New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1894-02-12
MR.. HERBERT SPENCER
HIS TRIBUTE TO TYNDALL-A CURIOua
PERSONAL TRAIT-HIS FAILING FAITH
IN FREE INSTITUTIONS.

| MI. IierDeTt SpencerS article IN The Fort
nightly Review" on the late Professor TyndaL
though full Of interest. has its painful side The
two men were friends. but friendship in Mr.
| Herbert Spcncer's case as in Others does not ex.
cude irritability and there are touches of irrta-
bility in this article. 1t is not reproach to him:
1t is matter Of ill-health which, unhappily has
been with Mr.. Herbert Spencer lifelong, and has
at times affected his opinions, and at other and
more frequent times the expression Of them. He
himself Justly defines his friendship with TyndaIl
as one Of those which enter into the fabric Of life
and leave their marks. There Is ..othing In his
present account Of his friend to leave a shadow
on their long and affectionate relations. The
| passage had in mind when used the word irri.
| liability this:
"Tyndall was an interesting companion; bene.
| hcially interesting to those with brains in Q
normal state, but to me injurousy interesting a.
| being too exciting. Twice l had experience Of
| this When, after an injury received while bath.
| ing in a Swiss mountan-stream. he was laid up
| for some time. and, on getting back to England,
remained at Folkestone. went down to spend
few days with him. DO you believe in matterr
was question which he propounded just as we
| were about to bid one another goodnight after
| days continuous talking. Ever since nervous
| breakdown in 1856. over my second book, talk.
| ing has told upon me just as much as working,
| and has had to be kept within narrow limits;
so that persistence in this kind Of thing was out
| of the question and had to abridge my stay"
And there was a similar instance at the Lakes
when gossip, which may be carried on without
| much intellectual tax. formed but small ee-
ment in our conversation; and again Mr..
| Spencer had to fly. Now, there was no kinder
soul than Tyndalrs. and there were few men Of
fafft
whatever it may have been to Mr.. Spencer, and
the latter had only to hint that he was not equal
to serious discussion and so put end to It,
and fall back on gossip or the weather. But
he did not like to do that and the reason OF his
dislike is apparent from his statement OF me
reasons which prevented him from seeing much
of Carlyle:
Twice or thrice, in 1s51-52. was taken to see
him bv Mr.. G. H. Lewes but soon found that
the alternatives were listening in silence to his
dogmas sometimes absurd, or getting into hot
argument with him, which ended in our glaring
at each other, and as l did not like either al-
tentative, l ceased to 60.
The passage Is very characteristic OF Mr. Spen-
GER and other illustrations OF similar nature
might be given But one need only remark that
this alternative Of silence or hot argument Win
Carlyle was personal TO Mr. Spencer Carlyle.
of course had his stormy and contemptuous
moods and said things which Jared. But he
was nevertheless surrounded by friends all MS
life long including men as sensitive as Mr.. Rus-
kin and Mr. Froude. Mr.. Spencer himself al.
mits that Tyndall got on well with the Sage OF
Chelsea. and suggests as reason Iyh'
dals greater tolerance Of his political Greco
and his advocacy Of personal government IL
Mr. Spencer had stopped at the word tolerance
haay, loss
more complete. Great his powers OF
philosophical definition and discrimination ne
has never been able to distinguish between the
attitude Of intellectual dissent and the attitude
II personal hostility. He is by nature and tenn
perament Pope: infallibe: infallbly certain
that he is infalible, indignant with anybody
who doubts his infallibty who wthhods his
assent to any proposition which Is to MS
mind self-evident or demonstrably sopnd. III
has never been able to take light Things iightIy'
Nothing 10 him is light II 1t trenches upon .
theory OF his own. or even IL 1t be iiiogicai OF
irrational A man who defends an irrational
conclusion by an illogical method IS an efHn>y Oh
the human race-away with him.
Carlyle and Mr. Herbert Spencer stood al Two
opposite poles OF thought No theoreueai agree
ment was possible TO them; perhaps no oiscus-
sion WAS of much avail. Each at the end OF II
would have remained CoH|lHSS" s""N ''N w.
right: more entirely convinced no doubt than
when the discussion began. But Is mat reason
why they should not have met. or why each
should not do justice 10 the good faitn Oh INC
other? Carlyle believed in the Strong Man; Mr.
Snencer in the operation Of causes over which inc
human will has little or no influence. Their con-
cen,ions Of the State OF national life or the duty
Of thu. citizen and perhaps Of almost all sociai
nroblems were antagonistic and irreconciaple
That. TO Mr. Spencers mind. was sufflcient
reason why they should never meet why inter-
course was impracticable or why 1t could oniy
end in their glazing at each other.
Again. it must be said that the condition OF
Mr. Spencers health is answeracle IN great
degree for these morbid notions OF social rela-
tons But 1t has 10 be said aso--or at any
rata n has TO be consdered-that in many cases
this morbid state Of the nervous system must
diminish the confidence with which one wouo
otherwise turn to him as n teacher. he Is eA-
tremely dogmatic. Who can say how much OF
this positiveness is traceable TO an obscure
malady? II such malady Is capable OF anec''
ing his opinions and feelings in the transactiohs
Of daily life. may 1t not also affect MS theoiles
Of psychology Of social states. and of much else!
There occurs In this very article on Tyndaii ths
following remarkable and almost painfully sus'
gestive passage
MY faith in free institutions originally strohs
Though always joined with the belief that 'hs
maintenance and Success Of them Is a question
OF popular character). has In these later years
been greatly decreased b. the conviction that ths
fit character is not possessed by any people, 10.
is likely to be possessed for ages to come
nation Of which the legislators vote as they a's
bid, and OF which the workers surrender their
rights of selling their labor as they please. mas
neither the ideas nor the sentiments hee"eu
for the maintenance of liberty. Lacking
them, we are on the way back TO the
rule OF the strong hand in tie shape OF ths
bureaucratic despotism OF a socialist organiza'
ton, and then OF the military despotism WHICH