the same time bathybius, which at one time bade fair to supplant it
upon the throne of popularity, died suddenly, as I am told, at
Norwich, under circumstances which did not transpire, nor has its
name, so far as I am aware, been ever again mentioned.

So much for the conclusions in regard to the larger aspect of life
taken as a whole which must follow from confining life to
protoplasm; but there is another aspect--that, namely, which regards
the individual. The inevitable consequences of confining life to
the protoplasmic parts of the body were just as unexpected and
unwelcome here as they had been with regard to life at large; for,
as I have already pointed out, there is no drawing the line at
protoplasm and resting at this point; nor yet at the next halting-
point beyond; nor at the one beyond that. How often is this process
to be repeated? and in what can it end but in the rehabilitation of
the soul as an ethereal, spiritual, vital principle, apart from
matter, which, nevertheless, it animates, vivifying the clay of our
bodies? No one who has followed the course either of biology or
psychology during this century, and more especially during the last
five-and-twenty years, will tolerate the reintroduction of the soul
as something apart from the substratum in which both feeling and
action must be held to inhere. The notion of matter being ever
changed except by other matter in another state is so shocking to
the intellectual conscience that it may be dismissed without
discussion; yet if bathybius had not been promptly dealt with, it
must have become apparent even to the British public that there were
indeed but few steps from protoplasm, as the only living substance,
to vital principle. Our biologists therefore stifled bathybius,
perhaps with justice, certainly with prudence, and left protoplasm
to its fate.