Chapter L: Agassiz (11)

[34] The following digest from Professor Balfour’s very admirable “Manual of Botany,” of what is held on this curious subject, may be not unacceptable to the reader. “It is an interesting question to determine the mode in which the various species and tribes of plants were originally scattered over the globe. Various hypotheses have been advanced on the subject. Linnæus entertained the opinion that there was at first only one primitive centre of vegetation, from which plants were distributed over the globe. Some, avoiding all discussions and difficulties, suppose that plants were produced at first in the localities where they are now seen vegetating. Others think that each species of plant originated in, and was diffused from, a single primitive centre; and that there were numerous such centres situated in different parts of the world, each centre being the seat of a particular number of species. They thus admit great vegetable migrations, similar to those of the human races. Those who adopt the latter view recognize in the distribution of plants some of the last revolutions of our planet, and the action of numerous and varied forces, which impede or favor the dissemination of vegetables in the present day. They endeavor to ascertain the primitive flora of countries, and to trace the vegetable migrations which have taken place. Daubeny says, that analogy favors the supposition that each species of plant was originally formed in some particular locality, whence it spread itself gradually over a certain area, rather than that the earth was at once, by the fiat of the Almighty, covered with vegetation in the manner we at present behold it. The human race rose from a single pair; and the distribution of plants and animals over a certain definite area would seem to imply that the same was the general law. Analogy would lead us to believe that the extension of species over the earth originally took place on the same plan on which it is conducted at present, when a new island starts up in the midst of the ocean, produced either by a coral reef or a volcano. In these cases the whole surface is not at once overspread with plants, but a gradual progress of vegetation is traced from the accidental introduction of a single seed, perhaps, of each species, wafted by winds or floated by currents. The remarkable limitation of certain species to single spots on the globe seems to favor the supposition of specific centres.”

[35] _Rhodomenia palmata_ and _Alaria esculenta_.

[36] _Porphyra laciniata_, _Chorda filum_, and _Enteromorpha compressa_.

[37] “Dr. Neill mentions,” says the Rev. Mr. Landsborough, in his complete and very interesting “History of British Sea-Weeds,” “that on our shores algæ generally occupy zones in the following order, beginning from deep water:—_F. Filum_; _F. esculentus_ and _bulbosus_, _F. digitatus_, _saccharinus_, and _loreus_; _F. serratus_ and _crispus_; _F. nodosus_ and _vesiculosus_; _F. canaliculatus_; and, last of all, _F. pygmæus_; which is satisfied if it be within reach of the spray.”

[38] We are supplied with a curious example of that ever-returning cycle of speculation in which the human mind operates, by not only the introduction of the _principle_ of Epicurus into the “Vestiges,” but also by the unconscious employment of even his very _arguments_, slightly modified by the floating semi-scientific notions of the time. The following passages, taken, the one from the modern work, the other from Fénélon’s life of the old Greek philosopher, are not unworthy of being studied, as curiously illustrative of the cycle of thought. Epicurus, I must, however, first remind the reader, in the words of his biographer, “supposed that men, and all other animals, were originally produced by the ground. According to him, the primitive earth was fat and nitrous; and the sun, gradually warming it, soon covered it with herbage and shrubs: there also began to arise on the surface of the ground a great number of small tumors like mushrooms, which having in a certain time come to maturity, the skin burst, and there came forth little animals, which, gradually retiring from the place where they were produced, began to respire.” And there can be little doubt, that had the microscope been a discovery of early Greece, the passage here would have told us, not of mushroom-like tumors, but of monads. Save that the element of microscopic fact is awanting in the one and present in the other, the following are strictly parallel lines of argument:—

“To the natural objection that the earth does not now produce men, lions, and dogs, Epicurus replies that the fecundity of the earth is now exhausted. In advanced age a woman ceases to bear children; a piece of land never before cultivated produces much more during the few first years than it does afterwards; and when a forest is once cut down, the soil never produces trees equal to those which have been rooted up. Those which are afterwards planted become dwarfish, and are perpetually degenerating. We are, however, he argues, by no means certain but there may be at present rabbits, hares, foxes, bears, and other animals, produced by the earth in their perfect state. The reason why we are backward in admitting it is, that it happens in retired places, and never falls under our view; and, never seeing rats but such as have been produced by other rats, we adopt the opinion that the earth never produced any.” (_Fénélon’s Lives of the Ancient Philosophers._)

