Hamilton’s trust in his own sensory perception as a means of knowledge was based on empiricism as a method of Enlightenment research. Only that which can be observed, comprehended, and proven, could be valid. His restriction to em-pirical observations was the result of a deep skepticism against speculations and fictions, against what Hamilton calls “systems” in the introductory letter of Campi Phlegraei: “lt is to be lamented, that those who have wrote most, on the subject of Natural History, have seldom been themselves the observers, and have too readily taken for granted sistems [sic], which other ingenious and learned men, have per-haps formed in their closets, with as little foundation of self experience: the more such systems may have been treated with ingenuity, the more have they served to mislead, and heap error upon error. Accurate and faithfull observations on the operations of nature, related with simplicity and truth, are not to be met with of-ten […]” (Hamilton 1776: 5). Hamilton wished to refrain from dogmatic systems and to convey only verifiable facts: “Aware of the danger of systems, I have kept clear of them, and have confined my self to the simple narrative of what I have remarked myself, and the truth of which may be easily ascertained, by visiting the curious spots I have pointed out in the general map” (Hamilton 1776: 6). It was only on the basis of confirmed knowledge that comprehensive theories were to be established, for which Hamilton intended his own field research to provide the empirical sub-stance and groundwork: “By having then, if I may be allowed the expression, anat-omized so considerable a tract of land, and given the most exact representation of each minute part of which it is composed, and proved, as I think, beyond a doubt, the Volcanick origin of the whole, I can but flatter myself, that such hints as I have given, may be improved and lead to further discoveries of the same nature, and lend much assistance towards the forming a better Theory of the Earth than has hitherto appeared” (Hamilton 1776: 11–12).
The Aesthetics and Politics of Volcanoes: William Hamilton’s Campi Phlegraei
The controversy between Neptunists and Plutonists, which Hamilton and Goethe apparently refrained from settling when they met, played an important role in the scientific history of volcanoes in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. As a result of this debate, a geological paradigm shift occurred – before the discovery of plate tectonics. Crucially, nothing less was at stake than the question of the origin of the Earth. Hamilton’s work contributed to the assertion of the Plutonistic view. The surface of the Earth develops largely through eruptions from its interior. To ob-serve and to document them, Hamilton created volcanic chronicles and geological records, he described eruptions and had them recorded in drawings. Although he was not formally trained in natural history or even geology, he was so thorough that experts still today recognize his descriptions as accurate documentation of the terrain. The fact that Hamilton dispensed with measuring instruments and other means of exact data collection does not contradict this finding. His measurements may not have been absolutely precise sometimes, but he relied on the human sens-es and his empirical skills to perceive what was important, for example, the strati-fication of rocks and the course of eruptions. For chemical-mineralogical analyses, Hamilton sent samples to the Royal Society, which had the necessary equipment.