THE LIBRARY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRESENTED BY PROF. CHARLES A. KOFOID AND MRS. PRUDENCE W. KOFOID PROTOPLASM: OR, MATTER AND LIFE ARISTOPH. Aves, 686. PROTOPLASM ; OR, MATTER AND LIFE WITH SOME REMARKS UPON THE "CONFESSION" OF STRAUSS, BY LIONEL S. BEALE, M.B., F.R.S., Fellow of the Royal College of Thyficians ; Phyficlan to King's College Hofpital. THIRD EDITION. LONDON: J. & A. CHURCHILL. PHILADELPHIA : LINDSAY & BLAKISTON. 1874. [All Rig/its reserved.} LONDON : HARRISON AND SONS, PRINTERS IN ORDINARY TO HER MAJESTT, ST. MARTIN'S LANI. TABLE OF CONTENTS. PART I. — DISSENTIENT. I. — INTRODUCTORY. PAGE General remarks ... ... ... ... i Tendency of thought ... 2 Authority and fact ... ... ... 3 Physical causation ... ... ... 4 Energy not formative ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 7 Premature concession ... ... ... 9 What may be proved ... ... ... ... ... n Absolute difference between living and dead ... 12 II.— THE PHYSICAL DOCTRINE OF LIFE. — CHEMISTRY AND MECHANICS. Are living beings only inorganic matter and forces ? ... ... 17 Vital power not force ... ... ... ... ... 18 Organic and inorganic world ... ... ... 19 Conservation of energy ... ... ... ... ... ... 20 Form never results from force... ... ... ... 21 Assertions and dogmas ... ... ... ... ... ... 22 Machines and laboratories ... ... ... ... ... ... 23 Dr. Odling's views s ... 24 No one teaches that life creates energy ... 27 Life " only," a transformer ... ... ... ... ... ... 28 Formation of acetic acid from inorganic matter 31 Albumen not produced artificially ... ... ... ... ... 32 Chemistry not constructive ... ... ... ... 33 Artificial living matter... ... ... ... ... ... ... 34 Chemical health and disease 35 Nutrition not chemical... ... ... ... ... ... ... 36 Oxidation and nutrition ... ... ... ... ... ... 37 Inflammation, fermentation ... ... ... ... ... ... 39 Microscopical investigation ... ... ... ... ... ... 41 Broad general views ... ... ... ... ... ... . 42 Importance of living matter ... ..t . . •• 43 Experimental organisms ... ... ... . ... ... 45 Mr. Justice Grove's views ... ... ... ... .. ... 46 I&353556 CONTENTS. Machines do not grow 47 Molecular mechanics ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 48 Clock mechanisms ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 49 The1 cell a force-conditioning machine ... ... ... ... 51 Molecular machinery ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 52 Brain built by sun ... ... ... ... ... 53 Growth of cells and crystals 55 Affirmation not explanation ... ... ... ... ... ... 56 Molecules 58 Dr. Hughes Bennett on cell formation ... ... 61 Catalytic actions not vital actions ... ... ... ... ... 62 Conversion of force and correlation ... ... ... ... ... 64 Vital selection and magnetic attraction ... ... ... ... 64 Professor Owen on death ... ... ... ... 65 Conversion of the non-living into the living ... 66 Origin of fungi from oil-globules ... ... ... ... ... 68 Speculations concerning living and dead ... ... 69 Correlation of vital and physical forces ... ... ... ... 72 Vitality not a collocation of forces ... ... ... ... ... 74 Hux] ey on jelly -guiding forces ... ... ... ... ... 77 Physical doctrine not supported by observation and experiment ... 77 The mystery of the physicists ... ... ... ... ... ... 78 Revelations of the future ... ... ... ... ... ... 79 Physicists have not discovered cause of vital movements ... ... 80 Physical and chemical changes in pabulum ... ... 81 Word-producing machinery of Mr. Huxley ... ... ... ... 82 Descartes' rational soul... ... ... ... ... 83 Education possible because the body is a machine ! ... ... 84 The engineer of Descartes' hydraulic machine 85 Mr. Huxley's engineer... ... ... ... ... ... ... 87 III. — PROTOPLASM. Definition of protoplasm ... ... ... ... ... ... 89 Primordial utricle and nucleus... ... ... ... 90 Huxley's endoplast and periplast ... ... 91 Protoplasm of Max S chultze and Kuhne 91 Germinal matter or bioplasm ... .. ... ... ... ... 92 Many kinds of matter called protoplasm 94 The physical basis of life •... ... 95 Subtle influences of Huxley 96 The cell not a mass of protoplasm ... ... ... ... ... 97 Errors of Mr. Huxley ... ... ... ... ... 98 Living matter and formed matter 98 " Properties " of matter ... ... ... ... 101 Crystallization and form 102 Aquosity and vitality ... ... ... ... ... 103 Kinds of water ... . . ... ... ... ... ... .. 105 Properties of living matter ... ... ,.. ... ... ... 106 CONTENTS. vii PAGE Discoveries of intelligence ... ... * 107 Bathybius. Moner ... 108 Discolithi and cyatholici ... ... 109 Dr. Wallich's observations ... ... ... ... ... ... no Protoplasm in the clouds ... ... ... ... in Protoplasm in general ... ... 113 Criticisms on Huxley's hypothesis ... ... ... ... ... 114 " Complete and final " refutation ... ... 115 Dr. Stirling's observations ... 115 IV. — THE PHYSICS OF CONSCIOUSNESS. MENTAL MECHANICS. Professor P. E. Tait's remarks on spiritualists and materialists ... 117 Interest of the subject ... ... ... ... 117 Human body a machine ... ... ... 119 Mechanical equivalent of consciousness ... ... ... ...119 Unenquiring scientific belief ... ... ... 120 Chasm between dead and living ... ... ... 121 Physical basis of thought ... ... ... ... 122 Ignorance of the nature of the changes of growth ... 123 False philosophy and intimidation ... ... ... ... ... 125 Physical views of mind ... ... ... 126 Selection of facts to prove an hypothesis ... ... ... ... 127 Fanciful speculation ... • ... 128 Mill's hypothesis of brain action ... ... ... ... ... 129 Physiology and philosophy ... ... ... ... 130 Being and living ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 131 What am I? 132 What is life? 133 Changes in physiological doctrine ... ... ... ... ... 134 False physiology ... ... ... 135 Attacks upon religion ... ... ... ... 136 Revival of Epicureanism ... ... 137 Materialist compliment .. ... ... ... ... 138 Lucretius ... ... ... ... ... 139 Nursery theology ... ... 140 Terrorism and threats ... ... ... ... ... 141 The extension of the kingdom of matter ... ... ... .-.143 Concessions extorted by intimidation ... ... 145 Feeling. Sensation. Sensationalism. The brain the organ of the mind ... ... . . ... ... 146 Bain's consciousness in muscular tissue ... ... ... ... 147 Sensation. Feeling ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 148 No analogy between action of liver and action of brain ... ... 149 Different kinds of feeling ... ... ... ... ... ... 150 Property of intellect. Note 150 Feeling of a man ; of an amoeba 150 CONTENTS. PAGE Changes of cuticular epithelium 221 Of " intercellular substance " 222 A "cell" of cartilage or tendon 223 Structure and formation of bone ••• ••• ••• 224 What is essential to a cell ? 225 Of fibrous and other tissues 225 Yellow elastic tissue 22£ Muscular tissue 22t Of the "nucleus" of muscle 227 Nerve cells and fibres 228 Formation of central and peripheral nerve cells and fibres 229 Very fine peripheral nerve fibres ••• 229 Of nerve cells § 23° Central nerve cells with spiral fibre .-.231 The Nutrition and Increase of Cells. Of the nutrition of a living cell 232 Of the increase of cells Formation of septum in cells ••• ••• ••• 233 General conclusions ••• ••• ••• 234 TyndalTs organism and spectral objects 235 V. — OF A DYING CILIUM. Cessation of vital movement 236 Ciliary action 237 Hseckel's views of cilia ... ••• 238 Cilia not amoeboid processes ... 238 Relation of bioplasm to cilium... ... 239 Structure of cilium 239 VI.— OF THE CHANGES OF THE ELEMENTARY PART IN DISEASE, AND OF DISEASE GERMS. The nutrition of the bioplasm of the cell in disease ... ... ... 241 Bioplasm in disease ... ... ... ... 242 Rate of growth of bioplasm ... ... ... 242 Formation of pus from excess of nutrient matter ... ... ... 243 Hardening from slow rate of nutrition . ... ... 243 Changes of formed material in cirrhosis ... ... ... ... 243 Changes in inflammation ... ... ... ... 244 Of the changes in pneumonia ... ... ... .. ... ... 244 Generalization, concerning inflammations and fevers ... ... ... 244 Formation of pus-bioplasts ... 245 Effects of injury to the cell 245 Pus-corpuscle is living matter ... ... 246 Derivation of pus-corpuscles ... ... ... ... 246 Nature and formation of disease germs ... ... ... ... 246 Inflammation and fever ... 247 CONTENTS. xi PAGE Fever, a general inflammation ... ... ... 247 Inflammation, a local fever ... ... ... ... ... ... 247 Destruction of structure . ... ... ... ... ... ... 247 Action of tonics... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 248 Acceleration or retardation of growth of bioplasm in disease ... 248 Action of alcohol ... ... ... ... ... 249 Properties of alcohol in hardening tissues ... 249 Action of alkalies ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 250 VII. — OF THE CONNECTION BETWEEN NERVES, MUSCLES, AND OTHER TISSUES. Physical relations of the several tissues not known ... 