[This electronic text was prepared by Ian Johnston, originally formatted for the Victorian Web c. 2001 by John van Wyhe, and reformatted by George P. Landow in 2012.]
ART. XIII. Essay on the Theory
of the Earth: Translated from the French of M. CUVIER, In giving to the treatise here announced
the name of an Essay on the Theory of the Earth, the Editor has taken
a liberty that is certainly not warranted by the original. The title of the
French work makes no mention whatever of the theory of the earth. The fact is,
that M. CUVIER having published, in the Annales de Museum, a succession of memoirs
on the fossil remains of animals found in the strata around Paris, (of which
an account was given in the 20th vol. of this Journal), was very naturally led
to extend an inquiry, that became ever moment more interesting, to the fossil
remains of land animals, wherever they had been found. His subject being thus
enlarged, he has united the parts of a most ingenious and laborious investigation,
in one work, comprehending four volumes in quarto, under the title of Recherches
sur les Ossemens Fossiles des Quadrupedes. To this valuable and interesting
book he has prefixed a Dissertation, (Discours Preliminaire), the same that
appears here as an Essay on the Theory of the Earth. We are not sure that the
author himself will be very thankful for this change of appellation. The preliminary
discourse is a general view of the conclusions derived from certain animal remains,
compared with the mineral beds in which they are contained, and with the principles
of comparative anatomy. This subject, though of great importance, and of no
small extent, is yet of too limited a nature to be regarded as a theory of the
earth. A name that would have more exactly described the work, without departing
from the conciseness essential to a title-page, might easily have been devised.
Considerations, for instance, on the Fossil Remains of Quadrupeds,
would have been a title much more appropriate.
This translation has been made with
singular expedition. The work was received about the middle of last summer;
and the translation made its appearance in the beginning of winter. It seems,
notwithstanding this haste, to be executed not only with fidelity, but with
some degree of elegance; and the editor, Professor Jameson, has added notes,
besides giving a very distinct and concise view of Cuvier's principal geological
discoveries, which cannot fail to be very acceptable to those who have not an
opportunity of perusing the large work and which will be found very useful by
those who have.
The Dissertation begins with a sketch
of the present condition of the earth's surface. It is known, that the lowest
and most level parts of that surface, when pierced to a great depth, exhibit
horizontal strata of rock, composed of different materials; and, in particular,
abounding with marine productions. Similar strata compose the hills even to
a great height. The shells are often so numerous, as nearly to constitute the
main body of the strata; and sometimes in so perfect a state, that their most
delicate parts are completely preserved, their sharpest ridges, and their finest
processes. The levels on which they are now found, are far above that of the
ocean, and at heights to which the sea could not reach by the action of any
known cause. Every part of the earth, every continent, and every island, exhibits
the same phenomenon. We are therefore unavoidably led to conclude, that the
sea, at one period or another, has covered all our plains, and has remained
there for a long time in a state of tranquillity. The latter circumstance was
necessary for the formation of deposits so regular and extensive as those in
which many of the marine exuviaeare contained.
The traces of revolution become
still more apparent when we ascend a little higher, and approach nearer to the
great chains of mountains. Beds of shells are still found in these situations,
quite as numerous also, and as well preserved, but not of the same species with
those in the less elevated regions. The beds which contain them, are not in
general horizontal, but are often highly inclined, and sometimes even vertical.
In the plains and low hills it was necessary to dig deep, in order to discover
the succession of the strata; but here we perceive it by means of the valleys
which slow or violent action has produced, and which disclose the edges of the
strata to the eye of the observer.
These inclined or vertical strata,
though on a higher level, do not rest on the horizontal strata of the plains,
but, on the contrary, are situated under them. The level are in fact placed
on the declivities of the inclined strata; and when we dig through the horizontal
strata in the neighbourhood of the inclined, these last are invariably found
below the other. Sometimes, indeed, the summits of the inclined strata are surmounted
by the horizontal, and the former are therefore of more ancient formation than
the latter. Having, however, been formed, as they must necessarily have been,
in a horizontal position, they have been subsequently shifted into their inclined
or vertical situation, and that too before the horizontal strata were placed
above them.
The sea, therefore, previous to
the formation of the horizontal strata, had formed others, which by some means
had been broken, lifted up, and disturbed in a thousand ways. This second result
is not less obvious, nor less clearly demonstrated, than the first.
Amid the changes which have thus
happened, both to the sea and the strata it had deposited, it was hardly possible
that the same species of animals should continue to live. Accordingly, not only
the species, but even the genera, change with the strata. The
shells in the more ancient formations have figures peculiar to themselves; and
they gradually disappear, till they are not to be found at all in the more recent
beds, and still less in the seas which now exist. On the contrary, the shells
of the recent strata resemble those which still exist in the sea, and in such
a degree as to appear of the same genera. Indeed, in the last formed
of these strata, there are some species which the eye of the most exert naturalist
cannot distinguish from some of those which at present inhabit the ocean.
Hence it is reasonable to conclude,
that a succession of changes in animal natures has taken place, corresponding
no doubt to that in the chemical properties of the fluid which they inhabited.
When the sea last receded from our Continent, its inhabitants were not very
different from those which it continues to support.
When we ascend to point of still
greater elevation, and advance towards the summits of the highest mountains,
the remains of marine animals grow more rare, and at length disappear entirely.
