248 HUXLEY MISUNDERSTOOD. 



altogether. Nevertheless, Dr. Stirling so understood 

 him, and also Professor Gamgee thus speaks : " Looking 

 upon protoplasm as a definite chemical principle, Pro- 

 fessor Huxley argues for its identity in all plants and 

 animals, and speaks of living and dead protoplasm."* 

 Dr. Beale also is chargeable with ambiguity from an 

 opposite cause, and has, no doubt, helped to confuse 

 the mind of the public, for he lays great stress on the 

 small difference of chemical constitution betwen dif- 

 ferent kinds of protoplasm, while he exalts the differ- 

 ence of power or faculty they possess in favour of 

 the supposed vital principle as the cause of all vital 

 faculty. Dr. Stirling himself brings forward proofs 

 that different varieties of protoplasm do differ in fact, 

 and may easily be conceived to differ even though the 

 same elements are present, just as isomeric bodies do. 

 It is very remarkable, therefore, that he does not see 

 that his whole tract is directed not really against the 

 protoplasmic theory, but against, partly, a misappre- 

 hension of Huxley's meaning, and partly what is really 

 an error on the part of Huxley, viz., the giving the 

 name of protoplasm, not only to different kinds of 

 formed material such as tissues in the living body, but 

 also actually to dead matter, and the going so far as. 

 to confound pabulum with protoplasm. After follow- 

 ing Fletcher and Beale in speaking of the consumption 

 of protoplasm at each vital act, Huxley, comparing it 

 to the shrinking of the Peau de Chagrin, in Balzac's 

 tale, says that even as he speaks his Peau de Chagrin 

 has been wasting, but he will presently recruit it from 

 mutton-protoplasm. He then goes on : 



* " On Force and Matter," p. 16. 



