Chapter II (4)

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).

"On entrevoit de certaines loix a l'égard de l'arrangement respectif de cet ordre secondaire d'anciennes roches, par tous les systèmes de montagnes qui appartiennent à l'Empire Russe. La chaîne Ouralique, par exemple, a du côté de l'Orient sur tout sa longueur, une très-grande abondance de schistes cornés, serpentins et talceux, riches en filons de cuivre, qui forment le principal accompagnement du granite, et en jaspres de diverses couleurs plus extérieurs et souvent comme entrelacés avec les premiers, mais formant des suites de montagnes entières, et occupant de très-grands espaces. De ce même côté, il y paraît beaucoup de quartz en grandes roches toutes pures, tant dans la principale chaîne que dans le noyau des montagnes de jaspre, et jusques dans la plaine. Les marbres spateux et veinés, percent en beaucoup d'endroits. La plupart de ces espèces ne paraissent point du tout à la lisière occidentale de la chaîne, qui n'est presque que de roche mélangée de schistes argileux, alumineux, phlogistique, etc. Les filons des mines d'or mêlées, les riches mines de cuivre en veines et chambrées, les mines de fer et d'aimant par amas et montagnes entières, sont l'apanage de la bande schisteuse orientale; tandis que l'occidentale n'a pour elle que des mines de fer de dépôts, et se montre généralement très-pauvre en métaux. Le granit de la chaîne qui borde la Sibérie, est recouvert du côté que nous connaissons de roches cornées de la nature des pierres à fusil, quelquefois tendant à la nature d'un grais fin et de schistes très-métallières de différente composition. Le jaspre n'y est qu'en filons, ou plans obliques, ce qui est très-rare pour la chaîne Ouralique, et s'observe dans la plus grande partie de la Sibérie, à l'exception de cette partie de sa chaîne qui passe près de la mer d'Okhotsk, ou le jaspre forme derechef des suites de montagnes, ainsi que nous venons de le dire des monts Ourals; mais comme cette roche tient ici le côté méridionale de la chaîne Sibérienne, et que nous ne lui connaissons point ce côté sur le reste de sa longueur, il se pourrait que le jaspre y fût aussi abondant. Il faudrait, au reste, bien plus de fouilles et d observations pour établir quelque chose de certain sur l'ordre respectif qu'observent ces roches."

I would now ask, if in all this account of the gradation of rock from the Oural mountains to the sandy coast of the Baltic, there is to be observed any clear and distinctive mark of primitive, secondary, and tertiary, mountains, farther than as one stratum may be considered as either prior or posterior to another stratum, according to the order of superposition in which they are found. We have every where evident marks of the formation of strata by materials deposited originally in water; for the most part, there is sufficient proof that this water in which those materials had been deposited was the sea; we are likewise assured that the operations of this living world producing animals, must have, for a course of time, altogether inconceivably been exerted, in preparing materials for this mass; and, lastly, from the changed constitution of those masses, we may infer certain mineral operations that melt the substance and alter the position of those horizontal bodies. Such is the information which we may collect from this mineral description of the Russian Dominions.

If we compare some of the Oural mountains with the general strata of the Russian plains, then, as to the contained minerals, we may find a certain diversity in those two places; at the same time, no greater perhaps than may be found betwixt two different bodies in those same plains, for example, chalk and flint. But when we consider those bodies of the earth, or solid strata of the globe, in relation to their proper structure and formation, we surely can find in this description nothing on which may be founded any solid opinion with regard to a different original, however important conclusions may perhaps be formed with regard to the operations of the globe, from the peculiar appearances found in alpine.

From this detail of what is found in the Oural mountains, and in the gradation of country from those mountains to the plains of Russia, we have several facts that are worthy of observation. First extensive mountains of jasper. I have a specimen of this stone; it is striped red and green like some of our marly strata. It has evidently been formed of such argillaceous and siliceous materials, not only indurated, so as to lose its character, as an argillaceous stone, but to have been brought into that degree of fusion which produces perfect solidity. Of the same kind are those hornstein rocks of the nature of flint, sometimes tending to the nature of a fine sandstone. Here is the same induration of sandstone by means of fusion, that in the argillaceous strata has produced jasper. But oblique veins of jasper are represented as traversing these last strata; now this is a fact which is not conceivable in any other way, than by the injection or transfusion of the fluid jasper among those masses of indurated strata.

All this belongs to the east side of the mountains. On the west, again, we find the same species of strata; only these are not changed to such a degree as to lose their original character or construction, and thus to be termed differently in mineralogy.

Our author then proceeds. (p. 53.)

