Experimental Investigation of the Spirit Manifestations / Demonstrating the existence of spirits and their communion with mortals. Doctrine of the spirit world respecting heaven, hell, morality, and God. Also, the influence of Scripture on the morals of Christians.

by Robert Hare

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.

---