36 DARWINIAN AND SPENCERIAN 



sion of that dissimilarity in mental constitution which 

 has already been referred to. It would be extremely pre- 

 sumptuous on my part to attempt a comparative analysis 

 of methods and results, but such comparison will assuredly 

 have to be made by some competent philosophical critic 

 in the future. The opinion may certainly be hazarded 

 that the verdict of posterity will be that Spencer's mind 

 was more of the synthetical and Darwin's of the analytical 

 type. There is ample material lii the Ufe work of these 

 great pioneers for measuring what may be termed the 

 intellectual expansive force of Science and Philosophy 

 respectively. The attitude of scientific workers toward 

 Philosophy before the dawn of Evolution was often 

 contemptuous — sometimes hostile, and very generally 

 apathetic. It may be said that Spencer, more than any 

 other writer since the time of Bacon, has succeeded in 

 basing Philosophy upon a foundation of science. For 

 him Philosophy was completely unified Science, a defini- 

 tion accepted broadly with certain qualifications and 

 additions by that keenest of modern critics, the late 

 Professor Henry Sidgwick : — 



' No student of any special science ever acquiesces in 

 having no idea of the relation of his part of knowledge to 

 the rest. He may avoid Philosophy in the sense of 

 avoiding the attempt to make his conception of the 

 universe as clear, precise, and systematic as possible, but 

 that only means that he will be content with a vague, 

 obscure, and altogether inadequate conception.' ^ 



' I have taken it to be the business of Philosophy — 

 in Mr. Spencer's words — ^to " unify " or systematize as 

 completely as possible our common thought, which it 

 finds partially systematized in a number of different 

 sciences and studies.' ^ 



^ Philosophy, its Scope and Relations, p. ii. The extent to which 

 Sidgwick follows or departs from Spencer can only be adequately 

 ascertained by reference to the whole chapter from which the above 

 extract is taken. 



* Ibid., p. 105. See also George Henry Lewes : ' As Science is 

 the systematization of the various generalities reached through par- 

 ticulars, so Philosophy is the systematization of the generaUties of 

 generaUties. In other words, Science furnishes the Knowledge and 



