no more "speculative" than are the widest truths established in each of the sciences.
Again: the writer in the Nation points his contrast by characterizing Mr. Darwin's mental processes as properly Newtonian, while Mr. Spencer's are un-Newtonian. He says that Mr. Spencer has lately put forward the claim that "his method is justified by Newton's precepts and practice;" and he adds that, according to "the leading physicists of the day," this claim is not substantiated. Of this it may be said that Mr. Spencer put forth no such claims until he had been first attacked on this score by the Cambridge mathematicians; and "leading physicists of the day" are not wanting who regard the attack as a conspicuous failure. But, if the case is to go by the force of authority, does the writer in the Nation suppose that there are not plenty of "leading physicists of the day" who regard Mr. Darwin's method of reasoning as eminently un-Newtonian?
But to come back to the practical questions put by the correspondent of the Nation, we should say with Huxley that, if he wants information on the "theory of evolution" in any complete or adequate shape, he can find it in the works of Spencer more fully and systematically presented than anywhere else. He will find the theory expounded in the first volume of the "Philosophy;" and its biological, psychological, and sociological applications are elaborately presented in the subsequent divisions of the work. In Mr. Fiske's "Cosmic Philosophy" he will also find a masterly exposition of the whole subject, in its broad, philosophical aspects, complete in two volumes.
Darwin's various works are, of course, of great value, but they are voluminous, while Oscar Schmidt's newly published "Doctrine of Descent and Darwinism" is undoubtedly the best summing up of the discussion in the biological field that has yet been published. The works of Haeckel, translations of which will soon be printed, have the reputation of being learned and powerful, but they are limited to the field of zoology, and no more treat of the general "theory of evolution" than do the works of Darwin. The last edition of Lyell's "Principles of Geology" adopts the development theory and applies it to the course of geological life. The strongest books on the other side of the question are probably those of Agassiz, Mivart, and Dawson; and they are, moreover, moderate in size and popular in treatment. There are numerous other books of minor merit, like Lowne's and Henslow's "Prize Essays," but, unless a person has a passion for this kind of literature, and desires to pursue it in all its expressions, it will not be worth while to waste time and money on them when better works are procurable.
INCENTIVES IN EDUCATION.
We last month passed some strictures on the prevailing practice of stimulating educational competition by the offer of money-prizes. The defenders of the policy are, of course, not without their excuses, and the most plausible of them takes this form: "If life is an arena of competition—a struggle for existence—and the school is to be a preparation for life, how can the competitive element be excluded? Life has its prizes to be striven for; a few win and many lose. The school should teach the youth in its charge how to comport themselves under the strains of rivalry that will be put upon them in their subsequent social experience."
To this it may be replied that there are plenty of necessary strife and struggle in the school without superadding to them artificial provocatives. Classing always leads to comparison, and gradation to estimates of capacity which inevitably arouse self-regard, vanity, and the love of approbation.
