diff options
Diffstat (limited to '32037-h/32037-h.htm')
| -rw-r--r-- | 32037-h/32037-h.htm | 5990 |
1 files changed, 5990 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/32037-h/32037-h.htm b/32037-h/32037-h.htm new file mode 100644 index 0000000..af4592f --- /dev/null +++ b/32037-h/32037-h.htm @@ -0,0 +1,5990 @@ +<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" + "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"> + +<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" lang="en" xml:lang="en"> + <head> + <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=utf-8" /> + <title> + The Project Gutenberg eBook of Eureka: a prose poem, by Edgar A. Poe + </title> + <style type="text/css"> + + p {margin-top: .75em; + text-align: justify; + margin-bottom: .75em; + text-indent: 1em;} + + h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6 {text-align: center; + clear: both; + font-family: "Garamond", Times, serif;} + + h1 {letter-spacing: 0.20ex;} + + h2 {margin-top: 2em; + margin-bottom: 1em;} + + h3 {margin-bottom: 1em;} + + hr {width: 10%; + margin-top: 1em; + margin-bottom: 2em; + margin-left: auto; + margin-right: auto; + clear: both; + height: 1px; + border: 0; + background-color: black; + color: black;} + + hr.a1 {width: 20%; + margin-top: 1em; + margin-bottom: 1em;} + + table {margin-left: auto; + margin-right: auto;} + + table.namelist {width: 70%; + font-style: italic;} + + table.list2 {width: 70%; + margin-left: auto; + margin-right: auto;} + + table.list2 td {padding-left: 1em; + text-indent: -1em; + padding-right: 2em;} + + td.ral {text-align: right; + padding-left: 2em;} + + ul.booklist {margin-left: 2em; + text-indent: -1em; + font-style: italic; + line-height: 140%;} + + body{margin-left: 15%; + margin-right: 15%;} + + p.dedication {line-height: 200%; + text-align: center; + text-indent: 0em;} + + p.publisher {margin-top: 4em; + text-align: center; + font-size: smaller; + margin-bottom: 3em; + text-indent: 0em; + line-height: 150%;} + + p.copyright {padding-top: 4em; + padding-bottom: 4em; + text-align: center; + text-indent: 0em; + font-size: 70%; + line-height: 150%} + + p.ads {margin-top: .75em; + margin-bottom: .75em; + margin-left: 5%; + margin-right: 5%; + font-size: 90%;} + + p.ads2 {margin-top: .75em; + margin-bottom: .75em; + margin-left: 5%; + margin-right: 5%; + font-size: 90%; + padding-left: 1em; + text-indent: -1em;} + + p.btit {text-align: center; + text-indent: 0em; + letter-spacing: 0.10ex; + line-height: 150%;} + + div.tpage {font-family: "Garamond", Times, serif;} + + div.advertisements {margin-top: 1em; + margin-left: 10%; + margin-right: 10%; + font-size: smaller; + padding: 1em 1em 1em 1em; + background-color: #FBF5E6; + color: black;} + + img {border-style: none;} + + ul {list-style: none; + line-height: 150%;} + + .pagenum {position: absolute; + right: 1%; + font-size: x-small; + text-align: right; + font-weight: normal; + font-style: normal; + letter-spacing: 0ex; + text-indent: 0em; + font-family: "Times New Roman", Times, serif;} + + a:link {text-decoration: none; + color: #104E8B; + background-color: inherit;} + + a:visited {text-decoration: none; + color: #8B0000; + background-color: inherit;} + + a:hover {text-decoration: underline;} + + a:active {text-decoration: underline;} + + .center {text-align: center; + text-indent: 0em;} + + .name {font-size: 130%; + font-weight: bold; + letter-spacing: 0.20ex;} + + .right {text-align: right; + margin-right: 10%;} + + .smcap {font-variant: small-caps;} + + .caption {font-weight: bold; + text-indent: 0em;} + + .figcenter {margin: auto; + text-align: center; + text-indent: 0em;} + + div.footnote p {text-indent: 0em;} + + .footnotes {border: dotted 1px; + padding-bottom: 1em; + margin-top: 2em;} + + .footnote {margin-left: 10%; + margin-right: 10%; + font-size: smaller;} + + .footnote .label {position: absolute; + right: 79%; + text-align: right;} + + .fnanchor { vertical-align: baseline; + font-size: 80%; + position: relative; + top: -.4em;} + + </style> + </head> +<body> + + +<pre> + +The Project Gutenberg EBook of Eureka:, by Edgar A. Poe + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org + + +Title: Eureka: + A Prose Poem + +Author: Edgar A. Poe + +Release Date: April 18, 2010 [EBook #32037] + +Language: English + +Character set encoding: UTF-8 + +*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK EUREKA: *** + + + + +Produced by Meredith Bach, Irma Spehar and the Online +Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This +file was produced from images generously made available +by The Internet Archive/American Libraries.) + + + + + + +</pre> + + + +<div class="tpage"> +<h1>EUREKA:<br /><br /> + +<span style="font-size: 60%">A PROSE POEM.</span></h1> + +<p class="center" style="padding-top: 5em; padding-bottom: 1em; font-size: 70%">BY</p> + +<p class="center" style="font-size: 150%; font-weight: bold">EDGAR A. POE.</p> + +<p class="publisher">NEW-YORK:<br /> +<big>GEO. P. PUTNAM,</big><br /> +<small>OF LATE FIRM OF “WILEY & PUTNAM,”</small><br /> +155 BROADWAY.<br /> + +<small>MDCCCXLVIII.</small></p> + +<p class="copyright"><span class="smcap">Entered</span>, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1848,<br /> +<span class="smcap">By</span> EDGAR A. POE,<br /> +In the Clerk’s Office of the District Court for the Southern District of New-York.<br /><br /><br /> + +<span class="smcap">Leavitt, Trow & Co</span> Prs.,<br /> +33 Ann-street.</p> + +<p class="dedication"><small>WITH VERY PROFOUND RESPECT,</small><br /> + +This Work is Dedicated<br /> + +<small>TO</small><br /> + +ALEXANDER VON HUMBOLDT.</p> +</div> + + + +<h2><a name="PREFACE" id="PREFACE"></a>PREFACE.</h2> + +<hr /> + +<p><span class="smcap">To</span> the few who love me and whom I love—to those +who feel rather than to those who think—to the dreamers +and those who put faith in dreams as in the only realities—I +offer this Book of Truths, not in its character of Truth-Teller, +but for the Beauty that abounds in its Truth; constituting +it true. To these I present the composition as an +Art-Product alone:—let us say as a Romance; or, if I be +not urging too lofty a claim, as a Poem.</p> + +<p><i>What I here propound is true</i>:—therefore it cannot +die:—or if by any means it be now trodden down so that it +die, it will “rise again to the Life Everlasting.”</p> + +<p>Nevertheless it is as a Poem only that I wish this work +to be judged after I am dead.</p> + +<p class="right">E. A. P.</p> + + + +<h2><a name="EUREKA" id="EUREKA"></a>EUREKA:<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_7" id="Page_7">[7]</a></span></h2> + +<h3>AN ESSAY ON THE MATERIAL AND SPIRITUAL UNIVERSE.</h3> + +<hr /> + +<p><span class="smcap">It</span> is with humility really unassumed—it is with a sentiment +even of awe—that I pen the opening sentence of this +work: for of all conceivable subjects I approach the reader +with the most solemn—the most comprehensive—the most +difficult—the most august.</p> + +<p>What terms shall I find sufficiently simple in their sublimity—sufficiently +sublime in their simplicity—for the mere +enunciation of my theme?</p> + +<p>I design to speak of the <i>Physical, Metaphysical and +Mathematical—of the Material and Spiritual Universe:—of +its Essence, its Origin, its Creation, its Present Condition +and its Destiny</i>. I shall be so rash, moreover, as to +challenge the conclusions, and thus, in effect, to question +the sagacity, of many of the greatest and most justly reverenced +of men.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_8" id="Page_8">[8]</a></span></p> + +<p>In the beginning, let me as distinctly as possible announce—not +the theorem which I hope to demonstrate—for, whatever +the mathematicians may assert, there is, in this world +at least, <i>no such thing</i> as demonstration—but the ruling +idea which, throughout this volume, I shall be continually +endeavoring to suggest.</p> + +<p>My general proposition, then, is this:—<i>In the Original +Unity of the First Thing lies the Secondary Cause of All +Things, with the Germ of their Inevitable Annihilation</i>.</p> + +<p>In illustration of this idea, I propose to take such a survey +of the Universe that the mind may be able really to +receive and to perceive an individual impression.</p> + +<p>He who from the top of Ætna casts his eyes leisurely +around, is affected chiefly by the <i>extent</i> and <i>diversity</i> of the +scene. Only by a rapid whirling on his heel could he hope +to comprehend the panorama in the sublimity of its <i>oneness</i>. +But as, on the summit of Ætna, <i>no</i> man has thought of +whirling on his heel, so no man has ever taken into his +brain the full uniqueness of the prospect; and so, again, +whatever considerations lie involved in this uniqueness, +have as yet no practical existence for mankind.</p> + +<p>I do not know a treatise in which a survey of the <i>Universe</i>—using +the word in its most comprehensive and only +legitimate acceptation—is taken at all:—and it may be as +well here to mention that by the term “Universe,” wherever +employed without qualification in this essay, I mean to designate +<i>the utmost conceivable expanse of space, with all +things, spiritual and material, that can be imagined to exist +within the compass of that expanse</i>. In speaking of what is +ordinarily implied by the expression, “Universe,” I shall<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_9" id="Page_9">[9]</a></span> +take a phrase of limitation—“the Universe of stars.” Why +this distinction is considered necessary, will be seen in the +sequel.</p> + +<p>But even of treatises on the really limited, although +always assumed as the <i>un</i>limited, Universe of <i>stars</i>, I know +none in which a survey, even of this limited Universe, is +so taken as to warrant deductions from its <i>individuality</i>. +The nearest approach to such a work is made in the “Cosmos” +of Alexander Von Humboldt. He presents the subject, +however, <i>not</i> in its individuality but in its generality. +His theme, in its last result, is the law of <i>each</i> portion of the +merely physical Universe, as this law is related to the laws +of <i>every other</i> portion of this merely physical Universe. His +design is simply synœretical. In a word, he discusses the +universality of material relation, and discloses to the eye of +Philosophy whatever inferences have hitherto lain hidden +<i>behind</i> this universality. But however admirable be the +succinctness with which he has treated each particular +point of his topic, the mere multiplicity of these points occasions, +necessarily, an amount of detail, and thus an involution +of idea, which precludes all <i>individuality</i> of impression.</p> + +<p>It seems to me that, in aiming at this latter effect, and, +through it, at the consequences—the conclusions—the suggestions—the +speculations—or, if nothing better offer itself +the mere guesses which may result from it—we require +something like a mental gyration on the heel. We need so +rapid a revolution of all things about the central point of +sight that, while the minutiæ vanish altogether, even the<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_10" id="Page_10">[10]</a></span> +more conspicuous objects become blended into one. Among +the vanishing minutiæ, in a survey of this kind, would be all +exclusively terrestrial matters. The Earth would be considered +in its planetary relations alone. A man, in this +view, becomes mankind; mankind a member of the cosmical +family of Intelligences.</p> + +<p>And now, before proceeding to our subject proper, let +me beg the reader’s attention to an extract or two from a +somewhat remarkable letter, which appears to have been +found corked in a bottle and floating on the <i>Mare Tenebrarum</i>—an +ocean well described by the Nubian geographer, +Ptolemy Hephestion, but little frequented in modern days +unless by the Transcendentalists and some other divers for +crotchets. The date of this letter, I confess, surprises me +even more particularly than its contents; for it seems to +have been written in the year <i>two</i> thousand eight hundred +and forty-eight. As for the passages I am about to transcribe, +they, I fancy, will speak for themselves.</p> + +<p>“Do you know, my dear friend,” says the writer, addressing, +no doubt, a contemporary—“Do you know that it +is scarcely more than eight or nine hundred years ago since +the metaphysicians first consented to relieve the people of +the singular fancy that there exist <i>but two practicable roads +to Truth</i>? Believe it if you can! It appears, however, that +long, long ago, in the night of Time, there lived a Turkish +philosopher called Aries and surnamed Tottle.” [Here, possibly, +the letter-writer means Aristotle; the best names are +wretchedly corrupted in two or three thousand years.] “The +fame of this great man depended mainly upon his demonstration +that sneezing is a natural provision, by means of<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_11" id="Page_11">[11]</a></span> +which over-profound thinkers are enabled to expel superfluous +ideas through the nose; but he obtained a scarcely less +valuable celebrity as the founder, or at all events as the +principal propagator, of what was termed the <i>de</i>ductive or +<i>à priori</i> philosophy. He started with what he maintained +to be axioms, or self-evident truths:—and the now well understood +fact that <i>no</i> truths are <i>self</i>-evident, really does not +make in the slightest degree against his speculations:—it +was sufficient for his purpose that the truths in question +were evident at all. From axioms he proceeded, logically, +to results. His most illustrious disciples were one Tuclid, a +geometrician,” [meaning Euclid] “and one Kant, a Dutchman, +the originator of that species of Transcendentalism +which, with the change merely of a C for a K, now bears +his peculiar name.</p> + +<p>“Well, Aries Tottle flourished supreme, until the advent +of one Hog, surnamed ‘the Ettrick shepherd,’ who preached +an entirely different system, which he called the <i>à posteriori</i> +or <i>in</i>ductive. His plan referred altogether to sensation. +He proceeded by observing, analyzing, and classifying facts—<i>instantiæ +Naturæ</i>, as they were somewhat affectedly +called—and arranging them into general laws. In a word, +while the mode of Aries rested on <i>noumena</i>, that of Hog +depended on <i>phenomena</i>; and so great was the admiration +excited by this latter system that, at its first introduction, +Aries fell into general disrepute. Finally, however, he +recovered ground, and was permitted to divide the empire +of Philosophy with his more modern rival:—the savans +contenting themselves with proscribing all <i>other</i> competitors, +past, present, and to come; putting an end to all controversy<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_12" id="Page_12">[12]</a></span> +on the topic by the promulgation of a Median law, +to the effect that the Aristotelian and Baconian roads are, +and of right ought to be, the solo possible avenues to knowledge:—‘Baconian,’ +you must know, my dear friend,” adds +the letter-writer at this point, “was an adjective invented +as equivalent to Hog-ian, and at the same time more dignified +and euphonious.</p> + +<p>“Now I do assure you most positively”—proceeds the +epistle—“that I represent these matters fairly; and you can +easily understand how restrictions so absurd on their very +face must have operated, in those days, to retard the progress +of true Science, which makes its most important +advances—as all History will show—by seemingly intuitive +<i>leaps</i>. These ancient ideas confined investigation to crawling; +and I need not suggest to you that crawling, among +varieties of locomotion, is a very capital thing of its kind;—but +because the tortoise is sure of foot, for this reason must +we clip the wings of the eagles? For many centuries, so +great was the infatuation, about Hog especially, that a virtual +stop was put to all thinking, properly so called. No +man dared utter a truth for which he felt himself indebted +to his soul alone. It mattered not whether the truth was +even demonstrably such; for the dogmatizing philosophers +of that epoch regarded only <i>the road</i> by which it professed +to have been attained. The end, with them, was a point of +no moment, whatever:—‘the means!’ they vociferated—‘let +us look at the means!’—and if, on scrutiny of the means, +it was found to come neither under the category Hog, nor +under the category Aries (which means ram), why then the +savans went no farther, but, calling the thinker a fool and<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_13" id="Page_13">[13]</a></span> +branding him a ‘theorist,’ would never, thenceforward, have +any thing to do either with <i>him</i> or with his truths.</p> + +<p>“Now, my dear friend,” continues the letter-writer, “it +cannot be maintained that by the crawling system, exclusively +adopted, men would arrive at the maximum amount +of truth, even in any long series of ages; for the repression +of imagination was an evil not to be counterbalanced even +by <i>absolute</i> certainty in the snail processes. But their certainty +was very far from absolute. The error of our progenitors +was quite analogous with that of the wiseacre who +fancies he must necessarily see an object the more distinctly, +the more closely he holds it to his eyes. They blinded +themselves, too, with the impalpable, titillating Scotch snuff +of <i>detail</i>; and thus the boasted facts of the Hog-ites were +by no means always facts—a point of little importance but +for the assumption that they always <i>were</i>. The vital taint, +however, in Baconianism—its most lamentable fount of +error—lay in its tendency to throw power and consideration +into the hands of merely perceptive men—of those +inter-Tritonic minnows, the microscopical savans—the diggers +and pedlers of minute <i>facts</i>, for the most part in physical +science—facts all of which they retailed at the same price +upon the highway; their value depending, it was supposed, +simply upon the <i>fact of their fact</i>, without reference to +their applicability or inapplicability in the development of +those ultimate and only legitimate facts, called Law.</p> + +<p>“Than the persons”—the letter goes on to say—“Than +the persons thus suddenly elevated by the Hog-ian philosophy +into a station for which they were unfitted—thus transferred +from the sculleries into the parlors of Science—from<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_14" id="Page_14">[14]</a></span> +its pantries into its pulpits—than these individuals a +more intolerant—a more intolerable set of bigots and +tyrants never existed on the face of the earth. Their creed, +their text and their sermon were, alike, the one word ‘<i>fact</i>’—but, +for the most part, even of this one word, they knew +not even the meaning. On those who ventured to <i>disturb</i> +their facts with the view of putting them in order and to +use, the disciples of Hog had no mercy whatever. All attempts +at generalization were met at once by the words +‘theoretical,’ ‘theory,’ ‘theorist’—all <i>thought</i>, to be brief, +was very properly resented as a personal affront to themselves. +Cultivating the natural sciences to the exclusion of +Metaphysics, the Mathematics, and Logic, many of these +Bacon-engendered philosophers—one-idead, one-sided and +lame of a leg—were more wretchedly helpless—more miserably +ignorant, in view of all the comprehensible objects +of knowledge, than the veriest unlettered hind who proves +that he knows something at least, in admitting that he +knows absolutely nothing.</p> + +<p>“Nor had our forefathers any better right to talk about +<i>certainty</i>, when pursuing, in blind confidence, the <i>à priori</i> +path of axioms, or of the Ram. At innumerable points this +path was scarcely as straight as a ram’s-horn. The simple +truth is, that the Aristotelians erected their castles upon a +basis far less reliable than air; <i>for no such things as axioms +ever existed or can possibly exist at all</i>. This they must +have been very blind, indeed, not to see, or at least to suspect; +for, even in their own day, many of their long-admitted +‘axioms’ had been abandoned:—‘<i>ex nihilo nihil fit</i>,’ +for example, and a ‘thing cannot act where it is not,’ and<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_15" id="Page_15">[15]</a></span> +‘there cannot be antipodes,’ and ‘darkness cannot proceed +from light.’ These and numerous similar propositions formerly +accepted, without hesitation, as axioms, or undeniable +truths, were, even at the period of which I speak, seen to +be altogether untenable:—how absurd in these people, then, +to persist in relying upon a basis, as immutable, whose mutability +had become so repeatedly manifest!</p> + +<p>“But, even through evidence afforded by themselves +against themselves, it is easy to convict these <i>à priori</i> +reasoners of the grossest unreason—it is easy to show the +futility—the impalpability of their axioms in general. I +have now lying before me”—it will be observed that we +still proceed with the letter—“I have now lying before me +a book printed about a thousand years ago. Pundit assures +me that it is decidedly the cleverest ancient work on its +topic, which is ‘Logic.’ The author, who was much +esteemed in his day, was one Miller, or Mill; and we find +it recorded of him, as a point of some importance, that he +rode a mill-horse whom he called Jeremy Bentham:—but +let us glance at the volume itself!</p> + +<p>“Ah!—‘Ability or inability to conceive,’ says Mr. Mill +very properly, ‘is <i>in no case</i> to be received as a criterion of +axiomatic truth.’ Now, that this is a palpable truism no +one in his senses will deny. <i>Not</i> to admit the proposition, +is to insinuate a charge of variability in Truth itself, whose +very title is a synonym of the Steadfast. If ability to conceive +be taken as a criterion of Truth, then a truth to +<i>David</i> Hume would very seldom be a truth to <i>Joe</i>; and +ninety-nine hundredths of what is undeniable in Heaven +would be demonstrable falsity upon Earth. The proposition<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_16" id="Page_16">[16]</a></span> +of Mr. Mill, then, is sustained. I will not grant it to be an +<i>axiom</i>; and this merely because I am showing that <i>no</i> +axioms exist; but, with a distinction which could not have +been cavilled at even by Mr. Mill himself, I am ready to +grant that, <i>if</i> an axiom <i>there be</i>, then the proposition of which +we speak has the fullest right to be considered an axiom—that +no <i>more</i> absolute axiom <i>is</i>—and, consequently, that any +subsequent proposition which shall conflict with this one +primarily advanced, must be either a falsity in itself—that +is to say no axiom—or, if admitted axiomatic, must at once +neutralize both itself and its predecessor.</p> + +<p>“And now, by the logic of their own propounder, let us +proceed to test any one of the axioms propounded. Let us +give Mr. Mill the fairest of play. We will bring the point +to no ordinary issue. We will select for investigation no +common-place axiom—no axiom of what, not the less preposterously +because only impliedly, he terms his secondary +class—as if a positive truth by definition could be either +more or less positively a truth:—we will select, I say, no +axiom of an unquestionability so questionable as is to be +found in Euclid. We will not talk, for example, about such +propositions as that two straight lines cannot enclose a +space, or that the whole is greater than any one of its parts. +We will afford the logician <i>every</i> advantage. We will come +at once to a proposition which he regards as the acme of the +unquestionable—as the quintessence of axiomatic undeniability. +Here it is:—‘Contradictions cannot <i>both</i> be true—that +is, cannot cöexist in nature.’ Here Mr. Mill means, +for instance,—and I give the most forcible instance conceivable—that +a tree must be either a tree or <i>not</i> a tree—that<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_17" id="Page_17">[17]</a></span> +it cannot be at the same time a tree <i>and</i> not a tree:—all +which is quite reasonable of itself and will answer remarkably +well as an axiom, until we bring it into collation with +an axiom insisted upon a few pages before—in other words—words +which I have previously employed—until we test +it by the logic of its own propounder. ‘A tree,’ Mr. Mill +asserts, ‘must be either a tree or <i>not</i> a tree.’ Very well:—and +now let me ask him, <i>why</i>. To this little query there +is but one response:—I defy any man living to invent a +second. The sole answer is this:—‘Because we find it +<i>impossible to conceive</i> that a tree can be any thing else than +a tree or not a tree.’ This, I repeat, is Mr. Mill’s sole +answer:—he will not <i>pretend</i> to suggest another:—and +yet, by his own showing, his answer is clearly no answer +at all; for has he not already required us to admit, <i>as an +axiom</i>, that ability or inability to conceive is <i>in no case</i> to +be taken as a criterion of axiomatic truth? Thus all—absolutely +<i>all</i> his argumentation is at sea without a rudder. +Let it not be urged that an exception from the general rule +is to be made, in cases where the ‘impossibility to conceive’ +is so peculiarly great as when we are called upon to +conceive a tree <i>both</i> a tree and <i>not</i> a tree. Let no attempt, +I say, be made at urging this sotticism; for, in the first +place, there are no <i>degrees</i> of ‘impossibility,’ and thus no +one impossible conception can be <i>more</i> peculiarly impossible +than another impossible conception:—in the second place, +Mr. Mill himself, no doubt after thorough deliberation, has +most distinctly, and most rationally, excluded all opportunity +for exception, by the emphasis of his proposition, that, +<i>in no case</i>, is ability or inability to conceive, to be taken as<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_18" id="Page_18">[18]</a></span> +a criterion of axiomatic truth:—in the third place, even +were exceptions admissible at all, it remains to be shown +how any exception is admissible <i>here</i>. That a tree can be +both a tree and not a tree, is an idea which the angels, or +the devils, <i>may</i> entertain, and which no doubt many an +earthly Bedlamite, or Transcendentalist, <i>does</i>.</p> + +<p>“Now I do not quarrel with these ancients,” continues +the letter-writer, “<i>so much</i> on account of the transparent +frivolity of their logic—which, to be plain, was baseless, +worthless and fantastic altogether—as on account of their +pompous and infatuate proscription of all <i>other</i> roads to +Truth than the two narrow and crooked paths—the one +of creeping and the other of crawling—to which, in their +ignorant perversity, they have dared to confine the Soul—the +Soul which loves nothing so well as to soar in those +regions of illimitable intuition which are utterly incognizant +of ‘<i>path</i>.’</p> + +<p>“By the bye, my dear friend, is it not an evidence of +the mental slavery entailed upon those bigoted people by +their Hogs and Rams, that in spite of the eternal prating +of their savans about <i>roads</i> to Truth, none of them fell, +even by accident, into what we now so distinctly perceive +to be the broadest, the straightest and most available of all +mere roads—the great thoroughfare—the majestic highway +of the <i>Consistent</i>? Is it not wonderful that they should +have failed to deduce from the works of God the vitally +momentous consideration that <i>a perfect consistency can be +nothing but an absolute truth</i>? How plain—how rapid +our progress since the late announcement of this proposition! +By its means, investigation has been taken out of<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_19" id="Page_19">[19]</a></span> +the hands of the ground-moles, and given as a duty, rather +than as a task, to the true—to the <i>only</i> true thinkers—to +the generally-educated men of ardent imagination. These +latter—our Keplers—our Laplaces—‘speculate’—‘theorize’—these +are the terms—can you not fancy the shout of scorn +with which they would be received by our progenitors, +were it possible for them to be looking over my shoulders +as I write? The Keplers, I repeat, speculate—theorize—and +their theories are merely corrected—reduced—sifted—cleared, +little by little, of their chaff of inconsistency—until +at length there stands apparent an unencumbered <i>Consistency</i>—a +consistency which the most stolid admit—because +it <i>is</i> a consistency—to be an absolute and an unquestionable +<i>Truth</i>.</p> + +<p>“I have often thought, my friend, that it must have puzzled +these dogmaticians of a thousand years ago, to determine, +even, by which of their two boasted roads it is that +the cryptographist attains the solution of the more complicate +cyphers—or by which of them Champollion guided +mankind to those important and innumerable truths which, +for so many centuries, have lain entombed amid the phonetical +hieroglyphics of Egypt. In especial, would it not have +given these bigots some trouble to determine by which of +their two roads was reached the most momentous and sublime +of <i>all</i> their truths—the truth—the fact of <i>gravitation</i>? +Newton deduced it from the laws of Kepler. Kepler admitted +that these laws he <i>guessed</i>—these laws whose investigation +disclosed to the greatest of British astronomers that +principle, the basis of all (existing) physical principle, in +going behind which we enter at once the nebulous kingdom<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_20" id="Page_20">[20]</a></span> +of Metaphysics. Yes!—these vital laws Kepler <i>guessed</i>—that +is to say, he <i>imagined</i> them. Had he been asked to +point out either the <i>de</i>ductive or <i>in</i>ductive route by which +he attained them, his reply might have been—‘I know +nothing about <i>routes</i>—but I <i>do</i> know the machinery of the +Universe. Here it is. I grasped it with <i>my soul</i>—I reached +it through mere dint of <i>intuition</i>.’ Alas, poor ignorant old +man! Could not any metaphysician have told him that what +he called ‘intuition’ was but the conviction resulting from +<i>de</i>ductions or <i>in</i>ductions of which the processes were so +shadowy as to have escaped his consciousness, eluded his +reason, or bidden defiance to his capacity of expression? +How great a pity it is that some ‘moral philosopher’ had +not enlightened him about all this! How it would have +comforted him on his death-bed to know that, instead of +having gone intuitively and thus unbecomingly, he had, in +fact, proceeded decorously and legitimately—that is to say +Hog-ishly, or at least Ram-ishly—into the vast halls where +lay gleaming, untended, and hitherto untouched by mortal +hand—unseen by mortal eye—the imperishable and priceless +secrets of the Universe!</p> + +<p>“Yes, Kepler was essentially a <i>theorist</i>; but this title, +<i>now</i> of so much sanctity, was, in those ancient days, a designation +of supreme contempt. It is only <i>now</i> that men +begin to appreciate that divine old man—to sympathize +with the prophetical and poetical rhapsody of his ever-memorable +words. For <i>my</i> part,” continues the unknown +correspondent, “I glow with a sacred fire when I even +think of them, and feel that I shall never grow weary of +their repetition:—in concluding this letter, let me have the<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_21" id="Page_21">[21]</a></span> +real pleasure of transcribing them once again:—‘<i>I care not +whether my work be read now or by posterity. I can afford +to wait a century for readers when God himself has waited +six thousand years for an observer. I triumph. I have +stolen the golden secret of the Egyptians. I will indulge +my sacred fury.</i>’”</p> + +<p>Here end my quotations from this very unaccountable +and, perhaps, somewhat impertinent epistle; and perhaps +it would be folly to comment, in any respect, upon the +chimerical, not to say revolutionary, fancies of the writer—whoever +he is—fancies so radically at war with the well-considered +and well-settled opinions of this age. Let us +proceed, then, to our legitimate thesis, <i>The Universe</i>.</p> + +<p>This thesis admits a choice between two modes of discussion:—We +may <i>as</i>cend or <i>de</i>scend. Beginning at our +own point of view—at the Earth on which we stand—we +may pass to the other planets of our system—thence to the +Sun—thence to our system considered collectively—and +thence, through other systems, indefinitely outwards; or, +commencing on high at some point as definite as we can +make it or conceive it, we may come down to the habitation +of Man. Usually—that is to say, in ordinary essays +on Astronomy—the first of these two modes is, with certain +reservation, adopted:—this for the obvious reason that +astronomical <i>facts</i>, merely, and principles, being the object, +that object is best fulfilled in stepping from the known +because proximate, gradually onward to the point where all +certitude becomes lost in the remote. For my present purpose, +however,—that of enabling the mind to take in, as if +from afar and at one glance, a distinct conception of the<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_22" id="Page_22">[22]</a></span> +<i>individual</i> Universe—it is clear that a descent to small +from great—to the outskirts from the centre (if we could +establish a centre)—to the end from the beginning (if we +could fancy a beginning) would be the preferable course, +but for the difficulty, if not impossibility, of presenting, in +this course, to the unastronomical, a picture at all comprehensible +in regard to such considerations as are involved in +<i>quantity</i>—that is to say, in number, magnitude and distance.</p> + +<p>Now, distinctness—intelligibility, at all points, is a primary +feature in my general design. On important topics +it is better to be a good deal prolix than even a very little +obscure. But abstruseness is a quality appertaining to no +subject <i>per se</i>. All are alike, in facility of comprehension, +to him who approaches them by properly graduated steps. +It is merely because a stepping-stone, here and there, is +heedlessly left unsupplied in our road to the Differential +Calculus, that this latter is not altogether as simple a thing +as a sonnet by Mr. Solomon Seesaw.</p> + +<p>By way of admitting, then, no <i>chance</i> for misapprehension, +I think it advisable to proceed as if even the more +obvious facts of Astronomy were unknown to the reader. +In combining the two modes of discussion to which I have +referred, I propose to avail myself of the advantages peculiar +to each—and very especially of the <i>iteration in detail</i> +which will be unavoidable as a consequence of the plan. +Commencing with a descent, I shall reserve for the return +upwards those indispensable considerations of <i>quantity</i> to +which allusion has already been made.</p> + +<p>Let us begin, then, at once, with that merest of words,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_23" id="Page_23">[23]</a></span> +“Infinity.” This, like “God,” “spirit,” and some other +expressions of which the equivalents exist in all languages, +is by no means the expression of an idea—but of an effort +at one. It stands for the possible attempt at an impossible +conception. Man needed a term by which to point out +the <i>direction</i> of this effort—the cloud behind which lay, +forever invisible, the <i>object</i> of this attempt. A word, in +fine, was demanded, by means of which one human being +might put himself in relation at once with another human +being and with a certain <i>tendency</i> of the human intellect. +Out of this demand arose the word, “Infinity;” which is +thus the representative but of the <i>thought of a thought</i>.</p> + +<p>As regards <i>that</i> infinity now considered—the infinity of +space—we often hear it said that “its idea is admitted by +the mind—is acquiesced in—is entertained—on account of +the greater difficulty which attends the conception of a +limit.” But this is merely one of those <i>phrases</i> by which +even profound thinkers, time out of mind, have occasionally +taken pleasure in deceiving <i>themselves</i>. The quibble +lies concealed in the word “difficulty.” “The mind,” we +are told, “entertains the idea of <i>limitless</i>, through the +greater <i>difficulty</i> which it finds in entertaining that of <i>limited</i>, +space.” Now, were the proposition but fairly <i>put</i>, its +absurdity would become transparent at once. Clearly, +there is no mere <i>difficulty</i> in the case. The assertion intended, +if presented <i>according</i> to its intention and without +sophistry, would run thus:—“The mind admits the idea of +limitless, through the greater <i>impossibility</i> of entertaining +that of limited, space.”</p> + +<p>It must be immediately seen that this is not a question<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_24" id="Page_24">[24]</a></span> +of two statements between whose respective credibilities—or +of two arguments between whose respective validities—the +<i>reason</i> is called upon to decide:—it is a matter of two +conceptions, directly conflicting, and each avowedly impossible, +one of which the <i>intellect</i> is supposed to be capable +of entertaining, on account of the greater <i>impossibility</i> +of entertaining the other. The choice is <i>not</i> made between +two difficulties;—it is merely <i>fancied</i> to be made between +two impossibilities. Now of the former, there <i>are</i> degrees—but +of the latter, none:—just as our impertinent letter-writer +has already suggested. A task <i>may</i> be more or less +difficult; but it is either possible or not possible:—there +are no gradations. It <i>might</i> be more <i>difficult</i> to overthrow +the Andes than an ant-hill; but it <i>can</i> be no more <i>impossible</i> +to annihilate the matter of the one than the matter of +the other. A man may jump ten feet with less <i>difficulty</i> +than he can jump twenty, but the <i>impossibility</i> of his leaping +to the moon is not a whit less than that of his leaping +to the dog-star.</p> + +<p>Since all this is undeniable: since the choice of the +mind is to be made between <i>impossibilities</i> of conception: +since one impossibility cannot be greater than another: +and since, thus, one cannot be preferred to another: the +philosophers who not only maintain, on the grounds mentioned, +man’s <i>idea</i> of infinity but, on account of such supposititious +idea, <i>infinity itself</i>—are plainly engaged in +demonstrating one impossible thing to be possible by showing +how it is that some one other thing—is impossible too. +This, it will be said, is nonsense; and perhaps it is:—indeed<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_25" id="Page_25">[25]</a></span> +I think it very capital nonsense—but forego all claim +to it as nonsense of mine.</p> + +<p>The readiest mode, however, of displaying the fallacy +of the philosophical argument on this question, is by simply +adverting to a <i>fact</i> respecting it which has been hitherto +quite overlooked—the fact that the argument alluded to +both proves and disproves its own proposition. “The mind +is impelled,” say the theologians and others, “to admit a +<i>First Cause</i>, by the superior difficulty it experiences in +conceiving cause beyond cause without end.” The quibble, +as before, lies in the word “difficulty”—but <i>here</i> what +is it employed to sustain? A First Cause. And what is +a First Cause? An ultimate termination of causes. And +what is an ultimate termination of causes? Finity—the +Finite. Thus the one quibble, in two processes, by God +knows how many philosophers, is made to support now +Finity and now Infinity—could it not be brought to support +something besides? As for the quibblers—<i>they</i>, at least, +are insupportable. But—to dismiss them:—what they +prove in the one case is the identical nothing which they +demonstrate in the other.</p> + +<p>Of course, no one will suppose that I here contend for +the absolute impossibility of <i>that</i> which we attempt to convey +in the word “Infinity.” My purpose is but to show +the folly of endeavoring to prove Infinity itself or even our +conception of it, by any such blundering ratiocination as +that which is ordinarily employed.