Introduction xvii 



imparts some of its vibrations to our brain ; but if the state 

 of the thing itself depends upon its vibrations, it [the thing] 

 must be considered as to all intents and purposes the vibra- 

 tions themselves — plus, of course, the underlying substance 

 that is vibrating. . . . The same vibrations, therefore, form 

 the substance remembered, introduce an infinitesimal dose of 

 it within the brain, modify the substance remembering, and, 

 in the course of time, create and further modify the mechanism 

 of both the sensory and the motor nerves. Thought and thing' 

 are one. 



" I commend these two last speculations to the reader's 

 charitable consideration, as feeling that I am here travelling 

 beyond the ground on which I can safely venture. ... I believe 

 they are both substantially true." 



In 1885 he had written an abstract of these ideas in 

 his notebooks (see New Quarterly Review, 1910, p. 116), 

 and as in "Luck, or Cunning? " associated them vaguely 

 with the unitary conceptions introduced into chemistry by 

 Newlands and Mendelejeff. Judging himself as an outsider, 

 the author of " Life and Habit " would certainly have 

 considered the mild expression of faith, "I believe they 

 are both substantially true," equivalent to one of extreme 

 doubt. Thus " the fact of the Archbishop's recognising 

 this as among the number of his beliefs is conclusive 

 evidence, with those who have devoted attention to the 

 laws of thought, that his mind is not yet clear" on 

 the matter of the belief avowed (see "Life and Habit," 

 pp. 24, 25). 



To sum up : Butler's fundamental attitude to the 

 vibration hypothesis was all through that taken in 

 " Unconscious Memory" ; he played with it as a pretty 

 pet, and fancied it more and more as time went on ; but 

 instead of backing it for all he was worth, like the main 

 theses of " Life and Habit," he put a big stake on it— 

 and then hedged. 



The last of Butler's biological writings is the Essay, 

 " THE DEADLOCK IN DARWINISM," containing much 

 valuable criticism on Wallace and Weismann. It is in allu- 