We arrive at strata of a different nature, which contain no vestiges at all
of living creatures: Nevertheless the crystallization, and many other characters
of these rocks, show that they have been formed in a fluid; their inclined position
and their slopes, show that they have been moved and overturned; and the oblique
manner in which they sink underthe shelly strata, shows that they have
been formed before them. We are thus brought to the primitive or primordial
mountains, which traverse our continents in various directions, forming as it
were the skeleton of frame work of the globe.
In the disposition of these rocks,
a certain degree of order and regularity is observed to prevail, insomuch that
wherever the more recent strata have been dug through, and the external crust
of the earth penetrated to a considerable depth, the same order of stratification
is generally found. The crystallized marbles never cover the shelly strata,
and the granite mass never rests on the crystallized marble. This arrangement
is never inverted, and, though some members of the series may be wanting, there
is no instance in which, were they are present, they do not preserve nearly
the same place relatively to one another.
It is impossible, therefore, to
deny that the waters of the sea have formerly, and for a long time, covered
those masses of matter which now constitute our highest mountains; and farther,
that these waters, for along time, did not support any living thing.
After this sketch of the natural
history of the globe for the ages that are past, CUVIER proceeds to examine
the changes which are happening at present on the surface of the earth. There
are, says he, four causes in full activity, which contribute to change the condition
of the earth's surface. These are, the rains and thaws which wear down the steep
mountains, and occasion their fragments to collect at their bottoms;--the streams
of water which sweep away these fragments, and deposit them when their current
is abated;--the sea, which undermines the foundations of the more elevated coasts,
and throws up hillocks of sand where the shore is flat;--and finally volcanoes,
which pierce through the most solid strata, and either elevate or scatter abroad
the vast quantity of matter which they force up from below.
These are the different causes of
change, the effects of which our author endeavours briefly to trace and to estimate.
He seems to consider them, on the whole, as but of small amount, and as inadequate
to produce those changes which have undoubtedly taken place over the face of
the earth.
He next treats of the astronomical
causes of revolution on the surface of the Earth; such as, the change in the
position of the Earth's axis; in the obliquity of the Ecliptic; the rapidity
of the Earth's rotation, &c. These he considers, and we believe justly,
as unsupported by evidence from facts, or from the principles of physical astronomy.
To this general remark, we would only beg leave to offer one exception, derived
from the spheroidal figure of the Earth. Many circumstances make it probable,
that this figure, now so nearly adjusted to that which the centrifugal force,
arising from rotation on its axis, would have given to a fluid mass of the magnitude
and mean density of the earth, has been acquired by the slow progress and alternation
of the waste, and renovation of the strata which compose the earth. If this
be true, the original figure of the earth may have been extremely unlike the
present; it may have been vastly irregular; and in the course of the changes
which it has undergone, the axis of rotation may have changed its position,
and have passed through a series of variations, that may have affected the distribution
of the waters on the surface of the earth, the proportions of heat and cold,
and the characters of the animals that inhabited the ocean.
Such causes, however, are not considered
by our author as sufficient to explain those changes in the animal kingdom which
he has done so much to ascertain. "The irruptions," says he,"
of the sea, and its retreats, have neither been slow nor gradual; the catastrophes
have been sudden: And this is easily proved, especially with regard to the last
of them, the traces of which are most conspicuous. In the northern regions,
it has left the carcases of some large quadruped which the ice had arrested,
and which are preserved, even to the present day, with their skin, their hair,
and their flesh. If they had not been frozen as soon as killed, they must quickly
have been decomposed by putrefaction; but this eternal frost could not have
taken possession of the regions which these animals inhabited, except by the
same cause which destroyed them. This cause must therefore have been as sudden
as its effect. The breaking to pieces and overturnings of the strata which happened
in former catastrophes, show, plainly enough, that they were sudden and violent
like the last; and the heaps of debrisand rounded pebbles which are
found in various places among the solid strata, demonstrate the vast force of
the motions excited in the mass of waters by these overturnings."
Nothing is more certain, than that
all the changes which we discover on examining the interior of the earth, are
not to be ascribed to such slow operating causes as are now at work on the surface.
Of this truth we are fully convinced, though we are perhaps disposed to ascribe
much more to those causes than the French naturalist is willing to allow. "The
necessity," he observes, "to which naturalists have been reduced,
of seeking for causes different from those which we still observe in activity,
is the very thing which has forced them to make so many extraordinary suppositions,
and to lose themselves in so many erroneous and contradictory speculations,
that the very name of their science, as I have elsewhere said, has become ridiculous
in the opinion of prejudiced persons, who, only seeing the systems which it
has exploded, forget the extensive and important series of facts which it has
brought to light and established." The author takes occasion, in a
note, to explain the opinion to which he here alludes.
"When I formerly mentioned,"
says he, "the science of geology, I only expressed a well known truth,
without presuming to give my own opinion, as some respectable geologists seem
to have believed. If their mistake arose from my expressions having been rather
equivocal, I take this opportunity of explaining my meaning." We have great pleasure in meeting
with this explanation; for we had indeed supposed that CUVIER, in the passage
here referred to, was subscribing to the opinion which he expressed; and were
sorry to think that a science, of which we thought favourably, notwithstanding
the mistakes into which its followers had often fallen, should have come under
the censure of a critic so judicious and well informed. We are glad to find
that in this respect we were mistaken.
"Whence comes it," (says
he) that there should be so much contrariety in the solutions of the same
problem given by men who proceed on the same principles? This may have been
occasioned by the conditions of the problem never having been all taken into
consideration, by which it has remained hitherto undetermined, and susceptible
of many solutions, all equally good, when such and such conditions are abstracted,
and all equally gad, when a new condition comes to be known, or when the attention
has been directed to some known condition which had been before neglected.
