Henry Beam Piper - "Oomphel in the Sky"

Samuel Adams - "The Original Writings of Samuel Adams, Volume 4"

Duffield Osborne - "The Lion's Brood"

James Hay, Jr. - "The Winning Clue"

Editorial
This paper argues that discourses of love in Ghanaian market literature for youth offer a view into complex negotiations of agency and empowerment. Drawing on Deborah Durham's notion of youth as "social `shifters'" and Francis Nyamnjoh's conception of the "interconnectedness" of agency, I take Ghanaian market literature as one specific case of how African literature for youth foregrounds questions of continuity and change as African societies enter into increasingly complex global relations. In this literature for youth, received notions of love, often constructed out of impressions from American pop and hip hop music, carry new notions of agency that compete with existing "domesticated" forms. Authors like Ike Tandoh and Evelyn Tay employ discourses of love to offer youth alternative avenues for empowerment in a context of socio-economic disenfranchizement. In a creative process of "straddling", this writing both reveals and reproduces the contradictions that obtain in youth configurations of agency.

Lamarck, the Founder of Evolution

A >> Alpheus Spring Packard >> Lamarck, the Founder of Evolution




For one year (1794) he was secretary of the Board of Professors of the
Museum.[43] The records of the meetings from 4 vendemiaire, l'an III.,
until 4 vendemiaire, l'an IV., are each written in his bold, legible
handwriting or signed by him. He signed his name _Lamarck_, this period
being that of the first republic. Afterwards, in the records, his name
is written _De Lamarck_. He was succeeded by E. Geoffroy St. Hilaire,
who signed himself plain _Geoffroy_.

In 1802 he acted as treasurer of the Assembly, and again for a period of
six years, until and including 1811, when he resigned, the reason given
being: "Il s'occupe depuis six ans et que ses travaux et son age lui
rendent penibles."

Lamarck was extremely regular in his attendance at these meetings. From
1793 until 1818 he rarely, if ever, missed a meeting. We have only
observed in the records of this long period the absence of his name on
two or three occasions from the list of those present. During 1818 and
the following year it was his blindness which probably prevented his
regular attendance. July 15, 1818, he was present, and presented the
fifth volume of his _Animaux sans Vertebres_; and August 31, 1819, he
was present[44] and laid before the Assembly the sixth volume of the
same great work.

[Illustration: PORTRAIT OF LAMARCK, WHEN OLD AND BLIND, IN THE COSTUME
OF A MEMBER OF THE INSTITUTE, ENGRAVED IN 1824.]

From the observations of the records we infer that Lamarck never had
any long, lingering illness or suffered from overwork, though his life
had little sunshine or playtime in it. He must have had a strong
constitution, his only infirmity being the terrible one (especially to
an observer of nature) of total blindness.

Lamarck's greatest work in systematic zooelogy would never have been
completed had it not been for the self-sacrificing spirit and devotion
of his eldest daughter.

A part of the sixth and the whole of the last volume of the _Animaux
sans Vertebres_ were presented to the Assembly of Professors
September 10, 1822. This volume was dictated to and written out by one
of his daughters, Mlle. Cornelie De Lamarck. On her the aged savant
leaned during the last ten years of his life--those years of failing
strength and of blindness finally becoming total. The frail woman
accompanied him in his hours of exercise, and when he was confined to
his house she never left him. It is stated by Cuvier, in his eulogy,
that at her first walk out of doors after the end came she was nearly
overcome by the fresh air, to which she had become so unaccustomed. She,
indeed, practically sacrificed her life to her father. It is one of the
rarest and most striking instances of filial devotion known in the
annals of science or literature, and is a noticeable contrast to the
daughters of the blind Milton, whose domestic life was rendered unhappy
by their undutifulness, as they were impatient of the restraint and
labors his blindness had imposed upon them.

Besides this, the seventh volume is a voluminous scientific work, filled
with very dry special details, making the labor of writing out from
dictation, of corrections and preparation for the press, most wearisome
and exhausting, to say nothing of the corrections of the proof-sheets, a
task which probably fell to her--work enough to break down the health of
a strong man.

