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.
claimed that phlogiston was actually formed by vegetative
matter and decomposed during the processes
of breathing and burning.
Thomas Thomson, when discussing Hutton's views
on phlogiston, described him as “a man of undoubted
genius,” but stated also that his views were set out
in a “manner so peculiar, that it is scarcely more
difficult to procure the secrets of science from Nature
herself, than to dig them from the writings of this
philosopher.”9 Fortunately Hutton's conception of
the nature and function of phlogiston has been discussed
by J. A. Partington and D. McKie in sufficient
detail to meet the needs of most readers.
Part 3 of the Dissertations on ... Natural Philosophy,
entitled “Physical Dissertations on the Powers
of Matter, and Appearances of Bodies,” constitutes
more than half the book and contains Hutton's theory
of matter. Briefly summarized, this theory suggests
that to describe a body as made of small particles
does not explain its nature, because if we suppose
these particles to possess magnitude, we do no more
than say large bodies are made of smaller bodies.
Therefore the elements of a body must be something
unextended. To these elements he gave the name
“matter,” reserving the name “body” to combinations
of matter subject to powers or forces acting in various
directions. He uses this conception to explain the
various physical properties of bodies. Playfair emphasized
the close affinity of Hutton's theory to that
of Bošcović, but he states specifically there was no
reason to suppose Hutton had derived his conclusions
from the latter. According to Playfair, Bošcović's
theory was hardly known in Scotland before 1770,
whereas the earliest sketches of Hutton's theory were
of much earlier date.10
Hutton continued his discussion of phlogiston in
his last book, Philosophy of Light, Heat, and Fire
(1794). Here he also raised the question whether there
might be a species of light capable of producing heat
in bodies without affecting the sense of sight. This
idea, he stated, had been suggested to him by his own
experience, and he hoped to test it accurately when
suitable apparatus could be constructed. He proposed
the use of either a prism or colored glass to produce
both red and blue light, but the only experiment he
actually carried out was a crude one. He adjusted the
position of two sources of light, a coal fire for red
light, and a flame for “compound” or white light, so
that each source just permitted him to read, and he
found that the amount of heat given off by the fire
was much greater than that from the flame. He suggested,
by analogy, that invisible light should exist,
which would form a source of heat greater than that
produced by the visible range of the spectrum. A few
years later, William Herschel investigated the subject
more thoroughly, confirming Hutton's suggestion.
Hutton's last contribution to chemistry was a paper
on the “Sulphurating of Metals,” read to the Royal
Society of Edinburgh by a friend on 9 May 1796.
The subject is discussed in terms of Hutton's ideas
about light, heat, and phlogiston, and a correction
is made of a conclusion he had drawn in Light, Heat,
and Fire.
Philosophy.
In 1794 Hutton published a three-volume
treatise on metaphysics and moral philosophy
entitled An Investigation of the Principles of
Knowledge. This work followed on or arose out of
his studies of the physical sciences. It received little
notice when it first appeared, but Playfair discussed
it in some detail and suggested that if the work were
abridged and the obscurities removed it would deserve
more attention. It has received little if any
notice since Playfair's time. In the Principles of
Knowledge Hutton acknowledged the existence of a
God whom he defined as “the superintending mind
... a Being with perfect knowledge and absolute
wisdom.” He considered nature as subordinate to
God, and that the two terms were not synonymous,
for God is infinite and unchangeable, but nature
limited and changing. While he included the animal,
vegetable, and mineral systems as part of nature's
general design, the term “nature” properly meant the
whole of that action from which, in necessarily inferring
design, we learn the existence of a superintending
being.
Although occasionally accused of impiety in his
lifetime, Hutton was not an atheist, and may be
described as a deist. In almost all that he wrote, not
only on geology but on agriculture and physical subjects
as well, he introduced his belief that in nature
there is abundant evidence of benevolent wisdom and
design. To Hutton the earth as a whole was “a machine
constructed upon chemical as well as mechanical
principles, by which its different parts are all
adapted, in form, in quality, and in quantity, to a
certain end ... an end from which we may perceive
wisdom in contemplating the means employed”
(“Theory” [1788], p. 216). The earth, in Hutton's view,
was evidently made for man, and once the working
of the machine is understood, man will be led “to
acknowledge an order, not unworthy of Divine wisdom,
in a subject which, in another view, has appeared
as the work of chance, or absolute disorder
and confusion” (ibid., p. 210).
Hutton's attitude toward the Christian religion was
recorded in a brief (unpublished) manuscript entitled
“Memorial Justifying the Present Theory of the
Earth From the Suspicion of Impiety,” which was