Electronic edition published by Cultural Heritage Langauge Technologies (with permission from Charles Scribners and Sons) and funded by the National Science Foundation International Digital Libraries Program. This text has been proofread to a low degree of accuracy. It was converted to electronic form using data entry.
HUTTON, JAMES (b. Edinburgh, Scotland, 3 June
1726; d. Edinburgh, 26 March 1797), geology, agriculture,
physical sciences, philosophy.
The Theory of the Earth.
a rock hitherto classed as primeval and believed
by geologists of the Wernerian school to have been
deposited from water. His study of granite affords an
instructive example of Hutton's acute powers of observation
and reasoning and the fact that, in general,
he did not reach conclusions without sound evidence
to support them.
In his 1788 paper he mentioned that some of the
rocks of the earth's crust are not stratified, in particular
granite. He reserved judgment on the question of
the origin of granite but claimed that if one species
of granite could be shown to have existed in a state
of fusion, then this conclusion could be extended to
other varieties of the same rock. He described a particular,
and quite abnormal, type of granite from
Portsoy, in northeast Scotland, a specimen of which
had been sent to him. He had not seen the outcrop
but had been informed that it graded into granite
of normal type.
This specimen (see Figure 1), illustrated in his 1788
paper, is clearly an example of the variety known as
graphic granite, owing to a superficial resemblance
to oriental writing evident when the rock is broken
in a particular direction, perpendicular to the long
axis of the contained quartz crystals which are embedded
in a groundmass of feldspar. The quartz crystals
then appear skeletal in form, with reentrant
angles. Hutton concluded “it is not possible to conceive
any other way in which these two substances,
quartz and feld-spar, could thus be concreted, except
by congelation [cooling] from a fluid state, in which
they had been mixed” (“Theory” [1788], p. 256). That
is to say the rock had cooled from a fused melt. This
was a sound conclusion, for there is nothing in the appearance
of the rock to suggest a sedimentary origin.
FIGURE 1. The specimen of graphic granite which led Hutton
to conclude that granite is igneous in origin (Transactions of the
Royal Society of Edinburgh,1 [1788], plate II).
In a later paper, read to the Royal Society of Edinburgh
in 1790, Hutton indicated that he had previously
reserved judgment on the granite question as
a whole, because he had not then decided whether
granite
... was to be considered as a body which had been
originally stratified by the collection of different [that is,
sedimentary] materials, and afterwards consolidated by
the fusion of these materials; or whether it were not
rather a body transfused from the subterraneous regions,
and made to break and invade the strata in the
manner of our whinstone or trapp [“Observations on
Granite,” in Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh,3 (1794), 77-78].
Hutton knew of the existence of foliated granite
gneisses in Scotland, and he had read that such rocks
were known to de Saussure in Switzerland, who had
distinguished them from massive unfoliated granite.
Hutton therefore suspended judgment until he had
examined the margin of an outcrop of massive granite.
This he did in the autumn of 1785 when visiting
the duke of Atholl's estate at Glen Tilt, Perthshire.
There Hutton found “the most perfect evidence, that
granite had been made to break the Alpine strata, and
invade that country in a fluid state. This corresponded
perfectly with the conclusion which I had drawn from
the singular specimen of the Portsoy granite” (ibid.,
79-80). Hutton made journeys into other parts of
Scotland where he obtained further confirmation of
his conclusion. The school of geologists who accepted
Hutton's ideas about the origin of igneous rocks came
to be known as “plutonists,” a name first used by
Kirwan.
While the thoroughness of Hutton's investigations
and the ingenuity of his arguments are evident, some
of his deductions and conclusions were unjustified.
This was especially true in his discussions of the
causes that he suggested were responsible for the
consolidation and elevation of the strata. Here he was
breaking new ground and attempting to solve problems
that for the most part were insoluble at that
time. He must have realized that if his theory was
to be accepted, these problems could not be ignored.
The solutions he reached were unduly influenced by
the powers he attributed to the hot “mineral region”
that he believed existed below both the continents
and the oceans, powers for which he could produce
little convincing evidence, although a source of heat
was certainly present.
In discussing consolidation, although he did not
consider seriously the possibility that compaction
might have resulted from the pressure exerted by a
thick mass of sediments, he did suggest that pressure
could have driven the water out of porous rocks. Some