APPENDIX. (continued 3)

Thus the inseparable nature of the Fundamental Antithesis of Ideas and Things gives reality to our knowledge, and makes objective reality a corrective of our subjective imperfections in the pursuit of knowledge. But this objective exhibition of knowledge can by no means supersede a complete development of the subjective condition, namely, distinctness of ideas. And that there is a subjective condition, by no means makes knowledge altogether subjective, and thus deprives it of reality; because, as we have said, the subjective and the objective elements are inseparably bound together in the fundamental antithesis.

29. It would be easy to apply these remarks to other cases, for instance, to the case of the principle we have just mentioned, that the differences of elementary composition of different kinds of bodies must be definite. We have stated that this principle is necessarily true;—that the contrary proposition cannot be distinctly conceived. But by whom? Evidently, according to the preceding reasoning, by a person who distinctly conceives Kinds, as marked by intelligible names, and Composition, as determining the kinds of bodies. Persons new to chemical and classificatory science may not possess these ideas distinctly; or rather, cannot possess them distinctly; and therefore cannot apprehend the impossibility of conceiving the opposite of the above principle; just as the schoolboy cannot apprehend the impossibility of the numbers in his multiplication table being other than they are. But this inaptitude to conceive, in either case, does not alter the necessary character of the truth: although, in one case, the truth is obvious to all except schoolboys and the like, and the other is probably not clear to any except those who have attentively studied the philosophy of elementary compositions. At the same time, this difference of apprehension of the truth in different persons does not make the truth doubtful or dependent upon personal qualifications; for in proportion as persons attain to distinct ideas, they will see the truth; and cannot, with such ideas, see anything as truth which is not truth. When the relations of elements in a compound become as familiar to a person as the relations of factors in a multiplication table, he will then see what are the necessary axioms of chemistry, as he now sees the necessary axioms of arithmetic.

30. There is also one other remark which I will here make. In the progress of science, both the elements of our knowledge are constantly expanded and augmented. By the exercise of observation and experiment, we have a perpetual accumulation of facts, the materials of knowledge, the objective element. By thought and discussion, we have a perpetual development of man's ideas going on: theories are framed, the materials of knowledge are shaped into form; the subjective element is evolved; and by the necessary coincidence of the objective and subjective elements, the matter and the form, the theory and the facts, each of these processes furthers and corrects the other: each element moulds and unfolds the other. Now it follows, from this constant development of the ideal portion of our knowledge, that we shall constantly be brought in view of new Necessary Principles, the expression of the conditions belonging to the Ideas which enter into our expanding knowledge. These principles, at first dimly seen and hesitatingly asserted, at last become clearly and plainly self-evident. Such is the case with the principles which are the basis of the laws of motion. Such may soon be the case with the principles which are the basis of the philosophy of chemistry. Such may hereafter be the case with the principles which are to be the basis of the philosophy of the connected and related polarities of chemistry, electricity, galvanism, magnetism. That knowledge is possible in these cases, we know; that our knowledge may be reduced to principles, gradually more simple, we also know; that we have reached the last stage of simplicity of our principles, few cultivators of the subject will be disposed to maintain; and that the additional steps which lead towards very simple and general principles will also lead to principles which recommend themselves by a kind of axiomatic character, those who judge from the analogy of the past history of science will hardly doubt. That the principles thus axiomatic in their form, do also express some relation of our ideas, of which experiment and observation have given a true and real interpretation, is the doctrine which I have here attempted to establish and illustrate in the most clear and undoubted of the existing sciences; and the evidence of this doctrine in those cases seems to be unexceptionable, and to leave no room to doubt that such is the universal type of the progress of science. Such a doctrine, as we have now seen, is closely connected with the views here presented of the nature of the Fundamental Antithesis of Philosophy, which I have endeavoured to illustrate.

Appendix F. REMARKS ON A REVIEW OF THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE INDUCTIVE SCIENCES.

Trinity Lodge, April 11th, 1844.

My Dear Herschel,

Being about to send you a copy of a paper on a philosophical question just printed in the Transactions of our Cambridge Society, I am tempted to add, as a private communication, a few Remarks on another aspect of the same question. These Remarks I think I may properly address to you. They will refer to an Article in the Quarterly Review for June, 1841, respecting my History and Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences; and without assigning any other reason, I may say that the interest I know you to take in speculations on such subjects makes me confident that you will give a reasonable attention to what I may have to say on the subject of that Article. With the Reviewal itself, I am so far from having any quarrel, that when it appeared I received it as affording all that I hoped from Public Criticism. The degree and the kind of admiration bestowed upon my works by a writer so familiar with science, so comprehensive in his views, and so equitable in his decisions, as the Reviewer manifestly was, I accepted as giving my work a stamp of acknowledged value which few other hands could have bestowed.

You may perhaps recollect, however, that the Reviewer dissented altogether from some of the general views which I had maintained, and especially from a general view which is also, in the main, that presented in the accompanying Memoir, namely, that, besides Facts, Ideas are an indispensable source of our knowledge; that Ideas are the ground of necessary truth; that the Idea of Space, in particular, is the ground of the necessary truths of geometry. This question, and especially as limited to the last form, will be the subject of my Remarks in the first place; and I wish to consider the Reviewer's objections with the respect which their subtlety and depth of thought well deserve.

The Reviewer makes objections to the account which I have given of the source whence geometrical truth derives its characters of being necessary and universal; but he is not one of those metaphysicians who deny those characters to the truths of geometry. He allows in the most ample manner that the truths of geometry are necessary. The question between us therefore is from what this character is derived. The Reviewer prefers, indeed, to have it considered that the question is not concerning the necessity, but, as he says, the universality of these truths; or rather, the nature and grounds of our conviction of their universality. He might have said, with equal justice, the nature and grounds of our conviction of their necessity. For his objection to the term necessity in this case—"that all the propositions about realities are necessarily true, since every reality must be consistent with itself," (p. 206)—does not apply to our conviction of necessity, since we may not be able to see what are the properties of real things; and therefore may have no conviction of their necessity. It may be a necessary property of salt to be soluble, but we see no such necessity; and therefore the assertion of such a property is not one of the necessary truths with which we are here concerned. But to turn back to the necessary or universal truths of geometry, and the ground of those attributes: The main difference between the Author and the Reviewer is brought into view, when the Reviewer discusses the general argument which I had used, in order to show that truths which we see to be necessary and universal cannot be derived from experience. The argument is this,—

"Experience must always consist of a limited number of observations; and however numerous these may be, they can show nothing with regard to the infinite number of cases in which the experiment has not been made.... Truths can only be known to be general, not universal, if they depend upon experience alone. Experience cannot bestow that universality which she herself cannot have; nor that necessity of which she has no comprehension." (Phil. i. pp. 60, 61.)

Here is that which must be considered as the cardinal argument on this subject. It is therefore important to attend to the answer which the Reviewer makes to it. He says,—

"We conceive that a full answer to this argument is afforded by the nature of the inductive propensity,—by the irresistible impulse of the mind to generalize ad infinitum, when nothing in the nature of limitation or opposition offers itself to the imagination; and by our involuntary application of the law of continuity to fill up, by the same ideal substance of truth, every interval which uncontradicted experience may have left blank in our inductive conclusion." (p. 207.)

Now here we have two rival explanations of the same thing,—the conviction of the universality of geometrical truths. The one explanation is, that this universality is imposed upon such truths by their involving a certain element, derived from the universal mode of activity of the mind when apprehending such truths, which element I have termed an Idea. The other explanation is, that this universality arises from the inductive propensity—from the irresistible impulse to generalize ad infinitum—from the involuntary application of the law of continuity—from the filling up all intervals with the same ideal substance of truth.

With regard to these two explanations, I may observe, that so far as they are thus stated they do not necessarily differ. They both agree in expressing this; that the ground of the universality of geometrical truths is a certain law of the mind's activity, which determines its procedure when it is concerned in apprehending the external world. One explanation says, that we impress upon the external world the relations of our ideas, and thus believe more than we see,—the other says, that we have an irresistible impulse to introduce into our conviction a relation between what we do observe and what we do not, namely, to generalize ad infinitum from what we do see. One explanation says, that we perceive all external objects as included in absolute ideal space,—the other, that we fill up the intervals of the objects which we perceive with the same ideal substance of truth. Both sets of expressions may perhaps be admissible; and if admitted, may be understood as expressing the same opinions, or opinions which have much in common. The Author's expressions have the advantage, which ought to belong to them, as the expressions employed in a systematic work, of being fixed expressions, technical phrases, intentionally selected, uniformly and steadily employed whenever the occasion recurs. The Reviewer's expressions are more lively and figurative, and such as well become an occasional composition; but hardly such as could be systematically applied to the subject in a regular treatise. We could not, as a standard and technical phrase, talk of filling up the intervals of observation with the same ideal substance of truth; and the inevitable impulse to generalize would hardly sufficiently express that we generalize according to a certain idea, namely, the idea of space. Perhaps that which is suggested to us as the common import of the two sets of expressions may be conveyed by some other phrase, in a manner free from the objections which lie against both the Author's and the Critic's terms. Perhaps the mental idea governing our experience, and the irresistible impulse to generalize our observation, may both be superseded by our speaking of a law of the mind's activity, which is really implied in both. There operates, in observing the external world, a law of the mind's activity, by which it connects its observations; and this law of the mind's activity may be spoken of either as the idea of space, or as the irresistible impulse to generalize the relations of space which it observes. And this expression—the laws of the mind's activity—thus opposed to that merely passive function by which the mind receives the impressions of sense, may be applied to other ideas as well as to the idea of space, and to the impulse to generalize in other truths as well as those of geometry.

