THE LAST REVOLUTION OF THE EARTH,

353

Asia and Australia of the other, inclined together, the irregularity in consequence, as far as regards the shape of these parts of the world, thus grown together or entwined into each other, was even doubled. There is much that is very striking in this great irregularity, which might perhaps be connected with the earth's axis, as assumed by the author, but which, however, seems by no means immediately to result from it. We only remark, for instance, on the globe of the earth, how the main land extends both in Northern Asia and in America, Iwith its whole breadth towards the north and the North Pole, while the great points to all parts of the world taper off in a direct line towards the south. In this hemisphere, moreover, the sea so preponderates, that we might also aptly term the South Pole the Water Pole of the earth. Independently then of the influence of a comet rising from this quarter, we could easily believe that the great flood broke in directly from the south, as is related in the Zendavesta. Is it not generally conceivable, quite apart from the alteration of the axis of the earth on the whole, that the main land also, and individual portions of the world, as pieces or limbs of the upper earth's coating, have been moved by themselves or thrust from their places? The irregular shape of the present main land might easily lead to such assumptions. Exclusive of the direction just alluded to of the breadth in the main land towards the north, and of the points stretching to the south, the outlines of the parts of the world separated by the sea, often appear to correspond mutually to each other in their indentures and prominences, as if they had been wrenched asunder, like as the rocky banks of a river often are, standing opposite each other. This is especially remarkable in South America; namely, on its eastern coast, and on the west coast of Africa, where both respond to each other. Much of the present irregular shape of the main land could thus be explained, on that supposition of a tide advancing from the south, and a subsequent divulsion from east to west, which, consequently, together with that direction towards the north, formed a twofold motion. If also upon the whole an external shock, as the effect of a proximate comet, was the effective cause of the flood, we need not exclude an internal alteration, metamorphosis, development, and evolution, or perhaps even disease in the organic life of the earth, from that,

which, if it did not produce the catastrophe, may have yet co-operated. Not to increase the number of possible conjectures in this higher department of geography have I permitted myself to make these allusions, but solely in order to attend to all the sides of the subject, and to pose them as questions to science. The most essential question of this kind may possibly be this, whether the shape of the main land, irregular as it actually is, may not have first ensued through the last revolution of the earth; whether the old continent, the real primitive land before the flood, may not have had a more regular and a more mathematically simple form; and if so, what? This question is of course superfluous, should the higher branch of astronomy already offer for answering it some analogies, derived from what it can know, or can with probability suppose of planetary formation. The author considers as an especially important sign for estimating the consequences of the last revolution, that only since then, upon the evidence of the Zendavesta, winter and summer should have existed, and that before the flood one season only, one perpetual summer, prevailed. Accordingly, he seems to assume, that the obliquity of the ecliptic also was then first produced; since change of seasons would essentially accompany such obliquity, no matter when or how produced.

Willingly as I assent to the main supposition of the author's respecting the last revolution of the earth, one thing still appears to be wanting. It would have been desirable, for instance, if the author had contemplated the climatical change of the earth not merely astronomically, and had not confined himself merely to the natural, historical phenomena on the surface of terrestrial life, but had extended the investigation also to the inner change effected in some manner during and by the flood, to the probable deterioration of the atmosphere in its elementary nature, as also to the consequences of this change for man himself, his diet, and the diseases to which he is subject; perhaps even to the existence thereby given to some subordinate animal productions; since in the decaying organism of a deceased individual every kind of false life and of vital organization is produced. In these and such respects we should have been glad, if the author had also introduced into the sphere of his considerations the atmosphere, the change and deterioration it under

THE LAST REVOLUTION OF THE EARTH.

355

went during the last revolution of the earth. The air is, after all, that which is real in nature; the atmosphere forms the proper organ of all earthly life.

Thus far respecting that which belongs to geography, in the idea of the author, the definitive decision of which, for the most part, belongs to another tribunal. I now turn to the properly historical part of the work lying before me, which more directly concerns us. Here I shall follow the author step by step; but at the same time connect with it and prelusively introduce some few words concerning the Genesis. Not for the purpose of disputing with the author, because he has hitherto paid such little attention to Moses, and does not seem to have made himself intelligible,—for in point of fact, his judgment respecting him, only negatively expressed, can hardly be deemed one at all,-but solely to throw light on the case itself by so doing; since this, namely the beginning of human history, is now inseparably connected with the profounder and right understanding of that sacred document; since also, among the results of the author, those which concern the nature and essence of the first and primitive religion, appear to be the most important, which we have to consider with especial attention, to which then, what remains to be reminded concerning the primitive language, the origin of alphabetical writing, and the migration of the first human races from one common primitive land,, we can easily annex as a corollary.

