OCR Text |
Show 252 EXPLANATIONS. taken assumptions with regard to the constltution of tt' ani1ual king-dom. It is impossible, as they say, to lllalf.g out a genealogy in a line of orders j but lel a fresh r..ctl\11~ talist of equal standing judge of~ the theory after he ln4 considered the animal h:inO'dom In the arrangernent now su~gested, and I feel assu~·ed that its feasibility will re· ce1ve a more favorable verdict. The reviewer however, would not abate one jot of his npinion, although Cuvier, Agassiz, a~d O:ven were .all against him ! If such be the state of h1s min<.~ r~gardmg Cuvier with what face can he condemn St. H1laue, who only d~es that towards the dead lion which our critic would also do, supposing the dead lion were. equally opposed to his opinion? The ground~ for this stro~g assurance are in personal and tmmed~ate ohservatwn of facts. "We have examined," says he, " the old records . . . in the spots where nature placed them, an~. we know their true historical meaning. . . . We have VIsited in suct~ession the tombs and charnel-houses of these old times an•l we took with us the clew spun in the fabric of de~elopment; but we found this clew ?O guide t~rough these ancient labvrinths, and, sorely against our Will, we were compt>lled to snap its thread .... -y; e now dare af- 1inn that geology, not seen through the m1st of any theory, but taken as a plain succession of monl;nnents and facts, offers one firm cumulative argument against the hypothe· sis of development." What first strikes us in this .declaration is the tone in which the writer speaks of l11s own convictions. Cuvier, Agassiz, Owen, may all be wrong; b'Jt this writer cannot. He has seen what he speaks of. AO'ainst "a dovmatical dictation contrary to the sobe" rubl es of sound p0 hilosophyH (his o·wn words,) there mi"gh t have surely been some protection in the necessity. of retraC'tatioiJ to which the best ge0logists are occasi.onal~y reduced. For example, we have Professor Sedgwick, In l b31, und0ing a theory he had formerly embraced: " \Ve now connect' the gravel of the plains with tha elevation of the newest system of mountains ..... That these statements militate against opinions but a few y~ars si nee held almost universally among us, cannot he demed. Rut thoories of diluvial gravel, like all other ardent general1~ zations of an advancing science, rnust evet· be regard· td hut as shifting h!1pothcsis to be 1nodified by _every new iuct, till at length they 1Jcco1ne accm·dant wtth all th1 l':riYSrOLOGICAL OB.TE~TIONS OF DR. CLARK:. 253 »ht-'f'om~a cf nature. In retreating, V\·here we have advanc~ d tao far, there is !leith_er cof!lpromise of dignity nvr JiOSS of s~rength; for 111 doing tlns we partake but of the common fortune of every one \Yho enters on a field ~f investigc1tion like our own." The contr3Gt between the philosophic modesty of this passage and the above extract from the EdinhurO'h reviewer must lle very striking. The reader, who ha~ seen !he .hollowness of so many of this writer's particular ob] echons to th~ development theory, can be little at a Joss to form an eshmate of the personal investigations of which he speaks. He seems to have yet to learn that the necessarily partial investigations which any single geologist may be abl_e .Personally to make can give no such amount of the requisite knowledge as may be acquired in another ~ode of study; that t.he intellectual powers and preparations of the personal Inquirer ought also to be known, before we can set such store even by that light which may be attained by his examinations. It is not uncommon for ordinary ma~·iner~ to boast of ~heir knowledge of a country fr~m hav1ng_sa1led several times to one of its ports, and for pnvate sentinels to pretend to a superior knowledge of a great battle, in one detachment of which they happened to be engaged. Of such boastings and pretensions I must confess that I am strongly ren1inded by this w1·iter. The geological. objections to the development theory have now b~en discussed, _and to the public it must be left to dec1de the qtwshon, whether palreontology is favorable or unfavorable to that scheme. I must not advert .to the illustrations which the theory derives from physwlogy, and the objections which have been made to them. The Edinburgh reviewer occupies several of his pages w.ith such objections, but, fortunately, they need not detain us long, ~s they come to little more than this, that he puts trust Ill Dr. Clark, of Cambridge, while I have. resorted for the support of my ger.eral theory to the VIews advocated by other physiologists.* I may say "'Dr. Wh~well (pref~ce to Indicalinns, '.f•c.) joins the reviewer ~nd others I.n rcpro.batmg the suggestions which have bet!n made m ~?e yestiges w1th. regard to a similarity between cert~in crys· talhzat10ns, .as the figures produced by frost upon windows and the . fb·bo1; Dza;nt1!, to vegetable forms. The logical merits of' the rev1e~er s mmd are here fully indicated, for what does he set down as a d1sproof of these as ' t~mces of secondary means by which the |