us system, and, soon after, his studies
took a systematic shape. In his series of volumes on the _Problems of Life
and Mind_ he gave to the world a new theory of the mind and of knowledge.
In the first two volumes, published in 1874, and entitled _The Foundations
of a Creed_, he developed his views on the methods of philosophic research.
These were followed in 1877 by a third volume, on _The Physical Basis of
Life_. After his death his wife edited two small volumes on Psychology,
which included all the writing he left in a form ready for publication. His
work was left incomplete, but its publication had gone far enough to show
the methods to be followed and the main conclusions to be reached.

Concerning the work done by Lewes in philosophy, there will be much
difference of opinion. He did much through his various expositions to make
the public familiar with the inductive methods of inquiry and with the
conclusions of positive thought. He made his books readable, and even
popular, giving philosophy an exposition suited to the wants of the general
reader. At the same time, he was polemical and dogmatic, and more concerned
to be clever than to be exact in his interpretation. Into the meanings of
some of the greatest thinkers he had little clear insight, and he is seldom
to be implicitly trusted as an expositor of those whose systems were in any
way opposed to his own. His limitations have been well defined by Ribot, in
his _Contemporary English Psychology_.

"Mr. Lewes lacks the vocation of the scholar, which, indeed, is generally
wanting in original minds. His history resembles rather that of Hegel than
that of Ritter. His review of the labors of philosophers is rather occupied
with that which they have thought, than with their comparative importance.
He judges rather than expounds; his history is fastidious and critical. It
is the work of a clear, precise and elegant mind, always that of a writer,
often witty, measured, possessing no taste for declamation, avoiding
exclusive solutions, and making its interest profitable to the reader whom
he forces to think." Ribot speaks of the work again as being original but
dogmatic and critical. He says it belongs to that class of books which make
history a pretext for conflict. "The author is less occupied with the
exposition of facts than he is with his method of warfare; he thinks less
of being exact than of being clever.... He has evidently no taste, or, if
we prefer so to put i