terialist as he declares himself, can only be something incomprehensible, morbid, "saintly," "miraculous," and consequently beyond psyco-physics.

Mr. John H. Noble, in the Monist, quoted above, sums up James' facts and opinions thus:

"(I.) A deliberate mental attitude of optimism is psychologically reasonable. In New Thought practice the experiment of deliberate optimism has been tried on a large scale, and the results, material as well as mental, now form an imposing mass of objective fact.

"(II.) Hero worship is instinctive with mankind. New Thought belief holds that the specific defeat of the inferior side of man's dual nature is not positive, but negative; not frowardness, but lack of courage; as a religious creed this is new.

"(III.) The discovery that there exists a fact that consciousness beyond the threshold of our primary or ordinary consciousness marks a very important advance in the science of psychology. New Thought belief holds that the superior part of man's dual nature tends into the subliminal consciousness, and that through the subliminal mind every individual is united with a Universal Mind.

"(IV.) All religions hold that there is something not ourselves from which we can obtain help; psychology agrees that there is something beyond our ordinary consciousness from which help comes, but cannot say that that something transcends the individual's sub-conscious self. New-Thought practice systematically seeks help by way of the subliminal mind.

"(V.) Psychology has suggested that conscious intentness probably raises the threshold of consciousness, and hinders the advent of ideas originating in the subliminal mind. It is a fact of experience that regenerative phenomena ensue upon the abandonment of intentional effort by the ordinary consciousness. New Thought advocates systematic mental relaxation and meditation. As a religious practice this is not new. It is found in the oldest religious systems known, the alleged effect being that the individual thereby becomes sensibly conscious that he is one with the Absolute. New Thought belief further holds that the individual thereby draws upon an infinite energy, and therewith produces physical effects in the objective world. The remarkable growth of New Thought movement must be attributed to practical 'fruits.'

"(VI.) The characteristics of the transient state known as mystic consciousness resemble the characteristics of the habitual religious attitudes of saintliness. The religious attitude, considered even as a subjective mental condition, must be deemed one of the most important biological functions of mankind.

“(VII.) An alleged result of relaxation, concentration and meditation is the revelation of truths that transcend the knowledge obtained by the senses and reason alone."

With all its shortcomings, the New People must nevertheless thank Prof. James for his work and his pleadings for them. He has brought their case before the learned world as one worthy of respect, not as an insanity, a heresy or something to be burned at the stake, which probably would have been the case if this movement had occurred some centuries ago. Let the people continue in their intense self-affirmation: "Self-reverence, self-knowledge, self-control,

These three alone lead life to sovereign power."

Let "the song of the soul victorious," which is of freedom, lead this people to drink of the perennial stream of love that flows from "the limitless self!”

BJÖRNSTJERNE BJÖRNSON ON "FEELING FOR NATURE."

Prof. A. Bugge published a very interesting article on "Feeling for Nature" in the Norwegian magazine "Samtiden" (No. 5, 1904). The article gave a résumé of the history of the subject, and in the No. 6 of the same magazine Statsraad J. Lòvland inserted an article endorsing Bugge and adding something on the subject as regards the Norwegian peasant. He makes objection to the Professor's words: "Even to-day the most of our peasants think a piece of ground is only beautiful when well tilled and fruitful;" and to this: "It has taken Man a long time before he learned to love Nature for her own sake." Statsraad J. Lòvland says also that Prof. Bugge's words, which follow, fit exactly the case of the Norwegian peasant:

"There is a race, which from time immemorial has loved nature; the deep silence in the vast forests and on the shores of the shining waters; the running brooks, the notes of the black thrush, the song of

the nightingale, and the ku-ku of the cuckoo; which has loved nature not only in her milder moods, but also in her largeness and might, etc. That is the Kelt, especially the Irish."

Our author then quotes expressions to corroborate his assertion. He cites Gunnar on Lidasende's exclamation; he mentions Embert Hougen's descriptions of nature and those of Jörgen Moe, Ivar Aasen, Vinje, Blix and Garberg, laying special stress upon a statement made by Bishop Bang that Blix's hymns were so peculiarly attractive because of their "springfeeling," and, finally claims that these peasants whose names just have been quoted, and a few others have made rich contributions to the literature touching the peasant's inner life and its connection with nature.

