There now remains to be considered what our author has observed

respecting the intensity of the fire and size of the masses. "A

fire capable of melting quartz might surely produce it (meaning the

manganese) in larger masses." M. de la Peyrouse says, that those masses

were in all respects as if formed by art, only much larger, as the

powers of nature exceed those of our laboratories. What then is it that

is here meant to be disputed? We are comparing the operation of nature

and that of art, and these are to be judged of by the product which we

examine; but the quantity, in this case, or the size of the masses,

makes no part of the evidence, and therefore is here most improperly

mentioned by our author. With regard again to the nature of the fire by

which the fusion had been produced, he is much mistaken if he imagines

that the reduction of the reguline or metallic manganese depends upon

the intensity of the heat; it depends upon circumstances proper for the

separation of the oxygenating principle from the calx, in like manner as

the calcination of calcareous spar must depend upon circumstances proper

for allowing the separation of the carbonic acid or fixed air.

But do not let us lose sight of our proper subject, by examining things

foreign or not so immediately to the purpose. We are only inquiring if

those flattened spheres of native manganese had been formed by water, or

if it were by fusion; for, our author agrees that there is no other way.

Why then does he endeavour to evade giving a direct answer, and fly away

to consider the quantity of the product, as if that had any thing to do

with, the question, or as if that quantity were not sufficient, neither

of which is the case. In short, our author's whole observation, on this

occasion, looks as if he were willing to destroy, by insinuation, the

force of an argument which proves the theory of mineral fusion; and that

he wishes to render doubtful, by a species of sophistry, what in fair

reasoning he cannot deny.

Our author has written upon the subject of phlogiston; one would suppose

that he should be well acquainted with inflammable bodies at least; let

us see then what he has to observe upon that subject. He quotes from

my Theory, that spar, quartz, pyrites, crystallised upon or near each

other, and adhering to coal, or mixed with bitumen, etc. are found;

circumstances that cannot be explained in the hypothesis of solution

in the moist way.--He then answers;--"Not exactly, nor with certainty;

which is not wonderful: But they are still less explicable in the

hypothesis of dry solution, as must be apparent from what has been

already said. How coal, an infusible substance, could be spread into

strata by mere heat, is to me incomprehensible."--It is only upon the

last sentence that I am here to remark: This, I believe, will be a

sufficient specimen of our author's understanding, with regard at least

to my Theory which he is here examining.

The reader will see what I have said upon the subject of coal, by

turning back to the second section of the preceding chapter. I had given

almost three quarto pages upon that subject, endeavouring to explain how

all the different degrees of _infusibility_ were produced, by means of

heat and distillation, in strata which had been originally more or less

oily, bituminous, and _fusible_; and now our author says, that it is

incomprehensible to him, how coal, _an infusible substance_, could be

spread into strata by mere heat.--So it truly may, either to him or to

any other person; but, it appears to me almost as incomprehensible, how

a person of common understanding should read my Dissertation, and impute

to it a thing so contrary to its doctrine.

Nothing can better illustrate the misconceived view that our author

seems to have taken of the two opposite theories, (_i. e_. of

consolidation by means of heat, and by means of water alone,) than

his observation upon the case of mineral alkali. To that irrefragable

argument (which Dr Black suggested) in proof of this substance having

been in a state of fusion in the mineral regions, our author makes the

following reply; "What then will our author say of the vast masses

of this salt which are found with their full quantity of water of

crystallization?"--There is in this proposition, insignificant as it may

seem, a confusion of ideas, which it certainly cannot be thought worth

while to investigate; but, so far as the doctrine of the aqueous theory

may be considered as here concerned, it will be proper that I should

give some answer to the question so triumphantly put to me.

Our author is in a mistake in supposing that Dr Black had written any

thing upon the subject; he had only suggested the argument of this

example of mineral alkali to me, as I have mentioned; and, the use I

made of that argument was to corroborate the example I had given of sal

gem. If, therefore, our author does not deny the inference from the

state of that mineral alkali, his observation upon it must refer to

something which this other example of his is to prove on the opposite

side, or to support the aqueous instead of the igneous theory; and, this

is a subject which I am always willing to examine in the most impartial

manner, having a desire to know the true effect of aqueous solution in

the consolidation of mineral bodies, and having no objection to allow it

any thing which it can possibly produce, although denying that it can do

every thing, as many mineralists seem to think.

The question, with regard to this example of our author's of a mineral

alkali with its water of crystallization, must be this, Whether those

saline bodies had been concreted by the evaporation of the aqueous

solvent with which they had been introduced, or by the congelation of

that saline substance from a fluid state of fusion; for, surely, we are

not to suppose those bodies to have been created in the place and state

in which we find them. With regard to the evaporation or separation

of the aqueous solvent, this may be easily conceived according to the

igneous theory; but, the aqueous theory has not any means for the

producing of that effect in the mineral regions, which is the only place

we are here concerned with. Therefore, this example of a concreted body

of salt, whatever it may prove in other respects, can neither diminish

the evidence of my Theory with regard to the igneous origin of stony

substances, nor can it contribute to support the opposite supposition of

an aqueous origin to them.

But to show how little reason our author had for exulting in that

question which he so confidently proposed in order to defeat my

argument, let us consider this matter a little farther. I will for a

moment allow the aqueous theory to have the means for separating

the water from the saline solution, and thus to concrete the saline

substance in the bowels of the earth; this concretion then is to be

examined with a view to investigate the last state of this body, which

is to inform us with regard to those mineral operations. But, our author

has not mentioned whether those masses appear to have been crystallised

from the aqueous solution, or if they appear to have been congealed from

the melted state of their _aqueous fusion_.--Has he ever thought of

this? Now this is so material a point in the view with which that

example has been held out to us, that, without showing that this salt

had crystallised from the solution, he has no right to employ it as an

example; and if, on the other hand, it should appear to have simply

congealed from the state of aqueous fusion, then, instead of answering

the purpose for which our author gave it, it would refute his

supposition, as certainly as the example which I have given.

So far I have reasoned upon the supposition of this alkali, with its

water of crystallization, being truly a mineral concretion; but, I see

no authority for such a supposition: It certainly may be otherwise;

and, in that case, our author would have no more right to give it as an

example in opposition to Dr Black's argument, than he would have to give

the crystallization of sea-salt, on Turk's Island, in opposition to the

example which I had given, of the salt rock, at Northwych in Cheshire,

having been in the state of fusion.

It certainly was incumbent on our author to have informed us, if those

masses of salt were found in, what may be properly termed, their mineral

state; or, if the state in which they are found at present had been

produced by the influences of the atmosphere, transforming that saline

substance from its mineral state, as happens upon so many other

occasions; I am inclined to suspect that this last is truly the case.

It may be thought illiberal in me to suppose a natural philosopher thus

holding out an example that could only serve to lead us into error, or

to mislead our judgment with regard to those two theories which is the

subject of consideration. This certainly would be the case, almost

on any other occasion; but, when I find every argument and example,

employed in this dissertation, to be either unfounded or misjudged,

Whether am I to conclude our author, on this occasion, to be consistent

with himself, or not?

I have but one article more to observe upon. I had given, as I thought,

a kind of demonstration, from the internal evidence of the stone, that

granite had been in the fluid state of fusion, and had concreted by

crystallization and congelation from that melted state. This no doubt

must be a stumbling block to those who maintain that granite mountains

are the primitive parts of our earth; and who, like our author, suppose

that "things may have been originally, as at present, in a solid state."

It must also be a great, if not an invincible obstacle in the way of the

aqueous theory, which thus endeavours to explain those granite veins

that are found traversing strata, and therefore necessarily of a

posterior formation.

To remove that obstacle in the way of the aqueous theory, or to carry

that theory over the obstacle which he cannot remove, our author

undertakes to refute my theory with regard to the igneous origin of

stony substances, by giving an example of granite formed upon the

surface of the earth by means of water, or in what is called the

moist way; and he closes his Dissertation with this example as an

_experimentum crucis_. It is therefore necessary that I take this

demonstration of our author into particular consideration; for, surely,

independent of our controversy, which is perhaps of little moment, here

is the most interesting experiment, as it is announced, that mineralogy

could be enriched with.

"To close this controversy," says our author, "I shall only add,

that granite, recently formed in the moist way, has been frequently

found."--Of that remarkable event, however, he has selected only one

example. This is to be found upon the Oder; and the authority upon which

our author has given it, is that of Lasius Hartz.

The formation of a granite stone, from granite sand, by means of water,

is inconsistent with our chemical knowledge of those mineral substances

which constitute that stone; it is repugnant to the phenomena which

appear from the inspection of the natural bodies of this kind; and it

is directly contrary to the universal experience in granite countries,

where, instead of any thing concreting, every thing is going into

decay, from the loose stones and sand of granite, to the solid rock and

mountains which are always in a state of degradation. Therefore, to have

any credit given to such a story, would require the most scientific

evidence in its favour. Now, in order that others may judge whether this

has been the case in this example, I will transcribe what our author has

said upon the subject; and then I will give the view in which it appears

to me.

He says, "a mole having been constructed in the Oder in the year 1723,

350 feet long, 54 feet in height, 144 feet broad at bottom, and 54 at

the top, its sides only were granite, without any other cement than

moss; the middle space was entirely filled with granite sand. In a short

time this concreted into a substance so compact as to be impenetrable by

water."--Here is an example, according to our author, of _granite formed

in the moist way_. But now, I must ask to see the evidence of that fact;

for, from what our author has told us, I do not even see reason to

conclude that there was the least concretion, or any stone formed at

all. A body of sand will be _so compacted as to be impenetrable by

water_, with the introduction of a very little mud, and without any

degree of concretion; muddy water, indeed, cannot be made to pass

through such a body without compacting it so; and this every body finds,

to their cost, who have attempted to make a filter of that kind.