"Nous pourrons parler plus décisivement sur les _montagnes secondaires et tertiaires_ de l'Empire, et c'est de celles-là, de la nature, de l'arrangement et du contenu de leurs couches, des grandes inégalités et de la forme du continent d'Europe et d'Asie, que l'on peut tirer avec plus de confiance quelques lumières sur les changemens arrivés aux terres habitables. Ces deux ordres de montagnes présentent la chronique de notre globe la plus ancienne, la moins sujette aux falsifications, et en même-tems plus lisible que le caractère des chaînes primitives; ce font les archives de la nature, antérieures aux lettres et aux traditions les plus reculées, qu'il étoit réservé à notre siècle observateur de feuiller, de commenter, et de mettre au jour, mais que plusieurs siècles après le nôtre n'épuiseront pas.

"Dans toute l'étendue de vastes dominations Russes, aussi bien que dans l'Europe entière, les observateurs attentifs ont remarqué que généralement la band schisteuse des grandes chaînes se trouve immédiatement recouverte ou cottée par la _bande calcaire_. Celle-ci forme deux ordres de montagnes, très-différentes par la hauteur, la situation de leurs couches, et la composition de la pierre calcaire qui les compose; différence qui est très-évidente dans cette bande calcaire qui forme la lisière occidentale de toute la chaîne Ouralique, et dont le plan s'étend par tout le plat pays de la Russie. L'on observerait la même chose à l'orient de la chaîne, et dans toute l'étendue de la Sibérie, si les couches calcaires horizontales n'y étaient recouvertes par les dépôts postérieures, de façon qu'il ne paraît à la surface que les parties les plus faillantes de la bande, et si ce pays n'étoit trop nouvellement cultivé et trop peu exploité par des fouilles et autres opérations, que des hommes industrieux ont pratiqué dans les pays anciennement habités. Ce que je vais exposer sur les deux ordres de montagnes calcaires, se rapportera donc principalement à celles qui sont à l'occident de la chaîne Ouralique.

"Ce côté de la dite chaîne consiste sur cinquante à cent verstes de largeur, de roche calcaire solide, d'un grain uni, qui tantôt ne contient aucune trace de productions marines, tantôt n'en conserve que des empreintes aussi légères qu'éparses. Cette roche s'élève en montagnes d'une hauteur très-considérable, irrégulières, rapides, et coupées de vallons escarpés. Ses couches, généralement épaisses, ne sont point de niveau, mais très-inclinées à l'horizon, paralleles, pour la plupart, à la direction de la chaîne, qui est aussi ordinairement celle de la bande schisteuse;--au lieu que du côté de l'orient les couches calcaires sont au sens de la chaîne en direction plus ou moins approchante de l'angle droite. L'on trouve dans ces hautes montagnes calcaires de fréquentes grottes et cavernes très-remarquables, tant par leur grandeur que par les belles congélations et crystallizations stalactiques dont elles s'ornent. Quelques-unes de ces grottes ne peuvent être attribuées qu'à quelque bouleversement des couches; d'autres semblent devoir leur origine à l'écoulement des sources souterraines qui ont amolli, rongé et charrié une partie de la roche qui en étoit susceptible.

"En s'éloignant de la chaîne, on voit les couches calcaires s'aplanir assez rapidement, prendre une position horizontale, et devenir abondantes en toute forte de coquillages, de madrépores, et d'autres dépouilles marines. Telles on les voit par-tout dans les vallées les plus basses qui se trouvent aux pieds des montagnes (comme aux environs de la rivière d'Oufa); telles aussi, elles occupent tout l'étendue de la grande Russie, tant en collines qu'en plat pays; solides tantôt et comme semées de productions marines; tantôt toutes composées de coquilles et madrépores brisées, et de ce gravier calcaire qui se trouve toujours sur les parages ou la mer abonde en pareilles productions; tantôt, enfin, dissoutes en craie et en marines, et souvent entremêlées de couches de gravier et de cailloux roulés."

How valuable for science to have naturalists who can distinguish properly what they see, and describe intelligibly that which they distinguish. In this description of the strata, from the chain of mountains here considered as primitive, to the plains of Russia, which are supposed to be of a tertiary formation, our naturalist presents us with another species of strata, which he has distinguished, on the one hand, in relation to the mountains at present in question, and on the other, with regard to the strata in the plains, concerning which there is at present no question at all. Now, let us see how these three things are so connected in their nature, as to form properly the contiguous links of the same chain.

The primary and tertiary masses are bodies perfectly disconnected; and, without a medium by which they might be approached, they would be considered as things differing in all respects, consequently as having their origins of as opposite a nature as are their appearances. But the nature and formation of those bodies are not left in this obscurity; for, the secondary masses, which are interposed, participate so precisely of what is truly opposite and characteristic in the primary and tertiary masses, that it requires nothing more than to see this distinction of things in its true light, to be persuaded, that in those three different things we may perceive a certain gradation, which here takes place among the works of nature, and forms three steps distinguishable by a naturalist, although in reality nothing but the variable measure of similar operations.