So far, it would seem, that the Author and the Critic may be brought into much nearer agreement than at first seemed likely, with regard to the grounds of the necessity and universality in our knowledge. But even if we adopt this conciliatory suggestion, and speak of the necessity and universality of certain truths as arising from the laws of the mind's activity, we cannot, without producing great confusion, allow ourselves to say, as the Critic says, that these truths are thus derived from experience, or from observation. It will, I say, be found fatal to all philosophical precision of thought and language, to say that the fundamental truths of geometry, the axioms, with the conviction of their necessary truth, are derived from experience. Let us take any axiomatic truth of geometry, and ask ourselves if this is not so.

It is, for example, an axiom in geometry that if a straight line cut one of two parallel straight lines, it must cut the other also. Is this truth derived or derivable from observation of actual parallel lines, and a line cutting them, exhibited to our senses? Let those who say that we do acquire this truth by observation, imagine to themselves the mode in which the observation must be made. We have before us two parallel straight lines, and we see that a straight line which cuts the one cuts the other also. We see this again in another case, it may be the angles and the distances being different, and in a third, and in a fourth; and so on; and generalizing, we are irresistibly led to believe the assertion to be universally true. But can any one really imagine this to be the mode in which we arrive at this truth? "We see," says this explanation, "two parallel straight lines, cut by a third." But how do we know that the observed lines are parallel? If we apply any test of parallelism, we must assume some property of parallels, and thus involve some axiom on the subject, which we have no more right to assume than the one now under consideration. We should thus destroy our explanation as an account of the mode of arriving at independent geometrical axioms. But probably those who would give such an explanation would not do this. They would not suppose that in observing this property of parallels we try by measurement whether the lines are parallel. They would say, I conceive, that we suppose lines to be parallel, and that then we see that the straight line which cuts the one must cut the other. That when we make this supposition, we are persuaded of the truth of the conclusion, is certain. But what I have to remark is, that this being so, the conclusion is the result, not of observation, but of the hypothesis. The geometrical truth here spoken of, after this admission, no longer flows from experience, but from supposition. It is not that we ascertain the lines to be parallel, and then find that they have this property: but we suppose the lines to be parallel, and therefore they have this property. This is not a truth of experience.

This, it may be said, is so evident that it cannot have been overlooked by a very acute reasoner, such as you describe your Critic to be. What, it may be asked, is the answer which he gives to so palpable an objection as this? How does he understand his assertion that we learn the truth of geometrical axioms from experience (p. 208), so as to make it tenable on his own principles? What account does he give of the origin of such axioms which makes them in any sense to be derived from experience?

In justice to the Reviewer's fairness (which is unimpeachable throughout his argumentation) it must be stated that he does give an account in which he professes to show how this is done. And the main step of his explanation consists in introducing the conception of direction, and unity of direction. He says (p. 208), "The unity of direction, or that we cannot march from a given point by more than one path direct to the same object, is a matter of practical experience, long before it can by possibility become matter of abstract thought." We might ask here, as in the former case, how this can be a matter of experience, except we have some independent test of directness? and we might demand to know what this test is. Or do we not rather, here as in the other case, suppose the directness of the path; and is not the singleness of the direct path a consequence, not of its observed form, but of its hypothetical directness; and thus by no means a result of experience? But we may put our remark upon this deduction of the geometrical axiom in another form. We generalize, it is said, the observations which we have made ever since we were born. But this term "generalize" is far too vague to pass for an explanation, without being itself explained. We are impelled to believe that to be true in general which we see to be true in particular. But how do we see any truth? How do we pick out any proposition with respect to a diagram which we see before us? We see in particular, and state in general, some truth respecting straight lines, or parallel lines, or concerning direction. But where do we find the conception of straightness, or parallelism, or direction? These conceptions are not upon the surface of things. The child does not, from his birth, see straightness and parallelism so as to know that he sees them. How then does his experience bear upon a proposition in which these conceptions are involved? It is said that it is a matter of experience long before it is a matter of abstract thought. But how can there be any experience by which we learn these properties of a straight line, till our thoughts are at least so abstract as to conceive what straightness is? If it be said that this conception grows with our experience, and is gradually unfolded with our unfolding materials of knowledge, so as to give import and significance to them: I need make no objection to such a statement, except this—that this power of unfolding out of the mind conceptions which give meaning to our experience, is something in addition to the mere employment of our senses upon the external world. It is what I have called the ideal part of our knowledge. It implies, not only an impulse to generalize from experience, but also an impulse to form conceptions by which generalization is possible. It requires, not only that nothing should oppose the tendency, but that the direction in which the tendency is to operate should be determined by the laws of the mind's activity; by an internal, not by an external agency.

One main ground on which the Reviewer is disposed to quarrel with and reject several of the expressions used in the Philosophy;—such as that space is an idea, a form of our perception, and the like,—is this; that such expressions appear to deprive the external world of its reality; to make it, or at least most of its properties, a creation of the observing mind. He quotes the following argument which is urged in the Philosophy, in order to prove that space is not a notion obtained from experience: "Experience gives us information concerning things without us, but our apprehending them as without us takes for granted their existence in space. Experience acquaints us with the form, position, magnitude, &c. of particular objects, but that they have form, position, magnitude, pre-supposes that they are in space." From this statement he altogether dissents. No, says he, "the reason why we apprehend things as without us is that they are without us. We take for granted that they exist in space, because they do so exist, and because such their existence is a matter of direct perception, which can neither be explained in words nor contravened in imagination: because, in short, space is a reality, and not a mere matter of convention or imagination."

Now, if by calling space an idea, we suggest any doubt of its reality and of the reality of the external world, we certainly run the risk of misleading our readers; for the external world is real if anything be real: the bodies which exist in space are things, if things are anywhere to be found. That bodies do exist in space, and that that is the reason why we apprehend them as existing in space, I readily grant. But I conceive that the term Idea ought not to suggest any such doubt of the reality of the knowledge in which it is involved. Ideas are always, in our knowledge, conjoined with facts. Our real knowledge is knowledge, because it involves ideas, real, because it involves facts. We apprehend things as existing in space because they do so exist: and our idea of space enables us so to observe them, and so to conceive them.

But we want, further, a reason why, apprehending them as they are, we also apprehend, that in certain relations they could not be otherwise (that two straight linear objects could not inclose a space, for instance). This circumstance is no way accounted for by saying that we apprehend them as they are; and is, I presume to say, inexplicable, except by supposing that it arises from some property of the observing mind:—an Idea, as I have termed it,—an irresistible Impulse to generalize, as the Reviewer expresses it. Or, as I have suggested, we may adopt a third phrase, a Law of the mind's activity: and in order that no question may remain, whether we ascribe reality to the objects and relations which we observe, we may describe it as "a Law of the mind's activity in apprehending what is." And thus the real existence of the object, and the ideal element which our apprehension of it introduces, would both be clearly asserted.

I am ready to use expressions which recognize the reality of space and other external things more emphatically than those expressions which I have employed in the Philosophy, if expressions can be found which, while they do this, enable us to explain the possibility of knowledge, and to analyze the structure of truth. It is, indeed, extremely difficult to find, in speaking of this subject, expressions which are satisfactory. The reality of the objects which we perceive is a profound, apparently an insoluble problem[352]. We cannot but suppose that existence is something different from our knowledge of existence:—that which exists, does not exist merely in our knowing that it does:—truth is truth whether we know it or not. Yet how can we conceive truth, otherwise than as something known? How can we conceive things as existing, without conceiving them as objects of perception? Ideas and Things are constantly opposed, yet necessarily co-existent. How they are thus opposite and yet identical, is the ultimate problem of all philosophy. The successive phases of philosophy have consisted in separating and again uniting these two opposite elements; in dwelling sometimes upon the one and sometimes upon the other, as the principal or original or only element; and then in discovering that such an account of the state of the case was insufficient. Knowledge requires ideas. Reality requires things. Ideas and things co-exist. Truth is, and is known. But the complete explanation of these points appears to be beyond our reach. At least it is not necessary for the purposes of our philosophy. The separation of ideas and sensations in order to discover the conditions of knowledge is our main task. How ideas and sensations are united so as to form things, does not so immediately concern us.