</p> + +<p>Nevertheless, as an individual, I may be permitted to +say that <i>I cannot</i> conceive Infinity, and am convinced that +no human being can. A mind not thoroughly self-conscious—not<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_26" id="Page_26">[26]</a></span> +accustomed to the introspective analysis of its own +operations—will, it is true, often deceive itself by supposing +that it <i>has</i> entertained the conception of which we speak. +In the effort to entertain it, we proceed step beyond step—we +fancy point still beyond point; and so long as we <i>continue</i> +the effort, it may be said, in fact, that we are <i>tending</i> +to the formation of the idea designed; while the strength +of the impression that we actually form or have formed it, +is in the ratio of the period during which we keep up the +mental endeavor. But it is in the act of discontinuing +the endeavor—of fulfilling (as we think) the idea—of +putting the finishing stroke (as we suppose) to the conception—that +we overthrow at once the whole fabric of our +fancy by resting upon some one ultimate and therefore definite +point. This fact, however, we fail to perceive, on +account of the absolute coincidence, in time, between the +settling down upon the ultimate point and the act of cessation +in thinking.—In attempting, on the other hand, to +frame the idea of a <i>limited</i> space, we merely converse the +processes which involve the impossibility.</p> + +<p>We <i>believe</i> in a God. We may or may not <i>believe</i> in +finite or in infinite space; but our belief, in such cases, is +more properly designated as <i>faith</i>, and is a matter quite +distinct from that belief proper—from that <i>intellectual</i> belief—which +presupposes the mental conception.</p> + +<p>The fact is, that, upon the enunciation of any one of that +class of terms to which “Infinity” belongs—the class representing +<i>thoughts of thought</i>—he who has a right to say +that he thinks <i>at all</i>, feels himself called upon, <i>not</i> to entertain +a conception, but simply to direct his mental vision<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_27" id="Page_27">[27]</a></span> +toward some given point, in the intellectual firmament, +where lies a nebula never to be resolved. To solve it, indeed, +he makes no effort; for with a rapid instinct he comprehends, +not only the impossibility, but, as regards all +human purposes, the <i>inessentiality</i>, of its solution. He perceives +that the Deity has not <i>designed</i> it to be solved. He +sees, at once, that it lies <i>out</i> of the brain of man, and even +<i>how</i>, if not exactly <i>why</i>, it lies out of it. There <i>are</i> people, +I am aware, who, busying themselves in attempts at the +unattainable, acquire very easily, by dint of the jargon they +emit, among those thinkers-that-they-think with whom +darkness and depth are synonymous, a kind of cuttle-fish +reputation for profundity; but the finest quality of Thought +is its self-cognizance; and, with some little equivocation, +it may be said that no fog of the mind can well be greater +than that which, extending to the very boundaries of the +mental domain, shuts out even these boundaries themselves +from comprehension.</p> + +<p>It will now be understood that, in using the phrase, +“Infinity of Space,” I make no call upon the reader to +entertain the impossible conception of an <i>absolute</i> infinity. +I refer simply to the “<i>utmost conceivable expanse</i>” of space—a +shadowy and fluctuating domain, now shrinking, now +swelling, in accordance with the vacillating energies of the +imagination.</p> + +<p><i>Hitherto</i>, the Universe of stars has always been considered +as coincident with the Universe proper, as I have +defined it in the commencement of this Discourse. It has +been always either directly or indirectly assumed—at least +since the dawn of intelligible Astronomy—that, were it<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_28" id="Page_28">[28]</a></span> +possible for us to attain any given point in space, we should +still find, on all sides of us, an interminable succession of +stars. This was the untenable idea of Pascal when making +perhaps the most successful attempt ever made, at periphrasing +the conception for which we struggle in the word +“Universe.” “It is a sphere,” he says, “of which the +centre is everywhere, the circumference, nowhere.” But +although this intended definition is, in fact, <i>no</i> definition of +the Universe of <i>stars</i>, we may accept it, with some mental +reservation, as a definition (rigorous enough for all practical +purposes) of the Universe <i>proper</i>—that is to say, of the +Universe of <i>space</i>. This latter, then, let us regard as “<i>a +sphere of which the centre is everywhere, the circumference +nowhere</i>.” In fact, while we find it impossible to fancy an +<i>end</i> to space, we have no difficulty in picturing to ourselves +any one of an infinity of <i>beginnings</i>.</p> + +<p>As our starting-point, then, let us adopt the <i>Godhead</i>. +Of this Godhead, <i>in itself</i>, he alone is not imbecile—he +alone is not impious who propounds—nothing. “<i>Nous ne +connaissons rien</i>,” says the Baron de Bielfeld—“<i>Nous ne +connaissons rien de la nature ou de l’essence de Dieu:—pour +savoir ce qu’il est, il faut être Dieu même.</i>”—“We +know absolutely <i>nothing</i> of the nature or essence of God:—in +order to comprehend what he is, we should have to be +God ourselves.”</p> + +<p>“<i>We should have to be God ourselves!</i>”—With a phrase +so startling as this yet ringing in my ears, I nevertheless venture +to demand if this our present ignorance of the Deity is +an ignorance to which the soul is <i>everlastingly</i> condemned.</p> + +<p>By <i>Him</i>, however—<i>now</i>, at least, the Incomprehensible—by<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_29" id="Page_29">[29]</a></span> +Him—assuming him as <i>Spirit</i>—that is to say, as <i>not +Matter</i>—a distinction which, for all intelligible purposes, +will stand well instead of a definition—by Him, then, existing +as Spirit, let us content ourselves, to-night, with supposing +to have been <i>created</i>, or made out of Nothing, by +dint of his Volition—at some point of Space which we will +take as a centre—at some period into which we do not +pretend to inquire, but at all events immensely remote—by +Him, then again, let us suppose to have been created——<i>what</i>? +This is a vitally momentous epoch in our considerations. +<i>What</i> is it that we are justified—that alone we are +justified in supposing to have been, primarily and solely, +<i>created</i>?</p> + +<p>We have attained a point where only <i>Intuition</i> can aid +us:—but now let me recur to the idea which I have already +suggested as that alone which we can properly entertain of +intuition. It is but <i>the conviction arising from those inductions +or deductions of which the processes are so shadowy +as to escape our consciousness, elude our reason, or defy our +capacity of expression</i>. With this understanding, I now +assert—that an intuition altogether irresistible, although +inexpressible, forces me to the conclusion that what God +originally created—that that Matter which, by dint of his +Volition, he first made from his Spirit, or from Nihility, +<i>could</i> have been nothing but Matter in its utmost conceivable +state of——what?—of <i>Simplicity</i>?</p> + +<p>This will be found the sole absolute <i>assumption</i> of my +Discourse. I use the word “assumption” in its ordinary +sense; yet I maintain that even this my primary proposition, +is very, very far indeed, from being really a mere<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_30" id="Page_30">[30]</a></span> +assumption. Nothing was ever more certainly—no human +conclusion was ever, in fact, more regularly—more rigorously +<i>de</i>duced:—but, alas! the processes lie out of the +human analysis—at all events are beyond the utterance of +the human tongue.</p> + +<p>Let us now endeavor to conceive what Matter must be, +when, or if, in its absolute extreme of <i>Simplicity</i>. Here +the Reason flies at once to Imparticularity—to a particle—to +<i>one</i> particle—a particle of <i>one</i> kind—of <i>one</i> character—of +<i>one</i> nature—of <i>one size</i>—of one form—a particle, therefore, +“<i>without</i> form and void”—a particle positively a particle +at all points—a particle absolutely unique, individual, +undivided, and not indivisible only because He who <i>created</i> +it, by dint of his Will, can by an infinitely less energetic +exercise of the same Will, as a matter of course, divide it.</p> + +<p><i>Oneness</i>, then, is all that I predicate of the originally +created Matter; but I propose to show that this <i>Oneness +is a principle abundantly sufficient to account for the constitution, +the existing phænomena and the plainly inevitable +annihilation of at least the material Universe</i>.</p> + +<p>The willing into being the primordial particle, has completed +the act, or more properly the <i>conception</i>, of Creation. +We now proceed to the ultimate purpose for which we are +to suppose the Particle created—that is to say, the ultimate +purpose so far as our considerations <i>yet</i> enable us to see it—the +constitution of the Universe from it, the Particle.</p> + +<p>This constitution has been effected by <i>forcing</i> the originally +and therefore normally <i>One</i> into the abnormal condition +of <i>Many</i>. An action of this character implies rëaction. +A diffusion from Unity, under the conditions, involves<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_31" id="Page_31">[31]</a></span> +a tendency to return into Unity—a tendency ineradicable +until satisfied. But on these points I will speak more fully +hereafter.</p> + +<p>The assumption of absolute Unity in the primordial +Particle includes that of infinite divisibility. Let us conceive +the Particle, then, to be only not totally exhausted by +diffusion into Space. From the one Particle, as a centre, +let us suppose to be irradiated spherically—in all directions—to +immeasurable but still to definite distances in the previously +vacant space—a certain inexpressibly great yet +limited number of unimaginably yet not infinitely minute +atoms.</p> + +<p>Now, of these atoms, thus diffused, or upon diffusion, +what conditions are we permitted—not to assume, but to +infer, from consideration as well of their source as of the +character of the design apparent in their diffusion? <i>Unity</i> +being their source, and <i>difference from Unity</i> the character +of the design manifested in their diffusion, we are warranted +in supposing this character to be at least <i>generally</i> preserved +throughout the design, and to form a portion of the +design itself:—that is to say, we shall be warranted in conceiving +continual differences at all points from the uniquity +and simplicity of the origin. But, for these reasons, shall +we be justified in imagining the atoms heterogeneous, dissimilar, +unequal, and inequidistant? More explicitly—are +we to consider no two atoms as, at their diffusion, of the +same nature, or of the same form, or of the same size?—and, +after fulfilment of their diffusion into Space, is absolute +inequidistance, each from each, to be understood of all of +them? In such arrangement, under such conditions, we<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_32" id="Page_32">[32]</a></span> +most easily and immediately comprehend the subsequent +most feasible carrying out to completion of any such design +as that which I have suggested—the design of variety out +of unity—diversity out of sameness—heterogeneity out of +homogeneity—complexity out of simplicity—in a word, the +utmost possible multiplicity of <i>relation</i> out of the emphatically +irrelative <i>One</i>. Undoubtedly, therefore, we <i>should</i> be +warranted in assuming all that has been mentioned, but for +the reflection, first, that supererogation is not presumable +of any Divine Act; and, secondly, that the object supposed +in view, appears as feasible when some of the conditions +in question are dispensed with, in the beginning, as when +all are understood immediately to exist. I mean to say +that some are involved in the rest, or so instantaneous a +consequence of them as to make the distinction inappreciable. +Difference of <i>size</i>, for example, will at once be +brought about through the tendency of one atom to a +second, in preference to a third, on account of particular +inequidistance; which is to be comprehended as <i>particular +inequidistances between centres of quantity, in neighboring +atoms of different form</i>—a matter not at all interfering +with the generally-equable distribution of the atoms. Difference +of <i>kind</i>, too, is easily conceived to be merely a +result of differences in size and form, taken more or less +conjointly:—in fact, since the <i>Unity</i> of the Particle Proper +implies absolute homogeneity, we cannot imagine the atoms, +at their diffusion, differing in kind, without imagining, at +the same time, a special exercise of the Divine Will, at the +emission of each atom, for the purpose of effecting, in each, +a change of its essential nature:—so fantastic an idea is<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_33" id="Page_33">[33]</a></span> +the less to be indulged, as the object proposed is seen to be +thoroughly attainable without such minute and elaborate +interposition. We perceive, therefore, upon the whole, +that it would be supererogatory, and consequently unphilosophical, +to predicate of the atoms, in view of their purposes, +any thing more than <i>difference of form</i> at their dispersion, +with particular inequidistance after it—all other +differences arising at once out of these, in the very first +processes of mass-constitution:—We thus establish the +Universe on a purely <i>geometrical</i> basis. Of course, it is by +no means necessary to assume absolute difference, even of +form, among <i>all</i> the atoms irradiated—any more than absolute +particular inequidistance of each from each. We are +required to conceive merely that no <i>neighboring</i> atoms are +of similar form—no atoms which can ever approximate, +until their inevitable rëunition at the end.</p> + +<p>Although the immediate and perpetual <i>tendency</i> of the +disunited atoms to return into their normal Unity, is implied, +as I have said, in their abnormal diffusion; still it is +clear that this tendency will be without consequence—a +tendency and no more—until the diffusive energy, in ceasing +to be exerted, shall leave <i>it</i>, the tendency, free to seek +its satisfaction. The Divine Act, however, being considered +as determinate, and discontinued on fulfilment of the +diffusion, we understand, at once, a <i>rëaction</i>—in other +words, a <i>satisfiable</i> tendency of the disunited atoms to return +into <i>One</i>.</p> + +<p>But the diffusive energy being withdrawn, and the rëaction +having commenced in furtherance of the ultimate +design—<i>that of the utmost possible Relation</i>—this design is<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_34" id="Page_34">[34]</a></span> +now in danger of being frustrated, in detail, by reason of +that very tendency to return which is to effect its accomplishment +in general. <i>Multiplicity</i> is the object; but there +is nothing to prevent proximate atoms, from lapsing <i>at once</i>, +through the now satisfiable tendency—<i>before</i> the fulfilment +of any ends proposed in multiplicity—into absolute oneness +among themselves:—there is nothing to impede the aggregation +of various <i>unique</i> masses, at various points of space:—in +other words, nothing to interfere with the accumulation +of various masses, each absolutely One.</p> + +<p>For the effectual and thorough completion of the general +design, we thus see the necessity for a repulsion of +limited capacity—a separative <i>something</i> which, on withdrawal +of the diffusive Volition, shall at the same time allow +the approach, and forbid the junction, of the atoms; +suffering them infinitely to approximate, while denying +them positive contact; in a word, having the power—<i>up +to a certain epoch</i>—of preventing their <i>coalition</i>, but no +ability to interfere with their <i>coalescence</i> in any respect <i>or +degree</i>. The repulsion, already considered as so peculiarly +limited in other regards, must be understood, let me repeat, +as having power to prevent absolute coalition, <i>only up to a +certain epoch</i>. Unless we are to conceive that the appetite +for Unity among the atoms is doomed to be satisfied <i>never</i>;—unless +we are to conceive that what had a beginning is +to have no end—a conception which cannot <i>really</i> be +entertained, however much we may talk or dream of entertaining +it—we are forced to conclude that the repulsive +influence imagined, will, finally—under pressure of the <i>Unitendency +collectively</i> applied, but never and in no degree<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_35" id="Page_35">[35]</a></span> +<i>until</i>, on fulfilment of the Divine purposes, such collective +application shall be naturally made—yield to a force which, +at that ultimate epoch, shall be the superior force precisely +to the extent required, and thus permit the universal subsidence +into the inevitable, because original and therefore +normal, <i>One</i>.—The conditions here to be reconciled are +difficult indeed:—we cannot even comprehend the possibility +of their conciliation;—nevertheless, the apparent impossibility +is brilliantly suggestive.</p> + +<p>That the repulsive something actually exists, <i>we see</i>. +Man neither employs, nor knows, a force sufficient to bring +two atoms into contact. This is but the well-established +proposition of the impenetrability of matter. All Experiment +proves—all Philosophy admits it. The <i>design</i> of the +repulsion—the necessity for its existence—I have endeavored +to show; but from all attempt at investigating its +nature have religiously abstained; this on account of an +intuitive conviction that the principle at issue is strictly +spiritual—lies in a recess impervious to our present understanding—lies +involved in a consideration of what now—in +our human state—is <i>not</i> to be considered—in a consideration +of <i>Spirit in itself</i>. I feel, in a word, that here +the God has interposed, and here only, because here and +here only the knot demanded the interposition of the God.</p> + +<p>In fact, while the tendency of the diffused atoms to +return into Unity, will be recognized, at once, as the principle +of the Newtonian Gravity, what I have spoken of as +a repulsive influence prescribing limits to the (immediate) +satisfaction of the tendency, will be understood as <i>that</i> +which we have been in the practice of designating now as<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_36" id="Page_36">[36]</a></span> +heat, now as magnetism, now as <i>electricity</i>; displaying +our ignorance of its awful character in the vacillation +of the phraseology with which we endeavor to circumscribe +it.</p> + +<p>Calling it, merely for the moment, electricity, we know +that all experimental analysis of electricity has given, as an +ultimate result, the principle, or seeming principle, <i>heterogeneity</i>. +<i>Only</i> where things differ is electricity apparent; +and it is presumable that they <i>never</i> differ where it is not +developed at least, if not apparent. Now, this result is in +the fullest keeping with that which I have reached unempirically. +The design of the repulsive influence I have +maintained to be that of preventing immediate Unity among +the diffused atoms; and these atoms are represented as +different each from each. <i>Difference</i> is their character—their +essentiality—just as <i>no-difference</i> was the essentiality +of their source. When we say, then, that an attempt to +bring any two of these atoms together would induce an +effort, on the part of the repulsive influence, to prevent the +contact, we may as well use the strictly convertible sentence +that an attempt to bring together any two differences +will result in a development of electricity. All existing +bodies, of course, are composed of these atoms in proximate +contact, and are therefore to be considered as mere assemblages +of more or fewer differences; and the resistance +made by the repulsive spirit, on bringing together any two +such assemblages, would be in the ratio of the two sums of +the differences in each:—an expression which, when reduced, +is equivalent to this:—<i>The amount of electricity +developed on the approximation of two bodies, is proportional<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_37" id="Page_37">[37]</a></span> +to the difference between the respective sums of the +atoms of which the bodies are composed.</i> That <i>no</i> two +bodies are absolutely alike, is a simple corollary from all +that has been here said. Electricity, therefore, existing +always, is <i>developed</i> whenever <i>any</i> bodies, but <i>manifested</i> +only when bodies of appreciable difference, are brought into +approximation.</p> + +<p>To electricity—so, for the present, continuing to call it—we +<i>may</i> not be wrong in referring the various physical +appearances of light, heat and magnetism; but far less shall +we be liable to err in attributing to this strictly spiritual +principle the more important phænomena of vitality, consciousness +and <i>Thought</i>. On this topic, however, I need +pause <i>here</i> merely to suggest that these phænomena, whether +observed generally or in detail, seem to proceed <i>at +least in the ratio of the heterogeneous</i>.</p> + +<p>Discarding now the two equivocal terms, “gravitation” +and “electricity,” let us adopt the more definite expressions, +“<i>attraction</i>” and “<i>repulsion</i>.” The former is the +body; the latter the soul: the one is the material; the +other the spiritual, principle of the Universe. <i>No other +principles exist.</i> <i>All</i> phænomena are referable to one, or +to the other, or to both combined. So rigorously is this the +case—so thoroughly demonstrable is it that attraction and +repulsion are the <i>sole</i> properties through which we perceive +the Universe—in other words, by which Matter is manifested +to Mind—that, for all merely argumentative purposes, +we are fully justified in assuming that matter <i>exists</i> only as +attraction and repulsion—that attraction and repulsion <i>are</i> +matter:—there being no conceivable case in which we<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_38" id="Page_38">[38]</a></span> +may not employ the term “matter” and the terms “attraction” +and “repulsion,” taken together, as equivalent, +and therefore convertible, expressions in Logic.</p> + +<p>I said, just now, that what I have described as the tendency +of the diffused atoms to return into their original +unity, would be understood as the principle of the Newtonian +law of gravity: and, in fact, there can be little difficulty +in such an understanding, if we look at the Newtonian +gravity in a merely general view, as a force impelling +matter to seek matter; that is to say, when we pay no +attention to the known <i>modus operandi</i> of the Newtonian +force. The general coincidence satisfies us; but, upon looking +closely, we see, in detail, much that appears <i>in</i>coincident, +and much in regard to which no coincidence, at least, is +established. For example; the Newtonian gravity, when +we think of it in certain moods, does <i>not</i> seem to be a tendency +to <i>oneness</i> at all, but rather a tendency of all bodies +in all directions—a phrase apparently expressive of a tendency +to diffusion. Here, then, is an <i>in</i>coincidence. Again; +when we reflect on the mathematical <i>law</i> governing the +Newtonian tendency, we see clearly that no coincidence +has been made good, in respect of the <i>modus operandi</i>, at +least, between gravitation as known to exist and that seemingly +simple and direct tendency which I have assumed.</p> + +<p>In fact, I have attained a point at which it will be advisable +to strengthen my position by reversing my processes. +So far, we have gone on <i>à priori</i>, from an abstract +consideration of <i>Simplicity</i>, as that quality most likely to +have characterized the original action of God. Let us now +see whether the established facts of the Newtonian Gravitation<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_39" id="Page_39">[39]</a></span> +may not afford us, <i>à posteriori</i>, some legitimate inductions.</p> + +<p>What does the Newtonian law declare?—That all bodies +attract each other with forces proportional to their +quantities of matter and inversely proportional to the squares +of their distances. Purposely, I have here given, in the +first place, the vulgar version of the law; and I confess +that in this, as in most other vulgar versions of great truths, +we find little of a suggestive character. Let us now adopt +a more philosophical phraseology:—<i>Every atom, of every +body, attracts every other atom, both of its own and of every +other body, with a force which varies inversely as the squares +of the distances between the attracting and attracted atom.</i>—Here, +indeed, a flood of suggestion bursts upon the mind.</p> + +<p>But let us see distinctly what it was that Newton +<i>proved</i>—according to the grossly irrational definitions of +<i>proof</i> prescribed by the metaphysical schools. He was +forced to content himself with showing how thoroughly the +motions of an imaginary Universe, composed of attracting +and attracted atoms obedient to the law he announced, +coincide with those of the actually existing Universe so far +as it comes under our observation. This was the amount +of his <i>demonstration</i>—that is to say, this was the amount +of it, according to the conventional cant of the “philosophies.” +His successes added proof multiplied by proof—such +proof as a sound intellect admits—but the <i>demonstration</i> +of the law itself, persist the metaphysicians, had not +been strengthened in any degree. “<i>Ocular</i>, <i>physical</i> proof,” +however, of attraction, here upon Earth, in accordance +with the Newtonian theory, was, at length, much to the<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_40" id="Page_40">[40]</a></span> +satisfaction of some intellectual grovellers, afforded. This +proof arose collaterally and incidentally (as nearly all important +truths have arisen) out of an attempt to ascertain +the mean density of the Earth. In the famous Maskelyne, +Cavendish and Bailly experiments for this purpose, the attraction +of the mass of a mountain was seen, felt, measured, +and found to be mathematically consistent with the +immortal theory of the British astronomer.</p> + +<p>But in spite of this confirmation of that which needed +none—in spite of the so-called corroboration of the “theory” +by the so-called “ocular and physical proof”—in spite of +the <i>character</i> of this corroboration—the ideas which even +really philosophical men cannot help imbibing of gravity—and, +especially, the ideas of it which ordinary men get and +contentedly maintain, are <i>seen</i> to have been derived, for +the most part, from a consideration of the principle as they +find it developed—<i>merely in the planet upon which they +stand</i>.</p> + +<p>Now, to what does so partial a consideration tend—to +what species of error does it give rise? On the Earth we +<i>see</i> and <i>feel</i>, only that gravity impels all bodies towards the +<i>centre</i> of the Earth. No man in the common walks of life +could be <i>made</i> to see or to feel anything else—could be +made to perceive that anything, anywhere, has a perpetual, +gravitating tendency in any <i>other</i> direction than to the +centre of the Earth; yet (with an exception hereafter to be +specified) it is a fact that every earthly thing (not to speak +now of every heavenly thing) has a tendency not <i>only</i> to +the Earth’s centre but in every conceivable direction besides.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_41" id="Page_41">[41]</a></span></p> + +<p>Now, although the philosophic cannot be said to <i>err +with</i> the vulgar in this matter, they nevertheless permit +themselves to be influenced, without knowing it, by the +<i>sentiment</i> of the vulgar idea. “Although the Pagan fables +are not believed,” says Bryant, in his very erudite “Mythology,” +“yet we forget ourselves continually and make +inferences from them as from existing realities.” I mean +to assert that the merely <i>sensitive perception</i> of gravity as +we experience it on Earth, beguiles mankind into the fancy +of <i>concentralization</i> or <i>especiality</i> respecting it—has been +continually biasing towards this fancy even the mightiest +intellects—perpetually, although imperceptibly, leading them +away from the real characteristics of the principle; thus +preventing them, up to this date, from ever getting a glimpse +of that vital truth which lies in a diametrically opposite +direction—behind the principle’s <i>essential</i> characteristics—those, +<i>not</i> of concentralization or especiality—but of <i>universality</i> +and <i>diffusion</i>. This “vital truth” is <i>Unity</i> as +the <i>source</i> of the phænomenon.</p> + +<p>Let me now repeat the definition of gravity:—<i>Every +atom, of every body, attracts every other atom, both of its +own and of every other body</i>, with a force which varies +inversely as the squares of the distances of the attracting +and attracted atom.</p> + +<p>Here let the reader pause with me, for a moment, in +contemplation of the miraculous—of the ineffable—of the +altogether unimaginable complexity of relation involved in +the fact that <i>each atom attracts every other atom</i>—involved +merely in this fact of the attraction, without reference to +the law or mode in which the attraction is manifested—involved<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_42" id="Page_42">[42]</a></span> +<i>merely</i> in the fact that each atom attracts every +other atom <i>at all</i>, in a wilderness of atoms so numerous +that those which go to the composition of a cannon-ball, +exceed, probably, in mere point of number, all the stars +which go to the constitution of the Universe.</p> + +<p>Had we discovered, simply, that each atom tended to +some one favorite point—to some especially attractive atom—we +should still have fallen upon a discovery which, in +itself, would have sufficed to overwhelm the mind:—but +what is it that we are actually called upon to comprehend? +That each atom attracts—sympathizes with the most delicate +movements of every other atom, and with each and +with all at the same time, and forever, and according to a +determinate law of which the complexity, even considered +by itself solely, is utterly beyond the grasp of the imagination +of man. If I propose to ascertain the influence of one +mote in a sunbeam upon its neighboring mote, I cannot +accomplish my purpose without first counting and weighing +all the atoms in the Universe and defining the precise +positions of all at one particular moment. If I venture to +displace, by even the billionth part of an inch, the microscopical +speck of dust which lies now upon the point of my +finger, what is the character of that act upon which I have +adventured? I have done a deed which shakes the Moon +in her path, which causes the Sun to be no longer the Sun, +and which alters forever the destiny of the multitudinous +myriads of stars that roll and glow in the majestic presence +of their Creator.</p> + +<p><i>These</i> ideas—conceptions such as <i>these</i>—unthoughtlike +thoughts—soul-reveries rather than conclusions or even<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_43" id="Page_43">[43]</a></span> +considerations of the intellect:—ideas, I repeat, such as +these, are such as we can alone hope profitably to entertain +in any effort at grasping the great principle, <i>Attraction</i>.</p> + +<p>But now,—<i>with</i> such ideas—with such a <i>vision</i> of the +marvellous complexity of Attraction fairly in his mind—let +any person competent of thought on such topics as these, +set himself to the task of imagining a <i>principle</i> for the phænomena +observed—a condition from which they sprang.</p> + +<p>Does not so evident a brotherhood among the atoms +point to a common parentage? Does not a sympathy so +omniprevalent, so ineradicable, and so thoroughly irrespective, +suggest a common paternity as its source? Does not +one extreme impel the reason to the other? Does not the +infinitude of division refer to the utterness of individuality? +Does not the entireness of the complex hint at the perfection +of the simple? It is <i>not</i> that the atoms, as we see +them, are divided or that they are complex in their relations—but +that they are inconceivably divided and unutterably +complex:—it is the extremeness of the conditions to +which I now allude, rather than to the conditions themselves. +In a word, is it not because the atoms were, at +some remote epoch of time, even <i>more than together</i>—is it +not because originally, and therefore normally, they were +<i>One</i>—that now, in all circumstances—at all points—in all +directions—by all modes of approach—in all relations and +through all conditions—they struggle <i>back</i> to this absolutely, +this irrelatively, this unconditionally <i>one</i>?</p> + +<p>Some person may here demand:—“Why—since it is to +the <i>One</i> that the atoms struggle back—do we not find and +define Attraction ‘a merely general tendency to a centre?’—why,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_44" id="Page_44">[44]</a></span> +in especial, do not <i>your</i> atoms—the atoms which +you describe as having been irradiated from a centre—proceed +at once, rectilinearly, back to the central point of +their origin?”</p> + +<p>I reply that <i>they do</i>; as will be distinctly shown; but +that the cause of their so doing is quite irrespective of the +centre <i>as such</i>. They all tend rectilinearly towards a centre, +because of the sphereicity with which they have been +irradiated into space. Each atom, forming one of a generally +uniform globe of atoms, finds more atoms in the direction +of the centre, of course, than in any other, and in that +direction, therefore, is impelled—but is <i>not</i> thus impelled +because the centre is <i>the point of its origin</i>. It is not to +any <i>point</i> that the atoms are allied. It is not any <i>locality</i>, +either in the concrete or in the abstract, to which I suppose +them bound. Nothing like <i>location</i> was conceived as their +origin. Their source lies in the principle, <i>Unity</i>. <i>This</i> is +their lost parent. <i>This</i> they seek always—immediately—in +all directions—wherever it is even partially to be found; +thus appeasing, in some measure, the ineradicable tendency, +while on the way to its absolute satisfaction in the end. +It follows from all this, that any principle which shall be +adequate to account for the <i>law</i>, or <i>modus operandi</i>, of the +attractive force in general, will account for this law in +particular:—that is to say, any principle which will show +why the atoms should tend to their <i>general centre of irradiation</i> +with forces inversely proportional to the squares of +the distances, will be admitted as satisfactorily accounting, +at the same time, for the tendency, according to the same +law, of these atoms each to each:—<i>for</i> the tendency to the<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_45" id="Page_45">[45]</a></span> +centre <i>is</i> merely the tendency each to each, and not any +tendency to a centre as such.—Thus it will be seen, also, +that the establishment of my propositions would involve no +<i>necessity</i> of modification in the terms of the Newtonian +definition of Gravity, which declares that each atom attracts +each other atom and so forth, and declares this merely; +but (always under the supposition that what I propose be, +in the end, admitted) it seems clear that some error might +occasionally be avoided, in the future processes of Science, +were a more ample phraseology adopted:—for instance:—“Each +atom tends to every other atom &c. with a force +&c.: <i>the general result being a tendency of all, with a similar +force, to a general centre</i>.”</p> + +<p>The reversal of our processes has thus brought us to an +identical result; but, while in the one process <i>intuition</i> +was the starting-point, in the other it was the goal. In +commencing the former journey I could only say that, with +an irresistible intuition, I <i>felt</i> Simplicity to have been the +characteristic of the original action of God:—in ending the +latter I can only declare that, with an irresistible intuition, +I perceive Unity to have been the source of the observed +phænomena of the Newtonian gravitation. Thus, according +to the schools, I <i>prove</i> nothing. So be it:—I design +but to suggest—and to <i>convince</i> through the suggestion. +I am proudly aware that there exist many of the most profound +and cautiously discriminative human intellects which +cannot <i>help</i> being abundantly content with my—suggestions. +To these intellects—as to my own—there is no +mathematical demonstration which <i>could</i> bring the least +additional <i>true proof</i> of the great <i>Truth</i> which I have advanced—<i>the<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_46" id="Page_46">[46]</a></span> +truth of Original Unity as the source—as the +principle of the Universal Phænomena</i>. For my part, I +am not so sure that I speak and see—I am not so sure that +my heart beats and that my soul lives:—of the rising of +to-morrow’s sun—a probability that as yet lies in the Future—I +do not pretend to be one thousandth part as sure—as +I am of the irretrievably by-gone <i>Fact</i> that All Things +and All Thoughts of Things, with all their ineffable Multiplicity +of Relation, sprang at once into being from the +primordial and irrelative <i>One</i>.</p> + +<p>Referring to the Newtonian Gravity, Dr. Nichol, the +eloquent author of “The Architecture of the Heavens,” +says:—“In truth we have no reason to suppose this great +Law, as now revealed, to be the ultimate or simplest, and +therefore the universal and all-comprehensive, form of a +great Ordinance. The mode in which its intensity diminishes +with the element of distance, has not the aspect of +an ultimate <i>principle</i>; which always assumes the simplicity +and self-evidence of those axioms which constitute the +basis of Geometry.”</p> + +<p>Now, it is quite true that “ultimate principles,” in the +common understanding of the words, always assume the +simplicity of geometrical axioms—(as for “self-evidence,” +there is no such thing)—but these principles are clearly <i>not</i> +“ultimate;” in other terms what we are in the habit of +calling principles are no principles, properly speaking—since +there can be but one <i>principle</i>, the Volition of God. +We have no right to assume, then, from what we observe +in rules that we choose foolishly to name “principles,” +anything at all in respect to the characteristics of a principle<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_47" id="Page_47">[47]</a></span> +proper. The “ultimate principles” of which Dr. Nichol +speaks as having geometrical simplicity, may and do have +this geometrical turn, as being part and parcel of a vast +geometrical system, and thus a system of simplicity itself—in +which, nevertheless, the <i>truly</i> ultimate principle is, <i>as +we know</i>, the consummation of the complex—that is to say, +of the unintelligible—for is it not the Spiritual Capacity of +God?