Page:Popular Science Monthly Volume 26.djvu/43

Rh in part a follower of M. Comte, and when I decided to append to "The Classification of the Sciences" the "Reasons for Dissenting from the Philosophy of M. Comte," proving that M. Laugel's belief was erroneous, I bethought me of the above partially-quoted letter. On stating to Mr. Mill why I wanted it, he kindly returned it (not, however, soon enough for use), and with it there came a letter from himself. I give this letter, or rather the first paragraph of it—a paragraph which, under ordinary circumstances, it would be bad taste in me to publish, but which, under the present circumstances, I shall, I think, be held justified in publishing:

April 3, 1864.

I am fortunately able to send you the letter you want. No Englishman who has read both you and Comte can suppose that you have derived much from him. No thinker's conclusions bear more completely the marks of being arrived at by the progressive development of his own original conceptions; while, if there is any previous thinker to whom you owe much, it is evidently (as you yourself say) Sir W. Hamilton. But the opinions in which you agree with Comte, and which, as you truly observe, are in no way peculiar to him, are exactly those which would make French writers class you with him; because to them, Comte and his followers are the only thinkers who represent opposition to their muddy metaphysics."

To this I may fitly add a passage contained in Mr. Mill's work, "Auguste Comte and Positivism," issued a year later, in which, distinguishing between that part of the Positive Philosophy which belongs to Comte and that which "is the common inheritance of thinkers," he says:

"Mr, Spencer rejects nearly all which properly belongs to M. Comte, and in his abridged mode of statement does scanty justice to what he rejects" (p. 5).

Now, considering that Mr. Mill was a profound admirer of M. Comte, kept up a correspondence with him, and raised funds to support him, and considering that when the above letter was written I knew Mr. Mill personally only through two calls at the India House, and was an antagonist of Comtean views which he accepted, and had publicly combated one of his own views, it is manifest that any bias he may be supposed to have had was against me rather than for me. Such being the ease, most persons will, I think, regard his voluntarily given opinion as decisive.

September 8th.

Mr. Harrison replied to the foregoing letter, which elicited the following rejoinder from Mr. Spencer:

To the Editor of the Standard

I regret further to occupy attention with a matter mainly personal, but feel obliged to do so.