O R G A N O N 7 (1970) A U T E U R S ET PR O BL ÈM ES
A n drzej Feliks Grabski (Poland)
POLISH ENTHUSIASTS AND CRITICS OF HENRY T. BUCKLE
The fact of th e common fascination w ith the historiosophical conceptions of th e English autodidaet H enry Thomas Buckle (1822-1862) has long since been know n to the historians of th e social sciences; th e re have also been frequent attem pts to explain the controversies about Buckle th a t broke out about th e 1850’s in nearly all countries of Europe as w ell as in A m erica.1 However, th e vast lite ra tu re of subject has not y et sat isfactorily elucidated the offensive of “Bucklism ” in Poland, w here it was m arked n ot only by features common to, bu t also d ifferent from, those th a t w ere observable in th e o th er countries. The p resent essay does not claim to be an exhaustive presentation of this phenom enon in the Polish lite ratu re—to do this w ould require the space of a mono graphic study—its purpose is confined to m erely pointing out th e m ain
aspects of the problem as they appear to m e in resu lt of m y broad though still unfinished studies.
Buckle’s unfinished H istory of Civilisation in England (I—London 1857; II—London 1861) did n ot evoke im m ediate and wide response. The first volume w hich was printed in 1500 copies could not sell o ut b etter th an 675 copies during th e y ear of its publication, b u t already in the n ext year a second impression of 2000 copies came out. By 1878, Buckle’s work had in England no less than 12 editions, either of th e whole o r of its particular volumes; in th e Unites States it had 5 editions between 1860 and 1897; in G erm any (in Arnold Ruge’s translation) in 1860 to 1881 even 6 editions in G erm an and 1 (1865) in th e original En glish version; in France 2 editions (A. B aillofs translation) in 1865 and 1881. In Russia, Buckle’s History was translated in journals from 1861
1 J. M. R obertson, B u c k le an d h is C ritics. A S tu d y in S o cio lo g y, L ondon, 1895; G. A. W ells, “T h e C ritic s of B u c k le ”, P a st a n d P re se n t, 1956, No. 9 pp. 75-89; G iles St. A ubyn, A V ic to ria n E m in en ce. T h e L ife an d W o rk s o f H e n r y T h o m a s B u c k le , L ondon, 1958.
onwards, an d la ter it had a num ber of editions in self-dependent wholes in tw o com petitive renderings. The Englishm an Donald Mackenzie Wal lace rem arked in his book on Russia (1877), w hich he knew well from his own sojourns, th a t it was very rare th a t he should n o t come across Buc kle’s nam e in the persual of Russian new spapers. 2 An incomplete Spa nish edition appeared in 1861, th e first five chapters of vol. I w ere pub lished in Italian in 1864, a collective H ungarian translation started to appear in 1873, and two editions of a translation into Swedish w ere p ub lished in 1871-1872 and in 1882. In Poland, the H istory was translated
by Władysław Zawadzki (1824-1891) and appeared first a t Lwów in 1862-1868, and n ext in its second edition a t W arsaw in 1873. Besides, this country also saw a translation of Buckle’s essay on the role of wo m en in the progress of knowledge (1867), and tow ards the end of the 19th century wide popularity was enjoyed by the translation of a book let by th e Russian journalist Ossip K onstantinovich Notovich (born 1849) popularizing the principal ideas of the History w ritten easily for th e less sophisticated re a d e r.3
The opinions of m any students of th e history of Polish culture and literatu re w orking on w h at used to be called th e “W arsaw positivism” have been affected by th e authoritative view expressed by a participant, an d soon also chronicler, of the ideological disputes w aged in the W arsaw m ilieu of th e 1860’s, W alery Przyborowski, who w rote on those times in 1897: “I m ay safely say here th a t the revolution in our literatu re m ade by the ‘positivists’ a few years la ter had its roots in th e book by the English auth or [that is, Buckle], By th e precision of his reasoning, th e paradoxical n atu re of his conclusions, b y his unusual erudition and cou rageous views he impressed profoundly th e young minds and hearts.” 4 This statem ent is distinctly coloured b y its autho r’s personal bias, for Jie was a n active participant in the literary and scientific disputes in W arsaw in the 1860’s as one of those young enthusiasts of novelties who started a pen-w ar against everything th a t appeared to them conser vative o r reactionary. It is not only exaggerated as regards the sources of the “W arsaw positivism ” but also overlooks th at the W arsaw “young” w ere not th e first to get to know th e w ork of th e English historiosopher in Poland. As it often happens, th e first trace of interest in H. T. Buckle
2 D. M ack en zie W allace, R u ssia, vol. I, L ondon, 1877, pp. 1 67f; G. St. A ubyn, op. cit., p. 31; E. S o lo v iev , G e n ri T om as B o k l. K h a r a k te r is tik a , in: H. T. B u ck le (Bokl), Is to ria T s iv iliz a ts ii v A n g lii, itranslaited by A. B u in itsk i, vol. I. St. P e te r s burg, 1896, pp. ix - x .
3 H. T. B u ck le, H isto ria c y w iliz a c ji w A n g lii, tran slated Srom th e 2nd E n glish ed itio n b y W ła d y sła w Z aw adzki, 3 vote., L w ó w , 1862, 1865, 1868; 2dn ed., 2 vols., W arsaw , 1873; H. T. B u ck le, W p ły w k o b ie t n a p o stą p w ie d z y , tra n sla ted into P o lish b y S ta n isła w C zarnow ski, stu d en t o f ittie W arsaw M ain School, W arsaw , 1(867; H. T. B u ck le, H isto ria c y w iliz a c ji w A n g lii, a p o p u la rizin g e x p o sitio n b y O. K. N o to v ich , tra n sla ted from R u ssian by A dam D ob row olsk i, W arsaw -C racow , 1897.
4 (W. P rzyb orow sk i), S ta ra i m ło d a prasa. P r z y c z y n e k d o h is to rii lite r a tu r y o j c z y s te j (1866-1872), St. P etersb u rg, 1897, p. 9f.
