no ADAPTATION AND PROGRESS 



unquestionably, nothing to be found in the world which has 

 undergone so little change as those great dogmas of which moral 

 systems are composed." 



(4) In discussing the influence of religion, literature and 

 government on social progress, we are reminded of both Comte 

 and Spencer, for with all three the doctrine of relativity is promi- 

 nent, that is, religion, literature and government are all merely 

 expressions of the life of society and relative to the degree of 

 civilization possessed. Buckle, with Spencer, believed that the 

 function of government should be purely negative-regulative, — 

 to use Spencer's phrase, — and in this differed from Comte with 

 his paternalism. Buckle failed utterly to appreciate the in- 

 spirational value of religion, literature and moral ideals and 

 failed to evaluate correctly the more positive, constructive func- 

 tions of government that have proven so essential to social well- 

 being. 



(5) His conception of law and his confusion of correlation with 

 cause lead to serious fallacies in his argmnent. These errors are 

 due to his infatuation with the statistical method without appre- 

 ciating its limitations. His conception of law is brought out in a 

 footnote where he quotes Dugald Stewart with approval as. 

 follows: "A law of nature being merely a generalization of 

 relations, and having no existence except in the mind, is essen- 

 tially intangible; and, therefore, however small the law may be, 

 it can never admit of exceptions, though its operation may admit. 

 of innimaerable exceptions." ^ The change in marriage rates 

 corresponding to the rise and fall in the price of corn illustrates 

 Buckle's conception of law. 



In his investigation of the effects of environment on social con- 

 ditions, again, he shows merely correlations but not proximate 

 causes.2 Granted that in Egypt with cheap food supply we have 

 the early rise of tyrants and slaves, if we start with Buckle's 

 assumption of natural equality, why do some become aristocrats 

 rather than others ? The true solution would seem to be either 

 in difference of native ability, or priority in securing possession of 



* History of Civilization, p. 28. 



2 For excellent criticisms see Fiske, Cosmic Philosophy^ ii, pp. 200 f. 



