38 DARWINIAN AND SPENCERIAN 



Stand, forgetful of when the work was done and judging 

 it only in the light of modern methods and appliances. 

 The fairer test is the estimate of those who were his 

 contemporaries as Evolutionists. Huxley, it will be 

 remembered, speaks of him as ' outside the ranks of 

 biologists ', but this refers to the period of the pubUcation 

 of the Darwin-Wallace theory in 1858-9, and Spencer's 

 work on the circulation of the sap in plants and the first 

 edition of the Principles of Biology were not pubhshed 

 until 1866-7. Happily two of his contemporaries. 

 Hooker and Wallace, are still with us, and from both these 

 I have received letters (see Appendix to this Lecture) 

 showing that by his contemporaries he was regarded 

 as an original investigator. 



The difference in the impression produced upon con- 

 temporary science by Darwin and Spencer respectively 

 cannot, however, be ascribed solely to their relative 

 positions as original investigators ; another cause must 

 be added. Up to the time of the enunciation of the 

 theory of Natural Selection the biological sciences were 

 more or less in an empirical or descriptive stage. With 

 the exception of Lamarck's famous attempt there had 

 never been a really systematic philosophy introduced 

 into biology. In this respect the biological sciences had 

 lagged far behind the physical sciences. As a result of 

 this retarded development — due largely to the mysticism 

 attached to life — ^broad generalizations were strange to 

 the minds of biologists who were, as a body, quite unaccus- 

 tomed to grasp such generalizations or to use them 

 deductively. This same influence retarded the acceptance 

 of the Darwinian theory — still more might it be expected 

 therefore to have retarded the recognition of any con- 

 clusions resulting from the more purely deductive treat- 

 ment of Evolution by Spencer. There are no doubt many 

 now living who can remember cases of extraordinary 

 mental density among experts, and particularly among 

 pure systematists — not in questioning the soundness of 

 the theory— because that might be a legitimate subject 