In the last number of the magazine Björnsterne Björnson comes out in his usual impetuous manner and contradicts Statsraad J. Lòvland, charging him with gross errors, etc. Then he writes:

"From my childhood and youth on the farm I cannot remember one single fellowmate who had any other feeling of beauty in the country than for the space which was well filled with crops. They had no feeling for the sweep of the waters around the projecting ledges and their drawing powers; they felt nothing in the attractive lines of far or near mountains, their quiet but powerful architecture; they knew nothing of Buggestrand's wild melancholy and never felt it falling upon them like a dark poem; they never partook of the strange influences in the passes where the fjords meet. Of late I have found more minds open for larger beauties than those of Eidsvaagen. Now they tell the travelers where I had been sitting in entrancement and where I had drawn others after me. The many hundred travelers and the guide-books have now opened their eyes.

"Is it not so? If they had had an inherent feeling for naturewhy then did Jotunhej men, Geisanger, Stryn, Hafrsfjord, Eikisdalsvand remain undiscovered until this day?

“I have known many Norwegians in America who have said to me: 'Good Lord, that I might return home once and see the old homestead!' They have mentioned various things that drew them, and most often a foss or water fall. That was feeling for nature; about that there can be no dispute.

"There is no doubt about it that the poetic mind (and there is more of it among us than many know) feels satisfied and at home in a

beautiful nature, especially when in solitude. But to get a clear understanding of what it was those longed for, it was necessary that they should discover the contrast on the vast and interminable American prairies, or come across something that awakened memories, or that they should have fallen in love with certain poems or songs which recalled images, or stories, or which expanded life and drew it into unknown sentiments; or-above everything else that they should have seen landscape paintings by the best artists; such teach us to see, teach us to renew acquaintance with that we have seen before.

"Among all of those in the poor old parsonage and among those I otherwise met, I can remember only one who loved to follow the cattle to the woods and the uplands. And he wished to, do it-because he could then read certain books he had got hold of! It was Hans Neraas, merchant in Kristianssund. But I have met others who got farther on in life and who have talked about how much they like those young days and how charming the woods were.

"In the Noes there were no soeters, but in the Gudbrandsdal there are sœters, and most people like the life at sæters when they know it. If really a feeling for nature existed, why is it that so many leave the country when they grow up? Feeling for nature rarely gives way; it has a strong hold upon the mind and it draws.

"When we shall have more enlightenment, and especially if this enlightenment brings more song and poetry into our lives, then we shall have more feeling for nature and fewer will leave the beautiful Norway."

Perhaps we may believe Björnson's statements about his countrymen, the Norwegians. If they be true, they are severe arraignments, but they are not necessarily true as regards other nations. Personally, I believe he is wrong, if he applies his own experience and the lack of nature-feeling among his own friends to all the Norwegians. But he made one remark which many students of to-day will endorse. He said some of his acquaintances were obliged to come away from Norway in order to discover Norway and the beauty of its landscape. That remark seems to corroborate what ethnologists hold to be true, that the modern nature-feeling is a result of culture and not an immediate sense.

I shall revert to the subject in a future number of MIND, and endeavor to show the close connection there is between religion in the broadest sense and Nature.

IMMORTALITY OF SPIRIT AND IMMORTALITY OF FLESH.

Prof. William Osler, of Johns Hopkins University, who delivered "The Ingersoll Lecture" at Harvard this year, stated emphatically what was the standpoint of science on the subject of immortality. He said:

"Knowing nothing of the immortality of the spirit, science has put on an immortality of the flesh, and in a remarkable triumph of research has learned to recognize in every living being at once immortal age beside immortal youth. The patiently worked-out story of the morphological continuity of the germ plasm is one of the fairy tales of science. You who listen to me to-day feel organized units in a generation with clear-cut features of its own, a chosen section of the finely-woven fringe of life built on the coral reef of past generations,and, perhaps, if any, you citizens of no mean city have a right to feel of some importance. The revelations of modern embryology are a terrible blow to this pride of descent. The individual is nothing more than the transient off-shoot of a germ plasm, which has an unbroken continuity from generation to generation, from age to age. This marvelous embryonic substance is eternally young, eternally productive, eternally forming new individuals to grow up and to perish, while it remains in the progeny always youthful, always increasing, always the same."

Then quoting Beard in "The Review of Neurology and Psychiatry for January, 1904," he continued with that writer's words:

"Thousands upon thousands of generations which have arisen in the course of ages were its products, but it lives on in the youngest generations with the power of giving origin to coming millions. The individual organism is transient, but its embryonic substance, which produces the mortal tissues, preserves itself imperishable, everlasting and constant.' This astounding revelation not only necessitates a readjustment of our ideas on heredity, but it gives to human life a new and a not very pleasant meaning. It makes us 'falter where we firmly trod' to feel that man comes within the sweep of these profound and inviolate biological laws, but it explains why nature-so careless of the single life, so careful of the type-is so lavish with the human beads, and so haphazard in their manufacture, spoiling hundreds, leaving many imperfect, snapping them and cracking them at her will,