For our part, though we see in all
geological systems great defects, and in some of them great absurdities, we
cannot but think that they are steps by which men have approximated, and are
gradually approximating to the truth. The discovery that a theory is erroneous,
brings us nearer to that which is right; and by successive exclusions, we advance
gradually to the truth. Philosophy affords but few instances where opinion has
settled on what is right, before it had wandered through all the suppositions
that are wrong.
It has been already mentioned, as
one of our author's general positions, that the cause of the destruction of
the animals of which the remains are now so curiously preserved, has been something
of sudden and instantaneous operation. Of this, however, we do not think that
the proof is quite satisfactory; and though the thing may be true in some instances,
we believe that in far the greater number it cannot be admitted. The rhinoceros,
of which the skeleton with some parts of the muscles and the hide, was found
near the banks of the Lena, must no doubt have been frozen soon after its death,
otherwise the fleshy parts could not have escaped corruption. the same may be
said of the great carcase recently discovered, included in a mass of ice on
the shores of the Frozen Ocean. Some local catastrophe may have overwhelmed
these, and perhaps a great number of other animals; but we cannot suppose that
it has extended to those of which the remains are found in the alluvial beds
all over the world. These are so numerous, they are so far scattered, and have
so little to do with the effects of ice as a preservative, that we cannot suppose
the cases to be similar. The quantity of the fossil bones, is in many instances
too great to proceed from the animals of one generation; and must have been
supplied from those of many ages, which have fed successively on the banks of
the great rivers, and of which the bones have been buried in the mud and sand,
thrown out by these rivers on their banks.
That local inundations, or catastrophes,
have been very frequent, will be easily admitted, if we ascribe them to the
depression of the land, rather than the rising of the sea. The change of the
level of the sea, infers a change of level over the whole of its surface; that
of the land extends no farther than a particular country. The latter is, of
the two, the hypothesis far the best calculated to resolve the enigmas of the
mineral kingdom.
The next object, is to show that
there is little probability of discovering any new species among the larger
quadrupeds now living. It is shown, also, that the larger animals of the old
continent, were all well known to the ancients: the observations on this subject,
as well as on the fabulous animals of antiquity, are highly interesting, and
full of learning and ingenuity. CUVIER treats next of the means of distinguishing
the genera and species of the fossil bones of quadrupeds. He observes, that,
the parts of the animal system are so tied together from their nature, that
the most certain rules may be deduced by a careful study of the parts, and by
accurate and repeated observation. Any one," says he, "who observes
the print of a cloven hoof, may conclude that it has been left by a ruminating
animal; so that a single footmark may clearly indicate to the observer, the
forms of the teeth, of the jaws, of the vertebrae, of the leg-bones, thighs,
shoulders, &c. of the animal which left the mark. From the mere comparison of
observations, where theory is unable to direct, we also procure astonishing
results; insomuch, that when we find merely the extremity of a well preserved
bone, we are able, by careful examination, assisted by analogy and exact comparison,
to determine the species to which it once belonged, as certainly as if we had
the entire animal before us. Before venturing to put entire confidence in this
method of investigation, I have very frequently tried it with portions of bones
belonging to known animals; and always with such complete success, that I now
entertain no doubt with regard to the results which it affords."
"In this matter, we have ascertained
and classified the fossil remains of 78 different quadruped in the viviparous
and oviparous classes. Forty-nine of these are distinct species, hitherto entirely
unknown to naturalists. Eleven or twelve others have such entire resemblance
to species already known, as to leave no doubt whatever of their identity; and
the remaining 16 or 18, have considerable traits of resemblance to known species:
But the comparison has not yet been made with such precision, as to remove all
uncertainty. Of the 49 new, or hitherto unknown species, 27 belong to 7 new
genera; while the other 22 new species belong to 16 genera or subgenera already
known. The whole number of genera and subgenera, to which the fossil remains
of quadruped, hitherto investigated, are referable, are 36, including those
belonging both to known and unknown species. In order to connect these remains
with the natural history of the globe itself, it would be desireable to ascertain
the particular strata in which each species was found, and to inquire if there
were any general laws which connected their position among the strata, with
their resemblance to the species actually living on the surface of the earth."
On this subject, CUVIER has made the following observation: "It seems,
in the firstplace, clearly ascertained, that the remains of oviparous
quadrupeds belong to more ancient strata than those of viviparous quadrupeds.
