"MAGNETONS," FORCE AND MATTER: by H. Travers
A MAN of science has presented to the Paris Academy of Sciences a paper in which he attempts to prove from the results of certain experiments that the atoms of magnetic bodies, such as iron and manganese, contain definite quantities of an elementary magnetic substance, which he proposes to call "magneton." This is regarded as a sequel to the new way of regarding electricity; for in the electrons we now seem to find a means of defining electricity in terms of a unit of substance. Electricity, light, and other physical forces, have at different times been defined either as kinds of matter or as modes of motion. At the present moment, many people think, we are passing from the kinetic to the corpuscular view again. But it is more likely that our present studies will end by giving us a more accurate and adequate notion of the nature of force on the one hand and matter on the other. We shall see more clearly that force and matter are inseparable, and that in our use of these words we are merely making mental abstractions for the purpose of calculation. What was at one time considered to be inert matter was later found to be teeming with energy; so that this kind of matter, instead of being inert substance, was found to be the result of forces acting in some finer kind of matter. This finer kind of matter—hypothetical so far—was denominated "ether"; and should we succeed in examining this ether, we should probably find that it too is the result of forces acting in a still more recondite form of matter—a sub-ether, as it were. At all events we should have no choice but to describe it in that way. In the same way force must always be inseparably associated with mass, for the quantity denoted by the term "mass" is included in the definition of force. Thus the question whether electricity, magnetism, etc., are "forces" or "forms of matter" loses its meaning, since (strictly speaking) they cannot be either but must be both.
The experiments mentioned seem to have shown that there is a definite physical unit of quantity for magnetism, just as the negative electron is said to be a definite unit of quantity for negative electricity. In this case we should have arrived at the conclusion that magnetic substances are those to whose atoms or molecules are attached these magnetic atoms.
As to the kinetic theory of electricity, light, and other physical forces, we certainly know that kinetic effects attend the manifestation of these forces; and where there is no physical matter present we have predicated an ether to serve as a substratum for these kinetic effects. But is that the same as saying that electricity and light are modes of energy or forms of motion? Later research has shown us that these physical forces are attended, not only by kinetic effects, but also by those other effects which we denote by such terms as "mass," "inertia," or "substance." Again, are we entitled to say that electricity, light, etc., are substances, or forms of matter? It would seem more reasonable to say that both energy and mass are to be classed among the effects or accompaniments of electricity and light, electricity and light themselves being something that is neither energy nor mass but parent to both.
In brief, the life or vis viva of the physical universe escapes observation and analysis, while its various effects, appearing in the forms which we describe as light, heat, electricity, etc., are defined by us in terms of our two mental concepts "mass" and "energy." The farthest limit to which physical observation has reached, or seems likely to reach, is that of minute and extremely active particles, whose motions are attended with luminous, thermal, and electric phenomena. To put the matter in a nutshell: we find that the so-called inert matter of the universe is composed of what are to all intents and purposes small beings, very much alive and endowed with proclivities. Given our electron or magneton, we are obliged to take for granted its innate properties of energy, etc., for we have no means of explaining them except by reducing them to smaller factors of precisely the same kind—and this is no explanation. That is, we have to assume the universal presence of active and purposeful life—for that is what it amounts to, whatever names we may give. And behind all this manifestation of life there of course lies mind; otherwise we must suppose the existence of causeless and purposeless life—a conception which is highly arbitrary and unnecessary.
Science has a great future before it, but at present it is laboring under limitations due to the restriction of its sphere. A large portion of its proper domain having been usurped by theology and wild deductive philosophy, science has confined itself to such limits as give it a free field. But if the careful and logical methods of true science could be applied to all departments of investigation, knowledge would take a great leap. Of late years we have seen many foolish attempts to establish a "higher science," many of them associated with "psychism" and similar eccentricities. All this naturally arouses the antagonism of true men of science and causes them to shun the possibility of association with such movements. Take the psychical research movements, for example; is it not evident that in many cases these are destined to achieve delusion rather than any useful truth? Or take hypnotism: how can such a dangerous pseudo-science be adequately studied without the grave risks which its knowledge brings upon society in the shape of credulous folly and a cover for cowardly vice?
