Hi ON THE PHYSICAL BASIS OF LIFE 1'53 



What justification is there, then, for the assump- 

 tion of the existence in the living matter of a 

 something which has no representative, or cor- 

 relative, in the not living matter which gave rise 

 to it? What better philosophical status has 

 " vitality " than " aquosity " ? And why should 

 "vitality" hope for a better fate than the other 

 " itys " which have disappeared since Martinus 

 Scriblerus accounted for the operation of the meat- 

 jack by its inherent " meat-roasting quality," and 

 scorned the " materialism " 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 

 legitimate elsewhere. If the phenomena ex- 

 hibited 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 



