The value of this kind of geological evidence must of course be determined by geologists. It is quite possible that the remains of trunks of trees may still be found on the very isthmus between the Mount and the mainland; but it is, to say the least, curious that, even in the absence of such stringent evidence, geologists should feel so confident that the Mount once stood on the mainland, and that exactly the same persuasion should have been shared by people long before the name of geology was known. There is a powerful spell in popular traditions, against which even men of science are not always proof, and is just possible that if the tradition of the “hoar rock in the wood” had not existed, no attempts would have been made to explain the causes that severed St. Michael’s Mount from the mainland. But even then the question remains, How was it that people quite guiltless of geology should have framed the popular name of the Mount, and the popular tradition of its former connection with the mainland? Leaving, therefore, for the present all geological evidence out of view, it will be an interesting inquiry to find out, if possible, how people that could not have been swayed by any geological theories, should have been led to believe in the gradual insulation of St. Michael’s Mount. The principal argument brought forward by non-geological writers in support of the former existence of a forest surrounding the Mount, is the Cornish name of St. Michael’s Mount, _Cara clowse in cowse_, which in Cornish is said to mean “the hoar rock in the wood.” In his paper read before the British Association at Manchester, Mr. Pengelly adduced that very name as irrefragable evidence that Cornish, _i.e._ a Celtic language, an Aryan language, was spoken in the extreme west of Europe about 20,000 years ago. In his more recent paper Mr. Pengelly has given up this position, and he considers it improbable that any philologer could now give a trustworthy translation of a language spoken 20,000 years ago. This may be or not; but before we build any hypothesis on that Cornish name, the first question which an historian has to answer is clearly this:— _What authority is there for that name? Where does it occur for the first time? and does it really mean what it is supposed to mean?_ Now the first mention of the Cornish name, as far as I am aware, occurs in Richard Carew’s “Survey of Cornwall,” which was published in 1602. It is true that Camden’s “Britannia” appeared earlier, in 1586, and that Camden (p. 72), too, mentions “the Mons Michaelis, _Dinsol_ olim, ut in libro Landavensi habetur, incolis _Careg Cowse_,(90) _i.e._ rupis cana.” But it will be seen that he leaves out the most important part of the old name, nor can there be much doubt that Camden received his information about Cornwall direct from Carew, before Carew’s “Survey of Cornwall” was published.