Let us now glance at the history and progress of knowledge in these two
chief domains of Vulcanicity, preparatory to a sketch of its existing
stage as to both, and, by the way, attempt to extract a lesson as to the
methods by which such success as has attended our labours has been
achieved.
It will be most convenient to treat of Seismology first in order.
Aristotle--who devotes a larger space of his Fourth Book, Περἱ Κοσμου,
to Earthquakes--Seneca, Pliny, Strabo, in the so-called classic days,
and thence no end of writers down to about the end of the seventeenth
century--amongst whom Fromondi (1527) and Travagini (1679) are, perhaps,
the most important now--have filled volumes with records of facts, or
what they took to be such, of Earthquakes, as handed down to or observed
by themselves, and with plenty of hypotheses as to their nature and
origin, but sterile of much real knowledge.
Hooke's "Discourses of Earthquakes," read before the Royal Society about
1690, afford a curious example of how abuse of words once given by
authority clings as a hindrance to progress. He had formed no distinct
idea of what he meant by an Earthquake, and so confusedly mixes up all
elevations or depressions of a permanent character with "subversions,
conversions and transpositions of parts of the earth," however sudden or
transitory, under the name of Earthquakes.
A like confusion is far from uncommon amongst geological writers, even
at the present day, and examples might be quoted from very late writings
of even some of the great leaders of English Geology.
From the seventeenth to the middle of the eighteenth century one finds
floods of hypotheses from Flamsteed, Höttinger, Amontons, Stukeley,
Beccaria, Percival, Priestly, and a crowd of others, in which
electricity, then attracting so much attention, is often called upon to
supply causation for a something of which no clear idea had been formed.
Count Bylandt's singular work, published in 1835, though showing a
curious _partial_ insight in point of advancement, might be put back
into that preceding period.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account