Chapter VII (3)

[1072] 'The first attempt to form a systematic chemical nomenclature was
made by Lavoisier, Berthollet, G. de Morveau, and Fourcroy, soon
after the discovery of oxygen gas.' _Turner's Chemistry_, vol.
i. p. 127. Cuvier (_Progrès des Sciences_, vol. i. p. 39) and
Robin et Verdeil (_Chimie Anatomique_, vol. i. pp. 602, 603)
ascribe the chief merit to De Morveau. Thomson says (_Hist. of
Chemistry_, vol. ii. p. 133): 'This new nomenclature very soon
made its way into every part of Europe, and became the common
language of chemists, in spite of the prejudices entertained
against it, and the opposition which it every where met with.'

While one division of the French thinkers was reducing to order the apparent irregularities of chemical phenomena, another division of them was performing precisely the same service for geology. The first step towards popularizing this noble study was taken by Buffon, who, in the middle of the eighteenth century, broached a geological theory, which, though not quite original, excited attention by its eloquence, and by the lofty speculations with which he connected it.[1073] This was followed by the more special but still important labours of Rouelle, Desmarest, Dolomieu, and Montlosier, who, in less than forty years, effected a complete revolution in the ideas of Frenchmen, by familiarizing them with the strange conception, that the surface of our planet, even where it appears perfectly stable, is constantly undergoing most extensive changes. It began to be understood, that this perpetual flux takes place not only in those parts of nature which are obviously feeble and evanescent, but also in those which seem to possess every element of strength and permanence, such as the mountains of granite which wall the globe, and are the shell and encasement in which it is held. As soon as the mind became habituated to this notion of universal change, the time was ripe for the appearance of some great thinker, who should generalize the scattered observations, and form them into a science, by connecting them with some other department of knowledge, of which the laws, or, at all events, the empirical uniformities, had been already ascertained.

[1073] The famous central heat of Buffon is often supposed to have been
taken from Leibnitz; but, though vaguely taught by the ancients,
the real founder of the doctrine appears to have been Descartes.
See _Bordas Demoulin_, _Cartésianisme_, Paris, 1843, vol. i. p.
312. There is an unsatisfactory note on this in _Prichard's
Physical Hist._ vol. i. p. 100. Compare _Experimental Hist. of
Cold_, tit. 17, in _Boyle's Works_, vol. ii. p. 308; _Brewster's
Life of Newton_, vol. ii. p. 100. On the central heat of the
Pythagoreans, see _Tennemann_, _Gesch. der Philos._ vol. i. p.
149; and as to the central fire mentioned in the so-called
Oracles of Zoroaster, see _Beausobre_, _Hist. de Manichée_, vol.
ii. p. 152. But the complete ignorance of the ancients
respecting geology made these views nothing but guesses. Compare
some sensible remarks in _Matter's Hist. de l'Ecole
d'Alexandrie_, vol. ii. p. 282.

It was at this point, and while the inquiries of geologists, notwithstanding their value, were still crude and unsettled, that the subject was taken up by Cuvier, one of the greatest naturalists Europe has ever produced. A few others there are who have surpassed him in depth; but in comprehensiveness it would be hard to find his superior; and the immense range of his studies gave him a peculiar advantage in surveying the operations and dependencies of the external world.[1074] This remarkable man is unquestionably the founder of geology as a science, since he is not only the first who saw the necessity of bringing to bear upon it the generalizations of comparative anatomy, but he is also the first who actually, executing this great idea, succeeded in coördinating the study of the strata of the earth with the study of the fossil animals found in them.[1075] Shortly before his researches were published, many valuable facts had indeed been collected respecting the separate strata; the primary formations being investigated by the Germans, the secondary ones by the English.[1076] But these observations, notwithstanding their merit, were isolated; and they lacked that vast conception which gave unity and grandeur to the whole, by connecting inquiries concerning the inorganic changes of the surface of the globe with other inquiries concerning the organic changes of the animals the surface contained.

[1074] This comprehensiveness of Cuvier is justly remarked by M.
Flourens as the leading characteristic of his mind. _Flourens_,
_Hist. des Travaux de Cuvier_, pp. 76, 142, 306: 'ce qui
caractérise partout M. Cuvier, c'est l'esprit vaste.'

[1075] Hence he is called by Mr. Owen, 'the founder of palæontological
science.' _Owen on Fossil Mammalia_, in _Report of Brit. Assoc.
for 1843_, p. 208. It was in 1796 that there were thus 'opened
to him entirely new views of the theory of the earth.' p. 209.
See also _Bakewell's Geology_, p. 368; and _Milne Edwards_,
_Zoologie_, part ii. p. 279. The importance of this step is
becoming more evident every year; and it has been justly
remarked, that without palæontology there would be, properly
speaking, no geology. _Balfour's Botany_, 1849, p. 591. Sir R.
Murchison (_Siluria_, 1854, p. 366) says, 'it is essentially the
study of organic remains which has led to the clear subdivision
of the vast mass of older rocks, which were there formerly
merged under the unmeaning term "Grauwacke."' In the same able
work, p. 465, we are told that, 'in surveying the whole series
of formations, the practical geologist is fully impressed with
the conviction that there has, at all periods, subsisted a very
intimate connexion between the existence, or, at all events, the
preservation of animals, and the media in which they have been
fossilized.' For an instance of this in the old red sandstone,
see p. 329.

[1076] _Whewell's Hist. of Sciences_, vol. iii. p. 679; _Lyell's Geol._
p. 59. Indeed gneiss received its name from the Germans.
_Bakewell's Geol._ p. 108.