It was a natural and becoming thing for the Assembly of Professors of
the Museum, in view of the "malheureuse position de la famille," to vote
to give her employment in the botanical laboratory in arranging and
pasting the dried plants, with a salary of 1,000 francs.

Of the last illness of Lamarck, and the nature of the sickness to which
he finally succumbed, there is no account. It is probable that,
enfeebled by the weakness of extreme old age, he gradually sank away
without suffering from any acute disease.

The exact date of his death has been ascertained by Dr. Mondiere,[45]
with the aid of M. Saint-Joanny, archiviste du Department de la Seine,
who made special search for the record. The "acte" states that
December 28, 1829, Lamarck, then a widower, died in the Jardin du Roi,
at the age of eighty-five years.

The obsequies, as stated in the _Moniteur Universel_ of Paris for
December 23, 1829, were celebrated on the Sunday previous in the Church
of Saint-Medard, his parish. From the church the remains were borne to
the cemetery of Montparnasse. At the interment, which took place
December 30, M. Latreille, in the name of the Academy of Sciences, and
M. Geoffroy St. Hilaire, in the name and on behalf of his colleagues,
the Professors of the Museum of Natural History, pronounced eulogies at
the grave. The eulogy prepared by Cuvier, and published after his death,
was read at a session of the Academy of Sciences, by Baron Silvestre,
November 26, 1832.

With the exception of these formalities, the great French naturalist,
"the Linne of France," was buried as one forgotten and unknown. We read
with astonishment, in the account by Dr. A. Mondiere, who made zealous
inquiries for the exact site of the grave of Lamarck, that it is and
forever will be unknown. It is a sad and discreditable, and to us
inexplicable, fact that his remains did not receive decent burial. They
were not even deposited in a separate grave, but were thrown into a
trench apparently situated apart from the other graves, and from which
the bones of those thrown there were removed every five years. They are
probably now in the catacombs of Paris, mingled with those of the
thousands of unknown or paupers in that great ossuary.[46]

Dr. Mondiere's account is as follows. Having found in the _Moniteur_ the
notice of the burial services, as above stated, he goes on to say:

"Armed with this document, I went again to the cemetery of
Montparnasse, where I fortunately found a conservator, M. Lacave,
who is entirely _au courant_ with the question of transformism. He
therefore interested himself in my inquiries, and, thanks to him, I
have been able to determine exactly where Lamarck had been buried. I
say had been, because, alas! he had been simply placed in a _trench
off on one side_ (_fosse a part_), that is to say, one which should
change its occupant at the end of five years. Was it negligence, was
it the jealousy of his colleagues, was it the result of the troubles
of 1830? In brief, there had been no permission granted to purchase
a burial lot. The bones of Lamarck are probably at this moment mixed
with those of all the other unknown which lie there. What had at
first led us into an error is that we made the inquiries under the
name of Lamarck instead of that of de Monnet. In reality, the
register of inscription bears the following mention:

"'De Monnet de Lamarck buried this 20 December 1829 (85 years), 3d
square, 1st division, 2d line, trench 22.'

"At some period later, a friendly hand, without doubt, had written
on the margin of the register the following information:

"'To the left of M. Dassas.'

"M. Lacave kindly went with us to search for the place where Lamarck
had been interred, and on the register we saw this:

"'Dassas, 1st division, 4th line south, No. 6 to the west,
concession 1165-1829.' On arriving at the spot designated, we found
some new graves, but nothing to indicate that of M. Dassas, our only
mark by which we could trace the site after the changes wrought
since 1829. After several ineffectual attempts, I finally perceived
a flat grave, surrounded by an iron railing, and covered with weeds.
Its surface seemed to me very regular, and I probed this lot. There
was a gravestone there. The grave-digger who accompanied us cleared
away the surface, and I confess that it was with the greatest
pleasure and with deep emotion that we read the name Dassas.

