202 
of some modern writers. In order to form a true conception of these, it is 
necessary to scrutinise very closely the terms which they employ. Tho 
definitions of protoplasm involve this fallacy, that whilst spoken of as ono 
thing or substance, it is at the same time, according to the same authors, 
many things or substances, to ■which the same remarkable, and indeed 
incredible, properties are attached. As if we were to say that “ clay ” was a 
substance universally admitted to produce bricks, and also potters-ware and 
porcelain : and, ignoring the brickmaker or the potter (whilst theorising 
further on this fundamental basis of brickmaking), were to conclude that 
without possessing any actual structure in itself, it manifested brickmaking 
properties, or porcelain-producing properties, by virtue of its being “ brought 
from a statical into a dynamical condition.” 
If we apply to the brickmaker, he -would tell us that our definition of 
“ clay ” (to begin with) was very imperfect ; and that, without having at his 
disposal a mixture of various earths (best known to himself), “with 
water, and a variable amount of mineral substances in addition,” he could 
not produce bricks at all. He would further inform us, that “ molecular 
movements” had never come within the compass of his observation — that, 
on the contrary, much horse or donkey-power was needed to effect the mix- 
ture. As to any inherent properties of the “ clay ” to form itself into bricks, 
he would be lost in wonder whether you were after all sane, or whether 
much learning had made you mad. 
Turning to the porcelain manufacturer, he would tell us that “ clay” might 
very likely be well described (see Johcson’s Dictionary) as an “unctuous 
and tenacious earth, such as will mould into a certain form,” but that the 
term could only be very loosely used of the “highly complex” matter which 
would alone serve his turn. After showing you the elaborate contrivances 
for preparing the material, he would let you see the workmen engaged in the 
various manipulations of his art, and would probably acquaint you with the 
difficulty he found in causing his plans to be perfectly carried out by his 
men. He would then show you his designing-rooms, and perhaps say, “ I 
flatter myself that I have here in my employ the most perfected taste and 
the highest skill that can be met with in the trade ; but it is astonishing, 
and you would scarcely credit, how highly I have to pay for all this mind 
employed in my service.” 
Now, if we consider Nature, we find that she makes her bricks so 
economically as never to lose any part of her material — turning everything 
to account. She is never disturbed by adverse combinations of her under- 
workmen nor troubled with their insubordination. 
But, as a porcelain-maker, she is unrivalled ; for she can communicate to 
her little lumps of soft sarcode (undifferentiated as they are), (p. 274), the 
power of secreting hard structures formed out of chalk or pure glassy- flint of 
surpassing beauty, and not unusually of mathematical regularity. To what 
schools she sends these sarcodes to acquire this perfection of taste and this 
fondness for mathematical regularity we are not informed ; but can at all 
events display our wisdom by calling them Foraminifera and Polycistina. 