How completely this immense step is due to France, is evident not only from the part played by Cuvier, but also from the admitted fact, that to the French we owe our knowledge respecting tertiary strata,[1077] in which the organic remains are most numerous, and the general analogy to our present state is most intimate.[1078] Another circumstance may likewise be added, as pointing to the same conclusion. This is, that the first application of the principles of comparative anatomy to the study of fossil bones was also the work of a Frenchman, the celebrated Daubenton. Hitherto these bones had been the object of stupid wonder; some saying that they were rained from heaven, others saying that they were the gigantic limbs of the ancient patriarchs, men who were believed to be tall because they were known to be old.[1079] Such idle conceits were for ever destroyed by Daubenton, in a Memoir he published in 1762;[1080] with which, however, we are not now concerned, except that it is evidence of the state of the French mind, and is worth noting as a precursor of the discoveries of Cuvier.

[1077] Compare _Conybeare's Report on Geology_, p. 371 (_Brit. Assoc.
for_ 1832), with _Bakewell's Geol._ pp. 367, 368, 419, and
_Lyell's Geol._ p. 59.

[1078] In the older half of the secondary rocks, mammals are hardly to
be found, and they do not become common until the tertiary.
_Murchison's Siluria_, pp. 466, 467; and _Strickland on
Ornithology_, p. 210 (_Brit. Assoc. for_ 1844). So, too, in the
vegetable kingdom, many of the plants in the tertiary strata
belong to genera still existing; but this is rarely the case
with the secondary strata; while in the primary strata, even the
families are different to those now found on the earth.
_Balfour's Botany_, pp. 592, 593. Compare Wilson's additions to
_Jussieu's Botany_, 1849, p. 746; and for further illustration
of this remarkable law of the relation between advancing time
and diminished similarity, a law suggesting the most curious
speculations, see _Hitchcock's Geology_, p. 21; _Lyell's
Geology_, p. 183; and _Owen's Lectures on the Invertebrata_,
1855, pp. 38, 576.

[1079] Mr. Geoffroy Saint Hilaire (_Anomalies de l'Organisation_,
vol. i. pp. 121-127) has collected some evidence respecting the
opinions formerly held on these subjects. Among other instances,
he mentions a learned man named Henrion, an academician, and, I
suppose, a theologian, who in 1718 published a work, in which
'il assignait à Adam cent vingt-trois pieds neuf pouces;' Noah
being twenty feet shorter, and so on. The bones of elephants
were sometimes taken for giants: see a pleasant circumstance in
_Cuvier_, _Hist. des Sciences_, part ii. p. 43.

[1080] 'Daubenton a le premier détruit toutes ces idées; il a le premier
appliqué l'anatomie comparée à la détermination de ces os.... Le
mémoire où Daubenton a tenté, pour la première fois, la solution
de ce problème important est de 1762.' _Flourens_, _Travaux de
Cuvier_, pp. 36, 37. Agassiz (_Report on Fossil Fishes_, p. 82,
_Brit. Assoc. for_ 1842) claims this merit too exclusively for
Cuvier, overlooking the earlier researches of Daubenton; and the
same mistake is made in _Hitchcock's Geol._ p. 249, and in
_Bakewell's Geol._ p. 384.

By this union of geology and anatomy, there was first introduced into the study of nature a clear conception of the magnificent doctrine of universal change; while at the same time there grew up by its side a conception equally steady of the regularity with which the changes are accomplished, and of the undeviating laws by which they are governed. Similar ideas had no doubt been occasionally held in preceding ages; but the great Frenchmen of the eighteenth century were the first who applied them to the entire structure of the globe, and who thus prepared the way for that still higher view for which their minds were not yet ripe,[1081] but to which in our own time the most advanced thinkers are rapidly rising. For it is now beginning to be understood, that since every addition to knowledge affords fresh proof of the regularity with which all the changes of nature are conducted, we are bound to believe that the same regularity existed long before our little planet assumed its present form, and long before man trod the surface of the earth. We have the most abundant evidence that the movements incessantly occurring in the material world have a character of uniformity; and this uniformity is so clearly marked, that in astronomy, the most perfect of all the sciences, we are able to predict events many years before they actually happen; nor can any one doubt, that if on other subjects our science were equally advanced, our predictions would be equally accurate. It is, therefore, clear, that the burden of proof lies not on those who assert the eternal regularity of nature, but rather on those who deny it; and who set up an imaginary period, to which they assign an imaginary catastrophe, during which they say new laws were introduced and a new order established. Such gratuitous assumptions, even if they eventually turn out to be true, are in the present state of knowledge unwarrantable, and ought to be rejected, as the last remains of those theological prejudices by which the march of every science has in its turn been hindered. These and all analagous notions work a double mischief. They are mischievous, because they cripple the human mind by imposing limits to its inquiries; and above all they are mischievous, because they weaken that vast conception of continuous and uninterrupted law, which few indeed are able firmly to seize, but on which the highest generalizations of future science must ultimately depend.

[1081] Even Cuvier held the doctrine of catastrophes; but, as Sir
Charles Lyell says (_Principles of Geology_, p. 60), his own
discoveries supplied the means of overthrowing it, and of
familiarizing us with the idea of continuity. Indeed it was one
of the fossil observations of Cuvier which first supplied the
link between reptiles, fishes, and cetaceous mammals. See _Owen
on Fossil Reptiles_, pp. 60, 198, _Brit. Assoc. for_ 1841; and
compare _Carus's Comparative Anatomy_, vol. i. p. 155. To this I
may add, that Cuvier unconsciously prepared the way for
disturbing the old dogma of fixity of species, though he himself
clung to it to the last. See some observations, which are very
remarkable, considering the period when they were written, in
_Cabanis_, _Rapports du Physique et du Moral_, pp. 427, 428:
conclusions drawn from Cuvier, which Cuvier would have himself
rejected.

