We must note, however, that for Bergson, as metaphysician, it plays an even more important role, since his study of Memory and conclusions as to its nature lead him on to a discussion of the relation of soul and body, spirit and matter.  His second large work, which appeared in 1896, bears the title Matiere et Memoire.  For him, Memory is a pivot on which turns a whole scheme of relationships—­material and spiritual.  He wrote in 1910 a new introduction for the English Translation of this work.  He there says that “among all the facts capable of throwing light on the psycho-physiological relation, those which concern Memory, whether in the normal or the pathological state, hold a privileged position."[Footnote:  Introduction to Matter and Memory, p. xii.] Let us then, prior to passing on to the consideration of the problem of the relation of soul and body, examine what Bergson has to say on the subject of Memory.

At the outset, we may define Memory as the return to consciousness of some experience, accompanied by the awareness that it has been present earlier at a definite time and place.[Footnote:  The above is to be taken as a definition of the normal memory.  In a subtle psychological analysis in the paper entitled Le Souvenir du present et la fausse reconnaissance in L’Energie spirituelle, pp. 117-161 (Mind-Energy), Bergson considers cases of an abnormal or fictitious memory, coinciding with perception in rather a strange manner.  This does not, however, affect the validity of the above definition.] Bergson first of all draws attention to a distinction between two different forms of Memory, the nature of which will be best brought out by considering two examples.  We are fond of giving to children or young persons at school selections from the plays of Shakespeare, “to be learned by heart,” as we say.  We praise the boy or girl who can repeat a long passage perfectly, and we regard that scholar as gifted with a good memory.  To illustrate the second type of case, suppose a question to be put to that boy asking him what he saw on the last half-holiday when he took a ramble in the country.  He may, or may not, be able to tell us much of his adventures on that occasion, for whatever he can recall is due to a mental operation of a different character from that which enabled him to learn his lesson.  There is here no question of learning by rote, of memorizing, but of capacity to recall to mind a past experience.  The boy who is clever at memorizing a passage from Shakespeare may not have a good memory at all for recalling past events.  To understand why this is so we must examine these two forms of Memory more closely and refer to Bergson’s own words:  “I study a lesson, and in order to learn it by heart I read it a first time, accentuating every line; I then repeat it a certain number of times.  At each repetition there is progress; the words are more and more linked together, and at last make a continuous whole.  When that moment comes, it