JOHX STUART MILL'S PHILOSOPHY TESTED. 



279 



that a people so gifted as the Athenians should 

 be so helpless and tongue-tied in the presence 

 of death. The reliefs do not disappoint a rea- 

 sonable expectation ; in execution, at least, they 

 put our modern cemeteries to shame, if the range 

 of ideas expressed is somewhat narrow. But 

 the inscriptions are at a far greater depth below 

 Greek poetry and oratory than the reliefs are be- 

 low the best Greek sculpture. The reason may 

 partly be that the reliefs are the work of pro- 

 fessionals, the inscriptions of amateurs. But 

 there are two other reasons of a more satisfac- 

 tory character. The first of these I have already 

 mentioned, that except in the case of soldiers 

 and of public characters, such as eminent poets, 



it was considered bad taste at Athens to have 

 an epitaph at all; those, therefore, which we 

 find are mostly written by persons of the less 

 respectable classes, and in the later and worse 

 times of the city. But the deepest reason, at 

 least from the modern point of view, is that the 

 Greek mind found in death no inspiring power ; 

 they might regard its inevitable power with equa- 

 nimity and even cheerfulness, but in any way to 

 rejoice in its presence, to look upon it with hope 

 and warmth of heart, did not consist with the 

 point of view of their religion. Such feelings 

 at such a time are inspired only by one or two 

 religions of the world, among which there is no 

 place for naturalism. — Contemporary Review. 



JOHN STITAKT MILL'S PHILOSOPHY TESTED. 



Br W. STANLEY JEVONS, F. E. S. 



DURING the last few weeks the correspond- 

 ence columns of the Spectator have con- 

 tained letters on the subject of the late Mr. Mill's 

 opinions about the immortality of the soul. The 

 discussion began with a letter, in which an anony- 

 mous writer, G. S. B., asserted that Mill spoke 

 of immortality as probably an illusion, although 

 morally so valuable an illusion that it is better 

 to retain it. He went on to say, " It is surely 

 time that all this scientific shuffling and intellect- 

 ual dishonesty — for it is nothing else — should be 

 exposed and exploded." 



An ardent admirer of Mill was not unnatural- 

 ly stung by this remark, and replied in a letter, 

 ably and warmly vindicating Mill's truthfulness 

 and " scrupulous accurateness." After showing, 

 as he thinks, that Mill never tried to uphold any 

 illusion, he thus concludes : 



" It is very difficult to misunderstand Mr. Mill, 

 so anxious was he always to be clear, to be just, 

 to keep back nothing, to examine both sides, to 

 overstate nothing, and to understate nothing, so 

 sensitively honorable was his mind, so transpar- 

 ently honest his style. But these are commonplaces 

 with respect to him. I am content to contrast 

 the scrupulous accurateness of Mr. Mill with what 

 appears of that quality in ' G. S. B.' " 



In the Spectator of the following week (Octo- 

 ber 27th), I took the opportunity to express my 

 uissent from both the correspondents, sayirg : 



" I do not like the expression ' scientific shuf- 

 fling and intellectual dishonesty ' which G. S. B. 

 has used, for fear it should imply that Mill know- 



ingly misled his readers. It is impossible to doubt 

 that Mill's mind was ' sensitively honorable,' 

 and, whatever may be his errors of judgment, 

 we cannot call in question the perfect good faith 

 and loftiness of his intentions. On the other 

 hand, it is equally difficult to accept what Mr. Mal- 

 leson says as to the ' scrupulous accurateness ' of 

 Mill's ' Essays on Religion.' He was scrupulous, 

 but the term • accurateness,' if it means ' logical 

 accurateness,' cannot be applied to his works by 

 any one who has subjected them to minute logical 

 criticism." 



I then pointed out that, in pages 103 and 109 of 

 his " Essays on Religion," Mill gives two differ- 

 ent definitions or descriptions of religion. In the 

 first he says that 



" the essence of religion is the strong and earnest 

 direction of the emotions and desires toward an 

 ideal object, recognized as of the highest excel 

 lence, and as rightfully paramount over all selfish 

 objects of desire." 



In the second statement he says : 



" Religion, as distinguished from poetry, is the 

 product of the craving to know whether these 

 imaginative conceptions have realities answering 

 to them in some other world than ours." 



A week afterward Mr. Malleson made an ingen- 

 ious attempt to explain away or to palliate the 

 obvious discrepancy by reference to the context. 

 I do not think that any context can remove the 

 discrepancy ; in the one case the object of desire 

 is an ideal object ; in the other case the craving, 

 which I presume means a strong desire, is toward 



