OF THE GOOD. 227 



tional and utilitarian positions Sidgwick seems to have 

 criticised, as well as done justice to, two distinct and 

 important lines of ethical thought in this country, 

 which before him appeared to be irreconcilable, the 

 intuitional or personal and the utilitarian or social 

 systems. 



Both Lotze and Sidgwick, consistently with the ei. 



Do not 



limited importance they attach to the historical method sufficiently 



appreciate 



for the solution of fundamental philosophical problems, Evoluti n - 

 do not show in their writings that extreme appreciation 

 of the theory of Evolution, especially in its Darwinian 

 form, which has become popular in Germany as well as 

 in England; both thinkers may therefore be termed 

 pre-evolutionary. Although Lotze lived and wrote for 

 twenty years after the appearance of the ' Origin of 

 Species/ it cannot be said that he did full justice to the 

 philosophical ideas contained in it, or that he realised 

 the important part which these ideas were going to play 

 in modern thought. Sidgwick's main treatise was pub- 

 lished fifteen years after the appearance of Darwin's 

 work, but it was only in preparing the second edition 

 that he became aware of not having taken sufficient 

 note of the importance of the theory of Evolution. We 

 therefore look in vain for a full statement and adequate 

 criticism of the Ethics of Evolution either in Lotze or in 

 Sidgwick. So far as the former is concerned, the very 

 fact that he never dealt adequately either with the 

 ethical problem in detail, or with the most recent version 

 of ethics, explains to a great extent why his writings 

 have fallen temporarily into the background and behind 

 the interests of the age. On the other side, Sidgwick's 



