INVENTIONS IN STEAM, ELECTRICITY AND CHEMISTRY CREATE A NEW ERA
When the nineteenth century opened, George III was King of England,
Napoleon was First Consul of France, Francis II was Emperor of Germany,
Frederick William III was King of Prussia, Alexander was Czar of Russia
(beginning 1801), and John Adams was President of the United States.
By this time the influence of the inventions of the few centuries
immediately preceding, especially the invention of the gun and that
of printing, was clearly in evidence. The Feudal System had entirely
vanished, the sway of great and powerful sovereigns had taken the place
in Europe of the arbitrary rule of petty dukes and barons, the value
of the natural sciences was appreciated, and a fine literature had
developed in all the countries.
A terrible war was raging, however, that was not to end for fifteen
years and that involved, directly or indirectly, nearly every
European nation. The war had started in France, where the tremendous
intellectual movement had aroused the excitable people of that land to
a realization of the oppression of the nobility and a determination to
make it cease.
The wars that ensued were not so different from the wars of the
Egyptians and other ancient nations as one might carelessly suppose,
because the weapons were not very different. The only weapon that
was very novel was the gun; and the gun of the year 1800 was a
contrivance so vastly inferior to the gun that exists today as not
to be immeasurably superior to the bow and arrow. It had to be loaded
slowly at the muzzle; and the powder was so non-uniform and in other
ways inferior, that the gun's range was short and its accuracy slight.
Even the artillery that Bonaparte used so skillfully was crude and
ineffective, according to the standards of today. The cavalry was not
very different from the cavalry of the Assyrians, and the military
engineers performed few feats greater than that of Cæsar's, in building
the bridge across the Rhine. There were no railroads, no steamships, no
telegraphs, no telephones. There was less difference between the armies
of 1800 A. D. and those of 1800 B. C., than between the armies of 1800
A. D. and those of 1900 A. D.
The same remark applies to virtually all the material conditions of
living. There was less difference, for instance, between the fine
buildings of 1800 B. C. and 1800 A. D. than between the fine buildings
of 1800 and 1900 A. D. The influence of the new inventions on the
material conditions of living was only beginning to be felt; for the
twin agencies of steam and electricity, that were later to make the
difference, had not yet got to work. It was the power of steam that
was to transport men and materials across vast oceans and across great
continents at high speed, and place in the hands of every people the
natural fruits and the foods and the raw materials and the manufactured
appliances of other lands; it was the subtle influence of electricity
that was to give every people instant communication with every other.
It was the co-working of steam and electricity that was to make
possible the British navy and the British merchant marine, and the
relatively smaller merchant marines and navies of other countries, and
to bring all the world under the dominance of Great Britain and of the
other countries that were civilized.
The opening of the nineteenth century, therefore, marks the opening of
a new era. In 1800 the steam engine was already an effective appliance,
but it was not yet in general use. Electricity was a little behind
steam; and though Franklin and the others had proved that it possessed
vast possibilities of many kinds, and also that it could be harnessed
and put to work by man for the benefit of man, electricity had as yet
accomplished little of real value.
Under the stimulating influence of the quick communication given by the
art of printing, literature had blossomed especially in Great Britain,
France, Germany and Italy; but in 1800 one has to notice the same fact
as in previous years--literature had not improved. The literature of
1800 A. D. was no better than the literature of Greece or Elizabethan
England--to state the truth politely; and no such poet lived as
Homer, Shakespeare or John Milton. It seems to be a characteristic of
literature, and of all the fine arts as well, that each great product
is solely a product of one human mind, and not the product of the
combined work of many minds. To the invention of Watt's steam engine,
numberless obscure investigators and inventors had contributed, besides
those whose great names everybody knows: but how can two men write a
poem or any work of fiction, or paint a picture or carve a statue? It
is true that each of these feats has been performed; but rarely and not
with great success.
For this reason, it is not clear that mere literature as literature, or
that any of the fine arts as such can exert much influence on history,
and it is not clear that any of them have done so. That they have had
great influence in conducing to the pleasure of individuals there can
be no question; but the influence seems to have been transient. History
is a record of such of the doings of men as have had influence at
the time, or in the future. Of these doings, the agency that has had
the most obvious influence is war, and next to war is invention. War,
next after disease, has caused the most suffering the world knows of;
but out of the suffering have emerged the great nations without which
modern civilization could not exist. The influence of invention is
not so obvious, but it is perhaps as great, or nearly so; the main
reason being that invention has been the agency which has enabled
those nations to emerge that have emerged. Without the appliances that
invention has supplied, the civilized man could not have triumphed over
the savage.
