28 THE NATURE AND ORIGIN OF LH'ING MATTER. 



difference merely one of degree, or is there a deep and unfathom- 

 able gulf between them ? Finally, how did living matter first 

 arise and come to exist ? 



You will not, I hope, suspect me of thinking I have any new 

 solution to offer of these well-discussed problems. Scientifically 

 they are insoluble. They take us into regions where observation 

 and experiment, the methods of science, are unavailing, and 

 where the human mind is ever in danger of mistaking its self- 

 evolved imaginations as equivalent to demonstrated truths, or 

 worse still, of mistaking merely verbal solutions for real. For 

 the latter error there is one sufficient remedy, and that is to 

 substitute mentally the meaning of the word, or, in logical terms, 

 the definition, for the word itself, and unless one is continually 

 prepared to do this the discussion of any philosophical problem 

 becomes futile. 



When, for instance, we are told that all matter is living, 

 that there is no such thing as dead inorganic matter, we are, I 

 submit, in danger of deriving comfort from a mere verbal 

 assertion. For if we apply the term living to all matter, what 

 meaning do we attach to it ? That there are great and real 

 diffei-ences between living and non-living matter is a fact of 

 science, which we cannot explain by denying it to be. If, how- 

 ever, the assertion be explained to mean, in more accurate 

 language, that the protentiality of life exists in all matter, that 

 the properties of living matter exist in an attenuated degree, or 

 in a dormant condition, in simpler chemical combinations, we 

 have an admissible hypothesis, which deserves discussion. But 

 the facts must be recognised in the first place. 



Let us for a moment contemplate the amoeba, and consider 

 the properties of its living substance. I cannot do better than 

 quote one of the earliest observers, who sixty years ago described 

 this substance, not by the term protoplasm, by which we know 

 it, but by the term sarcode. "I propose," said Dujardin, "to 

 name sarcode that which other observers have termed a living 

 jelly, a substance glutinous, diaphanous, homogeneous, refracting 

 light a little more than water, but much less than oil, extensible 

 and ropy like mucus, elastic and contractile, susceptible of 

 spontaneously forming within itself spherical cavities or vacuoles 

 which become occupied by the surrounding liquid. The most 

 simple animals, such as amcebae and monads, are entirely 