But I shall suppose Lasius has informed our author that there had been

a petrifaction in this case; and, before I admit this example of the

formation of granite, I must ask what sort of a granite it was;--whether

of two, three, or four ingredients; and, how these were disposed. If,

again, it were not properly a granite, but a stone formed of granite

sand, What is the cementing substance?--Is it quartz, felt-spar, mica,

or schorl?--or, Was it calcareous? If our author knows any thing about

these necessary questions, Why has he not informed us, as minutely as

he has done with regard to the dimensions of the mole, with which we

certainly are less concerned? If, again, he knows no more about the

matter than what he has informed us of, he must have strangely imposed

upon himself, to suppose that he was giving us an example of the

_formation of granite in the moist way_, when he has only described an

effectual way of retaining water, by means of sand and mud.

CHAP. III.

Of Physical Systems, and Geological Theories, in general.

In the first chapter I have given a general theory of the earth,

with such proofs as I thought were sufficient for the information of

intelligent men, who might satisfy themselves by examining the facts on

which the reasoning in that theory had been founded.

In the second chapter, I have endeavoured to remove the objections which

have been made to that theory, by a strenuous patron of the commonly

received opinion of mineralogists and geologists,--an opinion which, if

not diametrically opposite, differs essentially from mine. But now I am

to examine nature more particularly, in order to compare those different

opinions with the actual state of things, on which every physical theory

must be founded. Therefore, the opinions of other geologists should be

clearly stated, that so a fair comparison may be made of theories which

are to represent the system of this earth.

Now, if I am to compare that which I have given as a theory of the

earth, with the theories given by others under that denomination, I

find so little similarity, in the things to be compared, that no other

judgment could hence be formed, perhaps, than that they had little or no

resemblance. I see certain treatises named Theories of the Earth; but, I

find not any thing that entitles them to be considered as such, unless

it be their endeavouring to explain certain appearances which are

observed in the earth. That a proper theory of the earth should explain

all those appearances is true; but, it does not hold, conversely, that

the explanation of an appearance should constitute a theory of the

earth. So far as the theory of the earth shall be considered as the

philosophy or physical knowledge of this world, that is to say, a

general view of the means by which the end or purpose is attained,

nothing can be properly esteemed such a theory unless it lead, in some

degree, to the forming of that general view of things. But now, let us

see what we have to examine in that respect.

We have, first, Burnet's Theory of the Earth. This surely cannot be

considered in any other light than as a dream, formed upon the poetic

fiction of a golden age, and that of iron which had succeeded it; at the

same time, there are certain appearances in the earth which would, in a

partial view of things, seem to justify that imagination. In Telliamed,

again, we have a very ingenious theory, with regard to the production of

the earth above the surface of the sea, and of the origin of those

land animals which now inhabit that earth. This is a theory which has

something in it like a regular system, such as we might expect to find

in nature; but, it is only a physical romance, and cannot be considered

in a serious view, although apparently better founded than most of that

which has been wrote upon the subject.

We have then a theory of a very different kind; this is that of the

Count de Buffon. Here is a theory, not founded on any regular system,

but upon an irregularity of nature, or an accident supposed to have

happened to the sun. But, are we to consider as a theory of the earth,

an accident by which a planetary body had been made to increase the

number of these in the solar system? The circumvolution of a planetary

body (allowing it to have happened in that manner) cannot form the

system of a world, such as our earth exhibits; and, in forming a theory

of the earth, it is required to see the aptitude of every part of this

complicated machine to fulfil the purpose of its intention, and not to

suppose the wise system of this world to have arisen from, the cooling

of a lump of melted matter which had belonged to another body. When

we consider the power and wisdom that must have been exerted in the

contriving, creating, and maintaining this living world which sustains

such a variety of plants and animals, the revolution of a mass of dead

matter according to the laws of projectiles, although in perfect wisdom,

is but like a unite among an infinite series of ascending numbers.

After the theory of that eloquent writer, founded on a mere accident, or

rather the error of a comet which produced the beautiful system of this

world, M. de Luc, in his Theory of the earth, has given us the history

of a disaster which befell this well contrived world;--a disaster which

caused the general deluge, and which, without a miracle, must have

undone a system of living beings that are so well adapted to the present

state of things. But, surely, general deluges form no part of the theory

of the earth; for, the purpose of this earth is evidently to maintain

vegetable and animal life, and not to destroy them.

Besides these imaginary great operations in the natural history of this

earth, we have also certain suppositions of geologists and mineralists

with regard to the effect of water, for explaining to us the

consolidation of the loose materials of which the strata of the earth

had been composed, and also for producing every other appearance, or any

which shall happen to occur in the examination of the earth, and require

to be explained. That this is no exaggerated representation, and

that this is all we have as a theory, in the suppositions of those

geologists, will appear from the following state of the case.

They suppose water the agent employed in forming the solid bodies of the

earth, and in producing those crystallised bodies which appear in

the mineral kingdom. That this is a mere supposition will appear by

considering; first, that they do not know how this agent water is to

operate in producing those effects; nor have they any direct proof

of the fact which is alleged, from a very fallaceous analogy; and,

secondly, that they cannot tell us where this operation is to be

performed. They cannot say that it is in the earth above the level of

the sea: for, the same appearances are found as deep as we can examine

below that level; besides, we see that water has the opposite effect

upon the surface of the earth, through which it percolates dissolving

soluble substances, and thus resolving solid bodies in preparing soil

for plants. If, again, it be below the level of the sea, that strata of

the earth are supposed to be consolidated by the infiltration of that

water which falls from the heavens; this cannot be allowed, so far as

whatever of the earth is bibulous, in that place, must have been always

full of water, consequently cannot admit of that supposed infiltration.

But allowing those suppositions to be true, there is nothing in them

like a theory of the earth,--a theory that should bring the operations

of the world into the regularity of ends and means, and, by generalizing

these regular events, show us the operation of perfect intelligence

forming a design; they are only an attempt to show how certain things,

which we see, have happened without any perceivable design, or without

any farther design than this particular effect which we perceive. If we

believe that there is almighty power, and supreme wisdom employed for

sustaining that beautiful system of plants and animals which is so

interesting to us, we must certainly conclude, that the earth, on which

this system of living things depends, has been constructed on principles

that are adequate to the end proposed, and procure it a perfection which

it is our business to explore. Therefore, a proper system of the earth

should lead us to see that wise contraction, by which this earth is made

to answer the purpose of its intention and to preserve itself from every

accident by which the design of this living world might be frustrated as

this world is an active scene, or a material machine moving in all its

parts, we must see how this machine is so contrived, as either to have

those parts to move without wearing and decay, or to have those parts,

which are wasting and decaying, again repaired.

A rock or stone is not a subject that, of itself, may interest a

philosopher to study; but, when he comes to see the necessity of those

hard bodies, in the constitution of this earth, or for the permanency

of the land on which we dwell, and when he finds that there are means

wisely provided for the renovation of this necessary decaying part, as

well as that of every other, he then, with pleasure, contemplates this

manifestation of design, and thus connects the mineral system of

this earth with that by which the heavenly bodies are made to move

perpetually in their orbits. It is not, therefore, simply by seeing the

concretion of mineral bodies that a philosopher is to be gratified in

his his intellectual pursuit, but by the contemplation of that system in

which the necessary resolution of this earth, while at present it serves

the purpose of vegetation, or the fertility of our soil, is the very

means employed in furnishing the materials of future land.

It is such a view as this that I have endeavoured to represent in the

theory which I have given. I have there stated the present situation of

things, by which we are led to perceive a former state; and, from that

necessary progress of actual things, I have concluded a certain system

according to which things will be changed, without any accident or

error. It is by tracing this regular system in nature that a philosopher

is to perceive the wisdom with which this world has been contrived; but,

he must see that wisdom founded upon the aptitude of all the parts to

fulfil the intention of the design; and that intention is to be deduced

from the end which is known to be attained. Thus we are first to reason

from effect to cause, in seeing the order of that which has already

happened; and then, from those known causes, to reason forwards, so as

to conceive that which is to come to pass in time. Such would be the

philosophy of this earth, formed by the highest generalisation

of phenomena, a generalisation which had required the particular

investigation of inductive reasoning.

That no such theory as this, founded upon water as an agent operating in

the changes of this earth, has yet appeared, will, I believe be easily

allowed. With regard again to fire as an agent in the mineral operations

of this earth, geologists have formed no consistent theory. They see

volcanoes in all the quarters of the globe, and from those burning

mountains, they conjecture other mountains have been formed. But a

burning mountain is only a matter of fact; and, they have not on this

formed any general principle, for establishing what may be called a

theory of the earth. Those who have considered subterraneous fires as

producing certain effects, neither know how these have been procured,

nor do they see the proper purpose for which they are employed in the

system of this world. In this case, the agent fire is only seen as

a destructive element, in like manner as deluges of water have been

attributed by others to changes which have happened in the natural state

of things. These operations are seen only as the accidents of nature,

and not as part of that design by which the earth, which is necessarily

wasted in the operations of the world, is to be repaired.

