This dissertation has been 64—215 microfilmed exactly as received PAGE, Leroy Earl, 1930- THE RISE OF THE DILUVIAL THEORY IN BRITISH GEOLOGICAL THOUGHT. The University of Oklahoma Ph.D., 1963 History, modem University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan Copyright by LEROY EARL PACE 1963 THE UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA GRADUATE COLLEGE THE RISE OF THE DILUVIAL THEORY IN BRITISH GEOLOGICAL THOUGHT A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE FACULTY in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY BY LEROY EARL PAGE Norman, Oklahoma 1963 THE RISE OF THE DILUVIAL THEORY IN BRITISH GEOLOGICAL THOUGHT APPROVED BY 4 ^ DISSERTATION COMMITTEE PREFACE The purpose of this study of the rise of the diluvial theory in British geological thought in the early nineteenth century is to / examine the scientific evidence presented on its behalf, the criti­ cism it received, both scientific and religious, and the reasons for its eventual modification. The study is limited to British geologists during roughly the period 1813-1831, except for some discussion of the views of the German, Abraham Wemer, and the Frenchman, Georges Cuvier, both of whom had a significant influence on British geological thought. Only the newer diluvial theory of Cuvier and William Buckland is treated here, for the diluvial theories of the eighteenth century, which at­ tempted to explain most stratified rocks as the result of the Biblical flood, had been discredited among geologists by this time. The specific theory of Cuvier and Buckland should be dis­ tinguished from the general catastrophist-diluvialist climate of the time. Most geologists accepted Buckland * s contention that the evi­ dence of valleys and the diluvium with its fossil contents suggested diluvial action. They did not, however, necessarily agree with him that this evidence was the result of a single, recent, universal, transient deluge, identical with the Biblical flood. iii iv The impression one gets as he reads the geological writings of the early nineteenth century in Great Britain is that the pub­ lished surveys of the history of British geology in this period have too simplified an interpretation. A common misconception is to label every geologist either a Wernerian or a Huttonian, a Weptunist or a Plutonist, a diluvialist or an antidiluvialist. What one finds, of course, is that most geologists were not blind disciples of one theory or the other but were quite eclectic in their attitude toward geolog­ ical theories, many being sceptical of all of them. This work was done in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of doctor of philosophy at the University of Oklahoma. I wish to thank Professors Thomas M. Smith and Duane H. D. Roller for reading and commenting on portions of the manuscript and for their' helpful advice and encouragement. Almost all of my research was done using the resources of the History of Science Collections of the University of Oklahoma library. I am grateful to the curator, Professor Roller, for obtaining certain works and materials needed in this study and to the librarian, Mrs. Marcia Goodman, for her aid. The manuscript materials utilized in this work were consulted at the library of the American Philosophical Society, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, whose manuscript librarian, Mr. Murphy Smith, was of great help to me. I consulted a number of works in other libraries in Philadelphia, including those of the University of Pennsylvania, the Library Company, and the Academy of Natural Sciences. Mrs. Esther R. Houghton, of the Wellesley Index to Victorian Periodicals, 182A-1900, Wellesley College Library, Wellesley, Massachusetts, was very helpful in verifying the authors of anonymous review articles of the period. During my work on this dissertation I have held a National Science Foundation Graduate Fellowship and have been employed as an Instructor in the History of Science by the University of Oklahoma. I wish also to thank those graduate students in the History of Science at the University of Oklahoma who have assisted me by commenting on my work. Lastly, I wish to thank my wife, Mary Ellen, for reading and correcting parts of the manuscript and for her encouragement and understanding during the course of this work. TABIE OP CONTENTS Page PREFACE .................................................. ill Chapter I. GEOLOGICAL THEORY IN GREAT BRITAIN PRIORTO 1822 . 1 II. THE DILUVIAL THEORY AND WILLIAM BUCKLAND . A3 III. THE DILUVIAL THEORY ATTACKED AND DEFENDED . 1,15 IV. THE DILUVIAL THEORY MODIFIED ................. 156 BIBLIOGRAPHY .............................................. 