It is this deep conviction, that changing phenomena have unchanging laws, and that there are principles of order to which all apparent disorder may be referred,--it is this, which, in the seventeenth century, guided in a limited field Bacon, Descartes, and Newton; which in the eighteenth century was applied to every part of the material universe; and which it is the business of the nineteenth century to extend to the history of the human intellect. This last department of inquiry we owe chiefly to Germany; for, with the single exception of Vico, no one even suspected the possibility of arriving at complete generalizations respecting the progress of man, until shortly before the French Revolution, when the great German thinkers began to cultivate this, the highest and most difficult of all studies. But the French themselves were too much occupied with physical science to pay attention to such matters;[1082] and speaking generally, we may say that, in the eighteenth century, each of the three leading nations of Europe had a separate part to play. England diffused a love of freedom; France, a knowledge of physical science; while Germany, aided in some degree by Scotland, revived the study of metaphysics, and created the study of philosophic history. To this classification some exceptions may of course be made; but that these were the marked characteristics of the three countries, is certain. After the death of Locke in 1704, and that of Newton in 1727, there was in England a singular dearth of great speculative thinkers; and this not because the ability was wanting, but because it was turned partly into practical pursuits, partly into political contests. I shall hereafter examine the causes of this peculiarity, and endeavour to ascertain the extent to which it has influenced the fortunes of the country. That the results were, on the whole, beneficial, I entertain no doubt; but they were unquestionably injurious to the progress of science, because they tended to divert it from all new truths, except those likely to produce obvious and practical benefit. The consequence was, that though the English made several great discoveries, they did not possess, during seventy years, a single man who took a really comprehensive view of the phenomena of nature; not one who could be compared with those illustrious thinkers who in France reformed every branch of physical knowledge. Nor was it until more than two generations after the death of Newton, that the first symptoms appeared of a remarkable reaction, which quickly displayed itself in nearly every department of the national intellect. In physics, it is enough to mention Dalton, Davy, and Young, each of whom was in his own field the founder of a new epoch; while on other subjects I can only just refer, first, to the influence of the Scotch school; and, secondly, to that sudden and well-deserved admiration for the German literature of which Coleridge was the principal exponent, and which infused into the English mind a taste for generalizations higher and more fearless than any hitherto known. The history of this vast movement, which began early in the nineteenth century, will be traced in the future volumes of this work: at present I merely notice it, as illustrating the fact, that until the movement began, the English, though superior to the French in several matters of extreme importance, were for many years inferior to them in those large and philosophic views, without which not only is the most patient industry of no avail, but even real discoveries lose their proper value, for want of such habits of generalization as would trace their connexion with each other, and consolidate their severed fragments into one vast system of complete and harmonious truth.

[1082] Neither Montesquieu nor Turgot appear to have believed in the
possibility of generalizing the past, so as to predict the
future; while as to Voltaire, the weakest point in his otherwise
profound view of history was his love of the old saying, that
great events spring from little causes; a singular error for so
comprehensive a mind, because it depended on confusing causes
with conditions. That a man like Voltaire should have committed
what now seems so gross a blunder, is a mortifying reflection
for those who are able to appreciate his vast and penetrating
genius, and it may teach the best of us a wholesome lesson. This
fallacy was avoided by Montesquieu and Turgot; and the former
writer, in particular, displayed such extraordinary ability,
that there can be little doubt, that had he lived at a later
period, and thus had the means of employing in their full extent
the resources of political economy and physical science, he
would have had the honour not only of laying the basis, but also
of rearing the structure of the philosophy of the history of
Man. As it was, he failed in conceiving what is the final object
of every scientific inquiry, namely, the power of foretelling
the future: and after his death, in 1755, all the finest
intellects in France, Voltaire alone excepted, concentrated
their attention upon the study of natural phenomena.

The interest attached to these inquiries has induced me to treat them at greater length than I had intended; perhaps at greater length than is suitable to the suggestive and preparatory character of this Introduction. But the extraordinary success with which the French now cultivated physical knowledge is so curious, on account of its connexion with the Revolution, that I must mention a few more of its most prominent instances: though, for the sake of brevity, I will confine myself to those three great divisions which, when put together, form what is called Natural History, and in all of which we shall see that the most important steps were taken in France during the latter half of the eighteenth century.

In the first of these divisions, namely, the department of zoology, we owe to the Frenchmen of the eighteenth century those generalizations which are still the highest this branch of knowledge has reached. Taking zoology in the proper sense of the term, it consists only of two parts, the anatomical part, which is its statics, and the physiological part, which is its dynamics: the first referring to the structure of animals; the other, to their functions.[1083] Both of these were worked out, nearly at the same time, by Cuvier and Bichat; and the leading conclusions at which they arrived, remain, after the lapse of sixty years, undisturbed in their essential points. In 1795, Cuvier laid down the great principle, that the study and classification of animals was to be, not as heretofore, with a view to external peculiarities, but with a view to internal organization; and that, therefore, no real advance could be made in our knowledge except by extending the boundaries of comparative anatomy.[1084] This step, simple as it now appears, was of immense importance, since by it zoology was at once rescued from the hands of the observer, and thrown into those of the experimenter: the consequence of which has been the attainment of that precision and accuracy of detail, which experiment alone can give, and which is every way superior to such popular facts as observation supplies. By thus indicating to naturalists the true path of inquiry, by accustoming them to a close and severe method, and by teaching them to despise those vague descriptions in which they had formerly delighted, Cuvier laid the foundation of a progress which, during the last sixty years, has surpassed the most sanguine expectations. This, then, is the real service rendered by Cuvier, that he overthrew the artificial system which the genius of Linnæus had raised up,[1085] and substituted in its place that far superior scheme which gave the freest scope to future inquiry; since, according to it, all systems are to be deemed imperfect and provisional so long as any thing remains to be learned respecting the comparative anatomy of the animal kingdom. The influence exercised by this great view was increased by the extraordinary skill and industry with which its proposer followed it out, and proved the practicability of his own precepts. His additions to our knowledge of comparative anatomy are probably more numerous than those made by any other man; but what has gained him most celebrity is, the comprehensive spirit with which he used what he acquired. Independently of other generalizations, he is the author of that vast classification of the whole animal kingdom into vertebrata, mollusca, articulata, and radiata;[1086] a classification which keeps its ground, and is one of the most remarkable instances of that large and philosophic spirit which France brought to bear upon the phenomena of the material world.[1087]

