OPINIONS OF GEORGE AND JOHN GROTE.

255

the main true, but whether they bring us quite so much to the bottom and centre of things as you would have us think. I am not sure that you have given us quite as much account as we ought to have of the fact of personality,-i.e., of the fact which corresponds to the feeling of consciousness. We go up the stream of sensibility and then down the stream of will, and so far as I as yet understand, you will not let us have a watershed or pass between the two, a point of transition from one to the other, but show us will taking its independent rise in irritability, then it and sensibility running side by side and gradually getting linked one to the other till there results intelligent will, or the will with which we rationally act. Now, about this irritability as the source of all, what I doubt is, true as it doubtless in a measure is, and to me a novel and important view, whether it is sufficient to account for the whole of the primary or rudimentary fact of will-is there not something more than bodily or nervous irritability, even in the first seed of volition? I have the same sort of doubt as to what you say about the emotions. The fact of the importance of the bodily change or modification (which is what some time ago in our language would have been known by the name of the passion, and which wants very much a special name for it now) corresponding to each sort of emotion, in respect of the analysis and classification of the emotions, is a thing which I have thought much about, but which rather wants one who, like you, knows more than I do of physiology to deal with. it. But are you right in considering to the extent to which you apparently do the bodily phenomenon (wave of emotion, as you have, it seems to me, most happily described it) the whole of the emotion? What is the emotion, in its proper character, an affection of? Is it not of something, substance if we like to call it so, of which, perhaps, we may know nothing more than that it is so affectable and affected, but which there must be, and of which consciousness is a sort of knowledge to us? I

cannot conceive that the utmost refinement of analysis of the corporeal phenomenon of emotion will carry us beyond the region of organs or instruments, and the self which uses them must be something which has its realities, over and above what belongs to them.

"I have the same sort of doubt in regard of your views about knowledge. You have explained better, I think, than any one before you has how we feel and measure the infinitely varied mass of the sensible and measurable in the midst of which we exist, but what we measure is extension, and what we feel in sensation is sensible or chemical qualities; whereas what we know and think about is things each with a unity and supposed reality of its own. You scarcely seem to me enough to have described the nature of what you term "the specializing forces" of consciousness or attention-in fact, I somewhat doubt whether they are describable.

"I may be behind the age, but I can scarcely look upon it as a step forward to lay down the relativeness of knowledge or the very idea of it, as Sir W. Hamilton has done and as your principles require. But the post calls and I must conclude with thanking you again for your book and for the kind expressions of your note. Excuse the hurry with which you will, perhaps, think I have read your book, and with which I have certainly written this note. I should be glad if anything would bring you here, and if I could see you, but I fear I could not show you much philosophy.

"I remain, yours most sincerely,

"J. GROTE."

take

Winter, 1859-60.

My plan of work to follow the Emotions was to

up the subject of Character, to be discussed

WORK ON CHARACTER.

257

according to the psychological views set forth in my two volumes. This was begun at once, and carried on continuously during 1859 and next year.

The British Association met at Aberdeen in August of the same year, and it was my intention to be present at the meeting; but I was so oppressed by the incapacity of my lameness that I thought it better to spend the autumn in Rothesay, with a view to general bracing. After several weeks thus spent, I went to Edinburgh for a fortnight, during which time I consulted Robert Cox's valuable phrenological library with reference to my projected work; a thorough criticism of phrenology being part of the plan. Soon after returning to Richmond, I went to Cambridge, on invitation to visit John Grote at his Rectory, a mile out of Cambridge.

This visit was rendered notable by my being taken by Grote to luncheon at Trinity Lodge with Dr. Whewell. The main incident was that, during luncheon, Adam Sedgwick, the old geologist, came in in a state of great excitement, and addressed Whewell to this effect: "Well, Master, what do you think I've been doing all the morning? Reading Darwin's new book on the Origin of Species that has just come into my hands." He, thereupon, indulged in a vehement diatribe against Darwin-in which Whewell concurred-for setting aside the Creator

in accounting for the Universe. Most curious and remarkable was his defiance of Darwin's evolution to bring about the races of animals and man as we find them—remarking with vehemence, "I'll give you the Bank of Eternity to draw upon". He was, of course, unaware at that time of the limits put by physical authorities upon the age of the solar system. Sedgwick had made himself conspicuous by showing up the well-known "Vestiges" in the Quarterly Review; and he now felt much in the same mood with Darwin.

This was my first visit to Cambridge, with the exception of my attending the British Association meeting in 1845. I saw a good many of the University men, but did not derive anything very special in the way of information or suggestion. John Grote was very hospitable and friendly, and was himself an interesting man to talk to. He had all the candour and metaphysical tastes of his brother, without the thorough-goingness in his conclusions. The two brothers rarely met, but held one another in the greatest brotherly esteem, while freely commenting upon each other's positions.1

1 Among other points of community between those two brothers, it deserves to be noted that their word coinages are part of the debt that the world owes to them. The word "Autonomy "-George Grote's invention-is now indispensable in European politics. Equally valuable is John Grote's contribution to ethical nomenclature; it being only necessary to allude to the gap filled by the word "Hedonism," among others of less but still considerable importance, in ethical discussion.

VISIT TO CAMBRIDGE.

259

I went on working at the Study of Character; the volume being fully planned. The chapter on the Characters of Theophrastus was contributed by Grote.

I obtained from Parker his consent to publish the phrenological parts in Fraser, in a consecutive series. The first appeared in May, 1860, entitled "Phrenology and Psychology". Three others appeared successively in September, November, 1860, and February, 1861. At this point occurred an unfortunate incident in connexion with the Magazine. The younger Parker, who managed both the publishing business and the editing of Fraser, had died. The editorship was undertaken by James Anthony Froude, with whom I came into correspondence in December (1860), after the publication of the third of the series. He accepted for publication the fourth, of which the MS. came at once into his hands, and brought it out in February. At the same time, he indicated that he considered the papers not sufficiently light for Fraser, and would not insert another. It so happened that the fifth had actually been sent, but could not now be brought out; it being his intention, accordingly, to return it. This, however, was not done. On the 3rd of March (1861), I had a communication to the effect that it had accidentally been destroyed by being carried away as waste paper-a circumstance that, of course, gave him the highest degree of annoyance. He was then in communication with Mill, in connexion with the publication of his "Utilitarianism" in the Magazine, and referred to him as arbiter of the mode of reparation for the injury he had caused. Whether felt or not, this was, as regards Mill, an unfortunate reminder of a far worse calamity that had overtaken himself with the MS. of Carlyle's French Revolution. Be that as it may, he indicated the course that might have suggested itself to Froude-either to give me the Magazine pay simply, or to print the article yet, if I chose to re-write it. I took the last alternative, and the