only to secure temporary positions, but to confer permanent benefits
on those who seek their aid. The applicants usually include
stenographers, typewriters, copyists, clerks, governesses, matrons,
nurses, housekeepers, seamstresses, laundresses, cooks, and
housemaids. It is the rule, and not the exception, to find a girl or
woman _specially_ fitted for the position she seeks. The majority are
not fitted even to do _one_ thing well, and the ignorance and
assumption shown are appalling.
To discover latent ability, to stimulate the desire to excel, to
explain the rights of the employer and employee, and the moral
obligations of both, is a part of the privilege of the women who give
time and thought to the employment problem.
The Boston Women's Educational and Industrial Union has been able to
render excellent service by the distribution of circulars cautioning
women against advertisements which offer large returns for work done
at home. Its list of fraudulent firms, obtained by thorough
investigation, has been sent to other associations, and has already
proved of inestimable value to many women who would otherwise have
been tempted to send money, allured by the attractive advertisements.
The list compiled gives the names of one hundred firms which are a
"delusion and a snare," and which, on account of some trifling
technicality, the law seems unable to touch.
To exalt the home and raise the standard of domestic service is
another important object--perhaps the most important of all. From the
ordinary intelligence office to the employment bureau under the
guidance of educated women is a long step for progress.
In all humane effort, the more scientific the methods employed the
better will be the results. According to Charles Kingsley, "scientific
method needs no definition--it is simply the exercise of common
sense."
HERBERT SPENCER AT SEVENTY-NINE.
The portrait of Herbert Spencer, which forms the frontispiece to this
number of the Monthly, is from a photograph taken soon after he
reached the age of seventy-eight. Though of late years his health has
been unusually feeble, this is scarcely reflected in the face, which
still retains in a marked degree the expression of intellectual
strength that was so characteristic of his prime.
About the time Mr. Spencer completed the Synthetic Philosophy, or, as
it is better known, the Philosophy of Evolution, with the publication
of the third volume of the Principles of Sociology, we gave an account
of The Man and his Work, from the pen of Prof. William H. Hudson, who
had for a number of years acted as his secretary, and was so familiar
with his thought that he afterward published an Introduction to the
Philosophy, which Mr. Spencer himself has cordially commended. It was
naturally supposed by his many friends that having practically carried
out his original plan as laid down in his prospectus thirty-six years
before, Mr. Spencer would throw off the cares and vexations of
authorship, to enjoy the rest and relaxation that his arduous and
long-continued labors had earned. But this, it seems, he was not
inclined to do. Apparently as active intellectually as ever, he has
kept at work to the full extent of his physical ability, devoting
himself mainly to such additions and modifications of his published
writings as new knowledge and the advance of thought have made
necessary. This persistent industry, unusual, to say the least, in one
so far advanced in life, the presentation of his latest portrait, and
the interest which the world takes in the doings of a man who has so
profoundly influenced the thought of his time, make this a fitting
opportunity to refer to some of the later incidents in his career.
Though never inclined to plume himself on the importance or the
grandeur of his great undertaking, wondering now that he ever had the
"audacity" to begin it, and regarding its completion as more an
"emancipation" than a triumph, Mr. Spencer is nevertheless entitled to
the satisfaction which comes from the contemplation in the evening of
a long life of the fulfillment of the purpose to which that life has
been devoted. Although he speaks of the series of works comprising
the Synthetic Philosophy as "complete yet incomplete," because more
things might have been put into it, Mr. Spencer has the unquestionable
right to look upon his "system" as finished in all the essentials of a
symmetrical and self-sustaining structure; and more than this, he
finds it generally accepted as a masterpiece, embodying, if not all
the truth, yet a fundamental truth manifested in the growth and order
of the universe of matter and mind.
When we regard the comprehensiveness of Mr. Spencer's system,
embracing everything there is, and the multitude of the details that
had to be considered in the course of its preparation, we wonder at
the magnitude of the aggregation that may be formed by the repetition
of small daily tasks. The portions of time he was able to give to work
were at most very brief, and would be regarded by the majority of
workers as insufficient for any great accomplishment; and when the
frequent and sometimes long interruptions that occurred are
considered, seem absolutely insignificant. Yet in these small
fragments of two or three hours a day with many lost days in the year,
and several lost years, one of the greatest works in the history of
the human mind was carried to its end. The old figure of the dropping
of the water on the stone and the fable of the tortoise and the hare
are newly illustrated.
