Cuvier, like Sir Isaac Newton, was born with such a feeble and sickly
constitution, that he was scarcely expected to reach the years of
manhood. His affectionate mother watched over his varying health,
instilled into his mind the first lessons of religion, and had taught
him to read fluently before he had completed his fourth year. She made
him repeat to her his Latin lessons, though ignorant herself of the
language; she conducted him every morning to school; made him practise
drawing under her own superintendence, and supplied him with the best
works on history and literature. His father had destined him for the
army. In the library of the Gymnasium, where he stood at the head of the
classes of history, geography, and mathematics, he lighted upon a copy
of Gesner's History of Animals and Serpents, with coloured plates; and,
about the same time, he had discovered a complete copy of Buffon among
the books of one of his relatives. His taste for Natural History now
became a passion. He copied the figures which these works contained, and
coloured them in conformity with the descriptions; whilst he did not
overlook the intellectual beauties of his author.
In the fourteenth year of his age he was appointed president of a
society of his schoolfellows, which he was the means of organising, and
of which he drew up the rules; and seated on the foot of his bed, which
was the president's chair, he first showed his oratorical powers in the
discussion of various questions, suggested by the reading of books of
natural history and travels, which was the principal object of the
society.
When at the age of nineteen, the casual dissection of a colmar, a
species of cuttle-fish, induced Cuvier to study the anatomy of the
mollusca; and the examination of some fossil terebratulæ, which had been
dug up near Fécamp, in June, 1791, suggested to him the idea of
comparing fossil with living animals; and thus, as he himself said, "the
germ of his two most important labours--the comparison of fossil with
living species, and the reform of the classification of the animal
kingdom--had their origin at this epoch."
------------------
WATT'S DISCOVERY OF THE COMPOSITION
OF WATER.
A controversy a good many years ago agitated the philosophical world, as
to the discovery of the Composition of Water--whether the merit was due
to Watt or Cavendish. One of Watt's letters, dated May 15th, 1784, seems
to compress the matter into a nutshell. Writing to his friend, Mr. Fry
of Bristol, Mr. Watt says, that "he has had the honour of having had his
ideas pirated;" that Dr. Blagden explained his theory to Lavoisier, at
Paris; that M. Lavoisier soon after invented it himself; and that "since
that, Mr. Cavendish has read a paper to the Royal Society on the same
idea, without making the least mention of me." "The one," he continues,
"is a French financier, and the other a member of the illustrious house
of Cavendish, worth above 100,000_l._ (1,000,000_l._) and does not spend
1000_l._ a year. Rich men may do mean actions; may you and I always
persevere in our integrity, and despise such doings."
Another important point is, that Watt and Cavendish's papers on the
discovery were printed under the sole superintendence of Dr. Blagden,
secretary to the Royal Society; that Mr. Watt's paper is printed with
the _erroneous date of 1784, in place of 1783_, and that the separate
copies of Mr. Cavendish's papers have the _erroneous date of 1783, in
place of 1784_. The obvious effect of these two errors was to give
Cavendish the priority over Watt; whereas, by written testimony, Watt's
theory is proved to have been known to Priestley in 1782.
It is Dr. Blagden's conduct in the matter that has disturbed the current
of scientific history. "It is his testimony," says an able writer in the
_North British Review_, "not appealed to by Cavendish, but gratuitously
offered by himself, that contains the allegation that Cavendish
mentioned to him and others his conclusions. It is his testimony,
gratuitously sent to Crell, that deprives the French chemists,
Lavoisier, Laplace, and Monge, of their due share of honour; and it was
by his acts that erroneous dates and claims were propagated throughout
Europe. Let us impanel, then, a British jury--not of chemists, for their
verdict is given--not of the improvers or manufacturers of
steam-engines, for they might be partial--but of the highest
functionaries of the law, the members of the peerage--let us lay before
them these facts, and then tell them that Blagden received an annuity of
500_l._ from Cavendish; that, at his death, he left him a legacy of
15,000_l._; and we will answer for it, that the testimony of Blagden
will be rejected, and the priority of Watt affirmed."
------------------