EDITOR STANDARD:--Permit me to notice a few of the arguments upon
the Cardiff discovery, appearing in your paper of Saturday last,
and the Journal of the same day.
It seems a committee of the editors and owners of the Journal,
named respectively Tom, Dick and Harry, of widely various
characteristics, visited the Giant last week, and treat the
subject on their return by articles published in that highly
original sheet, according to their respective peculiarities. Tom,
who is evidently admired in his family circle as a man of great
humor, has so cultivated that faculty that it presents an abnormal
development, and if petrification ever does overtake him, posterity
may hope it will not operate upon his intellectual faculties. Dick,
on the other hand, is gloomily satirical, and by the aid of that
useful faculty utterly annihilates his opponents without saying
anything. But last, Harry takes up the theme and treats it in a
spirit becoming the gravity of the subject.
He thinks that the artist formed the figure according to a pattern,
having a cold "corpse" conveniently by as a model, from which he
could take "careful measurement," and proceeded to make this
figure, not attempting, he says, to make this corpse look like a
"living figure," which certainly was modest in the artist. He also
says that he did not attempt to "supply the missing hair." The
question very naturally arises here, "Why was the hair missing,
and how long had the corpse been a corpse to lose its hair? and
was it a pleasant occupation to do business with such a corpse?"
This omission (i.e. to put on hair), Harry says, arose from
"inexperience."
Now, experience is certainly an excellent thing, and when properly
acquired and wisely used is undoubtedly of considerable benefit
to mankind. But that it was necessary, in order to enable an
artist to know that hair grows on the human head, we had not
before supposed. Into such absurdities, oh Harry, does he run
who abandons his familiar scissors for the unaccustomed pen.
I will briefly refer to the letter of Rev. S.R. Calthrop in favor
of the statue theory. While it shows the scholarship of its author,
his thorough appreciation of artistic influences, and the wonderful
imitation of nature produced by the one who formed this figure, it
does not seem to me to go very far towards proving his position.
Starting off with the idea that many reasons may be given against
the theory of petrification, he commences with number one, and
then he stops; it is true he gives one other reason, but neglects
to number it; and the two reasons are--
First, that evidences of stratification appear on the body, thereby
assuming that they would not appear in a petrified body; and,
secondly, that the separate members of the body are not detached
from each other as they were in life, assuming also that this does
occur in cases of petrifaction.
Are these assumptions correct as matters of fact?
The evidence as to the existence of strata in this body is very
conflicting. A number of professional persons who visited this
figure on Saturday, and subjected it to close scrutiny with a
powerful magnifying glass, and who all, by the way, hold the
"statue theory," say there were no evidences of stratification in
the body; that what appears to be such is simply the difference
in shading, produced by the greater or less density of the material
composing the figure. The appearances indicating stratification
are also explainable by the action of the water, charged with
carbonate of lime, upon the body. The line of contact between
the body and the water would necessarily receive a deposit of lime,
causing a straight line of lighter color to appeal oi the body. It
is also a fact, which I have learned from quite a number who first
visited the body when it was submerged in water, that the present
water level leaves exposed the nose, eyebrow and breast at the
points where some persons now think they see stratification. In fact,
deposits of carbonate of lime of a whitish color, even now, adhere
to the left ear and side of the face which show the presence of
that substance in the water, and that it will adhere to and become
a part of the subject with which it is brought in contact.
Now, how is stratification produced in the formation of stone and
rocks. It is said by geologists to be formed only when the
original material forming the rock or stone has been transported
and deposited by the operation of a body of water holding the
material in solution, and depositing it in alternate layers at
its place of destination.
How is a petrified body formed? Science answers, that it is formed
by the gradual infiltration of silicious earth, pyrites of iron,
carbonate or sulphate of lime, into the pores of the body, taking
the place of the decaying parts, and substituting a new and original
substance to take the place and form of the body petrified. These
substances are always conveyed to their place of destination, and
then applied to accomplish their purpose by the operation of water.
The petrified substance may have none of the material composing
the original figure, and the nature of the body formed either
assimilates to the material around it, or is determined by that
of which it is composed. So also all of the substances forming
petrifaction may be found together in the same subject, or they
may accomplish their work separately.
Silicious earth goes largely to form flint quartz and the various
kinds of sandstone carbonate of lime, of limestone, and so of the
other materials mentioned forming their peculiar kinds of stone. I
have heard one statue-theorist trying to prove that the decayed
portion of one of the legs showed the presence of flint, and
therefore he argued it could not be a petrifaction. Not so. It
probably would prove, if true, that the figure was not a statue,
for pieces of flint are not found in such material, unless it be
a petrifaction, in which case silicious earth would account for it.
Now it is safe to say that there is no substance that enters into
the composition of stone that does not enter into the formation
of a petrifaction.
Now, these materials are, in cases of petrifaction, brought to
the spot and deposited by action of the water--precisely such an
operation as forms strata of rock; should it not produce the same
effect in the appearance of successive layers or strata in the
subject of petrifaction? With reference to the other objection
to the theory of petrifaction, viz:--that the members of the body
are conjoined and not detached--it is sufficient to say, from the
very nature of the operation of petrifaction, portions of the body
lying in contact would necessarily be conjoined and filled up. The
wasting portions of the body are silently but surely supplied by
nature, and as the transformation progresses, nature causes her
deposit to adhere to its proximate kindred matter, and forms thus
a solid and adhering body.
It is also somewhat worthy of observation that fossiliferous remains
occur more frequently, than elsewhere, in marshy and swampy places
in this country. Thus the low marshes known as the "Blue Licks"
in Kentucky, and other similar places abound in specimens of fossil
remains. These are often, indeed, quite commonly found near the
surface of the ground, and it is a fact that the material and
formation of marshy grounds change less through the operation of
time than other places. The Pantine Marshes and the Marshfield
Fens have preserved forms and characteristics for centuries upon
centuries. Why is it then, that we are to be driven for a solution
of the question as to the character of this curiosity to a hundred
improbable and unnatural suppositions, when the thing may be explained
by perfectly natural causes without violating any probabilities?
It is somewhat amusing to talk with the various advocates of the
"statue theory," as each successive one is sure to knock over his
predecessor's structure before he begins to build his own.
The endless suppositions which are produced to account for this
marvelous work as a production of the sculptor are certainly a
great credit to the imaginative faculties or inventive genius of
our people, but people of ordinary intelligence find it hard to
believe that men of wonderful genius and skill inhabited our
original forests for the purpose of producing gems of art and
then burying them in the marshes, or that men of culture and
education go traveling in a wild and barbarous country
encumbered by a piece of statuary weighing about two tons
and being necessarily somewhat inconvenient to carry in
our pockets.
Yours, Com.