I have stated that we may, without giving up any material portion of the Philosophy of Science to which I have been led, express the conclusions in other phraseology; and that instead of saying that all our knowledge involves certain Fundamental Ideas, the sources from which all universal truth is derived, we may say that there are certain Laws of Mental Activity according to which alone all the real relations of things are apprehended. If this alteration in the phraseology will make the doctrines more generally intelligible or acceptable, there is no reason why it should not be adopted. But I may remark, that a main purpose of the Philosophy was not merely to prove that there are such Fundamental Ideas or Laws of mental activity, but to enumerate those of them which are involved in the existing sciences; and to state the fundamental truths to which the fundamental ideas lead. This was the task which was attempted; and if this have been executed with any tolerable success, it may perhaps be received as a contribution to the philosophy of science, of which the value is not small, in whatever terms it be expressed. And this enumeration of fundamental ideas, and of truths derived from them, must have something to correspond to it, in any other mode of expressing that view of the nature of knowledge which we are led to adopt. If instead of Fundamental Ideas, we speak of Impulses of generalization, or of Laws of mental activity, we must still distinguish such Impulses, or such Laws, according to the distinctions of ideas to which the survey of science led us. We shall thus have a series of groups of Laws, or of classes of generalizing Impulses, corresponding to the series of Fundamental Ideas already given. If we employ the language of the Reviewer, we shall have one generalizing Impulse which suggests relations of Space; another which directs us to properties of Numbers; another which deals with Time; another with Cause: another which groups objects according to Likeness; another which suggests a purpose as a necessary relation among them; to which may be added, even while we confine ourselves to the physical sciences, several others, as may be seen in the Philosophy. Now when the fundamental conditions and elements of truth are thus arranged into groups, it is not a matter of so much consequence to decide whether each group shall be said to be bound together by an idea or by an impulse of generalization; as it is to see that, if this happen in virtue of ideas, here are so many distinct ideas which enter into the structure of science, and give universality to its matter; and again, if this happen in virtue of an irresistible impulse of generalization in each case, we have so many different kinds of impulses of generalization. The main purpose in the Philosophy was to analyze scientific truth into its conditions and elements; and I did not content myself with saying that those elements are Sensations and Ideas; the Ideas being that element which makes universal knowledge conceivable and possible. I went further: I enumerated the Ideas which thus enter into science. I showed that in the sciences which I passed in review, the most acute and profound inquirers had taken for granted that certain truths in each science are of universal and necessary validity, and I endeavoured to select the idea in which this universality and necessity resided, and to separate it from all other ideas involved in other sciences. If therefore it be thought better to say that those principles in each science upon which, as upon the axioms in geometry, the universality and necessity of scientific truth depends, are arrived at, not by ideas, but by an irresistible impulse of generalization, those who employ such phraseology, if they make a classification of such impulses corresponding to my classification of ideas, will still adopt the greater part of my philosophy, altering only the phraseology. Or if, as I suggested, instead of "Fundamental Ideas," we use the phrase "Laws of Mental Activity," then our primary intellectual Code—the Constitution of our minds, as it may be termed—will consist of a Body of Laws of which the Titles correspond with the Fundamental Ideas of the Philosophy.

My object was, from the writings of the most sagacious and profound philosophers who have laboured on each science, to extract such a code, such a constitution. If I have in any degree succeeded in this, the result must have a reality and a value independently of all forms of expression. Still I do not think that any language can ever serve for such legislation, in which the two elements of truth are not distinguished. Even if we adopt the phraseology which I have just employed, we shall have to recollect that Law and Fact must be kept distinct, and that the Constitution has its Principles as well as its History.

But I will not longer detain you by seeking other modes of expressing the Fundamental Antithesis to which the accompanying Memoir refers. The Remarks which I here send you were written three years ago, on the appearance of the Review which I have quoted. If I succeed in obtaining for them a few minutes' attention from you and a few other friends, I shall be glad that they have been preserved.

I am, my dear Herschel,

always truly yours,

W. WHEWELL.

P.S. I have abstained from sending you a large portion of my Remarks as originally written. I had gone on to show that, in my Philosophy, I had not only enumerated and analyzed a great number of different Fundamental Ideas which belong to the different existing sciences, but that I had also shown in what manner these ideas enter into their respective sciences; namely, by the statement or use of Axioms, which involve the ideas, and which form the basis of each science when systematically exhibited. A number of these Axioms belonging to most of the physical sciences, are stated in the Philosophy. I might have added also that I have attempted to classify the historical steps by which such Axioms are brought into view and applied. But it is not necessary to dwell upon these points, in order to illustrate the difference and the agreement between the Reviewer and me.

Sir John F. W. Herschel, Bart. &c.

Appendix G. OF THE TRANSFORMATION OF HYPOTHESES IN THE HISTORY OF SCIENCE.

(Cam. Phil. Soc. May 19, 1851.)

1. THE history of science suggests the reflection that it is very difficult for the same person at the same time to do justice to two conflicting theories. Take for example the Cartesian hypothesis of vortices and the Newtonian doctrine of universal gravitation. The adherents of the earlier opinion resisted the evidence of the Newtonian theory with a degree of obstinacy and captiousness which now appears to us quite marvellous: while on the other hand, since the complete triumph of the Newtonians, they have been unwilling to allow any merit at all to the doctrine of vortices. It cannot but seem strange, to a calm observer of such changes, that in a matter which depends upon mathematical proofs, the whole body of the mathematical world should pass over, as in this and similar cases they seem to have done, from an opinion confidently held, to its opposite. No doubt this must be, in part, ascribed to the lasting effects of education and early prejudice. The old opinion passes away with the old generation: the new theory grows to its full vigour when its congenital disciples grow to be masters. John Bernoulli continues a Cartesian to the last; Daniel, his son, is a Newtonian from the first. Newton's doctrines are adopted at once in England, for they are the solution of a problem at which his contemporaries have been labouring for years. They find no adherents in France, where Descartes is supposed to have already explained the constitution of the world; and Fontenelle, the secretary of the Academy of Sciences at Paris, dies a Cartesian seventy years after the publication of Newton's Principia. This is, no doubt, a part of the explanation of the pertinacity with which opinions are held, both before and after a scientific revolution: but this is not the whole, nor perhaps the most instructive aspect of the subject. There is another feature in the change, which explains, in some degree, how it is possible that, in subjects, mainly at least mathematical, and therefore claiming demonstrative evidence, mathematicians should hold different and even opposite opinions. And the object of the present paper is to point out this feature in the successions of theories, and to illustrate it by some prominent examples drawn from the history of science.

2. The feature to which I refer is this; that when a prevalent theory is found to be untenable, and consequently, is succeeded by a different, or even by an opposite one, the change is not made suddenly, or completed at once, at least in the minds of the most tenacious adherents of the earlier doctrine; but is effected by a transformation, or series of transformations, of the earlier hypothesis, by means of which it is gradually brought nearer and nearer to the second; and thus, the defenders of the ancient doctrine are able to go on as if still asserting their first opinions, and to continue to press their points of advantage, if they have any, against the new theory. They borrow, or imitate, and in some way accommodate to their original hypothesis, the new explanations which the new theory gives, of the observed facts; and thus they maintain a sort of verbal consistency; till the original hypothesis becomes inextricably confused, or breaks down under the weight of the auxiliary hypotheses thus fastened upon it, in order to make it consistent with the facts.

This often-occurring course of events might be illustrated from the history of the astronomical theory of epicycles and eccentrics, as is well known. But my present purpose is to give one or two brief illustrations of a somewhat similar tendency from other parts of scientific history; and in the first place, from that part which has already been referred to, the battle of the Cartesian and Newtonian systems.

3. The part of the Cartesian system of vortices which is most familiarly known to general readers is the explanation of the motions of the planets by supposing them carried round the sun by a kind of whirlpool of fluid matter in which they are immersed: and the explanation of the motions of the satellites round their primaries by similar subordinate whirlpools, turning round the primary, and carried, along with it, by the primary vortex. But it should be borne in mind that a part of the Cartesian hypothesis which was considered quite as important as the cosmical explanation, was the explanation which it was held to afford of terrestrial gravity. Terrestrial gravity was asserted to arise from the motion of the vortex of subtle matter which revolved round the earth's axis and filled the surrounding space. It was maintained that by the rotation of such a vortex, the particles of the subtle matter would exert a centrifugal force, and by virtue of that force, tend to recede from the center: and it was held that all bodies which were near the earth, and therefore immersed in the vortex, would be pressed towards the center by the effort of the subtle matter to recede from the center[353].

These two assumed effects of the Cartesian vortices—to carry bodies in their stream, as straws are carried round by a whirlpool, and to press bodies to the center by the centrifugal effort of the whirling matter—must be considered separately, because they were modified separately, as the progress of discussion drove the Cartesians from point to point. The former effect indeed, the dragging force of the vortex, as we may call it, would not bear working out on mechanical principles at all; for as soon as the law of motion was acknowledged (which Descartes himself was one of the loudest in proclaiming), that a body in motion keeps all the motion which it has, and receives in addition all that is impressed upon it; as soon, in short, as philosophers rejected the notion of an inertness in matter which constantly retards its movements,—it was plain that a planet perpetually dragged onwards in its orbit by a fluid moving quicker than itself, must be perpetually accelerated; and therefore could not follow those constantly-recurring cycles of quicker and slower motion which the planets exhibit to us.