251 Structure of frog's skin... ... ... 252 Vessels, nerves, and pigment cells ... ... ... ... ... 252 Relation of tissues and their mutual adaptation ... ... ... 253 Intertwining and interlacement of nerves ... ... ... ... 253 Complex apparatus must have been designed beforehand 254 Bladder of frog ... 254 Arrangement of nerves... ... ... ... ... 254 Bioplasts of dark-bordered nerve fibres and terminal networks ... 255 Distribution of nerves to voluntary muscle ... 255 Bioplasts of nerves, muscles, and vessels ... ... 256 Papilla of frog's tongue . ... ... ... ... ... ... 256 Sensitive nerve fibres of papilla of frog's tongue ... ... ... 257 " Property " hypothesis accounts for nothing . ... 257 PART III. — SPECULATIVE. I. — OF THE NATURE OF LIFE. What is to be understood by the term " life ?" 261 Life of a man, of white blood corpuscle, &c. ... 262 Life not a result of chemical change ... 263 Views concerning living and dead tissue 263 Of life and death 264 Actions peculiar to living beings ... ... ... 264 Phenomena not to be explained without vital hypothesis 265 Purely vital phenomena . ... ... ... 266 Formation, nutrition, growth, and movements 266 Moving of particles from a centre ... ... 268 Nature of nutrition ... ... ... 269 Cause of vital movement ... ... ... ... 270 Action of heat ... ... 270 Attendant circumstances not causes ... ... 270 Of the tendency to move ... ... ... 271 Peculiar power of movement 271 CONTENTS. PAGE Changes, and phenomenal changes ... 272 Vital movement peculiar 273 Cause of change 274 Views of the physical school 274 No mechanism in living matter 2/5 Ultimate particles of living matter 27& Movement from a centre ••• ••• ••• 27^ Matter flashing into life . ... 278 Mr. Darwin's views on Pangenesis ... ... ••• 279 Course of non-living pabulum... ••• ••• 279 Evolution of new living matter . ... ••• ••• 279 Conversion of non-living into living 2°o Arrangement and form of living atoms ... ... ... ••• 200 No living particle simple ••• 2°J Fluid between ultimate particles 2° I Different properties and powers of bioplasm ... ... 282 Resemblance of different forms of bioplasm 2 Embryos of dog and man ••• 2°3 Community of descent of man and animals 284 Of the word " identical " 285 Laws 2§5 Natural selection acts upon bioplasm... ... 287 *' That mass man sprang from was a jelly lump" ... ... ... 287 Sir John Lubbock's views ... ••• 287 " Travesties " of Mr. Darwin's conclusions ... ... ... ... 288 Primordial and succeeding forms ... ... ... ... ••• 289 Origin of primordial living matter ... ... ... 289 Physical causes of origin and derivation ... ... ... ••• 289 Survival of the fittest 290 Darwin and vital power ... ... 291 Two classes of evolutionists ... ... ... ... 291 Breathing of life into living matter not explained ... 292 Influence of the Creator and secondary laws... ... ... ... 292 Bioplasm seat of changes not dependent on force ... ... ... 293 Alteration in vital power ... ... ... 294 Origin of centre within centre 294 New centre acquires new powers ... ... 295 Increase of formative power ... ... ... ... 296 The life of the seed 296 Life not due to surrounding conditions ... ... ... ... 297 Internal forces and external conditions ... ... 297 From force to intellect 298 The chemist in the laboratory must not be ignored 299 The step from mechanics to chemistry ... ... ... ... 299 No relation between chemistry and life ... ... 300 Prophetic physics, and observation and experiment .. 300 Force powerless to form ... 301 Origin of form in formless ... .. ... 302 Formative power not material property ... ... ... ... 302 CONTENTS. xiii PAGE Conjectural hypothesis 303 If vital changes cease a living particle dies 304 Life stuff and its powers of development ... 305 Structure-forming capacity ... ... 306 Vital hypothesis based on observation . ... ... 307 Kant's gradual descent from man to zoophyte ... ... ... 308 Ideas about gradual descent not true ... ... ... 308 Study of historical period ... ... ... ... ... ... 309 Vital power of some kind necessary to explain facts . ... ... 310 II. — ON THE NATURE OF MIND. Consciousness, intellect, and will as products of action 311 Laws, forces, properties, and tendencies not mind ... 312 Nerve mechanism, its relations to bioplasm ..313 Hypothesis of vitality and mind ... ... ... 314 Vital phenomena not due to will ... ... ... 315 Instinct and will ... ... ... 316 Thought in lower animals ... ... ... ... 316 Nerve fibres through which thought acts ... ... ... ...317 Nerve fibres not like telegraph wires... ... ... ... . . 3I7 Influence of bioplasm ... ... 318 Bioplasts of grey matter of brain 319 Mind bioplasts and their action ... 320 Nerve fibres of convolutions ... ... ... ... 321 Caudate nerve cells, their action ... ... 321 Fritsch and Hitzig's experiments ... ... ... ... ... 322 Dr. Ferrier's experiments on the functions of the convolutions . . . 322 Dr. Hughlings Jackson's clinical observations ... ... ... 323 Dr. Ferrier's conclusions, summary of ... ... ... ... 323 Actions of brain not purely physical ... ... 324 Excitation of action of cerebral convolutions . ... ... ... 325 Vital action of bioplasts on surface of convolutions... ... ... 325 Consciousness not related to force ... ... 325 III. — OF DESIGN. Argument of design opposed ... ... ... ... 326 Difficulties of accepting the argument . ... ... ... ... 327 Views of unprejudiced observers ... ... ... ... ... 328 Helmholtz decides against design ... ... ... ... ... 329 Nature and natural selection ... ... 329 Nature differentiating herself ... ... 329 Properties and attributes of the new nature ... ... ... ... 330 Modification of old views of Deity ... .. ... ... ... 330 Forcing back the time of operation of Omnipotence . ... •••331 Omnipotence does not test results ... ... ... ... ... 332 Facts in favour of design outweigh those against the argument ... 332 Formation of jelly speck not yet achieved ... ... ... •••333 xiv CONTENTS. PAGE Hasty conclusions ... ... ... ... ... 334 Attempts to revert to ancient hypotheses ... ... ... ... 334 Scientific observers ought not to start from faith ... ... ... 334 Scientific observers not blessed by any church ... ... ... 335 Scientific investigation must be free ... ... ... ... ---335 Neither theological nor scientific tests to be permitted 336 Religious bodies will never again interfere with the prosecution of science ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 336 Argument of design considered from a new point of view... ... 337 Non-living and living mechanisms are distinct ... ... ... 338 Evolution of structure from structureless ... ... ... ... 338 Must not argue from machines . ... ... ... ... ... 338 Human ingenuity and Infinite power. .. ... ... .. ... 339 Argument from imperfections and faulty construction ... ... 340 Philosophical half-truths ... ... 340 Man began as a formless mass . ... ... ... ... ... 341 Mr. Herbert Spencer's "un differentiated aggregate of protoplasm " 342 Vital and physical changes of a distinct order ... ... ... 343 Creator of the living must be living ... ... ... ... ... 344 Contemplation of animal machinery ... ... ... ... ... 344 Idea of design strengthened ... ... ... ... ... ... 345 It may be necessary to give up idea of design ... 345 Advantages enjoyed by strong brethren of science ... ... ... 345 Anticipating the discoveries of our successors ... ... ... 346 Living matter not yet explained by laws of physics... ... ... 346 Philosophers of the future ... ... ... ,,. ... ... 347 Argument of design, and the structure of papillae of frog's tongue... 348 Arrangement of nerves and muscles ... ... ..: ... ... 348 Facts of the arrangement of nerves not explained ixy physics ... 349 Design and purpose ... ... ... ... ... 349 Each papilla formed from the formless ... ... ... ... 349 Papilla did not result from tentative experiments 350 Contemplation of structure and action of papillae ... ... ... 350 Evolutionists do not illustrate their hypothesis by appealing to minute structure ,.. ... ... ... ... 351 Actions are perfect from the first ... ... ... 352 Actions are not perfected by experiment ... ... ... ... 352 Action of bioplasm not due to experience 353 Mr. Darwin's views about the eye ... ... ... ... ... 353 Difficulties of explaining formation of tissue by natural selection ... 354 No tissue formed by gradual improvement ... ... ... • •• 355 Transmission of modifications of the eye ... ... ... ---355 Heredity and adaptivity not physical 355 Strauss' views on the eye ... ... ... ... ... ... 355 The tendency of opinion not evidence . ... ... .. ... 356 Science and her interests ... ... ... ... ... ... 357 Report of meeting of British Association. Views on design ... 357 The vermiform appendix a mistake 357 Theism not disproved by science ... ... ... 358 CONTENTS. xv PAGE True cause of living changes ... ... ... ... 