[1083] The line of demarcation between anatomy as statical, and
physiology as dynamical, is clearly drawn by M. Comte (_Philos.
Positive_, vol. iii. p. 303) and by MM. Robin et Verdeil
(_Chimie Anatomique_, vol. i. pp. 11, 12, 40, 102, 188, 434).
What is said by Carus (_Comparative Anatomy_, vol. ii. p. 356)
and by Sir Benjamin Brodie (_Lectures on Pathology and Surgery_,
p. 6) comes nearly to the same thing, though expressed with less
precision. On the other hand, M. Milne Edwards (_Zoologie_, part
i. p. 9) calls physiology 'la science de la vie;' which, if
true, would simply prove that there is no physiology at all, for
there certainly is at present no science of life.

[1084] In his _Règne Animal_, vol. i. pp. vi. vii., he says that
preceding naturalists 'n'avaient guère considéré que les
rapports extérieurs de ces espèces, et personne ne s'était
occupé de coördonner les classes et les ordres d'après
l'ensemble de la structure.... Je dus donc, et cette obligation
me prit un temps considérable, je dus faire marcher de front
l'anatomie et la zoologie, les dissections et le classement....
Les premiers résultats de ce double travail parurent en 1795,
dans un mémoire spécial sur une nouvelle division des animaux à
sang blanc.'

[1085] On the opposition between the methods of Linnæus and of Cuvier,
see _Jenyns' Report on Zoology_, pp. 144, 145, in _Brit. Assoc.
for_ 1834.

[1086] The foundations of this celebrated arrangement was laid by
Cuvier, in a paper read in 1795. _Whewell's History of the
Induc. Sciences_, vol. iii. p. 494. It appears, however
(_Flourens_, _Travaux de Cuvier_, pp. 69, 70), that it was in,
or just after, 1791, that the dissection of some mollusca
suggested to him the idea of reforming the classification of the
whole animal kingdom. Compare _Cuvier_, _Règne Animal_, vol. i.
pp. 51, 52 note.

[1087] The only formidable opposition made to Cuvier's arrangement has
proceeded from the advocates of the doctrine of circular
progression: a remarkable theory, of which Lamarck and Macleay
are the real originators, and which is certainly supported by a
considerable amount of evidence. Still, among the great majority
of competent zoologists, the fourfold division holds its ground,
although the constantly-increasing accuracy of microscopical
observations has detected a nervous system much lower in the
scale than was formerly suspected, and has thereby induced some
anatomists to divide the radiata into acrita and nematoneura.
_Owen's Invertebrata_, 1855, pp. 14, 15; and _Rymer Jones's
Animal Kingdom_, 1855, p. 4. As, however, it seems probable that
all animals have a distinct nervous system, this subdivision is
only provisional; and it is very likely that when our
microscopes are more improved, we shall have to return to
Cuvier's arrangement. Some of Cuvier's successors have removed
the apodous echinoderms from the radiata; but in this Mr. Rymer
Jones (_Animal Kingdom_, p. 211) vindicates the Cuverian
classification.

Great, however, as is the name of Cuvier, a greater still remains behind. I allude, of course, to Bichat, whose reputation is steadily increasing as our knowledge advances, and who, if we compare the shortness of his life with the reach and depth of his views, must be pronounced the most profound thinker and the most consummate observer by whom the organization of the animal frame has yet been studied.[1088] He wanted, indeed, that comprehensive knowledge for which Cuvier was remarkable; but though, on this account, his generalizations were drawn from a smaller surface, they were, on the other hand, less provisional: they were, I think, more complete, and certainly they dealt with more momentous topics. For the attention of Bichat was preëminently directed to the human frame[1089] in the largest sense of the word; his object being so to investigate the organization of man, as to rise, if possible, to some knowledge concerning the causes and nature of life. In this magnificent enterprise, considered as a whole, he failed; but what he effected in certain parts of it is so extraordinary, and has given such an impetus to some of the highest branches of inquiry, that I will briefly indicate his method, in order to compare it with that other method which, at the same moment, Cuvier adopted with immense success.

[1088] We may except Aristotle; but between Aristotle and Bichat I can
find no middle man.

[1089] But not exclusively. Mr. Blainville (_Physiol. comparée_, vol.
ii. p. 304) says, 'celui qui, comme Bichat, bornait ses études à
l'anatomie humaine;' and at p. 350, 'quand on ne considère que
ce qui se passe chez l'homme, ainsi que l'a fait Bichat.' This,
however, is much too positively stated. Bichat mentions 'les
expériences nombreuses que j'ai faites sur les animaux vivans.'
_Bichat_, _Anatomie Générale_, vol. i. p. 332; and for other
instances of his experiments on animals below man, see the same
work, vol. i. pp. 164, 284, 311, 312, 326, vol. ii. pp. 13, 25,
69, 73, 107, 133, 135, 225, 264, 423, vol. iii. pp. 151, 218,
242, 262, 363, 364, 400, 478, 501, vol. iv. pp. 27, 28, 34, 46,
229, 247, 471: see also _Bichat_, _Recherches sur la Vie_, pp.
262, 265, 277, 312, 336, 356, 358, 360, 368, 384, 400, 411, 439,
455, 476, 482, 494, 512: and his _Traité des Membranes_, pp. 48,
64, 67, 130, 158, 196, 201, 224. These are all experiments on
inferior animals, which aided this great physiologist in
establishing those vast generalizations, which, though applied
to man, were by no means collected merely from human anatomy.
The impossibility of understanding physiology without studying
comparative anatomy, is well pointed out in Mr. Rymer Jones's
work, _Organization of the Animal Kingdom_, 1855, pp. 601, 791.

