194 THE NATURE AND ORIGIN OF LIFE 



ing chemically, so much so that it would be an illusion to 

 seek the body A l3 into which the body A has transformed 

 itself. For example, if I pass a piece of coal A through 

 circumstances B containing oxygen and a flame, I shall 

 obtain carbonic acid, which may as rightfully be considered 

 as coming from the oxygen as from the coal. The definition 

 of individuality in not-living bodies is too fantastic for us 

 to be able to follow such a body through successive trans- 

 formations as we do for a living body, which remains 

 recognizable, even though it undergoes profound modifica- 

 tions while remaining living. 



In general, when there is question of not -living bodies 

 alone, we ought to say : The body A existing under cir- 

 cumstances B results by action (A x B) in a new state of 

 things C denned by A, B, and (A x B). 



In this whole C, I may afterwards, as my fancy pleases, 

 describe a body A, and a sum total of circumstances B ; 

 but I might do this any number of ways. However, when 

 we have solid bodies which undergo transformations slow 

 enough for the continuity of their existence as solid bodies 

 to remain obvious, we use the individualist language of 

 living bodies and, doing so, commit the same abuse. That 

 is, we preserve for the body we thus follow out the same 

 name which it had at the beginning, in spite of the trans- 

 formations it has undergone. For example, we treat a 

 stick of chalk with phosphorus under suitable conditions ; 

 we obtain calcium phosphide, but the stick preserves its 

 form as a parallelepiped, only it has turned chocolate colour. 

 We say our chalk stick has been browned ; it is a current 

 manner of speaking, but it is erroneous. In the case of 

 not-living bodies it is always preferable to speak of the sum 

 total C of the results of a reaction ; but, with living bodies, 

 we cannot prevent ourselves from considering more par- 



