{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_32037/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_32037","id":"gutenberg_32037","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/32037","summary":null,"tags":["Category: American Literature","Category: Essays, Letters & Speeches","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Cosmology"],"text":"Produced by Meredith Bach, Irma Spehar and the Online\nDistributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This\nfile was produced from images generously made available\nby The Internet Archive/American Libraries.)\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n                                 EUREKA:\n                              A PROSE POEM.\n\n                                   BY\n\n                              EDGAR A. POE.\n\n                                NEW-YORK:\n                             GEO. P. PUTNAM,\n                    OF LATE FIRM OF \u201cWILEY & PUTNAM,\u201d\n                              155 BROADWAY.\n\n                              MDCCCXLVIII.\n\n\n        ENTERED, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1848,\n                            BY EDGAR A. POE,\n           In the Clerk\u2019s Office of the District Court for the\n                     Southern District of New-York.\n\n                        LEAVITT, TROW & CO Prs.,\n                             33 Ann-street.\n\n\n                       WITH VERY PROFOUND RESPECT,\n                         This Work is Dedicated\n                                   TO\n                         ALEXANDER VON HUMBOLDT.\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE.\n\n\nTo the few who love me and whom I love\u2014to those who feel rather than to\nthose who think\u2014to the dreamers and those who put faith in dreams as in\nthe only realities\u2014I offer this Book of Truths, not in its character of\nTruth-Teller, but for the Beauty that abounds in its Truth; constituting\nit true. To these I present the composition as an Art-Product alone:\u2014let\nus say as a Romance; or, if I be not urging too lofty a claim, as a\nPoem.\n\n_What I here propound is true_:\u2014therefore it cannot die:\u2014or if by any\nmeans it be now trodden down so that it die, it will \u201crise again to the\nLife Everlasting.\u201d\n\nNevertheless it is as a Poem only that I wish this work to be judged\nafter I am dead.\n\nE. A. P.\n\n\n\n\nEUREKA:\n\nAN ESSAY ON THE MATERIAL AND SPIRITUAL UNIVERSE.\n\n\nIt is with humility really unassumed\u2014it is with a sentiment even of\nawe\u2014that I pen the opening sentence of this work: for of all conceivable\nsubjects I approach the reader with the most solemn\u2014the most\ncomprehensive\u2014the most difficult\u2014the most august.\n\nWhat terms shall I find sufficiently simple in their\nsublimity\u2014sufficiently sublime in their simplicity\u2014for the mere\nenunciation of my theme?\n\nI design to speak of the _Physical, Metaphysical and Mathematical\u2014of the\nMaterial and Spiritual Universe:\u2014of its Essence, its Origin, its\nCreation, its Present Condition and its Destiny_. I shall be so rash,\nmoreover, as to challenge the conclusions, and thus, in effect, to\nquestion the sagacity, of many of the greatest and most justly\nreverenced of men.\n\nIn the beginning, let me as distinctly as possible announce\u2014not the\ntheorem which I hope to demonstrate\u2014for, whatever the mathematicians may\nassert, there is, in this world at least, _no such thing_ as\ndemonstration\u2014but the ruling idea which, throughout this volume, I shall\nbe continually endeavoring to suggest.\n\nMy general proposition, then, is this:\u2014_In the Original Unity of the\nFirst Thing lies the Secondary Cause of All Things, with the Germ of\ntheir Inevitable Annihilation_.\n\nIn illustration of this idea, I propose to take such a survey of the\nUniverse that the mind may be able really to receive and to perceive an\nindividual impression.\n\nHe who from the top of \u00c6tna casts his eyes leisurely around, is affected\nchiefly by the _extent_ and _diversity_ of the scene. Only by a rapid\nwhirling on his heel could he hope to comprehend the panorama in the\nsublimity of its _oneness_. But as, on the summit of \u00c6tna, _no_ man has\nthought of whirling on his heel, so no man has ever taken into his brain\nthe full uniqueness of the prospect; and so, again, whatever\nconsiderations lie involved in this uniqueness, have as yet no practical\nexistence for mankind.\n\nI do not know a treatise in which a survey of the _Universe_\u2014using the\nword in its most comprehensive and only legitimate acceptation\u2014is taken\nat all:\u2014and it may be as well here to mention that by the term\n\u201cUniverse,\u201d wherever employed without qualification in this essay, I\nmean to designate _the utmost conceivable expanse of space, with all\nthings, spiritual and material, that can be imagined to exist within the\ncompass of that expanse_. In speaking of what is ordinarily implied by\nthe expression, \u201cUniverse,\u201d I shall take a phrase of limitation\u2014\u201cthe\nUniverse of stars.\u201d Why this distinction is considered necessary, will\nbe seen in the sequel.\n\nBut even of treatises on the really limited, although always assumed as\nthe _un_limited, Universe of _stars_, I know none in which a survey,\neven of this limited Universe, is so taken as to warrant deductions from\nits _individuality_. The nearest approach to such a work is made in the\n\u201cCosmos\u201d of Alexander Von Humboldt. He presents the subject, however,\n_not_ in its individuality but in its generality. His theme, in its last\nresult, is the law of _each_ portion of the merely physical Universe, as\nthis law is related to the laws of _every other_ portion of this merely\nphysical Universe. His design is simply syn\u0153retical. In a word, he\ndiscusses the universality of material relation, and discloses to the\neye of Philosophy whatever inferences have hitherto lain hidden _behind_\nthis universality. But however admirable be the succinctness with which\nhe has treated each particular point of his topic, the mere multiplicity\nof these points occasions, necessarily, an amount of detail, and thus an\ninvolution of idea, which precludes all _individuality_ of impression.\n\nIt seems to me that, in aiming at this latter effect, and, through it,\nat the consequences\u2014the conclusions\u2014the suggestions\u2014the speculations\u2014or,\nif nothing better offer itself the mere guesses which may result from\nit\u2014we require something like a mental gyration on the heel. We need so\nrapid a revolution of all things about the central point of sight that,\nwhile the minuti\u00e6 vanish altogether, even the more conspicuous objects\nbecome blended into one. Among the vanishing minuti\u00e6, in a survey of\nthis kind, would be all exclusively terrestrial matters. The Earth would\nbe considered in its planetary relations alone. A man, in this view,\nbecomes mankind; mankind a member of the cosmical family of\nIntelligences.\n\nAnd now, before proceeding to our subject proper, let me beg the\nreader\u2019s attention to an extract or two from a somewhat remarkable\nletter, which appears to have been found corked in a bottle and floating\non the _Mare Tenebrarum_\u2014an ocean well described by the Nubian\ngeographer, Ptolemy Hephestion, but little frequented in modern days\nunless by the Transcendentalists and some other divers for crotchets.\nThe date of this letter, I confess, surprises me even more particularly\nthan its contents; for it seems to have been written in the year _two_\nthousand eight hundred and forty-eight. As for the passages I am about\nto transcribe, they, I fancy, will speak for themselves.\n\n\u201cDo you know, my dear friend,\u201d says the writer, addressing, no doubt, a\ncontemporary\u2014\u201cDo you know that it is scarcely more than eight or nine\nhundred years ago since the metaphysicians first consented to relieve\nthe people of the singular fancy that there exist _but two practicable\nroads to Truth_? Believe it if you can! It appears, however, that long,\nlong ago, in the night of Time, there lived a Turkish philosopher called\nAries and surnamed Tottle.\u201d [Here, possibly, the letter-writer means\nAristotle; the best names are wretchedly corrupted in two or three\nthousand years.] \u201cThe fame of this great man depended mainly upon his\ndemonstration that sneezing is a natural provision, by means of which\nover-profound thinkers are enabled to expel superfluous ideas through\nthe nose; but he obtained a scarcely less valuable celebrity as the\nfounder, or at all events as the principal propagator, of what was\ntermed the _de_ductive or _\u00e0 priori_ philosophy. He started with what he\nmaintained to be axioms, or self-evident truths:\u2014and the now well\nunderstood fact that _no_ truths are _self_-evident, really does not\nmake in the slightest degree against his speculations:\u2014it was sufficient\nfor his purpose that the truths in question were evident at all. From\naxioms he proceeded, logically, to results. His most illustrious\ndisciples were one Tuclid, a geometrician,\u201d [meaning Euclid] \u201cand one\nKant, a Dutchman, the originator of that species of Transcendentalism\nwhich, with the change merely of a C for a K, now bears his peculiar\nname.\n\n\u201cWell, Aries Tottle flourished supreme, until the advent of one Hog,\nsurnamed \u2018the Ettrick shepherd,\u2019 who preached an entirely different\nsystem, which he called the _\u00e0 posteriori_ or _in_ductive. His plan\nreferred altogether to sensation. He proceeded by observing, analyzing,\nand classifying facts\u2014_instanti\u00e6 Natur\u00e6_, as they were somewhat\naffectedly called\u2014and arranging them into general laws. In a word, while\nthe mode of Aries rested on _noumena_, that of Hog depended on\n_phenomena_; and so great was the admiration excited by this latter\nsystem that, at its first introduction, Aries fell into general\ndisrepute. Finally, however, he recovered ground, and was permitted to\ndivide the empire of Philosophy with his more modern rival:\u2014the savans\ncontenting themselves with proscribing all _other_ competitors, past,\npresent, and to come; putting an end to all controversy on the topic by\nthe promulgation of a Median law, to the effect that the Aristotelian\nand Baconian roads are, and of right ought to be, the solo possible\navenues to knowledge:\u2014\u2018Baconian,\u2019 you must know, my dear friend,\u201d adds\nthe letter-writer at this point, \u201cwas an adjective invented as\nequivalent to Hog-ian, and at the same time more dignified and\neuphonious.\n\n\u201cNow I do assure you most positively\u201d\u2014proceeds the epistle\u2014\u201cthat I\nrepresent these matters fairly; and you can easily understand how\nrestrictions so absurd on their very face must have operated, in those\ndays, to retard the progress of true Science, which makes its most\nimportant advances\u2014as all History will show\u2014by seemingly intuitive\n_leaps_. These ancient ideas confined investigation to crawling; and I\nneed not suggest to you that crawling, among varieties of locomotion, is\na very capital thing of its kind;\u2014but because the tortoise is sure of\nfoot, for this reason must we clip the wings of the eagles? For many\ncenturies, so great was the infatuation, about Hog especially, that a\nvirtual stop was put to all thinking, properly so called. No man dared\nutter a truth for which he felt himself indebted to his soul alone. It\nmattered not whether the truth was even demonstrably such; for the\ndogmatizing philosophers of that epoch regarded only _the road_ by which\nit professed to have been attained. The end, with them, was a point of\nno moment, whatever:\u2014\u2018the means!\u2019 they vociferated\u2014\u2018let us look at the\nmeans!\u2019\u2014and if, on scrutiny of the means, it was found to come neither\nunder the category Hog, nor under the category Aries (which means ram),\nwhy then the savans went no farther, but, calling the thinker a fool\nand branding him a \u2018theorist,\u2019 would never, thenceforward, have any\nthing to do either with _him_ or with his truths.\n\n\u201cNow, my dear friend,\u201d continues the letter-writer, \u201cit cannot be\nmaintained that by the crawling system, exclusively adopted, men would\narrive at the maximum amount of truth, even in any long series of ages;\nfor the repression of imagination was an evil not to be counterbalanced\neven by _absolute_ certainty in the snail processes. But their certainty\nwas very far from absolute. The error of our progenitors was quite\nanalogous with that of the wiseacre who fancies he must necessarily see\nan object the more distinctly, the more closely he holds it to his eyes.\nThey blinded themselves, too, with the impalpable, titillating Scotch\nsnuff of _detail_; and thus the boasted facts of the Hog-ites were by no\nmeans always facts\u2014a point of little importance but for the assumption\nthat they always _were_. The vital taint, however, in Baconianism\u2014its\nmost lamentable fount of error\u2014lay in its tendency to throw power and\nconsideration into the hands of merely perceptive men\u2014of those\ninter-Tritonic minnows, the microscopical savans\u2014the diggers and pedlers\nof minute _facts_, for the most part in physical science\u2014facts all of\nwhich they retailed at the same price upon the highway; their value\ndepending, it was supposed, simply upon the _fact of their fact_,\nwithout reference to their applicability or inapplicability in the\ndevelopment of those ultimate and only legitimate facts, called Law.\n\n\u201cThan the persons\u201d\u2014the letter goes on to say\u2014\u201cThan the persons thus\nsuddenly elevated by the Hog-ian philosophy into a station for which\nthey were unfitted\u2014thus transferred from the sculleries into the parlors\nof Science\u2014from its pantries into its pulpits\u2014than these individuals a\nmore intolerant\u2014a more intolerable set of bigots and tyrants never\nexisted on the face of the earth. Their creed, their text and their\nsermon were, alike, the one word \u2018_fact_\u2019\u2014but, for the most part, even\nof this one word, they knew not even the meaning. On those who ventured\nto _disturb_ their facts with the view of putting them in order and to\nuse, the disciples of Hog had no mercy whatever. All attempts at\ngeneralization were met at once by the words \u2018theoretical,\u2019 \u2018theory,\u2019\n\u2018theorist\u2019\u2014all _thought_, to be brief, was very properly resented as a\npersonal affront to themselves. Cultivating the natural sciences to the\nexclusion of Metaphysics, the Mathematics, and Logic, many of these\nBacon-engendered philosophers\u2014one-idead, one-sided and lame of a\nleg\u2014were more wretchedly helpless\u2014more miserably ignorant, in view of\nall the comprehensible objects of knowledge, than the veriest unlettered\nhind who proves that he knows something at least, in admitting that he\nknows absolutely nothing.\n\n\u201cNor had our forefathers any better right to talk about _certainty_,\nwhen pursuing, in blind confidence, the _\u00e0 priori_ path of axioms, or of\nthe Ram. At innumerable points this path was scarcely as straight as a\nram\u2019s-horn. The simple truth is, that the Aristotelians erected their\ncastles upon a basis far less reliable than air; _for no such things as\naxioms ever existed or can possibly exist at all_. This they must have\nbeen very blind, indeed, not to see, or at least to suspect; for, even\nin their own day, many of their long-admitted \u2018axioms\u2019 had been\nabandoned:\u2014\u2018_ex nihilo nihil fit_,\u2019 for example, and a \u2018thing cannot act\nwhere it is not,\u2019 and \u2018there cannot be antipodes,\u2019 and \u2018darkness cannot\nproceed from light.\u2019 These and numerous similar propositions formerly\naccepted, without hesitation, as axioms, or undeniable truths, were,\neven at the period of which I speak, seen to be altogether\nuntenable:\u2014how absurd in these people, then, to persist in relying upon\na basis, as immutable, whose mutability had become so repeatedly\nmanifest!\n\n\u201cBut, even through evidence afforded by themselves against themselves,\nit is easy to convict these _\u00e0 priori_ reasoners of the grossest\nunreason\u2014it is easy to show the futility\u2014the impalpability of their\naxioms in general. I have now lying before me\u201d\u2014it will be observed that\nwe still proceed with the letter\u2014\u201cI have now lying before me a book\nprinted about a thousand years ago. Pundit assures me that it is\ndecidedly the cleverest ancient work on its topic, which is \u2018Logic.\u2019 The\nauthor, who was much esteemed in his day, was one Miller, or Mill; and\nwe find it recorded of him, as a point of some importance, that he rode\na mill-horse whom he called Jeremy Bentham:\u2014but let us glance at the\nvolume itself!\n\n\u201cAh!\u2014\u2018Ability or inability to conceive,\u2019 says Mr. Mill very properly,\n\u2018is _in no case_ to be received as a criterion of axiomatic truth.\u2019 Now,\nthat this is a palpable truism no one in his senses will deny. _Not_ to\nadmit the proposition, is to insinuate a charge of variability in Truth\nitself, whose very title is a synonym of the Steadfast. If ability to\nconceive be taken as a criterion of Truth, then a truth to _David_ Hume\nwould very seldom be a truth to _Joe_; and ninety-nine hundredths of\nwhat is undeniable in Heaven would be demonstrable falsity upon Earth.\nThe proposition of Mr. Mill, then, is sustained. I will not grant it to\nbe an _axiom_; and this merely because I am showing that _no_ axioms\nexist; but, with a distinction which could not have been cavilled at\neven by Mr. Mill himself, I am ready to grant that, _if_ an axiom _there\nbe_, then the proposition of which we speak has the fullest right to be\nconsidered an axiom\u2014that no _more_ absolute axiom _is_\u2014and,\nconsequently, that any subsequent proposition which shall conflict with\nthis one primarily advanced, must be either a falsity in itself\u2014that is\nto say no axiom\u2014or, if admitted axiomatic, must at once neutralize both\nitself and its predecessor.\n\n\u201cAnd now, by the logic of their own propounder, let us proceed to test\nany one of the axioms propounded. Let us give Mr. Mill the fairest of\nplay. We will bring the point to no ordinary issue. We will select for\ninvestigation no common-place axiom\u2014no axiom of what, not the less\npreposterously because only impliedly, he terms his secondary class\u2014as\nif a positive truth by definition could be either more or less\npositively a truth:\u2014we will select, I say, no axiom of an\nunquestionability so questionable as is to be found in Euclid. We will\nnot talk, for example, about such propositions as that two straight\nlines cannot enclose a space, or that the whole is greater than any one\nof its parts. We will afford the logician _every_ advantage. We will\ncome at once to a proposition which he regards as the acme of the\nunquestionable\u2014as the quintessence of axiomatic undeniability. Here it\nis:\u2014\u2018Contradictions cannot _both_ be true\u2014that is, cannot c\u00f6exist in\nnature.\u2019 Here Mr. Mill means, for instance,\u2014and I give the most forcible\ninstance conceivable\u2014that a tree must be either a tree or _not_ a\ntree\u2014that it cannot be at the same time a tree _and_ not a tree:\u2014all\nwhich is quite reasonable of itself and will answer remarkably well as\nan axiom, until we bring it into collation with an axiom insisted upon a\nfew pages before\u2014in other words\u2014words which I have previously\nemployed\u2014until we test it by the logic of its own propounder. \u2018A tree,\u2019\nMr. Mill asserts, \u2018must be either a tree or _not_ a tree.\u2019 Very\nwell:\u2014and now let me ask him, _why_. To this little query there is but\none response:\u2014I defy any man living to invent a second. The sole answer\nis this:\u2014\u2018Because we find it _impossible to conceive_ that a tree can be\nany thing else than a tree or not a tree.\u2019 This, I repeat, is Mr. Mill\u2019s\nsole answer:\u2014he will not _pretend_ to suggest another:\u2014and yet, by his\nown showing, his answer is clearly no answer at all; for has he not\nalready required us to admit, _as an axiom_, that ability or inability\nto conceive is _in no case_ to be taken as a criterion of axiomatic\ntruth? Thus all\u2014absolutely _all_ his argumentation is at sea without a\nrudder. Let it not be urged that an exception from the general rule is\nto be made, in cases where the \u2018impossibility to conceive\u2019 is so\npeculiarly great as when we are called upon to conceive a tree _both_ a\ntree and _not_ a tree. Let no attempt, I say, be made at urging this\nsotticism; for, in the first place, there are no _degrees_ of\n\u2018impossibility,\u2019 and thus no one impossible conception can be _more_\npeculiarly impossible than another impossible conception:\u2014in the second\nplace, Mr. Mill himself, no doubt after thorough deliberation, has most\ndistinctly, and most rationally, excluded all opportunity for exception,\nby the emphasis of his proposition, that, _in no case_, is ability or\ninability to conceive, to be taken as a criterion of axiomatic\ntruth:\u2014in the third place, even were exceptions admissible at all, it\nremains to be shown how any exception is admissible _here_. That a tree\ncan be both a tree and not a tree, is an idea which the angels, or the\ndevils, _may_ entertain, and which no doubt many an earthly Bedlamite,\nor Transcendentalist, _does_.\n\n\u201cNow I do not quarrel with these ancients,\u201d continues the letter-writer,\n\u201c_so much_ on account of the transparent frivolity of their logic\u2014which,\nto be plain, was baseless, worthless and fantastic altogether\u2014as on\naccount of their pompous and infatuate proscription of all _other_ roads\nto Truth than the two narrow and crooked paths\u2014the one of creeping and\nthe other of crawling\u2014to which, in their ignorant perversity, they have\ndared to confine the Soul\u2014the Soul which loves nothing so well as to\nsoar in those regions of illimitable intuition which are utterly\nincognizant of \u2018_path_.\u2019\n\n\u201cBy the bye, my dear friend, is it not an evidence of the mental slavery\nentailed upon those bigoted people by their Hogs and Rams, that in spite\nof the eternal prating of their savans about _roads_ to Truth, none of\nthem fell, even by accident, into what we now so distinctly perceive to\nbe the broadest, the straightest and most available of all mere\nroads\u2014the great thoroughfare\u2014the majestic highway of the _Consistent_?\nIs it not wonderful that they should have failed to deduce from the\nworks of God the vitally momentous consideration that _a perfect\nconsistency can be nothing but an absolute truth_? How plain\u2014how rapid\nour progress since the late announcement of this proposition! By its\nmeans, investigation has been taken out of the hands of the ground-moles,\nand given as a duty, rather than as a task, to the true\u2014to the _only_ true\nthinkers\u2014to the generally-educated men of ardent imagination. These\nlatter\u2014our Keplers\u2014our Laplaces\u2014\u2018speculate\u2019\u2014\u2018theorize\u2019\u2014these are the\nterms\u2014can you not fancy the shout of scorn with which they would be\nreceived by our progenitors, were it possible for them to be looking\nover my shoulders as I write? The Keplers, I repeat, speculate\u2014theorize\u2014and\ntheir theories are merely corrected\u2014reduced\u2014sifted\u2014cleared, little by\nlittle, of their chaff of inconsistency\u2014until at length there stands\napparent an unencumbered _Consistency_\u2014a consistency which the most\nstolid admit\u2014because it _is_ a consistency\u2014to be an absolute and an\nunquestionable _Truth_.\n\n\u201cI have often thought, my friend, that it must have puzzled these\ndogmaticians of a thousand years ago, to determine, even, by which of\ntheir two boasted roads it is that the cryptographist attains the\nsolution of the more complicate cyphers\u2014or by which of them Champollion\nguided mankind to those important and innumerable truths which, for so\nmany centuries, have lain entombed amid the phonetical hieroglyphics of\nEgypt. In especial, would it not have given these bigots some trouble to\ndetermine by which of their two roads was reached the most momentous and\nsublime of _all_ their truths\u2014the truth\u2014the fact of _gravitation_?\nNewton deduced it from the laws of Kepler. Kepler admitted that these\nlaws he _guessed_\u2014these laws whose investigation disclosed to the\ngreatest of British astronomers that principle, the basis of all\n(existing) physical principle, in going behind which we enter at once\nthe nebulous kingdom of Metaphysics. Yes!\u2014these vital laws Kepler\n_guessed_\u2014that is to say, he _imagined_ them. Had he been asked to point\nout either the _de_ductive or _in_ductive route by which he attained\nthem, his reply might have been\u2014\u2018I know nothing about _routes_\u2014but I\n_do_ know the machinery of the Universe. Here it is. I grasped it with\n_my soul_\u2014I reached it through mere dint of _intuition_.\u2019 Alas, poor\nignorant old man! Could not any metaphysician have told him that what he\ncalled \u2018intuition\u2019 was but the conviction resulting from _de_ductions or\n_in_ductions of which the processes were so shadowy as to have escaped\nhis consciousness, eluded his reason, or bidden defiance to his capacity\nof expression? How great a pity it is that some \u2018moral philosopher\u2019 had\nnot enlightened him about all this! How it would have comforted him on\nhis death-bed to know that, instead of having gone intuitively and thus\nunbecomingly, he had, in fact, proceeded decorously and\nlegitimately\u2014that is to say Hog-ishly, or at least Ram-ishly\u2014into the\nvast halls where lay gleaming, untended, and hitherto untouched by\nmortal hand\u2014unseen by mortal eye\u2014the imperishable and priceless secrets\nof the Universe!\n\n\u201cYes, Kepler was essentially a _theorist_; but this title, _now_ of so\nmuch sanctity, was, in those ancient days, a designation of supreme\ncontempt. It is only _now_ that men begin to appreciate that divine old\nman\u2014to sympathize with the prophetical and poetical rhapsody of his\never-memorable words. For _my_ part,\u201d continues the unknown\ncorrespondent, \u201cI glow with a sacred fire when I even think of them, and\nfeel that I shall never grow weary of their repetition:\u2014in concluding\nthis letter, let me have the real pleasure of transcribing them once\nagain:\u2014\u2018_I care not whether my work be read now or by posterity. I can\nafford to wait a century for readers when God himself has waited six\nthousand years for an observer. I triumph. I have stolen the golden\nsecret of the Egyptians. I will indulge my sacred fury._\u2019\u201d\n\nHere end my quotations from this very unaccountable and, perhaps,\nsomewhat impertinent epistle; and perhaps it would be folly to comment,\nin any respect, upon the chimerical, not to say revolutionary, fancies\nof the writer\u2014whoever he is\u2014fancies so radically at war with the\nwell-considered and well-settled opinions of this age. Let us proceed,\nthen, to our legitimate thesis, _The Universe_.\n\nThis thesis admits a choice between two modes of discussion:\u2014We may\n_as_cend or _de_scend. Beginning at our own point of view\u2014at the Earth\non which we stand\u2014we may pass to the other planets of our system\u2014thence\nto the Sun\u2014thence to our system considered collectively\u2014and thence,\nthrough other systems, indefinitely outwards; or, commencing on high at\nsome point as definite as we can make it or conceive it, we may come\ndown to the habitation of Man. Usually\u2014that is to say, in ordinary\nessays on Astronomy\u2014the first of these two modes is, with certain\nreservation, adopted:\u2014this for the obvious reason that astronomical\n_facts_, merely, and principles, being the object, that object is best\nfulfilled in stepping from the known because proximate, gradually onward\nto the point where all certitude becomes lost in the remote. For my\npresent purpose, however,\u2014that of enabling the mind to take in, as if\nfrom afar and at one glance, a distinct conception of the _individual_\nUniverse\u2014it is clear that a descent to small from great\u2014to the outskirts\nfrom the centre (if we could establish a centre)\u2014to the end from the\nbeginning (if we could fancy a beginning) would be the preferable\ncourse, but for the difficulty, if not impossibility, of presenting, in\nthis course, to the unastronomical, a picture at all comprehensible in\nregard to such considerations as are involved in _quantity_\u2014that is to\nsay, in number, magnitude and distance.\n\nNow, distinctness\u2014intelligibility, at all points, is a primary feature\nin my general design. On important topics it is better to be a good deal\nprolix than even a very little obscure. But abstruseness is a quality\nappertaining to no subject _per se_. All are alike, in facility of\ncomprehension, to him who approaches them by properly graduated steps.\nIt is merely because a stepping-stone, here and there, is heedlessly\nleft unsupplied in our road to the Differential Calculus, that this\nlatter is not altogether as simple a thing as a sonnet by Mr. Solomon\nSeesaw.\n\nBy way of admitting, then, no _chance_ for misapprehension, I think it\nadvisable to proceed as if even the more obvious facts of Astronomy were\nunknown to the reader. In combining the two modes of discussion to which\nI have referred, I propose to avail myself of the advantages peculiar to\neach\u2014and very especially of the _iteration in detail_ which will be\nunavoidable as a consequence of the plan. Commencing with a descent, I\nshall reserve for the return upwards those indispensable considerations\nof _quantity_ to which allusion has already been made.\n\nLet us begin, then, at once, with that merest of words, \u201cInfinity.\u201d\nThis, like \u201cGod,\u201d \u201cspirit,\u201d and some other expressions of which the\nequivalents exist in all languages, is by no means the expression of an\nidea\u2014but of an effort at one. It stands for the possible attempt at an\nimpossible conception. Man needed a term by which to point out the\n_direction_ of this effort\u2014the cloud behind which lay, forever\ninvisible, the _object_ of this attempt. A word, in fine, was demanded,\nby means of which one human being might put himself in relation at once\nwith another human being and with a certain _tendency_ of the human\nintellect. Out of this demand arose the word, \u201cInfinity;\u201d which is thus\nthe representative but of the _thought of a thought_.\n\nAs regards _that_ infinity now considered\u2014the infinity of space\u2014we often\nhear it said that \u201cits idea is admitted by the mind\u2014is acquiesced in\u2014is\nentertained\u2014on account of the greater difficulty which attends the\nconception of a limit.\u201d But this is merely one of those _phrases_ by\nwhich even profound thinkers, time out of mind, have occasionally taken\npleasure in deceiving _themselves_. The quibble lies concealed in the\nword \u201cdifficulty.\u201d \u201cThe mind,\u201d we are told, \u201centertains the idea of\n_limitless_, through the greater _difficulty_ which it finds in\nentertaining that of _limited_, space.\u201d Now, were the proposition but\nfairly _put_, its absurdity would become transparent at once. Clearly,\nthere is no mere _difficulty_ in the case. The assertion intended, if\npresented _according_ to its intention and without sophistry, would run\nthus:\u2014\u201cThe mind admits the idea of limitless, through the greater\n_impossibility_ of entertaining that of limited, space.\u201d\n\nIt must be immediately seen that this is not a question of two\nstatements between whose respective credibilities\u2014or of two arguments\nbetween whose respective validities\u2014the _reason_ is called upon to\ndecide:\u2014it is a matter of two conceptions, directly conflicting, and\neach avowedly impossible, one of which the _intellect_ is supposed to be\ncapable of entertaining, on account of the greater _impossibility_ of\nentertaining the other. The choice is _not_ made between two\ndifficulties;\u2014it is merely _fancied_ to be made between two\nimpossibilities. Now of the former, there _are_ degrees\u2014but of the\nlatter, none:\u2014just as our impertinent letter-writer has already\nsuggested. A task _may_ be more or less difficult; but it is either\npossible or not possible:\u2014there are no gradations. It _might_ be more\n_difficult_ to overthrow the Andes than an ant-hill; but it _can_ be no\nmore _impossible_ to annihilate the matter of the one than the matter of\nthe other. A man may jump ten feet with less _difficulty_ than he can\njump twenty, but the _impossibility_ of his leaping to the moon is not a\nwhit less than that of his leaping to the dog-star.\n\nSince all this is undeniable: since the choice of the mind is to be made\nbetween _impossibilities_ of conception: since one impossibility cannot\nbe greater than another: and since, thus, one cannot be preferred to\nanother: the philosophers who not only maintain, on the grounds\nmentioned, man\u2019s _idea_ of infinity but, on account of such\nsupposititious idea, _infinity itself_\u2014are plainly engaged in\ndemonstrating one impossible thing to be possible by showing how it is\nthat some one other thing\u2014is impossible too. This, it will be said, is\nnonsense; and perhaps it is:\u2014indeed I think it very capital\nnonsense\u2014but forego all claim to it as nonsense of mine.\n\nThe readiest mode, however, of displaying the fallacy of the\nphilosophical argument on this question, is by simply adverting to a\n_fact_ respecting it which has been hitherto quite overlooked\u2014the fact\nthat the argument alluded to both proves and disproves its own\nproposition. \u201cThe mind is impelled,\u201d say the theologians and others, \u201cto\nadmit a _First Cause_, by the superior difficulty it experiences in\nconceiving cause beyond cause without end.\u201d The quibble, as before, lies\nin the word \u201cdifficulty\u201d\u2014but _here_ what is it employed to sustain? A\nFirst Cause. And what is a First Cause? An ultimate termination of\ncauses. And what is an ultimate termination of causes? Finity\u2014the\nFinite. Thus the one quibble, in two processes, by God knows how many\nphilosophers, is made to support now Finity and now Infinity\u2014could it\nnot be brought to support something besides? As for the\nquibblers\u2014_they_, at least, are insupportable. But\u2014to dismiss them:\u2014what\nthey prove in the one case is the identical nothing which they\ndemonstrate in the other.\n\nOf course, no one will suppose that I here contend for the absolute\nimpossibility of _that_ which we attempt to convey in the word\n\u201cInfinity.\u201d My purpose is but to show the folly of endeavoring to prove\nInfinity itself or even our conception of it, by any such blundering\nratiocination as that which is ordinarily employed.