106 ADAPTATION AND PROGRESS 
clusions, differ greatly from those of Spencer, being more like 
those of Comte, but most of all like those of Quételet 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 underlying causes with 
laws of manifestation. From this he concludes that free will, as 
usually interpreted, is an illusion.t In this he goes further than 
Quételet who grants arbitrary freedom within certain limits, a 
theory illustrated by M. Block as follows: ‘ L’homme est libre 
mais ’humanité suit sa propre voie; de sorte que l’individu se 
trouve comme le voyageur sur le bateau 4 vapeur; il peut se 
promener librement sur le pont 4 la condition de ne pas géner 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 
1 History of Civilization, pp. 17 £. 2 Traité de Statistique, p. 143. 
