PREFACE ii 



forth as the alternative. And, finally, there is the difficulty 

 that all the considerations advanced by Sir Oliver Lodge are 

 little more than false buttresses of his system. All the 

 tantalising analogies that we are begged on every page " not 

 to press too far," all the imposing technicalities of physics 

 that the average reader must take on trust to have some 

 important bearing on the nature of life all these things do 

 but distract attention from the real ground of Sir Oliver 

 Lodge's theory of life. That real ground is found in the 

 spiritist interpretation of uncommon psychic phenomena. 

 I suggested this in the Hibbert Journal for July, 1905. 

 Among others Professor Hyslop, of Columbia University, 

 wrote me : " It has always struck me that Sir Oliver Lodge 

 had come to his conclusion about a theistic view of things 

 from one set of facts, and tried to prove it by another set 

 which in fact do not prove it." Mr. Mallock and other 

 writers have made the same point. 



In view of these difficulties I propose to rely mainly on a 

 constructive presentment of the facts bearing on the nature 

 of life. We may, as we proceed, deal with the chief fallacies 

 in Sir Oliver Lodge's elusive speculation, in so far as he gives 

 them expression. 



J. M. 



London, December, 1905, 



