OF MATTER, MIND, AND SPIRIT.

_Of Matter._

1769. It is a fact, that as we study more deeply the nature of matter,

we find that we know the less about it. The crude impressions by which

it makes us sensible of its presence are, of course, intuitively

received, and are reiterated incessantly. Hence, the mass of mankind do

not imagine that there can be any mystery respecting that ponderable

matter which influences the scale-beam. The existence of any other

matter, people generally are slow to admit. The electric fluid and

caloric, the supposed causes of electricity and heat, were rarely

believed in, out of the scientific world, but _ponderable_ matter is

the last thing of which any person would imagine himself ignorant. Yet

we find that some of the most experienced investigators of nature, have

not made up their minds as to what ponderable matter is.

1770. According to Newton, matter consists of hard, impenetrable

particles, endowed with _vis inertiæ_, gravitation, and chemical

attraction for other particles; _vis inertiæ_ being that force by

which a body, if in motion, requires a certain degree of force to

arrest or retard it, or to put it into motion if at rest. Gravitation

causes all masses to attract each other reciprocally, with a force

exactly proportioned to their _vis inertiæ_; so that these forces are

reciprocally measures of each other. It is usual to make gravitation

its own measure, by estimating it to be as the weight of the mass;

while weight is only the reciprocal attraction of gravitation between

the body tried, and the earth. (64.)

1771. These properties being conceded as belonging to matter, and the

measure of its quantity, the next question is, of what does massive

matter consist? As to the ratio of weight to bulk, which is designated

as “_specific gravity_,” we see an immense disparity between solids.

Potassium, for instance, weighs three-fourths of its bulk of water,

while platinum weighs twenty-one times its bulk in that fluid. The

density of gaseous hydrogen is to that of platina not more than 1 to

25,000, and yet it may be rarified to the one-hundredth part of its

normal spissitude, while apparently filling the same space. Thus the

same space may be filled successively by different portions of matter,

yet the quantity of matter in the space, in the first case, may be

to the quantity contained in the second, as 2,500,000 to 1. Newton’s

definition of material particles was as follows:

1772. “It seems probable to me that God, in the beginning, formed

matter in solid, massy, hard, impenetrable, movable particles, of

such sizes and figures, and with such other properties, and in

such proportion to space, as most conduced to the end for which he

formed them; and that those primitive particles, being solids, are

incomparably harder than any porous bodies compounded of them; even so

very hard as never to wear or break in pieces; no mundane power being

able to divide what God himself intended to be indivisible.”

1773. Boscovitch, observing that all that was essential to material

atoms was attraction and repulsion, the latter being the substitute

of Newton’s impenetrability, suggested an hypothesis which dispensed

with the atom, and assumed only the forces of attraction and repulsion;

alternating, as it appears to me, in a way more original than

warrantable. This idea of atoms has been modified by an accomplished

mathematician, Exley, of Bristol, England. I quote here Exley’s view:

1774. “The reader has only to allow that each atom of matter consists

of an indefinitely extensive sphere of attraction, resting on a very

small concentric sphere of repulsion, the force being everywhere, from

the centre, inversely as the square of the distance, repulsive near the

centre, and then attractive. Now that part which regards the attraction

has already obtained the consent of all the followers of _Newton_;

and much more than the other part, which respects repulsion, has been

already received in the principles of our present philosophy.

1775. It may be here asked—Are we absolutely to exclude solid atoms?

I confess I can find no use for them. It is true, Sir Isaac Newton

thought that the atoms of matter consisted of minute solids.

1776. But this hypothesis, however convenient and consonant with

our prejudices, is not absolutely necessary to the explanation of

natural phenomena; for, it may be conceived, according to the theory

of Boscovitch, that matter consists not of solid particles, but of

mere mathematical centres, of forces attractive and repulsive, whose

relations to space were ordained, and whose actions are regulated and

maintained by the Creator of the universe. Both hypotheses, however,

agree in one great principle, viz.: that the properties of bodies

depend upon forces emanating from immovable points (whether substantial

or not is of little importance) of their masses.

1777. The atoms of matter constituted as in the theory now proposed

possess all the individuality, indivisibility, and indestructibility,

which the learned and illustrious _Newton_ ascribes to his small

solids, and they answer all the ends he has mentioned; the central

points, indeed, will be utterly impenetrable by each other, since

the repulsion there is infinite; and if at those centres we suppose

small solids to be placed, they can answer no farther end than is

accomplished by this immensely great repulsive force; for from what

we know of matter, we must suppose them to be indefinitely small, if

we introduce such solids; and hence they will occupy the place where

the repulsion is infinitely great; such solids would be found only an

obstacle, and an incumbrance to the free actions of matter; since,

however small we imagine them to be, their magnitude will be infinite

if compared with a mathematical point, the centre of an atom, which is

devoid altogether of magnitude. It may be added, that if any reader

wish to retain these solids at the centres of the atoms, it will not

materially affect the conclusions, provided he allow us to have them as

small as we please; and so much, if he intend to philosophize, he must

grant, whatever course he may determine to pursue.”

1778. These efforts to define matter derive interest from the following

attempt of Farraday to sustain a view inconsistent with that of Newton,

by practical illustration:

_Strictures on a Speculation by Farraday, respecting the Nature of

Matter._

1779. This sagacious investigator adverts to the fact, that after

each atom in a mass of metallic potassium has combined with an atom

of oxygen and an atom of water, forming thus a hydrated oxide—caustic

potash—the resulting aggregate occupies much less space than its

metallic ingredient previously occupied; so that, taking equal bulks

of the hydrate and of potassium, there will be in the metal only 430

metallic atoms, while in the hydrate there will be 700 such atoms.

Yet in the latter, besides the 700 metallic atoms, there will be an

equal number of aqueous and oxygenous atoms, in all 2800 ponderable

atoms. It follows, that if the atoms of potassium are to be considered

as minute impenetrable particles, kept at certain distances by an

equilibrium of forces, there must be, in a mass of potassium, vastly

more space than matter. Moreover, it is the space alone that can be

continuous. The non-contiguous material atoms cannot form a continuous

mass. Consequently, the well-known power of potassium to conduct

electricity must be a quality of the continuous empty space which it

comprises, not of the discontinuous particles of matter with which

that space is regularly interspersed. It is in the next place urged,

that while, agreeably to these considerations, space is shown to be

a conductor, there are considerations equally tending to prove it to

be a non-conductor, since in certain non-conducting bodies, such as

resins, there must be nearly as much vacant space as in potassium.

Hence the supposition that atoms are minute impenetrable particles,

involves the necessity of considering empty space as a conductor in

metals, and as a non-conductor in resins, and of course in sulphur

and other electrics. This is considered as a _reductio ad absurdum_.

To avoid this contradiction, Farraday supposes that atoms are not

minute impenetrable bodies, but, existing throughout the whole space

in which their properties are observed, may penetrate each other.

Consistently, although the atoms of potassium pervade the whole space

which they apparently occupy, the entrance into that space of an

equivalent number of atoms of oxygen and water, in consequence of

some reciprocal reaction, causes a contraction in the boundaries by

which the combination thus formed is enclosed. This is an original and

interesting view of this subject, well worthy of the contemplation of

chemical philosophers.

1780. But, upon these premises, Farraday has ventured on some

inferences which, upon various accounts, appear to me unwarrantable.

I agree that “_a_” representing a particle of matter, and “_m_”

representing its properties, it is only with “_m_” that we have any

acquaintance, the existence of “_a_” resting merely on an inference.

Heretofore I have often appealed to this fact, in order to show that

the evidence of imponderable, no less than of ponderable matter, is

precisely the existence of properties which can only be accounted

for by inferring the existence of an appropriate matter to which

those properties appertain. Yet I cannot concur in the idea that,

because it is only with “_m_” that we are acquainted, the existence

of “_a_” must not be inevitably inferred, so that bodies are to be

considered as constituted of their materialized powers. I use the word

“materialized,” because it is fully admitted by Farraday, that by

dispensing with an impenetrable atom “_a_” we do not get rid of the

idea of matter, but have to imagine each atom as existing throughout

the whole sphere of its force, instead of being condensed about the

centre. This seems to follow from the following language:

1781. “_The view now stated of the constitution of matter would seem

to involve necessarily the conclusion that matter fills all space, or

at least the space to which gravitation extends, including the sun and

its system; for gravitation is a property of matter dependent on a

certain force, and it is this force which constitutes matter._”

1782. Literally, this paragraph seems to convey the impression, that,

agreeably to this new idea of matter, the sun and his planets are not

distinct bodies, but consist of certain material powers reciprocally

penetrating each other, and pervading a space larger than that

comprised within the orbit of Neptune. We do not live upon, but within,

the matter of which the earth is constituted, or rather within a

mixture of all the solar and planetary matter belonging to our solar

system. I cannot conceive that the sagacious author seriously intended

to sanction any notion involving these consequences. I shall assume,

therefore, that, excepting the case of gravitation, his new idea of

matter was intended to be restricted to those powers which display

themselves within masses at insensible distances, and shall proceed

to state the objections which seem to exist against the new idea as

associated with those powers.