The important step taken by Cuvier was, that he insisted on the necessity of a comprehensive study of the organs of animals, instead of following the old plan of merely describing their habits and external peculiarities. This was a vast improvement, since, in the place of loose and popular observations, he substituted direct experiment, and hence introduced into zoology a precision formerly unknown.[1090] But Bichat, with a still keener insight, saw that even this was not enough. He saw that, each organ being composed of different tissues, it was requisite to study the tissues themselves, before we could learn the way in which, by their combinations, the organs are produced. This, like all really great ideas, was not entirely struck out by a single man; for the physiological value of the tissues had been recognized by three or four of the immediate predecessors of Bichat, such as Carmichael, Smyth, Bonn, Bordeu, and Fallopius. These inquirers, however, notwithstanding their industry, had effected nothing of much moment, since, though they collected several special facts, there was in their observations that want of harmony and that general incompleteness always characteristic of the labours of men who do not rise to a commanding view of the subject with which they deal.[1091]

[1090] Mr. Swainson (_Geography and Classification of Animals_, p. 170)
complains, strangely enough, that Cuvier 'rejects the more plain
and obvious characters which every one can see, and which had
been so happily employed by Linnæus, and makes the differences
between these groups to depend upon circumstances which no one
but an anatomist can understand.' See also p. 173: 'characters
which, however good, are not always comprehensible, except to
the anatomist.' (Compare _Hodgson on the Ornithology of Nepal_,
in _Asiatic Researches_, vol. xix. p. 179, Calcutta, 1836.) In
other words, this is a complaint that Cuvier attempted to raise
zoology to a science, and, therefore, of course, deprived it of
some of its popular attractions, in order to invest it with
other attractions of a far higher character. The errors
introduced into the natural sciences by relying upon observation
instead of experiment, have been noticed by many writers; and by
none more judiciously than M. Saint Hilaire in his _Anomalies de
l'Organisation_, vol. i. p. 98.

[1091] It is very doubtful if Bichat was acquainted with the works of
Smyth, Bonn, or Fallopius, and I do not remember that he any
where even mentions their names. He had, however, certainly
studied Bordeu; but I suspect that the author by whom he was
most influenced was Pinel, whose pathological generalizations
were put forward just about the time when Bichat began to write.
Compare _Bichat_, _Traité des Membranes_, pp. 3, 4, 107, 191;
_Béclard_, _Anat. Gén._ pp. 65, 66; _Bouillaud_, _Philos.
Médicale_, p. 26; _Blainville_, _Physiol. comparée_, vol. i. p.
284, vol. ii. pp. 19, 252; _Henle_, _Anat. Gén._ vol. i.
pp. 119, 120.

It was under these circumstances that Bichat began those researches, which, looking at their actual and still more at their prospective results, are probably the most valuable contribution ever made to physiology by a single mind. In 1801, only a year before his death,[1092] he published his great work on anatomy, in which the study of the organs is made altogether subservient to the study of the tissues composing them. He lays it down, that the body of man consists of twenty-one distinct tissues, all of which, though essentially different, have in common the two great properties of extensibility and contractility.[1093] These tissues he, with indefatigable industry,[1094] subjected to every sort of examination; he examined them in different ages and diseases, with a view to ascertain the laws of their normal and pathological development.[1095] He studied the way each tissue is affected by moisture, air, and temperature; also the way in which their properties are altered by various chemical substances,[1096] and even their effect on the taste.[1097] By these means, and by many other experiments tending in the same direction, he took so great and sudden a step, that he is to be regarded not merely as an innovator on an old science, but rather as the creator of a new one.[1098] And although subsequent observers have corrected some of his conclusions, this has only been done by following his method; the value of which is now so generally recognized, that it is adopted by nearly all the best anatomists, who, differing in other points, are agreed as to the necessity of basing the future progress of anatomy on a knowledge of the tissues, the supreme importance of which Bichat was the first to perceive.[1099]

[1092] _Biog. Univ._ vol. iv. pp. 468, 469.

[1093] For a list of the tissues, see _Bichat_, _Anat. Gén._ vol. i.
p. 49. At p. 50 he says, 'en effet, quel que soit le point de
vue sous lequel on considère ces tissus, ils ne se ressemblent
nullement: c'est la nature, et non la science, qui a tiré une
ligne de démarcation entre eux.' There is, however, now reason
to think, that both animal and vegetable tissues are, in all
their varieties, referrible to a cellular origin. This great
view, which M. Schwann principally worked out, will, if fully
established, be the largest generalization we possess respecting
the organic world, and it would be difficult to overrate its
value. Still there is danger lest, in prematurely reaching at so
vast a law, we should neglect the subordinate, but
strongly-marked differences between the tissues as they actually
exist. Burdach (_Traité de Physiologie_, vol. vi. pp. 195, 196)
has made some good remarks on the confusion introduced into the
study of tissues, by neglecting those salient characteristics
which were indicated by Bichat.

[1094] Pinel says, 'dans on seul hiver il ouvrit plus de six cents
cadavres.' _Notice sur Bichat_, p. xiii., in vol. i of _Anat.
Gén._ By such enormous labour, and by working day and night in a
necessarily polluted atmosphere, he laid the foundation for that
diseased habit which caused a slight accident to prove fatal,
and carried him off at the age of thirty-one. 'L'esprit a peine
à concevoir que la vie d'un seul homme puisse suffire à tant de
travaux, à tant de découvertes, faites ou indiquées: Bichat est
mort avant d'avoir accompli sa trente-deuxième année!' _Pinel_,
p. xvi.