We are now to assimilate the primary and tertiary masses, which are so extremely different, by means of the secondary masses, which is the mean. The primary and tertiary differ in the following respects: The one of these contains the relicts of organised bodies which are not observed in the other. But in the species containing these distinguishable bodies, the natural structure and position of the mass is little affected, or not so much as to be called into doubt. This, however, is not the case with the other; the species in which organised bodies do not appear, is in general so indurated or consolidated in its structure, and changed in its position, that this common origin of those masses is by good naturalists, who have also carefully examined them, actually denied. Now, the secondary masses may be considered, not only as intermediate with respect to its actual place, as M. Pallas has represented it, but as uniting together the primary and tertiary, or as participating of the distinguishing characters of the other two. It is homologated with the primitive mountains, in the solidity of its substance and in the position of its strata; with the tertiary species, again, in its containing marks of organised bodies. How far this view of things is consistent with the theory of the earth now given, is submitted to the consideration of the unprejudiced.

Let us see what our learned author has said farther on this subject, (page 65).

"Je dois parler d'un ordre de montagnes très-certainement postérieur aux couches marines, puisque celles-ci, généralement lui servent de base. On n'a point jusqu'ici observé une suite de ces _montagnes tertiaires_, effet des catastrophes les plus modernes de notre globe, si marquée et si puissante, que celle qui accompagne la chaine Ouralique ou côté occidentale fur tout la longueur. Cette suite de montagnes, pour la plupart composées de grais, de marnes rougeâtres, entremêlées de couches diversement mixtes, forme une chaîne par-tout séparée par une vallée plus ou moins large de la bande de roche calcaire, dont nous avons parlé. Sillonnée et entrecoupée de fréquens vallons, elles s'élève souvent à plus de cent toises perpendiculaires, se répand vers les plaines de la Russie en traînées de collines, qui séparent les rivières, en accompagnant généralement la rive boréale ou occidentale, et dégénère enfin en déserts sableux qui occupent de grands espaces, et s'étendent surtout par longues bandes parallèles aux principales traces qui suivent les cours des rivieres. La principale force de ces montagnes tertiaires est plus près de la chaîne primitive par-tout le gouvernement d'Orenbourg et la Permie, ou elle consiste principalement en grais, et contient un fond inépuisable de mines de cuivre sableuses, argileuses, et autres qui se voient ordinairement dans les couches horizontales. Plus loin, vers la plaine, sont des suites de collines toutes marneuses, qui abondent autant en pierres gypseuses, que les autres en minerais cuivreux. Je n'entre pas dans le détail de celles-ci, qui indiquent sur-tout les sources salines; mais je dois dire des premières, qui abondent le plus et dont les plus hautes élévations des plaines, même celle de Moscou, sont formées, qu'elles contiennent très-peu de traces de productions marines, et jamais des amas entiers de ces corps, tels qu'une mer reposée pendant des siècles de suite a pu les accumuler dans les bancs calcaires. Rien, au contraire, de plus abondant dans ces montagnes de grais stratifié sur l'ancien plan calcaire, que des troncs d'arbres entières et des fragmens de bois pétrifié, souvent minéralisé par le cuivre ou le fer; des impressions de troncs de palmires, de tiges de plantes, de roseau, et de quelques fruits étrangers; enfin des ossemens d'animaux terrestres, si rares dans les couches calcaires. Les bois pétrifiés se trouvent jusques dans les collines de sable de la plaine; l'on en tire, entr'autres, des hauteurs sablonneuses aux environs de Sysran sur la Volga, changés en queux très-fin, qui a conservé jusqu'à la texture organique du bois, et remarquables sur-tout par les traces très-évidentes de ces vers rongeurs qui attaquent les vaisseaux, les pilotis et autres bois trempés dans la mer, et qui sont proprement originaires de la mer des Indes."

This philosopher has now given us a view of what, according to the present fashion of mineral philosophy, he has termed _montagnes primitives, secondaires, et tertiaires_. The first consists in masses and strata, much indurated and consolidated, and greatly displaced in their position; but the character of which is chiefly taken from this, that they contain not any visible mark of animal or vegetable bodies.

The second are formed in a great measure of marine productions, are often no less consolidated than those of the first class, and frequently no less changed in their natural shape and situation.

The third again have for character, according to this learned theorist, the containing of those organised bodies which are proper to the earth, instead of those which in the second class had belonged to the sea; in other respects, surely there is no essential difference. It is not pretended that these tertiary strata had any other origin, than that of having been deposited in water; it is not so much as suspected, that this water had been any other than that of the sea; the few marine bodies which M. Pallas here acknowledges, goes at least to prove this fact: and with regard to the mineral operations which had been employed in consolidating those water formed strata, it is impossible not to be convinced that every effect visible in the other two are here also to be perceived.

