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 majoritys 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 great 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 affair, I answered ; 