1783. Evidently the arguments of Farraday against the existence, in

potassium and other masses of matter, of impenetrable atoms endowed

with cohesion, chemical affinity, momentum, and gravitation, rest

upon the inference that in metals there is nothing to perform the

part of an electrical conductor besides continuous empty space. This

illustrious philosopher has heretofore appeared to be disinclined

to admit the existence of _any_ matter devoid of ponderability! The

main object of certain letters which I addressed to him was to prove

that the phenomena of induction could not, as he had represented, be

an “_action_” of ponderable atoms, but, on the contrary, must be

considered as an _affection_ of them consequent to the intervention

of an imponderable matter, without which the phenomena of electricity

would be inexplicable. This repugnance to the admission of an

imponderable electrical cause, has been the more remarkable, as

his researches have not only proved the existence of prodigious

electrical power in metals, but likewise that it is evolved during

chemico-electric reaction, in equivalent proportion to the quantity of

ponderable matter decomposed or combined.

1784. According to his researches, a grain of water, by electrolytic

reaction with four grains of zinc, evolves as much electricity as would

charge fifteen millions of square feet of coated glass when supplied

by a plate machine of fifty inches in diameter. But in addition to the

proofs of the existence of electrical powers in metals thus furnished,

it is demonstrated that this power must be inseparably associated with

metals, by the well-known fact that in the electro-magnetic machine—an

apparatus which we owe to his genius, and the mechanical ingenuity

of Pixii and Saxton—a coil of wire, being subjected to the inductive

influence of a magnet, is capable of furnishing, within the circuit

which it forms, all the phenomena of an electrical current, whether of

ignition, shock, or electrolysis.

1785. The existence in metals of an enormous calorific power must be

evident from the heat evolved by mere hammering. It is well known that

by a skilful application of the hammer, a piece of iron, between it and

a cold anvil, may be ignited. To what other cause than their inherent

calorific power can the ignition of metals by the discharge of a Leyden

battery be ascribed?

1786. It follows, that the existence of an immense calorific and

electrical power is undeniable. The materiality of these powers, or of

their cause, is all that has been questionable. But, according to the

speculations of Farraday, all the powers of matter are material; not

only the calorific and electrical powers are thus to be considered,

but likewise the powers of cohesion, chemical affinity, inertia, and

gravitation, while _of all these material powers only the latter can be

ponderable_!

1787. Thus, a disinclination on the part of this distinguished

investigator to admit the existence of one or two imponderable

principles, has led him into speculations involving the existence of a

much greater number. But if, while the rest of the properties of the

metal are represented by Newtonian atoms, the calorific and electrical

powers be both material and imponderable, and of these such enormous

quantities exist in potassium, as well as in zinc and all other metals,

so much of the reasoning in question as is founded on the vacuity of

the space between the metallic atoms is groundless.

1788. Although the space occupied by the hydrated oxide of potassium

comprises 2800 ponderable atoms, while that occupied by an equal

mass of the metal comprises only 430, there may be in the latter

proportionally as much more of the material, though imponderable,

powers of heat and electricity, as there is less of matter endowed with

ponderability.

1789. Thus, while assuming the existence of fewer imponderable causes

than the celebrated author of the speculation has himself proposed,

we explain the conducting power of metals, without being under the

necessity of attributing to void space the property of electrical

conduction. Moreover, I consider it quite consistent to suppose that

the presence of the ethereal basis of electricity is indispensable to

electrical conduction, and that diversities in this faculty are due

to the proportion of that material power present, and the mode of its

association with other matter. The immense superiority of metals will

be explained, by referring it to their being peculiarly replete with

the ethereal basis of heat and electricity.

1790. Hence Farraday’s suggestions respecting the _materiality_ of what

has heretofore been designated as the _properties_ of bodies, furnish

the means of refuting his arguments against the existence of ponderable

impenetrable atoms as the basis of cohesion, chemical affinity,

momentum, and gravitation.

1791. But I will, in the next place, prove that his suggestions not

only furnish an answer to his objections to the views in this respect

heretofore entertained, but are likewise pregnant with consequences

directly inconsistent with the view of the subject which he has

recently presented.

1792. I have said that of all the powers which are, according to

Farraday’s speculations, to be deemed material, gravitation can alone

be ponderable; since, according to his speculations, gravitation,

in common with every power heretofore attributed to impenetrable

particles, must be a matter independently pervading the space

throughout which it is perceived. This being the consequence, by what

tie is gravitation, or, in other words, weight—indissolubly attached

to the rest? It cannot be pretended that either of the powers is the

property of any other. Each of them is an _m_, and cannot play the

part of an _a_, not only because an _m_, an effect, cannot be an

_a_, its cause, but because, according to the premises, no _a_ can

exist. Nor can it be advanced that they are the same power, since

chemical affinity and cohesion act only at insensible distances, while

gravitation acts at any and every distance, with forces inversely as

their squares; and, moreover, the power of chemical affinity is not

commensurate with that of gravitation. One part, by weight, of hydrogen

has a greater affinity, universally, for any other element than two

hundred parts of gold. By what means then are cohesion, chemical

affinity, and gravitation inseparably associated in all the ponderable

elements of matter? Is it not fatal to the validity of the highly

ingenious and interesting deductions of Farraday, that they are thus

shown to be utterly incompetent to explain the inseparable association

of cohesion, chemical affinity, and inertia with gravitation, while

the existence of a vacuity between Newtonian atoms, mainly relied upon

as the basis of an argument against their existence, is shown to be

inconsistent both with the ingenious speculation which has called forth

these remarks, and those Herculean “researches” which must perpetuate

his fame? (See Appendix for Farraday’s Speculations on Electric

Conduction and the Nature of Matter.)

_On Whewell’s demonstration that all matter is heavy._

1793. While the speculations of Farraday, isolate gravitation, as

the only matter endowed with weight, and treat all other matters as

weightless, those of another eminent philosopher, Whewell, would tend

to prove that _all_ matter is heavy.

1794. This subject may be interesting now, when we are anxious to

understand well the nature of matter, which Comte would represent

as the _basis of mind_, and when it becomes a point of departure in

forming ideas of spirit and mind, as they must be contemplated by

Spiritualism. I therefore subjoin a critique upon the allegation that

all matter can be heavy, and on the relation between _vis inertiæ_ and

_gravitation_.

1795. One consideration seems to be usually overlooked in contemplating

these forces. It is forgotten that _inertia_ is the property of one

body, while gravitation requires two for its existence. If there were

only one body in nature, it might move on, in obedience to its _vis

inertiæ_, for any length of time; but, during an isolated existence,

could neither attract nor be attracted. Whewell’s theorem, in his own

language, is as follows:

1796. “We see,” alleges Whewell, “that the propositions that

all bodies are heavy, and that inertia is proportional to weight,

necessarily follow from those fundamental ideas which we unavoidably

employ in all attempts to reason concerning the mechanical relations

of bodies.” (See Demonstration that all Matter is heavy, by the Rev.

William Whewell, B.D. Silliman’s Journal, vol. 42, page 265.)

To PROFESSOR WHEWELL:

1797. DEAR SIR: I thank you for your kind attention in sending me a

copy of your pamphlet, entitled a “_Demonstration that all Matter is

heavy_,” comprising a communication made to the Cambridge Philosophical

Society.

1798. I conceive that to demonstrate that all matter is heavy, is, in

other words, to prove that all matter is endowed with attraction of

gravitation, or that general property which, when it causes bodies to

tend toward the centre of the earth, is called weight. Hence to assert

that all matter is heavy, is no more than to say, that attraction of

gravitation exists between all or any masses of matter.

1799. You say, “it may be urged that we have no difficulty in

conceiving of matter which is not heavy.” I have no hesitation in

asserting that there should be no difficulty in entertaining such a

conception; since I cannot understand why any two masses may not be as

readily conceived to _repel_, as to _attract_ each other, or _neither

to attract nor to repel_. Is it not easier to imagine two remote masses

indifferent to each other, than that they act upon each other? Is any

thing more difficult to understand than that a body can act where it is

not?

1800. It is also mentioned by you, that it may be urged “_that inertia

and weight are two separate properties of matter_.” Now I will not

only urge, but also, with all due deference, will undertake to show,

that the existence of inertia may as well be proven, and its quantity

estimated, by means of repulsion as by means of attraction.

1801. Suppose two bodies, A and B, to be endowed with reciprocal

attraction, or, in other words, to gravitate toward each other. Being

placed at a distance, and then allowed to approach, if, after any given

time, it were found that they had moved severally any ascertained

distances, evidently their relative inertias would be considered as

inversely as those distances.

1802. In the next place, let us suppose two bodies, X and Y, endowed

with the opposite force of reciprocal repulsion, to be placed in

proximity, and then allowed to fly apart. The distances run through by

them severally, being, at any given time, determined, might not their

respective inertias be taken to be inversely as those distances; so

that the question would be as well ascertained in this case as in that

above stated, in which gravitation should be resorted to as the test?

1803. It seems to me that this question is sufficiently answered in the

affirmative, in your second paragraph, page 7, (p. 269,) in which you

allege, that “_one body has twice as much inertia as another, if, when

the same force acts upon it for the same time, it acquires but half the

velocity. This is the fundamental conception of inertia._”

1804. In the third paragraph, fourth page, (p. 261,) you say, “_that

the quantity of matter is measured by those sensible properties of

matter which undergo quantitative addition, subtraction, and division,

as the matter is added, subtracted, or divided, the quantity of

matter cannot be known in any other way; but this mode of measuring

the quantity of matter, in order to be true at all, must be true

universally_.”