From this view of mineral bodies, taken from the extensive observations of the Russian dominions, and from the suppositions of geologists in relation to those appearances, we should be led to conclude that the globe of this earth had been originally nothing but an ocean, a world containing neither plant nor animal to live, to grow and propagate its species. In following a system founded on those appearances, we must next suppose, that to the sterile unorganised world there had succeeded an ocean stored with fish of every species. Here it would be proper to inquire what sustained those aquatic animals; for, in such a system as this, there is no provision made for continuing the life even of the individuals, far less of feeding the species while, in an almost infinite succession of individuals, they should form a continent of land almost composed of their _exuviae_.

If fish can be fed upon water and stone; if siliceous bodies can, by the digesting powers of animals, be converted into argillaceous and calcareous earths; and if inflammable matter can be prepared without the intervention of vegetable bodies, we might erect a system in which this should be the natural order of things. But to form a system in direct opposition to every order of nature that we know, merely because we may suppose another order of things different from the laws of nature which we observe, would be as inconsistent with the rules of reasoning in science, by which the speculations of philosophy are directed, as it would be contrary to common sense, by which the affairs of mankind are conducted.

Still, however, to pursue our visionary system, after a continent had been formed from the relicts of those animals, living, growing, and propagating, during an indefinite series of ages, plants at last are formed; and, what is no less wonderful, those animals which had formed the earth then disappear; but, in compensation, we are to suppose, I presume, that terrestrial animals began. Let us now reason from those facts, without either constraining nature, which we know, or forming visionary systems, with regard to things which are unknown. It would appear, that at one period of time, or in one place, the matter of the globe may be deposited, in strata, without containing any organised bodies; at another time, or in another place, much animal matter may be deposited in strata, without any vegetable substance there appearing; but at another period, or at another time, strata may be formed with much vegetable matter, while there is hardly to be observed any animal body. What then are we to conclude upon the whole? That nature, forming strata, is subject to vicissitudes; and that it is not always the same regular operation with respect to the materials, although always forming strata upon the same principles. Consequently, upon the same spot in the sea, different materials may be accumulated at different periods of time, and, conversely, the same or similar materials may be collected in different places at the same time. Nothing more follows strictly from the facts on which we now are reasoning; and this is a conclusion which will be verified by every appearance, so far as I know.

Of this I am certain, that in a very little space of this country, in many places, such a course of things is to be perceived. Nothing so common as to find alternated, over and over again, beds of sand-stone without animal bodies, beds of coal and schistus abounding with vegetable bodies, beds of lime-stone formed of shells and corals, and beds or particular strata of iron-stone containing sometimes vegetable sometimes animal bodies, or both. Here, indeed, the strata are most commonly inclined; it is seldom they are horizontal; consequently, as across the whole country, all the strata come up to the day, and may be seen in the beds of our rivers, we have an opportunity of observing that great variety which is in nature, and which we are not able to explain. This only is certain, from what we see, that there is nothing formed in one epoch of nature, but what has been repeated in another, however dissimilar may be the operations which had intervened between those several epochs.

It must not be alleged, that the heights of the Oural mountains, or the hardness of their rocks, make an essential distinction between them and the argillaceous or arenaceous strata of the plains; solidity and hardness, as well as changes in their height and natural position, has been superinduced in operations posterior to the collection of those masses,--operations which may be formed in various degrees, even in the different parts of the same mass. If this is the case, there can be no difficulty in conceiving a stratum, which appears to be argillaceous or marly in the plains, to be found jasper in the Oural mountains. But there is nothing in the Oural mountains, that may not be found some where or other in the plains, although the soft and easily decomposing argillaceous strata be not found upon the Oural mountains, or the Alps, for this reason, that had those mountains been formed of such materials, there had not been a mountain there at this day.

But surely the greatest possible error, with regard to the philosophy of this earth, would be to confound the sediment of a river with the strata of the globe; bodies deposited upon the surface of the earth, with those sunk at the bottom of the sea; and things which only form the travelled or transported soil, with those which constitute the substratum or the solid earth. How far M. Pallas has committed this oversight, I leave others to determine. After mentioning those strata in which wood is found petrified, and metallic minerals formed, he thus proceeds, (page 69).

"Dans ces mêmes dépôts sableux et souvent limoneux, gisent les restes des grands animaux de l'Inde: ces ossemens d'éléphans, de rhinocéros, de buffles monstrueux, dont on déterre tous les jours un si grand nombre, et qui font l'admiration des curieux. En Sibérie, où l'on à découvert le long de presque toutes les rivières ces restes d'animaux étrangers, et l'ivoire même bien conservé en si grande abondance, qu'il forme un article de commerce, en Sibérie, dis je, c'est aussi la couche la plus moderne de limon sablonneux qui leur sert de sépulture, et nulle part ces monumens étrangers sont si frequens, qu'aux endroits où la grande chaine, qui domine surtout la frontière méridionale de la Sibérie, offre quelque dépression, quelque ouverture considérable.