Outside of his work in the composition of the Philosophy, Mr. Spencer
has always taken a vital interest in leading public questions, making
them the subjects of frequent communications to the press, and seeking
the co-operation of others when opportunity offered either in
combating some needless innovation or aiding some important reform.
True to the teaching of his philosophy, it will be observed that in
any attempts of the kind his reliance has always been on the power of
gradual development, rather than abrupt changes by acts of Parliament
or otherwise, to bring about desired conditions. Before his visit to
the United States, in 1882, he interested himself in forming an
Anti-Aggression League, for the purpose of opposing schemes for
extending the lines of British dominion in various parts of the world.
Among his associates in this effort were Mr. John Morley, Mr. Frederic
Harrison, and the Rev. Llewellyn Davis and Canon Fremantle, now Dean
of Ripon, liberal-minded clergymen of the Church of England. The
movement found little public sympathy, and no adequate support. Mr.
Spencer, severely taxing his strength in promoting it, suffered
another breakdown (from which he has never fully recovered), in
consequence of which the next number of his Philosophy--Part VI of the
Principles of Sociology: Ecclesiastical Institutions--did not appear
till the close of 1855. It is worthy of remark in connection with this
incident that it seems to have been left for non-Christians almost
alone in a professedly Christian community to take the advance in
inculcating and disseminating one of the central ideas of the
Christian religion; as now, in the United States, with the orthodox
church people almost unanimous in supporting war and the wildest
schemes of aggression, it has been left for a few New England
Unitarians first to dare to speak in protest against an iniquitous and
perilous crusade for foreign dominion. Mr. Spencer has never neglected
an opportunity to express in unmistakable terms his aversion to
militancy, and has been at great pains to demonstrate, as in his
Sociology, that the true road to all higher development of society is
through encouraging the growth of its industrial factors.
A disposition manifested among English legislators to favor the
passage of acts embodying some of the ideas of the socialists led to
the publication of a series of magazine articles showing the
demoralizing tendencies of measures of paternalism and foreshadowing
the disastrous ultimate results that would ensue from the unnecessary
interference of the state. These were afterward collected and
published under the title of The Man _versus_ the State, and are now
bound up with the revised Social Statics.
From the spring of 1886 till 1889, when conditions of health compelled
entire suspension of the work on the Philosophy, and it was even
doubtful whether it could ever be continued, Mr. Spencer dictated the
larger part of his autobiography. This has since been completed and
put in print, but will not be published during his lifetime. It will
comprise two considerable volumes.
Not finding life in a boarding house in all respects suited to his
wishes, Mr. Spencer for many years entertained the idea of
establishing himself in a home of his own in the suburbs of London,
but had been deterred from so doing by the prospective troubles of
housekeeping. In the summer of 1889, however, after making such
arrangements as promised to relieve him in great measure of these
cares, he finally carried out the idea by taking a house in the
neighborhood of Regent's Park. But though for some years the bachelor
household was a success, we understand it eventually ceased to be so,
though it was continued until Mr. Spencer changed his residence to
Brighton two years ago. There was wanting in those who had immediate
charge of details that feeling of identity of interests and that
disposition to co-operate which belong to the ordinary family, and as
a consequence differences grew up that could not be permanently
composed, and that on the whole did not conduce to domestic
tranquillity.
About the time his housekeeping experience was entered upon, Mr.
Spencer found himself well enough to go on with the composition of
his Philosophy. As he relates in the preface to the Data of Ethics and
to Justice, he had already, ten years before, in the imminent doubt of
ever being able to complete the work as it had been laid out,
determined to devote his attention first to the end and ultimate
object of the system--to that part of it to which all the rest was
intended to lead up; the purpose, "lying behind all proximate
purposes," of finding a scientific basis for the principles of right
and wrong in conduct at large. When, now, the question arose again of
what work to undertake first, completion of the Principles of Ethics
was at once decided upon. As it was still doubtful whether he would be
able to accomplish even this, he took up the part which seemed most
important--Justice. This was published as Part IV of the Ethics in the
summer of 1891. No further serious interruptions occurred in the
execution of the work. Parts II and III, completing the first volume
of the Ethics, were finished in the spring of 1892; and a year
afterward Parts V and VI were added, forming, with Justice, the second
volume.
The ethical part of the Philosophy as contemplated by Mr. Spencer
having been completed, only two divisions remained to be worked
out--Professional Institutions and Industrial Institutions, parts of
the Principles of Sociology--to fill out the whole plan. A subsidiary
discussion of considerable importance for the integrity of the theory
of evolution now intervened to be disposed of before these parts of
the work could be proceeded with. Prof. August Weismann had published
a book in which he denied the transmission of acquired characters; or,
as Mr. Spencer would word it, the transmission of functionally-wrought
modifications--a very vital point in all Mr. Spencer's philosophy. Mr.