1805. Also your fourth paragraph, fifth page, (p. 268,) concludes with

this allegation: “_And thus we have proved, that if there be any kind

of matter which is not heavy, the weight can no longer avail us, in any

case, to any extent, as the measure of the quantity of matter._”

1806. In reply to these allegations, let me inquire, Cannot a matter

exist of which the sensible properties do not admit of being measured

by human means? Because some kinds of matter can be measured by “those

sensible qualities which undergo quantitative addition, subtraction,

and division,” does it follow that there may not be matter which is

incapable of being thus measured? And wherefore would the method of

obtaining philosophical truth be “futile” in the one case, because

inapplicable in the other? Because the inertias of A and B have been

discovered, by means of their gravitation, does it follow that the

inertias of X and Y cannot be discovered by their self-repellent

power? Why should the inapplicability of gravitation in the one case

render its employment futile in the other?

1807. It is self-evident, that matter without weight cannot be

estimated by weighing, but I deny that on that account such weightless

matter may not be otherwise estimated. The inertias of A and B cannot

be better measured by gravitation than those of X and Y by repulsion,

as already shown.

1808. You seem to infer, in paragraph second, page sixth, (p. 268,)

that we should be equally destitute of the means of measuring matter

accurately, “_were any kind of matter heavy indeed, but not so heavy,

in proportion to its quantity of matter, as other kinds_.”

1809. If, in the case of all matter, weight be admitted to be the only

measure of quantity, it were inconsistent to suppose any given quantity

of matter, of any one kind, to have less weight than an equal quantity

of another kind; but upon what other than a conventional basis is it to

be assumed that there is more matter in a cubic inch of platinum than

in a cubic inch of tin? in a cubic inch of mercury than in a cubic inch

of iron? Judging by the chemical efficacy of the masses, although the

weight of mercury is to that of iron as 13.6 is to 8, there are more

equivalents of the latter than the former in any given bulk, since by

weight twenty-eight parts of iron are equivalent to two hundred and two

parts of mercury.

1810. Weight is one of the properties of certain kinds of matter,

and has been advantageously resorted to, in preference to any other

property, in estimating the quantity of the matter to which it

appertains. Nevertheless, measurement by bulk is found expedient or

necessary in many cases. But may we not appeal to any general property

which admits of being measured or estimated? Farraday has inferred that

the quantity of electricity is as the quantity of gas which it evolves.

Light has been considered as proportional in quantity to the surface

which it illuminates with a given intensity at a certain distance.

The quantity of caloric has been held to be directly as the weight of

water which it will render aeriform; and has also been estimated by the

degree of its expansive or thermometric influence. What scale-beam is

more delicate than the thermoscope of Melloni?

1811. In the last paragraph but one, seventh page, (p. 270,) you

suggest, that “_perhaps some persons might conceive that the identity

of weight and inertia is obvious at once, for both are merely

resistance to motion; inertia, resistance to all motion, or change of

motion; weight, resistance to motion upward_.”

1812. I am surprised that you should think the opinion of any person

worthy of attention, who should entertain so narrow a view of weight,

as antagonist of momentum, as that above quoted, “_that it is a

resistance to motion upward_.” Agreeably to the definition given at the

commencement of the letter, weight, in its usual practical sense, is

only one case of the general force which causes all ponderable masses

of matter to gravitate toward each other, and which is of course liable

to resist any conflicting motion, whatever may be the direction. When,

in the form of solar attraction, it overcomes that inertia of the

planets which would otherwise cause them to leave their orbits, does

gravitation “_resist motion upward_?”

1813. In the next paragraph you allege, that “_there is a difference

in these two kinds of resistance to motion. Inertia is instantaneous,

weight is continuous, resistance._”

1814. It is to this allegation I object, that as you have defined

inertia to be “_resistance to motion, or to change of motion_,” it

follows that it can be instantaneous only where the impulse which it

resists is instantaneous. It cannot be less continuous than the force

by which it is overcome.

1815. Gravity has been considered as acting upon falling bodies by an

infinity of impulses, each producing an adequate acceleration; but to

every such accelerating impulse, producing of course a “_change of

motion_,” will there not be a commensurate resistance from inertia? and

the impulses and resistances being both infinite, will not one be as

continuous as the other?

1816. I have already adverted to inertia as the continuous antagonist

of solar attraction in the case of revolving planets.

1817. Agreeably to Mossotti, the creation consists of two kinds of

matter, of which the homogeneous particles are mutually repellent,

the heterogeneous mutually attractive. Consistently with this

hypothesis, _per se_, any matter must be imponderable; being endowed

with a property the very opposite of attraction of gravitation. This

last-mentioned property exists between masses consisting of both kinds

of particles, so far as the attraction between the heterogeneous atoms

predominates over the repulsion between those which are homogeneous.

It would follow from these premises, that all matter is ponderable or

otherwise, accordingly as it may be situated.

1818. Can the ether by which, according to the undulatory theory, light

is transmitted, consist of ponderable matter? Were it so, would it

not be attracted about the planets with forces proportioned to their

weight, respectively? and becoming of unequal density, would not the

diversity in its density, thus arising, affect its undulations, as the

transmission of sound is influenced by any variations in the density of

the aeriform fluid by which it is propagated?

With esteem, I am yours truly,

ROBERT HARE

(See appendix for Whewell’s Essay.)

_Additional Remarks on the Speculations of Farraday and Exley, above

noticed._

1819. Is it possible for a mere centre to be endowed with a force?

or reasonable that language should not make a distinction between

something and nothing, between cause and effect, between matter and the

properties of matter? _m_ being the properties, and _a_ the Newtonian

atom, of which they have been considered as the attributes, I cannot

concur in the reasoning which infers that where we can only perceive

phenomena, we are to dispense with the idea of _causation_, because

that causation is not directly perceptible. It seems to me, from the

meaning of the words, that no cause can exist without some effect, nor

can any effect exist without a cause. Language founded on the existence

of ideas cannot be disused. Can there be any reason for considering any

thing as endowed with existence which gives no evidence of existence?

We distinguish between the thing which causes and the effect which it

produces. The cause evidently has a centrality; the effect, though it

indicates by the direction in which it arrives, the centre whence it

proceeds, is remote from that centre. The existence of this centrality

seems to be recognised in the suggestion that atoms are centres of

forces. This implies that the source or cause is at the centre in each

atom, and, of course, the phenomenon, being more or less remote from

the centre, cannot be the source or cause, and hence has been treated

as an effect or property.

1820. The suggestion that the office of atoms may be performed by

centres of forces, in fact, assigns to a _mere centre_ the part now

performed by a Newtonian atom. But it must be evident that the centre

is that point within any rotating mass, which does not turn therewith;

and which, where neither of the opposite motions resulting from

rotation take place, can neither have length nor breadth. This reduces

the idea of a centre to a common definition with a mathematical point;

which is nihility in the extreme. An absolutely void space may be

identified with nihility, and a mathematical point is a portion of that

space, without length, breadth, or thickness. To endow centres with

forces is to disregard the axiom, “Out of nothing nothing can come.”

Moreover, wherefore should there be a force at _certain_ mathematical

points, and yet others be destitute of the same attribute? Manifestly,

if some _mathematical_ points are deficient of powers with which others

are endowed, there must be something associated with one, which is not

associated with the other. This justifies the Newtonian idea, that the

force, though proceeding from the centre, is, like the terrestrial

attraction of gravitation, the resultant of the complicated attraction

of the whole of a body surrounding the centre. But the centrality

of the force does not seem to accord with the idea of the inferred

diffusion of properties. In the instance of gravitation it does not

account for those attributes by which this globe acts as a solid mass

within its material superficies, and yet, according to the Farradian

definition, reaches beyond the moon!

1821. But the idea of that polarity, of which Farraday has done so

much to establish the existence in all matter, in one form or another,

seems to involve that, to constitute atoms, there must be two centres

of _analogous_, but _opposite_, forces in each: whence it ensues that

crystals shoot in prisms or spiculæ, as water is seen to shoot in

freezing; and through which salts, as deposited by the evaporation of

the solvent from a solution of them, are seen to travel over the sides

of the vessel; and upon which property the phenomena of electricity and

magnetism appear to be dependent. How is this to be reconciled with

this notion of each atom existing in a diffusible penetrable state

throughout the space in which its properties prevail? Since these

opposite polarities are energetic in their reciprocal polar attraction,

what keeps them together, yet prevents them from so uniting as to

produce neutralization?

1822. Mr. Exley’s ideas, if admitted, leave no alternative but either

to place a Newtonian atom within each of his concentric spheres, or

to assume that nothing can have properties, or that effects can exist

without causes. What is to cause a force at any mathematical point

more than at any other? How, in case of a moving body, are the forces

to appear successively to proceed from various centres, if there be

nothing in which it is inherent, which moves and carries its forces

or properties wheresoever it goes? Does not this suggestion that

atoms are centres of their forces, by making the cart draw itself,

force the effect to be its own cause? It is quite consistent with the

Newtonian definition, that the resultant of the action of every part

of a mass should comport as if it proceeded from a common centre,

as does terrestrial gravitation; and of course, whether we have the

Newtonian idea or that of Boscovitch, Farraday, or Exley, we have

forces proceeding from centres. The great difference is that agreeably

to the one these forces emanate from nothing; agreeably to the other,

from something. I used to define matter to my pupils as that which has

properties. In the mind, is not force distinguished from some moving

power which gives it rise? Is not this distinction inevitable? and were

the word force employed to designate the moving power which exercises

force, would it not confound ideas, without altering the actual state

of the case? Would it not impoverish language, without improving

science?

