FOOTNOTES:
[1] See Note at page 42, vol. i.
[2] I am here bound to state, from a careful examination of all the original documents, that his name was introduced in the very words which he suggested, and which I have at this moment before me in his own handwriting:—so differently, however, does the same sentence strike the eye in print and in manuscript, that an author frequently does not recognise his own composition.
[3] The celebrated Italian antiquary Visconti has so denominated it.
[4] I repeat this as I received it: from my own personal knowledge I can neither confirm nor refute it; although I am inclined to believe that Davy was tinged with a degree of superstitious feeling, or a certain undefined species of credulity, which shelters itself under the acknowledged inadequacy of human reason to connect causes with effects.
[5] The date of this event is important; and Mr. Faraday, in referring to his Journal, finds it to be correctly stated.
[6] See Annales de Chimie, tome 88, p. 322. It appears from Mr. Faraday's Journal, that he worked upon Iodine with a borrowed Voltaic pile, at his hotel, on the morning of the 11th; and the results of his experiments are described at the conclusion of the above letter.
[7] In offering these observations, the reader may readily suppose it has not been without much pain that I have made this sacrifice of personal feeling to principle. I am, however, bound to observe, that Sir Humphry's sentiments towards France for the liberal indulgence granted to him were both grateful and kindly; and so strongly does Lady Davy participate in that feeling, that I perhaps owe it to her to state that neither her Ladyship's journals or information have been used upon this occasion.
[8] Gray's Letters.
[9] These are the Iodates of the present day; but Davy, it would seem, resisted the conviction of Iodic acid being an oxy-acid, upon the same grounds that he opposed the views of M. Gay-Lussac with regard to the nature of Chloric acid.