Spencer took the matter up at once, and published several incisive
essays refuting Professor Weismann's positions. He opened his argument
against the neo-Darwinian position with essays on the Inadequacy of
Natural Selection, and on Professor Weismann's Theories, and followed
them, at intervals of a few months, with the additional articles, A
Rejoinder to Professor Weismann, and Weismannism Once More. Anxious
that the question should be brought to the notice of every biologist,
Mr. Spencer had reprints of these essays distributed among the
teachers of the science all over Europe and America.
The work on the final stage of Mr. Spencer's great undertaking was
begun about the middle of 1894. The reading of an editorial in the
Popular Science Monthly having suggested to him that it would be
desirable to do so, he published the chapters on Professional
Institutions--serially in this periodical and in the Contemporary
Review. The chapters on Industrial Institutions did not appear till
the third volume of the Sociology was issued in November, 1896--the
volume which was the culmination of the work so persistently
prosecuted in the face of the most formidable and even seemingly
hopeless difficulties. In these departments of the system, the
argument was pursued, consistent with that which prevails in all the
other departments, that in the professions and the industries the
principle of evolution operates just as surely and completely as in
the derivation of an animal species from its ancestral form.
Appreciation of the value of Mr. Spencer's work had been growing for
many years, and its influence was gradually making itself felt in
movements of various kinds in the active world. Whatever he wrote or
said received attention at once, was discussed, or influenced action.
The completion of his Philosophy was deemed worthy of formal notice
and a proper subject for felicitation wherever science was known, and
in England was regarded as a suitable object for a national memorial.
An address of congratulation was prepared for presentation to him, and
with it went a request that he would have his portrait painted to be
presented to the nation. It has always been his principle to decline
offers of testimonials, on the ground that the custom had become an
abuse, and persons invited to participate in presentations were often
put under a kind of moral obligation to comply, to which he would not
be, even incidentally, a party. Consistently with this attitude and
not realizing the real nature of the movement in favor of a
testimonial and how really spontaneous it was, he wrote to its
promoters repeating his objections and asking that it be not pressed.
But when the address was presented and he saw the list of illustrious
names attached to it, including those of men who had been his
antagonists, he yielded to what was evidently a spontaneous feeling of
the representative men among his countrymen, and sat for his portrait
as soon as circumstances permitted, or about a year afterward, to Mr.
Hubert Herkomer. The following is the letter of congratulation and the
request for his portrait, with the names of the distinguished signers,
and Mr. Spencer's reply:
THE CAMP, SUNNINGDALE, _December 16, 1896_.
DEAR SIR: We, the undersigned, offer you our cordial
congratulations upon the completion of your System of Synthetic
Philosophy.
Not all of us agreeing in equal measure with its conclusions, we
are all at one in our estimate of the great intellectual powers it
exhibits and of the immense effect it has produced in the history of
thought; nor are we less impressed by the high moral qualities which
have enabled you to concentrate those powers for so many years upon
a purpose worthy of them, and, in spite of all obstacles, to carry
out so vast a design.
To the many who, like us, have learned to honor the man while
profiting by his writings, it would be a satisfaction to possess an
authentic personal likeness of the author. It has therefore occurred
to us that the occasion might be appropriately marked by requesting
you to permit us to employ some eminent artist to take your
portrait, with a view, to its being deposited in one of our national
collections for the benefit of ourselves and of those who come after
us.
We hope that your health may be benefited by the leisure which
you have earned so well, and that you may long continue to enjoy the
consciousness of having completed your work.
W. DE W. ABNEY, R. E., C. B., D. C. L., F. R. S., Pres. Physical
Society.
ROBERT ADAMSON, M. A., LL. D., Prof, of Logic, Glasgow
University.
GRANT ALLEN, B. A.
ALEXANDER BAIN, M. A., LL. D., Professor of Logic, Aberdeen
University.
SIR GEORGE S. BADEN-POWELL, K. C. M. G., M. A., M. P.
RIGHT HON. ARTHUR JAMES BALFOUR, P. C., D. C. L., F. R. S., M. P.
SIR ROBERT STAWELL BALL, LL. D., F. R. S., Lowndean Prof. Ast.,
Camb.
H. CHARLTON BASTIAN, M. A., M. D., F. R. S., Prof. Medicine,
Univ. Coll., London.