"Ces grands ossemens, tantôt épars tantôt entassés par squelettes, et même par hécatombes, considérée dans leurs sites naturels, m'ont sur-tout convaincu de la réalité d'un déluge arrivé sur notre terre, d'une catastrophe, dont j'avoue n'avoir pu concevoir la vraisemblance avant d'avoir parcouru ces places, et vu, par moi-même, tout ce qui peut y servir de preuve à cet évènement mémorable[24]. Une infinité de ces ossemens couchés dans des lits mêlés de petites tellines calcinées, d'os de poissons, de glossopètres, de bois chargés d'ocre, etc. prouve déjà qu'ils ont été transportés par des inondations. Mais la carcasse d'un rhinocéros, trouvé avec sa peau entière, des restes de tendons, de ligamens, et de cartilages, dans les terres glacées des bords du Viloûi, dont j'ai déposé les parties les mieux conservées au cabinet de l'Académie, forme encore une preuve convaincante que ce devait être un mouvement d'inondation des plus violens et des plus rapides, qui entraîna jadis ces cadavres vers nos climats glacés, avant que la corruption eût le tems, d'en détruire les parties molles. Il seroit à souhaiter qu'un observateur parvint aux montagnes qui occupent l'espace entre les fleuves Indighirka et Koylma où selon le rapport des chasseurs, de semblables carcasses d'éléphans et d'autres animaux gigantesques encore revêtues de leurs peaux, ont été remarquées à plusieurs reprises."

[Note 24: Voyez le Mémoire, imprimé dans le XVII. volume des nouveaux Commentaires de l'Académie Imperiale de Petersbourgh.]

The question here turns upon this, Are the sea shells and glossopetrae, which are thus found deposited along with those skeletons, in their natural state, or are they petrified and mineralised. If the productions of the sea shall here be found collected along with bodies belonging to the surface of the earth, and which had never been within the limits of the sea, this would surely announce to us some strange catastrophe, of which it would be difficult, perhaps, to form a notion; if, on the contrary, those marine productions belong to the solid strata of the earth, in the resolution or decay of which they had been set at liberty, and were transported in the floods, our author would have no reason from those appearances to conclude, there had existed any other deluge than those produced by the waters of the land[25].

[Note 25: Since writing this, I find my doubts in a great measure resolved, in reading M. Pallas's Journal, translated from the German by M. Gauthier de la Peyronie. What I had suspected is, I think, confirmed in the distinct account which M. Pallas has given of those occasions in which the bones of land animals and marine objects are found buried together. The marine objects are mineralised; consequently, they have proceeded from the decomposition of the solid strata; and, having been travelled in the running water of the surface of the earth, they must have been deposited in those beds of rivers, which now are dry, alongst with the bones, or the entire bodies of terrestrial animals, the remains of which are now found there. This argument, from the state of those marine bodies will not be allowed, perhaps by the generality of mineralists, who attribute to the operations of water every species of petrifaction or mineralisation; but, until some species of proof be given with regard to the truth of that theory, which vulgar error first suggested, I must reason from a theory, in proof of which I have given clear examples, and, I think, irrefragable arguments, which shall be more and more illustrated. Thus may be removed the necessity of a general deluge, or any great catastrophe, in order to bring together things so foreign to each other; but at the same time we would ascertain this fact, That formerly the Elephant and Rhinoceros had lived in Siberia. (See Voyage de Pallas, Tom. II. p. 377 and 403.)]

Having thus endeavoured to remove this prevailing prejudice, of there being primitive parts in this earth, parts of which the composition and constitution are not to be explained upon the principles of natural philosophy, it will be proper to inquire, how far there may be in the theory, which has now been given, principles by which may be explained those appearances that have led natural philosophers to form conclusions, of there being in this earth parts whose origin may not be traced; and of there being parts whose origin may not be explained upon the same principles which apply so well to all the rest.

CHAP. V.

Concerning that which may be termed the Primary Part of the Present Earth.

In the present theory, it is maintained, that there is no part of the earth which has not had the same origin, so far as this consists in that earth being collected at the bottom of the sea, and afterwards produced, as land, along with masses of melted substances, by the operation of mineral causes. But, though all those things be similar, or equal, as to the manner of their production, they are far from being so with regard to the periods of their original composition, or to the subsequent operations which they may have undergone.