Polish Enthusiasts and C ritics of T. H. Buckle 261
comes from the conservatist milieu. We come across it in th e Cracow paper Czas (Time) as soon as in 1860, w hen a critic reb u tted th e a t tem pts to “associate th e principles of economy w ith th e never-predicta- ble fates of nations. The English m ercatilism is conspicuously reflected in all his [Buckle’s] ideas, according to w hich all th a t exists is allegedly m easurable by th e ell, the balance, and th e piece of chalk.” 5 The news about the commencement of a translation of Buckle’s H istory into Polish given in th e press evoked contradictory opinions: on th e one hand, it aroused protests, as in th e W arsaw Gazeta Polska (Polish Gazette) in 1861;6 on th e other, applause. That atm osphere is interestingly reflected in Józef Bankowski’s le tte r to th e w ellJknow n Polish econom ist Józef Supiński dated 28 A ugust 1861: “The new s on th e tran slation of Buckle’s
H istory of Civilisation in England into Polish frightened th e idealists
and delighted th e realists. The form er’s protest appeared in No 203 of
Gazeta Polska, and th e realists’ answ er to it was w ritten by th e professor
of the [St. Petersburg] university, Spasowicz and sent to W arsaw. It seems th a t in W arsaw a fierce b attle will be fought on th e issue of Buckle betw een th e idealists and the realists. The form er argue th a t m an is guided b y idea, by thought; th e realists m aintain th a t although he e x aggerates in some places and assigns a too insignificant role to free will, he is rig h t in saying th a t th e forces and laws of nature, e.g. climate, have their im pact on m an.” 7 Spasowicz’s reto rt m entioned above did not, as fa r as w e know, appear in p rin t; th a t outstanding law yer, histo rian and historian of literature, who w orked in Russia, is know n n o t to have been a n uncritical enthusiast of Buckle’s thought, although in his opinions on history he was a m oderate follower of determinism .
The History was translated into Polish by W. Zawadzki, a ra th e r m e diocre Galician m an of letters, from 1857 resident in Lwów, a friend of th e historian K arol Szajnocha, and active contributor to the D ziennik
Literacki (Literary Journal)—a journal whose role in th e popularization
of positivism in Poland is still insufficiently known. Zawadzki presented th e w ork as belonging “undisputably to th e most significant products in th e domain of science” ; he w rote about its epoch-m aking sig nificance, did not conceal his enthusiastic attitu d e tow ards th e ideas it contained b u t was well aw are of th e ir controversial nature, especially on Polish soil, since he w rote th a t “although one can not agree unreservedly w ith all th e convictions expressed by th e au th o r
as a protestant, the high m eritis in m any o ther respects of the book in-5 J. K. R ogala (J. K. T urski), „H istoria c y w iliz a c ji”, C zas, I860, v ol. X IX , p. 464. T h is r e v ie w h a s b een n o te d b y E. Wiarzenica, P o z y ty w is ty c z n y „ o b ó z m ło d y c h ” w o b ec tr a d y c ji w ie lk ie j p o ls k ie j p o e z ji r o m a n ty c z n e j (la ta 1866-1881), W arsaw , 1968, p. 2i8.
6 G a ze ta P o lsk a , 1861, N o. 203, p. 2, co lu m n 3.
7 B. Skarga, N a r o d z in y p o z y ty w iz m u p o ls k ie g o (1831-1864), W arsaw , 1964, p. 397, n o te 100—from a m s. in th e P u b lic L ibrary at B y d g o szcz N o. 642/1.
duce us to hope th a t by this tran slation we render a good service to our literatu re.” 8 Zawadzki rightly guessed which aspects of Buckle’s reason ing m ay arouse th e deepest controversies among th e Polish readers: the naturalistic determ inism of th e English au th o r furnished a powerful argum ent in the struggle against the providential vision of history, a- gainst the traditional widely spread and established clerical conceptions. I t was this problem th a t was ta k en up by the review er of th e History from D ziennik L iteracki: he gave an enthusiastic evaluation of Buckle’s naturalistic determ inism , his program m atic apriorism , and he em pha sized th a t Buckle succeeded in dem onstrating th a t w ithin the historical
process th e re is room for neith er accident n o r Providence, th a t it con stitu tes a logical and necessary result of a num ber of factors affecting the course of historical events, th a t history is governed b y constant u n changing laws. The reviewer, then, apprehended Buckle’s th eo ry as a m e chanistic naturalistic determ inism in its extrem e form, his only objec tion being directed against Buckle’s conception of progress as the prog ress of mind, w hich m istakenly disregarded th e im pact of m oral facto rs.9
It was noted long ago that, as far as th e new scientific trend s in Po land are concerned, the W arsaw positivism had its Galician predeces sors in th e milieu of D ziennik L iteracki.10 In fact, th e la tte r’s interest in Buckle was not lim ited to publishing th e review m entioned here. The fascination w ith th e H istory reached its climax in this journal in 1865- 1866 and it is connected w ith th e nam e of the later w ell-know n histo- rian-essayist Kazimierz Chłędowski; he penned a n article advocating the new trends still in 1864 w hich was n o t accepted by Biblioteka W arszaw
ska (Warsaw Library) and prin ted only a fte r some corrections by D zien n ik Literacki in the n ex t y ear u n d er the provocative title, “Speculation,
Experience, and Realistic Tendencies”. M uch broader response was e- voked by the ensuing articles in the Lwów journal, especially his articles of 1866 on th e “P resent S tate of the M aterialistic School” and “Power jn H istory”. Fascinated by Darwin, Chłędowski was enthralled by Buc k le ’s theory to th e ex ten t th a t as the only deficiency of D arw in’s theory he recognized th e fact th a t D arwin paid too little atten tio n to the impact of climate on th e evolution of m a n .11 In his adm iration for th e new scientific trends, which, incidentally, h e knew rath er superficially, he even w ent as fa r as recommending th e naturalists w ho “always base themselves on facts, on reality” as the only model of scientific procedure to be followed. He p u t Buckle much above Macaulay, whom, incidental ly, he respected for “anti-speculationist endeavours afte r modern skills”.
He w rote: “It was w ith more conspicuousness and w ith deeper exper
8 H. T. B u ck le, H istoria..., vol. I, p a g e s ait t h e b eg in n in g o f t h e v o lu m e w ith o u t nu m b erin g. Ita lics m in e.
9 D zie n n ik L ite ra c k i, 11863, N os. 51-53; B. Skarga, op. cit., pp. 86f. 10 T. Jesk e-O h oiń sk i, W p o g o n i z a p ra w d ą , S e r ie s V, P ozn ań 1910, p. 13. 11 D zie n n ik L ite ra c k i, 1866, p. 13/7.