_Of Mundane, Ethereal, and Ponderable Matter, in their Chemical

relations._

1823. The bodies which occupy the attention of a chemist are found in

one of three states—those of solidity, fluidity, and elasticity. Ice,

liquid water, and steam exemplify these different states. The fact is

thus illustrated, that the same chemical compound, consisting of oxygen

and hydrogen, may exist in either state, according to the temperature

to which it may be subjected.

1824. Experience justifies the surmise, that scarcely any body in

nature is utterly insusceptible of these three states, provided it were

heated or refrigerated with an unlimited power.

1825. Beside the property of gravitation, of which the energy is

inversely as the square of the distance, however great, (as when it

enables the two suns, apparently forming but one—the double star,

61 Cygni (1340)—at the distance of six thousand millions of miles,

to attract each other so as to revolve about their common centre

of gravity,) atoms are endowed with a force called attraction of

aggregation, which operates only at insensible distances, so that when

brought into due proximity they unite and form a coherent mass. Again,

they are endowed, as already mentioned, with chemical affinity, which

varies with the kind of particles in which it exists as a property;

being the characteristic by which they are distinguished one from the

other.

1826. According to the doctrine which chemists have heretofore

suggested for the existence of matter in the elastic or gaseous

state, each aerial or gaseous atom was conceived to be enveloped in

an atmosphere of fluid called caloric, resembling the ether in the

self-repellent power of its constituent particles. This atmosphere has

been assumed to impart to atoms which it envelopes its own inherent

power of reciprocal repulsion, like that which those of the ether have.

But Dalton showed that there was no repulsion between gaseous atoms

when _heterogeneous_. Two or more such gases, hydrogen and nitrogen,

for instance, being comprised in the same cavity, there would be no

repulsion between the atoms of hydrogen and those of nitrogen, but

only between those of the same gas. This has been held to be equally

true, however many gases might be mingled, or whatever vapours might be

superadded.

1827. The idea is thus refuted, which ascribes the repulsive power to

the same elastic fluid, since in that case the diversity of the gaseous

atoms could not so affect the repulsive influence as to nullify it

between heterogeneous atoms, while sustaining this repulsion, where the

atoms should be alike.

1828. Moreover, as the rays of light have been found to be mere

undulations in the ether; the rays of heat, being perfectly analogous

in their attributes, must also be due to ethereal undulations. But

vaporization may be affected by radiant heat, and gases owe their

aeriform state to the same cause as vapor or steam; yet transient

undulations evidently cannot form a permanent combination, so as to

confer the durable elasticity of a permanent gas.

1829. It appears, then, that neither the doctrine of caloric, nor the

undulatory doctrine, as it is received, will explain the creation of

permanent gas. Under these circumstances a modification of the existing

opinions is called for. It has, for some years, occurred to me, that

the Newtonian doctrine of radiation might be associated with that of

undulation.

1830. The fact that radiant heat could be collected by a mirror so

as to raise the temperature of bodies placed in the focus, and that

this process could take place in vacuo, as ascertained by Sir Humphrey

Davy, had been adduced as unquestionable evidence of the materiality

of caloric, the supposed fluid cause of heat. But as the cold

proceeding from a snowball or any cold body could be collected by the

same process, it was urged by some chemists that the evidence of the

materiality of the cause of cold must also be admitted. Prevost met

this argument by suggesting that no body in nature is absolutely cold.

Every body, however refrigerated, is not so cold as to be incapable

of greater refrigeration. Hence all bodies being absolutely above the

zero of nature, are throwing off rays to each other, and where there

is equality of temperature, they do not cause any change in their

relative temperatures. The rays thrown off by A are compensated by

those which it receives from B, and _vice versa_. But if A throws off

to B more than B reciprocates, the temperature of A must fall until an

equilibrium is attained. Thus, A being the mirror and B the snowball,

the mirror is refrigerated, and causes a greater radiation from any

body situated about its focus. This explanation was generally received,

but to me, the following rationale, which I advanced, appeared

preferable:

1831. I assumed caloric to exist throughout the sublunary creation,

as the luminiferous ether is assumed to be diffused throughout all

space by the undulationists; the diffusion arising from the reciprocal

repulsion of its particles being similar to that which had been

supposed to cause the diffusion of caloric. There is the greatest

analogy between this diffusion and that which is known to exist in the

case of gases. The process is the same, whether the gas be dense like

chlorine, or thirty-six times as rare, as in the instance of hydrogen,

and in the luminiferous ether resembles the process by which hydrogen

is rarified, or might be rendered more rare, were the pressure of the

atmosphere removed.

1832. It is known that in any gas or gaseous mixture like that which

we breathe, if a deficit of pressure be caused in any spot, the

gaseous particles will quickly move toward it, in order to restore

the equilibrium of pressure, and that if, on the other hand, any

augmentation of pressure be produced at any spot, the gas will move

outward to restore the equilibrium.

1833. The particles being symmetrically arranged in lines, a row of

particles may be conceived to lie between every two remote points. If

we suppose any number of points in the focal body, and a corresponding

number in the surface of the mirror, it may be conceived that the

intervening ethereal or calorific particles will move in rows one way

or the other, as the pressure in the focal space may become greater or

less. Thus an effect is brought about, equivalent to that which the

Newtonian idea of radiation involves; lines of particles proceed from

the hotter points to the colder ones.

1834. The arrangement of the particles of caloric, which was

originally, in my view, confined to the sublunary creation, appears of

necessity to belong to the luminiferous ether, required by the theory

ascribing light to undulations, though the last-mentioned medium must

be endowed with ubiquity as above stated, so as to abound in every part

of space through which light reaches the eye.

1835. The undulatory hypothesis supposes that a wave-like motion being

imparted to a row of particles, by a luminous point in the surface of

the luminous body, is transmitted, like the sound producing waves in

the air, to the other end of the row.

1836. This undulatory progression has been roughly illustrated by the

transitory serpentine movements which may be made in a cord, stretched

like a clothes-line between the tops of posts.

1837. In order to make this illustration elucidate the conception which

I advance, we have only to suppose that the cord, instead of being

attached to the post, should be drawn rapidly over pulleys, and, while

thus actuated, be subjected to a cause of undulatory vibration. It

may be conceived that, by this process, the ethereal particles, while

performing all which the undulatory theory requires, might at the same

time perform all required by that of emission and material calorific

radiation. Directed upon a vaporizable liquid, the undulations might

perform the part of sensible heat; the ethereal particles, successively

combining, might furnish the latent heat requisite to the constitution

of vapour.

1838. Agreeably to Newton, the seven colours of the spectrum are due to

as many different kinds of radiant particles of various refrangibility,

or susceptibility of being bent from the rectilinear path when passed

through the same refracting medium.[40]

1839. According to the undulatory theory, the colours are caused by

diversities in the undulations producing them. Retaining this feature,

the last-mentioned hypothesis, as modified by myself, appears to

be competent to explain the phenomena of light as well as those of

vaporization, produced by calorific radiation, since not only is any

vaporizing liquid subjected to the transient effect of the undulations,

but also may combine with the ethereal particles as they come into

contact with it.

1840. Thus modified, the rationale of the rainbow, or prismatic

spectrum, would not be that the colours indicate as many varieties

of original radiant particles, but that they are to be explained

agreeably to the undulatory hypothesis, which ascribes them to as many

varieties in the undulations, just as the notes in music are ascribed

to diversities of vibration.

1841. The ether, under this view, performs the part heretofore

assigned to latent heat, by combining with solids so as to render them

susceptible of expansion, and of electrical conduction by being liable

to the polarization which constitutes electricity.

1842. Sensible heat, according to this aspect, is due to the vibrations

of the ethereal fluid, which is sustained by the sun, by ignition

in the interior of the earth, and by chemical reaction, including

combustion and respiration.

1843. The correctness of the inference, that conductors owe their

conductive power to ethereal matter entering into their composition,

has been insisted upon in my strictures on Farraday’s speculation in

some of the preceding pages. The facts admitted by this distinguished

investigator of nature’s laws, gave to me a basis on which to rest an

argument in favour of the existence of an imponderable cause of heat

and electricity in metals, which seems to me unanswerable.

1844. Agreeably to the hypothesis respecting which the preceding

preparatory suggestions have been made, gasification is not due to a

repulsive atmosphere of ethereal matter, severally appropriated to

each ponderable constituent atom, but to an attraction for every such

atom exercised by the ethereal fluid, such as water exercises toward

sugar, quick-lime, salt, or any soluble substance. The ether attracts

the particles of certain solids, and is of course reacted upon by them.

The particles thus attracted naturally distribute themselves throughout

it, at symmetrical distances. Hence the law of Pettit and Dulong is

verified, which, at least, holds good with all gasifiable atoms, that

their capacity is inversely as their atomic weight.

1845. The atomic weights of hydrogen, nitrogen, and chlorine

being severally 1, 14, 36, when associated with equal volumes of

the _imponderable_ ether, they will have still the same weight.

Equal volumes will weigh the same as the atoms with which they are

associated; and the capacity for heat, being directly as the volumes,

will be inversely as the weights, the calculation being the same,

whether ether or caloric be the imponderable principle to which they

owe their gasification. By concurring with those chemists, who estimate

the atoms of oxygen at 16, instead of 8, this gas will come into the

same calculation.

1846. When heterogeneous gases are confined within the same cavity,

that they should not react with each other is no more wonderful,

than that the same mass of water may at the same time hold different

substances in solution, which may add to its hydrostatic pressure

though they have no reciprocal reaction.

1847. Sensible heat appears to be due to vibrations in the ether, kept

up by the solar rays or central ignition within this globe. By the

heat thus acquired the self-repellent power of the ether is augmented.

