and the illuminating rational revelation of modern science.' Whence follows the ostensibly historical summary, that during recent years 'Liberal Protestantism' has taken 'refuge in a kind of monistic pantheism,' and 'the conviction rapidly spread that dogmatic Christianity had lost every foundation'; but that meanwhile, 'there has arisen that widespread religious profession in educated spheres which we can only call Pseudo-Christianity-at the bottom it is a religious lie of the worst character.' 2 To multiply such quotations were as easy as unprofitable. They require no comment beyond the reminder that they are fair specimens of the style with which readers are invited to accompany their 'modest guide' throughout the broad domain of the Monistic philosophy.3 เ When we come to consider personalities-as perforce we must-they are interesting indeed. Most readers with any approach to impartial minds, have appreciated the delicious 'modesty' with which the writer, himself a septuagenarian, refers to the entire change of philosophical principles' which we find in Wundt, Kant, Virchow, Du Bois Reymond, Karl Ernst Baer, and others, from an early agreement with Haeckel's monism to emphatic opposition, as explained by the fact that 'with old age there comes a gradual decay of the brain, just as happens in all other organs.' 1 This is said to be an instructive psychological fact.' It would surely seem that the instruction 1 Riddle, p. 109. 2 p. 114. 3 Wonders, p. 470. is rather relative to the ethics of Monism; especially when we find it to be quite typical of the manner of reference in other cases. Professor Haeckel is greatly concerned about Kant and his philosophy, but his contemptuous references to 'the young, severely critical Kant and the older dogmatic Kant,' whom he is pleased to style Kant I and II, will come under consideration later on. We may just note in passing his estimate of others. In regard to the 'Ignorabimus speech' of Du Bois Reymond at Leipzig in 1872, we are told that the censure came at first only from the few who had sufficient scientific knowledge and moral courage to oppose the dogmatism of the allpowerful secretary and dictator of the Berlin Academy of Science.' Whilst in a later speech (on Neovitalism, 1894) we are informed that 'Du Bois. Reymond here shows, as in the question of consciousness, the shallow and illogical character of his monistic thought.' Karl Ernst Baer, we are assured, was a scientist of the highest order.' That is, so long as he agreed with Haeckel. But afterwards, เ 2 1 It may, however, be interesting to quote here Professor Paulsen's judgement concerning the critical worth of these references: 'Wenn aber die beschränkte Zeit unserem philosophen nicht gestattet so langwierige philosophische Untersuchungen zu lesen, die dazu noch etwas unbequem geschrieben sind, und freilich auch keine Lösung der Welträtsel wenigstens auf seine Art, in Aussicht stellen, so möchte ich ihm den unmassgeblichen Vorschlag machen, den Namen Kant in seinen kunftigen Veröffentlichungen lieber zu vermeiden. Man weiss wirklich nicht worüber man mehr staunen soll, über den Mangel an Kenntnissen oder über den fröhlichen Leichtsinn mit dem er von Dingen redet, von denen er nur von fern gehört hat.'-Philosophia Militans, pp. 163, 168. 2 Riddle, pp. 64, 84. 'his original monistic views were gradually marred by a tinge of mysticism with the advance of age, and he eventually became a thorough dualist.' So that when, in 1859, phylogeny 'was established by Darwin, the aged Baer was no longer in a position to appreciate it.' Yet the aged Haeckel remains clear-minded and infallible! In regard again to the great Newton, it is not enough that the false assertion should be made that Newton 'deduced from his law of gravitation the action at a distance without a medium,' than which one would have thought any fairly educated schoolboy would know better; 2 but the reader is further 'instructed' to the effect that 'the great English mathematician passed the last thirty-four years of his life in an obscure labyrinth of mystic dreams and theistic superstition.'3 It is, of course, perfectly in accord with what Professor Adickes calls so truly 'Haeckel's Leichtfertigkeit in Behaupten,' that he should assert that all the 'alleged marvels of spiritism have been traced to a more or less clever deception,' but as regards 'biologists' of such distinction as Dr. Wallace and Dr. Crookes (the latter will no doubt be equally surprised and delighted to learn of his eminence in this field), we are also bidden understand that they were 'led astray partly by their excess of imagination and defect of critical Riddle, p. 95. 2 Newton's own words, concerning this action at a distance,' are : 'It is to me so great an absurdity, that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it.' * Riddle, p. 77. 2 เ faculty, and partly by the powerful influence of dogmas which a religious education imprinted on the brain in early youth.' Flammarion, the distinguished 'Parisian astronomer,' fares no better. His works have been extremely popular, but they are distinguished by a deplorable lack of critical judgement and biological knowledge.' Of the late Professor J. G. Romanes we are told in the earlier volume that his work was 'splendid and his volumes are amongst the most valuable productions of psychological literature.' Afterwards, however, there happened in this case, just as in the case of the aged Baer, one of those interesting psychological metamorphoses which I have described in chap. vi. of The Riddle.' And lest we should be even more amused than indignant at such impudent conceits, the translator comes to the rescue with the grave assurance that 'English readers of Romanes' Thoughts on Religion will recognize the justice of this analysis.' Those English readers, however, who have not lost all their senses, are more likely to recognize something else, even the consummate impertinence of these writers as they thus complacently ascribe to senile decay and mystic influences, acting through depression and melancholy, every departure from their own pronouncedly infallible Monistic conceits.3 1 Riddle, p. 108. Riddle, pp. 38, 39. 3 This is particularly the case with regard to Dr. Romanes, who is persistently represented as having failed mentally in his illness. It is, as Dr. Gore has publicly pointed out, nothing but a malignant slander.' Dr. Burdon Sanderson himself says (Proceedings of Royal Society, vol. 57, p. 8): Up to the end he preserved not only his เ The latest work shows perfect consistency in these respects with the earlier. It is true that the writer genially assures us that the 'conciliatory disposition has grown stronger' in him. But when we come to look for the manifestations of it, the conciliation turns out to be of a remarkable quality. Thus, in reference generally to those who differ from him, this 'genial' writer avers that most of the representatives of philosophy at the universities are narrow metaphysicians and idealists, who meet the difficulties of modern biology by a sort of verbal gymnastic and sophistry.1 Elsewhere," they are said to be in 'complete ignorance of the real facts,' in regard to human nature, the adduced proof being that 'in their one-sided anthropism' they would assign personal consciousness as the basis of the idea of individuality. Whence it follows that 'the curious sermons of these modern sophists are no longer noticed by any competent and informed scientist.' As for those who still dare to believe in a conscious Providence,' they are of course 'simple children and dull believers,' whose 'phrases no longer impose on educated people in the twentieth century.' 3 mental vigour, but the keenest interest in his scientific pursuits. No one could possibly speak with greater impartiality or more scientific authority than he.' In face of such testimony, the ethics of Monism ought to be ashamed to repeat such a slander. As to the Thoughts on Religion, the reader should judge for himself, undeterred by any sneers. 1 Wonders of Life, p. 73. 2 p. 158. 3 Those readers of Haeckel's latest German edition of the Welträtsel, who have been impressed by his reference to Dr. Dennert's booklet as eine bunte Sammlung von Verdächtigungen und Schmähungen aller Art, die theils auf reinen sophistischen Enstellungen und |