There is a certain order established for the progress of nature, for the succession of things, and for the circulation of matter upon the surface of this globe; and, the order of time is associated with this change of things. But it is not in equal portions that time is thus combined with dissimilar things, nor always found, in our estimation, as equally accompanying those which we reckon similar. The succession of light and darkness is that which, in those operations, appears to us most steady; the alternation of heat and cold comes next, but not with equal regularity in its periods. The succession of wet and dry upon the surface of the earth, though equally the work of nature and the effect of regular causes, is often to us irregular, when we look for equal periods in the course of things which are unequal. It is by equalities that we find order in things, and we wish to find order every where.

The present object of our contemplation is the alternation of land and water upon the surface of this globe. It is only in knowing this succession of things, that natural appearances can be explained; and it is only from the examination of those appearances, that any certain knowledge of this operation is to be obtained. But how shall we acquire the knowledge of a system calculated for millions, not of years only, nor of the ages of man, but of the races of men, and the successions of empires? There is no question here with regard to the memory of man, of any human record, which continues the memory of man from age to age; we must read the transactions of time past, in the present state of natural bodies; and, for the reading of this character, we have nothing but the laws of nature, established in the science of man by his inductive reasoning.

It has been in reasoning after this manner, that I have endeavoured to prove, that every thing which we now behold, of the solid parts of this earth, had been formerly at the bottom of the sea; and that there is, in the constitution of this globe, a power for interchanging sea and land. If this shall be admitted as a just view of the system of this globe, we may next examine, how far there are to be found any marks of certain parts of our earth having more than once undergone that change of posture, or vicissitude of things, and of having had reiterated operations of the mineral kingdom changing their substance, as well as altering their positions in relation to the atmosphere and sea.

Besides the gradual decay of solid land, exposed to the silent influences of the atmosphere, and to the violent operations of the waters moving upon the surface of the earth, there is a more sudden destruction that may be supposed to happen sometimes to our continents of land. In order to see this, it must be considered, that the continents of our earth are only raised above the level of the sea by the expansion of matter, placed below that land, and rarified in that place: We may thus consider our land as placed upon pillars, which may break, and thus restore the ancient situation of things when this land had been originally collected at the bottom of the ocean. It is not here inquired by what mechanism this operation is to be performed; it is certainly by the exertion of a subterranean power that the land is elevated from the place in which it had been formed; and nothing is more natural than to suppose the supports of the land in time to fail, or be destroyed in the course of mineral operations which are to us unknown. In that case, whatever were remaining of that land, which had for millions of ages past sustained plants and animals, would again be placed at the bottom of the sea; and strata of every different species might be deposited again upon that mass, which, from an atmospheric situation, is now supposed to be lower than the surface of the sea.

Such a compound mass might be again resuscitated, or restored with the new superincumbent strata, consolidated in their texture and inclined in their position. In that case, the inferior mass must have undergone a double course of mineral changes and displacement; consequently, the effect of subterranean heat or fusion must be more apparent in this mass, and the marks of its original formation more and more obliterated.

If, in examining our land, we shall find a mass of matter which had been evidently formed originally in the ordinary manner of stratification, but which is now extremely distorted in its structure, and displaced in its position,--which is also extremely consolidated in its mass, and variously changed in its composition,--which therefore has the marks of its original or marine composition extremely obliterated, and many subsequent veins of melted mineral matter interjected; we should then reason to suppose that here were masses of matter which, though not different in their origin from those that are gradually deposited at the bottom of the ocean, have been more acted upon by subterranean heat and the expanding power, that is to say, have been changed in a greater degree by the operations of the mineral region. If this conclusion shall be thought reasonable, then here is an explanation of all the peculiar appearances of the alpine schistus masses of our land, those parts which have been erroneously considered as primitive in the constitution of the earth.

We are thus led to suppose, that some parts of our earth may have undergone the vicissitudes of sea and land more than once, having been changed from the summit of a continent to the bottom of the sea, and again erected, with the rest of that bottom, into the place of land. In that case, appearances might be found to induce natural philosophers to conclude that there were in our land primary parts, which had not the marine origin which is generally to be acknowledged in the structure of this earth; and, by finding other masses, of marine origin, superincumbent upon those primary mountains, they might make strange suppositions in order to explain those natural appearances.

Let us now see what has been advanced by those philosophers who, though they term these parts of the earth _primordial_, and not _primitive_, at the same time appear to deny to those parts an origin analogous to that of their secondary mountains, or strata that are aquiform in their construction.

M. de Luc, after having long believed that the strata of the Alps had been formed like those of the low countries, at the bottom of the sea, gives an account of the occasion by which he was first confirmed in the opposite opinion.[26] Like a true philosopher, he gives us the reason of this change.

[Note 26: Lettres Physique et Morales sur l'Histoire de la Terre, tom. 2. pag. 206.]

