PREFACE. \ 1 



complete and formal analysis of the second or philosophical part 

 of his essay, I have, in this edition, added it. 



It is not every gentleman who allows himself so lightly such 

 heavy weapons as " titter misrepresentations ; " and I can only 

 say, as regards them all, that I am really sorry Mr Huxley 

 should have so indulged himself. 



Let it be borne in mind, too, that Mr Huxley's critique, as 

 above resisted, applies not to my essay, but to its short last 

 sentence ; which sentence, by the bye, happens (though I by no 

 means disown, but completely homologate it) to have been a mere 

 addition to the proof of my manuscript. Even so, he who reads 

 again said last sentence, will find Mr Huxley's objections not 

 only to be but word-deep mere catch-words, then, but to 

 glance from the surface, without a scratch. 



Passing now, then, from these three main and summarising 

 objections of Mr Huxley's, I shall consider the others, taking 

 them as they come in the extract, but, as said, in a course 

 upwards. 



The first that so comes concerns the nettle hair. I shall have 

 contented myself, it seems, with taking my facts " at second 



hand." " A most amusing example," etc " but why in 



the world did not this distinguished Hegelian look at a nettle 

 hair for himself? " Now, my single action being only to oppose 

 difference to identity, I contend that, if, of the nettle hair, 

 Strieker said A while Huxley said B, I had a perfect warrant to 

 point out as much let my own results of examination of the 

 nettle hair have been what they might, and for the obvious 

 reason that the known Strieker was an authority, whereas I, 

 unknown, was none. But all that is beside the point, and I seize 

 Mr Huxley here in the act, as is usual with him in my case, of 

 mere word-catching. I do not meet Mr Huxley's description of 

 the protoplasm of the nettle hair by Strieker's description in 

 the same reference. My action, on the contrary, is this : To Mr 

 Huxley's description of protoplasm in general, I oppose Strieker's 

 description of protoplasm equally in general, and 1 point to the 

 difference between them. Mr Huxley will probably exclaim, 

 But it was the protoplasm of the nettle hair / described ! To 

 this my answer is, Yes ; but you immediately proceeded, and at 

 great length, to identify all protoplasm with that of the nettle 

 hair ; and, therefore, I was perfectly warranted in assuming your 

 description of the protoplasm of the nettle hair in the first 



