December 3, 1908] 



NA TURE 



rateur. With his characteristic deliberateness, Mr. 

 Spencer arranged for this " Life " some twenty-eight 

 years ago, and he confirmed the arrangement in his 

 will. He felt that an autobiography is from the nature 

 of the case liUeh' to give a partial picture of the man, 

 and this is borne out by reading the " Life." Although 

 Herbert Spencer was unusually gifted with the power 

 of regarding himself almost impersonally as a pheno- 

 menon, the result of the " .Autobiography " was to 

 leave some false impressions, as, for instance, that 

 he was " all brains and no heart." Besides correct- 

 ing the partiality of Spencer's self-portraiture, the 

 " Life " contains many letters of historical interest, 

 an important document entitled " The Filiation of 

 Ideas " (1898-9), and valuable summings up, such as 

 the chapter on Spencer's views on inorganic evolution. 

 Moreover, it is the only authoritative record of the 

 twenty-one years that elapsed after the completion of 

 the ".Autobiography." 



The biographer has done his work with great skill, 

 welding his material into a continuous narrative, and 

 preserving throughout a keen sense of perspective. 

 One wishes that he had not hidden himself quite so 

 much, for he had unusual opportunities of knowing 

 Spencer ; but perhaps his very objective mode of treat- 

 ment is the higher art, and in any case it is peculiarly 

 congruent with the subject. 



The fine chapters at the end of the biography 

 which deal with " Characteristics and Personal Re- 

 miniscences " and with " Spencer's Place in the 

 History of Thought " are less objective than the 

 rest of the book, and will be read with great interest. 



Much of the " Life " necessarily covers somewhat 

 familiar ground, and confirms impressions which the 

 " .Autobiography " gives. Again we see how the in- 

 herited strain of nonconformity and independence ex- 

 pressed itself consistently throughout Spencer's life 

 in' things great and small. In 1842 a friend called 

 him "radical all over," and it was a descendant of 

 the man who could not lift his hat without violating 

 his principles, that would not go to Lady Derby's 

 "At Home," either with a levee dress or without 

 one, to have the honour of meeting His Majesty the 

 Emperor of Russia, and who omitted the Duke of 

 Argyll's name from a reference in one of his pamphlets 

 lest some people should regard him as a snob. But 

 it was the same irreconcilable dissenter who let 

 hardly a vear pass without acting as champion 

 of some unpopular cause, who was, where principle 

 was involved, absolutely reckless of popularity, who 

 did not know what it was to fear the face of man. 



.Again, as in the " .Autobiography," the reader is 

 surprised, sometimes even startled, by some of 

 Spencer's judgments, both as to the work of others 

 and his own. " I have lately been reading," he 

 writes in 1843, " Pope's ' Homer.' ... To my taste 

 there is but little real poetry in it . . ." In 1852 

 he writes, " Though a Scotchman (and I have no 

 partiality for the race) I am strongly inclined to 

 rank Alexander Smith as the greatest poet since 

 Shakespeare." We cannot but like the philosopher 

 better when we find him telling his father, concern- 

 ing the " Psychology,"" Mv private opinion is that it 

 NO. 2040, VOL. 79] 



will ultimately stand beside Newton's ' Principia,' " 

 and then writing twelve days afterwards that it will 

 be as well not to mention this opinion lest it may 

 be thought "a piece of vanity." Perhaps there was 

 in this some expression of the sense of humour which 

 was so well concealed by the author of the " Syn- 

 thetic Philosophy " that some who had opportunities 

 of knowing him well have doubted whether it was 

 not vestigial. 



The " Life " tells us of much kindness on Spencer's 

 part that the " Autobiography " could not, of course, 

 mention, and the whole impression left is that of a 

 much more human character. In referring to the 

 idea that Spencer was all intellect and no feeling. 

 Dr. Duncan points out that the letters to his parents 

 furnish sufficient disproof. 



" Rare indeed are the instances in which father 

 and son have laid bare their minds so freely to one 

 another. Rarer still are the instances in which father 

 and son have for over thirty years carried on their 

 correspondence on such a high level of thought and 

 sentiment." 



Of Spencer's capacity for strong friendship, the 

 " Life " affords abundant illustration. In speaking 

 of their old-standing friendship, Huxley wrote : — 

 " It has been the greatest pleasure to me to see 

 the world in general gradually turning to the opinion 

 of you which is twenty years old in my mind"; 

 and again : — " How odd it is to look back through 

 the vista of years ! . . . Considering what wilful tykes 

 we both are (you particularly), I think it is a great 

 credit to both of us that we are firmer friends now 

 than we were then." "Wilful tykes" indeed, for 

 this intimate friendship of nearly forty years' stand- 

 ing was almost wrecked by a hot controversy in 

 1889. This was a grief to both the veteran com- 

 batants, who, happily, were great enough, after some 

 years, to shake hands and be friends again. 



We hear not a little in the letters about the way 

 in which readers in general and critics in particular 

 " persisted in some absurd misapprehension or other," 

 but we have not found any suggestion on Spencer's 

 part that he might himself be in any way responsible 

 for the misunderstandings which he aroused. 



The " Life " does not weaken our impression of 

 Spencer's almost morbid sensitiveness in regard to 

 prioritv. Now it is some lecture, and again some 

 text-book, that is at fault; at one time it is Henry 

 Drummond, and at another time Charles Darwin, who 

 uses, without sufficient acknowledgment (it is al- 

 leged), some conclusion that Spencer had arrived at. 

 He was vexed that so many writers supposed that 

 mental evolution was Darwin's hypothesis. 



" As no one says a word in rectification, and as 

 Darwin himself has not indicated the fact that the 

 ' Principles of Psychology ' was published five years 

 before the ' Origin of 'Species,' I am obliged to 

 gently indicate this myself." 



In this connection the appendix containing 

 Spencer's account of the filiation of his ideas is 

 interesting, as is also the note in i860 to the effect 

 that the programme of the " System of Philosophy " 



