2 Darwin, and after Darwin. 
certain point, it is notorious that the revolt against 
the purely “subjective methods” in the sixteenth 
century revived the spirit of zductive research as this 
had been left by the Greeks; but even with regard 
to this revolt there are two things which I should 
like to observe. 
In the first place, it seems to me, an altogether 
disproportionate value has been assigned to Bacon’s 
share in the movement. At most, I think, he deserves 
to be regarded but as a literary exponent of the Zez¢- 
geist of his century. Himself a philosopher, as dis- 
tinguished from a man of science, whatever influence 
his preaching may have had upon the general public, it 
seems little short of absurd to suppose that it could 
have produced any considerable effect upon men who 
were engaged in the practical work of research. And 
those who read the Mowum Organon with a first-hand 
knowledge of what is required for such research can 
scarcely fail to agree with his great contemporary 
Harvey, that he wrote upon science like a Lord 
Chancellor. 
The second thing I should like to observe is, that 
as the revolt against the purely subjective methods 
grew in extent and influence it passed to the opposite 
extreme, which eventually became only less deleterious 
to the interests of science than was the bondage of 
authority, and addiction to @ priord methods, from 
which the revolt had set her free. For, without here 
waiting to trace the history of this matter in detail, 
I think it ought now to be manifest to everyone who 
studies it, that up to the commencement of the present 
century the progress of science in general, and of 
natural history in particular, was seriously retarded by 
