172 



HERBERT SPENCER'S " GROWTH:'' 



venture to think he is wrong, and that full and conclusive 

 evidence can be adduced to prove that he is wrong. It is 

 the idea of the close relationship between the lowest living 

 and certain forms of the not-living that has probably led 

 Mr. Spencer to reject the method of inquiry which, as it has 

 always seemed to me was the only one likely to lead to a 

 correct solution of that very difficult problem, the nature of 

 life, which has been regarded of such great importance, and 

 may be almost regarded as the key of the arch upon which 

 philosophy rests. The widely different conclusions deduced 

 by Mr. Herbert Spencer concerning the nature of vitality, 

 as compared with those towards which I have been irresis- 

 tibly drawn, will be, in some measure, explained by the 

 divergence of our views concerning the nature of growth. 



The microscopic fungus, and the highest organisms, 

 grow, just as everything that has life grows. But now we 

 are face to face with a difficulty. Every one admits that the 

 phenomenon of growth is common to all living things, but 

 some, amongst whom must be included Mr. Herbert Spencer, 

 maintain that many non-living things also grow. But living 

 growth and non-living groivth are in their essential nature 

 such very different kinds of growth that the word growth 

 ought not to be used in speaking of both. If used, the 

 adjective by which it is qualified will be found to be of more 

 importance than the substantive growth. As will be ren- 

 dered evident by the following examples, the " growth " of 

 Mr. Herbert Spencer is not growth as it occurs in every 

 living organism, and at some time or other in every part of 

 every living organism. " Crystals grow" says Mr. Spencer. 

 The "fungus-like" (!) accumulation of carbon on the wick 

 of an unsnuffed candle is "growth" The accumulation of 



