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.
of the rocks with which he was familiar, particularly
the dynamically metamorphosed sediments in the
Scottish Highlands and some unmetamorphosed limestones,
were crystalline. This knowledge appears to
have influenced him in reaching the conclusion that
consolidation had been effected by heat. He claimed
that many, although not all, the sediments had actually
been fused. A difficulty inherent in this argument
was that heat of the intensity he envisaged
would have decomposed limestones. He dealt with
this problem in the following statement:
The essential difference, however, between the natural
heat of the mineral regions, and that which we excite
upon the surface of the earth, consists in this; that
nature applies heat under circumstances which we are
not able to imitate, that is, under such compression as
shall prevent the decomposition of the constituent substances,
by the separation of the more volatile from the
more fixed parts [Theory, I (1795), 140].
Sir James Hall was later to prove experimentally that
this assumption was justified.
The problem raised by Hutton's demonstration
that consolidated strata had been elevated to form
dry land was a formidable one. He might perhaps
have evaded the issue, as others had done, by suggesting
that elevation had resulted from the operation
of some cataclysmic action comparable in kind to that
which brought about earthquakes. Had he done so,
his theory might have received less criticism, but that
was not Hutton's way. He wished to get to the root
of the matter. He was clearly impressed by the immense
force exerted by volcanic activity, in breaking
through great thicknesses of consolidated strata, followed
by the eruption of lava with explosive violence;
and, as he indicated in the Abstract, he supposed that
the shattering and distortion of strata that once existed
as undisturbed horizontal beds must have resulted
from the action of the same force. He was also
familiar with all the properties of heat known at that
time, including its expansive effects on solids, liquids,
and gases. He inferred, correctly, that there must exist
in his “mineral region” a potential source of immense
power (now it would be termed energy), and he assumed
that it was heat that brought this power into
action. He therefore concluded “that the land on
which we now dwell has been elevated from a lower
situation by the same agent employed in consolidating
the strata ... this agent is matter actuated by
extreme heat, and expanded with amazing force”
(“Theory” [1788], p. 266). He made no attempt to explain
matters in more detail, but he qualified his
conclusion by adding, “The raising up of a continent
of land from the bottom of the sea is an idea that
is too great to be conceived easily in all parts of its
operation, many of which are perhaps unknown to
us” (ibid., p. 295). That Hutton failed to solve this
problem, one that continues to engage the attention
of geologists, is not surprising, but at least he attempted
to solve it scientifically.
Reception of the Theory.
It has often been stated
that Hutton's theory was little understood before the
publication in 1802 of Playfair's Illustrations of the
Huttonian Theory of the Earth. This may be true, and
certainly Lyell seems to have derived his knowledge
of Hutton's views principally from this source.7 Nevertheless
the theory had been widely read before
then, for it had already received critical notices in
both British and foreign publications; translations of
the Abstract and the 1788 “Theory” had appeared
in Germany8 and France; and the theory had received
some notice at least as early as 1805 in the
United States. Undoubtedly Hutton's views became
quite widely known in the early years of the nineteenth
century. Yet in spite of the growing interest
in geology, and the rapid accumulation of factual
observations, it was not until after 1830 that his
theories began to gain general acceptance, largely
because of Playfair's Illustrations and the publication
of Lyell's Principles of Geology (London, 1830-1833).
Lyell accepted most, although not all, of Hutton's
views, and expounded them fully in his book;
but he and his followers did not accept Hutton's
conclusions on the importance of the erosional action
of rivers. Some thirty years passed before geologists
in both Great Britain and the United States realized
that Hutton had been right.
The delay in the recognition of Hutton's work can
be attributed to a variety of causes acting collectively:
the natural conservatism of many geologists; reluctance
to abandon belief in the biblical account of
creation; the widespread influence of geologists of the
Wernerian school; and the rise of catastrophism. By
1830, however, geologists, although still conservative
in outlook, were much better equipped to assess the
value of the Huttonian theory.
Agriculture and Evolution.
Hutton must have retained
an interest in agriculture long after he ceased
farming, for shortly before he died he was engaged
in preparing for publication a treatise entitled “Principles
of Agriculture.” This has survived as a manuscript
of 1045 pages. Hutton stated in the preface that
his objectives in writing this treatise were to assist
the farming community to judge whether they were
farming on sound scientific and economic principles;
to promote the general good of the country; and for
his own “pleasure in what has been in a manner the
study of my life.”