“In the first place, there is no reason to suppose that, though life had been imparted by natural means, after the first cooling of the surface to a suitable temperament, it would continue thereafter to be capable of being imparted in like manner. The great work of the peopling of this globe with living species is mainly a fact accomplished: the highest known species came as a crowning effort thousands of years ago. The work being thus to all appearance finished, we are not necessarily to expect that the origination of life and of species should be conspicuously exemplified in the present day. We are rather to expect that the vital phenomena presented to our eyes should mainly, if not entirely, be limited to a regular and unvarying succession of races by the ordinary means of generation. This, however, is no more an argument against a time when phenomena of the first kind prevailed, than it would be a proof against the fact of a mature man having once been a growing youth, that he is now seen growing no longer..... Secondly, it is far from being certain that the primitive imparting of life and form to inorganic elements is not a fact of our times.” (_Vestiges of Creation._)

[39] “_Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation_,” and “_Explanations, being a Sequel to the Vestiges_.”

[40] The chapter in which this passage occurs originally appeared, with several of the others, in the _Witness_ newspaper, in a series of articles, entitled “Rambles of a Geologist,” and drew forth the following letter from a correspondent of the _Scottish Press_, the organ of a powerful and thoroughly respectable section of the old Dissenters of Scotland. I present it to the reader merely to show, that if, according to the author of the “Vestiges,” geologists assailed the development hypothesis in the fond hope of “purchasing impunity for themselves,” they would succeed in securing only disappointment for their pains:—

“THE PRE-ADAMITE EARTH.

“_To the Editor of the Scottish Press._

“SIR,—I occasionally observe articles in your neighbor and
contemporary the _Witness_, characteristically headed ‘Rambles
of a Geologist,’ wherein the writer with great zeal once more
‘slays the slain’ heresies of the ‘Vestiges of Creation.’
This writer (of the ‘Rambles,’ I mean) nevertheless, and at
the same time, announces his own tenets to be much of the
same sort, as applied to mere dead matter, that those of the
‘Vestiges’ are with regard to living organisms. He maintains
that the world, during the last million of years, has been of
itself rising or developing, without the interposition of a
miracle, from chaos into its present state; and, of course,
as it is still, as a world, confessedly far below the acme of
physical perfection, that it must be just now on its passage,
self-progressing, towards that point, which terminus it may
reach in another million of years hence.[!!!] The author of
the ‘Vestiges,’ as quoted by the author of the ‘Rambles,’ in
the last number of the _Witness_, complains that the latter
and his allies are not at all so liberal to him as, from their
present circumstances and position, he had a right to expect.
He (the author of the ‘Vestiges’) reminds his opponents that
they have themselves only lately emerged from the antiquated
scriptural notions that our world was the direct and almost
immediate construction of its Creator,—as much so, in fact,
as any of its organized tenants,—and that it was then created
in a state of physical excellence, the highest possible, to
render it a suitable habitation for these tenants, and all
this only about six or seven thousand years ago,—to the new
light of their present _physico-Lamarckian_ views; and he asks,
and certainly not without reason, why should _these men_, so
circumstanced, be so anxious to stop him in his attempt to move
one step further forward in the very direction they themselves
have made the last move?—that is, in his endeavor to extend
their own principles of self-development from mere matter to
living creatures. Now, Sir, I confess myself to be one of those
(and possibly you may have more readers similarly constituted)
who not only cannot see any great difference between merely
_physical_ and _organic_ development,[!!] but who would be
inclined to allow the latter, absurd as it is, the advantage in
point of likelihood.[!!!] The author of the ‘Rambles,’ however,
in the face of this, assures us that _his_ views of physical
self-development and long chronology belong to the inductive
sciences. Now, I could at this stage of his rambles have wished
very much that, instead of merely _saying_ so, he had given
his _demonstration_. He refers, indeed, to several great men,
who, he says, are of his opinion. Most that these men have
written on the question at issue I have seen, but it appeared
far from demonstrative, and some of them, I know, had not fully
made up their mind on the point.[!!!] Perhaps the author of
the ‘Rambles’ could favor us with the inductive process that
converted himself; and, as the attainment of truth, and not
victory, is my object, I promise either to acquiesce in or
rationally refute it.[?] Till then I hold by my antiquated
tenets, that our world, nay, the whole material universe, was
created about six or seven thousand years ago, and that in a
state of physical excellence of which we have in our present
fallen world only the ‘vestiges of creation.’ I conclude by
mentioning that this view I have held now for nearly thirty
years, and, amidst all the vicissitudes of the philosophical
world during that period, I have never seen cause to change
it. Of course, with this view I was, during the interval
referred to, a constant opponent of the once famous, though now
exploded, nebular hypothesis of La Place; and I yet expect to
see _physical development_ and _long chronology_ wither also on
this earth, now that THEIR ROOT (the said hypothesis) has been
eradicated from the SKY.[!!!]—I am, Sir, your most obedient
servant,

