, the belief of others, taken part, candle in hand, in the Procession of the Latin Pilgrims from the Chapel of the Apparition up to the mount of Calvary, and thence, after a representation of the Crucifixion, acted in all its details, down to the Holy Sepulchre.1 Still a third misrepresentation of Mr. Buckle's opinions is alleged against me — ' that Buckle attributes the rise of every New Religion to the acquirement of new knowledge ; whereas, what Buckle did say was, that " no New Religion advances civilization or in fluences the people unless it is accompanied by an increase of knowledge." ' 2 Well, the cause of the origin of a New Religion was a question which I pressed home on, and argued with, Mr. Buckle in discussions continued day after day.

I think, there- Below, pp. 303-312. Vol. ii. p. 296, n. 23. fore, that I have a right to feel tolerably confident that I have not misrepresented him on this point. But let the appeal be to his own Writings. No doubt Mr. Buckle says, as others had said before him, that the influence of a New Religion in advancing civilization depends on its being accompanied by an increase of knowledge. But this is no answer to the question as to the origin of a New Religion. To this question there is, in Mr. Buckle's book, either no answer, or one that would refer it to the acquirement of new knowledge ; and thus also it was in Mr. Buckle's discussions with myself. But this question is crucial for Mr. Buckle's Theory of History and Method of Historical Investigation ; and crucial, therefore, also with respect to the place to be assigned to himself as a philosophic historian.

And it was Mr. Buckle's inability to give any satisfactory answer to this question that led me to the conviction of the inadequacy of his principles, and the attempt to work out others that might, perhaps, be less inadequate. H. NEW PRINCIPLES OF A HISTORY OF CIVILISATION. These New Principles of a History of Civilisation I would now proceed briefly to state. The statement of them will be, a not merely analytic, but a synthetic, criticism of those ' four (or rather five) leading propo sitions' which, according to Mr. Buckle, are to be deemed ' the basis of the History of Civilisation.'1 And these New Principles will, I trust, not only explain, but 1 Vol. ii. p. 1, and vol. i. p. 138 ; see also below, p. 469.

PREFACE.

TO justify, that continued intellectual opposition to Mr. Buckle which subsisted along with a moral concord uninterrupted. What is the cause of the origin of a New Religion ? This is what, as I have said, appeared to me, in these Eastern discussions, the test-question as to the worth of Mr. Buckle's whole Philosophy of History. But this question became, in one direction, deepened ; in another, enlarged. It became deepened into a question as to the true conception of a Cause ; and enlarged into a question as to the general or fundamental Cause of Historical Phenomena. Now, a long course of scientific investigation rising from the study of the simplest mechanical, to the study of the most complex social phenomena, appeared to show that a Cause must be defined, not only as ' the Invariable Antecedent,' but as a Relation between Co existents.

The Cause, for instance, of the motion of a body is a communicated impulse. But this impulse, if analysed, is found to be a differential Relation between co-existent Pressures ; and generally the ' Invariable Antecedent,' or Cause, of a change is found to be a differential Relation between Co-existents. This con ception of Cause we must take with us if we would scientifically define the Cause of the origin of a New Religion, or generally the Cause of Historical Pheno mena. And hence, the following First Principle of a History of Civilisation. The fundamental Cause of Historical Phenomena is the Relation between Social Conditions of Physical and Moral Want and Social Conditions of diffused Knowledge, common Tradition, and organised Authority ; and this Relation is made effective by the great Individuali ties born of these conditions.

But it is not enough to define merely the general Cause of Historical Phenomena. There can no more be a scientific History of Civilisation without a Law of Progress, than there can be a scientific System of the Universe without a Law of Gravity. And it is equally the work of a Scientific History of Civihsation, as of a Scientific System of the Universe deductively to prove that General Law which, in either case, till such proof, must be accepted as only hypothetical and provi sional. A Law of Progress must, therefore, be the second and central Principle of a History of Civilisation. But such a Law can be discovered and intelligibly stated, only if we consider but one set of phenomena. Yet this will be enough. For ' Nature is not episodic' All its phenomena are correlated. If therefore we can state a true Law of the Progress of Thought we shall have stated what will be, in effect, a Law of Progress generally.