It seems evident that science is too unorganized and indiscriminate at present, and that when it extends its boundaries so as to include the larger fields it will also have to raise its standards. Scientific work, if valuable, should be treated like other valuables—that is, protected. This can only be done by intrusting it to worthy and competent people; from which we see that the character of the professors becomes an important matter. This principle is recognized in many of our departments; for we do not intrust the performing of surgical operations nor the care of lunatics to all and sundry. Why then should other departments be thrown open, allowing dangerous drugs and dynamite to pass into the hands of weaklings and criminals? Above all, why should the far more dangerous powers of hypnotism and so forth be made thus free to all?
In brief, knowledge is as inseparably connected with conduct as force is with matter. He who attempts to separate them and to pursue knowledge independently of duty and conduct, does not achieve knowledge; he achieves only partial knowledge or harmful knowledge. The fair bride is won only by the pure and valiant knight. One of the most important adjustments which our views have to undergo is that of recognizing the proper relative positions of religion and science. They should be one and not separate. But before this can be done there is much rubbish to be cleared away from the foundations.
THE NATURAL HISTORY MUSEUM, SOUTH
KENSINGTON, LONDON
THE British Museum was completed as recently as 1847, yet hardly thirty years elapsed before it was found to be too small to hold the continually accumulating specimens, and an enlargement had to be made. To preserve and properly exhibit the enormous collection of natural history objects a commodious building was erected at South Kensington, near the well-known Museum of Science and Art. It was finished in 1880 and stocked with the old specimens from the British Museum and many new ones; the crowded rooms from which the old specimens were taken being immediately filled with other objects which had been waiting for exhibition.
The Natural History Museum was designed by Waterhouse, and there has always been a strong difference of opinion as to its architectural beauty, at least externally. The interior design and decoration is generally approved. The large towers are 192 feet high, and the length of the building is 675 feet. The ornamental decoration is composed of terra cotta, and consists of bands and dressings of animals and other natural objects.
The interior consists of a great central hall with long side galleries and basement. The eastern galleries are devoted to the geological, mineralogical, and botanical collections; the western to the zoological collections. The great hall is an index or typical museum, arranged with such specimens as to give a general idea of the scope of the subject of natural history. The historical development of those species of whose past there is definite knowledge, the effect of seasonal changes upon the colors of certain animals and birds, protective resemblances and mimicry, etc., are here displayed. Among the most interesting and rare fossils are the gigantic kangaroo of Australia (six times larger than the present representative, which is placed near it), the gigantic armadillo of Buenos Aires and its modern dwarfed descendant, the huge megatherium from Buenos Aires compared with the sloth of today, etc. The collection of stuffed birds shown in natural positions and with the correct surroundings always attracts admiring attention from the general public. In a commanding position on the first landing of the main staircase there is a fine statue by Böhm of the great naturalist, Charles Darwin. The Natural History Museum faces Cromwell road, a street of palatial residences, called after one of Oliver Cromwell's sons, who lived in a house once existing there.
Lomaland Photo. and Engraving Dept.
NATURAL HISTORY MUSEUM, SOUTH KENSINGTON, LONDON
Lomaland Photo. and Engraving Dept.
A BIRD'S EYE VIEW OF PART OF GENEVA, SWITZERLAND
SHOWING THE END OF THE LAKE OF GENEVA, THE RIVER RHÔNE,
AND "OLD GENEVA" IN THE CENTER
Lomaland Photo. and Engraving Dept.
NEAR CHAMPÉRY (VALAIS), SWITZERLAND
THE ROUTE DU COL DE COUX; AND LA DENT DU MIDI
WAS H. P. BLAVATSKY A PLAGIARIST?
by Henry T. Edge, B. A. (Cantab.), a Pupil under H. P. Blavatsky
THIS article, written by an old pupil under H. P. Blavatsky, and voicing the feelings of other students, is a vindication of the memory of that great teacher against certain charges brought against her. The charges are many and mutually inconsistent; so that if brought together they would confute each other and the various critics might be left to settle their own quarrel. Thus H. P. Blavatsky is accused both of inventing her teachings, and also of plagiarizing them from other people; her works are said to be at once a stale rehash, and a new fad. But, as any one of these charges may appear alone and thus gain a plausibility it would not otherwise have had, it is both the desire and the duty of those who uphold the truth about H. P. Blavatsky to show up the absurdity of the attacks.
