476 CHARLES ROBERT DARWIN. 
ties or cares, and so were able in the main to apply themselves to 
research without distraction and according to their bent. yi 
at the beginning of their career, were attached to expeditions of 
exploration in the southern hemisphere, where they amassed rich 
stores of observation and materials, and probably struck out, 
while in the field, some of the best ideas which they subsequently 
developed. They worked in different fields and upon different 
methods ; only in a single instance, so far as we know, have they 
handled the same topic; and in this the more penetrating insight 
of the younger naturalist into an interesting general problem may 
be appealed to in justification of a comparison which some will : 
deem presumptuous. Be this as it may, there will probably bè 
Pe a ey 
little dissent from the opinion that the characteristic trait common 
to the two is an unrivalled scientific sagacity. In this these two 
naturalists seem to us, each in his way, preeminent. There is & 
characteristic likeness, too—underlying much difference—in their - 
admirable manner of dealing with facts closely, and at first hand, - c 
without the interposition of the formal laws, vague ideal concep- 
tions, or “glittering generalities” which some philosophical bc 
uralists make large use of. i 
A likeness may also be discerned in the way in which the works 7 
or contributions of predecessors and contemporaries are referred 
to. The brief historical summaries prefixed to many of Mr. 
Brown’s papers are models of judicial conscientiousness- And 
Mr. Darwin’s evident delight at discovering that some one else i : 
“said his good things before him,” or has been on the verge OF 
uttering them, seemingly equals that of making the discovery 
himself. It reminds one of Goethe’s insisting that his views $ 
morphology must have been held before him and must be somt — 
where on record, so obviously just and natural did they appear 
to him. 
Considering the quiet and retired lives led by both these 
and the prominent place they are likely to occupy in the histo) 
science, the contrast between them as to contemporary 
ular fame is very remarkable. While Mr. Brown was l00 
to with the greatest reverence by all the learned botanists, * 
scarcely heard of by any one else; and out of botany he Y% 
known to science except as the discoverer of the Brownian 
of minute particles, which discovery was promulgated e 
vately printed pamphlet that few have ever seen. Al ough 
