The Scientific Tendency.— The trend of English literature and thought was profoundly affected by the scientific and philosophic spirit of inquiry which received a triumphant impulse from the publication of Charles Darwin's 'Ori gin of Species by Means of Natural Selection' in 1859, and from the inception of Herbert Spencer's 'System of Synthetic Philosophy,' in 1862. The earlier literary work of the utilita rians, Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832), David Ricardo (1772-1823), James Mill (1773-1836), and above all, John Stuart Mill (1806-73), only indirectly touched the imaginative temper of the times. The topics which the utilitarians handled were practical matters of social and political reform, some of which had been sug gested by the French Revolutionary movement. The larger conceptions of man's physical or spiritual destiny were for the most part over looked. The statute book of the realm between 1840 and 1874 reflected the economic principles which the Mills and their disciples disseminated, but neither the great poetry nor indeed the great fiction, bore, in any appreciable degree, trace of the reforming activities or enthusi asm of the utilitarians. Dickens occasionally expanded in his novels the practical suggestions of the utilitarians, but it was elsewhere, it was in the literary presentation of universal fea tures of human nature, that he rendered his most memorable service to literature. The scientific and philosophic movement gathered its greatest force in the years which followed the revelations of Darwin and Spencer. Then at length the scientific spirit spread to the na tion's literature and affected the matter as well as the manner. On prose style it exerted an immediate influence. It insisted with a greater force than Macaulay's example commanded on perspicuity as the main virtue of expression, and effectually discountenanced whatever was subtle obscure or deliberately affected. One scientific writer, Thomas Henry Huxley, who championed and developed the Darwinian doc trine, lived on till 1895. Huxley was gifted with an exceptional clarity of thought and ex pression, and his range of interest in current affairs secured for his writings a wide general audience. Huxley's labors may be regarded as an efficient agent in the national development of plain-speaking prose.
As far as the new scientific spirit affected pure literature, it may be said to have exerted a hampering effect on imaginative effort. Both George Eliot and Tennyson in their later work showed proclivities to philosophic or scientific speculation, which encumbered their imaginative deliverances with scientific terminology. Till the end of the epoch scientific or philosophic speculation inclined to divide the allegiance of men who were endowed with poetic genius and to dissipate their energies. William Morris, whose poetic gifts enabled him to conquer rich fields of pure romance, devoted most of his energy of his late life to developing theories of social regeneration which had their root in current scientific and philosophic inquiry.
Not that the scientific tendencies of the cen tury went forward without check. Religion at times called literature to her aid in order to rally her forces for conflict with science. A specially vigorous attempt was made in reli gious circles by the Oxford movement, of which John Henry Newman (1801-90) was the chief hterary leader, to stem at the outset the tide of the scientific advance. Newman was a
great man of letters whose imaginative powers were combined with great delicacy of style in both poetry and prose. He made contributions of lasting value to the literature of the century. But his reactionary efforts failed to restrain the scientific and philosophic• impulse of his era, if they did not by their open definance of scientific progress consolidate the champions of free sci entific speculation, and accelerate their victori ous march. An endeavor to effect, on more pacific lines, a compromise between the oppos ing forces of science and of the imaginative sen timent of religion was made by leaders of an other school of thought which was known as the Broad-Church. That school of thought had no greater sympathy with Newman's unbending conservatism than with the revolutionary inde pendence of scientific and philosophic inquiry. The Broad-Church leaders, Frederick D. Maurice and Charles Kingsley, were ready and voluminous writers. But their theological or philosophic position was logically unsound, and they failed permanently to affect the trend of contemporary thought, which finally accepted the scientific sway beyond risk of relapse.
It was in the field of history, of all depart ments of literature, that the scientific spirit most resolutely planted its standard. Workers in history grew in number as the century closed. But only one English historian of the period de liberately persisted in the literary tradition, which Carlyle and Macaulay had dignified. James Anthony Froude, who died in 1894, alone practised history as a branch of great literature. In his historical work he gave free play to a natural gift of style and a sense of the pic turesque. He treated accuracy of detail or judi cial impartiality as comparatively of small ac count. For the time being, Froude is the last representative of the great literary school of historians.
It was in the middle of the century that the scientific spirit invaded the province of history and developed a new view of its aims. Facts were to be accumulated and arranged so as to illustrate and explain the evolution of civil ized progress. The scientific method of historical inquiry was first put in practise by Henry Thomas Buckle (1821-62), whose unfinished 'History of Civilization' excited great public interest. The first volume appeared in 1857, the second and last in 1861.
The substantive value of Buckle's labors proved less than he or his admirers anticipated. The field of observation, which he sought to survey, proved too wide for any one man's capacity. His method depended for its success on mastery of minute detail touching every de partment of human endeavor. The quest of omniscience proved fatal. Many of the general izations, in which Buckle's scheme compelled him to take refuge, were either disputable or were confuted by more specialized research. But though Buckle's historical work failed long to sustain its authority, its influence was perma nent. It encouraged the application of scientific method to historical investigation. It raised the standard of historical accuracy. It promoted specialized research. It encouraged concentra tion of industry in narrow fields of historical inquiry.