And such a Law may perhaps be enunciated in some such terms as the following : Thought, in its differentiating and integrating Ac tivity, advances, under Physical and Social Conditions, from the conception of Onesided Determination, through the differentiation of Subjective and Objective, to the con ception of Mutual Determination. Such a Law, however, is too abstract to be of practical value save as the reason and explanation of a derivative and concrete Law. An ultimate, and hence highly abstract Law must, indeed, be the central prin-

PREFACE.

TO X ciple of those~stated as the bases of a History of Civili sation. For otherwise the various laws set forth in such a history will have no reason, no source, that is, in ultimate or, at least, for us ultimate facts and forces that afford the explanation of these Laws.1 The above stated Law states Comte's Empirical Law of the Three Stages as an Ultimate or Rational Law because it states it as derived from the co-existence of two primæval causes — Physical and Social Conditions, on the one hand, and a fundamental Activity of Mind on the other. But there can be no immediate application of this Law to the phenomena of History, save the Transi tional Stage of Differentiation can be verified and de fined. And this is, therefore, attempted in the following Derivative Law which may be stated as the Third Prin ciple of a History of Civilisation : In the general history of Civilisation the Sixth Cen tury B.C. forms an epoch from which is to be dated a great Transitional Age in which, through various differentiations and antagonisms, the conception of Mutual, as distinguished from One-sided, Determination is wrought-out in Philosophy, and the realisation of Mutual, as distinguished from One-sided, Determination is achieved in Polity.

In the verification of this Law, and hence of the Ultimate Law which it states in a concrete form, the various main phenomena of the histories of Europe and Asia, since the Sixth Century B.C., will be shown to be differentiations which then originated. Among these will be found to be, not only the differentiation of Phi- 1 See below, pp. Ixxxi-ii. losophy from Religion, and the differentiation, in Philo sophy, of Idealism from Materialism, but the far larger differentiation of the Civilization of Europe from that of Asia. And further, it will be shown that these differentiations, both the larger and the smaller, have tended to a certain general result. This residt may be generally defined as the development, at once, of new philosophical conceptions and new social organi zations. And while the new philosophical conceptions will be shown to be developments of the notion of Law, these new social organizations will be shown to be de velopments of the condition of Freedom, as Mutual Determination. ' A great division between European and non- European Civilization,' Mr. Buckle declared to be ' the basis of Universal History.' But from the above it results that such a basis is to be found rather in a great division between two Ages of Civilization, the Asian up to, and the European- Asian down from, the Sixth Century B.C. And, as a consequence of this, the Civilizations of Europe and Asia are shown to be not disparate, but correlative, and the Histories of Europe and Asia, one History.

Such, then, are those New Principles of a History of Civilisation which will, I trust, not only explain, but justify that continued opposition to Mr. Buckle which so irritates Mr. Alfred H. Huth in my reports of the discussions of our Eastern Pilgrimage. Whatever of truth there is in Mr. Buckle's principle of the sub ordination of Moral to Intellectual Laws had been already far better expressed by Hume, by Hegel, and

PREFACE.

TO by Comte, in formulating the most general Law of Progress as a Law of Thought ; and it is these great Masters I have followed in enunciating my Second Principle. Nor are my First and Third Principles but statements in direct opposition to everything most distinctive in Mr. Buckle's views. III. ALLEGED MISREPRESENTATIONS OF CHARACTER. Now, as to the misrepresentations of Mr. Buckle's character alleged against me. The conversations I have reported ' give us ' says Mr. Alfred Huth, ' not only no true idea of what Buckle was in conversation, but they do give us a most wrong, harmful, and untrue idea.' 1 Well, if these reports of my discussions with Mr. Buckle were presented as giving a ' true idea of what Mr. Buckle was in conversation,' the accusation would be true. But they are expressly not so presented.

In the Preface to the First Edition of Pilgrim-Memories I state the principles by which I have been guided in reporting my discussions with Mr. Buckle. And ' in the first place ' I say, ' a conversation should be either fully and literally reported, or it should be distinctly stated that no attempt has been made to represent conversational power. Let it be understood, therefore,' I continue, ' that no such attempt is here made, and that what I have, in my dialogues given, is not reports of conversations, but merely very summary abstracts of arguments or discussions extending, each of them, over Vol. ii. p. 283. many hours and sometimes many days.' That Mr. Alfred H. Huth, in the face of such a distinct statement, should have accused me of what could have been true only if there had been such an attempt to ' represent conversational power ' as I have thus formally dis avowed can, I fear, be explained only by that charac teristic untruthfulness which I found myself obliged to expose in the Athenæum} It may irritate Mr. Alfred H. Huth that I was not content to play Boswell to Buckle.

