1。SeeMemoirbyMrsAustinprefixedtotheeditionofhisLectures，editedbyMrR。Campbell1869。
2。Jurisprudence，p。701。
3。ForAustin’sadmirationofHobbesseeespeciallythelongnoteinJurisprudence，p。186，etc。
4。Jurisprudence，p。238。
5。Ibid。p。791。
6。Jurisprudence，p。336。
7。Cp。Mill’sDissertations，iii，237，etc。
8。Jurisprudence，p。330。
9。Jurisprudence，p。303。AustinmakescertainqualificationswhichIneednotnotice。
10。AustinrefershisreaderstoBrown’sessayon’CauseandEffect’；andtakesBrowntohaveproved’beyondcontroversy’thatthefacultycalledthe’will’isjustnothingatall——
Jurisprudence，pp。424-25。
11。MilltouchesthispointcharacteristicallyinhisreviewofAustin，butdoesnotdiscussthevalidityofthelogic。
12。EdinburghReview，October，1861。
13。Mill’sDissertations，iii，206-74，fromEdin。Rev。ofOct。
1863。
14。ForLewisseeespeciallytheveryinterestingarticleinBagehot’sWorksbyForrestMorgan，1891，iii，222-68。HischiefpoliticaltreatiseisATreatiseonMethods’ofReasoningandObservationinPolitics1852。
15。MethodsofObservation，etc。，i，448。
16。Ibid，i。，357。
17。Ibid。，ii，356。
18。Ibid。，ii。370。
19。MrsGrote’sPersonalHistoryofGeorgeGroteisneitheradequatenorquireaccurate。CompareaveryusefullifebyG。
CroomRobertsoninDictionaryofNationalBiography，andthearticleintheEncyclopaediaBritannicabyWilliamSmith。
20。Bain’sJ。S。Mill，p。83。
21。MrsGrote’sPhilosophicalRadicalsof18321866，p。28。
22。IntroductiontotheStudyofHistoryEnglishTranslation，1898，p。310。
23。Buckle’sLife，byAlfredHenryHuth，appearedin1880。Ihavealsotocallattentiontotheveryableandlearnedwork，BuckleandhisCritics，byJohnMackinnonRobertson1895。MrRobertsonpassesaseverejudgmentuponacriticismofBucklewhichI
contributedtotheFortnightlyReviewforMay1880，andtakestheopportunityofpointingoutsomeofmymanifoldshortcomings。
Thoughhistoneisnotsuchastomakeanapologyeasy，Imuststatemypositionfrankly。MrRobertsonpointsoutthemeasurelessinferiorityofabookofmineupontheeighteenthcenturytoBuckle’sgreatperformance。Hethinks，too，thatmyattackwas’unchivalrous’consideringthepatheticcircumstancesofBuckle’sdeath，andthefactthathiswork’seemedtobesufficientlydiscreditedalready。’NowIcanquiteagreeupononepoint。ItneverenteredbyheadtocomparemyownabilitieswithBuckle’s。Icouldnotmorehaverivalledhishistorythanhaveencounteredhimatchess。Itisimpossibletospeakmorestrongly。Why，then，didIpresumetocriticise？BecauseIwasnotgivingmyownunaidedopinion。Ihadbeeninterestedbyaproblem。LikeallyoungmenofmytimeIhadbeenimpressedbythecontroversialstormwhichfollowedthepublicationofBuckle’sbook，andbythatwhichsoonafterwardswasrousedbythepublicationofDarwin’sOriginofSpecies。Manyyearslater，whenBuckle’sLifeappeared，Iwasstruckbyacontrast。Darwin’sspeculationshadaffectedeverydepartmentofthought，andhisinfluencewasstillspreading。Buckle’s，ontheotherhand，hadlostmuchoftheirinterest——whatwasthereason？Briefly，asI
thought，andasIstillthink，thatDarwinhadsuppliedafruitfulsuggestionsuitedtothegeneralmovementofthought；
andthatBuckle，forwantofit，hadstruckintoawrongpath。I
triedinmyarticletopointoutthenatureofhiserror。MrRobertson’sbookconfirmsthetruthofmyimpressionastofacts。
HadBucklecontinuedtointeresttheleadersofthought，MrRobertsonwouldnothavegivensoprominentapositiontoanoldreviewarticleneverrepublished，andwhich，sofarasIknow，hadneverattractedanyparticularattention。MrRobertson’selaboratesurveyofrecentsociologyshowsthatwhilesomedistinguishedwritersmoreorlesscoincidewithBuckle，theyscarcelyrecogniseanyindebtedness。Thatis，Ithink，becausetherewaslittletorecognise。Buckle，inshort，asitappearedtome，hadnotproducedaneffectatallcomparabletothoseproducedbyDarwinorbyMrHerbertSpencer；andIcannotthinkthatMrRobertsonaccountsforthefact。Myownexplanationmayofcoursehavebeenwrong；butIdonotseethattherewasanything’unchivalrous’intryingtoexplainwhyamanofgeniushasnotproducedaneffectproportionatetohispowers。NorcanI
seethatBuckle’spatheticdeathmadeitnecessaryformetomodifymylanguageindiscussinghisphilosophy。Uponre-readingmyarticleIrecognisefaultswhichmaypartlyjustifyMrRobertson’sresentment。Ishouldcertainlyhaveavoidedanythingsavouringofcontempt。IdidrecogniseBuckle’sextraordinarypowers，butIforgotclearlytodistinguishcondemnationofhisopinionsfromdepreciationofthepowerdisplayed。Substantiallymyviewisnotchanged。