The particular charge in question just now is that of unoriginality. It has been based on a quotation from the Introduction to H. P. Blavatsky's great work, The Secret Doctrine, which is as follows:
I may repeat what I have stated all along, and which I now clothe in the words of Montaigne: Gentlemen, "I have here made only a nosegay of culled flowers, and have brought nothing of my own but the string that ties them."
The attempt to construe this into a charge of plagiarism signifies the wish to depreciate H. P. Blavatsky's writings, as being so stale and unoriginal that it is not worth while reading them. But, if this were so, why did the critics deign to notice them at all, instead of suffering them to sink into the rapid and perfect oblivion which awaits all works that are actually open to such a charge? Evidently there was a desire to prejudice the mind of the inquirer, so that he would be deterred from reading the works for himself and thus forming his own opinion. In short, the arguments of these critics, not resting upon fact, would have been disproved by such a reading; and therefore they have preferred to rest their statements upon mere assertion.
Of course the genuine truth-seeker will always derive his opinion from his own investigations; and if he finds anywhere the help and knowledge for which he is seeking, he will not hesitate to accept it from any doubts as to the popularity of the author. Rather he will base his opinion of the author upon his or her works. But as the conditions of life render it necessary for us to a great extent to be dependent upon the judgments of professional literary people, it is possible for any prejudice that may exist in that quarter to inflict much injustice by lending the weight of authority to false representations. We may find, for instance, some standard work, having great influence and repute, treating of H. P. Blavatsky and Theosophy in a way that would lead one to think the writers had studied these subjects; whereas the contrary is the case, and the apparently scholarly treatise is actually a misrepresentation of fact, amounting to throwing dust in the eyes of the inquirer.
The inquirer, the sincere seeker for knowledge, is therefore referred to The Secret Doctrine itself, where he may ascertain what the author really does say in her Preface and Introduction and where he may study the actual teachings she thus introduces. Her attitude is both plain and frank; there should be no difficulty in understanding it, and its sincerity is apparent to anyone who has studied the book enough to see whether or not the writer has justified her claims. In the Preface we read:
These truths are in no sense put forward as a revelation; nor does the author claim the position of a revealer of mystic lore now made public for the first time in the world's history. For what is contained in this work is to be found scattered throughout thousands of volumes embodying the scriptures of the great Asiatic and early European religions, hidden under glyph and symbol, and hitherto left unnoticed because of this veil.
Here the charge of having invented a new system is met by the express affirmation that the materials are gleaned from ancient sources; while the charge of unoriginality is rendered pointless. A plagiarist is one who gives out the teachings of others as his own, and the charge of unoriginality is not usually brought against writers who set out with the deliberate and announced intention of quoting and expounding other writers. As H. P. Blavatsky herself says, in the very passage from which the words of the critic were selected, it would be as reasonable to charge Renan with having plagiarized his Life of Jesus from the Gospels, or Max Müller his Sacred Books of the East from the Indian philosophical writings.
And what shall be said of the insinuation that The Secret Doctrine is merely a compost, a stale and profitless rehash? That it is equally absurd. A nosegay is not a mere heap of flowers, nor does a heap of stones make a temple. The riddle of ancient knowledge is not solved by merely collecting the scattered fragments. Anyone may bring together a lot of colored threads, but only a weaver and artist can make them into a beautiful and symmetrical fabric. The question is, What has H. P. Blavatsky made of her studies of the world's mystic lore? What use has she made of her quotations and references? Has she succeeded any better than other writers who have delved in the same soil? Is The Secret Doctrine really but one more of those numerous compilations that find a speedy and eternal tomb on dusty shelves?
On consulting the Preface we find that the author has made the claim that she has been able to weave the tangled threads into a symmetrical whole, to put the various fragments in their right places, and to apply a key that will unlock mysteries. In proof of her claim she refers the reader to the book itself. This is the only test she demands; surely not an unreasonable one!
It is written in the service of humanity, and by humanity and the future generations it must be judged. Its author recognizes no inferior court of appeal.—Preface.
