H4 ( 42 ) 



find its explanation in something else. It is thus that, 

 lifted high enough, the light of the analogy between 

 water and protoplasm is seen to go out Water, in fact, 

 when formed from hydrogen and oxygen, is, in a cer- 

 tain way and in relation to them, no new product ; it 

 has still, like them, only chemical and physical quali- 

 ties ; it is still, as they are, inorganic. So far as kind 

 of power is concerned, they are still on the same level. 

 But not so protoplasm, where, with preservation of the 

 chemical and physical likeness there is the addition of 

 the unlikeness of life, of organization, and of ideas. 

 But the addition is a new world a new and higher 

 world, the world of a self-realizing thought, the world 

 of an entelechy. The change of language objected to- 

 by Mr. Huxley is thus a matter of necessity, for it is 

 not mere molecular complication that we have any 

 longer before us, and the qualities of the derivative are 

 essentially and absolutely different from the qualities 

 of the primitive. If we did invent the term aquosity, 

 then, as an abstract sign for all the qualities of water, 

 we should really do very little harm ; but aquosity and 

 vitality would still remain essentially unlike. While for 

 the invention of aquosity there is little or no call, how- 

 ever, the fact in the other case is that we are not only 

 compelled to invent, but to perceive vitality. We are 

 quite willing to do as Mr. Huxley would have us to do : 

 look on, watch the phenomena, and name the results. 

 But just in proportion to our faithfulness in these re- 

 spects is the necessity for the recognition of a new 

 world and a new nomenclature. There are certainly 

 different states of water, as ice and steam ; but the re- 

 lation of the solid to the liquid, or of either to the va- 

 por, surely offers no analogy to the relation of proto- 



