458 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



pie think they know what they mean, and that they all mean the same 

 thing, when they use the word " soul." But do they ? If we are to 

 attach importance to the doctrine that the soul is not of the same na- 

 ture as the body, and exists, or can exist, apart from the body, it is 

 surely above all things necessary that we should hold some orthodox 

 creed as to what the soul is in itself, and what the body is in itself — 

 what, in a word, each is that the other is not. It might have been 

 expected that a writer of the scientific habit of mind of Mr. Fiske 

 would have presented some definition of the word " soul " in the work 

 before us ; but I fail to find that he has done so. We are left in this 

 matter entirely to our own more or less vague preconceptions. It 

 would have been satisfactory could we have been informed whether 

 the soul, in parting from the body, carries away with it any elements 

 or influences derived from the body, or whether it simply reverts to 

 the condition in which it existed before its union with the body. Some 

 information of this nature is necessary before we can be sure that our 

 knowledge is much advanced by being told that the soul continues to 

 exist after the body has been dissolved. What, exactly, continues to 

 exist ? How much of what we now reckon as ourselves ? Then, 

 again, though it might not, strictly speaking, form part of the discus- 

 sion as to the destiny of man, it would seem proper that a scientific 

 expounder of animism should at least hazard some conjecture as to 

 where or what souls are before their union with bodies ; whether they 

 exist individually or whether they are but parts of some homogeneous 

 soul-substance,* and only become individualized as the result of their 

 union with individual bodies. Especially might we look for this when 

 the subject discussed is " the destiny of man viewed in the light of his 

 origin." If there be the sharp distinction afiirmed between man's eoul 

 and his body, we should hardly expect the natural history of his body 

 to throw much light on the destiny of his soul. We should certainly 

 be better prepared to form an opinion or a belief as to the course of 

 the soul after it leaves the body, if we could have some grounds for 

 an opinion or belief as to the mode of its existence before it joined the 

 body. If it be held that it had no previous existence, it may not be 

 evident to all why it should survive that body at a certain j^oint in 

 the development of which it would seem to have had its birth. 



These are preliminary considerations. Mr. Fiske has not given us all 

 that might have been expected in a treatise bearing the title he has 

 chosen, and pointing to the conclusions he indicates. Still, he has 

 given us something, and it may repay us to examine what the actual 

 content of his work is. To say that the work is written with grace 

 and charm and skill, is only to say over again that it proceeds from the 

 pen of Mr. Fiske. What we want to know now is, what it teaches us 

 apart from lessons in literary style and arrangement. 



* Compare Maudsley's theory of an all-pervading mentiferous ether, " Body and Will," 

 p. 101. 



i 



