EDITOR'S TABLE. 



23s 



EDITOR'S TABLE. 



THE NATION ON ''GERMAN DAR- 

 WINISM:' 



SOME months ago a correspondent 

 asked the Nation what were the 

 best books to read on the theory of 

 evolution. It replied, and seized the 

 occasion to draw a contrast unfavor- 

 able to Herbert Spencer, whose books 

 on that subject, it took pains to say, 

 it did not recommend. In a more 

 recent review of two books under 

 the title of " German Darwinism," 

 the same writer came forward and re- 

 affirmed the positions of the former 

 article, amplified the discussion, and 

 continued to refer to Mr. Spencer in 

 terms of contemptuous disparagement. 

 More recently, in a eulogistic sketch of 

 the character of the late Chauncey 

 Wright, of Cambridge, the Nation rec- 

 ognizes him as the " great mind " of 

 the town, and informs xis that he was 

 the author of the article on " German 

 Darwinism." This was no news to 

 many. A few years ago it was quietly 

 given out from Cambridge that the pre- 

 tensions of Mr. Spencer were to be 

 once for all disposed of by Chauncey 

 Wright, who would do the work in the 

 North American Review. The on- 

 slaught was made, but, from divers in- 

 dications, both at home and abroad, it 

 seems to have failed of its intended ef- 

 fect. But Mr. Wright appears to have 

 regarded it as his permanent function 

 to put down this philosopher, and ac- 

 cordingly the last literary act of his 

 life was another attempt to demolish 

 him. It looks almost like a Cambridge 

 fashion for its great men to die in their 

 antipathies. The article on " German 

 Darwinism," from its misleading char- 

 acter and its appearance in tlie Nation, 

 was entitled to an answer ; but this is 

 still more necessary, now that its au- 

 thorship is announced in connection 



with very high claims put forth for the 

 author. It is still further provocative 

 of reply, as, upon careful perusal, it 

 will be found to throw very little light 

 indeed upon "German Darwinism;" 

 that topic being used mainly as a con- 

 venient means of reviving and repoint- 

 ing the writer's old charges against 

 Spencer. We have no desire to pursue 

 this topic ; but, as long as such charges 

 are conspicuously and authoritatively 

 made, they must be answered. 



Referring first to the most trivial, it 

 is insinuated that the system of Mr. 

 Spencer has a footing with " English- 

 thinking readers " only ; while in fact 

 various of his works are translated into 

 Italian, German, Hungarian, Dutch, 

 Russian, and French, and nearly all of 

 them into the latter languages. Sever- 

 al of the translations, moreover, have 

 been made by eminent philosophical 

 scholars, and it is fairly to be presumed 

 that their continued reproduction in 

 foreign countries is due to a demand 

 for them. 



In noticing Schmidt's German work 

 on "Darwinism and Descent," the 

 writer makes a j^oint against Mr. Spen- 

 cer by stating that he is nowhere named 

 in it. Gegenbaur had done the same 

 thing in his great work on " Compara- 

 tive Anatomy," and he was reproaclied 

 by Prof. Rolleston in the Academy for 

 giving no account of Spencer's " Biol- 

 ogy," which made his work defective. 

 There are various reasons why the Gqv^> 

 mans have been slow to recognize Mr. 

 Spencer's ideas. They are embodied 

 in a " system of philosophy," and by 

 philosophy the Germans understand 

 only speculations like those of Kant, 

 Hegel, and Schelling. They have no 

 conception of a philosophy organized 

 out of science, and their biologists do 

 not dream of finding the development 



