Page:Life and death (1911).djvu/322

 we consider it in its essential nature (assumed, but not known) we look on it as the contrary of life, as did the Encyclopædia, Cuvier, and Bichat; or we regard it with others either as the consequence of life, or simply as the end of life. Non-scientific Opinions.—What is death to those outside the realm of science? First of all we find the consoling solution given by those who believe death to be the commencement of another life. We next find ourselves involved in a confused medley, an infinite diversity of philosophical doubt and superstition. "A leap into the unknown," says one. "Dreamless and unconscious night," says another. And again, "A sleep which knows no waking." Or, with Horace, "the eternal exile," or with Seneca, annihilation. Post mortem nihil; ipsaque mors nihil.

The idea which is constantly supervening in the midst of this conflict of opinion is that of the breaking up of the elements, the union of which forms the living being. It has, as we shall see, a real foundation which may perhaps receive the support of science. We shall not find that the best way of defining death is to say that it consists of the "dissolution of the society formed by the anatomical elements, or again, in the dissolution of the consciousness that the individual possesses of himself—i.e, of the existence of this society." It is the rupture of the social bond. The old idea of dispersion is a variant of the same notion. But the ancients evidently could not understand, as we do, the nature of these elements which are associated to form the living being, and which are liberated or dispersed by death. We, as biologists, can see microscopical