The Cartesian mathematicians, then, left untouched the calculation of the progressive motion of the planets; and, clinging to the assumption that a vortex would produce a tendency of bodies to the center, made various successive efforts to construct their vortices in such a manner that the centripetal forces produced by them should coincide with those which the phenomena required, and therefore of course, in the end, with those which the Newtonian theory asserted.

In truth, the Cartesian vortex was a bad piece of machinery for producing a central force: from the first, objections were made to the sufficiency of its mechanism, and most of these objections were very unsatisfactorily answered, even granting the additional machinery which its defenders demanded. One formidable objection was soon started, and continued to the last to be the torment of the Cartesians. If terrestrial gravity, it was urged, arise from the centrifugal force of a vortex which revolves about the earth's axis, terrestrial gravity ought to act in planes perpendicular to the earth's axis, instead of tending to the earth's center. This objection was taken by James Bernoulli[354], and by Huyghens[355] not long after the publication of Descartes's Principia. Huyghens (who adopted the theory of vortices with modifications of his own) supposes that there are particles of the fluid matter which move about the earth in every possible direction, within the spherical space which includes terrestrial objects; and that the greater part of these motions being in spherical surfaces concentric with the earth, produces a tendency towards the earth's center.

This was a procedure tolerably arbitrary, but it was the best which could be done. Saurin, a little later[356], gave nearly the same solution of this difficulty. The solution, identifying a vortex of some kind with a central force, made the hypothesis of vortices applicable wherever central forces existed; but then, in return, it deprived the image of a vortex of all that clearness and simplicity which had been its first great recommendation.

But still there remained difficulties not less formidable. According to this explanation of gravity, since the tendency of bodies to the earth's center arose from the superior centrifugal force of the whirling matter which pushed them inward as water pushes a light body upward, bodies ought to tend more strongly to the center in proportion as they are less dense. The rarest bodies should be the heaviest; contrary to what we find.

Descartes's original solution of this difficulty has a certain degree of ingenuity. According to him (Princip. IV. 23) a terrestrial body consists of particles of the third element, and the more it has of such particles, the more it excludes the parts of the celestial matter, from the revolution of which matter gravity arises; and therefore the denser is the terrestrial body, and the heavier it will be.

But though this might satisfy him, it could not satisfy the mathematicians who followed him, and tried to reduce his system to calculation on mechanical principles. For how could they do this, if the celestial matter, by the operation of which the phenomena of force and motion were produced, was so entirely different from ordinary matter, which alone had supplied men with experimental illustrations of mechanical principles? In order that the celestial matter, by its whirling, might produce the gravity of heavy bodies, it was mechanically necessary that it must be very dense; and dense in the ordinary sense of the term; for it was by regarding density in the ordinary sense of the term that the mechanical necessity had been established.

The Cartesians tried to escape this result (Huyghens, Pesanteur, p. 161, and John Bernoulli, Nouvelles Pensées, Art. 31) by saying that there were two meanings of density and rarity; that some fluids might be rare by having their particles far asunder, others, by having their particles very small though in contact. But it is difficult to think that they could, as persons well acquainted with mechanical principles, satisfy themselves with this distinction; for they could hardly fail to see that the mechanical effect of any portion of fluid depends upon the total mass moved, not on the size of its particles.

Attempts made to exemplify the vortices experimentally only showed more clearly the force of this difficulty. Huyghens had found that certain bodies immersed in a whirling fluid tended to the center of the vortex. But when Saulmon[357] a little later made similar experiments, he had the mortification of finding that the heaviest bodies had the greatest tendency to recede from the axis of the vortex. "The result is," as the Secretary of the Academy (Fontenelle) says, "exactly the opposite of what we could have wished, for the [Cartesian] system of gravity: but we are not to despair; sometimes in such researches disappointment leads to ultimate success."

But, passing by this difficulty, and assuming that in some way or other a centripetal force arises from the centrifugal force of the vortex, the Cartesian mathematicians were naturally led to calculate the circumstances of the vortex on mechanical principles; especially Huyghens, who had successfully studied the subject of centrifugal force. Accordingly, in his little treatise on the Cause of Gravitation (p. 143), he calculates the velocity of the fluid matter of the vortex, and finds that, at a point in the equator, it is 17 times the velocity of the earth's rotation.

It may naturally be asked, how it comes to pass that a stream of fluid, dense enough to produce the gravity of bodies by its centrifugal force, moving with a velocity 17 times that of the earth (and therefore moving round the earth in 85 minutes), does not sweep all terrestrial objects before it. But to this Huyghens had already replied (p. 137), that there are particles of the fluid moving in all directions, and therefore that they neutralize each other's action, so far as lateral motion is concerned.

And thus, as early as this treatise of Huyghens, that is, in three years from the publication of Newton's Principia, a vortex is made to mean nothing more than some machinery or other for producing a central force. And this is so much the case, that Huyghens commends (p. 165), as confirming his own calculation of the velocity of his vortex, Newton's proof that at the Moon's orbit the centripetal force is equal to the centrifugal; and that thus, this force is less than the centripetal force at the earth's surface in the inverse proportion of the squares of the distances.

John Bernoulli, in the same manner, but with far less clearness and less candour, has treated the hypothesis of vortices as being principally a hypothetical cause of central force. He had repeated occasions given him of propounding his inventions for propping up the Cartesian doctrine, by the subjects proposed for prizes by the Paris Academy of Sciences; in which competition Cartesian speculations were favourably received. Thus the subject of the Prize Essays for 1730 was, the explanation of the Elliptical Form of the planetary orbits and of the Motion of their Aphelia, and the prize was assigned to John Bernoulli, who gave the explanation on Cartesian principles. He explains the elliptical figure, not as Descartes himself had done, by supposing the vortex which carries the planet round the sun to be itself squeezed into an elliptical form by the pressure of contiguous vortices; but he supposes the planet, while it is carried round by the vortex, to have a limited oscillatory motion to and from the center, produced by its being originally, not at the distance at which it would float in equilibrium in the vortex, but above or below that point. On this supposition, the planet would oscillate to and from the center, Bernoulli says, like the mercury when deranged in a barometer: and it is evident that such an oscillation, combined with a motion round the center, might produce an oval curve, either with a fixed or with a moveable aphelion. All this however merely amounts to a possibility that the oval may be an ellipse, not to a proof that it will be so; nor does Bernoulli advance further.

It was necessary that the vortices should be adjusted in such a manner as to account for Kepler's laws; and this was to be done by making the velocity of each stratum of the vortex depend in a suitable manner on its radius. The Abbé de Molières attempted this on the supposition of elliptical vortices, but could not reconcile Kepler's first two laws, of equal elliptical areas in equal times, with his third law, that the squares of the periodic times are as the cubes of the mean distances[358]. Bernoulli, with his circular vortices, could accommodate the velocities at different distances so that they should explain Kepler's laws. He pretended to prove that Newton's investigations respecting vortices (in the ninth Section of the Second Book of the Principia) were mechanically erroneous; and in truth, it must be allowed that, besides several arbitrary assumptions, there are some errors of reasoning in them. But for the most part, the more enlightened Cartesians were content to accept Newton's account of the motions and forces of the solar system as part of their scheme; and to say only that the hypothesis of vortices explained the origin of the Newtonian forces; and that thus theirs was a philosophy of a higher kind. Thus it is asserted (Mém. Acad. 1734), that M. de Molières retains the beautiful theory of Newton entire, only he renders it in a sort less Newtonian, by disentangling it from attraction, and transferring it from a vacuum into a plenum. This plenum, though not its native region, frees it from the need of attraction, which is all the better for it. These points were the main charms of the Cartesian doctrine in the eyes of its followers;—the getting rid of attractions, which were represented as a revival of the Aristotelian "occult qualities," "substantial forms," or whatever else was the most disparaging way of describing the bad philosophy of the dark ages[359];—and the providing some material intermedium, by means of which a body may affect another at a distance; and thus avoid the reproach urged against the Newtonians, that they made a body act where it was not. And we are the less called upon to deny that this last feature in the Newtonian theory was a difficulty, inasmuch as Newton himself was never unwilling to allow that gravity might be merely an effect produced by some ulterior cause.

With such admissions on the two sides, it is plain that the Newtonian and Cartesian systems would coincide, if the hypothesis of vortices could be modified in such a way as to produce the force of gravitation. All attempts to do this, however, failed: and even John Bernoulli, the most obstinate of the mathematical champions of the vortices, was obliged to give them up. In his Prize Essay for 1734, (on the Inclinations of the Planetary Orbits[360],) he says (Art. VIII.), "The gravitation of the Planets towards the center of the Sun and the weight of bodies towards the center of the earth has not, for its cause, either the attraction of M. Newton, or the centrifugal force of the matter of the vortex according to M. Descartes;" and he then goes on to assert that these forces are produced by a perpetual torrent of matter tending to the center on all sides, and carrying all bodies with it. Such a hypothesis is very difficult to refute. It has been taken up in more modern times by Le Sage[361], with some modifications; and may be made to account for the principal facts of the universal gravitation of matter. The great difficulty in the way of such a hypothesis is, the overwhelming thought of the whole universe filled with torrents of an invisible but material and tangible substance, rushing in every direction in infinitely prolonged straight lines and with immense velocity. Whence can such matter come, and whither can it go? Where can be its perpetual and infinitely distant fountain, and where the ocean into which it pours itself when its infinite course is ended? A revolving whirlpool is easily conceived and easily supplied; but the central torrent of Bernoulli, the infinite streams of particles of Le Sage, are an explanation far more inconceivable than the thing explained.