FRANK E. BEDDARD, M. A., F. R. S., Prosector Zoölogical Society.
JOHN BEDDOE, M. D., F. R. S.
SIR WALTER BESANT, M. A.
E. W. BRABROOK, Pres. Anthropological Institute.
BERNARD BOSANQUET, M. A.
C. V. BOYS, F. R. S., Assistant Prof. Physics R. C. S.
T. LAUDER BRUNTON, M. D., D. Sc., F. R. S.
EDWARD CLODD.
F. HOWARD COLLINS.
SIR J. CRICHTON-BROWNE, M. D., LL. D., F. R. S.
W. H. DALLINGER, LL. D., D. Sc., F. R. S.
FRANCIS DARWIN, M. A., M. B., F. R. S.
GEORGE H. DARWIN, M. A., LL. D., F. R. S., Plumian Prof. Ast. and
Exp. Physics, Cambridge.
W. E. DARWIN, B. A.
JAMES DONALDSON, M. A., LL. D., Principal University St. Andrews.
RIGHT HON. SIR M. E. GRANT-DUFF, P. C., G. C. S. I., F. R. S.
Earl of Dysart.
SIR JOHN EVANS, K. C. B., D. C. L., LL. D., D. Sc., Treas. R. S.
SIR JOSHUA FITCH, LL. D.
MICHAEL FOSTER, M. A., M. D., LL. D., D. C. L., Sec. R. S., Prof.
Physio., Cambridge.
EDWARD FRANKLAND, M. D., D. C. L., LL. D., F. R. S.
RIGHT HON. SIR EDWARD FRY, P. C., LL. D., D. C. L., F. R. S.
SIR DOUGLAS GALTON, K. C. B., D. C. L., LL. D., F. R. S.
FRANCIS GALTON, M. A., D. C. L., D. Sc., F. R. S.
RICHARD GARNETT, LL. D.
SIR GEORGE GROVE, C. B., D. C. L., LL. D.
ALBERT C. L. G. GÜNTHER, M. A., M. D., F. R. S., Pres. Linnean
Society.
FREDERIC HARRISON, M. A.
JAMES EDMUND HARTING.
RIGHT HON. LORD HOBHOUSE, P. C.
HENRY HOBHOUSE, M. A., M. P.
SHADWORTH HODGSON, late Pres. Aristotelian Society.
SIR JOSEPH DALTON HOOKER, K. C. S. I., C. B., M. D., D. C. L.,
LL. D., F. R. S.
WILLIAM HUGGINS, D. C. L., LL. D., F. R. S.
J. HUGHLINGS JACKSON, M. D., LL. D., F. R. S.
WILLIAM KNIGHT, LL. D., Prof. Moral Philosophy, St. Andrews.
ANDREW LANG.
E. RAY LANKESTER, M. A., LL. D., F. R. S., Linacre Prof. Anatomy,
Oxford.
SIR TREVOR LAWRENCE, Pres. Royal Horticultural Society.
W. E. H. LECKY, M. A., LL. D., D. C. L., M. P.
J. NORMAN LOCKYER, C. B., F. R. S., Prof. Astr. Physics, R. C. S.
RIGHT HON. SIR JOHN LUBBOCK, P. C., D. C. L., LL. D., F. R. S.,
M. P.
VERNON LUSHINGTON, Q. C.
P. A. MACMAHON, R. A., F. R. S., late Pres. Math. Society.
JAMES MARTINEAU, D. D., LL. D., D. C. L.
DAVID MASSON, M. A., LL. D., Emeritus Prof. Rhetoric, Edinburgh.
RAPHAEL MELDOLA, F. R. S., Pres. Entomological Society.
C. LLOYD MORGAN, Prin. University Coll., Bristol.
RIGHT HON. JOHN MORLEY, P. C., M. A., LL. D., F. R. S., M. P.
C. HUBERT H. PARRY, Prin. R. Coll. of Music.
GENERAL PITT-RIVERS, D. C. L., F. R. S.
EDWARD B. POULTON, M. A., F. R. S., Prof. Zoöl. Oxford
University.
SIR WILLIAM O. PRIESTLEY, M. D., LL. D., M. P.
LORD REAY, G. C. S. I., G. C. I. E.
LORD RAYLEIGH, M. A., D. C. L., LL. D., F. R. S., Prof. Nat.
Philos. Royal Institution.
DAVID G. RITCHIE, M. A., Professor of Logic St. Andrews
University.
SIR HENRY E. ROSCOE, LL. D., D. C. L., F. R. S.