\n\nNevertheless, as an individual, I may be permitted to say that _I\ncannot_ conceive Infinity, and am convinced that no human being can. A\nmind not thoroughly self-conscious\u2014not accustomed to the introspective\nanalysis of its own operations\u2014will, it is true, often deceive itself by\nsupposing that it _has_ entertained the conception of which we speak. In\nthe effort to entertain it, we proceed step beyond step\u2014we fancy point\nstill beyond point; and so long as we _continue_ the effort, it may be\nsaid, in fact, that we are _tending_ to the formation of the idea\ndesigned; while the strength of the impression that we actually form or\nhave formed it, is in the ratio of the period during which we keep up\nthe mental endeavor. But it is in the act of discontinuing the\nendeavor\u2014of fulfilling (as we think) the idea\u2014of putting the finishing\nstroke (as we suppose) to the conception\u2014that we overthrow at once the\nwhole fabric of our fancy by resting upon some one ultimate and\ntherefore definite point. This fact, however, we fail to perceive, on\naccount of the absolute coincidence, in time, between the settling down\nupon the ultimate point and the act of cessation in thinking.\u2014In\nattempting, on the other hand, to frame the idea of a _limited_ space,\nwe merely converse the processes which involve the impossibility.\n\nWe _believe_ in a God. We may or may not _believe_ in finite or in\ninfinite space; but our belief, in such cases, is more properly\ndesignated as _faith_, and is a matter quite distinct from that belief\nproper\u2014from that _intellectual_ belief\u2014which presupposes the mental\nconception.\n\nThe fact is, that, upon the enunciation of any one of that class of\nterms to which \u201cInfinity\u201d belongs\u2014the class representing _thoughts of\nthought_\u2014he who has a right to say that he thinks _at all_, feels\nhimself called upon, _not_ to entertain a conception, but simply to\ndirect his mental vision toward some given point, in the intellectual\nfirmament, where lies a nebula never to be resolved. To solve it,\nindeed, he makes no effort; for with a rapid instinct he comprehends,\nnot only the impossibility, but, as regards all human purposes, the\n_inessentiality_, of its solution. He perceives that the Deity has not\n_designed_ it to be solved. He sees, at once, that it lies _out_ of the\nbrain of man, and even _how_, if not exactly _why_, it lies out of it.\nThere _are_ people, I am aware, who, busying themselves in attempts at\nthe unattainable, acquire very easily, by dint of the jargon they emit,\namong those thinkers-that-they-think with whom darkness and depth are\nsynonymous, a kind of cuttle-fish reputation for profundity; but the\nfinest quality of Thought is its self-cognizance; and, with some little\nequivocation, it may be said that no fog of the mind can well be greater\nthan that which, extending to the very boundaries of the mental domain,\nshuts out even these boundaries themselves from comprehension.\n\nIt will now be understood that, in using the phrase, \u201cInfinity of\nSpace,\u201d I make no call upon the reader to entertain the impossible\nconception of an _absolute_ infinity. I refer simply to the \u201c_utmost\nconceivable expanse_\u201d of space\u2014a shadowy and fluctuating domain, now\nshrinking, now swelling, in accordance with the vacillating energies of\nthe imagination.\n\n_Hitherto_, the Universe of stars has always been considered as\ncoincident with the Universe proper, as I have defined it in the\ncommencement of this Discourse. It has been always either directly or\nindirectly assumed\u2014at least since the dawn of intelligible\nAstronomy\u2014that, were it possible for us to attain any given point in\nspace, we should still find, on all sides of us, an interminable\nsuccession of stars. This was the untenable idea of Pascal when making\nperhaps the most successful attempt ever made, at periphrasing the\nconception for which we struggle in the word \u201cUniverse.\u201d \u201cIt is a\nsphere,\u201d he says, \u201cof which the centre is everywhere, the circumference,\nnowhere.\u201d But although this intended definition is, in fact, _no_\ndefinition of the Universe of _stars_, we may accept it, with some\nmental reservation, as a definition (rigorous enough for all practical\npurposes) of the Universe _proper_\u2014that is to say, of the Universe of\n_space_. This latter, then, let us regard as \u201c_a sphere of which the\ncentre is everywhere, the circumference nowhere_.\u201d In fact, while we\nfind it impossible to fancy an _end_ to space, we have no difficulty in\npicturing to ourselves any one of an infinity of _beginnings_.\n\nAs our starting-point, then, let us adopt the _Godhead_. Of this\nGodhead, _in itself_, he alone is not imbecile\u2014he alone is not impious\nwho propounds\u2014nothing. \u201c_Nous ne connaissons rien_,\u201d says the Baron de\nBielfeld\u2014\u201c_Nous ne connaissons rien de la nature ou de l\u2019essence de\nDieu:\u2014pour savoir ce qu\u2019il est, il faut \u00eatre Dieu m\u00eame._\u201d\u2014\u201cWe know\nabsolutely _nothing_ of the nature or essence of God:\u2014in order to\ncomprehend what he is, we should have to be God ourselves.\u201d\n\n\u201c_We should have to be God ourselves!_\u201d\u2014With a phrase so startling as\nthis yet ringing in my ears, I nevertheless venture to demand if this\nour present ignorance of the Deity is an ignorance to which the soul is\n_everlastingly_ condemned.\n\nBy _Him_, however\u2014_now_, at least, the Incomprehensible\u2014by Him\u2014assuming\nhim as _Spirit_\u2014that is to say, as _not Matter_\u2014a distinction which, for\nall intelligible purposes, will stand well instead of a definition\u2014by\nHim, then, existing as Spirit, let us content ourselves, to-night, with\nsupposing to have been _created_, or made out of Nothing, by dint of his\nVolition\u2014at some point of Space which we will take as a centre\u2014at some\nperiod into which we do not pretend to inquire, but at all events\nimmensely remote\u2014by Him, then again, let us suppose to have been\ncreated\u2014\u2014_what_? This is a vitally momentous epoch in our\nconsiderations. _What_ is it that we are justified\u2014that alone we are\njustified in supposing to have been, primarily and solely, _created_?\n\nWe have attained a point where only _Intuition_ can aid us:\u2014but now let\nme recur to the idea which I have already suggested as that alone which\nwe can properly entertain of intuition. It is but _the conviction\narising from those inductions or deductions of which the processes are\nso shadowy as to escape our consciousness, elude our reason, or defy our\ncapacity of expression_. With this understanding, I now assert\u2014that an\nintuition altogether irresistible, although inexpressible, forces me to\nthe conclusion that what God originally created\u2014that that Matter which,\nby dint of his Volition, he first made from his Spirit, or from\nNihility, _could_ have been nothing but Matter in its utmost conceivable\nstate of\u2014\u2014what?\u2014of _Simplicity_?\n\nThis will be found the sole absolute _assumption_ of my Discourse. I use\nthe word \u201cassumption\u201d in its ordinary sense; yet I maintain that even\nthis my primary proposition, is very, very far indeed, from being really\na mere assumption. Nothing was ever more certainly\u2014no human conclusion\nwas ever, in fact, more regularly\u2014more rigorously _de_duced:\u2014but, alas!\nthe processes lie out of the human analysis\u2014at all events are beyond the\nutterance of the human tongue.\n\nLet us now endeavor to conceive what Matter must be, when, or if, in its\nabsolute extreme of _Simplicity_. Here the Reason flies at once to\nImparticularity\u2014to a particle\u2014to _one_ particle\u2014a particle of _one_\nkind\u2014of _one_ character\u2014of _one_ nature\u2014of _one size_\u2014of one form\u2014a\nparticle, therefore, \u201c_without_ form and void\u201d\u2014a particle positively a\nparticle at all points\u2014a particle absolutely unique, individual,\nundivided, and not indivisible only because He who _created_ it, by dint\nof his Will, can by an infinitely less energetic exercise of the same\nWill, as a matter of course, divide it.\n\n_Oneness_, then, is all that I predicate of the originally created\nMatter; but I propose to show that this _Oneness is a principle\nabundantly sufficient to account for the constitution, the existing\nph\u00e6nomena and the plainly inevitable annihilation of at least the\nmaterial Universe_.\n\nThe willing into being the primordial particle, has completed the act,\nor more properly the _conception_, of Creation. We now proceed to the\nultimate purpose for which we are to suppose the Particle created\u2014that\nis to say, the ultimate purpose so far as our considerations _yet_\nenable us to see it\u2014the constitution of the Universe from it, the\nParticle.\n\nThis constitution has been effected by _forcing_ the originally and\ntherefore normally _One_ into the abnormal condition of _Many_. An\naction of this character implies r\u00ebaction. A diffusion from Unity, under\nthe conditions, involves a tendency to return into Unity\u2014a tendency\nineradicable until satisfied. But on these points I will speak more\nfully hereafter.\n\nThe assumption of absolute Unity in the primordial Particle includes\nthat of infinite divisibility. Let us conceive the Particle, then, to be\nonly not totally exhausted by diffusion into Space. From the one\nParticle, as a centre, let us suppose to be irradiated spherically\u2014in\nall directions\u2014to immeasurable but still to definite distances in the\npreviously vacant space\u2014a certain inexpressibly great yet limited number\nof unimaginably yet not infinitely minute atoms.\n\nNow, of these atoms, thus diffused, or upon diffusion, what conditions\nare we permitted\u2014not to assume, but to infer, from consideration as well\nof their source as of the character of the design apparent in their\ndiffusion? _Unity_ being their source, and _difference from Unity_ the\ncharacter of the design manifested in their diffusion, we are warranted\nin supposing this character to be at least _generally_ preserved\nthroughout the design, and to form a portion of the design itself:\u2014that\nis to say, we shall be warranted in conceiving continual differences at\nall points from the uniquity and simplicity of the origin. But, for\nthese reasons, shall we be justified in imagining the atoms\nheterogeneous, dissimilar, unequal, and inequidistant? More\nexplicitly\u2014are we to consider no two atoms as, at their diffusion, of\nthe same nature, or of the same form, or of the same size?\u2014and, after\nfulfilment of their diffusion into Space, is absolute inequidistance,\neach from each, to be understood of all of them? In such arrangement,\nunder such conditions, we most easily and immediately comprehend the\nsubsequent most feasible carrying out to completion of any such design\nas that which I have suggested\u2014the design of variety out of\nunity\u2014diversity out of sameness\u2014heterogeneity out of\nhomogeneity\u2014complexity out of simplicity\u2014in a word, the utmost possible\nmultiplicity of _relation_ out of the emphatically irrelative _One_.\nUndoubtedly, therefore, we _should_ be warranted in assuming all that\nhas been mentioned, but for the reflection, first, that supererogation\nis not presumable of any Divine Act; and, secondly, that the object\nsupposed in view, appears as feasible when some of the conditions in\nquestion are dispensed with, in the beginning, as when all are\nunderstood immediately to exist. I mean to say that some are involved in\nthe rest, or so instantaneous a consequence of them as to make the\ndistinction inappreciable. Difference of _size_, for example, will at\nonce be brought about through the tendency of one atom to a second, in\npreference to a third, on account of particular inequidistance; which is\nto be comprehended as _particular inequidistances between centres of\nquantity, in neighboring atoms of different form_\u2014a matter not at all\ninterfering with the generally-equable distribution of the atoms.\nDifference of _kind_, too, is easily conceived to be merely a result of\ndifferences in size and form, taken more or less conjointly:\u2014in fact,\nsince the _Unity_ of the Particle Proper implies absolute homogeneity,\nwe cannot imagine the atoms, at their diffusion, differing in kind,\nwithout imagining, at the same time, a special exercise of the Divine\nWill, at the emission of each atom, for the purpose of effecting, in\neach, a change of its essential nature:\u2014so fantastic an idea is the\nless to be indulged, as the object proposed is seen to be thoroughly\nattainable without such minute and elaborate interposition. We perceive,\ntherefore, upon the whole, that it would be supererogatory, and\nconsequently unphilosophical, to predicate of the atoms, in view of\ntheir purposes, any thing more than _difference of form_ at their\ndispersion, with particular inequidistance after it\u2014all other\ndifferences arising at once out of these, in the very first processes of\nmass-constitution:\u2014We thus establish the Universe on a purely\n_geometrical_ basis. Of course, it is by no means necessary to assume\nabsolute difference, even of form, among _all_ the atoms irradiated\u2014any\nmore than absolute particular inequidistance of each from each. We are\nrequired to conceive merely that no _neighboring_ atoms are of similar\nform\u2014no atoms which can ever approximate, until their inevitable\nr\u00ebunition at the end.\n\nAlthough the immediate and perpetual _tendency_ of the disunited atoms\nto return into their normal Unity, is implied, as I have said, in their\nabnormal diffusion; still it is clear that this tendency will be without\nconsequence\u2014a tendency and no more\u2014until the diffusive energy, in\nceasing to be exerted, shall leave _it_, the tendency, free to seek its\nsatisfaction. The Divine Act, however, being considered as determinate,\nand discontinued on fulfilment of the diffusion, we understand, at once,\na _r\u00ebaction_\u2014in other words, a _satisfiable_ tendency of the disunited\natoms to return into _One_.\n\nBut the diffusive energy being withdrawn, and the r\u00ebaction having\ncommenced in furtherance of the ultimate design\u2014_that of the utmost\npossible Relation_\u2014this design is now in danger of being frustrated, in\ndetail, by reason of that very tendency to return which is to effect its\naccomplishment in general. _Multiplicity_ is the object; but there is\nnothing to prevent proximate atoms, from lapsing _at once_, through the\nnow satisfiable tendency\u2014_before_ the fulfilment of any ends proposed in\nmultiplicity\u2014into absolute oneness among themselves:\u2014there is nothing to\nimpede the aggregation of various _unique_ masses, at various points of\nspace:\u2014in other words, nothing to interfere with the accumulation of\nvarious masses, each absolutely One.\n\nFor the effectual and thorough completion of the general design, we thus\nsee the necessity for a repulsion of limited capacity\u2014a separative\n_something_ which, on withdrawal of the diffusive Volition, shall at the\nsame time allow the approach, and forbid the junction, of the atoms;\nsuffering them infinitely to approximate, while denying them positive\ncontact; in a word, having the power\u2014_up to a certain epoch_\u2014of\npreventing their _coalition_, but no ability to interfere with their\n_coalescence_ in any respect _or degree_. The repulsion, already\nconsidered as so peculiarly limited in other regards, must be\nunderstood, let me repeat, as having power to prevent absolute\ncoalition, _only up to a certain epoch_. Unless we are to conceive that\nthe appetite for Unity among the atoms is doomed to be satisfied\n_never_;\u2014unless we are to conceive that what had a beginning is to have\nno end\u2014a conception which cannot _really_ be entertained, however much\nwe may talk or dream of entertaining it\u2014we are forced to conclude that\nthe repulsive influence imagined, will, finally\u2014under pressure of the\n_Unitendency collectively_ applied, but never and in no degree _until_,\non fulfilment of the Divine purposes, such collective application shall\nbe naturally made\u2014yield to a force which, at that ultimate epoch, shall\nbe the superior force precisely to the extent required, and thus permit\nthe universal subsidence into the inevitable, because original and\ntherefore normal, _One_.\u2014The conditions here to be reconciled are\ndifficult indeed:\u2014we cannot even comprehend the possibility of their\nconciliation;\u2014nevertheless, the apparent impossibility is brilliantly\nsuggestive.\n\nThat the repulsive something actually exists, _we see_. Man neither\nemploys, nor knows, a force sufficient to bring two atoms into contact.\nThis is but the well-established proposition of the impenetrability of\nmatter. All Experiment proves\u2014all Philosophy admits it. The _design_ of\nthe repulsion\u2014the necessity for its existence\u2014I have endeavored to show;\nbut from all attempt at investigating its nature have religiously\nabstained; this on account of an intuitive conviction that the principle\nat issue is strictly spiritual\u2014lies in a recess impervious to our\npresent understanding\u2014lies involved in a consideration of what now\u2014in\nour human state\u2014is _not_ to be considered\u2014in a consideration of _Spirit\nin itself_. I feel, in a word, that here the God has interposed, and\nhere only, because here and here only the knot demanded the\ninterposition of the God.\n\nIn fact, while the tendency of the diffused atoms to return into Unity,\nwill be recognized, at once, as the principle of the Newtonian Gravity,\nwhat I have spoken of as a repulsive influence prescribing limits to the\n(immediate) satisfaction of the tendency, will be understood as _that_\nwhich we have been in the practice of designating now as heat, now as\nmagnetism, now as _electricity_; displaying our ignorance of its awful\ncharacter in the vacillation of the phraseology with which we endeavor\nto circumscribe it.\n\nCalling it, merely for the moment, electricity, we know that all\nexperimental analysis of electricity has given, as an ultimate result,\nthe principle, or seeming principle, _heterogeneity_. _Only_ where\nthings differ is electricity apparent; and it is presumable that they\n_never_ differ where it is not developed at least, if not apparent. Now,\nthis result is in the fullest keeping with that which I have reached\nunempirically. The design of the repulsive influence I have maintained\nto be that of preventing immediate Unity among the diffused atoms; and\nthese atoms are represented as different each from each. _Difference_ is\ntheir character\u2014their essentiality\u2014just as _no-difference_ was the\nessentiality of their source. When we say, then, that an attempt to\nbring any two of these atoms together would induce an effort, on the\npart of the repulsive influence, to prevent the contact, we may as well\nuse the strictly convertible sentence that an attempt to bring together\nany two differences will result in a development of electricity. All\nexisting bodies, of course, are composed of these atoms in proximate\ncontact, and are therefore to be considered as mere assemblages of more\nor fewer differences; and the resistance made by the repulsive spirit,\non bringing together any two such assemblages, would be in the ratio of\nthe two sums of the differences in each:\u2014an expression which, when\nreduced, is equivalent to this:\u2014_The amount of electricity developed on\nthe approximation of two bodies, is proportional to the difference\nbetween the respective sums of the atoms of which the bodies are\ncomposed._ That _no_ two bodies are absolutely alike, is a simple\ncorollary from all that has been here said. Electricity, therefore,\nexisting always, is _developed_ whenever _any_ bodies, but _manifested_\nonly when bodies of appreciable difference, are brought into\napproximation.\n\nTo electricity\u2014so, for the present, continuing to call it\u2014we _may_ not\nbe wrong in referring the various physical appearances of light, heat\nand magnetism; but far less shall we be liable to err in attributing to\nthis strictly spiritual principle the more important ph\u00e6nomena of\nvitality, consciousness and _Thought_. On this topic, however, I need\npause _here_ merely to suggest that these ph\u00e6nomena, whether observed\ngenerally or in detail, seem to proceed _at least in the ratio of the\nheterogeneous_.\n\nDiscarding now the two equivocal terms, \u201cgravitation\u201d and \u201celectricity,\u201d\nlet us adopt the more definite expressions, \u201c_attraction_\u201d and\n\u201c_repulsion_.\u201d The former is the body; the latter the soul: the one is\nthe material; the other the spiritual, principle of the Universe. _No\nother principles exist._ _All_ ph\u00e6nomena are referable to one, or to the\nother, or to both combined. So rigorously is this the case\u2014so thoroughly\ndemonstrable is it that attraction and repulsion are the _sole_\nproperties through which we perceive the Universe\u2014in other words, by\nwhich Matter is manifested to Mind\u2014that, for all merely argumentative\npurposes, we are fully justified in assuming that matter _exists_ only\nas attraction and repulsion\u2014that attraction and repulsion _are_\nmatter:\u2014there being no conceivable case in which we may not employ the\nterm \u201cmatter\u201d and the terms \u201cattraction\u201d and \u201crepulsion,\u201d taken\ntogether, as equivalent, and therefore convertible, expressions in\nLogic.\n\nI said, just now, that what I have described as the tendency of the\ndiffused atoms to return into their original unity, would be understood\nas the principle of the Newtonian law of gravity: and, in fact, there\ncan be little difficulty in such an understanding, if we look at the\nNewtonian gravity in a merely general view, as a force impelling matter\nto seek matter; that is to say, when we pay no attention to the known\n_modus operandi_ of the Newtonian force. The general coincidence\nsatisfies us; but, upon looking closely, we see, in detail, much that\nappears _in_coincident, and much in regard to which no coincidence, at\nleast, is established. For example; the Newtonian gravity, when we think\nof it in certain moods, does _not_ seem to be a tendency to _oneness_ at\nall, but rather a tendency of all bodies in all directions\u2014a phrase\napparently expressive of a tendency to diffusion. Here, then, is an\n_in_coincidence. Again; when we reflect on the mathematical _law_\ngoverning the Newtonian tendency, we see clearly that no coincidence has\nbeen made good, in respect of the _modus operandi_, at least, between\ngravitation as known to exist and that seemingly simple and direct\ntendency which I have assumed.\n\nIn fact, I have attained a point at which it will be advisable to\nstrengthen my position by reversing my processes. So far, we have gone\non _\u00e0 priori_, from an abstract consideration of _Simplicity_, as that\nquality most likely to have characterized the original action of God.\nLet us now see whether the established facts of the Newtonian\nGravitation may not afford us, _\u00e0 posteriori_, some legitimate\ninductions.\n\nWhat does the Newtonian law declare?\u2014That all bodies attract each other\nwith forces proportional to their quantities of matter and inversely\nproportional to the squares of their distances. Purposely, I have here\ngiven, in the first place, the vulgar version of the law; and I confess\nthat in this, as in most other vulgar versions of great truths, we find\nlittle of a suggestive character. Let us now adopt a more philosophical\nphraseology:\u2014_Every atom, of every body, attracts every other atom, both\nof its own and of every other body, with a force which varies inversely\nas the squares of the distances between the attracting and attracted\natom._\u2014Here, indeed, a flood of suggestion bursts upon the mind.\n\nBut let us see distinctly what it was that Newton _proved_\u2014according to\nthe grossly irrational definitions of _proof_ prescribed by the\nmetaphysical schools. He was forced to content himself with showing how\nthoroughly the motions of an imaginary Universe, composed of attracting\nand attracted atoms obedient to the law he announced, coincide with\nthose of the actually existing Universe so far as it comes under our\nobservation. This was the amount of his _demonstration_\u2014that is to say,\nthis was the amount of it, according to the conventional cant of the\n\u201cphilosophies.\u201d His successes added proof multiplied by proof\u2014such proof\nas a sound intellect admits\u2014but the _demonstration_ of the law itself,\npersist the metaphysicians, had not been strengthened in any degree.\n\u201c_Ocular_, _physical_ proof,\u201d however, of attraction, here upon Earth,\nin accordance with the Newtonian theory, was, at length, much to the\nsatisfaction of some intellectual grovellers, afforded. This proof arose\ncollaterally and incidentally (as nearly all important truths have\narisen) out of an attempt to ascertain the mean density of the Earth. In\nthe famous Maskelyne, Cavendish and Bailly experiments for this purpose,\nthe attraction of the mass of a mountain was seen, felt, measured, and\nfound to be mathematically consistent with the immortal theory of the\nBritish astronomer.\n\nBut in spite of this confirmation of that which needed none\u2014in spite of\nthe so-called corroboration of the \u201ctheory\u201d by the so-called \u201cocular and\nphysical proof\u201d\u2014in spite of the _character_ of this corroboration\u2014the\nideas which even really philosophical men cannot help imbibing of\ngravity\u2014and, especially, the ideas of it which ordinary men get and\ncontentedly maintain, are _seen_ to have been derived, for the most\npart, from a consideration of the principle as they find it\ndeveloped\u2014_merely in the planet upon which they stand_.\n\nNow, to what does so partial a consideration tend\u2014to what species of\nerror does it give rise? On the Earth we _see_ and _feel_, only that\ngravity impels all bodies towards the _centre_ of the Earth. No man in\nthe common walks of life could be _made_ to see or to feel anything\nelse\u2014could be made to perceive that anything, anywhere, has a perpetual,\ngravitating tendency in any _other_ direction than to the centre of the\nEarth; yet (with an exception hereafter to be specified) it is a fact\nthat every earthly thing (not to speak now of every heavenly thing) has\na tendency not _only_ to the Earth\u2019s centre but in every conceivable\ndirection besides.\n\nNow, although the philosophic cannot be said to _err with_ the vulgar in\nthis matter, they nevertheless permit themselves to be influenced,\nwithout knowing it, by the _sentiment_ of the vulgar idea. \u201cAlthough the\nPagan fables are not believed,\u201d says Bryant, in his very erudite\n\u201cMythology,\u201d \u201cyet we forget ourselves continually and make inferences\nfrom them as from existing realities.\u201d I mean to assert that the merely\n_sensitive perception_ of gravity as we experience it on Earth, beguiles\nmankind into the fancy of _concentralization_ or _especiality_\nrespecting it\u2014has been continually biasing towards this fancy even the\nmightiest intellects\u2014perpetually, although imperceptibly, leading them\naway from the real characteristics of the principle; thus preventing\nthem, up to this date, from ever getting a glimpse of that vital truth\nwhich lies in a diametrically opposite direction\u2014behind the principle\u2019s\n_essential_ characteristics\u2014those, _not_ of concentralization or\nespeciality\u2014but of _universality_ and _diffusion_. This \u201cvital truth\u201d is\n_Unity_ as the _source_ of the ph\u00e6nomenon.\n\nLet me now repeat the definition of gravity:\u2014_Every atom, of every body,\nattracts every other atom, both of its own and of every other body_,\nwith a force which varies inversely as the squares of the distances of\nthe attracting and attracted atom.\n\nHere let the reader pause with me, for a moment, in contemplation of the\nmiraculous\u2014of the ineffable\u2014of the altogether unimaginable complexity of\nrelation involved in the fact that _each atom attracts every other\natom_\u2014involved merely in this fact of the attraction, without reference\nto the law or mode in which the attraction is manifested\u2014involved\n_merely_ in the fact that each atom attracts every other atom _at all_,\nin a wilderness of atoms so numerous that those which go to the\ncomposition of a cannon-ball, exceed, probably, in mere point of number,\nall the stars which go to the constitution of the Universe.\n\nHad we discovered, simply, that each atom tended to some one favorite\npoint\u2014to some especially attractive atom\u2014we should still have fallen\nupon a discovery which, in itself, would have sufficed to overwhelm the\nmind:\u2014but what is it that we are actually called upon to comprehend?\nThat each atom attracts\u2014sympathizes with the most delicate movements of\nevery other atom, and with each and with all at the same time, and\nforever, and according to a determinate law of which the complexity,\neven considered by itself solely, is utterly beyond the grasp of the\nimagination of man. If I propose to ascertain the influence of one mote\nin a sunbeam upon its neighboring mote, I cannot accomplish my purpose\nwithout first counting and weighing all the atoms in the Universe and\ndefining the precise positions of all at one particular moment. If I\nventure to displace, by even the billionth part of an inch, the\nmicroscopical speck of dust which lies now upon the point of my finger,\nwhat is the character of that act upon which I have adventured? I have\ndone a deed which shakes the Moon in her path, which causes the Sun to\nbe no longer the Sun, and which alters forever the destiny of the\nmultitudinous myriads of stars that roll and glow in the majestic\npresence of their Creator.\n\n_These_ ideas\u2014conceptions such as _these_\u2014unthoughtlike\nthoughts\u2014soul-reveries rather than conclusions or even considerations\nof the intellect:\u2014ideas, I repeat, such as these, are such as we can\nalone hope profitably to entertain in any effort at grasping the great\nprinciple, _Attraction_.\n\nBut now,\u2014_with_ such ideas\u2014with such a _vision_ of the marvellous\ncomplexity of Attraction fairly in his mind\u2014let any person competent of\nthought on such topics as these, set himself to the task of imagining a\n_principle_ for the ph\u00e6nomena observed\u2014a condition from which they\nsprang.\n\nDoes not so evident a brotherhood among the atoms point to a common\nparentage? Does not a sympathy so omniprevalent, so ineradicable, and so\nthoroughly irrespective, suggest a common paternity as its source? Does\nnot one extreme impel the reason to the other? Does not the infinitude\nof division refer to the utterness of individuality? Does not the\nentireness of the complex hint at the perfection of the simple? It is\n_not_ that the atoms, as we see them, are divided or that they are\ncomplex in their relations\u2014but that they are inconceivably divided and\nunutterably complex:\u2014it is the extremeness of the conditions to which I\nnow allude, rather than to the conditions themselves. In a word, is it\nnot because the atoms were, at some remote epoch of time, even _more\nthan together_\u2014is it not because originally, and therefore normally,\nthey were _One_\u2014that now, in all circumstances\u2014at all points\u2014in all\ndirections\u2014by all modes of approach\u2014in all relations and through all\nconditions\u2014they struggle _back_ to this absolutely, this irrelatively,\nthis unconditionally _one_?\n\nSome person may here demand:\u2014\u201cWhy\u2014since it is to the _One_ that the\natoms struggle back\u2014do we not find and define Attraction \u2018a merely\ngeneral tendency to a centre?\u2019\u2014why, in especial, do not _your_\natoms\u2014the atoms which you describe as having been irradiated from a\ncentre\u2014proceed at once, rectilinearly, back to the central point of\ntheir origin?\u201d\n\nI reply that _they do_; as will be distinctly shown; but that the cause\nof their so doing is quite irrespective of the centre _as such_. They\nall tend rectilinearly towards a centre, because of the sphereicity with\nwhich they have been irradiated into space. Each atom, forming one of a\ngenerally uniform globe of atoms, finds more atoms in the direction of\nthe centre, of course, than in any other, and in that direction,\ntherefore, is impelled\u2014but is _not_ thus impelled because the centre is\n_the point of its origin_. It is not to any _point_ that the atoms are\nallied. It is not any _locality_, either in the concrete or in the\nabstract, to which I suppose them bound. Nothing like _location_ was\nconceived as their origin. Their source lies in the principle, _Unity_.\n_This_ is their lost parent. _This_ they seek always\u2014immediately\u2014in all\ndirections\u2014wherever it is even partially to be found; thus appeasing, in\nsome measure, the ineradicable tendency, while on the way to its\nabsolute satisfaction in the end. It follows from all this, that any\nprinciple which shall be adequate to account for the _law_, or _modus\noperandi_, of the attractive force in general, will account for this law\nin particular:\u2014that is to say, any principle which will show why the\natoms should tend to their _general centre of irradiation_ with forces\ninversely proportional to the squares of the distances, will be admitted\nas satisfactorily accounting, at the same time, for the tendency,\naccording to the same law, of these atoms each to each:\u2014_for_ the\ntendency to the centre _is_ merely the tendency each to each, and not\nany tendency to a centre as such.\u2014Thus it will be seen, also, that the\nestablishment of my propositions would involve no _necessity_ of\nmodification in the terms of the Newtonian definition of Gravity, which\ndeclares that each atom attracts each other atom and so forth, and\ndeclares this merely; but (always under the supposition that what I\npropose be, in the end, admitted) it seems clear that some error might\noccasionally be avoided, in the future processes of Science, were a more\nample phraseology adopted:\u2014for instance:\u2014\u201cEach atom tends to every other\natom &c. with a force &c.: _the general result being a tendency of all,\nwith a similar force, to a general centre_.