NUTRITION. 227 



We shall carry this discussion no farther. We have 

 examined at some length Le Dantec's views, and we 

 have contrasted them with the doctrine which has 

 been current in general physiology since the time of 

 Claude Bernard, and this comparison does not turn 

 out quite to their advantage. It was inevitable that 

 the experimental and realistic spirit which inspired 

 the doctrine of the celebrated physiologist made his 

 work really too systematic. His formula, "life is 

 death," and the form he gave his ideas, are not always 

 irreproachably correct. They lend themselves at 

 times to criticism. Sometimes they require commen- 

 tary. These are errors of detail which Le Dantec 

 has summarized somewhat roughly. There is no 

 necessity to do this in his own case. We pay our 

 tribute to the clearness of his language, although \ve 

 believe the foundations of his system are false and 

 ill-founded. Their rigour is purely verbal. Their 

 external qualities, their careful arrangement are well 

 adapted to the seduction of the systematic mind 

 prepared by mathematical teaching. This new theory 

 of life is presented with pedagogic talent of the 

 highest order. We think we have shown that the 

 foundations are entirely fallacious, in particular the 

 following: Vital condition Xo. 2 3 ; the confusion be- 

 tween functional activity and assimilating synthesis ; 

 the so-called absolute connection between morpho- 

 geny and chemical composition ; the fundamental 

 distinction between elementary life and individual life. 



4. CHARACTERISTICS OF NUTRITION. 



Definition of Nutrition. As we have just seen, the 

 organism is the scene of chemical reactions of two 



