,,, LOUIS AGASSIZ. [CHAP. xvm. 



greater men." On the contrary, both would have in- 

 jured their record as exact observers and true savants. 

 Their convictions were based on researches in labora- 

 tories, which had lasted all their long lives, and it would 

 not have been to their honour to give up all the facts 

 they had patiently accumulated, in order to adopt views 

 contrary to what they had seen and observed. Both 

 Cuvier and Agassiz were very honest, and had too high 

 an idea of their priesthood in natural history, not to 

 protest against the acceptation c f theories not fully sus- 

 tained by facts patiently accumulated. Darwin, in a 

 letter to Sedgwick, says, that his volume on the " Origin 

 of Species " was the result of more than twenty years' 

 study, during which he "worked like a slave on the 

 subject." But Cuvier also worked like a slave during 

 forty years, and so did Agassiz. 



Naturalists may be divided into two categories : those 

 who are philosophical naturalists, and those who are, 

 above all, guided by well-observed facts. Philosophers 

 are all dreamers and isolate themselves as much as they 

 can, not only from society, but even from companion- 

 ship with their fellow-workers. Lamarck, although 

 suffering from weakness of the eyes, and finally becom- 

 ing blind, led an isolated life ; he was not sociable even 

 with his colleagues in Paris ; and Pyramus cle Can- 

 dolle, who became his collaborator in the third and 

 fourth edition of his " Flore Franchise," did not affiliate 

 with him at all, while, on the contrary, he was intimate 

 with, and a great admirer of Cuvier. Geoffrey Saint- 

 I I ilaire also became blind. Nauclin was completely deaf. 

 Darwin's constant suffering and complete isolation at 



