L. R. Farnell, M.A., dwelling a good deal on that subject, with the different titles and names of the gods or goddesses. I think that is pushed a little too far. I can agree with Hercules being identified with Samson of the Scriptures, but I do not see how you can identify Apollo, god of the sun, with Adonis, as doomed to spend six months in the shades of the nether regions, the Tammuz of Ezekiel's vision wept for by Jewish women, and whom the poet Milton commemorates in the mention of the river of Syria, that ran red to the sea-really owing to the soil washed out of the mountains in its course, but according to the legendary account with the blood of Tammuz yearly slain. It is very likely that there are many points of contact between Hercules and Samson, and not only in one city, but in many, of Greece was there a local Heracles with minor differences of detail as regards the particular surnames and diversities of ritual.

Mr. PINCHES.-I have not much to say in reply.

My object, this evening, was to place before you an account of what took place at the Congress for the History of Religions, and I have put down, as concisely as I could, the opinions of other people who, unfortunately, are not here to reply.

With regard to the question whether Elishah of the Old Testament is the Alasiya of the Tel-el-Amarna Tablets, that I am inclined to leave undecided. There is a great likeness between the two words, no doubt. The definition that is generally accepted by Assyriologists is that the Alasiya of the Tel-elAmarna Tablets is the island of Cyprus. That, of course, is very possible, but some hold it to be not proven.

Mention was made by Mr. Rouse of the word Javan being used for Greece by the Persians. In the Assyrio-Babylonian inscriptions the common word for Greece is Yawannu. Professor Sayce thought he had found another form in the Tel-el-Amarna Tablets; but it requires more proof.

I am in doubt, referring to another point raised by Mr. Rouse, whether the Habiri are the Hebrews or not, and I am equally in doubt whether it means the confederates. It is supposed to be represented by the characters sa-gas, and in that case it is written ideographically. In this case it would be more logical to apply it to a number of wandering tribes than to the Hebrews. But still it is necessary to admit that it is not certain that sagas is the equivalent of Habari.

There are many other points that might be referred to, but as it is late and they are many, I think I may leave them for the present, as some of them will be touched upon in all probability later on, and I can only say, with regard to the long and interesting notes that Dr. Walker made, I wish I had half his knowledge so as to be able to make a few comments upon them. (Applause.)

The vote of thanks having been duly carried, the meeting adjourned.

ORDINARY MEETING.*

D. HOWARD, Esq., D.L., F.C.S., IN THE CHAIR.

The Minutes of the last Meeting were read and confirmed.

VITALITY. Lecture by Professor LIONEL S. BEALE, F.R.C.P., F.R.S. Second Part. For Part I, see Vol. XXXII, Page 337.

MR. CHAIRMAN, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN:-This subject of vitality is just now of the very greatest interest, not only to the scientific, but to everyone. The question of vitality is a very old problem. Many and very different views concerning it have been entertained, and it seems to me to be time that those conclusions, which are justified by science concerning the problem of vitality, should now be considered from the point of view of modern minute inquiry and microscopical investigation. This has not yet been carried out. broad general question of the nature of life certainly has been discussed by the wisest for ages, but the bearing of the facts ascertained by recent investigation-the structure and the manner of growth of living things-have not been adequately considered and debated of late years by the light of our new knowledge.

The

Vitality has an important bearing, not only upon fundamental questions of minute anatomy, physiology, biology. botany, zoology, medicine, and surgery, but views concerning the real nature of life have always had considerable influence upon the religion and philosophy prevalent at the time. All scientific men who regard with interest our whole living world, in which man occupies the most important place, hope, sooner or later, to learn something more definite than has yet

* Monday, March 6th, 1899.

been discovered concerning the general nature, and if possible the origin, of life. The differences of opinion now entertained are extreme and irreconcilable. Some authorities maintain that living things are entirely dependent upon physical and chemical changes only, and that varying conditions acting from without also exert a powerful influence. Indeed, by many this external influence is supposed to be all sufficient to account for the vital phenomena occurring within every living organism. Some look upon living things, including ourselves, as mere machines-as machines such as are made by man. On the other hand, in favour of the view that all actions occurring in living organisms depend upon vital power, and that there is nothing mechanical in life, growth, and vital action, the evidence is strong.

Again, some hold that there is no evidence of design-no plan or purpose in creation. Twelve months ago Dr. Walter Kidd gave us a most interesting paper on this great question, and it is to be regretted that he has not been rewarded for his trouble by adequate intelligent discussion and criticism. Many papers read here certainly deserve more notice, more consideration and discussion than they meet with; and scientific men who differ ought certainly to state the grounds of their opinions, instead of repeating conflicting doctrines again and again without replying to the objections which have already been raised to their strange physical views. Having asserted their physical doctrines, they leave the problem of life as it was, severely alone, in the hope, I suppose, that no more will be said. But in the interests of scientific truth this cannot be right. For in science, if a contention concerning a broad principle long held, and strongly insisted upon by authority, and taught in schools, remains unproved for years, and is not defended by those who maintain it, it should certainly be subjected to full discussion. It has been asserted again and again that by chemistry, physics, and mechanics vital changes are to be explained, but no one has yet succeeded in explaining them.

There is in every vital action what has been learnedly called the operation of a "factor," which factor unquestionably has nothing to do with physics and chemistry. There exists in all living a power of making definite arrangements, a governing, a guiding power-a power which compels component material particles (atoms?) to take certain definite positions with respect to one another, but which operates only in living matter-a power which somehow exercises in

life a control over the materials, which control is lost the moment the matter ceases to live. This must be admitted. What power this something actually is, what it ought to be called, is another matter. Most of the German authorities now seem to prefer to called it "energy"; but then they use the word "energy" as some distinguished scientific philosophers use some other words-in more than one sense. It is this varied use of words and vague definition which is really one of the greatest difficulties in discussing some of the most elementary scientific questions. One of our greatest philosophers has exposed himself to this accusation-I mean Herbert Spencer. Were one driven to do so, one could pick out not a few passages in which a word is used in one particular way, and a little farther on the same word is used in a totally different sense. Especially is this the case with respect to the words "organic" and "growth." The first will include living and dead matter, and the second is made to include lifeless aggregation as well as living growth. Here I think no compromise is possible. The two opposite views as to vitality-one attributing it to mechanical agency and chemical and physical changes the other referring all vital phenomena to some force or power which cannot be isolated, estimated, measured, or weighed, and which is so to say not material, not a necessary property of any form of non-living matter. This power is a factor which acts on matter, but it does not come from matter. It is an agency which ceases to act when living matter dies. These two views, the physical and the vital view, are irreconcilable. They cannot both be true. One must yield. Whether it shall yield now, or ten years or a hundred years hence, it is not possible to say; but one of these two views must be wrong-not only erroneous, but absolutely untenable. I have no objection whatever to admit that I am wrong; for I am old and ready to admit my mistakes as soon as they are made clear, but let them be proved and then exposed. Those who differ from me, as many do differ and have differed for more than forty years, should clearly express their points of difference as regards broad principles, and reply to the many "appeals" I have made. (Applause.)

In the Spectator of this week there is an interesting paper on what the author calls "The Uses of Agnosticism." It is a very curious communication, and I would recommend all interested in this discussion to look at it. I must not, of course, enter into a consideration of all that is said, for it