PRESIDENT’S ADDRESS—SECTION A. 23 
doctrine developing out of the atomic, and as the birth of the 
leading idea of modern chemistry, viz., that the ultimate ele- 
ments of bodies are atomic groups ! But to proceed. 
A boundless space through which is distributed an illimitable 
number of indestructible, impenetrable, indiscerptible atoms, 
limited in variety, capable of combining only under definite, but 
then unknown, laws, in unceasing motion, which had no begin- 
ning, and which will have no end; atoms out of which worlds, 
and systems of worlds, are forever being formed, and into which 
they are for ever being dissolved |—This is the ereat materialistic 
conception which we owe to the founders ‘of. the atomistic 
physics, and with this we entered the present era. And it is 
this conception which, despite its imperfections, has given 
dignity to the pictorial side of physics, and has assured for it a 
high degree of respect. 
‘10. Atomism stagnant in the Scholastic Period.—It is difficult 
to realise that for the first sixteen centuries of our era the atomic 
idea, as it left the hand of Lucretius, and despite its potentiality 
in respect of the representation and control of material things, 
brought forth absolutely nothing. Before and during the whole 
period of scholasticism it remained quite barren, and it was not 
until the doctrines of the Stagirite were vigorously assailed, that 
it became productive. Aristotle (w), indeed, had deigned to 
discuss the doctrine of Democritus, only, however, to pronounce 
against it. His successors in philosophy were, of course, not 
likely to bring about its restoration ; it never became popular. 
The motto of those days was “ philosophia theologie ancilla,” 
and atomism was treated as hostile. 
The pl:ysics of Aristotle falls outside our theme ; it may suffice 
to remark that his #\y can hardly be regarded a materia prima 
in the sense the atoms were supposed to be. It was potential 
rather than actual matter, while the atom was already a con- 
summation. [évrehéxeca]. 
With regard to the relative productiveness of the systems of 
Aristotle and Demoer itus, Bacon (x), assigning to that of Demo- 
eritus the highest place among all philosophical systems, points 
out that the direct study of matter in its manifold transforma- 
tions carries us further than mere abstractions. The temper of 
the Aristotelians was shown in their hostility to the science of 
dynamics, which the extraordinary genius of Galileo (y) had pro- 
duced, and which has done so much to render natural phenomena 
intelligible. 
1h; “Restoration by Gassendi._—A reaction against Aristotle set 
in about the beginning of the 17th century, and prominent 
among the adversaries was Pierre Gassendi (2), whose apprecia- 
tion and advocacy of the Ree By: of Epicurus has had so signal 
(w) [884—321 B.C.]. («) [1561—1626]. wy) [1564—1642}. (z) [1592-1655]. 