Now literature and painting and sculpture and music, while they have
made life easier and pleasanter, have contributed little to this
work, and in many ways have rather prevented it from going further by
softening people, physically and mentally. This statement must not
be accepted without reservations of course; for the reason that some
poems, some works of fiction, and some paintings and (especially) some
musical compositions have tended to strengthen character, and even to
stimulate the martial spirit. But a careful inspection of most works of
pure literature and fine art must lead a candid person to admit that
the major part of their effect has been to please,--to gratify the
appetite of the mind rather than to inspire it to action.
The author here requests any possible reader of these pages, not to
infer that he has any objection to being pleased himself, or to having
others pleased; or that he regards the influence of literature and the
fine arts as being detrimental to the race. On the contrary, he regards
them as being valuable in the highest degree. He is merely trying to
point out the difference between the influence of inventions in the
useful arts and those in the fine arts.
A like remark may be made concerning inventors and other men; the word
inventors being here supposed to mean the men who make inventions of
all kinds. These men seem to have been those who have brought into
existence those machines and books and projects of all kinds that
have determined the kind of machine of civilization that has now been
produced. These men are very few, compared with the great bulk of
humanity; but it seems to be they who have given direction to the line
along which the machine has been developed.
This does not mean, of course, that these men have been more estimable
themselves than the men who kept the machine in smooth and regular
motion, and made the repairs, and supplied the oil and fuel; but it
does mean that they had more influence in making its improvements.
Naturally, their work in making improvements would have been of
no avail, if other men had not exerted industry and carefulness
and intelligence and courage, in the countless tasks entailed in
maintaining the machine in good repair, in keeping it running smoothly,
and in receiving with open minds and helping hands each new improvement
as it came along. And it was not only in welcoming real improvements,
but in keeping out novelties which seemed to be improvements but were
not improvements that the work of what may be called the operators,
as distinguished from the inventors, was beneficent. Nothing could be
more injurious to the machine than to permit the incorporation in it of
parts that would not improve it. There has been little danger to fear
from this source, however; for the inertia of men is such that it is
only rarely that one sees any new device accepted, until it has proved
its value definitely and unmistakably in practical work.
Possibly the greatest single impetus given to progress about the year
1800 was that given by Lavoisier shortly before, which started the
science of chemistry on the glorious career it has since pursued. As a
separate branch of science, chemistry then began, though it had been
the subject of investigation for many centuries, beginning in Egypt
and the other ancient countries of the East. In the Middle Ages, it
was known in Europe by the name Alchemy. Originally, and in all the
long ages of its infancy, the investigations of the experimenters were
carried on mainly to discover new remedies in medicine, or to learn
methods to transmute base metals into precious metals; though there
was a considerable degree also of pursuit of knowledge for its own
sake. As a result of the investigations, many startling facts were
developed, and many discoveries were made; but, for the reason that the
investigations were not conducted on the mathematical or quantitative
lines that had led to so much success in developing physics, alchemy or
chemistry did not rest on any sure basis, and therefore had no fixed
place to start from. It was in the same vague status that some subjects
of thoughtful speculation are in today, such as telepathy, which may
(or may not) be put on a basis of fact some day, and started forward
thence, as chemistry was started.
What gave chemistry its basis was the methods introduced by Lavoisier
who was a practiced physicist. He introduced the balance into the study
of chemistry, and raised it instantly from a collection of speculations
to an exact science, capable of progressing confidently and assuredly
thereafter, instead of wandering in a maze. Lavoisier gave chemistry a
mathematical basis to start from, and sure beacon lights to guide it;
and though many changes in its theory have been made from time to time,
they have been due only to increase of knowledge and not to departure
from fundamental principles. Finding that a substance was not an
element, but was a compound of two elements, or more than two, did not
require any rejection of accepted principles, but merely a readjustment.
We now see that it was impossible because of the exact nature of
the way in which the various elements combine, that chemistry could
have become a science until the balance had been used to weigh the
substances investigated; and we also see that it was impossible that
the balance could have been so used until physics had been developed
to the point permitting it, and men skilled in exact measurements had
been brought up by practice in physical researches. Lavoisier himself
had served a long apprenticeship, and his earliest claim to fame was
his mathematical researches on heat, embodied in an essay, written in
connection with Laplace, and published in 1784. Even after an enormous
mass of facts had been collected and announced, chemistry could not
take her place by the side of physics, and Bacon's teachings could not
be followed, until those facts had been mathematically investigated,
and their mathematical relations to each other had been established.
This Lavoisier and his followers did.
No better illustration of the influence of invention on history can
be found than the fact that chemistry hovered in the dim twilight of
speculation, guess-work and even superstition, until Lavoisier brought
to bear the various inventions made in physics. Then, presto, the
science of chemistry was born.
We must not let the fact escape us, however, that Lavoisier would have
left mankind none the wiser, if he had merely brought mathematical
research to bear and discovered what he did, and then stopped. If he
had stopped then, his knowledge would have remained locked inside of
his own mind, useless. The good work that Lavoisier actually did was
in actually producing an invention; in conceiving a certain definite
method of chemical research, then embodying it in such a concrete form
that "persons skilled in the art could make and use it," and then
giving it to the world.