359 Nothing proved against the idea of vital power, belief in God, argument of design, &c ... ... 359 Acknowledgments claimed ... ... ... ... ... ... 360 POSTSCRIPT. THE CONFESSION OF STRAUSS. " We must acknowledge we are no longer Christians" ... ... 361 Strauss assails the inconsistency of some who agree with him ... 362 What is a clear cosmical conception? 363 Credulity as regards scientific assertion ... ... 363 Strauss has been misled as regards scientific facts ... 364 The laboratory of the wise and good... ... ... ... ... 365 Strauss does not show how we are to prove an affirmation to be true 365 Scientific facts do not disprove miracle ... ... 366 Notions on which cosmic conception is based ... ... ... 366 Birth of planets and living things ... .. 367 Slimy jelly de profundis ... ... ... ... ... ... 368 Chasm between living and non-living bridged by slimy jelly . . . 368 Miracle destroyed by Bathybius ... ... ... 368 Tendency of new doctrines ... 369 Cosmos changing but constant ... ... ... 370 The force of nature discovered by Darwin ... ... ... ... 370 Cosmos of to-day not the cosmos of our fathers or that of our sons 370 Beginning of organic life ... ... ... ... ... ... 371 Suggestion as to origin of life without miracle ... ... ... 371 Strauss thinks motion transformed into life ... ..'. ... .-.371 The all, the cosmos, the slimy heap of jelly ... ... ... 372 Believers in Bathybius ... ... ... ... 372 Every kind of bioplasm has a life history of its own . 373 Generalized living matter ... ... ... ... ... ... 373 Everything foreseen and prearranged by intelligence 374 Doubts concerning religion. Proofs of materialism being untrue... 375 New faith cannot be acted upon 375 Natural selection or Deity ? 376 Sir Charles Ly ell's remarks on Darwinism 376 The choice between miracle and Darwin 376 Darwin implies miracle . 377 Darwin's primordial living matter ... 377 Miracle cannot be dispensed with 377 Miracle a part of Darwin's system 378 Other ideas of evolution start from the impossible ... 378 xvi CONTENTS. PAGE Strauss clings to magic and mystery although miracle has been ex- terminated 379 Strauss compares opponents of Darwinism with people who admire dissolute Counts and Barons 380 " Faith with its miracle shall perish ". ... ... 381 Conception of the cosmos , ... 382 Decay of religion and want of interest in life . 382 The credulity of sceptics ... 383 Anything is believed if said to be opposed to religious belief ... 384 Living and the lifeless absolutely distinct 385 Life not mechanics, as affirmed by Virchow 386 Scientific men who are upright and honest may still be Christians . 386 Conclusion 387 CONTENTS OF PLATES. %* The degree of amplifying power used is stated at the foot of each figure in diameters, or linear measure, x 500, means that the representation is 500 times longer or wider, measured in one direction only, than the object itself. If the object was i inch in length, the drawing would extend over 500 inches, or would be 41 feet 8 inches long. The diameter of any object can be ascertained by comparison with the scales at the foot of each plate. PLATE PAGE I. Bioplasm or living matter and formed material of mildew. — Old spores of fungi. — Germ of fungi. —Growth of spore... 194 II. Bioplasm and formed material of yeast cells under a magni- fying power of 2, 800 — mycelium of a growing fungus ... 196 III. Bioplasm or living matter. — Mucus corpuscle. — Very minute amoeba magnified 5,000 diameters. — Bacteria. — Particles of bioplasm from pus, and from vaccine lymph ... ... 208 IV. Origin of new living centres. — Ova of Stickleback. — Germinal spots with new centres, magnified 1,700 diameters 218 V. Epithelium in health and the changes occurring in it in inflammation ... 220 VI. Formed material of epithelium. — Formed material of car- tilage.— Relation of formed material to the bioplasm of the two tissues respectively 222 VII. Cartilage showing the mode of production of the formed material. — Conversion of bioplasm of cartilage into formed material 224 VIII. Structure and growth of bone. — Bioplasm of muscle and of elastic tissue. — Movement of bioplasm 226 IX. Peripheral nerve cell, with bioplasm and formed material. — Very fine peripheral nerve fibres of muscle. — Central nerve cell with spiral fibre 230 X. Cilia. — Structure of cilium. — Cilia magnified 2, 800 diameters 240 XI. From nutrition of health to the increased nutrition of disease. — Cells in inflammation, showing mode of origin of pus. — Bioplasm of muscle in fever 246 XII. Distribution of nerves and capillaries to frog's skin and arrangement of pigment cells 252 XIII. Distribution of ultimate nerve fibres to thin membrane of frog's bladder . 254 xviii CONTENTS OF PLATES. PLATE PAGE XIV. Distribution of ultimate nerve fibre to voluntary muscle of hyla 256 XV. Distribution of ultimate nerve fibres to organ of sense. — Nerves to capillaries, to sensitive organ, and to muscles of frog's tongue 258 XVI. Origin of new centres in living matter. — Ultimate living particles. — Diagram illustrating the nutrition of a cell, the formation of oil-globules, and the formation of secondary deposits within wall of a cell ... ... ... ... 274 PROTOPLASM : OR, MATTER AND LIFE. PART I.— DISSENTIENT, I. INTRODUCTORY. opinion that life is a form or mode of energy or motion has for many years past been gaining an increased number of advocates, and is now very generally entertained and taught. The idea that life is a power, force, or property of a special and peculiar kind, temporarily influencing matter and its ordinary forces, but entirely different from, and in no way correlated with any of these, has been ridiculed, and is often spoken of as if it were too absurd to require refuta- tion. And yet it is doubtful if any one who has carefully studied the matter is fully satisfied as to the accuracy of the facts, and the cogency of the arguments which have been advanced in support of the physical doctrine of life. No one pretends that recently discovered facts fully justify the acceptance of this now very popular notion, though the opinion may with fairness be entertained that the tendency of science is in the direction indicated. If, indeed, it could be shown that the conclusions which have B THE TENDENCIES OF THOUGHT. been arrived at, and which have been made so very popular, rest upon facts of observation and experiment, I for one should be ready to accept physical causation as of universal application, no matter what changes in opinions, beliefs, and cherished hopes that acceptance might necessitate. But few who study the phenomena of living things feel satisfied that the views in question rest upon any basis more solid than hosts of conjectural hypotheses which are always being evolved from fertile imaginations, and which are no more to be relied upon than the tendencies of thought. I ask that the exact way may be pointed out in which the new or old facts really afford support to the physical doctrine of life. I require to be furnished with some- thing more definite to influence my judgment than what is called the "tendency" of investigation, of thought, or of opinion ; for this ever-flowing " tendency " when carefully traced is discovered to be a rill which flows from the imagi- nations of some eminently confident philosophers who have agreed that in themselves is a fountain of truth, and that no one shall be allowed to drink of any intellectual stream save that which tends from them. But the bounds of natural knowledge are to be extended only by patient study, earnest work, careful observation, and well-devised experiment, not by drinking in faith at the intellectual well which happens to be in fashion during one particular season. Disclaiming authority of every kind, the adherents of the new school of opinion profess to influence others and to be influenced themselves by reason alone. But with strange inconsistency, they invoke " the tendency of investigation " and the " spirit of modern thought," in favour of doctrines AUTHORITY AND FACT. they cannot support by evidence. Thus they appeal to the shadow of an authority which they affect to despise. The real student has a right to require that scientific'doc- trines which he is asked and expected to accept as true, should be supported by facts, — not by authority, by ten- dencies, and by prophecies. In favour of regarding living beings as mere machines, built by force alone, maintained and preserved by force, and even created by force, very positive statements have been made ; but these have been for the most part supported By arguments which, however ingenious, can scarcely be regarded as conclusive. Shall then ever-changing scientific authority enforce thoughtful men, students of nature, to believe and confess in spite of all they have themselves observed to the contrary, that a living, moving, growing thing is but a force-bred, force-im- pelled machine, evolved from formless material by its own forces — an apparatus constructed by