John Stuart Mill: A Criticism with Personal Recollections
John Stuart Mill: A Criticism with Personal Recollections
John Stuart Mill: A Criticism with Personal Recollections
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
l68 SYMPATHY IN OPINIONS. 1849-1872.<br />
apparent in mixed races like ourselves. In mental peculiarities,<br />
contrast also dominates in many subtle forms which I need not<br />
here dilate upon.<br />
<strong>Mill</strong> would fain make us believe that the attachment in his<br />
case was based altogether on mental superiority intellectual<br />
and moral. The influence of beauty in general, the special<br />
attraction of fair for dark, of tall for short, and other such in<br />
fluences, he would have us leave entirely out of the account.<br />
Hard thinkers are most often charmed, not by other thinkers,<br />
but by minds of the more concrete and artistic mould. He<br />
would have perhaps allowed something of this sort, in his case,<br />
<strong>with</strong> the condition, that the artistic element was merely one of<br />
the aspects of a genius that took the first rank in every form<br />
of intellectual greatness.<br />
The influence of contrast in producing the love of attach<br />
ment must be so expressed as not to exclude sympathy or<br />
agreement in opinions, objects, and aspirations; which is one<br />
great cause of individual likings. This is a broad general fact,<br />
but does not go far towards explaining the select overpowering<br />
attachments. <strong>Mill</strong> tells us that his opinions on the complete<br />
equality between the sexes in all legal, political, social, and do<br />
mestic relations were, he believed, more than anything else,<br />
the originating cause of the interest his wife felt in him. This<br />
is so far in conformity <strong>with</strong> the general principle ; yet does not<br />
help us very much.<br />
His hyperbolical language of unbounded laudation, which<br />
has been the cause of so much wonderment, can be somewhat<br />
checked by the details that he himself supplies. His accus<br />
tomed precision does not desert him in regard to these ; and<br />
we are enabled to form a probable estimate of what his wife<br />
really was to him.<br />
In the first place, he tells us that the Logic owed nothing to<br />
her, except the minutiae of composition. Then as to the<br />
Political Economy, the purely scientific part he did not learn<br />
from her. What was entirely her work was the chapter en-