494 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



personated by a wench who is much uglier and has no virtue worth 

 speaking of. I hope I should be ready to stand by a falling cause if 

 1 had ever adopted it ; but suffering for a falling cause, which one 

 has done one's best to bring to the ground, is a kind of martyrdom 

 for which I have no taste. In my opinion, the philosophical theory 

 which Mr. Lilly attributes to me — but which I have over and over 

 again disclaimed — is untenable and destined to extinction ; and I not 

 unreasonably demur to being counted among its defenders. 



After the manner of a mediaeval disputant, Mr. Lilly posts up three 

 theses, which, as he conceives, embody the chief heresies propagated 

 by the late Professor Clifford, Mr. Herbert Spencer, and myself. He 

 says that we agree u (1) in putting aside, as unverifiable, everything 

 which the senses can not verify ; (2) everything beyond the bounds 

 of physical science ; (3) everything which can not be brought into a 

 laboratory and dealt with chemically " (page 477, preceding article). 



My lamented young friend Clifford, sweetest of natures though 

 keenest of disputants, is out of reach of our little controversies ; but 

 his works speak for him, and those who run may read a refutation of 

 Mr. Lilly's assertions in them. Mr. Herbert Spencer hitherto has 

 shown no lack either of ability or of inclination to speak for himself ; 

 and it would be a superfluity, not to say an impertinence, on my part 

 to take up the cudgels for him. But for myself, if my knowledge of 

 my own consciousness may be assumed to be adequate (and I make 

 not the least pretension to acquaintance with what goes on in my 

 " Unbewusstsein "), I may be permitted to observe that the first propo- 

 sition appears to me to be not true ; that the second is in the same 

 case ; and that, if there be gradations in untrueness, the third is so 

 monstrously untrue that it hovers on the verge of absurdity, even if it 

 does not actually flounder in that logical limbo. Thus to all three 

 theses I reply in appropriate fashion, Nego—1 say No ; and I proceed 

 to state the grounds of that negation, which the proprieties do not per- 

 mit me to make quite so emphatic as I could desire. 



Let me begin with the first assertion, that I " put aside, as unveri- 

 fiable, everything which the senses can not verify." Can such a state- 

 ment as this be seriously made in respect of any human being ? But 

 I am not appointed apologist for mankind in general, and, confining 

 my observations to myself, I beg leave to point out that, at this pres- 

 ent moment, I entertain an unshakable conviction that Mr. Lilly is the 

 victim of a patent and enormous misunderstanding, and that I have 

 not the slightest intention of putting that conviction aside because I 

 can not " verify " it either by touch, or taste, or smell, or hearing, or 

 sight, which (in the absence of any trace of telepathic faculty) make 

 up the totality of my senses. 



Again, I may venture to admire the clear and vigorous English in 

 which Mr. Lilly embodies his views ; but the source of that admira- 

 tion does not lie in anything which my five senses enable me to dis- 