“PHILALETHES.”

I am afraid there is little hope of converting a man who has held so stoutly by his notions “for nearly thirty years;” especially as, during that period, he has been acquainting himself with what writers such as Drs. Chalmers, Buckland, and Pye Smith have written on the other side. But for the _demonstration_ which he asks, as _I_ have conducted it, I beg leave to refer him to the seventeenth chapter of my little work, “First Impressions of England and its People.” I am, however, inclined to suspect that he is one of a class whose objections are destined to be removed rather by the operation of the laws of matter than of those of mind. For it is a comfortable consideration, that in this controversy the geologists _have_ the laws of matter on their side;—“the stars in their courses fight against Sisera.” Their opponents now, like the opponents of the astronomer in the ages gone by, are, in most instances, men who have been studying the matter “for nearly thirty years.” When they study it for a few years longer they disappear; and the men of the same cast and calibre who succeed them are exactly the men who throw themselves most confidently into the arms of the enemy, and look down upon their poor silent predecessors with the loftiest commiseration. It is, however, not uninstructive to remark how thoroughly, in some instances, the weaker friends and the wilier enemies of Revelation are at one in their conclusions respecting natural phenomena. The correspondent of the _Scottish Press_ merely regards the views of the author of the “Vestiges” as possessing “the advantage, in point of likelihood,” over those of the geologists his antagonists: his ally the Dean of York goes greatly further, and stands up as stoutly for the transmutation of species as Lamarck himself. Descanting, in his _New System of Geology_, on the various forms of trilobites, ammonites, belemnites, &c. Dean Cockburn says,—

“These creatures appear to have possessed the power of secreting from the stone beneath them a limy covering for their backs, and perhaps, fed partly on the same solid material. Supposing, now that the first trilobites were destroyed by the Llandeilo Slates, some spawn of these creatures would arise above these flags, and, after a time, would be warmed into existence. These _molluscs_,[!!] then, having a better material from which to extract their food and covering, would probably expand in a slightly different form, and with a more extensive mantle than what belonged to the parent species. The same would be still more the case with a new generation, fed upon a new deposit from some deeper volcano, such as the Caradoc or Wenlock Limestone, in which lime more and more predominates. Now, if any one will examine the various prints of trilobites in Sir R. Murchison’s valuable work, he will find but very trifling differences in any of them,[!!] and those differences only in the stony covering of their backs. I knew two brothers once much alike: the one became a curate with a large family; the other a London alderman. If the skins of these two pachydermata had been preserved in a fossil state, there would have been less resemblance between them than between an _Asaphus tyrannus_ and an _Asaphus caudatus_.... A careful and laborious investigation has discovered, as in the trilobites, a difference in the ammonites of different strata; but such differences, as in the former case, exist only in the form of the external shell, and may be explained in the same manner.[!!] ... As to the scaphites, baculites, belemnites, and all the other _ites_ which learned ingenuity has so named, you find them in various strata the same in all important particulars, but also differing slightly in their outward coverings, as might be expected from the different circumstances in which each variety was placed.[!!] The sheep in the warm valleys of Andalusia have a fine covering like to hair; but remove them to a northern climate, and in a few generations the back is covered with shaggy wool. The animal is the same,—the covering only is changed.... The learned have classed those shells under the names of terebratula, orthis, atrypa, pecten, &c. They are all much alike.[!!!] It requires an experienced eye to distinguish them one from another: what little differences have been pointed out may readily be ascribed, as before, to difference of situation.”[!!!]