Polish Enthusiasts and Critics o f T. H . Buckle 2 6 3
tness th a t he employed the results of n atu ra list investigations to h istor ical knowledge in his famous H istory of Civilisation in England. His book is the first attem pt to illustrate the w ay in w hich n a tu re affects th e developm ent of society, and in w h at w ay society affects n atu re .” W hile fully accepting the conception of historical laws governing th e developm ent of m ankind, he did not say a single w ord about th e “four m ain propositions” form ulated by Buckle in volume II (one m ay doubt w h eth er he knew them at all). Following th e English th in k er he pro claimed: “all history m ust be a result of external influences on us and,
vice versa, of our influences on n atu re;” he w as fascinated by B uckle’s
conception of n a tu ral factors in th e historical developm ent—climate, geo graphical situation etc., and regretted th a t “a w ork of im mense diligence a n d unusual genius remains unfinished.” 12 In his article on “Pow er in H istory”, in w hich he endeavoured to tran sp lan t Darwinism to history, h e followed Buckle in opposing th e considerations, still ex ta n t in Polish literature, on th e “destiny of the peoples.” 13 However, n eith er in this n o r in oth er articles did Chl^dowski touch on th e problem which, if we are to believe his memoirs, interested him in Buckle most: nam ely, th e reflections on the impact of religion, especially of Roman Catholicism, encum bering th e progress of m an k in d .14 There would b e too m uch in th a t for the conservative Galician society; this type of ideas w ere u n su it able for publication. Chl^dowski’s Bucklism is of the yo u th fu t su p erfi cial and eclectic type, it is a fascination w ith th e ideological aspects o f Buckle’s th eo ry ra th e r than w ith his methodological ideas.
It is a simplification to th in k th a t D ziennik Literacki shared only those conceptions w hich w ere contained in the articles subm itted by Ka- zim ierz Chl^dowski. Its columns also saw polemics w ith Buckle, to m en tion but the anonymous article on “M orality in N atu re” or th e essay by a n unidentified auth o r entitled “A Few Rem arks on th e Teaching of M an’s D estiny” 15 which accepted Buckle’s conception of historical laws b u t disputed his theory of intellectual progress. Separate m ention is also due to the article on th e “The Transform ations of M an” w ritten by a do
cent at the W arsaw Main School, Stefan Pawlicki, which, besides pop
ularizing the scientific achievem ents in th e studies of th e prim itive m an and combating the providentialist historiosophy, contained a polem ic w ith some extrem e points of Buckle’s naturalistic determ inism . Its au th o r called for a recognition of the im portance of “certain spiritual m erits” in progress, of th e role of “em inent m en”, refused to tre a t reli gion as “a child of the blind forces of n a tu re ”, and dem anded to recognize man as a “one indivisibles personality”, both m aterial and
12 Ibid., p. 153. 13 Ib id ., p. 664.
14 K. C h łęd ow sk i, P a m ię tn ik i, vol. I, ed. b y A . K not, C racow 1957, p. 255. 15 D zien n ik L ite ra c k i, 1866, p. 490.
spiritual. He argued th a t “religions transform ed societies; w hen they decline, society dies; w hen they grow in power, society also becomes stronger. As long as religion rem ains intact, a nation m ay not fear to lose its national character.” 16
It seems th a t th e apogee of th e interest in Buckle in Galicia came about th e middle of the 1860’s; afte r that, fascination is giving w ay to cooler reflection. It does not m ean th a t Buckle was not read o r respected, or even discussed, b ut the previously typical fascination recedes in to the past. A t Lwów, the translation of th e H istory continued to appear; its th ird volume (1868) was preceded w ith a n interesting essay on Buckle by the translator, Władysław Zawadzki, who, in, addition to a biography of th e English thinker, gave a survey of th e polemics on this work in the w estern countries. It is significant th a t he defended Buckle against the charge of m aterialism , w hich had been frequently made against alm ost all followers of new trends by Polish critics; he regarded Buckle as a scientist keen on th e noble search for th e tru th , w ho had “crashed down the idols of superstition and despotism.” 17 Buckle was still eagerly read—not as th e almost sole authority, though—by th e Galician fol lowers of the positivist movement. These progressive views w ere pro pounded in K raj (The Country) in the 1870’s, w hen Ludw ik Masłowski published his w ell-know n “Law of Progress” (1872) being an enthusiastic presentation of th e positivist no v elties.18 A tran slator of Darwin, W undt and Haeckel, Masłowski came to know Buckle’s conceptions during his recent sojourn in France where, according to Józef Tokarzewicz’s testi mony, he represented in the editorial staff of th e journal The Future
(1865) a youthful faith in positivism, “in Comte, Hobbes and Buckle”, and in a naturalistic-determ inist interpretation of h isto ry .19 The Tydzień (The Week) published a t Lwów under th e editorial supervision of J. Ro- gosz “professed to progresive ideas w ith a naturalistic tint, it adm ired Budkle, Darwin, and used to b a rk a t the clericalists”, as P iotr Chmie lowski p u t it. 20
Though th e leading role of th e Galician milieu in promoting th e po- ,sitivist novelties on Polish soil is a n undisputable fact, it is certainly m ore complex than K. Chłędowski thought as he w rote th a t “Among th e young people a t Cracow who w ere infatuated w ith m aterialism and who w ere backed by th e fairly older Mieczysław Paw likow ski th ere w ere sev
eral bright people from Warsaw: these la tte r made propaganda fo r
16 Ib id ., p. 619.
17 H. T. B uck le, op. cit., vol. I l l, pp. iii- x v .
18 L. M asłow sk i, P r a w o p o stęp u . S tu d iu m p rz y ro d n ic z o -sp o łe c zn e , C racow , 1872, o ffp r in t fro m K r a j.
18 J. T .(ok arzew icz), „N ow ości lite r a c k ie ”, K r a j (p u b lish ed ait St. P etersb u rg), 1884, N o. 34, p. 21.
20 P. C h m ielow sk i, Z a r y s n a jn o w s z e j lite r a tu r y p o ls k ie j, C racow -S t. P etersb u rg. 1898, p. 111.
Polish Enthusiasts and Critics of T. H. Buckle 26£> this issue in letters to th e ir friends. Some of them w ere able to go back home and thus personally persuaded th eir colleagues from th e [Warsaw] M ain School to adopt th e new ideas.” 21
Ju st as Chłędowski attrib u ted th e discovery of a new role of scien tific values in th e w estern “m aterialists”—representatives of new trends in science to th e milieu from w hich he came himself, th e same was done b y W alery Przyborowski, w ho attrib u ted it to his ow n m ilieu of un iv er sity students in W arsaw .22 This m ust also be regarded as a t least a sim plification. For, firstly, il only th e above-m entioned polemics about Buckle of 1861 perm it to state th a t Buckle had been know n in th e Rus sian p artition (the “Polish Kingdom*’) still before th e Ja n u a ry Rising (1863). Secondly, from 1862 onwards th e W arsaw press brought reg u lar announcem ents and brief reviews of th e successive parts of th e History ,being translated a t Lwów w hich w ere accessible in W arsaw bookshops. 23 And, thirdly, the young W arsaw “Bucklists” — as th ey used to call them selves—had in W arsaw an immediate predecessor in th e -person of Eliza Orizeszkowa, later a w ell-know novelist, w ho had published a spacious article “On th e History of English Civilisation by H enry Thomas Buckle” in Gazeta Polska still in 1866. This article contained a n enthusiastic pro fession of creed of th e young authoress, w ho rem ained u nder th e spell of th e determ inist-naturalistic conceptions of th e English w riter long a f te r .24 This is not the place to an y detailed account of th e “positivistic debut” of the outstanding novelist w hich is w ell know n to th e historians of Polish literature, suffice it to point out th a t h er article started a con troversy about w hether Buckle’s views w ere m aterialistic o r n o t ; 25 w hich provoked h e r to speak o u t once more on th a t m atter in th e sam e jo u r nal. 26 At th e time w hen Orzeszkowa w rote on Buckle none of th e fu tu re young W arsaw “Bucklists” came ou t in p rin t w ith his enthusiasm for th e English thinker, and Przegląd Tygodniow y (Weekly Review), as one can surm ise from th e perusal of its first an n u al volume (1866) w hich soon afte r became a trib u n e for the “young”, had very little to say on Buckle. This is not to say th a t none of th e la ter “Bucklists”—though not very much later—knew th e History. B ut they certainly did not publish an y th in g about it by then.
