28 LIFE. 



ing with those of adjoining parts,) the organised substance of an 

 already formed system so endowed. 



That fluids as well as solids are susceptible of life, I cannot 

 doubt. There is no reason why they should not be so, although 

 a person who has not thought upon the subject may be as unable 

 to conceive the circumstance as a West Indian to conceive that 

 water may by cold become solid. It is impossible to deny that the 

 male or female genital fluid, or both, either alone or when united, 

 are alive, because from their union, or from one when influenced 

 by the other, a living being is produced which partakes of the 

 vital qualities of each parent. Accordingly Blumenbach, in his 

 Commentatio de vi vitali sanguini deneganda, grants both male and 

 female genital fluids to be alive 1 , notwithstanding that he fancies 

 his victory over the defenders of the blood's life so complete, that, 

 like that of the unfortunate Carthaginian Dido, he says, " in 

 ventos vita recessit." It is as easy to conceive the blood to be alive 

 as the genital fluids. k 



Many facts adduced as arguments of its life are certainly expli- 



1 In universum sane post omnia quae super hoc argumento sive meditando sive 

 experiundo hactenus elicere licuit, nulli humorum nostri corporis genuina vis 

 vitalis tribuenda videtur, si unice a genitali utriusque sexus latice discesseris, 

 utpote cui jam ante quam uterino cavo exceptus et intime mixtus in foetus forma- 

 tionem abit, vitales inhaerere vires formativas, praeter alia paterni vultus in nepotes 

 propagata similitude, aliaque id genus phaenomena baud infitianda demonstrare 

 videntur." Comment. Soc. Reg. Societ. Gotting. vol. ix. p. 12. 



k The doctrine of the life of the blood was maintained by Critias and his sect 

 among the ancients (Aristotle, De anima, cap. 2.), Harvey (Exercit. L. De 

 Generationis ordine, &c.), Glisson (De ventriculo et inteslinis), and Albinus. (Blu- 

 menbach's Commentat. 1. c. ) I am surprised that Moses should have been adduced 

 by Harvey as authority for this opinion. When he says (Leviticus, ch. xvii. 11. 14. ), 

 " For the life of the flesh is in the blood," " For it is the life of all flesh," he 

 can only mean, that, when it is withdrawn, life ceases, that it is necessary to the 

 life of animals. He also says, (v. 14.) " the blood of it is FOR the life thereof." 

 The construction which would make Moses assert that the blood is alive, involves 

 the absurd assertion that the blood only is alive. Indeed, before the time of 

 Moses, the expression was used to Noah. In Genesis (ix. 4.) we read, " Flesh 

 with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall you not eat." The whole 

 of the matter appears to be, that the Jews, like other neighbouring nations, were 

 in the habit of tearing limbs and cutting flesh from living animals, and eating 

 these portions raw. Saul's army after a battle did this. (\ Samuel, xiv. 32, 33.) 

 To prevent this horrid cruelty, they were forbidden to eat flesh before the animal 

 had been drained of its blood, and thus deprived of life ; and what is, in our own 

 version of the Bible, rendered, flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood 



