Chapter II: Front Matter (2)

Such, briefly and imperfectly sketched, is the existing state of Seismology. As a branch of exact science it is, as it were, an affair of yesterday. It is with reluctance that I have been compelled, in this review, to refer to my own work so prominently. The harvest has been and still is plenteous, but in this field of intellectual work the labourers are few. This must continue to be so as long as Geology shall continue to be viewed in public estimation (in England at least) as a fashionable toy, that everyone who has been to school is supposed capable of handling; and until all who profess to be geologists shall have learnt that, to make sound progress, they must first become mathematicians, physicists and chemists.

It is to the general imperfect knowledge of these sciences amongst geologists that speculative errors show such vitality, and that Geology makes such poor progress towards becoming the interpretation of the world as a machine (_Erdkunde_).

It is for the same reason that Seismology and Vulcanology make little progress; the first cannot be pursued beyond its present boundaries, nor can even its present position be understood or explained by anyone unfamiliar with the laws of wave motion, of all classes of waves; and it would be easy to show, by quoting from various British or foreign text-books on Geology, how extremely imperfect is the grasp of some of the authors upon the subject of earthquake-wave motion, even such as they admit and endeavour to explain and apply: in fact, many geologists appear never to have framed to themselves any clear idea of what _is_ a wave of any sort, liquid or elastic. The general silence as to seismic theory of French geological writers is remarkable, to whatever cause attributable. It has been said that French philosophers show themselves little disposed to acknowledge or to follow the lead of their foreign compeers in any branch of science. If this be true, or in so far as it may be so, it is unworthy of French science, which has such boundless claims upon our homage. I am disposed to attribute the fact in this case to other circumstances; and, amongst these, to the small extent to which our language is known amongst French scientific men.

Germany has shown more desire to cultivate this branch of science. Although, as yet, the distinct enunciation of its fundamental principles has but sparsely found its way into her text-books, several able monographs, such as those of Schmidt and of Höttinger, prove how completely some of her philosophers have mastered and how well applied them. The men of science of Northern Italy, amongst whom so many glorious names are to be found on the roll of discovery, have shown themselves quite alive to the importance of Seismology; and I know of no more clear, exact and popular exposition of its principles and application, and of its cosmical relations, than is to be found in a small volume by Professor Gerolamo Boccardo, published at Genoa in 1869, entitled _Sismopirologia Terremoti, Vulcani e lente oscillazione del suolo, saggio di una teoria di Geographia Fisica_.

My object, so far, has been to mark the progress of ascertained theoretic notions as to Seismology. I have, therefore, passed without notice many speculative monographs, and the treatment upon Earthquakes, whether speculative or historical, and however able, that constitutes a prominent feature of nearly all systematic works on Geology.

That which may be at present viewed as achieved and certainly ascertained in theoretic Seismology is the clear conception of the nature of earthquake motion; the relations to it of great sea or other water wave commotions; the relations to it of sound waves--as to which, however, more remains to be known; and the relations of all these to secondary effects, tending in various ways to modify more or less the topographic and other conditions of the land or sea bottom. And in descriptive Seismology the present distribution of the earthquake bands or regions of greatest seismic prevalence and activity are tolerably ascertained, and their connection with volcanic lines and those of elevation rendered more evident. Viewed alone, nothing can yet be said to be absolutely ascertained as to the immediately antecedent cause or causes of the impulse. The function of Earthquake, as part of the cosmical machine, has become more clear, as the distinctive boundaries between Earthquake and permanent elevation of the earth have been made evident; and it has been seen that Earthquake, however contemporaneous occasionally with permanent elevation, is not the cause, though it may be one of the consequences of the same forces which produce elevation; and thus, that an infinite number of Earthquakes, however violent, and acting through however prolonged a time, can never act as an agent of permanent elevation, unless, indeed, on that minute scale in which surface elevation may arise from secondary effects, like that of the Ullah Bund.

Much remains to be done, and much may be expected even from the continuation, if done in a systematic and organised manner, of the statistic record of Earthquakes in connection with those other branches of cosmical statistics, Climatology, Meteorology, Terrestrial Magnetism, etc., the observation of which is already, to a certain extent, organised over a large portion of the globe.

And now let us look back for a moment to ask, How, by what mental path of discovery, have we arrived at what we have passed in review?

The facts of Earthquakes have been before men for unknown ages "open secrets," as Nature's facts have been well called; "but eyes had they and saw not." Facts viewed through the haze of superstition, or of foregone notions of what Nature _ought_ to do, cease to be facts. When, after the great Calabrian Earthquake of 1783, the Royal Academy of Naples sent forth its commission of its learned members to examine into the effects, they had spread around them in sad profusion all that was necessary to have enabled them to arrive at a true notion of the nature of the shock, and thence a sound explanation of the varied and great secondary effects they witnessed, and of which they have left us the records in their Report, and the engravings illustrative of it. But we look in vain for any light; the things seen, often with distortion or exaggeration, are heaped together as in the phantasmagoria of a wild and terrible dream, from which neither order nor conclusion follow.