Les us diverge from th e presentation of th e m aterial for a w hile. From w h at has been said by now it follows that, on th e one hand, th e
21 K. C hłędow siki, op. cit., v ol. I, p. 194.
22 Cf. (W. P rzyb orow sk i), op. cit., pp. 7-10, 90ff, 126.
23 B ib lio te k a W a r sza w sk a , H863, v ol. II, p. 548; 1866, v ol. II, p. 470; 1869, vol. II, p. l(54f; v ol. I l l , p. 137f.
24 L L .jka (E. O rzeszkow a), „O h isto rii c y w iliz a c ji a n g ielsk iej p rzez H en ry k a T om asza B u ck le’a ”, G a ze ta P o lsk a , 1.866, N o. 157, pp. il-3 ; N o. CL58, p. I f ; cf. M. Ż m i
grodzka, O rze sz k o w a . M ło d o ść p o z y ty w iz m u , W arsaw , 1965, p. ;l!18ff.
25 M. Ł on ick i, (L etter to th e editor) in G a ze ta P o lsk a , 1866, N o. 1178, p. 2. 26 E. O rzeszko(w a), „Do czyn iącego zarzuty sp raw ozd an iu o d ziele B u c k le ’a ”, G a ze ta P o lsk a . 1866, No. 192, p. 2.
reception of the H istory on Polish soil started in the period immediately preceding the Jan u ary Rising and embraced both some circles in Gali cia and in th e Russian partition. On th e other hand, th e facts presented here concerning Galicia and, partly, also W arsaw allow us to say already a t this point th a t it was in th e years immediately following the fall of the rising th a t the in terest in Buckle in Poland was most intense. This refers to both th e Galician milieu and to the Russian partition. This fact requires a m ore detailed historical interpretation necessary to understand th e Polish fascination w ith Buckle’s ideas on th e 1860’s.
The defeat of th e Ja n u ary Rising seemed to be equivalent to th e de feat of all th e previous W eltanschauung, of all rom antic ideology, that
“ideology of poets”, as Bronisław Chlebowski defined it; and defeat in duced to seek new realistic ways. 27 The refutation of the “ideology of poets” did not lead everyone to accept the slogan th a t “knowledge is pow er” and th e attitu d e of “organic w ork”. The slogan of realism was common to different milieux, each of w hich understood it differently in accordance w ith th eir various ideological or political attitudes. W hereas some called for accepting th e hard reality as a punishm ent for th e sins com m itted b y them selves or their ancestors, others w en t still farth e r in associating ultram ontanism w ith extrem e loyalism. Some would accept for th eir own the capitalist slogan of “w ork a t th e foundations” tending m ore and m ore decidedly towards a realistic positivistic attitude, still Others would m ake a n exam ination of the nobiliary p ast of Poland to take up subsequently th e idea of transform ing h e r social stru ctu re with the help of the new emerging social forces. “In our souls, in all our gen eration th a t had grown up am idst th e ro ar of th unders there was u n u t terable sadness, a result of never-fulfilled keen expectations and pain fu l disappointm ents. W hen th a t w hich they had been tau g h t to revere in
their youth fell, th ey rushed to th e other direction in search for rescue. Because dreams w ere deceptive, they w ere condemned; it was called for taking into account th e existing reality, for a rigid self-evaluation. To these inclinations, Buckle was in a sense th e full expression of those desires and aspirations th a t sprouted in th e b e tte r souls and minds of the young people,” w rote years after K. P rzy bo ro w sk i.28 In another p art of Poland1—in Cracow, K. Chłędowski experienced sim ilar conflicts. His disappointm ent w ith th e old ideals and w ith Messianism pushed him to the perusal of L. B üchner and Buckle and brought to him the conviction th a t “the nation can revive only by intelledtual sobriety, work, economy,
by the abandonm ent of all inimitable ideals.” 29
Thus, w ith his naturalistic determ inism and his idea of progress as intellectual progress, Buckle m et th a t state of minds and hearts of many
27 B. C h leb ow sk i, L iteratu ra, p o ls k a 1795-1905 ja k o g łó w n y w y r a z ż y c ia n arodu p o u tr a c ie n iep o d leg ło ści, L w ó w , 1923, p. 458.
28 (W. Przyiborowsiki), op. cit., p. 10. 29 K. C h łęd ow sk i, op. cit., vol. I, p. 194.
Polish Enthusiasts and Critics of T. H. Buckle 267 Poles. His w ork was a desirable book helping them to find the proper a ttitu d e in th e very difficult surroundings, it helped to survive and re ta in th e hope th a t not all had been lost yet, for knowledge an d w ork are powers th a t can overcome th e most unfavourable circumstances. It is in this situation that, in my opinion, we m ust look for th e key to u n derstanding th e extent and th e form of th e wide fascination w ith the ideas of the English historiosopher in those circles th a t w ere attracted by scientific novelties in th e Poland of th e 1860’s. This explains th e vivid interest in Buckle both in Galicia, w hich has been discussed, and in the Polish Kingdom, w hich has only been touched upon so far.
