This question is still an open one. But there exist certainly some grounds for our seeking in the division of consciousness the key to certain psychological facts, like unconscious cerebration. Such a key would be the action of detached consciousnesses and detached memories, that afterwards immediately enter the current of general consciousness. Finally, “it is possible,” as M. Binet says in conclusion, “that consciousness may be the privilege of certain of our psychic acts; it is possible also that it exists everywhere in our organism, and it may be even that it accompanies every manifestation of life.” * * * * * In his new work, _Agnosticisme_, M. DE ROBERTY studies with special care the position of modern doctrines with regard to the unknown, the great _x_ of philosophic speculations—God, Idea, Matter, Noumenon or Unknowable. Although perhaps a little hastily written, and somewhat obscure, his book nevertheless enforces conviction. “Our conception of the world,” says M. de Roberty, “embraces solely the things that we _know_ (feel, perceive, imagine, analyse, compare, etc.), and does not comprise the least jot or tittle of what we _do not know_. _For us_, therefore, there can be no question of any relations except between two classes of _known_ elements: that which constitutes the object of scientific research, and that which is outside of science. The latter class represents _our_ unknown, which is always _relative and purely human_.” Here, indeed, we have the true point of view, that which we shall all reach, though perhaps at first unknown to ourselves; and I shall be much surprised if the philosophers do not at last decide to wipe out the formidable _Unknowable_ set up by Spencer as the ultimate entity. We shall speak no more of the fathomless universe, but of the still unexplored universe; of the unknown, not of the unknowable.