In 1817, Blackwood's Magazine echoed the new empirical tradition and placed Hutton beyond the pale: "Had he studied nature, and then theorized, his genius would in all probability, have illustrated many difficult points; but it is obvious, from his own works, that he has frequently reversed this order of proceeding." Davies's judgment (1969, 178) is harsh, but not, I think, exaggerated or misplaced: "Mistitled, lacking in form, drowned in words, deficient in field evidence, and shrouded in an overall obscurity . . . many of those who knew of the theory only through Hutton's expositions must have dismissed it as the worthless and indigestible fantasy of a somewhat outdated arm-chair geologist."

Hutton, in short, never misrepresented his intent. He viewed the earth as a body with a purpose. This purpose imposed requirements upon any rational theory—"things which must necessarily be comprehended in the theory of the earth, if we are to give stability to it as a world sustaining plants and animals" (1795, I, 281). Not only did Hutton deduce the necessity of a restorative force (the basis of cyclicity); he also stated repeatedly that his concept of a proper, purposeful universe would collapse if such a force could not be discovered.

When we finally discard the empiricist myth that turned Hutton into his opposite, we can properly seek the discovery of deep time in those a priori concepts that Hutton viewed as the rational basis for his or any theory of the earth. He did not find deep time or cyclicity in rocks. We can understand the role of time's metaphors in Hutton's geology—the "bottom line" of this chapter and book— only when we direct our search toward Hutton's systematic thinking rather than his field explorations.

The Sources of Necessary Cyclicity