GOETHE AND ST. HILAIRE. • 87 



Cuvier was the most decided opponent of these views, 

 and according to what we have seen, it could not be 

 otherwise. He endeavoured to show that the nature- 

 philosophers had no right to rear such comprehensive con- 

 clusions on the basis of the empirical knowledge then 

 possessed, and that the unity of organization — or plan of 

 structure of organisms — as maintained by them, did not 

 exist. He represented the teleological (dualistic) concep- 

 tion of nature, and maintained that " the immutability of 

 species was a necessary condition for the existence of a 

 scientific history of nature." Cuvier had the great advan- 

 tage over his opponent, that he was able to bring towards 

 the proof of his assertions things obvious to the eye ; these, 

 however, were only individual facts taken out of their con- 

 nection with others. Geoffroy was not able to prove the 

 higher and general connection of individual phenomena 

 which he maintained, by equally tangible details. Hence 

 Cuvier, in the eyes of the majority, gained the victory, and 

 decided the defeat of the nature-philosophy and the 

 supremacy of the strictly empiric tendency for the next 

 thirty years. 



Goethe of course supported Geoffroy's views. How deeply 

 interested he was, even in his 81st year, in this gi'eat contest 

 is proved by the following anecdote related by Soret : — 



" Monday, Aug. 2nd, 1830. — The news of the outbreak of 

 the revolution of July arrived in Weimar to-day, and has 

 caused general excitement. In the course of the afternoon 

 I went to Goethe. * Well ? ' he exclaimed as I entered, 

 ' what do you think of this great event ? The volcano has 

 burst forth, all is in flames, and there are no more negotia- 

 tions behind closed doors.' * A dreadful afl^air,' I answered ; 



