their relations. As man of letters he wrote of others, not of himself. He had individualism enough to write books on life, but not to achieve in life. Neither as man of words nor as man of deeds was he in reality personal, individual. As a scientist he bowed before facts; as a metaphysician, before the unknowable; as a moralist, before the immutable truth of natural law. His philosophy is formed of fear, of ignorance, and of obedience: virtues from the point of view of Christ, but vices from the point of view of the individualist. Spencer was no more nor less than a forger of individualism.
The common belief that Spencer defended the individual comes wholly from his criticism of the domination of the State. The English philosopher is in fact one of the most tenacious assailants of governmental tyranny. Valiant indeed are his onslaughts against the new Leviathan that seeks to swallow all activities and all persons in the mechanistic mass of its bureaucratic tentacles.
The little book called The Man versus the State is excellent reading. It is a pleasure to take it up after the imposition of some idiotic penalty, or a debate on Sunday closing: for though the muzzling powers of the State increase, its fundamental weakness and absurdity are here revealed.
Yet even this, intelligent and edifying though
