X.

CHAPTER not so much Sir William Hamilton, as that system of thought of which, in his opinion, Hamilton is the most powerful exponent. Now, what is that system of thought? Many readers and reviewers are running away with the idea that it is something peculiar to Hamilton. It is true that Mr. Mill attacks points of doctrine which are peculiar to Hamilton; but that is not his main object; that is but a subsidiary one, adopted for the purpose of rendering his attack (since he has chosen to express himself in the form of attack) as complete as possible. He is careful to tell us in the outset that what he attacks is the established philosophy of Europe, of which Sir William Hamilton is the most formidable soldier; and this point must be thoroughly understood, or we shall fail to understand the position which Mr. Mill takes up, and the meaning of his book. We shall fail also to take a true measure of the success which he has now achieved in assaulting Sir William Hamilton.

How far the

attack concerns Sir

On the personal question as to the effect of Mr. Mill's attack on Sir William Hamilton's ton's indi- philosophical reputation, I do not now propose vidual repu- to touch, save in the most general terms. The

W. Hamil

tation.

opinion, I have said, has been expressed rather exultingly in some of the critical journals that Sir William Hamilton has been demolished for To enter into that question, however, I

ever.

X.

should have to trouble the reader with a con- CHAPTER troversy of details into which he would not care to follow me. In several details it can be shown that Sir William Hamilton is at fault; but also in several it can be shown that Mr. Mill is wrong, and has either mistaken the opinions of Hamilton or has failed to overturn them.* It is not necessary, however, to enter into details in order to form a fair opinion as to the merits of this controversy. There are three main considerations which ought to be remembered in Sir William Hamilton's behalf, and which will induce all but mere partisans to pause before they determine that to praise the recent performance of Mr. Mill is to imply the defeat and utter rout of his adversary.

ment in

The first is, that, according to Mr. Mill's own An argushowing, to demolish Sir William Hamilton is Hamilton's to demolish what is accredited in the chief schools of philosophy throughout Europe. He is selected

"Mr. Mill's method of criticism," says Mr. Mansel, "has reduced the question to a very narrow compass. Either Sir W. Hamilton, instead of being a great philosopher, is the veriest blunderer that ever put pen to paper, or the blunders are Mr. Mill's own. To those who accept the first of these alternatives it must always remain a marvel how Sir W. Hamilton could ever have acquired his

VOL. II.

reputation; how he could have
been designated by his illus-
trious opponent, Cousin, as the
'greatest critic of our age,' or
described by the learned Brandis
as almost unparalleled in the
profound knowledge of ancient
and modern philosophy. The
marvel may perhaps disappear,
should it be the case, as we be-
lieve it to be, that the second
alternative is the true one."

C

behalf.

X.

CHAPTER for attack because he is the leading representative of modern philosophy, and because "whenever an opinion which he deliberately expressed is contended against, his form of the opinion, and his arguments for it, are those which especially require to be faced and carefully appreciated." Therefore, if Hamilton is to fall before the assault of Mr. Mill, what other European philosopher is likely to fare better? and who is to stand? Mr. Mill may have succeeded, but the presumption is against him. It is possible, though not probable, that in the person of Sir William Hamilton he has cut to pieces and ground to powder the European system of philosophy. But if he have succeeded in this object of refuting the established philosophy, we must still remember his own admission, that he has found in Sir William Hamilton "by far his most formidable antagonist."

A second

tion in his behalf.

Another consideration is that philosophers considera have generally proved themselves to be invincible in attack and powerless in defence. There is no fact in philosophy on which Sir William Hamilton himself was more apt to dwell than this; and, indeed, what was more peculiarly his own in speculation was directed to the proof and illustration of it. Perhaps the statement should be supplemented or balanced by that other of Leibnitz's, that philosophy is generally right in what it asserts, and wrong in what it

X.

denies; but still, as an effort of reasoning, it CHAPTER holds for the most part that the reasoning of attack is more unanswerable than the reasoning of defence. No man, for example, believed more firmly than Sir William Hamilton in the freedom of the will, and Mr. Mill, indeed, points out that "the doctrine of Free Will was so fundamental with him that it may be regarded as the central idea of his system." But, on the other hand, Sir William Hamilton was never weary of observing that the arguments against the freedom of the will, as likewise those against necessity, are perfectly unanswerable, and he strenuously set himself to show how we may be justified in accepting as a fact what is incapable of proof. No doubt, if the doctrine be pushed to its consequences, it will go far to show the futility of nearly all metaphysical research, and, perhaps, there are not many men in England who would seriously shrink from such a conclusion. Be that as it may, we have here but to note the simple fact that in the attack and defence of any philosophical system we expect the superiority to be always with the attack; and, therefore, if Sir William Hamilton undergoing attack appears at a disadvantage, if the batteries of the enemy make many a breach in his walls, and if the strong tower in which he intrenched himself seems to be tottering to its fall, it is no more than we should expect-it is

X.

CHAPTER no more than the weakness which any other system of philosophy, overwhelmed by a similar cannonade, would display. We have yet to learn whether Mr. Mill's own system of philosophy will stand before one-half the weight of shot that can be directed against it.

A third considera

tion.

And still a third consideration is at hand. It is that the reputation and the standing of a philosopher are not always to be measured by the amount of positive truth which he has been able to dig out and to establish. There is no greater name in philosophy than that of Plato, but how much of Plato stands? And is the influence of Plato small, is his work of slight importance, because we can refute his dialectics and repudiate his doctrines? Plato must live by the spirit which he infused into men's minds, even if every one of his special doctrines were scattered to the winds. He is a great power in philosophy, although his philosophy is exploded. And with regard to Sir William Hamilton we may pursue a similar line of remark. He has obtained a position among the thinkers of Europe which Mr. Mill, so far from denying, is the foremost to acknowledge. But it is impossible that any thinker should attain such a position without exerting a vast influence which is quite independent of the truth or falsehood of his particular doctrines. Let us suppose that the doctrines are false, still they have a momentum