So far from employing heat or subterraneous fire as an agent in the

mineral operations of the earth, the volcanic philosophers do not

even attempt to explain upon that principle the frequent nodules of

calcareous, zeolite, and other spatose and agaty substances, in those

basaltic bodies which they consider as lavas. Instead then of learning

to see the operation of heat as a general principle of mineral

consolidation and crystallization, the volcanic philosophers endeavour

to explain those particular appearances, which they think inconsistent

with fusion, by aqueous infiltration, no otherwise than other

mineralists who do not admit the igneous origin of those basaltic

bodies. Thus, that great agent, subterraneous heat, has never been

employed by geologists, as a general principle in the theory of the

earth; it has been only considered as an occasional circumstance, or as

the accident of having certain mineral bodies, which are inflammable,

kindled in the earth, without so much as seeing how that may be done.

This agent heat, then, is a new principle to be employed in forming a

theory of the earth; a principle that must have been in the constitution

of this globe, when contrived to subsist as a world, and to maintain

a system of living bodies perpetuating their species. It is therefore

necessary to connect this great mineral principle, subterraneous fire

or heat, with the other operations of the world, in forming a general

theory. For, whether we are to consider those great and constant

explosions of mineral fire as a principal agent in the design, or only

as a casual event depending upon circumstances which give occasion to an

operation of such magnitude, here is an object that must surely have its

place in every general theory of the earth.

In examining things which actually exist, and which have proceeded in a

certain order, it is natural to look for that which had been first; man

desires to know what had been the beginning of those things which now

appear. But when, in forming a theory of the earth, a geologist shall

indulge his fancy in framing, without evidence, that which had preceded

the present order of things, he then either misleads himself, or writes

a fable for the amusement of his reader. A theory of the earth, which

has for object truth, can have no retrospect to that which had preceded

the present order of this world; for, this order alone is what we have

to reason upon; and to reason without data is nothing but delusion. A

theory, therefore, which is limited to the actual constitution of this

earth, cannot be allowed to proceed one step beyond the present order of

things.

But, having surveyed the order of this living world, and having

investigated the progress of this active scene of life, death and

circulation, we find ample data on which to found a train of the most

conclusive reasoning with regard to a general design. It is thus that

there is to be perceived another system of active things for the

contemplation of our mind;--things which, though not immediately within

our view, are not the less certain in being out of our sight; and things

which must necessarily be comprehended in the theory of the earth, if we

are to give stability to it as a world sustaining plants and animals.

This is a mineral system, by which the decayed constitution of an earth,

or fruitful surface of habitable land, may be continually renewed in

proportion as it is wasted in the operations of this world.

It is in this mineral system that I have occasion to compare the

explanations, which I give of certain natural appearances, with the

theories or explanations which have been given by others, and which are

generally received as the proper theory of those mineral operations. I

am, therefore, to examine those different opinions, respecting the

means employed by nature for producing particular appearances in the

construction of our land, appearances which must be explained in some

consistent mineral theory.

These appearances may all be comprehended under two heads, which are now

to be mentioned, in order to see the importance of their explanation, or

purpose which such an explanation is to serve in a theory of the earth.

The first kind of these appearances is that of known bodies which we

find composing part of the masses of our land, bodies whose natural

history we know, as having existed in another state previous to the

composition of this earth where they now are found; these are the

relicts or parts of animal and vegetable bodies, and various stony

substances broken and worn by attrition, all which had belonged to a

former earth. By means of these known objects, we are to learn a great

deal of the natural history of this earth; and, it is in tracing that

history, from where we first perceive it, to the present state of

things, that forms the subject of a geological and mineralogical theory

of this earth. But, we are more especially enabled to trace those

operations of the earth, by means of the second kind of appearances,

which are now to be mentioned.

These again are the evident changes which those known bodies have

undergone, and which have been induced upon such collected masses of

which those bodies constitute a part. These changes are of three sorts;

_first_, the solid state, and various degrees of it, in which we now

find those masses which had been originally formed by the collection of

loose and incoherent materials; _secondly_, the subsequent changes which

have evidently happened to those consolidated masses which have been

broken and displaced, and which have had other mineral substances

introduced into those broken and disordered parts; and, _lastly_, that

great change of situation which has happened to this compound mass

formed originally at the bottom of the sea, a mass which, after being

consolidated in the mineral region, is now situated in the atmosphere

above the surface of the sea.

In this manner we are led to the system of the world, or theory of the

earth in general; for, that great change of situation, which our land

has undergone, cannot be considered as the work of accident, or any

other than an essential part in the system of this world. It is

therefore a proper view of the necessary connection and mutual

dependence of all those different systems of changing things that forms

the theory of this earth as a world, or as that active part of nature

which the philosophy of this earth has to explore. The animal system is

the first or last of these; next comes the vegetable system, on which

the life of animals depends; then comes the system of this earth,

composed of atmosphere, sea, and land, and comprehending the various

chemical, mechanical, and meteorologically operations which take place

upon that surface where vegetation must proceed; and, lastly, we have

the mineral system to contemplate, a system in which the wasting surface

of the earth is employed in laying the foundation of future land within

the sea, and a system in which the mineral operations are employed in

concocting that future land.

Now, such must surely be the theory of this earth, if the land is

continually wasting in the operations of this world; for, to acknowledge

the perfection of those systems of plants and animals perpetuating their

species, and to suppose the system of this earth on which they must

depend, to be imperfect, and in time to perish, would be to reason

inconsistently or absurdly. This is the view of nature that I would wish

philosophers to take; but, there are certain prejudices of education or

prepossession of opinion among them to be overcome, before they can be

brought to see those fundamental propositions,--the wasting of the land,

and the necessity of its renovation by the co-operation of the mineral

system. Let us then consider how men of science, in examining the

mineral state of things, and reasoning from those appearances by which

we are to learn the physiology of this earth, have misled themselves

with regard to physical causes, and formed certain mineralogical and

geological theories, by which their judgment is so perverted, in

examining nature, as to exclude them from the proper means of correcting

their first erroneous notions, or render them blind to the clearest

evidence of any other theory that is proposed.

When men of science reason upon subjects where the ideas are distinct

and definite, with terms appropriated to the ideas, they come to

conclusions in which there is no difference of opinion. It is otherwise

in physical subjects, where things are to be assimilated, in being

properly compared; there, things are not always compared in similar and

equal circumstances or conditions; and there, philosophers often draw

conclusions beyond the analogy of the things compared, and thus judge

without data. When, for example, they would form the physical induction,

with regard to the effect of fire or water upon certain substances in

the mineral regions, from the analogy of such events as may be observed

upon the surface of the earth, they are apt to judge of things acting

under different circumstances or conditions, consequently not producing

similar effects; in which case, they are judging without reason, that

is, instead of inductive reasoning from actual data or physical truth,

they are forming data to themselves purely by supposition, consequently,

so far as these, imagined data may be wrong, the physical conclusion, of

these philosophers may be erroneous.

It is thus that philosophers have judged, with regard to the effects of

fire and water upon mineral substances below the bottom of the sea,

from what their chemistry had taught them to believe concerning bodies

exposed to those agents in the atmosphere or on the surface of the

earth. If in those two cases the circumstances were the same, or

similar, consequently the conditions of the action not changed, then,

the inductive reasoning, which they employ in that comparison, would be

just; but, so far as it is evidently otherwise, to have employed that

inductive conclusion for the explanation of mineral appearances, without

having reason to believe that those changed circumstances of the case

should not make any difference in the action or effect, is plainly to

have transgressed the rules of scientific reasoning; consequently,

instead of being a proper physical conclusion, it is only that imperfect

reasoning of the vulgar which, by comparing things not properly analysed

or distinguished, is so subject to be erroneous. This vague reasoning,

therefore, cannot be admitted as a part of any geological or mineral

theory. Now I here maintain, that philosophers have judged in no other

manner than by this false analogy, when they conclude that water is the

agent by which mineral concretions have been formed. But it will be

proper to state more particularly the case of that misunderstanding

among mineral philosophers.

In forming a geological theory, the general construction of this earth,

and the materials of which it is composed, are such visible objects, and

so evident to those who will take the pains to examine nature, that

here is a subject in which there cannot be any doubt or difference of

opinion. Neither can there be any dispute concerning the place and

situation of mass when it was first formed or composed; for, this is

clearly proved, from every concomitant circumstance, to have been at the

bottom of the sea. The only question in this case, that can be made, is,

How that mass comes now to be a solid body, and above the surface of the

sea in which it had been formed?

With regard to the last, the opinions of philosophers have been so

dissonant, so vague, and so unreasonable, as to draw to no conclusion.

Some suppose the land to be discovered by the gradual retreat of the

ocean, without proposing to explain to us from whence had come the known

materials of a former earth, which compose the highest summits of the

mountains in the highest continents of the earth. Others suppose the

whole of a former earth to have subsided below the bottom even of the

present sea, and together with it all the water of the former sea, from

above the summits of the present mountains, which had then been at the

bottom of the former sea. The placing of the bottom of the sea, or any

part of it, in the atmosphere so as to be dry land, is no doubt a great

operation to be performed, and a difficult task to be explained; but

this is only an argument the more for philosophers to agree in adopting

the most reasonable means.

But though philosophers differ so widely in that point, this is not the

case with regard to the concretion of mineral bodies; here mineralists

seem to be almost all of one mind, at the same time without any reason,

at least, without any other reason than that false analogy which they

have inconsiderately formed from the operations of the surface of this

earth. This great misunderstanding of mineralists has such an extensive

and baneful effect in the judging of geological theories, that it

will be proper here to explain how that has happened, and to shew the

necessity of correcting that erroneous principle before any just opinion

can be formed upon the subject.

