Natural Catastrophe in Buffon’s Histoire Naturelle
25
exemple, le sentiment de Ray’s [sic], il croit que toutes les montagnes ont été
formées par des tremblemens de terre ou par l’explosion des volcans, comme le
mont di Cenere, l’isle nouvelle près de Santorin, &c. mais il n’a pas pris garde
que ces petites élévations formées par l’éruption d’un volcan ou par l’action d’un
tremblement de terre, ne sont pas intérieurement composées de couches
horizontales, comme le sont toutes les autres montagnes.
20
In 1749, Buffon is thus convinced that the overall relief of the Earth’s
surface is to be explained by the action of bodies of water (sedimentation, erosion), an idea that for him provides a “key” with which to decipher the apparent disorder of the world. The system he proposes still
takes account of certain incidental phenomena (i.e., catastrophes); he
acknowledges their existence and is even prepared to advance some
explanations for their activity. All in all, however, catastrophic phenomena have no systematic place in Buffon’s theory of the Earth –
they are exogenetic elements, accidents, which take no part in the order we discern in nature but, on the contrary, serve to disrupt it. Yet
this is potentially very surprising. Why should Buffon take the trouble
to point up the “énormes ravages produits par les tremblemens de
terre”
21 if subsequently he is only to play them down? What should we
make of all his thoroughly explicit assertions that – to reprise a
passage cited earlier – the “mouvement naturel des eaux de la mer”,
“l’action des pluies, des gelées, des eaux courantes, des vents, des
feux soûterrains, des tremblemens de terre &c.”
22 have not
insubstantially “contribué à changer la face du globe”?
23 Is there not a
problem of coherence here?
My hypothesis is that it is only in order to guarantee the order
which he believes he has discovered in nature that Buffon chooses to
present the past as a succession of interminable cycles in the course of
which the continuous action of barely perceptible causes (such as
sedimentation from the ebb and flow of waters) has gradually shaped
the Earth’s surface. It is to preserve the continuity of his narrative (or
rather its logical sequencing) that he refuses to recognize the importance of unpredictable and, in a word, exceptional events. In 1749
Buffon is incapable, so to speak, of according a significant role to
___________________________
20 Buffon, “Des volcans & des tremblemens de terre”, Histoire naturelle, I, pp. 52223.
21 Buffon, Histoire naturelle, I, p. 522.
22 Buffon, “Conclusion”, Histoire naturelle, I, p. 611.
23 Buffon, “Second discours”, Histoire naturelle, I, pp. 109-10
25
exemple, le sentiment de Ray’s [sic], il croit que toutes les montagnes ont été
formées par des tremblemens de terre ou par l’explosion des volcans, comme le
mont di Cenere, l’isle nouvelle près de Santorin, &c. mais il n’a pas pris garde
que ces petites élévations formées par l’éruption d’un volcan ou par l’action d’un
tremblement de terre, ne sont pas intérieurement composées de couches
horizontales, comme le sont toutes les autres montagnes.
20
In 1749, Buffon is thus convinced that the overall relief of the Earth’s
surface is to be explained by the action of bodies of water (sedimentation, erosion), an idea that for him provides a “key” with which to decipher the apparent disorder of the world. The system he proposes still
takes account of certain incidental phenomena (i.e., catastrophes); he
acknowledges their existence and is even prepared to advance some
explanations for their activity. All in all, however, catastrophic phenomena have no systematic place in Buffon’s theory of the Earth –
they are exogenetic elements, accidents, which take no part in the order we discern in nature but, on the contrary, serve to disrupt it. Yet
this is potentially very surprising. Why should Buffon take the trouble
to point up the “énormes ravages produits par les tremblemens de
terre”
21 if subsequently he is only to play them down? What should we
make of all his thoroughly explicit assertions that – to reprise a
passage cited earlier – the “mouvement naturel des eaux de la mer”,
“l’action des pluies, des gelées, des eaux courantes, des vents, des
feux soûterrains, des tremblemens de terre &c.”
22 have not
insubstantially “contribué à changer la face du globe”?
23 Is there not a
problem of coherence here?
My hypothesis is that it is only in order to guarantee the order
which he believes he has discovered in nature that Buffon chooses to
present the past as a succession of interminable cycles in the course of
which the continuous action of barely perceptible causes (such as
sedimentation from the ebb and flow of waters) has gradually shaped
the Earth’s surface. It is to preserve the continuity of his narrative (or
rather its logical sequencing) that he refuses to recognize the importance of unpredictable and, in a word, exceptional events. In 1749
Buffon is incapable, so to speak, of according a significant role to
___________________________
20 Buffon, “Des volcans & des tremblemens de terre”, Histoire naturelle, I, pp. 52223.
21 Buffon, Histoire naturelle, I, p. 522.
22 Buffon, “Conclusion”, Histoire naturelle, I, p. 611.
23 Buffon, “Second discours”, Histoire naturelle, I, pp. 109-10