Mr. Hunt's B.eplij to Prof. Draper's Letter. 121 



loves of two poetical creations of the ancieiUs, and the action 

 of this element on material bodies. I have objected to such a 

 name, and I have merely sugfrested the advantages of another 

 term. " Might we not then with strict propriety, regarding 

 this principle as the sun's energetic power, working in and 

 producing change in bodies, adopt such a term as Energema, 

 energy ; or, slightly modifying it, use such a coinage as Eneh- 

 GiA, which is capable of being readily adapted to all the com- 

 binations we are likely to require?" — Researches^ p. 269. 



Two terms are suggested ; it is (juestionahle after all if either 

 of them will be adopted ; but this rests with the public. 



1 am sorry to occupy so large a portion of your valuable 

 pages with a matter so entirely personal ; a few words more, 

 and I have done. 



It may appear to many, upon reading Dr. Draper's letter, 

 that he has made a discovery of a new element, of which dis- 

 covery I have endeavoured to deprive him. It should be di- 

 stinctly understood that no new imponderable element has really 

 been discovered. The solar beam has been long known to pro- 

 duce certain effects; these have been distinguished as light, 

 heat, and chemical power. The idea generally received has 

 been, that this chemical power was dependent upon some pe- 

 culiar condition of light; but, since the beautiful discoveries 

 which photography has led us to have been made, an idea has 

 been floating in the minds of philosophers that this chemical 

 power was something which was intimately associated with, 

 but which was not, light. In the Comptes Rendus for 1840, 

 M. Blot suggests this distinction, and objects to the name of 

 "photogenic drawings" as confounding "two species of phae- 

 nomena." The question has since that time been taken up by 

 many others; Messrs. E. Becquerel and Melloni both contend- 

 ing that the effects produced are due to light. Now Dr. Draper 

 entertains the idea that the power in the sun's rays producing 

 chemical change is a new element, and he is at once desirous 

 of fixing the idea by giving it a name. This idea is as much 

 Biot's as Draper's. I believe it will eventually be proved that 

 the idea is a correct one. I have objected, and do object, to 

 Dr. Draper's name. I have proposed two others, " Helio- 

 plaston " and " Energia," as being more expressive. Another 

 was suggested to me which is probably more expressive than 

 either, it is " Metamorphia:" in speaking of the »2(?/fl!7Wor/;A/c 

 rays we should at once express the peculiar features of the 

 phasnomena in question. It rests with the public to decide 

 upon the epithet. 



Notwithstanding the tone of Dr. Draper's animadversions, 

 I can assure you and him, that I shall ever feel more pleasure 

 in corroborating his statements than in correcting his errors. 



