He who does not see that the God of monism is greater than the God of anthropotheism, had better believe in a personal God, until he appreciates the truth that God is not personal but super-personal. For after all anthropotheism is nearer the truth than atheism, for atheism (well understood, the atheism of our definition above) is a moral nihilism devised to shake off all ethical obligation so as to make the lust of the moment and the pleasure of the individual the supreme rule of action. Monism, accordingly, does not leave the problem of theism where it was before. Monism proves that God is not to be conceived in the likeness of man, but the reverse: man, being a system of symbols representing the world, is to be conceived as having been made or rather as having originated in the likeness of God. God is the original, man is the copy. God is the whole, man is the part, in which the whole finds a more or less correct representation. The picture is not perfect, but the grandest duty a man has is the constant approach to a greater perfection. Man is the temporal, God is the eternal. Man is limited, God is the infinite. EDITOR. FOOTNOTES: [41] _The Monist_, Vol. II, No. 4. [42] Spontaneous motion (as here defined) does not mean action without a cause; nor does the spontaneity of the cart exclude the co-operation of other spontaneities (_e. g._ the attraction of the earth) entering as factors in bringing about the final result. [43] This theory of pleasure and pain was first set forth in an editorial article of No. 120 of _The Open Court_, which has been republished in the chapter “Pleasure and Pain,” pp. 338-345, of _The Soul of Man_. A correct view of the nature of pleasure and pain is of great importance, especially in ethics. Notwithstanding the palpable erroneousness of the old view, several articles written by prominent authors have appeared of late, that continue in the old strain without taking notice of the criticism that overthrows the basis of their theories. [44] _Italics are ours._ [45] This same position is maintained with equal vigor in Professor Romanes’s latest work _Darwin and After Darwin_, pp. 412-442. The Open Court Publishing Co., 1892. LITERARY CORRESPONDENCE. I. FRANCE. Dr. Paul Sollier has just published, in the Bibliothéque Charcot-Debove,[46] a new and excellent work, _Les troubles de la memoire_. This work is not identical in its purpose with that of M. Ribot; it corrects the latter in certain points, completes and corroborates it in others. M. Sollier set out to discuss this question solely from a medical standpoint, which was intentionally passed over by M. Ribot, but he has also necessarily touched upon its psychological aspects, and, as he informs us himself, he was obliged on the whole to make a medico-psychological study of the question.