The ambient world therefore furnishes to the animal and to the vegetable, whole or fragmentary, those materials of its organization which are at the same time the stimuli of its vitality. That is to say, the vital mechanism would be a dormant and inert mechanism if nothing in the surrounding medium could provoke it to action or give it a check. It would be a kind of steam engine without coal and fire. Living matter, in other words, does not possess real spontaneity. As I have shown elsewhere, the law of inertia which it is supposed it obeys with inert bodies is not special to them. It is applied to the living bodies whose apparent spontaneity is only an illusion contradicted by physiology as a whole. All the vital manifestations are responses to a stimulus of acts provoked, and not of spontaneous acts. _Generalization of the Law of Inertia in Living Bodies. Irritability._—In fact, vulgar prejudice opposes this view. The opinion of the average man distrusts it. It applies the law of inertia only to inert matter. This is because the vital response does not always immediately succeed the external stimulus, and is not always proportional to it. But it is sufficient to have seen the flywheel of a steam engine to understand that the restitution of a mechanical force cannot be instantaneous. It is sufficient to have had a finger on the trigger of a firearm to know that there is no necessary proportion between the intensity of the stimulus and the magnitude of the force produced. Things happen in the living just as in the inert machine. The faculty of entering into action when provoked by an external stimulus has received, as we have said, the name of _irritability_. The word is not used of inert matter. However, the condition of the latter is the same. But there is no need to affirm its irritability, because no one denies it. We know perfectly well that brute matter is inert, that all the manifestations of activity of which it is the theatre are provoked. Inertia is for it the equivalent of irritability in living matter. But while it is not necessary to introduce this idea into the physical sciences, where it has reigned since the days of Galileo, it was, on the contrary, necessary to affirm it in biology, precisely because it was in biology that the opposing doctrine of vital spontaneity ruled supreme.