Fire and water are two great agents in the system of this earth; it is

therefore most natural to look for the operation of those agents in the

changes which are made on bodies in the mineral regions; and as the

consolidated state of those bodies, which had been collected at the

bottom of the sea, may have been supposed to be induced either by

fusion, or by the concretion from a solution, we are to consider how far

natural appearance lead to the conclusion of the one or other of those

two different operations. Here, no doubt, we are to reason analogically

from the known power and effects of those great agents; but, we must

take care not to reason from a false analogy, by misunderstanding the

circumstances of the case, or not attending to the necessary conditions

in which those agents act.--We must not conclude that fire cannot burn

in the mineral regions because our fires require the ventilation of the

atmosphere; for, besides the actual exigence of mineral fire being a

notorious matter of fact, we know that much more powerful means _may_

be employed by nature, for that mineral purpose of exciting heat, than

those which we practise.--We must not conclude that mineral marble is

formed in the same manner as we see a similar stony substance produced

upon the surface of the earth, unless we should have reason to suppose

the analogy to be complete. But, this is the very error into which

mineral philosophers have fallen; and this is the subject which I am now

to endeavour to illustrate.

The manner in which those philosophers have deceived themselves when

reasoning upon the subject of mineral concretion, is this: They see,

that by means of water a stony substance is produced; and, this stony

body so much resembles mineral marble as to be hardly distinguishable in

certain cases. These mineral philosophers then, reasoning in the manner

of the vulgar, or without analysing the subject to its principle,

naturally attribute the formation of the mineral marble to a cause

of the same sort; and, the mineral marble being found so intimately

connected with all other mineral bodies, we must necessarily conclude,

in reasoning according to the soundest principles, that all those

different substances had been concreted in the same manner. Thus, having

once departed one step from the path of just investigation, our physical

science is necessarily bewildered in the labyrinth of error. Let us

then, in re-examining our data, point out where lies that first devious

step which had been impregnated with fixed air, or carbonic acid gas,

(as it is called), dissolves a certain portion of mild calcareous

earth or marble; consequently such acidulated water, that is, water

impregnated with this gas, will, by filtrating through calcareous

substances, become saturated with that solution of marble; and, this

solution is what is called a _petrifying water_. When this solution is

exposed to the action of the atmosphere, the acid gas, by means of which

the stony substance is dissolved, evaporates from the solution, in

having a stronger attraction for the atmospheric air; it is then that

the marble, or calcareous substance, concretes and crystallises,

separating from the water in a sparry state, and forming a very solid

stone by the successive accretion from the solution, as it comes to

be exposed to the influence of the atmosphere in flowing over the

accumulating body. Here is the source of their delusion; for, they do

not distinguish properly the case of this solution of a stony substance

concreting by means of the separation of its solvent, and the case of

such a solution being in a place where that necessary condition cannot

be supposed to exist; such as, e.g., the interstices among the particles

of sand, clay, etc. deposited at the bottom of the sea, and accumulated

in immense stratified masses.

No example can better illustrate how pernicious it is to science to have

admitted a false principle, on which a chain of reasoning is to proceed

in forming a theory. Mineral philosophers have founded their theory upon

that deceitful analogy, which they had concluded between the stalactical

concretions of petrifying waters and the marble formed in the mineral

regions; thus, blinded by prejudice, they shut the door against the

clearest evidence; and it is most difficult to make them see the error

of their principle. But this is not to be wondered at, when we consider

how few among philosophising men remount to the first principles of

their theory; and, unless they shall thus remount to that first step,

in which the concreting operation of a dissolved stony substance

is supposed to take place without the necessary conditions for the

petrifying operation, it is impossible to be convinced that their

theory, thus formed with regard to mineral concretion, is merely

supposition, and has no foundation in matter of fact from whence it

should proceed.

But this is not all; for, even supposing their theory to be well founded

and just, it is plainly contradicted by natural appearances. According

to that theory of aqueous consolidation, all the stratified bodies, of

which this earth in general consists, should be found in the natural

order of their regular formation; but, instead of this, they are found

every where disturbed in that order more or less; in many places this

order and regularity is so disturbed as hardly to be acknowledged; in

most places we find those stratified bodies broken, dislocated, and

contorted, and this aqueous theory of mineralists has neither the means

for attaining that end, were it required in their theory, nor have they

any such purpose in their theory, were that end attainable by the means

which they employ. Thus blinded by the prejudice of a false analogy,

they do not even endeavour to gratify the human understanding (which

naturally goes in quest of wisdom and design) by forming a hypothetical

or specious theory of the mineral system; and they only amuse themselves

with the supposition of an unknown operation of water for the

explanation of their cabinet specimens, a supposition altogether

ineffectual for the purpose of forming a habitable earth, and a

supposition which is certainly contradicted by every natural appearance.

Thus, in examining geological and mineralogical theories, I am laid

under the disagreeable necessity of pointing out the errors of physical

principles which are assumed, the prejudices of theoretical opinions

which have been received, and the misconceived notions which

philosophers entertain with regard to the system of nature, in which may

be perceived no ineffectual operation, nor any destructive intention,

but the wise and benevolent purpose of preserving the present order of

this world. But, though thus misled with regard to the cause of things,

naturalists are every where making interesting observations in the

mineral kingdom, I shall therefore avail myself of that instructive

information, for the confirmation of my theory.

It may now be proper to consider what must be required, in order to have

a geological and mineral theory established upon scientific principles,

or on such grounds as must give conviction to those who will examine

the subject; for, unless we may clearly see that there are means for

attaining that desirable end, few philosophers will be persuaded to

pursue this branch of knowledge.

A theory is nothing but the generalization of particular facts; and, in

a theory of the earth, those facts must be taken from the observations

of natural history. Nature is considered as absolutely true; no error or

contradiction can be found in nature. For, if such contradiction were

truly found, if the stone, for example, which fell to day were to rise

again to-morrow, there would be an end of natural philosophy, our

principles would fail, and we would no longer investigate the rules of

nature from our observations.

Every natural appearance, therefore, which is explained, _i.e._ which is

made to come into the order of things that happen, must so far confirm

the theory to which it then belongs. But is it necessary, that every

particular appearance, among minerals, should be thus explained in

a general theory of the earth? And, is any appearance, which is not

explained by it, to be considered as sufficient to discredit or confute

a theory which corresponded with every other appearance? Here is a

question which it would require some accuracy to resolve.

If we knew all the powers of nature, and all the different conditions in

which those powers may have their action varied, that is to say, if we

were acquainted with every physical cause, then every natural effect, or

all appearances upon the surface of this earth, might be explained in a

theory that were just. But, seeing that this is far from being the case,

and that there may be many causes of which we are as yet ignorant, as

well as certain conditions in which the known action of powers may be

varied, it must be evident, that a theory of the earth is not to be

confuted by this argument alone, That there are, among natural bodies,

certain appearances which are not explained by the theory. We must

admit, that, not having all the data which natural philosophy requires,

we cannot pretend to explain every thing which appears; and that our

theories, which necessarily are imperfect, are not to be considered as

erroneous when not explaining every thing which is in nature, but only

when they are found contrary to or inconsistent with the laws of nature,

which are known, and with which the case in question may be properly

compared.

But we may have different theories to compare with nature; and, in that

case, the question is not, How far any of those theories should explain

all natural appearances? but, How far any one particular theory might

explain a phenomenon better than another? In this case of comparison, it

will be evident, that if one theory explains natural appearances, then

the opposite to that theory cannot be supposed to explain the same

appearances. If for example, granite, porphyry, or basaltes, should be

found naturally formed by fusion, the formation of those stones could

not be supposed in any case as formed by water, although it could not

be demonstrated that water is incapable of forming those mineral

productions.

In like manner, if those three bodies were proved to have been actually

formed by water alone, then, in other cases where we should have no

proof, they could not be supposed as having been formed by fire or

fusion. It must be evident, that an equal degree of proof of those two

different propositions would leave our judgment in suspence, unless that

proof were perfect, in which case, we would have two different causes

producing similar effects. But, if we shall have a sufficient proof

upon the one side, and only a presumptive proof or probability upon the

other, we must reject that probability or presumption, when opposed by

a proof, although that proof were only an induction by reasoning from

similar effects as following similar causes. _A fortiori_, if there be

on one side a fair induction, without the least suspicion of error,

and on the other nothing but a mere presumption founded upon a distant

analogy, which could not even properly apply, then, the inductive proof

would be as satisfactory as if there had not been any supposition on the

opposite side.

So far as a theory is formed in the generalization of natural

appearances, that theory must be just, although it may not be perfect,

as having comprehended every appearance; that is to say, a theory is

not perfect until it be founded upon every natural appearance; in which

case, those appearances will be explained by the theory. The theory of

gravitation, though no ways doubtful, was not so perfect before the

shape of this globe had been determined by actual measurement, and

before the direction of the plummet had been tried upon Shihallion, as

after those observations had been made. But a theory which should be

merely hypothetical, or founded upon a few appearances, can only be

received as a theory, after it has been found to correspond properly

with nature; it would then be held a proper explanation of those natural

appearances with which it corresponded; and, the more of those phenomena

that were thus explained by the theory, the more would that, which had

been first conjectural, be converted into a theory legitimately founded

upon natural appearances.

Matter of fact is that upon which science proceeds, by generalization,

to form theory, for the purpose of philosophy, or the knowledge of all

natural causes; and it is by the companion of these matters of fact with

any theory, that such a theory will be tried. But, in judging of matter

of fact, let us be cautious of deceiving ourselves, by substituting

speculative reasoning in place of actual events.

