228 Analyses of Books, [April, 
are not conceivable in the absence of space. Monism, on the 
other hand, teaches the unity of all that is. But this term is 
used in two very different acceptations. We have, on the one 
hand, Materialistic Monism, which recognises as the sole prin- 
ciple of all that takes place Matter, the something accessible to 
our senses. Spiritual operations are to the adherents of this school, 
in their essence, whether we may ever succeed or not in explaining 
them derived from material action. The other, or Pantheistic, 
school of Monism assumes as the unity of all being a some- 
thing, the “ substance ” of Spinoza, which expresses itself in 
two forms, spirit and matter, the “ attributes ” of Spinoza. In- 
dividual beings are merely “ modes ” of this “ substance.” 
It is the more important to know that this is the point of view 
which Haeckel adopts, as he is generally held up as a “ Mate- 
rialist,” such adjectives as “ crass ” or “ rank ” being often 
thrown in. In a letter to the author he pointed out, some years 
ago, that the latter had raised against his interpretation of the 
universe “ objections which might justly be advanced against 
one-sided Materialism.” In faCt Haeckel regards atoms as the 
smallest individualities, as each possessing a soul, and conse- 
quently, in however light a degree, as endowed with conscious- 
ness. He thus escapes the difficulty which the Materialists 
encounter, in deriving life and soul from a non-sentient, uncon- 
scious matter. He views crystals as the analogues of organisms 
or as the pristine organisms of the animated world. As the 
original organisms, in the common acceptation of the term, he 
regards not cells, but Monercc. These he pronounces to be 
structureless, animated plasma. 
The Materialist regards life as the simple result of matter 
under certain conditions. To him the spontaneous production 
of the higher animals only would seem improbable, as here the 
number of conditions which must coincide borders upon the im- 
possible. This difficulty Darwin has certainly removed out of 
the way of Materialists by bringing the higher and the lower 
organisms into connection. 
The author considers, however, that neither Monism nor 
Dualism is able to grasp the phenomena of life in a manner 
which shall satisfy the inbred and imperative demands of thought. 
Dualism is unable to explain how the non-spacial, the soul, aCts 
upon the spacial or body, and conversely. It is also obliged to 
assume that the strict sequence of cause and effeCt, after having 
gone on for aeons prior to the avatar of life, is suddenly inter- 
rupted by the introduction of a new faCtor ascribable only to a 
supernatural world. “ Thus Dualism leads to the assumption of 
a God, and cuts off thereby the thread of further investigation, 
whilst we cannot help demanding for everything a natural cause. 
A First Cause, a causa sui , — whether we call it God, Nature, or 
Necessity, — is for us incomprehensible, since our whole thought 
is of phenomenal nature. The assumption of a supernatural 
