During the first decades of the 19th century the reception of Wernerian geognosy among the Italian geologists presented different and sometimes conflicting aspects. The scholars more linked to 18th century Diluvialism generally embraced the Neptunistic geological theory proposed by Werner and later developed by some of his students. Other scientists initially accepted the Wernerian mineralogical and lithological system, as it seemed to overcome the complexity and the confusion of the previous 18th century geo-mineralogical classifications: however, the verification in the field of the Wernerian system throughout several parts of Italy later determined various doubts and critical remarks as well as the abandonment of the Neptunistic theory previously adopted, as in the case of Giambattista Brocchi. A third group of geologists, instead, immediately rejected Wernerian geognosy with opposing the Vulcanistic theories mainly supported in France and in Scotland (which stated, among other things, that basalt was igneous in origin and not sedimented as for Werner). The aim of this paper is to provide an overview of this interesting phenomenon of scientific reception, especially among those Italian geologists who recovered and revaluated the 18th century Vulcanistic studies undertaken in the Venetian area by Giovanni Arduino, Alberto Fortis, John Strange and others. These works, together with the results of new researches in the field, were used as anti-Wernerian proofs by Venetian scientists such as Giuseppe Marzari Pencati, Pietro Maraschini, Lodovico Pasini and others, who also referred their conclusions to the contemporary Vulcanistic theories of the French geologist Faujas de Saint Fond and the Italian Scipione Breislak.
Wernerian Geognosy and Italian Vulcanists
VACCARI, EZIO
2003-01-01
Abstract
During the first decades of the 19th century the reception of Wernerian geognosy among the Italian geologists presented different and sometimes conflicting aspects. The scholars more linked to 18th century Diluvialism generally embraced the Neptunistic geological theory proposed by Werner and later developed by some of his students. Other scientists initially accepted the Wernerian mineralogical and lithological system, as it seemed to overcome the complexity and the confusion of the previous 18th century geo-mineralogical classifications: however, the verification in the field of the Wernerian system throughout several parts of Italy later determined various doubts and critical remarks as well as the abandonment of the Neptunistic theory previously adopted, as in the case of Giambattista Brocchi. A third group of geologists, instead, immediately rejected Wernerian geognosy with opposing the Vulcanistic theories mainly supported in France and in Scotland (which stated, among other things, that basalt was igneous in origin and not sedimented as for Werner). The aim of this paper is to provide an overview of this interesting phenomenon of scientific reception, especially among those Italian geologists who recovered and revaluated the 18th century Vulcanistic studies undertaken in the Venetian area by Giovanni Arduino, Alberto Fortis, John Strange and others. These works, together with the results of new researches in the field, were used as anti-Wernerian proofs by Venetian scientists such as Giuseppe Marzari Pencati, Pietro Maraschini, Lodovico Pasini and others, who also referred their conclusions to the contemporary Vulcanistic theories of the French geologist Faujas de Saint Fond and the Italian Scipione Breislak.
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
