44l> 



SIKVKS 



HIGILLARIA 



clerical i-:illin^ by the weakness of hi- health. He 

 studied theology at Saint-Sulpice, where his origin- 

 ality aiul Ixildness of speculation caused no small 

 inisgh ing ID his masters, and completed his course 

 nt the seminary of Saint- Firniin. He became canon 

 iu the diocese of Treguier ( 1775), next chancellor 

 and vicar-general of the diocese of Chartres, ami 

 was sent by the latter to the Chambre Superieure 

 of the Clergy of France. Between the dissolution 

 of the Assembly of Notables and the reunion of i In- 

 Constituent Assembly be published three fannnis 

 pamphlets which carried his name over the length 

 .mil breadth of France : Vues siir let Moyetis <PExt.- 

 ml ion (1788), Essai sur la Privileges (1788), and, 

 the most famous of all, Qu'est-ce que le Tiers-tint 

 (January 1789). His answer to the last question 

 was ' Everything ; ' ' What has it been hitherto ? ' 

 was his next question; its answer, 'Nothing.' 

 'What does it desire to be?' 'Something.' He 

 was elected one of the deputies for Paris, and it 

 was on his motion (June 10, 1789) that the tiers- 

 etat sent a final invitation to the noblesse and 

 clergy to join them, witli the intimation that if 

 they refused they would constitute themselves into 

 the States-general. Seven days later the National 

 Assembly was formed, the name being due to the 

 suggestion of Sieyes. After Miraliean made his 

 memorable answer to the king's messenger, the 

 Marquis de Dreux-Brez6 (June 23), Sieyes re- 

 assured the members with the characteristically 

 quiet words, ' Gentlemen, you are to-day what you 

 were yesterday. ' The deadly enemy of privilege, 

 cold, inflexible, fearless in logic and trenchant in 

 phrase, Sieyes gained great influence, and the 

 division of France into departments for adminis- 

 trative purposes, declared in the last two months 

 of 1789, was mainly his work. He took part in 

 the memorable declaration of the Righto of Man 

 (August 26, 1789), and opposed the royal veto, 

 during the great debate on which question Mira- 

 beaii invoked the counsel of Sieyes as that of a 

 man ' whose silence and inaction I regard as a 

 public calamity.' But he kept aloof from Mira- 

 beaa's alliance, omiosing his policy alike in the last 

 measure and in his refusal to the Assembly of the 

 right of nominating the Regent in the event of the 

 king's death. He was elected to the National 

 Convention, satin the centre, voted for the king's 

 death sans phrase (though he afterwards denied 

 adding these words to the one word mart) ; but as 

 the Revolution grew sank into 'philosophic silence,' 

 lii- heart filled with disdain alike at its illogical 

 excesses and the bombastic rhetoric of its leadeis. 

 Asked long afterwards what he had done during 

 the Terror, he is said t<> have replied, 'J'ai vecu. 

 He opposed the new constitution of Year III. 

