(9) * 2 3 



will give me occasion to say a word or two on the ten- 

 dencies and limits of modern science, to point out the 

 region which men of science claim as their own, and 

 where it is mere waste of time to oppose their advance, 

 and also to define, if possible, the bourne between this 

 and that other region to which the questionings and 

 yearnings of the scientific intellect are directed in vain. 



But here your tolerance will be needed. It was the 

 American Emerson, I think, who said that it is hardly 

 possible to state any truth strongly without apparent in- 

 jury to some other truth. Under the circumstances, the 

 proper course appears to be to state both truths strongly, 

 and allow each its fair share, in the formation of the re- 

 sultant conviction. For truth is often of a dual charac- 

 ter, taking the form of a magnet with two poles ; and 

 many of the differences which agitate the thinking part 

 of mankind are to be traced to the exclusiveness with 

 which different parties affirm one half of the duality in 

 forgetfulness of the other half. But this waiting for the 

 statement of the two sides of a question implies pa- 

 tience. It implies a resolution to suppress indignation if 

 the statement of the one half should clash with our con- 

 victions, and not to surfer ourselves to be c unduly elated 

 if the half-statement should chime in with our views. 

 It implies a determination to wait calmly for the state- 

 ment of the whole before we pronounce judgment either 

 in the form of acquiescence or dissent. 



This premised, let us enter upon our task. There 

 have been writers who affirmed that the pyramids of 

 Egypt were the productions of nature ; and in his early 

 youth Alexander Von Humboldt wrote an essay with 

 the express object of refuting this notion. We now re- 

 gard the pyramids as the work of men's hands, aided 