When by refrigeration this source of repulsion is diminished beyond

a certain limit, the atoms of certain vaporizable particles, such

as those of steam and other condensible vapours, are approximated

sufficiently to attract each other, and consequently coalesce and are

condensed.

1848. It follows that light is due to _undulation_, sensible heat

to _vibration_, and electricity to the _polarization_ caused in the

ethereal medium, while either in a free, or in a combined state. Thus

this luminiferous ether performs the part heretofore attributed to

latent heat or caloric in one state; in another state, that of sensible

heat.

_Suggestions of Massotti, respecting the Nature of Matter._

1849. Massotti has suggested that all bodies consist of two kinds of

ultimate particles; that any two or more particles of one kind are

repulsive of each other, while any two or more of different kinds are

reciprocally attractive. Hence atoms are formed, consisting of one atom

of one kind and one of the other kind. Of course, were the opposite

forces exercised by the heterogeneous and homogeneous equal, the

resulting atoms would be neither attractive nor repulsive; but assuming

the attractive power to have the ascendency, the hypothesis would

account for the property of gravitation.

1850. Let the suggestions of Massotti be modified, so far as that

the extremities of each particle, whether of one or the other kind,

are to be considered as endowed with opposite polarities, like those

of the magnetic needle, as already suggested in the case of matter

in general. Then in one relative position of the extremities they

may be reciprocally repulsive, in the other reciprocally attractive;

likewise one of the kinds of matter, like the light-producing ether

of the undulationists, may pervade the universe, and be condensed in

a peculiarly great quantity within perfect conductors: all this being

premised, it may be conceived how the waves of opposite polarization,

which proceed from oppositely electrified, or in other words,

oppositely polarized bodies, cause the matter through which they pass

to be decomposed or explosively rent.

1851. As elsewhere stated, in large bodies of water, waves are the

effect of transference of motion successively from one part of the mass

to the other; the rolling of the wave causing nothing to pass but the

motion, and of course, the momentum is invariably consequent to motion.

The waves by which sound is transmitted, are analogous; nothing being

transferred excepting a vibration of the air, capable of affecting the

tympanum of the ear with the impression requisite to create in the

sensorium the idea of sound.

1852. Any affection of matter, capable of existing in successive parts

of a material body, so that while the body is stationary, the affection

passes from one part of the mass to others, may be considered as a wave

of that affection, as reasonably as the affection called momentum is

considered as producing a wave in water, when passing through it, as

above described. It is in this way that I consider that the term wave

of polarization may be applied to an affection of matter consisting

of an abnormal position of the poles of the constituent particles,

successively induced in rows of atoms, so as to proceed from one part

of the series to the other.

1853. And as two sets of waves, of which the hollows of one should

correspond with the elevations of the others, would, by being

associated, produce an even surface and equalization of the momentum

in the aqueous liquid, so, in opposite polarities, there might be

reciprocal neutralization by the coming together of the polarities.

_On Electro-polarity as the Cause of Electrical Phenomena._

1854. Agreeably to the view which I take of the present state of

our electrical knowledge, the phenomena designated under the name

of electricity are due entirely to a process which I designate as

polarization, and the consequences thereof. Those attractions and

repulsions which have been found to exist between particles of matter,

instead of being an endowment of the whole mass of each particle, seem

confined, as already suggested, to particular terminations or spots,

as we see this property on a larger scale in the loadstone or natural

magnet. In the body long known under this appellation, the attractive

power which it exercises is displayed usually at two distinct portions

of its superficies, which are called poles. When a piece of steel

wire is duly rubbed by either of these poles, it acquires a similar

attractive polarity, which always appears at the extremities. When

formed into an appropriate shape and freely suspended, such a wire

magnet constitutes the compass needle, having the wonderful and

all-important faculty of arranging itself within a meridian plane,

so as to be always nearly north and south; the same pole invariably

pointing in the same direction. The poles are named from the quarter to

which they point, one being called the north pole of the needle, the

other the south pole. This involves that the north pole of the earth

itself has nominally south polarity; the south pole, north polarity.

1855. When two suspended compass needles are sufficiently approximated,

it will be seen that between the poles which point in the same

direction, there is repulsion; between those which point in different

directions, attraction. When the dissimilar poles are brought into

contact, they adhere; and if left cohering, will continue attached for

any length of time; and while in that state of coherence, the magnetic

power of the poles thus touching, being neutralized, disappears.[41]

1856. If two needles be laid parallel, an interval between them,

the extremities being made to communicate by applying two wires of

suitable dimensions, also parallel to each other, the magnetic power

will be neutralized.

1857. It is inferred that analogous phenomena take place in the

particles of masses or surfaces which are endowed with chemical

affinity or even cohesive attraction.

1858. It is to the existence of the power by which these effects

are caused, at opposite terminations, that bodies, in congealing or

freezing from the state of liquidity, shoot into prismatic, oblong,

regular forms, called crystals. This is illustrated in the formation of

ice, which is seen to shoot into such prismatic crystals.

1859. When a pane of glass is so situated as to have the focus of a

solar microscope thrown upon any spot, so that the glass thus affected

may be between the eye of an observer and the microscope, any small

crystals formed are greatly magnified. Hence if the focal space be

moistened with a solution of certain salts, the solvent evaporating,

crystallization ensues, and is seen to form appropriate figures for

each salt employed. It is owing to this property that when certain

solutions of various substances are evaporated, the soluble solid, as

it is deposited from the solvent, arranges itself longitudinally; one

atom attaching itself to the pole of another, until it creeps over the

sides of the vessel in great quantity. The appearance of arborescence

in certain minerals is thus accounted for. When an amalgam of mercury

with silver is hung by a platina wire within a bottle of a solution

of silver in nitric acid, there is formed a beautiful branching of

silver filaments. These are longer, though more slowly formed, as the

solution is more dilute. In very dilute solutions I have seen prisms of

silver of more than an inch in length, so delicate, that but for the

brilliancy of the surface they could not have been detected by the eye.

1860. Farraday distinguished two kinds of polarity—ferro-magnetic

and dia-magnetic. That above described as taking place between steel

magnets is designated as ferro-magnetic. Dia-magnetic particles under

magnetic influence take position at right angles to that which would

ensue from ferro-magnetism.

1861. This explanation being premised to enable the student to

comprehend what is meant by polarity, I will proceed to explain

electric phenomena, according to the theory which I hold.

1862. It is expected that the preceding discussions have prepared the

reader to conceive that the atoms of all ponderable matter are endowed

with two analogous but opposite polar powers, which we term polarity.

That in any two atoms the dissimilar polar powers tend to make them

unite, the similar powers having the opposite tendency. That in any

inert mass the opposite powers or polarities are in contact, and thus

reciprocally neutralized.

1863. It will be also understood that the ethereal fluid which pervades

the universe as the means of illumination is assumed to consist in

like manner of atoms or particles which are endowed with polarity, so

that when the opposite poles are in proximity, there is neutralization:

repulsion, and disturbance, when similar poles are approximated. This

being premised, the allegation may be intelligible, that when bodies

are electrified, the poles of the component atoms or particles are

conceived to be deranged from their natural position of reciprocal

neutralization, so that they react with exterior bodies, disturbing the

poles of their constituent particles, and thus electrifying them by

induction.

1864. This abnormal state of disturbance, is conceived to be produced

on glass or resin, or any electric, when duly subjected to friction.

1865. Thus when in an electric machine a vitreous surface is rubbed by

a leather cushion, the particles both of the leather and glass surfaces

are deranged from their natural state of reciprocal neutralization,

and present their poles in an active state, and the glass surface,

moving through the ethereal medium, (812) polarizes it as it passes,

the ether resuming its normal state till the ethereal atmosphere over

the conductor is reached. To that it imparts durable polarity; the

metallic superficies of the conductor taking the opposite state, so

that the charge is retained until the glass goes to and returns from

the cushion, with a farther supply of polarity.

1866. The charges of polarization received by the plates at each

succeeding revolution of the plate or cylinder, is divided with the

ethereal atmosphere over the conductor, and this process is reiterated

till the frictional power has accomplished its maximum effect. Then

the conductor is said to be charged positively, according to the

theory of one fluid, and vitreously, according to that of Dufay, or

the theory of two fluids. Meanwhile, if the cushion communicates duly

with an insulated conductor, a process perfectly analogous to that

just described has been charging that conductor, _pari passu_, with

the one first mentioned. By these means we have two excited or charged

conductors.

1867. If, before charging these conquerors, two scalps of hair be

severally situated on them, it will be perceived that, as the charging

proceeds, the hairs on each of the scalps rise, and endeavour to keep

away from each other. But, meanwhile, the whole of the hair on either

is attracted by that on the other conductor. Moreover, on touching both

conductors with any metallic rod, simultaneously, the whole of the

excitement disappears, and the hairs assume their normal position.

1868. In producing this discharge, iron is not more effective than

any other metal. It is, in fact, known to be less competent for this

species of conduction, than copper, silver, or gold.

1869. When the conductors are excited they have a powerful effect upon

gold leaves, suspended as in the electrometer.

1870. The state of the conductors, when excited, as described here, is

said to be _static_. Such a state of excitement is distinguished as a

_statical_ charge of electricity.