The first important effect of Lavoisier's work was the announcement by
Dalton about 1808 of his Atomic Theory, which has been the basis of
most of the work of chemistry ever since. Dalton's earlier work had
been in physics, and its principal result had been "Dalton's Laws" in
regard to the evaporation and expansion of gases, announced by him
about 1801. These investigations led his mind to the consideration
of the various speculations that had been entertained concerning
the nature of matter itself, as distinguished from the actions and
reactions between material objects that physics studies; and they
brought him to the conclusion that there are certain substances or
elements which combine together to form compounds that are wholly
different from each of the elements (oxygen and hydrogen, for instance,
combining to form water); and that those elements are made up of units
absolutely indivisible, which combine with each other in absolutely
exact proportions. The units he called atoms. He built up a theory
wonderfully convincing and coherent, that explained virtually all the
chemical phenomena then known, and supplied a stepping-stone following
Lavoisier's, from which chemists could advance still further. Dalton
classified certain substances as elements which we now know are not
elements, because they have been found since to be compounds of two or
more elements; but this in itself does not disprove his theory, because
he himself pointed out that means might be found later to decompose
certain materials that seemed then to be elements, because no means had
then been found to decompose them.
It may be instructive to note here that Dalton was not the first to
imagine that certain forms of matter were elemental, or that matter was
indivisible beyond a certain point, or that substances entered into
combination with each other in definite proportions. Speculation on all
these points had been rife for many years, but it had not produced the
invention of any workable law or even theory. Similarly, many men later
speculated on the possibility of devising an electrical instrument that
would transform the mechanical energy of sound waves into electrical
energy, transfer the electrical energy over a wire, and re-convert it
into sound; but no one succeeded in producing such an instrument, until
Bell invented the telephone in 1876.
History is a record of acts, and not of dreams. And yet the greatest
acts were dreamed of before they were performed. Every process,
no matter how small or how great, seems to proceed by three
stages--conception, development and production. Most of our acts are
almost automatic, and the three stages succeed each other so quickly
that only the final stage itself is noted. But the greatest acts, from
which great results have followed, have begun with the conception of
a picture not of an ordinary kind, such as a great campaign, a new
machine, a novel theory, a book, painting, statue or edifice:--then a
long process of development, during which the conception is gradually
embodied in some concrete form, as, for instance, a statue, a painting
or an instrument;--and then production. _Finis opus coronat, the end
crowns the work_; but the work is not crowned until it is finished, and
a concrete entity has been brought forth.
Lavoisier finished his work. Not only did he dream a dream, but he
embodied his dream in a definite form, and gave it to mankind to use.
Dalton did similarly. This does not mean that their work was not
improved upon thereafter, or that they invented the chemistry of
today. They merely laid the foundation of chemistry, and placed the
first two stones.
A remarkable exemplar of the meaning of this declaration was Benjamin
Thomson, who was an American by birth, but who entered the Austrian
Army after the War of the Revolution, and made an unprecedented record
in the application of physical and chemical science to the relief
of the distressed and ignorant and poor, especially the mendicant
classes. For his services he was made Count Rumford. His researches
were mostly in the line of saving heat and light, and therefore saving
food and fuel. He ascertained by experiments of the utmost ingenuity
and thoroughness that the warmth of clothing was because of the air
entangled in its fibers; he investigated the radiation, conduction
and convection of heat, analyzed the ways in which heat could be
economized, and invented a calorimeter for testing the heat-giving
value of different fuels. In 1798 he had noted the fact that heat was
developed when cannon were being bored. He immediately conceived the
idea that the heat developed was related to the amount of work expended
driving the boring tool, and invented a means of measuring it. This
consisted simply of a blunt boring tool that pressed into a socket in
a metal block that was immersed in water, of which the temperature
could be taken. To get a basis for his investigations into the problem
of lighting economically the dwellings of the poor, Rumford invented
a photometer for measuring illumination. No man in history shows more
clearly the co-working of a high order of imagination, and a careful
and accurate constructiveness; and no man ever secured more intensely
practical and beneficent results. In the hospital at Verona he reduced
the consumption of fuel to one-eighth.
In 1827 a valuable improvement was made to the machine of civilization
by Ohm, who announced the now famous Ohm's Law, that the strength of an
electric current in any circuit is equal to the difference in potential
of the ends of the circuit, divided by its resistance. This is usually
expressed by writing C = E/R.
Can anything be less inspiring than C = E/R? Yes:--few things have
been more inspiring. Few things have inspired more zeal for work than
that simple formula. That simple formula evolved order out of chaos in
the little but super-important world, in which physicists and chemists
were trying to solve the riddles that the utilization of electric
currents presented. It gave them a basis from which to start, and a
definite rule to work by. No oration of Demosthenes, Cicero or Webster
has imparted more inspiration, or supplied a greater stimulus to high
effort, or done more for human kind than C = E/R.