Why was this? Why were these eminent _savants_ no more successful in explaining what they saw than the ignorant peasants they found in the Calabrian mountains?

Because physical science itself was not sufficiently advanced, no doubt; but also because they had no notion of applying such science as they had, to the very central point itself of the main problem before them, freed from all possible adventitious conditions, and so, as it were, attacking it in the rear. How different might have been the result of their labours, had they begun by asking themselves, What is an earthquake? Can we not try to find out what it _is_ by observing and _measuring_ what it has done? We see the converse mode of dealing with Nature in Torricelli. "Nature abhors a vacuum," was told him, as the wisdom of his day. Possibly: but her abhorrence is limited, for I find it is _measured_ by the pressure of a column of water of thirty-four feet in height. We need not pursue the story with Pascal, up to the top of the Puy de Dôme.

This lesson is instructive generally to all investigators, and particularly here; for Vulcanology, to which we are about now to turn, has occupied until almost to-day much the same position that Seismology did in those of the Neapolitan Commissioners.

Whole libraries have been written with respect to it dealing with _quality_, but _measure_ and _quantity_ remain to be applied to it.

To a very preponderant class in the civilised world no knowledge is of much interest or value that does not point to what is called a "practical result," one measurable into utility or coin. I do not stop to remark as to the bad or as to certain good results of this tendency of mind; but I may venture to point out to all, that the exact knowledge of the nature of earthquake motion, even during the short time that it has become known, has not been barren in results absolutely practical and utilitarian. The minute investigation of the destruction of buildings, etc., and the deductions that have been made as to the relations between the form, height, materials, methods of building, combination of timber and of masonry, and many other architectural or constructive conditions, have made it certain now that earthquake-proof houses and other edifices can be constructed with facility, and at no great increase, if any at all, of cost. I can affirm that there is no physical necessity why in frequently and violently shaken countries, such as Southern Italy or the Oriental end generally of the Mediterranean, victims should hereafter continue by thousands to be sacrificed by the fall of their ill-designed and badly built houses.

Were a "Building Act" properly framed, put in force by the Italian Government in the Basilicatas and Capitanata, etc., so that new houses or existing ones, when rebuilt, should be so in accordance with certain simple rules, a not very distant time can be foreseen when Earthquakes, passing through these rich and fertile but now frequently sorely afflicted regions, should come and go, having left but little trace of ruin or death behind. Some disasters there must always be, for we cannot make the flanks of mountains, nor the beds of torrents, etc., always secure; but the main mortality of all Earthquakes is in the houses or other inhabited buildings. Make these proof, and the wholesale slaughter is at an end.

The principles we have established have been thus practically applied in another direction. The Japanese Government, with the keen and rapid perception of the powers inherent in European science which characterises now that wonderful people, has commenced to illuminate its coasts by lighthouses constructed after the best European models. But Japan is greatly convulsed by earthquakes, and lighthouses, as being lofty buildings, are peculiarly liable to be destroyed by them.

The engineer of the Japanese Government for these lights, Mr. Thomas Stevenson, C.E. (one of the engineers to the Commissioners of Northern Lights), was instructed to have regard, in the design of those lighthouses, to their exposure to shock. I was consulted by Mr. Stevenson as to the general principles to be observed; and those edifices have been constructed so that they are presumedly proof against the most violent shocks likely to visit Japan; not, perhaps, upon the best possible plan, but upon such as is truly based upon the principles I have developed. Mr. Stevenson has published some account of their construction.

The earthquake regions of South America might with incalculable benefit apply those ideas; and, indeed, they have been, to some extent, already applied by my friend, Mr. William Lloyd, Member of the Institution of Civil Engineers, to the New Custom Houses constructed from his designs at Valparaiso.

As one of these utilitarian views, and an important one, it will occur to many to ask--Can the moment of the occurrence or the degree of intensity of earthquake shock be predicted, or is it probable that at a future day we may be able to predict them? At present, any prediction, either of the one or the other, is impossible; and those few who have professed themselves in possession of sufficient grounds for such prediction are deceivers or deceived. Nor is it likely that, for very many years to come, if ever, science shall have advanced so as to render any such prediction possible; but it is neither impossible nor improbable that the time shall arrive when, within certain, perhaps wide, limits as to space, previous time, and instant of occurrence, such forewarnings may be obtainable.

Earthquakes, like storms and tempests, and nearly all changes of weather, are not periodic phenomena, nor yet absolutely uncertain or, so to say, accidental as to recurrence.

They are quasi-periodic, that is to say, some of their conditions as to causation rest upon a really periodic basis, as, for example, the recurrence of storms upon the periodic march of the earth, and sun and moon, etc., and the recurrence of Earthquakes upon the secular cooling of our earth; but the conditions in both are so numerous and complicated with particulars, that we cannot fully analyse them--hence, cannot reduce the phenomena to law, and so cannot predict recurrence. Yet storms and tempests--which were, along with pestilences and Earthquakes, amongst the natural phenomena which Bishop Butler deemed in his own day impossible of human prediction--have already, through the persistent and systematised efforts of meteorological observers, become to a certain extent foreseeable; and medical science assures us that it has rendered that, though to a much less degree of probability, true of pestilences.