</p> + +<p>I quoted Dr. Nichol’s remark, however, not so much to +question its philosophy, as by way of calling attention to +the fact that, while all men have admitted <i>some</i> principle +as existing behind the Law of Gravity, no attempt has been +yet made to point out what this principle in particular <i>is</i>:—if +we except, perhaps, occasional fantastic efforts at referring +it to Magnetism, or Mesmerism, or Swedenborgianism, +or Transcendentalism, or some other equally delicious <i>ism</i> +of the same species, and invariably patronized by one and +the same species of people. The great mind of Newton, +while boldly grasping the Law itself, shrank from the principle +of the Law. The more fluent and comprehensive at +least, if not the more patient and profound, sagacity of +Laplace, had not the courage to attack it. But hesitation +on the part of these two astronomers it is, perhaps, not so +very difficult to understand. They, as well as all the first +class of mathematicians, were mathematicians <i>solely</i>:—their +intellect, at least, had a firmly-pronounced mathematico-physical +tone. What lay not distinctly within the +domain of Physics, or of Mathematics, seemed to them either +Non-Entity or Shadow. Nevertheless, we may well wonder +that Leibnitz, who was a marked exception to the<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_48" id="Page_48">[48]</a></span> +general rule in these respects, and whose mental temperament +was a singular admixture of the mathematical with +the physico-metaphysical, did not at once investigate and +establish the point at issue. Either Newton or Laplace, +seeking a principle and discovering none <i>physical</i>, would +have rested contentedly in the conclusion that there was +absolutely none; but it is almost impossible to fancy, of +Leibnitz, that, having exhausted in his search the physical +dominions, he would not have stepped at once, boldly and +hopefully, amid his old familiar haunts in the kingdom of +Metaphysics. Here, indeed, it is clear that he <i>must</i> have +adventured in search of the treasure:—that he did not find +it after all, was, perhaps, because his fairy guide, Imagination, +was not sufficiently well-grown, or well-educated, to +direct him aright.</p> + +<p>I observed, just now, that, in fact, there had been certain +vague attempts at referring Gravity to some very uncertain +<i>isms</i>. These attempts, however, although considered +bold and justly so considered, looked no farther than +to the generality—the merest generality—of the Newtonian +Law. Its <i>modus operandi</i> has never, to my knowledge, +been approached in the way of an effort at explanation. +It is, therefore, with no unwarranted fear of being taken +for a madman at the outset, and before I can bring my +propositions fairly to the eye of those who alone are competent +to decide upon them, that I here declare the <i>modus +operandi</i> of the Law of Gravity to be an exceedingly simple +and perfectly explicable thing—that is to say, when we +make our advances towards it in just gradations and in the +true direction—when we regard it from the proper point +of view.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_49" id="Page_49">[49]</a></span></p> + +<p>Whether we reach the idea of absolute <i>Unity</i> as the +source of All Things, from a consideration of Simplicity as +the most probable characteristic of the original action of +God;—whether we arrive at it from an inspection of the +universality of relation in the gravitating phænomena;—or +whether we attain it as a result of the mutual corroboration +afforded by both processes;—still, the idea itself, if +entertained at all, is entertained in inseparable connection +with another idea—that of the condition of the Universe +of stars as we <i>now</i> perceive it—that is to say, a condition +of immeasurable <i>diffusion</i> through space. Now a connection +between these two ideas—unity and diffusion—cannot +be established unless through the entertainment of a third +idea—that of <i>irradiation</i>. Absolute Unity being taken as +a centre, then the existing Universe of stars is the result of +<i>irradiation</i> from that centre.</p> + +<p>Now, the laws of irradiation are <i>known</i>. They are +part and parcel of the <i>sphere</i>. They belong to the class of +<i>indisputable geometrical properties</i>. We say of them, +“they are true—they are evident.” To demand <i>why</i> they +are true, would be to demand why the axioms are true +upon which their demonstration is based. <i>Nothing</i> is demonstrable, +strictly speaking; but <i>if</i> anything <i>be</i>, then the +properties—the laws in question are demonstrated.</p> + +<p>But these laws—what do they declare? Irradiation—how—by +what steps does it proceed outwardly from a +centre?</p> + +<p>From a <i>luminous</i> centre, <i>Light</i> issues by irradiation; +and the quantities of light received upon any given plane, +supposed to be shifting its position so as to be now nearer<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_50" id="Page_50">[50]</a></span> +the centre and now farther from it, will be diminished in +the same proportion as the squares of the distances of the +plane from the luminous body, are increased; and will be +increased in the same proportion as these squares are +diminished.</p> + +<p>The expression of the law may be thus generalized:—the +number of light-particles (or, if the phrase be preferred, +the number of light-impressions) received upon the shifting +plane, will be <i>inversely</i> proportional with the squares of the +distances of the plane. Generalizing yet again, we may +say that the diffusion—the scattering—the irradiation, in a +word—is <i>directly</i> proportional with the squares of the distances.</p> + +<div class="figcenter" style="width: 400px;"> +<img src="images/i050.jpg" width="400" height="191" alt="" title="" /> +</div> + +<p>For example: at the distance B, from the luminous +centre A, a certain number of particles are so diffused as to +occupy the surface B. Then at double the distance—that +is to say +at C—they will be so much farther diffused as to occupy +four such surfaces:—at treble the distance, or at D, they +will be so much farther separated as to occupy nine such +surfaces:—while, at quadruple the distance, or at E, they<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_51" id="Page_51">[51]</a></span> +will have become so scattered as to spread themselves over +sixteen such surfaces—and so on forever.</p> + +<p>In saying, generally, that the irradiation proceeds in +direct proportion with the squares of the distances, we use +the term irradiation to express <i>the degree of the diffusion</i> +as we proceed outwardly from the centre. Conversing the +idea, and employing the word “concentralization” to express +<i>the degree of the drawing together</i> as we come back +toward the centre from an outward position, we may say +that concentralization proceeds <i>inversely</i> as the squares of +the distances. In other words, we have reached the conclusion +that, on the hypothesis that matter was originally +irradiated from a centre and is now returning to it, the +concentralization, in the return, proceeds <i>exactly as we +know the force of gravitation to proceed</i>.</p> + +<p>Now here, if we could be permitted to assume that concentralization +exactly represented the <i>force of the tendency +to the centre</i>—that the one was exactly proportional to the +other, and that the two proceeded together—we should +have shown all that is required. The sole difficulty existing, +then, is to establish a direct proportion between “concentralization” +and the <i>force</i> of concentralization; and +this is done, of course, if we establish such proportion between +“irradiation” and the <i>force</i> of irradiation.</p> + +<p>A very slight inspection of the Heavens assures us that +the stars have a certain general uniformity, equability, or +equidistance, of distribution through that region of space in +which, collectively, and in a roughly globular form, they +are situated:—this species of very general, rather than absolute, +equability, being in full keeping with my deduction<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_52" id="Page_52">[52]</a></span> +of inequidistance, within certain limits, among the originally +diffused atoms, as a corollary from the evident design +of infinite complexity of relation out of irrelation. I started, +it will be remembered, with the idea of a generally uniform +but particularly <i>un</i>uniform distribution of the atoms;—an +idea, I repeat, which an inspection of the stars, as they +exist, confirms.</p> + +<p>But even in the merely general equability of distribution, +as regards the atoms, there appears a difficulty which, +no doubt, has already suggested itself to those among my +readers who have borne in mind that I suppose this equability +of distribution effected through <i>irradiation from a centre</i>. +The very first glance at the idea, irradiation, forces +us to the entertainment of the hitherto unseparated and +seemingly inseparable idea of agglomeration about a centre, +with dispersion as we recede from it—the idea, in a word, +of <i>in</i>equability of distribution in respect to the matter irradiated.</p> + +<p>Now, I have elsewhere<a name="FNanchor_1_1" id="FNanchor_1_1"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_1" class="fnanchor">[1]</a> observed that it is by just such +difficulties as the one now in question—such roughnesses—such +peculiarities—such protuberances above the plane of +the ordinary—that Reason feels her way, if at all, in her +search for the True. By the difficulty—the “peculiarity”—now +presented, I leap at once to <i>the</i> secret—a secret +which I might never have attained <i>but</i> for the peculiarity +and the inferences which, <i>in its mere character of peculiarity</i>, +it affords me.</p> + +<p>The process of thought, at this point, may be thus +roughly sketched:—I say to myself—“Unity, as I have +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_53" id="Page_53">[53]</a></span>explained it, is a truth—I feel it. Diffusion is a truth—I +see it. Irradiation, by which alone these two truths are +reconciled, is a consequent truth—I perceive it. <i>Equability</i> +of diffusion, first deduced <i>à priori</i> and then corroborated +by the inspection of phænomena, is also a truth—I fully +admit it. So far all is clear around me:—there are no +clouds behind which <i>the</i> secret—the great secret of the +gravitating <i>modus operandi</i>—can possibly lie hidden;—but +this secret lies <i>hereabouts</i>, most assuredly; and <i>were</i> there +but a cloud in view, I should be driven to suspicion of that +cloud.” And now, just as I say this, there actually comes +a cloud into view. This cloud is the seeming impossibility +of reconciling my truth, <i>irradiation</i>, with my truth, <i>equability +of diffusion</i>. I say now:—“Behind this <i>seeming</i> +impossibility is to be found what I desire.” I do not say +“<i>real</i> impossibility;” for invincible faith in my truths assures +me that it is a mere difficulty after all—but I go on +to say, with unflinching confidence, that, <i>when</i> this <i>difficulty</i> +shall be solved, we shall find, <i>wrapped up in the process of +solution</i>, the key to the secret at which we aim. Moreover—I +<i>feel</i> that we shall discover <i>but one</i> possible solution +of the difficulty; this for the reason that, were there two, +one would be supererogatory—would be fruitless—would be +empty—would contain no key—since no duplicate key can +be needed to any secret of Nature.</p> + +<p>And now, let us see:—Our usual notions of irradiation—in +fact <i>all</i> our distinct notions of it—are caught merely +from the process as we see it exemplified in <i>Light</i>. Here +there is a <i>continuous</i> outpouring of <i>ray-streams</i>, and <i>with a +force which we have at least no right to suppose varies at<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_54" id="Page_54">[54]</a></span> +all</i>. Now, in any such irradiation <i>as this</i>—continuous and +of unvarying force—the regions nearer the centre must +<i>inevitably</i> be always more crowded with the irradiated +matter than the regions more remote. But I have assumed +<i>no</i> such irradiation <i>as this</i>. I assumed no <i>continuous</i> irradiation; +and for the simple reason that such an assumption +would have involved, first, the necessity of entertaining a +conception which I have shown no man <i>can</i> entertain, and +which (as I will more fully explain hereafter) all observation +of the firmament refutes—the conception of the absolute +infinity of the Universe of stars—and would have +involved, secondly, the impossibility of understanding a +rëaction—that is, gravitation—as existing now—since, +while an act is continued, no rëaction, of course, can take +place. My assumption, then, or rather my inevitable deduction +from just premises—was that of a <i>determinate</i> irradiation—one +finally <i>dis</i>continued.</p> + +<p>Let me now describe the sole possible mode in which it +is conceivable that matter could have been diffused through +space, so as to fulfil the conditions at once of irradiation +and of generally equable distribution.</p> + +<p>For convenience of illustration, let us imagine, in the +first place, a hollow sphere of glass, or of anything else, +occupying the space throughout which the universal matter +is to be thus equally diffused, by means of irradiation, from +the absolute, irrelative, unconditional particle, placed in the +centre of the sphere.</p> + +<p>Now, a certain exertion of the diffusive power (presumed +to be the Divine Volition)—in other words, a certain +<i>force</i>—whose measure is the quantity of matter—that<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_55" id="Page_55">[55]</a></span> +is to say, the number of atoms—emitted; emits, by irradiation, +this certain number of atoms; forcing them in all +directions outwardly from the centre—their proximity to +each other diminishing as they proceed—until, finally, they +are distributed, loosely, over the interior surface of the +sphere.</p> + +<p>When these atoms have attained this position, or while +proceeding to attain it, a second and inferior exercise of the +same force—or a second and inferior force of the same +character—emits, in the same manner—that is to say, by +irradiation as before—a second stratum of atoms which +proceeds to deposit itself upon the first; the number of +atoms, in this case as in the former, being of course the +measure of the force which emitted them; in other words +the force being precisely adapted to the purpose it effects—the +force and the number of atoms sent out by the force, +being <i>directly proportional</i>.</p> + +<p>When this second stratum has reached its destined position—or +while approaching it—a third still inferior exertion +of the force, or a third inferior force of a similar character—the +number of atoms emitted being in <i>all</i> cases the measure +of the force—proceeds to deposit a third stratum upon +the second:—and so on, until these concentric strata, growing +gradually less and less, come down at length to the +central point; and the diffusive matter, simultaneously with +the diffusive force, is exhausted.</p> + +<p>We have now the sphere filled, through means of irradiation, +with atoms equably diffused. The two necessary +conditions—those of irradiation and of equable diffusion—are +satisfied; and by the <i>sole</i> process in which the possibility<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_56" id="Page_56">[56]</a></span> +of their simultaneous satisfaction is conceivable. For +this reason, I confidently expect to find, lurking in the present +condition of the atoms as distributed throughout the +sphere, the secret of which I am in search—the all-important +principle of the <i>modus operandi</i> of the Newtonian law. +Let us examine, then, the actual condition of the atoms.</p> + +<p>They lie in a series of concentric strata. They are +equably diffused throughout the sphere. They have been +irradiated into these states.</p> + +<p>The atoms being <i>equably</i> distributed, the greater the +superficial extent of any of these concentric strata, or +spheres, the more atoms will lie upon it. In other words, +the number of atoms lying upon the surface of any one of +the concentric spheres, is directly proportional with the extent +of that surface.</p> + +<p><i>But, in any series of concentric spheres, the surfaces +are directly proportional with the squares of the distances +from the centre.</i><a name="FNanchor_2_2" id="FNanchor_2_2"></a><a href="#Footnote_2_2" class="fnanchor">[2]</a></p> + +<p>Therefore the number of atoms in any stratum is directly +proportional with the square of that stratum’s distance +from the centre.</p> + +<p>But the number of atoms in any stratum is the measure +of the force which emitted that stratum—that is to say, is +<i>directly proportional</i> with the force.</p> + +<p>Therefore the force which irradiated any stratum is +directly proportional with the square of that stratum’s distance +from the centre:—or, generally,</p> + +<p><i>The force of the irradiation has been directly proportional +with the squares of the distances.</i></p> +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_57" id="Page_57">[57]</a></span></p> +<p>Now, Rëaction, as far as we know anything of it, is +Action conversed. The <i>general</i> principle of Gravity being, +in the first place, understood as the rëaction of an act—as +the expression of a desire on the part of Matter, while existing +in a state of diffusion, to return into the Unity whence +it was diffused; and, in the second place, the mind being +called upon to determine the <i>character</i> of the desire—the +manner in which it would, naturally, be manifested; in +other words, being called upon to conceive a probable law, +or <i>modus operandi</i>, for the return; could not well help +arriving at the conclusion that this law of return would be +precisely the converse of the law of departure. That such +would be the case, any one, at least, would be abundantly +justified in taking for granted, until such time as some person +should suggest something like a plausible reason why it +should <i>not</i> be the case—until such period as a law of return +shall be imagined which the intellect can consider as preferable.</p> + +<p>Matter, then, irradiated into space with a force varying +as the squares of the distances, might, <i>à priori</i>, be supposed +to return towards its centre of irradiation with a force +varying <i>inversely</i> as the squares of the distances: and I +have already shown<a name="FNanchor_3_3" id="FNanchor_3_3"></a><a href="#Footnote_3_3" class="fnanchor">[3]</a> that any principle which will explain +why the atoms should tend, according to any law, to the +general centre, must be admitted as satisfactorily explaining, +at the same time, why, according to the same law, they +should tend each to each. For, in fact, the tendency to the +general centre is not to a centre as such, but because of its +being a point in tending towards which each atom tends +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_58" id="Page_58">[58]</a></span>most directly to its real and essential centre, <i>Unity</i>—the +absolute and final Union of all.</p> + +<p>The consideration here involved presents to my own +mind no embarrassment whatever—but this fact does not +blind me to the possibility of its being obscure to those who +may have been less in the habit of dealing with abstractions:—and, +upon the whole, it may be as well to look at +the matter from one or two other points of view.</p> + +<p>The absolute, irrelative particle primarily created by the +Volition of God, must have been in a condition of positive +<i>normality</i>, or rightfulness—for wrongfulness implies <i>relation</i>. +Right is positive; wrong is negative—is merely the +negation of right; as cold is the negation of heat—darkness +of light. That a thing may be wrong, it is necessary that +there be some other thing in <i>relation</i> to which it <i>is</i> wrong—some +condition which it fails to satisfy; some law which +it violates; some being whom it aggrieves. If there be no +such being, law, or condition, in respect to which the thing +is wrong—and, still more especially, if no beings, laws, or +conditions exist at all—then the thing can<i>not</i> be wrong and +consequently must be <i>right</i>. Any deviation from normality +involves a tendency to return into it. A difference from +the normal—from the right—from the just—can be understood +as effected only by the overcoming a difficulty; and if +the force which overcomes the difficulty be not infinitely +continued, the ineradicable tendency to return will at +length be permitted to act for its own satisfaction. Upon +withdrawal of the force, the tendency acts. This is the +principle of rëaction as the inevitable consequence of finite +action. Employing a phraseology of which the seeming<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_59" id="Page_59">[59]</a></span> +affectation will be pardoned for its expressiveness, we may +say that Rëaction is the return from the condition of <i>as it +is and ought not to be</i> into the condition of <i>as it was, originally, +and therefore ought to be</i>:—and let me add here +that the <i>absolute</i> force of Rëaction would no doubt be +always found in direct proportion with the reality—the +truth—the absoluteness—of the <i>originality</i>—if ever it were +possible to measure this latter:—and, consequently, the +greatest of all conceivable reactions must be that produced +by the tendency which we now discuss—the tendency to +return into the <i>absolutely original</i>—into the <i>supremely</i> +primitive. Gravity, then, <i>must be the strongest of forces</i>—an +idea reached <i>à priori</i> and abundantly confirmed by +induction. What use I make of the idea, will be seen in +the sequel.</p> + +<p>The atoms, now, having been diffused from their normal +condition of Unity, seek to return to——what? Not to +any particular <i>point</i>, certainly; for it is clear that if, upon +the diffusion, the whole Universe of matter had been projected, +collectively, to a distance from the point of irradiation, +the atomic tendency to the general centre of the +sphere would not have been disturbed in the least:—the +atoms would not have sought the point <i>in absolute space</i> +from which they were originally impelled. It is merely the +<i>condition</i>, and not the point or locality at which this condition +took its rise, that these atoms seek to re-establish;—it +is merely <i>that condition which is their normality</i>, that +they desire. “But they seek a centre,” it will be said, +“and a centre is a point.” True; but they seek this point +not in its character of point—(for, were the whole sphere +moved from its position, they would seek, equally, the centre;<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_60" id="Page_60">[60]</a></span> +and the centre <i>then</i> would be a <i>new</i> point)—but because +it so happens, on account of the form in which they +collectively exist—(that of the sphere)—that only <i>through</i> +the point in question—the sphere’s centre—they can attain +their true object, Unity. In the direction of the centre +each atom perceives more atoms than in any other direction. +Each atom is impelled towards the centre because +along the straight line joining it and the centre and passing +on to the circumference beyond, there lie a greater number +of atoms than along any other straight line—a greater number +of objects that seek it, the individual atom—a greater number +of tendencies to Unity—a greater number of satisfactions +for its own tendency to Unity—in a word, because in the +direction of the centre lies the utmost possibility of satisfaction, +generally, for its own individual appetite. To be +brief, the <i>condition</i>, Unity, is all that is really sought; and +if the atoms <i>seem</i> to seek the centre of the sphere, it is only +impliedly, through implication—because such centre happens +to imply, to include, or to involve, the only essential +centre, Unity. But <i>on account of</i> this implication or involution, +there is no possibility of practically separating the +tendency to Unity in the abstract, from the tendency to +the concrete centre. Thus the tendency of the atoms to +the general centre <i>is</i>, to all practical intents and for all +logical purposes, the tendency each to each; and the +tendency each to each <i>is</i> the tendency to the centre; and +the one tendency may be assumed <i>as</i> the other; whatever +will apply to the one must be thoroughly applicable to the +other; and, in conclusion, whatever principle will satisfactorily +explain the one, cannot be questioned as an explanation +of the other.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_61" id="Page_61">[61]</a></span></p> + +<p>In looking carefully around me for rational objection to +what I have advanced, I am able to discover <i>nothing</i>;—but +of that class of objections usually urged by the doubters +for Doubt’s sake, I very readily perceive <i>three</i>; and proceed +to dispose of them in order.</p> + +<p>It may be said, first: “The proof that the force of irradiation +(in the case described) is directly proportional to +the squares of the distances, depends upon an unwarranted +assumption—that of the number of atoms in each stratum +being the measure of the force with which they are +emitted.”</p> + +<p>I reply, not only that I am warranted in such assumption, +but that I should be utterly <i>un</i>warranted in any other. +What I assume is, simply, that an effect is the measure of +its cause—that every exercise of the Divine Will will be +proportional to that which demands the exertion—that the +means of Omnipotence, or of Omniscience, will be exactly +adapted to its purposes. Neither can a deficiency nor an +excess of cause bring to pass any effect. Had the force +which irradiated any stratum to its position, been either +more or less than was needed for the purpose—that is to +say, not <i>directly proportional</i> to the purpose—then to its +position that stratum could not have been irradiated. Had +the force which, with a view to general equability of distribution, +emitted the proper number of atoms for each stratum, +been not <i>directly proportional</i> to the number, then the +number would <i>not</i> have been the number demanded for the +equable distribution.</p> + +<p>The second supposable objection is somewhat better +entitled to an answer.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_62" id="Page_62">[62]</a></span></p> + +<p>It is an admitted principle in Dynamics that every body, +on receiving an impulse, or disposition to move, will move +onward in a straight line, in the direction imparted by the +impelling force, until deflected, or stopped, by some other +force. How then, it may be asked, is my first or external +stratum of atoms to be understood as discontinuing their +movement at the circumference of the imaginary glass +sphere, when no second force, of more than an imaginary +character, appears, to account for the discontinuance?</p> + +<p>I reply that the objection, in this case, actually does +arise out of “an unwarranted assumption”—on the part of +the objector—the assumption of a principle, in Dynamics, +at an epoch when <i>no</i> “principles,” in <i>anything</i>, exist:—I +use the word “principle,” of course, in the objector’s +understanding of the word.</p> + +<p>“In the beginning” we can admit—indeed we can +comprehend—but one <i>First Cause</i>—the truly ultimate +<i>Principle</i>—the Volition of God. The primary <i>act</i>—that +of Irradiation from Unity—must have been independent of +all that which the world now calls “principle”—because +all that we so designate is but a consequence of the rëaction +of that primary act:—I say “<i>primary</i>” act; for the +creation of the absolute material particle is more properly +to be regarded as a <i>conception</i> than as an “<i>act</i>” in the +ordinary meaning of the term. Thus, we must regard the +primary act as an act for the establishment of what we +now call “principles.” But this primary act itself is to be +considered as <i>continuous Volition</i>. The Thought of God +is to be understood as originating the Diffusion—as proceeding +with it—as regulating it—and, finally, as being<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_63" id="Page_63">[63]</a></span> +withdrawn from it upon its completion. <i>Then</i> commences +Rëaction, and through Rëaction, “Principle,” as we employ +the word. It will be advisable, however, to limit the +application of this word to the two <i>immediate</i> results of the +discontinuance of the Divine Volition—that is, to the two +agents, <i>Attraction</i> and <i>Repulsion</i>. Every other Natural +agent depends, either more or less immediately, upon these +two, and therefore would be more conveniently designated +as <i>sub</i>-principle.</p> + +<p>It may be objected, thirdly, that, in general, the peculiar +mode of distribution which I have suggested for the atoms, +is “an hypothesis and nothing more.”</p> + +<p>Now, I am aware that the word hypothesis is a ponderous +sledge-hammer, grasped immediately, if not lifted, by +all very diminutive thinkers, upon the first appearance of +any proposition wearing, in any particular, the garb of <i>a +theory</i>. But “hypothesis” cannot be wielded <i>here</i> to any +good purpose, even by those who succeed in lifting it—little +men or great.</p> + +<p>I maintain, first, that <i>only</i> in the mode described is it +conceivable that Matter could have been diffused so as to +fulfil at once the conditions of irradiation and of generally +equable distribution. I maintain, secondly, that these conditions +themselves have been imposed upon me, as necessities, +in a train of ratiocination <i>as rigorously logical as that +which establishes any demonstration in Euclid</i>; and I +maintain, thirdly, that even if the charge of “hypothesis” +were as fully sustained as it is, in fact, unsustained and +untenable, still the validity and indisputability of my result +would not, even in the slightest particular, be disturbed.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_64" id="Page_64">[64]</a></span></p> + +<p>To explain:—The Newtonian Gravity—a law of Nature—a +law whose existence as such no one out of Bedlam +questions—a law whose admission as such enables us to +account for nine-tenths of the Universal phænomena—a +law which, merely because it does so enable us to account +for these phænomena, we are perfectly willing, without +reference to any other considerations, to admit, and cannot +help admitting, as a law—a law, nevertheless, of which +neither the principle nor the <i>modus operandi</i> of the principle, +has ever yet been traced by the human analysis—a +law, in short, which, neither in its detail nor in its generality, +has been found susceptible of explanation <i>at all</i>—is at +length seen to be at every point thoroughly explicable, +provided only we yield our assent to——what? To an +hypothesis? Why <i>if</i> an hypothesis—if the merest hypothesis—if +an hypothesis for whose assumption—as in the +case of that <i>pure</i> hypothesis the Newtonian law itself—no +shadow of <i>à priori</i> reason could be assigned—if an hypothesis, +even so absolute as all this implies, would enable us +to perceive a principle for the Newtonian law—would enable +us to understand as satisfied, conditions so miraculously—so +ineffably complex and seemingly irreconcileable as +those involved in the relations of which Gravity tells us,—what +rational being <i>could</i> so expose his fatuity as to call +even this absolute hypothesis an hypothesis any longer—unless, +indeed, he were to persist in so calling it, with the +understanding that he did so, simply for the sake of consistency +<i>in words</i>?</p> + +<p>But what is the true state of our present case? What +is <i>the fact</i>? Not only that it is <i>not</i> an hypothesis which<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_65" id="Page_65">[65]</a></span> +we are required <i>to adopt</i>, in order to admit the principle at +issue explained, but that it <i>is</i> a logical conclusion which +we are requested <i>not</i> to adopt if we can avoid it—which +we are simply invited to <i>deny if we can</i>:—a conclusion of +so accurate a logicality that to dispute it would be the effort—to +doubt its validity beyond our power:—a conclusion +from which we see no mode of escape, turn as we will; a +result which confronts us either at the end of an <i>in</i>ductive +journey from the phænomena of the very Law discussed, +or at the close of a <i>de</i>ductive career from the most rigorously +simple of all conceivable assumptions—<i>the assumption, +in a word, of Simplicity itself</i>.</p> + +<p>And if here, for the mere sake of cavilling, it be urged, +that although my starting-point is, as I assert, the assumption +of absolute Simplicity, yet Simplicity, considered merely +in itself, is no axiom; and that only deductions from +axioms are indisputable—it is thus that I reply:—</p> + +<p>Every other science than Logic is the science of certain +concrete relations. Arithmetic, for example, is the science of +the relations of number—Geometry, of the relations of form—Mathematics +in general, of the relations of quantity in +general—of whatever can be increased or diminished. Logic, +however, is the science of Relation in the abstract—of +absolute Relation—of Relation considered solely in itself. +An axiom in any particular science other than Logic is, +thus, merely a proposition announcing certain concrete +relations which seem to be too obvious for dispute—as +when we say, for instance, that the whole is greater than +its part:—and, thus again, the principle of the <i>Logical</i> +axiom—in other words, of an axiom in the abstract—is,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_66" id="Page_66">[66]</a></span> +simply, <i>obviousness of relation</i>. Now, it is clear, not only +that what is obvious to one mind may not be obvious +to another, but that what is obvious to one mind at one +epoch, may be anything but obvious, at another epoch, to +the same mind. It is clear, moreover, that what, to-day, +is obvious even to the majority of mankind, or to the majority +of the best intellects of mankind, may to-morrow be, +to either majority, more or less obvious, or in no respect obvious +at all. It is seen, then, that the <i>axiomatic principle</i> +itself is susceptible of variation, and of course that axioms +are susceptible of similar change. Being mutable, the +“truths” which grow out of them are necessarily mutable +too; or, in other words, are never to be positively depended +upon as truths at all—since Truth and Immutability are one.</p> + +<p>It will now be readily understood that no axiomatic +idea—no idea founded in the fluctuating principle, obviousness +of relation—can possibly be so secure—so reliable a +basis for any structure erected by the Reason, as <i>that</i> idea—(whatever +it is, wherever we can find it, or <i>if</i> it be practicable +to find it anywhere)—which is <i>ir</i>relative altogether—which +not only presents to the understanding <i>no obviousness</i> +of relation, either greater or less, to be considered, but +subjects the intellect, not in the slightest degree, to the necessity +of even looking at <i>any relation at all</i>. If such an +idea be not what we too heedlessly term “an axiom,” it is +at least preferable, as a Logical basis, to any axiom ever +propounded, or to all imaginable axioms combined:—and +such, precisely, is the idea with which my deductive process, +so thoroughly corroborated by induction, commences. +My <i>particle proper</i> is but <i>absolute Irrelation</i>. To sum up<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_67" id="Page_67">[67]</a></span> +what has been here advanced:—As a starting point I +have taken it for granted, simply, that the Beginning had +nothing behind it or before it—that it was a Beginning in +fact—that it was a beginning and nothing different from a +beginning—in short that this Beginning was——<i>that which +it was</i>. If this be a “mere assumption” then a “mere +assumption” let it be.</p> + +<p>To conclude this branch of the subject:—I am fully +warranted in announcing that <i>the Law which we have been +in the habit of calling Gravity exists on account of Matter’s +having been irradiated, at its origin, atomically, into a +limited<a name="FNanchor_4_4" id="FNanchor_4_4"></a><a href="#Footnote_4_4" class="fnanchor">[4]</a> sphere of Space, from one, individual, unconditional, +irrelative, and absolute Particle Proper, by the sole +process in which it was possible to satisfy, at the same time, +the two conditions, irradiation, and generally-equable distribution +throughout the sphere—that is to say, by a force +varying in direct proportion with the squares of the distances +between the irradiated atoms, respectively, and the +Particular centre of Irradiation</i>.</p> + +<p>I have already given my reasons for presuming Matter +to have been diffused by a determinate rather than by a +continuous or infinitely continued force. Supposing a continuous +force, we should be unable, in the first place, to +comprehend a rëaction at all; and we should be required, +in the second place, to entertain the impossible conception +of an infinite extension of Matter. Not to dwell +upon the impossibility of the conception, the infinite extension +of Matter is an idea which, if not positively disproved, +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_68" id="Page_68">[68]</a></span>is at least not in any respect warranted by telescopic +observation of the stars—a point to be explained more fully +hereafter; and this empirical reason for believing in the +original finity of Matter is unempirically confirmed. For +example:—Admitting, for the moment, the possibility of +understanding Space <i>filled</i> with the irradiated atoms—that +is to say, admitting, as well as we can, for argument’s sake, +that the succession of the irradiated atoms had absolutely +<i>no end</i>—then it is abundantly clear that, even when the +Volition of God had been withdrawn from them, and thus +the tendency to return into Unity permitted (abstractly) to +be satisfied, this permission would have been nugatory and +invalid—practically valueless and of no effect whatever. +No Rëaction could have taken place; no movement toward +Unity could have been made; no Law of Gravity could +have obtained.</p> + +<p>To explain:—Grant the <i>abstract</i> tendency of any one +atom to any one other as the inevitable result of diffusion +from the normal Unity:—or, what is the same thing, admit +any given atom as <i>proposing</i> to move in any given direction—it +is clear that, since there is an <i>infinity</i> of atoms on +all sides of the atom proposing to move, it never can actually +move toward the satisfaction of its tendency in the direction +given, on account of a precisely equal and counterbalancing +tendency in the direction diametrically opposite. +In other words, exactly as many tendencies to Unity are +behind the hesitating atom as before it; for it is a mere +sotticism to say that one infinite line is longer or shorter +than another infinite line, or that one infinite number is +greater or less than another number that is infinite. Thus<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_69" id="Page_69">[69]</a></span> +the atom in question must remain stationary forever. Under +the impossible circumstances which we have been merely +endeavoring to conceive for argument’s sake, there could +have been no aggregation of Matter—no stars—no worlds—nothing +but a perpetually atomic and inconsequential +Universe. In fact, view it as we will, the whole idea of +unlimited Matter is not only untenable, but impossible and +preposterous.</p> + +<p>With the understanding of a <i>sphere</i> of atoms, however, +we perceive, at once, a <i>satisfiable</i> tendency to union. The +general result of the tendency each to each, being a tendency +of all to the centre, the <i>general</i> process of condensation, +or approximation, commences immediately, by a common +and simultaneous movement, on withdrawal of the +Divine Volition; the <i>individual</i> approximations, or coalescences—<i>not</i> +cöalitions—of atom with atom, being subject +to almost infinite variations of time, degree, and condition, +on account of the excessive multiplicity of relation, arising +from the differences of form assumed as characterizing the +atoms at the moment of their quitting the Particle Proper; +as well as from the subsequent particular inequidistance, +each from each.