244 



THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



tern the doctrine of evolution is preeminent. 

 In Spencer's mind evolution is not merely a 

 principle in biology, but extends on the one 

 hand to inorganic Nature, and on the other 

 hand to the domain of psychology and so- 

 ciology. And here we take occasion to re- 

 mind the reader that, independently of the 

 stimulus given to scientific thought by Dar- 

 win, Mr. Spencer early recognized the im- 

 portance of the law of evolution, to which 

 from the first he gave very wide scope, and 

 which he has illustrated with a multitude 

 of original ideas. 1 ' 



"A detailed criticism of the 'First Prin- 

 ciples ' would necessarily require a book for 

 itself, more especially because the German 

 reader, from the very nature of his philo- 

 sophical training, will enter on the study of 

 the most general laws of being, the demon- 

 stration of which is the aim of the present 

 work, with prepossessions different from 

 those of the English author. Perhaps in 

 the philosophical literature of recent times 

 there is no English work which bears the 

 national stamp so visibly as does Spencer's. 

 From this point of view alone, to say nothing 

 of the many pregnant thoughts it contains, 

 it well deserves the attention of German 

 readers. John Stuart Mill, in the philosoph- 

 ical direction of his mind, came too much 

 under the influence of the French, particu- 

 larly of Comte. Spencer's mind is, no 

 doubt, more original than Mill's, and more 

 free from foreign influences, though inferior 

 in the splendor of external form. In all the 

 philosophical speculations of Spencer we 

 plainly see that practical sense which makes 

 its way through the most difficult problems 

 by the shortest route." 



" Finally, though the German reader will 

 find in these 'Bases of Philosophy' much 

 that he will object to, and though on the 

 capital points of the system he will dissent 

 from the author oftener than he agrees with 

 him, nevertheless he will not lay the book 

 aside without having received many a valu- 

 able suggestion. Indeed, it may be truly 

 said of works on philosophy, that we learn 

 more from those which arouse our opposi- 

 tion than from those which merely echo our 

 own opinions," 



TIIE liVMFORD MEDALS. 



The Rumford gold medal of the 

 American Academy of Arts and Sci- 

 ences, founded to commemorate impor- 

 tant contributions toward our knowl- 

 edge of heat and light, has just been 



granted to Dr. John William Draper, 

 of New York. This is a distinguished 

 tribute to the scientific labors of our 

 eminent physicist and chemist, and the 

 Academy has honored itself in the 

 award. Yet, those who know how 

 early and eminent were Dr. Draper's 

 original contributions to the chemistry 

 of light, will be tempted to ask why 

 this distinction was not accorded by 

 the Academy to Dr. Draper a genera- 

 tion ago. As reminiscences of Count 

 Rumford are being revived just now, 

 it will be interesting to glance at the 

 history of his medals, which have at- 

 tained such celebrity in the scientific 

 world. 



Deeply impressed with the impor- 

 tance of extending the knowledge of 

 heat and light, to which he had de- 

 voted himself with great assiduity and 

 success, Count Rumford, in 1796, pre- 

 sented to the Royal Society 1,000, 

 the interest of which was to be spent 

 in striking two medals both in the 

 same die, one of gold and one of silver, 

 worth the interest of the donation for 

 two years, and to be given biennially 

 for the most important discovery or 

 improvement relating to heat and light 

 that should have been made during the 

 preceding two years in any part of Eu- 

 rope. The trust was accepted and the 

 medals designed. The first award was 

 to Rumford himself in 1802. In 1804 

 John Leslie received the Rumford med- 

 als. The honor then passed, in 1806, 

 to Murdock ; in 1810 to Malus ; in 1814 

 to Dr. Wells; in 1816 to Humphry 

 Davy ; in 1818 to David Brewster; in 

 1824 to Fresnel ; in 1834 to Melloni ; 

 in 1838 to J. D. Forbes; in 1840 to 

 Biot ; in 1842 to Fox-Talbot ; in 1846 

 to Faraday ; in 1848 to Regnanlt ; in 

 1850 to Arago ; in 1852 to Stokes; in 

 1854 to Arnott; in 1856 to Pasteur; 

 in 1858 to Jamin ; in 1860 to Clerk- 

 Maxwell ; in 1862 to Kirchhoff; in 

 1864 to Tyndall; in 1866 to Fizeau ; in 

 1868 to Balfour Stewart. 



At the same time Count Rumford 

 made a corresponding donation to the 