[Illustration: POSITION OF THE BURIAL PLACE OF LAMARCK IN THE CEMETERY
OF MONTPARNASSE.]

"We found the place, but unfortunately, as I have previously said,
the remains of Lamarck are no longer there."

Mondiere added to his letter a little plan (p. 59), which he drew on the
spot.[47]

But the life-work of Lamarck and his theory of organic evolution, as
well as the lessons of his simple and noble character, are more durable
and lasting than any monument of stone or brass. His name will never be
forgotten either by his own countrymen or by the world of science and
philosophy. After the lapse of nearly a hundred years, and in this first
year of the twentieth century, his views have taken root and flourished
with a surprising strength and vigor, and his name is preeminent among
the naturalists of his time.

No monument exists in Montparnasse, but within the last decade, though
the reparation has come tardily, the bust of Lamarck may be seen by
visitors to the Jardin des Plantes, on the outer wall of the Nouvelle
Galerie, containing the Museums of Comparative Anatomy, Palaeontology,
and Anthropology.

Although the city of Paris has not yet erected a monument to its
greatest naturalist, some public recognition of his eminent services to
the city and nation was manifested when the Municipal Council of Paris,
on February 10, 1875, gave the name Lamarck to a street.[48] This is a
long and not unimportant street on the hill of Montmartre in the XVIII^e
_arrondissement_, and in the zone of the old stone or gypsum quarries
which existed before Paris extended so far out in that direction, and
from which were taken the fossil remains of the early tertiary mammals
described by Cuvier.

The city of Toulouse has also honored itself by naming one of its
streets after Lamarck; this was due to the proposal of Professor Emile
Cartailhac to the Municipal Council, which voted to this effect May 12,
1886.

In the meetings of the Assembly of Professors no one took the trouble to
prepare and enter minutes, however brief and formal, relative to his
decease. The death of Lamarck is not even referred to in the
_Proces-verbaux_. This is the more marked because there is an entry in
the same records for 1829, and about the same date, of an extraordinary
_seance_ held November 19, 1829, when "the Assembly" was convoked to
take measures regarding the death of Professor Vauquelin relative to the
choice of a candidate, Chevreul being elected to fill his chair.

Lamarck's chair was at his death divided, and the two professorships
thus formed were given to Latreille and De Blainville.

At the session of the Assembly of Professors held December 8, 1829,
Geoffroy St. Hilaire sent in a letter to the Assembly urging that the
department of invertebrate animals be divided into two, and referred to
the bad state of preservation of the insects, the force of assistants to
care for these being insufficient. He also, in his usual tactful way,
referred to the "_complaisance extreme de la parte de M. De Lamarck_" in
1793, in assenting to the reunion in a single professorship of the mass
of animals then called "_insectes et vermes_."

The two successors of the chair held by Lamarck were certainly not
dilatory in asking for appointments. At a session of the Professors held
December 22, 1829, the first meeting after his death, we find the
following entry: "M. Latreille ecrit pour exprimer son desir d'etre
presente comme candidat a la chaire vacante par le deces de M. Lamarck
et pour rappeler ses titres a cette place."

M. de Blainville also wrote in the same manner: "Dans le cas que la
chaire serait divisee, il demande la place de Professeur de l'histoire
des animaux inarticules. Dans le cas contraire il se presente egalement
comme candidat, voulant, tout en respectant les droits acquis, ne pas
laisser dans l'oubli ceux qui lui appartiennent."

January 12, 1830, Latreille[49] was unanimously elected by the Assembly
a candidate to the chair of entomology, and at a following session
(February 16th) De Blainville was unanimously elected a candidate for
the chair of _Molluscs, Vers et Zoophytes_, and on the 16th of March the
royal ordinance confirming those elections was received by the Assembly.

There could have been no fitter appointments made for those two
positions. Lamarck had long known Latreille "and loved him as a son." De
Blainville honored and respected Lamarck, and fully appreciated his
commanding abilities as an observer and thinker.


