604 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



had not as yet been fully presented to the world. On this point, 

 which is the main point, he says : " An example of the antiquated 

 and unreliable character of the work is afforded by the author's treat- 

 ment of the most eminent thinker of the times on problems of social 

 science. Mr. Herbert Spencer is judged as a sociologist by his views 

 developed in ' Social Statics ; ' how justly will appear from the fact that 

 ' Social Statics ' was Mr. Spencer's first work, published twenty-four 

 years ago. And not only this, but he was so dissatisfied with it that 

 he would not consent to its republication in this country without in- 

 corporating a preface, which indicated that his views had undergone 

 important modifications." 



Now, what does our critic mean by the equivocal expression, 

 "Mr. Spencer is judged," etc., "by his views expressed in 'Social 

 Statics ? ' " Does he mean that he has been judged in part, or alto- 

 gether and solely, by his " Social Statics ? " If the former only, what 

 is the ground of complaint? What more fair, or just, than that an 

 author should be judged, in part, by a part of his performance, by one 

 of his most formal and elaborate works ? If he means the latter, then 

 he is greatly mistaken, and grossly misrepresents the author. Mr. 

 Spencer is judged in the work in question, not only by his " Social 

 Statics," but by his brilliant article on " The Social Organism," to be 

 found in his " Illustrations of Universal Progress," by his truly great 

 work on " First Principles," in which are contained some of his most 

 valuable thoughts on sociology, 1 and to some and not unimportant 

 extent, also, by his "Principles of Biology," and other writings. 



And now to the main point of the criticism, its very citadel, 

 which, briefly rendered, is, that Mr. Sj^encer has been judged, at least 

 to a very large and important extent, by a work which he has virtu- 

 ally retracted or disclaimed, in some of its essential doctrines. On 

 this point, as will be seen, the critic expresses himself with a very 

 cautious reserve, gently insinuating, merely, what he could hardly 

 venture directly to assert. In reference to the preface, which Mr. 

 Spencer insisted on incorporating with the republication of the " So- 

 cial Statics," in this country, he says it " indicated that his views had 

 undergone important modifications." 



Now, we must beg leave, most respectfully but most emphatically, 

 to dissent from the critic's interpretation of Mr. Spencer's preface in 

 question, and to say that it indicated, very clearly, that his views 

 had undergone only some slight and unimportant modifications. The 

 precise words of Mr. Spencer's preface, on this point, are " some ac- 

 companying modifications." But the whole context conclusively de- 

 monstrates that " those modifications " were not important, not mate- 

 rial, in respect to the essential or substantial import of his ideas. 



lie begins his preface by saying he would not have the American 

 public to take this work as "a literal expression" of his present 

 1 See "Present Status," etc., pp. 126-128, or chapter vi., 12. 



