THE MONIST
A QUARTERLY MAGAZINE
DEVOTED TO THE PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE
VOLUME XV.
CHICAGO THE OPEN COURT PUBLISHING COMPANY
LONDON AGENTS:
KEGAN PAUL, TRENCH, TRUBNER & Co., LTD. 1905
COPYRIGHT BY
THE OPEN COURT PUBLISHING Co 1905-
CONTENTS OF VOLUME XV.
ARTICLES AND AUTHORS.
PAGE
Andrews, W. S. Magic Squares 429, 555
Arreat, Lucien. Literary Correspondence, 130; On the Notion of Order in the Universe, 262.
Baker, Arthur Latham. A Circular Polygon 462
Birney, William. Did the Monks Preserve the Latin Classics ? 87
Carus, Paul. Chinese Script and Thought (Illustrated), 271; Chinese Occultism (Illustrated), 500; The Christian Doctrine of Resurrection, 115; Conception of the Soul and the Belief in Resurrection Among the Egyptians (Illustrated), 409; Difficulties in Philosophical Nomen- clature, 633 ; The Place of Mathematics in Education, 295 ; The Sig- nificance of Quality, 375.
Ceptacle Hypothesis, The. By O. B. Taft 182
Chinese Occultism. By Paul Carus 500
Chinese Script and Thought. By Paul Carus 271
Christian Sects in Syria, Moslem Account as to the Origin of. By H.
Wernekke 466
Christianity, An Ancient Moslem Account of. By A. J. Edmunds 120
Circular Polygon. By A. L. Baker 462
Cockerill, Robert C. Definition of God 637
Code of Hammurabi, Place of. By A. H. Godbey 199
Conception of the Soul and the Belief in Resurrection Among the Egyp- tians. By Paul Carus 409
Consciousness, A Scientific View of. By G. Gore 409
Couturat, Louis. An International Auxiliary Language. (With Editorial
Reply) ' 143
Day, Rev. Edward. The Search for the Prophets 386
Definition of God. By R. C. Cockerill 637
Did the Monks Preserve the Latin Classics ? By W. Birney 87
Difficulties in Philosophical Nomenclature. By Paul Carus 633
Edmunds, Albert J. An Ancient Moslem Account of Christianity 120
God, Definition of. By R. C. Cockerill 637
Godbey, A. H. The Place of the Code of Hammurabi, 199; The Semitic City of Refuge, 605 ; Shylock in the Old Testament, 353.
Gore, G. A Scientific View of Consciousness ., 227
Gros, Johannes. Quality and Quantity 361
IV THE MONIST.
PAGE
Gunlogsen, A. H. Icelandic Literature 109
Herrick, Clarence L., Obituary of ' *. 151
Herrick, Clarence L. The Passing of Scientific Materialism 46
Hilbert, D. On the Foundations of Logic and Arithmetic 338
Icelandic Literature. By A. H. Gunlogsen 109
Infinitude as a Philosophical Problem (With Editorial Comment). By
C. J. Keyset 124
International Auxiliary Language (With Editorial Reply). By L. Cou-
turat 143
Issues of Pragmaticism. By C. S. Peirce 481
Keyser, Cassius J. Infinitude as a Philosophical Problem (With Editorial
Comments) 124
King, Irving. The Pragmatic Interpretation of the Christian Dogma 248
Literary Correspondence (France). By Lucien Arreat 130
Logic and Arithmetic, On the Foundations of. By D. Hilbert 338
McFarland, R. W. A Mathematical Analogy in Theological Reasoning.. . 626
Magic Squares. By W. S. Andrews 429, 555
Mathematical Analogy in Theological Reasoning. By R. W. McFarland.. 626
Mathematical Physics, Principles of. By H. Poincare i
Mathematics in Education, The Place of. By Paul Carus 295
Mitchell, Henry Bedinger. The Problem of Unity and the Noetic Power
of the Heart 587
Motora, Yujiro. Conflict of Religion and Science 398
Nazorean, Meaning of the Epithet.- By W. B. Smith 25
Noble, Edmund. The Relational Element in Monism 321
Noetic Power of the Heart. By H. B. Mitchell 587
Order in the Universe, On the Notion of. By L. Arreat 262
Pasigraphy, Suggestions Concerning. By W. T. Swingle 148
Peirce, Charles S. The Issues of Pragmaticism, 481 ; What Pragmatism is, 161.
Peterson, James B. Some Philosophical Terms 629
Philosophical Nomenclature, Difficulties in. By Paul Carus 633
Philosophical Terms, Some. By J. B. Peterson 629
Poincare, Henri. The Principles of Mathematical Physics. . . » i
Political Institutions a Factor in the Determination of the World Lan- guage. By C. W. Super 150
Pragmatic Interpretation of the Christian Dogma. By I. King 248
Pragmaticism, The Issues of. By C. S. Peirce 481
Pragmatism, What it is. By C. S. Peirce 161
Quality and Quantity. By J. Gros 361
Quality, The Significance of. By Paul Carus 375
Relational Element in Monism. By E. Noble 321
Religion and Science, Conflict of. By Y. Motora 398
Resurrection, The Christian Doctrine of. By Paul Carus 115
Russell, Francis C. Substitution in Logic : 294
Scientific Materialism, The Passing of. By C. L. Herrick 46
Search for the Prophets, The. By Rev. E. Day 386
Semitic City of Refuge. By A. H. Godbey 605
Shylock in the Old Testament. By A. H. Godbey 353
CONTENTS OF VOLUME XV. V
PAGE Smith, William Benjamin. Meaning of the Epithet Nazorean (Nazarene) 25
Some Philosophical Terms. By J. B. Peterson 629
Substitution in Logic. By F. R. Russell 294
Super, Charles W. Power of Political Institutions as a Factor in the De- termination of the World Language 150
Swingle, Walter T. Suggestions Concerning Pasigraphy 148
Taft, Oren B. The Ceptacle Hypothesis. 182
Theological Reasoning, Mathematical Analogy in. By R. W. McFarland. 626 Unity, The Problem of, and the Noetic Power of the Heart. By H. B.
Mitchell. . . 587
Wernekke, H. Moslem Account as to the Origin of Christian Sects in Syria 466
BOOK REVIEWS AND NOTES.
Annee biologique 479
Ardigo, Dr. Roberto. La Dottrina della Conoscenza nei Moderni Pre-
cursori di Kant 480
Burton, Ernest De Witt. Studies in the Gospel According to Mark 478
Empirical Essays 314
Favre, Louis. Notes sur 1'histoire generale des sciences 319
Franklin, C. K. Socialization of Humanity 307
Ghent, W. J. Mass and Class 639
Haeckel, Ernst. Die Lebenswunder ; The Wonders of Life 308
Hall, G. Stanley. Adolescence 303
Harper, William Rainey. Religion and the Higher Life, 154; Structure of
the Text of the Book of Hosea, 318.
Haupt, Paul. Kohelet oder Weltschmerz in der Bibel 158
Hensel, P. Hauptprobleme der Ethik 319
Hill, David Jayne. Contemporary Development of Diplomacy 473
Hinton, C. H. The Fourth Dimension 310
Hudson, William Henry. Introduction to the Philosophy of Herbert
Spencer 640
Hughes, C. H. Lectures on Neurology and Neuriatry, Psychology and
Psychiatry 313
Hyde, Wm. De Witt. From Epicurus to Christ 316
Leicht, Dr. Alfred. Lazarus, der Begrunder der Volkerpsychologie 159
Metcalf, Maynard M. Outline of the Theory of Evolution 640
Molee, Elias. Tutonish 311
Nichols, Herbert. A Treatise on Cosmology 157
Ossip-Lourie. La psychologic des romanciers russes du XIXe siecle 475
Owen, E. T. Interrogative Thought 320
Picavet, Francois. Histoire generale et comparee des philosophies medie-
valles 476
Riehl, Alois. Zur Einfiihrung in die Philosophic der Gegenwart 477
Salvadori, Dr. Guglielmo. Saggio di uno Studio sui Sentimenti Morali. . 480 Silberstein, Dr. A. Leibnizens Apriorismus im Verhaltniss zu seiner
Metaphysik 160
VI THE MONIST.
PAGE
Smith, William Benjamin. The Color Line 469
Swarte, Victor de. Descartes, directeur spirituel , 318
Troilo, Dr. Erminio. La Dottrina della Conoscenza pi Herbert Spencer.. 480
Warne, Frank Julian. The Slav Invasion 297
Weismann, August. Vortrage iiber die Deszendenztheorie 301
Windelband, Wilhelm. Immanuel Kant und seine Weltanschauung 480
Withers, J. W. Euclid's Parallel Postulate 309
Woodbridge, F. J. S. The Philosophy of Hobbes 3*5
Wundt, Wilhelm. Volkerpsychologie 160
VOL. XV. JANUARY, 1905. No. 1.
THE MONIST
THE PRINCIPLES OF MATHEMATICAL PHYSICS.1
WHAT is the actual state of mathematical physics? What are the problems it is led to set itself? What is its future? Is its orientation on the point of modifying itself?
Will the aim and the methods of this science appear in ten years to our immediate successors in the same light as to ourselves ; or, on the contrary, are we about to witness a profound transforma- tion ? Such are the questions we are forced to raise in entering to- day upon our investigation.
If it is easy to propound them, to answer is dfficult.
If we feel ourselves tempted to risk a prognostication, we have, to resist this temptation, only to think of all the stupidities the most eminent savants of a hundred years ago would have uttered, if one had asked them what the science of the nineteenth century would be. They would have believed themselves bold in their predictions, and after the event, how very timid we should have found them.
Do not, therefore, expect of me any prophecy ; if I had known what one will discover to-morrow, I would long ago have published it to secure me the priority.
But if, like all prudent physicians, I shun giving a prognosis, nevertheless I cannot dispense with a little diagnostic; well, yes, there are indications of a serious crisis, as if we should expect an approaching transformation.
*An address delivered before the International Congress or Arts and Science, St. Louis, September, 1904. Translated by George Bruce Halsted.
2 THE MONIST.
We are assured that the patient will not die of it, and even we can hope that this crisis will be salutary, that it was even necessary for his development. This the history of the past seems to guar- antee us.
This crisis in fact is not the first, and for its comprehension it is important to recall those which have preceded it.
Mathematical physics, we know, was born of celestial mechan- ics, which engendered it at the end of the eighteenth century, at the moment when it itself attained its complete development. Dur- ing its first years especially, the infant resembled in a striking way its mother.
The astronomic universe is formed of masses, very great with- out doubt, but separated by intervals so immense, that they appear to us only as material points. These points attract each other in the inverse ratio of the square of the distances, and this attraction is the sole force which influences their movements. But if our senses were sufficiently subtle to show us all the details of the bodies which the physicist studies, the spectacle we should there discover would scarcely differ from what the astronomer contem- plates. There also we should see material points, separated one from another by intervals, enormous in relation to their dimensions, and describing orbits following regular laws.
These infinitesimal stars are the atoms. Like the stars prop- erly so called, they attract or repel each other, and this attraction or this repulsion directed following the straight line which joins them, depends only on the distance. The law according to which this force varies as function of the distance is perhaps not the law of Newton, but it is an analogous law ; in place of the exponent — 2, we have probably a different exponent, and it is from this change of exponent that springs all the diversity of physical phenomena, the variety of qualities and of sensations, all the world colored and sonorous which surrounds us, in a word, all nature.
Such is the primitive conception in all its purity. It only re- mains to seek in the different cases what value should be given to this exponent in order to explain all the facts. It is on this model that Laplace, for example, constructed his beautiful theory of capil-
THE PRINCIPLES OF MATHEMATICAL PHYSICS. 3
larity : he regards it only as a particular case of attraction, or as he says of universal gravitation, and no one is astonished to find it in the middle of one of the five volumes of the Mecanique celeste.
More recently Briot believed he had penetrated the final secret of optics in demonstrating that the atoms of ether attract each other in the inverse ratio of the sixth power of the distance; and Max- well, Maxwell himself, does he not say somewhere that the atoms of ga'ses repel each other in the inverse ratio of the fifth power of the distance ? We have the exponent — 6, or — 5 in place of the exponent — 2, but it is always an exponent.
Among the theories of this epoch, one alone is an exception, that of Fourier; in it are indeed atoms, acting at a distance one upon the other ; they mutually transmit heat, but they do not attract, they never budge. From this point of view, the theory of Fourier must have appeared to the eyes of his contemporaries, to those of Fourier himself, as imperfect and provisional.
This conception was not without grandeur ; it was seductive, and many among us have not finally renounced it; they know that one will attain the ultimate elements of things only by patiently dis- entangling the complicated skein that our senses give us ; that it is necessary to advance step by step, neglecting no intermediary ; that our fathers were wrong in wishing to skip stations; but they believe that when one shall have arrived at these ultimate elements, there again will be found the majestic simplicity of celestial me- chanics.
Neither has this conception been useless ; it has rendered us an inestimable service, since it has contributed to make precise in us the fundamental notion of the physical law.
I will explain myself ; how did the ancients understand law ? It was for them an internal harmony, static, so to say, and immutable ; or it was like a model that nature constrained herself to imitate. A law for us is no more that at all; it is a constant relation between the phenomenon of to-day and that of to-morrow ; in a word, it is a differential equation.
Behold the ideal form of physical law; well, it is the law of Newton which first covered it; and then how has one acclimated
4 THE MONIST.
this form in physics; precisely in copying as much as possible this law of Newton, that is in imitating celestial mechanics.
Nevertheless, a day arrived when the conception of central forces no longer appeared sufficient, and this is the first of those crises of which I just now spoke.
What did one do then? One gave up trying to penetrate into the detail of the structure of the universe, to isolate the pieces of this vast mechanism, to analyse one by one the forces which put them in motion, and was content to take as guides certain general principles which have precisely for object to spare us this minute study.
How so? Suppose that we have before us any machine; the initial wheel work and the final wheel work alone are visible, but the transmission, the intermediary wheels by which the movement is communicated from one to the other are hidden in the interior and escape our view ; we do not know whether the communication is made by gearing or by belts, by connecting-rods or by other dis- positives.
Do we say that it is impossible for us to understand anything about this machine so long as we are not permitted to take it to pieces? You know well we do not, and that the principle of the conservation of energy suffices to determine for us the most inter- esting point. We easily ascertain that the final wheel turns ten times less quickly than the initial wheel, since these two wheels are visible; we are able thence to conclude that a couple applied to the one will be balanced by a couple ten times greater applied to the other. For that there is no need to penetrate the mechanism of this equilibrium and to know how the forces compensate each other in the interior of the machine; it suffices to be assured that this compensation cannot fail to occur.
Well, in regard to the universe, the principle of the conserva- tion of energy is able to render us the same service. This is also a machine, much more complicated than all those of industry, and of which almost all the parts are profoundly hidden from us; but in observing the movement of those that we can see, we are able, aiding ourselves by this principle, to draw conclusions which remain
THE PRINCIPLES OF MATHEMATICAL PHYSICS. 5
true whatever may be the details of the invisible mechanism which animates them.
The principle of the conservation of energy, or the principle of Mayer, is certainly the most important, but it is not the only one ; there are others from which we are able to draw the same advantage. These are :
The principle of Carnot, or the principle of the degrada- tion of energy.
The principle of Newton, or the principle of the equality of action and reaction.
The principle of relativity, according to which the laws of physical phenomena should be the same, whether for an observer fixed, or for an observer carried along in a uniform movement of translation ; so that we have not and could not have any means of discerning whether or not we are carried along in such a motion.
The principle of the conservation of mass, or principle of Lavoisier.
I would add the principle of least action.
The application of 'these five or six general principles to the different physical phenomena is sufficient for our learning of them what we could reasonably hope to .know of them.
The most remarkable example of this new mathematical phys- ics is, beyond contradiction. Maxwell's electro-magnetic theory of light.
We know nothing as to what is the ether, how its molecules are disposed, whether they attract or repel each other ; but we know that this medium transmits at the same time the optical perturbations and the electrical perturbations; we know that this transmission should be made conformably to the general principles of mechanics and that suffices us for the establishment of the equations of the electro-magnetic field.
These principles are results of experiments boldly generalised ; but they seem to derive from their generality itself an eminent de- gree of certitude.
In fact the more general they are, the more frequently one has
6 THE MON1ST.
the occasion to check them, and the verifications, in multiplying themselves, in taking forms the most varied and the most unex- pected, finish by leaving no longer place for doubt.
Such is the second phase of the history of mathematical phys- ics and we have not yet emerged from it.
Do we say that the first has been useless? that during fifty years science went the wrong way, and that there is nothing left but to forget so many accumulated efforts that a vicious conception condemned in advance to non-success?
Not the least in the world.
Do you believe that the second phase could have come into existence without the first?
The hypothesis of central forces contained all the principles ; it involved them as necessary consequences; it involved both the conservation of energy and that of masses, and the equality of action and reaction ; and the law of least action, which would appear, it is true, not as experimental verities, but as theorems and of which the enunciation would have at the same time a something more pre- cise and less general than ander their actual form.
It is the mathematical physics of our fathers which has fami- liarised us little by little with these divers principles; which has habituated us to recognise them under the different vestments in which they disguise themselves. One has compared them to the data of experience, or has seen how it was necessary to modify their enunciation to adapt them to these data; thereby they have been enlarged and consolidated.
So one has been led to regard them as experimental verities; the conception of central forces became then a useless support, or rather an embarrassment, since it made the principles partake of its hypothetical character.
The frames have not therefore broken, because they were elas- tic ; but they have enlarged ; our fathers, who established them, did not work in vain, and we recognise in the science of to-day the general traits of the sketch which they traced.
Are we about to enter now upon the eve of a second crisis? These principles on which we have built all are they about to
THE PRINCIPLES OF MATHEMATICAL PHYSICS. 7
crumble away in their turn? Since some time, this may well be asked.
In hearing me speak thus, you think without doubt of radium, that grand revolutionist of the present time, and in fact I will come back to it presently ; but there is something else.
It is not alone the conservation of energy which is in question ; all the other principles are equally in danger, as we shall see in pass- ing them successively in review.
Let us commence with the principle of Carnot. This is the only one which does not present itself as an immediate consequence of the hypothesis of central forces ; more than that, it seems if not to directly contradict that hypothesis, at least not to be reconciled with it without a certain effort.
If physical phenomena were due exclusively to the movements of atoms whose mutual attraction depended only on the distance, it seems that all these phenomena should be reversible ; if all the initial velocities were reversed, these atoms, always subjected to the same forces, ought to go over their trajectories in the contrary sense, just as the earth wonld describe in the retrograde sense this same elliptic orbit which it describes in the direct sense, if the initial conditions of its movement had been reversed. On this ac- count, if a physical phenomenon is possible, the inverse phenomenon should be equally so, and one should be able to reascend the course of time.
But it is not so in nature, and this is precisely what the prin- ciple of Carnot teaches us ; heat can pass from the warm body to the cold body; it is impossible afterwards to make it reascend the in- verse way and re-establish differences of temperature which have been effaced.
Motion can be wholly dissipated and transformed into heat by friction; the contrary transformation can never be made except in a partial manner.
We have striven to reconcile this apparent contradiction. If the world tends toward uniformity, this is not because its ultimate parts, at first unlike, tend to become less and less different, it is be- cause, shifting at hazard, they end by blending. For an eye which
8 THE MONIST.
should distinguish all the elements, the* variety would remain always as great, each grain of this dust preserves its originality and does not model itself on its neighbors ; but as the blend becomes more and more intimate, our gross senses perceive no more than the uniform- ity. Behold why, for example, temperatures tend to a level, without the possibility of turning backwards.
A drop of wine falls into a glass of water; whatever may be the law of the internal movements of the liquid, we soon see it colored of a uniform rosy tint and from this moment, one may well shake the vase, the wine and the water do not seem able any more to separate. See, thus, what would be the type of the reversible physical phenomenon : to hide a grain of barley in a cup of wheat, this is easy ; afterwards to find it again and get it out, this is practic- ally impossible.
All this Maxwell and Boltzmann have explained ; the one who has seen it most clearly, in a book too little read because it is a little difficult to read, is Gibbs, in his Elemetary Principles of Statistical Mechanics.
For those who take this point of view, the principle of Carnot is only an imperfect principle, a sort of concession to the infirmity of our senses; it is because our eyes are too gross that we do not distinguish the elements of the blend ; it is because our hands are too gross that we cannot force them to separate ; the imaginary demon of Maxwell, who is able to sort the molecules one by one, could well constrain the world to return backward. Can it return of it- self ? That is not impossible ; that is only infinitely improbable.
The chances are that we should long await the concourse of circumstances which would permit a retrogradation, but soon or late, they would be realised, after years whose number it would take millions of figures to write.
These reservations, however, all remained theoretic and were not very disquieting, and the principle of Carnot retained all its practical value.
But here the scene changes.
The biologist, armed with his microscope, long ago noticed in his preparations disorderly movements of little particles in suspen-
THE PRINCIPLES OF MATHEMATICAL PHYSICS. 9
sion: this is the Brownian movement; he first thought this was a vital phenomenon, but soon he saw that the inanimate bodies danced with no less ardor than the others ; then he turned the matter over to the physicists. Unhappily, the physicists remained long un- interested in this question ; one .concentrates the light to illuminate the microscopic preparation, thought they; with light goes heat; thence inequalities of temperature and in the liquid interior currents which produce the movements of which we speak.
M. Gouy had the idea to look more closely, and he saw or thought he saw that this explanation is untenable, that the move- ments become more brisk as the particles are smaller, but that they are not influenced by the mode of illumination.