\u201d\n\nThe reversal of our processes has thus brought us to an identical\nresult; but, while in the one process _intuition_ was the\nstarting-point, in the other it was the goal. In commencing the former\njourney I could only say that, with an irresistible intuition, I _felt_\nSimplicity to have been the characteristic of the original action of\nGod:\u2014in ending the latter I can only declare that, with an irresistible\nintuition, I perceive Unity to have been the source of the observed\nph\u00e6nomena of the Newtonian gravitation. Thus, according to the schools,\nI _prove_ nothing. So be it:\u2014I design but to suggest\u2014and to _convince_\nthrough the suggestion. I am proudly aware that there exist many of the\nmost profound and cautiously discriminative human intellects which\ncannot _help_ being abundantly content with my\u2014suggestions. To these\nintellects\u2014as to my own\u2014there is no mathematical demonstration which\n_could_ bring the least additional _true proof_ of the great _Truth_\nwhich I have advanced\u2014_the truth of Original Unity as the source\u2014as the\nprinciple of the Universal Ph\u00e6nomena_. For my part, I am not so sure\nthat I speak and see\u2014I am not so sure that my heart beats and that my\nsoul lives:\u2014of the rising of to-morrow\u2019s sun\u2014a probability that as yet\nlies in the Future\u2014I do not pretend to be one thousandth part as sure\u2014as\nI am of the irretrievably by-gone _Fact_ that All Things and All\nThoughts of Things, with all their ineffable Multiplicity of Relation,\nsprang at once into being from the primordial and irrelative _One_.\n\nReferring to the Newtonian Gravity, Dr. Nichol, the eloquent author of\n\u201cThe Architecture of the Heavens,\u201d says:\u2014\u201cIn truth we have no reason to\nsuppose this great Law, as now revealed, to be the ultimate or simplest,\nand therefore the universal and all-comprehensive, form of a great\nOrdinance. The mode in which its intensity diminishes with the element\nof distance, has not the aspect of an ultimate _principle_; which always\nassumes the simplicity and self-evidence of those axioms which\nconstitute the basis of Geometry.\u201d\n\nNow, it is quite true that \u201cultimate principles,\u201d in the common\nunderstanding of the words, always assume the simplicity of geometrical\naxioms\u2014(as for \u201cself-evidence,\u201d there is no such thing)\u2014but these\nprinciples are clearly _not_ \u201cultimate;\u201d in other terms what we are in\nthe habit of calling principles are no principles, properly\nspeaking\u2014since there can be but one _principle_, the Volition of God. We\nhave no right to assume, then, from what we observe in rules that we\nchoose foolishly to name \u201cprinciples,\u201d anything at all in respect to the\ncharacteristics of a principle proper. The \u201cultimate principles\u201d of\nwhich Dr. Nichol speaks as having geometrical simplicity, may and do\nhave this geometrical turn, as being part and parcel of a vast\ngeometrical system, and thus a system of simplicity itself\u2014in which,\nnevertheless, the _truly_ ultimate principle is, _as we know_, the\nconsummation of the complex\u2014that is to say, of the unintelligible\u2014for is\nit not the Spiritual Capacity of God?\n\nI quoted Dr. Nichol\u2019s remark, however, not so much to question its\nphilosophy, as by way of calling attention to the fact that, while all\nmen have admitted _some_ principle as existing behind the Law of\nGravity, no attempt has been yet made to point out what this principle\nin particular _is_:\u2014if we except, perhaps, occasional fantastic efforts\nat referring it to Magnetism, or Mesmerism, or Swedenborgianism, or\nTranscendentalism, or some other equally delicious _ism_ of the same\nspecies, and invariably patronized by one and the same species of\npeople. The great mind of Newton, while boldly grasping the Law itself,\nshrank from the principle of the Law. The more fluent and comprehensive\nat least, if not the more patient and profound, sagacity of Laplace, had\nnot the courage to attack it. But hesitation on the part of these two\nastronomers it is, perhaps, not so very difficult to understand. They,\nas well as all the first class of mathematicians, were mathematicians\n_solely_:\u2014their intellect, at least, had a firmly-pronounced\nmathematico-physical tone. What lay not distinctly within the domain of\nPhysics, or of Mathematics, seemed to them either Non-Entity or Shadow.\nNevertheless, we may well wonder that Leibnitz, who was a marked\nexception to the general rule in these respects, and whose mental\ntemperament was a singular admixture of the mathematical with the\nphysico-metaphysical, did not at once investigate and establish the\npoint at issue. Either Newton or Laplace, seeking a principle and\ndiscovering none _physical_, would have rested contentedly in the\nconclusion that there was absolutely none; but it is almost impossible\nto fancy, of Leibnitz, that, having exhausted in his search the physical\ndominions, he would not have stepped at once, boldly and hopefully, amid\nhis old familiar haunts in the kingdom of Metaphysics. Here, indeed, it\nis clear that he _must_ have adventured in search of the treasure:\u2014that\nhe did not find it after all, was, perhaps, because his fairy guide,\nImagination, was not sufficiently well-grown, or well-educated, to\ndirect him aright.\n\nI observed, just now, that, in fact, there had been certain vague\nattempts at referring Gravity to some very uncertain _isms_. These\nattempts, however, although considered bold and justly so considered,\nlooked no farther than to the generality\u2014the merest generality\u2014of the\nNewtonian Law. Its _modus operandi_ has never, to my knowledge, been\napproached in the way of an effort at explanation. It is, therefore,\nwith no unwarranted fear of being taken for a madman at the outset, and\nbefore I can bring my propositions fairly to the eye of those who alone\nare competent to decide upon them, that I here declare the _modus\noperandi_ of the Law of Gravity to be an exceedingly simple and\nperfectly explicable thing\u2014that is to say, when we make our advances\ntowards it in just gradations and in the true direction\u2014when we regard\nit from the proper point of view.\n\nWhether we reach the idea of absolute _Unity_ as the source of All\nThings, from a consideration of Simplicity as the most probable\ncharacteristic of the original action of God;\u2014whether we arrive at it\nfrom an inspection of the universality of relation in the gravitating\nph\u00e6nomena;\u2014or whether we attain it as a result of the mutual\ncorroboration afforded by both processes;\u2014still, the idea itself, if\nentertained at all, is entertained in inseparable connection with\nanother idea\u2014that of the condition of the Universe of stars as we _now_\nperceive it\u2014that is to say, a condition of immeasurable _diffusion_\nthrough space. Now a connection between these two ideas\u2014unity and\ndiffusion\u2014cannot be established unless through the entertainment of a\nthird idea\u2014that of _irradiation_. Absolute Unity being taken as a\ncentre, then the existing Universe of stars is the result of\n_irradiation_ from that centre.\n\nNow, the laws of irradiation are _known_. They are part and parcel of\nthe _sphere_. They belong to the class of _indisputable geometrical\nproperties_. We say of them, \u201cthey are true\u2014they are evident.\u201d To demand\n_why_ they are true, would be to demand why the axioms are true upon\nwhich their demonstration is based. _Nothing_ is demonstrable, strictly\nspeaking; but _if_ anything _be_, then the properties\u2014the laws in\nquestion are demonstrated.\n\nBut these laws\u2014what do they declare? Irradiation\u2014how\u2014by what steps does\nit proceed outwardly from a centre?\n\nFrom a _luminous_ centre, _Light_ issues by irradiation; and the\nquantities of light received upon any given plane, supposed to be\nshifting its position so as to be now nearer the centre and now farther\nfrom it, will be diminished in the same proportion as the squares of the\ndistances of the plane from the luminous body, are increased; and will\nbe increased in the same proportion as these squares are diminished.\n\nThe expression of the law may be thus generalized:\u2014the number of\nlight-particles (or, if the phrase be preferred, the number of\nlight-impressions) received upon the shifting plane, will be _inversely_\nproportional with the squares of the distances of the plane.\nGeneralizing yet again, we may say that the diffusion\u2014the scattering\u2014the\nirradiation, in a word\u2014is _directly_ proportional with the squares of\nthe distances.\n\n[Illustration]\n\nFor example: at the distance B, from the luminous centre A, a certain\nnumber of particles are so diffused as to occupy the surface B. Then at\ndouble the distance\u2014that is to say at C\u2014they will be so much farther\ndiffused as to occupy four such surfaces:\u2014at treble the distance, or at\nD, they will be so much farther separated as to occupy nine such\nsurfaces:\u2014while, at quadruple the distance, or at E, they will have\nbecome so scattered as to spread themselves over sixteen such\nsurfaces\u2014and so on forever.\n\nIn saying, generally, that the irradiation proceeds in direct proportion\nwith the squares of the distances, we use the term irradiation to\nexpress _the degree of the diffusion_ as we proceed outwardly from the\ncentre. Conversing the idea, and employing the word \u201cconcentralization\u201d\nto express _the degree of the drawing together_ as we come back toward\nthe centre from an outward position, we may say that concentralization\nproceeds _inversely_ as the squares of the distances. In other words, we\nhave reached the conclusion that, on the hypothesis that matter was\noriginally irradiated from a centre and is now returning to it, the\nconcentralization, in the return, proceeds _exactly as we know the force\nof gravitation to proceed_.\n\nNow here, if we could be permitted to assume that concentralization\nexactly represented the _force of the tendency to the centre_\u2014that the\none was exactly proportional to the other, and that the two proceeded\ntogether\u2014we should have shown all that is required. The sole difficulty\nexisting, then, is to establish a direct proportion between\n\u201cconcentralization\u201d and the _force_ of concentralization; and this is\ndone, of course, if we establish such proportion between \u201cirradiation\u201d\nand the _force_ of irradiation.\n\nA very slight inspection of the Heavens assures us that the stars have a\ncertain general uniformity, equability, or equidistance, of distribution\nthrough that region of space in which, collectively, and in a roughly\nglobular form, they are situated:\u2014this species of very general, rather\nthan absolute, equability, being in full keeping with my deduction of\ninequidistance, within certain limits, among the originally diffused\natoms, as a corollary from the evident design of infinite complexity of\nrelation out of irrelation. I started, it will be remembered, with the\nidea of a generally uniform but particularly _un_uniform distribution of\nthe atoms;\u2014an idea, I repeat, which an inspection of the stars, as they\nexist, confirms.\n\nBut even in the merely general equability of distribution, as regards\nthe atoms, there appears a difficulty which, no doubt, has already\nsuggested itself to those among my readers who have borne in mind that I\nsuppose this equability of distribution effected through _irradiation\nfrom a centre_. The very first glance at the idea, irradiation, forces\nus to the entertainment of the hitherto unseparated and seemingly\ninseparable idea of agglomeration about a centre, with dispersion as we\nrecede from it\u2014the idea, in a word, of _in_equability of distribution in\nrespect to the matter irradiated.\n\nNow, I have elsewhere[1] observed that it is by just such difficulties\nas the one now in question\u2014such roughnesses\u2014such peculiarities\u2014such\nprotuberances above the plane of the ordinary\u2014that Reason feels her way,\nif at all, in her search for the True. By the difficulty\u2014the\n\u201cpeculiarity\u201d\u2014now presented, I leap at once to _the_ secret\u2014a secret\nwhich I might never have attained _but_ for the peculiarity and the\ninferences which, _in its mere character of peculiarity_, it affords me.\n\n    [1] \u201c_Murders in the Rue Morgue_\u201d\u2014p. 133.\n\nThe process of thought, at this point, may be thus roughly sketched:\u2014I\nsay to myself\u2014\u201cUnity, as I have explained it, is a truth\u2014I feel it.\nDiffusion is a truth\u2014I see it. Irradiation, by which alone these two\ntruths are reconciled, is a consequent truth\u2014I perceive it. _Equability_\nof diffusion, first deduced _\u00e0 priori_ and then corroborated by the\ninspection of ph\u00e6nomena, is also a truth\u2014I fully admit it. So far all is\nclear around me:\u2014there are no clouds behind which _the_ secret\u2014the great\nsecret of the gravitating _modus operandi_\u2014can possibly lie hidden;\u2014but\nthis secret lies _hereabouts_, most assuredly; and _were_ there but a\ncloud in view, I should be driven to suspicion of that cloud.\u201d And now,\njust as I say this, there actually comes a cloud into view. This cloud\nis the seeming impossibility of reconciling my truth, _irradiation_,\nwith my truth, _equability of diffusion_. I say now:\u2014\u201cBehind this\n_seeming_ impossibility is to be found what I desire.\u201d I do not say\n\u201c_real_ impossibility;\u201d for invincible faith in my truths assures me\nthat it is a mere difficulty after all\u2014but I go on to say, with\nunflinching confidence, that, _when_ this _difficulty_ shall be solved,\nwe shall find, _wrapped up in the process of solution_, the key to the\nsecret at which we aim. Moreover\u2014I _feel_ that we shall discover _but\none_ possible solution of the difficulty; this for the reason that, were\nthere two, one would be supererogatory\u2014would be fruitless\u2014would be\nempty\u2014would contain no key\u2014since no duplicate key can be needed to any\nsecret of Nature.\n\nAnd now, let us see:\u2014Our usual notions of irradiation\u2014in fact _all_ our\ndistinct notions of it\u2014are caught merely from the process as we see it\nexemplified in _Light_. Here there is a _continuous_ outpouring of\n_ray-streams_, and _with a force which we have at least no right to\nsuppose varies at all_. Now, in any such irradiation _as\nthis_\u2014continuous and of unvarying force\u2014the regions nearer the centre\nmust _inevitably_ be always more crowded with the irradiated matter than\nthe regions more remote. But I have assumed _no_ such irradiation _as\nthis_. I assumed no _continuous_ irradiation; and for the simple reason\nthat such an assumption would have involved, first, the necessity of\nentertaining a conception which I have shown no man _can_ entertain, and\nwhich (as I will more fully explain hereafter) all observation of the\nfirmament refutes\u2014the conception of the absolute infinity of the\nUniverse of stars\u2014and would have involved, secondly, the impossibility\nof understanding a r\u00ebaction\u2014that is, gravitation\u2014as existing now\u2014since,\nwhile an act is continued, no r\u00ebaction, of course, can take place. My\nassumption, then, or rather my inevitable deduction from just\npremises\u2014was that of a _determinate_ irradiation\u2014one finally\n_dis_continued.\n\nLet me now describe the sole possible mode in which it is conceivable\nthat matter could have been diffused through space, so as to fulfil the\nconditions at once of irradiation and of generally equable distribution.\n\nFor convenience of illustration, let us imagine, in the first place, a\nhollow sphere of glass, or of anything else, occupying the space\nthroughout which the universal matter is to be thus equally diffused, by\nmeans of irradiation, from the absolute, irrelative, unconditional\nparticle, placed in the centre of the sphere.\n\nNow, a certain exertion of the diffusive power (presumed to be the\nDivine Volition)\u2014in other words, a certain _force_\u2014whose measure is the\nquantity of matter\u2014that is to say, the number of atoms\u2014emitted; emits,\nby irradiation, this certain number of atoms; forcing them in all\ndirections outwardly from the centre\u2014their proximity to each other\ndiminishing as they proceed\u2014until, finally, they are distributed,\nloosely, over the interior surface of the sphere.\n\nWhen these atoms have attained this position, or while proceeding to\nattain it, a second and inferior exercise of the same force\u2014or a second\nand inferior force of the same character\u2014emits, in the same manner\u2014that\nis to say, by irradiation as before\u2014a second stratum of atoms which\nproceeds to deposit itself upon the first; the number of atoms, in this\ncase as in the former, being of course the measure of the force which\nemitted them; in other words the force being precisely adapted to the\npurpose it effects\u2014the force and the number of atoms sent out by the\nforce, being _directly proportional_.\n\nWhen this second stratum has reached its destined position\u2014or while\napproaching it\u2014a third still inferior exertion of the force, or a third\ninferior force of a similar character\u2014the number of atoms emitted being\nin _all_ cases the measure of the force\u2014proceeds to deposit a third\nstratum upon the second:\u2014and so on, until these concentric strata,\ngrowing gradually less and less, come down at length to the central\npoint; and the diffusive matter, simultaneously with the diffusive\nforce, is exhausted.\n\nWe have now the sphere filled, through means of irradiation, with atoms\nequably diffused. The two necessary conditions\u2014those of irradiation and\nof equable diffusion\u2014are satisfied; and by the _sole_ process in which\nthe possibility of their simultaneous satisfaction is conceivable. For\nthis reason, I confidently expect to find, lurking in the present\ncondition of the atoms as distributed throughout the sphere, the secret\nof which I am in search\u2014the all-important principle of the _modus\noperandi_ of the Newtonian law. Let us examine, then, the actual\ncondition of the atoms.\n\nThey lie in a series of concentric strata. They are equably diffused\nthroughout the sphere. They have been irradiated into these states.\n\nThe atoms being _equably_ distributed, the greater the superficial\nextent of any of these concentric strata, or spheres, the more atoms\nwill lie upon it. In other words, the number of atoms lying upon the\nsurface of any one of the concentric spheres, is directly proportional\nwith the extent of that surface.\n\n_But, in any series of concentric spheres, the surfaces are directly\nproportional with the squares of the distances from the centre._[2]\n\n    [2] Succinctly\u2014The surfaces of spheres are as the squares of\n    their radii.\n\nTherefore the number of atoms in any stratum is directly proportional\nwith the square of that stratum\u2019s distance from the centre.\n\nBut the number of atoms in any stratum is the measure of the force which\nemitted that stratum\u2014that is to say, is _directly proportional_ with the\nforce.\n\nTherefore the force which irradiated any stratum is directly\nproportional with the square of that stratum\u2019s distance from the\ncentre:\u2014or, generally,\n\n_The force of the irradiation has been directly proportional with the\nsquares of the distances._\n\nNow, R\u00ebaction, as far as we know anything of it, is Action conversed.\nThe _general_ principle of Gravity being, in the first place, understood\nas the r\u00ebaction of an act\u2014as the expression of a desire on the part of\nMatter, while existing in a state of diffusion, to return into the Unity\nwhence it was diffused; and, in the second place, the mind being called\nupon to determine the _character_ of the desire\u2014the manner in which it\nwould, naturally, be manifested; in other words, being called upon to\nconceive a probable law, or _modus operandi_, for the return; could not\nwell help arriving at the conclusion that this law of return would be\nprecisely the converse of the law of departure. That such would be the\ncase, any one, at least, would be abundantly justified in taking for\ngranted, until such time as some person should suggest something like a\nplausible reason why it should _not_ be the case\u2014until such period as a\nlaw of return shall be imagined which the intellect can consider as\npreferable.\n\nMatter, then, irradiated into space with a force varying as the squares\nof the distances, might, _\u00e0 priori_, be supposed to return towards its\ncentre of irradiation with a force varying _inversely_ as the squares of\nthe distances: and I have already shown[3] that any principle which will\nexplain why the atoms should tend, according to any law, to the general\ncentre, must be admitted as satisfactorily explaining, at the same time,\nwhy, according to the same law, they should tend each to each. For, in\nfact, the tendency to the general centre is not to a centre as such, but\nbecause of its being a point in tending towards which each atom tends\nmost directly to its real and essential centre, _Unity_\u2014the absolute\nand final Union of all.\n\n    [3] Page 44.\n\nThe consideration here involved presents to my own mind no embarrassment\nwhatever\u2014but this fact does not blind me to the possibility of its being\nobscure to those who may have been less in the habit of dealing with\nabstractions:\u2014and, upon the whole, it may be as well to look at the\nmatter from one or two other points of view.\n\nThe absolute, irrelative particle primarily created by the Volition of\nGod, must have been in a condition of positive _normality_, or\nrightfulness\u2014for wrongfulness implies _relation_. Right is positive;\nwrong is negative\u2014is merely the negation of right; as cold is the\nnegation of heat\u2014darkness of light. That a thing may be wrong, it is\nnecessary that there be some other thing in _relation_ to which it _is_\nwrong\u2014some condition which it fails to satisfy; some law which it\nviolates; some being whom it aggrieves. If there be no such being, law,\nor condition, in respect to which the thing is wrong\u2014and, still more\nespecially, if no beings, laws, or conditions exist at all\u2014then the\nthing can_not_ be wrong and consequently must be _right_. Any deviation\nfrom normality involves a tendency to return into it. A difference from\nthe normal\u2014from the right\u2014from the just\u2014can be understood as effected\nonly by the overcoming a difficulty; and if the force which overcomes\nthe difficulty be not infinitely continued, the ineradicable tendency to\nreturn will at length be permitted to act for its own satisfaction. Upon\nwithdrawal of the force, the tendency acts. This is the principle of\nr\u00ebaction as the inevitable consequence of finite action. Employing a\nphraseology of which the seeming affectation will be pardoned for its\nexpressiveness, we may say that R\u00ebaction is the return from the\ncondition of _as it is and ought not to be_ into the condition of _as it\nwas, originally, and therefore ought to be_:\u2014and let me add here that\nthe _absolute_ force of R\u00ebaction would no doubt be always found in\ndirect proportion with the reality\u2014the truth\u2014the absoluteness\u2014of the\n_originality_\u2014if ever it were possible to measure this latter:\u2014and,\nconsequently, the greatest of all conceivable reactions must be that\nproduced by the tendency which we now discuss\u2014the tendency to return\ninto the _absolutely original_\u2014into the _supremely_ primitive. Gravity,\nthen, _must be the strongest of forces_\u2014an idea reached _\u00e0 priori_ and\nabundantly confirmed by induction. What use I make of the idea, will be\nseen in the sequel.\n\nThe atoms, now, having been diffused from their normal condition of\nUnity, seek to return to\u2014\u2014what? Not to any particular _point_,\ncertainly; for it is clear that if, upon the diffusion, the whole\nUniverse of matter had been projected, collectively, to a distance from\nthe point of irradiation, the atomic tendency to the general centre of\nthe sphere would not have been disturbed in the least:\u2014the atoms would\nnot have sought the point _in absolute space_ from which they were\noriginally impelled. It is merely the _condition_, and not the point or\nlocality at which this condition took its rise, that these atoms seek to\nre-establish;\u2014it is merely _that condition which is their normality_,\nthat they desire. \u201cBut they seek a centre,\u201d it will be said, \u201cand a\ncentre is a point.\u201d True; but they seek this point not in its character\nof point\u2014(for, were the whole sphere moved from its position, they would\nseek, equally, the centre; and the centre _then_ would be a _new_\npoint)\u2014but because it so happens, on account of the form in which they\ncollectively exist\u2014(that of the sphere)\u2014that only _through_ the point in\nquestion\u2014the sphere\u2019s centre\u2014they can attain their true object, Unity.\nIn the direction of the centre each atom perceives more atoms than in\nany other direction. Each atom is impelled towards the centre because\nalong the straight line joining it and the centre and passing on to the\ncircumference beyond, there lie a greater number of atoms than along any\nother straight line\u2014a greater number of objects that seek it, the\nindividual atom\u2014a greater number of tendencies to Unity\u2014a greater number\nof satisfactions for its own tendency to Unity\u2014in a word, because in the\ndirection of the centre lies the utmost possibility of satisfaction,\ngenerally, for its own individual appetite. To be brief, the\n_condition_, Unity, is all that is really sought; and if the atoms\n_seem_ to seek the centre of the sphere, it is only impliedly, through\nimplication\u2014because such centre happens to imply, to include, or to\ninvolve, the only essential centre, Unity. But _on account of_ this\nimplication or involution, there is no possibility of practically\nseparating the tendency to Unity in the abstract, from the tendency to\nthe concrete centre. Thus the tendency of the atoms to the general\ncentre _is_, to all practical intents and for all logical purposes, the\ntendency each to each; and the tendency each to each _is_ the tendency\nto the centre; and the one tendency may be assumed _as_ the other;\nwhatever will apply to the one must be thoroughly applicable to the\nother; and, in conclusion, whatever principle will satisfactorily\nexplain the one, cannot be questioned as an explanation of the other.\n\nIn looking carefully around me for rational objection to what I have\nadvanced, I am able to discover _nothing_;\u2014but of that class of\nobjections usually urged by the doubters for Doubt\u2019s sake, I very\nreadily perceive _three_; and proceed to dispose of them in order.\n\nIt may be said, first: \u201cThe proof that the force of irradiation (in the\ncase described) is directly proportional to the squares of the\ndistances, depends upon an unwarranted assumption\u2014that of the number of\natoms in each stratum being the measure of the force with which they are\nemitted.\u201d\n\nI reply, not only that I am warranted in such assumption, but that I\nshould be utterly _un_warranted in any other. What I assume is, simply,\nthat an effect is the measure of its cause\u2014that every exercise of the\nDivine Will will be proportional to that which demands the exertion\u2014that\nthe means of Omnipotence, or of Omniscience, will be exactly adapted to\nits purposes. Neither can a deficiency nor an excess of cause bring to\npass any effect. Had the force which irradiated any stratum to its\nposition, been either more or less than was needed for the purpose\u2014that\nis to say, not _directly proportional_ to the purpose\u2014then to its\nposition that stratum could not have been irradiated. Had the force\nwhich, with a view to general equability of distribution, emitted the\nproper number of atoms for each stratum, been not _directly\nproportional_ to the number, then the number would _not_ have been the\nnumber demanded for the equable distribution.\n\nThe second supposable objection is somewhat better entitled to an\nanswer.\n\nIt is an admitted principle in Dynamics that every body, on receiving an\nimpulse, or disposition to move, will move onward in a straight line, in\nthe direction imparted by the impelling force, until deflected, or\nstopped, by some other force. How then, it may be asked, is my first or\nexternal stratum of atoms to be understood as discontinuing their\nmovement at the circumference of the imaginary glass sphere, when no\nsecond force, of more than an imaginary character, appears, to account\nfor the discontinuance?\n\nI reply that the objection, in this case, actually does arise out of \u201can\nunwarranted assumption\u201d\u2014on the part of the objector\u2014the assumption of a\nprinciple, in Dynamics, at an epoch when _no_ \u201cprinciples,\u201d in\n_anything_, exist:\u2014I use the word \u201cprinciple,\u201d of course, in the\nobjector\u2019s understanding of the word.\n\n\u201cIn the beginning\u201d we can admit\u2014indeed we can comprehend\u2014but one _First\nCause_\u2014the truly ultimate _Principle_\u2014the Volition of God. The primary\n_act_\u2014that of Irradiation from Unity\u2014must have been independent of all\nthat which the world now calls \u201cprinciple\u201d\u2014because all that we so\ndesignate is but a consequence of the r\u00ebaction of that primary act:\u2014I\nsay \u201c_primary_\u201d act; for the creation of the absolute material particle\nis more properly to be regarded as a _conception_ than as an \u201c_act_\u201d in\nthe ordinary meaning of the term. Thus, we must regard the primary act\nas an act for the establishment of what we now call \u201cprinciples.\u201d But\nthis primary act itself is to be considered as _continuous Volition_.\nThe Thought of God is to be understood as originating the Diffusion\u2014as\nproceeding with it\u2014as regulating it\u2014and, finally, as being withdrawn\nfrom it upon its completion. _Then_ commences R\u00ebaction, and through\nR\u00ebaction, \u201cPrinciple,\u201d as we employ the word. It will be advisable,\nhowever, to limit the application of this word to the two _immediate_\nresults of the discontinuance of the Divine Volition\u2014that is, to the two\nagents, _Attraction_ and _Repulsion_. Every other Natural agent depends,\neither more or less immediately, upon these two, and therefore would be\nmore conveniently designated as _sub_-principle.\n\nIt may be objected, thirdly, that, in general, the peculiar mode of\ndistribution which I have suggested for the atoms, is \u201can hypothesis and\nnothing more.\u201d\n\nNow, I am aware that the word hypothesis is a ponderous sledge-hammer,\ngrasped immediately, if not lifted, by all very diminutive thinkers,\nupon the first appearance of any proposition wearing, in any particular,\nthe garb of _a theory_. But \u201chypothesis\u201d cannot be wielded _here_ to any\ngood purpose, even by those who succeed in lifting it\u2014little men or\ngreat.\n\nI maintain, first, that _only_ in the mode described is it conceivable\nthat Matter could have been diffused so as to fulfil at once the\nconditions of irradiation and of generally equable distribution. I\nmaintain, secondly, that these conditions themselves have been imposed\nupon me, as necessities, in a train of ratiocination _as rigorously\nlogical as that which establishes any demonstration in Euclid_; and I\nmaintain, thirdly, that even if the charge of \u201chypothesis\u201d were as fully\nsustained as it is, in fact, unsustained and untenable, still the\nvalidity and indisputability of my result would not, even in the\nslightest particular, be disturbed.\n\nTo explain:\u2014The Newtonian Gravity\u2014a law of Nature\u2014a law whose existence\nas such no one out of Bedlam questions\u2014a law whose admission as such\nenables us to account for nine-tenths of the Universal ph\u00e6nomena\u2014a law\nwhich, merely because it does so enable us to account for these\nph\u00e6nomena, we are perfectly willing, without reference to any other\nconsiderations, to admit, and cannot help admitting, as a law\u2014a law,\nnevertheless, of which neither the principle nor the _modus operandi_ of\nthe principle, has ever yet been traced by the human analysis\u2014a law, in\nshort, which, neither in its detail nor in its generality, has been\nfound susceptible of explanation _at all_\u2014is at length seen to be at\nevery point thoroughly explicable, provided only we yield our assent\nto\u2014\u2014what? To an hypothesis? Why _if_ an hypothesis\u2014if the merest\nhypothesis\u2014if an hypothesis for whose assumption\u2014as in the case of that\n_pure_ hypothesis the Newtonian law itself\u2014no shadow of _\u00e0 priori_\nreason could be assigned\u2014if an hypothesis, even so absolute as all this\nimplies, would enable us to perceive a principle for the Newtonian\nlaw\u2014would enable us to understand as satisfied, conditions so\nmiraculously\u2014so ineffably complex and seemingly irreconcileable as those\ninvolved in the relations of which Gravity tells us,\u2014what rational being\n_could_ so expose his fatuity as to call even this absolute hypothesis\nan hypothesis any longer\u2014unless, indeed, he were to persist in so\ncalling it, with the understanding that he did so, simply for the sake\nof consistency _in words_?\n\nBut what is the true state of our present case? What is _the fact_? Not\nonly that it is _not_ an hypothesis which we are required _to adopt_,\nin order to admit the principle at issue explained, but that it _is_ a\nlogical conclusion which we are requested _not_ to adopt if we can avoid\nit\u2014which we are simply invited to _deny if we can_:\u2014a conclusion of so\naccurate a logicality that to dispute it would be the effort\u2014to doubt\nits validity beyond our power:\u2014a conclusion from which we see no mode of\nescape, turn as we will; a result which confronts us either at the end\nof an _in_ductive journey from the ph\u00e6nomena of the very Law discussed,\nor at the close of a _de_ductive career from the most rigorously simple\nof all conceivable assumptions\u2014_the assumption, in a word, of Simplicity\nitself_.\n\nAnd if here, for the mere sake of cavilling, it be urged, that although\nmy starting-point is, as I assert, the assumption of absolute\nSimplicity, yet Simplicity, considered merely in itself, is no axiom;\nand that only deductions from axioms are indisputable\u2014it is thus that I\nreply:\u2014\n\nEvery other science than Logic is the science of certain concrete\nrelations. Arithmetic, for example, is the science of the relations of\nnumber\u2014Geometry, of the relations of form\u2014Mathematics in general, of the\nrelations of quantity in general\u2014of whatever can be increased or\ndiminished. Logic, however, is the science of Relation in the\nabstract\u2014of absolute Relation\u2014of Relation considered solely in itself.