The Geological Society of America Memoir 216 Revising the Revisions: James Hutton’s Reputation among Geologists in the Late Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries A. M. Celâl Şengör* İTÜ Avrasya Yerbilimleri Enstitüsü ve Maden Fakültesi, Jeoloji Bölümü, Ayazağa 34469 İstanbul, Turkey ABSTRACT A recent fad in the historiography of geology is to consider the Scottish polymath James Hutton’s Theory of the Earth the last of the “theories of the earth” genre of publications that had begun developing in the seventeenth century and to regard it as something behind the times already in the late eighteenth century and which was subsequently remembered only because some later geologists, particularly Hutton’s countryman Sir Archibald Geikie, found it convenient to represent it as a precursor of the prevailing opinions of the day. By contrast, the available documentation, pub- lished and unpublished, shows that Hutton’s theory was considered as something completely new by his contemporaries, very different from anything that preceded it, whether they agreed with him or not, and that it was widely discussed both in his own country and abroad—from St. Petersburg through Europe to New York. By the end of the third decade in the nineteenth century, many very respectable geologists began seeing in him “the father of modern geology” even before Sir Archibald was born (in 1835). Before long, even popular books on geology and general encyclopedias began spreading the same conviction. A review of the geological literature of the late eighteenth and the nineteenth centuries shows that Hutton was not only remembered, but his ideas were in fact considered part of the current science and discussed accord- ingly. The strange new fashion in the historiography of geology has been promulgated mostly by professional historians rather than geologists and seems based on two main reasons: (1) a mis interpretation of what geology consists of by considering methods rather than theories as the essence of the science, and (2) insufficient attention to the scientific literature of geology through the ages. In only one case, the religious com- mitment of a historian seems a reason for his attempt to belittle Hutton’s contribution and to exalt those of his Christian adversaries, hitherto considered insignificant. To write a history of geology it is imperative that extra-scientific considerations such as religion or political ideology or even the mental state of the scientist(s) examined must not be mixed, overtly or covertly, into the assessment and the writer should have a good knowledge of, and experience in doing, geology. Social considerations may tell us why science is done or not done in a society, but they cannot tell us anything on the origin and evolution of its content. In understanding the intellectual development of geology, in fact science in general, sociological analysis seems not very helpful. *[email protected] Şengör, A.M.C., 2020, Revising the Revisions: James Hutton’s Reputation among Geologists in the Late Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries: Geological Society of America Memoir 216, 150 p., https://doi.org/10.1130/2020.0216(01). © 2020 The Geological Society of America. All rights reserved. For permission to copy, contact [email protected]. 1 Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/books/book/chapter-pdf/5198031/mwr216-01.pdf by guest on 25 September 2021 2 A.M.C. Şengör INTRODUCTION This book has a very restricted purpose, which consists in documenting the Scottish polymath James Hutton’s (1726–1797; Fig. 1) reputation among geologists during the late eighteenth and the nineteenth centuries before the publication of the first edition of Sir Archibald Geikie’s Founders of Geology in 1897 with a view to putting on record that he was generally considered by the inter- national geological community as the founder of modern geology, i.e., the science of the structure and history of the planet earth, even before Sir Archibald was born in 1835. It is thus a “history of recep- tion” of Hutton’s ideas by the geological community between the date of his first geological publication in 1785 and essentially the end of the nineteenth century. It documents that the knowledge and influence of Hutton’s geological writings were widespread both in his own country and elsewhere, even years before Sir Charles Lyell (1797–1875) became his champion in his Principles of Geology (1830–1833), and has remained so ever since, contrary to some recent revisionist historians’ claims. In what follows I have chosen four popular revisionist accounts among a multitude, as it is impos- sible to review them all here. But the four I have chosen I consider Figure 1. James Hutton by Sir Henry Raeburn (1790; for the typical and have been extensively quoted by the others. dating, see McIntyre, 1997, p. 143). Sir Henry Raeburn, James Hutton, 1726–1797, Geologist. National Galleries of Scotland. SCIENCE AND HISTORIOGRAPHY