The httcrnationcd Scientific Series. 291 



somely in the Fortnightly, which I send.* I advertised for 

 a German student of history to undertake a part of his 



1871, I used the name "Cosmic Philosophy" to designate Mr. Spencer's 

 system, and this name grew in favour with me as I used it in various con- 

 nections. I first made a formal and public use of it in a circular printed 

 in the autumn of 1871. As soon as Spencer saw this circular he adopted 

 the epithet " Synthetic," as Youmans relates above. When I was in Lon- 

 don in 1873, and on the point of publishing my Outlines of Cosmic Phi- 

 losophy, I had a friendly discussion with Spencer as to the propriety 

 of baptizing his system of philosophy by a title different from the one 

 which he had himself given it. Advice was sought from Lewes and Hux- 

 ley, Lewes simply fell back upon his old position, that all scientific phi- 

 losophy ought to be called " positive," and so he condemned both our 

 names. Huxley, on the other hand, suggested that since the name " Syn- 

 thetic " had been offered to the public, the name " Cosmic '' had better be 

 offered also, and let time decide between them — let the fittest survive. 

 Accordingly I adhered to the name " Cosmic," stating at the same time in 

 my preface that Spencer did not approve the name. His objection to 

 " Cosmic " was the same as my objection to " Synthetic," viz., that it was 

 not a distinctive name. It seems to me now that both objections were 

 sound, and fatal ! I do not believe that either will survive. The dis- 

 tinctive feature of Spencer's system is that it is " Evolution Philosophy." 

 That would be a somewhat cumbrous name, but I dare say that if in some 

 way or other the word " evolution " could from the start have been wrought 

 into Mr. Spencer's title-pages, it might have prevented a vast amount of 

 popular misapprehension. It would early have helped to associate the 

 doctrine of evolution with the name of its true founder more closely than 

 with Mr. Darwin, whose discoveries were concerned simply with one de- 

 partment of the subject. "Evolutionism" and "Spencerism" are synony- 

 mous terms ; " evolutionism " and " Darwinism " are not, as is proved by 

 the fact that a man may be an enthusiastic Darwinian and still scout at 

 the doctrine of evolution as a metaphysical chimera ; such was the case 

 with the late Chauncey Wright. 



As for displacing the ridiculous epithet " positive," I do not believe 

 that either " synthetic " or " cosmic " was ever worth a groat. The stupid 

 old public (begging its pardon, nothing personal intended !) would prob- 



* See article " Specialized Administration " in Spencer's Essays, Vol. 

 Ill, a reply to " Administrative Nihilism," in Huxley's Critiques and 

 Addresses. 



