Illustrations of the Huttonian Theory of the EarthPlayfair, John
Science
Illustrations of the Huttonian Theory of the Earth
Playfair, John
Geology; Hutton, James, 1726-1797. Theory of the earth
107. The veins of tin furnish an argument of the same kind. The
ores of this metal are very indestructible, and little subject to
decomposition, so that they remain very long in the ground without
change. Where there are tin veins, as in Cornwall, the tin-stone or tin
ore is found in great abundance in such vallies and streams as have
the same direction with the veins; and hence the _streaming_, as it is
called, or washing of the earth, to obtain the tin-stone from it. Now,
if it be considered, that none of this ore can have come into the soil
but from parts of a vein actually destroyed, it must appear evident
that a great waste of these veins has taken place, and consequently of
the schistus or granite in which they are contained.
108. These lessons, which the geologist is taught in flat and open
countries, become more striking, by the study of those Alpine tracts,
where the surface of the earth attains its greatest elevation. If we
suppose him placed for the first time in the midst of such a scene,
as soon as he has recovered from the impression made by the novelty
and magnificence of the spectacle before him, he begins to discover
the footsteps of time, and to perceive, that the works of nature,
usually deemed the most permanent, are those on which the characters
of vicissitude are most deeply imprinted. He sees himself in the midst
of a vast ruin, where the precipices which rise on all sides with
such boldness and asperity, the sharp peaks of the granite mountains,
and the huge fragments that surround their bases, do but mark so many
epochs in the progress of decay, and point out the energy of those
destructive causes, which even the magnitude and solidity of such great
bodies have been unable to resist.
109. The result of a more minute investigation, is in perfect unison
with this general impression. Whence is it, that the elevation
of mountains is so obviously connected with the hardness and
indestructibility of the rocks which compose them? Why is it, that a
lofty mountain of soft and secondary rock is no where to be found; and
that such chains, as the Pyrenees or the Alps, never consist of any
but the hardest stone, of granite for instance, or of those primary
strata, which, if we are to credit the preceding theory, have been
twice heated in the fires, and twice tempered in the waters, of the
mineral regions? Is it not plain that this arises, not from any direct
connection between the hardness of stones, and their height in the
atmosphere, but from this, that the waste and _detritus_ to which all
things are subject, will not allow soft and weak substances to remain
long in an exposed and elevated situation? Were it not for this, the
secondary rocks, being in position superincumbent on the primary, ought
to be the highest of the two, and should cover the primary, (as they
no doubt have at one time done,) in the highest as well as the lowest
situations, or among the mountains as well as in the plains.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account