force, undirected by intelligence — a clock whose works have somehow crystal- lised from a solution of undeveloped but potential clock- plasm which has acquired by virtue of the material properties of its primeval metallic atoms, the property of clock-multi- plication ? Often, indeed, has been repeated the argument that as all that can be obtained from living things consists of material substances, living things, therefore, consist of matter only, and the " life " manifested by them can only be the ordinary forces of matter in some special form. But every one must see that such a view applies to non-living things and to dead things, as well as to living things, and that by such a statement the real question at issue is only evaded. We desire to learn, first what is the difference B 2 THE DOGMA OF between matter living and the same matter dead? and, secondly, what is the difference between different kinds of living matter? These are the questions which have to be answered. The authority who frankly declares that there is no difference at all may be admired for his force of character, and thanked for his candour. But the authority who tells people that the difterences between living and dead, as well as the differences between one living form and the rest, are to be expressed by such adjectives as " modi- fied," "changed," "varied," and the like, pays indeed a poor compliment to intelligence, for he tries to impose upon or to delude the minds he professes to instruct. He substitutes evasion for explanation, and evasion is the characteristic of a philosophy which has been popular at several different periods of the world's history. Faith in universal physical causation one may embrace, but it is not a faith which rests upon reason, neither is there any reason for the faith. It cannot be proved by evidence, nor does it rest upon observation. The basis of such a faith is the dictum of those who assert that they know, or fancy they know, or are supposed by others to know more than they are really cognizant of. They fail to impart the knowledge they are supposed to possess to others, but yet they are credited with no ordinary knowledge. Opinions may be infallible, but hitherto belief in infallibility has only retarded knowledge and postponed progress. He who asserts and teaches the universality of physical causa- tion, forcibly shuts his eyes. It is doubtful if one who had been born blind could have imposed upon his other faculties sufficiently to imbibe such a faith. The physical philosopher prides himself upon never PHYSICAL CAUSATION. advancing to a second position until the first one has been firmly established. He does not permit himself to indulge in crude fancies, but reasons only concerning the results of rigid and exact experiment. But no sooner does he leave his own special department and enter upon the considera- tion of the forces of organic nature, than he abandons the principles of investigation he has himself laid down, allows his fancy to revel in the wildest theories, and puts forward as rigid facts what are really but vague assumptions. He sports in metaphor, and dallies with allegory, while at the same time he is vehement about " the inexorable logic of facts." Nay, some of the disciples of the new philosophy, not content with slow advance, have spoken very strongly and have dared to invoke the forces of coercive dogma. They have promulgated a new faith, the first article of which is, that the only forces in nature have been derived from the sun. " Then," say they, as " vital axe natural forces it follows that vital force is solar energy, and that the sun is the source of all life." This dogma being accepted it is easy to convince the trusting proselyte that in the production of higher and more elaborate structures a greater amount of solar energy must be absorbed and rendered latent than in the foimation of very simple living organisms, and that the comparatively simple vegetable structure differs from the higher and more complex animal form in the number of force units which have been elaborated and modified. In the formation of a complex cell with high endowments, a much greater amount of energy is required and rendered latent than in the production of a simple cell ; and it follows as a corollary that by the death and destruction of one of the brain cells of man, for example, a much greater amount ORD1NAR Y ENERGY of energy will be set free in one form or other, than escapes at the death of an inferior structure, a fact which, however, cannot be satisfactorily demonstrated by the apparatus at present at our command. And, from the teaching of the new school we are justified in concluding, that since the brain cell in its formation must absorb a greater amount of energy than a cell of lower organization, it follows that the most highly endowed brain cell will have made its own considerably more energy than an ordinary cell of the same character. But all this is absurd. If a picture like a steam-engine, and a windmill be merely 'a result of the action of ordinary energy, it should follow that in a great picture a result of the activity of very highly endowed nerve cells, had been accumulated a far greater amount of energy than in a daub ; and according to the new force philosophy, when the work of the great artist is subjected to combustion more energy in the form of motion, heat, light, or some other mode of force, ought to be set free, than from the oxidation under precisely similar conditions of the same amount of oil, paint, and canvas, in a crude and formless state ! The only drawbacks to the demonstration of such an important truth by insti- tuting crucial experiments are the difficulty of determining the really great picture, and the very costly nature of the proceeding if this preliminary question had been satisfac- torily settled. But, consider the marvellous endowments of living matter, are they not altogether distinct from ordinary ma- terial forces ? Is the difference between the oak and the dog to be expressed in matter and force terms ? Does the liver cell differ from the nerve cell in mere force, or is the NOT A FORMATIVE POWER, difference between the two cells due to some life-power resident in that part of each which consists of living matter ? Is it conceivable that by any changes effected in energy acting under any supposable alteration of conditions, the germ of a cabbage could be made to form the embryo of a dog, or the latter, develop the form of the elephant ? Can it be supposed that energy could so change the liver cell as to make it take part in intellectual action, or cause the brain cell to secrete a particle of biliary matter ? The repeated efforts of some philosophers to force people to believe in the constructive and metabolic power of ordinary energy are wearying. It is impossible that more than a very small fraction of thinking persons can bring them- selves into the mental state which must precede their con- version to the new views, and prepare them for that further development which will render them capable of denying the existence of everything that cannot be weighed, measured? or thrown upon a screen. And that small but successful fraction would be ever troubled by the reflection that the authoritative denial of the existence of power did not necessarily or immediately demonstrate its non-existence, or ensure its annihilation. Words of many syllables, of ancient origin, and mag- nificently comprehensive have been freely used, have excited wonder, and may have afforded solace to some minds. But their meaning has not been defined with accuracy, and people who desired to learn have been confused. New words may be coined, and terms may be changed, but the things are not to be modified by changing the meaning of the names by which they have been known. Nor can the qualities of things be transmuted 8 THE SUN NO ORGANISM. by calling them differently, or by the transposition of the adjectives formerly employed to denote opposite qualities. The terms that used to be restricted to the phenomena of living beings are now ingeniously extended, and by no mean authorities, to the phenomena of things which are lifeless. For instance, the willow-leaf-like bodies in the photosphere of the sun at a temperature sufficient to convert many metals into vapour, are "organisms" which "develop" and "elaborate" heat and light from the bosom of a non-luminous fluid. And these " organisms " have been compared to certain well-known forms of diatomaceae ! Nay, a watch is a " little creature" which shows " signs of animation" and is " restored to life " by the application of its key ! Is it cavilling on my part to direct attention to these things ? If philosophers talk thus, students will of course conclude that vital and physical forces are one, or at least the same in kind and essential nature, and that there is no real distinction to be drawn between the mechanism which is designed by human thought and