OCR Text |
Show 4 GEOLOGY DISTINCT FROM COSMOGONY. painter, sculptor, ot· architect, wo~ld often neglect m~n.y curious relics of antiquity, as devmd of beaut! and ~mnstructive with relation to their own art, however Illustrative of the progress of refinement in some ancient nation. It has therefore been found desirable that the antiquary should unite his labours to those of the historian, and similar co-operation has become necessary in geology. 'l'he field of inquiry in livino- nature being inexhaustible, the zoologist and botanist can rar~ly be induced to sacrifice time in exploring the imperfect remains of lost species of animals and plants, while those still existing afford constant matter of novelty. 'I'hey must entertain a desire of promoting geology by such investigations, and some knowledge of its objects must guide and direct their studies. According to the different opportunities, tastes, and talents of individuals, they may employ themselves in collecting particular kinds of minerals, rocks, or organic remains, and these, when well examined and explained, afford data to the geologist, as do coins, medals, and inscriptions to the historian. It was long ere 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. Werner appears to have regarded geology as 1ittle other than a subordinate department of mineralogy, and Desmarest included it under the head of Physical Geography. Dut the identification of its objects with those of Cosmogony has been the most common and serious source of confusion. The first who endeavoured to dniw a c1ear line of demarcation between these distinct departments, was Hutton, who declared that geology was in no ways concerned " with questions as to the origin of things." But his doctrine on this head was vehemently opposed at first, and although it has gradually gained ground, and will ultimately prevail, it is yet far from being established. We shall attempt in the sequel of this work to demonstrate that geology differs as widely from cosmogony, as speculations concerning the creation of man differ from history. But before we enter more at large on this controverted question, we shall endeavour to trace the progress of opinion on this topic, from the earliest ages, to the commence~ ment of the present century. CHAPTER II. Oriental Cosmogony-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. 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 repeatecUy destroyed and reproduced the world and all its inhabitants. In the " Institutes of Menu," the sacred volume of the Hindoos, to which, in its present form, Sir William Jones ascribes an antiquity of at least eight hundred and eighty years before Christ, we find this system of the alternate destruction and renovation of the world, proposed in the following remarkable verses. '' The Being, whose powers are incomprehensible, having created me (Menu) and this universe, again became absorbed in the supreme spirit, changing the time of energy for the hour of repose. " When that power awakes, then has this world its full expansion; but when he slumbers with a tranquil spirit, then th~ whole system fades away. . . . . For while he reposes as 1t were, embodied spirits endowed with principles of action depart from their several acts, and the mind itself becomes inert." Menu then describes the absorption of all beings into the Supreme essence, and the Divine soul itself is said to slumber, and to remain for a time immersed in '' the first idea, or in ?arkness." He then proceeds, (verse fifty-seven,) " Thus that Immutable power, by waking and reposing alternately, revivifies and destroys, in eternal succession, this whole assemblage of locomotive and immoveable creatures." 1 |