Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vvkck Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T13:03:44.643Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Reaction to James Hutton's use of Heat as a Geological Agent

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 January 2009

Patsy A. Gerstner
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Heat is the fundamental mechanism in the theory of the earth proposed by James Hutton in 1785. According to Hutton, heat is responsible for the liquefaction of loose debris collected on the ocean floor. Consolidation follows and the newly formed land is raised above the sea by the agency of heat. The expansive nature of heat that causes this elevation of land also accounts for the creation of veins and dykes through the injection of fluid matter into openings in the earth. The activity of heat is intermittent; there are times when it is active, but at other times it is dormant. In another paper I argued that Hutton's concept of this geological heat was an application of his theory of matter in which heat is an immaterial, universally operating force acting in opposition to forces of attraction. This concept of heat was quite different from the popular late eighteenth-century belief that heat was a material substance called caloric. The critics of Hutton repeatedly tried to interpret his heat as if it were caloric. Failing in this they found Hutton a confusion of idle speculation on heat and without theoretical basis. Further, since fire was a major source of caloric and since the already established geological tradition of Vulcanism called for fires within the earth, it was natural that these critics thought of Hutton's theory as being necessarily based on the presence of internal fires and questioned how such fires could exist, disregarding the fact that Hutton rarely mentioned fires and even disclaimed the necessity of fires in the production of heat. The criticisms concerning heat fall into several major groups of which the source of heat in only one. The others include the formation of the whinstone of Scotland and the crystallization of rock in general, the expansive role of heat, the intermittent activity of heat, and the temperature of the earth. Of these the formation of particular kinds of rocks was submitted to experimenal test by Sir James Hall, whose investigations were especially concerned with the effects of the rate of cooling on crystallization and the effects of pressure on the formation of rock. Much of the discussion of Hall's work centred on the experiments, and the theoretical problem about the nature of heat was obscured as a result. It is in the commentary on the other problems noted above that the true situation becomes clear. For this reason a study of these problems is more revealing and constitutes the following.

Type
Research Article
Information
The British Journal for the History of Science , Volume 5 , Issue 4 , December 1971 , pp. 353 - 362
Copyright
Copyright © British Society for the History of Science 1971

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Although read to the Royal Society of Edinburgh in 1785, Hutton, 's paper was not published in full until 1788 when it appeared as “Theory of the earth; or an investigation of the laws observable in the composition, dissolution, and restoration of the land upon the globe”, Trans. R. Soc. Edinb., i (1788), 209–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar. An expanded version appeared in two volumes as Theory of the Earth with Proofs and Illustrations (Edinburgh, 1795).Google Scholar

2 “James Hutton's theory of the earth and his theory of matter”, Isis, lix (1968), 26–31.Google Scholar

3 Hutton occasionally referred to fire but usually spoke only of a “power of heat” residing within the earth. He specifically denied the necessity of internal fires in the second chapter, volume one, of his 1795 Theory of the Earth. Hutton insisted here that the action of heat must be accepted on the basis of observed results and that no attention need be given to its ultimate source. Although this seems at the outset to offer evidence that Hutton had no theoretical basis for his heat, he repeatedly referred to the several kinds of powers which guided the operations of the earth. For example, he spoke about the earth existing for a reason and achieving its end through “the form of the whole, the material of which it is composed, and the several powers which concur, counteract, or balance one another …” (Hutton, , op. cit. (1), 1795, i, 4Google Scholar). It is my contention that Hutton's meaning in this and similar passages cannot be understood without reference to his theory of matter and this in turn provides the theoretical basis for heat without fire.