If then these movements never cease, or rather are reborn with- out cease, without borrowing anything from an external source of energy, what ought we to believe? To be sure, we should not re- nounce our belief in the conservation of energy, but we see under our eyes now motion transformed into heat by friction, now heat changed inversely into motion, and that without loss since the move- ment lasts forever. This is the contrary of the principle of Carnot.
If this be so, to see the world return backward, we no longer have need of the infinitely subtle eye of Maxwell's demon ; our microscope suffices us. Bodies too large, those, for example, which are a tenth of a millimeter, are hit from all sides by moving atoms, but they do not budge, because these shocks are very numerous and the law of chance makes them compensate each other: but the smaller particles receive too few shocks for this compensation to take place with certainty and are incessantly knocked about. And behold already one of our principles in peril.
We come to the principle of relativity : this not only is confirmed by daily experience, not only is it a necessary consequence of the hypothesis of central forces, but it is imposed in an irresistible way upon our good sense, and yet it also is battered.
Consider two electrified bodies ; though they seem to us at rest, they are both carried along by the motion of the earth; an electric charge in motion, Rowland has taught us, is equivalent to a current ; these two charged bodies are, therefore, equivalent to two parallel
IO THE MONIST.
currents of the same sense and these two currents should attract each other. In measuring this attraction, we measure the velocity of the earth ; not its velocity in relation to the sun or the fixed stars, but its absolute velocity.
I well know what one will say, it is not its absolute velocity that is measured, it is its velocity in relation to the ether. How un- satisfactory that is! Is it not evident that from the principle so understood we could no longer get anything? It could no longer tell us anything just because it would no longer fear any contra- diction.
If we succeed in measuring anything, we would always be free to say that this is not the absolute velocity in relation to the ether, it might always be the velocity in relation to some new unknown fluid with which we might fill space.
Indeed, experience has taken on itself to ruin this interpretation of the principle of relativity ; all attempts to measure the velocity of the earth in relation to the ether have led to negative results. This time experimental physics has been more faithful to the prin- ciple than mathematical physics; the theorists, to put in accord their other general views, would not have spared it ; but experiment has been stubborn in confirming it.
The means have been varied in a thousand ways and finally Michelson has pushed precision to its last limits ; nothing has come of it. It is precisely to explain this obstinacy that the mathema- ticians are forced to-day to employ all their ingenuity.
Their task was not easy, and if Lorentz has gotten through it, it is only by accumulating hypotheses. The most ingenious idea has been that of local time.
Imagine two observers who wish to adjust their watches by optical signals: they exchange signals, but as they know that the transmission of light is not instantaneous, they take care to cross them.
When the station B perceives the signal from the station A, its clock should not mark the same hour as that of the station A at the moment of sending the signal, but this hour augmented by a con- stant representing the duration of the transmission. Suppose, for
THE PRINCIPLES OF MATHEMATICAL PHYSICS. II
example, that the station A sends its signal when its clock marks the hour o, and that the station B perceives it when its clock marks the hour t. The clocks are adjusted if the slowness equal to t repre- sents the duration of the transmission, and to verify it, the station B sends in its turn a signal when its clock marks o ; then the station A should perceive it when its clock marks t. The time-pieces are then adjusted. And in fact, they mark the same hour at the same phys- ical instant, but on one condition, which is that the two stations are fixed. In the contrary case the duration of the transmission will not be the same in the two senses, since the station A, for example, moves forward to meet the optical perturbation emanating from B, while the station B flies away before the perturbation emanating from A. The watches adjusted in that manner do not mark, there- fore, the true time, they mark what one may call the local time, so that one of them goes slow on the other. It matters little since we have no means of perceiving it. All the phenomena which happen at A, for example, will be late, but all will be equally so, and the observer who ascertains them will not perceive it since his watch is slow ; so as the principle of relativity would have it, he will have no means of knowing whether he is at rest or in absolute motion.
Unhappily, that does not suffice, and complemetary hypotheses are necessary ; it is necessary to admit that bodies in motion undergo a uniform contraction in the sense of the motion. One of the diam- eters of the earth, for example, is shrunk by 200 0*0 000 in conse- quence of the motion of our planet, while the other diameter retains its normal length. Thus, the last little differences find themselves compensated. And, then, there still is the hypothesis about forces. Forces, whatever be their origin, gravity as well as elasticity, would be reduced in a certain proportion in a world animated by a unform translation ; or, rather, this would happen for the components per- pendicular to the translation ; the components parallel would not change.
Resume, then, our example of two electrified bodies; these bodies repel each other, but at the same time if all is carried along in a uniform translation, they are equivalent to two parallel currents of the same sense which attract each other. This electro-dvnamic
12 THE MONIST.
attraction diminishes, therefore, the electro-static repulsion, and the total repulsion is more feeble than if the two bodies were at rest. But since to measure this repulsion we must balance it by another force, and all these other forces are reduced in the same proportion, we perceive nothing.
Thus, all is arranged, but are all the doubts dissipated ?
What would happen if one could communicate by non-luminous signals whose velocity of propagation differed from that of light? If, after having adjusted the watches by the optical procedure, one wished to verify the adjustment by the aid of these new signals, then would appear divergences which would render evident the com- mon translation of the two stations. And are such signals incon- ceivable, if we admit with Laplace that universal gravitation is transmitted a million times more rapidly than light ?
Thus, the principle of relativity has been valiantly defended in these latter times, but the very energy of the defence proves how serious was the attack.
Let us speak now of the principle of Newton, on the equality of action and reaction.
This is intimately bound up with the preceding, and it seems indeed that the fall of the one would involve that of the other. Thus we should not be astonished to find here the same difficulties.
Electrical phenomena, we think, are due to the displacements of little charged particles, called electrons, immersed in the medium that we call ether. The movements of these electrons produce per- turbations in the neighboring ether; these perturbations propagate themselves in every direction with the velocity of light, and in turn other electrons, originally at rest, are made to vibrate when the perturbation reaches the parts of the ether which touch them.
The electrons, therefore, act on one another, but this action is not direct, it is accomplished through the ether as intermediary.
Under these conditions can there be compensation between ac- tion and reaction, at least for an observer who should take account only of the movements of matter, that is to say, of the electrons, and who should be ignorant of those of the ether that he could not see? Evidently not. Even if the compensation should be exact, it could
THE PRINCIPLES OF MATHEMATICAL PHYSICS. 13
not be simultaneous. The perturbation is propagated with a finite velocity; it, therefore, reaches the second electron only when the first has long ago entered upon its rest.
This second electron, therefore, will undergo, after a delay, the action of the first, but certainly it will not react on this, since around this first electron nothing any longer budges.
The analysis of the facts permits us to be still more precise. Imagine, for example, a Hertzian generator, like those employed in wireless telegraphy ; it sends out energy in every direction ; but we can provide it with a parabolic mirror, as Hertz did with his smallest generators, so as to send all the energy produced in a single direc- tion.
What happens then according to the theory? It is that the apparatus recoils as if it were a gun and as if the energy it has pro- jected were a bullet; and that is contrary to the principle of New- ton, since our projectile here has no mass, it is not matter, it is energy.
It is still the same, moreover, with a beacon light provided with a reflector, since light is nothing but a perturbation of the electro- magnetic field. This beacon light should recoil as if the light it sends out were a projectile. What is the force that this recoil should produce ? It is what one has called the Maxwell-Bartholdi pressure. It is very minute, and it has been difficult to put it into evidence even with the most sensitive radiometers ; but it suffices that it exists.
If all the energy issuing from our generator falls on a receiver, this will act as if it had received a mechanical shock, which will represent in a sense the compensation of the recoil of the generator ; the reaction will be equal to the action, but it will not be simulta- neous; the receiver will move on but not at the moment when the generator recoils. If the energy propagates itself indefinitely with- out encountering a receiver, the compensation will never be made.
Does one say that the space which separates the generator from the receiver and which the perturbation must pass over in going from the one to the other is not void, that it is full not only of ether, but of air ; or even in the interplanetary spaces of some fluid subtle but
14 THE MONIST.
still ponderable; that this matter undergoes the shock like the re- ceiver at the moment when the energy reaches it, and recoils in its turn when the perturbation quits it? That would save the principle of Newton, but that is not true.
If energy in its diffusion remained always attached to some material substratum, then matter in motion would carry along light with it, and Fizeau has demonstrated that it does nothing of the sort, at least for air. This is what Michelson and Morley have since confirmed.
One may suppose also that the movements of matter, properly so called, are exactly compensated by those of the ether; but that would lead us to the same reflections as just now. The principle so extended would explain everything, since whatever might be the visible movements, we would always have the power of imagining hypothetical movements which compensated them.
But if it is able to explain everything, this is because it does not permit us to foresee anything; it does not enable us to decide be- tween different possible hypotheses, since it explains everything beforehand. It therefore becomes useless.
And then the suppositions that it would be necessary to make on the movements of the ether are not very satisfactory.
If the electric charges double, it would be natural to imagine that the velocities of the divers atoms of ether double also, and for the compensation, it would be necessary that the mean velocity of the ether quadruple.
This is why I have long thought that these consequences of theory, contrary to the principle of Newton, would end some day by being abandoned, and yet the recent experiments on the move- ments of the electrons issuing from radium seem rather to confirm them.
I arrive at the principle of Lavoisier on the conservation of masses: certes, this is one not to be touched without unsettling all mechanics.
And now certain persons think that it seems true to us only be- cause one considers in mechanics merely moderate velocities, but that it would cease to be true for bodies animated by velocities com-
THE PRINCIPLES OF MATHEMATICAL PHYSICS. 15
parable to that of light. Now these velocities, it is believed at present, they have been realised ; the cathode rays or those of radium may be formed of very minute particles or of electrons which are displaced with velocities smaller no doubt than that of light, but which might be its one-tenth or one-third.
These rays can be deflected, whether by an electric field, or by a magnetic field, and we are able by comparing these deflections, to measure at the same time the velocity of the electrons and their mass (or rather the relation of their mass to their charge). But when it was seen that these velocities approached that of light, it was de- cided that a correction was necessary.
These molecules, being electrified, could not be displaced with- out agitating the ether; to put them in motion it is necessary to overcome a double inertia, that of the molecule itself and that of the ether. The total or apparent mass that one measures is composed, therefore, of two parts: the real or mechanical mass of the mole- cule and the electro-dynamic mass representing the inertia of the ether.
The calculations of Abraham and the experiments of Kauf- mann have then shown that the mechanical mass, properly so called, is null, and that the mass of the electrons, or, at least, of the negative electrons, is of exclusively electro-dynamic origin. This forces us to change the definition of mass ; we cannot any longer distinguish mechanical mass and electro-dynamic mass, since then the first would vanish ; there is no mass other than electro-dynamic inertia. But, in this case the mass can no longer" be constant, it augments with the velocity, and it even depends on the direction, and a body animated by a notable velocity will not oppose the same inertia to the forces which tend to deflect it from its route, as to those which tend to ac- celerate or to retard its progress.
There is still a resource; the ultimate elements of bodies are electrons, some charged negatively, the others charged positively. The negative electrons have no mass, this is understood; but the positive electrons, from the little we know of them, seem much greater. Perhaps, they have, besides their electro-dynamic mass, a true mechanical mass. The veritable mass of a body would, then,
l6 THE MONIST.
be the sum of the mechanical masses of its positive electrons, the negative electrons not counting; mass so defined could still be con- stant.
Alas, this resource also evades us. Recall what we have said of the principle of relativity and of the efforts made to save it. And it is not merely a principle which it is a question of saving, such are the indubitable results of the experiments of Michelson.
Lorentz has been obliged to suppose that all the forces, what- ever be their origin, were affected with a coefficient in a medium animated by a uniform translation; this is not sufficient, it is still necessary, says he, that the masses of all the particles be influenced by a translation to the same degree as the electro-magnetic masses of the electrons.
So the mechanical masses will vary in accordance with the same laws as the electro-dynamic masses; they cannot, therefore, be con- stant.
Need I point out that the fall of the principle of Lavoisier in- volves that of the principle of Newton? This latter signifies that the center of gravity of an isolated system moves in a straight line ; but if there is no longer a constant mass, there is no longer a center of gravity, we no longer know even what this is. This is why I said above that the experiments on the cathode rays appeared to justify the doubts of Lorentz on the subject of the principle of Newton.
From all these results, if they are confirmed, would arise an entirely new mechanics, which would be, above all, characterised by this fact, that no velocity could surpass that of light, any more than any temperature could fall below the zero absolute, because bodies would oppose an increasing inertia to the causes, wlueh would tend to accelerate their motion; and this inertia would become infinite when one approached the velocity of light.
No more for an observer carried along himself in a translation he did not suspect could any apparent velocity surpass that of light ; and this would be then a contradiction, if we recall that this observer would not use the same clocks as a fixed observer, but, indeed, clocks marking "local time."
THE PRINCIPLES OF MATHEMATICAL PHYSICS. IJ
Here we are then facing a question I content myself with stating. If there is no longer any mass, what becomes of the law of Newton?
Mass has two aspects, it is at the same time a coefficient of iner- tia and an attracting mass entering as factor into Newtonian attrac- tion. If the coefficient of inertia is not constant, can the attracting mass be? That is the question.
At least, the principle of the conservation of energy yet remains to us, and this seems more solid. Shall I recall to you how it was in its turn thrown into discredit? This event has made more noise than the preceding and it is in all the memoirs.
From the first works of Becquerel, and, above all, when the Curies had discovered radium, one saw that every radio-active body was an inexhaustible source of radiations. Its activity would seem to subsist without alteration throughout the months and the years. This was already a strain on the principles : these radiations were in fact energy, and from the same morsel of radium this issued and for- ever issued. But these quantities of energy were too slight to be measured ; at least one believed so and was not much disquieted.
The scene changed when Curie bethought himself to put radium in a calorimeter ; one saw, then, that the quantity of heat incessantly created was very notable.
The explanations proposed were numerous ; but in such case we cannot say, "store is no sore."
In so far as no one of them has prevailed over the others, we cannot be sure there is a good one among them.
Sir W. Ramsay has striven to show that radium is in process of transformation, that it contains a store of energy enormous but not inexhaustible.
The transformation of radium then would produce a million times more of heat than all known transformations ; radium would wear itself out in 1250 years; you see that we are at least certain to be settled on this point some hundreds of years from now. While waiting our doubts remain.
In the midst of so many ruins what remains standing? The principle of least action is hitherto intact, and Larmor appears to
l8 THE MONIST.
believe that it will long survive the others ; in reality, it is still more vague and more general.
In presence of this general ruin of the principles, what attitude will mathematical physics take?
And first, before too much excitement, it is proper to ask if all that is really true. All these derogations to the principles are en- countered only among infinitesimals ; the microscope is necessary to see the Brownian movement ; electrons are very light ; radium is very rare, and one never has more than some milligrams of it at a time.
And, then, it may be asked if, beside the infinitesimal seen, there be not another infinitesimal unseen counterpoise to the first.
So, there is an interlocutory question, and, as it seems, only experiment can solve it. We have, therefore, only to hand over the matter to the experimenters, and while waiting for them to finally decide the debate, not to preoccupy ourselves with these disquieting problems, and to tranquilly continue our work, as if the principles were still uncontested. Certes, we have much to do without leaving the domain where they may be applied in all security; we have enough to employ our activity during this period of doubts.
And as to these doubts, is it indeed true that we can do nothing to disembarrass science of them? It may be said, it is not alone ex- perimental physics that has given birth to them ; mathematical phys- ics has well contributed. It is the experimenters who have seen radium throw out energy, but it is the theorists who have put in evidence all the difficulties raised by the propagation of light across a medium in motion ; but for these it is probable we should not have become conscious of them. Well, then, if they have done their best to put us into this embarrassment, it is proper also that they help us to get out of it.
They must subject to critical examination all these new views I have just outlined before you, and abandon the principles only after having made a loyal effort to save them.
What can they do in this sense ? That is what I will try to ex- plain.
Among the most interesting problems of mathematical physics, it is proper to give a special place to those relating to the kinetic
THE PRINCIPLES OF MATHEMATICAL PHYSICS. IQ
theory of gases. Much has already been done in this direction, but much still remains to be done. This theory is an eternal paradox. We have reversibility in the premises and irreversibility in the con- clusions; and between the two an abyss. Statistic considerations, the law of great numbers, do they suffice to fill it? Many points still remain obscure to which it is necessary to return, and doubtless many times. In clearing them up, we will undersand better the sense of the principle of Carnot and its place in the ensemble of dynamics, and we will be better armed to properly interpret the curious experiment of Gouy, of which I spoke above.
Should we not also endeavor to obtain a more satisfactory theory of the electro-dynamics of bodies in motion? It is there es- pecially, as I have sufficiently shown above, that difficulties acumu- late. Evidently we must heap up hypotheses, we cannot satisfy all the principles at once ; heretofore, one has succeeded in safeguarding some only on condition of sacrificing the others; but all hope of obtaining better results is not yet lost. Let us take, therefore, the theory of Lorentz, turn it in all senses, modify it little by little, and perhaps everything will arrange itself.
Thus in place of supposing that bodies in motion undergo a contraction in the sense of the motion, and that this contraction is the same whatever be the nature of these bodies and the forces to which they are otherwise submitted, could we not make an hypoth- esis more simple and more natural?
We might imagine, for example, that it is the ether which is modified when it is in relative motion in reference to the material medium which it penetrates, that when it is thus modified, it no longer transmits perturbations with the same velocity in every direc- tion. It might transmit more rapidly those which are propagated parallel to the medium, whether in the same sense or in the opposite sense, and less rapidly those which are propagated perpendicularly. The wave surfaces would no longer be spheres, but ellipsoids, and we could dispense with that extraordinary contraction of all bodies.
I cite that only as an example, since the modifications, one might essay, would be evidently susceptible of infinite variation.
It is possible also that astronomy may some day furnish us data
2O THE MONIST.
on this point; she it was in the main who raised the question in making us acquainted with the phenomenon of the aberration of light. If we make crudely the theory of aberration, we reach a very curious result. The apparent positions of the stars differ from their real positions because of the motion of the earth, and as this motion is variable, these apparent positions vary. The real position we can- not know, but we can observe the variations of the apparent posi- tion. The observations of the aberration show us, therefore, not the movement of the earth, but the variations of this movement : they cannot, therefore, give us information about the absolute mo- tion of the earth. At least this is true in first approximation, but it would be no longer the same if we could appreciate the thou- sandths of a second. Then it would be seen that the amplitude of the oscillation depends not alone on the variation of the motion, variation which is well known, since it is the motion of our globe on its elliptic orbit, but on the mean value of this motion; so that the constant of aberration would not be altogether the same for all the stars, and the differences would tell us the absolute motion of the earth in space.
This, then, would be, under another form, the ruin of the prin- ciple of relativity. We are far, it is true, from appreciating the thousandths of a second, but after all, say some, the total absolute velocity of the earth may be much greater than its relative velocity with respect to the sun. If, for example, it were 300 kilometers per second in place of 30, this would suffice to make the phenomena ob- servable.
I believe that in reasoning thus one admits a too simple theory of aberration. Michelson has shown us, I have told you, that the physical procedures are powerless to put in evidence absolute mo- tion; I am persuaded that the same will be true of the astronomic procedures, however far one pushes precision.
However that may be, the data astronomy will furnish us in this regard will some day be precious to the physicist. While wait- ing, I believe, the theorists, recalling the experience of Michelson, may anticipate a negative result, and that they would accomplish a
THE PRINCIPLES OF MATHEMATICAL PHYSICS. 21
useful work in constructing a theory of aberration which would ex- plain this in advance.
But let us come back to the earth. There also we may aid the experimenters. We can, for example, prepare the ground by study- ing profoundly the dynamics of electrons ; not be it understood in starting from a single hypothesis, but in multiplying hypotheses as much as possible. It will be then for the physicists to utilise our work in seeking the crucial experiment to decide between these dif- ferent hypotheses.
This dynamics of electrons can be approached from many sides, but among the ways leading thither is one which has been some- what neglected, and yet this is one of those which promise us most of surprises. It is the movements of the electrons which produce the line of the emission spectra ; this is proved by the phenomenon of Zeemann ; in an incandescent body, what vibrates is sensitive to the magnet, therefore electrified. This is a very important first point, but no one has gone farther ; why are the lines of the spectrum dis- tributed in accordance with a regular law ?
These laws have been studied by the experimenters in their least details ; they are very precise and relatively simple. The first study of these distributions recalled the harmonics encountered in acous- tics ; but the difference is great. Not only the numbers of vibrations are not the successive multiples of one same number, but even we do not find anything analogous to the roots of those transcendental equations to which so many problems of mathematical physics con- duct us: that of the vibrations of an elastic body of any form, that of the Hertzian oscillations in a generator of any form, the problem of Fourier for the cooling of a solid body.
The laws are simpler, but they are of wholly other nature, and to cite only one of these differences, for the harmonics of high order the number of vibrations tends toward a finite limit, instead of in- creasing indefinitely.
That has not yet been accounted for, and I believe that there we have one of the most important secrets of nature. Lindemann has made a praiseworthy attempt, but, to my mind, without success ; this attempt should be renewed. Thus we will penetrate, so to say, into
22 THE MONIST.
the inmost recess of matter. And from the particular point of view which we to-day occupy, when we know why the vibrations of in- candescent bodies differ from ordinary elastic vibrations, why the electrons do not behave themselves like the matter which is familiar to us, we will better comprehend the dynamics of electrons and it will be perhaps more easy for us to reconcile it with the principles.
