134 YEAST IV 



read with mucli interest, though, I confess, the 

 meaning of much of it remains as dark to me as 

 does the " Secret of Hegel " after Dr. Stirhng's 

 elaborate revelation of it. Dr. Stirhng's method 

 of dealing with the subject is peculiar. " Proto- 

 plasm " 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 t}TO 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 '' Avfkldrung " — a recurrence 

 to the base common-sense philosophy of the 

 eighteenth century, which liked to see before it 



