Glacial Geology in America. — Faircliild. 157 
England, I seemed to be acquiring anew geological settse ; and I 
now look upon our smoothed and striated rocks, our accumulations 
of gravel, and the tout ensemble of diluvial phenomena with new eyes." 
I do not mention these difficulties (to which I 
might add more) as any strong evidence against this theory. For so 
remarkably does it solve most of the phenomena of diluvial action, 
that I am constrained to believe its fundamental principles to be 
founded in truth." 
In the application of the hypothesis to American drift he 
stated his chief difificukies to be: (i) the general southerly di- 
rection of the striae and drift transportation over New England 
and New York, instead of radiating from the highlands as in 
the Alps; (2 ) the lifting of the erratics from lower to 
-higher levels, although for this work he regarded ice as more 
efficient than water; and (3) the localized drift masses which 
we now call "drumlins." At that time, with only Alpine gla- 
cier phenomena as the foundation of the theory, these were 
valid and forcible objections. Indeed his presentation of the 
argument for and against glacial agency showed excellent ap- 
preciation and grasp of the subject, and to-day can be read 
with profit. This is also true of his "Postscript," discussing 
the glacier hypothesis and moraines in the introduction to his 
Geology of Massachusetts, 1841. 
In these writings Professor Hitchcock seemed to declare his 
adherence to the glacial hypothesis, as applied to America, 
with as little hesitation and qualification as would be expected 
of a careful man of science in espousing a new theory that an- 
tagonized the prevailing belief and prejudice of his fellow 
workers. It is evident from subsequent records that his utter- 
ances were accepted at the time as committing him to the ac- 
ceptance of the theory of Agassiz. But, unfortunately for 
truth and for American geology, the circumstances and scien- 
tific forces of that time did not allow him to stand upon the ad- 
vanced ground he had taken. He was criticised by Murch- 
ison, to whom he was attached, and evidently found no support 
among his confreres at home. Instead of following Buckland 
in support of the glacial theory he went over to the side of 
Murchison and Lyell, and the next year at the Boston meet- 
ing his elaborate paper on the drift favored the iceberg hypo- 
thesis. In 1843 he is quoted in the following words: 