We may, therefore, give the utilitarian some hope, that if he will help us along--who value our accessions of knowledge primarily upon a different standard to his--in our talk of discovery, our posterity, in a century or two hence, may not improbably possess the advantage of being able, in some degree, to predict their Earthquakes. I fear the inducement will go but a small way with the utilitarian generation, whose bent tends much towards asking, "What has posterity ever done for them?"

But though we cannot as yet predict the time when an Earthquake may take place in any locality, we can, on mixed statistic and dynamic grounds, in many cases state the limits of probable violence of the next that may recur. For example, the three shafts of marble columns of the Temple of Serapis, at Pozzuoli, each of about 41-1/2 feet in height, and 4 feet 10 inches in diameter at the base, remain standing alone, since they were uncovered, in the year 1750.

Now, as we can calculate exactly what velocity of earthquake-wave motion would be required to overset these, we are certain that, during the last one hundred and twenty-two years, the site of the Temple, and we may say Naples and the Phlegræan fields generally, have never experienced a shock as great as the very moderate one that would overset these columns. A shock whose wave particle had a horizontal velocity of only about 3-1/2 feet (British) per second would overturn these columns; which is only about one-fourth the velocity (within the meizoseismic area) of the great shock of 1857, that produced wide-spread destruction in the Basilicatas, and not enough to throw down any reasonably well-built house of moderate height.

Naples, so far as Earthquake is concerned, whether coming from the throes of Vesuvius or elsewhere, has a pretty good chance of safety. She may possibly (though not probably) be some day smothered in ashes; but is in little danger of being shaken to the earth. During this time there have been taking place, larger eruptions of Vesuvius and earthquake shocks from other centres, together probably about the same number of times as the numbers of those years, when those columns have been more or less shaken.

We may therefore affirm that the probability (on the basis of this experience _only_) is, say 120 to 1, that the next shock, whether derived from Vesuvius, or elsewhere, that may shake Pozzuoli, will be one less in power than would be needed to overturn the shafts of the Temple of Serapis there.

* * * * *

Let us now turn to the second branch of our subject--viz., Vulcanology--upon which, as yet, we have secured less firm standing ground than we have seen we possess in Seismology, for which reason we took that first into consideration.

It is the part of Vulcanology to co-ordinate and explain all the phenomena of past or present times visible on our globe which are evidences of the existence and action, whether local or general, of temperatures within our globe greatly in excess of those of the surface, and which reach the fusing points of various mineral compounds as found arriving, heated or fused, at the surface.

The stratigraphic geologist sees that such heated or fused masses have come up from beneath, throughout every epoch that he can trace; but he cannot fail to discern more or less a change in the order or character of those outcomings, as he traces them from the lowest and oldest formations to those of the present day. He sees immense outpourings of granitoid or porphyrytic rocks that have welled up and overflowed the oldest strata--huge dykes filling miles of fissures that had been previously opened for the reception of the molten matter that has filled them, and often passing through those masses of previously outpoured rock; later he sees huge tables of basaltic rock poured forth over all. One grand characteristic common to all these--commonly called plutonic products--being that, whether they were poured forth over the surface or injected into cavities in other rocks, the movements of the fused material were, on the whole, hydrostatic and _not explosive_.

At the present day, whatever other evidences we have of high temperature below our globe's surface, that which primarily fixes the eye of the geologist is the Volcano, whose characteristic, as we see it in activity, _is explosive_. But though there is this great characteristic difference between the plutonic and the volcanic actions and their products, the two, when looked at largely, are seen so to inosculate, that it is impossible not to refer them to an agency common to both, however changed the modes of its action have been between the earliest epochs of which traces are presented to us and the present day.

To us little men, who, as Herschell has well said, in referring to the methods of measuring the size of our globe, "can never see it all at once, but must creep like mites about its surface," the Volcano, in the stupendous grandeur of its effects, tends to fix itself in our minds in exaggerated proportions to its true place in the cosmic machine; and, in fact, nearly all who have sought to expound its nature and mode of origination have occupied themselves far too exclusively with describing and theorising upon the strange and varied phenomena which the volcanic cone itself and its eruptions present, and too often, in the splendour and variety of these, have very much lost sight of what ought to be the centre-point of all such studies, namely, to arrive at some sound knowledge of what is the _primum mobile_ of all these wonderful efforts. Nor has the distinction been very clearly seen between the main phenomena presented at and about volcanic active mouths, which can be employed to elucidate the nature of the causation at work far below, and those most varied and curious, and in other respects most pregnant and instructive phenomena, mechanical and chemical, which are called into action in and by the ejected matter of the volcanic cone after its ejection. It can help us but little or very indirectly, in getting at a true conception of the nature and source of the heat itself of the Volcano, to examine, for example, all the curious circumstances that are seen in the movements and changes in the lava that has already flowed from its mouth; but it would be of great importance if we can ascertain, by any form of observation around the cone, from what depth it has come, or at what depth the igneous origin lies.