 ( 1795), and declined a seat on the Directory named 

 by the new Corps Legislatif, which entered on its 

 functions on the 27th October of that year, but had a 

 share in the coup d'etat of 3d September 1797 ( 17th 

 Fructidor). In 1798 he went on mission to Berlin, 

 was elected to the Directory in 1799, and now, like 

 Karras a traitor to the Republic, he plunged into a 

 \veli of dark intrigues with a view to find a soldier 

 who would be content to be an instrument Bona- 

 parte returned from Egypt on Octol>er 25, 1799, 

 and together they plottert the revolution of the 18th 

 Brumairt; ( November 9, 1799), 'the result of which 

 was the institution of the Consulate of Sieyes, 

 Bonaparte, ami Roger Ducos. Once more he drew 

 upon his skill as a Cramer of constitutions, his final 

 effort being a masterpiece of complexity beyond 

 the calculating machine of Pascal, its aim to break 

 the force of democracy by dividing it, to triumph 

 over the passions of men by cunningly balancing 

 them the mie against the other. But he soon dis- 

 covered in his new ally a master. Finding himself 

 befooled by Bonaparte, he threw up hia consulship 



in disgust, his last illusion shattered for ever. His 

 fall was somewhat gilded over by the title of 

 ( 'mint, a stun of (ioo.iMKi francs, and the estate of 

 Crosne. The presidency of the senate was offered 

 liim later, but declined. He wrapped himself in 

 morose meditations during the Empire, tilled with 

 silent irony and scorn for that humanity which 

 had so little realised his views. Exiled at the 

 I Restoration, he lived in ISelgium for fifteen years, 

 returned in 1830, and after a long illness in which 

 his mind often wandered to the Terror and the 

 sinister name of Robespierre, died at Paris, June 

 20, 1836. 



The influence of Sieyes upon the Revolution is 

 clear enough, but the man remains wrapped in 

 shadow. Hi- was reserved and solitary from his 

 \ until, but we may write over against this that 

 lie was passionately fond of music, and that a 

 woman once said of him, 'Quel dommage qu'iin 

 hmmiie si aimable ait voulu et re profond ! ' He 

 believed absolutely in the infallibility of his own 

 attractions : ' Polity is a science I have com- 

 pleted,' he said to Dumont. Rigorous in every- 

 thing in nothing more than in the closeness of 

 the oond lietween logic and language he would 

 have reduced to a merciless and inflexible system 

 every aspiration of mankind. But he revealed a 

 fundamental want of insight into the nature of 

 man in thinking that masses of men could ever 

 be governed by bare reason alone. For human 

 nature remains much more complex than the 

 subtlest calculations, the factors in the process 

 obscure, the conclusion still uncertain. Sieyes 

 was himself a creature all head, to the complete 

 exclusion of heart, exactly what he wanted his 

 human puppets to be, and the end of all his schem- 

 ing was discomfiture and a name in history to 

 inspire respect, not sympathy. 



See K. de Beauverger (1851), .Mignet's Notice* hit- 

 tnriquti sur Sityit (1853), Sainte-Beuve's Cauteriei du 

 Ln ndi ( vol. v. ), and a work on Sieyi-s by Bigeon ( 1894 ). 



Sigfried. See NIBELUNGENLIED. 



Sight. For the organ of sight, its anatomy, 



g'nsiology, defects, and diseases, see EVE ; also 

 LIND, COLOUR-BLINDNESS, OPTICS. For the 

 theory of vision, see VISION. 



Siujlliiria (Lnt siijillum, 'a seal'), a family 

 of fossil plants, which ranges from the Devonian to 

 the Permian system, but is more es|>ecially abund- 

 ant in Carboniferous strata. The plants hod 

 slender, pillar-like trunks, some of which attained 

 a diameter of 5 feet and were proportionately tall, 

 reaching a height of 50 to 70 feet. Towards the 

 top they branched dichotomously several times. 

 The columnar stems are ribl>ed and fluted longi- 

 tudinally in a very regular manner, the flutings 

 l>eing marked by rows or whorls of scars left by 

 fallen leaves. The form of these seal-like scars is 

 very variable, but they are all so arranged that 

 the scars of each horizontal row are placed in the 

 intervals between the scars of the rows immedi- 

 ately above and below. The thick dichotomous 

 branches of the tree were clothed with long grass- 

 like leaves. The fruit is still unknown, some 

 liotanisto supposing that Sigillaria had cones like 

 those of lycopods, while others think it probable 

 that the fruit resembled that of yew-trees. The 

 structure of the stem is peculiar : the external 

 rind or coat is hard, beneath that is a great thick- 

 ness of cellular tissue traversed by rope-like bands 

 of fibres forming an inner bark, while in the centre 

 is a comparatively small lirm woody axis. The 

 roots usually start from the stem in four main 

 branches, which divide dichotomously several times, 

 and then extend for long distances like great 

 cylindrical cables, which, Sir W. Dawson considers, 

 were intended to anchor the tree firmly in soft and 