The author of the “Vestiges,” with this, the fundamental portion of his case, granted to him by the Dean, will have exceedingly little difficulty in making out the rest for himself. The passage is, however, not without its value, as illustrative of the darkness, in matters of physical science, “even darkness which may be felt,” that is suffered to linger, in this the most scientific of ages, in the Church of Buckland, Sedgwick, and Conybeare.

[41] The common objection to that special view which regards the _days_ of creation as immensely protracted periods of time, furnishes a specimen, if not of reasoning in a circle, at least of reasoning from a mere assumption. It first takes for granted, that the Sabbath day during which God rested was a day of but twenty-four hours; and then argues, from the supposition, that in order to _keep up the proportion_ between the six previous working days and the seventh day of rest, which the reason annexed to the fourth commandment demands, these previous days must also have been days of twenty-four hours each. It would, I have begun to suspect, square better with the ascertained facts, and be at least equally in accordance with Scripture, to reverse the process, and argue that, _because_ God’s working days were immensely protracted periods, _his_ Sabbath must _also_ be an immensely protracted period. The reason attached to the law of the Sabbath seems to be simply _a reason of proportion_;—the objection to which I refer is an objection palpably founded on _considerations_ of proportion. And certainly, were the reason to be divested of proportion, it would be divested also of its distinctive character as a reason. Were it to run as follows, it could not be at all understood:—“Six days shalt thou labor, &c., but on the seventh day shalt thou do no labor, &c.; for in six immensely protracted periods of many thousand years each did the Lord make the heavens and earth, &c., and then rested during a brief day of twenty-four hours; therefore the Lord blessed the brief day of twenty-four hours, and hallowed it.” This, I repeat, would not be reason. All, however, that seems necessary to the integrity of the reason, in its character as such, is, that the proportion of six parts to seven should be maintained. God’s periods may be periods expressed algebraically by letters symbolical of unknown quantity, and man’s periods by letters symbolical of quantities well known; but if God’s Sabbath be equal to one of his six working days, and man’s Sabbath equal to one of _his_ six working days, the integrity of proportion is maintained. When I see the palpable absurdity of such a reading of the reason as the one given above, I can see no absurdity whatever in the reading which I subjoin:—“Six _periods_ (_a=a=a=a=a=a_) shalt thou labor, &c., but on the seventh _period_ (_b=a_) shalt thou do no labor, &c.; for in six _periods_ (_x=x=x=x=x=x_) the Lord made heaven and earth, &c., and rested the seventh _period_, (_y=x_;) therefore the Lord blessed the seventh _period_, and hallowed it” The reason, in its character as a reason of proportion, survives here in all its integrity. Man, when in his unfallen estate, bore the image of God, but it must have been a miniature image at best;—the proportion of man’s week to that of his Maker may, for aught that appears, be mathematically just in its proportions, and yet be a miniature image too,—the mere scale of a map, on which inches represent geographical degrees. All those week days and Sabbath days of man which have come and gone since man first entered upon this scene of being, with all which shall yet come and go, until the resurrection of the dead terminates the work of Redemption, may be included, and probably _are_ included, in the one Sabbath day of God.

Valuable Works

PUBLISHED BY GOULD AND LINCOLN,
_59 Washington Street, Boston._

_HAMILTON’S LECTURES_, embracing the METAPHYSICAL and LOGICAL COURSES; with Notes, from Original Materials, and an Appendix, containing the Author’s Latest Development of his New Logical Theory. Edited by Rev. HENRY LONGUEVILLE MANSEL, B. D., Prof. of Moral and Metaphysical Philosophy in Magdalen College, Oxford, and JOHN VEITCH, M. A., of Edinburgh. In two royal octavo volumes, viz.,