made by human hands, and the mechanism which can only be evolved from a minute mass of structureless living matter derived from living matter which existed before it. And it is indeed desired by many exercising authority in science, that con- clusions such as these should be drawn, and that people should be led to suppose that the gulf which separated the living from the non-living had been successfully bridged over by the new philosophy. But some of those who have used the terms in a way that must be admitted is open to objection, will excuse themselves by urging that the words and phrases were only CONCESSION FROM INDOLENCE AND FEAR. 9 employed metaphorically, and that it was not intended they should be accepted in a strictly literal sense. But metaphors often mislead, and much of the science of our time will be deservedly laughed at, because her exponents have endeavoured to smother essential and irreconcileable differences of character and quality in ambiguous phrases, and grandiloquent assertions. In other instances, to some of which I propose to direct the reader's attention in this book, the same word has been used in more than one sense, and an apparently telling argument constructed upon an ingeniously contrived ambiguity of expression. To concede a position which, after patient enquiry, has been proved to be untenable, is judicious as well as right, but what will be thought of a reckless surrender of a well tried and established position raised by the honest work and self-denying devotion of thousands, fortified by the wisdom of the wisest who have preceded us, without even an examination by the defenders as to the strength of the walls, or a question being asked as to the power of the as- saulting forces ? Who, but enervated, indolent, lukewarm, and incapable soldiers would agree to capitulate merely from the fear of having hurled against them such projectiles as "illiberal," "prejudiced," "narrow-minded," "bigoted," "orthodox?" The grand exhibition of force and energy ought not to have excited alarm, and intrigue should have been rendered hopeless by watchfulness and care. Had vigour, intelligence, and industry been manifested, from the first no harm would have resulted from such attacks as have been made, but men have allowed themselves to be frightened by meaningless noise, and some have surrendered from dread of being mortally wounded by a sneer. Others 10 WHAT MAY BE have been misled and confused by these force doctrines, and many have been impressed and awed by them who ought to have pointed out exactly where assertions in fact form have been palmed off as the results of observation and ex- periment. One position being accepted as proved, the mind is easily induced to conclude that other positions claimed have been really established. It would be exhaust- ing to easy-going persons having scientific tendencies, to investigate the grounds upon which each successive step in a scientific argument is said to have been based. No wonder, therefore, that the conclusion pointed out as correct, by authority, should be generally accepted without enquiry, instead of being examined, proclaimed untenable, and dis- missed as a figment of the imagination, as in many cases it deserved. Even now, devout and learned men are preparing to modify the views they have hitherto entertained upon life either from a belief that the new doctrine was not worth con- testing, or that it would be futile to attempt to disprove it. Not a few have accepted the conclusion that the evidence adduced in favour of the view that the vital phenomena at least of the lowest living forms are due to physics and chemistry only, is conclusive. They are ready to admit that the formation of the simplest forms of life may be due to the operation of ordinary mechanical laws, because they have been assured that the argument for the spiritual nature of the faculties of man, and for the existence of Deity, is not in any way weakened thereby ; and, say they, supposing it be true that by the light and heat of the sun living beings actually are formed, was not the great source of energy and life itself created by God ? After all, they discover that the causes of the phenomena are but traced PROVED TO BE TRUTH. Ij a few steps further backwards, and that a great first cause still remains the source of all, and that, therefore, modern scientific enquiry has only effected a change in our views concerning the way in which \heprimam movens operates. But without venturing to express an opinion concerning the modification in our views of the attributes and nature of Deity, which must follow as a necessary consequence if that first position as regards the nature of life should be proved, and without attempting to indicate the probable extent to which change in that case would necessarily, and in a short time proceed, I shall remark that according to sound principles of scientific investigation, it is inadmissible to accept any general conclusion as true, until the facts and arguments upon which it is supposed to rest have been submitted to thorough examination. Whether its bearing upon those great questions which are of overwhelming in- terest to us all be important or insignificant, the facts upon which the statements about the forming powers of force are based should be examined before the theory is accepted, and proved to be correct before the consequences which flow from it are even taken into consideration. But this has not been done. It is not true that the formation of the simplest or any form of living thing whatever has been or can be explained by mechanics or chemistry. Statement after statement made in support of the physical doctrine of life, even the very lowest, will be found to be untenable at least in the present state of natural knowledge, as soon as it shall be submitted to careful examination. On the other hand, thanks to the steady progress of minute investi- gation, unnoticed by popular writers, and, perhaps, unknown to them, the conclusion that life of every kind is distinct 1 2 ABSOL UTE DIFFERENCE from ordinary forces is at this time more strongly supported by facts, and more firmly established than it ever was. It is quite true that men eminent among philosophers, if not among divines, as well as some of the most dis- tinguished living physicists, chemists, and naturalists, have accepted this physical theory of life. They think that life is but a mode of ordinary force, and maintain that the living thing differs from the 'non-living thing, not in quality, or essence, or kind, but merely in degree. True, they do not attempt to explain the difference between a living thing and the same thing dead. They would perhaps tell us that living and dead are only relative terms ; that there is no absolute difference between the dead and living states ; and that the thing which we call dead, is, after all, only a few degrees less actively changing than the thing we say is alive. But this sort of reasoning is not convincing, seeing that although matter in the living state may suddenly pass into the dead state, this same matter can never pass back again into the living condition. The dead animal has been likened to a steam-engine at rest, but there is at least this difference between the two, that the last will resume its work as before, if its fires are relit, but the dead animal or man can never be made to work again if its machinery has been once brought to a stand-still. Have not the results of the action, in the production of tissue and in the formation of living beings of that something more than mere force, been made to stand for that something itself? The processes of disintegration and chemical change occurring in matter which has ceased to live — a direct consequence of prior changes which occurred while the matter was yet alive — have, we shall see, been regarded as the life itself. BETWEEN DEAD AND LIVING. So long as the advocates of the physical doctrine of life contented themselves with ridiculing " vitality " as a fiction and a myth, because it could not be made evident to the senses, measured or weighed, or proved scientifically to exist, their position was not easily assailed ; but now when they assert dogmatically that vital force is only a form or mode of ordinary motion, they are bound to show that the assertion rests upon evidence, or it will be regarded by thoughtful men as one of a large number of fanciful hypo- theses, advocated only by the teachers and expounders of dogmatic science, which, although pretentious and autho- ritative, must ever be intolerant and unprogressive. As a working physiologist, desiring to see and promote to the utmost, real advance in this department of science, I consider it right to oppose as strongly as I can the practice pursued by some scientific authorities in the present day, and especially in this country, of reiterating the assertion that all the phenomena of living beings are to be accounted for by