BOOKS.

BUCKLE'S II/STORY OF CIVILIZATION IN ENGLAND.*

Tins is a very remarkable book, notwithstanding many obvious faults. The author is probably too hastyin generalization and too onesided in view; he may not be without the prejudices he

so freely charges upon others; what he says historically, if rarely or never false in fact, is yet so limited, by the single purpose

of his own theory as to leave at times a wrong impression but these defects are compensated by great merits. The volume travels over a vast range of time and topics ; it exhibits a very wide extent of reading ; the matter accumulated has been deeply me ditated, well digested; and the work throughout is permeated by a principle whose application gives interest to fads that

otherwise might seem trivial or minute. Indeed, this principle

not only throws a fuller if not a newer light upon many parts ot history, but exhibits the modern project of neglect ing kings, great men, and. great events, in order to depict the life of the people. At least this is done by Mr. Buckle in one of its aspects, the growth of popular opinion.

These remarks apply to the volume before us. What the History of Civilization tn England may yet be we cannot tell ; as

the present volume, though extending beyond eight hundred

pages, only contains the Introduction. -Even this Introduction is unfinished, for the author has only closed his preliminary in

vestigation into the general progress of England and. France ;

while in compliance with the requirements of his plan' he intends to extend his broad survey to Germany, America, Spain, and

Scotland, before commencing the particular history of English civilization. In so long a. preliminary examination, many subjects with their ramifications are discussed • but the great objects are,

to discover the essential spirit of a nation's history apart from par

ticular men and events, and to trace out the causes of the progress which no one can deny to England and France. Under the first head, Mr. Buckle advances a theory that so far as we know is novel, and though pushed by him to an extreme, and involving him in contradictions, is deserving of greater attention than it has received as a scientific principle. This theory attributes national character, and social influences, with consequently the national history, to the circumstances of the soil anti the climate, the food of the people, and the general aspect of nature. This subject is pursued at some length, and illustrated by references to ancient and, modem history. The manner of such an inquiry is not satisfactorily exhibited either by description or instances, but a specimen may indicate its nature. Here is one respecting the influence of climate on character and. industry.

"The energy and regularity with which labour is conducted will be entirely dependent on the influence of climate. This will display itself in two different ways. The first, which is a very obvious consideration, is, that if the heat is intense' men will be indisposed, and in some degree unfitted, for that active industry which in a milder climate they might willingly have exerted. The other consideration, which has been less noticed but is equally important, is, that climate influences labour not only by enervating the labourer or by invigorating him, but also by the effect it produces on the regularity of his habits. Thus we find, that no people living in a very Northern latitude have ever possessed that steady and unflinching industry for which the inhabitants of temperate regions are remarkable. The reason of this becomes clear, when we remember that in the more Northern countries the severity of the weather, and at some seasons the deficiency of light„ render it impossible for the people to continue their usual out-of-door employments. The result is, that the working classes, being compelled to cease from their ordinary pursuits, are rendered more prone to desultory habits; the chain of their industry is as it were broken, and they lose that impetus which long-continued and uninterrupted practice never fails to give. Hence there arises a national character more fitful and capricious than that possessed by a people whose climate permits the regular exercise of their ordinary industry. Indeed, so powerful is this principle, that we may perceive its operution even under the most opposite circumstances. It would be difficult to conceive a greater difference in government, laws, religion' and manners, than that which distinguishes Sweden and Norway on the one hand from Spain and Portugal on the other. But these four countries have one great point in common. In all of them, continued agricultural industry is impracticable. In the two Southern countries, labour is interrupted by the heat, by the dryness of the weather, and by the consequent state of the soil. In the two Northern countries, the same effect is pros dined by the severity of the winter and the shortness of the days. The consequence is, that these four nations, though so different in other respects, are all remarkable for a certain instability and fickleness of character; presenting a striking contrast to the more regular and settled habits which are established in countries whose climate subjects the working classes to fewer interruptions, and imposes on them the necessity of a more constant and unremitting employment."

