ill THE RENASCENCE OF SCIENCE 101 



Burgundy in the same year as Linnaeus, whom he 

 survived ten years, dying in 1788. His opinions, 

 clashing as they did with orthodox creeds, were 

 given in a tentative, questioning fashion, so that 

 where ecclesiastical censure fell, retreat was easier. 

 As has been seen in his submission to the Sorbonne, 

 he was not of the stuff of which martyrs are made. 

 Perhaps he felt that the ultimate victory of his 

 opinions was sufficiently assured to make self-sacrifice 

 needless. But, under cover of pretence at enquiry, 

 his convictions are clear enough. He was no be- 

 liever in the permanent stability of species, and 

 noted, as warrant of this, the otherwise unexplained 

 presence of aborted or rudimentary structures. For 

 example, he says, ' The pig does not appear to have 

 been formed upon an original, special, and perfect 

 plan, since it is a compound of other animals ; it has 

 evidently useless parts, or rather, parts of which it 

 cannot make any use, toes, all the bones of which 

 are perfectly formed, and which, nevertheless, are of 

 no service to it. Nature is far from subjecting her- 

 self to final causes in the formation of her creatures.' 

 Then, further, as showing his convictions on the non- 

 fixity of species, he says, how many of them, ' being 

 perfected or degenerated by the great changes in 

 land and sea, by the favours or disfavours of Nature, 

 by food, by the prolonged influences of climate, con- 

 trary or favourable, are no longer what they formerly 

 were.' But he writes with an eye on the Sorbonne 

 when, hinting at a possible common ancestor of 

 horse and ass, and of ape and man, he slyly adds 

 that since the Bible teaches the contrary, the thing 

 cannot be. Thus he attacked covertly; by adit, 