The crocodiles of Honfleur and of England are underneath the chalk. The lizards
of Thuringia are still more ancient, if the slate in which they are contained
is to be placed, as some mineralogists suppose, among the most ancient of the
secondary formations. The earliest appearance of
fossil bones seems to indicate, that dry land and fresh water existed before
the formation of the chalk strata. But it is not till we arrive at strata of
a far more recent date, that we come to the fossil remains of mammiferous land
quadrupeds. We begin, indeed, to discover the bones of mammiferous sea animals,
such as the Lamantin and the seal, in the shell limestone which immediately
covers the chalk in the neighbourhood of Paris; but no bones of mammiferous
land animals are to be found in that formation, nor till we come to those which
lie over this limestone stratum; after which the bones of land quadrupeds are
discovered in great abundance. Thus we are led to conclude,
that the oviparous quadrupeds began to exist along with the fishes, at the commencement
of the period which produced the secondary formations, and that the land quadrupeds
did not appear till long afterwards. There is also a determinate
order observable in the disposition of the bones of this latter kind, with respect
to the strata in which they are found. The genera, which are now unknown; as
the palaeotheria, anaplotheria, &c. are found in the most ancient of the
formations of which we now speak, or those which are directly over the coarse
limestone. They are chiefly what occupy the regular strata deposited from the
fresh water. Along with them are found some lost species of known genera, but
in small numbers. The most remarkable of the
unknown species belonging to known genera, as the fossil elephant, rhinoceros,
and mastodonton, are never found along with those more ancient genera, but are
contained in alluvial formations of a later date, and never in the regular rocky
strata. Lastly, the bones of species
apparently the same with those now living on the earth, are never found, except
in the very latest alluvial depositions, such as are either formed on the sides
of rivers, or at the bottoms of antient lakes or marshes now dried up. These
bones, though the most recent of all, from being nearest to the surface, are
the worst preserved.
These are the laws, as far as our
author's observations extend, which connect the unknown species with the strata
in which they are lodged. It is curious to remark a kind of convergency, if
we may call it so, both in the animals that inhabited the earth, and in the
superficies of the earth itself, to the state in which they are now found. As
the land came nearer to its resent form, its inhabitants approached nearer to
their present condition. Can it be doubted, that a vast number of ages was necessary
for bringing about such important changes? It must, however, be observed, that
the extent to which these observations reach is not considerable: IT is to the
chalk country round Paris, and perhaps only to a part of it--no other tract
on the earth's surface having yet been subjected to the same scrupulous and
elaborate examination. CUVIER, indeed, gives the preceding results with that
degree of diffidence which suits so new an inquiry, and one where the conclusions
have not yet been verified by corresponding observations.
He goes on, after this, in another
article, to show, that the extinct species of quadrupeds are not varieties of
the species presently existing; and he proves, in a very satisfactory manner,
that the distance between these fossil species and the living species, to which
they have the greatest affinity, is much greater than is ever found among the
varieties of the same species.
The conclusion of this article is
highly deserving of notice. When I endeavoured to prove,
[says he], ;that the rocky strata contain the remains of several This is the reflection of a man
of great general views, who had deeply considered the subject before him, and
discovered what is probably the true relation between the strata of the mineral
kingdom, and the fossil remains which they contain. For the productions of the
such local catastrophes as are here supposed, the rising and falling of the
level of the land is a cause much better accommodated than a similar change
in the level of the sea.
It is here observed, that among
the bones found in a fossil state, those of the human species have never been
discovered. Several of those specimens which passed for being remains of the
latter kind, CUVIER himself has carefully examined; and the judgment of so able
a naturalist must be held as decisive. The fossil bones which SPALLANZANI brought
from the island of Cerigo, are of that number; and our author has no difficulty
of affirming, that not a single fragment among them ever belonged to a human
skeleton. He pronounces the same sentence on the specimen which Scheuchzer called
Homo diluvii testis.
The next article undertakes to prove,
that the population of the world is but recent, and that its present surface
is by no means of very ancient formation. In the proof of the last of these
propositions, we do not think that our author has been successful, and shall
take the liberty of stating our objection to his reasoning. By a careful examination,"
says he, "of what has taken place on the surface of the globe since it
has been laid dry for the last time, and its continents have assumed their present
form, at least in such parts as are somewhat elevated above the level of the
ocean, it may be clearly seen that this last revolution, and consequently the
establishment of our existing societies, could not have been very ancient. This
result is one of the best established, and least attended to in rational zoology;
and it is so much the more valuable, as it connects natural and civil history
together in one uninterrupted series. The argument by which CUVIER endeavours
to establish a result which he considers as so certain and important, is, in
its form and intention, perfectly logical. To judge of the time in which a certain
work has been accomplished, we must ascertain the rate of working, or the quantity
of work done in a given time; and if we then can measure also the whole work
that has been performed, we may be enabled to calculate the time of the performance
with some tolerable exactness. This is the method followed by our author; but
in the manner of ascertaining his data, we think great errors have been introduced.
These errors affect both the things to be determined, viz. the rate of working,
and the total effect produced. The first is made much too great, and the latter
much too small; on which account, the time taken up by the action must fall
vastly short of the truth.
"It must be," says CUVIER,
"since the last retreat of the waters, that the acclivities of our mountains
have begun to disintegrate, and to form slopes of the debris at their bottoms
and upon their sides; that our rivers have begun to flow in their present courses,
and to form alluvial depositions." Now, in these words, since our
rivers have begun to flow in their present courses, we conceive that a great
error is concealed. Whether the land was laid dry by the sea retiring to a lower
level, or by the land itself rising to a higher level, is not material to the
present question. While the surface was covered by water to a great depth resting
above it, there was no physical agent whatever that could be supposed to cut
out or to prepare for the rivers any thing like the courses in which they now
flow and discharge themselves into the sea. There is, indeed, no where any physical
agent by which this operation, or this great system of operations, can have
been effected. Great original inequalities were no doubt left behind by the
sea when it retired; but that there should be any system of lines or canals
connecting all these inequalities, with a declivity nearly uniform from the
one end to the other, it were altogether unreasonable to suppose. No agent having
the least tendency to produce this effect could act on a surface deeply immersed
under a fluid, and where the pressure of that fluid tended to reserve an equilibrium
in all directions. Chance, or the cooperation of accidental causes, could never
produce so steady an effect over a vast extent, and in circumstances so extremely
diversified. Let us take, for an example, the basin of any great river; as of
the Danube, and its numerous branches. These branches, though they wind from
every side through a vast labyrinth, come to join the main trunk, with courses
of such uniform declivity, that they are rarely dammed up into lakes, or precipitated
into cataracts. How comes it about, that from the Alps on the one hand, and
the Carpathian mountains on the other, the waters have found canals by which,
notwithstanding the innumerable inequalities that abound in this tract, they
are conducted with a regular descent over an extent of many thousand square
miles? Among the multitude of agents which Nature employs in her operations,
there is only one, the waters themselves, to whom this work might be safely
entrusted. These, by occupying the original depressions of the surface, and
by rising to such heights as enabled them to form a communication with one another,
would require nothing but time to bring the surface into its present condition.
