70 PROF. LIONEL §. BEALE, F.R:C.P., F.R.S., ON VITALITY. 
Professor Beale has always drawna clear line between them. Sup- 
posing I said a lady was made up of a bonnet, a dress, a pair 
of boots, and a pair of gloves, I should have mistaken the 
things she had got on for the person herself, and yet it often 
happens that some of these minute things which we see under 
a microscope are spoken of as if they were self-constructed. 
I might pursue my illustration farther and talk of a building 
making itself, but we know that buildings do not make them- 
selves, and we have very high authority for saying that every 
house is made by someone. When a lady goes into a shop to 
provide these things, each of which is practically a construction 
of itself, she has an idea of what she wants, and proceeds to build 
up her external structure. She is the Zoe, the real agent by 
which all these various things are built up. She is the Hgo 
which applies the matter in all its varied forms, and I think that 
has been especially brought out to-day with regard to the initial 
forms of life. 
One other point struck me in regard to these little life 
particles. At first sight it would seem as if they were independent 
of one another, but Professor Beale brought us to think that we 
must go back to the origin and we shall find that all these little 
particles spring from. one or at most a few, and thus you get at 
the true idea of the living growth, as contrasted with the 
crystal. Science speaks of an organic being as that life which 
proceeded from a centre and worked on a plan through and 
from that centre, growing in this direction rather than in that 
direction, until you get the true organic being. So after all, 
organization springs from life, and life springs from living 
organisms. 
Professor OrcHARD.—I may express my thorough concurrence 
in what has been so ably put forward by Canon Girdlestone. 
We all thank Professor Lionel Beale very much for his kindness 
in coming amongst us this evening, and not least for drawing 
attention to that abuse of words which, as was observed, is often 
the cause of intellectual dissent. 
John Stuart Mill called attention, I remember, to this practice 
of using words in different senses; he himself unhappily was 
not free from blame in that respect, though that must not be 
taken to Jessen the value of his caution. The word evolution’ 
is a notable example; nor am I certain that Professor Lionel 