Suppose, now, that all these efforts fail, and after all I do not believe they will, what must be done? Will it be necessary to seek to mend the brdken principles in giving what we French call a coup de pouce? That is evidently always possible, and I retract nothing I have formerly said.
Have you not written, you might say if you wished to seek a quarrel with me, have you not written that the principles, though of experimental origin, are now unassailable by experiment because they have become conventions ? And now you have just told us the most recent conquests of experiment put these principles in danger. Well, formerly I was right and to-day I am not wrong.
Formerly I was right, and what is now happening is a new proof of it. Take for example the calorimeter experiment of Curie on radium. Is it possible to reconcile that with the principle of the conservation of energy ?
It has been attempted in many ways ; but there is among them one I should like you to notice.
It has been conjectured that radium was only an intermediary, that it only stored radiations of unknown nature which flashed through space in every direction, traversing all bodies, save radium, without being altered by this passage and without exercising any action upon them. Radium alone took from them a little of their energy and afterward gave it out to us in divers forms.
What an advantageous explanation, and how convenient ! First, it is unverifiable and thus irrefutable. Then again it will serve to account for any derogation whatever to the principle of Mayer; it responds in advance not only to the objection of Curie, but to all the objections that future experimenters might accumulate. This energy new and unknown would serve for everything. This is just
THE PRINCIPLES OF MATHEMATICAL PHYSICS. 23
what I have said, and therewith we are shown that our principle is unassailable by experiment.
And after all, what have we gained by this coup de pouce?
The principle is intact, but thenceforth of what use is it?
It permitted us to foresee that in such or such circumstance we could count on such a total quantity of energy ; it limited us ; but now that one puts at our disposition this indefinite provision of new energy, we are limited by nothing; and, as I have written also, if a principle ceases to be fecund, experiment without contradicting it directy, will however have condemned it.
This, therefore, is not what would have to be done, it would be necessary to rebuild anew.
If we were cornered down to this necessity, we should more- over console ourselves. It would not be necessary thence to con- clude that science can weave only a Penelope's web, that it can build only ephemeral constructions, which it is soon forced to demolish from top to bottom with its own hands.
As I have said, we have already passed through a like crisis. I have shown you that in the second mathematical physics, that of the principles, we find traces of the first, that of the central forces ; it will be just the same if we must learn a third.
Of such an animal as exuviates, as breaks its too narrow cara- pace and makes itself a fresh one, under the new envelop we easily recognise the essential traits of the organism which have subsisted.
We cannot foresee in what way we are about to expand; per- haps it is the kinetic theory of gases which is about to undergo development and serve as model to the others. Then, the facts which first appeared to us as simple, thereafter will be merely re- sults of a very great number of elementary facts which only the laws of chance make co-operate for a common end. Physical law will then take an entirely new aspect ; it will no longer be solely a differential equation, it will take the character of a statistical law.
Perhaps likewise, we should construct a whole new mechanics, that we only succeed in catching a glimpse of, where inertia in- creasing with the velocity, the velocity of light would become an im- passable limit.
24 THE MONIST.
The ordinary mechanics, more simple, would remain a first ap- proximation, since it would be true for velocities not too great, so that one would still find the old dynamics under the new.
We should not have to regret having believed in the principles, and even, since velocities too great for the old formulas would al- ways be only exceptional, the surest way in practice would be still to act as if we continued to believe in them. They are so useful, it would be necessary to keep a place for them. To determine to ex- clude them altogether, would be to deprive oneself of a precious weapon. I hasten to say in conclusion we are not yet there, and as yet nothing proves that the principles will not come forth from the combat victorious and intact.
HENRI POINCARE.
PARIS, FRANCE.
MEANING OF THE EPITHET NAZOREAN (NAZARENE).1
(Read before the Section of New Testament, Congress of Arts and Science, St. Louis, September 23, 1904.)
*'T)E1NG warned (of God) in a dream, he withdrew into the *~* parts of Galilee, and came and dwelt in a city called Naza- reth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken through the prophets, that he should be called Nazorean." (Matt. ii. 22b, 23.) The unhistoricity of the Matthean no less than of the Lucan prehistory is conceded in critical circles. Thus, even Zahn says: (Das Evang. des Matth., p. 109) : "Not the silence of Josephus. . . . but the narrative of Luke (ii. 21, 22, 39), which appears to exclude the total content of Matt, ii, can arouse serious scruples," and these he makes no attempt to lay. All the more firmly is the birth, or at least the early residence, in Nazareth everywhere upheld, if not assumed, as beyond question. So too the correctness of Matthew's etymology, "Nazorean" from Nazareth. But here difficulties begin to gather.
i. The reason assigned seems unreal. Nowhere is it spoken through the prophets, "He shall be called Nazorean," nor anything nearly equivalent. Zahn exposes the emptiness of all other expla- nations but Hofmann's, which he adopts in piety only, though itself
1 In the transcription of Greek, Hebrew, and other alphabets : ch stands for the guttural h, frequently transcribed as an underdotted
h or kh, to be pronounced like the German ch in acht. sh is nearest to the English sound sh. g denotes the German s, a sharp sibilant pronounced ts, sometimes
transcribed by underdotted s. EDITOR.
26 THE MONIST.
the emptiest of all, namely : that it was spoken by the prophets that he should be misunderstood and lowly, which Matthew would ex- press by the term Nazorean. But the bald fact is that He was called (the) Nazorean without any even remote allusion to lowliness or misunderstanding, and this single fact it is that Matthew would ex- plain by early residence in Nazareth. The inevitable suggestion then is this: The Jesus was called (Ho) Nazoraios. Since this fact was most important, the Evangelist thought it must be spoken by the prophets, who had foretold all things of the Messiah. Moreover, it had to be explained some way, and the least objectionable way was to derive it from a place of early residence. Accordingly, this datum of childhood in Nazareth would take its place side by side with other data of the prehistory, as the visit of magi, the massacre of infants, the flight into Egypt. All are in fact of a piece ; why should one be taken, and the other left?
2. The "city called Nazareth'' seems to be a geographical ima- gination ; it is unmentioned in the Old Testament, in the Talmud,2 in Josephus, in Apocrypha. The first notice of it is in Eusebius, quoting professedly from Julius Africanus ; the next, in Jerome, is worse than none at all ; next Epiphanius speaks of it along with several Galilean places as inhabited down to Constantine exclusively by Jews (no Pagans, no Samaritans, no Christians). These men- tions signify nothing as to the pre-Christian reality of Nazareth. For they are all perfunctory. Themselves believing, of course, in the actuality of the city, the writers could hardly fail to mention it in such connections, whether or not it was bodily there. Again, even if there was a so-named village there in the third or fourth century, nothing would follow as to it or its name before the first. After the notion of the early life of Jesus in "a city called Nazareth" had been firmly established, we may be sure that the city itself would not long be wanting. Two or three centuries would be quite long enough for its genesis or new-naming. The silence of con- temporary and earlier history is of course not conclusive, but it is the strongest negative evidence possible. We cannot expect the
2 Which names 63 cities of Galilee.
MEANING OF THE EPITHET NAZOREAN. 27
unprophetic historian to say : "In this region 'a city called Nazareth' does not exist."
3. Nazareth cuts no figure at all in the tradition concerning Jesus. Not Nazareth but Chephar Nachum is called "his city." So all the moderns, with Chrysostom and common sense, — against Jerome. There he was "at home," according to Mark ii. I. There was the scene of his first preaching, and triumphs, and friendships. This could hardly have been, if Nazareth had been his home. True, both Matthew and Mark tell of his going into his patris, but they do not (against Graetz, Frankel's Monatsschrift, 29, 482) say what was the patris, a strange omission! Why did they not say Nazareth, if they meant it? This pericope (Matt, xiii 53-58, Mark vi. 1-6) it seems, is meant merely to visualise the proverb, "A prophet is not without honor save in his patris" (Judea? Judaism?) : it testifies not for, but against, the geographic entity of Nazareth. Luke, in- deed, is explicit. He mentions Nazareth and tells how they led him to the "brow of the hill," in order to throw him down (iv. 16-30), — all this at the beginning of his ministry, against the earlier report in Matthew and Mark! But this Lucan form is plainly a much later elaboration, and testifies to nothing but the hand of the reviser ( See Keim, Jesus von Nazara, II, p. 19 f., 425). So, too, the phrase, "he from Nazareth," is simply a later variation of "the Nazorean," just as our English versions say "this Jesus of Nazareth," where the Greek says "this Jesus the Nazorean" (Acts vi. 14).
Similarly, of Nathanael's question, "Can ought good come out of Nazareth?" (J. i. 47). The deep symbolism of this whole section we make no attempt here to sound. Enough that it is clearly sym- bolism, and not history, and bears no witness worth mention to a topographical Nazareth. (Nathanael, otherwise unknown, seems to be the notable pre-Christian Gnostic, Dositheus.)
4. But if the testimony of the New Testament is thus hesitating and indecisive concerning "the city," and appears only in the later strata of tradition, being entirely absent from the earlier, an ex- ceedingly strong negative indication, the same can not be said of the epithet (the) Nazorean. This occurs repeatedly in apparently the oldest layers of the Gospel story, without any suggestion of tend-
28 THE MONIST.
ency, especially in Acts, and more than all, it is used in the plural as the name of the new religionists (xxiv. 5) : Tertullys describes Paul as a ringleader of the heresy of "the Nazoreans." It seems impossible that this name should have become their vulgar desig- nation, unless it had been a very early and important designation. Moreover, we know that it was used in the Talmud and Koran, and is still used by the Oriental Christians. In Mark the epithet is so distinctive that it is put into the mouth of the maid as the name of the arrested one: "Thou also wast with the Nazarene (the Jesus)" (xiv. 67). All this indicates that this epithet was from the start highly distinctive and familiar, a name in itself, which would be passing strange, if it was indeed derived from a most obscure vil- lage otherwise unknown. This comes out clearly in the Hebrew- speaking voice to Paul: "I am Jesus the Nazorean" (A. xxii. 8). The epithet is quite unnecessary for identification, in two of the three reports it is omitted : its presence in this one shows that it was originally an integral part of the whole name, and as such it must have had important meaning and have pointed to something else than a wholly indifferent early residence in Nazareth.
5. The name "the Nazoreans" occurs in the Talmud unmistak- ably denoting the Christians (b. Taan. 27b). " 'Why did they not fast on the day after the Sabbath?' Rabbi Jochanan replied: 'Be- cause of the Nazoreans'" (Mipne ha-No^nm). Now this word Nojjrim was perfectly familiar to the .Hebrew and had been for hundreds of years. It occurs repeatedly in the Old Testament, as in 2 K. xvii. 9, xviii. 8, Jer. xxxi. 6, and always in the one sense of guards, watchers. The root na%ar is one of the best known in the Semitic languages, and its meaning is perfectly definite and well ascertained : to watch, observe, keep, guard, defend, preserve. In this sense it is constant in the Old Testament, occurring 63 times, the desibilated form natar 10 times. But it is much older than the Hebrew Scriptures. It is frequent in the Cuneiform inscriptions. Thus, V. R., 8: 65-67, "and Abiyati, son of Ti-i-i-ri, not meditated good, not kept oath (la na-$ir ma-mit) of gods mighty" ; and V. R. i. 115, "Guards (Ma^arati} upon those of days before" ; in the Code of CHammurabi (2250 B. C.) it occurs 7 times, as 23, 66 and 24, 6f
MEANING OF THE EPITHET NAZOREAN. 2Q
"in case watchful was she and. ..." (shum-ma na-a^-ra-at-ma . . . . ), as in 30, 47, "estate they shall preserve" (bitam i-na-%a-ru). The popularity and familiarity of the word are attested by the regular use of its imperative (u%ur for nu%ur) in forming proper names, as N abu-kudurri-u^ur (Nabu, landmark mine defend), Bel-shar- u$ur (God save the King), etc. — also in such phrases as bit ni-$ir-ti = house of treasure. The use of the segholate ne\er in the sense of sprout, shoot, branch, is only occasional, thrice in Isaiah, once in Daniel, and may here be left out of account, since it could not yield the plural noftrim and has naught to do with the matter in hand. Now, since ha-No%rim was thus the perfectly familiar term for the Guards, the Preservers, it follows that when the term was used, or its Greek equivalent., Hoi Nasoraioi, the suggestion of the well- known meaning was inevitable. Even if the name had actually been derived from the hamlet of Nazareth, no one would have thought so, every one would have turned to the household meaning, instantly and irresistibly. If a class of persons were called the Preservers, every one would understand it so. as they that preserve ; no one would dream of deriving their name from the unknown village of Preserveth. We insist upon this, because it seems decisive.
6. But what of the singular, Ho Nasoraios or Ha-No%ri ? This is the single point, not so much of difficulty as of uncertainty, for several possibilities lie open. The Old Testament singular of No$- rim is Nb^er, the participle of na%ar, frequently occurring. The termination " is generally used to designate local derivations, but not uniformly ; it is added to other nouns than those of place, to ad- jectives also, and even to prepositions, sometimes apparently for emphasis, with little change in meaning, as is noted by Green, Stade, and other Hebraists ; similarly in Syriac Noldeke speaks of its frequent parasitic presence (Kursgefasste Syrische Grammatik). Among many examples the nearest parallel seems to be "Di. The root combines queerly enough the opposite ideas of knowing and not knowing. From the latter comes ij;; = stranger used thirty- five times in the Old Testament ; also 153 = strange, used once ; also 13;: = stranger, once ; but "n.3^ = stranger, forty-five times.
3O THE MONIST.
There is no reason, then, why notfi may not be formed from no%er without real change of meaning.
Secondly, nogri may very well be a Rabbinic disguise for no$er. Possibly the Talmudists wished to deform the name slightly, as often the names they disliked. Thus, the appellative of the rational- istic Bible critic, CHivi, they changed from al-Balkhi to al-Kalbi (JBL XXIII, 6), and Evangelion they turned into Avon- or Aven- giljon (b. Shabb. n6a). Possibly they formed Ha-No^rl on the basis of a Christian Evangelic tradition that Jesus was of Nagara. The form Ndftri cannot indeed come from Nagara, but requires a No3era as the town-name, as Herford perceives. He thinks no^era may have been the local Galilean pronunciation. More likely that the Talmudists slightly bent the name no^er, as if it were no%ri from no$era. Possibly the * was added, as in a good many cases, to per- sonalise more sharply the participle, somewhat as we say the guard and also the guardian.
Still another possibility, however, and an extremely attractive one, is this: the " may be a fragment representing the divine name YHVH.3 If so, then the full primitive appellative was Nasoraios for NZRYH, Watch of Jehovah, or Jehovah the Keeper. This sug- gestion is strongly recommended by this fact: In the "name of the Restitution" of Marcus we find the form 'Ii/o-ov Na£apia. Marcus is supposed to have been a second-century heretic, but he was cer- tainly a most important one, to judge from Irenaeus and Hippolytus, and his "name of the Restitution": "Anointed and redeemed am I from Soul and from all judgment by Yah (dyh) ; redeem (my) soul, O Jesu Nazaria," seems to be extremely old; it is given in Syriac but not understood by Irenseus (I. xiv. 2). Such a formula would very naturally and probably harken back to the highest antiquity. We note, further, that the redemption is in the name of Yah, and Jesus is invoked as Nazar-Ya'. This latter is the only Syriac form, as appears from the Peshito and from Payne Smith's Thesaurus Syriacus. (The latter of course assumes the derivation of Na$ar-ya' from Nazareth, but makes no attempt to justify the assumption.)
3 As in "QHi (Nachbi~) — "Comforter is Yah," Num. xiii. 14.
MEANING OF THE EPITHET NAZOREAN. 3!
All of which points to this latter as the very oldest form of the appel- lative and as involving the divine name Yah or Yahveh, precisely as Zacharyah and the multitude of names ending in iah.
It must be remembered that the Syriac termination Ya' is exactly the same in Nasar-ya' as, e. g., in Z'char-ya' bar B'rach-ya' (Mt. XXIII. 35), and regularly represents the n, (Yah} of the Hebrew. It would be very strange if this termination had an alto- gether unique gentilicial reference in Nasar-ya'. Moreover, it is at once perceived that in the formula of Marcus any local derivative is utterly out of place ; the epithet, Nazar-ya', must be charged with weighty meaning. Similarly, in the trilingual inscription on the Cross (J. xix. 19), it seems impossible that the epithet Nazorean (Na^ar-ya') should mean "of Nazareth," a village in Galilee over which Pilate had no jurisdiction.4 It must tell not of the home but of the nature, the character, the personality.
Be this as it may, it seems reasonably certain that Nazoraios had originally nothing to do with the imaginary village Nazareth; that it was a descriptive appellative, like others so commonly ap- pended to divine names, both classic and Semitic (cp. Zeus Xenios, Hermes Psychopompos, Dionysos Hypokolpios, Apollo Pythios, and the like) ; that it designated some divine power in the aspect, char- acter, or person of Guardian, Preserver, being nearly identical in meaning with 6 'I^o-ovs, the Saviour, and the pure Greek term pre- ferred by the Gnostics but disowned by the Old Catholics, 6 Swri/p. It must be remarked that this salvation was especially from demons and from sin, the work of demons. Hence the title, 6 'IT/O-OVS, was the name that was specially and exclusively invoked in casting out demons and in primitive baptism, which was primarily the washing away of spiritual uncleanness due to demons.
It should be added that both Neubauer (La Geographic du Tal- mud, 190) and Gratz (/. c.) think to find Nazareth in the Talmud, and both with the same unreason. In Josh. xix. 15 are enumerated as belonging to Zebulun the cities : "And Kattath, and Nahallal, and Shimron, and Idalah, and Beth-lehem: twelve cities and their vil-
* As Dr. Paul Carus acutely suggests.
32 THE MONIST.
lages." The Talmud (Megilla 7oa) repeats this list in slightly varied form, preserving the name Beth-lehem but adding Zerye'h (iT"iX crprTD). Now Neubauer and Gratz insert the letter : before X and vocalise the result into Nozeryyah, which is not wholly unlike Nazareth! Hence Neubauer thinks we should translate the Tal- mudic passage thus: Bethlehem near Nazareth, according to which the utterly obscure village of Nazareth was so much more important than the ancient historic city of Bethlehem that the latter had to be defined by reference to the former! Gratz perceives the improb- ability and hence translates his conjectural text thus: Bethlehem of Nazareth, understanding Nazareth as a post-exilic name for Galilee, in direct contradiction of the Evangelic phrase "Nazareth of Gali- lee," and this conjecture is adopted by Cheyne, to whom belongs the credit of explicitly stamping the "city called Nazareth" as a fiction (Enc. Bibl., Art. "Nazareth"). But if Nazareth was such a familiar name of Galilee as to make Nazorean preferred to Galilean as a gentilicium, assuredly we should have heard of it. The fact is that Neubauer and Gratz have found Nazareth in the Talmud only be- cause they sought it there. He who seeks shall find. But the word is not there, and neither scholar offers any reason for inserting the :. Closer inspection shows, first, that the Masoretic text of Joshua is maimed, since only five cities are named, not twelve, and the Septuagint omits the final clause; secondly, that the Zerye'h is most likely derived from the oft-recurring, very similarly written liTSVCfl (ychaireken) •=• " and their villages," only four words below. Certainly the nearest-lying supposition is that the Talmudic text or its source, like the defective Masoretic text, meant to say some- thing about the cities and their villages. Hence the ingenious con- jectures of Neubauer, Gratz, and Cheyne, not to mention Halevy and Wellhausen, appear both needless and unwarranted. Neither do they nearly touch the heart of the matter, which is that by every token Na^ar-ya' was primarily like 6 'Iifo-ovs and 6 Sony/a, an appel- lative of a god?
5 That "IJt'i was at some time felt to involve a Messianic reference, seems hinted in the large j with which it is written in Ex. xxxiv. 7, as Zuschlag has observed.
MEANING OF THE EPITHET NAZOREAN. 33
The question remains, whence the Marcan form Nazarene ( Na£ap7;vos ) ? It is commonly derived from Nazara, as Magdalene from Magdala ; but, in spite of Keim and his learned note, this form Nazara is too feebly attested. In reality the form Na^ap^vos explains itself when we recall that in Aram.Tean, according to Dalman (Ara- m'disch-neuhebr'disches Worterbuch, page 257), the word Natrona' (KIYTOi) means "defender" (Beschutzer) , which at once yields Nas- arene, the Aramaic t (tt) corresponding to the Hebrew ts (s). Na$ar-ya' remains in all likelihood the most primitive form, since the Marcosian "name of restitution" far antedates any manuscript of our second Gospel.
Since the foregoing was written, we have lit upon a most deci- sive confirmation. In the Paris Papyrus, at line 3119-20, we read:
.... 6p/a'£w (re Kara TOV 6f.ov TOJV *EfJpa.i<av 'Irjcrov ta^aiarj .... and Other
meaningless alphabetic combinations apparently to be sung (these latter seem to be documentary specimens of the "speech in tongues" of Acts and first Corinthians). "I adjure thee by the God of the Hebrews, Jesus." This "Logos" is declared to be "Hebraic," it is full of the Old Testament, it is assigned by the Papyrus editor, Dieterich, positively to the Essenes or Therapeutae, who were cer- tainly pre-Christian, and it itself is surely not post-Christian. There is in the whole "Logos" not a trace of Christian influence. That "Jesus" is herein called "the God of the Hebrews," of itself implies that the document is at least as old as the beginning of our era. At this date, therefore, we find that "Jesus" was the name used in conjurations for "the God of the Hebrews" — a fact whose im- portance it seems impossible to overrate.6
6 It must not be supposed that the results attained exclude the possibility that there arose in some minds at some time a confusion of the terms and the notions ^!M and TT^ (nazir, Nazirite), especially as the LXX rendered T by C and x generally by a, but not always, sometimes by C, thus yyy — oi>£ (Gen. x. 23). It is possible that the writer of Mt ii. 23 remembered Ju. xiii. 5 (he shall be a Nazir of God etc.), and so was emboldened to use the phrase, "through the prophets." But of these and other minor points lack of time forbids discussion.
