'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 which comprise _History_ in the ordinary acceptation of the word.