EDITOR'S TABLE. 



Hi 



tem, which was published twenty-two 

 years ago, and the article is character- 

 ized throughout by the most inexcus- 

 able ignorance of the subjects consid- 

 ered. It is spiteful, contemptuous, and 

 flippant in spirit, vicious in misrepre- 

 sentation, and mean in its covert in- 

 sinuations and outright imputations. 

 Brougham's assault upon Young is its 

 model, and the phraseology of dispar- 

 agement is almost identical in the two 

 papers, as we illustrate by italicized pas- 

 sages. The reviewer says of Spencer: 

 " He has not ascertained or discovered 

 a single new fact^ nor put any old ones 

 together in such a way as to justify any 

 new inference as to their causes^ either 

 immediate or ultimate. He has only 

 applied new and fanciful terms to the 

 collections he has made." And this is 

 the way he sums the matter up : "This 

 is nothing but a philosophy of epithets 

 and phrases introduced and carried on 

 with an unrivaled solemnity, and affec- 

 tation of precision of style concealing 

 the loosest reasoning, and the haziest 

 indefiniteness on every point except the 

 bare dogmatic negation of any ' know- 

 able' or knowing author of the uni- 

 verse; which, of course, is the reason 

 why this absurd pretense of a philoso- 

 phy has obtained the admiration of a 

 multitude of people who will swallow 

 any camel that pretends to carry the 

 world standing on the tortoise that 

 stands on nothing, provided only it has 

 been generated by a man out of his 

 own brains, and asserted in imposing 

 language with sufficient confidence." 

 The philosophy of the universe, it may 

 be remarked, which is tacitly held by 

 the writer, is simply mathematics and 

 physics plus Scotch orthodoxy. 



We have no space to go into par- 

 ticulars in regard to this performance, 

 but may give one illustration of its 

 looseness and lack of decent regard for 

 truth. Its fragmentary quotations are 

 made in the most slovenly manner, and 

 mixed up with the language of the 

 writer so as to convey his own pervert- 



ed meaning ; and, as if conscious of this, 

 he seems to think it necessary to make 

 at least one fair extract. So he says : 

 " This time we will not omit a word 

 for brevity. Wo ought to give at 

 least one specimen of Mr. Spencer's 

 most careful and precise style unre- 

 duced." Then follows an extract of 

 eighteen lines, and, if the reader will 

 believe it, the passage was reduced hy 

 the dropping of whoU clauses, which 

 were not only significant, but made the 

 entire statement unintelligible. And if 

 the reader hesitates to believe this on 

 our authority, as too improbable a 

 thing, then let us say that Mr. Proc- 

 tor has exposed it in his London jour- 

 nal, and convicted the reviewer of mu- 

 tilation by publishing the extract, with 

 the omissions bracketed. 



The " Edinburgh Review " will not 

 succeed at this late day in the revival 

 of its old tactics. Its " slashing " article 

 will be rated at its true worthlessness 

 because there are now multitudes who 

 have some intelligent understanding of 

 the Spencerian philosophy, even if the 

 chosen reviewer knows nothing about 

 it, cares nothing about it, and only 

 takes it up to make a sensational cari- 

 cature of it. In confirmation of this, 

 we quote a passage from a recent letter 

 of Mr. Richard A. Proctor to the " New 

 York Tribune " : 



The " Edinburgh Eoview " makes a savage 

 assault on Herbert Spencer this quarter, in 

 an article written in a stylo so familiar that it 

 might as well have been signed. Those who 

 admire the work which has already been 

 achieved and is in progress of achievement 

 by the leading philosopher of the century, 

 will be scarcely less pained by this unfair and 

 acrimonious attack than those who have a re- 

 gard for the reputation of Sir Edmund Beck- 

 ett. Sir Edmund has attacked the Bacon of 

 this day in terms that would be hardly ap- 

 propriate if applied to one of tliose absurd 

 persons who go about with theories that the 

 earth is flat, the law of gravity a gigantic 

 blunder, and the squaring of the circle child's 

 play. Belonging myself to both categories 

 above mentioned, I am doubly grieved. I 

 value Sir Edmund Beckett as a kind personal 

 friend, a masterly reasoncr within certain 



