REASON AND LANGUAGE. i8i 



self-same faculty."* But, then, we do not mean by 

 naming, what Mr. Romanes means ; because we are not, 

 as he is, followers of " Nominalism." We read with 

 amazement his remark about Realism, " which," he tells 

 us, " neither those who think with Mr. Mivart nor any 

 other psychologists with whom I have to do are likely 

 nowadays to countenance." 



He goes on, " If I do not apologize for having occu- 

 pied so much space cfver so obvious a point, it is only 

 because I believe that any one who reads these pages 

 will sympathize with my desire to avoid ambiguity, and 

 thus to reduce the question before us to its naked 

 reality." We gladly take this opportunity to say we 

 are sure not only that Mr. Romanes has tried to be 

 clear, but also that he has succeeded. Ambiguous 

 terms we have noted, but their ambiguity is due to no 

 carelessness on Mr. Romanes's part, but to the fact 

 that he has not yet succeeded in fully understanding 

 the position of his opponents. " So far," he con- 

 tinues, "it will be observed, this question has not 

 been touched. I am not disputing that an immense 

 and extraordinary distinction obtains, and I do not 

 anticipate that either Mr. Mivart or any one else will 

 take exception to this preliminary clearing of the 

 ground, which has been necessitated only on account 

 of my opponents having been careless enough to repre- 

 sent the Proposition as the simplest exhibition of the 

 Logos." As to this we have already remarked enough. 



" Wherein," he then asks,t " does this distinction 

 truly consist } It consists, as I believe all my opponents 



* p. 174. t p. 175- 



