Part 5

I cannot close without saying a word concerning the part which our own country has had in the development of these great truths. Beginning with heat, we find that the material theory of caloric is indebted for its overthrow more to the distinguished Count Rumford than to any other one man. While superintending the boring of cannon at the Munich Arsenal towards the close of the last century, he was struck by the large amount of heat developed, and instituted a careful series of experiments to ascertain its origin. These experiments led him to the conclusion that “anything which any insulated body or system of bodies can continue to furnish without limitation, cannot possibly be a material substance.” But this man, to whom must be ascribed the discovery of the first great law of the correlation of energy, was an American. Born in Woburn, Mass., in 1753, he, under the name of Benjamin Thompson, taught school afterward at Concord, N. H., then called Rumford. Unjustly suspected of toryism during our Revolutionary war, he went abroad and distinguished himself in the service of several of the Governments of Europe. He did not forget his native land, though she had treated him so unfairly; when the honor of knighthood was tendered him, he chose as his title the name of the Yankee village where he had taught school, and was thenceforward known as Count Rumford. And at his death, by founding a professorship in Harvard College, and donating a prize-fund to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences at Boston, he showed his interest in her prosperity and advancement. Nor has the field of vital forces been without earnest workers belonging to our own country. Professors John W. Draper and Joseph Henry were among its earliest explorers. And in 1851, Dr. J. H. Watters, now of St. Louis, published a theory of the origin of vital force, almost identical with that for which Dr. Carpenter, of London, has of late received so much credit. Indeed, there is some reason to believe that Dr. Watters’s essay may have suggested to the distinguished English physiologist the germs of his own theory. A paper on this subject by Prof. Joseph Leconte, of Columbia, S. C., published in 1859, attracted much attention abroad. The remarkable results already given on the relation of heat to mental work, which thus far are unique in science, we owe to Professor J. S. Lombard, of Harvard College; the very combination of metals used in his apparatus being devised by our distinguished electrical engineer, Mr. Moses G. Farmer. Finally, researches conducted by Dr. T. R. Noyes in the Physiological Laboratory of Yale College, have confirmed the theory that muscular tissue does not wear during action, up to the point of fatigue; and other researches by Dr. L. H. Wood have first established the same great truth for brain-tissue. We need not be ashamed, then, of our part in this advance in science. Our workers are, indeed, but few; but both they and their results will live in the records of the world’s progress. More would there be now of them were such studies more fostered and encouraged. Self-denying, earnest men are ready to give themselves up to the solution of these problems, if only the means of a bare subsistence be allowed them. When wealth shall foster science, science will increase wealth—wealth pecuniary, it is true: but also wealth of knowledge, which is far better.

In looking back over the whole of this discussion, I trust that it is possible to see that the objects which we had in view at its commencement have been more or less fully attained. I would fain believe that we now see more clearly the beautiful harmonies of bounteous nature; that on her many-stringed instrument force answers to force, like the notes of a great symphony; disappearing now in potential energy, and anon reappearing as actual energy, in a multitude of forms. I would hope that this wonderful unity and mutual interaction of force in the dead forms of inorganic nature, appears to you identical in the living forms of animal and vegetable life, which make of our earth an Eden. That even that mysterious, and in many aspects awful, power of thought, by which man influences the present and future ages, is a part of this great ocean of energy. But here the great question rolls upon us, Is it only this? Is there not behind this material substance, a higher than molecular power in the thoughts which are immortalized in the poetry of a Milton or a Shakespeare, the art creations of a Michael Angelo or a Titian, the harmonies of a Mozart or a Beethoven? Is there really no immortal portion separable from this brain-tissue, though yet mysteriously united to it? In a word, does this curiously-fashioned body inclose a soul, God-given and to God returning? Here Science veils her face and bows in reverence before the Almighty. We have passed the boundaries by which physical science is enclosed. No crucible, no subtle magnetic needle can answer now our questions. No word but His who formed us, can break the awful silence. In presence of such a revelation Science is dumb, and faith comes in joyfully to accept that higher truth which can never be the object of physical demonstration.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

NOTES AND REFERENCES.

