'I notice in your ... article on 'Buckle, Draper, and a Science of
History,' one inaccuracy. You say: 'History, while it is the source
whence the proof of his (Comte's) fundamental positions is drawn,
finds no place in his scientific schedule.' In the positive
Hierarchy of Science History _is_ included: it constitutes the
Dynamic Branch of Sociology. As in the Science of Life, Anatomy
constitutes Biological Statics and Physiology Biological Dynamics,
in Sociology we have Social Statics--the Theory of Order, Social
Dynamics--the Theory of Progress = the Philosophy (Science) of
History.'

The kindly criticism of the writer arises from that fruitful source of
misunderstanding--a wrong apprehension of terms.

History, as it has been hitherto written, has been--_First_, a narration
of the supposed facts of the past, without any especial attempt to
investigate the proximate causes of national characteristics or mundane
progression. _Secondly_, an account of the life and vicissitudes of
states and communities, accompanied with an inquiry into the proximate
causes of national peculiarities. These two Branches of Investigation
have been included under the common appellation of _History_, when they
related to a special portion of the globe; and of _General_ or
_Universal History_ when, theoretically at least, the whole earth was
under consideration. _Thirdly_, the examination of the past progress of
the Race, with a view to the discovery of the fundamental Cause or
Causes which control or direct the Evolutions of Time, or the Principles
in accordance with which nations and civilizations have developed. This
Department is denominated _The Philosophy of History_. From it are
excluded all those investigations of an individual or national character