id 
176 GEOLOGY. ‘ 
« 
% 
Geology compared to History. : ies 
‘. ‘Geology is intimately related to almost all the physical sciences, as 
‘history is to the moral. A historian should, if possible, be at once pro+_ 
foundly acquainted with ethics, politics, jurisprudence, the military art,® 
theology; in a word, with all branches of knowledge by which i 3 
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 
ous be well versed in chemistry, natural philosophy, mineralogy, 
ology, comparative anatomy, botany; in short, im every science relating 
to organic and inorganic nature. With these accomplishments, t 
historian and geologist would rarely fail to draw correct philosophical 
conclusions from the various monuments transmitted to them of form 
occurrences. They would know to what combination of causes analogo 
effects were referrible, 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 rem 
of lost species of animals nit he 

| ie 
he analogy, however, Of the monuments consulted in geology, and 
those available in history, extends no further than to one class of historical 
amonuments—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 
reion 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 yiélds 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, 
eit, ir tly imperfect, possesses at least the advantage of being free 
from all suspicion of misrepresentation. We may be deceived in the 
_ inferences which we draw, in the same manner as we often mistake the 
* nature and import enomena observed in the daily course of nature, 
but our liability t6 is confined to the interpretation, and, if this be 
correct, our information is certain.’—Sir CHartes Lyenb. 
a ¥ 
> 