In a work of a kindred nature ("On the Age and Value of some Asiatic Documents," preface, page vi.) the author quotes a passage from Sir William Jones concerning the application of the Genesis to learned and historical investigations, which is of the following import: "Either the eleven first chapters of the Genesis are true, or our national religion (the Christian one) is false. But now Christianity is not false, and consequently those chapters are true." Now this is exactly the principle, which the author blames, considering it as destruc-tive to the freedom of research; he finds it most objectionable,. and he utterly reprobates it in all those, who, even in this department of science, must needs preserve their character of mere Christian scholars and act accordingly.

In the work before us also (p. 22) he reckons among those prejudices, which must first be discarded, before the investi

gation can at all proceed with impartiality, the assertion, "that there are and can be no older documents than those of Moses, and that all ancient traditions, for this very reason, are manifestly false." First of all, as far as regards the age of the other traditions and documents, criticism alone, and not religion, has to decide; nor is it at all evident how it can in any way affect religion, even should older traditions than the Mosaic be really discovered. It may be notwithstanding assumed as positive that this case has not as yet occurred. The actual rejection of all traditions that do not happen to coincide with the Mosaic is not by any means so unconditionally contained in that principle, as Sir W. Jones has expressed it. Categorical and peremptory for learned criticism, of grave results for historical research, as it may appear at first sight, it may be easily cleared up and explained. It is not the principle itself so immediately concerned as what follows after. If the conclusion is drawn from that phrase, that all other Asiatic documents and traditions, which perhaps only apparently contradict those of Moses, are to be at once valued as nought and utterly rejected, why then assuredly all further investigation and enlargement of our views would be cut off and annihilated. But this is by no means the case, if we would content ourselves with simply deducing from that argument, perfectly correct in itself, what really is contained in it; that we have, namely, carefully to examine and critically to inspect all other Asiatic documents and traditions, more especially to compare them with one another and with the Mosaic account. It is clear that Moses, even if we did not reverence his account as a sacred one, would necessarily appear as the first of safe guides by reason of his sublime simplicity. To attempt at least such a comparison, and until its completion to suspend and preserve unbiassed the judgment, regarding all that reveals itself as quite uncertain or too difficult for the comprehension, this is a law imposed on us by sound criticism. Sir W. Jones, notwithstanding that maxim of his, himself attempted on a great scale, with equal great comprehensiveness of judgment as deep learning, to institute such a comparison of the Genesis with the other old traditions and all the new ethnographical discoveries, in his treatise on the descent of all known people according to their three

THE LAST REVOLUTION OF THE EARTH.

357

principal races. It would do no harm if we, in accordance with that critical moderation, would assume also in a manner as possible, that we do not perhaps as yet understand, or at all events have not hitherto understood, in their full extent, the physical and historical contents of the Genesis; a supposition not in the slightest degree opposed by Christianity, as the moral instruction, which we have to derive from that commencement of the Bible, is in religion not doubtful and in the main quite independent of learned investigations. If anything, however, can serve as confirmation to the assertion, that the Genesis is no longer at all rightly understood by our criticism as hitherto applied, and by our present exegesis, it is the universal applause which the well-known hypothesis has found among so many biblical scholars, that the beginning of Moses has been blended, has grown or been interwoven from two documents-an Elohim-document and a Jehovah-document; an hypothesis that immediately falls to the ground as soon as we have begun to understand the sense of the holy record; but I reserve it, since it is still so generally diffused, as a remarkable monument of critical error in our century, for the sake of elucidating it thoroughly on some other occasion.

Let us now compare first the view of the author concerning traditions in general, and let us see how his own ideas are at all applicable to the Genesis or stand in relation to them. The author remarks very correctly and ingeniously, that we can distinguish two different lines and threads (pp. 1 and 2) in the myth and tradition of any ancient nation; the mythic, which is directed to the commencement of all history and at all times, is interwoven with some theology or cosmogony; the other actual and appertaining to the history of each nation as its own. In history itself, however, we have again carefully to distinguish the ante-chronological part from what is already chronological. It must be confessed that it certainly is that first thread with its contents, directed to the beginning of human history with reference to God or to nature, that is especially susceptible of the mythic formation and also presents the nucleus for mythic increment; but as this is not absolutely necessary, and in the Genesis decidedly is not the case, it would be more correct to name quite simply this part of tradition the primitively-historical, according to