Other authors who have compiled voluminous works on ancient lore have signally failed to render them profitable to the student. They have either been mere compilers having no definite purpose other than the production of a learned book, or they have been overruled by some theory or fad which they have sought to prove. But H. P. Blavatsky has pointed out the real clues and for the first time made sense of what was chaotic. To quote her words again:
What is now attempted is to gather the oldest tenets together and to make of them one harmonious and unbroken whole. The sole advantage which the writer has over her predecessors is that she need not resort to personal speculations and theories. For this work is a partial statement of what she herself has been taught by more advanced students, supplemented, in a few details only, by the results of her own study and observation.
It is not easy to see how a plainer and franker statement could have been made. The indebtedness to other sources is freely admitted; and, as the reader can see, all references to sources are fully given in the text. The author mentions her own teachers, but not for the purpose of lending a fictitious authority to her statements. For these statements do not need any such support, consisting, as they do, of appeals to reason, to the weight of testimony, and to accepted authorities in the different branches of learning. The reference to her teachers was made simply in modest and honorable disclaim of credit which the writer felt was due to others. As to the teachings thus received and thus transmitted by her, they are to be judged on their merits, and should neither be accepted or rejected on any other principle. Information is information, however gained; and a man lost in a forest, who has actually been conducted out of it, does not need any testimonials to the trustworthiness of his guide. If The Secret Doctrine can really solve problems, answer questions, and remove doubts, that fact alone is sufficient for the genuine truth-seeker; and the author's statement as to the source of her knowledge will be taken for what it was intended for—a due acknowledgement of gratitude and indebtedness.
If H. P. Blavatsky's work is of the kind which these critics wish to make it out to be, surely the student may be trusted to find out that fact for himself; but if it is not of this kind, then the statement that it is, is a misrepresentation—founded possibly on ignorance, but in any case unworthy of a scholar. She claims that she has pointed out many things that have hitherto escaped the attention of scholars. And this is a statement which can only be tested by investigation; anyone presuming to affirm or deny it without such investigation is either a simpleton or a bigot. The pointing out of truths is not an act of dogmatism, since the person to whom they are pointed out is left perfectly free to use his own judgment (if he has any) as to whether that which he has been shown is true or not, whether it is what he was looking for or not.
H. P. Blavatsky did not write for recognition, but she has succeeded in the object for which she did write—that of arousing thought, calling attention. She desired to startle the world of thought; and this she has certainly done; for her opponents cannot let her alone. Moreover a kind of acknowledgement is to be found in the large and increasing number of facts, denied in her day but since admitted by scholars. It is true that for these revised views credit is not given to their originator; but that must be left to posterity when time shall have obliterated selfishness and ignorance. The question of originality may be settled by calling H. P. Blavatsky a pioneer. The lands into which she has led us are indeed ancient and many a foot has trod them of yore; yet to the modern world they were virgin forests.
But one word remains to be said. Fortunately for the credit due to Theosophy and its first promulgator in this age, H. P. Blavatsky's writings do not constitute the whole of her work. She has left behind her the Universal Brotherhood and Theosophical Society, an organization which embodies many teachings which could never be communicated by books alone. This means that her work is in hands that will take care that she gets the credit to which she is entitled, and that the real Theosophical work is of a kind that can only be done by Theosophists, and so can not be plagiarized. And even the clues given in her writings will prove inadequate unless taken in connexion with an application of Theosophy in the student's daily life; for she took good care to show the inseparable connexion between knowledge and conduct. Thus those who try to use The Secret Doctrine as a mine from which they may dig out something that they can use to their own private advantage are more likely to serve the author's cause than their own; for the only use that can be made of half-truths is to point the way to the missing halves.
Lomaland Photo. and Engraving Dept.
A FARMHOUSE ON THE NORFOLK BROADS, ENGLAND
A district to the west of Great Yarmouth watered by three rivers with
many open spaces called "broads," roads and long narrow lanes, all of
water. Many birds—water-fowl—nest and feed amongst the sedges;
pure white swans sail about with majestic dignity and grace, some
carrying their cygnets on the back, between the raised wings.
Lomaland Photo. and Engraving Dept.
BUCKINGHAM PALACE, LONDON: THE LONDON RESIDENCE OF THE BRITISH SOVEREIGN