227 vi THE m S E OF H E DILUVIAL THEORI IN BRITISH GEOLOGICAL THOUGHT CHAPTER I GEOLOGICAL THEORY IN GREAT BRITAIN PRIOR TO 1822 The first comprehensive description of the geology of England; Outlines of the Geology of England and Wales, by W. D. Conybeare and William Phillips, was published in 1822.”' Conybeare,^ its principle author, and his close friend William Buckland,^ were probably the most renowned geologists in England at that time. They were among the most influential members of the Geological Society of London, the leading organization in Great Britain devoted to geology.^ ^W. D. Conybeare and William Phillips, Outlines of the Geology of England and Wales, with an Introductory Compendium of the General Principles of That Science, and Comparatiye Views of the Structure of Foreign Countries (London; William Phillips, 1822). This work des­ cribed the English strata from the uppermost to the coal formation. A proposed second part, treating the formations below the coal, was neyer published. ^The Rev. William Daniel Conybeare (1787-1857), Christ Church, Oxford, B.A. 1808,was rector of Sully in Glamorganshire, 1823-36; vicar of Axminster, Devon, 1836-41|.; and dean of Llandaff, 184-5-57. ^The Rev. William Buckland (1784-1856), Christ Church, Oxford, B.A. 1804,was reader in mineralogy, Oxford, 1814; reader in geology, 1819-56; and dean of Westminster, 1845-56. Horace B. Woodward, The History of the Geological Society of London (London: Geological Society, 1907) contains much information about the early history of the society. 2 Conybeare and Buckland were among the first in Great Britain to apply the new paleontological methods developed by Georges Cuvier, the illustrious founder of vertebrate paleontology, and one of the most celebrated scientists of his time,^ Cuvier's geological ideas, developed during the course of his work on the geology and paleon­ tology of the region around Paris,^ were put forth in their most com- n plete form in the preliminary discourse to his work on fossil bones. This discourse, translated into English in 1813 under the title, S Q Theory of the Earth, with notes by Robert Jameson,^ was the most popular geological work in Great Britain in the decade succeeding its publication.^^ ^Georges Cuvier (1769-1832), professor of natural history at the College de France, professor of anatomy at the Jardin des Plantes, a Councillor of State, a baron, and a peer of France. ^Georges Cuvier and Alexandre Brongniart, Essai sur la seo- graphie mineralogique des environs de Paris, avec une carte geognostique. et des coupes de terrain (Paris: Baudouin, Imprimeur de l'Institut Imperial de France, 1811). 7 Georges Cuvier, Recherches sur les ossemens fossiles de quad­ rupèdes. ou l'on rétablit les caractères de plusieurs espèces d'animaux que les revolutions du globe paroissent avoir détruites (4- vols,; Paris: Deterville, 1812). The "discours préliminaire" is in Vol. I, pp. 1-116, 8 Georges Cuvier, Essay on the Theory of the Earth, with Miner- alogical Notes, and an Account of Cuvier's Geological Discoveries, by Professor Jameson, trans. Robert Kerr (Edinburgh: William Blackwood, 1813), ^Robert Jameson (1774-1854), mineralogist and geologist; regius professor of natural history and keeper of the museum at the University of Edinburgh, 1804-54. T^The work went through five editions in Edinburgh: 1813, 1815, 1817, 1822, and 1827, and one in New York: 1818. Another English translation was published in London in 1829. 3 Cuvier's editor, Jameson, was the leading disciple in Great Britain of Abraham Werner, who had- developed the most widely accepted 1 1 geological system of the time. Werner had devised a scheme for classifying minerals by their external characteristics, which he applied to the classification of rocks, as a basis for investigating the struc­ ture of the earth. It is not surprising that Jameson edited Cuvier's book, for Cuvier made considerable use of Wernerian ideas, although he had not been a student of Werner's as Jameson had. It had long been known to students of the subject that the earth's crust is stratified, and almost all believed that the layers or strata into which it was divided had been formed or deposited in water. This idea was supported by the presence in many of the strata of what appeared to be the remains of the shells of organisms similar 1 P to existing marine animals. It seemed obvious to those who accepted this idea that each individual stratum must have been formed or solid­ ified at a later time than had the stratum immediately beneath it. The time between successive formations need not have been very long, however, for it was possible to conceive of many strata being formed ^Abraham Gottlob Werner (1749-1817), professor at the Mining Academy in Freiberg, Saxony, 1775-1817. Werner's ideas were spread mainly by his students, among whom were Alexander von Humboldt, Leopold von Buch, and Jean Francois d'Aubuisson de