Who the author is we have no certain knowledge. It is not, we suspect, Lord KING, nor Lord THURLOW, nor Lady BYRON; but it may be the author of the Essay on the Formation of Opinions, and of the Principle of Representation. Mr. BAILEY, of Sheffield, though little known, possesses the fine reasoning powers, intellectual grasp, independence of research, abstract analysis, and attic style, that would qualify him to produce the Vestiges of Creation, though we never heard that he is a great natural philosopher. But, as just hinted, deep science is not evinced by the Vestiges, only an able, systematic, and tasteful arrangement of its distant and recent advances.
"EXPLANATIONS:"
A SEQUEL TO THE
"VESTIGES OF THE NATURAL HISTORY OF CREATION."
(From the ATLAS of December 20, 1845.)
So many strong objections had been arrayed against the Vestiges of Creation, that the author was called upon to elucidate and reinforce his argument, or abandon the ground he had taken up. The more candid and equitable of his judges—those who were disposed to try him upon the merits, and independently test the claims of his inquiry, as in fairness it ought to be, as strictly a scientific speculation, regardless of any constructive bearings it might have on current opinions or prejudices—could not arrive at any more favourable conclusion than that he had failed to establish his hypotheses. Indeed this was the only verdict that could be safely delivered in. The impugners of the work were in the same helpless predicament as its author, who had, however, more venturously presumed to unravel unsearchable mysteries, concerning which, in the existing state of science, men can only conjecture, wonder, and adore, utterly unable to affirm or deny aught respecting them. What, for instance, with the remotest semblance of certainty, can be predicated of the stellar orbs? Is it not idle almost to speculate on the impenetrable secret of their origin when their very existence is undefinable—when their end, their glittering discs, and all but immeasurable distances are wholly unapproachable? Nor hardly less beyond our grasp is the commencement of organic existences. We do pride ourselves on recent advances to the sources of entity; we tear up the dead, we torture the living, and sedulously chronicle every beat of the heart and vibration of the brain to slake an insatiable curiosity, yet how unsatisfactory our reach towards the hidden springs of life—how limited our attainments, when the creation of a single blade of grass, the humblest worm, a poor beetle, or gadfly, would baffle the utmost structural skill of the greatest philosopher! Into the fathomless depths of our own globe we have also essayed to penetrate. Poor beings! of three score and ten, whose utmost historical span extends only to some thousands of years, have sought to trammel up the terrene vicissitudes of millions of ages anterior to their own existence! Does not this savour of a vain research, or of a laudable thirst for knowledge?
Over all these dark and solemn inscrutabilities, however, the Vestiges undertook to throw a glare of light, to reveal their beginning, progression, order, relations, and law of development. Although daring in aim, the attempt was not to be wholly deprecated. While religious freedom had been secured, philosophy had become timid, official, and timeserving; retentive as FONTENELLE of the truths within its grasp, and fearful to give utterance to aught that might disturb the stillness of the temple, the lecture-room, or fashionable auditory. Modern teachers had been used so long to the Baconian go-cart, that they had become as apprehensive of losing the inductive clue as the PALINURUSES of old of the sight of the directing shore. But the time had arrived when it seemed expedient to relax the strictness of the investigative rule, and afford scope for a more systematic, if not speculative research. Science had made great acquisitions, and it seemed desirable, if only for experiment sake, to see what kind of FRANKENSTEIN would result from the architectural union of her scattered limbs. This formed the scope of the Vestiges of Creation; novelties were not propounded, only a portentous skeleton raised from the truths physical astronomy, geology, chemistry, physiology, and natural history had established. Does the author recoil from his work? No; these Explanations attest that he is steadfast in the worship of the idol of his brain. He retracts nothing, he re-asserts, elucidates, and often dexterously turns the weapons of the most formidable and orthodox of his adversaries against them, by showing from their writings that they had, in detail at least, acquiesced in the truths that they now, in a generalised form, seek to controvert and repudiate. So much adroitness and pertinacity in the author can hardly fail to provoke resistance, if not asperity, despite of the imperturbable temper in which he maintains the combat. The learned have been disturbed in their daily routine, by the discharge from an unknown hand, of a massive pyrites, that has diffused as much consternation among the herd of modish elocutionists, college tutors, and chimpanzee professors, as Jove's ligneous projectile among the lieges of the standing pool. For this commotion we have, on a former occasion, conceded that there existed valid reasons, and we hasten to see the way in which they have been met in the rejoinder before us; contenting ourselves, as we needs must, by briefly noticing some of the salient points of the controversy.
First of the Nebular Hypothesis. The chief objection to this theory is, that the existence of nebulous matter in the heavens is disproved by the discoveries made by the telescope of the Earl of ROSSE. By the reach of this wondrous tube, masses of light, rendered apparently nebulous by their vast distance, have been resolved into clusters of stars, and thence the assumption seemed unwarrantable that any luminous matter, different from the solid bodies composing planetary systems existed in the heavenly spaces. But to this the author replies, that there are two classes of nebulæ—one resolvable into constellations—another comparatively near, that remains unaffected by telescopic power, and that until this last description can be separated, the nebular hypothesis is not disproved. It is thus brought to an issue of facts, both as to the existence of nebulæ of this latter kind, and the optical power to resolve them into distinct stars.
But the author can hardly claim this negative success in grappling with a second objection—namely, his assumed origin of rotatory motion. According to him, a confluence of atoms round a spherical centre of attraction, would cause the agglomerated mass to revolve upon its axis in the manner of our earth. This was denied by everybody the least acquainted with the laws of motion; and thus did one of his imaginary solutions of a great phenomenon of the universe fall dead to the ground. This he now seems to concede, but in a sentence unintelligible to us, in which an undoubted physical law is spoken of as only an abstract truth (p. 20). He obviously still clings to his first mistaken inference, and calls to his aid Professor NICHOL, whom he has also pressed into his service to help him over the last-mentioned difficulty by the Professor's affirmation of a diversity of nebulous clusters. But the Professor does not commit himself to the extent of the author; his aqueous whirlpool is cited from HERSCHEL, only in illustration, and correctly said to be produced by the unequal force of convergence of a fluid to a common centre. But the author's nuclei, disposed in his notable "fire-mist," did not act with unequal force on the ambient vapour, and whose central convergence in consequence, would not produce rotation or motion of any kind. This was the real matter in question, the author was taken up on his own premises, and the results he assumed to follow from them proved to be inconsistent with the unquestionable laws of gravitating matter.
He has gone over the geological portion of his subject with much care, but if competent, it would be impossible within our narrow limits to accompany him; nor could the discussion be made either interesting or intelligible except to the scientific, who have devoted attention to an extremely curious, but still obscure and unsettled field of investigation. He has elaborately cleared up many points, and successfully, we think, answered some weighty objections, but we are not yet converts to his theory of organic development. One passage we shall extract; after adverting to the facts established by powerful evidence, that during the long term of the earth's existence, strata of various thickness were deposited in seas composed of matter worn away from the previous rocks; that these strata by volcanic agency were raised into continents, or projected into mountain chains, and that sea and land have been constantly interchanging conditions. He continues:—