The physician, endeavouring to ascertain the real nature of small-pox or measles, will scarcely make much progress who, however curiously or minutely, confines his attention to the pustules that he sees upon the skin.

Yet the Volcano, or rather all volcanic activity as now operative upon our globe, is, as it were, an experiment of Nature's own perpetually going on before us, the results of which, if well chosen--that is, as Bacon says, by keeping to the main and neglecting the accidents--can, when colligated and correctly reasoned upon, in relation to our planet as a whole, give us the key to the enigma of terrestrial Vulcanicity in its most general sense, and at every epoch of our world's geognostic history, and show us its true place and use in the cosmical machine. Let us glance at the history of past speculation on this subject, from which so little real knowledge is to be derived, and then at the salient facts of Vulcanology as now seen upon our earth, and finally see if we can connect these with other great cosmical conditions, so as to arrive at a consistent explanation in harmony with all.

We gain nothing absolutely from the knowledge of the so-called "ancients" as to Volcanoes in Europe at least, where alone historic records likely to refer to them exist. The Volcanoes of Europe are few and widely scattered. The Greeks saw but little of them, and the Romans were all and at all times most singularly unobservant of natural phenomena.

Cæsar never mentions the existence in France of the Volcanoes of Auvergne, so much like those he must have seen in Italy and Sicily; and Roman writers pass in silence that great volcanic region, though inhabited by them, and their language impressed upon the places, as Volvic (_volcano-vicus_) seems with others to indicate; and though there is some reason to believe that one or other of the Puys was in activity within the first five hundred years of our epoch, the notices which Humboldt and others have collected as from Plato, Pausanius, Pliny, Ovid, etc., teach nothing.

Whatever of mere speculation there may have been, volcanic theory, or what has passed for such, there was none before 1700, when Léméry brought forward a trivial experiment, the acceptance of which, even for a moment, as a sufficient cause for volcanic heat (and it retarded other or truer views for years), we can now only wonder at. Breislak's origin, in the burning of subterranean petroleum or like combustibles, was scarcely less absurd than Léméry's sulphur and iron filings.

Davy, in the plenitude of his fame, and full of the intense chemical activities of the metals of the alkalies which he had just isolated, threw a new but transient verisimilitude upon the so-called chemical theory of Volcanoes, by ascribing the source of heat to the oxidation of those metals assumed to exist in vast, unproved and unindicated masses in the interior of the earth. But Davy had too clear an intellect not to see the baseless nature of his own hypothesis, which in his last work, the "Consolations in Travel," he formally recanted; and it only survived him in the long-continued though unconvincing advocacy of Dr. Daubeny. So far, the origin of the heat had been sought always, in the crude notion of some sort of _fuel consumed_, whether that were petroleum or potassium and sodium; but as no fuel was to be found, nor any indicated by the products, so far as known, of the volcanic heat, so what has been called the mechanical theory, in a variety of shapes, took its place.

This, in whatever form, takes its lava and other heated products of the volcano ready made from a universal ocean of liquid material, which it supposes constitutes the interior or nucleus of our globe, and which is only skinned over by a thin, solid crust of cooled and consolidated rock, which was variably estimated at from fourteen to perhaps fifty miles in thickness. Here was a boundless supply of more than heat, of hot lava ready made, the existence of which at these moderate depths the then state of knowledge of hypogeal temperature, which was supposed to go on increasing with depth at the rate of about 1° Fahrenheit, for every thirty or forty feet, seemed quite to sustain.

The difficulty remained, how was this fiery ocean brought to the surface or far above it? To account for this two main notions prevailed, and, indeed, have not ceased to prevail. Some unknown elastic gases or vapour forced it up through fissures or rents pre-existent, or produced by the tension of the elastic and liquid pressure below.

The form in which this view took most consistency, and approaching most nearly to truth, finds the elastic vapour in steam generated from water passed down through fissures from the sea or from the land surface. But to this the difficulty was started, that fissures that could let down water would pass up steam. The objection, when all the conditions are adequately considered, has really no weight; and it has been completely disposed of, since within a few years it has been proved that capillary infiltration goes on in all porous rocks to enormous depths, and that the capillary passages in such media, though giving free vent to water--and the more as the water is warmer--are, when once filled with liquid, proof against the return through them of gases or vapours. So that the deeply seated walls of the ducts leading to the crater, if of such material, may be red hot and yet continue to pass water from every pore (like the walls of a well in chalk), which is flushed off into steam that cannot return by the way the water came down, and must reach the surface again, if at all, by the duct and crater, overcoming in its way whatever obstructions they may be filled with.

And this remarkable property of capillarity sufficiently shows how the lava--fused below or even at or above the level of infiltration--may become interpenetrated throughout its mass by steam bubbles, as it usually but not invariably is found to be.

Nor is it difficult to see such a mechanism between volcanic ducts and fissures conveying down water, as large and open pipes, for a large part of their depth, as shall bring down water to foci of volcanic heat, without the power of the water flowing back except as steam and through the crater.