1871. In the next place, if we procure a horse-shoe magnet, lay it

on a table, cover it with a sheet of paper, and then sift over it

iron filings, we shall see the shape of the magnet delineated upon

the paper, by the filings arranging themselves above its corners in

preference. But as the sifting proceeds, the filings will be seen

to extend themselves in filaments, so as very much to resemble the

electrified hair above described. A tuft of the ferruginous filaments

will be formed upon each pole of the magnet, each filament avoiding

its neighbours, as far as possible. But while each filament, in either

tuft, avoids every other in its appropriate tuft, the whole of the

filaments in one, are attracted by those in the other. Thus, the

charges of polarity which cause each similarly polarized filament to

avoid those in the same state, induce those polarized by one of the

poles of the magnet, to attract such as are polarized by the other pole

of the magnet.

1872. Here is, so far, a great analogy between the phenomena of the

polarization of filings and the polarization of the hair, above

described. But then there is this difference: excepting iron, cobalt,

and nickel, there is no metal which can, by contact with the poles of a

magnet, neutralize the polarity by which the iron filings are affected;

and even these metals produce this result by a process, the inverse

of that by which charges of statical electricity are neutralized. In

fact, the magnetic metal, far from acting as a discharger, acts as

a keeper; and a piece of iron, of a suitable shape, applied to the

terminations of a horse-shoe magnet, prevents the gradual diminution of

the magnetism, which otherwise ensues. Hence the name keeper is applied

to it, as well as armature, derived from the French.

1873. It will be perceived that, in a steel magnet, the charges are

sustained at the terminations of a conductor, which, as estimated by

Cavendish, conducts electricity with a velocity two hundred thousand

times as great as water.

1874. The charge of the conductor of the machine is superficial, a gilt

globe of glass holding as good a charge as a solid globe of metal;

and, moreover, in this superficial charge, the ether and the air

participate, undergoing a polar affection, analogous to that of the

filings exposed to the influence of the magnet.

1875. On the other hand, in the use of the steel magnet, the charge is

internal, and, other things being equal, increases with the quantity

of iron charged; neither the air nor the ether participate in this

magnetic charge. There is no mode in which the charges of the poles

of a magnet can be made to pass from one to the other, through any

interposed conducting mass.

1876. The retention of the charge seems to be dependent upon a state

of the particles in which they are capable of being deranged from

their normal position with a certain degree of extraneous influence,

and can only resume their natural relative position by a contrary

application of a similar agent. Although steel differs from iron only

in containing, as an ingredient, one-fiftieth of carbon, this gives it

the highly valuable property of hardening, when suddenly refrigerated;

a result which may be accounted for by supposing that, in consequence

of the sudden exposure to a powerful conducting medium, there is a

sort of a jerk by which the particles loose from their midst an undue

portion of their ethereal constituents, and cannot recover their normal

arrangement after the refrigeration. When this effect is reached to

a maximum, the steel is so brittle as sometimes to fly into two or

more pieces when left to itself. When soft iron is subjected to the

magnetizing process, it exchanges one polarity for the other with such

speed, that, in some electro-magnetic instruments, this reversal is

effected more than one hundred times in a second; but precisely in

proportion as the magnetism is readily received, it is more readily

lost. On the other side, when hardened to a maximum, steel can scarcely

be magnetized at all. Thus, to have a permanent magnet, we must employ

the metal in a state of induration between the extremes. These facts

tend to corroborate the inference that magnetism is dependent on the

relative position of the ferruginous particles. It is presumed that the

ferruginous particles of which the filings consist indicate, by their

direction, as seen externally, the direction in which the constituent

particles of the magnet are situated beneath the metallic surface.[42]

1877. If to a wire, connecting the poles of a galvanic battery, iron

filings are applied, each ferruginous particle becomes a little magnet,

and displays exactly the same disposition to unite in filaments as

has been represented to take place when they are exposed upon a sheet

of paper, to the influence of a magnet supporting it. But while this

affection is thus identical with that induced by the steel magnet, it

differs therefrom, in its being as transient as the galvanic discharges

to which it owes its existence. These, at the lowest estimate, are

sufficiently rapid to go round the globe in two seconds; whence it

may be conceived that the time taken to percur a few inches of wire

must be almost infinitely brief. Hence, although the filings continue

in a state of magnetization so long as the action of the battery is

sustained, and the wire kept in due contact with the poles of the

battery, it is only by a rapid reiteration of discharges, that this

result is effected.

1878. As the relative position of the particles composing the steel

magnet has been inferred to be indicated by that of the movable filings

which they influence, we may suppose the position of the particles

composing the wire, to be indicated by that which the filings take by

which it is encircled. These are situated always as if forming tangents

to the circumference of the wire, and hence it may be perceived that

the metallic particles, forming the wire, have been shifted from their

normal position, parallel to the axis, so as to take that tangential

direction which the magnetization evinces.

1879. On one end of the wire being in communication with one pole of

a voltaic series, on touching the other pole of the series with the

other end of the wire, filaments of the particles previously situated

parallel to the axis, are jerked out of the normal position with

an inconceivable quickness, the discharge, however, not affecting

successive parts of the length absolutely at once, but successively; so

that there is a time required for the process, however inconceivably

minute it may appear to us. The effect upon the filaments of filings,

at the different ends of the wire, are perfectly simultaneous, and the

effect analogous, but different in this respect, that the positive

poles are presented externally at one end, the negative at the other,

so that, when the polarizing affections meet at an intermediate point

within the wire, neutrality ensues.

1880. Thus it will be perceived that no current passes through the

wire, any more than the water which is seen to form a wave, on one side

of a lake, passes with the wave which is seen apparently to proceed

to the other side. Notoriously, in this case, nothing passes but the

momentum, which is successively imparted to successive portions of the

intervening water; so, in the galvanic discharge, successive portions

of the intervening wire are affected by the original disturbing jerks,

of which the power passes from each portion to that next beyond it,

just as the momentum in the case of the aqueous wave.

1881. Upon these considerations I hold myself as warranted in calling

the affections of the wire, as described, _waves_ of polarization, not

that the affection of the wire has the smallest similitude to that

with which water produces waves, but that, in both cases, there is a

successive communication of a property. It is well known that there

is this analogy in the two cases; in either, opposite waves, on due

meeting, produce reciprocal neutrality.

1882. The neutralization of the electro-polarity induced upon the

charged conductors (1867) by touching both at the same time by a

conducting rod, is effected in some degree analogously to the process

in the voltaic discharge; since waves of opposite polarization are

produced at each extremity, and, rushing toward an intermediate point,

are neutralized by meeting. But the polarization in the case of the

conductors, as has been stated, (1874,) is superficial, and extends not

only to the surfaces of the conductors, but likewise to the surrounding

ether and air, and does not affect the ponderable atoms of the wire

unless the charge be too great to pass in this superficial manner. In

that case, being condensed upon the wire to a state of great intensity,

it causes a polarization of the atoms composing it, similar to that of

the voltaic discharge, though less durable.

1883. From the preceding exposition it follows that the conduction

and insulation of that species of electricity which is excited by an

electrical machine or other frictional processes, exists upon the

superficies of insulated masses, or that of the circumambient particles

of the air or ether. This frictional electricity likewise passes

preferably over the surfaces of conductors, so that the moistened

surface of glass, or other non-conductors, conveys it with enormous

facility. It is notorious, that when the air is moist, electrical

machines are paralyzed. But this cannot be in consequence of the moist

air acting as a conductor. Agreeably to some experiments which I made,

a fog from hot water does not act as a conductor. Evidently, were a fog

or a cloud a conductor, the air and moisture forming a thunder cloud

could not be electrified, so as to give the discharges which constitute

lightning.

1884. It is well known that a tube will carry more lightning than a

rod, of which the sectional area should comprise the same quantity of

metal. Yet, when the wire is too small to carry a charge outside, it

is acted upon intestinally and may be explosively deflagrated. But

while the existence of a film of moisture upon the glass legs of an

electrical machine, may paralyze its power, to a powerful galvanic

battery moisture is well known to be essential.

1885. If the poles of a powerful voltaic series, while highly charged,

were severally to have a conducting communication with the conductors

of an electrical machine, it would discharge them so rapidly, that

the most active working would not enable them to give a spark; yet at

the poles of the same series there might be charges accumulated which

would, in effecting chemical decomposition, heating, deflagrating wire,

or inducing magnetism, be immensely superior to that created by a

machine.

1886. Farraday’s reasoning and observations, founded on the idea

that the only difference between galvanic and frictional electricity

was that between quantity and intensity, led him to take up the idea

that a grain of water with an equivalent of zinc would evolve as much

electricity as sixteen millions of square feet of coated glass, charged

by a powerful machine of fifty inches in diameter. I am surprised that

Farraday did not consider his premises erroneous, when he found them

involving such startling conclusions.

1887. The source of this startling inference was, I think, as follows:

Farraday entertained the opinion, that the only difference between

voltaic and frictional electricity was that of quantity and intensity.

He went so far as to intimate that this opinion would be entertained

the more confidently as the electrician forming his decision should

be better acquainted with the subject. I advanced what appeared to me

unanswerable objections to this conclusion, but such as were not deemed

by him worthy of reply. Unduly confident in his postulate, Farraday

first ascertained the greatest effect which could be produced by a

certain number of turns of a powerful machine, with a fifty inch plate,

in causing a deviation of the galvanometric needle, and then, comparing

the quantity of zinc and water required to produce the same effect

through galvanic action, by a rule-of-three statement the result above

mentioned was obtained. In my view the error arose from overlooking

the fact that in the one case the whole discharge was exercised in

polarizing the ponderable matter, while in the other only a portion of

the discharge was thus employed, being only a secondary effect of the

polarization of the circumambient medium. Only that portion of the

charge which was forced into an association with the ponderable matter,

had any effect on the galvanometric needle.

