( 69 ) 141 



in any respect more wonderful than the unknown dis- 

 posers of the materials of the fowl ? That what rea- 

 lizes the idea should, in the one case, be from without, 

 and, in the other, from within, is no reason for seeing 

 more modification and less wonder in the latter than the 

 former. There is certainly no more reason for seeing 

 the fowl in the egg, and as identical with the egg, than 

 for seeing a re-built Trinity College Church as identical 

 with its unarranged materials. A part cannot be taken 

 for the whole, whether in space or in time. Mr. Huxley 

 misses this. He is so absorbed in the identity out of 

 which, that he will not see the difference into which, 

 progress is made. As the idea of the church has the 

 stones, so the idea of the fowl has the egg, for its com- 

 mencement. But to this idea, and in both cases, the 

 terminal additions belong, quite as much as the initial 

 materials. If the idea, then, add sulphur, phosphorus, 

 iron, and what not, it must be credited with these not 

 less than with the carbon, hydrogen, etc., with which it 

 began. It is not fair to mutter modification, as if it 

 were a charm to destroy all the industry of time. The 

 protoplasm of the egg of the fowl is no more the fowl 

 than the stones the church ; and to identify, by juggle 

 of a mere word, parts in time and wholes in time so dif- 

 ferent, is but self-deception. Nay, in protoplasm, as we 

 have so often seen, difference is as much present at first 

 as at last. Even in its germ, even in its initial identity, 

 to call it so, protoplasm is already different, for it issues 

 in differences infinite. 



Omission of the consideration of difference, it is to be 

 acknowledged, is not now-a-days restricted to Mr. Hux- 

 ley. In the wonder that is usually expressed, for exam- 

 ple, at Oken's identification of the skull with so many 



