536 Darwinism and History 
of the genetic process is an independent interest. For the purpose 
of the reconstruction, sociology, as well as physical geography, 
biology, psychology, is necessary ; the sociologist and the historian 
play into each other’s hands; but the object of the former is to 
establish generalisations ; the aim of the latter is to trace in detail 
a singular causal sequence. 
14. The success of the evolutional theory helped to discredit the 
assumption or at least the invocation of transcendent causes. Philo- 
sophically of course it is compatible with theism, but historians have 
for the most part desisted from invoking the naive conception of a 
“god in history” to explain historical movements. A historian may 
be a theist; but, so far as his work is concerned, this particular belief 
is otiose. Otherwise indeed (as was remarked above) history could 
not be a science ; for with a deus ex machina who can be brought on 
the stage to solve difficulties scientific treatment is a farce. The 
transcendent element had appeared in a more subtle form through the 
influence of German philosophy. I noticed how Ranke is prone to 
refer to ideas as if they were transcendent existences manifesting 
themselves in the successive movements of history. It is intelligible 
to speak of certain ideas as controlling, in a given period—for 
instance, the idea of nationality; but from the scientific point of 
view, such ideas have no existence outside the minds of individuals 
and are purely psychical forces; and a historical “idea,” if it does not 
exist in this form, is merely a way of expressing a synthesis of the 
historian himself. 
15. From the more general influence of Darwinism on the place 
of history in the system of human knowledge, we may turn to the 
influence of the principles and methods by which Darwin explained 
development. It had been recognised even by ancient writers (such 
as Aristotle and Polybius) that physical circumstances (geography, 
climate) were factors conditioning the character and history of a race 
or society. In the sixteenth century Bodin emphasised these factors, 
and many subsequent writers took them into account. The investiga- 
tions of Darwin, which brought them into the foreground, naturally 
promoted attempts to discover in them the chief key to the growth 
of civilisation. Comte had expressly denounced the notion that the 
biological methods of Lamarck could be applied to social man. 
Buckle had taken account of natural influences, but had relegated 
them to a secondary plane, compared with psychological factors. 
But the Darwinian theory made it tempting to explain the develop- 
ment of civilisation in terms of “adaptation to environment,” “struggle 
for existence,” “natural selection,” “survival of the fittest,” etc.1 
; * Recently O. Seeck has applied these principles to the decline of Graeco-Roman 
civilisation in his Untergang der antiken Welt, 2 vols., Berlin, 1895, 1901. 
