622 



THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



attest. The last aspirant for glory, in 

 the Spencer-crushing line, is one Alex- 

 antler Gibson, hitherto guiltless of fame, 

 whose onslaught is contained in a late 

 number of the London Academy. This 

 periodical, it may be remarked, was 

 started a few y'ears ago, with an Oxford 

 parentage, as an organ of old rubbishy 

 scholarship and useless lore generally, 

 and, having been knocked about among 

 different publishers as a bad specula- 

 tion, now turns up in new hands, and 

 the transition is signalized by the pres- 

 ent essay at the use of the critical scalp- 

 ing-knife. 



Conscious, perhaps, of the trouble he 

 has been causing to the critical frater- 

 nity, Mr. Spencer has lately changed 

 his tactics. In his former works he 

 expressed his own opinions very freely 

 on various subjects, and it is these that 

 have been the objects of attack by the 

 increasing crowd of his assailants. 

 They have shown, in a manner perfect- 

 ly conclusive to themselves, that his 

 views arte weak, foolish, erroneous, false, 

 absurd, dangerous, and wicked. And 

 so he has now made a book containing 

 no opinions of his own at all. It is a 

 work simply of facts and authorities, 

 and, as if scrupulously to avoid rousing 

 the ire of his enemies, he hired a man to 

 write out the facts and copy the au- 

 thorities. His own agency was limited 

 barely to drawing up a plan of presen- 

 tation, which his assistant was to fol- 

 low, and he indulges in not a word of 

 comment upon the statements that are 

 made. But all in vain. Alexander 

 Gibson hunts him out, even in this city 

 of refuge, and is bound to crush him all 

 the same. Let us gather up the frag- 

 ments, and see what remains after this 

 last assault. 



In reviewing the "Descriptive Soci- 

 ology " in the Academy, Mr. Gibson 

 makes two points, which are—Jirst, that 

 the compilation of facts by Spencer's as- 

 sistant, Mr. Collier, is badly done ; and, 

 second, that, if it had been well done, the 

 work would still be good for nothing. 



Mr. Gibson begins by a represen- 

 tation that is quite misleading. He 

 says : " It is clear at a glance that 

 the work thus undertaken is one of 

 great magnitude and difficulty; and, 

 when one considers the high reputa- 

 tion Mr. Spencer has acquired oy his 

 sociological theories, it acquires a pe- 

 culiar interest, as it will serve to show 

 the nature and value of the material 

 which he has used for constructing or 

 testing his speculations." The implica- 

 tion here is, that Mr. Spencer has first 

 theorized and speculated upon social 

 questions, and then sought for facts to 

 support his views. But Mr. Spencer's 

 social philosophy has never yet been 

 developed, and the collection of socio- 

 logical data which was commenced five 

 years ago is designed as the foundation 

 for general principles yet to be derived 

 from them. The relation of these ma- 

 terials to the uses for which Mr. Spencer 

 himself proposes to employ them cannot 

 therefore be judged until his principles 

 of sociology are worked out. Mr. Gib- 

 son inverts the truth of the case, for 

 Mr. Spencer's extensive collection and 

 classification of facts were not made to 

 sustain past speculations but as a guide 

 to future theories. 



In judging of his undertaking, it is 

 important to remember that Mr. Spen- 

 cer published first that division of it 

 which is most open to criticism ; that 

 is, he deals first with the social ele- 

 ments of his own country, the history 

 of which is generally familiar. It is 

 also not to be forgotten that his aim 

 was to bring forward just that order 

 of facts for which historians have cared 

 the least, and concerning which their 

 statements have been most loose, care- 

 less, and conflicting. Added to this, 

 the work of collection and arrangement 

 had never before been attempted, and 

 Mr. Spencer had. to work as a pioneer 

 in the field. It is also noteworthy that 

 the plan of the work precluded all ex- 

 planatory comment. That such a work 

 — a work of " great magnitude and 



