This version is available at https://strathprints.strath.ac.uk/39986/ Strathprints is designed to allow users to access the research output of the University of Strathclyde. Unless otherwise explicitly stated on the manuscript, Copyright © and Moral Rights for the papers on this site are retained by the individual authors and/or other copyright owners. Please check the manuscript for details of any other licences that may have been applied. You may not engage in further distribution of the material for any profitmaking activities or any commercial gain. You may freely distribute both the url (https://strathprints.strath.ac.uk/) and the content of this paper for research or private study, educational, or not-for-profit purposes without prior permission or charge.Any correspondence concerning this service should be sent to the Strathprints administrator: strathprints@strath.ac.ukThe Strathprints institutional repository (https://strathprints.strath.ac.uk) is a digital archive of University of Strathclyde research outputs. It has been developed to disseminate open access research outputs, expose data about those outputs, and enable the management and persistent access to Strathclyde's intellectual output. Abstract: Rather than focussing on the relationship between science and literature, this article attempts to read scientific writing as literature. It explores a somewhat neglected element of the story of the emergence of geology in the late eighteenth centuryJames Hutton's unpublished accounts of the tours of Scotland that he undertook in the years 1785 to 1788 in search of empirical evidence for his theory of the earth. Attention to Hutton's use of literary techniques and conventions highlights the ways these texts dramatise the journey of scientific discovery and allow Hutton's readers to imagine that they were virtual participants in the geological quest, conducted by a savant whose self-fashioning made him a reliable guide through Scotland's geomorphology and the landscapes of deep time. hybrid between what we now distinguish as "science" and "literature", we need to remember, as Tim Fulford, Debbie Lee and Peter J. Kitson remind us, that these terms had very different meanings at the end of the eighteenth century and that "scientific" discourses -natural history and natural philosophy -were as much part of "polite literature" as poetry.
Powered by Edit orial Manager® and Preprint Manager® from Aries Syst em s Corporat ion1 Yet, as Ralph O"Connor points out, most studies of the relationship between science and literature -even those which recognise that modern disciplinary designations did not apply in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries -tend to reiterate distinctions between these "disciplines" by yoking them together with the conjunction "and".