But however the hypothesis of vortices, or some hypothesis substituted for it, was adjusted to explain the facts of attraction to a center, this was really nearly all that was meant by a vortex or a "tourbillon," when the system was applied. Thus in the case of the last act of homage to the Cartesian theory which the French Academy rendered in the distribution of its prizes, the designation of a Cartesian Essay in 1741 (along with three Newtonian ones) as worthy of a prize for an explanation of the Tides; the difference of high and low water was not explained, as Descartes has explained it, by the pressure, on the ocean, of the terrestrial vortex, forced into a strait where it passes under the Moon; but the waters were supposed to rise towards the Moon, the terrestrial vortex being disturbed and broken by the Moon, and therefore less effective in forcing them down. And in giving an account of a Tourmaline from Ceylon (Acad. Sc. 1717), when it has been ascertained that it attracts and repels substances, the writer adds, as a matter of course, "It would seem that it has a vortex." As another example, the elasticity of a body was ascribed to vortices between its particles: and in general, as I have said, a vortex implied what we now imply by speaking of a central force.

4. In the same manner vortices were ascribed to the Magnet, in order to account for its attractions and repulsions. But we may note a circumstance which gave a special turn to the hypothesis of vortices as applied to this subject, and which may serve as a further illustration of the manner in which a transition may be made from one to the other of two rival hypotheses.

If iron filings be brought near a magnet, in such a manner as to be at liberty to assume the position which its polar action assigns to them; (for instance, by strewing them upon a sheet of paper while the two poles of the magnet are close below the paper;) they will arrange themselves in certain curves, each proceeding from the N. to the S. pole of the magnet, like the meridians in a map of the globe. It is easily shown, on the supposition of magnetic attraction and repulsion, that these magnetic curves, as they are termed, are each a curve whose tangent at every point is the direction of a small line or particle, as determined by the attraction and repulsion of the two poles. But if we suppose a magnetic vortex constantly to flow out of one pole and into the other, in streams which follow such curves, it is evident that such a vortex, being supposed to exercise material pressure and impulse, would arrange the iron filings in corresponding streams, and would thus produce the phenomenon which I have described. And the hypothesis of central torrents of Bernoulli or Le Sage which I have referred to, would, in its application to magnets, really become this hypothesis of a magnetic vortex, if we further suppose that the matter of the torrents which proceed to one pole and from the other, mingles its streams, so as at each point to produce a stream in the resulting direction. Of course we shall have to suppose two sets of magnetic torrents;—a boreal torrent, proceeding to the north pole, and from the south pole of a magnet; and an austral torrent proceeding to the south and from the north pole:—and with these suppositions, we make a transition from the hypothesis of attraction and repulsion, to the Cartesian hypothesis of vortices, or at least, torrents, which determine bodies to their magnetic positions by impulse.

Of course it is to be expected that, in this as in the other case, when we follow the hypothesis of impulse into detail, it will need to be loaded with so many subsidiary hypotheses, in order to accommodate it to the phenomena, that it will no longer seem tenable. But the plausibility of the hypothesis in its first application cannot be denied:—for, it may be observed, the two opposite streams would counteract each other so as to produce no local motion, only direction. And this case may put us on our guard against other suggestions of forces acting in curve lines, which may at first sight appear to be discerned in magnetic and electric phenomena. Probably such curve lines will all be found to be only resulting lines, arising from the direct action and combination of elementary attraction and repulsion.

5. There is another case in which it would not be difficult to devise a mode of transition from one to the other of two rival theories; namely, in the case of the emission theory and the undulation theory of Light. Indeed several steps of such a transition have already appeared in the history of optical speculation; and the conclusive objection to the emission theory of light, as to the Cartesian theory of vortices, is, that no amount of additional hypotheses will reconcile it to the phenomena. Its defenders had to go on adding one piece of machinery after another, as new classes of facts came into view, till it became more complex and unmechanical than the theory of epicycles and eccentrics at its worst period. Otherwise, as I have said, there was nothing to prevent the emission theory from migrating into the undulatory theory, and as the theory of vortices did into the theory of attraction. For the emissionists allow that rays may interfere; and that these interferences may be modified by alternate fits in the rays; now these fits are already a kind of undulation. Then again the phenomena of polarized light show that the fits or undulations must have a transverse character: and there is no reason why emitted rays should not be subject to fits of transverse modification as well as to any other fits. In short, we may add to the emitted rays of the one theory, all the properties which belong to the undulations of the other, and thus account for all the phenomena on the emission theory; with this limitation only, that the emission will have no share in the explanation, and the undulations will have the whole. If, instead of conceiving the universe full of a stationary ether, we suppose it to be full of etherial particles moving in every direction; and if we suppose, in the one case and in the other, this ether to be susceptible of undulations proceeding from every luminous point; the results of the two hypotheses will be the same; and all we shall have to say is, that the supposition of the emissive motion of the particles is superfluous and useless.

6. This view of the manner in which rival theories pass into one another appears to be so unfamiliar to those who have only slightly attended to the history of science, that I have thought it might be worth while to illustrate it by a few examples.

It might be said, for instance, by such persons[362], "Either the planets are not moved by vortices, or they do not move by the law by which heavy bodies fall. It is impossible that both opinions can be true." But it appears, by what has been said above, that the Cartesians did hold both opinions to be true; and one with just as much reason as the other, on their assumptions. It might be said in the same manner, "Either it is false that the planets are made to describe their orbits by the above quasi-Cartesian theory of Bernoulli, or it is false that they obey the Newtonian theory of gravitation." But this would be said quite erroneously; for if the hypothesis of Bernoulli be true, it is so because it agrees in its result with the theory of Newton. It is not only possible that both opinions may be true, but it is certain that if the first be so, the second is. It might be said again, "Either the planets describe their orbits by an inherent virtue, or according to the Newton theory." But this again would be erroneous, for the Newtonian doctrine decided nothing as to whether the force of gravitation was inherent or not. Cotes held that it was, though Newton strongly protested against being supposed to hold such an opinion. The word inherent is no part of the physical theory, and will be asserted or denied according to our metaphysical views of the essential attributes of matter and force.

Of course, the possibility of two rival hypotheses being true, one of which takes the explanation a step higher than the other, is not affected by the impossibility of two contradictory assertions of the same order of generality being both true. If there be a new-discovered comet, and if one astronomer asserts that it will return once in every twenty years, and another, that it will return once in every thirty years, both cannot be right. But if an astronomer says that though its interval was in the last instance 30 years, it will only be 20 years to the next return, in consequence of perturbation and resistance, he may be perfectly right.

And thus, when different and rival explanations of the same phenomena are held, till one of them, though long defended by ingenious men, is at last driven out of the field by the pressure of facts, the defeated hypothesis is transformed before it is extinguished. Before it has disappeared, it has been modified so as to have all palpable falsities squeezed out of it, and subsidiary provisions added, in order to reconcile it with the phenomena. It has, in short, been penetrated, infiltrated, and metamorphosed by the surrounding medium of truth, before the merely arbitrary and erroneous residuum has been finally ejected out of the body of permanent and certain knowledge.

Appendix H. ON HEGEL'S CRITICISM OF NEWTON'S PRINCIPIA.

(Cam. Phil. Soc. May 21, 1849.)

The Newtonian doctrine of universal gravitation, as the cause of the motions which take place in the solar system, is so entirely established in our minds, and the fallacy of all the ordinary arguments against it is so clearly understood among us, that it would undoubtedly be deemed a waste of time to argue such questions in this place, so far as physical truth is concerned. But since in other parts of Europe, there are teachers of philosophy whose reputation and influence are very great, and who are sometimes referred to among our own countrymen as the authors of new and valuable views of truth, and who yet reject the Newtonian opinions, and deny the validity of the proofs commonly given of them, it may be worth while to attend for a few minutes to the declarations of such teachers, as a feature in the present condition of European philosophy. I the more readily assume that the Cambridge Philosophical Society will not think a communication on such a subject devoid of interest, in consequence of the favourable reception which it has given to philosophical speculations still more abstract, which I have on previous occasions offered to it. I will therefore proceed to make some remarks on the opinions concerning the Newtonian doctrine of gravitation, delivered by the celebrated Hegel, of Berlin, than whom no philosopher in modern, and perhaps hardly any even in ancient times, has had his teaching received with more reverential submission by his disciples, or been followed by a more numerous and zealous band of scholars bent upon diffusing and applying his principles.