34 THE MONIST.
II.
It did not fall within the scope of the foregoing investigation to discuss the heresiographic testimony, in particular of Epiphanius, touching the primitive sect of the "Nazaraioi." That investigation was in its conception almost purely philologic, and its design was to establish whatever conclusions seemed recommended, as at least highly probable, on the sole basis of certain linguistic facts. In ac- cordance with the critical method already exemplified by the writer in a series of New Testament studies, it was intended to elicit the full evidence of these facts uncomplicated with any suggestions or modifications that might proceed from the consideration of any other foreign body of facts however closely related to the matter in hand. But this accomplished, it now becomes our duty to fix our attention on this other body of testimony and to interpret it naturally and so far as possible in utter forgetfulness of the results already attained. If such interpretation confirms these results, well and good, — by the mouths of two independent witnesses our conclusions have been established; but if there be any serious discrepance between the two sets of results, then there has been some error in our work, which must be detected and corrected. We may state in advance that this testimony, found in the Panarion of Epiphanius,7 proves to be very elaborate and explicit, and while not free from obscurity and even contradiction ("den confusen Angaben des Epiphanius," Har- nack, D 63, I. 288), it is none the less unambiguous and conclusive as to the main issue, it is in fact the end of controversy.
After describing briefly the heresy of the Daily Bathers (Hem- erobaptists), Epiphanius sets himself "to expound that of the Naza- raioi, who are Jews by race, taking their start from Galaaditis and Basinitis and the (regions) beyond the Jordan, as the report that has reached us comprehends, which, being of Israel itself, Judaises in all things, thinking scarcely aught beyond the afore- mentioned (sects). For circumcision exactly so it possessed, Sab-
'Hseres. XVIII., Kara Nafa/oawv and XXIX., Kaar
MEANING OF THE EPITHET NAZOREAN. 35
ith the same it kept, feasts the same it persevered in, not however (the notion of) destiny it introduced, nor astronomy. And (the) Fathers it received, those in the Pentateuch from Adam to Moses, those that were conspicuous by virtue of godliness, — I mean Adam, and Seth, and Enoch, and Methuselah, and Noah, and Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, Levi too, and Aaron, and Jesus the son of Nun. But it did not receive the Pentateuch itself, however it con- fesses Moses, and believed what he received (as) legislation; not this, it says, but another. Whence all the (customs) of Jews they keep, being Jews (themselves), but sacrifice they did not sacrifice, nor partake of animates; but it was unlawful with them to partake of their flesh or to sacrifice them. For they assert that these books were fabricated and that none of them proceeded from the Fathers. This was the distinction of the Nazaraioi from the others."
The remaining (second and third) sections are devoted after the manner of Epiphanius to a refutation of these heretics, which however does not concern us.
We observe that these Nazaraioi are Jews, that they are localised east of the Jordan, are vegetarians, are heterodox in rejecting the inspiration and authority of the Hebrew Scriptures. There is no suggestion of Christianity about them. Neither are they Nazirites (Naziraioi), whom Epiphanius mentions hereafter; in no particular do they resemble these latter, they are rather antipodal, their prac- tice being directly counter to that prescribed for the Nazir (Num, vi.). Petavius then errs as widely as possible in writing "Nazarsei veteres a^VW proprie vocati, quasi sancti, et separati;" but these words are extremely interesting as the counsel of desperation. It appears then that both the name Nazaraioi and they that bore it were before Christianity and independent of Christianity. Hence the name can not be derived from any early residence of Jesus in Nazareth, nor indeed with the least probability from Nazareth at all. It is next to impossible that a sect located beyond the Jordan should take its name from an insignificant village on this side of the Jordan.
What evasions are possible? It can not be that Epiphanius is speaking of a sect that arose after Christ, else he would have
36 THE MONIST.
dropped some hint to that effect ; moreover, and this is decisive, he afterwards declares explicitly (XXIX. 6) that the Nasaraioi were "before Christ."
The name here used is Nazaraioi, whereas the form commonly used, as in the New Testament and elsewhere by Epiphanius him- self, is Nazoraioi. But no one is likely to claim that this is more than a difference in spelling of the same word. The irritating con- fusion of the vowels a and o is one of the first things to repel the student of Syriac. Both forms present themselves in New Testa- ment manuscripts, as at Mk. x. 47, L. xviii. 37, xxiv. 19, so that no one can say with certainty which of the vowels a, o, w is to be preferred. Perhaps all have nearly equal justification.
Can it be that Epiphanius did not know what he was talking about? Impossible. His antiquarian learning and industry are uni- versally admitted. Petavius indeed says dubiously, "I do not know whether any other besides Epiphanius has mentioned such a heresy of Jewish name." To be sure ! There was every reason why Chris- tian writers at least should not mention them. The wonder is that Epiphanius has constated their existence. But there is no reason whatever for doubting his testimony that they were, whether or not his account of them be quite accurate. It is only their name and the fact of their being that bear on our argument.
Plowever, this is by no means the full deposition of the Bishop of Constantia. Among Christian heresies, having treated of the Cerinthians he proceeds (XXIX.) Kara Na£a>pauov:
"Nazoraioi follow these next in order, being along with them, whether before them or with them or after them, nevertheless con- temporary ; for not more accurately can I declare who succeeded whom. For just as I said, they were contemporary with one an- other, and similar the opinions they cherished. For these applied to themselves the name not indeed of Christ, nor even the name of the Jesus, but of Nazoraioi. And all Christians then were likewise called Nazoraioi. But it happened for a little time they were called Jessaioi, before the disciples began to be called Christians at An- tioch. And they were called Jessaioi on account of Jesse, I think." There follows a very prolix dissertation on the royalty and the priest-
MEANING OF THE EPITHET NAZOREAN. 37
hood, in elaboration of this idea, none of which has any bearing on our inquiry. Epiphanius concludes it finally and proceeds:
"And there is much to say about this. But, nevertheless, since I have come to that point, to say for what cause they were called Jessaioi, before being called Christians, they that had believed on Christ, (it was) for this reason, we said, that Jesse was the father of David. And either from Jesse or, from the name of Jesus our Lord they were called Jessaioi, on account of their starting from Jesus, being his disciples, or on account of the etymology of the name of the Lord. For Jesus in the Hebrew dialect is called (sig- nifies) curator (OepairevTrjs} , that is, Physician and Saviour. Any- way, with this name, before their being called Christians, they were dubbed as a surname. But from Antioch, as we have noted above, as is the basis of the truth, began the disciples and all the Church of God to be called Christian." — Epiphanius then proceeds to iden- tify these extremely interesting Jessaioi with the subjects of the well-known writings of Philo, supposed to deal with the Essaioi or Essenoi, whether correctly or incorrectly we cannot here discuss. He then continues :
"As accordingly they were then called Jessaioi, for a little time after the ascension of the Saviour, and Marcus' having preached in the land of the Egyptians, about those times some went out again, followers indeed of the apostles, I mean those there appear to me evidently Nazoraioi, being Jews by race and adhering to the Law, and practicing circumcision; but as persons beholding a fire from a lookout, and not thinking for what cause they had kindled this fire, or what useful purpose, do it, whether preparing the provisions of their life for eating by means of the fire, or for getting rid of some inflammable sticks or twigs such as are wont to be consumed by fire, — so also they themselves, imitating, lighting up a fire, burned themselves. For having heard only Jesus' name and having beheld the divine signs wrought by the hands of the apostles, they them- selves also believe on Jesus. And knowing him as of Nazaret, con- ceived in womb, and brought up in Joseph's house, and therefore in the Gospel called Jesus the Nazoraios, as also the apostles say, "Jesus the Nazoraios, a man approved both by signs and wonders,"
38 THE MONIST.
and so forth, this name they impose upon themselves, to be called Nazoraioi, but not Naziraioi, which is interpreted "sanctified." For this was of old the prerogative (d&'w/Aa) of the first-born, and those consecrated to God, one of whom was Sampson, and others after him and before him many. Yea, John the Baptist also was himself one of these same vanguards of God, and wine and fermented liquor he did not drink. For this was the policy appointed for such men as befitting their dignity ( d£«i>/*a ) .
"But others called themselves Nasaraioi. For the heresy of the Nasaraioi was before Christ and knew not Christ. But all men called the Christians Nazoraioi, as I said before, as say accusers of Paul the Apostle : 'This man we found pestilent and perverting the people, being ringleader too of the heresy of the Nazoraioi.' And the holy Apostle denies not the name, not confessing the heresy of these, but gladly accepting the name imposed upon him, by the malignity of the gainsayers on account of the Christ. For he says on the bema : 'Neither in the temple found they me disputing against any one, nor making any riot of the crowd, nor of what things they accuse me have I done aught. But I confess thee this, that accord- ing to the way which these call heresy, do I worship, believing all that is in the Law and the Prophets.' And no wonder that the Apostle confesses himself Nazoraios, (as) all (were) then calling the Christians by this name, on account of Nazaret the city, there being no other use for the name at the time, so as for men to call those that had believed in the Christ, about whom it has been writ- ten, 'that he shall be called Nazoraios.' For men even now by the same name call all the heresies Christian, I mean both Manicheans and Marcionists, both Gnostics and others, that are not Christians ; and yet each heresy, although called otherwise, receives this (name) rejoicing, because by the name it is adorned. For they think to be magnified by the name of the Christ, not indeed by the faith and the works. So also the holy disciples of the Christ called themselves then disciples of Jesus, as indeed they also were ; but hearing them- selves (called) of others Nazoraioi, they did not disclaim, seeing the aim of those calling them this, because they called them (so) on ac- count of Christ ; since also the Lord Jesus himself was called Nazo-
MEANING OF THE EPITHET NAZOREAN. 39
raios,as the Gospels have it, and the Acts of the Apostles ; on account of his having been brought up in the city of Nazaret, which however is now a village, in Joseph's house, having been generated according to flesh in Bethlehem from Mary the ever-virginal, the betrothed to Joseph the immigrant in the same Nazaret, after, having changed from Bethlehem, he had settled down in Galilee.
"But these the afore-mentioned heretics, about whom we are here making our narration, passing by the name of the Jesus, neither called themselves Jessaioi, nor retained the name of the Jews, nor surnamed themselves Christians, but Nazoraioi, plainly from the surname of the place, the Nazaret. But in all regards they are Jews, and nothing other. And these use not only (the) New Covenant but also (the) Old, just as also the Jews. For there have not been renounced among them Law, and Prophets, and Scriptures, these called Biblia (Hagiographa) among Jews, as among the afore- mentioned ; nor aught else do these think but according to the preaching of the Law, and as the Jews all things exactly they con- fess, except indeed the having believed on Christ. For among them also resurrection of (the) dead is confessed, and that the uni- verse has been generated from God. And God they proclaim as One, and his child Jesus Christ. And in Hebrew dialect accurately they are versed. For among them all the Law, and the Prophets, and the Hagiographa (so-) called, I mean the Stichere, and the Kings and Paralipomena, and Esther, and all the others are read in Hebrew, as of course also among Jews. In this alone they differ from Jews and Christians, not according with Jews on account of (their) believing on Christ, and not agreeing with Christians on account of their being still fettered by Law, both circumcision and Sabbath and the rest. But concerning Christ I cannot say whether they too, weighed down by the wickedness of the aforementioned disciples (irepi) of Cerinthus and Merinthus, deem (him) mere man; or, as the truth is, firmly hold him to have been generated through the Holy Spirit from Mary. And this the heresy of the Nazdraioi is in Bercea, about Code-Syria, and in Decapolis, about the regions of Pella, and in Basinitis that is called Kokabe but in Hebrew Chochabe. For thence the beginning arose, after the
40 THE MONIST.
migration from Jerusalem of all the disciples that settled in Pella, Christ having told them to abandon Jerusalem and to depart, since it was going to suffer a siege. And on such a basis having settled in Peraea, there, as I said, they passed the time. Thence the heresy of the Nazoraioi had its origin."
With the next section, an argument about circumcision, we have no concern. Epiphanius then continues: "Altogether hateful are these to the Jews. For not only do the children of the Jews cherish hatred towards these, but on arising at dawn,8 and at mid- day, and at eventide, thrice a day, when they perform devotions in their synagogues, they curse them and anathematise saying that 'Accurse doth God the Nazoraioi.' For against these they lay it up more especially that being themselves of the Jews they preach Jesus to be Christ, which is counter to those that are still Jews, that have not received Christ. And they have the Gospel according to Matthew most complete in Hebrew. For among them undoubtedly this, just as from the beginning it was written in Hebrew letters, is preserved. But I know not whether the genealogies, those from Abraham to Christ, they took away. Well, having detected this (heresy) as a dull and, on account of the poison, pain-producing cell of wasps, and having crushed it down with the words of truth, let us go on to the next, my dearest ones, asking from God His help."
Here follows the chapter Kara E/?twva«i>v.
We have reproduced So much of Epiphanius in a translation so slavishly literal, because his writings are not very accessible, and to show as clearly as possible his style of thought and expression, as well as to avoid taking any liberties of interpretation. The whole passage is one of exceeding importance. With its glaring contra- dictions, due perhaps in large measure to interpolation, we have nothing to do, except as noted below. The great central fact is this : Epiphanius testifies unequivocally that the ,Nasaraioi were "before Christ" and "knew not Christ." On this point it is impossible that he should be mistaken. For he was unquestionably learned, and
8 We read here ea&tv for
MEANING OF THE EPITHET NAZOREAN. 4!
laborious, and inquisitive, however shortsighted, fanatical, and in- tolerant. Hilgenfeld bears repeated witness to his "richer knowl- edge," "exacter knowledge," independent research, and the like. That he should have invented these pre-Christian Nasaraioi is quite incredible. For they were evidently a most painful and venomous thorn in his flesh. Their existence was a vexatious mystery, which he toils desperately and pitiably to explain. How wearisomely he reiterates that the name was taken from Nazaret, as if reiteration might finally make it so! He mentions these sectarians merely because he must, he cudgels his brains cruelly to make out what they can mean, he involves himself in hopeless contradictions in trying to solve the riddle, and at last he cuts the Gordian knot by dating them from the siege of Jerusalem (A. D. 68), though they were pre-Christian, and Paul was one of them nearly twenty years before! It is clear as noon from the painstaking, the repetitions, the discrepancies, and especially from the closing sentence, that the task was not a grateful one to Epiphanius, and that he would gladly have forgone it if he could.
The dumbness of other heresiologists (except Philaster, who also mentions the Jewish sect of the Nazareans) now becomes more expressive than their speech. It was just because they had wit enough to perceive the danger of discussing these Nasaraioi, that they maintained a prudent but ominous silence, broken only by harmless allusions to their heretical doctrines. But the valor of
B»
Epiphanius got the better of his discretion. In the providence of God the foolishness of the Bishop has availed far more for the truth than the wisdom of his predecessors and contemporaries, and even of his successors in modern times. These latter give this original and universal designation of the Christians but the scantiest recog- nition. A careful search through all accessible authorities discovers hardly anything that is pertinent and worth quoting. Petavius con- tents himself with a few notes and skeptical phrases, none of which throw light on the subject. Hilgenfeld names the Nasaraer and Nasarder repeatedly in his standard Ketsergeschichte, regarding them apparently as the "remnant of the primitive Jewish-Christian congregation," but the important question he does not mention. In
42 THE MONIST.
his Die Entstehung der altkatholischen Kirche (Dutch translation [1868], p. 148 ff.) Ritschl discusses "the Nazaraer and the Phara- saic Ebionites," regarding the former as the original apostolic Chris- tians, but neither he nor Tubingen, old or new, approaches the heart of the matter, the pre-Christian existence of the "heresy."
We have no space to treat the vexed question of the Ebionites and the Essenes, but we must press the query as to the Nasaraioi, for there is the pivot of controversy. We note that our author cautiously shuts up and locks the natural door of escape, by dis- tinguishing his sectaries expressly from the Naziraioi, or sanctified, with whom Petavius would identify them.9 We observe further that he says of those who were "before Christ," they "called themselves Nasaraioi." This is important. For such is the exact translitera- tion of the older form preserved in the Syriac (both Peshito and Sinaitic), Najarya. Here then our expectations are met precisely. For the natural and almost, though not quite, uniform translitera- tion oi % is <r and not £. Again, the name of the pure Jewish sect is given always as Na£apatoi, never as Na£o>paioi. Here then is a notable
gradation: Nao-apeuot, Na£a/o<uoi, Na£<opaioi, finally Na£api;voi. Only the first conforms strictly to the Syriac prototype, Nagarya. We venture to suspect that the change was not quite accidental, that there was intention to lead away the term from the original tell- tale form. Be this as it may, it seems indisputable that the sect of the Nasaraioi existed "before Christ."
Possibly, however, some one may plead that the name Nasa- raioi (or at least Nazoraioi) was not assumed till after Christ. Epi- phanius seems to hint as much, though not affirming it expressly. He says that the Jessaioi, to him evident Nazoraioi, having merely heard the name of Jesus and witnessed the apostolic wonders, be- lieved on Jesus and applied to themselves the name Nazoraioi, knowing him as of Nazaret. Perhaps no one would take this se- riously or expect us to waste words in exposing such an absurdity.
' In Josephus we find two allusions to Nazirites : Ant. IV. 4, 4, and XIX. 6, I. In the one the form is Na&pa'usv, in the other it is NafapaZot. But this latter is found in a parenthesis that needs no critic's eye to detect it as the explanatory insertion of a later hand
MEANING OF THE EPITHET NAZOREAN. 43
That these sectarians, scattered over a wide region, were at once converted and changed their name in any such manner is absolutely unbelievable and preposterous. Besides, it offers no explanation of the fact that the Nazaraioi were a Jewish sect, already treated as such by Epiphanius himself (see supra}, and under the name Na- saraioi certainly pre-Christian. We do not of course deny that Nazoraioi may be a later Christian modification of the earlier name. Amid all the nebulosity then of this testimony, one fact shines out clear and unmistakable, the pre-Christian name and existence of a sect that gave the common designation to the earliest Christians, a name that Paul himself did not repudiate, and that still denotes them in the land of their origin.
Surely, no one will contend that these trans- Jordanic sectaries derive their name from the unknown "city called Nazareth," in Zebulun. They are never in any way associated with Nazareth. It is equally clear, as already shown, that they were "not Nazirites," the sanctified. Whatever they were, their early existence explodes the etymology of Nazarean as inhabitant of Nazareth.
None the less the question recurs, Whence their name? The only answer we can imagine is the one already given, which derives the epithet from the Root N-$-R (preserve), but leaves the exact force of the termination undetermined. For the Epiphanian deri- vation of Jessaioi from Jesse perhaps none will contend ; far more likely the Epiphanian alternative, which relates it to Jesus. The two Hebrew words T^ and w would yield the Greek Ico-o-atoi with almost equal readiness. For the double <r we may remember Meoxrias (J. i. 42, iv. 25) for dorPEtt. However, this and kindred topics we do not broach at present but hold in reserve. It cannot escape ob- servation that the notions of Saviour (Jesus) and Preserver are very close kin, so that the antecedent probability seems very high that the Jessaioi and the Nasaraioi were nearly identical, — the terms Jesus and Najaraios seem almost equivalent.
It must be added that what we know of the Gospel of the Naza- reans, from the fragments edited by Hilgenfeld, is consistent with the notion that they worshipped originally not a man but an aspect or person of the Godhead. The account of the conception and birth
44 THE MONIST.
is wanting, and, what is most important, the Holy Spirit is made the mother of Jesus — in perfect accordance with Hebre-w modes of thought, or at least forms of speech, for on is feminine, only rarely masculine: "Just now my mother the Holy Spirit took me by one of my hairs10 and bore me up to the great mountain Tabor," quoted twice by Origen (in loan. Tom, II. 6, in Jerem. XV. 4) and twice by Jerome (in Mich. VII. 6, in Is. XL. 12). Hereby the human birth and nature appear to be positively excluded. Similarly the nearly related Ebionaioi, at least some of them, declared "the Christ to be Adam, the first fashioned and inspired by the inbreathing of God; but others among them declare him sprung from above, a spirit created before all, both above angels and lording over all, and called Christ, who by lot held the ^Eon yonder. And that he comes hither when he will, as also he came in Adam, and appeared to the patriarchs, clothed with the body ; and having come to Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, the same came in the last days, and put on the same body of Adam, and appeared man, and was crucified, and rose up, and ascended. And again, when they will, they say, No! but into him came the Spirit, which is the Christ, and put on him that is called the Jesus." (Ep. XXX. 3.)
There is much more like the preceding, but so much is enough to show that these very earliest and even pre-Christian sectaries thought of the Christ and the Jesus as supernal and superhuman beings, as deities or phases of deity. These also used apparently the same "Gospel according to Hebrews," written in "Hebrew" and more or less resembling our Matthew, but without the first chapters. Epiphanius has further information that they have also the Johan- nine Gospel, and even Acts, "translated into Hebrew" and preserved in the treasure-houses at Tiberias — more likely that they had parts of these scriptures in Aramaean originals. Harnack himself de- clares (DG 4I. 293), "these gnostic Ebionites have preserved very archaic matter."