But it is not only unfair, but untruthful, to accuse me of playing ill a part which I distinctly stated that I had never aspired to sill. But I am further accused of narrating a certain incident in such a way as ' aptly serves to make Mr. Buckle out a thoughtless miser."2 As the reader however will see,3 I tell the story simply as one of many illustrations of what Mr. Buckle himself wrote home from Jerusalem ; that he occupied himself ' in studying the state of society and habits of the people.' And occupied as I was at Jerusalem with very different studies and reflections, such incidents as that, on our way to the Garden of Gethsemane when Mr. Buckle detained me while he bargained with a Jew for a glass bracelet and beat him down from twopence to three half-pence ; or that when, sitting on the Mount of Olives over against the City, he — if I may say it — somewhat bored me by a disquisition on an unsettled question of Political Economy — such incidents, I confess, did so jar on me that I had ' but little companion- 1 Below, pp. xi-xiv. * Vol. ii. p. 221, n. 48. 3 Below, p. 297. ship or conversation with Mr. Buckle,'1 during the Holy Week at the City of the Passion, I must add that, so far as the Jew-incident shows that Mr. Buckle dearly loved a bargain, it shows nothing more than the truth.

One of his most intimate and admiring lady friends not only says that he was ' delighted with a bargain,' 2 but that he was generally ' considered close and" fond of money.' 3 And so far as the incident shows that Mr. Buckle had not the same sort of thoughts as I had at the Holy Places, it is also true. Neither of us, indeed, saw any supernatural halo about the Shrines visited in our Pilgrimage. But it seemed to me ' that the sweeping away of Christian superstition does not only not take from the Holy Places of Christianity all historic interest, but, in making human and real, increases immeasurably in intensity whatever associations they may have of terror or of pathos.'4 And there appears to be no evidence of Mr. Buckle's having been thus also impressed. Finally, the general charge is made that ' Buckle's sentiments, behaviour, and whole tone of conversation as here o-iven (in Pilgrim-Memories) are utterly different from those of the Buckle they knew.' 5 Well, but what is the distinguishing trait of ' the sentiments, behaviour and tone ' of Mr. Buckle as he appeared to 'those who knew him at all intimately,' and which Mr. Alfred H. Huth gives so many proofs of m his book?

Will not every reader of it answer at once 1 Below, p. 296. 2 Posthumous Works, Biographical Notice, p. xxxv. 3 Ibid. p. xxxviii. " Below, p. 811. s Vol. ii. pp. 258-9. ' patience, kindliness, sympathy ' ? But is there a candid reader of my book who will not make the same answer ? The conversations I report do certainly not give what I neither profess, nor would have been in any way able, to give — an idea of Mr. Buckle's con versational power. But as Mr. Alfred H. Huth him self admits it, though, in a way of course, the reverse of complimentary to me, I think I may say that these conversations do give evidence of great ' patience, kindliness, and sympathy ' on the part of Mr. Buckle. Nor have I left this only to be inferred. I have again and again expressly acknowledged Mr. Buckle's 'intellectual magnanimity.' And unworthy, indeed, I should have been, had I not done so ; nor unworthy only, but base, had I really had, as Mr. Alfred H. Huth so unmagnanimously insists, a malignant intention of sneering at Mr. Buckle, or ' turning him into ridicule,' when I note certain little oddities very naturally found in a student of prematurely aged physique, and old bachelor habits.

CONCLUDING REMARKS. Such, then, are all the remarks I think it necessary to make on the attack made, not only on my representations of Mr. Buckle in Pilgrim-Memories, but on myself personally, in Mr. Alfred H. Huth's Life and Writings of Buckle. The attack on myself personally I have noticed only with contemptuous allusion. The attack on my representations of Mr. Buckle I trust I have shown to be wholly without justification. Neither his opinions nor his character have I represented otherwise than in perfect consistency with the representations of Mr. Alfred H. Huth himself. And I venture to think that my portrait has a greater worth and value. All the nobler features in Mr. Buckle's character are brought out in it no less distinctly than in Mr. Alfred H. Huth's portrait. And if this can truly be said of a portrait from the point of view, not of an indiscriminatingly enthusiastic disciple, but of a persistently antagonistic opponent, it ought surely to be found more spontaneous, genuine, and life-like.

