The Eruption of Vesuvius in 1872

by Luigi Palmieri

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.