The passages to which I shall principally refer are taken from one of his works which is called the Encyclopædia (Encyklopädie), of which the First Part is the Science of Logic, the Second, the Philosophy of Nature, the Third, the Philosophy of Spirit. The Second Part, with which I am here concerned, has for an aliter title, Lectures on Natural Philosophy (Vorlesungen über Natur-philosophie), and would through its whole extent offer abundant material for criticism, by referring it to principles with which we are here familiar: but I shall for the present confine myself to that part which refers to the subject which I have mentioned, the Newtonian Doctrine of Gravitation, § 269, 270, of the work. Nor shall I, with regard to this part, think it necessary to give a continuous and complete criticism of all the passages bearing upon the subject; but only such specimens, and such remarks thereon, as may suffice to show in a general manner the value and the character of Hegel's declarations on such questions. I do not pretend to offer here any opinion upon the value and character of Hegel's philosophy in general: but I think it not unlikely that some impression on that head may be suggested by the examination, here offered, of some points in which we can have no doubt where the truth lies; and I am not at all persuaded that a like examination of many other parts of the Hegelian Encyclopædia, would not confirm the impression which we shall receive from the parts now to be considered.

Hegel both criticises the Newtonian doctrines, or what he states as such; and also, not denying the truth of the laws of phenomena which he refers to, for instance Kepler's laws, offers his own proof of these laws. I shall make a few brief remarks on each of these portions of the pages before me. And I would beg it to be understood that where I may happen to put my remarks in a short, and what may seem a peremptory form, I do so for the sake of saving time; knowing that among us, upon subjects so familiar, a few words will suffice. For the same reason, I shall take passages from Hegel, not in the order in which they occur, but in the order in which they best illustrate what I have to say. I shall do Hegel no injustice by this mode of proceeding: for I will annex a faithful translation, so far as I can make one, of the whole of the passages referred to, with the context.

No one will be surprised that a German, or indeed any lover of science, should speak with admiration of the discovery of Kepler's laws, as a great event in the history of Astronomy, and a glorious distinction to the discoverer. But to say that the glory of the discovery of the proof of these laws has been unjustly transferred from Kepler to Newton, is quite another matter. This is what Hegel says (a)[363]. And we have to consider the reasons which he assigns for saying so.

He says (b) that "it is allowed by mathematicians that the Newtonian Formula maybe derived from the Keplerian laws," and hence he seems to infer that the Newtonian law is not an additional truth. That is, he does not allow that the discovery of the cause which produces a certain phenomenal law is anything additional to the discovery of the law itself.

"The Newtonian formula may be derived from the Keplerian law." It was professedly so derived; but derived by introducing the Idea of Force, which Idea and its consequences were not introduced and developed till after Kepler's time.

"The Newtonian formula may be derived from the Keplerian law." And the Keplerian law may be derived, and was derived, from the observations of the Greek astronomers and their successors; but was not the less a new and great discovery on that account.

But let us see what he says further of this derivation of the Newtonian "formula" from the Keplerian Law. It is evident that by calling it a formula, he means to imply, what he also asserts, that it is no new law, but only a new form (and a bad one) of a previously known truth.

How is the Newtonian "formula," that is, the law of the inverse squares of the central force, derived from the Keplerian law of the cubes of the distances proportional to the squares of the times? This, says Hegel, is the "immediate derivation." (c).—By Kepler's law, A being the distance and T the periodic time, A³/T² is constant. But Newton calls A/T² universal gravitation; whence it easily follows that gravitation is inversely as A².

This is Hegel's way of representing Newton's proof. Reading it, any one who had never read the Principia might suppose that Newton defined gravitation to be A/T². We, who have read the Principia, know that Newton proves that in circles, the central force (not the universal gravitation) is as A/T²: that he proves this, by setting out from the idea of force, as that which deflects a body from the tangent, and makes it describe a curved line: and that in this way, he passes from Kepler's laws of mere motion to his own law of Force.

But Hegel does not see any value in this. Such a mode of treating the subject he says (i) "offers to us a tangled web, formed of the Lines of the mere geometrical construction, to which a physical meaning of independent forces is given." That a measure of forces is found in such lines as the sagitta of the arc described in a given time, (not such a meaning arbitrarily given to them,) is certainly true, and is very distinctly proved in Newton, and in all our elementary books.

But, says Hegel, as further showing the artificial nature of the Newtonian formulæ, (h) "Analysis has long been able to derive the Newtonian expression and the laws therewith connected out of the Form of the Keplerian Laws;" an assertion, to verify which he refers to Francœur's Mécanique. This is apparently in order to show that the "lines" of the Newtonian construction are superfluous. We know very well that analysis does not always refer to visible representations of such lines: but we know too, (and Francœur would testify to this also,) that the analytical proofs contain equivalents to the Newtonian lines. We, in this place, are too familiar with the substitution of analytical for geometrical proofs, to be led to suppose that such a substitution affects the substance of the truth proved. The conversion of Newton's geometrical proofs of his discoveries into analytical processes by succeeding writers, has not made them cease to be discoveries: and accordingly, those who have taken the most prominent share in such a conversion, have been the most ardent admirers of Newton's genius and good fortune.

So much for Newton's comparison of the Forces in different circular orbits, and for Hegel's power of understanding and criticising it. Now let us look at the motion in different parts of the same elliptical orbit, as a further illustration of the value of Hegel's criticism. In an elliptical orbit the velocity alternately increases and diminishes. This follows necessarily from Kepler's law of the equal description of the areas, and so Newton explains it. Hegel, however, treats of this acceleration and retardation as a separate fact, and talks of another explanation of it, founded upon Centripetal and Centrifugal Force (o). Where he finds this explanation, I know not; certainly not in Newton, who in the second and third section of the Principia explains the variation of the velocity in a quite different manner, as I have said; and nowhere, I think, employs centrifugal force in his explanations. However, the notion of centrifugal as acting along with centripetal force is introduced in some treatises, and may undoubtedly be used with perfect truth and propriety. How far Hegel can judge when it is so used, we may see from what he says of the confusion produced by such an explanation, which is, he says, a maximum. In the first place, he speaks of the motion being uniformly accelerated and retarded in an elliptical orbit, which, in any exact use of the word uniformly, it is not. But passing by this, he proceeds to criticise an explanation, not of the variable velocity of the body in its orbit, but of the alternate access and recess of the body to and from the center. Let us overlook this confusion also, and see what is the value of his criticism on the explanation. He says (p), "according to this explanation, in the motion of a planet from the aphelion to the perihelion, the centrifugal is less than the centripetal force; and in the perihelion itself the centripetal force is supposed suddenly to become greater than the centrifugal;" and so, of course, the body re-ascends to the aphelion.

Now I will not say that this explanation has never been given in a book professing to be scientific; but I have never seen it given; and it never can have been given but by a very ignorant and foolish person. It goes upon the utterly unmechanical supposition that the approach of a body to the center at any moment depends solely upon the excess of the centripetal over the centrifugal force; and reversely. But the most elementary knowledge of mechanics shows us that when a body is moving obliquely to the distance from the center, it approaches to or recedes from the center in virtue of this obliquity, even if no force at all act. And the total approach to the center is the approach due to this cause, plus the approach due to the centripetal force, minus the recess due to the centrifugal force. At the aphelion, the centripetal is greater than the centrifugal force; and hence the motion becomes oblique; and then, the body approaches to the center on both accounts, and approaches on account of the obliquity of the path even when the centrifugal has become greater than the centripetal force, which it becomes before the body reaches the perihelion. This reasoning is so elementary, that when a person who cannot see this, writes on the subject with an air of authority, I do not see what can be done but to point out the oversight and leave it.

But there is, says Hegel (q), another way of explaining the motion by means of centripetal and centrifugal forces. The two forces are supposed to increase and decrease gradually, according to different laws. In this case, there must be a point where they are equal, and in equilibrio; and this being the case, they will always continue equal, for there will be no reason for their going out of equilibrium.

This, which is put as another mode of explanation, is, in fact, the same mode; for, as I have already said, the centrifugal force, which is less than the centripetal at the aphelion, becomes the greater of the two before the perihelion; and there is an intermediate position, at which the two forces are equal. But at this point, is there no reason why, being equal, the forces should become unequal? Reason abundant: for the body, being there, moves in a line oblique to the distance, and so changes its distance; and the centripetal and centrifugal force, depending upon the distance by different laws, they forthwith become unequal.

But these modes of explanation, by means of the centripetal and centrifugal forces and their relation, are not necessary to Newton's doctrine, and are nowhere used by Newton; and undoubtedly much confusion has been produced in other minds, as well as Hegel's, by speaking of the centrifugal force, which is a mere intrinsic geometrical result of a body's curvilinear motion round a center, in conjunction with centripetal force, which is an extrinsic force, acting upon the body and urging it to the center. Neither Newton, nor any intelligent Newtonian, ever spoke of the centripetal and centrifugal force as two distinct forces both extrinsic to the motion, which Hegel accuses them of doing. (n)

I have spoken of the third and second of Kepler's laws; of Newton's explanations of them, and of Hegel's criticism. Let us now, in the same manner, consider the first law, that the planets move in ellipses. Newton's proof that this was the result of a central force varying inversely as the square of the distance, was the solution of a problem at which his contemporaries had laboured in vain, and is commonly looked upon as an important step. "But," says Hegel, (d) "the proof gives a conic section generally, whereas the main point which ought to be proved is, that the path of the body is an ellipse only, not a circle or any other conic section." Certainly if Newton had proved that a planet cannot move in a circle, (which Hegel says he ought to have done), his system would have perplexed astronomers, since there are planets which move in orbits hardly distinguishable from circles, and the variation of the extremity from planet to planet shows that there is nothing to prevent the excentricity vanishing and the orbit becoming a circle.

