MODERN BIOLOGY 347 



tions of the body are invariably described in close relation to its morbid 

 changes and to the manner in which they should be treated. Pathological 

 anatomy engages his interest quite as much as normal anatomy, and post- 

 mortem examinations formed a considerable part of his practical work. He 

 studied the various parts of the body in both its healthy and its diseased 

 state, employing a number of different methods for the purpose; besides 

 dissection he mentions drying, cooking, and maceration, as well as treat- 

 ment with acids, alkalis, and alcohol. On the other hand, he did not use a 

 microscope, for he thought that this only gave rise to fallacies and delusions. 

 And yet it is as the founder of a science of microscopy that he won his highest 

 fame. Another peculiar fact about him was that he despised the illustration 

 as a means of reproducing the results of research; in his view, all represen- 

 tations, even plastic, illustrate only in an imperfect and misleading manner 

 the facts which the research-worker wishes to convey. His writings do not 

 contain a single illustration. 



Bichat' s conception of life 

 Bichat's conception of life has always been regarded as vitalistic. Indeed, his 

 theoretical fundamental view is unquestionably reminiscent of Stahl; life, 

 says he, is "the sum of the functions that resist death." It is a far cry, how- 

 ever, between Bichat's so-called vitalism and Stahl's; the latter's theory of 

 the soul as the ultimate end and conservator of the body Bichat strongly 

 denies. Stahl, he declares, had realized the incompatibility between physical 

 laws and animal functions, but because the soul was everything to him in 

 explaining the functions of life, he failed to discover the laws of life. With 

 equal emphasis, however, Bichat rejects Boerhaave's theory that life should 

 be regarded as a purely mechanical process. "The true essence of life is un- 

 known; it can only be studied through the phenomena it manifests"; and 

 among these phenomena the most conspicuous is that previously men- 

 tioned — that it resists the influence of those forces which strive to disinte- 

 grate the body and which achieve their object as soon as life has departed.^ 

 As is well known, Stahl laid special stress upon the complexity of the body's 

 chemical composition and its consequent easydecomposability as being some- 

 thing essential to life; this truth was appreciated by Bichat more than by 

 any of his predecessors and was further developed on the basis of the epoch- 

 making discoveries in chemistry in his own age. The primary lesson he learnt 

 from Stahl, however, is the importance that different structural conditions 

 have for the functions of the organism; in fact, the theory of structure repre- 

 sents Bichat's greatest contribution to the development of biology; it forms 

 one of the corner-stones on which our conception of life and its manifes- 

 tations rests. 



^ This definition recalls Humboldc's early ideas referred co above and may certainly be 

 derived from the same source. 