\nAn axiom in any particular science other than Logic is, thus, merely a\nproposition announcing certain concrete relations which seem to be too\nobvious for dispute\u2014as when we say, for instance, that the whole is\ngreater than its part:\u2014and, thus again, the principle of the _Logical_\naxiom\u2014in other words, of an axiom in the abstract\u2014is, simply,\n_obviousness of relation_. Now, it is clear, not only that what is\nobvious to one mind may not be obvious to another, but that what is\nobvious to one mind at one epoch, may be anything but obvious, at\nanother epoch, to the same mind. It is clear, moreover, that what,\nto-day, is obvious even to the majority of mankind, or to the majority\nof the best intellects of mankind, may to-morrow be, to either majority,\nmore or less obvious, or in no respect obvious at all. It is seen, then,\nthat the _axiomatic principle_ itself is susceptible of variation, and\nof course that axioms are susceptible of similar change. Being mutable,\nthe \u201ctruths\u201d which grow out of them are necessarily mutable too; or, in\nother words, are never to be positively depended upon as truths at\nall\u2014since Truth and Immutability are one.\n\nIt will now be readily understood that no axiomatic idea\u2014no idea founded\nin the fluctuating principle, obviousness of relation\u2014can possibly be so\nsecure\u2014so reliable a basis for any structure erected by the Reason, as\n_that_ idea\u2014(whatever it is, wherever we can find it, or _if_ it be\npracticable to find it anywhere)\u2014which is _ir_relative altogether\u2014which\nnot only presents to the understanding _no obviousness_ of relation,\neither greater or less, to be considered, but subjects the intellect,\nnot in the slightest degree, to the necessity of even looking at _any\nrelation at all_. If such an idea be not what we too heedlessly term \u201can\naxiom,\u201d it is at least preferable, as a Logical basis, to any axiom ever\npropounded, or to all imaginable axioms combined:\u2014and such, precisely,\nis the idea with which my deductive process, so thoroughly corroborated\nby induction, commences. My _particle proper_ is but _absolute\nIrrelation_. To sum up what has been here advanced:\u2014As a starting point\nI have taken it for granted, simply, that the Beginning had nothing\nbehind it or before it\u2014that it was a Beginning in fact\u2014that it was a\nbeginning and nothing different from a beginning\u2014in short that this\nBeginning was\u2014\u2014_that which it was_. If this be a \u201cmere assumption\u201d then\na \u201cmere assumption\u201d let it be.\n\nTo conclude this branch of the subject:\u2014I am fully warranted in\nannouncing that _the Law which we have been in the habit of calling\nGravity exists on account of Matter\u2019s having been irradiated, at its\norigin, atomically, into a limited[4] sphere of Space, from one,\nindividual, unconditional, irrelative, and absolute Particle Proper, by\nthe sole process in which it was possible to satisfy, at the same time,\nthe two conditions, irradiation, and generally-equable distribution\nthroughout the sphere\u2014that is to say, by a force varying in direct\nproportion with the squares of the distances between the irradiated\natoms, respectively, and the Particular centre of Irradiation_.\n\n    [4] Limited sphere\u2014A sphere is _necessarily_ limited. I prefer\n    tautology to a chance of misconception.\n\nI have already given my reasons for presuming Matter to have been\ndiffused by a determinate rather than by a continuous or infinitely\ncontinued force. Supposing a continuous force, we should be unable, in\nthe first place, to comprehend a r\u00ebaction at all; and we should be\nrequired, in the second place, to entertain the impossible conception of\nan infinite extension of Matter. Not to dwell upon the impossibility of\nthe conception, the infinite extension of Matter is an idea which, if\nnot positively disproved, is at least not in any respect warranted by\ntelescopic observation of the stars\u2014a point to be explained more fully\nhereafter; and this empirical reason for believing in the original\nfinity of Matter is unempirically confirmed. For example:\u2014Admitting, for\nthe moment, the possibility of understanding Space _filled_ with the\nirradiated atoms\u2014that is to say, admitting, as well as we can, for\nargument\u2019s sake, that the succession of the irradiated atoms had\nabsolutely _no end_\u2014then it is abundantly clear that, even when the\nVolition of God had been withdrawn from them, and thus the tendency to\nreturn into Unity permitted (abstractly) to be satisfied, this\npermission would have been nugatory and invalid\u2014practically valueless\nand of no effect whatever. No R\u00ebaction could have taken place; no\nmovement toward Unity could have been made; no Law of Gravity could have\nobtained.\n\nTo explain:\u2014Grant the _abstract_ tendency of any one atom to any one\nother as the inevitable result of diffusion from the normal Unity:\u2014or,\nwhat is the same thing, admit any given atom as _proposing_ to move in\nany given direction\u2014it is clear that, since there is an _infinity_ of\natoms on all sides of the atom proposing to move, it never can actually\nmove toward the satisfaction of its tendency in the direction given, on\naccount of a precisely equal and counterbalancing tendency in the\ndirection diametrically opposite. In other words, exactly as many\ntendencies to Unity are behind the hesitating atom as before it; for it\nis a mere sotticism to say that one infinite line is longer or shorter\nthan another infinite line, or that one infinite number is greater or\nless than another number that is infinite. Thus the atom in question\nmust remain stationary forever. Under the impossible circumstances which\nwe have been merely endeavoring to conceive for argument\u2019s sake, there\ncould have been no aggregation of Matter\u2014no stars\u2014no worlds\u2014nothing but\na perpetually atomic and inconsequential Universe. In fact, view it as\nwe will, the whole idea of unlimited Matter is not only untenable, but\nimpossible and preposterous.\n\nWith the understanding of a _sphere_ of atoms, however, we perceive, at\nonce, a _satisfiable_ tendency to union. The general result of the\ntendency each to each, being a tendency of all to the centre, the\n_general_ process of condensation, or approximation, commences\nimmediately, by a common and simultaneous movement, on withdrawal of the\nDivine Volition; the _individual_ approximations, or coalescences\u2014_not_\nc\u00f6alitions\u2014of atom with atom, being subject to almost infinite\nvariations of time, degree, and condition, on account of the excessive\nmultiplicity of relation, arising from the differences of form assumed\nas characterizing the atoms at the moment of their quitting the Particle\nProper; as well as from the subsequent particular inequidistance, each\nfrom each.\n\nWhat I wish to impress upon the reader is the certainty of there\narising, at once, (on withdrawal of the diffusive force, or Divine\nVolition,) out of the condition of the atoms as described, at\ninnumerable points throughout the Universal sphere, innumerable\nagglomerations, characterized by innumerable specific differences of\nform, size, essential nature, and distance each from each. The\ndevelopment of Repulsion (Electricity) must have commenced, of course,\nwith the very earliest particular efforts at Unity, and must have\nproceeded constantly in the ratio of Coalescence\u2014that is to say, _in\nthat of Condensation_, or, again, of Heterogeneity.\n\nThus the two Principles Proper, _Attraction_ and _Repulsion_\u2014the\nMaterial and the Spiritual\u2014accompany each other, in the strictest\nfellowship, forever. Thus _The Body and The Soul walk hand in hand_.\n\nIf now, in fancy, we select _any one_ of the agglomerations considered\nas in their primary stages throughout the Universal sphere, and suppose\nthis incipient agglomeration to be taking place at that point where the\ncentre of our Sun exists\u2014or rather where it _did_ exist originally; for\nthe Sun is perpetually shifting his position\u2014we shall find ourselves\nmet, and borne onward for a time at least, by the most magnificent of\ntheories\u2014by the Nebular Cosmogony of Laplace:\u2014although \u201cCosmogony\u201d is\nfar too comprehensive a term for what he really discusses\u2014which is the\nconstitution of our solar system alone\u2014of one among the myriad of\nsimilar systems which make up the Universe Proper\u2014that Universal\nsphere\u2014that all-inclusive and absolute _Kosmos_ which forms the subject\nof my present Discourse.\n\nConfining himself to an _obviously limited_ region\u2014that of our solar\nsystem with its comparatively immediate vicinity\u2014and _merely_\nassuming\u2014that is to say, assuming without any basis whatever, either\ndeductive or inductive\u2014_much_ of what I have been just endeavoring to\nplace upon a more stable basis than assumption; assuming, for example,\nmatter as diffused (without pretending to account for the diffusion)\nthroughout, and somewhat beyond, the space occupied by our\nsystem\u2014diffused in a state of heterogeneous nebulosity and obedient to\nthat omniprevalent law of Gravity at whose principle he ventured to make\nno guess;\u2014assuming all this (which is quite true, although he had no\nlogical right to its assumption) Laplace has shown, dynamically and\nmathematically, that the results in such case necessarily ensuing, are\nthose and those alone which we find manifested in the actually existing\ncondition of the system itself.\n\nTo explain:\u2014Let us conceive _that_ particular agglomeration of which we\nhave just spoken\u2014the one at the point designated by our Sun\u2019s centre\u2014to\nhave so far proceeded that a vast quantity of nebulous matter has here\nassumed a roughly globular form; its centre being, of course, coincident\nwith what is now, or rather was originally, the centre of our Sun; and\nits periphery extending out beyond the orbit of Neptune, the most remote\nof our planets:\u2014in other words, let us suppose the diameter of this\nrough sphere to be some 6000 millions of miles. For ages, this mass of\nmatter has been undergoing condensation, until at length it has become\nreduced into the bulk we imagine; having proceeded gradually, of course,\nfrom its atomic and imperceptible state, into what we understand of\nvisible, palpable, or otherwise appreciable nebulosity.\n\nNow, the condition of this mass implies a rotation about an imaginary\naxis\u2014a rotation which, commencing with the absolute incipiency of the\naggregation, has been ever since acquiring velocity. The very first two\natoms which met, approaching each other from points not diametrically\nopposite, would, in rushing partially past each other, form a nucleus\nfor the rotary movement described. How this would increase in velocity,\nis readily seen. The two atoms are joined by others:\u2014an aggregation is\nformed. The mass continues to rotate while condensing. But any atom at\nthe circumference has, of course, a more rapid motion than one nearer\nthe centre. The outer atom, however, with its superior velocity,\napproaches the centre; carrying this superior velocity with it as it\ngoes. Thus every atom, proceeding inwardly, and finally attaching itself\nto the condensed centre, adds something to the original velocity of that\ncentre\u2014that is to say, increases the rotary movement of the mass.\n\nLet us now suppose this mass so far condensed that it occupies\n_precisely_ the space circumscribed by the orbit of Neptune, and that\nthe velocity with which the surface of the mass moves, in the general\nrotation, is precisely that velocity with which Neptune now revolves\nabout the Sun. At this epoch, then, we are to understand that the\nconstantly increasing centrifugal force, having gotten the better of the\nnon-increasing centripetal, loosened and separated the exterior and\nleast condensed stratum, or a few of the exterior and least condensed\nstrata, at the equator of the sphere, where the tangential velocity\npredominated; so that these strata formed about the main body an\nindependent ring encircling the equatorial regions:\u2014just as the exterior\nportion thrown off, by excessive velocity of rotation, from a\ngrindstone, would form a ring about the grindstone, but for the solidity\nof the superficial material: were this caoutchouc, or anything similar\nin consistency, precisely the ph\u00e6nomenon I describe would be presented.\n\nThe ring thus whirled from the nebulous mass, _revolved_, of course,\n_as_ a separate ring, with just that velocity with which, while the\nsurface of the mass, it _rotated_. In the meantime, condensation still\nproceeding, the interval between the discharged ring and the main body\ncontinued to increase, until the former was left at a vast distance from\nthe latter.\n\nNow, admitting the ring to have possessed, by some seemingly accidental\narrangement of its heterogeneous materials, a constitution nearly\nuniform, then this ring, _as_ such, would never have ceased revolving\nabout its primary; but, as might have been anticipated, there appears to\nhave been enough irregularity in the disposition of the materials, to\nmake them cluster about centres of superior solidity; and thus the\nannular form was destroyed.[5] No doubt, the band was soon broken up\ninto several portions, and one of these portions, predominating in mass,\nabsorbed the others into itself; the whole settling, spherically, into a\nplanet. That this latter, _as_ a planet, continued the revolutionary\nmovement which characterized it while a ring, is sufficiently clear; and\nthat it took upon itself also, an additional movement in its new\ncondition of sphere, is readily explained. The ring being understood as\nyet unbroken, we see that its exterior, while the whole revolves about\nthe parent body, moves more rapidly than its interior. When the rupture\noccurred, then, some portion in each fragment must have been moving\nwith greater velocity than the others. The superior movement prevailing,\nmust have whirled each fragment round\u2014that is to say, have caused it to\nrotate; and the direction of the rotation must, of course, have been the\ndirection of the revolution whence it arose. _All_ the fragments having\nbecome subject to the rotation described, must, in coalescing, have\nimparted it to the one planet constituted by their coalescence.\u2014This\nplanet was Neptune. Its material continuing to undergo condensation, and\nthe centrifugal force generated in its rotation getting, at length, the\nbetter of the centripetal, as before in the case of the parent orb, a\nring was whirled also from the equatorial surface of this planet: this\nring, having been ununiform in its constitution, was broken up, and its\nseveral fragments, being absorbed by the most massive, were collectively\nspherified into a moon. Subsequently, the operation was repeated, and a\nsecond moon was the result. We thus account for the planet Neptune, with\nthe two satellites which accompany him.\n\n    [5] Laplace assumed his nebulosity heterogeneous, merely that\n    he might be thus enabled to account for the breaking up of the\n    rings; for had the nebulosity been homogeneous, they would not\n    have broken. I reach the same result\u2014heterogeneity of the\n    secondary masses immediately resulting from the atoms\u2014purely\n    from an _\u00e0 priori_ consideration of their general\n    design\u2014_Relation_.\n\nIn throwing off a ring from its equator, the Sun re-established that\nequilibrium between its centripetal and centrifugal forces which had\nbeen disturbed in the process of condensation; but, as this condensation\nstill proceeded, the equilibrium was again immediately disturbed,\nthrough the increase of rotation. By the time the mass had so far shrunk\nthat it occupied a spherical space just that circumscribed by the orbit\nof Uranus, we are to understand that the centrifugal force had so far\nobtained the ascendency that new relief was needed: a second equatorial\nband was, consequently, thrown off, which, proving ununiform, was\nbroken up, as before in the case of Neptune; the fragments settling into\nthe planet Uranus; the velocity of whose actual revolution about the Sun\nindicates, of course, the rotary speed of that Sun\u2019s equatorial surface\nat the moment of the separation. Uranus, adopting a rotation from the\ncollective rotations of the fragments composing it, as previously\nexplained, now threw off ring after ring; each of which, becoming broken\nup, settled into a moon:\u2014three moons, at different epochs, having been\nformed, in this manner, by the rupture and general spherification of as\nmany distinct ununiform rings.\n\nBy the time the Sun had shrunk until it occupied a space just that\ncircumscribed by the orbit of Saturn, the balance, we are to suppose,\nbetween its centripetal and centrifugal forces had again become so far\ndisturbed, through increase of rotary velocity, the result of\ncondensation, that a third effort at equilibrium became necessary; and\nan annular band was therefore whirled off as twice before; which, on\nrupture through ununiformity, became consolidated into the planet\nSaturn. This latter threw off, in the first place, seven uniform bands,\nwhich, on rupture, were spherified respectively into as many moons; but,\nsubsequently, it appears to have discharged, at three distinct but not\nvery distant epochs, three rings whose equability of constitution was,\nby apparent accident, so considerable as to present no occasion for\ntheir rupture; thus they continue to revolve as rings. I use the phrase\n\u201c_apparent_ accident;\u201d for of accident in the ordinary sense there was,\nof course, nothing:\u2014the term is properly applied only to the result of\nindistinguishable or not immediately traceable _law_.\n\nShrinking still farther, until it occupied just the space circumscribed\nby the orbit of Jupiter, the Sun now found need of farther effort to\nrestore the counterbalance of its two forces, continually disarranged in\nthe still continued increase of rotation. Jupiter, accordingly, was now\nthrown off; passing from the annular to the planetary condition; and, on\nattaining this latter, threw off in its turn, at four different epochs,\nfour rings, which finally resolved themselves into so many moons.\n\nStill shrinking, until its sphere occupied just the space defined by the\norbit of the Asteroids, the Sun now discarded a ring which appears to\nhave had _eight_ centres of superior solidity, and, on breaking up, to\nhave separated into eight fragments no one of which so far predominated\nin mass as to absorb the others. All therefore, as distinct although\ncomparatively small planets, proceeded to revolve in orbits whose\ndistances, each from each, may be considered as in some degree the\nmeasure of the force which drove them asunder:\u2014all the orbits,\nnevertheless, being so closely coincident as to admit of our calling\nthem _one_, in view of the other planetary orbits.\n\nContinuing to shrink, the Sun, on becoming so small as just to fill the\norbit of Mars, now discharged this planet\u2014of course by the process\nrepeatedly described. Having no moon, however, Mars could have thrown\noff no ring. In fact, an epoch had now arrived in the career of the\nparent body, the centre of the system. The _de_crease of its nebulosity,\nwhich is the _in_crease of its density, and which again is the\n_de_crease of its condensation, out of which latter arose the constant\ndisturbance of equilibrium\u2014must, by this period, have attained a point\nat which the efforts for restoration would have been more and more\nineffectual just in proportion as they were less frequently needed. Thus\nthe processes of which we have been speaking would everywhere show signs\nof exhaustion\u2014in the planets, first, and secondly, in the original mass.\nWe must not fall into the error of supposing the decrease of interval\nobserved among the planets as we approach the Sun, to be in any respect\nindicative of an increase of frequency in the periods at which they were\ndiscarded. Exactly the converse is to be understood. The longest\ninterval of time must have occurred between the discharges of the two\ninterior; the shortest, between those of the two exterior, planets. The\ndecrease of the interval of space is, nevertheless, the measure of the\ndensity, and thus inversely of the condensation, of the Sun, throughout\nthe processes detailed.\n\nHaving shrunk, however, so far as to fill only the orbit of our Earth,\nthe parent sphere whirled from itself still one other body\u2014the Earth\u2014in\na condition so nebulous as to admit of this body\u2019s discarding, in its\nturn, yet another, which is our Moon;\u2014but here terminated the lunar\nformations.\n\nFinally, subsiding to the orbits first of Venus and then of Mercury, the\nSun discarded these two interior planets; neither of which has given\nbirth to any moon.\n\nThus from his original bulk\u2014or, to speak more accurately, from the\ncondition in which we first considered him\u2014from a partially spherified\nnebular mass, _certainly_ much more than 5,600 millions of miles in\ndiameter\u2014the great central orb and origin of our solar-planetary-lunar\nsystem, has gradually descended, by condensation, in obedience to the\nlaw of Gravity, to a globe only 882,000 miles in diameter; but it by no\nmeans follows, either that its condensation is yet complete, or that it\nmay not still possess the capacity of whirling from itself another\nplanet.\n\nI have here given\u2014in outline of course, but still with all the detail\nnecessary for distinctness\u2014a view of the Nebular Theory as its author\nhimself conceived it. From whatever point we regard it, we shall find it\n_beautifully true_. It is by far too beautiful, indeed, _not_ to possess\nTruth as its essentiality\u2014and here I am very profoundly serious in what\nI say. In the revolution of the satellites of Uranus, there does appear\nsomething seemingly inconsistent with the assumptions of Laplace; but\nthat _one_ inconsistency can invalidate a theory constructed from a\nmillion of intricate consistencies, is a fancy fit only for the\nfantastic. In prophecying, confidently, that the apparent anomaly to\nwhich I refer, will, sooner or later, be found one of the strongest\npossible corroborations of the general hypothesis, I pretend to no\nespecial spirit of divination. It is a matter which the only difficulty\nseems _not_ to foresee.[6]\n\n    [6] I am prepared to show that the anomalous revolution of the\n    satellites of Uranus is a simply perspective anomaly arising\n    from the inclination of the axis of the planet.\n\nThe bodies whirled off in the processes described, would exchange, it\nhas been seen, the superficial _rotation_ of the orbs whence they\noriginated, for a _revolution_ of equal velocity about these orbs as\ndistant centres; and the revolution thus engendered must proceed, so\nlong as the centripetal force, or that with which the discarded body\ngravitates toward its parent, is neither greater nor less than that by\nwhich it was discarded; that is, than the centrifugal, or, far more\nproperly, than the tangential, velocity. From the unity, however, of the\norigin of these two forces, we might have expected to find them as they\nare found\u2014the one accurately counterbalancing the other. It has been\nshown, indeed, that the act of whirling-off is, in every case, merely an\nact for the preservation of the counterbalance.\n\nAfter referring, however, the centripetal force to the omniprevalent law\nof Gravity, it has been the fashion with astronomical treatises, to seek\nbeyond the limits of mere Nature\u2014that is to say, of _Secondary_ Cause\u2014a\nsolution of the ph\u00e6nomenon of tangential velocity. This latter they\nattribute directly to a _First_ Cause\u2014to God. The force which carries a\nstellar body around its primary they assert to have originated in an\nimpulse given immediately by the finger\u2014this is the childish phraseology\nemployed\u2014by the finger of Deity itself. In this view, the planets, fully\nformed, are conceived to have been hurled from the Divine hand, to a\nposition in the vicinity of the suns, with an impetus mathematically\nadapted to the masses, or attractive capacities, of the suns themselves.\nAn idea so grossly unphilosophical, although so supinely adopted, could\nhave arisen only from the difficulty of otherwise accounting for the\nabsolutely accurate adaptation, each to each, of two forces so seemingly\nindependent, one of the other, as are the gravitating and tangential.\nBut it should be remembered that, for a long time, the coincidence\nbetween the moon\u2019s rotation and her sidereal revolution\u2014two matters\nseemingly far more independent than those now considered\u2014was looked\nupon as positively miraculous; and there was a strong disposition, even\namong astronomers, to attribute the marvel to the direct and continual\nagency of God\u2014who, in this case, it was said, had found it necessary to\ninterpose, specially, among his general laws, a set of subsidiary\nregulations, for the purpose of forever concealing from mortal eyes the\nglories, or perhaps the horrors, of the other side of the Moon\u2014of that\nmysterious hemisphere which has always avoided, and must perpetually\navoid, the telescopic scrutiny of mankind. The advance of Science,\nhowever, soon demonstrated\u2014what to the philosophical instinct needed\n_no_ demonstration\u2014that the one movement is but a portion\u2014something\nmore, even, than a consequence\u2014of the other.\n\nFor my part, I have no patience with fantasies at once so timorous, so\nidle, and so awkward. They belong to the veriest _cowardice_ of thought.\nThat Nature and the God of Nature are distinct, no thinking being can\nlong doubt. By the former we imply merely the laws of the latter. But\nwith the very idea of God, omnipotent, omniscient, we entertain, also,\nthe idea of _the infallibility_ of his laws. With Him there being\nneither Past nor Future\u2014with Him all being _Now_\u2014do we not insult him in\nsupposing his laws so contrived as not to provide for every possible\ncontingency?\u2014or, rather, what idea _can_ we have of _any_ possible\ncontingency, except that it is at once a result and a manifestation of\nhis laws? He who, divesting himself of prejudice, shall have the rare\ncourage to think absolutely for himself, cannot fail to arrive, in the\nend, at the condensation of _laws_ into _Law_\u2014cannot fail of reaching\nthe conclusion that _each law of Nature is dependent at all points upon\nall other laws_, and that all are but consequences of one primary\nexercise of the Divine Volition. Such is the principle of the Cosmogony\nwhich, with all necessary deference, I here venture to suggest and to\nmaintain.\n\nIn this view, it will be seen that, dismissing as frivolous, and even\nimpious, the fancy of the tangential force having been imparted to the\nplanets immediately by \u201cthe finger of God,\u201d I consider this force as\noriginating in the rotation of the stars:\u2014this rotation as brought about\nby the in-rushing of the primary atoms, towards their respective centres\nof aggregation:\u2014this in-rushing as the consequence of the law of\nGravity:\u2014this law as but the mode in which is necessarily manifested the\ntendency of the atoms to return into imparticularity:\u2014this tendency to\nreturn as but the inevitable r\u00ebaction of the first and most sublime of\nActs\u2014that act by which a God, self-existing and alone existing, became\nall things at once, through dint of his volition, while all things were\nthus constituted a portion of God.\n\nThe radical assumptions of this Discourse suggest to me, and in fact\nimply, certain important _modifications_ of the Nebular Theory as given\nby Laplace. The efforts of the repulsive power I have considered as made\nfor the purpose of preventing contact among the atoms, and thus as made\nin the ratio of the approach to contact\u2014that is to say, in the ratio of\ncondensation.[7] In other words, _Electricity_, with its involute\nph\u00e6nomena, heat, light and magnetism, is to be understood as proceeding\nas condensation proceeds, and, of course, inversely as density proceeds,\nor the _cessation to condense_. Thus the Sun, in the process of its\naggregation, must soon, in developing repulsion, have become excessively\nheated\u2014perhaps incandescent: and we can perceive how the operation of\ndiscarding its rings must have been materially assisted by the slight\nincrustation of its surface consequent on cooling. Any common experiment\nshows us how readily a crust of the character suggested, is separated,\nthrough heterogeneity, from the interior mass. But, on every successive\nrejection of the crust, the new surface would appear incandescent as\nbefore; and the period at which it would again become so far encrusted\nas to be readily loosened and discharged, may well be imagined as\nexactly coincident with that at which a new effort would be needed, by\nthe whole mass, to restore the equilibrium of its two forces,\ndisarranged through condensation. In other words:\u2014by the time the\nelectric influence (Repulsion) has prepared the surface for rejection,\nwe are to understand that the gravitating influence (Attraction) is\nprecisely ready to reject it. Here, then, as everywhere, _the Body and\nthe Soul walk hand in hand_.\n\n    [7] See page 70.\n\nThese ideas are empirically confirmed at all points. Since condensation\ncan never, in any body, be considered as absolutely at an end, we are\nwarranted in anticipating that, whenever we have an opportunity of\ntesting the matter, we shall find indications of resident luminosity in\n_all_ the stellar bodies\u2014moons and planets as well as suns. That our\nMoon is strongly self-luminous, we see at her every total eclipse, when,\nif not so, she would disappear. On the dark part of the satellite, too,\nduring her phases, we often observe flashes like our own Auroras; and\nthat these latter, with our various other so-called electrical\nph\u00e6nomena, without reference to any more steady radiance, must give our\nEarth a certain appearance of luminosity to an inhabitant of the Moon,\nis quite evident. In fact, we should regard all the ph\u00e6nomena referred\nto, as mere manifestations, in different moods and degrees, of the\nEarth\u2019s feebly-continued condensation.\n\nIf my views are tenable, we should be prepared to find the newer\nplanets\u2014that is to say, those nearer the Sun\u2014more luminous than those\nolder and more remote:\u2014and the extreme brilliancy of Venus (on whose\ndark portions, during her phases, the Auroras are frequently visible)\ndoes not seem to be altogether accounted for by her mere proximity to\nthe central orb. She is no doubt vividly self-luminous, although less so\nthan Mercury: while the luminosity of Neptune may be comparatively\nnothing.\n\nAdmitting what I have urged, it is clear that, from the moment of the\nSun\u2019s discarding a ring, there must be a continuous diminution both of\nhis heat and light, on account of the continuous encrustation of his\nsurface; and that a period would arrive\u2014the period immediately previous\nto a new discharge\u2014when a _very material_ decrease of both light and\nheat, must become apparent. Now, we know that tokens of such changes are\ndistinctly recognizable. On the Melville islands\u2014to adduce merely one\nout of a hundred examples\u2014we find traces of _ultra-tropical_\nvegetation\u2014of plants that never could have flourished without immensely\nmore light and heat than are at present afforded by our Sun to any\nportion of the surface of the Earth. Is such vegetation referable to an\nepoch immediately subsequent to the whirling-off of Venus? At this epoch\nmust have occurred to us our greatest access of solar influence; and,\nin fact, this influence must then have attained its maximum:\u2014leaving out\nof view, of course, the period when the Earth itself was discarded\u2014the\nperiod of its mere organization.\n\nAgain:\u2014we know that there exist _non-luminous suns_\u2014that is to say, suns\nwhose existence we determine through the movements of others, but whose\nluminosity is not sufficient to impress us. Are these suns invisible\nmerely on account of the length of time elapsed since their discharge of\na planet? And yet again:\u2014may we not\u2014at least in certain cases\u2014account\nfor the sudden appearances of suns where none had been previously\nsuspected, by the hypothesis that, having rolled with encrusted surfaces\nthroughout the few thousand years of our astronomical history, each of\nthese suns, in whirling off a new secondary, has at length been enabled\nto display the glories of its still incandescent interior?\u2014To the\nwell-ascertained fact of the proportional increase of heat as we descend\ninto the Earth, I need of course, do nothing more than refer:\u2014it comes\nin the strongest possible corroboration of all that I have said on the\ntopic now at issue.\n\nIn speaking, not long ago, of the repulsive or electrical influence, I\nremarked that \u201cthe important ph\u00e6nomena of vitality, consciousness, and\nthought, whether we observe them generally or in detail, seem to proceed\n_at least in the ratio of the heterogeneous_.\u201d[8] I mentioned, too, that\nI would recur to the suggestion:\u2014and this is the proper point at which\nto do so. Looking at the matter, first, in detail, we perceive that not\nmerely the _manifestation_ of vitality, but its importance, consequence,\nand elevation of character, keep pace, very closely, with the\nheterogeneity, or complexity, of the animal structure. Looking at the\nquestion, now, in its generality, and referring to the first movements\nof the atoms towards mass-constitution, we find that heterogeneousness,\nbrought about directly through condensation, is proportional with it\nforever. We thus reach the proposition that _the importance of the\ndevelopment of the terrestrial vitality proceeds equably with the\nterrestrial condensation_.\n\n    [8] Page 36.\n\nNow this is in precise accordance with what we know of the succession of\nanimals on the Earth. As it has proceeded in its condensation, superior\nand still superior races have appeared. Is it impossible that the\nsuccessive geological revolutions which have attended, at least, if not\nimmediately caused, these successive elevations of vitalic character\u2014is\nit improbable that these revolutions have themselves been produced by\nthe successive planetary discharges from the Sun\u2014in other words, by the\nsuccessive variations in the solar influence on the Earth? Were this\nidea tenable, we should not be unwarranted in the fancy that the\ndischarge of yet a new planet, interior to Mercury, may give rise to yet\na new modification of the terrestrial surface\u2014a modification from which\nmay spring a race both materially and spiritually superior to Man. These\nthoughts impress me with all the force of truth\u2014but I throw them out, of\ncourse, merely in their obvious character of suggestion.