IX.]. Mr, Buckle's Fallacies. 159 



head ; and he that has several mav be distinsfuished 

 by his proud and lofty bearing, for it constitutes his 

 patent of nobility." 1 By calling up these facts, Mr. 

 Buckle destroys his own statement that " moral 

 truths " receive no additions. 



As for his other assertion — that " moral truths " 

 receive /^-w^r additions than "intellectual truths" — it 

 means simply that fewer discoveries are made in 

 moral science than in all the other sciences put toge- 

 ther. It is as if he should say that " optical truths " 

 receive fewer additions than "physical truths." As 

 we have shown, he is not justified in using the expres- 

 sion "intellectual truths," so as to exclude from it 

 truths relating to morality, which are recognised by 

 the intellect as much as any others. His statement, 

 therefore, merely compares a part with all the other 

 parts of the whole to which it belongs. 



We are quite willing to admit that moral science 

 has not been enriched by as many discoveries as any 

 one of the other sciences. This results from the cir- 

 cumstance that it is far more difficult and complicated 

 than the rest. Our knowledge of morality is less 

 complete than our "knowledge of chemistry, for the 

 same reason that our acquaintance with chemistry is 

 less perfect than our acquaintance with astronomy.' 



1 Journal of Asiatic Society, voL iv. p. i8i. 



