dorsed by the thousands who annually throng to the cabinet where the Sistine Madonna is now set up in solitary majesty, and derive from the study and contemplation of this wonderful work of art not only delightful instruction, but also suggestions of thought and emotion touching the purest and deepest chords of our nature. If this has been accomplished, to however small an extent, the writer is abundantly satisfied, trusting that the collection of interesting details relating to the painting, scattered over many volumes not readily accessible, will be welcomed by every admirer of the famous Madonna di San Sisto.

ARTICLE II.

THE SYNTHETIC OR COSMIC PHILOSOPHY.

BY JOHN BASCOM, LL.D., PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN.

As the synthetic philosophy, so called by Mr. Spencer, or cosmic philosophy, as Mr. Fiske prefers to term it, has recently received a comprehensive yet compact statement by Mr. Fiske, and has been presented in full for a series of years by Mr. Spencer, it is in a position to claim and to accept thorough discussion. Its advocates are laborious, discriminating, and able; while their work is the culmination of a vigorous and continuous line of philosophic thought in England, extending through more than two centuries, and at the same time including much of the most advanced scientific sentiment of the present period.

There have been but few advocates of any system better fitted to enlarge, harmonize, compact, and present a philosophy than is Mr. Spencer. His powers of analysis and synthesis are extraordinary, and his style is clear, full, and plausible in the extreme. The breadth of the topics discussed, and his fulness of knowledge in each, enable him to frame an argument captivating in matter, and impressing the mind with more than its real strength. The scope and vigor

of Mr. Spencer's discriminating and combining powers are something to be proud of, and to be rejoiced in, on the part of all who heartily entertain the themes presented. His candor also is very noteworthy; the candor of a mind too much occupied with its own conclusions, too sure of their value, and too able to confirm them by material taken from many diverse systems, to feel any strong temptation to leave its primary constructive labor and enter on an aggressive, destructive one. He pulls down only as he is in search of space or material for a new edifice. Rarely do bitter words escape him.

Mr. Fiske is an able advocate. His thought and his method of presentation are in harmony with those of Mr. Spencer. He states the positions of the philosophy clearly, combines them well, enforces them vigorously with new and old material. It may be rightly claimed that he does something more than this, and occasionally makes a fresh and cardinal point. We do think, however, that he has a little of the zeal of a proselyte, that he bandies too freely about the adjectives metaphysical and theological, in the restricted and abusive meaning they have acquired in a limited school, and that there is an assumption, unintended perhaps, but none the less real, of superiority in his philosophical attitude, that can hardly receive a milder epithet than offensive. Of the last and more serious censure we give a few illustrations. "This statement, I may observe in passing, is well illustrated by the abortive attempts of missionaries to civilize the lower races of manhood by converting them to Christianity."1 "Though we may, and do, throw overboard the whole of the semi-barbaric mythology in which Christianity has hitherto been symbolized, we shall find, nevertheless, that we have kept firmly in our possession the ethical kernel for which Christianity is deeply valued even by those who retain the whole of this mythology." 992 "To him" - that is, to him who follows intelligently Mr. Fiske's exposition "the most refined anthropomorphism to be met with in 1 Cosmic Philosophy, Vol. ii. p. 242. 2 Ibid. p. 454.

current theological treatises will no doubt seem as unsatisfactory as the anthropomorphism of orthodox 'revivalists' must seem to Mr. Holten or Mr. Martineau." It is not the thought we criticise in these passages; we are struck only with the elevation of the writer and the estimate at which he holds his fellow citizens in the realm of knowledge.

It is a reduction of our criticism on his use of the word metaphysical that he endeavors to define the difficulty in the method of reasoning termed metaphysical, and so takes the adjective from a general to a restricted meaning. It is sure, however, in the majority of cases, to retain its well-established use, and, in spite of definition, to remain a term of general disparagement-a fling at a class of reasoners, rather than a calm censure of a kind of reasoning. Unverifiable ideas fall exclusively to no one set of inquirers, and are to be objected to in detail and with designation, or the censure becomes not merely an unverified one, but an irritating one as well. It is to the praise of Mr. Spencer and Mr. Fiske alike, that their method is metaphysical, in the primary meaning of the term; and we see no reason why they should unite with the strict positivists in turning the word into a term of vague, exasperating, and unjust reproach.

