134 UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO STUDIES 



only the breasts that would have been reached by the old. In this 

 fact, for so I consider it, the reader who feels that a monistic* attitude 

 towards immortaHty is hostile to the best progress of humanity must 

 find no Uttle comfort. Such a person, after carefully examining the 

 arguments in these two representative thinkers, must inevitably 

 cry out in joy that monism's vaunted science leaves its latest and 

 greatest exponent quite as unconvincing as the comparatively un- 

 schooled Roman of two thousand years ago. "Here," he would say, 

 "is after all the same old crying in the night, with no more convincing 

 power in the cry." On the other hand, he who compares the two 

 men with a feehng that their monistic attitude towards immortahty 

 is essentially right will insist that, while Lucretius and Haeckel so 

 fundamentally agree, the latter brings to bear a tremendous advance 

 in detailed scientific proof. He will point out that Haeckel represents 

 the clear light of mid-morning, whereas Lucretius speaks from a dim 

 and early dawn; but he must feel that they greet the same sun and 

 belong to the same day. 



