624 



THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY, 



as, for example, are afforded, in the 

 case of English religious ideas and su- 

 perstitions from the Druids to the Gor- 

 ham controversy, within the limits of 

 seven columns an inch wide." Yet, in 

 these seven long columns of compressed 

 statements, with the copious authenti- 

 cating extracts, there is a vast amount 

 of valuable (though we suspect to Mr. 

 Gibson), of unpalatable information, as 

 he returns to them again and again with 

 unhappy comments. But it is to be re- 

 membered that Mr. Spencer is far from 

 proposing to formulate a sociological 

 science on the basis of English experi- 

 ence alone. The plan of his work em- 

 braces all types and grades of the 

 social state, and is so comprehensive 

 that its complete publication is still a 

 matter of question. Mr. Gibson's com- 

 plaints at the paucity of the materials 

 are, therefore, quite gratuitous. 



Such is the quality of Mr. Gibson's 

 critical work. It is approached in an 

 ugly temper, and, a few petty inaccura- 

 cies and defects being found, the most 

 absurd charges are made and the whole 

 work declared unworthy of confidence. 

 The complete break-down of his case, 

 so far as Mr. Collier is concerned, af- 

 fords excellent evidence of the judg- 

 ment and fidelity with which the task 

 has been executed. 



Mr. Gibson's second point is that, 

 " even supposing that Mr. Spencer had 

 got them (the tables) done with as great 

 accuracy and intelligence as possible, 

 they would still be useless." But why 

 expend so much vicious ingenuity in 

 finding defects in an intrinsically worth- 

 less thing? One would naturally suppose 

 that this second point would have been 

 taken up first, because, if established, 

 the former inquiry would be super- 

 fluous. But, if we ask io% the reasons 

 of this position, Mr. Gibson wisely 

 declines to give them ; only remark- 

 ing that "we have had too much al- 

 ready of the tendency, on the part of 

 framers of social and other sciences, to 

 deal superficially with history." By 



the framers of sciences, we suppose that 

 Mr. Gibson can only mean those culti- 

 vators of science who originate and or- 

 ganize this kind of knowledge, and the 

 upshot of his charge, therefore, is that 

 the scientific method of studying his- 

 tory is superficial. This raises the 

 question, "What are the depths, and 

 what the shallows, of history?" Of 

 the descriptive sociology, one of the 

 most eminent authorities in England, 

 Mr. E. B. Tylor, writes in Nature: 

 "So much information, encumbered 

 with so little rubbish, has never be- 

 fore been brought to bear on the de- 

 velopment of English institutions." Is 

 it the information concerning the "de- 

 velopment of English institutions " that 

 is the superficial element? and is it the 

 "rubbish" that constitutes the pro- 

 found element wanting in Mr. Spen- 

 cer's plan ? There are two methods of 

 dealing with history: the old method 

 of chronicle, narration, and story-tell- 

 ing, which was in vogue before science 

 arose ; and the later or scientific method, 

 which aims at the discovery of natural 

 laws among historic phenomena. The 

 old method occupied itself with the 

 registration of surface effects, and what- 

 ever happened to be uppermost and 

 obtrusive in any place or period. It 

 was a biography of the conspicuous 

 figures that chanced to emerge and oc- 

 cupy passing public attention. It was 

 full of the doings and sayings of sover- 

 eigns, generals, diplomatists, and poli- 

 ticians ; full of their gossip, rivalries, 

 and crimes; the details of war, the 

 quarrels of factions, and the intrigues 

 of ambitious families; and it has con- 

 sisted of so chaotic and incoherent and 

 interminable a mass of details of this 

 sort, that its cultivators scout the idea 

 that there is or ever can be any thing 

 like a science of history. This, we sup- 

 pose, is to be taken as the deep part 

 of the subject — its profundity being 

 due to the fact that it cannot be re- 

 duced to order? On the other hand, 

 science, which has disclosed the opera- 