Nature herself would furnish the instruments or tools necessary for the work.
The running of the waters, the stones, the gravel and earth that they would
carry along with them, the masses of ice that would occasionally be formed,
would serve to open up a passage to the sea; and the Danube, with its thousand
branches, would come at last to discharge its waters, through one main trunk,
into the Euxine. In this way has been formed the whole system of valleys now
existing on the surface of the earth, and, of consequence, the whole form and
shape of the mountains is to be regarded as the work of the waters themselves,
determined, in their first operations, by the primitive inequalities of the
surface, and modified, during their whole action, by the position and the structure
of the rocks through which they had to cut their way.
The waters, it is obvious, were
not opposed, in these operations, merely by loose earth, or other unconsolidated
materials. they were opposed by the hardest rocks, and were constantly resisted
by a power which nothing but the lapse of ages could enable them to overcome.
In the Essay before us, rivers are
considered as working only on sand or mud; but the removal of these is a small
part of the task which they have had to perform. They have had the rocks themselves
to cut down; and they clearly express their having done so, when the rock is
hard enough to retain, for a long time, the impressions which it has received.
A narrow channel hollowed out of the solid rock, of great depth, and no broader
than is sufficient to contain the torrent that runs in it, leaves no doubt as
to the agent by which it was made, and one as to the fact, that a great length
of time has been required. In the estimate here made of the action of rivers,
all the operations of this kind are excluded.
In the same manner, with respect
to the coasts, the view taken is equally limited; and it is only those low shores
formed of alluvial deposits that come within the scope of the argument.
We must therefore object, both to
the rate of working, as our author has stated it, and to the quantity of work
that has been performed. From the celerity with which the contention of a river
and a tide may throw up a bar at the mouth of the former; from the rapidity
with which the wind may transport hills of moveable sand on a low coast, or
with which vegetables, by the stagnation of water, may be converted into peat
, we cannot reason at all as to the time which a torrent will take to cut through
a rock of marble, of granite, or of silex. Yet the latter are the great operations
which the rivers have had to perform; and they only get the perpetual supply
of mud and sand and gravel with which they are provided, by corroding and disintegrating
the hard substances that oppose their course.
Such seems to us the fair estimate
of the work that was necessary to be performed, before the surface of the land,
as it was left by the waters of the sea, could attain the form which it has
at the present moment. If there is any other physical agent that can be shown
to be adequate to the same effect, we shall be content that the waters should
share with it the glory of performing the great work that we have ascribed to
them. But if there is no such agent; if there is no power of any kind that has
the necessary force, and , must more, the principle necessary to direct that
force, we shall be under the necessity of acquiescing in the conclusion just
deduced, and of considering it as one of the fixt and ascertained facts in the
natural history of the globe.
The next part of the argument considers
the proofs, arising from tradition, of a great catastrophe and subsequent renewal
of the human race. It is here assumed, as a point already proved, that the natural
history of the globe every where informs us, that the commencement of the present
order of things cannot be dated from a very remote period. We have just seen,
however, that the argument brought in support of this assertion, is by no means
conclusive; and, that so far as the question is purely physical, and relates
to the earth itself, no doubt can be entertained that the present order goes
back to a period much beyond the limits of historical record. Our author is
of the contrary opinion.
"It is easy to see," says
he," that though naturalists might have ranged sufficiently wide within
the limits prescribed by the book of Genesis, they very soon found themselves
in too narrow bounds; and when they had succeeded in converting the six days
employed in the work of creation, into so many periods of indefinite length,
their systems took a flight proportioned to the periods which they could then
dispose of at pleasure." To the charge that is here made,
we believe that most Geologists will be obliged to plead guilty; and, though
we do by no means think hat it is the business of theory to explain the first
origin of things, or the events that must have happened during the six days
referred to by our author, whether they are to be literally or figuratively
understood; yet, we admit that it would be very difficult to suppose that even
the series of changes which are the legitimate objets of geological discussion,
can be brought completely within the limits of a few thousand years. The concessions
even of the most sound theologians admit, that the literal interpretation of
the Mosaic account of the origin of things is not essential to an orthodox system
of religious belief. We have the authority of the late Bishop HORSLEY to support
us in this assertion; which is also admitted by the editor of this Essay, in
a preface which is certainly not chargeable with any undue liberality of sentiment.
The origin, however, of society, and the renewal, if not the beginning of the
human race, we most readily admit, cannot, with any regard to the testimony,
either of sacred or profane writers, be carried back to a very remote period.
IT must be admitted that it goes back no farther than six or seven thousand
years; and all that we contend for is, the liberty of placing it somewhat beyond
the latest of the dates which have been assigned to it, and to which CUVIER
seems desirous that it should be reduced.
