BSHS Monographs publishes work of lasting scholarly value that might not otherwise be made available, and aids the dissemination of innovative projects advancing scholarship or education in the field. 13. Chang, Hasok and Jackson, 06. Morris, PJT, and Russell, CA; Catherine (eds.). 2007. An Smith, JG (ed.). 1988. Archives of Element of Controversy: The Life the British Chemical Industry, of Chlorine in Science, Medicine, 1750‐1914: A Handlist. Technology and War. ISBN 0‐0906450‐06‐3. ISBN: 978‐0‐906450‐01‐7. 05. Rees, Graham. 1984. Francis 12. Thackray, John C. (ed.). 2003. Bacon's Natural Philosophy: A To See the Fellows Fight: Eye New Source. Witness Accounts of Meetings of ISBN 0‐906450‐04‐7. the Geological Society of London 04. Hunter, Michael. 1994. The and Its Club, 1822‐1868. 2003. Royal Society and Its Fellows, ISBN: 0‐906450‐14‐4. 1660‐1700. 2nd edition. 11. Field, JV and James, Frank ISBN 978‐0‐906450‐09‐3. AJL. 1997. Science in Art. 03. Wynne, Brian. 1982. ISBN 0‐906450‐13‐6. Rationality and Ritual: The 10. Lester, Joe and Bowler, Windscale Inquiry and Nuclear Peter. E. Ray Lankester and the Decisions in Britain. Making of Modern British ISBN 0‐906450‐02‐0 Biology. 1995. 02. Outram, Dorinda (ed.). 2009. ISBN 978‐0‐906450‐11‐6. The Letters of Georges Cuvier. 09. Crosland, Maurice. 1994. In reprint of 1980 edition. the Shadow of Lavoisier: ISBN 0‐906450‐05‐5. ISBN 0‐906450‐10‐1. 01. Jordanova, L. and Porter, Roy 08. Shortland, Michael (ed.). (eds.). 1997. Images of the Earth: 1993. Science and Nature. 2nd edition. ISBN 0‐906450‐08‐X. ISBN 0‐906450‐12‐8. 07. Sheets‐Pyenson, Susan. 1992. Index to the Scientific For e‐prints and ordering Correspondence of J. W. Dawson. information, visit the BSHS ISBN 978‐0‐906450‐07‐9. Monographs Website: www.bshs.org.uk/monographs IMAGES OF THE EARTH essays in the history ofthe environmental sciences edited by LudmillaJordanova and Roy Porter BRITISH SOCIETY FOR THE HISTORY OF SCIENCE Preface to the Second edition © LudmillaJordanova and Roy Porter 1995 In trodu etion © LudmillaJordanova and Roy Porter 1978 'Revelation and the cyclical cosmos ofJohn H utchinwn' © G. N. Cantor 1978 'Hutton's theory ofthe earth' © R. Grant 1978 'The natural theology ofthe geologists: some theological strata' ©John Hedley Brooke 1978 'Transposed concepts from the human sa.ences in the early ·work ofCharles Lyell' © MartinJ. S. Rudwick 1978 'Geology and landscape painting in nineteenth-century England' © Mania Poimon 1978 'Earth science and environmental medicine: the synthesis ofthe late Enlightenment' © Ludmilla Jordanova 1978 'Chemical geology or geological chemsitry?' © W. H. Brock 1978 'The controversy ofthe Moulin-OJ!ignon jaw: the role ofH IIgh Falconer' © Patrick J. Boylan 1978 'The lost limb: geology and natural history' © David Elliston Allen 1978 'Geological communication in the Bath area in the last halfofthe eighteenth century' © Hugh Torrens 1978 'Geological controversy and its historiography: the prehistory ofthe Geological Society ofLondon' © PaulJulian Weindling 1978 Postscript © LudmillaJordanova 1995 First published 1979 reprinted 1981 Second, revised and enlarged edition 1997 lSBN 0-906450-12-8 Designed and typeset in Stempel Garamond byJeffrey Dean, The Stingray Office, 4 Chandos Road, Chorlton-cum-Hardy, Manchester M21 OST Printed in Great Britain by The Alden Press, Oxford Contents List of illustrations vu Preface to the Second edition vm LUDMILLA JORDAN OVA AND ROY PORTER Introduction LUDMILLA JORDANOVA AND ROY PORTER Geology and belief 1. Revelation and the cyclical cosmos ofJohn Hutchinson 17 G. N. CANTOR 2. Hutton's theory of the earth 37 R. GRANT 3. The natural theology ofthe geologists: some theological strata 53 JOHN HEDLEY BRO OKE The language ofenvironmental science 4. Transposed concepts from the human sciences in the early work of Charles Lyell 77 MARTIN J. S. RUDW1CK 5. Geology and landscape painting in nineteenth-century England 93 MARCIA P01NTON Earth science and discipline boundar'ies 6. Earth science and environmental medicine: the synthesis of the late Enlightenment 127 LUDM1LLA JORDANOVA 7· Chemical geology or geological chemistry? 153 W. H. BROCK 8. The controversy of the Moulin-~ignon jaw: the role of Hugh Falconer 175 PATR1CK J. BOYLAN [vi] Contents 9. The lost limb: geology and natural history 203 DAVID ELLISTON ALLEN The social history ofgeology la. Geological communication in the Bath area in the last half of the eighteenth century 217 HUGH TO RRENS 11. Geological controversy and its historiography: the prehistory of the Geological Society ofLondon 247 PAUL JULIAN WEINDLING Notes on contributors 269 Postscript 273 LUDMILLA JORDANOVA Bibliography 280 Index 287 -11­ Geological controversy and its historiography: the prehistory of the Geological Society of London PAUL JULlAN WEINDLlNG The genesis of geology as a modern science in England has convencionally been attributed to the foundation of the Geological Society in 18°7. It was the first