"But," says Hegel again, (e) "the conditions which make the path to be an ellipse rather than any other conic section, are empirical and extraneous;—the supposed casual strength of the impulsion originally received." Certainly the circumstances which determine the amount of excentricity of a planet's orbit are derived from experience, or rather, observation. It is not a part of Newton's system to determine à priori what the excentricity of a planet's orbit must be. A system that professes to do this will undoubtedly be one very different from his. And as our knowledge of the excentricity is derived from observation, it is, in that sense, empirical and casual. The strength of the original impulsion is a hypothetical and impartial way of expressing this result of observation. And as we see no reason why the excentricity should be of any certain magnitude, we see none why the fraction which expresses the excentricity should not become as large as unity, that is, why the orbit should not become a parabola; and accordingly, some of the bodies which revolve about the same appear to move in orbits of this form: so little is the motion in an ellipse, as Hegel says, (f) "the only thing to be proved."

But Hegel himself has offered proof of Kepler's laws, to which, considering his objections to Newton's proofs, we cannot help turning with some curiosity.

And first, let us look at the proof of the Proposition which we have been considering, that the path of a planet is necessarily an ellipse. I will translate Hegel's language as well as I can; but without answering for the correctness of my translation, since it does not appear to me to conform to the first condition of translation, of being intelligible. The translation however, such as it is, may help us to form some opinion of the validity and value of Hegel's proofs as compared with Newton's. (r)

"For absolutely uniform motion, the circle is the only path.... The circle is the line returning into itself in which all the radii are equal; there is, for it, only one determining quantity, the radius.

"But in free motion, the determination according to space and to time come into view with differences. There must be a difference in the spatial aspect in itself, and therefore the form requires two determining quantities. Hence the form of the path returning into itself is an ellipse."

Now even if we could regard this as reasoning, the conclusion does not in the smallest degree follow. A curve returning into itself and determined by two quantities, may have innumerable forms besides the ellipse; for instance, any oval form whatever, besides that of the conic section.

But why must the curve be a curve returning into itself? Hegel has professed to prove this previously (m) from "the determination of particularity and individuality of the bodies in general, so that they have partly a center in themselves, and partly at the same time their center in another." Without seeking to find any precise meaning in this, we may ask whether it proves the impossibility of the orbits with moveable apses, (which do not return into themselves,) such as the planets (affected by perturbations) really do describe, and such as we know that bodies must describe in all cases, except when the force varies exactly as the square of the distance? It appears to do so: and it proves this impossibility of known facts at least as much as it proves anything.

Let us now look at Hegel's proof of Kepler's second law, that the elliptical sectors swept by the radius vector are proportional to the time. It is this: (s).

"In the circle, the arc or angle which is included by the two radii is independent of them. But in the motion [of a planet] as determined by the conception, the distance from the center and the arc run over in a certain time must be compounded in one determination, and must make out a whole. This whole is the sector, a space of two dimensions. And hence the arc is essentially a Function of the radius vector; and the former (the arc) being unequal, brings with it the inequality of the radii."

As was said in the former case, if we could regard this as reasoning, it would not prove the conclusion, but only, that the arc is some function or other of the radii.

Hegel indeed offers (t) a reason why there must be an arc involved. This arises, he says, from "the determinateness [of the nature of motion], at one while as time in the root, at another while as space in the square. But here the quadratic character of the space is, by the returning of the line of motion into itself, limited to a sector."

Probably my readers have had a sufficient specimen of Hegel's mode of dealing with these matters. I will however add his proof of Kepler's third law, that the cubes of the distances are as the squares of the times.

Hegel's proof in this case (u) has a reference to a previous doctrine concerning falling bodies, in which time and space have, he says, a relation to each other as root and square. Falling bodies however are the case of only half-free motion, and the determination is incomplete.

"But in the case of absolute motion, the domain of free masses, the determination attains its totality. The time as the root is a mere empirical magnitude: but as a component of the developed Totality, it is a Totality in itself: it produces itself, and therein has a reference to itself. And in this process, Time, being itself the dimensionless element, only comes to a formal identity with itself and reaches the square: Space, on the other hand, as a positive external relation, comes to the full dimensions of the conception of space, that is, the cube. The Realization of the two conceptions (space and time) preserves their original difference. This is the third Keplerian law, the relation of the Cubes of the distances to the squares of the times."

"And this," he adds, (v) with remarkable complacency, "represents simply and immediately the reason of the thing:—while on the contrary, the Newtonian Formula, by means of which the Law is changed into a Law for the Force of Gravity, shows the distortion and inversion of Reflexion, which stops half-way."

I am not able to assign any precise meaning to the Reflexion, which is here used as a term of condemnation, applicable especially to the Newtonian doctrine. It is repeatedly applied in the same manner by Hegel. Thus he says, (g) "that what Kepler expresses in a simple and sublime manner in the form of Laws of the Celestial Motions, Newton has metamorphosed into the Reflexion-Form of the Force of Gravitation."

Though Hegel thus denies Newton all merit with regard to the explanation of Kepler's laws by means of the gravitation of the planets to the sun, he allows that to the Keplerian Laws Newton added the Principle of Perturbations (k). This Principle he accepts to a certain extent, transforming the expression of it after his peculiar fashion. "It lies," he says, (l) "in this: that matter in general assigns a center for itself: the collective bodies of the system recognise a reference to their sun, and all the individual bodies, according to the relative positions into which they are brought by their motions, form a momentary relation of their gravity towards each other."

This must appear to us a very loose and insufficient way of stating the Principle of Perturbations, but loose as it is, it recognises that the Perturbations depend upon the gravity of the planets one to another, and to the sun. And if the Perturbations depend upon these forces, one can hardly suppose that any one who allows this will deny that the primary undisturbed motions depend upon these forces, and must be explained by means of them; yet this is what Hegel denies.

It is evident, on looking at Hegel's mode of reasoning on such subjects, that his views approach towards those of Aristotle and the Aristotelians; according to which motions were divided into natural and unnatural;—the celestial motions were circular and uniform in their nature;—and the like. Perhaps it may be worth while to show how completely Hegel adheres to these ancient views, by an extract from the additions to the Articles on Celestial Motions, made in the last edition of the Encyclopædia. He says (w),

"The motion of the heavenly bodies is not a being pulled this way and that, as is imagined (by the Newtonians). They go along, as the ancients said, like blessed gods. The celestial conformity is not such a one as has the principle of rest or motion external to itself. It is not right to say because a stone is inert, and the whole earth consists of stones, and the other heavenly bodies are of the same nature as the earth, therefore the heavenly bodies are inert. This conclusion makes the properties of the whole the same as those of the part. Impulse, Pressure, Resistance, Friction, Pulling, and the like, are valid only for other than celestial matter."

There can be no doubt that this is a very different doctrine from that of Newton.

I will only add to these specimens of Hegel's physics, a specimen of the logic by which he refutes the Newtonian argument which has just been adduced; namely, that the celestial bodies are matter, and that matter, as we see in terrestrial matter, is inert. He says (x),

"Doubtless both are matter, as a good thought and a bad thought are both thoughts; but the bad one is not therefore good, because it is a thought."

APPENDIX TO THE MEMOIR ON HEGEL'S CRITICISM OF NEWTON'S PRINCIPIA.

Hegel. Encyclopædia (2nd Ed. 1827), Part XI. p. 250.

C. Absolute Mechanics.

§ 269.

Gravitation is the true and determinate conception of material Corporeity, which (Conception) is realized to the Idea (zur Idee). General Corporeity is separable essentially into particular Bodies, and connects itself with the Element of Individuality or subjectivity, as apparent (phenomenal) presence in the Motion, which by this means is immediately a system of several Bodies.

Universal gravitation must, as to itself, be recognised as a profound thought, although it was principally as apprehended in the sphere of Reflexion that it eminently attracted notice and confidence on account of the quantitative determinations therewith connected, and was supposed to find its confirmation in Experiments (Erfahrung) pursued from the Solar System down to the phenomena of Capillary Tubes.—But Gravitation contradicts immediately the Law of Inertia, for in virtue of it (Gravitation) matter tends out of itself to the other (matter).—In the Conception of Weight, there are, as has been shown, involved the two elements—Self-existence, and Continuity, which takes away self-existence. These elements of the Conception, however, experience a fate, as particular forces, corresponding to Attractive and Repulsive Force, and are thereby apprehended in nearer determination, as Centripetal and Centrifugal Force, which (Forces) like weight, act upon Bodies, independent of each other, and are supposed to come in contact accidentally in a third thing, Body. By this means, what there is of profound in the thought of universal weight is again reduced to nothing; and Conception and Reason cannot make their way into the doctrine of absolute motion, so long as the so highly-prized discoveries of Forces are dominant there. In the conclusion which contains the Idea of Weight, namely, [contains this Idea] as the Conception which, in the case of motion, enters into external Reality through the particularity of the Bodies, and at the same time into this [Reality] and into their Ideality and self-regarding Reflexion, (Reflexion-in-sich), the rational identity and inseparability of the elements is involved, which at other times are represented as independent. Motion itself, as such, has only its meaning and existence in a system of several bodies, and those, such as stand in relation to each other according to different determinations.