Les us now re tu rn to the presentation of th e reception of T. H. Buckle in Warsaw. 30 In the la tte r half of th e 1860’s th e university stu d en t m i lieu of W arsaw got under a strong spell of Buckle’s ideas. This found its expression in Przegląd Tygodniowy, a progressive journal edited by Adam Wiślicki to w hich contributed th e students of th e W arsaw Main School fascinated by the new trends in science. The popularity of Buc k le ’s work w ill be later com pared to th a t of such renow ned works of fiction as Sienkiewicz’s Quo Vadis? or V ictore Hugo’s Les Miserables. Przyborowski, w ho h ad been a student of th e W arsaw school himself, in describing th e intellectual climate of his m ilieu gives an interesting exam ple of th e popularity of Buckle’s conception. One of his friends borrow ed from his uncle th e strongly dem anded book to give it to his friends. He w rote: “We swallowed up th e contents. Soon w e w ere di
vided into Bucklists and anti-Bucklists. As it usually happens w ith young unsophisticated minds, we grasped only the more glaring points o f th e au th o r’s reasonings and drew from them rath e r eccentric conclu sions which Buckle had never even dream t of. Because th e English his to rian denies, to some extent, m an’s free w ill and supports this conten tion w ith th e fact th a t even th e num ber of letters of inappropriate form dropped into pillar-boxes is recurrent at certain periods, we trie d to apply this principle to all hum an actions. One of our friends, who later cam e to an outstanding position in o u r literature, used to spent w hole days in th e window of his lodging (in Gołębia Street) to convince th e sceptics th a t th e num ber of people passing b y m ust be identical a t some periods. A nother brought his adm iration for Buckle as fa r as to copy his w ork word afte r word because he could not buy him self it for w an t of .money.” 31
A closer exam ination of the “Bucklism” of the young Warsaw “youth” confirms principally Przyborow ski’s opinion. In 1867 to 1869, Przegląd
Tygodniowy published m any articles on Buckle authored b y H. Elzen-
berg, E. Sulimczyk-Swieżawski, W. Przyborowski, S. J. Czarnowski,
30 Cf. m y a rticle: “W arszaw scy en tu zjaści B u ck le’a ”, K w a r ta ln ik H isto ry c zn y , 14)69, No. (4, pp. i803>-964.
A. K raushar. Not always w ere th ey distinguished by a profound know ledge of the views of th e adm ired w riter, b u t always w ere evidence of ,the adm iration. To th e young people, Buckle appeared as th e ideal of a scientist system atically proceeding from facts to generalizations, he was th e model of th e student employing a strict method of research, a non-conformist, briefly—“one of th e greatest geniuses of th e epoch”. The young accepted the naturalistic determ inism of Buckle’s conception but, in fact, drew various conclusions from it. For instance, W. Przybo- ,rowski flaunted himself w ith his extrem e m aterialistic declarations. In th e ir adm iration for Buckle, even his rath er eccentric reflections on th e role of w om en in th e progress of knowledge have no t been skipped. Buckle’s booklet on this issue was translated and published by one of th e “young”, S. J. Czarnowski, and had a very w arm reception from th e “young” press.
The “Bucklism” of the young W arsaw enthusiasts was very super ficial, it was lim ited in fact to th e acceptance of naturalistic determ in ism and dem onstrative anti-Providentialism in th eir view of history, to a n enthusiasm for a conception of historical laws w hich w ere not dis cussed an y deeper—it was prim arily of ideological character. The con ception of progress as progress in knowledge met, ju s t as m any other thoughts of th e English author, th e intelectual and social ideals of th a t generation of th e W arsaw Main School students. 32
Both th e positivistic literary critic and historian of literatu re P io tr Chmielowski and the productive antipositivistic columnist and th ird -rate m an-of-letters Teodor Jeske-Choiński are in agreem ent in th a t they hold th a t th e W arsaw students allegedly heard of th e scientific novelties from th e ir professors at the Main School. A closer look a t this issue, though, enables us to dispute this view. 33 We know th a t a t least some of th e stu dents, such as, for instance, A leksander K raushar, had already read Buckle before. 34 On th e other hand, if we m ake a closer exam ination of ,the W arsaw professors’ lectures we shall easily see th a t they fought rath e r than prom oted the scientific novelties, w hile a considerable p art of th eir audiences w ere fascinated by them. To those professors certainly .belonged the em inent 'historian Józef Kazimierz Plebański, w ho in his lectures often criticized Buckle and the other representatives of th e “new scientific school” from th e point of view of electic idealistic-re alistic philosophy,35 and, a little later, Adolf Pawiński who delivered
32 Cf. n o te 30.
33 P. C h m ielow sk i, P ism a k r y ty c z n o -lite r a c k ie , vol. I, W arsaw , 1961, p. 239; T. Jesk e-C h o iń sk i, „ P o zy ty w izm wairszaiwski i jego g łó w n i p r z e d sta w ic ie le ”, N iw a , ,1885 p. 87.
34 A. K raushar, K a r tk i z p a m ię tn ik a A lk a ra , vol. II, C racow , 1913 nn 48f llS f , 145.
35 Cf. n o te 30; a lso : Z. L ib iszow sk a, „Józef K a zim ierz P leb a ń sk i (1831-1896)”, Z e s z y ty N a u k o w e U n iw e r s y te tu Ł ó d zk ieg o , N a u k i H u m a n isty c zn o -S p o łe c zn e seria I No. 4, 1956. pp. 73-106.
Polish Enthusiasts and Critics of T. H. Buckle 2 6 9 a lecture on Budkle, and later printed it in Biblioteka W arszawska (1868), in w hich he severely criticized th e ideas of th e English philosopher re ferrin g to a w ide range of European literatu re and taking th e position of a m oderate ad h eren t to th e positivistic conception of h is to ry .36 Alek sander Rembowski, who la ter became an outstanding historian and law yer, was one of the listeners to P aw ihski’s lecture; in la ter years he recollected: “W hen in a n inform al circle of friends w e started to ap praise both Paw ihski’s views on th e laws of historical developm ent and o n Buckle’s theory, we came to th e unanim ous conviction th a t could be expressed briefly: the whole lecture was simply an im pudence.” F or Budkle was to th e young people “a taboo. To us he was for some tim e
sacrosanctus.” 37 W. Przyborowski w rote later: “The strong im pression
,[of Buckle] had already been deeply rooted in the young people, and be fore Mr. Paw iński came out w ith his observations th e cult of th e En glish historian had had ample tim e to grow to considerable dimensions. In the period w e are discussing Buckle’s w ork was read ard en tly an d the (most preposterous conclusions w ere draw n from it.” 38 However, not only the historians lecturing at the W arsaw School had a critical attitu d e tow ards Buckle’s theory. It was also shared by th e o th er historians w orking a t W arsaw w ho w ere associated w ith w hat in historical stu dies has been called the W arsaw positivistic school. This also refers to A- Rembowski, w ho very early agreed w ith Paw ihski’s criticism th a t he h ad so severely refu ted as a student, and especially to Tadeusz Korzon and Władysław Smoleński. Korzon published in Biblioteka Warszawska ■in 1870 a spacious essay on “The Positivistic H istorians” w hich analysed the historical conceptions of Buckle, D raper and Kolb; he spoke on Budkle m any tim es later on, to o .39 He criticized th e English th in k er for th e num erous extrem ities of his views from the standpoint of the m od erate positivistic tren d in historiography. He accepted, at least at the beginning, determinism, b u t he refuted unequivocally its naturalistic form ; he accepted nomothetism b u t refuted th e historical “laws” sug gested by Buckle; he agreed th a t th e re a re recu rren t phenom ena but condemned Buckle’s famous statistical argum entation th a t evoked such «enthusiasm among the students; he was a follower of th e theory of progress but could not accept Buckle’s theory of intellectual progress etc. As, w ith the lapse of time, Korzon more and m ore estranged him self from the positivistic hopes and illusions in historiography, his c rit icism of Buckle included still m ore acute points. The no less o utstand
36 A. P a w iń sk i, “H. T. B u ck le”, B ib lio te k a W a r sza w sk a , 1868, v ol. IV, pp 349-395.
37 A. R em b ow sk i, “A d o lf P a w iń sk i”, T y g o d n ik I lu str o w a n y , 11890, v ol. I, p. 81. 88 (w . P rzyb orow sk i), op. cit., p. 9.