In 1827 Walker in the United States invented friction matches. It
seems strange that someone had not invented matches before. The usual
way of getting light was with the flint and steel and tinder-box,--a
most inconvenient contrivance. It was quite well known that certain
substances would ignite when rubbed, and yet men waited until 1827 to
utilize the fact in matches!
In the following year Wöhler succeeded in reducing aluminum, thus
contributing a valuable new factor to human knowledge and a valuable
new metal to human needs. In the same year Neilson took out a patent in
England for "an improved application of air to produce heat in fires,
forges and furnaces," in which he proposed to pass a current of heated
air through the burning fuel. His invention met with opposition of all
kinds, but eventually proved its usefulness. Another invention produced
in the same year was Woodworth's machine for planing wood. Still
another, was the tubular boiler for locomotives.
In 1829 the first steam locomotive was put into use in the United
States. No especial invention seems to have been expended on this
device; but there was considerable invention of the kind that I have
ventured to call "opportunistic" involved in conceiving the idea of
getting the locomotive, and then in actually getting it, and then
putting it to work. In the following year Braithwaite and Ericsson
in London brought out the first portable fire-engine. There was a
great deal of invention of the practical kind involved in the design,
construction, production and successful employment of this novel
device; and an important step was taken in the means of protecting life
and the material products of civilization from destruction by fire.
In 1831 Faraday in London made one of the most important discoveries
in physical science ever made, the discovery that if a current of
electricity is changed in strength, or if a conductor carrying a
current be moved, an instantaneous magnetic effect is felt in the
vicinity; and that this magnetic effect will cause an instantaneous
current in any closed conducting circuit that may be near. Faraday also
discovered that a similar instantaneous current will be set up in a
closed circuit if a magnet be moved in its vicinity. This discovery is
usually spoken of as the discovery of electro-magnetic induction; and
the instantaneous currents are said to be "induced."
About the same time Professor Henry in Princeton discovered that an
electric circuit will act not only on other circuits in its vicinity,
but on itself; that the fact of being increased or decreased will
set up instantaneous currents that tend to oppose the increase or
decrease. Thus, while Faraday is credited with the discovery of
electro-magnetic induction, Henry is credited with the discovery of
self-induction. It has been claimed by some that Henry discovered
electro-magnetic induction before Faraday did. This question is of
great interest but it is outside the scope of this modest volume.
While both discoveries were of prime importance, and were also
analogous, that of electro-magnetic induction has played the more
conspicuous part. With it began the endeavor to develop electric
currents by the relative motion of coils of wire and magnets, that
resulted in the invention of the dynamo, and the later invention of
electric lights and motors.
In the same year the discovery (or was it the invention?) of chloroform
was made by Guthrie in America, Soubeiran in France and Liebig in
Germany. A curious fact connected with the early history of chloroform
is that, although its anæsthetic properties were known in general, and
although the idea of using gases and vapors and medicines to deaden
pain was many centuries old yet nevertheless, chloroform was not put to
practical use until about 1846 when Dr. Morton, a dentist, of Boston,
adopted it as an anæsthetic. Of all the single inventions ever made,
chloroform has unquestionably done more than any other, invented till
that time, to give relief from agony.
In 1832 the electric telegraph was invented by Morse, though he did
not patent it until 1837. The influence of the electric telegraph
on subsequent history has been so great that the influence of no
contemporary invention can reasonably be declared to be greater. As
with many other inventions, one is tempted to wonder why it had not
been invented before; for the fact that electricity could be sent along
a conductor and made to cause motion at the other end had been known
since Guericke had demonstrated the fact in the closing years of the
seventeenth century. The original invention of the electric telegraph
is claimed by some for Henry, who had a wire run between his house and
his laboratory at Princeton, over which he sent messages, by opening
and closing the circuit and thereby actuating an electro-magnet at the
receiving end.
The first machine to put Faraday's discovery of magneto-electric
induction to practical use was invented by Pixii in France in 1832,
and exhibited before the Academy of Sciences. It consisted of a
powerful magnet that was made to revolve with great rapidity before
a bar of soft iron that had wrapped around it a coil of insulated
wire about 3,000 feet long. The north and south poles taking position
in succession in front of the coil, currents were induced that
alternated in direction, twice in each revolution. If a man grasped
two wires in the circuit he received a series of sharp electric
shocks; but such effects as decomposing water that were produced by
the continuous currents of Voltaic batteries could not be produced by
these alternating currents. To secure such effects, Siemens and others
made machines in which the magnet in the form of a U was stationary,
two coils of wire revolved in front of the poles, and a two-part
"commutator" was used. When this was placed on the axle, and the axle
was revolved, the change in direction of the current was obviated,
though a smooth and uniform current was not produced. The reason was
that the current fell to zero twice in each revolution.
