28 DARWINIAN AND SPENCERIAN 



But the writer of philosophy takes this risk. There was 

 much justification for the attitude of caution on the part 

 of scientific men towards a method which had not helped 

 them much in the past, and which was by many, if not by 

 most, considered to be superfluous for the future. The 

 effectiveness of the method, however, depends altogether 

 upon the person who uses it. On this point I shall have 

 more to say in the concluding part of this lecture. Of 

 Spencer's work it may be said that no more heroic, and 

 I will add no more successful, attempt to wield siiigle- 

 handed such a mighty weapon as unified science has ever 

 been made. If Science no longer looks askance at Philo- 

 sophy, but recognizes therein a most powerful ally, it is 

 mainly due in modern times to the impression produced 

 by the author of the Synthetic Philosophy. 



The history of the influence of his treatment of organic 

 fevolution upon the mind of his illustrious contemporary 

 may now fittingly be set forth in juxtaposition to his 

 reception of Natural Selection. This influence is certainly 

 among the most instructive illustrations upon record of 

 the effect of the abstract method upon one of the 

 greatest contemporary wielders of the concrete scientific 

 method. 



The celebrated essay on ' The Development Hypothesis ', 

 published by Spencer in 1853, must have been read by 

 Darwin about 1858, when, as already stated, the author 

 sent a copy of his Essay containing this particular 

 contribution to Darwin, who acknowledged it on Nov. 25 

 in these terms : — 



' Your remarks on the general argument of the so-called 

 development theory seem to me admirable. I am at 

 present preparing an abstract of a larger work on the 

 changes of species ; but I treat the subject simply as 

 a naturalist, and not from a general point of view, other- 

 wise, in my opinion, your argument could not have been 

 improved on, and might have been quoted by me with 

 great advantage.' ^ 



* Life and Letters, vol. ii, p. 141, 



