Page:Imperialdictiona02eadi Brandeis.pdf/627

GEO a provincial lawyer, and had a numerous family, resolved to educate Hs son Etienne for the priesthood. While pursuing his studies at Paris a fortunate train of circumstances directed his mind to the cultivation of natural history, in which he found his true vocation. During his preliminary studies he had the celebrated Brisson and Haüy for his instructors, and from his intercourse with them he imbibed a taste for zoology and mineralogy. In the meantime the Revolution was in full career, and the prisons were filled with victims, one of them being the Abbé Haüy, the friend and preceptor of Geoffroy. His exertions were successful in procuring an order for the liberation of the abbé seven days previous to the massacres of September, thus preserving its greatest mineralogist. By means of money and courage he succeeded also in delivering twelve unfortunate priests on the very morning of the massacre. The excitement attending his efforts, as well as the horrible scenes which he had witnessed, brought on a nervous fever, which obliged him to retire to the country for some months. His generosity and talents procured him friends, and he was soon after appointed professor of natural history at the jardin des plantes, a situation which he held during the rest of his life. Even in the fearful period during which he commenced his duties, he displayed the indefatigable energy of his character; besides publishing memoirs, he occupied himself in reorganizing the museum of natural history, and actually succeeded during the Reign of Terror in establishing the menagerie for the study of living animals. About this time Geoffroy St. Hilaire was brought into intimate relation with his future opponent Cuvier. The Abbé Tessier, who had taken refuge in Normandy, became acquainted with Cuvier, who then resided in the same province. The learned abbé had already detected in the young Delambre the future astronomer, and with the same happy tact he made the discovery of a great naturalist. He recommended him to Geoffroy St. Hilaire; a situation was obtained in the jardin des plantes, and a year had scarcely elapsed before the name of Cuvier had become European. At this period there was no divergence of views between Cuvier and Geoffroy St. Hilaire, and they carried on their labours in common. Soon after their fellowship was interrupted, Geoffroy St. Hilaire being chosen one of the scientific commission to accompany the French expedition to Egypt. With such a field for his exertions he was indefatigable; he visited every part of the country, investigated every branch of zoology, and made important discoveries in all, and even found time to prosecute his dissections, and to compose numerous memoirs of the greatest interest. The surrender of the French army put an end to his researches, and also placed his collections at the disposal of the victors. This, although sufficient vexation to a naturalist, was one of which, of all men, a Frenchman had the least reason to complain. After some negotiation, however, the collections were restored; and the bitterness with which Geoffroy St. Hilaire always referred to the misfortune can only be explained on the ground of a diseased nationalism. On his return to France he continued his publications on zoology and comparative anatomy until 1808, when the least creditable part of his history occurs. He had the weakness to accept of a commission from Bonaparte to visit and explore the scientific riches of Portugal, or, in other words, to ransack the libraries and museums of that unfortunate country. In the course of this very disreputable business he made havoc among the libraries and museums to enrich those of Paris, and what is worse, he made valuable collections on his own account, which were given up by his family to the French government in 1845. After the convention of Cintra, by representing the collections as his own property, he contrived to elude the terms of the treaty. In the words of General Napier, "Among the gross attempts to appropriate property, one of the most odious was the abstraction of manuscripts and rare specimens from the national museums." It is painful to enlarge on this topic; but, in the words of his biographer, the rights of history are imprescriptible. The remainder of the career of Geoffroy St. Hilaire was devoted to his favourite studies; he only mixing in politics, for which otherwise he had but little inclination, by becoming a member of the chamber of representatives during the Hundred Days. As Geoffroy St. Hilaire and Cuvier continued to prosecute their labours, the opinions of these eminent men became more antagonistic every year, until in 1830 it broke out in one of the most interesting scientific discussions which has taken place in the present century. On the one side there was the genius of Cuvier, profound and solid, cultivating natural history in the spirit of Aristotle, the champion of final causes and of the permanence of species, who saw in nature differences as well as resemblances. Geoffroy St. Hilaire, on the other hand, saw nothing but identity in the parts of animals, and maintained that species were unstable and changeable. In the discussion he showed himself far inferior to Cuvier in logical power, and correct and lucid exposition. Like his colleague La Marck, Geoffroy St. Hilaire denied the principle of a final cause, and in harmony with this negation, he also refused to admit the permanence of species. As these naturalists were not singular in holding such opinions, they do not demand any special remark. It is, however, worthy of notice that, as Gibbon said of Lucretius, that he was a theist in spite of himself, so there are few authors who make more use of the doctrine of final causes than Geoffroy St. Hilaire. In reading his descriptions of the apes, the bats, and moles, &c., one would think he was reading a chapter of Paley. A doctrine more characteristic of Geoffroy St. Hilaire than the foregoing was what he denominates the unity of organic composition, or, in other words, that all animals are constructed on the same plan, and consist of the same parts. The doctrine, taken in all its extension, is obviously unfounded, as an oyster does not consist of the same parts as an elephant; when taken in a more limited sense, it is, as Cuvier observed, merely the old truth that animals, such as vertebrals and insects, were formed on different plans. In brief, the theory of Geoffroy St. Hilaire is nearly akin to that of the pantheistic school of Schelling, only French good sense prevented him from falling into the absurdities of Oken in its exposition. But notwithstanding the questionable nature of his theories, the exposition of them led to many important discoveries; as for instance, the comparison of the bones of the head in reptiles and fishes with those of the higher animals. It is also a merit of Geoffroy St. Hilaire that he was among the first who proved that those anomalous forms called monstrosities could be brought under the domain of science, and their nature explained.—[J. S.]  * GEOFFROY SAINT HILAIRE,, born in 1805, professor of zoology and member of the Academy of Sciences, cultivates zoology under the influence of the principles of his father, Etienne Geoffroy St. Hilaire. His principal work is a treatise on teratology, in which he endeavours to ascertain the causes of monstrosities in the animal kingdom, to bring them under the general laws of organization, and to give a systematic exhibition of their various kinds. He is also the author of several memoirs of considerable merit. Of all his scientific projects, the most original is the attempt to popularize the use of horse flesh as an article of food. Such a proposal may appear ridiculous in this country, but it ought to be remembered that in France the high price of animal food puts it beyond the reach of multitudes.—[J. S.]  GEOFFROY,, a celebrated French critic, whose trenchant contributions to the dramatic columns of the Journal des Debats were for several years the terror and the delight of the theatrical world of France, was born at Rennes in 1743; and died at Paris in 1814. He was educated among the jesuits, and in early manhood was known as the Abbé Geoffroy. On the suppression of the order he obtained an appointment as tutor to the sons of a banker; and frequenting the theatre in the company of his pupils, became passionately fond of the dramatic art. In due time he produced a tragedy, "Cato," passages of which the malice of his enemies long afterwards occasionally reproduced to the great annoyance of the critic of the Debats. About 1775 Geoffroy was appointed to the chair of rhetoric in the college de Navarre, and shortly afterwards to that of eloquence in the college Mazarin. In the following year he became editor of L'Année Litteraire, which he conducted till 1792. In 1790, a copartnery of royalists, of which he was an active member, established the journal L'Ami du Roi; on the suppression of which, after the 10th August, 1792, Geoffroy took leave of Paris and the Revolution. He returned to the capital on the establishment of the consulate, and for want of a better, resumed his old trade of pedagogue. In 1800 the connection was formed with the Journal des Debats, which made Geoffroy for many years the monarch of theatrical criticism. Napoleon was hardly more absolute in the state than Geoffroy in the theatre; and they worked well together; for the critic, capricious and unmerciful in his treatment of authors and actors. 