J. S. BURDON SANDERSON, LL. D., D. C. L., F. R. S., Reg. Prof. of
Medicine Univ. Oxford.
GEORGE H. SAVAGE, M. D., F. R. C. P.
E. A. SCHÄFER, F. R. S., Prof. Physio. Univ. Coll. London.
D. H. SCOTT, M. A., Ph. D., F. R. S., Hon. Keeper Jodrell
Laboratory, Kew.
HENRY SIDGWICK, M. A., Litt. D., D. C. L., Prof. Moral Philos.
Univ. Camb.
W. R. SORLEY, Prof. Moral Philos. Univ. of Aberdeen.
LESLIE STEPHEN, M. A., Litt. D., LL. D.
G. F. STOUT.
JAMES SULLY, M. A., LL. D.
W. T. THISELTON-DYER, C. M. G., C. I. E., M. A., F. R. S.
JOHN VENN, Sc. D., F. R. S.
SYDNEY HOWARD VINES, M. A., D. Sc., F. R. S., Prof. Botany Univ.
Oxford.
SIR WILLOUGHBY WADE, M. D., F. R. C. P.
ALFRED RUSSEL WALLACE, D. C. L., F. R. S.
BEATRICE WEBB.
LADY VICTORIA WELBY.
SAMUEL WILKS, M. D., LL. D., F. R. S., Pres. R. College of
Physicians.
HAWARDEN, _November 30, 1896_.
MY DEAR SIR: It has long been my rule to decline joining in
groups of signatures, nor do I think myself entitled to bear a
prominent part in the present case. But I beg that you will, if you
think proper, set me down as an approver of the request to Mr.
Spencer, whose signal abilities and, rarer still, whose manful and
self-denying character, are so justly objects of admiration.
I remain your very faithful,
W. E. GLADSTONE.
F. HOWARD COLLINS, Esq.
2, LEWES-CRESCENT, BRIGHTON, _December 19, 1896_.
MY DEAR HOOKER: If, as may fitly be said, the value of
congratulations increases in a geometrical progression with the
eminence of those offering them, I may, indeed, be extremely
gratified by the accumulation coming from men standing so high in
various spheres. And an accompanying pleasure necessarily results
from the good wishes expressed for my health and happiness during my
remaining days.
The further honor offered has caused in me some mental conflict.
Eight years ago, to the inquiry whether I would sit for a
subscription portrait to be painted by Millais, I replied
negatively, assigning the reasons that the raising of funds to pay
the costs of conferring marks of approbation had grown into an
abuse; that the moral coercion under which contributions were in
many cases obtained was repugnant to me; and that I objected to have
my known and unknown friends asked to tax themselves to the required
extent. These reasons survived, and, swayed by them, I recently sent
a copy of the letter in which they had been stated to the gentleman
with whom the proposal now made originated, thinking thereby to
prevent further trouble. I was unaware to how large an extent the
proposal had been adopted and how distinguished were the numerous
gentlemen who had given it their support. I now find myself obliged
either inconsistently to waive my objection or else rudely to slight
the cordially-expressed feelings and wishes of so many whose
positions and achievements command my great respect. Between the
alternatives there seems to be practically no choice. I am compelled
to yield to the request made in so sympathetic a manner by
signatories so eminent, and at the same time must express to them
through you my full sense of the honor done me.
I am, my dear Hooker, sincerely yours,
HERBERT SPENCER.
Marks of honor offered to Mr. Spencer from time to time since 1871
have included doctor's degrees from the Universities of St. Andrews,
Bologna, Cambridge, Edinburgh, and Buda-Pesth; and elections as
foreign member or correspondent of the Academies of Rome, Turin,
Naples, Paris, Philadelphia, Copenhagen, Brussels, Vienna, Milan, and
the Prussian order "_Pour le Mérite_." Mr. Spencer has been prompted
year after year to decline these various honors by the conviction that
instead of being, as commonly supposed, encouragements to literature
and science, they are discouraging. He contends that they constitute a
system of inverse handicapping. In physical competitions it is usual
to give the younger a certain artificial advantage when they are set
against the elder; but in these mental competitions between the rising
men and the men who have risen the reverse practice is followed--the
men who have risen have an artificial advantage, and the younger men,
who of necessity have much to struggle against, have their
difficulties artificially increased by the absence of titles which
their competitors possess. Mr. Spencer is quite aware that the course
he has persistently followed has cost him much, since a list of honors
on the title-pages of his books would have greatly increased the
attention paid to them by critics and others. Nevertheless, he has
continued to make this practical protest.