WERNER. 
611 
in liis lectures, but never published by himself. He caused 
his lectures to be written out by his approved scholars, and 
by revising them himself made them his own in manuscript. 
Many parts of these lectures have been published in different 
countries by his pupils. Werner also published some minera- 
logical papers in the Miner’s Journal; and in 1791 appeared 
his new theory of the formation of metallic veins. This work 
was translated into French by Daubuisson, and into English 
in 1809. 
Werner was appointed counsellor of the mines in Saxony 
in 1792, and had a great share in the direction of the Minera- 
logical Academy, and in the administration for public 
works. 
The cabinet of minerals collected by Werner was unrivalled 
for its completeness and arrangement, consisting of 100,000 
specimens. This he sold for 40,000 crowns, reserving the 
interest of 33,000 as an annuity to himself and his sister, who 
had no children ; and at her death to be paid annually to the 
Mineralogical Academy of Frey burg. 
This illustrious mineralogist died, August, 1817, greatly 
regretted by all those who were personally acquainted with 
him, to whom he was endeared by the simplicity of his 
manners, the cheerfulness and benevolence of his disposition, 
his integrity and disinterested devotion to science. Werner 
was never married. His favourite pursuit next to mineralogy, 
appears to have been the study of antiquities, one branch 
of it, the numismatology of the ancients, had, during the 
last eight years of his life, engaged much of his attention; 
and he had formed a collection of 6,000 Greek and Roman 
coins, which enabled him to make researches into the differ¬ 
ent mixtures of the metals and the arts of adulteration; and 
to make the subject more clear, he arranged entire series of 
false coins. 
Werner may justly be said to have contributed more to 
extend and improve the practical knowledge of mineralogy, 
than any one who had preceded him. His method of ob¬ 
serving and describing the external appearances of minerals, 
has been introduced by his pupils, with some modifications, 
into various parts of the world, and has given a new and 
more definite form to the science. It has, indeed, been ob¬ 
jected to the method of Werner, that consisting principally 
in the classification of minerals according to their external 
characters, and in the description and arrangement of these 
characters, it may be regarded rather as an empiric art, than 
a science. But in the mineral kingdom those definite 
characters are wanting, which serve to distinguish the genera 
and species in the other departments of natural history; and 
he who can but relieve this difficulty, and enable the student 
most easily to gain a knowledge of minerals under all these 
varying forms, is entitled to the highest praise. This palm 
maybe pre-eminently given to Werner; and whoever has 
justly appreciated his labours will never stop to inquire, 
whether his method should rank among the sciences or the 
arts. Mr. Kir wan was the first who introduced a know¬ 
ledge of the Wernerian mineralogy into this country; but 
for a more complete knowledge of it, we are indebted to 
professor Jameson, in his System of Mineralogy, first pub¬ 
lished in 1804, and in the second edition of 1817. 
As a geologist, we cannot allow to Werner the same de¬ 
gree of unmixed praise. His system of geognosy was 
formed on observations made on a very limited portion of 
the earth's surface ill his own vicinity; and he has laid down 
a succession of rock-formations as universally spread over the 
globe, because these rocks occurred in this order in a par¬ 
ticular part of Saxony. Subsequent observations have, 
however, demonstrated, that even at a little distance from 
Frey burg, many of the supposed universal rock-formations 
are not to be found, and that other rocks supply their place. 
The reader may consult a description of the Saxon Erzge¬ 
birge, by M. Bonnard, in the Journal des Mines for 1815, to 
convince himself of this. It is, we consider, fortunate for 
Mr. Werner's fame as a geologist, that no work of his on 
the subject has appeared, except the “New Theory of Veins.” 
This for some time enjoyed a certain degree of celebrity 
from the name of the author; but the new information which 
it contains is very scanty, and the theory, which it supports 
so inadequate to explain the phenomena, and so much at 
variance with facts, that it was in a great part abandoned 
by many of the warm admirers of Werner, even some years 
before his death. It will now scarcely meet with a supporter 
among those who have any practical knowledge of mineral 
veins. Mr. Werner contended for the aqueous formation of 
almost every kind of rock, even pumice-stone and obsidian 
he maintained were the products of water; and when he 
was repeatedly invited to visit the volcanic districts of Italy 
and the ancient volcanoes of France, he declined an exa¬ 
mination which might have greatly endangered his own 
theory. The followers of Werner as a geologist rest his 
fame not on his local observations, but on his attempt to 
generalize his observations, in order to form a theory which 
should explain the structure of the earth and the mode of 
its formation. Indeed, such was their admiration, that they 
would not admit his system to be a theory, but considered 
it as an exposition of demonstrated facts. “ This great geo- 
gnost,” says Mr. Jameson, “after many years of the most 
arduous investigations, conducted with an accuracy and 
acuteness of which we have few examples, discovered the 
manner in which the crust of the earth is constructed. 
Having made this great discovery, he, after deep reflection, 
and in conformity with the strict rules of induction, drew 
most interesting conclusions as to the manner in which the 
solid mass of the earth may have been formed. It is a 
splendid specimen of investigation, the- most perfect in its 
kind ever presented to the world.” (Jameson’s Mineralogy, 
first edition, vol. i. p. 22.) We believe there are few persons 
who will not now admit that the admiration and praise here 
bestowed, were disproportioned to the object, whether we 
regard the merit of Mr. Werner’s observations for accuracy 
as a geologist, or the conformity of his theory with existing 
appearances. 
The method of investigation pursued by Werner in at¬ 
tempting to trace the rocks in a district in succession, from 
the lowest or fundamental rock to the uppermost stratum, and 
marking the limits of each rock where it terminates on the 
surface, was considered by his followers as entirely his own, 
and was called by them the method of the Wernerian geog¬ 
nosy. But this method had been known and practised in 
England long before we were acquainted with ihe name of 
Werner; indeed it is the only one which preceding geo¬ 
logists could practically adopt in surveying a country. On 
a smaller scale, it had been practised by all intelligent coal- 
viewers; and it had been exhibited on a larger scale by Mr. 
Whitehurst, in the descriptions and plates which he has 
given in his “Theory of the Earth.” Saussure followed no 
system ; yet wherever the order of succession was apparent, 
he has not failed to inform us. But the country which he 
investigated, (Switzerland,) presents enormous masses, fre¬ 
quently in much apparent confusion, the order of succession 
being hid by debris or by glaciers. In other instances, 
whole mountains composed of different rocks appear to have 
been formed contemporaneously. Saussure, who had no 
theory of any regular order of succession to support, has 
simply described facts as they exist. Our own countryman 
William Smith, had been long employed in tracing the limits 
and order of succession of the strata in the midland and 
eastern counties of England, before the Wernerian geognosy 
was known either in England or Scotland. 
The originality of the Wernerian geognosy consisted more 
in the invention of a new language adapted to support a 
theory, than in the discovery of a new and practical method 
of investigation. The language is highly objectionable in 
many respects, as the terms are founded on the premature 
assumption of the relative ages and modes of formation of 
different rocks;—facts which are far from being yet clearly 
ascertained. 
Whatever may be the defects of the Wernerian system, 
as given us by his scholars, and however premature many of 
the generalizations may have been, it was of use by directing 
the attention of observers in various parts to an examination 
of its accordance with facts. Though the different rocks 
which 
