{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_2627/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_2627","id":"gutenberg_2627","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/2627","summary":null,"tags":["Bible and science","Category: Archaeology & Anthropology","Category: Essays, Letters & Speeches","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Science - Biology","Evolution","Paleontology","Science"],"text":"Produced by D. R. Thompson\n\n\n\n\n\nON THE METHOD OF ZADIG\n\nESSAY #1 FROM \"SCIENCE AND HEBREW TRADITION\"\n\nBy Thomas Henry Huxley\n\n\n\n\nRETROSPECTIVE PROPHECY AS A FUNCTION OF SCIENCE\n\n\"Une marque plus sure que toutes celles de Zadig.\" [1]--Cuvier.\n\n\nIt is an usual and a commendable practice to preface the discussion of\nthe views of a philosophic thinker by some account of the man and of the\ncircumstances which shaped his life and coloured his way of looking at\nthings; but, though Zadig is cited in one of the most important chapters\nof Cuvier's greatest work, little is known about him, and that little\nmight perhaps be better authenticated than it is.\n\nIt is said that he lived at Babylon in the time of King Moabdar; but\nthe name of Moabdar does not appear in the list of Babylonian sovereigns\nbrought to light by the patience and the industry of the decipherers of\ncuneiform inscriptions in these later years; nor indeed am I aware\nthat there is any other authority for his existence than that of\nthe biographer of Zadig, one Arouet de Voltaire, among whose more\nconspicuous merits strict historical accuracy is perhaps hardly to be\nreckoned.\n\nHappily Zadig is in the position of a great many other philosophers.\nWhat he was like when he was in the flesh, indeed whether he existed at\nall, are matters of no great consequence. What we care about in a light\nis that it shows the way, not whether it is lamp or candle, tallow or\nwax. Our only real interest in Zadig lies in the conceptions of which he\nis the putative father; and his biographer has stated these with so much\nclearness and vivacious illustration, that we need hardly feel a pang,\neven if critical research should prove King Moabdar and all the rest of\nthe story to be unhistorical, and reduce Zadig himself to the shadowy\ncondition of a solar myth.\n\nVoltaire tells us that, disenchanted with life by sundry domestic\nmisadventures, Zadig withdrew from the turmoil of Babylon to a secluded\nretreat on the banks of the Euphrates, where he beguiled his solitude\nby the study of nature. The manifold wonders of the world of life had\na particular attraction for the lonely student; incessant and patient\nobservation of the plants and animals about him sharpened his naturally\ngood powers of observation and of reasoning; until, at length, he\nacquired a sagacity which enabled him to perceive endless minute\ndifferences among objects which, to the untutored eye, appeared\nabsolutely alike.\n\nIt might have been expected that this enlargement of the powers of the\nmind and of its store of natural knowledge could tend to nothing but\nthe increase of a man's own welfare and the good of his fellow-men. But\nZadig was fated to experience the vanity of such expectations.\n\n\n  \"One day, walking near a little wood, he saw, hastening that\n  way, one of the Queen's chief eunuchs, followed by a troop of\n  officials, who appeared to be in the greatest anxiety, running\n  hither and thither like men distraught, in search of some\n  lost treasure.\n\n  \"'Young man,' cried the eunuch, 'have you seen the Queen's dog?'\n  Zadig answered modestly, 'A bitch, I think, not a dog.'\n  'Quite right,' replied the eunuch; and Zadig continued, 'A very\n  small spaniel who has lately had puppies; she limps with the\n  left foreleg, and has very long ears.' 'Ah! you have seen her\n  then,' said the breathless eunuch. 'No,' answered Zadig, 'I have\n  not seen her; and I really was not aware that the Queen\n  possessed a spaniel.'\n\n  \"By an odd coincidence, at the very same time, the handsomest\n  horse in the King's stables broke away from his groom in the\n  Babylonian plain. The grand huntsman and all his staff were\n  seeking the horse with as much anxiety as the eunuch and his\n  people the spaniel; and the grand huntsman asked Zadig if he had\n  not seen the King's horse go that way.\n\n  \"'A first-rate galloper, small-hoofed, five feet high;\n  tail three feet and a half long; cheek pieces of the bit of\n  twenty-three carat gold; shoes silver?' said Zadig.\n\n  \"'Which way did he go? Where is he?' cried the grand huntsman.\n\n  \"'I have not seen anything of the horse, and I never heard of\n  him before,' replied Zadig.