The magneto-electric machine, as it was called, remained virtually
in this form for many years. It was not sufficiently effective
or efficient to be of much practical usefulness in any art, and
was considered more of a scientific toy than a machine of serious
importance. Still, the probability was realized by many investigators
that a new discovery or invention might be made at any moment, that
would put it in the forefront of the useful inventions of the age. (The
invention was not made till 1862; it was made by Pacinnotti in Italy
and will be mentioned later.)
The influence of the magneto-electric machine, therefore was not
direct, but indirect. It was a basic invention; and like many basic
inventions, it formed the hidden foundation on which a conspicuous
superstructure was later to be reared. One of the lessons of history is
that it is the men and the methods and the other things which are in
evidence when some important occurrence happens, that are identified
with it in the minds of people not only at the time, but afterward.
An invention that may have cost its creator the toil and struggle
of a lifetime may not gain success simply because of some existing
unfavorable conditions of some kind. Suddenly the conditions become
favorable. John Doe takes advantage of all the work that other men have
done, adds some slight improvement, achieves "success" and dons the
laurel wreath.
We see at this time (1832) very clear signs of an increasing number
of inventions per year, an increasing speed of invention. We see an
acceleration in invention which we cannot help associating in our minds
with the acceleration which any material object gets, when continuously
subjected to a uniform force, like that of gravity. One almost feels
that there must be a continuous force impelling men to invent; so clear
is the increase of the speed of inventing.
Following the magneto-machine in 1832 came the invention of a rotary
electric motor by Sturgeon, the discovery of chloral-hydrate by
Liebig, the production of the first large American locomotive by
Baldwin and the invention of link motion by Sir Henry James. The
last was an exceedingly important and ingenious contribution to the
steam engine, especially in locomotives and ships; for it gave a very
quick and sure means of reversing its direction of motion, and of
regulating the travel of the valve and the degree of expansion of the
steam. In the following year came Stephenson's steam whistle; and in
the year following (1834) came the McCormick reaper. Few inventions
have had a greater or a more immediate effect on the trend of modern
progress, which is to influence men to live in large communities. For
the McCormick reaper could do so much more work, and so much better
work, than men could do without it, that the cultivation of extensive
areas of land could be undertaken with the assurance that large crops
of grain could be secured. This not only secured more grain for the
country, but liberated many men from toil on farms, and permitted them
to migrate to the cities.
The author does not wish to be understood as meaning that migration to
cities is wholly desirable; for he is familiar with its disadvantages
and dangers. But whether it be desirable or not is beyond the scope
of this book. This book is merely a modest attempt to point out the
influence of invention in making the world what it is today. Perhaps it
would have been better if men had had no invention and had remained in
a state of savagery. Some men say so sometimes; but even those men (or
most of them) like to sit by a warm fire in a cozy room when it is cold
outdoors. The consensus of opinion seems to be that civilization in the
main has been a blessing to men, though not an unmixed blessing, and
though men must keep on their guard against certain manifest dangers
which civilization entails.
In the same year, 1834, Jacobi invented an electric motor and Runge
made the important discovery of carbolic acid. In 1835 Burden invented
a horse-shoe machine. In 1836 four important inventions added four
important parts to our rapidly growing Machine.
The first was the "constant battery" invented by Daniell. Before this
time a Voltaic cell, or battery, soon lost its strength, because of
various chemical actions inside the cell which need not be detailed
here. Daniell overcame this difficulty almost wholly by inventing a
battery, in which there were two liquids instead of one, and the two
liquids were in two separate compartments but separated only by porous
material. This invention was successful from the start, and immediately
increased the usefulness of Voltaic batteries and the means of
utilizing electric currents.
The second great invention in 1836 was that of acetylene gas made by
Edmund Davy. It is still the most brilliant illuminating gas we have,
and is rivaled by the electric arc-light only. The third invention was
that of the revolver, made by Samuel Colt.
It may be objected by some that the revolver did not contribute
anything valuable to the Machine of Civilization because it was merely
an improvement on the pistol, and enabled one to kill more men in a
given time than he could before. Such an objection would have much to
justify it; but it may be pointed out that the Machine must be made
self-protective as far as possible; and that anything which increases
the power of civilized man as against the savage, or barbarous, or
semi-barbarous increases its power of self-protection. It is true
that a savage can use a revolver, if he be instructed; but the more
complicated a weapon is the more difficult it is for a savage, as
compared with a civilized man, to use it effectively. This is not
an argument in favor of complication for its own sake; but it is
an argument in favor of accepting complication in a weapon, if the
complication renders greater effectiveness possible.
