RESULTS AND LIMITS OF SCIENTIFIC METHOD. 459 



posed to lay the foundations of the science of history. 

 The late Mr. Buckle undertook to write the History of 

 Civilisation in England/ and showed how the character 

 of a nation could be explained by the nature of the 

 climate and the fertility of the soil. He omitted to 

 explain the contrast between the ancient Greek nation 

 and the present one; either there must have been an 

 extraordinary revolution in the climate and the soil, or 

 some more complex causes must be imagined to have 

 come into operation. Auguste Comte detected some very 

 fundamental and simple laws of development through 

 which nations pass. There are always three phases of 

 intellectual condition, the theological, the metaphysical, 

 and the positive; and applying this general law of 

 progress to concrete cases, Comte was enabled to predict 

 that in the hierarchy of European nations, Spain would 

 necessarily hold the highest place. Such are the paro 

 dies of science offered to us by the so-called positive 

 philosophers. 



A science of history in the true sense of the term is 

 an absurd notion. A nation is not a mere sum of in 

 dividuals whom we can treat by the method of averages ; 

 it is an organic whole, held together by ties of infinite 

 complexity. Each individual acts and re-acts upon his 

 own smaller or greater circle of friends, and those who 

 acquire a public position, exert an influence on much 

 larger sections of the nation. There will always be a 

 few great leaders of exceptional genius or opportunities, 

 the unaccountable phases of whose opinions and incli 

 nations sway the whole body, even when they are least 

 aware of it. From time to time arise critical positions, 

 battles, delicate negotiations, internal disturbances, in 

 which the slightest incidents may profoundly change 

 the course of history. A rainy day may hinder a forced 

 inarch, and change the course of a campaign ; a few in- 



