134 YEAST 



IV 



read with much interest, though, I confess, the 

 meaning of much of it remains as dark to me as 

 does the &quot; Secret of Hegel &quot; after Dr. Stirling s 

 elaborate revelation of it. Dr. Stirling s method 

 of dealing with the subject is peculiar. &quot; Proto 

 plasm &quot; is a question of history, so far as it is a 

 name ; of fact, so far as it is a thing. Dr. Stirling- 

 has not taken the trouble to refer to the original 

 authorities for his history, which is consequently a 

 travesty; and still less has he concerned himself 

 with looking at the facts, but contents himself 

 with taking them also at second-hand. A most 

 amusing example of this fashion of dealing with 

 scientific statements is furnished by Dr. Stirling s 

 remarks upon my account of the protoplasm of the 

 nettle hair. That account was drawn up from 

 careful and often-repeated observation of the facts. 

 Dr. Stirling thinks he is offering a valid criticism, 

 when he says that my valued friend Professor 

 Strieker gives a somewhat different statement 

 about protoplasm. But why in the world did not 

 this distinguished Hegelian look at a nettle hair for 

 himself, before venturing to speak about the matter 

 at all ? Why trouble himself about what either 

 Strieker or I say, when any tyro can see the facts 

 for himself, if he is provided with those not rare 

 articles, a nettle and a microscope ? But I suppose 

 this would have been &quot; AiifJdarung &quot; a recurrence 

 to the base common-sense philosophy of the 

 eighteenth century, which liked to see before it 



