Geology is intimately related to almost all the physical sciences, as history is to the moral. An historian should, if possible, be at once profoundly acquainted with ethics, politics, jurisprudence, the military art, theology; in a word, with all branches of knowledge by which any insight into human affairs, or into the moral and intellectual nature of man, can be obtained. It would be no less desirable that a geologist should be well versed in chemistry, natural philosophy, mineralogy, zoology, comparative anatomy, botany; in short, in every science relating to organic and inorganic nature. With these accomplishments, the historian and geologist would rarely fail to draw correct and philosophical conclusions from the various monuments transmitted to them of former occurrences. They would know to what combination of causes analogous effects were referable, and they would often be enabled to supply, by inference, information concerning many events unrecorded in the defective archives of former ages. But as such extensive acquisitions are scarcely within the reach of any individual, it is necessary that men who have devoted their lives to different departments should unite their efforts; and as the historian receives assistance from the antiquary, and from those who have cultivated different branches of moral and political science, so the geologist should avail himself of the aid of many naturalists, and particularly of those who have studied the fossil remains of lost species of animals and plants.
The analogy, however, of the monuments consulted in geology, and those available in history, extends no farther than to one class of historical monuments—those which may be said to be undesignedly commemorative of former events. The canoes, for example, and stone hatchets found in our peat bogs, afford an insight into the rude arts and manners of the earliest inhabitants of our island; the buried coin fixes the date of the reign of some Roman emperor; the ancient encampment indicates the districts once occupied by invading armies, and the former method of constructing military defences; the Egyptian mummies throw light on the art of embalming, the rites of sepulture, or the average stature of the human race in ancient Egypt. This class of memorials yields to no other in authenticity, but it constitutes a small part only of the resources on which the historian relies, whereas in geology it forms the only kind of evidence which is at our command. For this reason we must not expect to obtain a full and connected account of any series of events beyond the reach of history. But the testimony of geological monuments, if frequently imperfect, possesses at least the advantage of being free from all intentional misrepresentation. We may be deceived in the inferences which we draw, in the same manner as we often mistake the nature and import of phenomena observed in the daily course of nature; but our liability to err is confined to the interpretation, and, if this be correct, our information is certain.
It was long before the distinct nature and legitimate objects of geology were fully recognized, and it was at first confounded with many other branches of inquiry, just as the limits of history, poetry, and mythology were ill-defined in the infancy of civilization. Even in Werner's time, or at the close of the eighteenth century, geology appears to have been regarded as little other than a subordinate department of mineralogy; and Desmarest included it under the head of Physical Geography. But the most common and serious source of confusion arose from the notion, that it was the business of geology to discover the mode in which the earth originated, or, as some imagined, to study the effects of those cosmological causes which were employed by the Author of Nature to bring this planet out of a nascent and chaotic state into a more perfect and habitable condition. Hutton was the first who endeavored to draw a strong line of demarcation between his favorite science and cosmogony, for he declared that geology was in nowise concerned "with questions as to the origin of things."
An attempt will be made in the sequel of this work to demonstrate that geology differs as widely from cosmogony, as speculations concerning the mode of the first creation of man differ from history. But, before entering more at large on this controverted question, it will be desirable to trace the progress of opinion on this topic, from the earliest ages to the commencement of the present century.
CHAPTER II.
HISTORICAL SKETCH OF THE PROGRESS OF GEOLOGY.
Oriental Cosmogony—Hymns of the Vedas—Institutes of Menù—Doctrine of the successive destruction and renovation of the world—Origin of this doctrine—Common to the Egyptians—Adopted by the Greeks—System of Pythagoras—Of Aristotle—Dogmas concerning the extinction and reproduction of genera and species—Strabo's theory of elevation by earthquakes—Pliny—Concluding Remarks on the knowledge of the Ancients.
Oriental Cosmogony.—The earliest doctrines of the Indian and Egyptian schools of philosophy agreed in ascribing the first creation of the world to an omnipotent and infinite Being. They concurred also in representing this Being, who had existed from all eternity, as having repeatedly destroyed and reproduced the world and all its inhabitants. In the sacred volume of the Hindoos, called the Ordinances of Menù, comprising the Indian system of duties religious and civil, we find a preliminary chapter treating of the Creation, in which the cosmogony is known to have been derived from earlier writings and traditions; and principally from certain hymns of high antiquity, called the Vedas. These hymns were first put together, according to Mr. Colebrooke,[1] in a connected series, about thirteen centuries before the Christian era, but they appear from internal evidence to have been written at various antecedent periods. In them, as we learn from the researches of Professor Wilson, the eminent Sanscrit scholar, two distinct philosophical systems are discoverable. According to one of them, all things were originally brought into existence by the sole will of a single First Cause, which existed from eternity; according to the other, there have always existed two principles, the one material, but without form, the other spiritual and capable of compelling "inert matter to develop its sensible properties." This development of matter into "individual and visible existences" is called creation, and is assigned to a subordinate agent, or the creative faculty of the Supreme Being embodied in the person of Brahma.