\n\n  \"The grand huntsman and the chief eunuch made sure that Zadig\n  had stolen both the King's horse and the Queen's spaniel, so\n  they haled him before the High Court of Desterham, which at once\n  condemned him to the knout, and transportation for life to\n  Siberia. But the sentence was hardly pronounced when the lost\n  horse and spaniel were found. So the judges were under the\n  painful necessity of reconsidering their decision: but they\n  fined Zadig four hundred ounces of gold for saying he had seen\n  that which he had not seen.\n\n  \"The first thing was to pay the fine; afterwards Zadig was\n  permitted to open his defence to the court, which he did in the\n  following terms:\n\n  \"'Stars of justice, abysses of knowledge, mirrors of truth,\n  whose gravity is as that of lead, whose inflexibility is as that\n  of iron, who rival the diamond in clearness, and possess no\n  little affinity with gold; since I am permitted to address your\n  august assembly, I swear by Ormuzd that I have never seen the\n  respectable lady dog of the Queen, nor beheld the sacrosanct\n  horse of the King of Kings.\n\n  \"'This is what happened. I was taking a walk towards the little\n  wood near which I subsequently had the honour to meet the\n  venerable chief eunuch and the most illustrious grand huntsman.\n  I noticed the track of an animal in the sand, and it was easy to\n  see that it was that of a small dog. Long faint streaks upon the\n  little elevations of sand between the footmarks convinced me\n  that it was a she dog with pendent dugs, showing that she must\n  have had puppies not many days since. Other scrapings of the\n  sand, which always lay close to the marks of the forepaws,\n  indicated that she had very long ears; and, as the imprint of\n  one foot was always fainter than those of the other three, I\n  judged that the lady dog of our august Queen was, if I may\n  venture to say so, a little lame.\n\n  \"'With respect to the horse of the King of Kings, permit me to\n  observe that, wandering through the paths which traverse the\n  wood, I noticed the marks of horse-shoes. They were all\n  equidistant. \"Ah!\" said I, \"this is a famous galloper.\" In a\n  narrow alley, only seven feet wide, the dust upon the trunks of\n  the trees was a little disturbed at three feet and a half from\n  the middle of the path. \"This horse,\" said I to myself, \"had a\n  tail three feet and a half long, and, lashing it from one side\n  to the other, he has swept away the dust.\" Branches of the trees\n  met overhead at the height of five feet, and under them I saw\n  newly fallen leaves; so I knew that the horse had brushed some\n  of the branches, and was therefore five feet high. As to his\n  bit, it must have been made of twenty-three carat gold, for he\n  had rubbed it against a stone, which turned out to be a\n  touchstone, with the properties of which I am familiar by\n  experiment. Lastly, by the marks which his shoes left upon\n  pebbles of another kind, I was led to think that his shoes were\n  of fine silver.'\n\n  \"All the judges admired Zadig's profound and subtle discernment;\n  and the fame of it reached even the King and the Queen. From the\n  ante-rooms to the presence-chamber, Zadig's name was in\n  everybody's mouth; and, although many of the magi were of\n  opinion that he ought to be burnt as a sorcerer, the King\n  commanded that the four hundred ounces of gold which he had been\n  fined should be restored to him. So the officers of the court\n  went in state with the four hundred ounces; only they retained\n  three hundred and ninety-eight for legal expenses, and their\n  servants expected fees.\"\n\n  Those who are interested in learning more of the fateful history\n  of Zadig must turn to the original; we are dealing with him only\n  as a philosopher, and this brief excerpt suffices for the\n  exemplification of the nature of his conclusions and of the\n  methods by which he arrived at them.\n\n\nThese conclusions may be said to be of the nature of retrospective\nprophecies; though it is perhaps a little hazardous to employ\nphraseology which perilously suggests a contradiction in terms--the\nword \"prophecy\" being so constantly, in ordinary use, restricted to\n\"foretelling.\" Strictly, however, the term prophecy applies as much\nto outspeaking as to foretelling; and, even in the restricted sense of\n\"divination,\" it is obvious that the essence of the prophetic operation\ndoes not lie in its backward or forward relation to the course of time,\nbut in the fact that it is the apprehension of that which lies out of\nthe sphere of immediate knowledge; the seeing of that which, to the\nnatural sense of the seer, is invisible.\n\nThe foreteller asserts that, at some future time, a properly situated\nobserver will witness certain events; the clairvoyant declares that, at\nthis present time, certain things are to be witnessed a thousand miles\naway; the retrospective prophet (would that there were such a word as\n\"backteller!\") affirms that, so many hours or years ago, such and such\nthings were to be seen. In all these cases, it is only the relation\nto time which alters--the process of divination beyond the limits of\npossible direct knowledge remains the same.