10 The idea may seem grotesque to us, but not to the Oriental. Compare Ez. viii. 3, the fire-form "took me by a lock of mine head; and the spirit lifted
me up "; Bel and the Dragon, v. 36; other transports by the spirit are
most probably to be conceived as effected similarly: Ac. viii. 39, Herm. Vis. I. i, 3, II. I, 1-4, Asc. Is. vi. 14, I K. xviii. 12, 2 K. ii. 16.
MEANING OF THE EPITHET NAZOREAN. 45
Look at it then under what angle we will, there is one momen- tous fact that confronts us:
The name Nasarean antedates our era and attaches itself both in form and meaning to the Old-Semitic stem Na3aR (preserve).
WILLIAM BENJAMIN SMITH. TULANE UNIVERSITY, 25th Octobor, 1904.
ADDENDUM.
Further examination of the great Paris Zauber papyrus, as edited by C. Wessely, discovers the epithet in question embedded in a mass of glossolalian galimatias, at line 1548:
"opKi£<a <rc Kara TOV
va<raa
That vcuraapi is our Na<ra/>ia hardly admits of reasonable doubt in the mind of a student of this extraordinary document.
Wessely dates the manuscript, along with Parthey's first Berlin Papyrus, from nearer 300 than 400 A. D. But he recognises, of course, that "the text of our papyrus is not original." All the phe- nomena, both of matter and of form, point to ein hoheres Alter, where the adjective will bear an acute accent. Some of the text is avowedly transcribed from "the very old papyrus," the abundant scribal errors imply "a rather long written tradition," and the gen- eral atmosphere is one of antiquity.
That the glossolalian passages stand closely related to the "Tongue-talking" of New Testament times, is a proposition that we hope to establish in another connection. W. B. S.
TULANE UNIVERSITY, 22d December, 1904.
THE PASSING OF SCIENTIFIC MATERIALISM.
ATOMISM AND THE ETHER.
T7ROM the earliest historic times, thoughtful minds have ad- dressed themselves to the problem of the composition and the ultimate nature of the external world. When the phenomena of experience have been thought as inhering in substance and the at- tributes by which substance is known are projected outward as ob- jective, not only to myself, but also to absolute subjectivity, that is, when the objective phenomena are regarded as having an inde- pendent external existence, the next step is their unification into an objective world. This dualism between an absolute subject and a universal object is one that pervades all thinking, simply because it is the first product of thinking.
Practically, we know the external world as a succession of phenomena appearing as different modes in extension. These three categories of our knowledge, time, space, and mode, are necessary forms of our thought. The process of cognition is a process of integration, the final extreme of which is the production of an ex- ternal unity to correspond with the internal unity of self.
As certain phenomena are affirmed as attributes of a substance, all attributes are integrated as a totality of substance in a unity, which is our world of experience. This we philosophically construe as the universe. Just as the few and disconnected points of irri- tation in the retina are blended into a field of view without breaks or lacunae, when reflected on the consciousness, so the paltry, scat- tered reactions upon the sensorium commune that make up our individual experience are reported in our thinking as a continuous
THE PASSING OF SCIENTIFIC MATERIALISM. 47
extended world. There are no breaks in it. Nature, our nature, abhors a vacuum.
This thought of an external continuum may be derived from a peculiar and very "fortunate" limitation of our knowledge. There is, e. g., no mechanism for perceiving an hiatus in inner experience. Temporal relations are all dynamic. Rip Van Winkle might extend his sleep twice ten thousand times its reported length, but, on awakening, he could know nothing from inner testimony. Inner experience is, and must be, a continuum. Outer experience is re- ported in the same terms.
Again, space is constructed out of temporal (successive) ele- ments by psychical geometry. The angular deviation of eyes, re- corded as muscular sensations of accomodation and similar move- ments correlated with successive experiences related to these sensations, are connected with the formation of space conceptions, whatever the intuitional school may postulate as something prior to this creation. Space becomes a continuum ; therefore, it is a geometric and not an arithmetical construction.
In the case of mode, the idea of a continuum is later in arising, for black is contrasted to white as distinct from, or even opposite to, the latter; and it is only later that we arrive at the apparently paradoxical result that all white is more or less black, and black is somewhat white, and that intervening colors express in their own way a sliding scale of intervening values.
This last analogy is misleading, for it is in the series of ex- citations and not in the sensations that we find a continuum. The two fundamental forms of mode are identity and unlikeness or dissimilarity. Mode is our reaction to the filling of our forms of space and time, — the latter directly, the former as reflected in ob- jectivisation.
In the long run, therefore, all of these necessary categories of our thinking help us to form an external unity or world, after which metaphysics postulates it as a universe or sets upon it the seal of the absolute.
Science sets forth with the utmost confidence to make conquest of this external world, but only, so far, to return to the stronghold
48 THE MONIST.
of individualistic experience, humiliated and baffled. We do not know, and can make no adequate expression for, the reality which constitutes this world of ours. Three characteristics are, indeed, given by the necessities of constructive thinking: the world is uni- tary, it is continuous, it is dynamic.
All attempts to evaluate the world of experience may be said to fall in one or other of three classes, as follows :
1. Atomism. Some minds are arithmetical. All quanitative relations are thought as numerical. All wholes are conceived as made up of units. A world must for them be the sum of all the units of experience, and these must correspond to external units. Such units, since we detect in them relations of "more and less," must be divisible into smaller units; but there will be no point at which they will disappear, but there must be a lower limit of divisi- bility. By such reasoning, we arrive at indivisible units or atoms, in which inhere all the properties or attributes of the world as a whole, or of various things in particular.
2. Plenism. Other minds are geometric and conceive of quan- tity as continuous. Units are artificial measures of quantities, which increase or decrease by infinitessimal amounts, that is, by contin- uous activity. The qualities or attributes of the world or of things in particular are only explicable as inhering in a universal substance, co-extensive with the universe and capable of manifold forms of expression.
This interpretation finds many fatal defects in atomism and points out that atoms acting across empty spaces violate the neces- sities they were invented to satisfy. If acting requires to inhere in a substance, what becomes - of activity when passing through a vacuum from one atom to another? In vain, atomism borrows ether from the plenists to fill the chinks between the atoms. The geometrical school states that a plenum or universal substance fills all space and that activity resides in it and is propagated through it. It is even possible to invent mathematical expressions for the individualised manifestations of the activity in the plenum, such as may be studied in the discussion of the vortex atom.
3. Energism or Spontaneity. The two schools already named
THE PASSING OF SCIENTIFIC MATERIALISM. 49
have shared the honors and divided the field of physics between them. No other possibility has been recognised till lately by modern physicists. These two schools have in common a philosophical postulate, which is not supposed to require proof — and this is very fortunate indeed, for it could never secure it. This postulate is that all activities or attributes must reside in something which is not active. This matter is the physical substitute for the philosophical or psychological construct, "substance." It is by nature unknow- able, for it could only be known by its properties or activities. But we do not know them as properties of it, but create it to explain the continuance or reappearance or relations of the activities.1
Activities are discovered to occur in my mind in certain rela- tions, and these relations are the basis for a postulate called "mat- ter." So fixed is the idea that attributes inhere in something, of which they are attributes that language almost refuses to describe any other possibility. But the energist or advocate of spontaneity demurs to this conception as irrelevant. Why should we postulate the unknown to explain the known? True, "standing in relation" is the most important thing about activities. Activities cohere in relations of sequence and similarity, but why invent a matter, en- tirely unlike the activity and unthinkable apart from the activity, as its ground ?
The efforts of physicists have so far failed to afford a con- sistent and rational explanation of, or expression for, either atom or plenum. The nearest approach to such expression, mathematic- ally, is inconsistent with either and would apply better to activity freed from the limitation of plurality and discreetness imposed by atomism, on one hand, and the impossible combination of imponder- ability and elasticity, on the other. When the plenists ask us to con- ceive of gravitation as the effect of an ether itself imponderable, we are fain to seek the camp of the atomists, who speak of ponderable points acting on ponderable points through imponderable space — • or to abandon both.
1 Lord Kelvin defines matter as the rotating parts of an inert perfect fluid, which fills all space, but which is, when not rotating, absolutely unperceived by our senses.
5O THE MONIST.
The energists claim that there is no need for either conception, but that substantiality is expressed by relation among activities. Activities are positive realities whenever they are shown to belong together. The belonging-together is the substantiality sought, and to seek further is illogical. A relation is a real thing and expresses a law of organisation. The organisation is the organism. We talk about cold iron and hot iron, because, of the group of properties we connote under the word "iron," certain ones are observed to vary, and others are, relative to our means of observation, constant. Strictly, however, we should say hot-iron, cold-iron, and cold-hard- black-smooth-iron and hot-softer-grey-rough-iron, etc., as our knowl- edge of the variables grows. What, after all, makes "iron" a species by itself as against other aggregates of properties called copper, etc., is an organic coherence or belonging-together.
To the spontaneity school have usually belonged philosophical minds who have refused or been unable to attempt an application in detail of their system to the practical needs of human science. Even the practical men who recognised the philosophical correctness of this standpoint, were constrained in praxis to use the language of practical physics and chemistry. Hegel's ideas and Schopen- hauer's World as Will and Idea have never found a place among the symbols of the chemist or the formulae of the physicist.
After the few introductory words, we may take up the teach- ings of the three schools more in detail.
THE ATOMIC HYPOTHESIS.
The most complete account of the opinions of the ancient atomists is to be found in the works of the Roman poet Lucretius. Democritus was the founder of the atomic theory as we know it, though it is probable that the two ideas of nature as a plenum and of an infinity of indivisible parts had existed in the philosophical systems of Egypt and India at a much earlier date. Whether we regard the atomic theory as a result of an arithmetical way of treat- ing quantity, or as a product of experience in which the divisibility of units into still smaller units is experimentally realised, it has nevertheless appealed to a certain class of minds with irresistible
THE PASSING OF SCIENTIFIC MATERIALISM. 51
power in all ages. The atomists made the distinction between matter and space, and regarded the atoms as indivisible particles of matter scattered in space. The physical analogy is a mass of sand, in which the particles may be all alike, at least in some respects. The neces- sity for voids was a supposed result of the necessity for motion.
"Quapropter locus est intactus, inane, vacansque Quod si non esset, nulla ratione moveri Res possent; namque, officinum quod corporis extat, Officere atque obstare, id in omni tempore adesset Omnibus : haud igitur quicquam procedere posset, Precipium credendi nulla daret res."
De Rerutn Natura, 335.
The atoms of Heraclitus are indivisible units differing in size, form, and weight. All changes in nature reduce to changes in place or aggregation of atoms. The atoms group themselves in various complexes more or less analogous with the modern mole- cule, the differences in which result from the diversities in the ar- rangement of the inherent atoms. Aside from atoms, there is only empty space, but this space has an objective existence, although called the non-existent as contrasted to the atoms as the existent. Democritus himself says that the existent is no more real than the non-existent, a statement which reminds us of the famous Hegelian aphorism that being and non-being are the same. Perhaps, it is to be explained that the agent and the sphere for the activities of the agent are two equal necessities of thought, or that one cannot think of phenomena apart from the limitations that define and make pos- sible the recognition of these phenomena.
The atoms were supposed to be in continuous motion among themselves and to group themselves temporarily in accordance with uniformities or harmonies in such motions. But, as the activities of atoms are, after all, unexplained, a principle is postulated which has generally been termed necessity, avay^n- This is more like what we have called "ground" and may represent an implied organism — a view that may, perhaps, seem supported by the atheistic tendencies of the atomists.
52 THE MONIST.
Anaxagoras supplied the corrective by substituting for necessity the voOs or Nous, the conscious activity, a teleological principle. This gives to the atom the attribute of spontaneity and forms a link with the energic school. For Anaxagoras the atoms were innumerable, simple, inert bodies in chaotic distribution, until set in activity by the Nous, which, accordingly, arranges them into an orderly uni- verse or organism.
In many respects, the monadology of Leibnitz resembles atom- ism. In making the idea of substance the foundation of his philos- ophy, Leibnitz resembled Spinoza, but Leibnitz was arithmetical, while his predecessor was geometrical. The substance of Leibnitz, while a living activity, activity being the very nature of substance, finds individual expression in a multiplicity of active monads, each different from the other and each an indivisible point. In this re- spect they are like Boskovitch's atoms, but, in reply to the objection that no number of unexpected points would make an extended uni- verse, Leibnitz replies that space has no objective reality, it is only a vague subjective concept.
The monad is not only active, it is also living. Each monad is a microcosm and mirrors the universe. It is fundamental to Leib- nitz's system that the activities of every monad imply those of all others. These activities, as related to individual monads, are re- pulsions, but they unitedly form an equilibriated whole. All things are compounds if monads. Matter in the usual sense does not exist. Each monad has a certain mentality in attribute and a certain vague or clear consciousness. The equilibrium of all these conscious activ- ities is the perfect divine reason. While monads do not affect each other directly, they move in a state of equilibrium in which one is reflected in all and all in one, — the pre-established harmony.
Boskovitch, like Leibnitz, regarded atoms as mere centres of force, the result of whose coexistence is that no two atomic centres can approach each other within a certain distance. This approaches to energism, but Boskovitch's atoms have position in space, are capable of motion, in a continuous path, and possess a certain mass, so that a certain amount of force is required to produce a change of motion. The atom is endowed with a potential force, and two atoms
THE PASSING OF SCIENTIFIC MATERIALISM. 53
will repel or attract each other, with a force depending on their dis- tance apart, and, for distances greater than about one-thousandth of an inch, this attraction varies inversely as the square of the distance, while the law of repulsive force is not known. The ultimate force is repulsion which increases without limit, as the distance increases without limit, so that no two atoms can ever coincide. All action between bodies is action at a distance. No such thing as contact between bodies occurs in nature.
Swedenborg seems not only to have adopted an atomic hypoth- esis, but to have anticipated modern stereo-chemistry, by suggesting various geometrical groupings of atoms as causes of the peculiar- ities of the resulting mofecules.
When Boyle and Lavoisier had developed the idea of elements and elementary discreteness, the idea of the atomists, which had been revived by Gassendi, was seized upon by Newton to serve in his physical speculations. The establishment of the fact that for any given portion of matter extension is variable but mass is constant, made the adoption of some form of atomism inevitable.
Bryan and William Higgins developed the atomic hypothesis along theoretical lines. The former, in 1775, recognised seven ele- ments composed of "atoms homogeneal, impenetrable, immutable, in figure inconvertible, and globular." William, a little later, pro- mulgated the idea of the union of atoms to form molecules, though he was unable to formulate the quantitative law for their union.
To Dalton, more than to any single writer, perhaps, we owe the formulation, in acceptable form and with convincing data, of the atomic hypothesis in its modern dress. Dalton was undoubtedly greatly influenced by Newton's corpuscular emanation theory, and his opportunity was due to the work of many others, through whose labors the constancy of matter had been postulated, elements had been differentiated, and the beginnings of pneumatic chemistry made. When studying the diffusion of gases he was impressed with the idea that atoms of different substances must be different in size. Upon applying this hypothesis in chemical problems, he discovered that for each element there is a definite combining value, i. e., that a relative weight of its atom could be assigned. It was
54 THE MONIST.
known prior to this time that substances unite in definite proportions. The law of definite proportions found its explanation in the impossi- bility of dividing atoms, so that the resulting weights of a compound must contain the weights of the uniting atoms as factors.
The atomic theory, as formulated anew by Dalton, which por- trayed chemical union as a juxtaposition of atoms, co-ordinated the known relations and gave to chemistry a quantitative basis or law. The tables of Richter and Fischer supplied materials, and the new formulae of Berzelius assisted to make the new system prac- ticable. Dalton's tables of equivalents were rough approximations, and his own success as an experimenter was limited, but he opened the way and devised the method which, in1 the hands of Berzelius, who supplied what Dalton lacked, became fruitful, and the new no- tation grew more complete and was soon generally accepted.
Physicists were, naturally, quite as much interested in the con- structions growing out of the atomic hypothesis as chemists, though both were for a while profoundly influenced by the metaphysics of their time. When Gay-Lussac, in 1808, the same year as the publi- cation of Dalton's System, showed that combination between gases always took place in simple relations by volume, and that all gaseous densities were proportional either to the combining weights of the several substances or to rational multiples of them, the new era, the era of gaseous physics, had opened. Avagadro generalised the facts and formulated the law that bears his name: "Equal volumes of gases, under like conditions of temperature and pressure, contain an equal number of molecules." The distinction between atoms and molecules (the smallest aggregate of atoms in combination) re- quires to be constantly in mind, or the mistakes of the earlier chem- ists and some later physicists may be repeated.
To the above must be added the following: Boyles Law: "In a given mass of any gas kept at a constant temperature, the pressure per unit of area upon the containing surface increases in the same proportion as the volume occupied by the gas is diminished." Charles's Law. "If the density be constant, the pressure is directly proportional to the temperature measured from the absolute zero. — 273 centigrade." Dalton's Law. "In a mixture of gases, when
THE PASSING OF SCIENTIFIC MATERIALISM. 55
there is an equilibrium, each gas behaves as a vacuum to all the rest."
It was at one time believed that these phenomena could be ex- plained by recourse to mutually repulsive forces acting between the parts of which the gas is composed (molecules and the like) ; but experimental proof has been offered that not repulsion but attrac- tion exists between molecules. Regnault, for example, by observing deviations from Boyle's law when the density of gases is greatly in- creased, showed that the pressure is less than that law requires, indicating that the interfering force is attractive. Joule and Thompson conducted experiments on the thermal variations during expansion of gases which also showed that the forces between mole- cules, though small, were actively attractive.
Such considerations led to the kinetic theory of gases, which explains the intrinsic energy of a gas as not residing in the potential energy of intramolecular forces, but mainly in the kinetic energy of the molecules themselves, which are assumed to be in a state of continual relative velocity. The physical theory of heat compels us to regard the intrinsic energy of any gaseous mass as dependent largely upon temperature, so that it follows that, if this intrinsic energy is found in the form of kinetic energy of the moving mole- cules, the average kinetic energy of the molecules throughout the mass must be a function of the temperature. When several kinds of molecules are in motion and acting on one another, the mean kinetic energy of a molecule is the same whatever its mass, the molecules of greater mass having smaller mean velocities.
If equal volumes of two gases are at equal pressure, the kinetic energy is the same in each. If they are also at equal temperature the mean kinetic energy of each molecule is the same in each. If, therefore, equal volumes of two gases are at equal temperature and pressures, the number of molecules in each is the same, and, there- fore, the masses of the two kinds of molecules are in the same ratio as the density of the gases to which they belong.
It is not necessary to go into the processes by which the size and velocity, as well as the mean path, of the molecule have been calculated. The mean path of a molecule of hydrogen is given at one io,oooth of a millimetre. About two millions of molecules of
56 THE MONIST.
hydrogen would form a row a millimetre long. Since the molecules of organised matter are very complex and so much larger than molecules of hydrogen, it has been computed that about two million molecules of organic matter might constitute a fragment visible under a microscope. If these conceptions were true, they would have an important bearing on those theories of heredity that require for their application the existence of pangens, micellae, ids, or the like. The size of the resulting germs would, upon the above calculations, soon become quite unmanageable and impossible. Of course, we shall see later that, even on the atomic hypothesis, we may be dealing with ultimate particles (electrons) a thousandth the size of the atom, so that the "ids" et id genus omne again find a realm for their imagined operations.2
When we assume that atoms of every pure (unmixed) sub- stance are all alike among themselves, then Dalton's law of multi- ple proportions follows of necessity, and all relations of mass in chemical compounds must be regulated by the masses of several atoms. There exists, then, for each element a definite number, which expresses the quantity of that element that may enter into compounds. These numbers for the various elements are relative, or are really ratios. These numbers are the combining weights, or more properly, the combining masses of the elements, and are commonly but incorrectly called the atomic weights.
While, nominally, these atomic weights express the ratio of the combining weight to that of hydrogen, assumed as unity, for prac- tical reasons the assumption is made that oxygen has a weight of 16 as compared to hydrogen, and the comparisons are made direct with oxygen and reduced to a theoretical unity on that basis. As a matter of fact, if O is 16, H is about 1.003 or T-°O5-
A very important corollary of the atomic hypothesis was that suggested by Prout in 1815 and elaborated by Meinecke in 1817. Prout believed that there is a fundamental substance or protyle out of which the various atoms are formed by union in various propor- tions, etc. Hydrogen he at first supposed to be, or to contain, the
2 An interesting discussion of methods for determining the size of mole- cules is given in Risteen's Molecules and Molecular Theories.
THE PASSING OF SCIENTIFIC MATERIALISM. 57
protyle, and, as a consequence, it was assumed that the atomic weights of all elements must be multiples of that of hydrogen or some aliquot part of it, i. e., of the protyle composing it. Thomas Thompson disseminated this idea in England, but, in fact, it is a suggestion which will occur of itself to every thoughtful student of chemical quantities.
Dumas and Stas found errors in the work of Berzelius and showed that the ratio of carbon and hydrogen is as 12 : I and that of nitrogen to hydrogen as 14 : i. This seemed a long step toward experimental proof of the protyle theory. The result of the most careful quantitative work so far does not support the supposition, and Dumas was obliged to divide the weight of hydrogen by 4 in order to secure the desired factor, and this is so small a number as to be quite within the range of experimental error in determining the atomic weights by present methods. It will be seen later that recent results seem to indicate that the factor may be hydrogen divided by icoo, not by 4, so that this difficulty is not so serious as was supposed, provided we accept the electron as the modern repre- sentative of the protyle.
