| OCR Text |
Show MICHELL-cATCOTT. 50 P d 'th the world and prior to the crea ... fi h' h were .orme WI rst, w tc . 1 d hich contained no fragments of other t 1. 0n of amma s,d an w · 1 d f h 1 f mountains whtch resu te rom t e rocks . the secon c ass, o l 1 . . ' . f th primary rocks by a genera revo ut10n ; Partial dest.r udc ti1o n ° hiec h resulted from loca1 revo] ub·o ns, an d ' and the tlur c ass, w ·n art from the Noachian deluge. . 1 in the following year (1760) the Rev. J oh~ MIChell, .w ~- d war . p /! f MineraloO'y at Cambndge, pubhshed m 1an ro1essor o b d the Philosophical Transactions, an Essa.y on the Cause an Phe nomena of Eartl)quakes · His attention ha. d bee.n drawn to t hI.S SUb a' ec t by the great' earthq. uake .o f Li.s bon m 175. 5. He advanced many original and plnlosophical views respectmg the propagation of subterrane~n movements, and the caverns and fissures wherein steam tmght be generated. In order to point out the application of his theory to the struct~re of the lobe he was led to describe the arrangement and disturbance ogf the' strata, their usual hor1· zonta 11· ty m. Io w coun t ri.e s, an d their contortions and fractured state in the neighbourhood of mountain chains. He also explained, with surprising accuracy, the relations of the central ridges of older rocks to the " long narrow slips of similar earths, stones, and I?in~rals,, w~ich a~e parallel to these ridges. In ~is generahzabons? denved m great part from his own observations on the geologiCal structure of Yorkshire, he anticipated many of the views more fully d~veloped by later naturalists *. Michell's papers were entirely free from all physico-theol?gical disquisitions, but some of his contemporaries were s.tlll earnestly engaged in defending or impugning theW oodward1an hypothesis. We find many of these writings referred to by Catcott, an Hutchinsonian, who published a " Treatise on the Deluge" in 1761. He laboured particularly to refute an explanation offered by his contemporary, Bishop Clayton, of the Mosaic writings. That prelate had 'declared that the Deluge " could not be literally true, save in respect to that part where Noah lived before the flood." Catcott insisted on the univer- • Some of Michell's observations anticipate in so remarkable a manner the theories established forty years afterwards, that his writings would probably ha\'e formed an era in the science, if his researches had been uninterrupted. He held, however, his professorship only eight years, when he succeeded to a benefice, and from that time he appears to have entirely discontinued his scientific pursuits. ODOARDI-THEORY OF RASPE. 51 sality of the deluge, and referred to traditions of inundations mentioned by ancient writers, or by travellers in the EastIndi~ s, Chin~, South America, and other countries. This part of h.Is book Is valuable, although it is not easy to see what bearmg the traditions have, if admitted to be authentic on the Bishop's argument, since no evidence is· adduced t~ prove that the catastrophes were contemporaneous events, while some of them are expressly represented by ancient authors to have occurred in succession. The doctrines of Arduino, above adverted to, were afterwards confirmed by Fortis and Desmarest, in their travels in the same country, and they, as well as Baldassari, laboured to complete the history of the Subapennine strata. In the work of Odoardi *, there was also a clear argument in favour of the distinct ages af the older Apennine stmta, and the Subapennine formations of more recent origin. He pointed out that the strata of these two groups were unconformable, and must have been the deposits of different seas at distant periods of time. A his~ory of'-'-th: new ~slands by Raspe, an Hanoverian, appeared m 176o, m Latm. In this work, all the authentic accounts of earthquakes which had produced permanent changes on the solid parts of the earth were collected together and examined with judicious criticism. The best systems which had been p~·oposed concerning ~he ancient history of the globe, both by anctent and modern wnters, arc reviewed. The merits and defects of the systems ofHooke, Ray, Moro, Buffon, and others, are fai~ly estimated. Gr.eat admiration is expressed for the hypothesis of Hooke, and h1s explanation of the origin of the strata Is shewn to have been more correct than Moro's, while their theory of the effects of earthquakes was the same. Raspe had not seen Michell's memoir, and his views concerning the geological structure of the earth were perhaps less enlarged, yet he was able to add many additional arguments in favour of Hooke's theory, and to render it, as he said, a nearer approach to what Hooke would have written had he lived in later times. As_ to the periods wherein all the earthquakes happened, to whic~ we owe the elevation of various parts of our continents and Islands, Raspe says he pretends not to assign their duration, • Su.i. Corpi Marini del Feltrino, 1761. E2 |