Nature, as the subject of our observation, consists of two sorts of

objects; for, things are either active, when we perceive change to take

place in consequence of such action, or they are quiescent, when we

perceive no change to take place. Now, it is evident, that in judging

of the active powers of nature from the quiescent objects of our

information, we are liable to error, in misinterpreting the objects

which we see; we thus form to ourselves false or erroneous opinion

concerning the general laws of action, and the powers of nature. In

comparing, therefore, generalised facts, or theory, with particular

observations, there is required the greatest care, neither, on the one

hand, to strain the appearances, so as to bring in to the theory a fact

belonging to another class of things; nor, on the other, to condemn a

proper theory, merely because that theory has not been extended to the

explanation of every natural appearance.

But, besides the misinterpretation of matters of fact, we are also to

guard against the misrepresentation of natural appearances. Whether

warped by the prejudice of partial and erroneous theory, or deceived by

the inaccuracy of superficial observation, naturalists are apt to see

things in an improper light, and thus to reason from principles which

cannot be admitted, and, which often lead to false conclusions. A

naturalist, for example, comes to examine a cavity in the mines, he

there finds water dropping down all around him, and he sees the cavity

all hung with siliceous crystals; he then concludes, without hesitation,

that here is to be perceived cause and effect, or that he actually sees

the formation of those crystallizations from the operation of water. It

is thus that I have been told by men of great mineral knowledge, men who

must have had the best education upon that subject of mineralogy, and

who have the superintendance of great mineral concerns in Germany, that

they had actually seen nature at work in that operation of forming

rock-crystal;--they saw what I have now described; they could see no

more; but, they saw what had convinced them of that which, there is

every reason to believe, never happened. With regard to my theory,

I wish for the most rigorous examination; and do not ask for any

indulgence whatever, whether with regard to the principles on which the

theory is built, or for the application of the theory to the explanation

of natural appearances. But, let not geologists judge my theory by their

imperfect notions of nature, or by those narrow views which they take of

the present state of things;--let not mineralogists condemn my theory,

for no other reason but because it does not correspond with their false

principles, and those gratuitous suppositions by which they had been

pleased to explain to themselves every thing before. First let them look

into their own theory, and correct that erroneous principle, with regard

to the action of water, or the assumption of unknown causes, upon which

they have reasoned in forming their vague notions of the mineral region,

before they can be properly qualified to examine, impartially, a theory

which employs another principle. Every thing which has come under my

observation shall be, as far as I can, faithfully related; nor shall I

withhold those which neither the present theory, nor any other that I am

acquainted with, can, I think, explain.

Appearances cannot well be described except in relation to some theory

or general arrangement of the subject; because the particular detail,

of every part in a complicated appearance, would be endless and

insignificant. When, however, any question in a theory depends upon the

nature of an appearance, we cannot be too particular in describing that

by which the question is to be decided. But though it be sometimes

proper to be minute in a particular, it is always, and above all things,

necessary to be distinct; and not to confound together things which are

of different natures. For, though it be by finding similarity, in things

which at first sight may seem different, that science is promoted and

philosophy attained, yet, we must have a distinct view of those things

which are to be assimilated; and surely the lowest state of knowledge

in any subject, is the not distinguishing things which, though not to

common observation different, are not truly the same.

To confound, for example one stone with another, because they were both

hard, friable, and heavy, would be to describe, with the superficial

views of vulgar observation; whereas science specifies the weight and

hardness, and thus accurately distinguishes the stone.

Before naturalists had learned to distinguish what they saw, and to

describe, in known terms, those natural appearances, a theorist must

have generalised only from his proper observation. This has been my

case. When I first conceived my theory, few naturalists could write

intelligibly upon the subject; but that is long ago, and things are much

altered since; now there are most enlightened men making observations,

and communicating natural knowledge. I have the satisfaction, almost

every day, to compare the theory, which I had formed from my proper

observations, with the actual state of things in almost every quarter of

the globe.

Whether, therefore, we mean to try a theory by its application to

such phenomena as are well understood, or to learn something from the

application of particular phenomena to a well established theory,

we shall always find it interesting to have appearances described;

particularly such as may be referred to some general rule, as

circumscribing it to certain conditions, or as finding rule in rule,

that is to say, discovering those particular conditions in which the

general laws of action may be affected.

Instead, for example, of the rule which we find in the application of

heat for the fusion and evaporation of mineral substances upon the

surface of this earth, we may find it necessary to consider the effect

which changed circumstances produce in the mineral regions, and occasion

a change of that rule of action which we have learned from experience,

when melting and evaporating those substances in the atmosphere or on

the surface of the earth.

It is in this manner that a theory, which was formed by the

generalization of particular facts, comes to be a source of information,

by explaining to us certain appearances which otherwise we could not

understand. Thus, it was not the appearance of the tides that taught the

theory of gravitation; it was the theory of gravitation that made us

understand the appearance of the tides. In like manner, the law of

gravitation, which was demonstrated from the motion of the moon in her

orbit round this earth, when applied to the paths of comets, explained

that appearance. Our theory, of a central fire, has been formed upon

the consolidation of the strata of this earth; but this theory is to be

applied for the explanation of various different appearances. In this

manner, two different purposes will be served; the trying of the theory

by its application to phenomena; and the explanation of phenomena by the

principles laid open in the theory.

I may repeat it; a theory of the earth must ultimately depend upon

matter of fact or particular observation; but those observations must be

distinct, and those distinguished things must be generalised. We have

just now given for an example, a distinction among stones, in knowing

them by their sensible qualities. But, besides distinguishing those

objects, we are also to inquire into the origin and cause of those

things which are distinguished. Here, again, we take into our aid the

chemical as well as the mechanical properties of these several things;

and hence learn to know on what their natural form and constitution may

depend. Having thus attained the natural philosophy of stones, we next

inquire into the place and application of those things in nature; and

in this manner we acquire some knowledge with regard to the natural

constitution of this earth. We find this earth composed of known things;

it is therefore the operations, required in these compositions, which

form the natural philosophy of this earth, considered as a body of solid

land. But, the solid land is only one part of the globe; therefore,

the philosophy of the globe proceeds still farther by knowing the

constitution of this planetary body, as consisting of different parts

united for a purpose, which is that of a world.

The general theory of this earth as a world, will thus appear to be a

complex thing, which however founded upon simple principles, contains

many subjects of discussion, and requires attention to a variety of

particulars. For, not only the great features of this earth are to be

explained by the theory, but also the most minute appearance, such as

are to be found, even with microscopic observation, in every particular

part.

Thus the nature, constitution, and cause of every particular appearance

in the construction of this earth, are to be investigated in a

geological theory, as well as that general constitution of the world in

which all the particular parts are to be employed for a purpose.

If the subject here examined shall be found properly explained, there

will remain little doubt with regard to the justness of the theory,

which will then be applicable to other appearances that may occur;

although every appearance is not to be explained, in a manner equally

satisfactory, by any theory which is not perfect.

The first subject to be examined is the modern theory of primitive

mountains. I have written several chapters upon that subject, having

successively acquired more light in this interesting part of the theory,

by observations of my own in several places of this country, as well as

from the natural history of other countries. I shall give these nearly

in the order in which they occurred, or had been written.

CHAP. IV.

The Supposition of Primitive Mountains refuted.

In the theory now given, the earth has been represented as a composition

of different materials, which had existed in another form, and as the

effect of natural operations; therefore, however various may be found

the structure of our earth, and however dissimilar some parts of

its composition may be in comparison with others, no part should be

considered as original, in relation to the globe, or as primitive, in

relation to second causes, _i.e._ physical operations by which those

parts should have been formed. But it is pretended by naturalists, that

there are certain primitive mountains in the earth, bodies which have

had another origin than that of the general strata of the globe and

subsequent masses; an origin, therefore, which cannot be considered as

having been produced from natural operations, or as effected in the

course of known causes. Now, if it can be made to appear, that there is

no solid ground for this distinction; and if it can be shown, that there

is truly no mineral body in this earth which may not have been produced

by operations natural to the globe, we should thus procure a certain

confirmation of the doctrine. This also will be the more interesting,

in being deduced from a part of natural appearances, which seemed to be

inconsistent with the theory.

Certain masses or mountains of granite, are the only bodies of this

earth which have apparently a certain pretension to this species

of originality. These, therefore, must be now the subject of our

examination.

Granite, considered by itself, does not appear to have any claim to

originality in its nature. It is composed of bodies which are capable of

being analyzed; and these are then found to be compositions of different

substances, which are also sometimes variously proportioned. The

feldspar and the mica, for example, as well as the schorl, are found

variously coloured in different granites, and coloured in various

proportions. Besides the variety in the composition, or chemical mixture

of the different bodies which compose granite, this rock admits of a

great diversity, from the variety of its mechanical mixture, or from

the different species of bodies which are its constituent parts. M. de

Saussure, who has examined this subject perhaps more than any other

person, and who has had the very best opportunities for this purpose,

says, that this composition may be found in all the different

combinations which may be produced by every possible composition of 7

or 8 different kinds of stone, (page 108, Voyage dans les Alpes, etc.).

Neither does this fill up the measure of its variety; for, another

source of change is found in the grain of this rock stone; I have a

specimen of this variety from the size almost of sand to that of some

inches.

Were granite, therefore, to be supposed as in the original state of its

creation, nature would be considered as having operated in an indefinite

diversity of ways, without that order and wisdom which we find in all

her works; for here would be change without a principle, and variety

without a purpose. There is no reason, however, to suppose granite

original, more than any other composite rock, although we may be

ignorant of the particular process in which it is formed, and although,

comparatively in relation to certain other rocks, granite, or certain

masses of this composition, may be found of a more ancient date.

