tages. It makes him liable, e.g., to verbal contradictions between the earlier and more imperfect adumbrations of a conception, and the clearer and more perfect grasp which is possible only later on, i.e., it renders it necessary to read the earlier to some extent in the light of the later assertions. This danger it has been attempted to minimize by a frequent use of cross-references. And, secondly, it was unfortunately impossible to avoid a good deal of technical discussion in chapters ii. and iii., in the refutation of Agnosticism and the establishment of Scepticism: all that could be done was to warn the non-technical reader of what to omit by means of the analysis of the argument.
As to the remaining points which might seem to require explanation, the author must refuse to apologize for what may seem the romantic character of some of his conclusions. For romance is a relative term, and for his part he would often be inclined to agree with the uninitiated public in looking upon some of the most ordinary assertions of the dullest every-day philosophy as the wildest and most pernicious romance. And in any case, no apology should be needed for the romance of philosophy in an age which has rightly learned to appreciate “the fairy tales of science.” If truth seems stranger than fiction, it is because we have previously abased our minds to the level of superstitions none the less fictitious for being unpoetical.
The attitude of “Riddles of the Sphinx” to the established religion is a subject more important and more difficult, and it would be presumptuous to attempt any forecast of its reception. But its author may sincerely claim that its relation to Christianity is one of complete independence, and even that it was
