44 Luck, or Cunning ? 
reader beyond endurance) “ oneness of personality between 
parents and offspring.”” The writer proceeded to reprobate 
this in language upon which a Huxley could hardly improve, 
but as he declares himself unable to discover what it means, 
it may be presumed that the idea of continued personality 
between successive generations was new to him. 
When Dr. Francis Darwin called on me a day or two 
before ‘‘ Life and Habit” went to the press, he said the 
theory which had pleased him more than any he had seen 
for some time was one which referred all life to memory ;* 
he doubtless intended “‘ which referred all the phenomena 
of heredity to memory.” He then mentioned Professor 
Ray Lankester’s article in Nature, of which I had not heard, 
but he said nothing about Mr. Spencer, and spoke of the 
idea as one which had been quite new to him. 
The above names comprise (excluding Mr. Spencer him- 
self) perhaps those of the best-known writers on evolution 
that can be mentioned as now before the public; it is 
curious that Mr Spencer should be the only one of them to 
see any substantial resemblance between the ‘Principles 
of Psychology ” and Professor Hering’s address and “ Life 
and Habit.” 
I ought, perhaps, to say that Mr. Romanes, writing to 
the Atheneum (March 8, 1884), took a different view of the 
value of the theory of inherited memory to the one he 
took in 188z. 
In 1881 he said it was “simply absurd ”’ to suppose it 
could ‘‘ possibly be fraught with any benefit to science ” 
or ‘“‘ reveal any truth of profound significance ;”’ in 1884 
he said of the same theory, that ‘‘ it formed the backbone 
of all the previous literature upon instinct ” by Darwin, 
Spencer, Lewes, Fiske, and Spalding, “‘ not to mention 
their numerous followers, and is by all of them elaborately 
stated as clearly as any theory can be stated in words.” 
Few except Mr. Romanes will say this. I grant it ought 
* 26 Sept., 1877. ‘‘ Unconscious Memory,” ch. ii. 