1888. According to Gaziot’s experiments, a Grove’s battery of 320

pairs would not give a spark before contact at any distance, although

frictional machines, proportionally powerful, have given sparks at

twenty inches.

1889. Thus the laws of conduction and insulation, as respects the

two kinds of electricity in question, are different; the waves of

polarization are in the case of the galvanic circuit confined to

absolute contact with conducting ponderable matter. It cannot pass

through the electrical medium or the air by the disruptive process.

When once a passage has been made for it, it may pass convectively,

carrying with it the polarizable matter, as may be seen in the arch

formed between the poles of a powerful voltaic series after contact.

1890. This arch cannot be formed between two metallic points, because

none but those of a most fixed and infusible nature can support the

heat produced. It is only between charcoal points that it can be

created, because no other competent conductor is infusible at the

temperature of its volatilization. It is in fact only by the process in

question, that charcoal can be volatilized _per se_. It may be inferred

that as those waves of electro-polarity which require the presence of

ponderable as well as ethereal matter cannot pass over an interval

without the assistance of ponderable matter such as is supplied by the

coal. On contact with each other, the points completing the circuit

are subjected to an intensity of the polarizing power which causes the

carbon of the points, in the state of vapour, to become associated

with the ethereal waves, and thus produces the flaming arch, which

distinguishes the scene of reciprocal neutralization.

_Of Mind, as existing independently, and as distinguished from Matter._

1891. Three ideas must coexist in every rational being; nihility, mind,

and matter. We can, of course, conceive of a perfectly void space,

and likewise of a mathematical point, which designates a position not

an entity. Yet, position cannot be determined without surrounding

entities, between which this point exists, without having claim to any

portion of those entities, whether there be only one actual material

surface, or where several are cornered together. Of such points we have

already treated, as forming at the immovable centre of a rotating mass,

so that a centre is, of course, one state of the existence of such a

point.

1892. After the considerations already presented, it will be seen that

there is great difficulty in conceiving of the existence of an atom of

matter endowed with polarity, and of course with two centres of two

analogous, but opposite and irreconcilable forces. And we must consider

that there are more than fifty such heterogeneous elementary atoms,

all endowed with various degrees of affinity, so as that two may unite

energetically to the exclusion of a third. This is designated as a

case of decomposition, and may be exemplified by the process in which

water is explosively decomposed by potassium, with which the oxygen of

the water unites to the exclusion of hydrogen. When we see that from

seven parts, by weight, of charcoal, and about nine parts of water,

sugar ensues; that the sweetness with which this sugar is endowed, is

the result of a difference between this substance and starch, in the

proportion of the watery elements: starch consisting of less water than

sugar, with the same amount of charcoal; when we learn that twelve

parts, by weight, of charcoal, fourteen parts of nitrogen, and one of

hydrogen, constitute the deadly prussic acid; and when, in fact, we

discover that the atoms of matter which compose our flesh are capable

of entering into as many active chemical combinations as the beads of

a kaleidoscope can be productive of figures, then it will be manifest

that the phenomena characterizing what we call matter, as well as the

powers of that matter, are such as to prove our utter incapacity to

comprehend the powers and properties of material atoms, and that we

must not object to any wonder that nature may produce, because it is

beyond our comprehension.[43]

1893. The belief in the powers displayed by matter does not then result

from their being explicable, but from their being evident, just as

the elaboration of the chick from the egg demonstrates the fact that

the yolk and the white have been converted into a chicken without our

being enabled to comprehend the process by which it has been effected.

Such being the imperfection of our knowledge respecting the intricate

nature of matter and its reactions, it seems to me inconsistent that

there should have been such backwardness to believe in the independent

existence of mind, of which the phenomena and properties are quite as

evident as those of matter, the mode of existence and operation in

either case being inscrutable.

1894. The great distinction between mind and matter is the presence

of will on the one side, and the absence of it upon the other. _Vis

inertiæ_ is the antipodes of will; and if gravitation have any

association with will, it will be that of the Creator; but in the inert

mass actuated, it serves only to add to the evidence of incapability of

self-actuation.

1895. Passion and reason, the parents of will, are properties as

manifest as those which, surrounding a centre, give to it that idea of

a central force which indicates the presence of material atoms, though

it does not constitute them, as I have urged.

1896. The existence of _vis inertiæ_, gravitation, and chemical

affinity, is not more evident as properties of ponderable matter than

reason and passion and consequent will are of mind; nor is will less

evidently the offspring of reason and passion, than momentum is of _vis

inertiæ_ and gravitation. The existence of these attributes of mind is

as evident as is the existence of those of ponderable matter, and the

incomprehensibility of their origin or mode of operation should no more

be an obstacle to belief in the former case than in the latter.

1897. Nothing is more thoroughly fundamental and essential in the

doctrine inculcated by revelation than the omnipotency of the will of

God. According to Scripture, the whole heaven and earth, and all that

is in them, sprung into existence in consequence of the fiat of the

Deity, whose will, under the designation of “overruling providence,”

is alleged to regulate every thing, even to the fall of a sparrow,

or the advent of a pestilence. It follows that the suggestions which

I have made respecting the powers of mind are perfectly orthodox,

so far as the mind of the Creator is concerned; and as, according

to orthodoxy, man is made after God’s own image, however humble and

minute may be the being so made, his mind, so far as it exists, must

be, within the sphere allotted to it, existing upon an analogous

footing to that of its author. The idea of all things coming from the

creative power of God as the first cause, involves the existence of

the divine-will power, of the first cause; and consequently, beings

endowed with an analogous will, must, so far as they have any available

existence, be endowed with will-power, of which the potentiality may be

more extensive in spirits than in mortals.

1898. It is because there is no other imaginable power which can be

productive of the rationality of the universal creation, that forms the

great argument for assuming the will of a reasoning Deity to be the

cause of causes. Vain were it to appeal to any irrational force under

the name of odylic, or any other, to explain the divine attributes

on which this argument reposes. In like manner, the assailants of

Spiritualism cannot find any nominal force, whether new or old, which

can explain the rationality of the results which I have submitted to

the public in this book, as coming from the minds of my spirit friends.

_Of Spirit independently, or as distinguished from Mind and Matter._

1899. It has been alleged above, that three ideas must exist in the

conception of every rational being; nihility, mind, matter.

1900. Mind is distinct from matter in its usual acceptation; but it

also differs from nihility. There are some attributes common to mind

and matter; since they cannot be considered as nothing, they must both

be something. Therefore, the word thing applies to either, and thing

is sometimes received as synonymous with matter. But between these two

kinds of things, mind and matter, we have an intermediate thing called

spirit, which is sometimes confounded with mind. In its original sense,

this word merely denoted a thin or refined matter, such as air, wind,

breath. In chemistry, it has been applied to every thing obtained by

distillation, as, for instance, spirit of wine, spirit of salt, spirit

of nitre, of vitriol, spirit of turpentine.[44]

1901. Hence, by analogy, when the mind of a mortal, after death, was

seen, or supposed to be seen, in a shadowy form called a ghost or

shade, it was conceived to be the spirit or essence of the mortal body

which it had inhabited. It was the body which the mind took or kept for

its integuments after abandoning its perishable mundane _casket_, as

the spirits are wont to call the carnal body.

1902. It is difficult for us mortals to conceive of mind without such a

spiritual body. Yet, agreeably to information from my spirit friends,

the substances of which the bodies, the country, and habitations of

spirits are constituted, seem to have the attributes of materiality

no less than the substances of which the bodies, the territory, and

the habitations of mortals are constituted. Their spiritual substances

perform for them the same offices as our material substances do

for ours, yet it is expedient to distinguish them by different

appellations, and those cited here have been sanctioned by custom at

least as far as the time of St. Paul, or when these words in Genesis

were first used: “The spirit of God moved on the surface of the water.”

1903. Hence, the words materialism and materialist have been made

synonymous with unbelief or unbeliever in a future state of _spiritual_

existence.

1904. Spirit has also been confounded with mind or soul, or so

associated that we speak of the spirit of a friend, when intending to

convey the idea of soul or mind.

1905. The soul seems to be understood as the basis both of the

passions and the reason, uniting both the power of thinking and

reasoning with those of loving and hating, of benevolence and

malevolence, so that even the soul of Jehovah has been represented in

Scripture as being actuated by jealousy, wrath, and vindictiveness.

1906. According to information from the spirit world, spirit is

viewed as the clothing of the soul, and is not constant in its

characteristics; but, on the contrary, varies with the plane which it

occupies, so that its density is inversely as the rank attained. It is

on this account that the inferior spirits cannot rise above the level

to which they rightfully belong.

1907. The impression is conveyed that there is a state to be attained

in the spiritual heaven, wherein the tenuity of the integuments of the

soul are still more refined.

1908. According to the speculation in which I indulged in a previous

page, a centre cannot differ from the nihility involved by the

conception of a mathematical point, without a circumambient something,

to which the difference is due, and, however difficult to conceive in

what way the attributes of a human soul are associated about the centre

whence their influence proceeds, this difficulty, having been shown to

exist no less in the case of ponderable atoms, would be an objection to

the existence of matter as much as of mind.

_Of the Soul, as distinguished from Mind and Matter._

1909. The word mind is much used as synonymous with intellect or

understanding, though it seems to me we consider it as more or less

associated with the passions which actuate it. The word soul, on the

other hand, involves the association of every thing which distinguishes

a being capable of passion, and competent to reason, from a corpse.

