OPINIONS OF CUVIER AND AGASSIZ. 



251 



tccording to the reviewer, to overturn his conclusion by 

 experiments in cross-breeding and the ransacking of an- 

 cient tombs. And they talked contemptuously of la 

 cl&ture du siecle de Cuvier j for which they fall under a 

 reference to the fable of the ass and the dead lion. Now 

 { disclaim all responsibility for the experiments and 

 anguage of the French theories on this subject. But, 

 vhile I respect Cuvier, I must not concede too much 

 tven to his opinion. He was, after all, but a man, with 

 he common liability to prejudices. I would, with ail 

 iue reverence 'or the illustrious baron, remind my re- 

 viewer of an opinion which the former expressed in 

 1826, that a deluge had occurred about six thousand 

 years ago, which broke down and made to disappear the 

 countries which had before been inhabited by men, and 

 the species of animals with which we are best acquaint- 

 ed. Ten years after this belief was expressed by Cuvier, 

 I find Dr. Buckland quietly withdrawing his adherence 

 to it in the Bridgewater Treatise. At this moment it is 

 not supported by a single geologist of the least repute. 

 May not, then, the Baron Cuvier be wrong also in his 

 opinion regarding the development of species ? So much, 

 I trust, may be said without any disparagement to the 

 author of the Regne Animal. The fact is, that the erro- 

 neous and imperfect ideas of great men often become an 

 annoyance, from no fault on their part, but only because 

 the weak and narrow-minded are so apt, afterwards, to 

 seize upon such ideas, and brandish them in the faces of 

 advancing truths. For M. Agassiz I likewise entertain 

 great respect ; but it happens that his liability to error is 

 equally well established. The doctrines which he per- 

 sisted for years in maintaining with respect to the con- 

 stitution and movement of glaciers, are now all but de- 

 serted for the more accurate and philosophical deductions 

 of Professor James Forbes. I may, therefore, receive 

 the intelligence which the Neufchatel philosopher brings 

 me regarding the fossil fish, but be cautious in accepting 

 as an infallible dictum what he is pleased to say on the 

 comparatively profound doctrine of organic development. 

 Professor Owen, whose modesty keeps pace with his 

 fame, will hardly pretend to an infallibility which fails 

 m two such noted instances. Besides, the difficulties 

 which this great anatomist and others have found in 

 sanctioning the development theory, chiefly rest in mis- 



