CHAP, vni EVOLUTION IN SPENCER 85 



matter) passing into material complexity (universes) ; 

 biological simplicity (the cell) passing into biological 

 complexity (the multicellular organism) ; psychological 

 simplicity (the presentation or impression or psychical 

 " shock ") passing into psychological complexity 

 (mind) ; sociological simplicity (the tribe of kins- 

 folk) passing into sociological complexity (through 

 militarism to industrialism, the final non-coercive 

 order). From the formula of " growing complexity '' 

 no one could have deduced, or can deduce, organisation, 

 consciousness, history. Again, take Mr. Spencer's sub- 

 divisions in any one of the higher sciences. It is well 

 to review the historical phenomena of human society 

 under the heads of domestic, political, ceremonial, and 

 ecclesiastical institutions. These headings are drawn 

 from knowledge of the special facts to be dealt with. 

 Can any one say that the abstract formula of growing 

 complexity suggests these subdivisions ? Is any light 

 thrown upon them by speaking of " aggregations of 

 matter" or "parallel redistributions of contained 

 motion " ? The great German idealistic philosophies 

 may claim our faith, or they may find us no better 

 than doubting Thomases, but at least we owe them 

 this admission, they have tried to exhibit the world 

 we know as the necessary realisation of one great prin- 

 ciple in stage after stage. Mr. Spencer has not been 

 bold enough or rash enough to attempt this. But, 

 without doing it, he claims all the advantage of having 

 done it, and of having crowned his efforts with success. 

 If we are able to distinguish words from things, we 

 shall refuse to admit that so great a distinction can be 

 so cheaply earned. 



