284 DARWINIANA. 



only in a single instance, so far as we know, have they 

 handled the same topic ; and in this the more penetrat- 

 ing insight of the younger naturalist into an interest- 

 ing general problem may be appealed to in justification 

 of a comparison which some will deem presumptuous. 

 Ee this as it may, there will probably be little dissent 

 from the opinion that the characteristic trait common 

 to the two is an unrivaled scientific sagacity. In this 

 these two naturalists seem to us, each in his way, pre- 

 eminent. There is a characteristic likeness, too — ^un- 

 derlying much difierence — in their admirable manner 

 of dealing with facts closely, and at first hand, without 

 the interposition of the formal laws, vague ideal con- 

 ceptions, or " glittering generalities " which some phil- 

 osophical naturalists make large use of. 



A likeness may also be discerned in the way in 

 which the works or contributions of predecessors and 

 contemporaries are referred to. The brief historical 

 summaries prefixed to many of Mr. Brown's papers 

 are models of judicial conscientiousness. And Mr. 

 Darwin's evident delight at discovering that some one 

 else has "said his good things before him," or has 

 been on the verge of uttering them, seemingly equals 

 that of making the discovery himself. It reminds one 

 of Goethe's insisting that his views in morphology 

 must have been held before him and must be some- 

 w^here on record, so obvious did they appear to him. 



Considering the quiet and retired lives led by both 

 these men, and the prominent place they are likely to 

 occupy in the history of science, the contrast between 

 them as to contemporary and popular fame is very re- 

 markable. While. Mr. Brown was looked up to with 

 the greatest reverence by all the learned botanists, he 



