Dr. E. J. Mills on the Atomic Theory. 123 



Hence it knows with exactitude neither the One nor the 

 Many. 



The special form of fallacy that underlies the atomic theory is 

 the one known as the materialistic. Just as those who as- 

 sert the existence of matter declare or imply their belief in it as 

 a necessary substratum for hardness, weight, and other proper- 

 ties, which are really their own sensations ; so those who advo- 

 cate the atomic theory, declare or imply their belief in indivi- 

 sibles, in units of affinity, and so forth, as substrata. On close 

 examination it is found that the substratum referred to has its 

 necessity only in the imagination ; and the atomic theory, which 

 has seldom even pretended to adduce experimental evidence for 

 what it affirms to exist, is traceable to the same parentage. The 

 same impatience at the recondite nature of forces which we 

 cannot see, which has led many of us to assert so much more 

 than we know, has caused both civilized and savage nations to 

 clothe in statuary their invisible gods. The same impatience, 

 mingled with discontent, is recognizable in that passionate cra- 

 ving for the absolute, or complementary in existence, which is 

 common to mankind. Surrounded on all sides with continuity, 

 motion, and change, our most popular ideas relate to limits, re- 

 pose, and stability. With the latter, the atomic theory perfectly 

 accords ; it readily blends with all the prejudices of our educa- 

 tion, and is reinforced by them ; so that after some years it 

 becomes an essential part of the mind, which has no longer the 

 power to reject it, even with the aid of the desire. How hard 

 it is, even for a young idealist, to be content with Nature as she 

 is ! Such considerations show the subtlety of i^omicism, and 

 account for its long and obstinate survival. 



One of the most remarkable points in connexion with the his- 

 tory of the atomic theory is the manner in which the actual 

 realization of the atom has been kept in the background. It 

 would be a matter of the highest importance, one would ima- 

 gine, especially on the part of experimental advocates, to adduce, 

 or at any rate to endeavour to adduce, an atom itself as the best 

 proof of its own existence. Not only has this never been done, 

 but no attempts have been made to do it ; and it is probable 

 that the most enthusiastic atomist would be the first to smile at 

 such an effort, or ridicule the supposed discovery. For who has 

 ever seen that which he cannot divide ? or who, being unable to 

 divide, would not at once suspect a defect in his tools rather 

 than indivisibility in the substance submitted to experiment ? 

 The experience of two thousand years has failed to produce or to 

 discover a single atom of the innumerable millions that have 

 existed during the whole of that time, and still remain unhurt 

 in their modest retirement. Yet, in the present day, they are 