\n\nNo doubt it was their instinctive recognition of the analogy between\nZadig's results and those obtained by authorised inspiration which\ninspired the Babylonian magi with the desire to burn the philosopher.\nZadig admitted that he had never either seen or heard of the horse of\nthe king or of the spaniel of the queen; and yet he ventured to assert\nin the most positive manner that animals answering to their description\ndid actually exist and ran about the plains of Babylon. If his method\nwas good for the divination of the course of events ten hours old, why\nshould it not be good for those of ten years or ten centuries past;\nnay, might it not extend ten thousand years and justify the impious in\nmeddling with the traditions of Oannes and the fish, and all the sacred\nfoundations of Babylonian cosmogony?\n\nBut this was not the worst. There was another consideration which\nobviously dictated to the more thoughtful of the magi the propriety of\nburning Zadig out of hand. His defence was worse than his offence. It\nshowed that his mode of divination was fraught with danger to magianism\nin general. Swollen with the pride of human reason, he had ignored the\nestablished canons of magian lore; and, trusting to what after all was\nmere carnal common sense, he professed to lead men to a deeper insight\ninto nature than magian wisdom, with all its lofty antagonism to\neverything common, had ever reached. What, in fact, lay at the\nfoundation of all Zadig's argument but the coarse commonplace\nassumption, upon which every act of our daily lives is based, that we\nmay conclude from an effect to the pre-existence of a cause competent to\nproduce that effect?\n\nThe tracks were exactly like those which dogs and horses leave;\ntherefore they were the effects of such animals as causes. The marks at\nthe sides of the fore-prints of the dog track were exactly such as would\nbe produced by long trailing ears; therefore the dog's long ears were\nthe causes of these marks--and so on. Nothing can be more hopelessly\nvulgar, more unlike the majestic development of a system of grandly\nunintelligible conclusions from sublimely inconceivable premisses such\nas delights the magian heart. In fact, Zadig's method was nothing\nbut the method of all mankind. Retrospective prophecies, far more\nastonishing for their minute accuracy than those of Zadig, are familiar\nto those who have watched the daily life of nomadic people.\n\nFrom freshly broken twigs, crushed leaves, disturbed pebbles, and\nimprints hardly discernible by the untrained eye, such graduates in the\nUniversity of Nature will divine, not only the fact that a party has\npassed that way, but its strength, its composition, the course it took,\nand the number of hours or days which have elapsed since it passed.\nBut they are able to do this because, like Zadig, they perceive endless\nminute differences where untrained eyes discern nothing; and because\nthe unconscious logic of common sense compels them to account for these\neffects by the causes which they know to be competent to produce them.\n\nAnd such mere methodised savagery was to discover the hidden things\nof nature better than _a priori_ deductions from the nature of\nOrmuzd--perhaps to give a history of the past, in which Oannes would be\naltogether ignored! Decidedly it were better to burn this man at once.\n\nIf instinct, or an unwonted use of reason, led Moabdar's magi to this\nconclusion two or three thousand years ago, all that can be said is\nthat subsequent history has fully justified them. For the rigorous\napplication of Zadig's logic to the results of accurate and\nlong-continued observation has founded all those sciences which\nhave been termed historical or palaetiological, because they are\nretrospectively prophetic and strive towards the reconstruction in human\nimagination of events which have vanished and ceased to be.\n\nHistory, in the ordinary acceptation of the word, is based upon the\ninterpretation of documentary evidence; and documents would have no\nevidential value unless historians were justified in their assumption\nthat they have come into existence by the operation of causes similar to\nthose of which documents are, in our present experience, the effects. If\na written history can be produced otherwise than by human agency, or if\nthe man who wrote a given document was actuated by other than ordinary\nhuman motives, such documents are of no more evidential value than so\nmany arabesques.\n\nArchaeology, which takes up the thread of history beyond the point at\nwhich documentary evidence fails us, could have no existence, except\nfor our well grounded confidence that monuments and works of art or\nartifice, have never been produced by causes different in kind from\nthose to which they now owe their origin. And geology, which traces back\nthe course of history beyond the limits of archaeology, could tell us\nnothing except for the assumption that, millions of years ago, water,\nheat, gravitation, friction, animal and vegetable life, caused effects\nof the same kind as they now cause. Nay, even physical astronomy, in\nso far as it takes us back to the uttermost point of time which\npalaetiological science can reach, is founded upon the same assumption.