24。Civilisation，i。49。Notethe’wagefund’inthenextpage。
25。Ibid。i。58。
26。Civilisation，p。69。
27。MrRobertsonholdsthatBuckle’s’generalisation’isnot，asI’strangely’representit，an’arbitraryapplicationoftheRicardianlawofrenttothesocietyofAncientIndia，butconstitutesanelevationofRicardo’sotherlawofthesubsistenceoflabourintoabroadhistoricprinciple。’Hepointsout，too，thatBucklesupposedapreviousstageofdevelopment，andthinksthathehadappreciatedJones’scorrectionofRicardo，inregardtoIndianrent。BuckleandhisCritics，pp49，59andseep。138IcanonlysaythatIadheretomystatement。BuckleexpresslyquotesRicardo，andmakestheoriginofcivilisationsdependuponthethreefolddivision。ThatIholdtobeunjustifiable，andtobefalseinfact。the’broadhistoricalprinciple’seemstobesimplythefactthatgreatempiresrosewherephysicalcondition，including，ofcourse，fertility，werefavourable。Bucklemaydeservecreditfordwellinguponthefact。
Ionlysaythathisexplanationdoesnotexplain，andthatitisimpossibletolaydownasunconditionallytruethatcheapfoodinvolvescheapwages。Ifoneistohaveatheory，whyshouldwenotsaythatempiresweremadebyconquerersinsteadofbycapitalists？
28。Civilisation，i。73。
29。Ibid。i。222。
30。Buckle，Imaynotice，thinksBrown’sessayuponCausationoneofthegreatestworksofthecenturyandastatementoftheprinciples，derivedultimatelyfromHume，uponwhichthe’bestinquirersintothesematterstaketheirstand。’Civilisation，ii。460n。This，Itakeit，explainshistendencytotakeasimplestatementoffactfora’law’。ThemostcuriousinstanceoftheconfusionistheremarkCivilisation，i。155thatphysiologistshaveneverbeenabletodiscoverthecauseoftheequalityofthenumberofmaleandfemalebirths。Statisticianshavenowansweredthequestionbyshowingthattheproportionis20to21。Obviouslytheyhavenotansweredthequestionatall。
thehaveonlyascertainedthefacts。Bucklepartlyadmitsthis；
andyetheseemstothinkthatthestatementsomehowindicatesanewmethodofhistoricalinquiry。
31。Civilisation，i。236。
32。Civilisation，i。342n。
33。Ibid。i。112。
34。NaturalHistoryofReligion，sec。vi。MrRobertsonattacksmeformycriticismsofBuckle’sassertionofthedeductivecharacterofScottishphilosophers。Icannotgointothequestion，butImakeoneremark。HequotesthefirstsentenceofHume’sNaturalHistorytoprovethatHumewasadeistwhenhewroteit，andsaysthatthisisimpliedthroughthewholeessay。
NowHume’smostseriousattackupontheology，theDialogues，waswrittenby1751，thoughposthumouslypublished。TheNaturalHistoryappearedin1757。Thedeisticphrasesobviatedthenecessityforleavingitalsoforposthumouspublication。
35。AcuriousillustrationisgivenbyMrRobertsonp。140。TheJapaneseithasbeensaid，arelesssuperstitiousthantheirneighbours，andyetmoreexposedtoearthquakes。IfBuckle’stheorymeansthatsuperstitionnecessarilyfollowsearthquakes，thefactseemstocontradictthetheory。SoMrRobertsonseemstotakeit，forhegivesanexplanation。TheJapanesedonotsufferfromearthquakesbecausetheybuildslighterhouse。Ifso，earthquakes，itsurelymightbeurged，donotproducesuperstition，butrationalprecaution。If，ontheotherhand，theSpaniardshavenotmodifiestheirarchitecture，thatwouldsurelyprovethattheyhavenotbeenmuchimpressedbyearthquakes。Thecaseseemstometoprovesimplytherashnessofanysuchhastyguesses。Buckle’searlycriticsweremisguidedenoughtodenythefactsalleged，andsogavehimatriumph。
36。Civilisation，i。161。
37。Civilisation，i。37n。
38。MrRobertsonreprovesmefornotgivingthepassageinwhichBucklesaysthatthequestionofhereditaryinfluenceisstillunsettled。ProbablyIshouldhaverecognisedthismoreclearly。I
did，however，saythatBuckleheldthatthesuperiorityofthecivilisedtothebarbarianinfantwas’notproved’。IsaidalsothatIthoughtthatBucklewasjustifiedforhispurposeinneglectingthepossibilityofasuperiority。Hesays，inthepassagequotedabove，thatwehavenorighttoassumesuchachangeasanincreaseofbraincapacity。Itookitthatforanyhistoricalperiodwemayassumeequality。ThebrainofamodernEnglishmanisnotpresumablysuperiortothebrainofanAthenian。Evolutionofthatkindmaybeneglectedbythehistorianofcivilisation。Theevolution，whichIdidtakehimtoneglect，wasthemoralorsocialevolution，whichiscompatiblewithapproximateidentityofthebrainortheinnatefaculties。