39 T. K orzon, L is ty o tw a r te , m o w y , r o z p r a w y , r o z b io r y , v ol. I, W arsaw , 1915, pp. 12,3-159; of. also his la ter p u b lica tio n s ithere, vol. II, W arsaw , 1916, pp. 76, 79 99, 137-143, 321.
ing historian, W. Smoleński, had analogous views in m any respects, an d he w ent through a sim ilar evolution. 40
The problem of th e Warsaw historians’ attitu d e towards Buckle’s con ceptions requires a more detailed study. But it m ay be said already a t this point th a t all those professional historians, in analogy to th e histo rians associated w ith the positivistic trend in historiography in th e other countries, shared a rath er critical attitud e tow ards Buckle and th a t he exerted a relatively small influence on them, incom parably sm aller than on th e milieu of the young enthusiasts o r positivistically-minded columnists or m en-of-letters. In m any respects th e attitu d e of th e histo rians was sim ilar to th a t of other members of th e literary-intellectual circles in W arsaw in those times.
W hereas in th e so-called “new press”—th a t is, those journals which professed allegiance to th e positivistic tren d in its differen t form— Buckle’s nam e w ill be occasionally reappearing till th e end of th e 19th cen tu ry and he w ill be remembered as a pre-em inent th in k er w ho had a rem arkable contribution to scence (to m ention th e article on Buckle published by Prawda—The T ruth—in 1881 41 o r th e rich journalistic out p u t of the leading cham pion of the “progressive p arty ”, A. Świętochow ski, which occasionally resounds w ith th e echo of Buckle’s views), th e so-called “old press”, which was more conservative and m ore sceptical, if not inimical, towards the scientific fashions, in no w ay shared the en thusiasm of the young people. B ut in th e columns of this press we come freq uently across critical rem arks on Buckle and his conception penned both by N eo-Kantians such as H. Goldberg, o r by the followers of th e G erm an idealistic philosophy as A. Tyszyński o r K. Kaszewski, etc. To wards th e end of the century Buckle was gradually dislodged by th e interest in Thomas Carlyle’s heroistic conceptions. But it is interesting to observe how the echo of th e reading of Buckle concurred w ith th e in fluences of M arxian socio-historical considerations in th e journalistic o u tp u t of Ludwik Krzywicki of th e 1890’s . 42 On th e other hand, though, historians of Polish literatu re have shown th a t the reading of Buckle exerted a rem arkable influence on th e form ation of the W eltanschau
ung of some outstanding representatives of Polish literatu re of th a t pe
riod, such as the above-m entioned Eliza Orzeszkowa or A leksander Gło w acki (the novelist know n under his literary pseudonym Bolesław Prus). A student of P ru s’ literary-critical activity emphasizes th a t “I. a posi tivistic psychologism derived from Taine, 2. a naturalism borrow ed from Buckle, 3. Spencer’s evolutionism, 4. a positivistic ahistorism searching after ‘sim ilar’ elem ents in historically rem ote epochs—these are the phil
40 M. H. S erejsk i, p refa ce in: W. S m oleń sk i, S z k o ły h is to ry c z n e w P olsce, W ro cła w , li952, p. L X II ff.
41 R. Z., “H en ryk T om asz B u ck ie”, P ra w d a , 188il, v ol. I, pp. 62-64, 78f, 8i9f. 42 L. K rzyw ick i, D zieła , v ol. II, W arsaw , 1958, p. 126; v ol. I l l , W arsaw , 1959r p. 135f; vol. IV. W arsaw , 1960, p. 87f; 186-191, 197 etc.
Polish Enthusiasts and Critics of T. H. Buckle 271
osophical foundations of P ru s ’ views on history and on th e mechanism of action of literary tradition.” 43 Ju st as in th e other cases presented here, Buckle’s influence was prim arily of ideological rath er th a n scientific- -methodological nature.
In a sim ilar m anner, Buckle was received in Galicia. For, his H istory was in fact a n ideological argum ent for the followers of the scientific novelties and, on th e o ther hand, a n ideological w eapon against th e de fenders of traditionalism and conservatists associated w ith th e political group know n as th e Stańczycy. A lready Stanisław Tarnow ski in his po lemics against the nom othetic conception of history propounded by Jó zef Supiński in one of th e letters from th e famous Teka Stańczyka (Stańczyks Portfolio) derided th e ideal type of th e positivistic historio- sopher—a type constructed from some tra its of Supiński’s Buckle’s and others’ conceptions—who m aintains th a t th e w orld is governed by n a t ural laws. 44 Buckle m ade no impression on th e em inent historian W a lerian Kalinka, a historian of note ra th e r shunning from methodological reflections, w ho adm itted a Providentialist in terpretation of history both in theory an d in his w riter’s practice. A d ifferent p a th was tak en by another leading figure of Polish historiography, Józef Szujski, w ho—as it has been indicated elsewhere—“in his approach to the problems of th e theory and philosophy of history he was in strong opposition to w h at was being brought into historical studies by th e positivistic tre n d ;” 45 he took Buckle for a particular subject of his criticism, w hich referred to the old A ugustinian an d Bossuetian historiosophical conceptions de fending voluntarism in its ecclesiatical, Roman Catholic version, etc. 46 These representatives of the first generation of th e “Cracow historical .school” had a younger successor, Michał Bobrzyński, who, although h e referred to th e -positivistic conception of history as a discipline aim ing a t studying the laws of social development and followed a rath er ex trem e form of sociological nomothetism, never agreed to associate his n am e w ith th e “school of Buckle” upon whom h e m ade a n um ber of strictures. To be true, he pointed o ut the m erits of th e English th in k er w ith respect to w hat the la tte r took from the social and political sciences, th a t is, th e conception of historical laws itself, an d indicated th a t Buckle’s m erit was to draw attention to these sciences an d to th e existence of regulari ties in history; but he refuted the optim istic conviction th a t th e h isto r ical laws are known already, em phasized th a t Buckle’s “eccentric h y potheses” in this respect cannot constitute a foundation for fu rth e r
his-43 S. M elkowskd, P o g lą d y e s te ty c z n e i d zia ła ln o ść k r y ty c z n o -lite r a c k a B o le sła w a P rusa, W arsaw , 1963, ,p. 169.