While both writers would feel that they possess, perhaps in an unusual degree possess, the historic sense, we nevertheless think that they rarely feel the full force of any doctrine. based on intuition; that both of them are incapable, and especially Mr. Fiske, of quite apprehending the strength of the positions they assail. This is a fault we all have in common. The walls of the Jerichos we surround we expect will fall down of their own accord after a sufficient blowing of ram's horns.

The cosmic philosophy is pre-eminently one of evolution -evolution in its strict sense, without increments. The forces of the universe, convertible, but indestructible, are taken at some one stage, as early as we can reach them, and traced in their necessary unfolding through all subsequent

1 Cosmic Philosophy, Vol. ii. p. 469.

stages. This is a very rigid, self-consistent idea, and is present in all reasoning to set very positive limits. Is it safe to start a philosophy with so exacting and inflexible and a priori an idea? Will it not of necessity leave one side some of our facts, and run down some of our data? This cosmic philosophy has settled this one primary conclusion, and remorselessly subjects all considerations and all doctrines to its necessities, heavy and imperative as they are. We doubt whether it is possible to do justice while in possession of such stern and sweeping antecedent convictions. We might as well expect the commander of an army to arrest a battle to save the life of a man, as to expect one who is pleading for such a principle to deal singly and fairly with detached, contravening facts. We are afraid of so exacting, so arbitrary a principle, planted at the very centre of immature knowledge and incipient conclusions. Most questions of interest are foreclosed before the discussion is opened. Who can admit the rout of a division when that of the whole army is incident to it?

We

The doctrine of evolution, in its presentation as a complete philosophy, is chiefly Mr. Spencer's; though its foundations in mental science were laid long before his labors commenced, and most of the scientific facts which sustain it have been furnished by others. He is simply the master-builder. owe much to this philosophy. The religious spirit has been, and will yet more be, chastened and instructed by it. That grand, compact, harmonious system of divine law, known as the universe, will by virtue of it get possession of religious feeling and religious action as never before. The God of nature and of revelation will become one in quite a new

sense.

This philosophy is remarkable also, and beneficent in its morality. We do not believe that its moral foundations are securely laid; but the spirit of morality it has caught, and has expanded admirably in its precepts. The intuitionalist may learn much from the utilitarian. The latter, bound in self-defence to make his morality complete, and having in

his hand the real clew to inquiry, the practical results of action, has developed well in many directions the lines of duty. If we are to accept Mr. Fiske's exposition, this philosophy is not without its religious faith, including the gist of central truths. Here, however, more than in morals, the philosophy seems to us to have transcended its premises, and to be marching off with plundered wealth. Every man is welcome to take what he can of truth; there is no objection to this. We must, none the less, while conceding everything to the individual, hold systems to consistency. Mr. Fiske and Mr. Spencer are quite at liberty to believe more than they ought logically to believe, and it is hardly worth our while to note the fact; but the doctrine of evolution, now passing through their hands, is a matter of wide interest to us all. We do wish to know what this doctrine logically contains; for these contents are sure to be evolved, sooner or later, and to constitute its fruits of good and evil. We would charge nothing upon writers on this theme beyond their own statements; but the doctrine itself stands with us on another footing. We would subject it to searching inquiry, knowing that in each subsequent generation its germinant principles have issued in conclusions which those who held them in a previous one would have vigorously denied.

Because we do not accept evolution in its absolute form as the continuous, progressive metamorphoses of definite forces, we are not thereby excluded from an appropriation of many of its doctrines. From the beginning till the advent of life, a physical evolution is a sufficient and probable theory; and after that period, with such increments as the facts seem to imply, it may still remain the foundation of development. The phenomena are left to arrange themselves under established tendencies or new tendencies, as they most incline.

Our first objection to the theory of evolution is, that it gives no sufficient footing to man. By evolution we mean that strict continuity which allows no increment whatever to the forces involved. Under this view, it is impossible to