specialised society of that name. Members were pioneers of strati­ graphical fieldwork. It was to be a centre of research and exchange of information. The Society has therefore been considered a major cause of the switch from speculative theories of the earth to a science grounded in empirical research. Fitton, an early stalwart, ascribed this to 'plain men who felt the importance of the science'.! As in other sciences, its practitioners acted as the first historians. Their story, that the beginnings of modern geology were the internal history of the Society, has been deferentially accepted by professional historians of science. The latter have been concerned primarily not so much with chron­ icling particular discoveries, but with the general problem of when geology became a fully-fledged science. If some historians say this was not until Lyell in the 18 30s, it was still within the confines of the Society. But criteria of what constituted a science have varied according to different periods and prejudices. The enterprise of trying to locate a single turning point, when science is viewed primarily as a linear and cumulative process, is not fully historical. It has resulted in excessively severe criticism of other efforts which were contemporary with the foundation of the Geological Society. Societies which were oriented in a practical direction, as in Newcastle and Cornwall, have been condemned as too partial in their scope, whereas the Royal Society was apparently too broad. Mineral surveyors have corre­ spondingly been written off as too empirical, and mineral collectors as too speculative. They have been excluded from being recognised as legitimate members of the charmed social circle of truly 'scientific' geology.2 I wish to thank the Royal Institution for allowing me w consulr and quore from their archives. I H. B. Woodward, The history of the Geologica! Society of L07ldo7l, London, [907, p. 5z. 2 For general historiographical issues in rhe hisrory of geology see R. S. Porter, 'Charles Paul Julian Weindling Historiography and mineral history The Society's history has been seen in terms of unquestioned success - as if the Society had been formed by a catastrophist force of truth. Geikie's Centennial Address and Woodward's Centenary History were correct that the mineralogists and chemists who formed the Society had widening fields ofobservation due to increased travel, and that they were drawn together by London mineralogical cabinets. Both explained this as due to a transition from speculation to science. But there is a discrepancy in the explanation of a progressive accumulation of truth. The knowledge of many members left much to be desired, however flattering Fitton's excuse that 'the want of education is sometimes of advantage to a man of genius'.3 Rather than historically analysing the immediate background of London mineralogy with its technical and socioeconomic concerns, recent historians have pre­ served me purity of geology as a discrete scientific entity; by relating it to broader cultural factors like earlier traditions of inquiry, religion and (taste', they have tried to demonstrate the superior objectivity of the Society. Mar­ tin Rudwick has described how the rival hypotheses of Hutton and Werner were tested by Greenough.~ Greenough then became President of the Geo­ logical Society, founded in 1807, and forced the Society into independence from the hegemony of the Royal Society. The testimony of this ambitious social-climber has been used to generalise about the instituting of a new 'English schoo1'.5 But once the sequence of events that led to the foundation of the Society are examined, Greenough's account can be criticised as too biased to warrant such generalisations. Whereas Roy Porter has recognised that geology was the culmination of a long-term process of increasingly scientific conceptualisation of the earth, he neglects short-term factors such as exactly how the group of founders arose. Although he goes one step towards correcting the naive view regarding the novelty of the early Society, his critique does not go far enough because he still accepts that the Society at last practised modern geological science. Recognising the problem created by those members more concerned with politeness than with knowledge, he has interpreted the Geological Society's success as expressing a new force for social status. It was an exclusive club of leisured gentlemen; science had Lyell and the principles of the history of geology', Brit. J. Hisr. 5ci., 1976, ix, 91-1°3. Controversy over the specific poims memioned will be deah with in the coorse of this essay. J Woodward, op. cit. (I), pp. 6-IO, p. A. Geikie, 'The state of geology at the time of the fonndation of the Geological Society', in W. W. Watts (ed.), The Centenary of the Geological Society ofLondon, London, 1909, pp. )07-31 (110, 127). , M. J. S. Rudwick, 'Hunon and Werner compared: George Greenough's geological tour of Scotland in 1805', Brit.