Indeed, the facts known as to geysers, and those of half-drowned-out Volcanoes such as Stromboli--whose action is intermittent just as much as that of a geyser--show that this is not merely probable. There is, therefore, no need for the hypothesis of those who have supposed all the huge volumes of steam blown off from Volcanoes in eruption to come from vesicular water pre-existent in the minute cavities of crystalline or other rocks before their fusion into lava: a fact not proved for many classes of rock, and for none in sufficient quantity to account for the vast volume of steam required and for the irregularity of its issue.

It is rather to anticipate, but I may state at once that, so far as the admission of superficial waters to the interior, and to any depth to which fissures or dislocation can extend, I believe no valid physical or mechanical difficulties exist, taking into account _all_ the conditions that may come into play together.

Another set of views has been suggested and supported by various writers, which proposes to account for the rise of lava on purely hydrostatic principles. The solid crust, fractured into isolated fragments by tensions due to its own contraction, is supposed to sink into the sea of lava on which it floats; and much ingenuity has been expended in imagining the mechanism by which, in places, the liquid matter is supposed to rise _above_ the surface of the crust.

I have no space for discussing these views further than to assert that, in the existing state of our globe, and even admitting a solid crust of only 60,000 metres thick, dislocation of the crust by _tension_ is not possible. The solid crust of our globe, as I hope we shall see further on, is not in a state of tension, and has not been so since it was extremely thin, a mere pellicle as compared with the liquid nucleus, but is, on the contrary, in a state of _tangential compression_.

However tenable, in other respects, may be the volcanic theory which rests upon the assumption of a very _thin_ crust and a universal ocean of fused rock beneath, it fails wholly to explain many of the most important circumstances observable as to the distribution and movements of existing Volcanoes on our globe.

It affords no adequate explanation of the configuration of the lines of Volcanoes, nor of their occurrence in the ocean bed, nor of their existence in high latitudes, near the Poles, where, no matter how or at what rate our globe cooled from liquidity, the crust must be thickest; nor of the independence of eruptive action of closely adjacent volcanic vents; nor of the non-periodicity, the sudden awakening-up to activity, the as sudden exhaustion, the long repose, the gradual decay of action at particular vents, and of much more that might be stated and sustained as difficulties left by that theory unexplained, or that are of a nature even opposed to it.

The researches of the last few years have, however, as it appears to me, rendered any theory that demands as its postulates a _very thin crust_, and a universal liquid nucleus beneath it, absolutely untenable.

Without attaching any importance to the arguments of Mr. Hopkins, based upon precession and nutation, it appears to me, on various other grounds, some of which have been urged by Sir William Thompson, that the earth's solid crust is not a thin one, at least not thin enough to render it conceivable that water can ever gain admission to a fluid nucleus, if any such still exist, situated at so great a depth; and without such access we can have no Volcano. It is not necessary to go to the extent of a crust of 800 or 1,000 miles thick: with one of half the minor thickness, I believe it may be proved, on various grounds, hydraulic amongst others, that neither water could reach the nucleus, nor the liquid matter of the nucleus reach the surface. Mr. Hopkins having proved to his own satisfaction an enormous thickness for the crust, and seeing clearly the difficulties that this involved to the generally accepted volcanic theory, and having no other to substitute for it, fell back upon that most vague and weak notion of the existence of isolated lakes of liquid rock, existing at comparatively small depths beneath the earth's surface within the solid and relatively cold crust, each supplying its own Volcano, or more than one, with ready-made lava. What is to produce these lakes of fused matter in the midst of similar solidified matter? what is perpetually to maintain their fluidity in the midst of solid matter continually cooling? what has given them their local position? why near or less near the surface? what should have arranged them in directions stretching in some cases nearly from Pole to Pole?

Surely this creation of imaginary lakes, merely because it happens to fit the vacant chink that seems needed to wedge up a falling theory, is an instance of that abuse of hypothesis against which Newton so vehemently declaims--"_Hypotheses non fingo._"

Hypothesis, to be a philosophic scaffolding to knowledge, must, as Whewell has said, "be close to the facts, and not merely connected with them by arbitrary and untried facts." Yet this appears accepted by Lyell (10th edition, Vol. II., p. 227, and elsewhere); by Phillips ("Vesuvius," pp. 331, 332); by Scrope, if, as I hope, I mistake him not ("Volcanoes," pp. 265, 307-8); though none of these excellent authorities seem either quite clear or quite satisfied with the notion; and in the very passage referred to, Lyell _may_ have possibly a much more philosophic notion in view, where he says: "It is only necessary, in order to explain the action of Volcanoes, to _discover some cause which is capable of bringing about such a concentration of heat as may melt one after the other certain portions of the solid crust_, so as to form seas, lakes or oceans of subterraneous lava." (Vol. II, pp. 226, 227). If by this is meant, that all that is needed to complete a true theory of volcanic action is to discover _an adequate cosmical cause for the heat_--that is to say, a prime mover to which all its phenomena may be traced back, which shall be at once reconcilable with the conditions of our planet as a cooling mass in space and with facts of Vulcanology as they are now seen upon it--then I entirely agree with it.