</p> + +<p>What I wish to impress upon the reader is the certainty +of there arising, at once, (on withdrawal of the diffusive +force, or Divine Volition,) out of the condition of the atoms +as described, at innumerable points throughout the Universal +sphere, innumerable agglomerations, characterized +by innumerable specific differences of form, size, essential +nature, and distance each from each. The development of +Repulsion (Electricity) must have commenced, of course,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_70" id="Page_70">[70]</a></span> +with the very earliest particular efforts at Unity, and must +have proceeded constantly in the ratio of Coalescence—that +is to say, <i>in that of Condensation</i>, or, again, of Heterogeneity.</p> + +<p>Thus the two Principles Proper, <i>Attraction</i> and <i>Repulsion</i>—the +Material and the Spiritual—accompany each +other, in the strictest fellowship, forever. Thus <i>The Body +and The Soul walk hand in hand</i>.</p> + +<p>If now, in fancy, we select <i>any one</i> of the agglomerations +considered as in their primary stages throughout the +Universal sphere, and suppose this incipient agglomeration +to be taking place at that point where the centre of our Sun +exists—or rather where it <i>did</i> exist originally; for the Sun +is perpetually shifting his position—we shall find ourselves +met, and borne onward for a time at least, by the most +magnificent of theories—by the Nebular Cosmogony of +Laplace:—although “Cosmogony” is far too comprehensive +a term for what he really discusses—which is the constitution +of our solar system alone—of one among the myriad +of similar systems which make up the Universe Proper—that +Universal sphere—that all-inclusive and absolute +<i>Kosmos</i> which forms the subject of my present Discourse.</p> + +<p>Confining himself to an <i>obviously limited</i> region—that +of our solar system with its comparatively immediate vicinity—and +<i>merely</i> assuming—that is to say, assuming without +any basis whatever, either deductive or inductive—<i>much</i> +of what I have been just endeavoring to place upon +a more stable basis than assumption; assuming, for example, +matter as diffused (without pretending to account for +the diffusion) throughout, and somewhat beyond, the space<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_71" id="Page_71">[71]</a></span> +occupied by our system—diffused in a state of heterogeneous +nebulosity and obedient to that omniprevalent law of Gravity +at whose principle he ventured to make no guess;—assuming +all this (which is quite true, although he had no +logical right to its assumption) Laplace has shown, dynamically +and mathematically, that the results in such case +necessarily ensuing, are those and those alone which we +find manifested in the actually existing condition of the +system itself.</p> + +<p>To explain:—Let us conceive <i>that</i> particular agglomeration +of which we have just spoken—the one at the point +designated by our Sun’s centre—to have so far proceeded +that a vast quantity of nebulous matter has here assumed a +roughly globular form; its centre being, of course, coincident +with what is now, or rather was originally, the centre +of our Sun; and its periphery extending out beyond the +orbit of Neptune, the most remote of our planets:—in other +words, let us suppose the diameter of this rough sphere to +be some 6000 millions of miles. For ages, this mass of +matter has been undergoing condensation, until at length +it has become reduced into the bulk we imagine; having +proceeded gradually, of course, from its atomic and imperceptible +state, into what we understand of visible, palpable, +or otherwise appreciable nebulosity.</p> + +<p>Now, the condition of this mass implies a rotation about +an imaginary axis—a rotation which, commencing with the +absolute incipiency of the aggregation, has been ever since +acquiring velocity. The very first two atoms which met, +approaching each other from points not diametrically opposite, +would, in rushing partially past each other, form a<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_72" id="Page_72">[72]</a></span> +nucleus for the rotary movement described. How this +would increase in velocity, is readily seen. The two atoms +are joined by others:—an aggregation is formed. The mass +continues to rotate while condensing. But any atom at the +circumference has, of course, a more rapid motion than one +nearer the centre. The outer atom, however, with its +superior velocity, approaches the centre; carrying this superior +velocity with it as it goes. Thus every atom, proceeding +inwardly, and finally attaching itself to the condensed +centre, adds something to the original velocity of +that centre—that is to say, increases the rotary movement +of the mass.</p> + +<p>Let us now suppose this mass so far condensed that it +occupies <i>precisely</i> the space circumscribed by the orbit of +Neptune, and that the velocity with which the surface of +the mass moves, in the general rotation, is precisely that +velocity with which Neptune now revolves about the Sun. +At this epoch, then, we are to understand that the constantly +increasing centrifugal force, having gotten the better +of the non-increasing centripetal, loosened and separated +the exterior and least condensed stratum, or a few of the +exterior and least condensed strata, at the equator of the +sphere, where the tangential velocity predominated; so +that these strata formed about the main body an independent +ring encircling the equatorial regions:—just as the +exterior portion thrown off, by excessive velocity of rotation, +from a grindstone, would form a ring about the grindstone, +but for the solidity of the superficial material: were +this caoutchouc, or anything similar in consistency, precisely +the phænomenon I describe would be presented.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_73" id="Page_73">[73]</a></span></p> + +<p>The ring thus whirled from the nebulous mass, <i>revolved</i>, +of course, <i>as</i> a separate ring, with just that velocity with +which, while the surface of the mass, it <i>rotated</i>. In the +meantime, condensation still proceeding, the interval between +the discharged ring and the main body continued to +increase, until the former was left at a vast distance from +the latter.</p> + +<p>Now, admitting the ring to have possessed, by some +seemingly accidental arrangement of its heterogeneous materials, +a constitution nearly uniform, then this ring, <i>as</i> such, +would never have ceased revolving about its primary; but, +as might have been anticipated, there appears to have been +enough irregularity in the disposition of the materials, to make +them cluster about centres of superior solidity; and thus the +annular form was destroyed.<a name="FNanchor_5_5" id="FNanchor_5_5"></a><a href="#Footnote_5_5" class="fnanchor">[5]</a> No doubt, the band was soon +broken up into several portions, and one of these portions, +predominating in mass, absorbed the others into itself; the +whole settling, spherically, into a planet. That this latter, <i>as</i> +a planet, continued the revolutionary movement which characterized +it while a ring, is sufficiently clear; and that it took +upon itself also, an additional movement in its new condition +of sphere, is readily explained. The ring being understood +as yet unbroken, we see that its exterior, while the +whole revolves about the parent body, moves more rapidly +than its interior. When the rupture occurred, then, some +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_74" id="Page_74">[74]</a></span>portion in each fragment must have been moving with +greater velocity than the others. The superior movement +prevailing, must have whirled each fragment round—that is +to say, have caused it to rotate; and the direction of the +rotation must, of course, have been the direction of the +revolution whence it arose. <i>All</i> the fragments having become +subject to the rotation described, must, in coalescing, +have imparted it to the one planet constituted by their coalescence.—This +planet was Neptune. Its material continuing +to undergo condensation, and the centrifugal force +generated in its rotation getting, at length, the better of the +centripetal, as before in the case of the parent orb, a ring +was whirled also from the equatorial surface of this planet: +this ring, having been ununiform in its constitution, was +broken up, and its several fragments, being absorbed by the +most massive, were collectively spherified into a moon. +Subsequently, the operation was repeated, and a second +moon was the result. We thus account for the planet +Neptune, with the two satellites which accompany him.</p> + +<p>In throwing off a ring from its equator, the Sun re-established +that equilibrium between its centripetal and +centrifugal forces which had been disturbed in the process +of condensation; but, as this condensation still proceeded, +the equilibrium was again immediately disturbed, through +the increase of rotation. By the time the mass had so far +shrunk that it occupied a spherical space just that circumscribed +by the orbit of Uranus, we are to understand that +the centrifugal force had so far obtained the ascendency +that new relief was needed: a second equatorial band was, +consequently, thrown off, which, proving ununiform, was<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_75" id="Page_75">[75]</a></span> +broken up, as before in the case of Neptune; the fragments +settling into the planet Uranus; the velocity of whose actual +revolution about the Sun indicates, of course, the rotary +speed of that Sun’s equatorial surface at the moment of the +separation. Uranus, adopting a rotation from the collective +rotations of the fragments composing it, as previously +explained, now threw off ring after ring; each of which, +becoming broken up, settled into a moon:—three moons, +at different epochs, having been formed, in this manner, by +the rupture and general spherification of as many distinct +ununiform rings.</p> + +<p>By the time the Sun had shrunk until it occupied a +space just that circumscribed by the orbit of Saturn, the +balance, we are to suppose, between its centripetal and +centrifugal forces had again become so far disturbed, through +increase of rotary velocity, the result of condensation, that +a third effort at equilibrium became necessary; and an +annular band was therefore whirled off as twice before; +which, on rupture through ununiformity, became consolidated +into the planet Saturn. This latter threw off, in the +first place, seven uniform bands, which, on rupture, were +spherified respectively into as many moons; but, subsequently, +it appears to have discharged, at three distinct but +not very distant epochs, three rings whose equability of constitution +was, by apparent accident, so considerable as to +present no occasion for their rupture; thus they continue +to revolve as rings. I use the phrase “<i>apparent</i> accident;” +for of accident in the ordinary sense there was, of course, +nothing:—the term is properly applied only to the result +of indistinguishable or not immediately traceable <i>law</i>.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_76" id="Page_76">[76]</a></span></p> + +<p>Shrinking still farther, until it occupied just the space +circumscribed by the orbit of Jupiter, the Sun now found +need of farther effort to restore the counterbalance of its +two forces, continually disarranged in the still continued +increase of rotation. Jupiter, accordingly, was now thrown +off; passing from the annular to the planetary condition; +and, on attaining this latter, threw off in its turn, at four +different epochs, four rings, which finally resolved themselves +into so many moons.</p> + +<p>Still shrinking, until its sphere occupied just the space +defined by the orbit of the Asteroids, the Sun now discarded +a ring which appears to have had <i>eight</i> centres of superior +solidity, and, on breaking up, to have separated into eight +fragments no one of which so far predominated in mass as +to absorb the others. All therefore, as distinct although +comparatively small planets, proceeded to revolve in orbits +whose distances, each from each, may be considered as in +some degree the measure of the force which drove them +asunder:—all the orbits, nevertheless, being so closely coincident +as to admit of our calling them <i>one</i>, in view of the +other planetary orbits.</p> + +<p>Continuing to shrink, the Sun, on becoming so small as +just to fill the orbit of Mars, now discharged this planet—of +course by the process repeatedly described. Having no +moon, however, Mars could have thrown off no ring. In +fact, an epoch had now arrived in the career of the parent +body, the centre of the system. The <i>de</i>crease of its nebulosity, +which is the <i>in</i>crease of its density, and which again +is the <i>de</i>crease of its condensation, out of which latter arose +the constant disturbance of equilibrium—must, by this period,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_77" id="Page_77">[77]</a></span> +have attained a point at which the efforts for restoration +would have been more and more ineffectual just in +proportion as they were less frequently needed. Thus the +processes of which we have been speaking would everywhere +show signs of exhaustion—in the planets, first, and +secondly, in the original mass. We must not fall into the +error of supposing the decrease of interval observed among +the planets as we approach the Sun, to be in any respect +indicative of an increase of frequency in the periods at +which they were discarded. Exactly the converse is to be +understood. The longest interval of time must have occurred +between the discharges of the two interior; the +shortest, between those of the two exterior, planets. The +decrease of the interval of space is, nevertheless, the measure +of the density, and thus inversely of the condensation, +of the Sun, throughout the processes detailed.</p> + +<p>Having shrunk, however, so far as to fill only the orbit +of our Earth, the parent sphere whirled from itself still one +other body—the Earth—in a condition so nebulous as to +admit of this body’s discarding, in its turn, yet another, +which is our Moon;—but here terminated the lunar formations.</p> + +<p>Finally, subsiding to the orbits first of Venus and then of +Mercury, the Sun discarded these two interior planets; +neither of which has given birth to any moon.</p> + +<p>Thus from his original bulk—or, to speak more accurately, +from the condition in which we first considered him—from +a partially spherified nebular mass, <i>certainly</i> much +more than 5,600 millions of miles in diameter—the great +central orb and origin of our solar-planetary-lunar system,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_78" id="Page_78">[78]</a></span> +has gradually descended, by condensation, in obedience to +the law of Gravity, to a globe only 882,000 miles in diameter; +but it by no means follows, either that its condensation +is yet complete, or that it may not still possess the capacity +of whirling from itself another planet.</p> + +<p>I have here given—in outline of course, but still with +all the detail necessary for distinctness—a view of the Nebular +Theory as its author himself conceived it. From +whatever point we regard it, we shall find it <i>beautifully +true</i>. It is by far too beautiful, indeed, <i>not</i> to possess Truth +as its essentiality—and here I am very profoundly serious +in what I say. In the revolution of the satellites of Uranus, +there does appear something seemingly inconsistent with +the assumptions of Laplace; but that <i>one</i> inconsistency can +invalidate a theory constructed from a million of intricate +consistencies, is a fancy fit only for the fantastic. In prophecying, +confidently, that the apparent anomaly to which +I refer, will, sooner or later, be found one of the strongest +possible corroborations of the general hypothesis, I pretend +to no especial spirit of divination. It is a matter which the +only difficulty seems <i>not</i> to foresee.<a name="FNanchor_6_6" id="FNanchor_6_6"></a><a href="#Footnote_6_6" class="fnanchor">[6]</a></p> + +<p>The bodies whirled off in the processes described, would +exchange, it has been seen, the superficial <i>rotation</i> of the +orbs whence they originated, for a <i>revolution</i> of equal velocity +about these orbs as distant centres; and the revolution +thus engendered must proceed, so long as the centripetal +force, or that with which the discarded body gravitates toward +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_79" id="Page_79">[79]</a></span>its parent, is neither greater nor less than that by +which it was discarded; that is, than the centrifugal, or, +far more properly, than the tangential, velocity. From the +unity, however, of the origin of these two forces, we might +have expected to find them as they are found—the one +accurately counterbalancing the other. It has been shown, +indeed, that the act of whirling-off is, in every case, merely +an act for the preservation of the counterbalance.</p> + +<p>After referring, however, the centripetal force to the +omniprevalent law of Gravity, it has been the fashion with +astronomical treatises, to seek beyond the limits of mere +Nature—that is to say, of <i>Secondary</i> Cause—a solution of +the phænomenon of tangential velocity. This latter they +attribute directly to a <i>First</i> Cause—to God. The force +which carries a stellar body around its primary they assert +to have originated in an impulse given immediately by the +finger—this is the childish phraseology employed—by the +finger of Deity itself. In this view, the planets, fully formed, +are conceived to have been hurled from the Divine hand, +to a position in the vicinity of the suns, with an impetus +mathematically adapted to the masses, or attractive capacities, +of the suns themselves. An idea so grossly unphilosophical, +although so supinely adopted, could have arisen +only from the difficulty of otherwise accounting for the +absolutely accurate adaptation, each to each, of two forces +so seemingly independent, one of the other, as are the gravitating +and tangential. But it should be remembered that, +for a long time, the coincidence between the moon’s rotation +and her sidereal revolution—two matters seemingly +far more independent than those now considered—was<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_80" id="Page_80">[80]</a></span> +looked upon as positively miraculous; and there was a +strong disposition, even among astronomers, to attribute +the marvel to the direct and continual agency of God—who, +in this case, it was said, had found it necessary to interpose, +specially, among his general laws, a set of subsidiary +regulations, for the purpose of forever concealing from mortal +eyes the glories, or perhaps the horrors, of the other side +of the Moon—of that mysterious hemisphere which has always +avoided, and must perpetually avoid, the telescopic +scrutiny of mankind. The advance of Science, however, +soon demonstrated—what to the philosophical instinct +needed <i>no</i> demonstration—that the one movement is but a +portion—something more, even, than a consequence—of +the other.</p> + +<p>For my part, I have no patience with fantasies at once +so timorous, so idle, and so awkward. They belong to +the veriest <i>cowardice</i> of thought. That Nature and the +God of Nature are distinct, no thinking being can long +doubt. By the former we imply merely the laws of the +latter. But with the very idea of God, omnipotent, omniscient, +we entertain, also, the idea of <i>the infallibility</i> of his +laws. With Him there being neither Past nor Future—with +Him all being <i>Now</i>—do we not insult him in supposing +his laws so contrived as not to provide for every possible +contingency?—or, rather, what idea <i>can</i> we have of <i>any</i> +possible contingency, except that it is at once a result and +a manifestation of his laws? He who, divesting himself of +prejudice, shall have the rare courage to think absolutely +for himself, cannot fail to arrive, in the end, at the condensation +of <i>laws</i> into <i>Law</i>—cannot fail of reaching the conclusion<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_81" id="Page_81">[81]</a></span> +that <i>each law of Nature is dependent at all points +upon all other laws</i>, and that all are but consequences of +one primary exercise of the Divine Volition. Such is the +principle of the Cosmogony which, with all necessary deference, +I here venture to suggest and to maintain.</p> + +<p>In this view, it will be seen that, dismissing as frivolous, +and even impious, the fancy of the tangential force having +been imparted to the planets immediately by “the finger of +God,” I consider this force as originating in the rotation of +the stars:—this rotation as brought about by the in-rushing +of the primary atoms, towards their respective centres of +aggregation:—this in-rushing as the consequence of the law +of Gravity:—this law as but the mode in which is necessarily +manifested the tendency of the atoms to return into +imparticularity:—this tendency to return as but the inevitable +rëaction of the first and most sublime of Acts—that +act by which a God, self-existing and alone existing, became +all things at once, through dint of his volition, while +all things were thus constituted a portion of God.</p> + +<p>The radical assumptions of this Discourse suggest to +me, and in fact imply, certain important <i>modifications</i> of +the Nebular Theory as given by Laplace. The efforts of +the repulsive power I have considered as made for the purpose +of preventing contact among the atoms, and thus as +made in the ratio of the approach to contact—that is to say, +in the ratio of condensation.<a name="FNanchor_7_7" id="FNanchor_7_7"></a><a href="#Footnote_7_7" class="fnanchor">[7]</a> In other words, <i>Electricity</i>, +with its involute phænomena, heat, light and magnetism, +is to be understood as proceeding as condensation +proceeds, and, of course, inversely as density proceeds, +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_82" id="Page_82">[82]</a></span>or the <i>cessation to condense</i>. Thus the Sun, in the process +of its aggregation, must soon, in developing repulsion, have +become excessively heated—perhaps incandescent: and we +can perceive how the operation of discarding its rings must +have been materially assisted by the slight incrustation of +its surface consequent on cooling. Any common experiment +shows us how readily a crust of the character suggested, +is separated, through heterogeneity, from the interior +mass. But, on every successive rejection of the crust, +the new surface would appear incandescent as before; and +the period at which it would again become so far encrusted +as to be readily loosened and discharged, may well be imagined +as exactly coincident with that at which a new effort +would be needed, by the whole mass, to restore the equilibrium +of its two forces, disarranged through condensation. +In other words:—by the time the electric influence (Repulsion) +has prepared the surface for rejection, we are to +understand that the gravitating influence (Attraction) is +precisely ready to reject it. Here, then, as everywhere, <i>the +Body and the Soul walk hand in hand</i>.</p> + +<p>These ideas are empirically confirmed at all points. +Since condensation can never, in any body, be considered +as absolutely at an end, we are warranted in anticipating +that, whenever we have an opportunity of testing the matter, +we shall find indications of resident luminosity in <i>all</i> +the stellar bodies—moons and planets as well as suns. That +our Moon is strongly self-luminous, we see at her every +total eclipse, when, if not so, she would disappear. On the +dark part of the satellite, too, during her phases, we often +observe flashes like our own Auroras; and that these latter, +with our various other so-called electrical phænomena,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_83" id="Page_83">[83]</a></span> +without reference to any more steady radiance, must give +our Earth a certain appearance of luminosity to an inhabitant +of the Moon, is quite evident. In fact, we should regard +all the phænomena referred to, as mere manifestations, in +different moods and degrees, of the Earth’s feebly-continued +condensation.</p> + +<p>If my views are tenable, we should be prepared to find +the newer planets—that is to say, those nearer the Sun—more +luminous than those older and more remote:—and +the extreme brilliancy of Venus (on whose dark portions, +during her phases, the Auroras are frequently visible) does +not seem to be altogether accounted for by her mere proximity +to the central orb. She is no doubt vividly self-luminous, +although less so than Mercury: while the luminosity +of Neptune may be comparatively nothing.</p> + +<p>Admitting what I have urged, it is clear that, from the +moment of the Sun’s discarding a ring, there must be a +continuous diminution both of his heat and light, on account +of the continuous encrustation of his surface; and that a +period would arrive—the period immediately previous to a +new discharge—when a <i>very material</i> decrease of both +light and heat, must become apparent. Now, we know +that tokens of such changes are distinctly recognizable. +On the Melville islands—to adduce merely one out of a +hundred examples—we find traces of <i>ultra-tropical</i> vegetation—of +plants that never could have flourished without +immensely more light and heat than are at present afforded +by our Sun to any portion of the surface of the Earth. Is +such vegetation referable to an epoch immediately subsequent +to the whirling-off of Venus? At this epoch must<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_84" id="Page_84">[84]</a></span> +have occurred to us our greatest access of solar influence; +and, in fact, this influence must then have attained its maximum:—leaving +out of view, of course, the period when the +Earth itself was discarded—the period of its mere organization.</p> + +<p>Again:—we know that there exist <i>non-luminous suns</i>—that +is to say, suns whose existence we determine through +the movements of others, but whose luminosity is not sufficient +to impress us. Are these suns invisible merely on +account of the length of time elapsed since their discharge +of a planet? And yet again:—may we not—at least in +certain cases—account for the sudden appearances of suns +where none had been previously suspected, by the hypothesis +that, having rolled with encrusted surfaces throughout +the few thousand years of our astronomical history, +each of these suns, in whirling off a new secondary, has at +length been enabled to display the glories of its still incandescent +interior?—To the well-ascertained fact of the proportional +increase of heat as we descend into the Earth, I +need of course, do nothing more than refer:—it comes in +the strongest possible corroboration of all that I have said +on the topic now at issue.</p> + +<p>In speaking, not long ago, of the repulsive or electrical +influence, I remarked that “the important phænomena of +vitality, consciousness, and thought, whether we observe +them generally or in detail, seem to proceed <i>at least in the +ratio of the heterogeneous</i>.”<a name="FNanchor_8_8" id="FNanchor_8_8"></a><a href="#Footnote_8_8" class="fnanchor">[8]</a> I mentioned, too, that I would +recur to the suggestion:—and this is the proper point at +which to do so. Looking at the matter, first, in detail, we +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_85" id="Page_85">[85]</a></span>perceive that not merely the <i>manifestation</i> of vitality, but +its importance, consequence, and elevation of character, +keep pace, very closely, with the heterogeneity, or complexity, +of the animal structure. Looking at the question, +now, in its generality, and referring to the first movements +of the atoms towards mass-constitution, we find that heterogeneousness, +brought about directly through condensation, +is proportional with it forever. We thus reach the +proposition that <i>the importance of the development of the +terrestrial vitality proceeds equably with the terrestrial condensation</i>.</p> + +<p>Now this is in precise accordance with what we know +of the succession of animals on the Earth. As it has proceeded +in its condensation, superior and still superior races +have appeared. Is it impossible that the successive geological +revolutions which have attended, at least, if not immediately +caused, these successive elevations of vitalic +character—is it improbable that these revolutions have +themselves been produced by the successive planetary discharges +from the Sun—in other words, by the successive +variations in the solar influence on the Earth? Were this +idea tenable, we should not be unwarranted in the fancy +that the discharge of yet a new planet, interior to Mercury, +may give rise to yet a new modification of the terrestrial +surface—a modification from which may spring a +race both materially and spiritually superior to Man. These +thoughts impress me with all the force of truth—but I throw +them out, of course, merely in their obvious character of +suggestion.</p> + +<p>The Nebular Theory of Laplace has lately received far<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_86" id="Page_86">[86]</a></span> +more confirmation than it needed, at the hands of the philosopher, +Compte. These two have thus together shown—<i>not</i>, +to be sure, that Matter at any period actually existed +as described, in a state of nebular diffusion, but that, admitting +it so to have existed throughout the space and much +beyond the space now occupied by our solar system, <i>and to +have commenced a movement towards a centre</i>—it must +gradually have assumed the various forms and motions +which are now seen, in that system, to obtain. A demonstration +such as this—a dynamical and mathematical demonstration, +as far as demonstration can be—unquestionable +and unquestioned—unless, indeed, by that unprofitable and +disreputable tribe, the professional questioners—the mere +madmen who deny the Newtonian law of Gravity on +which the results of the French mathematicians are based—a +demonstration, I say, such as this, would to most intellects +be conclusive—and I confess that it is so to mine—of +the validity of the nebular hypothesis upon which the demonstration +depends.</p> + +<p>That the demonstration does not <i>prove</i> the hypothesis, +according to the common understanding of the word +“proof,” I admit, of course. To show that certain existing +results—that certain established facts—may be, even mathematically, +accounted for by the assumption of a certain hypothesis, +is by no means to establish the hypothesis itself. +In other words:—to show that, certain data being given, a +certain existing result might, or even <i>must</i>, have ensued, +will fail to prove that this result <i>did</i> ensue, <i>from the data</i>, +until such time as it shall be also shown that there are, <i>and +can be</i>, no other data from which the result in question<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_87" id="Page_87">[87]</a></span> +might <i>equally</i> have ensued. But, in the case now discussed, +although all must admit the deficiency of what we +are in the habit of terming “proof,” still there are many +intellects, and those of the loftiest order, to which <i>no</i> proof +could bring one iota of additional <i>conviction</i>. Without +going into details which might impinge upon the Cloud-Land +of Metaphysics, I may as well here observe that the force +of conviction, in cases such as this, will always, with the +right-thinking, be proportional to the amount of <i>complexity</i> +intervening between the hypothesis and the result. To be +less abstract:—The greatness of the complexity found existing +among cosmical conditions, by rendering great in +the same proportion the difficulty of accounting for all +these conditions <i>at once</i>, strengthens, also in the same proportion, +our faith in that hypothesis which does, in such +manner, satisfactorily account for them:—and as <i>no</i> complexity +can well be conceived greater than that of the astronomical +conditions, so no conviction can be stronger—to +<i>my</i> mind at least—than that with which I am impressed +by an hypothesis that not only reconciles these conditions, +with mathematical accuracy, and reduces them into a consistent +and intelligible whole, but is, at the same time, the +<i>sole</i> hypothesis by means of which the human intellect has +been ever enabled to account for them <i>at all</i>.</p> + +<p>A most unfounded opinion has become latterly current +in gossiping and even in scientific circles—the opinion that +the so-called Nebular Cosmogony has been overthrown. +This fancy has arisen from the report of late observations +made, among what hitherto have been termed the “nebulæ,” +through the large telescope of Cincinnati, and the world-renowned<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_88" id="Page_88">[88]</a></span> +instrument of Lord Rosse. Certain spots in the +firmament which presented, even to the most powerful of +the old telescopes, the appearance of nebulosity, or haze, +had been regarded for a long time as confirming the theory +of Laplace. They were looked upon as stars in that very +process of condensation which I have been attempting to +describe. Thus it was supposed that we “had ocular evidence”—an +evidence, by the way, which has always been +found very questionable—of the truth of the hypothesis; +and, although certain telescopic improvements, every now +and then, enabled us to perceive that a spot, here and there, +which we had been classing among the nebulæ, was, in fact, +but a cluster of stars deriving its nebular character only +from its immensity of distance—still it was thought that no +doubt could exist as to the actual nebulosity of numerous +other masses, the strong-holds of the nebulists, bidding defiance +to every effort at segregation. Of these latter the +most interesting was the great “nebulæ” in the constellation +Orion:—but this, with innumerable other mis-called +“nebulæ,” when viewed through the magnificent modern +telescopes, has become resolved into a simple collection of +stars. Now this fact has been very generally understood +as conclusive against the Nebular Hypothesis of Laplace; +and, on announcement of the discoveries in question, the +most enthusiastic defender and most eloquent popularizer of +the theory, Dr. Nichol, went so far as to “admit the necessity +of abandoning” an idea which had formed the material +of his most praiseworthy book.<a name="FNanchor_9_9" id="FNanchor_9_9"></a><a href="#Footnote_9_9" class="fnanchor">[9]</a></p> +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_89" id="Page_89">[89]</a></span></p> +<p>Many of my readers will no doubt be inclined to say +that the result of these new investigations <i>has</i> at least a +strong <i>tendency</i> to overthrow the hypothesis; while some +of them, more thoughtful, will suggest that, although the +theory is by no means disproved through the segregation of +the particular “nebulæ,” alluded to, still a <i>failure</i> to segregate +them, with such telescopes, might well have been understood +as a triumphant <i>corroboration</i> of the theory:—and +this latter class will be surprised, perhaps, to hear me say +that even with <i>them</i> I disagree. If the propositions of this +Discourse have been comprehended, it will be seen that, in +my view, a failure to segregate the “nebulæ” would have +tended to the refutation, rather than to the confirmation, of +the Nebular Hypothesis.</p> + +<p>Let me explain:—The Newtonian Law of Gravity we +may, of course, assume as demonstrated. This law, it will +be remembered, I have referred to the rëaction of the first +Divine Act—to the rëaction of an exercise of the Divine +Volition temporarily overcoming a difficulty. This difficulty +is that of forcing the normal into the abnormal—of +impelling that whose originality, and therefore whose rightful +condition, was <i>One</i>, to take upon itself the wrongful condition +of <i>Many</i>. It is only by conceiving this difficulty as +<i>temporarily</i> overcome, that we can comprehend a rëaction. +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_90" id="Page_90">[90]</a></span>There could have been no rëaction had the act been infinitely +continued. So long as the act <i>lasted</i>, no rëaction, of +course, could commence; in other words, no <i>gravitation</i> +could take place—for we have considered the one as but +the manifestation of the other. But gravitation <i>has</i> taken +place; therefore the act of Creation has ceased: and gravitation +has long ago taken place; therefore the act of Creation +has long ago ceased. We can no more expect, then, +to observe <i>the primary processes</i> of Creation; and to these +primary processes the condition of nebulosity has already +been explained to belong.</p> + +<p>Through what we know of the propagation of light, we +have direct proof that the more remote of the stars have +existed, under the forms in which we now see them, for an +inconceivable number of years. So far back <i>at least</i>, then, +as the period when these stars underwent condensation, +must have been the epoch at which the mass-constitutive +processes began. That we may conceive these processes, +then, as still going on in the case of certain “nebulæ,” +while in all other cases we find them thoroughly at an end, +we are forced into assumptions for which we have really +<i>no</i> basis whatever—we have to thrust in, again, upon the revolting +Reason, the blasphemous idea of special interposition—we +have to suppose that, in the particular instances of these +“nebulæ,” an unerring God found it necessary to introduce +certain supplementary regulations—certain improvements +of the general law—certain retouchings and emendations, +in a word, which had the effect of deferring the completion +of these individual stars for centuries of centuries beyond +the æra during which all the other stellar bodies had time,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_91" id="Page_91">[91]</a></span> +not only to be fully constituted, but to grow hoary with an +unspeakable old age.</p> + +<p>Of course, it will be immediately objected that since the +light by which we recognize the nebulæ now, must be +merely that which left their surfaces a vast number of years +ago, the processes at present observed, or supposed to be +observed, are, in fact, <i>not</i> processes now actually going on, +but the phantoms of processes completed long in the Past—just +as I maintain all these mass-constitutive processes +<i>must</i> have been.</p> + +<p>To this I reply that neither is the now-observed condition +of the condensed stars their actual condition, but a +condition completed long in the Past; so that my argument +drawn from the <i>relative</i> condition of the stars and the +“nebulæ,” is in no manner disturbed. Moreover, those +who maintain the existence of nebulæ, do <i>not</i> refer the +nebulosity to extreme distance; they declare it a real and +not merely a perspective nebulosity. That we may conceive, +indeed, a nebular mass as visible at all, we must conceive +it as <i>very near us</i> in comparison with the condensed +stars brought into view by the modern telescopes. In +maintaining the appearances in question, then, to be really +nebulous, we maintain their comparative vicinity to our +point of view. Thus, their condition, as we see them now, +must be referred to an epoch <i>far less remote</i> than that to +which we may refer the now-observed condition of at least +the majority of the stars.—In a word, should Astronomy +ever demonstrate a “nebula,” in the sense at present intended, +I should consider the Nebular Cosmogony—<i>not</i>, indeed, +as corroborated by the demonstration—but as thereby +irretrievably overthrown.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_92" id="Page_92">[92]</a></span></p> + +<p>By way, however, of rendering unto Cæsar <i>no more</i> +than the things that are Cæsar’s, let me here remark that +the assumption of the hypothesis which led him to so glorious +a result, seems to have been suggested to Laplace in +great measure by a misconception—by the very misconception +of which we have just been speaking—by the generally +prevalent misunderstanding of the character of the +nebulæ, so mis-named. These he supposed to be, in reality, +what their designation implies. The fact is, this great man +had, very properly, an inferior faith in his own merely <i>perceptive</i> +powers. In respect, therefore, to the actual existence +of nebulæ—an existence so confidently maintained by +his telescopic contemporaries—he depended less upon what +he saw than upon what he heard.