\n\nThe Nebular Theory of Laplace has lately received far more confirmation\nthan it needed, at the hands of the philosopher, Compte. These two have\nthus together shown\u2014_not_, to be sure, that Matter at any period\nactually existed as described, in a state of nebular diffusion, but\nthat, admitting it so to have existed throughout the space and much\nbeyond the space now occupied by our solar system, _and to have\ncommenced a movement towards a centre_\u2014it must gradually have assumed\nthe various forms and motions which are now seen, in that system, to\nobtain. A demonstration such as this\u2014a dynamical and mathematical\ndemonstration, as far as demonstration can be\u2014unquestionable and\nunquestioned\u2014unless, indeed, by that unprofitable and disreputable\ntribe, the professional questioners\u2014the mere madmen who deny the\nNewtonian law of Gravity on which the results of the French\nmathematicians are based\u2014a demonstration, I say, such as this, would to\nmost intellects be conclusive\u2014and I confess that it is so to mine\u2014of the\nvalidity of the nebular hypothesis upon which the demonstration depends.\n\nThat the demonstration does not _prove_ the hypothesis, according to the\ncommon understanding of the word \u201cproof,\u201d I admit, of course. To show\nthat certain existing results\u2014that certain established facts\u2014may be,\neven mathematically, accounted for by the assumption of a certain\nhypothesis, is by no means to establish the hypothesis itself. In other\nwords:\u2014to show that, certain data being given, a certain existing result\nmight, or even _must_, have ensued, will fail to prove that this result\n_did_ ensue, _from the data_, until such time as it shall be also shown\nthat there are, _and can be_, no other data from which the result in\nquestion might _equally_ have ensued. But, in the case now discussed,\nalthough all must admit the deficiency of what we are in the habit of\nterming \u201cproof,\u201d still there are many intellects, and those of the\nloftiest order, to which _no_ proof could bring one iota of additional\n_conviction_. Without going into details which might impinge upon the\nCloud-Land of Metaphysics, I may as well here observe that the force of\nconviction, in cases such as this, will always, with the right-thinking,\nbe proportional to the amount of _complexity_ intervening between the\nhypothesis and the result. To be less abstract:\u2014The greatness of the\ncomplexity found existing among cosmical conditions, by rendering great\nin the same proportion the difficulty of accounting for all these\nconditions _at once_, strengthens, also in the same proportion, our\nfaith in that hypothesis which does, in such manner, satisfactorily\naccount for them:\u2014and as _no_ complexity can well be conceived greater\nthan that of the astronomical conditions, so no conviction can be\nstronger\u2014to _my_ mind at least\u2014than that with which I am impressed by an\nhypothesis that not only reconciles these conditions, with mathematical\naccuracy, and reduces them into a consistent and intelligible whole, but\nis, at the same time, the _sole_ hypothesis by means of which the human\nintellect has been ever enabled to account for them _at all_.\n\nA most unfounded opinion has become latterly current in gossiping and\neven in scientific circles\u2014the opinion that the so-called Nebular\nCosmogony has been overthrown. This fancy has arisen from the report of\nlate observations made, among what hitherto have been termed the\n\u201cnebul\u00e6,\u201d through the large telescope of Cincinnati, and the\nworld-renowned instrument of Lord Rosse. Certain spots in the firmament\nwhich presented, even to the most powerful of the old telescopes, the\nappearance of nebulosity, or haze, had been regarded for a long time as\nconfirming the theory of Laplace. They were looked upon as stars in that\nvery process of condensation which I have been attempting to describe.\nThus it was supposed that we \u201chad ocular evidence\u201d\u2014an evidence, by the\nway, which has always been found very questionable\u2014of the truth of the\nhypothesis; and, although certain telescopic improvements, every now and\nthen, enabled us to perceive that a spot, here and there, which we had\nbeen classing among the nebul\u00e6, was, in fact, but a cluster of stars\nderiving its nebular character only from its immensity of distance\u2014still\nit was thought that no doubt could exist as to the actual nebulosity of\nnumerous other masses, the strong-holds of the nebulists, bidding\ndefiance to every effort at segregation. Of these latter the most\ninteresting was the great \u201cnebul\u00e6\u201d in the constellation Orion:\u2014but this,\nwith innumerable other mis-called \u201cnebul\u00e6,\u201d when viewed through the\nmagnificent modern telescopes, has become resolved into a simple\ncollection of stars. Now this fact has been very generally understood as\nconclusive against the Nebular Hypothesis of Laplace; and, on\nannouncement of the discoveries in question, the most enthusiastic\ndefender and most eloquent popularizer of the theory, Dr. Nichol, went\nso far as to \u201cadmit the necessity of abandoning\u201d an idea which had\nformed the material of his most praiseworthy book.[9]\n\n    [9] \u201c_Views of the Architecture of the Heavens._\u201d A letter,\n    purporting to be from Dr. Nichol to a friend in America, went\n    the rounds of our newspapers, about two years ago, I think,\n    admitting \u201cthe necessity\u201d to which I refer. In a subsequent\n    Lecture, however, Dr. N. appears in some manner to have gotten\n    the better of the necessity, and does not quite _renounce_ the\n    theory, although he seems to wish that he could sneer at it as\n    \u201ca purely hypothetical one.\u201d What else was the Law of Gravity\n    before the Maskelyne experiments? and who questioned the Law of\n    Gravity, even then?\n\nMany of my readers will no doubt be inclined to say that the result of\nthese new investigations _has_ at least a strong _tendency_ to overthrow\nthe hypothesis; while some of them, more thoughtful, will suggest that,\nalthough the theory is by no means disproved through the segregation of\nthe particular \u201cnebul\u00e6,\u201d alluded to, still a _failure_ to segregate\nthem, with such telescopes, might well have been understood as a\ntriumphant _corroboration_ of the theory:\u2014and this latter class will be\nsurprised, perhaps, to hear me say that even with _them_ I disagree. If\nthe propositions of this Discourse have been comprehended, it will be\nseen that, in my view, a failure to segregate the \u201cnebul\u00e6\u201d would have\ntended to the refutation, rather than to the confirmation, of the\nNebular Hypothesis.\n\nLet me explain:\u2014The Newtonian Law of Gravity we may, of course, assume\nas demonstrated. This law, it will be remembered, I have referred to the\nr\u00ebaction of the first Divine Act\u2014to the r\u00ebaction of an exercise of the\nDivine Volition temporarily overcoming a difficulty. This difficulty is\nthat of forcing the normal into the abnormal\u2014of impelling that whose\noriginality, and therefore whose rightful condition, was _One_, to take\nupon itself the wrongful condition of _Many_. It is only by conceiving\nthis difficulty as _temporarily_ overcome, that we can comprehend a\nr\u00ebaction. There could have been no r\u00ebaction had the act been infinitely\ncontinued. So long as the act _lasted_, no r\u00ebaction, of course, could\ncommence; in other words, no _gravitation_ could take place\u2014for we have\nconsidered the one as but the manifestation of the other. But\ngravitation _has_ taken place; therefore the act of Creation has ceased:\nand gravitation has long ago taken place; therefore the act of Creation\nhas long ago ceased. We can no more expect, then, to observe _the\nprimary processes_ of Creation; and to these primary processes the\ncondition of nebulosity has already been explained to belong.\n\nThrough what we know of the propagation of light, we have direct proof\nthat the more remote of the stars have existed, under the forms in which\nwe now see them, for an inconceivable number of years. So far back _at\nleast_, then, as the period when these stars underwent condensation,\nmust have been the epoch at which the mass-constitutive processes began.\nThat we may conceive these processes, then, as still going on in the\ncase of certain \u201cnebul\u00e6,\u201d while in all other cases we find them\nthoroughly at an end, we are forced into assumptions for which we have\nreally _no_ basis whatever\u2014we have to thrust in, again, upon the\nrevolting Reason, the blasphemous idea of special interposition\u2014we have\nto suppose that, in the particular instances of these \u201cnebul\u00e6,\u201d an\nunerring God found it necessary to introduce certain supplementary\nregulations\u2014certain improvements of the general law\u2014certain retouchings\nand emendations, in a word, which had the effect of deferring the\ncompletion of these individual stars for centuries of centuries beyond\nthe \u00e6ra during which all the other stellar bodies had time, not only to\nbe fully constituted, but to grow hoary with an unspeakable old age.\n\nOf course, it will be immediately objected that since the light by which\nwe recognize the nebul\u00e6 now, must be merely that which left their\nsurfaces a vast number of years ago, the processes at present observed,\nor supposed to be observed, are, in fact, _not_ processes now actually\ngoing on, but the phantoms of processes completed long in the Past\u2014just\nas I maintain all these mass-constitutive processes _must_ have been.\n\nTo this I reply that neither is the now-observed condition of the\ncondensed stars their actual condition, but a condition completed long\nin the Past; so that my argument drawn from the _relative_ condition of\nthe stars and the \u201cnebul\u00e6,\u201d is in no manner disturbed. Moreover, those\nwho maintain the existence of nebul\u00e6, do _not_ refer the nebulosity to\nextreme distance; they declare it a real and not merely a perspective\nnebulosity. That we may conceive, indeed, a nebular mass as visible at\nall, we must conceive it as _very near us_ in comparison with the\ncondensed stars brought into view by the modern telescopes. In\nmaintaining the appearances in question, then, to be really nebulous, we\nmaintain their comparative vicinity to our point of view. Thus, their\ncondition, as we see them now, must be referred to an epoch _far less\nremote_ than that to which we may refer the now-observed condition of at\nleast the majority of the stars.\u2014In a word, should Astronomy ever\ndemonstrate a \u201cnebula,\u201d in the sense at present intended, I should\nconsider the Nebular Cosmogony\u2014_not_, indeed, as corroborated by the\ndemonstration\u2014but as thereby irretrievably overthrown.\n\nBy way, however, of rendering unto C\u00e6sar _no more_ than the things that\nare C\u00e6sar\u2019s, let me here remark that the assumption of the hypothesis\nwhich led him to so glorious a result, seems to have been suggested to\nLaplace in great measure by a misconception\u2014by the very misconception of\nwhich we have just been speaking\u2014by the generally prevalent\nmisunderstanding of the character of the nebul\u00e6, so mis-named. These he\nsupposed to be, in reality, what their designation implies. The fact is,\nthis great man had, very properly, an inferior faith in his own merely\n_perceptive_ powers. In respect, therefore, to the actual existence of\nnebul\u00e6\u2014an existence so confidently maintained by his telescopic\ncontemporaries\u2014he depended less upon what he saw than upon what he\nheard.\n\nIt will be seen that the only valid objections to his theory, are those\nmade to its hypothesis _as_ such\u2014to what suggested it\u2014not to what it\nsuggests; to its propositions rather than to its results. His most\nunwarranted assumption was that of giving the atoms a movement towards a\ncentre, in the very face of his evident understanding that these atoms,\nin unlimited succession, extended throughout the Universal space. I have\nalready shown that, under such circumstances, there could have occurred\nno movement at all; and Laplace, consequently, assumed one on no more\nphilosophical ground than that something of the kind was necessary for\nthe establishment of what he intended to establish.\n\nHis original idea seems to have been a compound of the true Epicurean\natoms with the false nebul\u00e6 of his contemporaries; and thus his theory\npresents us with the singular anomaly of absolute truth deduced, as a\nmathematical result, from a hybrid datum of ancient imagination\nintertangled with modern inacumen. Laplace\u2019s real strength lay, in fact,\nin an almost miraculous mathematical instinct:\u2014on this he relied; and in\nno instance did it fail or deceive him:\u2014in the case of the Nebular\nCosmogony, it led him, blindfolded, through a labyrinth of Error, into\none of the most luminous and stupendous temples of Truth.\n\nLet us now fancy, for the moment, that the ring first thrown off by the\nSun\u2014that is to say, the ring whose breaking-up constituted Neptune\u2014did\nnot, in fact, break up until the throwing-off of the ring out of which\nUranus arose; that this latter ring, again, remained perfect until the\ndischarge of that out of which sprang Saturn; that this latter, again,\nremained entire until the discharge of that from which originated\nJupiter\u2014and so on. Let us imagine, in a word, that no dissolution\noccurred among the rings until the final rejection of that which gave\nbirth to Mercury. We thus paint to the eye of the mind a series of\nc\u00f6existent concentric circles; and looking as well at _them_ as at the\nprocesses by which, according to Laplace\u2019s hypothesis, they were\nconstructed, we perceive at once a very singular analogy with the atomic\nstrata and the process of the original irradiation as I have described\nit. Is it impossible that, on measuring the _forces_, respectively, by\nwhich each successive planetary circle was thrown off\u2014that is to say, on\nmeasuring the successive excesses of rotation over gravitation which\noccasioned the successive discharges\u2014we should find the analogy in\nquestion more decidedly confirmed? _Is it improbable that we should\ndiscover these forces to have varied\u2014as in the original\nradiation\u2014proportionally to the squares of the distances?_\n\nOur solar system, consisting, in chief, of one sun, with sixteen planets\ncertainly, and possibly a few more, revolving about it at various\ndistances, and attended by seventeen moons assuredly, but _very_\nprobably by several others\u2014is now to be considered as _an example_ of\nthe innumerable agglomerations which proceeded to take place throughout\nthe Universal Sphere of atoms on withdrawal of the Divine Volition. I\nmean to say that our solar system is to be understood as affording a\n_generic instance_ of these agglomerations, or, more correctly, of the\nulterior conditions at which they arrived. If we keep our attention\nfixed on the idea of _the utmost possible Relation_ as the Omnipotent\ndesign, and on the precautions taken to accomplish it through difference\nof form, among the original atoms, and particular inequidistance, we\nshall find it impossible to suppose for a moment that even any two of\nthe incipient agglomerations reached precisely the same result in the\nend. We shall rather be inclined to think that _no two_ stellar bodies\nin the Universe\u2014whether suns, planets or moons\u2014are particularly, while\n_all_ are generally, similar. Still less, then, can we imagine any two\n_assemblages_ of such bodies\u2014any two \u201csystems\u201d\u2014as having more than a\ngeneral resemblance.[10] Our telescopes, at this point, thoroughly\nconfirm our deductions. Taking our own solar system, then, as merely a\nloose or general type of all, we have so far proceeded in our subject as\nto survey the Universe under the aspect of a spherical space, throughout\nwhich, dispersed with merely general equability, exist a number of but\ngenerally similar _systems_.\n\n    [10] It is not _impossible_ that some unlooked-for optical\n    improvement may disclose to us, among innumerable varieties of\n    systems, a luminous sun, encircled by luminous and non-luminous\n    rings, within and without and between which, revolve luminous\n    and non-luminous planets, attended by moons having moons\u2014and\n    even these latter again having moons.\n\nLet us now, expanding our conceptions, look upon each of these systems\nas in itself an atom; which in fact it is, when we consider it as but\none of the countless myriads of systems which constitute the Universe.\nRegarding all, then, as but colossal atoms, each with the same\nineradicable tendency to Unity which characterizes the actual atoms of\nwhich it consists\u2014we enter at once upon a new order of aggregations. The\nsmaller systems, in the vicinity of a larger one, would, inevitably, be\ndrawn into still closer vicinity. A thousand would assemble here; a\nmillion there\u2014perhaps here, again, even a billion\u2014leaving, thus,\nimmeasurable vacancies in space. And if now, it be demanded why, in the\ncase of these systems\u2014of these merely Titanic atoms\u2014I speak, simply, of\nan \u201cassemblage,\u201d and not, as in the case of the actual atoms, of a more\nor less consolidated agglomeration:\u2014if it be asked, for instance, why I\ndo not carry what I suggest to its legitimate conclusion, and describe,\nat once, these assemblages of system-atoms as rushing to consolidation\nin spheres\u2014as each becoming condensed into one magnificent sun\u2014my reply\nis that \u03bc\u03b5\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03b1\u2014I am but pausing, for a moment, on the awful\nthreshold of _the Future_. For the present, calling these assemblages\n\u201cclusters,\u201d we see them in the incipient stages of their consolidation.\nTheir _absolute_ consolidation is _to come_.\n\nWe have now reached a point from which we behold the Universe as a\nspherical space, interspersed, _unequably_, with _clusters_. It will be\nnoticed that I here prefer the adverb \u201cunequably\u201d to the phrase \u201cwith a\nmerely general equability,\u201d employed before. It is evident, in fact,\nthat the equability of distribution will diminish in the ratio of the\nagglomerative processes\u2014that is to say, as the things distributed\ndiminish in number. Thus the increase of _in_-equability\u2014an increase\nwhich must continue until, sooner or later, an epoch will arrive at\nwhich the largest agglomeration will absorb all the others\u2014should be\nviewed as, simply, a corroborative indication of the _tendency to One_.\n\nAnd here, at length, it seems proper to inquire whether the ascertained\n_facts_ of Astronomy confirm the general arrangement which I have thus,\ndeductively, assigned to the Heavens. Thoroughly, they _do_. Telescopic\nobservation, guided by the laws of perspective, enables us to understand\nthat the perceptible Universe exists as _a cluster of clusters,\nirregularly disposed_.\n\nThe \u201cclusters\u201d of which this Universal \u201c_cluster of clusters_\u201d consists,\nare merely what we have been in the practice of designating\n\u201cnebul\u00e6\u201d\u2014and, of these \u201cnebul\u00e6,\u201d _one_ is of paramount interest to\nmankind. I allude to the Galaxy, or Milky Way. This interests us, first\nand most obviously, on account of its great superiority in apparent\nsize, not only to any one other cluster in the firmament, but to all the\nother clusters taken together. The largest of these latter occupies a\nmere point, comparatively, and is distinctly seen only with the aid of a\ntelescope. The Galaxy sweeps throughout the Heaven and is brilliantly\nvisible to the naked eye. But it interests man chiefly, although less\nimmediately, on account of its being his home; the home of the Earth on\nwhich he exists; the home of the Sun about which this Earth revolves;\nthe home of that \u201csystem\u201d of orbs of which the Sun is the centre and\nprimary\u2014the Earth one of sixteen secondaries, or planets\u2014the Moon one of\nseventeen tertiaries, or satellites. The Galaxy, let me repeat, is but\none of the _clusters_ which I have been describing\u2014but one of the\nmis-called \u201cnebul\u00e6\u201d revealed to us\u2014by the telescope alone, sometimes\u2014as\nfaint hazy spots in various quarters of the sky. We have no reason to\nsuppose the Milky Way _really_ more extensive than the least of these\n\u201cnebul\u00e6.\u201d Its vast superiority in size is but an apparent superiority\narising from our position in regard to it\u2014that is to say, from our\nposition in its midst. However strange the assertion may at first appear\nto those unversed in Astronomy, still the astronomer himself has no\nhesitation in asserting that we are _in the midst_ of that inconceivable\nhost of stars\u2014of suns\u2014of systems\u2014which constitute the Galaxy. Moreover,\nnot only have _we_\u2014not only has _our_ Sun a right to claim the Galaxy as\nits own especial cluster, but, with slight reservation, it may be said\nthat all the distinctly visible stars of the firmament\u2014all the stars\nVisible to the naked eye\u2014have equally a right to claim it as _their_\nown.\n\nThere has been a great deal of misconception in respect to the _shape_\nof the Galaxy; which, in nearly all our astronomical treatises, is said\nto resemble that of a capital Y. The cluster in question has, in\nreality, a certain general\u2014_very_ general resemblance to the planet\nSaturn, with its encompassing triple ring. Instead of the solid orb of\nthat planet, however, we must picture to ourselves a lenticular\nstar-island, or collection of stars; our Sun lying excentrically\u2014near\nthe shore of the island\u2014on that side of it which is nearest the\nconstellation of the Cross and farthest from that of Cassiopeia. The\nsurrounding ring, where it approaches our position, has in it a\nlongitudinal _gash_, which does, in fact, cause _the ring, in our\nvicinity_, to assume, loosely, the appearance of a capital Y.\n\nWe must not fall into the error, however, of conceiving the somewhat\nindefinite girdle as at all _remote_, comparatively speaking, from the\nalso indefinite lenticular cluster which it surrounds; and thus, for\nmere purpose of explanation, we may speak of our Sun as actually\nsituated at that point of the Y where its three component lines unite;\nand, conceiving this letter to be of a certain solidity\u2014of a certain\nthickness, very trivial in comparison with its length\u2014we may even speak\nof our position as _in the middle_ of this thickness. Fancying ourselves\nthus placed, we shall no longer find difficulty in accounting for the\nph\u00e6nomena presented\u2014which are perspective altogether. When we look\nupward or downward\u2014that is to say, when we cast our eyes in the\ndirection of the letter\u2019s _thickness_\u2014we look through fewer stars than\nwhen we cast them in the direction of its _length_, or _along_ either of\nthe three component lines. Of course, in the former case, the stars\nappear scattered\u2014in the latter, crowded.\u2014To reverse this explanation:\u2014An\ninhabitant of the Earth, when looking, as we commonly express ourselves,\n_at_ the Galaxy, is then beholding it in some of the directions of its\nlength\u2014is looking _along_ the lines of the Y\u2014but when, looking out into\nthe general Heaven, he turns his eyes _from_ the Galaxy, he is then\nsurveying it in the direction of the letter\u2019s thickness; and on this\naccount the stars seem to him scattered; while, in fact, they are as\nclose together, on an average, as in the mass of the cluster. _No_\nconsideration could be better adapted to convey an idea of this\ncluster\u2019s stupendous extent.\n\nIf, with a telescope of high space-penetrating power, we carefully\ninspect the firmament, we shall become aware of _a belt of clusters_\u2014of\nwhat we have hitherto called \u201cnebul\u00e6\u201d\u2014a _band_, of varying breadth,\nstretching from horizon to horizon, at right angles to the general\ncourse of the Milky Way. This band is the ultimate _cluster of\nclusters_. This belt is _The Universe_. Our Galaxy is but one, and\nperhaps one of the most inconsiderable, of the clusters which go to the\nconstitution of this ultimate, Universal _belt_ or _band_. The\nappearance of this cluster of clusters, to our eyes, _as_ a belt or\nband, is altogether a perspective ph\u00e6nomenon of the same character as\nthat which causes us to behold our own individual and roughly-spherical\ncluster, the Galaxy, under guise also of a belt, traversing the Heavens\nat right angles to the Universal one. The shape of the all-inclusive\ncluster is, of course _generally_, that of each individual cluster which\nit includes. Just as the scattered stars which, on looking _from_ the\nGalaxy, we see in the general sky, are, in fact, but a portion of that\nGalaxy itself, and as closely intermingled with it as any of the\ntelescopic points in what seems the densest portion of its mass\u2014so are\nthe scattered \u201cnebul\u00e6\u201d which, on casting our eyes _from_ the Universal\n_belt_, we perceive at all points of the firmament\u2014so, I say, are these\nscattered \u201cnebul\u00e6\u201d to be understood as only perspectively scattered, and\nas part and parcel of the one supreme and Universal _sphere_.\n\nNo astronomical fallacy is more untenable, and none has been more\npertinaciously adhered to, than that of the absolute _illimitation_ of\nthe Universe of Stars. The reasons for limitation, as I have already\nassigned them, _\u00e0 priori_, seem to me unanswerable; but, not to speak of\nthese, _observation_ assures us that there is, in numerous directions\naround us, certainly, if not in all, a positive limit\u2014or, at the very\nleast, affords us no basis whatever for thinking otherwise. Were the\nsuccession of stars endless, then the background of the sky would\npresent us an uniform luminosity, like that displayed by the\nGalaxy\u2014_since there could be absolutely no point, in all that\nbackground, at which would not exist a star._ The only mode, therefore,\nin which, under such a state of affairs, we could comprehend the _voids_\nwhich our telescopes find in innumerable directions, would be by\nsupposing the distance of the invisible background so immense that no\nray from it has yet been able to reach us at all. That this _may_ be so,\nwho shall venture to deny? I maintain, simply, that we have not even the\nshadow of a reason for believing that it _is_ so.\n\nWhen speaking of the vulgar propensity to regard all bodies on the Earth\nas tending merely to the Earth\u2019s centre, I observed that, \u201cwith certain\nexceptions to be specified hereafter, every body on the Earth tended not\nonly to the Earth\u2019s centre, but in every conceivable direction\nbesides.\u201d[11] The \u201cexceptions\u201d refer to those frequent gaps in the\nHeavens, where our utmost scrutiny can detect not only no stellar\nbodies, but no indications of their existence:\u2014where yawning chasms,\nblacker than Erebus, seem to afford us glimpses, through the boundary\nwalls of the Universe of Stars, into the illimitable Universe of\nVacancy, beyond. Now as any body, existing on the Earth, chances to\npass, either through its own movement or the Earth\u2019s, into a line with\nany one of these voids, or cosmical abysses, it clearly is no longer\nattracted _in the direction of that void_, and for the moment,\nconsequently, is \u201cheavier\u201d than at any period, either after or before.\nIndependently of the consideration of these voids, however, and looking\nonly at the generally unequable distribution of the stars, we see that\nthe absolute tendency of bodies on the Earth to the Earth\u2019s centre, is\nin a state of perpetual variation.\n\n    [11] Page 62.\n\nWe comprehend, then, the insulation of our Universe. We perceive the\nisolation of _that_\u2014of _all_ that which we grasp with the senses. We\nknow that there exists one _cluster of clusters_\u2014a collection around\nwhich, on all sides, extend the immeasurable wildernesses of a Space _to\nall human perception_ untenanted. But _because_ upon the confines of\nthis Universe of Stars we are compelled to pause, through want of\nfarther evidence from the senses, is it right to conclude that, in fact,\nthere _is_ no material point beyond that which we have thus been\npermitted to attain? Have we, or have we not, an analogical right to the\ninference that this perceptible Universe\u2014that this cluster of\nclusters\u2014is but one of _a series_ of clusters of clusters, the rest of\nwhich are invisible through distance\u2014through the diffusion of their\nlight being so excessive, ere it reaches us, as not to produce upon our\nretinas a light-impression\u2014or from there being no such emanation as\nlight at all, in these unspeakably distant worlds\u2014or, lastly, from the\nmere interval being so vast, that the electric tidings of their presence\nin Space, have not yet\u2014through the lapsing myriads of years\u2014been enabled\nto traverse that interval?\n\nHave we any right to inferences\u2014have we any ground whatever for visions\nsuch as these? If we have a right to them in _any_ degree, we have a\nright to their infinite extension.\n\nThe human brain has obviously a leaning to the \u201c_Infinite_,\u201d and fondles\nthe phantom of the idea. It seems to long with a passionate fervor for\nthis impossible conception, with the hope of intellectually believing it\nwhen conceived. What is general among the whole race of Man, of course\nno individual of that race can be warranted in considering abnormal;\nnevertheless, there _may_ be a class of superior intelligences, to whom\nthe human bias alluded to may wear all the character of monomania.\n\nMy question, however, remains unanswered:\u2014Have we any right to infer\u2014let\nus say, rather, to imagine\u2014an interminable succession of the \u201cclusters\nof clusters,\u201d or of \u201cUniverses\u201d more or less similar?\n\nI reply that the \u201cright,\u201d in a case such as this, depends absolutely\nupon the hardihood of that imagination which ventures to claim the\nright. Let me declare, only, that, as an individual, I myself feel\nimpelled to the _fancy_\u2014without daring to call it more\u2014that there _does_\nexist a _limitless_ succession of Universes, more or less similar to\nthat of which we have cognizance\u2014to that of which _alone_ we shall ever\nhave cognizance\u2014at the very least until the return of our own particular\nUniverse into Unity. _If_ such clusters of clusters exist, however\u2014_and\nthey do_\u2014it is abundantly clear that, having had no part in our origin,\nthey have no portion in our laws. They neither attract us, nor we them.\nTheir material\u2014their spirit is not ours\u2014is not that which obtains in any\npart of our Universe. They could not impress our senses or our souls.\nAmong them and us\u2014considering all, for the moment, collectively\u2014there\nare no influences in common. Each exists, apart and independently, _in\nthe bosom of its proper and particular God_.\n\nIn the conduct of this Discourse, I am aiming less at physical than at\nmetaphysical order. The clearness with which even material ph\u00e6nomena are\npresented to the understanding, depends very little, I have long since\nlearned to perceive, upon a merely natural, and almost altogether upon a\nmoral, arrangement. If then I seem to step somewhat too discursively\nfrom point to point of my topic, let me suggest that I do so in the hope\nof thus the better keeping unbroken that chain of _graduated impression_\nby which alone the intellect of Man can expect to encompass the\ngrandeurs of which I speak, and, in their majestic totality, to\ncomprehend them.\n\nSo far, our attention has been directed, almost exclusively, to a\ngeneral and relative grouping of the stellar bodies in space. Of\nspecification there has been little; and whatever ideas of _quantity_\nhave been conveyed\u2014that is to say, of number, magnitude, and\ndistance\u2014have been conveyed incidentally and by way of preparation for\nmore definitive conceptions. These latter let us now attempt to\nentertain.\n\nOur solar system, as has been already mentioned, consists, in chief, of\none sun and sixteen planets certainly, but in all probability a few\nothers, revolving around it as a centre, and attended by seventeen moons\nof which we know, with possibly several more of which as yet we know\nnothing. These various bodies are not true spheres, but oblate\nspheroids\u2014spheres flattened at the poles of the imaginary axes about\nwhich they rotate:\u2014the flattening being a consequence of the rotation.\nNeither is the Sun absolutely the centre of the system; for this Sun\nitself, with all the planets, revolves about a perpetually shifting\npoint of space, which is the system\u2019s general centre of gravity. Neither\nare we to consider the paths through which these different spheroids\nmove\u2014the moons about the planets, the planets about the Sun, or the Sun\nabout the common centre\u2014as circles in an accurate sense. They are, in\nfact, _ellipses\u2014one of the foci being the point about which the\nrevolution is made_. An ellipse is a curve, returning into itself, one\nof whose diameters is longer than the other. In the longer diameter are\ntwo points, equidistant from the middle of the line, and so situated\notherwise that if, from each of them a straight line be drawn to any one\npoint of the curve, the two lines, taken together, will be equal to the\nlonger diameter itself. Now let us conceive such an ellipse. At one of\nthe points mentioned, which are the _foci_, let us fasten an orange. By\nan elastic thread let us connect this orange with a pea; and let us\nplace this latter on the circumference of the ellipse. Let us now move\nthe pea continuously around the orange\u2014keeping always on the\ncircumference of the ellipse. The elastic thread, which, of course,\nvaries in length as we move the pea, will form what in geometry is\ncalled a _radius vector_. Now, if the orange be understood as the Sun,\nand the pea as a planet revolving about it, then the revolution should\nbe made at such a rate\u2014with a velocity so varying\u2014that the _radius\nvector_ may pass over _equal areas of space in equal times_. The\nprogress of the pea _should be_\u2014in other words, the progress of the\nplanet _is_, of course,\u2014slow in proportion to its distance from the\nSun\u2014swift in proportion to its proximity. Those planets, moreover, move\nthe more slowly which are the farther from the Sun; _the squares of\ntheir periods of revolution having the same proportion to each other, as\nhave to each other the cubes of their mean distances from the Sun_.\n\nThe wonderfully complex laws of revolution here described, however, are\nnot to be understood as obtaining in our system alone. They _everywhere_\nprevail where Attraction prevails. They control _the Universe_. Every\nshining speck in the firmament is, no doubt, a luminous sun, resembling\nour own, at least in its general features, and having in attendance upon\nit a greater or less number of planets, greater or less, whose still\nlingering luminosity is not sufficient to render them visible to us at\nso vast a distance, but which, nevertheless, revolve, moon-attended,\nabout their starry centres, in obedience to the principles just\ndetailed\u2014in obedience to the three omniprevalent laws of revolution\u2014the\nthree immortal laws _guessed_ by the imaginative Kepler, and but\nsubsequently demonstrated and accounted for by the patient and\nmathematical Newton. Among a tribe of philosophers who pride themselves\nexcessively upon matter-of-fact, it is far too fashionable to sneer at\nall speculation under the comprehensive _sobriquet_, \u201cguess-work.