It has been my own object to endeavour to discover and develope that adequate cause in a Paper "On Volcanic Energy, an Attempt to develope its True Nature and Cosmical Relations," read (in abstract) before the Royal Society of London ("Proceedings, Royal Society," Vol. XX., May, 1872), and now (October, 1872) under consideration of Council with a view to publication.

I propose concluding this review of the progress of Vulcanology (in which I have had to limit myself to reviewing merely the chief stages of advance towards knowledge of the nature and origin of volcanic heat itself, and have had to pass without notice the vast and important mass of facts and reasonings collected by so many labourers as to its visible phenomena and products, and the still greater mass of speculation, good and bad, on every branch of the subject), by giving a necessarily very brief and imperfect sketch of my own views as in that Paper in part developed. It will first be necessary to retrace our steps a little, in order to gain such a point as shall afford us a fuller view of the whole problem before us.

It is not necessary to dilate, even did space allow, upon the many points which bind together Earthquakes and Volcanoes as belonging to the play of like forces. These are generally admitted; and in various ways, more or less obscure, geologists generally have supposed some relations between these and the forces of elevation, which have raised up mountain chains, etc.

No one, however, that I am aware of, prior to myself, in the Paper just alluded to, has attempted to show, still less to prove upon an experimental basis, that all the phenomena of elevation, of volcanic action, and of Earthquakes, are explicable as parts of one simple machinery--namely, the play of forces resulting from the secular cooling of our globe. We have seen that, on the whole, both Earthquakes and Volcanoes follow along the great lines of elevation of our surface. Any true solution of the play of forces which has produced any one of those three classes of phenomena must connect itself with them all, and be adequate to account for all. And this would have earlier been seen, had geologists generally framed for themselves any correct notions of the mechanism of elevation itself, and seen its real relation with the secular cooling of our planet. But the play of forces resulting from this secular cooling has never, until very recently, been adequately or truly stated. The arbitrary assumption and neglect of several essential conditions by La Place, in his celebrated Paper "On the Cooling of the Earth," in the fifth volume of the "Mécanique Céleste," and the arbitrary and unsustainable hypothesis of Poisson upon the same subject, have tended to retard the progress of physical Geology as to the nature of elevation: the first, by leaving the geologist in doubt as to whether our globe were cooling at all; the second, by suggesting distorted notions as to the mode of its cooling and consolidation. On the other hand, neither geologists nor mathematicians generally have framed for themselves any clear notions of the mechanism of elevation. Had a true conception been formed of the forces and interior movements brought necessarily into operation by the secular cooling of the globe, geologists could scarcely have failed to see that their notion as to the way and direction in which the forces producing elevation have actually acted could not, if arising from refrigeration, be those which they have almost universally supposed, namely--some force acting vertically upwards, _i.e._, radially from the centre of the sphere. Had geologists only looked at Nature with open eye, they must have seen that mountain ranges, and elevations generally (exclusive of volcanic cones), presented circumstances absolutely incompatible with their having been thrust up by any force _primarily_ acting in the direction of a radius to the spheroid.

Yet this is the erroneous notion of the mechanism of elevation which to the present hour prevails amongst geologists, so far as they in general have framed to themselves any distinct idea of such mechanism at all.

Thus, only to cite two examples from recent authors of justly high reputation. Lyell says of the probable subterranean sources, whether of upward or downward movement, when permanently uplifting a country, and in reference to the crumpling of strata on mountain flanks by lateral pressure, it would be rash to assume these able to resist a power of such stupendous energy, "_if its direction, instead of being vertical_, happened to be oblique or horizontal." This is somewhat vague--and I trust I do not mistake or misrepresent the illustrious author--yet it is the most explicit expression I can find in the "Principles of Geology" as to his notion of the primary direction of elevatory force (Edit. 10, Vol. I., p. 133). That Mr. Scrope's idea is that only of primary radial or vertical direction of such forces, is apparent on inspecting his Diagram No. 64 ("Volcanoes," p. 285), and in the use of the words, "an axial wedge of granite," which, on the next page, we find is "liquefied granite;" and if we read on to page 294, and refer also to pages 50 and 51, I believe there can be no doubt that _vertical_ or _direct up-thrust_ is the author's notion of the primary direction of all forces of elevation. The true nature of these forces was, however, clearly seen and most justly stated by Constant Prevost ("Compt. Rend.," Tome XXXI., 1850, and "Bulletin de la Société Géolog. de France," Tome II., 1840) as consisting, not in forces of some unknown origin acting primarily in the vertical, but in _tangential pressures acting horizontally, and resolved by mutual pressures at certain points into vertical resultants_. These Prevost rightly attributed to the contraction of the earth's solid crust. The same idea has been adopted by Elie de Beaumont as the true mechanism of the elevation of mountain ranges; and although De Beaumont's views as to the thinness he assigns to the solid and contracting crust, and his strange deduction as to the parallelism of contemporaneous mountain chains uplifted by its spasmodic action along certain lines, may be untenable, his notion generally as to the play of forces producing mountain elevation is much more nearly correct.