If granite be truly stratified, and those strata connected with the

other strata of the earth, it can have no claim to originality; and

the idea of primitive mountains, of late so much employed by natural

philosophers, must vanish, in a more extensive view of the operations of

the globe; but it is certain that granite, or a species of the same kind

of stone, is thus found stratified. It is the _granit feuilletée_ of

M. de Saussure, and, if I mistake not, what is called _gneis_ by the

Germans. We have it also in our north alpine country of Scotland; of

this I have specimens, but have not seen it in its place.

Granite being thus found stratified, the masses of this stone cannot be

allowed to have any right of priority over the schistus, its companion

in the alpine countries, although M. de Saussure, whose authority I

would revere, has given it for the following reason; that it is found

the most centrical in the chains of high mountains, or in alpine

countries. Now, supposing this fact to be general, as he has found it in

the Alps, no argument for the priority of those masses can be founded

either upon the height or the situation of those granite mountains; for

the height of the mountain depends upon the solidity and strength of the

stone. Now though it is not to be here maintained that granite is the

most durable of those alpine rocks, yet as a mountain, either granite in

general, or in particular, certain species of it, may be esteemed such,

consequently, this massy stone, remaining highest in the mountainous

region, will naturally be considered as the centre, and according to

this rule, as having the pre-eminence in point of seniority.

The rock which stands in competition with granite for the title of

primitive in the order of mountains, is that micaceous stratified stone

which is formed chiefly of quartz, but which admits of great variety

like the granite. The difference between those two bodies does not

consist in the materials of which they are composed, for, in their

varieties, they may be in this respect the same, but in a certain

regularity of composition, in this alpine stone, which evidently arises

from stratification or subsidence in water.

If we shall thus consider all the varieties of this alpine stone as

being of one kind, and call it granite, then we shall distinguish in

this body two different species, from whence perhaps some interesting

conclusion may be formed with regard to the operations of the globe.

These two species are, _first_, granite regular in its composition, or

stratified in its construction; and, _secondly_, granite in mass, or

irregular in its construction. Let us now endeavour to make use of these

generalizations and distinctions.

In examining the great diversity of our whinstone, trap, or basaltes, it

is found at last to granulate into granite; at the same time those two

different species of rock-stone may be distinguished. A perfect granite

has not in its composition necessarily any argillaceous earth, farther

than may be in the natural constitution of its distinct parts; whereas,

a perfect basalt may have abundance of this substance, without any

quartz or any siliceous body. A perfect granite, is, therefore, an

extremely hard stone, having quartz and feldspar for its basis; but a

perfect whin or basaltes may be extremely soft, so as to cut easily with

a knife. In like manner granite is a composition which graduates into

porphyry; but porphyry is only whinstone of a harder species. Therefore,

though perfectly distinct, those three things graduate into each other,

and may be considered as the same.

Granite and whinstone, or basaltes, though distinct compositions, thus

graduating into each other; and whinstone, as well as porphyry, being

without doubt a species of lava, we may consider the granite which is

found in mass without stratification, in like manner as we do the masses

of whinstone, basaltes, or Swedish trap, as having flowed in the bowels

of the earth, and thus been produced by the chance of place, without any

proper form of its own, or in an irregular shape and construction. In

this manner would be explained the irregular shape or structure of those

granite masses; and thus great light would be thrown upon the waved

structure of the stratified alpine stone, which, though it has not been

made to flow, has been brought to a great degree of softness, so as to

have the original straight lines of its stratification changed to

those undulated or waving lines which are in some cases extremely much

incurvated.

It remains only to confirm this reasoning, upon our principles, by

bringing actual observation to its support; and this we shall do from

two of the best authorities. The Chevalier de Dolomieu, in describing

the volcanic productions of Etna, mentions a lava which had flowed from

that mountain, and which may be considered as a granite. But M. de

Saussure has put this matter out of doubt by describing most accurately

what he had seen both in the Alps and at the city of Lyons. These are

veins of granite which have flowed from the contiguous mass into the

stratified stone, and leave no doubt with regard to this proposition,

that the granite had flowed in form of subterranean lava, although M. de

Saussure has drawn a very different conclusion from this appearance. I

have also a specimen from this country of a vein of granite in a granite

stone, the vein being of a smaller grain than that of the rock which it

traverses.[20]

[Note 20: This is what I had wrote upon, the subject of granite, before

I had acquired such ample testimony from my own observations upon

that species of rock. I have given some notice, in the 3d vol. of the

Transactions of the Edinburgh R.S. concerning the general result of

those observations, which will be given particularly in the course of

this work.]

It will thus appear, that the doctrine which of late has prevailed, of

primitive mountains, or something which should be considered as original

in the construction of this earth, must be given up as a false view of

nature, which has formed the granite upon the same principle with that

of any other consolidated stratum; so far as the collection of different

materials, and the subsequent fusion of the compound mass, are necessary

operations in the preparation of all the solid masses of the earth.

Whatever operations of the globe, therefore, may be concluded from the

composition of granite masses, as well as of the alpine strata, these

must be considered as giving us information with regard to the natural

history of this earth; and they will be considered as important, in

proportion as they disclose to us truths, which from other strata might

not be so evident, or at all made known.

Let us now examine the arguments, which, may be employed in favour of

that supposition of primitive mountains.

The observations, on which naturalists have founded that opinion of

originality in some of the component parts of our earth, are these;

_first_, They observe certain great masses of granite in which

stratification is not to be perceived; this then they say is an original

mass, and it is not to be derived from any natural operation of the

globe; _secondly_, They observe considerable tracts of the earth

composed of matter in the order of stratification as to its general

composition, but not as to its particular position, the vertical

position here prevailing, instead of the horizontal which is proper to

strata formed in water; this, therefore, they also term primitive, and

suppose it to be from another origin than that of the subsidence of

materials moved in the waters of the globe; _lastly_, They observe both

strata and masses of calcareous matter in which they cannot distinguish

any marine body as is usual in other strata of the same substance; and

these calcareous masses being generally connected with their primitive

mountains, they have also included these collections of calcareous

matter, in which marine bodies are not observed, among the primitive

parts which they suppose to be the original construction of this globe.

It may be proper to see the description of a calcareous alpine mountain.

M. de Saussure gives us the following observations concerning a mountain

of this kind in the middle of the Alps, where the water divides in

running different ways towards the sea. It is in describing the passage

of the Bon-Homme, (Tom. 2. V. dans les Alpes).

"§ 759. Sur la droite ou au couchant de ces rochers, on voit une

montagne calcaire étonnante dans ce genre par la hardiesse avec laquelle

elle élève contre le ciel ses cimes aigues et tranchantes, taillées

à angles vifs dans le costume des hautes cimes de granit. Elle est

pourtant bien sûrement calcaire, je l'ai observée de près, et on

rencontre sur cette route les blocs qui s'en détachent.

"Cette pierre porte les caractères des calcaires les plus anciennes; sa

couleur est grise, son grain assez fin, on n'y apperçoit aucun vestige

de corps organisés; ses couches sont peu épaisses, ondées et coupées

fréquemment par des fentes parallèles entr'elles et perpendiculaires à

leurs plans. On trouve aussi parmi ces fragmens des brèches calcaires

grises."

Here is a mountain which will rank with the most primitive of the earth;

But why? only because it is extremely consolidated without any mark of

organised body. Had there been in this mountain but one single shell, we

should not then have scrupled to conclude that the origin of this lofty

mountain had been the same with every marble or limestone in the earth.

But though, from the structure of this stone, there is no mark of its

having been formed immediately of the calcareous parts of animals, there

is every mark of those calcareous strata having been formed like other

marbles by deposit in the waters of the globe.

These two things are also homologated by the equal or perfect

consolidation of their substance; for, as it is to be proved that

all stratified marbles have been consolidated by the fusion of their

substance, we must attribute the same consolidating cause to those

alpine masses; the frequent veins that divide those calcareous strata

which M. de Saussure has here described, also prove the nature of the

consolidating cause, (see Chap. 1. page 111.).

This mountain, considered by itself, may perhaps afford no data by which

a naturalist might read the circumstances of its origin. But, Is a

theory of the earth to be formed upon such a negative observation? and,

Is there any particular in this mountain, that may not be shown in

others of which the origin is not in any degree doubtful?

It is not to be disputed, that there are parts of the solid body of our

earth which may be considered as primary or prior, compared with others

that are posterior, in relation to the time of their formation, and much

less changed with regard to the state in which they had been originally

formed:--But it is here denied, that there are any parts of the earth

which do not appear to have had the same origin with all the rest, so

far as this consists in the collection of materials deposited at the

bottom of the waters[21]; for there is no solid mass of land that may

not be traced to this origin, either from its composition, or from its

local connection with other masses, the nature of which in this respect

are known. We have already given examples of this from sufficient

authority. The evidence, therefore, of those primary masses being

original in relation to the natural operations of the globe, is reduced

to this assertion, that there are no vestiges of organised bodies to be

found in those primary masses. Let us now examine how far this testimony

for the originality of those masses is to be admitted in fact and sound

reasoning.

[Note 21: There are no collection of those alpine masses in which may

not be found in some of them sand, mica, and gravel; but these materials

prove the existence of an earth, on which those fragments of greater

masses had been formed, and more or less worn by attrition.]

