§ 9. Our assemblage of people would not be homogeneous unless its members were all equal and similar and in precisely similar attitudes, and were all looking the same way. You understand what a number of people seated or standing on a floor or plain and looking the same way means. But the expression ‘looking’ is not conveniently applicable to things that have no eyes, and we want a more comprehensive mode of expression. We have it in the words ‘orientation,’ ‘oriented,’ and (verb) ‘to orient,’ suggested by an extension of the idea involved in the word ‘orientation,’ first used to signify positions relatively to east and west of ancient Greek and Egyptian temples and Christian churches. But for the orientation of a house or temple we have only one angle, and that angle is called ‘azimuth’ (the name given to an angle in a horizontal plane). For orientation in three dimensions of space we must extend our ideas and consider position with reference to east and west and up and down. A man lying on his side with his head to the north and looking east, would not be similarly oriented to a man standing upright and looking east. To provide for the complete specification of how a body is oriented in space we must have in the body a plane of reference, and a line of reference in this plane, belonging to the body and moving with it. We must also have a fixed plane and a fixed line of reference in it, relatively to which the orientation of the moveable body is to be specified; as, for example, a horizontal plane and the east and west horizontal line in it. The position of a body is completely specified when the angle between the plane of reference belonging to it, and the fixed plane is given; and when the angles between the line of intersection of the two planes and the lines of reference in them are also given. Thus we see that three angles are necessary and sufficient to specify the orientation of a moveable body, and we see how the specification is conveniently given in terms of three angles.

§ 10. To illustrate this take a book lying on the table before you with its side next the title-page up, and its back to the north. I now lift the east edge (the top of the book), keeping the bottom edge north and south on the table till the book is inclined, let us say, 20° to the table. Next, without altering this angle of 20°, between the side of the book and the table, I turn the book round a vertical axis, through 45° till the bottom edge lies north-east and south-west. Lastly, keeping the book in the plane to which it has been thus brought, I turn it round in this plane through 35°. These three angles of 20°, 45°, and 35°, specify, with reference to the horizontal plane of the table and the east and west line in it, the orientation of the book in the position to which you have seen me bring it, and in which I hold it before you.

§ 11. In Figs. 5 and 6 you see two assemblages, each of twelve equal and similar molecules in a plane. Fig. 5, in which the molecules are all same-ways oriented, is one homogeneous assemblage of twenty-four molecules. [Fig. 6], in which in one set of rows the molecules are alternately oriented two different ways, may either be regarded as two homogeneous assemblages, each of twelve single molecules; or one homogeneous assemblage of twelve pairs of those single molecules.

Fig. 5.

[§ 12.] I must now call your attention to a purely geometrical question[3] of vital interest with respect to homogeneous assemblages in general, and particularly the homogeneous assemblage of molecules constituting a crystal:—what can we take as ‘the’ boundary or ‘a’ boundary enclosing each molecule with whatever portion of space around it we are at liberty to choose for it, and separating it from neighbours and their portions of space given to them in homogeneous fairness?

Fig. 6.

[§ 13.] If we had only mathematical points to consider we should be at liberty to choose the simple obvious partitioning by three sets of parallel planes. Even this may be done in an infinite number of ways, thus:—Beginning with any point P of the assemblage, choose any other three points A, B, C, far or near, provided only that they are not in one plane with P, and that there is no other point of the assemblage in the lines PA, PB, PC, or within the volume of the parallelepiped of which these lines are conterminous edges, or within the areas of any of the faces of this parallelepiped. There will be points of the assemblage at each of the corners of this parallelepiped and at all the corners of the parallelepipeds equal and similar to it which we find by drawing sets of equi-distant planes parallel to its three pairs of faces. (A diagram is unnecessary.) Every point of the assemblage is thus at the intersection of three planes, which is also the point of meeting of eight neighbouring parallelepipeds. Shift now any one of the points of the assemblage to a position within the volume of any one of the eight parallelepipeds, and give equal parallel motions to all the other points of the assemblage. Thus we have every point in a parallelepipedal cell of its own, and all the points of the assemblage are similarly placed in their cells, which are themselves equal and similar.

§ 14. But now if, instead of a single point for each member of the assemblage, we have a group of points, or a globe or cube or other geometrical figure, or an individual of a homogeneous assemblage of equal, similar, similarly dressed, and similarly oriented ladies, sitting in rows, or a homogeneous assemblage of trees closely planted in regular geometrical order on a plane with equal and similar distributions of molecules, and parallel planes above and below, we may find that the best conditioned plane-faced parallelepipedal partitioning which we can choose would cut off portions properly belonging to one molecule of the assemblage and give them to the cells of neighbours. To find a cell enclosing all that belongs to each individual, for example, every part of each lady’s dress, however complexly it may be folded among portions of the equal and similar dresses of neighbours; or, every twig, leaf, and rootlet of each one of the homogeneous assemblage of trees; we must alter the boundary by give-and-take across the plane faces of the primitive parallelepipedal cells, so that each cell shall enclose all that belongs to one molecule, and therefore (because of the homogeneousness of the partitioning) nothing belonging to any other molecule. The geometrical problem thus presented, wonderfully complex as it may be in cases such as some of those which I have suggested, is easily performed for any possible case if we begin with any particular parallelepipedal partitioning determined for corresponding points of the assemblage as explained in [§ 13], for any homogeneous assemblage of single points. We may prescribe to ourselves that the corners are to remain unchanged, but if so they must to begin with either in interfaces of contact between the individual molecules, or in vacant space among the molecules. If this condition is fulfilled for one corner it is fulfilled for all, as the corners are essentially corresponding points relatively to the assemblage.