"The Pentateuch," he observes, has existed in its present form, at least ever since the separation of
the ten tribes under Jeroboam, when it was received as authentic by the Samaritans,
as well as by the Jews; and this assures us of the actual antiquity of that
book being not less than two thousand eight hundred years. Besides this, we
have no reason to doubt of the book of Genesis having been composed by Moses,
which adds five hundred years to its antiquity. Moses and his people came
out of Egypt, which is universally allowed to have been the most anciently civilized
kingdom on the borders of the Mediterranean. The legislator of the Jews could
have no motive for shortening the duration of the nations; and would even have
disgraced himself in the estimation of his own people, if he had promulgated
a history of the human race contradictory to that which they must have learnt
by tradition in Egypt. We may therefore conclude, that the Egyptians had at
this time no other notions, respecting the antiquity of the human race, than
are contained in the book of Genesis.
Here we must remark, that this learned
and ingenious writer, in defending the Mosaic chronology, has employed an argument
in which the wound and serious theologian will hardly acquiesce, viz. that MOSES
derived his information concerning the origin of the world, and of the deluge,
from the traditions of the Egyptians; and that he could not have ventured to
teach opinions concerning these matters, different from those commonly received.
This, however, is to form a notion of the Legislator of the Jews, very little
agreeable to the character in which he appears in his own writings; and by no
means consistent with the superiority which his religious system undoubtedly
possessed above those of the nations by which he was surrounded. We have here
an instance of the danger of mixing religious and philosophical opinions with
one another, and a proof how readily, as Lord BACON long ago observed, from
the union of these two things the corruption of both is likely to ensue; a fantastical
philosophy on the one hand, and a heterodox religion on the other.
Whatever be determined on that point,
it seems material to remark, that the deluge, such as it is described by MOSES,
cannot well be supposed to have left any proof of its existence among the monuments
of the mineral kingdom. Its duration was too short to have allowed such monuments
to be produced. The face of the earth was covered by the waters above the tops
of the mountains, only for the space of five months, or 150 days; and, after
the end of that time,
It seems probable, therefore, that
this great catastrophe, destined to cut off men and animals, would produce no
other durable effect upon the surface of the earth; none certainly that could
be supposed to remain distinctly visible, at the distance of some thousand years.
We are therefore at a loss to know what the Editor means to speak of when he
says, "the Deluge, one of the grandest naturalevents described
in the Bible, is equally confirmed, with regard to its extent and the period
of its occurrence, by a careful study of the various phenomena observed on and
near the earth's surface." It would be highly satisfactory, no doubt, if
this pious and learned naturalist, would point out any of the phenomena now
existing which may fairly be called monuments of the deluge; understanding that
deluge to be just what it is recorded to have been, without any such commentaries
as have sometimes been applied to it. It must be the genuine deluge of the Scriptures,
not that which has been so highly coloured by the eloquence of BURNET, or so
nicely analysed by the geometry of WHISTON; must less those reciprocations of
the universal waterso familiar to the followers of WERNER; nor even
the torrent, or the debacle, of PALLAS and SAUSSURE: It must be the simple
and quiet ascent of the waters above the tops of the mountains, their sojourning
there for 150 days, and their peaceable retreat. We conceive that such an event
could not record itself in any other way than by the deep impression it must
make on the minds of the few who survived the general calamity. If we are in
an error, we shall be glad to be set right.
The antiquity and origin of nations
is a subject of great difficulty, and one where the light is so scanty, that
there is no apology for dogmatical assertion. Though we think that there is
reason to go farther back than the ordinary computation seems to authorise,
we do not suppose ourselves entitled to draw this conclusion with perfect decision.
Neither, on the other hand, can we admit with this commentator, that the age
of the human race is, in the work before us, satisfactorily determined by an
appeal to natural appearances; and that the pretended great antiquity of some
nations, so much insisted on by certain philosophers, is thereby shown
to be entirely unfounded.
We mean not in any degree to blame
the intentions of the learned Editor; but it is impossible to shut one's eyes
against the effects which such insinuations as the preceding are calculated,
if not intended, to produce. They are calculated to hold up those who do not
acquiesce in the opinions contained in this work as objects of suspicion, and
as men who cherish notions unfavourable to religion. This, however, is not an
interpretation that should rashly be given to mere literary or scientific speculations.
The system of COPERNICUS might as well be stated, as it once was, to be inconsistent
with the authority of the Scriptures; and all those who hold the reality of
the earth's motion, should be considered as disputing the authenticity of the
sacred writings. It is unnecessary to expose the error of opinions, not more
hurtful to the interests of science, than contrary to the spirit of religion.
The state of the question seems
to be this.--No one, we are persuaded, means to reason in this matter against
the authority of the Mosaic history, not even the philosophers whom the editor
views with so suspicious an eye: But the Hebrew text having fixed the renovation
of the human race to the year 2348 (see BLAIR'S Chronology) before the Christian
era; and all deductions that depend on numbers, or on a series of numbers contained
in an ancient manuscript, being subject to considerable uncertainty from the
chances of interpolation and corruption; it is therefore reasonable, in an inquiry
into the origin of nations, to state the facts from all different quarters,
as far as they are known, supposing them too to be subject to uncertainty from
like causes; and taking care, in the inquiry, to exclude all dogmatism and partiality.