</p> + +<p>It will be seen that the only valid objections to his +theory, are those made to its hypothesis <i>as</i> such—to what +suggested it—not to what it suggests; to its propositions +rather than to its results. His most unwarranted assumption +was that of giving the atoms a movement towards a +centre, in the very face of his evident understanding that +these atoms, in unlimited succession, extended throughout +the Universal space. I have already shown that, under +such circumstances, there could have occurred no movement +at all; and Laplace, consequently, assumed one on +no more philosophical ground than that something of the +kind was necessary for the establishment of what he intended +to establish.</p> + +<p>His original idea seems to have been a compound of +the true Epicurean atoms with the false nebulæ of his contemporaries; +and thus his theory presents us with the singular<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_93" id="Page_93">[93]</a></span> +anomaly of absolute truth deduced, as a mathematical +result, from a hybrid datum of ancient imagination intertangled +with modern inacumen. Laplace’s real strength +lay, in fact, in an almost miraculous mathematical instinct:—on +this he relied; and in no instance did it fail or deceive +him:—in the case of the Nebular Cosmogony, it led him, +blindfolded, through a labyrinth of Error, into one of the +most luminous and stupendous temples of Truth.</p> + +<p>Let us now fancy, for the moment, that the ring first +thrown off by the Sun—that is to say, the ring whose +breaking-up constituted Neptune—did not, in fact, break +up until the throwing-off of the ring out of which Uranus +arose; that this latter ring, again, remained perfect until +the discharge of that out of which sprang Saturn; that this +latter, again, remained entire until the discharge of that +from which originated Jupiter—and so on. Let us imagine, +in a word, that no dissolution occurred among the rings +until the final rejection of that which gave birth to Mercury. +We thus paint to the eye of the mind a series of +cöexistent concentric circles; and looking as well at <i>them</i> +as at the processes by which, according to Laplace’s hypothesis, +they were constructed, we perceive at once a very +singular analogy with the atomic strata and the process of +the original irradiation as I have described it. Is it impossible +that, on measuring the <i>forces</i>, respectively, by which +each successive planetary circle was thrown off—that is to +say, on measuring the successive excesses of rotation over +gravitation which occasioned the successive discharges—we +should find the analogy in question more decidedly confirmed? +<i>Is it improbable that we should discover these<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_94" id="Page_94">[94]</a></span> +forces to have varied—as in the original radiation—proportionally +to the squares of the distances?</i></p> + +<p>Our solar system, consisting, in chief, of one sun, with +sixteen planets certainly, and possibly a few more, revolving +about it at various distances, and attended by seventeen +moons assuredly, but <i>very</i> probably by several others—is +now to be considered as <i>an example</i> of the innumerable +agglomerations which proceeded to take place throughout +the Universal Sphere of atoms on withdrawal of the Divine +Volition. I mean to say that our solar system is to be understood +as affording a <i>generic instance</i> of these agglomerations, +or, more correctly, of the ulterior conditions at which +they arrived. If we keep our attention fixed on the idea +of <i>the utmost possible Relation</i> as the Omnipotent design, +and on the precautions taken to accomplish it through difference +of form, among the original atoms, and particular +inequidistance, we shall find it impossible to suppose for a +moment that even any two of the incipient agglomerations +reached precisely the same result in the end. We shall +rather be inclined to think that <i>no two</i> stellar bodies in the +Universe—whether suns, planets or moons—are particularly, +while <i>all</i> are generally, similar. Still less, then, can +we imagine any two <i>assemblages</i> of such bodies—any two +“systems”—as having more than a general resemblance.<a name="FNanchor_10_10" id="FNanchor_10_10"></a><a href="#Footnote_10_10" class="fnanchor">[10]</a> +Our telescopes, at this point, thoroughly confirm our deductions. +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_95" id="Page_95">[95]</a></span>Taking our own solar system, then, as merely a +loose or general type of all, we have so far proceeded in +our subject as to survey the Universe under the aspect of a +spherical space, throughout which, dispersed with merely +general equability, exist a number of but generally similar +<i>systems</i>.</p> + +<p>Let us now, expanding our conceptions, look upon each +of these systems as in itself an atom; which in fact it is, +when we consider it as but one of the countless myriads of +systems which constitute the Universe. Regarding all, +then, as but colossal atoms, each with the same ineradicable +tendency to Unity which characterizes the actual atoms of +which it consists—we enter at once upon a new order of +aggregations. The smaller systems, in the vicinity of a +larger one, would, inevitably, be drawn into still closer +vicinity. A thousand would assemble here; a million there—perhaps +here, again, even a billion—leaving, thus, immeasurable +vacancies in space. And if now, it be demanded +why, in the case of these systems—of these merely Titanic +atoms—I speak, simply, of an “assemblage,” and not, as in +the case of the actual atoms, of a more or less consolidated +agglomeration:—if it be asked, for instance, why I do not +carry what I suggest to its legitimate conclusion, and describe, +at once, these assemblages of system-atoms as rushing +to consolidation in spheres—as each becoming condensed +into one magnificent sun—my reply is that μελλοντα ταυτα—I +am but pausing, for a moment, on the awful threshold of +<i>the Future</i>. For the present, calling these assemblages +“clusters,” we see them in the incipient stages of their +consolidation. Their <i>absolute</i> consolidation is <i>to come</i>.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_96" id="Page_96">[96]</a></span></p> + +<p>We have now reached a point from which we behold +the Universe as a spherical space, interspersed, <i>unequably</i>, +with <i>clusters</i>. It will be noticed that I here prefer the adverb +“unequably” to the phrase “with a merely general +equability,” employed before. It is evident, in fact, that +the equability of distribution will diminish in the ratio of +the agglomerative processes—that is to say, as the things +distributed diminish in number. Thus the increase of <i>in</i>-equability—an +increase which must continue until, sooner +or later, an epoch will arrive at which the largest agglomeration +will absorb all the others—should be viewed as, +simply, a corroborative indication of the <i>tendency to One</i>.</p> + +<p>And here, at length, it seems proper to inquire whether +the ascertained <i>facts</i> of Astronomy confirm the general +arrangement which I have thus, deductively, assigned to +the Heavens. Thoroughly, they <i>do</i>. Telescopic observation, +guided by the laws of perspective, enables us to understand +that the perceptible Universe exists as <i>a cluster of +clusters, irregularly disposed</i>.</p> + +<p>The “clusters” of which this Universal “<i>cluster of +clusters</i>” consists, are merely what we have been in the +practice of designating “nebulæ”—and, of these “nebulæ,” +<i>one</i> is of paramount interest to mankind. I allude to the +Galaxy, or Milky Way. This interests us, first and most +obviously, on account of its great superiority in apparent +size, not only to any one other cluster in the firmament, but +to all the other clusters taken together. The largest of +these latter occupies a mere point, comparatively, and is +distinctly seen only with the aid of a telescope. The Galaxy +sweeps throughout the Heaven and is brilliantly visible<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_97" id="Page_97">[97]</a></span> +to the naked eye. But it interests man chiefly, although +less immediately, on account of its being his home; the +home of the Earth on which he exists; the home of the +Sun about which this Earth revolves; the home of that +“system” of orbs of which the Sun is the centre and primary—the +Earth one of sixteen secondaries, or planets—the +Moon one of seventeen tertiaries, or satellites. The +Galaxy, let me repeat, is but one of the <i>clusters</i> which I +have been describing—but one of the mis-called “nebulæ” +revealed to us—by the telescope alone, sometimes—as faint +hazy spots in various quarters of the sky. We have no +reason to suppose the Milky Way <i>really</i> more extensive +than the least of these “nebulæ.” Its vast superiority in +size is but an apparent superiority arising from our position +in regard to it—that is to say, from our position in its midst. +However strange the assertion may at first appear to those +unversed in Astronomy, still the astronomer himself has no +hesitation in asserting that we are <i>in the midst</i> of that inconceivable +host of stars—of suns—of systems—which constitute +the Galaxy. Moreover, not only have <i>we</i>—not only +has <i>our</i> Sun a right to claim the Galaxy as its own especial +cluster, but, with slight reservation, it may be said that all +the distinctly visible stars of the firmament—all the stars +Visible to the naked eye—have equally a right to claim it +as <i>their</i> own.</p> + +<p>There has been a great deal of misconception in respect +to the <i>shape</i> of the Galaxy; which, in nearly all our astronomical +treatises, is said to resemble that of a capital Y. +The cluster in question has, in reality, a certain general—<i>very</i> +general resemblance to the planet Saturn, with its<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_98" id="Page_98">[98]</a></span> +encompassing triple ring. Instead of the solid orb of that +planet, however, we must picture to ourselves a lenticular +star-island, or collection of stars; our Sun lying excentrically—near +the shore of the island—on that side of it which +is nearest the constellation of the Cross and farthest from +that of Cassiopeia. The surrounding ring, where it approaches +our position, has in it a longitudinal <i>gash</i>, which +does, in fact, cause <i>the ring, in our vicinity</i>, to assume, +loosely, the appearance of a capital Y.</p> + +<p>We must not fall into the error, however, of conceiving +the somewhat indefinite girdle as at all <i>remote</i>, comparatively +speaking, from the also indefinite lenticular cluster +which it surrounds; and thus, for mere purpose of explanation, +we may speak of our Sun as actually situated at +that point of the Y where its three component lines unite; +and, conceiving this letter to be of a certain solidity—of a +certain thickness, very trivial in comparison with its length—we +may even speak of our position as <i>in the middle</i> of +this thickness. Fancying ourselves thus placed, we shall +no longer find difficulty in accounting for the phænomena +presented—which are perspective altogether. When we +look upward or downward—that is to say, when we cast +our eyes in the direction of the letter’s <i>thickness</i>—we look +through fewer stars than when we cast them in the direction +of its <i>length</i>, or <i>along</i> either of the three component lines. +Of course, in the former case, the stars appear scattered—in +the latter, crowded.—To reverse this explanation:—An +inhabitant of the Earth, when looking, as we commonly express +ourselves, <i>at</i> the Galaxy, is then beholding it in some +of the directions of its length—is looking <i>along</i> the lines of<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_99" id="Page_99">[99]</a></span> +the Y—but when, looking out into the general Heaven, he +turns his eyes <i>from</i> the Galaxy, he is then surveying it in +the direction of the letter’s thickness; and on this account +the stars seem to him scattered; while, in fact, they are as +close together, on an average, as in the mass of the cluster. +<i>No</i> consideration could be better adapted to convey an idea +of this cluster’s stupendous extent.</p> + +<p>If, with a telescope of high space-penetrating power, we +carefully inspect the firmament, we shall become aware of +<i>a belt of clusters</i>—of what we have hitherto called “nebulæ”—a +<i>band</i>, of varying breadth, stretching from horizon +to horizon, at right angles to the general course of the Milky +Way. This band is the ultimate <i>cluster of clusters</i>. This +belt is <i>The Universe</i>. Our Galaxy is but one, and perhaps +one of the most inconsiderable, of the clusters which go to +the constitution of this ultimate, Universal <i>belt</i> or <i>band</i>. +The appearance of this cluster of clusters, to our eyes, <i>as</i> a +belt or band, is altogether a perspective phænomenon of the +same character as that which causes us to behold our own +individual and roughly-spherical cluster, the Galaxy, under +guise also of a belt, traversing the Heavens at right angles +to the Universal one. The shape of the all-inclusive cluster +is, of course <i>generally</i>, that of each individual cluster +which it includes. Just as the scattered stars which, on +looking <i>from</i> the Galaxy, we see in the general sky, are, in +fact, but a portion of that Galaxy itself, and as closely intermingled +with it as any of the telescopic points in what +seems the densest portion of its mass—so are the scattered +“nebulæ” which, on casting our eyes <i>from</i> the Universal +<i>belt</i>, we perceive at all points of the firmament—so, I say,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_100" id="Page_100">[100]</a></span> +are these scattered “nebulæ” to be understood as only +perspectively scattered, and as part and parcel of the one +supreme and Universal <i>sphere</i>.</p> + +<p>No astronomical fallacy is more untenable, and none +has been more pertinaciously adhered to, than that of the +absolute <i>illimitation</i> of the Universe of Stars. The reasons +for limitation, as I have already assigned them, <i>à priori</i>, +seem to me unanswerable; but, not to speak of these, <i>observation</i> +assures us that there is, in numerous directions around +us, certainly, if not in all, a positive limit—or, at the very +least, affords us no basis whatever for thinking otherwise. +Were the succession of stars endless, then the background +of the sky would present us an uniform luminosity, like that +displayed by the Galaxy—<i>since there could be absolutely no +point, in all that background, at which would not exist a +star.</i> The only mode, therefore, in which, under such a +state of affairs, we could comprehend the <i>voids</i> which our +telescopes find in innumerable directions, would be by supposing +the distance of the invisible background so immense +that no ray from it has yet been able to reach us at all. +That this <i>may</i> be so, who shall venture to deny? I maintain, +simply, that we have not even the shadow of a reason +for believing that it <i>is</i> so.</p> + +<p>When speaking of the vulgar propensity to regard all +bodies on the Earth as tending merely to the Earth’s centre, +I observed that, “with certain exceptions to be specified +hereafter, every body on the Earth tended not only to the +Earth’s centre, but in every conceivable direction besides.”<a name="FNanchor_11_11" id="FNanchor_11_11"></a><a href="#Footnote_11_11" class="fnanchor">[11]</a> +The “exceptions” refer to those frequent gaps in the Heavens, +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_101" id="Page_101">[101]</a></span>where our utmost scrutiny can detect not only no +stellar bodies, but no indications of their existence:—where +yawning chasms, blacker than Erebus, seem to afford us +glimpses, through the boundary walls of the Universe of +Stars, into the illimitable Universe of Vacancy, beyond. +Now as any body, existing on the Earth, chances to pass, +either through its own movement or the Earth’s, into a line +with any one of these voids, or cosmical abysses, it clearly +is no longer attracted <i>in the direction of that void</i>, and +for the moment, consequently, is “heavier” than at any +period, either after or before. Independently of the consideration +of these voids, however, and looking only at the +generally unequable distribution of the stars, we see that +the absolute tendency of bodies on the Earth to the Earth’s +centre, is in a state of perpetual variation.</p> + +<p>We comprehend, then, the insulation of our Universe. +We perceive the isolation of <i>that</i>—of <i>all</i> that which we +grasp with the senses. We know that there exists one +<i>cluster of clusters</i>—a collection around which, on all sides, +extend the immeasurable wildernesses of a Space <i>to all human +perception</i> untenanted. But <i>because</i> upon the confines +of this Universe of Stars we are compelled to pause, through +want of farther evidence from the senses, is it right to conclude +that, in fact, there <i>is</i> no material point beyond that +which we have thus been permitted to attain? Have we, +or have we not, an analogical right to the inference that +this perceptible Universe—that this cluster of clusters—is +but one of <i>a series</i> of clusters of clusters, the rest of which +are invisible through distance—through the diffusion of their +light being so excessive, ere it reaches us, as not to produce<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_102" id="Page_102">[102]</a></span> +upon our retinas a light-impression—or from there being no +such emanation as light at all, in these unspeakably distant +worlds—or, lastly, from the mere interval being so vast, that +the electric tidings of their presence in Space, have not yet—through +the lapsing myriads of years—been enabled to +traverse that interval?</p> + +<p>Have we any right to inferences—have we any ground +whatever for visions such as these? If we have a right to +them in <i>any</i> degree, we have a right to their infinite extension.</p> + +<p>The human brain has obviously a leaning to the “<i>Infinite</i>,” +and fondles the phantom of the idea. It seems to +long with a passionate fervor for this impossible conception, +with the hope of intellectually believing it when conceived. +What is general among the whole race of Man, of course +no individual of that race can be warranted in considering +abnormal; nevertheless, there <i>may</i> be a class of superior +intelligences, to whom the human bias alluded to may wear +all the character of monomania.</p> + +<p>My question, however, remains unanswered:—Have we +any right to infer—let us say, rather, to imagine—an interminable +succession of the “clusters of clusters,” or of “Universes” +more or less similar?</p> + +<p>I reply that the “right,” in a case such as this, depends +absolutely upon the hardihood of that imagination which +ventures to claim the right. Let me declare, only, that, as +an individual, I myself feel impelled to the <i>fancy</i>—without +daring to call it more—that there <i>does</i> exist a <i>limitless</i> succession +of Universes, more or less similar to that of which +we have cognizance—to that of which <i>alone</i> we shall ever<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_103" id="Page_103">[103]</a></span> +have cognizance—at the very least until the return of our +own particular Universe into Unity. <i>If</i> such clusters of +clusters exist, however—<i>and they do</i>—it is abundantly clear +that, having had no part in our origin, they have no portion +in our laws. They neither attract us, nor we them. Their +material—their spirit is not ours—is not that which obtains +in any part of our Universe. They could not impress our +senses or our souls. Among them and us—considering all, +for the moment, collectively—there are no influences in +common. Each exists, apart and independently, <i>in the bosom +of its proper and particular God</i>.</p> + +<p>In the conduct of this Discourse, I am aiming less at +physical than at metaphysical order. The clearness with +which even material phænomena are presented to the understanding, +depends very little, I have long since learned to +perceive, upon a merely natural, and almost altogether upon +a moral, arrangement. If then I seem to step somewhat too +discursively from point to point of my topic, let me suggest +that I do so in the hope of thus the better keeping unbroken +that chain of <i>graduated impression</i> by which alone the intellect +of Man can expect to encompass the grandeurs of +which I speak, and, in their majestic totality, to comprehend +them.</p> + +<p>So far, our attention has been directed, almost exclusively, +to a general and relative grouping of the stellar +bodies in space. Of specification there has been little; +and whatever ideas of <i>quantity</i> have been conveyed—that +is to say, of number, magnitude, and distance—have been +conveyed incidentally and by way of preparation for more +definitive conceptions. These latter let us now attempt to +entertain.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_104" id="Page_104">[104]</a></span></p> + +<p>Our solar system, as has been already mentioned, consists, +in chief, of one sun and sixteen planets certainly, but +in all probability a few others, revolving around it as a +centre, and attended by seventeen moons of which we +know, with possibly several more of which as yet we know +nothing. These various bodies are not true spheres, but +oblate spheroids—spheres flattened at the poles of the imaginary +axes about which they rotate:—the flattening being +a consequence of the rotation. Neither is the Sun absolutely +the centre of the system; for this Sun itself, with all +the planets, revolves about a perpetually shifting point of +space, which is the system’s general centre of gravity. +Neither are we to consider the paths through which these +different spheroids move—the moons about the planets, the +planets about the Sun, or the Sun about the common centre—as +circles in an accurate sense. They are, in fact, +<i>ellipses—one of the foci being the point about which the +revolution is made</i>. An ellipse is a curve, returning into +itself, one of whose diameters is longer than the other. In +the longer diameter are two points, equidistant from the +middle of the line, and so situated otherwise that if, from +each of them a straight line be drawn to any one point of +the curve, the two lines, taken together, will be equal to the +longer diameter itself. Now let us conceive such an ellipse. +At one of the points mentioned, which are the <i>foci</i>, let us +fasten an orange. By an elastic thread let us connect this +orange with a pea; and let us place this latter on the circumference +of the ellipse. Let us now move the pea continuously +around the orange—keeping always on the circumference +of the ellipse. The elastic thread, which, of<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_105" id="Page_105">[105]</a></span> +course, varies in length as we move the pea, will form what +in geometry is called a <i>radius vector</i>. Now, if the orange +be understood as the Sun, and the pea as a planet revolving +about it, then the revolution should be made at such a rate—with +a velocity so varying—that the <i>radius vector</i> may +pass over <i>equal areas of space in equal times</i>. The progress +of the pea <i>should be</i>—in other words, the progress of +the planet <i>is</i>, of course,—slow in proportion to its distance +from the Sun—swift in proportion to its proximity. Those +planets, moreover, move the more slowly which are the +farther from the Sun; <i>the squares of their periods of revolution +having the same proportion to each other, as have +to each other the cubes of their mean distances from the +Sun</i>.</p> + +<p>The wonderfully complex laws of revolution here described, +however, are not to be understood as obtaining in +our system alone. They <i>everywhere</i> prevail where Attraction +prevails. They control <i>the Universe</i>. Every shining +speck in the firmament is, no doubt, a luminous sun, resembling +our own, at least in its general features, and having in +attendance upon it a greater or less number of planets, +greater or less, whose still lingering luminosity is not sufficient +to render them visible to us at so vast a distance, but +which, nevertheless, revolve, moon-attended, about their +starry centres, in obedience to the principles just detailed—in +obedience to the three omniprevalent laws of revolution—the +three immortal laws <i>guessed</i> by the imaginative Kepler, +and but subsequently demonstrated and accounted for +by the patient and mathematical Newton. Among a tribe +of philosophers who pride themselves excessively upon<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_106" id="Page_106">[106]</a></span> +matter-of-fact, it is far too fashionable to sneer at all speculation +under the comprehensive <i>sobriquet</i>, “guess-work.” +The point to be considered is, <i>who</i> guesses. In guessing +with Plato, we spend our time to better purpose, now +and then, than in hearkening to a demonstration by +Alcmæon.</p> + +<p>In many works on Astronomy I find it distinctly stated +that the laws of Kepler are <i>the basis</i> of the great principle, +Gravitation. This idea must have arisen from the fact that +the suggestion of these laws by Kepler, and his proving +them <i>à posteriori</i> to have an actual existence, led Newton +to account for them by the hypothesis of Gravitation, and, +finally, to demonstrate them <i>à priori</i>, as necessary consequences +of the hypothetical principle. Thus so far from the +laws of Kepler being the basis of Gravity, Gravity is the +basis of these laws—as it is, indeed, of all the laws of the +material Universe which are not referable to Repulsion +alone.</p> + +<p>The mean distance of the Earth from the Moon—that +is to say, from the heavenly body in our closest vicinity—is +237,000 miles. Mercury, the planet nearest the Sun, is +distant from him 37 millions of miles. Venus, the next, +revolves at a distance of 68 millions:—the Earth, which +comes next, at a distance of 95 millions:—Mars, then, at a +distance of 144 millions. Now come the eight Asteroids +(Ceres, Juno, Vesta, Pallas, Astræa, Flora, Iris, and Hebe) +at an average distance of about 250 millions. Then we +have Jupiter, distant 490 millions; then Saturn, 900 millions; +then Uranus, 19 hundred millions; finally Neptune, +lately discovered, and revolving at a distance, say of 28<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_107" id="Page_107">[107]</a></span> +hundred millions. Leaving Neptune out of the account—of +which as yet we know little accurately and which is, +possibly, one of a system of Asteroids—it will be seen that, +within certain limits, there exists an <i>order of interval</i> +among the planets. Speaking loosely, we may say that +each outer planet is twice as far from the Sun as is the +next inner one. May not the <i>order</i> here mentioned—<i>may +not the law of Bode—be deduced from consideration of +the analogy suggested by me as having place between the +solar discharge of rings and the mode of the atomic irradiation</i>?</p> + +<p>The numbers hurriedly mentioned in this summary of +distance, it is folly to attempt comprehending, unless in the +light of abstract arithmetical facts. They are not practically +tangible ones. They convey no precise ideas. I +have stated that Neptune, the planet farthest from the Sun, +revolves about him at a distance of 28 hundred millions of +miles. So far good:—I have stated a mathematical fact; +and, without comprehending it in the least, we may put it +to use—mathematically. But in mentioning, even, that +the Moon revolves about the Earth at the comparatively +trifling distance of 237,000 miles, I entertained no expectation +of giving any one to understand—to know—to feel—how +far from the Earth the Moon actually <i>is</i>. 237,000 +<i>miles</i>! There are, perhaps, few of my readers who have +not crossed the Atlantic ocean; yet how many of them +have a distinct idea of even the 3,000 miles intervening +between shore and shore? I doubt, indeed, whether the +man lives who can force into his brain the most remote conception +of the interval between one milestone and its next<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_108" id="Page_108">[108]</a></span> +neighbor upon the turnpike. We are in some measure +aided, however, in our consideration of distance, by combining +this consideration with the kindred one of velocity. +Sound passes through 1100 feet of space in a second of +time. Now were it possible for an inhabitant of the Earth +to see the flash of a cannon discharged in the Moon, and +to hear the report, he would have to wait, after perceiving +the former, more than 13 entire days and nights before +getting any intimation of the latter.</p> + +<p>However feeble be the impression, even thus conveyed, +of the Moon’s real distance from the Earth, it will, nevertheless, +effect a good object in enabling us more clearly to +see the futility of attempting to grasp such intervals as that +of the 28 hundred millions of miles between our Sun and +Neptune; or even that of the 95 millions between the Sun +and the Earth we inhabit. A cannon-ball, flying at the +greatest velocity with which such a ball has ever been +known to fly, could not traverse the latter interval in +less than 20 years; while for the former it would require +590.</p> + +<p>Our Moon’s real diameter is 2160 miles; yet she is +comparatively so trifling an object that it would take nearly +50 such orbs to compose one as great as the Earth.</p> + +<p>The diameter of our own globe is 7912 miles—but +from the enunciation of these numbers what positive idea +do we derive?</p> + +<p>If we ascend an ordinary mountain and look around us +from its summit, we behold a landscape stretching, say 40 +miles, in every direction; forming a circle 250 miles in circumference; +and including an area of 5000 square miles.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_109" id="Page_109">[109]</a></span> +The extent of such a prospect, on account of the <i>successiveness</i> +with which its portions necessarily present themselves +to view, can be only very feebly and very partially +appreciated:—yet the entire panorama would comprehend +no more than one 40,000th part of the mere <i>surface</i> of +our globe. Were this panorama, then, to be succeeded, +after the lapse of an hour, by another of equal extent; this +again by a third, after the lapse of another hour; this again +by a fourth after lapse of another hour—and so on, until +the scenery of the whole Earth were exhausted; and were +we to be engaged in examining these various panoramas +for twelve hours of every day; we should nevertheless, be +9 years and 48 days in completing the general survey.</p> + +<p>But if the mere surface of the Earth eludes the grasp +of the imagination, what are we to think of its cubical contents? +It embraces a mass of matter equal in weight to +at least 2 sextillions, 200 quintillions of tons. Let us suppose +it in a state of quiescence; and now let us endeavor +to conceive a mechanical force sufficient to set it in motion! +Not the strength of all the myriads of beings whom +we may conclude to inhabit the planetary worlds of our +system—not the combined physical strength of <i>all</i> these +beings—even admitting all to be more powerful than man—would +avail to stir the ponderous mass <i>a single inch</i> from +its position.</p> + +<p>What are we to understand, then, of the force, which +under similar circumstances, would be required to move +the <i>largest</i> of our planets, Jupiter? This is 86,000 miles +in diameter, and would include within its periphery more +than a thousand orbs of the magnitude of our own. Yet<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_110" id="Page_110">[110]</a></span> +this stupendous body is actually flying around the Sun at +the rate of 29,000 miles an hour—that is to say, with a +velocity 40 times greater than that of a cannon-ball! The +thought of such a phænomenon cannot well be said to +<i>startle</i> the mind:—it palsies and appals it. Not unfrequently +we task our imagination in picturing the capacities +of an angel. Let us fancy such a being at a distance of +some hundred miles from Jupiter—a close eye-witness of +this planet as it speeds on its annual revolution. Now +<i>can</i> we, I demand, fashion for ourselves any conception so +distinct of this ideal being’s spiritual exaltation, as <i>that</i> involved +in the supposition that, even by this immeasurable +mass of matter, whirled immediately before his eyes, with +a velocity so unutterable, he—an angel—angelic though +he be—is not at once struck into nothingness and overwhelmed?</p> + +<p>At this point, however, it seems proper to suggest that, +in fact, we have been speaking of comparative trifles. Our +Sun, the central and controlling orb of the system to which +Jupiter belongs, is not only greater than Jupiter, but greater +by far than all the planets of the system taken together. +This fact is an essential condition, indeed, of the stability +of the system itself. The diameter of Jupiter has been +mentioned:—it is 86,000 miles:—that of the Sun is 882,000 +miles. An inhabitant of the latter, travelling 90 miles a +day, would be more than 80 years in going round a great +circle of its circumference. It occupies a cubical space of +681 quadrillions, 472 trillions of miles. The Moon, as has +been stated, revolves about the Earth at a distance of +237,000 miles—in an orbit, consequently, of nearly a million<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_111" id="Page_111">[111]</a></span> +and a half. Now, were the Sun placed upon the +Earth, centre over centre, the body of the former would +extend, in every direction, not only to the line of the +Moon’s orbit, but beyond it, a distance of 200,000 miles.</p> + +<p>And here, once again, let me suggest that, in fact, we +have <i>still</i> been speaking of comparative trifles. The distance +of the planet Neptune from the Sun has been stated:—it +is 28 hundred millions of miles; the circumference of +its orbit, therefore, is about 17 billions. Let this be borne +in mind while we glance at some one of the brightest stars. +Between this and the star of <i>our</i> system, (the Sun,) there +is a gulf of space, to convey any idea of which we should +need the tongue of an archangel. From <i>our</i> system, then, +and from <i>our</i> Sun, or star, the star at which we suppose +ourselves glancing is a thing altogether apart:—still, for +the moment, let us imagine it placed upon our Sun, centre +over centre, as we just now imagined this Sun itself placed +upon the Earth. Let us now conceive the particular star +we have in mind, extending, in every direction, beyond the +orbit of Mercury—of Venus—of the Earth:—still <i>on</i>, beyond +the orbit of Mars—of Jupiter—of Uranus—until, +finally, we fancy it filling the circle—17 <i>billions of miles +in circumference</i>—which is described by the revolution of +Leverrier’s planet. When we have conceived all this, we +shall have entertained no extravagant conception. There +is the very best reason for believing that many of the stars +are even far larger than the one we have imagined. I +mean to say that we have the very best <i>empirical</i> basis for +such belief:—and, in looking back at the original, atomic +arrangements for <i>diversity</i>, which have been assumed as a<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_112" id="Page_112">[112]</a></span> +part of the Divine plan in the constitution of the Universe, +we shall be enabled easily to understand, and to credit, the +existence of even far vaster disproportions in stellar size +than any to which I have hitherto alluded. The largest +orbs, of course, we must expect to find rolling through the +widest vacancies of Space.</p> + +<p>I remarked, just now, that to convey an idea of the interval +between our Sun and any one of the other stars, we +should require the eloquence of an archangel. In so saying, +I should not be accused of exaggeration; for, in simple +truth, these are topics on which it is scarcely possible to +exaggerate. But let us bring the matter more distinctly +before the eye of the mind.</p> + +<p>In the first place, we may get a general, <i>relative</i> conception +of the interval referred to, by comparing it with +the inter-planetary spaces. If, for example, we suppose the +Earth, which is, in reality, 95 millions of miles from the +Sun, to be only <i>one foot</i> from that luminary; then Neptune +would be 40 feet distant; <i>and the star Alpha Lyræ, at the +very least</i>, 159.</p> + +<p>Now I presume that, in the termination of my last sentence, +few of my readers have noticed anything especially +objectionable—particularly wrong. I said that the distance +of the Earth from the Sun being taken at <i>one foot</i>, the distance +of Neptune would be 40 feet, and that of Alpha Lyræ, 159. +The proportion between one foot and 159 has appeared, +perhaps, to convey a sufficiently definite impression of the +proportion between the two intervals—that of the Earth +from the Sun and that of Alpha Lyræ from the same luminary. +But my account of the matter should, in reality,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_113" id="Page_113">[113]</a></span> +have run thus:—The distance of the Earth from the Sun +being taken at one foot, the distance of Neptune would be +40 feet, and that of Alpha Lyræ, 159——<i>miles</i>:—that is to +say, I had assigned to Alpha Lyræ, in my first statement +of the case, only the 5280<i>th</i> <i>part</i> of that distance which is +the <i>least distance possible</i> at which it can actually lie.</p> + +<p>To proceed:—However distant a mere <i>planet</i> is, yet +when we look at it through a telescope, we see it under a +certain form—of a certain appreciable size. Now I have +already hinted at the probable bulk of many of the stars; +nevertheless, when we view any one of them, even through +the most powerful telescope, it is found to present us with +<i>no form</i>, and consequently with <i>no magnitude</i> whatever. +We see it as a point and nothing more.</p> + +<p>Again;—Let us suppose ourselves walking, at night, on +a highway. In a field on one side of the road, is a line of +tall objects, say trees, the figures of which are distinctly +defined against the background of the sky. This line of +objects extends at right angles to the road, and from the +road to the horizon. Now, as we proceed along the road, +we see these objects changing their positions, respectively, +in relation to a certain fixed point in that portion of the +firmament which forms the background of the view. Let +us suppose this fixed point—sufficiently fixed for our purpose—to +be the rising moon. We become aware, at once, +that while the tree nearest us so far alters its position in +respect to the moon, as to seem flying behind us, the tree +in the extreme distance has scarcely changed at all its relative +position with the satellite. We then go on to perceive +that the farther the objects are from us, the less they alter<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_114" id="Page_114">[114]</a></span> +their positions; and the converse. Then we begin, unwittingly, +to estimate the distances of individual trees by the +degrees in which they evince the relative alteration. Finally, +we come to understand how it might be possible to +ascertain the actual distance of any given tree in the line, +by using the amount of relative alteration as a basis in a +simple geometrical problem. Now this relative alteration +is what we call “parallax;” and by parallax we calculate +the distances of the heavenly bodies. Applying the principle +to the trees in question, we should, of course, be very +much at a loss to comprehend the distance of <i>that</i> tree, +which, however far we proceeded along the road, should +evince <i>no</i> parallax at all. This, in the case described, is a +thing impossible; but impossible only because all distances +on our Earth are trivial indeed:—in comparison with the +vast cosmical quantities, we may speak of them as absolutely +nothing.