I06 ADAPTATION AND PROGRESS 



elusions, differ greatly from those of Spencer, being more like 

 those of Comte, but most of all like those of Quetelet whom he 

 follows closely in many places. 



Comte made use of history to illustrate his law of the three 

 stages as the foundation of his Philosophy and Polity, Buckle 

 made use of history to prove that a science of history was possible 

 and especially to establish his theory that social progress was due. 

 entirely to increase of knowledge. 



He shows first, by appeal to statistics, that there is regularity 

 in the recurrence of such social phenomena as deaths, marriages, 

 etc., demonstrating thus that there are underl3dng causes with 

 laws of manifestation. From this he concludes that free will, as 

 usually interpreted, is an illusion.^ In this he goes further than 

 Quetelet who grants arbitrary freedom within certain limits, a 

 theory illustrated by M. Block as follows: " L'homme est libre 

 mais rhumanite suit sa propre voie; de sorte que Tindividu se 

 trouve comme le voyageur sur le bateau a vapeur; il pent se 

 promener librement sur le pont a la condition de ne pas gener les 

 manoeuvres des marins." ^ 



He turns next to a study of the causes of the rise and progress 

 of civilization, making use of the statistical method in a rough, 

 loose way, and finds that there are two fundamental factors, the 

 external or nature, and the internal, or mind. The elements of 

 the former are climate, food, soil and the general aspects of 

 nature; those of the latter, the intellect and moral nature. The 

 physical organism is practically ignored, and with it the influence 

 of heredity, stressed so greatly by some later writers. Nor was 

 this due to ignorance of the biological conclusions of his day 

 including the Origin of Species, Numerous citations in footnotes 

 show he was acquainted with the leading biological writings of 

 his time. He was intimate with Spencer and in a letter refers to 

 Darwin's Origin of Species. After hearing the evidence pro 

 and con he decides that " the original distinctions of race are 

 altogether hypothetical." " We have no decisive ground," he 

 holds, " for saying that the moral and intellectual faculties in man 

 are likely to be greater in an infant born in the most civilized part 



' History of Civilization, pp. 17 f. * Traits de Statistique, p. 143. 



