AS REGARDS PROTOPLASM, ETC. 39 



It is evident, then, that the fulcrum on which Mr Huxley's 

 second proposition rests, is a single inference from a chemical 

 analogy. Analogy, however, being never identity, is apt to 

 betray. The difference it hides may be essential, that is, while 

 the likeness it shows may be inessential so far as the con- 

 clusion is concerned. That this mischance has overtaken Mr 

 Huxley here, it will, I fancy, not be difficult to demonstrate. 



The analogy to which Mr Huxley trusts has two references : 

 one to chemical composition, and one to a certain stimulus that 

 determines it. As regards chemical composition, we are asked, 

 by virtue of the analogy obtaining, to identify, as equally simple 

 instances of it, protoplasm here and water there ; and, as re- 

 gards the stimulus in question, we are asked to admit the action 

 of the electric spark in the one case to be quite analogous to 

 the action of pre-existing protoplasm in the other. In both refer- 

 ences I shall endeavour to point out that the analogy fails; or, as 

 we may say it also, that, even to Mr Huxley, it can only seem to 

 succeed by discounting the elements of difference that still subsist. 



To begin with chemical combination, it is not unjust to demand 

 that the analogy which must be admitted to exist in that, and 

 a general physical respect, should not be strained beyond its 

 legitimate limits. Protoplasm cannot be denied to be a chemical 

 substance ; protoplasm cannot be denied to be a physical sub- 

 stance. As a compound of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and 

 nitrogen, it comports itself chemically at least in ultimate 

 instance in a manner not essentially different from that in 

 which water, as a compound of hydrogen and oxygen, comports 

 itself chemically. In mere physical aspect, again, it may count 

 quality for quality with water in the same aspect. In short, so 

 far as it is on chemical and physical structure that the possession 

 of distinctive properties in any case depends, both bodies may 

 be allowed to be pretty well on a par. The analogy must be 

 allowed to hold so far ; so far but no farther. One step farther 

 and we see not only that protoplasm has, like water, a chemical 

 and physical structure ; but that, unlike water, it has also an 

 organised or organic structure. Now this, on the part of proto- 

 plasm, is a possession in excess ; and with relation to that ex- 

 cess there can be no grounds for analogy. This, perhaps, is 

 what Mr Huxley has omitted to consider. When insisting on 

 attributing to protoplasm the qualities it possessed, because of 

 its chemical and physical structure, if it was for chemical and 

 physical structure that we attributed to water its qualities, he 

 has simply forgotten the addition to protoplasm of a third struc- 

 ture that can only be named organic. " If the phenomena ex- 

 hibited by water are its properties, so are those presented 

 by protoplasm, living or dead, its properties." When Mr Huxley 

 speaks thus, Exactly so, we may answer : " living or dead " 