</p> + +<p>Now, let us suppose the star Alpha Lyræ directly overhead; +and let us imagine that, instead of standing on the +Earth, we stand at one end of a straight road stretching +through Space to a distance equalling the diameter of the +Earth’s orbit—that is to say, to a distance of 190 <i>millions +of miles</i>. Having observed, by means of the most delicate +micrometrical instruments, the exact position of the star, +let us now pass along this inconceivable road, until we +reach its other extremity. Now, once again, let us look at +the star. It is <i>precisely</i> where we left it. Our instruments, +however delicate, assure us that its relative position is absolutely—is +identically the same as at the commencement +of our unutterable journey. <i>No</i> parallax—none whatever—has +been found.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_115" id="Page_115">[115]</a></span></p> + +<p>The fact is, that, in regard to the distance of the fixed +stars—of any one of the myriads of suns glistening on the +farther side of that awful chasm which separates our system +from its brothers in the cluster to which it belongs—astronomical +science, until very lately, could speak only +with a negative certainty. Assuming the brightest as the +nearest, we could say, even of <i>them</i>, only that there is a +certain incomprehensible distance on the <i>hither</i> side of +which they cannot be:—how far they are beyond it we had +in no case been able to ascertain. We perceived, for example, +that Alpha Lyræ cannot be nearer to us than 19 trillions, +200 billions of miles; but, for all we knew, and +indeed for all we now know, it may be distant from us the +square, or the cube, or any other power of the number +mentioned. By dint, however, of wonderfully minute and +cautious observations, continued, with novel instruments, +for many laborious years, <i>Bessel</i>, not long ago deceased, +has lately succeeded in determining the distance of six or +seven stars; among others, that of the star numbered 61 +in the constellation of the Swan. The distance in this latter +instance ascertained, is 670,000 times that of the Sun; +which last it will be remembered, is 95 millions of miles. +The star 61 Cygni, then, is nearly 64 trillions of miles from +us—or more than three times the distance assigned, <i>as the +least possible</i>, for Alpha Lyræ.</p> + +<p>In attempting to appreciate this interval by the aid of +any considerations of <i>velocity</i>, as we did in endeavoring to +estimate the distance of the moon, we must leave out of +sight, altogether, such nothings as the speed of a cannon-ball, +or of sound. Light, however, according to the latest<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_116" id="Page_116">[116]</a></span> +calculations of Struve, proceeds at the rate of 167,000 miles +in a second. Thought itself cannot pass through this interval +more speedily—if, indeed, thought can traverse it at +all. Yet, in coming from 61 Cygni to us, even at this inconceivable +rate, light occupies more than <i>ten years</i>; and, +consequently, were the star this moment blotted out from +the Universe, still, <i>for ten years</i>, would it continue to sparkle +on, undimmed in its paradoxical glory.</p> + +<p>Keeping now in mind whatever feeble conception we +may have attained of the interval between our Sun and 61 +Cygni, let us remember that this interval, however unutterably +vast, we are permitted to consider as but the <i>average</i> +interval among the countless host of stars composing that +cluster, or “nebula,” to which our system, as well as that +of 61 Cygni, belongs. I have, in fact, stated the case with +great moderation:—we have excellent reason for believing +61 Cygni to be one of the <i>nearest</i> stars, and thus for concluding, +at least for the present, that its distance from us is +<i>less</i> than the average distance between star and star in the +magnificent cluster of the Milky Way.</p> + +<p>And here, once again and finally, it seems proper to +suggest that even as yet we have been speaking of trifles. +Ceasing to wonder at the space between star and star in +our own or in any particular cluster, let us rather turn our +thoughts to the intervals between cluster and cluster, in the +all comprehensive cluster of the Universe.</p> + +<p>I have already said that light proceeds at the rate of +167,000 miles in a second—that is, about 10 millions of +miles in a minute, or about 600 millions of miles in an +hour:—yet so far removed from us are some of the<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_117" id="Page_117">[117]</a></span> +“nebulæ” that even light, speeding with this velocity, +could not and does not reach us, from those mysterious +regions, in less than 3 <i>millions of years</i>. This calculation, +moreover, is made by the elder Herschell, and in reference +merely to those comparatively proximate clusters within +the scope of his own telescope. There <i>are</i> “nebulæ,” +however, which, through the magical tube of Lord Rosse, +are this instant whispering in our ears the secrets of <i>a +million of ages</i> by-gone. In a word, the events which we +behold now—at this moment—in those worlds—are the +identical events which interested their inhabitants <i>ten hundred +thousand centuries ago</i>. In intervals—in distances +such as this suggestion forces upon the <i>soul</i>—rather than +upon the mind—we find, at length, a fitting climax to all +hitherto frivolous considerations of <i>quantity</i>.</p> + +<p>Our fancies thus occupied with the cosmical distances, let +us take the opportunity of referring to the difficulty which +we have so often experienced, while pursuing <i>the beaten path</i> +of astronomical reflection, <i>in accounting</i> for the immeasurable +voids alluded to—in comprehending why chasms so +totally unoccupied and therefore apparently so needless, have +been made to intervene between star and star—between cluster +and cluster—in understanding, to be brief, a sufficient reason +for the Titanic scale, in respect of mere <i>Space</i>, on which +the Universe is seen to be constructed. A rational cause +for the phænomenon, I maintain that Astronomy has palpably +failed to assign:—but the considerations through which, +in this Essay, we have proceeded step by step, enable us +clearly and immediately to perceive that <i>Space and Duration +are one</i>. That the Universe might <i>endure</i> throughout<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_118" id="Page_118">[118]</a></span> +an æra at all commensurate with the grandeur of its component +material portions and with the high majesty of its +spiritual purposes, it was necessary that the original atomic +diffusion be made to so inconceivable an extent as to be +only not infinite. It was required, in a word, that the stars +should be gathered into visibility from invisible nebulosity—proceed +from nebulosity to consolidation—and so grow +grey in giving birth and death to unspeakably numerous +and complex variations of vitalic development:—it was +required that the stars should do all this—should have time +thoroughly to accomplish all these Divine purposes—<i>during +the period</i> in which all things were effecting their return +into Unity with a velocity accumulating in the inverse +proportion of the squares of the distances at which lay the +inevitable End.</p> + +<p>Throughout all this we have no difficulty in understanding +the absolute accuracy of the Divine <i>adaptation</i>. The +density of the stars, respectively, proceeds, of course, as +their condensation diminishes; condensation and heterogeneity +keep pace with each other; through the latter, +which is the index of the former, we estimate the vitalic +and spiritual development. Thus, in the density of the +globes, we have the measure in which their purposes are +fulfilled. <i>As</i> density proceeds—<i>as</i> the divine intentions +<i>are</i> accomplished—<i>as</i> less and still less remains <i>to be</i> accomplished—so—in +the same ratio—should we expect to +find an acceleration of <i>the End</i>:—and thus the philosophical +mind will easily comprehend that the Divine designs in +constituting the stars, advance <i>mathematically</i> to their fulfilment:—and +more; it will readily give the advance a<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_119" id="Page_119">[119]</a></span> +mathematical expression; it will decide that this advance +is inversely proportional with the squares of the distances +of all created things from the starting-point and goal of +their creation.</p> + +<p>Not only is this Divine adaptation, however, mathematically +accurate, but there is that about it which stamps +it <i>as divine</i>, in distinction from that which is merely the +work of human constructiveness. I allude to the complete +<i>mutuality</i> of adaptation. For example; in human constructions +a particular cause has a particular effect; a particular +intention brings to pass a particular object; but this +is all; we see no reciprocity. The effect does not re-act +upon the cause; the intention does not change relations +with the object. In Divine constructions the object is +either design or object as we choose to regard it—and +we may take at any time a cause for an effect, or the converse—so +that we can never absolutely decide which is +which.</p> + +<p>To give an instance:—In polar climates the human +frame, to maintain its animal heat, requires, for combustion +in the capillary system, an abundant supply of highly +azotized food, such as train-oil. But again:—in polar climates +nearly the sole food afforded man is the oil of abundant +seals and whales. Now, whether is oil at hand because +imperatively demanded, or the only thing demanded because +the only thing to be obtained? It is impossible to decide. +There is an absolute <i>reciprocity of adaptation</i>.</p> + +<p>The pleasure which we derive from any display of +human ingenuity is in the ratio of <i>the approach</i> to this +species of reciprocity. In the construction of <i>plot</i>, for example,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_120" id="Page_120">[120]</a></span> +in fictitious literature, we should aim at so arranging +the incidents that we shall not be able to determine, of +any one of them, whether it depends from any one other +or upholds it. In this sense, of course, <i>perfection</i> of <i>plot</i> +is really, or practically, unattainable—but only because it is +a finite intelligence that constructs. The plots of God are +perfect. The Universe is a plot of God.</p> + +<p>And now we have reached a point at which the intellect +is forced, again, to struggle against its propensity for +analogical inference—against its monomaniac grasping at +the infinite. Moons have been seen <i>revolving</i> about +planets; planets about stars; and the poetical instinct of +humanity—its instinct of the symmetrical, if the symmetry +be but a symmetry of surface:—this <i>instinct</i>, which the +Soul, not only of Man but of all created beings, took up, +in the beginning, from the <i>geometrical</i> basis of the Universal +irradiation—impels us to the fancy of an endless extension +of this system of <i>cycles</i>. Closing our eyes equally to +<i>de</i>duction and <i>in</i>duction, we insist upon imagining a <i>revolution</i> +of all the orbs of the Galaxy about some gigantic +globe which we take to be the central pivot of the whole. +Each cluster in the great cluster of clusters is imagined, of +course, to be similarly supplied and constructed; while, +that the “analogy” may be wanting at no point, we go on +to conceive these clusters themselves, again, as <i>revolving</i> +about some still more august sphere;—this latter, still again, +<i>with</i> its encircling clusters, as but one of a yet more magnificent +series of agglomerations, <i>gyrating</i> about yet +another orb central <i>to them</i>—some orb still more unspeakably +sublime—some orb, let us rather say, of infinite sublimity<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_121" id="Page_121">[121]</a></span> +endlessly multiplied by the infinitely sublime. Such +are the conditions, continued in perpetuity, which the voice +of what some people term “analogy” calls upon the Fancy +to depict and the Reason to contemplate, if possible, without +becoming dissatisfied with the picture. Such, <i>in general</i>, +are the interminable gyrations beyond gyration which we +have been instructed by Philosophy to comprehend and to +account for, at least in the best manner we can. Now +and then, however, a philosopher proper—one whose +phrenzy takes a very determinate turn—whose genius, to +speak more reverentially, has a strongly-pronounced washerwomanish +bias, doing every thing up by the dozen—enables +us to see <i>precisely</i> that point out of sight, at which the revolutionary +processes in question do, and of right ought to, +come to an end.</p> + +<p>It is hardly worth while, perhaps, even to sneer at the +reveries of Fourrier:—but much has been said, latterly, of +the hypothesis of Mädler—that there exists, in the centre +of the Galaxy, a stupendous globe about which all the systems +of the cluster revolve. The <i>period</i> of our own, indeed, +has been stated—117 millions of years.</p> + +<p>That our Sun has a motion in space, independently of +its rotation, and revolution about the system’s centre of +gravity, has long been suspected. This motion, granting it +to exist, would be manifested perspectively. The stars in +that firmamental region which we were leaving behind us, +would, in a very long series of years, become crowded; +those in the opposite quarter, scattered. Now, by means of +astronomical History, we ascertain, cloudily, that some +such phænomena have occurred. On this ground it has<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_122" id="Page_122">[122]</a></span> +been declared that our system is moving to a point in the +heavens diametrically opposite the star Zeta Herculis:—but +this inference is, perhaps, the maximum to which we have +any logical right. Mädler, however, has gone so far as to +designate a particular star, Alcyone in the Pleiades, as being +at or about the very spot around which a general <i>revolution</i> +is performed.</p> + +<p>Now, since by “analogy” we are led, in the first instance, +to these dreams, it is no more than proper that we +should abide by analogy, at least in some measure, during +their development; and that analogy which suggests the +revolution, suggests at the same time a central orb about +which it should be performed:—so far the astronomer was +consistent. This central orb, however, should, dynamically, +be greater than all the orbs, taken together, which surround +it. Of these there are about 100 millions. “Why, then,” +it was of course demanded, “do we not <i>see</i> this vast central +sun—<i>at least equal</i> in mass to 100 millions of such +suns as ours—why do we not <i>see</i> it—<i>we</i>, especially, who +occupy the mid region of the cluster—the very locality +<i>near</i> which, at all events, must be situated this incomparable +star?” The reply was ready—“It must be non-luminous, +as are our planets.” Here, then, to suit a purpose, +analogy is suddenly let fall. “Not so,” it may be +said—“we know that non-luminous suns actually exist.” +It is true that we have reason at least for supposing so; but +we have certainly no reason whatever for supposing that +the non-luminous suns in question are encircled by <i>luminous</i> +suns, while these again are surrounded by non-luminous +planets:—and it is precisely all this with which Mädler is<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_123" id="Page_123">[123]</a></span> +called upon to find any thing analogous in the heavens—for +it is precisely all this which he imagines in the case of +the Galaxy. Admitting the thing to be so, we cannot help +here picturing to ourselves how sad a puzzle the <i>why it is so</i> +must prove to all <i>à priori</i> philosophers.</p> + +<p>But granting, in the very teeth of analogy and of every +thing else, the non-luminosity of the vast central orb, we +may still inquire how this orb, so enormous, could fail of +being rendered visible by the flood of light thrown upon it +from the 100 millions of glorious suns glaring in all directions +about it. Upon the urging of this question, the idea +of an actually solid central sun appears, in some measure, +to have been abandoned; and speculation proceeded to +assert that the systems of the cluster perform their revolutions +merely about an immaterial centre of gravity common +to all. Here again then, to suit a purpose, analogy is let +fall. The planets of our system revolve, it is true, about a +common centre of gravity; but they do this in connexion +with, and in consequence of, a material sun whose mass +more than counterbalances the rest of the system.</p> + +<p>The mathematical circle is a curve composed of an infinity +of straight lines. But this idea of the circle—an idea +which, in view of all ordinary geometry, is merely the mathematical, +as contradistinguished from the practical, idea—is, +in sober fact, the <i>practical</i> conception which alone we +have any right to entertain in regard to the majestic circle +with which we have to deal, at least in fancy, when we +suppose our system revolving about a point in the centre +of the Galaxy. Let the most vigorous of human imaginations +attempt but to take a single step towards the comprehension<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_124" id="Page_124">[124]</a></span> +of a sweep so ineffable! It would scarcely be +paradoxical to say that a flash of lightning itself, travelling +<i>forever</i> upon the circumference of this unutterable circle, +would still, <i>forever</i>, be travelling in a straight line. That +the path of our Sun in such an orbit would, to any human +perception, deviate in the slightest degree from a straight +line, even in a million of years, is a proposition not to be +entertained:—yet we are required to believe that a curvature +has become apparent during the brief period of our +astronomical history—during a mere point—during the utter +nothingness of two or three thousand years.</p> + +<p>It may be said that Mädler <i>has</i> really ascertained a +curvature in the direction of our system’s now well-established +progress through Space. Admitting, if necessary, +this fact to be in reality such, I maintain that nothing is +thereby shown except the reality of this fact—the fact of a +curvature. For its <i>thorough</i> determination, ages will be +required; and, when determined, it will be found indicative +of some binary or other multiple relation between our Sun +and some one or more of the proximate stars. I hazard +nothing however, in predicting, that, after the lapse of many +centuries, all efforts at determining the path of our Sun +through Space, will be abandoned as fruitless. This is +easily conceivable when we look at the infinity of perturbation +it must experience, from its perpetually-shifting relations +with other orbs, in the common approach of all to the +nucleus of the Galaxy.</p> + +<p>But in examining other “nebulæ” than that of the +Milky Way—in surveying, generally, the clusters which +overspread the heavens—do we or do we not find confirmation<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_125" id="Page_125">[125]</a></span> +of Mädler’s hypothesis? We do <i>not</i>. The forms +of the clusters are exceedingly diverse when casually +viewed; but on close inspection, through powerful telescopes, +we recognize the sphere, very distinctly, as at least +the proximate form of all:—their constitution, in general, +being at variance with the idea of revolution about a common +centre.</p> + +<p>“It is difficult,” says Sir John Herschell, “to form any +conception of the dynamical state of such systems. On one +hand, without a rotary motion and a centrifugal force, it is +hardly possible not to regard them as in a state of <i>progressive +collapse</i>. On the other, granting such a motion and +such a force, we find it no less difficult to reconcile their +forms with the rotation of the whole system [meaning cluster] +around any single axis, without which internal collision +would appear to be inevitable.”</p> + +<p>Some remarks lately made about the “nebulæ” by +Dr. Nichol, in taking quite a different view of the cosmical +conditions from any taken in this Discourse—have a very +peculiar applicability to the point now at issue. He says:</p> + +<p>“When our greatest telescopes are brought to bear +upon them, we find that those which were thought to be +irregular, are not so; they approach nearer to a globe. +Here is one that looked oval; but Lord Rosse’s telescope +brought it into a circle.... Now there occurs a very +remarkable circumstance in reference to these comparatively +sweeping circular masses of nebulæ. We find they +are not entirely circular, but the reverse; and that all +around them, on every side, there are volumes of stars, +<i>stretching out apparently as if they were rushing towards<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_126" id="Page_126">[126]</a></span> +a great central mass in consequence of the action of some +great power</i>.”<a name="FNanchor_12_12" id="FNanchor_12_12"></a><a href="#Footnote_12_12" class="fnanchor">[12]</a></p> + +<p>Were I to describe, in my own words, what must +necessarily be the existing condition of each nebula on the +hypothesis that all matter is, as I suggest, now returning to +its original Unity, I should simply be going over, nearly +verbatim, the language here employed by Dr. Nichol, without +the faintest suspicion of that stupendous truth which is +the key to these nebular phænomena.</p> + +<p>And here let me fortify my position still farther, by the +voice of a greater than Mädler—of one, moreover, to whom +all the data of Mädler have long been familiar things, carefully +and thoroughly considered. Referring to the elaborate +calculations of Argelander—the very researches which form +Mädler’s basis—<i>Humboldt</i>, whose generalizing powers have +never, perhaps been equalled, has the following observation:</p> + +<p>“When we regard the real, proper, or non-perspective +motions of the stars, we find <i>many groups of them moving +in opposite directions</i>; and the data as yet in hand render +it not necessary, at least, to conceive that the systems composing +the Milky Way, or the clusters, generally, composing +the Universe, are revolving about any particular centre +unknown, whether luminous or non-luminous. It is but +Man’s longing for a fundamental First Cause, that impels +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_127" id="Page_127">[127]</a></span>both his intellect and his fancy to the adoption of such an +hypothesis.”<a name="FNanchor_13_13" id="FNanchor_13_13"></a><a href="#Footnote_13_13" class="fnanchor">[13]</a></p> + +<p>The phænomenon here alluded to—that of “many +groups moving in opposite directions”—is quite inexplicable +by Mädler’s idea; but arises, as a necessary consequence, +from that which forms the basis of this Discourse. +While the <i>merely general direction</i> of each atom—of each +moon, planet, star, or cluster—would, on my hypothesis, be, +of course, absolutely rectilinear; while the <i>general</i> path of +all bodies would be a right line leading to the centre of all; +it is clear, nevertheless, that this general rectilinearity would +be compounded of what, with scarcely any exaggeration, +we may term an infinity of particular curves—an infinity +of local deviations from rectilinearity—the result of continuous +differences of relative position among the multitudinous +masses, as each proceeded on its own proper journey +to the End.</p> + +<p>I quoted, just now, from Sir John Herschell, the following +words, used in reference to the clusters:—“On one +hand, without a rotary motion and a centrifugal force, it is +hardly possible not to regard them as in a state of <i>progressive +collapse</i>.” The fact is, that, in surveying the “nebulæ” +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_128" id="Page_128">[128]</a></span>with a telescope of high power, we shall find it quite +impossible, having once conceived this idea of “collapse,” +not to gather, at all points, corroboration of the idea. A +nucleus is always apparent, in the direction of which the +stars seem to be precipitating themselves; nor can these +nuclei be mistaken for merely perspective phænomena:—the +clusters are <i>really</i> denser near the centre—sparser in +the regions more remote from it. In a word, we see every +thing as we <i>should</i> see it were a collapse taking place; +but, in general, it may be said of these clusters, that we can +fairly entertain, while looking at them, the idea of <i>orbitual +movement about a centre</i>, only by admitting the <i>possible</i> +existence, in the distant domains of space, of dynamical +laws with which <i>we</i> are unacquainted.</p> + +<p>On the part of Herschell, however, there is evidently +<i>a reluctance</i> to regard the nebulæ as in “a state of progressive +collapse.” But if facts—if even appearances justify +the supposition of their being in this state, <i>why</i>, it may +well be demanded, is he disinclined to admit it? Simply +on account of a prejudice;—merely because the supposition +is at war with a preconceived and utterly baseless notion—that +of the endlessness—that of the eternal stability of +the Universe.</p> + +<p>If the propositions of this Discourse are tenable, the +“state of progressive collapse” is <i>precisely</i> that state in +which alone we are warranted in considering All Things; +and, with due humility, let me here confess that, for my +part, I am at a loss to conceive how any <i>other</i> understanding +of the existing condition of affairs, could ever have made +its way into the human brain. “The tendency to collapse<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_129" id="Page_129">[129]</a></span>” +and “the attraction of gravitation” are convertible phrases. +In using either, we speak of the rëaction of the First Act. +Never was necessity less obvious than that of supposing +Matter imbued with an ineradicable <i>quality</i> forming part +of its material nature—a quality, or instinct, <i>forever</i> inseparable +from it, and by dint of which inalienable principle +every atom is <i>perpetually</i> impelled to seek its fellow-atom. +Never was necessity less obvious than that of entertaining +this unphilosophical idea. Going boldly behind the vulgar +thought, we have to conceive, metaphysically, that the gravitating +principle appertains to Matter <i>temporarily</i>—only +while diffused—only while existing as Many instead of as +One—appertains to it by virtue of its state of irradiation +alone—appertains, in a word, altogether to its <i>condition</i>, +and not in the slightest degree to <i>itself</i>. In this view, when +the irradiation shall have returned into its source—when +the rëaction shall be completed—the gravitating principle +will no longer exist. And, in fact, astronomers, without +at any time reaching the idea here suggested, seem to have +been approximating it, in the assertion that “if there were +but one body in the Universe, it would be impossible to +understand how the principle, Gravity, could obtain:”—that +is to say, from a consideration of Matter as they find +it, they reach a conclusion at which I deductively arrive. +That so pregnant a suggestion as the one just quoted should +have been permitted to remain so long unfruitful, is, nevertheless, +a mystery which I find it difficult to fathom.</p> + +<p>It is, perhaps, in no little degree, however, our propensity +for the continuous—for the analogical—in the present +case more particularly for the symmetrical—which has<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_130" id="Page_130">[130]</a></span> +been leading us astray. And, in fact, the sense of the symmetrical +is an instinct which may be depended upon with +an almost blindfold reliance. It is the poetical essence of +the Universe—<i>of the Universe</i> which, in the supremeness of +its symmetry, is but the most sublime of poems. Now +symmetry and consistency are convertible terms:—thus +Poetry and Truth are one. A thing is consistent in the +ratio of its truth—true in the ratio of its consistency. <i>A +perfect consistency, I repeat, can be nothing but an absolute +truth.</i> We may take it for granted, then, that Man cannot +long or widely err, if he suffer himself to be guided by his +poetical, which I have maintained to be his truthful, in +being his symmetrical, instinct. He must have a care, +however, lest, in pursuing too heedlessly the superficial symmetry +of forms and motions, he leave out of sight the really +essential symmetry of the principles which determine and +control them.</p> + +<p>That the stellar bodies would finally be merged in one—that, +at last, all would be drawn into the substance of <i>one +stupendous central orb already existing</i>—is an idea which, +for some time past, seems, vaguely and indeterminately, to +have held possession of the fancy of mankind. It is an idea, +in fact, which belongs to the class of the <i>excessively obvious</i>. +It springs, instantly, from a superficial observation of the +cyclic and seemingly <i>gyrating</i>, or <i>vorticial</i> movements +of those individual portions of the Universe which come +most immediately and most closely under our observation. +There is not, perhaps, a human being, of ordinary education +and of average reflective capacity, to whom, at some +period, the fancy in question has not occurred, as if spontaneously,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_131" id="Page_131">[131]</a></span> +or intuitively, and wearing all the character +of a very profound and very original conception. This +conception, however, so commonly entertained, has never, +within my knowledge, arisen out of any abstract considerations. +Being, on the contrary, always suggested, as I say, +by the vorticial movements about centres, a reason for it, +also,—a <i>cause</i> for the ingathering of all the orbs into one, +<i>imagined to be already existing</i>, was naturally sought in +the same direction—among these cyclic movements themselves.</p> + +<p>Thus it happened that, on announcement of the gradual +and perfectly regular decrease observed in the orbit of +Enck’s comet, at every successive revolution about our +Sun, astronomers were nearly unanimous in the opinion +that the cause in question was found—that a principle was +discovered sufficient to account, physically, for that final, +universal agglomeration which, I repeat, the analogical, +symmetrical or poetical instinct of Man had predetermined +to understand as something more than a simple hypothesis.</p> + +<p>This cause—this sufficient reason for the final ingathering—was +declared to exist in an exceedingly rare but still +material medium pervading space; which medium, by retarding, +in some degree, the progress of the comet, perpetually +weakened its tangential force; thus giving a predominance +to the centripetal; which, of course, drew the comet +nearer and nearer at each revolution, and would eventually +precipitate it upon the Sun.</p> + +<p>All this was strictly logical—admitting the medium or +ether; but this ether was assumed, most illogically, on the +ground that no <i>other</i> mode than the one spoken of could be<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_132" id="Page_132">[132]</a></span> +discovered, of accounting for the observed decrease in the +orbit of the comet:—as if from the fact that we could <i>discover</i> +no other mode of accounting for it, it followed, in +any respect, that no other mode of accounting for it existed. +It is clear that innumerable causes might operate, in combination, +to diminish the orbit, without even a possibility of +our ever becoming acquainted with one of them. In the +meantime, it has never been fairly shown, perhaps, why the +retardation occasioned by the skirts of the Sun’s atmosphere, +through which the comet passes at perihelion, is not enough +to account for the phænomenon. That Enck’s comet will +be absorbed into the Sun, is probable; that all the comets of +the system will be absorbed, is more than merely possible; +but, in such case, the principle of absorption must be referred +to eccentricity of orbit—to the close approximation +to the Sun, of the comets at their perihelia; and is a principle +not affecting, in any degree, the ponderous <i>spheres</i>, +which are to be regarded as the true material constituents +of the Universe.—Touching comets, in general, let me here +suggest, in passing, that we cannot be far wrong in looking +upon them as the <i>lightning-flashes of the cosmical Heaven</i>.</p> + +<p>The idea of a retarding ether and, through it, of a final +agglomeration of all things, seemed at one time, however, +to be confirmed by the observation of a positive decrease +in the orbit of the solid moon. By reference to eclipses +recorded 2500 years ago, it was found that the velocity of +the satellite’s revolution <i>then</i> was considerably less than it +is <i>now</i>; that on the hypothesis that its motions in its orbit +is uniformly in accordance with Kepler’s law, and was accurately +determined <i>then</i>—2500 years ago—it is now in<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_133" id="Page_133">[133]</a></span> +advance of the position it <i>should</i> occupy, by nearly 9000 +miles. The increase of velocity proved, of course, a diminution +of orbit; and astronomers were fast yielding to a belief +in an ether, as the sole mode of accounting for the phænomenon, +when Lagrange came to the rescue. He showed +that, owing to the configurations of the spheroids, the shorter +axes of their ellipses are subject to variation in length; +the longer axes being permanent; and that this variation +is continuous and vibratory—so that every orbit is in a +state of transition, either from circle to ellipse, or from ellipse +to circle. In the case of the moon, where the shorter +axis is <i>de</i>creasing, the orbit is passing from circle to ellipse +and, consequently, is <i>de</i>creasing too; but, after a long series +of ages, the ultimate eccentricity will be attained; then the +shorter axis will proceed to <i>in</i>crease, until the orbit becomes +a circle; when the process of shortening will again +take place;—and so on forever. In the case of the Earth, +the orbit is passing from ellipse to circle. The facts thus +demonstrated do away, of course, with all necessity for supposing +an ether, and with all apprehension of the system’s +instability—on the ether’s account.</p> + +<p>It will be remembered that I have myself assumed what +we may term <i>an ether</i>. I have spoken of a subtle <i>influence</i> +which we know to be ever in attendance upon matter, +although becoming manifest only through matter’s heterogeneity. +To this <i>influence</i>—without daring to touch it at +all in any effort at explaining its awful <i>nature</i>—I have referred +the various phænomena of electricity, heat, light, magnetism; +and more—of vitality, consciousness, and thought—in +a word, of spirituality. It will be seen, at once, then,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_134" id="Page_134">[134]</a></span> +that the ether thus conceived is radically distinct from the +ether of the astronomers; inasmuch as theirs is <i>matter</i> and +mine <i>not</i>.</p> + +<p>With the idea of a material ether, seems, thus, to have +departed altogether the thought of that universal agglomeration +so long predetermined by the poetical fancy of +mankind:—an agglomeration in which a sound Philosophy +might have been warranted in putting faith, at least to a +certain extent, if for no other reason than that by this +poetical fancy it <i>had</i> been so predetermined. But so far +as Astronomy—so far as mere Physics have yet spoken, the +cycles of the Universe are perpetual—the Universe has no +conceivable end. Had an end been demonstrated, however, +from so purely collateral a cause as an ether, Man’s +instinct of the Divine <i>capacity to adapt</i>, would have rebelled +against the demonstration. We should have been forced +to regard the Universe with some such sense of dissatisfaction +as we experience in contemplating an unnecessarily +complex work of human art. Creation would have affected +us as an imperfect <i>plot</i> in a romance, where the <i>dénoûment</i> +is awkwardly brought about by interposed incidents +external and foreign to the main subject; instead of springing +out of the bosom of the thesis—out of the heart of the +ruling idea—instead of arising as a result of the primary +proposition—as inseparable and inevitable part and parcel +of the fundamental conception of the book.</p> + +<p>What I mean by the symmetry of mere surface will +now be more clearly understood. It is simply by the blandishment +of this symmetry that we have been beguiled into +the general idea of which Mädler’s hypothesis is but a part—the<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_135" id="Page_135">[135]</a></span> +idea of the vorticial indrawing of the orbs. Dismissing +this nakedly physical conception, the symmetry of principle +sees the end of all things metaphysically involved in +the thought of a beginning; seeks and finds in this origin +of all things the <i>rudiment</i> of this end; and perceives the +impiety of supposing this end likely to be brought about +less simply—less directly—less obviously—less artistically—than +through <i>the rëaction of the originating Act</i>.</p> + +<p>Recurring, then, to a previous suggestion, let us understand +the systems—let us understand each star, with its +attendant planets—as but a Titanic atom existing in space +with precisely the same inclination for Unity which characterized, +in the beginning, the actual atoms after their irradiation +throughout the Universal sphere. As these original +atoms rushed towards each other in generally straight lines, +so let us conceive as at least generally rectilinear, the paths +of the system-atoms towards their respective centres of +aggregation:—and in this direct drawing together of the +systems into clusters, with a similar and simultaneous +drawing together of the clusters themselves while undergoing +consolidation, we have at length attained the great +<i>Now</i>—the awful Present—the Existing Condition of the +Universe.</p> + +<p>Of the still more awful Future a not irrational analogy +may guide us in framing an hypothesis. The equilibrium +between the centripetal and centrifugal forces of each system, +being necessarily destroyed upon attainment of a certain +proximity to the nucleus of the cluster to which it +belongs, there must occur, at once, a chaotic or seemingly +chaotic precipitation, of the moons upon the planets, of the<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_136" id="Page_136">[136]</a></span> +planets upon the suns, and of the suns upon the nuclei; +and the general result of this precipitation must be the +gathering of the myriad now-existing stars of the firmament +into an almost infinitely less number of almost infinitely +superior spheres. In being immeasurably fewer, +the worlds of that day will be immeasurably greater than +our own. Then, indeed, amid unfathomable abysses, will +be glaring unimaginable suns. But all this will be merely +a climacic magnificence foreboding the great End. Of +this End the new genesis described, can be but a very partial +postponement. While undergoing consolidation, the +clusters themselves, with a speed prodigiously accumulative, +have been rushing towards their own general centre—and +now, with a thousand-fold electric velocity, commensurate +only with their material grandeur and with the spiritual +passion of their appetite for oneness, the majestic +remnants of the tribe of Stars flash, at length, into a common +embrace. The inevitable catastrophe is at hand.</p> + +<p>But this catastrophe—what is it? We have seen accomplished +the ingathering of the orbs. Henceforward, +are we not to understand <i>one material globe of globes</i> as +constituting and comprehending the Universe? Such a +fancy would be altogether at war with every assumption +and consideration of this Discourse.