However, there is a real approximation to such a relation as Dumas supposed. Out of 67 elements whose atomic weights are fairly well known, 38 are whole numbers or different from a whole number by no more than one tenth. It will be noticed that quite re- cently the doctrine of the protyle is rendered probable in another form. The so-called electrons, which are supposed to be vastly smaller than atoms, are found, by the best evidence yet available, to have the same mass, whether derived from the atom of one substance or that of another with a different weight. Moreover, there seems to be reason to suppose that atoms or molecules may become so complex that the internal strains cause them to be un- stable, as in the case of radium, and that these protyles are given off incessantly without appreciably reducing the mass. If this spon- taneous decomposition be assumed and the materials given off are manifoldly smaller than hydrogen atoms, then no experimental verification of the proportional relations of the protyle to the atom
58 THE MONIST.
could be expected in the usual channels, and the objections to the hypothesis in the new form disappear.
Another set of corespondences has given rise to what is known as the periodic law. J. B. Richter, as early as 1798, made some sug- gestions in this line, and soon after the atomic hypothesis was formu- lated, Doebereimer called attention to a certain regularity in the series of combining weights. Pettenkofer tried to arrange the atomic weights of similar elements in arithmetical series, Lenson hoped to group all weights in triads, and, later, Newlands announced the law of octaves and enjoyed the ridicule that usually attends the premature recognition of a new fact. Finally, Lothar Meyer and Mendel jeff contemporaneously (1869) announced that properties of elements are periodic functions of their atomic weights. In this way, curious analogies in mathematical proportions were brought into relation with similarities in the properties of elements. A very remarkable regularity occurs with respect to the valency of the elements. An indication that the discovered correspondencies have some counterpart in nature is found in the fact that Mendeljeff was able to predict in advance the characters of elements to fill the va- cant places in the series; and these predictions were verified to a considerable extent on the discovery of the corresponding substances.
Difficulties in applying the law of Gay-Lussac to compound gases like HC1 led eventually to the recognition of the theory that atoms in a gas join to form groups called molecules. Gay-Lussac's law, therefore, runs: "The specific gravities of gases stand to each other in the ratio of their molecular weights."
The molecules in a gas are supposed to be moving in all direc- tions with veiy different velocities and are continually encountering each other. The molecules will encounter each other less frequently the farther apart they are, and all the more frequently the larger their cross-section. The mean free path is directly proportional to the space alloted to each molecule. J. R. Mayer, in 1842, deduced from apparent loss of heat during expansion of a gas and the fact that this expansion in a vacuum does not occasion such loss, the idea that the heat is converted into energy. When the gas is com-
THE PASSING OF SCIENTIFIC MATERIALISM. 59
pressed, the work done is transformed into heat. This led to the doctrine of the conservation of energy.
As already briefly alluded to, considerations connected with specific heat and the kinetic theory of gases seem to show that there is intra-molecular energy, which may be conceived as expended in vector, i.e., rotational motions.
A remarkable character of molecules was laboriously evolved from apparent discrepancies in the results of chemical analyses, which seemed to point to different properties of bodies with the same composition. Franklin, in 1852, discovered that one atom of zinc, arsenic, etc., had its combining tendency satisfied by a definite number of univalent elements or radicals of whatever kind they might be. An atom of carbon, for example, can unite with four other univalent atoms or radicals.
With the law of valence a new vista opened before the molecular student. The valences were also found to form a series correspond- ing to the periodic law. It will be seen that, putting aside the as- sumption of materiality as a mysterious conveyor of properties or activities, the atomic hypothesis has been the means of revealing a large series of quantitative ratios or correspondences, the value of which to science is something wholly apart from the significance of the material atoms in which these correspondences are supposed to reside. They are all correspondences in force, or, better, in form or amount of energy.
The fact that there were exceptions to the application of the general law of valency, led to a search for variations in the form of the atom to explain the variation. Van't HofF, in 1878, advanced such a theory. He assumed that the chemical attraction between molecules is due to gravitation, and that, if the form of the atom were other than spherical, the intensity of attraction at the surface would have a certain number of maxima dependent on the form. If the thermal motion of the atom were rapid, only the strongest maxima would be able to retain their atoms, and valency would be greater at a low than at a high temperature, and this is the case.
Van't Hoff extended his theory by formulating a tridimensional space relation for atoms. He supposes the valencies of the carbon
6O THE MONIST.
atom, e. g., to act at the four summits of a tetrahedron. Wislecenus has shown that this theory gives an intelligible explanation of the existence of more isomers among nnsaturated compounds than indi- cated by the ordinary structural formulae.
Although this theory is of the most hypothetical kind, it has been extended to form the foundation of a complicated stereo- chemistry, the applications of which have also a bearing on crys- tallography.
We know of no matter without energy, or rather, we postulate matter only from the energy perceived. Energy is denned as of such a nature that it is not possible for any masses affected with any kind of energy to exist together. ( It will be noted here that the fact that there are "masses" affected by "energy" is assumed with- out any shadow of proof.)
Mass is used as though it somehow represented "amount of matter," but, in reality, it is expressed in units of a force, and reasons may be given for using energy instead of mass. It is generally
agreed to represent kinetic energy by the formula vL, when m equals
m2 mass and v equals velocity of the moving body. Potential energy
will then be represented by fs, where f equals force or measure of striving to change place, and s the space passed over by the point considered in the change of state. The general law that in energy the intensity must have the same value in all parts of the system is interpreted to mean that
For kinetic energy velocity equals intensity, " potential energy force equals intensity, " heat energy temperature equals intensity, " electrical energy electromotive force equals intensity;
and that, whenever the intensity varies in different parts of the system, the latter is in a state of unrest until equilibrium is restored. In all these expressions one factor is quantity and the other is in- tensity; in electrodynamics, for example, the conception is that the quantity of electricity is the real thing at the bottom of electrical phenomena, and the second or electromagnetic force or tension is an intensity. (Whatever value this analysis may have in providing
THE PASSING OF SCIENTIFIC MATERIALISM. 6l
an expressive terminology, it must be remembered that the real thing is the electrical energy, and that the separation into two factors is as illusory as the dualism between matter and its properties.)
Clausius was led to conclude that some molecules in electrolytes are decomposed in consequence of their collision, and that these parts, being separated, are available to effect the transport of elec- tricity generated.3 And it was later decided that solutions of salts and strong acids and bases contain these substances largely dis- associated as ions. This theory of electrolytic disassociation has proven quite fruitful.
Up to the time of Boyle, the conception of a chemical element was not that of a substance, but of a property or a plexus of prop- erties, so that the presence of an element in a substance was recog- nised through the possession by that substance of a certain property, and it may well be that little has been gained philosophically by the new idea that elements are undecomposed residues of natural sub- stances.
From the chemical side, the atomic hypothesis seemed well justified. It became a vast and complicated structure, coherent and serving to join in an intelligible system the wonderfully varied mass of facts accumulated by thousands of workers in this field. The brief summary given will serve to indicate the diversity of the problems and the methods of solution. Like gravitation the theory was "proven" and adopted in all the practical work of chemistry and was taught in all schools as an established dogma, and yet, like the theory of gravitation, it is undoubtedly false in its present form. It is a common charge against science that it is lacking in stability and that the accepted theory of yesterday is discredited to- day. The criticism indicates an entire misconception of scientific
* By Clausius's formula, the free path of molecules has been calculated as, for example, that of oxygen at .0000038 in., of nitrogen at .0000036 in., of hydrogen at .0000067 m- From data so secured, the average number of col- lisions per second experienced by molecules of various gases at o deg. C. and atmospheric pressure, as follows:
Oxygen, 4410000000 per second,
Nitrogen, 5021000000 per second,
Hydrogen, 10040000000 per second.
62 THE MONIST.
method. Every theory which serves to bring disconnected facts into harmonious relation has truth in it, and a rejection of a theory in its definite form, after it has served its purpose, is not to discredit its utility. The relations exist and each new theory serves to exhibit these relations more completely, till the approximation to complete harmony, i. e., explanation, is reached.
It became evident when the attempt was made to apply the atomic theory to physical problems that it was insufficient or in- correct. The emission theory of light proposed by Newton, on the basis of the rectilinear factors in its propagation, proved incapable of explaining the transverse vibrations indicated by the phenomena of polarisation, etc. This and many other insufficiencies led to the necessity of recognising an imponderable ether, which, nevertheless, was obliged to possess many of the characteristics of the homo- geneous solid ; and thus it came about that two contradictory con- cepts contrived to occupy the field together, and matter was sup- posed to occupy the same space with continuous ether and to be acted upon by it, while having none of its properties. A third entity, energy, by which alone ether and matter can be known, was postu- lated as acting upon and through both. Curiously enough, the very power of acting which is all of energy is impossible without ether and matter; and we have the third absurdity of an agent which cannot act alone, endowed with the power to act, when it comes in contact with matter, in which it immediately develops properties which have no active existence, except as acted upon by energy.
These philosophical absurdities are tolerated by those physicists who clearly recognise them, because of the difficulty of providing a practicable substitute for the elaborate systems, which have grown up in the two allied domains of physics and chemistry within the last few years.
Now, having spent a hundred years in founding and perfecting the atomic hypothesis and bolstering it up with etheric creations of imagination, nothing is more characteristic of scientific spirit than that science should make every effort to destroy or replace it. This is the work of the twentieth century.
Newton was satisfied with the solid singleness of the Lucretian
THE PASSING OF SCIENTIFIC MATERIALISM. 63
indivisibles, though he too found the ether a necessary adjunct. The defects in the atomic hypothesis are nowhere more evident than in the characters of the so-called ether invented (one can hardly say discovered) by Faraday and Clerk Maxwell. But even after inventing such a medium, it was not found possible to invent prop- erties for it that would satisfy the conditions. A gas will not exe- cute luminous vibrations and the anomalous solid it was once sup- posed to resemble could have no stable equilibrium. Material status is denied it, yet without it we are told, there could not be gravitation, and yet weight is fundamental to atoms. Without the ether atoms could not communicate. Matter is not conceivable apart from the medium which transmits its activities. Observe here that the very qualities or attributes, by which alone matter is supposed to be known, are "inconceivable apart from this invented ether which has none of them." This sounds suspiciously like nonsense.
This medium is essentially limitless and universal. It is a short step to the denial of this matter which thus plays hide-and-seek with our reason. This Kelvin did by using Helmholtz's vortex ring phenomena to illustrate a kind of atom composed of ether by the isolation of portions of the ether affected by vector motions. Such vortex atoms were found by mathematical calculation to be capable of permanent separate existence, by virtue of the peculiar form of their activities. Their indispensable matrix is a perfect fluid.
By going a little further, Professor Larmor has urged that atoms are foci of etherial strain. But, putting aside the seductions of this line of thought, whose mathematical abstruseness has hin- dered its popular acceptance, let us pursue the downward career of the atom.
Lockyer urged consistently from the results of his spectroscopic work, that in the furnaces of the sun, matter exists in a still more elementary condition than the atomic. Through what is called the "Zeeman" effect, magnetic phenomena are made to give confirmatory evidence of this suggestion. But it was a result of the investigations of greatly attenuated matter in Crooke's tubes that the evidence be- came most convincing. When electrodes are introduced into such a glass tube and the air exhausted, till the pressure is, say, one one-
64 THE MONIST.
millionth of an atmosphere, an electric current, in its passage, de- velops peculiar phenomena. It is now borne across the partial vacuum by a stream of particles from the negative pole, and these particles are invisible until they impinge on the glass, when they become visibly luminous or phosphorescent. It is found that the stream is susceptible to magnetic influence, and, for this reason, it is supposed to be molecular. The discharge tends to describe a circle about the line of magnetic force as an axis.
This "matter" was described by Crookes as being in a fourth state, as it does not perfectly obey the laws of solids, liquids, or gases ; it is, in fact the so-called "radiant matter." These "cathode rays" pass freely through thin metallic films and discharge electrified bodies by making the surrounding dielectric temporarily conductive. These rays also affect photographic plates.
Oxygen, at one-sixteenth pressure, is exactly as permeable to cathode rays as is hydrogen at normal pressure ; and this fact is very significant.
"Roentgen rays" are also produced by bombardment of walls of vacuum tubes by radiant matter, but are enormously penetrative of many opaque substances. They cannot, however, be diverted from their paths by magnetic influence. For this reason, cathode rays are said to be corpuscular, and Roentgen rays are etherial, movement alone being supposed to be transmitted. Here, however, is a case where the properties of the two things are exceedingly similar and the fundamental distinction between the behavior of material particles and etherial vibrations breaks down. We may be forgiven for doubting the existence of such fundamental distinc- tion, at least in this case.
But, returning to the cathode ray material, it is concluded that it is composed of neither molecules nor atoms. Whatever the kind of gas in which they are produced, their properties are identical. Perhaps we have here the "protyle" or primeval material — the Ur- stoff of earlier speculative physicists.
These infra-atomic elements can only be produced by means of electricity and are always "charged," and this lends plausibility to the description by J. J. Thomson of cathode rays as "convection
THE PASSING OF SCIENTIFIC MATERIALISM. 65
currents" of electricity. He adduces reasons for believing that these "corpuscles" are one-thousand times lighter than hydrogen atoms, and that they form "invariable constituents of the atoms or mole- cules of all gases and presumably of all liquids and solids." If these are ultimate electrical units, the name "electrons" is appropriate for them. A confusion often arises here by employing "ion" for "electron," and physicists speak of "ionising" the air. Gases are 'ionised," when their molecules are broken up into smaller particles or ions, each associated with an electron. The electrons have the power of electrical conduction. Ideas here are as yet very hazy, and the minute discussion of them here would be unprofitable. Per- haps, the tendency represented by Larmor to believe that an atom is an aggregate of electrons in vector motion, that its mass is pro- portional to the number of these constituents, and that the inter- atomic forces are electrical, is now in the ascendent.
These suggestions might have been relegated to the limbo of defunct theories, but for the startling and rather disconcerting dis- coveries, in connection with radiant matter, recently made in uranium compounds and related substances. Uranium, thorium, and radium have the highest of known atomic weights, and this fact suggests that if atomic equilibrium really be unstable, the effects of interfer- ence or incipient break-down should be observed in the case of these elements, if anywhere. In fact, the rarity of these metals may be due to the fact that they are unstable and liable to subversion or inorganic decomposition. Radiation, like phosphorescence in ani- mate matter, may be a species of decay.
Electrical tests of radio-activity carried on by Rutherford and Soddy at Montreal promise a quantitative measure of this activity. The ionisation of a given quantity of air was measured by the effect on a constant current, as read by an electrometer. Thus, the leak- age of electricity under the influence of the radiations can be meas- ured very accurately and a standard of comparison secured.
Thorium and radium give off continuously three kinds of rays called alpha (atomic), beta (cathodic), and gamma (etherial). The first or alpha rays are believed to be composed of atoms (perhaps of helium) and are charged with positive electricity, and they can be
66 THE MONIST.
deflected by a magnet. They move with a velocity of some 16,000 miles per second and are powerful ionising agents. Beta rays, on the other hand, are cathodic, and the particles may be one one- thousandth of the weight of hydrogen atoms. They are positively electric and highly actinic. They are dispersed unequally, forming what has been called a "magnetic spectrum." Gamma rays are believed by Madame Curie to be ultra-luminous vibrations. They are not deflected by a magnet.
Besides the above, the substances above named slowly give off what appear to be gaseous emanations that can be condensed by intense cold. By means of these emanations are explained "induced" radio-activities in objects adjacent to radiantly active materials. These emanations are self-luminous. From experiments so far made, Professor Rutherford inclined to the belief that the alpha rays are really helium atoms and the emanations also behave like this element. It is possible, then, that radium spontaneously decomposes in forming helium at ordinary temperatures.
The production of heat by radium, independent of other source, is a significant fact and has been supposed to show that this element is continually liberating atomic energy.
Hitherto, we have had to do with molecular effects; here it is possibly a case where deeper reservoirs of force residing in the atom have been tapped. If a radium atom contains 258,000 electrons, J. J. Thomson concludes that the diminution of the intrinsic energy of radium atoms by one per cent, would keep up the emission phe- nomena for a period of 30,000 years. If 3.6 grammes of radium existed in each cubic metre of the sun's volume at the surface, it would be sufficient, according to Wilson, to supply the totality of solar radiation. These guesses serve merely to suggest what a mass of energy may lie concealed, entirely inappreciable to scientific instru- ments, in the "atomic" structure of the most tenuous gases. A gramme of radium, according to one author, has power enough to raise 500 tons a mile high.
But this fatal quality of dissociation appears to be universal, as Sir William Crookes says. Bewildering as is the mass of new facts and still larger crop of new speculation, it is clear that atoms in the
THE PASSING OF SCIENTIFIC MATERIALISM. 67
old sense can no longer be accepted. With the atom, a whole world of varied and enormous activities has been discovered, and the door out has been left ajar so that these forces can no longer be kept sealed. Pandora's box is open and the plague of new speculation is abroad.
The simplest view that can be taken is that the integrity of what we call an atom is in the nature of an equilibrium. Mathe- matical and physical experience shows that vector motions (rota- tional energy, etc.) are different from energy in rectilinear or radial translation, and that there may be a high degree of independence between these two sorts of energy, and that two instances of vector motions may mutually influence each other in various phases, de- pending on their correspondence in time and mode. The solenoid illustrates this point roughly.
Physics is inclined to suggest an electrical force as behind all so-called material phenomena, and the recent results of radium in- vestigation tend to support the suggestion.
Meanwhile, one result is plain: cosmological speculation can profitably go no further than to take the actual data of experience, which gives us only energy in various manifestations, and it is by no means clear that anything will ever be gained by seeking an explanation of the ultimate fact of experience by invented "carriers," "media," postulated to "explain" what is by nature inexplicable. Further discussion may, however, be postponed till we have con- sidered the other material alternative.
"We are acquainted with matter only as that which may have energy communicated to it from other matter. Energy, on the other hand, we know only as that which in all natural phenomena is con- tinually passing from one portion of matter to another." — Maxwell.
THE PLENUM.
The defectiveness of any atomic conception of matter appealed to a certain class of minds, from the first. As a mere abstraction, it seemed unthinkable that the continuous translation of force through space could take place if space were but partly filled. Atoms, if capable of independent action at all, required to be separated from
68 THE MONIST.
one another by such spaces. Nature, especially as we have said, the nature of the human mind, abhors a vacuum, and it was inevi- table that the atomic hypothesis should be substituted for or sup- plemented by, the concept of a plenum or something filling space completely.
Even Anaximander seems to have had some such idea in his apxri or Urstoff. This unlimited, undefined, but not immaterial, ground of energy was in so far dynamic, as it possessed the eternal property of motion, but it was not freed from the materialistic tend- ency of the Ionic school in which it developed. There was a combi- nation of the energic with the plenistic ideas, which were too vaguely expressed to have more than an historic interest.
The plenum of Descartes was something like extension. There are two substances, spirit and matter. The attribute and essence of matter is extension. This dualism was bridged by Malebranche, but there is nothing to explain the nature of the universal plenum. Descartes does explain light as generated by a pressure throughout an infinitely elastic medium filling space. Newton, though advocat- ing a corpuscular theory of light, also taught that heat may be con- veyed through a vacuum "by vibrations of a much subtler medium than air," and adds, "is not this medium the same with the medium by which light is refracted and reflected?" He also employs the ether to account for gravitation. Hearing and animal motion he also supposed to be brought about by the vibrations of ether.
The theory of the ether, as now universally taught, results from the necessity felt for a medium to transmit energy from point to point. Light, for example, moves at a finite rate from the source of generation, and, in as much as the phenomena of destructive interference seem to forbid the idea that light is a substance emitted from the luminous body, as held by Newton, the only recourse was to postulate a medium of some kind in which disturbances may be propagated in all directions. We have the analogy of sound. Sound waves are not propagated in vacua. It requires a medium, in this case air or some fluid or solid substance. In like manner, it is supposed, there must be a medium for the light, heat, and elec- trical vibrations.
THE PASSING OF SCIENTIFIC MATERIALISM. 69
Huygens is credited with being the real inventor of the etherial hypothesis in its present form, and it cannot be denied that the doctrine has been most fruitful. The present tendency is perhaps to consider even the phenomena of matter itself as manifestations of energy stored in ether. Potential energy is considered to be energy stored in the ether and may be simply motion of the ether, so that all energy will be found to be, as it theoretically must be, kinetic.
Two properties must be assumed to satisfy the conditions, for which ether was invented, viz., elasticity and density. In the case of a vibrating elastic solid, the energy is half in the form of kinetic energy due to the vibratory motions of the parts of the body, the other half being potential or stored up in the distortion of its parts. It has been found that the vibrations of light are of such a nature as would be impossible to either liquid or gas, so that something analogous to the solid state is required. This state is found by mathematical research to be unstable. It results that the ether has no scientific footing, but has the anomalous status of being some- thing of pure invention, failing to satisfy the conditions which alone led to its invention.
As a matter of fact, all the discussions of wave phenomena would be just as intelligible as they now are, if the idea of ether were eliminated. Or, rather, this would be the case if the mind would disabuse itself of the analogy of water and sound vibrations, which seem to require a medium. Here the more suitable expres- sion is that waves of sound are alternating forms of activity recog- nised in conditions satisfied when vested in what we call liquid or other matter. It must not be forgotten that the energy involved in sound is not lost, when the sound wave is prevented from proceeding by an interposed vacuum. Its critical point is reached, and it as- sumes another form. These modes are really expressions of inter- ference of forces, residing, as we are wont to say, in the forms of matter called media for sound waves.