[1095] To this sort of comparative anatomy (if it may be so called),
which before his time scarcely existed, Bichat attached great
importance, and clearly saw that it would eventually become of
the utmost value for pathology. _Anat. Gén._ vol. i. pp. 331,
332, vol. ii. pp. 234-241, vol. iv. p. 417, &c. Unfortunately
these investigations were not properly followed up by his
immediate successors; and Müller, writing long after his death,
was obliged to refer chiefly to Bichat for 'the true principles
of general pathology.' _Müller's Physiology_, 1840, vol. i. p.
808. M. Vogel too, in his _Pathological Anatomy_, 1847, pp. 398,
413, notices the error committed by the earlier pathologists, in
looking at changes in the organs, and neglecting those in the
tissues; and the same remark is made in _Robin et Verdeil_,
_Chimie Anatomique_, 1853, vol. i. p. 45; and in _Henle_,
_Traité d'Anatomie_, vol. i. p. vii., Paris, 1843. That
'structural anatomy,' and 'structural development,' are to be
made the foundations of pathology, is, moreover, observed in
_Simon's Pathology_, 1850, p. 115 (compare _Williams's
Principles of Medicine_, 1848, p. 67), who ascribes the chief
merit of this 'rational pathology' to Henle and Schwann:
omitting to mention that they only executed Bichat's scheme and
(be it said with every respect for these eminent men) executed
it with a comprehensiveness much inferior to that displayed by
their great predecessor. In _Broussais_, _Examen des Doctrines
Médicales_, vol. iv. pp. 106, 107, there are some just and
liberal observations on the immense service which Bichat
rendered to pathology. See also _Béclard_, _Anatomie_, Paris,
1852, p. 184.

[1096] _Bichat_, _Anat. Gén._ vol. i. pp. 51, 160, 161, 259, 372, vol.
ii. pp. 47, 448, 449, vol. iii. pp. 33, 168, 208, 309, 406, 435,
vol. iv. pp. 21, 52, 455-461, 517.

[1097] According to M. Comte (_Philos. Pos._ vol. iii. p. 319), no one
had thought of this before Bichat. MM. Robin et Verdeil, in
their recent great work, fully admit the necessity of employing
this singular resource. _Chimie Anatomique_, 1853, vol. i.
pp. 18, 125, 182, 357, 531.

[1098] 'Dès-lors il créa une science nouvelle, l'anatomie générale.'
_Pinel sur Bichat_, p. xii. 'A Bichat appartient véritablement
la gloire d'avoir conçu et surtout exécuté, le premier, le plan
d'une anatomie nouvelle.' _Bouillaud_, _Philos. Médicale_, p.
27. 'Bichat fut le créateur de l'histologie en assignant des
caractères précis à chaque classe de tissus.' _Burdach_,
_Physiologie_, vol. vii. p. 111. 'Le créateur de l'anatomie
générale fut Bichat.' _Henle_, _Anatomie_, vol. i. p. 120.
Similar remarks will be found in _Saint-Hilaire_, _Anomalies de
l'Organisation_, vol. i. p. 10; and in _Robin et Verdeil_,
_Chimie Anat._ vol. i. p. xviii., vol. iii. p. 405.

[1099] In _Béclard_, _Anat. Gén. 1852_, p. 61, it is said that 'la
recherche de ces tissus élémentaires, ou éléments organiques,
est devenue la préoccupation presque exclusive des anatomistes
de nos jours.' Compare _Blainville_, _Physiol. Gén. et Comp._
vol. i. p. 93: 'Aujourd'hui nous allons plus avant, nous
pénétrons dans la structure intime, non seulement de ces
organes, mais encore des tissus qui concourent à leur
composition; nous faisons en un mot de la véritable anatomie, de
l'anatomie proprement dite.' And at p. 105: 'c'est un genre de
recherches qui a été cultivé avec beaucoup d'activité, et qui a
reçu une grande extension depuis la publication du bel ouvrage
de Bichat.' See also vol. ii. p. 303.

In consequence of this movement, there has sprung up, under the
name of _Degenerations of Tissues_, an entirely new branch of
morbid anatomy, of which, I believe, no instance will be found
before the time of Bichat, but the value of which is now
recognized by most pathologists. Compare _Paget's Surgical
Pathology_, vol. i. pp. 98-112; _Williams's Principles of
Medicine_, pp. 369-376; _Burdach's Physiologie_, vol. viii. p.
367; _Reports of Brit. Assoc._ vol. vi. p. 147; _Jones's and
Sieveking's Pathological Anatomy_, 1854, pp. 154-156, 302-304,
555-558. 'They are,' say these last writers, 'of extremely
frequent occurrence; but their nature has scarcely been
recognized until of late.'

The methods of Bichat and of Cuvier, when put together, exhaust the actual resources of zoological science; so that all subsequent naturalists have been compelled to follow one of these two schemes; that is, either to follow Cuvier in comparing the organs of animals, or else to follow Bichat in comparing the tissues which compose the organs.[1100] And inasmuch as one comparison is chiefly suggestive of function, and the other comparison of structure, it is evident, that to raise the study of the animal world to the highest point of which it is capable, both these great plans are necessary; but if we ask which of the two plans, unaided by the other, is more likely to produce important results, the palm must, I think, be yielded to that proposed by Bichat. Certainly, if we look at the question as one to be decided by authority, a majority of the most eminent anatomists and physiologists now incline to the side of Bichat, rather than to that of Cuvier; while, as a matter of history, it may be proved that the reputation of Bichat has, with the advance of knowledge, increased more rapidly than that of his great rival. What, however, appears to me still more decisive, is, that the two most important discoveries made in our time respecting the classification of animals, are entirely the result of the method which Bichat suggested. The first discovery is that made by Agassiz, who, in the course of his ichthyological researches, was led to perceive that the arrangement by Cuvier according to organs, did not fulfil its purpose in regard to fossil fishes, because in the lapse of ages the characteristics of their structure were destroyed.[1101] He, therefore, adopted the only other remaining plan, and studied the tissues, which, being less complex than the organs, are oftener found intact. The result was the very remarkable discovery, that the tegumentary membrane of fishes is so intimately connected with their organization, that if the whole of a fish has perished except this membrane, it is practicable, by noting its characteristics, to reconstruct the animal in its most essential parts. Of the value of this principle of harmony, some idea may be formed from the circumstance, that on it Agassiz has based the whole of that celebrated classification, of which he is the sole author, and by which fossil ichthyology has for the first time assumed a precise and definite shape.[1102]

[1100] Cuvier completely neglected the study of tissues; and in the very
few instances in which he mentions them, his language is
extremely vague. Thus, in his _Règne Animal_, vol. i. p. 12, he
says of living bodies, 'leur tissu est donc composé de réseaux
et de mailles, ou de fibres et de lames solides, qui renferment
des liquides dans leurs intervalles.'

