64 



THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY.— SUPPLEMENT. 



acter ; but in this case there is a material some- 

 thing, the air, or some other elastic substance, 

 which vibrates. Undulations of air will not ac- 

 count for the phenomena of light, nor will any 

 form of motion of any of the ponderable matters 

 with which we are acquainted. Do we then say, 

 in disregard of the evidence, that light is due to 

 the vibrations of ponderable matter, because there 

 is nothing else in the universe? No; to account 

 for the phenomena we hypothecise a medium pos- 

 sessed of such attributes as will meet the require- 

 ments — we imagine an almost infinitely elastic 

 substance filling stellar space, through which the 

 pulses of light make their way. This ether not 

 only fills space, but penetrates and surrounds the 

 very atoms of solid and liquid substances ; its mo- 

 tions are the light of the universe, yet it is, itself 

 invisible. It is imponderable and impalpable it 

 cannot be isolated, nor condensed, nor attenuated, 

 nor exhausted, nor excluded from any space. It 

 is of almost infinite tenuity, and yet in its proper- 

 ties it is more like a solid or a jelly than a gas. 



Why do we believe in the existence of this 

 ether, a substance with such contradictory and 

 inconceivable if even not impossible properties ? 

 We cannot demonstrate its presence, we know 

 nothing of its essential nature. But we do know 

 that we meet with a whole world of phenomena 

 that cannot be rationally attributed to any form, 

 combination, or operation of ordinary matter; we 

 know also that where there is a phenomenon there 

 is a something underlying it, which possesses 

 properties competent to produce it. If ordinary 

 ponderable matter will not account for the phe- 

 nomena, we infer that there is something else, and 

 we ask, " What is it ? " Provisionally we answer, 

 it is the ether, with such and such properties. 

 This appears to be a truly philosophic method. 



But in advancing to the study of the energies 

 of organized, living matter, we meet with certain 

 phenomena differing most widely from, and in 

 many cases directly opposed to, the forces or en- 

 ergies with which we are acquainted in the in- 

 organic world — undulations, vibrations, motions, 

 special selective powers, to say nothing of more 

 obscure, complicated, or exalted manifestations. 

 Observation and experiment alike declare that no 

 arrangement or combination of any of those mat- 

 ters or forces which we call inorganic will produce 

 these effects ; and they have this further specific 

 distinction, that they arc never originated, by Na- 

 ture or art, except in the presence and with the 

 concurrence of previously living matter. Yet our 

 philosophers are content to assert that life is but 

 " the compounding in the organic world of forces 



belonging equally to the inorganic." If we in- 

 quire what forces these are, and how they are 

 compounded, where and by what agency, we ever 

 and utterly fail to get any reply, unless it be in 

 the form of a monotonous repetition of the same 

 assertion, or a vague statement that the sun is 

 the source of life. 



When a mathematician or a physicist speaks 

 of a resultant force, he is prepared to define the 

 forces and their "dimensions" by the composi- 

 tion of which this resultant force appears. When 

 a chemist affirms a certain compound body, X, to 

 be formed by the compounding of elements, A, 

 B, and C, in definite proportions, he is expected 

 to be able to justify his position both by analysis 

 and synthesis, to show that these elements, and 

 these only, exist in the compound, and that by 

 bringing these together, under given conditions, 

 he can produce the compound. Supposing it to 

 be demonstrated to him that no possible combina- 

 tion of these elements has ever been known to 

 produce any substance in the least degree resem- 

 bling X, what would become of his scientific repu- 

 tation if he still persisted in affirming, without 

 offering any evidence whatever, that the composi- 

 tion was as first stated ? And would it at all add 

 to the dignity of his position to bring imputations 

 of ignorance and incapacity against his opponent ? ' 

 It is sufficiently evident that neither mathematics 

 nor chemistry would be tolerated for a moment 

 which did not fulfill rigorously these conditions. 

 Yet in biological science it would appear compe- 

 tent to any one to say anything whatever, with a 

 certainty of its being accepted as truth, only pro- 

 vided that it is sufficiently at variance with well- 

 known facts and principles. Of this I can give 

 no more striking illustration than the following 

 wild passage from the most illustrious monist of 

 the day: 



" Such events as the origin and formation of the 

 organs of the senses present to the eye of the un- 

 derstanding, guided by the light of evolution, no 

 more difficulties than the explanation of any ordi- 

 nary physical processes, such as earthquakes, winds, 

 or tides. By the same light we arrive at the very 

 weighty conviction that all the natural bodies with 

 which we- are acquainted are equally living, and 

 that the distinction which has been held as exist- 

 ing between the living and the dead does not really 

 exist. When a stone which is thrown into the air 

 falls again to the earth, according to definite laws ; 

 when a crystal is formed from a saline fluid ; when 

 sulphur and mercury unite to form cinnabar ; these 



1 It is (scarcely necessary to remark that there is no 

 reference here to Prof. Tyndall, who is ever courteous 

 to friend and foe in scientific controversy. 



