REVIEW. 
163 
ample illustration of the Eidolon pointed out by Bacon, that ‘ some men 
become attached to particular sciences and contemplations either from 
supposing themselves the authors and inventors of them, or from having 
bestowed the greatest pains upon such subjects, and thus become most 
habituated to them and further, that ‘ if men of this description apply 
themselves to philosophy and contemplation of a universal nature, they 
wrest and corrupt them by their preconceived fancies/ ” 
What is Life? 
“ At one time, when chemistry received a strong impulse from the 
influence of Paracelsus, De la Boe Sylvius, and others, every vital pro¬ 
cess was referred to chemical agency ; and thus, in the most unscrupu¬ 
lous and often clumsy manner, fermentation, effervescence, ebullition, 
and other not very easily imagined changes in the animal fluids, were 
held to account for all the phenomena of life, both in health and disease. 
But again, ‘ mechanics’ rose to higher dignity than heretofore, and the 
curves, angles, and forces were found to be equally satisfactory solu¬ 
tions. With German metaphysics arose new explanations, and every 
physical fact was found in dependence upon some higher metaphysical 
fact, of which consciousness was the only witness. Physiology, pre¬ 
viously the offshoot of chemistry or mechanics, a subdivision of those 
larger sciences, had now to take its place as an underling of psychology. 
Whence to start from, and towards what goal to direct inquiries in the 
study of physiology, were questions asked often, and thus variously 
answered. A satisfactory answer could only come from a true classifi¬ 
cation ; such an arrangement of the several elements of study that this 
one should occupy its proper place. 
* # * # * * 
“The idea of life—that it is merely a modification of general phy¬ 
sical forces—is gaining ground, and seriously affecting both our teach¬ 
ing and our practice. It is not a part of the ‘ positive philosophy,’ but 
it is often the result of the ‘ positive method,’ and of the system of 
‘classification;’ and sometimes of a bungling of this with the idea of 
the ‘correlation’ of forces, or with the notion of some central, single 
orce. 
“ The progress of science tends to show unity of plan amid all the 
marvellous diversity of nature, to evoke order out of chaos, and har¬ 
mony from discord ; but it should ever be borne in mind, that analogy is 
not identitv, and that harmony is not unison ; and that although we may 
gain glimpses or hints of order, harmony, and unity, a perception of it, 
in its real nature, is quite as distant as it ever was,—as far from the 
author of ‘ Nomos’ as from the Grecian Thales. 
“ But it is not the idea of some central or universal force, the diverse 
manifestations of which result here in physical, there in chemical, and 
elsewhere in vital phenomena, which is the most dangerous and delu¬ 
sive notion; although in order to arrive at some good-looking generali¬ 
sation many tortured facts, magnifying some and diminishing others, 
dressing up one class, and not only stripping and shaving, hut actually 
flaying others, until they might fairly challenge their most intimate 
relations to swear to their identity. It is not this generalisation, to 
arrive at which a kind of scientific steepie-chase has to he ridden, leap¬ 
ing over obstacles, and getting out of the way of great chasms which 
must inevitably sink the rider and his steed beyond all reach of mortal 
eyesight. It is not this generalisation, which as a goal may be well 
