his conclusions are similar to those of the leading German transcendentalists.  Indeed, the evolution philosophy he expounds is, in some of its aspects, but a development of the identity philosophy of Schelling.  In its monism, its theory of the development of mind out of matter, and its conception of law, they are one and the same.  The evolution differs from the identity philosophy mainly in its more scientific interpretation of the influence of heredity and the social environment.  The one is undoubtedly an outgrowth from the other, while the audacious nights of speculation indulged in by Lewes rival anything attempted even by Schelling.

Lewes was one of the earliest English disciples of Auguste Comte, and he probably did more than any other person to introduce the opinions of that thinker to English students.  He was a zealous and yet not a blind disciple, rejecting for the most part the later speculations of Comte.  Comte’s theories of social and religious construction were repugnant to Lewes’s mind, but his positive methods and his entire rejection of theology were acceptable.  Comte’s positivism was the foundation of his own philosophy, and he did little more than to expand and more carefully work out the system of his predecessor.  In psychology he went beyond Comte, through his physiological studies, and by the adoption of the methods and results of evolution.  His discovery of the sociological factors of mind was a real advance on his master.

George Eliot’s connection with Lewes had much to do with the after-development of her mind.  An affinity of intellectual purpose and conviction drew them together.  She found her philosophical theories confirmed by his, and both together labored for the propagation of that positivism in which they so heartily believed.  Their lives and influence are inseparably united.  There was an almost entire unanimity of intellectual conviction between them, and his books are in many ways the best interpreters of the ethical and philosophical meanings of her novels.  Her thorough interest in his studies, and her comprehension of them, is manifest on many of her pages.  Her enthusiastic acceptance of positivism in that spirit in which it is presented by Lewes, is apparent throughout all her work.  Their marriage was a companionship and a friendship.  They lived in each other, were mutual helpers, and each depended much on—­the advice and counsel of the other.  Miss Mathilde Blind has pointed out how thoroughly identical are their views of realism in art, and on many other subjects they were as harmonious.  They did not echo each other, but there was an intimate affinity of intellectual apprehension and purpose.