CHAP. VII.
Opinions examined with regard to Petrifaction, or Mineral Concretion.
The ideas of naturalists with regard to petrifaction are so vague and indistinct, that no proper answer can be given to them. They in general suppose water to be the solvent of bodies, and the vehicle of petrifying substances; but they neither say whether water be an universal menstruum, nor do they show in what manner a solid body has been formed in the bowels of the earth, from that solution. It may now be proper to examine this subject, not with a view to explain all those petrifactions of bodies which is performed in the mineral regions of the earth, those regions that are inaccessible to man, but to show that what has been wrote by naturalists, upon this subject, has only a tendency to corrupt science, by admitting the grossest supposition in place of just principle or truth, and to darken natural history by introducing an ill conceived theory in place of matter of fact.
M. le Comte de Buffon has attempted to explain the crystallization of bodies, or production of mineral forms, by the accretion or juxtaposition of elementary bodies, which have only form in two dimensions, length and breadth; that is to say, that mineral concretions are composed of surfaces alone, and not of bodies. This however is only an attempt to explain, what we do not understand, by a proposition which is either evidently contradictory, or plainly inconceivable. It is true that this eloquent and ingenious author endeavours to correct the palpable absurdity of the proposition, by representing the constituent parts of the mineral bodies as "de lames infiniment minces;" but who is it does not see, that these infinitely thin plates are no other than bodies of three dimensions, contrary to the supposition; for, infinitely thin, means a certain thickness; but the smallest possible or assignable thickness differs as much from a perfect superficies as the greatest.
M. de Luc has given us his ideas of petrifaction with sufficient precision of term and clearness of expression; his opinion, therefore, deserves to be examined; and, as his theory of petrifaction is equally applicable to every species of substance, it is necessary again to examine this subject, notwithstanding of what has been already said, in the first part of this work, concerning consolidation and mineral concretion from the fluid state of fusion.
This author has perhaps properly exposed Woodward's Theory of Petrification in saying[33], "Son erreur à cet égard vient de ce qu'il n'a point réfléchi sur la manière dont se fait la pétrifaction. Il ramollit d'abord les pierres pour y faire entrer les coquilles, sans bien connoître l'agent qu'il y employe; et il les duroit ensuite, sans réfléchir au comment." To avoid this error or defect, M. de Luc, in his Theory of Petrifaction, sets out with the acknowledged principle of cohesion; and, in order to consolidate strata of a porous texture, he supposes water carrying minute bodies of all shapes and sizes, and depositing them in such close contact as to produce solidity and concretion. Now, if Dr Woodward softened stones without a proper cause, M. de Luc, in employing the specious principle of cohesion, has consolidated them upon no better grounds; for, the application of this principle is as foreign to his purpose, as is that of magnetism. Bodies, it is true, cohere when their surfaces are closely applied to each other; But how apply this principle to consolidation?—only by supposing all the separate bodies, of which the solid is to be composed, to be in perfect contact in all their surfaces. But this, in other words, is supposing the body to be solid; and, to suppose the agent, water, capable of thus making hard bodies solid, is no other than having recourse to the fortuitous concourse of atoms to make a world; a thought which this author would surely hold in great contempt.
Footnote 33:[ (return) ] Lettres Physiques et Morales.
He then illustrates this operation of nature by those of art, in building walls which certainly become hard, and which, as our author seems to think, become solid. But this is only an imperfect or erroneous representation of this subject; for, mortar does not become hard upon the principle of petrification adopted by our author. Mortar, made of clay, instead of lime, will not acquire a stony hardness, nor ever, by means of water, will it be more indurated than by simply drying; neither will the most subtile powder of chalk, with water and sand, form any solid body, or a proper mortar. The induration of mortar arises from the solution of a stony substance, and the subsequent concretion of that dissolved matter, operations purely chemical. Now, if this philosopher, in his Theory of Petrifaction, means only to explain a chemical operation upon mechanical principles, why have recourse, for an example in this subject, to mineral bodies, the origin of which is questioned? Why does he not rather explain, upon this principle, the known concretion of some body, from a fluid state, or, conversely, the known solution of some concreted body? If again he means to explain petrifaction in the usual way, by a chemical operation, in that case, the application of his polished surfaces, so as to cohere, cannot take place until the dissolved body be separated from the fluid, by means of which it is transported from place to place in the mineral regions. But it is in this preliminary step that lies all the difficulty; for, could we see how every different substance might be dissolved, and every dissolved substance separated from its solvent at our pleasure, we should find no difficulty in admitting the cohesion of hard bodies, whether by means of this doctrine of polished surfaces, or by the principle of general attraction, a principle which surely comprehends this particular, termed a cohesive power.
It must not be alleged, that seeing we know not how water dissolves saline bodies, therefore, this fluid, for any thing that we know, may also dissolve crystal; and, if water thus dissolves a mineral substance in a manner unknown to us, it may in like manner deposit it, although we may not be able to imagine how. This kind of reasoning is only calculated to keep us in ignorance; at the same time, the reasoning of philosophers, concerning petrifaction, does not in general appear to be founded on any principle that is more sound. That water dissolves salt is a fact. That water dissolves crystal is not a fact; therefore, those two propositions, with regard to the power of water, are infinitely removed, and cannot be assimilated in sound physical reasoning. It is no more a truth that water is able to dissolve salt, than that we never have been able to detect the smallest disposition in water to dissolve crystal, flint, quartz, or metals. Therefore, to allege the possibility of water being capable of dissolving those bodies in the mineral regions, and of thus changing the substance of one body into another, as naturalists have supposed, contrary to their knowledge, or in order to explain appearances, is so far from tending to increase our science, that it is abandoning the human intellect to be bewildered in an error; it is the vain attempt of lulling to sleep the scientific conscience, and making the soul of man insensible to the natural distress of conscious ignorance.
But besides that negative argument concerning the insolubility of crystal, by which the erroneous suppositions of naturalists are to be rejected, crystal in general is found regularly concreted in the cavities of the most solid rock, in the heart of the closest agate, and in the midst of granite mountains. But these masses of granite were formed by fusion; I hope that I shall give the most satisfactory proof of that truth: Consequently, here at least there is no occasion for the action of water in dissolving siliceous substances in one place, in order to concrete and crystallise it in another.