CHILDHOOD OF CUVIER.
Cuvier, like Sir Isaac Newton, was born with such a feeble and sickly constitution, that he was scarcely expected to reach the years of manhood. His affectionate mother watched over his varying health, instilled into his mind the first lessons of religion, and had taught him to read fluently before he had completed his fourth year. She made him repeat to her his Latin lessons, though ignorant herself of the language; she conducted him every morning to school; made him practise drawing under her own superintendence, and supplied him with the best works on history and literature. His father had destined him for the army. In the library of the Gymnasium, where he stood at the head of the classes of history, geography, and mathematics, he lighted upon a copy of Gesner's History of Animals and Serpents, with coloured plates; and, about the same time, he had discovered a complete copy of Buffon among the books of one of his relatives. His taste for Natural History now became a passion. He copied the figures which these works contained, and coloured them in conformity with the descriptions; whilst he did not overlook the intellectual beauties of his author.
In the fourteenth year of his age he was appointed president of a society of his schoolfellows, which he was the means of organising, and of which he drew up the rules; and seated on the foot of his bed, which was the president's chair, he first showed his oratorical powers in the discussion of various questions, suggested by the reading of books of natural history and travels, which was the principal object of the society.
When at the age of nineteen, the casual dissection of a colmar, a species of cuttle-fish, induced Cuvier to study the anatomy of the mollusca; and the examination of some fossil terebratulæ, which had been dug up near Fécamp, in June, 1791, suggested to him the idea of comparing fossil with living animals; and thus, as he himself said, "the germ of his two most important labours—the comparison of fossil with living species, and the reform of the classification of the animal kingdom—had their origin at this epoch."
WATT'S DISCOVERY OF THE COMPOSITION
OF WATER.
A controversy a good many years ago agitated the philosophical world, as to the discovery of the Composition of Water—whether the merit was due to Watt or Cavendish. One of Watt's letters, dated May 15th, 1784, seems to compress the matter into a nutshell. Writing to his friend, Mr. Fry of Bristol, Mr. Watt says, that "he has had the honour of having had his ideas pirated;" that Dr. Blagden explained his theory to Lavoisier, at Paris; that M. Lavoisier soon after invented it himself; and that "since that, Mr. Cavendish has read a paper to the Royal Society on the same idea, without making the least mention of me." "The one," he continues, "is a French financier, and the other a member of the illustrious house of Cavendish, worth above 100,000l. (1,000,000l.) and does not spend 1000l. a year. Rich men may do mean actions; may you and I always persevere in our integrity, and despise such doings."
Another important point is, that Watt and Cavendish's papers on the discovery were printed under the sole superintendence of Dr. Blagden, secretary to the Royal Society; that Mr. Watt's paper is printed with the erroneous date of 1784, in place of 1783, and that the separate copies of Mr. Cavendish's papers have the erroneous date of 1783, in place of 1784. The obvious effect of these two errors was to give Cavendish the priority over Watt; whereas, by written testimony, Watt's theory is proved to have been known to Priestley in 1782.
It is Dr. Blagden's conduct in the matter that has disturbed the current of scientific history. "It is his testimony," says an able writer in the North British Review, "not appealed to by Cavendish, but gratuitously offered by himself, that contains the allegation that Cavendish mentioned to him and others his conclusions. It is his testimony, gratuitously sent to Crell, that deprives the French chemists, Lavoisier, Laplace, and Monge, of their due share of honour; and it was by his acts that erroneous dates and claims were propagated throughout Europe. Let us impanel, then, a British jury—not of chemists, for their verdict is given—not of the improvers or manufacturers of steam-engines, for they might be partial—but of the highest functionaries of the law, the members of the peerage—let us lay before them these facts, and then tell them that Blagden received an annuity of 500l. from Cavendish; that, at his death, he left him a legacy of 15,000l.; and we will answer for it, that the testimony of Blagden will be rejected, and the priority of Watt affirmed."