302 Professor H. M. Tomett — On Geological Hrjpothesis. 



to modify the hypothesis accordingly — is just the essential quality of 

 a truly scientific mind, just the quality that the 'general reader,' 

 with his eternal haste for generalization and his eternal zeal for 

 dogma, can never understand. 



" For such the story of the race — 



Chance oft has found what System lost ; 

 For System claims too high a place, 

 And oft too high a price has cost." 



5. There are other directions, in which the candid statement of 

 hypotheses can only minister to the real strength and interest of 

 geological science. The various, classifications of rocks, for example, 

 lose none of their value by being openly reduced to their true level 

 of tentative work, instead of aping a ' natural ' origin. Botanical 

 and zoological systems of classification can lose nothing by the same 

 straightforwardness. But there is another aspect in which the 

 deficiencies of our geological textbooks disclose themselves. 



The historical study of geology may not at first sight appear 

 a fruitful field for research. A science comparatively young seems 

 to possess as yet but little history'-, though this fact should by no 

 means excuse the total absence of any sketch of such history in 

 almost all textbooks of geology. But though geology, under its own 

 name and working by scientific methods, is of such recent origin, 

 geological thinking of some sort is found all over the world and in 

 all the literatures of the world from the earliest times. When, for 

 example, Hebrews described their God as "moulding mountains" 

 or " cleaving the earth with rivers," as " putting forth his hand 

 upon the flint" or "breaking down the rocks," it is clear that 

 the geologists' earth - sculpture was being observed, though very 

 diff'erently explained, by these primitive thinkers. 



If it be said that such primitive thinking is not nowadays worth 

 our study, I answer that even our wisest men of science are liable 

 to gross blunders if they neglect such historical work. Professor 

 Huxley, for example, in his " Physiography," not long ago confused 

 the modern theory of atmospheric circulation with the ancient 

 thought of that Hebrew writer who speaks of the rivers " returning 

 to the place from whence they come." The author of " Ecclesiastes," 

 as I have elsewhere proved, was referring to an entirely difi^erent kind 

 of water-circulation by which ancient Hebrew thought accounted 

 for the origin of springs as an outlet of their " waters beneath the 

 €arth," waters upon which they conceived their earth to rest. If it 

 were for no other purpose than to guard ourselves against a wild 

 confusion of modern with ancient thinking, we must study primitive 

 geology as expressed or implied in the writings of ancient times. 

 A fascinating study, this primitive geology, but needing not only 

 patient research but also large linguistic knowledge. Yet I see 

 no reason why our handbooks of the future should not contain 

 both a brief history of geology as a science and an outline of the 

 beginnings of thought on geological subjects, alike in ancient 

 literatures and in uncivilized peoples now living. 



