79 
together. Is the case in any way changed when carbonic acid, water, and 
ammonia disappear, and in their place, under the influence of pre-existing 
living protoplasm, an equivalent weight of the matter of life makes its 
appearance ? It is true that there is no sort of parity between the properties 
of the components and the properties of the resultant, but neither was there 
in the case of the water. It is also true that what I have spoken of as the 
influence of pre-existing living matter is something quite unintelligible ; but 
does anybody quite comprehend the modus operandi of an electric spark, 
which traverses a. mixture of oxygen and hydrogen ? What justification is 
there, then, for the assumption of the existence in the living matter of a 
something which has no representation or correlative in the not living matter 
which gave rise to it ? What better philosophical status has 4 vitality ’ 
than ‘ aquosity ’ ? And why should vitality hope for a better fate than the 
other ‘itys’ which have disappeared since Martinus Scriblerus accounted 
for the operation of the meat-jack by its inherent ‘ meat-roasting quality,’ 
and scorned the materialism of those who explained the turning of the spit by 
a certain mechanism worked by the draught of the chimney ?” 
Now, I have very carefully read the whole of Professor Huxley’s paper, 
and this is the only argument I can find for making us believe that there is 
no such thing in existence as life or vitality beyond the ordinary action of 
the molecular forces, whatever they may be, when these atoms are brought 
into a particular state of combination. But the whole of that passage shows 
the peculiar condition of mind of those naturalists who deny the existence of 
vitality. He says : “We don’t believe that such a thing as ‘ aquosity’ entered 
into the particles of the oxide of hydrogen when they formed themselves on 
our windows into those beautiful frosted figures which represent to many 
minds the appearance and growth of a plant.” I have known many persons 
highly delighted when they have seen under the oxy-hydrogen microscope 
crystalline forms rushing across the object-glass, and producing in an instant 
of time the most wonderful vegetable forms, as you would suppose. But 
that passage betrays the greatest ignorance on the part of Professor Huxley. 
There is not the slightest analogy on earth between the formation of any 
crystal and the growth of any plant. He talks of the Protean forms of car- 
bonate of lime : he might also have mentioned the Protean forms of silica. 
What does he mean by these Protean forms ? He means that crystals of 
carbonate of lime present an enormous variety in the external form of the 
crystals and in their relation to each other. But, although these forms are 
bound to each other by certain geometrical laws, no crystallographer whatever 
could anticipate or prophesy with anything like accuracy whether any par- 
ticular form could or not be found within certain limits. What takes place 
in carbonate of lime or silica, or oxide of hydrogen, or any of these crystal- 
line bodies? The greatest diversity of external form, with the greatest 
possible identity of internal structure. But what have you in a plant ? The 
greatest pertinacity with respect to external form, and at the same time the 
greatest diversity of internal structure. That is one difference, among many, 
between living beings and dead crystals. It is a law running through the 
whole of animated nature that you have the greatest possible diversity of 
internal constitution of the same plant or animal with the greatest uniformity 