\nIf the law of gravitation ever failed to be true, even to a small\nextent, for that period, the calculations of the astronomer have no\napplication.\n\nThe power of prediction, of prospective prophecy, is that which is\ncommonly regarded as the great prerogative of physical science. And\ntruly it is a wonderful fact that one can go into a shop and buy for\na small price a book, the \"Nautical Almanac,\" which will foretell the\nexact position to be occupied by one of Jupiter's moons six months\nhence; nay, more, that, if it were worth while, the Astronomer-Royal\ncould furnish us with as infallible a prediction applicable to 1980 or\n2980.\n\nBut astronomy is not less remarkable for its power of retrospective\nprophecy.\n\nThales, oldest of Greek philosophers, the dates of whose birth and\ndeath are uncertain, but who flourished about 600 B.C., is said to have\nforetold an eclipse of the sun which took place in his time during a\nbattle between the Medes and the Lydians. Sir George Airy has written a\nvery learned and interesting memoir [2] in which he proves that such an\neclipse was visible in Lydia on the afternoon of the 28th of May in the\nyear 585 B.C.\n\nNo one doubts that, on the day and at the hour mentioned by the\nAstronomer-Royal, the people of Lydia saw the face of the sun totally\nobscured. But, though we implicitly believe this retrospective prophecy,\nit is incapable of verification. In the total absence of historical\nrecords, it is impossible even to conceive any means of ascertaining\ndirectly whether the eclipse of Thales happened or not. All that can be\nsaid is, that the prospective prophecies of the astronomer are always\nverified; and that, inasmuch as his retrospective prophecies are the\nresult of following backwards, the very same method as that which\ninvariably leads to verified results, when it is worked forwards, there\nis as much reason for placing full confidence in the one as in the\nother. Retrospective prophecy is therefore a legitimate function of\nastronomical science; and if it is legitimate for one science it\nis legitimate for all; the fundamental axiom on which it rests, the\nconstancy of the order of nature, being the common foundation of all\nscientific thought. Indeed, if there can be grades in legitimacy,\ncertain branches of science have the advantage over astronomy, in so\nfar as their retrospective prophecies are not only susceptible of\nverification, but are sometimes strikingly verified.\n\nSuch a science exists in that application of the principles of biology\nto the interpretation of the animal and vegetable remains imbedded\nin the rocks which compose the surface of the globe, which is called\nPalaeontology.\n\nAt no very distant time, the question whether these so-called \"fossils,\"\nwere really the remains of animals and plants was hotly disputed. Very\nlearned persons maintained that they were nothing of the kind, but a\nsort of concretion, or crystallisation, which had taken place within the\nstone in which they are found; and which simulated the forms of animal\nand vegetable life, just as frost on a window-pane imitates vegetation.\nAt the present day, it would probably be impossible to find any sane\nadvocate of this opinion; and the fact is rather surprising, that\namong the people from whom the circle-squarers, perpetual-motioners,\nflat-earthed men and the like, are recruited, to say nothing of\ntable-turners and spirit-rappers, somebody has not perceived the easy\navenue to nonsensical notoriety open to any one who will take up the\ngood old doctrine, that fossils are all _lusus naturae._\n\nThe position would be impregnable, inasmuch as it is quite impossible\nto prove the contrary. If a man choose to maintain that a fossil\noyster shell, in spite of its correspondence, down to every minutest\nparticular, with that of an oyster fresh taken out of the sea, was never\ntenanted by a living oyster, but is a mineral concretion, there is no\ndemonstrating his error. All that can be done is to show him that, by a\nparity of reasoning, he is bound to admit that a heap of oyster shells\noutside a fishmonger's door may also be \"sports of nature,\" and that\na mutton bone in a dust-bin may have had the like origin. And when you\ncannot prove that people are wrong, but only that they are absurd, the\nbest course is to let them alone.