vii.] ON THE PHYSICAL BASIS OF LIFE. 119 



quite comprehend the modus opcrandi of an electric spark, which 

 traverses a mixture of oxygen and hydrogen ? 



What justification is there, then, for the assumption of the 

 existence in the living matter of a something which has no 

 representative, or correlative, in the not living matter which 

 gave rise to it ? What better philosophical status has &quot; vitality &quot; 

 than &quot; aquosity &quot; ? And why should &quot; vitality &quot; hope for a 

 better fate than the other &quot;itys&quot; which have disappeared 

 since Martinus Scriblerus accounted for the operation of the 

 meat-jack by its inherent &quot; meat-roasting quality,&quot; and scorned 

 the &quot; materialism &quot; of those who explained the turning of the 

 spit by a certain mechanism worked by the draught of the 

 chimney ? 



If scientific language is to possess a definite and constant 

 signification whenever it is employed, it seems to me that we 

 are logically bound to apply to the protoplasm, or physical basis 

 of life, the same conceptions as those which are held to be legi 

 timate elsewhere. If the phenomena exhibited by water are 

 its properties, so are those presented by protoplasm, living or 

 dead, its properties. 



If the properties of water may be properly said to result from 

 the nature and disposition of its component molecules, I can find 

 no intelligible ground for refusing to say that the properties 

 of protoplasm result from the nature and disposition of its 

 molecules. 



But I bid you beware that, in accepting these conclusions, 

 you are placing your feet on the first rung of a ladder which, in 

 most people s estimation, is the reverse of Jacob s, and leads to 

 the antipodes of heaven. It may seem a small thing to admit 

 that the dull vital actions of a fungus, or a foraminifer, are the 

 properties of their protoplasm, and are the direct results of the 

 nature of the matter of which they are composed. But if, as I 

 have endeavoured to prove to you, their protoplasm is essentially 

 identical with, and most readily converted into, that of any 

 animal, I can discover no logical halting-place between the 

 admission that such is the case, and the further concession that 