"Ce fut une espèce de _montagne_ très commune, et que j'avois souvent examinée qui dessilla mes yeux. La pierre qui la compose est de la classe appellée _schiste_; son caractère générique est d'être _feuilletée_; elle renferme _l'ardoise_ dont on couvre les toits. Ces _feuillets_ minces, qu'on peut prendre pour des _couches_, et qui le font en effet dans quelques pierres de ce genre, rappelloient toujours l'idée vague de dépôts des eaux. Mais il y a des masses dont la composition est plutôt par fibres que par feuillets, et dont le moëllon ressemble aux copeaux de bois d'un chantier. Le plus souvent aussi les feuillets sont situés en toute suite de sens dans une même _montagne_, et quelquefois même verticalement, Enfin il s'en trouve de si tortillés, qu'il est impossible de les regarder comme des dépôts de l'eau.

"Ce fut donc cette espèce de montagne qui me persuada la première que toutes les montagnes n'avoient pas une même origine. Le lieu où j'abjurai mon erreur, étoit un de ces grands _chantiers_ pétrifiés, qui, par la variété du tortillement, et des zig-zags des fibres du moëllon qui le composoit, attira singulièrement mon attention. C'étoit un sort grand talus qui venoit d'une face escarpée; j'y montai pour m'approcher du rocher, et je remarquai, avec étonnement, des multitudes de paquets enchevêtrés les uns dans les autres, sans ordre ni direction fixe; les uns presqu'en rouleaux; les autres en zig-zag; et même ce qui, séparé de la montagne, eût peu être pris pour des _couches_, le trouvoit incliné de toute manière dans cette même face de rocher. _Non_, me dis-je alors à moi-même; _non, l'eau n'a pu faire cette montagne.... Ni celle-là donc_, ajoutai-je en regardant ailleurs.... _Et pourquoi mieux celle-là? Pourquoi toutes les montagnes devroient-elles être le produit des eaux, seulement parce qu'il y en a quelques-unes qui annoncent cette origine_? En effet, puis qu'on n'a songé aux eaux, comme cause des montagnes, que par les preuves évidentes que quelques-unes offroient de cette formation; pourquoi étendre cette conséquence à toutes, s'il y en a beaucoup qui manquent de ces caractères? C'est comme le dit Mr. d'Alembert, qu'on généralise ses premières remarques l'instant d'apres qu'on ne remarquoit rien."

Science is indebted to this author for giving us so clear a picture of natural appearances, and of his own reasoning upon those facts, in forming his opinion; he thus leads astray no person of sound judgment, although he may be in error. The disposition of things in the present case are such, that, reasoning from his principles, this author could not see the truth; because he had not been persuaded, that aquiform strata could have been so changed by the chemical power of fusion, and the mechanical force of bending while in a certain state of softness.

But though, in this case, the reasoning of this philosopher is to be justified, so far as he proceeded upon principles which could not lead him to the truth, his conduct is not so irreproachable in applying them to cases by which their fallacy might have been detected. This author acknowledges calcareous strata to be aquiform in their original; but, in those mountains which he has so much examined, he will find those aquiform bodies have undergone the same species of changes, which made him conclude that those schistus mountains had not been truly aquiform, as he at first had thought them. This would have led him to reason back upon his principles, and to say, _If one species of strata may be thus changed in its texture, and its shape, may not another be equally so? Therefore, may not the origin of both be similar_?

But least I should do injustice to this author, to whom we are indebted for many valuable observations in natural history, I shall transcribe what he has said upon the subject, being persuaded that my readers will not think this improper in me, or impertinent to the argument.

"Quand nous fumes une fois persuadés que la mer n'avoit pas fait toutes les _montagnes_, nous entreprîmes de découvrir les caractères distinctifs de celles qui lui devoient leur origine; et s'il étoit, par exemple, des matières qui leur fussent propres. Mais nous y trouvâmes les mêmes difficultés qu'on rencontre dans tout ce qu'on veut classer dans la nature. On peut bien distinguer entr'elles les choses qui ont fortement l'empreinte de leur classe; mais les confins échappent toujours.

"C'est là, pour le dire en passant, ce qui a pu conduire quelques philosophes à imaginer cette _chaîne des êtres_ où ils supposent, que, de la pierre à l'homme et plus haut, les nuances sont réellement imperceptibles. Comme si, quoique les limites soyent cachées à nos sens, notre intelligence ne nous disoit pas, qu'il y a un _saut_, une distance même infinie, entre le plus petit degré d'organization _propageante_, et la matière unie par la simple cohésion: entre le plus petit degré de _sensibilité_, et la matière insensible: entre la plus petite capacité d'observer et de transmettre ses observations, et l'instinct constamment le même dans l'espèce. Toutes ces différences tranchées existent dans la nature; mais notre incapacité de rien connoître à fond, et la necessité où nous sommes de juger de tout sur des apparences, nous fait perdre presque toutes les limites, parce que sur ces bords, la plupart des phénomènes sont équivoques. Ainsi la plante nous paroît se rapprocher de la pierre, mais n'en approche jamais réellement.