44 P rze g lą d P o lsk i, vol. X III, 1669, pp. 450-458; K. W yka, “T e k a S ta ń c z y k a ” na tle h is to rii G a lic ji w la ta ch 1849-1869, W rocław , 1951, pp. 159, 162.
45 A. F. G rabski, “Z z a g a d n ień m eto d o lo g iczn y ch tzw . k ra k o w sk iej szk oły h isto ry czn ej”, S tu d ia M eto d o lo g iczn e, vol. V I, 1969, p. 70.
torical studies, and argued th a t th e H istory is m arked by “an artificial cram m ing of historical facts into hurriedly devised form ulae”. “Buckle, perhaps a genial dilettante b u t not historian or law yer ^politician, com prehends and explicates everything, and in this he sins and errs.” He protested against th e refutation of m an’s free w ill and stressed th a t the assertion of the operation of historical laws does n o t exclude—as Buckle and some of his Polish followers th in k —the existence of th e free w il of man. 47 Much m ore scepticism w ith respect to Buckle’s ideas was shown by another representative of th e younger generation of the Cracow his torical school, Stanisław Smolka, whose views on th e theoretical and methodological problems of history w ere a m inim alistic reaction to th e extrem e points of Bobrzynski’s positivistic sociologism. 48 Thus, the pro fessional historians of Cracow principally did n o t accept th e conceptions of T. H. Buckle; this refers to both those w ho w ere decidedly opposed to the positivistic tren d in historiography and to his more or less mod erate followers. The same can be said of the historians of the “Lwów historical school”, w ho generally avoided theoretical an d methodological considerations; w ith the exception of Tadeusz Wojciechowski whose theoretical and methodological opinions are m arked b y eclecticism. We shall not linger here on th e opinions of o th er Galician authors; let us only m ention the amusing views of th e only consistent Polish solipsist in Poland, Count W. Dzieduszycki, w ho oddly linked subjective idealism w ith orthodox Roman Catholicism. Nor shall w e dw ell upon the criticism of Buckle m ade b y T. Żuliński from the standpoint of adherence to mes- sianistic-catholic idealism. 49 Ju st as in th e R ussian partition, th e dis cussions, controversies and polemics about Buckle in Galicia w ere pri m arily ideological disputes and had little to do w ith methodological- -scientific discussions.
This does not m ean th a t Buckle was not read any longer. He was still read w ith flushed cheeks by those for whom he could become the first more serious w ork on th e ir w ay to th e form ation of self, to constructing th e ir own view of the world. He was read prim arily by the young people-by students of different schools throughout Poland, and by young Poles staying abroad. Here a re a few examples. During his de portation a t A rkhangelsk Bolesław Limanowski read Q uetelet and John S tu a rt Mill, and gets the translation of the first volume of Buckle’s H is
tory sent to him; when, in 1869, he came back to W arsaw he was aston
ished th a t Paw iński was much less enthusiastic about the English phi losopher th a n he himself w a s .50 In th e 3rd gim nazjum in Warsaw,
Wa-' 47 Ibid., pp. 75f. 48 Ib id ., pp. 77-83.
48 T. Ż uliński, O a n tr o p o lo g ii w sto su n k u do d z ie jó w , W arsaw , 1873; by th e sam e author, W ia ra i w ie d z a , C racow , 1876.
Polish Enthusiasts and, Critics of T. H. Buckle 2 7 3 cław Sieroszewski in th e m id-sixties of th e 19th cen tu ry read th e Ro mantics, b u t also Mill, Draper, Smiles, D arwin; w hen, fascinated by the idea of “organic w ork”, he started w orking at a locksm ith's one could find among his books Flam m arion, Haeckel, Buckle and Lassalle. 51 Ignacy Radliński w rites in his memoirs of th e popularity of Buckle in th e stu dent milieu of Kiev tow ards th e end of the 1850’s 52 Stanisław Stern- powski gives evidence th a t the H istory was eagerly read by th e students of th e gim nazjum a t Krzemieniec, 53 the rem arkable in terest of young people in the w ork of Buckle is reported ten years la ter by F erdynand Hoesick in his m em o irs.54 Let us also m ention the fascination w ith Buckle by th e Polish novelist Stefan Żeromski during his stay a t th e
gim nazjum a t Kielce in th e mid-eighties, w hich la ter found its expres
sion in his Syzyfo w e prace (Sisyphean to il).55 Buckle’s naturalistic de term inism rem arkably affected the geographical interests of th e la ter re nowned geographer Wacław Nałkowski. 56 No fu rth e r examples seem to be necessary. It is evident from those already given that, especially in the fo u rth q u arter of th e 19th century, Buckle provided th e favourite subject of reading of th e gimnazjum-schoolboys and students, of young people in search afte r th e ir ow n place in th e w orld and on th e ir w ay to w ork out their own W eltanschauung. Buckle’s w orks belonged, in a sense, to th e obligatory reading m a tte r of th e thinking young people, irres pective of the paths th ey w ere to tak e afterw ards. B ut does it re fe r to young people only?
Numerous memoirs of Polish revolutionaries and socialists of th e lat ter half of th e 19th century, and of th e first years of th e 20th century, indicate th a t Buckle’s H istory was the w ork read by those w ho w here in the process of coming to a socialist W eltanschauung. The high apprecia tion of th e History in th e w orkers’ m ovem ent is attested b y Wilhelm Liebknecht’s statem ent th a t “M arx’s Kapitał w as in th e field of economy w hat Buckle was in history and D arwin in the n a tu ra l sciences.” 57 The juxtaposition of these th ree nam es needs no fu rth e r comments. T he lists
51 W. S iero szew sk i, D zieła , vol. X V I, C racow , 1950, pp. 93f, 529-531. 52 I. R adliński, M ó j ż y w o t, Ł uck, 1038, p. 43f.
53 S. Stem pow sfci, P a m ię tn ik i (1870-1914), W rocław , 1(953, pp. 81, 90.
54 F. H oesick, P o w ie ś ć m o je g o ży c ia , v ol. I, W rocław -C racow , 1959, pp. 334, 362. 55 S. Ż erom ski, D zie n n ik i, vol. I, W arsaw , 1958,, p. 344; b y th e sa m e author, S y z y f o w e p ra ce, in : D zieła , ed. b y S. P igoń , v ol. I, W arsaw , 1956, pp. 188-192, 202f.
