In so far as the present chapter has dealt with the claims of Comte to be regarded as the founder of Sociology, I believe it is sufficiently proved that these claims cannot be sustained, though in many ways he did more than anyone else to prepare the way for such an achievement. If a man can ever be properly said to create or found a science, it is only when he discovers some fundamental principle which underlies the phenomena with which the science has to deal, and which thus serves to organize into a coherent ratiocinative body of knowledge that which has hitherto been an incoherent empirical body of knowledge. It was in this way that Newton may be said to have created a science of celestial dynamics, and that Bichat is sometimes, and more loosely, said to have been the founder of modern biology. In no such sense can Comte be said to have created sociology, Standing on the vantage-ground of contemporary science, which enables us to discern in outline the law of progress, we can see not only that Comte was far from detecting that law, but that, with the limited appliances at his command, he could not Nevertheless hus have been expected to discover it.

contributions to sociology were exceedingly brilliant and valuable, and he did perhaps all that the greatest thinker could have done forty years ago. He arrived at a double generalization of the phenomena of intellectual and material progress, as wide as could then be reached by umuded historical induction; and he verified this double generaliza tion by an elaborate survey of ancient and modem history, which, even had he written nothing else, would alone suffice to make his name immortal. It entitles him, I think, to be ranked first among those sociologists who have proceeded a somewhat higher solely on the historical method, on plane, perhaps, than Vico or Montesquieu, Turgot or Con dorcet. That generalization, in both its branches, and in so far as it is correct, we have here seen to be a corollary from the fundamental law of social evolution obtained in the pro

ceding chapter. We have seen that the continuous adaptation, both moral and intellectual, of the community to its environment, involves, as necessary concomitants, both the progressive deanthropomorphization of men's conceptions of Cause, and the gradual change from military to industrial habits of life. And the harmony between the results thus obtained by pursuing two wholly independent lines of inquiry, adds fresh support both to the fundamental law and to its historic corollaries. In the very act of proving that Comte did not achieve the whole, we do but place what he did achieve upon a deeper and firmer basis.

CHAPTER XX.

CONDITIONS OF PROGRESS.

At the beginning of the chapter on the Evolution of Society we remarked upon the error of those metaphysical writers who have gone so far as to ascribe progressiveness to an occult tendency inherent in human nature. It need not take a very long survey of human societies, past and present, to assure us that beyond a certain point stagnation has been the rule and progress the exception. Over a large part of the earth's surface the slow progress painfully achieved during thousands of prehistoric ages has stopped short with the savage state, as exemplified by those African, Polynesian, and American tribes which can neither work out a civilization for themselves, nor appropriate the civilization of higher races with whom they are brought into contact. Half the human race, having surmounted savagery, have been arrested in an immobile type of civilization, as in China, in ancient Egypt, and in the East generally. It is only in the Aryan and some of the Semitic races, together with the Hungarians and other Finnic tribęs subjected to Aryan influences, that we can find evidences of a persistent tendency to progress. And that there is no inherent race-tendency at work in this is shown by the fact that some of the Aryans, as the Hindus and Persians, are among the most unprogressive of men.

It

becomes apparent, therefore, that the progress of the European Aryans, and of such other races as have from time to time arisen from an immobile condition, can have been due only to a concurrence of favourable circumstances. In order to complete our outline-sketch of the Evolution of Society, we must consider some of these circumstances, and thus, so far as possible, redeem the promise which was implied at the beginning of the discussion. By pointing out some of the conditions essential to progress in civilization, we must endeavour to throw a glimmer of light upon the fact that so small a portion of the human race has attained to permanent progressiveness. A faint glimmer of enlightenment is indeed the most we can hope for, and even this will perhaps be thought to have been obtained by a mere restatement of the problem in other words. Nevertheless, in other departments of study as well as in algebra, much good is often done by reducing a problem from one form of expression to another. For if such a reduction ends in classifying the problem, the first and most important step is taken toward a solution. Let us deal in this way with the problem before us, which is one of the most complex and difficult that the history of the world presents.

It will be obvious to everyone that there is a close kinship between this question in sociology and the biological question why certain species remain unchanged through countless ages. The latter fact has been urged as an obstacle in the way of the development theory, and has been felt to be such by Dr. Bastian, who has endeavoured to dispose of it by an extraordinary application of his favourite theories of archebiosis and heterogenesis.1 But indeed those who urge this fact as an obstacle, and those who seek to explain it away, show that they have not thoroughly comprehended the Doctrine of Evolution. For example, it is not implied in the general law of evolution, as above expounded in

1 Bastian, Beginnings of Life, vol. ii. pp. 584-640.

Chapter IV., that wherever the integration of matter and concomitant dissipation of motion are going on, there must always ensue a change from indefinite uniformity to definite multiformity of structure. As has already been shown, such a change can be expected to take place only when a number of specified circumstances concur in forwarding it. So it is one of the peculiar merits of Mr. Darwin's theory of natural selection, that it does not allege an unceasing or ubiquitous alteration of animal and vegetal forms, but includes, in a general way, all cases of persistence of type, as well as all cases of progress or retrogression. One and the same general theory accounts for the fact that, while some species thrive in the struggle for life and acquire new capacities, others dwindle in numbers or deteriorate in structure, while others again maintain themselves unchanged throughout immense periods. Throughout all these cases, the general truth is easily discerned that the total result will depend upon a very complex combination of circumstances: the difficulty is in applying the general truth to the special cases that arise. Probably no naturalist could point out all the specific circumstances which have caused any one race of animals to prevail over another in the struggle for life. Such a task would probably demand a more vast and minute knowledge of the details of the organic world than it is as yet possible for the most unremitting industry, inspired by the highest genius, to acquire. Yet no one doubts the general principle that it is natural selection which determines, not only which races shall prevail, but also which races shall vary and which shall remain unmodified. So in dealing with human societies, in the primitive era with which the present discussion is chiefly concerned, the historic data are insufficient to enable us to ascertain the precise circumstances to which the prevalence and the improvability of certain races are to be attributed. Nevertheless we can here, too, point out sundry general