Brinton. ] 228 [Oct. 19, 
trines. What to me seemed the abstractly true, as for instance, the formu- 
le of the higher mathematics, he rejected, in accordance with the tenets 
of the Positivists, as merely formal and not real expressions, idole furt 
et scholw ; yet with native intellectual fairness, he clearly saw and freely 
acknowledged that the Platonic doctrine of archetypal ideas, if it could 
be established, would be a far grander cosmic conception than Positivism 
presents. But he insisted on the total illogicality of the evidence in its 
favor. 
His favorite authors in this domain were Aristotle, Bacon, Hobbes, 
Locke and Hume. He did not, as many, speak of these great names 
through reviews, encyclopedias, and other second-hand sources of infor- 
mation, but from frequent and attentive perusal of their works. To him, 
this long line of rationalistic thinkers expressed the sober, sound and 
real intelectual advance of the race, holding man’s mind down to what 
he can certainly know, and dismissing as vain and hurtful all pretended 
intuitions, inspirations, and emotional imaginings. 
Jonsistently with this dismissal of the pursuit of primary causes—the 
search for the unsearchable—he welcomed the Darwinian hypothesis of 
transformation as a complete and satisfying explanation of the phenomena 
of organic life by the assignment of known and intelligible proximate 
causes. Though little interested in natural history, he was well acquainted 
on its philosophic side with the great controversy over evolution. 
That marvelous genius, Pascal, spent the latter years of his life in pre- 
paring material for a work on the grandeur and the baseness of human 
nature. Mr, Law fully appreciated this seeming paradox. His estimate 
of the conscious motives of men was very low. He held that greed, lust, 
hatred, vanity and self-interest are the prime movers in most deliberate 
actions ; but he also constantly pointed out the enormous personal sacri- 
fices which most men make, unconsciously or nearly so, for their families 
and their country. He was unwilling to acknowledge motiveless evil in 
human nature. I once asserted that some men take an innate pleasure in 
witnessing pain. He warmly denied this, and maintained that such an 
opinion arose from an incomplete analysis of the fact. 
The study of ethics had particular attractions for him, and he had 
familiarized himself with the leading treatises on that branch, from Aris- 
totle down. He delighted, with all the zest of Montaigne, to point out 
the mutations of the ethical standards in“different periods and climes. 
He loved extreme examples ; as that in ancient Persia it was a particularly 
meritorious deed for a son to take his own mother to wife ; or that to-day 
in India, prostitution is a sacred profession. Consequently he regarded 
all ethical prescriptions as of temporary force only. In one conversation 
he summed them up under three heads: National ethics, which defines 
the rights of mea in communities and are roughly synonymous with the 
laws of the commonwealth ; Social ethics, in which is included all that 
pertains to etiquette and good breeding ; and Personal ethics, which em- 
braces the care of the person, and prudence and foresight with regard to 