Mr. Hopkins's notion is simply that of the geologists. Anyone who reads his well-known papers on elevation and the formation of fissures, etc., must see that he views all elevatory forces as of liquids or quasi-liquids forced up and acting primarily _vertically_ upon the strata above them, and that these strata are not under tangential compression, but under tension. Hence the mathematical deductions contained in those papers as to the directions in which elevatory forces act, and in which fissures are formed by them, are not in any way a setting forth of such facts as occur in Nature, and, much attention as they have attracted, can only now be viewed as exercises of mathematical skill misapplied, because based upon data not to be found in Nature. In fact, those papers do but misrepresent Nature, and, like many other mathematical investigations based on untrue or insufficient data, have tended to retard knowledge.

The views which I have put forward in the Paper I have referred to, read to the Royal Society, recapitulated in skeleton, so to say, are as follows. Omitting those portions which treat of our globe from the period of the first liquefaction out of a nebulous condition, and of the earliest stages of the cooling by radiation into space, when the crust was extremely thin, and of the deformation of the spheroid as one of the first effects of its contraction, and through that the general shaping out of continents and ocean beds; I have endeavoured to show that the rate of contraction of the crust, while very thin, exceeded that of the large fluid nucleus supporting it, and so gave rise to _tangential tensions_ in the crust, and fracturing it into segments; next, that as the crust thickened, these _tensions_ were gradually converted into _tangential pressures_, the contraction of the nucleus now beginning to exceed (for equal losses of heat) that of the crust through which it cooled. At this stage these tangential pressures gave rise to the _chief_ elevations of mountain chains--not by liquid matter by any process being injected from beneath vertically, but by such pressures, mutually reacting along certain lines, being resolved into the vertical, and forcing upwards more or less of the crust itself. The great outlines of the mountain ranges and the greater elevation of the land were designated and formed during the long periods that elapsed in which the continually increasing thickness of crust remained such that it was still, as a whole, flexible enough, or opposed sufficiently little resistance to crushing, to admit of this uprise of mountain chains by resolved tangential pressures. I have shown that the simple mechanism of such tangential pressures is competent to account for all the complex phenomena both of the elevations and of the _depressions_ that we now see on the earth's surface (other than continents and ocean beds), including the production of gaping fissures (in directions generally orthogonal to those of tangential pressure). And as our earth is still a cooling body, and the crust, however now thicker and more rigid, is still incapable of sustaining the tangential pressures to which it is now exposed, so I by no means infer that slow and small (relatively) movements of elevation and depression may not be still and now going on upon the earth's surface; in fact all the phenomena of elevation and depression, rending, etc., which at a much remoter epoch acted upon a much grander and more effective scale. So that, for aught my views say to the contrary, all the mountain chains in the world may be possibly increasing in stature year by year, or at times; but in any case at a rate almost infinitesimally small in its totality over the whole earth to that with which their ridges were originally upreared.

But the thickness of the earth's crust--thus constantly added to, by accretion of solidifying matter from the still liquid or pasty nucleus, as the whole mass has cooled--has now assumed such a thickness as to be able to offer a too considerable resistance to the tangential pressures, to admit of its giving way to any large extent by resolution upwards; yet the cooling of the whole mass is going on, and contraction, though unequal, both of thick crust and of hotter nucleus beneath also, whether the latter be _now_ liquid or not. Were the contraction, lineal or cubical, for equal decrements or losses of heat, or in equal times--equal both in the material of the solidified crust and in that of the hotter nucleus--there could be no such tangential pressures as are here referred to, at any epoch of the earth's cooling. But in accordance with the facts of experimental physics, we know that the co-efficient of contraction for all bodies is greater as their actual temperature is higher, and this both in their solid and liquid states.

Hence for equal decrements of heat, or by the cooling in equal times, the hotter nucleus contracts more than does its envelope of solid matter.

The result is now, as at all periods since the signs changed of the tangential forces thus brought into play--_i.e._, since they became tangential _pressures_--that the nucleus tends to shrink away as it were from beneath the crust, and to leave the latter, unsupported or but partially supported, as a spheroidal dome above it.

Now what happens? If the hollow spheroidal shell were strong enough to sustain, as a spheric dome, the tangential thrust of its own weight and the attraction of the nucleus, the shell would be left behind altogether by the nucleus, and the latter might be conceived as an independent globe revolving, centrally or excentrically, within a shell outside of it. This, however, is not what happens.

