THE SPECTRE OF VITALISM 453 



would appear to be included rightly in the sphere of biology. 

 Many would claim it for psychology. Now psychology has for 

 a long time past been undergoing a transformation from being 

 a branch of metaphysics to being a branch of science. That 

 transformation is analogous to the process by which chemistry 

 developed from alchemy and astronomy from astrology. But it 

 is as yet very imperfectly emancipated. With certain modern 

 psychologists metaphysical whims have full play ; but from 

 another school metaphysics is tolerably successfully driven out. 

 There exists a truly scientific psychology; and be it noted, this 

 is just the so-called " psychology without a soul." When we 

 really got to grips with the attempt to explain the properties of 

 mental states, it was found that the conception of a soul was 

 not of the slightest assistance. Not only did it provide no 

 intelligible explanation of anything but it proved to be an actual 

 impediment to rational discovery; in short, it was driven out 

 altogether. In view of the decease of this venerable ghost, it 

 is difficult to understand why Sir Oliver should be so charmed 

 with Prof. Schafer's omission to dilate upon it ; for piety suggests 

 that a funeral oration would have been appropriate to the 

 occasion. 



Sir Oliver, I believe, founds his belief in souls very largely 

 on the phenomena of " psychical research " ; which is certainly a 

 fragile foundation. I have no space to go into this discredited 

 sphere at present but I cannot resist drawing attention to a 

 recent article published by Sir Oliver in Bedrock. The question 

 is of "cross-correspondences," the cases in which two persons 

 in remote localities are smitten by the same idea at the same 

 moment. Dr. Tuckett, who has given some attention to these 

 matters, came to the conclusion that "the coincidences of thought 

 and expression are sufficiently explained by the natural associa- 

 tion of ideas in minds preoccupied with the same themes." 



To this Sir Oliver rejoins: "That is not the view to which 

 careful students of this subject have been led. If I entered 

 into detail I might ask him why, for instance, Mrs. Verrall and 

 Mrs. Piper should in February 1907 have both been preoccupied 

 with the theme of a ' laurel wreath ' and how Mrs. Piper knew — 

 for some part of her certainly knew— that Mrs. Verrall had 

 been so preoccupied." I agree this is a poser for Dr. Tuckett 

 and I should not be in the least surprised to hear that he broke 

 down completely in the attempt to explain why Mrs. Verrall 