4 Hall, 's publications include: “Experiments on whinstone and lava”, Trans. R. Soc. Edinb., v (1805), 43–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and “Acount of a series of experiments shewing the effects of compression”. Trans. R. Soc. Edinb., vi (1812), 71–185.Google Scholar

5 Thomson, John (1765–1846)Google Scholar, surgeon, studied at the Universities of Glasgow and Edinburgh and in the school of John Hunter in London. He practiced surgery in Edinburgh and served as one of the surgeons to the Royal Infirmary. He was also Professor of Surgery to the Royal College of Surgeons and in 1806 was appointed the first Professor of Military Surgery at Edinburgh. In 1831 he occupied the Chair of General Pathology. His paper on Hutton is entitled “What are the agents which nature employs in the consolidation of the globe?” and is in the Library of the Royal Medical Society of Edinburgh. It is a manuscript of forty-three pages. Except for the last twelve pages, which deal with erosion, it is almost wholly concerned with the various problems of heat.

6 Ibid., 371.

7 Ibid., 372.

8 Ibid., 373. Hutton saw in the world “no vestige of a beginning, no prospect of an end”.

9 Ibid., 374–375.

10 Ibid.

11 Ibid., 375–376.

12 Deluc's basic arguments against Hutton, are in his “Letters to Dr. James Hutton, F.R.S., on his theory of the earth”, Monthly Review, ii (1790), 206–227, ii (1790), 582–601, iii (1790), 73–86, v (1791), 564–585Google Scholar. The “First letter” contains his views on heat. Deluc carried on his arguments in his Traité Elémentaire de Géologie or An elementary Treatise on Geology (London, 1809)Google Scholar, and he offered supporting evidence in his Geological Travels in the north of Europe (London, 1810–1811), 2 volumesGoogle Scholar. Earlier published critiques include a somewhat non-commital report on Hutton's paper by Rotheram, John, Monthly Review, lxxix (1788), 36–38Google Scholar, and commentary by Williams, John in his Natural History of the Mineral Kingdom (Edinburgh, 1789).Google Scholar

13 “Examination of the supposed igneous origin of stony substances”, Trans. R. Irish Academy, v (1793–1794), 51–81.Google Scholar

14 Ibid., 67–68.

15 Hutton, , op. cit. (3)Google Scholar. Kirwan, , Geological Essays (London, 1799), 485.Google Scholar

16 Illustrations of the Huttonian Theory of the Earth (Edinburgh, 1802), 186–187Google Scholar. James Hall also argued that heat should simply be assumed without recourse to fire (Hall, , op. cit. (4), 1812, 157 f.n.).Google Scholar

17 “Review of the Illustrations of the Huttonian Theory of the Earth”, Edinburgh Review, i (1802), 201–216.Google Scholar

18 Edinburgh, , 1802.Google Scholar

19 Ibid., 44–48; Playfair, , op. cit. (14), 187–188.Google Scholar

20 Ibid., 50–51.

21 Edinburgh, , 1806, 4 vols.Google Scholar

22 “On the progress of heat when communicated to the spherical bodies from their centers”, Trans. R. Soc. Edinb., vi (1812), 353–370.Google Scholar

23 Ibid., 357.

24 Ibid., 354. Several years later Murray tried to counter Playfair by falling back on the old question of the source of the heat, stating that the source was even more difficult to imagine if one had to consider a constant loss of heat through surface dispersion. “On the diffusion of heat at the surface of the earth”, Trans. R. Soc. Edinb., vii (1815), 411–434.Google Scholar

25 For a more detailed account of Hutton's concept of heat as a universal repulsive force see my article in Isis (2).

26 Although the problems that Hall especially concerned himself with have not been dealt with here, it may be of interest to note that Hutton does account for the formation of various kinds of rock with his theory of forces. He tells us that consolidation in general is caused by the elective attraction of the particles of stones to each other while the different mineral shapes and crystals are formed by the play of gravitating and cohesive forces (Hutton, , op. cit. (1), 1795, i, 229Google Scholar). The various attractive forces are the more important in the actual formation of rock while the repelling force (heat) is the more important in the process of liquefaction.

27 Edinburgh, , 1792.Google Scholar

28 Murray, , op. cit. (19), i, 33.Google Scholar

29 Ibid., 137–138.

30 Monthly Review, xvi (1795), 246–254.Google Scholar

31 Mechanism and Materialism. British Natural Philosophy in an Age of Reason (Princeton, New Jersey, 1970), 276.Google Scholar