The question then arises, Can the solid shell support the tangential thrust to which it would be thus exposed? By the application to this problem of an elegant theorem of Lagrange, I have proved that it cannot possibly do so, no matter what may be its thickness nor what its material, even were we to assume the latter not merely of the hardest and most resistant rocks we know anything of, but even were it of tempered cast-steel, the most resistant substance (unless possibly iridio-osmium exceed it) that we know anything about. Lagrange has shown that if P be the normal pressure upon any flexible plate curved in both directions, the radii of these principal curvatures being r' and r'', and T the tangential thrust at the point of application and due to the force P, then:

P = T (1/r' + 1/r'')

When the surface is spherical, or may be viewed as such, r' = r'' and

P = 2T/r or, T = P × r/2

In the present case P is for a unit square (taken relatively small and so assumed as plane) of the shell, suppose a square mile, equal to the effect of gravity upon that unit, r being the earth's radius, and if we assume the unit square be also a unit in thickness, P is then the weight of a cubic mile of its material; and if we take (roughly) the earth's radius as 4,000 miles, the tangential pressure, T, is, on _each face_ of the cubic mile, equal to

(4000/2) P,

or equal to the pressure of a column of the same material of 2,000 times its weight.

If the cubic mile that we have thus supposed cut out of the earth's crust at the surface were of the hardest known granite or porphyry, it would be exposed to a crushing tangential pressure equal to between 400 and 500 times what it could withstand, and so must crush, even though only left unsupported by the nucleus beneath, to the extent of 1/400 or 1/500 of its entire weight. And what is true here of a mile taken at the surface, is true (neglecting some minute corrections for difference in the co-efficient of gravity, etc.) if taken at any other depth within the thick crust.[F]

The crust of our earth, then, as it now is, must crush, to follow down after the shrinking nucleus--if so be that the globe be still cooling, and constituted as it is; even to the limited extent to which we know anything of its nature--it must crush unequally, both regarded superficially and as to depth; generally the crushing lines being confined to the planes or places of greatest weakness; and the crushing will not be absolutely constant and uniform anywhere, or at any time, or at any of those places of weakness to which it will be principally confined, but will be more or less irregular, quasi-periodic, or paroxysmal: as is, indeed, the way in which all known material substances (more or less rigid) give way to a slow and constantly increasing, steady pressure.

We have now to ask, _How much_ of this crushing is going on at present year by year? And the answer to this depends upon what amount of heat our world is losing into space year by year.

Geologists who have taken on trust the statement, that La Place has proved that the world has lost no sensible amount of heat for the last 10,000 years seem generally to suppose that to be a fact; but in reality La Place has _proved_ nothing of the sort, as those geological teachers who have echoed the conclusion should have known, had they deciphered the mathematical argument upon which it has been supposed to rest.

By application of Fourier's theorem (or definition) to the observed rate of increment of heat in descending from the geothermal _couche_ of invariable temperature, and the co-efficients of conductivity of the rocks of our earth's crust, as given by the long-continued observations made beneath the Observatories of Paris and of Edinburgh, it results that the annual loss of heat into space of our globe at present is equal to that which would liquefy into water, at 32° Fahr., about 777 cubic miles of ice; and this is the measuring unit for the amount of contraction of our globe now going on. The figures are not probably exact, for the data are not on a basis sufficiently full or exactly established as yet; but they are not very widely wrong, and their precise exactness is not material here. Now, how is this annual loss of heat (great or small, as we may please to view it) from the interior of our globe disposed of?

What does it _do_ in the interior? We have already seen that it is primarily disposed of by conversion into work; into the work of diminishing the earth's volume as a whole, and in so doing crushing portions of the solid surrounding shell.

But does the transformation of lost heat into the work of vertical descent, and of the crush as it follows down after the shrinking nucleus, end the cycle? No. A very large portion of the mechanical work thus produced, and resolved, as we have seen, into tangential crushing pressure, is retransformed into heat again in the very act of crushing the solid material of the shell. If we see a cartload of granite paving-stones shot out in the dark, we see fire and light produced by their collision; if we rub two pieces of quartz together, and crush thus their surfaces against each other, we find we heat the pieces and evolve light.

The machinery used for crushing by steam-power, hard rocks into road metal, gets so hot that the surfaces cannot be touched.

These are familiar instances of one result of what is now taking place by the crushing of the rocky masses of our cooling and descending earth's crust, every hour beneath our feet, only upon a vastly greater scale. It is in this local transformation of work into heat that I find the true origin of volcanic heat within our globe. But if we are to test this, so as in the only way possible to decide is it a true solution of this great problem, we must again ask the question, _How much?_ and to answer this, we must determine _experimentally_ how much heat can be developed by the crushing of a given volume, say a cubic mile, of such rocky materials as we know must constitute the crust of our globe down to the bottom of the known sedimentary strata, and extending to such crystalloid rocks as we may presume underlie these. We must also obtain at least approximately what are the co-efficients of _total contraction_ between fusion and atmospheric temperature of such melted rocks, basic and acid silicates, as may be deemed representative of that co-efficient for the range of volcanic fused products, basalts, trachytes, etc., which probably sufficiently nearly coincide with that of the whole non-metallic mass of our globe.

The first I have determined experimentally by two different methods, but principally by the direct one of the _work_ expended in crushing prisms of sixteen representative classes of rock; the specific gravities and specific heats of which I have also determined.

If H be the height of a prism of rock crushed to powder by a pressure, P, applied to two opposite faces, which, when the prism has been reduced to its volume in powder, has acted through a range of H - t, then

P × (H - t) / 772