ordinary force. Nothing can retard true progress more than exaggerated statements with reference to advance in any special direction. The substitution of intense and positive language for quiet proof, merely indicates bias, if not prejudice, in favour of views that cannot be supported by facts. I have already stated that the doctrine does not rest upon sound evidence. Instead of objections being answered, or the challenge to consider the matter in detail being accepted, we are told that the " tendency of modern science is towards this" apparently much-desired "end, and that the day is not far distant when the artificial pro- duction of living matter will be rendered possible," and so forth \ I4 QUESTIONS TO BE CONSIDERED. I shall draw attention to the phenomena which occur in the highest and most complex as well as in the simplest form of living matter, which never have been, and which certainly cannot at this time be explained upon any known physical or chemical laws, but I shall proceed, in the first place, to examine in detail some of the statements which have been made in favour of the physical doctrine of life. II. THE PHYSICAL DOCTRINE OF LIFE- CHEMISTRY AND MECHANICS. "Neither formerly nor at this time have men endeavoured to deter- mine or discover the differences in the effects of the vital force and those of the inorganic forces, and their likeness or unlikeness." — LIEBIG, 1846. SCIENTIFIC progress is advanced by the temperate but free and open discussion of scientific questions upon which different observers may have been led to entertain the most diverse and perhaps conflicting opinions. The very essence of science is the repeated testing of conclusions already arrived at. By this course alone can errors be corrected, and it is mainly by going over scientific ground which is by no means new, and repeating experiments which have been, perhaps, performed many times before, that new facts are demonstrated and new principles discovered. Nevertheless it is certain that in these days some scientific men dislike discussion, and seem to be offended if any one ventures to criticise their observations or to express any opinions opposed to their own. Sometimes the view of an opponent is spoken of with a sneer, and not unfrequently those who differ are affectedly pitied or despised. But every real student of science, so far from attempting to suppress discussion, will encourage it in every way in his power, for he must know that it is almost impossible that the truth of many complex scientific problems can be arrived at without long and patient discussion. The analysis of 1 6 ARE LIVING BEINGS ONLY each statement, must be carefully conducted, it may be, by opponents, and the facts upon which the inferences have been based must be carefully examined. If a man has honestly worked, he will respect the opinion of other honest workers though it be opposed to his own; and if objections are raised to his conclusions, he ought to be glad of the opportunity of making his meaning more clear, or, if need be, of correcting himself. An observer who works thoroughly must feel far more hurt at the vapid common-place remarks in his praise which appear even in our best journals and reviews, than he would be at a good analytical criticism, even though it were hostile and pointed out every one of his weak points, and laid bare his mistakes without mercy. I have ventured to criticise the observations of many fellow-workers upon matters which have always appeared to me of such very deep interest that it is possible that I may have formed an exaggerated estimate of their real import- ance. I may have been led to infer that the general bear- ing of views now taught upon questions of the highest interest to all of us is, in its tendency, more disastrous than may eventually prove to be the case. But however this may be, and however little attention may be given to the details relating to the matters in question, I am con- vinced that no thoughtful physician or physiologist can accept in their present form the doctrines, I may say, now generally entertained upon the subject of life, and the essen- tial nature of the changes occurring in disease \ and I am naturally anxious to show distinctly why these views cannot, in my opinion, be accepted, and to draw attention to the exact points in which they appear to me to fail. This, then, is my apology — if apology be needed — for writing in a INORGANIC MATTER AND FORCE? manner which some will condemn, simply because it is con- troversial. IS IT TRUE THAT LIVING BEINGS CONSIST ONLY OF INOR- GANIC MATTER AND INORGANIC FORCE ? For some years past it has been maintained by scien- tific authorities of eminence that living things, like non- living things, consist of inorganic matter and inorganic 'force, inseparable and indestructible, and it has been most strongly asserted that no separable living force exists. " Living force " is, according to the views now generally taught, in fact, ordinary inorganic force. I shall, however, endeavour to show that the statements rest upon no secure foundation ; and it seems to me that the method pursued by those who teach this doctrine has very grave faults. The conclusion I believe to be untenable, and it is certainly incompatible with well known facts which can be demon- strated by any one, but which many of those who seek to establish these views persist in ignoring. Let me first state broadly the two antagonistic and incompatible doctrines concerning the nature of everything that is alive. The one which is undoubtedly just now the most popular is, that living matter and non-living matter alike consist of the ordinary matter and forces of our earth, and that the living and the non-living should be included in the same category. The other is, that in things living, in addition to inorganic matter and in- organic forces, is what may be termed vital force or power which, unlike any ordinary force, is separable from the matter with which it is temporarily associated, and, therefore, is in i 1 8 VITAL PO WER NO T FOR CE. its nature essentially different from every form or mode, or mood, of ordinary inorganic force. It must, however, be conceded by those who accept the physical doctrine of life that no one has yet succeeded either in obtaining vitality from the forces of inorganic matter, or in converting vitality into any one of these. But, nevertheless, they affirm that it will eventually be proved that life is ordinary force. It is very important to decide what in the present state of scientific knowledge ought to be understood by the word " life." Is " life " but a modified form of heat or motion, or some power quite distinct from physical or chemical force? Or is "life" made up of physical and chemical actions, and actions distinct from these (vital actions)? Again, does the " life " of one of the higher animals com- prise phenomena distinct in their essential nature from those which make up the "life" of a monad? Do the vital actions going on in the latter approach more nearly to the phenomena occurring in the inorganic world than the actions which constitute the " life " of the former ? Never were such questions more intensely interesting than at this present time, — never could they have been investigated with greater hope of success. In considering a problem so vast and so difficult of solution, it would seem most natural to begin with the lowest, simplest living things, and advance from these to the consideration of the higher and more complex, — to inquire first what goes on during the life of a monad or a microscopic fungus, or a single cell of one of the tissues — and then attempt the discussion of more complex changes. Instead of proceeding thus, however, many who express most ORGANIC AND INORGANIC WORLD. ICj positive opinions upon these difficult questions discourse upon the nature of the phenomena going on in the organism of man himself in his fully developed state. The inquiry is prefaced by some reference to force, and the constancy of its amount in the universe. Systems, and suns, and worlds, and steam-engines, and mills, and wheels, and springs, and telegraphs, and furnaces are then referred to. The student is assured over and over again that in plants and animals the same forces are at work as in the inorganic world, and that the investigation of the laws of the inde- structibility and correlation of force will explain much concerning the nature of "life;" but his attention is not drawn to those phenomena peculiar to living things which receive no explanation whatever from what is yet known of physical and chemical laws. Hence in the present day many are led to believe that the identity of vital and phy- sical actions has been fully and completely established, although such an inference is not justified by any scientific observations or discoveries yet made. There is another way of gaining over people to your views which is not unknown to