The key point is for you to understand the standard geognosy model, and how it integrated the geological data of his time. As you know from last class, mineralogy was rather advanced an included descriptions of both minerals and strata.  Geognosy expanded this into the study of rocks and minerals in a three-dimensional framework. The question is how this framework followed from (and integrated) much of the geological knowledge of his day. Werner was a leading contributor (and highly influential as a teacher) but the only text by Werner that we have that presents his theory is the relatively short “Short Classification and Description of the Various Rocks” (Kurze Klassifikation), although the notes and publications of his students provide additional information about his ideas.  While the reputation of geognosy and Werner suffered in the Anglo-American branch of geohistory, it was recognized as a major contributor in the European tradition.  Work by Ospovat (1970s), Laudan (1987) and Rudwick (2005) have restored it to its central place in geohistory.

Harris, section 7

This will give you the overview of geognosy and Werner. It largely follows Laudan’s (1987) argument to place Werner in the mineralogy tradition and Rudwick’s (2005) analysis of the geognosy research agenda.

Rudwick, section 2.3, p. 84-99, Geognosy as a Structural Science

Rudwick provides a good summary of the practice and aims of geognosy, along with a summary of the geognosts “standard model” – a three-dimensional framework.  His work is informed by a wide-ranging review of the primary literature which allowed Rudwick to broad view of geognosy (i.e., more than Werner).  He is particularly good on the basic goals and practice of this approach, and the importance of the concept of a “gebirge” (~ formation).  Note that he restricts geognosy to descriptive aspects (essentially natural history) and does not detail the interpretive (causal) aspect of this tradition. Other authors (Laudan – next selection) describe these aspects together.

Laudan, chapter 5

Read the summary of Werner’s system (p. 88-94) carefully and consider its relation to the chemical approach to mineralogy we discussed in class and field relations such as those noted by Arduino. (Note: Laudan focuses on Werner and does not bring in the broader range of contributors to geognosy.  I think that this reflects when this was written, her interest in how geognosy was translated into history; and the leading role assigned to Werner by Anglo-American critics.) Laudan discusses Werner’s concept of a gebirge/formation and its role in transforming rock classification into a history of the earth (p. 94-102) – this is really the central argument of Laudan’s book. We will need to consider this shift in light of the spread of Werner’s approach across the geological community – focus here on p. 102-106. Werner’s students included many of the geologists of the early ninetheenth century (with only a few important exceptions), many of whom would modify his ideas over time. You will notice that Laudan divides the “Wernerians” into those interested in historical geology and those interested in causal geology; these seems a bit artificial to me since most of them worked in both areas.  It does suggest the extent to which geognosy provided an underpinning for geology around the end of the 18th century. You can skim most of the rest of this chapter – it has information on Werner’s students and others he influenced. You will want to read the last two paragraphs (p. 112) after reading the next, short selection.

Geikie, 1905, p. 201-203

Finally, this short reading is taken from Geikie’s work. It was a very influencial history of geology in the British-American world, and (as you will be able to tell) it presents a rather biased view of Werner and his work. We will see where this perception originated in coming weeks. For now, read it to understand the significance of the reappraisial of Werner in the 1980s by comparing it to the final page of the Laudan reading.

There are several basic points to consider while reading these selections:

• Geognosy
  • What were the basic goals of geognosy?  How did it compare to the traditions of mineralogy and theories of the earth?
  • What is a “gebirge”?  How is it defined? How dies it relate to rock types and minerals?
  • Why is it important?
  • Can you sketch the three-dimensional geognosy structure?
• Causal model
  • Outline Werner’s theory of the earth (see table 2).
  • How does this theory “integrate” the knowledge base of his time?
  • What were some weaknesses of Werner’s theory? What was it important for him to retain some flexibility in interpretation?
  • In what ways was this a casual history in the sense of Laudan versus Rudwick?
• Moving into the nineteenth century:
  • We will see how Werner’s students extended and modified his ideas into early geology.
  • Note the role of fieldwork because this will become more important around 1800
  • Laudan argues that fossils could be incorporated into this basic approach, or at least the descriptive aspects of geognosy. This would be important for developing biostratigraphy in conjunction with the study of strata.

Links to course homepage and course schedule.