</p> + +<p>I have already alluded to that absolute <i>reciprocity of +adaptation</i> which is the idiosyncrasy of the divine Art—stamping +it divine. Up to this point of our reflections, we +have been regarding the electrical influence as a something +by dint of whose repulsion alone Matter is enabled to exist +in that state of diffusion demanded for the fulfilment of<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_137" id="Page_137">[137]</a></span> +its purposes:—so far, in a word, we have been considering +the influence in question as ordained for Matter’s sake—to +subserve the objects of matter. With a perfectly legitimate +reciprocity, we are now permitted to look at Matter, +as created <i>solely for the sake of this influence</i>—solely to +serve the objects of this spiritual Ether. Through the aid—by +the means—through the agency of Matter, and by +dint of its heterogeneity—is this Ether manifested—is +<i>Spirit individualized</i>. It is merely in the development of +this Ether, through heterogeneity, that particular masses of +Matter become animate—sensitive—and in the ratio of +their heterogeneity;—some reaching a degree of sensitiveness +involving what we call <i>Thought</i> and thus attaining +Conscious Intelligence.</p> + +<p>In this view, we are enabled to perceive Matter as a +Means—not as an End. Its purposes are thus seen to have +been comprehended in its diffusion; and with the return +into Unity these purposes cease. The absolutely consolidated +globe of globes would be <i>objectless</i>:—therefore not +for a moment could it continue to exist. Matter, created +for an end, would unquestionably, on fulfilment of that end, +be Matter no longer. Let us endeavor to understand that +it would disappear, and that God would remain all in all.</p> + +<p>That every work of Divine conception must cöexist +and cöexpire with its particular design, seems to me especially +obvious; and I make no doubt that, on perceiving +the final globe of globes to be <i>objectless</i>, the majority of my +readers will be satisfied with my “<i>therefore</i> it cannot continue +to exist.” Nevertheless, as the startling thought of its +instantaneous disappearance is one which the most powerful<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_138" id="Page_138">[138]</a></span> +intellect cannot be expected readily to entertain on +grounds so decidedly abstract, let us endeavor to look at +the idea from some other and more ordinary point of view:—let +us see how thoroughly and beautifully it is corroborated +in an <i>à posteriori</i> consideration of Matter as we actually +find it.</p> + +<p>I have before said that “Attraction and Repulsion being +undeniably the sole properties by which Matter is manifested +to Mind, we are justified in assuming that Matter +<i>exists</i> only as Attraction and Repulsion—in other words +that Attraction and Repulsion <i>are</i> Matter; there being no +conceivable case in which we may not employ the term +Matter and the terms ‘Attraction’ and ‘Repulsion’ taken +together, as equivalent, and therefore convertible, expressions +in Logic.”<a name="FNanchor_14_14" id="FNanchor_14_14"></a><a href="#Footnote_14_14" class="fnanchor">[14]</a></p> + +<p>Now the very definition of Attraction implies particularity—the +existence of parts, particles, or atoms; for we +define it as the tendency of “each atom &c. to every other +atom” &c. according to a certain law. Of course where +there are <i>no</i> parts—where there is absolute Unity—where +the tendency to oneness is satisfied—there can be no Attraction:—this +has been fully shown, and all Philosophy +admits it. When, on fulfilment of its purposes, then, Matter +shall have returned into its original condition of <i>One</i>—a +condition which presupposes the expulsion of the separative +ether, whose province and whose capacity are limited +to keeping the atoms apart until that great day when, this +ether being no longer needed, the overwhelming pressure +of the finally collective Attraction shall at length just sufficiently +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_139" id="Page_139">[139]</a></span>predominate<a name="FNanchor_15_15" id="FNanchor_15_15"></a><a href="#Footnote_15_15" class="fnanchor">[15]</a> and expel it:—when, I say, Matter, +finally, expelling the Ether, shall have returned into absolute +Unity,—it will then (to speak paradoxically for the +moment) be Matter without Attraction and without Repulsion—in +other words, Matter without Matter—in other +words, again, <i>Matter no more</i>. In sinking into Unity, it +will sink at once into that Nothingness which, to all Finite +Perception, Unity must be—into that Material Nihility +from which alone we can conceive it to have been evoked—to +have been <i>created</i> by the Volition of God.</p> + +<p>I repeat then—Let us endeavor to comprehend that the +final globe of globes will instantaneously disappear, and that +God will remain all in all.</p> + +<p>But are we here to pause? Not so. On the Universal +agglomeration and dissolution, we can readily conceive that +a new and perhaps totally different series of conditions may +ensue—another creation and irradiation, returning into +itself—another action and rëaction of the Divine Will. +Guiding our imaginations by that omniprevalent law of +laws, the law of periodicity, are we not, indeed, more than +justified in entertaining a belief—let us say, rather, in indulging +a hope—that the processes we have here ventured +to contemplate will be renewed forever, and forever, and +forever; a novel Universe swelling into existence, and then +subsiding into nothingness, at every throb of the Heart +Divine?</p> + +<p>And now—this Heart Divine—what is it? <i>It is our +own.</i></p> +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_140" id="Page_140">[140]</a></span></p> +<p>Let not the merely seeming irreverence of this idea +frighten our souls from that cool exercise of consciousness—from +that deep tranquillity of self-inspection—through +which alone we can hope to attain the presence of this, +the most sublime of truths, and look it leisurely in the +face.</p> + +<p>The <i>phænomena</i> on which our conclusions must at this +point depend, are merely spiritual shadows, but not the less +thoroughly substantial.</p> + +<p>We walk about, amid the destinies of our world-existence, +encompassed by dim but ever present <i>Memories</i> of a +Destiny more vast—very distant in the by-gone time, and +infinitely awful.</p> + +<p>We live out a Youth peculiarly haunted by such dreams; +yet never mistaking them for dreams. As Memories we +<i>know</i> them. <i>During our Youth</i> the distinction is too clear +to deceive us even for a moment.</p> + +<p>So long as this Youth endures, the feeling <i>that we exist</i>, +is the most natural of all feelings. We understand it <i>thoroughly</i>. +That there was a period at which we did <i>not</i> +exist—or, that it might so have happened that we never +had existed at all—are the considerations, indeed, which +<i>during this youth</i>, we find difficulty in understanding. Why +we should <i>not</i> exist, is, <i>up to the epoch of our Manhood</i>, of +all queries the most unanswerable. Existence—self-existence—existence +from all Time and to all Eternity—seems, +up to the epoch of Manhood, a normal and unquestionable +condition:—<i>seems, because it is</i>.</p> + +<p>But now comes the period at which a conventional +World-Reason awakens us from the truth of our dream.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_141" id="Page_141">[141]</a></span> +Doubt, Surprise and Incomprehensibility arrive at the same +moment. They say:—“You live and the time was when +you lived not. You have been created. An Intelligence +exists greater than your own; and it is only through this +Intelligence you live at all.” These things we struggle to +comprehend and cannot:—<i>cannot</i>, because these things, +being untrue, are thus, of necessity, incomprehensible.</p> + +<p>No thinking being lives who, at some luminous point of +his life of thought, has not felt himself lost amid the surges +of futile efforts at understanding, or believing, that anything +exists <i>greater than his own soul</i>. The utter impossibility +of any one’s soul feeling itself inferior to another; the intense, +overwhelming dissatisfaction and rebellion at the +thought;—these, with the omniprevalent aspirations at perfection, +are but the spiritual, coincident with the material, +struggles towards the original Unity—are, to my mind at +least, a species of proof far surpassing what Man terms demonstration, +that no one soul <i>is</i> inferior to another—that +nothing is, or can be, superior to any one soul—that each +soul is, in part, its own God—its own Creator:—in a word, +that God—the material <i>and</i> spiritual God—<i>now</i> exists solely +in the diffused Matter and Spirit of the Universe; and that +the regathering of this diffused Matter and Spirit will be +but the re-constitution of the <i>purely</i> Spiritual and Individual +God.</p> + +<p>In this view, and in this view alone, we comprehend +the riddles of Divine Injustice—of Inexorable Fate. In this +view alone the existence of Evil becomes intelligible; but +in this view it becomes more—it becomes endurable. Our +souls no longer rebel at a <i>Sorrow</i> which we ourselves have<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_142" id="Page_142">[142]</a></span> +imposed upon ourselves, in furtherance of our own purposes—with +a view—if even with a futile view—to the +extension of our own <i>Joy</i>.</p> + +<p>I have spoken of <i>Memories</i> that haunt us during our +youth. They sometimes pursue us even in our Manhood:—assume +gradually less and less indefinite shapes:—now +and then speak to us with low voices, saying:</p> + +<p>“There was an epoch in the Night of Time, when a +still-existent Being existed—one of an absolutely infinite +number of similar Beings that people the absolutely infinite +domains of the absolutely infinite space.<a name="FNanchor_16_16" id="FNanchor_16_16"></a><a href="#Footnote_16_16" class="fnanchor">[16]</a> It was not and +is not in the power of this Being—any more than it is in +your own—to extend, by actual increase, the joy of his +Existence; but just as it <i>is</i> in your power to expand or to +concentrate your pleasures (the absolute amount of happiness +remaining always the same) so did and does a similar +capability appertain to this Divine Being, who thus passes +his Eternity in perpetual variation of Concentrated Self +and almost Infinite Self-Diffusion. What you call The +Universe is but his present expansive existence. He now +feels his life through an infinity of imperfect pleasures—the +partial and pain-intertangled pleasures of those inconceivably +numerous things which you designate as his creatures, +but which are really but infinite individualizations of Himself. +All these creatures—<i>all</i>—those which you term animate, +as well as those to whom you deny life for no better +reason than that you do not behold it in operation—<i>all</i> +these creatures have, in a greater or less degree, a capacity</p> +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_143" id="Page_143">[143]</a></span></p> +<p>for pleasure and for pain:—<i>but the general sum of their sensations +is precisely that amount of Happiness which appertains +by right to the Divine Being when concentrated within +Himself</i>. These creatures are all, too, more or less conscious +Intelligences; conscious, first, of a proper identity; +conscious, secondly and by faint indeterminate glimpses, of +an identity with the Divine Being of whom we speak—of +an identity with God. Of the two classes of consciousness, +fancy that the former will grow weaker, the latter stronger, +during the long succession of ages which must elapse before +these myriads of individual Intelligences become blended—when +the bright stars become blended—into One. Think +that the sense of individual identity will be gradually merged +in the general consciousness—that Man, for example, ceasing +imperceptibly to feel himself Man, will at length attain that +awfully triumphant epoch when he shall recognize his existence +as that of Jehovah. In the meantime bear in mind +that all is Life—Life—Life within Life—the less within the +greater, and all within the <i>Spirit Divine</i>.”</p> + +<p class="center" style="padding-top: 2em; font-size: 80%">THE END.</p> + +<div class="footnotes"><h3>FOOTNOTES:</h3> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_1_1" id="Footnote_1_1"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_1"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> “<i>Murders in the Rue Morgue</i>”—p. 133.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_2_2" id="Footnote_2_2"></a><a href="#FNanchor_2_2"><span class="label">[2]</span></a> Succinctly—The surfaces of spheres are as the squares of their radii.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_3_3" id="Footnote_3_3"></a><a href="#FNanchor_3_3"><span class="label">[3]</span></a> <a href="#Page_44">Page 44.</a></p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_4_4" id="Footnote_4_4"></a><a href="#FNanchor_4_4"><span class="label">[4]</span></a> Limited sphere—A sphere is <i>necessarily</i> limited. I prefer tautology +to a chance of misconception.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_5_5" id="Footnote_5_5"></a><a href="#FNanchor_5_5"><span class="label">[5]</span></a> Laplace assumed his nebulosity heterogeneous, merely that he might be +thus enabled to account for the breaking up of the rings; for had the nebulosity +been homogeneous, they would not have broken. I reach the same result—heterogeneity +of the secondary masses immediately resulting from the atoms—purely +from an <i>à priori</i> consideration of their general design—<i>Relation</i>.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_6_6" id="Footnote_6_6"></a><a href="#FNanchor_6_6"><span class="label">[6]</span></a> I am prepared to show that the anomalous revolution of the satellites of +Uranus is a simply perspective anomaly arising from the inclination of the axis +of the planet.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_7_7" id="Footnote_7_7"></a><a href="#FNanchor_7_7"><span class="label">[7]</span></a> See <a href="#Page_70">page 70</a>.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_8_8" id="Footnote_8_8"></a><a href="#FNanchor_8_8"><span class="label">[8]</span></a> <a href="#Page_36">Page 36.</a></p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_9_9" id="Footnote_9_9"></a><a href="#FNanchor_9_9"><span class="label">[9]</span></a> “<i>Views of the Architecture of the Heavens.</i>” A letter, purporting to be +from Dr. Nichol to a friend in America, went the rounds of our newspapers, +about two years ago, I think, admitting “the necessity” to which I refer. In +a subsequent Lecture, however, Dr. N. appears in some manner to have gotten +the better of the necessity, and does not quite <i>renounce</i> the theory, although he +seems to wish that he could sneer at it as “a purely hypothetical one.” What +else was the Law of Gravity before the Maskelyne experiments? and who +questioned the Law of Gravity, even then?</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_10_10" id="Footnote_10_10"></a><a href="#FNanchor_10_10"><span class="label">[10]</span></a> It is not <i>impossible</i> that some unlooked-for optical improvement may disclose +to us, among innumerable varieties of systems, a luminous sun, encircled +by luminous and non-luminous rings, within and without and between which, +revolve luminous and non-luminous planets, attended by moons having moons—and +even these latter again having moons.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_11_11" id="Footnote_11_11"></a><a href="#FNanchor_11_11"><span class="label">[11]</span></a> <a href="#Page_62">Page 62.</a></p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_12_12" id="Footnote_12_12"></a><a href="#FNanchor_12_12"><span class="label">[12]</span></a> I must be understood as denying, <i>especially</i>, only the <i>revolutionary</i> portion +of Mädler’s hypothesis. Of course, if no great central orb exists <i>now</i> in +our cluster, such will exist hereafter. Whenever existing, it will be merely +the <i>nucleus</i> of the consolidation.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_13_13" id="Footnote_13_13"></a><a href="#FNanchor_13_13"><span class="label">[13]</span></a> Betrachtet man die nicht perspectivischen eigenen Bewegungen der +Sterne, so scheinen viele gruppenweise in ihrer Richtung entgegengesetzt; +und die bisher gesammelten Thatsachen machen es auf’s wenigste nicht nothwendig, +anzunehmen, dass alle Theile unserer Sternenschicht oder gar der +gesammten Sterneninseln, welche den Weltraum füllen, sich um einen grossen, +unbekannten, leuchtenden oder dunkeln Centralkörper bewegen. Das Streben +nach den letzten und höchsten Grundursachen macht freilich die reflectirende +Thätigkeit des Menschen, wie seine Phantasie, zu einer solchen Annahme +geneigt.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_14_14" id="Footnote_14_14"></a><a href="#FNanchor_14_14"><span class="label">[14]</span></a> <a href="#Page_37">Page 37.</a></p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_15_15" id="Footnote_15_15"></a><a href="#FNanchor_15_15"><span class="label">[15]</span></a> “Gravity, therefore, must be the strongest of forces.”—See <a href="#Page_39">page 39</a>.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_16_16" id="Footnote_16_16"></a><a href="#FNanchor_16_16"><span class="label">[16]</span></a> See pages <a href="#Page_102">102</a>-<a href="#Page_103">103</a>—Paragraph commencing “I reply that the right,” and +ending “proper and particular God.”</p></div> +</div> + + +<div class="advertisements"> +<p class="center" style="letter-spacing: 0.20ex">155 Broadway, <span class="smcap">New York</span>.<span style="padding-left: 4em">142 Strand, <span class="smcap">London</span>.</span><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_1a" id="Page_1a">[1]</a></span><br /> + +<small>Of late firm of <span class="smcap">Wiley & Putnam.</span></small></p> + +<hr class="a1" /> + +<p class="btit">New Works in Press,<br /> + +<small>Or recently published, by</small><br /> + +<span class="name">GEORGE P. PUTNAM,</span><br /> + +<small>155 Broadway, New York.</small></p> + +<hr class="a1" /> + +<p class="ads">G. P. PUTNAM has the pleasure of announcing that, agreeably to his contract with the +distinguished author, he has now in the course of publication</p> + +<p class="btit"><i>A new, uniform, and complete edition</i><br /> + +<small>OF THE</small><br /> + +<span class="name">Works of Washington Irving,</span><br /> + +Revised and enlarged by the Author,<br /> + +<small><i>In Twelve Elegant Duodecimo Volumes</i>,</small></p> + +<p class="ads">Beautifully printed with new type, and on superior paper, made expressly for the purpose.</p> + + +<p class="btit">The first volume of the Series will be<br /> + +<span class="name">The Sketch-Book,</span><br /> + +complete in one volume,<br /> + +<small>which will be ready on the first day of September.</small><br /> + + +<span class="name">Knickerbocker’s History of New York,</span><br /> + +with revisions and copious additions,<br /> + +<small>will be published on the 1st of October.</small><br /> + + +<span class="name">The Life and Voyages of Columbus,</span><br /> + +Vol. I. on the 1st of November,</p> + +<p class="ads2">and the succeeding volumes will be issued on the first day of each month until completed;—as +follows:</p> + +<ul class="booklist"><li>The Sketch-Book, in one volume.</li> +<li>Knickerbocker’s New York, in one volume.</li> +<li>Tales of a Traveller, in one volume.</li> +<li>Bracebridge Hall, in one volume.</li> +<li>The Conquest of Grenada, in one volume.</li> +<li>The Alhambra, in one volume.</li> +<li>The Spanish Legends, in one vol.</li> +<li>The Crayon Miscellany, in one vol.—Abbotsford, Newstead, The Prairies, &c.</li> +<li>Life and Voyages of Columbus, and The Companions of Columbus, 2 vols.</li> +<li>Adventures of Captain Bonneville, one vol.</li> +<li>Astoria, one volume.</li></ul> + + + +<p class="btit"><span class="name">The Illustrated Sketch-Book.</span><br /> + +<small>In October will be published,</small><br /> + +The Sketch-Book.<br /> + +<span class="smcap">By Washington Irving.</span><br /> + +<small>One volume, square octavo.</small></p> + +<p class="ads2">Illustrated with a series of highly-finished Engravings on wood, from Designs by Darley +and others, engraved in the best style by Childs, Herrick, &c. This edition will be printed +on paper of the finest quality, similar in size and style to the new edition of “Halleck’s +Poems.” It is intended that the illustrations shall be superior to any engravings on wood +yet produced in this country, and that the mechanical execution of the volume, altogether, +shall be worthy of the author’s reputation. It will form an elegant and appropriate gift-book +for all seasons.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_2a" id="Page_2a">[2]</a></span></p> + + +<p class="btit"><span class="name">The Illustrated Knickerbocker,</span><br /> + +With a series of Original Designs, in one vol., octavo, is also in preparation.</p> + +<hr class="a1" /> + +<p class="ads">Mr. Putnam has also the honor to announce that he will publish at intervals (in connexion, +and uniform with the other collected writings),</p> + +<p class="center"><big><i>Mr. Irving’s New Works</i>,</big><br /> + +now nearly ready for the press: including<br /> + +The Life of Mohammed; The Life of Washington; new<br /> +volumes of Miscellanies, Biographies, &c.</p> + +<p class="ads">⁂ This being the first uniform and complete edition of Mr. Irving’s works, either in this +country or in Europe, the publisher confidently believes that the undertaking will meet +with a prompt and cordial response. To say this, is perhaps superfluous and impertinent; +for it is a truism that no <i>American</i> book-case (not to say <i>library</i>) can be well filled without +the works of Washington Irving; while the English language itself comprises no purer +models of composition.</p> + +<hr class="a1" /> + +<p class="ads">G. P. Putnam has also made arrangements for the early commencement of new works +or new editions of the works of</p> + + +<table class="namelist" summary="list of names"> +<tr><td>Miss C. M. Sedgwick,</td><td>George H. Calvert,</td><td>S. Wells Williams,</td></tr> +<tr><td>Prof. A. Gray,</td><td>Mrs. C. M. Kirkland,</td><td>W. M. Thackeray,</td></tr> +<tr><td>Leigh Hunt,</td><td>R. Monckton Milnes,</td><td>Charles Lamb,</td></tr> +<tr><td>Chas. Fenno Hoffman,</td><td>J. Bayard Taylor,</td><td>A. J. Downing,</td></tr> +<tr><td>Mrs. E. Oakes Smith,</td><td>Mary Howitt,</td><td>Thos. Hood,</td></tr> +<tr><td>Thomas Carlyle,</td><td>Mrs. Jameson,</td><td>Elliot Warburton.</td></tr> +</table> + +<hr class="a1" /> + +<p class="ads">The following new works are now ready, or will be published this season:</p> + +<p class="center">I.</p> + +<p class="name center">Sophisms of the Protective Policy.</p> + +<p class="ads2">Translated from the French of F. Bastiat. With an introduction by Francis Lieber, LL.D. +Professor in South Carolina College, Editor of the Encyclopedia Americana, &c. 12mo. 75 +cents.</p> + +<p class="ads">“It is a book not for the million but for millions, and we believe if a copy could be put +into the hands of every school-boy in the Union, the next generation would be inconceivably +wiser, richer, and happier than the present.”—<i>Mirror.</i></p> + +<p class="center">II.</p> + +<p class="name center">Grecian and Roman Mythology:</p> + +<p class="ads2">With original illustrations. Adapted for the use of Universities and High Schools, and for +popular reading. By M. A. Dwight. With an introduction by Tayler Lewis, Professor of +Greek, University of New York. 12mo. (On 1st September.)</p> + +<p class="ads">Also a fine edition in octavo, with illustrations.</p> + +<p class="ads">⁂ This work has been prepared with great care, illustrated with 20 effective outline +drawings, and is designed to treat the subject in an original, comprehensive, and unexceptionable +manner, so as to fill the place as a text book which is yet unsupplied; while +it will also be an attractive and readable table book for general use. It will be at once +introduced as a text book in the University of New York and other colleges and schools.</p> + +<p class="center">III.</p> + +<p class="btit"><span class="name">Eureka: a Prose Poem.</span><br /> + +Or the Physical and Metaphysical Universe.<br /> + +<small>By Edgar A. Poe, Esq. Handsomely printed, 12mo. Cloth, 75 cents.</small></p> + +<p class="ads">“A most extraordinary Essay. We shall be greatly surprised if this work does not +create a most profound sensation among the literary and scientific classes.”—<i>New York +Express.</i></p> + +<p class="center">IV.</p> + +<p class="btit"><span class="name">Oriental Life Illustrated.</span><br /> + +Being a new edition of Eöthen, or Traces of Travel in the East. With fine illustrations<br /> +on Steel. 12mo. elegantly bound, $1 50.</p> + +<p class="ads">⁂ This new and unique volume, superbly illuminated by Mapleson, and comprising<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_3a" id="Page_3a">[3]</a></span> +original articles by distinguished writers, will be the most elegant and recherché book of +the kind ever produced in this country. It will be ready in October.</p> + +<p class="ads">A new and superior edition of the PEARLS OF AMERICAN POETRY will also be +published this season.</p> + +<p class="center">V.</p> + +<p class="btit"><b>The Book of Dainty Devices.</b><br /> + +<small>In an elegant small folio volume.</small><br /> + +<span class="name">Lays of the Western World.</span></p> + +<p class="center">VI.</p> + +<p class="btit"><span class="name">Dr. Klipstein’s Anglo-Saxon Course of Study.</span><br /> + +<small>In uniform 12mo. volumes.</small></p> + +<p class="center">I.</p> + +<p class="ads2">A Grammar of the Anglo-Saxon Language. By Louis F. Klipstein, AA.LL.M. and +PH.D., of the University of Giessen.</p> + +<p class="ads">⁂ This work recommends itself particularly to the attention of every American +student who “glories in his Anglo-Saxon descent” or Teutonic lineage, as well as of all +who desire an acquaintance with a language which lies as the foundation of the English, +and throws a light upon its elements and structure, derivable from no other source. Of +the importance and interesting nature of the study there can be no doubt, and we agree +with those who think that the time is coming when it will be considered “utterly disgraceful +for any well-bred Englishman or American” to have neglected it. With regard to the +merits of Dr. Klipstein’s Grammar, we will only say, that it has been already adopted as +a text-book in some of the leading Institutions of our country.</p> + +<p class="ads" style="text-align: center">[The following are also in press.]</p> + +<p class="center">II.</p> + +<p class="ads2">Analecta Anglo-Saxonica, with an Introductory Ethnographical Essay, Copious Notes, Critical +and Explanatory, and a Glossary in which are shown the Indo-Germanic and other +Affinities of the Language. <i>By the same.</i></p> + +<p class="ads">In this work appear the fruits of considerable research, and, we may add, learning. +The Ethnology of Europe is succinctly, but clearly illustrated, the Anglo-Saxon language +completely analysed, revealing the utmost harmony of combination from its elements, its +forms and roots compared with those in kindred dialects and cognate tongues, its position +in the Teutonic family and Indo-Germanic range established, and the genuine relation of the +English to its great parent properly set forth. To those who are fond of the comparative +study of language, the Glossary will prove an invaluable aid, apart from its particular +object.</p> + +<p class="center">III.</p> + +<p class="ads2">Natale Sancti Gregorii Papæ.—Ælfric’s Homily on the Birth-day of St. Gregory, and Collateral +Extracts from King Alfred’s version of Bede’s Ecclesiastical History and the +Saxon Chronicle, with a full rendering into English, Notes Critical and Explanatory, +and an Index of Words. <i>By the same.</i></p> + +<p class="center">IV.</p> + +<p class="ads2">Extracts from the Anglo-Saxon-Gospels, a Portion of the Anglo-Saxon Paraphrase of the +Book of Psalms, and other Selections of a Sacred Order in the same Language, with a +Translation into English, and Notes Critical and Explanatory. <i>By the same.</i></p> + +<p class="ads">These two works are prepared in such a way as in themselves, with the aid of the +Grammar, to afford every facility to the Anglo-Saxon Student. Ælfric’s Homily is remarkable +for beauty of composition, and interesting as setting forth Augustine’s Mission to the +“Land of the Angles.”</p> + +<p class="center">V.</p> + +<p class="ads2">Tha Halgan Godspel on Englisc—the Anglo-Saxon Version of the Holy Gospels. Edited +by Benjamin Thorpe, F.S.A. <i>Reprinted by the same. Now ready.</i></p> + +<p class="ads">This, the earliest “English” version of the Four Gospels, will be found interesting to +the antiquarian and theologian, as well as serviceable to the student in his investigations +of the language. The Text, besides the usual but unbroken division, appears, with the +Rubrics, as read in the early Anglican Church.</p> + +<hr /> + +<p class="btit"><i>Nearly Ready.</i><br /> + +<span class="name">Dr. Bosworth’s Compendious Anglo-Saxon Dictionary. +Small 8vo.</span></p> + +<p class="center">VII.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_4a" id="Page_4a">[4]</a></span></p> + +<p class="btit"><span class="name">Study of Modern Languages.</span><br /> + +Part First; French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, German, and English.<br /> + +<small>By L. F. Klipstein, AA.LL.M. and Ph.D. One Vol. Imperial 8vo. +75 cents paper; $1 00 cloth.</small></p> + +<p class="ads">This work, which is intended equally for the simultaneous and the separate study of the +languages that it sets forth, and which is adapted as well for the native of Germany, +France, Italy, Spain, or Portugal, as for him to whom English is vernacular, in the acquirement +of any one of the other tongues besides his own, will be found an acceptable manual +not only to the tyro, but to the more advanced scholar. The reading portion of the matter +is interesting, and the text in every case remarkably correct, while the Elementary Phrases, +forms of Cards, Letters, Bills of Exchange, Promissory Notes, Receipts, &c., in the six +languages, constitute what has long been a desideratum from the American press. For +the comparative study of the <i>Romanic</i> tongues the work affords unusual facilities.</p> + +<p class="center">VIII.</p> + +<p class="btit"><span class="name">Pedestrian Tour in Europe.</span><br /> + +Views a-Foot; or Europe seen with Knapsack and Staff.<br /> + +<small>By J. Bayard Taylor.</small></p> + +<p class="ads">A new edition with an additional chapter, and a sketch of the author in pedestrian costume, +from a drawing by T. Buchanan Read. 12mo. Cloth.</p> + +<p class="center">IX.</p> + +<p class="btit">A New Edition of<br /> + +<span class="name">Clarke’s Shakspeare Concordance.</span><br /> + +A Complete Concordance to Shakspeare: being a Verbal Index to ALL the PASSAGES +in the Dramatic Works of the Poet. By Mrs. Cowden Clarke.<br /> + +“Order gave each thing view.”</p> + +<p class="ads">One large Vol. comprising 2560 closely printed columns,—(indicating <i>every word and +passage</i> in Shakspeare’s Works). Price $6. Cloth.</p> + +<p class="ads">“The result of sixteen years of untiring labor. The different editions of Shakspeare +have been carefully collated by the compiler, and every possible means taken to insure +the correctness of the work. As it now stands, a person can find a particular passage in +Shakspeare by simply remembering one word of it, and is also referred to the act and scene +of the play in which it occurs. As a mere dictionary of Shakspearian language and +phrases, it is of great value; but it is also a dictionary of his thoughts and imaginations. +It altogether supersedes the volumes of Twiss and Ayscough, and should be on every +student’s shelves”—<i>Boston Courier.</i></p> + +<p class="ads">⁂ This extraordinary work is printed in London and the price there <i>at present</i> is +£2. 5s. 0d. or about $12. A large part of the edition having been purchased for this market, +it is furnished here for the very low price of $6, bound in cloth.</p> + +<p class="btit"><i>Also—By same Author.</i><br /> + +<span class="name">The Book of Shakspeare Proverbs.</span><br /> + +18mo. 75 cts.</p> + +<hr class="a1" /> + +<p class="btit"><i>Dr. Lieber’s Poetical Address to the American Republic.</i><br /> +16mo. 25 cents.</p> + +<p class="btit"><span class="name">The West:</span><br /> + +A Metrical Epistle.<br /> + +<span class="smcap">By Francis Lieber.</span></p> + +<p class="ads">⁂ Dr. Lieber, the distinguished Professor of Political Economy in South Carolina College, +Author of “Political Ethics,” &c., has just sailed for his native country—Germany—with +the view of aiding in the great cause of Constitutional and Rational Freedom. This +little volume proves that he has well studied that subject during his long residence in this +his adopted country—and his able and valuable opinions on American Society and Progress, +carry with them a peculiar interest at this time.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_5a" id="Page_5a">[5]</a></span></p> + + +<h4>RECENT PUBLICATIONS.</h4> + +<p class="ads2">Alexander.—Commentary on the Earlier Prophecies of Isaiah. +By Prof. J. A. Alexander. <small>Royal 8vo. cloth, $3.</small></p> + +<p class="ads2">Alexander.—Commentary on the Later Prophecies of Isaiah. +By Prof. J. A. Alexander. <small>Royal 8vo. cloth, $2 50.</small></p> + +<p class="ads2">Ancient Moral Tales, from the Gesta Romanorum, &c. <small>1 +vol. 12mo. green cloth.</small></p> + +<p class="ads">“A quiet humor, a quaintness and terseness of style, will strongly recommend them.”—<i>English +Churchman.</i></p> + +<p class="ads2">Architecture.—Hints on Public Architecture; issued under the +Direction of the “Smithsonian Institution.” <small>Imperial 4to. with Illustrations. (In +preparation.)</small></p> + +<p class="ads">This work will contain numerous and valuable illustrations, including two perspective +views of the buildings of the Smithsonian Institution. The Appendix will contain the +results of a research under the auspices of the Institution to test the properties of the +most important building materials throughout the United States.</p> + +<p class="ads2">Bastiat.—Sophisms of the Protective Policy. Translated from +the French of F. Bastiat. With an Introduction, by Francis Lieber, LL.D., Professor +in South Carolina College, Editor of the Encyclopædia Americana, &c., &c. <small>12mo. 75 cts.</small></p> + +<p class="ads2">Bibliotheca Sacra and Theological Review. Conducted by +B. B. Edwards and E. A. Park, Professors at Andover, with the Special Aid of Dr. +Robinson and Professor Stuart. Published quarterly in February, May, August, and +November <small>$4 per annum. Vols. 1, 2, 3, and 4, 8vo. cloth, each $4.</small></p> + +<p class="ads">“This is, perhaps, the most ambitious journal in the United States. We use the word +in a good sense, as meaning that there is no journal among us which seems more laudably +desirous to take the lead in literary and theological science. Its handsome type +and paper give it a pleasing exterior; its typographical errors, though sufficiently numerous, +are so comparatively few, as to show that it has the advantage of the best +American proof-reading; while for thoroughness of execution in the departments of +history and criticism, it aims to be pre-eminent.”—<i>N. Y. Churchman.</i></p> + +<p class="ads2">Burton.—The Anatomy of Melancholy. By Burton. New and +beautiful edition, with Engravings. <small>1 vol. royal 8vo. cloth, $2 50.</small></p> + +<p class="ads">⁂ This is one of those sterling old works which were written for “all time,” full of +learning, humor, and quaint conceits. No library can be complete without it.</p> + +<p class="ads2">Calvert.—Scenes and Thoughts in Europe. By an American. +<small>1 vol. 12mo. green cloth, 50 cents.</small></p> + +<p class="ads">“His descriptions of scenery, his remarks on art, his accounts of the different people +among whom he sojourned, are all good.”—<i>Cincinnati Gazette.</i></p> + +<p class="ads2">Carlyle.—The French Revolution: a History. By Thomas +Carlyle. <small>2 vols. 12mo. green cloth, $2.</small></p> + +<p class="ads">“His French Revolution is considered one of the most remarkable works of the age—as +at once the poetry and philosophy of history.”—<i>Hunt’s Merchants’ Mag.</i></p> + +<p class="ads2">Carlyle.—Letters and Speeches of Oliver Cromwell. By Thos. +Carlyle. <small>2 vols. 12mo. green cloth, $2 50.</small></p> + +<p class="ads">“A work more valuable as a guide to the study of the singular and complex character +of our pious revolutionist, our religious demagogue, our preaching and praying warrior, +has not been produced.”—<i>Blackwood’s Magazine.</i></p> + +<p class="ads2">Carlyle.—Past and Present: Chartism. By Thomas Carlyle. +<small>1 vol. 12mo. green cloth, $1</small></p> + +<p class="ads">“To say that the book is replete with instruction, thought, and quaint fancy, is unnecessary: +but we may mention it as one, <i>par excellence</i>, which should be read at the +present juncture.”-<i>Tribune.</i><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_6a" id="Page_6a">[6]</a></span></p> + +<p class="ads2">Chaucer and Spenser.—Selections from the Poetical Works of +Geoffrey Chaucer. By Charles D. Deshler. Spenser, and the Faery Queen. By Mrs. +C. M. Kirkland. <small>1 vol. 12mo. $1 13.</small></p> + +<p class="ads2"><small>—— The same, extra gilt, $1 50.</small></p> + +<p class="ads">“A portion of their writings are presented in a beautiful and convenient form, and +with the requisite notes and modifications.”—<i>Home Journal.</i></p> + +<p class="ads2">Coe.—Studies in Drawing, in a Progressive Series of Lessons on +Cards; beginning with the most Elementary Studies, and Adapted for Use at Home +and Schools. By Benjamin H. Coe, Teacher of Drawing. In Ten Series—marked 1 and +10—each containing about eighteen Studies. <small>25 cents each.</small></p> + +<p class="ads">The design is:</p> + +<p class="ads2">I.—To make the exercises in drawing highly interesting to the pupil.</p> + +<p class="ads2">II.—To make drawings so simple, and so gradually progressive, as to enable any teacher, +whether acquainted with drawing or not, to instruct his pupils to advantage.</p> + +<p class="ads2">III.—To take the place of one-half of the writing lessons, with confidence that the learner +will acquire a knowledge of writing in less than time is usually required.</p> + +<p class="ads2">IV.—To give the pupils a bold, rapid, and artist-like style of drawing.</p> + +<p class="ads2">Coleridge.—Biographia Literaria; or, Biographical Sketches of +my Literary Life and Opinions. By Samuel Taylor Coleridge. From the 2d London +edition, Edited by H. N. Coleridge. <small>2 vols. 12mo. green cloth, $2.</small></p> + +<p class="ads2">Cortez.—Letters and Despatches of Hernando Cortez. Translated +by Hon. George Folsom. <small>1 vol. 8vo. $1 25.</small></p> + +<p class="ads2">Dana.—A System of Mineralogy, comprising the most Recent +Discoveries. By James D. Dana. <small>Woodcuts and copperplates, 8vo. cloth, $3 50.</small></p> + +<p class="ads2">Downing.—Cottage Residences; or, a Series of Designs for +Rural Cottages and Cottage Villas, and their Gardens and Grounds; adapted to North +America. By A. J. Downing. <small>Numerous plates, 3d edition, 8vo. cloth, $2.</small></p> + +<p class="ads2">Downing.—A Treatise on the Theory and Practice of Landscape +<small>Gardening adapted to North America; with Remarks on Rural Architecture. By A. J. +Downing. Plates, 2d edition, thick 8vo. cloth, $3 50.</small></p> + +<p class="ads2">Downing.—The Fruits and Fruit Trees of America; or, the +Culture, Propagation, and Management, in the Garden and Orchard, of Fruit Trees +generally. By A. J. Downing. <small>Plates, 9th edition, revised, 12mo. cloth, $1 50.</small></p> + +<p class="ads2">—— <small>The same, 8vo. cloth, $2 50.</small></p> + +<p class="ads2">—— <small>The same, with 80 superb Illustrations, drawn and beautifully colored by Paris +Artists, royal 8vo. half morocco, top edge gilt. New edition shortly.</small></p> + +<p class="ads2">Dwight.