The last invention was the most important of the four, the application
of the screw propeller to navigation made by John Ericsson. The author
is aware of the fact that this invention was claimed by others, and
is claimed for others now. The weight of testimony, however seems
to be on the side of Ericsson; and as has been pointed out before,
the question of the identity of the inventor is not important to our
discussion. The first ocean steamship to be propelled by a screw was
the _Stockton_, which was built in England under Ericsson and fitted
with his screw. The first war-ship to be fitted with a screw was the U.
S. S. _Princeton_ in 1841. Its screw was designed by Ericsson.
In 1837 Crawford invented a process for "galvanizing" iron; for
electro-plating it with a non-oxidizable metal. The value of this
invention in preserving iron wire and iron articles in general needs
not to be pointed out; it was a contribution to the permanency of the
Machine. In the same year, Cooke and Wheatstone in England invented
their famous "Needle Telegraph," in which a magnetic needle was made to
deflect quickly to the right or left when one of two keys was pressed
by an operator and letters thereby signaled. This invention was a
valuable contribution; but it was eventually superseded by Morse's
telegraph, after that system had established itself in the United
States and on the Continent.
In 1839 Babbitt invented his celebrated Babbitt metal, which has been
successfully used ever since in the bearings of engines and in moving
machinery generally, for reducing friction; and in the same year
Goodyear made an invention even more important, the art of hardening,
or "vulcanizing," rubber by means of sulphur. This invention was a
great boon to mankind, but not to Goodyear; for the jackals who lie
in wait for great inventions eager to wrest unearned profit for
themselves from the men who have truly earned it, made Goodyear's
life miserable for many years. Before he died, however, his wrongs
were righted at least in part. In the same year Jacobi, in Germany,
propelled a boat by electricity using an electric motor of his own
invention.
But the great contributions made in 1839 were to the art of what we now
call photography. About 1834 Talbot had succeeded in taking pictures
in a camera by the agency of light on paper washed with nitrate of
silver and also in fixing them. Later, he was able to obtain many
copies, or "proofs," from one picture or negative. It seems that he
did not publicly announce his invention till 1839. To it was given the
name "calotype." In May of that year Mr. Mungo Ponton announced that
he had been able to copy pictures of engravings and of dried plants on
paper that he had soaked in bichromate of potash. A number of other
investigators forthwith announced similar feats, using various chemical
solutions.
In 1840 Draper published the result of certain important experiments
made by him in photographing celestial bodies. In 1841 pneumatic
caissons were invented by Triger in France. In 1842 Long discovered
the usefulness of ether as an anæsthetic, and Seytre invented the
automatically played piano. In the same year, Selligne discovered a
method of utilizing water-gas, made by decomposing water and producing
a new illuminating agent that could be used by itself or in combination
with coal gas. In the same year James Nasmyth in Scotland invented the
steam hammer--a simple appliance by means of which steam was able to
make a hammer give blows much heavier than the human arm could give.
This invention belongs to the class in which the human muscles are
assisted in doing work which the brain directs them to do, but which
they are not strong enough to do effectively.
The self-playing piano belongs in a class closely allied, in which the
machine invented merely assists the muscles: the assistance in this
class being not in supplying power in order to do more work, however,
but in supplying what may be called auxiliary physical agencies. In the
player piano, the fingers are replaced by little mechanical hammers; in
the steam hammer the arm is replaced by a piston actuated by steam. One
secures quickness, the other secures force.
But the self-playing piano and the steam hammer are in very different
classes, when viewed from the standpoint of their influence on history.
The influence of the piano is scarcely discernible, while the influence
of the steam hammer stands out in enormous letters of steel. The piano
seems to be in the same category as are literature and poetry and music
in general: it serves to please. The steam-hammer, on the other hand,
has had so great an influence on history subsequent to its invention,
that we know that subsequent history could not have been as it has
been, if the steam hammer had not been invented.
It has been the steam hammer and the ensuing modifications of it that
have made possible the making of large forgings of iron and steel. It
has been the large forgings of iron and steel that have made possible
the use of large solid masses of those metals in the construction of
engines, guns, shells, houses, bridges and ships. It is the ability
to use large and solid masses of iron and steel, free from holes and
seams, that has enabled constructors and engineers to produce the
tremendous engineering structures that characterize today. _The main
element in the progress of the race has been its triumph over the
forces of material Nature._ This triumph has been gained by inventors,
who conceived of certain methods and devices (clothing, for instance)
by means of which materials provided by Nature could be utilized by man
to protect himself against her attacks upon him--attacks by cold, for
instance. Inventions of the useful kind have had a history of their
own, as definite as the history of any other thing or things, in which
it is shown that every useful instrument or method has been succeeded
by another and better; so that the history of useful inventions may
be compared to a picture of men mounting a flight of stairs toward
civilization, the steps of the stairs being the successive useful
inventions of different kinds.