enthusiasts. Insinuate that the views of the observers opposed to you are posi- tively worthless. Suggest that any opinions except those to which you have committed yourself could only be held either by a fool or a savage, and your converts will probably include most of those who desire to be assured that they are neither foolish nor savage. Assure the public that those who refuse to accept the reputed truism that life is but a form, or mode, or mood of ordinary energy, are very far behind the knowledge of the day, and are obstinate, unreliable, and untrustworthy. C 2 20 CONSERVA TION OF ENERGY. It would be difficult, I should think, to find even a child in these days who is not thoroughly satisfied that matter and force are indestructible, and are not now created anew. Although no mortal has ever denied the fact, our teachers never tire of telling us that force and matter are indestructible, that animals do not create force or matter, that muscular power is not due to vital force. It is use- less to confess that you stedfastly believe all this, for our would-be teachers seem to say, " You don't believe it, you cannot believe it, you shall not believe it, unless you believe also, in the * unity of nature,' as defined by us, according to our interpretation." They further assert, that those who differ from them, assume that force is created and annihilated in living beings, which is absurd. That some, for example, " are satisfied with an imponderable gaseous or liquid matter diffused through living liquids, or temporarily attached to more solid granular matter," as if anyone in his senses could entertain such a notion, far less be satisfied with it! The disciples of the new Philosophy insist that there is but one force or power in nature, that the sun is the source of that force, and forms livers, hearts, lungs, and brains, and that every living thing is formed by him — that, in the language of Bence Jones, " the one law of the union of force and matter, and of the conservation of energy, obtains throughout the organic as well as the inorganic creation." All this many do not believe, nor is there a shadow of evidence in favour of such notions. I feel quite sure that if the physicists, who make these confident assertions, would condescend to study the phenomena of very simple living things, they would very soon discover that they FORM NE VER RESUL TS FROM FORCE. 2 1 had no case at all. Physico-chemical dogmatizing of this kind has now been going on for nearly twenty years. It has done nothing towards unravelling the mysteries of life which meet an honest student of nature at every turn, and it has led a number of idle people to believe that we really know a great deal more about nature than we do know. It is absurd to affirm that the living body is a machine, which does work only so long as it is supplied with fuel, because it certainly lived before any machinery was formed in it. Every living thing, say certain chemists and phy- sicists, " works by force, and everything exhibits force. There is no power in nature to form but force, therefore everything must be formed by force," and form is, of course, a result of force. But can assertions be more monstrous than these ? They are in truth devoid of any force. But a belief in such doctrines has led believers to advance doctrines still more extraordinary, and to attack those who entertain different opinions in a manner which seems as unfair and useless as it is unjustifiable. For instance, what advan- tage can Dr. Bence Jones hope to gain for the cause he has at heart by such unpleasant comments as the following? " The spiritualists," he says, " must leave the foundations of natural knowledge to those who can see no reason for faith in witches, ghosts, transmutations, and transmigrations." Can Dr. B. Jones really mean to insinuate that those whom he calls spiritualists believe in ghosts, &c. ? And what is the meaning of the mind resting satisfied "with an imponder- able gaseous or liquid matter diffused through living liquids, or temporarily attached to more solid granular matter?" Imponderable matter in living liquid or attached to granular matter ! A little further on we have something about 22 ASSERTIONS AND DOGMAS. "ponderable and imponderable materialism," and are told " that the scientific spiritualist (the believer in ghosts ?) of the present day differs from the materialist of the present day only (!) as far as imponderable differs from ponderable matter." That is — he who has "faith in witches, ghosts, transmutations, and transmigrations," and cannot investigate the foundations of natural knowledge — differs from the mate- rialists who alone may do so, only to the extent that matter -without weight differs from matter which may be weighed ! Will any number of such extraordinary assertions as these enable us to explain the movements of a little bit of living matter ? Does the law of the conservation of energy throw any light whatever upon the cause of the vibra- tion of a single cilium ? Can anything be more monstrous than the dogma that the phenomena of development are due to inorganic forces alorie, or that inflammation of a tissue results from increased motion imparted to its elements? Again, what good is there in saying that all disease is mechanical or chemical, when it is obvious that no disease is mechanical and chemical only, and that no action which is simply mechanical or chemical, or both mechanical and chemical, constitutes disease ? It is only by ignoring facts open to the observation of all that the position assumed by many members of the modern physico-chemical school can be made to appear plausible. It has been asserted over and over again that there is a gradual transition to be observed from inorganic to living matter, but of course no one has explained what he means by the assertion, or has adduced an example of stuff in a state of transition from the non-living to the living condi- tion. The physico-chemical school pretends that the MA CHINES AND LAB OR A TORIES. 2 3 phenomena to be observed in a living thing or piece of living matter can be explained by known laws, but they do not even attempt to give an account of one of the changes characteristic of any living thing in nature. They cannot imitate the phenomena occurring in the simplest form of living matter. But am I not pressing my opposition too far ? How soon may I not become a convert to the doctrines of the new philo- sophy ? A very little more has to be established, and every one will be convinced of the truth of my opponents' views and the absurdity of my own belief in a power or force different from ordinary force working in things living and essential to the living state. There will then be no escape for me. I may have to confess openly how vain I have been, and how grievously I have erred, or be forcibly set down as an obstinate, prejudiced person who had determined not even to listen to evidence. In a few weeks or months may we not be shown upon the screen the image of a little living stuff compounded in the laboratory slowly moving about in the medium from which it was derived, selecting from its surroundings things adapted for its nutrition — grow- ing, dividing and subdividing — a living, moving, artificial, amoeba-like creature — but constructed by the chemist direct from gases of his own manufacture, the triumphant offspring of the new philosophy evolved from the inorganic in the depths of a retort, and capable, like any other machine, of turning out multitudes of descendants per minute, though conditioned into being without a progenitor ? We are familiar with the phrases "vital mechanics," " vital physics," but no one has explained what is meant by them. It is clear that if the phenomena comprised under DR. ODLIN&S VIEWS these heads are physical or mechanical, it is superfluous and unnecessary to speak of them as vital unless something very different from ordinary physical and mechanical change is implied. But we have been already assured that vital actions are physical. If, as many do not hesitate to assert, animated beings do not essentially differ from machines, their actions should not be termed vital at all. If. how- ever, it is said that a vital machine differs in essential characteristics from a non-vital machine, we ought to be accurately instructed concerning the difference between the two kinds of machines. To use the term vital, and at the same time to assert that a vital action is after all only a form of mechanical action is certain to mislead. The action of the mind, it has been asserted, depends upon physical and chemical changes only, but it is idle on the part of physical philosophers to attempt to force such a dogma upon the mind, since it is obvious to every one that be- tween mental action and any known physical or chemical change there is no true analogy ; while no one has suc- ceeded in effecting any physical or chemical action in any way comparable with any form