Footnote 1:

HUMBOLDT, Views of Nature, Bohn’s ed., London, 1850, p. 380. This allegory did not appear in the first edition of the Views of Nature. In the preface to the second edition the author gives the following account of its origin: “Schiller,” he says, “in remembrance of his youthful medical studies, loved to converse with me, during my long stay at Jena, on physiological subjects.” * * * “It was at this period that I wrote the little allegory on Vital Force, called The Rhodian Genius. The predilection which Schiller entertained for this piece, which he admitted into his periodical, Die Horen, gave me courage to introduce it here.” It was published in Die Horen in 1795.

Footnote 2:

HUMBOLDT, op. cit., p. 386. In his Aphorismi ex doctrina Physiologiæ chemicæ Plantarum, appended to his Flora Fribergensis subterranea, published in 1793, Humboldt had said “Vim internam, quæ chymicæ affinitatis vincula resolvit, atque obstat, quominus elementa corporum libere conjungantur, vitalem vocamus.” “That internal force, which dissolves the bonds of chemical affinity, and prevents the elements of bodies from freely uniting, we call vital.” But in a note to the allegory above mentioned, added to the third edition of the Views of Nature in 1849, he says: “Reflection and prolonged study in the departments of physiology and chemistry have deeply shaken my earlier belief in peculiar so-called vital forces. In the year 1797, * * * I already declared that I by no means regarded the existence of these peculiar vital forces as established.” And again: “The difficulty of satisfactorily referring the vital phenomena of the organism to physical and chemical laws depends chiefly (and almost in the same manner as the prediction of meteorological processes in the atmosphere) on the complication of the phenomena, and on the great number of the simultaneously acting forces as well as the conditions of their activity.”

Footnote 3:

Compare HENRY BENCE JONES, Croonian Lectures on Matter and Force. London, 1868, John Churchill & Sons.

Footnote 4:

Ib., Preface, p. vi.

Footnote 5:

RANKINE, W. J. M., Philosophical Magazine, Feb., 1853. Also Edinburgh Philosophical Journal, July, 1855.

Footnote 6:

ARMSTRONG, Sir WM. In his address as President of the British Association for the Advancement of Science. Rep. Brit. Assoc., 1863, li.

Footnote 7:

GROVE, W. R., in 1842. Compare “Nature” i, 335, Jan. 27, 1870. Also Appleton’s Journal, iii, 324, Mch. 19, 1870.

Footnote 8:

Id., in Preface to The Correlation of Physical Forces, 4th ed. Reprinted in The Correlation and Conservation of Forces, edited by E. L. Youmans, p. 7. New York, 1865, D. Appleton & Co.

Footnote 9:

Id., ib., Am. ed., p. 33 et seq.

Footnote 10:

JOULE, J. P., Philosophical Transactions, 1850, p. 61.

Footnote 11:

See American Journal of Science, II, xxxvii, 296, 1864.

Footnote 12:

The work (W) done by a moving body is commonly expressed by the formula W = MV^2, in which M, or the mass of the body, is equal to w/2g; i.e., to the weight divided by twice the intensity of gravity. The work done by our cannon-ball then, would be (1 × (1100)^2)/(2 × 64⅓) = 9,404·14 foot-tons. If, further, we assume the resisting body to be of such a character as to bring the ball to rest in moving ¼ of an inch, then the final pressure would be 9,404·14 × 12 × 4 = 451,398·7 tons. But since, “in the case of a perfectly elastic body, or of a resistance proportional to the advance of the center of gravity of the impinging body from the point at which contact first takes place, the final pressure (provided the body struck is perfectly rigid) is double what would occur were the stoppage to occur at the end of a corresponding advance against a uniform resistance,” this result must be multiplied by two; and we get (451,398·7 × 2) 902,797 tons as the crushing pressure of the ball under these conditions. Note: The author’s thanks are due to his friends Pres. F. A. P. Barnard and Mr. J. J. Skinner for suggestions on the relation of impact to statical pressure.