i88i.j 
( 427 > 
CORRESPONDENCE. 
*** The Editor does not hold himself responsible for statements of fads or 
opinions expressed in Correspondence, or in Articles bearing the signature 
of their respective authors. 
ANIMISM versus HYLOZOISM. 
To the Editor of The Journal of Science . 
Sir, — Every lover of truth and of fair play must admit that 
“ Audi alteram partem ” is a most legitimate plea, even though 
the views advanced under it should seem somewhat wild and 
extravagant, provided they are urged with some show of reason, 
and with due respect for the honest and cherished convictions of 
opponents. I have therefore no reason to complain of the author 
of the article which bears the high-sounding title of “Hylozoistic 
Materialism,” whom I must suppose to be a Monist of the most 
pronounced type, calling in question the equally decided Dualistic 
views expressed in my articles on l ' Life and its Basis.” Nor 
will he, I am sure, object to my testing the weight and measure 
of his arguments. 
Passing by the marvellous title given to this new species of 
Materialism (the meaning of which even a Greek scholar would 
not find it very easy to understand), I must request attention to 
the assertion at the outset, that the views afterwards stated are 
“ a logical deduction from the fundamental principles of Science 
and Theology.” This last point the writer aims to prove by 
another assertion, viz., that the hypothesis of an Omnipresent 
Deity destroys “ all distinction between body and soul, between 
God and the world.” This may be C. N.’s theology, but it is 
not mine, nor that of the Bible. It is a simple paradox. 
Observe next the naive confession, that while every child and 
every savage is an unconscious Materialist, the grandest and 
most mature intellects that ever adorned human science and 
philosophy are almost without exception arrayed against this 
theory. Moreover, I entirely demur to the correctness of the 
premiss, that every simple healthy human being is an unconscious 
Materialist. The reverse is notoriously the case, even on his 
own showing, or he would not have to lament over the antagonism 
displayed, by “ learned and ignorant alike,” to his theorem. I 
2 F 2 