FOOTNOTES:

[40] I have been unable to ascertain the names of any of his wives, or
of his children, except his daughter, Cornelie.

[41] "L'examen minutieux de petits animaux, analyses a l'aide
d'instruments grossissants, fatigua, puis affaiblait, sa vue. Bientot il
fut complement aveugle. Il passa les dix derniers annees de sa vie
plonge dans les tenebres, entoure des soins de ses deux tilles, a l'une
desquelles il dictait le dernier volume de son _Histoire des Animaux
sans Vertebres_."--_Le Transformiste Lamarck_, _Bull. Soc.
Anthropologie_, xii., 1889, p. 341. Cuvier, also, in his history of the
progress of natural science for 1819, remarks: "M. de La Marck, malgre
l'affoiblissement total de sa vue, poursuit avec un courage inalterable
la continuation de son grand ouvrage sur les animaux sans vertebres"
(p. 406).

[42] Louis Auguste Guillaume Bosc, born in Paris, 1759; died in 1828.
Author of now unimportant works, entitled: _Histoire Naturelle des
Coquilles_ (1801); _Hist. Nat. des Vers_ (1802); _Hist. Nat. des
Crustaces_ (1828), and papers on insects and plants. He was associated
with Lamarck in the publication of the _Journal d'Histoire Naturelle_.
During the Reign of Terror in 1793 he was a friend of Madame Roland, was
arrested, but afterwards set free and placed first on the Directory in
1795. In 1798 he sailed for Charleston, S. C. Nominated successively
vice-consul at Wilmington and consul at New York, but not obtaining his
exequatur from President Adams, he went to live with the botanist
Michaux in Carolina in his botanical garden, where he devoted himself to
natural history until the quarrel in 1800 between the United States and
France caused him to return to France. On his return he sent North
American insects to his friends Fabricius and Olivier, fishes to
Lacepede, birds to Daudin, reptiles to Latreille. Not giving all his
time to public life, he devoted himself to natural history,
horticulture, and agriculture, succeeding Thouin in the chair of
horticulture, where he was most usefully employed until his
death.--(Cuvier's _Eloge_.)

[43] The first director of the Board or Assembly of
Professors-administrative of the Museum was Daubenton, Lacepede being
the secretary, Thouin the treasurer. Daubenton was succeeded by Jussieu;
and Lacepede, first by Desfontaines and afterwards by Lamarck, who was
elected secretary 18 fructidor, an II. (1794).

[44] His attendance this year was infrequent. July 10, 1820, he was
present and made a report relative to madrepores and molluscs. In the
summer of 1821 he attended several of the meetings. August 7, 1821, he
was present, and referred to the collection of shells of Struthiolaria.
He was present May 23d and June 9th, when it was voted that he should
enjoy the garden of the house he occupied and that a chamber should be
added to his lodgings. He was frequent in attendance this year,
especially during the summer months. He attended a few meetings at
intervals in 1822, 1823, and only twice in 1824.

At a meeting held April 19, 1825, he was present, and, stating that his
condition did not permit him to lecture, asked to have Audouin take his
place, as Latreille's health did not allow him to take up the work. The
next week (26th) he was likewise present. On May 10 he was present, as
also on June 28, October 11, and also through December, 1825. His last
appearance at these business meetings was on July 11, 1828.

[45] See, for the _Acte de deces_, _L'Homme_, iv. p. 289, and _Lamarck.
Par un Groupe de Transformistes_, etc., p. 24.

[46] Dr. Mondiere in _L'Homme_, iv. p. 291, and _Lamarck. Par un Groupe
de Transformistes_, p. 271. A somewhat parallel case is that of Mozart,
who was buried at Vienna in the common ground of St. Marx, the exact
position of his grave being unknown. There were no ceremonies at his
grave, and even his friends followed him no farther than the city gates,
owing to a violent storm.--(_The Century Cyclopedia of Names._)

[47] Still hoping that the site of the grave might have been kept open,
and desiring to satisfy myself as to whether there was possibly space
enough left on which to erect a modest monument to the memory of
Lamarck, I took with me the _brochure_ containing the letter and plan of
Dr. Mondiere to the cemetery of Montparnasse. With the aid of one of the
officials I found what he told me was the site, but the entire place was
densely covered with the tombs and grave-stones of later interments,
rendering the erection of a stone, however small and simple, quite out
of the question.