The paragraph just written is not intended to mean that inventions
which please have no value, but merely to point out the difference
between what are aptly called the fine arts and the useful arts. There
would be little happiness given to man by toilsomely climbing the
stairway to civilization, unless he were occasionally cheered on the
way by a strain of music, or a beautiful painting, or a poem, or a
brisk walk in northwest weather, or a gladdening glass of wine. It may
be argued that these are the things that really give happiness; it may
be claimed that these things go direct to the seat of happiness in the
brain, but that steam hammers merely provide a material civilization,
which continuously promises to make men happier some day, but never
makes them happier.
Verily, verily, the way to happiness is not so clearly marked, that
anyone can walk in it all the time, or even for five minutes, except
on rare occasions. The consensus of opinion seems to be, however, that
the civilized man is, on the whole, happier than the savage; that
civilization is preferable to savagery. It is the purpose of this book,
moreover, merely to point out that that structure of civilization has
become so complicated and is moving so fast that it is now a veritable
machine and to indicate the part that invention has taken in building
it.
Not only is it a veritable machine, it is the largest, the most
powerful, the most intricate machine we know of--except the solar
system and the greater systems beyond it. And not only is it powerful
and intricate--it is, like all powerful and intricate machines,
extremely delicate. Extreme delicacy is a characteristic of all
machines; it is inherent in every machine, simply because the good
working of every part is dependent on the good working of every other
part. An organism is a machine of the highest order, and therefore
possesses this characteristic of inter-dependability in its highest
form. A club is not an organism, or even a machine, and does not
possess it. If a man injures one end of a club the other end is just as
good as before; but if a club injures one end of a man, the other end
is injured also. A severe blow on the head will prevent the effective
use of the foot, and a severe blow on the foot will prevent the
effective use of the head.
Similarly, in this great Machine of Civilization, a war between any
two nations affects every other nation in the realm of civilization,
though it may not affect appreciably the savages of Australia. A strike
in the coal mines affects every person in the United States;--and even
a threat to strike by the railway employees affects not only the whole
United States, but, to some degree, all Europe.
This brings us to realize that, while the Machine of Civilization
itself has improved tremendously, it is only as a machine, and only
because it is a machine. It should make us realize also that the mere
fact that a machine is good or useful is no bar to its being destroyed.
It should make us realize besides that the finer a machine is the
greater danger there is of its being injured and even destroyed, by
careless or ignorant handling. These facts are clearly realized by all
engineering companies of all kinds; and the result has been that highly
competent engineers have been trained to care for and handle their
engines. There are no more highly competent men in any callings than
are the engineers in every civilized country. One might declare without
much exaggeration that, of all the men in business or professions, the
engineers are the most competent for their especial tasks; and the
reasonableness of the declaration might be pointed out on the ground
that the very nature of the engineering profession (unlike that of
most other professions) makes it impossible for an engineer to be
incompetent, and yet maintain his standing.
But the Machine of Civilization is composed not only of material
parts, such as come within the province of the engineer, but also of
immaterial parts; in fact, the principal parts are men, and especially
the minds of men. It is the office of the Machine of Government to
handle the men. It is also its office to direct their minds; because
unless those minds view things correctly, the Machine of Government
cannot work with smoothness. Now, men are inferior to machines in one
important way:--men, as men, cannot be improved. It therefore devolves
on Government continuously to instruct and train men to handle the
Machine of Civilization skillfully, because the machine is being made
more and more complicated, and more and more in need of intelligent
care, with every passing day.
Is this fact realized? I fear not. No sign is visible to the author of
these pages that the people in any country realize or even suspect that
there is any need for looking out for the integrity of the Machine as
a whole. The closest approximation to it is a belated realization that
the Bolsheviki are a danger to "society." The people do not seem even
to realize the necessity of having competent experts at the head of
governmental affairs.
The Machine of Civilization had been developed to a very high stage
when Trajan ruled the world about the year 100 A. D. For three-quarters
of a century afterward, it continued to run with smoothness, under
intelligent care; but in the year 180 A. D. Commodus came to the
throne, and soon after began to abuse it. For two hundred years
thereafter, the Machine suffered from such abuse and neglect, that by
the year 395, it had become so unwieldy, that it was divided into two
parts, one administered from Rome and the other from Constantinople.
The two parts soon became two separate Machines, the Roman Machine
being at first the better, but gradually becoming more and more
ineffective under the unfavorable conditions of abuse and neglect. In
476, the Roman Machine broke down completely, and the barbarian chief,
Odoacer, sat himself on the throne of Octavius Cæsar.
