1884.1 
557 ) 
CORRESPONDENCE. 
* The Editor does not hold himself responsible for statements of fadts or 
opinions expressed in Correspondence, or in Articles bearing the signature 
ot their respective authors. 
HYLO-IDEALISM. 
Constance Arden seems to be very angry upon the comments 
which have appeared in the “Journal of Science ” upon the 
pamphlet by C. N., of which she avows herself to be the 
authoress. Being so, I must say that C. N. has not done justice 
to Constance Arden. C. N. is a poor reasoner, judging by the 
work, but Constance Arden can defend herself. I never could 
suppose that C. N. and Constance Arden were of the same sex, 
but now the authorship is avowed I can discern it in the pecu- 
liarity of the marshallings of the subjedt. F. P. L. appears to 
have had a juster conception of the capabilities of womankind, 
and read the riddle. Women may “ stoop to conquer.” Was 
this Constance’s idea? An article in the “Journal,” a critique 
on Dr. Huxley’s automatum, I read, and thought was written in 
a pleasing, argumentative style : however much I dissented from 
the hypothesis to which she gave her support, I must confess I 
did not catch the connedting-link, and the more especially when 
Constance Arden animadverts upon the criticism on Captain 
McTaggart’s Hylo-Idealism, wherein she avows its Materialism 
or Monism ! Nor could I conceive that the philosophising of 
Constance Arden could have condescended to the bald hypotheses 
of C. N. 
I do not know whether the lady intends the first three lines of 
her correspondence in the August number of the “ Journal ” for 
me, but I do not feel guilty of gross “ misconceptions ” or 
“ abusive language.” She should remember my remarks were 
wholly directed to the matter in question, — i.e., to the treatise, 
and not to the author, and had I known the author to be a woman 
I might have modified the disgust which her treatment of the 
subject excited in me. Hypotheses driven about in every direc- 
tion : now Theologies; now Mr. Bradlaugh ; now the French 
Revolution, with its Dynamics and Atheism — all hashed together 
and presented as hypotheses in proof. The warnings or excel- 
lences of one or all of them appear to me nothing to do with a 
question which should be purely philosophical. 