[48] The Rue Lamarck begins at the elevated square on which is situated
the Church of the Sacre-Coeur, now in process of erection, and from this
point one obtains a commanding and very fine view overlooking the city;
from there the street curves round to the westward, ending in the Avenue
de Saint-Ouen, and continues as a wide and long thoroughfare, ending to
the north of the cemetery of Montmartre. A neighboring street, Rue
Becquerel, is named after another French savant, and parallel to it is a
short street named Rue Darwin.

[49] Latreille was born at Brives, November 29, 1762, and died
February 6, 1833. He was the leading entomologist of his time, and to
him Cuvier was indebted for the arrangement of the insects in the _Regne
Animal_. His bust is to be seen on the same side of the Nouvelle Galerie
in the Jardin des Plantes as those of Lamarck, Cuvier, De Blainville,
and D'Orbigny. His first paper was introduced by Lamarck in 1792. In the
minutes of the session of 4 thermidor, l'an VI. (July, 1798), we find
this entry: "The citizen Lamarck announces that the citizen Latreille
offered to the administration to work under the direction of that
professor in arranging the very numerous collection of insects of the
Museum, so as to place them under the eye of the public." And here he
remained until his appointment. Several years (1825) before Lamarck's
death he had asked to have Latreille fill his place in giving
instruction.

Audouin (1797-1841), also an eminent entomologist and morphologist, was
appointed _aide-naturaliste-adjoint_ in charge of Mollusca, Crustacea,
Worms, and Zooephytes. He was afterwards associated with H. Milne Edwards
in works on annelid worms. December 26, 1827, Latreille asked to be
allowed to employ Boisduval as a _preparateur_; he became the author of
several works on injurious insects and Lepidoptera.




CHAPTER VI

POSITION IN THE HISTORY OF SCIENCE; OPINIONS OF HIS CONTEMPORARIES AND
SOME LATER BIOLOGISTS


De Blainville, a worthy successor of Lamarck, in his posthumous book,
_Cuvier et Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire_, pays the highest tribute to his
predecessor, whose position as the leading naturalist of his time he
fully and gratefully acknowledges, saying: "Among the men whose lectures
I have had the advantage of hearing, I truly recognize only three
masters, M. de Lamarck, M. Claude Richard, and M. Pinel" (p. 43). He
also speaks of wishing to write the scientific biographies of Cuvier and
De Lamarck, the two zooelogists of this epoch whose lectures he most
frequently attended and whose writings he studied, and "who have
exercised the greatest influence on the zooelogy of our time" (p. 42).
Likewise in the opening words of the preface he refers to the rank taken
by Lamarck:

"The aim which I have proposed to myself in my course on the
principles of zooelogy demonstrated by the history of its progress
from Aristotle to our time, and consequently the plan which I have
followed to attain this aim, have very naturally led me, so to
speak, in spite of myself, to signalize in M. de Lamarck the
expression of one of those phases through which the science of
organization has to pass in order to arrive at its last term before
showing its true aim. From my point of view this phase does not seem
to me to have been represented by any other naturalist of our time,
whatever may have been the reputation which he made during his
life."

He then refers to the estimation in which Lamarck was held by Auguste
Comte, who, in his _Cours de Philosophie Positive_, has anticipated and
even surpassed himself in the high esteem he felt for "the celebrated
author of the _Philosophie Zoologique_."

