Historical Events
Culture and History. Prolegomena to the Com- parative Study of Civilizations. By Philip Bagby. (Longmans, 30s.)
WHEN so much has been written on the compara- tive study of civilisations, when Spengler and Toynbee and Sorokin and Northrop have been dissected and criticised in every university debat-
ing society in the world, the first question we shall ask of any writer who ventures on to this for- bidding territory is what new contribution he has to make. Mr. Bagby's contribution, taken at his own valuation, is twofold. First, he shows that history is (or should be, and can be) scientific; that is to say that the old distinction, derived from the German idealists, between Geist (the subject of history) and Natur (the subject of science) is false. Secondly, he attempts to define the framework of scientific history in terms of the concepts and categories constructed by anthropologists.
The anthropologists in their studies of simple societies have developed a set of concepts and medlods which, with some refinements and modifications, can be used in studying those more complex societies whose development constitutes the bulk of what we call history. It is these concepts and methods which we shall endeavour to examine . . . our purpose being to formulate a clear, coherent and intelligible conceptual system in terms of which many, or most, of the facts of history can be interpreted and general propositions can be formulated and tested.
Of these two main tasks Mr. Bagby is more successful with the former than the latter. His criticism of propositions such as the argument that historical events, unlike physical events, are
unique—that because 'history never repeats itself' a scientific treatment of historical data is impos- sible—seems to me ultimately unanswerable. These sections should be• read by all who think that history is a matter of 'intuitions' or 'insights,' or that the only alternative to regarding it as One Damned Thing After Another is to admit the sway of iron laws. Unfortunately they are embedded in
a lot of rather finicking linguistic analysis of terms such as culture and civilisation which many readers will find less illuminating and less helpful than the author seems to believe. One reason for this is that Mr. Bagby himself is evi- dently no historian and many of his historical generalisations appear to be based on slender evidence. Until the professional historian can be persuaded that the comparative study of civilisa- tions is a respectable occupation—and that, in this country at least, is still not the case—real progress is unlikely. If Mr. Bagby's book helps to convince them that 'large-scale recurrent patterns . . . do indeed exist' and are worthy of their attention, it will contribute in a modest measure to a re- orientation which is overdue.
GEOFFREY BARRACLOUGH
Previous page