The matter in question at present is this, that there are certain tracts

of countries in which no vestige of organised bodies are found; now, let

us suppose the fact to be true or well grounded, Can we conclude

from this that there had been originally no organised bodies in the

composition of those masses?--Such a conclusion could only be formed in

making a supposition, that every organised body deposited in a mass

of matter, whether homogeneous or heterogeneous, should be preserved

without change, while the collected mass, in which it had been

deposited, changes as much as possible by the operation both of fire and

water. But this supposition is erroneous, and cannot be admitted; and

the study of marbles will demonstrate this truth, that the calcareous

relics of organised bodies are changed, in the consolidating operations

of the globe, in every degree, from the smallest alteration to the

greatest, when they become indistinguishable any farther to our sight.

Therefore, from the supposition of no appearance of marine bodies in the

pretended primitive masses, there is no sufficient evidence or reason to

conclude, that those masses have not had a marine origin; because, the

traces of organised bodies may be obliterated by the many subsequent

operations of the mineral region; and which operations, the present

state of those masses certify beyond dispute.

We are now to examine the fact, how far the ground on which that false

reasoning had been founded is strictly true.

In the first place, then, it must be considered, that the alledged fact

is nothing but a negative assertion, importing that no mark of organised

bodies had been observed, in certain stones and strata which some

naturalists have examined with that view. But, though many naturalists

have looked for them without success, it does not follow that such marks

may not be found; it indeed proves that such a task is difficult, and

the success of it, to a particular, most precarious; accident, however,

may bring about what the greatest industry has not been able to attain.

Secondly, there is good reason to believe that this asserted negation

is not absolutely true; for I have in my possession what I consider as

proof of the contrary; I found it in Wales, and I think it is in what

may be considered as primitive mountains;--it is the mark of shells in a

stone of that kind.

Thus, I had formed my opinion with regard to this alleged fact, long

before I had seen any description either of the Alps or Pyrennean

mountains; and now I have no reason to change that opinion. It may

indeed be alleged, that the strata of marble or limestone, containing

marine bodies found in those mountains, are secondary strata, and not

the primitive. To this I can give no reply, as the descriptions given of

those strata do not enable me to decide this point.

At the village of Mat, under the Mont Blatten for example, there is a

quarry of schistus or black slate, in which are often found the print

and the bones of fishes. (Discours sur l'Histoire Naturelle de la

Suisse, page 225.). If this may be considered as an alpine or primitive

schistus, it would be decisive of the question: But it would require to

have it well ascertained that this schistus is truly one of those which

are esteemed primitive, or that it is properly connected with them.

But though I cannot find in those interesting descriptions which we now

have got, any one which is demonstrative of this truth, that calcareous

marine objects are found in the primitive strata, this is not the

case with regard to another object equally important in deciding this

question, Whether the primitive strata are found containing the marks of

organised bodies?

M. de Dellancourt, in his _Observations Minéralogiques_, Journal de

Physique Juillet 1786, in describing the mountains of Dauphiné, gives us

the following fact with regard to those alpine vertical strata.

"La pierre constituante de la montagne d'Oris est en général le _Kneifs_

ou la roche feuilletée mica et quartz à couches plus ou moins ferrées

quelquefois le schorl en roche pénétré de stéatite. Les couches varient

infiniment quant à leur direction et à leur inclinaisons. Cette montagne

est cultivée et riche dans certain cantons, surtout autour du village

d'Oris, mais elle est très-escarpée dans beaucoup d'autres. Entre le

village d'Oris et celui du Tresnay est une espèce de combe assez creuse

formée par la chute des eaux des cimes supérieures des rochers. Cette

combe offre beaucoup de schiste dont les couches font ou très-inclinées

ou perpendiculaires. Entre ces couches il s'en est trouvé de plus noires

que les autres et capable de brûler, mais difficilement. Les habitans

ont extrait beaucoup de cette matière terreuse, et lui ont donné le nom

de charbon de terre. Ils viennent même à bout de la faire brûler, et

de s'en servir l'hiver en la mêlant avec du bois. Ce schiste noir

particulier m'a paru exister principalement dans les endroits ou les

eaux se sont infiltrées entre les couches perpendiculaires, et y ont

entraîné diverse matières, et sur-tout des débris de végétaux que

j'ai encore retrouvés à demi-noirs, pulvérulens et comme dans un état

charbonneux."

This formation of coal, by the infiltration of water and carrying in of

vegetable bodies, certainly cannot be admitted of; consequently, from

this description, there would seem to be strata of coal alternated with

the alpine schisti. But the formation of mineral coal requires vegetable

matter to have been deposited along with those earthy substances, at the

bottom of the sea. The production of vegetable bodies, again, requires

the constitution of sea and land, and the system of a living world,

sustaining plants at least, if not animals.

In this natural history of the alpine schisti, therefore, we have a

most interesting fact, an example which is extremely rare. Seldom are

calcareous organised bodies found among those alpine strata, but still

more rarely, I believe, are the marks of vegetable bodies having

contributed in the formation of those masses. But however rare this

example, it is equally decisive of the question, Whether the alpine

schisti have had a similar origin as the other strata of the globe,

in which are found abundance of animal and vegetable bodies, or their

relics? and we are authorised to say, that since those perfect alpine

strata of Dauphiné have had that origin, all the alpine schisti of the

globe have been originally formed in a similar manner. But to put this

matter out of doubt:

In this summer 1788, coming from the Isle of Man, Mr Clerk and I

traveled through the alpine schistus country of Cumberland and

Westmoreland. We found a limestone quarry upon the banks of Windermere,

near the Low-wood Inn. I examined this limestone closely, but despaired

of finding any vestige of organised body. The strata of limestone

seem to graduate into the slate or schistus strata, between which the

calcareous are placed. Fortunately, however, I at last found a fragment

in which I thought to perceive the works of organised bodies in a

sparry state; I told Mr Clerk so, and our landlord Mr Wright, who had

accompanied us. I have brought home this specimen, which I have now

ground and polished; and now it is most evidently full of fragments of

entrochi. Mr Wright then told me he had seen evident impressions of

marine objects, as I understood from the description, in the slate of

those mountains; and he was to send me specimens so soon as he could

procure them.

Here is one specimen which at once overturns all the speculations formed

upon that negative proposition. The schistus mountains of Cumberland

were, in this respect, as perfect primitive mountains as any upon the

earth, before this observation; now they have no claim upon that score,

no more than any limestone formed of shells.

When I first announced my belief that such objects in natural history

might be found, I little thought to have seen it realised, to such a

degree as has now happened in the little circle of my knowledge. In the

summer 1791,

Professor Playfair was to pass through Cumberland. I begged that he

would inquire of Mr Wright, at the Low-wood Inn, for those objects which

he was to endeavour to procure for me, and to examine the limestone

quarry in which I had found the specimen with entrochi. He went through

another part of those primary mountains, and has found examples of this

kind in the schisti; concerning which he has written me the following

account.

"In a visit which I made to the Lakes of Cumberland in September 1791,

in company with the Hon. Francis Charteris, I met with a limestone

full of marine objects, though from its position it is certainly to be

reckoned among the primary strata. The place where we found this stone

was in the district of Lancashire, that is west of Windermere Lake, on

the road from Ambleside to the north end of Coniston Lake, and not far

from the point when you come in sight of the latter. Just about this

spot we happened to meet with one of those people who serve as guides

to travelers in those parts, and who told us, among other things, that

stones with shells in them were often found not far from where we were

then walking. We immediately began to look about for specimens of that

kind, and soon met with several; the most remarkable of which was in a

rock that rose a little above the surface, about 300 or 400 yards to

the right of the road. It was a part of a limestone stratum, nearly

vertical, and was full of bivalves with the impressions as strong as

in a common secondary limestone. The strata on both sides had the same

inclination, and were decidedly primary, consisting of the ordinary

micaceous schistus. This however I need not remark to you, who know so

well from your own observations that the whole of the country I am now

speaking of has every character of a primary one. I, only mention it,

that it may not be supposed that the rock in question was some fragment

of a secondary stratum that remained, after the rest was washed away,

superincumbent on the primary.

"After I had seen this rock, I recollected that you had told me of

something of the same kind that you saw in a quarry at Low-wood Inn; and

it may be that both belonged to the same stratum or body of strata; for

the direction of the strata, as nearly as I could observe, was from S.W.

to N.E.; and this also is nearly the bearing of Low-wood from the place

where we now were. I send you a specimen, which you can compare with

those you brought from the lime quarry at Low-wood."

I have examined this specimen, and find it to be the common schistus

of that country, only containing many bivalve shells and fragments of

entrochi and madrapore bodies, and mixed with pyrites.

I have already observed that one single example of a shell, or of its

print, in a schistus, or in a stone stratified among those vertical or

erected masses, suffices to prove the origin of those bodies to have

been, what I had maintained them to be, water formed strata erected from

the bottom of the sea, like every other consolidated stratum of the

earth. But now, I think, I may affirm, that there is not, or rarely, any

considerable extent of country of that primary kind, in which some mark

of this origin will not be found, upon careful examination; and now I

will give my reason for this assertion. I have been examining the south

alpine country of Scotland, occasionally, for more than forty years

back, and I never could find any mark of an organised body in the

schistus of those mountains. It is true that I know of only one place

where limestone is found among the strata; this is upon Tweed-side near

the Crook. This quarry I had carefully examined long ago, but could find

no mark of any organised body in it. I suppose they now are working some

other of the vertical strata near those which I had examined; for, in

the summer 1792, I received a letter from Sir James Hall, which I shall

now transcribe. It is dated at Moffat, June 2. 1792.