The eulogy by Cuvier, which gives most fully the details of the early
life of Lamarck, and which has been the basis for all the subsequent
biographical sketches, was unworthy of him. Lamarck had, with his
customary self-abnegation and generosity, aided and favored the young
Cuvier in the beginning of his career,[50] who in his _Regne Animal_
adopted the classes founded by Lamarck. Thoroughly convinced of the
erroneous views of Cuvier in regard to cataclysms, he criticised and
opposed them in his writings in a courteous and proper way without
directly mentioning Cuvier by name or entering into any public debate
with him.

When the hour came for the great comparative anatomist and
palaeontologist, from his exalted position, to prepare a tribute to the
memory of a naturalist of equal merit and of a far more thoughtful and
profound spirit, to be read before the French Academy of Sciences, what
a eulogy it was--as De Blainville exclaims, _et quel eloge_! It was not
printed until after Cuvier's death, and then, it is stated, portions
were omitted as not suitable for publication.[51] This is, we believe,
the only stain on Cuvier's life, and it was unworthy of the great man.
In this _eloge_, so different in tone from the many others which are
collected in the three volumes of Cuvier's eulogies, he indiscriminately
ridicules all of Lamarck's theories. Whatever may have been his
condemnation of Lamarck's essays on physical and chemical subjects, he
might have been more reserved and less dogmatic and sarcastic in his
estimate of what he supposed to be the value of Lamarck's views on
evolution. It was Cuvier's adverse criticisms and ridicule and his
anti-evolutional views which, more than any other single cause, retarded
the progress of biological science and the adoption of a working theory
of evolution for which the world had to wait half a century.

It even appears that Lamarck was in part instrumental in inducing Cuvier
in 1795 to go to Paris from Normandy, and become connected with the
Museum. De Blainville relates that the Abbe Tessier met the young
zooelogist at Valmont near Fecamp, and wrote to Geoffroy that "he had
just discovered in Normandy a pearl," and invited him to do what he
could to induce Cuvier to come to Paris. "I made," said Geoffroy, "the
proposition to my _confreres_, but I was supported, and only feebly, by
M. de Lamarck, who slightly knew M. Cuvier as the author of a memoir on
entomology."

The eulogy pronounced by Geoffroy St. Hilaire over the remains of his
old friend and colleague was generous, sympathetic, and heartfelt.

"Yes [he said, in his eloquent way], for us who knew M. de Lamarck,
whom his counsels have guided, whom we have found always
indefatigable, devoted, occupied so willingly with the most
difficult labors, we shall not fear to say that such a loss leaves
in our ranks an immense void. From the blessings of such a life, so
rich in instructive lessons, so remarkable for the most generous
self-abnegation, it is difficult to choose.

"A man of vigorous, profound ideas, and very often admirably
generalized, Lamarck conceived them with a view to the public good.
If he met, as often happened, with great opposition, he spoke of it
as a condition imposed on every one who begins a reform. Moreover,
the great age, the infirmities, but especially the grievous
blindness of M. de Lamarck had reserved for him another lot. This
great and strong mind could enjoy some consolation in knowing the
judgment of posterity, which for him began in his own lifetime. When
his last tedious days, useless to science, had arrived, when he had
ceased to be subjected to rivalry, envy and passion became
extinguished and justice alone remained. De Lamarck then heard
impartial voices, the anticipated echo of posterity, which would
judge him as history will judge him. Yes, the scientific world has
pronounced its judgment in giving him the name of 'the French
Linne,' thus linking together the two men who have both merited a
triple crown by their works on general natural history, zooelogy and
botany, and whose names, increasing in fame from age to age, will
both be handed down to the remotest posterity."[52]

Also in his _Etudes sur la Vie, les Ouvrages, et les Doctrines de
Buffon_ (1838), Geoffroy again, with much warmth of affection, says:

"Attacked on all sides, injured likewise by odious ridicule,
Lamarck, too indignant to answer these cutting epigrams, submitted
to the indignity with a sorrowful patience.... Lamarck lived a long
while poor, blind, and forsaken, but not by me; I shall ever love
and venerate him."[53]

Copyright (c) 2007. topboookz.com. All rights reserved.