Optics talks of the kinetic energy of a vibrating particle, dis- tribution of energy in the case of a medium disturbed, etc. All of these concepts lose nothing if divorced from the idea of a medium.
7O THE MONIST.
A study of electro-magnetic phenomena has been used to fortify the ether hypothesis, and, by a curious fatality, it now seems that its perfection will but serve to complete the overthrow of that theory. The ether about an electrified body is supposed to be affected or thrown into activity. When thus active it is polarised. When the body is discharged the activity ceases or is dissipated. Alternating electrical charges are accompanied by changes of state or vibra- tions of the ether, and, if the charge be varied periodically and with sufficient frequency, we have a vibration at each point analogous to, and perhaps identical with, what occurs in the propagation of light. Light and heat waves have been reduced to the same category, both being waves of electrical polarisation. Professor Hertz's experi- ments related to oscillating discharges having a period of about one 3O,ooo,oooth of a second, and reflection and interference of electro-magnetic waves are ingeniously brought within the sphere of observation. Reflected waves interfere with direct waves as in the case of sound. Most of the experiments usually carried out with light and heat waves were successfully tried with the electro- magnetic vibrations. From the mode of production, it follows that these vibrations consist of transverse vibrations, and that they are plane-polarised. Without carrying out the comparisons between the electro-magnetic and light vibrations further, we may add that, ac- cording to the electro-magnetic theory of light, the vibration is a transverse periodic disturbance attended by electric force in one direction and magnetic force in the perpendicular direction. Com- parison of velocities and refractive indices reveal the required har- monies. The original conjecture of Faraday (Experimental Re- searches, 3075) that the electro-magnetic action may be a function of the ether, seems about to be confirmed, except that by the ether we are brought no nearer to a solution of the general problem.
Even if the difficulty involved in the supposition that an elastic or compressible medium must be discontinuous be ignored, and we assume that a medium may be homogeneous and continuous as re- gards density, and yet may be really heterogeneous by virtue of its motions, as in the case of the vortex atom, in a perfect liquid-solid, still are we no better off with our medium than we would be, if we
THE PASSING OF SCIENTIFIC MATERIALISM. 71
substitute energy, instead of mass, in our equations and do away with the material element and medium altogether.4
There is an important fact which physical theorists are prone to forget, and, by neglecting it, are led to state hypotheses as proven facts, viz., we cannot know atoms or molecules individually, but, if at all, only in the aggregate, and what we infer of their structure must be by observing, experimentally, the gross results of their interaction in masses. For example, according to Avogadro's law, there are simple volumetric relations among gases when they com- bine. The densities of gases are proportional to their molecular weights. But the statement of Avogadro's law, in the usual way, that "all gases (conditions being the same) contain the same number of molecules per unit of volume," is pure hypothesis, yet it passes in physical literature as "established fact." The question of the nature, nay of the existence of molecules, is begged throughout.
Any theory, molecular or otherwise, which can acceptably ex- plain the constitution of the physical universe, must bring into har- mony the different facts which pass under the names inertia, elas- ticity, attraction, and stability. But, by explaining, we do not mean the clearing up of the ultimate why or the final what, but the arran- ging of all the facts in a congruous system which is the ultimate
*An illustration of the tedency of modern physics in relation to the con- cept of materiality, is given by Drude's Lehrbuch der Optik, which is devoted largely to the mathematical development of the electro-magnetic theory of light. In this work we find such expressions as "The vacuum (the free ether)," "the velocity of light in empty space (the free ether)," and the fol- lowing more definite statement: "The concept of the absolutely quiescent ether is most simply and naturally expressed if we understand by ether, not a substance, but simply space provided with certain physical peculiarities." The naive innocence of metaphysical taint in this statement, where space is supposed to be clothed with certain physical attributes, may seem amusing, but we see at least a recognition of the difficulties inherent in the postulate of ma- terial media. The magnificent hypothetical structure erected by H. A. Lorenz (Versuch einer Theorie der electrischen und optischen Erscheinungen in be- wegten Korpern, Leiden, 1895) rests on the assumption that the ether is al- ways in complete state of rest. The chief value of the electro-magnetic theory is that no special assumptions are necessary for the propagation of light, but its laws follow directly from those of electric and magnetic forces as already worked out, or, as Drude says, "It does, indeed, represent a remarkable ad- vance in natural science when two hitherto unrelated realms, like optics and electrical science, are brought into relations by mensurable control."
72 THE M0NIST.
how. The dynamic view is that the complete comprehension of the how is all that we can ever know of either what or why. It is not sought to "unify the conception of chemistry and physics and con- solidate these sciences into one grand science of matter," as sug- gested by Risteen, but, on the contrary, it finds the essence of things in their behavior and is satisfied, if it may continually approximate to a knowledge of the forms of these activities, which to know is to understand the physical universe. Nor does one doubt that the energy which finds expression in material terms is, in last analysis, of one kind with that whose complex trajectory is interpreted in consciousness.
When the physical demonstrator by means of a box punctured on one side and furnished on the other with a taut membrane, by tapping on the membrane, projects smoke rings across the room and shows us how the smoke curls in vortex-flow along the axis of trans- lation and how two such rings may be made to interfere and inter- twine in most complicated fashion, he is careful to tell us that the smoke which we see performing these amusing antics has nothing to do with the phenomena, except to make them visible to us. The vortices would be there just the same, if no smoke were in the box. So when the vortex atom, which comes the nearest at present to affording a scientific concept of the physical unit, is introduced, Lord Kelvin is careful to exclude from the ether, in which such atoms are supposed to exist, all material postulates. It must have the character of a perfect fluid. Thus, we see the postulate of mate- riality is but the smoke for making the vortices comprehensible to the lay mind. A brief analysis of the vortex-atom, or, better, the vortex unit, will make this clear.
i. Helmholtz, in his definition of vortex units by mathematical process, showed that the fluid in which such vortices exist must be frictionless, homogeneous, and incompressible. Such a combination is incompatible with what we are supposed to know of matter, but granting these conditions, a vortex could never be produced or destroyed in such a medium, and it follows that it would be con- served forever, or that it would exist as long as the medium con- tinues.
THE PASSING OF SCIENTIFIC MATERIALISM. 73
2. Such a vortex would always contain the same portion of the fluid. It moves as a whole — it is not alone the1 motion that is propa- gated, as in wave motion. Thus the energy is doubly identified with the fluid (or conversely) both as to permanence and as to content.
3. Now, compare these points with the definition of matter by Lord Kelvin, the other great student of vortices. "Matter is the rotating parts of an inert perfect fluid which fills all space, but which, when not rotating, is absolutely unperceived by our senses."
If the statements under I and 2 are correct, the expression, "when not rotating," is inapplicable; for, if not rotating, this fluid can never be made to rotate, and, if only part be rotating and the rest not, then the part not rotating cannot affect that which is, nor can it be affected by it — it is "inert." If it existed we could never know it, nor could we comprehend in what its existence consists. It would be a case of "pure being," equivalent to "non-being" in the popular nonsense, improperly attributed to Hegel.
We see that the only things which could cause the vortices to affect one another are their respective activities. If matter is elastic, it is because there are such things as repellant phases of activity ; if there be attraction, it is because certain phases coincide or have con- gruous periodicities; stability and individuality are inherent in the nature of vortex or vector activities, corresponding to intrinsic or genetic modes; and, finally, inertia is but another name for spon- taneity, the last irresolvable, constituent attribute of energy.
It must be noted, in passing, that vortex units are not neces- sarily vortex rings. A better analogy is, perhaps, that of a spheroid of "free path" or field of activity in which the spheroid is tending constantly and in all parts to be everted. A ball continually turn- ing itself wrong side out by a kind of convection motion is a con- venient representation. This is a fourth-dimension motion of great mathematical complexity.
Doubtless, every genuine discovery made by the newer molec- ular physics, however erroneously applied, will find a place in the new dvnamic science.
74 THE MONIST.
ENERGISM.
What has already been said, while giving but the barest out- line of an exceedingly complicated subject, may serve to illustrate the difficulties in the way of any materialistic hypothesis as a foun- dation of practical science, not to mention the philosophical difficul- ties encountered at the outset.
There remains but one possibility — the appeal to energy. This method of approach seems very difficult, especially to those who have served an apprenticeship to modern physical science, because the idea of a medium or vehicle of force has become so strongly in- trenched in the didactic literature and in the formulae with which much of the practical work is done. It must be remembered, how- ever, that the fact that a velocipede is equipped with three wheels does not prove that a bicycle may not move faster. If matter is un- necessary as a practical utility, the sooner this conception can be removed the better for the progress of science.
Historically, germs of the energic idea have always existed. It may seem fanciful to discover the nucleus of the dynamic concept in the dawn of philosophy, but in the apxh or Ur staff of Anaximander we have a ground of energy, which, while not purely dynamic, and developing in dualistic form in antinomies of heat and cold, still indi- cated a naive appreciation of energy as real, apart from a material substrate. This method of thought was common till Dalton, with his atomic hypothesis, gave it a long sleep. Malebranche postu- lated an absolute substance which includes all things and also the idea of all things, to resolve the dualism of Cartesian substance. Spinoza, too, denies the possibility of numerous substances, and demands an absolute substance, which is the real ground of all existence and the source of all reality. All expression of this reality is a limitation or negation (omnis determinatio est negatio). Matter and spirit are the two forms of self-limitation in which absolute substance appears. These are the attributes in the form of which substance reveals itself. There may, indeed, be many attributes in the substance, but, by the nature of the human mind, we distinguish subjective and objective.
THE PASSING OF SCIENTIFIC MATERIALISM. 75
In Spinoza we find the Cartesian dualism between matter and spirit maintained. There is a parallelism, but mind cannot work on matter, nor can matter influence spirit. These two are phases of one reality, so that there is correspondence but no interaction. (It should be observed that this is a much deeper view than that ex- pressed in the current psycho-physical parallelism of psychology, which, as usually formulated, means nothing but the statement of an observed coincidence.)
The reconciliation of these difficulties is to be found in ener- gism, which explains that neither body (matter) nor spirit (soul) exist as independent entities, but both are ways of experiencing the same energy. As Spinoza admits, the distinction between matter and spirit is of our own creation. When I feel a sensation and discrimi- nate my feeling of it from some outside activity, this is a valid dis- crimination for me. The whole chain of activities between the out- side source of light and the accommodation activities in my organ, form parts of a segment of activity, which in itself requires no ex- planation beyond the fact of spontaneous doing. The things I think about this (objective aspect) and the thinking about it (sub- jective part) cannot be distinguished as existences (matter and spirit) parallel to each other. Whatever truth they have inheres in the activity producing both.
At the present time, science represents the remarkable and anomalous spectacle of a vast mass of chemical and physical litera- ture permeated and dominated by materialistic-mechanical theories. The entire pedagogic machinery, including text-books and teachers, is adapted to impart a strict construction of matter and energy as the twin realities in the physical universe, while, at the same time, the foremost investigators, and the authors of some of the very texts referred to, have openly or by implication abandoned these postulates.
The student of Ostwald's General Chemistry, for example, will find little to prepare him for such views as those presented in his address at Luebeck entitled "The Overcoming of Scientific Mate- realism."
As this writer observes, there are collected in the idea of matter
76 THE-MONIST.
numerous elements of sensuous experience, like weight, extension, chemical properties, etc., which are found by experience associated with mass and connected proporionally with it, so that "the physical law of conservation of mass was transformed into the metaphysical axiom of the conservation of matter." "It is important to note that in this extension a number of hypothetical elements have been wrought into what was originally an entirely non-hypothetical no- tion." The necessary results of this hypothetical matter-hypothesis lead to absurdities, to which we have become so accustomed as hardly to notice them. As Ostwald says, speaking of the assumed persistence of the original substances in compounds: "When we consider, however, that all that we know of any substance is a knowledge of its properties, we see that the assumption that a defi- nite substance remains, although it no longer retains any of its prop- erties, is little removed from nonsense."
Nor is this all, for, having adopted the matter postulate, it is necessary to supplement it by the doctrine of energy. As matter is quiescent and unalterable, it is necessary to connect it with something to correspond with the changes known in experience. This constant cause of motion is energy, and this, like matter, is supposed to be a constant in the sense that its total amount is never increased or destroyed. Ostwald, again, says, respecting the mechanical con- struction of nature built upon the two above formulae : "One usually does not observe to what extraordinarily great extent these gen- erally received views are hypothetical not to say metaphysical. On the contrary, it is customary to assume that they express the max- imum of exact formulation of actual relations. On the other hand, it must be emphasised that a proof of the consequences following from these theories, that all the non-mechanical processes like heat, light, electricity, and magnetism, are actually mechanical, has not been afforded in a single case."
We have traced in outline the transformations of the optical theory. The others are in no better case.
But if we are deprived of the assistance afforded to imagination by the concept of moving atoms, how are we to conceive of the world of matter and energy at all? Ostwald answers this question very
THE PASSING OF SCIENTIFIC MATERIALISM. 77
uncompromisingly : "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven im- age or likeness. It is not our duty to view the world in a more or less dull or irregular mirror, but rather, so far as the structure of our minds will permit, to view it directly." The function of science is to bring into such definite relations realities, i. e., demonstrable and mensurable quantities, that when one is given the other may inevitably be assumed.
This is the energic point of view — not the substitution of one complicated hypothesis for another, but the eliminating of the hypo- thetical, so far as possible, and the appeal to facts of experience. To the criticism that the concept is empty and lacking in clearness as compared to the material view, we must reply that sensuous per- ception is a reaction induced by variations in the intensity and form of energy and nothing is gained by postulating media or bearers. Remember that matter is the abstract and energy is the real. The external reality is a reality of relation which the mind makes into substance, but substance is not necessarily matter. A classical Eng- lish passage speaks of faith as substance.
When asked what advantages are to be expected from a resort to energic methods of notation in dealing with natural phenomena, the energist answers: "First of all, the very important one that by this means we have a natural science of fact and not of hypothesis. We no longer inquire about forces that we cannot demonstrate operating between atoms which we cannot observe, but, in forming judgment of a process, we examine the kind and amount of energy entering and leaving." This method is that proposed by Kirchhoff who wished to supplant explanation of nature by description of nature.
Physics shows that the ratios used in her computations are without exception ratios of different kinds of energy. Aside from the two forms or categories of perception, space and time, energy is the only measure. But space and time are measured by energy alone, for energy forms their only content. The predicate of matter cannot find a mathematical expression in eqations of energy. Only commensurables can be compared.
When physics repudiated force (in the usual sense) and chem-
78 THE -MONIST.
istry reputiated matter and both cry "back to nature — back to ex- perience," what science is to reap the benefit, or rather is to fill the breach? There can be but one answer. Psychological moments alone remain reliable and trustworthy measures of quantity. In last resort we discover (what has always been known but never realised) that the only energy we really know is that which we our- selves generate. The axiom at the bottom of all science is that the force impinging on my sensorium is commensurate, according to some law, known or unknown, with the reaction within my kinesodic system. In other words, the only real measure is mental reaction thereto — sense of effort or strain. Everything quantitative in science has to be interpreted in terms of effort before it can be recognised in any consciousness. It is customary, e. g., to reduce all measures of physical quantities to scales on some dial, let it be of an electro- meter, ammeter, barometer, thermometer, photometer, or the like. The reading of such scales, is in final analysis, reducible to muscle- strain estimates in the eye-muscles, and the graduation of the scales may be reduced to a function of muscle-strain estimates in the hand, etc. It would seem, then, that we really estimate in homo-ergs or man-powers. May it not be possible to reduce all to a standard, say of "psychs"? The suggestion is not so far-fetched as it may seem, but the objection we at first meet is that there is no assurance that a unit of reference that would be true for me would be abso- lute for all men. A John Smith-erg might not equal a Joe Brown- erg. Expressed scientifically, the neural mechanism of man is so complex and the number of variables is so enormous and its pro- cesses so varied that it is difficult to discover a constant for a standard of reference. The resistance offered by the organism to ex- ternal influences varies. Attention is not a constant, and all mental phenomena are functions of attention. In this dilemma the mind has recourse to an indirection. Being unable to find any single constant, it utilises a ratio. Under the assumption that the variables in perception affect both terms alike, then the result will be the same whenever the ratio affects the mind, no matter what phase attention may be in. This is a process of comparison.
To illustrate crudely, I may not be able to tell how far I travel
THE PASSING OF SCIENTIFIC MATERIALISM. 79
by summing up the total effort expended in walking, but I am able to reach an estimate by comparing a constant of effort in walking multiplied by the time employed, with a similar effort multiplied by twice that time. The mind very accurately detects differences when it fails to measure their amount. (D :te ::D' :2te) = (D=2D'), where e is a constant of effort put forth at any time, i. e., the habit- ual gait in our illustration. Very little experience shows that both factors, time and effort, vary below the threshold of consciousness and do not vary uniformly. If they varied proportionally and the equation could be written D : te/x :: D' : 2te/x, it would still be available but it must be written D : te/x ::D' : 2te/y, and cannot be solved. It having proven useless to attempt to construct a con- stant ratio on the subjective basis only, i. e., entirely on the basis of internal experience, values for x and y, i. e., for the variables in our equation, must be derived from without. The uniformities in experience, such as the succession of day and night and the annual astronomical recurrences, are used and continually corrected, till they can be represented by a contrivance like a clock or metronome. In this way, the internal time estimate becomes definitely linked to external changes. In similar ways, the other term, say, the effort in walking, is linked to external correspondences so that x and y become known in terms of t and e and the ratios t/x and e/y can be used in our construction of the world of experience. At the same time, it must not be forgotten that the ultimate standard is internal unit or constant of effort, without which the entire external mech- anism would be valueless.
We have seen that the three categories of experience are time, space, and mode. In these three forms all experience is cast. Time is a necessary form of experience because of psychical limitation; two events cannot co-exist in consciousness. This is a result of the unity or individuality of experience. The psychological equivalent is sequence.
Space is likewise a result of the limitation of experience. Effort implies change. The external equivalent is motion. These two, sequence and motion, are the generators of the extended continuum of experience, which is filled in by the form of experience called
8O THE MONIST,
mode. Two modes may be distinguished, identity and difference, or, rather, mode consists in the distinction of difference from identity.
While the mind is incompetent to make quantitative distinc- tions directly, it has the most remarkable clearness and certainty in dealing with difference. Psychologists have used all their in- genuity to utilise this ability to discriminate differences as a basis for a quantitative psychological science. It would appear that a series could be made after the analogy of differential calculus, in which the several terms should increase by a difference less than any assignable quantity (the discrimination quantity), and that such a series could be compared with a corresponding series of ex- ternal quantities, thus giving rise to a mathematical relation that should form a quantitative unit for sense perception. Almost the only result, so far, of this effort is expressed in the so-called Weber's law that while the series of excitations increases in arithmetical ratio the corresponding series of excitations must increase by geometrical ratio. And yet even this is found to express only approximately and within narrow and arbitrary limits a relation for which no adequate or constant explanation can be given.
A fundamental criticism of attempts to use the sense of effort as a unit of measure is that two or more things are frequently con- fused under this head. In the first place, the muscle sense or sense of muscular effort, if we are justified in speaking of such a sense, is a sensation-complex . It is not analoguous with the sense of hav- ing originated a voluntary act. Attention, which is involved in all receptive mental acts, involves, among other things, accommodative effects in organs of sense, it may also involve accomodation phe- nomena in the brain itself.
The inquiry remains : Is there such a thing as effort in conscious- ness apart from these accommodations? A prevailing psychological interpretation is to the effect that the afferent nerve current passes over into the efferent, according to conditions of structural organi- sation, and that the issuing into the efferent expression produces, or is accompanied by, a sense of action, or impulse, or initiative, or effort, out of which the sense of having-done-it arises. It is even
THE PASSING OF SCIENTIFIC MATERIALISM. 8l
customary to speak of the will as arising subsequent to the volun- tary act as a consequence of the act. However this may be, if muscular sense is really a sensation, like other sensations, and not a direct feeling of psychical activity or participation, then our sup- posed quantitative unit reduces to a series of modes. Instead of a simple more or less, we have different impressions which we inter- pret as more or less. The sensation produced by a weight of two pounds is a different sensation from that produced by one pound, not a more of an identical sensation. Evidently, we are on the wrong track somewhere. This raises the general question whether it is possible to use pure modality as a measure of quantity. A light twice as bright as another does not produce a sensation twice as intense nor one in logarithmic series as compared to the series of stimuli. We do recognise identity and change.
Theoretically, it is wrong to seek quantitative measures in the categories of external apprehension, since we are seeking an internal measure. Sensations cannot give this as they are all projected out , ward or externalised. Succession is, strictly speaking, all that the internal sense or inner experience can contribute.
Can it be, then, that the formal subjective measure is to be ex- pressed in most general terms by at, where a is any attribute and t is succession or time? Such would seem to be the necessary a priori assumption. A test of such an assumption may be found in its applications.
Space, when filled, consists of one, and another, and another, etc. An absolutely uniform field of vision (or of any other expe- rience, if possible,) could not be made to seem extended. This creeping from particular to particular is essentially, on its inward side, temporal, as it becomes on its outward side spatial. All our measures are now reduced to serial terms. When we say that one light is twice as bright as another, or that one star differs from another in glory, we express the results of a complicated system of judgments. If it takes me twice as long to traverse the plowed ground as the meadow with the same constant of effort, I have a measure for effort. Even here the difficulty is at once perceived
82 THE MONIST.
that we have no subjective time measure. We may use heart-beats, but even heart-beats are objective to the mind.