In order that the reader may understand my point of view as an opponent, and justify my opposition, I have stated those New Principles of a History of Civili sation which summarise the opinions I opposed to Mr. Buckle's in the discussions of our Eastern Pilgrimage. Thus profoundly disagreeing with Mr. Buckle, it is impossible for me to assent to the extravagant claim made for him by Mr. Alfred H. Huth, that ' he is just as much the founder of the Science of History, in the true sense of the word, as Adam Smith was of Political Economy.' x Nay, I believe that Mr. Buckle himself would have protested against any such pretension advanced in his behalf.

The facts, at least, are that, high as was his opinion of his work, and frank his expression of that opinion, no hint of such a pretension ever escaped him ; and further, that he was more than satisfied, that he was highly gratified by that notice of his book by Mr. John Stuart Mill which he read and dilated on at Bethel.2 But Mr. Mill's judgment 1 Vol. i. p. 247. a Below, pp 329-30. really amounts to nothing more than that Mr. Buckle had contributed to the New Philosophy but a populari sation only, though a brilliant popularisation, of the general scientific conception of History -,1 and he ex pressly disagrees from the special ground on which Mr. Buckle maintained that commonplace of the Philo sophy of History that ' the intellectual element in man kind ... is the predominant circumstance in deter mining their progress '.2 If, however, as the result of long years of study and reflection since those discussions with Mr. Buckle in the East, I have been able to formulate somewhat truer principles as the basis of a History of Civilisation, to him, I, in great measure, owe it While differing from, it is my pride to acknowledge my debt to, him.

Base as is all ingratitude, not the least base is ingratitude for intellectual advancement. In our discussions there was never the pettiness either of triumph in victory, or of 1 ' The doctrine . . . that the collective series of social phenomena, in other words, the course of History, is subject to Gene al Laws which Philosophy may possi ly detect, has been familiar for generations to th_ Scientific thinkers of the Continent, and has, for the last quarter of a century [1837-1862], passed out of their peculiar domain into that of newspapers and ordinary political discussion. In our own country, how ever, at the time of the first publicationof this Treatise (1840) it was almost a novelty, and the prevailing habits of thought on historical subjects were the reverse of a preparation for it. Since then a great change has taken place, and has been eminently promoted by the important work of Mr. Buckle, who, with characteristic energy, has flung down this great prin ciple, together with many striking exemplifications of it, into the arena of popular discussion.' — Logic, vol. ii. p. 524. 2 ' But I am of this opinion, not because I regard their moral or their economical condition either as less powerful or less variable agencies. . . .

The intellectual changes are so much the most conspicuous agency in History, not from their superior force considered in themselves, but because practically they work with the united power belonging to all three."— Ibid. 629-30. A X

PREFACE.

TO THE THIRD EDITION. dejection at defeat. Never but argufyings, of which the object is but the gratification of self-conceit, our discussions were argumentations of which the aim was the discovery of truth.1 As it was in his earthly life, so let it be now that he lives but in his works. If I have discovered — which yet remains to be proved— any fuller truth than Mr. Buckle, in his brief life, had reached, I have no more of a petty feeling of triumph over him now, than he had over me when, in those Eastern discussions, he may have seemed to have the best of the argument. I am persuaded that, had he lived, Mr. Buckle, with his open mind and eager intellect, would himself have reformulated his principles, and have made them embrace, and very likely in a better form, whatever of truth there may be in those I have enunciated.

My ambition, therefore, is to be esteemed, not the mere critic, but rather the con tinuator, on less inadequate principles, of the work he initiated. And feeling thus towards Mr. Buckle, I confess that, little as I cared for all the other missiles Mr. Alfred H. Huth sent flying about me, I was struck, as by a poisoned arrow, by the charge, as base as it was baseless, that I deserted my ' dying companion.' J. S. S.-G. Lincoln's Inn : Easter 1880. Below, p. 246.