This is neatly put, and, if not conclusive, is worthy of consideration; but, in oonjUnction with some valuable remarks on. food, it contradicts a positiou of the author. He scouts the notion of race, and ascribes its alleged influences to the laziness of writers who will rather theorize than investigate. But food, climate, the habits formed by them, and persisted in for centinies, together with the .effects Mr. Buckle attributes to external nature, if not race in the sense of blood, are certainly so in the sense of character ; and this is all, we imagine, that is contended. for.

The second great division, though, like the first, involving several sections, is substantially devotedto illustrate the following positions by abroad survey of F. lish and French history. First, that the stationary condition of society depends upon ignorance and, credulity ; its progress upon scepticism—doubt as the prompter of investigation. Secondly, that the protective system is the • History of Civilization in England. By Henry Thomas Buckle, Volume T Published by Parker and Son. great opponent to freedom and civilization ; and by " protective " Mr. Buckle does not allude to free trade though he is a freetrader, but to the power and influence of the state, the nobility, and the church, in dominating over the people. It is to the greater absence of this protection in England compared with France that the historian ascribes the earlier spirit of inquiry in this country, the earlier growth of her literature, the different results in the two contemporary civil wars, the Fronde and the Great Rebellion ; the widely different results in the public stories of the two countries for the last two centuries, and in their respective conditions at the present day. In enforcing these views upon his reader, two main subjects are considered by Mr. Buckle. He takes a survey of the literature of the two countries, to distinctly mark the steps by which mind was freed from the trammels that ignorance and the influence of the Romish Church fixed upon it in the dark ages. He notes the salient points of history from the Reformation to the time of the French Revolution, to impress upon the mind the essential differences between England and France. Both these examinations are limited by the objects of the investigator. Literature merely as such is only noticed incidentally. Even Shakspore, Spenser, Ben Jenson Milton, are either left altogether unmentioned or slightly alluded to. Jewel, Hooker Chillingworth, are somewhat fully considered, as marking the growthof free opinions in three successive generations. Jewel at the outset strove to Justify the Reformation by the aid of Fathers and Councils. Hooker, thirty years later, still resorted to authority, but of the Scriptures alone. Such was the rapid progress of public opinion between 1562 and 1637, that Chillingworth could take his stand upon perfect freedom of opinion, and maintain that reason must judge of faith. A similar plan is followed as regards actions and their agents. The martial achievements of Cromwell and Marlborough, of Henry of Navarre and Turenn,e are passed over with scarcely an allusion ; the heroes of the Fronde are mostly treated in the same way. Political, civil, regal, and courtly doings, are left unnoticed, unless they serve to display in some manner the growth or character of opinion, and its bearings upon civilization. When such is the ease, Mr. Buckle often descends to details and to details of a very minute kind, amounting to gossip or almost news, but which acquire importance in addition to their interest through the principles they are intended to illustrate. lathe comparison between the Great Rebellion and the wars of the Fronde, the author points out how sluggishly the few nobles that in England sided with the Parliament carried on the war against the King ; how readily men of the people with distinct purposes of improved governmeut came forward to take their Places. He gives a list of tradesra6n, and even humbler persons, who not dilly filled high posts under the Commonwealth, but were capable of filling them; because William the Conqueror was not obliged to give and did not give to the church and nobility the same powers they had in France; while soon after his time the "protective system" began slowly to decay, and was superseded by the habit of self-government. In France, that system was all-powerful, and had enslaved the minds alike of its victims and their oppressors. The country, could not rise to the objects of a civil war. The nobility could not conceive a state of things without a king, or the people a country without a nobility. The vices inherent in a preserved and privileged hereditary aristocracy had further so narrowed the desires of the French nobility, that their ambition was limited to the most ridiculous things. "What could be expected from men whose anxious wishes were employed on such a subject as court etiquette ? "Of all the questions on which the French nobles were divided, the most unportant was that touching the right of sitting in the royal presence. This was considered to be a matter of such gravity, that in comparison with it a mere struggle for liberty faded into insignificance. And what made it still more exciting to the minds of the nobles was the extreme difficulty with which this great social problem was beset. According to the ancient etiquette of the French court, if a man were a duke his wife might sit in the presence of the Queen ; but if his rank were inferior, even if he were a marquis no such liberty could be allowed. So far the rule was very simple, arid the duchesses themselves highly agreeable. But the marquises, the counts, and the other illustrious nobles, were uneasy at this invidious distinction, and exerted all their energies to procure for their own wives the same honour. This the dukes strenuously resisted ; but, owing to eircum stances which, unfortunately, are not fully understood, an innovation was made in the reign of Louis MI, and the privilege of sitting in the same room with the Queen was conceded to the female members of the Bouillon family.. In consequence of this evil precedent, the question became seriously complicated, since other members of the aristocracy considered that the purity of their descent gave them claims nowise inferior to those of the house of Bouillon, whose antiquity, they said, had been grossly exaggerated. The contest which ensued had the effect of breaking up the nobles into two hostile parties, one of which sought to preserve that exclusive privilege in which the other wished to participate. To reconcile these rival pretensions, various expedients were suggested ; but all were in vain ; and the court, during the administration of Mazarin, being pressed by the fear of a rebellion, showed symptoms of giving way, and of yielding to the inferior nobles the point they so ardently desired. In 1648 and 1649, the Queen Regent, acting under the advice of her Council, formally conceded the right of sitting in the royal presence to the three most distinguished members of the lower aristocracy, namely, the Countess de Fleix, Madame de Pons, and the Princess de Marsillac. Scarcely had this decision been promulgated, when the princes of the blood and the peers of the realm were thrown into the greatest agitation. They immediately summoned to the capital those members of their own order who were interested in repelling this daring aggression, and forming themselves into an assembly, they at once adopted measures to vindicate their ancient rights. On the other hand, the inferior nobles, flushed by their recent success, insisted that the concession just made should be raised into a precedent, and that, as the honour of being

