all that enormous aggregate of appliances by which these have severally been produced, detonating powder included, we should not regard his interpretation as very rational. But it would fairly compare in rationality with this interpretation of social phenomena which, dwelling on the important changes which the great man works, ignores that immense preexisting supply of latent power which he unlocks, and that immeasurable accumulation of antecedents to which both he and this power are due.
Recognizing what truth there is in the great-man theory of history, we may say that, if limited to early societies, the histories of which are histories of little else than endeavors to destroy or subjugate one another, it approximately expresses the fact in representing the capable leader as all-important; though even here it leaves out of sight too much the number and the quality of his followers. But its immense error lies in the assumption that what was once true is true forever; and that a relation of ruler and ruled which was possible and good at one time is possible and good for all time. Just as fast as this predatory activity of early tribes diminishes, just as fast as larger aggregates are formed by conquest or otherwise, just as fast as war ceases to be the business of the whole male population, so fast do societies begin to develop, to show traces of structures and functions not before possible, to acquire increasing complexity along with increasing size, to give origin to new institutions, new activities, new ideas, sentiments, and habits: all of which unobtrusively make their appearance without the thought of any king or legislator. And if you wish to understand these phenomena of social evolution, you will not do it though you should read yourself blind over the biographies of all the great rulers on record, down to Frederick the Greedy and Napoleon the Treacherous.
In addition to that passive denial of a Social Science implied by these two allied doctrines, one or other of which is held by nine men out of ten, there comes from a few an active denial of it—either entire or partial. Reasons are given for the belief that no such thing is possible. The essential invalidity of these reasons can be shown only after the essential nature of Social Science, overlooked by those who make them, has been pointed out; and to point this out here would be to forestall the argument. Some minor criticisms, may, however, fitly precede the major criticism. Let us consider first the positions taken up by Mr. Froude:
"When natural causes are liable to be set aside and neutralized by what is called volition, the word Science is out of place. If it is free to a man to choose what he will do or not do, there is no adequate science of him. If there is a science of him, there is no free choice, and the praise or blame with which we regard one another is impertinent and out of place."[1]
- ↑ "Short Studies on Great Subjects," vol. L, p. 11.
