iv.] YEAST. 89 



facts and of views, long familiar to me as part of the 

 common scientific property of continental workers, raised 

 a sort of storm in this country, not only by exciting 

 the wrath of unscientific persons whose pet prejudices 

 they seemed to touch, but by giving rise to quite 

 superfluous explosions on the part of some who should 

 have been better informed. 



Dr. Stirling, for example, made my essay the subject 

 of a special critical lecture, 1 which 1 have read with much 

 interest, though, I confess, the meaning of much of it 

 remains as dark to me as does the t; Secret of Hegel " 

 after Dr. Stirling's elaborate revelation of it. Dr. Stirling'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 tyro 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 " Auffcldrung " a recur- 



1 Subsequently published under the title of " As regards Protoplasm.'' 