OF SCIENCE: Purchased with the aid of the Art Fund and the National Her- THE CASE OF GEOLOGY itage Memorial Fund 1986. A part of the revisionists’ claims is based on what I consider which fundamental cause(s) the planet evolves and generates its a misunderstanding of what science is. The science of geology structure (e.g., according to our present understanding, it is the includes the theory of the earth1 and the methods by which that heat loss of the planet that runs the earth engine). At a lower level, theory is tested. Establishing a true theory of the earth is the the details of the mechanism(s) brought about by the fundamen- goal of geology and the methods are the means by which such a tal cause are specified (e.g., plate tectonics, mantle convection, theory is continuously improved2. The establishment of accurate atmospheric and hydrological circulation, the entire geostrophic knowledge and correct understanding of the structure, behavior cycle etc.). Below that, the consequences of those detailed mech- and history of the earth is an unchanging, yet ultimately unattain- anisms in creating the structures of the rocky rind of the planet are able goal, but the methods used to strive toward it continuously defined, which range from the formation of the largest features improve as new ideas and technologies become available. Meth- of the earth’s lithosphere (earth’s crust, continents, ocean basins, ods do not constitute the goal of the science, but its means to cratons, mountain ranges, rift valleys, alluvial plains, etc.) to the attain its goal. Similarly, an architectural monument does not origin of minerals and their atomic structure. The more restricted include the tools used for its construction, neither the scaffolding theories in this lowermost level are not necessarily dependent that once embraced it, yet without them, or without the people for their success on the correctness of the overarching theory who developed them, it could not have been built. By contrast, of the earth. The theory of turbidites, for example, requires the teaching architecture does include the tools used in constructing presence of underwater slopes and abundant supply of clastic buildings. Similarly, nobody will credit the developers of sub- material, irrespective of how the water bodies, the slopes, and the marine sounding devices during World War II, nor indeed their clastic sources are created, as such creation can be accomplished first widespread civilian employers such as William Maurice equally well in the framework of the now-abandoned magmatic “Doc” Ewing (1906–1974) since then, nor the creators of the uplift or the thermal contraction theories or indeed in that of the World Wide Standardized Seismograph Network (WWSSN), for currently accepted plate tectonics. Theory aims at explaining, i.e., having invented plate tectonics, although they were critical for its understanding the planet (or parts of it) and its (their) history. invention by J. Tuzo Wilson (1908–1993) in 1965 and testing by Methods are work tools for collecting information with a view his followers in the subsequent years. However, teaching plate to achieving that understanding. It would help us in appreciating tectonics ought to mention the tools and their inventors and users the difference between methods and theories and their relations without which there could have been no plate tectonics. to science in general if we reflect on Albert Einstein’s insightful Geological theory, the essence of the science, has a multi- comment about them made during his inaugural address before tiered structure: at the uppermost, most general, level it states by the Royal Prussian Academy of Sciences on 2 July 1914 in Berlin: Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/books/book/chapter-pdf/5198031/mwr216-01.pdf by guest on 25 September 2021 James Hutton’s Reputation in the Late Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries 3 The method of the theoretician requires that as a foundation he a pupil, has more value for him than ten formulae which he needs general conditions, so-called principles, from which he can learnt by rote and which he also knows how to use following deduce inferences. His activity is therefore divided into two parts. instructions, but without understanding what they mean. The First, he has to find those principles and, secondly, to develop the school should not teach the routine in a discipline, but conse- implications derived from the principles. For the fulfillment of quent, methodical thinking. … a theory can never be replaced the second task, he receives at school excellent tools. So, if the by simple routine, which, in unusual circumstances, would first of his tasks is already accomplished in a field or a complex fail helplessly. That is why the first requirement for attain- of contexts, he will not lack success if he has sufficient diligence ing sound achievements is a thorough elementary education, and understanding.