It is remarkable that, as spirits become more pure and intellectual,

they should be alleged to become more refined in their spiritual

integuments, thus removing further from the mundane state, and becoming

less capable of giving those manifestations in which violent movements

are witnessed.

_On the Odic, or Odylic, Force._

1910. There never was perhaps a more eloquent exhibition of that which

has been designated as _ratiocinatio verbosa_, than in the appeals made

to the odic force as the means of explaining spiritual manifestations.

It may be inferred, from the speculation into which I entered, when

treating of mediumship, (806,) that there is a spiritual light and

spiritual electricity, which performs for spirits in the spiritual

world what our electricity and light does for us in this world. It

was pointed out that the term magnetism had been applied to mesmeric

phenomena rather in consequence of an analogy between them and those

of electro-magnetism, than from any identity. To this spiritual

electricity, mortals, in their spiritual organism, which coexists with

the mortal body, during mundane life, are liable; being unconsciously

under its influence.

1911. The phenomena of mundane light being ascribed to the undulations

of an ethereal fluid pervading the visible universe, (1831,) and

electricity being ascribed to the polarization of the same fluid,

so the spirits ascribe _their electricity_ and _their light_ to the

undulation and polarization of an analogous ethereal fluid. It is to

this ethereal fluid of the spiritual world, that the phenomena called

odic belong, as I conceive. We may speak of that ether as the odic

fluid, and we may designate the light and electricity which it produces

as odic light, and odic electricity.

1912. But the use of the term force, as applied either to the ether

appropriate to this mundane sphere, or to that which belongs more

especially to the spirit world, seems to me erroneous. Imponderable

fluids may be instrumental to forces, but, _per se_, cannot have force.

No imponderable material fluid can _per se_ have any force, unless

that of the reciprocal repulsion of particles, which causes their

equable diffusion and resistance to condensation. Electricity has less

force in proportion as it is more isolated. In vacuo it passes more

diffusely and with less noise in proportion as the vacuum is more

perfect. The violence of electrical phenomena is always dependent upon

the reaction of the ponderable masses upon or between which it acts.

In proportion as the matter on which it operates is more favourable

to its condensation therein, or thereupon, the more violent is the

deflagration or explosion which results. But in all the phenomena

which have hitherto been recognised as the objects of strict physical

examination, _vis inertiæ_ has been indispensable to the exhibition

of force. “Give me but where to stand, and I will move the world,”

was the exclamation of Archimedes; but the conviction thus expressed,

of the necessity of a resisting basis, is universally recognised. In

other words, there can be no action without reaction, whether chemical,

mechanical, or muscular force be applied. Of course, it is preposterous

to speak of an _isolated_ imponderable physical fluid, as possessing

force _per se_. When left to itself it would remain inert, like any

other inanimate matter. Clearly, isolated action on the part of such a

fluid cannot be shown in any case whatever.

1913. Reichenbach alleged the substance or principle to which the name

odic has been given to be visible, but he did not adduce any instance

of its acting as a moving power so as to justify its being designated

as the odic force.

1914. It is, however, unnecessary that those who admit the existence of

an invisible ethereal medium through which, _without muscular contact_,

or agency, effects are produced by will, should concur in their

opinions respecting the nature of that imponderable principle. The

question between those agreeing in the preceding principles, is whether

it is to the will of mortals or to the will of disembodied spirits

that such manifestations are to be attributed. I should think that no

person who shall have read the communications which I have introduced

into this work, as coming from my spirit friends, can ascribe those

communications to the medium and myself. They must either suppose

that there is a wilful manufacture of the wonderful and interesting

information therein contained, setting aside the test conditions,

through which they are sanctioned, as unreliable; or they must ascribe

a wonderful fertility to the minds of the media and myself, through

whom they have been obtained.

1915. So far from the ideas being obtained from my mind, which proceed

from my spirit father, that he and I cannot come to one opinion on some

points after much discussion. My father and sister have, by reiterated

communication, as well established a conviction on my mind of their

being that which they allege themselves to be, as if a correspondence

had been carried on with them for the same space of time, say eighteen

months, while they should be residing in another part of the country.

1916. But the whole superstructure built up by the most confident

among the recent assailants of Spiritualism, Mahan, rests on the error

already exposed in the case of its commission by Dr. Bell.

1917. It is assumed that spirits can never tell any ideas which do

not exist in the minds of some persons present. Who was present when

my spirit messenger conveyed to Mrs. Gourlay the request to send her

husband to bank to inquire when a note would be due? Again, when cards

were selected without the denomination having been seen by any mortal

present, how could the denomination of the cards be spelt out upon the

alphabetic disk?

1918. In his work, Mr. Mahan assumes that the odic force is identical

with that which is the immediate cause of the spirit manifestations.

Agreeably to the considerations above presented, no imponderable

material principle, such as the ether of the undulation theory is

supposed to be, can be a force. The only part which it can perform is

that of being a medium of force. The fluid of electricity was never

assumed to be a moving power, neither according to the Franklinian

hypothesis of one fluid, nor that of two fluids, according to Dufay.

Without chemical or mechanical disturbance, they would be as still as

the water in a pond during a perfect calm.

1919. There is evidently, however, in nature, an imponderable cause of

motion, and of other changes, more complicate than simple motion, and,

I believe, only one such cause, and that is mind. No one who attributes

the creation to the mind of the Creator, but must admit that the mind

of the Creator and Ruler of the universe is the moving power of the

universe. It must also be admitted that the mind of man, as a moving

power, is very minute in comparison with that of its Author, or Source,

but still resembling it so far as it reasons, and obeys the dictates of

that reason, and causes matter to move in consequence of its designs,

desires, wishes, or emotions.

1920. But if this will of the Creator exists, it must have some medium

through which it reaches the objects which it influences, just as the

ether of the undulationist is necessary to the transmission of light.

It is through this medium that gravitation exists as one of the effects

of divine will, since, although it appears to be a property of matter,

it is inferred to be no less the effect of an habitual exercise of

volition, than the erect posture preserved in man, by analogous means,

unconsciously; whence, in him, it ceases with sleep. The human will,

within its comparatively minute, humble sphere of action, must require

also a medium analogous to that through which God acts; otherwise,

how does a thought so quickly move the toe? While encompassed by its

perishable tenement, there is a certain extent of this will-power

enjoyed through the laws of God; but on casting off this envelope, the

spirit, to be qualified for its new state of existence, becomes endowed

with more extensive power of the nature in question.

1921. This power of the will exists and is displayed in the mesmeric

phenomena, where the will of one individual dominates over the limbs of

another. The power of the will of an individual over his own muscles,

not only in the usual movement, but in producing a rigidity of the

muscles of the arm or thigh, is of course notorious. But it appears

that there are some persons morbidly susceptible of this rigidity,

or at least preternaturally liable to it. Again, others have a will

which is, in some degree, preternatural; hence, when such persons are

in proximity, the one can actuate the muscles of the other, and even

modify the impressions on the brain.

1922. Spirits, as above stated, appear to be endowed with this

will-power to an extent proportioned to their necessities. Hence it was

substantiated by my spirit father in the first instance, and by the

convocation of spirits in the second, that they, like the genius of

Aladdin’s lamp, can create, in their own world, the objects of rational

desire or fancy by a _fiat_, but their will-power cannot directly move

mundane bodies. In order to effect this, they must avail themselves of

the coarser medium of the human will-power, in which case they act, as

one mortal may act upon the will-power of another in proximity. The

will-power aura of human beings and of spirits seems to emanate from

their organism respectively, and, no doubt, connects duly with that of

God. Hence, there is thus, that association of the divine will, with

all animated beings, which is suggested by the popular theology. The

will, and the aura through which it acts, varying with the organism

with which it is associated, it requires a certain coincidence in the

attributes of a spirit and a mortal, to enable the former to use the

aura of the latter to produce any manifestation of its will or ideas.

But so far as this coincidence exists, the power is enjoyed. That such

coincidences have arisen, I conceive must be evident from the careful

consideration of the facts which I have recorded in this work.

1923. The question is put by the Rev. Mr. Mahan, why the odic force,

existing in nature, may not be productive of the results ascribed

to disembodied spirits? He overlooks the fact that no inanimate

imponderable principle can be, _per se_, a moving power; that inanimate

matter does not move itself. Then, as I understand, agreeably to

another phase, he inquires why may it not become an instrument to the

minds of the mortals concerned?

1924. In the first place, there are facts within my experience which

cannot be explained by any possible exertion of any mundane mind,

were those concerned to concur in striving to accomplish the result.

Thus, how would it be possible for Mrs. Gourlay and myself to have

brought about the result of which an account has been given in the

supplemental preface of this work, and upon which remarks have been

made in other pages? It is utterly impossible that, by any imaginable

process, Mrs. Gourlay, having no previous hint, could have become the

instrument of my volition at the distance of nearly a hundred miles

from Philadelphia, and when, at the time, she was intently engaged in

receiving, as she alleges, a communication from her spirit mother to

her brother, who was her visitor from his abode in Maine.

1925. Again, it cannot be imagined that things would be communicated

by my spirit father and others, of which I was ignorant when they

were made. The same may be said of Mrs. Gourlay, as she knew nothing

of the facts communicated to her, for me. Then, when the narrative of

those facts was read over to the spirit, there were often things to

be explained and views to be justified, in opposition to my previous

impressions. Conversing frequently with Mrs. Gourlay, I know that she

had none of the important impressions respecting the spheres, which

were conveyed through her for my edification.