INAUGURAL ADDRESS. 7 
in more or less varied phraseology, as the sum of the 
functions of living beings. According to Cuvier, it is 
“the sum of the phenomena which have given rise to its 
formation,’ thus adding the idea of self-reproduction by 
its very action, which addition commends itself to our 
approval; but the definition is still imperfect, as external 
agency is not recognised, and there is no distinction 
between the merely physical and the vital actions of living 
beings. Bichat speaks of life as ‘‘the sum of the functions 
which resist death,’ the latter part of the sentence being 
superfluous, or else the whole is tautological and a truism. 
Cabanis brings into view more the external agencies when 
he defines life thus: ‘‘'T’o live is nothing but to receive 
impressions and execute the movements which these 
impressions solicit.” This we can hardly admit, as it 
might apply to inanimate machines. Lawrence, in 1816, 
represents life as ‘‘ consisting 1n the assemblage of all the 
purposes and functions of organised bodies and the general 
result of their exercise.”’ 
_ Fletcher comments on a criticism on this definition as 
follows: ‘On this, Dr. Mason Good—a name hardly less 
notorious in physiology than eminent in lterature—in 
ridicule of the doctrine that life has no real existence, 
which had by this time become rather inconveniently 
prevalent, facetiously remarks, ‘the human frame is 
hence a barrel organ, possessing a systematic arrange- 
ment of parts, played upon by peculiar powers and 
executing particular pieces or purposes; and life is the 
music produced by the general assemblage or result of 
the harmonious actions” He could not. possibly have 
illustrated the nature of life, consisting as it does in 
the proper actions of organised beings, more happily. 
‘We thank thee, Jew, for teaching us that word.’’’* 
* Fletcher’s ‘‘ Physiology,” vol. ii., p. 21. 