56 J. B abicz, “M łod zień cza rozp raw a W acław a N a łk o w sk ie g o ”, S tu d ia i M a te r ia ły z D z ie jó w N a u k i P o lsk ie j, series C, N o. 6, 1963, pp. 99-112.
57 A. M olska, p reface, in: P ie r w s z e p o k o le n ie m a r k s is tó w p o lsk ic h , v ol. I, W ar saw , 1962, p. x c i; b y th e sam e author, M o d el tis tr o ju so c ja lis ty c z n e g o w p o ls k ie j m y ś li m a r k s is to w s k ie j la t 1878-1886, W arsaw , 1965, p. 7il. T. G. Snyitko, R u ssk o y e n a r o d n ic h e stv o i p o ls k o y e o b sh c h e s tv e n n o y e d v iz h e n iy e 1865-1881, M oscow , 1969, p. 1:36, p o in ted o u t an in terestin g fact. N am ely, w h e n to w a rd s th e end o f th e 1870’s p o lice seized fro m th e M oscow U n iv ersity stu d en t, th e P o le B. B u tk iew icz, a cer ta in album , th e y also fou n d a q u estio n n a ire o f a n u m b er o f q u estion s, a m o n g t h e m : “N a m e you r fa v o u rite a u th or”. To w h ic h o n e o f th e stu d e n ts—L. Obuohowsiki—a n s w ered : “K a rl M arx (Das K a p ita ł), C h e m y sh e v sk i (C r itic is m o f M ill, S h to d e la t? ), S k arb ek ”, a n d stu d en t P ta k a n sw ered : “M arx, B u ck le, N e k r a so v ”.
of w orkers’ reading m a tter frequently contain Buckle n ext to M arx’s
Kapitał, as it is stated in th e memoirs of Wacław K oral or of Stanisław
Pestkowski, W incenty Jastrzębski o r M arian Płochocki.58 The H istory was also read during p enitentiary instruction in the 20th century...
We k ept off th e m ain track of our considerations the incidentally in teresting polemics w ith Buckle’s conceptions w ritten by Polish represen tatives of the Roman Catholic church. They apeared relatively early, for as soon as in 1869 we come across th e first m ore im portant study deriv ing from th e clerical circles, and later there w ere several more publica tions on this issu e .59 I't can be generally said th a t whereas a t first Buckle’s determ inistic and anti-voluntaristic conceptions w ere criticized in these circles from the standpoint of th e A ugustinian-Bossuetian con ceptions, w ith th e lapse of tim e they gradually took on a different form basing upon Aristotelianism in its Neo-Thomistic version. Of course, this led to the refutation of th e old view {incidentally, shared b y Buckle himself) th a t the assertion of the existence of regularities in history and of historical laws demolishes th e dogma of free w ill; it also led to th e acceptance of a new form ulation of the Providence’s ru le over th e w orld through the natu ral and historical laws. This problem requires a closer exam ination.
The general survey of the story of th e reception of T. H. Buckle’s work in Poland th a t has been made h ere does not claim to fully exhaust the source m aterials. B ut it seems to us th a t by v irtue of th e facts p re sented here th a t reception can be divided into th ree phases: 1. th e p e riod before the Jan u a ry Rising, when th ere is some interest in Buckle but w ithout any features of common fascination, 2. th e period im m edi ately afte r the rising extending over th e 1860’s, w hen we have to do w ith a literal fascination w ith Buckle’s conceptions in th e m ilieux of university students both in the Polish Kingdom and in Galicia, 3. th e phase of critical reflection and moderate reception w hich comes in la ter times, w hen Buckle was no longer th e sole intellectual authority of th e young student and critical voices against him from different standpoints an d m ilieux w ere heard w ith increasing frequency. I t was then th a t th e reading of Buckle belonged to th e indispensable program m e of au to d i- dactic education and, next, even of w orkers’ autodidactic instruction. The reception of Buckle in Poland was principally not of methodological but.
58 W. K oral, P r z e z p a rtie , z w ią z k i, w ię z ie n ia i S y b ir , W arsaw , 1933, p. 49; S. P estk o w sk i, W sp o m n ie n ia r e w o lu c jo n is ty , Łódź, 1981, p. 5 f ; W. J astrzęb sk i, W s p o m n ie n ia 1885-1918, W arsaw 11966, p. 25i9f; M. P łoch ock i, W sp o m n ien ia d z ia ła cza S D K P iL , Warsarw 1956, pp. 42f, 52f.
59 M. N .(ow odw orskd), “H isto ria c y w iliz a c ji w A n g lii H en ryk a T om asza B u ck la ”, P rze g lą d K a to lic k i, vol. V II, 1869', pp. 1-6, 17-2)1, 33-39; J. N ow od w orsk i, P o z y ty w iz m , in: E n c y k lo p e d ia K o ścieln a , vol. X X I, W arsaw , 1896, pp . 96-105; M. M oraw ski, “W olna w o la i O patrzność w h istorii a te o r ia B u ck la ”, P r ze g lą d P o w s ze c h n y , vol. I, 1(884, pp. 161-177; S. P a w lick i, M a te ria liz m w o b e c n a u k i, C racow , 1870, o ff p rin t from P r ze g lą d P o lsk i, pp. 98h124.
Polish Enthusiasts and Critics of T. H. Buckle 2 7 5 only ideological nature, and th a t in a double sense. On th e one hand, Buckle answ ered th e needs of th e “organic-w ork”-generation in th a t he proclaimed the cult of knowledge and intellectual progress; though the extrem e points of his conceptions w ere criticized, this aspect of his con sideration was apreciated. On th e oth er hand, Buckle’s determ inism had an anti-P rovidentialist direction, w hich fascinated the young enthusiasts of th e actual or, m ore frequently still, alleged “m aterialism ’1; 60 it stim ulated to opposition others. Buckle undoubtedly exercised a rem arkable effect on Polish intellectual life in th e la tte r half of th e 19t'h century, b u t it m ust be emphasized th a t it had its relatively sm allest influence, ju st as in th e w estern countries, on th e developm ent of Polish historio graphy, since professional historians saw th e w eak points of his arg u m entation earliest and retained a m ore o r less reserved a ttitu d e tow ards his ideas. This was the case even w ith those historians who, though ac cepting the nom othetic conception of history, w ere representatives of different shades of positivistic historiography in Poland.
80 O n th e co n cep t o f “m a teria lism ” in P o lish lite r a tu r e a t th a t tim e cf. J. S k a r bek, K o n c e p c ja n a u k i w p o z y ty w iz m ie p o ls k im , W arsaw , 1868, p. 51ff.