It is probable that, in this way, a mean result may be obtained nearer to the
truth, than any single one that we are in possession of . The infallibility
of the inspired writings does by no means preclude this appeal; because these
writings, especially in what regards numerical expression, must partake of that
uncertainty, which passing repeatedly through the hands of ignorant and careless
transcribers, has a tendency to produce. It seems reasonable, in such a case,
that all the evidence which can be brought forward, should be examined; leaving
it with the great jury of mankind to determine the weight that is due
to the testimony of each of the witnesses adduced, and the mean result of the
whole united evidence. Why should not antiquaries and scholars do as astronomers
and mathematicians are wont to do, where there is a chance of error? They bring
forward the observations they have made, or the measures they have taken, ascribing
to each of them a weight proportional, as nearly as they can estimate, to its
accuracy; and they then take the mean of all, as the result nearest to the truth.
This is what we wish to do on the present occasion. Take from all the different
sources of information, the best result you can obtain; take no care, while
you are doing so, of its consistency with other results, but let each of them
answer for itself. When this process is fairly and extensively performed, let
the mean be struck as in the cases above referred to; and there is very little
doubt that a result will be obtained, which will detect the corruptions, from
which neither the texts of sacred or profane historians can always be exempted.
Agreeably to this rule, we go on
to state several arguments, leading to results that differ considerably from
those of CUVIER, but that appear to us very deserving of attention. With a view
of reducing the period of the great catastrophe, so often alluded to, to a date
as recent as possible, CUVIER endeavours to take off the force of such facts
as would carry back that catastrophe to a period somewhat more remote. MACROBIUS,
says he, assures us, that collections of observations of eclipses made in Egypt,
were preserved, which presupposed uninterrupted labour for at least 1200 years
before the reign of ALEXANDER. It is said, too, by SIMPLICIUS, in his commentary
on ARISTOTLE, that some astronomical observations of the Chaldeans were sent
by CALLISTHENES to that philosopher, which reached back 1903 years from the
year 331 before Christ, at which time Babylon was taken by ALEXANDE; which therefore
goes back almost within a century of the common epoch of the Deluge. To both
these facts, it is objected, that if such observations had existed, how comes
it that PTOLEMY, to whom they must have been so extremely valuable, makes use
of none that go back farther than the era of Nabonassar, 747 years before Christ?
There is, however, a circumstance, that ought to be taken into account, before
the relations of MACROBIUS and SIMPLICIUS are entirely set aside. To an astronomer
like Ptolemy, who was endeavouring to settle the mean motions of the heavenly
bodies, no observation could be of any use, of which the date was not fixed
with very great precision. Now, accuracy of date was a matter in which these
ancient observations were most likely to prove defective. An exact reckoning
of time, by which the interval between remote events could be correctly measured,
was very long of being obtained; and men had observed the heavens for a great
while, before they could mark with accuracy the dates of their observations.
The observations of the Chaldeans,
therefore, might be very authentic; as facts, they might be infinitely valuable:
but they might be of no use at all to an astronomer, who was merely computing
tables of the motions of the sun and the planets. There is many a curious and
important observation, both in ancient and in modern times, that would have
been rejected as useless by DELAMBRE and BURKHARDT, in the formation of those
astronomical tables, by which they have lately merited the gratitude of the
scientific world. The same was the case with PTOLEMY; and to find that he makes
no mention of certain antient observations, affords no argument at all against
their existence, or against his knowledge of them.
Again, our author endeavours to
invalidate the argument which derives a presumption of the great antiquity of
civilization and scientific acquirement in India and Chaldea, from the fact,
that in these countries there was great knowledge in astronomy; as, of the length
of the year, the precession of the equinoxes, the relative motions of the sun
and moon, &c. 1000 or 1200 years at least before the beginning of the Christian
era. It is argued, that the beginning of astronomical observation must have
preceded that date by many centuries.
"But to explain all this,"
it is said, Without the necessity of any prodigious antiquity, it may
be remarked, that a nation may well be expected to make rapid progress in any
particular science, that has no other to attend to; and that, with the Chaldeans
especially, the perpetual serenity and clearness of their sky, the pastoral
life which they led, and the peculiar superstition to which they were addicted,
rendered the stars a general object of attention. They had also colleges, or
societies, of their most respectable men, appointed to make astronomical observations,
and to put them upon record. Let us suppose also, that among so many persons
who had nothing else to do, there were two or three possessed of singular talents
for the study of geometrical science; and every thing known to that people might
easily have been accomplished in a very few centuries. The position laid down here, that
a nation may make great progress in one science, which has only one to attend
to, seems not very conformable to what has occurred, or to what, from the nature
of the human mind, might be expected to occur in the history of science. The
time when knowledge has advanced fastest, has been, when it was pursued in many
different branches; and nothing seems more certain, that that one science can
never make great progress when it stands alone, and is separate from the rest.
The astronomer requires the assistance of the mechanic and the optician; if
he is destitute of their help, and if his instruments are very imperfect, there
is nothing but time that can bring out any valuable result from his observations.
In the absence of accurate instruments and exact observation, it was only great
length of time that could make it possible to discover the long periods and
the slow motions with which, as far back as eleven or twelve hundred years before
our era, we find that astronomers were acquainted. When two observations are
compared together, the length of time between them will stand in the place of
accuracy, the errors bearing a less proportion to the whole. If, therefore,
we find a tolerably accurate estimate of the mean motions of the heavenly bodies,
in the possession of a people not furnished with good instruments, we may be
assured that the antiquity of observation has supplied the place of such instruments,
and that age has given a value to facts, which, without it, they could not have
possessed. In this, we have very little doubt that all astronomers will agree.