\n\nThe whole fabric of palaeontology, in fact, falls to the ground unless\nwe admit the validity of Zadig's great principle, that like effects\nimply like causes, and that the process of reasoning from a shell, or\na tooth, or a bone, to the nature of the animal to which it belonged,\nrests absolutely on the assumption that the likeness of this shell,\nor tooth, or bone, to that of some animal with which we are already\nacquainted, is such that we are justified in inferring a corresponding\ndegree of likeness in the rest of the two organisms. It is on this\nvery simple principle, and not upon imaginary laws of physiological\ncorrelation, about which, in most cases, we know nothing whatever, that\nthe so-called restorations of the palaeontologist are based.\n\nAbundant illustrations of this truth will occur to every one who is\nfamiliar with palaeontology; none is more suitable than the case of the\nso-called _Belemnites._ In the early days of the study of fossils,\nthis name was given to certain elongated stony bodies, ending at one\nextremity in a conical point, and truncated at the other, which were\ncommonly reputed to be thunderbolts, and as such to have descended from\nthe sky. They are common enough in some parts of England; and, in the\ncondition in which they are ordinarily found, it might be difficult to\ngive satisfactory reasons for denying them to be merely mineral bodies.\n\nThey appear, in fact, to consist of nothing but concentric layers\nof carbonate of lime, disposed in subcrystalline fibres, or prisms,\nperpendicular to the layers. Among a great number of specimens of these\nBelemnites, however, it was soon observed that some showed a conical\ncavity at the blunt end; and, in still better preserved specimens, this\ncavity appeared to be divided into chambers by delicate saucer-shaped\npartitions, situated at regular intervals one above the other. Now there\nis no mineral body which presents any structure comparable to this, and\nthe conclusion suggested itself that the Belemnites must be the effects\nof causes other than those which are at work in inorganic nature. On\nclose examination, the saucer-shaped partitions were proved to be all\nperforated at one point, and the perforations being situated exactly\nin the same line, the chambers were seen to be traversed by a canal, or\n_siphuncle,_ which thus connected the smallest or aphical chamber with\nthe largest. There is nothing like this in the vegetable world; but an\nexactly corresponding structure is met with in the shells of two kinds\nof existing animals, the pearly _Nautilus_ and the _Spirula,_ and\nonly in them. These animals belong to the same division--the\n_Cephalopoda--_as the cuttle-fish, the squid, and the octopus. But they\nare the only existing members of the group which possess chambered,\nsiphunculated shells; and it is utterly impossible to trace any\nphysiological connection between the very peculiar structural characters\nof a cephalopod and the presence of a chambered shell. In fact, the\nsquid has, instead of any such shell, a horny \"pen,\" the cuttlefish has\nthe so-called \"cuttle-bone,\" and the octopus has no shell, or, at most,\na mere rudiment of one.\n\nNevertheless, seeing that there is nothing in nature at all like the\nchambered shell of the Belemnite, except the shells of the _Nautilus_\nand of the _Spirula,_ it was legitimate to prophesy that the animal\nfrom which the fossil proceeded must have belonged to the group of the\n_Cephalopoda._ _Nautilus_ and _Spirula_ are both very rare animals, but\nthe progress of investigation brought to light the singular fact, that,\nthough each has the characteristic cephalopodous organisation, it is\nvery different from the other. The shell of _Nautilus_ is external,\nthat of _Spirula_ internal; _Nautilus_ has four gills, _Spirula_ two;\n_Nautilus_ has multitudinous tentacles, _Spirula_ has only ten arms\nbeset with horny-rimmed suckers; _Spirula,_ like the squids and\ncuttle-fishes, which it closely resembles, has a bag of ink which it\nsquirts out to cover its retreat when alarmed; _Nautilus_ has none.\n\nNo amount of physiological reasoning could enable any one to say whether\nthe animal which fabricated the Belemnite was more like _Nautilus,_ or\nmore like _Spirula._ But the accidental discovery of Belemnites in due\nconnection with black elongated masses which were: certainly fossilised\nink-bags, inasmuch as the ink could be ground up and used for painting\nas well as if it were recent sepia, settled the question; and it became\nperfectly safe to prophesy that the creature which fabricated the\nBelemnite was a two-gilled cephalopod with suckers on its arms, and with\nall the other essential features of our living squids, cuttle-fishes,\nand _Spirulae._ The palaeontologist was, by this time, able to speak as\nconfidently about the animal of the Belemnite, as Zadig was respecting\nthe queen's spaniel. He could give a very fair description of its\nexternal appearance, and even enter pretty fully into the details of its\ninternal organisation, and yet could declare that neither he, nor any\none else, had ever seen one. And as the queen's spaniel was found, so\nhappily has the animal of the Belemnite; a few exceptionally\npreserved specimens have been discovered, which completely verify the\nretrospective prophecy of those who interpreted the facts of the case by\ndue application of the method of Zadig.