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.
Footnote 21:[ (return) ] 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 alleged 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.