\u201d The\npoint to be considered is, _who_ guesses. In guessing with Plato, we\nspend our time to better purpose, now and then, than in hearkening to a\ndemonstration by Alcm\u00e6on.\n\nIn many works on Astronomy I find it distinctly stated that the laws of\nKepler are _the basis_ of the great principle, Gravitation. This idea\nmust have arisen from the fact that the suggestion of these laws by\nKepler, and his proving them _\u00e0 posteriori_ to have an actual existence,\nled Newton to account for them by the hypothesis of Gravitation, and,\nfinally, to demonstrate them _\u00e0 priori_, as necessary consequences of\nthe hypothetical principle. Thus so far from the laws of Kepler being\nthe basis of Gravity, Gravity is the basis of these laws\u2014as it is,\nindeed, of all the laws of the material Universe which are not referable\nto Repulsion alone.\n\nThe mean distance of the Earth from the Moon\u2014that is to say, from the\nheavenly body in our closest vicinity\u2014is 237,000 miles. Mercury, the\nplanet nearest the Sun, is distant from him 37 millions of miles. Venus,\nthe next, revolves at a distance of 68 millions:\u2014the Earth, which comes\nnext, at a distance of 95 millions:\u2014Mars, then, at a distance of 144\nmillions. Now come the eight Asteroids (Ceres, Juno, Vesta, Pallas,\nAstr\u00e6a, Flora, Iris, and Hebe) at an average distance of about 250\nmillions. Then we have Jupiter, distant 490 millions; then Saturn, 900\nmillions; then Uranus, 19 hundred millions; finally Neptune, lately\ndiscovered, and revolving at a distance, say of 28 hundred millions.\nLeaving Neptune out of the account\u2014of which as yet we know little\naccurately and which is, possibly, one of a system of Asteroids\u2014it will\nbe seen that, within certain limits, there exists an _order of interval_\namong the planets. Speaking loosely, we may say that each outer planet\nis twice as far from the Sun as is the next inner one. May not the\n_order_ here mentioned\u2014_may not the law of Bode\u2014be deduced from\nconsideration of the analogy suggested by me as having place between the\nsolar discharge of rings and the mode of the atomic irradiation_?\n\nThe numbers hurriedly mentioned in this summary of distance, it is folly\nto attempt comprehending, unless in the light of abstract arithmetical\nfacts. They are not practically tangible ones. They convey no precise\nideas. I have stated that Neptune, the planet farthest from the Sun,\nrevolves about him at a distance of 28 hundred millions of miles. So far\ngood:\u2014I have stated a mathematical fact; and, without comprehending it\nin the least, we may put it to use\u2014mathematically. But in mentioning,\neven, that the Moon revolves about the Earth at the comparatively\ntrifling distance of 237,000 miles, I entertained no expectation of\ngiving any one to understand\u2014to know\u2014to feel\u2014how far from the Earth the\nMoon actually _is_. 237,000 _miles_! There are, perhaps, few of my\nreaders who have not crossed the Atlantic ocean; yet how many of them\nhave a distinct idea of even the 3,000 miles intervening between shore\nand shore? I doubt, indeed, whether the man lives who can force into his\nbrain the most remote conception of the interval between one milestone\nand its next neighbor upon the turnpike. We are in some measure aided,\nhowever, in our consideration of distance, by combining this\nconsideration with the kindred one of velocity. Sound passes through\n1100 feet of space in a second of time. Now were it possible for an\ninhabitant of the Earth to see the flash of a cannon discharged in the\nMoon, and to hear the report, he would have to wait, after perceiving\nthe former, more than 13 entire days and nights before getting any\nintimation of the latter.\n\nHowever feeble be the impression, even thus conveyed, of the Moon\u2019s real\ndistance from the Earth, it will, nevertheless, effect a good object in\nenabling us more clearly to see the futility of attempting to grasp such\nintervals as that of the 28 hundred millions of miles between our Sun\nand Neptune; or even that of the 95 millions between the Sun and the\nEarth we inhabit. A cannon-ball, flying at the greatest velocity with\nwhich such a ball has ever been known to fly, could not traverse the\nlatter interval in less than 20 years; while for the former it would\nrequire 590.\n\nOur Moon\u2019s real diameter is 2160 miles; yet she is comparatively so\ntrifling an object that it would take nearly 50 such orbs to compose one\nas great as the Earth.\n\nThe diameter of our own globe is 7912 miles\u2014but from the enunciation of\nthese numbers what positive idea do we derive?\n\nIf we ascend an ordinary mountain and look around us from its summit, we\nbehold a landscape stretching, say 40 miles, in every direction; forming\na circle 250 miles in circumference; and including an area of 5000\nsquare miles. The extent of such a prospect, on account of the\n_successiveness_ with which its portions necessarily present themselves\nto view, can be only very feebly and very partially appreciated:\u2014yet the\nentire panorama would comprehend no more than one 40,000th part of the\nmere _surface_ of our globe. Were this panorama, then, to be succeeded,\nafter the lapse of an hour, by another of equal extent; this again by a\nthird, after the lapse of another hour; this again by a fourth after\nlapse of another hour\u2014and so on, until the scenery of the whole Earth\nwere exhausted; and were we to be engaged in examining these various\npanoramas for twelve hours of every day; we should nevertheless, be 9\nyears and 48 days in completing the general survey.\n\nBut if the mere surface of the Earth eludes the grasp of the\nimagination, what are we to think of its cubical contents? It embraces a\nmass of matter equal in weight to at least 2 sextillions, 200\nquintillions of tons. Let us suppose it in a state of quiescence; and\nnow let us endeavor to conceive a mechanical force sufficient to set it\nin motion! Not the strength of all the myriads of beings whom we may\nconclude to inhabit the planetary worlds of our system\u2014not the combined\nphysical strength of _all_ these beings\u2014even admitting all to be more\npowerful than man\u2014would avail to stir the ponderous mass _a single inch_\nfrom its position.\n\nWhat are we to understand, then, of the force, which under similar\ncircumstances, would be required to move the _largest_ of our planets,\nJupiter? This is 86,000 miles in diameter, and would include within its\nperiphery more than a thousand orbs of the magnitude of our own. Yet\nthis stupendous body is actually flying around the Sun at the rate of\n29,000 miles an hour\u2014that is to say, with a velocity 40 times greater\nthan that of a cannon-ball! The thought of such a ph\u00e6nomenon cannot well\nbe said to _startle_ the mind:\u2014it palsies and appals it. Not\nunfrequently we task our imagination in picturing the capacities of an\nangel. Let us fancy such a being at a distance of some hundred miles\nfrom Jupiter\u2014a close eye-witness of this planet as it speeds on its\nannual revolution. Now _can_ we, I demand, fashion for ourselves any\nconception so distinct of this ideal being\u2019s spiritual exaltation, as\n_that_ involved in the supposition that, even by this immeasurable mass\nof matter, whirled immediately before his eyes, with a velocity so\nunutterable, he\u2014an angel\u2014angelic though he be\u2014is not at once struck into\nnothingness and overwhelmed?\n\nAt this point, however, it seems proper to suggest that, in fact, we\nhave been speaking of comparative trifles. Our Sun, the central and\ncontrolling orb of the system to which Jupiter belongs, is not only\ngreater than Jupiter, but greater by far than all the planets of the\nsystem taken together. This fact is an essential condition, indeed, of\nthe stability of the system itself. The diameter of Jupiter has been\nmentioned:\u2014it is 86,000 miles:\u2014that of the Sun is 882,000 miles. An\ninhabitant of the latter, travelling 90 miles a day, would be more than\n80 years in going round a great circle of its circumference. It occupies\na cubical space of 681 quadrillions, 472 trillions of miles. The Moon,\nas has been stated, revolves about the Earth at a distance of 237,000\nmiles\u2014in an orbit, consequently, of nearly a million and a half. Now,\nwere the Sun placed upon the Earth, centre over centre, the body of the\nformer would extend, in every direction, not only to the line of the\nMoon\u2019s orbit, but beyond it, a distance of 200,000 miles.\n\nAnd here, once again, let me suggest that, in fact, we have _still_ been\nspeaking of comparative trifles. The distance of the planet Neptune from\nthe Sun has been stated:\u2014it is 28 hundred millions of miles; the\ncircumference of its orbit, therefore, is about 17 billions. Let this be\nborne in mind while we glance at some one of the brightest stars.\nBetween this and the star of _our_ system, (the Sun,) there is a gulf of\nspace, to convey any idea of which we should need the tongue of an\narchangel. From _our_ system, then, and from _our_ Sun, or star, the\nstar at which we suppose ourselves glancing is a thing altogether\napart:\u2014still, for the moment, let us imagine it placed upon our Sun,\ncentre over centre, as we just now imagined this Sun itself placed upon\nthe Earth. Let us now conceive the particular star we have in mind,\nextending, in every direction, beyond the orbit of Mercury\u2014of Venus\u2014of\nthe Earth:\u2014still _on_, beyond the orbit of Mars\u2014of Jupiter\u2014of\nUranus\u2014until, finally, we fancy it filling the circle\u201417 _billions of\nmiles in circumference_\u2014which is described by the revolution of\nLeverrier\u2019s planet. When we have conceived all this, we shall have\nentertained no extravagant conception. There is the very best reason for\nbelieving that many of the stars are even far larger than the one we\nhave imagined. I mean to say that we have the very best _empirical_\nbasis for such belief:\u2014and, in looking back at the original, atomic\narrangements for _diversity_, which have been assumed as a part of the\nDivine plan in the constitution of the Universe, we shall be enabled\neasily to understand, and to credit, the existence of even far vaster\ndisproportions in stellar size than any to which I have hitherto\nalluded. The largest orbs, of course, we must expect to find rolling\nthrough the widest vacancies of Space.\n\nI remarked, just now, that to convey an idea of the interval between our\nSun and any one of the other stars, we should require the eloquence of\nan archangel. In so saying, I should not be accused of exaggeration;\nfor, in simple truth, these are topics on which it is scarcely possible\nto exaggerate. But let us bring the matter more distinctly before the\neye of the mind.\n\nIn the first place, we may get a general, _relative_ conception of the\ninterval referred to, by comparing it with the inter-planetary spaces.\nIf, for example, we suppose the Earth, which is, in reality, 95 millions\nof miles from the Sun, to be only _one foot_ from that luminary; then\nNeptune would be 40 feet distant; _and the star Alpha Lyr\u00e6, at the very\nleast_, 159.\n\nNow I presume that, in the termination of my last sentence, few of my\nreaders have noticed anything especially objectionable\u2014particularly\nwrong. I said that the distance of the Earth from the Sun being taken at\n_one foot_, the distance of Neptune would be 40 feet, and that of Alpha\nLyr\u00e6, 159. The proportion between one foot and 159 has appeared,\nperhaps, to convey a sufficiently definite impression of the proportion\nbetween the two intervals\u2014that of the Earth from the Sun and that of\nAlpha Lyr\u00e6 from the same luminary. But my account of the matter should,\nin reality, have run thus:\u2014The distance of the Earth from the Sun being\ntaken at one foot, the distance of Neptune would be 40 feet, and that of\nAlpha Lyr\u00e6, 159\u2014\u2014_miles_:\u2014that is to say, I had assigned to Alpha Lyr\u00e6,\nin my first statement of the case, only the 5280_th_ _part_ of that\ndistance which is the _least distance possible_ at which it can actually\nlie.\n\nTo proceed:\u2014However distant a mere _planet_ is, yet when we look at it\nthrough a telescope, we see it under a certain form\u2014of a certain\nappreciable size. Now I have already hinted at the probable bulk of many\nof the stars; nevertheless, when we view any one of them, even through\nthe most powerful telescope, it is found to present us with _no form_,\nand consequently with _no magnitude_ whatever. We see it as a point and\nnothing more.\n\nAgain;\u2014Let us suppose ourselves walking, at night, on a highway. In a\nfield on one side of the road, is a line of tall objects, say trees, the\nfigures of which are distinctly defined against the background of the\nsky. This line of objects extends at right angles to the road, and from\nthe road to the horizon. Now, as we proceed along the road, we see these\nobjects changing their positions, respectively, in relation to a certain\nfixed point in that portion of the firmament which forms the background\nof the view. Let us suppose this fixed point\u2014sufficiently fixed for our\npurpose\u2014to be the rising moon. We become aware, at once, that while the\ntree nearest us so far alters its position in respect to the moon, as to\nseem flying behind us, the tree in the extreme distance has scarcely\nchanged at all its relative position with the satellite. We then go on\nto perceive that the farther the objects are from us, the less they\nalter their positions; and the converse. Then we begin, unwittingly, to\nestimate the distances of individual trees by the degrees in which they\nevince the relative alteration. Finally, we come to understand how it\nmight be possible to ascertain the actual distance of any given tree in\nthe line, by using the amount of relative alteration as a basis in a\nsimple geometrical problem. Now this relative alteration is what we call\n\u201cparallax;\u201d and by parallax we calculate the distances of the heavenly\nbodies. Applying the principle to the trees in question, we should, of\ncourse, be very much at a loss to comprehend the distance of _that_\ntree, which, however far we proceeded along the road, should evince _no_\nparallax at all. This, in the case described, is a thing impossible; but\nimpossible only because all distances on our Earth are trivial\nindeed:\u2014in comparison with the vast cosmical quantities, we may speak of\nthem as absolutely nothing.\n\nNow, let us suppose the star Alpha Lyr\u00e6 directly overhead; and let us\nimagine that, instead of standing on the Earth, we stand at one end of a\nstraight road stretching through Space to a distance equalling the\ndiameter of the Earth\u2019s orbit\u2014that is to say, to a distance of 190\n_millions of miles_. Having observed, by means of the most delicate\nmicrometrical instruments, the exact position of the star, let us now\npass along this inconceivable road, until we reach its other extremity.\nNow, once again, let us look at the star. It is _precisely_ where we\nleft it. Our instruments, however delicate, assure us that its relative\nposition is absolutely\u2014is identically the same as at the commencement of\nour unutterable journey. _No_ parallax\u2014none whatever\u2014has been found.\n\nThe fact is, that, in regard to the distance of the fixed stars\u2014of any\none of the myriads of suns glistening on the farther side of that awful\nchasm which separates our system from its brothers in the cluster to\nwhich it belongs\u2014astronomical science, until very lately, could speak\nonly with a negative certainty. Assuming the brightest as the nearest,\nwe could say, even of _them_, only that there is a certain\nincomprehensible distance on the _hither_ side of which they cannot\nbe:\u2014how far they are beyond it we had in no case been able to ascertain.\nWe perceived, for example, that Alpha Lyr\u00e6 cannot be nearer to us than\n19 trillions, 200 billions of miles; but, for all we knew, and indeed\nfor all we now know, it may be distant from us the square, or the cube,\nor any other power of the number mentioned. By dint, however, of\nwonderfully minute and cautious observations, continued, with novel\ninstruments, for many laborious years, _Bessel_, not long ago deceased,\nhas lately succeeded in determining the distance of six or seven stars;\namong others, that of the star numbered 61 in the constellation of the\nSwan. The distance in this latter instance ascertained, is 670,000 times\nthat of the Sun; which last it will be remembered, is 95 millions of\nmiles. The star 61 Cygni, then, is nearly 64 trillions of miles from\nus\u2014or more than three times the distance assigned, _as the least\npossible_, for Alpha Lyr\u00e6.\n\nIn attempting to appreciate this interval by the aid of any\nconsiderations of _velocity_, as we did in endeavoring to estimate the\ndistance of the moon, we must leave out of sight, altogether, such\nnothings as the speed of a cannon-ball, or of sound. Light, however,\naccording to the latest calculations of Struve, proceeds at the rate of\n167,000 miles in a second. Thought itself cannot pass through this\ninterval more speedily\u2014if, indeed, thought can traverse it at all. Yet,\nin coming from 61 Cygni to us, even at this inconceivable rate, light\noccupies more than _ten years_; and, consequently, were the star this\nmoment blotted out from the Universe, still, _for ten years_, would it\ncontinue to sparkle on, undimmed in its paradoxical glory.\n\nKeeping now in mind whatever feeble conception we may have attained of\nthe interval between our Sun and 61 Cygni, let us remember that this\ninterval, however unutterably vast, we are permitted to consider as but\nthe _average_ interval among the countless host of stars composing that\ncluster, or \u201cnebula,\u201d to which our system, as well as that of 61 Cygni,\nbelongs. I have, in fact, stated the case with great moderation:\u2014we have\nexcellent reason for believing 61 Cygni to be one of the _nearest_\nstars, and thus for concluding, at least for the present, that its\ndistance from us is _less_ than the average distance between star and\nstar in the magnificent cluster of the Milky Way.\n\nAnd here, once again and finally, it seems proper to suggest that even\nas yet we have been speaking of trifles. Ceasing to wonder at the space\nbetween star and star in our own or in any particular cluster, let us\nrather turn our thoughts to the intervals between cluster and cluster,\nin the all comprehensive cluster of the Universe.\n\nI have already said that light proceeds at the rate of 167,000 miles in\na second\u2014that is, about 10 millions of miles in a minute, or about 600\nmillions of miles in an hour:\u2014yet so far removed from us are some of\nthe \u201cnebul\u00e6\u201d that even light, speeding with this velocity, could not\nand does not reach us, from those mysterious regions, in less than 3\n_millions of years_. This calculation, moreover, is made by the elder\nHerschell, and in reference merely to those comparatively proximate\nclusters within the scope of his own telescope. There _are_ \u201cnebul\u00e6,\u201d\nhowever, which, through the magical tube of Lord Rosse, are this instant\nwhispering in our ears the secrets of _a million of ages_ by-gone. In a\nword, the events which we behold now\u2014at this moment\u2014in those worlds\u2014are\nthe identical events which interested their inhabitants _ten hundred\nthousand centuries ago_. In intervals\u2014in distances such as this\nsuggestion forces upon the _soul_\u2014rather than upon the mind\u2014we find, at\nlength, a fitting climax to all hitherto frivolous considerations of\n_quantity_.\n\nOur fancies thus occupied with the cosmical distances, let us take the\nopportunity of referring to the difficulty which we have so often\nexperienced, while pursuing _the beaten path_ of astronomical\nreflection, _in accounting_ for the immeasurable voids alluded to\u2014in\ncomprehending why chasms so totally unoccupied and therefore apparently\nso needless, have been made to intervene between star and star\u2014between\ncluster and cluster\u2014in understanding, to be brief, a sufficient reason\nfor the Titanic scale, in respect of mere _Space_, on which the Universe\nis seen to be constructed. A rational cause for the ph\u00e6nomenon, I\nmaintain that Astronomy has palpably failed to assign:\u2014but the\nconsiderations through which, in this Essay, we have proceeded step by\nstep, enable us clearly and immediately to perceive that _Space and\nDuration are one_. That the Universe might _endure_ throughout an \u00e6ra\nat all commensurate with the grandeur of its component material portions\nand with the high majesty of its spiritual purposes, it was necessary\nthat the original atomic diffusion be made to so inconceivable an extent\nas to be only not infinite. It was required, in a word, that the stars\nshould be gathered into visibility from invisible nebulosity\u2014proceed\nfrom nebulosity to consolidation\u2014and so grow grey in giving birth and\ndeath to unspeakably numerous and complex variations of vitalic\ndevelopment:\u2014it was required that the stars should do all this\u2014should\nhave time thoroughly to accomplish all these Divine purposes\u2014_during the\nperiod_ in which all things were effecting their return into Unity with\na velocity accumulating in the inverse proportion of the squares of the\ndistances at which lay the inevitable End.\n\nThroughout all this we have no difficulty in understanding the absolute\naccuracy of the Divine _adaptation_. The density of the stars,\nrespectively, proceeds, of course, as their condensation diminishes;\ncondensation and heterogeneity keep pace with each other; through the\nlatter, which is the index of the former, we estimate the vitalic and\nspiritual development. Thus, in the density of the globes, we have the\nmeasure in which their purposes are fulfilled. _As_ density\nproceeds\u2014_as_ the divine intentions _are_ accomplished\u2014_as_ less and\nstill less remains _to be_ accomplished\u2014so\u2014in the same ratio\u2014should we\nexpect to find an acceleration of _the End_:\u2014and thus the philosophical\nmind will easily comprehend that the Divine designs in constituting the\nstars, advance _mathematically_ to their fulfilment:\u2014and more; it will\nreadily give the advance a mathematical expression; it will decide that\nthis advance is inversely proportional with the squares of the distances\nof all created things from the starting-point and goal of their\ncreation.\n\nNot only is this Divine adaptation, however, mathematically accurate,\nbut there is that about it which stamps it _as divine_, in distinction\nfrom that which is merely the work of human constructiveness. I allude\nto the complete _mutuality_ of adaptation. For example; in human\nconstructions a particular cause has a particular effect; a particular\nintention brings to pass a particular object; but this is all; we see no\nreciprocity. The effect does not re-act upon the cause; the intention\ndoes not change relations with the object. In Divine constructions the\nobject is either design or object as we choose to regard it\u2014and we may\ntake at any time a cause for an effect, or the converse\u2014so that we can\nnever absolutely decide which is which.\n\nTo give an instance:\u2014In polar climates the human frame, to maintain its\nanimal heat, requires, for combustion in the capillary system, an\nabundant supply of highly azotized food, such as train-oil. But\nagain:\u2014in polar climates nearly the sole food afforded man is the oil of\nabundant seals and whales. Now, whether is oil at hand because\nimperatively demanded, or the only thing demanded because the only thing\nto be obtained? It is impossible to decide. There is an absolute\n_reciprocity of adaptation_.\n\nThe pleasure which we derive from any display of human ingenuity is in\nthe ratio of _the approach_ to this species of reciprocity. In the\nconstruction of _plot_, for example, in fictitious literature, we\nshould aim at so arranging the incidents that we shall not be able to\ndetermine, of any one of them, whether it depends from any one other or\nupholds it. In this sense, of course, _perfection_ of _plot_ is really,\nor practically, unattainable\u2014but only because it is a finite\nintelligence that constructs. The plots of God are perfect. The Universe\nis a plot of God.\n\nAnd now we have reached a point at which the intellect is forced, again,\nto struggle against its propensity for analogical inference\u2014against its\nmonomaniac grasping at the infinite. Moons have been seen _revolving_\nabout planets; planets about stars; and the poetical instinct of\nhumanity\u2014its instinct of the symmetrical, if the symmetry be but a\nsymmetry of surface:\u2014this _instinct_, which the Soul, not only of Man\nbut of all created beings, took up, in the beginning, from the\n_geometrical_ basis of the Universal irradiation\u2014impels us to the fancy\nof an endless extension of this system of _cycles_. Closing our eyes\nequally to _de_duction and _in_duction, we insist upon imagining a\n_revolution_ of all the orbs of the Galaxy about some gigantic globe\nwhich we take to be the central pivot of the whole. Each cluster in the\ngreat cluster of clusters is imagined, of course, to be similarly\nsupplied and constructed; while, that the \u201canalogy\u201d may be wanting at no\npoint, we go on to conceive these clusters themselves, again, as\n_revolving_ about some still more august sphere;\u2014this latter, still\nagain, _with_ its encircling clusters, as but one of a yet more\nmagnificent series of agglomerations, _gyrating_ about yet another orb\ncentral _to them_\u2014some orb still more unspeakably sublime\u2014some orb, let\nus rather say, of infinite sublimity endlessly multiplied by the\ninfinitely sublime. Such are the conditions, continued in perpetuity,\nwhich the voice of what some people term \u201canalogy\u201d calls upon the Fancy\nto depict and the Reason to contemplate, if possible, without becoming\ndissatisfied with the picture. Such, _in general_, are the interminable\ngyrations beyond gyration which we have been instructed by Philosophy to\ncomprehend and to account for, at least in the best manner we can. Now\nand then, however, a philosopher proper\u2014one whose phrenzy takes a very\ndeterminate turn\u2014whose genius, to speak more reverentially, has a\nstrongly-pronounced washerwomanish bias, doing every thing up by the\ndozen\u2014enables us to see _precisely_ that point out of sight, at which\nthe revolutionary processes in question do, and of right ought to, come\nto an end.\n\nIt is hardly worth while, perhaps, even to sneer at the reveries of\nFourrier:\u2014but much has been said, latterly, of the hypothesis of\nM\u00e4dler\u2014that there exists, in the centre of the Galaxy, a stupendous\nglobe about which all the systems of the cluster revolve. The _period_\nof our own, indeed, has been stated\u2014117 millions of years.\n\nThat our Sun has a motion in space, independently of its rotation, and\nrevolution about the system\u2019s centre of gravity, has long been\nsuspected. This motion, granting it to exist, would be manifested\nperspectively. The stars in that firmamental region which we were\nleaving behind us, would, in a very long series of years, become\ncrowded; those in the opposite quarter, scattered. Now, by means of\nastronomical History, we ascertain, cloudily, that some such ph\u00e6nomena\nhave occurred. On this ground it has been declared that our system is\nmoving to a point in the heavens diametrically opposite the star Zeta\nHerculis:\u2014but this inference is, perhaps, the maximum to which we have\nany logical right. M\u00e4dler, however, has gone so far as to designate a\nparticular star, Alcyone in the Pleiades, as being at or about the very\nspot around which a general _revolution_ is performed.\n\nNow, since by \u201canalogy\u201d we are led, in the first instance, to these\ndreams, it is no more than proper that we should abide by analogy, at\nleast in some measure, during their development; and that analogy which\nsuggests the revolution, suggests at the same time a central orb about\nwhich it should be performed:\u2014so far the astronomer was consistent. This\ncentral orb, however, should, dynamically, be greater than all the orbs,\ntaken together, which surround it. Of these there are about 100\nmillions. \u201cWhy, then,\u201d it was of course demanded, \u201cdo we not _see_ this\nvast central sun\u2014_at least equal_ in mass to 100 millions of such suns\nas ours\u2014why do we not _see_ it\u2014_we_, especially, who occupy the mid\nregion of the cluster\u2014the very locality _near_ which, at all events,\nmust be situated this incomparable star?\u201d The reply was ready\u2014\u201cIt must\nbe non-luminous, as are our planets.\u201d Here, then, to suit a purpose,\nanalogy is suddenly let fall. \u201cNot so,\u201d it may be said\u2014\u201cwe know that\nnon-luminous suns actually exist.\u201d It is true that we have reason at\nleast for supposing so; but we have certainly no reason whatever for\nsupposing that the non-luminous suns in question are encircled by\n_luminous_ suns, while these again are surrounded by non-luminous\nplanets:\u2014and it is precisely all this with which M\u00e4dler is called upon\nto find any thing analogous in the heavens\u2014for it is precisely all this\nwhich he imagines in the case of the Galaxy. Admitting the thing to be\nso, we cannot help here picturing to ourselves how sad a puzzle the _why\nit is so_ must prove to all _\u00e0 priori_ philosophers.\n\nBut granting, in the very teeth of analogy and of every thing else, the\nnon-luminosity of the vast central orb, we may still inquire how this\norb, so enormous, could fail of being rendered visible by the flood of\nlight thrown upon it from the 100 millions of glorious suns glaring in\nall directions about it. Upon the urging of this question, the idea of\nan actually solid central sun appears, in some measure, to have been\nabandoned; and speculation proceeded to assert that the systems of the\ncluster perform their revolutions merely about an immaterial centre of\ngravity common to all. Here again then, to suit a purpose, analogy is\nlet fall. The planets of our system revolve, it is true, about a common\ncentre of gravity; but they do this in connexion with, and in\nconsequence of, a material sun whose mass more than counterbalances the\nrest of the system.\n\nThe mathematical circle is a curve composed of an infinity of straight\nlines. But this idea of the circle\u2014an idea which, in view of all\nordinary geometry, is merely the mathematical, as contradistinguished\nfrom the practical, idea\u2014is, in sober fact, the _practical_ conception\nwhich alone we have any right to entertain in regard to the majestic\ncircle with which we have to deal, at least in fancy, when we suppose\nour system revolving about a point in the centre of the Galaxy. Let the\nmost vigorous of human imaginations attempt but to take a single step\ntowards the comprehension of a sweep so ineffable! It would scarcely be\nparadoxical to say that a flash of lightning itself, travelling\n_forever_ upon the circumference of this unutterable circle, would\nstill, _forever_, be travelling in a straight line. That the path of our\nSun in such an orbit would, to any human perception, deviate in the\nslightest degree from a straight line, even in a million of years, is a\nproposition not to be entertained:\u2014yet we are required to believe that a\ncurvature has become apparent during the brief period of our\nastronomical history\u2014during a mere point\u2014during the utter nothingness of\ntwo or three thousand years.\n\nIt may be said that M\u00e4dler _has_ really ascertained a curvature in the\ndirection of our system\u2019s now well-established progress through Space.\nAdmitting, if necessary, this fact to be in reality such, I maintain\nthat nothing is thereby shown except the reality of this fact\u2014the fact\nof a curvature. For its _thorough_ determination, ages will be required;\nand, when determined, it will be found indicative of some binary or\nother multiple relation between our Sun and some one or more of the\nproximate stars. I hazard nothing however, in predicting, that, after\nthe lapse of many centuries, all efforts at determining the path of our\nSun through Space, will be abandoned as fruitless. This is easily\nconceivable when we look at the infinity of perturbation it must\nexperience, from its perpetually-shifting relations with other orbs, in\nthe common approach of all to the nucleus of the Galaxy.\n\nBut in examining other \u201cnebul\u00e6\u201d than that of the Milky Way\u2014in surveying,\ngenerally, the clusters which overspread the heavens\u2014do we or do we not\nfind confirmation of M\u00e4dler\u2019s hypothesis? We do _not_. The forms of the\nclusters are exceedingly diverse when casually viewed; but on close\ninspection, through powerful telescopes, we recognize the sphere, very\ndistinctly, as at least the proximate form of all:\u2014their constitution,\nin general, being at variance with the idea of revolution about a common\ncentre.\n\n\u201cIt is difficult,\u201d says Sir John Herschell, \u201cto form any conception of\nthe dynamical state of such systems. On one hand, without a rotary\nmotion and a centrifugal force, it is hardly possible not to regard them\nas in a state of _progressive collapse_. On the other, granting such a\nmotion and such a force, we find it no less difficult to reconcile their\nforms with the rotation of the whole system [meaning cluster] around any\nsingle axis, without which internal collision would appear to be\ninevitable.\u201d\n\nSome remarks lately made about the \u201cnebul\u00e6\u201d by Dr. Nichol, in taking\nquite a different view of the cosmical conditions from any taken in this\nDiscourse\u2014have a very peculiar applicability to the point now at issue.\nHe says:\n\n\u201cWhen our greatest telescopes are brought to bear upon them, we find\nthat those which were thought to be irregular, are not so; they approach\nnearer to a globe. Here is one that looked oval; but Lord Rosse\u2019s\ntelescope brought it into a circle.... Now there occurs a very\nremarkable circumstance in reference to these comparatively sweeping\ncircular masses of nebul\u00e6. We find they are not entirely circular, but\nthe reverse; and that all around them, on every side, there are volumes\nof stars, _stretching out apparently as if they were rushing towards a\ngreat central mass in consequence of the action of some great\npower_.\u201d[12]\n\n    [12] I must be understood as denying, _especially_, only the\n    _revolutionary_ portion of M\u00e4dler\u2019s hypothesis. Of course, if\n    no great central orb exists _now_ in our cluster, such will\n    exist hereafter. Whenever existing, it will be merely the\n    _nucleus_ of the consolidation.