PROF. LIONEL 8. BEALE, F.R.C.P., F.R.8., ON VITALITY. 59 
highly instructive book :— People cannot carry on a dis- 
cussion profitably, or even decorously, unless they are agreed 
about the meaning of terms. If you and I are to play 
dialectic together, the pieces—in this instance words—must 
have the same value for us both, and we must stick to the 
rules of the game, otherwise, as Aristotle says, ‘there will 
be a disgraceful scene” ” (The Philosophy of Greece, 
p- 174.) 
I never read an extract that seemed more interesting to 
the student of science or more pertinent to modern ideas 
than this, which relates to the philosophic views of more 
than two thousand years ago.’ As we all know, there might 
be “terrible scenes” if the representatives of conflicting 
philosophies met for discussing the merits of their several 
doctrines at this time. The difference between thoughtful 
persons is great and unfortunately a great many words, as 
I have before remarked, are used in more than one sense. 
‘There must be many scientific controversies, many crises, 
much strife, which might bring about “terrible scenes.” 
Among the most terrible things that have been said of late 
is perhaps the comparison between the changes that take 
place in the “ growth” of a voleano which does not grow, and 
an oak tree which does grow. Mr. Herbert Spencer is in 
great part responsible for this. I shall have something 
more to say about this question of growth later on. But is 
it not very extraordinary that anyone should attempt to 
compare the changes taking place in a non-living volcano 
with those, constant during its life, of a living oak tree? 
Are they not obviously, absolutely different? Between them 
there is no analogy. It would be very interesting if those 
who accept such comparisons would put their views into 
plain English, so that we may discuss them. One word let 
me say with regard to this matter, though it may be perhaps 
a little personal as regards the discussion into which I have 
entered. There has been a slight tendency on the part of 
some who differ from me to call me names. One contro- 
versialist denominated me a “ Spiritualist.”. Now I never 
was a “Spiritualist.” The term “Spiritualist” is not 
applicable to me, because, as | said before, my views entirely 
depend upon the demonstration and repetition of facts of 
observation made in the course of my own investigations 
with very high magnifying powers, the results of which have 
been published in several memoirs and scientific papers 
communicated to the Royal Society, the Royal Microscopical 