\n\nThese Belemnites flourished in prodigious abundance in the seas of the\nmesozoic, or secondary, age of the world's geological history; but no\ntrace of them has been found in any of the tertiary deposits, and they\nappear to have died out towards the close of the mesozoic epoch. The\nmethod of Zadig, therefore, applies in full force to the events of a\nperiod which is immeasurably remote, which long preceded the origin\nof the most conspicuous mountain masses of the present world, and the\ndeposition, at the bottom of the ocean, of the rocks which form the\ngreater part of the soil of our present continents. The Euphrates\nitself, at the mouth of which Oannes landed, is a thing of yesterday\ncompared with a Belemnite; and even the liberal chronology of magian\ncosmogony fixes the beginning of the world only at a time when other\napplications of Zadig's method afford convincing evidence that, could\nwe have been there to see, things would have looked very much as they do\nnow. Truly the magi were wise in their generation; they foresaw rightly\nthat this pestilent application of the principles of common sense,\ninaugurated by Zadig, would be their ruin.\n\nBut it may be said that the method of Zadig, which is simple reasoning\nfrom analogy, does not account for the most striking feats of modern\npalaeontology--the reconstruction of entire animals from a tooth or\nperhaps a fragment of a bone; and it may be justly urged that Cuvier,\nthe great master of this kind of investigation, gave a very different\naccount of the process which yielded such remarkable results.\n\nCuvier is not the first man of ability who has failed to make his own\nmental processes clear to himself, and he will not be the last. The\nmatter can be easily tested. Search the eight volumes of the \"Recherches\nsur les Ossemens Fossiles\" from cover to cover, and nothing but the\napplication of the method of Zadig will be found in the arguments by\nwhich a fragment of a skeleton is made to reveal the characters of the\nanimal to which it belonged.\n\nThere is one well-known case which may represent all. It is an excellent\nillustration of Cuvier's sagacity, and he evidently takes some pride\nin telling his story about it. A split slab of stone arrived from the\nquarries of Montmartre, the two halves of which contained the greater\npart of the skeleton of a small animal. On careful examinations of\nthe characters of the teeth and of the lower jaw, which happened to be\nexposed, Cuvier assured himself that they presented such a very close\nresemblance to the corresponding parts in the living opossums that he at\nonce assigned the fossil to that genus.\n\nNow the opossums are unlike most mammals in that they possess two bones\nattached to the fore part of the pelvis, which are commonly called\n\"marsupial bones.\" The name is a misnomer, originally conferred because\nit was thought that these bones have something to do with the support of\nthe pouch, or marsupium, with which some, but not all, of the opossums\nare provided. As a matter of fact, they have nothing to do with the\nsupport of the pouch, and they exist as much in those opossums which\nhave no pouches as in those which possess them. In truth, no one knows\nwhat the use of these bones may be, nor has any valid theory of their\nphysiological import yet been suggested. And if we have no knowledge of\nthe physiological importance of the bones themselves, it is obviously\nabsurd to pretend that we are able to give physiological reasons why the\npresence of these bones is associated with certain peculiarities of\nthe teeth and of the jaws. If any one knows why four molar teeth and an\ninflected angle of the jaw are very generally found along with marsupial\nbones, he has not yet communicated that knowledge to the world.\n\nIf, however, Zadig was right in concluding from the likeness of the\nhoof-prints which he observed to be a horse's that the creature which\nmade them had a tail like that of a horse, Cuvier, seeing that the teeth\nand jaw of his fossil were just like those of an opossum, had the same\nright to conclude that the pelvis would also be like an opossum's; and\nso strong was his conviction that this retrospective prophecy, about\nan animal which he had never seen before, and which had been dead and\nburied for millions of years, would be verified, that he went to work\nupon the slab which contained the pelvis in confident expectation of\nfinding and laying bare the \"marsupial bones,\" to the satisfaction of\nsome persons whom he had invited to witness their disinterment. As he\nsays:--\"Cette operation se fit en presence de quelques personnes a\nqui j'en avais annonce d'avance le resultat, dans l'intention de leur\nprouver par le fait la justice de nos theories zoologiques; puisque le\nvrai cachet d'une theorie est sans contredit la faculte qu'elle donne de\nprevoir les phenomenes.