—Grecian and Roman Mythology; with original Illustrations. +Adapted for the Use of Universities and High Schools, and for Popular Reading. +By M. A. Dwight. With an Introduction by Tayler Lewis, Professor of Greek, +University of New York. <small>12mo. [In September.</small></p> + +<p class="ads2">—— <small>Also a fine edition in octavo, with Illustrations.</small></p> + +<p class="ads">⁂ This work has been prepared with great care, illustrated with twenty effective +outline drawings, and is designed to treat the subject in an original, comprehensive, and +unexceptionable manner, so as to fill the place as a text-book which is yet unsupplied; +while it will also be an attractive and readable table-book for general use. It will be at +once introduced as a text-book in the University of New York, and other colleges and +schools.</p> + +<p class="ads2">Ford.—The Spaniards and their Country. By Richard Ford. +<small>1 vol. 12mo. green cloth, 87 cents.</small></p> + +<p class="ads">“The best description of national character and manners of Spain that has ever +appeared.”—<i>Quarterly Review.</i></p> + +<p class="ads">“The volumes appear to treat of almost everything save the graver questions of religion +and politics, which may possibly be taken up hereafter. In one respect it has the +advantage over more directly historical works—it portrays the Spanish character, as well +as country, with fidelity.”—<i>Commercial Advertiser.</i><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_7a" id="Page_7a">[7]</a></span></p> + +<p class="ads2">Fouqué.—Undine, a Tale; and Sintram and his Companions, a +Tale. From the German of La Motte Fouqué. <small>1 vol. 12mo. green cloth. 50 cts.</small></p> + +<p class="ads">“The style and execution of this delightful romance are very graceful.”—<i>Hawkins’s +Germany.</i></p> + +<p class="ads">“Fouqué’s romances I always recommend—especially the wild, graceful, and touching +Undine.”—<i>Sarah Austin.</i></p> + +<p class="ads2">French.—Historical Collections of Louisiana. By B. F. French. +<small>8vo. cloth, $1 50.</small></p> + +<p class="ads2">Goldsmith.—The Vicar of Wakefield. By Oliver Goldsmith. +<small>1 vol. 12mo. neatly printed, cloth, 50 cents.</small></p> + +<p class="ads2">—— <small>The same, with Illustrated Designs by Mulready, elegantly bound, gilt edges, $1.</small></p> + +<p class="ads2">Gray.—Botanical Text-Book. By Prof. Asa Gray. <small>Many +hundred cuts, 2d edition, large 12mo. cloth, $1 75.</small></p> + +<p class="ads2">Green.—A Treatise on Diseases of the Air Passages; comprising +an Inquiry into the History, Pathology, Causes, and Treatment of those Affections of +the Throat called Bronchitis, &c. By Horace Green, M.D. <small>Colored plates, 8vo. cloth. +$2 50.</small></p> + +<p class="ads">“A new and eminently successful treatment of lung complaints.”</p> + +<p class="ads2">Hackley.—Elements of Trigonometry, Plane and Spherical. +By Rev. C. W. Hackley, Professor of Mathematics, Columbia College, New York. <small>8vo. +cloth, $1 25.</small></p> + +<p class="ads2">Hamilton Papers.—The Official Papers of the late Major-General +Alexander Hamilton. Compiled from the Originals in the Possession of Mrs. Hamilton. +<small>1 vol. 8vo. cloth, $2 50.</small></p> + +<p class="ads2">Hahn’s Hebrew Bible.—New and complete stereotype edition, +being a fac-simile of the Leipsic edition. <small>In 1 vol. 8vo. In press.</small></p> + +<p class="ads2">Hazlitt’s (William) Miscellaneous Works. <small>4 vols. 12mo. cloth, $5.</small></p> + +<p class="ads2">Hazlitt’s Life of Napoleon. <small>3 vols. 12mo. cloth.</small></p> + +<p class="ads2">—— Spirit of the Age. <small>12mo., 50 cents.</small></p> + +<p class="ads2">—— Table Talk, both series, <small>in 2 vols. cloth, $2 25.</small></p> + +<p class="ads2">—— Characters of Shakspeare, <small>12mo. 50 cts.</small></p> + +<p class="ads2">—— Literature of the Age of Queen Elizabeth, <small>12mo. 50 cts.</small></p> + +<p class="ads2">—— English Comic Writers, <small>50 cts.</small></p> + +<p class="ads2">—— Lectures on English Poets, <small>50 cts.</small></p> + +<p class="ads2">Head.—Bubbles from the Brunnen. By Sir Francis Head. +<small>12mo. green cloth.</small></p> + +<p class="ads">“At once an instructive and amusing book. It contains a great deal of information.”—<i>London +Times.</i></p> + +<p class="ads2">Hervey.—The Book of Christmas; descriptive of the Customs, +Ceremonies, Traditions, Superstitions, Fun, Feeling, and Festivities of the Christmas +Season. By Thomas K. Hervey. <small>12mo. green cloth, 63 cents.</small></p> + +<p class="ads2">—— <small>The same, gilt extra. $1.</small></p> + +<p class="ads">“Every leaf of this book affords a feast worthy of the season.”—<i>Dr. Hawks’s Church +Record.</i></p> + +<p class="ads2">Hood.—Prose and Verse. By Thomas Hood. <small>12mo. green +cloth. 87 cents.</small></p> + +<p class="ads2">—— <small>The same, gilt extra, $1 25.</small></p> + +<p class="ads">“A very judicious selection, designed to embrace Hood’s more earnest writings, those +which were written most directly from the heart, which reflect most faithfully his life +and opinions.”—<i>Broadway Journal.</i><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_8a" id="Page_8a">[8]</a></span></p> + +<p class="ads2">Howitt.—Ballads and other Poems. By Mary Howitt. <small>1 vol. +12mo. green cloth, 63 cents.</small></p> + +<p class="ads2">—— <small>The same, with fine Portrait, gilt extra, $1 25.</small></p> + +<p class="ads">“Her poems are always graceful and beautiful.”—<i>Mrs. S. C. Hall.</i></p> + +<p class="ads">“We cannot commend too highly the present publication, and only hope that the +reading public will relish ‘Mary Howitt’s Ballads and other Poems,’ now for the first +time put forth in a collected form.”—<i>Albion.</i></p> + +<p class="ads2">Hunt.—Imagination and Fancy. By Leigh Hunt. <small>1 vol. +12mo. green cloth, 62 cents.</small></p> + +<p class="ads2">—— <small>The same, gilt extra, $1.</small></p> + +<p class="ads2">Hunt.—Stories from the Italian Poets: being a Summary in +Prose of the Poems of Dante, Pulci, Boiardo, Aristo, and Tasso; with Comments throughout, +occasional passages Versified, and Critical Notices of the Lives and Genius of the +Authors. By Leigh Hunt. <small>12mo. cloth, $1 25.</small></p> + +<p class="ads2">—— <small>The same, fancy gilt. $1 75.</small></p> + +<p class="ads">“Mr. Hunt’s book has been aptly styled, a series of exquisite engravings of the magnificent +pictures painted by these great Italian masters.”—<i>Journal of Commerce.</i></p> + +<p class="ads2">Irving.—Works of Washington Irving; Revised and Enlarged +by the Author. <small>In twelve elegant duodecimo volumes, beautifully printed with new +type, and on superior paper, made expressly for the purpose, and bound in cloth.</small></p> + +<p>As follows:—</p> + + +<ul class="booklist" style="font-style: normal"><li><i>The Sketch-Book</i>, in one volume.</li> +<li><i>Knickerbocker’s New York</i>, in one volume.</li> +<li><i>Tales of a Traveller</i>, in one vol.</li> +<li><i>Bracebridge Hall</i>, in one volume.</li> +<li><i>The Conquest of Grenada</i>, in one volume.</li> +<li><i>The Alhambra</i>, in one volume.</li> +<li><i>Astoria</i>, in one volume.</li> +<li><i>The Crayon Miscellany</i>, in one volume. Abbotsford, Newstead, The Prairies, &c.</li> +<li><i>The Spanish Legends</i>, in one vol.</li> +<li><i>The Life and Voyages of Columbus</i>, and <i>The Companions of Columbus</i>, in two volumes.</li> +<li><i>Adventures of Capt. Bonneville</i>, in one volume.</li></ul> + + +<p class="ads" style="text-align: center">(Now publishing.)</p> + +<p class="ads2">Irving.—The Sketch-Book. By Washington Irving. <small>Complete +in one volume, 12mo. cloth. In September.</small></p> + +<p class="ads2">Irving.—The Illustrated Sketch-Book. By Washington Irving. +In October will be published, <span class="smcap">The Sketch-Book</span>, by Washington Irving, one vol. square +octavo, Illustrated with a series of highly-finished Engravings on Wood, from Designs +by <span class="smcap">Darley</span> and others, engraved in the best style by <span class="smcap">Childs, Herrick</span>, &c. This +edition will be printed on paper of the finest quality, similar in size and style to the new +edition of “Halleck’s Poems.” It is intended that the illustrations shall be superior to +any engravings on wood yet produced in this country, and that the mechanical execution +of the volume, altogether, shall be worthy of the author’s reputation. It will form +an elegant and appropriate gift-book for all seasons.</p> + +<p class="ads2">Irving.—Knickerbocker’s History of New York. By Washington +Irving. With Revisions and copious Additions. Will be published on the 1st of +October.</p> + +<p class="ads2">Irving.—The Illustrated Knickerbocker; with a series of original +Designs, in one volume, octavo, uniform with the “Sketch-Book,” is also in preparation.</p> + +<p class="ads2">Irving.—The Life and Voyages of Columbus. By Washington +Irving. Vol. I. on the 1st of November.</p> + +<p class="ads2">The succeeding volumes will be issued on the first day of each month until completed.</p> + +<p class="ads2">Keats.—The Poetical Works of John Keats. <small>1 vol. 12mo. +cloth.</small></p> + +<p class="ads2">—— <small>The same, gilt extra.</small></p> + +<p class="ads">“They are flushed all over with the rich lights of fancy; and so colored and bestrewn +with the flowers of poetry that, even while perplexed and bewildered in their labyrinths, +it is impossible to resist the intoxication of their sweetness, or to shut our hearts to the +enchantment they so lavishingly present.”—<i>Francis Jeffrey.</i><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_9a" id="Page_9a">[9]</a></span></p> + +<p class="ads2">Kinglake.—Eöthen; or, Traces of Travel brought from the +East. <small>12mo. green cloth. 50 cts.</small></p> + +<p class="ads">“Eöthen is a book with which everybody, fond of eloquent prose and racy description, +should be well acquainted.”—<i>U. S. Gazette.</i></p> + +<p class="ads2">Klipstein’s Anglo-Saxon Course of Study. <small>In uniform 12mo. +volumes, as follows:</small></p> + +<p class="center">I.</p> + +<p class="ads2">Klipstein.—A Grammar of the Anglo-Saxon Language. By +Louis F. Klipstein, AA.LL.M. and PH.D., of the University of Giessen. <small>12mo. cloth, +$1 25.</small></p> + +<p class="center">II.</p> + +<p class="ads2">Klipstein.—Analecta Anglo-Saxonica, with an Introductory Ethnographical +Essay, Copious Notes, Critical and Explanatory, and a Glossary in which +are shown the Indo-Germanic and other Affinities of the Language. By Louis F. Klipstein, +AA.LL.M. and PH.D., of the University of Giessen.</p> + +<p class="center">III.</p> + +<p class="ads2">Klipstein.—Natale Sancti Gregorii Papæ.—Ælfric’s Homily on +the Birth-day of St. Gregory, and Collateral Extracts from King Alfred’s Version of +Bede’s Ecclesiastical History and the Saxon Chronicle, with a full Rendering into English, +Notes Critical and Explanatory, and an Index of Words. By Louis F. Klipstein, +AA.LL.M. and PH.D., of the University of Giessen.</p> + +<p class="center">IV.</p> + +<p class="ads2">Klipstein.—Extracts from the Anglo-Saxon Gospels, a Portion of +the Anglo-Saxon Paraphrase of the Book of Psalms, and other Selections of a Sacred +Order in the same Language, with a Translation into English, and Notes Critical and +Explanatory. By Louis F. Klipstein, AA.LL.M. and PH.D., of the University of +Giessen.</p> + +<p class="center">V.</p> + +<p class="ads2">Klipstein.—Tha Halgan Godspel on Englisc—the Anglo-Saxon +Version of the Holy Gospels. Edited by Benjamin Thorpe, F.S.A. <i>Reprinted by the +same. Now ready.</i> <small>12mo. cloth, $1 25.</small></p> + +<p class="ads2">Klipstein.—Study of Modern Languages.—Part First; French, +Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, German, and English. By L. F. Klipstein, AA.LL.M. and +PH.D. <small>One vol. Imperial 8vo. Cloth, $1; paper 75 cents.</small></p> + +<p class="ads2">Lamb.—Essays of Elia. By Charles Lamb. <small>1 vol. 12mo., +cloth. $1.</small></p> + +<p class="ads2">—— <small>The same, gilt extra, $1 25.</small></p> + +<p class="ads">“Shakspeare himself might have read them, and Hamlet have quoted them: for truly +was our excellent friend of the genuine line of Yorick.”—<i>Leigh Hunt’s London Journal.</i></p> + +<p class="ads2">Lamb.—Specimens of the English Dramatic Poets. By Charles +Lamb. <small>1 vol. 12mo., green cloth, $1 13.</small></p> + +<p class="ads2">—— <small>The same, gilt extra, $1 50.</small></p> + +<p class="ads">“Nowhere are the resources of the English tongue in power, in sweetness, terror, +pathos; in description and dialogue, so well displayed.”—<i>Broadway Journal.</i></p> + +<p class="ads2">Mahan.—On Advanced Guards, Outposts, and Military Duty. +By D. H. Mahan, M.A. <small>18mo. cloth, 75 cents.</small></p> + +<p class="ads2">Mahan’s Course of Civil Engineering. Third edition, <small>8vo. Illustrated. +$3 50.</small></p> + +<p class="ads2">Milton.—The Prose Works of John Milton. Edited by Rev. +Rufus Wilmott Griswold. <small>2 vols. 8vo., cloth, $4.</small></p> + +<p class="ads2">Modern Painters. By a Graduate of Oxford. <small>12mo. cloth, +$1 25.</small></p> + +<p class="ads2">—— <small>The same. Second vol. 12mo.</small><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_10a" id="Page_10a">[10]</a></span></p> + +<p class="ads2">Montagu.—Selections from the Works of Taylor, Latimer, Hall, +Milton, Barrow, Lowth, Brown, Fuller, and Bacon. By Basil Montagu. <small>1 vol. 12mo., +green cloth, 50 cents; cloth gilt, $1.</small></p> + +<p class="ads">“This volume contains choice extracts from some of the noblest of the old English +writers.”—<i>Cincinnati Atlas.</i></p> + +<p class="ads2">Nordheimer.—A Critical Grammar of the Hebrew Language. +By Isaac Nordheimer, Phil. Doctor. <small>8vo. cloth, $3 50.</small></p> + +<p class="ads2">Oriental Life Illustrated. Being a new edition of Eöthen, or +Traces of Travel in the East. <small>With fine Illustrations on Steel.</small></p> + +<p class="ads2">Parsons.—The Rose; its History, Poetry, and Culture. By S. B. +Parsons. <small>With colored Plates. Royal 8vo. cloth, $1 50.</small></p> + +<p class="ads2">Patrick, Lowth, Arnold, and Whitby.—Commentary on the +Bible, by Bishops Patrick, Lowth, Arnold, Whitby, and Lowman. <small>4 vols. imperial 8vo. +cloth, $16.</small></p> + +<p class="ads2">Peacock.—Headlong Hall and Nightmare Abbey. <small>1 vol. 12mo., +green cloth, 50 cents.</small></p> + +<p class="ads">“This is a witty and amusing book.”—<i>Tribune.</i></p> + +<p class="ads2">Poe.—Eureka, A Prose Poem: Or the Physical and Metaphysical +Universe. By Edgar A. Poe, Esq. <small>Handsomely printed. 12mo. cloth, 75 cents.</small></p> + +<p class="ads2">Pearls of American Poetry. Second edition, superbly illuminated +in the manner of the ancient missals by T. W. Gwilt Mapleson, Esq. Printed in +gold and colors on Bristol board. Elegantly and strongly bound in full Morocco, Antique +style. <small>One volume quarto, $12.</small></p> + +<p class="ads">⁂ Of this splendid and costly work, a small number were issued for this season, but +it was not ready for actual publication. It is now completed in a superior style, and is +the most splendid book of the time.</p> + +<p class="ads">“On beautiful vellum paper, are printed in colored characters and with every variety of +type, some of the choicest brief poems of American writers—Bryant, Longfellow, C. F. +Hoffman, and others. Each initial letter is a picture, and each page is illuminated as exquisitely +as any of the choicest of antique illuminated volumes—and all from original +designs. The conception of these works of art, as they richly deserve to be called, the +drawing, painting, gilding, are of the highest order. The binding is in keeping with the +rest—that of the olden day—solid, rich, and tasteful. Altogether this is a volume of +great attraction for the rare beauty of its adorning and the discrimination of its selections.”—<i>Courier.</i></p> + +<p class="ads2">Princeton Theological Essays. First Series. <small>Royal 8vo. cloth, +$2 50.</small></p> + +<p class="ads2">Princeton Theological Essays. Second Series. <small>Royal 8vo. +cloth, $2 50.</small></p> + +<p class="ads2">St. John.—The Three Days of February, 1848: with Portrait +of Lamartine. <small>18mo. cloth, 63 cts.</small></p> + +<p class="ads2">Tappan.—Elementary Logic. By Prof. H. P. Tappan. <small>1 vol. +12mo. cloth. $1.</small></p> + +<p class="ads2">Tasso.—Godfrey of Bulloigne; or, the Recovery of Jerusalem: +done into English Heroical Verse. From the Italian of Tasso, by Edward Fairfax. +Introductory Essay, by Leigh Hunt, and the Lives of Tasso and Fairfax, by Charles +Knight. <small>1 vol. 12mo. $1 25.</small></p> + +<p class="ads">“The completest translation, and nearest like its original of any we have seen.”—<i>Leigh +Hunt.</i></p> + +<p class="ads2">Taylor.—Views a-Foot; or, Europe seen with Knapsack and +Staff. By J. Bayard Taylor. New edition, with an additional Chapter, &c., and a +Sketch of the Author in Pedestrian Costume, from a Drawing by T. Buchanan Read. +<small>12mo. cloth. Nearly ready. $1 25.</small></p> + +<p class="ads">“Besides being one of the most entertaining books of travel we ever read, it is written +under circumstances of the most interesting; although at a first glance, seemingly the +most unfavorable.”—<i>Boston Atlas.</i><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_11a" id="Page_11a">[11]</a></span></p> + +<p class="ads2">Thackeray.—Journey from Cornhill to Cairo. By Michael +Angelo Titmarsh. <small>1 vol. 12mo. green cloth. 50 cts.</small></p> + +<p class="ads">“It is wonderful what a description of people and things, what numerous pictures, +what innumerable remarks and allusions it contains.”—<i>Douglas Jerrold’s Mag.</i></p> + +<p class="ads2">Torrey and Gray.—Flora of North America. By Professors +Torrey and Gray. <small>1 vol. 8vo. cloth, $6. Parts 1 and 6, each $1 50; Part 7, $1.</small></p> + +<p class="ads2">Tschudi.—Travels in Peru. By Dr. J. J. Von Tschudi. <small>1 +vol. 12mo. cloth, 87 cents.</small></p> + +<p class="ads">“The book contains a great deal of curious information, and will be found useful as +a book of reference by all who are interested in the commerce, natural history, and +general statistics of Peru.”—<i>Blackwood’s Magazine.</i></p> + +<p class="ads2">Tupper.—Proverbial Philosophy. By Martin Farquhar Tupper. +<small>12mo. green cloth.</small></p> + +<p class="ads2">—— <small>The same, gilt extra.</small></p> + +<p class="ads2">—— <small>The same, morocco extra.</small></p> + +<p class="ads2">Walton.—The Lives of Donne, Walton, Hooker, Herbert, and +Sanderson. By Izaak Walton. <small>New edition, 1 vol. 12mo. green cloth, 75 cents.</small></p> + +<p class="ads">“The Lives are the most delightful kind of reading. Walton possesses an inimitable +simplicity and vivacity of style.”—<i>Mrs. C. M. Kirkland.</i></p> + +<p class="ads2">Warburton.—The Crescent and the Cross; or, the Romance +and Reality of Eastern Travel. By Elliot Warburton. <small>1 vol. 12mo. green cloth, $1.</small></p> + +<p class="ads">“This delightful work is, from first to last, a splendid panorama of Eastern scenery, +in the full blaze of its magnificence.”—<i>London Morning Post.</i></p> + +<hr class="a1" /> + +<p class="center"><i>A valuable Work for Libraries.</i></p> + +<p class="center"><small>Now Ready. 8vo. $1 in paper, or $1 25 half bound.</small></p> + +<p class="btit">An Alphabetical Index to Subjects treated in the Reviews, and +other Periodicals, to which no Indexes have been Published.</p> + +<p class="ads">⁂ This volume comprises an Index to all articles in 560 volumes of the most important +periodical works.</p> + + +<h4>POPULAR VOLUMES FOR PRESENTATION,</h4> + +<p class="center"><i>Elegantly bound in extra cloth, gilt edges.</i></p> + +<table summary="list" class="list2"> +<tr><td>Chaucer and Spenser</td><td class="ral">$1 50</td></tr> +<tr><td>Fairfax’s Tasso’s Jerusalem Delivered</td><td class="ral">1 50</td></tr> +<tr><td>Fouqué’s Undine, and Sintram</td><td class="ral">1 00</td></tr> +<tr><td>Goldsmith’s Vicar of Wakefield, with plates</td><td class="ral">1 00</td></tr> +<tr><td>Hervey’s Book of Christmas</td><td class="ral">1 00</td></tr> +<tr><td>Howitt’s (Mary) Ballads and Poems</td><td class="ral">1 00</td></tr> +<tr><td>Hood’s Prose and Verse</td><td class="ral">1 25</td></tr> +<tr><td>Hunt’s Imagination and Fancy</td><td class="ral">1 00</td></tr> +<tr><td>—— Italian Poets</td><td class="ral">1 75</td></tr> +<tr><td>Keats’s Poems</td><td class="ral">1 25</td></tr> +<tr><td>Lamb’s Dramatic Specimens</td><td class="ral">1 50</td></tr> +<tr><td>Lamb’s Essays of Elia</td><td class="ral">1 25</td></tr> +<tr><td><span class="smcap">The Sybil</span>; or, New Oracles +from the Poets. By Mrs. Gilman. An elegant and attractive book</td><td class="ral">1 50</td></tr> +</table> + + +<h4>ILLUSTRATED JUVENILES.</h4> + +<table summary="list" class="list2"> +<tr><td><span class="smcap">Facts and Fancies.</span> By Miss Sedgwick. +16mo. with cuts, cloth</td><td class="ral">.50</td></tr> + +<tr><td><span class="smcap">Glimpses of the Wonderful.</span>—An +entertaining Account of Curiosities +of Nature and Art. First, Second, +and Third Series, with numerous +fine Illustrations engraved in London. +Square 16mo. cloth, each</td><td class="ral">.75</td></tr> + +<tr><td><span class="smcap">Home Treasury, The</span>; Comprising +new versions of Cinderella, Beauty +and the Beast, Grumble and Cheery, +The Eagle’s Verdict, The Sleeping +Beauty. Revised and illustrated. +Small 4to</td><td class="ral">.50</td></tr> + +<tr><td><span class="smcap">Morals and Manners</span>; or, Hints for +our Young People. By Miss Sedgwick. +16mo</td><td class="ral">.25</td></tr> + +<tr><td><span class="smcap">Young Naturalist’s Rambles</span>—through +many Lands, with an account +of the principal Animals and +Birds of the Old and New Continents. +Cloth</td><td class="ral">.50</td></tr> +</table> + + +<p class="btit" style="line-height: 180%"><span class="name">George P. Putnam</span><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_12a" id="Page_12a">[12]</a></span><br /> + +<small>(OF THE LATE FIRM OF WILEY AND PUTNAM),</small><br /> + +<small>Has taken the new and commodious premises,</small><br /> + +<span class="name">155 BROADWAY, NEW YORK</span><br /> + +(<i>Next building to that of the late Firm</i>),<br /> + +<small>And continues the business of</small><br /> + +<span class="name"><i>PUBLISHING</i>,</span><br /> + +<small>AND THE</small><br /> + +<span class="name">IMPORTATION OF FOREIGN BOOKS,</span><br /> + +<small>AS ABOVE, AND AT</small><br /> + +PUTNAM’S AMERICAN LITERARY AGENCY, 142 <i>Strand</i>,<br /> + +LONDON<br /> + +[<span class="smcap">Established in 1838</span>].</p> + +<hr class="a1" /> + +<p class="ads">Arrangements have been made to secure at the London Agency the +services of an experienced and competent Bibliographer, so that the business +of executing SPECIAL ORDERS FOR THE TRADE AND PUBLIC +INSTITUTIONS may be thoroughly regulated, and all parties giving such +orders, may be fully satisfied both with regard to <i>expedition</i> and <i>economy</i>.</p> + +<p class="ads">The interests of Public Institutions, and those ordering <i>Books in quantities</i> +will receive special attention, while it is also intended that any one +ordering <i>a single volume</i> from Europe, may receive it promptly (if procurable), +without disappointment or unnecessary expense.</p> + +<p class="ads">Mr. <span class="smcap">Putnam</span> believes that his <i>twelve years’ experience</i> abroad in purchasing +Books for the American market, will be of service to those who +may favor him with orders.</p> + +<p class="ads">⁂ Correspondence established with <span class="smcap">Paris, Rome, Leipsic, Brussels</span>, +and all the principal cities on the Continent. All American Publications +on the best terms, by the quantity or singly.</p> + +<p class="ads">N. B.—CATALOGUES of extensive collections of <i>Foreign and American +Books</i>, on all subjects may be had on application.</p> +</div> + + + + + + + + +<pre> + + + + + +End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of Eureka:, by Edgar A. Poe + +*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK EUREKA: *** + +***** This file should be named 32037-h.htm or 32037-h.zip ***** +This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: + http://www.gutenberg.org/3/2/0/3/32037/ + +Produced by Meredith Bach, Irma Spehar and the Online +Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This +file was produced from images generously made available +by The Internet Archive/American Libraries.) + + +Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions +will be renamed. + +Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no +one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation +(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without +permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, +set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to +copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to +protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark. Project +Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you +charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission. If you +do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the +rules is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose +such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and +research. They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do +practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks. Redistribution is +subject to the trademark license, especially commercial +redistribution. + + + +*** START: FULL LICENSE *** + +THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE +PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK + +To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free +distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work +(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project +Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project +Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at +http://gutenberg.org/license). + + +Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic works + +1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to +and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property +(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all +the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy +all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession. +If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the +terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or +entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8. + +1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be +used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who +agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few +things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works +even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See +paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement +and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. See paragraph 1.E below. + +1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation" +or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the +collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an +individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are +located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from +copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative +works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg +are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project +Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by +freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of +this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with +the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by +keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project +Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others. + +1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern +what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in +a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check +the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement +before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or +creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project +Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning +the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United +States. + +1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: + +1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate +access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently +whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the +phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project +Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, +copied or distributed: + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org + +1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived +from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is +posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied +and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees +or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work +with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the +work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 +through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the +Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or +1.E.9. + +1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted +with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution +must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional +terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked +to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the +permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work. + +1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this +work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. + +1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this +electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without +prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with +active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project +Gutenberg-tm License. + +1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, +compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any +word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or +distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than +"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version +posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org), +you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a +copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon +request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other +form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. + +1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, +performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works +unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. + +1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing +access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided +that + +- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from + the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method + you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is + owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he + has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the + Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments + must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you + prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax + returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and + sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the + address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to + the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation." + +- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies + you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he + does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm + License. You must require such a user to return or + destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium + and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of + Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any + money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the + electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days + of receipt of the work. + +- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free + distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set +forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from +both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael +Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the +Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. + +1.F. + +1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable +effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread +public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm +collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain +"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or +corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual +property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a +computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by +your equipment. + +1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right +of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project +Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all +liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal +fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT +LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE +PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH F3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE +TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE +LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR +INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH +DAMAGE. + +1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a +defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can +receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a +written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you +received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with +your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with +the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a +refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity +providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to +receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy +is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further +opportunities to fix the problem. + +1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth +in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER +WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO +WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. + +1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied +warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. +If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the +law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be +interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by +the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any +provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions. + +1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the +trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone +providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance +with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, +promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works, +harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, +that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do +or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm +work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any +Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause. + + +Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm + +Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of +electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers +including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists +because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from +people in all walks of life. + +Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the +assistance they need, are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's +goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will +remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure +and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations. +To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation +and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 +and the Foundation web page at http://www.pglaf.org. + + +Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive +Foundation + +The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit +501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the +state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal +Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification +number is 64-6221541. Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at +http://pglaf.org/fundraising. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent +permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. + +The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S. +Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered +throughout numerous locations. Its business office is located at +809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email +business@pglaf.org. Email contact links and up to date contact +information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official +page at http://pglaf.org + +For additional contact information: + Dr. Gregory B. Newby + Chief Executive and Director + gbnewby@pglaf.org + + +Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation + +Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide +spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of +increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be +freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest +array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations +($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt +status with the IRS. + +The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating +charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United +States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a +considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up +with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations +where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To +SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any +particular state visit http://pglaf.org + +While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we +have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition +against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who +approach us with offers to donate. + +International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make +any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from +outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. + +Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation +methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other +ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. +To donate, please visit: http://pglaf.org/donate + + +Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. + +Professor Michael S. Hart is the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm +concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared +with anyone. For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project +Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support. + + +Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed +editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S. +unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily +keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition. + + +Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility: + + http://www.gutenberg.org + +This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, +including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary +Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to +subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. + + +</pre> + +</body> +</html> |