CUVIER however proceeds, Three hundred years did not
intervene between COOPERNICUS and DE LA PLACE, the celebrated author of Mechanique
Celeste; yet some wish to believe that the Hindoos must have had many thousand
years to discover their astronomical rules. But why did so little time intervene
between Copernicus and La Place? Why has the progress of science been so rapid
in the comparatively short interval that elapsed between these two great men?
Precisely because astronomy was not the only science then cultivated; because
all the sciences, on the contrary, were coming forward, and advancing together
with a uniformity and steadiness of which there is no former example. the labours
of every scientific man were felt as an assistance and encouragement by all
the rest; a general spirit of activity spread itself into every department,
and the powers of the mind seemed raised to a higher level. The ardour and patience
necessary to discovery , and characteristic of genius, can hardly be produced
without the example and the sympathy of numbers, animated by the same motives,
and zealous in pursuing the same objects.
The benefit that one science may
receive from the culture of another, even the most remote, cannot be better
exemplified, than by the circumstances that have given occasion to the work
before us, where the Anatomist affords such valuable assistance to the Geologist,
and brings the structure of the animal body to give such important information
concerning the revolutions of the globe. the bones of the Megatherion, or the
Mastodonton, two hundred years ago, might have given occasion to a new chapter
in the Osteology of the Giants; but would have added nothing to the stock
of real knowledge. In the hands of a man of science, and a philosopher, they
have struck out one of the greatest lights that has yet been cast on the natural
history of the globe. It is certain, then, that the moments of most rapid progress
in any science, are those in which all the sciences are advancing, and all supporting
one another. When they are separate, their progress is unavoidably slow; and
nothing can be more fallacious, than to take their rate of advancement in a
state of high improvement, as a measure of the progress they might be expected
to have made in the infancy of knowledge.
In the prosecution of this argument,
an attack is next made, as indeed it could not fail to be, on the antiquity
of the astronomy of India. Our author is of opinion, that the proofs which have
appeared conclusive in favour of that antiquity, are of little weight, and have
most of them been satisfactorily refuted. He quotes particularly the Systeme
du Monde, and the Paper of BENTLEY in the Asiatic Researches. With respect
to the first, it is true, that LA PLACE has shown, that in as much as concerns
the mean motion of Jupiter, there is a very recent, and well as a very ancient
period, to which the determination of that motion, in the Indian Tables, may
be referred. Of course, he refers them to the most recent; and if there were
not a multitude of facts pointing to the other, we should think the latter conclusion
extremely reasonable. But, circumstanced as things are, we think it can be shown,
in a satisfactory manner, that the ancient era is the more probable of the two.
AS to BENTLEY'S argument, it has in reality been refuted by anticipation in
the Astronomie Orientalemore than once. When the astronomical era of
the Caly-yug is said to have been computed backward, the question always recurs,
How came the mean motions of the Sun and Moon to be known, with such accuracy,
than in calculating for an interval of more than 4000 years, they should agree
with the best tables of modern astronomy? The tedious and obscure argumentation
of Mr. BENTLEY never brings us nearer to the solution of this problem. Indeed,
the number of independent arguments by which M. BAILLY has established the reality
of the epoch 3102 A. C. is such, that it seems better ascertained than any date
not within the sphere of regular historical record. We cannot now enter more
fully on this subject. But though the tide of opinion seems, for some time past,
to have set strongly against the high antiquity of the sciences of the East,
it does not appear that the main arguments of the Historian of astronomy have
ever been refuted. Conformably, therefore, to the principle laid down above,
in settling the remotest point to which the history of our sciences can extend,
we would regard the Indian astronomy as one fact, and one that must be allowed
considerable weight, when the last result is to be obtained. At the same time
it must be allowed, that the early date of that Astronomy, and the usual date
of the deluge, may be perfectly reconciled, on the supposition that the former
is a fragment of antediluvian science, which had escaped the general destruction.
We conclude with observing, that
the natural history of the globe has never made a greater step than by the observations
and results contained in the great work to which this Preliminary Dissertation
belongs. The industry, the skill, and the enlarged views of the author, are
entitled to the highest praise; and in differing from him, as to a few of his
subordinate conclusions, we hope that we have not failed in the respect due
to a man who has laid science under so many and so great obligations. We observe, in the passages where
Astronomy is treated of, that some mistakes have been committed by the translator.
Speaking of the Zodiac in the temple at Dendera, he makes CUVIER say, "Nothing
can be drawn from its division into bands of six signs each, as indicative
of the colures proceeding from the procession of the Equinoxes," &c.
The term, processionfor precession, we suppose to be merely a
typographical error; but to speak of the colures proceeding from the precession
of the equinoxes, is inaccurate, and indeed absurd. The French is, "La
position des colures resultant de la precession des equinoxes"--the position
of the colures produced by the precession; for it is the position of the colures,
not the colures themselves, that is affected by the precession. In the course
of the same sentence, there is another error. Instead of the words, "shows
how inaccurate were their observations;" it ought to be, "shows that
they had no observed it," viz. the time in which the beginning of the year
travels over the whole of the zodiac. (p. 165). There occur other inaccuracies
of this kind; though, on the whole, the translation is well executed.
Anon. 'Essay on the Theory of the Earth'. The
Edinburgh Review and London Critical Journal. January 1814. 2 February 2012Bibliography