\n\nWere I to describe, in my own words, what must necessarily be the\nexisting condition of each nebula on the hypothesis that all matter is,\nas I suggest, now returning to its original Unity, I should simply be\ngoing over, nearly verbatim, the language here employed by Dr. Nichol,\nwithout the faintest suspicion of that stupendous truth which is the key\nto these nebular ph\u00e6nomena.\n\nAnd here let me fortify my position still farther, by the voice of a\ngreater than M\u00e4dler\u2014of one, moreover, to whom all the data of M\u00e4dler\nhave long been familiar things, carefully and thoroughly considered.\nReferring to the elaborate calculations of Argelander\u2014the very\nresearches which form M\u00e4dler\u2019s basis\u2014_Humboldt_, whose generalizing\npowers have never, perhaps been equalled, has the following observation:\n\n\u201cWhen we regard the real, proper, or non-perspective motions of the\nstars, we find _many groups of them moving in opposite directions_; and\nthe data as yet in hand render it not necessary, at least, to conceive\nthat the systems composing the Milky Way, or the clusters, generally,\ncomposing the Universe, are revolving about any particular centre\nunknown, whether luminous or non-luminous. It is but Man\u2019s longing for a\nfundamental First Cause, that impels both his intellect and his fancy\nto the adoption of such an hypothesis.\u201d[13]\n\n    [13] Betrachtet man die nicht perspectivischen eigenen\n    Bewegungen der Sterne, so scheinen viele gruppenweise in ihrer\n    Richtung entgegengesetzt; und die bisher gesammelten Thatsachen\n    machen es auf\u2019s wenigste nicht nothwendig, anzunehmen, dass\n    alle Theile unserer Sternenschicht oder gar der gesammten\n    Sterneninseln, welche den Weltraum f\u00fcllen, sich um einen\n    grossen, unbekannten, leuchtenden oder dunkeln Centralk\u00f6rper\n    bewegen. Das Streben nach den letzten und h\u00f6chsten\n    Grundursachen macht freilich die reflectirende Th\u00e4tigkeit des\n    Menschen, wie seine Phantasie, zu einer solchen Annahme\n    geneigt.\n\nThe ph\u00e6nomenon here alluded to\u2014that of \u201cmany groups moving in opposite\ndirections\u201d\u2014is quite inexplicable by M\u00e4dler\u2019s idea; but arises, as a\nnecessary consequence, from that which forms the basis of this\nDiscourse. While the _merely general direction_ of each atom\u2014of each\nmoon, planet, star, or cluster\u2014would, on my hypothesis, be, of course,\nabsolutely rectilinear; while the _general_ path of all bodies would be\na right line leading to the centre of all; it is clear, nevertheless,\nthat this general rectilinearity would be compounded of what, with\nscarcely any exaggeration, we may term an infinity of particular\ncurves\u2014an infinity of local deviations from rectilinearity\u2014the result of\ncontinuous differences of relative position among the multitudinous\nmasses, as each proceeded on its own proper journey to the End.\n\nI quoted, just now, from Sir John Herschell, the following words, used\nin reference to the clusters:\u2014\u201cOn one hand, without a rotary motion and\na centrifugal force, it is hardly possible not to regard them as in a\nstate of _progressive collapse_.\u201d The fact is, that, in surveying the\n\u201cnebul\u00e6\u201d with a telescope of high power, we shall find it quite\nimpossible, having once conceived this idea of \u201ccollapse,\u201d not to\ngather, at all points, corroboration of the idea. A nucleus is always\napparent, in the direction of which the stars seem to be precipitating\nthemselves; nor can these nuclei be mistaken for merely perspective\nph\u00e6nomena:\u2014the clusters are _really_ denser near the centre\u2014sparser in\nthe regions more remote from it. In a word, we see every thing as we\n_should_ see it were a collapse taking place; but, in general, it may be\nsaid of these clusters, that we can fairly entertain, while looking at\nthem, the idea of _orbitual movement about a centre_, only by admitting\nthe _possible_ existence, in the distant domains of space, of dynamical\nlaws with which _we_ are unacquainted.\n\nOn the part of Herschell, however, there is evidently _a reluctance_ to\nregard the nebul\u00e6 as in \u201ca state of progressive collapse.\u201d But if\nfacts\u2014if even appearances justify the supposition of their being in this\nstate, _why_, it may well be demanded, is he disinclined to admit it?\nSimply on account of a prejudice;\u2014merely because the supposition is at\nwar with a preconceived and utterly baseless notion\u2014that of the\nendlessness\u2014that of the eternal stability of the Universe.\n\nIf the propositions of this Discourse are tenable, the \u201cstate of\nprogressive collapse\u201d is _precisely_ that state in which alone we are\nwarranted in considering All Things; and, with due humility, let me here\nconfess that, for my part, I am at a loss to conceive how any _other_\nunderstanding of the existing condition of affairs, could ever have made\nits way into the human brain. \u201cThe tendency to collapse\u201d and \u201cthe\nattraction of gravitation\u201d are convertible phrases. In using either, we\nspeak of the r\u00ebaction of the First Act. Never was necessity less obvious\nthan that of supposing Matter imbued with an ineradicable _quality_\nforming part of its material nature\u2014a quality, or instinct, _forever_\ninseparable from it, and by dint of which inalienable principle every\natom is _perpetually_ impelled to seek its fellow-atom. Never was\nnecessity less obvious than that of entertaining this unphilosophical\nidea. Going boldly behind the vulgar thought, we have to conceive,\nmetaphysically, that the gravitating principle appertains to Matter\n_temporarily_\u2014only while diffused\u2014only while existing as Many instead of\nas One\u2014appertains to it by virtue of its state of irradiation\nalone\u2014appertains, in a word, altogether to its _condition_, and not in\nthe slightest degree to _itself_. In this view, when the irradiation\nshall have returned into its source\u2014when the r\u00ebaction shall be\ncompleted\u2014the gravitating principle will no longer exist. And, in fact,\nastronomers, without at any time reaching the idea here suggested, seem\nto have been approximating it, in the assertion that \u201cif there were but\none body in the Universe, it would be impossible to understand how the\nprinciple, Gravity, could obtain:\u201d\u2014that is to say, from a consideration\nof Matter as they find it, they reach a conclusion at which I\ndeductively arrive. That so pregnant a suggestion as the one just quoted\nshould have been permitted to remain so long unfruitful, is,\nnevertheless, a mystery which I find it difficult to fathom.\n\nIt is, perhaps, in no little degree, however, our propensity for the\ncontinuous\u2014for the analogical\u2014in the present case more particularly for\nthe symmetrical\u2014which has been leading us astray. And, in fact, the\nsense of the symmetrical is an instinct which may be depended upon with\nan almost blindfold reliance. It is the poetical essence of the\nUniverse\u2014_of the Universe_ which, in the supremeness of its symmetry, is\nbut the most sublime of poems. Now symmetry and consistency are\nconvertible terms:\u2014thus Poetry and Truth are one. A thing is consistent\nin the ratio of its truth\u2014true in the ratio of its consistency. _A\nperfect consistency, I repeat, can be nothing but an absolute truth._ We\nmay take it for granted, then, that Man cannot long or widely err, if he\nsuffer himself to be guided by his poetical, which I have maintained to\nbe his truthful, in being his symmetrical, instinct. He must have a\ncare, however, lest, in pursuing too heedlessly the superficial symmetry\nof forms and motions, he leave out of sight the really essential\nsymmetry of the principles which determine and control them.\n\nThat the stellar bodies would finally be merged in one\u2014that, at last,\nall would be drawn into the substance of _one stupendous central orb\nalready existing_\u2014is an idea which, for some time past, seems, vaguely\nand indeterminately, to have held possession of the fancy of mankind. It\nis an idea, in fact, which belongs to the class of the _excessively\nobvious_. It springs, instantly, from a superficial observation of the\ncyclic and seemingly _gyrating_, or _vorticial_ movements of those\nindividual portions of the Universe which come most immediately and most\nclosely under our observation. There is not, perhaps, a human being, of\nordinary education and of average reflective capacity, to whom, at some\nperiod, the fancy in question has not occurred, as if spontaneously, or\nintuitively, and wearing all the character of a very profound and very\noriginal conception. This conception, however, so commonly entertained,\nhas never, within my knowledge, arisen out of any abstract\nconsiderations. Being, on the contrary, always suggested, as I say, by\nthe vorticial movements about centres, a reason for it, also,\u2014a _cause_\nfor the ingathering of all the orbs into one, _imagined to be already\nexisting_, was naturally sought in the same direction\u2014among these cyclic\nmovements themselves.\n\nThus it happened that, on announcement of the gradual and perfectly\nregular decrease observed in the orbit of Enck\u2019s comet, at every\nsuccessive revolution about our Sun, astronomers were nearly unanimous\nin the opinion that the cause in question was found\u2014that a principle was\ndiscovered sufficient to account, physically, for that final, universal\nagglomeration which, I repeat, the analogical, symmetrical or poetical\ninstinct of Man had predetermined to understand as something more than a\nsimple hypothesis.\n\nThis cause\u2014this sufficient reason for the final ingathering\u2014was declared\nto exist in an exceedingly rare but still material medium pervading\nspace; which medium, by retarding, in some degree, the progress of the\ncomet, perpetually weakened its tangential force; thus giving a\npredominance to the centripetal; which, of course, drew the comet nearer\nand nearer at each revolution, and would eventually precipitate it upon\nthe Sun.\n\nAll this was strictly logical\u2014admitting the medium or ether; but this\nether was assumed, most illogically, on the ground that no _other_ mode\nthan the one spoken of could be discovered, of accounting for the\nobserved decrease in the orbit of the comet:\u2014as if from the fact that we\ncould _discover_ no other mode of accounting for it, it followed, in any\nrespect, that no other mode of accounting for it existed. It is clear\nthat innumerable causes might operate, in combination, to diminish the\norbit, without even a possibility of our ever becoming acquainted with\none of them. In the meantime, it has never been fairly shown, perhaps,\nwhy the retardation occasioned by the skirts of the Sun\u2019s atmosphere,\nthrough which the comet passes at perihelion, is not enough to account\nfor the ph\u00e6nomenon. That Enck\u2019s comet will be absorbed into the Sun, is\nprobable; that all the comets of the system will be absorbed, is more\nthan merely possible; but, in such case, the principle of absorption\nmust be referred to eccentricity of orbit\u2014to the close approximation to\nthe Sun, of the comets at their perihelia; and is a principle not\naffecting, in any degree, the ponderous _spheres_, which are to be\nregarded as the true material constituents of the Universe.\u2014Touching\ncomets, in general, let me here suggest, in passing, that we cannot be\nfar wrong in looking upon them as the _lightning-flashes of the cosmical\nHeaven_.\n\nThe idea of a retarding ether and, through it, of a final agglomeration\nof all things, seemed at one time, however, to be confirmed by the\nobservation of a positive decrease in the orbit of the solid moon. By\nreference to eclipses recorded 2500 years ago, it was found that the\nvelocity of the satellite\u2019s revolution _then_ was considerably less than\nit is _now_; that on the hypothesis that its motions in its orbit is\nuniformly in accordance with Kepler\u2019s law, and was accurately determined\n_then_\u20142500 years ago\u2014it is now in advance of the position it _should_\noccupy, by nearly 9000 miles. The increase of velocity proved, of\ncourse, a diminution of orbit; and astronomers were fast yielding to a\nbelief in an ether, as the sole mode of accounting for the ph\u00e6nomenon,\nwhen Lagrange came to the rescue. He showed that, owing to the\nconfigurations of the spheroids, the shorter axes of their ellipses are\nsubject to variation in length; the longer axes being permanent; and\nthat this variation is continuous and vibratory\u2014so that every orbit is\nin a state of transition, either from circle to ellipse, or from ellipse\nto circle. In the case of the moon, where the shorter axis is\n_de_creasing, the orbit is passing from circle to ellipse and,\nconsequently, is _de_creasing too; but, after a long series of ages, the\nultimate eccentricity will be attained; then the shorter axis will\nproceed to _in_crease, until the orbit becomes a circle; when the\nprocess of shortening will again take place;\u2014and so on forever. In the\ncase of the Earth, the orbit is passing from ellipse to circle. The\nfacts thus demonstrated do away, of course, with all necessity for\nsupposing an ether, and with all apprehension of the system\u2019s\ninstability\u2014on the ether\u2019s account.\n\nIt will be remembered that I have myself assumed what we may term _an\nether_. I have spoken of a subtle _influence_ which we know to be ever\nin attendance upon matter, although becoming manifest only through\nmatter\u2019s heterogeneity. To this _influence_\u2014without daring to touch it\nat all in any effort at explaining its awful _nature_\u2014I have referred\nthe various ph\u00e6nomena of electricity, heat, light, magnetism; and\nmore\u2014of vitality, consciousness, and thought\u2014in a word, of spirituality.\nIt will be seen, at once, then, that the ether thus conceived is\nradically distinct from the ether of the astronomers; inasmuch as theirs\nis _matter_ and mine _not_.\n\nWith the idea of a material ether, seems, thus, to have departed\naltogether the thought of that universal agglomeration so long\npredetermined by the poetical fancy of mankind:\u2014an agglomeration in\nwhich a sound Philosophy might have been warranted in putting faith, at\nleast to a certain extent, if for no other reason than that by this\npoetical fancy it _had_ been so predetermined. But so far as\nAstronomy\u2014so far as mere Physics have yet spoken, the cycles of the\nUniverse are perpetual\u2014the Universe has no conceivable end. Had an end\nbeen demonstrated, however, from so purely collateral a cause as an\nether, Man\u2019s instinct of the Divine _capacity to adapt_, would have\nrebelled against the demonstration. We should have been forced to regard\nthe Universe with some such sense of dissatisfaction as we experience in\ncontemplating an unnecessarily complex work of human art. Creation would\nhave affected us as an imperfect _plot_ in a romance, where the\n_d\u00e9no\u00fbment_ is awkwardly brought about by interposed incidents external\nand foreign to the main subject; instead of springing out of the bosom\nof the thesis\u2014out of the heart of the ruling idea\u2014instead of arising as\na result of the primary proposition\u2014as inseparable and inevitable part\nand parcel of the fundamental conception of the book.\n\nWhat I mean by the symmetry of mere surface will now be more clearly\nunderstood. It is simply by the blandishment of this symmetry that we\nhave been beguiled into the general idea of which M\u00e4dler\u2019s hypothesis is\nbut a part\u2014the idea of the vorticial indrawing of the orbs. Dismissing\nthis nakedly physical conception, the symmetry of principle sees the end\nof all things metaphysically involved in the thought of a beginning;\nseeks and finds in this origin of all things the _rudiment_ of this end;\nand perceives the impiety of supposing this end likely to be brought\nabout less simply\u2014less directly\u2014less obviously\u2014less artistically\u2014than\nthrough _the r\u00ebaction of the originating Act_.\n\nRecurring, then, to a previous suggestion, let us understand the\nsystems\u2014let us understand each star, with its attendant planets\u2014as but a\nTitanic atom existing in space with precisely the same inclination for\nUnity which characterized, in the beginning, the actual atoms after\ntheir irradiation throughout the Universal sphere. As these original\natoms rushed towards each other in generally straight lines, so let us\nconceive as at least generally rectilinear, the paths of the\nsystem-atoms towards their respective centres of aggregation:\u2014and in\nthis direct drawing together of the systems into clusters, with a\nsimilar and simultaneous drawing together of the clusters themselves\nwhile undergoing consolidation, we have at length attained the great\n_Now_\u2014the awful Present\u2014the Existing Condition of the Universe.\n\nOf the still more awful Future a not irrational analogy may guide us in\nframing an hypothesis. The equilibrium between the centripetal and\ncentrifugal forces of each system, being necessarily destroyed upon\nattainment of a certain proximity to the nucleus of the cluster to which\nit belongs, there must occur, at once, a chaotic or seemingly chaotic\nprecipitation, of the moons upon the planets, of the planets upon the\nsuns, and of the suns upon the nuclei; and the general result of this\nprecipitation must be the gathering of the myriad now-existing stars of\nthe firmament into an almost infinitely less number of almost infinitely\nsuperior spheres. In being immeasurably fewer, the worlds of that day\nwill be immeasurably greater than our own. Then, indeed, amid\nunfathomable abysses, will be glaring unimaginable suns. But all this\nwill be merely a climacic magnificence foreboding the great End. Of this\nEnd the new genesis described, can be but a very partial postponement.\nWhile undergoing consolidation, the clusters themselves, with a speed\nprodigiously accumulative, have been rushing towards their own general\ncentre\u2014and now, with a thousand-fold electric velocity, commensurate\nonly with their material grandeur and with the spiritual passion of\ntheir appetite for oneness, the majestic remnants of the tribe of Stars\nflash, at length, into a common embrace. The inevitable catastrophe is\nat hand.\n\nBut this catastrophe\u2014what is it? We have seen accomplished the\ningathering of the orbs. Henceforward, are we not to understand _one\nmaterial globe of globes_ as constituting and comprehending the\nUniverse? Such a fancy would be altogether at war with every assumption\nand consideration of this Discourse.\n\nI have already alluded to that absolute _reciprocity of adaptation_\nwhich is the idiosyncrasy of the divine Art\u2014stamping it divine. Up to\nthis point of our reflections, we have been regarding the electrical\ninfluence as a something by dint of whose repulsion alone Matter is\nenabled to exist in that state of diffusion demanded for the fulfilment\nof its purposes:\u2014so far, in a word, we have been considering the\ninfluence in question as ordained for Matter\u2019s sake\u2014to subserve the\nobjects of matter. With a perfectly legitimate reciprocity, we are now\npermitted to look at Matter, as created _solely for the sake of this\ninfluence_\u2014solely to serve the objects of this spiritual Ether. Through\nthe aid\u2014by the means\u2014through the agency of Matter, and by dint of its\nheterogeneity\u2014is this Ether manifested\u2014is _Spirit individualized_. It is\nmerely in the development of this Ether, through heterogeneity, that\nparticular masses of Matter become animate\u2014sensitive\u2014and in the ratio of\ntheir heterogeneity;\u2014some reaching a degree of sensitiveness involving\nwhat we call _Thought_ and thus attaining Conscious Intelligence.\n\nIn this view, we are enabled to perceive Matter as a Means\u2014not as an\nEnd. Its purposes are thus seen to have been comprehended in its\ndiffusion; and with the return into Unity these purposes cease. The\nabsolutely consolidated globe of globes would be _objectless_:\u2014therefore\nnot for a moment could it continue to exist. Matter, created for an end,\nwould unquestionably, on fulfilment of that end, be Matter no longer.\nLet us endeavor to understand that it would disappear, and that God\nwould remain all in all.\n\nThat every work of Divine conception must c\u00f6exist and c\u00f6expire with its\nparticular design, seems to me especially obvious; and I make no doubt\nthat, on perceiving the final globe of globes to be _objectless_, the\nmajority of my readers will be satisfied with my \u201c_therefore_ it cannot\ncontinue to exist.\u201d Nevertheless, as the startling thought of its\ninstantaneous disappearance is one which the most powerful intellect\ncannot be expected readily to entertain on grounds so decidedly\nabstract, let us endeavor to look at the idea from some other and more\nordinary point of view:\u2014let us see how thoroughly and beautifully it is\ncorroborated in an _\u00e0 posteriori_ consideration of Matter as we actually\nfind it.\n\nI have before said that \u201cAttraction and Repulsion being undeniably the\nsole properties by which Matter is manifested to Mind, we are justified\nin assuming that Matter _exists_ only as Attraction and Repulsion\u2014in\nother words that Attraction and Repulsion _are_ Matter; there being no\nconceivable case in which we may not employ the term Matter and the\nterms \u2018Attraction\u2019 and \u2018Repulsion\u2019 taken together, as equivalent, and\ntherefore convertible, expressions in Logic.\u201d[14]\n\n    [14] Page 37.\n\nNow the very definition of Attraction implies particularity\u2014the\nexistence of parts, particles, or atoms; for we define it as the\ntendency of \u201ceach atom &c. to every other atom\u201d &c. according to a\ncertain law. Of course where there are _no_ parts\u2014where there is\nabsolute Unity\u2014where the tendency to oneness is satisfied\u2014there can be\nno Attraction:\u2014this has been fully shown, and all Philosophy admits it.\nWhen, on fulfilment of its purposes, then, Matter shall have returned\ninto its original condition of _One_\u2014a condition which presupposes the\nexpulsion of the separative ether, whose province and whose capacity are\nlimited to keeping the atoms apart until that great day when, this ether\nbeing no longer needed, the overwhelming pressure of the finally\ncollective Attraction shall at length just sufficiently predominate[15]\nand expel it:\u2014when, I say, Matter, finally, expelling the Ether, shall\nhave returned into absolute Unity,\u2014it will then (to speak paradoxically\nfor the moment) be Matter without Attraction and without Repulsion\u2014in\nother words, Matter without Matter\u2014in other words, again, _Matter no\nmore_. In sinking into Unity, it will sink at once into that Nothingness\nwhich, to all Finite Perception, Unity must be\u2014into that Material\nNihility from which alone we can conceive it to have been evoked\u2014to have\nbeen _created_ by the Volition of God.\n\n    [15] \u201cGravity, therefore, must be the strongest of forces.\u201d\u2014See\n    page 39.\n\nI repeat then\u2014Let us endeavor to comprehend that the final globe of\nglobes will instantaneously disappear, and that God will remain all in\nall.\n\nBut are we here to pause? Not so. On the Universal agglomeration and\ndissolution, we can readily conceive that a new and perhaps totally\ndifferent series of conditions may ensue\u2014another creation and\nirradiation, returning into itself\u2014another action and r\u00ebaction of the\nDivine Will. Guiding our imaginations by that omniprevalent law of laws,\nthe law of periodicity, are we not, indeed, more than justified in\nentertaining a belief\u2014let us say, rather, in indulging a hope\u2014that the\nprocesses we have here ventured to contemplate will be renewed forever,\nand forever, and forever; a novel Universe swelling into existence, and\nthen subsiding into nothingness, at every throb of the Heart Divine?\n\nAnd now\u2014this Heart Divine\u2014what is it? _It is our own._\n\nLet not the merely seeming irreverence of this idea frighten our souls\nfrom that cool exercise of consciousness\u2014from that deep tranquillity of\nself-inspection\u2014through which alone we can hope to attain the presence\nof this, the most sublime of truths, and look it leisurely in the face.\n\nThe _ph\u00e6nomena_ on which our conclusions must at this point depend, are\nmerely spiritual shadows, but not the less thoroughly substantial.\n\nWe walk about, amid the destinies of our world-existence, encompassed by\ndim but ever present _Memories_ of a Destiny more vast\u2014very distant in\nthe by-gone time, and infinitely awful.\n\nWe live out a Youth peculiarly haunted by such dreams; yet never\nmistaking them for dreams. As Memories we _know_ them. _During our\nYouth_ the distinction is too clear to deceive us even for a moment.\n\nSo long as this Youth endures, the feeling _that we exist_, is the most\nnatural of all feelings. We understand it _thoroughly_. That there was a\nperiod at which we did _not_ exist\u2014or, that it might so have happened\nthat we never had existed at all\u2014are the considerations, indeed, which\n_during this youth_, we find difficulty in understanding. Why we should\n_not_ exist, is, _up to the epoch of our Manhood_, of all queries the most\nunanswerable. Existence\u2014self-existence\u2014existence from all Time and to\nall Eternity\u2014seems, up to the epoch of Manhood, a normal and\nunquestionable condition:\u2014_seems, because it is_.\n\nBut now comes the period at which a conventional World-Reason awakens us\nfrom the truth of our dream. Doubt, Surprise and Incomprehensibility\narrive at the same moment. They say:\u2014\u201cYou live and the time was when you\nlived not. You have been created. An Intelligence exists greater than\nyour own; and it is only through this Intelligence you live at all.\u201d\nThese things we struggle to comprehend and cannot:\u2014_cannot_, because\nthese things, being untrue, are thus, of necessity, incomprehensible.\n\nNo thinking being lives who, at some luminous point of his life of\nthought, has not felt himself lost amid the surges of futile efforts at\nunderstanding, or believing, that anything exists _greater than his own\nsoul_. The utter impossibility of any one\u2019s soul feeling itself inferior\nto another; the intense, overwhelming dissatisfaction and rebellion at\nthe thought;\u2014these, with the omniprevalent aspirations at perfection,\nare but the spiritual, coincident with the material, struggles towards\nthe original Unity\u2014are, to my mind at least, a species of proof far\nsurpassing what Man terms demonstration, that no one soul _is_ inferior\nto another\u2014that nothing is, or can be, superior to any one soul\u2014that\neach soul is, in part, its own God\u2014its own Creator:\u2014in a word, that\nGod\u2014the material _and_ spiritual God\u2014_now_ exists solely in the diffused\nMatter and Spirit of the Universe; and that the regathering of this\ndiffused Matter and Spirit will be but the re-constitution of the\n_purely_ Spiritual and Individual God.\n\nIn this view, and in this view alone, we comprehend the riddles of\nDivine Injustice\u2014of Inexorable Fate. In this view alone the existence of\nEvil becomes intelligible; but in this view it becomes more\u2014it becomes\nendurable. Our souls no longer rebel at a _Sorrow_ which we ourselves\nhave imposed upon ourselves, in furtherance of our own purposes\u2014with a\nview\u2014if even with a futile view\u2014to the extension of our own _Joy_.\n\nI have spoken of _Memories_ that haunt us during our youth. They\nsometimes pursue us even in our Manhood:\u2014assume gradually less and less\nindefinite shapes:\u2014now and then speak to us with low voices, saying:\n\n\u201cThere was an epoch in the Night of Time, when a still-existent Being\nexisted\u2014one of an absolutely infinite number of similar Beings that\npeople the absolutely infinite domains of the absolutely infinite\nspace.[16] It was not and is not in the power of this Being\u2014any more\nthan it is in your own\u2014to extend, by actual increase, the joy of his\nExistence; but just as it _is_ in your power to expand or to concentrate\nyour pleasures (the absolute amount of happiness remaining always the\nsame) so did and does a similar capability appertain to this Divine\nBeing, who thus passes his Eternity in perpetual variation of\nConcentrated Self and almost Infinite Self-Diffusion. What you call The\nUniverse is but his present expansive existence. He now feels his life\nthrough an infinity of imperfect pleasures\u2014the partial and\npain-intertangled pleasures of those inconceivably numerous things which\nyou designate as his creatures, but which are really but infinite\nindividualizations of Himself. All these creatures\u2014_all_\u2014those which you\nterm animate, as well as those to whom you deny life for no better\nreason than that you do not behold it in operation\u2014_all_ these creatures\nhave, in a greater or less degree, a capacity for pleasure and for\npain:\u2014_but the general sum of their sensations is precisely that amount\nof Happiness which appertains by right to the Divine Being when\nconcentrated within Himself_. These creatures are all, too, more or less\nconscious Intelligences; conscious, first, of a proper identity;\nconscious, secondly and by faint indeterminate glimpses, of an identity\nwith the Divine Being of whom we speak\u2014of an identity with God. Of the\ntwo classes of consciousness, fancy that the former will grow weaker,\nthe latter stronger, during the long succession of ages which must\nelapse before these myriads of individual Intelligences become\nblended\u2014when the bright stars become blended\u2014into One. Think that the\nsense of individual identity will be gradually merged in the general\nconsciousness\u2014that Man, for example, ceasing imperceptibly to feel\nhimself Man, will at length attain that awfully triumphant epoch when he\nshall recognize his existence as that of Jehovah. In the meantime bear\nin mind that all is Life\u2014Life\u2014Life within Life\u2014the less within the\ngreater, and all within the _Spirit Divine_.\u201d\n\n    [16] See pages 102-103\u2014Paragraph commencing \u201cI reply that the\n    right,\u201d and ending \u201cproper and particular God.\u201d\n\nTHE END.\n\n\n\n\n155 Broadway, NEW YORK. 142 Strand, LONDON.\n\nOf late firm of WILEY & PUTNAM.\n\n\nNew Works in Press,\n\nOr recently published, by\n\nGEORGE P. PUTNAM,\n\n155 Broadway, New York.\n\n\nG. P. PUTNAM has the pleasure of announcing that, agreeably to his\ncontract with the distinguished author, he has now in the course of\npublication\n\n_A new, uniform, and complete edition_\n\nOF THE\n\nWorks of Washington Irving,\n\nRevised and enlarged by the Author,\n\n_In Twelve Elegant Duodecimo Volumes_,\n\nBeautifully printed with new type, and on superior paper, made expressly\nfor the purpose.\n\n\nThe first volume of the Series will be\n\nThe Sketch-Book,\n\ncomplete in one volume,\n\nwhich will be ready on the first day of September.\n\n\nKnickerbocker\u2019s History of New York,\n\nwith revisions and copious additions,\n\nwill be published on the 1st of October.\n\n\nThe Life and Voyages of Columbus,\n\nVol. I. on the 1st of November,\n\nand the succeeding volumes will be issued on the first day of each month\nuntil completed;\u2014as follows:\n\n  _The Sketch-Book, in one volume.\n  Knickerbocker\u2019s New York, in one volume.\n  Tales of a Traveller, in one volume.\n  Bracebridge Hall, in one volume.\n  The Conquest of Grenada, in one volume.\n  The Alhambra, in one volume.\n  The Spanish Legends, in one vol.\n  The Crayon Miscellany, in one vol.\u2014Abbotsford, Newstead,\n    The Prairies, &c.\n  Life and Voyages of Columbus, and The Companions of Columbus, 2 vols.\n  Adventures of Captain Bonneville, one vol.\n  Astoria, one volume._\n\n\nThe Illustrated Sketch-Book.\n\nIn October will be published,\n\nThe Sketch-Book.\n\nBY WASHINGTON IRVING.\n\nOne volume, square octavo.\n\nIllustrated with a series of highly-finished Engravings on wood, from\nDesigns by Darley and others, engraved in the best style by Childs,\nHerrick, &c. This edition will be printed on paper of the finest\nquality, similar in size and style to the new edition of \u201cHalleck\u2019s\nPoems.\u201d It is intended that the illustrations shall be superior to any\nengravings on wood yet produced in this country, and that the mechanical\nexecution of the volume, altogether, shall be worthy of the author\u2019s\nreputation. It will form an elegant and appropriate gift-book for all\nseasons.\n\n\nThe Illustrated Knickerbocker,\n\nWith a series of Original Designs, in one vol., octavo, is also in\npreparation.\n\n\nMr. Putnam has also the honor to announce that he will publish at\nintervals (in connexion, and uniform with the other collected writings),\n\n_Mr. Irving\u2019s New Works_,\n\nnow nearly ready for the press: including\n\nThe Life of Mohammed; The Life of Washington; new volumes of\nMiscellanies, Biographies, &c.\n\n    \u2042 This being the first uniform and complete edition of Mr.\n    Irving\u2019s works, either in this country or in Europe, the\n    publisher confidently believes that the undertaking will meet\n    with a prompt and cordial response. To say this, is perhaps\n    superfluous and impertinent; for it is a truism that no\n    _American_ book-case (not to say _library_) can be well filled\n    without the works of Washington Irving; while the English\n    language itself comprises no purer models of composition.\n\n\nG. P. Putnam has also made arrangements for the early commencement of\nnew works or new editions of the works of\n\n  _Miss C. M. Sedgwick,\n  Prof. A. Gray,\n  Leigh Hunt,\n  Chas. Fenno Hoffman,\n  Mrs. E. Oakes Smith,\n  Thomas Carlyle,\n  George H. Calvert,\n  Mrs. C. M. Kirkland,\n  R. Monckton Milnes,\n  J. Bayard Taylor,\n  Mary Howitt,\n  Mrs. Jameson,\n  S. Wells Williams,\n  W. M. Thackeray,\n  Charles Lamb,\n  A. J. Downing,\n  Thos. Hood,\n  Elliot Warburton_.\n\n\nThe following new works are now ready, or will be published this season:\n\nI.\n\nSophisms of the Protective Policy.\n\nTranslated from the French of F. Bastiat. With an introduction by\nFrancis Lieber, LL.D. Professor in South Carolina College, Editor of the\nEncyclopedia Americana, &c. 12mo. 75 cents.\n\n    \u201cIt is a book not for the million but for millions, and we\n    believe if a copy could be put into the hands of every\n    school-boy in the Union, the next generation would be\n    inconceivably wiser, richer, and happier than the\n    present.\u201d\u2014_Mirror._\n\nII.\n\nGrecian and Roman Mythology:\n\nWith original illustrations. Adapted for the use of Universities and\nHigh Schools, and for popular reading. By M. A. Dwight. With an\nintroduction by Tayler Lewis, Professor of Greek, University of New\nYork. 