\"\n\nIn the \"Ossemens Fossiles\" Cuvier leaves his paper just as it first\nappeared in the \"Annales du Museum,\" as \"a curious monument of the force\nof zoological laws and of the use which may be made of them.\"\n\nZoological laws truly, but not physiological laws. If one sees a live\ndog's head, it is extremely probable that a dog's tail is not far off,\nthough nobody can say why that sort of head and that sort of tail go\ntogether; what physiological connection there is between the two. So, in\nthe case of the Montmartre fossil, Cuvier, finding a thorough opossum's\nhead, concluded that the pelvis also would be like an opossum's. But,\nmost assuredly, the most advanced physiologist of the present day could\nthrow no light on the question why these are associated, nor could\npretend to affirm that the existence of the one is necessarily connected\nwith that of the other. In fact, had it so happened that the pelvis of\nthe fossil had been originally exposed, while the head lay hidden, the\npresence of the \"marsupial bones,\" though very like an opossum's, would\nby no means have warranted the prediction that the skull would turn out\nto be that of the opossum. It might just as well have been like that of\nsome other marsupial; or even like that of the totally different\ngroup of Monotremes, of which the only living representatives are the\n_Echidna_ and the _Ornithorhynchus._\n\nFor all practical purposes, however, the empirical laws of co-ordination\nof structures, which are embodied in the generalisations of morphology,\nmay be confidently trusted, if employed with due caution, to lead to a\njust interpretation of fossil remains; or, in other words, we may look\nfor the verification of the retrospective prophecies which are based\nupon them.\n\nAnd if this be the case, the late advances which have been made in\npalaeontological discovery open out a new field for such prophecies. For\nit has been ascertained with respect to many groups of animals, that, as\nwe trace them back in time, their ancestors gradually cease to exhibit\nthose special modifications which at present characterise the type, and\nmore nearly embody the general plan of the group to which they belong.\n\nThus, in the well-known case of the horse, the toes which are suppressed\nin the living horse are found to be more and more complete in the older\nmembers of the group, until, at the bottom of the Tertiary series of\nAmerica, we find an equine animal which has four toes in front and three\nbehind. No remains of the horse tribe are at present known from any\nMesozoic deposit. Yet who can doubt that, whenever a sufficiently\nextensive series of lacustrine and fluviatile beds of that age becomes\nknown, the lineage which has been traced thus far will be continued by\nequine quadrupeds with an increasing number of digits, until the horse\ntype merges in the five-toed form towards which these gradations point?\n\nBut the argument which holds good for the horse, holds good, not only\nfor all mammals, but for the whole animal world. And as the study of the\npedigrees, or lines of evolution, to which, at present, we have access,\nbrings to light, as it assuredly will do, the laws of that process, we\nshall be able to reason from the facts with which the geological record\nfurnishes us to those which have hitherto remained, and many of which,\nperhaps, may for ever remain, hidden. The same method of reasoning which\nenables us, when furnished with a fragment of an extinct animal, to\nprophesy the character which the whole organism exhibited, will,\nsooner or later, enable us, when we know a few of the later terms of a\ngenealogical series, to predict the nature of the earlier terms.\n\nIn no very distant future, the method of Zadig, applied to a greater\nbody of facts than the present generation is fortunate enough to handle,\nwill enable the biologist to reconstruct the scheme of life from its\nbeginning, and to speak as confidently of the character of long extinct\nbeings, no trace of which has been preserved, as Zadig did of the\nqueen's spaniel and the king's horse. Let us hope that they may\nbe better rewarded for their toil and their sagacity than was the\nBabylonian philosopher; for perhaps, by that time, the magi also may\nbe reckoned among the members of a forgotten Fauna, extinguished in the\nstruggle for existence against their great rival, common sense.\n\n\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 1: \"Discours sur les revolutions de la surface du globe.\"\n_Recherches sur les Ossemens Fossiles,_ Ed. iv, t.i. p.185.]\n\n[Footnote 2: \"On the Eclipses of Agathocles, Thales, and Xerxes,\"\n_Philosophical Transactions,_ vol. cxliii.]","title":"On the Method of Zadig: Essay #1 from \"Science and Hebrew Tradition\"","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":5719}