§ 270.

As to what concerns bodies in which the conception of gravity (weight) is realized free by itself, we say that they have for the determinations of their different nature the elements (momente) of their conception. One [conception of this kind] is the universal center of the abstract reference [of a body] to itself. Opposite to this [conception] stands the immediate, extrinsic, centerless Individuality, appearing as Corporeity similarly independent. Those [Bodies] however which are particular, which stand in the determination of extrinsic, and at the same time of intrinsic relation, are centers for themselves, and [also] have a reference to the first as to their essential unity.

The Planetary Bodies, as the immediately concrete, are in their existence the most complete. Men are accustomed to take the Sun as the most excellent, inasmuch as the understanding prefers the abstract to the concrete, and in like manner the fixed stars are esteemed higher than the Bodies of the Solar System. Centerless Corporeity, as belonging to externality, naturally separates itself into the opposition of the lunar and the cometary Body. The laws of absolutely free motion, as is well known, were discovered by Kepler;—a discovery of immortal fame. Kepler has proved these laws in this sense, that for the empirical data he found their general expression. Since then, it has become a common way of |(a)|speaking to say that Newton first found out the proof of these Laws. It has rarely happened that fame has been more unjustly transferred from the first discoverer to another person. On this subject I make the following remarks.

1. That it is allowed by Mathematicians that the Newtonian Formulæ may be derived from the Keplerian Laws. |(b)|The completely immediate derivation is this: In the third |(c)|Keplerian Law, A³/T² is the constant quantity. This being put as A.A²/T² and calling, with Newton, A/T² universal Gravitation, his expression of the effect of gravity in the reciprocal ratio of the square of the distances is obvious.

|(d)|2. That the Newtonian proof of the Proposition that a body subjected to the Law of Gravitation moves about the central body in an Ellipse, gives a Conic Section generally, while the main Proposition which ought to be proved is that the fall of such a Body is not a Circle or any other Conic Section, but an Ellipse only. Moreover, there are objections which may be made against this proof in itself (Princ. Math. I. 1. Sect. II. Prop. 1); and although it is the foundation of the Newtonian Theory, analysis has no longer any need of it. The conditions which in the sequel make the path of the Body to a determinate Conic Section, are referred to an empirical circumstance, namely, a particular position of the Body at a determined moment of time, and the casual strength of an |(f)|impulsion which it is supposed to have received originally; so that the circumstance which makes the Curve be an Ellipse, which alone ought to be the thing proved, is extraneous to the Formula.

3. That the Newtonian Law of the so-called Force of Gravitation is in like manner only proved from experience by Induction.

|(g)|The sum of the difference is this, that what Kepler expressed in a simple and sublime manner in the Form of Laws of the Celestial Motions, Newton has metamorphosed into the Reflection-Form of the Force of Gravitation. If the Newtonian Form has not only its convenience but its necessity in reference to the analytical method, this is only a difference |(h)|of the mathematical formulæ; Analysis has long been able to derive the Newtonian expression, and the Propositions therewith connected, out of the Form of the Keplerian Laws; (on this subject I refer to the elegant exposition in |(i)|Francœur's Traité Elém. de Mécanique, Liv. II. Ch. xi. n. 4.)—The old method of so-called proof is conspicuous as offering to us a tangled web, formed of the Lines of the mere geometrical construction, to which a physical meaning of independent Forces is given; and of empty Reflexion-determinations of the already mentioned Accelerating Force and Vis Inertiæ, and especially of the relation of the so-called gravitation itself to the centripetal force and centrifugal force, and so on.

The remarks which are here made would undoubtedly have need of a further explication to show how well founded they are: in a Compendium, propositions of this kind which do not agree with that which is assumed, can only have the shape of assertions. Indeed, since they contradict such high authorities, they must appear as something worse, as presumptuous assertions. I will not, on this subject, support myself by saying, by the bye, that an interest in these subjects has occupied me for 25 years; but it is more precisely to the purpose to remark, that the distinctions and determinations which Mathematical Analysis introduces, and the course which it must take according to its method, is altogether different from that which a physical reality must have. The Presuppositions, the Course, and the Results, which the Analysis necessarily has and gives, remain quite extraneous to the considerations which determine the physical value and the signification of those determinations and of that course. To this it is that attention should be directed. We have to do with a consciousness relative to the deluging of physical Mechanics with an inconceivable (unsäglichen) Metaphysic, which—contrary to experience and conception—has those mathematical determinations alone for its source.

It is recognized that what Newton—besides the foundation of the analytical treatment, the development of which, by the bye, has of itself rendered superfluous, or indeed rejected much which belonged to Newton's essential Principles and glory—has added to the Keplerian Laws is the Principle of Perturbations,—a Principle whose importance we may here accept thus far (hier in sofern anzuführen ist); namely, so |(k)|far as it rests upon the Proposition that the so-called attraction is an operation of all the individual parts of bodies, as being material. |(l)|It lies in this, that matter in general assigns a center for itself (sich das centrum setzt), and the figure of the body is an element in the determination of its place; that collective bodies of the system recognize a reference to their Sun (sich ihre Sonne setzen), but also the individual bodies themselves, according to the relative position with regard to each other into which they come by their general motion, form a momentary relation of their gravity (schwere) towards each other, and are related to each other not only in abstract spatial relations, but at the same time assign to themselves a joint center, which however is again resolved [into the general center] in the universal system.

As to what concerns the features of the path, to show how the fundamental determinations of Free Motion are connected with the Conception, cannot here be undertaken in a satisfactory and detailed manner, and must therefore be left to its fate. The proof from reason of the quantitative determinations of free motion can only rest upon the determinations of Conceptions of space and time, the elements whose relation (intrinsic not extrinsic) motion is.

|(m)|That, in the first place, the motion in general is a motion returning into itself, is founded on the determination of particularity and individuality of the bodies in general (§ 269), so that partly they have a center in themselves, and partly at the same time their center in another. These are the determinations of Conceptions which form the basis of the false representatives |(n)|of Centripetal Force and Centrifugal Force, as if each of these were self-existing, extraneous to the other, and independent of it; and as if they only came in contact in their operations and consequently externally. They are, as has already been mentioned, the Lines which must be drawn for the mathematical determinations, transformed into physical realities.

Further, this motion is uniformly accelerated, (and—as returning into itself—in turn uniformly retarded). In motion as free, Time and Space enter as different things which are to make themselves effective in the determination of the motion |(o)|(§ 266, note). In the so-called Explanation of the uniformly accelerated and retarded motion, by means of the alternate decrease and increase of the magnitude of the Centripetal Force and Centrifugal Force, the confusion which the assumption of such independent Forces produces is at its greatest |(p)|height. According to this explanation, in the motion of a Planet from the Aphelion to the Perihelion, the centrifugal is less than the centripetal force, and on the contrary, in the Perihelion itself, the centrifugal force is supposed to become greater than the centripetal. For the motion from the Perihelion to the Aphelion, this representation makes the forces pass into the opposite relation in the same manner. It is apparent that such a sudden conversion of the preponderance which a force has obtained over another, into an inferiority to the other, cannot be anything taken out of the nature of Forces. On the contrary it must be concluded, that a preponderance which one Force has obtained over another must not only be preserved, but must go onwards to the complete annihilation of the other Force, and the motion must either, by the Preponderance of the Centripetal Force, proceed till it ends in rest, that is, in the Collision of the Planet with the Central Body, or till by the Preponderance of the Centrifugal |(q)|Force it ends in a straight line. But now, if in place of the suddenness of the conversion, we suppose a gradual increase of the Force in question, then, since rather the other Force ought to be assumed as increasing, we lose the opposition which is assumed for the sake of the explanation; and if the increase of the one is assumed to be different from that of the other, (which is the case in some representations,) then there is found at the mean distance between the apsides a point in which the Forces are in equilibrio. And the transition of the Forces out of Equilibrium is a thing just as little without any sufficient reason as the aforesaid suddenness of inversion. And in the whole of this kind of explanation, we see that the mode of remedying a bad mode of dealing with a subject leads to newer and greater confusion.—A similar confusion makes its appearance in the explanation of the phænomenon that the pendulum oscillates more slowly at the equator. This phænomenon is ascribed to the Centrifugal Force, which it is asserted must then be greater; but it is easy to see that we may just as well ascribe it to the augmented gravity, inasmuch as that holds the pendulum more strongly to the perpendicular line of rest.