AND SCHONBEIK 25 



letter arrived, and did not get home until it had 

 been awaiting me for some time, so I repeatedly put 

 off tendering you my thanks. The preparation of 

 my Jahresbericht for publication reminded me of it 

 once more, and so I now express to you my sincere 

 gratitude for the interesting information it contains. 

 In it you say that you wish me to give you my views on 

 the cause of these remarkable phenomena. I certainly 

 agree with you 1 that neither Faraday 2 nor Mousson 3 

 has suggested an acceptable theory. Indeed it would 

 seem hardly possible to decide what explanation is 

 the correct one ; but I maintain that a very likely 

 interpretation might be deduced from your experi- 

 ments, one which Faraday in fact has already 

 suggested in his last communication to the Editor of 

 the Philosophical Magazine] I mean the change of 

 electrical condition previously observed by de la 

 Eive 4 and Marianini, 5 a change which, at any rate in 

 metals, can be maintained for some time. It appears 

 that iron possesses a power as peculiar to itself as, 

 for example, its power of receiving magnetic polariza- 



1 Berzelius is here referring to the following of Schonbein's 

 papers : " Bemerkungen iiber Faraday's Hypothese in Betreff 

 der Ursache der Passivitat des Eisens in Salpetersaure." 

 Poggend. AnnaL, vol. xxxix. (1836) p. 137 ; and " Die Unzulang- 

 lichkeit der bisherigen Hypothesen iiber die Passivitat des 

 Eisens," loc. cit., p. 342, which, however, was printed after 

 Schonbein's letter. 



2 Phil. Mag., vol. ix. (1836) pp. 57 and 122. 



3 Poggend. Annal., vol. xxxix. (1836) p. 330 ; and Bibl. 

 Univ., vol. v. (1836) p. 165. 



4 Bibl. Univ., vol. iii. (1836) p. 375 ; and Mrfmoires de la Soc. 

 de Phys. et d'Histoire Nat. de Geneve, vol. vii. (1836) p. 457. 



5 Annal. de Chimie et de Physique, vol. xlv. (1830) p. 113. 