[1101] A well-known ornithologist makes the same complaint respecting
the classification of birds. _Strickland on Ornithology_, _Brit.
Assoc. for_ 1844, pp. 209, 210. Even in regard to living
species, Cuvier (_Règne Animal_, vol. ii. p. 126) says: 'La
classe des poissons est de toutes celle qui offre le plus de
difficultés quand on veut la subdiviser en ordres d'après des
caractères fixes et sensibles.'

[1102] The discoveries of M. Agassiz are embodied in his great work,
_Recherches sur les Poissons fossiles_: but the reader who may
not have an opportunity of consulting that costly publication,
will find two essays by this eminent naturalist, which will give
an idea of his treatment of the subject, in _Reports of Brit.
Assoc. for 1842_, pp. 80-88, and for 1844, pp. 279-310. How
essential this study is to the geologist, appears from the
remark of Sir R. Murchison (_Siluria_, 1854, p. 417), that
'fossil fishes have everywhere proved the most exact
chronometers of the age of rocks.'

The other discovery, of which the application is much more extensive, was made in exactly the same way. It consists of the striking fact, that the teeth of each animal have a necessary connexion with the entire organization of its frame; so that, within certain limits, we can predict the organization by examining the tooth. This beautiful instance of the regularity of the operations of nature was not known until more than thirty years after the death of Bichat, and it is evidently due to the prosecution of that method which he sedulously inculcated. For the teeth never having been properly examined in regard to their separate tissues, it was believed that they were essentially devoid of structure, or, as some thought, were simply a fibrous texture.[1103] But by minute microscopic investigations, it has been recently ascertained that the tissues of the teeth are strictly analogous to those of other parts of the body;[1104] and that the ivory, or dentine, as it is now called,[1105] is highly organized; that it, as well as the enamel, is cellular, and is, in fact, a development of the living pulp. This discovery, which, to the philosophic anatomist, is pregnant with meaning, was made about 1838; and though the preliminary steps were taken by Purkinjé, Retzius, and Schwann, the principal merit is due to Nasmyth and Owen,[1106] between whom it is disputed, but whose rival claims we are not here called upon to adjust.[1107] What I wish to observe is, that the discovery is similar to that which we owe to Agassiz; similar in the method by which it was worked out, and also in the results which have followed from it. Both are due to a recognition of the fundamental maxim of Bichat, that the study of organs must be subordinate to the study of tissues, and both have supplied the most valuable aid to zoological classification. On this point, the service rendered by Owen is incontestable, whatever may be thought of his original claims. This eminent naturalist has, with immense industry, applied the discovery to all vertebrate animals; and in an elaborate work, specially devoted to the subject, he has placed beyond dispute the astonishing fact, that the structure of a single tooth is a criterion of the nature and organization of the species to which it belongs.[1108]

[1103] That they were composed of fibres, was the prevailing doctrine,
until the discovery of their tubes, in 1835, by Purkinjé. Before
Purkinjé, only one observer, Leeuwenh[oe]k, had announced their
tubular structure; but no one believed what he said, and
Purkinjé was unacquainted with his researches. Compare
_Nasmyth's Researches on the Teeth_, 1839, p. 159; _Owen's
Odontography_, 1840-1845, vol. i. pp. ix. x.; _Henle_, _Anat.
Gén._ vol. ii. p. 457; _Reports of Brit. Assoc._ vol. vii. pp.
135, 136 (_Transac. of Sections_).

[1104] Mr. Nasmyth, in his valuable, but, I regret to add, posthumous
work, notices, as the result of these discoveries, 'the close
affinity subsisting between the dental and other organized
tissues of the animal frame.' _Researches on the Development,
&c. of the Teeth_, 1849, p. 198. This is, properly speaking, a
continuation of Mr. Nasmyth's former book, which bore the same
title, and was published in 1839.

[1105] This name, which Mr. Owen appears to have first suggested, has
been objected to, though, as it seems to me, on insufficient
grounds. Compare _Owen's Odontography_, vol. i. p. iii., with
_Nasmyth's Researches_, 1849, pp. 3, 4. It is adopted in
_Carpenter's Human Physiol._ 1846, p. 154; and in _Jones and
Sieveking's Patholog. Anat._ 1854, pp. 483, 486.

[1106] See the correspondence in _Brit. Assoc. for_ 1841, Sec.,
pp. 2-23.

[1107] In the notice of it in _Whewell's Hist. of Sciences_, vol. iii.
p. 678, nothing is said about Mr. Nasmyth; while in that in
_Wilson's Human Anatomy_, p. 65, edit. 1851, nothing is said
about Mr. Owen. A specimen of the justice with which men treat
their contemporaries. Dr. Grant (_Supplement to Hooper's Medical
Dict._ 1848, p. 1390) says, 'the researches of Mr. Owen tend to
confirm those of Mr. Nasmyth.' Nasmyth, in his last work
(_Researches on the Teeth_, 1849, p. 81), only refers to Owen to
point out an error; while Owen (_Odontography_, vol. i.
pp. xlvi.-lvi.) treats Nasmyth as an impudent plagiarist.

