sand. Their
occurrence, therefore, agrees remarkably well with the account of heavy
rain, and showers of sand and ashes recorded in history.[550]

Lippi entitled his work, "Fu il fuoco o l' acqua che sottero Pompei ed
Ercolano?"[551] and he contended that neither were the two cities
destroyed in the year 79, nor by a volcanic eruption, but purely by the
agency of water charged with transported matter. His letters, wherein he
endeavored to dispense, as far as possible, with igneous agency, even at
the foot of the volcano, were dedicated, with great propriety, to
Werner, and afford an amusing illustration of the polemic style in which
geological writers of that day indulged themselves. His arguments were
partly of an historical nature, derived from the silence of contemporary
historians, respecting the fate of the cities, which, as we have already
stated, is most remarkable, and partly drawn from physical proofs. He
pointed out with great clearness the resemblance of the tufaceous matter
in the vaults and cellars at Herculaneum and Pompeii to aqueous
alluviums, and its distinctness from ejections which had fallen through
the air. Nothing, he observes, but moist pasty matter could have
received the impression of a woman's breast, which was found in a vault
at Pompeii, or have given the cast of a statue discovered in the
theatre at Herculaneum. It was objected to him, that the heat of the
tuff in Herculaneum and Pompeii was proved by the carbonization of the
timber, corn, papyrus-rolls, and other vegetable substances there
discovered; but Lippi replied with truth, that the papyri would have
been burnt up if they had come in contact with fire, and that their
being only carbonized was a clear demonstration of their having been
enveloped, like fossil wood, in a sediment deposited from water. The
Academicians, in their report on his pamphlet, assert, that when the
amphitheatre was first cleared out, the matter was arranged on the steps
in a succession of concave layers, accommodating themselves to the
interior form of the building, just as snow would lie if it had fallen
there. This observation is highly interesting, and points to the
difference between the stratification of ashes in an open building and
of mud derived from the same in the interior of edifices and cellars.
Nor ought we to call the allegation in question, because it could not be
substantiated at the time of the controversy after the matter had been
all removed;