Geology Reference
In-Depth Information
with the observational discourse of Steno. I now believe that the similarities
are more significant than the obvious differences. 9
To grasp these similarities, we must focus on the part of the Prodromus that
textbook commentators find embarrassing and usually neglect or mention
with apology (Hobbs, 1916, 170, calls it a "weak conclusion intended to
prove the orthodoxy of his position")—the last section, part four, on the
geological history of Tuscany. Critics find this part disappointing because
Steno both asserts the conformity of his geological history with the events of
scripture and states his allegiance to the short Mosaic chronology (263).
(These positions, of course, represent an important similarity with Burnet, but
not the concordance that I wish to emphasize.)
We may best grasp Steno's scheme by turning again to a picture—his
epitome, in six stages, of the history of Tuscany. I present it in the only form
available to most commentators (Figure 2.9)—the reproduction in the
standard translation (Winter, 1916) and at least two major histories (Chorley
et al., 1964, 10; Greene, 1961, 60).
In this version, a vertical sequence of six stages, we can readily view Steno's
history as usually presented—an ordinary time's-arrow approach to the earth,
telling a story of sequential events leading in a definite direction. We see the
original state of the earth in figure 25, covered with water and receiving
sediments in a universal basin. (Strictly speaking, Steno records only the
history of Tuscany here—but he states that the whole earth follows the same
pattern: "As I prove this fact concerning Tuscany by inference from many
places examined by me, so do I affirm it with reference to the entire earth,
from the descriptions of different places contributed by different writers,"
263.) Underground waters and internal movements of the earth then create
vacuities within the pile of sediments,
9. I do not wish to belittle the central distinction that Burnet reports few personal
(and no field) observations, while Steno describes mineral specimens and discusses
the lay of the Tuscan landscape—though in terms so broad and general that I find
no evidence for extensive fieldwork in any modern sense. This difference became
crucial in the light of later developments, but the neglected similarity of theoretical
structure has much insight to offer as well.
Search WWH ::




Custom Search