ON THE MORPHOLOGICAL VIKW OF NATUKE. 205 



It' we try to specify a little iiiuiv closely tiie agencies 

 iuul interests that were at work in bringing about this 

 \('ry iiuirked change, which, like every change of the 

 kind, has been retiected 1)\ the altered vocaVmlary of 

 our languages, we come upon two distinct influences — 



adopted, the present wurk uiily re- 

 tains that one principle which, in 

 >iime form or other, appears in 

 rvery attempt towards classitica- 

 lion — the difference between the 

 abstract and the concrete or actual. 

 The two original philosophical sys- 

 tems which France and England 

 in the course of the century 

 have produced, the positivist phil- 

 osophy of Conite and the j)hil- 

 ■ i-.)|ihy of evolution of Herbert 

 Spencer, have both dealt elabor- 

 ately with the problem of the 

 1 l,i"iticatiou of the sciences. In 

 ilii^ they betray their descent from 

 the philosophy of Bacon and their 

 [Tactical tendencies. It is mainly 

 in the interests of teaching that 

 the division of the sciences is of 

 importance ; and so here it has 

 proved to be indispenfcable, but 

 also, not unfrequently, narrowing 

 :uul harmful. German philoso- 

 phers, who have generally been 

 more influenced by the traditions 

 ipf Descartes, Spinoza, and Leibniz, 

 have attached less importance to 

 the rigid divisions. The result 

 has been that in Germany, more 

 tl\an in any other country, those 

 modern sciences have grown up 

 which cultivate the borderland 

 tliat separates the existing well- 

 niarkcd jirovinces whicii arc; aititi- 

 ijally kept up by the older chairs 

 at the universities. Examples of 

 tliis are the new sciences of jdiysio- 

 I'l'^'inal psychology and of physical 

 rlicinistry, both brilliantly and for 

 tlie tirst time rejiresented at the 

 university of Leipzig. Tiie two 

 U'reat conceptions, however, which 

 have ])robably done more than any 

 'ithers to break down the old con- 

 \entional landmarks that kept 



the .sciences asunder, the concep- 

 tion of energj' and the idea of de- 

 scent, were Hrst prominently )>ut 

 forward in this country. The 

 j classical treatise on the division of 

 j the sciences in the widest sen.se is 

 ' the ' De Augmentis Scientiarum ' 

 of Lord Bacon. An important and 

 original work on the subject is 

 Andre Marie Ampere's ' Essai sur la 

 Philosophie des Sciences, ou Ex- 

 position analj'titjue d'une ChussiHca- 

 tion naturelle de toutes les Con- 

 naissances humaines' (1834). An 

 analysis of the book is given in 

 Whewell's ' I'hilosophy of the In- 

 ductive Sciences,' vol. ii., Book 12. 

 Ampere's classification, on the 

 model of that in bot;iny, is sym- 

 metrical and dichotomous. Aug. 

 Comte's classification, contained 

 in the second " Leoon " of the 

 ' Cours de Philosoj)hie positive ' 

 (1830, vol. i.), is termed by its 

 author "une echelle " or"une hier- 

 archie encyclop(5dique." Mr Her- 

 bert Spencer, in an essaj- ' Ou the 

 Genesis of Science ' (1854), repub- 

 lished with additions in the third 

 volume of his ' Essays ' (1874), criti- 

 cised Comte's attempt to classify the 

 sciences "serially."' He more than 

 any other thinker has assisted in 

 breaking down the older idea, which 

 was very prominent in many classi- 

 fications of the great French natur- 

 alists, the idea of the subordin- 

 ation of things in nature, of the 

 " (5chelle des otres," and tiie corres- 

 ponding conception of an hierarciiy 

 of the sciences. In the place of 

 this serial arrangement, a genea- 

 logical arrangement, uutler the 

 specific term of evolution, wiv* in- 

 troduced, and the sciences were 

 co-ordinated according to their 