Succession and change, in last analysis, must be our subjective contribution to quantitative science, and it is useless to seek more. These forms are filled by experience, and we find our periodicity in external experience. The curious, if not altogether unexpected, result is that the soul itself has neither time nor extension.
After having appealed in vain to psychology for a complete quantitative unit, we are prepared to admit that quantitative esti- mation is but one of the ways in which we affirm attribute. Its real- ity is neither wholly subjective nor wholly objective, but one of the forms of reality resulting from the union of both.
If we eliminate matter as irrelevant, we have left energy, which reveals itself to us in terms of succession and mode. It produces varied sensations, and these are arranged in sequence. Our ability to recognise identity in mode gives rise to periodicity, and this is the measure of time. Some particular period, say a second, is chosen as such unit.
The negation of succession is co-tempo raneity which is possible in connection with diversity of mode, and this is only objectively possible in terms of space. Two identical points have no spatial relations. All space relations are possible only upon the assumption or condition of co-temporaneity. The following psychological for- mulae may be useful :
1. Sequence with identity produces periodicity — time.
2. Co-temporaneity (o X sequence) with diversity produces space.
3. Sequence with diversity produces change.
4. Co-temporaneity with identity produces intensity. These abstractions require elaboration.
1. (Seq. X Iden. = T.) I experience a series of sensations, tic, tac; tic, tac; tic, tac; etc. One follows another in temporal se- quence. But I detect a rhythm or identity. Where it not for the rhythm I should get no time measure. Thus I have succession and identity as necessary elements of temporal mensuration.
2. (o X Seq. X Diver. := S). On the other hand, in space re-
THE PASSING OF SCIENTIFIC MATERIALISM. 83
lations as such, sequence is impossible. Even when we conceive of a moving point generating a line, etc., it is always implied that at the same time the original point and all other points in the line co- exist in time and are considered together. The diversity of each point in space is represented by the locus formula, but the origin represents a constant point of reference, and time is excluded. It may be replied that time is simply ignored and diversity is all that is needed to produce a spatial measure. This is not true, for co- temporaneity is a real concept of form, though impossible in inner experience. Co-existence and diversity are possible only under space conditions. This distribution of mode and identity of time form the psychological data of space.
3. (Seq. X Diver. = C.) Sequence and diversity are, in like manner, the psychological moments of change. If the sensation or sense datum be not co-temporaneous, or thought in one time with its predecessor, it has taken the place of that predecessor and there has been change.
4. (Cotem. X Iden. = Int.) But, on the other hand, if the mode has not changed, but is thought into the same time, we get the concept of intensity or more of the same, or quantity. This predicate of intensity is not given in experience, but the same may be said of the others. Time is not a direct element in experience, though sequence is. Space is not a primary idea but is generated from co-existing diversities. Change is other than diversity. It is only when the temporal element is added to difference that the category of change is formed.
We have given, therefore, these fundamental derived psychic data of the second order not as subjective predicates, but as the first results of reaction between subjective and objective. If our psychological analysis has been correct, by means of these four moments it should be possible to construe all phenomena possible to experience. It may be left to mathematical physics to make the applications of these principles and the necessary substitutions in the formulae in general use.
In conclusion, we may refer to the metaphysical results which transform the physical doctrine of energism into the psycho-philo-
84 THE MONIST.
sophical dogma of dynamic monism. In a little book published anonymously by Kegan Paul, Trench, Triibner & Co., London, in 1898, entitled The Doctrine of Energy, the author offers suggestions which deserve a wide reading. "The study of physics can be carried on practically as a study of phenomena — of heat, colors, sounds, forces, etc., all of which are kinds of phenomena — without the ex- pression of any formulated opinion as to their relation with reality." "But science has been reluctant to recognise that it is now entitled to dispense with the postulation of matter. The theory, as announced by the leading men of science, has, therefore, been to the effect that there exist in the physical universe two real things, matter and en- ergy, in place of one only, as commonly supposed for so long. We have elsewhere attempted to show that such a statement of scien- tific theory is erroneous and redundant; that science is not necessi- tated to postulate two such entities; but the postulation of energy supplies all her requirements." "Our view, therefore, is that the conception of materiality and of real matter can, in the way just indicated, be in all cases analysed into, and derived from the concep- tion of energy ; and that science, if consistent, cannot postulate the reality of matter as well. Potential energy adequately supplies the conception of a real substratum of which phenomena are the mani- festations."
To the question: "How do I get beyond my presentiment? How pass from ideality to existence ?" the answer is, "I never could have got beyond it or got any suggestion of the reality had I been related to my presentiment as a passive and percipient subject." I am in relation with the energic system not merely or primar- ily as an intelligent percipient of the transformations proceeding in it at a particular point, but also as a will initiative, to some ex- tent, of such transmutations and capable of influencing and direct- ing the physical process." "In my activity there is thus suggested to me a source of phenomena lying beyond the phenomena them- selves." "My most incessant mental act is that by which, on analogy of my own active experience, I refer all phenomena to the under- lying energic system."
We cannot go into the author's treatment of causation as a
THE PASSING OF SCIENTIFIC MATERIALISM. 85
derivative from the self-consciousness of initiative, which is then objectivised and recognised as one with the source of all action — energy. Enough has been said to indicate a close connection with the position taken by Schopenhauer in the Fourfold Root. "What we think under the conception, matter, is the residue which remains over after bodies have been divested of their shape and of all their specific qualities; a residue which, precisely on that account, must be identical in all bodies. Now, these shapes and qualities, which have been abstracted by us, are nothing but the peculiar, specially defined way in which these bodies act, which constitutes precisely their difference. If, therefore, we leave these shapes and qualities out of consideration, there remains nothing but mere activity in general, pure action as such, causality itself. Matter is throughout pure causality, its essence is action in general."
That these views will be slow in finding acceptance among the rank and file of chemists may be gathered from remarks in F. W. Clarke's "Wilde Lecture" before the Manchester Philosophical So- ciety, May, 1903.
"When we say that matter, as we know it? behaves as if made up of very small discrete particles, we do not lose ourselves in meta- physics, and we have a definite conception which can be applied to the correlation of evidence and the solution of problems. Objec- tions count for nothing against it until something better is offered in its stead, a condition which the critics of the atomic theory have so far failed to fulfil."
This illustrates how, for each of us, his own particular brand of metaphysics seems harmless or not to be metaphysics at all, for this is exactly the contention, that the material hypothesis is meta- physical and has added nothing to the definiteness of our concep- tions of physical phenomena, neither can it legitimately be utilised for the solution of problems. The abacus has long since been abol- ished from our schools, is it still necessary to our physicists, must our chemists still continue to count on their fingers?6
C. L. HERRICK.
5 Italics mine.
8 The question might be asked, (in fact, it has been asked) : "How is it
86 THE MONIST.
possible to get the resistance or limitation necessary for the objects of our experience out of pure energy?" "Is the element of tension and opposition in your very conception of energy?"
The reply to this should be based upon an examination of the nature of the energy concept more detailed than is germain to our present purpose. The difficulty is, probably, like nearly all philosophical perplexities, a result of our unhappy logical faculty for splitting things that ought not to be di- vided. We may undoubtedly think of the word, "doing," apart from the ex- pression, "doing of something," but it is to be doubted whether we can think of pure energy at all. We think by "affirming attribute." It is still more energetically to be insisted that no real severance of the doing from the thing done is permissible. It is the old matter fallacy or the cause-effect fallacy in a new guise. If energy is to be set up in the place of matter as a power behind the throne, let us alone and we will return to our idols.
Viewed from a physical point of view, given no resistance to action, there is no energy. If we mean anything by energy, it must be valid in that it is acting. If the sum-total of universal energy were in like phase, it would be the same as if there were no energy so far as making a universe is con- ecrned. Herbert Spencer has not lived in vain. Pure being is the same as non-being. We have had our Hegel. A non-acting deity would not even potentially be a God.
Practically, energy is called into and remains in existence only under condition of resistance. Resistance is varied and gives rise to mode in en- ergy. In an earlier paper the writer defined creation as the self-limitation of creative power. This is not subject to further analysis. Having no ex- perience with universal or infinite modes of being, we do not expect to under- stand what we must nevertheless postulate. If this view is open to the taunt that we take out no more than we put in and so are no better than prestidigi- tators, our reply is ready. If other people take out of their logic more than they put in, they lay themselves open to the charge of dishonesty. The tak- ing out of more than is put in is called in logic "fallacy."
DID THE MONKS PRESERVE THE LATIN CLASSICS?
SINCE the civilized world has held the classics in honor, the admirers of the cell and cloister have claimed that, through- out the Dark Ages, the monks loved and studied the classics, and, by copying, preserved them for posterity.
This claim has been pertinaciously urged; and as it has been admitted by certain writers of good repute and great complaisance, there is danger that it will become one of the conventional state- ments in history.
Believing as I do, that the admission has been made without due examination and in gross misconception of the spirit and his- tory of Mediaeval times, and particularly of the monastic system prior to the year 1200, I ask your attention to the opposite view of this subject. I shall treat it as one purely historical, keeping in view nothing but the Latin classics, and how they were treated by the monks of Western Europe up to the end of the twelfth cen- tury.
EXTENT AND AMOUNT OF ROMAN LITERATURE.
While the modern public is familiar with the multiplication of books by the printing press, it knows little or nothing of the ease and rapidity with which the "tachygraphs," the swift penmen of Rome, threw off their manuscripts. It is difficult for us to con- ceive that there were in Rome large numbers of professional liter- ary men, great libraries, public and private, numerous persons engaged in book-selling as a regular business and having a trade with all the provinces of the Roman Empire and with booksellers
88 THE MONIST.
in all their cities and towns ; that there were in the Roman Empire more copyists probably than there are printers in the United States; that the ancients made better ink than we do; and that their parchment volumes were more durable than our paper books. And we, it may be, admit nothing in favor of the Romans, quite so reluctantly as that, in the matter of books and literature, they were in some respects, barring the difference between types and penmanship, quite equal to the Americans of the twentieth cen- tury.
The Public Libraries of Rome, about the year 100, were mag- nificent. The Octavian was built of marble; its floors were laid in mosaic work; its ceilings were frescoed in gold; and the walls were decorated with glass and ivory. A hundred statues stood there upon pedestals. In it there were more than one hundred thousand volumes neatly stored in cases of cedar and ebony. Cata- logues, with references to each volume, by case and number, hung upon the walls and pillars. There were tables and seats for the students ; and assistant librarians were there to find any volume re- quired.
The Palatine Library rivalled the Octavian ; and the Ulpian, newly erected by the Emperor, was the most magnificent of the three. In these libraries were collected the literary treasures of the Roman Empire, and in them were daily gathered readers, students, writers and authors.
There were also many private libraries: Every lawyer, author, rich man and patrician had one. Among the best known collections in the literature of the age were those which had been begun by Paulus ^milius, Sulla, Lucullus, Varro, and Cicero. Some of these were large and were kept in buildings which had been erected especially for them. There were many others. This we know from numerous indications in the manners and customs of the times, and from hints in the books which are still extant. These private libraries existed not only in Rome, but in the towns and cities of the provinces, and, doubtless, in the villas of rich men. In the ruins of Herculaneum one was found. It contained eighteen hun- dred volumes, sadly charred by the molten lava of many volcanic
DID THE MONKS PRESERVE THE LATIN CLASSICS? 89
eruptions ; but the art of the chemist restored them enough to show that they were all on the same subject, the Epicurean philosophy. If the Roman literature contained eighteen hundred books on that one subject, how many must it have contained in all?
There were schools in all parts of the provinces ; and these must have created a demand for books. Some of these were famous, — we would call them colleges, — e. g., those at Carthage, Marseilles, Lyons and Narbonne. There were schools of rhetoric at Rhodes and Miletus; of philosophy, at Athens; and of law, at Beyroot, on the coast of Syria; and there was a renowned Uni- versity, at Alexandria, in Egypt. Each of these schools gave em- ployment to copyists.
Some of the swift writers worked alone ; others were employed, in large numbers, by capitalists. Atticus, the friend of Cicero, is said to have employed two hundred, most of them slaves. A de- scription of the Scriptorium or writing room has been handed down to us. The room was large and furnished with desks for the copyists. The reader sat on a raised platform in the front and center; he read slowly, and the copyists wrote. Their work was carefully revised. When approved, the long strip, on which the writing was done, was rolled upon a stick, tied up with ribbon or string, and labeled. It was then ready for sale.
The Roman booksellers often published what is now called an edition de luxe. The finest of these were written in golden let- ters on purple vellum and embellished with portraits of emperors, authors and other celebrities. The elaborate initial letters of books and chapters were the models of the wonderful decorative illumi- nation of missals and other precious books of the Middle Ages.
The Romans knew nothing of movable types and printing presses. Their method of producing by single copies was not so favorable as ours to the publication of daily newspapers. They managed, however, to get out two, at Rome. They were called the Ada D'mrna, a name from which our word "Journal" is derived. One of them was the official organ of the government; and the other was devoted to social, political and military news. The number of copies issued is unknown.
go THE MONIST.
The Roman authors had a custom similar to our reunions to hear an essay followed by a discussion of it. When an author fin- ished a work, he invited other authors and the booksellers to hear and criticize it.
It is a great pity that there is not extant a contemporary bib- liography of Latin literature. The best help in that regard are the frequent allusions to books in the works preserved to us. The elder Pliny, in his thirty-seven books on Natural History, is said to have quoted by name from several hundred authors. The younger Pliny claims that, in preparing his history, he consulted at least a thousand writers of chronicles, annals, history and biog- raphy. The elder Pliny and Cato each published a Cyclopaedia. Some authors were prolific; Varro is said to have published more books than Alexander Dumas.
To the student of history, the above facts will suffice to freshen his conceptions of the complexity, variety, universality and wealth of the expression in literature of the mind of ancient Rome.
PERISHED.
Of the innumerable Latin works of the classic period of Rome, there remain, in round numbers, a hundred: I count the survivors, mutilated and whole; and of the immense army of more ancient times, only a company answers to roll-call
About the year 740, Pepin the Short, of France, wrote to Pope Paul I., asking him as a favor to send to Paris all the books he could find at Rome. Paul caused diligent search to be made in the papal palace and the city. The result was, he sent to Pepin five books: an antiphonal, or elementary book of church music; a responsal; and three short treatises: one on grammar, one on orthography and one on geometry.
Between the years 340 and 740, the classics had almost dis- appeared.
THE MONASTIC SPIRIT.
In those four centuries, the monks were the most striking feature in the Church of Egypt and of Europe. Who were they?
DID THE MONKS PRESERVE THE LATIN CLASSICS? QI
The answer to this is best gleaned from the lives of the hermit fathers and the histories of the monasteries. Rev. Charles Kings- ley, in his book on this subject, gives many of the facts. He says :
"Eight hundred years before St. Anthony fled into the desert, that young Hindoo rajah, whom men call Buddha now, had fled into the forest, leav- ing wives and kingdom, to find rest for his soul. He denounced caste; he preached poverty, asceticism, self-annihilation. He founded a religion * * * democratic and ascetic, with its convents, saint-worship, pilgrimages, mirac- ulous relics, rosaries and much more which strangely anticipates the monastic religion."
This asceticism of the Orient began to infect Egyptian Chris- tianity, in the second century; and in a few generations the moun- tains and deserts of Egypt were full of Christian men who had fled out of the sinful, dying world, to attain everlasting life. Celi- bacy, poverty, unconditional obedience to superiors, continued medi- tation upon the vanity of the world, the sinfulness of the flesh, the glories of heaven and the horrors of hell, were their vows.
Athanasius wrote the life of St. Anthony, the model of the hermits. That saint ate nothing but bread and salt and drank nothing but water. He lived in the desert and in a tomb, drove devils from him in the shape of a black child, was beaten once and again by demons, wore a garment of the skin of a wild beast, which he never changed, and never used water except for drinking. He had been well brought up and educated; but his biographer notes that, "for the future, his memory served him instead of books."
St. Jerome wrote the life of the hermit saint, Paul, who lived in a cavern where "he spent his life in prayer and solitude while the palm trees gave him food and clothes." St. Jerome adds: "I call Jesus and his holy angels to witness that I have seen monks, one of whom, shut up for thirty years, lived on barley bread and muddy water ; another in an old cistern * * * was kept alive on five figs each day."
A philosopher asked Anthony, "How art thou content, father, since thou hast not the comfort of books?" Quoth Anthony, "My
p2 THE MONIST.
book is the nature of created things; in it, when I choose, I can read the words of God."
St. Hilarion was the father of monachism in Palestine. His life was written by St. Jerome, who died a monk in Bethlehem. From his sixteenth to his twentieth year, he lived in a tiny cabin woven of rush and sedge; after that in a cell, four feet wide and too low for him to stand up straight in. He lay "on the bare ground and a layer of rushes, never washing the sack in which he was clothed, and saying that it was superfluous to seek for cleanliness in hair cloth. Nor did he change his tunic until the first was utterly in rags. He knew the scriptures by heart and recited them after his prayers and psalms." His only book when eighty years old, seems to have been a copy of the gospels, which he had made for his own use when young.
"Serapion, the Sindonite, was so called, because he wore nothing but a sindon or linen shirt. Though he could not read, he could say all the scriptures by heart."
Arsenius died, a monk, at ninety-five years of age, having wept in his cell for forty-five years. By the standard of his times, he had been learned in his youth, but gave up books for the monastery and desert.
Marana and Cyra were two women saints who spent forty-two years in a roofless cottage, "shrouded from head to foot in long veils," * * * "and underneath their veils, burdened on every limb, poor wretches, with such a load of iron chains and rings that a strong man," Bishop Theodoret says, "could not have stood under the weight." They had fasted at times for many days together. The Bishop comments upon their holiness with rapturous admi- ration.
St. Simeon used to fast for forty days together. He lived for many years on the top of a high peak. The account of the visit of his mother to him is instructive. She begged and implored him to come out of the tower in which he was walled up, or to admit her, but he would do neither. He heard her voice and spoke to her, refusing to see her. The biographer says: "But she began to say:
DID THE MONKS PRESERVE THE LATIN CLASSICS? 93
"By Christ who formed thee, if there is a probability of seeing thee who hast been so long a stranger to me, let me see thee; or if not, let me only hear thy voice and die at once, for thy father is dead in sorrow be- cause of thee. And now, do not destroy me for very bitterness, my son."
Saying this, for sorrow and weeping, she fell asleep; for during three days and three nights, she had not ceased entreating him. Then the blessed Simeon prayed the Lord for her, and she forthwith gave up the ghost."
Of St. Godric we are told, he was no scholar, but had gradually learned by heart the Psalter. He was an Englishman, but as great an ascetic as his continental brethren.
It is evident that the monks and hermits were not literary or scientific men. They placed the narrowest interpretation on those New Testament texts which speak of the "wisdom of this world" as "foolishness with God," and which caution believers to "avoid profane and vain babblings and oppositions of science falsely so called."
When Constantine, about 325, made Christianity the State religion, asceticism was the highest ideal of the instituted church. Eusebius, one of his bishops, ascribed the neglect of learning among Christians "to contempt of such useless labor," saying they pre- ferred "turning their souls to the exercise of better things." It was held that the Bible contained all it is necessary for man to know, and that science is sufficiently revealed therein.
"Is it possible," says Lactantius, another father of the Church of the same period, "that man can be so absurd as to believe that the crops and the trees on the other side of the earth hang down- wards and that men have their feet higher than their heads?"
The ink was hardly dry on Constantine's proclamation of Christianity as the religion of the Empire, when a bareheaded and black gowned priest started on foot from Constantinople for Athens, bearing an edict which closed up at once all the government schools of science and philosophy and abolished the salaries there- tofore paid the professors by the Emperor.
To be a graduate of one of these schools was enough to ex- clude a man from all employment under the Christian government.
94 THE MONIST.
Libanius, a celebrated professor of that day, complains that the Imperial Court looked with an evil eye on the schools. "Men of education," he said, "were driven away and ignorant upstarts pro- moted to places of honor. Graduates in philosophy and rhetoric found all the avenues to wealth and honor closed to them and were glad to get a place as Emperor's messenger or to wear the livery of household servants."
Under other edicts, the pagan temples in many parts of the Empire were seized and turned into churches or levelled with the ground. The fine libraries attached to them were destroyed; their beautiful statues were overthrown, mutilated and, oftentimes, burned for lime.
About 390, Euriapus, a learned pagan of Lydia, wrote: "Thus, these warlike and courageous champions, after causing general ruin, and stretching forth their hands, not stained with blood indeed, but befouled with avarice, boasted that they had overcome the gods, and, taking credit for their impiety and sacrilege, let loose against the holy places the so-called monks, who were men indeed in out- ward shape, but of swinish life and manners, who openly committed abominations without number. * * * For any one who liked to put a black coat upon his back, and a sour look upon his face, could lord it like a tyrant."
Libantius, a learned professor of the same century, who had retired from Constantinople to Antioch, thus vented his indig- nation :
"This black -coated gentry who are more ravenous than elephants * * * in defiance of existing laws, hurry to attack the temples, some with staves and stones and steel, others even with fisticuffs and kicks. The temples fall an easy prey; the roofs are stripped, the walls hurled down, the statues dragged away, the altars overthrown. The priests must hold their peace or die. When one is ruined they hurry to a second or a third and pile fresh trophies in defiance of the law. Such acts of violence occur in the cities, but far more in the country."
For more than sixty years, after the decree of Constantine, the Serapion of Alexandria, in Egypt, had escaped destruction