12mo. (On 1st September.)\n\nAlso a fine edition in octavo, with illustrations.\n\n    \u2042 This work has been prepared with great care, illustrated with\n    20 effective outline drawings, and is designed to treat the\n    subject in an original, comprehensive, and unexceptionable\n    manner, so as to fill the place as a text book which is yet\n    unsupplied; while it will also be an attractive and readable\n    table book for general use. It will be at once introduced as a\n    text book in the University of New York and other colleges and\n    schools.\n\nIII.\n\nEureka: a Prose Poem.\n\nOr the Physical and Metaphysical Universe.\n\nBy Edgar A. Poe, Esq. Handsomely printed, 12mo. Cloth, 75 cents.\n\n    \u201cA most extraordinary Essay. We shall be greatly surprised if\n    this work does not create a most profound sensation among the\n    literary and scientific classes.\u201d\u2014_New York Express._\n\nIV.\n\nOriental Life Illustrated.\n\nBeing a new edition of E\u00f6then, or Traces of Travel in the East. With\nfine illustrations on Steel. 12mo. elegantly bound, $1 50.\n\n    \u2042 This new and unique volume, superbly illuminated by Mapleson,\n    and comprising original articles by distinguished writers, will\n    be the most elegant and recherch\u00e9 book of the kind ever\n    produced in this country. It will be ready in October.\n\nA new and superior edition of the PEARLS OF AMERICAN POETRY will also be\npublished this season.\n\nV.\n\nThe Book of Dainty Devices.\n\nIn an elegant small folio volume.\n\nLays of the Western World.\n\nVI.\n\nDr. Klipstein\u2019s Anglo-Saxon Course of Study.\n\nIn uniform 12mo. volumes.\n\nI.\n\nA Grammar of the Anglo-Saxon Language. By Louis F. Klipstein, AA.LL.M.\nand PH.D., of the University of Giessen.\n\n    \u2042 This work recommends itself particularly to the attention of\n    every American student who \u201cglories in his Anglo-Saxon descent\u201d\n    or Teutonic lineage, as well as of all who desire an\n    acquaintance with a language which lies as the foundation of\n    the English, and throws a light upon its elements and\n    structure, derivable from no other source. Of the importance\n    and interesting nature of the study there can be no doubt, and\n    we agree with those who think that the time is coming when it\n    will be considered \u201cutterly disgraceful for any well-bred\n    Englishman or American\u201d to have neglected it. With regard to\n    the merits of Dr. Klipstein\u2019s Grammar, we will only say, that\n    it has been already adopted as a text-book in some of the\n    leading Institutions of our country.\n\n[The following are also in press.]\n\nII.\n\nAnalecta Anglo-Saxonica, with an Introductory Ethnographical Essay,\nCopious Notes, Critical and Explanatory, and a Glossary in which are\nshown the Indo-Germanic and other Affinities of the Language. _By the\nsame._\n\nIn this work appear the fruits of considerable research, and, we may\nadd, learning. The Ethnology of Europe is succinctly, but clearly\nillustrated, the Anglo-Saxon language completely analysed, revealing the\nutmost harmony of combination from its elements, its forms and roots\ncompared with those in kindred dialects and cognate tongues, its\nposition in the Teutonic family and Indo-Germanic range established, and\nthe genuine relation of the English to its great parent properly set\nforth. To those who are fond of the comparative study of language, the\nGlossary will prove an invaluable aid, apart from its particular object.\n\nIII.\n\nNatale Sancti Gregorii Pap\u00e6.\u2014\u00c6lfric\u2019s Homily on the Birth-day of St.\nGregory, and Collateral Extracts from King Alfred\u2019s version of Bede\u2019s\nEcclesiastical History and the Saxon Chronicle, with a full rendering\ninto English, Notes Critical and Explanatory, and an Index of Words. _By\nthe same._\n\nIV.\n\nExtracts from the Anglo-Saxon-Gospels, a Portion of the Anglo-Saxon\nParaphrase of the Book of Psalms, and other Selections of a Sacred Order\nin the same Language, with a Translation into English, and Notes\nCritical and Explanatory. _By the same._\n\nThese two works are prepared in such a way as in themselves, with the\naid of the Grammar, to afford every facility to the Anglo-Saxon Student.\n\u00c6lfric\u2019s Homily is remarkable for beauty of composition, and interesting\nas setting forth Augustine\u2019s Mission to the \u201cLand of the Angles.\u201d\n\nV.\n\nTha Halgan Godspel on Englisc\u2014the Anglo-Saxon Version of the Holy\nGospels. Edited by Benjamin Thorpe, F.S.A. _Reprinted by the same. Now\nready._\n\nThis, the earliest \u201cEnglish\u201d version of the Four Gospels, will be found\ninteresting to the antiquarian and theologian, as well as serviceable to\nthe student in his investigations of the language. The Text, besides the\nusual but unbroken division, appears, with the Rubrics, as read in the\nearly Anglican Church.\n\n\n_Nearly Ready._\n\nDr. Bosworth\u2019s Compendious Anglo-Saxon Dictionary. Small 8vo.\n\nVII.\n\nStudy of Modern Languages.\n\nPart First; French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, German, and English.\n\nBy L. F. Klipstein, AA.LL.M. and Ph.D. One Vol. Imperial 8vo. 75 cents\npaper; $1 00 cloth.\n\nThis work, which is intended equally for the simultaneous and the\nseparate study of the languages that it sets forth, and which is adapted\nas well for the native of Germany, France, Italy, Spain, or Portugal, as\nfor him to whom English is vernacular, in the acquirement of any one of\nthe other tongues besides his own, will be found an acceptable manual\nnot only to the tyro, but to the more advanced scholar. The reading\nportion of the matter is interesting, and the text in every case\nremarkably correct, while the Elementary Phrases, forms of Cards,\nLetters, Bills of Exchange, Promissory Notes, Receipts, &c., in the six\nlanguages, constitute what has long been a desideratum from the American\npress. For the comparative study of the _Romanic_ tongues the work\naffords unusual facilities.\n\nVIII.\n\nPedestrian Tour in Europe.\n\nViews a-Foot; or Europe seen with Knapsack and Staff.\n\nBy J. Bayard Taylor.\n\nA new edition with an additional chapter, and a sketch of the author in\npedestrian costume, from a drawing by T. Buchanan Read. 12mo. Cloth.\n\nIX.\n\nA New Edition of\n\nClarke\u2019s Shakspeare Concordance.\n\nA Complete Concordance to Shakspeare: being a Verbal Index to ALL the\nPASSAGES in the Dramatic Works of the Poet. By Mrs. Cowden Clarke.\n\n\u201cOrder gave each thing view.\u201d\n\nOne large Vol. comprising 2560 closely printed columns,\u2014(indicating\n_every word and passage_ in Shakspeare\u2019s Works). Price $6. Cloth.\n\n    \u201cThe result of sixteen years of untiring labor. The different\n    editions of Shakspeare have been carefully collated by the\n    compiler, and every possible means taken to insure the\n    correctness of the work. As it now stands, a person can find a\n    particular passage in Shakspeare by simply remembering one word\n    of it, and is also referred to the act and scene of the play in\n    which it occurs. As a mere dictionary of Shakspearian language\n    and phrases, it is of great value; but it is also a dictionary\n    of his thoughts and imaginations. It altogether supersedes the\n    volumes of Twiss and Ayscough, and should be on every student\u2019s\n    shelves\u201d\u2014_Boston Courier._\n\n    \u2042 This extraordinary work is printed in London and the price\n    there _at present_ is \u00a32. 5s. 0d. or about $12. A large part of\n    the edition having been purchased for this market, it is\n    furnished here for the very low price of $6, bound in cloth.\n\n_Also\u2014By same Author._\n\nThe Book of Shakspeare Proverbs.\n\n18mo. 75 cts.\n\n\n_Dr. Lieber\u2019s Poetical Address to the American Republic._\n\n16mo. 25 cents.\n\nThe West:\n\nA Metrical Epistle.\n\nBY FRANCIS LIEBER.\n\n    \u2042 Dr. Lieber, the distinguished Professor of Political Economy\n    in South Carolina College, Author of \u201cPolitical Ethics,\u201d &c.,\n    has just sailed for his native country\u2014Germany\u2014with the view of\n    aiding in the great cause of Constitutional and Rational\n    Freedom. This little volume proves that he has well studied\n    that subject during his long residence in this his adopted\n    country\u2014and his able and valuable opinions on American Society\n    and Progress, carry with them a peculiar interest at this time.\n\n\nRECENT PUBLICATIONS.\n\nAlexander.\u2014Commentary on the Earlier Prophecies of Isaiah. By Prof. J.\nA. Alexander. Royal 8vo. cloth, $3.\n\nAlexander.\u2014Commentary on the Later Prophecies of Isaiah. By Prof. J. A.\nAlexander. Royal 8vo. cloth, $2 50.\n\nAncient Moral Tales, from the Gesta Romanorum, &c. 1 vol. 12mo. green\ncloth.\n\n    \u201cA quiet humor, a quaintness and terseness of style, will\n    strongly recommend them.\u201d\u2014_English Churchman._\n\nArchitecture.\u2014Hints on Public Architecture; issued under the Direction\nof the \u201cSmithsonian Institution.\u201d Imperial 4to. with Illustrations. (In\npreparation.)\n\n    This work will contain numerous and valuable illustrations,\n    including two perspective views of the buildings of the\n    Smithsonian Institution. The Appendix will contain the results\n    of a research under the auspices of the Institution to test the\n    properties of the most important building materials throughout\n    the United States.\n\nBastiat.\u2014Sophisms of the Protective Policy. Translated from the French\nof F. Bastiat. With an Introduction, by Francis Lieber, LL.D., Professor\nin South Carolina College, Editor of the Encyclop\u00e6dia Americana, &c.,\n&c. 12mo. 75 cts.\n\nBibliotheca Sacra and Theological Review. Conducted by B. B. Edwards and\nE. A. Park, Professors at Andover, with the Special Aid of Dr. Robinson\nand Professor Stuart. Published quarterly in February, May, August, and\nNovember $4 per annum. Vols. 1, 2, 3, and 4, 8vo. cloth, each $4.\n\n    \u201cThis is, perhaps, the most ambitious journal in the United\n    States. We use the word in a good sense, as meaning that there\n    is no journal among us which seems more laudably desirous to\n    take the lead in literary and theological science. Its handsome\n    type and paper give it a pleasing exterior; its typographical\n    errors, though sufficiently numerous, are so comparatively few,\n    as to show that it has the advantage of the best American\n    proof-reading; while for thoroughness of execution in the\n    departments of history and criticism, it aims to be\n    pre-eminent.\u201d\u2014_N. Y. Churchman._\n\nBurton.\u2014The Anatomy of Melancholy. By Burton. New and beautiful edition,\nwith Engravings. 1 vol. royal 8vo. cloth, $2 50.\n\n    \u2042 This is one of those sterling old works which were written\n    for \u201call time,\u201d full of learning, humor, and quaint conceits.\n    No library can be complete without it.\n\nCalvert.\u2014Scenes and Thoughts in Europe. By an American. 1 vol. 12mo.\ngreen cloth, 50 cents.\n\n    \u201cHis descriptions of scenery, his remarks on art, his accounts\n    of the different people among whom he sojourned, are all\n    good.\u201d\u2014_Cincinnati Gazette._\n\nCarlyle.\u2014The French Revolution: a History. By Thomas Carlyle. 2 vols.\n12mo. green cloth, $2.\n\n    \u201cHis French Revolution is considered one of the most remarkable\n    works of the age\u2014as at once the poetry and philosophy of\n    history.\u201d\u2014_Hunt\u2019s Merchants\u2019 Mag._\n\nCarlyle.\u2014Letters and Speeches of Oliver Cromwell. By Thos. Carlyle. 2\nvols. 12mo. green cloth, $2 50.\n\n    \u201cA work more valuable as a guide to the study of the singular\n    and complex character of our pious revolutionist, our religious\n    demagogue, our preaching and praying warrior, has not been\n    produced.\u201d\u2014_Blackwood\u2019s Magazine._\n\nCarlyle.\u2014Past and Present: Chartism. By Thomas Carlyle. 1 vol. 12mo.\ngreen cloth, $1\n\n    \u201cTo say that the book is replete with instruction, thought, and\n    quaint fancy, is unnecessary: but we may mention it as one,\n    _par excellence_, which should be read at the present\n    juncture.\u201d-_Tribune._\n\nChaucer and Spenser.\u2014Selections from the Poetical Works of Geoffrey\nChaucer. By Charles D. Deshler. Spenser, and the Faery Queen. By Mrs. C.\nM. Kirkland. 1 vol. 12mo. $1 13.\n\n\u2014\u2014 The same, extra gilt, $1 50.\n\n    \u201cA portion of their writings are presented in a beautiful and\n    convenient form, and with the requisite notes and\n    modifications.\u201d\u2014_Home Journal._\n\nCoe.\u2014Studies in Drawing, in a Progressive Series of Lessons on Cards;\nbeginning with the most Elementary Studies, and Adapted for Use at Home\nand Schools. By Benjamin H. Coe, Teacher of Drawing. In Ten\nSeries\u2014marked 1 and 10\u2014each containing about eighteen Studies. 25 cents\neach.\n\n    The design is:\n\n    I.\u2014To make the exercises in drawing highly interesting to the\n    pupil.\n\n    II.\u2014To make drawings so simple, and so gradually progressive,\n    as to enable any teacher, whether acquainted with drawing or\n    not, to instruct his pupils to advantage.\n\n    III.\u2014To take the place of one-half of the writing lessons, with\n    confidence that the learner will acquire a knowledge of writing\n    in less than time is usually required.\n\n    IV.\u2014To give the pupils a bold, rapid, and artist-like style of\n    drawing.\n\nColeridge.\u2014Biographia Literaria; or, Biographical Sketches of my\nLiterary Life and Opinions. By Samuel Taylor Coleridge. From the 2d\nLondon edition, Edited by H. N. Coleridge. 2 vols. 12mo. green cloth,\n$2.\n\nCortez.\u2014Letters and Despatches of Hernando Cortez. Translated by Hon.\nGeorge Folsom. 1 vol. 8vo. $1 25.\n\nDana.\u2014A System of Mineralogy, comprising the most Recent Discoveries. By\nJames D. Dana. Woodcuts and copperplates, 8vo. cloth, $3 50.\n\nDowning.\u2014Cottage Residences; or, a Series of Designs for Rural Cottages\nand Cottage Villas, and their Gardens and Grounds; adapted to North\nAmerica. By A. J. Downing. Numerous plates, 3d edition, 8vo. cloth, $2.\n\nDowning.\u2014A Treatise on the Theory and Practice of Landscape Gardening\nadapted to North America; with Remarks on Rural Architecture. By A. J.\nDowning. Plates, 2d edition, thick 8vo. cloth, $3 50.\n\nDowning.\u2014The Fruits and Fruit Trees of America; or, the Culture,\nPropagation, and Management, in the Garden and Orchard, of Fruit Trees\ngenerally. By A. J. Downing. Plates, 9th edition, revised, 12mo. cloth,\n$1 50.\n\n\u2014\u2014 The same, 8vo. cloth, $2 50.\n\n\u2014\u2014 The same, with 80 superb Illustrations, drawn and beautifully colored\nby Paris Artists, royal 8vo. half morocco, top edge gilt. New edition\nshortly.\n\nDwight.\u2014Grecian and Roman Mythology; with original Illustrations.\nAdapted for the Use of Universities and High Schools, and for Popular\nReading. By M. A. Dwight. With an Introduction by Tayler Lewis,\nProfessor of Greek, University of New York. 12mo. [In September.\n\n\u2014\u2014 Also a fine edition in octavo, with Illustrations.\n\n    \u2042 This work has been prepared with great care, illustrated with\n    twenty effective outline drawings, and is designed to treat the\n    subject in an original, comprehensive, and unexceptionable\n    manner, so as to fill the place as a text-book which is yet\n    unsupplied; while it will also be an attractive and readable\n    table-book for general use. It will be at once introduced as a\n    text-book in the University of New York, and other colleges and\n    schools.\n\nFord.\u2014The Spaniards and their Country. By Richard Ford. 1 vol. 12mo.\ngreen cloth, 87 cents.\n\n    \u201cThe best description of national character and manners of\n    Spain that has ever appeared.\u201d\u2014_Quarterly Review._\n\n    \u201cThe volumes appear to treat of almost everything save the\n    graver questions of religion and politics, which may possibly\n    be taken up hereafter. In one respect it has the advantage over\n    more directly historical works\u2014it portrays the Spanish\n    character, as well as country, with fidelity.\u201d\u2014_Commercial\n    Advertiser._\n\nFouqu\u00e9.\u2014Undine, a Tale; and Sintram and his Companions, a Tale. From the\nGerman of La Motte Fouqu\u00e9. 1 vol. 12mo. green cloth. 50 cts.\n\n    \u201cThe style and execution of this delightful romance are very\n    graceful.\u201d\u2014_Hawkins\u2019s Germany._\n\n    \u201cFouqu\u00e9\u2019s romances I always recommend\u2014especially the wild,\n    graceful, and touching Undine.\u201d\u2014_Sarah Austin._\n\nFrench.\u2014Historical Collections of Louisiana. By B. F. French. 8vo.\ncloth, $1 50.\n\nGoldsmith.\u2014The Vicar of Wakefield. By Oliver Goldsmith. 1 vol. 12mo.\nneatly printed, cloth, 50 cents.\n\n\u2014\u2014 The same, with Illustrated Designs by Mulready, elegantly bound, gilt\nedges, $1.\n\nGray.\u2014Botanical Text-Book. By Prof. Asa Gray. Many hundred cuts, 2d\nedition, large 12mo. cloth, $1 75.\n\nGreen.\u2014A Treatise on Diseases of the Air Passages; comprising an Inquiry\ninto the History, Pathology, Causes, and Treatment of those Affections\nof the Throat called Bronchitis, &c. By Horace Green, M.D. Colored\nplates, 8vo. cloth. $2 50.\n\n    \u201cA new and eminently successful treatment of lung complaints.\u201d\n\nHackley.\u2014Elements of Trigonometry, Plane and Spherical. By Rev. C. W.\nHackley, Professor of Mathematics, Columbia College, New York. 8vo.\ncloth, $1 25.\n\nHamilton Papers.\u2014The Official Papers of the late Major-General Alexander\nHamilton. Compiled from the Originals in the Possession of Mrs.\nHamilton. 1 vol. 8vo. cloth, $2 50.\n\nHahn\u2019s Hebrew Bible.\u2014New and complete stereotype edition, being a\nfac-simile of the Leipsic edition. In 1 vol. 8vo. In press.\n\nHazlitt\u2019s (William) Miscellaneous Works. 4 vols. 12mo. cloth, $5.\n\nHazlitt\u2019s Life of Napoleon. 3 vols. 12mo. cloth.\n\n\u2014\u2014 Spirit of the Age. 12mo., 50 cents.\n\n\u2014\u2014 Table Talk, both series, in 2 vols. cloth, $2 25.\n\n\u2014\u2014 Characters of Shakspeare, 12mo. 50 cts.\n\n\u2014\u2014 Literature of the Age of Queen Elizabeth, 12mo. 50 cts.\n\n\u2014\u2014 English Comic Writers, 50 cts.\n\n\u2014\u2014 Lectures on English Poets, 50 cts.\n\nHead.\u2014Bubbles from the Brunnen. By Sir Francis Head. 12mo. green cloth.\n\n    \u201cAt once an instructive and amusing book. It contains a great\n    deal of information.\u201d\u2014_London Times._\n\nHervey.\u2014The Book of Christmas; descriptive of the Customs, Ceremonies,\nTraditions, Superstitions, Fun, Feeling, and Festivities of the\nChristmas Season. By Thomas K. Hervey. 12mo. green cloth, 63 cents.\n\n\u2014\u2014 The same, gilt extra. $1.\n\n    \u201cEvery leaf of this book affords a feast worthy of the\n    season.\u201d\u2014_Dr. Hawks\u2019s Church Record._\n\nHood.\u2014Prose and Verse. By Thomas Hood. 12mo. green cloth. 87 cents.\n\n\u2014\u2014 The same, gilt extra, $1 25.\n\n    \u201cA very judicious selection, designed to embrace Hood\u2019s more\n    earnest writings, those which were written most directly from\n    the heart, which reflect most faithfully his life and\n    opinions.\u201d\u2014_Broadway Journal._\n\nHowitt.\u2014Ballads and other Poems. By Mary Howitt. 1 vol. 12mo. green\ncloth, 63 cents.\n\n\u2014\u2014 The same, with fine Portrait, gilt extra, $1 25.\n\n    \u201cHer poems are always graceful and beautiful.\u201d\u2014_Mrs. S. C.\n    Hall._\n\n    \u201cWe cannot commend too highly the present publication, and only\n    hope that the reading public will relish \u2018Mary Howitt\u2019s Ballads\n    and other Poems,\u2019 now for the first time put forth in a\n    collected form.\u201d\u2014_Albion._\n\nHunt.\u2014Imagination and Fancy. By Leigh Hunt. 1 vol. 12mo. green cloth, 62\ncents.\n\n\u2014\u2014 The same, gilt extra, $1.\n\nHunt.\u2014Stories from the Italian Poets: being a Summary in Prose of the\nPoems of Dante, Pulci, Boiardo, Aristo, and Tasso; with Comments\nthroughout, occasional passages Versified, and Critical Notices of the\nLives and Genius of the Authors. By Leigh Hunt. 12mo. cloth, $1 25.\n\n\u2014\u2014 The same, fancy gilt. $1 75.\n\n    \u201cMr. Hunt\u2019s book has been aptly styled, a series of exquisite\n    engravings of the magnificent pictures painted by these great\n    Italian masters.\u201d\u2014_Journal of Commerce._\n\nIrving.\u2014Works of Washington Irving; Revised and Enlarged by the Author.\nIn twelve elegant duodecimo volumes, beautifully printed with new type,\nand on superior paper, made expressly for the purpose, and bound in\ncloth.\n\nAs follows:\u2014\n\n  _The Sketch-Book_, in one volume.\n  _Knickerbocker\u2019s New York_, in one volume.\n  _Tales of a Traveller_, in one vol.\n  _Bracebridge Hall_, in one volume.\n  _The Conquest of Grenada_, in one volume.\n  _The Alhambra_, in one volume.\n  _Astoria_, in one volume.\n  _The Crayon Miscellany_, in one volume. Abbotsford, Newstead,\n    The Prairies, &c.\n  _The Spanish Legends_, in one vol.\n  _The Life and Voyages of Columbus_, and _The Companions of\n    Columbus_, in two volumes.\n  _Adventures of Capt. Bonneville_, in one volume.\n\n(Now publishing.)\n\nIrving.\u2014The Sketch-Book. By Washington Irving. Complete in one volume,\n12mo. cloth. In September.\n\nIrving.\u2014The Illustrated Sketch-Book. By Washington Irving. In October\nwill be published, THE SKETCH-BOOK, by Washington Irving, one vol.\nsquare octavo, Illustrated with a series of highly-finished Engravings\non Wood, from Designs by DARLEY and others, engraved in the best style\nby CHILDS, HERRICK, &c. This edition will be printed on paper of the\nfinest quality, similar in size and style to the new edition of\n\u201cHalleck\u2019s Poems.\u201d It is intended that the illustrations shall be\nsuperior to any engravings on wood yet produced in this country, and\nthat the mechanical execution of the volume, altogether, shall be worthy\nof the author\u2019s reputation. It will form an elegant and appropriate\ngift-book for all seasons.\n\nIrving.\u2014Knickerbocker\u2019s History of New York. By Washington Irving. With\nRevisions and copious Additions. Will be published on the 1st of\nOctober.\n\nIrving.\u2014The Illustrated Knickerbocker; with a series of original\nDesigns, in one volume, octavo, uniform with the \u201cSketch-Book,\u201d is also\nin preparation.\n\nIrving.\u2014The Life and Voyages of Columbus. By Washington Irving. Vol. I.\non the 1st of November.\n\n    The succeeding volumes will be issued on the first day of each\n    month until completed.\n\nKeats.\u2014The Poetical Works of John Keats. 1 vol. 12mo. cloth.\n\n\u2014\u2014 The same, gilt extra.\n\n    \u201cThey are flushed all over with the rich lights of fancy; and\n    so colored and bestrewn with the flowers of poetry that, even\n    while perplexed and bewildered in their labyrinths, it is\n    impossible to resist the intoxication of their sweetness, or to\n    shut our hearts to the enchantment they so lavishingly\n    present.\u201d\u2014_Francis Jeffrey._\n\nKinglake.\u2014E\u00f6then; or, Traces of Travel brought from the East. 12mo.\ngreen cloth. 50 cts.\n\n    \u201cE\u00f6then is a book with which everybody, fond of eloquent prose\n    and racy description, should be well acquainted.\u201d\u2014_U. S.\n    Gazette._\n\nKlipstein\u2019s Anglo-Saxon Course of Study. In uniform 12mo. volumes, as\nfollows:\n\nI.\n\nKlipstein.\u2014A Grammar of the Anglo-Saxon Language. By Louis F. Klipstein,\nAA.LL.M. and PH.D., of the University of Giessen. 12mo. cloth, $1 25.\n\nII.\n\nKlipstein.\u2014Analecta Anglo-Saxonica, with an Introductory Ethnographical\nEssay, Copious Notes, Critical and Explanatory, and a Glossary in which\nare shown the Indo-Germanic and other Affinities of the Language. By\nLouis F. Klipstein, AA.LL.M. and PH.D., of the University of Giessen.\n\nIII.\n\nKlipstein.\u2014Natale Sancti Gregorii Pap\u00e6.\u2014\u00c6lfric\u2019s Homily on the Birth-day\nof St. Gregory, and Collateral Extracts from King Alfred\u2019s Version of\nBede\u2019s Ecclesiastical History and the Saxon Chronicle, with a full\nRendering into English, Notes Critical and Explanatory, and an Index of\nWords. By Louis F. Klipstein, AA.LL.M. and PH.D., of the University of\nGiessen.\n\nIV.\n\nKlipstein.\u2014Extracts from the Anglo-Saxon Gospels, a Portion of the\nAnglo-Saxon Paraphrase of the Book of Psalms, and other Selections of a\nSacred Order in the same Language, with a Translation into English, and\nNotes Critical and Explanatory. By Louis F. Klipstein, AA.LL.M. and\nPH.D., of the University of Giessen.\n\nV.\n\nKlipstein.\u2014Tha Halgan Godspel on Englisc\u2014the Anglo-Saxon Version of the\nHoly Gospels. Edited by Benjamin Thorpe, F.S.A. _Reprinted by the same.\nNow ready._ 12mo. cloth, $1 25.\n\nKlipstein.\u2014Study of Modern Languages.\u2014Part First; French, Italian,\nSpanish, Portuguese, German, and English. By L. F. Klipstein, AA.LL.M.\nand PH.D. One vol. Imperial 8vo. Cloth, $1; paper 75 cents.\n\nLamb.\u2014Essays of Elia. By Charles Lamb. 1 vol. 12mo., cloth. $1.\n\n\u2014\u2014 The same, gilt extra, $1 25.\n\n    \u201cShakspeare himself might have read them, and Hamlet have\n    quoted them: for truly was our excellent friend of the genuine\n    line of Yorick.\u201d\u2014_Leigh Hunt\u2019s London Journal._\n\nLamb.\u2014Specimens of the English Dramatic Poets. By Charles Lamb. 1 vol.\n12mo., green cloth, $1 13.\n\n\u2014\u2014 The same, gilt extra, $1 50.\n\n    \u201cNowhere are the resources of the English tongue in power, in\n    sweetness, terror, pathos; in description and dialogue, so well\n    displayed.\u201d\u2014_Broadway Journal._\n\nMahan.\u2014On Advanced Guards, Outposts, and Military Duty. By D. H. Mahan,\nM.A. 18mo. cloth, 75 cents\n\nMahan\u2019s Course of Civil Engineering. Third edition, 8vo. Illustrated. $3\n50.\n\nMilton.\u2014The Prose Works of John Milton. Edited by Rev. Rufus Wilmott\nGriswold. 2 vols. 8vo., cloth, $4.\n\nModern Painters. By a Graduate of Oxford. 12mo. cloth, $1 25.\n\n\u2014\u2014 The same. Second vol. 12mo.\n\nMontagu.\u2014Selections from the Works of Taylor, Latimer, Hall, Milton,\nBarrow, Lowth, Brown, Fuller, and Bacon. By Basil Montagu. 1 vol. 12mo.,\ngreen cloth, 50 cents; cloth gilt, $1.\n\n    \u201cThis volume contains choice extracts from some of the noblest\n    of the old English writers.\u201d\u2014_Cincinnati Atlas._\n\nNordheimer.\u2014A Critical Grammar of the Hebrew Language. By Isaac\nNordheimer, Phil. Doctor. 8vo. cloth, $3 50.\n\nOriental Life Illustrated. Being a new edition of E\u00f6then, or Traces of\nTravel in the East. With fine Illustrations on Steel.\n\nParsons.\u2014The Rose; its History, Poetry, and Culture. By S. B. Parsons.\nWith colored Plates. Royal 8vo. cloth, $1 50.\n\nPatrick, Lowth, Arnold, and Whitby.\u2014Commentary on the Bible, by Bishops\nPatrick, Lowth, Arnold, Whitby, and Lowman. 4 vols. imperial 8vo. cloth,\n$16.\n\nPeacock.\u2014Headlong Hall and Nightmare Abbey. 1 vol. 12mo., green cloth,\n50 cents.\n\n    \u201cThis is a witty and amusing book.\u201d\u2014_Tribune._\n\nPoe.\u2014Eureka, A Prose Poem: Or the Physical and Metaphysical Universe. By\nEdgar A. Poe, Esq. Handsomely printed. 12mo. cloth, 75 cents.\n\nPearls of American Poetry. Second edition, superbly illuminated in the\nmanner of the ancient missals by T. W. Gwilt Mapleson, Esq. Printed in\ngold and colors on Bristol board. Elegantly and strongly bound in full\nMorocco, Antique style. One volume quarto, $12.\n\n    \u2042 Of this splendid and costly work, a small number were issued\n    for this season, but it was not ready for actual publication.\n    It is now completed in a superior style, and is the most\n    splendid book of the time.\n\n    \u201cOn beautiful vellum paper, are printed in colored characters\n    and with every variety of type, some of the choicest brief\n    poems of American writers\u2014Bryant, Longfellow, C. F. Hoffman,\n    and others. Each initial letter is a picture, and each page is\n    illuminated as exquisitely as any of the choicest of antique\n    illuminated volumes\u2014and all from original designs. The\n    conception of these works of art, as they richly deserve to be\n    called, the drawing, painting, gilding, are of the highest\n    order. The binding is in keeping with the rest\u2014that of the\n    olden day\u2014solid, rich, and tasteful. Altogether this is a\n    volume of great attraction for the rare beauty of its adorning\n    and the discrimination of its selections.\u201d\u2014_Courier._\n\nPrinceton Theological Essays. First Series. Royal 8vo. cloth, $2 50.\n\nPrinceton Theological Essays. Second Series. Royal 8vo. cloth, $2 50.\n\nSt. John.\u2014The Three Days of February, 1848: with Portrait of Lamartine.\n18mo. cloth, 63 cts.\n\nTappan.\u2014Elementary Logic. By Prof. H. P. Tappan. 1 vol. 12mo. cloth. $1.\n\nTasso.\u2014Godfrey of Bulloigne; or, the Recovery of Jerusalem: done into\nEnglish Heroical Verse. From the Italian of Tasso, by Edward Fairfax.\nIntroductory Essay, by Leigh Hunt, and the Lives of Tasso and Fairfax,\nby Charles Knight. 1 vol. 12mo. $1 25.\n\n    \u201cThe completest translation, and nearest like its original of\n    any we have seen.\u201d\u2014_Leigh Hunt._\n\nTaylor.\u2014Views a-Foot; or, Europe seen with Knapsack and Staff. By J.\nBayard Taylor. New edition, with an additional Chapter, &c., and a\nSketch of the Author in Pedestrian Costume, from a Drawing by T.\nBuchanan Read. 12mo. cloth. Nearly ready. $1 25.\n\n    \u201cBesides being one of the most entertaining books of travel we\n    ever read, it is written under circumstances of the most\n    interesting; although at a first glance, seemingly the most\n    unfavorable.\u201d\u2014_Boston Atlas._\n\nThackeray.\u2014Journey from Cornhill to Cairo. By Michael Angelo Titmarsh. 1\nvol. 12mo. green cloth. 50 cts.\n\n    \u201cIt is wonderful what a description of people and things, what\n    numerous pictures, what innumerable remarks and allusions it\n    contains.\u201d\u2014_Douglas Jerrold\u2019s Mag._\n\nTorrey and Gray.\u2014Flora of North America. By Professors Torrey and Gray.\n1 vol. 8vo. cloth, $6. Parts 1 and 6, each $1 50; Part 7, $1.\n\nTschudi.\u2014Travels in Peru. By Dr. J. J. Von Tschudi. 1 vol. 12mo. cloth,\n87 cents.\n\n    \u201cThe book contains a great deal of curious information, and\n    will be found useful as a book of reference by all who are\n    interested in the commerce, natural history, and general\n    statistics of Peru.\u201d\u2014_Blackwood\u2019s Magazine._\n\nTupper.\u2014Proverbial Philosophy. By Martin Farquhar Tupper. 12mo. green\ncloth.\n\n\u2014\u2014 The same, gilt extra.\n\n\u2014\u2014 The same, morocco extra.\n\nWalton.\u2014The Lives of Donne, Walton, Hooker, Herbert, and Sanderson. By\nIzaak Walton. New edition, 1 vol. 12mo. green cloth, 75 cents.\n\n    \u201cThe Lives are the most delightful kind of reading. Walton\n    possesses an inimitable simplicity and vivacity of\n    style.\u201d\u2014_Mrs. C. M. Kirkland._\n\nWarburton.\u2014The Crescent and the Cross; or, the Romance and Reality of\nEastern Travel. By Elliot Warburton. 1 vol. 12mo. green cloth, $1.\n\n    \u201cThis delightful work is, from first to last, a splendid\n    panorama of Eastern scenery, in the full blaze of its\n    magnificence.\u201d\u2014_London Morning Post._\n\n\n_A valuable Work for Libraries._\n\nNow Ready. 8vo. $1 in paper, or $1 25 half bound.\n\nAn Alphabetical Index to Subjects treated in the Reviews, and other\nPeriodicals, to which no Indexes have been Published.\n\n\u2042 This volume comprises an Index to all articles in 560 volumes of the\nmost important periodical works.\n\n\nPOPULAR VOLUMES FOR PRESENTATION,\n\n_Elegantly bound in extra cloth, gilt edges._\n\n  Chaucer and Spenser                         $1 50\n  Fairfax\u2019s Tasso\u2019s Jerusalem Delivered        1 50\n  Fouqu\u00e9\u2019s Undine, and Sintram                 1 00\n  Goldsmith\u2019s Vicar of Wakefield, with plates  1 00\n  Hervey\u2019s Book of Christmas                   1 00\n  Howitt\u2019s (Mary) Ballads and Poems            1 00\n  Hood\u2019s Prose and Verse                       1 25\n  Hunt\u2019s Imagination and Fancy                 1 00\n  \u2014\u2014 Italian Poets                             1 75\n  Keats\u2019s Poems                                1 25\n  Lamb\u2019s Dramatic Specimens                    1 50\n  Lamb\u2019s Essays of Elia                        1 25\n  THE SYBIL; or, New Oracles from the Poets.\n    By Mrs. Gilman. An elegant and attractive\n    book                                       1 50\n\n\nILLUSTRATED JUVENILES.\n\nFACTS AND FANCIES. By Miss Sedgwick. 16mo. with cuts, cloth .50\n\nGLIMPSES OF THE WONDERFUL.\u2014An entertaining Account of Curiosities of\nNature and Art. First, Second, and Third Series, with numerous fine\nIllustrations engraved in London. Square 16mo. cloth, each .75\n\nHOME TREASURY, THE; Comprising new versions of Cinderella, Beauty and\nthe Beast, Grumble and Cheery, The Eagle\u2019s Verdict, The Sleeping Beauty.\nRevised and illustrated. Small 4to .50\n\nMORALS AND MANNERS; or, Hints for our Young People. By Miss Sedgwick.\n16mo .25\n\nYOUNG NATURALIST\u2019S RAMBLES\u2014through many Lands, with an account of the\nprincipal Animals and Birds of the Old and New Continents. Cloth .50\n\n\nGeorge P. Putnam\n\n(OF THE LATE FIRM OF WILEY AND PUTNAM),\n\nHas taken the new and commodious premises,\n\n155 BROADWAY, NEW YORK\n\n(_Next building to that of the late Firm_),\n\nAnd continues the business of\n\n_PUBLISHING_,\n\nAND THE\n\nIMPORTATION OF FOREIGN BOOKS,\n\nAS ABOVE, AND AT\n\nPUTNAM\u2019S AMERICAN LITERARY AGENCY, 142 _Strand_,\n\nLONDON\n\n[ESTABLISHED IN 1838].\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nArrangements have been made to secure at the London Agency the services\nof an experienced and competent Bibliographer, so that the business of\nexecuting SPECIAL ORDERS FOR THE TRADE AND PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS may be\nthoroughly regulated, and all parties giving such orders, may be fully\nsatisfied both with regard to _expedition_ and _economy_.\n\nThe interests of Public Institutions, and those ordering _Books in\nquantities_ will receive special attention, while it is also intended\nthat any one ordering _a single volume_ from Europe, may receive it\npromptly (if procurable), without disappointment or unnecessary expense.\n\nMr. PUTNAM believes that his _twelve years\u2019 experience_ abroad in\npurchasing Books for the American market, will be of service to those\nwho may favor him with orders.\n\n\u2042 Correspondence established with PARIS, ROME, LEIPSIC, BRUSSELS, and\nall the principal cities on the Continent. All American Publications on\nthe best terms, by the quantity or singly.\n\nN. B.\u2014CATALOGUES of extensive collections of _Foreign and American\nBooks_, on all subjects may be had on application.","title":"Eureka: A Prose Poem","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":43169}