"On éprouve la même difficulté à classer les montagnes; et quoique depuis quelque tems plusieurs naturalistes ayent aussi observé qu'elles n'ont pas toutes la même origine, je ne vois pas qu'on soit parvenu à fixer des caractères infaillibles, pour les placer sûrement toutes dans leurs classes particulières.

"Après avoir examiné attentivement cet objet, d'après les phénomènes que j'ai moi-même observés, et ce que j'ai appris par les observations des autres; j'ai vu que c'étoit là un champ très vaste, quand on vouloit l'embrasser en entier, et trop vaste pour moi, qui n'étoit pas libre d'y consacrer tout le tems qu'il exige. Je me suis donc replié sur mon objet principal, savoir _la cause qui a laissé des dépouilles marines dans nos continens_, et l'examen des hypothèses sur cette matière.

"Les phénomènes ainsi limités, se réduisent à ceci: qu'il y a dans nos continens des montagnes visiblement formées par des _dépôts successifs de la mer_ et a l'égard des quelles il n'y a besoin de rien imaginer, si ce n'est la manière dont elles en sont sorties: qu'il y en a d'autres au contraire, qui ne portent aucun des caractères de cette cause, et qui, si elles ont été produites dans la _mer_, doivent être l'effet de toute autre cause que de simples dépôts successifs, et avoir même précédé l'existence des animaux marins. J'abandonne donc les classes confuses où ces caractères sont équivoques, jusqu'à ce qu'elles servent à fonder quelque hypothèse; ayant assez de ces deux classes très distinctes pour examiner d'apres elles tous les systèmes qui me sont connus.

"Là où ces deux classes de montagnes sont mêlées, on remarque que celles qui sont formées par _couches_, et qui renferment des _corps marins_, recouvrent souvent celles de l'autre classe, mais n'en sont jamais recouvertes. On a donc naturellement conclu, que lors même que la _mer_ auroit en quelque part à la formation des montagnes où l'on ne reconnoît pas son caractère, celles auxquelles elle a travaillé seule, en enlevant des matières dans certaines parties de son fond et les déposant dans d'autres, font au moins les dernières formées. On les a donc nommées _secondaires_, et les autres _primitives_.

"J'adopterai la première de ces expressions; car c'est la même qui nous étoit venu à l'esprit à mon frère, et à moi longtemps avant que nous l'eussions vue employer; mais je substituerai celle de _primordiales à_ _primitives_ pour l'autre classe de _montagnes_, afin de ne rien décider sur leur origine. Il est des _montagnes_, dont jusqu'à present on n'a pu démêler la cause: voila le fait. Je ne dirai donc pas qu'elles ont été créées ainsi, parce qu'en physique je ne dois pas employer des expressions sur lesquelles on ne s'entend pas. Sans doute cependant, que l'histoire naturelle ni la physique ne nous conduisent nullement à croire que notre globe ait existé de toute éternité; et lorsqu'il prit naissance, il fallut bien que la matière qui le composa fut de quelque nature, ou sous quelque première forme intégrante. Rien donc jusqu'ici n'empêche d'admettre que ces _montagnes_ que je nommerai _primordiales_, ne soient réellement _primitives_; je penche même pour cette opinion à l'égard de quelques unes. Mais il y a une très grande variété entr'elles; et quoiqu'elles soyent toutes également exclues de la classe _secondaire_, elles ne sont pas toutes semblables: il y en a même un grand nombre dont les matières ont une certaine configuration qui semble annoncer qu'elles ayent été molles et durcies ensuite, quoique par une toute autre cause que celle qui a agi pour former les montagnes secondaires."

Here I would beg leave to call the attention of philosophers to this observation of a naturalist who explains all petrification, and the consolidation of strata by aqueous infiltration. If he has here found reason to conclude that, in those primordial parts of the earth, there are a great number which, from their present configuration, must have been in a soft state and then hardened, and this by a quite different cause from that which he supposes had produced the consolidation and hardness of the secondary parts; this is entering precisely into my views of the subject, in ascribing all the consolidation of the earth, whether primary or secondary, to one general cause, and in tracing this cause, from its effects, to be no other than the fusion of those bodies. It must be evident, that if this philosopher has seen good reason for concluding such a softening cause, which had operated upon the primary parts, to be quite different from that which he ascribes to the consolidation of the secondary, which is the effect of water, it must then, I say, be evident that the softening cause of the primary parts, if not heat, by which every degree of fusion may be produced, must be an occult cause, one which cannot be admitted into natural philosophy.