,seated in the presence of majesty had been conceded to the house of Foix,

evere• the person of the Countess de "Fleix, it should likewise be granted to all

is who could prove that their ancestry was equally illustrious. The

greatest confusion now arose ; and both sides urgently insisting on their own claims, there was for many months imminent danger lest the question should be decided by an appeal to the sword. But as the higher nobles, though less numerous than their opponents, were more powerful, the dispute was finally settled in their favour. The Queen sent to their assembly a formal message, which was conveyed by four of the Marshals of France, and in which she promised to revoke those privileges the concession of which had given such offence to the most illustrious members of the French aristocracy. At the mine time, the Marshals not only pledged themselves as responsible for the promise of the Queen, but undertook to sign an agreement that they would personally superintend its execution. The nobles, however, who felt that they had been aggrieved in their most tender point, were not yet satisfied, and to appease them it was necessary that the atonement should be as public as the injury. It was found necessary, before they would peaceably disperse, that Government should issue a document signed by the Queen-Regent and by the four Secretaries of State, in which the favours granted to the unprivileged nobility were withdrawn, and the much-cherished honour of sitting in the royal presence was taken away from the Princess de Marsillac, from Madame de Pons, and from the Countess de Fleix.

"These were the aubjects which occupied the minds and wasted the energies of the French nobles while their country was distracted by civil war, and while questions were at issue of the greatest importance—questions concerning the liberty of the nation and the reconstruction of the government."

The subject is pursued, though not at such length, through various similar matters ; perhaps without Mr. Buckle sufficiently recognizing the fact, that these privileges, trifling as they were in themselves, branded the excluded with the mark of inferiority. We do not think, either, that he does justice to the spirit and accomplishments of the old French noblesse ; though he might say he is not dealing with particular men, but the general characteristics of a period and a nation. Still the method is a somewhat onesided one that consists in blaming or praising men for qualities selected for a purpose ; and this peculiarity pervades a large portion of the volume. This Introduction to the History of Civilization in England is, however, as we have said, a very remarkable work ; important in its subjects of inquiry and large in their range ; the result of extensive study and deep thought; throwing a new light upon some portions of history, and if not exactly original yet treating admitted truths in a novel way ; while, to speak of a less important thing, the style is various, vigorous and animated, and if occasionally verging upon " strong " writing, never passing into the verbose or the rhetorical.