i8o Unconscious Memory 



this way, we should be glad enough to follow them. The 

 passage I refer to runs thus : — 



" Professor Huxley speaks of a ' verbal fog by which the 

 question at issue may be hidden ' ; is there no verbal fog 

 in the statement that the cBtiology of crayfishes resolves itself 

 into a gradual evolution in the course of the niesosoic and 

 subsequent epochs of the world's history of these animals from 

 a primitive astacomorphous form ? Would it be fog or light 

 that would envelop the history of man if we said that the 

 existence of man was explained by the hypothesis of his 

 gradual evolution from a primitive anthropomorphous form ? 

 I should call this fog, not light," ^ 



Especially let him mistrust those who are holding forth 

 about protoplasm, and maintaining that this is the only 

 living substance. Protoplasm may be, and perhaps is, 

 the most living part of an organism, as the most capable of 

 retaining vibrations, but this is the utmost that can be 

 claimed for it. 



Having mentioned protoplasm, I may ask the reader to 

 note the breakdown of that school of philosophy which 

 divided the ego from the non ego. The protoplasmists, on 

 the one hand, are whittling away at the ego, till they have 

 reduced it to a little jelly in certain parts of the body, and 

 they will whittle away this too presently, if they go on as 

 they are doing now. 



Others, again, are so unifying the ego and the non ego, 

 that with them there will soon be as little of the 7ion ego 

 left as there is of the ego with their opponents. Both, how- 

 ever, are so far agreed as that we know not where to draw, 

 the line between the two, and this renders nugatory any 

 system which is founded upon a distinction between 

 them. 



The truth is, that all classification whatever, when we 

 examine its raison d'etre closely, is found to be arbitrary — 

 to depend on our sense of our own convenience, and not 



^ " The Philosophy of Crayfishes," by the Right Rev. the Lord 

 Bishop of Carhsle. Nineteenth Century for October 1880, p. 636. 