[1108] Dr. Whewell (_Hist. of Induc. Sciences_, vol. iii. p. 678) says,
that 'he has carried into every part of the animal kingdom an
examination, founded upon this discovery, and has published the
results of this in his _Odontography_.' If this able, but rather
hasty writer, had read the _Odontography_, he would have found
that Mr. Owen, so far from carrying the examination 'into every
part of the animal kingdom,' distinctly confines himself to 'one
of the primary divisions of the animal kingdom' (I quote his own
words from _Odontography_, vol. i. p. lxvii.), and appears to
think, that below the vertebrata, the inquiry would furnish
little or no aid for the purposes of classification.

Whoever has reflected much on the different stages through which our knowledge has successively passed, must, I think, be led to the conclusion, that while fully recognizing the great merit of these investigators of the animal frame, our highest admiration ought to be reserved not for those who make the discoveries, but rather for those who point out how the discoveries are to be made.[1109] When the true path of inquiry has once been indicated, the rest is comparatively easy. The beaten highway is always open; and the difficulty is, not to find those who will travel the old road, but those who will make a fresh one. Every age produces in abundance men of sagacity and of considerable industry, who, while perfectly competent to increase the details of a science, are unable to extend its distant boundaries. This is because such extension must be accompanied by a new method,[1110] which, to be valuable as well as new, supposes on the part of its suggester, not only a complete mastery over the resources of his subject, but also the possession of originality and comprehensiveness,--the two rarest forms of human genius. In this consists the real difficulty of every great pursuit. As soon as any department of knowledge has been generalized into laws, it contains, either in itself or in its applications, three distinct branches; namely, inventions, discoveries, and method. Of these, the first corresponds to art; the second to science; and the third to philosophy. In this scale, inventions have by far the lowest place, and minds of the highest order are rarely occupied by them. Next in the series come discoveries; and here the province of intellect really begins, since here the first attempt is made to search after truth on its own account, and to discard those practical considerations to which inventions are of necessity referred. This is science properly so called; and how difficult it is to reach this stage, is evident from the fact, that all half-civilized nations have made many great inventions, but no great discoveries. The highest, however, of all the three stages, is the philosophy of method, which bears the same relation to science that science bears to art. Of its immense, and indeed supreme importance, the annals of knowledge supply abundant evidence; and for want of it, some very great men have effected absolutely nothing, consuming their lives in fruitless industry, not because their labour was slack, but because their method was sterile. The progress of every science is affected more by the scheme according to which it is cultivated, than by the actual ability of the cultivators themselves. If they who travel in an unknown country, spend their force in running on the wrong road, they will miss the point at which they aim, and perchance may faint and fall by the way. In that long and difficult journey after truth, which the human mind has yet to perform, and of which we in our generation can only see the distant prospect, it is certain that success will depend not on the speed with which men hasten in the path of inquiry, but rather on the skill with which that path is selected for them by those great and comprehensive thinkers, who are as the lawgivers and founders of knowledge; because they supply its deficiencies, not by investigating particular difficulties, but by establishing some large and sweeping innovation, which opens up a new vein of thought, and creates fresh resources, which it is left for their posterity to work out and apply.

[1109] But in comparing the merits of discoverers themselves, we must
praise him who proves rather than him who suggests. See some
sensible remarks in _Owen's Odontography_, vol. i. p. xlix.;
which, however, do not affect my observations on the superiority
of method.

[1110] By a new method of inquiring into a subject, I mean an
application to it of generalizations from some other subject, so
as to widen the field of thought. To call this a new method, is
rather vague; but there is no other word to express the process.
Properly speaking, there are only two methods, the inductive and
the deductive; which, though essentially different, are so mixed
together, as to make it impossible wholly to separate them. The
discussion of the real nature of this difference I reserve for
my comparison, in the next volume, of the German and American
civilizations.

It is from this point of view that we are to rate the value of Bichat, whose works, like those of all men of the highest eminence,--like those of Aristotle, Bacon, and Descartes,--mark an epoch in the history of the human mind; and as such, can only be fairly estimated by connecting them with the social and intellectual condition of the age in which they appeared. This gives an importance and a meaning to the writings of Bichat, of which few indeed are fully aware. The two greatest recent discoveries respecting the classification of animals are, as we have just seen, the result of his teaching; but his influence has produced other effects still more momentous. He, aided by Cabanis, rendered to physiology the incalculable service, of preventing it from participating in that melancholy reaction to which France was exposed early in the nineteenth century. This is too large a subject to discuss at present; but I may mention, that when Napoleon, not from feelings of conviction, but for selfish purposes of his own, attempted to restore the power of ecclesiastical principles, the men of letters, with disgraceful subserviency, fell into his view; and there began a marked decline in that independent and innovating spirit, with which during fifty years the French had cultivated the highest departments of knowledge. Hence that metaphysical school arose, which, though professing to hold aloof from theology, was intimately allied with it; and whose showy conceits form, in their ephemeral splendour, a striking contrast to the severer methods followed in the preceding generation.[1111] Against this movement, the French physiologists have, as a body, always protested; and it may be clearly proved that their opposition, which even the great abilities of Cuvier were unable to win over, is partly due to the impetus given by Bichat, in enforcing in his own pursuit the necessity of rejecting those assumptions by which metaphysicians and theologians seek to control every science. As an illustration of this I may mention two facts worthy of note. The first is, that in England, where during a considerable period the influence of Bichat was scarcely felt, many, even of our eminent physiologists, have shown a marked disposition to ally themselves with the reactionary party; and have not only opposed such novelties as they could not immediately explain, but have degraded their own noble science by making it a handmaid to serve the purposes of natural theology. The other fact is, that in France the disciples of Bichat have, with scarcely an exception, rejected the study of final causes, to which the school of Cuvier still adheres: while as a natural consequence, the followers of Bichat are associated in geology with the doctrine of uniformity; in zoology, with that of the transmutation of species; and in astronomy, with the nebular hypothesis: vast and magnificent schemes, under whose shelter the human mind seeks an escape from that dogma of interference, which the march of knowledge every where reduces, and the existence of which is incompatible with those conceptions of eternal order, towards which, during the last two centuries, we have been constantly tending.