﻿70 
  THE 
  REALM 
  OF 
  ORGANISMS 
  CONTRASTED 
  

  

  move 
  in 
  the 
  sense 
  of 
  locomotion, 
  though 
  it 
  is 
  probably 
  in 
  

   a 
  violent 
  state 
  of 
  rotational 
  or 
  turbulent 
  motion 
  in 
  its 
  small- 
  

   est 
  parts; 
  and 
  to 
  that 
  motion 
  its 
  exceeding 
  rigidity 
  is 
  

   due." 
  Its 
  density 
  must 
  be 
  far 
  greater 
  than 
  that 
  of 
  any 
  form 
  

   of 
  matter, 
  " 
  yet 
  matter 
  moves 
  through 
  it 
  with 
  perfect 
  free- 
  

   dom, 
  without 
  any 
  friction 
  or 
  viscosity 
  ' 
  (1913, 
  p. 
  33). 
  

  

  The 
  ether, 
  says 
  Sir 
  J. 
  J. 
  Thomson, 
  " 
  is 
  not 
  a 
  fantastic 
  

   creation 
  of 
  the 
  speculative 
  philosopher; 
  it 
  is 
  as 
  essential 
  to 
  

   us 
  as 
  the 
  air 
  we 
  breathe. 
  . 
  . 
  . 
  The 
  study 
  of 
  this 
  all- 
  

   pervading 
  substance 
  is 
  perhaps 
  the 
  most 
  fascinating 
  and 
  im- 
  

   portant 
  duty 
  of 
  the 
  physicist." 
  And 
  Sir 
  Oliver 
  Lodge 
  also 
  

   speaks 
  of 
  the 
  fascination 
  of 
  this 
  portentous 
  entity, 
  material 
  

   but 
  no 
  matter, 
  " 
  the 
  great 
  engine 
  of 
  continuity 
  " 
  : 
  " 
  Its 
  

   curiously 
  elusive 
  and 
  intangible 
  character, 
  combined 
  with 
  

   its 
  universal 
  and 
  unifying 
  permeance, 
  its 
  apparently 
  infinite 
  

   extent, 
  its 
  definite 
  and 
  perfect 
  properties, 
  make 
  the 
  ether 
  the 
  

   most 
  fundamental 
  ingredient 
  in 
  the 
  material 
  cosmos." 
  

  

  We 
  have 
  delayed 
  over 
  these 
  elementary 
  ideas 
  because 
  those 
  

   who 
  are 
  convinced 
  of 
  the 
  apartness 
  of 
  living 
  creatures 
  are 
  apt 
  

   to 
  fail 
  in 
  appreciation 
  of 
  the 
  inorganic 
  domain. 
  Even 
  the 
  

   use 
  of 
  the 
  word 
  l 
  inert 
  ' 
  betrays 
  either 
  prejudice 
  or 
  igno- 
  

   rance, 
  both 
  probably 
  unconscious. 
  

  

  Professor 
  Enriques 
  rightly 
  objects 
  to 
  the 
  false 
  antithesis 
  

   involved 
  in 
  opposing 
  the 
  spontaneity 
  and 
  change 
  of 
  every- 
  

   thing 
  that 
  lives 
  to 
  the 
  inertia 
  and 
  immutability 
  of 
  matter. 
  

   He 
  uses 
  " 
  spontaneity 
  ' 
  here 
  to 
  mean 
  " 
  activity 
  ' 
  or 
  " 
  pos- 
  

   sibility 
  of 
  changing 
  through 
  internal 
  conditions," 
  and 
  rejects 
  

   the 
  idea 
  of 
  " 
  an 
  absolutely 
  passive 
  matter 
  ". 
  " 
  The 
  view 
  

   seems 
  far 
  more 
  adequate," 
  he 
  says, 
  " 
  which 
  holds 
  that 
  every- 
  

   thing 
  around 
  us 
  is 
  living 
  and 
  active, 
  save 
  for 
  a 
  difference 
  

   in 
  degree 
  in 
  the 
  intensity 
  or 
  in 
  the 
  rapidity 
  of 
  the 
  changes, 
  

   and 
  in 
  the 
  relative 
  importance 
  of 
  the 
  internal 
  and 
  external 
  

  

  