A ruin more complete, it would be hard to realize. The vast structure
of Roman civilization, built on the civilization of Greece and Assyria
and Babylonia and Egypt, was hurled to the ground; and its fine and
beautiful parts were scattered to the winds by barbarians who hated
civilization because they were barbarians. The progress of science
and literature and art stopped. The marvelous inventions of the past
were forgotten and disused. A condition of semi-barbarism passed into
Europe, and continued for a period of five hundred years, to which the
name Dark Ages has been aptly given. A feeble light began to glow about
800 A. D. as a result of the activities of Charlemagne, but it almost
expired when he did. It began again when the Crusaders came back from
the Orient with knowledge of the civilization that still persisted
there; and shortly after came the first effort of the Renaissance.
Then followed the invention of the gun, and then the invention of
printing:--and presto--the making of another Machine of Civilization is
begun.
Now let us realize three facts: one fact is that the Machine of
Modern Civilization, though bigger and more complicated than the one
of Trajan's time is not nearly so strong; another fact is that the
Roman Machine was destroyed because it had become ineffective through
carelessness and abuse; the third fact is that because in a measure,
"history repeats itself," the Modern Machine may be destroyed, as the
Roman was.
The Machine of today is vastly weaker than Trajan's. Trajan's Machine
was operated by a powerful empire that controlled the whole world
absolutely. No rival of Rome existed. The structure of society was
simple, homogeneous and strong. It was almost wholly military. It
rested on force; but that force rested on reason, moderation, skill and
patriotism. Rome had many foes; but they were so weak compared with
Rome, that she had naught to fear from them--so long as she kept her
Machine in order.
The Machine of today is not only more complicated than that of Trajan,
and therefore more liable to derangement from that cause alone--but
it is supported by no government that dominates the world. On the
contrary, the control is divided among a number of different nations
that have diverse interests. The influence of this condition can be
clearly seen in the fact that every great war has set back the progress
of civilization for a while in all civilized countries, even though
in some ways it has advanced it. The World War just finished, for
instance, shook the very foundations of society; and we do not yet
know that it did not impair them seriously. Certainly the Machine has
not yet begun to run smoothly again. Certainly, the Bolsheviki are
threatening it as seriously as the barbarians began to threaten Rome
not long after Trajan's time. The Romans did not regard the barbarians
then any more seriously than we regard the Bolsheviki now.
The barbarians finally succeeded in destroying the Roman Machine, but
not for the reason that they had become any stronger. They had not
become any stronger, but the Roman Machine had become weaker. It had
become weaker for the reason that the men in charge of it had not taken
the proper care of it. They failed to take proper care of it, for the
reason that they were not the proper kind of men to have charge of that
kind of machine. The reason for this was that the Roman people did
not see to it that they put the proper kind of men in charge of their
Machine.
Someone may say that Rome was an autocracy, and that there are no
autocracies now. True, but republics have been inefficient, just as
often, and in as great a degree as autocracies have. The United States
under President Buchanan, for instance, was excessively inefficient;
while the Roman autocracy under Octavius was exceedingly efficient.
But whether a government is autocratic or democratic, the degree of
civilization must depend in the main on the people themselves. Even
the power and genius of Charlemagne could not at once make Europe
civilized; and even the power and bestiality of Commodus could not at
once make Rome uncivilized. In every nation, the rulers and the people
re-act upon each other, and each makes the other in a measure what they
are. A people that are strong and worthy will not long be governed
by men who are weak and unworthy. If a nation continues to have weak
and unworthy rulers, it is because the people themselves are weak and
unworthy.
Therefore, it is an insufficient explanation of the breaking down of
the Roman Machine to declare that the Roman emperors were what they
were. The Roman emperors reflected the Roman people, or they would not
have remained Roman emperors. If the Roman people had been as strong
individually and collectively as they were in the days of Octavius
and Trajan, no such emperors as later sat on the throne would have
been possible. But the Roman people gradually deteriorated, morally,
mentally, and even physically; and inefficient government was one of
the results.
What caused the deterioration of the Roman people? The same thing that
has caused the deterioration of every other great people that have
deteriorated--the softening influence of wealth and ease.
Thus, Rome did not fall because of the barbarians, but because of
herself. She fell because her people allowed the Machine which she had
built up, in spite of the barbarians outside, at so much cost of labor
and blood, to become so weak that it could no longer protect itself.
Can this happen to our Machine? Yes, and it will happen as surely as
effect follows after cause, unless means be taken to see that men are
trained to care for the Machine more carefully than they are trained
now. _In no country is there any serious effort made to train men to
operate the Machine of Government_, except those parts of the Machine
that are called the army and the navy:--though some tremendous efforts
are made in private life to train men to handle corporations and
business enterprises, and to learn all that can be learned in medicine,
engineering, the Law and all the "learned professions." And even the
efforts made to train officers to handle armies and navies are in great
part neutralized by placing men at the head of those armies and navies
who are not trained in the slightest.
The Roman Machine fell with a crash that was proportional to the
magnitude of the Machine. The Machine of today is much larger and
heavier than the Roman. If it falls, as it may, the crash will be
proportionally greater. What will follow, the mind recoils from
contemplating.