of mental action, or with the results of mental action. I shall be severely censured by some for criticising the conclusions of fellow-workers, but as I feel convinced it is to the advantage of science, and by no means dis- respectful to a scientific opponent to examine his conclu- sions and comment upon his views, I shall not be deterred by the fear of anonymous attacks from offering some remarks upon views which have been and are popular. In this place I shall reply to my friend, Prof. Odling, CONCERNING VITAL FORCE. who from his chemical standpoint has been severe and un- sparing in his criticism of the views entertained by " certain physiologists." Odling has particularly attacked those who support the "fiction" of vital force. I am desirous of re- plying to some of his strictures as well as to those of some other chemists and physicists from my physiological side. I shall endeavour to bring out clearly the points in which the observer who regards the question from a physiological and medical point of view, will agree with or differ from him who looks upon it from a purely physico-chemical stand- point. Chemists and physicists are and have long been far too much in the habit of writing as if physiologists and medical practitioners obstinately refused to accept the truths concerning the correlation and indestructibility of force. My friend falls into the same mistake when he states his regret that "certain principles believed by physicists to be fundamental as the laws of gravitation, are not heartily and unreservedly admitted by physicians." I am sure that it is needless to tell us that force is not created, and that, like matter, it is not destructible. These truisms have been so diligently and so impressively forced upon us, that it is only right to ask pointedly for references to any physiological or medical work published during the last quarter of a century, in which any author teaches that matter or any form of external force is created in living beings. In order to impress the public with the high importance and great and rapid advance of physics, they credit their oppo- nents with a degree of ignorance and perversity that is most unfair. The real question is, whether there is in addition to ordinary forces, a force or power at work in living things 26 NO ONE TEACHES THAT of a nature distinct from any form or mode of ordinary force. Heat, light, electricity, &c., manifested in a living organism are clearly of the same nature as heat, light, and electricity manifested out of the body. We know and admit that physical forces are at work in the living body, but ask, is there not yet another internal force or power at work in the living body which is not physical or chemical ? To this many chemists and physicists would reply "No!" while some of us feel compelled to answer emphatically " Yes ! " and to say that there is evidence of such a power, and that the actual phenomena have not been, and in the present state of science cannot be explained by the action of physical and chemical forces only. We doctors and physiologists are ready and willing to learn, and most desirous of being taught. We also freely confess our ignorance of much that we ought to know and long to know, but it is really quite unnecessary for chemists to impress upon us the fact that life cannot create heat, light, motion, and electricity. Can Dr. Odling point out a single living physician, or physiologist, who teaches that life, or a living thing ever generated external force ? As the chemists are so emphatic about life not creating heat, light, &c., it is curious, and not without significance, that they do not also show that heat, light, &c., can be converted into life. But some scientific men do speak of these external forces acting in living beings as if they were the real vital forces. Dr. Odling himself says, " We might apply the phrase vital force to the potential energy of so much fat or muscle capable by oxidation of being manifested in the form of external heat or motion." The word vital thus used is obviously useless, has no definite meaning attached to it, LIFE CREATES ENERGY. and might just as well be left out of the sentence altogether. If, therefore, the phrase, vital force, were thus applied, I think it would be most incorrectly applied, for is not the potential energy of a given weight of fat and muscle exactly the same in a dead body as in a living one ? How, therefore, can potential energy be the same as vital force ? Vital force or power ceases to manifest itself when a living thing dies, but the potential energy of the matter of its body is constant in its amount. Dr. Odling says, that some physiologists seem to infer that chemists and physicists are insensible to those important distinctions existing between living and dead matter, which they, on the other hand, " profess to explain by declaring the former to be possessed and the latter dispossessed of vital force." Dr. Odling believes " that chemists appreciate in its fullest extent what may be termed * the mystery of life.' Chemists and physicists are well assured that, be life what it may, it is not a generator but only a transformer of external force" as if some physiologist had said something to justify the inference that he supposed external force was generated by life or any living thing. Such a man does not live. But my friend, unlike some who have written from the purely physico-chemical side has not really missed the point upon which some of us differ so entirely from the new school. From that which he advances as the opinion of physicists and chemists I differ as regards the paramount importance which I would attach to the living thing as a transformer of force, and, as will afterwards appear, concern- ing the manner in which it transforms, and the principles upon which the transformation is conducted. Many phy- 28 LIFE "ONLY" A TRANSFORMER sicists and chemists, I believe, regard living things as a result of the action of ordinary energy upon inorganic matter. The sun "forms " the heart, is a formula which expresses this clearly and definitely. But notice Dr. Odling's phrase, " only a transformer /" and observe the force of the word "only" In a living cell there is only a something which transforms external force and rearranges the elements of matter. In fever there is only a little peculiar matter deranging the normal chemical changes of the body. In cattle plague, and in contagious fevers generally, there is only a little albuminous matter which causes fermentation of the blood, and so on. All this I daresay appears very clear and simple to the profound chemist, but neither the physician nor the physiologist can regard such a statement as having the slightest approach towards a solution of the question. In a laboratory there is "only" a chemist who performs operations more or less ( \ ) like those in the living cell, and the only ( ! ) difference between the laboratory and the cell is that the invisible and undemonstrable transformer in the latter — or rather in the transparent structureless bioplasm of the " cell " — not only effects, without any apparatus or machinery whatever, and at a lower temperature, and in a marvellously small space, and with astonishing speed, much that the skilled chemist cannot achieve with all sorts of complex apparatus, space millions of times as great, and time millions of times as long at his disposal, — but communicates its wonderful powers to new matter into the bargain ! If the chemist admits that living matter possesses a something which dead matter does not possess, and that this something transforms force and rearranges the elements of matter, he admits the existence of a power or capacity OF FORCE AND SUBSTANCE. 29 which he does not attempt to explain, and which is altogether different from any forces which he knows any- thing about. This transforming capacity was derived from a pre-existing particle of matter possessing similar capacity, and this from one before it, and so on. What is this trans- forming peculiarity, and whence was it derived? Is it likely that it could be generated by the external force which it transforms ? If we discuss what is meant by " transformation of external force," and endeavour to ascertain how and pre- cisely where in any simple living thing the external force is transformed, the points to which I have often drawn atten- tion will come out strongly enough. I will not be the one to dispute whether the something in the living cell shall be called " the matter-rearranging and external force trans- forming or conditioning property" or "vital force or power." To me the mere words used are a matter of no importance whatever, provided only that it is agreed that the same word shall not be used in more than one sense, and that its meaning shall be denned. The real question at issue can be discussed just as well if we call the matter a, and the external force £, and the force transforming peculiarity