"As I was riding yesterday between Noble-house and Crook, on the road to

this place, I fell in with a quarry of alpine limestone; it consists of

four or five strata, about three feet thick, one of them single, and the

rest contiguous; they all stand between the strata of slate and schist

that are at the place nearly vertical. In the neighbourhood, a slate

quarry is worked of a pure blue slate; several of the strata of slate

near the limestone are filled with fragments of limestone scattered

about like the fragments of schist in the sandstone in the neighbourhood

of the junction on our coast.[22]

[Note 22: This has a reference to very curious observations which we

made upon the east coast where these mountains terminate, and which I am

to describe in the course of this work.]

"Among the masses of limestone lately broken off for use, and having the

fractures fresh, I found the forms of cockles quite distinct; and in

great abundance.--I send you three pieces of this kind," etc.

It may perhaps be alleged that those mountains of Cumberland and

Tweedale are not the primary mountains, but composed of the secondary

schistus, which is every where known to contain those objects belonging

to a former earth. Naturalists who have not the opportunity of

convincing themselves by their proper examination, must judge with

regard to that geological fact by the description of others. Now it is

most fortunate for natural history, that it has been in this range of

mountains that we have discovered those marks of a marine origin; for,

I shall afterwards have occasion to give the clearest light into this

subject, from observations made in other parts of those same mountains

of schist, by which it will be proved that they are the primary

strata; and thus no manner of doubt will then remain in the minds

of naturalists, who might otherwise suspect that we were deceiving

ourselves, by mistaking the secondary for the primitive schistus.

I have only farther to observe, that those schisti mountains of Wales,

of Cumberland, and of the south alpine part of Scotland, where these

marine objects have been found, consist, of that species of stone which

in some places makes the most admirable slate for covering houses; and,

in other parts, it breaks into blocks that so much resemble wood in

appearance, that, without narrow inspection, it might pass for petrified

wood.

We are therefore to conclude that the marks of organised bodies in those

primary mountains are certainly found; at the same time the general

observation of naturalists has some foundation, so far as the marks of

organised bodies are both rarely to be met with in those masses, and not

easily distinguished as such when they are found.

But this scarcity of marine objects is not confined to those primary

mountains, as they are called; for among the most horizontal strata, or

those of the latest production, there are many in which, it is commonly

thought, no marine calcareous objects are to be found; and this is a

subject that deserves to be more particularly considered, as the theory

may thus receive some illustration.

Sandstone, coal, and their accompanying strata, are thought to be

destitute of calcareous marine productions, although many vestiges of

plants or vegetable productions are there perceived. But this general

opinion is neither accurate nor true; for though it be true that in the

coal and sandstone strata it is most common to find marks of vegetable

production, and rarely those calcareous bodies which are so frequent in

the limestone, yet it is not unusual for coal to be accompanied

with limestone formed of shells and corals, and also with ironstone

containing many of those marine objects as well as wood. Besides,

sandstone frequently contains objects which have been organised bodies,

but which do not belong to the vegetable kingdom, at least to no plant

which grows upon the land, but would seem to have been some species of

zoophite perhaps unknown.

I have also frequently seen the vestige of shells in sandstone, although

in these strata the calcareous bodies are in general not perceived.

The reason of this is evident. When there is a small proportion of the

calcareous matter in the mass of sand which is pervious to steam and to

the percolation of water, the calcareous bodies may be easily dissolved,

and either carried away or dispersed in the mass; or even without being

thus dispersed by means of solution, the calcareous matter may be

absorbed by the siliceous substance of the stratum by means of fusion,

or by heat and cementation. The fact is, that I have seen in sandstone

the empty mould of marine shells with some siliceous crystallization,

so far as I remember, which corresponded perfectly with that idea. The

place I saw this was in a fine white sandstone accompanying the coal,

upon the sea side at Brora in Sutherland.

Mineralogy is much indebted to Mr Pallas for the valuable observations

which he has given of countries so distant from the habitations of

learned men. The physiology of the globe has also been enriched with

some interesting observations from the labours of this learned traveller.

But besides giving us facts, Mr Pallas has also reasoned upon the

subject, and thus entered deep into the science of Cosmogeny; here it

is that I am afraid he has introduced some confusion into the natural

history of the earth, in not properly distinguishing the mineral

operations of the globe, and those again which belong entirely to the

surface of the earth; perhaps also in confounding the natural effects of

water upon the surface of the earth, with those convulsions of the sea

which may be properly considered as the accidental operations of the

globe. This subject being strictly connected with the opinions of that

philosopher with regard to primitive mountains, I am obliged to examine

in this place matters which otherwise might have come more properly to

be considered in another.

M. Pallas in his _Observations sur la formation des montagnes_, (page

48) makes the following observations.

"J'ai déjà dit que _la bande de montagnes primitives schisteuses_

hétérogènes, qui, par toute la terre, accompagne les chaînes

granitiques, et comprend les roches quartzeuses et talceuses mixtes,

trapézoïdes, serpentines, le schiste corne, les roches spathiques et

cornées, les grais purs, le porphyre et le jaspre, tous rocs fêlés

en couches, ou presque perpendiculaires, ou du moins très-rapidement

inclinées, (les plus favorables à la filtration des eaux), semble

aussi-bien que le granit, antérieure à la création organisée. Une raison

très-forte pour appuyer cette supposition, c'est que la plupart de ces

roches, quoique lamelleuse en façon d'ardoise, n'a jamais produit

aux curieux la moindre trace de pétrifactions ou empreintes de corps

organisés. S'il s'en est trouvé, c'est apparemment dans des fentes de

ces roches où ces corps ont été apportés par un deluge, et encastrées

apres dans une matière infiltrée, de même qu'on a trouvé des restes

d'Eléphans dans le filon de la mine d'argent du Schlangenberg.[23] Les

caractères par lesquels plusieurs de ces roches semblent avoir souffert

des effets d'un feu-très-violent, les puissantes veines et amas des

minéraux les plus riches qui se trouvent principalement dans la bande

qui en est composée, leur position immédiate sur le granit, et même le

passage, par lequel on voit souvent en grand, changer le granit en une

des autres espèces; tout cela indique une origine bien plus ancienne,

et des causes bien différentes de celles qui ont produit les montagnes

secondaires."

[Note 23: This is a very natural way of reasoning when a philosopher

finds a fact, related by some naturalists, that does not correspond with

his theory or systematic view of things. Here our author follows the

general opinion in concluding that no organised body should be found in

their primitive strata; when, therefore, such an object is said to have

been observed, it is supposed that there may have been some mistake with

regard to the case, and that all the circumstances may not have been

considered. This caution with regard to the inaccurate representation of

facts, in natural history, is certainly extremely necessary; the relicts

of an elephant found in a mineral vein, is certainly a fact of that

kind, which should not be given as an example in geology without the

most accurate scientifical examination of the subject.]

Here M. Pallas gives his reason for supposing those mountains primitive

or anterior to the operations of this globe as a living world; _first_,

because they have not, in general, marks of animals or plants; and that

it is doubtful if they ever properly contain those marks of organised

bodies; _secondly_, because many of those rocks have the appearance of

having suffered the effects of the most violent fire. Now, What are

those effects? Is it in their having been brought into a fluid state of

fusion. In that case, no doubt, they may have been much changed from the

original state of their formation; but this is a very good reason why,

in this changed state, the marks of organised bodies, which may have

been in their original constitution, should be now effaced.

The _third_ reason for supposing those mountains primitive, is taken

from the metallic veins, which are found so plentifully in these masses.

Now, had these masses been the only bodies in this earth in which those

mineral veins were found, there might be some species of reason for

drawing the conclusion, which is here formed by our philosopher. But

nothing is so common (at least in England) as mineral veins in the

strata of the latest formation, and in those which are principally

formed of marine productions; consequently so far from serving the

purpose for which this argument was employed, the mineral veins in the

primitive mountains tend to destroy their originality, by assimilating

them in some respect with every other mass of strata or mountain upon

the globe.

_Lastly_, M. Pallas here employs an argument taken from an appearance

for which we are particularly indebted to him, and by which the

arguments which have been already employed in denying the originality

of granite is abundantly confirmed. It has been already alleged, that

granite, porphyry, and whinstone, or trap, graduate into each other; but

here M. Pallas informs us that he has found the granite not only changed

into porphyry, but also into the other alpine compositions. How an

argument for the originality of these mountains can be established upon

those facts, I am not a little at a loss to conceive.

The general mineralogical view of the Russian dominions, which we have,

in this treatise, may now be considered with regard to that distinction

made by naturalists, of primitive, secondary, and tertiary mountains, in

order to see how far the observations of this well informed naturalist

shall be found to confirm the theory of the earth which has been already

given, or not.

The Oural mountains form a very long chain, which makes the natural

division betwixt Europe and Asia, to the north of the Caspian. If in

this ridge, as a centre of elevation, and of mineral operations, we

shall find the greatest manifestation of the violent exertion of

subterraneous fire, or of consolidating and elevating operations; and if

we shall perceive a regular appearance of diminution in the violence or

magnitude of those operations, as the places gradually recede from

this centre of active force; we may find some explanation of those

appearances, without having recourse to conjectures which carry no

scientific meaning, and which are more calculated to confound our

acquired knowledge, than to form any valuable distinction of things. Let

us consult M. Pallas how far this is the case, or not.

After having told us that all those various alpine schisti, jaspers,

porphyries, serpentines, etc. in those mountains, are found mutually

convertible with granite, or graduating into each other, our author thus

continues, (p. 50).